20201107 : Is oligarchic democracy just a transitional stage in any republic development by political cast, lawyers etc. So in time they were replaced with other more effective forms of governance... I guess it the time for the sun to set over the American democracy: it has outlived its limited potential! pinfinit 7 hours ago These same dumps criticised the democracy of other nations. And also destabilized them now and then. Is it Yugae Yugae ... BhavathGeetha . Reply 2 lectrodectus 6 hours ago The US Media are guilty of having orchestrated vile/relentless campaign to de-legitimize The Donald from the day he was inaugurated President. Democracy is nothing more than a FACADE in America, (In Fact most Western Countries) the US electors had a once in a lifetime opportunity send a clear message to the political Elites by boycotting this election...it would amount to a Mexican Stand Off. Herrbifi 5 hours ago Rock bottom of election history. Reply 1 ( Nov 07, 2020 , www.rt.com )
20200303 : Vampire Squid interests in 2020 elections by the Democratic Party elites, should he miraculously become the party's nominee, the game of least worst will radically change. All the terrifying demons that inhabit Trump will be instantly exorcised. But unlike in the biblical story of Jesus driving the demons into a herd of swine, they will be driven into the senator from Vermont. Trump will become the establishment's reluctant least worse option. Sanders will become a leper. The Democratic and Republican party elites, joining forces as they did in the 1972 presidential election, will do to Sanders what they did to George McGovern, who lost in 49 of the 50 states. "If Dems go on to nominate Sanders, the Russians will have to reconsider who to work for to best screw up the US. Sanders is just as polarizing as Trump AND he'll ruin our economy and doesn't care about our military," former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein (net worth $1.1 billion) tweeted. "If I'm Russian, I go with Sanders this time around." "If Dems go on to nominate Sanders, the Russians will have to reconsider who to work for to best screw up the US. Sanders is just as polarizing as Trump AND he'll ruin our economy and doesn't care about our military," former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein (net worth $1.1 billion) tweeted. "If I'm Russian, I go with Sanders this time around." ( Mar 03, 2020 , www.truthdig.com )
The Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
(CISA) issued a statement last week defending the integrity of the 2020 election. The problem,
however, is two of the main election software companies that have been called into question
– Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic – sit on CISA. And that information was
never disclosed, the
Epoch Times reported.
Below is the the joint statement put out by the Executive Committee of the Election
Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council (GCC) and the Election Infrastructure Sector
Coordinating Council (SCC):
"The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the
country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process
prior to finalizing the result.
"When states have close elections, many will recount ballots. All of the states with close
results in the 2020 presidential race have paper records of each vote, allowing the ability
to go back and count each ballot if necessary. This is an added benefit for security and
resilience. This process allows for the identification and correction of any mistakes or
errors. There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or
was in any way compromised.
"Other security measures like pre-election testing, state certification of voting
equipment, and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission's (EAC) certification of voting
equipment help to build additional confidence in the voting systems used in 2020.
"While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about
the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security
and integrity of our elections, and you should too. When you have questions, turn to
elections officials as trusted voices as they administer elections."
The two election software companies are members of the GCC's Sector Coordinating
Council:
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Arrikan, Inc./Chaves Consulting, Inc.
Associated Press (AP) Elections
BPro, Inc.
Clear Ballot Group
Crosscheck
DemTech Voting Solutions
Democracy Live
Democracy Works
DMF Associates
Dominion Voting Systems
Election Systems & Software (ES&S)
Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC)
Freeman, Craft, McGregor Group
Hart InterCivic
KNOWInk
Microsoft
Microvote General Corp.
NTS Data Services
PCC Technology Inc.
Pro V&V
Runbeck Election Services
SCYTL
SLI Compliance
Smartmatic
Tenex Software Solutions
The Canton Group
Unisyn Voting Solutions
Voatz
VOTEC
Votem
Voting Works
VR Systems
According to the Election Infrastructure Subsector Coordinating Council
Charter , the goal of the group is to "advance the physical security, cyber security, and
emergency preparedness of the nation's election infrastructure, in accordance with existing
U.S. law" and "serve as the primary liaison between the election subsector and federal,
state, and local agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), concerning
private election subsector security and emergency preparedness issues."
CISA's goal , on the
other hand, is to work "collaboratively with those on the front lines of elections -- state
and local governments, election officials, federal partners, and vendors -- to manage risks
to the Nation's election infrastructure
State and local election officials decide what voting software and programs to use and
CISA has no control over that.
Interestingly enough, I received an email tonight from Dominion about "setting the record
straight." They cited the above statement as reason to trust them but failed to disclose
their CISA connection.
Here's some of the bigger points made in their email:
Dominion Voting Systems categorically denies false assertions about vote switching and
software issues with our voting systems.
According to a
Joint Statement by the federal government agency that oversees U.S. election security,
the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity, & Infrastructure Security Agency
(CISA): "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes,
or was in any way compromised." The government & private sector councils that support
this mission called the 2020 election "
the most secure in American history ."
...
3) Dominion is a nonpartisan U.S. company
Dominion has no ownership relationships with the Pelosi family, Feinstein family,
Clinton Global Initiative, Smartmatic, Scytl, or any ties to Venezuela. Dominion works with
all U.S. political parties; our customer base and our government outreach practices reflect
this nonpartisan approach.
As reported by the
Associated Press , "Dominion made a one-time philanthropic commitment at a Clinton
Global Initiative meeting in 2014, but the Clinton Foundation has no stake or involvement
in Dominion's operations, the nonprofit has confirmed." The meeting included bipartisan
attendees focused on international democracy-building.
There have been no "raids" of Dominion servers by the U.S. military or otherwise, and
Dominion does not have servers in Germany.
...
7) Assertions of voter fraud conspiracies are 100% false
All U.S. voting systems must provide assurance that they work accurately and reliably as
intended under federal
U.S. EAC and state certification and testing requirements. Election safeguards -- from
testing and certification of voting systems, to canvassing and auditing -- prevent
malicious actors from tampering with vote counts and ensure that final vote tallies are
accurate. Read more from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency .
This isn't the first time Dominion's software has been called into question. Democrats
voiced concern over the software last December. The Denver Post
warned about their election security earlier this year. The Michigan GOP
said a software glitch caused 6,000 votes to flip from Trump to Biden, although the
Michigan Secretary of State
said that wasn't the case. It's
one of the reasons Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said the legal process needs to play out in the
courts.
Trump campaign counsel repeatedly accused Dominion and its officers of criminal conduct and
business improprieties. Those are categories of "per se defamation" under the common law. No
special damages must be shown in such per se cases. Individual officers could bring defamation
claims and the company itself could bring a business disparagement action.
Businesses can be defamed like individuals if the false statement injures the business
character of the corporation or its prestige and standing in the industry. In Dun &
Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc ., 472 U.S. 749 (1985) the Supreme Court allowed a
business to sue a credit reporting agency for defamation where the agency mistakenly reported
that the business had filed for bankruptcy.
Restatement Second § 561 Defamation of Corporations states:
"One who publishes defamatory matter concerning a corporation is subject to liability to
it
(a) if the corporation is one for profit, and the matter tends to prejudice it in the
conduct of its business or to deter others from dealing with it, or
(b) if, although not for profit, it depends upon financial support from the public, and
the matter tends to interfere with its activities by prejudicing it in public
estimation."
There could be lawsuits in Colorado or the place of the alleged defamation. The lawsuit
would likely be filed under state law but moved to federal court under diversity jurisdiction
arguments.
The press conference was an explosion of potentially defamatory claims by individuals or
companies. The only clear defense is truth. The team insists that it can prove these
allegations. It may have to do so. Not only can the individual lawyers face such lawsuits but
the Trump campaign itself could be liable under the principle of respondeat superior, where an
employer is liable for the conduct of his employees when they are acting within the scope of
their employment. Ironically, the Latin term means "let the master speak." The President or his
campaign could be forced to speak in a defamation case if they have not spoken in the promised
court filings.
He had to send out a correction shortly thereafter, however, saying that the certification
process was still ongoing but would be completed later on Friday.
Raffensperger's announcement dropped hours after the Associated Press officially called
Georgia in Biden's favor, a move the Trump campaign slammed in a public statement from senior
legal adviser Jenna Ellis, who claimed the state recounted illegal ballots in their audit.
"This so-called hand recount went exactly as we expected because Georgia simply recounted
all of the illegal ballots that had been included in the total," she said.
President Trump has claimed he would have won in Georgia if not for voter fraud. Thousands
of new votes were found in the recount, but they did not sway the outcome in his favor. Trump
previously tweeted he did not have faith in Georgia's recount and slammed it as a
"joke."
Biden's victory in Georgia marks the first time a Democrat presidential candidate has won
the state since 1992.
Trump continues to refuse to concede the race to Biden, claiming voter fraud occurred in
multiple states, including Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
The president's lawyers, including Rudy Giuliani, presented their case for fraud during a
Thursday press conference, citing numerous allegations, including Republican poll watchers not
being allowed to properly observe counting, that Trump ballots were dumped, and thousands more
fraudulent ballots were counted.
Mickey Mic 1 hour ago 20 Nov, 2020 12:22 PM
If the elections were fair and nobody cheated, we should have both sides counting the votes,
as they live stream it on the internet so everyone in the world can observe the count in real
time. Monitors are rejected only to cover up the biggest criminal heist of votes in US
history as there is no other motivation to exclude the monitors from viewing the ballots. PS:
Receipts can take away most fraud by paper on electronically !
It's an interesting bit of history. When Black people gained the right to vote, a common
voter suppression tactic was to require questions be answered correctly to qualify. So a White
person would go to register and they would ask them a very simple question, like spelling their
own name for example, but when a Black person tried to vote they would be asked something
difficult like to exactly quote an amendment to the Constitution or the distance in kilometers
to the Sun.
Literacy is fairly subjective. If you ask me most native English speakers are actually
literate in their own language. They know the basics, but nothing more than that.
And yet they can vote. They can, they're permitted to vote, and obviously they do in great
numbers. Richard
Black , Ba Literature, Duke University (1974) Answered
July 9, 2018 · Author has 4K answers and 1.1M answer views
Most illiterate voters (dropouts) vote democrat. Those simply ignorant of science vote
republican. Other statistical likelihoods:
The US Election is still a burning issue almost two weeks after the people went to the
polls, and though the race has been called for Biden by every mainstream media outlet in the
world, the recounts are ongoing and irregularities manifest.
Trump's legal team, and many in the alternate media, are claiming the election was rigged.
With one voice the mainstream media – and the entire political establishment –
denounce these claims as "baseless", and scream there is "no evidence".
This is incorrect. There is plenty of evidence, both circumstantial and direct, which breaks
down into six basic categories:
Precedent – It has happened before. Motive –
Deep State/Military dislike of Trump's policies is widely known. Foreknowledge –
Establishment voices predicted this exact situation. Opportunity – The voting system is
highly susceptible to fraud. Voting Irregularities – Known software "glitches" &
irregularities in the reporting of the results. Cover-up – Dishonesty in the reporting of
the situation. 1. PRECEDENT
There is plenty of evidence that US elections have been rigged before.
Nobody is talking about it much, but US elections have been rigged before. Everyone is more
than familiar with the 2000 election, which was called for Al Gore before Florida flipped to
Bush and swung the election. The controversy over "hanging chads" and misplaced votes was all
people talked about for weeks.
One
noteworthy "error" with electronic voting machines, switched over 10000 votes from Gore to
an obscure third-party candidate.
After weeks of legal battles, Gore eventually conceded. Within a year the "attacks" of 9/11
had happened, and the US was at war in Afghanistan and planning six more wars within 3 years .
More recently, it was revealed the DNC had gone out of its way to hand
Hillary the presidential nomination over Sanders in 2016. Then in the 2020 primaries,
despite embarrassingly lopsided losses in the first few primaries, Biden's presidential
campaign had a "miraculous turnaround", thanks largely to irregularities in postal ballots in
Ohio , Wisconsin
and New
Jersey .
This is evidence of precedent.
2. MOTIVE
The US Deep State has clear and publicly known motives for wanting to remove Trump from
office.
It is no secret that many members of the US's political establishment oppose Trump and
Trump's policies. This includes neo-con warmongers and chiefs of the military
and intelligence agencies.
"The Resistance", billed as some voice of the progressive alternative, boasted
former members of George Bush's cabinet as members.
The most strident opposition to Trump was on foreign policy – most specifically in the
Middle East. Trump was committed to withdrawing from Syria, in direct opposition to the "Assad
Must Go" crowd at the Pentagon and State Dept.
Conversely, Biden has always been firmly in the establishment camp on Syria, and many
warmongers are already
predicting that Biden will want to
"restore some dignity" to the Syrian people.
The US Deep State has carried out coups all around the world, many of them bloody and
violent, in order to maintain Imperial ambitions and keep wars-for-profit going. They have
every motive to want to remove Trump and put Biden in his place.
This is evidence of motive.
3. FOREKNOWLEDGE
Establishment voices have been predicting, and planning for, this exact situation for
almost a year .
In January of this year – well before anyone could have predicted the effect the
"pandemic" would have on the world – legal scholars were
Wargaming the outcome of a disputed Presidential election based on postal ballots in
Pennsylvania.
In August a group naming themselves the
Transition Integrity Project published a document predicting a "disputed" election, that
the counting would take much longer than usual and that it would not be certain who was
President until January.
More generally, the outcome of the election was widely "predicted", with multiple press
outlets claiming there would be a "red mirage" and a "blue shift".
Meaning it would look like Trump would win, and then suddenly Biden would win at the last
minute.
This is evidence of foreknowledge.
4. OPPORTUNITY
There is plenty of evidence that the US voting system is open to potential corruption.
Voting machines, for example,
are owned and distributed by private companies . Many of which have political ties. An
article in the Guardian, of all places, went into great detail about this just last year, when
they were suggesting that Trump may have stolen the 2016 election.
Likewise, postal ballots are known to be susceptible to fraud. William Barr, the Attorney
General, summed it up in a television interview in September, and written reports
in 2007 and
earlier this year , have gone into great detail about historical cases of postal vote fraud
and possibilities of future occurrences.
This is evidence of opportunity.
5. VOTING IRREGULARITIES
There are plenty of irregularities in the results which suggest the possibility of something
strange going on.
The story of the election by the numbers doesn't really make logical sense. The turnout is
said to be 72%,
the highest in 120 years, and the first over 60% for over 50 years.
In the process Joe Biden, we are told, shattered Barack Obama's popular vote record by
almost 10 million votes.
Joe Biden?
This Joe Biden?
https://www.youtube.com/embed/hkP9s4ISlpI
got more votes than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?
Meanwhile Donald Trump increased his own popular vote by over 10 million, whilst increasing
his vote share in almost every ethnic demographic, as well as with women and
LGBT voters .
Making him the first incumbent president to increase his popular vote but still lose
in over a century, and the only one since all 50 states were part of the union.
Even if you believe that narrative is possible, there's more than enough evidence of voting
irregularities to warrant at least questioning the result and investigating further.
This error was only spotted because of the historically republican record of the county. In
a more hotly disputed seat, this error could potentially never have been picked up.
The software used in this county is used in 30 other states – including Wisconsin,
Georgia, Arizona and Pennsylvania, all of which were decided by less than 1% of the vote, and
any two of which could swing the election to Trump.
In fact Dominion, the company which supplied the questionable voting software, was
denied a
contract by the state of Texas in 2019 when judges found there were "concerns" about
"whether [it] is safe from fraudulent or unauthorized manipulation" .
A subsidiary of Dominion was kicked out of the Philippines for being too easy
to hack .
This video clip appears to show
CNN's coverage switching over 19,000 votes from Trump to Biden in Pennsylvania.
The graphed results of both Michigan and
Wisconsin
show decidedly odd jumps in Biden's vote.
The counting itself was also deeply suspect, with several states taking almost a week
to count the last few percent of the vote, whilst managing to count over 90% of the vote on the
first evening. In Wisconsin the National Guard were brought in to
"transcribe" damaged ballots , whilst in Pennsylvania they were allowed to count postal
votes with "no
clear post mark" , fairly obviously
To state there is "no evidence" of election rigging is a lie. There is plenty of evidence.
Every news outlet, channel and website is singing from the same hymn sheet on this – even
Fox News, so often Trump's supposed favourite channel.
Even before the election, as discussed above, all the mainstream media were running articles
defending mail-in ballots, and claiming that they are not historically weak to voter fraud.
This is totally
untrue , as anyone who cared to research the topic would tell you.
So, why are all the media telling the same lies? Why are people being denied a platform?
This is evidence of a cover-up.
*
Ask yourself:
If, in 2016, some voting software used in 30 states had flipped 5500 from
Hillary to Trump, and later been revealed to be financially tied to the Republican party, would
that have been "just a glitch", or evidence of cheating? If the Brexit referendum had swung
violently to Leave after dumps of suspect postal ballots were permitted into the count by a
judge who was a known Brexit supporter, would the media have kept quiet? If, in Russia, the
media denied a platform to the opposition to accuse Putin of voter fraud, would that be
"responsible media practice", or evidence of bias and censorship?
We don't know exactly what happened, or how the election was result was controlled, but as
of right now the specifics do not matter.
The point is there is plenty of evidence suggesting something happened, more than
enough to warrant asking rational questions and expecting reasonable answers.
Every time the media ignores the evidence, or censors those seeking it, they only display
further that there must be some fire behind all of this smoke.
John Ervin , Nov 18, 2020 3:57 AM
From the coda above: "The point is there is plenty of evidence suggesting something
happened, more than enough to warrant asking rational questions and expecting reasonable
answers."
Of course, but as Gore Vidal, no slouch as an historian and observer of the American
scene, said on WBAI at this time of year in 2004: "our elections which are pretty much rigged
from the get go."
I've spent thousands of hours on this American vote-rigging beat, and I will say straight
up that historically, whatever vote tampering the Democrats have done in a retail capacity,
the Republican Party owns many franchises on the wholesale end.
That's just a fact. I have too many thousands of now dusty pages on this to summarize, yet
I have even been invited by Bev Harris back in the day to guest interview some of the
principals, like Ion Sancho and Victoria Collier, though for now just two fun facts:
Sen. Chuck Hagel, hard core right wing Republican war hawk, is (or was) part OWNER of
ES&S voting company, (out of Omaha, Nebraska, a frequent investment stop for Ken Lay,
convict supervillain fraudster) which at one point has counted as much as 80% of the American
"vote" -- and Hagel greatly benefitted by a 60% (SIXTY!) vote swing (cf. polls) thru his
company's machines in his original race to unseat the incumbent Democrat.
The legendary Republcan huckster Wally O'Dell of Diebold in Ohio who "promised" the
election to W.
Bob Ney, of Ohio, in cahoots with all this, was the Republican head of HAVA, and resigned
a few years later in a thick fog of alcoholism and the Abramoff scandal and later confessed
it was the drink that made him do it, too late to undo the very decisive damage to our voting
process.
I could go on through literally hundreds of like scenarios, if not actually thousands
–seriously–almost all of them by Republican perps.
Or, 99+%, like our Covid survival data.
And suddenly that has all shifted to the polar opposite, like the Mayan Calendar was
purported to predict for the Earth's axis in 2012?
REALLY?
I can believe anything, as a chronic Conspiracy Realist, but seriously
Steve Rendall , Nov 18, 2020 12:02 AM
Gotta love the "Foreknowledge" section suggesting nefarious goings-on because people who
followed the news knew that in-person election day votes favoring the GOP would be counted
first, in most cases; and early and mail-in votes favoring Democrats would be counted later.
Malice aforethought!
Seriously, this is stupid.
Sophie - Admin1 , Nov 18, 2020 9:48 AM Reply to
Steve Rendall
Why would mail-in ballots be counted separately? And why would they necessarily favor
democrats? You seem to be making big assumptions and using them to breezily dismiss a lot of
actual data.
maxine , Nov 17, 2020 7:30 PM
The real rigging began way before the election when the Democratic National Committee
rigged the primaries both in 2016 and 2020, making sure that Bernie Sanders (who was ahead in
all the polls and whose goals matched those of the vast majority) lost .Instead they chose
warmongering, corporate Neo-Liberals, Hillary Clinton & Joe Biden who cared nothing about
the 99%.
I despise all these Neo-Liberal Democrats .I despise Donald Trump .But I get the feeling
that you would have preferred a 2nd Donald Trump term .Could that be because he's on the same
page as O-G regarding COVID? .Just wondering.
All that primary rigging stuff has been rendered suspect, and is almost surely
false-flagging, like the Russky 2016 "hacks" are bufoonishly lame and easy to refute. Even
guys at my gym who aren't even remotely afficionados saw how ridiculous the allegations were,
and Dave Emory has broadcast chapter and verse exposing all that and its nonsensicality.
But now it's a canard firmly entrenched for years to come.
Right here, In the USA?! What a surprise.
Sophie - Admin1 , Nov 18, 2020 9:53 AM Reply to
John Ervin
The DNC basically admitted rigging the primaries in 2016 for Hillary. The data is out
there.
Indeed. In the lawsuit against the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz for rigging the 2016
Democratic primaries, DNC lawyers successfully argued that the Democratic Party is a
non-profit corporation. As such, and more to the point, its charter permits party officials
to secretly rig their internal selection processes (primaries) as they please– it's all
strictly legit.
The DNC position prevailed, thus establishing that in the US, political party officials
are perfectly entitled to craft secret plans to preserve their grip on power, and can engage
in as much jiggery-pokery as they please; the party has no legal obligation to play fair in
its internal procedures, much less disclose its self-serving scams and schemes to its loyal
constituency.
Although it's virtually superfluous to state this, moral and ethical considerations are
simply irrelevant and immaterial; business is business.
Paul Vonharnish , Nov 18, 2020 2:49 PM Reply to
maxine
Hello maxine: You are right. The Democratic National Committee has been rigging
elections for decades. "Democratic" voters refuse to wake up and notice the burnt coffee. The
electoral college has also become a rigged stage, and acts in gross conflict with the
original functions of the 8th Amendment.
Ask Tulsi Gabbard about effective DNC stone walling of her candidacy. Tulsi was the
only vocal anti-war candidate in the primaries. The CIA and military contractors won the
selection -- again
DNC PoliticalPrisoner 31
minutes ago Many wouldn't have believed there was election fraud except the media and Big
Tech keep insisting that there wasn't. Facebook, Twitter, Google, Fox News, CNN, and more giant
corporations keep screaming at us via notifications, messages, and broadcasts that there was no
election fraud. Now, we're starting to think maybe there is something fishy going on.
While probably "less aggressively nasty" than Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden is still a
"conventional politician," but it won't be easy for him to dismiss his party's progressive
wing, Larry Sanders told RT's Going Underground.
Brother to US Senator Bernie Sanders and the Green Party Spokesperson on Health and Social
Care (England & Wales), Larry Sanders told RT's Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi that
while Biden was not his "choice" for president, he prefers him over the current
incumbent, President Donald Trump.
... ... ...
As a fixture of the establishment, Biden will follow the interests of corporate money and
the military-industrial complex rather than anybody else's, Sanders noted.
"Biden is a conventional politician, he is beholden to big money, he is beholden to
defense industries,
joe_go 13 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 07:03 AM
If no one in America went to vote the country would still look the way it looks today. The
big money and military industry would run the country the way it runs it when people vote and
think it matters.
Spirgily_Klump 20 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 12:46 AM
Do you know after Biden was out of the VP office the Chinese communist party had donated $70
million to one of his foundations at the University of Pennsylvania from which Joe drew a
salary of over $900,000 per year? With his benefiting from the hundreds of millions his
family took in from foreign powers and persons how can he gain the security clearance
necessary for the presidency? The president needs the highest clearance. Even an applicant to
the CIA get polygraphed.
shadow1369 Spirgily_Klump 9 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 11:00 AM
Just one of many skeletons jangling in Bidet's closet, they will be used by his controllers
to keep him on track.
Iwanasay 19 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 01:22 AM
It doesn't matter who is in power, America's destiny has been chosen by other behind the
scene faces
RedDragon 15 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 05:27 AM
All USA presidents are beholden to big money entities, inclusive incoming Biden presidency.
Trump is beholden to the Jewish money powers etc..
Anyone who will not generate a bit of effort to get to the polls in timely fashion probably should not vote anyway.
The same imbeciles who camp out in front of a store overnight waiting for Black Friday sales or spend three days on line waiting
to buy concert tickets, are often the ones who claim that getting to the voting booth is too great an inconvenience.
We ought to have accommodations for seriously disabled citizens and for citizens who are outside the country ie. our people in
military service.
During the presser, Giuliani also said there is a pattern in the voting data that suggests
"a plan from a centralized place" to commit voter fraud in Democrat-run cities. Giuliani also
said the Trump campaign will likely bring a lawsuit to Arizona.
They also said they have testimony from an insider who they say unearthed provable fraud
regarding voting machines and software used in multiple states.
They describe a process of vote switching as well as "trashing" Trump votes through a simple
drag and click process.
Additionally, they say this election involved a manipulation of the ballot count in a
foreign country.
"This is a massive, coordinated, well-funded effort to deprive we the people of the United
States of our fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution to preserve this Constitution
republic we all cherish."
- Sidney Powell
And they describe multiple incidents where the number of votes cast far exceeded the
population of the public in that county, including children.
Democrats deny there is any evidence of "widespread fraud." They and the news media have
broadly called the election for Joe Biden and urged President Trump to concede.
Surprise, surprise, not everyone was buying what Giuliani and Powell were selling.
"You are watching the last gasp of this legal effort by the president," Wendy Weiser,
director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told
ABC News .
"This has been a flailing legal effort that hasn't raised any real issues from the get-go.
We all knew how this movie would end. If I was writing the screenplay I would end it
here."
Below you can watch the entire news conference and hear the claims of evidence to make up
your own mind as to what you think about it.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/buQCdCSDWQQ
* * *
As we detailed ahead of the press briefing, with many questioning where this going next,
though J
PM's Michael Cembalest admits there is still a chance , President Trump's legal team is
holding a press briefing to outline their strategy.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS
MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
In one post in a stream of tweets, Trump said the legal team will give an "important news
conference today" and that they will explain their plans for a "very clear and viable path to
victory".
"Pieces are very nicely falling into place," the president tweeted.
By one count, Trump campaign legal efforts to overturn election results or force recounts
have been successful just once and suffered 26 defeats... so for the 70 million-plus Trump
voters, we hope that Giuliani has a trick or two up his sleeve.
Whether Trump wins or loses, the Dominion grift of American elections is OVER!
All because they overplayed their hand when they had to stop the count and recalibrate the
machines to overcome Trumps massive lead. If this election had been close we would have never
known...
jim942 , 2 hours ago
The cat is definitely out of the bag on Dominion.
JimmyJones , 50 minutes ago
That was a refreshing press conference, everyone should watch it in it's entirety. I think
Rudy G, has them by the "balls" Sidney Powells work on the Dominion side is huge with the
inside whistle blower. The Dems are toast, be prepared for the Dems to unleash ANtifa and try
to burn down the world once it hits the supreme court.
truth or go home , 40 minutes ago
Folks,
It is not enough to know that Dominion is bad and the next election will be fair. They
will whitewash right over that company and it will appear again with another name before you
can ever think about it.
I said it two weeks ago, and I will say it again now. This is not a won or lost election.
This was a Coup. It is time for Trump to declare marshal law, send the military in and take
this thing back, assuming he knows for a fact that they won in a landslide - which is pretty
obvious now.
This is not going to end well in a legal battle - the other side obviously has zero
respect for what is legal or fair - they don't care - they will pay off whoever or do
whatever they have to to get their way.
The hill is right here, right now. Send the military into the media offices and shut them
down, until a new staff can be arranged who will give a fair account of news.
Takeover Twitter, Facebook and Google - throw out the owners and the leaders, and install
a group of folks who will abide by the law.
Take control of the CIA, the FBI and the Justice department, plus the CDC and the NIH,
which have all participated in this Coup.
Then - set up a new, free and fair election, and allow Joe to win on his own merits. No
cheating on any side. An election by the people.
GreatUncle , 26 minutes ago
@JimmyJones
I liked the bit when Powell confirmed the German raid ... WTF!!! It was true.
HungryPorkChop , 1 hour ago
I think we can say the cat is out of the bag for ANY computerized voting machine. They
will never be viewed the same again.
I'm still bewildered why everyone which votes is not given a 12 digit code they can visit
a secure website that will show the results. They enter in their 12 digit code and it pulls
up who they voted for.. Credit card companies have had this ability for 30+ years. All major
retailers use this system worldwide on a daily basis 24 hrs non-stop. Not sure why the
election process cannot use 30 year old technology to help validate and make sure votes were
counted and counted correctly. Something smells...
Mr. Bones , 1 hour ago
Anonymity
A voter couldn't be compelled to view a certain way. Granted, that all goes out the window
with ballot harvesting or mail-ins so...
GreatUncle , 20 minutes ago
Fails mate ... they give you a 12 digit code so you can see your vote right?
AI will tell you what you want to know but run another set of books with the name of who
the AI cast the vote for.
It is too the point ... any computerised electronic system is open to fraud that only
voting in person at the box with a legitimate ID prevents.
Even then it is who the vote is finally applied too ... in this case we have found a
machines can fraudulently apply votes a lot faster than a human.
jim942 , 2 hours ago
Trump is not a quitter. The fight will go on.
Herdee , 2 hours ago
If you think that it makes any difference who sits in the Chair as the stooge master and
puppet then I've got a bridge to sell you. It's all propaganda for the dumbed down sheeple
American population. Welcome to The New World Order.
Dangertime , 2 hours ago
By that blackpill logic we will never win.
eatapeach , 2 hours ago
Herdee is right. The circus is scripted. They are both AIPAC/MIC candidates and they both
do as their masters dictate.
gmrpeabody , 1 hour ago
Just because you would rather rollover doesn't mean everyone else wants to...
Another Comment , 1 hour ago
No one is saying that. But you have to make sure you're fighting the right battle. Watch
what the magician is doing, not showing.
Omnibrad , 56 minutes ago
The American people have already rolled over for decades now. Wake up. The same people own
the D party and the R party, and Trump is no exception. They own the schools. They own the
press. They own the civil institutions. They own TV. They own Google and other big corps.
They own the public square and censor you. And what have you done during these decades
besides roll over?
"It may be inferred again that the present movement for women's rights will certainly
prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This [Northern
conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs
to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable
amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted
novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now
conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced
upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then
adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it
moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always
advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it
be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the
conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing
serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom.
It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it
essays to stop, that its "bark is worse than its bite," and that it only means to save its
manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now
subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it "in wind,"
and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip."
-Robert Lewis Dabney
aiinvestor , 1 hour ago
Infrequent voters in precincts with high turnout. State says they voted early/abs, but
told us they did not cast a ballot:
State/Counts/% of Sample (who answered the question)
AZ / 21 / 0.94%
GA / 24 / 0.85%
MI / 18 / 2.80%
NV / 25 / 2.22%
PA / 22 / 0.70%
WI / 23 / 0.66%
Yep, that is what I can't figure out. It shows they are guilty because they are doing
everything they can to hide it. Refusing repug poll watchers, refusing recounts, refusing
absentee ballot signature matches, etc. and the list goes on and on. What ever happened to
"it's the seriousness of the charge" that demorats said over and over when justifying all
THEIR investigations even though they know they had NO EVIDENCE? In this case, there is REAL
EVIDENCE of fraud that is being shown that has affected THOUSANDS of ballots, and the charge
is this is just the tip of the iceberg. The potential for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS or even
millions of fraud ballots not only can change the election, but will change the demorat party
forever. This is why they are fighting this. This is their Pickett's Charge.
ronin12 , 1 hour ago
Just the stuff Rudy is talking about in Philly and Detroit is INSANE.
It's crazy how corrupt these people are.
Shut. It. Down. , 59 minutes ago
Christopher Wray is too busy looking under rocks for non-existent "white supremacists" to
be bothered with the theft of a presidential election.
Feel it Reel it , 1 hour ago
Biden/Harris barley ran a Campaign knowing full fell the voter fraud scam was
in......Biden/Harris were just going through the motions to give the Illusion of a legitimate
campaign when in fact it was a massive fraud......
Hoax Fatigue , 15 minutes ago
Yes. This is why they did the absolute minimum amount of campaigning. Zero sense of
urgency against a guy drawing gigantic crowds because they deluded themselves into believing
the fix was in.
Barnacles , 59 minutes ago
Holy wow. Sydney confirmed the Germany server was picked up by someone! Don't know if it's
the good or bad guys.
Totally_Disillusioned , 23 minutes ago
Don't overlook Rudy's response to CNN using lack of FBI investigating in smearing Trump's
campaign lawsuits...
"Where are you FBI? I don't know where the FBI has been for the last four years. our
country has had its ballots counted, calculated and manipulated in a foreign country with a
company controlled by friends of an enemy of the United States. What do we have to do to get
the FBI to wake up? Maybe we need a new agency to protect us."
Perhaps a prescient statement of changes to come.
spyware-free , 1 hour ago
haha...Rudy doxxing Coomer now.
Pack your sh1t Eric. you're on the patriot radar now.
GreatUncle , 6 minutes ago
Yep ... bragged he was number one kingpin at Dominion on this.
I so like technology nowhere you can hide in this world too escape this.
Here is his deal ... give up your handler or get 100 years inside like on the movies no
parole.
Then lets see how fast they kill him.
But then let the state execute him to get the dead mans handle of data of everything.
Nowhere too go but a coffin.
herbivore , 13 minutes ago
This was a powerful presentation that Giuliani and his legal team put on. As one of them
stated, it was an overview of what they would present to a jury, not an evidentiary
presentation. If they have the evidence that proves their charges, they win before a jury,
but if they have to rely on a corrupt-to-the-core judiciary, they probably lose.
Nature_Boy_Wooooo , 46 minutes ago
So basically they used Nate Silver's crappy projections as a confidence interval for how
many votes they assumed Trump would get. They then set the coefficient to adjust a certain
amount of votes to Biden to move him slightly ahead of Trump without drawing attention to the
fraud.
At 3 a.m. the number of Trump votes moved way outside of their projected confidence
interval because Nate Silver's model sucks. At this point the 'educated' Democrats were
soundly asleep and the stupid Democrats had to make adjustments to the vote adjustment
coefficient..... that is when everything went wrong.
Nature_Boy_Wooooo , 30 minutes ago
It's most likely some type of linear regression machine learning algorithm that they were
using.
They trained the model either on past data or fabricated data based on Nate Silver's
crappy projections. The model was over fit with Nate Silver's crappy projections so in their
simulations their model made good predictions and was able to adjust the votes to slowly move
Biden into the lead.
But over fit models perform poorly on outliers. Trump was a big outlier and over performed
Nate Silver's crappy projections.
Teamtc321 , 34 minutes ago
BOOM: Election Fraud Expert Russ Ramsland Files Affidavit Showing 'PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY'
of Election Results in Michigan
DNC PoliticalPrisoner 31
minutes ago Many wouldn't have believed there was election fraud except the media and Big
Tech keep insisting that there wasn't. Facebook, Twitter, Google, Fox News, CNN, and more giant
corporations keep screaming at us via notifications, messages, and broadcasts that there was no
election fraud. Now, we're starting to think maybe there is something fishy going on.
In a stunning development out of Wayne County, Michigan - two GOP members of the Board of
Canvassers have rescinded their certifications of the Nov. 3 vote, claiming they were bullied
into
approving the election results in the state's most populous county, which includes Detroit
and surrounding areas.
yerfej , 58 minutes ago
I don't see how Biden could receive any votes as no one would be stupid enough to vote for
a corrupt dementia addled bag man insider? Or are people on the left so desperate that they
can't see through the con?
Ancient Handicapper , 43 minutes ago
yerfej, People agree with your description of Biden, perhaps, but TRUMP IS WORSE! That's
why they voted for Mr. Biden. (Thank goodness!)
" The maintenance of Americans' constitutional rights should not depend on the good
graces and sketchy ethics of a handful of well-connected corporations who have stonewalled
Congress, lied to Congress, and have questionable judgment when it comes to security
"
-Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore)
Barely two weeks ago allegations that the 2020 US Presidential election had been rigged on
behalf of DNC presidential spawn Joe Biden were met with almost universal scepticism. This past
week may have changed that.
In the
article of Monday, Nov 9 the author examined the problems with the mail-in ballot totals in
the five key swing states and the legal and legislative challenges to them including re-counts
and the SCOTUS intervention of the PA Supreme Court.
The subject of alleged DNC election fraud has now shifted to an examination of the machines
that count each ballot and render the results. The voter is supposed to believe that Joe Biden
defeated Trump and at the same time lost seats in the US House and state legislatures. This is
possible but highly improbable.
Today, Nov 17, in preparation for a multi-state legal challenge to results created by these
voting machines, lead Trump attorney and former Assistant US Attorney Sidney Powell, said:
"They need to investigate the likelihood that 3% of the vote total was changed in the
pre-election voting ballots that were collected digitally by using the Hammer program and the
software program called Scorecard. That would have amounted to a massive change in the
vote."
Here, begins that examination. As shown, there is reason for concern.
Numbers don't lie. Mounting evidence to date suggests that voting machines do, particularly
the ones sold by Dominion Voting Systems Inc. As the third part of this chronology begins it
has now become obvious that Trump's campaign operatives expected election fraud. They have
since very quickly brought legal challenges to bear in AZ, GA, MI, PA, WI, and NV. However,
most of this news first circled around only the mail-in ballots.
From Trump's perspective, as of this writing, 87,804 (WI-20,540; GA-14,045; PA- 53,219) are
needed to flip the election. MI is the toughest and shows Biden up by a reported 146,123
votes.
Interestingly, regarding the numbers in each state- and AZ- the Dominion voting machine's
results are in dispute in all. Whereas, the proceedings regarding the mail-in ballots
may provide a switch of perhaps thousands of votes, issues with the Dominion machines,
if proven, could be in the 100's of Thousands. Or More.
This past week, evidence is surfacing.
Before 2020:Warning Signs
Days before the 2020 election important news was buried. On September 30 a report in the
Philadelphia Inquirerdetailed that"a laptop and several memory
sticks" used to program Dominion voting machines in Philadelphia had mysteriously
vanished.
But concerns about Dominion had begun far earlier.
The U.S. Constitution leaves election management up to state and local officials, so voting
systems and protocols vary across thousands of jurisdictions. Partly for this reason, a 2019
investigation was launched by senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron
Wyden (D-Ore.), and other Democratic lawmakers into the three largest suppliers of US digital
voting machines, Dominion Voting Systems, Election Systems & Software, and Hart InterCivic.
Together they hold over 92% of all US distribution of voting machines.
"(W)e have concerns about the spread and effect of private equity investment including the
election technology industry -- an integral part of our nation's democratic process These
problems threaten the integrity of our elections and demonstrate the importance of election
systems that are strong, durable, and not vulnerable to attack."
The Committee revealed that the Dominion machines were vulnerable to internal and internet
hacking. Because all these machines interface their ballot totals via wireless digital modem
external interference is all too possible. Further concerns were
provided by NBC news in very early 2020.
In the State of
Texas , well before the 2020 election Dominion Voting Systems and their proprietary
"Dominion Democracy Suite 5.5 " was rejected three times. From the summary:
"The reports identified multiple hardware and software issues that preclude the Office of
the Texas Secretary of State from determining that the Democracy Suite 5.5-A system satisfies
each of the voting-system requirements Specifically, [if] the system is suitable for its
intended purpose; operates efficiently and accurately; and is safe from fraudulent or
unauthorized manipulation."
Previously, Federal regulation attempts on voting machines in 2018 were fruitless since this
was opposed by some state election officials and the White House on the grounds that it would
impose on states' rights.
A prudent measure that had some bipartisan support ( S. 2593 in the 115th Congress )
ended up going nowhere. Introduced by Sen. James Lankford
(R-Okla.) this bill would have required voting machines to produce a printout to let election
officials confirm electronic votes. Lankford and Wyden had said that they intended to
reintroduce paper-trail bills. They did not.
The Penn Wharton Public Policy Initiative published
a report that explored their attempts to look into Dominion and other voting companies:
"Part of the challenge is that it is difficult to compile even basic facts about it. The
industry earns an estimated $300 million in revenue annually is dominated by three firms [and
is] limiting the amount of information available in the public domain about their operations
and financial performance."
Nonetheless, Republicans and Democrats agreed in a 2018 omnibus bill ( Public Law 115-141 ) to
divide among the states $380 million for voting system upgrades. Georgia's legislature also
approved a plan to spend as much as $150 million on equipment that cybersecurity researchers
say is still
hackable . Most of that equipment was supplied by Dominion.
According to Business Insider , Georgia "became the only state in the country last year
to overhaul its entire election system, paying Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems $106
million for new voting machines, printers and scanners."
The NY Times reported that some Democrats in the Georgia Legislature opposed
purchasing the Dominion system and there is "some evidence that heavy lobbying and sales
tactics have played a role in their adoption in Georgia and elsewhere."
In hotly contested Georgia, during 2019's test run a
now-deleted Atlanta Journal Constitution article detailed "a glitch" that surfaced
when six counties tested the Dominion system. The problem occurred in at least four of the six
counties where the
new voting system was being
tested before being used statewide during the March 24 presidential primary. The problems
weren't rectified by primary date, which was moved to June due to the coronavirus pandemic.
According to the New York
Times :
"Georgia's statewide primary elections on Tuesday were overwhelmed by a full-scale
meltdown of new voting systems Scores of new state-ordered voting machines were reported to
be missing or malfunctioning, and hours-long lines materialized at polling places across
Georgia. Some people gave up and left before casting a ballot Predominantly black areas
experienced some of the worst problems.
Who is Dominion?
Dominion Voting Systems is a company from Toronto, Canada , that has headquarters in Denver, Colorado, and is
one of the three major firms providing voting machines in U.S. elections. The others are
Election Systems & Software, and Hart InterCivic with ES&C in the top spot and Dominion
at number two.
A
2014 form filed with the State of California says Dominion was founded in 2003 in Canada
and in 2009 moved to the U.S. Its principal officers were listed as John Poulos, CEO; Ian
MacVicar, CFO; and James Hoover, vice president of product line management. Dominion Voting Systems , claims to work with 1300
voting jurisdictions including nine of the 20 largest counties in the nation.
Dominion produced the software used in MI , GA and all the remaining states in question.
Like many corporations, Dominion purchased influence in congress. Bloomberg reported in
April of last year that Dominion hired lobbying firm, Brownstein Farber Hyatt & Schreck.
House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi's former chief of staff, Nadeam Elshami, is one of the lobbyists
for that firm.
At the state level, Dominion employs eight registered lobbyists in GA alone. They include
Lewis Abit Massey ,
a former Democratic Georgia Secretary of State, and Jared Thomas, former chief of staff for
Republican Governor Brian Kemp.
ES&S also has its own lobbying effort recently adding Peck Madigan Jones to the
lobbying firm Vectre Corp. ES&S paid Vectre $80,000 during the last three months of
2018 alone. According to the Washington Post, Dominion also reported donating in between
$25,001-$50,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Why the Clinton Foundation?
Locations of US
voting machines: Dominion is shown in Orange; ES&S in Blue. (Source: Penn Warton)
The news site, Truthout, reported that Dominion "was recently acquired by New York-based hedge
fund Staple Street Capital." An executive board member of Staple Street Capital, William Earl Kennard , is a
former ambassador to the EU who was appointed to that
position by Barack Obama. In 2018,
Dominion publicly announced it had been acquired by its management team and Staple Street
Capital.
Interestingly, on November 6, Deadline reported that
Kennard was named to the board of WarnerMedia parent company to AT&T, which owns CNN .
Long ago, Dominion earned $44 million in 2012. It listed its addresses for manufacturing and
development as Toronto; Belgrade, Serbia; Denver; Plano, Texas; and Baldwin Park, California. A
2020 filing lists their registered agent as
Cogency Global in Florida. Its directors were listed as Hootan Yaghoobzadeh of Staple Street
Capital, Stephen Owens , also
of Staple Street, and Benjamin Humphreys. Yaghoobzadeh and Owens both have past ties to the
Carlyle Group investment firm. In 2015, Carlyle was the world's largest private equity
firm.
" Glitches."
Beyond the reports of problems with the mail-in ballots, in the aftermath of the election
two weeks ago, the independent reports of voting machine irregularities have in combination
developed serious concerns about Dominion and their software that they feature as "Democracy
Suite 5.5." All of these problems favored Biden, never Trump.
First, on Tuesday, in the wee hours of the morning Dominion machines
erroneously gave Democratic candidate Joe Biden a 3,000 plus vote advantage in Antrim
County, MI. After a manual recount of the votes, officials posted updated results showing
President Trump won the county with 9,783 votes making up 56.46% of ballots cast. Joe Biden
earned 7,289 votes or 42.07%. CNN "went blue" for Biden before the error was
discovered.
With the machine results being utterly mathematically disconnected to the hand-count tally
Antrim County officials have blamed the county's election software saying totals counted did
not match tabulator tapes.
In Oakland County, Michigan, according to the Royal Oak Tribune another glitch in a
completely different ballot counting system, Hart Intercivic, switched over 1,200 Republican
votes to Democrat. The switch initially caused County Commissioner Adam Kochenderfer to lose.
Once the glitch was found, and the votes were properly attributed, Kochenderfer went from
losing by 100 votes to winning by over 1,100. Hart uses its proprietary system called Verity.
Eleven Michigan counties use Hart's systems
Back in GA, voters were unable to cast machine ballots for a couple of hours in Morgan and
Spalding counties after the electronic devices crashed, state officials said. In response to
the delays, Superior Court Judge W. Fletcher Sams extended voting until 11 p.m.
The companies "uploaded something last night, which is not normal, and it caused a
glitch," said Marcia Ridley, elections supervisor at Spalding County Board of Elections.
Ridley said that a representative from Dominion called her after poll workers began having
problems with the equipment Tuesday morning and said the problem was due to an upload to the
machines by one of their technicians overnight. Said Ridley,
"That is something that they don't ever do. I've never seen them update anything the day
before the election."
There is a reason for Ridley's observation. By GA law the machines are supposed to be
certified for accurate use by the state before the election day. How was this possible with
Dominion uploading data unknown during that night?
This matter may be far from over in GA. Trump has already filed for an injunction, per state
statute, which cites, "These vote tabulator failures are a mechanical malfunction that,
under MCL 168.831-168.839, requires a "special election" in the precincts affected." The
keyword here is precincts. Plural.
In Oakland County Michigan, Dominion machine errors resulted in a Democrat being wrongly
declared the winner of a commissioner's race by 104 votes – only to have their seat flip
back to the rightful Republican candidate after the error was caught.
More importantly, Wisconsin reports came in that showed that the vote totals for Rock County
appeared to be switched between President Trump and Joe Biden. 9,516 votes were eliminated from
President Trump and moved to Joe Biden. If this one report is proved true, then the 19,032-vote
shift would nearly wipe-out, of its own, Biden's reported 20,540 vote lead in Wisconsin and his
electoral votes.
Pennsylvania and its twenty electoral votes are also hotly in contention. Dominion machines
are being used in Armstrong, Carbon, Clarion, Crawford, Dauphin, Delaware, Erie, Fayette,
Fulton, Luzerne, Montgomery, Pike, Warren, York counties.
State Sen. Kristin Phillips-Hill, R-York, says she started getting calls shortly after the
polls opened Tuesday morning that the machines were jamming and causing delays.
Phillips also highlighted another problem. "If that ballot is rejected, for example, if
they over-voted for county commissioner, and that ballot is rejected, then that person has no
way of knowing that their vote has been invalidated. That's not acceptable," she said.
Due to Dominion machine delays, PA election officials admitted that if ballots could not be
immediately scanned by the machines, those ballots were instead stored so they could be counted
later in "emergency holding boxes will be scanned at the polling places."
Those "stored" ballots were not always scanned. The Pennsylvania GOP had to
bring a lawsuit to ensure that all York County ballots were counted. These had been placed
in suitcases quickly purchased by Dominion and none were scanned.
AZ is also reporting problems. Boasts Dominion's website: "Arizona: "Serving 2.2 million
Maricopa County voters with Democracy Suite 5.5 "
Yep. Maricopa County. The contested county where this week, Arizona GOP Chair Rae Chorenky
was been forced to resign after failing to sign the required Certificate of Accuracy for the
Dominion voting machines.
Concerns Mount.
The key difficulty in examining potential election fraud by Dominion and possibly their
counterparts is in going beyond isolated incidents and establishing a systemic fraud. One
safety mechanism Dominion and other providers tout is that while voters might make their
choices on a touchscreen machine, a paper ballot with a bar code is printed out where the voter
can confirm their choices before inputting the paper ballot into a machine. Here's the problem,
according to a US News story :
"[The machines] register votes in bar codes that the human eye cannot decipher. That's a
problem, researchers say: Voters could end up with printouts that accurately spell out the
names of the candidates they picked, but, because of a hack, the bar codes do not reflect
those choices. Because the bar codes are what's tabulated, voters would never know that their
ballots benefited another candidate."
These bar codes are vitally important to the subject of election fraud. They are also of
great interest to Ray Lutz of California based Citizen's Oversight.
For those unfamiliar with Lutz and Citizen's, his organization has garnered great
respect across the state for, among other examples, championing the successful closure of the
San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station (SONGS) and next the exposure of demonstrative election
fraud in the 2016 California primary that tipped the scales for Hillary Clinton rather than
Bernie Sanders. Lutz is no stranger to using the courts effectively for the public good.
To this end, Lutz just a month before the election announced the launch of Citizen's new
ballot checking software called AuditEngine . In reply to an inquiry for data,
Lutz said,
"We are still gathering information at this time. We may have a lawsuit in NC to get poll
tapes data. Also, we will be seriously looking at PA."
In a press release this week Lutz forewarned:
"Ballot images can thwart changes to paper ballots, magically losing or finding new
ballots in the recount. Citizens' Oversight today sent a request to keep the images By
preserving the ballot images, we can make sure the paper ballots recounted in Georgia match
ballot images that were made on election night, and are not modified by any unscrupulous
campaign operatives."
As Citizen's takes a closer look at GA and possibly PA while others examine the swing
states, the likely hood of this showing a massive shift towards Trump in every state is a
difficult proposition. However, in the era of the citizen investigator, the work of one
anonymous source is picking up traction, so much so that many alternative media sources are
quoting it, as is the Trump campaign.
The methodology of this investigation is thorough but needs corroboration by experts.
However, the person releasing this analysis obtained the same data as was
captured by the New York Times on election night from Edison Research. It is the same data
that was used for election coverage by ABC News, CBS News, CNN and NBC News. The report
provides a careful and plausible methodology and a state-by-state list of votes switched from
Trump to Biden and of votes simply erased by
Dominion machines. His results show discrepancies- some very large- in every state and
particularly in GA and PA where, if proven, those states would flip for Trump.
Following the Dots Down the Rabbit Hole?
For the reader who cares to look beyond "Plausible Deniability" and connect the dots
of possibility, days before the election of Nov 3 Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney (Ret.) cast his own
suspicions that were in keeping with the charges levelled today by Sidney Powell.
McInerney stated he was warned in 2018 by Admiral James Aloysius "Ace" Lyons Jr., just
before his death, that a plot to fix the 2020 election was in the works. Lyons served as
Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet from 1985 to 1987. He also wrote a column about Seth Rich
being the one who leaked the 2016 DNC email tranche that blew HRC out of the water and which
The Washington Times deleted.
McInerney, although previously discredited for his backing of the 2002 Iraq "weapons of
mass destruction" claims, thus described the two US/ CIA covert operations called
"Hammer" and "Scorecard." Both were designed for the CIA in the aftermath of
9/11.
The author has verified the existence of both programs.
" The Hammer" is a counter-intelligence surveillance program used to spy on
activities carried out through protected networks (like voting machines) without detection.
"Scorecard" is a vote-manipulation application that changes votes during data transfer.
Adding credence to the allegations of both men is a previous report by Alan Jones and Mary
Fanning of the American Report that was published on March 17, 2017 . The claims in that report
mirror those of Lyons and McInerney and refer to the information provided by the man who
designed both Hammer and Scorecard, Dennis Montgomery, who has turned whistleblower.
Montgomery states that Hammer and Scorecard were designed by him under the supervision of
the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper and then CIA director John Brennan.
In a subsequent article, The American Report connects the dots from Brennan and Clapper to
Christopher Krebs, currently the head of the DHS's Cyber Security and Infrastructure Agency
(CISA). It should be noticed that it is Krebs who has in recent days been the DHS point man for
denying any and all allegations of election fraud as an MSM spokesperson on the matter.
[Breaking News: Moments ago, Trump fired Christopher Krebs effective immediately]
John Brennan, James Clapper and Krebs are all DNC disciples and have been vociferous in
their public disdain for Trump over the past four years. With this and the week's
aforementioned national news in mind, next came the news yesterday, that Sidney Powell
considered the reports about Hammer and Scorecard credible, saying on Fox News, that,
" it explains a lot of what we're seeing All of those districts need to be checked for the
software glitch that would change the vote for Michigan dramatically. The same thing is
happening in other states. We've had hundreds of thousands of ballots appear for solely Mr
Biden which is statistically impossible as a matter of mathematics. It can all be documented
it is being put in files that we will file in federal court."
As if this all were not enough to create bi-partisan concern for the 2020 election, just
moments ago it was revealed that a memory card was found during the audit in Fayette county GA
with 2,755 votes, most of them for Trump. The news comes one day after
2,600 uncounted ballots were found on another memory card in Floyd County, GA – which
were also mostly cast for President Trump.
The new margin total statewide in GA is now a 12,929 lead for Biden.
Observers might notice that there does not appear to be any sense of panic by the Trump
campaign, nor their lawyers and that all have so far moved methodically via the courts and in
announcing the steady stream of reported violations.
Certainly, Trump has lost in some court proceedings so far, but the big cases, such as the
SCOTUS intervention with the rulings of the lower PA Supreme Court are still in play as are the
states final vote certification, the results of which preclude further legal action.
[Breaking News: Officials in Wayne County, Michigan – home to the city of
Detroit, have refused to certify the results of the Nov. 3 election.]
As suggested in the first article in this series, "Trump's (64Day) Election
End Game" Trump continues to play the long game at least until the Jan 6 meeting of the
Electoral College in Wash. DC. Since the time of that article, the subject of the Electoral
College has been examined across the nation's news media and transformed from skepticism to
probability.
What should become most important, if these many allegations come together as substantial
truth, is that the issue of 2020 Election fraud must become a bi-partisan issue and
quickly.
As was suggested in the previous article, "Of
Color Revolutions, Foreign and Domestic," the advent of America's own color revolution
may be at hand and become the most significant threat to America since the civil war. To view
this only as an indictment of one party allows those loyal to that party to ignore
consideration of facts. This will only split the country further.
To prevent a US color revolution, the one the Dems are already calling, "Purple,"
there must be a bi-partisan investigation by both sides of the aisle that transcends party
loyalty to that of the priority of saving the country. Not Joe Biden. Not Donald Trump.
Criminal charges and indictments must be brought against one and all proved to be involved in
the attempt to circumvent the American election process.
That indictment: Treason.
About the Author: Brett Redmayne-Titley has authored and published over 180
in-depth articles over the past twelve years. Many have been translated and republished
worldwide. He can be reached at: live-on-scene ((at)) gmx.com. Prior articles can be viewed at
his archive:www.watchingromeburn.uk
Dominion Voting Systems has denied several times to media outlets that its software and
devices are not secure or that they were used to switch votes.
"Dominion Voting Systems categorically denies false assertions about vote switching issues
with our voting systems," the company said in a statement . "Vote deletion/switching assertions
are completely false."
"No credible reports or evidence of any software issues exist," the company stated, adding,
"Human errors related to reporting tabulated results have arisen in a few counties, including
some using Dominion equipment, but appropriate procedural actions were made by the county to
address these errors were made prior to the canvass process."
A national coalition that includes the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the National Association of State Election Directors
said there is a lack of evidence supporting the claim that voting software deleted or switched
votes in the election.
"There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in
any way compromised," a
joint statement from the coalition said, and called the 2020 election "the most secure in
American history."
Dominion Voting Systems
is a member of CISA's Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council, one of two
entities that authored the statement put out by CISA.
Trainor, in earlier remarks to Newsmax, said he believes locations where poll watchers were
not allowed "meaningful access" to observe vote tabulation could be involved in voter
fraud.
"I do believe that there is voter fraud taking place in these places," Trainor
told the outlet . "Otherwise they would allow the observers to go in."
The official referred to a case in Pennsylvania, where a court ordered them to allow the
Trump campaign to have poll observers watch from six feet away, but the order was defied.
"They have not been allowed that meaningful access," Trainor said, adding that if the law
was broken in this regard, the election was "illegitimate."
The mass mailing of unsolicited ballots is of course a recipe for fraud, even more so in a
state where the voter rolls contain tens of thousands of people who haven't voted or updated
their records in more than a decade. This is how you get dead people voting, as we
reported here at The Federalist and as Tucker Carlson
noted last week .
But there's another, less sensational but perhaps more consequential election scandal in
Nevada that hasn't yet made headlines, even though it's been hiding in plain sight for weeks
now. Under the guise of supposedly nonprofit, nonpartisan get-out-the-vote campaigns, Native
American voter advocacy groups in Nevada handed out gift cards, electronics, clothing, and
other items to voters in tribal areas, in many cases documenting the exchange of ballots for
"prizes" on their own Facebook pages, sometimes even while wearing official Joe Biden campaign
gear.
Simply put, this is illegal. Offering voters anything of value in exchange for their
vote is a violation of
federal election law , and in some cases punishable by up to two years in prison and as
much as $10,000
in fines . That includes raffles, free food, free T-shirts, and so on.
... ... ...
There are about 60,000 eligible Native American voters in Nevada who make up about 3 percent
of the state's total voting population. That's almost twice the current margin of Biden's
current lead over President Trump in Nevada. So the Native American vote really does matter, it
could even be decisive. It therefore matters how many Native American votes were influenced by
an illegal cash-for-votes scheme, especially if funding for it came from American taxpayers via
the NCAI.
It also matters because this didn't just happen in Nevada. Organizers there might have been
more obvious about what they were doing, but there's evidence that similar efforts, including
gift card and electronics giveaways, were undertaken in Native communities in
South Dakota ,
Arizona ,
Wisconsin ,
Washington ,
Michigan ,
Idaho , Minnesota , and Texas .
All of this coordinated illegal activity, clearly designed to churn out votes for Biden and
Democrats in tribal areas all across the country, is completely out in the open. You don't need
special access or some secret source to find out about it. You just have be curious, look
around, and report it.
Unfortunately, mainstream media outlets are not curious and refuse to report on any of this
stuff. What's described above is an egregious and totally transparent vote-buying scheme in
Nevada that was likely undertaken on a similar scale across nearly a dozen other states, but
you won't read about it in The New York Times, or hear about it on CNN.
That's not because the story is unimportant, but because, for the media establishment, it's
inconvenient. No wonder these groups didn't try to hide what they were doing.
Hold on there, Aquamaster. What about this televised shot of votes disappearing from the
Trump Count and being added to the Biden count in Pennsylvania?
Pennsylvania Dominion transfers 20,000 votes from Trump to Biden on live TV.
A recount monitor in
Georgia discovered a
9,626- vote error in the
hand recount in DeKalb County, according to the chairman of the Georgia Republican Party.
"One of our monitors discovered a 9,626-vote error in the DeKalb County hand count . One
batch was labeled 10,707 for Biden and 13 for Trump -- an improbable margin even by DeKalb
standards. The actual count for the batch was 1,081 for Biden and 13 for Trump ," David Shafer
wrote on Twitter on Nov. 18.
" Had this counting error not been discovered, Biden would have gained enough votes from
this one batch alone to cancel out Trump's gains from Fayette, Floyd, and Walton ," Shafer
added, referring to the three Peach State counties which discovered memory cards with uncounted
votes on Monday and Tuesday.
Shafer said that two official counters signed off on the miscounted batch. GOP attorneys
turned over an affidavit ( pdf ) on the
incident to the Georgia secretary of state and requested an investigation.
" We were limited to one monitor for every 10 counting tables and we were kept some distance
from the tables. There is no telling what we missed under these unreasonable restrictions,"
Shafer said.
Fayette, Floyd, and Walton counties discovered uncounted votes on Monday and Tuesday with
each batch favoring President Donald Trump. The discovered votes cut former Vice President Joe
Biden's lead in the state by more than 1,400 votes.
Georgia's deadline to complete the recount is at 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday. The state is
scheduled to vote on whether to certify the results of the 2020 election on Friday.
The recount in progress was initiated by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger based
on a new law that calls for an audit of one race after each election. The Trump campaign has
challenged the recount process, asserting that it is meaningless unless it includes an audit of
the voters' signatures .
The office of the secretary of state did not respond to a request for comment.
Georgia officials are probing the handling of the presidential election in the state's
largest county. Officials are seeing "managerial sloppiness" and "chain of custody" issues in
Fulton County, which has a population of about a million and includes Atlanta, Gabriel Sterling
with the secretary of state's office told reporters on Tuesday.
Raffensperger said Tuesday that an audit of voting machines was completed with no signs of
foul play. Voting systems testing company Pro V&V conducted the audit and "found no
evidence of the machines being tampered."
The Trump campaign has alleged that voting machines and software by Dominion Voting Systems
switched votes from Trump to Biden . Dominion denied the allegations.
The "Secretary of State Project " was an American non-profit, progressive 527
political action committee focused on electing reform-minded progressive Secretaries of State
in battleground states, who typically oversee the election process. The Project was funded by
George Soros and members of the Democracy Alliance.
In 2008, Democrat House Organ Politico
ran a story about the Obama campaign, calling the Secretaries of State the "Democrat
firewall."
In anticipation of a photo-finish presidential election, Democrats have built an
administrative firewall designed to protect their electoral interests in five of the most
important battleground states .
The bulwark consists of control of secretary of state offices in five key states -- Iowa,
Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Ohio -- where the difference between victory and defeat in
the 2004 presidential election was no more than 120,000 votes in any one of them.
With a Democrat now in charge of the offices, which oversee and administer their state's
elections , the party is better positioned than in the previous elections to advance
traditional Democratic interests -- such as increasing voter registration and boosting turnout
-- rather than Republican priorities such as stamping out voter fraud.
Perhaps more important, in those five states Democrats are now in a more advantageous
position when it comes to the interpretation and administration of election law -- a
development that could benefit Barack Obama if any of those states are closely contested on
Election Day.
The effort began in 2006 when a group of liberal California activists created an independent
527 group designed to elect secretaries of state.
The Secretary of State Project ran independent ads of its own and ensured that donors --
many of whom were affiliated with Democracy Alliance , a network of wealthy fundraisers that
channels money to liberal causes across the country -- knew which candidates deserved
donations.
Members of the Democracy Alliance are required to contribute at least $200,000 a year to
groups the Democracy Alliance vets and recommends. As of 2014, the Alliance had helped distribute
approximately $500 million to liberal organizations since its founding in 2005. Members of the
Democracy Alliance include billionaires George Soros and Tom Steyer. In 2017 and 2018 alone,
Democracy Alliance Members spent $600 million on various liberal causes.
The President of Democracy Alliance is Gene LeMarche , a long-time Soros
friend.
Before joining Atlantic in 2007, he served as Vice President and Director of U.S. Programs
for the Open Society Foundations (OSF), launching the organization's pivotal work on challenges
to social justice and democracy in the United States.
Here is a link to the
Board of Democracy Alliance, the Chairman of which, John Stocks, is a Senior Advisor to the
NEA -- the nation's largest union representing 3 million teachers.
The Secretary of State Project is said in some places to have folded, but the goal and efforts
of groups like the Democracy Alliance went on unabated. Note that an early success of the Project
was getting liberal Democrat Mark Ritchie elected as Minnesota Secretary of State in 2006.
Ritchie then used his authority as Secretary of State to keep the vote count open in the
razor-close contest between Norm Coleman and Al Franken in 2008. On November 14, 2008, two weeks
after the election, with all the votes counted Coleman looked to be the winner by 215 votes. A
mandatory hand-recount of all ballots then took place, and with a willing Ritchie overseeing the
effort, canvassing boards in liberal Minnesota decided that nearly 1000 absentee ballots had been
wrongly rejected as part of the initial vote count, and when those ballots were included, Al
Franken, and not Norm Coleman, was certified as the winner by Ritchie.
So let's pause to consider the two individuals who are the Secretaries of State in Michigan
and Pennsylvania.
The Michigan Secretary of State is Jocelyn Benson, a 43-year-old Harvard educated attorney.
Noteworthy is a professional life of liberal and progressive activism on voting rights
issues.
Before going to law school, Benson earned a Master's at Magdalen College, Oxford, in the
United Kingdom, conducting research into the sociological implications of white supremacy and
neo-Nazism. Upon returning to the US, she lived and worked in Montgomery, Alabama, where she
worked for the Southern Poverty Law Center as an investigative journalist, researching white
supremacist and neo-Nazi organizations. She also worked as a summer associate for voting rights
and election law for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
At Harvard Law School she was editor of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law
Review . From 2002–2004, she served as the Voting Rights Policy Coordinator of the
Harvard Civil Rights Project, a non-profit organization that sought to link academic research to
civil rights advocacy efforts.
When elected in 2018, she became the first Democrat to occupy the Secretary of State's Office
in Michigan since 1994.
It was in Detroit where election observers were kept at a distance, and their ability to watch
the vote counting was obscured by paper placed in windows.
The Pennsylvania Secretary of State is Katherine Bookvar -- also elected in 2018.
The press wants Pres. Trump to put his trust in a "free and fair" election in Philadelphia in
the hands of a woman who said the following about him only 6 weeks after he took office in
2017.
I'm guessing there was a bottle of champagne in her office last night waiting for the
"counting" in Philadelphia to finally get to the number needed.
From 2008 to 2011, Boockvar worked for Advancement Project, a non-profit organization focused
on voting rights in Pennsylvania. During her tenure, she worked on voter rights education
campaigns across the state. In March 2018, Boockvar was named Senior Adviser to the Governor on
Election Modernization in the Pennsylvania Department of State by Governor Tom Wolf. She was
appointed Acting Secretary of the Commonwealth on January 5, 2019, and confirmed by the Senate on
November 19, 2019. In August 2019, she was named co-chair of the Elections Committee of the
National Association of Secretaries of State.
Just like with Benson, Boockvar's professional life has not been directed at "free and fair"
elections, but rather elections that draw in the absolute maximum number of votes whether valid
or not.
This is the playbook now for how Democrat political machines will generate vote totals. The
political leadership has no interest in respecting the legitimate right to vote, and they have no
problem with validly cast votes being canceled out by invalidly cast votes.
Standardization and transparency of election practices across all 50 states and the political
subdivisions within each state make vote manipulation more difficult. You will not see any call
for such legislation coming from any Democrat politician over the next four years in the lead-up
to 2024.
Smartmatic electric voting systems was founded by three Venezuelan engineers and
incorporated in Delaware . Smartmatic established its headquarters in Boca Raton,
Florida.
The Miami Herald has reported that the Government of Venezuela may own up to 28% of
Smartmatic, through an acquisition of another company named Bizta, and operated by two of the
same owners of Smartmatic.
Other reports say Bizta has repurchased those shares from Smartmatic. Regardless,
Smartmatic and Bizta partnered with Venezuela telephone giant CANTV to supply Venezuela with
voting machines and software as far back as 2004.
Welcome AMERICA To the Venezuela Election Experience
Wednesday on FNC's "Fox & Friends," White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany sounded off on the 2020 election and President
Donald Trump's
firing
of Director
of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Chris Krebs. Krebs' termination followed the CISA calling the 2020
election the most secure in the nation's history.
McEnany was not sure about Krebs' motivation for calling the election secure, but she highlighted some recounts finding uncounted
ballots in Georgia and allegations of fraud in Michigan, and an attempt to cast thousands of votes for deceased people in
California. She advised that "there are real questions that need to be asked" with all of the uncertainty in the election.
"The president has pointed out that he made an inaccurate statement," McEnany said of Krebs. "He actually made a few if you look
at his Twitter feed. But, look, if you say this was the most secure election in American history, as the president rightly pound
pointed out, that may be true from the standpoint of foreign interference, but there were three tranches of ballots found
uncounted in Georgia, amounting to nearly 6,000 votes, you have 234 pages of sworn affidavits in Michigan in one county alone
alleging egregious misconduct by poll workers pushing back observers and even allegations of fraud in there, we have real
questions in Pennsylvania. So, to say it's the most secure election in American history, it's just not an accurate statement, and
it seems like a partisan attempt to just hit back at the president as he pursues important litigation."
She added, "I don't know if it was a partisan agenda, a personal grievance, what it was, but it definitely seems to be animated
by something. And it seemed to go directly at this president and legitimate claims that he's pursuing in court."
Host Steve Doocy suggested the Department of Homeland Security could not find any wrongdoing.
"Yeah, well, look down in Georgia," McEnany replied. "We have one recount going on right now, just one. There are others that may
or may not happen, but there's one going on, and you've found nearly 6,000 ballots not counted. Just yesterday, we heard about a
California man who planned to cast 8,000 votes in the name of deceased people and others that LA is now looking at. And there's a
good article in the LA Times about that. Maybe he should look around at just public news information that's out there, and he can
find all the evidence he needs. But there are real questions that need to be asked because we need integrity in our election
system."
A Democratic Michigan State Representative-elect doxxed the chairwoman of the Wayne County
Board of Canvassers on a public Zoom meeting on Tuesday, revealing where her children attend
school and claiming that she was enabling racism by refusing to certify the Wayne County
Election.
"You, Ms. Monica Palmer from Grosse Pointe Woods, which has a history of racism, are
deciding to enable and continue to perpetuate the racist history of this country and I want you
to think about what that means for your kids," he said, name-dropping the name of their school
and talking about the impact her decision would have on their black classmates.
Abraham Aiyash, who was the only candidate in Michigan's fourth district, said his district
was being personally attacked by Palmer's refusal to certify the election, and accused her of
suppressing the black vote on purpose.
"You are standing here today, telling folks that black Detroit should not have their votes
counted," he said. "You are certainly showing that you are a racist. You may say that you are
not. You may claim that you are not. But let's be very clear, your words today, and your
actions today made it clear that you are okay with silencing the votes of an 80 percent
African-American city."
Aiyash's public doxxing of Palmer comes after the Wayne County Board of Canvassers voted 2-2
to deny certification of the Nov. 3 election votes after Palmer and the other Republican board
member noted there were ballot discrepancies in Detroit that they refused to ignore. Palmer
said she was open to certifying everywhere but Detroit.
"Palmer and others noted that some precincts in Wayne County were out of balance, meaning
the number of ballots processed were different from the number who signed in,"
the Detroit Free Press reported.
Aiyash, however, did not accept Palmer's skepticism and instead continued to berate her for
being a bigot and partisan.
"Know that we see what's happening now that there is nothing other than Jim Crowing that is
going on right now and recognize the facts," he said.
"The Republican Party's major candidate has sued over 25 times across the country. Know the
facts. You as a board of canvassers do not decide who are who is to be elected the voters to
know the facts," he continued.
Shortly after Aiyash's verbal attack, both Republican board members changed their votes to
certify the election. Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from
Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.
A second memory card with uncounted votes was found during an audit in Fayette County,
Georgia, containing 2,755 votes according to WSBTV' s Justin Gray.
Trump fired Christopher Krebs in a tweet, saying his recent statement defending the security
of the election was "highly inaccurate."
...A former Microsoft executive, Krebs ran the agency, known as CISA, from its creation in
the wake of Russian interference with the 2016 election through the November election.
... CISA works with the state and local officials who run U.S. elections as well as private
companies that supply voting equipment to address cybersecurity and other threats while
monitoring balloting and tabulation from a control room at its headquarters near Washington. It
also works with industry and utilities to protect the nation's industrial base and power grid
from threats.
Project Veritas: Georgia Recount Auditors Call Multiple Ballots For Joe Biden That Were
Actually Marked For President Trump (VIDEO)
https://www.thegatewaypundi...
Four Democrats, including Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobachar, were concerned in Dec 2019 and
PBS were concerned in Oct 2020 about Dominion Votings Systems. Now you don't hear anything from
these Democrats. Sydney Powell says she has a witness who can explain how the Dominion machines
were built to cheat on elections. Chairman of Dominion Systems is on Biden's transition
team.
https://www.thegatewaypundi...
Mich Voter Fraud Witness Melissa Carone tells the Inside Story of Dominion Machines in
Detroit
https://youtu.be/oF12gZ_mkHQ
Mich Voter Fraud Witness Jose Aliaga saw the 4am Biden Ballot Drop!
https://youtu.be/Pmv1DIDQhkI
200 Democrat watchers versus 60 Republican watchers. Democrat watchers didn't have to wear
credentials. Law allows cell phones, but the election wouldn't let them pull out cell phones.
Why? They didn't want fraud to be photographed?
New York Times said that election officials see no fraud. But, FEC Chairman Trey Trainor: "I
Do Believe There Is Fraud in These Places -- If The Law Is Not Followed It Makes This an
Illegitimate Election"
https://www.thegatewaypundi...
Poll Watchers in Wayne County File Lawsuit Alleging Detroit Officials Knowingly Committed
Mass Voter Fraud
https://www.thegatewaypundi...
Detroit City Elections Employee: Workers Coached Voters for Joe Biden, Changed Dates on
Ballots
https://www.breitbart.com/p...
A pile of ballots are found in trash at closed polling station. All of them had votes for
Trump, except for one.
https://rumble.com/vb0erd-w...
Video of vote worker explaining how he separates ballots and when he comes across one for
Trump, he tears it up.
https://youtu.be/eH3cSFki20...
WATCH: RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel Says She Has 500 Sworn Affidavits on 11,000 Incidents of
Voter Fraud
https://www.thegatewaypundi...
"This Felt Like a Drug Deal!" – Asian-American Ballot Observer in Detroit Describes
Mysterious Van Dropping Off 61 Boxes of Ballots at 4 AM (VIDEO)
https://www.thegatewaypundi...
This poll observer worked from 10:00pm to 5:00am and saw 6,000 absentee ballots counted. They
stopped counting before she left. After she left, they counted 100,000 ballots at 6:00am,
eliminating Trump's lead.
Spoiled Bucks County Ballots Found in Trash; Top County Election Official: 'The Judge of
Elections Didn't Do It Correctly;' Pennsylvania Law: Hold Spoiled Ballots for 22 Months
https://www.projectveritas....
Self-Described Dem Party Worker, Detroit Resident, Brags On Facebook: "I work for Wayne Co,
MI and I threw out every Trump ballot I saw. Tens of thousands of them and so did all of my
co-workers"
https://www.thegatewaypundi...
They found out in one county that Dominion ballot counting systems flipped 6,000 votes for
Trump to Biden. Nancy Pelosi's Chief of Staff Is An Executive and Feinstein's Husband a Major
Shareholder at Dominion Ballot Counting Systems
https://www.thegatewaypundi...
Philadelphia GOP Poll Watcher: Election 'Not Fair at All'; 'We Were Kept Away from
Everything'
https://www.breitbart.com/2...
Patty from 100% Fed Up Talks About Her Shocking Experience As a Poll Watcher at Detroit's
TCF Center On Wednesday following the Election
https://www.thegatewaypundi...
Patty, a poll-challenger for 9 years said: Don't believe the media and social media. There is
voter fraud and is always organized by Democrats. She described egregious and rampant voter
fraud, including workers entering 1900 as birthdate for voters, ballots with non-registered
voters, locking GOP poll-challengers out, hiding voter rolls, hiding signatures, 3 out-of-state
cars dropped off ballots in the middle of the night.
Corrupted Software Used in Michigan County that Stole 6,000 Votes from Trump -- Is Also Used
in ALL SWING STATES -- PA, GA, NV, MI, WI, AZ, MN!
https://www.thegatewaypundi...
Nevada GOP Sends Criminal Referral to Justice Department About 'Instances of Voter
Fraud'
https://www.breitbart.com/2...
"Thousands of individuals have been identified who appear to have violated the law by casting
ballots after they moved from NV."
Confessions of a voter fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballots
https://nypost.com/2020/08/...
"A top Democratic operative says voter fraud, especially with mail-in ballots, is no myth. And
he knows this because he's been doing it, on a grand scale, for decades."
WATCH: Ballot Count Watcher Describes At Least 130,000 Ballots ALL FOR BIDEN Arriving in
Three Vehicles in Detroit in Dead of Night
https://www.thegatewaypundi...
"It's about major fraud on a major scale that was very well organized,"
Michigan USPS 'Insider' Delivers Testimony Of 'Shady' Postmark Scheme To Handstamp 'Nov. 3'
On Late Ballots
https://www.projectveritas....
Watch workers put up cardboard to stop you from seeing what they are doing. Watch ballot
observer explain ballots with no names, or people who are born in 1921 and registered in 1900
(before they were born).
https://youtu.be/YcqSTOnLo6...
Court ordered PA election officials to allow Republican observers. But officials still will
not let them, as they continue to count and increase Biden's votes:
https://www.theepochtimes.c...
Search for Philadelphia voter fraud and you will find cases and convictions:
South Philly judge of elections admits he took bribes to stuff the ballot box for Democratic
candidates
https://www.inquirer.com/ne...
Philadelphia's Horrible Record of Democrat Voter Fraud Hits New Low
https://thespectator.info/2...
Indictment of Former Democrat Congressman Widens Voter Fraud Case in Philadelphia
https://www.dailysignal.com...
Massive Vote Fraud Found In Philadelphia -- National Scandal Expands
http://www.capoliticalrevie...
"in New Hampshire, 5,000 residents of Massachusetts voted in the General Election in 2016 in
New Hampshire -- defeating a Republican incumbent"
"Indiana and Virginia are prosecuting massive vote frauds from the 2016 election."
"Now we find hundreds of illegal voters in Philadelphia -- trying to take the State away from
Trump. Voter fraud is easy in most States. In California register your dog online and the dog
gets an absentee ballot."
"The Pennsylvania Department of State has a review underway; but has already reported that,
since 1972, 1,160 voters statewide have requested their registrations be canceled because they
were not citizens. There can be little doubt this is just the tip of the iceberg."
No, voter fraud isn't a myth: 10 cases where it's all too real
https://www.washingtontimes...
"3. Some Pennsylvania citizens voting twice.
4. Illegal voters uncovered in Philadelphia; half had previously voted.
10. Voter registration cards sent to illegals in Pennsylvania."
North Carolina Announced 100% of Precincts Were Reported On Election Night – But Never
Called Trump Win – Now Claim Only 94% of Ballots Counted
https://www.thegatewaypundi...
'I Can't Believe What I'm Seeing – This is a Coup' – Registered Democrat and
Poll Watcher Details Corruption at Philly Vote Counting Center (VIDEO)
https://www.thegatewaypundi...
Fmr NV AG Laxalt: 'No Question' Trump Would Have Won Nevada 'Convincingly' Without Mail-in
Voting
https://www.breitbart.com/c...
" we are still not allowed to watch the signature-matching. We are not allowed to challenge any
of those signatures. So, they switch us to this new system, and they give us no right to be
sure that only legal voters count. As America knows, those that stayed up like me all night --
they dumped these at 3 a.m. They counted through the middle of the night."
"400,000 votes were cast last night, and there was no observation, no transparency. And you
know, we're supposed to just trust but not be able to verify."
"We also know there are likely to be dead voters. There are likely to be people that have moved
out of Las Vegas but found their ballots were still cast. So we're looking into all of this,
but it's just astounding when you watch the news commentary last night about this. They keep
acting these systems are foolproof, and there's no way that any improper voter can get through.
And it is just simply not true.""
Rudy Giuliani: With mail-in ballots, both parties are supposed to be able to observe the
ballots. Republicans were not allowed:
https://youtu.be/tIs4y4ryDJ0
WATCH: Suitcases and Coolers Rolled Into Detroit Voting Center at 4 AM, Brought Into Secure
Counting Area
https://www.thegatewaypundi...
Michigan County Clerk Discovers Total Votes Counted by "Election Software" DID NOT MATCH
Printed Tabulator Tapes!
https://www.thegatewaypundi...
Detroit Precinct Chair Says Voting Irregularities, Poor Training
https://www.thegatewaypundi...
"We were instructed not to accept ballots that were not specifically marked as received, but I
saw it happen," Kingen said. "I called the hotline they provided to us for problems, and the
people there didn't know what to do. These people were claiming they never received their live
ballots, but they could have just been lying and turned them in later, it's not possible for us
to check those things at the polling places."
Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar Denied Entry Into Maricopa County Elections Center as Ballots Are
Counted
https://www.thegatewaypundi...
What is Going On? Minnesota and Wisconsin BOTH had 89%-90% Turnout -- Something That Is
Highly Unlikely
https://www.thegatewaypundi...
"Democrat Charged In Voter Fraud Scandal Proving Trump Right, Mail In Voting Is A
Disaster"
https://youtu.be/uUwikbIaEMg
"Democrats Are Destroying Our Election On PURPOSE, Leftists Sending Out BUNK Mail In Voter
Forms"
https://youtu.be/JaRdon4bfpU
"Democratic City SLAMMED By Mail in Voter Fraud Charges, Experts Scared This Proves Trump
RIGHT"
https://youtu.be/LXZLhxEVJic
"Ilhan Omar Connected Cash-For-Ballots Voter Fraud Scheme Corrupts Elections: 'These Here
Are All Absentee Ballots...Look...My Car Is Full..." 'Money Is The King Of Everything'"
https://www.projectveritas....
"HIDDEN CAMERA: NYC Democratic Election Commissioner "I Think There Is A lot of Voter
Fraud""
https://www.projectveritas....
"there's thousands of absentee ballots [fraud]"
De Blasio gave out ID cards but didn't vet the people to see who they are.
Texas 'Ballot Chaser' Pressures Voter to Change Vote from Cornyn to Hegar: 'That's My Job'
'I Can Honestly Say I'm Bringing at Least 7,000 Votes to The Polls' Said Garza Gave Her $2,500
Gift Budget
https://www.projectveritas....
'Ballot Chaser' Raquel Rodriguez Boasts Judges, Legislators 'In My Pocket' 'I'm Getting the
Biden Vote Out, But I Mean, I'm Not Going To Do It For Free'
https://www.projectveritas....
Election fraud in the 2020 presidential race on a national scale? We've compiled a litany of
facts and data here so that you can decide for yourself.
Below we explore the details and the data of what happened across the nation on Election
Day, with flagrant and often sloppy irregularities occurring from coast to coast. Elsewhere we
explore similar efforts in the key swing states of Pennsylvania ,
Wisconsin , Michigan , and
Georgia
The General
Landscape of American Election Fraud
The media is trying to weave a narrative with ever-shifting goalposts. They began by saying
that not only did voter fraud not happen, but that it's impossible. Now, they have shifted
their story to saying that there is always minor fraud, but that it never really matters
much.
Another narrative in the controlled media is that illegal aliens and other non-citizens
don't vote. This is patently untrue. In fact, they vote at alarmingly high rates. A 2019 study
found that approximately 2.2 percent of respondents admitted to voting illegally, which implies
a little under a million ballots
cast by non-citizens every year .
The counterargument is that respondents are either lying or misunderstood the question, but
this is simply not true -- those who conducted the study
verified their votes .
So we can see that electoral fraud is not only impossible, it is common. It is not
negligible, it has determined elections in living memory. With this as our backdrop, we will
now investigate voter irregularities throughout the nation during the 2020 Presidential
election.
Before going further, it is worth discussing what constitutes evidence for electoral fraud.
Well, the Carter Center has a set of standards that they use to determine
whether or not there has been electoral fraud somewhere.
These are the standards used by globalists to determine whether or not elections they
disapprove of have been conducted fraudulently. Several of them are present in the contested
states:
Counting procedures should be verifiable.
Votes should be presented for independent review.
Elections should be subject to recounts.
Additionally, the Carter Center states that it is the right of dissidents to challenge and
question the results of an election that they believe to be fraudulent. Harassing dissidents is
considered evidence of chicanery in and of itself.
"Effective redress" is the term they use and it is considered by the Carter Center to be
vital for establishing an election as legitimate. The resistance of the Democratic Party to
recounts and audits should be a red flag in and of itself.
There are also mathematical anomalies that are worth looking into because, regardless of
turnout and outcome, elections will follow certain patterns. One of these is that, because of
mail sorting, mail-in ballots will consistently show the same ratio of support for each
candidate.
We did not see that, however -- there is a significant spike in support for Biden and fall
off in support for President Trump as Election Night dragged on.
Indeed, in Wisconsin, this anomaly became massive around 4 a.m., the same time that the
massive ballot drops without supervision began. The same phenomenon occurred in Pennsylvania,
Michigan and Georgia, all four of these states with copious amounts of electoral chicanery and
irregularity. Virginia was another state with similar mathematical irregularities.
Benford's Law is
another area where we see mathematical irregularities. Put simply: When we have large datasets
of numbers, there is a pattern we can find with regard to the final and penultimate digit of
each number in this data set.
Benford's Law analysis is one of the first things run by forensic accountants looking for
financial malfeasance or tax cheating.
Many of the electoral tallies in disputed states violate Benford's Law -- but only for Joe
Biden , whose distribution more closely resembles the curve when people type "random"
numbers in. President Trump, Jo Jorgensen, Howie Hawkins, and Kanye West's numbers do not
violate this law, but former Vice President Biden's do in disputed areas.
One recurring theme throughout the 2020 election is the glitch. There have been a number of
glitches, many detailed in our series on irregularities in different states. This, in and of
itself might not be cause for concern -- however, in every case, these so-called "software
glitches" favor former Vice President Biden at the expense of President Donald Trump.
Again, we have detailed these in our state series article, but we will mention some here
just to give you a general idea of what has been going on with these "glitches."
One in Michigan sent 6,000 votes to Biden
that were meant for Donald Trump. Another in Wisconsin, robbed Donald Trump of
19,500 votes . Another similar glitch in
Georgia saw an unspecified number of votes go to Biden that were, once again, meant for the
President.
There appears to be a pattern here. Were these all bona fide mistakes, we would likely find
votes that were meant to go for Joe Biden going to Donald Trump before the situation was
corrected. But we are unaware of any such error in favor of the President.
The common denominator? The voting software used to calculate the vote made by a company
with deep connections to the DNC.
The Turnout That Wasn't
The DNC's victory in the 2020 Presidential election relies heavily upon a massively
increased turnout, again centered around a handful of large cities controlled by the Democratic
Party. One example of this is 90 percent turnout in the entire State of Wisconsin , which
would not only be the highest level of turnout in American history, but also comes close to the
92 percent average in Australia where voting is mandatory. In the city of Milwaukee alone, the
turnout was 84 percent.
Compare this turnout to Cleveland, a culturally comparable city not in a swing state, which
had a comparatively scant 51 percent turnout. This is an important city to draw a contrast with
because, while it is a Democratic stronghold, as are most large cities, and it has a similar
minority population, it was not in a state that was considered in play this election. Democrats
attempted to steal the election by fabricating astronomical turnout in urban areas they control
in swing states.
The turnout gambit becomes even more laughable when one considers that Biden is one of the
least invigorating Democratic candidates since John Kerry or Mike Dukakis. Yet somehow this
candidate was able to increase his vote above what Barack Obama enjoyed, with some districts in
Milwaukee putting up
more votes than there are registered voters in the area .
A broad study conducted by Judicial
Watch found that 353 counties across 29 states had turnout exceeding 100 percent of
registered voters. Eight of these had turnout exceeding 100 percent across the entire state:
Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
Perhaps more damning, the study was limited to 37 states publishing their voter registration
data. This means that, of the 37 states that Judicial Watch had access to, 78 percent of them
had turnout exceeding 100 percent.
Vetting of Mail-In Ballots
The American public was warned for months in advance that mail-in balloting, illegal
throughout most of Europe, is inherently insecure and lends itself to the kind of mass voter
fraud that we are seeing in action right now.
But the mail-in ballots that we are seeing in this election are not just nonspecifically
"suspect." They are rife with irregularities and a lack of accountability that should cause
them to be closely investigated, audited and, where appropriate, thrown out entirely.
Mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania are particularly questionable. This is a state where Biden
enjoyed a
60.5 percent lead in mail-in voting . More damning is the fact that many of these ballots
seem to have arrived before they were even sent, arrived the same day or arrived within one day
of being sent. This is an abnormal amount of processing time, especially when we consider the
surge in mail due to the election.
Vetting of mail-in ballots is particularly important because they are widely open to
electoral fraud, as we have discussed above. So it is troubling that we have multiple reports,
including in the form of
sworn affidavits presented before the court, of poll watchers being thrown out, mocked,
intimidated and even physically assaulted during the course of counting mail-in ballots.
Of special note is the strong resistance to poll workers in swing states to allow anyone to
watch them. In Pennsylvania, poll workers were caught on video
expelling poll watchers despite knowledge of a court order preventing them from doing so.
Reports of expelled poll watchers were part of the lawsuit filed in Michigan and there were
similar reports out of
Georgia . This raises the obvious question -- why don't they want anyone watching
them?
Biden Outperformed Obama
Biden's turnout when compared with Barack Obama is another area warranting special
investigation. It is worth noting that Biden was generally viewed as a less-than-ideal
candidate in no small part because he generated very little enthusiasm among Democratic Party
voters. In contrast, Obama was a rock star candidate who had just defeated the party's
presumptive nominee in a hard-fought primary. Biden, on the other hand, was largely foisted on
the party through back room deals in an attempt to prevent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders from
obtaining the nomination for President.
Biden also barely campaigned throughout the primary season. Most of the campaign was
characterized by the candidate calling "lids," a term meaning that he was home for the day and
would be doing no more press, with the occasional teleconference. Not only did he start with an
unethusiastic base who would have preferred nearly anyone else, he did little to motivate his
base throughout the course of the election.
Yet somehow, he outperformed Hillary Clinton who won a hard-fought
primary against Senator Sanders and kept pace with numbers from Barack Obama's 2008
and 2012 campaigns, being able
to boast that he has received more votes than any other candidate for President in American
history . In some cases -- tellingly in areas crucial for winning the election -- Biden was
able to outperform Barack Obama .
For example, in Chester, Cumberland, and Montgomery Counties in Pennsylvania, he
outperformed Obama by approximately 25
percent . In Montgomery County, he was able to double Barack Obama's margin of victory. He
increased the raw vote total there by fully 80,000 votes. The population of this county only
increased by 22,000 in the years between Obama's victory and Biden's alleged one.
Not only should we be skeptical of the numbers, we should be skeptical of them because of
where they came in from. Such dubious numbers were not coming in from places that we could
assume were Democratic Party strongholds like New York, Chicago and
Miami where Biden actually saw a decrease in voters relative to Hillary Clinton. So why is
he putting up these high totals only in a handful of cities (Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee,
Philadelphia) controlled by Democrats in swing states?
Biden-Only Ballots
Another area of suspicion are the Biden-only ballots. Tens or hundreds of thousands of
voters marked their ballots only for Joe Biden, with presumably
no interest in down ballot races . While it's not unusual for people to take an outsized
interest in the Presidential election, it is unusual for 450,000 people to have no interest in
down ballot races and for this to be concentrated in a handful of swing states.
Biden, on the other hand, received over 95,000 more votes than either Senate candidate on
the ballot in Georgia. In Wyoming there were a mere 725 more votes for Biden than the
Democratic Senate candidate in the state.
Raheem
Kassam reports on five states with anomalous Biden-only voting, all of which keep coming up
with various irregularities: Pennsylvania (98,000), Georgia (80-90,000), Arizona (42,000),
Michigan (69-115,000) and Wisconsin (62,836).
All told, Republicans won
28 out of 29 competitive House races as of November 8 and flipped three state legislatures,
but were somehow unable to deliver the White House to the President. So we are expected to
believe that not only did Joe Biden receive more votes than Barack Obama and that these came
largely on the back of massive inner-city turnout, but that this massive turnout for Joe Biden
was unable
to flip a single state legislature .
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Biden-only ballots are a recurring theme in all of the states in question. While they are by
no means a smoking gun, they do point toward significant irregularities that need to be
investigated before Joe Biden can begin claiming victory.
Who Counts the Votes?
Irregularities In Counting Systems
There is a quote often attributed to Joseph Stalin, but is
probably apocryphal : It doesn't who votes, it matters who counts the votes. It doesn't
really matter who, if anyone, actually said this. The point is that it doesn't matter what
votes actually say if the votes are ignored or altered by the person doing the counting.
In the 21st Century most of our vote counting is done by machines which use proprietary
software. Most states used systems supplied by Dominion Voting Systems. What's more, the
irregularities in vote counting, in particular the "glitches" that universally favor Joe Biden,
come from these voting systems.
First, we should note that there were 92 donations made by Dominion employees over the last
year
according to the FEC . Of these, 80 went to Democratic super PAC ActBlue, seven went to
Senator Bernie Sanders, four to the Trump campaign and one went to the DNC. What's more,
Dominion Voting Systems has a partnership with the Clinton Global Initiative as well as former
employees of the Clinton Growth Initiative on staff, according to One America News Network .
Rudy Giuliani claims that the legal campaign to protect the election has whistleblowers from
Dominion ready to go on record.
A bit in the weeds, but worth mentioning, is the allegation that intelligence software was
used to change vote counts. There is a video on this subject here . As we say, this is a bit in the
weeds, but worth mentioning for those who wish to go down that rabbit hole.
NOQ Report has been kind enough to do a
deep dive on the topic of Dominion's role in the 2020 Presidential election. They found
significant vote switching in Georgia (17,407, where Biden leads with 14,148 votes) and
Pennsylvania (with over one million votes switched in favor of Joe Biden). The article is
mostly just a list of switched votes and lost votes, but it bears reading because it sheds
light on just how massive a role vote switching played in the 2020 election, further cementing
the theory that Dominion played a role in the theft.
Fight Back to Save America
Don't let any of this get you down, because the fight is far from over. Both President Trump
and Congressional Republicans are working hard, both in the public sphere and in the courts to
make sure that the 2020 election is fair and transparent.
So what can you do to join in the fight?
First, you should call your elected representatives. That means calling your state rep, your
state senator, your House Rep and your U.S. Senator. You should do this be they friend or foe
-- either way, they need to know that you insist on having all legal votes counted. Insist on
concrete steps to ensure the integrity of the vote. Do not settle for stock answers about the
importance of democracy. A Twitter account has made what is actually a very good script for you to
follow when you call in. Be firm, but polite.
If you want to take to the streets, there are opportunities. Stop The Steal is the movement dedicated to putting bodies in
the streets of our nation's state capitals to let our elected officials know that we are not
going to stand for seeing our elections stolen in a manner befitting Zimbabwe. There are almost
daily rallies at the state capitol building and the TFC Center in Detroit. What's more, a
nationwide rally in DC called the Million MAGA March is scheduled for November 14. The
Democratic government of Washington, DC has responded with
new COVID restrictions designed to cripple the march.
What can you do? Quite a lot. Nothing less than the future of the country is at stake. If
they can steal this election, don't expect another one to be free and fair. But do expect a lot
of gun grabs and speech laws.
ammodotcom you are doing a great job covering this fraud as a ZH contributor. www.globalintelhub.com
Handful of Dust , 5 hours ago
Lots of filings will be available today 9Tuesday) only for every to read the detailed
evidence. Bannon on his show and several others will review these filings.
Lin Wood's filings in Georgia federal court and Sydney Powell's filings in Pennsylvania
federal court will also be available today or tomorrow.
Court orders will have to be issued since the Democrats counting the ballots are ignoring
the State court order to allow observers watch the count and check the ballots. Remember,
most of these judges at State court levels in these Demorat states are democrat partisans,
NOT unbiased judges.
bahian , 5 hours ago
After being surprised in 2016 you can be sure the Dem. machines were leaving nothing to
chance in 2020. Eric Coomer is Dominion's Director of Strategy and Security : "Oltmann
explained that "Eric" was telling the Antifa members they needed to "keep up the pressure."
When one of the caller's asked, "Who's Eric?" someone answered, "Eric, he's the Dominion
guy." Oltmann said that as the conversation continued, someone asked, "What are we gonna do
if F*cking Trump wins?" Oltmann paraphrased how Eric (the Dominion guy) responded, "Don't
worry about the election, Trump's not gonna win. I made f*cking sure of that!" "
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/report-anti-trump-dominion-voting-systems-security-chief-participating-antifa-calls-posted-antifa-manifesto-letter-trump-online/
dbsbunker , 1 hour ago
Apparently missing from the GA recount is a a double-check of the counting numbers. What
if, as was alleged, some Trump ballots were counted as going for Biden?
All ballots should be counted twice, by a different team. If the numbers don't come up
exactly the same, someone lied.
koan , 2 hours ago
Rudy Giuliani claims that the legal campaign to protect the election has whistleblowers from
Dominion ready to go on record.
Ready to go on record, but not on record...
CondZero , 4 hours ago
It would not be a stretch to suggest that when voting tabulation stopped in the
Democratically controlled precincts, that voter registration rolls could be culled for people
that didn't vote and these non-votes were manually or electronically cast for Biden in the
wee hours, unsupervised, unregulated, nevermind switching Trump votes for Biden. If your a
Dem you love this kind of nonsense because it favors your candidate. Unfortunately, this
election is so mired in doubt, hardly any sane person can recognize it as fair and
impartial.
Thought.Adjuster , 3 hours ago
If your a Dem you love this kind of nonsense because it favors your candidate.
The End justifies the Means.
LogicFusion , 1 hour ago
At least analysis and breakdown, true knowlege. Thanks.
In contrast, here is how our convicted felon and hindsight forecaster Martin Armstrong
predicted a Trump victory. The prediction failed, but he still claims success and sells
useless books and reports as described in ArmstrongEconomics
- The Scam Business Model Exposé
uh so it's the computer doesn't ask my opinion or anybody else's it just goes on the
numbers from the economic data and it's never been wrong
He claims that the vote count fraud involves up to 38 million votes. Commenters of the
video point this out here that his numbers are wrong by a whopping 1000%.:
In comments, Armstrong is NOT represented directly by any YouTube user. Only by his sock
puppet fake accounts who claim to be super satisfied users while at the same time advertising
his services.
We know that Martin Armstrong's videos are giant sock puppet shows after simply analyzing
the messages - and we get to know the sock puppets!
So after the error is first pointed out by a real viewer
Martin Armstrong is incorrect on 38 million votes stolen from President Trump. Actually, it
is 3.8 million instead. Go to his website and look at the article which states 38 million.
Inside the article, click on the blue highlighted "38 million votes" and you will be
directed to the original article which states 3.8 million votes. Still, 3.8 million is a
lot of votes.
One day later, Martin Armstrong via shill account still in denial / damage control:
Correction: Martin Armstrong mistakenly said as much as "38 million votes" were fraudulent
of stolen. Armstrong meant to say as much as 3.8 million.
The video has 1,242 Comments as I write this. He needs a very high sock puppet activity to
be effectively showing vibrant client interest and cult member activity. How does it work?
With two different type of shill accounts. Individual as described and borrowed ones. I guess
he uses borrowed accounts in bulk for 50 cents a message as covered in
If you remove debt, there's no money. Money is debt. Deficits will never be paid back,
precisely why Armstrong correctly illustrates that sovereign debt be converted into
perpetual bonds that pay just 3%.
Socrates is not a fantasy. It monitors more than 1,000 global markets on a daily basis.
It's likely the only true Artificial Intelligence platform in existence. There's no bias in
its coding.
Have followed him for over 10+ years. He used to be more cryptic. I believe he understands
the seriousness of what we are up against right now and is so much more open and detailed
now - which I appreciate!
He spent 11 years in prison because the government wanted the source code to Socrates and
he wouldn't give it to them. They also framed him for this bogus charge (read the story on
one of his blogs). They even tried to get someone to kill him when they held him in jail
and he was in a coma for awhile and almost died. Like most people, if the MSM gives you the
story, you believe it. Please research yourself.
I haven't had the time for now to print the messages of the borrowed accounts which are
used to convey on-way messages that cannot be responded to. The number is much higher.
A slight majority of Republicans believe that President Trump "rightfully won" the
presidential election two weeks ago, a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released Wednesday found.
The survey,
taken November 13-17 among 1,346 U.S. respondents, found 73 percent expressing the belief
that Joe Biden (D) won the election, compared to five percent who chose Trump. However, 53
percent of Republicans, specifically, believe Trump "rightfully won," while less than a third,
29 percent, said the same for the former vice president:
According to Reuters, an even greater majority of Republicans expressed concern that the
election was, in fact, "rigged":
Asked why, Republicans were much more concerned than others that state vote counters had
tipped the result toward Biden: 68% of Republicans said they were concerned that the election
was "rigged," while only 16% of Democrats and one-third of independents were similarly
worried.
Social media censorship of anything that questions party line.
Protests are met with police oppression.
We are told when & where we can go & how many we can see.
Plans to prove health & vaccine status.
A reset no one voted for.
Is this enough for everyone to say NO? #NoGreatReset
Olde, sadly it probably exceeds 52% bc we know some rightwing dishonesty to pollsters is
still a big prob that needs fixing!! For how to correct these 52+ %, my idea is online training
for a few things like mask use obs, and a sensitivity/civilty course, and also training could
cover how elections are secure and legit. It wouldn't be totally mandatory, but anyone passing
the quiz after it could receive rewards, maybe corporations would donate stuff?? And or maybe
anyone whose social media accounts were suspended could have them restored provisionally???!?
We need to unify the country somehow!!
This election has ripped the band-aid off the ridiculous claims from the Left that voting
fraud is non-existent. Quote Tweet Heather Mullins - Real America's Voice (RAV-TV) @TalkMullins
· 4h BREAKING! Floyd County, GA: Nearly 2600 votes discovered in hand count that weren't
counted on election night. Most for Trump.
Election officials are working with Dominion Voting
Systems to determine what happened.
@GaSecofState is sending an investigator tomorrow.
Something fishy here. Usually voting machines are a CIA/NSA home playing field. Why Chavez wanted to play on other side field,
wher he has huge disadvanrtage, in not very clear.
Another interesting question is why poor countries buy this expensive crap. Why they need voting machines at all?
Notable quotes:
"... "I was witness to the creation and operation of a sophisticated electronic voting system that permitted the leaders of the Venezuelan government to manipulate the tabulation of votes for national and local elections and select the winner of those elections in order to gain and maintain their power," the affidavit states. ..."
WASHINGTON -- Trump campaign lawyer and former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell released an
affidavit on Nov. 16, from an alleged whistleblower who claims to have witnessed how election
software secretly manipulates votes without leaving a trace.
The whistleblower -- who says his or her background is with the Venezuelan military,
including the national security guard detail of the Venezuelan president -- outlines an alleged
conspiracy between Smartmatic software executives, former Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, and
that country's election officials, to ensure Chavez won reelections and retained power for
years. The whistleblower said he was present at multiple meetings.
The Epoch Times was not able to independently verify the claims.
"I was witness to the creation and operation of a sophisticated electronic voting system
that permitted the leaders of the Venezuelan government to manipulate the tabulation of votes
for national and local elections and select the winner of those elections in order to gain and
maintain their power," the affidavit states.
"From that point on, Chavez never lost any election. In fact, he was able to ensure wins for
himself, his party, Congress persons and mayors from townships."
The whistleblower claimed the "software and fundamental design of the electronic electoral
system and software of Dominion and other election tabulating companies relies upon software
that is a descendant of the Smartmatic Electoral Management System."
"In short, the Smartmatic software is in the DNA of every vote tabulating company's software
and system, "the whistleblower said.
The affidavit alleges that Dominion is one of three major companies that tabulates votes in
the United States. Powell said in
a Nov. 15 interview, "We're getting ready to overturn election results in multiple states." She
claimed that the U.S. election software switched "millions of votes" from Trump to Biden.
The whistleblower claims that Smartmatic created a system that anonymized the voters'
choices inside the machine and then spat out the desired outcome by the end of the election
day. No vote could be traced back to an individual voter.
In the April 2013 Venezuelan election, the affidavit states, the conspirators had to take
the internet down for two hours to reset the machines, as Nicolás Maduro was losing by
too many votes to Henrique Capriles Radonski.
The whistleblower alleged that Chavez eventually exported the software to Bolivia,
Nicaragua, Argentina, Ecuador, and Chile.
A Dominion Voting Systems
spokesperson said on Nov. 12 that the company "categorically denies any claims about any
vote switching or alleged software issues with our voting systems."
"Our systems continue to reliably and accurately count ballots, and state and local election
authorities have publicly confirmed the integrity of the process," the spokesperson said in a
statement to the Denver
Post .
This article and headline was revised at 10 p.m. on Nov. 16 to remove a section pending
further verification.
@themarketswork 3)
What the agency failed to disclose, however, is that Dominion Voting Systems, along with
Smartmatic, is a member of CISA's Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council - one
of the two entities that authored the statement put out by CISA.
8) On Nov. 13, Dominion sent us an email titled "SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT" which cited the
joint statement published by GCC and SCC. Dominion cited the CISA statement as exoneration
but failed to disclose that the statement was written by a Council of which it was part.
9) Additionally, while it remains unclear whether CISA and the GCC/SCC have evaluated
concerns raised in the Georgia lawsuit, their public statements categorically deny any
problems with the systems. 5 320 1K
10) On Oct 11, Judge Totenberg wrote that the case presented "serious system security
vulnerability and operational issues that may place Plaintiffs and other voters at risk of
deprivation of their fundamental right to cast an effective vote that is accurately counted."
11 493 1.3K
Pre-Election Concerns Over Dominion Voting Systems Highlighted in Georgia Lawsuit
Cyber security expert raised concerns over integrity of system, including external
vulnerabilities, in sworn statement BY JEFF CARLSON November 12, 2020 Updated:
November 12, 2020 Print
Software and equipment from Dominion Voting Systems, used in this month's presidential
election, has been the source of ongoing controversy, with one legal declaration made by a poll
observer of Georgia 's
statewide primary earlier this year highlighting multiple problems.
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced the state's purchase of a
$106 million election system from Dominion Voting Systems in July 2019. In a lawsuit, which
originated in
2017, critics
contend that the new system was subject to many of the same security vulnerabilities as the
one it was replacing.
In an Oct. 11 order ,
just weeks prior to the presidential election, U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg agreed with
the concerns associated with the new Dominion voting system, writing that
the case presented "serious system security vulnerability and operational issues that may place
Plaintiffs and other voters at risk of deprivation of their fundamental right to cast an
effective vote that is accurately counted."
"The Court's Order has delved deep into the true risks posed by the new BMD voting system as
well as its manner of implementation. These risks are neither hypothetical nor remote under the
current circumstances," Judge Totenberg wrote in her order.
Despite the court's misgivings, Totenberg ruled against replacing the Dominion system right
before the presidential election, noting that
"Implementation of such a sudden systemic change under these circumstances cannot but cause
voter confusion and some real measure of electoral disruption."
Concerns Over Election
Systems
In an Aug. 24 declaration
from Harri Hursti, an acknowledged expert on electronic voting
security , provided a first-hand description of problems he observed during the June 9
statewide primary election in Georgia and the runoff elections on Aug. 11.
Hursti had been "authorized as an expert inspecting and observing under the Coalition for
Good Governance's Rule 34 Inspection request in certain polling places and the Fulton County
Election Preparation Center."
Hursti summarized his findings as follows:
"The scanner and tabulation software settings being employed to determine which votes to
count on hand marked paper ballots are likely causing clearly intentioned votes not to be
counted"
"The voting system is being operated in Fulton County in a manner that escalates the
security risk to an extreme level."
"Voters are not reviewing their BMD [Ballot Marking Devices] printed ballots, which
causes BMD generated results to be un-auditable due to the untrustworthy audit trail."
During observation at Peachtree Christian Church in Atlanta, Georgia, Hursti noted that the
"scanner would vary in the amount of time that it took to accept or reject a ballot."
Hursti stated that a dedicated system should not experience variable delays and noted that
"we are always suspicious about any unexpected variable delays, as those are common telltale
signs of many issues, including a possibility of unauthorized code being executed."
Hursti observed varying processing times at different locations, further raising concerns as
identical physical devices "should not behave differently while performing the identical task
of scanning a ballot."
Hursti stated in his sworn statement that his presence was requested by two poll watchers at
the Fanplex polling location who were observing certain unexplained anomalies. Upon arriving,
Hursti observed that for "reasons unknown, on multiple machines, while voters were attempting
to vote, the ballot marking devices sometimes printed 'test' ballots."
As Hursti noted, "during the election day, the ballot marking device should not be
processing or printing any ballot other than the one the voter is voting." Hursti stated that
this was indicative of a "wrong configuration" given to the Ballot Marking Device.
The issue also raised other questions in his mind:
"Why didn't the device print only test ballots?"
"How can the device change its behavior in the middle of the election day?"
"Is the incorrect configuration originating from the Electronic Pollbook System?"
"What are the implications for the reliability of the printed ballot and the QR code
being counted?"
Wholesale Outsourcing of Operation
During the runoff elections, on the night of Aug. 11, 2020, Hursti was present at the Fulton
County Election Preparation Center to observe the "upload of the memory devices coming in from
the precincts to the Dominion Election Management System [EMS] server." During this
observation, Hursti noted that "system problems were recurring and the Dominion technicians
operating the system were struggling with the upload process."
Hursti also noted that it appeared that Dominion personnel were the only ones with knowledge
of, and access to, the Dominion server. As Hursti stated in his declaration, "In my
conversations with Derrick Gilstrap and other Fulton County Elections Department EPC personnel,
they professed to have limited knowledge of or control over the EMS server and its
operations."
Hursti noted that this wholesale outsourcing of the operation of voting equipment to the
vendor's personnel was "highly unusual in my experience and of grave concern from a security
and conflict of interest perspective." Hursti referred to Dominion's onsite operation and
access as "an elevated risk factor."
Hursti also noted that the Dell computers running the Dominion server appeared not to have
been "hardened" -- the process of "securing a system by reducing its surface of vulnerability."
Hursti said that he found it "unacceptable for an EMS server not to have been hardened prior to
installation."
A 'Major Deficiency'
In addition to the hardening problems, Hursti observed that computers used in Georgia's
system for vote processing appeared to have "home/small business companion software packages"
on them. This raised areas of significant concern for Hursti as he noted:
"[O]ne of the first procedures of hardening is removal of all unwanted software, and removal
of those game icons and the associated games and installers alongside with all other software
which is not absolutely needed in the computer for election processing purposes would be one of
the first and most basic steps in the hardening process. In my professional opinion,
independent inquiry should be promptly made of all 159 counties to determine if the Dominion
systems statewide share this major deficiency."
In addition to the software packages noted above, Hursti discovered that one of the
computers had an icon for a 2017 computer game called "Homescapes" which Hursti noted called
into question whether "all Georgia Dominion system computers have the same operating system
version, or how the game has come to be having a presence in Fulton's Dominion voting
system."
Hursti also found a troubling blend of old and new equipment which carried additional
security risks due to a lack of patch updates:
"Although this Dominion voting system is new to Georgia, the Windows 10 operating system of
at least the 'main' computer in the rack has not been updated for 4 years and carries a wide
range of well-known and publicly disclosed vulnerabilities."
Hursti noted that the lack of "hardening" created security risks even for computers that
were not connected to the internet. He observed that when flash drives were connected to the
server, the "media was automounted by the operating system. When the operating system is
automounting a storage media, the operating system starts automatically to interact with the
device."
Hursti noted that the management of Fulton County's EMS server appeared to be an "ad hoc
operation with no formalized process." This seemed particularly apparent in relation to the
process of storage media coming in from various precincts throughout the night:
"This kind of operation i[s] naturally prone to human errors. I observed personnel calling
on the floor asking if all vote carrying compact flash cards had been delivered from the early
voting machines for processing, followed by later finding additional cards which had been
overlooked in apparent human error. Later, I heard again one technician calling on the floor
asking if all vote carrying compact flashes had been delivered. This clearly demonstrates lack
of inventory management which should be in place to ensure, among other things, that no rogue
storage devices would be inserted into the computer. In response, 3 more compact flash cards
were hand-delivered. Less than 5 minutes later, I heard one of the county workers say that
additional card was found and was delivered for processing. All these devices were trusted by
printed label only and no comparison to an inventory list of any kind was performed."
Hursti also observed that "operations were repeatedly performed directly on the operating
system." The election software has no visibility into the operations of the operating system,
which creates additional auditing problems, and as Hursti noted, "Unless the system is
configured properly to collect file system auditing data is not complete. As the system appears
not to be hardened, it is unlikely that the operating system has been configured to collect
auditing data."
Raising even greater concerns was the apparent "complete access" that Dominion personnel
appeared to have into the computer system. Hursti observed Dominion technicians troubleshooting
error messages with a "trial-and-error" approach which included access into the "Computer
Management" application, indicating complete access in Hursti's opinion.
As he stated in his declaration, "This means there are no meaningful access separation and
privileges and roles controls protecting the county's primary election servers. This also
greatly amplifies the risk of catastrophic human error and malicious program execution."
During these attempts to resolve the various issues that were occurring in real-time, Hursti
noted that it appeared as though Dominion staff shifted from on-site attempts at remediation to
off-site troubleshooting:
"The Dominion staff member walked behind the server rack and made manual manipulations which
could not be observed from my vantage point. After that they moved with their personal laptops
to a table physically farther away from the election system and stopped trying different ways
to work around the issue in front of the server, and no longer talked continuously with their
remote help over phone.
In the follow-up-calls I overheard them ask people on the other end of the call to check
different things, and they only went to a computer and appeared to test something and
subsequently take a picture of the computer screen with a mobile phone and apparently send it
to a remote location."
Hursti stated that this "created a strong mental impression that the troubleshooting effort
was being done remotely over remote access to key parts of the system."
Hursti also noted that a "new wireless access point with a hidden SSID access point name
appeared in the active Wi-Fi stations list" that he was monitoring.
All of this raised material alarms for Hursti, who noted that "If in fact remote access was
arranged and granted to the server, this has gravely serious implications for the security of
the new Dominion system. Remote access, regardless how it is protected and organized is always
a security risk, but furthermore it is transfer of control out of the physical perimeters and
deny any ability to observe the activities."
Recount
On Nov. 11, 2020, Georgia's Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger
announced that there will be a full recount and audit of all ballots cast in the
presidential election.
"With the margin being so close, it will require a full, by-hand recount in each county.
This will help build confidence. It will be an audit, a recount and a recanvass all at once,"
Raffensperger said.
Dominion Voting Systems did not respond to a request for comment.
The Democrats are either cheating or powers above them are cheating on their behalf.
Either way, the election is in the process of being stolen if we're to believe Lt. Gen.
Thomas McInerney during his most recent interview with Two Mikes.
The General described "Hammer" and "Scorecard," a pair of programs initially designed for
the CIA before being privatized by Deep State players from the Obama administration. We
explained how they work in an article last week, but the gist is this:
" Hammer " or "THE HAMMER" is a counter-intelligence surveillance program used to spy on
activities on protected networks (like voting machines) without detection
" Scorecard " is a vote-manipulation application that changes votes during transfer. It's
the least detectable form of election manipulation because it works during data transfer
between voting stations and data storage hubs. Unless both sides are looking for
irregularities, it's impossible to catch. If nefarious forces had people on one side or the
other (or both) during data transfer, it cannot be exposed.
What we're seeing happening in Michigan and Wisconsin have all of the trademarks of a
"Hammer" and "Scorecard" operation.
Voter fraud is happening right now. We all know it; one would be hard pressed to find a
single American on either side of the aisle who would not acknowledge that it's taking place.
Around half the country realizes (or is willing to admit) it's happening in favor of
Democrats, but very few realize just how deep this particular rabbit hole goes.
A CIA program known as "Scorecard" allows its users to change voting outcomes by hacking
into the transfer between local reporting stations and state or national data centers.
According to McInerney, it's a small amount, under 3%, to keep it from triggering any
alarms. He would know. He served in top military positions under the Secretary of Defense and
the Vice President of the United States.
Using software for elections is a grave error, if you want a honest and reliable count.
Paper ballots filled in under supervision at a polling place after an ID check are relatively
secure and can be recounted.
UPDATE: Sidney Powell discusses Hammer and Scorecard with Lou Dobbs
here . Explosive.
What Dan Greenberg forgets is that the existence of Hammer was established by WikiLeaks, and
can't be classified as a rumor.
I especially like "appeal to authority" argument: " The head of the government agency created
by Trump to protect against cyber attacks called the Hammer and Scorecard theory,
"nonsense.""
The government's head of cyber security declared the Hammer and Scorecard theory to be
"nonsense."
As evidence of 2020 meddling, the theory cites CNN election night coverage of the 2019
Kentucky governor's race that briefly shows inconsistent results in favor of the Democrat,
who ultimately won by more than 5,000 votes.
There is no indication of voter fraud in the 2019 Kentucky governor's race.
Some fans of President Donald Trump are sharing the theory that a package of CIA computer
programs have hacked the 2020 election. One program, called Hammer, cracks into protected
networks, while another, called Scorecard, changes vote totals.
Pamela Geller, a right-wing activist and Trump supporter, has posted more than one piece
about Hammer and Scorecard. On Nov. 9, her website Geller Report offered an item headlined, "
HAMMER / Scorecard Voter Software Fraud in Real Time ."
Geller offered a video clip taken from
CNN's 2019 election coverage of the Kentucky governor's race that she called, "Vote switching
right in front of your eyes."
Geller's post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and
misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook
.)
Before we dive in, let's be clear that independent election security researchers see no
evidence that Hammer and Scorecard exist, and the head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency , a government
body created by President Donald Trump in 2018, has said this theory of election interference
is " nonsense ."
With that, let's look at the CNN evidence that Geller takes to be telling.
Dissecting CNN
Kentucky election coverage
The video consists of a
man giving a running commentary on shifting result totals in the 2019 Kentucky governor's race
in which Democrat Andy Beshear defeated incumbent Republican Matt Bevin. At one key moment in
CNN's live broadcast, the vote totals change inconsistently.
A large graphic shows Beshear with a total of 674,508, while a smaller running total at the
bottom of the screen gives him 673,948. According to the man giving the commentary, the total
at the bottom of the screen runs behind the more current one on the larger graphic. In that
light, a difference of 560 votes makes sense. The one on the bottom has yet to catch up.
But at the same moment, Bevin's totals show 661,675 on the large graphic, while the one at
the bottom shows 662,235. That's 560 votes less than the most up-to-date one on the big
graphic. In the view of Geller and the man speaking on the video, the fraud is obvious.
"You have just seen 25% of the loss amount of this race happen in front of your very eyes,"
the man giving the commentary said.
Two election security experts we reached were unimpressed.
No sign of Hammer and
Scorecard
"The broader issue here is that the election night results are not official," said
Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Charles Stewart III. "There's a post-election
canvas period when results are checked and mistakes spotted and corrected."
Stewart said there's a key flaw in the theory that the purported software package of Hammer
and Scorecard could intercept the digital transmission of vote results and change them. He said
the states that do send data that way also keep the data tapes of votes from the original
machines.
"The results only become official after the election department has compared the paper tapes
-- which are immune to supposed hack -- to the initially transferred results," Stewart
said.
The CNN election night results are "the sports aspect of elections, not the binding
results," said statistics professor at the University of California-Berkeley Philip Stark.
Stark cautioned that no election system comes with 100% ironclad protection against
hacking.
"Nothing is perfect, and they are all vulnerable," Stark said. He advocates for greater use
of paper ballots and careful post-election audits.
But that said, Stark sees no evidence that any results have been altered in this election or
past ones. Regarding the CNN inconsistencies, he noted that CNN contracted for the data feed
from a third party vendor. That puts CNN's number even further removed from the official
tally.
Stark said nothing in the CNN example holds up.
"That's not how anyone would hack an election," Stark said. "If you really wanted to change
the total, you would not change it on election night, where everyone could see it. You would
change it in the voting tabulation system."
And for those who think Hammer and Scorecard were deployed in the 2020 election, Stark said
that raises the question of why skeptics look only at the presidential race.
"If the motivation was to put the Democrats in power, why didn't they flip the Senate?"
Stark posed. "Biden will have a hard time without the Senate. Why would you leave the job half
done?"
One of the main promoters of the Hammer and Scorecard theory is a
discredited military contractor who claims to have created them.
We asked Geller to respond to the issues raised above. She didn't address the specific
matters but said that she sees ample evidence of fraud, including "eyewitness accounts of tens
of thousands of ballots coming in the back door (that) should give even you pause, despite your
baked-in far-left bias."
Geller said that a 2019 CNN video clip shows the work of purported CIA-built hacking
software Hammer and Scorecard in action. The clip shows a momentary glitch in election night
totals.
The head of the government agency created by Trump to protect against cyber attacks called
the Hammer and Scorecard theory, "nonsense."
Election security experts said election night totals are distinct from official results, and
post-Election Day vetting by state officials catches discrepancies between local results and
totals calculated at the central office. They also noted that if someone truly wanted to steal
an election, the example Geller cited makes no practical sense.
We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
CORRECTION: This report has been changed to correct the description of the narrator's
discussion of the winning margin in the Beshear-Bevin race.
This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp.
Click here , for
more.
Interview, Philip B. Stark, professor of statistics and associate dean of Mathematical and
Physical Sciences, University of California-Berkeley, Nov. 10, 2020
Email exchange, Charles Stewart III, professor of political science, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Nov. 10. 2020
OR as Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney said live it were Hammer and Scorecard
that flipped the vote tallies. These NSA/CIA toys were made to modify foreign elections, only
now Brennan, Clapper and Mueller had turned them 180 degrees onto the US. Clever, modifying
local vote tally files send upstream over Internet on the fly. A few percent from A to B
usually does it as it doubles up.
https://rumble.com/vaz2ih-hammer-and-scorecard-from-the-censored-youtube-warroom-episode-470.html
That same trio was quite busy collecting leverage / compromat on the domestic
who-is-who, including bankers, anchors etc. https://www.blxware.org/
What's happening with the election? As one might normally say, "it's anyone's guess."
Except, it isn't. We have a very good idea of exactly what's happening. The Democrats are
either cheating or powers above them are cheating on their behalf. Either way, the election is
in the process of being stolen if we're to believe Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney during his most
recent interview with
Two Mikes .
The General described "Hammer" and "Scorecard," a pair of programs initially designed for
the CIA before being privatized by Deep State players from the Obama administration. We
explained how they work in an article last week, but the gist is this: "Hammer" or "THE HAMMER"
is a counter-intelligence surveillance program used to spy on activities on protected networks
(like voting machines) without detection while "Scorecard" is a vote-manipulation application
that changes votes during transfer. It's the least detectable form of election manipulation
because it works during data transfer between voting stations and data storage hubs. Unless
both sides are looking for irregularities, it's impossible to catch. If nefarious forces had
people on one side or the other (or both) during data transfer, it cannot be
What we're seeing happening in Michigan and Wisconsin have all of the trademarks of a
"Hammer" and "Scorecard" operation. As I noted earlier, the fix is in . The
General talked today with Two Mikes once again to give an update and to call on the White House
to act immediately before the election is fully stolen.
https://share.transistor.fm/e/3c1ea08f
This is the type of blockbuster information the left and even many on the right refuse to
report. We see with our own eyes how "Hammer" and "Scorecard" are being used in Wisconsin and
Michigan. Will the President let it fly?
The day before the election, General McInerney spoke to Two Mikes about the details
surrounding "Scorecard" and called on the White House and the Trump campaign to take action
before voting started.
The category of US elections dirty tricks may be expanding.
One can debate about sabotaging vaccine announcements or the recovery plans. The second
much more dirty because it's more than propaganda war, it really hurts a lot of people.
But maybe because he's Trump and not a good looser. Maybe because his plan was for post
elections' mess all along. Maybe because he believes it's fair revenge.
Trump seems to be ready to deliver the likely Biden administration a welcoming gift in the
form of a defining mess it will never get rid of. And that may just be one piece of it...
Signal Detection of Election Fraud in Voting Systems Michigan 2020 Trump-Biden Analysis An
Engineering Systems Approach Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, MIT PhD November 16, 2020 w:
[email protected] e: Vashiva.com m: 617-631-6874
Dr.SHIVA Ayyadurai, MIT PhD, the Inventor of Email, Scientist, Engineer calls for for an
Engineering Systems Approach to Signal Detection of Election Fraud after recognizing the
significant gap in understanding of current data scientists and "mathematicians."
He discusses and educates you on the field of engineering systems and pattern recognition as
the foundation for building a framework for signal detection of election fraud.
Summary
Signals of election fraud clearly exist in Michigan First video shared the
"signal" of fraud to raise alarm Need for election data systems engineers "Mathematicians" need
some serious training This is not JUST math Need for domain expertise "Weighted race features"
EXISTS Can we detect when the feature is enabled? Can we detect election fraud?
When the number of participating voters exceed the number of registed voters
Algorithm - a Weighted Race allocation method Transfer % of votes
from one candidate to another The % is a "Weighted" decimal value Weighted Race is a documented
feature in election systems as early as 2001 All Major Vendors are believed to have this
feature Diebold had the original feature
Can we deterct that Weighted Race was enabled
Research Aim: Pattern Analysis of Election Fraud
Specific Aim 1 - Signal Detection:
Feature extraction - discover relevant features Specific Aim 2 - Signal Detection: Clustering
- determine normal and abnormal states Specific Aim 3 - Modeling: Learning - build a
repository of signals & developcausal models e.g. modeling
Path forward for Election Integrity • The Inputs and the Outputs to our voting
systems ARE unverifiable • Need for: - Verifiable Inputs: e.g. Permanent Voter
Registration Card - Open source software - Handmarked Paper ballots - Save ballot images
pursuant to Federal Law - Publish ballot images publicly (allows for public recount) -
Automatic audits - audit every election - Publish precinct level data ("poll tapes") on
election night
A GOP recount observer in Georgia claims that several ballots recorded as Biden were
actually votes for Trump , and workers conducting the recount became angry when he reported
what was happening to elections officials.
The insider told Project Veritas , "The second person was supposed to be checking it
right, three times in three minutes she called out Biden," adding "The second auditor caught it
and she said, " No, this is Trump .""
"Now, that's just while I'm standing there. So, does the second checker catch it every
time? But this lady in three times in three minutes from 2:09 to 2:12 she got three wrong."" he
continued, adding "They were calling their bosses. They were pointing at me..."
Earlier in the day, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger hit back against claims
that he facilitated an unfair, illegal ballot count . He's also been accused of trying to skip
the manual recount altogether, and initially "wanted to just rescan the bar codes & be done
with it."
, 3 hours ago
Welcome To America
Welcome To The Most Corrupt Nation On The Planet......Fact
Welcome To The Most Dumbest Naive Brainwashed Nation On The Planet....Fact
smellmyfingers , 3 hours ago
This is click bait for people who want Trump and and an honest election.
The evidence is overwhelming. They will do Nothing.
You reap what you sow, America better get ready for a totally lawless society because it's
coming.
The First Rule , 1 hour ago
Fulton and Dekalb Counties are cesspools of Democrat Cheating (as is apparently areas of
Cobb).
Brad Raffensperger knows this. He just doesn't care to make sure the votes are counted
accurately there.
If he did, Trump would win GA. And Perdue would NOT be in a Run-Off.
But Brad's boss, George Soros, would frown upon that.
Normalcy Bias , 3 hours ago
This is exactly why they've made Republican Poll Watchers stand back 50'-100.'
Having spent over half of my life in or in a county next to Fulton, I'd wager that half of
the Fulton County poll workers aren't even literate.
106 play_arrow 1
Didymus , 3 hours ago
and gop allows it. they never fight, they always give in.
LetThemEatRand , 3 hours ago
Uniparty.
Sven Novgorod , 2 hours ago
The Uniparty = Deepstate.
It's been like this for a long time and when you look back in time with that point of view
most of the unusual laws and decisions made by lawmakers over the years start to make sense,
at least from the point of view of the Uniparty and it's associates.
Gerrilea , 2 hours ago
Psychotic question, seriously. Blame the victim.
The American public has been trained & conditioned like Pavlov's dogs to believe our
government has our best interests at heart. Hell, I believed it for a very long time. Slowly
I woke up to the Uniparty after the 2004 election.
We can't have endless wars & war profiteering by multi-national conglomerates like
Halliburton without cannon fodder AND Pelosi giving her "men" in the White House, all the
money and resources the American people can offer for the next 10 generations.
We've been continually sold a bill of goods that most did not realize was a poison pill.
"The Crime Bill", "took a bite out of crime". When in reality it created the Prison
Industrial Complex that initiated the New American Plantation and how we got a CANDIDATE for
the VP position whom actually argued in court NOT to allow criminals out whom had done their
time BECAUSE it would hurt the business model of the prison.
I could go on and on AND all we are left with is armed restoration of Constitutional Law
and bringing the traitors before a military tribunal for execution.
Kan , 2 hours ago
98% of the counties are NOT corrupt, so you'd not see much just the software slowly
without your knowledge moving the numbers over to the BLUE candidates and RHINO's.
That is why most of the map of counties is RED and not BLUE. You only need some of the
most populous locations in the past because the news was setup to keep us around 50/50 all
the time... But in this case its 30% more trump votes they have to overcome with cheating in
the democrap cities.
slightlyskeptical , 32 minutes ago
The recount will give the answer on the machines. Thus far they haven't found any machine
tabulating errors in the recounts.
DebbieDowner , 2 hours ago
Spent my time trying NOT to get into politics, because it's a waste of my talents and
skills.
What a sham... there was never any way to WIN. The only option was/is all out war.
Peace_and_Love , 3 hours ago
So, they need to stop the whole effing process and start over, and have every damned vote
verified by both parties, with video recording the damned process.
LetThemEatRand , 3 hours ago
The interesting question is whether Trump (a highly flawed candidate who brought us a
bigger banker bailout than Bush/Obama by far) is going to finally wake up middle America to
the fact that elections don't matter. If he accomplishes that, he won. Bigly.
If this does go to the Supreme Court, I don't think fraudulent ballots should have to be
demonstrated, and here's why. What the Supreme Court should require is sufficient evidence that
election laws were violated in a way that makes it impossible to assure voters in their state
that the election was fair. If that's the case, the Court should seek a remedy.
To the extent that potentially fraudulent ballots are already mixed in with legally-cast
ballots, the only remedies are a re-vote in the affected precincts, or a ruling that the result
can't stand and let the state(s) involved work within the confines of the Constitution to
select its representatives to go to the Electoral College.
It will also be interesting to see how the liberal justices react to evidence of obvious
violations of election laws.
The key point here is that it is those violations that need to be proven. Fraudulent ballots
have been mixed in with the legal ones. They can't be sorted out for the most part, which is
why you'll be hearing a constant cry from Dems and the media to show them the fraudulent
ballots, even while they ignore every bit of the growing pile of evidence that laws were
violated.
Right now, we need to focus our efforts on making sure every legal ballot is counted, and
the phony ones are tossed out with Fox News. We also need to focus our time and money on
Georgia's runoff Senate elections in January because you know that Dems will flood that state
with dark money and more shenanigans.
The fake news polls were supposed to have the intended effect of hindering fundraising for
Trump and down-ballot GOP candidates. Who wants to donate to a campaign when the polls show a
win is impossible? That's the whole point of these suppression polls: They discourage
fundraising and discourage voting ('why bother, our candidate is going to lose!'). And Fox News
had the worst polls now that we know how things turned out.
allan Kaplan 13 November, 2020 13 Nov, 2020 12:40 PM
On planet earth's history of the United States governments that came and gone none stood
the unending battles of all kinds, all colors, all sizes with all conceivable deception
that has been unleashed on America's single most embattled President than the President
Donald Trump. History would testify how his national security apparatuses joined in a Game
of Thrones between the armies of the evil NWO and their diehard soldiers of ultimate
control of the masses of the United States. Donald Trump's legacy would write the history
of America's total destruction of freedom of speech, freedom of choice, freedom of
expression, and most of all, freedom of honest and impartial elections. And the worse of
them all of the culprits would be the army of "checks and balances" that was the designated
as "Free Press" that has incontestably and with total devotion to the destruction of its
moral and ethical duties and responsibilities, joined the forces of the evil NWO!
New Chapters of the history of Post Donald Trump America would be written with the
thicker ink of blood of the Americans that shall live forever in infamy for the rest of the
nations of the world to read with disgust and dismay that the world has ever witnessed to
have lived in a country once was known as the United States of America!
Election 2020 results key swing state Pennsylvania Trump won in 2016 were "fraudulent
because they are nearly statistically impossible," adding:
On election night after polls closed, Trump led Biden/Harris "by nearly 700,000 votes," a
virtually "insurmountable lead."
The next day, DJT lead by a 56% – 43% margin.
"According to Pennsylvania's election returns website, on election day Trump won nearly two
thirds of all votes cast in the state" -- a landslide margin.
Yet Biden/Harris did the near-impossible. State election authorities claimed they won after
an unreported number of mail-in ballots were counted.
For three days post-election, ballots arriving late were included in the count.
What happened defied "Pennsylvania's constitution which states that the voting process is to
be determined by the legislature."
State law prohibits the procedure followed. Rules were changed for Election 2020.
Despite an election-day landslide for Trump, state authorities claimed he only won about 20%
of mail-in votes.
It gets worse.
Gateway Pundit: Trump "won two thirds of the Election Day vote."
Except for "Philadelphia, (he) won around 80% of the (in-person) vote in each county in the
state."
"In almost every county throughout the state, (he) was awarded a percent of votes 40% less
than the percent (he) won on election day."
The pattern was almost the same in "every county (except) Philadelphia" where he only got
"30%" of the election day total.
Consistent results in the state's 67 counties -- except for Philadelphia -- were "almost"
statistically impossible.
It never happened before in the state, maybe never again. The pattern was unlike results in
previous US presidential elections.
"It is clear that corrupt (Dems) in Pennsylvania did all they could to steal the 2020
presidential election for Joe Biden," said Gateway Pundit.
"There was no excitement for the Biden campaign and there still isn't."
He and Harris didn't win Pennsylvania. State election authorities stole it from Trump.
Note: Judicial Watch head Tom Fitton reported that "(i)n PA there are more people voting
than are registered to vote," adding:
An "electoral coup" occurred on November 3.
According to Judicial Watch data, "many states report(ed) voter registration rates above
100%" of registered voter totals.
"(A)cross America voter (rolls) are filthy in terms of having more people on the(m) than are
eligible to vote."
As of September 2020, "335 US counties had 1.8 million more registered voters than eligible
voting-age citizens."
For Election 2020, "vote totals are changing because of unprecedented, extraordinary,
illicitly secretive, and inherently suspect counting AFTER" polls closed.
In a follow-up report, Gateway Pundit said "WE CAUGHT THEM" in Michigan.
Dems "stole the battleground states," including Michigan. Fraud occurred there similar to
what happened in Pennsylvania.
In "three major (Michigan) counties, Trump's margin was reduced by a minimum of 138,000
votes."
"The transfer was done by a computer algorithm that linearly transferred the votes from
Trump to Biden."
The "vote transfer was greater in Republican precincts than" Dem ones.
"Tens of thousands of votes were transferred" this way -- from Trump to Biden/Harris.
Similar evidence is likely to surface in other swing states if independent analysis is
conducted.
According to an AmericanThinker.com report, Georgia's recount is "being conducted with as
little respect for transparency as the original vote count."
In Georgia and other states, millions of ballots were mailed "to anyone on the voter
registers" -- including former state residents and deceased ones, maybe non-registered voters
as well.
In Dem-run states, "voting became as easy and as vulnerable to fraud as going to a shopping
mall, filling out names on slips of paper" for almost anything, including for someone else.
The Georgia recount is doing "nothing" to correct this fraud.
Most likely, the same is true in unknown numbers of other states.
The bottom line is that US elections lack legitimacy.
Ballots can be counted, discarded, or shifted to someone else -- including by electronic
ease for in-person voting.
Swing states for Biden that Trump won in 2016 likely turned out this way.
When election procedures are suspect, legitimacy of results is absent.
In election 2020, Trump got more votes than any other GOP presidential candidate in US
history, more than his own 2016 total -- including in unlikely places like New York city.
He drew huge crowds for campaign rallies compared to sparse ones for Biden.
Despite evidence of significant election fraud in key swing states as discussed above and in
previous articles, establishment media across the board and DHS pretended that none
occurred.
Do your own fact-checking. Judge for yourself.
Independent historians one day will likely explain that Biden/Harris were declared winners
of Election 2020 they lost to Trump.
As things now stand, that's likely how the race for the White House will turn out.
Popular sentiment in most states, including key swing ones, and Trump both lost.
So did the notion of a free, fair, and open process.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] . He is a Research
Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for
Hegemony Risks WW III."
I have 20 years plus in telecom and IT, project management. I can tell you that 80%+ of
these people have a leftist-bent and a very snide attitude towards Conservatives and
Libertarians. There is no way I would want these people to be in charge of anything related
to voting at all!
On these grounds alone, I say that elections should be paper, pencil and cardboard boxes
ONLY !
Woodley , 1 hour ago
With redundant counting, to be compared at the completion.
DieSocialJusticeWankers , 1 hour ago
Remember what the Dems have been doing to Trump for almost 5 years! Why wouldn't they
commit fraud???
Seems like a 100% expectation that the Dems would do this. I would be confused if they
didn't commit fraud.
They've been lying and scamming about Trump for 5 years! This is normal Dem behavior!
Earlier on Monday, President Donald Trump claimed he had "won the 2020 election", also
publishing a series of tweets, in which he lambasted "radical left-owned Dominion voting
systems". Although the official tally from the election is yet to be announced, Joe Biden has
declared himself US president-elect.
The US president's attorney, Sidney Powell, has called for CIA Director Gina Haspel to be
fired for disregarding warnings about voting software that Powell claimed was "designed to rig"
the 3 November election.
"Why Gina Haspel is still there in the CIA is beyond my comprehension. She should be fired
immediately", Powell told Fox News on Sunday, pointing to alleged problems with Dominion
Voting Systems' software used in several of the key battleground states during Election Day.
She referred to an array of "whistleblowers" who she said may confirm that the Dominion
software was ostensibly used to scrap "millions" of votes cast in favour of Trump.
When asked about evidence, Powell claimed that she had "lots of ways to prove it", but that
she was "not gonna tell on national TV what all we have".
Her remarks echoed those made by
President Donald Trump in his latest series of tweets, in which he specifically
criticised what he described as "radical left-owned Dominion Voting Systems", also insisting
that the US "cannot allow the fake results of the 2020 mail-in election to stand".
This followed the president tweeting that Joe Biden won "because the election was rigged",
adding in a follow-up post that he "concedes nothing", as the Democratic contender only won "in
the eyes of [the] fake news media".
Dominion, in turn, claimed in a statement published on its website that it "categorically
denies false assertions about vote switching issues with our voting system".
The Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency seemed
to strike the same tone, insisting "there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or
lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised".
The statement came after
Trump campaign attorney Jay Sekulow demanded recounts in every state using the Dominion
software that he claimed wrongly gave 6,000 votes to Democrats in one Michigan county during
the election.
"If 30 states have used the software that there's already proved to be a glitch of 6,000
votes in one balloting area [...] lawyers should be... demanding a manual recount.
Post-election litigation is important to protect the integrity of the election process, as the
president said, and to protect the constitution frankly", Sekulow asserted.
POTUS also suggested that the "glitches" in voting machines reported at some polling
stations on Election Day was evidence of the Democrats trying to "steal" votes from him during
vote counting in key states.
"... "They've got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side, but no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen." ..."
"... we can see that 2016 candidate Trump was relatively Trumpist but President Trump was less so. Salaries for the bottom 25% of workers did have the highest rate in increase during his term (through 2019). But in 2020, candidate Trump almost completely rejected Trumpism and ran as an ruling class establishment stooge. ..."
"... Trumpism is not a revolutionary ideology in the correct sense of the term. It is an incrementalist approach that seeks to better the material conditions of the working class but within the current capitalist power structure. ..."
"... The ruling class strategy in the US is to decorate with masks of "diversity" the ugly visages of class dominance. Thus Obama's and soon Kamala's pro-ruling class policies cannot be criticized for fear of being abused as a "racist". ..."
"... Trumpism relies on labor markets to improve the material conditions of the working class. A tight labor market necessarily transfers wealth from the rich to the poor in the form of decreased profits for the rich through increased salaries for the poor. ..."
"... Trump the ruler was presented with the greatest gift a border-loving Trumpist politician could ever ask for: Covid-19. But instead of exploiting this crisis like Viktor Orbán did in Hungary, Trump stabbed Trumpism in the back by turning himself into a useless libertarian during the crisis by refusing for example to push a law that requires home manufacturing of all critical supplies and in never closing the borders properly. He acted like a narcissistic clown in the early days of the crisis and deserves to lose just for that reason. ..."
"... So US racism is fully owned and perpetuated by the ruling class: wealthy oligarchs (including Trump), the media, Wall Street, CIA, FBI, the military industrial complex, multi-national corporations, Silicone Valley Tech, Hollywood, etc. Where there is power there is racism, where there is powerlessness there may be bigotry but not racism. The above lineup of ruling class racists, except for Trump, is the Biden coalition. The ruling class goal is to place an "enlightened person" mask over naked and rapacious ruling class greed and oppression. ..."
"... Under Biden, globalization will once again increase the pace and amplitude of the immiseration of the working class, resistance to the dominant economic paradigm will only grow on both the progressive left and the popular right. ..."
"... In a sense the Biden presidency will be a reactionary movement in that they will be trying to restore the pre-Trumpism political order. This will only further cement the soundness of Trumpism as an ideology. ..."
"... The bottom has no political or economic leverage, and isn't navigating to a position of strength. For example, the "bottom" is currently accepting placebo identity-politics as pacifier. The "bottom" is still searching for an "easy button" solution rather than taking a deeper look at oneself and the layout of the chess board at the macro level. ..."
"... Within an environment of worker scarcity, automation is a positive trend and helps lessen inflationary pressures. The problem with the US is that there is not enough automation because of cheap and docile labor. Compare a meat packing plant in Denmark which is highly automated compared to a US plant, which is packed to the brim with cheap imported labor. Much of the Covid crisis in the US and UK is brought about by sweatshop-style working conditions. ..."
"... It's grotesque to learn that Kamila Harris's relatives are connected to Uber/Lyft. Prop. 22 getting approved in California is another sign of propaganda/big money effectiveness ..."
"... Trumpism stands in opposition to globalization; whose goal is worker abundance which necessarily drives wages down and increases oligarchic wealth. US led imperialism, especially in the Middle East is also a necessary feature of globalization. ..."
"... Here too I would make a modification. Neo-liberalism and globalization aren't about worker "abundance" but rather worker "disposability." Again, if the idea is to create an abundance of workers, driving down market share, then why make finding work so complicated? Why be against strong education systems which would create new workers. Why shut down factories here in the US only to open them in Korea? Why lock up so many Americans for petty offensive, removing them from the willing work force. ..."
"... I would argue that the heart of neo-liberalism is a class structure that places "the establishment" as not just important in the grand scheme of things, but completely indispensable to an individual. And part of that self-aggrandizement is the subjection of every one else. "I am worth more than a thousand of you." Thus, why I must get 2-million-dollar bonus (even after bankrupting the company) and a post on the new re-org chart while everyone else gets a pink slip and watch their hard-earned pensions disappear in chapter 11 proceedings. ..."
"... But it does speak to how disposable workers are to upper management. You are hired for X, and when X is done you are automatically laid off. Why would you waste time giving such an employee training of any sort? Let alone benefits or perks. ..."
"... What is inexplicable is when unions attack Trumpist attempts at macro-scarcity through the use of national borders. A united Union/Trumpist front is required against ruling class interests. Struggling for worker scarcity does not mean one "hates" the workers the ruling class is importing in order to create worker abundance. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is Capitalism's attempt to remove the fetters on profits that exist within the power of a nation-state. Worker abundance is just one of many Neoliberal goals. Borders are a huge fetter to capitalism's basic mission of maximizing profit by producing commodifies with the cheapest labor and selling them to the wealthiest consumers. ..."
"... This is a very important aspect of precarity. Reducing work competition for jobs to increase wages is only half the job, stopping financial predators is the other half, imo ..."
"... Without immigration or outsourcing or even automation, the predators will find still other ways to break labor. We are seeing it with identity politics. ..."
"... I would argue that Bernie and Tulsi are "Trumpism adjacent" in the larger sense of Trumpism. ..."
"... If Trumpism as an ideology is going to flourish, Tulsi in particular will play a critical role in this. The simplest way to see this is that when the ruling class smears someone as a "Russian asset" what they are really doing is recognizing them as a Trumpist threat. ..."
"... precarious (adj.) 1640s, a legal word, "held through the favor of another," from Latin precarius "depending on favor, pertaining to entreaty, obtained by asking or praying," from prex (genitive precis) "entreaty, prayer" (from PIE root *prek- "to ask, entreat"). ..."
"... The notion of "dependent on the will of another" led to the extended sense "risky, dangerous, hazardous, uncertain" (1680s), but this was objected to. "No word is more unskillfully used than this with its derivatives. It is used for uncertain in all its senses; but it only means uncertain, as dependent on others " [Johnson]. Related: Precariously; precariousness. ..."
"... Questiones Disputatae ..."
"... contra, sed contra, ..."
"... When investigating the nature of anything, one should make the same kind of analysis as he makes when he reduces a proposition to certain self-evident principles." ..."
"... Vista Hermosa residents like Luna are troubled by a 2019 environmental rollback by the state, AB1197, that exempts homeless housing developments in the City of Los Angeles from the mandates of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Arguably California's broadest environmental law, CEQA requires builders to assess the environmental impacts of new development and find ways to avoid or mitigate them. ..."
"... The political will to rollback CEQA has continued into 2020. In January, Assemblyman Miguel Santiago, who represents District 53 bordering Vista Hermosa, introduced a new piece of legislation, AB1907, to further expand CEQA exemptions to now include all affordable housing. ..."
"... "a giant suction pump had by 1929 to 1930 drawn into a few hands an increasing proportion of currently produced wealth. This served then as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied themselves the kind of effective demand for their products which would justify reinvestment of the capital accumulation in new plants. In consequence as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When the credit ran out, the game stopped" ..."
We have to carefully distinguish between two very different concepts, both based on the word
"Trump". First there is "Trumpism" which is an ideology. The overarching idea behind Trumpism
is to make the GOP a working-class oriented party. The key policy aims of Trumpism are worker
scarcity and anti-imperialism. Worker scarcity is achieved through immigration restriction and
protectionist trade policies. So together, we have the Trumpist Trinity, anti-immigration,
trade restriction, and anti-imperialism. This is the ideology that Trump ran on and rode to
victory in 2016. This is the idea. Unions exist to create micro-worker scarcity. Borders can be
used to create macro-worker scarcity which is far more powerful. And E-verify can be far more
effective than a bombastic wall.
Trumpism stands in opposition to globalization; whose goal is worker abundance which
necessarily drives wages down and increases oligarchic wealth. US led imperialism, especially
in the Middle East is also a necessary feature of globalization. Invade the World / Invite the
World.
The US has always featured two political parties that serve ruling class interests; Huey
Long described it thusly,
"They've got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters
on the other side, but no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative
grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen."
Trumpism attempts to force one group of waiters to get their grub from the working class'
kitchen. This is obviously an ambitious goal.
Now comes a crucial distinction. In addition to the ideology of "Trumpism" there is "Trump",
the man and his brand. At best there is an extremely tenuous relationship between Trumpism and
Trump. Now to some extent this is natural as ideas never remain pure for long when poured into
the cauldron of reality. With that in mind, we can see that 2016 candidate Trump was
relatively Trumpist but President Trump was less so. Salaries for the bottom 25% of workers did
have the highest rate in increase during his term (through 2019). But in 2020, candidate Trump
almost completely rejected Trumpism and ran as an ruling class establishment stooge.
Now of course Trump is an oligarch and so he is a member of the ruling class. But within
oligarchy, the only people who can challenge the existing order are oligarchs. He committed
massive class treason in 2016 in order to serve his narcissistic need for recognition and
power. In no way should Trump be idealized as altruistically caring about the working class.
Trumpism was nothing more than a means to an end. Trump's end is and always will be Trump, not
Trumpism per se. But none the less Trump exploited and brought to life Trumpism and his motives
for doing so are irrelevant.
Trumpism is not a revolutionary ideology in the correct sense of the term. It is an
incrementalist approach that seeks to better the material conditions of the working class but
within the current capitalist power structure. It posits a class struggle ideological
superstructure which is radical opposition to the globalist ruling classes insistence on an
identitarian (politics of race, sex, etc) perspective. The ruling class strategy in the US
is to decorate with masks of "diversity" the ugly visages of class dominance. Thus Obama's and
soon Kamala's pro-ruling class policies cannot be criticized for fear of being abused as a
"racist".
Trumpism's non-revolutionary aspect is similar to social democracy, as was championed by
Bernie Sanders in 2016 (in 2020 Bernie unfortunately fell to the dark side of identitarian
politics, which are necessarily the enemy of class politics and the most effective class
warfare tool in the ruling class' tool box). The key difference is that Trumpism relies on
labor markets to improve the material conditions of the working class. A tight labor market
necessarily transfers wealth from the rich to the poor in the form of decreased profits for the
rich through increased salaries for the poor.
In fact far from there being any contradiction between Trumpism and social democracy there
is a mutual dependence between them. The public education, health, and support institutions of
social democracy are can only be supported and revitalized by a prosperous working class. The
key idea of Trumpism is that the state asserts its borders to create labor scarcity. The great
problem of Trumpism is that the state is everywhere a tool of ruling class oppression. Borders
are the battle lines of the struggle.
Trump the ruler was presented with the greatest gift a border-loving Trumpist politician
could ever ask for: Covid-19. But instead of exploiting this crisis like Viktor Orbán
did in Hungary, Trump stabbed Trumpism in the back by turning himself into a useless
libertarian during the crisis by refusing for example to push a law that requires home
manufacturing of all critical supplies and in never closing the borders properly. He acted like
a narcissistic clown in the early days of the crisis and deserves to lose just for that
reason.
The ruling class response to Trumpism is identitarian politics: noble ruling class lords
screaming that the dirty peasants are racist. What the US ruling class must always do is
project their racism onto the peasants, who white or black, both suffer economically from
racial oppression. Mao Tse-Tung gave this astute analysis of US racism:
In the final analysis, national struggle is a matter of class struggle. Among the whites
in the United States, it is only the reactionary ruling circles who oppress the Negro people
. They can in no way represent the workers, farmers, revolutionary intellectuals and other
enlightened persons who comprise the overwhelming majority of the white people. At present,
it is the handful of imperialists headed by the United States, and their supporters, the
reactionaries in different countries, who are oppressing, committing aggression against and
menacing the overwhelming majority of the nations and peoples of the world. We are in the
majority and they are in the minority.
So US racism is fully owned and perpetuated by the ruling class: wealthy oligarchs
(including Trump), the media, Wall Street, CIA, FBI, the military industrial complex,
multi-national corporations, Silicone Valley Tech, Hollywood, etc. Where there is power there
is racism, where there is powerlessness there may be bigotry but not racism. The above lineup
of ruling class racists, except for Trump, is the Biden coalition. The ruling class goal is to
place an "enlightened person" mask over naked and rapacious ruling class greed and
oppression.
Under Biden, globalization will once again increase the pace and amplitude of the
immiseration of the working class, resistance to the dominant economic paradigm will only grow
on both the progressive left and the popular right. Previously elections in the US were
between center left and center right factions fighting for the right to serve the ruling class.
Looking at 2020 from a bird's eye perspective, roughly speaking the Biden coalition is most
progressives, the center left, and many elements of the center right (elements close to the
Bush family). The Trump coalition is portions of the center right and the popular right. The
ruling class was going to be fine whatever the result, but a Biden presidency constrained by a
GOP Senate is ideal in some ways to the ruling class.
A key strategic objective of the ruling class is to keep the left and right at each other's
throats. Trump helped them achieve this rigid politically binary goal despite occasionally
flirting with political fluidity during the 2016 campaign where his similarities to Bernie
Sanders were unmistakable. In contrast, anti-ruling class progressives and popularists have to
find a way to combine their forces and energy in opposition to the ruling class and not in a
pointless stalemate of playing "socialists" vs; "fascists", a battle whose only possible winner
is the ruling class.
One of the most interesting outcomes of the 2020 election is the specter of Latinos
embracing Trumpism. From an economic point of view this makes total sense. Immigration
restriction will benefit first and foremost the material conditions of the Latino working
class. Also Trump's macho populist persona works well within Latino culture. Not to mention
many Latinos despise blacks and so the whole BLM phenomenon helped push Latinos onto the Trump
train.
California is a now a de facto one-party state but that conditions are ripe for the rise of
a popularist yet macho, Latino based, Trumpist style political faction to oppose the
cosmopolitan urban Democratic hegemony. Back in the 60's, Cesar Chavez was endeavoring to
increase the QUALITY of Hispanic life in the US by increasing the salaries of farm workers
through a strategy of worker scarcity.
Ruling class institutions, threatened by the potential of having portions of their wealth
transferred to poor peasants, created an organization called "La Raza" as an alternative to
Chavez. La Raza wanted QUANTITY, they wanted more and more Latinos to build up their base of
political power.
And all the better if these Latinos stayed poor: not only do their ruling class paymasters
stay happy, this would also keep the Latino masses dependent on their identitarian political
leaders. So one of the key outcomes of the 2020 election is that in ever larger numbers,
Latinos are rejecting Quantity of Latinos and opting for Latino Quality of life.
And so in order to further Trumpism, Trump, who is acting as a fetter upon it, must go.
In a sense the Biden presidency will be a reactionary movement in that they will be trying
to restore the pre-Trumpism political order. This will only further cement the soundness of
Trumpism as an ideology.
But Trump as a leader is a much more mixed bag. New Trumpists will arise, for example Tucker
Carlson or podcaster Joe Rogan. 2024 will be a great year for Trumpism because this time Trump
will not be running it; and that may allow many progressives to join the train, especially in
light of how much hippy punching they are about to endure from the coming Biden synthesis of
Neolibs and Neocons.
Nice essay. I especially liked the differentiation between Trump and Trumpism.
I'd be interested to hear what your vision of the platform (main objectives) might be for
this new Trumpism party.
I still question whether top-down politics of any stripe is really going to address the
underlying economic and biosphere issues we're facing. Why? Because:
the top-down political economy is dedicated to maintaining status quo (with emphasis on
status & wealth), and
the bottom-up people who want things to change seem to want someone else to do all the
changing
most of our big problems arise from the disconnect between what we must do as a species
in order to survive and what we're currently, actually doing as individuals
When a Zen-like party emerges, which encourages its adherents to understand themselves,
seek "right" action (accurate situational analysis yielding a well-crafted strategy), and do
right action, I'll get interested in politics again. For now, we're just treading water in a
strong current that's headed to a bad place.
The Zen plan is no panacea, though. That path involves great risk (e.g. lots of failures)
and hard work. Pay's not that good, either.
Top-down vs. bottom-up are not necessarily contradictory and can in successive waves
contribute to social change in an increasingly self-reinforcing manner. Bottom-up change
influences top-down change (often through the opposition forces' malignant top-down
overreaction) which intensifies bottom-down change: so on and so on.
I would describe the main objectives for Trumpist party as the development of "Green
Trumpism". The moral imperatives associated with the climate crisis would be used as a
catalyst for Trumpist labor scarcity through the means of a Green Reindustrialization. The
process of globalization is one where production is severed from consumption. Production is
moved to cheap labor countries with terrible environmental standards. Capitalists produce
dirtier commodities while increasing their profits. This process must be reversed. If the
first world wants to consume then they must produce.
First world population growth is a critical factor in exasperating the climate crisis. All
of this growth can be linked to immigration, usually people from low consuming nations moving
to high consumption nations. These migration flows must be reversed.
Globalization requires imperialist power to enforce the safe transport of commodities
produced in far flung regions of the world. As globalization declines, so will necessarily US
imperialism.
yes, bottom-up and top-down would interact, if only the bottom-up was happening. It's
not.
The bottom has no political or economic leverage, and isn't navigating to a position of
strength. For example, the "bottom" is currently accepting placebo identity-politics as
pacifier. The "bottom" is still searching for an "easy button" solution rather than taking a
deeper look at oneself and the layout of the chess board at the macro level.
Using the climate crisis as driver for econ change is the Great Hope, and the top 1% is
hip to the game. They have and will continue to block meaningful change. Keep in mind that
just stopping the daily damage to the environment will render much (most) of our industrial
and household infrastructure obsolete. Nobody's ready to take that on, and that's the
implication of actually effective Green policy.
Right now, across the political spectrum, "green" consists of "what's convenient" instead
of "what's necessary". This is the individual-ethic bankruptcy I've alluded to elsewhere:
it's endemic from top 1% to bottom-est of the bottom.
You made a few statements I don't agree with:
"Capitalists have dirtier / more destructive production than (others)." 1st world production
is cleaner than in other places, and that 2nd and 3rd world production often happens in
non-capitalistic scenarios. Dirty production happens where dirty production is tolerated.
Another statement you made: "globalization has to stop / be reversed". Dunno about that
one. Globalization has resulted in production moving to cheapest-input locations. Like China.
Globalization will stop only when cost-of-inputs is leveled, and we're decades away from
that, and a whole lot more pain for the Developed world. Slow barge, that one.
Your essay doesn't address the effect of automation on household or societal economics.
Automation is not a reversible trend, and it's accelerating. The focus on the "where" of
production might not yield the HH economic benefits you're hoping for.
Some fairly different strategies need to be developed at the household level in order to
address the problems we face. Would you consider using the household as the pivot-point of
your new econ strategy rather than using industry and government?
Americans can exert more power with their consumption choices than their choices at the
ballot box. So certainly the household is a crucial pivot point.
Green tariffs can overnight level cost-of-inputs. Climate change provides a powerful moral
incentive to co-locate US consumption and production.
Within an environment of worker scarcity, automation is a positive trend and helps lessen
inflationary pressures. The problem with the US is that there is not enough automation
because of cheap and docile labor. Compare a meat packing plant in Denmark which is highly
automated compared to a US plant, which is packed to the brim with cheap imported labor. Much
of the Covid crisis in the US and UK is brought about by sweatshop-style working
conditions.
The question on automation is that somehow "the people" have to have a slice of the
profits and thus benefit from the process. A Yang-style UBI would need to go hand in hand
with increased automation.
I agree with the uselessness of the current Green movement. It is typically just used as a
tool to attack perceived opponents. But a Green Trumpism would no doubt both address the
climate crisis and help alleviate economic inequalities.
"The ruling class was going to be fine whatever the result, but a Biden presidency
constrained by a GOP Senate is ideal in some ways to the ruling class."
Yeah – there will be a lot of Biden disappointment amongst Us the majority –
this Precariat. A true Green New Deal would offer lots of employment opportunities here in
the USA – and would seem ideal for either party to embrace. Divided government won't
achieve it – the ruling class – and both parties – with short sighted heads
up their asses won't embrace it anyhow.
Regardless, Trumpism seems a fail except for a vast mob angry/scared/confused voters- and
some tax break aficionados. It's not just Biden/Harris won't deliver – but Tucker
Carlson, Joe Rogan, Ted Cruz, or whichever clever one runs in 2024 , won't deliver either,
and Trumps wall is a fiasco. If still effective propaganda..?
It's grotesque to learn that Kamila Harris's relatives are connected to Uber/Lyft. Prop.
22 getting approved in California is another sign of propaganda/big money effectiveness
– and We the People being tricked once again. I got lot's of mail showing
photos and quotes of regular working people embracing Prop 22 VOTE YES! save our jobs –
it passed easily.
Overall: Still glad to see Trump himself out of the White House – the clever
SOB.
This is a good essay. But I still have a few issues with it.
The key policy aims of Trumpism are worker scarcity and anti-imperialism. Worker scarcity
is achieved through immigration restriction and protectionist trade policies. So together, we
have the Trumpist Trinity, anti-immigration, trade restriction, and anti-imperialism. This is
the ideology that Trump ran on and rode to victory in 2016. This is the idea. Unions exist to
create micro-worker scarcity. Borders can be used to create macro-worker scarcity which is
far more powerful. And E-verify can be far more effective than a bombastic wall.
I would modify this to say "worker exclusivity", that only a narrow class of workers can
be tapped for specific terms of employment. When discussing the subject with those on the
rights, they are far more concerned about immigrants "taking their jobs" then they are of
building a scarcity of workers to gain a market share over employers. Let's not forget that
"Trumpian" is still fervently anti-union, even though this would be a good way of
generating "micro scarcity" as you put it. Being anti-union would be counterproductive to
worker scarcity.
Assuredly, "worker scarcity" makes a certain degree of sense. And I can easily see how
you came to that conclusion. But I fear you still give "trumpisim" too much credit in that
they have specific goals that they are attempting to achieve, and thus conceive of logical
steps to that goal.
I would argue that the right doesn't have goals in the same perspective as we on the
left may seem them. What we might think of as "goals" are better described as ideological
commandments that must be obeyed at all cost, and ignoring all consequence. As you noted
yourself. Trump's wall would do little to impede immigration. A better e-verify system
would be far more effective. So why ignore e-verify while being completely for the wall?
Because the wall is a visible simple of defiance against immigration that conservatives can
march back and forth in front of brandishing their 2nd amendment right. You can't do that
for a government policy.
Trumpism stands in opposition to globalization; whose goal is worker abundance which
necessarily drives wages down and increases oligarchic wealth. US led imperialism, especially
in the Middle East is also a necessary feature of globalization.
Here too I would make a modification. Neo-liberalism and globalization aren't about
worker "abundance" but rather worker "disposability." Again, if the idea is to create an
abundance of workers, driving down market share, then why make finding work so complicated?
Why be against strong education systems which would create new workers. Why shut down
factories here in the US only to open them in Korea? Why lock up so many Americans for
petty offensive, removing them from the willing work force.
I would argue that the heart of neo-liberalism is a class structure that places "the
establishment" as not just important in the grand scheme of things, but completely
indispensable to an individual. And part of that self-aggrandizement is the subjection of
every one else. "I am worth more than a thousand of you." Thus, why I must get
2-million-dollar bonus (even after bankrupting the company) and a post on the new re-org
chart while everyone else gets a pink slip and watch their hard-earned pensions disappear
in chapter 11 proceedings.
Of course, unlike much of the right, neo-liberalism does have a goal-oriented
methodology. So, creating "worker abundance" to force down individual worker market share
certainly makes sense. But is it true? It doesn't capture the full cynicism of typical
neo-liberal thinking. For creating so much worker abundance, plenty of neo-liberal aligned
employers still managed to complain about worker "allocations" (the idea that certain
employment sectors face chronic worker scarcity.) Indeed, current "plug-n-play" employment
patterns have made filling many positions nearly impossible because no one ever has the
right qualifications for a specific job without training. I have seen engineering jobs go
empty for years because they can't find "prior experience for proprietary development
project." (face palm.).
But it does speak to how disposable workers are to upper management. You are hired for
X, and when X is done you are automatically laid off. Why would you waste time giving such
an employee training of any sort? Let alone benefits or perks.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I will attempt to respond to your points.
Ruling class elements of the GOP attack unions in order to minimize worker micro-scarcity.
What is inexplicable is when unions attack Trumpist attempts at macro-scarcity through the
use of national borders. A united Union/Trumpist front is required against ruling class
interests. Struggling for worker scarcity does not mean one "hates" the workers the ruling
class is importing in order to create worker abundance.
This is to accept the ruling elite's identitarian frame, which boils down to: class struggle is racist. What this basically boils
down to is that the ruling class is benevolent and kind and loves purely altruistically to
import little brown workers while evil workers hate them because they are taking their jobs.
Oligarchs + cheap labor immigrants = good. Workers militating for their class interests =
bad. The key goal for Trumpism is to flip these equations.
Worker abundance necessarily means job scarcity from the worker's point of view. This
makes workers desperate and willing to accept lower wages. This has been happening for the
last 40 years at least since the end of the Cold War, if not a little sooner. Worker scarcity
means job abundance, from the worker's point of view. This means plenty of options because
management has to bid up salaries to attract workers.
Neoliberalism is Capitalism's attempt to remove the fetters on profits that exist within
the power of a nation-state. Worker abundance is just one of many Neoliberal goals. Borders
are a huge fetter to capitalism's basic mission of maximizing profit by producing commodifies
with the cheapest labor and selling them to the wealthiest consumers.
Nation-states can also
impose regulations (environmental, worker, etc) which also limit capitalist profit. Free
trade allows corporations to relocate factories to nations with the lowest salaries,
environmental and worker protections. For those jobs that cannot be transferred, Prop 22 is
the thin edge of the neoliberal wedge that is constraining the nation-state from protecting
workers.
I understand restricting immigration and anti-globalism as a means to increase US workers
leverage in raising wages in jobs and in better political representation. This addresses the
physical world of work.
Left unaddressed, and equally important imo, is the fact that US business and economy is now
largely financialized; much of the greatest wealth comes from unregrulated or restrained
predatory financial practices, from rentierism, from tolls and fines and fees.
This
financialization is every bit as important as the physical conditions you list in the rise in
precarity, maybe even more so at this time. How, for instance, would only physical
restrictions have changed the financial outcomes of the 2008 mortgage bank frauds and
financial crisis, the outcomes of ratings agencies giving bogus ratings to junk bonds,
changed the exorbitant rise in medicine prices, etc?
This is a very important aspect of
precarity. Reducing work competition for jobs to increase wages is only half the job,
stopping financial predators is the other half, imo
O could have stopped the bank predators in 2009-10, but chose not to. In his own
words:
+++ Without immigration or outsourcing or even automation, the predators will find still other
ways to break labor. We are seeing it with identity politics.
Beware of the UBI: it simply greases the wheels for more privatization instead of public
goods and infrastructure, similar to how vouchers and charters gut a public school
system.
Financialization is the necessary result of globalization's destruction of Fordism: which
is the interdependent role of worker and consumer. In order to increase profits, Ford doubled
his workers' salaries so that could serve him as consumers as well as workers.
Globalization
seeks to increase profits even further by disassociating the worker and the consumer. Work is
off-shored to low wage countries, whose leaders intentionally damp down local consumption.
This paradoxically means the soon to be immiserated western worker is still called upon to
play the role of global consumer of last resort.
At the same time, huge waves of profits are
washing over Wall Street. And so temporary speculative bubbles are created that serve two
purposes. First false wave of prosperity brought on for example by a real estate boom tamps
down any worker resistance towards the new economic order. Secondly the seemingly "free
money" created by speculation allow western consumption to continue.
So necessarily a Green Reindustrialization will force Wall Street to stop chasing
speculative squirrels and to instead concentrate on financing the new clean plant that will
help alleviate the climate crisis.
Rogan likes to do long form interviews across the political spectrum, but he has
consistently been a fan of Bernie and Tulsi. Author is Confusing the medium with the message.
Not the same.
I would argue that Bernie and Tulsi are "Trumpism adjacent" in the larger sense of
Trumpism.
If Trumpism as an ideology is going to flourish, Tulsi in particular will play a
critical role in this. The simplest way to see this is that when the ruling class smears
someone as a "Russian asset" what they are really doing is recognizing them as a Trumpist
threat.
Trumpism in its highest form will mean a reconciliation of the non-identitarian left
and right. For example, white identitarians like Richard Spencer have abandoned Trumpism.
I think that one of the most important considerations is that there needs to be a
coalition of sorts – between the working class Trumpian base and the Left (primarily
Generation Y and X). It shares one thing, they are both victims of the Establishment,
neoliberals, and urgently need change.
One image has always been very important to me. Note the distribution of socially
conservative, economically left wing voters.
The major challenge facing Democrats today is that race, gender, identity politics, and
religion appear to trump economics, at least as far as politically engaged primary voters
go. The old-line Democrats were an economic liberal party with socially conservative and
socially liberal wings (the social liberals, in fact, were in a minority). The new
Democrats are a socially liberal party with an economic conservative wing (neoliberals) and
a progressive economic wing. They all agree on social issues. They are loath to compromise
on open borders (which is what the existing immigration dysfunction de facto gives us),
transgender bathrooms, making room for pro-life members, or gay married couples' wedding
cakesbecause those are the only issues that hold their economic right and economic left
together.
I don't think that the Democratic Party in its current form is viable for the left.
So the price of a new New Deal majority would be to let Democrats welcome abortion
critics and opponents of mass immigration, so long as they favored a higher minimum wage,
less "synthetic immigration," and a pause on globalization (which facilitates international
labor arbitrage). In the words of John Judis:
I think that we would end up with the following compromise.
1. The economically left, culturally right agrees to accept global warming, end the wars,
and "socialism" like universal healthcare), and to offer legal immigrants along with
minorities a shot at the middle class
2. The economically left, culturally left agrees to compromise on immigration, globalization
(think put a strong emphasis on re-industrialization and de-financialization), and social
issues (think abortion, guns, defend the police, etc).
Interestingly, the American Conservative has an article lambasting Trump as well.
"The ruling class goal is to place an "enlightened person" mask over naked and rapacious
ruling class greed and oppression."
Maybe the same can be said of placing a "socially conservative" mask. We need to be
cautious in positing the possiblility of a multi-ethnic, multi-racial conservative movement
that somehow manages to be "nationalist, anti-cosmopolitan, anti-immigration" but still
serves the interests of the multi-racial, multi-ethnic, religiously diverse, working class
populace that's already here.
Implementing worker scarcity will necessarily further the economic interests of the
multi-racial, multi-ethnic, religiously diverse, working class populace that's already
here.
Just as implementing worker abundance necessarily furthers the economic interests of the
multi-racial, multi-ethnic, religiously diverse, RULING class populace that's already
here.
Great write up.
While I generally agree with your characterizations, I will also throw out there ..in no
particular order..
1) luckily , trump and his "legion of doom" aren't competent enough to draw on the "larger
picture" you've outlined here to maximize his effectiveness by using these natural
advantages, in their plot of self aggrandizement luckily for us americans/ the trump is his
own worst enemy.
2) ejecting trump from trumpism is a path to greater success for the right and
fascism/corporatism, which some "smart" people will surely weave into their future plans and
models. And the corporatists,be they from the republican side of the aisle, or the democratic
side will surely carry forward with this opening in american politics.
because trump does have to go the professionals of deception can mold that wisp of smoke into
any shape they want but it won't stay for long and doesn't hold up to any scrutiny . it isn't
real..It isn't even a chunk of clay
3] the problem of trumpism, or "conservative republican politics", or "democratic party
politics" is that they all necessarliy MUST be a lie in progress. NONE of the political
duopoly can go into "truthland" . it is their kryptonite. So all have agreed to never enter
and call it a no go zone
And the fact that everything about our political situation is "fact free",at least in the
sense that any facts used are only used out of context to keep a truer understanding from
happening; hasn't stopped anyone yet and isn't likely too any time soon so too bad for
everyone. .we'll call that a draw.
The 30,000 foot description of yours not withstanding, that type of over arching layers of
this onion, is something for planners to incorporate in "the con" as it needs to be.. but is
above the paygrade of most political actors , who work at rousing the rabble
4) I don't see actual agency of the people . what people want to do has nothing to do with
what is going to happen usually, if the elites want something to happen, they provide the
opinions and the votes.. "deserve" has nothing to do with it.. and "our reality" is just an
illusion.
So over layering a description of bigger forces, over the chaos that has been created to keep
this "hegelian dialect" in place , is again for those at a higher pay grade in the
process..
Too many chefs ruin the meal but hey ,it's our gruel and we have nothing else to eat , for
the moment and maybe less later, if they get their way.
"Post-truth" is dystopian. It's a luxury to live at a distance from unpleasant realities.
If a society can sustain a population/segment so far up their own **** then you've "arrived"
in a sense.
However, dystopia sounds better than the crises that lay ahead. It's the unavoidable hard
landing that worries me.
Maybe truth works like wealth: The first generation discovers the truth. The second
generation teaches the truth. And the third generation fakes news.
The Democratic Party doesn't want to come to terms with the fact that they deserve as much
blame as the GOP for the predicament the working class finds itself in.
They chose under Clinton to repeal Glass Steagall, sign free trade agreements, and bring
China into the WTO. Under Obama, those policies largely continued. Under Biden, all signs
indicate that this will still continue.
I think the brutal reality is that the upper middle class is willfully ignorant of what
the precariat faces. Public health authorities, while understandably trying to contain the
pandemic, are not the ones who are going to see their lives destroyed. The working class was
doomed either way, either by being disproportionately hurt by the coronavirus (they can't
work from home) or from long-term unemployment (they've suffered more as a percentage of
total jobs lost). In other words, they don't have a stake in keeping the lockdown and may see
opening up as a lesser evil.
Likewise, the Liberals who are in secure upper middle class white collar jobs tended to
act disdainfully when working class people protested the lockdowns. I'm not saying the
protestors were right, but many are people who put their lives into their work, such as small
business owners. Evidently, subsidies were needed at the very least.
In this regard, the GOP might have more hope than the Democrats, barring a Berniecrat
takeover of the Democrats, which is looking less likely. That said the GOP still has a huge
right wing apparatus that would have to be overcome for a "real populist" (ex: someone who
actually cared about the well being of the working class) to take over.
One advantage might be that younger people are overwhelmingly left wing economically, so
as Generation Y and Z become a bigger share of the electorate, things may change.
Likewise, the Liberals who are in secure upper middle class white collar jobs tended to
act disdainfully when working class people protested the lockdowns. I'm not saying the
protestors were right, but many are people who put their lives into their work, such as
small business owners. Evidently, subsidies were needed at the very least
To this day, they still get outraged for the same reasons. If you so much as point out
what you just wrote–not being anti-science but simply the hardship lockdowns cause and
how it needs to be properly addressed–at best you'll be called scientifically
illiterate. At worst you'll be accused of being an evil rich person who wants to kill grandma
to make the stock market go up.
While some of the protests may have been astroturf, not all of them were. If you're a
small-business owner facing the prospect of losing everything you've worked for and basically
being told "you're on own" of course you will be angry. Likewise, if you're an employee and
can't work from home, of course you will be stressed out about losing your job. This is the
real "economic anxiety" and it is no laughing matter.
for the real small business owners, and the individuals who can't work .
they ought to feel pissed
after all . a fraction of the trillions that are earmarked for wall street, could have "paid
their bills"..at least for a year . and then the "citizens" would be getting something
tangible for the debt being incurred in their name by the duopoly.
All the people realizing "someone" is getting bailed out and it isn't them
I was puzzled by the victory of Prop. 22 in California. This is a state which has huge
Democratic majorities, and normally rubber-stamps all union-sponsored legislation.
Uber and Lyft threatened that if Prop. 22 did not pass, they would either stop operations
or would lay off 75% of their temp workers.
(not unlike an employer threatening to move to China if their workers form a union.)
They also threatened that ride prices would at least double, and wait times would greatly
increase.
The average voter may have put their own self-interest ahead of any class loyalty.
Final note: the gig workers did get a few benefits out of AB 5, things granted by Uber and
Lyft to buy some goodwill.
Comments welcome! I do not live in CA so I am just guessing on this. It was an important
vote.
Prop 22 is going to be the most important result of the 2020 election, not Trump
v Biden or control of either legislature.
I've been very puzzled by the result too as it passed handily and wasn't really close. I
don't live near CA either, but I did read that among other misleading tactics, the Prop 22
proponents gave delivery bags to restaurants that use these gig delivery services so that the
delivery drivers would be dropping off meals to people in Yes on 22 bags, which made it seem
like prop 22 would be beneficial to gig workers if you didn't look into it much.
So on the one hand there was the intent to deceive. But then I think that if I heard about
these dirty tricks 3,000 miles away, surely CA voters must have known about them too.
The depressing thing is that maybe a lot of people did know exactly what Prop 22 was all
about and decided they liked the idea of a permanent underclass always only minutes
away at the touch of a button to do the things they can't be bothered with for a
pittance.
The fact that so many of the gig company execs worked first in the Obama administration
and are now heading back to the Biden administration with dreams of scaling up prop 22 is a
very ominous portent.
I voted NO on prop 22, but a mailer I received from the YES side may show why it
passed.
It has text with "by 4-to-1, app-based drivers overwhelmingly prefer to work as
independent contractors".
The pictures of smiling workers on the mailer are all minorities (Asian, Hispanic,
Black).
I'd suggest a small percentage of CA voters actually use Uber/Lyft, so am inclined to
believe voters did not vote to preserve their own self-interest.
The "YES" mailer lists 5 advantages for the drivers, "guaranteed hourly earnings for
app-based drivers", "per mile compensation toward vehicle expenses", "medical and disability
coverage for injuries and illnesses", "new health benefits for drivers who work 15+ hours a
week", and "additional safety protections for app-based drivers"
The mailer lists groups supporting it, NAACP, California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,
Consumer Choice Center, The Latin Business Association, Black Women Organized for Political
Action, California Small Business Association, California Senior Advocates League.
I remember a prior YES on 22 mailer had support from Mothers Against Drunk Driving..
The "YES" group spent about 12x more than the No group (188 million vs 15million)
I saw a lot of pro Prop 22 advertising and nothing against it. The ads were all sleek,
full of cheerful drivers with big smiles, and easily the best made ads of 2020. I knew that
there was something bad about the proposition, but until just a few days before the election
I couldn't tell you why. All my mental bandwidth was on the national elections and not on
parsing the various state propositions like I normally would. This time it was all on
something else.
If a poli-sci/poli-econ geek like me was having some problems with truly understanding
this extremely effective, slickly made campaign of manufactured consent, what does that say
about the many, often financially and/or socially overwhelmed, California voters who would be
much like me? I think that the overlords had the perfect situation for getting the
proposition passed.
"but the (GOP) party needs to reverse its positions on taxing the wealthiest, punishing
and preventing the expansion of organized labor, reversing their position on outsourcing
manufacturing, and addressing economic precarity"
And I need to become 6'4″, handsome, young and athletic.
Indeed why would they reverse when the Dems agree with them on all of it. What the above
article doesn't get is that the true ruling class response to precarity is simply to make
sure voters have no options to address it. We are in a class war, not a battle between
political parties. Any promises Biden made to the poor will blow away like smoke once in
office. He is on the record saying that billionaires are swell folks.
Lambert linked an interesting article yesterday in Water Cooler that talked about cycles
in history and the ingredients of high social unrest. The subject is historian Peter
Turchin
He has been warning for a decade that a few key social and political trends portend an
"age of discord," civil unrest and carnage worse than most Americans have experienced. In
2010, he predicted that the unrest would get serious around 2020, and that it wouldn't let
up until those social and political trends reversed. Havoc at the level of the late 1960s
and early '70s is the best-case scenario; all-out civil war is the worst.
The fundamental problems, he says, are a dark triad of social maladies: a bloated elite
class, with too few elite jobs to go around; declining living standards among the general
population; and a government that can't cover its financial positions.
Turchin is saying that social instability is not just the result of high inequality but
also of a bloated ruling class that is itself insecure because there aren't enough PMC jobs
for all those college graduates and their credentials. Thus in our case the political parties
have come to be dominated by these middle class concerns with the poor almost entirely out of
the picture and dismissed as racist deplorables who probably deserve their fate. As the
article says this sociological theory of history is controversial but at least worth
considering.
A good, broad, liberal arts degree, or something like it, can be useful in many kinds of
jobs, if the jobs exist . Much of the high skilled, high paying jobs have all been shipped
overseas, and the remaining good paying jobs increasingly are office jobs requiring not only
a masters degree, but good social connections, and at least saying only goodthoughts to get
and keep.
It use to be that there was plenty of diverse work. If you failed at getting tenure or
that job at the bank, or the government position you wanted, there was plenty of good work
requiring only some education, intelligence, and drive. Having the kind of degree and
connections that someone in the modern PMC would merely be very useful, not a requirement for
a good life. Bur now we have too many people having the exact education needed to get the few
remaining good jobs in the few safe fields, and unlike fifty years, failure means
destitution, not disappointment.
And yet claiming that this class war exist, which is supposedly immiserating increasing
numbers of Americans ever higher up the class chain, is all deplorably racist, sexist,
homophobic, and transphobic I am reliable informed. /s
It is unsettling to see writers who I have been reading for years, even decades, start
saying that it is racism or bigotry, and only that, which explains the Bad Man. One doesn't
have to be a Marxist to make a connection with the increasing poverty and corruption under
both parties over the past forty or fifty years with President Trump. Yet, many refuse
to.
It does make me wonder what it is that I am blind to.
I agree,
the class war is a better way of seeing things.
all the symptoms and externalities the class war provides are the things the parties use as
fodder issues for their respective bases but all the duopoly can provide is more of the same
. "their way" their culture . their rules . their precedents their history..
this is how they seem to win they teach the children to think their" way".
Then what else will happen in the future
people continually adopting patterns that already exist.
They have created a culture . and we all know how people are treated by their neighbors who
are "counter-culture"
It becomes a self reinforcing narrative, where the hive keeps the status quo because they
want to .
We keep supporting systems that are there to control us rather than recreating systems that
help .. like we are "supposed" to or something.
James P. Yep. That paragraph has some giant "ifs" in it that caught my eye as I was
reading. The likelihood of Republicans sponsoring legislation to repeal "right to work" laws,
which tend to be in Republican-dominated states, is almost nil. Further, a party that is
opposed to any tax increases, no matter what need has to be addressed, isn't going to change
course. Another "if" is relying on someone like the egregious Tom Cotton, as mentioned, for
leadership about legislation.
I am sure, though, that you are already on your way to becoming a beefcake model and
internet influencer.
It's going to take some time for this article to sink in. Words like precariat and
precarity are fairly new concepts, at least for me and my automatic spell checker. What is
the etymology of this word and what are it's conceptual dimensions. I know what precarious
means and I can see how using it as an adjective works. But if it's going to be a key term I
want to know more about it. Accordiing to a quick search, the etymology is:
precarious (adj.)
1640s, a legal word, "held through the favor of another," from Latin precarius "depending on
favor, pertaining to entreaty, obtained by asking or praying," from prex (genitive precis)
"entreaty, prayer" (from PIE root *prek- "to ask, entreat").
The notion of "dependent on the will of another" led to the extended sense "risky,
dangerous, hazardous, uncertain" (1680s), but this was objected to. "No word is more
unskillfully used than this with its derivatives. It is used for uncertain in all its senses;
but it only means uncertain, as dependent on others " [Johnson]. Related: Precariously;
precariousness.
So what is striking in reading it's etymology is that it is defined as something
"dependent, uncertain, risky, dangerous, hazardous." This characterizes many areas of life.
With respect to contemporary life in the area of economics, I certainly see it all around me
and in the news headlines, in the instability of good long-term paying jobs with benefits. In
politics, I certainly see the risks, dangers, and hazards, especially in the highly
militarized nature of foreign relations. But looking at the term from the perspective of a
"social scientist" does it explain the antecedents that lead to this condition and is it
operational in the sense of breaking it down into more rudimentary terms and
relationships.
I am reading St. Thomas Aquinas' book "On Truth" and although the style of Questiones
Disputatae , with its contra, sed contra, and style is archaic and hard to
follow, it provides a good way of centering dialogue. In Question one of Article 1, the
formal reply to the stated Article of "What is Truth?" states:
When investigating the nature of anything, one should make the same kind of analysis
as he makes when he reduces a proposition to certain self-evident principles."
Since this term "precarity" is new to me, I don't think I have a good handle on how to use
it outside of a descriptor. Does it explain anything? And maybe I'm just asking too much of
the word. Maybe it's just meant as that, a simple characterization whose underlying causal
relationships are to yet be determined and examined.
I've seen precariate be described as a combination of precarious proletariat.
While one could argue the position of the proletariat is always precarious, I do think the
are times in history which are more precarious than others, and what we see now is certainly
one (climate change impacts, opioid/alcoholism, covid19 pandemic, ever increasing inequality,
globalization of manufacturing, health care for profit in the US, increasing cost of housing
and education, no doubt many more)
Nice piece generally and which kinda validates a feeling I've had generally that
"uncertainty is increasing" which is often bad for people in so many ways – uncertainty
among the "entitled" can be highly damaging to polling (in addition to all the points raised
in the article). The elephant in the room is of course interpreting polling results. For
example 70% Democrat at a precinct/state/national level is consistent with an infinite number
of explanations: at one end we have "strong means" (meaning these are "solid" votes) and at
the other we have "very weak means but big variances" (meaning these votes are subject to all
sorts of factors like news items, real or manufactured, etc). We can't "know" which universe
we're in .Unless we conduct a secondary survey to give a "second line in the x-y plane" to
see where it intersects the main one ..then we know whether the 70% is driven by means or
variances or some combination.
The likelihood function for all "limited dependent variable models" – discrete
choices like voting – has a term that is multiplicative in means and variances. Thus
"70%" could mean any of a HUGE number of things. Those of us experienced in interpreting
these data can rule out the "dumb" explanations .but we are still left with a number of
"possible explanations". If we don't actively talk to voters, do a lot of qualitative
research etc, then we can't begin to limit the number of "possible solutions" further. I have
had little experience in applying the methods to polling so I rely a lot on sites like NC to
give "insights from the ground". It is a pity polling institutions don't. YouGov were on the
right track in 2017 but bottled it due to collecting data for their "second line" in a poor
way. It's a pity – if they collected data in better way they'd be far and away the best
polling organisation. Though the downright lies told by Trumpites that Lambert has
highlighted remain a problem – I do have ideas how to address this but they go way
beyond the scope of the site and like I've said before, I think pushing MMT etc is a better
use of resources (even though it pains me personally not to have my own "hobby horse"
championed, hehe).
But I personally think increased variances are a fact of life and reflect the article's
point that uncertainty in life is hurting everyone.
Uncertainty and fear are increasing because the kick-the-can strategies are starting to
look really wobbly, and the fights for survival and hail-marys (like MMT) are being trotted
out.
The velocity of change has increased, and the rate of adaptation appears to have somehow
actually slowed down. Just exactly the wrong response at the wrong time.
One commenter above poked fun at the term "precarity" – said it was a $10 gimmick
for the word "poor".
A while back Mark Twain said a "cauliflower is a cabbage with a college education".
Precarity is a college-educated middle class "information worker" who is "feeling
poor".
The effects of automation and globalization are moving up the class ladder. The ship's
sinking and the water's already flooded 3rd class berths (rust belt and flyover), and is
about 1/3 of the way into the 2nd class cabins.
Agree or disagree with Andrew's Yang's proposal for a universal basic income, I think he
is definitely on to something when he talks about the ramifications of automation and machine
learning, though he isn't the first person to point it out.
Some people are simply not aware–it's not that they necessarily don't care, they
simply just don't know–while others are in denial or don't care.
Regardless of where a given person falls, I do agree that with Yang and others that say
dealing with this economic reshaping will be of the key challenges–if not the most
important challenge–of our time.
reshaping our monetary system is one of the biggest hurdles in reshaping our economic
present.
Monetary reform efforts like the modern day "chicago plan" as was described in the bill
proposed in congress in 2011/2012 112th congress HR 2990
open the door to creating money debt free, and permanently which could pay off the national
debt, and fund policies like single payer health care and even "citizen dividends", that are
really just ways to inject money into the economy, rather than starting the injection of
money into the economy on wall street , like now.. https://www.congress.gov/bill/112-thcongress/house-bill/2990/text
In sharp contrast, Trump may have appeared indifferent to the gravity of the coronavirus,
but his persistent calls to reopen the economy addressed the precarity issue, as they
appealed to many workers whose livelihoods were being destroyed by the pandemically induced
government restrictions placed on economic activity.
The average worker up through October does not have Covid and may not know anyone of
working age who does have Covid ..but they do have a job, and if the job must be done
in-person they know they were vulnerable.
"Keeping the economy open" is more urgent to them than defeating Covid through
lockdowns.
This is a big reason why Trump even kept this election close.
In America, the authorities who order lockdowns cannot simultaneously order financial
relief. This created a tragic class divide on fighting the pandemic.
These days the members of the media tend to be dominated by the upper middle class who
attended elite colleges and probably don't even understand the meaning of precarity.
Therefore to them it seems perverse to object to lockdowns and elaborate precautions that the
work from home set can more easily deal with. In the old days newspaper reporters rose
through the ranks and came from small town newspapers and were more in touch with the general
society rather than journalism schools.
I live in California and was surprised to learn here that Harris opposed prop 22. While
the Pro campaign carpet bombed the airwaves with ads, I never saw any CA leaders raise a
voice in opposition or attempt to explain why this would be bad for working people. Never saw
any mention, other than in the state election booklet, that the prop introduced a huge
supermajority needed to repeal it, making it effectively impossible to remove once passed.
Didn't see any out of state money funding ads despite it being obvious that success in
California would lead to adoption in other states.
Well Harris does all support and oppose M4A depending on who shes talking to and when
she's saying it, so there's that. I suspect any disagreements she may express over prop 22's
passage are crocodile tears at best.
Her and every other leader who takes positions on many issues but not on this one. Perhaps
they saw polling and thought it best instead to add to the strategic underground reserves of
dry powder.
Great piece. One effect of spreading precarity–and I will use the term more loosely
to encompass not only economic precarity, but also the increasing sense of pervasive dread
and fear experienced by so many across all walks of life–is that living in this state
increases one's susceptibility to both totalitarian ideologies and to drives for war against
some perceived enemy. To me this explains the shadow of "law and order" hard nationalism
coming from the far right, the more extreme variants of identity politics on the left, and
the terrified push for censorship and "full lockdown" coming from the neoliberal center.
Unfortunately the billionaire class and their pets in the media see all of this as a
potential cash cow rather than a serious danger. Given their stranglehold on the national
discourse and their control of the most effective means of mass organizing (social media),
I'm not sure it is possible to reverse the trend early enough to prevent some kind of major
conflict. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try!
P.S. To avoid any confusion, when I disparagingly refer to "full lockdown" I mean an
authoritarian lockdown without accompanying benefits for workers and with "papers please"
checkpoints and penalties. The worst kind of lockdown, where people are both unable to
support themselves and are actively prevented from doing so. In my opinion people who push
for a hard lockdown before benefits/compensation can be arranged are unintentionally
advocating for such a position; the compensation will never come.
Heck, I've seen comments (generally not on this site) admiring what China did and
lamenting the fact that it can't be done here in the United States.
I sure hope these are troll accounts and not real people in this country, especially not
real people on the left. If these are real people, we are in more trouble than I thought.
A government with the power to literally weld people's door shut, which is what China did,
can do a lot of other scary things.
Yes, like get on top of a virus (and achieve the highest level of economic growth in human
history, and produce incredible poetry, and so on). And as I'm not 'in this country,' I
believe I'm not 'real people.'
I have seen the same thing and have had the same concerns. I do think there is more
dishonest disruption/manipulation and trolling going on than we are aware of. It's at the
point where I automatically assume that most social media accounts are not taking an honest
position. I hope I'm right, because if I'm wrong then humanity is absolutely terrifying.
The corporate imperialism status quo isn't terrifying enough for you? Oil and gas seeping
out through the land under and around "affordable housing" because CEQA doesn't count on
those properties doesn't terrify you? Flint's water crisis doesn't terrify you?
The throngs of human beings thrown out onto the street by Upgrading slumlords and
developers doesn't terrify you? Overlords talking with straight faces about excess and
surplus humans and ramming Prop 22 through doesn't terrify you?
There's a big difference between "humanity is OK, but the small slice that rules us is
terrible" and "humanity is in deep shit because we're mostly terrible." The first implies a
solution, the second what? Hope for a benevolent AI overlord to emerge?
Read my post again. I said that I automatically assume that most accounts posting terrible
stuff are bots. There are accounts that say awful things about almost any and every topic
imaginable. The number of them is so huge that if these are real people and not
bots, then people may indeed be largely terrible. But I assume they are bots.
https://popularresistance.org/affordable-housing-developers-set-their-sights-on-former-toxic-oil-fields/
DeSmog blog Vista Hermosa residents like Luna are troubled by a 2019 environmental rollback by the
state, AB1197, that exempts homeless housing developments in the City of Los Angeles from the
mandates of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Arguably California's broadest
environmental law, CEQA requires builders to assess the environmental impacts of new
development and find ways to avoid or mitigate them.
The political will to rollback CEQA has continued into 2020. In January, Assemblyman
Miguel Santiago, who represents District 53 bordering Vista Hermosa, introduced a new piece
of legislation, AB1907, to further expand CEQA exemptions to now include all affordable
housing.
I'm reminded of the excellent post by Anne Amnesia in May 2016, (yes, when Obama and Biden
were still in office, and the White House was just a huge gleam in Kamala's way too sparkly
eyes, given the massive poverty, incarceration and inequality in California, as she
successfully ran for California Senator and will have not completed even one term)
Unnecessariathttps://morecrows.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/unnecessariat/
A very brief excerpt (it's long and meaty), emphasis mine:
In 2011, economist Guy Standing coined the term "precariat" to refer to workers
whose jobs were insecure, underpaid, and mobile, who had to engage in substantial "work for
labor" to remain employed, whose survival could, at any time, be compromised by employers
(who, for instance held their visas) and who therefore could do nothing to improve their
lot. The term found favor in the Occupy movement, and was colloquially expanded to include
not just farmworkers, contract workers, "gig" workers, but also unpaid interns, adjunct
faculty, etc. Looking back from 2016, one pertinent characteristic seems obvious: no matter
how tenuous, the precariat had jobs. The new dying Americans, the ones killing themselves
on purpose or with drugs, don't. Don't, won't, and know it.
Here's the thing: from where I live, the world has drifted away. We aren't
precarious, we're unnecessary. The money has gone to the top. The wages have gone to
the top. The recovery has gone to the top. And what's worst of all, everybody who matters
seems basically pretty okay with that. The new bright sparks, cheerfully referred to as
"Young Gods" believe themselves to be the honest winners in a new invent-or-die economy,
and are busily planning to escape into space or acquire superpowers, and instead of
worrying about this, the talking heads on TV tell you its all a good thing- don't worry,
the recession's over and everything's better now, and technology is TOTES AMAZEBALLS!
The Rent-Seeking Is Too Damn High
If there's no economic plan for the Unnecessariat, there's certainly an abundance for
plans to extract value from them. No-one has the option to just make their own way and be
left alone at it. It used to be that people were uninsured and if they got seriously sick
they'd declare bankruptcy and lose the farm, but now they have a (mandatory) $1k/month plan
with a $5k deductible: they'll still declare bankruptcy and lose the farm if they get sick,
but in the meantime they pay a shit-ton to the shareholders of United Healthcare, or Aetna,
or whoever. This, like shifting the chronically jobless from "unemployed" to "disabled" is
seen as a major improvement in status, at least on television.
I was surprised Prop 22 passed because it was not doing well in the polls for most of the
pre-election period. It seemed Californians were solidly against it. Then, perhaps 4-6 weeks
before the election, I noticed a dramatic change in messaging. Suddenly the ads were touting
that if Prop 22 passed, Uber and Lyft drivers would receive health care benefits. I assumed
that this was deceptive messaging designed to turn the vote around. Here is what Kaiser
Health News says about the benefits:
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201029/App-based-companies-pushing-Prop-22-say-drivers-will-get-health-benefits-Will-they.aspx
Looks like it worked. I guess there's no penalty for this sort of deception, or at least, no
enforcement of a penalty.
So, I have CSPAN on at the moment. They're streaming the DC #MillionMAGAMarch
#StopTheSteal SuperSpreader rally.
The over-the-top vitriol is rather breathtaking. The angry ignorance is depressing.
They're "not gonna allow the Steal." They're gonna "be warriors." "Trump WON! Trump WON!
Trump WON! Trump WON! "
The Occam's Chainsaw "logic" is on full display.
Meanwhile, yesterday's new U.S. Covid19 case count was more than 184k, 1.6m for Nov
1-13.
No argument there. I started an Excel sheet, w/ transcribed JHU data commencing Oct 1st
(thru yesterday). The exponential upward trendline in the graph has an R-sq of 0.91. (an
iterative 7-day moving avg is also illuminating.)
Of course, it'll go up until it no longer does. And, "new cases" incidence rates comprise
but one facet of interest.
If you're struggling but aren't sick (yet), economic concerns win out. No big surprise
there. 70 million people are fighting a return to austerity and a technocratic "Great Reset"
that was devised without their input. They see it as literally fighting for their lives and
livelihoods. The new admin can ignore this at their own peril. (Too bad Trump didn't actually
solve any of their problems, but at least he gave them his attention, more than anyone else
has done in decades.)
Many people have to choose between the certainty of being unable to pay their bills, if
they stay home, versus the unknown risk of contracting COVID if they work.
Staying home is luxury a lot of people just don't have–even pre-COVID it was very
common for people in low-wage jobs that don't provide sick-leave to show up to work sick. It
wasn't because these people are evil or wanted to get anyone sick but rather because if you
don't work you don't get paid.
Precisely. The rent isn't going to pay itself, and people are scared about their future.
Covid isn't an obvious terror like Ebola, so people weigh the risks and decide in favor of
their economic security. If we were like some of the more advanced countries in the world,
they wouldn't have to make this choice, but here we are.
"at least he gave them his attention, more than anyone else has done in decades."
Hmmm last time I looked Bernie Sanders was paying attention and proposing solutions since
at least 2015. Nice how you just erased him and the millions who voted for him.
You're right. Trump is the only primary-winning candidate who paid attention to
the working class in recent memory. Bernie was obviously a million times better than Trump
because he was sincere, he had a plan, and he would have followed through. But he got
screwed.
I'm becoming a bit weary of reading that politicians like Trump are "exploiting anxieties"
about poverty and unemployment, as though such anxieties were unreasonable and the problems
didn't really exist. The trouble is that "responding to voters' concerns about their lives"
doesn't have quite the same dismissive overtones. The supercilious assumption that people who
are afraid of losing their jobs are being "exploited", whereas people being urged to vote on
gender lines aren't, seems very strange. Is anyone really surprised that people are more
worried about how much money they have than about which gender they are?
Understand people's problems, devise reasonable solutions, communicate your plan to the
voters, and follow through on your promises. It sounds so easy, doesn't it but good luck
trying it with the media and parties working together against you at every turn. Pull up
those bootstraps!
Thanks. We are going to find out how the velocity of the vote is slower than the velocity
of hunger.
"Civilization is about 3 meals thick." John Brockman, ex-con.
We are not together and the people in power don't want to give the people without, food
money. Two more and 3 more months of disease as hunger and death knock at more and more
doors. Evictions pick up apace.
Cormac McCarthy dystopia. No country for anybody.
The economic theory attributed to Warren Mosler and popularized by Stephanie Kelton is the
last idea. If it is a Hail Mary then so be it. If it doesn't work, isn't put to work, mankind
itself is doomed.
Public health care authorities understandably directed their policy responses toward
pandemic mitigation, and the Democrats largely embraced their recommendations. But they
remained insensitive to the anxieties of tens of millions of Americans, whose jobs were
being destroyed for good, whose household debts -- rent, mortgage, and utility arrears, as
well as interest on education and car loans -- were rising inexorably, even allowing for
the temporary expedient of stimulus checks from the government until this past August
I agree and worse this dynamic is playing itself out again–talk about whether
President-elect Biden should institute a lockdown is bringing out the "lockdown now, worry
about the consequences later" mentality again.
While I'm not sure Biden personally regards the millions of those who cannot work from
home, but aren't considered essential, collateral damage, there are clearly a segment of
Democrats who do–I've even seen it on Facebook among people I know. It provides further
proof that the Democrats, as Thomas Frank and others have astutely noted, have become
predominantly the party of the college-educated upper-middle class.
While I'm not denying the severity of the pandemic, the consequences of business shutdowns
and subsequent layoffs are very real and not something to be laughed at or minimized,
especially if Democrats want to have a future among those who are less affluent.
The globalists found just the economics they were looking for.
The USP of neoclassical economics – It concentrates wealth.
Let's use it for globalisation.
Mariner Eccles, FED chair 1934 – 48, observed what the capital accumulation of
neoclassical economics did to the US economy in the 1920s. "a giant suction pump had by 1929 to 1930 drawn into a few hands an increasing proportion
of currently produced wealth. This served then as capital accumulations. But by taking
purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied themselves the kind of
effective demand for their products which would justify reinvestment of the capital
accumulation in new plants. In consequence as in a poker game where the chips were
concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by
borrowing. When the credit ran out, the game stopped"
This is what it's supposed to be like.
A few people have all the money and everyone else gets by on debt.
Most of today's problems come from the 1920s.
Financial stability had been locked into the regulations of the Keynesian era.
The neoliberals removed them and the financial crises came back. https://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/banking-crises.png
"This Time is Different" by Reinhart and Rogoff has a graph showing the same thing (Figure
13.1 – The proportion of countries with banking crises, 1900-2008).
After the 1930s, they wanted to ensure those times would never return and put things in
place to ensure they didn't.
The neoliberals have been busy stripping them away.
What did the economists learn in the 1940s? http://delong.typepad.com/kalecki43.pdf
In the paper from 1943 you can see ..
They knew Government debt and deficits weren't a problem as they had seen the massive
Government debt and deficits of WW2.
They knew full employment was feasible as they had seen it in WW2.
After WW2 Governments aimed to create full employment as policymakers knew it could be done
and actually maximised wealth creation in the economy.
Balancing the budget was just something they used to do before WW2, but it wasn't actually
necessary.
Government debt and deficits weren't a problem.
They could now solve all those problems they had seen in the 1930s, which caused politics to
swing to the extremes and populist leaders to rise.
They could eliminate unemployment and create a full employment economy.
They could put welfare states in place to ensure the economic hardship of the 1930s would
never be seen again.
They didn't have to use austerity; they could fight recessions with fiscal stimulus.
The neoliberals started to remove the things that had created stable Western societies
after WW2.
"If I thought voters were racists who want basic economic security and the other party was
offering them racism but not economic security, I would simply try offering economic security
but not racism rather than offering them neither." -Ed Burmilla https://twitter.com/edburmila/status/1324420903409692673
We stepped onto an old path that still leads to the same place.
1920s/2000s – neoclassical economics, high inequality, high banker pay, low regulation,
low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless bankers, globalisation phase
1929/2008 – Wall Street crash
1930s/2010s – Global recession, currency wars, trade wars, austerity, rising
nationalism and extremism
1940s – World war.
We forgot we had been down that path before.
Right wing populist leaders are only to be expected at this stage.
Why is Western liberalism always such a disaster?
They did try and learn from past mistakes to create a new liberalism (neoliberalism), but the
Mont Pelerin Society went round in a circle and got back to pretty much where they
started.
It equates making money with creating wealth and people try and make money in the easiest
way possible, which doesn't actually create any wealth.
In 1984, for the first time in American history, "unearned" income exceeded "earned"
income.
The American have lost sight of what real wealth creation is, and are just focussed on making
money.
You might as well do that in the easiest way possible.
It looks like a parasitic rentier capitalism because that is what it is.
Bankers make the most money when they are driving your economy into a financial
crisis.
What they are doing is really an illusion; they are just pulling future spending power into
today.
The 1920s roared at the expense of an impoverished 1930s.
Japan roared on the money creation of real estate lending in the 1980s, they spent the next
30 years repaying the debt they had built up in the 1980s and the economy flat-lined. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YTyJzmiHGk
Bankers use bank credit to pump up asset prices, which doesn't actually create any
wealth.
The money creation of bank credit flows into the economy making it boom, but you are heading
towards a financial crisis and claims on future prosperity are building up in the financial
system.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf
Early success comes at the expense of an impoverished future.
Let's get the basics sorted.
When no one knows what real wealth creation is, you are in trouble.
We want economic success
Step one – Identify where wealth creation occurs in the economy.
Houston, we have a problem.
Economists do identify where real wealth creation in the economy occurs, but this is a
most inconvenient truth as it reveals many at the top don't actually create any wealth.
This is the problem.
Much of their money comes from wealth extraction rather than wealth creation, and they need
to get everyone thoroughly confused so we don't realise what they are really up to.
The Classical Economists had a quick look around and noticed the aristocracy were
maintained in luxury and leisure by the hard work of everyone else.
They haven't done anything economically productive for centuries, they couldn't miss it.
The Classical economist, Adam Smith:
"The labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of
the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour
of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant
and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his
money."
There was no benefits system in those days, and if those at the bottom didn't work they
died.
They had to earn money to live.
Ricardo was an expert on the small state, unregulated capitalism he observed in the world
around him. He was part of the new capitalist class, and the old landowning class were a huge
problem with their rents that had to be paid both directly and through wages.
"The interest of the landlords is always opposed to the interest of every other class in the
community" Ricardo 1815 / Classical Economist.
They soon identified the constructive "earned" income and the parasitic "unearned"
income.
This disappeared in neoclassical economics.
GDP was invented after they used neoclassical economics last time.
In the 1920s, the economy roared, the stock market soared and nearly everyone had been making
lots of money.
In the 1930s, they were wondering what the hell had just happened as everything had appeared
to be going so well in the 1920s and then it all just fell apart.
They needed a better measure to see what was really going on in the economy and came up with
GDP.
In the 1930s, they pondered over where all that wealth had gone to in 1929 and realised
inflating asset prices doesn't create real wealth, they came up with the GDP measure to track
real wealth creation in the economy.
The transfer of existing assets, like stocks and real estate, doesn't create real wealth and
therefore does not add to GDP. The real wealth creation in the economy is measured by
GDP.
Real wealth creation involves real work producing new goods and services in the economy.
So all that transferring existing financial assets around doesn't create wealth?
No it doesn't, and now you are ready to start thinking about what is really going on
there.
Economists do identify where real wealth creation in the economy occurs, but this is a
most inconvenient truth as it reveals many at the top don't actually create any wealth.
Hide what real wealth creation is, and pretend it's making money, and this problem goes
away.
Daniel Kovalik teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School
of Law, and is author of the recently-released No More
War: How the West Violates International Law by Using "Humanitarian" Intervention to Advance
Economic and Strategic Interests. You might have noticed something curious following
Biden's apparent election win – liberal politicians and media are sounding the alarm that
Trump may use his remaining months in office to draw down our troops from Afghanistan.
For example, the New York Times ran a piece on
November 12 claiming that " both in Kabul and Washington, officials with knowledge of
security briefings said there was fear that President Trump might try to accelerate an all-out
troop withdrawal in his final days in office " before the more "responsible" Biden can take
over and try to stop or at least slow this. It is clear now that it is the liberal
establishment, and the Democratic Party, which is more wedded to war than their counterparts
across the aisle, and that should be disturbing to people hoping for progressive change with
the incoming Administration.
First of all, we must start with this discussion with the undisputed fact that our leaders
do not know, and have not known for some time, what the US' goals and strategy in Afghanistan
even are. One would be forgiven for not knowing, or for forgetting this fact because the
incontrovertible evidence of it – the so-called "
Afghanistan Papers " – received scant and only momentary attention when they were
exposed last year by the Washington Post.
As these documents, consisting of interviews with hundreds of insiders responsible for
prosecuting the war show, the American public was intentionally lied to about the alleged "
progress " of this war, even as our leaders were unsure what " progress "
meant.
As the Washington Post noted, the US government never even decided who it was really
fighting there: " Was al-Qaeda the enemy, or the Taliban? Was Pakistan a friend or an
adversary? What about Islamic State and the bewildering array of foreign jihadists, let alone
the warlords on the CIA's payroll? According to the documents, the US government never settled
on an answer ." Almost to a person, everyone involved in this morass agreed that the
billions of dollars spent, and thousands of lives lost, have been in vain. It has all been a
colossal waste.
Now, however, we are being told to panic that Trump may end this disastrous conflict. For
example, the quite liberal and almost blatantly pro-Biden news outlet, National Public Radio
(NPR) ran segments all last week about
female soccer teams in Afghanistan. The message of these segments was clear – these
soccer teams are (allegedly) proof of women's advances in Afghanistan as a result of the US'
intervention since 2001, and these advances are in jeopardy if Trump ends this
intervention.
Such manipulative stories of course obscure the real fact that the US has been undermining
women's rights in Afghanistan since it began intervening there in 1979, and Afghanistan
still
ranks at the very bottom of all countries for women's rights. But there is no doubt that
such stories will warm the hearts of many Biden supporters to continue war there.
Meanwhile, it is not only Afghanistan which is the focus of the liberal enthusiasm for war.
Thus, as the Grayzone
has reported , Dana Stroul, the Democratic co-chair of the Congressionally-appointed Syria
Study Group, recently outlined the plans for even deeper US intervention in Syria – an
intervention which Trump has at least paid lip service to ending.
Specifically, Stroul emphasized that " one-third of Syrian territory was owned via the US
military, with its local partner the Syrian Democratic Forces, " that this territory
happened to be the richest in Syria in terms of oil and agriculture, and that the US would
intensify its intervention in and against Syria to keep its control of this territory and its
resources. Of course, taking over other nations' resources is a violation of international law,
including the Geneva Conventions prohibition against "plunder," but that seems to be of no
concern.
The liberal media is also elated by the prospect of a Biden White House being more
aggressive in its foreign policy towards both Russia and China.
As CNBC explains
, " Now there is likely to be a change in the air when it comes to U.S.-Russia relations. At
the very least, analysts told CNBC before the result that they expected a Biden win to increase
tensions between Washington and Moscow, and to raise the probability of new sanctions on
Russia...Experts from risk consultancy Teneo Intelligence said they expected more cooperation
between Biden and Europe on global issues such as 'countering China, Russia' ."
While one might think that increased tensions with two major nuclear powers would not be a
welcome development, years of the false Russiagate narrative have groomed liberals for such
tensions.
Incredibly, Trump has been portrayed as being soft on Russia, even as he backed out of a
major
anti-proliferation treaty (The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty) which had been
signed with the Kremlin back in 1987, and even as he
sent the largest contingent of US troops (20,000) in a quarter of a century to train with
European soldiers on the Russian border. I must note here that the converse – Russia's
sending tens of thousands of troops to the border with the US – is simply inconceivable
and would indeed be seen in Washington as an occasion for war. I, for one, am quite alarmed to
think of what a Biden policy of "getting tougher" with Russia would look like, and what kind of
catastrophe it could bring about.
Regretfully, I now live in a country in which liberals outflanking conservatives in terms of
their tolerance and even eagerness for aggression and war, especially when that aggression and
war is being led by officials who, as I'm sure we will see in the new Biden Administration,
happen to be women or people of color. For the first time recently, I have seen the concept of
"intersectional imperialism" being used to describe this situation, and I believe this to be a
very real phenomenon; to be but another means of making war that much easier to swallow for
broad swaths of the American public.
The irony, of course, is that the bombs dropped by the US in war, no matter who happens to
be in charge of the US government at the time, disproportionately fall upon women and children
of a darker skin hue, and they maim and kill just as much as those dropped by old white male
Republicans. Sadly, few seem to understand or care about this.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
benalls 31 minutes ago 16 Nov, 2020 10:27 AM
It's not the "left" or "right", republicans or democrats, but a new American movement,,,,
CBM,,, wich usually means 'silent but deadly' but in this case it stands for "CEO's Bonus
Matters" . The movement congressional members from Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing vowed to
support. Its time for us to grab our shields, helmets, and frozen water bottles and travel to
a new neighborhood to loot and burn. Israel has given Harris and JOJO their instructions.
razzims 49 minutes ago 16 Nov, 2020 10:10 AM
same ol empire of chaos and their eternal war. no matter which party wins election
HypoxiaMasks 1 hour ago 16 Nov, 2020 09:42 AM
Other than the Bush and lil Bush, every war from the beginning of the 20th century was
started with a Democrat president. Tell me again how the Republicans are the party of war
MarkG1964 5 minutes ago 16 Nov, 2020 10:54 AM
The democrats and republicans are two wings on the same bird.
The worst think about Dominion software is that the fraud might be bipartisan and
preapproved. Implemented along with the introduction of voting machine for specific purpose of
controlling the results of the elections.
Otherwise it is "highly unlikely" that this Window based machines would be allowed by
intelligence agencies to tally votes in national elections. S voting machines are about the
control of population, not about counting votes.
Former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell , a Trump campaign lawyer, suggested
in a Sunday interview that there is still more evidence coming out in President Donald Trump's
claims of voter fraud and irregularities.
"We're getting ready to overturn election results in multiple states," Powell said, saying
that she has enough evidence of election fraud to launch a widespread criminal
investigation.
"I don't make comments without having the evidence to back it up," she added, saying that
elections software switched "millions of votes" from Trump to Democratic nominee Joe
Biden.
Powell notably provided legal counsel to Gen. Michael Flynn in 2019. She was named to
Trump's legal team in the past several days.
Powell said a whistleblower came forward and said the elections software was designed to
"rig elections," saying that "he saw it happen in other countries," referring to voting systems
Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, or perhaps other software and machines.
"We have so much evidence, I feel like it's coming in through a fire hose," Powell said,
while noting that she won't reveal the evidence that she has.
"They can stick a thumb drive in the [voting] machine, they can upload software to it even
from the Internet from Germany or Venezuela even," she said, adding that operations "can
watch votes in real-time" and "can shift votes in real-time," or alleged bad actors can
"remote access anything."
"We've identified mathematically the exact algorithm they've used -- and planned to use
from the beginning" that allegedly switched votes to Biden, Powell remarked.
Powell also made reference to a 2019 investigation from Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.),
Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), as well as other Democratic lawmakers into
Dominion Voting Systems, Election Systems & Software, and Hart InterCivic. The senators had
expressed concerns about the security of the voting systems.
"(W)e have concerns about the spread and effect of private equity investment in many
sectors of the economy, including the election technology industry -- an integral part of our
nation's democratic process,"
wrote the lawmakers in their letters to the firms about a year ago.
"These problems threaten the integrity of our elections and demonstrate the importance of
election systems that are strong, durable, and not vulnerable to attack."
Later in the Sunday morning interview, Powell said that her team has "detected voting
irregularities that are inexplicable" in states where officials believe they have valid
systems.
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, left, and President Donald Trump in file
photographs. (Getty Images; Reuters)
During the election, Republicans in the House were able to flip at least 11 seats while the
GOP is poised to maintain control of the Senate. Some conservatives have questioned how such a
voting pattern is possible for Biden to win the presidential election, let alone receive more
votes than any other presidential candidate in American history, including President Barack
Obama's victory in 2008.
Companies Respond
The Department of Homeland Security's cybersecurity agency issued a statement on Thursday
calling the 2020 general election the "most secure in American history," despite multiple legal
challenges alleging a variety of alleged voting irregularities across a number of battleground
states.
"The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the
country, election officials are reviewing and double-checking the entire election process
prior to finalizing the result," read the statement released by the Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).
Smartmatic, in a statement on Saturday, said that it has no ties with Dominion Voting
Systems. Powell suggested that Smartmatic is operated by Dominion in the interview.
Dominion, over the past several weeks, has repeatedly denied its systems were compromised in
some way.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
"In the aftermath of the 2020 general election, there has been a great deal of
misinformation being circulated about Smartmatic and other companies that provide election
technology to voting jurisdictions in the US. We would like to dispel these incorrect
statements with facts," the firm wrote, adding that it "has never owned any shares or had any
financial stake in Dominion Voting Systems."
Dominion also refuted allegations that its machines changed votes from Trump to Biden on
Election Day and beyond.
"Dominion Voting Systems categorically denies any claims about any vote switching or alleged
software issues with our voting systems," a company spokesperson said in a statement
to The Denver Post. "Our systems continue to reliably and accurately count ballots, and state
and local election authorities have publicly confirmed the integrity of the process."
...as an aside, I'm willing to bet this will be memory holed very soon by
Gawgle...however, the presentation has been copied and preserved for posterity.
Any takers? ;-)
Colonel Lingus , 2 hours ago
Used to be Globalist BS with the Diebol equipment before Dominion (had a backdoor bigger
and nastier than a Kartrashian). Here's how you fix voting. Take it away from the States.
Capital punishment if one even thinks about having anything like the "hanging chad" nonsense
ever. Publicize the quick and brutal speedy trial, and burning at the stake for the
perps...(Lots of libturd Dem's wouldn't be home for Christmas too bad)
skizex , 23 minutes ago
at least 28-30 states use the software.
philipat , 2 hours ago
IF (and that's a big if) electronic systems are to be used for elections, the software
should be open-source and the systems should not be open to the internet. Given the
importance of elections to our "democracy", the Federal Government should be capable of
developing and publishing such software. If not, BUY a Company and do the same.Personally, I
still believe that paper ballots, which can be checked and recounted at will, remain the best
and least suspect method.
nmewn , 2 hours ago
"Personally, I still believe that paper ballots, which can be checked and recounted at
will, remain the best and least suspect method."
Correct and agreed.
Also, the great thing about paper ballots is we can "see" which ballots only have one mark
on them...that being...for President (which is another statistical anomaly).
I mean, what "real live legal voter" only votes for a Presidential candidate and nothing
else on the down ballot selections? Like, who do you prefer being your Senator, your
Representative?
There is a historical representation from past elections to compare that to in this one
;-)
Ms. Erable , 1 hour ago
Dunno why fed.gov hasn't used The Big .Gov
Stick via the Federal Elections Commision to dictate the standards required of states to
paticipate in a federal election. Your state doesn't meet the standards? Your results for any
and all federal offices are null and void - possibly resulting in your state having zero
representation at the federal level.
teutonicate , 3 hours ago
Trump Lawyer Sidney Powell: "We're Getting Ready To Overturn Election Results In Multiple
States"
Once it becomes apparent that this scandal is busting wide open, expect a lot more
"evidence" from rats jumping the corrupt ship - rather than being caught when the music
stops.
Powell already says that she has evidence coming at her "like a fire hose". I bet, there
has to be a lot of rats out their looking for an exit!
According to Gateway Pundit the head of security for Dominion posted a pro-antifa
manifesto.
MadameDeficit , 1 hour ago
Yup, Eric Coomer.
Oltman alleged that "Eric" was telling the Antifa members they needed to "keep up the
pressure." When Oltman asked, "Who's Eric?" someone answered, "Eric, he's the Dominion
guy." Oltman said that as the conversation continued, someone asked, "What are we gonna do
if F*cking Trump wins?" Oltman paraphrased how Eric (the Dominion guy) responded, "Don't
worry about the election, Trump's not gonna win. I made f*cking sure of that!"
As part of our attempts to investigate Antifa in Colorado, I have been logging onto
Antifa "conference calls" (for lack of a better word). A few weeks ago, I was on one of
those calls and heard a man named Eric Coomer, an executive at Dominion Voting Systems,
reassure other leftists on the call that Trump could not win because he 'made sure of it.'
As we investigated Coomer further, we found that he was rabidly anti-Trump and emphatically
pro-Antifa. Not only was he rooting for Trump to lose, but he also wanted it to be by a
huge margin so there would be "no recounts."
In the computer quality control business we used to have a term for the process (first
used on the Space Shuttle Transportation System Computers). It's called the "Forklift
Upgrade". When there is any doubt, replace and remove the whole damned machine. The military
and law enforcement use this technique on life critical systems. You got a glitch, you
replace the whole damn machine. That's why we have modularization.
No fixing, no sudden arrivals of repair people in the middle of the night. You only
replace with another sealed certified machine. After replacement, you have the poll managers
run THEIR audit and visible to all parties that want to see it, maybe even post the audit on
the wall so all voters can see it.
Poll managers make decision and they can actually do it themselves. No techies allowed on
site except to vote.
Those companies rely on lobbying and are in the pocket of politicians. They depend on contracts and they spent a lot of money on
lobbying. 2020 Election Security - C-SPAN.org
Whether or not the company's machines were misused, it poses structural risks, and suppressing criticism will make Trump supporters
even more dubious WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 09: (L-R) President and CEO of Election Systems & Software Tom Burt, President and CEO
of Dominion Voting Systems John Poulos, President and CEO of Hart InterCivic Julie Mathis testify during a hearing before
the House Administration Committee January
9, 2020 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
It is unlikely that many of the 73 million people who cast ballots for Donald Trump in 2020 will ever accept the legitimacy of
his loss. Who could convince them? If the media sources demanding Trump's concession held any sway with Trump's voters, they would
not have been his voters. They do not know for sure that the election was stolen, but they do know with apodictic certainty that
the media would lie to them if it was. So if Donald Trump says the election was stolen, that's good enough for the Deplorables.
Yet even the President's most faithful must have flinched at his recent tweet accusing a leading manufacturer of voting machines
of committing election fraud on a mass scale.
It is hard to overstate the irresponsibility of broadcasting such a serious accusation without proof. It shocked me, and my startle
response has become pretty desensitized over the last four years. Sure, it turned out Trump was right when he accused the Obama administration
of spying on his 2016 campaign, but this is different. Dominion Voting Systems is not staffed with Obama appointees, after all. I
decided to poke around a bit to see what, if anything, could possibly be behind Trump's wild accusation.
A Twitter user named Joe Oltmann had tweeted a few screenshots of a Facebook user posting Antifa manifestos and songs about killing
police. The Facebook account belonged to Eric Coomer, and Oltmann claimed it was the same Eric Coomer who is the Director of Product
Strategy and Security for Dominion Voting Systems. Within hours of Oltmann posting the information, however, the Facebook page of
Eric Coomer was taken down, so I was unable to verify that Antifa Coomer and Dominion Coomer were the same person. By the end of
the day, Joe Oltmann's Twitter account was suspended as well. I had followed his feed throughout the day. I can say with certainty
that he posted nothing remotely offensive or provocative. I have no doubt whatsoever that Twitter suspended him for posting the screenshots
of Coomer's Facebook page. Interesting.
Searching around some more, I found that Dominion Coomer is an avid climber who used to post frequently on climbing message boards
under his own name. He confirmed it himself in a post where he mentioned getting his nuclear physics Ph.D from Berkeley in 1997.
Dominion's Eric Coomer received his nuclear physics Ph.D from Berkeley in 1997. In another post on the same message board, Coomer
gave out his email address. It was his old campus address from the Berkeley nuclear physics department. I plugged that email address
into the Google machine, and things got weird.
I found Eric Coomer had a long history of posting on websites for skinheads. He was a heavy user of a Google Group for skinheads,
and seems to have possibly been a content moderator for papaskin.com. Only these aren't the neo-Nazis our mothers warned us about.
These skinheads call themselves SHARPs, or Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice. Think of them as a sort of punk rock Antifa. In 2012,
roughly 18 SHARPs attacked a smaller group of suspected racists in a Chicago restaurant with bats and batons. That same year, three
neo-Nazis were charged for the 1998 double murder of two SHARPs in Nevada.
Given that Dominion's Director of Security and Strategy, Eric Coomer, was an enthusiast of a street fighting anti-racist skinhead
culture going back at least into the 1990s, it seems very likely that Joe Oltmann was correct in identifying him as the Facebook
user recently endorsing Antifa and posting anti-police rhetoric. I shared this information on a few message boards to let other people
run with it. Within hours, Papa Skin, a skinhead website which had been up for over 20 years, was taken offline. (Whoever took it
down missed the FAQ page, you can find it here http://www.papaskin.com/faq/faqs.html
).
Of course none of this proves any fraud took place, but we deserve some answers. One need only imagine if it was Joe Biden contesting
the election results, and the Director for Strategy & Security at a major voting machine provider turned out to be a Proud Boy with
decades of involvement in extremist, even violent, right wing political groups. Democrats would rightly point out that this person
endorses engaging in illegal behavior to achieve political goals. They would ask how such a person ended up in such an important
position of public trust, and what it might say about the procedures in place to ensure Dominion's responsibilities are handled in
good faith.
Another reality of the Dominion fiasco, whether or not there was any fraud using its machines, is the structural risk created
by having the same company run machines in more than two dozen states. If there were glitchy machines causing a dispute in one state,
like Democrats' claims about Diebold machines in Ohio in 2004, and even if that dispute led to competing slates of electors, that
is something the American political system has seen and withstood before. Having potentially tens of millions of people doubting
results in a half-dozen different states thanks to the same company running machines in all of them is an unprecedentedly serious
problem, whether or not their doubts are well-founded.
Moreover, platforms like Twitter and WordPress would do well to consider that censorship of people discussing Dominion and its
employees is likely to have the opposite effect that they think it will: Twitter bans, site removals, and wiping of bios from websites
are only going to make Trump's hardcore supporters think Dominion has something to hide. You can't make disagreements go away by
banning one side and pretending there is unanimity.
Darryl Cooper is the host of the MartyrMade podcast.
Good summary of one of the pools, run by the Associated Press.
"How do news organizations count the vote returns on election night?
Votes are tabulated county by county by the Associated Press, a non-profit news agency which uses its national network of more
than 4,000 reporters on election night to record the vote tallies from county clerks and other local officials. The AP also gathers
information from state websites that post election returns. Reporters feed that information back to AP's vote counting operation,
where analysts make decisions about which races are ready to be called.
What do reporters do with the local tallies?
AP reporters across the country phone the results to data entry people in specially set up election centers where they are
entered into an electronic system. Due to the coronavirus pandemic, the election centers are virtual in 2020. All vote counts
are subject to a series of checks and verifications, including computer programs that set off alerts if there are inconsistencies
with the vote count because of previous voting history or other data."
Link provided is much appreciated. Gathering data from state websites is what I expected. Such website scraping is probably
fully automated simply to be able to keep up. Keep in mind that State/county/precinct results in a truly enormous volumes of data.
Of course AP is advertising its effort, but having that amount of data transferred through a human chain would result in far too
many errors.
Nobody types data into JSON files. They are exported from databases.
If data was being corrupted by human error, the errors would be random and would benefit both sides.
Yeah, Muller didn't even know who GPS was during his presentation.and his two year waste of money and 400 page report was a
big dud. Didn't even interview Assange.
Recently the Director of National Intelligence revealed that mid 2016 Obama was briefed that Clinton instigated the Russiagate
hoax. Still Obama not even let that run but requested Comey during the meeting 5th January 2017 to put the "right people" on it.
Actually there is only Obamagate weaponizing of the intelligence services against the Trump campaign. Oh yeah do not overlook
the kickback scheme with Ukraine and China of Biden so there is a Bidengate too.
"It is hard to overstate the irresponsibility of broadcasting such a serious accusation without proof."
Actually this demonstrates the total lack intellectual curiosity and of really wanting to know what is going on.
You may note that the chairman of Smartmatic Peter Neffenger now has joined the Biden transition team. So he will be in charge
of covering up this election fraud mess?
yea, so it's not at all surprising that a high ranking military deep stater should be in a director's role at both warmonger
Biden's transition team & a widely used automated voting system. Smartmatic's software was found to be faulty in elections in
2010 & 2013 in the Philippines & has been rejected three different times by the state of Texas for security problems. Smartmatic
- which has had a working relationship with Dominion - also has been providing electoral services to Venezuela since 2004; & in
2017 was forced to admit that the results of the 2017 legislative election had been tampered with.Given that the Democratic(sic)
Party here also aims for a socialist govt., that somehow seems alarmingly appropriate.
As another European, I have no problem believing that Dominion Voting Systems is attempting to steal the election for Biden.
After all, DVS has acquired the voting machines division of Diebold, which we all know stole the 2000 and 2004 elections for W.
Bush. The whole current mess just proves that DVS has been thoroughly infected by the Diebold virus, and cannot help but to tamper
with election results. I believe that the software itself is designed to divine the political leanings of the company's executives,
and alter the voting results accordingly.
This also explains the weird House and Senate results, as no matter how leftist the DVS bosses are, they like their Trump tax
cuts too much to have them reversed by the unified legislative and executive branches the polls had predicted.
All this is so transparant even a bag of Deplorables can see it, and Trump, unlike those losers Gore and Kerry, is absolutely
right to go golfing every day fight this electoral travesty in the most Rudyly way possible.
Somewhat ironic indeed that the color revolution is now coming home to the US. However given the amount of chaos the US is
able to impose on the rest of the world I prefer Trump over a repeat of the Obama/Biden starting open and covert wars all over
the globe. At least Trump never started any wars but only got tricked by the Pentagon/State Department in wrongful and misplaced
"retaliations" which he then steadfastly refused to escalate into wars.
For those wondering what the actual source of this controversy is about--as opposed to the wild ad hominem tangent the
author went on--sharp-eyed viewers on Election Night noted that literally between one minute and the next (from 10:07 to 10:08
PM CST) Trump's displayed vote total in Pennsylvania went from 1,690,589 to 1,670,631, while Biden's went from 1,252,537 to 1,272,495--a
shift of exactly 19,958 votes in each direction.
From there, a blogger at Gateway Pundit (Yes. I said it. I'm also including the source they were using, so get over yourselves
and do your own legwork--don't be a news snob, like the current top-rated comment on this post) analyzed what s/he claims is
Dominion's Pennsylvania election data , from the New York Times (by way of Edison Research, which serves as a distributor
for Dominion's election data to various media outlets). I have included the link here, for anyone who is interested in looking
at the data for themselves.
S/he found the vote "switch" in question, and others besides--220,883 votes "switched" from Trump to Biden in Pennsylvania,
as well as 941,248 "lost" votes--places where the total number of votes decreased during the counting. Analysis of other states
using Dominion were claimed to have found similar results, though none so dramatic--the next-largest states with vote shifts were
New Jersey (with 80,242) and Florida (21,422) neither of which were in doubt. The largest "lost vote" totals after PA were in
Virginia (789,023) and Minnesota (195,650).
The total number of "lost votes" was roughly 2.7 million, which is where Trump gets his "deleted votes" claim from--the problem
being that he erroneously assumes all the lost votes were for him, which I do not believe is backed up by the data.
The major problem with the story, assuming you accept the source, is that there is no analysis of whether votes were also shifted
from Biden to Trump. It seems likely that there would be, which would make this merely an example of machine sloppiness rather
than malicious vote-rigging.
However, even if the vote shifting did go both ways, you still have Dominion, for unknown reasons, shifting clumps of votes
between the two candidates and deleting other clumps of votes altogether.
Even if there's a valid explanation for it--which there probably is--it's a very bad look. Dominion's people need to explain
what their systems were doing, and why, ASAP.
"Moreover, platforms like Twitter and WordPress would do well to consider that censorship of people discussing Dominion and
its employees is likely to have the opposite effect that they think it will: Twitter bans, site removals, and wiping of bios from
websites are only going to make Trump's hardcore supporters think Dominion has something to hide. You can't make disagreements
go away by banning one side and pretending there is unanimity."
This entire episode stinks to high heaven. In the early morning of November 4th Trump had a huge lead in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania.
Michigan and Georgia. Instead of continuing to count votes Milwaukee, Detroit, Philly an Atlanta for some strange reason stopped
counting. Atlanta told the media water pipe busted and flooded the counting area. Completely false. Republican poll watchers were
kicked out and magically hundreds of thousands of votes were discovered for Biden
Of particular interest to me was something that Baris spotted as he compared former Vice President Joe Biden's performance
with Hillary Clinton's in 2016. Baris noted that Clinton outperformed Biden in every U.S. city except for the following four:
Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta and Philadelphia.
Baris wrote, "Trump won the largest non-white vote share for a Republican presidential candidate in 60 years. Biden underperformed
Hillary Clinton in every major metro area around the country, save for Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta and Philadelphia."
If you dig into the actual source material for the article you posted, what you find is a rather unremarkable statement by
Democratic senators that EVERY vendor of voting machines had potential risks that they should be aware of and guard against. The
dishonest Washington Examiner, however, pulled out only Dominion.
That's strange. In Michigan for example a very red county that Trump carried big in 2016 strangely went Biden in 2020. Republican
county officials investigated and found that over six thousand votes had been switched from Trump to Biden. They blamed it on
a glitch with the software.
The only kind of machines that should be allowed are the "stupid" ones that can't do anything except count results from paper
ballots. They're both cheaper and easier to audit.
It has to be almost 15 years now that computer security people have been crying for open-source software and hardware for electronic
voting, and have been criticizing closed, proprietary systems as the greatest threat to our democracy. And, here we are. None
of us can act surprised.
Preventing GOP observers which was done at the election count, and the recount, is alone enough, with a competent and fair
judge, to win the election for Trump. Add to that the mail in fraud, 10's of thousands of people on the voter lists who have been
verified as dead, off shore processing and data manipulation - its a shoe in. But lets not forget, even if all this fails, its
GOP legislators who choose the electors, so Trump's return is practically certain. But lets assume a miracle happens and none
of this take place, no results are returned, the EC is asked to vote, USC gives each state a vote, GOP controls most states -
Trump is still returned. Its really is over, bar the shouting. Trump is just taunting his haters now, for fun, via tweets.
lay_arrow
teutonicate 3 hours ago (Edited) removelink
Trump Lawyer Sidney Powell: "We're Getting Ready To Overturn Election Results In Multiple
States"
Once it becomes apparent that this scandal is busting wide open, expect a lot more
"evidence" from rats jumping the corrupt ship - rather than being caught when the music
stops.
Powell already says that she has evidence coming at her "like a fire hose". I bet, there has
to be a lot of rats out their looking for an exit!
Bryan S. Ware serves as the Assistant Director for Cybersecurity for the Department of
Homeland Security's (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). In this
role, Ware leads CISA's mission of protecting and strengthening the nation's critical
infrastructure against cyber threats.
Senior DHS cybersecurity official Bryan Ware to step down
crudflow , 44 minutes ago
I willing to bet Ware is up to his eyeballs in this fraud. He is trying to cover it up,
and he is running for the hills. Sounds pretty suspicious to me.....
...as an aside, I'm willing to bet this will be memory holed very soon by
Gawgle...however, the presentation has been copied and preserved for posterity.
Any takers? ;-)
SurfingUSA , 3 hours ago
If you haven't already read "Licensed to Lie" by Sidney Powell. She figured out all the
wheels within wheels of both corporate fraud, those set up to take the fall for Enron /
Andersen, and fed gov skullduggery starting with Andrew Weissmann, who connects dots between
Enron & Mueller. This 2020 election is kind of cakewalk in comparison.
"... evidence is being collected that will prove beyond reasonable doubt (i.e., the type of evidence required to obtain a criminal conviction) that the CIA had some sort of nefarious relationship with Dominion Software and that Dominion Software was being used abroad and in the United States to conduct voter fraud. ..."
"... I fully expect CIA officials to argue they had no idea that Dominion was engaged in such nefarious activity. Their denial carries as much weight as the claim by Captain Louis Renault in the iconic scene in Casablanca ..."
"... The coup attempt to dethrone Donald Trump continues. ..."
"... So why for 2020, suddenly the big push in the US to get everyone to vote electronically, after decades of failed practices elsewhere in the world. Purveyed by many of the same player foisted on the US election systems. ..."
"... This voting process was rejected elsewhere because it undermined trust in these country's election integrity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_by_country ..."
"... I was involved in the early 2000's as a contractor in a project to create a system to allow DoD service personnel to vote digitally & replace the hard copy absentee ballots. After investing tens of millions of dollars & years, the DoD computer security folks said that there was no way that it could ever be assured that a digital voting system could not be hacked. They would not certify the security & integrity of a digital voting system & the project was scraped. ..."
When I saw this it did not make sense. Let me explain. I spent four years working at State
Department's Office of Counter Terrorism (now it is the Bureau of Counter Terrorism). I was one
of two officers who dealt directly with the FBI in the investigation of the terrorist bombing
of Pan Am 103. I learned through this experience that US law enforcement cannot operate in
other countries without the permission of those countries.
I also spent 22 years scripting terrorism exercises for U.S. military special operations. My
job was to replicate State Department and Embassy communications that would occur during a
terrorist crisis. So, I have a lot of experience in working real world with US law enforcement,
US military and our Embassies in sorting out the issues that arise when the United States wants
to pursue a law enforcement or military operation in a foreign country.
The U.S. Army did not conduct a raid in Germany on either Sctyl or Dominion offices or
servers. They are foreign nationals and we must operate in accordance with German law.
Moreover, the U.S. Army does not have law enforcement powers with respect to such entities. So
what happened? I am reliably informed that a unit under the command of USEUCOM (i.e., United
States European Command) did in fact conduct an operation to take control of computer servers.
But these servers belong to the CIA, not Dominion or Sctyl. The U.S. military has full
authority to do this because any CIA activity in the European theater is being conducted using
military cover. In other words, CIA officers would be identified to the German government (and
anyone else asking) as military employees or consultants.
Such an operation would have been carried out with U.S. law enforcement present to take
custody of the evidence. That means that the evidence will be under the control of the
Department of Justice through US Attorneys and can be used in court or other judicial
proceedings.
This is not the first time that a military unit attached to EUCOM has compelled a CIA
computer facility to hand over evidence. A dear friend of mine (a retired DEA officer) told me
about an incident where he entered a CIA facility in Frankfurt backed up by the US Army to get
info the CIA was withholding (this took place in the 1980s).
I also have confirmed what
Jim Hoft reported the other night–the CIA's Gina Haspel was not informed in advance
of this operation. Based on this fact, I think it is correct that action was taken in Germany
on territory under U.S. control and that a CIA facility was targeted.
I also have learned that FBI Director Christopher Wray was excluded from this operation.
Wray, more than Haspel, has been working aggressively to undermine and sabotage Donald Trump.
This means that some other U.S. law enforcement agency (e.g., US Marshals, DEA, Secret Service,
etc) had the lead in collecting the evidence.
Sidney Powell is a serious lawyer. She is not going to make a false claim. Period. She
embodies honesty and integrity.
Given her recent statements on Maria Bartoromo and Lou Dobbs and Eric Bolling, she clearly
knows that evidence is being collected that will prove beyond reasonable doubt (i.e., the type
of evidence required to obtain a criminal conviction) that the CIA had some sort of nefarious
relationship with Dominion Software and that Dominion Software was being used abroad and in the
United States to conduct voter fraud.
I fully expect CIA officials to argue they had no idea that Dominion was engaged in such
nefarious activity. Their denial carries as much weight as the claim by Captain Louis Renault
in the iconic scene in Casablanca:
Capt. Louis Renault: I am shocked, shocked that there is gambling going on in here .
Waiter: Sir here are your winnings
The coup attempt to dethrone Donald Trump continues.
Germany, along with most other countries around the world prohibit or severely limit
"electronic voting" Declared it was too vulnerable to fraud and hacking after trying this
method - now paper ballots only.
So why for 2020, suddenly the big push in the US to get everyone to vote electronically,
after decades of failed practices elsewhere in the world. Purveyed by many of the same player
foisted on the US election systems.
One of the financial markets commentators I follow, Peter Granduch, retweeted the
following article and said a friend who used to be high up at DoJ said this article is
broadly correct.
I was involved in the early 2000's as a contractor in a project to create a system to
allow DoD service personnel to vote digitally & replace the hard copy absentee ballots.
After investing tens of millions of dollars & years, the DoD computer security folks said
that there was no way that it could ever be assured that a digital voting system could not be
hacked. They would not certify the security & integrity of a digital voting system &
the project was scraped.
Completely coincidental to your reporting is the de-platforming of The Conservative
Treehouse, set for Wedenesday, due to the narrative there. Also coincidental is the ongoing
targetted harrassment of Trump's lawyer's to get them to quit, a tactic harkening back to the
'30s. If they were so certain Joe had won they would not be afraid of transparency.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2020/11/if-media-didnt-think-trump-could-win-it-wouldnt-be-daniel-greenfield/.
From Rasmussen: "Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton in every major metro area around the
country, save for Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta and Philadelphia in these big cities in swing
states run by Democrats the vote even exceeded the number of registered voters." https://twitter.com/rasmussen_poll/status/1327931164552802305
I'm sure we'll shortly be informed by all the usual suspects that this is Qanon level stuff
here, nothing to see, nothing to report, now move along.....
O/T
Increasingly I turn to SST
first, for the information that, as my second source for information, Unz.com declares,
offers ". . . Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American
Mainstream Media."
With this distinction: Unz is free-wheeling and as even its creator states, provides an
outlet for "bizarre and insane" commentary, whereas SST is hosted and moderated by persons
who have had education, experience and responsibilities at the highest levels of influence at
the national international levels.
Hats off to Col. Lang and those contributors to whom SST provides a platform.
So what do you make of the meetings that Haspel had with Sen. McConnell, and Senate Intel
Members last Tuesday? Did Haspel's meetings occur right after the seizures in Germany or
not?
Do you know the date that the seizures occurred? Before or after last Tuesday? Germany is
also 6 hrs ahead of D.C..
Unhinged citizen:
The GOP has no more use for Trump than the Democrat-media party does.
They are all parasites in the same swamp.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that McConnell voted for Biden.
It's not Dem vs. Republican, hasn't been for a long time.
It's fast becoming America vs. the swamp (and their allies in various state outposts - like
Governor "hairdo" in California and the vicious little bridge troll in NY.)
I am getting the feeling that Donald Trump is saving the best for the last, i.e. pulling
the rug out from under the IC. Another indication for me has been Sidney Powell and her
insistence on seeing this whole election fraud incident through. Judging from her record as a
reputable Texas attorney with a ton of success and the severity of this ongoing situation, I
don't believe she would put her reputation and career in jeopardy for something that is not
serious and is not going to be a major revelation.
I also would like to applaud Trump for finally appointing Col. Doug McGregor (a true
non-interventionist) to the DoD as an advisor and committing to what he had promised back in
'16, i.e. pulling troops out of the ME and putting a stop to endless wars of nation-building
there.
Deap:
It's a no lose for the Democrats.
If they couldn't somehow cheat to a win using computerized voting, then they scream "voter
suppression."
If they do cheat their way in (as they did), then computerized voting is fine and dandy and
the model for future elections.
It was the Lincoln Project, a Republican PAC against Trump, that doxed Jones Day lawyers
and subtly threatened them with future loss of business. They were joined by other
Republicans such as the 43 Alumni for Biden and REPAIR.
Skinny Joey used to be Trump's fixer in Atlantic City.
Rasmussen also predicted that 33% of black voters would vote for Trump. He got what? Maybe
eight percent? All men, no black church ladies.
Every illegally cast vote suppresses the legal vote cast by another voter. Insufficient
risk to benefit ratio to allow imposition any system as subject to fraud as "electronic
voting" has proven to be world wide.
Lieth, cite your source for black vote totals - AP projections, exit polls, or certified
state vote counts. Numbers are all over the place right now, or else you are intentionally
running a disinformation campaign.
All of the above state significant increases in the black vote, including what you
dismissively label "black church ladies" - black women Trump vote doubled over 2016. Trump
definitely broadened the diversity the GOP tent - kudos to him for that alone, and to Blexit
efforts which were gaining momentum as well, for all the right reasons.
Election Data Team finds that in Georgia 17,877 people voted by mail who had previously
filed National Change of Address forms with the US Post Office that they had changed their
state of residence from Georgia. That number alone is more than Biden's margin of
victory.
So far the team has found out of state move forms filed by 7,426 people who nevertheless
were voted in Pennsylvania, 6,254 in Wisconsin, 5,145 in Nevada, 5,084 in Arizona, and 1,688 in
Michigan. Obviously, many people filed false out-of-state address changes or we have a clear
picture of organized vote fraud.
The team already has a list of 1,250,000 voters with anomalies in the 6 contested
states.
There are numerous reports, such as this one, from poll watchers who were intentionally
prevented from watching. Many have had the courage to go public:
The presstitutes steadfastly refuse to investigate any whistleblower's report and keep
repeating "no evidence of fraud." Social media takes down whistleblower's reports. This intense
censorship itself indicates that the election was stolen and that those involved in the theft
intend to keep the evidence of the theft suppressed:
If the election was not stolen, investigation would bear that out, so why suppress
information that should be investigated?
THE HAMMER & SCORECARD were used by the Democrats to alter votes: In February 2009, the
Obama administration commandeered a powerful supercomputer system known as THE HAMMER. THE
HAMMER includes an exploit application known as SCORECARD that is capable of hacking into
elections and stealing the vote, according to CIA contractor-turned-whistleblower Dennis
Montgomery, who designed and built THE HAMMER.
Sidney Powell, former federal prosecutor, reports that election theft technology used by US
intelligence in foreign countries was used against Trump. Tom Fitton, president of Judicial
Watch, says state legislatures in the vote fraud states have the power to correct the situation
as does Congress which can refuse to accept an uncorrected corrupted process.
Absence of 24x7 secure video recoding is an invitation to fraud on local level. Add to this
electronic fraud based on the use of voting machines and "Houston we have a problem"
Election 2020 is clear testimony to how fantasy US democracy works -- ordinary Americans
with no say over how the nation is run and by whom.
It's also more evidence of dominant media mass deception, supporting election fraud over a
free, fair and open process.
Since last weekend, a Great Lakes Justice Center lawsuit filed in Michigan claims that
Detroit election officials allowed "tens of thousands" of fraudulent ballots to be added to
Biden/Harris' vote count, along with other Wayne County irregularities.
Based on the lawsuit, they included "eyewitness accounts and direct evidence" that
"approximately 40,000" unsecured, irregular ballots arrived in vehicles with out-of-state
license plates in Detroit.
The vote tally went entirely for Biden/Harris and other Dems on the ballot.
The lawsuit also alleges that after GOP challengers discovered evidence of fraud, they were
locked out of the counting room -- after which tens of thousands more ballots were counted.
County election officials also "allowed ballots to be duplicated by hand without allowing
poll challengers to check if the duplication was accurate," according to the lawsuit.
There's more about dubious practices in Detroit that smacks of election fraud.
On Wednesday, GOP attorney generals in 10 states filed an amicus brief with the US Supreme
Court -- challenging the illegality of counting late mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania, ignoring
state laws banning the practice.
According to Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter "actions taken by the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court (on this issue) are one of the most breathtaking abuses of judicial authority
that I've seen in my four-plus years as attorney general."
On Monday, US Attorney General William Barr authorized DOJ officials to investigate alleged
election irregularities.
At this time, results of Election 2020 are undecided. Joe Biden is NOT president-elect until
these issues are settled and the election process is officially completed.
According to Trump campaign attorney Sidney Powell , significant statistical evidence of
improper ballot counting hasn't yet been revealed, adding:
Many states breached their own elections laws, including "pallets of ballots" entering
through "the back door" of counting centers in the middle of the night.
"There is tons of evidence that hundreds of thousands of ballots are going to have to be
discarded and they're all for Biden."
Dominion Voting Systems software used in various states swapped, padded, and in other ways
altered vote tallies, said Powell.
"There is a substantial problem with the Dominion system," Powell stressed. "We are
reviewing all of that and connecting the dots."
"There are stacks of evidence and testimony from any number of witnesses – I've lost
count of how many they have (because) more pour in every day."
According to Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt , "(i)t's important to understand first and
foremost how insecure this system is," adding:
"We have over 600,000 mail-in ballots that have been counted."
"Those are votes that are official in our system."
"We also know that we have unclean rolls – ballots that have been mailed to dead
people, to people who have moved out of state, and people that got a dozen ballots in their
homes, etc."
At most, signature verification of mail-in ballots was 40%, he said. Most Nevada mail-in
ballots are unverified.
Trump may lead Biden/Harris in the state instead of the other way around as reported by
major media.
According to Project Veritas, "an anonymous (Pennsylvania) USPS whistleblower claims t hat
higher-ups ordered postal workers to discard pro-Trump and pro-Republican mail, and only
deliver pro-Biden mail from now on," adding:
"This is the third Pennsylvania USPS insider to blow the whistle on election malfeasance in
the last week."
"There is something going on with USPS and we must get to the bottom of it immediately,"
Project Veritas head James O'Keefe said, stressing:
"It's very concerning that every USPS whistleblower coming forward is telling stories that
put our election integrity in serious doubt."
Election fraud occurred many times throughout US history at the federal, state and local
levels.
Election 2020 may one day be remembered as one of the most brazen examples.
Election 2020 the "most secure" in US history? Make your own judgment.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] . He is a Research
Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for
Hegemony Risks WW III."
Trump Campaign Files Suit, Urges Judge to Block Pennsylvania From Certifying Election
Results BY JACK PHILLIPS November 15, 2020
Updated: November 15, 2020 Print
The Trump campaign on
Nov. 15 called on a judge in Pennsylvania to block the state from
certifying Democratic nominee Joe Biden as the winner of the election , saying there's evidence that voters
were allowed to "cure" their ballots.
"Unless Bush v. Gore was much ado about nothing, presidential candidates of course have an
interest in having lawful votes for them counted and unlawful votes for their opponent
invalidated," the filing said . "That's
particularly true in Pennsylvania, one of a few swing states where recounts or other litigation
is ongoing and where the vote margin is close."
Campaign lawyer Linda Kerns made the filing in a federal court. It named about six counties
in the Keystone State, alleging that those county officials illegally allowed voters to use
deficient ballots to cast replacement absentee mail-in ballots ahead of the Nov. 3 election or
provisional ballots cast on Election Day to "cure" errors.
Bloomberg News first reported on the suit on Nov. 15.
The campaign is attempting to block the state from certifying nearly 700,000 mail-in votes
from the most populous counties, including Pittsburgh and Philadelphia -- which lean heavily
Democratic.
A hearing on the motion to dismiss the lawsuit is slated for Nov. 17. A separate evidentiary
hearing is scheduled for Nov. 19, and U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann -- an appointee of
former President Barack Obama -- will decide the case.
Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar's office didn't immediately respond to a
request for comment. Bloomberg reported that it was unable to obtain a comment from Democratic
Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro's office.
In a previous statement regarding another one of Trump's lawsuits, Boockvar denied there
were any irregularities.
"The voters of Pennsylvania have spoken," Boockvar's lawyers wrote. "The Court should deny
Plaintiffs' desperate and unfounded attempt to interfere" with the vote-counting process, they
claimed.
The lawsuit that was filed Nov. 15 made reference to Lancaster County and several others,
saying the county was an example of how an election should be carried out.
"Lancaster, York, Westmoreland, and Berks Counties, for example, did not contact voters who
submitted defective ballots or give them an opportunity to cure. They simply followed the law
and treated these ballots as invalid and refused to count them," the suit reads. Those four
counties went for Trump over Biden.
"Because the counties that followed state law and did not provide a cure process are heavily
Republican (and counties that violated state law and did provide a cure process are heavily
Democratic), Defendants' conduct harmed the Trump Campaign. It deprived the President of lawful
votes and awarded his opponent with unlawful votes."
A plaintiff in the case, John Henry, described as a voter, said his defective vote was
considered different than that of voters in other counties. He alleged that it violated the
U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.
"In other words, Henry cast a defective ballot that was not counted, but another
Pennsylvania voter in another county could cast the same defective ballot and have his vote
counted -- solely based on place of residence," the campaign said. "The Defendant counties'
insistence upon counting illegal ballots disparately favored Democratic-leaning counties over
Republican-leaning counties."
The suit also alleged that poll watchers and canvass representatives were treated unfairly
or were not allowed to be present "when the required declarations on envelopes containing
official absentee and mail-in ballots are reviewed for sufficiency, when the ballot envelopes
are opened, and when such ballots are counted and recorded."
In some areas, it was "physically impossible" to view ballots or envelopes, the campaign
said.
Trump's campaign then called on the judge to issue an emergency order to prohibit defendants
from certifying the results of the election over the irregularities and discrepancies.
The suit added, "Plaintiffs seek an emergency order prohibiting defendants from certifying
the results of the General Election. In the alternative, Plaintiffs seek an emergency order
prohibiting Defendants from certifying any results from the General Election that included the
tabulation of absentee and mail-in ballots which do not comply with the Election Code,
including, without limitation, the tabulation of absentee and mail-in ballots Trump Campaign's
watchers were prevented from observing or based on the tabulation of invalidly cast absentee
and mail-in ballots."
All 67 counties in Pennsylvania have to certify their election results by Nov. 23. Last
week, Boockvar said she won't order a recount.
The lawsuit is part of the case Donald J. Trump For President Inc. v. Boockvar,
4:20-cv-02078, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Williamsport).
"... If Biden steals this election, it will be Obama 2.0. If Biden's mental health declines, Vice-President-Elect Kamala Harris, one of the most unpopular democrats in modern history will be the President at least for the short term. The question is who will be her vice-president? ..."
"... "only votes for Biden and no down-ballot selections, which she regarded as suspicious" ..."
"... New York Post article ..."
"... "two pieces of software called Hammer and Scorecard were used to flip votes from Trump to Biden in some pre-election voting ballots." ..."
"... "declaring that trespassers will be removed from the White House." ..."
"... Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. ..."
If Biden steals this election, it will be Obama 2.0. If Biden's mental health declines,
Vice-President-Elect Kamala Harris, one of the most unpopular democrats in modern history will
be the President at least for the short term. The question is who will be her
vice-president?
Both of the US political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans are a one-party system
controlled by special interests no matter who is president .
It's fair to say that Trump's foreign policy was heading towards a dangerous path to a world
war as I have written about in the past.
Many of Trump's foreign policies are similar to past administrations whether they were
Democrats and Republican, the only difference that I can say is that he did not start any new
wars, he continued ongoing wars that was launched by his predecessors.
Trump's domestic policies are mixed at best with an economy built on debt through its
Federal Reserve's printing press that can never be repaid jeopardizing the US economy and it's
US dollar-based hegemony which are already in a steady decline. However, on a good note about
the Trump presidency is that he secured America's 2nd amendment rights (an important right to
have during uncertain times), expanded school choice for families and he cut taxes for
individuals' and small businesses. Despite a handful of successes on the domestic front, his
foreign policy is dangerous for world peace . However, it's fair to say Trump is a different
type of politician, one who openly expressed how he felt about certain people in politics or in
Hollywood and the mainstream-media (MSM) hated all of it, they despised Trump. The Democratic
party has been planning this scenario the day after Hillary Clinton lost the elections to
Donald Trump in 2016 with the Russia-Gate Hoax, allegations of sexual assaults, racism and
other anti-Trump shenanigans to remove the President. The Democrats were going to steal the
2020 elections no matter what with help from the MSM. If the Supreme court reverses Biden's
election win to a loss, giving Trump the victory by January 20th,violence will erupt on US
streets leading to a civil war among the American people, and that is certain.
Stolen Elections and Biden's Voter Fraud Organization
This election was rigged by the Democratic party, plain and simple. The so-called
"President-Elect" Joe Biden has admitted unconsciously that they put together an extensive
"voter fraud" organization in U.S. history:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/WGRnhBmHYN0
One of Trump's lawyers fighting the election fraud, Sidney Powell, said that 450,000 ballots
was found in several key states with "only votes for Biden and no down-ballot selections,
which she regarded as suspicious" according to a recent New York Post article who
also said that Powell claimed that "two pieces of software called Hammer and Scorecard were
used to flip votes from Trump to Biden in some pre-election voting ballots."
In Michigan, the vote had increased at one point to over 130,000 votes for Biden in the
middle of the night, without a single new vote for Trump while most people were asleep:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/wLRITa1jHHw
https://www.youtube.com/embed/3P36qnU-Ozc
In Pennsylvania, former New York City Mayor and Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani made a press
statement on the fact that dead people were voting in Philadelphia:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/__fR2H_Bsu4
There will be many more whistleblowers, pollsters that were denied the access to observe the
vote count and average voters who will be exposing Biden's election as a fraud in the coming
days, weeks and months. This is just the beginning.
Mainstream Media Censorship In Your Face
This is perhaps the most in your face evidence that media censorship has been legitimized
against President Trump. The MSM now is fact-checking Trump in real-time claiming that he is
stating false-facts:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/F74MfjZWjI4
A Coming American Coup D'état?
The Biden regime had issued a warning to President Donald Trump "declaring that
trespassers will be removed from the White House." Former sportscaster Keith Olbermann has
even called for a coup against President Trump:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/q_7f-DfmNNQ
The 2020 election was stolen from Trump, no doubt about that,
However, Trump and his administration knew that the Democrats were going to commit fraud
through mail-in ballots.
The US just became a banana republic, a dictatorship with Orwellian overtones that will
ensure a Democratic and the Neocon Republican establishment that will move forward with an
American-style scientific based-dictatorship.
Biden has prematurely announced a Covid-19 task force that will include planned lockdowns,
vaccine mandates and mandatory facemasks due to an increase in Covid-19 cases. The US is surely
heading towards what George Orwell has warned the world about. Make no mistake about it, there
will be a resistance, a human resistance that will ultimately prevail, and that I can say with
certainty.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally
published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Former Michigan
Secretary of State Ruth Johnson said the election fraud allegations made in a recent lawsuit
would warrant an independent audit to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the election,
according to a sworn affidavit.
Johnson, who is currently a Republican state senator, attested in an affidavit filed on
Wednesday that she believes "court intervention" was necessary after reviewing allegations of
election fraud detailed in a lawsuit filed earlier this week.
That lawsuit alleges election officials allowed various fraudulent processing of votes,
including telling poll workers to backdate ballots, not verify signatures on absentee ballots,
to ignore signature mismatches, and to push through ballots despite questionable validity.
"The allegations and issues raised by Plaintiffs are very concerning to me and, in my
opinion, require court intervention," Johnson said in her sworn affidavit ( pdf
).
"In particular, I am concerned about the illegal activity alleged by Plaintiffs regarding
voter coaching at polling places, election staff being instructed not to request photo
identification or an affidavit from persons coming to vote, and Mr. [Zachary] Larsen's
allegation that ballots were being assigned to random persons on the voter list," she said.
Johnson, who served as Michigan's Secretary of State from Jan. 1, 2011, to Jan. 1, 2019,
added that she believes it would be proper for the court to order an independent audit on the
election results.
"On November 4, 2020, I was instructed to improperly pre-date the absentee ballots receive
date that were not in the [Qualified Voter File (QVF)] as if they had been received on or
before November 3, 2020. I was told to alter the information in the QVF to falsely show that
the absentee ballots had been received in time to be valid. I estimate that this was done to
thousands of ballots," Jacob stated in her affidavit.
Jacob also alleged that she witnessed election workers coaching or encouraging voters to
vote for Democratic nominee Joe Biden and the Democratic Party.
"I directly observed, on a daily basis, City of Detroit election workers and employees
coaching and trying to coach voters to vote for Joe Biden and the Democrat party. I witnessed
these workers and employees encouraging voters to do a straight Democrat ballot. I witnessed
these election workers and employees going over to the voting booths with voters in order to
watch them vote and coach them for whom to vote," she attested.
Another witness, Andrew Sitto, said
in his affidavit that he witnessed tens of thousands of unsealed, unsecured ballots
arriving in vehicles with out-of-state license plates in Michigan's Wayne County at 4:30 a.m.
on the morning after Election Day.
"At approximately 4:30 a.m., tens of thousands of ballots were brought in and placed on
eight long tables. Unlike the other ballots, these boxes were brought in from the rear of the
room," Sitto said. "The same procedure was performed on the ballots that arrived at
approximately 4:30 a.m., but I specifically noticed that every ballot I observed was cast for
Joe Biden."
"While counting these new ballots, I heard counters say at least five or six times that all
five or six ballots were for Joe Biden. All ballots sampled that I heard and observed were for
Joe Biden," he added.
Sitto said the election official subsequently blocked the windows of the room he was in with
cardboard and refused to let him reenter after he left for a break.
The lawsuit is brought by two poll challengers -- Cheryl Costantino and Edward McCall. Their
lawyer, David Kallman, senior counsel of Great Lakes Justice Center,
during a Wednesday hearing told the judge from the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne
that voters are "entitled to [an] audit" of the results of an election under a constitutional
amendment of
Michigan's Constitution .
Meanwhile, lawyers for the City of Detroit and election officials argued that the case was
"not ripe for adjudication" because there is no remedy at law until the votes have been
certified.
"The courts are not supposed to get involved in the middle of an election, in the middle of
a count," David Fink, a lawyer for the City of Detroit, told the judge .
He said the plaintiffs were asking the court to read the audit requirement under the state
constitution as an "open-ended opportunity" for the court to order defendants to conduct an
audit.
"But the court doesn't have to do that," Fink said while pointing out that the constitution
only allows audits that are prescribed by law.
Fink said the only situation when that can occur, citing another statutory provision, is
after the election when initiated by the Secretary of State.
In response, Kallman told the judge that "you can't have an audit if the results are
certified."
"That's the point because again the [defendants] are going to be arguing that the only
remedy is a recount at that point," Kallman said. "That's why this is so critical."
The judge said that he will issue a ruling on the motion by noon on Friday.
This case is cited Cheryl A. Costantino and Edward P. McCall, Jr. v. City of Detroit
(20-014780-AW).
Zachary Stieber and Ivan Pentchoukov contributed to this report.
Voting system vendors, local election officials and computer science professors testified on
2020 election security before the House Administration Committee. Among the witnesses were
Election Systems and Software CEO Tom Burt and U.S. Election Assistance Commissioner Donald
Palmer. Election vendor CEOs told lawmakers they had not seen any evidence of election system
tampering. Other topics discussed included election infrastructure and supply chain security,
voting equipment testing and election system modernization efforts.
Allegations are probably false as US military has no jurisdiction to operate this way in
Germany, but they really put this shady company and its role in 2020 elections in the
spotlight
The real questions are: why Spanish company was involved at all. Is this this company a front
for CIA, or MI6? Why the US lawmakers agreed to such a huge risk as electronic infrastructure the
US national elections, essentially giving intelligence services full control over vote counting?
Why bribed key lawmakers? Was neoliberal MSM hysteria that Russian hacked the US election system
a project?
CLAIM: The U.S. Army raided the Frankfurt office of the Spanish election software company
Scytl to seize servers that had evidence of voting irregularities in the Nov. 3 U.S.
election.
AP'S ASSESSMENT: False. Both the Army and Scytl told The Associated Press the claim is not
true. Furthermore, Scytl does not have offices or servers in Frankfurt, Germany.
THE FACTS: Social media users Saturday were sharing reports published by conservative
websites claiming servers that would reveal wrongdoing in the U.S. election had been
confiscated by U.S. military forces in Germany. Most posts said the servers belong to the
software company Scytl, which is based in Barcelona, and some suggested the servers housed
information from Dominion Voting Systems.
The false claims followed a Zoom call this week that featured Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert,
of Texas, suggesting that "U.S. Army forces" had seized servers from a Frankfurt office of the
software company Scytl.
In his remarks, which were widely shared on social media, Gohmert acknowledged that the
information about the alleged raid only came from a "German tweet in German," and had said, "I
don't know the truth."
The Associated Press reached out to Gohmert's spokesperson but did not hear back.
In his recorded remarks, Gohmert said he had heard from "former intel people" that Scytl
maintained data that could be "gleaned" to prove Republican votes had been changed to Democrat
in the Nov. 3 election.
But, according to the company, Scytl does not tally votes. Nor is there credible evidence
Republican votes were changed to Democratic votes in the election.
George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign adviser who pleaded guilty in special counsel
Robert Mueller's probe, tweeted on Friday afternoon: "Breaking: Congressman Louie Ghomert has
stated that The U.S. Army has seized servers for Dominion in Germany."
When asked by The Associated Press if the Army had engaged in an operation to recover
servers in Germany, an Army spokesperson responded Saturday, "Those allegations are false."
Scytl also refuted the claim. As the false conspiracy spread online, the company released a
statement Friday titled, "Fact Checking Regarding US Elections: Debunking Fake News."
In the statement Scytl said: "We do not have servers or offices in Frankfurt" and "The US
army has not seized anything from Scytl in Barcelona, Frankfurt or anywhere else." It also says
Scytl does not "tabulate, tally or count votes in the US."
Jonathan Brill, the president and general manager for Scytl's U.S. division told the AP,
"Scytl products sold to US customers are fully housed in the US, utilizing Amazon Web Services
and have never been housed in Germany."
The company provided four election-related products to city, county and state clients for
the Nov. 3 U.S. election, including an interface to train election workers, online tools to
educate voters, an online platform for voters to request absentee ballots and an online
platform to display real-time election results tabulated by local election officials.
Scytl and Dominion do not have ties to one another, according to statements from both
companies.
"There is no truth whatsoever to the claims," a Dominion spokesperson wrote in an email when
asked if the company stored data on servers in Germany and if it was aware of a U.S. military
operation to seize those servers.
The claim is the latest in a series of false information that has circulated about Dominion
Voting Systems since the election, including the meritless theory that the company's voting
machines
deleted or switched Trump votes.
There is no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election. In fact, election officials
from both political parties have stated publicly that the election went well and international
observers confirmed there were no serious irregularities.
__
This is part of The Associated Press' ongoing effort to fact-check misinformation that is
shared widely online, including work with Facebook to identify and reduce the circulation of
false stories on the platform.
Again, while the post contain valuable information about Scytl, please understand that this
is a rumor. I no way US military are allowed to operate this way in Germany. This would be a
diplomatic scandal. George
Papadopoulos twit can well be a fake.
According to intelligence sources US Military raided voting machine company Scytl servers in
Germany for evidence of manipulation in 2020 US Elections after it was exposed in vote
switching scandal by GreatGameIndia .
Scytl has a long history of election fraud in various nations including injecting backdoors in
its election software. The issue has prompted experts to question why the sensitive job of
counting votes was outsourced to a foreign company? How could a bankrupted Spanish company
Scytl count American votes in Spain ? George Papadopoulos @GeorgePapa19 · Nov 13
Breaking: Congressman Louie Ghomert has stated that The U.S. Army has seized servers for
Dominion in Germany.
According to Congressman Louie Gohmert, Texas there is "compelling evidence" of vote
switching in the 2020 presidential election compiled by the Spanish electronic voting machine
company Scytl.
The Texas lawmaker said in an interview with Newsmax TV that US military forces seized the
company's server in Frankfurt, Germany. Gohmert said there are some who believe it's U.S.
intelligence "that manipulated all this" to cover themselves.
In a Facebook conference call, Gohmert elaborated that he received the information Sunday
from "some of our former intel people that there was extremely compelling evidence that could
be gleaned from Scytl," the Barcelona company that was "responsible for aggregating all the
information from all the machines."
Saturday during an appearance on FNC's "Justice," Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) questioned why
Democrats oppose any investigations into the integrity of the presidential election, despite
their past efforts on the 2016 presidential election.
The Ohio Republican congressman reminded Fox News viewers that Democrats dedicated for years
to the "Russia hoax" but do not want to allow four weeks for an investigation into this year's
presidential election.
County and municipal clerks and poll workers across Wisconsin may have unlawfully altered
witness statements on thousands of mail-in ballots across the state, "The Dan O'Donnell Show"
has learned.
Wisconsin Statute 6.86
provides that an absentee ballot must be signed by a witness, who is also required to list his
or her address. If a witness address is not listed, then the ballot is considered invalid and
must be returned to the voter to have the witness correct.
Instead, multiple sources tell "The Dan O'Donnell Show," municipal clerks and vote counters
across the state simply filled out witness signatures themselves. Acting on false and unlawful
advice from the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), these clerks may have inadvertently
invalidated thousands of absentee votes.
"The statute is very, very clear," said retired Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael
Gableman, who worked as a poll watcher in Milwaukee on Election Day. "If an absentee ballot
does not have a witness address on it, it's not valid. That ballot is not valid."
The WEC sent uniform instructions to
voters with their mail-in ballots that informed them that "your witness must sign and
provide their full address (street number, street name, city) in the Certification of Witness
section" and warned that "if any of the required information above is missing, your ballot will
not be counted."
"Please note that the clerk should attempt to resolve any missing witness address
information prior to Election Day if possible, and this can be done through reliable
information (personal knowledge, voter registration information, through a phone call with the
voter or witness)," WEC wrote. "The witness does not need to appear to add a missing
address."
"In defiance of and direct contradiction to the statute, the Wisconsin Elections Commission
gave guidance--that is, cover--to all 72 county clerks and turned the statute on his head,"
Gableman said. "They said, 'Gee, we know the law says an absentee ballot without the witness
address is not valid, but county clerk, you have a duty to go ahead and look up on your own the
witness' address if there's no address on the absentee ballot."
Anticipating a legal challenge to this seemingly highly unlawful advice, the WEC instructed
clerks to write in these witness addresses in red pen so that they would be easy to find during
a recount or audit of the vote.
The Republican Party of Wisconsin estimates that thousands of witness addresses may have
been changed, thus invalidating the ballots on which they appeared. The statutory remedy for
this is to subtract a commensurate number of votes for the candidates for whom those ballots
were cast, meaning that vote totals may substantially change.
President Trump's campaign is investigating the scale to which clerks and election workers
were altering ballots as well as several other incidents that it has termed "irregularities."
President Trump has also publicly called for a recount of Wisconsin's vote.
Former Vice President Joe Biden won the state by roughly 20,000 votes, a margin of less than
one percent.
Legendary financial and geopolitical cycle analyst Martin Armstrong said his computers
picked up massive fraud coming in the 2020 Election years ago.
Armstrong explains, "The computer doesn't ask my opinion, or anybody else's, it just goes
on the numbers from the economic data. It's never been wrong ..."
"Besides 2016 (predicted Trump win) and for this one, it said it would be the most
corrupt election in American history. I published this out at least two years ago. People
have to understand, this isn't my opinion. This has gone far beyond anything I would have
anticipated. Every election you have had dead people voting. That's pretty standard, and
that's not something new. . . . This is just off the charts. This is the Left, and they are
so desperate to take over the United States ."
If the cheating is "off the charts," then how bad was it in terms of fraudulent votes,
including votes taken from President Trump and votes given to Joe Biden? Armstrong
contends,
"The cheating is in the millions, definitely millions, and perhaps as much as 38
million . This is some of the information I am getting from behind the curtain."
Martin Armstrong also warns, "They (Democrats/communists) want to eliminate the Supreme
Court -- period. This is outrageous what they are doing..."
" That's why I have said this is not a simple election between Republican and Democrat.
This is something much more sinister. . . . You will own nothing, and you will be happy.
Their idea is to strip everybody of all property -- period. That's communism. Then you are
going to give guaranteed basic income. If you don't do what the government tells you to do,
like get a vaccine or whatever, then, oh, your guaranteed basic income will be suspended.
Then how are you going to eat? This is what they are doing. . . . In communism, they take all
assets away from everybody."
Armstrong also says, "They are using CV19 and climate change to set an agenda for
control."
In closing, Armstrong says, "We are getting into a situation where it is a war against
us. .."
" I hope Trump wins because . . . he's our last defense against some of these people,
and that's why they have been trying to steal this election . . . . They are promoting this
great reset–and it's communism. These people think this is good for the climate, but
they are going to find out they are selling out, not just themselves, but their families and
all posterity."
Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One in this in-depth interview (40
mins. in length) with Martin Armstrong of ArmstrongEconomics.com.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/1n8PvC0VexU
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS
MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Martin Armstrong says he likes gold but is more bullish on physical silver. He says you can
make small transactions with it. Silver will probably not be confiscated by the government, and
it is also not tracked by government, at least for the time being.
, 1 hour ago link
This headline is the truth.
Official who backed fake Obama wiretapping theory promoted to key Pentagon post
"Deep state", "mysterious vans", "stolen election", whatever. Trump has been spewing these
accusations of voter fraud for months leading up to the election (even though he voted by
mail himself many times - both as a private citizen and as potus).
If he was so worried about fraud he should have used the most powerful legal team in the
world, the DOJ, to dig into these battleground states and find the means and methods of
corruption and stop it before it ever happened. If he had bad lawyers in the DOJ he should
have fired them 4 years ago, rather than goofing around with Obama holdovers.
But like everything else, trump tweets and then turns into a lazy bum. If there was mass
fraud, republicans have only themselves to blame - putting their trust in a " do nothing"
carny barker.
Ezra was embedded into Jeff Sessions' DOJ to keep an eye out for anything that might hit
too close to (((home))). Jeff Sessions was then fired and replaced with long time CIA
operative Bill Barr, whose father gave operative Jeffrey Epstein his first job at Dalton
School.
It's a full court press to hide the fraud. Drudge? Sold and now propaganda. Fox News? Not
even trying to pretend anymore. Twitter censoring the President of the United States. Was
watching the local news last night, direct quote: "President Trump's claims of election
fraud, which are false, ...." And then there's the global response to COVID.
Whatever they have in mind, it's not limited to this election or this country.
Dominion software's reputation for reliability may have taken another hit with the claim
that Eric Coomer, a vice president and dominion, and the person in charge of the software's
security, is an Antifa supporter and Trump hater. This information is disturbing when added
to the way in which the software churned out impossible pro-Biden results in the wee hours of
November 4 in Democrat-run states following a Trump wave.
Wikipedia
has deleted most of Dominion's history. I visited the page a few days ago and read about
its origins in Venezuela. If you go to the Wikipedia page today, that history is gone and, in
its place are accusations against QAnon. At the "view history" page, you can see dozens
of recent changes since the election. The primary editor – Molly White – is a
recent college grad and bisexual leftist.
"We need to investigate," he said. "Look, the Democrats spent four years investigating the
Russian hoax, but they don't want to take four weeks investigating the integrity of this
election when you have all these affidavits, you have all these concerns? You had this
situation in Michigan where 6,000 votes went for Biden, but they were actually supposed to go
for President Trump. So we need to investigate. I love your opening, Judge, because you asked
so many 'why' questions. Any time you do an investigation -- I'm involved with lots of
investigations in the Congress. You always ask the why question because it gets to motive."
"Why didn't Democrats want Republicans to observe the count?" Jordan continued. "Why did it
seem like on election night that all the important swing states that kept counting the
president won. But the swing states that took a several-hour pause in the count, the president
ended up losing? Why did that happen? Why don't the Democrats want to know? And frankly, in the
state of Pennsylvania, which I spent five days in after the election -- why were some counties
allowed to cure their ballots -- let voters in those counties cure their ballots but other
counties couldn't? Why did some counties allow a pre-canvas of ballots, but other counties
didn't? And why did some counties set up temporary satellite voting places, but other counties
didn't? You can imagine which counties did those things and which counties didn't -- all those
important 'why' questions. Why don't Democrats want to know? Again, they spent four years
investigating this fake Russian thing. But they can't spend four weeks to get at the integrity
of the American elections system and figure out what exactly took place? That's why Americans
want this to continue and want to get the truth."
Why most republican won, Trump recied more votes then even and Biden is on the top? This is
not irregularities, this is frud, possibly including the use of electronic machines, but
definitely mass scale mail-in votes fraud. This also put a bug question mark on how Biden derail
Sanders in primaries. Biden has no voting base of his own. He is just DNC marionette. Looks like
the same players were involved, the same mechanisms were used both in Dems Primaries and in
general election.
Democratic lawyers maneuvers directly toward weakening of any safeguards for mail-in votes
before the election now make much more sense.
Fox Business Videos Why doesn't Biden camp want to know truth about voting
irregularities?
House Judiciary Committee ranking member Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, addresses investigations
into alleged election voter fraud on 'Sunday Morning Futures.'
That's how neoliberal Trotskyite operate. They "spread democracy" in various countries since
1991. Not the turn came to the USA. Nothing new nothing interesting.
He had plenty of "help" out the door, and I didn't know "peacenik" was an insult.
The Democrats cheat every election. Every single one. This one more than ever.
Brazenly.
The idea that they don't cheat is ridiculous. To be against them cheating is "racist."
Just like having poll observers watching what they're doing, it's like glass over the ethnic
products. RACIST.
If you can't admit the Democrats cheat, you're likely to be some sort of Left-wing
ideologue.
@N30rebel the media and the loony lefties keep saying he is.
And the alternative to him is a creepy grandpa with early dementia. And his running-mate
is deep into identity politics (which is just another way of saying "screw you straight White
man").
At least Mike Pence is a Christian man with actual principles. If something happened to
the Donald I would not feel bad about Pence taking over. However, the Kamala cackler taking
over from sleepy, creepy Joe is quite something else.
And bear in mind, if this was an election in Guatemala or Swaziland, it wouldn't matter
and be none of my concern. But who takes power in the USA, Russia etc is the whole World's
concern.
A real hope -- although one that probably won't materialize as most 'conservatives' are
stupid -- is that all the many people who voted for Trump will finally wake up and realize
the the Big Capitalists, Deep State, and Military-Industrial-Complex are their enemy. The
great contradiction of US politics has been that right-wing conservative types have been
reliably supportive of the authoritarian elements of society. Too often, they supported the
military-industrial-complex on grounds of 'patriotism' and 'support the troops'. They
supported the Deep State in the name of National Security and stability-and-order. They
supported the rich on the basis of free capitalism vs oppressive socialism. So, even as the
forces of the military, money, and management have become increasingly anti-conservative,
anti-white, anti-rural, and anti-nationalist over the years, too many conservatives could be
counted on to support the Powers-that-be in the name of USA-USA-USA patriotism, national
security, respect for authority and law & order.
Well guess what? The powers-that-be pulled every dirty trick in the book to bring about
the 'new cold war' with Russia, endless wars in the Middle East(in which rural Americans kill
and get killed), the Covid economy, anti-white vitriol in media/academia, the Summer of
Floyd, and a stolen election. Will conservative America finally wake up to the fact that the
Big Money, Military-Industrial Complex, and the National Security apparatus(that should now
be called the Global Hegemony machine) are totally against them?
Imagine what would happen to US politics and power dynamics if most conservatives were to
become anti-authoritarian and quasi-leftist and quasi-radical in their attitude about the
ruling class? What if they began to realize that they are the New Palestinians under Jewish
Supremacist Control? After Jewish Power gave them the horrible year of 2020, will they still
shill for 'Muh Israel'?
The funny thing about US politics is the Powers-that-be depend heavily on conservatives
who blindly, childishly, and knee-jerkedly support the systems of power. Conservatives have a
natural inclination to turn mushy before social superiors, the powerful, the rich, the order,
and etc. They are more likely to be trusting, respectful, and supportive of the Power. Now,
this might be okay in a system that is pro-conservative. But does it make sense to support
the power in a system that's anti-conservative?
If mainstream conservative types become like Justin Raimondo and Abby Martin in their view
of the Power, then the Power will suffer. Even though the current Power has the support of
'liberals', it's a shaky relationship because liberal-types like to see themselves as the
critics of Power. So, even though most 'liberals' today are useless, there is still something
within left-leaning thought that is distrustful of power. It's like Michael Moore sucks up to
Hollywood and rubs shoulders with the Liberal Rich but still stands for sticking it to the
Man. In contrast, Rush Limbaugh has been about sucking up to the rich as the best of the best
and support the troops in more wars, or Trust the Power. Even though Wall Street favored
Biden 5 t0 1, you hear conservatives yammer about 'the danger of socialism'. And even though
Jews destroyed Trump, conservatives fret about 'Biden will throw Israel under the bus'. Never
mind weasel Netanyahu was the first one to congratulate Biden.
But imagine a new kind of American Right consciousness that is conservative in values but
'radical' in opposition to the power. Closer in values to Pat Buchanan but closer in attitude
to Michael Moore.
American Right has been like the mule in American Politics. Much abused and maligned by
the Power but dutifully serving it without much complaint. It's in the nature of the Right to
respect power and authority. But after 2020, isn't it about time for real change? When the
super-rich, the military industrial complex, and almost all figures of authority imposed
Biden/Harris as the leaders of America, it's about time for the Right to wake up and smell
the coffee. Stop being a dumb mule. Learn to kick and disobey.
But more likely, craven conzo types will get on their knees and plead, "You guys acted
real bad in 2020. Will you please oh please promise you won't act that again? Pretty please
with cherry on top? And then, we will support your power, privilege, and wealth cuz we on the
Right are natural ass-kissers of the Power." Beyond pathetic.
It's certainly likely that Trump lost some votes among so-called "peaceniks." I didn't
vote for him. He received a lot more votes than last election.
Let's get real, if those Sanders crossover voters turned out for Trump this time, there
would no be trouble producing enough fraudulent ballots to outnumber them. There would have
been as many votes as necessary. Do you really doubt that they tried to steal 2016? Hillary
was no mood to concede.
The thousands of Valid Biden Ballots that showed up in the wee morning hours of 11-4 had
all been dumped in.
The INVALID ballots were already, for the most part, counted in, making it almost
impossible to get this sorted, save for the entire state being declared invalid and a new
date to vote set (would need to be in person).
Their plan was if they didn't have enough votes, stop the count and then add the thousands
of legitimate Biden Ballots, which would be highly scrutenized.
headless blogger , 48 minutes ago
This election fraud method will set a precedent for future election fraud by the corrupted
DNC.
Use mail in ballots, thousands of which will be illegal (but impossible to correct once
they've been counted). Then, keep a large batch of legitimate votes for the DNC candidate in
case their guy is losing and then dump them after closing the count for the night. If the
opposition demands investigations all the dumped in ballots will of course show as
legitimate.
They will be left to explain how the dumped in votes in middle of night were all for their
candidate only. They will just scream: Circumstantial.
This is as serious a constitutional crisis as our nation has ever faced. We will only be the
beacon of hope for the world if we are willing to stand with courage and integrity & defend
our republic
Let's say I was given a list of 50 people who the Democrats registered to vote. Senile 90
year olds, people that moved out of the state, etc.
Do you think that there is anything stopping me from voting 50 times in person during the
election with early voting?
What about 1000 times with mail in ballots?
To vote in Massachusetts, all I need to do is show up and say my name and address. I don't
need any proof of who I am. Not even a signature. After I say my name and address, they check
me off in the book. If I say a name other than my own, they would simply check off that other
name.
The integrity of our election is based on the idea that even with the absolute ability to
commit fraud and virtually no way of getting caught, nobody will do it.
That is criminal naivety.
SDShack , 1 hour ago
3rd world countries use Paper Ballot, Voter Roll, Voter ID, Purple finger dye. Not fancy,
but effective. Here we have to have a collection of Rube Goldberg election devices so
everyone can get their cut from manufacturers, make it so complicated that only "election
officials" can sort it out...thus preserving their job security, and finally make it so ripe
for fraud that the elites are assured of getting the result they need to keep the swamp
going. The function of elections now is job security for the state, not representing the will
of the people.
Democrycy , 1 hour ago
That travesty should not be called "election" then. The US election system is a joke, even
3rd world countries don't do such blatant rigging. What is even more frightening is that
nobody seems to be able to do anything. If elections are a joke so is the US judicial system.
The Soviet Union and China doctatorships are prime examples of the complete control.
, you might want to look into this issue. If the Dominion machines used in Maricopa County
never published technical reviews then they might have been BLACK BOX VOTING MACHINES! What are
they hiding by not publishing? Is it legal to not publish?
Quote Tweet
Merissa Hamilton
@merissahamilton
· Nov 11
#THREAD CONCERNING Neither @SecretaryHobbs nor @maricopacounty published technical reviews
of the Dominion Voting Systems software Vendor driven sales demos conducted Oct 29 '19 &
Jan 28' 20 were considered sufficient for cert by Hobbs' Equipment Cert Advisory Committee #Sad
twitter.com/brahmresnik/st
Thursday on Fox News Channel's "Hannity," Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) was critical of how votes
were counted in last week's presidential election.
Gaetz pointed to the unlikely demographic of recently registered voters and
potential flaws in voting systems manufactured by Dominion to bolster his claim.
"Here's what we know: The chairman of the Federal Election Commission said there was fraud
in this election, and when you take the mail-in ballots and balance them against the registry
of people who changed their addresses, you see there are tens of thousands of people, 17,000
alone in Georgia who actually moved and then voted in the state that that they moved from," he
said. "You know, Reince mentioned these nursing home mystery votes coming in, and the state of
Pennsylvania, more people over the age of 90, registered to vote in 2020 than in like the prior
four years combined. I call it the Dorothy effect, this notion that there was an immediate
interest and surge of voters over the age of 90 during a pandemic. We have yet to find one
nursing home where these Democratic registrations were occurring in mass that seems to suggest
that those ballots may have been turned in by someone other than the person they were addressed
to."
"Now, this isn't impossible to fix. In Florida, we have a standard that requires a review of
those mail-in ballots before Election Day. That way, you're able to give them greater scrutiny
and ensure a proper scrutiny. But here's one thing I know, Sean, those Dominion software
systems, they changed more votes than Vladimir Putin ever did, and we spent four years and tens
of millions of dollars over this fiction of Russian collusion with a Trump campaign. I'd say a
few more weeks ensuring we had a fair election in 2020 is worth this great nation's time."
When you add up all the various methods of fraud used to sway this election towards Biden we
are not talking just a few dead people voting, we are talking millions of votes either taken
from Trump and given to Biden or just outright deleted from Trump.
There is no way Biden received enough legal votes to beat Trump. It's just not possible
under the circumstances.
How a Stolen Election has been set aside inside just one week:
A Judge rules that PA Secretary of State, Kathy Bookvar, lacked statutory authority to issue
the guidance she did on November 1, which resulted in all Republican observers being excluded
from counts. This rules out hundreds of thousands of fake votes and the case moves to SCOTUS.
TRUMP WINS.
The investigation of the Dominion foreign owned machines led by Pelosi former chief of
staff, Nadeam Elshami continues. Smartmatic owns Dominion was number 2 or 33 in Soros's Change
the World Fake Charity.
The servers for these machines are owned in Canada or Spain - they won't allow inspection. Thus
it will end up with full audit of all these states, no matter how long that may take. Only then
will the complete depth of this heist be realised. For now, it is enough to win the election
for TRUMP but it cannot stop there. In Michigan, Philadelphia, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia,
Wisconsin... 30 states in all used this system. A complete audit is required (is already
happening in Georgia). Eventually as many as 30 million votes may have been tampered with. As
many as 10 million may have been destroyed for TRUMP alone !!! They didn't know that there were
eyes watching this scam, all prepared. Millions of votes being driven in, from out of state, to
shore up their losing counts ??? Never before in history have they sunk so low.
Even now another attempted cheat: the USPS has ordered that all TRUMP /Republican will be
suppressed whilst all mailings will be delivered for Biden...
See Rudy here:
https://mobile.twitter.com/...
Biden will never be President - instead he will be an inmate !!! Lin Wood, lawyer
He may even share a cell with someone called Murdoch !!!
Looks like the Pretend PresElect and his blackmailing co-conspirators are making their
pressure count: Porter Day pulls out of PA and now this:
Newsmax is reporting that Benjamin Hovland, who chairs the U.S. Election Assistance
Commission,
and Bob Kolasky, the assistant director of the Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency, part of the Department of Homeland
Security along with 10 others are reporting that this election is "the most secure in US
history".
WTF? Those threats about shunning apparently involve more than just cocktail parties.
The swamp's Soviet style bureaucratic apparatus is every bit as toxic to those that fall out
of line as found in every totalitarian state in the history of the planet.
I think they're more Maoist but maybe that really doesn't matter? For some reason the
Chinese seem more brutal and single minded. They have definitely run God out of their culture
in ways the Soviets never did
The Obammunists with the weight in the Dem Party are indeed Maoist or some close
variation.
Valerie Jarrett was told that new-hire Van Jones was a 'former' communist. She only asked
"What kind?"
When the answer was "Maoist", she replied with one word: "Good".
I looked for myself county by county. Repub. Votes for president, house and senate were
about the same in almost every county. But biden got 100,000 more than his fellow dems. Not
possible. Especially with 2 senate seats.
Local sources are often more complete, but national news is hiding a lot. And one-horse
operations like BB don't have the posse needed to track everything down.
Biden won't sit a day in prison. He'll keel over first. His son is another story. Anyone
higher up the "food chain" (Obama -Hillary etc.) will never serve time either. They're
"untouchable" because of the politicians in this country wouldn't want to start a trend.!
But if we manage to save law and Constitution, then let's follow them. Twenty years in
prison would give us a chance to send them postcards from all the places they wish they
were.
Of course, if we can't save the Constitution, then there are no rules at all, and all kinds of
things would happen, for a state of "nature, red in tooth and claw" would prevail.
I don't think they will pull this off. The threats they are throwing around are a way of
saying "Don't you dare check the vote!"
It shows they know the fraud is massive, and think it will be caught if our agents don't
give up.
The course for us is to keep up the pressure on the people who do the checking, and soon
enough, the prosecuting and judging.
And then get busy making sure they cannot try again.
We still have to fight and not give an inch. You are right, though. We shall win. Even if
you don't live in Georgia, you are perfectly entitled to write to the authorities in Georgia
and insist they stop limiting Republican observers to one every 10 tables. Secretary of State
Brad Raffensperger awarded a $107m contract to them to provide their technology. Elections
security is my top priority , he said at the time. My suspicion is that he took a
commission from them (or their associates) as well so has a deep conflict of interest. He needs
to be audited financially.
😆 🤣 😂 keep telling yourself that 🤡. You're so delusional
just like the rest of the beta cucks on breitbart. Can't wait to see you eat your asinine post
come January when Biden is sworn in... you'll be crying the blues while the world moves on.
Actually, that is not my criterion. I'm sure you could do an online search (for yourself) on
how to "spot" a troll. Heck, there are even sometimes folks that look like conservative
"trolls" of a sort, and there are also accounts that are used for other purposes -- like giving
upvotes to others. Thing is, folks who come here to spew insults without giving anyone any
thought-oriented viewpoints or reactions to articles are typically trolls.
Folks who get too emotionally charged in the insults -- much the same --
Screen names also have histories and are recognizable.
Here's one pattern:
New guy + insults + nonsense = troll
"nonsense" often indicates an automated mechanism is being employed for posts.
We need a new academic field: Troll Studies.
Some (not all) of those who pretend to be 'friendlies' can be called 'concern trolls'. That
term has been around for a while. I contrast them with 'nuisance trolls'.
People who actually attempt to persuade the audience without dishonesty I don't classify as
trolls at all.
God help us all if that happens but at least we will get a smidgen of satisfaction watching
them go "what? But we were on your side. Why do we have to eat dirt and lose freedom
too?Waaaaa!!"
Words of a puffy eyed "alpha"poll puffer, been crying for four ? or is it five years
now.
LMFAO
What you gonna burn down if this attempted theft get righted?
Make sure it's not your two moms basement🤣
Honestly, can't you people even come up with your OWN insults? I'm sick to death even of
CONSERVATIVES using "beta cuck", "snowflake", "soy boy" and "Mama's basement."
Top Democrats Raised Concerns About Dominion Voting Technology in 2019
774
Steven
Senne/AP Photo
ASHLEY OLIVER
13 Nov 2020
450
4:00
Democrat leaders, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (MA), Amy Klobuchar (MN), and Ron Wyden (OR), wrote a letter in December
2019 to the private equity firms controlling the United States' three leading voting technology companies, expressing concern
in the letter about the voting technology industry's "vulnerabilities" and "lack of transparency."
The
letter
was
sent on December 6, 2019, to three private equity firms, taking issue with "vulnerabilities and a lack of transparency in the
election technology industry and the poor condition of voting machines and other election technology equipment," Warren's
office
said
of
the letter. The letter sought information about what role the firms had in perpetuating the technology issues.
H.I.G. Capital, investing in Hart InterCivic
McCarthy Group, investing in Election Systems & Software
Staple Street Capital, investing in Dominion Voting Systems
At the time, those three voting technology companies facilitated 90 percent of voters, the letter noted, citing the Wharton
School of the University of Pennsylvania.
Today, Election Systems & Software and Dominion Voting Systems facilitate more than three-quarters of voters, while Hart
InterCivic was "quietly sold" by its owner, H.I.G. Capital, in April of this year, according to an October 28, 2020,
report
from
the
Wall
Street Journal
, which also cited Wharton School.
Dominion entered the spotlight in the days following the election after unofficial results were reported erroneously in Antrim
County, Michigan -- one of many locations that utilizes Dominion's software for its elections. The results attracted attention
late on election night after showing presidential candidate Joe Biden (D) leading President Donald Trump in the heavily red
county. A statement from Michigan's secretary of state
explained
the
error was an "isolated user error" and not a software error.
Gwinnett County, Georgia, which also utilizes Dominion's software, experienced a delay in vote counting because of an unknown
issue with the software. The county
reported
that
Dominion technicians had resolved the issue by November 8 and that the county was able to count its remaining ballots that
day.
Trump's campaign and many Republican pundits have sounded alarms over the voting technology, but the letter from leading
Democrats in 2019 indicates concerns may be bipartisan.
The Democrats' letter identified a multitude of issues, at one point referencing a Vice report, saying, "In 2018 alone 'voters
in South Carolina [were] reporting machines that switched their votes after they'd inputted them, scanners [were] rejecting
paper ballots in Missouri, and busted machines [were] causing long lines in Indiana.'"
The letter also noted that around 20 election technology vendors had competed in that market in the early 2000s but that the
vendors have since consolidated to where only a few control the "vast majority of the market."
Warren told the
Journal
in
an email, "Private-equity firms 'have taken over nearly all of the nation's election technology -- and how they do business is
clouded in secrecy.'" Staple Street Capital, which purchased Dominion in 2018, reportedly partially responded to the
Democrats' letter at the time, while the other two firms did not respond.
Dominion
issued
a
vehement statement Friday fully rejecting various accusations that have been circulating about the company since the election.
Dominion said that it "categorically denies false assertions about vote switching issues with our voting systems," that the
company is nonpartisan, and that "assertions of voter fraud conspiracies are 100% false."
This just in. Sidney Powell says she has evidence of Dominion and that is was used on
November third. She also says that she has evidence the governors were involved. Release the
Kraken!
It's an interview of Sidney Powell by Lou Dobbs. At the 1:14 mark Sidney says that they
are also looking into which governors and Secretary of state's were INVESTED in Dominion.
Apparently we have these idiots also caught trying to make money off of voter fraud.
Wasn't Brian Kemp, the GOP governor of GA, the SOS of GA before becoming Governor? Isn't
he the guy who won't call on the legislature to address these voting irregularities? Is he
the guy in charge of this fake recount?
Is it possible this guy is also a Trojan horse, never Trumper? This recount is a sham, the
Governor is GOP, looks like to me that another traitor has been uncovered!
This is a false rumor, but information about this shady and probably controlled by intelligence agencies company is interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... Andrea Widburg at American Thinker earlier reported that Scytl has (or had) connections to Soros and the Democrat party. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen' s Vulcan Capital has invested $40 million in Scytl , and other source points out that Bill Gates also owns stock in Scytl . ..."
In spite of the mainstream media and Big Tech continue flagging and suppressing the information that regarding the electoral fraud,
enormous evidence just keep flooding in.
Earlier today Rep. Louie Gohmert has confirmed on Newsmax that a software company called Scytl , has been improperly collecting
the election data through Spain was raided by a large US army force and its servers were seized in Frankfurt, Germany.
Scytl is a Barcelona-based software company that sells election software in more than 20 countries, including the USA, Mexico,
France, Norway, Switzerland, Austria, BiH, and India.
As it shows on the company's website:
Scytl has successfully delivered election modernization projects in the US since 2008, and most recently for the 2018 Midterm
Elections when over 70M voters from more than 900 U.S. counties successfully leveraged Scytl's technology. Also, during the 2016
US Presidential Election Scytl's technology provided over 53 million registered voters and thousands of election staff across 28
states the benefits of more efficient, scalable, and accessible election processes, consolidating Scytl as the leading election
modernization provider in the United States.
According to a report by Forbes in 2017:
Scytl applies end-to-end encryption, vote return cords, and a bulletin board audit service. Scytl's customers include France's
Ministry of Foreign Affairs , the European Green Party, the Parliament of the European Union, and the Swiss Canton of Fribourg .
In January 2012, the company bought SOE Software. Scytl also holds more than 40 patents and patent applications.
However, the company was declared bankrupt in June this year. The company filed for bankruptcy as part of a broader analysis of
security vulnerabilities associated with digital voting.
Andrea Widburg at American Thinker earlier reported that Scytl has (or had) connections to Soros and the Democrat party. Microsoft
co-founder Paul Allen' s Vulcan Capital has invested $40 million in Scytl , and other source points out that Bill Gates also owns
stock in Scytl .
When the U.S. government confirmed that the Dominion Voting System is involved in the electoral fraud, the intelligence community
was instructed to search for its servers and found out that they were in Germany. However, the CIA was totally excluded from this
operation.
By obtaining the servers, the US government, on the other hand, will have direct evidence of this electoral fraud: when was the
ballot-counting stopped; who gave the instruction to stop ballot-counting; and who initiated the algorithm which enabled to switch
votes
For the past three or four days I have been wondering why the NY Post made this very sudden
turn to supporting Joe Biden. For months we have had brilliant articles by Miranda Devine ,
Michael Goodwin, and others all in support of Trump and the America we have known for many
years. Replies: @Realist
REPLY AGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD
For the past three or four days I have been wondering why the NY Post made this very
sudden turn to supporting Joe Biden. For years we have had brilliant articles by Miranda
Devine , Michael Goodwin, and others all in support of Trump and the America we have known
for many years, and all of a sudden the NY Post changed its views, but these columnists have
not changed. They are too knowledgable and are gifted with common sense. I look forward to
reading their columns or will the Post cancel culture them?
Any discussion of how to "work with" the Marxists is well, it just shouldn't be discussed.
You can't work with Marxists. Besides, Trump won the election. This will be proven over the
next few weeks.
Right now, the entire world sits in waiting for the final declaration of the victor in the
2020 U.S. Presidential race even if they have already officially congratulated Biden. This
still technically ongoing electoral process has exposed many truths and confirmed a wide range
of suspicions about what is actually going on inside American politics. How "the game is to be
played" going further down the road will be determined by who wins or maybe better yet how they
win. Let's break down everything we should have learned from this very unusual voting year
during this brief window of uncertainty.
Democratic calls for "Healing and Unity" prove
Trump has a strong case
The American Left is now crying out for "
Healing and Unity " across the country which is an obvious middle school ploy to make any
attempts by Trump to get fair final election results look pathetic and divisive. On the surface
one would think that this is an offensive strategy from the dominant side to get the other to
break, but calls for peace generally come from the one with the weaker hand.
If the Democrats were sure that Trump lost, then there would be no need to call for peace
after years of demonizing anyone who doesn't agree with them. This rhetorical change is not one
of triumph, but of fear. When the first partially Black President of the United States came to
power the Left boldly rode this wave of political inertia starting their transformation into
hardcore Progressives and while showing zero concern for the losers and "unity". For them this
was a smug moment of victory, much like Trump's 2016 victory was for the right. So why would
they choose to become so much more friendly all of a sudden this time?
Image: After years of hateful rhetoric why call for healing and unity now?
It seems more likely than not that this guilt tactic is being used because Trump may
actually have a case and be able to get the votes counted accurately, i.e. in his favour. Moral
high ground attacks from the Dems are unlikely to work as Trump has been compared to Hitler
since the start of his previous electoral campaign. Appeasement for the POTUS has thus far
completely failed, why would it start working now?
A Color Revolution in America is
possible and may have occurred
The Old Russian joke that a revolution could "never happen in America because there are no
U.S. Embassies in Washington" has now become obsolete. The media, including even the supposedly
conservative Fox News, has completely and totally given the election
to Biden despite many irregularities. Not to mention, the fact that as these words are
being typed – the election is not officially over.
Image: High journalistic standards in practice in the EU.
If there is one key element to a Color Revolution that must be in place for success it is
control of the media. If every TV channel and news site says candidate X is the winner, then he
has won regardless of votes and regardless of how many people still use said dinosaur media.
They ultimately cast the big final ballot.
The rampant tampering and falsification witnessed (and often self filmed by the
perpetrators) during the election looked like something you would expect to see in a "backwards
third world hellhole" type of country. The manipulation was rampant, blatant and primitive.
This fact can and should be used by the nations at odds with America (Russia, China, Iran,
Cuba, Syria, etc.) in perpetuity as proof that the U.S. never had, nor should have, some sort
of democracy-based moral authority over anyone else. America's own Color Revolution
delegitimizes any attempts to spread regime change via media elsewhere across the globe .
The Dynamic between the Republicans and Democrats has changed forever.
Donald Trump has changed the Republican Party, from the party of Businessmen and a defensive
Upper Middleclass with a sprinkling of Social Conservatism speaking almost exclusively to a
White audience into a populist party that offers a Right Wing emotional vision to the
multi-ethnic America that we live in today.
The shift in concept of the Republican Party is so severe that Trump's influence has had the
same or maybe even a greater effect that "The Southern Strategy" ever did. Around
ten or fifteen years ago it looked like America would evolve into a one-party state due to
demographics and the inability of Republicans to appeal to non-Whites. If polls can be trusted,
at the very least Trump has
doubled the amount of Black Americans who voted for him last time and was able to persuade
⅓ of Latinos to vote for him despite building "The Wall". Looking back on the
2016 election it is easy to see these huge gains, in groups that the Democrats took for
granted as "theirs".
In contrast to Trump's vision of a pro-Consitution, somewhat Libertarian populous party the
Democrats have doubled down on hardcore Progressive positions. If the Dems used to represent
the working man in a White vs. Blue collar America battle, they have now shifted over to being
a Postmodernist circus of race, gender and sexual orientation baiting with a sprinkle of
environmentalism via taxation as icing on the cake.
These are two radically different messages in direct opposition to each other, and the
parties are no longer "two sides of the same coin", being two slightly different takes on the
Liberalism laid down by the Founding Fathers. This is probably why things have gotten so
unusually ugly, American politics may have become truly "winner take all" .
Image: The Enlightenment is dead and we killed it.
Now a " Trump Accountability
Project " has already sprung up based on her words to make sure that everyone who supported
Trump will be somehow punished. From having their noses rubbed in it, to having their lives
ruined by being doxed, harassed, etc.
This idea of creating a Black List of people to punish, is the line where passion for an
ideology turns into a form of Extremism. This along with the intimidation tactics used by
Antifa are proof that the Democratic Left now has demonstrably Extremist views .
The key issue with Extremists is that you cannot make any agreement with them as they see
their opponents as subhuman and/or evil. Trump over the last 4 years has made the massive
mistake of trying to "playball". The problem is that one cannot do so with people who have
fanatical views. Making concessions to those with Extremist views is basically just tightening
the noose around your own neck. Trump, if he survives this needs to understand that this is
political war not political games.
Image: The election results are "counted" by those with the money to broadcast the results.
Trump needs to break the monopoly.
Trump & The Right need to invest in a Media
Empire
The homogeneity of the American news media has become Orwellian. Trump and other like-minded
billionaires need to put together a countervoice on their own dime. The Trump Presidency would
be doing much better if a billion dollar news outlet was on his side fighting back. There are
many media experts with the experience needed (including and especially the author of this
piece) who could get this done quickly and effectively.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS
MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The Million MAGA March will surely turn violent and that violence will be exploited for
political gains.
Image: The big march is coming, but who would honestly expect it to go peacefully?
Leaders that have survived Color Revolution attempts like Venezuela's Maduro and Belarus's
Lukashenko have one thing in common – massive public support. At the very least a massive
public showing for the Dear Orange Leader wouldn't hurt but if Antifa were to show up to fight,
the event could be exploited by the Right for all sorts of political action. Just because
Trump's views seem much more human and reasonable compared to SJWs does not make him a saint.
This event will be manipulated to the utmost.
Congratulating Biden is proof of approval of or submission to Washington.
Image: Weaker and more loyal "allies" jumped at the chance to acknowledge Biden's
victory.
Some nations have already congratulated Biden, whereas America's two "big dog" enemies,
Russia and China, and many other disgruntled parties have not [ZH: China has since
congratulated Biden]. This willingness to congratulate Biden, supporting the legitimacy of the
elections as the Mainstream Media reported them is very telling to say the least.
I do believe that there was a lot of fraud and cheating. Because Biden was as dumb as hell
and didn't he talk in empty places.
A recount is definitely necessary, to expose the corrupt voting system and software that
were used. Because if they are not exposed, they will do it again and again. Just like they
did it to Bernie votes in 2016 primaries.
I don't think that he is the greatest President in US history, he has been Israel first
and has given everything to them. He Made Israel Great Again.
Ancient Handicapper , 2 hours ago
Thinking, I would not be the least surprised to discover the Republicans committed some of
that "fraud" voting you refer to. Republicans are famous for their "Dirty Tricks," and voting
tricks are not beyond their ken. Why are so many people seeing only the Dems as having
possibly cheated?
moonshadow , 1 hour ago
Republicans cheated Ron Paul. So what you say may be true. More likely Democrats, but...no
problem, no prejudice, let's expose it ALL
rphb , 7 hours ago
The problem is, even IF he still can expose this fraud and get 4 more years, the US is
done. The fact that so many thousands of Democrats, from normal postal workers, to governors
and anything in between have felt perfectly justified in cheating to get their way is proof
that the US is broken beyond repair.
...America have long since passed the point of no return. There is only controlled default
or hyperinflation left, and the former requires a fidget of responsibility so the US is sure
to choose the later.
The industrial base is gone, and what made America great, its freedoms, its ethics and its
proud men and women, no longer exist
XanII , 7 hours ago
Called super trends. The youth is corrupted beyond repair and newcomers will come with
specific goals in mind. The ammo box will be the last one remaining unless seccessions
succeed better. i doubt that.
dont stare at the beam , 6 hours ago
The problem is not whether he can expose the fraud or not. The problem is that he is part
of the fraud.
@TheTrumanShow votes and that fake story was given as the reason why.
They went for a softer approach in KY in 2019. The first-term Repub Gov had a Yankee's
forthrightness so they just latched onto comments he made regarding the underfunded teachers
pension program and amped-it to high heaven getting teachers all in a frightful frenzy.
In that solidly Red state, with all other prominent offices on the ballot (AG, SoS, etc.)
going overwhelmingly Repub , somehow the Repub Gov loses to the Dem by around 5000
votes. The "teachers pension" narrative was rolled-out as the reason. (Btw, it seems that
Dominion, or another type, software was used to switch the votes in that race. I've seen
video about it.)
Officials in Georgia have not been able to produce any invoices or work orders related to a "burst pipe" at Atlanta's State Farm
Arena that was blamed for an abrupt pause in vote counting on election night.
The only evidence for the burst pipe, released under freedom-of-information laws, was a text message exchange in which one senior
employee at the stadium described it as "highly exaggerated a slow leak that caused about an hour and a half delay" and that "we
contained it quickly – it did not spread".
"Beyond the lack of documentary evidence of the inspection or repair of a ruptured pipe, we are being asked to believe that there
is not one single picture of this allegedly ruptured pipe, at a time and in a place where virtually everything is recorded and documented,"
Georgia lawyer Paul Dzikowski, who obtained the text messages, told news.com.au in an email on Wednesday night.
President Donald Trump mentioned the burst pipe
in his speech last Friday , where he claimed key battleground states where he was leading Mr Biden suspiciously stopped counting
on Tuesday night.
"In Georgia, a pipe burst in a far away location, totally unrelated to the location of what was happening and they stopped counting
for four hours," he said, in a claim that was disputed
by fact checkers .
On Monday, Mr Dzikowski sent an open records request concerning the burst pipe to the Atlanta-Fulton County Recreation Authority
– the state authority that owns State Farm Arena.
"Please produce all 'public records' related to the burst pipe at State Farm Arena that occurred on or about November 3, 2020,
which impacted the counting of ballots by Fulton County authorities, including and not limited to internal and external communications
with any person(s), communications with Fulton County Board of Registrations and Elections, memoranda, notes, work orders, requisitions,
invoices, repair records, and all other public records," Mr Dzikowski wrote.
AFCRA executive director Kerry Stewart responded less than half an hour later attaching "the only document responsive to your
request" – a text message exchange between an unidentified person and Geoffrey Stiles, vice president of facilities for the Atlanta
Hawks NBA team.
"I just heard a water pipe burst at SFA that will cause vote count delay. Has this affected the AFCRA office? I think they were
counting votes next door," the sender, believed by Mr Dzikowski to be Mr Stewart, wrote at 7.42pm.
"No sir – it was highly exaggerated – it was a slow leak that caused about an hour and a half delay," Mr Stiles replied at 7.43pm.
"We contained it quickly – it did not spread – we just wanted to protect the equipment."
... ... ...
There is no suggestion that the confusion around the pipe bursting story is linked to any claims of widespread voter fraud or
other conspiracy theories.
State Republicans have also raised concerns about the election, particularly the vote counting process in Fulton County, which
takes in the state capital and most populous city, Atlanta.
"Fulton County elections officials told the media and our observers that they were shutting down the tabulation centre at State
Farm Arena at 10.30pm on election night only to continue counting ballots in secret until 1am," Georgia Republican Party Chairman
David Shafer said on Twitter earlier this week
.
"No one disputes that Fulton County elections officials falsely announced that the counting of ballots would stop at 10.30pm.
No one disputes that Fulton County elected officials unlawfully resumed the counting of ballots after our observers left the centre."
It comes after Georgia, a key battleground state where Joe
Biden narrowly defeated Mr Trump by just 0.3 percentage points, ordered a full hand recount and audit of the vote.
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced on Wednesday that so far 97 counties had sent their final numbers, with
Mr Biden leading Mr Trump by 14,111 votes out of just under 4.93 million in the state.
The Republican official, who has come under heavy
fire from his own party over his handling of the election, said he would implement a "risk-limiting audit" of the presidential race
after the final county certifications.
"With the margin being so close, it will require a full, by-hand recount in each county," Mr Raffensperger said. "This will help
build confidence. It will be an audit, a recount and a recanvass, all at once."
On Friday morning, Georgia began to recount the votes it received on November 3. However,
within a short time, reports came in that the recount process was being conducted with as
little respect for transparency as the original vote count. Without that transparency, this
recount is a waste of taxpayer time and money.
Before getting to the problem with the recount itself, we need to be sure we're all on the
same page about what's happening in Georgia, so some background is necessary. In my post about
the
two different types of election fraud , I explained that the first type of fraud goes to
ballot legitimacy .
That is, was the piece of paper that got fed into the counting machine from a duly
registered voter? If not, that vote cannot be counted.
We know from the affidavits flooding in from across the country that the Democrats used the
Wuhan virus to justify mailing out millions of ballots to anyone on the voter registers,
whether that person had since died, moved on, or lost interest in voting. Because voter rolls
are chock-full of such voters, mass mailings meant that thousand, tens of thousands, or even
hundreds of thousands of ballots were floating around in mail-in states, free for anyone to
grab and submit.
Democrats made this fraud possible because they have steadily chipped away at other election
legitimacy gatekeepers, such as identification checks and signature matches. In Democrat-run
states, voting became as easy and as vulnerable to fraud as going to a shopping mall, filling
out names on slips of paper, and sticking them in a big bucket for a promotional "drawing" for
a bike or car. Or, even better, mailing hundreds of completed slips of paper to your buddy at
the car dealer for him to put in the bucket. That's how Democrat states ran their elections in
2020.
So here's what's important to know about Georgia's recount: the recount will do nothing to
correct this first type of fraud. The process of vetting voters was wholly corrupt, and there
is no way to disentangle the illegitimate from the legitimate ballots during the recount.
The second type of fraud involves counting. Data-crunchers have produced powerful evidence
that electronic voting machines in contested states were set to switch votes from Trump to
Biden. Jay Valentine has an accessible rundown of that type of fraud
here . What's good about computer fraud is that, while it can be hidden on a small scale,
on a large scale, it leaves unmistakable clues. (You can read more about these clues
here and
here .) There's strong evidence that the same pro-Biden code that showed up in Michigan
also
affected votes in Georgia .
In theory, while it won't winnow out illegitimate ballots, a hand recount will at least
prevent a repeat of the computer counting fraud. However, that works only if the humans doing
the counting don't cheat.
The best way to prevent humans from cheating is to watch them. Indeed, those of you old
enough to remember the Florida recount in 2000 will also remember that the media wandered
freely through the counting rooms, getting close-ups of people carefully examining each ballot
for those infamous hanging chads. Everyone understood that the point was to get it right.
What happens, though, when the people in charge of the recount, in place of transparency,
once again refuse to allow representatives of the parties to audit their work? What happens is
this:
In a brief video that I can't embed but that you can view here ,
Dick Morris explains that there is more going on than just barring Republicans from observing
the vote. In addition, to the extent there are still available envelopes from the mailed in
(absentee) ballots, secretary of state Brad Raffensperger stated that the counters would not
attempt to match the signatures.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The refusal to check signatures or otherwise try to validate mail-in ballots has created
hugely anomalous rejection rates. Typically, Georgia rejects 3.5% of absentee ballots because
they cannot be validated. This year, says Morris, the rejection rate is 0.002%. As Morris said,
with nothing more, that discrepancy points to vast fraud.
Not content with removing these fraud controls, Raffensberger also ordered the counties to
finish the process by 3 P.M. on Saturday. Georgia received roughly 5 million votes. It's
ludicrous to believe they can properly be recounted in one and a half days. This isn't a
recount; it's fraud theater.
For more information about what's going on in Georgia, including the Senate runoff, be sure
to check out VoterGA.com . That site is all
over Georgia's election fraud.
@TheTrumanShow 0 votes and that fake story was given as the reason why.
They went for a softer approach in KY in 2019. The first-term Repub Gov had a Yankee's
forthrightness so they just latched onto comments he made regarding the underfunded teachers
pension program and amped-it to high heaven getting teachers all in a frightful frenzy.
In that solidly Red state, with all other prominent offices on the ballot (AG, SoS, etc.)
going overwhelmingly Repub , somehow the Repub Gov loses to the Dem by around 5000
votes. The "teachers pension" narrative was rolled-out as the reason. (Btw, it seems that
Dominion, or another type, software was used to switch the votes in that race. I've seen
video about it.)
The chairman of the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) stated that he believes there is
evidence of voter fraud and other alleged irregularities.
In a recent interview, FEC Chairman Trey Trainor said reports of fraud in some battleground
states are credible "otherwise they would allow the [poll] observers to go in," referring to
reports of some polling areas refusing to allow GOP observers to check on the process on
Election Day and the days after.
"When you have claims of, you know, 10,000 people who don't live in the state of Nevada
having voted in Nevada, you have the video... they're (poll workers) either duplicating a
spoiled ballot right there or they're in the process of just marking a ballot that came in
blank for a voter," Trainor told Newsmax .
"That's a process that needs to be observed by election observers."
In the interview, he agreed with Trump's campaign lawsuits, while saying that questionable
actions by elections officials in several states could make the election illegitimate.
Trainor, an appointee of President Donald Trump, noted that state laws allow those observers
to be there, and "if they're not," then it's an "illegitimate election."
"Our whole political system is based upon transparency to avoid the appearance of
corruption," he said the interview while alleging that Pennsylvania and other states have not
been transparent. "I do believe that there is voter fraud taking place in these places," he
added .
Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, a Democrat who is in charge of the state's
elections, has denied claims there is fraud or irregularities in her state.
"I swear an oath that I am here to represent, to oversee elections -- fair, free, safe,
secure, and accessible elections," Boockvar
told the Morning Call newspaper.
"I don't care who is on the ballot. I don't care who is running against them. I want to
make sure every candidate has an opportunity to run and win and make sure that every vote for
or against them is counted accurately." She added: "And I will fight to the end on behalf of
any candidate. I don't care whether I agree with them or I don't agree with them."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Joe Gloria, the registrar of Clark County in Nevada, rejected the Trump campaign's
allegations of voter fraud as well as the claim that 10,000 people voted out-of-state in a news
conference last week.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)'s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
on Thursday concluded that the Nov. 3 election "was the most secure in American history,"
saying that "election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process
prior to finalizing the result." Lt. Frank Drebin , 5 hours ago
The only thing this whole episode has taught me is that there really isn't much of an
America, not anymore.
The corruption is so deep and pervasive that it's simply unrecognizable.
Hugh_Jorgan , 5 hours ago
Yeah... in a normal world the FEC saying this would mean all-stop, audit all states with
credible irregularities. Today it is just another story for the MSM to ignore, Social Media
to censor and the apparatus of the Federal Government to shun.
E5 , 4 hours ago
Creedence is given to former CIA officials who lied to us about Saddam. These "former"
intelligence agents who don't have clearance anymore are more credible to the press than
acting authorities.
If it barks like a coup, wags a tail like a coup, and ****s on your lawn like a coup...
well, it's a coup.
Democrycy , 4 hours ago
Just a quick reminder where you're:
EXCLUSIVE: Twitter's Jack Dorsey and a shirtless Sean Penn take a walk on the beach in
Hawaii after testy few months for tech CEO
The mafia octopus is more integrated than you could ever dream of.
I would suggest to watch the La Piovra series ; English: The Octopus, referring to the
Mafia.
Very tragic but must see masterpiece. The story of the series at first follows Commissar
Cattani and his relentless fight against the Italian mafia and the corrupt bureaucracy and
state mafia in Sicily.
It has been obvious that the US voting system has been an unverifiable black box ever
since Bush vs. Gore and Bush vs. Kerry. Voting machines are produced by companies whose
ownership is not public knowledge and whose agenda is unknown. And There could well be people
or groups outside of these companies with technical skills, access to the software, and the
motivation to create mischief.
By design of the system we cannot know if the system has been rigged. Nor can we tell if
there are single, centralized manipulators or multiple, localized manipulators, each
jockeying for advantage with the machines they have access to or with all the software for a
given manufacturer.
The question is: why do neither of the two parties care about it? Democrats were quick to
accept the results in 2000 and.2004 and not raise a stink or demand a transparent, auditable
process afterwards. And Republicans haven't cared either.
Curious!!! Has each been coopted by a promise to get their share of the spoils?
Verifiable systems are clearly possible. Curiously, it is Venezuela that uses one. Each
electronic ballot produces a receipt , which each voter verifies and places in a receptacle
where it can be counted. In a large, randomly selected number of precincts, paper receipts
are publicly tallied and compared with machine results in the presence of representatives of
the candidates. Tallies of the precincts are made public and sent to a central vote
tabulation center, which publishes vote counts from each precinct.
Venezuela's system was created as a reaction to a system that had been designed to give
the appearance of democracy when in fact the two major parties had colluded to alternate
years in power. We have no way of knowing if this is what happens in Washington, or whether
outside, covert forces manage the results, or whether the will of the people is actually
being reflected by the results.
In any case, it a shameful situation for a country with the audacity to declare itself the
world's greatest democracy.
This looks like an algorithm that is in place to trigger after a certain Republican lead
is achieved (they don't want to make it too obvious). Once triggered the algorithm transfers
some individual votes from Trump to Biden.
As the Republican lead increases, the number of votes transferred also increases.
It's a sort of feedback loop that punishes trump as the Republicans do better.
One of the effects of the loop is to show Biden as an individual having significantly more
votes than the democrats as a party.
Another possible effect is (I'm not certain on this one) is that it tends to push the
votes for individuals towards a 50/50 split, because you can't take more from Trump than he's
actually got. So in heavy Republican states, Trump individual votes can all be skewed to
Biden, and Biden get's his own votes.
As I said, I'm not absolutely certain on this second effect, I may be wrong but it
certainly looks like that.
... As a professional analyst of "big data" I can tell you that it is extremely rare in
nature/social sciences - like the never happens kind of rare - to see such a tight
correlation as we do in the data he presents (the negative correlation between a district's %
republicans and % of Biden votes).
It is also rare to the point of being just about impossible for such a phenomenon to begin
to abruptly (at the point where a district's republic constituency hits 30%).
I further agree that it looks exactly like someone programmed the counting machines to use
the same vote switching logic in all of the districts. This would be easy logic to code. I
could do it myself in an afternoon in SQL or SAS and I'm not a professional coder, just a
dilettante that has learned to code analytical software. I know my IT guys could do it easily
in various coding languages.
So the mail-in voting things was always a red herring and good old fashioned counting
machines were always the game.
Do the actual ballots still exist. Should be easy enough for the courts to assess the
merits of Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai's analysis and then order a recount on "clean" machines.
Finally, I note that one district in MI has already admitted to counting issues that
favored Biden. They said it was a "glitch" in the software. Software doesn't just develop
glitches. Code is a physical thing; a script. It can't re-write itself. The glitch
explanation is insulting.
1) respect for rule of law
2) respect for constitutional governance of rule of law
3) respect for a quarter millennium of American tradition
4) fear of God's judgement
5) fear of legal punishment
The globalists and their socialist handmaidens have none of these. There might be a
handful of low-level drones who fear #5, but those fears are overblown. Brenda Snipes was
cheating down in Broward for 15 years (thanks Low Energy Jeb!) and merely got fired
(finally).
IF they had the means, THEN they did cheat. Democratic forms of governance can produce
good governance only when the electorate has a sufficient degree of shared political culture.
The culture of most of the world (most Europeans included) is "not cheating outgroups when
you can is morally equivalent to stealing from your own group and is therefore wrong."
I haven't watched the video yet. However, I do a little coding on the side as a side
hustle.
The guys I respect say that there is no such thing as a Software Glitch. That software
performs as coded or indicated and it is extremely easy to code for counters +1. A caveman
could do it.
Any glitch is a red flag for fraud. Also, uploading an update the night before is a huge
red flag since there will not be time to real time test for errors.
And last one guy was mocking the pay for a job advertised for Election Software job per
hour as insultingly low.
My impression is the experts in the field of coding have little respect for the security
of software in the electoral field. This is non-partisan viewpoint from what I can tell.
I have seen the following families of evidence of fraud
1) anecdotes
2) probabilities (Biden getting more votes than Obama only where he needed them, down ballot
differences et al)
3) statistical analysis like this, Benford and some others
4) computer nerds looking at the machines (just beginning)
They all point the same way and they all occur in the necessary places.
BUT
1) can you convince objective judges?
2) are there any objective judges?
3) if the judges conclude there was fraud, what to do?
Whatever happens. half the country will be convinced the election was stolen. Then
what?
"hate doesn't go in a straight line" An apt comment by Dr. Shiva's colleague. The Wayne
County data is an eye opener. It would be interesting to see them do this same analysis to
Washtenaw County.
Sylvia1, That's precisely what they are showing, the heavier the Republican district, the
more the algorithm swaped votes. watch the intro of that video again, their explanation and
example are pretty good.
... As a professional analyst of "big data" I can tell you that it is extremely rare in
nature/social sciences - like the never happens kind of rare - to see such a tight
correlation as we do in the data he presents (the negative correlation between a district's %
republicans and % of Biden votes).
It is also rare to the point of being just about impossible for such a phenomenon to begin
to abruptly (at the point where a district's republic constituency hits 30%).
I further agree that it looks exactly like someone programmed the counting machines to use
the same vote switching logic in all of the districts. This would be easy logic to code. I
could do it myself in an afternoon in SQL or SAS and I'm not a professional coder, just a
dilettante that has learned to code analytical software. I know my IT guys could do it easily
in various coding languages.
So the mail-in voting things was always a red herring and good old fashioned counting
machines were always the game.
Do the actual ballots still exist. Should be easy enough for the courts to assess the
merits of Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai's analysis and then order a recount on "clean" machines.
Finally, I note that one district in MI has already admitted to counting issues that
favored Biden. They said it was a "glitch" in the software. Software doesn't just develop
glitches. Code is a physical thing; a script. It can't re-write itself. The glitch
explanation is insulting.
526,345 (Biden increase) minus 111,792 (Libertarian decrease) = 414,553 increase for Biden
= 18% increase which is not too far off Trumps increase which is more believable.
Of course, the mainstream media is working overtime to cover up this story.
However, even the
New
York Times
has confirmed that Rudy Giuliani is saying that Dominion whistleblowers are coming forward:
Many of those
people have said, contrary to evidence, that Dominion software was used to switch votes. Some people even suggested that the
company was doing the bidding of the Clintons, a conspiracy theory that was shared on Twitter by President Trump. On
Wednesday, Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president's lawyer, said he was in contact with "whistle-blowers" from Dominion, though he
did not provide evidence.
Dominion,
originally a Canadian company that now has its effective headquarters in Denver, makes machines for voters to cast ballots and
for poll workers to count them, as well as software that helps government officials organize and keep track of election
results.
Georgia spent
$107 million on 30,000 of the company's machines last year. In some cases, they proved to be headaches in the state's primary
elections in June, though officials largely attributed the problems to a lack of training for election workers.
Dominion did not
immediately respond to a request for comment.
In Antrim
County, Mich., unofficial results initially showed President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. beating Mr. Trump by roughly 3,000
votes. But that didn't seem right in the Republican stronghold, so election workers checked again.
It turned out
that they had configured the Dominion ballot scanners and reporting software with slightly different versions of the ballot,
which meant that the votes were counted correctly but that they were reported incorrectly, state officials said. The correct
tallies showed Mr. Trump beat Mr. Biden by roughly 2,500 votes in the county.
In Oakland
County, Mich., election officials also spotted an error after they first reported the unofficial counts. They realized they
had mistakenly counted votes from the city of Rochester Hills, Mich., twice, according to the Michigan Department of State.
The revised
tallies showed that an incumbent Republican county commissioner had kept his seat, not lost it. Oakland County used software
from a company called Hart InterCivic, not Dominion, though the software was not at fault.
Both errors,
which appeared to go against Republicans, spurred conspiracy theories in conservative corners of the internet. That drew a
response from Tina Barton, the Republican clerk in Rochester Hills, Mich., the city that had its votes briefly counted twice.
Democrats investigated Russia for four years.
Why won't they commit to a few weeks to verify the integrity of our election?
We need transparency in our election process!
But Democrats appears to be fighting against that transparency that voters desire!
Trump's latest lawsuit could potentially flip the battleground state of Michigan.
It is requesting that 1.2 million incorrectly filled out ballots be tossed.
Four voters
filed a federal lawsuit seeking to exclude presidential election results from three Michigan counties due to allegations of
fraud, echoing several other legal challenges brought forward since President Donald Trump refused to concede defeat.
Trump earned
147,000 fewer votes than Democrat Joe Biden in Michigan, according to unofficial election results that are being certified
this month by county canvassing boards. The new lawsuit seeks to eliminate ballots cast in Wayne, Washtenaw and Ingham
counties, which would amount to 1.2 million votes, giving Trump the lead in Michigan.
Birmingham
attorney Maxwell Goss and Indiana attorney James Bopp Jr. are representing plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Bopp serves as a
campaign adviser to Trump. He was an Indiana delegate for Trump in 2016 and served as a legal adviser for George W. Bush and
Mitt Romney.
The lawsuit,
filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, cites an assortment of allegations made by the Trump
campaign, Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel, right-wing media organizations and ongoing lawsuits filed since
the election.
Plaintiffs also
cite ongoing investigations launched by the Michigan Legislature and a variety of other claims that have been debunked. The
allegations include charges of Republican ballot challengers being harassed and illegal tampering with ballots.
Plaintiffs
conclude that "this evidence suffices to place in doubt the November 3 presidential election results in identified counties
and/or the state as a whole." However, the group of voters also claims to have additional evidence of illegal ballots being
included in unofficial results, based on "expert reports" and data analysis.
"Upon
information and belief, the expert report will identify persons who cast votes illegally by casting multiple ballots, were
deceased, had moved, or were otherwise not qualified to vote in the November 3 presidential election, along with evidence of
illegal ballot stuffing, ballot harvesting, and other illegal voting," the lawsuit states.
At least one of
several other Michigan lawsuits making similar allegations has been thrown out for lack of evidence and other flaws.
Oakland County
residents Lena Bally and Gavriel Grossbard, Eaton County resident Carol Hatch and Jackson County resident Steven Butler are
listed as plaintiffs in the new federal lawsuit. Grossbard was a Republican candidate for Michigan's 9th Congressional
District, but lost in the August primary.
The lawsuit
names as defendants Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and members of the Michigan State Board of Canvassers, Wayne County Board of
Canvassers, Washtenaw County Board of Canvassers and Ingham County Board of Canvassers.
Plaintiffs are
seeking to exclude votes from Wayne, Washtenaw and Ingham counties. They argue that including results from counties "where
sufficient illegal ballots were included" would unconstitutionally cause legal votes to be "diluted."
Gen McInerney first broke the story on March 19th, 2017 on Dr Dave Janda's Operation Freedom
podcast, including the fact that John Brennan, James Clapper, Robert Mueller and James Comey
were directly involved with Barack Obama in operating The Hammer as a means of leverage and
blackmail their targets. Within moments of this broadcast, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were
texting each other about it, as seen in their declassified texts!
The following day, on March 20, 2017, Comey perjured himself when he testified before the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that the FBI Counterintelligence Division had
"no information" to support Trump's tweet claiming that President Obama had "wiretapped"
him.
The Deep State is completely desperate to keep a lid on The Hammer. Since November 2019,
former CIA officer, Kevin Shipp has been using platforms like Greg Hunter's USA Watchdog to
claim that The Hammer is a fraudulent psyop that pushed its way up to Gen Michael Flynn's the
defense team, with the potential of jeopardizing the credibility of his case.
Also, Shipp recently started telling everybody that Q is a nefarious psyop, coinciding with
the exact moment when Congress voted to condemn QAnon and its believers – and at just the
same moment that YouTube de-platformed dozens of our favorite creators and that Twitter and
Facebook terminated thousands of users' accounts.
Here's how nuclear it is on Facebook: When someone asked me about QAnon, I answered with 3
words: "Q is real" and I was instantaneously locked out of my account for 12 hours for making a
post associated with "domestic terrorism"!
I always liked Shipp but sadly, I can only conclude that he is a disinformant. Maybe they
used The Hammer on him
On September 21, 2020, 30-year NSA veteran, Bill Binney tweeted, "@Kevin_Shipp posted a
message today implying I changed my mind about the Hammer program. he did this without talking
to me. point is I have not changed my mind on this subject. it still needs to be investigated
by AG Barr and Durham."
As for James Comey, we know that he's been aware of The Hammer since at least August 19,
2015, when Montgomery gave 47 hard drives containing over 600 million pages of documents to his
office. Montgomery had become a whistleblower upon seeing firsthand how the Obama
administration had turned The Hammer against Americans. He received two limited immunity
agreements in exchange for evidence production and testimony.
Montgomery says the Obama White House provided 1,200 preloaded Blackberry devices to trusted
Obama insiders, including to Hunter Biden and that the FBI and DOJ are in possession of this
body of evidence. This would indicate that they have long been aware of Hunter and Joe Biden's
espionage activities, such as the sale of a US military technology manufacturer to the CCP via
Hunter's private equity company, Bohai Harvest.
Montgomery says the 1,200 BlackBerry devices, similar to those used by Obama and Hillary
communicated over a closed encrypted secure network, known as PIN-to-PIN messaging that did not
traverse the Internet, operating directly off The Hammer network. Each of those devices could
access The Hammer Vault, a secret database of The Hammer's illegally-collected data, including
corporate and military intellectual property and US Defense secrets, accessible only to Obama
team insiders.
Montgomery's 600 million pages of documents show that for more than four years before the
2016 election, four contractors working for the Obama Administration's FBI illegally surveilled
American citizens. Moreover, the FISA court was made aware of this and has communicated its
findings to the Justice Department.
SCORECARD
Yesterday on the War Room, Gen McInerney revealed that the Obama administration added an
application to The Hammer called Scorecard, which he says, "Changes votes at a certain point in
the voting stream – and by the way, the Obama administration used it in the 2012
Elections in Florida and both Obama and Biden are very familiar with this.
In their article published at TheAmericanReport.org on October 31, 2020, Mary Fanning and
Alan Jones report :
"The Obama administration illegally commandeered The Hammer and Scorecard. They moved The
Hammer to Fort Washington, Maryland on February 3, 2009. The Obama White House had an encrypted
VPN in order to access The Hammer at will.
"On December 20, 2015, as part of a summary of information disclosed in The Whistleblower
Tapes, The American Report revealed the following on The American Report's official Facebook
page:
"Florida voter registration disk removed and new disk inserted for redistricting via "The
Hammer" computer system in Fort Washington Maryland via Navy Intel cover (they stole the
Florida election via re-districting in Florida? How many other states did Brennan and Clapper
do this?)"
Gen McInerney continues, "They used [Scorecard] in the Primaries and Bernie lost to Biden
So, it is ready to go. I just found out about this yesterday. Sidney [Powell] played a very
important role in assisting me and [journalists] Mary Fanning and Alan Jones in trying to get
the word out, so the American people know all this enthusiasm you're talking about in
Pennsylvania gets changed very quickly with this software program [Scorecard] that switches 3%
of the votes."
McInerney was in the US Air Force for 35 years, where he had an extensive operational career
and retired as the Number Three man. He says, "I'm currently in the cloud business now and
that's why I'm so intimately familiar with what Hammer and Scorecard can do. And nobody knows
it."
Bannon then says, "Hammer was the single most important and the single most sophisticated,
basically system that came up after 9/11 for intelligence or really counterintelligence about
Radical Islamic jihad and the ability to monitor that. Is that the beginning of how this
started? It was a foreign surveillance system that allowed the National Security and
intelligence apparatus to watch our enemies. Is that how this thing started?"
McInerney replies, "That's how it started, Steve. Very sophisticated. Very, very capable. It
was then adopted with the software packages, like on your iPhone, to the voting business. And
it was used in foreign countries. It was then moved over to the CIA and they started looking at
US Citizens. That is illegal. The CIA cannot look at US Citizens. Only the FBI, with the proper
FISA warrants, etc. Sidney knows all about this. You know all about this.
"And it is extremely important, that this was taken out of the CIA when the Obama
administration left. They used some kabuki to get it out. They still have it up and running. We
know where it is located. It's active tonight, it's active, they've been looking at a whole
host of things – as has the DNC, using false IPs – and they are looking around and
they are trying to set up this voting thing that happens on Tuesday night.
"It's gonna look good for President Trump but they're gonna change it. And that's the danger
that America and everybody must realize."
Bannon asks Gen McInerney, "Dennis Montgomery he was being rounded up at his house. He had
47 hard drives I think, he had taken from Fort Meade. How does Dennis Montgomery fit into the
story?"
"He's a genius," Gen McInerney responds. "And he loves America. Dennis invented The Hammer.
Dennis invented Scorecard. He's the programmer that made all of this happen. And he's on our
side, at great personal risk, as well as he hasn't benefited financially from it. He's an
absolute genius. So, he's extremely important to what's going on.
"It would have happened in 2016, Steve, except something happened to it that night, when the
Obama crowd and the Democrats tried to use it. I can't talk about that."
Bannon responds that when he first heard of it, Project Hammer was so compartmented that
just the name of the project, itself was classified. He says, given that Gen McInerney is
claiming, two days before the 2020 Election, that the DNC is going to try to steal it and given
the large amount of Left Wing media watching the podcast, he asks Sidney Powell why this isn't
a 'tinfoil hat conspiracy theory'?
Sidney replies, "Well, Gen McInerney has been talking about it for at least three years. A
separate source came to me, completely unconnected out of Dallas, that had identified computer
replacement of votes and there's a story out about that, from more than a year ago. And then,
now, it's coming up again. We've got more verification.
"The point is, the reason this is all happening is because there are trillions of dollars at
stake. The Globalists, the Communists, the Marxists, the Chinese Communist Party want to
control the world and the power and the dollars that go with it. And hey have to destroy the
independence of We, the People and the freedom and leadership of the United States to do that.
That's their last big target. We are the end of the line for liberty and freedom and any
semblance of justice.
"They will spend any amount of money. They are willing to do absolutely anything to try to
continue the graft and corruption that all of the evidence that's now just coming out against
Joe Biden exemplifies. It wasn't just Joe Biden. It's probably 80% of our public officials, at
least in the Federal Government and many in the States, too
"Look at General Flynn's Twitter feed and look at the articles he's written recently, about
how important this election is. And it's not just to this country, it is to the entire world.
It is anybody who has any hope for freedom anywhere."
Bannon comments that when Dennis Montgomery gave 47 hard drives with over 600 million pages
of documents to James Comey's office at the FBI and he asks Gen McInerney "What was he trying
to expose? What should the American people know today on the eve of this election that 250 Flag
Officers sent a letter to President Trump, including my old boss, Tom Hayward, that said, 'It's
the most important election in the history of the Republic.'
"What is Montgomery trying to tell us? What is the message we need to hear today?"
"Well, he's telling us right now, Steve that we are on the verge of being compromised
through cyber warfare. Which he is a master of, he's the most brilliant person in our country
on cyber warfare and they have used this. They moved it from the intelligence – a very
highly-secure program – and they've moved it from there over to political treachery. And
that's what it is.
"When they moved it out of the CIA, they moved it for their political use, as they have
politicized the intelligence community, as we saw in the Russia Hoax and what they've done to
General Flynn. All these things that you and Sidney have been talking about, that want to
change America from what it is. It goes back to the Electoral College, to the Supreme Court.
All these things are bundled to change America from being a Democratic Republic to a
Totalitarian regime.
"That means a Socialist country, the next step is Communism. That's why there can be no
agreement between this Democratic Party and the Republican Party. One choice is freedom. One
choice is Communism. It's that simple It is an either-or. If we don't win the election, that
will be the last free election this country ever has."
Bannon then says, "Just want the DNC to know that we're going to pull the plug on Scorecard.
You're not going to use cyber warfare to steal this election They're not going to steal it
because we've got Patriots, like Gen McInerney, Sidney Powell and others, that are on watch,
that are on the ramparts 24/7, OK? And we're going to be relentless in this We're gonna get the
plug pulled on Scorecard and Hammer. Sorry Brennan, sorry Comey, sorry DNC, sorry President
Obama, sorry – not sorry!
" This is the fight of a lifetime. This is the inflection point of the Republic. McInerney's
right. We lose this. It's over."
Bannon asks Sidney Powell again, why The Hammer is not a woo-woo conspiracy theory.
She replies, "Well, there's multiple sources that this exists – an absolute
confirmation of it. It's even moved off its original site into a private company But Obama,
Biden, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Mueller – all know about it; helped create it and know
how to use it against the American people.
"There's evidence that any number of judges, I think over 100 judges they collected
information on. A lot of lawyers. Thousands of lawyers, including me, I'm told was collected on
by it. And businesses, particular businesses, churches. They've gotten names and addresses of
people from certain churches, anti-abortion groups. They're using it for their social and
political issues."
Bannon asks, "When you're FBI Director, you're gonna clean all this up? Can the American
People get your commitment that you're gonna do this?"
"Yes. Regardless of political party. I will be a very Equal Opportunity offender."
Dennis Montgomery Developed Hammer after 9/11. Hammer and Scorecard were used in 2012 for
Biden and Obama. Just as you say and also used to STEAL from Bernie Sanders this year.
Complete Election Fraud
"This software is a CIA spy program designed to use on protected networks
(like voting machines) without detection. It is important to note that
Montgomery claims that in 2009, under then-President Barak Obama, this
software was "commandeered and repurposed" by John Brenan and James
Clapper into a "private and parallel domestic surveillance system."
Dennis Montgomery is a genius, a real prodigy who worked with the NSA to develop
"Hammer".
"Scorecard" was developed using the intrusion capabilities of Hammer to focus upon
election software.
It definitely appears that the Dominion computers all had this program running.
Vote switching is its primary feature. The sure-fire telltale signs of Republican totals
DECREASING is rampant. It's an impossibility for votes to decrease for any candidate.
The fact that the totals at that given point in time, are universally decreasing for
Republicans ONLY and given to Democrats with identical totals is truly alarming.
Many videos are circulating showing these vote switches in real-time. All these videos are
proofs. Irrefutable evidence that votes were manipulated to swap votes from Republican votes
to Democrats.
Impossible to deny.
Scorecard was used in many elections and Democrat primaries.
Wish someone would post at least part of the actual malware code. If written properly,the
vote tally for the victim would continue to increase, just switching an occasional 'random'
vote to the opponents' tally. There would never be an actual decrease in the tally, and there
would be no real 'pattern' to discern - very hard to detect by itself unless the actual code
was available. I could write more, but there might actually be a 'Non-brain-dead' liberal
reading these comments!
Would that mean any legislation that those elected by fraudulent means would be put to
review?
I mean that if this software fraud investigation goes retrospective and it's found that over
time local, state and the federal government's have had illegal candidates sitting will the
votes of the illegal candidates be struck from any legislation that they voted on?
Everything should undergo a review. Especially any act that passed by a narrow margin. If say
3 ineligible candidates sat in any particular legislature all bills that passed by 3 or less
votes during their term should be reviewed.
Any legislation which only passed because of the addition of ineligible votes could be deemed
null and void.
Seems to be a theme by the "serious conservatives" at Fox News: downplaying the scope and
severity of the election fraud. Solomon actually said there was only one glitch in MI and it
was resolved in a friendly manner with the county officials. He said there were no other
problems with Dominion software as far as he was aware, WHILE Sidney Powell was reporting the
same thing as Gateway Pundit - that it was across the country and there is evidence of
millions of votes impacted positively for biden because of the software. Hannity didn't
challenge him either when the opposite was being reported in other outlets.
He seems to be taking the paper ballot used to stuff the ballot box route based on the
statistics along with the data showing large numbers of ballots cast by people who had
previously submitted change of address requests yet had not been removed from voter rolls.
Seems those type of people would be ripe for targeting for submitting an illegal ballot in
their name. Those number is the 100's of thousands....
The book is mixed. Good information often is intermixed with absurd statements. And often
authors overplay their hand.
Still if read with a grain of slat one can find interesting, systematized information about
Flynn prosecution and Russiagate gaslighting. This information is presented via the prism of
Hammer, the newer surveillance system similar to Prism, that supposedly was used by Obama
administraqtion to spy on the US citizens including General Flynn, supreme court judges and even
members of FICA court.
In February 2009, the Obama administration commandeered a powerful supercomputer system
known as THE HAMMER. THE HAMMER includes an exploit application known as SCORECARD that is capable of hacking into
elections and stealing the vote, according to CIA contractor-turned-whistleblower Dennis
Montgomery, who designed and built THE HAMMER.
This is a blatant attempt of CIA to steal functions of NSA. Which strongly suggests that
Obama was a CIA-democrat.
On March 19, 2017, General Mclnerney and Admiral Lyons dropped The
American Report's expose 011 The HAMMER, the illegal surveillance operation overseen by Obama,
Brennan, and Clapper with which they spied 011 Americans and targeted their political
adversaries. The radio show is a Live show, and fifteen minutes before General Mclnerney's
segment he emailed me that he would be coming forward with time-sensitive information provided
with the support of Admiral Lyons.
The information focused 011 an illegal surveillance operation which utilized a platform, THE
HAMMER, developed by Dennis Montgomery, which Obama, Brennan and Clapper, with the support of
Comey and Mueller, had "privatized" to illegally-surveil political opponents. Their "operation"
violated the rights of many hundreds of Americans, including citizen Donald Trump, General
Flynn, government officials, and Supreme Court and District Court Judges. General Mclnerney
then came on the Live show and delivered the information noted above to the American public.
This was the first time this information was presented 011 Radio or TV. I would like to say
that the information of the illegal "operation" shocked me .... however, having been involved
in health care policy for years and having had "time in the swamp".... it angered me but did
not shock me.
The credit for exposing the illegal "operation" THE HAMMER and bringing it to the attention
of General Mclnerney and Admiral Lyons should go to investigative journalists Mary Fanning and
Alan Jones of The American Report and military intelligence officials who confirmed the illegal
"operation." Mary Fanning and Alan Jones have presented information in at least two dozen well
researched, well sourced, and very thorough investigative articles on the illegal surveillance
parallel platform.
The reaction to the segment was significant. The listening audience demanded that the
illegal "operation" be investigated, Deep State operatives expressed displeasure over the
information being made public, and for some "reason," my computer immediately after the show
malfunctioned and would not allow me to send emails. The screen repeatedly seized. This was not
a common occurrence -- this was rare.
Of note, several years after the segment, the Department of Justice released text messages
between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, which Tire American Report exposed and built a timeline
around. Included in those texts were messages between Strzok and Page on the evening of March
19, 2017 referencing the information General Mclnerney brought forward on the show. Over the
ensuing years, there have been those who thoroughly researched the illegal "operation" who are
also well-versed and experts in information technology.
The two most well-respected surveillance experts in the world, Bill Binney and Kirk Wiebe,
have been supportive of the existence of the illegal parallel platform of THE HAMMER and they
in fact have come forward stating that they had also participated in parallel platforms.
Admiral Lyons was an incredible Patriot and a friend who also regularly appeared 011 my
show. From March 19, 2017 until his death in December of 2018, he repeatedly told me ....
"David, continue to focus on the Hammer surveillance .... it is the key to the coup, the key
for General Flynn's Freedom, and the key to Save Our Country.
-- David H. Janda M.D. Host, Operation Freedom
... ... ...
(7) Brennan and Clapper ran THE HAMMER computer system out of a secret Fort Washington,
Maryland facility beginning on February 3, 2009, after President Barack Obama took office;
(8) Florida voter registration disks were removed, and new disks inserted by Brennan and
Clapper via THE HAMMER supercomputer system, whereby they stole the Florida election via
redistricting;
Operation "Scorecard" reveals shadowy interference at the polls.According to According
to
NOQ Report , Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney exposed "Scorecard." The Dems' alleged superweapon for
voter fraud.
"A CIA program known as "Scorecard" allows its users to change voting outcomes by hacking
into the transfer between local reporting stations and state or national data centers.
According to McInerney, it's a small amount, under 3%, to keep it from triggering any alarms.
He would know. He served in top military positions under the Secretary of Defense and the Vice
President of the United States," says QMN.The covert technology "was built by the CIA to
surreptitiously steal elections in targeted countries. Now, that technology is being turned
against the United States of America and is about to be activated on Tuesday to steal the
election for Biden," The covert technology "was built by the CIA to surreptitiously steal
elections in targeted countries. Now, that technology is being turned against the United States
of America and is about to be activated on Tuesday to steal the election for Biden,"
McInerney boldly claimed . "This might also help explain why Joe Biden told voters at a
recent (small) rally that he didn't "need their vote" to become President, and why Nancy Pelosi
says Biden will win no matter what the votes say on Nov. 3rd."Operation Texas Scorecard.Project Veritas is at it again with undercover work to show
ballot harvesting. Project Veritas is at it again with undercover work to show ballot
harvesting.
Newly released footage reveals an operation in San Antonio, Texas, collecting votes for
Democrats, a pollster saying to a voter,
Dems' ballot harvesting Minnesota.
In the first of a series of reports, Project Veritas
investigators reveal a ballot-harvesting racket in Rep Ilhan Omar's (D) Minneapolis district
involving her campaign workers and political allies, In the first of a series of reports,
Project Veritas investigators reveal a ballot-harvesting racket in Rep Ilhan Omar's (D)
Minneapolis district involving her campaign workers and political allies, reports QMN
News . "Whistleblower Jamal Osman, a Minneapolis community leader and chair of the city's
Somali Watchdog Group, alleges Omar's involvement, and says that his brother, Liban Mohamed, is
one of Omar's "many people." "It's an open secret. She [Omar] will do anything that she can do
to get elected and she has hundreds of people on the streets doing that," he told Veritas in an
on-camera interview last Tuesday. "Whistleblower Jamal Osman, a Minneapolis community leader
and chair of the city's Somali Watchdog Group, alleges Omar's involvement, and says that his
brother, Liban Mohamed, is one of Omar's "many people." "It's an open secret. She [Omar] will
do anything that she can do to get elected and she has hundreds of people on the streets doing
that," he told Veritas in an on-camera interview last Tuesday. "Whistleblower Jamal Osman, a
Minneapolis community leader and chair of the city's Somali Watchdog Group, alleges Omar's
involvement, and says that his brother, Liban Mohamed, is one of Omar's "many people." "It's an
open secret. She [Omar] will do anything that she can do to get elected and she has hundreds of
people on the streets doing that," he told Veritas in an on-camera interview last Tuesday.
"It's an open secret. She [Omar] will do anything that she can do to get elected and she has
hundreds of people on the streets doing that," he told Veritas in an on-camera interview last
Tuesday. "It's an open secret. She [Omar] will do anything that she can do to get elected and
she has hundreds of people on the streets doing that," he told Veritas in an on-camera
interview last Tuesday.
Dems deceit fracks election in Pennsylvania.
Rosa:
My polling place in Philly was handing these out. And no, no one handed out a GOP or any
other party option. pic.twitter.com/LZ9C2ZYl5w
TIPers knew the groundwork was in motion with mail-in ballots and all the other tricks
that would tip close states to the candidate with no chance of winning on his own. That would
be Joe Biden. They don't know Trump, America's top warrior, yet.
Featured Image: GETTYSBURG, PA, April 2019. Detail of Pennsylvania state memorial, Gettysburg Battlefield Photo Bubba73 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gettysburg_Battlefield,_Pennsylvania,_US_(81).jpg.
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
license. Attribution: Judson McCranie
Karen Fann, Senate president, has asked the state to test voting machines.
Capitol Media Services Karen Fann, Senate president, has asked the state to test voting
machines.
Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs said the election was run using laws established by
the Republican controlled Legislature. She rejected request to test voting machines.
By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services
PHOENIX – Senate President Karen Fann is seeking an independent analysis of the
testing of Arizona voting machines.
In a letter to Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, the Prescott Republican said she is not
claiming there was fraud in the just-completed election.
"But many others are making that claim," Fann said. And she contends that the outside review
will put the "current controversy" to rest. Watch now: Ballots processing in Pima County Play
Video
But Hobbs said Fann, while professing no belief in fraud, is herself trafficking in
conspiracy theories by even suggesting that an extra – and legally unrequired –
step is necessary to quell rumors.
"It is patently unreasonable to suggest that, despite there being zero credible evidence of
any impropriety or widespread irregularities, election officials nonetheless have a
responsibility to prove a negative," she wrote Tuesday in a response to Fann.
"To be clear, there is no 'current controversy' regarding elections in Arizona, outside of
theories floated by those seeking to undermine our democratic process for political gain,"
Hobbs said. "Elected officials should work to build, rather than damage, public confidence in
our system."
And the secretary left no doubt about what she intends to do.
"I respectfully decline your request to push aside the work that remains to be done to
ensure an orderly completion of this election and instead launch and fund with taxpayer dollars
a boundless 'independent' evaluation of 'all data related to the tabulation of votes in the
2020 General Election,"' Hobbs wrote.
Fann told Capitol Media Services there's nothing improper about her request, even absent any
proof of fraud.
"There are a lot of questions that the voters have," she said. "And for the integrity of our
democracy, why wouldn't we want to get to the bottom of these questions?" Quality journalism
doesn't happen without your help.
And if there's nothing there, Fann said, "let's find out what they are and either put them
to bed or get those questions answered."
Hobbs said everything being done follows the election laws as established by the
Republican-controlled Legislature.
She pointed out the equipment used to tabulate votes can be used only if first certified by
the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and her own office, after review by a special State's
Equipment Certification Advisory Committee.
Then there are "logic and accuracy" tests on each piece of equipment – tests that need
to be done in public – both before and after the election to ensure the machines are
properly recording votes.
And there even is a law that requires that 2% of the ballots from select precincts be
counted by hand to ensure the tally matches what the machine has spit out. And that is open to
party officials who even can video record the process.
All that, Hobbs said, was made public for months before the election.
At this point, it seems unlikely that Trump is going to prevail in his legal challenges.
It's possible that he will, but what do you think is more likely? If he doesn't prevail,
however, Biden's "win" can actually be a tremendous win for us.
Why? Well, first let's address the question of who "we" are. I hate to sound like Joe Biden,
who seems not to know who he is or where he is or what he's talking about from moment to moment
(get ready for four years of hilarity, folks). But it's useful to remind ourselves of who we
are from time to time. We are White Nationalists.
A White Nationalist is
someone who believes that white peoples have a right to their own homelands. So that, as a
White Nationalist, I am a German nationalist, an English nationalist, a Scottish nationalist, a
French nationalist, etc . Or, at least, I support all those nationalisms. To be a white
nationalist in America is really to recognize that the core "American people" are the white
people whose ancestors built the country and who continue to pay for it. Thus, American White
Nationalism = American nationalism. To be an American nationalist is also to recognize that
more recent, non-white arrivals don't belong here at all; and that while our blacks have been
here a long time and some of them do sing, dance, and dribble well, they are mostly parasites
who contribute almost nothing to the society except grief.
Since it now looks impossible to go back to the good old days when we had blacks in complete
subjection, and since both blacks and browns out-breed us, American nationalists essentially
face two possible courses of action. The first is to remove non-whites from the country, which
seems impossible at this point, or to remove ourselves. This latter course would mean that we
all go back to Europe, which the Europeans won't allow, or that we effectively secede from the
USA and carve out our own white space (or spaces) within North America. It is this latter
option that now seems like it may be our only option, and something we must work
toward.
So, how does Trump's loss help advance us in that goal? To state the obvious, white
Americans will never work toward a white American homeland unless they are aware of
themselves as White Americans; unless they see themselves as a group with distinct
interests, and the moral right to assert those interests. "Awakening" white people has
always been our goal as White Nationalists -- awakening whites in America, and in
Europe. This awakening is far more important than any political figure, or any short-term
political goals. This awakening is and ought to be our top priority.
When I first got involved in this movement, almost exactly twenty years ago, there were two
questions that were constantly raised in my local "hate group": (1) When are white people going
to wake up? And (2) will it take some kind of societal collapse to get them to wake up? Most of
us thought that it would take such a collapse, but that this wouldn't happen in our lifetimes.
Well, my friends, now it has happened. The collapse has occurred, and Trump's loss has
brought it about.
The country was already fractured along political lines. Now it is completely broken.
Conservatives, the overwhelming majority of whom are white, have long known that the media are
biased to the Left and that the political establishment does not have their interests at heart.
But they still believed in "the system." They believed that it still might be possible to work
within the system and get somebody elected who would actually be their guy . Somebody
who could bring the jobs home, stop the tide of non-white immigration, clean up the streets (
i.e. , do something about black crime), combat the politically correct madness, and get
us out of the forever wars. The election of Donald Trump seemed to confirm this optimism.
But all the voices on the far-Right who labeled Trump "a distraction" have now been proved
correct. Trump actually wound up doing little for white people -- despite being continually
vilified by the Left as a white supremacist! Still, millions of whites not only continued to
support him, they carried on a love affair with the man. Trump was adored by his base like no
other American political figure in memory. Not even Reagan got this much love. The more vicious
and unhinged the attacks on Trump became, the more his base supported him. They knew that his
reelection would be no cakewalk, but they believed it was still possible.
They knew that the media and the Democrats would play dirty -- very dirty. But they trusted
the electoral process. Or, at least, they hoped for the best. For months there was talk about
voter fraud, primarily focused on the issue of mail-in ballots. But conservative whites still
had faith that the system would work for them, as it did in 2016.
Now their faith has been completely and irreparably shattered. And this is hugely
significant for us.
The first step toward real secession is psychological secession: seeing that though I
still live in it, this is no longer my country, and there is no longer any hope of making the
system work for me and those like me. This is exactly what the 2020 election has accomplished.
About 57% of white people voted for Trump in this election. And those many millions of whites
are now choking down a gigantic red pill. As we all know, the red pill is the path to
liberation.
Quoth Tyler Durden: "Losing all hope was freedom."
It seems that there is credible evidence that there was voter fraud in the election,
benefitting Biden. As I write this, Trump's legal team is preparing to fight it -- but, as I
have already said, I think that they will lose. Ultimately, it does not matter whether or not
there was fraud, or whether the fraud was enough to swing the election to Biden (two separate
issues). What matters is that white Trump voters believe that there was.
Trump voters are now, ironically, in sort of the same position as Democrats in the wake of
2016. No matter how much we would like to, none of us will ever forget the "Russian
interference!" and "Russia collusion!" hysteria that went on for the better part of two and a
half years, until the Mueller report more or less put the thing out of its misery (though not
entirely). The difference, however, is that that was all bullshit. And a significant number of
Democrats knew it. Trump voters actually have very good reasons to think that this election was
stolen.
Regardless of what we eventually learn about whether sharpies can cause ballots to be
misread, or whether a "glitch" flipped Trump votes to Biden votes, there is still ample reason
for the 70 million Trump voters to think that this thing was rigged. In the months preceding
the election, America saw a massive overreach of state and local government power in the form
of COVID lockdowns, the net effect of which was to ruin far more lives than it saved. Is it
paranoia to think that the intention here was to crash the economy and render Trump
unelectable?Consider: Virtually the entire media was not only against Trump, but made it their
personal mission to take him down by any means necessary. No lie, no distortion was too
ridiculous or too scurrilous. Leftists in government, journalism, academia, and the
entertainment industry openly declared that anything and everything was permissible in
order to take down the "existential threat" posed by Orange Man. This was the fertile ground
onto which were sowed the seeds of speculation about election fraud.
The lockdowns coincided with months of coordinated rioting billed as "protests" against
non-existent "racial injustice." The rioters somehow weren't subject to the rules of the
lockdowns, because apparently COVID takes a holiday when it is politically expedient. This
double standard was so obscene and so blatant, it enraged Republican voters (as well as a few
honest rank and file Democrats of my acquaintance).
The Left calculated, correctly, that Trump would do little or nothing to stop the rioting,
out of fear of looking too dictatorial in an election year. Trump's own calculation was that
allowing the riots to happen would give the Left plenty of rope with which to hang itself.
Trump was wrong; his inaction made him seem weak. The basic hope of the Left was that months of
economic and social chaos would fatally wound Trump, and that voters would be too stupid to see
that it was actually the Left that was to blame for it. In the main, it looks like they were
right about this.
But diehard Trump supporters correctly saw that the lockdowns and riots were an election
year strategy hatched by the Left. If they were not wholly designed by the Left to
damage Trump, they were at least manipulated for that purpose. The cherry on the cake came in
the weeks leading up to the election, in the form of big tech's censorship of news damaging to
Biden, including blocking the New York Post 's stories about Biden's involvement in his
son's shady business deals. This classically Orwellian move finally reached an extreme few
would ever have even thought possible, when at last social media began censoring the President
himself.
Given all of this, it would be unreasonable not to think that this election was
stolen. Trump's supporters believe this -- every last one of them. And they will never stop
believing it. Mark my words: this is never, ever going away. Trump voters will go to
their graves believing that the election was stolen, and feeling as passionately about it as
they do right now, less than a week after polls closed. They will go to their graves hating
Leftists (as they rightfully should), and believing that the system is broken beyond
repair.
"But," so your objection will go, "the fact that these white Trump voters will become
disillusioned with the system does not mean that they will become self-aware white
advocates."
My contention, however, is that what begins as disillusionment with the system will, in many
cases (a great many cases, I believe) lead to increasing racial consciousness, or open the door
to it. Take it from me -- from my own personal experience: once you have accepted that
one big thing is a total sham, you begin to wonder whether everything else is. And if
you keep going this way, you eventually begin wondering whether wrong is right; whether
everything we've ever been told is false and bad might be true and good.
And the fact is that white Trump voters are already far more racially aware than the
naysayers in the comments section will give them credit for. Trumpism is an implicitly white
phenomenon if ever there was one. And it is implicit only in the sense that its supporters are
too tactful and too fearful to name it for what it is -- not in the sense that they are
unaware of what it is. We all thought that the media and the Leftists had lost their
minds when they damned Trump and his supporters as racists and white supremacists. But they
weren't crazy. They grasped, much more clearly than Republicans, what the vector of the
Trump movement was -- where it might be headed. They correctly saw that a movement that offered
a home to millions of white Americans upset by non-white immigration (euphemistically called
"illegal immigration") might eventually give birth to self-aware white advocacy. When they
called the Trumpites "racists" it was like seeing the oak tree in the acorn.
As perceptive as the Left was on that particular score, they have, as we all know, been
remarkably deaf, dumb, and blind in other ways. Biden's share of the popular vote (if
legitimate) is by no means a landslide. There is no "mandate" for looney Leftism, and no
"repudiation" of Trump (indeed, Trump did expand his base -- though in one crucial area, as I
will shortly discuss, it shrank). But that won't stop Leftists like AOC, and many others, from
imagining that they have a mandate for all their craziness.
Therefore, expect the anti-white rhetoric to pick up steam. And, needless to say, this will
help the process along in a big way: white Trump voters will think for five minutes and realize
that they are at the mercy of a system that is demonstrably rigged against them and
wills their destruction. If they haven't realized it already. That image of the McCloskeys with
their guns facing down the brown hoard is unlikely to fade anytime soon. And what happened to
the McCloskeys has now happened to all white Americans: despised, cornered, and now disarmed.
(The literal disarmament is right around the corner, if the runoff elections in Georgia deliver
the Senate to the Democrats.)
We are nevertheless still at a point where whiteness remains implicit. Whites dare not speak
out in their own defense -- not explicitly as whites, anyway. Populist journalists like Tucker
Carlson, Ann Coulter, and Pat Buchanan, who are privately on our side, still speak in coded
language, avoiding open advocacy for whites. However, the coded language (as the Left also
correctly sees) is becoming easier to decode by the day. As many on our side have said, we will
make no real and substantial progress until we are willing to openly stand up for ourselves --
in person, in broad daylight, and without sock puppets and noms de plume like "Jef
Costello." Is that day imminent? I believe that it is.
What would it take? First, it would take white self-awareness -- and I have argued that this
is already there, emerging from its cocoon. Second, it would take anger . It would take
whites being pushed to a point where they are so angry they speak and behave imprudently
, damning the consequences. If one does it, he will simply be squashed; fired, censored,
canceled, deplatformed. If many do it, that's a different story. They can't fire us all. And if
that anger is great enough, they will fear us. They should. As Don Jr. recently tweeted , "70
million pissed off Republicans and not one city burned to the ground." But this may not last.
The election might just be the proverbial straw. The camel may be about to metamorphose into
the lion.
Already there are signs of uncharacteristic self-assertion on the part of angry Trump
voters. There have been large protests by Republicans in "swing states," including Michigan and Pennsylvania.
There has been violence. Continuing the lockdowns will exacerbate this. Everybody, not just
whites, has reached the breaking point with this COVID bullshit. Of course, now that Biden is
elected, it would not be surprising if COVID suddenly became a non-issue.
Here are some more predictions:
Trump has now moved over to Gab , a
free-speech platform that has embraced thought criminals of all kinds (so far). Trump's
supporters will follow him to Gab -- millions of them. They will read the other stuff and
become more red-pilled. You can almost predict this one with mathematical certainty.
Gun sales will increase as Trump voters scramble to arm themselves before Biden tries to
disarm them. Gun sales have increased enormously since the BLM riots began, so much so that the
stores cannot keep up with demand. Ammo sales have been so brisk it's now hard to find bullets
for those guns. (Yes, I do believe we
are headed for violent civil war .)
Conspiracy theories are going to be mainstreamed. This process was already underway, due
partly to the influence of "QAnon." I tried reading
the QAnon book , with the intention of writing something about it for this website. I
stopped because the thing was so stupid I couldn't get through it. If this stuff can be
influential among Trump voters, anything can. Alex Jones is all over Gab. The Trumpites who
follow their leader over to that platform will get a big dose of him -- and about 60% of what
he says is actually true. He was talking about Epstein's pedo island years ago.
One thing leads to another -- once, as I have said, a big lie is exposed, one begins to
question everything else. Who really runs the world? Who controls US policy in the Middle East?
What's Bohemian Grove all about? Exactly how long does it take to cremate a single body?
Inquiring minds want to know. Let a thousand conspiracy theories bloom! Every one of them helps
us, because every one of them undermines the system and the elites who run it.
White males are the only group Trump did not make gains with in 2020. Given his portrayal in
the media, the irony here is rich, as Jim Goad has noted. Had Trump
gotten more votes from white males, it looks like he would have outvoted even the dead and the
fake voters. As Gregory
Hood has pointed out, "the reason President Trump is in this position is because he
didn't do enough for white working-class voters ." He continues: "White working-class
voters are now the most important voting group in America. They will have decided two
presidential elections in a row. They will decide more."
The Republican establishment cannot be unaware of this. They've seen the same numbers Hood
has. If they did not realize it before, they realize it now. There will be absolutely no going
back to the Republican party of John McCain and Mitt Romney. Those names are hard to pronounce
now without gagging. That they were the Republican nominees in, respectively, 2008 and 2012 now
seems downright surreal. That is how much Trump has changed the party. To save that party,
Republicans will have to offer something to white voters. They will have to keep running the
Trump train, without Trump. (Though Trump is not going away; he will remain a huge part of
public life.)
Everyone thinks 2020 has been a terrible year. It is just the opposite. White nationalism
has taken a giant step forward.
To be an American nationalist is also to recognize that more recent, non-white arrivals
don't belong here at all; and that while our blacks have been here a long time and some of
them do sing, dance, and dribble well, they are mostly parasites who contribute almost
nothing to the society except grief.
The author makes a lot of cogent and well-reasoned points, but his delivery lacks nuance
and has a coarseness which suggests prejudice to the point of racism.
Not that I am accusing the author of being a racist at all – but in the field of
persuasion, a biased narrative produces polarisation, either confirming or disputing one's
preconceived beliefs.
I suggest adjusting the author's arguments to recognise the actual fundamental issue in
play, which is not skin colour or race or language, but CULTURE. Yes, no doubt, the
historical currents and ill-conceived government policies have herded different parcels of
humanity into differing contexts on the basis of their racial backgrounds, but while the
identifying characteristics (and idiotic government-enabled victim industries) may be
numerically associated with skin colour, the actual behavioural differentiations are
determined by the collective CULTURE adopted by each individual within their respective
communities.
Allow me a simplistic example here. By government policy, an Australian is recognised as
Koori (and entitled to all the government benefits, handouts, preferential treatment and
other assistance that Koori status attracts) if he/she can demonstrate that they have at
least 1/16 Koori blood. What a boon to the Australian "Aboriginal Industry", a
government-spawned victim industry par-excellence, whose client-base and professional
employment potential is thereby magically multiplied 10-fold compared a Koori threshold
limited to just full and half-bloods (do the math).
As would be expected, a great many people are all too eager to pile onto this "victim"
gravy train. Never mind that the bulk of them are white.
And the really warped thing about all of this, is that all those whiteys whose great great
grandmother or grandfather may have been a Koori, baited by the siren-song of government
entitlements and victim rights, all too often fall into the trap of government dependency and
economic despondency that afflicts so many of the victim industry's clientelle.
It's not language or race or skin colour, its CULTURE. Egged along by idiotic government
officials and vested interests.
Here in Australia, my view is that you're either Australian, or you're not. All other
considerations are secondary. That applies equally to foreign and domestic policy, and
equally to the native-born and immigrants. Until we come to understand and accept that
proposition, the NATION will be hobbled.
So too with the USA. Mind you, it appears to me that the USA's CULTURAL issues are rather
more entrenched and vulnerable to vested interests than in Australia (so far). If they can't
be resolved, then we may be looking at eventual disintegration into several nations,
irrespective of race.
Really, it's these exciting and dark times when real change happens. The Kali Yuga beckons
us all onwards! I look forward to that future thing which American Nationalism will give
birth to. I just hope it involves dragons, somehow, somewhere. Maybe on a flag.
Your premise of a "white homeland" in North America is problematic at best, since the
territory was already occupied by First Nations of indigenous peoples who clearly were the
first to make such a claim on these lands, which stood until the continent was stolen from
them by white people. A just reckoning of homelands begins with recognizing their prior
rights here first, and then assessing where in the world it is best to park our itinerant
white asses. But as you say, we've already forfeited our place in our actual white homelands
in Europe and elsewhere in the Old World. So maybe we can negotiate paying rent, on these
lands we occupy, to the poor survivors of the genocide we enacted to claim "our" home.
"Most of us thought that it would take such a collapse, but that this wouldn't happen in
our lifetimes. Well, my friends, now it has happened.'
Reminds me of Mr Twain & his comment that reports of his death have been greatly
exaggerated .
The author's race nationalism is sad, to say the least. As if "white" comes with a label.
(And never mind all the Legal/Property issues that would arise -- imagine sorting out an
Olympic sized pool of cooked spaghetti .)
"that we effectively secede from the USA and carve out our own white space (or spaces) within
North America. It is this latter option that now seems like it may be our only option, and
something we must work toward."
But having sorted out the labels "White", citizens can play " India 1947 -- the
Partion" : you know, that wonderful time when millions of Hindus moved south &
millions of Muslims moved north. Death toll somewhere between a couple of hundred thousand to
a couple of million. I wonder who will get the bulk of the Oligarchs ? Where will those
tribal Oligarchs feel more comfortable ?
Mexicans & Asians -- wonder whether they'll be welcome ? Turn away the Asians especially,
will go a long way to guaranteeing failure.
The saddest thing of all ? Assume all the race issues are settled -- & you still have 101
other political issues to deal with .Unless, of course, the author simply wants to transfer
the status quo to his new racial Eden .Wow, what a triumph that would be.
Of course Europeans and people outside of Europe of European descent are waking and
beginning to take our own side This is the inevitable reaction to our ( mostly ) hostile
elite, Politics as usual/ MSM etc are all in decline and no amount of censorship is changing
these trends. Matthew Goodwin and Roger Eatwell in National Populism The revolt against
liberal democracy are amongst many who see this happening. The trend is towards Nationalism
away from the Multiculti cult and its champions on tv etc. The silent majority in all White
nations are less silent with every passing year.
I've long considered myself a political exile. I left the US because I couldn't stand it
any more. The insanity of the laws, the always increasing police state was something I saw
but others apparently didn't.
If states start to secede and Texas is one of them, I'll move back. The Fed Gov is the
main problem and needs to totally disappear. When the USA goes the way of the USSR, then
you'll know there's a chance for freedom.
The history of race relations in the past 60 years or so has been based on your
assumption, that everyone is the same but environments create cultures that make them seem
different. It's a claim that's impossible to disprove, because you can define any traits as
cultural, and is therefore meaningless. Nevertheless, in practical real-life terms all you
have to do is look at how various groups behave in many different locations and even
different times, to see that something is at work besides culture.
And failing to acknowledge biodiversity leads to the absurd victimization industry that
has brought us to the brink of race war.
"warriors of the Powhatan "came unarmed into our houses with deer, turkeys, fish, fruits,
and other provisions to sell us". The Powhatan then grabbed any tools or weapons available
and killed all the English settlers they found, including men, women, and children of all
ages. Chief Opechancanough led the Powhatan Confederacy in a coordinated series of surprise
attacks; they killed a total of 347 people, a quarter of the population of the Virginia
colony."
Oh no those poor natives. Maybe they should have avoided a fight they couldn't win.
There's a reason we call them savages.
"The difference, however, is that that was all bullshit."
But, as the programmer Alberto Brandolini is reputed to have said: "The amount of energy
necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." This is the
unbearable asymmetry of bullshit .
There are so many massive lies out there that are still believed by many of the stupid
masses brainwashed by mass media, the universities, and a variety of other large
institutions.
You can't fix stupid.
So–my crystal ball is very foggy at this point.
(If you think about cultures in the history of the human race, all were based on a bunch
of lies. As Terence McKenna liked to say–nowhere is it written that we apes are
entitled to learn the truth about anything.)
@Etruscan Film Star in parallel with the whole racial profiling paradigm is the same idea
applied to religion, wherein George Dubya whipped up his "civilisational struggle" against
the Muslim world to facilitate American games of Empire. To the extent that any problem
actually exists, religion is a red herring. Here in Australia, Muslim people are amongst the
most genuine and charitable people that one can meet. In my experience, the only tiny
minority of Muslim people who have caused friction are invariably of Arab origin, and more
specifically from Saudi Arabia – an inherently tribal & chauvinistic culture (and a
key American ally in the Middle East – just sayin').
Race & religion are distractions. Compatible cultures can assimilate in a harmonious
society, while incompatible cultures cannot.
For the time being, as long as Jews play the gane of Whites vs Diversity, whites should
play a game of Jews vs Gentiles.
If Jews can lead a multicultural coalition against Whites, then Whites can lead a
multicultural coalition against Jews. This is their worst nightmare, and almost everything
they do is best understood as an attempt to prevent this.
This latter course would mean that we all go back to Europe, which the Europeans won't
allow, or that we effectively secede from the USA and carve out our own white space (or
spaces) within North America. It is this latter option that now seems like it may be our only
option, and something we must work toward.
Jez, they say I am a dreamer, and all I want is a free pony and some government
cheese.
I suspect that Australians are several decades behind Americans in discovering that your
perspective, which basically is what we called civic nationalism, is largely false and has
now largely failed. I don't have time to even sketch this, but you can look for critiques of
civic nationalism and for concepts like regression to the mean. I hope you can learn from our
experience.
@Ultrafart the Brave and snotty racist Europeans and Japanese kept the revolutionary
masses down. The opposite is the truth, it were the Europeans who were revolutionary folks
(French revolution/Enlightenment anyone) trying to spread modernism over racist, parochial,
reactionary, tribal darkie populations and the whole thing ended in tears and trumped up
charges against Whitey dreamt up by Jews, marxists and third World Nationalists/ elites. Same
with Japanese Empire which too was driven by the Pan Asian ideology. The Chinese too will be
rejected by the darkie masses in the future, they too will face trumped up charges for
"exploitation" and "oppression" in the future, it has already started right now.
I do not deny that there are differences between the races. However, breeding is not one
of them.
Ever since the end of slavery, American blacks have had moderate numbers of children,
essentially the same whites. Yes, really. Why do you think, after all these centuries,
pre-1965 American blacks are still hardly more than 10% of the population?
Actually the fraction of blacks in the United States is lower than it used to be –
the Grover-Cleveland cheap-labor immigration surge, that drove wages so low and profits so
high, was all from (at the time) white third-world Europe, and increased the white fraction
of the population. Because white europeans at the time bred more than black Americans!
So yes, during the 19th century and up through Mao, the Chinese bred like rabbits and
lived lives of total misery. After Mao, the Chinese fertility rate was allowed to moderate,
and now China is doing very well. Is there anything genetic in the Chinese people for either
high or or low fertility rates? No. This at least, is entirely cultural.
Are there genetic differences between the races? Yes. Is excessive breeding one of them?
No.
@Ultrafart the Brave in Western societies on average than MENA and South Asians, even the
African blacks, who have much more deeper cultures than New World blacks, they all integrate
fast into Western cultures but they tend to ebonyify everything. But they bring with them
some negative traits like tendency towards violence, crime, chip on the shoulder mentality,
melanin power mentality, seeing racism everywhere etc So culturally they integrate faster but
the skin colour difference creates resentments and temperament differences still exist. On
the positive side blacks are not clannish as the darker Eurasian semi Caucasoids and have an
individualistic tendency which does gel well with individualistic Northern Euros.
I was away from Polaris Parkway, just North of Westerville and Worthington, Ohio, for a
couple of months and things have deteriorated quickly.
This also happened to Epstein Best Bud, Les Wexner's pet project Easton Town Center, close to
New Albany Wexner's British Village Fantasyland.
The common factor in deterioration is wait for it
Blacks and Browns, managed by jews.
Philadelphia Block Busting, 60 years later, same demographic players.
@sb understand that the Australian aboriginals were not a uniform race across the
Australian continent. The Tasmanian Aboriginals were quite different to their continental
counterparts, but even the mainlanders were not racially homogenous. The racial makeup of the
native peoples of Papua & New Guinea are completely different again.
A broad analogy can be drawn with the various black races occupying the African continent
– their skin colour doesn't uniquely define their respective races. For an extreme
example, compare the Congo Pygmies of central Africa with the Rwandan Tutsis.
I do take your point, however – rather than qualify the Kooris as Australian for a
potentially global audience, perhaps it is simpler to just refer generically to native
Australians..
One might think so, but apparently not. Instead, in so many ways the Australian culture
seems to be marching in suicidal lockstep with the USA, like the mythical lemmings toward the
proverbial cliff.
An appalling example of this is the insidious slide of the Australian medical system over
the last few decades from a universally free model to a for-profit one infested with middle
men and insurance rackets, presumably on a trajectory towards a full-blown American-style
Big-Pharma business model with the poor folk thrown under the bus.
@Malla rt of thinking aligns somewhat with reports of homecoming head-chopping ISIS
psychos being sent to reeducation camps in Xinjiang, China. The local indigenous population
apparently is doing just fine, but returning extremists trained for genocidal wars in the
Middle East no longer fit in.
Here's a true story which helps to illustrate that the principle of cultural harmony
transcends race, and even species. I was raised on a farm, and on this farm were herds of
sheep and also some turkeys. One particular sheep somehow got it into her head that she was a
turkey. She would follow the turkey flock around all day, and at night, she would roost in a
tree with the turkeys. The turkeys didn't seem to mind, and the sheep seemed quite happy.
Compatible cultures.
The stolen election is like Jewish control of the media. EVERYBODY, even Biden voters know
this SELECTION/ELECTION WAS STOLEN, but like Jewish control of the media, we are demanded to
pretend it doesn't exist or never happened.
No Trump fan here, but I voted for the Orange Man because of the alternative. I still have
hope that Team Trump can turn this around. All the Jew/Israel butt kissing aside and the
broken promises and holding meetings with (c)rappers, Trump did expose the "normies" to the
FAKE MEDIA. Hell, that is more than any other modern day POTUS has done for Whites. Can
someone tell me when was the last time Whites had a true representative in the White House
that actually looked out for White Americans and was concerned about White civil rights? I am
pushing 60 and we haven't had one in my lifetime for sure.
So that, as a White Nationalist, I am a German nationalist, an English nationalist, a
Scottish nationalist, a French nationalist, etc.
I think if we take it as far as Hitler, we are also Chinese nationalists, and Japanese
nationalists etc – those nations can develop in their spheres – and so much the
better for them. But they may not force themselves on us (or others).
This whole article is based on the Susan Sarandon premise in 2016 when Bernie lost –
that a Trump win would inspire the base to elect a progressive, caring left wing politician.
This didn't turn out – the system got rigged for about as establishment a criminal as
could have been chosen.
Article 10 is not easy to execute. The right may have honour and guns, but the left is
TDSed, and rabies is one strong steroid to help with a fight!
In addition there is no real leader – one who could strategise a secession
effectively. Trump certainly couldn't. He'd be great as the PR guy, but not as the leader.
Until one is born, America is stuck within the belly of the US beast.
Author Costello said:
"Had Trump gotten more votes from white males, it looks like he would have outvoted even the
dead and the fake voters."
Nope.
Costello misses the point that the curious count stoppage was a pause to enable the left
to manufacture the votes that they then anticipated needing in lieu of the largely pro-Trump
turnout numbrs. And, any unanticipated pro-Trump surge could have easily been overcome by
having a reserve at the ready.
IOW:
Regardless of who had voted for Trump, they simply would have been overcome by the left
creating more fake votes for Biden.
I would add materialist values and urbanization to the blend. All my ancestry emanated
from Scandinavia. After checking out several major cities during the years of my young
manhood, I returned to a rural, homesteading life.
Working with my hands and body is important to my well-being. Seasonally, living on the
northwestern fringe of the Northwoods, winters are long and arduous -- a good time for
artistic and intellectual pursuits. The soul has its needs, as Thomas Moore pointed out in
his book "Growth of the Soul". My needs center on living close to the mother of us all.
Northeast Asians and Northwest Europeans share much in this perspective.
Not too many answers to why and to what purpose but still a brilliant article.
Generals love the war, soldiers not so much.
There is lingering question in my mind! The question is: Who loves more war, Israel , or
seventeen intelligence agencies with General staff.
But for the time being I am very much against any radical solution.
I am with Trump's "Stand down and stand by".
I think Biden also does deserve a chance to come up with solutions.
But if Biden starts a new war than everything will be justified and Final solution will
become inevitable.
@TG k up a feast. The younger children enjoy their own fun and games. The older ones help
their samesex parents. During the evening after supper, the bottles get passed around and
sometimes there is music and perhaps dancing.
The bulk of the Amish -- and the Mennonites -- emerged from an Anabaptist culture in
Switzerland and parts of Germany and during the late 17th Century many of them relocated to
Lanacaster County Pennsylvania, from which they have now colonized westwards wherever there
is the possibility of true country living. Not many of them migrate past the 90th Meridian,
where poor soil and semi-arid conditions are poorly conducive to agriculture and cozy country
living.
@Ultrafart the Brave s have manipulated much in America in the last 50 years and that is
the bigger reason for what are marketed as 'cultural clashes'. Most of them are bogus and
engineered.
Race & religion are distractions. Compatible cultures can assimilate in a harmonious
society, while incompatible cultures cannot.
Agree, again, I'd use the term: shared or accepted values.
(Fwiw, I'm willing to go the step further and view the author as a likely racist and
supremacist. Most people like that have lived sheltered lives and had little exposure to a
variety of peoples. Many of their assertions are simply empty and unaware of ahem the real
world.)
If Brexit ranks NINE on the Collective Self-Harm for No Good Reason scale, proposing a
civil war in the 21st century to create a "whites only" state in North America is so nutty it
breaks the dial.
But We'll give you MT, ND, SD, WY, IA, NB, KS, and Maybe OK. That way you can all go back
to growing crops and digging oil (ND) for your subsistence. Every place else is getting too
mixed for you.
Maybe if you're nice the Hawaiians will let you vacation on their islands occasionally to
get a break from long cold winters.
Though a lame and uninsightful article on the whole, the strategy of and desire for
secession is the healthiest conclusion that the author could have been reached. I would just
hope that when whites within the ethnostate inevitably conflict with the ethnogovernment that
he would also want for them to secede.
What a simple morality play for the banking elites (who own both parties through
"lobbying, i.e. bribery" sanctioned by the highest courts) to divide and conquer the
taxcattle.
You are arguing over who you pay Tribute to. This is a golden opportunity for mass civil
disobedience to overwhelm and bury the decrepit, imperial corporatist oligarchy.
The stone-age aboriginals who previously inhabited what is now America failed to defend
their lands from invasion. Sadly, we've learned nothing from their mistakes.
Ronnie Unz needs to weigh in here Give the little cretin credit for posting this of
course.
Ronnie you are about to get your brown invasion that you so crave good and hard. Of all
the things that the globalist elites want in electing this moron demented POS called Biden is
an open border
Here it comes Ronnie Won't you and your bro Cholo loving Reed be soooo very happy
Amnesty is going to be served up as one of the first acts of Shithead Biden's
administration
Rejoice Ronnie . More poverty crossing the border to cut your grass.. And a bigger mass of
people for the welfare state
Of course you think that maids and dry wall hangers are natural conservatives I beg to
differ Where i live in Virginia they are natural clients of our welfare offices. We are
ground zero for the Welfare Dreamers who come from Central America.
I don't have to gaze into my navel and dream up some statistics about this you insipid
moron I can walk down the street to the Socialist Service office and see it for my own
eyes.
Yes Ronnie White Nationalist failed thanks to shitheads like you . Now asshole enjoy
paying California taxes to support open door poverty
Virginia is we are now on par to have California style taxes to support the brown
wave.
Your Buddy Reed had a good plan for escaping that I believe he used to be a Virginian he
moved to where the cholos are leaving!
As to this article right!! Cucked whites are doing shit. They'll be called racists and
shrivel up like a daisy in a wind storm.
@Priss Factor he Jewish agenda. Why don't we have a Herve Ryssen here in the US? Why
don't we have an Alain Soral, publishing prolifically and SELLING books to the deplorable
French yellow vests? Why don't we have a comedian like Dieudonne, poking fun at the organized
community and its endless wailing about its victimhood? We need more strong voices, willing
to point out the fact that there is NO SUCH THING as "Judeo-Christian values"; the very idea
grew out of a poison, Scofield Reference Bible influenced swamp, a hideous swamp monster
feeding on bleating Christian Zionist sheep, baa baa baaing as their wealth and futures are
extracted by the oligarch Jews.
It seems, based on much video, as well as the geographic centers of this fraud, that
negroes played a disproportionate role in the illegal election activities. Now that does seem
counter intuitive, as negroes are overwhelming honest, law abiding citizens.
I can only imagine that it was some small group of Jews that bribed our colored brethren
to engage in this thoroughly out of character misbehavior that may well lead to violent,
bloody national upheaval.
If only we had employed a larger share of our negro population in the various lucrative
advertisement opportunities, thereby sparing them from a life of soul crushing poverty. We
might have saved the nation, had we been kinder to our minority Black population.
"A White Nationalist is someone who believes that white peoples have a right to their
own homelands." – White Americans forfeited this right the moment they began
bringing African slaves here. Advocacy for white nationalism in America is advocacy for
secession or genocide. If you have no stomach for advocating genocide of non-whites in
America you must advocate for carving out white homeland for white nationalists. This
homeland no long will represent America or be America, so you no longer will be American
white nationalist but white 'bantustan' nationalist. If you lucky the rest of America will
let you have casinos in your bantustan.
The karma of the U.S was always screwed from the day the vile white Euro invaders fucked
with the natives and if there should be statues they should be of the likes of Geronimo and
not white imperial scum.
May the spirits of all the slaughtered native North American Indians be smiling from ear
to ear at the potentially very dangerous division in the middle country of North America.
A very good article that raises a lot of valid points. White Supremacy is the ONLY way,
that's what (((they))) call us, so ride with it – wear their labels with pride. Onwards
and upwards!
"The goal of abolishing the white race is, on its face, so desirable that some may find it
hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed WHITE
SUPREMACISTS .Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and
the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as the white race is
destroyed."
– Noel Ignatiev, Jewish Harvard professor and co-founder of 'Race Traitor'
magazine.
What makes you think White Americans brought blacks to America? America didn't even exist
when black slavery commenced and the bulk of black slaves went to the Spanish colonies, not
the American colonies.
A just reckoning of homelands begins with recognizing their prior rights here first,
A just reckoning also requires a statute of limitations on questions priority and a
recognition of who actually built the country.
Besides, the 'native' tribes were already killing and displacing each other. They were
mutually hostile, not united. Why should the addition of one more tribe to that warring mix
– albeit a tribe whiter and more successful than the rest – make any difference?
Ironically, it takes a 'racist' to claim that it does.
Agree, although Jews have a few advantages that make them much better at it, namely a
couple thousand years experience operating as tiny minorities in others lands and a shameless
hyperethnocentric instinct evidently lacking in white gentiles.
I looked at gab but it didn't seem very user friendly, problem is also everybody needs to
cease using twitter and shift to gab at the same time, critical mass.
And where, amongst these face diapered morons and Covid fearing degenerates, will you find
freedom?
America's problems are far greater than issues of Race, Politics, or Culture. At the core,
the issue is complete Spiritual Collapse, manifested in craven cowardice, cringingly
lickspittle obedience, mindless group think, and resolute belief in imaginary events.
This isn't going to end well for anyone. The spiritual death of America is as permanent as
it is absolute.
This latter course would mean that we all go back to Europe, which the Europeans won't
allow .
You haven't been paying attention, sonny. The Europeans are busy trying to catch up with
America's comparitive advantage by importing masses of similar types.
Has anybody else besides myself noticed how fast Jared Taylor and his #1 prize writer,
Gregory Hood – have cucked and caved in and conceded that the DemonRats won the 2020
Presidential election?
And, how each of these guys have now gone into full concession mode and are trying to
persuade and influence their followers to join them in their cuckery and effeminate
willingness to become submissive?
Also, I was listening to a recent Red Ice podcast where they had a slew of allegedly
pro-white community spokesmen and women on to discuss the fraudulent and clearly obvious
attempts by the Demonic leftists to steal the election and they were pushing a meme that I
found more than a little bit disturbing.
It went something like this: Racially healthy Whites need to respond to this travesty by
'opting out' of the 'system'. This means that Whites need to stop participating; i.e., stop
voting completely.
Alex Linder once said, when discussing the suicidal mindset of Whites who were infected
with Christianity – and who we all have repeatedly heard on various talk radio call-in
shows come on the
radio – after another leftist anti-white agenda victory and say: "Well, I will just
continue to pray and leave things up to God" – Linder dubbed that kind of attitude by
Whites as nothing more than pathetic excuse for them to continue to 'do nothing' to help
themselves or their people. I agree.
This meme that 'Whites need to stop voting' is exactly the same kind of attitude. I am
willing to concede the point that voting is senseless as long as the system continues to
allow fraudulent and illegal chicanery to thrive and go unpunished. But, anyone who actively
promotes the idea that Whites should just completely opt out is pushing advice that is
exactly what our mortal enemies want most. It is a complete surrender to being ruled over by
non-whites and jews who hate our guts and who do not want to encounter any opposition to
their agenda to genocide our race of people.
Yes, the election WAS stolen, the democrats having admitted it themselves after four years
of trying to get rid of president Trump, as they said, "BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE"!! So rational
people are now to believe that they have suddenly become honest players in the 2020 election?
As the saying goes, GOOD LUCK WITH THAT THOUGHT /..Dr. Charles Fhandrich.
@Stonewall Jackson sympathizing with some of your sentiments, Stonewall, but your
mean-spirited discourse (directed towards our host, no less) is a textbook example of why
Comments Sections (and some commentators) get edited–and even banned. Why take this
route? It seems self-defeating.
Your disrespectful attitude undermines your appeal. It also diminishes this site.
Why not aim higher? Why not civility?
Ron Unz might be wrong here and there. But he is not a "moron". Making such claims makes
you look like one.
Ron Unz has given the world a forum where countless and controversial and conflicting
points of view are given oxygen and light. This is invaluable and rare.
This is probably the most profound and auspicious moment in modern American history. I
would like to see Trump and the Republican party seize this moment by creating a parallel
government. Imagine 71 million Americans standing solid and publicly announcing a resounding
"Fuck you!" to the Jewish commies and all their colored cohorts.
'Why should the addition of one more tribe to that warring mix make a difference?'
Because it was their homeland, unlike the Euro invaders of central North America and just
try asking an elderly Palestinian how that feels.
And the different tribes may have been at war occasionally but this can hardly be compared
to the mass slaughter of the Native North American Indians and their Bison(to try and starve
them).
@Ultrafart the Brave Most importantly, the lies attributing black dysfunction to white
racism must stop immediately, and the government has to stop shoving diversity down our
throats continuously.
Allow freedom of association, enforce the laws, stop making excuses for black dysfunction,
and limit if not eliminate further immigration into the West from the Third World.
Perhaps then there can be some hope for us living together with a modicum of peace and
prosperity.
But I agree with you that nothing is accomplished by referring to an entire group of
people in completely disparaging terms.
That being said, black dysfunction has been and continues to be a serious problem that
will not be resolved by blaming it on white racism.
@Frankie P , who are both honored as Prophets in Islam, but instead, Jews spit on hearing
their names and do the same while passing a Christian of any kind or a Christian Church in
Israel. They have no respect for Christians or any other religion.
It is time the Jewish lobbies and the American Government leaders as well as the evangelical
Christian leaders who mislead the poor American young into joining the military and believing
that they are doing something for God and Christianity by fighting Israel's wars were named,
shamed and arrested and tried for treason.
In a perverse sort of way, israel's favorite "war song" is "Onward Christian Soldiers"
There I've said it
Will the redpilled understand that America has done this to many other countries, with
many more dead, or will their new consciousness be limited to this particular event? Because
the redpilled ones were always enthusiastic about new military adventures.
If the warriors came unarmed, but wound up killing people instead, I'd wonder what took
place in the interval. Something tells me we're only hearing one side and only a small part
of the story.
As for avoiding a fight they couldn't win, what advantage would they have obtained if they
just bent over and took it in the cheeks without a fight?
Maybe the reason "we" call them savages is called projection.
BTW, here's an example of what failing to fight will get ya,
An elephant that had some tests performed on it was going to be culled. However, in the
end, they decided to release it back into the wild (within the reserve).
This elephant took it into it's head that it was an African buffalo!
It hung out with the buffalo herd, and started to emulate the buffaloes behavior.
Initially, of course, the buffaloes were a tad leery of their new, very large friend –
but eventually got used to him.
And the elephant provided plenty of muscle when it came to lions stalking the herd.
It seems like you got the Pocahontas version of history.
All I can say is that if some guys on horses abducted my daughter and then slowly tortured
and scalpted her to death, you can be sure I wouldn't hesitate to genocide each and every one
of those savages down to the last one. But let's not have facts interrupt your narcissistic
moral masturbating. Just don't come here, coz in the end we'll end up laughing at you.
@Majority of One watermelon, they pass around the gin and juice and sit around smoking
the chronic and endo. Guns and ammunition are then passed around and they all discuss that
nights or the next days activities.
The bulk of the Negroes emerged from the African bush, sold by their own and competing
tribes and have colonized all 52 states wherever there is the possibility of free living and
handouts. Not many of them migrate to rural areas where country living and hard work would be
considered racist and discriminatory.
We have to thank our black Bros and Sistas. Without their motto "there can be no
construction without destruction" the USA would never be what it is today.
Ahhh This white man has put in a convincing case for himself and people like him and he
has my total support. He and his people can have Wyoming and half of South Dakota, only half.
Want some cows and mules? Take them. Take some white women also if they agree to go. And you
must take Trump with you, he's white like you. Good luck.
White liberals cry crocodile tears when the jewsmedia reminds them how White settlers
stole land formerly inhabited by American Indians. But, the fact is, every people alive in
the world today stole the land they now live on from a weaker people. It's the history of
mankind. Further, every Indian tribe in America at the time of Columbus had stolen their land
from another tribe, and they continued warring and land stealing until the White man put a
stop to it.
This obsession with restitution and atonement, is replacing religion. Only a race too long
comfortable would consider giving away to the defeated all they have accomplished and hard
fought for.
Churchills jewish henchman, fake aristocrat and architect of the Dresden and associated
slaughters frederick linderman mused that the defining event of the 20th century would be
'the abdication of the white man'.
The seeds of annihilation were sown in the late 19th century, now comes the reaping, aided
ably by the mendacity, sloth and cowardice of our own peoples and leaders.
President Kushner or President Emhoff that is the question. Same old – Jewish
"White" Supremacy. The "white" supremacy game of our "free" Zion press forgets to say which
"whites" are supreme. Our "free" Zion press is right that there is a "white" group that is
supreme but do not go into details which one. Unz site is one of the few sites that notices
this "white" group that is supreme in the US and in the entire west.
Vice President-elect Kamala Harris' husband, Doug Emhoff, will leave his job as a
partner with a high-profile law firm to focus on his role in the new Biden
administration.
A campaign spokeswoman said Tuesday that Emhoff will sever ties with DLA Piper by
Inauguration Day. Emhoff took a leave of absence from the firm in August, when Harris was
named Joe Biden's running mate. Biden and Harris will be inaugurated Jan. 20.
Emhoff is working with the transition team to determine the issues he will take on as
the vice presidential spouse. He is the first man to hold that role, as Harris is the
nation's first female vice president.
thanks mr Costelo for showing your thought crystal clear.
I a south american, am not entirely a contradictor to your views. And even share a few of
them.
If you re a white US nationalist I am a Brazilian, no matter-what-color, nationalist.
A nationalist must necessarily abide by the Westphalia Peace and be a faithful son of the
1815 Wien Conference.
The first corolarium of a nationalist like you is , of course, abhorr and abolish globalism.
This concedes a few exceptions (such as worlwide communications) since they are already in
place and cannot be sensibly reverted.
NOTE 1:I do want to wipe out globalism. (though not for every small nation nation of the
world, which would turn not applicable and counterproductive) away from my country for the
next decades at least.
The second corolarium is that any self conscious country should cling and fiercely defend a
strong list of protectionist laws. And entirely renegotiate the rusty, hegemonic leaning WTO
rules. Not to quit it but to found a new WTO. This protection is what the US did all the the
19th century long, from top to bottom.
The third one that springs out as a consequence is that the STATE presence and adhesion to
state owned companies in key sectors is vital to any nationalism.
Now the big criterium to enlight and tell things apart is: the less develoloped a country is
the more
of state ownership and reliance it will requires.
So until my home country does reach a 40.000 dollar/year PER CAPITA income, with an
acceptable
income distribution, I will be a feroucious nationalist just like Costello.
It is taken for granted that small places like Singagore, Uruguay, Andorra, Bosnia or
seychelles can AT WILL make an option to globalize, to intenationalize, to sell themselves
out to neighbor or to the best bidder.
No half words, no subtle or figurative language. And nobody must keep a secret as to what to
do when a big , rich, established country the destroy this legitimate thir party Nationalism,
annex or dominate the so described national entity.
Revolution, no less.
@Random Anonymous ti" future, they needed to introduce the intermediate step of civic
nationalism, whereby anyone could be an American as long as they were willing to assimilate
into the dominant culture. Hence, Israel Zangwill's The Melting-Pot .
Thus, civic-nationalism represented the proverbial camel poking its nose through the tent
before entering it completely. Once Westerners became acclimated to having non-Westerners
living among themselves, the assimilationist approach slowly began to be transformed into the
multicultural framework, one in which the overarching objective of dismantling "white
supremacy" was slowly unfurled. This is where we find ourselves today.
Like sensible people, I think they understand that America is never going to be another
Orania. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orania,_Northern_Cape
It's possible to get a deeper appreciation of the roots of America's social crisis America by
reading Thomas Sowell who has uniquely, I think, shown that patronizing guilt-ridden whites
(those that were) over the decades bear a particular responsibility.
Well, if you can't see racism in this guy words I'm convincente that you're already a
totally blind racist.
There is NO white land in this continent, son. If you are that German, english, Nordic
white nationalist then you can surely Go back there to European origins and claim your
ancestors' lands. But one thing you can never claim is the right over stolen territory,
neither to define how long one have to occupy robbed land until be able to recognize others
as a "native white"
or INVADERS.
EVERY SANE HUMAN KNOWS WHAT IS BEHIND THIS FACADE OF ARGUMENT.
NO WAY ANY REAL NATIVE CAN CLAIM TO BE WHITE, LET ALONE CALL AFRICAN DESCENDENTS ("OUR
BLACKS" ) PARASITES AND THIA SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT THE SICK PREMISES THIS COLONIALIST
SUPREMACIST IS DEFECATING FROM HIS MOUTH.
Friday rush hour. Euston station [in London]. Who's here? Who isn't. A kaleidoscope of
skin colours. The world in one terminus. Barbara Roche can see it over the rim of her cup of
Americano coffee. "I love the diversity of London," she tells me. "I just feel
comfortable."
White Americans brought them here? All White Americans? Was a black or two parceled out to
each White American? Blacks were brought here before America was a nation. And not by White
Americans.
A huge number of White Americans came to America after White Americans abolished slavery.
Most black slaves weren't even brought to White America but spanish america. White Americans
must pay as a group right?
Congrats on being the lowest IQ writer to ever be published on this site. Glad to see Ron
Unz is doing his part to increase representation of the imbecile community.
"Nation" is a white concept. De-colonialize your brain, bigot! To the redskins, land
belonged to those who could take it, and Europeans honored that tradition in grand style.
Do you really believe the BS you just spewed? "So, things began to slide when welfare became
generous and English wasn't required, etc. All of that has been to the detriment of the black
population and the cause of many problems in that population." Just another excuse for blacks.
Blacks are parasitic criminals, they are going to complain welfare or not. Cut off welfare to
blacks then, they never deserved it anyway. The most undeserved race in the world.
This obsession with Tucker Carlson is as ridiculous as the obsession with Jordan Peterson.
Neither give two shits about anything white nationalist. Tucker was born into this life with a
jewish silver spoon in his mouth. The guy is worth $20+ million. The fact he hasnt left Foxnews
immediately after the networks recent debacle with election reporting shows where his loyalty
lies, like most jews (even though he's adopted) its with $$$$
Further, every Indian tribe in America at the time of Columbus had stolen their land from
another tribe, and they continued warring and land stealing until the White man put a stop to
it.
Of course they put a stop to it. Because they wanted a monopoly on all that. Same reason the
White Euro Christians put a stop to Germany's "lebensraum" ideas. The examples are nearly
endless.
We hyoominz are wunnerful, no? And religions and politicians are here to solve it all.
Uh -huh!
Just came across this interesting video of Enoch Powell debating Jonathan Miller on issues
around UK immigration. They both appeared on the Dick Cavett Show, which aired back in 1971
Not sure if the honourable Enoch Powell had known this trivia about Jonathan, but if he had
he should've put the following query to him:
"You seem to be an ardent proponent of promoting mass immigration into Britain. Are you just
as ardent a proponent of promoting mass immigration into Eretz Israel?"
If Jonathan had been injected with a truth serum, he would have likely responded:
"Don't be silly. Why would HaShem's chosen people wish to mix with the goyim of the world?
Sheesh, what a schmuck!"
While it is true that people of the same culture, race and religion live in more harmony in
their marriages, and probably in their society, there is no way to achieve that objective in
today's world of mass communication and mass transportation. Impossible. To even think about
something like that is a recipe for nothing better than frustration and despair. The Church
recommended that people of the different cultures and races and religions should not marry
because of the risk that it would interfere with the harmony in their marriage as they face
life's other trials. It's solution when the Christians came to the Americas was for them to
convert the nations and it's objective was to promote better like-mindedness and better harmony
that could sustain them as they lived together in the Americas.
This is what the globalists believe they can achieve without Christianity. Well, they can't,
because without Christianity, there is only self-interest, the opposite of Christianity, and
that is what they are affirmatively teaching at the moment, for self-interest is what they need
to promote disunity, for that provides the means for better control of society.
In my opinion, you had better find another way. Maybe you would be better off correcting the
vast majority of hispanics for believing they are something other than Caucasian.
Indians slaughtered each other on the regular, they enslaved each other on the regular, they
were not a peaceful people and quite savage. Indian tribes would often join up with the White
man to fight other Indian tribes.
Hey, are you a member of the same tribe that Lizzy Warren is from or are you a member of the
(((tribe.))) Come on, now, you really don't give two shits about Native Americans, you just
hate Whitey, don't you? Anyone can search my rather lengthy comment history and they will find
they I have a few posts claiming the American Indian is the ONLY nonwhite people who Whitey
owes a damn thing to, not a popular opinion, but it is mine and I will own it.
I have an excellent idea! Go to the south and find some white man, preferably someone who
hunts, and tell him he has to move because he's on "stolen land."
@Tucker aged what got us here in the first place? So certainly, completely disengaging is
what will further accelerate our demise. You have to wonder, maybe these organizations are part
of the gay op to further disenfranchise whites even faster?
This display of white weakness needs to end. If you believe in your right to exist and for
the sake of your children, never let them gain any more power, ever. If that means voting for
someone that also supports Israel, then so what? If you as a WN, ever think there have been
more 'pure and honest' politicians in the past, or are waiting for your perfect WN savior to
support in the future, then you are just stupid, sorry.
@christine drafting place – but not exclusive. I spent over 3 decades with Athabaskan
and eskimos – Inuit, Yupik, and a few Aleuts – since the Aleuts were the last
genocided tribe – during WW II when they moved all of them to the mainland – in
order own all their land – after the War. In the end, this is all planned by the Owners
– Illuminati- Deep State – Zionists etc. It doesn't matter if they genocide the
Nates – the whites, blacks, Browns – until all the tribes unite and take out the
Cancer – the Plan will continue. PS the Russians , when they owned Alaska – never
genocided the Native population – no matter what the media or stupid SE Nates –
say. I homesteaded in Alaska .
According to Wikipedia, Newsmax is co-owned by Christopher Ruddy and Richard Mellon
Scaife(heir to the Mellon fortune in Pittsburg). Ruddy is the son of a police officer in NYC
and a confidant of Trump. Per Wiki he graduated from Hebrew University of Jerusalem for
undergrad, but his first name suggests he's not Jewish. Is he? He describes himself as a
"libertarian conservative" and Reaganite.
October 28, 2020 Report: Biden Would Kill Upwards Of 159K Jobs In Mich.
According to a recent study, Michigan supports around 159,000 jobs in the oil and gas
industry, all of which would be eliminated under Biden's plan to achieve zero emissions by
2035.
The "redpilled" fully understand that America's foreign wars are a load of BS that profit
the military industrial complex and certain lobbying groups – but not the USA itself.
To you, a Jew is an American nationalist because he is not a recent arrival, unlike, say,
Ilhan Omar. I got your number you're not a nationalist but a paid up harlot masquerading,
sadly, as a White nationalist.
"Like what North America, Australia, Argentina predominantly was before mass non -White
migration"
Argentina? No mass non-White migration here, to speak of. This country since the white
arrival has always been a mestizo society.The same is true of much of Central and more
so South America. During this century in Argentina,there has been a substantial migration of
Bolovins, Peruvians and Paraguyans thanks to the Kirchners (our Clintons) " Patria
Grande " program that allowed them in, but it represents nothing on the scale of what has
been done elsewhere to the north. Here the issue is less a color issue than a class issue.
But We'll give you MT, ND, SD, WY, IA, NB, KS, and Maybe OK.
You'll need to get Canada's permission before you give away New Brunswick.
I imagine the "honesty belt" would quickly become a desirable place to live compared to
everywhere else, and the good solid folks in Honestan would again allow their resident shlomos
to open the floodgates.
In order to be taken seriously you need some kind of united front. Take a look at even small
minority groups such as the LGBTQ community, who maybe accounts for 3% of the US population,
but has grown into a unified political force.
There also needs to be a consequence if your group is wronged. We have daily mainstream
television shows that do nothing but make fun of White people and their traditions. The Muslims
behead anyone who dares draw a stick figure of Muhammad, let alone entire programming dedicated
to the denigration of their culture.
In order to defeat a bully, you need to punch them in the mouth. Right now many people are
hopefully waking up to the fact that there is indeed a bully, then identifying exactly who that
is, and finally taking some sort of action against the bully.
@Priss Factor anded by their "G_d" to Rule the World, tikkun olam , " (b)light
unto the nations " and 20 other descriptors for the megalomaniac tyrant known as the Jew,
who lusts to control blacks, whites and everyone else in slavery to itself.
I do agree with the author that we White Nationalists need to lose our fear of defending our
racial identity, but da' blacks ain't da' problem. The Jewish race / ideology that lusts to
destroy us ALL – IS the problem.
Talking about black / white racial tensions as if they were the source of our problems is
like worrying about dandruff on a cancer patient. So PLEASE, let's get to the point, shall
we?
Increased white nationalism leads to increased anti-white-nationalism. Genociding indigenes
makes white supremacists look evil. Trumpism leads to BLMism and Antifa. White wars of
aggression lead to brown refugees going to Europe. God will turn Europe and North America
black, red and yellow if He wants to, and He can do it by taking advantage of white people's
pride and letting them do stupid "white supremacist" things that make them look bad.
The pilpul by Miller is truly astonishing, comparing old British people to
immigrants!
People like Miller serve the purpose of trying to rationalise the decisions of the other
members of his Tribe, usually by gaslighting people into thinking they are crazy and nothing
out of the normal is happening. Hence you see these crazy metaphors and analogies drawn by the
likes of Miller in that clip.
"As many on our side have said, we will make no real and substantial progress until we are
willing to openly stand up for ourselves -- in person, in broad daylight, and without sock
puppets and noms de plume like "Jef Costello." Is that day imminent? I believe that it is."
In that case, let's have your real name practice what you preach!
"the bulk of black slaves went to the Spanish colonies, not the American colonies"
Could you please cite supporting evidence for this assertion? I think (but am unsure) it is
incorrect. One thingof which I am certain, however,is that the Spaniards abolished slavery far
earlier than the white Americans. Another is that Spaniards are also "white".
White males are the only group Trump did not make gains with in 2020.
Is that true? How does anybody know that? Exit polls?
After all these wildly inaccurate polls for four years, are we suddenly to believe polls
now?
Furthermore, consider this: The one group you can steal votes from if you're the Democrats
are the white males. This is where you would do it. You can't steal any from the column of
black voters -- since they vote 90% for you already there simply aren't enough to steal. You
steal them from the white males, it's a beautiful double-whammy. One, you get your stolen
victory; two, you demoralize the strongest group arrayed against you.
"In my experience, the only tiny minority of Muslim people who have caused friction are
invariably of Arab origin, and more specifically from Saudi Arabia – an inherently tribal
& chauvinistic culture (and a key American ally in the Middle East – just
sayin')."
Unfortunately, Arabs, in particular Saudis, are a horrible disease that needs to be removed
by all means, including thermo nuclear radiation therapy!
What I don't get, from the likes of sweethearts like Pedro
how does the fact that the Sioux were riding their horses across Colorado before we got
here, make it mean that Mexican half-Aztec / half Spaniards have a right to come and steal it
from *us* ?
If we stole it from the Sioux as he says, the presence of his lardbutt here means he is
accepting stolen goods, which means his sin is as big as -- or bigger than -- ours.
I keep telling blacks about jews and slavery in JUSA – they pretend they don't believe
what I am saying even though I provide evidence (from this website).
I guess they are more opportunistic than I thought and less brave, hoping their jewish masters
will somehow help them get more money from white people, so they don't want to bite the hand
they expect will feed them
To whom the land belongs?
At one time in world history all land did belong to dinosaurs.
So how to do justice about ownership of the land?
Human beings should kill each other until no human being left, and than the land will belong to
its rightful owners again, the animals.
Native Americans were the ones who had this right idea.
They were killing each other and eating each other.
..
Did somebody ask Dahmer if human flesh taste better than chicken?
Someone for the love of God please start an American Nationalist conference and invite all
people who have the tiniest shred of dignity left in this chemical plagued population.
The goal of the conference: to discuss starting a political party that will be a valid third
party option. Agendas to be fleshed out: donor registration, billboard campaigns, multi-state
speeches targeting smaller towns that have been boarded up, setting up a volunteer network of
security operatives to forcibly secure election integrity, etc.
This stuff isn't rocket science and I don't understand why so many people who have money and
claim to be for WHITE NATIONALISM have not pushed their people in this direction. BUT IF YOU
DONT HAVE MONEY and are interested in this let me share with you a secret to start it. Get 10
under-writers who will lend $5,000 for a total of $50k. $50,000 should be enough to get the
ball rolling. I would be willing to help $. If you sell enough tickets you can pay the lenders
back. Secure a venue and promote tickets to the conference across multiple platforms.
Just an idea for saving our people in this midnight hour.
"I suggest adjusting the author's arguments to recognise the actual fundamental issue in
play, which is not skin colour or race or language, but CULTURE"
I call BS. You are one of those people who believe that NURTURE is everything and NATURE
accounts for nothing. A very foolish mindset. A deluded mindset. Do some research and come back
after you have learned something from the real world and not from your Marxist professors.
It's not Jews (technically JewISH). It is the multitudes of all races around the world, who
have ignored the word of God, and chosen the JewISH (and Catholic, at the top) agenda, as the
preferred way of life.
This frank article confirms pretty much what I posted in DaLimbraw Library over a year ago
– https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2019/08/white-supremacy-is-it-time-to-face.html?m=0
– a summary of articles on Western Civilization with links provided. Requires some
serious reading!
History shows that WC was built on Christianity, Graeco-Roman law traditions and primarily in
Europe – meaning the White race. That's just fact!
White supremacy – if it ever returns – might just save our Western
Civilization!
I had an excellent exchange with a retarded mexican a while back, as the stupid pos was
blabbing that whitey "stole this land from the indigenous people," (HIS people -- -mexican
cretins.)
I said, "Oh really? Hmmm ..what tribe are you from?"
Empty stare.
"Are you Apache? Comanche? Sioux? The El Chapo tribe?"
@Ultrafart the Brave nd is to what they were mislead to believe I see it here with my
African friends, Swiss, other Europeans etc everyone I know has experienced this
So this kind of betrayal and feeling of being tricked also contributes to whether they
assimilate (and what there really is to assimilate into when the new host country has no
culture whatsoever to offer to anyone, including the natives – apart from shopping and
watching TV).
Plus add to this the feeling that say the 800 000 refugees imported last year understand that
Canadistan actually played a role in destroying their countries and their desire to assimilate
or to respect the new country diminishes even further.
"Ron Unz has given the world a forum where countless and controversial and conflicting
points of view are given oxygen and light. This is invaluable and rare."
@Majority of One
How an Amish Gentleman (he is really one) handles a racism issue, how he handles a triggered
lefty, chip on the shoulder, black "British" spoilt snobby urban London girl Sienna on some
bullshit "racist" incident. How wise the Amish are compared the "English" (non Amish White
American folk) around them!!!
One would be surprised (or not so surprised if you do not fall for typical Jew media/ history
stereotypes) that the most snobby arrogant person among the six British youth who went and
lived among the Amish in the USA in this British TV series was the black girl Sienna whose
parents are from Africa.
Check out the comment section, everybody hates Sienna.
So there are approximately 330 million people in America, and the latest vote count shows
that 150 million or thereabouts voted in this election? NO WAY IN HELL. To be honest I don't
think Trump received over 70 million LEGITIMATE VOTES much less Biden. I think they have Biden
at 75 or 77 million right now, can't remember which. LMAO. NO WAY IN HELL JOE BIDEN HAS
RECEIVED 75-77 LEGITIMATE VOTES.
Think about it people. Think of the people too young to vote, the people incarcerated, the
people who don't ever vote, the people so old that they just don't give a damn like the ones in
nursing homes, etc. Just the other day, I was talking to the Orkin man who sprayed my house,
and he stated he didn't even vote. Well, given I was flying a Trump flag maybe the guy was
being diplomatic or lying but who knows? I think another LIE in this STOLEN election is the
total vote count. I guess the people who stole the vote for Biden and manufactured that Biden
accumulated close to 80 million votes had to even up Trump's votes to make this fairy tale seem
somewhat believable.
First of all I don't identify as White nationalist. When I lived in a liberal city I
couldn't stand being around White people. I would much rather live in Mexico than around
liberal Whites. Urban Whites especially can be really annoying regardless of politics. They
want to be morally right and feel intellectually superior without having to do any work or give
any explanation as to why. They want to feel cosmopolitan and view any dissention as a thorn in
the side to their unexplained superiority.
Will White people be red pilled by this election? Nope.
We have the internet and most White people can't seem to be bothered with spending a couple
nights reading about how both Con Inc and liberals lie about race. Intellectual laziness
abounds.
Most of those Trump voting Republicans really believe that we can turn every Black family
into the Huxtables with the right level of minimal government/low taxes/etc. They really
believe this. It's shocking.
There is no silver lining with this election. It's a disaster.
Too many White people choose to live in a false reality where race doesn't exist. Our best
hope is that White egalitarian leftists breed out themselves off by having few or no children.
Then we'll probably have to align with Hispanics to end the welfare system. Don't get mad at me
for pointing that out. Go take it up with the moron conservatives still pushing Alisa Rosenbaum
fantasy over facts.
Two things can happen: that Trump wins (which would be something of justice), and that the
whites go looking for their places in the United States.
In fact, this is what has already happened in California for years: whites are leaving that
state.
God forbid! But IF Beijing Biden slithers his way into the WH the 1619 Project will be the
theme of the US Govt. Which, of course, means that we don't belong here..Well, if we don't
belong here then we can only go back to Europe. Who cares if the anti-white EU countries don't
want us? They've spent the last several years taking in destructive, horny, hostile
opportunistic welfare shopping scum if there's room for them there's room for us. Unless they
want us to stay here and be genocided like the S. Africans.
Concluding paragraphs to Chuck Baldwin's latest column, Almost No One Else Will Say It,
So I Must :
That's why Benjamin Netanyahu already congratulated Joe Biden on an election victory --
even before the election was firmly decided. He is keenly aware of the exponential rise in
Zionist power and influence that accompanies the Harris family rise to the White House.
Amazingly, many evangelicals continue to stupidly believe that Netanyahu (and Zionism
itself) is a friend of the United States and a friend of Christianity. What dupes!
In a real sense, the rise of the Marxist attack against America, personified in Kamala
Harris, can be, at least partially, attributed to the misguided support for Zionism among our
evangelical churches.
As I said, almost no one else will say it, so I must.
To bolster your argument against the Left, instead of identifying first as a "White
Nationalist" you should say, simply, that you are an Ethnic Nationalist. That makes your
argument harder to refute and highlights the logical inconsistency of the Left's argument,
which, at its core, is really just anti-White.
As I point out to people, I'm a Tibetan Nationalist and an Anglo-American Nationalist; a
Black Nationalist but also a White Nationalist. All ethnic groups are entitled to their
sovereignty, lands and control of their borders. Humans are tribal and need common cultural
ties to maintain social capital and build a functioning society. This should be common sense,
but somehow it's instead become taboo.
In other words, Trump made the same arguments Republicans have been making for 50 years.
Coincidentally, he also pursued the same policies Republicans have been pursuing for 50
years.
Longer viewer:
Folks are acting like elections have not been stolen in the past. Get real.
Folks are acting like our government has not been completely corporate-owned since Reagan. Get
real.
Folks are acting like the Talmudic syndicate has played no role whatsoever in this scam. Get
real.
Someone for the love of God please start an American Nationalist conference The goal of
the conference: to discuss starting a political party that will be a valid third party
option.
National Justice Party Statement on the 2020 Presidential Election
Everyone hates White people and yet everyone wants to move to White countries.
Leftists tell us this is because Whites are bad and have colluded against everyone. That is
the reason behind their success.
So build America in Africa without them? Why is this not the plan? Would it not prove that
egalitarians were correct all along? Funny how the plan of the leftist to move the third world
to White countries. There seems to be zero dissention along this line. All leftists agree by
their actions that assimilating White countries for their ideals is more viable than building a
new America without Whites.
Trump is taking on Big Ag. He's taking on the military as best he can; he hasn't started any
new wars.
Trump is taking on the U.S. multinational corporations who took the jobs overseas
(tariffs).
Trump is taking on the fraud in the election system. DNC's top election guru just resigned
(yeah, I bet he did!) Trump is exposing the algorithms in the Dominion Voting System.
Trump got 72 million votes. He owns the Republican Party now! They have been fighting him up
until this point, but they are now realizing that they are nothing without Trump.
If Trump were to start a third party, look out! How's that for leading?
The very first white man who tied to live with the Stone Age Siberian Savages was Etienne
Brule. He was part of Cartier's exploration team in the early 1600's.
When Cartier returned and inquired about Etienne he was informed that the Siberian savages
murdered, scalped and ATE him.
May the spirits of Siberian Savages be suffering the endless tortures they would visit on
their victims.
What makes you think the Chinese or Japanese would have left the Americas alone?
This is some egalitarian fantasy of the Americas remaining scarcely populated with warring
tribes. As if the rest of the world would have left it as a nature preserve.
It was never a country and in fact the tribes would align with warring European countries
against other tribes. That of course probably wasn't mentioned in your White guilt history
class. Numerous tribes used Europeans and their tools as a means of enacting revenge against
their traditional enemies. Read about the Blackfoot for a politically incorrect reality
check.
I like to think that the Indians were just exacting pure revenge against the gun toting euro
invaders and your wrong i am of irish white heritage and don't make me laugh about torture and
despicable human acts as i have seen those pictures of massive piles of bison that were gunned
down by invading euro scum that were attempting to starve the natives.
It doesn't matter who the president is, you know that Hillary Clinton didn't lose and Trump
didn't win, but here's the president, Obama didn't want to do exactly what you're doing now,
and he didn't want to launch an investigation. You are directly pushing America into a civil
war, by a "fraud of choice" that has no evidence. Indeed, you are pushing everyone into the
catastrophe of the Civil War. You know very well that everything Trump claimed was a lie, and
half the world was accused of lies, nowhere is evidence and the UN laughs at him, but you claim
that now Trump claims the truth once in his life, again without a dictatorship.
If Trump loses, the consequences would be dire.
We are interested in Trump winning.
On the other hand, the strength of the whites was their Christian and authentic religion. Not
their race. In the Middle Ages it was the Church that defended Europe from the Muslim
invasion.
Nowadays an infiltrator is seated in Pedro's See, Bergoglio does not think like a Catholic.
Only with that faith can our culture and our lives be saved.
Genocide not. The fake "indigenous people" / little dummies are everywhere and have a
complete free ride with plenty of taxpayers cash ("rent") to stay loaded on, to avoid any
personal responsibility.
And clearly, American Indians were "xenophobic" / "racist" in resisting European migrants.
recommended:
It seems rather odd and highly suspicious that so called NATIONALISTS CONSERVATIVES (whites)
propose cowardice in the face of aggression they all claim to be so outraged so contrived BUT
all of them propose INACTION now this is the main reason YOU/WE are LOSING America we bowed our
heads, weeping sorrowful and thats all The DEMS implemented 4yrs of on the ground campaign of
terror they were called BLMANTIFA a permanent campaign of terror And NOW the CONSERVATIVE
NATIONALISTS suggests stupidity separation, repatriation, secession ALL DUMB STUPID RANTS
UTOPIAS .WE MUST STAND OUR GROUND NOW NOW History, legality, morality, is on OUR SIDE and
people know it .THE MAIN THRUS SHOULD BE MUST BE MASSIVE RED STATES REVOLT 1776mII REDUX .By
the time dictator Biden finish his first year HE would had used his excutive powers, and in
coalition with BLUE/RINOS enacted a NEW CONSTITUTION, REDO THE ELECTORAL FRAMEWORKS so that NO
RED Nationalist will ever be elected again,,,never,,,so called ANTI TRUMP LEGISLATIONS which
really means ANTIWHITE laws an AMERICAN JIM CROW LAWS IN REVERSE dont you see the perils to
come its not about utopias, there is no tomorrow..unless WE FIGHT NOW mass revolts
peacefully???? 1776 II MILITIAS..
the Japanese too cannot live and do well in live in multiracial Ottoman-Byzantine like
societies.
Isn't there a large Japanese diaspora doing well in Brazil and Peru?
The Chinese too will be rejected by the darkie masses in the future,
I have a hard time seeing the Chinese falling for that shuck and jive unless they become a
completely Christian society, all the way to the top of the pyramid.
right now, less than a week after polls closed And, as the Biden camp continues to
vote
I don't know whether or not red-pilling Trump's fans will help, but it should already be
obvious to those with eyes open that too many people believe whatever they see and hear on TV.
It's entirely possible that most of the Trump supporters won't be red-pilled at all.
Even Americans who don't particularly like or trust Trump may be disgusted enough with the
blatant media push to declare Biden the winner, that they decide not to allow it any more. That
may be enough to get some of them to decide that waiting for government to "do something" is a
waste of time.
If the rioters decide to riot in celebration of Biden's win, or in outrage over his win
being revealed as fraud and rejected, some number of Americans could just decide to shut the
rioters down themselves. It wouldn't be that hard for armed Americans who know how to fight,
and there are hundreds of thousands of combat vets with recent experience who just might go
ahead and do it.
One thing's for sure, they won't be giving any warning on social media before they hit
back.
@christine and despicable human acts as i have seen those pictures of massive piles of
bison
They tortured the bison! The horror!
I guess you have never heard about Buffalo Jumps, then?
You may claim to be white, but it's clear you have had your empty head filled by Anti-White
delusional lies. The Siberians were so savage that during the French Indian wars the French
troops finally refused to fight alongside their Indian allies, because they were savage to the
point that the French viewed them as being similar to the THE XENOMORPHS from the movie
Aliens.
excellent. In The last 20 years they have changed deeply. Because only 17 years ago they
were all gung ho about destroying Iraq. Perhaps a bit of depleted uranium shot into Peoria will
cement their views.
@Bill lifetime. The only politicians who really gave a damn about Whites in my lifetime
were Dixiecrats, and probably most of them were good ole boy crooks who just talked a good game
but CAVED eventually. Hell, Strom Thurmond fathered a mixed race daughter IF I am not mistaken.
Tell me what did all the Presidents from JFK to Obama do to make this nation better? And
before you give the standard JFK horseshit, JFK was all for the multiracial plan for America,
and he sure supported integration of schools down South. Okay, let me hear what President in
the last century REALLY LOOKED OUT FOR WHITE INTERESTS OVER JEWISH OR NONWHITE INTERESTS. I got
time and I am all ears.
The point is whites did nothing that any one of those tribes wouldn't have done to all the
others if they had had the power to do it. (If anything, whites treated them much better than
they treated each other.) We might look at that from the vantage point of 21st century morality
and call it awful – just as we might with the Mongol or Islamo-Arab conquests – but
it would remain 'ancient history,' not something to constantly dredge up in order to instill
racial guilt and gain political advantage.
We'll see about the "red pilled" part, but even liberals out here, even ones who voted
Biden, are NOT convinced Biden-Harris won legitimately. And who knows? Maybe the criminal
psycho elites realized perhaps awakening a couple 'o hundred million gun owners was a but
premature and will "allow" Trump to retake the White House I mean, Biden's doing what Biden was
gonna do .make the whole damned thing look illegit. And NOBODY out here has anything but
distrust when it comes to Harris one liberal from Commie-fornia who lived there knows Harris is
evil.
Really it all come down to these–will we let them take our guns, will we let them
force vaccines on us, and will we let them burn this nation to the ground while forcing all
rural folks into stack 'n packs, Agenda 2030 style?
@utu o if there was ever a serious prospect it might happen, they would probably want to
separate as well. And why not? Ultimately, we're all better off living around people more like
ourselves than less like ourselves. (Duh)
And why would anyone be required to call himself a 'bantustan nationalist'? When
Mexicans arrive in America they don't suddenly cease to call themselves Mexican, so why should
Americans stop calling themselves American simply because of an altered political geography?
For an intelligent man, it's astonishing how quickly you transform into a blithering idiot the
moment you begin discussing issues that emotionally disturb you.
Good suggestion. Perhaps some can think of others. Either way, it's good because it's more
cultural than political, at least it sounds that way, and because it puts the focus exactly
where it belongs, on our basic freedoms.
One thing's for certain. Putting ideology and politics before race and culture, ie; Right =
White (and visa versa) will be like shooting yourself in the foot before running a marathon in
difficult terrain. In other words, it'd be a piece of unforgivable stupidity. And irreversible
as well. Since, if this is flubbed, a second chance will not come again.
I guess for some white yanks the truth about the birth of their country is a little too
close to the bone for their liking and a bit too raw and painful but the truth is the truth and
shame on all the euro invaders of all of the Americas in the past.
Try coming out to rural remote far west Texas .Austin isn't all of Texas. And I said rural,
not El Paso!
And, oh yeah, Midland-Odessa, Lubbock, Amarillo that is, all of Texas except El Paso westward
of the San Antonio-Austin lib-tard areas (including artsy-fartsy Marfa they may like Biden but
the don't like Harris if you know what I mean).
JSI is basically a criminal organization that wants power. Everything they say and do flows
from this. They are The People Of The Lie . The point is, you might be able to obtain
control of a culture or civilization through lies. But you can't run it that way.
And now we're back to the point you raise in your comment and what it directs our attention
to. It directs our attention to what we're witnessing, to what anyone can see as soon as they
stop talking about how powerful they are and how screwed everyone else is. Enough! No. What
we're witnessing is nothing less than The Pyrrhic Victory Of Jewish Supremacy Inc .
@christine I think your heart is in the right place, I and I respect that, but instead of
trying to right things that are ancient history how about focusing on what IS HAPPENING TO YOUR
PEOPLE RIGHT NOW. Whites are being slaughtered in South Africa. Little children being held
hostage while they watch their mother raped right in front of their eyes, entire families of
Whites being butchered by racist Black thugs. I am all for you pointing out how Whites were
guilty of mistreating the Native American, but I would also ask you to point that passion to
something that is going on RIGHT NOW, something that didn't happen long ago and can't be
changed. YOUR OWN PEOPLE are suffering, does that not bother you?
What a bad joke the dissident right wignat faction turned out to be.
Richard Spencer and the bugger accounts aligned with his views are doing nothing but
spamming straight-up system propaganda, a lot of which has migrated onto these pages.
The author Jonathan Van Maren seems to think the American electorate has realigned itself
with social conservatism + economic populism on the GOP side, and progressivism, elitism and
Big tech on DNC side. Based on this, he calls for the GOP to use social conservatism
specifically anti-abortion, anti-assisted suicide, pro medicare, pro social security to appeal
to a coalition of working class America including blacks and Latinos.
The main reason people like me voted for Trump is because of immigration and
non-interventionism which he promised on his campaign trail in 2016. We want to see America
end the endless wars and the endless immigration . I could care less about abortion,
assisted suicide, medicare or social security.
Once again, the social conservatives missed the boat and are now calling for more coalition
with Latinos, which probably means support for more immigration as George W. did, because
Latinos make good conservatives, right? When will these idiots wake up?! Have they been reading
Ron Unz's misleading articles on Hispanic crime? Ann Coulter was so right. The Republican party
is the stupid party, and it's because it's run by tone deaf "conservatives" that run webzines
like TAC and National Review.
Just read at The Duran: "Obama lackey John Pilger resigns from DOJ election crimes job."
Maybe Mr. Pilger knows something too? Maybe he resigned before being fired? Maybe those
Dominion Voting machines have been compromised using algorithms?
This is heating up. I actually believe Trump will win.
@Tucker y the Jews? Has it worked for European man, or, with its strictures to turn the
other cheek, has it made him a second class citizen? That was my thoughts when I saw so many
disgusting, pathetic whites bowing down and kissing the boots of BLM Supremacists this summer.
In any case, unless one is so hopelessly wedded to Christianity that his mind is closed, an
article written by Thomas Dalton, "Christianity: The Great Jewish Hoax," has taken the
Christian myth head on (National Vanguard, 9 Aug 2020). Indeed, as Israel-first Evangelicals
have taken control of Christianity in the US, we should ask if devotion to a Middle Eastern Jew
named Jesus is helping or hurting our cause.
@Richard B r with the foreigners; and this spirit of wear, principle of any cowardice, is
so natural in their hearts, that it is the continual object of the figures that they employ in
the species of eloquence which is proper for them. Their glory is to put at fire and blood the
small villages they can seize. They cut the throat of the old men and the children; they hold
only the girls nubiles; they assassinate their Masters when they are slaves; they can never
forgive when they are victorious: they are enemy of the human mankind. No courtesy, no science,
no art improved in any time, in this atrocious nation. -- Voltaire, Essai sur les mœurs
(1756) Tome 2, page 83
@Ultrafart the Brave pon its introduction. Since then the government has provided tax
incentives to people paying for private insurance. Basically you pay a reduced medicare levy if
you have private insurance. The Australian medical system has it's faults like long waiting
times for elective surgery etc but it's still pretty good.
On the immigration front though Australia is in worse shape than the US. We have a much
smaller population and it doesn't take as much third world immigration to turn it into a third
world country. Especially since many use New Zealand as a back door into Australia. Australia
is already unrecognisable from even just 20 years ago. In another 20 it's likely to resemble
Brazil.
Trump has now moved over to Gab, a free-speech platform that has embraced thought
criminals of all kinds (so far). Trump's supporters will follow him to Gab -- millions of
them. They will read the other stuff and become more red-pilled. You can almost predict this
one with mathematical certainty.
Lots of conservatives are now departing Facebook and Twitter for other social media
platforms that are less restrictive. This will further separate the left and right in this
country, as they'll have even that much less in common. It will separate families, with
liberals staying on Facebook, and their conservative family members leaving, decreasing
communication between them, especially now with all the Corona bulls ** t being used to
suppress the association of people in meat-space.
But, anyone who actively promotes the idea that Whites should just completely opt out is
pushing advice that is exactly what our mortal enemies want most.
They are oddly quiet about it. Unlike everything else they want.
White people are going to need to get good at living in diaspora, since that's where we are
at now. We need to adopt tribal methods similar to the way other tribes operate. For example,
spending a little more to buy from our own people. Finding a way to brand white ownership.
Finding a way to associate said white ownership with white activism.
It is no good giving money to a local, vice signalling white traitor. It would be better to
get cheap products from a multinational, at least you get value for money. However, we need to
find ways of rewarding our own financially. We need to ensure that money goes out for things of
value – land, buildings, shares of companies, etc. Money comes in from the fruit of our
labor and intellect.
It isn't going to be easy because Jews have attempted to criminalize many of the things we
would like to do (specifically us, while giving other races/ethnicities a pass), but we can
find ways around that.
It will be easier to live in diaspora than via separatism.
The author is an idiot. To begin with, not all 70 million or so people who voted for Trump
were White. He received, what, 30% of the Hispanic vote. Also, approximately 20% of black males
voted for Trump.
Your guy just lost flatout. He was unpopular.
70 million means what? I call that pathetic compared to what Biden got.
Btw, you guys were able to be racist the last four years. Sit your butt down the next 4 years
because you White nationalists suck ass.
Urban Whites don't like you, period.
Whites invented everything? Even if that was the case, it came from URBAN WHITES. You mother
fuckers, whose ancestors are probably farmboys, only take credit.
What have rural whites achieved? Nothing besides taking credit.
Besides all this, due to immigration, most of the entrepreneurs and inventors are liberal
immigrants.
Bottomline is that liverals invented everything. Rural hillbillies did shit!
@randall r n that over the top cartoon character seriously to being with. He reminded me of
some of those (((actors))) who frequented those '90's talk shows like Donahue or Doprah Pigfrey
portraying "White Supremacists" or foaming at the mouth skinhead so called "neo-Nazis." haha. I
think they found out that half of those characters were Jews who worked for the ADL or at least
some them were. All portrayed the same old stereotype of an evil White racist who shocked the
audience by saying "niggers" or just portraying anyone who is pro-White civil rights as a
maniacal neanderthal. My gaydar always went off every time I watched a video of Spencer
speaking that MANUFACTURED horseshit anyhow.
Only the Christians. The rest can "go" back to Arabia.
Mohammedans are our enemy. Their prophet said so. Racially, Arabs are just poor, stupid
Jews– unless they live above oil, then they're rich, stupid Jews. The problem with your
analysis is that it isn't anti-Semitic enough .
And tell blacks that Jews exploit them for profits.
Tell Mexicans that Jews hog all the wealth.
They already know. They don't care. Just someone different to kiss up to.
@tomo istic culture that is foreign to them and which makes them feel alone and inferior.
So they respond accordingly. The same is true for young Canadians in general.
I agree that immigrants are no longer assimilating, but not because Canada lacks a strong
sense of national identity. The main reasons are demographic and technological. Immigrants now
arrive in such large numbers that they end up interacting only with each other. They can also
watch TV programming in their own language, via the Internet or cable TV, and communicate with
people back home via Skype or social media.
Assimilation takes effort, even in ideal conditions, so more and more immigrants are taking
the easy way out. They learn enough English or French for work, and that's usually enough.
@lavoisier he government has to stop shoving diversity down our throats continuously.
I think this is one area where most objective people can agree.
Idiotic attempts by governments at social engineering and correcting past injustices by
penalising the present population continue to be rolling disasters worldwide.
I would think the German people might eventually rebel against their perpetual financial
tribute to the Holocaust doctrine, if not for the current crop of self-inflicted immigration
problems engulfing Europe.
I also suspect that the "white supremacist" propaganda isn't a benevolent attempt to correct
society's problems. Rather, it looks more like part of a coordinated destructive strategy to
dismantle the existing society. Wielgus , says:
November 12, 2020 at 7:49 pm GMT • 1.0 days ago
Miller's maternal grandfather had sought to emigrate to the USA from Lithuania and got off
the ship at its destination, which he thought was New York. It was in fact Cork in Ireland. His
daughter, Miller's father, became a well-known novelist in Ireland.
For me its more about recognition of past evils and their karmic effect on a nation and the
color of skin doesn't come into it at all really but i do have a real soft spot for the native
North American Indian cause because i have had shamanic past life recollections of being one
and so i will always side with the Indians over the disgusting European invaders of North
America and i will never ever forget those photos i have seen of absolutely humungous piles of
shot Bison that were killed in an attempted genocide of the Indians and if the Indians scalped
many out of revenge then i hope that the pain was excruciatingly intense.
Here is something to consider: Liberals in general are happy people. Conservatives, on the
other hand, have a victim mentality.
You could see that conservatives had this victim mentality even under Trump.
Also, from my own experience, the conservative types have fucked up lives. Due to their own
issues, they lash out.
Could it not be that the reason you have a bad life is due to your own problems? Instead of
blaming immigrants or blacks and hispanics, consider looking at your own life.
"It came from urban whites". At the time of the greate innovative wave in the US there was
no such thing as "Urban" citizenry, as almost all major towns were located directly within
farming territory, and a cosmopolitan mentality was nowhere to be found, guys like Edison,
Ford,Tesla, held absolutely no connection to any sort of "Liberal" worldview.
Name a few of "Liberal" "Inventions" Come on give a list thereof.
You are a bloody ignoramous and full of shit up to your ears. You have no clue as to what
you are blathering about.
AJM "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro Jazz artist.
Logic is certainly not your strong suit. Why would people of any color capable of anything
worth mentioning bow down to a corrupt senile stuffed shirt?
@Questioner nk it would probably be best for you and all those who agree with you to
kill their family and extended family, and then blow their own brains out. Firstly, to atone
for "white guilt" and "white privilege" and secondly as a constructive means of reducing the
white population in these "stolen" Injun lands. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Of course, if you worthless cunts can't summon the nerve to do that, then you should at the
very least, REMOVE YOUR OWN WHITE ITINERANT ASS from this "stolen land".
@Muaddib The average Biden voter = anti-White and yes there are anti-White white people, I
call them WINOs short for White In Name Only or better yet, white traitor trash
I think liberals have went the way of the Dodo Bird. And no, racist Jews, who PRETEND to
love everyone Black, Brown, etc., anyone except Whites are only pretending to love POC to USE
THEM against Whitey. Case in point, in Israel they export African Jews all the time proving
that Judaism isn't a religion but a race. Nope, I doubt Sammy Davis Jr. would have ever truly
been welcomed to move to Israel. And there is no such thing as a nonwhite liberal, nonwhites
are tribal as hell and only out for themselves.
@Authenticjazzman ated? How about, uh, everything, including the internet you are using?
Yes, and immigants and minorities contributed.
If you don't like liberals, maybe you should start by turning off your computer.
But let me guess, you want to breathe the liberal air.
You brag about your Mensa score. And what did you achive with that? Hatred for liberals? So
what good was your Mensa? It was probably a fraud.
Look around you. The world has changed. You are basically an Amish in a sea of modernity.
This is what you get when you don't meet people of all types.
Just old, disgruntled and blaming others because your life wasn't ideal.
Yeah this is why they fill the waiting rooms of shrinks to be pumped full of psycho-drugs,
and resort to "screaming at the sky" when their political party loses an election.
Liberals are the most disturbed, troubled grouping of individuals to be found world-wide.
They are the nut-cases who stick themselves full of needles and pins , and dye their hair blue
so as to present their deranged worldview for all to see.
Again you are a hopeless moron and have no clue as to what you are blathering about.
Here is something to consider: Liberals in general are happy people. Conservatives, on the
other hand, have a victim mentality.
Yes, we've seen myriad examples of those happy, well adjusted, tolerant "Liberal" people
over the last four years. When they're not freaking out or breaking down, they're "lashing out"
in the form of assaulting, burning, destroying, looting, and murdering etc
Is the author of this article a coward – he attacks the weak blacks – and
ignores the overpowering Jews.
Blacks are not America's problem – Jews are.
Do blacks own and or control social media, print media, broadcast media, Congress, the
president, schools, Wall Street, and the Fed – or is it Jews. Be honest.
It is the Jews who siphon our wealth and divide us.
Jews control the cities that are devastated by black crime. Get the Jews out of control, and
things will improve. Guaranteed!
Societies need both a political left and a political right – the Jew control of the
left is killing America. (Actually, they control both.)
Jeff Costello needs to put on his big boy pants and attack the true evil in America.
Plenty in the US are pure Europeans. Many Nordic and German families are recent immigrants.
Old Colonials often have slight Native admixture. Bantu Africans, Aztecs, ect. need to return
all stolen territory aswell then.
And not so long ago Trump and Netanyahu were such buddies
That, my friend, was exactly why I posted that. Thank you for emphasizing the
point.
In case Wally doesn't get it, new boss is much the same as the old boss, and Netanyahu was
never a friend to either, not that it should come as a surprise to anyone. Netanyahu won't give
Trump a second thought after the "ingrovelation."
Huh?
Jews this and that. This is the problem with White Nationalists. You believe in conspiracy
theories.
Newsflash: Soros does not control anything. He is old, and about to die. He has money. He is
pretty much a moderate.
Qanon is stupidity. If any Mensa guy here believes in the stupidity known as Qanon, consider
a retest.
Comments like this, "while our blacks have been here a long time and some of them do sing,
dance, and dribble well, they are mostly parasites who contribute almost nothing to the society
except grief.", are all too common in white nationalist circles and gives the illusion of truth
to the Jewish propaganda about us.
One has to wonder if that is the intention. It basically says white nationalists hate everyone
but themselves which is exactly what Jews are saying about us in the propaganda system
This is not a closed site! Anyone can come in here and read these tacky remarks.
I think some of you need to follow the Jewish example which is hate the goy while you pretend
to help them
In case you didn't know, non-whites are about 50% of the population now and considering all the
fire power is in support of them against us. perhaps we can find another way to advocate our
predicament
I don't know their political views or what passes for a liberal but one thing is certain
WHITES have contributed more than all the other races combined. Henry Ford, Wright Brothers,
Tesla, Thomas Edison, etc., I don't think those guys were Jews or negroes.
My guess is YOU ARE NOT A LIBERAL, you are either an anti-White racist Jew, and or some
other form of anti-White degenerate who HIJACKED the term, "liberal." In your case the correct
tag would be, LIEberal.
I think the Irish band Clannad wrote songs about and in solidarity with the North American
Indians, so you could be right.
This genocide and the photographic images from it that i have seen will never be forgotten
by me and the color of the faces of the Europeans with guns doesn't come into it and if i
mentioned 'white euro scum' it was to differentiate between northern Europeans and those a bit
darker/olive skinned southern Europeans that invaded lands further south than todays U.S.A.
It's not language or race or skin colour, its CULTURE.
Hate to break the news to you, bossman, but "language, race and skin color" as well as
religion have very much to do with CULTURE.
The author makes a lot of cogent and well-reasoned points, but his delivery lacks nuance
and has a coarseness which suggests prejudice to the point of racism.
I'm afraid any jackass who accepts or gives credence to the enemy's descriptors of those who
naturally honor and favor their own race to others, does not really deserve to be taken
seriously.
Fwiw, I'm willing to go the step further and view the author as a likely racist and
supremacist. Most people like that have lived sheltered lives and had little exposure to a
variety of peoples. Many of their assertions are simply empty and unaware of ahem the real
world.
You shouldn't make personal statements about people you don't know. You could read more of
this author's work to discover his ideological evolution and that his views result from life
experience and not the lack of it.
The Indians didn't scalp out of revenge, they scalped because they were primitive
savages.
On or about the year 1,300 AD long before the Siberians saw a single white man, one tribe of
Siberians murdered, scalped, and ate every single one of the 498 women and children of the
losing tribe whose men the victorious Siberians had slaughtered.
And we know this because we found the bones of the women and children at Crow Creek in
1978.
Tell me, when you were a Shaman in your past life how much Man Corn did you eat?
@Peter Frost ly of all ages as well as tourist to hear their opinion – and I have
never met anyone who does not agree or has similar stories. People are very lonely here and
there is too much virtue signaling without any virtue. I spent a few months on a placement in
one of the biggest hospitals in Toronto – and what I have seen there confirms my
experience. Every day there was one or two teenagers (white) trying to kill themselves. That's
only what I have seen while on ER. I spoke to mental 'health' patients too.
There is far too much passive aggressive backstabbing here in Canada – definitely more
than I have seen anywhere (I've lived in London, LA, SF, DC, Serbia , Germany etc)
@Trinity ve equal rights. Immigrants have equal rights. DACA folks who came here due to no
fault of their own need to be given a chance to stay here, etc.
2. Social programs can be good for society. Think not just social security, but also healthcare
for all.
When you treat everybody with respect, by nature you are a happy person.
I will tell you something. If somehow all immigrants and minorities were kicked out, you would
still be unhappy. The reason is that you are by nature unhappy.
So think about where your life is. Whose fault is that? Put your ego aside. It was YOUR
decisions.
So why blame anybody else?
Trump did not do much to curb legal immigration especially H1B and international students
until the very end, a couple of months before the election. Now Biden is about to undo
everything and let the MexChindian third world horde wash over us. The dumb millennials who
complained about being unemployed or underemployed with massive student loan debt will have an
even harder time finding a job now. I've often wondered why these idiots still insist on voting
for Biden.
Another regulatory change, now in the proposed rule stage, would eliminate the H-1B visa
lottery in favor of prioritizing applicants earning higher wages.
"It basically will again ice out anyone who's entry-level," said Sharvari Dalal-Dheini,
director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Many
international students use the H-1B visa as a pathway for staying to work in the U.S. after
they graduate.
The least Trump could do on his way out is to finalize this crucial rule as a parting gift
to his base which largely stuck by him. It took him long enough to finally get to this. He
should've cancelled H1b and OPT on Day 1. If he had done that he might have won the
election.
@christine frican children and women, as well as adult males being slaughtered in South
Africa by marauding racist genocidal Blacks?
Hmm, IF you are TRULY concerned about injustice in a demonic world, why aren't you concerned
about Whites?
Do you feel for the Whites who endured the Holodomor? Did you know that Genrikh Yagoda and
Lazar Kaganovich, two chief architects of the systemic starvation of MILLIONS of Ukrainian and
Russian Whites were Jewish?
The FACT THAT YOU DID NOT ADDRESS WHAT IS HAPPENING IN SOUTH AFRICA, just shows me that you
are MORE ANTI-WHITE than someone who really cares about humanity, truth or justice. Hell, you
probably are not even (((Irish.)))
That you americans vote for that mafioso, is beyond comprehension.
You are so extremely stupid, and I am sorry to say, you bring it on all of us!
Why do you even vote for Bidén!?
Vote for Trump and after half term, create a more representative party.
The freest country in the world, and you just let it happen.
Anyway, I dont believe the official result.
You americans have not been that stupid.
Take the banner of Christ!
And reject zionism.
And reclaim youre country!
The world is waiting.
Complete drivel. As a German-American of almost two centuries of heritage, I don't identify
with your labels, priorities or prejudices.
If you're concerned about certain colors of people having more children than you, the
solution is simply to be generous with the Creator with your families. Have more children.
We're dealing with serious control freaks here people. I wish people would just realize that
the COMMUNISTS stole the election and are about to go full Bolshevik on us.
YT is already petrified by blacks at work. One slip up, and it's off to the HR gulag
archipelago, then full termination. Anyone who is not a "true believer" in the Revolution, will
be scheduled for termination.
Amazing how history repeats itself. YT has been so programmed to think of everyone as
"nice," that they can't even come close to imagining that Satanic Marxist pedophiles just stole
a national election.
As if anyone could make peace with such Hellspawn.
That's the facts, Jack. Who gives a Fiddler's fuck if it offends your delicate
sensibilities?
White Christian European people, and White Americans in particular, will apologize when
every other race, nation and religion are duly scrutinized and exposed for their "crimes" and
"atrocities".
Which will most likely happen in the reign of Queen Dick lol
We are not now, nor will we EVER be, ashamed of our history or our people, despite the best
efforts of the Jew Globalist Left.
I would not count on the GOP, even with a 52 vote majority, to stop any attempt at
immigration reform by the Dems. There are enough RINOs in there including both of the R from
Utah(Mike Lee, Mitt Romney), Marco Rubio, Lindsay Graham, Lisa Murkowsky, Joni Ernst, to name
but a few, who could easily go with the Dems on reform.
Mike Lee (R-UT), one of Trump's faves, has been trying to push through the Indian green card
bill S. 386 for at least the last two years. The bill was originally to give employment based
greencards, some 140k per year, to Indian nationals only for the next ten years. After
being blocked 3 times by 3 different senators – Perdue(R-GA), Dick Durban(D-IL), Rick
Scott(R-FL), the bill has morphed into a monster.
With each blockage, the bill keeps getting changed to include more and more beneficiaries.
In its final iteration, it will now 1) up the per country limit for family based greencard from
7% to 15%, 2) completely eliminate the per country cap of 7% for employment based visa, 3)
remove an offset that reduced visas available for Chinese nationals, 4) Reserve a
percentage(didn't say what %) of EB2 and EB3 visas (both for high skills) to nationals from
outside the top two countries (which I am guessing are India and China), with max of no more
than 85% from any single country.
Most importantly, the latest iteration of this bill will treat any Indian who has applied
for a green card as already having one, with all the benefits of a greencard while they wait,
incl. being able to travel, change jobs.
More Americans need to wake up to this type of treasonous bills being pushed by GOP
senators:
There is many Jews here but I see nothing untrue about stating the fact that Blacks
contribute very little. You've stated nothing Blacks contributed and merely whined about Whites
doing what every non-White race does more than Whites. No race has been more of a
"schwartze-lover" than Whites. Whites should be more honest about race and stop believing
Blacks are magical. Whites should not tolerate any bad behavior from Blacks or any non-White
race for that matter.
This is a joke, right? Millions of non-whites are simply going to get up and leave their
homes, jobs, schools, neighborhoods so that Whites can have a little patch of paradise? Has our
dear article author been hitting the crack pipe again?
I got news for you. The world is not flat. Leeches do not suck disease out of humans. The earth
is brown, no longer yellow, red, black, and white. It gets browner every day.
As for a shared culture and a homeland, the whites were the only race dumb enough not to
preserve theirs. Japan is almost 100% Asian. China is Asian. Africa is black. India is Indian.
The USA is a mixture of everything. Europe is a mixture of everything. The whites were the only
race with the inability to preserve a homeland. Hence they are too shortsighted to deserve
one.
Whites need to get increasingly audacious using insulting humor of the Charlie Hebdo, or SNL
kind. It's free speech, right? I feel empowerment growing among Whites during the Voter Fraud
Saga and I think there will be a lot less self-censorship from now on. The hate speech laws
need to be brought to court so that a charge of "racism" has to be substantiated, or otherwise
ruled as a federal hate crime. Who started the whole Racism Industry? Could it have been Jewish
intellectuals in their pursuit of the cultural and economic genocide of Gentiles?
@Felix Krull or more items according to specified parameters.
In common usage, though, "discriminate" is taken to mean the unfair treatment of one party
compared to another. Again, typically regarded as an uncivilised activity. And again, this may
be pertinent within a given context, but is not automatically true.
So, strictly speaking, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with "racism".
However, IMO the author uses language which suggests disdain for black Americans (for
example). If that is an expression of "racism", then it would be in the colloquially "bad"
context.
Regardless, IMO the emphasis on the racial dimension limits the article's perspective. Is
"Trumpism" just a white movement, or is it an American movement, or is it something more (or
less)?
"The Stolen Election Will Red-Pill 70 Million Americans"
Here's a real "red pill" for murkans [and the rest of the world], stated 3 different ways:
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure" Robert LeFevere
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to
differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a
professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores,
100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed"or "improved",simply because of their
innate criminal nature." onebornfree
@anon He's the one the people voted for, not them, and they are just waking up to this now.
It's the same type of diversion the Democrats just tried to pull off with Antifa and BLM.
They got everybody looking at "White Supremacy", racial and identity issues so that you
wouldn't be looking at the money the elites are skimming off the top. I'm sure they could have
cared less about the POC.
The elites are fighting Trump hard; they don't want him changing anything. They knew it
would be mainly "Whites" voting for Trump, so they invented this White Supremacy bullshite.
Yes, the people who voted for Trump ARE interested in immigration, and so is Trump.
stick themselves full of needles and pins , and dye their hair blue so as to present their
deranged worldview for all to see
Yep, that describes it. I understand that a lot of people cannot help being stupid, but I
never understood why people want to aggressively advertise their stupidity. Perverted
exhibitionism, maybe?
Costello seems a strange choice of nom de plume for a white nationalist. I at least identify
the name as Shepardi Jew. The J word never comes up in the article with its problematic issue
of where Jews fit in a white nationalist homeland. Has anyone noticed the only high profile non
retired public figure left with a wasp name and is not black is Homer Simpson? I am of course
exaggerating but the signs are there. With the demise of the white wasps has come the fall of
foundation America. The non wasps don't really share its cultural sentiments. Its sobriety is
lacking except among the best black people who share its names. I am thinking of Ben Carson.
Homer Simpson is a cartoon of a simple slobbish white American. There is no public movement to
remove him of course. So it isn't really surprising America is going the catastrophic way of
her sourthern neighbours.
Q Anon is clearly JFK jr. His crash and recovery was prophesised in the Nostradamus Quatrain
for July of 1999. He carries on the legacy of the Kennedys since grandfather Joe as does his
cousin Robert Kennedy.
Brother Nathanael's latest instalment is a doozy, FAKE NEWS, FAKE ELECTION :
https://www.bitchute.com/embed/LRQK9TfcNJM2/
Hardest-hitting passage:
Cackling Commie Kamal, who humped her way to the top, married Big Tech lawyer Jew, Douglas
Emhoff, a few years back.
The Jew would be "First Man" and you can kiss your First Amendment goodbye.
Big Tech -- (with Emhoff's impending high position and legal conniving) -- will be free to
ban all 'hate speech,' which is 'speech' Jews 'hate' to hear.
And the entire Jew-owned media and their leftist political machine operatives will decide
all elections from henceforth now and forever.
You are about to enter the Twilight Zone -- a Jew-ruled, Jew-ruined, Jew-controlled
America.
@DaveE an mean the need for white unity & power. Or it can mean white power as the
basis for world domination. Nationalism need not be imperialist but often took an imperialist
turn in the past when a nation became very powerful.
In contrast, 'liberation' emphasizes the need for whites to seek emancipation from the current
power that dominates the West and the World which is Jewish Power. (Even 'white national
liberation' sounds better than mere 'white nationalism'.) White Politics that only focuses on
whites and white power is less likely to be appealing than White Politics that seeks freedom
from the actual tyranny that rules the world: Jewish Supremacist Power or JSP.
[MORE]
I think more likely, whites will sink into despair and return to a state of apathy for
politics. I don't see any Republican being able to generate the kind of enthusiasm Trump did.
Tucker Carlson does not have the financial backing or the personality cult. Josh Hawley and Tom
Cotton are two Zionist social conservatives who will revert back to the GOP's standard
abortion, abortion, abortion and say nothing about immigration or non-interventionism to rouse
enough interest from Trump's base.
The only way for white nationalism to stay alive is if Trump stays politically active
through outlets like Newsmax TV and Gab.com ,
and return for another run for office in 2024. However he needs to be very careful. Once he
leaves office he will no longer have the kind of security protection given him as POTUS. There
had been many assassination attempts while he's in office (at least 6 I've heard of), he could
put himself in great danger if he continues to stay in the limelight to position himself for
2024.
As far as a separate whites only nation within the US, look at states that are probably the
whitest – Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, all are heavily (D). A fat lot of good that
does. TX will be (D) by 2024, too many Hispanics and CA transplants, like AZ and NV. Whites are
too splintered, thanks in large part to single white women, who voted 62% in favor of Biden,
compared to married white women who went for Trump 55%. White women are marrying and having
children at an ever lower rate due to lack of eligible men. White women graduated from college
at 60% to 40% compared to white men. As most women only want to marry up, college educated
women rarely want to date much less marry non-college educated men. Due to height issues, most
white women would only date white men or occasionally, black men. Asian and Hispanic men are
too short and unromantic. Meanwhile more and more white men are marrying Asian and Hispanic
women. White women are running out of men to date, marry and start a family. More unmarried
white women means more white votes will be going for Biden.
October 25 (November 7 NS): The October Revolution begins when the Bolsheviks take over
Petrograd (also called the November Revolution if following the Gregorian calendar).
@Thomasina two months before this election that he proposed some rule changes to H1b, and
still none of those rules have been finalized and probably never will. He made these tech
plantation owners many times richer through the stock market, while they treated him with
contempt and helped bring him down. What an idiot!
If Trump had cancelled H1b, OPT, L1 and all other work visas and forced our employers to
hire and train US workers on Day 1 as he promised, he might have won by a landslide by now. The
only group that went down in votes for him in 2020 is white men, because too many feel betrayed
by him in immigration. All he cares about is taking care of Jews and blacks, both Jews in
Israel and on Wall Street. He trusted wormtongue too much, and that's his downfall.
Richard Pilger is (was) the top DOJ Official investigating voter fraud who resigned after
Barr authorized federal prosecutors to pursue "substantial allegations" of voter irregularities
before the election outcome is certified. He is a swamp rat, a cretin, one of many who should
have been drained from the swamp long ago.
John Pilger, on the other hand, is a hero, a filmmaker and journalist with a long, excellent
record of shining light on malfeasance and bad behavior of politicians of every stripe.
The culture of the Chosen people does not understand the concept of compassion. This is
why the world has been in a very sad place for the last hundred or so years since
12.23.1913.
@Priss Factor the white race and goyim in general. Just ask the Palestinians about the
nature of Jewish Power.
Spot on here. Don't expect Biden to let up though. The Jew owned media (both msm and
"conservative" media e.g. Zerohedge, Breitbart, National Review, Fox News) will keep up the
pressure. I see a future, perhaps in two decades, where East Asian immigration to the US will
come to a screeching halt, and most likely even go into reverse as more East Asians return to
their homelands because Jews, negroes, homos, trannies, stupid white women, Latino drug gangs,
Muslim terrorists, Sub Saharan African welfare leeches, Indian H1b slaves with their
clannishness, collusion with Jews and caste-ism make the US an increasingly unlivable hellhole.
Oldtradesman ,
says:
November 13, 2020 at 12:28 am GMT • 19.6 hours ago
I won a lottery given by the renters, and was given free transatlantic transport.
Your line's post-African existence and ability to publicly complain like little girls owes
much to the transatlantic slave trade. Thank the niggas who sold your ancestors into slavery,
nigga.
There's plenty of majority-white states you can move to if Pale Skin is so important to you.
Go to West Virginia, for instance.
Majority-white states with conservative governments tend to be dull, economically depressed
and stagnant. The same will characterize the imaginary white secessionist state you
fetishize.
It's amazing to me that someone could speak with such satisfaction about other people being
subjugated simply because of their color. But then again, animals like you have no morals nor
any decency.
That's why the vast majority of whites in this country will say "no thanks" to your ugly
message.
A lot to unpack by the author, who is simply stating things we already have heard
previously.
"A White Nationalist is someone who believes that white peoples have a right to their own
homelands."
You do have your own homelands. It's just that in a number of cases, you invaded other
homelands for gimmedats and free stuff.
"So that, as a White Nationalist, I am a German nationalist, an English nationalist, a
Scottish nationalist, a French nationalist, etc. Or, at least, I support all those
nationalisms."
And what about Eastern and Southern Europeans? Why no example of you being a Polish
nationalist or a Slavic nationalist? Remember, these groups were deemed to be other than
heritage Americans–dirty, filthy papists who should have never entered our shores with
their alien mannerisms.
"To be a white nationalist in America is really to recognize that the core "American people"
are the white people whose ancestors built the country and who continue to pay for it. Thus,
American White Nationalism = American nationalism."
The reality is that American nationalism is defined by each person and group how they view
it.
"Since it now looks impossible to go back to the good old days when we had blacks in
complete subjection"
Slavery and Jim Crow laws were decidedly anti-American nationalism, and were patently unjust
and immoral.
"white Americans will never work toward a white American homeland unless they are aware of
themselves as White Americans"
We are aware of ourselves as white Americans, just not in the manner you prefer. Do we not
have agency? Must we submit to your definition of what is and what is not a white
nationalist?
"that we effectively secede from the USA and carve out our own white space (or spaces)
within North America. It is this latter option that now seems like it may be our only option,
and something we must work toward."
It will take a fight. Will you be front and center, or far away from the hostilities?
"The country was already fractured along political lines. Now it is completely broken Now
their faith has been completely and irreparably shattered. And this is hugely significant for
us And those many millions of whites are now choking down a gigantic red pill. As we all know,
the red pill is the path to liberation."
What you are doing here is ASSUMING. The "us" is not "we". It's only those people who you
know for absolute certain are on your side.
"It seems that there is credible evidence that there was voter fraud in the election"
More like accusations that need to meet the burden of proof.
"Take it from me -- from my own personal experience: once you have accepted that one big
thing is a total sham, you begin to wonder whether everything else is."
So why would we want to be duped like you?
"It would take whites being pushed to a point where they are so angry they speak and behave
imprudently, damning the consequences."
LOL. I've heard this argument for the past 40 years! It's always a "well, we are upset now,
but just want until we really get mad, then we will put heads on pikes". Either put up or shut
up.
The situation is somewhat better for young whites whose parents were immigrants. Their
family structure is more stable, and they have a possible escape route. I know several who have
"returned" to Europe, even though they were born here. But it's stupid and ignorant to tell
old-stock Canadians they have that option. My ancestors left England in the 19th century, and
the ancestors of French Canadians left France in the 17th and 18th centuries. We're
indigenous.
I agree that "people are very lonely here" but that's relatively recent. The breakdown of
the family began in the 1960s and became "normal" in the 1990s. Again, it has nothing to do
with climate or geography -- other than the fact we're next door to the United States and its
culture.
tomo, I have been thinking a great deal about income inequality lately (especially the
relative income hypothesis (i.e., all of our social problems are caused by differences in
income)). I would love to hear your comments on this question given your wide ranging
experiences around the globe. Would life really be better for us all if we
Scandanavianized?
Brazil (Portugal) was the largest consignee of African slaves in both absolute numbers and
on per capita white colonizer basis. The Anglo North American mainland was far less of a slave
based economy. Brazil was also the last nation in the Americas to outlaw slavery -- and it was
done without 600,000 white men slaughtering each other and burning the defeated side's country
to the ground.
"I think more likely, whites will sink into despair and return to a state of apathy for
politics."
If you are someone who "doesn't want to get your hopes up" or "is afraid to be disappointed"
or "is concerned that it might be a trap" or "seriously hope you're wrong", or sees doom in
every direction, then this is not the place for you. I'm not saying that you're a bad person or
that anyone here wishes you ill. I'm simply stating a simple fact: this is not the place for
you. No one here is interested in your fears, your worries, your psychological vagaries, or
your concerns.
My ancestors didn't own slaves, but it wouldn't matter if they did. The statement remains,
Troof's post-African line owes its very existence and ability to complain like little bitches
to the transatlantic slave trade. Falsify it or fuck off, traitor.
The Dems were quite determined to remove Trump from office by hook and by crook. First by
the fabricated Russiagate fake story When they did not succeed by impeachment. Now today by a
fraudulent election. They, the MIC appear to have succeeded. We are back in the Bush/Obama
era.
Your point about the slaughter in the USA is well taken. Nevertheless, I believe it was
unnecessary and that the war there wasn't truly about slavery. Hell, I lived in an African
nation for three and a half years and saw some slavery first hand; that was 40 years ago, mind,
and the slaves were by and large as happy as clams. WASPy culture is peculiar if you ask me,
which of course you didn't, but even so Who are the "slaves" now in the USA? Hmmm?
Corvie's "moral authority" is equivalent to the Negro chieftain who sold Troof's Negro
ancestor into slavery in exchange for pretty rocks and trinkets, and less than the
"white-debils" who bought him.
@Corvinus those people worried about kissing Black ass are either COWARDS like all those
white traitor trash rich kids or Jews who really use Blacks as pawns. More than likely that
rich leftist self hating white trash is the person who owned slaves or some Jew who blames it
all on Whitey. Either way, Whites have been enslaved themselves by Arabs and are in some ways
slaves today in their own land.
You worried about Blacks, sucka, why does Israel push out Black Jews? Jive talkin', sucka,
keep it a hunnert up in here, turkey. Why did Leo Frank try to blame a Black man for his crime?
lololol. Cue the Bee Gees "Jive Talkin" for all the (((trolls))) up in here. Yo, playa, we gotz
dis.
"Because it was cheaper to have nigger's do it, so your type could purchase it."
I know, it is the inherent nature of Southrons to be lazy. It's in born.
"You are a disgrace, Corvie,"
I'm not the one who has made empty threats of violence on a opinion webzine against a woman
(snicker snack). You said, "Nancy, you are definitely the type of Irish I would have no trouble
killing, along with Joe Biden and John Brennan". You've sunk to a new low.
@Montefrío he bulk of black slaves went to the Spanish colonies, not the American
colonies"
Could you please cite supporting evidence for this assertion?
All the academic accounts I've read indicate that only about 5% of the African slaves shipped
across the Atlantic were sent to the mainland English colonies that became the United States,
while the rest went to areas of Latin America and the Caribbean. However, these latter included
Portuguese, English, French, and Dutch colonies, as well as Spanish ones. The reason their need
for slaves was so enormous was that the death rate in the plantations producing sugar and other
lucrative crops was extremely high. Rogue , says:
November 13, 2020 at 2:15 am GMT • 17.8 hours ago
Did lactase persistence originate in southern Africa?
Egalitarian response:
Oh but that's the exception along with any other non-cognitive changes we might accept if you
prove they exist. But we won't talk about them and will keep telling children that everyone is
African.
Imagine if other fields of study had to follow this insanity.
American wolves don't exist unless you are talking about DNA changes in American wolves that
separate them from European wolves. But other than those changes that would denote a different
subspecies they don't exist.
"""But all the voices on the far-Right who labeled Trump "a distraction" have now been
proved correct. Trump actually wound up doing little for white people -- despite being
continually vilified by the Left as a white supremacist""""
At least the author got that right. Trump was elected to remove the illegal aliens (almost
all of them non-white) and he did practically nothing in 4 years. It would have been easy to
make them self-deport by taking away their jobs and freebies but he didn't do it.
Thank you, sir, particularly for the multi-national breakdown, so to speak.
When all is said and done, it was an ugly business, but long ago was long ago, and imho it
has little to do with the world today. I'm Irish, and "we" weren't well treated long ago
either, but we don't whine or whinge much. I wish that were true of others whose ancestors
suffered hard times.
Me? At 74, life is wonderful! May it be so for all here!
The Stolen Election Will Red-Pill 70 Million Americans is what the Establishment/Trump hope
actually means The Stolen Election Will Keep 70 Million Americans on the Republicrat
Plantation
Imagine thinking rich white conmen like Trump give a shit about you as a "white nationalist"
or that Trump or GOP are against non-white immigration. Hahahahahahhahaha
Delusional. Trump wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. He and everyone around him have
already made it clear you racist cracka ass niggaz aren't welcome in his circle or the GOP.
Oprah Winfrey, Lil Pump, Lil Wayne and Kanye have more clout with Trump than you clowns. You
should ask yourself why that is.
You, average white guy are no better than a dindu or a beaner in the eyes of rich
capitalists. In fact you're less to them because you demand a living standard and wages that
the beaner doesn't.
Let me know when Trump invites some homeless white veterans or any poor cracka for that
matter to fill his hotels, you know since he cares so much for the white race. Yall should
really take a look around if you believe these rich white guys are your allies. "White
nationalism" is a hoax.
The rich white capitalist will stab you in the back every time, history has proven this over
and over again, you're nothing but wage slaves, tax donkeys and cannon fodder to them,
cracka.
Every election is stolen by the rich capitalists that own all the candidates and all the
media. The CIA and Wall St run the country, not puppet politicians
This is not your country. It is up for sale to the highest bidder, welcome to capitalism.
There are despots in Saudi Arabia that "own" more of this country than you losers. Poor low IQ
right wingers, keep believing those fairy tales your owners like telling you. Hahahahaha
@Anonymous ards possessors of illicit drugs, but no -- Hunter is special!). Biden loves,
loves the bomb, and he supported all 'humanitarian" interventions (mass-slaughters) on behalf
of the war profiteers and zionists. Or perhaps you are fond of the murderous Clinton, and the
Schiff-Schumer-Nadler triumvirate of traitors working diligently to destroy the US Consitution?
Do you really believe in the patriotism of McCabe, Strzhok, Comey, Brennan, and Dm.
Alperovitch? Too much FakeBook can be detrimental to one's cognitive function.
The woke crowd of 'progressives' is too much into the cheap revolutionary rhetoric
skillfully inserted into their brains by Bernays' pupils working for MSM.
The whole premise of the multi-cult Left is that divers racial minority groups,
sanctimonious yankees and perverts join together under the aegis of Jewry to socially
marginalize the rest of society. You cannot listen to these people for more than a minute
without hearing them vent hatred against the NORMAL people. There's a reason the Jews are so
dead-set against the way the white world was not too long ago. It's normal, it's sane, and they
DON'T FIT IN. Their depraved appetites and megalomania don't fit in with Western, Christian
Civilization.
@Corvinus s))) and many of them looked and acted like Corvinus.
Slavery is ANCIENT HISTORY and your kind was very well involved in it, same as a lot of
pompous Yankees who claim they fought to end slavery, blah, blah. The fact of the matter is
that only a tiny percentage of Whites ever owned slaves in the South. Poor Whites weren't
treated much better than Blacks for that matter, maybe YOUR ANCESTORS OWNED SLAVES, Corvie,
just like good ole SJW Anderson Cooper.
Fact is Blacks are not exactly saints when it comes to the African Slave Trade
themselves.
How about we stick to this century, (((Corvie.))) I don't see or hear Whites whining about
being enslaved by Arabs.
The MSM, FakeBook, Twitter, and Google must be demolished, considering their willful
treasonous activities during the American color revolution (Russiagate).
By their vicious attacks on the First Amendment, the MSM, FakeBook, Twitter, and Google have
rivaled the Lobby. Or perhaps they are, in reality, an extension of the Lobby.
It took your self righteous Yankee retards four long bloody years and eight successive
commanders to defeat the "Lazy Southrons". Despite having a GDP five times as large and nearly
twenty times the amount of military age males lol
All the while devastating the homes, towns and cities of the people in the South.
This next time around, you will get a taste of war and hate, Mr Corvinus.
Of course, I doubt a pussy ass bitch like you will stand and fight.
@Muaddib synonymous with abolishing social standards. We see the poisonous fruits of giving
everybody respect rather than on conduct: an inability to use force in the face of rioting and
looting instead focusing on people who call others harsh names, rewarding family breakdown,
government debt, women screaming in the streets through bullhorns demanding that other people
pay for their fornication, an unwillingness to condemn homosexuals for deliberately spreading
AIDS for fear of being homophobic.
I will tell you something. If somehow all immigrants and minorities were kicked out, you
would still be unhappy.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
Its a good place to start
Robert Putnam said in his book Bowling Alone that the more diverse a society, the less trust
there is between people. He also found that in diverse communities, even whites distrust other
whites, which makes them even more alienated, because the immigrants at least form their own
ethnic communities. This is what is happening now in all Western countries. Whites are
increasingly alienated in their own countries and societies due to over immigration, leading to
depravity, depression and suicide. It's why birthrate is so low in Western European countries.
It's also why immigration must stop, not just to bring back homogeneity and kinship, but to
reduce the population so each life means more.
Again, you're asking gimme dat while oblivious to the fundamentals. Social programs aren't
payed for by the government the government doesn't make profits, it spends other peoples money
which it collects at gun point . In order to satisfy you thirst for privileges the
government has to literally rob someone else at gun point. Don't people have the right not to be
robbed? Again, only criminals think the "right" to rob is more important than the right not to
be. Moreover, the "good social programs" now stand at $185 Trillion of debt and other
liabilities. Do you know what that number means? Nothing "good" about it. annamaria , says:
November 13, 2020 at 3:23 am GMT • 16.7 hours ago
@Muaddib MSM? The dimwit wokes who avoid like a plague any discussion on Obama/Clinton's
'humanitarian interventions' in faraway countries, which resulted in a multitude of dead
civilians, many of them children.
Biden is ready to intensify the illegal war against Syria (why his progeny has not joined
the 'moderate terrorists' White Helmets is a mystery, don't you think so?). The old corrupted
opportunist would begin a hot war with Russia without understanding what he is doing.
Sure, the MIC has been terribly unhappy with Trump -- not much of 'humanitarian
interventions' during the last four years.
I suggest adjusting the author's arguments to recognise the actual fundamental issue in
play, which is not skin colour or race or language, but CULTURE.
Culture is everything! Culture determines how you treat your neighbor.
Hmm -- the average black in Mississippi has more Euro white Christian culture in him, then
the average white in NY City. Hence NYC's dysfunction.
Anti-Christian Jews are responsible for black disfunction in NYC – period!
@Muaddib -- are you a whiny liberal of lgbtq variety, demanding a special bathroom and
denouncing white privilege a la hypocritical Meghan Markle (and her ridiculous duke 'just
harry'), or you used to be a 'conservative' but it was too boring for you? You know, family
responsibilities, decent education, work ethics
California is the most liberal state in the US. But for some reason, Californias have been
fleeing California like crazy. And you know what, the happy Liberal Californians have been
fleeing to conservative states, without being invited. Last year, "the negative migration was
the 9th year in a row for California."
Ron Unz allows a base, boring, bitter troglodyte like you to post your rude and insulting
garbage on HIS site where he accepts no advertising and runs out of his own pocket so all
viewpoints can be discussed with a light hand and open mind.
I agree with the article but this election isn't actually over outside of the CNN
newsroom.
If the powers that be want to weaken the right they will give Trump his (obvious) win but
only after deluding democrats into thinking that they won the election. I think we are
watching that play out right now.
@Muaddib Some of the 'immigrants' were from the Soviet Union where they received a
fantastic education for nothing. The development of the Internet was conducted under the
watchful eye of intelligence services; the involved have profited handsomely on the enterprise.
Long before the 'immigrants' and their handlers made the killing, there were brilliant people
like Ada Lovelace, Turing, and others who have prepared the ground for modern information
technology.
Today, the woke profiteers ('liberals') at FakeBook and Google religiously follow the diktat
of the CIA/FBI that serve war profiteers and financial Squid. These 'liberals' have been
betraying the interests of human society at large.
@christine what is now North America wanted to stay in the stone age. They live in houses
and drive cars. If whites had never came to what is now North America the people living here
would still be stone age. It took Europeans over 6000 years to go from the iron age to the
industrial age where we were when we founded the USA. There is no way the natives who were
stone age would have been living modern lives.
Colonization was white people going around the world pulling stone age people into the
modern world. Whites are non whites benefactors and only morons cannot see this.
You are not a good thinker. You should be posting on a cooking or sewing site. Politics is
beyond your ken.
@christine your enemy in a hide bag over a roaring fire and letting them roast to death.
The ant trap: coating your enemy in a sticky resin from trees and restraining them over ant
mounds
The head bury: burying your enemy at low tide and allowing the tide to roll in and drown
them.
The horse pull: tying each arm and leg to four separate horses and letting them go four
separate ways.
But our Anglo Western criminal justice system of the 8th Amendment, bonds, free lawyers ,
probation, counselors and medical care in prison is much more savage.
Karma? The crystal ball it's fuzzy but an image is coming in wait .I see a dung beetle in
your future.
I'm not the one who has made empty threats of violence on a opinion webzine against a
woman (snicker snack). You said, "Nancy, you are definitely the type of Irish I would
have no trouble killing, along with Joe Biden and John Brennan".
Why do you respond to "empty," traitor?
Either the threat was empty or it wasn't.
It certainly wasn't a personal threat.
Looks like a threat against a "type of Irish."
What I see is a cucked, traitorous e-activist misrepresenting a threat to pose as a
chivalrous defender of e-womanhood.
This might not be directly relevant, but let me tell you a story.
The Island of Hispaniola was the site of the only known successful slave revolt in history.
So far, so good. The victors where blacks and whites ('hispanics'). Well, that did not work out
well. The whites ('hispanics') revolted and carved out their own nation, it's called the
Dominican Republic. The blacks were left in their own nation, it's called Haiti. The Dominican
Republic has problems, in particular a very high murder rate, but compared to most of the rest
of the world, is not doing so bad. Haiti is an unspeakable cesspool of poverty and filth.
Of course, the Dominican Republic has a viciously effective border control policy preventing
Haitian blacks from moving in. Why doesn't our corporate press complain about this anti-migrant
xenophobia? Maybe rich Americans like the beaches in the Dominican Republic as they are.
Is that something that could – or should – happen in the Untied States? Probably
not, circumstances are different. But still
Christine: I too have experienced at least one native prior lifetime and my home is almost
exactly halfway between two reservations. Friends. Currently I'm reading a book you would
likely enjoy–perhaps thoroughly: "Listen to the Wind: Speak from the Heart" by Roger
Thunderhands Gilbert, who is Metis and has been very close to both the Apache and Lakota
cultures. Publisher is Divine Arts Media.
Always love the comments here, a great range from bright to not so bright to downright dim.
But no matter who you are I'm sure you'll all agree we went from being Bozos on the bus to
being Dr. Zeke's lab rats.
@James Scott t (which liberals are not) all of the stone age people currently living in
Christendom . ride in cars, use computers and cellphones, travel in jets .have access to the
white man's brilliant technology ..it's like we allowed them to jump into our time machine so
they could fast forward into the future we created.
You could also add that we have the patent on high trust culture based on Christian values
of industriousness, honesty, fairness, and decency ..though much of this is being wrecked by
Jewish multiculturalism.
If not for the subversion of organized Jewry, whites would still have the respect of the
stone age non-whites instead of their hatred and contempt.
However, IMO the author uses language which suggests disdain for black Americans (for
example). If that is an expression of "racism", then it would be in the colloquially "bad"
context.
Black Americans kill, rape and steal in huge disproportion to their numbers. Why should I
not disdain that?
You shouldn't make personal statements about people you don't know.
He put himself and his views out there, as any author does, and this is a Comment Board. I
made my comments and observations. Are you new to venues like this? That's how they work
@Muaddib onestly about their failures? They don't support it. In fact they despise free
speech.
Social programs can be good for society. Think not just social security, but also
healthcare for all.
Social programs can be good for society. But liberalism is not about finding good programs.
It is about trying to denigrate and demoralize White people in an attempt at creating equality.
Most liberals are White but they see themselves as the "good Whites" and all other Whites must
be taken down. Liberals are nihilistic egalitarians. They will do anything for equality. They
would sacrifice our children just for some fleeting feeling of equality that doesn't exist.
@Muaddib ily life but in your mind all progress is held back by those other Whites .
I saw that all the time. Urban Whites get "celebrate diversity" bumper stickers and then hang
out with Whites 99% of the time.
More inventions came from WW2 than any other period and Whites on both sides during that
time would think that today's urban egalitarian Whites are total morons.
P.S. your women aren't sexually attracted to you if that wasn't obvious by how they boss you
guys around.
I lived around urban Whites for years. What a soulless and pathetic existence the typical
urban White male lives. The homeless Blacks seem happier than you guys.
The father of Jonathan Miller's mother wanted to emigrate to the USA but got off in Ireland
instead, when it was under British rule. Miller gave an account of this during an interview. I
can't recall whether his grandfather got off in Cork by mistake or whether the person who
arranged his ticket cheated him and others by putting them on a boat to Ireland rather than New
York. For Miller this was an amusing anecdote he told on TV.
At any rate the mother of Jonathan Miller was one of the relatively few Jews living in Ireland,
although Miller himself was born in England.
You've never been around any American Indians or their national autonomous homelands aka
rezess have you? As a group, they're probably the most contented of all definable American race
and ethnic groups. At least they're not endlessly bitching whining and kvetching like the rest
of us.
You should spend a year driving around their rezess and talking to them. Try to fit in as a
tourist or something. Don't be rude and just inform them you're some kind of social scientist
studying their exotic oppressed abused soon to be genocided tribe. Don't insult them. Be
polite. They are regular people just like the rest of us.
We weren't Americans and America wasn't America when the Africans were brought over. We were
English citizens subjects living in separate English colonies known as Massachusetts
Connecticut Virginia Maryland etc.
If only the vile white northern Euro invading scum had come with pipes of peace instead of
guns and i find it poetic justice how guns and more guns and yet more guns are the scariest
part of modern central North America.
May the spirits of those that suffered genocide and holocaust at the hands of gun wielding
invading Northern Europeans be smiling from ear to ear at todays United Gun States of
America.
They are the nut-cases who stick themselves full of needles and pins , and dye their hair
blue so as to present their deranged worldview for all to see.
You forgot the utterly worthless dye disfigurement known as tattoos. All this probably has
roots related to the mutilation known as circumcision as well.
@tomo
Talk to them about Louis Farrakhan. He has the Nation of Islam ( https://www.noi.org/ ] eating out of his hand. The videos are out
there.
Louis names the Jew without disaster resulting. Tell them about The Secret Relationship
Between Blacks and Jews, a splendid book, available from Amazon – at a price or direct
from the https://www.noi.org/final-call-news/
@Peter Frost e US along with the breakdown of the family, loss of the work ethic, a rampant
sneering at honesty, and almost total lack of basic civility. One of my sisters attributes a
lot of that to the effects of casting infants into daycare where it's "dog eat dog" from the
beginning and which I believe is reinforced by years of exposure to the sinecure and benny
seeking bureaucrats in the baby sitting and brainwashing institutions known as schools.
We have ourselves to blame for our choices both as individuals and as a society and we can
whine all we want about blacks and others, but in the end we're paying for our worship and
pursuit of "cool," or self absorption, or whatever.
No, I agree -- a purely "racial" response should not be tried. It will lead to
failure (which is not to say that things like race, culture, values, beliefs etc are not
important)
I suggest you also do a search on the infamous Jew, Aaron Lopez, and work out why he chose a
Spanish name to hide behind rather than an Anglo-Saxon name.
The large majority of TrumpBoomers are screaming at the sky right now with this fraud cope,
because it is inconceivable that a wave of brown, angry youth and affluent whites like myself
have eclipsed them as a voting bloc. The white working class has been melting down worse than
the 2016 SJW trannies for a week now.
Yes of course i would be polite and come in peace and i would make sure not to point a rifle
or pistol at them and start shooting them and then start raping their women and children and i
wouldn't slaughter any livestock that they may have to try and starve them because what decent
white Northern European would do that in central North America anyway?.
If i came in peace and harmony like this they would naturally be far more likely to respond
in kind and share with me what they may know about nature/god, just like what their wonderful
ancestors learnt about from their use of plant medicines/entheogens/sacraments like the Peyote
cactus for example that was used by the Apache Comanche and Kiowa tribes but if i was pure evil
and slaughtered them then of course i wouldn't get to learn from their wisdom and i would
deserve to remain in complete darkness (spiritually speaking) just like most everyone alive is
in the U.S today.
His daughter, Miller's father, became a well-known novelist in Ireland.
Who is the subject in this sentence? Was it someone's daughter or Miller's father who became
a well-known novelist in Ireland? The structure of your sentence makes it unclear.
As I said originally, that doesn't automatically make the author a "racist" in the "bad"
sense, but the suggestion is implicitly there for anyone who wants to make it.
Maybe the author is being emphatically practical in his analysis. FWIW in the past
Australian experience, cohesive immigrant populations have taken at least a couple of
generations to fully naturalise in Australian society. And there does seem to be a lot of
cultural clashing going on in the USA. So maybe a coarse exclusionary approach to reclaiming
power for the American people is the shortest path to a solution (albeit with potential for
collateral damage).
Or maybe one has to read between the lines to get the full sense of what the author is
trying to say.
@christine igners; and this spirit of wear, principle of any cowardice, is so natural in
their hearts, that it is the continual object of the figures that they employ in the species of
eloquence which is proper for them. Their glory is to put at fire and blood the small villages
they can seize. They cut the throat of the old men and the children; they hold only the girls
nubiles; they assassinate their Masters when they are slaves; they can never forgive when they
are victorious: they are enemy of the human mankind. No courtesy, no science, no art improved
in any time, in this atrocious nation. -- Voltaire, Essai sur les mœurs (1756) Tome 2,
page 83
Was it EVER possible to pronounce Mitt Romney's and John McCain's names without gagging?
News to me
Also I disagree with the main premise that can be expressed in the ironic Russian saying:
"They are fucking us, and yet we are just getting stronger". Unfortunately it doesn't work like
that. Success begets success, failure begets failure. With the machinery of state in the
DemocRATs' hands, will they really allow their enemies to take back the levers of power? Last
time was a fluke because Hurricane Donald had caught them by surprise.
@Rogue ck of critique of their own past, lack of any sort of conciliatory moves towards
past victims, dooms them.
And this when the entire world rejects globohomo (and usury) with disgust. They have all
sorts of potential allies a home and abroad, and do not use them. Having lived in the Detroit
area for decades, for example, I can tell you that local Muslims are ready-made allies. They
are hardly the only ones. Count any working Latino and all people of Asian descent in this
group, as well as all people of Eastern European descent. They even have allies among working
blacks for christ sake. You are in the fight of your lives, and you don't even think about
allies.
I would say productive non-executive suite Whites are the new slaves in the Waspy-Jewy Anglo
world. But Brazil isn't that far behind either with all of its Sherwin-Williams color sample
shade cards being used in its own affirmative action programs.
Unlike the profitable fables of holobiz, the Jewish rabid hatred towards Palestinians and
the destruction of Palestinian lives is true. Thievery, sadism, torture of teenagers in Israeli
prisons, desecration of Palestinian cemeteries, the intentional handicapping of Palestinian
children Are you ready to talk about the Jeiwsh State's crimes against humanity, committed in
the context of international law? (The US and Israel 'are joined at the hip' according to US
Congresspeople). If not, then your 'righteous' diatribes are cheap.
And don't forget to check the amazing results of the Obama/Clinton's color revlution in
Ukraine.
@Truth irst son of a bitch who was foolish enough to bring over the African for cheap labor
( yes, the African did receive a wage in food, shelter and medical care), these fools using
Mexicans for dirt cheap labor are ruining this nation because of greed and the love of money.
That poor beaner busting his ass for 12 bucks an hour? Don't worry about him folks, he's living
large because he's more than likely being paid cash or he's gaming the system and receiving all
kinds of freebies along with a regular paycheck. I drive by a chicken processing plant daily
that employs nothing but our friends from south of the border and I see some damn fine trucks
and other nice looking vehicles.
The white working class has been melting down worse than the 2016 SJW trannies for a week
now.
Is that right? So why were there no massive chimpouts and looting? Why was it not necessary
to board up the stores, as it would have been had not the ZOG stolen the election?
Stupidly, I think Trump tried to win over the corporate elite, Big Tech, Big Ag, etc.. Maybe
bad advice from his son-in-law? Didn't listen to his intuition? Who knows.
If he is reelected, he will not make the same mistake twice. I think they know this too.
@christine ringing a force of about five or six to one against his enemy; kills helpless
women and little children, and massacres th e men in their beds; and then brags about it as
long as he lives, and his son and his grandson and great-grandson after him glorify it among
the "heroic deeds of their ancestors."
If you came in peace, do you think the Stone Age Siberians would have also shared their vast
knowledge about the Wheel? Or metal smelting? Or writing and math?
People like (((Christine))) always bring up atrocities committed against Indians and they
make some valid points, HOWEVER, as we saw, (((Christine))) had nothing to say about Whites
being butchered by racist Black homicidal maniacs in South Africa nor did she address the
Holodomor. This leads me to believe that (((Christine))) the self proclaimed "Irish" lass is
more than likely just a (((troll.)))
And of course, people like (((Christine))) don't talk about so-called Jews stealing the
Palestinians land and brutalizing Palestinians, instead they focus on ANCIENT HISTORY. And
these people will never talk about Black guys executing little white boys or Black guys
snatching a little white boy from his white mother and throwing the kid off a balcony. Or how
about when a black woman kidnapped a white boy in Texas and burned him to death with a
blowtorch. Oh, yeah, lets focus on ancient history, which unless you lived back then no one
really knows what the damn truth was, we know we certainly can't rely on (((historians))) or
mainstream (((history books.))) Unless things change, 100 years from now, people will be
reading about how 3 Black women sent America to the moon.
Obvious LIES that will be told or have been told
6 million Jews were gassed in concentration camps during WWII
Germany started WWII
the official 9-11 narrative
Osama Bin Laden was killed * that dude probably was dead years before he was claimed to have
been killed, the guy was in poor health.
James Earl Ray did not kill MLK * the dude said so on his death bed, why would you still
keep holding on to the same story if you were going to die anyhow?
And when it comes to Presidential elections.
JFK didn't beat Nixon
Dubya didn't beat Gore
And Joe Biden sure as hell didn't beat Trump, hell I would admit that if I hated Trump's guts.
Don't like Gore, voted for that sorry sack of shit, Dubya, but no way in hell, Gore lost.
Some more code words we can start using ((( ))) for are (((SJW))) or (((military industrial
complex.)))
@Ultrafart the Brave people too, patriotic or otherwise. White nationalism is a political
stance, of course it will exclude people who are not white nationalists, duh!
Indeed, one bad thing leads to another. Once the dynamics are set in train, it will take
generations to unravel (if ever).
What "bad thing" lead to blacks people committing heinous amounts of murder, robbery and
rape? Slavery? Colonialism? Affirmative Action? Must be something whites did, right?
As I said originally, that doesn't automatically make the author a "racist" in the "bad"
sense.
You have not explained what's bad about racism. And what are those quotation marks for?
You've never been around any American Indians or their national autonomous homelands aka
rezess have you? As a group, they're probably the most contented of all definable American
race and ethnic groups. At least they're not endlessly bitching whining and kvetching like
the rest of us.
Aldey, having lived in the most Indian state in America for the last 17 years, I can assure
you that that is patently ridiculous.
Some things never change. As Mark Twain wrote in his Essay about The Noble Red Man;
He is ignoble–base and treacherous, and hateful in every way. Not even imminent
death can startle him into a spasm of virtue .
With that Twain appears slightly ahead of his time. He could have just as accurately been
describing other "Reds," such as the Bolsheviks and their supporters most of whom could have
taught the Indians a thing or two about terror and torture especially the mass varieties.
I drive by a chicken processing plant daily that employs nothing but our friends from
south of the border and I see some damn fine trucks and other nice looking vehicles.
Whites are storming ballot counting centers instead of looting their own businesses. Whites
routinely chimp out, they just pick different targets. Look at the devastation around Hockey
arenas when teams win the Stanley Cup.
As far as the election being stolen, well, you sound like a crazed conspiracy nutter.
They are ALWAYS hiring, breh. Maybe you can tell some of da homies. But I doubt da homies
could cut the mustard. I worked with tons of Mexicans and El Salvadorans and I can tell you
from experience they really look down on lazy negroes. My gawd, some of the things I heard
these Brown folks say about Black folks had me blushing crimson. I went from Donald Trump
orange to the color of my favorite soda, cherry red. Cue: You Can't Always Get What You Want by
Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stoooooooooones.
The Second Guy: Kamala Harris' husband, Douglas Emhoff, is Jewish; he will not only be the
"second gentleman" (caveat: No one has settled on a term for the job), he will be the first
Jewish second spouse. Emhoff has been vocal about his Jewish identity, and it will be
interesting to see how that plays out in a role that has been used to advance education
initiatives.
Yet, there do remain groupings of well-rooted people who are able to cope with a clinically
insane "white" culture which surrounds them physically and throughout most electronic mediums.
Their struggle is huge, yet they persist in reconnecting with traditional tribal values, with
powwows, drumming fests and even -- gradually -- re-learning their indigenous languages.
There are still waaaay too many European-descended people in my area who retain an ignorant
, discriminatory and even prejudicial attitude towards these, our neighbors and in some cases,
potential teachers. But those who reach out do tend to reach those who also reach out. So hope
remains.
HATER -- perhaps not without some viable personal reason/s, but nevertheless one incapable
of discriminating between individuals and devolved into rank prejudice.
I spent time on the other side of the wall early seventies, and I will never forget the dead
eyes of the oppressed citizenry and the morgue-like atmosphere of the grey cities, and these
lunatic Democrats are now pushing to create such a scenario in the US
Excellent article and explanation of procedure, Mr. Redmayne-Titley. On Tucker Carlson's
show about six weeks ago, Tucker had on guest Darren Beattie to describe the specific type of
color revolution that the Democrat Party appeared to be planning to proceed ahead with to
usurp this election:
Tucker's show tonight will be as clear as could be as to which Tucker he is going to be
selling to his huge audience: independent journalist or Fox News/DS apparatchik. I will be
watching and hope that he will continue to be the voice of much of the people, though his
letting up on the Hunter Biden story was troubling to say the least.
Even with Pennsylvania and Georgia, the 2 most likely to flip imo, trump would still lose,
unless he miraculously flips Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, or Michigan.
The fix was in no doubt and trump won all those states fairly, but its a tall order and
I'm skeptical that trump can pull it off.
Thanks to the Trumpet, the CIA/FBI/NSA, etc., have now been able to clearly identidy the
sections of the populace that feel their pure whiteness is being victimised,
Were you in a coma for a number of years? For 20 years, starting with William Binney
through Edward Snowdon and Dave Montgomery, there have been warnings that the alphabet
agencies have been illegally spying the US citizens. Montgomery pointed out they spied on
Trump before he became a candidate.
The Trumpian corporate party's biggest sin was trying to get in on the Republocrat –
Demican Uni-party corporate party action.
Never gonna happen.
I believe that US are truthful when they talk about "free" elections. Theoretically, the
only way you can get something "free" in life is – if you steal it, or if somebody
gives you something as a gift. This "election" has fulfilled both of these 2 criteria. First
the deep state stole the election from Trump and then they presented it as a gift to Biden.
So it's all good. It was a free election for Biden, Trump got robbed – but hey, you
can't please everybody.
Karma's a biatch. All those color revolutions in Ukraine, Venezuela, Iran, Hong Kong,
propped up in one way or another by Mike Pompeo when he was head of CIA continuing into
Secretary of State, is now coming back to haunt Trump. Good job appointing that fat fuck.
If Trump loses, it would be his own doing in some ways. He has failed to roll back legal
immigration esp. H1B/OPT until a month before the election, and spent most of his time
catering to the Zionist filth with all the nauseating sycophantic overt pandering to Israel
and the Wall Street Jews. Wormtongue's pandering to the blacks by letting all the drug
dealers out of jail is backfiring big time too. 92% of blacks still voted for Biden so fuck
you Kushner.
If Trump somehow survives this and actually comes back to win, I hope he learned from his
mistake in the first term. Instead of spending all 4 years pandering to Jews and blacks who
didn't vote for him, spend his time taking care of those who did vote for him, his white
voting base, and we want an end to H1B, OPT, EB5, L1, illegal immigration. No more green
cards for the next 40 years! Begin mass deportation. Most importantly, fire Pompeo and
Javanka!
Many thanks, Mr. Redmayne, for this overview-cum-dissection of the recount scenarios.
That all of these counting-stopping orders took place in swing states defies
credulity.
Surely poll workers were being paid to continue counting throughout the night. Not to go home
and catch 40 winks. Lord knows we have plenty of night-time workers in this 24/7 country.
It is ironic that in the context of the USA's overseas military disasters, the common
advice when the home team is obviously getting pounded has been "Just declare yourself the
winner" and get the hell out.
Seems like the Dems are using this playbook and hoping they can create a new reality by
declaring it so.
The spectacle of Joe Biden calling for "unity" after the shitshow following 2016 is
rich.
I doubt that this richness is going to be lost on the "losers" in this election.
The country is very n eatly divided between blue urban and red countryside. I would not
county on "unity" rearing its head anywhere in redland.
The only people loyal to Trump is the working class. No one else gives a damn whether he
lives or dies, including the vast majority of Republican officials and office holders
concerned only with keeping what they have.
Yes, the disgusting PC CBC reporters display their contempt for Trump at every turn, and
are complicit in obscuring Democrat misdeeds, whether by uncritically parroting the Maddow
ravings on Russiagate or ignoring the influence peddling of Dems from Biden to HRC. CBC
reporters are repeatedly characterizing charges of election fraud as groundless. Clearly they
are unaware of Pelosi's admission of how the public is misinformed, with her description of
'leaking' fabricated allegations to MSM insiders, then using the subsequent MSM reports as
'evidence' of veracity.
@GMC ciders). The not-so-youthful Obamas the Fraud and the badly aged Clintons have been
liberally using revolutionary rhetoric a la Che Gevara, never mind that the Obamas and
Clintons are major war criminals guilty of the mass slaughter of civilian populations
(including the multitude of children) in the brown countries of Syria and Lybia and non-brown
countries of former Yugoslavia and Ukraine. They, Obamas and Clintons, are murderers,
cannibals. Yet for the 'progressive' wokes, the history of the US is not known and is not
interesting for knowing. The wokes like the keto diet, mild psychedelics, cool outfit, and a
special set of words, including 'solidarity, social awareness, political correctness,
LGBTQIA' and such to stroke gently their, wokes,' egos. The aroma of rot is in the air.
@The Alarmist ake-sure-trump-supporters-receive-accountability
Emily Abrams can not forgive Trump for being so ineffective in the Middle East. Unlike the
Obama/Clinton administration, Trump has not started a new War for Israel. And for this, Trump
and "anyone who took a paycheck to help Trump" must be punished.
Meanwhile, the reality is hitting up:
After Attorney General Bill Barr authorized federal prosecutors to pursue "substantial
allegations" of irregularities in the 2020 presidential election, the head of the DOJ's
Election Crimes Branch [Richard Pilger] has decided to resign.
Vote fraud is as American as apple pie. Just remember how JFK and George W. Bush manged to
sneak into the White House. America has always bee a banana republic, now it has just become
more evident.
Elections are meant placate the masses by changing out the spokesperson for the official
program. But every democracy is Coke vs. Pepsi since the people with real power are not going
to allow any major deviation from their program. That Trump caused the system to panic leads
me to believe he wasn't Coke or Pepsi, he was something else–something that scared
powerful people. These same people made sure not to let that happen again and so far it
appears their efforts were successful.
BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Analysis of Election Night Data from All States Shows MILLIONS OF
VOTES Either Switched from President Trump to Biden or Were Lost -- Using Dominion and Other
Systems By
Joe Hoft
Published November 10, 2020 at 6:32pm
2080 Comments ,
BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Analysis of Election Night Data from All States Shows
MILLIONS OF VOTES Either Switched from President Trump to Biden or Were Lost -- Using Dominion
and Other Systems By
Joe Hoft
Published November 10, 2020 at 6:32pm
2080 Comments ,
BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Analysis of Election Night Data from All States Shows
MILLIONS OF VOTES Either Switched from President Trump to Biden or Were Lost -- Using Dominion
and Other Systems By
Joe Hoft
Published November 10, 2020 at 6:32pm
2080 Comments ,
So despite the help from the massive software "glitch", Biden fraud machine had to dump
late night dump ballots all for Biden only in a hurry. How bad did he lose? It almost looks
like most of his votes are fabricated. I would not be surprised if he were 20 points behind
in legal votes.
I think the ballot dumping was the side show to keep us from finding out about the vote
switching and deleting. How can this be verified, and how can this be seen on the machines
now?
Badass American of Indian decent (actually was born in India I believe but family came
here legally when a young child). Ran for senate in Massachusetts as a Republican and was/is
a big Trump supporter. Blew the doors off the Covid 19 scam, not that it wasn't real but how
it was being treated and handled by MSM and the Socialist Democratic Party, ie, by those who
hyped the whole thing.
EventBrite just told everyone that "March for Trump" was cancelled. It is NOT
Cancelled.
The Elites / Big-Tech / MSM (including Fox) are TERRIFIED We Will Show Up - doing everything
possible to shut us down.
Don't let them. Break their Narrative.
Get to DC or the nearest contested state-house This Weekend, or we hand Biden the WH.
CORRECTION!! We hand the WH to Kamala, the most leftist (socialist) senator in the Senate!
She falls right in line with Hugo Chavez and Nicolás Maduro, Fidel,Stalin and other
(in)famous dictators politically. If you are a veteran, have a CFL, have made a firearms
purchase from a dealer, etc. - your personal information WILL be found and used to confiscate
your arms if these socialists gain enough power. They have already stated that they will
rejoin the 'climate accords,' restart 'fair trade' with China, move our embassy out of
Jerusalem, restart nuclear 'cooperation' with N. Korea, pass 'common sense' gun laws to
protect our citizens (never mind the THOUSANDS of gun laws now on the books that are NOT
ENFORCED,) tear down 'Orange Man Bads' border fence, open up our borders to all comers, and
amnesty all illegals now in the nation - and that's just for a start.
You are so right ....but the Marxists better ask the British what happened when General
Gage sent British regulars to DISARM AMERICANS at CONCORD . THAT is when the Revolutionary
War turned into a REAL SHOOTING WAR .
Avoidance of War is Not Peace. While I am praying for Honest Election Results that = Trump
Victory, the NWO Deep State must be stopped Now.
Marxist democRats and Quisling repubs are Bought and Paid for by their NWO Oligarch
Masters.
Never Submit, Never Surrender.
If they mean to have CW, then let it begin with this Coup if it is accomplished in Jan of
21
He also doesn't believe AIDS is caused by HIV... really?! And that we should expand the
USPS by having them set up and regulate a national email service. Broken clock, twice-a-day,
etc.
H.I.V was found to be nothing more than Biologically Inactive Gunk by Nobel Laureate
Professor and Cancer specialist Doctor Peter Duesberg and his work was backed up by Nobel
Laureate Doctor Carey Mullin. The H.I.V hypothesis proposed by the Fraudulent Doctors Gallo
and Anthony Fao-Chi[ yes! That Fao-chi] never passed the Koch Postulates, so they turned to
the MSM to pressure the Reagan administration into acceptance of their Hypothesis and that is
the most important part of the H.I.V Hypothesis...
Yesterday on hannity's radio show, John Solomon was severely downplaying the software
problems. Never trusted that guy. Does anyone ever say, "hey, you have to check out Just the
News?!". NOPE.
John Solomon was an integral part of uncovering the SpyGate scandal. Just because he says
something you disagree with does NOT make him a partisan hack.. He's one of the last
investigative reporters left in the U.S.
He speaks the truth and the truth is that as of now we have zero evidence of wrongdoing
other than hearsay. "Data passed around" analyzed by some guy does not cut the mustard in
court. Actual proof is needed and as of now we are just spouting BS. I am not delusional as
most of you and understand that as we sit we are losing big time. He does not say everything
I need to hear......WAAAAAAAA.
I don't really trust him after watching him on Lou Dobbs A LOT. He squirms out of tough
questions. I agree about the investigation into obamagate with Sara Carter. Why is he now
putting a liberal (UNTRUE) spin on the software problems?
No spin, Just the truth. The evidence as of now would get thrown out of court as it is
hearsay. Get the data looked at by a real analytics team not some random guy sitting in his
basement.
He ran hard against Pocahontas up here in MA. Brilliant man! Someone had to step up with
indisputable proof and stop this charade now! OT: Watched a bit of Tucker Carlson
tonight...the bosses got to him. He's talking about senile Biden's virus response. No Tucker,
President Trump is in charge.
I agree! Tucker was singing the praises of FNC several nights ago about their truth
telling...what garbage! Tucker can go too with FNC, I'm done with them!
I read an email on the laptop from Tucker to Hunter the day after he said that on his
show. It was just thanking Hunter for writing a letter of recommendation to Georgetown for
someone. Nothing bad, but Tucker would not touch the photos on the laptop of incest with
underage family members.
What happened today, and what prompted Pilger to "quit" was that AG Barr said to US
Attorneys – "If you have substantial allegations of election fraud in your district,
you have authority to investigate that." Basically, Barr cut Pilger and Election Crimes
Branch out of the picture as "gatekeepers" to starting investigations in places like
Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Detroit, and Atlanta.
And all the strange ballot dumps after the election including a single batch in Philly
with 23,277 votes all going to Joe Biden.
They stopped counting on election night so they could look at the voter rolls to see who
hadn't voted; they then used this information to create a bunch of fraudulent ballots for
many of the real people who didn't actually vote including dead people and people living out
of State. They had the post office backdate these fraudulent ballots created after the
election.
This Corona-facilitated criminal conspiracy in the 2020 elections might be of even larger
proportions than the awkwardly covered up (Hunter) Biden Crime Family saga. The filthy
corruption of the lying mainstream media is, in a way, a non-partisan story. The media
misrepresentation of the most obvious truths in our midst does great damage to everyone
including Republican and Democrats. Its the Big Media/Big Tech dissemblers of decent
reporting on the real human condition that menaces average people the most; that puts our
very lives at wrongful risk; that calls most urgently for the enforcement of provisions
outlawing the serial frauds of the most guilty parties. The biggest story of our times is
that media venues regularly deceive its viewers to serve and facilitate organized crime.
Some important & additional sources of information on the obvious fraud:
VIDEO: The President's lawyer, Sydney Powell, explains the massive, historical vote
fraud that has occurred and predicts that Trump will win the election in the end .
"Who were the people in control of these ballots? What is their paper trail? Where did
they come from? Who signed for them and took control of them? What Trump/Biden split did
they convey? Was it statistically probable or improbable? Had they already been counted?
Has their legitimacy been established? Did observers have access to them before delivery
and after delivery? Why were they delivered at that time? Did this delivery coincide with
deliveries elsewhere in other states?"
@AReply You are what's called a usefull idiot. The GOP doesn't care about anyone but
Isreal and the elites on Wallstreet. Every 4 years the GOP pretends to care about poor white
people and they show some colored people to show "look we are not racist."
But to say the GOP really cares what everyone thinks and is inclusive to a fault is
ridiculous. How brainwashed are you?
The problem with Magatards like you is the inability to separate fantasy with reality. You
really think Trump is the god emperor who is fighting pedophiles and you will believe
anything other Trumptards throw up on YouTube.
Lol at the GOP by definition being conservative. Trump is a liberal who grew the size of
the government.
My feeling on election fraud is two-fold, first – Politicians have been cheating and
lying in Everything that they have done, so to have the election being the sole thing that
they do not cheat and lie about, particularly when the stakes for them are at the highest
point, would be clear signs of a delusional individual, or at least a fool with clouded
judgement, and secondly – I have no stake in this election since both candidates have
violated and have committed to violatimg my constitutional rights, in addition to violating
the rights of others around the world through wars and sanctions based on outright lies. It
is of no benefit for me to try to claim that the results of the election were in violation of
democracy if that democracy has democratically and illegally decided to violate my
constitutional rights, and if that democracy has also democratically decided to wage war and
sanctions on others based on lies, it can then be equated with a democratically decided gang
rape, of which I happen to be one of the many victims, and choosing one group of gang rapists
over another group of gang rapists is something that would not be in my best interests.
Brett Titley nails it.. The purpose of allowing a private media to control the discourse
space of the public is "to circumvent the intelligence of the voter..".. but there is more
its purpose is to trick, fool, subvert and divert and so forth .. the sensory inputs that
allow the voter to use his or her intelligence..
As stated above, there is no longer any pretense of a "fair election" in the USA or that
the USA is a "democracy".
I believe that was the most important message they wanted to send to us and why the fraud
was so blatantly obvious and the media censorship so heavy-handed.
Combine the above with their "Antifa" thugs and "covid19" lockdowns and you have the
totalitarian state for all to see.
What this author may have failed to consider is that all "judges", by whomever appointed,
are members of the USA establishment and have a stake in the perpetuation of a myth that
there is not and could not exist systemic and systematic voter fraud in the USA.
put this myth next to the myth that the USA is not a massive and ongoing global war crime
operation no member of the establishment will ever utter that equally blatant truth.
Everything is done for the Deep State dba MIC, Globalist Corps. Wall Street, International
Banking , Intel Agencies etc. not for the populace. Forget Democrat or Republican –
there are none – only a pigment of your imagination. Name 50 politicians who haven't
been recruited or Allowed to stay in office, if they didn't pledge allegiance to Israel, the
NWO , the MIC etc. You can't because there is no peoples Government . If there was an Honest
peoples Gov. the FCC would have yanked all the MSM licenses – long ago , Wall Street,
the Banks and the Pentagon would have been neutered , with the Federal Reserve on probation.
The movie Matrix is more real than most think – without the special effects. The Covid
virus is just another Government induced 08 and on Depression – and guess who is back
in the WH , to make sure things go smoothly for the NWO – Obama, Killary , Biden and
Company. How many " Democrats" did this for the good of their " Country " ? And how many did
it for Themselves ?
@Tor597 nal guy but he is really losing it with the election fraud narrative. Leaving
aside whether or not this was indeed a fraudulent election or not, what even it there to gain
for Whites? Trump hasn't done diddly squat in relation to things like affirmative action,
social media overreach into politics (via partisan banning and censorship) and immigration.
The only real benefit to Trump was that he radicalised the rank-and-file of the White
voter base, the problem is that much of the radicalisation was towards absolutely destructive
ideologies like the QAnon theory.
The only thing that will be lost will be Trump's politically incorrect statements, but we
will have Biden's senile gaffes to make up for that I guess.
Question: As in most other cases of election fraud, if the obvious mail-in and software
evidence is accepted as proof in the swing States being contested, can the Supreme Court
overturn the entire 2020 results and order a new election that would also include the Senate
and House elections in all States?
Its always entertaining to see how people get a dose of their own medicine. The US has
been active for the past 100 years or more cocking around with rigging elections and
supporting dictators in other parts of the world. Not only putting them in power but
supporting these fucks with taxpayer money. How many millions of people have been most
unhappy to see some scumbag they hate propped up as Leader Maximus courtesy of Uncle Sam.
The chickens have been circling for a long time and finally come home to roost. How do US
citizens now like the taste of their own cough syrup ?
And all thos immigrants flocking to the US courtesy of the puppet masters in DC, here is a
news flash. The golden years of the US are done. If you expect to make it here and attain the
American dream let me assure you that you are the wrong person, in the wrong place at the
wrong time and under the control of the wrong people.
How stupid can these immigrants be coming to the US to be flunkies, gophers and virtual
slaves to the Corporate world. Stay where you are people. We already have enough pizza
delivery boys and the coffee shops are already filled to capacity by unemployed dubs names
Abdul, Mbongo and LeMArco.
Even bloggers with Russian names, mushroom level intelligence and brandishing big swords
are barely making ends meet and have to shack out in West Coast tents living hand to
mouth.
I'd be surprised if Trump doesn't feel the need to flee the jurisdiction, since he and his
family, regardless of rightfully or not, will be the first Presidential family pursued in the
criminal courts after leaving action to settle a political score. The message being sent is
that those not welcomed into the club enter at their own peril.
Indeed. You point out the lynch pin in whether opposition to this election fraud will be
successful, money and Trump's character. Although this is now the perfect situation for Trump
to do what he promised four years ago "drain" of at least "expose" the swamp, Trump is first
and foremost a selfish opportunist.
Trump however has a massive ego and I witnessed this when I was in the press corp. for
many Trump campaign stops. It is this ego that Americans on the side of America are betting
on, since Trump will absolutely hate the prospect of flying off into the blue just before the
inaugural.
In a little over a week, groups of volunteer IT specialists, Data
Analysts, Auditors and more, have uncovered enough potential fraud to overturn the 2020 Election.
Over
the past week, groups of professionals have gathered to ensure election integrity was present in the 2020 election. These
groups of Trump and America loving patriots are working on their own time and digging into election data to identify potential
evidence of fraud. Despite the MSM promoting a group of 'experts' claiming this was 'the
most
secure election ever
', the real evidence indicates a total different story.
There
are numerous legal questions as well, such has how to address the numerous
illegal
and corrupt activities
the Democrats carried out in Michigan to steal the election.
There are enough legal issues identified to date to indicate this was
the most corrupt election in US history.
So
what is the impact?
Today we can say that there is enough information presently available on
the potential fraudulent activities that when quantified would overturn the election.
The biggest potential fraud identified to date is related to the data
coming from the voting machines themselves.
After
we had identified a number of anomalies where votes appeared to be 'switched' from President Trump to Joe Biden, a group of
experts dug into election data and found this was not an innocent mistake. By using election day data, this group found
millions of votes removed from President Trump and placed in the Biden column. (This data is now being reviewed but our
initial results are consistent with the group's reporting.)
There
are other items already identified and quantified by others. One report isolated Biden only votes from the election which
were so large and outside of expectations that they clearly are not reasonable and should at least be reviewed for signatures:
These
votes have not been confirmed by the Trump team or the states, so they are not final. There is also ongoing work on dead
people who voted, felons who illegally voted, and more. Democrats have a history of committing voter fraud, so there is more
to do.
Don't listen to the corrupt and dishonest media which never praises the
President's efforts or reports on his successes and always sides with corrupt perpetrators.
Already there is enough information to overturn this election.
Skip in 5
Possibility of hacking into and changing voters counts in the US electronic election system does exist. To what extent CIA
penetrated it remains unclear, but judging from some presentation the system is deliberately kept very vulnerable to exploits via
patchwork of shady private companies involved. Yes you got it right, the equipment for the USA election is not run by the USA
government, it is run by private companies, including Amazon.
I wish they'd stop with the Hammer and Scorecard BS.
Unless they have proof, trying to suggest that the CIA swayed the election just makes
all the other more legitimate claims sound like more nonsense.
There are real issues already here, like crates of ballots being brought in and
opened in sealed rooms, observers being banned, voter count and patterns being way off
normal, ballots being found in garbage or burned, etc. Dozens of reports.
Why would they do all that other stuff when some CIA puke can fire up a program
that just alters the counts on the fly? Trump's people need to focus on the real
issues, trying to blame everything under the sun just makes them look exactly like the
sore losers the left is saying they are.
This really is about more than just Trump. If the media and Democrats aren't willing
to stand for fair elections, the rest of the country needs to see it and do something
about it.
CherokeeRose Not Woke Yet, But
I'm Hoping
Posted: 11/10/2020 1:43:19 AM EST Originally
Posted By IronBalaclava:
JUST IN(11/8/2020):
Absolutely excellent podcast with Lt Gen. Tom McInerney a couple days BEFORE the
election, regarding the use of Project Hammer's Scorecard application to
steal votes:
Keeping the DNC party about 3% ahead.
To be used in battle ground states such as: FL, WI, MI, GA, TX, PA, AZ
In this expedited upload edition of the Operation Freedom Radio Show [November 1
2020] Dr. Dave chats with Gen. Tom McInerney about recently discovered information
regarding voter fraud:
For those with short attention spans, it's only 23 minutes. Please listen in, copy,
paste and spread the word:
In February 2009, the Obama administration commandeered a powerful supercomputer system
known as THE HAMMER. THE HAMMER includes an exploit application known as SCORECARD that
is capable of hacking into elections and stealing the vote, according to CIA
contractor-turned-whistleblower Dennis Montgomery, who designed and built THE HAMMER.
THE WHISTLEBLOWER TAPES, confidential audio recordings released by U.S. DIstrict Judge
G. Murray Snow's courtroom in November 2015, revealed that SCORECARD was deployed by
the Obama team against Florida election computers to steal the 2012 presidential
election on behalf of President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.
SCORECARD is
now being activated to steal the vote on behalf of Joe Biden once again.
Biden utilized
THE HAMMER and SCORECARD while running for Vice President in 2012. Votes are again
being stolen on Joe Biden's behalf as he runs for President of the United States in
2020. This time, SCORECARD is stealing votes in Florida, Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania,
Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, and Arizona, according to Montgomery.
"THE HAMMER is the key to the coup" U.S. Navy Admiral James A. "Ace" Lyons (Ret.) proclaimed
to U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas Mclnerney (Ret.). Admiral Lyons, who led the
largest military command in the world as Commander of the U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet, spoke those
words to General Mclnerney one final time as General Mclnerney sat beside Admiral Lyon's
deathbed.
Dennis Montgomery designed and built THE HAMMER foreign surveillance supercomputer to keep
America safe after 9/11. Montgomery is a software designer and computer expert who worked as a
government contractor for the CIA, FBI, NSA, and Defense Department.
According to military sources, THE HAMMER was a powerful foreign surveillance tool intended
to monitor terrorists and other foreign adversaries.
On February 3, 2009, at the beginning of President Obama's first term, John Brennan and
James Clapper illegally commandeered the foreign surveillance tool known as THE HAMMER and
transformed it into a domestic surveillance system that went operational at a secret government
facility at Fort Washington, Maryland.
Montgomery became a whistleblower to expose Brennan and Clapper's illegal use of THE HAMMER
for domestic surveillance.
Brennan and Clapper illegally spied on Americans, including President Obama's political
enemies, using that domestic surveillance data for "blackmail" and "leverage," as disclosed in
"The Whistleblower Tapes" and by Montgomery.
Robert Mueller's FBI supplied the computers for THE HAMMER, according to The Whistleblower
Tapes and according to Montgomery.
Brennan and Clapper used THE HAMMER to spy on Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts,
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, 159 Article III
judges, FISA Court Presiding Judge Reggie Walton, members of Congress, Wall Street executives,
Rudy Giuliani, Lt. General Michael Flynn, Donald
Trump, Trump Tower, multiple Trump businesses, and members of the Trump family, according to
Montgomery. Montgomery asserted that Brennan
spied on Donald Trump because the CIA feared Trump. According to The Whistleblower Tapes,
Brennan and Clapper wiretapped Donald Trump "a
zillion times."
In an interview with his attorney Montgomery said, "There has been a wiretap on Trump for
years.
August 2015, FBI Director Comey took possession of 47 hard drives of illegal surveillance
from Dennis Montgomery under two limited immunity
agreements. According to Montgomery, the 47 hard drives proved Brennan and Clapper had Donald
Trump under illegal surveillance.
December 2015, after the FBI verified the 47 hard drives, Montgomery received greater
immunity. Montgomery provided testimony inside a
Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) at the FBI Washington DC Field Office while
under oath and being videotaped, for three and
one half hours, before Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis and FBI Special Agents Walter
Giardina and William Barnett.
March 4, 2017, President Trump on Twitter accused President Obama of wiretapping Trump
Tower.
March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks dumped CIA Vault 7 that confirmed the existence of THE HAMMER
(HAMR).
НАМR (pronounced hammer) - throwing framework for browser exploits
WildTurkey (n.) A animal of the avian variety that has not been domesticated. Also a
type of alcohol with a high proof (151). It get's you HAMR'D
WildTurkey is the name of the collection of iOS related plugins for the HAMR framework.
The project WildTurkey has a makefile that helps build all the related plugins and a HAMR
BEM and a FEM. The BEM is the Back End Manager and manages the creation of a FEL (Front End
Listener). The FEL will actually handle the exploitation process of a device. Build
everything by:
cd <ZOO_REPO_DIR>/wildturkey
make <clean> <all|sot|sol>
10.2.3.119 ( DNS name to be assigned...) is a Debian VM that has HAMR 1.3. Use that
server to build and run your fels, and remember to stop your fel when you are done to not
eat up ports.
To build a fel:
scp the plugins to the server
ssh into the server
make sure you have a plist (a sample exists on the share drive under
MDB/Temporary/test.plist)
If using the sample, make sure you change the URL key under
targets>global
Also if using the sample, the passphrase is moo
./bem build <plist path> <output name> <plugins>
where output name is the name of the fel (for example test.fel)
Now you can either run the fel through the bem and the fem via 4.b, or directly via
4.a
python test.fel # input the passphrase when prompted
see the hamr docs because I'm too lazy to look it up right meow
In order to build a FEL, you need to have a configuration plist. Until we build an easy
to configure plist here is a sample one:
There are several reports on Election night that five battleground states quit counting on
Election night. NewsMax pointed out the coincidence of it happening in those five states with
Democratic governors (except for Georgia) with Trump ahead before the "pauses." Wisconsin,
Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia and Nevada mysteriously quit counting after
midnight.
We reported on this late at night on election night!
00:56 01:30 TRENDING: EXCLUSIVE: Based on Reports By Auditors, IT Specialists, Data
Analysts, and Statisticians - The Number of Illegitimate Votes Identified In Four Swing States
Are Enough to Overturn Election
The liars at Far Left Politifact later came out and said the counting did not stop in these
states. As usual Politifact is only telling half the story. It's what they do. Fact-check that!
In Georgia and several states on election night the officials announced they would resume
counting in the morning. It was a head fake. In Fulton County Georgia elections officials told
the media and our observers that they were shutting down the tabulation center at State Farm
Arena at 10:30 p.m. on election night only to continue counting ballots in secret until 1:00
a.m.
In Michigan they dumped 138,000 votes for Biden in the middle of the night. Not one vote
went for Trump.
Wisconsin also dumped votes at 4 AM -- ALL FOR BIDEN.
In Pennsylvania Joe Biden received OVER ONE MILLION VOTES after election day -- over
ONE-THIRD of his totals!
This happened over and over again. Why? Why did this happen at 11 PM on Election night?
Democrats knew they were getting trounced. Who organized the call? Americans have a right to
know this.
@shylockcracy Solmeimani, he hasn't started any shooting wars. Sanctions are undeclared
wars, and Trump's sanctions help US corporations, most of which are globalist anyway. Same
shit different pile.
The last US Presidents who were mildly anti-Zionist were turfed out of office and
assassinated. All of the branches of the USG are (((occupied territory))) and have been for
decades, as was noted by George Wallace in the 1960s.
Trump's redeeming qualities are few and far between, but getting out of "free trade" deals
and reduced immigration, whether legal or illegal, are a big finger in the eye of the
globalists. Other than that, it appears as if he is the only one serious about cleaning up
vote fraud. If the Demicans are caught out, they will shut down the Republocrats fixing in
retaliation, until a new scam is figured out.
"... ...BIDEN, SPEAKING DURING SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: Within 100 days, I'm going to send to the United States Congress a pathway to citizenship for over 11 million undocumented people. And all of those so-called dreamers, those DACA kids, they're going to be immediately certified again to be able to stay in this country and put on a path to citizenship. ..."
This is a corporate takeover of the country. Joe Biden's transition advisers include
executives from Uber, Visa, Capital One, Airbnb, Amazon, the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation and the
nonprofit run by Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Are you surprised? No, you're not.
...According to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal, at least 40 members of the Biden
transition team announced earlier this week either were or are registered lobbyists. You won't
be shocked to learn that the government of China looks on at all this and is highly pleased. A
weak, divided America obsessed with narcissistic identity politics is good for them and very
different from them.
... Joe Biden has announced that as president he will not deport a single illegal alien from
this country in his first 100 days. It doesn't matter who they are, it doesn't matter what
they've done. It doesn't matter whether they were convicted of crimes such as rape and murder
or not. Literally, they can all stay here.
This is great news if you're Silicon Valley. The tech companies wanted this because they
rely on cheap labor. But for the rest of us, what's the upside exactly? By the way, if you live
anywhere along the U.S.-Mexico border, good luck to you. Also, don't bother locking your doors
or pining for a border wall or thinking that immigration restrictions might improve your
life.
...BIDEN, SPEAKING DURING SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: Within 100 days, I'm going to send
to the United States Congress a pathway to citizenship for over 11 million undocumented people.
And all of those so-called dreamers, those DACA kids, they're going to be immediately certified
again to be able to stay in this country and put on a path to citizenship.
"Methodological error? No. A deliberate information operation designed to discourage Trump
voters."
I think those fake polls are meant to add some plausible deniability to the election fraud
so that no reasonable person would question a result that conform exactly to what the polls
said we should expect.
Dominion software is used in 28 states. The are used in all Georgia 158 counties. "The
Dominion Voting Systems... was rejected three times by data communications experts from the Texas
Secretary of State and Attorney General's Office for failing to meet basic security
standards."
A quote from DESIGN FLAW IN DOMINION IMAGECAST EVOLUTION VOTING MACHINE ANDREW APPEL OCTOBER
16, 2018: ""The Dominion ImageCast Evolution looks like a pretty good voting machine, but it has
a serious design flaw: after you mark your ballot, after you review your ballot, the voting
machine can print more votes on it!." pretty good voting machine, but it has a serious design
flaw: after you mark your ballot, after you review your ballot, the voting machine can print more
votes on it!."
FLASHBACK: DR. ANDREW APPEL TESTIFIES TO CONGRESS ON THE POSSIBILITY OF VOTING MACHINES BEING
HACKED
Computer chicanery seems the likelier, more easily-provable election fraud to me,
especially to account for the huge Ballot Fairy drop of tens of thousands of Biden votes that
occurred in the wee hours of Nov. 4th, when counting had ostensibly halted in battleground
states. Now, some may argue that fraudulent votes couldn't be added randomly because they
would require corresponding registered voters, like a credit/debit function in accounting.
Well, any claims of this sort seem either naive or disingenuous to me as an IT person with
administrative access could assign votes erroneously, if not create numbers out of thin air.
Unless a thorough audit would ensue, who would be the wiser?
Besides, the fact that only Republican oversight was hindered at counting centers is a
HUGE red flag and should be telling. I'm trying to keep faith in AG Barr but it's
challenging. POTUS is the Ultimate Outsider and this alone puts him at odds with a
bi-partisan club of entitled, elitist antagonists.
Time and again throughout US history since the early 19th century, elections were stolen,
not won -- at the federal, state, and local levels. My own city of Chicago is notorious for dirty politics, rigged elections a longstanding
tradition, things controlled by the Dem machine. "Big Bill" Thompson was the city's last GOP mayor -- from 1927-1931. For nearly the past
90 years, Chicago's Dem machine controlled city politics.
Longtime University of Illinois Political Science Professor Dick Simpson explained that
Chicago's dirty politics "reputation is true." In 1931, Mayor Anton Cermak created the Dem machine, winning elections the old-fashioned way
by stealing them how it operated. Machine election rigging discouraged politicians from rival parties to run for mayor and
aldermanic offices. During his 1955 – 1976 tenure as mayor, Richard J. Daley fine-tuned machine politics
in the city. His son Richard M. was Chicago major from 1989 – 2011. Between them, father and son Daley ran the city for a near-half century. They in their time and Dems today are automatic winners when mayoral elections are held.
In the 1960 US presidential election, the Daley machine manufactured large numbers of votes
for JFK. According to Simpson, he would not have carried Illinois without Chicago shenanigans in his
favor. Electoral dirty tricks in Chicago included keeping deceased city residents on voter rolls,
even filling out voter registration cards with names from tombstones.
According to Simpson and former former political reporters, city residents were promised a
few dollars, a good meal, and drinks at a local pub if voted on election day for the "right"
candidates. Dem precinct captains notoriously filled in ballots for city residents, doing the same thing
for others who didn't show up to vote. Ward committeemen filled in ballots for nursing home residents who were unable to show up at
polling stations. Things today are different from Daley era politics but still suspect.
"Vote early and often" once said in the city is largely true today for legitimate
absentee-ballot early voting alone. The 2020 race for the White House one day will be remembered as one of the most flagrant
examples of US election rigging.
Pre-dawn Wednesday morning, six-digit vote dumps in Wisconsin and Michigan -- a 7-digit one
in Pennsylvania -- went 100% for Biden, erasing Trump's lead in these states. In the above ones, Georgia, Nevada, and likely others, votes from former state residents --
now deceased -- and others no longer residing in various states were counted for Biden over
Trump. So were un-postmarked mail-in ballots and others received after the voting deadline. Countless numbers of ballots in swing states that should have been tossed out were added to
the Biden count.
In at least Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, Dems controlled ballot counting, GOP
monitors prevented from watching it close-up for most of the process.
When significant leads for one candidate evaporate overnight, shenanigans are likely
responsible. That's precisely what happened for Biden over Trump in key swing states DJT likely won --
Dem state officials falsely claiming otherwise. According to the Federalist.com, "evidence (of) fraud (in key swing states) is rapidly
piling up," adding:
"(E)yewitness testimon(ies)" tell a tale of "falsif(ied) postmarks (or none at all) on late mail-in ballots. GOP election
observers were being harassed and kept away from the counting tables in Detroit. Software glitches have been discovered
switching votes from Trump to Joe Biden in Michigan, and the same software is being used in other battleground states
Near-90% turnout in Wisconsin raises automatic red flags.
Near-unanimity among establishment media for Biden over Trump throughout the campaign and
its aftermath -- notably calling it for the challenger on Saturday while vote-counting
continued -- begs the question.
Was the above planned well in advance -- establishment media in cahoots with Dems claiming
Biden won, drowning out alternative views?
On Thursday during Trump's post-election press conference, ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC cut away
from it in progress when he justifiably claimed election fraud in key swing states.Trump reportedly won't concede. He intends to challenge "voter fraud" through the judicial
process.
Nine Supreme Court justices will likely have final say, a repeat of Election 2000 in new
form. Banana republic USA is clear from Election 2020 alone. The notion refers to a repressive nation, an undemocratic one, at times politically
unstable. It's a country where a small percent of the population has a disproportionate share or
wealth and power. It's where ordinary people are exploited, not served. It's where profits are privatized, working households bearing the burden of debt.
It's a kleptocracy run by dark forces -- complicit with monied interests, benefitting at the
expense of most others. In the US, it's wrapped in the American flag, dominant media supporting what demands
exposure and denunciation. Elections when held are farcical. Powerful interests run things. Ordinary people have no
say. Election 2020 is one of many examples. Deep state interests alone decide things.
If they're for Biden/Harris over Trump, what seems likely, the incumbent will be a one-term
president. The process works the same way in all banana republics, including ones masquerading as
democracies -- notably the USA from inception to the present day.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] . He is a Research
Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for
Hegemony Risks WW III."
TUCKER CARLSON PROVIDES COMPLETE TOTAL PROOF OF WIDESPREAD DEMOCRAT VOTE FRAUD THAT STOLE
THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
Paul Craig Roberts
Tucker Carlson is the ONLY honest media figure in the United States. No wonder the
presstitutes want him arrested. I am concerned that the criminal Hillary DNC will have him
assassinated. You are simply not permitted to tell the truth in the United States. To tell the
truth in the American media is a capital offense.
This had to be posted on Parler because Twitter, FaceBook, and YouTube will not permit the
Fox News report on Vote Theft to be posted. What more evidence do you need that there is a
conspiracy to steal the presidential election from Trump? If the treasonous and criminal
Democrats get away with their coup against democracy, the United States is finished as a
country. No Trump voter will ever again think of the US as his/her country.
Former governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich believes there is an "unprecedented" amount of
voter fraud in this election cycle.
Blagojevich joined David Brody on Just the News AM to explain how the current presidential
election is as he says being "stolen." Blagojevich believes that there will be a "treasure
trove" of fraudulent ballots found at the end of the current investigations into voter
fraud.
Right now, there is an ongoing lawsuit in Michigan with city workers, and a former state
attorney general, swearing that they witnessed voter fraud at the polls.
Thank you, that
saker video is an astounding presentation and I would find it extremely hard to believe
the linear movement to be a mere artifact of counting. I will be interested to see the
continuing debate around this. Some equivalent data mapping needs to be shown for numerous
hand counted counties. I would like to see a refutation or even a second analysis.
The pattern of repetition by machine counting needs a much greater sample of comparison
with Hand counting.
Sixteen years before the 2020 presidential contest in America, the U.S. government decried
as corrupt an earlier election where special voting boxes were created to help citizens vote
from home, election observers were expelled from vote counts, pre-election polls were wildly
off, and voter turnout in certain communities exceeded 90%.
The 2004 presidential election in Ukraine saw suspiciously high turnout rates that "even
Stalinist North Korea would envy," the State Department declared in 2004 after an election in
the former Soviet republic infuriated the administration of President George W. Bush.
The famously and endemically corrupt Ukraine under then-Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych is,
of course, a far cry from the United States when it comes to election integrity. But the
story of that
Ukrainian election as recounted by then-Ambassador John Tefft to a Senate committee in
December 2004 raises a tantalizing question for conservatives distrustful of the Nov. 3
elections here: If tactics and outcomes in the Ukrainian election back then were enough to cry
foul, why can't Americans debate similar concerns here?
After all, a record number of Americans were allowed to vote from the comfort of their homes
in 2020, GOP election observers have claimed they were kept from observing vote counts,
pre-election and exit polls were wildly wrong when compared to actual vote, and there are some
city wards and precincts where voter turnout was, well, historically high.
But back in 2004, the U.S. State Department saw such turnout in any area of Ukraine as
preposterous.
"Turnout in the pro-Yanukovych eastern oblasts was unnaturally high," Tefft testified. "In
several electoral districts, turnout for the run-off round increased by 30 to 40 percent over
the first round. In Luhansk oblast, the reported turnout rate hit nearly 96 percent -- a number
that, to quote the OSCE, even Stalinist North Korea would envy. A similar turnout rate was
reported in Donetsk oblast, where 98 percent of the votes went to hometown candidate Prime
Minister Yanukovych."
State officials were also concerned by the high number of Ukrainians who were allowed to
cast absentee ballots into special boxes placed outside unmonitored locations, a phenomenon
that many communities enabled in America in 2020.
"In the second round of the election, the number of voters who supposedly cast ballots at
home using mobile ballot boxes was double that of the first round," Tefft told the senators.
"Much of this voting occurred without observers being present and was massively fraudulent. In
Mykolayiv oblast, for example, nearly 35 percent of the oblast's voters purportedly cast their
ballots at home."
One of the Bush administration's biggest complaints about the Ukraine election of 2004 was
that opposition party observers were expelled from ballot-counting locations or left unable to
meaningfully observe the count. Many Republican vote observers have made similar claims in
cities like Philadelphia in the recent U.S. election.
"Observers from Our Ukraine and other opposition groups were expelled from most polling
stations in eastern Ukraine on Election Day," Tefft recounted at the time. "For example, in
Territorial Election Commission (TEC) district number 42 in Donetsk oblast, Our Ukraine
observers were kicked out of all but a few polling stations."
Finally, State Department officials raised concerns that the final votes counted in Ukraine
were far different than the pre-election and exit polls, which had predicted a different
outcome than a Yanukovych victory. That too mirrors the Americans election, where President
Trump outperformed by a statistically significant margin nearly all the pre-election polls,
including one by ABC News and The Washington Post that showed him down 17 points in a Wisconsin
race he lost by just 20,000 votes, or less than 1%.
The 2004 Ukrainian election also featured some misconduct far beyond anything proven or even
alleged in the Nov. 3 election here, including allegations that election computers were hacked
to change vote totals and eyewitness accounts of election workers with their "pockets stuffed
with blank absentee ballots that they were using to vote at multiple polling stations."
Again, Ukraine ranks far below the U.S. when it comes to election integrity. But Tefft's
testimony nonetheless raises an important point: Should the greatest democracy of America share
any of the shamed attributes of a Ukrainian election? The answer for most Americans is probably
a resounding "No.
GREAT VIDEO describing how the electronic vote fraud works.
Shows two recent prime examples in TX in 2018 and KY in 2019. This guy is a patriot ....he
and his partners spent their own money and mountains of time tracking all this down and
putting it together. https://www.bitchute.com/video/dohtOkDixFsD/
It comes down to just one question; will the pigs, bulls and Pentacon "patriots" continue
to "serve their country" (i.e the Zero 1% war mongering predatory scum) by slaughtering
homegrown malcontents, deplorables and trumpites for the filth that owns USSA lock,stock and
barrel?
Anyone who expects the militarized state controlled goons to not crush the skulls of those
that contest and decry this election farce has not been paying attention to the same pigs and
bulls brutally enforcing the cov ID 1984 agenda on a global scale.
If USSA is up to the job of a worthwhile revolution with all the necessary eradication of
bolshevik garbage then the time is clearly at hand or will the "few good men" continue to
procrastinate until the minute before the corpofascist owned goons kick down their doors?
We arrived long ago but many are those that will never see that blatant fact.
Ah don't ya love the stench of a dead "democracy" ....in the morning!
Onward to the burnin'
We have arrived....
Stage 1: Financial collapse. Faith in "business as usual" is lost.
Stage 2: Commercial collapse. Faith that "the market shall provide" is lost.
Stage 3: Political collapse. Faith that "the government will take care of you" is
lost.
Stage 4: Social collapse. Faith that "your people will take care of you" is lost.
Stage 5: Cultural collapse. Faith in "the goodness of humanity" is lost.
you are right, most people do not understand the gravitas of current events and our forced
march towards totalitarianism. it IS time to shut this color revolution down. it's getting
out of hand and our entire culture and way of life is on life support.
crunch time...
Jim in MN , 5 hours ago
Seems like a minor troll problem around here.
NOW HEAR THIS
This complete collapse of the post-Election Day count is the DNC's fault. They got
over-excited by the 70 million actual American voters and panicked. YOUR GOONS BROKE IT. NOT
US.
So STFU and get to the sidelines if you can. You DO NOT want to be on the wrong side of
this now.
Just blame the right people.
The SAME people you should have dealt with after 2016.
Any questions???
Arch_Stanton , 3 hours ago
The problem for the Democrats is they were stunned on election night with the amount of
fraud that was needed.
The Trump lead was so large they had to hurriedly devise a Plan B.
So they stopped the counting until they manufactured hundreds of thousands of phony
votes.
This was where the large, sloppy, easily detected fraud came in
LickItUp , 5 hours ago
If I'm not mistaken, the Supreme Court can rule that a state's election was conducted so
improperly as to be invalid rendering that state a non-participant in the election such as to
leave neither candidate with the necessary majority of electoral votes. Then it goes to the
House for a vote where each state gets one vote based on the majority party in the state's
legislature. Presently there are 30 legislatures with republican majorities. SWEET!!!
It's like the Founding Fathers knew this day would come.
Jim in MN , 5 hours ago
Pretty much. In fact the Constitution gives the state legislatures the SOLE AND ABSOLUTE
AUTHORITY to send electors.
Now in general current practice is to have preset elector slates for each candidate,
triggered by the state certification.
But, and this actually has ZERO to do with courts, if the legislature decides for any
reason that they should change that process they can.
In this case, with a busted system thanks to DNC goons, ALL of these swing state
legislatures not only CAN, but MUST vote bills sending electors based on the Election Day
vote count.
Everything after midnight Election Day is BROKEN BEYOND REPAIR.
That is not a legal/court determination. It is a political determination.
WE THE PEOPLE along with the state legislatures can end this simply, and peacefully in
this way.
Jim in MN , 5 hours ago
DC is a distraction now and so is the Georgia Senate runoffs.
State capitols are all that matters now.
December 14, either legitimate electors vote the President back in based on Election Day
results, or it's over.
State legislatures need to ensure that illegitimate electors are NOT appointed.
And We The People need to ensure that the legislatures know that.
This Saturday in DC is great, but its main purpose should be to spread the word to hit
Harrisburg, Richmond, Lansing, Madison, Atlanta, Saint Paul and Raleigh.
Arch_Stanton , 4 hours ago
The onus is Democrats to show that votes are legitimate.
If they destroyed evidence related to ballots to hide fraud, those ballots will be
disallowed.
That's literally hundreds of thousands of ballots in several states.
If they violated procedure by denying Republican poll workers access, more ballots get
thrown out.
If a voting system can be shown to be insecure (hello, Dominion), those votes get thrown
out.
If votes get counted in violation of the state constitution (hello, PA), those votes get
thrown out.
If the state head of elections gives unconstitutional instructions to local election
officials (hello, WI), ballots get thrown out.
Duplicate ballots get thrown out.
Improperly signed ballots get thrown out.
Groups of votes that fail statistical analysis get adjusted.
Votes from dead people, from aliens (illegal or otherwise) or votes from out of state
residents who voted elsewhere get thrown out.
JackOliver4 , 5 hours ago
Someone on this thread mentioned Slobodan Milosevic - Milosevic was a hero who stood up
against the NATO backed terrorist group KLA ( always called a 'liberation' army when created
by the WEST) who went on their murderous rampage - fully backed by the Rothschild's army -
NATO !!
This is the powerful ***T Trump is up against - there is NO way Trump installed Pompeo OR
Bolton - they were 'installed' for him !!
Milosevic was 'suicided' while awaiting 'trial' at a holding cell in the HAGUE !!
Imagine his last moments ??
These people are **KING evil and have cost millions of innocent lives - the TIME to get
rid of this global cancer is NOW !!
There will never be another CHANCE !!
JackOliver4 , 5 hours ago
Someone on this thread mentioned Slobodan Milosevic - Milosevic was a hero who stood up
against the NATO backed terrorist group KLA ( always called a 'liberation' army when created
by the WEST) who went on their murderous rampage - fully backed by the Rothschild's army -
NATO !!
This is the powerful ***T Trump is up against - there is NO way Trump installed Pompeo OR
Bolton - they were 'installed' for him !!
Milosevic was 'suicided' while awaiting 'trial' at a holding cell in the HAGUE !!
Imagine his last moments ??
These people are **KING evil and have cost millions of innocent lives - the TIME to get
rid of this global cancer is NOW !!
he media mantra that there is no evidence of voter fraud in the Nov. 3 election for the
first time faces a real challenge. Several Michigan residents -- ranging from a city worker to
a former state assistant attorney general -- swear under penalty of perjury they witnessed
significant and widespread election tampering in the city of Detroit.
And by significant, they insist thousands of ballots were involved.
Take, for instance, longtime city of Detroit employee Jessy Jacob, who provided among the
most startling accounts.
Jacob stated in an affidavit she personally witnessed -- and in some cases was instructed --
to backdate thousands of absentee ballots the day after the election to make them appear legal
even though they were not in the Qualified Vote File and had not arrived by the deadline.
"On November 4, 2020, I was instructed to improperly pre-date the absentee ballots receive
date that were not in the QVF as if they had been received on or before November 3, 2020," she
testified. "I was told to alter the information in the QVF to falsely show that the absentee
ballots had been received in time to be valid. I estimate that this was done to thousands of
ballots."
Just the News reviewed more than a dozen affidavits filed in various election challenge
lawsuits in Michigan. All witnesses, like Jacob, signed the affidavits and had them notarized,
making them subject to Michigan's perjury law.
Jacob described how she was assigned to work the city's election back in September and for
weeks witnessed systemic election fraud and tampering with voters at multiple locations.
"I processed absentee ballot packages to be sent to voters while I worked at the election
headquarters in September 2020 along with 70-80 other poll workers," her affidavit stated. "I
was instructed by my supervisor to adjust the mailing date of these absentee ballot packages to
be dated earlier than they were actually sent. The supervisor was making announcements for all
workers to engage in this practice.
"I directly observed, on a daily basis, City of Detroit election workers and employees
coaching and trying to coach voters to vote for Joe Biden and the Democrat party. I witnessed
these workers and employees encouraging voters to do a straight Democrat ballot. I witnessed
these election workers and employees going over to the voting booths with voters in order to
watch them vote and coach them for whom to vote."
Officials for the city election clerk's office did not immediately return a call seeking
comment.
Alexandra Seely, a Michigan voter who worked as a GOP poll challenger, recounted in a
handwritten affidavit how her challenges to suspect ballots were summarily ignored and she was
"harassed and threatened" for raising concerns.
"I challenged 10 votes at table 23, they would not take out the log to record my
challenges," Seely's affidavit stated. "I had to write names and ballot numbers on my own. I
asked to make incident reports. They would not allow me, and said they will make a note in the
computer. They did not and proceeded to keep counting."
Zachary Larsen, a GOP lawyer who until earlier this year worked for the state of Michigan as
an assistant attorney general, swore in his affidavit he witnessed poll workers violating the
secrecy of ballots, apparently peeking to see whom a voter had supported before deciding
whether to put them in a pile of problematic ballots that might not count. A fellow poll
watcher joined him for part of the observations
"Beyond the legal requirements for maintaining ballot secrecy, both of us were concerned
that the violations of the secrecy of the ballot that we witnessed could be or were being used
to manipulate which ballots were placed in the 'problem ballots' box," his affidavit
alleged.
Larsen also stated he saw evidence the ballots were being approved for non-eligible
voters.
"I was concerned that this practice of assigning names and numbers indicated that a ballot
was being counted for a non-eligible voter who was not in either the poll book or the
supplemental poll book," his affidavit stated.
"From my observation of the computer screen, the voters were certainly not in the official
poll book," Larsen stated. "Moreover, this appeared to be the case for the majority of the
voters whose ballots I had personally observed being scanned."
Robert Cushman, another poll observer in Detroit, submitted an affidavit that described
behavior almost identical to that which the city worker Jacob said she engaged in. Cushman said
he saw large swaths of ballots being counted the day after the election for voters who were not
in the authorized list of names. In some cases, he added, fake birth dates were being used to
fill in birth dates.
"I challenged the authority and the authenticity of all of these ballots that were being
processed late with absolutely no accompanying documentation, no corresponding name in the QVF,
and no corresponding name in the Supplemental List," Cushman's affidavit stated.
"Every ballot was being fraudulently and manually entered into the Electronic Poll Book
(QVF), as having been born on January 1, 1900," Cushman continued. "This 'last' batch of
ballots was processed in the 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. time frame. When I asked about this
impossibility of each ballot having the same birthday occurring in 1900, I was told that was
the instruction that came down from the Wayne County Clerk's office."
The Washington Post and many other news organizations have published stories stating there
was no widespread voter fraud. Such stories ignore the sworn accounts of these Michigan
citizens -- some who were civil servants, some who were Republican poll watchers -- whose
accounts implicate thousands of ballots.
Apparently disregarding Facebook's public-facing image as a fierce opponent of election
meddling by entities not legitimately involved in the political process, Zuckerberg dived into
the fray during a Thursday company-wide town hall, according to an audio of the meeting first
obtained by
Buzzfeed and later confirmed by
CNBC .
"I believe the outcome of the election is now clear and Joe Biden is going to be our next
president," Zuckerberg reportedly told the assembled crowd. "It's important that people
have confidence that the election was fundamentally fair, and that goes for the tens of
millions of people that voted for Trump."
Dominion Voting Systems rebuked claims that the company has a financial relationship with the husband of Sen. Dianne Feinstein
and that the company manipulated the results of the 2020 election.
"The company has no
financial relationship with Mr. Blum ," Kay Stimson, Dominion's vice president of government affairs, told the Dispatch
. "This is a false claim spread on social media."
Trump legal adviser Sidney Powell said Democrats, including Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum, invested in the voting system company
to "steal" elections not only from Republicans but from other Democrats.
Fox News's Maria Bartiromo said that she had seen reports that Blum was a "significant shareholder" in Dominion and that a former
chief of staff for Nancy Pelosi is a "key executive."
"They have invested in it for their own reasons and are using it to commit this fraud to steal votes," Powell told Bartiromo during
an interview. "I think they've even stolen them from other Democrats in their own party, who should be outraged about this also."
Powell said that Democrats "had this all planned" and that they inserted ballots filled out only for apparent President-elect
Joe Biden when President Trump's vote tally went too high.
Apart from sworn affidavits, at least
one of which has been recanted , no evidence of widespread voter fraud has yet been found.
Claims of Democrats being involved in Dominion are misleading, the Dispatch reported. It confirmed that Nadeam Elshami,
Pelosi's former chief of staff, is a lobbyist for Dominion and reported that Bartiromo "fails to mention that a number of Republican
staffers are as well."
There is also no evidence to suggest that Blum ever had a financial stake in Dominion. At one point, Blum Capital Partners, a
firm chaired by Blum, held a 16.7% stake in Avid Technology, which viral posts alleged developed voting software that was used in
Michigan.
Those claims are also false, according to a spokesman who told the Dispatch that Avid produces software "to produce music,
movies, TV news, and shows," not voting software. The representative also said that Blum Capital Partners "has no holdings in Avid
today."
Avid is also not connected to Dominion.
The Washington Examiner reached out to Dominion for further comment.
"It appears Dems shot themselves in the foot because making everyone do mail-in ballots actually makes it easier to catch mail-in
ballot fraud. Because all of the ballots go through the postal system, they get shuffled like a deck of cards, so we expect reported
ballot return to be extremely UNIFORM in terms of D vs R ratio, but to drift slightly towards R over time because some of those
ballots travel farther. This pattern proves fraud and is a verifiable timestamp of when each fraudulent action occurred."
The President's lawyer, Sydney Powell, explains the massive, historical vote fraud that has occurred and predicts that Trump
will win the election in the end.
Including the Pelosi, Feinstein connection to Dominion software manipulation
"... Nunes, the panel's top Republican, repeatedly made that claim on Lou Dobbs' Fox Business program last month, while alleging that the "intelligence services in this country have been corrupted by the Democratic national party and their propaganda arm in the media." ..."
As President Donald Trump
and his allies continue to publicly dispute the outcome of the election, they are also quietly
seeking to discredit the Russia investigation that has cast a dark cloud over the
administration for more than four years.
Those concerns roared back this week in the wake of a flurry of personnel changes at the
National Security Agency -- and the Pentagon -- as Trump installed political loyalists in key
positions where they could help turn the tide in the behind-the-scenes battle over
declassifying documents, which has raged for weeks.
Trump believes the documents in question will undermine the intelligence community's
unanimous finding that Russia interfered in the 2016 race to help him win, by exposing
so-called "deep state" plots against his campaign and transition during the Obama
administration, according to multiple current and former officials.
But CIA and National Security Agency career officials have
strenuously objected to releasing certain information from the Russia interference
assessment, arguing that it would seriously damage sources and methods in a way that the
intelligence community doesn't believe can be easily repaired.
Both agencies have also cited concerns about cherry-picking information to release and the
politicization of their work as they fight against Ratcliffe's recent efforts to satisfy
Trump's promises to declassify thousands of pages of documents.
Multiple sources familiar with the classified materials have downplayed the significance of
these documents, telling CNN the administration won't make political hay by releasing them
despite the President's fixation.
While Ratcliffe and former acting DNI Richard Grenell have sought to declassify documents
related to the Russia probe and Hillary Clinton's emails, CIA Director Gina Haspel and National
Security Agency chief Gen. Paul Nakasone have fought those moves.
Behind the scenes, Haspel has defended the work of career officials who have come under
criticism from Trump and allies over 2016-era intelligence work behind the investigation of
Russian interference in the 2016 US election.
Haspel's job in jeopardy while Trump
elevates loyalists
The standoff has led the President to become increasingly frustrated with Haspel, in
particular, who he blames for delaying the release of these documents despite the fact that he
and Ratcliffe have the authority to declassify the additional intelligence at their own
discretion. At the end of the day, if Trump wanted these documents declassified, he could do it
himself.
A senior administration official and three former administration officials with knowledge of
the situation told CNN they expect the President to fire his CIA director, as he did Defense
Secretary Mark Esper .
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a
Kentucky Republican, have attempted to protect Haspel from Trump's wrath in recent days,
providing public displays of support for the CIA director amid speculation of her possible
ouster.
Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas voiced his support for Haspel in a tweet Tuesday,
saying: "Intelligence should not be partisan. Not about manipulation, it is about preserving
impartial, nonpartisan information necessary to inform policy makers and so the can protect the
US."
The post prompted immediate backlash from the President's son Donald Trump Jr, who called
Haspel a "trained liar."
"Have you or @marcorubio or @senatemajldr actually discussed this with anyone in the Admin.
who actually works with her, like @DNI_Ratcliffe or @MarkMeadows or @robertcobrien, to get
their perspective, or are you just taking a trained liar's word for it on everything?" he
tweeted, tagging McConnell and Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who serves as acting
chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
While Haspel's immediate future as CIA director remains uncertain, Trump moved several
political allies into new roles at the Pentagon and National Security Agency this week --
placing them in career positions, which come with civil service protections. They could also
have an immediate impact on the release of classified documents.
Michael Ellis,
an official on the National Security Council , shifted over to the National Security Agency
as legal counsel, which puts him in a civil servant role at an agency at the forefront of the
declassification dispute.
Ellis is widely considered to be a partisan Trump loyalist and has little intelligence
experience despite being elevated to the job of the White House's top national security lawyer
under the President.
He was part of several White House controversies, including overruling career officials over
classified information in the book written by former national security adviser John Bolton.
CNN has previously reported that Ellis came under scrutiny for his alleged roundabout role
in providing information to GOP Rep. Devin Nunes of California, then-chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee, which showed members of Trump's team were included in foreign
surveillance reports collected by US intelligence.
Another former Nunes aide, Kash Patel, will become chief of staff to acting Defense
Secretary Chris Miller, according to an administration official and a US defense official.
The House impeachment inquiry uncovered evidence connecting Patel to the diplomatic back
channel led by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, and the efforts to spread conspiracy theories
about Biden and coerce Ukraine into announcing an investigation of the former vice
president.
A third Trump loyalist with ties to Nunes, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was also elevated to a senior
role at the Pentagon this week.
Cohen-Watnick gained notoriety in
March 2017 for his alleged involvement with Ellis in providing intelligence materials to
Nunes, who went on to claim that US intelligence officials improperly surveilled Trump
associates.
In his new post as the Pentagon's acting under secretary for intelligence, Cohen-Watnick
could find himself at odds with Nakasone, a military officer, if he pushes for additional
classified materials to be released.
While it remains to be seen if Trump will ultimately fire Haspel, the elevation of officials
like Ellis and Patel has raised concerns that the President is clearing the way to release
documents despite previous objections from intelligence leaders.
"The motives of his recent moves at DoD and NSA remain unclear and are of course
speculative, although the partisan personnel he put in place certainly suggest that he is
stacking the deck, ultimately to win the fight over further declassification of intel related
to the 2016 Russian investigation," Marc Polymeropoulos, a former CIA officer who oversaw
operations in Europe and Russia before retiring last summer, told CNN.
"If he did the same at CIA, install a new hyper-partisan director who would agree to further
declassification efforts, it would not only expose and compromise highly classified sources and
methods, but also taint the agency in the eyes of our international partners. Simply put, that
puts America at great risk," he added.
House Republicans leading campaign to declassify
secret documents
Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee have also pushed the narrative that Haspel
is personally preventing certain documents from being released.
Nunes, the panel's top Republican, repeatedly made that claim on Lou Dobbs' Fox Business
program last month, while alleging that the "intelligence services in this country have been
corrupted by the Democratic national party and their propaganda arm in the media."
Some of the additional intelligence Nunes wants released comes from classified documents
based on a report compiled by Republicans on the committee he chaired in 2018, according to a
source familiar with the materials.
The House Republican report on the Russia investigation disputes the intelligence
community's finding that Russia was trying to help Trump in the 2016 campaign, raising issues
about the tradecraft behind the intelligence assessment.
The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee, however, confirmed the intelligence
community's assessment in its bipartisan investigation into Russia's 2016 election
interference.
Current and former officials have maintained that if there were something revelatory in the
documents that remain classified, it would have been included in either the unclassified House
or Senate reports and in a way that did not compromise sources and methods.
Yet House Republicans and Trump still believe the information in these secret documents will
help validate their criticism of the CIA and FBI's handling of the probe -- raising more
questions about whether this is just an attempt to cherry-pick intelligence.
Either way, the documents are so sensitive that they remain under lock and key at CIA
headquarters in Langley, according to a source familiar with the matter. House Republicans on
the Intelligence Committee stored the materials in a lockbox, which this source compared to a
gun safe. The lockbox was then placed in a CIA vault -- prompting some officials to
characterize it as a "turducken" or a "safe within a safe." The New York
Times first reported on the "turducken."
Republicans on the House panel have long accused the CIA of blocking access to the documents
and have encouraged Ratcliffe to declassify the materials despite objections by the CIA and the
the National Security Agency, multiple sources told CNN.
In a letter sent to the intelligence community's inspector general last month, Ratcliffe
said he has asked that the documents undergo a formal declassification review at the request of
Nunes but also has asked the watchdog to review whether the 2017 intelligence community
assessment on Russian interference "adhered to proper analytical tradecraft."
At the same time, Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security Committee have accused Haspel
of stonewalling their oversight efforts by refusing to produce CIA documents that were
requested as part of the panel's own review of the Russia probe.
There is claimed proof. (Examples below and part of McENanay's statement). OK, these will
now be followed through. So we will see if they are enough to cause any changes in the final
outcome.
In more news, Twitter censored 12 of trumps Tweets today.
The amount of newcomers trying, rather desperately, to decry anything about the voting
fraud that may have happened is a sign that a bit of "hot-under-the-collar-desperation is
setting in.
The "Intelligence" community is openly calling for a "coup" by VP Pence. They are in the
process of really panicking as many of the originators of Russiagate, Pizzagate would face
real prison terms if Trump wins. (Brennans statements to the Press) (I would love to add
"billsgate" but that would be off topic)
Quote; "We keep hearing the drumbeat of 'where is the evidence?' Right here, Sean, 234 pages of
sworn affidavits, these are real people, real allegations, signed with notaries," McEnany
said.
"They're alleging - this is one county, Wayne County, Michigan - they are saying that
there was a batch of ballots where 60 percent had the same signature," she told host Sean
Hannity.
"They're saying that 35 ballots had no voter record but they were counted anyway, that
50 ballots were run multiple times through a tabulation machine."
There is claimed proof. (Examples below and part of McENanay's statement). OK, these will
now be followed through. So we will see if they are enough to cause any changes in the final
outcome.
In more news, Twitter censored 12 of trumps Tweets today.
The amount of newcomers trying, rather desperately, to decry anything about the voting
fraud that may have happened is a sign that a bit of "hot-under-the-collar-desperation is
setting in.
The "Intelligence" community is openly calling for a "coup" by VP Pence. They are in the
process of really panicking as many of the originators of Russiagate, Pizzagate would face
real prison terms if Trump wins. (Brennans statements to the Press) (I would love to add
"billsgate" but that would be off topic)
Quote:
"We keep hearing the drumbeat of 'where is the evidence?' Right here, Sean, 234 pages
of sworn affidavits, these are real people, real allegations, signed with notaries,"
McEnany said.
"They're alleging - this is one county, Wayne County, Michigan - they are saying that
there was a batch of ballots where 60 percent had the same signature," she told host Sean
Hannity.
"They're saying that 35 ballots had no voter record but they were counted anyway,
that 50 ballots were run multiple times through a tabulation machine."
The Dem/ Main Stream Media Complex is infuriated that President Donald J. Trump will not
concede the 2020 election. This is a Sign of Contradiction that he is
doing the right thing. This does not yet mean that Trump won enough votes in key states, as
Tucker Carlson has noted, but we also can't say with confidence that Trump lost [ Tucker
Carlson Says There's Not Enough Fraud to Change Election Results, by Jacob
Jarvis, Newsweek, November 10, 2020]. And here appears to be solid evidence that there
was at least some wrongdoing -- far more so than for the Russia Hoax that paralyzed
Trump's Administration for three years. The same neoconservatives who are demanding Trump
concede would be insisting the U.S, invade another country to "bring democracy" if we saw its
government behaving this way. Ultimately, the entire battle is about who is sovereign in this
country -- American citizens or the Dem/ MSM complex, including Big Tech oligarchs. They
ensured it was not a "free and fair" election, and President Trump should never concede.
Let's consider the almost hysterical fury from the MSM telling us that President Trump has a
duty to admit defeat because Biden "won."
In fact, of course President Trump isn't doing anything illegal. No one has won or lost.
Senate Mitch McConnell may be afraid to defy Trump because he doesn't want to lose the two
Senate seats in
Georgia and thus, his status as Majority Leader. But he's absolutely right when he says
that the Electoral College determines the winner and, until that happens, "anyone who is
running for office can exhaust concerns" [ Mitch McConnell says Electoral College will determine 2020 election, by Lisa
Mascaro, Fox6 Milwaukee, November 10, 2020]. The Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore
that settled the 2000 election didn't come to an end until December 12, 2000.
Media outlets "declaring" the winner have no legal significance, especially when their
projections seem to be based on polls that have proven to be inaccurate [ Professional
pollsters blew it again in 2020. Why?b y Matthew Rozsa, Salon, November
4, 2020].
As of this writing, Arizona, Alaska, Pennsylvania, Georgia are all undecided. North Carolina
was just called for Trump
(and underwhelming Chamber of Commerce GOP senator Thom Tills managed to win a narrow victory
over Democratic challenger Cal Cunningham [ Cal
Cunningham concedes to Thom Tills in North Carolina Senate race, by Evie
Fordham, Fox News, November 10, 2020]). Joe Biden's lead in Arizona is narrow and
shrinking dangerously.
President Trump has a strong legal case in the key state of Pennsylvania, where it appears
that the state Supreme Court simply created a new power to count votes that arrived
after election day. The U.S. Supreme Court (without Amy Coney Barrett) deadlocked over
this, but the Trump campaign will almost certainly take this case to SCOTUS again [ Byron
York's Daily Memo: The election lawsuit Trump should win, by Byron York, Washington
Examiner, November 10, 2020]. As Senator Ted Cruz has said, there has thus far not been a
"comprehensive presentation of evidence" [ Ted Cruz: Trump Election Fraud Allegations Will Be Resolved In Court, Not By Persuading You
Or Me, by Tim Hains, RealClearPolitics, November 10, 2020]. Republican
leaders in Pennsylvania have already called for a recount "in any counties where state law was
broken" [ Senate Co-Sponsorship Memoranda, Pennsylvania State Senate, November 6,
2020].
However, there are more fundamental issues at stake. Thanks to the Sem/ MSM complex's
campaign of COVID-19 hysteria, the country engaged in a massive experiment with mail-in voting
[ Are We Sure About All Those Mail-in Ballots, by Josh Hammer, The American
Mind, November 10, 2020]. Different state requirements add to the confusion. There have
been specific claims of outright fraud, notably the inclusion of dead people on the voter
rolls, reports that local officials gave voters instructions that would invalidate their
ballots, and open theft of ballots [ On Electoral Fraud in
2020, by Pedro Gonzalez, American Greatness, November 9, 2020].
Critically, in several of the states where President Trump is launching legal challenges, the
common factor is a company called Dominion Voting Systems. In one proven case, a "glitch" in
its system awarded 6,000 votes to Joe Biden rather than President Trump [ Republicans expand probe into Dominion Voting Systems after Michigan counting snafu, by Zachary Halaschak and Emily Larsen, Washington Examiner, November 8, 2020].
One former Deputy Attorney General for Michigan says counters in Detroit outright provided
fraudulent ballots to non-voters [ Ex-Michigan Deputy Attorney General Alleges Detroit Counters Assigned Fraudulent Ballots To
Non-Voters, by Kyle Olson, Breitbart, November 9, 2020].
The truth or falsity of these claims must be shown in court. Of course, anti-Trump groups
are trying to prevent any legal challenges by individually targeting the law firm that
President Trump is using [ Inside the
Lincoln Project's new campaign targeting Trump's law firm, by Greg Sargent,
Washington Post, November 10, 2020]. No one seems to have considered that such a
strategy ensures that most Trump supporters will -- correctly -- consider a Biden
Administration utterly illegitimate.
Twitter and other social networking oligopolists are currently putting their thumb on the
scale by censoring posts or by claiming there are "election integrity" issues with posts they
dislike, even posts by President Trump himself [ Tucker Carlson: Big Tech Took Part in 'One of the Worst Forms of Election Tampering, by Mary Chastain, Legal Insurrection, November 10, 2020].
This control of information both before and after the election renders democracy pointless.
If Tech oligarchs can control what the voters see and hear, we might as well put them in charge
and dispense with Election Day altogether. It would be simpler and less time consuming than
going through a farce where both the exchange of information before an election and tabulating
of votes on Election Day itself are apparently too much for the world's sole superpower.
If this is the way the system works, then, as President Trump has been claiming for years,
it is "rigged" and illegitimate. If this is how it is going to be, whatever the Regime on the
Potomac says in future should be considered as foreign to the Historic American Nation as
governments based out of Brussels, Moscow, or Beijing.
Indeed, one can't help but wonder whether the historic American nation would fare better
under outright foreign occupation than a hostile elite which considers itself our rulers and
treats us with open contempt, if not hatred.
President Trump and outraged Republicans do have a card to play even if all the legal
challenges fail. State legislatures must certify a state's electors before the College can vote
for the next president. If state delegations believe the vote has been corrupted, they can send
their own competing slate of electors [ Donald
Trump's Stealthy Road to Victory, by Graham Allison, National Interest,
November 6, 2020].
President Trump also has powers that he can use to change the political environment,
especially by destroying hostile institutions and declassifying documents that the Deep State
really doesn't want to be made public [ Reflections on the late
election, by Curtis Yarvin, Gray Mirror, November 8, 2020].
If a rigged system is going to take President Trump down, he can take it down with him.
Arguably, if President Trump had the will to do something like that, he would not be in this
mess. He did not bring Big Tech to heel. He did not ensure that the bureaucracy was filled with
people loyal to him. He kept hiring people who were his enemies and then acted surprised when
he was rewarded with treachery. He governed like a conventional Republican while talking like a
nationalist, the worst of both worlds [ The Tragedy of Trump, by Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, November 16, 2018].
Nonetheless, with his back to the wall, Trump can and should fight. Even now, he has a
popular movement behind him -- all he needs to do is lead them against the System that they
thought they had defeated in 2016.
The reason I want to see Trump win is to see if anyone like Brennan or Comey end up in
jail. If not then it's proof this is all smoke and mirrors on behalf of the usual
suspects.
A new issue has turned up in Pennsylvania putting another 100,000+ ballots in line for
exclusion: (1)
Over 51,000 ballots were marked as returned just a day after they were sent out -- an
extraordinary speed, given U.S. Postal Service (USPS) delivery times, while nearly 35,000
were returned on the same day they were mailed out. Another more than 23,000 have a return
date earlier than the sent date. More than 9,000 have no sent date.
"Since October 1, the average time of delivery for First-Class Mail, including ballots,
was 2.5 days," USPS said in an Oct. 29 release.
Impossible and improbable return dates indicate there's something wrong with either the
database or the ballots.
Objective facts show that Trump won Pennsylvania.
-- Will the system work?
-- Or, will the Blue Coup cause the Constitution to collapse?
Why should he concede when he won the elections? In fact, Dem crazy policies and senile
half-dead nominee resulted in them losing votes. Apparently, they believed their own lies,
taking their own psyop "polls" at face value. Massive fraud needed to push their corpse ahead
was so crude and ham-handed because it was perpetrated in a hurry. If the fraud stands, the
US is kaput. If Trump succeeds in insisting on real results, the US would keep sliding down
slowly. Either way, the direction is down, the only difference is the speed.
@Verymuchalive US elections because you back both horses. It doesn't matter about where
the "Jewish" vote goes. It's not about ordinary Jews. It's the Zionist power structure and
the big money: Adelson for the Repubs, Saban for the Dems = both bases covered.
Even a not sufficiently Zionist like Bernie Sanders, who is Jewish himself, is blocked
because he's not subservient enough to be a minion and horror of horrors, supports a few
basic Palestinian human rights and a more balanced policy.
It's easy. They only have to cover 2 bases because there are no viable 3rd parties nor
will there ever be under this system, nor is it a direct vote anyway. There will be no change
as long as this duopoly persists.
I absolutely agree with this author's conclusion, the president should fight.
Absolutely, he won the elections. However, he thinks that the fight is for him, but in
reality it is for the American electoral system in particular and the whole political system
in general. If this obvious fraud is allowed to stand, the Empire is doomed. If true result
is recovered, the slide down would be slow.
If those clever wascally Ds so easily rigged the Prez race for Joey Depends, then why
didn't those same clever wascally Ds also rig a few more Senatorial races and capture the
Congress?
@nsa ad to manufacture hundreds of thousands in each swing state. Apparently, the supply
of the cheaters was insufficient, and dishonest poll workers were available only in several
places (hence the turnout in some places went way above 100%). Sloppy job. Next time they
might prepare better. Say, they had more time manufacturing all those mail-in ballots from
dead people (naturally, all dead people voted for half-corpse). If mail-in voting remains on
the books next time, I expect a lot stronger turnout among the dead.
A single frog is worth more than Joey Depends and Poor Widdle Donnie put together
Now, that is true, but the frog was not on the ballot. It could have won.
"... This whole thing has a chance of spiraling out of control across many levels. Anyone who believes the MSM narrative at this point needs cat scan of their brain. ..."
"... Finally, one more comment: over 71 million voted for Trump, many, if a not a majority, not out of undying love for the man, but out of conviction that he was the "lesser evil". They were presented with a partly demented, likely illegitimate candidate in Biden and a severely unattractive VP who failed to make a dent in the primary and withdrew early. ..."
There are several more steps and deadline in
the elaborate election process for the presidency.
Dec 8 - States determine their electors for the Electoral College.
Dec 14 - Electors meet in their states to cast their votes for the new President and
Vice President.
Dec 23 - Certificates of the electoral vote results get delivered to the president of
the Senate, who is Vice President Mike Pence
Jan 3 - Members of Congress are sworn in.
Jan 6 - Congress meets to count the electoral votes and declare the results.
Trump could, even without finding the necessary votes, (ab-)use the Electoral College
process to shift the result to his side. He can try to block or delay certifications in
certain states and/or he can push Republican state legislators to appoint Trump electors.
Then as now, each state must decide on a group of electors to meet with a joint session of
Congress on January 6 where the winner of the presidential election is declared. The normal
practice in a state where Biden won the popular-vote total would be for state election
officials to certify the results and send a slate of electors to Congress. But state
legislatures have the constitutional authority to conclude that the popular vote has been
corrupted and thus send a competing slate of electors on behalf of their state.
The 12th Amendment to the Constitution specifies that the "President of the Senate shall,
in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and
the votes shall then be counted." That means that in the case of disputes about competing
electoral slates, the President of the Senate -- Vice President Pence -- would appear to
have the ultimate authority to decide which to accept and which to reject. Pence would
choose Trump. Democrats would appeal to the Supreme Court.
Alternatively, if at that point, no candidate has the required 270 electoral votes, the
12th Amendment stipulates, "the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by
ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states,
the representation from each state having one vote." Currently, Republicans have a state
delegation majority with 26 of the 50 states and they appear almost certain to keep that
majority in the new Congress. A vote of the states would then elect President Trump for a
second term. And again, Democrats would appeal that outcome to the Supreme Court.
... ... ...
Meanwhile we all, as bystanders, will have to up our popcorn supplies to sustain the next
two month.
Posted by b on November 11, 2020 at 17:36 UTC | Permalink
he has a Constitutional challenge in Pennsylvania and a recount of the very close race in
Georgia. If he could manage to win in these two states (plus North Carolina where he has a
comfortable lead), Biden would have only 270 electoral votes and a single faithless elector
(selected by one of the Republican legislatures) could throw the race to the House of
Representatives where Trump would win. Such an outcome would avoid direct manipulation by
Trump/Trump Administration.
There have already been many predictions and opinions, some have come true, some have not.
My guess is that Biden's inauguration will take place, and it is entirely possible that Trump
will be present, thereby voluntarily agreeing to transfer power. A "civil war" between
supporters of Republicans and Democrats, too, most likely will not happen.
Either way, Biden is apparently the first American quasi-legitimate president.
Of course, there can be no question of the legality, transparency and democracy of the past
elections. The winner in such "elections" a priori does not have full legitimacy. Even
Lukashenko is more legitimate than Biden.
I agree. This is existential. If this fraud stands, elections are no more in the west. Not
that they have been meaningful the last 20 years, but the illusion is gone, and Biden's "Dark
Winter" follows. I am assuming that it is indeed the goal.
I am certainly more inclined to trust a hand recount done in searching light and
impartially supervised. In that sense I trust the system. Let's see what that brings. A
significant change, and there is a problem. Maybe then systematic.
It amazes me how otherwise critical thinkers will absolutely buy into this MSM bullshit of
"no evidence of widespread fraud" trumpeted in unison.
I have seen dozens of videos where actual fraud and criminal conduct was captured
unmistably.
The election fraud was done so blatantly and in-your-face that it is damn easy to track and
prove. Just look at this:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/breaking-exclusive-analysis-election-night-data-states-shows-millions-votes-either-switched-president-trump-biden-lost/
While some of this fraud may have been prepared well in advance, some of it can only be
explained by sheer panic on election night when the Dems noticed how strong Trump's lead
was.
What strikes me though is the fixation of commentators even in this forum that just to get
rid of Trump is worth literally any and all collateral. Even if it means shattering
credibility of the voting process itself - just don't investigate, don't prosecute, Orange
Man still BAD and to hell with the fact that half of the country - or more - will consider
Biden illegitimate. As if you haven't seen over four years just how toxic that situation is.
This is not about Trump, folks, this is about the foundation of democracy. This is about
whether our votes still have any meaning.
Nice explanation of the results of some diligent research, b.
ABC.net.au/PlanetAmerica pointed out a puzzling anomaly in the election stats in this
evening's episode, which Xymphora has also hilighted...
The contest for House and Senate seats favoured the Republicans over Dems whereas the
Presidential contest did not. So that's mildly peculiar.
I would like to quibble with one of your observations...
"There is only one person that could stop Trump from being successful with a 'dirty'
Electoral College strategy. That is of course he himself. Over the last four years he has
failed to select competent advisors."
In Trump's previous life as a property developer, he was a gifted talent-spotter, one
example being the woman he chose to project-manage the construction of Trump Tower and the
woman he appointed to oversee the sale/lease of the completed project. I never watched The
Apprentice so can't comment on the quality of the "winners" who emerged from that TV
spectacle, but I'd be surprise if they were mostly duds.
So I was always confident that President Trump's 'failures' in selecting advisors were
intentional, and certainly helped to breathe life into the Conspiracy Theory that the Swamp
is a collection of utter assholes which runs America from the shadows.
Have to give President Trump credit. With everyone lined up against him - Dems, media,
Deep State & half the Republican party - they still needed massive voter fraud to "win"
the election. So massive that it can't be covered up. Question is: will the justice system
want to find the fraud? Bill Barr is as Deep State as they come. With him leading the DOJ
investigation it seems likely he's be sure not to find anything. It seems the entire system
is so corrupt that President Trump doesn't have a chance.
What I'm curious about is why they would all support a corrupt, senile politician leading
a party with a history of rigging elections. Obviously they REALLY don't like Trump. Ironic
as all these lifetime DC types have as big an ego and are as selfish and amoral as the guy
they hate. A bigger factor would be the perception that Biden's win was inevitable. Thus they
all jumped on board as they need to be on the winning side to have any future in Washington.
I'm sure they were all patting themselves on the back last weekend for a job well done. That,
however, was the high point for the Fraudsters. From now on they are playing defence, trying
to protect what they think they've won.
Will it work? Like working the four corner offence, can they run out the clock and claim
victory? I doubt there is a Dean Smith amongst them with the intelligence to pull this off.
Instead we have a bunch of brown nosers who have gotten everything by kissing ass. They
supported the fraud to be on the winning side. What will they do if perceptions change and it
appears they aren't on the winning side? Like rats leaving a sinking ship?
This was a once in a lifetime thing, building this Coalition of Fraud and getting so many
selfish people to all support the same cause. Coalitions do not last forever. Selfish people
will opt for their selfish interest when the pressure is on. President Trump has many options
to turn that pressure on. Just seeing Rudy Giuliani in prime 9/11 form would have me hiding
under my bed. The most important advantage is that the election was stolen and the evidence
is there. Simply a question of who chooses to reveal it.
I can understand the behavior of the DC denizens. Why would average Americans, mostly
liberals, support such shenanigans? They've nothing to gain from it. How do they benefit from
helping the dirtiest political party in US history back into power? What's to be gained by
undermining their own democracy? Trump said something to hurt your feelings? Go ahead and cut
off your nose to spite your face.
Good advice from B, Popcorn stock is on the rise! I'm looking forward to the hysterics
from the MSM as their fraud unravels and they become more panicked.
@Posted by: Ernesto Che | Nov 11 2020 18:08 utc | 6
Not to mention, Che, the war he ignited in the Middle East by unilateraly, along
Netnayahu, declaring Israel capital in Jerusalem, plus the economic war on Lebanon and one of
its main politcla parties, Hezbollah. The wars on Hong Kong, Venezuela and Belarus which not
becuase of unsuccessfull are not wars...
Then, there are the multiple proxy and civil wars started, and developing, in the African
continent, like in Mozambique ( where 50 people were beheaded by IS in an stadium just
yesterday..) and also just yesterday already declared civil war in Ethiopia, between central
government and Tigray Region rebels...just coincidentally with the inauguration of a Russian
base in South Sudan...
Well, Trump as peacenik debunked at least for anyone not only reading MoA, The Saker, and
Voltairenet.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, on the selection of electors,
makes no mention of the popular vote. It does, however, give state legislatures the power to
determine how electors are to be chosen.
If enough of the public believes that the Dems are trying to steal the election and
nullify a Trump landslide they won't believe that turning over the choice of electors to
(elected) state legislatures amounts to saying that votes don't matter.
This an excellent analysis. The conclusion:
'It appears Dems shot themselves in the foot bc making everyone do mail-in ballots actually
makes it easier to catch mail-in ballot fraud.' 'This pattern proves fraud and is a
verifiable timestamp of when each fraudulent action occurred.'
Factual evidence: 'Trump Files Emergency Injunction In Michigan Alleging Fraud; Demands
Recounts Over 'Malfunctioning' Dominion Machines'
More than "more than one hundred credentialed election challengers" who have provided
"sworn affidavits". I don't think that these people would provide sworn affidavits to the
court without being truthful. This is from just one legal action.
Then of course there is the circumstantial evidence. The Dems have been telegraphing the
whole scenario for months in order to prepare the sheeple for just such an outcome.
The Democrats tried a faithless elector strategy after Trump won and before he took
office. They went after Trump electors in 2016 like they plan to go after Trump supporters
post Trump.
We will know in December how this plays out. Most likely Trump loses but there are some
valid complaints yet to be settled.
This whole thing has a chance of spiraling out of control across many levels. Anyone
who believes the MSM narrative at this point needs cat scan of their brain.
Regarding Trump being able to reverse the preliminary election results: I doubt it.
Unlike 2016, when there was a degree of panic within the Republican party still fresh off
the internal struggle of the Tea Party, Republicans are set up do do well enough for the next
2-4 years without Trump (or at least that seems to be the view that's expressed in
public).
On the other hand, I'd expect Republicans are willing to go pretty far to contest the GA
election results, for the possibility of taking back one of the two Senate seats, and thus
formal control of the Senate (ability to set agenda). Republicans will have a de-facto voting
majority either way because of the DINO Joe Manchin.
Nah the Supreme Court is incapable of that task. If the issues are critical and so earth
shattering they can simply pass the entire steaming pot of turds back to the legislature and
suggest rerun of election or draw straws in a combined sitting of the Senate and Congress.
THAT is the measure of the rot in the USA.
...Also, I have the links both to the two first rate Election integrity studies from 2016
(these are really the gold standard now for how elections can be stolen and rigged when the
will is there and the means are secured, while the cover-up is sustained by enormous lust for
power). I also have somewhere an excellent link to the sordid history of ES&S (though it
can be found through Google with some effort). Yes, I am lazy but can be rattled from
it......if needed.
Finally, one more comment: over 71 million voted for Trump, many, if a not a majority,
not out of undying love for the man, but out of conviction that he was the "lesser evil".
They were presented with a partly demented, likely illegitimate candidate in Biden and a
severely unattractive VP who failed to make a dent in the primary and withdrew early.
These people, these 71+ M (some of whom may even be progressives, as I hinted above) will NOT
accept the greater evil which will include even more heavy-handed censorship than we have
seen so far. They - and I (however I voted) fear an Orwellian future for this country,
complete with suppression of free speech (yes, it can be suppressed even more than it is
already).
The majority of these voters will NOT accept a verdict that they believe is illegitimate,
whether trump's lawyers can come up with a clever ploy or not. They WILL regard a dem
administration as illegitimate and they WILL resist, if passively at first.
A country requires at least some good will among a majority of its citizens to hold
together. IF much of that good will is withdrawn, the center will not hold and we'll be
seeing some truly hostile actions and reactions that will prove "we are NOT in this
together".
Perhaps some of you look forward to the decline of the Empire through domestic strife (I
kind of do). Yet, we should always remember that no Empire went down quietly without first
inflicting countless damage on its own as well as those out there. It is simply not a pretty
sight, and that is something to dread.
Top analysis prize:- perfectly stated. Putin is off the hook and Xi can breath a sigh of
relief.
This USAi performance is downhill all the way. We all need a drink or a joint - f*k the
popcorn.
@Glen Batterham #61
Indeed.
2016+4: Russia rigged the election !!!
2020 : Elections can't be rigged !!!
If the Supreme Court decides no Electoral College vote is reliable, they don't have to
order a new election. They can just follow the Constitution and turn the choice of the new
president to the House of Representatives and of the new vice president to the Senate.
There is claimed proof. (Examples below and part of McENanay's statement). OK, these will
now be followed through. So we will see if they are enough to cause any changes in the final
outcome.
In more news, Twitter censored 12 of trumps Tweets today.
The amount of newcomers trying, rather desperately, to decry anything about the voting
fraud that may have happened is a sign that a bit of "hot-under-the-collar-desperation is
setting in.
The "Intelligence" community is openly calling for a "coup" by VP Pence. They are in the
process of really panicking as many of the originators of Russiagate, Pizzagate would face
real prison terms if Trump wins. (Brennans statements to the Press) (I would love to add
"billsgate" but that would be off topic)
Quote; "We keep hearing the drumbeat of 'where is the evidence?' Right here, Sean, 234 pages of
sworn affidavits, these are real people, real allegations, signed with notaries," McEnany
said.
"They're alleging - this is one county, Wayne County, Michigan - they are saying that
there was a batch of ballots where 60 percent had the same signature," she told host Sean
Hannity.
"They're saying that 35 ballots had no voter record but they were counted anyway, that
50 ballots were run multiple times through a tabulation machine."
It is clear that all US elections are just chicanery and attorneys. Their criticism of
Crimea, Belarus, Venezuela and others will now disappear down the plughole. They have no
authority to lecture anyone on democracy.
The presidential
election was on Tuesday and we still don't know the outcome. If you followed the Florida
recount 20 years ago, you probably assume you've got some idea of how this will play out.
Officials in contested states will carefully count all the available votes, supervised by
bipartisan observers from both campaigns, to reassure all of us it's on the level. If they find
irregularities or they see questions of fraud, we'll all get to learn exactly what those
allegations are and how they were resolved. That's what we did in 2000. Remember hanging chads?
We put them on TV so people could see the ballots for themselves.
In the end, the dispute between Al Gore and George W. Bush continued all the way to the
Supreme Court. It took 36 days to resolve and every one of those days, if you remember them,
seemed like a month. That process was excruciating, it required patience and calm, but in the
end, it was well worth it.
For the record, the news organizations in this country covered every moment of it. No one in
any newsroom in America even considered censoring information about what was happening. That
would have been regarded as grotesque and immoral. Then, as now, almost everyone in the media
was a partisan Democrat. But in 2000, they understood that preserving the public's faith in the
system was more important than getting Al Gore or anyone else into the White House. So they
pushed for openness and transparency in the process, and thank God they did.
A lot has changed over two decades. It's entirely possible now that someday soon the news
media will decide to shut this election down. Believe it or not, they effectively have the
power to do that. Let's say officials in Philadelphia produce a large number of newly counted
votes. The Pennsylvania secretary of state hastily ratifies them, puts a seal of approval on
them and then declares Joe Biden the winner.
Winning Pennsylvania would put Joe Biden over the threshold of 270 electoral votes, so Joe
Biden is now the president-elect. But how many of the 69 million Americans who voted for Donald
Trump this week would believe that and accept it at this point? Not very many. Not that anyone
cares, and of course, the fact that no one cares is the reason they voted for Donald Trump in
the first place.
Trump did not lose, he was cheated out of a second term by the democrats.
This is the most enlightening video I've seen over the past week. A PHD from MIT
(Dr.Shiva) explains why the voting pattern in Michigan is an algorithm set to take votes away
from Trump and give them to Biden. Dr. Shiva shows charts by counties that clearly reveals
corruption and how the software was programmed so it would be impossible for Trump to win. If
this video already hasn't been sent to Rudy and the Trump team, it needs to be. here is the
link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztu5Y5obWPk
If you don't have time to watch the whole video, start it at 31:07 and you'll see the
charts that show how Trump was cheated.
LVrunner , 1 hour ago
Excellent video, watched it last night. I knew when everything came to a complete halt in
AZ then the east coast, it had to be computer generated. This video proved just that. Also,
fb is trying to sensor it so that's the answer right there.
Sebastion , 1 hour ago
Oh boy you have charts!
Bay of Pigs , 1 hour ago
It's called real data.
Are you really this stupid or just a ****bag troll? Both?
Whistleblowers and tipsters should turn over their evidence to local law enforcement. Anyone
who provides information that leads to an arrest and final conviction of voter fraud will be
paid a minimum of $25,000," Patrick said in the press release.
The those who have short time available, roll to :25 minutes if you have some
understanding that within the software used in 30 states and Michigan in particular there is
a weighty system to alter vote totals.
This is demonstrated by the analysis.
Irrefutable evidence seems to be the result of this presentation.
Hopefully, the court challenge uses this analysis
Best of all, consume the entire video. Then you will have the education to understand the
fraud perpetrated.
I watched this earlier today. As soon as I saw the tilted scatter graph, it became
absolutely obvious that something was skewing the results into a biased direction. I didn't
need the orange lines to see it.
Basically it's a feedback loop that ensures that as the republican vote gets higher, the
Biden vote gets an increased proportion of the Trump vote.
This would surely explain the questions that people raise about why the Senate and Congress
votes aren't following the Presidential vote trend.
I haven't researched it further, but I feel that the nature of a feedback loop is also partly
responsible for results being so close.
This was one fantastic presentation; not only did the MIT professor an excellent job
making semi-arcane concepts accessible to the wider audience, but he also presented
irrefutable evidence that fraud was conducted on an industrial scale in cahoots with the
companies making the ballot machines and the global finance oligarchs.
I totally agree with Larchmonter, this is a must see, on so many levels!
Yes, after seeing this you have to ask: How far does is the fraud go? I don't have proof,
but this stuff has most likely been happening in lots of places, so the numbers could be
anything, even more than a million. You get the clear impression that it is systemic, the
fraud is built into the system and tuned so that the outcome would be a narrow win for Biden
no matter what. I will never trust a narrow victory in an election again.
The presentation was excellent indeed.
When we saw the demented Biden in front of nobody but empty cars, we are supposed to
believe he won the majority? The guy who says he organised the largest voter fraud in the US
history? The guy who sat in his basement? The guy who wears a black mask like a criminal? The
guy who's son provided him with illegal money from Ukraine? The guy who threatened the
Ukrainian president to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor for investigating his corrupt son, and
then bragging about it in front of cameras? It goes on and on.
I don't like Trump, I condemn his murder of Soleimani and crimes against Iran, Syria,
Yemen. But this is not about Trump, it is all about whether there will ever be elections
again.
"I don't like Trump, I condemn his murder of Soleimani and crimes against Iran, Syria,
Yemen. But this is not about Trump, it is all about whether there will ever be elections
again."
Amen.
Because I say things sort of like this, family members won't talk to me!!
I guess I'll have Thanksgiving by myself (sob!) ((:-))
"I don't like Trump, I condemn his murder of Soleimani and crimes against Iran, Syria,
Yemen. But this is not about Trump, it is all about whether there will ever be elections
again."
Amen.
Because I say things sort of like this, family members won't talk to me!!
I guess I'll have Thanksgiving by myself (sob!) ((:-))
BTW. was unable to watch the video myself. I got this message:
"An error occurred. Please try again later. (Playback ID: ifMdcKbpCAEFAPjm)
Learn More
This is clearly far more compelling evidence than any talk of dead voters or observers
being denied access.
It makes me wonder if both parties are colluding and we're actually watching a
choreographed dance / a divide and conquer operation designed to run and run.
Perhaps I'm just too suspicious, but if this irrefutable evidence is ignored / goes
nowhere and instead there's a continuing pantomime about dead voters, then there is clearly
no intention to uncover the truth.
Pay attention to the 1 minute 19 second mark, which shows how a voter's choice is
translated to a candidate.
The video suggests each machine has a master table that lists all the candidates on the
ballot associated with the intersection of the two coordinates on the ballot that translates
to a candidate's matching number. The machine then tallies the vote based upon the matching
number.
This tells me at some point prior to election night, the hundreds of electronic voting
machines have their master table updated with all the candidates and the location of their
name on the ballot identified by the intersecting coordinate matching process.
In my opinion, this design lends itself to software fraud and here is why.
For example, if the machine knows that 091511 corresponds to Donald Trump's name on the
ballot, it could have a malicious algorithm that examines the trend of the votes tallied and
reassign a portion of the tally to another candidate's number. It it a technological form of
ballot stuffing.
The software must be re-designed to eliminate the master table and only tally the count of
the intersecting coordinate on the ballot. At the end of the election day, the counts for
each of the intersecting coordinates on the ballot are electronically uploaded to a central
server that matches the candidate's name on the ballot.
That means the position of a candidate's name on a ballot must be kept confidential until
they are handed out on election day to the voters and no software upgrades for the voting
machines must be allowed.
The potential for fraud at the central server does exist but an audit of all the polling
place results should catch that during a recount.
This work graphically exposing the fraud is excellent and very educative.
Each passing day, I see a new analysis exposing statistical incoherence in swing states
results.
I hope Sydney Powell & Co have the team and the time to prepare all this for use in
court.
I was also happy to learn about a Rockefeller sponsored non profit organization dedicated
to elections (fraud). Does that mean Trump was the chosen one in 2016? I still doubt it, I
think they miscalculated.
I think Tucker Carlson is wrong. I believe there are enough fraudulent votes to
change the result -- if the recount is done honestly. WI, MI, GA, PA could all flip, even AZ
and NV. The DNC is run by End Justifies Means people who believe everything they do is
justified due to Holocaust, Slavery, yada yada.
MSM is working hard to try to make this a foregone conclusion. Each day we hear about
Biden this Biden that, Biden's Transition Team, Biden's New Cabinet, Biden's Foreign Policy,
Biden's Trade policy Instead of feeling discouraged, I hope this actually gets Trump and his
lawyers fired up to push for recounts. He just filed a new lawsuit in MI. There is no reason
why the recounts have not started in WI, GA and PA. It's total BS. The longer this drags on,
the harder it'll be to overturn the results. They need to press on.
Going forward the GOP needs to push hard for a Voting Integrity Act that mandates all
voter registration must be approved by social security office to verify citizenship status. I
suspect a high number of voters esp. in blue states like CA and WA are non-citizens, from
tens of thousands to millions, since the DMV asks everyone to register to vote and never
check their citizenship status. In WA the ballot used to ask people to confirm they are US
citizens before signing the ballot with indication of fines/jail time for non-citizens who
vote, but they've removed that warning entirely in all ballots since 2016.
The Voting Integrity Act should include a mass audit of the voter registration in every
state, with a national database that detects people who are registered to vote in more than
one state. Even if Trump doesn't prevail due to mass cheating in the recounts, the GOP needs
to put this Voting Integrity Act in place or they will never win another election.
Legacy media are lying when they claim that all of President Trump's allegations of voter
fraud are baseless. I know, because I argued a case on the president's behalf in federal court
in Philadelphia.
At issue was President Trump's request for an order changing the way Pennsylvania absentee
and mail-in ballots are being reviewed at the Philadelphia Convention Center. CNN and others
claim he "lost." That's false: he won. As I made that argument on behalf of the president's
campaign, I can tell you what really happened.
President Trump went to court about two problems: First, only a handful of Republican
observers -- substantially fewer than the Democrats had there -- were being admitted to the
room at the Philadelphia Convention Center where inspections were being conducted. Second, the
few who could get in weren't permitted to get close enough to see what was actually happening.
The most important questions all have to ask are: Why all the hiding? What's being hidden?
At the Convention Center counting location, I personally observed dozens of Trump
campaign volunteers being barred from the counting room even though they'd been properly
registered as observers. That's why I urged Pam Bondi and Corey Lewandowski, who were on the
scene, to authorize the filing of a request that a federal court order the Board of Elections
to stop this nonsense.
More hiding: despite a binding order of the state's Commonwealth Court, the handful of
Republican observers who could get into the room weren't being allowed up to the barrier set at
six feet from the closest tables where work was being done. So even though they were in the
room where it was happening, they had no way to tell what was happening. If there's no
fraud, why is the Democrat-controlled Board of Elections unwilling to let people get close
enough to actually see what its people are doing?
So on a borrowed laptop at around 2 p.m. on election day, I typed up a very short document
to start a federal lawsuit and to request that the federal court intervene to prohibit these
unfair practices. At about 4:30 p.m., its filing was authorized by the campaign.
The federal judge ordered a hearing that began at 5:30 p.m. and went for two hours. In open
court, the judge compelled the Board of Elections to agree that the Republicans could have up
to 60 representatives in the room. That was a huge victory, not only for Republicans but for
anyone who actually wants to have a vote tabulation worthy of belief.
He also compelled the board to agree that all observers, Democrat or Republican, could get
up to the six-foot barrier. While the Democrats claimed that of course, of course, they
had always been letting people in and letting them up to the barrier, I had a long list of
witnesses who were prepared to testify that this was false. The judge told the defendants
pointedly that if they didn't do what they'd promised in his courtroom they would, he had
plenty of authority to make them keep their word.
Having secured this agreement from the Board of Elections, the court dismissed the
president's motion for court-ordered relief as moot. Courts often do that when they secure an
agreement between the parties. It means the court doesn't have to issue an order, which would
be appealable, granting or denying the motion, and it means the court doesn't have to write an
opinion. What it doesn't mean is that the request made on behalf of President Trump to
stop the election fraud was moot, despite the false spin CNN and other mainstream media put on
it. All of this was a victory for President Trump and anyone else who believes in open
government.
I'm no longer surprised by anti-Trump non-news coming from the likes of CNN. But I cannot
imagine why Pennsylvania Republican leaders have suggested there's no reason to think that
anything wrong or fraudulent is going on in the counting of Pennsylvania's votes.
If that were true, why in the world would the Democratic-controlled city government be
working so hard to keep Republicans out of the room where those votes are being counted? In a
world where every car that drives down the street is on video, why isn't all of this counting
being conducted in broad daylight, under watchful eyes? What do they have to hide?
Other people have gathered substantial evidence that there are indeed things to hide,
including this video showing,
among other things, footage of government officials wearing Joe Biden facemasks filling in
blanks in already-submitted mail-in votes. The hearing I attended wasn't about that, but it was
about the conditions that make that possible.
No one who wants a legitimate vote count should be working to keep observers out of the room
where the votes are counted. Yet for some reason the City of Philadelphia sent three lawyers,
including the city solicitor himself, to a hearing to try to persuade a federal judge that he
shouldn't even bother addressing President Trump's request.
Fortunately, the federal judge didn't take that advice, and he forced the Board of Elections
to do the right thing. I call that a solid victory for everyone -- except for those with
something to hide. For some reason, all of this hiding was being done by Democrats, for Biden.
Jerome M. Marcus is an attorney in private practice in Philadelphia
There is strong indication of widespread systemic fraud. Those who say otherwise are
speaking against their own knowledge. If you are so sure about the opposite, all you have to
do is investigate the main allegations and prove you are right, but not just dismiss it.
An important analysis showing systemic fraud
MIT PhD Analysis of Michigan Votes Reveals Unfortunate Truth of U.S. Voting Systems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztu5Y5obWPk
Computers only do what they are programmed to do. There is no such thing as a "glitch"! Code is code and it is in-putted by
a human.
It is fraud, plain and simple...
jammyjo , 38 minutes ago
Working as designed too. Must have been some H1-Bs coding to spec. Otherwise, they would have taken into account the effect
of coattails in presidential elections. Oh well, they'll fix that in Dominion 2.0.
We all know the CIA and the technocracy are behind the entire election fraud in the first place, Pelosi and Pals and their
Dominion Counting Software. Its disgusting, the entire world is disgusted.
You vote in person with an ID. Exemtions given to the disabled and those who are 67 and older. Continue to control elections
at the state level in keeping with the constitution. Set a national database that all votes can be verified through social security
numbers. Federal law mandating all counties report deaths to the registry so they can be removed from the database. Idk but the
current system is garbage. If you want a fare election regardless of political affiliation something would have happened along
time ago. And yes there has been fraud. I'm not saying a Democrat rep. contacted every election official. I'm saying these individuals
overseeing these counts had the mentality of "by any means necessary". Why? Because orange man evil, so they feel it's justifiable.
Such an irony: The Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence were signed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
And today the state of Pennsylvania just desecrated our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. What a shame.
Having been a computer programmer, I've never understood why everyone just went along with trusting the voting machines to
be accurate...to have not been purposely compromised by the left.
Why is this CRITICAL ?? Because the last UN-RIGGED election Turkey had was in 2000. After 2002 every election was rigged like
this one. GAME OVER and one party rule !
As a result of the 2002 HAVA Act, most counties don't run elections anymore. Private Co/s with Private Shareholders under contract
to counties run our elections. And these companies do it with virtually NO Transparency or Supervision.
The entire election system infrastructure is a complex patchwork of various private companies doing various parts of it. ALL of
it is exposed to the internet, the idea of it being air-gapped is a myth. The voting companies own manuals show this. Some of these
companies conduct elections all over the world, effectively being in a position to control some of the outcomes
Some of the companies are foreign owned with servers outside this country, and they are the last ones to actually control the
so-called "unofficial" votes. BUT, it is the "Unofficial" votes that eventually control "Official" votes.
There are no security standards, similar to NIST, for election software. Hence any certifications are largely just agreed on an
ad hoc basis between the certifying company and the election company and therefore don't mean much.
Most State SoS offices fail to grasp the extent and vulnerabilities within their systems, and so they grant waiver to their State
law and voting code to counties and election companies that exacerbate the problem.
Our investigation revealed at least a dozen or more entry points where votes can and are being switched and the audit trails changed
or erased so that a forensic investigation finds no trace. It has to be caught in real time. Even the operator of the election system
can change votes undetected.
As an attorney and forensic technologist, the DB reset is what triggered me to watch the whole thing - This is amazing. Why
do we never hear more of these things???????? DB reset totally cuts the chain of custody and invalidates the whole election. INSANE
- and that's just at 10 minutes in!!!!!
According to the US Constitution the election was scheduled for the 1st Tuesday after the 1st Monday in November. Nothing else
matters (fraud, counting votes next day etc..) Election ended that day. Federal Law over-rules all these illegal state laws. TRUMP
won constitutionally. Time to go to Supreme Court of the United States
Also, Mayor Giuliani has claimed mamy Cases of Fraud and is Filing Lawsuits as Trump's
Lawyer.
Also, Tucker Carlson has also claimed that his Team have verified a good number of
Reported Incidents.
Statistical Analyses Claimants are coming forward as well.
Those who claim that there were none or not enough - including you, B - need to read
around a bit more and wait before making presumptive assessments when we don't have All the
Claim Cases, related Data, and Votes Affected.
Personally, I've seen enough to believe this Election is Compromised. Dominion are
allegedly vested by the Pelosis (which alone raise a few Red Flags for a RICO
Investigation).
It may be Prudent to Not only Hold Audits; but Redo the Federal Election Seats (WH and
Congress) again with Federal Ballots Monitored by Federal Personnel.
Biden should have been sent to Bethesda/Walter Reed/Hopkins for an Alzheimer's/Dementia
Review Panel (put my Own Mother through the Drill every several years prior to her going to
her Nursing Home); and Hunter should have been Arrested for Crack/Child Molestation while
being further investigated for MoneyLaundering/RICO with Pops.
Giuliani is Confident Here As Well. One thing for Certain, B, is that Giuliani has an
Outstanding Reputation as a Federal Prosecutor; and Does. Not. Bπ££$#!+.
Around. When it comes to Criminal Cases.
I'll rely on Giuliani's Assessments more than anyone else's on this Matter.
@anon also sat on Hunter Biden's laptop and did nothing.
Trump should fight this travesty of an election but it's hard to see how he can prevail
when most of the government and all of the Jmedia have always been against him.
I feel bad for Trump but I feel even worse for our country. If the deep state can use
"Hammer" and "Scorecard" to alter elections, then trust in the election process is over.
Barr has done nothing about the ongoing criminality of the left so it's not likely that he
will actually do anything about the fraudulent election. Barr will oversee the recounts and
claim that everything is kosher and he will follow the Jmedia narrative.
In 1975, the Church Committee hearings exposed the illegal CIA MKULTRA program and
formally illegalized it.
Transferring the same program to EO12333 and to DARPA is equally illegal and is a
confession of high crimes and is in total violation of the Supreme Law Of The Land, The
Constitution sworn to be upheld under oath and affirmation by every president and person in
the military, which also makes them guilty of Treason.
It was not the fact that it was the CIA that was doing it that made it illegal. It was
illegal in and of itself for the barbaric nature of it being a crime against humanity.
Congress never said that they wanted to transfer the program to the president and the
military.
To insinuate that the same concept would be illegal by the CIA, but not illegal by the
president and the military is an asinine assumption that defies all logic.
Unfortunately, we do not have a government in America. We have an organized crime ring of
corrupt, retarded, sadistic, criminal psychopaths running the country.
America is not a country. It is a crime against humanity!
"No Trumper doubts about the Senators and house members Elected trough the same Ballots
the Dimwits denounce as Fake" --TDS victim
This is one of the things I am interested in hearing more details on. Rudy Giuliani was
saying that there are witnesses stating that at least in Pennsylvania and Michigan the big
batches of extra ballots that came in the following morning from the election and while the
counts were frozen were only marked for Biden, with no other down-ticket candidates being
marked on those ballots. This would explain how Biden got more votes than Trump while the
down-ticket Republicans still won the rest of the races. More importantly, if this is
accurate, then it is a massive and obvious screw-up by the people cooking the election
results. This is going to stand out with mammoth improbabilities in any statistical analysis,
and while the PMCs in the corporate mass media are not very bright (they are business and
journalism majors, after all, whose math skills plateaued at basic arithmetic), even they can
see how awkward this is going to look if those ballots have to face close public scrutiny.
That is why they are doing the full court press to get Trump to concede. With a concession
the establishment will be able to memory hole the details of the election and gaslight into
silence anyone who doubts the establishment narrative about it.
Look either way the Banker Oligarchs win. Why fight over the scraps, neither one party or
leader represents the little guy (defined these days as those with less than 100m USD in
assets).
A new issue has turned up in Pennsylvania putting another 100,000+ ballots in line for
exclusion: (1)
Over 51,000 ballots were marked as returned just a day after they were sent out -- an
extraordinary speed, given U.S. Postal Service (USPS) delivery times, while nearly 35,000
were returned on the same day they were mailed out. Another more than 23,000 have a return
date earlier than the sent date. More than 9,000 have no sent date.
"Since October 1, the average time of delivery for First-Class Mail, including ballots,
was 2.5 days," USPS said in an Oct. 29 release.
Impossible and improbable return dates indicate there's something wrong with either the
database or the ballots.
Objective facts show that Trump won Pennsylvania.
-- Will the system work?
-- Or, will the Blue Coup cause the Constitution to collapse?
In today's episode of America's Next Zionist President, we have an insider giving us all
an accurate description of our beloved US constitutional republic and democracy which we must
fight to protect:
For rational people, the media's outlandish bias and presumptive misinformation will not
end well for their handlers. True, in a fake new soylent green economy, businesses don't need
customers and politicians don't need constituents – you can just manufacture them, and
pay yourself with your own money by decree. But reality has a way of eventually creeping in
(as you gag on your fake beyond meat burger).
The reality here is that we need to take a step back from the media frenzy and recognize
rule of law. Concession cannot even be legally possible for several weeks as it stands today.
And the only excuse for Biden falsely claiming victory is that he is too senile to observe
Constitutional law.
The Don is done. Lindsey and Mitch and their Dem co-conspirators will be thrilled to get
back to business as usual. Motives aside he did change things a bit in between hiring and
firing everyone in sight.
To much of a rocky ride Washington doesn't like that no criminal enterprise does.
Don't cry for Don he'll bounce back this is a man who lost three casinos then went on to
hawking steaks and finally ended up as President. A real life 21st. century Jack Armstrong.
He can write a book play some golf, Melania can go on doing her Eva Gabor impersonation and
Don Jr. and Eric can do whatever it is they do. And as for us we're all on a slow boat to
China most likely to work at one of those Sino-Ivanka Fashion Inc. factories.
Big Brother has spoken. Even Fox News has kicked Trump's ass into the shithole and called
the election for Biden. Tucker Carlson may also be looking for the exit or he has been
instructed to change his tune if he wants to keep his job which in all likelihood he will
comply. Trump lovers and sympathisers better face up to the bitter reality and take to the
hill to prepare a defense against brutal persecution by their enemies who will come after
them with unimaginable passion right after Jan 20, 2021. They already have THE LIST and names
are being added to it fast and furious. Bread and circus, people!
Come on, get real. American voters were presented with two donkeys and puppets of Israel
as candidates. Millions voted for one or the other of two donkeys both of whom dance to the
beat of Jewish drums. Come to think about it, which American president in recent memory has
not outfawned his predecessor on Israel? Jewish power owns us. End of.
Tucker Carlson said, " At this stage , the fraud that we can confirm does not
seem to be enough to alter the election result." That's a far cry from, "There's not
enough fraud to change the election results." Newsweek's paraphrasing is, therefore, itself
fraudulent and part of the gigantic Democrat gaslighting campaign to convince the nation Joe
Biden is the legitimate winner. It should not be repeated here without the actual quote and a
caveat.
This also goes to the wider issue of trying to be reasonable and fair when dealing with
Democrat cockroaches who are anything but. They will unfailingly distort measured and
diplomatic language. It's best to make no concessions to them.
I don't give a rat's butt about trump or biden. As far as I'm concerned they'll always be
two draft dodger/shirkers and nothing more. Interesting how both of them hid in college in
the 60's and refused to serve as privates in the army but think they should be able to have
the power to send men in harms way.
Actually, the Zionists and the Jewish vote generally were overwhelmingly for Biden. They
were very hostile to Trump. Why would they do this if Trump were a Zionist minion ? Because
he's not.
Trump wants to normalise relations with Russia and pull US troops out of the Middle East,
including Syria. These moves are very much opposed to Zionist aims and the interests of
Israel. Unsurprisingly, Netanyahu was very quick to recognise Biden as the winner. That's
because Biden really is a Zionist minion.
@Roacheforque every TDS normie discussed it like it had a real chance of occurring
despite not having thought out how exactly how such a ridiculous event would take place on a
practical level. Added to which the 'homey' comments coming from diaper Bill and Kameltoe
Harris have a overly saccharine flavour to them, more likely scripted with great thought put
in as opposed to spontaneous quotes from some gosh darn nice people who want to heal the
nation such that anyone trying to prevent them from doing so necessarily must be evil.
If the Zerohedge article is accurate, thank you for posting it. If it has weaknesses
perhaps some poster could point them out. It is the most sane thing that I have read on the
topic since the 3rd.
No Surrender! President Trump Should Not Concede -- No Matter What
Sure just like Hillary should not have conceded in 2016, when they had strong evidence of
electronic vote rigging.
Look either way the Banker Oligarchs win. Why fight over the scraps, neither one party or
leader represents the little guy (defined these days as those with less than 100m USD in
assets).
The Zio Banking elite wins hands down right now Biden or Trump. At least Biden might keep
some social services like Soc Sec, Medicare, and Obama Care!!!! Yes the public deserves to
get something for paying all these taxes not just the Oligarchial super rich who were openly
looting the Fed budget under Trump. The unthinking and unemployed working/middle class,
especially the Whites amongst them seem to put their crisis of identity ahead of their well
being. Daaah.
What did Trump (led by his handlers Kushner/Ivanka) do for the little guy except fill
their heads with racial antagonisms and anti-government innuendo (some true but most false).
For sure he fulfilled every Zio-Israeli fantasy at the expense of US interests. Yes, no
problem for the unquestioning MAGA types, but where did he lead America to, to the precipice
of a pending national disaster?
So stop tearing down the constitutional republic, preserve what the general public still
has left to protect their individual rights and economic well being. Obviously the elite is
pushing for civil unrest so they can bring on a military and dictatorial regime, where all
sorts of new control straps can be implemented.
Kirkpatrick you are shameful for stoking the embers of civil unrest! Nobody is calling for
unity and statesmen like leadership these days on RU report. Biden is looking much more
leader like than cry baby Trump. Trump as you like to say -- -- -- -- – YOUR
FIRED!!!!!Man-up and get out and move on and get a life.
Only idiots and fools still want to carry Fake and Slimy Politicians on top of their
shoulders. Find some brains and lobby for your own interests, no politician in this system
will work for you unless forced to by their electorate.
[Reflections on the late election, by Curtis Yarvin, Gray Mirror, November 8, 2020].
Because I began my journey to 'red-pilled' awareness thanks to Curtis 'Mencius Moldbug'
Yarvin, I naturally clicked on the link and read his piece. One has travelled far since
reading his 'Unqualified Reservations' blog way back on 2007-08, and I now agree with much of
Andrew Joyce's recent critique of Yarvin ( https://www.unz.com/article/jews-in-the-cathedral-a-response-to-curtis-yarvin/
)
However, I frequently chuckled while reading Yarvin's piece linked by James Kirkpatrick,
and marvelled anew at the quality and brilliance of his insights. In this regard it rather
took me back in time twelve or so years.
A sample or two:
After describing how Trump could legally take full and absolute personal power for the
length of his second term, Yarvin points out that what is required amounts to nothing less
than 'regime change', and states that 'A true regime change must be a revolution in every
sense of the word Of course, since the right is order and the left is chaos, the left-wing
revolution is a butcher and the right-wing revolution is a surgeon. If ours needs to keep its
bandages on for a few days, theirs can barely be sold as hamburger. And even before her
stitches are out, America feels and looks better than ever.'
He goes on:
'One lesson that should be appreciated by all sides in all civic conflicts is that force
is not another word for violence. Force is the opposite of violence. Violence is bad, and
force is good. Violence is chaos, and force is order. Violence is slow and force is fast.
'If you can win by force, what are you waiting for? Do it immediately. If you can't win
without violence, you probably can't win at all, and you probably shouldn't try. Much
bloodshed could be saved if all young persons were educated with these simple and timeless
Machiavellian principles'.
And earlier, he explains the role of elections in a 'democracy' as being to assess the
power of each side's support, and that this power ought to reflect actual physical strength
and or courage, remarking:
'The fundamental purpose of a democratic election is to test the strength of the sides in
a civil conflict, without anyone actually getting hurt. The majority wins because the
strongest side would win. Better to measure that by counting heads, than knocking heads; and
counting heads produces a reasonable guess as to who would win a head-knocking contest. Same
outcome, fewer concussions: a Pareto optimization.
'But this guess is much better if it actually measures humans who are both willing and
able to walk down the street and show up. Anyone who cannot show up at the booth is unlikely
to show up for the civil war. This is one of many reasons that an in-person election is a
more accurate election. (If voters could be qualified by physique, it would be even more
accurate.)
'My sense is that in many urban communities, voting by proxy in some sense is the norm.
The people whose names are on the ballots really exist; and almost all of them actually did
support China Joe. Or at least, preferred him. The extent to which they perform any tangible
political action, including physically going to the booth, is very low; so is their
engagement with the political system. The demand for records of their engagement is very
high, because each such datum cancels out some huge, heavily-armed redneck with a bass
boat.'
Your obsession with Jews is really misplaced here. As soon as anyone starts blaming the
Jews, that person has immediately branded himself unfit for further comment.
Trump had four years to do something about election fraud. Didn't do a thing. Kinda funny
Trump and those Senator Georgians that sucked up to blacks thought blacks would actually vote
for them. Georgia and trump lost! Maybe taught them a lesson! I doubt it. Georgia has been
overrun with Hispanics and absolutely flooded with H-1B Indians for years too . The GOP has
committed suicide and taken the rest of America down with it. But hey, they made a few bucks
doing it! Maybe trump can do another publicity stunt with a rapper to save his campaign.
The problems with the election are just a mirror image of the problems with this country.
Fake money, fake border, fake pandemic, fake scholarship, fake news, fake food, fake votes.
Did I miss anything?
@TheTrumanShow ll decide. and failing that, the congress shall decide.. If a candidate
interferes with that constitutional process, changes or alters it to suit a personal
circumstance, he or she invites the crowd operated guillotine, i fear.
I agree the election process in many states is subject to corruption.. but Trump had four
years to change that process. like most things he did not provide the leadership needed to
get the masses to help him do just that.. Now Trump complains ..to the very people who
expected more from him .. and seeks to circumvent their intentions. I hope not?
I learned long ago: the pilot that does not pay the mechanic, pays the undertaker, when
the engine quits at 15000 feet.
I am an Australian living in an Australian country town. My email address is recognisably
Australian. I have never lived in the US. I have never even been there in fact.
Yet I have been inundated with election propaganda from the Democrats (from the other side
nary a peep).
Recently an organisation that goes under the name "Fight for Reform"invited me, as a "Top
Democrat in your state", to sign a card to congratulate "Joe and Kamala" testyifying that I
too had been crying "tears of joy" about their election.
When I didn't react I was asked, virtually the day after, why I hadn't done so. They were
"running low on support from"registered Democrats" "so please
Well, if you think that Biden and Harris will serve Israel any less than Trump, then you
should be willing to purchase my Jewless estate of 500,000 acres in NY, which comes with 6000
square foot fully restored 19th century house, a 2500 square foot guest house, and a horse
barn. It also comes with both a real pond and a ce- ment pond. I'm asking only
$600,000. It's a steal of a bargain.
In other words, according to you, the Jews as individuals, organizations, or as a people
may never be blamed for anything. Methinks it is YOU wearing the brand that says "unfit for
further comment".
Ultimately, the entire battle is about who is sovereign in this country -- American
citizens or
LOL! I haven't seen the words "sovereignty" and "American people" in the same sentence for
quite some time. Unfortunately, this phenomenon is not simply restricted to American people,
as it applies to all peoples of the West.
We must muster the will to shift this balance of power.
Whining about jail time over tax laws is why Trump has to fight? He can tell us
deplorables it is for us. Its not. It will be about preserving his empire. As much as I want
the corrupt PA democrats to finally get theirs in this legal process, I support Trump in his
fight for himself. If you twerps are allowed to destroy someone like a President Trump, just
imagine what you will do to a mere lunch lady for using the wrong pronoun. Please for once in
your miserable life admit your side is not made up of good people but rather a whole bunch of
totalitarian dictatorial wannabes. Scarily you keep moving the goalposts of your endgame
because every victory is never enough to satiate the rumble in your hollow souls.
Saw the Lt. Gov. of PA on YahooNews (? I guess it's a channel), complete POS in complete
denial. Complete with condescending BS and 'refusing to even accept that question' when the
reasonably nice reporter asked him how he could govern with half the people not trusting him
.
LVrunner , 1 hour ago
Was Wolf elected in 2018?
Lie_Detector , 2 hours ago
Every transaction needs to be video recorded in DETAIL! The cost of video recording NATION
WIDE would be no more than a billion dollars. Cameras above the ballot counters would be used
to VALIDATE ANY ballot. The video feeds would be saved for future challenges. It would be the
BEST investment ever made. The trouble is getting the dems on board. That is because it would
make cheating hard. They are a fraud, evil and enemies of America and the constitution.
radical-extremist , 2 hours ago
The trouble is privacy. You can bet the ACLU would have that in front of the Supremes in a
week.
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany late Tuesday announced
234 pages of what she said were sworn affidavits alleging election irregularities in a county
in Michigan .
McEnany appeared alongside Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel on Fox News'
"Hannity," where she shared several
allegations listed in the affidavits -- statements made under penalty of perjury - from Wayne
County.
"We keep hearing the drumbeat of 'where is the evidence?' Right here, Sean, 234 pages of
sworn affidavits, these are real people, real allegations, signed with notaries," McEnany
said.
"They're alleging - this is one county, Wayne County, Michigan - they are saying that there
was a batch of ballots where 60 percent had the same signature," she told host Sean
Hannity.
"They're saying that 35 ballots had no voter record but they were counted anyway, that 50
ballots were run multiple times through a tabulation machine."
McEnany also shared details of another affidavit where a woman alleged that "her son was
deceased but nevertheless somehow voted."
"These are one of many many allegations in one county, and a county no less, where poll
watchers were in many cases threatened with racial harassment, they were pushed out of the
way, and Democrat challengers were handing out documents, how to distract GOP challengers,"
she continued.
"These are real, and anyone who cares about transparency and the integrity of the system
should want this to pursue to the discovery phase."
On Monday, President Donald Trump's reelection campaign filed a suit in Wayne County Circuit
Court alleging voter fraud in ballot-counting procedures. The suit alleges county election
officials allowed various fraudulent processing of votes, including telling poll workers to
backdate ballots and not verify signatures on absentee ballots. Several witnesses have filed
sworn affidavits attesting to alleged election fraud. The plaintiffs, two poll challengers, are
seeking a temporary restraining order on ballot counting. The case is pending.
Late Tuesday, the Trump campaign
announced the filing of a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in the Western District of
Michigan that alleges pervasive election irregularities and violations in Wayne County and
seeks a review of the Dominion Voting software which caused glitches in several states.
A number of media outlets declared Democratic nominee Joe Biden president-elect on Nov. 7
after they projected victories for him in Pennsylvania and Nevada, putting him over the 270
electoral vote threshold, although the vote counts have not been completed in those states.
Vote counts also continue in Georgia and Arizona. Georgia and Wisconsin will have recounts of
the votes, where results initially yielded a Biden lead.
Trump has alleged voter fraud and said any declarations of victory are premature, with his
campaign having launched multiple legal challenges in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia,
Arizona, Nevada, and Michigan. The president said on
Tuesday that his campaign is making progress and said that he will ultimately be declared
the winner of the 2020
election .
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel speaks during a press conference at the Republican National
Committee headquarters in Washington on Nov. 9, 2020. (Samuel Corum/Getty Images)
McDaniel told Hannity that the Trump campaign has received 11,000 incident reports and has
compiled at least 500 affidavits from witnesses across various states.
"It is a long process and people need to be patient. The media keeps saying 'where's the
evidence, where's the evidence,' because they're not giving us time to show it," she
said.
"But even the evidence we're putting forward they're deciding 'oh we're not going to
report it' or 'we're going to break away from press conferences' and we don't want to hear
from these 500 people who have signed affidavits talking about what they saw with this
election."
McDaniel's comments come after Fox News late Monday
swiftly cut away from airing a briefing by the Trump campaign , after McEnany appeared to
allege that the Democrat Party had been involved in election fraud. The outlet claimed that
McEnany did not have details to back up her allegations.
Trump did not lose, he was cheated out of a second term by the democrats.
This is the most enlightening video I've seen over the past week. A PHD from MIT
(Dr.Shiva) explains why the voting pattern in Michigan is an algorithm set to take votes away
from Trump and give them to Biden. Dr. Shiva shows charts by counties that clearly reveals
corruption and how the software was programmed so it would be impossible for Trump to win. If
this video already hasn't been sent to Rudy and the Trump team, it needs to be. here is the
link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztu5Y5obWPk
If you don't have time to watch the whole video, start it at 31:07 and you'll see the
charts that show how Trump was cheated.
Arthor Bearing , 11 minutes ago
Dr. Shiva! You know a guy is trustworthy when he repeats his credentials at the beginning
of every single video of his. He insinuates a lot but the votes are subject to audit and
hand-counting if Trump and his team decide to do so, something Shiva glosses over.
Also, on the article above, sworn affadavits aren't admissible into evidence when they are
arguing "facts that are in issue," because in order to be admissible, evidence has to be
subject to cross-examination. That's a foundational rule of evidence. So McEnany saying
"here's your evidence right here" is just her spouting more ********. None of that will be
admissible in court. Depositions, where opposing counsel is present and can cross-examine,
are admissible for facts in issue.
On Wednesday, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced that the state will
conduct a full hand recount of the state's 2020 presidential election results amid claims of
voter fraud from President Trump's reelection claim.
What you need to know – Raffensperger announced on Wednesday that Georgia will conduct
a full audit and by-hand recount of the state's presidential election results – The
secretary of state anticipates the recount to conclude by the state's November 20 election
certification deadline – Raffensperger urged Georgians to report instances of alleged
voter fraud, adding that his office needs "something that we can actually investigate"
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her website
is here and you can follow her on
Twitter @caitoz
'Trump
derangement syndrome' didn't come from Trump. It came from abusive media trying to spin the
evils of his presidency as somehow worse than any other US president's.
The word "coup" is being thrown about in American liberal media today, not because US
liberals suddenly became uncomfortable with the fact that their nation constantly stages coups
and topples governments around the world as a matter of routine policy, but because they are
all talking about (you guessed it) Donald Trump.
To be clear, none of the high-powered influencers who have been promoting the use of this
word actually believe there is any possibility that Donald Trump will somehow remain in office
after January of next year when he loses his legal appeals against the official results of the
election, which would be the thing that a coup is. There is no means or institutional support
through which the sitting president could accomplish such a thing. This is not a coup, it's a
glorified temper tantrum. Trump will leave office at the appointed time.
The establishment narrative managers are not terrifying their audiences with this word
because they believe there is any danger of a coup actually happening. They are doing it
because it's their last chance to use Trump to psychologically abuse their audiences for
clicks.
... ... ...
It is not Trump himself who's been making people feel terrified of a tyrannical Russian
agent ending democracy in America and ruling with an iron fist, it is years of shrieking,
hysterical coverage about Trump from the mass media.
Without all the deranged and persistent fearmongering, driven by a disdain for Trump's
unrefined narrative management
style and an insatiable hunger for ratings and clicks, it would never have occurred to
Americans that they should be more terrified of this president than of any other sh***y
Reaganite Republican. The Russian collusion narrative which dominated most of Trump's
presidency
turned out tobe essentially
nothing . The concentration camps, millions of deportations and armed militias driving
non-whites out of the country that we were promised never came; he never even
came anywhere close to Obama's deportation numbers and his
support from minorities actually went up. He hasn't been any more warlike than his
predecessors overall, and by some measures arguably less so. Most Americans actually reported that
their lives had improved over Trump's term before the pandemic hit.
If people had just been given raw information about Trump's presidency, they would have seen
a lot of bad things, but things that are bad in the same way all the horrible aspects of the
most destructive government on earth are bad. They wouldn't have known to be horrified and
anxious and have headaches and irritable bowel syndrome. They would have handled themselves in
about the same way they always handled themselves during the administration of a president they
didn't like.
Instead, they were psychologically terrorized. Made frightened, sick and traumatized by mass
media pundits who only care about ratings and clicks, as was made clear when CBS chief Les
Moonves famously
said that Trump is bad for America but great for CBS. Dragged through years of Russia
hysteria and Trump hysteria with any excuse to spin Trump's presidency as a remarkable
departure from norms, when in reality it was anything but. It was a fairly conventional
Republican presidency.
In reality, though most of them probably did not realize it, this is what Americans were
actually voting against when they turned out in record numbers to cast their votes. Not against
Trump, but against this continued psychological abuse they've been suffering both directly and
indirectly from the mass media. Against being bashed in the face by shrieking, hysterical
bull***t that hurts their bodies and makes them feel crazy, and against the unpleasantness of
having to interact with stressed-out compatriots who haven't been putting up well with the
abuse.
It wasn't a "Get him out" vote, it was a "Make it stop" vote.
Meanwhile, another pernicious effect of making Trump seem uniquely horrible has been
retroactively making his predecessors seem nice by comparison, which is why George W Bush now
enjoys majority support among Democrats
after years of unpopularity. Their depravity is hidden behind a media-generated wall labeled
"NOT TRUMP" . And when Biden steps into office, his depravity will be hidden from view in the
same way, neutering all mainstream opposition to his most deadly and dangerous
actions .
The First Rule , 5 hours ago
I certainly hope this isn't True. You should never surrender to Evil.
Too many people succumb to the psychological warfare that has been raging against us for 5
decades. It is very difficult to break free from the indoctrination regardless of
intelligence or education. The backbone of the DemonRat organization is a very strong emotion
that overcomes all logic and reason. It is HATE. Today it is called by the gentle name of
Identity Politics. Nevertheless, it is still a HATE based psychological manipulation. Women
need to HATE men. Blacks need to HATE everyone. Whites need to HATE themselves. Everybody
needs to HATE Trump.
Did anybody vote FOR Biden or Harris?
The DemonRats have the Deep State covering, aiding and abetting their insurrection. As we
have seen, the stupid white people support the peaceful protests and are played like a violin
by the professional agitators likely trained by the CIA & FBI. The BLM aristocracy claims
to be "trained Marxists". Trained by whom? Nobody asks.
The cops are used like trained dogs to attack everyone who opposes the BLM/Antifa
sanctioned riots to the point where citizens are afraid of the cops and the BLM/Antifa people
use the cops for target practice, and the cops just take it. Nobody really respects the FBI
or the cops anymore.
Then there is the constant 24/7 drum beat of propaganda from the MSM and social media
driving people crazy.
Welcome to the world of Kamala Pelosi.
With Trump gone, who will they hate next?
DemonRats: The Party of Lies & HATE
Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of
your own choosing.
- Orwell
archon , 2 hours ago
Every time Maddow speaks she reminds me that we're living in clownworld. Lets not forget
this is coming from people who spent the last four years attempting their own coup.
cankles' server , 4 hours ago
I'm not sure if twitter deleted but here's the youtube link
Rubert's media empire was just a stepping stone for gigs like a sitting board of director
with Genie Oil. Even with that Fox News has always been neocon. If most conservative types
weren't enamored with supporting the troops, who will be just like the cops in supporting the
establishment in any civil war, then they would have known Fox News was controlled opposition
for the deep state.
Rupert Murdoch's heirs are #NeverTrump Libtards. They have been systematically
installing SJW Globalists for some time. The day-to-day programming has flipped to Fake
Stream Media propaganda. It is no surprise that they went full TDS for election coverage.
The above link will provide you with a FREE KlowdTV subscription to OAN and eleven other
channels for the remainder of 2020. Easy to do, two quick steps. DUMP FOX! Pass it on.
Tucker Carlson may also be looking for the exit or he has been instructed to change his
tune if he wants to keep his job which in all likelihood he will comply.
Yes, Carlson's program last night was decidedly more milquetoast than the night before.
His choice of topics was much more mundane. Perhaps he has gotten the word.
Tucker Carlson is toeing the Fox editorial line by claiming not enough fraudulent votes to
change the outcome. The only question is how was he coerced into making this statement -- was
it the carrot or the stick? Both? The stick would be he gets fired from Fox. The carrot would
be he gets major pay raise, promotion, or even getting help set up as front runner for
2024.
TC is no longer to be trusted. I have felt that about him for some time as his website
Daily Caller started toeing the Zionist line with increasing hostility towards China this
past year. He's now just controlled opposition like Stephen Miller, Breitbart.
Note that Carlson did NOT say, as the article falsely states, "Tucker Carlson Says There's
Not Enough Fraud to Change Election Results", he said:
At this stage, the fraud that we can confirm does not seem to be enough to alter the
election result . We should be honest and tell you that. Of course, that could change,"
he said, on his Fox News show Tucker Carlson Tonight.
I believe Carlson will spotlight the fraud claims on his program tonight.
In 2016 Wayne county Michigan (Detroit) couldn't duplicate their results during the Jill
Stein ordered recount. 37% of the precincts demonstrated that they double-counted ballots by
running them through the scanners multiple times.
Biden has 47 years of practice, he's gotten used to it...
LVrunner , 1 hour ago
I don't think they care. They are delusional psychopaths and only care about power and
greed.
Robert De Zero , 1 hour ago
As usual, right on target LVrunner. Psychopath's believe in some ordained right that
justifies any action, without guilt. The ends always justify the means, for a psychopath.
They are OWED it.
LVrunner , 1 hour ago
I'm still surprised the Bernie bro's accepted being cheated twice. What were they
promised? That if Bernie backed out he would be pulling the strings from behind? With the
push of the green new deal it sure looks that way. It's all too surreal.
@KDKA look at these 200 years old
people that voted smh. This is all types of fraud, and they put it out for the public to see!
And this is only a small amount of them, the list goes on ..... how ya'll cant see this is
beside me
The announcement that the US Justice Department would be looking into some aspects of last
week's election has elicited screaming and wailing from those convinced that Biden's win is a
slam-dunk. Would the mainstream media resistance to investigating possible fraud be the same
had Trump appeared to pull off a second term? Also today, is Biden breaking the law by speaking
with foreign leaders about what a Biden Administration foreign policy would look like? The
answer might surprise you. Watch today's Liberty Report:
"Fraud" was definitely at play in Pennsylvania's vote count, and Republicans have the facts
to back that up, according to Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, R-Pa., on Newsmax TV.
"We know that there are facts in place that show there was fraud," Reschenthaler told
Tuesday's " American
Agenda ." "How much fraud? That's a questions that needs to be fought out in the court. But
it's irrefutable that there was fraud that took place. We have sworn affidavits.
"A sworn affidavit is the definition of evidence."
"We have evidence at play that says supervisors in Erie [Pennsylvania] at the Post Office
were told to backdate ballots that were coming in," he continued, adding in Philadelphia, "we
as Republicans were kept out of the count of those absentee ballots.
"You had what Democrats referred to as treasure troves that were found in Western
Pennsylvania in the Pittsburgh area," he said. "Those ballots were predominately straight-party
votes for the Democrats. It is statistically, incredibly improbable, that all those ballots
that the Democrats were finding went with that large of a margin for Biden and the
straight-party ticket."
The purpose of all elections is to allow a band of people called the state to legitimize
their claim of control over everyone and everything within a given jurisdiction. In his book
The Rise and Fall of Society , the Old Right libertarian Frank Chodorov defines the state
as "a number of people who, having somehow got hold of it," use "the machinery of coercion to
the end that they might pursue their version of happiness without respect to the discipline of
the market place" (italics added).
The two somehows of getting and holding political power are to use institutionalized
violence or to convince people to respect state authority. Statists usually pursue some
combination of both. Violence is rarely preferred, however, because it can backlash into a
resistance that threatens state power. It is far better for the state if people oppress
themselves through willing obedience. It is even better if they express enthusiasm for their
own oppression. Thus politicians and the media applaud the rah-rah attitude of cheering crowds
who characterize elections. Thus voting is deified as the voice of "the people," a fundamental
right, and the best way to change society.
The situation is the opposite of what the state claims. The anarchist author Albert Jay Nock
divided power into two categories: social and state. Social power is the freedom individuals
exercise over their lives; when people gather for mutual benefit and when a society forms, this
is also social power. State power is the control government exercises over individuals and
society; it preys upon them -- through taxation, for example -- to enrich itself. An inverse
and antagonistic relationship exists between the two types of power, with the state expanding
only at the expense of society and vice versa. Freedom does not and cannot come from elections
that strengthen the state's perceived legitimacy; freedom depends on weakening this authority,
preferably down to zero.
The popular celebration of the "right" to vote puzzled Nock and Chodorov. In his book Out of
Step, Chodorov writes,
Why should a self-respecting citizen endorse an institution grounded in thievery? For that
is what one does when one votes .Perhaps the silliest argument, and yet the one invariably
advanced is that "we must choose the lesser of two evils". Under what compulsion are we to
make such a choice? Why not pass up both of them?
The answer: people do so because they believe elections and the state are necessary evils.
Despite the presence of far more effective strategies -- education and agorism are only two --
people see no other effective alternatives for social change or stability.
So far in the analysis, election 2020 is the same as every other election; only
circumstances like voter turnout are unusual.
What is different?
The state's mask of legitimacy is slipping. Election 2020 is rife with Republican cries of
"Fraud!" As early as April, Trump was
ringing alarm bells about the mail-in ballots demanded by Democrats, calling them
"horrible" and "corrupt," with "tremendous potential for voter fraud." Democrats
counterattacked by accusing Republicans of destroying democracy by delegitimizing the
election.
The Democrats are correct about Republicans damaging democracy but wrong about their
glorification of mob rule and blind to their own role in the political carnage. Like the state,
democracy is accepted only in the minds of people who believe in the system. A flood of news
stories about electoral abuse have shaken this faith, whether or not the stories are true;
discarded ballots, dishonest counts, lack of oversight, slack verification, ballot harvesting,
and voter suppression have caused lawsuits and protests to erupt across America.
But is election 2020 any more rigged than some past ones? A 2016 article in the Daily
Signal,
"Rigged Election? Past Presidential Contests Sowed Doubt and Nearly Led to Violence ,"
lists five presidential races that are viewed as having been won through fraud. And the problem
is not confined to the Oval Office. A recent article, "Don't Forget LBJ's Election
Theft ," by Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation, recounted the incredible
corruption of Lyndon B. Johnson's senatorial race. Nevertheless, the iniquities of this
election seem to be unusually widespread and transparent.
Several factors undoubtedly contribute to the more conspicuous abuse.
Many on the left and in the media passionately hate Trump, whom they view as a
woman-bashing, homophobic racist. Racism is the worst sin in our culture, which leaves
Trump haters free to shed all pretense of fairness toward him. For his part, Trump stokes
the fire through caustic tweets and comments.
Some campaign veterans on the left may have sensed the Democrats' weakness: Biden is a
terrible candidate who is mentally deteriorating, hides in his basement, and cannot draw a
crowd. To these Democrats, cheating may seem necessary.
Others on the left probably believed the polls, which made them cocky and careless. They
shouldn't have been. Journalist Glenn Greenwald states concisely in two
tweet s, "You have an incumbent President with a massive recession, an unemployment,
rent and foreclosure crisis, and an out-of-control pandemic, and this is what the Democrats
are able to do with it... Assuming that Biden ekes out a victory, that the Democrats
managed to *lose* seats in the House with everything going on might be the most shocking
and pathetic part of what happened."
Trump vows to dismantle the deep state. Whether he is sincere or capable of doing so is
debatable. There is no question, however, that he has exposed some formidable deep state
enemies and wants them punished. The accused, like former director of national intelligence
James Clapper, want blood, and they do not play by the rules.
A Trump administration would pursue the Hunter Biden–Burisma scandal, which is
making other prominent figures very nervous. A Biden administration would make it go
away.
The political storm reflects what is happening on the streets and in the culture.
Constant protests and riots seem to fill the streets with tension and crime. In the last
two decades, a take-no-prisoners culture of moral outrage has spilled from campuses into
the mainstream, using tactics of intimidation, rage, and violent confrontation.
Identity politics is a surging political approach. It defines human beings by secondary
characteristics like race and pits different groups into nonnegotiable conflict that blocks
the possibility of civil discussion or action.
Election 2020 did not provide a clear winner. The contest de facto continues through
lawsuits and court decisions. Here this election could be different from most others, although,
again, not unprecedented. If a tie or disputed ballots prevent both candidates from reaching
270 electoral votes, then the House will decide who will be president.
NEVER MISS THE
NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Chad Pergram, the congressional correspondent for Fox News, explains,
"Congress must approve certificates of election from all 50 states." The "crucial date is
December 14, dictated by an obscure, 1887 law The Electoral Count Act dictates that states
choose electors no more than 41 days after the election. This is partly why the Supreme Court
rushed to complete Bush v. Gore on December 12, 2000. The decision halted the count of ballots
in Florida, handing the presidency to George W. Bush." Legal challenges to state elections may
result in the same for Trump.
If Congress cannot certify the electoral college votes, Pergram describes the next steps.
"If Congress determines there's a stalemate, the 12th Amendment directs the House to elect the
President. This is called a 'contingent election.'" A delegate from each state casts one
ballot. The process would probably advantage Trump, as Republicans have fewer representatives
but they cover more states.
"At this point," Pergram writes, "we expect House Speaker Nancy Pelosi presuming she is
re-elected, and Vice President Pence, in his capacity as President of the Senate, to co-preside
over the Joint Session. Pence's term doesn't expire until January 20. And, the 12th Amendment
mandates that 'the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of
Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall be counted'." Unfortunately,
this wording raises another difficulty over which constitutional scholars have debated for
years; it does not specify how the votes are to be counted. Pergram points to yet another
possible obstacle. "The 12th Amendment also says 'the person having the greatest number of
votes for President shall be President'. But Congress must agree to all of this. And remember,
Pence is the one running the show at this stage."
In short, an incredible mess might well be followed by another incredible mess -- one that
could set a constitutional precedent. Nonvoters should feel pleased and proud to have played no
part in the ugly fiasco of presidential election 2020. "A curse on both your houses" is the
sound libertarian position.
Ben A Drill , 17 minutes ago
Next election the media should have a three day and night blackout of any coverage about
the election. Call it a quiet time so voters can do their job and vote without any media
intervention.
Bannedeverywhere , just now
Joe Biden was 29 when elected US senator. He was the 6th youngest ever to become
senator, at the time... By all accounts, Joe was not very bright. So, how did low IQ Joe go
from admission to the BAR in '69' to county council to winning a 1972 election to U.S.
Senator and holding that for '47' years? Seems like a rather steep progression into the
political world.
"First, it has now become clear to the entire planet that the US "democracy" is anything
but: the US is an oligarchic plutocracy, plagued with a myriad of antiquated laws and corrupt
to the bone."
Unfortunately, while that may be true, the "free world" (transgender and homosexual
worshiping western Europe) are perfectly fine with that, in fact they welcome it, immediately
sending congratulations to Biden upon the Jewish media crowning him president. It shows that
like the US, western Europe is also a group of corrupt incompetents.
Their biggest countries (UK, France, Italy and Germany) need to move right and have
governments that work to further the interests of their own countries, their own economies,
their own peoples and the interests of their neighbors (including Russia) and only after
that, the rest of the world.
Welcoming the third world into western Europe and the USA has done nothing to advance the
peoples of the third world, it has only brought down the standard of living in western
countries so that many for the first time in their long history now have unheard of criminal
violence in their streets. They are also now falling behind Asia and unless something is done
soon, the European peoples will no longer exist, and for some outspoken blacks and Jews that
can't happen fast enough.
A few decades ago, after Europe and Japan had been rebuilt, the world was doing very well.
There were signs of problems in the west and they could have been dealt with. Instead, the
west decided that welcoming in millions of poor people of a different race would somehow make
the world a better place, or maybe just make these people feel better about themselves. And
this has done irreparable damage to these countries.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas.) said in an interview that aired Sunday that he believes an
investigation should be launched into software used to count ballots amid concerns of election
irregularities.
The Republican senator told Fox News that the same software that was
linked to an incident in which votes were switched in a county in Michigan should be
investigated to rule out potential vote tabulation issues elsewhere in the country.
Antrim County in Michigan, which uses voting machines by Dominion Voting Systems, flipped
from Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden to President Donald Trump after over 5,000
votes were found to have been incorrectly registered for Biden.
"That same software is used in 47 counties throughout Michigan," Cruz said . "That needs to be examined to determine
that there isn't a problem counting the votes. And the legal process is how you resolve those
questions."
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said in a statement that the
problem ballots in Antrim County were due to human error, not a software malfunction.
"The erroneous reporting of unofficial results from Antrim county was a result of accidental
error on the part of the Antrim County Clerk," she said. "The equipment and software did not
malfunction and all ballots were properly tabulated. However, the clerk accidentally did not
update the software used to collect voting machine data and report unofficial results."
Dominion Voting Systems didn't immediately respond to a requests for comments from The Epoch
Times.
Benson added that even if the incident of incorrectly tabulated votes hadn't been quickly
flagged, it would have been noticed during the county canvass.
"As with other unofficial results reporting errors, this was an honest mistake and did not
affect any actual vote totals," she said. "Election clerks work extremely hard and do their
work with integrity. They are human beings, and sometimes make mistakes. However, there are
many checks and balances that ensure mistakes can be caught and corrected."
Cruz, in his interview, said the software should be examined in order to definitively rule
out any possibility of vote tabulation problems and to allay concerns of voters amid an
election that is facing claims of fraud.
"If there is a glitch that's built into the software system, it'll be shown and it's easy to
define that," Cruz said. "I think this is a great exercise to get back the trust of the
American people."
"You know, one of the frustrating things just as an American watching this, you hear all
these allegations of what's going on, it's hard to know what the facts are, what the truth is,"
Cruz said, adding that allegations of voter fraud "could easily end up in the Supreme
Court."
Biden was declared by a number of media outlets as president-elect on Saturday and has
claimed
victory in the presidential race.
Trump has alleged voter fraud and said any declarations of victory are premature, with his
campaign announcing a raft of legal challenges.
"The simple fact is this election is far from over," Trump said in a statement. "Joe Biden
has not been certified as the winner of any states, let alone any of the highly contested
states headed for mandatory recounts, or states where our campaign has valid and legitimate
legal challenges that could determine the ultimate victor."
"Legal votes decide who is president, not the news media," Trump added.
The explanations of the "glitches" are ridiculous, and the "glitches" were detected in one
county but apply to software used in 47 counties plus the entire state of Georgia.
The way the "glitches" were detected was luck, or a huge mistake on the part of the
fraudsters.
You may be right. Or it may all come crashing down in the automatically-triggered recount.
Or the political machine may succeed in doing a fake recount without observers and shutting
the book on this. We'll see.
One Dominion unit having a glitch is a glitch. Multiple Dominions across multiple states and
scores of counties having glitches all in favor of the same candidate is corruption. Pure and
simple.
On zero evidence, a manufactured dossier, and a frenzied TDS media, Trump was hounded for
almost 3 years with investigations. Now in 2020, with a mountain of evidence, we're about to
have a true investigation of true election interference.
RIP Alex Trabek, 1940-2020. 80 years old. A great life.
Dominion disagrees with these findings, stating that multiple large
local governments across the country -- such Cook County, Illinois, which
includes Chicago, and San Francisco and San Diego counties in
California -- have purchased their system.
Why do the same names keep popping up, wherever controversy is? Feinstein, Pelosi and
the Clinton Global Initiative
1) Dianne Feinstein's husband owns 60% percent of the Dominion Voting company 2) Nancy Pelosi's longest serving aide is now a Lobbyist for the Dominion Voting
company 3) Dominion Voting makes philanthropic contributions to the CGI (Clinton Global
Initiative)
Posted by "The Gateway Pundit" on November 8, 2020:
My husband was a mainframe IT professional for 40 years. His department maintained 401k
systems for BOA's corporate clients.
He said you NEVER implement a system at the last minute. You do system testing repeatedly
over a long period of time to make sure the program is working correctly.
He was stunned when I told him they updated the system the night before. Stunned.
When they did system updates at Merril Lynch/BOA, they worked on it for months and did
numerous test runs before putting it into operation.
If they had access to update the software the night before the vote, they had access during
the voting process, as well as after. Changes could be made in real-time. How secure was the
VPN access?
VPN access is secure. But that assumes someone without authorization to VPN in to the
machines (like the manufacturer) will have access to each machine no matter what. A VPN only
stops or slows down an unauthorized access.
"New normal" as in: having Dominion software flip votes from Trump to Biden, corporate
media doing a witch hunt on Trump for 5 years, MSM lying about everything from George Floyd
not dying from a drug overdose, MSM literally fanning the flames to incite a race war? I
could go on.
By the way, the NYT article on Barr's salvo reveals the Democrats and their Allied Media
shift from the no longer defendable "No evidence of voter fraud," to no evidence that the
fraud was "widespread."
In other words, "Forget about PA. We don't need it." But while their Allied Media will of
course dutifully abide, Trump pulled the lawsuit trigger yesterday. More are coming soon.
Including WI and MI.
Thus it's a mistake to think that Biden being declared the winner in AZ and GA, with the
attendant "both controlled by Republicans!" shouting, will abort the process now in
motion.
Project Veritas founder James O'Keefe has been censored again by Twitter shortly after
releasing a video of a whistleblower attesting to voter irregularities in Pennsylvania. The
video can still be
accessed on Facebook at the present time.
The video pertains to spoiled ballots being handled in an unlawful manner with their
destruction by Pennsylvania elections workers against protocol. Pennsylvania Board of Elections
Director Tom Freitag confirmed in the video that the law was not followed.
The video opens with an ominous quote: "During this very important time, those involved in
the voter count PA investigation should know that they won't have all their spoiled ballots to
use in their official recount."
A Project Veritas journalist rummaged through a couple of garbage bags from the Bucks County
Board of Elections. They had been thrown into a dumpster and contained pieces of ballots that
appeared to be spoiled and discarded against regulations. Freitag ensured that the ballots were
authentic, blaming the rule-breaking activity on "ignorance" of the "brand new law."
"Whoever was the judge of elections didn't do it correctly," Freitag said to confirm that
the law had not been followed by certain Pennsylvania election workers.
"The poll worker should have not thrown it in the garbage," he added. Freitag said that
these spoiled ballots should have been retained for years and then shredded.
Big League Politics
has reported on the censorship that O'Keefe is receiving for merely exposing abnormalities
with regards to the election process:
Project Veritas founder James O'Keefe was recently
locked out of his Twitter account for a nine-month-old tweet that supposedly violated a
copyright shortly after he uncovered a Democrat ballot harvesting scheme operating out of
Minneapolis, Minn. tied to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN).
The revelations demonstrated how the Somali-dominated areas of Minneapolis are rife with
fraud, showing how importing the third world can negatively impact electoral integrity in the
U.S.
O'Keefe was temporarily locked out of his account and unable to promote the ballot
harvesting story for a short period. However, he eventually had functionality restore to his
Twitter account. He believes the censorship is proving what a massive impact he is having in
exposing the globalist establishment.
"They couldn't even provide proof of a legitimate reason and point to the tweet in
question!" O'Keefe wrote in a Tweet after returning to the social media platform.
"Some "copyright violation" and they wouldn't even show the tweet in question," he
continued.
"[Project Veritas] has the tech overlords rattled we're winning," O'Keefe added
Big Tech is heavily invested in the Democrat vote steal against President Trump. These
powerful globalist interests hope to pull off their anti-Trump color revolution in broad
daylight and rape U.S. democracy in the process.
O'Keefe's journalism is necessary to hold this corrupt process in line. His work may be
relevant in the upcoming court battle that will decide the future of the presidency.
No doubt many of the mail in ballots were illegitimate, but it's even worse ..
Sidney Powell says they sued Hammer and Scorecard to alter the numbers digitally.
She says the CIA/military have used these methods to wreck elections all over the
world.
The takeaway is that there is no way to tell if an election is on the up and up.
Elections can never again be trusted. A number of goofballs like to mention that voter
fraud has always been done, but .it has never been done so brazenly and on such a huge scale
..
this was in your face fraud ..this is to inform us that we no longer have ANY say in what
happens to our country.
Hell, the Covid hoax is the same kind of clue ..they can do whatever they want to us .and
for the most part people will take it.
Schumer is bragging that he intends to take the Senate, add two states, pack the supreme
court, end the filibuster one party rule FOREVER.
Isn't it odd that none of that deluge of mail-in ballots for biden translated into votes
for the senatorial candidate on the same ballot. Apparently in Georgia biden received nearly
100,000 more votes than the senatorial candidate on the same ticket, an extraordinary
discrepancy. Trump is said to have received fewer than 1,000 more votes than the senatorial
candidate on the same ticket, more or less in line with historical norms. In Michigan, biden
received 69,000 more votes than the senatorial candidate – again, extraordinarily
disproportionate.
No, a lot more is at play here than the mail-in vote favoring the democratic
candidate.
Sidney Powell says they sued Hammer and Scorecard to alter the numbers digitally.
She says the CIA/military have used these methods to wreck elections all over the
world.
Software is not magic. Unlike shown in "Independence Day", it has to actually interface
with the remote system.
"One software to control them all" doesn't exist. Or if it does, it takes the form of the
guy in charge entering fresh numbers into the database by hand.
Like many, I spent the last few nights waking up at 2:03 A.M., no reason, then looking at my
phone for news, any news, that might be positive for President Trump. I survived on Rush,
Bongino, Mark Levin. When the news continued to be ugly, I even checked in on ridiculous
bloggers promising that ballots were watermarked and D.J. (our household name for a president
we love) was actually launching a sting on the Deep State.
Enough already. Stop the madness.
Hey, I have a degree in statistics, and I have some level of critical thought. If there is
such pessimism in my tribe, I am not going along.
So today, I started to dig into the numbers, and as I did, I fought my confirmation bias at
every step.
I realized that I, like millions of others, had been numbed into despondency by the
overwhelming press, media, social media push to certify President-Elect Biden. (I put that in
there so you can see how repellent it is.)
Hey guys, this thing is not only not over; it is scary for Biden. I mean really scary, and
most of all, the media know it. Thus, the rush to get everyone in line with the narrative that
a 78-year-old, early-dementia former V.P., who could not draw a crowd larger than a dozen, just
beat D.J. in a fair election.
Process that for a moment.
Start with Pennsylvania . Biden, as of this writing, is at 290 electoral votes. Pennsylvania
is 20.
I read the Justice Alito opinion, and it is pretty clear that he wants the after election
night at 8:00 P.M . votes separated for a reason. Biden is going to lose at the Supreme Court,
and they know it. Four justices already said the Pennsylvania Supreme Court cannot adjust
voting rules. A new arrival, Justice Barrett, says she is there to apply the rules in the
Constitution. OK, wanna bet she does?
Remove the after 8:00 P.M. ballots, and Biden loses Pennsylvania. Biden 270.
Let's visit Nevada . I have lots of friends in California who have condos in Nevada to evade
state taxes. There are not a couple of people doing this; there are tens of thousands. Everyone
knows it, and California seeks them out.
Our old pal Harry Reid knows it as well, and he apparently has them voting in droves in this
election. Probably not a big D.J. constituency. Within 72 hours of the election, the Trump team
found, validated over 3,500 of them. I do not suspect that Trump's people stopped counting.
Every one of these is a ballot reduction for Biden
Nevada, as of now, is well within reach for DJ and the Trump team -- particularly when the
California crowd is reduced. And a few of them may testify since a false vote is a very bad
thing, with jail time if convicted. Maybe a bigger story here.
Remember where we are, people. Biden is at 270 after a highly probable Supreme Court
decision (read Alito and concurring opinions).
Lose Nevada, lose the election.
But wait: it gets better.
Let's visit Wisconsin . Right now, it is 20,000 votes in Uncle Joe's direction. Lots of
stories out there, well below the Google fold, that there are way more Wisconsin votes than
there are registered voters. OK, maybe the dead can vote up there -- probably a Midwest
thing.
Well, last night, we found that Wisconsin election clerks were told, and followed the
direction, to modify mail-in ballots and fill in the blanks where witnesses left out critical
info.
I am sure it was just a good customer service thing and they meant no harm. The problem is
every such ballot is
now toast .
There were "thousands" of such prima facie wrongful votes. Oops. Biden up 20,000 -- now that
number is in question. No more truckloads of votes coming in, so every ballot D.J.'s team
eliminates gets President-Elect Biden on step closer to former V.P. Biden who lives in a
basement. Not good here.
North Carolina . That one pretty much looks like as though it is over and D.J. won it. Fox
News is rumored to call it for Trump around April 2021.
Remember where we are here. Biden is probably going to lose Pennsylvania, so if he loses
even one state, even one Electoral College vote, ouch!
Either D.J. wins outright, or it goes to the House, which means that D.J. has four more
years.
We're not done yet.
Michigan . Oh, yes, the land of the "glitches" in the voting machines. Six thousand votes
for Trump given to Biden in one of 47 counties where that software is used. About 150,000 votes
in Biden's favor right now.
Google the 130,000 Biden votes that showed up in the middle of the night, and you can see
how the wonderful people at Google are fact-checking this "debunked" story. In fact, for fun,
Google "Michigan voter fraud," and you get literally three pages of "this was fact checked and
proven to be false." Why would Google be so assiduous?
They too see that if Amy votes with the four, Biden is one vote away from the
basement.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Lawsuits in Michigan and the other states are being launched, and discovery will take place.
Google will not be there.
Voter fraud is kind of like larceny. A little is OK. It is even kind of entertaining.
Dead people have been voting for a hundred years in Democratic cities. It is such a constant
that one would think the Republican Party would consider a Dead Voter Outreach program to get
their share.
But voter fraud on this scale is just not sustainable. It does not pass the common sense
test.
We have bloggers with lots of time on their hands going through voter rolls and showing that
person after person who voted in a swing state also fought in the Civil War or maybe the War of
1812. It was funny at first, but the overwhelming number now goes beyond humor and rubs our
faces in it.
I think D.J. has to swing one state. Actually, one electoral vote. Not only is this thing
not over, but the Biden team must be sweating bullets.
Voter fraud at scale seemed like a really cool idea until D.J. went to the mattresses. Now
that he is fighting it out one voter at a time, with the Supreme Court likely to create the
starting point at Biden 270, Biden has everything to lose.
Perk up! Arch_Stanton , 1 day ago
130K ballots getting thrown out in Fulton county. GA goes to Trump.
That link goes to a SGT Report video that's slightly misleading in that the video
description states that the fraud depicted on the video occurred during this most recent
election, when rather it happened in November of last year. Doesn't change the fact that
apparently some kind of software exists which has the ability to switch votes from one
candidate to another, as this is what appears to happen in real time on a CNN newscast
captured in that video. Illuminating.
Roacheforque , 1 day ago
Without a doubt, Ga goes to Trump, and NC. He needs Pa to win, and he will get that one
too. It's not like he hasn't described the attempted Coup, the Russian interference BS, the
"impeachment" lunacy for 4 years of endless harassment, censorship and mainstream bias.
Massive election fraud is just par for the course.
All so a bunch of greedy whores can get back to the business of being wined and dined by
special interests to approve legislation designed to screw the US middle class (as
usual).
And as for the "woke" idiots who don't have a ****in clue? There's no hope for those
walking dead and their lockdown fantasy.
But Justice needs to root out the "blue wave" of evil and it's enablers in the borg
technocracy.
Thursday morning and the election remains unresolved with the prospect of a long legal
battle ahead. The most striking feature of all this is America's failure to arrange a fair,
honest, and coherent election system. Instead, we add layers of complexity that only increase
the likelihood of failure and opportunities for cheating. But remember, one of the hallmarks of
the long emergency is the federal government's growing impotence and incompetence to deal with
anything.
As for red flags, we have the 4 a.m. Wednesday morning dump of 131,000 votes, all for Mr.
Biden, none for Mr. Trump, emanating out of Shiawassee and Antrim Counties, Michigan,
populations respectively 68,000 and 23,000. Some person in the chain there declared it was "a
typo," but the returns don't reflect that the false number was retracted. A similar dump of
27,000, all for Biden, came out of Philadelphia, no explanation. And that was only the
beginning of a Democratic Party wholesale mail-in ballot manufacturing effort that continues to
this writing.
The Democrats have established a Biden "transition team" to lay on a veneer of legitimacy to
their scheme, with the expectation that the mainstream media will amplify the idea that it's
over but it's not over. The Trump campaign has also declared victory in PA, Michigan, and other
states that are supposedly still reporting. All of this is tending to the Supreme Court where
some people are gonna have to do some 'splainin'.
The chances are pretty good for all this to enter an ugly stage of violent intransigence,
with Antifa / BLM mobs of Dem "allies" busting things up in Philadelphia and Detroit, to
distract from what's going on in the election district counting rooms.
The legal battles could stretch out into December when states have to certify electors, and
if that can't be resolved, it's on to the House of representatives for the first time since
1876 (Hayes-Tilden).
Election update, 9:50 am Weds Nov 4
The election has rolled out as expected here – that is, not resolved the morning
after, with Antifa and BLM rioters already moiling in the streets of Washington D.C.
Portland, Oregon, remains in continual uproar after four months of violence and destruction,
and Mayor Ted Wheeler won reelection against "Antifa candidate" Sarah Iannarone. Lucky
Portland.
Outside the swing states still in play, the margins were strikingly lopsided. Joe Biden's
radiant charisma worked in the usual blue coastal states -- Cal 65% to 33%, NY 55% to 33% --
but Mr. Trump's margins were equally lopsided in the flyover red states -- OK 65% to 32%, TN
60% to 37%, MO 56% to 41%. Mr. Biden won thumpingly in VA once the Deep State bedroom counties
next to DC came in late at night. But the president won convincingly in FLA, OH, and TX.
For now, at 9 a.m. Weds, the race hinges on the usual suspects. Mr. Trump is up a half a
percent in Michigan with 91% of votes counted; Mr. Biden is seven-tenths up in Wisconsin, with
95% in awaiting Green Bay results (delayed, apparently, because a vote-processing machine ran
out of ink (!). Similar close margins in NC not so close in GA, with the president ahead a
healthy 2 percent, and finally the dark maw of mischief, PA, where Mr. Trump was up by more
than ten full percentage points (@700,000 votes) this morning, but awaiting more than a million
mail-in ballots.
Let's not forget the rather reckless remark made by PA Attorney General Josh Shapiro on
Halloween night that "if all the votes are added up, Mr. Trump is going to lose." Sounded
pretty sure of himself. Now, as I understand it, the PA state supreme court ruled recently that
counties could continue to process mail-in votes until Friday, and, more importantly, that
they did not require postmarks or signature authentication -- which would appear
an easy invitation to simple ballot fraud.
The president vowed late Tuesday night to take a case to the US supreme court where, I
expect, that PA ruling will be tossed out as self-evidently unsound. Can the forces of Dem
Lawfare work around that? I don't see how, but I'm not a constitutional lawyer. The Dems have
worked hard in recent years to manufacture the inane and false narrative that any kind of
voter-ID procedure amounts to "suppression." America needs to get its mind right about
that.
Does Lawfare have other tricks up its sleeve? I rather expect so, but the president has had
months to plan his own defense against the threat of a Lawfare coup, so now we will see the
game play out. Meanwhile, we await mayhem in the streets, condoned and encouraged by Joe
Biden's party, as though that will endear him to nation.
You mean like 4 years of Trump colluded with Russia and all the other non-sense you idiots
spewed.
It's not a 'conspiracy theory' that ballots arrived late, outside the window of when they
were legally allowed, even PA admits to it, and the SCOTUS ordered them separated.
Sorry Jamiester, That isn't how the US operates in any investigation of wrongdoing. Even
serial killers only get punished for the bodies found not for the ones we think they did. If
trump's very expensive lawyers and investigators, with the help of any GOP state officials,
cannot find enough fraudulent votes to change the outcome, then we have no other number we can
use. Historically, the averages caught have been low and were more accidental than criminal so
we can't even use those averages.
Remember, in 2016, many trump family members, spicer, bannon, miller and others were caught
having been registered to vote in multiple states at the same time. Everyone knows it was
clerical and not criminal.
Trump and team are tasked with finding the evidence and trump has already said he has it.
We'll find out if he is blustering or not soon enough.
The biggest problem is the ignoring voter fraud election after election until now where
we have voter fraud equal to a third world dictatorship. We are talking millions of
fraudulent votes in Pennsylvania alone. ShawnNJ ✓Swamp Drainer •
7 hours ago
Joe Biden Says Democrats Created 'The Most Extensive And Inclusive Voter Fraud Organization'
In American History
Did you watch Levin this weekend? Apparently democrats brought hundreds of lawsuits in
all 50 states to loosen election laws, to enact ballot harvesting in the state level, to allow
earlier and later voting. If that isn't enough evidence of their plan to cheat, I don't know
what is.
What Peen did is unconstitutional. State Supreme Court cannot change law. It had to be voted
on by the legislature. 34 states have the same voting software that "glitched" and changed
votes and Nancy Pelosi abd Feinstein's husband are major shareholders. A poll watcher decided
to stay after the polling place "closed" abd filmed two cars and a truck drop off ballots. I
think there is more evidence than we can imagine.
Most of those changes were made outside the legislative process as prescribed in the
Constitution. The changes they made were the same as what Pelosi tried to jam through in HR-1
in 2019 when the new Congress was seated.
Yes, Penn is illegal. In fact the "judge" that reviewed the case about the changes that the
Democrats wanted and ADDED more illegal verbiage.
It also happened here in AZ where the clerk sent out instructions against a court order that
allows someone to cross out a mis-vote.
So, in my case, I voted early. My ballot was put in an envelope, sealed and sent off to be
counted. It would have been opened by a person who looks at the ballot....what's to say that
person didn't draw a line through my vote and vote for the other person? That makes me
concerned my vote could have been changed. This is how they sow doubt into elections.
The Dominion "glitch" occured in more than one state, which equates to Interstate voter
manipulation ! SCOTUS needs to order all states with Dominion systems completely audited !
Each glitch was a manual interruption to falsely add Harris votes to obtain a false slight
lead. It was not a glitch. Sytl manages the IT maintenance of the voting software systems for
the guilty counties, i.e., they have a back door to manually stop displayed totals and insert
false totals.
At that point President Trump lead should have been about 300,000 votes, indeed we saw early
in the evening an 6-8% margin in favor of President Tump
There have been about 1 million more ballots cast on election night in person. That would
require Joke Biden to receive 75% of the in person votes with a nearly 90% turnout to overcome
Trumps lead. For reference 2016 turnout was less than 70%.
Yet traditionally, Republican in person vote outpaces Democrats by a 60-40 margin.
In a further attempt to circumvent the intelligence of the voter, the American media machine
has, this past Saturday, Nov 7, 2020, arbitrarily declared Joe Biden president. There are many
problems with this report being accurate. The largest problem is that of the media itself.
In declaring Biden the winner, this media ignores very credible accusations of Biden
campaign election fraud, substantiated problems with the mail-in ballots, successful legal
challenges and, more importantly, that at least three of the states in question will be
available to Trump, by state law, to perform a recount. When these recounts do occur, they will
likely be under court order and also allow all Republican vote watchers to view the millions of
mail-in ballots of which thousands are already in question.
To begin this presentation of the first 72 hours since election night Nov 3, it would serve
the voter well to remember: This is same media which first spent more than two years
championing, like Biden himself, the utterly debunked Russia Gate allegations and next the
Democrat's very flawed and deliberately tepid Impeachment attempt against incumbent
Trump.
More to the point, as of Election Day of this past Tuesday, that media had worked a blanket
media censorship of the very credible allegations of a Biden family influence-peddling
operation while their candidate was, then, Vice President.
It must be now also be recalled that Biden, during a campaign stop Q&A presser on Oct
25, stated very clearly, that
"[W]e have put together and you guys did it for President Obama's administration before
this, we have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization
in the history of American politics."
While his statement may also prove the upcoming need for the 25 th Amendment, if
it is not an admission of complicity, it is certainly an indictment of the media.
These past seventy-two business hours are already the stuff of American history and a good
reason for a journalist to stay up all night to follow and report this ongoing daily history.
Unless Trump concedes, this election has many more days to go. This reporter, thus
sleep-deprived and objectively irritable, will in the days to come update the proceedings
within the body of this series.
To the student of history and American backed Color Revolutions, when MSM divisively
anointed Biden far too early as US president- after a two-and-a-half-year quest to do so- their
candidate, Joe Biden, became, instead, America's own Juan Guaido.
It has become apparent that the Trump campaign's concern about the Dems use of mail-in
ballots was justified since all allegations begin here. Trump strategists were expecting this.
What was not expected was that the DNC would be so brazenly obvious in using the mail-in
ballots to Biden's advantage.
The chronology of questionable vote counting began in the wee hours of election night
morning.
Still barely awake and by then cross-eyed, news hit the screen at approx. 2:30 AM EST
that despite the national back and forth of the vote count, suddenly that vote count had been
suspended for the night in NV, AZ, MI, Wi, PA, GA and NC. These were the last of the swing
states that were still key to any victory. All but two (GA and AZ) are under a democratic
governor's control. This stoppage seemed very strange. Brief research did not reveal a
precedent to this, at which time the vote favored Trump in all but AZ and NV.
Interestingly, on that night several hours before every network had already called AZ for
Biden with only 75% counted. This early declaration came despite the Trump campaign's protests
and AZ governor, Doug Ducey saying,
" I encourage media outlets, cable news and national pundits to avoid the temptation to
declare a winner until our Arizona election officials have finished their jobs."
A look at the converse is also enlightening.
As of this Sunday morning, despite NC reporting, a 99% tally and a recount proof 1.3 %
lead all weekend for Trump, not one media source has, as they did so quickly for Biden in AZ,
NV, WI, PA, GA, declared that state and NC's fifteen delegates for Trump's total.
Deliberately, this action continues to deceive the uneducated voter that there is a much
larger, and presumably insurmountable electoral lead for Biden. The intent is to sow
disinterest and make the allegations irrelevant to the win.
Before pursuing some much-needed strong tea and a walk, I wrote down the existing vote
counts in all these states as a reference for the restart of the media's count beginning the
next day.
Revitalized, I took a quick look at tabulations on my screen merely out of habit. What I saw
sent me scrambling for my notes. Suddenly Biden was up in MI. This had happened while the count
was reportedly suspended!
A quick search provided a graph comparing the Biden to Trump vote count, minute-by-minute
per state. Looking back in time, the graph had spiked straight up, not diagonally, for Biden
during my few minutes of absence. This sudden upward tick was so large that it had put Biden in
the lead. The same graph showed no uptick for Trump at the same moment at all. All Biden votes.
No Trump votes?
As dawn broke, Michigan's "Decision Desk HQ" attempted to explain away too easily
this discrepancy:
" Thedatashowing Biden receiving 100% of the newly counted votes was released at 5:04 a.m. by
Decision Desk HQ which showed Biden with 2,130,695 votes at Trump with 2,200,902 votes. But
that data was not correct Once we identified the error, we cleared the erroneous data and
updated it with the correct data as provided by officials. We stand by our data as reflected
"
Sure.
Since that morning's reawakening, many more questions have been buried by the media. N ot
in these pages.
This day, news surfaced of Trump's observers being barred from their duties by the vote
counters in many locations in many states. This, at the least, called into question the workers
neutrality.
Hindsight would recall that before the election there were successful efforts by
Democrats to loosen electoral administration standards. This did legalize ballot harvesting,
where, such as in Texas, partisan "volunteers" went out and collected ballots, sometimes after
helping voters fill them out. The same laws facilitated same-day voter registration and mass
mail-in voting.
At the same time, the DNC decried efforts by the RNC to require ID or proof of citizenship
to vote.
After the early morning irregularities of November 4, there continued the mysterious
discoveries of huge tranches of ballots that were overwhelmingly, if not exclusively for Biden.
This turned out not to be surprising.
It was
reported that US District Judge Emmet Sullivan was outraged at Postmaster General Louis
DeJoy for not following his specific court order to "sweep " all USPS facilities for any
possible stashes of ballots before 3 PM on Election Day. Prudently, Sullivan's order was
crafted to prevent ballots surfacing for counting after the close of the polls at 8 PM. Of
course, this, in part, was exactly what happened. Said Sullivan , "At some point, the
postmaster is either going to have to be deposed or appear before me and testify under
oath," adding, "The court has been very clear that it expects full compliance,"
while excoriating the US Postal Service's legal team for failing to promptly notify him after
the agency supposedly realized it couldn't meet his deadline.
Naturally, it was then confirmed by the vote counters in many districts that
"glitches" with the digital voting machines had flipped Republican
votes into the Democrats' column as was documented.
As Wednesday continued, next were reports from people who showed up to vote in person but
were told by poll workers that they had already voted as absentees, despite not having
requested an absentee ballot. This was confirmed by a voter, Eugene R. who contacted the author
through his website, stating that this happened to both he and his wife in Allentown,
PA.
In many of the Democrat-controlled precincts in PA reports coming in regarding vote
counters limiting access to Republican observers, in defiance of court orders, were
frequent.
Combined, these individually insignificant reports began to quickly add up to suspicion.
However, next came a very large statistical anomaly, in both Georgia and Michigan.
In Michigan for example, by using the old screenshots provided, there showed a minimal
mathematical difference of just 7,131 votes between Trump and GOP Senate candidate John James.
This was as expected since, as PEW research agreed, the vote for senator almost always closely
follows that of the presidential vote and adheres to party preference.
However, the difference between Joe Biden and Democrat candidate Gary Peters was, very
strangely, 69,093.
In Georgia, as of 6:05 AM EST Wed the difference between Trump and GOP offering Senator
David Purdue was also in line with party preference. However , in checking the difference
between Biden and the Democrat candidate for Senator, Jon Ossoff, it was 98,501. (Biden:
2,414,651 Jon Ossoff : 2,318,850)
This math is worthy of further scrutiny and explanation, but on the first examination can
only be explained by either a lot of dyed in the wool republicans not voting the party line for
Trump and Biden instead. Or .?
Certainly, this report from the first full day of post-election 2020 should pique the
interest of any concerned voter, democrat and republican and demand their further personal
scrutiny of the ongoing events. However, in anointing Biden as the winner already, the goal of
America's media is to suggest via its cover-up, that these current allegations, just like those
of influence peddling, are now over and done with.
A review of the states that remain in play show, that unless Trump concedes, both sets of
allegations will remain very much in play in each of these contested states and then, likely,
in the Electoral College's " Certification of Attainment" on Dec 14.
There is much penny ante finger-pointing by the GOP and combined these smaller allegations,
such as restrictions of Republican observers, may turn into a playable hand. However, it
is the legislative law and violations thereof that are the serious political chess moves that
will, this week, be revealed by Trump.
Before looking at the main legal challenge, the easier subject is per state recounts.
Recounts can be required or commissioned by state law in WI, GA, MI and PA. While it is
true that recounts rarely change a previous outcome, one might well remember the Florida
recount of 2000 and the strength of the allegations that seem to favor Trump. Should there be a
recount, it will certainly be done under direct scrutiny, no matter what, by the GOP state
operatives and the supervision of the courts.
At this time the margin for Biden-reportedly– is GA: 10,195; MI: 46,113; PA: 19,423
and WI: 20,510. This is a total of 96,241. Considering the cumulative total of allegedly
illegal votes, this number, subject to a recount and the courts, would seem to be
plausible.
Of, Recounts.
Already the Trump campaign has informally requested a recount in WI, but cannot as yet do so
per WI statute.
Under
Wisconsin election law, there is no automatic recount, even if the unofficial results
are extremely close; a candidate must request one. According to the state's
manual outlining the process, candidates can request a recount if they are within the 1%
margin of victory. Biden currently has a lead of just 0.7 percentage points with 99% of votes
tallied. The request cannot be filed before the initial counting is complete, so that news is
pending.
During a WI recount, it must be open to the public, and the Board of Canvassers has the
option of a hand-count or to use voting equipment to re-tabulate the ballots, unless a court
orders otherwise.
In Pennsylvania, where the margin is less than or equal to 0.5% of the total vote, an
automatic recount may be required in the event of certain discrepancies as described
here . At this time, Joe Biden has 49.608 percent of the vote, and Donald Trump has 49.098
percent of the vote, a margin of 0.51 percent.
Regardless of percentage difference, the recount can be requested, if filed, and
subsequently paid for by the complainant, within five days of the election or five days after
the computational canvass and must be requested through the Court of Common Pleas. If error or
fraud is found, an additional five days is provided to make additional requests elsewhere, like
the courts.
Georgia does not automatically initiate a recount. However, if a candidate falls with a 0.5%
margin or less, a recount can be requested. Georgia law also states that a recount must be
requested within two business days following the certification of results. State law does not
specify who pays for the recount, but like PA percentage difference is not a requirement.
Michigan sets five criteria for requesting a recount: 1) The candidate ran for president. 2)
The request "alleges that the candidate is aggrieved on account of fraud or mistake in the
canvass of the votes." 3) the request "shall contain specific allegations of wrongdoing only if
evidence of that wrongdoing is available to the petitioner." 4) The request "sets forth the
nature and character of the fraud or mistakes " 5) The request "specifies the counties, cities,
townships, and precincts in which the recount is requested."
Presumably, Trump's legal army have checked-off all five boxes.
It is true that in all four states Trump is losing, and in states like MI, PA, WI, is at the
moment slightly over the threshold for an automatic recount. But it is the allegations of fraud
that may put Trump within those limits for a recount, or possibly swing the state in his favor
afterwards. With all these states still a day or more from final results, the term, "Re-count,"
will soon hit the news on four separate fronts.
Pennsylvania, SCOTUS and the Re-Count.
U.S. Supreme
Court Justice Samuel Alito late Friday ordered Pennsylvania election officials to segregate
and separately count ballots that arrived after Election Day.
Alito ordered ( pdf ) that those
segregated ballots must be kept "in a secure, safe and sealed container separate from other
voted ballots."
The justice, however, did not order the counties to stop counting but instead ordered those
ballots to be counted separately pending review of their legitimacy. Here, Trump won a
significant, although partial victory as to the segregation of these challengeable ballots and
possible reduction of the Biden total.
This ruling and Alito's words may be a forewarning of SCOTUS decisions to come.
In 2019, the PA legislature passed a law called Act 77 that permitted all voters to cast
their ballots by mail but, in Justice Alito's words, "unambiguously required that all mailed
ballots be received by 8 p.m. on election day ."
Indeed, the exact text from 2019 Pa. Leg. Serv. Act 2019-77 , reads, "No absentee ballot under this
subsection shall be counted which is received in the office of the county board of elections
later than eight o'clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election."
Even more prohibitively, Act 77 also provided that if this portion of the law was ever
invalidated, that the rest of Act 77, including its liberalization of mail-in voting, would
also be void.
Pretty clear so far, except if you're on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
After a four to three party-line vote, this court very strangely ruled that, first, mailed
ballots don't need to be received by election day and that ballots can be accepted if they are
postmarked on election day or received within three days thereafter. Next, the court got
creative allowing that, a mailed ballot with no postmark, or an illegible postmark, must be
regarded as timely if it is received by that same date.
Of course, to most who read English this court's rulings were not in keeping with Act
77.
Before Friday's order, Alito had already assessed that,
" The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures , not
state courts , the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be
meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by
claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever
rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election." [Emph.added]
When bringing suit the Republicans also raised concerns that PA Secretary of the
Commonwealth, Kathy Boockvar, had issued new guidance on Nov. 1 (
pdf ) directing county election boards to count late-arriving ballots.
Bottom of Form
Alito said in his order that he had not been informed that his guidance issued on Oct. 28,
"which had an important bearing on the question whether to order special treatment of the
ballots in question," had been modified. Alito suggested that segregating the ballots would
be necessary because, "if the State Supreme Court's decision is ultimately overturned, a
targeted remedy will be available."
This means Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch (who joined Alito's apparent skepticism on the
Pennsylvania ruling) are open to legal challenges brought by Trump regarding post- Election Day
fraud. That one decision will, after a full hearing, very likely invalidate thousands of votes
cast illegally in Pennsylvania. However, with new allegations surfacing, more illegal ballots
could add up. Or at the very least legitimize a recount.
This willingness by SCOTUS to already provide certiorari to actions brought to it
regarding 2020 election fraud may foreshadow consequences in other states soon.
Case in point may be the news of the last hour that the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC)
told poll workers to 'add a missing witness address' to any deficient ballot and that
some poll workers allegedly took it one step further by signing for non-existent witnesses. If
true, in doing so, the workers may have invalidated thousands of more ballots, committed a
felony offense and necessitated further SCOTUS intervention.
" an absentee ballot must be signed by a witness, who is also required to list his or
her address. If a witness address is not listed, then the ballot is considered invalid and
must be returned to the voter to have the witness correct."
" The statute is very, very clear," said retired Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice
Michael Gableman, a Milwaukee poll watcher on Election Day. "If an absentee ballot does not
have a witness address on it, it's not valid."
With Alito's words and Thomas' and Gorsuch's concurrence in mind, WI may have just come back
into play; re-count pending.
The former ambassador to Russia under the Obama Administration, Michael McFaul, presumably
knows a lot about Color Revolutions, since his boss used him in Ukraine in 2014. McFaul, who
was also instrumental in the Russia-Gate disinformation campaign against Trump, also
authored, "7 Pillars of ColorRevolution,"
As this historic election continues, reporting and further analysis will highlight daily
events and their parallels that already warn that these seven pillars are seemingly right in
place here in America, as they were in the examples Ukraine, Bolivia and Venezuela, at
least.
The initial step in each example has been to use a national election as the reason for a
razor-thin and disputed vote result, one that the media stirs into a frenzy on both sides: A
frenzy so viscous that the result becomes massive civil unrest followed next by violence.
And then military intervention.
In this, the first seventy-two hours of news from the election battleground of America 2020,
this first step of a media fabricated victor, of which the other side detests and alleges
criminal behavior, would seem in play.
Unless Trump concedes.
As this report continues to delve into the hard allegations of equally outrageous American
election fraud, like its funded Color Revolutions past, America's color may turn out to be,
here in the homeland, " Pale Blue."
Good night
About the Author: Brett Redmayne-Titley has authored and published over 180
in-depth articles over the past twelve years. Many have been translated and republished
worldwide. He can be reached at: live-on-scene ((at)) gmx.com. Prior articles can be viewed at
his archive:www.watchingromeburn.uk
Attorney General William Barr appeared Monday to make a bid to reassure backers of President
Donald Trump who have complained bitterly in recent days that the Justice Department was not
taking action to combat alleged voter fraud and other election irregularities.
In a memo to U.S.
attorneys , Barr authorized them to open election-fraud investigations "if there are clear
and apparently-credible allegations of irregularities that, if true, could potentially impact
the outcome of a federal election in an individual State."
... "While serious allegations should be handled with great care, specious, speculative,
fanciful or far-fetched claims should not be a basis for initiating federal inquiries," Barr
wrote. "Nothing here should be taken as any indication that the Department has concluded that
voting irregularities have impacted the outcome of any election."
Employees were summoned to campaign headquarters in Virginia for a meeting led by Trump
campaign manager Bill Stepien and lawyer Justin Clark to talk about the next steps, according
to a campaign official at the meeting.
Clark told staff not to mistake a "lack of motion for lack of progress," as the campaign
pursues legal action in all critical states, with the exception of Georgia, called for
Biden.
...senior Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller said on Fox Business that the campaign does
believe there is a pathway toward Trump remaining president.
"We're going to go and pursue all these legal means, all the recount methods," he said.
"We're going to continue exposing and investigating all these instances of fraud or abuse, and
make sure [that] the American public can have full confidence in these elections."
Miller said the campaign is pulling together evidence of alleged fraud, and he believes it
has enough to change the outcome in Pennsylvania. He added that he expects recounts in Georgia
and Arizona, and legal action in Michigan and Wisconsin, both states that Biden carried.
The word "concede" he said, "is not even in our vocabulary right now."
Here's a video showing a live broadcast feed of election results as the AC360 is rolling in
the Kentucky Gubernatorial race. It represents the flip of votes in small increments at a
time.
Almost imperceptible to anyone.
But it's caught on live digital television, and a frame by frame examination shows it.
https://youtu.be/VQvLZ0aGYRs
REPORT: Wisconsin Election Clerks Tampered with Thousands of Ballots.
Eye-witness reports of numerous acts of ballot tampering and vote fraud pour in from the battle
ground states including Wisconsin where poll workers altered absentee ballots.
Poll workers handling absentee ballots in Wisconsin received direction from election
authorities to illegally alter ballots with missing information. The missing information
– by law – made those absentee ballots invalid and ineligible to be included in
tabulation.
But a report coming out of Wisconsin reveals that poll workers and ballot counters were given
instruction by the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) to write in missing absentee ballot
witness information on ballots that were missing that information.
https://nationalfile.com/re...
Not quite right. It was found by a Dallas Security firm that Dallas County used DS-200
Ballot Tabulator, and they were hacked in 2018.
Simply amazing why our officials have allowed this to gone on for so
long. election vote servers are in Spain and Germany for 28 states ! 28
isn't that the number using Dominion Voting machines ?
Software is really stupid stuff. It does not go off on its own, has no mind of its own, and
there is no intelligence anywhere in code. It performs instructions and does them over and
over, exactly the same every time, no matter what. Until something changes.Something changing
is not a "glitch." It is a change.
Software does not wake up in the morning and suddenly shift 6,000 votes from candidate A to
candidate B, as in Biden. An electrical impulse hitting from that outdoor lightning strike does
not make code do something different. It may fry a hard drive, but it does not change vote
counts.
Software leaves tracks. These are called log files
I don't think I'd go that far. There is a numerical analysis method called "Benford's Law"
that has been used in the past to show instances of voter fraud in Iran. When applied to voting
patterns for candidates other than Biden it shows no problems in any states. Apparently it does
not show problems for Biden either in states where he lost or those obviously liberal ones that
were almost bound to support him. However, when the analysis is performed on the results coming
in from swing states where we are being told he pulled off some very lucky victories the
picture becomes different. So different that big tech are pulling down posts about it.
Since the CIA wrote Scorecard and Hammer, and since there are a few computer forensics folks working for Trump, it's possible
they were able to monitor and log changes to votes on election night and beyond.
If Trump was smart enough to catch these activities and proves fraud to reverse the States he needs to win, he deserves another
term.
If he was not smart enough, he'll lose due to the lack of evidence.
There would be a good reason for Trump not to mention any of this yet. They still might be using the software to change votes
in some States.
In the words of Sun Tze: "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
Hammer is a machine in the CIA, perhaps a server unit, and Scorecard is one of the programs. The system was designed to hack
into and interfere with foreign country voting elections results. Expect more to be reported on it this week.
Qr code readers on our phone would solve the matching of the text. Scanners and to the tabulation databases still could be
vulnerable, but one the paper copy is verified by the voter and archived it can be audited.
The question is whether Scorecard, Hammer and all of the Internet connections between Dominion and the various State voting
servers were used to change votes on Super Tuesday when Joe Biden unexpectedly blew out Bernie Sanders in one shot for the nomination,
just after several other candidates ducked out.
Here is a lengthy video by a Dallas company that specializes in cyber security it's extremely detailed and will make you sick
when you realize this is a cluster that will never get unraveled. And worse, the FBI isn't interested.
A laptop and several memory sticks used to program
Philadelphia's voting machines were stolen from a city warehouse in East Falls, officials confirmed Wednesday,
setting off a scramble to investigate and to ensure the machines had not been compromised.
Though it remains unclear when the equipment was stolen,
sources briefed on the investigation said the items vanished this week. The laptop belonged to an on-site employee
for the company that supplies the machines. It and the USB drives were the only items believed to have been taken.
Two days ago
we
reported
that Republican poll watchers were being turned away from Philadelphia voting stations:
There was reportedly a problem with the state's voter database.
Trump observers were being blocked entry to satellite voting locations in Philly, according to President Trump's 2020 election
security staffer and GOP advisor Mike Roman.
Philadelphia is notorious for Democrat voter fraud. In May of this year a
South
Philadelphia judge
of elections was found guilty of taking thousands in bribes to inflate vote totals for Democrat
candidates.
In
July former Rep. Michael "Ozzie" Myers
, 77, was indicted on multiple counts, including conspiracy to violate voting rights
by fraudulently stuffing ballot boxes.
In
Philadelphia, voter turnout in 20 of the wards was 97 percent and greater. That is 97 percent of the bloated voter rolls
that probably include dead people. Zombies are in these days, and in Philadelphia, they vote.
In 2017 in the US as a whole there were more people eligible to vote than there were eligible voters.
Per
National Review:
The
Election Integrity Project of
Judicial
Watch
-- a Washington-based legal-watchdog group -- analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2011–2015 American
Community Survey and last month's statistics from the federal Election Assistance Commission. The latter included figures
provided by 38 states. According to Judicial Watch, eleven states gave the EAC insufficient or questionable information.
Pennsylvania's legitimate numbers place it just below the over-registration threshold.
My tabulation of Judicial Watch's state-by-state results yielded
462 counties where the registration rate exceeded 100 percent. There were 3,551,760 more people registered to vote than
adult U.S. citizens who inhabit these counties.
We are unaware if any of this has been addressed in Philadelphia or across the nation. Now Philadelphia has its voting
machine keys stolen. What is next?
The Feds need to step in in Philadelphia and all the other big cities
and ensure voter integrity.
These Democrat cities are where elections are stolen.
"... Well they're holding Cook County, Illinois, which includes Chicago, and San Francisco and San Diego counties in California as examples of their satisfied customers. Every one of them a pillar of election fraud for decades. ..."
Forget about the Chinese and the Russians, this fraud was carried out by the
douchebags at our very own, CIA. Those people are the most arrogant bunch of low life's
that you will ever meet. I had to deal with a bunch of them while overseas.
They used CIA's Hammer and Sickle. I'm sorry I meant to say Hammer and Scorecard. I
think the fact that our loudmouth neanderthal ex-CIA director John Brennan voted for
commie Gus Hall was on my mind.
Well they're holding Cook County, Illinois, which includes Chicago, and San Francisco
and San Diego counties in California as examples of their satisfied customers. Every one
of them a pillar of election fraud for decades.
As Pelosi recently said, " we have more arrows in our quiver". Nothing could bring
this country to its knees more than massive voter fraud, other than total nuclear
annulation.
Question why five key states stopped counting votes at the same time at 2:00a.m. when Trump was ahead ,then resumed 3 hours later
when votes turned ALL to Biden, none for Trump. Seriously?
It's worst than that. Dominion is the new brand name if Smartmatic, a Venezuelan "entreprise". Here in Brazil our elections
are being cheated extensively for decades because the entire national voting process are based upon these machines. Over here
the machines doesn't print a copy of the ballot in paper at all. It's a disgrace.
Dominion Voting Systems has ties to prominent Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Bloomberg reported in April of last year that Dominion Voting Systems hired a high-powered lobbying firm that includes
a longtime aide to Pelosi. They hired Brownstein Farber Hyatt & Schreck. Nadeam Elshami, Pelosi's former chief of staff,
is one of the lobbyists on the account.
In 2014, Dominion was listed in the Washington Post table as having donated between $25,001-$50,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
Also 60% stakeholder of Dominion is Finsteins husband. Nothing to be concerned about at all.
I mean why should we worry about Clinton hyping the Russia interference story to scare people both about Trump and the vulnerability
of old voting machines and simultaneously working with a foundation partner to provide 'reliable' ones...
Oh, and of course Pelosi's chief of staff is also chief executive of Dominion voting systems... cozy no?
the entire mail in thing is a fraud and you know it. people can go to the market and buy
food, they can dance in the street after they think Trump lost, but they can't vote in person
because of the virus?
this was an operation to steal the election and everybody knows it
Every vote counted by an old dominion machine needs to be recounted/audited.
Our election systems have been poorly designed on purpose so they could be hacked. They ALWAYS pretend it's incompetence. ALWAYS.
The first thing a criminal does is play dumb and pretend like they didn't know what they were doing. They knew exactly what they
were doing. Russia Russia Russia was BS and they knew it. They needed easily hackable machines for a different outcome, so they
changed them. It's that simple.
These electronic machines updated 50 year old punch card tech. The reason it wasn't updated in the past 50 years? Potential
for hacking and fraud. So of course our politicians rolled these out in states all over the country. This started around 2012,
but expanded mainly after 2018. They are very easy to hack, see:
All you need to do is change a few lines of code in the memory card. THESE ARE NOT GLITCHES!!!
And in terms of implementation all you need to do is send out a few repair men to swap out memory cards every so often. Swap
to the hacked one and then back so people won't notice or discover it later. Voting machines were open in most places for a month.
It's super easy to do this, the repairmen don't even need to know what they're swapping in and out. It's extremely simple and
would only need to involve a few memory cards per state. This is so easy to do it's absurd.
"... But while they now have the power, globalists do not have solutions to the country problems, and the crisis of neoliberalism (which started in 2008) will continue, the far-right nationalism will stay and may even gain strength. This suggests that in 2024 is somebody like Tucker Carlson will lead the ticket. And Tucker is a more dangerous opponent to neoliberal Dems than Trump ever been. "Trumpism without Trump" will live, so to speak. ..."
Interesting piece by Beinart about the obvious question that isn't being asked: Why did
Trump lose? After all he had the advantages of incumbency, until February the stock market was
booming, wages were rising, things were going great.
Answer: because he was not nearly radical enough. Because he was a weak leader who was
captured by the Republican elite (not the other way round). Also (rather ironic this) because
he was and is a terrible negotiater. He continually caved into the likes of Mitch McConnell,
and, well the rest is history.
Question: will 'super Trump' in 4 or 8 years time manage to follow the Eastern European
template and create a genuine populist party? (economically social democratic, particularly
concentrating on pensioners: extremely hostile to immigration, skeptical of environmental
issues, culturally conservative?). If so the future is the Republicans' but it's a big if.
...he was a weak leader who was captured by the Republican elite (not the other way
round). Also (rather ironic this) because he was and is a terrible negotiator. He
continually caved into the likes of Mitch McConnell, and, well the rest is history.
All true. But Biden victory in some ways looks like Catch 22 for neoliberal Dems (Will the
Democrats Ever Make Sense of This Week? – New Republic):
In sum, if the results we have hold, Joe Biden will win the election and preside over a
divided Congress. A chastened and anxious Democratic caucus will continue to hold the
House.
A triumphant Senate Republican caucus will obviously destroy his major legislative
agenda. Biden will assuredly turn to policy by executive action, just as Barack Obama did
late in his legislatively stymied administration.
When he does, Republicans will do all they can to send those actions to a 6–3
conservative Supreme Court Biden will be unable to pack or meaningfully reform.
In defeating Trump, Democrats will have avoided their worst-case scenario. Instead, they
will have won the worst possible Biden victory, a political situation that will be a
nightmare all its own.
Trump, with his "national neoliberalism," was an anomaly in its own right. And such things
do not last long. So this is a kind of "return to normal" -- return to power of the
"internationalist" faction of Oligarchy who is linked to globalization (and constitutes the
majority of the US oligarchy), which was unexpectedly defeated in 2016 and since then foght
tooth and nail for the return to power. And such "normalization" is the most logical outcome
of the 2020 elections and is to be expected.
But while they now have the power, globalists do not have solutions to the country problems,
and the crisis of neoliberalism (which started in 2008) will continue, the far-right
nationalism will stay and may even gain strength. This suggests that in 2024 is somebody like
Tucker Carlson will lead the ticket. And Tucker is a more dangerous opponent to neoliberal
Dems than Trump ever been. "Trumpism without Trump" will live, so to speak.
That may spell troubles for the well-being of the PMC (professional and management class)
to which we all belong.
I would add that the fact that Biden victory legitimized Russia-gate and abuse of their
power by intelligence agencies is also a problem. I suspect that Neo-McCarthyism, in the long
run, might backfire.
Fox News Channel's Tucker Carlson says Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is "happy to sell out his voters with an amnesty deal" after
he suggested finding "common ground" with Democrats on immigration.
During a segment Friday night, Carlson called out Graham -- who just won reelection in South Carolina --
for suggesting to the Senate Republican caucus that their agenda next year could include working with Democrats on amnesty for
11 to 22 million illegal aliens. Carlson asked:
Who's excited to greet our new corporate overlords? Who plans to collaborate, particularly who on the right side, the Republican
side, the side that said it was defending you. Who's happy about all of this? That seems worth keeping track of just so we know
who we're dealing with here.
I was particularly interested in the comments of Lindsey Graham who just won reelection in the state of South Carolina because
conservatives voted for him the people around Trump put a great deal of pressure on Lindsey Graham to send them money, so after
a day or two, he made a great show of sending them $500,000.
But then on the issues that matter, Lindsey Graham immediately ran away from the ideas that he claimed to support and said
that he would be happy to sell out his voters with an amnesty deal, like within hours of the election.
You have a deeply flawed party that refuses to protect its own voters and represent their legitimate interests but they are
the only hope that this country doesn't descend into something unrecognizable. It puts 70 million decent people in a tough spot.
Already, America First conservatives and immigration reformers are
pushing back against Graham's comments.
"The new base of the Republican Party is the American working class, of all races. 'Common ground' on immigration reform is code
for amnesty, and amnesty is an insult to the millions who voted GOP in the election," Bostonians Against Sanctuary Cities President
Lou Murray told Breitbart News.
Currently, there are about 20 million Americans who are jobless or underemployed, mostly due to the Chinese coronavirus crisis,
but all of whom want full-time jobs.
Economists have found that their
job opportunities and wages can be easily diminished by
high immigration levels.
One particular study by the Center for Immigration Studies' Steven Camarota revealed that for every one percent increase in the
immigrant portion of American workers' occupation, their weekly wages are cut by perhaps 0.5 percent. This means the average native-born
American worker today has his weekly wages reduced by potentially 8.75 percent, since
more than 17 percent of the workforce is foreign-born.
The high immigration policy is a boon for giant corporations, real estate investors, Wall Street, university systems, and Big
Agriculture that can cash in on an economy that offers low wages to a flooded U.S. labor market.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder .
To start one's own party is not so easy and outright impossible under the current conditions. If the majority of GOP supports
him then the best course would be to purge and reinvigorate GOP: he should issue a call of action to his supporters and create the
situation when those who use their membership to their own benefits will be forced to step down or cancel the membership. By purging
I don't mean filling it in with 'yes-men': they don't have to be obliged to love Trump; criticism is essential, but these people
have to be able to differentiate between the personal and common when on service. They all have to be loyal to the America First.
If you call yourself 'Republican' then behave like one or choose another party. Such RINOs are materially motivated - they never
couldn't build a career in the Dems Party, especially now, with the Squad; they can't start their own Party - nobody will vote them,
because they'll be the party of traitors and sell-outs. Benny Too Too
deploritarian •
2 days ago
No your corrupt corp fraud media did it to him along with hussein osama's weaponized US agencies! Now go back to watching CNN
lying hate media to get even more stupid
With 25 Million Illegal Aliens in our Country the Democrats have an absolute Lock on this and future Elections by enabling them
to Vote. No Voter ID laws, Sanctuary Cities awarding them all Privileges of US Citizens from Drivers Licenses and access to all welfare
state programs. We are not a Sovereign Nation any longer. ANITFA called it in their Protests "No More BORDERS. Democrats support
this Treasonous Group because it gives them perpetual control of Washington.
Elibar deploritarian •
2 days ago
Better European papers? LOL! I live in Europe and can tell you they're every bit as lying and partisan as the MSM EVERYWHERE!
Practically every European national broadcaster and newspaper gets s o r o s funding, unless you happen to read Hungarian. For instance,
the long defunct Italian Radical party's radio station was close to collapse due to lack of support. They are now back on air admitting
the Hungarian pos gave them almost 400,000 euro if they supported 'immigration'. Read the Beano, it's far more informative.
You leftists will NEVER understand the Trump supporters.
We voted for Trump because we DIDN'T LIKE WHAT THE REPUBLICANS WERE DOING (or actually, NOT
doing).
Republicans and Democrats BOTH suck. Democrats just suck 100 times more and are 100 times more
retarded.
But I would get rid of the RINOs first. At least the evil traitorous democrats don't hide their
intentions like the back-stabbing traitorous RINOS.
Ohio Attorney General has joined a bid to ask the US Supreme Court to toss the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court's
late-October ruling allowing late ballots to be counted.
Two Georgia GOP Senators call on Republican Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger to
resign over failure 'to deliver honest and transparent elections.'
Pennsylvania Supreme Court agrees to hear GOP challenge over dozens observers who claim
they were 'corralled' and unable to view count, which may invalidate up to 800,000
ballots.
Nevada poll worker attests to outright fraud .
Update 1810ET: The Trump campaign has filed a 105-page
lawsuit in the US District Court in Pennsylvania alleging that the state operated an
illegal 'two-tiered' voting system for the 2020 general election , and has sought to block the
state from certifying the count.
As LawandCrime.com reports, Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, a Democrat, and
seven Keystone State county boards of elections are listed as defendants . These boards come
from Allegheny, Centre, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Northampton, and Philadelphia
counties.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann, a Barack Obama
appointee.
* * *
Update 1635ET: Monday just keeps getting more and more interesting. As claims of fraud and
invalidated ballots pile up, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Sen. Lindsey
Graham (R-SC)
threw their support behind election challenges (implying there's a 'there' there).
For starters , Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has filed a 'friend of the court' brief with
the Supreme Court in support of Pennsylvania Republicans, who want the USSC to overturn the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court's late October ruling allowing absentee ballots which arrived up to
three days after election day .
"The States need an answer to that question, which is certain to arise again in future
elections. And it is important to provide that answer now because, without a ruling from this
Court, doubts will continue to linger about whether the vote count in Pennsylvania was
performed in conformity with the Constitution," reads the filing by Yost, which was also signed
by Ohio Solicitor General Benjamin Flowers and Chief Deputy Solicitor General Michael
Hendershot. (source:
cleveland.com .
Next, two GOP Senators from Georgia have called on the state's Republican Secretary of State
to resign over his alleged failure 'to deliver honest and transparent elections.'
And as we noted earlier:
* * *
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to consider a GOP challenge claiming that
Republican observers were unable to oversee ballot counting, thereby invalidating hundreds of
thousands of votes, according to Reuters .
The decision to hear the case is separate from a challenge to the PA Supreme Court's ruling
regarding ballots received after election day.
The news comes as Rudy Giuliani says at least 50 GOP witnesses say they were 'corralled' by
Philadelphia election officials on election day and 'weren't able to see a single ballot'
counted behind closed doors. He claims that the roughly 800,000 votes counted after that ' are
invalid .'
Giuliani detailed the claims in an interview with Newsmax - where he announced that the
first of five lawsuits will be filed on Monday in Pennsylvania 'challenging the entire vote on
a number of grounds. '
"In this lawsuit we have over 50 witnesses who will say that the vote count, particularly
once the election ended that night and President Trump was ahead by 800,000 votes in
Pennsylvania, the count thereafter was unlawful ," said Giuliani, adding: "It was counted
behind closed doors. Republicans were not given an opportunity to see any of the mail-in
ballots as required by Pennsylvania law. Pennsylvania law requires that for a ballot to be
valid, a mail ballot to be valid, it has to be observed by both sides."
"We have 55 Republicans ready to testify that they were uniformly corralled and weren't
able to see a single ballot . They saw a lot of activity, but no ballot. Every one of those
ballots that was cast that was not examined, is now an illegal ballot - an unlawful vote.
-Rudy Giuliani
Giuliani continued: "Not just in Philadelphia, however, precisely the same thing was done in
Pittsburgh. The only difference is - when a court intervened in Philadelphia they didn't follow
the court order, and our people were threatened with arrest if we tried to look at the ballots
. Whereas in Pittsburgh, halfway through, they allowed some observation. So the numbers of
unlawful ballots in Philadelphia are about twice the number in Pittsburgh."
Over the weekend, Giuliani told Fox News host
Maria Bartiromo " This is documented on videotape. There are upwards of 50 witnesses. And
this will be the subject of a lawsuit that we file tomorrow for violating civil rights, for
conducting an unfair election, for violating the law of the state, for treating Pittsburgh and
Philadelphia different than the rest of the state, which is an equal protection violation,
which goes under Bush vs. Gore. "
Meanwhile in Nevada , a Clark County poll worker has claimed in a sworn affidavit that proof
of residence data was fabricated for illegal voters , among other claims.
The whistleblower claims that they worked 13 out of 14 days during early voting 'from
October 17th - 30th,' where they 'had concerns over election polling place intimidation and
voter fraud.'
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Voters without valid ID were told to go to the parking lot and simply 'make an
appointment with the DMV' - after which they were allowed to vote .
"We were told by [redacted] (my team leader), and two other assistants to advise people
who wanted to register to vote and did not have the proper Nevada ID/Driver's license that
they could go out in the parking lot and make an appointment with the DMV to get a Nevada
ID/Driver's License, and then bring in proof of their appointment confirmation (either a
paper copy or show it on their phone to us) and then they would be registered."
"We were told to add two zeroes ("00") to the DMV confirmation number and put it where the
Driver's License/ID number was supposed to go when we filled in the registration form on
line."
A 'Biden/Harris bus, tent, or table was in the parking lot' with 'speakers, dancers,
music and other festivities' and were offering 'food, drink, and political memorabilia to
voters.'
"Our team leader [redacted] had to go out several times a day to tell the Biden/Harris
team they had to stay 100 feet from the location doors . As they would give folks signs to
carry up to the door coming to vote. The Biden/Harris bus and/or van was there 7-8 days out
of the 14 days."
Unopened ballot envelopes were opened and filled out against the side of the Biden/Harris
van .
"I personally witnessed two people handing multiple unopened mail in ballot envelopes to
two other people who then opened and filled out the ballots against the side of the
Biden/Harris van . The same two people who marked the ballots then put the marked ballots in
official pink and white envelopes. These individuals were not poll workers."
...
"By my final walking lap, there were 5 or 6 additional people who formed a human wall ,
which moved as I walked by, apparently in an attempt to block my view of the four people who
were opening envelopes, marking ballots, and placing those ballots in the pink and white
return envelopes ."
On Saturday, the Clark County Registrar of Voters, Joe Gloria, acknowledged that his office
had received reports of potential voter fraud , but that they wouldn't investigate them until
after the election is completed.
"We do have some reports that have come in that we're logging for reporting. But we're
definitely going to do an investigation, and we'll deal with them once the canvass is
finished," said Gloria. "The votes are in the system at this point, so we'll have to after the
election, post-election, go after anything that's been reported at this time."
el_buffer , 4 hours ago
800K unmonitored ballots?
Naw...that doesn't smack of possible fraud at all.
The USA has CIA, DIA and NSA and can't create reliable voting machines. something is really
fishy here. Some clearly amateurish solutions are in place. May be this is by design.
Dominion Voting Systems were used in Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and other
states.
"Voting System Examination of Dominion Voting Systems Democracy Suite 5.5" - Brian
Mechler, Technical Examiner, February 15, 2019
https://www.sos.texas.gov/e...
Conclusion: " I do not recommend the EMS Express [ or EMS Standard electronic
voting systems by Dominion ] for use in elections in the State of Texas."
"If a ballot has to be removed from the underside of the scanner to clear the jam,
the privacy of the vote is not maintained "
"The voting UI does not allow a voter to crossover vote from straight
party to no selection in a partisan contest."
"Another major concern is the quality of the scanned ballot images. Write-in selections
written in ballpoint pen were illegible. Even the scanned images of ballots generated
by Dominion's own ballot marking devices were of poor quality ."
" If a USB device was added while the [ voting ] tablet was
powered down, no warnings appeared at startup and the poll worker could open the polls
unaware of any change. "
" The ICX Prime BMD [voting system by Dominion] is not safe from fraudulent or
unauthorized manipulation ..."
"Voters could end up with printouts that accurately spell out the names of the candidates
they picked, but, because of a hack, the bar codes do not reflect those choices.
Because the bar codes are what's tabulated, voters would never know that their ballots
benefited another candidate."
https://wlos.com/news/elect...
Huh. What do you know.
And, that's only for the Dominion Voting System machines.
Philadelphia, for example, also uses over 37,000 ExpressVote XL paper ballot voting
machines, manufactured by Election Systems & Software of Omaha, Nebraska:
"...plaintiffs led by ex-Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein
recently asked a federal judge to enforce the settlement terms. They claim the Pa.
Department of State hasn't upheld the agreement's parameters for upgrading voting systems
statewide by the end of the year. And they've asked U.S District Court Judge Paul
S. Diamond to order DoS to decertify the ExpressVote XL voting machine, the pick in three Pa.
jurisdictions (Philadelphia, Northampton and Cumberland counties)."
https://www.witf.org/2019/1...
Seems the GOP aren't the only ones raising concern over voting machines. The only ones who
aren't concerned are the self-declared "winners" using them.
People might recall that President Trump won Pennsylvania by only 44,000 votes back in 2016,
and may also recall during the 2912 Election 59 precincts in the Philly area had 100% of their
votes go to Mitt Romney despite the fact Philly had only about 73% registered Democrats.
So, a fair, open, honest, and transparent election process would be important in Philly.
Now, before anyone provides a knee-jerk reactions like "conspiracy theory", "certifiable",
"sour grapes", etc. and proclaims I may be wearing a possibly-too-tight tin-foil hat, consider
the information above is just the tip of any legal process: Any legal effort to show the
Election Process was above-board or corrupted would require substantially more information,
timelines to be established, data to verify and trend, witnesses to identify & interview,
affidavits to collect, and legal arguments to present.
Finally, to satisfy the Liberal naysayers, let me finish with: Why, I'll bet that to date
there's more evidence showing fraud in the 2020 Election Cycle than there was to justify the
claims of "Man-made, irreversible global warming". Hayte to see all those knee-jerk reactions
and donations of tin-foil go to waste.
Richard J Daily pulled the same stunt and waited until all the votes were in.. Then
delivered just enough from Chicago to give the victory to JFK over Nixon.
When Trump beats this fraudulent election. First on the list Voter ID and hardening of the
ballot process.
Without control of both houses of CONgress, no such thing will pass on a federal level.
The party that filed 300 lawsuits to remove state election laws & legalize ballot
harvesting will simply never do so & 💋-asses like Grahamnesty, Pierre Delecto &
many there are only too happy to compromise the nation away.
If Joe Biden had run a real campaign and generated genuine enthusiasm, Trump voters would be
unhappy with his victory but would acknowledge he had won. But Biden did not win. This election
was stolen. And the fury and bitterness among Trump's base is real and pervasive. So far, Trump
supporters are keeping their powder dry–literally and figuratively. They are going to
give the institutions, particularly the Justice Department, the opportunity to set things right
in accordance with the law. But there is a limit to their patience. I know that Donald Trump
understands this point, it remains to be seen if Attorney General Bill Barr grasps the
situation. From what I know of Bill Barr, especially from friends who are close with Barr, he
understands the danger and the implications perhaps even better than President Trump.
The latest coup attempt is a mixture of audacity and sloppiness. On the audacious side we
see a coordinated effort in key battleground states to stop counting votes when it was clear
that Trump was in the lead and headed to a second term. The reason to stop counting was to
bring in the thousands of votes that would make it appear that Trump lost. But for those of us
in Florida, we saw the Democrat plans thwarted and the true depth of Trump's victory.
Here is where we see the sloppiness of the Democrat plot against Trump–the Dems
foolishly forgot to cook the books on the House and the Senate. Trump's coat tails brought
significant gains in the House of Representatives and prevented a wipeout in the Senate. It is
historically and statistically improbable that Republicans win back seats in House and hold the
Senate while Trump allegedly loses. Trump did not lose. He garnered the most votes ever for a
Republican but could not control the Democrat Governors who opted to stuff ballot boxes with
bogus ballots. There is a legal, lawful remedy to this.
I got my start at the CIA as the Honduran analyst during the height of the war in Central
America. Part of my duties required me to keep tabs on political chicanery that was rampant
among Honduran political, business and military leaders. I am now stunned to witness that this
Republic–thanks to the craven and corrupt actions of politicians, business leaders and
the media–behave like a shithole banana republic. The days of America pretending to
instruct other countries on how to conduct free, fair elections is over.
So, what are we to do? First, Trump supporters in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania,
Georgia, Arizona and Nevada must demand action by their state legislators. Those men and women
must stand up and be counted and must fight this outrage.
Second, turn off the media and cancel subscriptions to those publications that have
facilitated this evil farce. This means Fox. Only News Max and OAN can be relied on now to
report what is going on. An honest media would be reporting on the growing mountains of
evidence that the will of the voters was thwarted. Our so-called media, for the most part, is
mute or insisting that we did not see what we very clearly saw–i.e., votes for Biden
magically appearing in the middle of the night, Republican observers being barred illegally
from doing their job, Trump supporters showing up to vote and being informed that they had
already voted, and long lists of dead people who were resurrected from their graves to cast a
vote for Sleepy Joe.
Third, shutdown your Facebook and your Twitter accounts. Create fake accounts and do not
post any personal information about your activities or those of your family. Only support
genuine social media that allow full, unfettered discussion. Sign up for Parler, for
example.
Fourth, vote with your dollars. Make sure you are not supporting the tech giants that are
continuing to play a hand in trying to quash dissent and drown out the truth.
Fifth, if you own a firearm make damn sure you know how to use it. You must know without a
doubt how to safely load, unload, fire and clean your weapon. There are thousands of NRA
instructors ready to assist.
Sixth, change your viewing habits. Give up your Netflix account. Don't support Hollywood. If
you don't watch their movies and buy their products you will hit them where it really
hurts–the pocketbook.
Seventh, Do the Math! Trump supporters in every state must obtain official state registered
voter counts on Nov 2. Compare those totals to the numbers put up at the end of November 3rd.
Why? You couldn't have voted if you weren't registered. Next, compare the addition of Nov 2
voters to those added on Nov 3 TO the total votes for a state. If total votes / nov 2 plus add
ons is greater than the 5 year average of same comparison in 2016, ie percent of voters who
voted THEN, there is clear probable cause to show that ballot stuffing occurred.
Last, pray. We are not in a battle with mere mortals. This is at root a war against evil.
The constant drumbeat of propaganda proclaiming Donald Trump as a racist, as homophobic and a
liar is but one manifestation of this demonic plot. The very people leveling those charges are
the ones who have allowed millions of black Americans to wallow in misery in crime ridden
neighborhoods. They are the ones who celebrate aborting black babies as a fundamental human
right. They are the ones who will gladly sell out to China and sacrifice American jobs in order
to rake in millions of dollars.
I understand the gut churning fear that many of you feel. I also understand the seething
rage that has yet to manifest itself. Here the radical left, masquerading as Democrats, have
made a fatal mistake. They assume we will go quietly into the Gulag. They don't know
America.
A most interesting thread popped up on Twitter Sunday from a data scientist who wishes to
remain anonymous, regarding mail-in ballot data which strongly suggests fraud occurred in the
wee hours of election night, when several swing states inexplicably stopped reporting vote
counts while President Trump maintained a healthy lead over Joe Biden.
Using time series data 'scraped' from the New York Times website, the data - comparing
several states (swing and non-swing) - clearly illustrates what fraud does and does not look
like, and how several anomalies in swing states left 'fingerprints of fraud' as Biden pulled
ahead of President Trump.
This is based on their proprietary "Edison" data source which would ordinarily be impossible
to access for people outside the press. The CSV is available here . And the script to generate
it is here . I suggest that
everyone back up both of these files , bc this is an extremely important data source, and we
cant risk anyone taking it down.
What we are looking at will be time series analysis and you will see that it is extremely
difficult to create convincing synthetic times series data. By looking at the times series logs
of the ballot counting process for the entire country, we can very easily spot fraud.
One of the first things noticed while exploring the dataset is that there seems to be an
obvious pattern in the ratio of new #Biden ballots to new #Trump ballots.
As we can see on this log-log plot, for many of the counting progress updates, we see an
almost constant ratio of #Biden to #Trump. It's such a regular pattern that we can actually fit
a linear regression model to it with near-perfect accuracy, barring some outliers. How could
this be possible? Is this a telltale sign of fraud? Surprisingly, as it will be shown, the
answer is no! This is actually expected behavior. Also, we can use this weird pattern in the
ballot counting to spot fraud!
Here is the same pattern for Florida . We see this linear pattern again.
And again (Texas)
And again (South Dakota)
And again all over the country. What appears to be happening is that points on the straight
line are actually mail in votes . The reason they're so homogeneous across with respect to the
ratio of #Biden vs #Trump votes is that they get randomly shuffled in the mail like a deck of
cards. Since the ballots are randomly mixed together during transport, spanning areas occupied
by multiple voting demographics, we can expect the ratio of mail-in #Biden ballots to mail-in
#Trump ballots will remain relatively constant over time and across different reporting
updates.
Lets dig a little deeper into this :
Here is a plot of the same Florida voting data, but this time it's the ratio of #Biden to
#Trump ballots, versus time. What we see is that the initial ballot reportings are very noisy
and "random".
The initial reporting represents in-person voting. These vote reports have such large
variation bc in-person voting happens across different geographic areas that have different
political alignments. We can see this same pattern of noisy in-person voting, followed by
homogeneous mail-in reporting in almost all cases. What we see in almost all examples across
the country is that the ratio of mail-in Dem to Rep ballots is very consistent across time, but
with the notable drift from Dem to slightly more Rep.
This slight drift from D to R mail-ins occurs again and again, and is likely due to outlying
rural areas having more R votes. These outlying areas take longer to ship their ballots to the
polling centers.
Now we're getting into the really good stuff . When we see mail-in ballot counting where
there isn't relatively stable ratios of D and R ballots that slightly drift R, we have an
anomaly! Anomalies themselves are not necessarily fraud, but they can help us spot fraud more
easily.
Now let's look at some anomalies:
This is the Wisconsin vote counting history log. Again, on the Y axis we have the ratio of D
to R ballots in reporting batch, and on the X axis we have reporting time. Around 4am there,
there is a marked shift in the ratio of D to R mail-in ballots . Based on other posts in this
thread, this should not happen . This is an anomaly, and while anomalies are not always fraud,
often they may point to fraud.
By 4am the D to R ratio was all thrown out of whack. That is because these ballots were not
sampled from the real Wisconsin voter population, and they were not randomized in the mail
sorting system with the other ballots. They inherently have a different D to R signature than
the rest of the ballots quite possibly bc additional ballots were added to the batch, either
through backdating or ballot manufacturing or software tampering. This of this being kind of
analogous to carbon-14 dating, but for ballot batch authenticity.
Lets look at another anomaly (Pennsylvania):
Here is Pennsylvania's vote counting history. For the first part of the vote counting
process, we see the same pattern for mail-in ballots that we've seen in every other state in
the country, which is relatively stable D to R ratio that gradually drifts R as more ballots.
But then as counting continues, the D to R ratio in mail-in ballots inexplicably begin
"increasing" . Again, this should not happen , and it is observed almost nowhere else in the
country , because all of the ballots are randomly shuffled in the mail system and should be
homogeneous during counting. The only exceptions to this are other suspect states that also
have anomalies .
Again, this is evidence of ballot backdating, manufacturing of software tampering
.
Lets look at another anomaly:
In Georgia we see pretty much the same story as Pennsylvania: increasing fractions of
mail-in D ballots over time even though it defies logic and we see this pattern no where else
in the country.
In Michigan , we see a combination of Wisconsin strangeness, together with the GA/PA
weirdness. We see both signs of contaminated ballot dumping, and ballot ratios drifting toward
dems when they should not be.
Virginia:
Now in fairness, VA is the only state out of the 50 that has anomalies but has not had
accusations of voter fraud, yet. I think this is the exception that proves the rule. Yet to
figure out what causes this anomalous shift, but here it is so no one accuses me of holding it
back.
Lets wrap this up: It appears Dems shot themselves in the foot bc making everyone do mail-in
ballots actually makes it easier to catch mail-in ballot fraud . Bc all of the ballots go
through the postal system, they get shuffled like a deck of cards, so we expect reported ballot
return to be extremely UNIFORM in terms of D vs R ratio, but to drift slightly towards R over
time bc some of those ballots travel farther. This pattern proves fraud and is a verifiable timestamp of when each fraudulent
action occurred
takeaction , 28 minutes ago
Somebody just sent me this over my phone...Is this correct?
This is going to the Supreme Court where they will rule the election is invalid due to
fraud or mistakes on a country wide scale. It will go one of two ways, either they will rule
that all the unconstitutional mail in ballots will be removed and the states ordered to
recount without them or they will simply rule the election is invalid due to mass voter fraud
and at that point it will be sent to the congress and senate for a vote.
This is where it gets good. The House/Congress votes on who the President will be. It has
nothing to do with what party that has power. Every state gets one vote and 30 states are
held by Republicans / 19 by Democrats.
They have to vote down party lines, they have no choice due to the 12th Amendment of the
Constitution and the Senate votes for the Vice President where a similar event will take
place. This is The Law. This is why the Democrats are so mad at Nancy Pelosi. This will
happen in January. The only way President Trump won't be president is if he concedes the
election and that will never happen.
So stop watching the fake news and don't let your heart be troubled and live your life
knowing this will all work out. Another fun fact is when they called Gore the President elect
back in 2000 until the courts ruled against him and declared Bush the winner ––
the two people that were part of that decision was none other than new Supreme Court Justices
Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Why do you think the Democrats tried so hard to keep
them from being confirmed. :)
Perseus-Reflected , 22 minutes ago
The globalist Dems premature rush to claim victory is so that the MSM narrative can claim
Trump 'stole' it from them after working it's way thru the legal system, thereby justifying
their riots/chaos/violence against Trump & the Supreme Court's "illegitimacy".
spyware-free , 14 minutes ago
Wrong. If the election is shown to be invalid the results of the electoral college are
voided. The SCOTUS under the constitution can and will direct the House of Representatives to
resolve the election with a one vote per state basis.
The other less likely option under the constitution is the recount without the ineligible
ballots or redo the election. Neither will be done as it can be argued the integrity of the
election system has been compromised.
Mr. Bones , 17 minutes ago
The ballots would be invalidated due to ' spoilation ' if that's how it
went.
The Democrats would pitch an absolutely epic fit and cry voter disenfranchisement for the
next forever.
I'm also not certain that the republican electors would go for it.
The Democrat swing states were using ballot tabulating software made by Democrat partisan
activists called "Dominion". They obviously built back doors in the code were votes could be
switched or created.
That is why they stopped the counting - changing votes through the back door. Like with
your own computer when you are updating or downloading the operating system "exit all other
programs"
CNN vote totals board is direct feed from election computers. As the election computers
are fed tabulations by precincts and counties changes within seconds on CNN. There are now
TWO videos people have captured that show Trump's vote totals decreasing and Biden vote total
increasing in the election computers. it happens so fast CNN is not always covering them over
by changing to other shots. Here's one of those videos. Watch it closely - you will see:
Start of video PA total votes are: Trump 1,690,589 Biden 1,252,537
At the end of the video the totals on the screen are for PA are: Trump 1,670,631.
-19,958 votes Biden 1,272,495
Statistician here. I could see this pattern happening in real time in Georgia and knew it
was proof of fraud but didn't have all the terminology. Limits make straight lines. Limits
don't lean by definition. Great article.
mendigo , 9 minutes ago
I completely support President Trump and his effort to verify and address issues of voting
integrity - investigation and court action and corrective measures as warranted.
It's all part of draining the swamp. There remains work to be done.
No time for pleasantries and playing nice.
LEEPERMAX , 10 minutes ago
This is HUGE!
Donald Trump may win the state of Georgia after 132,000 ballots may be ineligible Over
600,000 mail-in -Nevada with NO voter roll signature or envelope signature Michigan counted
149,772 votes in 5 seconds, and less than 6,000 of them were for Trump.
jetsly , 2 minutes ago
Not a statistician, so can't comment on this. Don't have to. Sidney Powell has uncovered
the big tell: at least 450,000 ballots with a vote for Biden, and no one else.
It's understandable. In the counting rooms, they had to process tens of thousands of fake
ballots in a very short period of time, so they had to cut corners. This was one of them.
EuroPox , 27 minutes ago
There IS a problem in Virginia! 169,000 votes just vanished into thin air:
Just listened to it. Very disturbing and whoever that lady was leading the class/briefing
should be arrested and prosecuted. Then every vote that came through her precint/s should be
invalidated on grounds that it is fruit from the poisonous tree.
Totally_Disillusioned , 31 minutes ago
Believe the Science!!!
Here's an excellent article that explains some of the statistical anomolies in Biden's
votes. These anomolies and expert testimony are real evidence of election fraud.
Also lawsuits are proliferating - discovery has begun ! Attorneys general in Missouri and
Kentucky have joined a Republican lawsuit challenging PA mail-in ballots before the U.S.
Supreme Court
B52Minot , 19 minutes ago
The Goggle searches within these select battleground States for punishment for voter fraud
a week BEFORE the election was off the wall...and anyone with a brain know that the typical
voters does not normally do that...people who are going to do this fraud are looking at how
much they would now be sent to jail for.....BUT FOR ONE THING....several AGs in these battle
ground States were Dems and would not prosecute these crimes if discovered...EXCEPT FOR ONE
THING....THE FEDS will not provide you protection from prosecution unless you come forward
and expose it. Their computers have been ID as who did this search....and cross referencing
to who worked doing the counts are KNOWN...YOU have been ID'd.
SO if you are the one who did such fraud better think about that now....discovery is
coming as are the FEDS.....There is AMPLE evidence of WIDE-SPREAD FRAUD...in multiple States
doing the exact same thing.....which makes it a conspiracy to deceive the USA....that will
get people put into jail....and Biden will NOT be certified and the Dems attempt to get
control of the USA via fraud will FAIL...and the longer Trump keeps this up the greater the
involvement of Biden in this whole thing.....call 1 615 747-1500 and/or contact election2020unmasked.com to provide info
on any fraud you did as part of vote counting or similar activity...better do it now.
Canoe Driver , 21 minutes ago
The vote fraud is very obvious. The Biden camp has NOT gambled that no one will be able to
detect the fraud. Not at all. Their gamble is that the fraud will NOT be acknowledged
publicly, because the risk of discrediting the election system is too great. Many people in
positions of responsibility and authority are already saying the rioting would be unstoppable
if the Biden campaign fraud were exposed.
However, in the Milwaukee County of Wisconsin, which is in one of the key swing states, Joe
Biden's votes violate Benford's Law while other candidates' don't. (Joe Biden 69.4%, Donald
Trump 29.4%, Jo Jorgensen 0.9%. Source: theguardian.com)
And in Chicago of Illinois, Joe Biden's votes are abnormal.
So does that of Allegheny of Pennsylvania which includes Pittsburg. (Joe Biden 59.0%, Donald
Trump 39.9%, Jo Jorgensen 1.2%. Source: theguardian.com)
It looks like maybe Biden had lost big cities like Chicago and Pittsburgh, which is why the
fraudulent votes need to be brought in, which skew his curve away from a normal looking
one.
For those who are interested to reproduce the analysis, you can follow the instructions
here and give it a go.
"... This essay, however, argues that, despite its apparent utility in looking at other phenomena, Benford's Law is problematical at best as a forensic tool when applied to elections. ..."
"... It is not simply that the Law occasionally judges a fraudulent election fair or a fair election fraudulent. Its "success rate" either way is essentially equivalent to a toss of a coin, thereby rendering it problematical at best as a forensic tool and wholly misleading at worst. ..."
The proliferation of elections in even those states that are arguably anything but
democratic has given rise to a focused interest on developing methods for detecting fraud in
the official statistics of a state's election returns. Among these efforts are those that
employ Benford's Law, with the most common application being an attempt to proclaim some
election or another fraud free or replete with fraud.
This essay, however, argues that, despite its apparent utility in looking at other
phenomena, Benford's Law is problematical at best as a forensic tool when applied to
elections.
Looking at simulations designed to model both fair and fraudulent contests as well as data
drawn from elections we know, on the basis of other investigations, were either permeated by
fraud or unlikely to have experienced any measurable malfeasance, we find that conformity with
and deviations from Benford's Law follow no pattern.
It is not simply that the Law occasionally judges a fraudulent election fair or a fair
election fraudulent. Its "success rate" either way is essentially equivalent to a toss of a coin, thereby
rendering it problematical at best as a forensic tool and wholly misleading at worst.
As commenters have noted , the vertical scales are different. Narrow vertical scales make
changes look larger. While wide vertical scales smooth out changes. Biden's graph is using a
more narrow scale than Trump's.
Put them all together in one graph with the same scale and they don't look so different
anymore.
I had to eyeball
the numbers from the graphs, but more precise numbers won't change the outcome. I don't
even know if the numbers are correct. I can say with some certainty that the graphs are
deliberately constructed to sell a lie. One or the other scale is a natural choice, either
0 to max or min to max. Someone had to choose to use different vertical axes for each
graph.
Disclaimer: I have not looked at the actual data.
In general, the biggest problem with applying Benford's law to district level election data
is, that precincts are usually small and similar in size. For example, if all the precincts
have around 800 voters and one candidate consistently takes 40-50% of votes, then it is
expected, that the most frequent first digits will be 3 and 4.
Benford's law works better in cases where the values span multiple orders of magnitude,
which is not the case here.
For concrete examples, it is worth looking at the several Github issues on the source of the
analysis:
The disappearance of Benford's law in Milwaukee is a function of voter preference alone.
If one candidate has between 60% and 80% average chance of receiving a vote, then the sizes
of the wards in Milwaukee are too small to accommodate Benford's law.
More generally, several papers question the usefulness of Benford's law applied to election
data:
Unfortunately, my analysis shows that Benford's Law is an unreliable tool. And, as one
applies more sophisticated methods of estimation, the results become increasingly
inconsistent. Worse still, when compared with observational data, the application of
Benford's Law frequently predicts fraud where none has occurred.
It is not simply that the Law occasionally judges a fraudulent election fair or a fair
election fraudulent. Its "success rate" either way is essentially equivalent to a toss of a
coin, thereby rendering it problematical at best as a forensic tool and wholly misleading at
worst.
Looking at the actual Chicago data at https://www.chicagoelections.gov/en/election-results-specifics.asp
by precinct as of late November 7, the charts for Chicago look credible but the assumption that
Benford's law should apply do not, at least for Biden/Harris or the minor candidates.
Of the 2069 precincts (most of which are of broadly similar size), Biden/Harris won fewer
than 100 votes in 12 precincts, and more than 999 votes in 4 precincts. All the rest (more than
99%) had three digits for their votes, violating the requirement that natural data satisfying
Benford's law
should span several orders of magnitude . More than half the precincts (1100) gave
Biden/Harris from 300 through to 499 votes, making 3 and 4 the most common first digits (the
chart reflects this and is close to showing the actual frequencies by hundreds of votes, so
300-399 was the most common).
For Trump/Pence, votes were more widely dispersed: 99 precincts with 1-9 votes, 1339
precincts with 10-99, and 633 precincts with 100 or more votes. This dispersion over orders of
magnitude allowed a greater chance of coming closer to matching Benford's law.
For the minor candidates, they only reached double digits in a very small number of
precincts (and got 0 votes in hundreds of precincts - not shown on the charts) so the charts
are close to showing their actual vote distribution with censoring of 0 and 10+; again you
would not expect Benford's law to apply.
Chicago was an odd choice to investigate for suspected cheating in 2020 where the gap in
Illinois was 12 percentage points (1960 when it was 0.2 percentage points might have been more
interesting). I suspect it was chosen simply because the data is publicly available and the
distortions caused by similar precinct size led to this non-Benford law result. You will see
this elsewhere for similar reasons: in 2019 very few British MPs won a number of votes starting
with 5-9, as their constituencies are of broadly similar sizes and the winners usually got in
the range from 10,000 to 49,999 votes, again failing the spanning several orders of magnitude
requirement. share improve
this answer follow answered yesterday Henry 12.9k 1 1 gold badge 51 51
silver badges 57 57 bronze badges
user3570982 ,
That's a good explanation, though not entirely accurate: There is no requirement for spanning
several orders of magnitude, and Benford's Law can be observable even when there is not a
wide span of magnitudes. If there is a wide span, Benford's Law tends apply more accurately,
but it's not a requirement. What's required is that there not be a cutoff of possible leading
digits (a bounding requirement). – user3570982 yesterday
Acccumulation , 2020-11-09 01:58:10
According to Wikipedia:
Benford's law, also called the Newcomb–Benford law, the law of anomalous numbers,
or the first-digit law, is an observation about the frequency distribution of leading
digits in many real-life sets of numerical data. The law states that in many naturally
occurring collections of numbers, the leading digit is likely to be small.
...
It tends to be most accurate when values are distributed across multiple orders of
magnitude, especially if the process generating the numbers is described by a power law
(which is common in nature).
Beford's Law is not some universal phenomenon, and it failing to hold is not "proof" of
fraud. For instance, we can play this game with the vote percentages that Donald Trump
received in 2016: 11 first digit of 3, 19 first digit of 4, 16 first digit of 5, 9 first
digit of , and 1 first digit of 7 (yes, this adds up to 56; some states don't assign electors
based on state-wide totals, and there's also DC). Clearly, Trump's vote percentages were
fraudulent! In the reddit thread, u/Three-Twelve
says
In the case of the Milwaukee data and Detroit cited in the pictures above, the number of
votes per voting area does not span over several orders of magnitude, so Benford's Law is
not applicable.
The size of a precinct is likely a stronger predictor of the number of votes for Biden,
than Biden's support is. If these people want to claim that this is evidence that the number
of voters per precinct is not random, that would be more supported by the evidence, but also
much more vacuous (it's hardly earth shattering news that some precinct sizes are preferred
over others).
The amount by which a candidate's level of support predicts their vote count, compared to
how well precinct size does, will increase the more that level of support varies (as a
percentage of that support). Thus, if Biden's support varies between 90% and 95%, and Trump's
varies from 5% to 10%, Biden's support is varying by a bit more than 5% (the math is a bit
confusing, as this is a percentage of a percentage; 5% is a bit more than 5% of 90%), and
Trump's support is varying by 100% (5% is 100% of 5%). So Trump's vote totals will vary more
than Biden's, and thus Trump's totals will have more variance across orders of magnitude, and
Beford's Law will be more applicable (note that Jo Jorgensen, who has even less support than
Trump, has a distribution that is also closer to Benford). For an apples to apples
comparison, we'd want to compare to places where Trump was the favored candidate, but those
are rural areas, and I would expect precinct sizes to vary more in rural areas than in
cities.
The Wikipedia article further says:
Based on the plausible assumption that people who fabricate figures tend to distribute
their digits fairly uniformly, a simple comparison of first-digit frequency distribution
from the data with the expected distribution according to Benford's law ought to show up
any anomalous results.
Biden's distribution is consistent neither with Benford, nor with a uniform distribution.
It is, however, a very good fit for a Poisson or lognormal distribution.
Whenever you have a statistical analysis, it's important to remember that the what it can
tell you is that the observed data is unlikely given your null hypothesis. Going from that to
that the null definitely is false requires further justification, and assuming that because
the null is false that means that your favored alternative is true is a false dichotomy. If
someone has a model in which this voting data is unlikely, all that is an argument for is
that their model is false. Democrats engaging is fraud is just one possible way the model
could be false. share
improve this answer follow edited 20 hours ago answered
20 hours ago Acccumulation 2,003 1 1
gold badge 10 10 silver badges 14 14 bronze badges
KT,
Do vote counts for Joe Biden in the 2020 election violate Benford's Law?
Simple, uninformative answer: They apparently considerably deviate from it, at
least on one of the presented charts.
Caveat: This observation alone is not sufficient to jump to any conclusions yet. Two
additional questions need to be answered before attempting any jumps:
How (im)probable is this observation under our "normal worldview"?
Although a commonly observed pattern in election datasets, there are no guarantees for
Benford's law to necessarily always emerge. It is therefore important to understand
when it is expected to emerge and how far can we expect a given district to
deviate from it. This can be done by, for example, analyzing previous elections (
assuming those represent "normal voting"). We can model each district's
vote distribution based on historical data and measure the expected degree
of deviation from Benford's law. Once this is done, we may assess the probability of
seeing the observed deviations under these "normal conditions" (a.k.a. the
"p-value"). If this probability ends up being low, we will be able to say that "we are
very surprised" by our observations.
What is the cause of the deviation?
If the analysis in step 1 happens to result in a "sufficietly low" p-value, i.e the
data does not match a "normal" worldview, our next order of business is to come up with
an explanation - a model of a "new" worldview, which fits the data better (e.g. by
including a particular voting fraud process). Only then we can try to jump to any
conclusions.
Metacaveat: Although this all would be pretty standard, textbook-approved methodology of
data analysis, give up your hopes that this could help anyone "learn the Truth". Both steps
include enormous amounts of subjective judgement and, in the end, it is still one's own
beliefs that determine which conclusion to jump towards.
The first step ("modeling normality"), despite relying on mathy techniques and bearing
resemblance to hard science, is, none the less, a form of art. Depending on which historical
data one picks and how one processes it, it may be possible to end up with the p-value
estimate ranging between "unbelievable" to "totally expected".
The second step ("modeling abnormality") is even more subjective - one can usually find
hundreds of valid explanations, ranging from data errors to seasonal abnormalities to various
types of fraud, and the final decision will be determined by one's prior beliefs as to which
of these explanations "seem more plausible".
Given how politically charged the question is, convincing someone else in any chosen
judgement's "objectivity" here is probably hopeless. However, I would be extremely interested
if anyone actually attempted a systematic analysis and suggested a tentative p-value estimate
for the observations. share improve this answer follow edited 23 hours
ago answered yesterday KT. 153 2 2 bronze badges New
contributor
user1781498 ,
This answer is based on original data analysis or non-verifiable data. It is up to the
answerer to provide valid, verifiable and potentially replicable evidence. Answers which are
wholly based on "original research" are generally downvoted and may be deleted. See
FAQ: What constitutes
original research?
The charts for this question are from this repo . I created a fork of the repo
here . I did
chi-squared statistics tests on all the counties and all the counties have in the repo have
statistically significant data for deviations from Benford's law.
My understanding is that the chi-squared test should be valid for sample sizes over 50.
Which is what the benford statistical testing module I'm using says. They use Donald Trump's
2016 election vote data as an example. It did not violate Benford's law. Quote from the
module's README:
Dataset should preferably cover at least 1000 samples. Though Benford's law has been
shown to hold true for datasets containing as few as 50 numbers.
I think the graphs' weird proportions are mostly just to make the text display correctly.
I think it's mostly due to laziness and not thinking about the weird proportions.
There's discussion in the main repo's issues page on how accurate Benford's law is or is
not for detecting election fraud. There's also people saying in the issues saying that using
the second digit instead of the first is more accurate for detecting election fraud. I don't
know whether that's true or not. share improve this answer follow edited yesterday
answered yesterday user1781498 33 2 2 bronze
badges New contributor
Benford's Law catches Biden red handed: a repost Posted on 11/6/20 at 8:59 pm 63 6 Look at these fricks
in Milwaukee. Trump "lost" by 20,000 votes when there was a 100,000+ only Biden vote dump at 4
in the morning.
Two Statistical Curiosities That Allowed Biden To Pull Ahead In PA: A Limerick and
more.
The votes that was tallied in Philly
were not added up willy-nilly.
For the fraud is state-wide
leaving no place to hide.
It's treason; deny it is silly.
Two Statistical Curiosities That Allowed Biden To Pull Ahead In PA:
A brief note. I've been asked
to examine the Pennsylvania votes. That work is ongoing. Update See below for a serious
critique of Benford's law.
I'm showing here (with
permission) the one analysis I found most curious.
This is official county-level timed voting data that started at 2020-11-04 11:00:00, a day
after the election, to 2020-11-07 11:29:00 which is Saturday night. That is, these are all late
vote counts. They start, county by county, where the vote left off on election night.
This is a picture of the running totals by the time the votes were added, summed across all
counties, during those time periods. They do not start at 0, but at the totals given after
election night.
The early gains for Biden are from, mainly, Philadelphia, Allegheny, Montgomery, Chester and
Berks counties. A simple plot
shows the size of vote additions for both candidates, when new vote totals (greater than 0)
were added by county (and not all counties added votes after election day).
All goes well for Trump until 2020-11-04 21:15:00 when he loses just under 10,000 votes, but
curiously from three different counties simultaneously: -1,063 Allegheny; -2,972 Bucks; -7,135
Chester. Biden never lost any votes (at least, in this late voting).
Understand that this does not mean the decreases happened at this time, but that they were
recorded in the official data as happening at that time. And the same is true for our next
observation.
Biden's next curiosity was the big increase of 27,396 votes at 2020-11-06 08:53:00 over one
consecutive reporting period. This bump is just like the blue-red F-memes you have seen: this
only seems more spread out because of the finer time scale used.
These two curiosities account for a 37,263 vote swing for Biden. Biden's total, as of the
end of this data, was 3,344,528, and Trump's 3,310,326. Biden therefore "won", in this dataset
anyway, by 34,202 votes.
Biden could not have pulled ahead without the curiosities noted above.
There is more to come. Stick around.
Update Benford's law is only useful in uncovering multiple and on-going instances of
cheating. As in somebody consistently cooking financial books. As I showed above, assuming the
curiosities are cheats, it only took two instances to tip the balance. Benford's law will never
pick this up: never.
I'm skeptical of what I'm seeing in other analyses, because if somebody turns something up
with Benford, it implies that many, many vote totals were tampered with, which increases the
possibilities of getting caught. And you don't need to tamper with many. Only a few.
his is a map of the extent to which Dominion voting machines software is presently used.
When votes are tallied it produces results that are not credible according to statistical
science.
Joe Biden's votes violate Benford's Law, President Trump's do not.
Benford's law or the first-digit law, is used to check if a set of numbers are naturally
occurring or manually fabricated. It has been applied to detect the voting frauds in Iranian
2009 election and various other applications including forensic investigations.
Benford's Law ,
also called the Newcomb–Benford law, the law of anomalous numbers, or the first-digit
law, is an observation about the frequency distribution of leading digits in many real-life
sets of numerical data. The law states that in many naturally occurring collections of numbers,
the leading digit is likely to be small. For example, in sets that obey the law, the number 1
appears as the leading significant digit about 30% of the time, while 9 appears as the leading
significant digit less than 5% of the time. If the digits were distributed uniformly, they
would each occur about 11.1% of the time. Benford's law also makes predictions about the
distribution of second digits, third digits, digit combinations, and so on.
Plots of the first digits of counts in various precincts and wards for selected
counties/cities.
This is Pittsburgh.
But even cities where we know the outcome, the numbers have been manipulated such as
When this fraud is corrected the electoral map will look quite different, and may even swing
a few house and senate votes.
Hoft linked to a November 7 2020 GNews.org item with the headline "Joe Biden's votes violate Benford's Law
(Mathematics)," which began with a cascade of pseudointellectual lies:
As the vote counting for the 2020 Presidential Election continues, various facts suggest
rampant frauds in Joe Biden's votes. So does mathematics in terms of the votes from
precincts.
Benford's law or the first-digit law, is used to check if a set of numbers are naturally
occurring or manually fabricated. It has been applied to detect the voting frauds in Iranian
2009 election and various other applications including forensic investigations.
On Gab , a blog post written by Hoft was atop its list of trending
topics, featuring the following headline:
UPDATE: Facebook and Twitter Suspend Accounts That Posted on Benford's Law Showing Biden's
Implausible Vote Totals -- LABELING IT "SEXUAL EXPLOITATION"
This part appears to be legitimate; we are contacting Facebook for details. However, that
warning appears to be more a reaction to previous claims made by Hoft
and his ilk. We have contacted Facebook for comment.
In that November 8 2020 post, Hoft primarily accused Facebook and Twitter of censoring
shares of his tweet and the GNews.org post, writing:
We have heard from many readers who told us once they retweeted this tweet or tried to
post it on Facebook their account was suspended! The social media giants are preventing
Americans from posting this mathematical evidence that proves Joe Biden's numbers violate the
Benford Law of normal distributions!
In a prescient November 6 2020 analysis
by the Election Integrity Partnership ("Vote Data Patterns Used to Delegitimize the Election
Results"), claims about Benford's Law were one of several topics discussed in relation to
potential efforts to delegitimize the final vote tallies with social media-enabled election
interference.
The Election Integrity Project also displayed two charts, one called "Vote Tallies Projected
against Benford's Law," and the other, "Final Vote Tallies Projected against Benford's Law."
Contrasting the two, they wrote:
The figure above ["Vote Tallies Projected against Benford's Law"] shows the leading digit
of reported vote tallies across select counties. For instance, the final tally in Dane
County, Wisconsin was 338,946. This would count for one county in the 3 column. But why would
anyone care to look at this kind of frequency distribution? Data forensic experts use these
distributions to investigate fraud. They look at whether empirical distributions of leading
digits deviate from a special distribution described by Benford's Law. The law posits that
leading digits of numbers are more likely to be smaller numbers (e.g., 1) than larger numbers
(e.g., 9).
Armchair investigators during the election have already begun to argue that too many of
the submitted vote totals begin with larger single digit numbers (7 or 8 for example), which
is being spun as evidence of voter fraud. We caution against this conclusion. Having the
distribution of leading digits stray from the expected percentages predicted by Benford's Law
can happen by chance, though it is more common when the law's assumptions are violated, as
they often are with vote tallies. Benford's Law, and other math-based inquiries, can be used
to detect voter fraud, but the vast majority of these violations are not conclusive evidence
of fraud.
[ ]
Returning to our voting tally in Figure 1, you will see that the tallies deviate from the
line of expectation. So, does this mean fraud? Does it mean that vote counters were up to
something nefarious? In this case, absolutely not. First, the example above is a simulation
based on a computer script, rather than one based on real voter data. If we consider the
final output of this 72 county simulation, it ends up looking like Figure 2 ["Final Vote
Tallies Projected against Benford's Law"]:
These final results are more predictable and follow the expected counts more closely, but
still exhibit expected deviations. These same deviations are occurring in the voting counts
currently being reported in the 2020 election. Our aim in this post is to prepare the public
and journalists for these misleading arguments and to provide context for the claims already
being made online.
In their conclusion, the Election Integrity Partnership noted that claims about Benford's
Law "proving" election fraud were based on early, incomplete data -- not to mention a
fundamental misunderstanding of how it works. Essentially, claimants citing Benford's Law were
cherry picking
early or
incomplete results to stake their claim:
At this stage, the assumptions that lead to Benford's law are violated leading to the
patterns generated in the Figure 1 above. Only once all counties have been counted does the
distribution approach something consistent with Benford's law, seen in Figure 2. Even at this
stage, the distribution of county sizes still makes it unlikely to exactly match
expectations. A more complete model might include non-random voting patterns whereby rural
counties lean a different direction than urban ones. This, compared with the relationship
between the rate of vote counting and county or precinct size would probably cause more
drastic violations of assumptions. As this is a rapid response, incorporating this complexity
was impractical.
Unsurprisingly, a spike in interest involving one particular mathematical principle
(Benford's Law) led to drama over on the topic's Wikipedia page. On the "Talk" page for
"Benford's Law," one section ("Benford, QAnon, and the 2020 election") began:
Following the 2020 United States presidential election result, a number of QAnon folks
have been promoting a theory on social media that the failure of voting numbers for Biden to
match Benford is a demonstration of likely electoral fraud. This is likely why there has been
a big increase in interest in this page, and in particular the electoral fraud section. The
short answer is no. These claims are baseless, and come from a misapplication of Benford's
law to particular cities in a county, or wards in a city, as opposed to all counties/cities
in the US (which is how Benford detected possible fraud in Iran. If you do this analysis in
the US you find that yes, all the numbers fit Benford perfectly). Of course, this cannot be
posted in the article as it would constitute original research, but it is worth keeping a
close eye on the article as there may be misleading edits made in support of the conspiracy
theory over the next few days. Awoma (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2020
Application (or misapplication) of Benford's Law to the 2020 election eventually made an
appearance in a massive , regularly updated
Twitter thread by political reporter
Isaac Saul cataloging disinformation around the results of the 2020 election:
On November 5 2020, Saul first mentioned Benford's Law, noting
that he was not initially familiar with the principle nor its purported relation to current
election fraud claims:
Saul eventually cited a 2011
paper ("Benford's Law and the Detection of Election Fraud") from Political Analysis
, vol. 19, no. 3. Its abstract explained:
The proliferation of elections in even those states that are arguably anything but
democratic has given rise to a focused interest on developing methods for detecting fraud in
the official statistics of a state's election returns. Among these efforts are those that
employ Benford's Law, with the most common application being an attempt to proclaim some
election or another fraud free or replete with fraud. This essay, however, argues that,
despite its apparent utility in looking at other phenomena, Benford's Law is problematical at
best as a forensic tool when applied to elections. Looking at simulations designed to model
both fair and fraudulent contests as well as data drawn from elections we know, on the basis
of other investigations, were either permeated by fraud or unlikely to have experienced any
measurable malfeasance, we find that conformity with and deviations from Benford's Law follow
no pattern . It is not simply that the Law occasionally judges a fraudulent election fair or
a fair election fraudulent. Its "success rate" either way is essentially equivalent to a toss
of a coin, thereby rendering it problematical at best as a forensic tool and wholly
misleading at worst.
A 2006 paper [ PDF ] presented at a political
methodology conference addressed the application of Benford's Law alone to evidence claims of
election fraud:
Another important issue concerns whether Benford's Law should be expected to apply to all
the digits in reported vote counts. In particular, for precinct-level data there are good
reasons to doubt that the first digits of vote counts will satisfy Benford's Law. Brady
(2005) develops a version of this argument. The basic point is that often precincts are
designed to include roughly the same number of voters. If a candidate has roughly the same
level of support in all the precincts, which means the candidate's share of the votes is
roughly the same in all the precincts, then the vote counts will have the same first digit in
all of the precincts. Imagine a situation where all precincts contain about 1,000 voters
each, and a candidate has the support of roughly fifty percent of the voters in every
precinct. Then most of the precinct vote totals for the candidate will begin with the digits
'4' or '5.' This result will hold no matter how mixed the processes may be that get the
candidate to roughly fifty percent support in each precinct. For Benford's Law to be
satisfied for the first digits of vote counts clearly depends on the occurrence of a
fortuitous distribution of precinct sizes and in the alignment of precinct sizes with each
candidate's support. It is difficult to see how there might be some connection to generally
occurring political processes. So we may turn to the second significant digits of the vote
counts, for which at least there is no similar knock down contrary argument.
On skeptics.stackexchange.com, one reader
asked about the Benford's Law and Biden votes rumor. Another commenter reiterated that such
claims were predicated on cherry-picked early numbers, and promoters of the claim were
lying with
graphs :
I'll address just the second charts, because they are straight out of How To Lie With
Statistics.
As commenters have noted, the vertical scales are different. Narrow vertical scales make
changes look larger. While wide vertical scales smooth out changes. Biden's graph is using a
more narrow scale than Trump's.
Put them all together in one graph with the same scale and they don't look so different
anymore.
[Graph]
I had to eyeball the numbers from the graphs, but more precise numbers won't change the
outcome. I don't even know if the numbers are correct. I can say with some certainty that the
graphs are deliberately constructed to sell a lie. One or the other scale is a natural
choice, either 0 to max or min to max. Someone had to choose to use different vertical axes
for each graph.
Rumor's that Biden's victory was impossible because it somehow "violated" Benford's Law
gained further traction after Biden's victory was called on November 7 2020, promoted by
disinformation purveyors like Jim Hoft. Under even the slightest scrutiny, the claims dissolved
for a number of reasons -- such as their basis on early or single-district results, and general
existing indications that Benford's Law was a poor model with which to "prove" election fraud
across the board.
Not only that, but all the dead voters need to be expunged, and all the crooked voter fraud
schemers like those recorded in the following video should be questioned and/or charged with a
felony.
__________________________________ [Recorded] Voter Fraud -- Michigan -- Detroit [11:38]
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
__________________________________
There has never been a more urgent constitutional crisis in our country except maybe during the
civil war (the 1st one).
The GOP will stand with Trump, and Trump will be legally reelected. The Michigan Legislature
just convened a special session to consider the widespread ballot stuffing, technical
"glitches," and other suspicious activity in their election. Everyone in Michigan knows that
Trump and James won that election in a landslide.
The Democrats all stopped counting in numerous states on election night to give them time to
"create" some extra mail-in Biden votes.
The legislature, controlled by the GOP, will invalidate the election if there is evidence of
fraud. They have the Constitutional right to instruct the electors. America will not let the
Democrats steal an election the way they do in Venezuela. THIS JUST IN: The Wisconsin
legislature, controlled also by the GOP, has been called to investigate voter fraud too!!
Milwaukee had an unprecedented 91% return rate, more than any precinct in history by 20 points.
No fraud? We'll see. TruLogix Dennis
Mastin •
2 days ago
Yeah good luck. The work has been done. The ballots removed are long gone. GOP is to blame
this was obvious and they put nothing in place to stop this knowing it was most likely part of
the plan with all of the dems fighting tooth and nail for mail in. Bullet2354 Avery Bierce •
2 days ago • edited
In places like Michigan, more republicans requested Absentee Ballots than Democrats...
And More republicans returned their Absentee Ballots than Democrats....
The 20% could be mostly Biden... but 80-20%. Dems did pick up votes... but so did Trump!
And while I know you feel some republicans did not like Trump... all polling done this year
shows 89-94% of Republicans were supporting Trump - actually much higher than Dem support for
Biden...
- the Trump 'Voter Enthusiasm was off the charts"..... Biden had historic LOW 'voter enthusiasm
most of the summer.
Also - many Bernie People (about 25% in spring) stated they would never vote Democrat after
what the DNC did to Bernie in 2016 and 2020. Maybe the came back to Biden - but I don't know...
I did not see Bernie people rallying for Joe at all.
I think the "ILLEGAL BALLOT ISSUE" IS NOW WHAT THE FOCUS is moving too...
Voting Laws were abused... Late ballots, fake registrations, 'the dead,' ghost mail in
ballot.... -and intentionally and illegally manipulated ballots - even poll workers admitting
they tossed Trump votes because they hate him so much...
Of course, support for Biden isn't in issue. Exasperation with Trump is clearly the
issue.
Independents don't generally support Trump this year.
I don't think many Bernie people would vote for Trump. That doesn't make much sense.
Yes, clearly Trump wants lawyers to argue about ballots being illegal. I guess he thinks they
might be able to show enough ballots were illegal, and that most of the illegal ballots were
for Biden. Ball is in their court on that, I guess. But in court, Trump won't be able to argue
in the form of tweets that say "we've been hearing about so much fraud." Time to put
up.
Court challenges are coming.... that is for sure...
Supreme Court already has the PA rulings and is looking at that.
I do think overall Election Integrity has been compromised... at almost every level and
every step of the process. Ghost ballots sent out, Mail in ballots sold for cash, 'the dead,'
Fake Ids', out of state voters voting multiple times, dates and signatures altered, ballots
trashed by partisan poll workers, ballots altered, software 'errors' (that seem to favor one
party about 100% of the time) ...
It is too much.... I have seen a few poll workers arrested for trying to slide multiple
votes through a machine - and I though 'well just few votes won't matter' - but now... the
Trust is broken...
If anything good can come of all this - I hope the "Voting Process" is overhauled 100%...
maybe even to the level of BlockChain.... Bullet2354 Mike •
a day ago
My concern is not the actual count... however.
My concern is that Voter Laws were abused... significantly.
illegal votes counted, illegal processes used - a really corrupted vote system..... The Law
was not followed.
2016 MI was bad enough with the failed RECOUNT.... Detroit has always had massive counting
errors, bribery scandals, constant inconsistencies, pay to vote schemes, 'walking around money'
- and the STATE has know this for 60 years! ... yet never moved to fix it. I think it has grown
'out of control' in 2020.
I used to 'give a little' for a few fraudulent votes here or there.... a few Dead people get
a ballot... a few data base errors.
This year - the Fraud has crossed the line.
I don't trust the count. - VOTE INTEGRITY HAS COLLAPSED.
By Graham Hryce , an Australian journalist and former media lawyer, whose work has been
published in The Australian, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age, the Sunday Mail, the Spectator
and Quadrant. It's only when you compare what is happening in America to the likes of
Australia, which also recently held elections, that you appreciate just how alarming the
situation in the US is. Civil war is a real possibility.
Despite the fact that America and Australia are both liberal democracies sharing a common
cultural heritage, key aspects of the US presidential and congressional elections appear
extraordinary from an Australian perspective.
To paraphrase Tolstoy: all happy democracies may resemble one another, but every unhappy
democracy is apparently unhappy in its own way.
In recent months, elections have taken place in three Australian states and territories. In
each of these contests, the incumbent government has been returned with an increased majority,
while in America, President Donald Trump has been narrowly defeated by Joe Biden.
Leaving aside the disparate results, the following important differences between the
Australian and the American elections are clear: Firstly, the comparative irrelevance of
Covid-19 as an issue in the American election. Secondly, the dominance of a crude populist
pro-capitalist ideology (favouring business interests and profits over lives) in the American
electoral contests. And finally, Trump's predictable and completely unprincipled response to
his defeat.
These differences augur badly for the future of democracy in America – in fact, they
indicate that it may be in its death throes. In Australia, however, recent events have
strengthened democracy, enabling a perspective to emerge which comprehends the disaster that
may be about to engulf the US.
The outcome of the recent elections in Australia turned on the issue of how incumbent
governments had handled the pandemic. Australia is a federal polity, comprising six states and
two territories, with a population of some 25 million. To date, it has recorded 27,000 Covid-19
cases and 900 Covid-19-related deaths – one of the best outcomes of all Western
democracies. America, by way of contrast, has seen 10 million cases and chalked up over 250,000
deaths.
Australia's remarkable result has been achieved by an early federal government closure of
national borders, strict state government lockdowns and the closure of state borders.
Each of the recent Australian elections was fought on the coronavirus. The Queensland result
is the most instructive. The state's Labor government imposed strict lockdowns and closed its
borders very early on in the pandemic. The conservative parties opposed this, and the two
Trump-like populist parties – One Nation and the Palmer Party – spent the election
campaigning for the immediate lifting of all restrictions and opening of the state borders.
Last week, the Queensland Labor government was returned to power with an increased majority,
and the One Nation and Palmer Party populist vote – primarily the vote of an older
demographic – collapsed and crossed over to Labor.
The situation in America could not be more different. Trump refused to adopt a national
policy to deal with Covid-19. He ignored and/or minimised the risk of the spread of the virus,
promoted untested cures and belittled the advice of his own public health experts. He also
consistently opposed all lockdown measures and other efforts by state governments to control
the pandemic, and blatantly lied to voters, telling them that the virus was under control when
it has continued to spread at an alarming rate.
Despite all this, Trump only narrowly lost the presidency, and, more astoundingly, the
Republican Party easily retained control of the Senate. The 'blue wave' in favour of Biden and
the Democrats – predicted by almost all pollsters – did not
materialise.
One explanation for the relative unimportance of the coronavirus in the US elections is the
dominance in America of a crude pro-capitalist ideology that favours the interests of business
and the economy over the health of the American people. This ideology has political adherents
in all Western democracies (including Australia), but only in America could mainstream
politicians fervently embrace it and hope to win office.
And Trump and the Republican Party did this when the Covid-19 second wave was sweeping
through Europe, compelling political leaders there (including conservatives like Boris Johnson
and Emmanuel Macron) to reintroduce strict shutdowns and other measures to deal with it.
Fifty years ago, the historian Louis Hartz, in the Liberal
Tradition in America , portrayed America as a nation trapped in a liberal, pro-capitalist
ideological straitjacket that prevented it from dealing effectively with the social and
economic challenges that confronted it. Hartz's analysis seems even more relevant now than it
did then.
The most extraordinary aspect of the US election, however, has been Trump's – and the
Republican Party's – refusal to accept defeat. It is this that portends, more than
anything else, the demise of American democracy.
Not surprisingly, Trump has reacted to his defeat by alleging that Biden "stole the
election" by means of widespread electoral fraud. Trump maintains that he won the election.
Even before the counting of votes had concluded, he commenced a number of legal actions –
most of which are doomed to failure – challenging the results in various states.
Donald Trump Jr.
urged Republican supporters to "go to total war" to keep his father in office.
Trump's former adviser, Steve Bannon (who is currently facing criminal charges)
called for the beheading of senior public health officer Anthony Fauci and the FBI
director, Christopher A. Wray.
Powerful Republican politicians, including Senator Lindsey Graham, have vigorously supported
Trump's response to his defeat. Newt Gingrich, the former Republican powerbroker, predicted
that Biden's victory would generate a build-up of rage that would keep Trump in power.
Republican Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis has
urged members of the Electoral College – whose votes determine the outcome of the
presidential election – to break with convention and give their votes to Trump, despite
the fact that voters in their states preferred Biden. This unprecedented suggestion, which has
not been disavowed by Trump and his supporters, constitutes a serious attack on the mechanism
at the heart of the US presidential electoral process.
It also offers Trump a way to stay in power – because if the Electoral College does
not conclude its deliberations by mid-December, it falls to the Republican-dominated Congress
to decide who becomes president.
Trump and the Republican Party have plunged America into an extraordinary political crisis
that will not be resolved for some time. Trump will not voluntarily give up office, and it is
uncertain how this impasse will be resolved.
The president's response to his defeat has astounded conservative Australian politicians.
When asked to comment this week, Prime Minister Scott Morrison could only say that he was an
observer of and not a participant in the US democratic process. Some of his colleagues,
however, have been severely critical of Trump.
More ominously, the Covid-19 pandemic is intensifying dramatically in America, with 100,00
new cases now being recorded each day, along with 1,100 deaths. This ongoing health crisis can
only exacerbate and intensify the current political crisis.
At the weekend, we saw protests in major American cities. Most disturbingly, armed Trump
supporters massed outside an Arizona voting centre in an attempt to stop the count. Such events
could become more common as the political crisis intensifies. It is inevitable that both sides
of the intractable political and ideological divide in America will become increasingly more
irrational in the coming months.
It is all very well for the Democratic Party elites to criticise Trump and his supporters
for believing in conspiracy theories about the pandemic and mass electoral fraud. But these
elites have themselves been peddling equally irrational views about catastrophic climate
change, critical race theory and identity politics for decades. After all, whose world view is
really more irrational, Trump's or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's?
Joe Biden's
victory speech on the weekend was predictable and bland. It is all very well to announce
"a time to heal" and tell Americans "to remain calm and patient" and that "the
purpose of our politics is not unending warfare." But these are just meaningless platitudes
in the current circumstances.
Whatever happens, Biden will not be sworn in as president until January 20 next year. He
cannot begin to deal with the pandemic until then, when it will be too late, nor can he do
anything about the civil unrest that will engulf America. And even if Biden does take office as
president in January, the Republican-dominated Senate will no doubt block his entire
legislative program – such as it is.
America today is in a very similar position to that which it was in in the 1850s in the
lead-up to the Civil War. It is deeply divided over fundamental issues of principle, which have
calcified to the degree that rational debate is no longer possible. The political system,
previously based on compromise, has become so ideologically divided that compromise is no
longer possible.
In such circumstances, civil war becomes a very real possibility. But any coming war will be
very different from the American Civil War of the 1860s. That war was fought, in effect,
between two nations with regular armies.
The coming civil war in America will be a disorganised bitter social conflict fought in
cities by armed groups of citizens on the barricades, much like the European revolutions of
1830 and 1848 – with one important difference. The insurgents in the European revolutions
were fighting for democracy – whereas the participants in America's coming civil war will
be engaged in a war to destroy it.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
So neoliberal Dems gaslighted everybody with Russiagate for four years, staged Ukrainegate,
and now cry for unity. Funny, is not it
For four years, Democrats branded Donald Trump an illegitimate president and treated him as
such. Then-President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden plotted with FBI Director James Comey a
way to oust Trump's pick for national security advisor, Michael Flynn.
Now they face the results of the attempt to depose Trump via color revolution (aka
Russiagate), the result of neo-McCarthyism hysteria and cry uncle. To paraphrase Tolstoy: all
happy democracies may resemble one another, but every unhappy democracy is apparently unhappy in
its own way.
Wayne Dupree has been to the White House to talk to President Trump about race relations
and appeared at election events for him. He was named in Newsmax's top 50 Influential
African-American Republicans in 2017, and, in 2016, served as a board member of the National
Diversity Coalition for Donald Trump. Before entering politics, he served for eight years in
the US Air Force. His website is here: www.waynedupree.com . Follow him on Twitter @WayneDupreeShow
I've participated in eight elections including this one, and I've never before witnessed the
open hostility and vitriol that's been aimed at President Trump.
No president was ever abused like Trump was from day one. The Republicans didn't cooperate
with Barack Obama at all, but any thinking person can see the difference between the way Obama
was treated and the way Trump has been treated. The past four years have set a dangerous
precedent, and you know what they say about karma.
Representative Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer refused to work with President Trump
on anything, but now the socialists want the Republicans to work with them. Interpretation: we
want the Republicans to work with us as long as they believe everything we believe and do
everything to help us, even if, in their eyes, it destroys America. No dissent will be
accepted.
You really have to wonder about this arrogance from the Democrats and their call for unity,
don't you? Joe Biden is calling for unity because he doesn't want to face the constant
scrutiny the Trump administration faced. After all, do you think the hundreds of millions he
received in campaign contributions didn't come with strings attached?
Right now, there's not enough critical thinking for unity to happen; our emotions govern too
many of us. The media have played on that for four years. They convinced millions of
Americans they would have to be insane to consider re-electing Trump, even though most
Americans are sick of the establishment politicians and their big empty promises, sick of their
endless and expensive foreign wars, sick of a sluggish economy, and tired of the outsourcing of
American jobs.
How can unity happen when the rift between liberals and conservatives is larger than ever,
and the two sides envision this country's future in vastly different ways? How will half of
the American population ever again trust their sources of news and information when nearly
every outlet has lost all pretense of objectivity? Every bit of reporting has become an opinion
piece.
In marriage, they call these irreconcilable differences. It may not happen in my lifetime,
but this country would do well to consider a peaceful separation.
Our national media have failed us. And that's all media, including social. They caught us
all hook, line, and sinker. Why? Money. We are such a gullible species. The more people hear an
idea promoted, the more it sounds true. This is why our country is divided. We rely too heavily
on our media for information, true or not. They manipulate us with their words like modern-day
bards. Journalism is indeed dead, and it's been replaced by sensationalism. But it all boils
down to who's really at fault. To find that out, look in the mirror. Yes, we all let this
happen to us.
I wouldn't blame people for believing phony news. Think about it: why do companies spend
literally billions of dollars on commercials? Companies use commercials to change our buying
habits, and they work extremely well on a subliminal level. Likewise, the mainstream and
social media use misinformation, distortions, deceptions, and omissions to change people's
voting behavior on that same subliminal level. The only way to ensure legitimate elections in
the future is to destroy mainstream and social media's hold on our country.
In the past four years, the behavior of the Democrats has been that of junior high school
bullies with no adult supervision. What all men want most is power, and the Democrats will do
anything to get it. We can't take their low road, but should stand against their further
attempts to turn this into a one-party nation. We need a broad spectrum of ideas to keep our
country strong and our citizens cared for.
One party does not have all the answers, nor can they dictate to the other parties how to
worship, think, or even eat. When I was young, I was a Bill Clinton Democrat. I walked away
before the Obama administration and never looked back. I believe more and more people are doing
that, and, by the 2022 midterms – well, watch out, Dems!
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
This article means there's no paper ballot for recounts and the voter can't verify his
ballot. This is not good, and NO ONE should be using a system where the voter cannot verify his
own choices and that his vote was counted. These issues must be figured out for now and future
elections, even if some states have to throw out the results and vote all over
again.
Unless you are too dumb to realize it the American public has witnessed the most rigged
election in American history....If Biden would have drawn anywhere nearly the crowds that Trump
did at his rallies I would say maybe it's legit but Biden couldn't draw more than a dozen
people....What's wrong with this picture?
Locally, hundreds took to the streets in places like the South Side and Squirrel Hill once the news broke. A large crowd marched
to the City-County Building, causing rolling road closures and disrupting public transit.
In the aftermath of the 2016 election, analysts on both the left and right noticed that
President Trump had the potential to grow his base of white working-class voters. Five
Thirty-Eight's
David Wasserman noted that over 44 million non-college-educated white voters who were not
even registered to vote before the 2016 election concentrated heavily in the Midwest, including
2.6 million in Pennsylvania, 2.2 million in Ohio, 900,000 in Wisconsin, and 500,000 in Iowa.
All the Trump campaign needed to do was locate them and register a fraction of them, and it
would be smooth sailing till election day.
Rather than employing a strategy that looked to find the missing white working-class voter,
the Trump campaign devised a plan to drive support from minority voters. They released both the
Platinum Plan for black Americans and the American Dream plan for Hispanic Americans, promising
hundreds of billion dollars to revive their communities and a series of other identity-driven
policies.
This was successful to a point. The Hispanic turnout in Florida and Texas were large enough
to deliver Trump a much larger victory than most people expected and helped keep Arizona and
Nevada competitive even as he shed voters in the suburbs and among Independents as well as
college-educated whites. Among black voters, exit polls showed Trump received 19 percent of the
black voters between 25 and 44 years-old. However, he didn't budge the number of older black
Americas who make up a majority of voters in their racial group.
That plan was always doomed to fail due to the small share of minority voters in the Midwest
that were up for grabs. There weren't enough Hispanic voters or black Americans willing to flip
to the GOP in those states. So they relied on their pool of existing voters and resting their
fate on a ground game.
To the Trump campaign and the Wisconsin Republican Party's credit, they ran a fantastic
operation in the state. The President's campaign increased his support and turnout in 22 of the
23 counties he flipped from President Obama in 2016. Even more astonishing, only two of those
counties had turnout under 90 percent. Some counties like Price, Marquette, and Pepin had close
to 95 percent turnout.
In the county of Kenosha, which saw race riots and acts of violence from Black Lives Matter
supporters and members of Antifa, Trump increased his margin from .3 percent in 2016 to 3.2
percent in 2020, becoming the first Republican to win the county in back-to-back elections
since 1928.
The ground game and high level of support from working-class white counties couldn't make up
because the missing white vote stayed missing. In the 23 Obama-Trump counties, the number of
registered voters declined by nearly 8,000 voters from January 2017 to November 2020 even
though the population increased in these areas.
So Trump's campaign had to work harder with a smaller group of people. Most of the
non-college-educated white Wisconsinites that didn't vote in 2016 remained untapped in 2020.
For over three years, the campaign spent hundreds of millions of dollars chasing phantom voters
in deep blue states like New Mexico rather than looking at their natural base sitting
underneath their nose.
Had those funds been redirected to registering and turning out between five and ten percent
of those non-college-educated white voters they missed in 2016, they wouldn't have to worry
about suburbanites defecting to Biden. Fears of voters fraud or illegal vote count wouldn't
have been a concern if they just reached out to their natural constituency.
There's a good chance that the same story could be told in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and
Minnesota. This election wouldn't have been close if they only worked on registering the people
most likely to vote for them, rather than banking on minority voters who just weren't in the
Rust Belt.
As a boomer, I learned very early how evil and corrupt the democrat party can be. Never
voted for a democrat traitor my entire life. Maybe get a little experience under your belt and
you'll learn. Unless you're already a straight up Commie.
As Tucker said it's fact that Detroit and Philadelphia have a history of rigging elections.
doesn't prove they're doing it this time, but people worried about it are as far from crazy as
it gets.
Why are Democrats descending into entitled rages at demands for transparency, or even just
explanations of what they are doing? We told to be patient with the mail-in vote for weeks,
then they are totally impatient and seething outraged hatred with working through our concerns
about fraud. Their protesters are already taking to the streets chanting "count every vote,"
which is where Trump's slogan, "every legal vote" comes from. Did they have the same emotional
outbursts in the past times when we know for a fact they were rigging urban elections?
The white men who failed to vote for Trump in this election are incapable of grasping the
concept of 'Incrementalism'.
How do you think the Frankfurt School's virulently anti-White Cultural Marxists managed to
achieve the success that they have achieved since the 1960s? These subversive termites did
not go full bore and try to shove their anti-White, anti-Western agenda down the throats of
an America that, at the time, was still almost 90% White European. Instead, they began their
steady 'march through the institutions' using stealth tactics – relying on
incrementalism. One tiny step at a time, so as to not alert their target of destruction
– White Americans.
Trump is not the savior of White America – he proved that over the last 4 years.
But, he was a step in the right direction and these White males who were not 100 percent
satisfied by his performance while in office lack the intelligence and patience that is
necessary for TeamWhite during this fight for our very survival.
Our objective is to make sure that the Trumpism – populism, nationalism, rejection
of globalism, rejection of massive third world immigration into the USA, and a cessation of
fighting endless wars for Israel's sole benefit – these concepts must not be dumped by
the GOP. If a Republican politician starts spouting globalism – or supporting amnesty
– or calling for more wars – he or she needs to be thrown OUT of office as soon
as possible and replaced by a Trumpist candidate.
Brad Griffin is an extremely low IQ, dangerously clueless, checkers playing retard who is
too stupid to comprehend the strategy of the anti-White enemy and he thinks he can throw a
hissy fit and somehow boost the amount of respect that other pro-White people have for
him?
It is due to sanctimonious morons like him that the White race is in the existential
crisis situation we now find ourselves in. These 'absolutists' and 'purists' are going to be
the death of our race of people.
By the way, there have already been observations elsewhere on the fact that White men
supported Trump less than before. Not a revelation.
I had no idea if he would lose White men prior to the election, but I thought it a
possibility. I'd see him stand up there at rallies in front of a massive sea of White people
and he'd start bragging about all the shit he'd done for Blacks, Hispanics, and Women, but
nary a mention of White men.
And what's with his hangouts with Kanye West? Saying he's the least racist person in the
room. And the Platinum Plan? Is this shit why we elected you, chief?
I guarantee that no White men were thrilled to hear about blacks being let out of jail.
The more blacks in jail, the better. They need to be kept where less of them can procreate.
If I were POTUS, I find out which crimes black women were good at and increase the penalties
for those, so we could lock up the breeders.
Election administrators have a shorthand name for a central weakness of voting by mail. They
call it granny farming.
"The problem," said Murray A. Greenberg, a former county attorney in Miami, "is really with
the collection of absentee ballots at the senior citizen centers." In Florida, people
affiliated with political campaigns "help people vote absentee," he said. "And help is in
quotation marks."
Voters in nursing homes can be subjected to subtle pressure, outright intimidation or fraud.
The secrecy of their voting is easily compromised. And their ballots can be intercepted both
coming and going.
The problem is not limited to the elderly, of course. Absentee ballots also make it much
easier to buy and sell votes. In recent years, courts have invalidated mayoral elections in
Illinois and Indiana because of fraudulent absentee ballots.
• 97,000 Biden voters in Georgia who did not vote for Ossoff (or Perdue). They just
voted for Biden, did not vote for a senator. (Did not have enough time overnight to fill in
the bubbles for Ossoff?) Same phenomenon in Michigan.
• 4 am data dumps of 100,000 votes, all for Biden. That happened in several states, all
the same time. They stop counting for the night. Poll watchers go home. But then, actually,
they were counting all night after all. Counting ballots that were delivered after the poll
watchers left.
• 27,000 vote data dump, 100% for Biden. Statistically impossible. Called a
"correction."
• Ca. 90% turnout in Wisconsin. Did 900,000 new voters do same-day registration in
Wisconsin?
• Vicious behavior by Wayne County and Philadelphia vote counting crews--poll watchers
were not allowed in, or kept too far away to see what was going on.
• Polling stations in R districts of Philly kept closed until 10 am on election day.
• Several hundred affidavits from whistleblowers have been collected but not released
yet.
• USPS employees told to backdate postal marks on mail-in ballots to election day. On
video.
Greater than 100% turnout in multiple Milwaukee precincts, massive vote dumps for Biden
with zero for Trump, but everything is just peachy. This election is obviously, blatantly,
in-our-face corrupt and illegitimate and if it is allowed to stand, this Republic is
finished. Beijing Biden will throw open the borders, tens of millions of illegals would flood
in and it's Game Over. There would never be a fair national election ever again and there
sure as hell would NEVER be another conservative president. But yes, do continue to lecture
us peasants about "civility" and "muh norms". Maybe the traitors at the Lincoln Project could
write a guest editorial to get our minds right.
Here's something that's not an innuendo: The Nevada GOP just sent a criminal referral to
the Attorney General, referencing 3,062 documented cases of potential voter fraud discovered
thus far, with that number "expected to grow substantially."
Certain trolls in these parts have been demanding evidence of fraud, in the obvious
expectation that said evidence will never come. As the method the Nevada GOP
used--cross-referencing voter names/addresses against the National Change of Address
database, to identify voters who apparently cast fraudulent ballots in Nevada after moving
out of state--is easily replicable elsewhere, this is likely to be merely the first
domino.
We're trolls because we demand evidence instead of blindly accepting claims made by the
losers? Voter fraud is a concern for all Americans. If Trump was cheated he should prove it
in court. But he can't, and he won't. If he does, I'll admit I'm wrong and accept the
results. I'm sure there were some isolated instances, but it won't change the outcome of the
election. Y'all are going so crazy because your paranoid delusions are finally hitting the
wall of reality. It's not trolling to want more than a bunch of innuendo and baseless claims.
I mean you're all now saying even fox is biased against him. Where does it end? Every world
leader and major news organization throughout the world thinks he won. Only the Russians have
been pushing it's a fraud. Doesn't that say enough? Could it be possible you're being
manipulated, not those libs you hate?
" But coming on the heels of decades of bipartisan bloodsport, from impeachment to
birtherism to Russiagate and back again, baseless delegitimization of election results is
dangerous."
I m not sure who is calling the election issue a coup. But you have missed one or two in
your comments and they had nothing to with this election. Election fraud is generally hard to
prove, especially a large bucket of votes or perhaps buckets is a better word.
You remind me of the kid who was struck in head more than a few wild pitches and when the
fifth hit he spoke up and was boo'd off the field for whining. It is not this election issue.
It has been a sting of peculiar and incomprehensible behaviors by the democrats and liberals
to unseat the current executive and malign anyone who voted for him. And in all ways the
election scenario plays out as so many issues with liberals and democrats in general. This
business of changing the rules because of COVID
And I am ever astonished given the performance of the democrats and their liberal
supporters that were in the race at all. At every turn save one they were turned back
repeatedly and decidedly. And then enduring their campaign . I am not on the economic great
band wagon, but reports were until the COVID matter, people were actually getting back to
work and in some areas among middle and lower incomes, the wages increased. For the first
time in quite some time, an executive was actually challenging how the US was spending its
resources regarding the international policy. That it ruffled the feathers of some or many in
the international community made sense. After all the US had been doing their bidding since
the end of the WWII and the cold war (a retraction more than an end).
Not a single prediction made by the democrats and those "republicans" that opposed him came
to the fore -- they were wrong on every front except one: it would ruffle the feathers of our
international partners to ask them to do more pay more or both on the question of security.
One of the most astute presidents the US ever had on foreign policy managed to develop
relations with the Russians and the Chinese and no one sought to embroil him in intrigues or
Russian or Chinese spying. Though interestingly enough they had temper tantrums during his
admin and went after him, his wife (though they did leave his dogs and his daughters alone).
oddly enough as with the current executive, some member of the FBI funneled incorrect
information in haze of accusations, that became Watergate. And as it turns out his crime, not
ordering a break-in, but attempting to protect his presidency, under seige the his entire
tenure. Though its nice to recall that these same children destroyed President Johnson's
tenure as well.
These are the same individuals who made their bones on Vietnam and got it completely
backwards in every way oddly enough these are the same architects of the Iraq and Afghanistan
invasions. But unlike Pres Johnson one of their own and like the current executive, President
Nixon beat them repeatedly. - he even trounced them at their environmental assail.
While more sophisticated than the 1970's. The same tactics of rhetoric and control are in
play. Antagonize, change the rules, instigate fights, make false accusations, intimidate and
threaten -- it the 1973 APA conference on a larger scale.
It's not one election, it's a boat load of wild pitches .
From Townhall: ........"One of the most interesting aspects of this, as pointed out by NOQ
Report, is that Dominion Voting Systems has machines in more than one-third of the United
States. They never had a lobbyist in Washington, D.C., until last year when they hired
Brownstein Farber Hyatt & Schreck, a lobbying firm. One of the account's main
supervisors is Nadeam Elshami, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) former chief of staff.
Whether or not this was a glitch should be investigated, especially when it comes down to
swing states. Areas in which this system was used should have a hand recount so voters know
their votes were tabulated correctly. A glitch in one county is probable. A glitch in
multiple counties in multiple states sounds like it could potentially be a bigger systemic
problem. ......."
Reason this caught my eye is this law firm has a branch in my little Calif town, far from
DC or LA or SF or Sacramento. Why are they here?
Reminder from RedState, who the Dems started out with and who they actually ended up
with:
Tom Steyer, Deval Patrick, Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson, Elizabeth Warren, Eric
Swalwell, Joe Sestak, Bernie Sanders, Tim Ryan, Beto O'Rourke, Wayne Messam, Jay Inslee,
Kamala Harris, Tulsi Gabbard, John Hickenlooper, *** Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten
Gillibrand, Mike Gravel, John Delaney, Julián Castro, Pete Buttigieg, Steve Bullock,
Cory Booker, Joe Biden, Bill de Blasio, Michael Bennet, and Michael Bloomberg
***Hickenlooper now also associated with the DC lobbying Law Firm - Brownstein, Farber,
Hyatt and Schreck, which is now also linked to the widespread use of certain voting data
machines.
What is that line about "no coincidences in politics"?
The latest coup attempt is a mixture of audacity and sloppiness.
That latter part, the sloppiness, is what bothers me. It's almost as if they wanted us
to know. I mean, they coulda just stolen the election the usual way, with the Diebold
machines. As long as the popular vote count difference is within the margin of error, Diebold
could change the exact count at the touch of a button--and nobody would ever know!
So why this blatant, in-your-face fraud instead of the low-key approach? Well, I can think
of only two possible explanations:
1.) Trump's margin of victory in these states was so big that is was outside the margin of
error, and the Democrats' internal polling told them that long before election day (even as
their media continued to push the bogus external polls on us). Or ...
2.) They actually do want us to notice the fraud. It's a deliberate provocation on their
part, and they're hoping we do something dumb in response so that they can declare all of us
deplorables to be 'terrorists'.
Absent more evidence, right now I'm leaning towards explanation #2.
"... Trump won Michigan by only 11,000 votes, yet Michigan was CALLED FOR TRUMP ON ELECTION NIGHT. Trump won Wisconsin by only 23,000 votes, yet Wisconsin was CALLED FOR TRUMP ON ELECTION NIGHT. Trump won Pennsylvania by only 45,000 votes, yet Pennsylvania was CALLED FOR TRUMP ON ELECTION NIGHT. ..."
"... Republicans have been nearly AWOL in terms of getting control of election security, other than fighting Democrats tooth and nail over voter ID. ..."
"... If Trump lost the election – massive vote fraud operation not withstanding – it's his own damned fault. If one is deluded enough to believe the rigged system in the banana-republic which has taken the name of the USA is somehow legitimate, the loss is entirely thanks his adopting Kushner's wormtongue strategy – one guaranteed to lose. ..."
"... There is simply no way Biden got that many votes .90/100% turnouts in districts where the norm is 65% 100% of mail ins going to Biden ..more votes than registered voters ..more votes than Obama ..pathetic campaign ..Biden sat in the basement because he knew the fix was in. ..."
"... Yes, Kushner is a little cunt and he's taken a lot of heat. But Trump isn't stupid ..he chose to suck up to non-whites and neglect his white base. I agree with that totally but I do not think that explains his "loss" because I do not think he actually lost ..I think the numbers are sheer bullshit. Trump won the election and they are trying to steal it. ..."
"... Just because they declared Trump was a Russian agent, didn't make him a traitor to his country or a Russian agent. Mueller later admits he had ZERO evidence. Over three years of hysteria for nothing. ..."
"... Similarly, just because the MSM declares Biden the winner doesn't mean he is. He's probably not and you just need to avoid making baseless pronouncements of your own. Wait and give justice a chance to work. There's a long time between now and January 20th. ..."
There are simply too many irregularities in this election for me to trust the results.
Mail-in voting is inherently fraud prone and has been something the Dems in PA, MI, and
elsewhere have been seeking and using to steal elections for many years. I will have to see
quite a bit more analysis of the data before I accept this new system of voting that requires
me to trust the moral rectitude of thousands of Black women in the Dem machine, fueled by an
infusion of 350 million thanks to Zukerberg a couple of months ago. This election stinks.
it's possible Trump simply lost a close election because he ran a bad campaign. that's
totally believable, going into election day. indeed, that's what i called for, for about 2
years out. for the Democrat to comfortably win. but that's not believable after what happened
on election day.
in 2016 this happened:
Trump won Michigan by only 11,000 votes, yet Michigan was CALLED FOR TRUMP ON ELECTION
NIGHT. Trump won Wisconsin by only 23,000 votes, yet Wisconsin was CALLED FOR TRUMP ON
ELECTION NIGHT. Trump won Pennsylvania by only 45,000 votes, yet Pennsylvania was CALLED FOR
TRUMP ON ELECTION NIGHT.
something, ahem, rather different happened on election day in 2020. things that have never
happened in 200 years of voting.
Republicans have been nearly AWOL in terms of getting control of election security, other
than fighting Democrats tooth and nail over voter ID. they do put up some of a fight there.
on other election stuff, they're comfortable losing gracefully, over and over. even US
Supreme Court justices will allow the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has been acting
illegally for a while now since it accrued a Democrat majority, to do stuff like count
ballots 3 days after election day.
a lot of DC Republicans also want Trump gone, so they won't even say anything. but we'll
see what happens in Georgia later, because Democrats are going to use the same tactics on
McConnell's guys.
If Trump lost the election – massive vote fraud operation not withstanding –
it's his own damned fault. If one is deluded enough to believe the rigged system in the
banana-republic which has taken the name of the USA is somehow legitimate, the loss is
entirely thanks his adopting Kushner's wormtongue strategy – one guaranteed to lose.
BG
has covered this extensively on his own website. Though he at least did not launch a major
war with either China, Russia or Iran, Trump has spent much of his first term fellating
Jewish donors and pandering to negroes while tossing the whites who put him over the top in
2016 under the Church of Woke's speeding bus. Tossing the largest segment of your voter base
under the bus – be it the Church of Woke's anti-racist one or Goldman-Sachs Mnunchin's
usury-racketeering model – is not a winning strategy. Many white men stayed home or
voted for the Alzheimers-Murikan. He should have followed Steve Sailer's strategy instead of
his me-too denunciations of "white supremacy" (38 times!).
As for the fraud, the evidence is quite overwhelming that there has indeed been an
unprecedented level of fraud. This has been a trend building for some time. There was also
massive vote fraud in 2018, even in BG's home state of Alabama where the D-jerseys literally
bused in voters from out of state to put Doug Jones in the senate. The fraud's expansion is
also thanks Trump's own fecklessness. Instead of spending his days on Twitter, he could have
been doing something to clean up the ongoing criminal enterprises in the DOJ, FBI and every
other federal agency. Instead, he hired one swamp-creature after another to "drain the
swamp". His latest AG, William Barr, was born, raised and elevated in the swamp – truly
a creature 'of the swamp, by the swamp, and for the swamp'. According the Barr (who did
pro-bono legal work for FBI assassin Lon Horiuchi), Epstein hanged himself – something
even most of the clueless normies doubt.
Yet the MAGA faithful believe that this greasy swamp
monster is somehow going to take the drastic action to destroy the swamp because of some
secret 666-D chess plan with NSA spooks. I wonder what the "plan" will be if Biden is sworn
in on January 20? Will they be tired of "winning" by then?
As for the q-anon theory, yes the evidence is significant that pedophiles dominate the
ruling oligarchy. This is not that much of a surprise if one takes some time to read up on
Satanism and the practices thereof, not to mention the Bible. Christ rejected Satan's offer
of world dominion but there have been many men and women who've taken it since his rejection.
It makes little difference what branch of Satanism is in play, be it Kang Jared and Queen
Esther's Chabad Talmudism or the various Masonic flavors or even flat-out Church of Satan.
Crowley provided the shortest summary: "Do what thou wilt." Pedo activity is the
highest form of Satanic worship and does seem to be the required ticket to be elevated to
great levels of wealth and power. (Did Trump take the ticket himself?)
So if Biden is sworn
in on January 20 by Roberts (on the Lolita express passenger list) he will be the next
pedophile to preside over the banana-republic (it's very unlikely he's the first). There are
many others worldwide of course, with even a Pedo-Pope now ruling over the sad wreck of
Catholicism. (This was inevitable with the apostasy of Vatican II).
Solzhenitsyn's 'old ones' were correct: When the question was asked "Why has all of this
(disaster) happened?" the old ones would answer "Men have forgotten God, that's why all of
this has happened". Like the USSR, the Rotten Banana Empire will one day collapse under the
weight of its own evil and corruption. Today, when the (((fake news))), designated the senile
old pedophile as its president-elect, happens to be the 103rd anniversary of the disaster
which Solzhenitsyn referred to. Given his decrepit state, Biden will likely be removed soon
after assuming office. The Hindoo-Dindoo is the one who the overlords want to stamp the
Orwellian boot onto the white man's face forever. She'll do it gladly too.
I think at least part of the decline in white male support this time around is simple
reversion to the mean.
In 2016, Trump ran against Hillary, who is unique in being almost universally disliked or
loathed by white men. Anyone who grew up or lived through the 90s remembers how she became a
national figure and household name during that decade and an entire industry on talk radio
and other media based on hating her developed. And not just right wingers and conservatives,
but centrist and left leaning white men generally disliked or loathed her. White men can't
stand Hillary.
This time around, without Hillary, at least some of the white male vote reverted back.
Massive fraud. The election was not legitimate. And I had given up on Trump long ago for his failures on immigration .. still, I felt he'd be better than Biden so I voted for him.
There is simply no way Biden got that many votes .90/100% turnouts in districts where the
norm is 65% 100% of mail ins going to Biden ..more votes than registered voters ..more votes
than Obama ..pathetic campaign ..Biden sat in the basement because he knew the fix was
in.
Trump had huge rallies and massive support even if he did lose a few whites for pandering
to non-whites.
He pissed me off for sure but I still voted for him because Biden/Harris are scum.
There are far too many red flags and irregularities to believe the election was fair. The
color revolution theory makes sense to me. The jews saw Trump as an autocrat .faked polls to
favor Biden ..prepared their army of Antifa/BLM scum to riot ..sent out a zillion mail in
ballots that have no verification readied an army of lawyers to fight, etc.etc.etc.
Yes, Kushner is a little cunt and he's taken a lot of heat. But Trump isn't stupid ..he
chose to suck up to non-whites and neglect his white base. I agree with that totally but I do
not think that explains his "loss" because I do not think he actually lost ..I think the
numbers are sheer bullshit.
Trump won the election and they are trying to steal it.
Everything you say is still far too early to call. What does it mean that the MSM declared
themselves the official appointed people to declare the winner of an election? NOTHING.
That's right. Just because they say they can, doesn't mean they can. Why does everyone fall
for this illusion? The law is the law. Every legal ballot will be counted and the real winner
will prevail. If there's vote fraud it will be uncovered. Twitter, MSNBC, CNN etc. can't
declare a winner and make it binding. They can mislead their viewers, make people very very
upset if things are ultimately different than they expected but they have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY.
Quite honestly, it's pretty obvious there was significant fraud. Give the law a chance to
work.
Just because they declared Trump was a Russian agent, didn't make him a traitor to his
country or a Russian agent. Mueller later admits he had ZERO evidence. Over three years of
hysteria for nothing.
Similarly, just because the MSM declares Biden the winner doesn't mean he is. He's
probably not and you just need to avoid making baseless pronouncements of your own. Wait and
give justice a chance to work. There's a long time between now and January 20th.
Just
remember people making up a hoax and lying doesn't overturn reality. Fake votes don't win
elections, only real votes. Someone is going to get the record straight like Mueller did and
people will be pissed, It's their problem, not ours.
Election Summary Report for Gwinnet County, Georgia.
Total Population: 936,250
Total Registered Voters: 581,467
Voter Participation: 408,268 (70.21%)
Ballots Cast?
811,836.
1.36 ballots per registered voter.
1.99 ballots per participating voter.
This Election was a perfect example of what America has become. A dog eat dog society that
has Zero Class , and even less morals with No honor left – anywhere. Dissect it anyway
you wish – It's going to be a very very hard lesson to learn from – that is If
there's anybody left – to teach or comprehend.
It led to the Russiagate coup, delegitimising the peaceful hand over of power. For 3 years the left screamed 2016 was rigged,
with 0 verifiable evidence.
Patty
from
100%
Fed Up
was called down to the TCF Center in Detroit, Michigan on Wednesday morning after the election.
Patty
has been a poll challenger for nine years in the Detroit area.
She can assure you that voter fraud is alive and well in Michigan.
Patty
told The Gateway Pundit she could not believe what she was witnessing at the center that day. Patty was there for hours to
witness the lawlessness of the Democrat operatives as they went to work to steal the election in Michigan.
Democrats were STUNNED on Election night by the record setting numbers of President Donald Trump. They had to work fast in
Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina and Wisconsin. So they went to work manufacturing ballots.
Patty
told the
100%
Fed Up
audience, "Last night, after watching the media, tech giants, Democrats, and back-stabbing Republicans attempt to
convince Americans that voter fraud is a myth, and that mass voter fraud is simply not a thing, I decided to go live on our
100 Percent Fed Up Facebook page and explain what I saw or didn't see, thanks to Democrat operatives and Detroit election
workers, at the TCF Center with my own two eyes."
Here is Patty's full video on her day at the TCF Center in Michigan.
This lawlessness cannot stand. If Americans value their freedoms they better wake up and speak out now.
There are no second chances when one corrupt party is allowed to steal
elections.
UPDATE 3:58 p.m.: Pennsylvania GOP Congressional members have issued a letter to Gov.
Wolf, Attorney General Josh Shapiro and Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar:
"Dear Governor Wolf, Attorney General Shapiro, and Secretary Boockvar:
As Members of the Pennsylvania Congressional Delegation, we greatly understand that when a
legislative body creates law, the duty of an administration is to faithfully execute these
laws. However, we are deeply concerned with how the Commonwealth has handled the general
election.
From last minute guidance provided to the counties on the eve of the election, to the
Attorney General playing dual roles as a political candidate and legal arbiter with a vested
personal interest, to volunteer legal observers being prevented from having access to vote
counting locations, we believe these conflicts and irregularities have greatly eroded public
trust in the Commonwealth's electoral system.
The citizens of the Commonwealth do not just expect free and fair elections, they deserve
free and fair elections.
We believe that every legal vote should be counted, and it is compulsory for the Secretary
of the Commonwealth to discount any votes that do not meet the letter of the law. On Friday,
November 6, United States Supreme Court Justice Alito issued a temporary order requiring
election officials to segregate ballots received after 8 p.m. on election day. While Secretary
Boockvar has indicated this has already been occurring in Pennsylvania's 67 counties, there has
been little evidence to support these statements.
This uncertainty follows guidance issued to the counties on the eve of the election
instructing them to disclose to party operatives individual information associated with
rejected mail-in ballots, in an attempt to have corrections made, which is in direct conflict
with Pennsylvania election law. We believe that in order to faithfully execute the duties of
the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth it is incumbent upon Secretary Boockvar to
follow the law.
Statements made by Pennsylvania's Attorney General, including social media posts calling the
outcome of the election, prior to the tabulation of a single vote are troubling and highlight
the Attorney General's inability to maintain impartiality and to separate his sworn duties from
his political desires. We believe that due to this conflict, the Attorney General must recuse
himself from all future election proceedings and appoint an impartial designee moving
forward.
As many of these issues will now be addressed by the United States Supreme Court, we remain
concerned about the integrity of the election and continued attempts by the administration and
its officials to put their thumbs on the scale in pursuit of what they believe should be a
preordained outcome. These actions continue to chip away at the foundation of our
representational democracy and challenges the citizens of Pennsylvania's faith in their
government. We implore you to put politics aside and provide these requests all due
consideration."
UPDATE 3:40 p.m.: Representative Mike Kelly has issued a statement following the news
of media outlets declaring the election in favor of Joe Biden.
"We all know why Joe Biden is rushing to falsely pose as the winner, and why his media
allies are trying so hard to help him: they don't want the truth to be exposed. The simple fact
is this election is far from over. Joe Biden has not been certified as the winner of any
states, let alone any of the highly contested states headed for mandatory recounts, or states
where our campaign has valid and legitimate legal challenges that could determine the ultimate
victor. In Pennsylvania, for example, our legal observers were not permitted meaningful access
to watch the counting process. Legal votes decide who is president, not the news media.
"Beginning Monday, our campaign will start prosecuting our case in court to ensure
election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is seated. The American People are
entitled to an honest election: that means counting all legal ballots, and not counting any
illegal ballots. This is the only way to ensure the public has full confidence in our election.
It remains shocking that the Biden campaign refuses to agree with this basic principle and
wants ballots counted even if they are fraudulent, manufactured, or cast by ineligible or
deceased voters. Only a party engaged in wrongdoing would unlawfully keep observers out of the
count room – and then fight in court to block their access.
"So what is Biden hiding? I will not rest until the American People have the honest vote
count they deserve and that Democracy demands."
UPDATE 5:17 p.m.: Rep. Bob Brooks (R-Allegheny/Westmoreland) sent Channel 11 a
statement Friday:
"Our electoral process must be protected to ensure that every vote legally cast is counted.
Pennsylvania's mail-in ballot system is plagued with problems. Allegheny County disqualified 22
ballots because those people were declared deceased. I am pleased with how our Westmoreland and
Allegheny county poll workers handled this very difficult process.
Today, Pennsylvania Speaker of the House Bryan Cutler (R-Lancaster) sent a letter to Gov.
Tom Wolf requesting a full audit be completed before the certification of any results. In the
letter Cutler cites actions taken by the state Supreme Court and the Department of State that
have created confusion for county election officials, and actions believed to be in violation
of the federal Constitution.
"There were an unprecedented number of provisional ballots in this year's election. My
office has been inundated with constituents frustrated with how our state has handled the
process as the counting of ballots is continuing, especially in Philadelphia. My House
Republican colleagues and I are investigating their practices.
"In-person voters were turned away and told they had to use the mail-in system. Let's face
it, mail-in ballots are less secure. The focus of this election was on the mail-in ballots;
however, millions was spent on voting machines and security to enhance the safest election
possible.
"I am happy to report that all House Republican incumbents in the southwest region of the
state are leading in their respective races. Also, three new Republican House legislators in
the region and two new Senate Republicans are leading in their races.
"The Commonwealth's Democratic Supreme Court has exterminated the integrity of our election
with its ruling to allow mail-in ballots to be counted up to three days after election day.
Pennsylvanians from every political party should have the full confidence that the final vote
tally reflects the will of the voters. I will do everything in my power to continue to fight
for a fair vote count in Pennsylvania where every legal ballot is counted in a transparent
manner."
UPDATE 2:10 p.m. : A state court has ordered provisional ballots cast at the polls on
Election Day in Pennsylvania by voters who submitted mail-in ballots that were rejected be
segregated.
Also, President Trump has issued a statement:
"We believe the American people deserve to have full transparency into all vote counting and
election certification, and that this is no longer about any single election. This is about the
integrity of our entire election process. From the beginning we have said that all legal
ballots must be counted and all illegal ballots should not be counted, yet we have met
resistance to this basic principle by Democrats at every turn. We will pursue this process
through every aspect of the law to guarantee that the American people have confidence in our
government. I will never give up fighting for you and our nation."
UPDATE 5:20 a.m.: With three lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania by the GOP, here is a
recap of what they are:
A lawsuit against Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar alleges she violated
state law by having election officials contact voters with the wrong mail in ballots.
A lawsuit claims election officials contacted voters before Election Day to correct
mail-in ballots, which they say violates state law.
A lawsuit is challenging the 3-day extension to accept mail-in ballots postmarked by
Election Day.
8 Nov, 2020 13:56 / Updated 8 hours ago Get short URL
...the Trump campaign has alleged that droves of dead people voted in Philadelphia, and that
staff there illegally counted late-arriving mail ballots.
Giuliani called the "Philadelphia Democrat machine" "brazen," and claimed that the
late heavyweight boxer Joe Frazier and actor Will Smith's grandfather both voted in previous
elections in the city after their deaths.
"I bet Biden dominated this group," he tweeted. "We will find out."
'Exit polls' are not trustworthy, viable, etc. is a meme running about. In fact exit polls
are good; of course all polls are subject to some margin of error.
Newsweek published the results of the Edison exit poll*:
The fact that Trump made gains amongst Black, Hisp. etc can be read all over the MSM,
twitter, blogs, with Dems sometimes saying 'that can't be right!' - minorities are expected
to vote Dem - a white racist can't 'make gains.' (One can increase votes in one category and
still lose the / an election.)
Imho particularly many Hispanics are attached to law and order (see "Defund the Police")
and many established immigrants are against uncontrolled immigration. I also suspect that
quite a few Blacks, probably specially women strongly disaprove of Antifa - etc. Much more
could be said, at least some Blacks see through the Dem. condescension and Obama fakery.
Important factor: the economy, which was the no. 1 concern of Trump voters (see Pew polls,
80% about, posted previous), which pre-covid did put a little more money into many poorer
pockets. Chart at link, the visible uptick is small but steady.
Using the exit poll to 'extrapolate' the overall result:
Ethnicity || voted for DT according to poll || % of electorate || equals * out of 100
voters
White 57% . 67% . 39.18
Black 12% . 13% . 1.56
Asian 31% . 4% . 1.24
Hisp 32% . 13% . 4.16
Other 40% 3% 1.2
Total = 46.35
This makes sense: a 'good, fair' majority of whites voted for DT. A small minory of blacks
did so. Just under a third of Asians and Hispanics voted for DT, and 'other' did so somewhat
under half.
If we award all the other votes to Biden, that makes 53.75 for JB.
Tricky. How many votes were for for 3rd party candidates ? Vox estimates 2% 3rd cand.
2020. Jill Stein got 1% plus, Gary Johnson 3.28% in the past. Maybe 3% is a good guess. Of
course on the intertubes ppl saying they voted 3rd cand. proliferate - you'd think it was
15%! Certainly there were many other candidates.
Then, the non conforming ballots, mistakes, spoiled / blank ones, etc. About 2% is
standard in the EU so let's say (conservatively) 5% NOT for DT or JB. With 5%, Total:
46.35 For DT
5.00 for 3rd party, write-ins, invalid
51.35 accounted for
48.65 for JB is the remainder, he is the winner.
If 10% of ballots were for 3rd party / other fanciful / rejected, DT got 46% and JB 44%,
DT win.
Tight race, with many imponderables. Extrapolating from that one exit poll.
*15,590 voters outside polling stations, early voting sites, and over the phone. The
number is large enough. *poll distinguishes Latino/Hispanic but that is the same category in
census.
Your reporting that 100,000 votes arrived on a single flash drive, with all votes for
Biden, is perhaps an effort at hyperbole. It appears to also to be quite incorrect. I refer
you to this reporting by Jeramey Jannene, a Milwaukee journalist reporter, https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2020/11/04/absentee-ballots-give-biden-lead-in-wisconsin/
Mr. Jannene reports the story quite differently. Nothing sinister seems to have occurred.
Just the counting of mailed-in ballots, which could not by law begin until after the walk-in
polls were all closed.
"That seems to have happened in Wisconsin, where over 100,000 Biden votes appeared
seemingly out of nowhere on a flash drive delivered by hand from a Democratic district. "
Bullshit. So b appears to have been suckered in by general cynicism (which he's welcome to
since it's usually right) to believe an already debunked conspiracy theory.
CLAIM: "Wisconsin took a break, and when they returned, Biden coincidentally came back
ahead by 100k."
This is one of several viral claims that key states took a break from counting in some
form on election night.
And it's simply not true.
Election officials worked through the night in Wisconsin to tally the unprecedented
numbers of mail-in ballots, which under state law they were not allowed to start counting
until Election Day.
"Our municipal and county clerks have worked tirelessly throughout the night to make
sure that every valid ballot is counted and reported accurately," Meagan Wolfe, the
director of the state Elections Commission, said in a news conference the morning after the
election.
The jump in Biden's tally came when the central count facility in Milwaukee completed
its tally of the mail-in votes around 3:30 a.m., reporting those all at once. That led to a
long-predicted spike in Biden's favor since Democrats are more likely to use vote absentee
and Milwaukee is a heavily Democratic area.
CLAIM: Wisconsin "found" or "dumped" 100K ballots around 4 a.m. the morning after the
election.
A chart from FiveThirtyEight.com showing how the Wisconsin race changed as results were
reported sparked an array of unfounded conspiracy theories. It showed a sharp uptick in
Democratic votes at around 4 a.m. on the morning after the election.
A conservative website trumpeted this as "Voter Fraud in Wisconsin." One widely shared
Facebook post called it a "ballot dump," while another referred to the votes as being
"found." President Donald Trump followed the same narrative when he tweeted about 9 a.m.
that his lead in key states "started to magically disappear as surprise ballot dumps were
counted."
These claims are ridiculous. This jump was expected and explainable.
"We are not finding ballots," Julietta Henry, director of elections for Milwaukee
County, told PolitiFact National. "Ballots are being counted."
The increase in the chart simply shows when the City of Milwaukee reported its absentee
ballot results. We knew well before the election that Democrats were much more likely than
Republicans to vote absentee, that it takes longer to count such ballots, and that
Milwaukee is a Democratic stronghold.
So, predictably, the mail-in results from that area led to a spike in the number of
Democratic votes when the Associated Press added that count -- reported all at once -- to
its vote tally about 3:30 a.m.
From 3:26 to 3:44 a.m. in the Associated Press election reporting stream, the vote for
former Vice President Joe Biden jumped by 149,520 (9.2% of Biden's total votes) and Trump's
vote jumped by 31,803 votes (2% of his total votes). Milwaukee County accounted for most
but not all of that jump.
These votes were all reported together because Milwaukee and 38 other communities used a
central count location. Other communities counted absentee ballots at the polling places,
and reported them along with their in-person vote totals.
The city of Green Bay reported its results in bulk shortly after. It also had a central
count facility for absentee ballots.
In other words, it's not fraud, that's just the time officials finished counting those
legitimate votes.
At around 4 a.m., county election officials were able to confirm that 100% of the county's
votes had been accounted for and recorded for this election.
That was also the moment Wisconsin flipped from red to blue.
After counting absentee ballots for nearly 20 hours, the data from the City of
Milwaukee's Central Count Location was loaded onto flash drives and escorted, by police, to
the Milwaukee County Courthouse. Executive Director of the City of Milwaukee Election
Commission, Claire Woodall Vogg, walked in the front doors and handed the data over to the
county clerks office. On those flash drives, 169,519 absentee ballots that were counted in
the City of Milwaukee. Those votes were added to the rest of the votes in Milwaukee County,
which brought the total number of ballots cast to 460,300.
The county reports an 83.67% voter turnout, which election officials said was "very good
for a presidential election."
When all of the votes were counted, just over 69% of Milwaukee County's vote went to Joe
Biden and Kamala Harris. Just over 29% of the vote was for President Trump and Vice
President Pence.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 8 2020 15:06 utc | 16 - Legal challenges in PA (and elsewhere)
- Recount in GA
Not going to happen. Reversing Georgia was always in the cards since the race was so
close. But a recount there won't change the outcome of the election.
And Pennsylvania is not going to be flipped for Trump either. And every report on his
legal options I've read indicate they go nowhere. That's why he's reportedly bitching about
how his lawyers have failed him, as I reported in an earlier thread.
Multiple legal battles over the Keystone State's election laws were underway well before
Election Day, but this week, the Trump campaign upped the ante. Pennsylvania Attorney General
Josh Shapiro said in an interview that "there has been a lot of noise about litigation" but it
has had "zero material impact" on the electoral process. "The count has continued. Legal votes
are being tallied and soon the commonwealth will respect the will of the people and certify a
vote," he said. Since Tuesday, the campaign has filed at least five separate lawsuits, with
mixed results:
1. To compel Philadelphia election officials to stop counting ballots.
A federal judge dismissed the request.
2. To compel state election officials to allow Trump campaign officials closer observation
of the counting process.
A state judge ruled in the campaign's favor , allowing campaign officials to observe the
Philadelphia process from a six foot distance. Philadelphia election officials appealed the
decision to the state Supreme Court, and the outcome of that appeal is pending.
Levitt says this ruling will likely affect the pace of the count, rather the outcome.
"Imagine a gymnasium, with observers lining the walls: to let the observers get closer, they've
got to move the count closer to the walls and not be counting in the center," he writes. Since
people can no longer count in the center of the gym, "the count is going to move more
slowly."
3. To compel Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar and all 67 counties to impose an
earlier date for voters to show proof of identification if it was not on their initial
ballots.
Litigation is ongoing . The presiding judge ordered all counties to segregate ballots if the
voters do not provide supplemental identification by Nov. 9. The ballots with supplemental
identification provided after Nov. 9 cannot be counted until approved by the court.
Local Republicans filed a separate suit against Boockvar in state court, alleging she
subverted state law when she issued guidance telling voters with deficiencies on their mail-in
ballots to cast provisional ballots, and trying to prevent those provisional ballots from being
counted. A state judge denied that request, but ordered officials to segregate provisional
ballots from voters who submitted deficient mail-in ballots before election day.
4. To compel the Montgomery County Board of Elections to stop counting mail-in-ballots
The campaign and Republican National Committee filed suit to halt the process of counting
mail-in ballots in Montgomery County, one of the counties in suburban Philadelphia, alleging
that the board of elections was counting 600 ballots that had not been placed in secrecy
envelopes and was therefore not complying with requirements. Pennsylvania election data shows
Montgomery county overwhelmingly voted for Biden.
The litigation is ongoing .
5. To intervene in an already existing dispute before the U.S. Supreme Court about whether
ballots the state received after 8 p.m. on Election Day should count.
The litigation is ongoing . Some legal experts are skeptical SCOTUS will take the case,
while others say that even if the Justice do, their ruling is unlikely to change the outcome of
the Presidential election.
"I think that the court is going to be very hesitant to involve itself in the process in the
most politically contentious context possible," says Michael Dimino, an election law expert at
Widener University in Pennsylvania. Joshua Geltzer, executive director of the Institute for
Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law, notes that the number of ballots that
may fall in this category "appears increasingly irrelevant to the election outcome given the
sheer vote numbers in that state regardless of those ballots."
The backstory: After Pennsylvania's Supreme Court extended the ballot receipt deadline to
Nov. 6, state Republicans twice appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The first time
they were unsuccessful, and the second time the court declined to expedite the decision before
the election, but left open the possibility of hearing it afterwards. On Friday, Supreme Court
Justice Alito, in response to a motion from Pennsylvania Republicans, ordered state election
officials to segregate any ballots that arrived after election day. State officials had already
ordered counties to segregate any ballots that arrived after Election Day, likely anticipating
a future challenge.
Nevada
With Trump narrowly trailing Biden in the state, the Trump campaign has backed two cases to
impact the counting of ballots:
1. To impose an injunction on the automated signature-verification machines used in Clark
County as ballots continue to be counted.
A federal judge rejected the request on Nov. 6, ruling that federal judges should not be
involved in state election administration and there is no evidence Clark County is doing
anything unlawful.
The backstory: The Trump campaign held a press conference on Nov. 5 introducing Jill Stokey,
a Nevada voter who claimed that when she tried to cast a ballot, she was told someone had
already cast a mail-in ballot in her name. She alleged that the signature verification
technology used in Clark County, the most populous county in the state, enabled someone to cast
a mail-in ballot in her name. Her lawsuit asserted, without evidence, that "lax procedures for
authenticating mail ballots" had resulted in "over 3,000 instances of ineligible individuals
casting ballots."
Aaron Ford, Nevada's Attorney General, called Stokey's allegations "absurd." "While the
Attorney General's Office normally does not comment on pending litigation, I feel compelled to
dispel the misinformation being circulated to undermine the public's trust in our election," he
said in a statement.
2. To compel state election officials to allow the public closer observation at a Clark
County ballot-counting facility.
The Trump campaign, Republican National Committee, and a plaintiff, Fred Krause, filed a
lawsuit before election day in state court seeking to halt the counting process in Clark County
until they could observe the process.
A district judge rejected the lawsuit, ruling they lacked standing to bring the claims and
had no evidence to back up their arguments. The plaintiffs appealed to the state Supreme Court,
which accepted the request to expedite the case, but denied the request for immediate relief.
In a November 5 order, the State Supreme Court said the campaign and state Republicans had
reached a settlement. According to
local news, the settlement included expanding observation access, so that all counting
tables would be visible to the public.
Michigan
While the Associated Press called Michigan for Biden on Nov. 4, the Trump campaign and
Republicans have continued to file lawsuits attempting, unsuccessfully, to stop the state
ballot count. The state has seen two cases since Election Day:
1. To halt the
counting of absentee ballots, on the grounds that campaign officials had not been given
access to observe the process as required by state law.
Michigan Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens denied the campaign's request on Nov. 6.
2. To halt the certification of election results in Detroit, Michigan's largest city and a
Democratic stronghold.
Judge Timothy Kenny
denied the motion for injunctive relief on Nov. 6, saying there was no evidence that
oversight procedures had not been followed.
"Chief Judge Kenny's quick decision mirrors a decision yesterday by Court of Claims Judge
Stephens – specifically, that, once again, the allegations are mere speculation,"
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's Press Secretary Ryan Jarvi said in a statement. "The
swift, clear and decisive opinion should put to rest the meritless claims that have been made
in Michigan and other states around the country."
The backstory: The case was not brought by the Trump campaign, but by a conservative group,
the Election Integrity Fund, and sought to stop election workers in Detroit from "curing"
absentee ballots that could not initially be read by a machine, a normal part of the ballot
counting process. The case alleged that the work had not always been overseen by election
inspectors from both major political parties, and that certification should be delayed until
inspectors could review the process.
Georgia
In Georgia, where the on-going count suggests an extremely tight race, the Trump campaign
has filed one suit:
1. To disqualify about 53 ballots.
A poll watcher in Chatham County reported seeing a stack of late ballots that may have
arrived after the 7 p.m. Election Day deadline get mixed in with ballots that had arrived on
time.
A Superior Court judge in Chatham County rejected the suit on Nov. 5 after hearing testimony
from county officials that the ballots had, in fact, arrived on time. "There is no evidence
that the ballots referenced in the petition were received after 7:00 p.m. on Election Day," the
court found.
Fox News and the Associated Press have declared Biden won the state, but other networks have
held off, deeming the race too close to call. On November 7, the Trump campaign and Republican
National Committee filed a lawsuit in state court alleging voters' ballots had been rejected
because they contained "bleeds," splotches" and "stray marks." These allegations appear similar
to claims circulating on social media that ballots would not be counted if voters filled them
out using a Sharpie marker. Election officials have said these claims are false. A lawsuit with
similar allegations was filed in the same court system by a group of voters who were
represented by a conservative legal fund on Nov. 4; plaintiffs dropped the lawsuit on Nov. 7.
They did not provide a reason for dismissing the case.
President Donald Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani has frequently referenced
Philadelphia's history of election fraud on behalf of Democrats, as the mainstream media has
mostly discredited his 2020 fraud claims as lacking evidence.
But it was not too far back in history, just this past May, a South Philadelphia judge of
elections admitted to taking bribes to stuff the ballot box for Democrat candidates,
according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.
"Our election system relies on the honesty and the integrity of its election officials,"
U.S. Attorney William M. McSwain.said in a video statement, per the report. "If they are
corrupt, the system is corrupt, which creates opportunities for election fraud and for the
counting of fake votes."
Domenick J. DeMuro, 73, pleaded guilty to conspiracy, having deprived Philly voters of their
civil rights by stuffing ballot boxes for judicial and other candidates in the 2014 and 2016
primary elections.
DeMuro was a former South Philly judge of elections and a Democrat operative, accepting
thousands of dollars in bribes from a"political consultant," from $300 to $5,000 for each
election, according to McSwain.
"DeMuro fraudulently stuffed the ballot box by literally standing in a voting booth and
voting over and over, as fast as he could, while he thought the coast was clear," McSwain's
statement continued. "This is utterly reprehensible conduct. The charges announced today do not
erase what he did, but they do ensure that he is held to account for those actions."
The consultant, unnamed by prosecutors, was a former elected official who took fees from
Democrat candidates and used part of the money to pay DeMuro, judge of elections in the 36th
Division of the 39th Ward, for votes.
The scope of the scandal was few fewer votes than the Trump campaign would need to prove
corruption to show "determinative" impact on Trump's presidential race. DeMuro stuffed votes on
the scale of 27, 40, and 46 votes, according to the report.
"It was pretty flagrant, and it was repeated again and again," Al Schmidt, vice chairman of
the Office of Philadelphia City Commissioners, which runs elections, told the Inquirer. "It was
a source of frustration for me because it kept occurring again and again.
"We take election integrity seriously. That's why we've been referring these cases since I
first came into office in 2012."
The FBI was conducting the investigation and special agent Michael J. Driscoll called out
the "election inference" corruption this past spring.
"Domenick DeMuro put a thumb on the scale for certain candidates, in exchange for bribes,"
Driscoll told the Inquirer. "As public trust in the electoral process is vital, the FBI's
message today is clear: election interference of any kind, by hostile foreign actors or
dishonest local officials, won't be tolerated."
The FBI had vowed to continue the corruption probes in Philadelphia and was asking for
whistleblowers to come forward to aid the investigation.
Are you asserting that no criminal action occurred, or that the criminal action that did
occur had no effect on the outcome?
There is substantial clear and concrete evidence of criminal action. Are you denying that?
Denying that undeniable fact makes you appear either hopelessly partisan or easily duped.
More on that later.
Did the criminal action which undeniably occurred affect the outcome of the election? That
is a logical question, the answer of which remains unknown. If the answer is "yes," then the
"election was stolen." If no, then it wasn't "stolen."
We don't yet know the answer to that question. If you want to remain credible, you should
wait until the answer is known. If the answer is never know (as now appears may be the case),
so be it. You should refrain from making bold assertions about things that aren't known.
I don't really care that much about Trump or Biden. I do care deeply about the integrity
of elections. I'd rather have President Biden than see Trump re-elected through fraud. While
my personal politics are closer to Trump's policies than the Democrats' (as Biden has no
policies), my respect for the system is far greater than my concern for the politics. I find
both men boorish and uninteresting.
This is a very dangerous point in our history. If you don't understand that, understand
this: There are two kinds of people in the world, predators and prey. Our system of checks
and balances is all we have to keep us from being nothing more than predators and prey. If
you choose not to see this, understand that you are lunch, nothing more.
My take here is that the pollsters made them think that Biden was going to win and they
were just going to push him over the finish line as necessary.
But then the pollsters were wrong......and that's where the cheating became blatantly
obvious as they were committed to cheating the count. The line graph from Michigan that night
was the most appalling thing that I have ever seen which suggests that nobody with a
statistical background was on board at 3 a.m. because allowing that pattern on a chart was
moronic.
This is why they are so angry at the pollsters for being wrong. They were so wrong that
the entire game plan was destroyed.
Oliver Klozoff , 5 hours ago
Article reads:
" What a complete shock.
A Black Lives Matter goon beat the hell out of some liberal woman at a Biden celebration in
Madison, Wisconsin.
Then when the BLM goon was arrested by police the protesters started screaming at the cops
for arresting a black man.
This is your future under Democrat mob control.
God help us"
"... Mike Lind, the American academic and author has observed , around the idea of America moving toward a 'managed' society -- based on 'science' -- that would be essentially finessed and controlled by a managerial, expert class. ..."
"... The notion however, of what America -- as Idea -- now constitutes, has fractured into two tectonic plates, moving apart in very different directions -- and likely to move even further apart as each 'plate' remains convinced that 'it won' -- and the sweetness of victory has been stolen. ..."
"... The fact remains that the election has produced a result in which it is abundantly clear that one half of the American electorate precisely voted to oust the other half. ..."
"... A President may emerge, but it will not be, as it were, a settled one: He or she cannot make claim to the 'will of the majority'. ..."
One clear outcome of the U.S. election was
the collapse of the promised 'Blue Wave' -- an implosion that marks the 'beginning of the
end' to a powerful spell enthralling the West. It was the delusion which Ron Chernow, the
acclaimed U.S. presidential historian, gave credence, as he contemptuously dismissed America's
"topsy-turvy moment" as purely ephemeral, and a "surreal interlude in American life": No longer
can it be said that there is one 'normal'. Win or lose the White House, Red Trumpism remains as
'President' for half America.
Biden, by contrast, served as the prospect for Restoration -- a return to a hallowed
consensus in American politics -- to a reassuring 'sanity' of facts, science and truth .
Biden, it was hoped, would be the agency over-lording a crushing electoral landslide that would
terminate irrevocably Trump's rude interruption of the 'normal'. Biden supporters were rallied,
Mike Lind, the American academic and author has
observed , around the idea of America moving toward a 'managed' society -- based on
'science' -- that would be essentially finessed and controlled by a managerial, expert
class.
Over time, Lind suggests, American society would begin to depart more, and more easily, from
its republican roots, through a process already underway: via attempts to alter the
Constitutional order, and other rules, to bring about a change in the way America is
governed.
The notion however, of what America -- as Idea -- now constitutes, has fractured into two
tectonic plates, moving apart in very different directions -- and likely to move even further
apart as each 'plate' remains convinced that 'it won' -- and the sweetness of victory has been
stolen.
The fracturing of the 'One Normal', by contrast, provides some kind of respite to much of
the globe.
The fact remains that the election has produced a result in which it is abundantly clear
that one half of the American electorate precisely voted to oust the other half. It is gridlock
-- with the Supreme Court and Senate in the hands of one party, and the House of
Representatives and White House (possibly) in the hands of the other. As Glenn Greenwald
warns :
No matter what the final result, there will be substantial doubts about its legitimacy by
one side or the other, perhaps both. And no deranged conspiracy thinking is required for
that. An electoral system suffused with this much chaos, error, protracted outcomes and
seemingly inexplicable reversals will sow doubt and distrust even among the most rational
citizens.
Though the maths and maps suggests Biden will likely reach 270 Electoral votes, the old
saying 'It ain't over 'till it's over', holds true. The electoral vote scenarios in the key
'swing states' would only apply if there is no litigation, fraud or theft. However all three
are in play -- If you are stuffing the ballot box, you first wait to see what the regular vote
is, so that you know how many votes you 'need' (
mathematical anomalies aside) to push your candidate over the top. Trump, somewhat rashly,
gave out the GOP vote calculations at 02.30 on Wednesday, and hey-presto, loads of absentee
ballots suddenly arrived at certain polling stations at around 04.00. That seems to have
happened in Wisconsin, where over 100,000 Biden votes appeared seemingly out of nowhere on a
flash drive delivered by hand from a Democratic district. That put Biden ahead in Wisconsin --
but litigation is in process. Likewise, it appears that a huge "absentee ballot" dump appeared
in Michigan that heavily favored Biden.
This is just the beginning of a new and more uncertain phase that
could go on for weeks . It may be that ultimately Congress will have to certify and make
the final determination in late January. Meanwhile, there are some things we know with much
higher certainty: The Republican majority in the Senate may hold until the 2024 election. So,
even if Biden wins, his agenda will not hold through 2024.
A President may emerge, but it will not be, as it were, a settled one: He or she cannot make
claim to the 'will of the majority'. Whomsoever is certified by Congress cannot truthfully say
they represent 'the nation'. Consensus is fractured, and it is difficult to see any leadership
that can bring Americans together as a 'united people'.
"There is not a single important cultural, religious, political or social force that is
pulling Americans together more than it is pushing us apart," David French
notes in a new book Divided We Fall: America's Secession Threat and How to Restore Our
Nation . French -- an anti-Trump conservative -- argues that America's divisions are so great,
and the political system so poorly designed to handle them, that secession may eventually be
the result: "If we keep pushing people and pushing people and pushing people, you cannot assume
that they won't break", he writes. (A
2018 poll found that nearly a quarter of each party -- Democrat and Republican --
characterized the opposing party as "evil").
An ideological split, and the concomitantly contested America as Idea has huge geo-political
implications, reaching well beyond America itself -- and principally for Europe's
élites . European leaders did not see it coming when Trump was elected in 2016. They
misjudged Brexit. And this year, they misread U.S. politics once again. They yearned for a
Biden win, and they (still) fail to see the connection between the popular rebellion of Red
under Mr. Trump, and the angry protests occurring across Europe against lockdown.
Separating tectonic plates -- more strategically -- usually signal a kind of dualism that
betokens civil conflict. In other words, their separation and moving apart turns into an
ideological struggle for the nature of society and its institutional fabric.
Historian, and former War College Professor, Mike Vlahos
warns (echoing Lind), that, "there is, here: more of a hidden -- and thus in a sense,
occult struggle -- by which over time, societies begin to depart more, and more easily, from
their roots. The western dominant élites presently are seeking to cement their hold over
society [moving towards a 'managed' society]: To have full control over the direction of
society, and, of course, a framework of rule that protects their wealth."
"Quite to the surprise of everyone, and given that the Republicans are being represented by
a billionaire who has a great many friends in Manhattan -- the Wall Street donors to the two
campaigns,
outnumber Trump's donors for Biden by 5-to-1".
Why, Vlahos asks, would Wall Street invest in a man -- Biden -- and in a Party, ostensibly
seeking to move America toward this 'managed' progressive society? Is it because they are
convinced of a need radically to restructure the world's economy and geopolitical relations? Is
this then Vlahos' occult struggle?
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Many of the élite hold that we are at that
monumental inflection point at this moment -- In a nutshell, their narrative is simply
this: the planet is already economically and demographically over-extended; the infinite
economic expansion model is bust; and the global debt and government entitlement expenditure
bubble too, is set to pop at the same moment.
Mike Vlahos notes
that in a curious way this American story mirrors that of ancient Rome in the last century of
the Republic -- with on the one hand, the élite Roman class, and on the other, the
Populares , as Red Americans' equivalent:
"This is in fact the dual story of Rome in the last century of the Republic, and it tracks
very well -- with the transformation going on today [in the U.S.] -- and it is a
transformation The society which emerged at the end of the Roman Revolution, and civil war
had too, a totally dominant élite class.
"This was a new world, in which the great landowners, with their latifundia [the
slave-land source of wealth], who had been the 'Big Men' leading the various factions in the
civil wars, became the senatorial archons that dominated Roman life for the next five
centuries -- while the People, the Populares, were ground into a passive -- not helpless --
but generally dependent and non-participating element of Roman governance: This sapped away
at the creative life of Rome, and eventually led to its coming apart.
" today American inequality is as great as in the period right before the French
Revolution, and is mirrored in what was happening to Rome in that long century of
transformation. The problem we have right now, and which is going to make this revolution
more intense, is I think, the cynical conclusion and agenda of Blue to just leave behind the
Americans they do not need [in the New Economy] -- which is to say all of Red America, and to
put them into a situation of hardship and marginalization, where they cannot coalesce, to
form a rival -- as it were -- Popular Front.
"What I think what we are seeing here [in the U.S.] is profound: American society --
emerging from this passage, is going to be completely different. And frankly, it already
feels different. It already feels -- as it has felt for the past four years -- that we are in
a rolling civil war norm now, in which deep societal strife is now the normal way in which we
handle transfers of power. Issues will be [momentarily] resolved, with the path of society
[painfully] staked out through violent conflict. That is likely to be our path for decades
ahead.
"The problem with that in the shorter term, is that there is still enough of the nation
aroused and ready to fight this process. The problem: Can the last energies of the Old
Republic still be harnessed against this seemingly inevitable, transformation?"
A 'fourth industrial revolution' is the only way by which to 'square this circle', according
to this mindset. The Reset is purposefully aimed to disrupt all areas of life, albeit on a
planetary scale. Shock therapy, as it were, to change the way we humans think of ourselves, and
our relationship with the world . The Great Reset looks to a
supply-side 'miracle', achieved through full-spectrum automation and robotics. A world where
the money is digital; the food is lab-grown; where everything is counted and controlled by
giant monopolies; and everyday existence is micromanaged by ever-monitoring, ever-nudging AI
that registers thoughts and feelings before the people even get a chance to make those
thoughts.
LVrunner , 2 hours ago
Traitorous Mittens Romney took to Twitter to congratulate sleepy joe today. He’s
such an epic douchebag!
PGR88 , 2 hours ago
He reminds me of some kind of aging gay Mormon **** star
LVrunner , 2 hours ago
His kid was in business with bidens, not much of surprise. Just disgusted.
Roacheforque , 1 hour ago
I find it amazing that pundits can describe the detailed evidence of the fraudulent
activities of democratic operatives, along with the understanding that no such activities
took part on the republican front, and simply dismiss this legal and moral contrast with a
broad stroke finding that "the nation is divided".
Simply. *******. Amazing.
Who writes this ****?
I am no Trump sycophant, but the contrast in "division" is law abiding vs. fraudulent,
anarchy vs civilized order, constitutional vs. totalitarian. Trump's personality flaws are
immense, but I contend that a solid majority of Americans voted for president in accordance
to the red wave downvote, and that a gross misrepresentation of living human Biden voters
does not constitute an equal division.
Thank God!
Fizzy Head , 2 hours ago
Funny how there is no evidence of fraud with the Dems, but it was all Russian meddling in
the last election...
#palletsofballotsisfraud
Chemical_Engineer_IT_Analyst , 2 hours ago
Remember Republicans you are the ones who have the real power!
It's not a good idea to bully the productive class. Without the conservative workers the
country would starve in the cold and dark. Who are not needed are the parasitic class of
politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, Deep State workers, incompetent teachers and Marxist
professors. And we would all be better off without Facebook and Twitter. We also don't need
NBC CNN, ABC, and other alphabet media, Washington Post, New York Times and other propaganda
outlets.
SurfingUSA , 2 hours ago
Biden, by contrast, served as the prospect for Restoration – a return to a
hallowed consensus in American politics – to a reassuring ‘sanity’ of facts, science
and truth .
Give me a break. He served as a prospect of a Chinese sock puppet.
not dead yet , 1 hour ago
Selected facts, selected science, selected truth. Better known as cherry picking. If that
isn't working turn fiction into fact and truth to legitimize junk science. Better known as
man made climate change.
tk8565 , 2 hours ago
If you like your fraud, you can keep your fraud.
This will happen repeatedly from every election on, as they learn and improve.
If it isnt fixed now in court it will never be.
Election laws must be fixed.
If unsuccessful the only plan left is to ((censored))
ClusterF , 2 hours ago
No thank you, and yes I care damn well enough to fight about it. The founders rebelled
over a miniscule tea tax for gods sake!!!! This is about subversion of the entire race to a
globalist over class.
the idea of America moving toward a ‘managed’ society – based on
‘science’ – that would be essentially finessed and controlled by a
managerial, expert class.
Managed society sounds a heck of a lot like communism. That is, one-party "management" of
people and resources by elites unaccountable to the people via free and fair elections.
ChetRoman , 2 hours ago
"Biden, by contrast, served as the prospect for Restoration – a return to a hallowed
consensus in American politics – to a reassuring ‘sanity’ of facts, science
and truth "
Who writes this horse****? Biden was a senile placeholder for the next puppet of the
"ruling class" or "deep state" that has only contempt for working Americans, the deplorables.
Biden will formalize Big Tech's and MSM domination of what we can say and think. They have
censored 95% of the media to keep the public from seeing how thoroughly corrupt and
incompetent Biden is. Trump has his faults but he is the only one, in at least the last 30
years, that even mentioned the downward spiral of the working Americans. What we have is a
Color Revolution and the Bolsheviks are a major part of it.
Patmos , 1 hour ago
Technocracy is just another form of tyranny, and once the global economy inevitably
collapses technocracy will only end up proving the saying that when the blind follow the
blind they both end up in a ditch.
Deplorable , 1 hour ago
I'm actually happy that Biden won and will continue with the lockdown ********. It keeps
me working from home until I decide to officially retire. As a govt contractor I can get away
with working less than half the time while still getting paid for a 40 hour workday.
Added bonus, I can drink beer all day long and day trade on the side.
hoytmonger , 2 hours ago
Nothing will change with Biden as President,
Except for the rhetoric.
Nexus789 , 2 hours ago
They will spend their time enriching themselves. Biden, according to Forbes is worth ten
million. How does a career politician do that.
RozKo , 2 hours ago
A world where the money is digital; the food is lab-grown; where everything is counted
and controlled by giant monopolies; and everyday existence is micromanaged by
ever-monitoring, ever-nudging AI that registers thoughts and feelings before the people
even get a chance to make those thoughts.
Oh boy, lots of fun, maximum security prison with a twist, you'll be getting screwed by
robot bubba and he be in your head too.
Onthebeach6 , 2 hours ago
Rupert Murdoch said a couple of months ago that he expected Trump to lose in a
landslide.
Looks like he worked overtime to achieve this outcome.
3-fingered_chemist , 2 hours ago
Trump should just give the Left what it wants. Total lockdown of the country until we have
6 months straight of zero cases of coronavirus. That means no new President can be sworn in
until that time is reached. Have fun! The next two years will be hilarious as the Dems
further implode. You already can see it with Pelosi wanting to be Speaker again. The
Progressives will think that they have some mandate, but the Old Guard is going to throw them
under the bus yet again. ANTIFA and BLM will be burning down the Dem cities not because of
Trump but because they aren’t getting their way. Biden won’t even be allowed to
make decisions, but the Progressives won’t be calling the shots either. This will be
the de facto Hillary Presidency. The irony is that Mitch is likely to be the most powerful
person in Washington.
monero_123 , 2 hours ago
Even though I do agree with some conservative principals, I probably lean more blue than
red overall.
Unfortunately, I still don't get the opinion on getting mad at the "blue" states for
making some of these very commentators' life worse. The computer you are using, the phone you
have in your pocket, the internet you are browsing, the webhost that hosts Zerohedge, etc,
etc is all from the advancements of companies/talent that are in those states.
But, at the same time, the more people are angry at the invisible boogeyman, the easier it
is for myself to advance in society while others just sit and complain.
OK Boomer , 16 seconds ago
It's not that complicated. The US has had for many decades an entrenched "Deep State"
running much of the govt. Republican and Democrat parties are the two hands of this Deep
State. When an establishment Democrat president replaces an establishment Republican (or vice
versa), no actual power is transferred. It's just the Deep State passing the baton from one
hand to the other. The enduring power is in the un-elected govt. The process of electing a
president is normally just a symbolic ritual which serves to generate consent by allowing the
masses to feel as though they actually chose their govt.
Trump was the unicorn president. He was never supposed to be elected. And even as
president his power has been very limited. The Justice Dept, CIA, FBI, all conspired against
him. The only prosecutions by "his" Justice Department were against members of his own
administration. The purpose of the US president is to act as a figurehead and a rubber stamp
for the wishes of the dominant un-elected govt. Biden fits the bill perfectly--a complete
non-entity.
N2M , 1 hour ago
Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press Kindle Edition
It's time for the sore loser crying to end. Trump lost because he didn't deliver on his
promises. Hillary is not locked up. Illegals and H1Bs are still being employed. There is very
little wall. O-care wasn't repealed/replaced. For the pandemic we got useless vaccines and
vents, instead of HCQ for anyone who wants it.
The GOP is all RINO. There is only 1 party. Their job is to sell our representation to the
highest bidder. We are the product and we are royally sold out.
Bananamerica is done unless some state secedes. I would suggest that it be a very poor
state, because if done correctly it will become the richest. A hard currency that cannot be
debased. Very low tax on businesses. No property tax. No civil forfeiture. It would instantly
become like Singapore or the Caymon Islands. Every wealthy corp would want to be there. Wall
Street and silicon valley would want to move there. Lousiana, Missisipi or Alabama w/b great
choices.
gonediving , 7 hours ago
Stupid lame lies and spin....Trump did not run on locking hillary up! He did as much as he
could with obamacare and is putting in place a new policy that will be about a new healthcare
plan which i am sure biden will stop. Trump is not God and is not responsible for covid. he
did ALL that was asked of him by governors. But yes, voting in another clinton, obama, bush
and biden is handing it all back to the globalists! Trump was protecting what was left of
america that seems to want to be Canada or Britain and not independent!
Kirk Patrick , 7 hours ago
I was waiting for Frozen BlueHairedWoman to say she has a pickup truck and loaded all her
clips.
Covidiot Lvr , 7 hours ago
Trump also lost because he's a liar. He said the trade deficit would be reversed.
(Instead, it got worse.)
Trump said he'd pay back our national debt in 8 years. Instead he added $7 trillion to it,
much of it pre-Covid.
Trump said he'd build the wall and make Mexico pay for it. Only a few measly miles were
built, none of it paid by Mexico.
In a nutshell, Trump is full of ****.
a false profit , 7 hours ago
He replaced 400 miles of run down fence with new fence. he wasn't able to do more because
Dems and environmentalists prevented the construction of new wall
ClusterF , 5 minutes ago
8ft playground fence with 18-30ft sheet steel security barricade. We dont live in the
1200s where it has to be a castle wall to be effective.
ZeroTruth , 7 hours ago
Chump didn't fulfill a single campaign promise and commanded nothing. He was a political
eunich.
No wall. No end to daca. No end to obamacare. No bringing home the troops. No locking up
Hilldog or anyone else unless they were close to Trump himself. No draining the Swamp.
Nepotism, cronyism and trillions of dollars in bailouts to the cronies will be his legacy.
Only idiots would applaud these actions.
apple_orange , 5 hours ago
When I heard Trump's fabulous inaugration speech my first thoughts were that he will not
pull this off without (coughs nervously) "removing" at least two hundred of his opponents. He
of course failed to do this and he even appointed some of his opponents into the
administration or took money from them.
Dash8 , 5 hours ago
Proof of taking money?
artichoke , 5 hours ago
Son of a bitch! (moderator, this is a direct quote from the presidential candidate who won
according to the media.)
apple_orange , 4 hours ago
OK he let the likes of Sheldon Adelson influence him. It seems odd to me that he would
trash the Iran deal. Why was it so bad? Secondly, backing Brexit was also dumb. He should
have stayed clear of this foreign stuff and put America first. Why p1ss off Irish Americans
over Brexit for example? America needs to improve trade with EU not the City of fooking
London.
Anyone saying that what is happening right now in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan etc. is
not a conscious effort to rig an election is either a victim of propaganda or being willfully
obtuse.
Because they told us this is what would happen. Through the Transition Integrity Project and
bread crumbs left throughout the campaign, we knew it would come to this.
For weeks I've been saying I hope Trump's performance is strong enough and his coattails
long enough to preclude the Democrats and The Davos Crowd from trying to pull off the theft of
the election.
That they would see the magnitude of the problem in front of them and be stopped short by
little things like math.
And then realize that even if they did try and cheat it would be so transparent that nothing
good for them would be gained by it. But they didn't listen.
Trump almost pulled it off. His numbers across the board were excellent, stunning even given
everything that's happened.
He may yet pull this out and I support any and all efforts to do so, but it is looking quite
grim today.
The potential is there for the Republicans to pick up as many as twelve seats in the House
while holding the Senate if not picking up a seat, depending on how the courts rule on the
already well-documented fraud.
Coattails that long are prima facia evidence that what's happening with the presidential
election is fraud. I won't go into the list of red flags here, others have
done a far better job (and are, frankly, more entertaining), but they are big enough and
red enough to get even the laziest, porn-besotted bull in the world angry.
And that's what should be scaring the crap out of everyone on 'the Left' today. Because as
we heard yesterday, with coattails that long and the amount of obscene behavior on display, the
remaining members of the Democratic caucus in the House are scared and not just for their
political lives.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi was in damage-control mode, saying "but we held the House" -- which
they were supposed to expand their majority in -- and are "on track to win the presidency,"
which no one will take even remotely seriously.
I've had visions of seeing Pelosi dragged out of the Capitol by her expensive dyed hair
choking on her dentures while being arraigned for sedition, but her getting beaten with the
'awesome power of the Speaker's gavel' and lynched by her own caucus for incompetence will be
even more delicious.
At around 2am Tuesday evening I realized that they were actually going to do this and I
texted a friend the next morning. His response?
"Civil war it is then."
There can be no other response to this from men and women of character. Exhaust every legal
means possible, certainly, but remember that the courts are as corrupt as the county
governments. Fear of reprisal makes men weak.
The one thing Trump said in his post-election remarks that rang so true and with me and
should ring true with every libertarian-leaning person (left or right) alive, that the process
itself is corrupting. It corrupts everything it touches.
Four years of the Democrats and the Media screaming about Russian collusion and undermining
the legitimacy of Donald Trump inspired thousands of people to become corrupt poll workers,
mailmen, supervisors of elections, party operatives and the like.
And they obviously feel justified in this. They are, after all, the heroes of their own
stories whose motives are pure and whose hearts are in the right place.
If we just get rid of Orange Man Bad, everything wrong with America will be gone.
Scapegoating is as old as mankind but it doesn't work anymore now that we've internalized the
story from the scapegoat's point of view, Christ.
So, all they have now is the unquenchable envy of Marxism which burns until it consumes
everyone in retribution or they are put down like rabid dogs. That's what is on display in
these counting centers.
On the other hand, even Trump's detractors had to admit the guy did inspired work to try and
bring as many people under his tent as possible. To right the wrongs they see in the most
non-violent way possible, voting.
But if that's not good enough, if the message sent wasn't strong enough through the ballot
box, then that lesson will be taught in a far uglier way.
This
is why I excoriated the libertarians the other day. I could see this coming. Either cooler
heads prevail or the grievances get settled with violence. It's our job to be the voice in
between, not sit on the sidelines like high school band nerds sitting through a football
game.
From a market perspective the threat of a marginally-empowered Harris presidency with he
slimmest House majority any party has held in decades and a divided Senate means nothing gets
done until the mid-terms.
And any attempt by Harris and Obama to legislate through Executive Order will result in even
more dramatic events than we've seen to date, including secession.
This is why Bitcoin, gold, silver and U.S. Treasuries exploded to the upside. Big money
moved into the most liquid assets, UST's, while the marginal flow piled into safe havens and
those worried about cross-border capital controls are running into Bitcoin and cryptos.
Everyone is holding their collective breath while we grind towards the Great Reset with most
of the first world either under lockdown over last year's flu or paralyzed by political
shenanigans which makes the U.S. look like Venezuela.
The rising euro is a function of the lockdowns and the local need for liquidity. The
spasming bonds markets blew out a lot of carry and interest rate trades this week. While the
dollar looks like it's getting killed, what's really happening is trades betting on Harris
destroying capital have reversed.
And the focus now turns to the wholesale destruction of European economies. Oh well, Europe
was a good thing while it lasted. Enjoy the return of feudalism, folks, maybe there will be
something left for me to visit before I die.
We still have our guns, FYI.
And this is why Trump isn't going anywhere. The Deplorables now have to become The
Ungovernables. No more negotiations, discussions, turning the other cheek, etc.
What's the point of voting or even democracy at all if a few dozen angry black election
officials in Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Atlanta can decide the entire thing?
Hey man, don't let the midwit, white women off the hook there in this Civil War race has
nothin' to do with it.
Because no matter what vote totals you manufacture or political/judicial arms you twist no
one can rule for long without the consent of the governed.
This is not a LARP nor a drill. It is a simple statement of fact.
If the men who keep the engine of the world running refuse to show up one day, the God of
Power the Marxists all worship will vanish like Hillary's emails.
Ayn Rand wasn't wrong about everything, folks.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS
MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
This is particularly true when nearly all of those men are armed and are the ones that grow
the food, treat the water, patrol the streets and keep the lights on.
The legal case is being built now to go to the State Legislatures, who are the ones who
actually decide whose electors go to the Electoral College, and invalidate the votes in
Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan, at a minimum.
Getting those Republican-controlled legislatures to throw out the suggested results of a
tainted election is exactly why the Electoral College exists. It is the last defense against
mob rule and the corrupting nature of politics. The commies in the DNC and The Davos Crowd
don't like to hear that and frankly don't care but that is the reality of it.
That's Trump's path to the presidency at this point, because the votes will be tallied to
ensure that he not only loses but lose by a large enough 'electoral vote' majority to nullify
any rulings by the Supreme Court.
Pelosi is prepared to invoke the 20th Amendment if there is no resolution on Inauguration
day, January 20th through an act of Congress. This is why many House seats have not been called
even though they are over.
She made her choice. So did the all the people currently engaged in this theft. Now the
nature of the State is clear for a majority of people to see.
Sign in to comment Viewing Options arrow_drop_down
All Comments 630
Thucydides , 7 hours ago
What is now set into motion is unstoppable. I am not saying it will erupt tomorrow, but it
will erupt. The seething anger that begins the day the corrupt political class resumes
business as usual will not abate. It will build and build. Only in retrospect will people
understand what has transpired. History is always 20/20 in hindsight. The corrupt political
class is myopic to its own weaknesses and arrogant in its methods. They are only focused on
money and power. What they think the unwashed are capable of flies in the face of history.
What happened to the French aristocracy in 1789 or the Tsarist Russians in 1917? Two wars
have been fought already in this country and they were both between people who had very
little differences between them. This war is between people with a Grand Canyon between them.
There is no going back once it starts. God help us all.
ZeroTruth , 7 hours ago
Nah. All that **** requires conviction and courage, values Americans sorely lack. It's
just gonna be four more years of tough talk by keyboard warriors while the idiot antifa
LARPers run around with wooden shields in Portland like extras at Medieval Times.
Send in the clowns.
Zeitgeist Nomad , 6 hours ago
In all seriousness America, your governments have been messing with elections in other
countries for decades.
Trump even acknowledged this in the first campaign.
Is it really such a surprise to you that the same organizations wouldn't ( and haven't
already) done such things at home?
Whether or not this is some elaborate plot to reveal these type of misdeeds remains to be
seen.
I hope Trump does win, and I hope the nefarious actors are revealed and punished.
However, the selective approach to this type of malfeasance carried out in other countries
in the "name" (only) of the American people is the slippery slope that allowed the
fundamental corruption of the electoral process that now besets you.
Argon1 , 43 minutes ago
Apparently Trump had election monitors and for some reason the fact that Nanci Pelosi is
the majority stakeholder in the crooked ballot machines - Dominion has been released to the
public...
CatInTheHat , 7 hours ago
"If we just get rid of Orange Man Bad, everything wrong with America will be gone.
Scapegoating is as old as mankind but it doesn't work anymore now that we've internalized the
story from the scapegoat's point of view, Christ."
Ah yes and thats the crux of it all isn't it?
The Democrats THEFT of this election is as obvious as their theft of the 2016 and 2020
primaries for their preferred candidate and people even LIBERAL VOTERS, KNOW IT.
Democrats over played their hand. To promote this pedophile sociopath who campaigned from
his basevent and whose rallies couldn't fill a broom closet, won more votes than
Obama????
THAT. IS. LAUGHABLE..
People are seeing that this is not even statistically possible and that the Rona was the
EXCUSE for mail in ballots, making it far easier to CHEAT. But that counting all of a sudden
stopped then resumed was also a huge red flag. And now whistleblowers are coming out of the
woodwork, including a dude who works for the post office where workers were told to back date
ballots.
I don't give one phuck what you think of ORANGE MAN BAD but this election is fraudulent
and Biden has won nothing fair and square. And if you did vote for Biden because ORANGE MAN
BAD then you are a MORON.. Biden and Obama were WHY we got a Trump in the first place.
If the globalist thought they would get away with THEFT of the election without
consequence they are WRONG..
Biden is ILLEGITIMATE and will be seen that way by hundreds of millions of Americans who
will FIGHT AND RESIST THE GLOBALIST MANDATED GREAT RESET.
elec9999 , 6 hours ago
Let's see, America was responsible for:
Coup d'etats in:
Iran, Ukraine, libya, haiti, chile, much more.
Attempted: Venezuela (twice), Syria
Color revolutions in:
Hong kong, Arab spring, belarus, ukraine, much more.
Outright regime change: Iraq
Now we know how it feels.
Aloha_Snackbar , 6 hours ago
Biden lost all the top bellwether counties in America except for the one in his home State
which he only got by a very small margin; the odds of this happening in a fair election are
astronomically small but Sleepy Joe can pull off miracles! It's also a miracle that a batch
of 23,277 Biden ballots were "found" after the election in Philly; not a single one of them
contained a vote for any other candidate! Incredible!
Admit it. This election was won fair and square. Ignore the computer glitches, the dead
voters, the backdated ballots, and the blatant violation of election laws by kicking out poll
observers and covering up windows at counting centers among other things. Claims of voter
fraud are just baseless and stupid. Twitter and the mainstream media said so.
Onthebeach6 , 1 hour ago
Trump got so many votes that the fraudsters had to create such a quantity of false votes
for Basement Biden - of the lid - that he ended up with millions more votes than Obama got in
2008. In fact Basement got more 'votes' than any presidential candidate in history.
The candidate who couldn't attract 50 supporters to a 'rally' got more votes than any
Presidential candidate in history.
Add to this his selling of his influence whilst on official government business and you
can see why Basement shouldn't ever be inaugurated as President.
George Galloway says it's a COUP. He is a full on leftist but here he sounds half
approving of Trump
Morphic , 6 hours ago
Legal votes decide who is president, not the news media. Joe Biden is not the
president-elect just because media declares him so. Media coordinated efforts are attempting
to simply declare Joe Biden the president and ignore the rule of law. There is no official
winner until every legal vote is counted accurately, the states certify results, and all
legal challenges are resolved. As a reminder, here are the official dates that matter (as
opposed to what CNN et al. think).
December 8: States are expected to resolve controversies at least six days before the
meeting of electors.
December 14: Electors meet in respective states to certify their votes for President and
Vice President.
Nature_Boy_Wooooo , 7 hours ago
My take here is that the pollsters made them think that Biden was going to win and they
were just going to push him over the finish line as necessary.
But then the pollsters were wrong......and that's where the cheating became blatantly
obvious as they were committed to cheating the count. The line graph from Michigan that night
was the most appalling thing that I have ever seen which suggests that nobody with a
statistical background was on board at 3 a.m. because allowing that pattern on a chart was
moronic.
This is why they are so angry at the pollsters for being wrong. They were so wrong that
the entire game plan was destroyed.
Chadwick , 1 hour ago
If you read the wording carefully, it says the AP Projects that Biden will be the next
president. Ultimately, they have no say in the issue. The election has to be certified, and
if you have been listening to anyone outside of the MSM you should know there are all sorts
of issues going on. "glitches"
Consider 100,000 ballots just showing up. How does that happen? Not one Trump vote within
the stack. Did you go and vote? Were you with 99,999 other democrats? See, the logical fact
is, ballots are commingled together just how voters are. It is impossible to separate 100,000
votes to one candidate with out some illegal effort. It's like a kid having choclate icing on
his face and saying he didn't eat any cake.
Vivekwhu , 3 hours ago
To all US voters: note that in every other democracy the media do not "call" the election,
they merely make projections and predictions until the votes are certified, counted and
certified, and if needed several re-counts and challenges are complete, and the results then
announced by a electoral commission/board.
Do not let the media Demfarts get in the way of the counting and certification of all
legal votes and legal challenges, or the credibility and acceptance in the whole electoral
process will be shattered.
watamess , 6 hours ago
Remember Pelosi ripping the State of the Nation speech in front of the world... These
corrupt assclowns hate Trump with a passion, and they are powerful. Pelosi is the mob and is
involved in the election counting machines business with her husband... She said a week prior
"no matter what the count is, BIden will be sworn in on January 20"... No one said anything.
THat alone should have landed her at FBI for questioning at the very least.
SmokeyBlonde , 6 hours ago
Except the FBI is in on the coup attempt.
The Continental , 3 hours ago
A clarion call to all patriots: please go to Rudy Giuliani's Youtube channel Common Sense
( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-9J07yyuXQTx_uZQchtwsg
) where he details the high crimes and misdemeanors of Joseph Biden and the Biden family
including full documentation garnered from Hunter Biden's hard drive and an insider
whistleblower. Folks this is deadly serious. If Biden obtains the presidency, he will be a
veritable puppet of the chinese communist government and utterly blackmailable. Biden as
president will put every American life at risk, especially our military and intelligence
folk. Please spread this information far and wide because the MSM has sold the American
people out and suppressed this knowledge per Mr. Giuliani.
Vivekwhu , 4 hours ago
Gee, there are 17 US intelligence agencies, the finest law enforcement agency in the FBI
and none of them have the ability to protect the integrity, credibility and trust in the US
electoral process? Perhaps Trump has already ordered the gathering of EVIDENCE since the
postal ballot fraud was signalled months ago? Perhaps Trump gave the orders and none of them
bothered to do anything as they were already working with Biden (laptopgate)?
TRUMP HAS BEEN IN OFFICE BUT NOT IN POWER.
DARK DAYS FOR US/us!
ponchoramic , 4 hours ago
Trump has been in office but not in power. Sorta but he was more in power than any other
President who has bent over to these criminals. He got a lot done dispite them. He will have
four more years when this is over.
dogsbollocks , 5 hours ago
Dems are being very gracious celebrating their legally challenged fraudulent election
victory..Lapping in all the adulation from their Globalist NWO controlled MSM sycophants.
If there is one thing i have learned from this election.It is how badly compromised by third parties western MSM
has become..Calling it Orwellian is understating the problem.
Anything insinuating Kosher Nostra involvement and you likely see the results
immediately.
What I see, and it is anecdotal only, is that a lot of conservatives are either afraid of
or angry about the changes that are happening in the country, both culturally and
economically. These changes even since the 80s and 90s are putting us in greater contact with
other Americans, and for rural Americans especially, it's too much to handle.
Trump gave some promise to the idea that he would work to separate that back, maybe to a
1960s era, with soft segregation, even if not directly saying so, and also have factories and
farms thriving again. It sounded good to a lot of conservatives, but it really has no chance
of actually happening.
The sad part of all of it, from my point of view as center left, is that Trump could have
potentially accomplished a few things that would have mitigated the damage for those
conservatives, but he wound up with republicans in control of both the House and Senate. He
really doesn't have much in the way of actual principles, himself, so he went along with the
republican agenda, all tax cuts and judges, all the time. Two years in, all he had to show
were the tax cut bill and the judges, since then only judges. But that effectively baked the
cake that has now got us as divided as we are. So now, the conservatives look at themselves
as being constantly under attack, Biden is either a devout Stalinist style communist, or
close to dementia taking over, and giving the country to Harris, who will be even worse.
You're probably right. I think that fear of cultural diversity is also what keeps many
people in those places. They'll choose to stay in decaying towns that are never going to
rebound instead of moving a couple of hours away to a place where they may have Guatemalan
neighbors.
You are so right and it's the reason I can't "hate/"despise" the trump base too much. I
feel sadness. They have some legitimate pains, but they run after the wrong medicine and
trump is a terrible pill... all talk and no policy substance. One of the only things he did
for his rural base was a handout to farmers (hurt by his policy) and all the other promises?
(awesome health care, return of manufacturing) Nada. Not one inch of help or real problem
solving for them. Now if only independents or the other party could figure out how to
actually do something of substance for these people. And taking some responsibility for their
situation and opening up a little to the Other would help them too. Their towns might grow
again, might experience some revitalization... if they allowed refugees/legal immigrants to
come; if they allowed someone other than the good ol boy town club to run some things.
If they had focused on infrastructure, that could be a huge benefit to those areas. And
that applies to the Biden administration as well. Infrastructure covers a lot of different
areas, roads, electricity, internet services, and so on. And a lot of what is needed has to
be manufactured. Factories could be set up to make what is needed, and I would go so far as
to make most of the factories employee owned, to get them away from Wall Street. That could
be decades worth of real economic growth in small towns.
I've never understood the "cruel and evil" aspect of supporting Trump. Trump, his
accomplishments, his supporters, and his opponents and their supporters do not exist in a
vacuum. I see far more cruelty and evil on the left and do not understand how anybody can
support it; but I don't call leftist supporters cruel and evil. I don't know them. You don't
know me or us.
Trump correctly pointed out at the last debate that the separation and actual caging of
migrant children originated under Obama. Pelosi politicized COVID by denouncing Trump and
urging everyone to "come to Chinatown" when a lockdown was underway. So where were you while
you were getting high? In a champagne supernova in the sky?
Most countries in Europe did not allow ad hoc massive increases in mail-in voting even
though they were also hit by the deadly coronavirus:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol...
Your point is still a fair one to make in the comments. I just don't think it's shocking
to leave it out of the article as you do, and for me personally it doesn't carry the day.
Mitt Romney
@MittRomney
·
51m
Ann and I extend our congratulations to President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect
Kamala Harris. We know both of them as people of good will and admirable character. We pray
that God may bless them in the days and years ahead.
I hope they not only find cases of election fraud but at such a massive amount that they
have no choice but come up with a better and updated system. We do our elections in such a
outdated way that fraud is not only easy to pull off (Election, voter or otherwise) it
renders the system obsolete. We need a truly bipartisan committee to set up new standards for
the age we are in and focus on technology and cyber security. With the new Spaceforce and the
vision of moving beyond our single planet race, we can't expect to be using primitive methods
of choosing representatives or leaders. jmo
I personally doubt that there was ballot fraud but the fix was in against Trump from the
beginning--the media not covering Biden corruption stories, taking Trump quotes out of
context, largely ignoring the good things Trump did--not starting another war, sentencing
reform--and ignoring the problems with Biden--his votes for the Iraq war and the 1994 crime
bill, the foreign policy disasters under the Obama-Biden administration.
Whenever I heard yet another "Trump is the spawn of Satan" story, I always wondered how
Bush--who started a WAR based on lies, killing untold numbers of people and orphaning nearly
a million kids--got away with so little scrutiny and is being repackaged as an elder
statesman.
The prestige media and their Big Tech accessories never gave credence to Trump's
accomplishments and never ceased to drum for his ejection during the past four years. We have
endured four years of a demonic-inspired fury and lies about Trump, a campaign abounding in
deceit, vilification of the president's family, glittery celebrity scorn, disinformation of
spellbinding proportion, pejorative auguries, and malevolent plottings. We didn't believe the
frame-up then, why should we believe it now?
Most people don't know about the fraud and the real reason Gore didn't win Fla. The RNC,
Florida elections officials and others paid almost $4 million for a voter list that kept
thousands of mostly Black voters from casting their ballots.
Florida was the only state that paid a private company to purge the voter file of
ineligible voters, in effect allowing a private company to make the administrative decision
of who is not eligible to vote.
The first firm hired in 1998 to purge the voter rolls was Professional Service Inc., which
charged $5,700 for the job. Later the same year, the state placed an open request for tenders
to bid for the job. The contract was assigned to DBT Online, despite the fact that its bid
had the highest price. The state gave the job to DBT for a first-year fee of US $2,317,800;
total fees eventually reached US $4 million.
At first, Florida specified only exact matches on names, birthdates and genders to
identify voters as felons. However, state records reveal a memo dated March 1999 from Emmett
"Bucky" Mitchell, a lawyer for the state elections office who was supervising the felon
purge, asking DBT to loosen its criteria for acceptable matches. When DBT representatives
warned Mitchell that this would yield a large proportion of false positives, Mitchell's reply
was that it would be up to each county elections supervisor to deal with the problem. In a
February 2001 phone conversation with the BBC's London studios, ChoicePoint vice-president
James Lee said that the state "wanted there to be more names than were actually verified as
being a convicted felon"
On 17 April 2001, James Lee testified before the McKinney panel that the state had given
DBT the directive to add to the purge list people who matched at least 90% of a last name.
DBT objected, knowing that this would produce a huge number of false positives (non-felons).
His testimony indicates the state then ordered DBT to shift to an even lower threshold of 80%
match and also include name reversals (thus a person named Thomas Clarence could be taken to
be the same as Clarence Thomas). Besides this, middle initials were skipped, Jr. and Sr.
suffixes dropped, and some nicknames and aliases were added to puff up the list.
"DBT told state officials", testified Lee, "that the rules for creating the [purge] list
would mean a significant number of people who were not deceased, not registered in more than
one county, or not a felon, would be included on the list. DBT made suggestions to reduce the
numbers of eligible voters included on the list". According to Lee, the state's response to
the company′s suggestion was "Forget about it".
"The people who worked on this (for DBT) are very adamant ... they told them what would
happen", said Lee. "The state expected the county supervisors to be the fail-safe." Lee said
his company will never again get involved in cleansing voting rolls. "We are not confident
any of the methods used today can guarantee legal voters will not be wrongfully denied the
right to vote", Lee told a group of Atlanta-area black lawmakers in March 2001
In February 2002, the NAACP and four other groups filed suit against Harris (NAACP v.
Harris), the county elections supervisor and a former state election chief. The lawsuit cites
the state, several counties and the contractor over procedures for voter registration, voter
lists and balloting. The suit charges that Black voters were disenfranchised during the 2000
presidential election, and argued that Florida was in violation of the Voting Rights Act of
1965 and the US Constitution's 14th Amendment. The parties reached a settlement wherein
ChoicePoint will reprocess the voter file on the plaintiffs' terms and donate $75,000 to the
NAACP
This is a fantasy, pure and simple. The notion that Milwaukee is dominated by a Tammany
style machine is ludicrous. The mayor has to run as an individual candidate, and the city
council has no political cohesion. The voting process has multiple safeguards, is utterly
transparent and open, and everybody who wants to observe has ample opportunity to do so.
You are indulging in sour grapes, pure and simple. "Wah, my man lost, no fair, cheater,
cheater, cheater." Well, you're a good match for your failed champion.
I don't like Biden or Harris, but I'd vote for a yellow dog to get Trump out. The Dems
should shuffle off stage right over the next four years with the shame that this squeaker is
the best they could pull off against a dream opponent like Donald Trump. It should have been
a blow-out, but the Dems didn't have it in them.
you are really grasping at straws here man. The chances of finding any substantial
election fraud are nil and would be inconsequential, not to mention that you are assuming
that this unsubstantiated, alleged "fraud" is done only by democrats.
Biden won with over 4 million more votes than Trump. and more than enough electoral votes.
This so called fraud would have to been orchestrated over multiple states. You should be
happy, the Republicans actually did quite well this election. but instead you scream "you
cheated" like a child as your fascist fantasy disintegrates like the wicked witch of the
west.
Trump has every right to pursue all the legal challenges that he can come up with, and
knowing him, Im sure he will, but he lost by a significant margin and his chances of
unearthing some huge game changing bag of ballots are slim to none, and you know the joke,
slim just left town. His whole strategy is centered around delegitimizing the voting process
and its very effective. And by the way, I am not a socialist. I've run my own business for
over 30 years and I hate paying taxes as much as the next guy. It's freaky that the core
republican strategy is to label all democrats "socialists".
Laugh. It is entirely possible that one sees and smells something foul while at the same
time not being an "acolyte".
This was as the democrats apparently have been spouting since they hit the books to use
COVID as a means to change the rules. I am not prone to conspiracies. But after the Russia
Impeachment attempt, the Ukrainian Impeachment attempt, the near public hysterics that have
fed both of those investigations, accusations that the executive threatened a woman to keep
silent that also fell apart and backfired, the response to Justice Kavenaugh . . . the
machinations at the behavior at the border and most peculiar that the people of Michigan,
Wisconsin and Georgia would support planned riots . . .
And then recalling how the system went down in Iowa --- there's plenty of reason to be
suspicious. But overall, the response here has been reasonable. And if no case is evident, so
be it.
But one this is clear, people do conspire to engage in getting there way. Who would have
thought that they the Russians could actually implant a chess board center piece in
Washington's capitol, in the white house no less . . . based on uncorroborated accusations by
members of the FBI, CIA, State department and Sec Clinton and her allies -- who would have
thought it . . . .
-- apparently democrats and lots of liberals.
Even some writers here at TAC believed it. You are a humorous fellow. Election fraud and
error is not a myth in the US, and usually, one shrugs it off at least republicans generally
-- say next time.
But after fours years of actual conspiracy by the opposition, it might be a good idea to
check if the same machines tested in Iowa that suggested a first husband was in order after
voting there . . . . made there way around the country.
If the Democrats were capable of cheating and rigging elections as you are baselessly
speculating why would they stop at the Presidential race and not swing the Senate leftward as
well? There are two very close races in Georgia that are heading for a runoff in January.
Trump and his legal team are frantically throwing spaghetti against the wall and hoping
something sticks.
Poorly researched.
"... Moreover, Biden administration probably will quickly abandon all its election promises in domestic policy area and will kick the neoliberal can down the road. After all Biden is a classic neoliberal and he is as far from Warren and Sanders, as one can get. ..."
"... And legitimacy of election is much bigger question than the silly question about who among two factions of neoliberal oligarchy won. Because this is an important factor that holds the society together. ..."
"... A President may emerge, but it will not be, as it were, a settled one: He or she cannot make claim to the 'will of the majority'. Whomsoever is certified by Congress cannot truthfully say they represent 'the nation'. Consensus is fractured, and it is difficult to see any leadership that can bring Americans together as a 'united people'. ..."
"... If Dems really abuse ballot harvesting to the extent Trump supporters suspect, that will be very detrimental to the USA as a society. And that's much bigger negative factor than any positive effect from Biden's victory. ..."
"... Marc Elias , the lawyer for Dems in Nevada, efforts to expand mail-in voting and revoke prohibition of ballot harvesting in Nevada look really suspicious. ..."
"... Unprincipled pursuit of power is utterly characteristic of the Democrats and their media allies in recent years, and it would not be at all surprising to learn that there was some kind of a "Plan B" already decided on before the election. ..."
"... When you fill up the mail in ballot for your demented grandmother this is a fraud though on a micro scale. But multiply it by thousand. Do it in nursing homes. Then do it in community centers in minority areas and ghettos for people who would never vote. You incentivize them and twist their arms. This is no different than ballot stuffing but impossible to be proven as a fraud, yet everybody knows about it... ..."
"... While I do not believe that election fraud changed the outcome (see above), the real question now is "Was it an election, or a coup detat?" ..."
I am firmly in "anybody but Trump" camp. IMHO Trump lost 5% of his share among white male voters. Because he betrayed his election
promises to them. That's why he lost. As for Trump personally, all else are details.
But I see huge issues with how 2020 elections was conducted. And not only I.
You need also to understand that the actual difference between Biden administration and Trump administration will be positive,
but pretty small. Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss And in some areas on foreign policy (Ukraine) Biden will be definitely
worse. Another negative factor is that Biden victory legitimized Russia-gate. Which means that his win legitimized neo-McCarthyism.
Moreover, Biden administration probably will quickly abandon all its election promises in domestic policy area and will kick
the neoliberal can down the road. After all Biden is a classic neoliberal and he is as far from Warren and Sanders, as one can
get.
But all this are gory details.
What really matter now is whether the elections legitimized the return to power of globalists, or this is yet another scam
similar to Russia-gate.
And legitimacy of election is much bigger question than the silly question about who among two factions of neoliberal oligarchy
won. Because this is an important factor that holds the society together.
That's why all color revolutions start with the frontal assault on the legitimacy of elections in the first place. Now Trump
campaign will be doing that. And this is hugely negative. As Alastair Crooke noted:
A President may emerge, but it will not be, as it were, a settled one: He or she cannot make claim to the 'will of the majority'.
Whomsoever is certified by Congress cannot truthfully say they represent 'the nation'. Consensus is fractured, and it is difficult
to see any leadership that can bring Americans together as a 'united people'.
If Dems really abuse ballot harvesting to the extent Trump supporters suspect, that will be very detrimental to the USA as a
society. And that's much bigger negative factor than any positive effect from Biden's victory.
For example in Nevada many workers moved out of state due to the collapse of casino industry. But formally you cannot vote
if you moved out of the state over 30 days prior to the balloting. Absent of a system of authentication of residency and identification,
we have essentially a honor system – an approach that no casino would allow even at the nickel slots section. In this sense
Marc
Elias , the lawyer for Dems in Nevada, efforts to expand mail-in voting and revoke prohibition of ballot harvesting in Nevada
look really suspicious.
Unprincipled pursuit of power is utterly characteristic of the Democrats and their media allies in recent years, and it would
not be at all surprising to learn that there was some kind of a "Plan B" already decided on before the election.
When you fill up the mail in ballot for your demented grandmother this is a fraud though on a micro scale. But
multiply it by thousand. Do it in nursing homes. Then do it in community centers in minority areas and ghettos for people
who would never vote. You incentivize them and twist their arms. This is no different than ballot stuffing but impossible
to be proven as a fraud, yet everybody knows about it...
Charges of ballot harvesting are extremely difficult to prove, but indirect signs suggests that it did have place much in Chicago
major Daley fashion.
While I do not believe that election fraud changed the outcome (see above), the real question now is "Was it an election, or
a coup detat?"
The unidentified poll worker blew the whistle after claiming he was told by a supervisor to
tabulate votes he believed needed signature verification, According to Fox News, he also claims
that higher-ups said he should ignore any discrepancies with addresses while validating
ballots.
The election worker provided a sworn affidavit, which has been forwarded to the Department
of Justice. Fox reported that a lawyer for the Trump campaign said the worker's testimony was
damning.
The affidavit makes clear that we're not dealing with oversights or sloppiness. This
was intentional criminal conduct.
The incendiary allegations come after a federal judge shot down a lawsuit brought by
Republican lawyers that claimed Clark County was "improperly" using its
signature-verification machines to check votes. In its ruling, the court said there was scant
evidence to suggest the machines were malfunctioning, and questioned whether a human poll
worker could do a better job, local media
reported .
Nevada is one of many states in which Donald Trump supporters have claimed they were
disenfranchised at the voting booth. Media outlets called the state for Joe Biden on Saturday,
hours after the Democrat was crowned the projected winner of the election.
In a statement issued on November 4, the Nevada Republican Party said it had received
"thousands" of complaints regarding issues that occurred during Election Day. It also
claimed there had been "a number of mail ballots turned in to Clark County Department of
Elections that are being processed without meaningful observation."
As of Sunday, the state has tallied around 92 percent of cast ballots, according to the
Associated Press.
Donald Trump continues to maintain that alleged invalid mail-in votes tipped the scales in
Biden's favor. His campaign has filed a series of lawsuits to challenge the processing and
counting of ballots in several battleground states.
* Pelosi was warning a month agoTrump wouldnt leave office without a fight.....what did
she know? The polls suggested it was no contest. The election was to be cut and dried. Clear
mandate. Did she know the polls were rigged? Did she know the 11th hour ballot deluge would
be delivered "if needed" in the key states?
* Why was Biden not interested in the vote counting procedures on the night of Nov 3 when
he was behind in key states? Wouldnt he be calling for audits and recounts? Or did he know
the "posse" was coming?
* If clear cut fraud is discovered and in necessary levels to recount and maybe alter the
results, then the civil unrest dogs will be released in Soros funded levels never seen
before.
Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are preventing any mention of the widespread Democrat vote
fraud -- a complete flip from Russiagate that social media hyped for years
NONSENSE. Are you sleeping? Trump gained black and hispanic voters. He lost whites.
Why? Not one promise was kept. No wall. No Hillary in jail. No treasonous FBI/prosecutors
arrested. Nobody prosecuted for hiring illegals. H1Bs still here. No repeal/replace O-care.
No lockdown of nursing homes/hospitals, but every other business forced to shut down. Big
payday for companies making useless vaccines and ventilators, but no HCQ for those who want
it.
If Trump did what he promised he would have won easily. He is a terrible manager, so now
we are stuck with a drooling hair sniffer. Thanks again and bye bye Don.
TBT or not TBT , 1 hour ago
He lost white males. The rest of his base grew.
not dead yet , 1 hour ago
Ignorant people need to bone up on there are 3 branches of Fed government all with their
own delegated powers and all powers not specifically delegated to the Fed's are the province
of the states. The ignorant want to believe any president can just wave his hand and anything
he wants is done.
The House, which controls all spending, even under the Repubs gave Trump little or no
money for his wall and infrastructure. Trump got as much wall as he could by stealing money
from the War department and the Dems fought him in the courts all the way to the Supreme for
this. It's a big country so how do you know no one was prosecuted for hiring illegals. As
O-care was passed into law by Congress the president can't can it like he can an
administrative order from one of the government departments. It's up to Congress and the
courts. Nursing homes, hospitals, and healthcare are under the control of the states not the
Fed's or Trump as was the orders for shutting down businesses. If they are here legally you
can't legally deport all H1b's. Even if Trump issued an order the courts would toss it out.
Same with putting Hillary and others in jail. It's up to the courts not Trump. As far getting
them into court you are dealing with crooks who know every trick in the book, unlike the
Bidoons, to cover their backsides and can hire the best crooked lawyers in the business so
you can't go into court with a half a$$ case or it gets tossed and can't be prosecuted again.
In real life not every bad person gets what due him unlike a fiction TV show, where it seems
most people get "educated", where the good guys triumph all the time.
The US is one of the largest landmasses on the planet with 330 million people and
operations world wide. The Fed government is over 40 agencies and 2.1 million people. Yet
people who don't even know what their kids are doing in the next room expect one man to know
everything that goes on on the planet. The presidents daily briefing book is in the thousands
of pages and that's just the major stuff and could be full of lies and half truths by those
who write their section. You ill educated brain dead's are the ones who cost Trump the
election by not doing your homework and getting your info from the lying a$$ media. Trumps
accomplishments are considerable but the media buries them to make him look bad which they
have done 24/7 for over 4 years. Many of those "promises" need the cooperation of others
especially in his party and he didn't get it as they wanted him gone and good party man like
Pence in charge who they could control. No matter how good a manager or leader you are "you
can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" is the case here. Both sides of the
aisle fought him from day one which is why outsider Trump had to listen to their
recommendations and got saddled with so many traitors on his staff and cabinet and is only
now finally getting them weeded out.
Don't you get it yet? The MIC and Wall St choose their guy. That's why we're watching Biden
give his acceptance speech right now. Sure Wall St liked the trillions Trump dumped on them but
they like stability more than the quick payday. They know they'll make more money with Biden
without all of the negative attention that Trump brought them. President's aren't elected,
they're selected and if they don't pass muster with Wall St and the MIC they aren't selected.
If you want to see this change, we need to unite to get money out of politics. It's our only
path forward out this BS we call our political system.
"Sure Wall St liked the trillions Trump dumped on them"
No, it's the Fed that "dumps" money in the form of low interest rates, bond rates, the
various forms of loan programs for financial institutions which creates money. They have
been doing this big time since 2008.
Nor can trump take credit for the tax cut, that was Ryan's and the republican
Congress's doing.
Fine it was the FED, but the FED was Trump's administration so I'm not sure what's the
difference. Do we credit the ACA to Pelosi or to Obama? Can't have it both ways.
Again no. The Fed is an independent agency which overlaps administrations. Oher than
the chairman, its members are appointed by the Fed's board of governors, each of whom
have a great deal of leeway in each fed district. The Chairman is first among equals as
it were and is the public face of the Fed.
It was in the Carter admin that Paul Volker and the Fed raised interest rates, thereby
almost insuring Carter's re-election defeat. Presidents get way too much credit or blame
on the economy.
"Do we credit the ACA to Pelosi or to Obama?"
Hard to tell, but Pelosi was the force behind it. It was the republicans after all
that labeled ACA Obama care.
OMG, and who is the head of the FED? Steve Mnuchin, a man appointed by who? A man that
should be in prison but thanks to our new elected VP he isn't.
Edit: and you're delusional if you think the FED is independent, they are a wholly
owned subsidiary of Wall St banks and the monied interests, the same monied interests
that OWN BOTH PARTIES.
OK, so why should Powell be in jail? After all it's the Fed that made possible the
"Great" trump economy.
"and you're delusional if you think the FED is independent, they are a wholly owned
subsidiary of Wall St banks and the monied interests, the same monied interests that OWN
BOTH PARTIES."
I hope you've included trump in that group. He brags about how rich he is and was born
into money.
I tend to get confused by the abbreviations many people use when there's no antecedent
explanation. Who's this MIC who you allege chooses, along with Wall Street, "their
guy"?
Military industrial complex, our defense contractors. Those that have made trillions
keeping us at war since WW2 and assassinated the only president that dared to undermine
them.
US democracy, like European Civilisation, is a great idea, (to paraphrase M. Ghandi).
[Nov 07, 2020] Is oligarchic democracy just a transitional stage in any republic development by political cast, lawyers etc. So in time they were replaced with other more effective forms of governance... I guess it the time for the sun to set over the American democracy: it has outlived its limited potential! pinfinit 7 hours ago These same dumps criticised the democracy of other nations. And also destabilized them now and then. Is it Yugae Yugae ... BhavathGeetha . Reply 2 lectrodectus 6 hours ago The US Media are guilty of having orchestrated vile/relentless campaign to de-legitimize The Donald from the day he was inaugurated President. Democracy is nothing more than a FACADE in America, (In Fact most Western Countries) the US electors had a once in a lifetime opportunity send a clear message to the political Elites by boycotting this election...it would amount to a Mexican Stand Off. Herrbifi 5 hours ago Rock bottom of election history. Reply 1
shadow1369 Herrbifi 5 hours ago Yep, no party has ever plumbed the depths the DNC have since
Clingon was defeated. Four years of a Russia lie, months of orchestrating mayhem, and then the
most widespread and calculated ballot fraud in history. Zogg 7 hours ago Well as a historian at
Princeton University he cannot be a fool. But it means that he's a liar and a cheater. There
are so many instances in the US history when the US was responcible for death of millions and
Joel W 8 hours ago So this guy is publicly claiming Trump as President is worse than chattel
slavery? Interesting.
A little tidbit for you. A couple of weeks ago, a Facebook (on which I seldom post) "friend"
shared a TDS video about Trump "conspiracy theories". I replied saying conspiracies exist,
identifying them is the problem. His response basically challenged me to "prove it". I provided
several links, including a couple of court cases, showing that the media ignores what does not
fit their narrative. I closed by saying the TDS crowd is delusional. Trump is different in
kind, not substance.
Today, I was notified that a different "friend" had shared a video. It was another mindless
rant about Trump and his lies about election fraud. Facebook has blocked my ability to comment.
But hey, there's no such thing as Big Brother. I wasn't "supporting" Trump, only pointing out
the narrative is managed.
I really don't understand either side of the Trump thing. US elections, for decades, have
been about which competing faction of the corporate uni-party in Congress gets to call the
shots. Trump is his own corporate party, which stunned both the Demicans and Republocrat Inc.s.
He has cut in on their territory and will pay the price for not being compliant. To return to
the vernacular of my misspent youth – same shit, different pile.
"... Social media is clamping down on posts questioning US election results' "integrity," despite troubling anomalies. Yet questioning election integrity defined the establishment narrative for four years of relentless Russiagating. ..."
"... Twitter has been steadily tightening its " election integrity " policy since 2016 in response to allegations that social media had served as a breeding ground for " Russian bots " and trolls who somehow convinced a massive swathe of the American electorate to vote for Republican candidate Donald Trump in that year's election. The platform now vows to remove " unverified claims " about election fraud or meddling, now that four years of unverified claims about Russian meddling have succeeded in making many ordinary Americans fearful of what would happen to their precious vote if censors weren't waiting in the wings to smother wrongthink. ..."
"... Facebook, too, has refashioned itself as an election integrity crusader using the Russian meddling claims as a springboard. In a plot twist that would be rejected from a Hollywood script for being too on the nose, its "election integrity" expert Anna Makanju previously worked as a special policy adviser for Europe and Eurasia to former Vice President (and current Democratic presidential challenger) Joe Biden. She's also a senior nonresident fellow at the pro-war NATO-backed think tank the Atlantic Council, which has partnered with Facebook since 2018 to "defend democracy" – again, based on unfounded allegations that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. ..."
Social media is clamping down on posts questioning US election results' "integrity," despite troubling anomalies. Yet questioning
election integrity defined the establishment narrative for four years of relentless Russiagating.
Twitter, Facebook and YouTube's crackdown on speculation about voter fraud, " election meddling ," and other " information
intended to undermine public confidence in an election or other civic process " (as Twitter
put it ) represents a stunning
about-face from the way they fostered – even bolstered – speculation about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 vote.
In what is perhaps the ultimate irony, the current level of election meddling by the social media establishment – which outstrips
anything the troll farm Internet Research Agency pulled off in 2016 by several orders of magnitude – would be impossible without
the hysteria ginned up on these platforms by journalists casting doubt over the integrity of that year's election. If not for four
years of Russiagate, social media platforms would never have gotten away with choking off the flow of information about 2020's election
on the level they are.
Twitter has been steadily tightening its " election integrity " policy since 2016 in response to allegations that social
media had served as a breeding ground for " Russian bots " and trolls who somehow convinced a massive swathe of the American
electorate to vote for Republican candidate Donald Trump in that year's election. The platform now vows to remove " unverified
claims " about election fraud or meddling, now that four years of unverified claims about Russian meddling have succeeded in
making many ordinary Americans fearful of what would happen to their precious vote if censors weren't waiting in the wings to smother
wrongthink.
Facebook, too, has refashioned itself as an election integrity crusader using the Russian meddling claims as a springboard. In
a plot twist that would be rejected from a Hollywood script for being too on the nose, its "election integrity" expert Anna Makanju
previously worked as a special policy adviser for Europe and Eurasia to former Vice President (and current Democratic presidential
challenger) Joe Biden. She's also a senior nonresident fellow at the pro-war NATO-backed think tank the Atlantic Council, which has
partnered with Facebook since 2018 to "defend democracy" – again, based on unfounded allegations that the Trump campaign had colluded
with Russia to steal the 2016 election.
YouTube has acted in a similar vein,
forcing " authoritative sources " down users' throats (when if they wanted to watch CNN, they would turn on their TV, not
log on to YouTube) and slapping thought-babysitting warning labels on content related to controversial issues.
All three outlets have labeled " state-run media " and
suppressed its reach – in many cases
making loopholes for media run by the US or its client states, and making bogus claims about " editorial independence " as
if the heads of state of Russia, Iran, China, and other wrongthink-generating states are breathing down the necks of individual writers.
Yet even privately owned US media outlets are now muzzled when the stories they publish purport to tell unwanted truths about the
anointed one – Biden – or his son, whose laptop initiated the most shockingly heavy-handed censorship episode of the pre-election
season. The coverup, as they say, is always worse than the crime.
Thanks to a cross-platform clampdown on questioning election results, no matter how dodgy they may seem, the president of the
US himself cannot call the attention of his millions of followers to allegations of voter fraud in states that have become key battlegrounds
in the 2020 contest: Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona. Half of his last dozen tweets are hidden behind a 'warning'
that prevent users from commenting on or retweeting them. Even a three-word caps-lock outburst like " STOP THE FRAUD " has
been declared too sensitive for users' eyes.
Twitter, Facebook and YouTube declared it their mission to fight " misinformation " amid the fog of doubts about election
integrity that ensued following Trump's 2016 upset. Their drift in the past four years has made it abundantly clear – as has the
revelation that upwards of 95 percent of political contributions made by employees of all three companies went to Democrats – that
they are not neutral, nonpartisan onlookers, but willing soldiers in the Democratic Party's information war. The obviousness with
which they go about fighting it only inflames the president's supporters, who – after days of having tweets deleted, being locked
out of their accounts, and otherwise being suppressed – are ready to go to war themselves.
And that's the point. Given how little daylight there really would be between the policies of the two presidents, it's clear all
this divide-and-conquer pageantry is aimed more at the candidates' supporters – many of whom have divergent views on where the US
should go. Nevertheless, if those supporters were to peacefully compare notes on what they see as the problems with American society,
they might realize they have more in common with each other than they do with the leaders of their respective parties. Therefore,
they must be kept at each other's throats if the ruling establishment is to survive. And, given the looks of 2020's election results,
that ruling class will enjoy a long, healthy life.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
Kiro919 7 hours ago
No-one would vote for Dorsey or Zuckerbum - yet they have incredible power and influence. Close them down and
punish them.
Daniel Fernald Kiro919 5 hours ago
Boycott, divest, sanction (BDS).
Count_Cash Kiro919 5 hours ago
Tech dictators - we know what is going to happen to them really. US is closing mouths now, censoring
even their president. Free speech is dead in the US. No allegations allowed, every dissenting voice labelled as not to be listened
to, every search result censored, every non conforming view attacked - everyone with a mind knows they are looking at a US which
is an oppressive regime only permitting a single party view. They have run a fraudulent election to protect that regime!
UshouldKnow 3 hours ago
Google, Facebook and Twitter are public forums and as such should not be allowed to censor free speech
which is guaranteed in our constitution. This should be taken up by the Supreme Court.
Jack the Beanstalk 7 hours ago
just a few years ago Maduro was almost ousted in a coup by Guaido and special interests in USA.
The same thing is happening now its a failed coup attempt again sponsored by richest 1%
a325 6 hours ago
"Social media is clamping down on posts questioning US election results' "integrity," despite troubling anomalies.
Yet questioning election integrity defined the establishment narrative for four years of relentless Russiagating." The hypocrisy
is right there
Jimmy_The_Cop 3 hours ago
Donald Trump should be congratulated for saving us from Hilary Clinton and staying alive for nearly
four years (with his own private security of course). Well Done Donald! Now have some fun in the next couple months and pardon everyone
under sun! By the way, censorship is not new in America. Read the Warren Report, the 9-11 Commission Report and countless other "official"
narratives during the Great American Century.
shadow1369 5 hours ago
It's everywhere. The bbc never fails to describe reports of ballot fraud as 'unsubstantiated' despite never
once having used the word when reporting endlessly on he Russaiagate hoax. As for Biden corruption, they simply refused to mention
that at all.
Ivan DeGaulle shadow1369 1 hour ago I love the 'false rumours' line.. because, if it was false? it's not a rumour but a lie! Reply
SavantMan 3 hours ago
I don't know why it's so hard for people to simply stop using these platforms. The more people use them, the
more empowered these corrupt platforms are. I just don't get it. Why would anyone still use such corrupt and biased platforms is
truly mind boggling.
UshouldKnow SavantMan 3 hours ago
The people are brainwashed by the MSM and the alphabet agencies which have a monopoly on the
"news." As a result the masses have no idea what's really going on. Many are addicted to Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al just as
they are to sports and other distractions. And what are the alternatives? The 3 platforms referenced above are so ubiquitous they
have no competition. I agree people should wean themselves away from them but it isn't easy. That being said, "My Space" is not a
thing anymore, so it is possible, but first people have to wake up.
Avaron 3 hours ago
Trump's worst mistake was staying with Twitter. Now they keep on censoring his tweets. He should have moved
to a different platform when he became the president, then advertised it on twitter. So people would come to that platform instead
of twitter.
muahaha 4 hours ago
Maybe, but anyway, he's done after the evil things he did, not before. And everyone
knew what he was doing. That's the pity.
Daffyduck011 7 hours ago
We dont need anymore examples. Facebook Twitter YouTube Google and the MSM have
an agenda. It is globalism. Trump was a nationalist and a Republican. So if you are a socialist and a globalist you should
use these entities. If you are not you must boycott these entities.
Daffyduck011 3 hours ago
It's not socialism, you need to crack a book. What this is: Bolshevism (Zionist-sponsored)
shadow1369 Daffyduck011 5 hours ago
US tech giants are corporate fascists, the exact opposite of socialists.
"... The referral is substantially less than the "10,000" referenced earlier but the underlying allegation is still important. The early concern for many of us was that the system established in Clark County would be difficult to review for violations due to how the tabulation was handled and the record preserved. ..."
"... Many states like Nevada are relying on notoriously outdated voter lists and applying fairly lax standards for confirming the identity of voters for mail-in ballots. In Nevada, this is a particular concern because many workers moved out of the state due to the pandemic's impact on the casino industry. ..."
"... "Gonzo reporter" Hunter S. Thompson once said that "For a loser Vegas is the meanest town on earth." The question for a court may be whether it is equally unkind to a winner if he cannot prove what he won. ..."
It turns out that some things that happen in Vegas may not stay in Vegas . . . like
voting.
The Republican Party in the Silver State is now arguing that thousands of votes in the close
presidential election were cast by workers who moved out of the state or even by deceased
individuals. Various voters reported their deceased relatives receiving live ballots in the
mail. Now, the Nevada Republican Party has sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department
alleging at least 3,062 instances of voter fraud in the battleground state. The referral is
substantially less than the "10,000" referenced earlier but the underlying allegation is still
important. The early concern for many of us was that the system established in Clark County
would be difficult to review for violations due to how the tabulation was handled and the
record preserved.
The allegations over ineligible voting were raised before Election Day. Many states like
Nevada are relying on notoriously outdated voter lists and applying fairly lax standards for
confirming the identity of voters for mail-in ballots. In Nevada, this is a particular concern
because many workers moved out of the state due to the pandemic's impact on the casino
industry.
You cannot vote if you moved out of the state over 30 days prior to the balloting.
The problem is the accuracy of state voting and residency records in showing such changes
shortly before an election. Absent a system of authentication of residency and identification,
it would be a system based on the honor system – an approach that no casino would allow
even at the nickel slots section.
As courts deal with a flurry of lawsuits in various states, I have been focusing on the
allegations in Nevada of thousands of ineligible or even deceased voters. That is the type of
systemic failure that could cloud results in not just the Silver State but other states. Nevada
was one of the states that I identified before the election as one of three states that I was
watching the most closely for election challenges. However, the problems raised in Nevada could
raise concerns with shared elements to various states from Michigan to Pennsylvania. The
reliance on questionable voter lists and the lack of authentication systems were raised months
ago. The legal problem is not simply that such systems may allow for large numbers of
ineligible votes but that they would not allow sufficient review of ballots to resolve such
questions.
The criminal referral is substantially less than the "10,000" referenced earlier but the
underlying allegation is still important. The early concern for many of us was that the system
established in Clark County would be difficult to review for violations due to how the record
was being preserved.
The Republicans are claiming that this is just the first set of identified voters with
alleged ineligibility. Conversely, Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak, a Democrat, issued a statement
arguing the state was "widely recognized as being a leader in election administration," and
that he had "the utmost confidence in the abilities of Nevada's local election officials and
Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske to accurately count every eligible vote cast in the Silver
State." We have no basis to rule in or rule out either claim.
I have repeatedly stated that we must not make assumptions on either side. My concern is
that it is not clear how a court could review these ballots in Clark County if it agrees that
there appears to be systemic problems. If the court believes that thousands votes illegally,
that lack of a record could prove the undoing of the state officials. At some point, the burden
can shift and courts demand proof that a problem was not systemic. If they cannot, the question
will be raised whether the same vulnerability existed in other states like Pennsylvania,
Michigan, or Georgia. A court could be presented with a decision of when the unknowable becomes
the unacceptable. If the court believes that thousands of unlawful votes were cases and the
ultimate number impossible to confirm, the only certain way to address a systemic failure would
be a special election – a prospect that few judges would relish and even fewer would
seriously consider.
What we know is that we are rapidly running out of runway to deal with this problem. The
options range from a detailed review of ballots to the remote possibility of a new election.
All of those options take time as we saw in 2000 with the Florida recount. If the time runs
out, we could have an election with lingering doubt over the legitimacy of the vote count in
states like Nevada – a poisonous prospect for any democratic process.
"Gonzo reporter" Hunter S. Thompson once said that "For a loser Vegas is the meanest town on
earth." The question for a court may be whether it is equally unkind to a winner if he cannot
prove what he won.
"... There's huge uncertainty about how the election will turn out. What looked like a certain Trump victory when I went to bed on Tuesday night suddenly turned in Biden's favor in Democrat-run swing states where there appears to have been massive fraud -- unprecendented stopping of vote counting on Tuesday night, vote-dumps in the middle of the night in Wisconsin and Michigan in which 100% of the votes went to Biden, preventing poll watchers from actually seeing what was going on in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Nevada, and I am sure much more. ..."
"... ... Unprincipled pursuit of power is utterly characteristic of the Democrats and their media allies in recent years, and it would not be at all surprising to learn that there was a Plan B already decided on before the election. ..."
There's huge uncertainty about how the election will turn out. What looked like a certain
Trump victory when I went to bed on Tuesday night suddenly turned in Biden's favor in
Democrat-run swing states where there appears to have been massive fraud -- unprecendented
stopping of vote counting on Tuesday night,
vote-dumps in the middle of the night in Wisconsin and Michigan in which 100% of the votes
went to Biden, preventing poll watchers from actually seeing what was going on in Michigan,
Pennsylvania and Nevada, and I am sure much more.
The folks who firmly believe that Putin
rigged the 2016 election and studiously ignore how supposedly neutral platforms like Google,
Twitter, and Facebook have tilted their coverage in favor of the Democrats, now would have us
believe that Democrats would not do anything to cheat.
... Unprincipled pursuit of power is utterly characteristic of the Democrats and their media
allies in recent years, and it would not be at all surprising to learn that there was a Plan B
already decided on before the election.
The old guard wants us to lay down and take it, but this election is far for over. It's time
to fight, and Trump is our man.
Mitt Romney would have conceded by now. John McCain would have conceded Tuesday night.
George Bush would have called it quits, and then invaded Iraq for good measure. Thank God in
heaven for Donald J. Trump.
Speaking late Thursday from the White House, President Trump predicted that, if all legal
votes (and only legal votes) were counted, they would show that he has won the election.
Over the past few days, former Vice President Biden has consistently made similar claims,
without the caveat that votes must be legally cast. As has become the norm when conservatives
voice concerns over a questionable election, the president's observations and forecast were
quickly "fact-checked" by the mainstream media and censored by Big Tech platforms -- while
Biden's went unchecked.
The facts, we are told, show a clear Biden victory. Any suggestion to the contrary, any
attempt to investigate reports of Democratic misconduct, is dismissed as right-wing
conspiracizing, or the petulant protestations of a sorry bunch of sore losers. (Russiagate, it
seems, has been memory-holed.) The decent thing, they say, would be concession -- take the
numbers at face value and call it a day. To his great credit, it looks like Trump will do no
such thing.
This election has essentially come down to six states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Of these six, only Arizona and Nevada really remain question
marks. Michigan and Wisconsin have already been called for Biden by most sources, and
Pennsylvania and Georgia are expected to follow close behind. Even if Arizona and Nevada both
went for Trump in the end -- the latter seems likely, while the former is a long shot --
victory in the other four would secure Biden a comfortable electoral college win at 289. It can
hardly be ignored that the major blue cities in each of these states -- Atlanta, Detroit,
Philadelphia, and Milwaukee -- are all dominated by strong, old-school, Tammany-style machines.
It can hardly be forgotten that urban Democratic machines are not exactly known for the
integrity of their elections.
This is the question being asked by Trump and other right-wingers: not whether some massive
conspiracy has been orchestrated at the national level, with Biden pulling the strings from a
basement in Delaware, but whether the substantial misconduct that has long defined city
political machines is influencing outcomes in these four key locations. This is not a question
on which we can play it safe and civil. We need a full court press to get answers from people
who have shown themselves unwilling to provide them.
Pay attention to the mainstream argument: Trump's claims have not been conclusively proven,
and so the mere suggestion is considered far beyond the pale. For many, the president's
assertion that 1) misconduct has been observed on a large scale in all of these key locations
and 2) this misconduct will be challenged in court, is the conclusive proof they need that we
are sliding into the dictatorship they predicted four years ago. The concerns are rebuked with
the usual dismissals -- unfounded, unproven, unsubstantiated, "without evidence" -- and the
narrative that Biden is the clear winner tightens its grip with every word out of every
anchor's mouth. But more than enough preliminary evidence has been provided in each of these
places to justify -- no, demand -- investigation.
The fundamental reason all these claims remain "unsubstantiated" is that the very people who
reject them on this basis are the ones who are supposed to be substantiating them -- and
they have absolutely, entirely abandoned this basic duty. Anyone who tries to look into the
evidence is denounced as a kook or (in Trump's case) a caudillo. We can hardly expect an honest
accounting of what's happened in the blue cities when talking about what's happened in the blue
cities has suddenly become the eighth deadly sin.
This is why -- besides his unique perspective and approach drawing together the broadest
coalition a Republican has built in sixty years -- Trump is actually the perfect man for the
moment. The entire media establishment is aligned to declare a Biden victory prematurely, with no
intention of investigating election inconsistencies. Local and state governments in the places
that matter are hardly more reliable -- Michigan Attorney General Jocelyn Benson is an alumna of
the SPLC, and Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro promised four days before the election that Trump
would not win the state. The docile functionaries and milquetoast figureheads of the pre-Trump
GOP could not have handled the fight ahead -- and likely would have run from it.
In fact, we know that they would have, because that's exactly what they're urging Trump to do
now. If you Google "trump+thursday+speech" or any similar query, it's going to take a whole lot
of digging to actually find the speech Trump delivered on Thursday. What you will find instead
are abundant "fact-checks" of the speech that don't actually check any of the facts, and page
upon page of ritual denunciations by the chattering classes.
These denunciations are hardly limited to the left-wingers behind the anchors' desks at every
major network. CNN is proudly touting a clip of Rick Santorum, former Republican senator from PA
and current senior political analyst at that esteemed news source, expressing his shock and
disappointment that the president would call into question certain aspects of the election.
Santorum voiced his hope that "Republicans will stand up at this moment and say what needs to be
said about the integrity of our election." (The irony is apparently lost on him.)
Similarly, Scott Walker, who was one of the first to exit the Republican primary field in 2016
and lost his reelection bid for governor of Wisconsin in 2018 to Democrat Tony Evers, has issued
a number of tweets insisting that a recount -- which the Trump campaign has already called for --
would be pointless. He has observed that, in normal elections, recounts have done very little to
alter tallies. There's no sense to this line: this is not a normal election. Delays in ballot
counting alone are enough to cause concern. Add to that the occasional full stops, after which
huge quantities of Biden ballots conveniently appear. Add to that Wisconsin's level of voter
turnout -- not over 100%, as some online rumors earlier suggested, but still near unbelievably
high. It would be the farthest thing from a surprise if a more careful inspection really did
shake things up this time around.
The same is true in Michigan, where Biden has made similarly stunning gains in witching-hour
ballot dumps. On top of that, the transposition of a few thousand Trump votes to Biden in Antrim
County has now been chalked up to a glitch in the tabulation software -- software that happens to
be used in 46 other counties. We now know there is a problem with the way the votes are
counted, and even the slightest chance that even the smallest repetition of that glitch has
occurred elsewhere demands the strictest scrutiny be applied to the Michigan vote.
All this and more can be said for Pennsylvania and Georgia, the two states most vital to the
president's reelection. Pennsylvania in particular is playing fast and loose with mail-in
ballots, and dubious rules changes need to be challenged in court. Philadelphia has a reputation
for machine-style corruption that puts Daley-era Chicago to shame. Election workers there have
also repeatedly blocked GOP poll watchers from observing the process they are legally entitled to
oversee. The same thing is happening in Detroit, where cardboard has actually been placed over
the windows to prevent people from seeing inside the central counting location. If you have
nothing to hide, right?
The president has every reason not to take the narrative at face value. This doesn't mean we
throw out the election, and it doesn't mean we're undermining democracy. It means we need to
exhaust every avenue and turn over every stone. Everything that can be brought before a court
needs to be, and every ballot that raises red flags needs to be explained. Put the screws to
every machine operative from Milwaukee to Atlanta, and make sure every word holds up.
Somebody needs to give a very good answer as to why the number of ballots left to count in
Fulton County keeps changing every time we go to sleep -- and changing by margins that boggle the
mind. Force the people who run the machines to speak, and see how long their story lasts.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Declan Leary is the Collegiate Network Fellow at The American Conservative and a
graduate of John Carroll University. His work has been published at National Review ,
Crisis, and elsewhere.
The fundamental reason all these claims remain "unsubstantiated" is that the very people
who reject them on this basis are the ones who are supposed to be substantiating them --
and they have absolutely, entirely abandoned this basic duty.
This is such a bizarre sentence. Why would government officials, investigators or
journalists or whoever be duty bound to substantiate the existence voter fraud.
They've basically done the opposite actually, and debunked the claims. Nearly every
single case of claimed voter fraud has been shown to be inaccurate, a lie, simply misleading
and/or a misunderstanding.
"Suitcases" of ballots? Actually it's photography equipment of local news broadcasts. Poll
watchers getting "pushed out" of wards? Because PA law says you are legally only allowed a
set amount of pre-certified watchers in each precinct, who must wear face masks. "Dead
voters" appearing in ballot rolls? Could exist, doesn't matter though because votes are
crosschecked with databases, and even if you died on the way home from dropping off your
mail-in ballot , your vote will be deleted, let alone if you're some potential fraud
voter who died 30 years ago.
In fact, here's a good nice long Twitter thread explaining most of the major accusations
flying around social media:
I'm just going to reply to my own very long post with an addendum:
The example of Detroit is given in the article as if papering the windows over was some
heinous thing. The reason why we have to protect the identity of poll workers is intimidation. We
already have a situation in Fulton County, GA where some enterprising conservatives have
doxxed a poll worker and actually sent the poor man into hiding.
His license plate number was posted onto Twitter, and he is now hiding at a friend's
house, because conservative activists falsely accused him of throwing out
ballots.
You are a liar. You obviously have never actually WORKED an election. I have. Several,
in fact.
I have personally witnessed ballot fraud on a large scale, coupled with utter
incompetence. Palm Beach county, 2012.
I oversaw the correction of 60,000 "defective" absentee ballots. Each correction table
was to be staffed with 1 Dem, 1 Repub, who cross-checked each others work. The corrupt
Supervisor of Elections harassed and threatened Republican workers and monitors. Nasty as
hell. Corrupt as hell. AND SHE NEVER FOLLOWED HER OWN INSTRUCTIONS, AND WHEN CHALLENGED
POLITELY, SHE THREATENED TO THROW ALL REPUBLICANS OUT OF THE ELECTIONS SITE.
I PERSONALLY witnessed CORRECTED ABSENTEE BALLOTS taken to the back where the voting
TABULATORS were, and watched as each ballot was removed from the box, examined, and some
were thrown in the trash can. And I had seen a lot of ballots with Romney marked for
President, with a straight Dem ticket down-ballot races all Dem. This is a BLUE
county.
I reported this, and nothing was done. Cowardly Republicans do this... Nothing. I
often wonder how many other blue cou ties have threatened Republican poll watchers &
workers.
Your slander of decent people means NOTHING, except that you are a liar of gigantic
proportions. Go over to Daily Kos, where you can fellowship with your vile compatriot
scumbags.
I support the view that it is entirely possible for a county full of good people to
lean hard against the "other side" in a hot disputed election. In 2014 and 2016 the
polling place was a strange church miles away; the workers there had a hand-lettered sign
posted that demanded driver licenses as ID, even though State law did not demand that
form of ID alone. This year I was one of the people who were locked out of the voting
process; the details do not matter, but it happened, and I refused to kowtow to the
system to get my registration card renewed. My county went 80% for Trump, so in fact my
lone vote would not have mattered for much anyway.
No doubt some people were denied the right to vote. Historically, the right to vote is
denied blacks and latinos more often than whites. But to make a blanket claim of a stolen
election, just the President, mind you, is an extraordinary claim that demands
extraordinary proof. Trump does not even claim that any of those down ballot Repubs,
candidates who did just fine for themselves, were denied votes. Just him.
If the democrats rigged the election then why didn't they give themselves the Senate?
Why did they lose seats in the House? And why did they not take back a single statehouse?
Trump lost because the DNC opened their arms to the Bush-era neocons from the Lincoln
Project. They're all republicans that voted for Biden and down ticket republicans and now
Biden will be putting them in his cabinet. If the election was rigged then you can thank
the those republicans for betraying their party, but the DNC is incapable of rigging
anything without help from the other side.
Your mistake is conflating "Republicans" and "republican voters." Not the same thing.
Trump was sent to DC to deal, among other things with the "Republicans."
Why didn't they give themselves the senate? A couple of hundred thousand ballots with
a 100% tally for one side were manufactured to influence one election. Only one really
mattered. Several million Americans were impoverished and terrorized all year long to
ensure this result.
In any case, they don't need the Senate -- the "Republicans" will simply roll
over. They always do. Cocaine Mitch is already signaling his intent to do so.
I saw his spokesperson the other day said any Biden cabinet picks will have to be
approved by him. Doesn't sound like Mitch is rolling over at all. We're going to see the
Lincoln Project repugs (Bush era neocons) in his cabinet and giving the MIC a seat at the
table again.
Just another 4 years of Bush/Obama policies. I think we can agree that both
sides lost this election and that's sadly not new either.
Maybe its time the for
"fringes" to unite against the center.
Speaking as a progressive myself, I dont feel like we united as much as we stayed
home. No one in the 2016 election was representing anything we wanted. The only thing
that united us was our hatred of Hillary. ;) hahaha
We can't unify under either established party. I'm talking about really uniting and
taking both out with a real populist platform (healthcare, ending our wars and getting
money out of politics), all things most Americans are in favor of. What do we have to
lose at this point? There's something horribly broken with our government when every 4
years both sides are left frustrated when the will of the people is never represented in
our supposed representative democracy. We gotta try something different.
Fox News has aired video of certified poll observers in philly being prevented from
entering polling places. but keep running interference- its obvious you wouldn't care if
you KNEW fraud had taken place...
Other Murdoch-owned news companies have done much worse! In England, his reporters
spoofed a call from a dead girl's phone, giving her parents false hope. They bugged and
bribed politicians, pretty ugly stuff. Here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
Fox News is a subsidiary NewsCorp, peddler of tabloid propaganda , promulgated by an
Australian plutocrat Rupert Murdoch, who is no friend of the USA. He has been ripping us
apart now for decades for his profit, power, and ego. He has made the GOP his b**ch. Note
how recently he has turned on Trump (not that I mind).
Why would government officials, investigators or journalists or whoever be duty bound
to
the existence voter fraud.
What a ridiculous thing to say. Those who claim to "speak truth to power" have as
their function the investigation and reporting of charges of voter fraud.
Instead, they are nothing but rank partisans, licking the government hand that feeds
them, and simply memory-holing anything that might damage their boy or be thought helpful
to their opponents. Liars and frauds, every last one.
simply memory-holing anything that might damage their boy or be thought helpful to
their opponents.
Whatever you want to claim about lefties with "TDS" or whatever you want to label
them, this sentence is literally a word-for-word description that applies to Trump
supporters.
Just endless ranks of simpletons who will thrust off every piece of evidence and
correction to their accusations.
Write out a comment to debunk things being misconstrued, twisted or lied about, and
Trumpists will waste your time blathering and ranting on about "rank partisans" without
even a hint or lick of irony and self-reflection about how their entire post is actually
about themselves.
I can just as easily dismiss you the same way, but the idea that FB, Twitter, CNN, and
yes -- even Fox -- aren't nakedly partisan is ridiculous nonsense. The least you could do
is pretend to understand what got Trump elected in the first place.
Wall St and the MIC work hand and hand with our corporate media, an industry that's
dominated by 6 corporations. They're not liberal nor conservative, they are only
motivated by money and power and keeping the population divided so that they dont unite
and come for them all.
One only has to look at the Citizens United Supreme Court decision to see how far down
the US has fallen. Now a corporation is a person? If that is so, can't they get
20-to-life when they kill someone? Can't they get the death penalty? NO, they can't; but
they can get all the good things that come from that ruling, without any of the negatives
at all.
Not every last reporter is a rank partisan, but many of them prefer the easy route to
a paycheck. Look up Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Tom Engelhardt, and others like them.
There are honest historians like Howard Zinn and Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. There are also
honest whistleblowers who get a bad rep, like Chelsea Manning, Eric Snowden and Julian
Assange. There are still a few journalists of the old school in the world. But they have
to be careful less they find themselves charged with treason under an old law, and spend
the balance of their lives locked down 23 1/2 hours per day in a tiny cell in a US
SuperMax prison.
Excellent article. I am very happy Trump is pushing to open up this election to legal
review, public inspection, recounts, bipartisan review of the ballots, process
violations. We were supposed to be patient and wait for the count, why not the recount.
What is the hurry. If he lost, fine, I want to know that, not just trust anti-Trump,
Democratic activist officials telling me that. There are so many oddities - the Biden
surges coming after down time, always so conveniently. Software turning Republican votes
into Democrat votes. The dead voting. Blocking access to GOP observers. Given the
closeness of the results in the key states that are determining the outcome, it is not
that hard to turn things one way or the other.
The state legislators decide when the mail in ballots are counted. For Florida,
Oregon, Colorado they are counted when they come in and are verified as legal votes. For
Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin the legislature decided they could not start
processing the ballots until election day, thus it is impossible get a count of those
ballots before the in person voting was counted.
Barr is asking, "how many people who sent late-arriving mail-in ballots also showed up
to vote on election day?"
It matters because it's the law we all agreed to, and you need to respect the process
to retain the other side's confidence, which your side has not done.
But one thing which may be behind the law is these 100%-Biden ballot dumps that don't
vote for congress. Do you see what's behind Barr's question? Mail-in ballots make ballot
stuffing almost trivial because you can just dump them into the mail. The one problem is
that each envelope has to have a registered voter's name on it, and that name is compared
to who voted in person. To get the mail-in vote counted, and to avoid suspicious
patterns, you need to put a name on there that didn't vote in person. That's much easier
to do after the polls close, and you have collected all the signature books to start
doing the mail-in count.
Maybe they wouldn't have had to skip steps in the process if Trump should have
appointed someone better than DeJoy, and maybe Congress (Republicans in particular)
shouldn't have spent the better part of the last two decades screwing with the USPS.
Delays in ballot counting alone are enough to cause concern. Add to that the
occasional full stops, after which huge quantities of Biden ballots conveniently appear.
Add to that Wisconsin's level of voter turnout -- not over 100%, as some online rumors
earlier suggested, but still near unbelievably high. It would be the farthest thing from
a surprise if a more careful inspection really did shake things up this time
around.
Yeah, what kind of insane ballot-counting system would allow the poll workers to
sleep ? They should be legally required to mainline stimulants until their work is
done! And the only honest way to deliver counts is to transmit each individual ballot one
by one to the state: sending counts in batches must be evidence of fraud! And how is it
possible that after vocally discouraging his voters from voting by mail, there are
relatively few Trump mail-in votes? Very suspicious! Oh and by the way, turnout in
Wisconsin was quite normal:
jeez, it is amazing how uncurious everyone has become...
Uncurious? The uncurious are the people who take videos shared by Steven Crowder, or
whatever right-wing grifter they like, and believe them as gospel truth without verifying
it.
I have literally spent the better part of my precious Friday evening reading and
watching a trove of claimed voter fraud incidents, and I have yet to find a substantially
supported example.
But...duh? You absolutely do have some ballots thrown out in every
election, because they're improperly marked or otherwise somehow invalid. That's not a
conspiracy, that's literally what poll workers have to do. I don't get it, if we think
there are dead people voting (per the above conspiracy) wouldn't we want the workers to
throw them out? Or do we not want them throwing them out? Can't have it both ways!
It doesn't exactly take a brainiac to realize what's happening in the video. The man
on the right is holding a damaged ballot, and reading off the marked selections to
the woman on the left so that she can transcribe the damaged information to a new,
undamaged ballot. You then mark the serial number for the new ballot onto the original,
damaged ballot to keep them together.
And of course, as an extra bonus, the video is zoomed in purposefully to crop out the
bipartisan poll-watchers that are standing right by this duo to make sure that they're
properly transcribing the votes.
This is literally election 101 stuff, but apparently people don't know how it
works.
Come on, you can literally verify or debunk this on the County website. Yes, one claim
going around is that Wards 273 and 274, which was located at the Spanish Immersion School
reported 200% turnout.
Ward 273 had 671 registered voters, and 612 actual voters; Ward 274 had 702 registered
voters and 611 actual voters.
So congratulations, you bought into another easily disprovable lie. I've also seen
claims that the 272nd, 277th, 269th, 234th and 312nd Wards overrated, but you can check
and see that none of that is true either.
And, all of these claims are leaving out an important detail anyways: Wisconsin has
same-day voter registration. It is possible , albeit perhaps unlikely, to have
higher voter counts than number of pre-registered voters because of that.
Ballot harvesting is real:
https://dfw.cbslocal.com/20... This is but one example in my state, and we're also aware of certain places sending
out unrequested ballots. They all deserve jail time.
Let's say I was. Would that make any of the proof I linked untrue? Or is truth only
something that comes out of a party-flag waving conservatives' mouth?
And no, I'm not. I've pretty openly stated multiple times that I voted ASP in the
Presidential race, and both R/D in various spots down the ballot.
Oh, and just in the interest of fairness, there were some conspiracies going
around on the left too on election night. One that I saw was that 300,000 ballots were
undelivered. While yes, many thousands of ballots were likely undelivered, what was
happening wasn't that they were undelivered,
it was that the USPS was skipping scanning the ballots to expedite delivery. That's
why DeJoy likely won't actually get in trouble, because postal branches were
specifically going out of their way to hand-pick ballots and expedite their delivery.
The reason a recount doesn't change anything is because it's just that--a recount.
They take all the ballots that were counted before, and count them again. They're not
looking at whether any ballots should have been thrown out. Fraudulent ballots that were
counted the first time around are counted again.
A recount won't do anything about what the Democrats pulled in Milwaukee.
I also don't understand it. Hasn't the mail-in envelope with the signature and the
voter's name already been thrown away? How will they remove the votes by dead people?
I have heard they're using some procedure intended for ballots that won't scan to
conceal ballots with missing or invalid signatures by copying them at desks that are
supposed to have bipartisan teams. I guess they throw out the original ballot when they
do that to prevent the recount from checking signatures properly?
I guess they throw out the original ballot when they do that to prevent the recount
from checking signatures properly?
No, they do that to prevent any possibllity of the original being mistakenly counted
twice.
As you yourself pointed out, the copying takes place in front of a bipartisan team of
watchers. So for your fantasy to have any validity, you have to believe that BOTH parties
are conspiring together to rig the vote. In which case, your vote is irrelevant, anyway,
right?
If you really care about this, then instead of believing all of these ridiculous
conspiracy theories, why don't you try to actually become educated about how the process
works, and next time volunteer yourself to become a certified poll watcher? Then you will
KNOW the truth.
Those checks were made before the ballot was accepted and counted. They include
checking that it was a legal ballot sent to a specific person. And that the signature
matched that of the registered voter. Only after those checks is the ballot removed from
its envelop. While there may be a few mistakes there aren't anywhere enough to be
material to the final results. The ballots from in person voting are similarly
dissociated from the voters' information.
A big thank you to Mr. Maheras commenting below. Listen to him. He is our savior.
I am close to 80 years old. Old conspiracy advocates began to make extraordinary
claims about most everything when photographs would appear in newspapers. Rorschach
tests. Then came videos , or movie clips on TV. Think the Kennedy tape. Pretty soon we
had personal video equipment. And now cell phones. All Rorschach tests. But those crazy
conspiracies were the fringe long time ago. True belivers. Ideologues. But not the
Republican party leaders.
About 30 years ago the new world order, illuminati, the Bilderbers, now the Davos all
became the subject of the go to conspiracy advocates. Take your pick. One or all . But
one thing for sure, a cabal is taking over the world. Throw in a few Clinton, or Obama
conspiracies. Catch a sighting of Elvis for good measure.
Now all rolled into the Qanon cabal. Democratic pedophilia scum raping children. What
they all have in common is that they are right wing conspiracy advocates. And they all
are foolish.
This article fits in with those conspiracies. And by right wing
advocates naturally. When Clinton lost , her margin of defeat was similar to Trump's
projected defeat. Clinton and the Democrats never asserted fraud. Nor suggested
conspiracies. The political system worked, Trump won.
Now we have a reputable magazine publishing similar outlandish conspiracy theroies to
the ones mentioned above. All without a scintilla of proof. The President of the United
States for months has been setting his base up to claim fraud. And he has. And they have
blindly bought into it.
Long way to tell you that the greatest disappointment of my lifetime is the validation
by conservatives of these kooky ideas. 30 years ago even conservatives would call these
conspiracy peddlers nut jobs.
Now we have a nut job in the white house. The birther in chief. And he just gets
worse. But no one in the Republican party, except for a few tepid critics, will call the
Predident out.
This is the same guy who saw videos of Muslims dancing on 9/11. Or an inaugural crowd
rivaling the largest gathering of human beings ever assembled in the whole history of
mankind. The greatest. The most perfect and strongest
I have never been so disappointed in my President. He has enabled Mr. Leary to peddle
his nonsense. And tragically Leary believes his blather. This is truly heartbreaking. But
it is the world that Leary and his ilk will have to live with.
Me, l'll be gone. Forgetting my own name soon. Someone tell me that what I just read
is a part of my onset dementia.
Lifelong stutterer? What a load of crap. Just watch some old videos of Joe in his
arrogant days on the senate judiciary. He and his good buddy Ted Chappaquidick Kennedy
didn't stutter when they were trashing Clarence Thomas and Judge Bork. Hey it's your
right to vote for a lifer politician who's way past his prime and suffering from a tragic
disease. Climate change - right. More likely God's judgement on a godless nation.
Now we have a reputable magazine publishing similar outlandish conspiracy
theroies
As someone who started reading TAC a long time ago when it really WAS a reputable
magazine, I'm afraid that particular ship started sailing several years ago, and is
almost out of the harbor by now. There was a time when you could come here to find
intelligent, educated, and thoughtful conservatives setting out their views and being
unafraid to engage with responses from all across the entire political spectrum. Now,
Larison is the only one left who consistently meets that description, a couple of others
dabble in reality once in a while, and the rest are descending into Breitbart levels of
paranoid lunacy.
I look forward to seeing the evidence of fraud in a court of law rather than just
circulating on twitter where the standards are somewhat less stringent.
And the president said BEFORE the election that any election he lost would necessarily
be rigged/corrupt. So of course that evidence was going to be found if he lost.....
You can put this is the same category as all these white guys who lost a job because
they were white men. Of course the couldn't possibly make these claims in a court where
discovery could happen and their BS would be exposed.
"Philadelphia has a reputation for machine-style corruption that puts Daley-era Chicago to
shame."
You talk about convenient actions, convenient facts, then conveniently bring this
shameless charge without any supporting evidence. One could easily say "Trump has been a
crook since the days when he and his siblings cheated Mary Trump and family out of her legal
share of patriarch Fred Trump's fortune".
Except, there is substantial evidence that the
Trumps did cheat the niece and nephew out of hundreds of millions of dollars, and there is no
evidence of "machine-style corruption" in Philadelphia during this election, which is the
pertinent point – during this election.
If there was corruption in Philadelphia four,
eight, or eighty years ago it has no bearing; only if it happened during this election. But
the Trump transgressions stands for all time rather than just for this election, because it
reveals his personal willingness to engage in unlawful activity for personal profit, a
shameful mark on any claim to personal integrity.
"Election workers there have also repeatedly blocked GOP poll watchers from observing the
process they are legally entitled to oversee"
One authorized observer was temporarily denied entry, a mistake that was corrected by the
elections board fairly quickly. It was one and only one. It was due to a mis-interpretation
of a change in the law that happened recently. Once the directive to allow entry came down,
the observer entered and did his work without obstruction. No other authorized observer was
challenged or blocked from observing the process at any time for any length of time. Maybe
unauthorized observers were blocked, or observers who wanted to enter locations where no
observers were authorized at all.
"The same thing is happening in Detroit, where cardboard has actually been placed over the
windows to prevent people from seeing inside the central counting location"
People who were not authorized observers were attempting to film the activities of the
authorized vote counters, tabulators, and observers inside a facility. That video is illegal
because of a law designed to promote fairness in elections by making sure authorized vote
counters, tabulators, and observers can be anonymous, and not outed to the press and
public.
The windows were blocked to prevent further filming of the activities inside; those
activities already had a full compliment of observers from both sides, and did not need the
press of untrained, angry humanity attempting to push their way inside, which was sure to end
in injury if those in back continued to press against those at the front who were stuck up
against plate glass windows.
The possibility of vote workers being publicly identified then followed to their homes and
families was a threat that deserved protection from. It happened to at least one worker, and
he had to temporarily move in with a relative to protect himself, plus keep off the streets
because his car license was published. The proper legal solution was to continue to allow the
workers their anonymity, and simple cardboard did the trick.
"If you have nothing to hide, right?"
"If there is smoke there must be fire" does not always pertain. When angry, or frustrated
at being unable to get 'their guy' elected, people can imagine all sorts of scenarios. But
imagination does not equal truth. Adults know this without even thinking about it.
"Put the screws to every machine operative from Milwaukee to Atlanta"
There should be operatives and procedures in place from well before the election just to
make sure no one has to come back later and "put the screws to every machine operative." And
there are just such laws in place everywhere in the US. Do these people writing on this
American Conservative website think the election laws and procedures were made up on the
morning of the election, and made up with no input from any Republicans? Don't be
ridiculous.
" why the number of ballots left to count in Fulton County keeps changing "
The people writing on this American Conservative website have such vivid imaginations when
thinking up ways they could be receiving a wrong vote count. Why can they not use that same
imagination here? Perhaps the reason that numbers change is that they are changing TV
channels and listening to different pundits.
Perhaps it could be because there is no God of
Remaining Votes to make sure nobody gives out a number that confuses a Republican. Perhaps it
could be because there is no validity to a count of uncounted votes – it is only the
counted and validated votes that matter in an election, not the uncounted ones.
Simply put, an uncounted ballot is just that, a ballot that does not (yet) count. They are
acting like there is an endless supply of Biden ballots out there that can be put in play on
demand. Show me. Just show me.
The entire notion is frivolous, and silly, and worthy of
someone running an election in 1820 or 1850, where a man might make his X on a ballot on
Election Day, in return for a slug of whisky or plug of tobacco, then try to come back an
hour later to get another drink, and another
"Force the people who run the machines to speak, and see how long their story lasts."
Would that include waterboarding the machine operators? Would the Republican observers be
waterboarded, too? How about elected officials, Dem or Repub? Maybe hot irons would get to
the truth better, or bringing in a worker's child and beating them or raping them until the
worker "freely" swore to the desired testimony?
It is a well-known fact in science that eyewitnesses are unlikely to get events exactly
correct when tasked with describing them later. If some poll worker fails to get their
details exactly as another sworn witnesses' testimony, which is the most likely outcome for
eyewitnesses reporting an event, does the second person get charged with perjury, and go to
prison for years? Look back to Susan McDougall, a woman who chose years in prison rather than
put herself on the witness stand under oath, because she knew full well her honest account
was the exact opposite of the people who testified before her. Those guys were a pack of
self-serving liars who created lying accounts that fit the story the prosecutors' favored.
They got themselves sweet plea bargains, or sweet freedom, just by telling the politically
correct lie.
Put the screws to every machine operative from Milwaukee to Atlanta was an earlier threat.
Why make such a threat? Is violence against innocent-until-proven-guilty workers, the
low-wage peasants of modern society, your only and best option? Do you think so little of
people as to threaten thumb screws, a torture straight out of the worst of the Spanish
Inquisition and the Middle Ages? I guess so; it's right there in the article you wrote and
the editors approved.
That last sentence in the essay, with its serious threat to hurt and destroy the lowest
level of poll worker, to cause them harm until they testify the way you want them to testify,
is straight out of the playbook of the Russian Communist Lubyanka Prison in the days of
Stalin. I did not expect to see a card-carrying Commie on this website, but there it is. I
didn't write that last sentence, the author did, and the editors of American Conservative
passed it.
Shame, for shame. Oh wait, the editors have a disclaimer in the fine print. Sure, that
makes it right. For sure. No, for shame, still.
1. He is a victim/martyr to his right-wing constituency, in much the same way that Erdogan
has always portrayed himself as a 'man of the people' and representative of the poor
conservative rural Turks and still an outsider in comparison to the secular urban elites.
This 'otherness' or being separate from the establishment/elite/'swamp' is very good for
Trumps' image. Even though he is a billionaire and has been part of the US elite for
decades.
2. With the economy going to go through problems due to covid and other issues, Trump can
try and attribute blame for the then incumbent Biden/Harris regime and free himself of any
blame and say that he has better answers.
3. He may well go on to forming his 'Trump TV' with Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Laura
Ingraham as is the current chatter amongst some and be seen as the de facto 'leader of the
opposition', a term not really used in the (dis)United States but common in many/most other
countries.
The United States is a monopoly two-party fascist system. It is a nexus of profiteering
corporate power, and a two-party cabal of American Exceptionalism. The idea the Democrats are
'commies' is laughable and shows how deeply red the Kool Aid runs. The Democrats just told
the Bernie wing of the Party to shut-up or leave. And why not? The Democrats will tally up a
five million vote plurality over Trump by playing to the right. It got them a President
without a Congress. Thank the "Karen" constituency. Mission Accomplished.
Sure, bring on Tucker as the next Trump, or Don Jr or whatever other celebrity fascist you
want. This particular bell of Pavlov's doesn't work on all the dogs. There is a seething
anti-fascist sentiment out there against for-profit healthcare, politics and war. Before a
4th Reich takes hold in the USA, a Civil War will be fought and the left, verified by study
after study, is more intelligent as a group.
The foreign policy of the USA is fully bi-partisan. Did a Democrat make a peep about the
all the weapons-based 'peace deals' Trump made with the Oil Kingdoms? No. Do the Dems
disagree about regime change anywhere the USA contemplates it? No. Do the Dems want to get
rid of anything but bad manners? No.
So please, knock off the existential BS about Dems 'stealing' the election. Stealing what
exactly? The high ground of plausible deniability? Hilarious.
The result of this election can be summarized with one phase "Strange non-death of
neoliberalism."
Joe Biden win is a win the tech companies, the big banks, Beijing, as well a PMC
class.
likbez 11.07.20 at 5:37 pm ( )
It's entirely possible that Biden will be a 1 term President, and this is something that
Democrats should have given some thought to. But they had other, sillier, things on their
mind, and, well, here we are.
They don't care. It is return to business as usual -- classic neoliberalism with the
classic neoliberal globalization on the agenda. And this is all that matter to them.
The people behind Joe Biden are Clinton classic neoliberals. Who ruled the country since
1990th with a well known result.
It is unclear what will happen in 2020 as Biden is a weak politician clearly unable of
dealing with the current crisis the country faces. He is kick the can down the road type of
guy.
And some start speculate that Dems the might get Tucker Carlson in 2024 as the opponent to
Kamala.
(2) From an American perspective, Republican control of the Senate means that the Dems
have limited scope to carry out grandiose economic and social experiments. Which I doubt
Biden is much interested in anyway. (Incidentally, the idea that Biden or Copmala is in any
way a "socialist" is yet another far-fetched MAGA fantasy just ask the folks at Chapo Trap House ). The idea that he came to
power via fraud will not be quite enough to delegitimize the Biden Presidency – it's
not like George W. Bush's narrow and contested victory over Al Gore in Florida remained
much of an issue after a couple of months – but it certainly wouldn't hurt
Republicans to have that as an additional rhetorical tool.
(3) Most consequentially, this substantially discredits American soft power and its
"democracy promotion" efforts.
Michael McCaffrey is a writer and cultural critic who lives in Los Angeles. His work can be
read at RT, Counterpunch and at his website mpmacting.com/blog . He is also the host of the popular cinema
podcast Looking California and
Feeling Minnesota. Follow him on Twitter @MPMActingCo 23:32 Biden's electoral victory has been met
with cheers, proving that gullible Americans are eager to get fooled once again.
A few hours ago I was startled by a collective shout that went out across my neighborhood
here in Los Angeles. I had no idea what all the noise was about, but people were making quite
an exuberant ruckus. After checking the news I quickly realized the cheers were due to the fact
that all the networks were officially calling the presidential race for Joe Biden.
I haven't heard that much happy screaming since a few weeks ago when the Dodgers won the
World Series, and before that when the Lakers won the NBA championship. It is apropos that
Angelinos would cheer Biden's victory the same way they celebrated their sports team's titles
as all of these events are nothing but a function of empty tribalism and vacuous emotionalism
that in the long run don't actually mean a damn thing.
For the fools here in the City of Angels celebrating Biden's victory, nothing will
fundamentally change in their lives, for good or for ill. They will still have to step over
hordes of homeless people and used needles and human excrement as they navigate this sick,
venal, miserable third world shithole trying, and usually failing, to scratch out a living and
to make ends meet.
Biden's rapturously received electoral victory is a vacant win for nothing but a
stylistic change. The hysterically happy masses around me are overjoyed because Biden isn't as
much of a boor as Trump, not exactly a high bar. That said, Biden will certainly be more of a
bore than Trump.
On substance, Biden is, like the Orange Man liberals love to loathe, a shameless
corporatist who will bend over backwards to fill the coffers of the fat cats in board rooms and
on Wall Street, all while screwing over poor, working and middle-class people.
Biden's ascension to the American throne is akin to the dreadful sitcom Two and a Half
Men replacing Charlie Sheen with Ashton Kutcher. The obnoxious Sheen and his "tiger blood"
were gone, but the show still really sucked and Kutcher was an annoying jerk in his own
right.
As far as Biden replacing Trump goes, for people like me, things will only change on the
surface and the sitcom that is American politics will still suck.
For instance, those who think public college should be tuition free for the working class
and student debt cancelled, meet Joe Biden, the man who was instrumental in getting a
bankruptcy bill passed that made it impossible to discharge student debt , thus damning
generations to indentured servitude to pay back school loans over-inflated through government
interference.
For people who think we should have universal health care, meet Joe Biden, an architect of
Obamacare, that insidious bill written by insurance companies that fleeces Americans by forcing
people to buy their abysmal product at exorbitant prices under force of law. Biden, similar to
Trump, has even promised to
veto any universal health care bill that would ever come to his desk.
For those opposed to Wall Street socializing losses while privatizing gains, meet Joe Biden,
who will, like Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump before him, populate his administration with
nefarious Wall Street shills and despicable devotees of the Goldman Sachs cult who will
hungrily devour any taxpayer bailouts that they can get their hands on.
For peace loving people who think America should be less militaristic, belligerent and
bellicose abroad, meet Joe Biden, the man who voted for the
Iraq War that killed tens of thousands, and is a poodle to the Pentagon with an itchy
trigger finger to get tough with America's adversaries, be they real or imagined, across the
globe.
For those who think the drug war and criminal justice system are an abject failure, meet Joe
Biden, the man who wrote the 1994 Crime Bill that has given
America the dubious distinction of having the highest prison population rate in the entire
world.
For working class folks that have repeatedly gotten screwed by Washington's corporate
friendly free trade policies that decimated the manufacturing base in America and eventually
led to the rise of Donald Trump, meet Joe Biden, the
NAFTA -loving narcissist who pretends to be a man of the people but is really the lap dog
of big money interests.
For those who despised Trump for his war on the press, meet Joe Biden, who was vice
president for Obama, the man who waged more than a Trumpian rhetorical war on the press, but an
actual war on the press by using the
Espionage Act to prosecute whistleblowers more times than every other president in US
history combined.
For people outraged by Trump putting "kids in cages" as part of his crackdown on illegal
immigration, meet Joe Biden, who was vice president during the Obama administration which
aggressively deported
more immigrants than Trump and who also put "kids in cages".
For every emotionally triggered simpleton so gloriously giddy over Trump's demise and
Biden's rise: meet the new boss same as the old boss. You are all being fooled. Me I won't
get fooled again.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"By dividing the voters through the political party system, we can get them to expend
their energies in fighting for questions of no importance. It is thus, by discrete action, we
can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully
accomplished."
Our democracy is not a democracy-it's a fraud.
Our media including alternative media is a fraud.
Our government is FUBAR so to pretend this election matters is providing cover for a
fraudulent system.
Vey enlightening analysis by a great mind. Gives me comfort & hope not to mention a
deeper understanding of what is actually happening now & the political downside for the
democrats. Thank you so much 💓 God Bless America.
What a mind blowing articulate profound interview! That analogy at around 37 mins, of the
rough decent gunslinger cleaning up the cattle baron / stand over merchant type and then the
'conmon folk' wanting him to leave... that gave me shivers. Every decent policeman/
serviceman/defender of the weak knows exactly what thats about. The weak fear the bullies but
they also fear the decent tough guy who has the guts to stand up to them. Soldiers are
extremely popular during wartime but are shunned during peacetime. People are so happy to see
the police when they are being threatened but so glad to not see them otherwise. President
Trump is such a man but his job isnt finished. The Cattle Baron is attempting to run him off,
aided by his minions/ cronies/ stooges. Time for the townsfolk to take his example and stand
up for their own folks. Yeehaaa!
These "expert" pollsters also predicted "blu wave..."
Repub's gonna lose the senate majority, and multiple House seats. Yet, the Repub's did
very well, picked up several seats...
This big tech "charity," organization, that just got over $350M tax-subsidies from Fed
Govt tax $$$'s to run this "get out the vote," movement, that set up 8xs as many
registration/early vote "centers."
They had trucks that drove around had cook-outs, and carnivals, givin out gift cards,
VOTE-COUNTIN jobs countin all these mail-in, drop-box, early (FRAUD) votes...
Legit concerned, honorable, PRODUCTIVE taxpayin citizens in these swing states, living
amongst these urban cities that the "get out the vote" project were CONCENTRATES in.
Used FB and social media to recruit and HIRE looters and rioters to count the votes!!! And
wouldn't even consider "training" those whom SOUGHT OUT to volunteer their time...
The few (NON leftists) volunteers, that've gotten in these secret closed "vote count
centers," to count votes, have been videoing and posting/making public what's go'n on inside
there and it's beyond FRAUD!!!
Pres DjT and his campaign have known this, was go'n be, & that's why they had
grassroots volunteers trained poll watchers and (mostly volunteer) lawyer teams on the ground
in every swing state to verify that there was some kind of Constitutional law followed to
make sure that even tho will be some fraud that got thru at least some would be caught!
Anyone NOT affiliated w/radical dEms, were LOCKED OUT!!!
Happenin in real time, and NO MSM outlets were making this serious situation aware to the
public! Then started their non-stop "expert" BIAS coverage, w/state vote counts... NO way
possible biDen got HIGHER votes than oBama (& HRc) in ALL majority blck, swing state
large urban inner-cities, yet in EVERY dark-blu Dem stronghold city, like LA, NYC, chiCago,
even in DC... biDen didn't even get as high has HRC did in 2016!
I believe Mr Hanson expresses the feelings of the majority of Americans. I, and the vast
majority of those I meet are especially aggravated by the big tech companies and their
control of the narrative, and their censorship. People are very frustrated and angry. It
feels like Big Brother is real, and we're getting fed 'double speak' by the mainstream media.
Thanks for your program. Beat wishes to you.
President Donald Trump's reelection campaign will launch a lawsuit in Pennsylvania to
challenge the mail-in
ballots that have been counted without Republican poll watchers onsite.
Rudy Giuliani, Trump's attorney announced Saturday the lawsuit during a press conference in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with several Republican poll watchers who were prevented from
entering the poll sites or the rights of poll-watching were blocked.
A federal lawsuit will be filed on Monday in Pennsylvania and more expected in other
states.
"We're going to file a federal lawsuit that will cover here [Philadelphia] and Pittsburgh,
and we will have as many witnesses as the court needs. Right now, it could be as many as 90
witnesses," Giuliani said.
Several witnesses joined Giuliani during the press conference, all are local Philadelphia
residents.
Lisette Tarragano, one of the witnesses, said she was never allowed to enter the polling
site along with other five to six Republican poll watchers.
"I was never brought in. Actually, I never got past the first identification stage, they
kept saying that mine as well as five or six other Republicans, their names hadn't been
entered into the system," she said.
Two other poll watchers, Darrell Brooks and Matt Silver said they were kept 15 to 20 feet
away from the ballots.
Silver also alleged that some unusual ballot boxes were witnessed inside the polling
site.
"There seem to be at least certain boxes seem to be in the same unusual pen, and seem to
have very similar handwriting. Some boxes were normal, some boxes were like that," he
said.
The Biden campaign, the Office of Philadelphia City Commissioners, the election division of
Allegheny county government, and the Pennsylvania Department of State didn't immediately
respond to requests for comment from The Epoch Times.
It was reported that a Republican
poll watcher was temporarily blocked on Election Day in Philadelphia.
Kevin Feeley, a spokesman for the Philadelphia City Commissioners, admitted that the one
poll watcher was prevented from entering the polling site on Nov. 3.
"The mistake was corrected, and the guy was admitted," he said, claiming it was an
isolated incident.
During the election night, Trump led when the ballot canvassing started in several swing
states including Pennsylvania. But the lead was diluted by the lately-counted mail-in ballots.
In Pennsylvania, Democratic party presidential candidate Joe Biden took a slight lead after the
mail-in ballots were counted.
Because the results are very close and several lawsuits are ongoing over the election
outcome in several battlefield states, it's more and more clear that this election will be
settled through the judicial system.
The expected lawsuit by the Trump campaign will start another battle line over the outcome
of the election in some swing states: mail-in ballots counted without Republican observers.
Over the past few days, Trump has been vocal over the need to protect the sanctity of the
ballot box while claiming that Democrats are trying to "steal" the election from him due to
efforts to count late-arriving ballots, which he alleges are "illegal." He and his legal teams
have been arguing that mail-in ballots postmarked by Nov. 3 but received after election day
should not be counted and that votes that were counted without Republican observers present in
the ballot-counting centers should also be considered "illegal votes."
The U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito late Friday ordered Pennsylvania election
officials to segregate ballots that arrived after Election Day.
sixsigma cygnusatratus , 29 minutes ago
Listen. Now is not the time to take a defeatist approach. Dropping out from politics would
only achieve exactly what the left wants. Everyone needs to be doing exactly the
opposite.
Whenever we were attacked, our forefathers did not stomp around and say they were fed up.
They dusted themselves off, rolled up their sleeves, organized and kicked @ss.
Biden is the epitome of corruption. Large corporations that want access to either Chinese
labor or Chinese markets or both will now feel victorious in a Biden win. The "flyover"
states will suffer even more than under Obama.
You are not an army. But if you organize, you can be just as effective. Pick a target.
Just one target that you know you can win. Whether it's canceling Netflix, canceling your
Amazon account, not buying that thing you were thinking of buying, canceling social media,
etc. Now stay on target, no matter what. Tell everyone to do the same. Find alternatives.
Our forefathers sacrificed a lot to keep this country free. President Trump, his
businesses and his family have sacrificed a lot. You can cancel Netflix.
I voted in person in Las Vegas, yet the Nevada Secretary Of State's website says I voted
in person AND through mail in ballot.????? They demanded any blank mail in ballots from the
voters at the polling place be turned in.
No you didn't, you're a liar and always have been and always will be, at least that's what
everyone is saying. I voted 12 times, it's no big deal. In fact, my 95yo momma is still
voting, I just can't get her to stop, besides, she really is enjoying herself. Oop, there she
goes, she just voted for Nixon, and and she hated Nixon. Well, what are you gonna do, she's
95.
Zero evidence of a fraudulent election. Zero. Lawsuits are a laughable farce.
Trump lawyers complained about thousands of "non-residents" voting in Nevada. Yeah --
those "non-residents" were military serving overseas, they have an absolute legal right under
Federal and state law to vote in the Nevada election.
Just one of many ******** legal claims thrown against the wall by Trump. All baseless.
Election = over.
LVrunner , 11 minutes ago
Not a smidge of corruption I tell ya! 🤣 and I live in Nevada douchebag, the non
residents are the thousands who have dual residences that received unlawful mailed
ballots.
Social media is clamping down on posts questioning US election results' "integrity," despite troubling anomalies. Yet questioning
election integrity defined the establishment narrative for four years of relentless Russiagating.
Twitter, Facebook and YouTube's crackdown on speculation about voter fraud, " election meddling ," and other " information
intended to undermine public confidence in an election or other civic process " (as Twitter
put it ) represents a stunning
about-face from the way they fostered – even bolstered – speculation about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 vote.
In what is perhaps the ultimate irony, the current level of election meddling by the social media establishment – which outstrips
anything the troll farm Internet Research Agency pulled off in 2016 by several orders of magnitude – would be impossible without
the hysteria ginned up on these platforms by journalists casting doubt over the integrity of that year's election. If not for four
years of Russiagate, social media platforms would never have gotten away with choking off the flow of information about 2020's election
on the level they are.
Twitter has been steadily tightening its " election integrity " policy since 2016 in response to allegations that social
media had served as a breeding ground for " Russian bots " and trolls who somehow convinced a massive swathe of the American
electorate to vote for Republican candidate Donald Trump in that year's election. The platform now vows to remove " unverified
claims " about election fraud or meddling, now that four years of unverified claims about Russian meddling have succeeded in
making many ordinary Americans fearful of what would happen to their precious vote if censors weren't waiting in the wings to smother
wrongthink.
Facebook, too, has refashioned itself as an election integrity crusader using the Russian meddling claims as a springboard. In
a plot twist that would be rejected from a Hollywood script for being too on the nose, its "election integrity" expert Anna Makanju
previously worked as a special policy adviser for Europe and Eurasia to former Vice President (and current Democratic presidential
challenger) Joe Biden. She's also a senior nonresident fellow at the pro-war NATO-backed think tank the Atlantic Council, which has
partnered with Facebook since 2018 to "defend democracy" – again, based on unfounded allegations that the Trump campaign had colluded
with Russia to steal the 2016 election.
YouTube has acted in a similar vein,
forcing " authoritative sources " down users' throats (when if they wanted to watch CNN, they would turn on their TV, not
log on to YouTube) and slapping thought-babysitting warning labels on content related to controversial issues.
All three outlets have labeled " state-run media " and
suppressed its reach – in many cases
making loopholes for media run by the US or its client states, and making bogus claims about " editorial independence " as
if the heads of state of Russia, Iran, China, and other wrongthink-generating states are breathing down the necks of individual writers.
Yet even privately owned US media outlets are now muzzled when the stories they publish purport to tell unwanted truths about the
anointed one – Biden – or his son, whose laptop initiated the most shockingly heavy-handed censorship episode of the pre-election
season. The coverup, as they say, is always worse than the crime.
Thanks to a cross-platform clampdown on questioning election results, no matter how dodgy they may seem, the president of the
US himself cannot call the attention of his millions of followers to allegations of voter fraud in states that have become key battlegrounds
in the 2020 contest: Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona. Half of his last dozen tweets are hidden behind a 'warning'
that prevent users from commenting on or retweeting them. Even a three-word caps-lock outburst like " STOP THE FRAUD " has
been declared too sensitive for users' eyes.
Twitter, Facebook and YouTube declared it their mission to fight " misinformation " amid the fog of doubts about election
integrity that ensued following Trump's 2016 upset. Their drift in the past four years has made it abundantly clear – as has the
revelation that upwards of 95 percent of political contributions made by employees of all three companies went to Democrats – that
they are not neutral, nonpartisan onlookers, but willing soldiers in the Democratic Party's information war. The obviousness with
which they go about fighting it only inflames the president's supporters, who – after days of having tweets deleted, being locked
out of their accounts, and otherwise being suppressed – are ready to go to war themselves.
And that's the point. Given how little daylight there really would be between the policies of the two presidents, it's clear all
this divide-and-conquer pageantry is aimed more at the candidates' supporters – many of whom have divergent views on where the US
should go. Nevertheless, if those supporters were to peacefully compare notes on what they see as the problems with American society,
they might realize they have more in common with each other than they do with the leaders of their respective parties. Therefore,
they must be kept at each other's throats if the ruling establishment is to survive. And, given the looks of 2020's election results,
that ruling class will enjoy a long, healthy life.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
Kiro919 7 hours ago
No-one would vote for Dorsey or Zuckerbum - yet they have incredible power and influence. Close them down and
punish them.
Daniel Fernald Kiro919 5 hours ago
Boycott, divest, sanction (BDS).
Count_Cash Kiro919 5 hours ago
Tech dictators - we know what is going to happen to them really. US is closing mouths now, censoring
even their president. Free speech is dead in the US. No allegations allowed, every dissenting voice labelled as not to be listened
to, every search result censored, every non conforming view attacked - everyone with a mind knows they are looking at a US which
is an oppressive regime only permitting a single party view. They have run a fraudulent election to protect that regime!
UshouldKnow 3 hours ago
Google, Facebook and Twitter are public forums and as such should not be allowed to censor free speech
which is guaranteed in our constitution. This should be taken up by the Supreme Court.
Jack the Beanstalk 7 hours ago
just a few years ago Maduro was almost ousted in a coup by Guaido and special interests in USA.
The same thing is happening now its a failed coup attempt again sponsored by richest 1%
a325 6 hours ago
"Social media is clamping down on posts questioning US election results' "integrity," despite troubling anomalies.
Yet questioning election integrity defined the establishment narrative for four years of relentless Russiagating." The hypocrisy
is right there
Jimmy_The_Cop 3 hours ago
Donald Trump should be congratulated for saving us from Hilary Clinton and staying alive for nearly
four years (with his own private security of course). Well Done Donald! Now have some fun in the next couple months and pardon everyone
under sun! By the way, censorship is not new in America. Read the Warren Report, the 9-11 Commission Report and countless other "official"
narratives during the Great American Century.
shadow1369 5 hours ago
It's everywhere. The bbc never fails to describe reports of ballot fraud as 'unsubstantiated' despite never
once having used the word when reporting endlessly on he Russaiagate hoax. As for Biden corruption, they simply refused to mention
that at all.
Ivan DeGaulle shadow1369 1 hour ago I love the 'false rumours' line.. because, if it was false? it's not a rumour but a lie! Reply
SavantMan 3 hours ago
I don't know why it's so hard for people to simply stop using these platforms. The more people use them, the
more empowered these corrupt platforms are. I just don't get it. Why would anyone still use such corrupt and biased platforms is
truly mind boggling.
UshouldKnow SavantMan 3 hours ago
The people are brainwashed by the MSM and the alphabet agencies which have a monopoly on the
"news." As a result the masses have no idea what's really going on. Many are addicted to Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al just as
they are to sports and other distractions. And what are the alternatives? The 3 platforms referenced above are so ubiquitous they
have no competition. I agree people should wean themselves away from them but it isn't easy. That being said, "My Space" is not a
thing anymore, so it is possible, but first people have to wake up.
Avaron 3 hours ago
Trump's worst mistake was staying with Twitter. Now they keep on censoring his tweets. He should have moved
to a different platform when he became the president, then advertised it on twitter. So people would come to that platform instead
of twitter.
muahaha 4 hours ago
Maybe, but anyway, he's done after the evil things he did, not before. And everyone
knew what he was doing. That's the pity.
Daffyduck011 7 hours ago
We dont need anymore examples. Facebook Twitter YouTube Google and the MSM have
an agenda. It is globalism. Trump was a nationalist and a Republican. So if you are a socialist and a globalist you should
use these entities. If you are not you must boycott these entities.
Daffyduck011 3 hours ago
It's not socialism, you need to crack a book. What this is: Bolshevism (Zionist-sponsored)
shadow1369 Daffyduck011 5 hours ago
US tech giants are corporate fascists, the exact opposite of socialists.
@Anatoly
Karlin ps would rather have more influence in governing than less, but they aren't
particularly troubled by dem victory (principled defeat forms a big part of their rhetoric
and the basis of many rep careers). Both the senior and junior members of the ruling class
would truly like to see Trump gone, the faction that Trump represents is a very small
minority in American government, without much institutional influence. And in this election
in particular they made out like bandits, flipped a lot of seats to their side, and got rid
of the primary opponent of principled cuckservatism, win-win! Seems to me when the defense
and the prosecution both want the same thing, arguments in favor of a "fair" process should
be viewed with extreme suspicion.
Trump did well with the Black vote everywhere except Milwaukee, Detroit and the
surrounding counties, Philadelphia and Atlanta. Oddly all the places voting was halted and
votes were dumped.
@Shortsword he incumbent next
election, like with Reagan. Polling showed Trump picked up the Mormon and pearl clutchers
this time.
Amusing to read the Isaac Saul gibberish purporting to debunk the dead people voting in
Michigan, he claims the blacks there check and discount any votes from dead people, no doubt
quickly and efficiently. They presumably then do exhaustive investigations of why dead people
are requesting absentee ballots and returning them.
Nothing to worry about, dead people often vote accidently after requesting absentee
ballots, they definitely aren't counted and this practise is clearly investigated.
If you know not of which you speak, you probably shouldn't speak at all..
A gaming exercise of the perfect, indigenous color revolution, code-named Blue, was
leaked from a major think tank established in the imperial lands that first designed the
color revolution concept.
Blue concerns a presidential election in the Hegemon. In the gaming exercise, the
incumbent president, codenamed Buffoon, was painted Red. The challenger, codenamed Corpse,
was painted Blue.
Blue – the exercise – went up a notch because, compared to its predecessors,
the starting point was not a mere insurgency, but a pandemic. Not any pandemic, but a
really serious, bad to the bone global pandemic with an explosive infection fatality rate
of less than 1%.
I'm not convinced there wasn't fraud. However, fraud only works where the election is very
close, which in a way means it's a statistical toss up whether a state goes for one candidate
over the other. Whoever wins will not have a clear democratic mandate to govern.
As Paul Harvey used to say: "And Now For The Rest Of The Story"
Countdown to magic voting
Election Day comes. Vote counting is running smoothly – mail-in count, election
day count, up to the minute tallies – but mostly favoring Red, especially in three
states always essential for capturing the presidency. Red is also leading in what is
characterized as "swing states".
But then, just as a TV network prematurely calls a supposedly assured Red state for
Blue, all vote counting stops before midnight in major urban areas in key swing states
under Blue governors, with Red in the lead.
Blue operators stop counting to check whether their scenario towards a Blue victory can
roll out without bringing in mail-in ballots. Their preferred mechanism is to manufacture
the "will of the people" by keeping up an illusion of fairness.
Yet they can always rely, as Plan B, on urban mail-in ballots on tap, hot and cold,
until Blue squeaks by in two particularly key swing states that Red had bagged in a
previous election.
That's what happens. Starting at 2 am, and later into the night, enter a batch of
"magic" votes in these two key states. The sudden, vertical upward "adjustment" includes
the case of a batch of 130k+ pro-Blue votes cast in a county alongside not a single pro-Red
vote – a statistical miracle of Holy Ghost proportions.
Stuffing the ballot box is a typical scam applied in Banana Republic declinations of
color revolution. Blue operators use the tried and tested method applied to the gold
futures market, when a sudden drop of naked shorts drives down gold price, thus protecting
the US dollar.
Blue operators bet the compliant mainstream media/Big Tech alliance will not question
that, well, out of the blue, the vote would swing towards Blue in a 2 to 3 or 3 to 4
margin.
They bet no questions will be asked on how a 2% to 5% positive ballot trend in Red's
favor in a few states turned into a 0.5% to 1.4% trend in favor of Blue by around 4am.
And that this discrepancy happens in two swing states almost simultaneously.
And that some precincts turn more presidential votes than they have registered
voters.
And that in swing states, the number of extra mysterious votes for Blue far exceeds
votes cast for the Senate candidates in these states, when the record shows that down
ticket totals are traditionally close.
And that turnout in one of these states would be 89.25%.
The day after Election Day there are vague explanations that one of the possible
vote-dumps was just a "clerical error", while in another disputed state there is no
justification for accepting ballots with no postmark.
Blue operators relax because the mainstream media/Big Tech alliance squashes each and
every complaint as "conspiracy theories".
"... When you fill up the mail in ballot for your demented grandmother this is a fraud though on a micro scale. But multiply it by thousand. Do it in nursing homes. Then do it in community centers in minority areas and ghettos for people who would never vote. You incentivize them and twist their arms. ..."
"... A well oiled (with money) political party machine with motivated workers do it naturally; they can do it in their sleep. ..."
"... Fake polls were very important to demoralize and demotivate Republican voters, donors and, most importantly, on the ground election workers. ..."
"... I think you’re right that fraud was done at the micro-level. Easy to do and probably impossible to counter legally. ..."
“The most probable
fraud would be ballot harvesting facilitated by the fact that millions of ballots were sent unsolicited based on lists
including a significant proportion of people who have moved or are dead. “
When you fill up the mail in ballot for your demented grandmother this is a fraud though on a micro scale. But
multiply it by thousand. Do it in nursing homes. Then do it in community centers in minority areas and ghettos for people who
would never vote. You incentivize them and twist their arms. This is no different than ballot stuffing but impossible to
be proven as a fraud, yet everybody knows about it:
claim is impossible because it would require too much of planning, coordination, secrecy? Absolutely not. A well oiled
(with money) political party machine with motivated workers do it naturally; they can do it in their sleep.
How do you get the motivated workers and why it was for Republicans harder to emulate Democrats’ shenanigans? Very simple.
The full spectrum dominance in media; creation of Trump derangement syndrome that removes any inhibition to win; most
importantly the sense of doom for Trump supporters by fake polls predicting two digit Biden’s win.
The meme of ‘shy Trump supporters’ is a fake invented in 2016 to explain away the fake poll results.
Fake polls were very important to demoralize and demotivate Republican voters, donors and, most importantly, on the
ground election workers.
This article is another example of author’s psychopathology. A cowardly bully who position himself on the side of the
winner and takes a pleasure in rubbing it in to the losers.
Bert says: November 7, 2020 at 4:02 pm GMT
@utu I don’t have an opinion about AK’s personality, but otherwise I think you’re right that fraud was done at the
micro-level. Easy to do and probably impossible to counter legally.
Election fraud is part of Oligarch privately owned government scenario.. Ho hum.. '
Defending the Republicans when they had a reputaturd congress and a reputaturd president and
still did not
fix the major frauds.. perpetrated by the private interest that own the USA that governs
innocent Americans.
Its like media fraud, both parties condone it because they are both guilty. Last night I
my os provider uploaded to every file in my browser and on my computer crhoms disease
spyware..
what's the different if its search engine fraud or select the information you are
allowed/not allowed to see fraud or denial of service fraud, or break and enter fraud. And
even when some whistleblower points it out the USA prosecutes him or her.
Its private parties doing their USA assisted frauds designed to bilk the America public.
Time for a change we need a different government, one that responds only to the governed.
No more voting districts, vote by state, or electoral college, no more laws passed without
approval from the governed.. no more government agencies to license a few to bilk the many..
its time for a change..
... I know this state like
the back of my hand, and despite the influx of Yankees to metro Atlanta and the Georgia
mountains, hell, many of them were Trump supporters, and despite Brown Mexican and El
Salvadoran factory workers, and the abundance of Africans In America, Georgia is still red as
in redneck. The only thing blue in Georgia is a Pabst Blue Ribbon beer. Rednecks, white socks
and Blue Ribbon beer, yawl. hehe.
Biden had about as much chance of winning Georgia legitimately as he has of running the 40
in 4.3 or hitting a ball out of Yankee stadium.
Anatoly, the fraud in this election was of a kind you did not address. To understand
American election fraud you must go back in time to see context.
Historically, American blacks showed the least interest in voting of any ethnic group.
This gave them zero impact in politics. Jewish activists decided to reverse this trend and
tap into this vein of unexploited Democratic power. "Community Organizers" were charged with
encouraging black vote in the inner city ghettos. One such became president.
When this failed to produce the desired results they upped their game by actually
providing vans to drive people to polling places. But this proved to be too much trouble and
still wasn't efficient enough so they refined the technique by pushing for absentee balloting
which allowed blacks to vote from the comforts of home. Also, Jewish legal activists pushed
for proxy voting, which allowed third parties to cast the vote for registered voters.
It is relatively easy to organize this type of thing in large public housing blocks.
Everyone is in one place, mailing lists are available etc.
This is how the "cheating" took place. The percentage of blacks who voted in this election
is unprecedented. Now some may argue that this is a good thing, representative democracy and
all. But the counter argument is that if a person is too lazy to get to the polls under his
own power then they don't deserve representation.
But more importantly, ballot harvesting allows votes to be purchased and this doesn't seem
to embody the proverbial spirit of democracy.
It would be easy to refute my theory. Just show that blacks districts in America did not
turn out in greater numbers in 2020 than they had, proportionately, eight, twenty or forty
years ago.
"Ballot harvesting is the process where organized workers or volunteers–people you
don't know–collect absentee ballots from voters and drop them off at a polling place or
election office."
"A ballot-harvesting racket in Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar's Minneapolis district -- where
paid workers illegally gather absentee ballots from elderly Somali immigrants -- appears to
have been busted by undercover news organization Project Veritas.
One alleged ballot harvester, Liban Mohamed, the brother of Minneapolis City Council
member Jamal Osman, is shown in a bombshell Snapchat video rifling through piles of ballots
strewn across his dashboard.
"Just today we got 300 for Jamal Osman," says Mohamed, aka KingLiban1, in the video. "I
have 300 ballots in my car right now . . .
"Numbers don't lie. You can see my car is full. All these here are absentee ballots. . . .
Look, all these are for Jamal Osman," he says, displaying the white envelopes.
"Money is the king in this world . . . and a campaign is driven by money."
The video, posted on July 1, was obtained by Project Veritas and included in a 17-minute
video expose released Sunday night.
Under Minnesota law, no individual can be the "designated agent" for more than three
absentee voters. The allegations come just five weeks before a presidential election plagued with
predictions of voter fraud. Both President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr have warned
that the increased use of mail-in ballots, due to COVID-19 concerns about in-person voting,
is vulnerable to fraud, especially when unsolicited ballots are mailed to all voters in
certain states.
Project Veritas' investigation in Minneapolis will pour gasoline on the fire, only 48
hours before Trump debates Joe Biden in the first presidential debate Tuesday, addressing
topics including election security."
Well as long as there are excuses for all the horse shit, then I'm satisfied. Especially
since those excuses are coming from the same power structure that gave us weapons of mass
destruction and Trump is a Russian asset.
'The Hammer' And 'Scorecard': Weapons Of Mass (Vote) Manipulation?
In February 2009, the Obama administration commandeered a powerful supercomputer system
known as THE HAMMER.
THE HAMMER includes an exploit application known as SCORECARD that is
capable of hacking into elections and stealing the vote, according to CIA
contractor-turned-whistleblower Dennis Montgomery, who designed and built THE HAMMER.
Because they're in power and power corrupts. Plus the general arrogance of Leftist
ideology. Look at Hunter Biden. They just don't even care to pretend anymore.
There was fraud for sure. No need to dig into the county numbers. Just the fact that Crazy
Uncle Biden became the most popular candidate in the history of presidential elections is
suspicious. Trump actually got 10% more of votes, in absolute numbers, than in 2016. So Biden
surpassing him is an extreme anomaly. In some places supposedly there was a turnout of 90%.
Very unusual with optional voting and in an extreme period. Also, there was always fraud (in
limited numbers). It's so easy to fraud votes in the U.S., it's not even funny. It's harder
to fraud votes in one of those "3rd world countries" that followers of the "HBD cult" tend to
disparage.
My reading:
1. The Chinese in collusion with Dems create "Covid" Lockdown operation
(more info at https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1324079045072556034.html
)
2. The "Lockdown" benefits Dems in at least two ways: an artificial crisis is created, and
people are forced to vote by mail, which is easier to fraud. (not to mention of course the
possibilities of control, so that it is likely it will continue for a while, even after
fulfilling its initial function).
3. Fraud, fraud, fraud.
4. Biden "wins", and becomes the "most voted candidate ever." Everybody laughs and has a good
time.
@Dave
Pinsen tly executed conspiracy, yes, but Ukrainegate was deranged idiocy from day one.
And – hold your breath – Covid19 is a deranged idiocy on an astronomical scale.
The theory of the useless, toasted conspirationalist that I am is, that we are witnessing
a large scale operation of psychological warfare: The point is to dump down the people and to
have them believe in ever more stupid BS. The more intelligent ones – above all those
in relevant positions in society – are being willfully demoralized.
The endgame will be the abolishment of functional modern society as we know it.
"... Trump did what he really wanted to do: tax cuts (mainly corporate taxes), deregulation, anything Netanyahu wanted, and not starting a new war. People always manage to do what they put first. Clearly helping the white male workers has not been a priority. So he lost. ..."
"... that being said, all Trump had to do was deliver for his voters, but instead he decided to spend 4 years going after the votes of people who will never vote for him. so this situation is partly of his own making. instead of going -5 with european men, he should have been +3 at least. maybe +5. that would have produced a big electoral college win. ..."
You people seriously expect that level of competence from inner city Dems?
Not so naive. More like cabals in NSA/SiGINT. Nothing crude like driving a probable-cause
van with mail-in votes .its 2020 . They don't print money these days, they punch a value into
a computer. Same with votes. Shiiieeeeettttt for enough money I'd do it. Find like-minded
individuals in the organization to help me for a cut. You underestimate greed son. And crime
obviously has an element of risk. Whats your point? If it goes belly up I know I'll be
Oswalded like the patsy I am but hey . No one said it was easy.
Not like CIA is going to let anyone know they rooted out members of signal intelligence
abusing their positions. Imagine the embarrassment. Hell RT reported an election bug in
Michigan already.
Besides Biden just needs to be off his meds for 3 days and he'll forget everything.
Manchurian candidate style. Now that I think about it
1. Trump lost three urban counties in Florida he won in 2016 (Seminole, Pinellas,
Duval)
2. The only states with reasonably completed vote counts that show better
Trump margins in 2020 than in 2016 are Hawaii (always a pro-incumbent state), Florida
(LATINOS), Arkansas (Clinton home state reversion effect -its rural areas were notably more
Democratic than those just across the border in Missouri in 2016; this has been rectified),
and Utah (McMullin reversion effect). Other than these four demographically unusual states,
there is no sign Trump has gained net support in any state since 2016. NV, NY,
MS, IL, OH, and AK are nowhere close to done counting. Given that he won by three quarters of
a percentage point in 2016, it's no surprise that a two point swing against him resulted in a
loss, especially when the losses were concentrated in major metros. It's not fraud, folks,
the candidate was just unpopular due to his COVID response. Luis Lacalle Pou would have won
in a massive landslide.
Interestingly, I'm sort of surprised the allegations of election stealing were all from
the Democratic side last time in Florida and especially Georgia (even though Florida's result
was more shaky, Abrams had more bioleninist pokemon points than poor old Nelson). No
Republicans tried to challenge Scott Walker's narrow loss as fraudulent.
Fraud deniers are fucking retarded. You think you're subtle and sophisticated when really
you're just a Ptolemyist adding more epicycles. Benford's law provesfraud happened and it
stole the Great Lake states from Trump. This is comming from someone with a track record of
criticizing Trump for being anti-white. Why? Because fraud happened, period.
Why should we expect pro-Democratic fraud in Wisconsin? If anything, judging from the vote
numbers in neighboring (and uncompetitive) Minnesota and Indiana, Wisconsin's vote numbers
look too Republican . Indiana currently shows up as swinging against Trump by 3.42
points, Minnesota by 5.6 points, Wisconsin by only 1.39 points. Trump won Wisconsin in 2016
by only .76 points. The Antrim County error is obvious and currently shows up like a major
splotch on the swing map; it is nowhere near large enough to affect the outcome of any
statewide election. Antrim County contains 17K voters; Biden is leading in MI by a margin of
146K votes. The real trouble for Trump is in Michigan's South, in the metropolitan belt
between Oakland County and Ottawa County. This region is filled with those college-educated
White men who voted for Trump in 2016, but, seeing the disaster his presidency imposed on the
economy, decided to vote for Biden in 2020. There is no pro-Dem fraud here, just MAGA cope
that America hasn't been made great again, and never will be made great again.
Trump lost 5% of his share among white male voters. That's why he lost. All else were
details.
Why he lost the %5? Trump run a campaign heavily promoting bulls..t optimism about the
economy, boasting about the ' lowest black unemployment ', and failing to deliver
Phase II of the stimulus. Plus he has done close to nothing about the continuing massive
importation of migrant cheap workers, from service workers to H1B's from India. Why the hell
should white males vote for him after 4 years of promises? On a remote chance that he would
actually make their concerns a priority in his 2nd term?
Trump did what he really wanted to do: tax cuts (mainly corporate taxes),
deregulation, anything Netanyahu wanted, and not starting a new war. People always manage to
do what they put first. Clearly helping the white male workers has not been a priority. So he
lost.
Also, funny thing, but Trump actually did better in the actual untrustworthy urban areas
(inner city Philly, Chicago, Essex and Hudson Counties) than he did last time. His losses
were among college-educated White men, not among inner-city minorities.
@Beckow
The annoying thing is that Trump actually won Mahoning County, Ohio, this time. So he
actually did pretty well in 2020 among the more vatnik portions of the WWC. Among the more
Puritan portions (e.g., in New England, the UP, and parts of Wisconsin), he obviously did
worse.
@nickels
Trump doing better in only four-five states is not "mathy bullshit".
Seems obvious that moderates turned against Trump. With the extreme polarization, that
explains most of these cases that people believe to be anomalies. Trump's republican turnout
was huge, but he lost the moderates, so he lost the election. Republicans simply cannot win
the presidency on Reagan era talking points anymore.
nah. democrats clearly cheated. and this time, they went all out, and why not? it's a
coup. all they have to do is win this one last time, and they'll never have to worry about
republicans ever again. they won't be investigated once democrats are in control of the
government, and now they'll be in control of the government forever. amnesty coming up next,
to lock in the permanent democrat monopoly.
so yeah. they cheated by historical, ludicrous margins. they were committed to the steal,
and succeeded, with their allies in the media.
that being said, all Trump had to do was deliver for his voters, but instead he
decided to spend 4 years going after the votes of people who will never vote for him. so this
situation is partly of his own making. instead of going -5 with european men, he should have
been +3 at least. maybe +5. that would have produced a big electoral college win.
@Hardy
2016 election, and spent this campaign running a boilerplate Republican campaign of tax cuts,
Israel first, socialism-for-the-rich, and utterly shameless pandering to blacks, whilst
entirely ignoring his blue-collar base (which, if he actually pursued, probably would have
picked a significant Hispanic vote, alongside the Midwest).
His Presidency will go down as a failure. But most of all, a massive wasted opportunity,
he totally squandered his mandate in the most stupid and self-destructive manner possible
(appointed dozens of his sworn-enemies, for starters) almost immediately after getting
elected.
@Blackjack2826
ef="https://www.rt.com/op-ed/505945-america-election-system-mistrust/"> The US political
system is the last thing holding the country together; the 2020 election is about to destroy
it
Research has shown that revolutions tend to happen not when things are bad, but when
there are "rising expectations" and people believe things aren't improving quickly enough.
Whether these revolutionaries will really "settle" for President Biden or President Harris,
or will they push for their utopia even harder, is a question no one seems to be asking,
much less trying to answer.
What are the prospects of more friendly relations between the White people of America who
aren't self-hating and the Russian people? Could there be a way to build bonds?
And would Russia consider creating a platform that White Americans and Europeans could
use, since it looks like authentic voices are all shut down in the West?
7) The frauds that happened in these elections are normal, inherent to the system and
happen in every elections. I don't see the results overall as fake. Biden did receive more
votes than Trump, and he deserves to be the new POTUS. That's who the American people are -
look yourself in the mirror.
This is how Biden is getting 100,000 or so EXTRA VOTES than the Democrat Senate Candidate
in Each SWING STATE, and only in Swing States. ZH noticed this exact thing the other day.
Sure: First set up the expectation that Trump will lose with biased polls and massively
biased MSM and social media; then use the China virus to push for mail votes, which opens the
door to massive fraud; then slant news coverage so Biden is always leading – keep that
narrative going – to such an extent that the Pacific states were called for Biden
within a few minutes of the polls closing while Florida still wasn't called when Trump had
had an insurmountable lead for hours;
Then when Trump was about to surge ahead anyway, they stop the count; that gave the
Democrats the time they needed to determine how many phony ballots they needed, which were
duly delivered at 4 in the morning
Huge jumps from Biden-only votes occur out of the blue in two states (two typos at once!);
then expel observers–in some cases only Republican–who were supposed to be
afforded access, even defying court orders, so that any cheating could not be observed; then
ignore red flags such as Biden winning the state but Republicans taking the Senate and House
seats
Ignore evidence of postal workers backdating vote receipt; ignore discrepancies between
Biden's performance in swing state cities–with huge percentages in his favour–as
opposed to other states where Biden only marginally outperforms Trump in cities
Ignore the precincts–all Democrats strongholds–where votes exceed registered
voters; ignore clear evidence of dead people voting; ignore evidence of people voting in
states where they no longer live; ignore the vast increase in voter participation where
Democrats take the vast majority of votes; ignore bunches of votes going to Biden when they
were actually meant for Trump, then labeling them glitches–notice all the typos,
errors, and glitches go against Trump.
Finally, have MSM ignore all the above or issue laughable excuses, and delete any
references to any of it on social media, going as far as deleting Tweets from the President
of the United States!
The article is specific to Reno, Nevada, but the discussion is applicable to other
states.
False Claim 4: Ballot harvesting and 'granny farming'
In August, Nevada passed AB4, which clarifies who can collect ballots. According to
language in AB4, "a person authorized by the voter may return the mail ballot on behalf of
the voter by mail or personal delivery to the county or city clerk." There are strict
regulations against any unauthorized person interfering with the return of mail-in
ballots.
Yet, there have been misleading claims from critics of mail-in ballots that this would
lead to ballot harvesting. The accusation is that dishonest people will go to assisted
living homes and manipulate grandmas into giving away their ballots for harvesting.
Lately, ballot harvesting is being talked about as a malpractice. But this has been a
common, legal practice of collecting and submitting the ballots by specified agents such as
family members, authorized legal guardians and, in some states, paid staff where harvesting
is legal, such as in California and Colorado. Some states have limitations in place on how
many ballots a paid agent can collect.
In the current political climate, politicians have painted a picture of an agent running
off with someone else's ballot or "one of the post guys" delivering a "handful of" ballots
"to some Democratic political operative," as President Trump claimed at his September rally
in Minden. Comments like these create an image of lawlessness, incompetency and chaos and
can scare law-abiding citizens. However, the checks and balances embedded in AB4 make it
nearly impossible for anyone to collect ballots without authorization.
In parts of rural and frontier Nevada, some voters have said ballot collection is a
lifeline.
And yes, The New York Times published a report in 2012 suggesting that mail-in voting would
lead to fraud. As I wrote at the time, the story quoted a former county attorney in
Florida, who was concerned about "granny farming." This is where fraudsters allegedly go
into nursing homes and "help" elderly people vote by more or less filling out their ballots
for them and mailing them in.
Related
Why Trump supports mail-in voting in Florida and not in Nevada
But the story never attempted to document this happening. In any event, it would be a
slow and laborious way to alter an election, and easily detectable by nursing home
officials who, especially in today's pandemic, ought to monitor visitors carefully.
Back then, the Times noted, mail-in voting was seen as a way to help Republicans win.
"In the 2008 general election in Florida," the story said, "47% of absentee voters were
Republicans and 36% were Democrats."
Today, President Donald Trump seems worried it will help Democrats.
The vote-by-mail bogeyman, it seems, can be a convenient tool for whichever party feels
the need to use it.
Credible evidence suggests all this is overblown. A study earlier this year by Daniel
Thompson, Jesse Yoder, Jennifer Wu and Andrew Hall of Stanford University concluded, "In
normal times, based on our data at least, vote-by-mail modestly increases participation
while not advantaging either party."
Part of that data came from Utah, one of five states that conduct all mail-in voting.
Utah has phased this in since 2012. As a Deseret News story this week suggested, the
Beehive State knows how to do it right. It has safeguards in place. No one has alleged
widespread fraud here.
It's one thing to wave hands and speculate on various forms of vote fraud. It's another to
produce actual evidence of any widespread use - and yet another to produce actual evidence
that it has happened over the last few days in this election. b has elected to not do so, but
rely on the same innuendo and speculation the Trump supporters do.
However, I do agree with the rest of b's analysis. The Biden-Harris administration will be
a nightmare just as much as Trump's was. And yes, I expect them to start a war with Iran once
Biden's fake attempt to restart the JCPOA is rejected by Iran due to demands over Iran's
ballistic missile program. And I expect "Trumpism" - as they are calling the populist
movement - to continue going forward with negative results for the country.
But it's ridiculous to start eulogizing Trump as if he wasn't the worst President in US
history - which he was. He was certainly the biggest joke President in US history. Even
Clinton's blue dress didn't rise to the level of Trump.
The NYT does not **set out** to lie, they lie, lie, lie
and then lie again; but they **set out** to serve a narrative.
If the truth serves that narrative then the NYT will tell the truth.
They did not **set out** to tell the truth, the truth just **happened** to
serve a narrative.
"What is the difference between lying and serving a narrative?" - visak
When someone serves a narrative they are not necessarily lying it might just
serve the narrative to tell the truth. When someone is lying then they are lying, period.
Who is against re-counts? If 133,000 votes had been dumped at 4 o'clock in the morning ALL
for Trump, the Dems. would have had a court case going for a re-count 15 minutes later. What
is sauce for the goose...... I am all for re-counts. If it was right the first time it will
be right the second.
Who exactly is Joe Biden , the man who may be
our
president come Jan. 20? The truth is, as of right now, we don't really know.
We have no clue what Joe Biden actually thinks, or even if he's capable of thinking. He
hasn't told us and no one's made him tell us for a full year. In fact, it's becoming clear
there is no Joe Biden. The man you may remember from the 1980s is gone.
What remains is a projection of sorts, a hologram designed to mimic the behavior of a
non-threatening political candidate: "Relax, Joe Biden's here. He smiles a lot. Everything's
fine." That's the message from the vapor candidate.
So who's running the projector here? Well, the first thing you should know is that the
people behind Joe Biden aren't liberals. We've often incorrectly called them that. A liberal
believes in the right of all Americans to speak freely, to make a living, to worship their God,
to defend their own families, and to do all of that regardless of what political party they
belong to or what race they happen to be born into or how far from midtown Manhattan they
currently live.
A liberal believes in universal principles, fairly applied. And the funny thing is, all of
that describes most of the 70 million people who just voted for Donald Trump this week. Most of
them don't want to hurt or control anyone. They have no interest in silencing the opposition on
Facebook or anywhere else. They just want to live their lives in the country they were born in,
and it doesn't seem like a lot to ask. So by any traditional definition, they are liberal.
However, our language has become so politicized and so distorted that you would never know
it. What you do know for certain is that the people behind Joe Biden are not like that at all.
They don't believe in dissent. "You think one thing? I think another. That's OK." No, that's
not them at all. They demand obedience to diversity, which is to say, legitimate differences
between people is the last thing they want. These people seek absolute sameness, total
uniformity. You're happy with your corner coffee shop? They want to make you drink Starbucks
every day from now until forever, no matter how it tastes. That's the future.
Now, if these seem like corporate values to you, then you're catching on to what's
happening. The Joe Biden for President campaign is a purely corporate enterprise. It's the
first one in American history to come this close to the presidency. If a multinational
corporation decided to create a presidential candidate, he would be a former credit card shill
from Wilmington, Del., and that's exactly what they got. What's good for Google is good for the
Biden campaign and vice versa. We have never seen a more soulless project. They literally
picked Kamala Harris as Biden's running mate, someone who can't even pronounce her own name.
Not that it matters, because it's purely an advertising gimmick.
We watched all of this come together in real time. We stood slack-jawed in total disbelief
as a man with no discernible constituency of any kind rose to the very top of our political
system, as if by magic. It's possible in the end that Joe Biden himself never convinced a
single voter of anything over the entire duration of the presidential campaign, but he didn't
have to. Joe Biden won the Democratic nomination because he wasn't Bernie Sanders. He came to
where he is today because he isn't Donald Trump. It's the shortest political story ever
written.
Now, whatever you may think of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, they did it the
traditional way. Each one of them had the support of actual voters. Living, breathing people
loved them, believed in them, vested their hope in them, and, by the way, agreed with their
ideas, which they articulated clearly.
But corporate America hated them both. They couldn't be controlled, particularly Donald
Trump, whose complete unwillingness to submit made him the greatest possible threat. That's why
they hate Donald Trump, because he won't obey.
It's insulting to say that Joseph R. Biden won this election, if that is what comes to pass.
The tech companies will have won. The big banks will have won. The government of China, the
media establishment, the permanent bureaucracy, the billionaire class -- they will have won,
and not in the way that democracy promises. If a single person equaled a single vote, a
coalition like that could never win anything. There aren't enough of them.
But as a group, they have something that Donald Trump's voters sadly do not have, and that
is power. They have lots of power and they plan to wield that power, whether you like it or
not. It's all starting to look a lot like oligarchy at this point. The people who believe they
should have been in charge all along now may actually be in charge.
So what does that mean for the rest of us? Will corporate America declare victory and back
off? Can we speak freely again? Will they take the boot from our necks? Can we have America
back now that the Great Orange Emergency has passed? Well, the mandatory lying orders finally
be lifted?
Those are the questions we'll be paying attention to, since we plan to stay in this country.
And one other thing while we're at it, who's excited to greet our new corporate overlords? Who
plans to collaborate, particularly of those on the right side, the Republican side, the side
that said it was defending you? Who's happy about all of this? That seems worth keeping track
of, just so we know who we're dealing with here. Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of
FOX News Channel's (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET). He joined the network
in 2009 as a contributor.
So how many times has Donnie said he was going to do something and then didn't follow
through? ICE raids, wall, border security, Hillbags in prison, Russiagate investigations,
etc., etc., etc.
So now Donnie is going to fight this election fraud (which BTW he created a task force in
2017 and then quickly disbanded). And you actually believe it.
LOL.
fxrxexexdxoxmx2 , 20 minutes ago
Anyone surprised the same media who protected and worked for the Biden campaign are
working with him to claim an ilegall victory?
I think calling it Harris (Biden) administration is a bit childish. Harris will have about as
much effect on policy as Pence had during last 4 four years. Certainly nothing like Cheney.
And she won't be the Dems candidate in four years.
Chris Sweeney, UK reporter, says" Britain died for me, its become a Covid-obsessed police
state."He further writes that the courageous spirit that defines Britain is disappearing. Do
you feel the same about the US. I do. The response to the lockdown and masks etc. sends brave
loggers here in the Catskill into a state of child-like fear . Who said there is a sucker
born every minute.
You acknowledge that there is a systematic and organized effort, a conspiracy, dare I say,
on the part of the Media, Tech giants, and Democratic Party to systematically censor,
basically, the entire Country, BUT .
The very same actors couldn't organize a massive vote fraud because they would get
caught.
You have managed a twofer, logically inconsistent, and wrong. They have been "caught " it
just doesn't matter.
The daily numbers being reported do not indicate how much of the mail was delivered on
time, i.e., within the service standard of two or three days. These numbers are processing
scores, i.e., the percent of the ballots that went through the processing network on time.
They do not encompass
Does not matter. As long as mail arrived to the post office after the deadline this should
be registered as late in the database and returned to the sender as late. Otherwise you enter
"flexible deadline" regime which invites abuse, as in 24 hours preliminary results are
known.
What is important is to make obligatory presence of at least two observers from each party
during counting of votes. all the time. And 100% time videotaping of the process.
Also mail ballots historically were the source of blatant abuse (it is much easier to bribe
a person and fill the ballot for him than force him to go to the voting booth and enter names
that you want).
The fact that in some places we have abnormally high, close to the USSR levels percentages
of voters participation is a red flag.
Anything above 60 percent or ten year average (whatever is higher) in the USA is highly
suspect of manipulation by one or another party and should invite investigation and possibly
recounting.
Few people were exited by this election (and especially by Trump or Biden personalities --
Buffoon vs Corpse as one think talk named them in their simulation of 2020 elections ).
Most votes were perverted version of lesser evilism -- people voted for the candidate they
hated less, while they hated both.
And this is a part and parcel of the Crisis of neoliberalism which we experience which
involved de-legitimization of neoliberal elite and PMC -- professional, managerial class --
intelligentsia as French call them )
And such cases, unfortunately, easily can be played to de-legitimize elections (which is a
typical tactic of color revolutions for those who do not know the term). Which is what
happening now as a replay of 2016 but from Repug side.
Historically Democratic Party specialized in election rigging via party machine mechanisms.
They have been doing it since the 1790s. They were the party of political machines -- Tammany,
Pendergast, Cook County.
BTW clear glass ballot boxes were invented in the USA to prevent abuse (including use of
hidden pockets pre-staffed with ballots )
Here are some warning signs listed by Ron Paul:
Every state that has had a delay has seen Biden has overtaken trump AFTER the delays were
announced – Red flag
Florida counted 10.5M votes in less than 24 hours, Georgia couldn't count 4.8M in 48
hours, why? – Red Flag
In PA, the courts have barred all accredited observers from observing the vote – Red
Flag
In Detroit, the ballot counting centers barred windows and expelled observers, why?
– Red Flag
David Lim (Obama's former speech writer) sent a tweet out on Nov 4 (AFTER the election)
asking for volunteers in Georgia to help people fix their mail in ballots so that they count,
why? – Red Flag
Participation in one PA county reached 90% turn out, beating the prior record that had
stood for more than 100 years and almost 30% higher than the last election in 2016. Other PA
counties saw voter numbers exceed 100% of registered voters compared to the last election,
even accounting for same day registration this is statistically improbable- Red Flag
The Nevada Republican Party announced Thursday evening that its legal team has sent a criminal referral to the Justice
Department regarding alleged voter fraud in the Silver State's 2020 presidential election and predicted the number of
instances of fraud will grow in the coming days.
"Our lawyers just sent a criminal referral to AG Barr regarding at least 3,062 instances of voter fraud," the Nevada GOP's
official account wrote on Twitter. "We expect that number to grow substantially. Thousands of individuals have been identified
who appear to have violated the law by casting ballots after they moved from NV."
The announcement comes hours after the Trump campaign filing a federal lawsuit in Las Vegas in an effort to halt the counting
of what it described was "illegal votes" in Nevada. The campaign alleges deceased individuals and nonresidents cast ballots in
the state's election.
Fox News
reports: "The Trump campaign alleges there are "tens of thousands" of people who voted in Nevada who are no
longer state residents. The campaign said it is not seeking to stop the vote but rather ensure that every "legal" vote is
counted and that no "illegal" votes are counted."
"We are confident that when all legal votes are tallied -- and only legal votes are tallied -- President Trump will win the
state of Nevada," Former Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell
said
in
a statement to Fox News.
Grenell and other Trump campaign surrogates such as former Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt and chairman of the American
Conservative Union Matt Schlapp, said in a press conference that "transparency is not political."
"Ballots are not automatically legal votes until they are checked," stated Grenell. "We are not being allowed to check."
"If you haven't been in the state for 30 days, it is illegal to vote," the former Trump administration official continued.
"The fact is, we are filing this federal lawsuit to protect legal voters."
"It is unacceptable in this country to have illegal votes counted, and that's what's happening in the state of Nevada," he
added.
Federal standards for Federal elections. NO ballot harvesting! NO mass mailings of ballots! NO non-citizen voting!
Poll watchers MANDATORY! We are a Banana Republic thanks to Democrats!
Tonopah
Raptormann
•
3
hours ago
Electors can be picked by state legislators without a vote from the people if they set it up that way as some
early states did that. Back when state also picked their senators. Regardless of all else only the state
legislature can say how their electors are picked, not AG's or voting committees.
Kathleen
brand-x
•
10
hours ago
California lets anyone vote who wants to vote. They never remove dead voters from the rolls. When I worked at the
LA County Fair, people complained all the time that their dead relative was still getting a ballot even though
they had notified the Registrar of Voters. When I poll watched four years ago, I checked the list of registered
voters in my condo complex. I noticed that many dead residents were still registered to vote. Residents who had
sold their condos and moved, were still registered to vote. CA doesn't require Voter ID. When I poll watched this
year, there was no posted list of registered voters because people in LA County can vote at any polling place in
the county. This year, people could drop their ballots in special mail boxes marked " Mail In Votes." There was
early voting for both mail in and walk in voting. Why bother to count the actual ballots when the system is so
corrupt. Just call it any way you want, like Fox News.
Zero Kelvin
Cletus
Roscoe Jr.
•
11
hours ago
Every western countries in the world require ID when you go to vote in person. Only in banana republic America
where ID is not require to vote. In Canada, you can vote early, 3 or 4 weeks before Election Day, but you have to
bring ID to vote. So the whole notion that voter ID is voter suppression is garbage.
merly1
Cletus
Roscoe Jr.
•
11
hours ago
Support Election Reform, by 2024:
1. Ballots should be like communion. Given ONLY to people who claim to be worthy AND actually request a ballot for
the upcoming election. No mass mailings of communion, OK?
2. Voter ID is a must, and since Social Security chip-enabled cards are way overdue-- issue everybody a new high
tech SS card that can easily double as a national voter ID card for 2024.
3. A thumbprint scan is taken using the Social Security card to get the ballot EVERY election. Clearly, this
doesnt help much in the first election (but it would prevent one person from submitting multiple ballots) but in
future elections the thumbprint could be forever matched to one's chip-enabled Social Security card.
Feel this is too intrusive? Then, dont vote.
Voting by mail greatly facilitates the use of the vote-altering software and the use of
ballot dumps. One reason for the mask mandate and Covid fear was to justify mass voting by
mail.
The media speaks with one voice. The print, TV, NPR, social media, and the anti-Trump
Internet sites exercise censorship and control the explanations.
We are experiencing a well designed and successful coup against American democracy and
accountable government.
No, this is not a conspiracy theory. It is a revolution against red state America.
Republicans are too establishment to effectively fight back. They fear that exposing and
resisting a stolen election would discredit American democracy. In effect, patriotism makes
them impotent.
Republicans should think instead what it means to be governed by a President covered in
criminal scandal who also seems to be suffering mental confusion and is likely for one or both
of these reasons to be moved aside. If Kamala Harris becomes president, we will have in the
Oval Office a female of color who hates white people and is vindictive against them.
The Democrat Party is now in the hands of indoctrinated leftists who despise the working
class and champion "oppressed minorities." Immigration floodgates will be thrown open. Red
states will be cut out of the federal budget. Gutsy Republicans such as Devin Nunes and Jim
Jorden will be falsely investigated, and Trump will be falsely prosecuted. The rest of us will
be silenced in one way or the other.
Think about how unlikely the Biden/Harris ticket is for success. Everyone knows that Biden
suffers mental confusion. His campaign events were barely attended. Harris had so little
support in the Democrat primaries that she was the first to drop out. Even the Democrats didn't
want her; yet she ends up the Democrat VP choice. Americans watched as Democrat regimes in
Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and other cities
responded to rioting and looting by hampering and defunding the police.
How can such an unattractive party whose elected officials refused to enforce law and order
win the presidential election?
The threat posed to democracy by the software described by General McInerney is devastating.
With such software in the hands of intelligence services, every election in every country can
be decided behind the scenes.
This makes it easier for elites to rule. The vote altering software turns democracy into a
cover for self-interested rule. Yes, elites have always tried to purchase elections, but now
they can program them.
I have often written that the digital revolution was the greatest threat humanity faces.
Proof piles up every day.
Press Prostitutes Make Fools of Themselves Trying to Cover Up Vote Fraud for Democrats
It is amusing to watch the press prostitutes try to cover-up vote fraud for the Democrats.
Here is an example from the bought-and-paid-for BBC whose "Reality Check Team" has undertaken
to "fact check" the "rumor" of a 138,000 sudden ballot dump for Biden in Michigan during the
early hours of morning when no one was watching: https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54811410
The BBC claims this was a "data entry error" that was corrected. The "data entry error" was
not corrected, if it was, until it became an issue. How does the BBC know that the sudden jump
in votes for Biden wasn't fraud that when exposed was explained away by crooked officials as a
"data entry error."
Note also that the exact same thing occurred in neighboring Wisconsin at about the same
time. So we had two simultaneous "data entry errors" in two critical contested states that
wiped out Trump's lead? How likely is that?
Note also that correcting the "data entry error" did not result in the reappearance of
Trump's lead. So how was the error corrected?
It shows how utterly stupid the presstitutes are that they report that a data entry error
that erased Trump's lead was "corrected" but the lead remained erased!
Why does a British news service have a "Fact Check Team" to protect an American political
party? Is the campaign against red state America organized globally?
Note two other anomalous vote patterns. In the critical swing states, the Democrat votes for
senators do not match the votes for Biden, and despite what seems to be a record Democrat
turnout the Democrats lost house seats in the election! What explains the absence of "down the
ticket" voting in Democrat House and Senate voting? Fraud in the Biden vote is an obvious
answer.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/why-does-biden-have-so-many-more-votes-democrat-senators-swing-states
Just the order in which things happened (are happening) is very weird. First one candidate
clearly winning, then another And such a turnout for Biden? Sometimes of 90%? I don't
know
Increasingly the modern world feels like a play at a theatre First the ongoing Covid
farce, now this elections farce And in the meantime of course some more "normal" terrorist
psy-ops.
For months Trump and his people have been claiming that mail-in ballots will be corrupt,
bogus, unreliable. This idea has gained considerable traction among Trump partisans.
For months Trumps and his people have been claiming that the polls showing Biden having a
lead over Trump are wrong, that they are actually lying. This scenario asserts that Trump in
fact enjoys majority support among voters.
These two notions have created an expectation of victory at the polls for Trump. Thus, if
victory does not come, then it can only be because the Democrats stole the election. It
couldn't be because the preceding claims are false.
One of the techniques of the color revolutions carried out by the US government abroad has
been to put forth claims prior to an election that will serve to deligitimize the outcome,
unless the desired candidate wins.
Do we have a scenario here that Trump is using to delegitimize a vote that does not give
him victory, thereby trying to shift the decision into venues where he thinks he has a better
chance of remaining in power?
Is the coup that Roberts claims is being carried out in fact coming from the Republican
side?
@Begemot
become disappointed in him and stayed home this time.
But the large, record-setting turnout statistic is obviously a result of DEMs pushing
ballots into the hands of lots of registereds who otherwise would not have participated.
Foul!
Someday the DEMs will legislate vote by proxy. A registered partisan will have his
e-ballot automatically pre-filled according to the party's recommendations, and cast.
For each election, e.g. several per year, in some states.
If the voter chooses to show up at the polling station, the automatic casting feature, for
that election, will be disabled (though the ballot presented will still come pre-filled
out).
Recall the 2016 election, their tool Jill Stein, the cynical harassment of electors, and
attempts to prevent states from certifying their vote by the constitutional deadline.
The Democrat fraud squads have come a long way since their Cook County shenanigans in 1960
gave them Illinois and thus the win. Democrat control of the big cities gives their fraud
machinery a huge advantage. The Republicans got one back in 2000 when the Supreme Court
thwarted the jurisdiction of the election laws of Florida. Nowadays, we're all masked-up in
our new Bandana Republic.
Mail in ballots lend themselves to fraud via this: (from Fox)
"Ballot harvesting, or the practice of allowing political operatives and others to collect
voters' ballots and turn them in en masse to polling stations, has drawn bipartisan concerns
of fraud from election watchers.
[Hide MORE]
Several states have enacted some restrictions on the practice, while others have expressly
allowed it or failed to regulate it at all. According to a 2019 analysis by Ballotpedia, 24
states and the District of Columbia permit someone chosen by the voter to return mail ballots
on their own, with nine of those states adding some specific exceptions.
Twelve states outline who specifically can return ballots (i.e., family members or
caregivers); and one state explicitly requires only voters can return their ballots. Eleven
states establish a limit on the number of ballots that a so-called "harvester" can
return.
Imposing restrictions on the practice has led to legal challenges. In Arizona, a federal
appeals court upheld a ballot harvesting prohibition, despite a claim that it unfairly
discriminated against minorities who might need help filling out their ballots.
Some prominent examples of ballot harvesting have already impacted national politics. In
2016, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law AB1921, which legalized ballot harvesting.
Previously, only a family member or someone living in the same household was permitted to
drop off mail ballots for a voter, but the new allowed anyone -- including political
operatives -- to collect and return them for a voter.
HOW BALLOT HARVESTING HELPED DEMS ROUT GOP IN CALIFORNIA
The move apparently led to results. In 2018, despite holding substantial leads on Election
Day, many Republican candidates in California saw their advantages shrink, and then
disappear, as late-arriving Democratic votes were counted in the weeks following the
election. Many observers pointed to the Democrats' use of ballot harvesting as a key to their
success in the elections.
Richard Kaufman, right, a volunteer election official in Superior Wis., helps Betty
Bockovich cast a vote at a curbside voting station set up outside the Government Center in
Superior, Wis., Tuesday, April 7, 2020. Voters could ring a doorbell and poll workers would
come outside to help them vote in the state's presidential primary election if they didn't
want to go inside to cast their ballots because of the COVID-19 outbreak. (Dan
Kraker/Minnesota Public Radio via AP)
Richard Kaufman, right, a volunteer election official in Superior Wis., helps Betty Bockovich
cast a vote at a curbside voting station set up outside the Government Center in Superior,
Wis., Tuesday, April 7, 2020. Voters could ring a doorbell and poll workers would come
outside to help them vote in the state's presidential primary election if they didn't want to
go inside to cast their ballots because of the COVID-19 outbreak. (Dan Kraker/Minnesota
Public Radio via AP)
"Anecdotally, there was a lot of evidence that ballot harvesting was going on," Neal Kelley,
the registrar for voters in Southern California's Orange County, told Fox News at the
time.
In Orange County -- once seen as a Republican stronghold in the state -- every House seat
went to a Democrat after an unprecedented "250,000" vote-by-mail drop-offs were counted, the
San Francisco Chronicle reported.
"People were carrying in stacks of 100 and 200 of them. We had had multiple people calling
to ask if these people were allowed to do this," Kelley said.
Orange County Republican Chairman Fred Whitaker said the ballot harvesting "directly
caused the switch from being ahead on election night to losing two weeks later."
EX-CLINTON LAWYER THREATENS TO SUE NEVADA UNLESS IT RESTRICTS BALLOT HARVESTING
Later, in 2019, a GOP operative in North Carolina was arrested related to alleged ballot
harvesting there.
"The evidence that we will provide today will show that a coordinated, unlawful and
substantially resourced absentee ballot scheme operated in the 2018 general election" in
parts of North Carolina's 9th Congressional District, former state elections director Kim
Strach remarked at the time.
The results in the race were eventually thrown out amid concerns of ballot harvesting and
other fraud. Republican Dan Bishop won a September 2019 special election for the seat.
RealClearInvestigations has found ballot harvesting is common in other states, including
Florida, where harvesters are known as "boleteros," and Texas, where they're called
"politiqueras."
The issue was again thrown into focus in March, when an ex-Clinton lawyer threatened to
sue Nevada unless it relaxed its ballot harvesting rules amid the coronavirus pandemic.
"GET RID OF BALLOT HARVESTING, IT IS RAMPANT WITH FRAUD," President Trump wrote on Twitter
on Tuesday. "THE USA MUST HAVE VOTER I.D., THE ONLY WAY TO GET AN HONEST COUNT!"
There's much precedent for calling for a new election. The US agenicies have used it many
times in countries to change an outcome that didn't go their way. If there's evidence of wide
spread fraud then the way to go forward would be this: present the case to the SCOTUS, and
plead it.
@Begemot
ntested states, shows without any doubt that smoke and mirrors are in play behind the
curtain.
Plus a bucketload of other shady stuff being reported by postal workers etc, and even
being filmed and posted on the web.
Like I said, it's nothing to do with me – it's your country, so go spastic. I do
have to wonder, though, are people really that dumb that they can't see what's happening
– or are they choosing not to see it, or are they so bloody-minded that they are
willingly complicit or otherwise just don't care?
The university study has already been done which scientifically demonstrates that the USA
is an oligarchy, not a democracy. Is this the election in which the American people finally
capitulate to the reality and abandom any pretence of egalitarianism?
I would urge everyone to give this a read; it's an eye-opener. It's a detailed account
about how some types of election fraud are executed from a guy who was paid to do it.
Why does a British news service have a "Fact Check Team" to protect an American
political party? Is the campaign against red state America organized globally?
Why did Brit secret service operatives provide the initial impulse of the "Russia
collusion" thing?
You've got serious Brit, Israeli, and Saudi interference in the modern US, deflected into
"Russian, Chinese, and Iranian interference". Is this sutainable?
Think Next Level. Remember MSM is a manipulative propaganda machine. The elections are
rigged and the winner is predetermined. Why the show off slow counts, sudden jumps and
inexplicable overtakes which may prove critical in determining who wins? Could they really
not manipulate the numbers more smoothly, or do we need to seek another intent?
Are they leaving clues of fraud on purpose is my concern.. fuel the fires of civil unrest
in the hopes of grabbing even more control when things go pear shaped?
US elections are looking distinctly 3rd world at the moment. Biden has a bigger voter
turnout than Obama did despite Trump gaining Black and Hispanic support? On what planet is
this even remotely credible?
The guy who's been hiding in his basement the last few months and speaking(mostly
incoherently) to a dozen or so people beats a guy who holds several rallies a day to
thousands of supporters. Nothing to see here folks. Just par for the course in the new Banana
States of America.
For me, even Trafalgar Group was conservative in their projections for the shy Trump voter
in states like Texas, Florida, and Ohio, where they were 3-5% off the mark for Trump support.
And Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania were all following that pattern before the voting
'not-pause' (it was not a stop, they counted a thousand votes here and a thousand there so
the MSM could parrot the lie that the voting continued, which it really didn't – I had
to miss a night's sleep out of frustration, watching the ticker grow ever slower).
After the pause, the situation flipped PA which was 12.7% for Trump at 75% of the vote
counted went to 2.6% for Trump at 89% counted the next day. Now it's neck and neck. USPS
endorsed Biden, and postdating envelopes is not difficult if you managed to run an operation
like Russiagate. DNC also has a track record with fraud with both of Bernies runs, so it's
not like they can claim vestal purity.
They created a system that was specifically grey – no need to allow votes after Nov
3rd, people had weeks, months to send the envelope. And if they were too lazy or slow, well
then, too bad, act faster next time. Now instead there is a grey zone where fraud is simple
to commit, and hard to disprove.
It is a simple delegitimisation of the voting process. Another case of the Dems doing
exactly what they screeched Trump was doing. So now a peaceful handover has been
delegitimised, voting has been delegitimised, the impeachment process has been
delegitimised.. the system is cracking at the seams.
Everything is possible. But the possibility that a lead of ~10k one way turns into a lead
of ~150k the other way overnight and with independent oversight forbidden is so statistically
improbable that it appears in real life as very close to impossible without some artificial
help. What is even more improbable is that similar things happen in different places at the
same time.
I don't know by heart the probability of a comet hitting the Earth tomorrow but I'm confident
that the number of zeros behind the comma is not worlds apart from that of the probability
for a fair Biden's win.
Really? Does every sore loser always have to go and claim election fraud. Such claims need
solid and material proof, not saying their is a certain electronic program out there. Most
states have worked hard to secure their votes against manipulation, though a lot more needs
to be done.
Most polls gave Biden a bigger voter margin than he achieved and they are are rarely wrong
when the polls are summed and averaged.
Listening to his speech last night, it came across as an adolescent with an overtly
Narcissistic and fully Self Centered character that has now been put on full display. Most
Republicans ran for cover. Sorry, but maybe PCR should have done the same rather than jump
with DT into his dark pit of self-delusion. Better for PCR to have not wasted his integrity
ammo on such a ridiculous and fraudulent claim.
Sorry, but Trump has probably lost fairly and squarely. White Americans, whether Working
or Middle Class, do not have more rights than others in the selection of any political leader
or national President. Other views exist and must be accounted for and debated and integrated
into the windstorm of politics.
Just get over it, and focus on keep the new President, whoever the maybe, that he act as a
loyal America First and Constitution First President.
This time – the Russians didn't commit US Election fraud or tampering – well,
at least they haven't been accused – yet. lol So, we are now looking at members of the
Democratic party and members of the USGov. – again. And the evidence looks pretty good
and pretty damned easy to see. Two or three swing states and a stupid consecutive drop of
hundreds of thousands of votes for only one party at least. Will they get away with it again
? Probably.
The difference, is that they blamed Russia and Russia payed a heavy price for those lies.
Will the perpetraitors that are American citizens, get away with it, or should they pay 10Xs
more than – what Russia had to pay – without even a trial ? Are the American
citizens going to be the continuous Huckleberries – for the USG corruption ? Or they
going to finally Cowboy up and do something .
@Begemot
onary atmosphere, thereby validating their revolution so that id doesn't look like the
coup that it is.
But above all, governments, like that run by the hostile elite who are intersted in
imposing a top-down authoritarian regime that will last indefinitely, routinely accuse the
accuser, victim-blame, and project on their target exactly what it is they are
doing.
And now we're back to The Dark Triad.
P.S. Begemot gave an excellent demonstration of the circular reasoning and tautalogical
assumptions common among online trolls. Of course, he thought he was doing something
else.
It is amusing to watch the press prostitutes try to cover-up vote fraud for the
Democrats. Here is an example from the bought-and-paid-for BBC whose "Reality Check Team"
has undertaken to "fact check" the "rumor" of a 138,000 sudden ballot dump for Biden in
Michigan during the early hours of morning when no one was watching: https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54811410
The BBC claims this was a "data entry error" that was corrected. The "data entry
error" was not corrected, if it was, until it became an issue. How does the BBC know that
the sudden jump in votes for Biden wasn't fraud that when exposed was explained away by
crooked officials as a "data entry error."
I would guess that we'll hear a lot more about all of this. Trump supporters aren't going
to wait to come forward with evidence. Also, voting in a democracy is so important that every
avenue for fraud needs to be shut down.
The motive for fraud is always going to be there so digitalization was a vastly stupid
thing to do. That 138.000 votes can appear/disappear is grounds for suspending the whole
failed operation. Paper ballots with voters visiting voting booths in person and counting by
hand is relatively safe. And it's easier to do a recount than go to the Supreme Court.
"How can such an unattractive party whose elected officials refused to enforce law and
order win the presidential election?
"The answer is fraud."
That's possible, but this inflammatory article completely fails to prove the case.
Equally plausible is a rather obvious explanation that Paul Craig Roberts deftly avoids
mentioning: Trump is a crude, narcissistic and deeply unattractive plutocrat who may have
established a cult-like following but who's disliked by a majority of Americans (along with
his billionaire-friendly economic policies). Among other possible factors are the fact that
Trump's environmental policies are so appalling they'd embarrass Richard Nixon and his
America-alone approach to global politics is puerile and seen to be such by a majority of
Americans?
But all these are speculations and opinion – like Paul Craig Robert's article,
What's deeply disturbing to me is that a commentator I've long respected for his courage
over issues such as 9/11 has now seemingly lost the plot. Yes, the Democratic leadership are
a bodgy lot – but so are the Republicans, FFS! Both sides of the USA's major party
duopoly seem beholden to the Military Industrial Complex and Zionist Lobby. Neither are
treating the environmental crisis with anything like the requisite urgency.
The electoral system in the USA – fragmented as it is into a myriad of local
systems, each of differing reliability and fairness – is an international joke. The
nation that purports to export democracy doesn't have a grown-up democracy at home. Tulsi
Gabbard's proposed legislation on electoral reform would have largely fixed that problem, but
like so much else that's sane in the USA it barely got a mention in mainstream discourse.
So here we are.. with a electoral system that hasn't been fit for purpose for decades (if
ever?). and two unpleasant, untrustworthy leadership options. We need to recognise we're knee
deep in mire and keep our heads high. The last thing we should think of doing is slinging mud
at each other, like opposing tribes each hollering for their own preferred Big Chief.
This tribalistic, one-eyed, pro-Trump article by Paul Craig Roberts may be the worst he's
ever written. I hope he recovers soon.
There are plenty of people exposing shitlib criminals but no one arresting them.
(((globohomo))) probably struck a deal with Trump, promising not to go after Trump Family
Inc. in exchange for a few token tweets of resistance before he slinks off to create "Trump
TV." (For betraying us and surrendering I hope they do lock him up.)
Even if not, Orange Bluster has a history of never using the lawful powers of the
presidency to their full potential.
* Weak-ass "muslim ban" which wasn't
* Shitty rebuilt fence rather than wall
* No mass deportations
* Had the gall to tweet he would find a way to keep the illegals if the Supreme Joke ruled
DACA illegal (which it is)
* Israel First
Recucklicans hate Trump even more than commiecrats. They are classic cowards, it's their
role in the Uniparty. We have no one, and in a sense never did.
Secession is no longer an amusing meme. It cannot be worse than what globohomo has planned
for you and yours.
McDonald's Grimace voice: "Duhhhh, secession is illegal!"
From where does the Republican establishment impotence come? Not out patriotism as you
have suggested but from fear of losing their privileges emanating from Jewish controlled
finance
The Deep State rigged the 2016 Democrat primary race for Hillary. It then rigged the 2016
general election for Hillary, but not enough to win. This time the Deep State counted
better.
The billionaires behind the scenes calling shots for the Anglo-Zionist Empire are an evil
group, an evil class, as are their well paid loyal servants.
Whatever Trump's faults may be, he is far less dangerous than Bolshevik scum like
yourself. Congratulations moron, as Jack warned, your ilk made peaceful revolution
impossible.
@God's
Fool was summed in the slogan of things they opposed to the death: Rum, Romanism, and
Rebellion: meaning, non-Elite whites they saw as Trash, Catholics, and Southerners.
What you see today as impotence is a large segment of the Republican Party power brokers
who are original Republicans at heart. So they despise the Deplorables just like Hillary
despises the Deplorables. Hillary's parents, like Obama's white grandparents, were that kind
of original Republican. George Will was that kind of Republican.
Jews did not invent that. They simply latched onto it and then became its major financial
backer by the ned of the Reagan years.
A senile old party hack who couldn't muster 100 people at a rally, along with a hideously
insincere veep who even the democrats despised in the primaries suddenly gets 70 million
votes?
I actually feel sorry for people who believe this fiction – as well as despising
them.
It's invariably the same morons who spent the last 4 years believing every ludicrous piece of
drip-drip information about "the Russians".
After first night, the next day, Wisconsin flips over to Biden
After second night, the next day, Michigan flips over to Biden
After third night, the next day, Georgia flips over to Biden
After fourth night, the next day, Pennslyvania flips over to Biden?
Anyone see a pattern here?
youarelost , 22 minutes ago
The color revolution is being televised. The orange revolution is underway. Just like
Obama and the Cia pulled off in the Ukraine. We all know. We all see it. Many have stood
against it. Only the fools of the free crap army think their communist overlords will
deliver
Perseus-Reflected , 14 minutes ago
Do you think Trump expected this to happen?
Is Trump a fighter?
Do you think Trump would have planned a counter response for this to happen?
This site is pure propaganda. Whether Chi-com or Zio, I'm not sure.
But ask yourself, do you really think this is over?
Why are so many on here & in the MSM in a rush to convince you Trump is defeated?
STOCK UP & GRAB YOUR ******* POPCORN, THIS THING IS FAR FROM OVER.
Mr. Apotheosis , 2 minutes ago
I concur with your assessment. The evidence of fraud is now so overwhelming, no amount of
chicanery can overcome it. This election is null and void. If Biden were to legitimately win,
I would have no problem with it as people should get what they ask for. But to have the
entire deep state establishment fake the results is absolutely unacceptable.
Dragonlord , 25 minutes ago
I called it last week that Trump will hit more than 70 millions votes, looks like he is on
his way to do just that.
As of now, Trump has beaten all historical presidents in terms of number of votes earned.
Even if Obama from 2008 comes and contest against Trump, the former would lose the election
in terms of sheer numbers of the popular votes.
And even that is not enough to beat the most corrupted candidate in history, Biden....
ThaBigPerm , 21 minutes ago
No postmark, no signature and can arrive after election day. They can literally whip up as
many as they want.
not-me---it-was-the-dog , 22 minutes ago
why?
trump told his supporters to vote in person, biden told his to mail their ballots.
trump gets a higher percentage of in person votes, but then the mailed in ballots are
counted.
it wouldn't look like this if the republicans had allowed the penn voting officials to
begin pre-canvassing the mail in ballots before the polls closed. nope, they demanded that
begin only after polls closed..........so we start counting millions of ballots, an
overwhelming majority for biden, after the majority of trump votes have been counted.
otschelnik , 15 minutes ago
Yea, yea the "red mirage," just like Podesta and the Transition Integrity Project
predicted.
TruthFreedomPeace , 33 minutes ago
Hope that more people start cancelling cable TV and boycotting companies like
Twitter,Facebook,Microsoft,Apple,Google,Netflix and Amazon which all pander to the DNC and
their cronies and some try to cover up their crimes.
ACTION PLAN FOR IMMEDIATE CHANGE to counter the corruption , censorship and surveillance
by media/tech/finance giants and politicians:
1)Cancel Cable TV (All channels should be made available individually so consumers don't
have to give money to channels they don't want to)
2)Do Not donate money to politicians & consider boycotting companies that give them
money or pay them for speeches.
Some might decide to boycott Facebook,Twitter,Apple,Amazon,Microsoft, Google and Netflix for
censorship or corruption issues alone.
3)Bank with small local banks & invest with small brokerages & insist your
employer/pension fund do the same.
4)Support a pardon for Julian Assange & Edward Snowden and other
whistleblowers/truthtellers
5)Join Pro freedom social network MINDS ,where freedom of speech and truth are respected
and users earn crypto tokens for their contributions to the site.
Follow Zero Hedge and Project Veritas for pro truth/freedom news.
6)Use web browsers like Dissenter,Tor or Brave rather than Chrome or Safari when you surf
the web.
Use search engines like Quant or DuckDuckGo rather than Google or Bing for web searches.
Use an email service like ProtonMail rather than Gmail.
Save important online videos/articles/posts to your PC hard drive or phone.
Post videos to Bitchute and LBRY rather than youtube
Shop online at Overstock and smaller independent retailers rather than Amazon/Wayfair
7)Use Linux operating systems like Linux Mint,Debian or others on your computer rather
than Windows, Mac or Chrome OS (Almost any PC can be switched to Linux).
Use a Linux based smartphone like PINEPHONE or a "dumbphone" rather than Google Android or
Apple iPhone.
Avoid buying a "smart" TV as it is smarter to buy a "dumb" TV with no operating system
pre-installed.
Use an Atari VCS or Linux mini PC on your TV for web browsing/computing/gaming/video
streaming rather than amazon fire tv/roku/google chromecast/apple tv/microsoft xbox/nvidia
shield.
8) Do NOT support the "War on Drugs" which causes more crime,death,murder,gang
violence,incarcerations,enriching criminals while millions of people still use illegal drugs
anyway.
9) Support a new foreign policy where We The People worldwide unite behind and promote the
principles of truth/freedom/goodwill/integrity/humility/Non-Aggression Principle/Golden Rule
and focus on winning hearts and minds.
10) Support a worldwide effort to voluntarily help others in the hope that it will win
over more people to these principles.
BTW,if Trump would simply join a free speech social media site and endorse some of the
other big tech rivals and announce it,he could instantly make a big dent in the dominance of
facebook/twitter/google/amazon/apple/microsoft/netflix.
Notveryamused , 31 minutes ago
Huge increases in specific Democrat areas vs. 2012 & 2016 with nearly 100% of the new
increase going to Biden. Check those ballots.
In the large Democrat areas surrounding Atlanta, Georgia (Fulton/DeKalb/Cobb/Gwinnett)
there was in 2012 and 2016, 1.27 million and 1.3 million total votes cast respectively for
republicans and democrats.
In 2020 there were 1.6 million votes & nearly 100% of that increase went to Biden
🤨 (That 300k potentially wins him Georgia.)
In Dane County, Wisconsin there were 298k total votes in 2012, 288k total votes in 2016
for republicans and dems but in 2020 there were 340k votes, nearly 100% of that increase went
to Biden 🤨 (That 40k wins him Wisconsin.)
In Pima, Arizona there were 351k votes in 2012 & 343k total votes in 2016. In 2020
there were 486k votes and Biden got 100k votes more on average than Hillary/Obama 🤨
(That 100k might win him Arizona)
Revolution_starts_now , 31 minutes ago
We know what they want, they want more for themselves and less for you, and they will get
it.
George Carlin.
Max21c , 17 seconds ago
Could be contractors for the alphabet agencies as the coup d'etat is clearly well
underway.
This is the second successful coup d'etat in America. The first successful coup d'etat
being by the assassination of a President per JFK assassination & murder on November 22nd
1963 in Dallas. The second successful coup d'etat being the stealing of the election and the
fraudulent election of 2020. They tried several times to overthrow Trump and this time the
coup plotters may have succeeded through a fraudulent election and by stealing the
election.
The 1876 Presidential election was so completely corrupted by Democratic Party cheating
across the South that the Electoral College was defeated. No normal ballot was possible in
the Electoral College, because there were competing slates of Electors.
Instead of picking the President by a vote of the House, as provided in the Constitution
for such instances, Congress created a Commission. The Commission picked the President, by a
vote of 8-7.
That is the only time a Commission has been done.
It is also the only time an election had been so comprehensively corrupted across so many
states.
The (Northern) Republicans got their candidate elected, which was likely the honest
outcome before all the cheating, as near as we can really know.
However, to get that they had to give up Reconstruction, and permit the start of Jim Crow
across the South.
It was a high price to pay. It was paid. Who suffered? Black people were thrown to the
wolves.
I forgot to mention that counting the remaining votes in PA works like a clockwork. With
each 1% counted (ca. 70k), Trumps lead decreases by 0.5%, not 8% votes left, the remaining
lead is under 2%. Will the strategic bombers that were recently deployed to Russian borders
be sent onto Philadelphia?
It doesn't have to make sense. Dorsey and Zuckerberg will keep discussion of how
suspicious it all is out of social media and the stenographers in the mass media are so
desperate to get back to writing about Kardashian ass that they will never draw public
attention to "irregularities" in the election. When you tell a lie then you usually
have to follow it with more lies to back up the previous one, and then yet more lies to
support each previous wave of lies. The stenographers in mass media have had four years of
that and cannot take it anymore. That is just too many lies for them to try and keep straight
in their heads and they want to start off on some new, like Lukashenko using novichok on
ducks and kids or something like that. They just want these last four years of their own
self-inflicted nightmare to go away as soon as possible.
There will be no media coverage of any investigations of irregularities. The only
attention the media will give the matter is to dismiss the whole thing as conspiracy
theory.
Some guy on Twitter
claims to have found something weird - surging votes for Biden in the swing states yet no
such surge in votes for the Democrats' senate candidate accompanying Biden on the ticket.
"Down ticket votes" is what he calls it, normally a supposed link in preferences.
First of all, Biden has not "won", and won't, unless/until Trump concedes-- or gets
JFK'd [or rather more likely, these days; 'brain-cancered' (ie poisoned/incapacitated by some
'plausibly deniable' means)].
The collective efforts of an array of interests (the well-entrenched, many-tentacled US
deep state [writ large] power base, with its nearly total media saturation/message control
thru the 'Beyond Mockingbird'
silicone valley social media/traditional media monopolies, corrupt/compromised elected dems
and repugs and their respective party infrastructures, and probably some extra-national
players vested in the outcome), are being applied right now to attempt to drag across the
finish line the 'Dead Man Walking' candidate Biden, pumped up with nootropics , and propped up by ever-present
handlers during the campaign. Many agree Biden functions merely as a placeholding marionette,
soon to be replaced, should their election theft coup succeed.
Furthermore, ' he [Biden] was *not* a lot less hated than Trump'. I believe most honest
observers would acknowledge, at least privately, that the vast 'MiniTruth' electronic
social/traditional media propaganda/censorship complex has been weaponized since 2016 to
engage in a transparently biased and unrelenting effort to smear and demonize Trump, while it
is simultaneously engaging during the recent period of the 2020 election in nearly total
suppression, distortion and even outright banning of open honest reporting of news, negative
facts or public free speech unfavorable to Biden or negative to his campaign.
I believe I replied to one of Bemildred's previous post-Nov 3 comments, by pointing out
that the deep state/DNC/never-Trumper coalition has been trying continuously, "six ways from
Sunday", to destroy Trump since the lead-up to 2016 election, but he's been beating them
down, and learning from the experience, on how to plan a defense for their likely actions in
the 2020 race.
Trump saw the perennial election stealing tactics of the DNC in primaries, in Florida
(remember Brenda Snipes/Broward Co. 2018?) Detroit 2018, Philly (forever), as well other
dem-controlled states (WI, Mn etc) in play in 2020.
And he recognized the corrupt behavior pattern of Brian Kemp(R) Gov, and tangled with Kemp
over Kemp's appointment of who appointed Kelly 'no-political-resume' Loeffler ( shiksa
trophy wife of NY Stock Exchange chief Jeffrey Sprecher) to Isakson's vacated senate seat,
ignoring over Trumps recommendation of the experienced and effective Rep Doug Collins (R-Ga)
to fill it).
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/georgia-gov-brian-kemp-set-tap-kelly-loeffler/story?id=67444665
Kemp was also the previous shady SoS (head of elections) for Georgia. In short and Trump
had his number as a self-serving RINO going into the 2020 prez voting.
I have little doubt Trump anticipated the massive dirty vote counting and fraud that
are coming to pass now in these States and has taken measures in advance to nail them cold
with hard evidence on election fraud.
I do not think it is only because he is a good poker bluffer. I suspect feels he is
holding a strong hand to play and likes his odds of winning this fight.
More and more evidence of voting fraud is piling up (barring outside observer from voting
counting, 89% voter turn out, refusal of states to update their vote totals, discarded trump
votes found in dumpsters, vote counts being stopped for hours at a time). Textbook example of
votes being manipulated, they are counting some, stopping, estimating how many Biden votes
need to manufactured to reach the desired total, stuffing the ballot boxs, then restarting.
Will almost certainly go to the US Supreme Court (unless the supreme court declines to hear
the cases, which I think is unlikely). Regardless of how this turns out I think some things
can be agreed upon
1. Trump supporters are furious, far more angry then Gore supporters in 2000, they are
mobilizing to defend Trump's political future and his legacy. If Trump loses, I suspect their
first target will be the Republican establishment who they regard as having been half-hearted
in defending Trump. They will probably succeed in making Trump-style populism the new
ideology of the Republican Party (comparable to Goldwater's influence on the Republican Party
of the 60s-80s)
2. Biden is a lame duck already, his political capital has been wholly spent and with a
Republican senate and a Republican base baying for blood he won't be able pass anything of
note that doesn't have bipartisan support (he'll probably stir up some new wars in the Middle
East, Africa and Eastern Europe - always bipartisan support for MOAR war). We will probably
stand down within 18 months (he'll try to last at least a full year). As a political figure
he is tarnished beyond repair and his calls for "coming together" will mean nothing to the
Trump supporters who are convinced he stole the election.
3. The Democrats are no longer the party of minorities as they originally assumed
themselves to be. Though the majority of blacks and hispanics continue to support the
Democratic party, Trump grew his support in both groups (around 20%, almost double what it
was last election). "IF" the Republicans continue with a populist message they will be able
to continue this growth, this is significant because the Democratic rainbow coalition
strategy is based around getting 80%+ of the minority vote, this will force the Democrats to
look at strategies at getting elected
4. For several decades now the US political system has been becoming more corrupt,
undemocratic, unrepresentative and oligarchical. Regardless of outcome, this looks like a
crossing of the Rubicon moment, where a huge segment of the population refuses to accept the
legitimacy of an election. This doesn't mean a civil war is on the table now, but many people
(on both sides) will adopted a turn-a-bout is fair play attitude - expect future elections to
be even more disputed, courts to be more politicized and prosecutions to be more
arbitrary.
National polls consistently predicted a huge Biden blowout. That they were wrong (again) is
demonstrated by the facts that (a) the 2020 popular vote is, so far (California is not
fully counted), a mere two-point spread, hardly a blowout; (b) Trump got a higher share of
the vote than last time; and (C) Trump received far more total votes than last time.
But it's the swing states that matter. Here (again) Trump was supposed to lose - if not
necessarily bigly in every case, at least widely.
But throughout election day, the president consistently outperformed the polls. He
crushed his 2016 performance in Florida. He also outperformed in Iowa, Ohio, South
Carolina, and Texas. Senators he was supposed to drag down with him, including Joni Ernst,
Lindsey Graham, and Mitch McConnell, won handily. Even Susan Collins, who was supposed to
be sure goner and lose by at least three, won by nine. A party that was "certain" to lose
the Senate has kept it and gained (so far) six seats in the House.
Looking at states no one expected Trump to lose, his overperformance is even more stark.
The polling average for West Virginia was Trump +17; he won it by 39. Kansas was estimated
at +9; the result was +15.
Throughout the day the president was also outperforming his expected result in key
states such as Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
and Wisconsin. He even, for a time, looked like he was within striking distance in
Virginia, a state Hillary Clinton won by five points in 2016. At one point the New York
Times's "meter" had Trump's chances in North Carolina at 92%. The needle was also sliding
in the president's direction in Arizona and Georgia, among others.
And then, suddenly, the counting stopped in at least five states (or parts of states):
Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin; all but one with a
Democratic governor (coincidence, surely!). When has that ever happened? Well, it happened
in Broward County, Florida, in 2018, when a dodgy Democratic election official appeared to
be intervening, illicitly, on her party's behalf. The process only got back underway when
the state's (Republican) governor intervened and had her removed from the process.
An upstate USPS employee was arrested Tuesday while crossing the US-Canada border with
hundreds of envelopes and other undelivered mail -- including several absentee ballots.
The Buffalo mailman, who was caught with over 800 pieces of mail inside his trunk that
he had failed to deliver, said he had ended up on a bridge between the US and its neighbor
to the north by accident, the Buffalo News reported.
Customs and Border Protection found a huge bin of mail spanning several zip codes in the
vehicle. Among them were three absentee ballots from the Erie County Board of Elections,
authorities told the newspaper.
Brandon Wilson, 27, told CBP agents he was in the wrong lane while traveling on
Interstate 190 and accidentally wound up on the bridge. When pressed, Willson claimed that
the mail was for his mother, though he was unable to explain why the names on the packages
did not match.
A gaming exercise of the perfect, indigenous color revolution, code-named Blue, was leaked
from a major think tank established in the imperial lands that first designed the color
revolution concept.
Not all the information disclosed here about the gaming of Blue has been declassified. That
may well elicit a harsh response from the Deep State, even as a similar scenario was gamed by
an outfit called Transition Integrity Project.
Both scenarios should qualify as predictive programming – with the Deep State
preparing the general public, in advance, for exactly how things will play out.
The standard color revolution playbook rules usually start in the capital city of
nation-state X, during an election cycle, with freedom fighting "rebels" enjoying full national
and international media support.
Blue concerns a presidential election in the Hegemon. In the gaming exercise, the incumbent
president, codenamed Buffoon, was painted Red. The challenger, codenamed Corpse, was painted
Blue.
Blue – the exercise – went up a notch because, compared to its predecessors, the
starting point was not a mere insurgency, but a pandemic. Not any pandemic, but a really
serious, bad to the bone global pandemic with an explosive infection fatality rate of less than
1%.
By a fortunate coincidence, the lethal pandemic allowed Blue operators to promote mail-in
ballots as the safest, socially distant voting procedure.
That connected with a rash of polls predicting an all but inevitable Blue win in the
election – even a Blue Wave.
The premise is simple: take down the economy and deflate a sitting president whose stated
mission is to drive a booming economy. In tandem, convince public opinion that actually getting
to the polls is a health hazard.
The Blue production committee takes no chances, publicly announcing they would contest any
result that contradicts the prepackaged outcome: Blue's final victory in a quirky,
anachronistic, anti-direct democracy body called the "electoral college".
If Red somehow wins, Blue would wait until every vote is counted and duly litigated to every
jurisdiction level. Relying on massive media support and social media marketing propelled to
saturation levels, Blue proclaims that "under no scenario" Red would be allowed to declare
victory.
Countdown to magic voting
Election Day comes. Vote counting is running smoothly – mail-in count, election day
count, up to the minute tallies – but mostly favoring Red, especially in three states
always essential for capturing the presidency. Red is also leading in what is characterized as
"swing states".
But then, just as a TV network prematurely calls a supposedly assured Red state for Blue,
all vote counting stops before midnight in major urban areas in key swing states under Blue
governors, with Red in the lead.
Blue operators stop counting to check whether their scenario towards a Blue victory can roll
out without bringing in mail-in ballots. Their preferred mechanism is to manufacture the "will
of the people" by keeping up an illusion of fairness.
Yet they can always rely, as Plan B, on urban mail-in ballots on tap, hot and cold, until
Blue squeaks by in two particularly key swing states that Red had bagged in a previous
election.
That's what happens. Starting at 2 am, and later into the night, enter a batch of "magic"
votes in these two key states. The sudden, vertical upward "adjustment" includes the case of a
batch of 130k+ pro-Blue votes cast in a county alongside not a single pro-Red vote – a
statistical miracle of Holy Ghost proportions.
Stuffing the ballot box is a typical scam applied in Banana Republic declinations of color
revolution. Blue operators use the tried and tested method applied to the gold futures market,
when a sudden drop of naked shorts drives down gold price, thus protecting the US dollar.
Blue operators bet the compliant mainstream media/Big Tech alliance will not question that,
well, out of the blue, the vote would swing towards Blue in a 2 to 3 or 3 to 4 margin.
They bet no questions will be asked on how a 2% to 5% positive ballot trend in Red's
favor in a few states turned into a 0.5% to 1.4% trend in favor of Blue by around 4am.
And that this discrepancy happens in two swing states almost simultaneously.
And that some precincts turn more presidential votes than they have registered
voters.
And that in swing states, the number of extra mysterious votes for Blue far exceeds
votes cast for the Senate candidates in these states, when the record shows that down
ticket totals are traditionally close.
And that turnout in one of these states would be 89.25%.
The day after Election Day there are vague explanations that one of the possible vote-dumps
was just a "clerical error", while in another disputed state there is no justification for
accepting ballots with no postmark.
Blue operators relax because the mainstream media/Big Tech alliance squashes each and every
complaint as "conspiracy theories".
The Red counter-revolution
The two presidential candidates do not exactly help their own cases.
Codename Corpse, in a Freudian slip, had revealed his party had set up the most extensive
and "diverse" fraud scheme ever.
Not only Corpse is about to be investigated for a shady computer-related scheme. He is a
stage 2 dementia patient with a rapidly unraveling profile – kept barely functional by
drugs, which can't prevent his mind slowly shutting down.
Codename Buffoon, true to his instincts, goes pre-emptive, declaring the whole election a
fraud but without offering a smoking gun. He is duly debunked by the mainstream media/Big Tech
alliance for spreading "false claims".
All this is happening as a wily, old, bitter operator not only had declared that the only
admissible scenario was a Blue victory; she had already positioned herself for a top security
job.
Blue also games that Red would immediately embark on a single-minded path ahead: regiment an
army of lawyers demanding access to every registration roll to scrub, review and verify each
and every mail-in ballot, a process of de facto forensic analysis.
Yet Blue cannot foresee how many fake ballots will be unveiled during recounts.
As Corpse is set to declare victory, Buffoon eyes the long game, set to take the whole thing
all the way to the Supreme Court.
The Red machine had already gamed it – as it was fully aware of how operation Blue
would be played.
The Red counter-revolution does carry the potential of strategically checkmating Blue.
It is a three-pronged attack – with Red using the Judiciary Committee, the Senate and
the Attorney General, all under the authority of codename Buffoon until Inauguration Day. The
end game after a vicious legal battle is to overthrow Blue.
Red's top operators have the option of setting up a Senate commission, or a Special Counsel,
at the request of the Judiciary Committee, to be appointed by the Department of Justice to
investigate Corpse.
In the meantime, two electoral college votes, one-month apart, are required to certify the
presidential winner.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
These votes will happen in the middle of one and perhaps two investigations focused on
Corpse. Any state represented at the electoral college may object to approve an investigated
Corpse; in this case it's illegal for that state to allow its electors to certify the state's
presidential results.
Corpse may even be impeached by his own party, under the 25th Ammendment, due to his
irreversible mental decline.
The resulting chaos would have to be resolved by the Red-leaning Supreme Court. Not exactly
the outcome favored by Blue.
The House always wins
The heart of the matter is that this think tank gaming transcends both Red and Blue. It's
all about the Deep State's end game.
There's nothing like a massive psy ops embedded in a WWE-themed theater under the sign of
Divide and Rule to pit mob vs. mob, with half of the mob rebelling against what it perceives as
an illegitimate government. The 0.00001% comfortably surveys the not only metaphorical carnage
from above.
Even as the Deep State, using its Blue minions, would never have allowed codename Buffoon to
prevail, again, domestic Divide and Rule might be seen as the least disastrous outcome for the
world at large.
A civil war context in theory distracts the Deep State from bombing more Global South
latitudes into the dystopian "democracy" charade it is now enacting.
And yet a domestic Empire of Chaos gridlock may well encourage more foreign adventures as a
necessary diversion to tie the room together.
And that's the beauty of the Blue gaming exercise: the House wins, one way or another.
play_arrow palmereldritch , 2 minutes ago
So many snakes with heads.
yojimbo , 25 minutes ago
Well, a leftie spots the cheat.
I love the dissonanse for most of them though - 2016, every Trump vote was a Putin fake,
this time no Biden vote is a lie, and how dare you even question the democratic system!
Sammy Adams , 27 minutes ago
Three Branches of the Deep State: 1. Corporate/Social Media, 2. CIA/MI6, 3. Federal
Reserve/Bank of England
I think Trump has the goods on these goofs, I'm mean it is circumstantially obvious of
organized fraud coming directly from the top of the DNC on this caper. They even announced
the game plan before they started. What a bunch of morons, these people are really
stupid.
joego1 , 15 minutes ago
It might have helped if the corpse didn't come out and brag about putting together the
best voting fraud operation in history.
Ms No , 28 minutes ago
A lot of that is true but predictive programming isnt real. There is zero motive or
incentive to do such. Its a bad theory with no real evidence. They are just incompetent or
too brazen and full of hubris to hide. The other stuff is creative writing clairvoyance. That
actually has over 100 years of data. Predictive programming just sounds good.
Boiling frog tactic isnt predictive programming either. People are just trying to figure
out why the future shows up in arts and insider discourse prior to it becoming a reality,
even in minute specific detail. This really is no mystery though. Both reasons I gave are
actually following Occam's razor.
Michigan's Oakland County has discovered a computer glitch that erroneously gave a victory
to a Democratic candidate for commissioner. Her rival is breathing a sigh of relief, and
worrying about where else such errors lurk.
Democratic candidate for county commissioner Melanie Hartman appeared to have won the
election on Wednesday by a razor-thin 104-vote margin, according to
Detroit Free Press . However, red-faced county officials have revealed that a computer
glitch led them to actually count votes for seven precincts twice, and the Republican incumbent
Adam Kochenderfer was declared the winner on Friday.
the evidence is growing and you can watch the recent Ron Paul Liberty report where Daniel
McAdam (an actual elections observer)listed off a huge list of red flags. In case your too
busy to watch I will provide a brief list
1. Every state that has had a delay has seen Biden has overtaken trump AFTER the delays were
announced - Red flag
2. Florida counted 10.5M votes in less than 24 hours, Georgia couldn't count 4.8M in 48
hours, why? - Red Flag
3. In PA, the courts have barred all accredited observers from observing the vote - Red
Flag
4. In Detroit, the ballot counting centers barred windows and expelled observers, why? - Red
Flag
5. David Lim (Obama's former speech writer) sent a tweet out on Nov 4 (AFTER the election)
asking for volunteers in Georgia to help people fix their mail in ballots so that they count,
why? - Red Flag
6. Participation in one PA county reached 90% turn out, beating the prior record that had
stood for more than 100 years and almost 30% higher than the last election in 2016. Other PA
counties saw voter numbers exceed 100% of registered voters compared to the last election,
even accounting for same day registration this is statistically improbable- Red Flag
If you put in the effort to investigate this issue with an open mind you will find more
evidence of suspicious activity during this election.
On a unrelated note, I have been a commenter on this website for several years and I have
never insulted a fellow commenter as you have done. this website supports the free exchange
of views, information and dialogue, not crass and churlish name-calling. Vulgar and
unprofessional conduct does a disservice to this website, your fellow commenters and
yourself.
Despite the unfounded protestations I've seen here over the past few days, the type of
operation with designs to selectively throw away, not deliver, or otherwise void Trump
ballots/votes would require a mind boggling degree of coordination and communication and at
some point someone would get caught and investigated
___________________________________________________
I think that is usually correct
but...
This is not in any way an ordinary usual election. There are a lot of deranged people out
there that are extremely agitated so it would not be surprising if somebody took it upon
themselves to save the world from what ever they think they are saving the world from and
they did something to alter the election. And if that did happen they will be caught because
this will also be the most scrutinized election.
I'm still thinking trump will win in the end. We have seen this movie so many times before
where the left wing media is telling everybody over and over and over that trump is toast and
is going to be run out of town and it always turns into a nothing burger. Why would it be
different this time?
I used to work with demographic data professionally. Yet, I would love for someone to
explain why the Democratic voters vote so much more by mail than the Republican voters, like
at least 2:1? This is a serious question. There are all kinds of differences between which
can cause one group to be higher. But it requires an extremely high correlation with some
unknown factor to cause such dominance of one group of registered voters in one type of
voting. Without arriving at a good explanation, obviously fraud is the next best one.
This is on top of the issue of so many Republican senators apparently receiving winning
votes where Biden "won" through newly discovered bags of mail in votes.
The election is in the courts. The judges were all elected. Or appointed by elected
politicians. Should be pretty plain how hermetically sealed that system is.
Judges are politicians first, jurists second. They are going to decide for Biden. Biden is
better connected. Biden is sure to reward them while Trump is mercurial. There will be no
determination of facts, probably impossible to do that in any case, more importantly no one
wants to know.
Mark2 said something I can agree with! His photo file of Trump with Epstein is damning.
Bigger photo file of Clintons with Epstein. Even bigger photo file of Clintons with Trump.
And then we have the photo file of Biden pawing young girls. And of course the photo files of
his son with children. They all stink. But half of us cheer on one and half of us cheer on
the other. They stink.
b is entirely correct in suggesting that the Democrats steal elections. Their entire
history is of doing so. They have been doing it since the 1790s. They are the party of
machines- Tammany, Pendergast, Cook County. The party of the Solid South in which the entire
section, larger than the Confederacy, vored Democrat for the better part of a century when
the only elections were the White Primaries.
But there is no need to go back so far: Biden stole this year's primaries, just as Clinton
stole those in 2016. Stealing elections is what Democrats do. It is also what Republicans,
particularly since the South switched from Democrat to Republican, do. It is the American
way-fixing elections to make sure that the popular will is never imposed on the rich and
powerful.
Those who think that Biden represents anything more enlightened than the appalling Trump
have not been paying attention, something which is hard to do when your head is buried in the
sand and full of fantasies in which great men (or women) rescue the Republic.
The problem in the United States and most of the 'western' world, is that people just
enjoy being told what to do, what to think, who to applaud. It has reached the stage at which
the most basic sexual attraction is held to be perverse and large numbers of people adjust
themselves to conformity with the tawdriest gender stereotypes by demanding to be castrated.
You really couldn't make this up!
Votes will continue to be "found" until they have enough.
The establishment needs to get "back to normal" . They don't have the strength for
four more years of hysteria, so the election will be flipped regardless of the
difficulty.
We are an "end justifies the means" society. I understand that some people here hate Trump
so much that seeing him beaten - at any cost - is all that matters. People are entitled to
their opinion. The election is clearly being stolen from Trump. One can recognize that
reality regardless of which side they are on. Don't you think the Dems and media can handle
all the fraud on their own? Why must you insult everyone's intelligence by taking part in the
lies? Have you no self respect?
I believe this is the probable outcome as well, that Trump will win a further term by a
narrow margin. But it is the narrowness of that margin that is the story – a
closely-contested vote is the easiest to rig, since it requires a comparatively-small amount
of fakery, but it risks an explosion of public fury when the losing half sees their candidate
'cheated' right at the post. Here are two examples of the alleged manipulations. Whom they
fall in favour of is fairly obvious.
If a city send out 100,000 vote by mail ballots, there is great chance more than a quarter
are returned due to bad address and federal law does not allow the forwarding of ballots.
The easiest way to cheat, is to use the return-to-sender ballots.
what i find interesting is how quick many are to claim fraud in this election... i am not
saying fraud doesn't happen, but i don't know that it is a one way street and only happens in
a one sided way..
it is almost like all the allegations of fraud in foreign countries elections is coming
home to roost in the usa.. this is ironic as the usa has always been held up as a type of
gold standard for fair elections... that many americans are now projecting onto their own
country what has normally been projected only onto other countries ( 3rd world type
countries?) only, is quite interesting at this juncture...
In 2016, Trump won:
AZ by 91,234 votes
GA by 211,141 votes
PA by 44,292 votes
WI by 22,748 votes
MI by 10,704 votes
The same civil servants counted the votes 4 years ago across all of these states...is
anyone SERIOUSLY believing (can't say thinking) that all these folks conspired this year and
not 4 years ago?
It's an election....sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.
The U.S. Inability To Count Votes is a National Disgrace. And Dangerous.
Nations far poorer and less technologically advanced have no problem holding quick,
efficient elections. Distrust in U.S. outcomes is dangerous but rational.
By Glenn Greenwald
November 04, 2020 " Information Clearing House " - The richest and
most powerful country on earth -- whether due to ineptitude, choice or some combination of both
-- has no ability to perform the simple task of counting votes in a minimally efficient or
confidence-inspiring manner. As a result, the credibility of the voting process is severely
impaired, and any residual authority the U.S. claims to "spread" democracy to lucky recipients
of its benevolence around the world is close to obliterated.
At 7:30 a.m. ET on Wednesday, the day after the 2020 presidential elections, the results of
the presidential race, as well as control of the Senate, are very much in doubt and in chaos.
Watched by rest of the world -- deeply affected by who rules the still-imperialist superpower
-- the U.S. struggles and stumbles and staggers to engage in a simple task mastered by
countless other less powerful and poorer countries: counting votes. Some states are not
expected to finished their vote-counting until
the end of this week or beyond .
The same data and polling geniuses who pronounced that Hillary Clinton had a 90% probability
or more of winning the 2016 election, and who spent the last three months proclaiming the 2020
election even more of a sure thing for the Democratic presidential candidate, are currently
insisting that Biden, despite being behind in numerous key states, is still the favorite by
virtue of uncounted ballots in Democrat-heavy counties in the outcome-determinative states.
[One went to sleep last night with the now-notorious New York Times needle of data guru Nate
Cohn assuring the country that, with more than 80% of the vote counted in Georgia, Trump had
more than an 80% chance to win that state, only to wake up a few hours later with the needle
now predicting the opposite outcome; that all happened just a few hours after Cohn assured everyone how
much "smarter" his little needle was this time around].
NYT's predictive needle for Georgia less than four hours later, at 12:12 a.m., early
Wednesday morning.
Given the record of failures and humiliations they have quickly compiled, what rational
person would trust anything they say at this point? A citizen randomly chosen from the
telephone book would be as reliable if not more so for sharing predictions. And the monumental
failures of the polling industry and the data nerds who leech off it, for the second
consecutive national election, only serve to sow even further doubt and confusion around the
electoral process.
No Advertising - No Government Grants - No Algorithm - This Is Independent
Media
A completely untrustworthy voting count is now the norm. Two months after the New York state
primary in late June, two Congressional races were in doubt by what The New York Times
c alled "major
delays in counting a deluge of 400,000 mail-in ballots
and other problems." In particular:
Thousands more ballots in the city were discarded by election officials for minor errors,
or not even sent to voters until the day before the primary, making it all but impossible for
the ballots to be returned in time.
It took a full
six weeks for New York to finally declare a winner in those two primary races for
Congress.
The coronavirus pandemic and the shutdowns and new votings rules it ushered in have
obviously complicated the process, but the U.S. failure to simply count votes with any degree
of efficiency, in a way that inspires even minimal confidence in the process, pre-dates the
March, 2020 nationwide lockdowns. Even if one dismisses as aberrational the protracted,
Court-decided, and still-untrusted outcome of the 2000 presidential election -- only four
national election cycles ago -- the U.S. voting process is rife with major systemic failures
and doubt-sowing inefficiencies that can be explained only as a deliberate choice and/or a
perfect reflection of a collapsing, crumbling empire.
Recall the mass confusion that ensued back in January, in the very first Democratic Party
primary election in the Iowa caucus, where a new app created and monetized by a bunch of sleazy
Democratic operatives caused
massive delays, confusion and an untrustworthy outcome . Later in the process, many Super
Tuesday states -- including California -- were still counting votes weeks or even longer after
the election was held (more than a week after the Democratic primary, California had
still only counted roughly 75% of the ballots cast, depriving Bernie Sanders of a critical
narrative victory on election night).
The 2018 midterm elections were also marred by pervasive irregularities. The Washington Post
noted "thousands of reports of voting irregularities across the country . with voters
complaining of broken machines, long lines and untrained poll workers improperly challenging
Americans' right to vote."
And the full extent of the "irregularities" and treacherous outright cheating by the
Democratic National Committee in the 2016 primary race between Clinton and Sanders was never
fully appreciated given how pro-Clinton the press was. As just one example, "200,000 New York
City voters" -- many in pro-Sanders precincts -- "had been illegally wiped off the rolls and
prevented from voting in the presidential primary" (for one of the best-documented histories of
just how pervasive were the shenanigans and cheating in the 2016 Democratic primary across
multiple key states, listen to this TrueAnon episode ).
As Bernie Sanders pointed out in a video that went viral, initial results were always
going to favour the Republicans because Republicans were more likely to vote in person,
whereas Democrats were more likely to use mail-in ballots which take time to
count, so this is precisely what was anticipated, this was always going to happen, there's
nothing untoward or unexpected happening here. As the count continues the 'process' begins
to inexorably favour the Democrats.
First of all, the election fraud is not something exceptional. It small dozes it is
present in any of US election. More in the past (Kennedy-Nixon), then currently. See
A Brief History of Mail-In Vote Fraud
I do not think that fraud alone is capable of flipping the states. The key problem for
Trump is that he a fake/fraudulent populist: look at Trump tax cut and that might explain why
less voters supported him in 2020 . And Biden with all his warts is IMHO better choice then
Trump with this bulling and "national neoliberalism" stance along with aggressive "might is
right" foreign policy (just
look at Pompeo)
But at the same time some facts require careful analysis. Among them
Kyle Becker@kylenabecker
Swing state voting irregularities:
Biden outperforms [Dem] Senators in swing states, underperforms in VA, NH, RI
Biden underperforms Hillary/Obama in cities, except in MI, PA, GA, WI
In the
1982 Illinois gubernatorial election , more than 100,000 votes were fraudulently cast in
Chicago. The Justice Department found that Democratic Party officials there had set up an
extensive vote fraud ring that very nearly stole the governorship from Republican Jim Thompson,
who won re-election over Adlai Stevenson III by just 5,074 votes out of 3.67 million cast.
Following an extensive federal investigation, a total of 63 people were convicted on vote
fraud charges. Prosecutors found that they had bought votes, registered illegal immigrants and
imaginary voters, and even had voting precinct captains physically change their vote counts.
But by far their most common trick was casting fraudulent absentee ballots. The corrupt
precinct captains who were in on the fraud had their workers "encourage voters to apply for
absentee ballots whether or not they had a valid reason to do so and to turn the blank ballots
over" to the election workers, who would then vote for them.
The investigation found that "although the [vote] canvass disclosed that a number of persons
who were registered to vote in the precinct had died, moved away, or for some other reason had
become ineligible to vote, these persons were not struck from the list of eligible voters.
Finally on election day the defendants, either personally or by acting through others, caused
numerous false ballots to be cast for the straight Democratic ticket."
The conspirators preyed on the elderly and infirm, because they "would be the most unlikely
to challenge the theft of their franchise."
12 years later, in Greene County, Alabama, eleven people were convicted of widespread vote
fraud through the use of phony absentee ballots.
"The defendants included Greene County commissioners, officials, and employees; a racing
commissioner; a member of the board of education; a Eutaw city councilman; and other community
leaders," a White
House report concluded . "The conspiracy included using an assembly line to mass produce
forged absentee ballots meant to swing elections in favor of preferred candidates."
That "assembly line" involved the conspirators filling out ballots that they had
fraudulently mailed to them and then sending them back on Election Day. Some of those involved
in the scheme even went so far as to steal ballots out of people's mailboxes!
That same year, the mayor's race in Hialeah, Florida had to be re-run because "so many
forged absentee ballots were cast...that the results were void." Incumbent Mayor Raul Martinez
(a convicted felon who was allowed to run while awaiting sentencing on corruption charges) had
his win reversed. The Los Angeles
Times reported at the time that "Circuit Judge Sidney Shapiro found that the mayor's
2-to-1 advantage in absentee ballots may have come from the efforts of 'overzealous' campaign
workers at a retirement home, where many voters suffer from schizophrenia and drug
addiction."
In other words, members of the mayor's campaign simply filled out ballots for those
residents and mailed them back in.
Three years later, the 1997 Miami mayoral election also had to be re-run after 36 people
were arrested for cheating the absentee ballot process. As the
Miami Herald noted , "numerous absentee ballots were cast in the primary by people
who live outside of the City of Miami. Some voters were unaware they had voted at all. One
ballot was cast by Manuel Yip, who has been dead for four years."
When the fraud was discovered and the election was held again, a different candidate
won.
In 2003,
a member of East Chicago Mayor Robert Pastrick's campaign was found guilty of casting
fraudulent ballots by promising jobs to people in exchange for letting him vote for them in the
primary. Because of this widespread fraud, the primary was re-run and Pastrick lost.
Five years later, community activist group ACORN engaged in what Washington's Secretary of
State called "the worst case of voter registration fraud in the history of the state" by
submitting nearly 2,000 fake voter registration forms. According to CNN , the group "took
addresses from homeless shelters, used fake birthdays and Social Security numbers and took
names from baby books to create voters out of thin air."
Clifton Mitchell, the ringleader of the scheme, spent three months in prison, and four of
his co-conspirators were sentenced to jail time. ACORN itself was fined $25,000. The group was
under investigation for fraud in 10 different states for its activities ahead of the 2008
presidential election.
Nevada officials charged ACORN, its regional director and its Las Vegas field director with
submitting thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms last year. Larry Lomax, the
registrar of voters in Las Vegas, says he believes 48% of ACORN's forms "are clearly
fraudulent." Prosecutors in Pittsburgh, Pa., also charged seven Acorn employees with filing
hundreds of fraudulent voter registrations before last year's general election.
In 2012, Martin, Kentucky Mayor Ruth Thomasine Robinson ran a mail-in ballot scheme that
preyed on people who lived in properties she either owned or supervised.
The FBI said in a press release :
According to evidence at the trial, Thomasine Robinson and her co-conspirators intimidated
poor and disabled citizens in order to gain their votes during Robinson's 2012 campaign for
re-election. For instance, members of the conspiracy directed residents of public housing to
vote by absentee ballot under the supervision of Thomasine Robinson or another member of the
conspiracy. The conspirators also targeted residents of private housing owned and leased by
Thomasine Robinson.
Trial testimony established that the conspirators completed absentee ballots, marking their
choice of candidates, and instructing the voters to sign the pre-marked ballots. Voters who
complied by voting for Thomasine Robinson received promises of better living arrangements and
other considerations. Voters who did not comply faced eviction or the loss of priority for
public housing. In addition, the evidence established that the defendants offered to pay
several voters to vote for Thomasine Robinson.
She was convicted on vote fraud and civil rights violation charges and sentenced to 90
months in federal prison.
It starts with a knock. Someone in your family opens the door, because you're old, most
likely over 80, certainly poor, possibly infirm, probably a minority. You see a familiar
face. She is a community organizer, young, passionate. She has come by often, campaigning for
Obama or Wendy Davis. Today she comes bearing a fruit basket, because she wants to help.
She's also kind enough to carry in your mail.
It just so happens that today's mail brings a large envelope. The envelope contains a letter
from the Secretary of State, who thanks you for doing your civic duty. There are pages of
instructions in English and Spanish. There is a mail-in ballot for early voting. There is a
carrier envelope that must be signed and used to deliver the ballot. The nice woman with the
fruit asks if you'd like some help filling out your ballot. Of course you would. It's all
very confusing. She asks you to sign on the envelope and says she'll take care of the rest.
That's one scenario. The details can change. The harvesters who show up just as your ballot
is delivered, maybe they have to ask you if you've already brought your ballot inside. Maybe
they find the package in the mailbox, put it on a clipboard, and ask you to sign your name to
the carrier envelope for some bogus reason. Maybe you never vote, so these harvesters just
take your ballot out of the mailbox for themselves -- and you never miss it.
Why are these big envelopes being sent to many people who didn't even request a mail-in
ballot? Because before these ballots were harvested, these precincts were "seeded." Large
batches of applications for ballots, stuffed in manila envelopes, had arrived at the county
elections office, each request with a name from voter lists that had also been requested from
said office. That elections office alerted harvesters to when the precincts would receive
their ballots by mail, so the nice woman with the fruit would know when to have her basket
ready.
This is, broadly speaking, how the mail-in ballot game works across Texas and how it has
worked in Dallas County for decades.
The following year, in what is perhaps the best known vote fraud case since the 1982 Chicago
election,
a Congressional race in North Carolina was upended over massive mail-in vote fraud . After
Republican Mark Harris beat Democrat Dan McCready by just 905 votes, it became clear that a
Harris operative named L. McCrae Dowless, Jr. was running a fraud scheme. He requested more
than 1,200 absentee ballots on behalf of unsuspecting voters. When the ballots arrived at their
homes, Dowless picked them up and had assistants fill them out.
Dowless and four people who worked for him were criminally charged and the race was re-run.
The Republican Party rescinded its support for Harris and he announced that he wouldn't run.
Instead, Republican Dan Bishop beat McCready to win the seat.
The next year, Sherikia Hawkins, the Democratic City Clerk of Smithfield, Michigan, was
charged with fraud for altering 193 ballots that were mailed to her office ahead of the
2018 midterm elections.
As if nearly 40 years of continual fraud associated with mail-in balloting weren't enough,
on the exact same day that Twitter fact-checked President Trump's claims, a mail carrier in
West Virginia was charged with attempted vote fraud.
Thomas Cooper allegedly changed party affiliations of eight voters on their requests for
mail-in ballots. According to an affidavit, he admitted to the crime but claimed that he did it
"as a joke" and was "just being silly."
Such widespread vote fraud, of course, is no joke--especially when it spans four decades.
And mail-in balloting makes fraud easier. If Twitter is looking for a fact-check, it might ask
former President Jimmy Carter and Secretary of State James Baker, who co-chaired the 2005
Commission on Federal Election Reform . One of its primary conclusions was definitive:
"Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud."
GOP political analyst and former Trump Data Chief Matt Braynard believes he can detect voter
fraud by comparing absentee ballots and early voters to the Social Security Death Index and the
National Change of Address Database .
Braynard - former analyst for pollster Frank Luntz - is the president of Braynard Group,
which provides services for voter targeting, polling and fundraising.
In order to accomplish this, Braynard will need up to $100,000 to purchase databases from
data vendors. In a Thursday Twitter thread, he outlined his plan to audit the election in key
states and launched a GoFundMe
page which is currently under review ("Getting nuked still a possibility," he says).
As of this writing, Braynard's GoFundMe is up to just under $170,000 . And in a Friday
update, he says he's been in touch with the Trump campaign ("but nothing more to say on that
now"), has vendors lined up for Social Security and the Change of Address data, and is
"Tracking down source data on Early Voters/ABS [absentee ballots] " adr , 28 minutes
ago
All you have to do to prove voter fraud is walk on the street in Milwaukee and find ten
people that didn't vote in the election.
Because apparently 9 out of 10 people who live in Milwaukee voted.
kleptomistic , 9 minutes ago
WISCONSIN
Between 4:24AM (Trump winning) and 4:40AM (Biden now winning)
I did some analysis earlier today and discovered that if you took Hennepin county in
Minnesota, which contains the city of Minneapolis, and subtracted those votes from the state
total, Trump would win the state by more than 100,000 votes.
This was a true ****show of anti-Democratic proportions.
He's a link to my blog, which has the breakdown, plus other stuff which may be of interest
to people.
You don't get it, they perpetrated fraud in broad daylight. There is no secrecy. You don't
need to study it. It is a brazen seizure of power, message of intimidation, and demonstration
that the general populace is too mentally and physically weak to put up any resistance, and
that they system is so rotten no one would risk anything to defend it. This is a classic
socialist takeover. Our species repeats itself over and over. Go read about the October
Revolution, French Revolution, Red Revolution, or a dozen other Revolutions. What follows is
equally predictable. Redistribuion. Angry retributive terror. 5 year brutal civil war.
Political infighting. Power struggle. Totalitarianism. Total enslavement of 99.999% of
people. The answer....i dont know. The right wing resistance loses the civil war, not that it
shouldn't be fought, but that is what will happen. No matter how armed or well trained
militarily they are. If you have any creative ideas to resist this movement, you could save
humanity and change it forever by stopping this repetitious cycle.
Murky Mook , 28 minutes ago
Wow! $170,000. That's a lot of money.
in 2016, Jill Stein, for a recount in two states, raised $7,000.000 in two days on
Gofundme.
Biden outperforms Senators in swing states,
underperforms in VA, NH, RI Biden underperforms Hillary/Obama in cities, except in MI, PA,
GA, WI Biden mail-in dumps with 100% margins GOP lose ZERO House races
Interesting take by the former Lieutenant Governor of New York
Don't be fooled by the Biden team's rhetoric that every ballot must be counted and all it
takes is patience. Only valid, legally cast ballots should count.
"The U.S. urged leaders in Ivory Coast to stick to a "democratic" election process hours
after President Trump prematurely declared victory."
I call for a delegation from Bolivia to come and watch the elections in the USA and make
sure they go as planned because clearly no one in the USA is capable of handling this
This tweet pretty much sums up the dysfunctionality of the election:
Dinesh D'Souza
@DineshDSouza
·
17h
If Latinos turned out for Trump in record numbers, Biden can be consoled by the fact that
dead people seem to have turned out for him in record numbers. Incredible turnout!
#ElectionResults2020
b
But hey, they found another bag of 'mailed in' ballots.
LOL. It's ok, Biden took the lead no need to "find" any more mail-in ballots.
Mature ballots often play around with the other ballots, between them, they produce from
one to over a thousands baby ballots, and baby ballots take longer to count; so please just
be patient.
I think the expected blue wave did not materialize for this reason: Biden's incessant ads
where he talked about how much he cared and how faith sustained him. There was nothing about
what he'd actually do to help people. Personally, I don't give a damn how much he "cares." He
was against universal health care and for the endless wars (abroad and on drugs), and he
wouldn't legalize marijuana.
I also didn't care about his faith either. Religion is supposed to be separate from
governing. And I don't believe any politician should be imposing his/her personal beliefs on
other people.
Finally, as I have often said before, average people don't understand the reasons for
their plight because the news won't tell them. The media provides entertainment and opinion
but not many facts. Here in Pennsylvania, the local newspapers, TV and radio hardly tell us
what's going on in the state legislature let alone what's happening in Congress.
part of your imagination is the assumption that the Democrats and Republicans are
adversarial to the extent that they would intentionally do something to damage the
credibility of the game that gets them into office. It is kayfabe (a point that our resident
bunny is entirely correct about), but the actors involved must never let on that is
the case. Trump's failure to respect this taboo and his frequent "breaking the fourth
wall" with his tweets directly to the audience is one of the major reasons that they
(both Democrats and Republicans) want him out.
It is a truism that the Democrats would rather lose than allow real socialists on their
ticket. Everyone here knows that, even Circe and the dembot king donkey rear .org. What is
not discussed as much is that the Republicans also have their own similar red line, which is
that they would rather lose than allow a populist candidate to win on their ticket. That is
not as strong a proscription as the embargo on socialists, but it is one that the Republicans
would have enforced more energetically if they thought there was any chance that Trump could
win. Trump's candidacy was only allowed because it was inconceivable that it could
succeed.
"What, the Republicans only allowed Trump to be their candidate because they knew he
would lose? That doesn't make sense!"
It doesn't make sense to you because you keep forgetting that the rivalry between the
parties is kayfabe. Maintaining the illusion of the kayfabe is far more important than
winning, and defending the material interests of the elites from the masses is even more
important than that. Trump was only allowed to take the kayfabe title belt in 2016 because
the establishment was too stunned and paralyzed by the election results to do anything other
than that. They were prepared this time, though obviously not prepared enough to not need to
do some risky and difficult "curing" of the results after the fact.
I get that many people have a difficult time accepting that the reality we are facing is
so very different from the illusion we are fed. I understand that. Things are bad here in
American, but certainly not as bad as, for example, the 2012 elections in Mexico where the
fraud and stealing of the election was painfully obvious, right? America is not some shithole
like that, right? We're better than that, right? We're exceptional , right?
Wrong. Americans are just as easily fooled and cowed as people anywhere else. In fact,
Americans' delusion of exceptionality makes Americans even easier to hoodwink. Americans will
deny evidence from their own senses to safeguard that delusion of exceptionality.
Doubtless there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people involved in this fraud.
Our wonderful poster Circe has already declared that if you do not support and believe lies
about Trump then you are a Zionist, racist, homophobic, misogynist pussy-grabbing Nazi. Do
you imagine she would suddenly find find her principles if she saw anyone rigging things
against Trump? While that is an extreme example it should illustrate that there are plenty of
people who would gladly compromise their own integrity to change the election outcome when
Trump was ahead.
But that is just one more motivation for turning a blind eye, or in Circe's case if she
were in a position to do so to actively perpetuate the fraud. There are people being paid
off. There is back room horse trading happening. There are people denying what they see when
they stumble across ballots are being altered. There are people thinking their silence is the
lesser evil because they think "Trumpists" will explode into crazy violence if they
find out what is going on. There are "Never Trump!" Republicans assisting because they
think now at last everything will go back to normal for them. There are local election
officials who will keep quiet because they don't want to lose their job, or they don't want
their county turned into a laughingstock. There are countless reasons for going along with
the lie. Americans are used to that anyway (Skripal poisoning? Douma gas attack? WMDs?
Deification of George Floyd? WTC Building 7? Murder of Jeffrey Epstein? We could go on with
this all day).
There is fraud taking place right now, and it will not be covered by the mass media.
Y. Smith is right but it is very mild advice and doesn't cut to the heart of the
matter.
The Dems (one branch of the Duopoly) are now, and have been for some time, if somewhat
covertly so, the war party, the neo-con party (neo-cons and assorted Never Trumpers who now
form part of that block), the party of globalisation, outsourcing, the party for Corporate
(some call it fascist) power.
They have managed to get as far as they have (not far in this last election, independently
of
who becomes Prez in the end) thru their soldered alliance with the MSM and GAFA.
They control "the narrative" and have managed to demonise Trump as a person (not the
GOP.)
But this hasn't worked on a large part of the public who see things differently.
In a way, Trump has out-lefted the Dems, but from a 'right' perspective. Trump is seen as
less of a war-monger
than Biden, if only because Biden has a mighty pro-war record (Afgh, Iraq, etc.) and Trump
"hasn't started a new war."
(Imho this would need much discussion, but that is a common perception.)
As for being an anti-globalist and "boosting the economy" nonetheless and "keeping or
returning jobs to the US" and thus "supporting the American worker" (excuse all the ".." but
they are needed ) he has scotched TTP,
made efforts to "keep foreignors out" (illegal labor, H1B visas..). Have these policies had
much effect?
Maybe some? can't treat in a short post. Imho DT's main move to 'boost' was the tax break
for Corps, from 35% to 21%, and that worked quite well. (The USA and Japan had the highest
corp. tax rates in the world - of course in the US there were many exceptions, breaks,
loopholes, still.) On this issue, analyses and articles show clear polarisation, with both
sides interpreting, cherry picking, fudging, etc. link 1 gives CNBC showing wage gains.
Trump voters, in exit polls, cite "the Economy" as the number one reasons why they voted
for him. (Doing OK! Despite Covid downturn.)
Well-being, e.g. prison, health, support for veterans, cost of drugs, other 'social', 2
'positive' ex which many ordinary ppl have noticed (but not Dems or their internet
supporters. Many negs of course, not treated here, 10 pages needed..)
Why isn't such legislation ever discussed on boards like this and many others?
The First Steps Act (bi-partisan) aims to reduce mass incarceration, be 'fairer' to
inmates..
A Pew poll indicated that roughly half of Clinton and Trump supporters were more motivated
by opposing the other side's candidate than backing their own.
But this is what left are about today, silencing people that dont agree with them on every
topic.
This is also how absurd the left have become, look back past years since Trump was elected
they are now OK with having a neocon foreign policy president Biden to be elected - just
because they hate Trump so much. Have you guys already forgotten 4 years of Russiagate?
Or are you guys watching Rachel Maddow for your foreign policy knowledge?
"If Biden wins, the best-case scenario is that we'll be forced to deal with a Democratic
Party of resurgent centrism, convinced that their path to victory is through vacuous
messaging calibrated to cause the least offense to the maximum number of people. They'll
insist that their future dominance is assured, normalcy has been restored, and that the
nightmare is over. With eyes fixed on a seemingly winning formula, they won't see who's
getting left behind again, or history repeating itself before their very eyes."
Everyone falsely assumes that 'winning' actually involves getting elected. If the term
'winning' is viewed as maintaining the status quo, propping up the rich at the expense of the
poor while robbing the State, then regardless of who is carrying out the agenda, the Dems
leadership and fundraisers are still 'winning'.
Many big corporations have an each way bet in elections and can rest comfortably knowing
that whomever is elected, be they Red or Blue, will always join the ranks of weak and corrupt
politicians, seeking corporate approval for reelection, chasing profits or a board seat once
retired, while regularly selling their voters out. That's how the game is played to 'win'.
Politicians are just pawns on the chessboard, racing to get to the other end with the promise
of being turned into a queen.
The state of Georgia has a runoff system, so there will be another election in January.
Without the presidential election, turnout would presumably be lower. I'm not sure who that
would benefit in this case.
Even with both of the GA Senate seats, the Dem control would be the bare minimum. If you
need only 1 Senator to kill a piece of legislation, then doing so becomes affordable to a
much larger group of donors.
2022 Will have 20 Republican and 12 Democrat Senators up for re-election, and in this case
at most 2 of those Dem Senators will be in competitive races (AZ again, and GA again) - so
any political pressure will almost entirely on Republican Senators. Unless their game is
focused on obstructing their own party (in some places voters like that, and if so it is a
lucrative tactic to extract more federal $$$ for their state), Senators facing a close
re-election race would generally be more inclined to follow the party line.
Anyway, even when most people thought Dems would have 52-53 Senators, Biden already
started backing away from nominal Dem positions on reduction of oil/gas, police reform,
reversing tax cuts. On immigration, the Obama administration's was de-facto anti-immigration
by virtue of the mass deportation policies, only without the Trump DHS's sadistic touch.
Regulation of the internet companies is a big modern issue, and it's hard to see Biden any
different from Republicans on that. With a split Senate, it will certainly go nowhere.
I would maybe dare hope for repairing the disaster-response parts of the government, and
some infrastructure investment, while the extent of economic damage from covid plays out.
It seems to me there were a surprisingly large number who voted against Trump for down
ticket Republicans. Looks like the Democrats didn't tie the Republican party to Trump as much
as they should have done.
IMHO Trump voters are "protest voters" -- they are tied to the protest against
neoliberalism, not so much to Trump personally. So many Trump voters are against both Parties:
Both D and R party establishment are neoliberal in economic outlook.
In reality "Trump voters" are ready to vote for anyone who will hold pharma, big Ag,
monopolies, insurance companies, etc accountable for the financial harm they've caused to the
90% of the people. That means that both parties will work like hell to prevent any candidate
like that from getting to the general election. See Dem establishment vs, Sanders and
Warren.
Democrats ran a status quo neoliberal candidate and expected a radical result. That did not
happen.
Both the social 'conservatism' and economic 'progressivism' on offer tend to be welded to
highly unpopular opposites. If you want immigration control (Which is both a social and
economic issue but only framed in social terms effectively) and an end to insane post-modern
SJW identity politics, you're obliged to also vote for people who will further deregulate the
economy and give tax cuts to the wealthy. If you want social democrat politics you're obliged
to vote for people who will further promote insane anti-social solidarity post-modern SJW
politics and unending mass migration that are counter-productive, perhaps fatality so, to
their social democratic agenda. (See AOC and her wishes for literal open borders and full
Nordic-style social democrat welfare state)
The currency of a system of economic redistribution within a democracy is the willingness
of those with resources to give to those without. The 'progressive' Democrats in the US are
hooked on this ideal of expanding welfare but that doesn't empower the poor because they're
depended on those with resources to support taxes to give them it. Industrial policy and
immigration restriction (Both to decrease job competition and to make the recipients of
resource redistribution more sympathetic to those with resources) to actually shift the real
wealth and power in society is far more important.
A synthesis on at least immigration restriction and progressive economic policies like
banking regulations, trade reform and industrial policy would be highly popular and is
entirely open ground to take. In 2016 Trump became the first person to make that offer in
stark form in 40 years and despite all the ammo the media and intellectual class were able to
throw at him, he beat Hilary Clinton. Bernie and Corbyn both understand this synthesis and
have spoken of it in the past but now are trapped in political apparatuses that make any
mention of immigration and the economic and social interests of the native working class
totally impermissible. Worse, they wed them to an ideal of ever expanding immigration that
will rip apart any social solidarity needed for socialist or social democrat policies since
the new group interests of the native working class will be battling the newcomers for social
and economic space.
A great deal of American 'Libertarians' are actually quite community oriented and are
infact just not in favour of their taxes being redistributed to outgroups whom they don't
have any sense of social solidarity with. Ask them what should be done in their community and
they start sounding like Bernie Sanders. They view the Federal government as an alien thing
that will take from them and give to alien outgroups.People will say they're being 'duped'
but I think those people just don't understand that people are born out of ethnic groups not
class groups, ethnicity is more important and we might expect it to be so given human
evolution.
Kadath: The GOP has been silent on the presidential election. As a whole the GOP did well
this election. The GOP interpretation going forward is a mix of Chamber Commerce's financial
and immigration policies mixed with Neocon's spreading of democracy thru bombs and ballot
harvesting. In other words their world is getting righted by the steal. Absolutely no doubt
in my mind the GOP is in on the whole thing. Deep State wins.
$15.00 minimal wage after most small businesses are teetering on the brink due to
lockdowns won't end well. It will end with bankruptcy and unemployment, a preference for
hiring "illegals", or if possible an investment in automation. Why is that so hard to
understand? Nor are you going to get the "rich" with this scheme.
Liberals and progressives have to face the inconvenient truth: Trump is no accident. The
people who still vote for him or even just voted for him for the first time knew what they
were voting for. They are not a majority but a large minority of about 46% of Americans. This
cannot be explained as people duped by fake populism. Trump had four years to make even the
slightest gesture of populism (*) – the minimum wage, infrastructure spending, closing
tax loopholes, whatever. There was nothing and plenty of the opposite. This is government for
the plutocracy by the plutocracy. No factory jobs came back to the rustbelt.
Yet roughly the same percentage of voters still stand by their man. They may claim
otherwise when asked (oh those reliable polls and surveys) but this vote is in no shape or
form economically motivated. Trump's platform is racism and white supremacy and hatred and
that is what his people voted for.
(*) Let's take this opportunity to call out the ugly habit of many journalists to use
populism as a polite synonym for racism. Populism is economic policy benefiting working
people to the detriment of the rich. Or just any policy that materially benefits the lower
strata of society. Racism isn't populism.
I understood perfectly well, because Nate Silver kept insisting on it, that
statistically there was a non-trivial chance that Trump would win
The most interesting scenario now what will happen if Trump lose and Biden (or whoever is
the political force behind him) faces hostile Senate. And possibly both hostile Senate and
the House in 2022.
Blue wave did not happen. That's a fact. And that fact alone makes Biden victory, if any,
Pyrrhic. Putting Biden administration in a very precarious position, worse then Trump in
2016. With the real possibility of launching "Chinagate" against him, using Russiagate
template. A special prosecutor and such.
Epidemic and connected with it recession are not over. Senate is controlled by
Republicans. Relation with China deteriorates and with Russia became outright hostile.
Another entirely succesfull election for the FIRE sector – they must have enjoyued the
theater of it all – after they got Biden on the ticket – they knew – no
matter which way the country voted that they had the election in the bag. They had the Smurfes
fighting over the small stuff – to plan
You had Trump – a lifelongh con-man and preditor – physically and figuratively a
self admitted ++++y grabber, a coward, spoiled rich-boy narssisist who used bone spurs to duck
service and probably has not read or understands the constitution.
Then You had Biden – always a FIRE sector champion who come to run like he was fresh
fished and landed doing a slimy fish dock dance.
Well the real fight for the future of democracy and the planet is sided between the creditor
class and the rest of us Smurfs
Its the same fight going back thousands of years in hundreds of countries
Banking in the hands of private interests is more dangerous than a standing
army
In my view – the fight is not between the Dems and Repubs – it is the People,
freedom and Democracy against the Speculators, vested interests and Finance – who have
demonstrated its contemp of People, the Planet and Democracy
Plus 1. Nailed it.
Anyone who thinks that the single party system with 2 factions will provide anything for the
99% is an idiot. The repugnants/democraps, employees of the FIRE sector oligarchs, have been
playing "good cops/bad cops" with middle class/working class forever. It's a tactic that's
been used since "civilization " began. There was a time when the western world's dominant
language was Latin. We know what happened there.
This is the essence of it. When you actually drill down, the things both Democrat and
Republican voters want much the same things and that is more collectivism. They want more
collectivism on social matters and they want more collectivism on economic matters. They want
society back.
Both the social 'conservatism' and economic 'progressivism' on offer tend to be welded to
highly unpopular opposites. If you want immigration control (Which is both a social and
economic issue but only framed in social terms effectively) and an end to insane post-modern
SJW identity politics, you're obliged to also vote for people who will further deregulate the
economy and give tax cuts to the wealthy. If you want social democrat politics you're obliged
to vote for people who will further promote insane anti-social solidarity post-modern SJW
politics and unending mass migration that are counter-productive, perhaps fatality so, to
their social democratic agenda. (See AOC and her wishes for literal open borders and full
Nordic-style social democrat welfare state)
The currency of a system of economic redistribution within a democracy is the willingness
of those with resources to give to those without. The 'progressive' Democrats in the US are
hooked on this ideal of expanding welfare but that doesn't empower the poor because they're
depended on those with resources to support taxes to give them it. Industrial policy and
immigration restriction (Both to decrease job competition and to make the recipients of
resource redistribution more sympathetic to those with resources) to actually shift the real
wealth and power in society is far more important.
A synthesis on at least immigration restriction and progressive economic policies like
banking regulations, trade reform and industrial policy would be highly popular and is
entirely open ground to take. In 2016 Trump became the first person to make that offer in
stark form in 40 years and despite all the ammo the media and intellectual class were able to
throw at him, he beat Hilary Clinton. Bernie and Corbyn both understand this synthesis and
have spoken of it in the past but now are trapped in political apparatuses that make any
mention of immigration and the economic and social interests of the native working class
totally impermissible. Worse, they wed them to an ideal of ever expanding immigration that
will rip apart any social solidarity needed for socialist or social democrat policies since
the new group interests of the native working class will be battling the newcomers for social
and economic space.
A great deal of American 'Libertarians' are actually quite community oriented and are
infact just not in favour of their taxes being redistributed to outgroups whom they don't
have any sense of social solidarity with. Ask them what should be done in their community and
they start sounding like Bernie Sanders. They view the Federal government as an alien thing
that will take from them and give to alien outgroups.People will say they're being 'duped'
but I think those people just don't understand that people are born out of ethnic groups not
class groups, ethnicity is more important and we might expect it to be so given human
evolution.
During the 1930s which was arguably the USA's more democratic period, the people fought
for and enacted a series of Neutrality Acts aimed to limit what the Merchants of Death as
they were called then could get the nation involved in. 1947's National Security Act was made
to ensure such citizen actions would never again arise, which made the necessity of an
Eternal, never to be killed or defeated--perpetual--Enemy. From my own experience as both
teacher and student, very little emphasis is placed on the 1930s Pacifist Movement or the
fruits of their labors--Acts FDR refused to veto for two reasons: they were very popular
nationwide and would likely be overridden by Congress. Much the same treatment is given to
the 1960s Anti-War Movement. Indeed, the second installment of the two-semester teaching of
US History would often end with JFK's assassination because time would run out and the
remaining years events never covered!!! I campaigned for a 3 semester US History core at
minimum but never got any traction, and so that deplorable situation remains--even at the
college level undergrad inrto US History core. Even History Majors find it hard to learn what
they must to properly teach the core!! The result is an essentially illiterate citizenry when
it comes to knowing their own national history making them easy marks for the Divide and Rule
Class.
Snake @151--
I do not know an American who is happy with the USA.
That's the central premise of my book, Critical Mass , I'm in the process of
writing. One section votes R, the other votes D, yet neither are going to provide a solution
and that fundamental fact for some reason is oblivious to those voting R & D. I might
fail but my aim is to knock those collective heads together so they can see the error of
their ways and join forces to defeat those that oppress them both. In 1992, William Greider
tried his best with his Who Will Tell the People: The Betrayal of American Democracy ,
but far too few heeded his warning. In many respects, it's 2016 again, and we have 4 years to
overturn the table-again.
While not quite as funny & entertaining as George Carlin, the latest two First ,
Second ,
Keiser Report 's both contain some uncomfortable truths, particularly the second that
lends great credence to Hudson's description of the Outlaw US Empire as Financialized
Fascism. (Someone apparently thinks that FUD yet wants to read Sagan's book.) Another
confirmation of what the Keiser's report is today FB blocked my several attempts to place a
link to Giraldi's essay at Strategic Culture thus confirming--again--the existence of
censorship algorithms. If you click the links, I suggest just watching the first halves of
each program which will only take about 25 minutes of your valuable time.
Yes, global interventionism has been a problem and supposedly is less-supported by younger
citizens. But what difference does that make.
The Pentagon justifies the enormous annual expenditure on armaments and world-wide
deployment because, as stated in its self-serving 2018 National Defense Strategy, "Long-term
strategic competitions with China and Russia are the principal priorities for the department
[of defense], and require both increased and sustained investment, because of the magnitude
of the threats they pose to U.S. security and prosperity today, and the potential for those
threats to increase in the future."
Now it's obvious that neither Russia nor China threatens the United States. Russia has
never invaded any country with regime change in mind, as the US has, and has mightily tried
to be friendly. China is a long distance away and much weaker than the US.
The continental United States is surrounded by Canada and Mexico on two sides, friendly
countries, and by fish on the other two sides. For sure there is absolutely no need for a
half-million person standing army. The Founding Fathers got it right. The Constitution
pointedly gives Congress the power to "maintain" a navy, but only to "raise and support
Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two
Years."
The US is a non-democracy and so major issues like this are never shared with US citizens.
There's a lot of money in the US security state, funds that are essential for the
bought-and-paid-for politicians most of them with a life-time tenure due to gerrymandering
and the profits of being a national politician.
ByGlenn Diesen, an Associate Professor at the University of South-Eastern
Norway and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal. Follow him on Twitter
@glenndiesen Will Biden's apparent election victory mean the end of Russiagate and the
restoration of normal democratic discourse in the US, or will opponents of the status quo
continue to be branded as Kremlin patsies by the elite?
Despite the hysteria it unleashed in the press, Russiagate didn't reveal any actual
collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian government, although it did expose
how democratic institutions are threatened by corruption in the political-media class. What
happens when the anti-Russia barrage is used to target the political opposition?
The information war between the West and Russia inevitably tears away at democratic
institutions. The anti-Russia foreign policy consensus, cultivated throughout the Cold War, has
been one of the few areas enjoying bipartisan support. The absence of counter-perspectives
enabled a rot to fester in elite circles as accusations against Russia go unchallenged.
What would happen if a political leader broke with the foreign policy consensus? In 2016,
this question was answered as Trump ran on a platform of getting along with Russia and even
questioning the necessity of NATO, a military bloc designed to contain an adversary that no
longer exists.
Russiagate 1.0 – Election collusion
Hillary Clinton saw an opportunity to discredit Trump by concocting a conspiracy theory.
Declassified notes prove that CIA Director John Brennan briefed then-President Barack Obama
about how Clinton fabricated the Russian-Trump conspiracy theory as "a means of distracting
the public from her use of a private email server" and "to vilify Donald Trump by
stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service."
The source of 'Russiagate' was the infamous Steele Dossier. In 2016, the Clinton campaign
hired Fusion GPS to find dirt on Trump, which was subcontracted to former British spook
Christopher Steele. What could possibly go wrong with hiring the former head of the Russia Desk
at MI6, with a job description that also entailed disseminating disinformation?
Former National Security Agency Technical Director Bill Binney proved that the Democratic
National Committee servers were never hacked, and the Mueller report drove the final stake
through the heart of the Steele Dossier. Yet, Steele's outrageous claims based on hearsay and
third-hand gossip should have been dismissed immediately.
An ongoing investigation explores why the FBI and CIA did not reject the flawed report. In
his congressional testimony to explain how this fake dossier led to the surveillance of Trump,
former FBI Director James Comey claimed 245 times that he "can't recall," "can't
remember," and "doesn't know." Yet, the narrative of Russiagate lives on, as much of
the media wants it to be true.
Any opposition to the narrative could be dismissed with an ad hominem attack and accusations
of carrying water for Putin. The political left – traditionally skeptical of the
intrusive influence of the security state and a compliant media manufacturing consent –
reinvented itself by denouncing criticism of the CIA as blasphemy and demands for press
accountability as an attack on democracy.
Russiagate 2.0 – the Biden scandal
The Biden laptop scandal, breaking immediately before the presidential election, sparked a
swift return to the old Russiagate formula. The pay-to-play corruption scheme of the Biden
family was not the most interesting revelation; rather, it was the rapid response of the
security state and the media.
The story began when Hunter Biden, Joe's son, left his laptop at a computer repair shop for
over 90 days, and ownership of the laptop was then transferred to the repairman in accordance
with the agreement. The technician, concerned about the content, contacted the FBI. Due to the
lack of response, the technician then sent a copy of the hard drive to Rudy Giuliani, the
former mayor of New York and current lawyer of Trump. Giuliani shared some of the content with
the New York Post, which published the alleged evidence of corruption.
Twitter and Facebook reacted immediately with censorship. The newspaper's story could not be
shared by anyone and the New York Post, one of the oldest publications in the US, had its
Twitter account suspended. One after another, various media outlets dismissed the article as
Russian disinformation to justify why Facebook and Twitter had censored the news.
Thus, Facebook and Twitter could then refer to the media reports dismissing it as a Russian
disinformation campaign. Subsequently, the circular reporting created a false confirmation.
Fifty former intelligence officers who signed a letter claiming the incident was probably
Russian disinformation further substantiated this narrative.
Unlike the first Russiagate, the narrative of Russiagate 2.0 simply made no sense. Never
mind the lack of any evidence – there was not even a theory. This time it was not even
possible to invent a hypothetical situation where Russia played a role. It is proven that
Hunter Biden handed the laptop to the repairman, and the repairman handed the content to the
FBI and Giuliani. The accusation of 'Russian disinformation' made little sense when the
material is real and there is no possible role for Russia in the scandal.
Can the
democratic process be restored?
Democracy demands that the process is more important than the outcome. Yet, this logic was
challenged with the premise that a Trump presidency entails the dismantlement of democracy.
Then the end justifies the means, and journalists increasingly deemed their responsibility to
report in a manner that would bring down a man they see as an 'Orange Hitler'.
With the return of the old guard, the utility of the Russian boogeyman in US politics can
come to an end. Can the Humpty Dumpty of democratic institutions be put together once Trump is
removed, or will the goalpost merely be moved by going after future Trumps?
Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders, 'Moscow Mitch' McConnell, and Tulsi Gabbard have all been
accused of the grave crime of being agents or stooges of the Kremlin for failing to fall in
line. Whistleblowers and publishers like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange were denounced by
security institutions and the media as Russian agents.
Will a Biden presidency put an end to Russiagate and restore democratic institutions, or
intensify the neo-McCarthyism of the past four years to consolidate power?
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
No matter who "won" the U.S. election, what will not change is the capitalist organization
of the country's economy.
The great majority of enterprises will continue to be owned and operated by a small minority
of Americans. They will continue to use their positions atop the capitalist system to expand
their wealth, "economize their labor costs," and thereby deepen the United States' inequalities
of wealth and income.
The employer class will continue to use its wealth to buy, control, and shape the nation's
politics to prevent the employee class from challenging their ownership and operation of the
economic system. Indeed, for a very long time, they have made sure that (1) only two political
parties dominate the government and (2) both enthusiastically commit to preserving and
supporting the capitalist system. For capitalism, the question of which party wins matters only
to how capitalism will be supported, not whether that support will be a top governmental
priority.
No matter who won, the private sector and the government will continue their shared failure
to overcome capitalism's socially destructive instability. Economic crashes ("downturns,"
"busts," "recessions," and "depressions") will continue to occur on average every four to seven
years, disrupting our economy and society. Already in this young century, we have endured,
across Republicans and Democrats, three crashes (2000, 2008, and 2020) in 20 years: true to the
historic average. Nothing capitalism tried in the past ever stopped or overcame its
instability. Nothing either party now proposes offers the slightest chance of doing that in the
future.
No matter who won, the historic undoing of the New Deal after 1945 will continue. The GOP
and Democrats will both keep reversing the 1930s' reduction of U.S. wealth and income
inequalities (forced from below by the Congress of Industrial Organizations [CIO], socialists,
and communists). As usual, the GOP reverses these gains for Americans further and faster than
Democrats, but both parties have condoned and managed the upward redistribution of wealth and
income since 1945.
The GOP will likely celebrate explicitly the wealthy they serve so slavishly. The Democrats
will likely moan occasionally about inequality while serving the wealthy quietly or implicitly.
The GOP will "economize on government costs" by cutting social programs for average people and
the poor. The Democrats will expand those programs while carefully avoiding any questioning,
let alone challenging, of capitalism.
No matter who won, what U.S. politics lacks is real choice. Both major parties function as
cheerleaders for capitalism under all circumstances, even when a killer pandemic coincides with
a major capitalist crash. Real political choice would require a party that criticizes
capitalism and offers a path toward social transition beyond capitalism. Countless polls prove
that millions of U.S. citizens want to consider socialist criticisms of capitalism and
socialist alternatives to it. The mass of voters for Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
and other socialists provided yet more evidence. However, the system allowed and enabled a
near-fascistic right wing to take over the GOP and the presidency. At the same time, it aided
and abetted the Democrats in excluding a socialist from even running for that presidency. Trump
and Biden are long-standing, well-known cheerleaders for capitalism. Sanders was, in contrast,
a critic.
A new political party that offered systemic criticisms of capitalism and advocated for a
transition to a worker-coop based economic system would bring real choice into U.S. politics.
It would place before the electorate a basic question of vital importance: what mix of
capitalist and worker-coop organized enterprises do you wish to work for, buy from, and live
with in the United States? Voters could thereby genuinely participate in deciding the range of
job descriptions from which each of us will become able to choose. Will we mostly have to
accept positions as employees whose jobs are designed exclusively by and for employers? Or will
all job descriptions include at least two basic tasks: a specific function within an
enterprise's division of labor plus an equal share (alongside all other enterprise workers) of
the powers to design and direct the enterprise as a whole?
Any community that wishes to call itself a "democracy" for more than rhetorical,
self-promotional reasons should welcome a one-person, one-vote decision-making process
governing how work is organized.
Most adults spend most of their lives at work. How that work is organized shapes how their
lives are lived and what skills, aptitudes, appetites, and relationships they develop. Their
work influences their other social roles as friends, lovers, spouses, and parents. In
capitalism, the work experience of the vast majority (employees) is shaped and controlled by a
small minority (employers) to secure the latter's profit, wealth accumulation, and reproduction
as the socially dominant minority. In a real democracy, the economy would have to be
democratically reorganized. Workplace decisions would be made on the basis of one person, one
vote inside each enterprise. Parallel, similarly democratic decision-making would govern
residential communities surrounding and interacting with workplaces. Workplace and residential
democracies would have significant influences over one another's decisions. In short, genuine
economic democracy would be the necessary partner to political democracy.
Many "capitalist" societies today include significant sites of enterprises organized as
worker cooperatives. What they need but lack are allied political parties to secure the
legislation, legal precedents, and administrative decisions to protect worker coops and
facilitate their growth. Early capitalist enterprises and enclaves within feudalism likewise
had to find or build political parties for the same reasons. Anti-feudal and pro-capitalist
parties contested with feudal lords and their monarchs first to protect capitalist enterprises'
existence and then to facilitate their growth. Eventually, pro-capitalist parties undertook
revolutions to displace feudalism and monarchies in favor of parliaments in which those
capitalist parties could and did dominate.
Today, pro-capitalist parties publicly deny but privately fear that their political
dominance is threatened. Mass disaffection from capitalism is growing. One reason is the
relocation of capitalism's growth from its old centers (Western Europe, North America, and
Japan) to new centers (China, India, and Brazil). Globalization -- the polite but confused term
for that relocation -- generates economic declines in the old centers that destabilize
communities unable to admit let alone prepare for them. There, vanishing job opportunities,
incomes, and social services provoke increasing questions and challenges confronting
capitalism. These are now leading to broad and growing disaffection from the capitalist system.
Polls and other signs of that disaffection abound. In the United States, on the one hand, the
Republican Party lurched to the right. Trump-type quasi-fascism wants to impose a nationalist
turn to "save" U.S. capitalism. On the other hand, the old, pro-capitalist establishment
running the Democratic Party blocked Bernie Sanders and other socialists from any real power or
voice. Saving capitalism was and also remains that establishment's goal.
Capitalism eventually defeated and displaced feudalism by combining micro-level construction
and expansion of capitalist enterprises with macro-focused political parties finding ways to
protect those enterprises and facilitate their growth. Capitalists' profits funded their
parties' activities.
This article was produced byEconomy for All, a
project of the Independent Media Institute.
Polling should have died in 2016. People seem to think polling will die after the 2020
repeat of 2016.
It won't.
Polling is too useful a tool for manipulating people - the herd effect.
People will be mimics (and herdable) until evolution or the Apocalypse carries the day,
whichever comes first.
It will be about 5 minutes from now when we again hear the words, "polls show...".
On the eve of the election, for example, Politico published a fawning
profile of Congresswoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming, who is laying the groundwork to become
speaker of the House in a future Republican majority. An ideological mirror of her father, she
and her cohort long for a restoration of the early 2000s Bushite foreign policy of
globe-trotting regime change and democratic nation building administered by a national security
state in Washington D.C.
Their cause, however, is as infertile as their past efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is
because despite his poor record, Donald Trump has created a permanent and growing disconnect
between the War Party and the GOP.
There is no need to sugarcoat how Donald Trump has squandered four years of opportunity in
foreign policy. His promises to bring the troops home have not materialized and remain
"promises" to be kept at a permanently delayed date. He has intensified U.S. interference in
Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and Venezuela. He's overseen the continued deterioration of relations
with Russia, while leaving North Korea at the diplomatic altar. And he's brought the United
States and Iran into a first exchange of direct, open conflict.
A big-picture assessment, however, requires not looking at how Trump failed to bring what
restrainers wanted, but how he succeeded in destroying what they needed gone.
Trump's election caused the departure of the most loathsome of the war peddlers -- including
Bill Kristol, David Frum, Jamie Kirchick, Steve Schmidt, and Max Boot -- from Republican ranks.
United under the banner of "Never Trump," for four years they used every inch of column space,
every CNN interview, and a small fortune to cleave off a portion of the Republican base that
they believed would be happy to return to the world of 2006.
The result? Exit polls show Trump winning 93 percent of the Republican vote, a higher
percentage than he won in 2016. As an election post-mortem summarized,
Never Trump hawks "basically do not exist anywhere outside of the Washington Beltway or cable
news green rooms -- and after tonight's results, we shouldn't have to see them on TV or even
see their tweets ever again."
That the average American has the same respect for the War Party's minions as they have for
a tobacco executive should come as no surprise.
Polling continually shows a supermajority of Americans ready and eager to withdraw from
Iraq and Afghanistan. That includes 77 percent of Republicans, 40 percent of whom want to
decrease military engagement with the rest of the world as well. These voters are a vanguard
that will stop any future Bushite ascendance, whether from Nikki Haley or the spawn of Dick
Cheney.
Slowly, Republican members of Congress are beginning to reflect the wishes of their voters.
One year ago this month, I wrote about the
emerging cadre of antiwar conservatives in the House of Representatives. While most broke
under pressure to support Trump's escalation with Iran, not all did. It's a more active and
vocal Republican contingent than has existed for decades and it's growing fast. Following
Tuesday's results, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming will join Rand Paul and Mike Lee in the U.S.
Senate, while Nancy Mace of South Carolina will lock arms with Representatives Thomas Massie
and Matt Gaetz. Both women are vetted and proven war skeptics who are determined to challenge
Liz Cheney at every turn.
Beyond government, the creative destruction brought by the Trump presidency in conservative
circles has given a new lease on life to restrainers long excluded from the Beltway's
incestuous institutions. That includes the continued ascension of publications like The
American Conservative , which has become a wheelhouse for the
most important foreign policy conversations happening on the right; Tucker Carlson, whose
program has become the highest rated in cable news history, no doubt aided by his antiwar
opening monologues; the Quincy Institute, which is dragging other think tanks kicking and
screaming into dialogues about shifting U.S. positioning overseas; and activist organizations
like BringOurTroopsHome.US , a
collection of right-of-center veterans who are lobbying to end the country's unconstitutional
wars.
The American empire was formed over the course of a century, and currently encompasses over
850 overseas military bases. Hundreds of billions of dollars are exchanged every year through
facets of the military-industrial complex, while thousands of very powerful people make their
cushy salaries off the current imperialistic system (and will fight tooth and nail to keep it
that way).
One election was never going to change that. Donald Trump was never going to be a miracle
worker. But he's kicked in the door and let us in, even if we wish he'd tidied up better before
he left.
We have principled leaders in government. We have the infrastructure. And most importantly,
we have the voters. Liz Cheney and her misbegotten hangers-on may not realize it yet, but their
heyday has long past. It's our party now and we're going to bring America home.
Hunter DeRensis is the communications director of BringOurTroopsHome.US and a regular
contributor to The American Conservative . Follow him on Twitter
@HunterDeRensis.
A vote for Trump is a vote against America's ruling class
On Saturday night, President Trump held a campaign
rally in Butler, Pa. Butler is a town 35 miles north of Pittsburgh, and it's like a lot of
places you'll find in this country once you head inland from the coasts.
Butler is a former industrial town -- they made Pullman rail cars there for many years --
but it's been losing population for decades. There are still a lot of nice people in Butler and
for $60,000 or so, you can buy a decent house there. It's a place you might be happy in.
But our professional class is not impressed by Butler. They don't consider Butler, Pa. or
places like it to be the future. To them, places like Butler are embarrassing relics of a past
best forgotten. The men of Butler may have built this country, and they did, but they mean
nothing to our leaders now. You can be certain of that because when large numbers of people in
Butler started killing themselves with narcotics, no one in Washington or New York or Los
Angeles said a word about it.
Trump supporters hold up four fingers as they chant 'Four More Years' at President Trump's
campaign rally in Butler, Pa. Saturday. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
There have now been so many opioid deaths in Butler that a few years ago, residents built an
overdose memorial in the middle of town. MSNBC didn't cover that.
So given all of that, it was interesting how the people around Butler feel about Donald
Trump. Between 10,000 and 15,000 people came out to see him Saturday night, depending on whose
estimate you believe. Pictures of the rally site showed a sea of people obscuring the horizon,
the kind of image you would see of a visit from the pope.
When was the last time a political speech drew that many people? Well, the media didn't ask.
Instead, they attacked the rally as a "superspreader" event. OK, we'll leave the epidemiology
to CNN.
But the questions still hung in the air. Why did all those people come? They must have known
that Donald Trump is the most evil man who hass ever lived. They've heard that every day for
five years. They know that people who support Donald Trump are also evil, they're bigots,
they're morons, they're racist cult members. They know that Americans have been fired from
their jobs for supporting Donald Trump, not to mention kicked off social media, belittled by
their kids' teachers and shunned by decent society. Only losers and freaks support Donald
Trump.
People in Butler knew all of that. But on Saturday, they went to the Donald Trump rally,
anyway. Why exactly did they do that? We should be pondering that question deeply as we watch
Tuesday night's returns and as we live through the aftermath of them.
Millions of Americans sincerely love Donald Trump. They love him in spite of everything
they've heard. They love him, often, in spite of himself. They're not deluded. They know
exactly who Trump is. They love him anyway.
Trump addresses the crowd at his rally in Butler, Pa. (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)
They love Donald Trump because no one else loves them. The country they built, the country
their ancestors fought for over hundreds of years, has left them to die in unfashionable little
towns, mocked and despised by the sneering halfwits with finance degrees -- but no actual
skills -- who seem to run everything all of a sudden.
Whatever Donald Trump's faults, he is better than the rest of the people in charge. At least
he doesn't hate them for their weakness. Donald Trump, in other words, is and has always been a
living indictment of the people who run this country. That was true four years ago when he came
out of nowhere to win the presidency. And it's every bit as true right now, maybe even more
true than it's ever been. It will remain true regardless of whether Donald Trump wins
reelection.
Trump rose because they failed. It's as simple as that. If the people in charge had done a
halfway decent job with the country they inherited, if they cared about anything other than
themselves, even for just a moment, Donald Trump would still be hosting "Celebrity Apprentice."
But they didn't. Instead, they were incompetent and narcissistic and cruel and relentlessly
dishonest. They wrecked what they didn't build, and they lied about it. They hurt anyone who
told the truth about what they were doing. That's all true. We all watched.
America is still a great country, the best in the world, but our ruling class is disgusting.
A vote for Trump is a vote against them. That's what's going on in those pictures from Butler.
That's what's going on in this country.
"... There was no blue tide. Nor was there a red tide. ..."
"... Trump outperformed 2016 in every demographic category except white males. ..."
"... The Republican increase in the House plus Republicans holding the line in the Senate means if Biden wins - McConnell is 99% certain to not go along with a stimulus in February just to ensure that the blue states' bleeding budgets don't get shored up and to set up maximum pain during the Biden administration - as a prelude to the 2024 presidential race. ..."
"... There will not be scrutiny of tech companies unless Trump wins. The Google antitrust will fizzle out with Biden/Harris in office. ..."
"... Health care remains a quagmire. If Biden had gone Medicare For All, or even Bernie, I would have voted for either, holding my nose. The ongoing Democrat sellout to the health care industry continues. ..."
"... If Biden wins, the Democrat party won't change its ways. ..."
2) There was no blue tide. Nor was there a red tide. I said it would be close, and this
present situation absolutely qualifies as close. I now expect this to drag on for weeks -
possibly until December.
3) COVID policies - lockdowns and what not - are not even close to universally supported.
The PMCs like it, the conservatives don't.
4) Trump outperformed 2016 in every demographic category except white males. Not that he
is majority supported, that he got more votes from these groups in 2020 than in 2016 - from
black men, from black women, from white women, from Hispanic men, from Hispanic women and
from the "other" category: source
What can we say for sure from this election?
a) There won't be a new stimulus unless Trump wins. Pelosi not taking the $1.8T proposed
in October (vs. the $2.8T the Democrats wanted and vs. the $1T first proposed by McConnell)
was a huge mistake.
The Republican increase in the House plus Republicans holding the line in the Senate means
if Biden wins - McConnell is 99% certain to not go along with a stimulus in February just to
ensure that the blue states' bleeding budgets don't get shored up and to set up maximum pain
during the Biden administration - as a prelude to the 2024 presidential race.
b) There will not be scrutiny of tech companies unless Trump wins. The Google antitrust
will fizzle out with Biden/Harris in office.
c) Health care remains a quagmire. If Biden had gone Medicare For All, or even Bernie, I
would have voted for either, holding my nose. The ongoing Democrat sellout to the health care
industry continues.
d) If Biden wins, the Democrat party won't change its ways. It won't go Medicare For All.
It won't return to its blue collar roots. It will continue to be the apologists for
Republican deregulation pushes.
e) Identitarian politics doesn't work. If Biden wins, this may be glossed over but Trump's
improvement vs. 2016 - even in a record turnout year - means that the identitarian politics
issue resonates only with the PMC crowd. As Krystal of Rising notes: it is stupid to focus on
this issue when the PMC crowd is pro-Democrat no matter what.
Things which are less clear:
Will the Republican party understand and acknowledge what Trump has done? Call it populism
or Trumpism or whatever - Trump has breached the Democrat stranglehold on minorities and the
lower classes. Anyone who saw any of the rallies in the past 5 weeks knows the base Trump
inspired is not going to disappear, but the old-money stranglehold on the Republican party is
not to be underestimated.
Strategically:
I see this election as positive. So many sacred cows gored. So many people - regardless of
who wins President - are going to be energized/angry. This hopefully focuses attention on the
huge list of things which need to be fixed so that there is a chance they will be.
First, those people who will agree to answer questions from a stranger. Who does that? Would you do that? I would never even
pick up the phone from a number I do not know.
Second, people lie. Not a whole lot of people like to admit to a stranger that yes, yes I am a racist.
Incurable problems. And they should be totally ignored.
Arne , November 5, 2020 2:36 pm
"who will agree to answer questions from a stranger"
The thing is, the results show that Trump voters are less likely to answer questions from strangers then Biden voters. Or that
Trump voters are more likely to lie to pollsters.
I observe that I think that this systematic issue in polling highlights a problem for Biden's desire to be a president for
all Americans. How do you govern people who do not want to communicate with you?
The elites may control who gets nominated but no matter how flawed or repugnant their
candidate is or how obvious that the candidate was chosen for them the flocks that follow the
candidates act as if they did the choosing.
Trump was given 10 times the free advertising than all the other primary candidates
combined and yet his followers think they picked him.
And Biden will go down in history as the candidate who got more popular votes than any
other candidate ever has and yet he is about as popular as a hemorrhoid.
Stories began circulating last night about the official ballots being watermarked. This
looks like it is true! The watermark is detectable under 640nm wavelength and also the
individual printers of the ballots have the same micro dot signature so fraudulent ballots
will be easy to detect and investigate. All printers have a micro dot signature that is like
a fingerprint for that specific printer. Every ballot, real or fake, can be traced back to
the source. This could get very interesting
One of the best articles on ZH in a while. The elites are so full of hubris, they behave
as if the state of affairs since the post-WWII era has always been the state of affairs
throughout history and are immutable. They believe that they are cause of America's
dominance, not the individuals who built this country on whose goodwill they are now quickly
draining.
I think we're like Rome. Currency debasement, no border security, massively corrupt
politicians, most of population on welfare, and games and circuses to distract from the
rot.
The elites will soon be surprised how quickly things will decline, just as shocked as the
Romans when the Visigoths came through the city walls and looted the Imperial City in 410
AD.
Max21c , 45 minutes ago
It's a mix between Nazi Germany and its criminality and thievery and persecution
machinery, and Bolshevist Russia and its criminality and thievery and persecution machinery
and many third world banana republics and their criminality and thievery and political
persecution machinery.
Face it Washingtonians are evil.
ZeroTruth , 5 minutes ago
I had a few drinks in Vegas years back with a guy that said he was some variety of
congress critter. The two things I remember him saying was that his entire time in office was
spent drumming up money for PACs and chasing personal wealth. He also told me DC was
Hollywood for ugly people.
sbin , 35 minutes ago
CCCP is similar in decrepit old party hacks ruining everything.
Unfortunately American exceptional lunatics will try to destroy the world before excepting
reality.
Never been a group so corrupt and delusional with so much destructive weaponry.
Dr Strangelove is more appropriate.
goatsman , 42 minutes ago
Tsarist Russia, 1917?
ZeroTruth , 23 minutes ago
Oceania.
I'll tell you exactly how this all plays out:
The US petrofiat is backed solely on our reputation and a fleet of aging nukes that may or
may not work. Americucks look like complete idiots abroad and have lost the respect of nearly
every nation on Earth. The dumping of the US petrodollar is an imperative to China, Russia
and damn near everyone else. A new currency will rise up to take its place soon and then its
open season on Americuck, which will have already been destroyed internally by economic
collapse, massive homelessness, poverty, starvation and crime. The true owners of the US will
want their property and will come and claim it with little to no fight as the Americuck
people will be so beat down and demoralized they will have lost the will to do anything,
which has already happened as the Americuck people refuse to take up arms against the
government that oppressed them and the domestic terrorists that now control major US cities.
Americucks will be eliminated en masse and a new nation will be formed, probably a mix of
south Americans and Chinese. Whites will be eradicated and remembered by history as trash
that was removed by the new heroes of history. The entirety of the MIC will abandon the US,
as it has already done...the invasion over our wide open southern border is ample evidence of
the oath breakers intent. I suspect the MIC will form its own nation, in league with
technocrats.
You will most likely see friends and loved ones perish before your very eyes, see our once
great cities burn and foreign troops eliminate Americuck sheeple.
That's the future, all because the Americuck sheeple refuse to take up arms against their
lords and masters: Goldman Sachs, JPM Chase and Morgan Stanley.
Americuck...land of the fee and home of the slave.
Is-Be , 15 minutes ago
Imagine a world without Anglo-Saxons; It's easy if you try. Look at Zimbabwe.
RKKA , 4 minutes ago
In the summer of 1941, the 4th Panzer Division of Heinz Guderian, one of the most talented
German tank generals, broke through to the Belarusian town of Krichev. Parts of the 13th
Soviet Army were retreating. Only one gunner, Nikolai Sirotinin, did not retreat - very
young, short, thin.
On that day, it was necessary to cover the withdrawal of troops. "There will be two people
with a cannon here," said the battery commander. Nikolai volunteered. The second was the
commander himself.
On the morning of July 17, a column of German tanks appeared on the highway.
Nikolai took up a position on the hill right on the field. The cannon was sinking in the
high rye, but he could clearly see the highway and the bridge over the river. When the lead
tank reached the bridge, Nikolai knocked it out with the first shot. The second shell set
fire to the armored personnel carrier that closed the column.
We must stop here. Because it is still not entirely clear why Nikolai was left alone at
the cannon. But there are versions. He apparently had just the task - to create a "traffic
jam" on the bridge, knocking out the head car of the Nazis. The lieutenant at the bridge and
adjusted the fire, and then, disappeared. It is reliably known that the lieutenant was
wounded and then he left towards the withdrawing positions. There is an assumption that
Nikolai had to move away, having completed the task. But ... he had 60 rounds. And he
stayed!
Two tanks tried to move the lead tank off the bridge, but they were also hit. The armored
vehicle tried to cross the river not across the bridge. But she got stuck in a swampy shore,
where another shell found her. Nikolai shot and shot, knocking out tank after tank ...
Guderian's tanks rested on Nikolai Sirotinin, like the Chinese wall, like the Brest
fortress. Already 11 tanks and 6 armored personnel carriers were on fire! For almost two
hours of this strange battle, the Germans could not understand where the gun was firing from.
And when we reached the position of Nikolai, he had only three shells left. The Germans
offered him to surrender. Nikolai responded by firing at them with a carbine.
This last battle was short-lived ...
11 tanks and 7 armored vehicles, 57 soldiers and officers were lost by the Nazis after the
battle, where they were blocked by the Russian soldier Nikolai Sirotinin.
The inscription on the monument: "Here at dawn on July 17, 1941 entered into combat with a
column of fascist tanks and in a two-hour battle repulsed all enemy attacks, senior artillery
sergeant Nikolai Vladimirovich Sirotinin, who gave his life for the freedom and independence
of our Motherland."
"After all, he is a Russian soldier, is such admiration necessary?" These words were
written down in his diary by Chief Lieutenant of the 4th Panzer Division Henfeld: "July 17,
1941. Sokolnichi, near Krichev. An unknown Russian soldier was buried in the evening. He
alone stood at the cannon, shot a convoy of our tanks and infantry for a long time, and died.
Everyone was amazed at his courage ... Oberst (Colonel) before the grave said that if all the
soldiers of the Fuehrer fought like this Russian soldier, they would have conquered the whole
world! Three times they fired volleys from rifles. After all, he is a Russian soldier, is
such admiration necessary? "
Ordinary people were ready to defend and die for the USSR. And who is Gorbachev, who
destroyed the USSR. A traitor who betrayed everything and everyone. A stupid dilettante who
imagines himself a world-class politician. The main drawback of the USSR was that the power
was too concentrated in the hands of one person, who was trusted without question. But when
people realized where he was leading the country, it was too late.
DeeDeeTwo , 45 minutes ago
The elites, Big Tech, Media and Deep State threw the kitchen sink at this election and did
not move the needle. Regardless of who is next President, nothing changes. This is a tribute
to the stability of the American system. In fact, the pendulum is swinging against the
subversives who are becoming increasingly reckless and discredited.
TBT or not TBT , 46 minutes ago
What did Huxley call the future country depicted in Brave New World?
Stories began circulating last night about the official ballots being watermarked. This
looks like it is true! The watermark is detectable under 640nm wavelength and also the
individual printers of the ballots have the same micro dot signature so fraudulent ballots will
be easy to detect and investigate.
All printers have a micro dot signature that is like a
fingerprint for that specific printer. Every ballot, real or fake, can be traced back to the
source. This could get very interesting
The "peaceful but fiery protests" in Portland are just a small taste of the delightful
entertainment that we will get to enjoy if somehow Trump's election fraud prevails over the
establishment election fraud. Who is so dull that they don't want more of that?
Riots are good for Americans. Gets them off their couches for a few hours.
Jinn, ''the most valuable to TPDB, will still win, who can handle the herd''...
i would just take this pen and flatly say that everything you say is pure immaculate BS but
then I realized I actually didn't catch what you mean.
Please what you mean?
JaimeInTexas @42: "The Antrim County Clerk's Office has been working around the clock to
identify what caused the inaccuracies."
Circe: "It was the Russians!"
Just so everyone knows, large numbers of electronic voting machines in the US can only be
audited and verified electronically, which is to say they cannot be audited or verified at
all.
In most elections, the majority of votes are cast "down the ticket" - meaning, a voter
supports both party's presidential nominee and state Congressional candidates. In fact,
according to
Pew Research , "overwhelming shares of voters who are supporting Trump and Biden say they
are also supporting the same-party candidate for Senate."
Typically, this means that that the number of votes for a presidential candidate and that
party's Senate candidates are relatively close.
Twitter user "US Rebel" (@USRebellion1776), however, found that the number of votes cast for
Joe Biden far exceeds those cast for that state's Senate candidates in swing states , while
those cast for Trump and GOP Senators remains far closer.
In Michigan , for example, there was a difference of just 7,131 votes between Trump and GOP
candidate John James , yet the difference between Joe Biden and Democratic candidate Gary
Peters was a staggering 69,093 .
In Georgia , there was an 818 vote difference between Trump and the GOP Senator, vs. a
95,000 difference between Biden and the Democratic candidate for Senator.
Yet, in two non-swing states , there was "no massive flood of mysterious empty Biden votes,"
leading US Rebel to suggest "It's fraud."
In Wyoming, the difference on the Democratic side is is just 725 votes, while in Montana the
difference is 27,457.
What's going on here? If it were "never-Trumpers" pairing Biden with their GOP Congressional
picks? If so, we would expect fewer votes for Trump than GOP Senators. We're open to
suggestions. Biff says: November
5, 2020 at 1:01 am GMT • 1.1 days ago • 100 Words ↑
and it's suspicious that the president was leading in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan,
and other states when the authorities decided they couldn't finish counting votes until
tomorrow.
Well, they needed time to put the fix in. This is exactly as expected – Trump rolling
to a clear victory, and then an abrupt stop of the counting process.
If by "good" election you mean a colossal nightmare that revealed the fatal fractures
between the vote-rigging by the left and the honest and sincere support for our Constitutional
Republic by traditionalists, why yes. anon [773] • Disclaimer says: November 5,
2020 at 5:23 am GMT • 22.0 hours ago ↑
I'm not sure how anyone can call a massive fraud a "Good Election". A Biden win will be the
shame of America, it'll mean we are now officially a massively corrupt third world country that
can't even run a legitimate election.
A TrumpTV cable channel would be great, but he might have a hard time attracting
advertisers. Which means he'd probably have to launch a YouTube channel, or just hosts it on
his own website, which would make it hard for him to attract broadcasting talent.
Interesting case study on vote fraud occurs at the local level. I posted it on an earlier
thread. What is staggering is how many people were involved.
Chicago, however, is known for its fires, and there was a roaring one there in 1982 that
resulted in one of the largest voter fraud prosecutions ever conducted by the U.S.
Department of Justice. The telltale smoke arose out of one of the closest governor's races
in Illinois history; and as for the fire, the U.S.
Attorney in Chicago at the time,
Daniel Webb, estimated that at least 100,000 fraudulent votes (10 percent of all votes in
the city) had been cast.[2] Sixty-five individuals were indicted for federal election
crimes, and all but two (one found incompetent to stand trial and another who died) were
convicted. [3]
"... Trump's campaign claimed Wednesday he still had a path to victory if he keeps Pennsylvania and somehow Arizona comes back to him. But even if Trump does lose, it may be a blessing in disguise for Republicans. ..."
"... The result has crushed Democratic expectations of a clean sweep. It wasn't a landslide win against an unpopular president, as we had been told so confidently for months. ..."
"... If Biden wins, it will be by the narrowest margin. And all the hundreds of millions spent on retaking the Senate came to nothing, with the Republicans looking to hold onto their lead. The top targets, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Lindsey Graham, survived easily. ..."
"... The failure means that in 2022, the House is more likely to revert to Republican control, setting up a lame-duck presidency. ..."
"... Unfortunately, nothing can be done to stop a President Biden-Harris repeat of the geopolitical errors of the Obama presidency, such as appeasing China and Iran's mullahs and signing onto the Paris climate accord. But a President Biden in cognitive decline will sooner or later be replaced by his unpopular, untested vice president, Kamala Harris. Saddled with a recession and policies that will only exacerbate economic decline, the next four years will hobble Democrats. ..."
"... Whoever wins this election, the result is a humiliation for the Trump-deranged media and the tame pollsters who provide them with the justification for their dishonest political narrative. ..."
"... Whoever wins, this election has exposed the frauds and liars who pose as our elites, and half of America won't forget it. ..."
"... In a press conference in Philadelphia Wednesday, Giuliani laid out one clear anomaly in which, contrary to Pennsylvania law, Republican election observers were denied the right to oversee the counting of 120,000 ballots by being forced to stand 20 to 30 feet away from where they were being counted. ..."
"... In one case, a woman claiming to be an election volunteer in Michigan's Clark County claimed on video she had discovered a box of 500 ballots outside the counting facility from people who were not on the voter rolls. ..."
The president has every right to ensure electoral laws are enforced to prevent fraud. In
fact, he owes it to the 68 million deplorables who voted for him. Let's be real. Goliath was never going to let David breeze through the rematch .
The provinces, for whom President Trump
is an instrument, not an end in himself, were never going to have an easy time winning the 2020
election against the amassed might of the Democratic Party, the "Fake News" media and allied
pollsters, Big Tech, woke billionaires and the celebrity class, who united to stamp out the
barbarian orange emperor.
The "chumps" and "ugly folk," as Joe Biden calls them, came out in their
glorious millions from the American heartland on Election Day and now we will see if people
power prevails, if the nationalist populist movement enabled by Donald Trump, but not defined
by him, lives to fight another day against the corrupt globalists represented by the sad husk
of Biden.
It boils down to Trump's belief that the Democrats perpetrated
widespread voter fraud in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and elsewhere to steal the
election.
While even those in his own party are urging him to lose gracefully, the president has every
right to ensure electoral laws are enforced to prevent fraud. In fact, he owes it to the 68 million deplorables who voted for him. To that end, Trump has turned to an old ally, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, to lead a
heroic legal challenge .
In Wisconsin, 300 ballots went missing when the Willow Township municipal clerk went home
sick and no one could find her, the Washington Post reported. The ballots eventually turned up
yesterday, with 157 votes for Trump and 114 for Biden.
In Arizona -- which was called early for Biden on election night, but the Trump campaign
still says they can win -- a "data error" claimed that 95 percent of votes had been counted
yesterday when only 86 percent had been, and the remainder reportedly were from Trump-heavy
counties.
So you can see that, in such a close election, Trump's concerns are not frivolous. Fraud is corrosive, but so is claiming fraud where there is none. We will see where the
lawsuits land. In any case, Biden as much as declared victory yesterday, saying that by the time the count
is finished, "I believe I will be the winner . . . we are winning in enough
states to reach the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency."
Trump's campaign claimed Wednesday he still had a path to victory if he keeps Pennsylvania
and somehow Arizona comes back to him. But even if Trump does lose, it may be a blessing in disguise for Republicans.
The result has crushed Democratic expectations of a clean sweep. It wasn't a landslide win
against an unpopular president, as we had been told so confidently for months.
If Biden wins, it will be by the narrowest margin. And all the hundreds of millions spent on retaking the Senate came to
nothing, with the Republicans looking to hold onto their lead. The top targets, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Lindsey Graham, survived easily.
The fatal miscalculations of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in cynically refusing to negotiate
on the latest stimulus bill have cost the Democrats dearly in the House, where they have gone
backward by at least six seats. They did not manage to get rid of a single Republican. So much
for the blue wave.
The failure means that in 2022, the House is more likely to revert to Republican control,
setting up a lame-duck presidency.
The Democrats won't be able to pack the Supreme Court, abolish the Electoral College or make
DC and Puerto Rico states. They will struggle to impose the Green New Deal.
Unfortunately, nothing can be done to stop a President Biden-Harris repeat of the
geopolitical errors of the Obama presidency, such as appeasing China and Iran's mullahs and
signing onto the Paris climate accord. But a President Biden in cognitive decline will sooner or later be replaced by his
unpopular, untested vice president, Kamala Harris. Saddled with a recession and policies that will only exacerbate economic decline, the next
four years will hobble Democrats.
Their flaws and hypocrisy will be on full display, with a good chance of the 2024
presidential race being won by one of the new generation of Republican heirs to Trumpism.
Whoever wins this election, the result is a humiliation for the Trump-deranged media and the
tame pollsters who provide them with the justification for their dishonest political
narrative.
Let history record that on the Sunday before the election, the New York Times declared that
"all 15" of their columnists suffer from mandatory Trump Derangement Syndrome.
"All 15 of our columnists explain what the past four years have cost America" was the
introduction to a carnival of wokesplaining.
That's what you get when you fire opinion editors who publish conservatives. Whoever wins, this election has exposed the frauds and liars who pose as our elites, and
half of America won't forget it.
In a press conference in Philadelphia Wednesday, Giuliani
laid out one clear anomaly in which, contrary to Pennsylvania law, Republican election
observers were denied the right to oversee the counting of 120,000 ballots by being forced to
stand 20 to 30 feet away from where they were being counted.
"They were never able to see the ballot itself, never able to see if it was properly
postmarked, properly addressed, properly signed on the outside . . . this went on
for 20 hours. While all of you thought there was some kind of legitimate count going on here in
Philadelphia, it was totally illegitimate."
Giuliani's team has also launched
a lawsuit in Wisconsin , where he says that, after election observers had gone home, "at 3
or 4 in the morning about 120,000 ballots appeared . . . and they all got
counted."
The Trump campaign also filed
a lawsuit in Michigan Wednesday, with campaign manager Bill
Stepien claiming Republican observers were denied "meaningful access to numerous counting
locations to observe the opening of ballots and the counting process, as guaranteed by Michigan
law."
There are other allegations of fraud or irregularities, late-counted votes and suspected
vote harvesting being reported around the country.
In one case, a woman claiming to be an election volunteer in Michigan's Clark County claimed
on video she had discovered a box of 500 ballots outside the counting facility from people who
were not on the voter rolls.
"... One camp within the elites recognizes the danger and seeks reforms , but the reforms are too little, too late, and in any event, the elites who cling most ardently to the past stability fight the reform movement to a standstill. ..."
"... So take your pick, America: what's the closest analogy? A sclerotic Politburo of elders living in the past, an elite fiddling while the nation disintegrates, or an elite so out of touch with reality that it claims inflation is zero while the populace can no longer afford bread? ..."
Rome, the USSR and Revolutionary France are all compelling analogies due to the hubristic
cluelessness of their fractured elites as the pretensions of stability collapsed around them.
Even though Nero didn't actually fiddle while Rome burned and Marie Antoinette didn't gush "Let
them eat brioche" when notified that the peasants had no bread (or more accurately, could no
longer afford it), these myths are handy encapsulations of the disconnect from reality that
infested the elites in the last years before the deluge of non-linear chaos overwhelmed the
regimes.
While historians gather evidence of tipping points such as pandemics, ecological damage,
invasions, droughts, inflation, etc., the core dynamic is ultimately the loss of social
cohesion within the ruling elites and in the social order at large.
As a generality, the permanence of the status quo is taken for granted by elites, who then
feel free to squabble amongst themselves over the spoils of wealth and power. Distracted by
their own infighting, the elites are blind to the erosion of the foundations of their
power.
As coherence in the elites unravels, the ties uniting the elites with the masses unravel as
well.
One camp within the elites recognizes the danger and seeks reforms , but the reforms are too
little, too late, and in any event, the elites who cling most ardently to the past stability
fight the reform movement to a standstill.
As social cohesion unravels, systems that once seemed immutable (i.e. linear ) suddenly
display non-linear dynamics in which modest changes that would have made little difference in
the past now unleash regime-shattering disorder.
So take your pick, America: what's the closest analogy? A sclerotic Politburo of elders
living in the past, an elite fiddling while the nation disintegrates, or an elite so out of
touch with reality that it claims inflation is zero while the populace can no longer afford
bread?
They all lead to the same destination.
richsob , 1 hour ago
I know a lot of history and I think we will go the route of Rome. We will have a slow
slide into total failure from a debased currency, an over extended military, tax revolts,
unmanageable immigration and an internal war among the elites.
HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 , 1 hour ago
My name is an indirect reference to France and the French Revolution.
When Pelosi was photo'd in front of two massive Sub Zero fridges with gourmet ice cream,
that was the equivalent of "let them eat brioche." She is fvucking clueless. A tool that is
barely coherent, much like Joe.
People see through it. The greed of the politicians, and their apparatchiks, the
bureaucrats, is obvious to anyone willing to look. FFS apparatchiks can retire with six
fixure salaries after being a government employee! People are sick to death of their
arrogance, their greed, their out-and-out abuse of the taxpayer!
The other analogy, which I think is valid, is to ancient Rome. I was a philosophy major /
Latin minor so took quite few courses involving the classes, reading the classics, or
translating them. I also spent a semester in Rome, tramping through the Forum and walking
underground and overground. In 1997 Rome was a beautiful city, mostly safe.
Anyhow, ancient Rome ended up debasing their currency, literally. Which the US (and other
central banks) are doing with excessive money printing.
Excessive taxation drove away the tax base of ancient Rome. The first jingle keys event
was there. Why? Taxes were too high. People will work hard if there is a profit incentive and
they are able to earn a good return from their labor. Once that incentive was gone, people
abandoned their farms and property and left. Where did they go? Away. Away from the tax
collectors, which were richly rewarded for any taxes they were able to collect. I suppose at
the end, the collection methods became quite brutal. At that point, when it is your money or
your life, you throw the tax collector your money and flee with your life. You walk away from
land that you love and start over.
Never an easy choice to abandon one's land and home. But that is exactly what
happened.
Central bankers and governments, along with the common citizen, would do well to heed
historical precedents.
MAOUS , 31 minutes ago
I see it more like The Godfather Part I & II. We were betrayed by the stupidest
simpletons of our own family (citizenry) that sold us out for trinkets, false promises of
grandeur and propaganda from Rival Mafia Families who wanted to rub our family out, kill our
leader and take over. "I didn't know until today, it was Barzini all along." Yeah, but Fredo
was the turn coat that made it all possible. Meet the simpletons of our Family known as your
fellow American voter. "A Republic, if you can keep it." We lost it, kiss it goodbye. Say
hello to the new Black Hand on the block.
Omega Point , 1 hour ago
One of the best articles on ZH in a while. The elites are so full of hubris, they behave
as if the state of affairs since the post-WWII era has always been the state of affairs
throughout history and are immutable. They believe that they are cause of America's
dominance, not the individuals who built this country on whose goodwill they are now quickly
draining.
I think we're like Rome. Currency debasement, no border security, massively corrupt
politicians, most of population on welfare, and games and circuses to distract from the
rot.
The elites will soon be surprised how quickly things will decline, just as shocked as the
Romans when the Visigoths came through the city walls and looted the Imperial City in 410
AD.
play_arrow
sbin , 1 hour ago
The USSR was very similar with decrepit old party hacks ruining everything.
Unfortunately American exceptional lunatics will try to destroy the world before excepting
reality.
Never been a group so corrupt and delusional with so much destructive weaponry.
Dr Strangelove is more appropriate.
RKKA , 1 hour ago
In the summer of 1941, the 4th Panzer Division of Heinz Guderian, one of the most talented
German tank generals, broke through to the Belarusian town of Krichev. Parts of the 13th
Soviet Army were retreating. Only one gunner, Nikolai Sirotinin, did not retreat - very
young, short, thin.
On that day, it was necessary to cover the withdrawal of troops. “There will be two
people with a cannon here,” said the battery commander. Nikolai volunteered. The second
was the commander himself.
On the morning of July 17, a column of German tanks appeared on the highway.
Nikolai took up a position on the hill right on the field. The cannon was sinking in the
high rye, but he could clearly see the highway and the bridge over the river. When the lead
tank reached the bridge, Nikolai knocked it out with the first shot. The second shell set
fire to the armored personnel carrier that closed the column.
We must stop here. Because it is still not entirely clear why Nikolai was left alone at
the cannon. But there are versions. He apparently had just the task - to create a "traffic
jam" on the bridge, knocking out the head car of the Nazis. The lieutenant at the bridge and
adjusted the fire, and then, disappeared. It is reliably known that the lieutenant was
wounded and then he left towards the withdrawing positions. There is an assumption that
Nikolai had to move away, having completed the task. But ... he had 60 rounds. And he
stayed!
Two tanks tried to move the lead tank off the bridge, but they were also hit. The armored
vehicle tried to cross the river not across the bridge. But she got stuck in a swampy shore,
where another shell found her. Nikolai shot and shot, knocking out tank after tank ...
Guderian's tanks rested on Nikolai Sirotinin, like the Chinese wall, like the Brest
fortress. Already 11 tanks and 6 armored personnel carriers were on fire! For almost two
hours of this strange battle, the Germans could not understand where the gun was firing from.
And when we reached the position of Nikolai, he had only three shells left. The Germans
offered him to surrender. Nikolai responded by firing at them with a carbine.
This last battle was short-lived ...
11 tanks and 7 armored vehicles, 57 soldiers and officers were lost by the Nazis after the
battle, where they were blocked by the Russian soldier Nikolai Sirotinin.
The inscription on the monument: "Here at dawn on July 17, 1941 entered into combat with a
column of fascist tanks and in a two-hour battle repulsed all enemy attacks, senior artillery
sergeant Nikolai Vladimirovich Sirotinin, who gave his life for the freedom and independence
of our Motherland."
"After all, he is a Russian soldier, is such admiration necessary?" These words were
written down in his diary by Chief Lieutenant of the 4th Panzer Division Henfeld: “July
17, 1941. Sokolnichi, near Krichev. An unknown Russian soldier was buried in the evening. He
alone stood at the cannon, shot a convoy of our tanks and infantry for a long time, and died.
Everyone was amazed at his courage ... Oberst (Colonel) before the grave said that if all the
soldiers of the Fuehrer fought like this Russian soldier, they would have conquered the whole
world! Three times they fired volleys from rifles. After all, he is a Russian soldier, is
such admiration necessary? "
Ordinary people were ready to defend and die for the USSR. And who is Gorbachev, who
destroyed the USSR. A traitor who betrayed everything and everyone. A stupid dilettante who
imagines himself a world-class politician. The main drawback of the USSR was that the power
was too concentrated in the hands of one person, who was trusted without question. But when
people realized where he was leading the country, it was too late.
Max21c , 2 hours ago
It's a mix between Nazi Germany and its criminality and thievery and persecution
machinery, and Bolshevist Russia and its criminality and thievery and persecution machinery
and many third world banana republics and their criminality and thievery and political
persecution machinery.
Face it Washingtonians are evil.
ZeroTruth , 1 hour ago
Americuck in and of its entirety is just a criminal organization. I know a restaraunteur
that started his business in the Bay Area selling drugs using a fleet of vehicles that had
hidden compartments everywhere. Each vehicle was capable of holding up to half a key of yay
and powdered molly already grammed up. Drivers were issued burner phones and given orders via
dispatcher.
Last I checked, he had 7 restaurants that did amazing business and those vehicles were
still on the road providing the other service. That's just one of the many I know of and it's
small time compared to what the US government is doing.
ZeroTruth , 1 hour ago
Americuck in and of its entirety is just a criminal organization. I know a restaraunteur
that started his business in the Bay Area selling drugs using a fleet of vehicles that had
hidden compartments everywhere. Each vehicle was capable of holding up to half a key of yay
and powdered molly already grammed up. Drivers were issued burner phones and given orders via
dispatcher.
Last I checked, he had 7 restaurants that did amazing business and those vehicles were
still on the road providing the other service. That's just one of the many I know of and it's
small time compared to what the US government is doing.
DeeDeeTwo , 2 hours ago
The elites, Big Tech, Media and Deep State threw the kitchen sink at this election and did
not move the needle. Regardless of who is next President, nothing changes. This is a tribute
to the stability of the American system. In fact, the pendulum is swinging against the
subversives who are becoming increasingly reckless and discredited.
TBT or not TBT , 2 hours ago
What did Huxley call the future country depicted in Brave New World?
It seems that we all will have to fill up our popcorn supplies as the rather comical and
disgraceful
process of U.S. vote counting is likely to continue until maybe December 8, the safe harbor date on
which the states will have to certify their electors.
The race is nowhere near where the Democrats and their supporting media had expected it to
go. Just last week polls claimed that Biden would lead in Wisconsin
by 17 percent . The current margin is a rather dubious
0.6 percent which upcoming recounts may well eliminate.
That the Democrats lose House seats, do not win the Senate and barely manage to drag their
demented presidential candidate towards a stalemate tells a lot about their lack of sane
policies. A donor party completely disinterested in what the people really want - medicare for
all, no fracking etc. - will have little chance to survive a future onslaught of conservatives
with a more competent figure head than Donald Trump.
There will be protests, probably violent ones, and more legal action from either side. I see
no comprise possible that would satisfy both parties. I fear that, should Trump lose this
election.
Trumpism will only grow and make the U.S. ungovernable.
Maybe Trump and Biden could publicly draw straws to get over with it.
I did not support #DemExit before tonight. But I just got off the phone with my 24 year old daughter. She's depressed as hell
by what we all see, because they are not bothering to hide it anymore. I could not promise her things will get better, because
they won't.
We do not have a democracy, we have an #oligarchy and when shit hits the fan (as it will sooner than later), our nation
will become another dictatorship or military junta.
So, I'm done with the party system, because we only have one party - the party
for and by the rich. I'm abandoning the Democratic party because it abandoned us for corporate cash decades ago. That's all I
have to say. End of story.
reporting that 82% is in. If so then Biden would need to get 67% of the remaining votes. He's currently at 27%. What are the
odds that such a huge number of Biden votes would now come in? Zero, of course. There's no chance of it and Bernie has won California.
But CNN, for one, is still refusing to call it for him. They had no problem calling Michigan, though, with something like 18%
in.
Perhaps Bernie will hold on and win Washington. We'll see. Tulsi has over 8,500 votes so far. If we were to emulate the Hillbots
we'd be screaming at her, saying she hurt Bernie!!! ! But we don't do that because we're more aware.
#2 Said results won't
be available until tomorrow. We still don't have full results from California...
@Shahryar@Shahryar
Meanwhile, Bernie shows at 14.8%, below the 15% threshold.
I did not have an instant of anger at Tulsi, only sadness.
Sadness
that the mockery of democracy that holds sway in this country would repeatedly set us up for those ridiculous attacks that someone
has been a "spoiler".
With millions of votes yet to be counted, President Trump falsely asserted election fraud,
pledged to mount a legal challenge to official state results and made a premature claim of
victory.
Weird to have popcorn for breakfast ...
Thing is they just stopped counting. As soon as it looked like Trump was going down the
path Trafalgar Group predicted, and then some, boom, nothing. 100 votes added every 5 minutes
on the New York Times map of the country. What's the excuse - sleep? When has that ever been
an issue? The votes were paused so that Trump didn't get his 270 on the day, before the mail
in votes were counted. Then Trump would Supreme Court and the battle would be fought there.
Now it's gonna be a lot messier. The pause looks like a trick to stuff ballot boxes, from
afar at least.
It ain't over till the fat lady sings.
We do not have a decision. Right now it looks as if Biden may win by a slim margin. However,
when you look at what happened, the states that would tip the scale in Trump's favour just
stopped counting and handing in their results. This reeks of fraud. We may see that election
night allowed the FBI to gather sufficient concrete evidence of voter fraud by the Dems in
order to provide Trump with the ammo to totally tank them in court. If the fraud can be
proven - and I believe it can - then all Dem operatives will go to jail and the election gets
decided without competition.
Posted by: Ilya G Poimandres | Nov 4 2020 10:37 utc | 24
Any system in which employees have to vote on a working day is bad, disadvantages
employees vs employers. Employers have power over workers, they are not "equals" at work, and
they use it.
Any system in which everybody has to assemble to vote is bad, unless you are going to pay
to get them all there.
You are quite right about the problem of literacy, but nobody is saying you cannot vote in
person if you need to or choose to.
Internet voting can also be made at least as secure as your bank account, eh?
The crooks are going to cheat regardless, that's who they are. The question is do the
non-crooks have a fast, secure way to get their views counted or not? Right now we have
"deliberately not" as the answer here.
Trump is not serving himself well. No surprise there. Any American election has
ambiguities built in and infinite openings for lawyers. Right now Trump's attorneys are
asking themselves if the fix is in and if they want this guy for a client.
If Biden can get as far as repeating the words of the oath of office he faces 46 or 48% of
the electorate just not believing it. Some of those would, in better times, relax about it
after a while. They would entertain doubts and get on with life. With the Democrats thinking
of them all as Demons from Hell and Mark2 demanding death for the infidels the wound remains
open. Biden couldn't even lead the Senate Judiciary Committee. He will not reduce the
national rancor. Kamala can only do worse.
Whoever is rigging this election is wondering what they got into. Nobody wins. Everybody
loses
I'm starting to believe that karma is real. The way the USA often disrupt democracy abroad
is now happening on its soil. I hope it gets dirtier. Hopefully some moderate rebels among
them would now declare war on the state.
The problem with mail in voting is that it increases the opportunity for fraud. Are these
democracies with mail in voting really functioning democracies or does mail in voting allow
them to fix elections and maintain the status quo? Nothing ever changes in Canada, even on
the rare occasions Conservatives(CINO) win. The status quo is a wonderful thing for the
ruling elite. You better believe they love mail in voting too. No surprise that Trump - not a
career politician - is against mail in votes.
Watching current electoral college:
Biden 238 with potential for 16 more if the current lead remains => 254 and Biden's lead
is < 1% in NV and WI
Trump 213 with potential for 70 more if the current lead remains => 283 and Trump's lead
is clear in MI and PA, > 2% in GA and NC
I really don't understand why most of you act as if Trump lost.
Haven't you noticed that truth and reality does not matter anymore? We live in a post truth
world, where ideology trumps everything. Other than that, you are 100% correct.
Elections are nothing more than convenient launch pads for a color revolutions these
days.
Political power is the most addictive drug that was ever created. Many millions of addicts
will do anything to obtain their fix. This is why political voting ballots must be paper and
publicly and openly hand counted at an extremely local level. Single points of failure will
wreck democracy.
I do not trust my computer with my money! I have a whole 'separate' bank that I use only
for necessary computer transactions. I do not have Microsoft Windows! You can probably
install PCLOS Linux yourself, or have a geek kid install Salix Linux. These are mostly free
of something insecure known as systemd infestation, which all the rest have, making them
almost as bad as Windows. The Internet has baked-in insecurity simply because the people who
invented it were oblivious to the possibility that some bad actors would use it to cheat
innocent users.
Ranked choice (RCV/IRV) voting was also invented by people who didn't consider tampering
by bad actors. That's why the simple score (aka 'range') voting is needed. Americans are
oblivious to the fact that there do exist people who will gladly cheat them (especially
political party operatives).
The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's
citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from
Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded.
People will not get access to healthcare, Wall Street will continue to be bailed out at
the expense of Main Street, and the war machine will march on.
According to the EIP, U.S. elections scored lower than Argentina, South Africa, Tunisia,
and Rwanda -- and strikingly lower than even Brazil. Specifically compared to Western
democracies, U.S. elections scored the lowest, slightly worse than the U.K., while Denmark
and Finland topped the list.
ES&S, which by itself accounts for 44 percent of US election equipment, received its
initial financing from the families of Nelson Bunker Hunt and Howard Ahmanson, Jr.,
right-wing billionaires who also contributed substantially to the Chalcedon Foundation,
Christian Reconstruction's main think tank.
Hunt and Ahmanson were also prominent early members of the Council for National Policy,
a networking group for the Religious Right and billionaires whose recent members have
included Kelly Anne Conway, Steve Bannon, Mike Pence, Richard DeVos, Wayne LaPierre of the
NRA, Robert and Rebekka Mercer, and Bob Dallas, a convicted embezzler whose nonprofits have
been closely linked to massive voter data leaks.
It begins with a stone-cold fact: Mail-in ballots are lost by the millions -- especially
the ballots of low-income young and minority voters, those folks often called, "Democrats."
The seminal MIT study, Losing Votes by Mail, warns that 22% – more than one in
five ballots – never get counted.
A self-professed whistleblower who claims to work for the US Postal Service told Project
Veritas mail carriers in Michigan have been instructed to retrieve absentee ballots from
general mail circulation so they can be stamped with Tuesday's date and counted as legitimate
votes. Project Veritas founder James O'Keeffe said the Postal Service's internal investigation
body contacted him and is considering looking into the matter. Michigan was sued by the Trump
campaign after an unusual last-minute spike in Biden votes.
The mainstream pro-Biden media is poking fun at Donald Trump's suggestion that there could
be fraud involved in the post-election receipt of mail-in ballots. Apparently they're not
familiar with the election-theft case of Lyndon Johnson, who would go on to become president of
the United States.
The entire matter is detailed in Robert Caro's second book in his biographical series on
Johnson. The book is entitled Means of Ascent .
Johnson election theft took place in 1948, when he was running for the Democratic nomination
for US Senate against Texas Governor Coke Stevenson, one of the most admired and respected
governors in the history of the state.
In the primary election, Stevenson led Johnson by 70,000 votes, but because he didn't have a
majority of the votes, he was forced into a run-off. The run-off was held on a Saturday. On the
Sunday morning after the run-off, Stevenson was leading by 854 votes.
As a New York Times review of
Caro's account stated, the day after the run-off election it was "discovered" that the returns
of a particular county had not yet been counted. The newly discovered votes were overwhelmingly
in favor of Johnson. Then, on Monday more returns came in from the Rio Grande Valley.
Nonetheless, on Tuesday, the State Election Bureau announced that Stevenson had won by 349
votes. Nothing changed on Wednesday and Thursday after the election. On Friday, precincts in
the Rio Grande Valley made "corrections" to their tallies, which narrowed Stevenson's lead to
157.
But also on Friday, Jim Wells County, which was governed as a personal fiefdom by a powerful
South Texas rancher named George Parr, filed "amended" returns for what has become famous as
"Box 13" that gave Johnson another 200 votes. When all was said and done, Johnson had "won" the
election by 87 votes.
It was later discovered that one of Parr's men had changed the total tally for Johnson from
765 to 965 by simply curling the 7 into a 9.
Where did the extra 200 votes come from? The last 202 names on on the election roll in Box
13 were in a different color ink from the rest of the names, the names were in alphabetical
order, and they were all in the same handwriting. When Caro was researching his book, he
secured a statement from Luis Salas, an election judge in Jim Wells County, who acknowledged
the fraud and confessing his role in it.
As the Washington Post
reported , to investigate what obviously appeared quite suspicious Stevenson employed the
assistance of Frank Hamer, the Texas Ranger who had trapped and killed Bonnie and Clyde. It was
to no avail. Johnson got a friendly state judge to issue an injunction preserving the status
quo, after which the Democratic executive committee, by one vote, declared Johnson to be the
winner.
Stevenson took the matter to federal court but the Supreme Court punted, declaring that it
had no right to interfere with a state election.
So, Lyndon Johnson stole the election and ended up going to Washington as Texas' US Senator.
Ironically, if Stevenson had become the state's senator instead, Johnson would never have been
selected to be John Kennedy's vice-presidential running mate and, consequently, would never
have been president.
No wonder Donald Trump is worried about those Democrats! For that matter, those Democrats
should be just as worried about those Republicans!
https://web.facebook.com/v2.6/plugins/like.php?action=like&app_id=172525162793917&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fx%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2F%3Fversion%3D46%23cb%3Df218bfd5c3fb188%26domain%3Dronpaulinstitute.org%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fronpaulinstitute.org%252Ffd3e3d1c441c4c%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&font=arial&height=25&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ronpaulinstitute.org%2Farchives%2Ffeatured-articles%2F2020%2Fnovember%2F03%2Fdon-t-forget-lbj-s-election-theft%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=false&share=false&show_faces=false&width=90
Related
written by daniel
mcadams wednesday november 4, 2020 The introduction and legalization of "ballot harvesting," where operatives can collect and
submit boxes of ballots without proof of identity, has thrown a huge monkey wrench into last
night's presidential vote tally.
States are wavering wildly as hundreds of thousands of votes are suddenly "discovered."
Hillary Clinton's former lawyer is behind the mass legalization of this questionable
process. Is this the worst run election in US history? Watch today's Liberty Report:
300 election don't count comments not one comment about the future of America? All I see
here is who shall be king of the mountain. What is it that our leader (whoever it is, should
do)?
1. Reduce military spending by 50% per year for each of the next four years.
2. Close 50% of the military bases each year, over each of the next four years
3. Standardize national examinations for high school and undergraduate degrees pass the
examination
receive the BS or BA.. degree.. eliminate any all accreditation requirements, people can
study wherever
whenever and how ever they wish. Tutorials not bureaucratic institutions will prepare the
students for
the examinations.
4. eliminate copyright and patent laws so as to reduce the wealth gap and so as to return
America to
from monopolism to capitalism.
5. fix the constitution so the governed have a powerful, meaningful say in not just in how
uses the
government to govern, but also so the governed have a powerful say in what it is those who
are elected
to the government must accomplish why they are in the employee of our elected government.
6. Find a way to get the USA activities subject to human rights courts.
7. Paint all of the white people black in order to eliminate race as condition of
life.
A list of goals and objectives should be put forth on what the elected are supposed to
accomplish in the next four years. In that way, it will not matter who is the President, what
will matter is did he or she accomplish what it was they were elected to do?
There is nothing in China like the military-industrial complex of the United States that
structurally fosters militarism and imperialism with its powerful "lobbies" and think
tanks. The mandarins of the United States are prisoners of a network that greatly
complicates their adaptation to the new world. Its powerful and efficient propaganda
apparatus ("information & entertainment") presents the United States' two-headed,
single-party political regime based on the money aristocracy as a democracy.
That is really well put.
"The mandarins of the United States are prisoners of a network that greatly complicates
their adaptation to the new world"
Nevada will put Joe Biden over for the Presidential win..
Tonight.. Now the question is. How long will Biden last until Harris becomes the Queen of
Spades of Pentagon?
See? Twitter is cool with allowing this posting by David Litt, former Obama speechwriter,
*today* 5:34 pm Nov 4 of a democrat ballot "curing" (post Nov 3 ballot harvesting) assistance
operation in Georgia over the next three days (Wed, Thurs and Fri)
Attention everyone in or near Georgia: We need YOUR help today! This race is not over
and we need every single vote to be counted.
It is all hands on deck and all eyes on Georgia!
Join us today for a virtual training to learn how to knock doors to help voters cure
their ballots. We need you in this fight with us today and tomorrow and Friday. We've come
so far, this is how we bring it home. See you in the virtual training room and out knocking
doors soon!"
"The guy at the source of the whole kerfluffle acknowledges that the 130,000 magical votes
Tweet was based on incorrect data"
-Posted by: _K_C_ | Nov 5 2020 3:50 utc | 306
I'm not so sure about this, _K_C. His explanation for the late night MI Biden vote bump
"kerfluffle" still smells sketchy to me. Given the stakes, could someone have gotten that guy
to "flip" his statement after the fact?
I live in PA, Democrats cheat. Republicans let them. It is a very corrupt state. Having
said all that, Trump didn't hold onto his 2016 white male base. Maybe it is just me, but I
think that is huge. Had he kept them, he would have won despite Democrat (or is it
intelligence agencies?) shenanigans. From what I read Jared told Ivanka's daddy they would
vote for him. They had no other choice. I haven't stopped laughing all day over that Kushner
fail.
Posted by: _K_C_ | Nov 4 2020 20:36 utc | 206 with the Glenn Greenwald quote
No matter what the final result, there will be substantial doubts about its legitimacy by
one side or the other, perhaps both. And no deranged conspiracy thinking is required for
that. An electoral system suffused with this much chaos, error, protracted outcomes and
seemingly inexplicable reversals will sow doubt and distrust even among the most rational
citizens. The next time Americans hear from their government that they need to impose democracy in
other countries -- through wars, invasion, bombing campaigns or other forms of clandestine
CIA "interference" -- they should insist that democracy first be imposed in the United
States. An already frazzled, intensely polarized and increasingly hostile populace now
has to confront yet another election in the richest and most technologically advanced
country on earth where the votes cannot even be counted in a way that inspires even minimal
degrees of confidence.
My analysis of the election itself, and the ongoing, systemic failures of the Democratic
Party no matter the outcome, will be posted later today.
The bold text is some odd framing. So according to Greenwald it's ok for the CIA to overthrow
other governments as long as democracy is installed within the Empire?!
It all boils down to Joe Stalin's statement that it is more important who counts the votes
than who casts them. The states with all of the doubtful postal votes created by methods such
as forging the names of mental incompetents living in rest homes are controlled by democratic
political machines.
Two of them, Minnesota and Wisconsin, apparently cast more votes than registered
voters.
Even if they allow same day registration, 90% turnout appears fraudulent based on the
history and the quality of the candidates running, a mental incompetent with a proven record
of corruption covered up by the propaganda media, and a blustery self-promoter who, even if
he may have meant well in some of his pronouncements, proved inadequate to liquidate the deep
state as promised because he kept appointing denizens of this establishment to key positions.
His biggest mistake was his failure to achieve control over the Justice apparatus of the
yankee state.
What we're seeing happening in Michigan and Wisconsin is nothing short of election theft.
That is unambiguous to anyone who is paying attention. But they're having trouble revealing
it to other Americans because, on cue, it's being censored across the board. The President's
Tweets are being hit. Prominent conservatives' Facebook and Twitter posts are being
suppressed.
For those who are just coming in on the topic I'm conspicuously dancing around, it appears
that the election really is being stolen right before our eyes. Michigan and Wisconsin are
seeing voting totals materialize overnight that make it clear the fix is in. And they're not
even trying to hide it. In Michigan, an overnight vote update added 138,339 votes to Vice
President Joe Biden's totals. That same updated yield wait for it ZERO votes for President
Trump.
From an article by Rafael Poch, US´Qing
Syndrome , commenting on last book by political scientist Kishore Mahbubani Has China
Won?
If the last electoral campaign in the United States has made something clear, it is to
confirm that that country does not have a strategy for the new world of the 21st century.
The only clear recipe to prevent decline is war, commercial and technological, and the
military threat with an increasingly nuclear diplomacy . Trump has divided his country
on almost everything except his trade and technology war against China. This
belligerence is something that is taken for granted in the presidential candidates who
compete with each other to show who pampers the military and the military-industrial
complex the most and who is more anti-Chinese, fleeing like the plague from any fickleness
of laziness before the adversary. It is not just an ideological "sacred cow" emerging from
the inertia of a century of world domination, but a structural defect .
Spending on weapons and wars is not something that in the United States is decided
within the framework of a rational national strategy that assesses what weapons systems are
needed for the current and specific geopolitical situation, says Mahbubani. "Guns are
bought as a result of a complex system of lobbying by manufacturers who cleverly located
their industries in every congressional constituency in America, thereby allowing
politicians who want to keep jobs in their territories (and their own positions in
Congress) are the ones who decide what weapons will be produced for the army" .
Advantages of the adversary
There is nothing in China like the military-industrial complex of the United States
that structurally fosters militarism and imperialism with its powerful "lobbies" and think
tanks. The mandarins of the United States are prisoners of a network that greatly
complicates their adaptation to the new world. Its powerful and efficient propaganda
apparatus ("information & entertainment") presents the United States' two-headed,
single-party political regime based on the money aristocracy as a democracy
Vote fraud happens at state level by state politicians purging voter lists (Ga) sending
out incorrect ballots (Ca) or intimidating potential voters by sending out threatening or
false information about voting procedures (Wi).
And of course that doesn't include the scam guaranteed by SCOTUS in Florida 2000 where the
State secretary of state can just decide to order a halt to counting. Several million votes
every prez beauty contest never get counted.
Plus the old trick of only have one election station in areas that contain hundreds of
thousands sometimes millions of poor people.
Dems purge black voters too, apparently because they are concerned about the chance of a
'black party' being formed.
James
That article by Murray was very good but I give an honourable mention to his paragraph on the
Jihadis.
"I pause to note that the terrorist in Vienna had attempted to go as a jihadist to Syria
and fight against Assad. If he had not been prevented from doing that, he would have been
financed by the Saudis, fed and clothed by the Turks, armed by the CIA, trained by the SAS
and given air support by the Israelis. He might even have got to be a TV star posing in a
White Helmet, or employment artfully placing chlorine bottles on beds for pictures by
Bellingcat. Unfortunately, having been prevented from joining the western sponsored
insurgency, he ended up killing Austrians instead of Syrians and now is a "terrorist",
whereas jihadist killers of Syrians are "heroes". A strange world. The Manchester Arena
bomber was of course physically brought in to the UK by the British military after fighting
for "our side" in Libya. You do indeed reap what you sow."
Thank you for your post. I am with you on the diabolical fraud that is the Diebold
machines and have been aware of their disgraceful product for many years. There can be no
integrity or trust in any process or machine that is audited behind closed doors. It is
simply a fraud and the practice is nothing other than a slap in the face to any decent
person.
Your experience and expression of despair is why I contend that the USAi is in a
pre-revolutionary condition. Greg Palast confirms all that you say and more and thankfully
has been doing so for many years.
If the Demonazis do anything about 'reforming' the electoral system that should
immediately ring alarms.
Glad to hear you passed through the West Point system with integrity intact. I am sure
many did or found their way back to integrity. I never cease to be amazed at the all
enveloping embrace of the military in US affairs both political and civil. THAT has to be
broken.
I guess people are referring to these two graphs. (Disclaimer: I have no idea where these
graphs originate from, whether they have been tampered with, whether they show correct
information, etc.)"
-Posted by: S | Nov 4 2020 23:17 utc | 251
The sources printed(faintly) on the bottom of that that second (Wisconsin) are
"FiveThirtyEight" and "ABC News"
This story shows that same Wisconsin graph with the 4am 100K Biden bump:
The graph was sourced from a twitter post by a Derek Duck:
I mean LOOK at this graph for Wisconsin
I'll zoom in just so you can see the part where Biden votes came out of NOWHERE
pic.twitter.com/MPVxTWxjcZ
-- Derek Duck (@duckdiver19) November 4, 2020
Interestingly Twitter has blocked Derek Duck's twitter post.
Twitter also blocked DC Corruption's post on same subject/same GP article:
DC Corruption
@CorruptionDC
This is literally 5+ standard deviations from the mean. That actually = statistically
practically impossible https://twitter.com/nobbins2001/status/1324078983923658752
4:02 PM · Nov 4, 2020
4.5K
2K people are Tweeting about this
If Twitter is blocking it, tells me it is probably true, and hurts Biden...
Why would they be paying out before official results are in? Perception management? 17
million is chicken shit percentage of the billions yanks spend on crowning their new
kings.
When Trump calls on the militias will be time for popcorn. Hopefully the yankistan arseholes
will end up nuking themselves.
Posted by: gm | Nov 5 2020 1:50 utc | 279 a Dem-leaning polling web site run by Nate
Silver and owned by ABC (Disney) News?
So what? We're not talking about polls. We're talking about results - on a graph with no
provided source data and even much of a legend. I mean, seriously? What exactly is the point
that the graph *proves*? All it shows is someone's notion of the results at a given time -
with *no* context as to which places have reported, which have not reported, what was the
breakdown by county, etc., etc.
It's literally meaningless. Don't bother with the ad hominem, it's irrelevant to the
point.
ALL: Just watched the Jimmy Dore interview with Greg Palast.
Everyone needs to watch it. Seriously. It will blow your mind. Compared to these stupid
graphs, it's like a nuclear bomb compared to a match.
Can someone explain why all the excitement? Nothing is happening. Nothing.
Slightly more CIA and war-peddler support for the war party with the gangster boss clinically
demented to the point of boasting on TV of successfully blackmailing his own puppet installed
by a US-Zionist putsch. Slightly more bloodsucker support for the showman. It's a wash any
way you slice it. Why isn't everybody in bed with a good book? I'm not only addressing the
likes of Circe and Jimmy: where is the fun in watching this?
I generally appreciate and agree with PCR on many issues, but the logic in that piece is
pretty gnarly. This is where he lost me:
It really makes no sense for people in Michigan, who have severely suffered from the
American Establishment's offshoring of their manufacturing jobs to Asia, thereby destroying
the economic wellbeing of people in Michigan, to prefer Biden, the Establishment's
candidate over Trump, their champion. I wondered if this was yet another example of
dumbshit insouciant Americans being unable to act in their own interest. But I dismissed
this thought and looked for other explanations.
What I found was astonishing. During the early hours of November 4 in both Wisconsin and
Michigan there was a sudden vertical upward adjustment to Democrat votes, and every one of
the approximately 150,000 newly found votes was for Biden. This sudden ballot dump accounts
for the lost of Trump's lead in Michigan and Wisconsin: http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=61890
It is possible that shifts of vote counters in the two states finished their shifts and
went home, and that when the new shifts arrived they found that Biden had jumped even or
ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin. This would be plausible except that all the vertical shift
in votes were for Biden. Not a single vote in the suddenly changed situation was for Trump.
How likely is this?
So he's basing the entire piece on a typo (and apparently I was not 100% correct and 538
DID generate a graphic that was created using DecisionDeskHQ mistaken numbers). For a
discussion of that, see all the back and forth between RSH and gm as well as my posts about
it in this thread. An election data aggregator that feeds the AP (and apparently 538 in some
fashion) its numbers screwed up and the erroneous graphic was Tweeted out by a Republican in
Texas who later deleted the Tweet. Guess 538 picked up the wrong version and created their
own graphic.
Mackowiak acknowledged the posts were inaccurate. He has since deleted the tweet,
explaining, "I have now learned the MI update referenced was a typo in one county."
It was big nothing burger from the very beginning and PCR is starting from a completely
incorrect premise. (and now I see that others also used the 538 version). Also, buried in
PCR's source link is the exact same deleted Tweet that I've been talking about. Someone named
Derek Duck started re-tweeting it (the 538 version) AFTER the first guy deleted his (which I
think was based on the AP's version but not sure) and apparently insisted on doing so despite
the fact that it had been debunked (his Twitter account is now suspended - big surprise). BUT
the link to the article that PCR based his own on is still there, and it has been [UPDATED]
to include the quoted text I just pasted. So I wonder why PCR hasn't [UPDATED] his own story
yet.....
The other thing about that article is his seeming endorsement of Trump as someone who is
actually going to bring manufacturing jobs back. He's no more likely to than Biden is.
"... Jeffrey St. Clair is editor of CounterPunch. His most recent books are Bernie and the Sandernistas: Field Notes From a Failed Revolution and The Big Heat: Earth on the Brink (with Joshua Frank) He can be reached at: [email protected] or on Twitter @ JSCCounterPunch . ..."
+ The outcome is still in play, but if Biden loses, we're going to hear a lot of Malarky
about why and most of it will be bullshit. (When I called it a night, at 2am Left Coast Time,
Biden had come back to claim to a narrow lead in Wisconsin.)
+ I predicted in my column last Friday that the polls were underestimating Trump's support
(or voter indifference to Biden) by 3 percent. It looks more like 5 to 6 percent in many of the
decisive states. In Wisconsin, for example, Biden was favored by 8 percent. At 2Am, he was
leading by 0.3 percent. The elite consultants and pollsters may have fucked up more profoundly
than the Democrats who relied upon their statistical sorcery.
+ In the midst of a killer pandemic and mass unemployment, the Democrats could have offered
the nation a universal health care plan, a moratorium on evictions and a guaranteed basic
income. Instead, they believed that the key to victory over Trump was to meld neoliberal
economics with a neoconservative foreign policy. I don't know where they got this idea.
Probably, the same place Obama got his health insurance plan, the Heritage Foundation.
+ The Democrats' candidate voted for the Iraq war, NAFTA, the destruction of welfare, helped
instigate the war on drugs, wrote federal crime laws that incarcerated two generations of young
black & brown Americans and has preached austerity his entire political career. I'm not
surprised by the inconclusive results of an election which should have been a sure thing.
+ I've long argued that Biden was a weaker candidate than HRC, who was terrible. At least
HRC had a rationale for her campaign. Biden had none. The argument was that Biden wasn't hated
as much as Hillary. Perhaps. But most people just didn't feel anything about him. Which is
fatal for a politician.
+ Look on the bright side. Just think how much money the DNC will raise off of a Biden
loss
+ Trump's 2am speech was worthy of Somoza's infamous declaration, "Yes, you won the
election. But I won the counting."
+ Trump says he will be going to the U.S. Supreme Court to stop ALL vote counting across the
country. "As far as I am concerned, we have already won," Trump says.
+ Trump says a sad group of people is trying to disenfranchise those who voted for him. Sad,
indeed.
+ By contrast, Biden's passive speech sounded like Tsar Alexander's the night before the
battle of Austerlitz, completely unaware of the concussive force that's going to hit him in the
morning .
+ Biden is speaking, but saying nothing. Biden should never speak. Ever.
+ Recall how Biden spent most of the early primary season telling people, most of them young
progressives, to vote for someone else if they didn't like his reactionary policies?
Surprise!
+ Biden, who spent much of the year recruiting war criminals from the Bush administration,
did worse with Republicans than HRC did in 2016.
+ Remember the Zoom election simulation the New Yorker did that got Jeffrey Toobin so
excited? Do you think this was the scenario that triggered him?
+ The Biden campaign preferred to court the exiled neocons who started the Iraq war, than
Hispanics and progressives. They may not lose, but they probably deserve to
+ Back in May, the Biden campaign announced that they didn't consider Latinos a key part of
their " path to
victory. " This kind of arrogance yielded the predictable results.
+ Hispanic voters per early 2020 exit polls:
Florida:
2016: Clinton +27
2020: Biden +8
Georgia:
2016: Clinton +40
2020: Biden +25
Ohio:
2016: Clinton +41
2020: Biden +24
+ The results from Starr County, Texas, the most Latino county in the United States (96%
Latino) and the second poorest in Texas, with a poverty rate of 33%. In 2016, it went for
Clinton by 60 percent. In 2020, Biden won it by only 5 percent, with >98%
reporting.
+ The argument against Bernie was that he'd never win the Cuban exile vote in Florida.
+ I guess that Ana Navarro gambit was a bust
+ Biden kept saying this was a fight for the "soul of the nation". What if the nation never
had a soul and it was actually a fight for health care, jobs, and a livable climate?
+ We were told that this election was all about "saving democracy" and in order to save
democracy, the Democrats had to rig their primaries for Biden.
+ I was never a big fan of Sanders. But he gave people policies to vote for. Biden ran away
from all them and offered nothing of substance on his own. The best he had to offer was Kamala
Harris, a hard-ass former prosecutor who progressives distrusted and the right could race-bait
and caricaturize as the second coming of Angela Davis.
+ Still, it's easy to proclaim that Bernie would have won. It's a proposition that can't be
proven. But he would have been shackled by the same party apparatus that failed to win the
senate and lost ground in the House. Until the Democratic Party itself is reconstituted, it's
electoral fortunes are going to continue to erode.
+ Had the feeling the night might go south for the Democrats when the first crop of exit
polls came out showing that 48% of voters believed the
COVID pandemic was under control .
+ Trump, at 63,085,022 votes, has already amassed more votes than in 2016.
+ According to the early exit polls, Trump did better in 2020 with every race and gender
except . white men!
Change from 2016:
White Men -5
White Women +2
Black Men +4
Black Women +4
Latino Men +3
Latino Women +3
Other +5
+ Clearly, this election would have been a Trump rout without the intervention of COVID.
+ This symbolizes the entire night Republican David Andahl, a North Dakota legislator who
died of COVID-19,
won re-election .
+ Good news for the squad, plus Cori Bush, who also won. Their victories are, of course,
also good news for FoxNews, which can spend the next two years scaremongering
them
+ 26 out of the 30 nationally-endorsed Democratic Socialist candidates won their
elections.
+ Meanwhile, Scott DesJarlais slept with subordinates, prescribed opioids for his young
lover-patients and pressured one to get an abortion, still won in Tennessee, running as a
pro-life, family values Republican
+ Looks like the awful Prop 22 will pass in California, cementing drivers' status as
independent contractors as Uber, Doordash and other gig companies prevail in their $200M bid to
defeat legislation making them employees.
+ Memo to Justice Barrett: "Louisiana has passed Amendment 1, which establishes there is no
constitutional right to an abortion."
+ Georgia is still in play and could go for both Biden and Q, thus spawning a decade's worth
of new conspiracy theories
+ It turns out, the only debate Biden seems to have won was the one that was canceled.
+ The Democrats can't blame the Greens this time (though I'm sure they'll find some reason
to hurl insults at Susan Sarandon), having gotten them kicked off the ballot in key states.
Perhaps they'll blame the Libertarians for not pulling enough votes from Trump.
+ Go figure .Trump did better in counties with high COVID death rates than he did in
2016.
+ Trump stomped Biden in Florida, yet the state overwhelmingly passed a $15 minimum wage
referendum.
+ Florida Polls are the statistician's version of Florida Man
+ Biden had hopes of winning Iowa, but this once Democratic state is slipping further and
further away
2000: Gore by 0.32%
2004: Bush by 0.67%
2008: Obama by 8.5%
2012: Obama by 5.6%
2016: Trump by 9.3%
2020: Trump by 8%
+ It was a good night for drugs. Oregon becomes the first state to decriminalize low-level
drug possession and to legalize the use of magic mushrooms.
+ South Dakota, Arizona, Montana, New Jersey all legalized marijuana at the ballot box
tonight, a policy which isn't supported by either major party.
+ This polling reinforces my view that if Biden loses, it will be because he spent too much
time campaigning and not enough time staying out of sight "Two-thirds of voters say their
choice for president was driven by their opinion of President Trump," according to
AP VoteCast .
+ The EU is keeping Americans on
the no fly list , which is probably prudent given all the celebrities who've vowed to flee
the States in the event of Trump's reelection.
+ All Quiet on the Lincoln Project Front?
+ The Lincoln Project raised $67 million. Republican Voters Against Trump raised another $10
million. 93% of Republicans voted for Trump in 2020, up from 90% in 2016.
"... The financial elites disproportionately lavished their support on the Democrats. The oligarchs understood more clearly than certain elements of the left where their class interests reside. "Wall Street," Politico ..."
"... While the outcome of the presidential election is uncertain, the legitimacy of the ruling class has surely been sullied by the arguably ugliest campaign in recent history. The elite club must now figure out how to anoint their new emperor without further damaging their image. The hiccups over their transfer of power is their dilemma and our good fortune. ..."
The polls closed with "
no winner yet in cliffhanger presidential election," as of Wednesday evening. Despite a
period of uncertainty, which is typically the nemesis of
Wall Street , the Dow climbed 0.9%, the S&P 500 opened 1.5% higher, and the Nasdaq
Composite jumped 2.6%.
The explanation is that the financial elites know that they win regardless of who occupies
the Oval Office, which is something that some
leftists , who had advocated temporarily subordinating an independent working-class
alternative to campaign for the leading neoliberal candidate, did not firmly grasp.
Trouncing the contender that Noam Chomsky hyperbolically called " worse than Hitler " would be a blow to overt
white supremacy. But bedrock institutional racism, entombed in the US carceral state, will
still endure and the tasks of the left will remain.
Legitimizing neoliberal rule
The left's vote was not needed to ensure a Biden victory. But it was needed to justify
voting for the "lesser evil" based on the false narrative of TINA – "there is no
alternative."
The Revolutionary Communist Party, normally marginalized by the corporate media, received
banner headlines
when it declared for Biden. The "paper of record" for the Democratic wing of the two-party
duopoly, TheNew York Times, opportunistically posted an op-ed by a
self-described socialist because it pleaded , "leftists should
vote for Biden in droves."
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) readily
acknowledged "there is no choice at the top of the ticket that would advance our movement
or constitute a 'victory' for democratic socialism." But that did not deter them from jumping
on the Biden bandwagon. DSA seemed more worried about Biden losing than about Sanders being
excluded by the DNC.
It is not the left's responsibility to strategize how the Democrats could have run this or
future campaigns. Incidentally, a Biden/Harris victory would preclude a liberalish Democrat,
such as a member of the Squad , making a run as
the Democratic standard bearer for next 12 to 16 years.
The contribution of those parttime leftists who campaigned for Biden was not to put him into
the White House – they didn't have the numbers to do that – but to help legitimize
neoliberal rule. Their preemptive political surrender obscured the failure of a political
system incapable of addressing the critical issues of our times.
Politics of fear obscured critical issues
Fear was the operational motivator for
apocalyptic fantasies of a fascist coup, which served to obviate a progressive agenda. A
tanking economy, a still uncontained pandemic, and unprecedented protests against racialized
police brutality were attributed solely to Trump's watch, instead of being understood as also
endemic to the neoliberal order.
Neither presidential candidate advocated comprehensive healthcare in a time of pandemic,
with both in effect opting for
triage of the most vulnerable –
people of color and the
elderly . The two wings of the duopoly mainly differ on this existential health issue over
the advisability of wearing
face masks .
Climate catastrophe remains an existential threat. Biden may throw a few more crumbs than
Trump in the direction of the alternative energy industry. But both candidates contested to see
who was more enthusiastic about fracking
, while they agree that tax cuts and subsidies to the fossil fuel industry will be continued.
Biden's predecessor, whom he served as VP,
boasted "we've added enough new oil and gas pipeline to circle the Earth and then some."
The next four years portends a choice of someone who denies global warming or another who
believes in the science but does not act on it.
The
financial elites disproportionately lavished their support on the Democrats. The oligarchs
understood more clearly than certain elements of the left where their class interests reside.
"Wall Street," Politicoreported ,
grew "giddy about Biden," because Uncle Joe would best help recover their legitimacy while
carrying their water. The financiers also hedged their bets with contributions to Trump. Along
with the DNC, they understood that another four years of the current occupant would be better
than a Bernie Sanders presidency for the owning class.
Game of Thrones
While the outcome of the presidential election is uncertain, the legitimacy of the
ruling class has surely been sullied by the arguably ugliest campaign in recent history. The
elite club must now figure out how to anoint their new emperor without further damaging their
image. The hiccups over their transfer of power is their dilemma and our good fortune.
It may be too early to tell, but the widely feared Trump coup has yet to be realized. The
Proud Boys, with their mail-order munitions, have yet to replace the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Nervous leftists, apprehensive about a Trump coup, are calling upon labor to wage a
general strike to install a neoliberal into the White House. Joe Hill would find that
ironic at best.
While "President Donald Trump has cast doubt on whether he will commit to a peaceful
transfer of power," CNN revealed
, "the secretive process to prepare a would-be Biden administration has been underway for
months with help from top Trump officials (emphasis added)."
Biden may now be less unpalatable than Trump, but Uncle Joe had the advantage of not being
in power for the last four years. He may not look so hot after another term of neoliberal rule,
characterized by increasing austerity for working people, entrenched institutional racism,
oppressive surveillance and security state measures, and an aggressive imperialism abroad.
Substantial differences exist between Trump and Biden, but those differences do not extend to
which class they serve.
Recovering the left alternative
With record turnout ,
never before have so many voted for so little. Now is auspicious for alternatives to the
two-party duopoly.
As reported
by Alan Mcleod, Trump's abysmal approval rating of 42% is barely edged out by Biden's of 46%.
Two-thirds of prospective Democratic voters polled claim they would be voting against Trump
rather than for Biden; only a quarter of the prospective Republicans are voting so much for
Trump as against the Democrats. Biden way squeak through on the appeal of not being Trump, but
that will wear thin quickly.
With both major parties continuing to abandon the interests of working people, the left must
either take the initiative or surrender it to a growing right wing. Rather than this being the
time when never before has there been a greater need to support the lesser-evil Democrats and
give them an
extraordinary mandate to rule , this is a time to leverage the ruling class's loss of
legitimacy to articulate a left alternative.
Taking a left initiative, despite the loss of legitimacy of the ruling elites, is
challenging. With a Republican victory, the left has historically gotten absorbed into a
resistance that devolves into an assistance – the
graveyard of social movements that is the Democratic Party. With a Democratic victory, the
illusion of hope and that anyone's better than Trump are false excuses to "give Biden a
chance." After campaigning for the Democrat, it will be problematic for these same left forces
to credibly do an about-face and fight him. As for an independent electoral left, more rigorous
party registration rules targeting left alternatives, recently imposed by Democrats , foreshadow fewer left
choices on future ballots.
However, the
majority of working people support a progressive agenda, which has been ignored and
suppressed by the duopoly:
Effectively addressing global warming
COVID safety over economic activity and economic relief
Ending forever wars and sanctions, while de-escalating the threat of nuclear
conflagration
National healthcare program modelled after Medicare
Opposition to the militarization of the police and preservation of civil liberties
Reduction of income inequality, stronger anti-trust laws, and fairly taxing wealth
These were among the critical issues that were lost in the distracting political theatre of
the 2020 campaign and the basis for a renewed left initiative.
If one cares about the stability of the United States then they should have been wishing for
a decisive victory in yesterday's election. A decisive victory for whom you ask? Perhaps in the
long run that could be relevant, but in the short term it really doesn't matter at all, the
main thing is that someone needs to walk away as the undisputed champion for the sake of
America.
Not only has the United States had a very solid track record of stability due to having the
best possible geopolitical location on the planet, but also in part thanks to the wisdom of
those within the two-party system to value said stability over a temporary victory time after
time.
Image: is getting rid of Trump really worth killing the golden goose? For some apparently
it is.
As a teenager any thinking American will quickly wake up to the fact that with " Hanging Chads ", Gerrymandering , and rumors of
the dead and non-citizens voting, that our electoral system is at least highly and deeply
flawed if not completely illegitimate. With all the "irregularities" that happen in November it
seems to young minds that this is simply a massive farce that needs to end.
However, as one gets older we can see the wisdom in both American parties constantly
cheating and yet acknowledging every election as legit, even during the bizarre final moments
of the battle like those between Bush and Gore in Florida . The two-party
system must have gotten the picture that both teams are going to do anything they can to win
and that this is perfectly natural. But in turn, just because both teams cheat there is no
reason to declare the competition to be illegitimate as a whole, lest we repeat the U.S. Civil
War or the early days in the Russian Revolution in which many factions fought till there could
"be only one". Accepting that both sides can and will cheat but they must acknowledge the
winner is critical for American stability and perfectly reasonable to those of us with grey
hair.
Image: The dangerous electoral situation at the time of writing (source: Fox
News)
The issue at hand in 2020 is that this old wisdom of how to play the game in Washington is
dying or dead. Both sides are signaling to the other that they will not acknowledge a peaceful
transfer/retaining of power . And
just a day before voting, suburban soccer mom extremist Nancy Pelosi said that the House is
ready to decide who will become President if the elections are "disputed" i.e. they are
prepared to bureaucratically make Biden become President of the United States. This type of
rhetoric could have big consequences for America as a whole.
With ballots still left to be counted, Trump says, in his usual exaggerated assuredness,
that
'Frankly, (his side) did win this election' and is already making plans to go to the
Supreme Court. This seems to be really jumping the gun, perhaps he knows about things happening
behind the scenes that we do not, or he is simply no better than Pelosi when it comes to
keeping their yap shut.
Image: Nancy Pelosi does not seem concerned about risking American stability for a
presidential party victory.
So far the official threats that we have heard are all focussed on using bureaucratic
procedures against each other, but with BLM, Antifa and other forces already out on the streets
and possibly awaiting orders, certain observing forces could throw gasoline on the fire at any
moment. Violence on a non-organized/revolutionary level has already started (as expected) with
4 Trump
supporters being stabbed .
This is why the results of the election as they stand at this moment are the worst they
could possibly be – as a strong victory for either would almost certainly guarantee the
United States would remain stable for at least another 4 years. The "score" we are seeing right
now is fertile ground for Color Revolution like action.
We should not forget that Color Revolutions happen almost always in connection with hot
election cycles and take place in the nation's capital with full media support on the side of
the rebels. All these check boxes are currently ticked and if cooler heads don't prevail
Americans will get to experience the lifestyle, violence and fear they brought to the former
Soviet Union after it lost the Cold War via the CIA's/State Department's Color Revolutions.
It is imperative for cooler heads on both sides to remind their colleagues that America did
not become a super power due to "exceptionalism" but instead thanks to location, certain
opportunities (WWII), and select wise policies.
Then again if you are an Accelarationist, well, it looks like your moment has finally come.
The Right and Left are playing chicken and it doesn't look like anyone is going to blink.
Many nationalists plan to vote for Trump, not due to a positive assessment of his first
term, but for the same reason people line up for terrible movie sequels: warm and fuzzy
nostalgia, sometimes inexplicable. Once upon a time the prospect of electing this man made the
people we all hate but who rule us anyway visibly afraid.
Spite for the "coastal elites" in tortoiseshell glasses will likely save the day.
But don't expect the same flood of libtard tears this time around outside of maybe low level
MSNBC watchers. The real elite, the Jews, now realize that Trump's gun had an orange tip spray
painted black the whole time.
Trump began betraying his voters almost as soon as he was sworn into office. The only
figures in Trump's populist campaign who survived the 2016 election were Steve Bannon, who was
banished after Charlottesville and is now facing federal charges at the hands of Trump's own
Department of Justice, and Jeff Sessions, whose political career was destroyed by Trump's
calculated malice.
A victory in 2016 by any of the generic GOP hacks who lost during the primary would've been
indistinguishable from the last four years of Trump, policy-wise.
Draining the swamp and transforming the Republicans into a worker's party? No. Instead, his
cabinet positions
were staffed by the swamp scum at the Heritage Foundation.
Deportation force and a wall? He trots out Stephen Miller
before any big vote , but nothing was accomplished on this front. Barack Obama removed
50% more
illegal aliens in his first term than Trump has. In his first two years of holding the
Presidency and Congress, Trump made no effort to present legislation to combat illegal
immigration or even increase border security. There are more Asian and Central American illegal
aliens in the United States right now than before he took office.
Punishing "LIBERAL DONORS"? Heritage's appointments have helped enable a corporate crime
wave not seen in recent memory, with laughable cases of naked insider trading like the
"paused" loan to Kodak personally protected by Trump's inner circle. Every multi-national
and NGO has been scamming the PPP system, Trump's promise to crack down on this
will never materialized . White collar crime prosecutions have fallen to a
33-year low during this administration.
Is it any wonder these "donors" have so much money laying around they can use it to fund
Black Lives Matter?
This round of American populism has been defeated by the Swamp conservatives, many who were
originally Trump foes and but now gleefully wear MAGA hats and have shoved aside relatively
independent alt-light con artists and
the organic ethno-nationalist movement. The conservatives we thought we canceled, like the Jews
Ben Shapiro, Mark Levine, and Dennis Prager have come back from the dead thanks to Big Tech's
massive crackdown on independent media.
The problem for Trump is that conservatism is widely hated, especially by his voters.
Trump's tax cut for billionaires is one of his administration's only policy achievements, and
it is the
most unpopular thing he has ever done.
What will carry Trump over the finish line is the understandable desire to trigger the
libs just one last time, in a way that won't get you fired from your job or
antagonized by the FBI . The immense power the Judeo-left has amassed by uniting suburban
liberals, big capitalists, permanent bureaucrats and antifa under Trump has contributed to
white working people becoming atomized, thus demoralized, thus susceptible to Trump's campaign
year presentation as The Last White Man .
Seeing the conservative movement peering out from under the mountains of shit we shoveled on
them to dominate the Trump-era is testament to the flexibility and tenacity -- thanks to Jewish
"philanthropy" -- of the phony right. The time-sink, money-sink non-issues of abortion, the
supposed justification for confirming Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, has re-emerged as
a supposedly important issue. Last year the abortion rate fell to the lowest
levels ever, largely due to low rates of sex between young people and the widespread
adoption of contraceptives.
But the Koch brothers know what we're really getting in ACB. The notorious "Americans for
Prosperity"
spent millions to push her through because she will be the most pro-big business justice on
the court (she sided with big business 85% of the time during her
judgeship), which explains the complete lack of a fight from the Democrats. 15 of the last 19
SCOTUS judges have been appointed by the Republican Party, yet the court has become more
pro-business and socially "liberal" anyway.
As Ted Cruz has recently stated, once the election is over and they're no longer under
pressure from voters, Trump and the GOP will be returning to
business as usual : imposing austerity during an unprecedented unemployment crisis,
ratcheting up military tensions with enemies of Israel, and as the
Heritage Foundation predicts in its conclusion of Trump v. Biden on immigration, a massive
amnesty bill that will introduce a new "merit-based immigration system" -- the H1-B program on
steroids.
While nobody thinks Trump's "platinum plan for black America" will ever come to be, the mere
suggestion will be opening up a debate we should not be having. Explicit
no-whites-need-apply social policies are another cultural artifact of the Trump era bound to
become acceptable in his second term.
For establishment Democrats, their second defeat at the hands of Trump will be enormously
discrediting, but they will profit in the short term from their comfortable position as the
opposition party. By running a candidate like Joe Biden, one can only assume they want to
lose.
But the Clinton-Biden-Obama-Pelosi nexus, who planned to fill "Sleepy Joe's" spayed cabinet
with people like John Kasich, Jeff
Flake , and various in-house neo-liberals, will be pressured by actual communists in their
party to step aside. The Republican Party will never be able to meet this challenge, instead
Trump and Charlie Kirk will be riding a helicopter to Botswana to cut the ribbon on a new
bathhouse and dance to the Village People when the next incident occurs and the nation is once
again on fire.
The New York Times has turned this election into a referendum on Woke + Wall
Street. The majority, even many non-whites, will be rejecting America's new official ideology
today.
From the beginning, one side of me has always thought Trump to be too good to be true. My
first doubts about him came when I learned his daughter was married to a powerful Jew and
she's adopted his religion. Trump has turned out to be the most pro-Zionist president ever
and has even moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem...
Best thing I have read on Trump. Here is my one reservation
"The real elite, the Jews, now realize that Trump's gun had an orange tip spray painted
black the whole time."
Forget "now realize". At least Trump's Jews – the ones anti Jewish Power Trump
supporters never report on – have ALWAYS realized that Trump is shabbos goy to the
bone. I am talking about Jews like:
Lew Eisenberg, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, Mel Sembler, Ron Weiser, Steve Wynn, Elliott
Brody, Laurie Perlmutter, and Carl Icahn, not to mention Bernie Marcus. Then we have his many
Jewish personal and professional associates, who include, among others, Avi Berkowitz,
Michael Cohen, Gary Cohn, Reed Cordish, Boris Epshteyn, David Friedman, Jason Greenblatt,
Larry Kudlow, Stephen Miller, Steven Mnuchin, Jay Sekulow, David Shulkin, and Allen
Weisselberg. All those Trump-defenders out there in America should be dismayed at his vast
linkage to the people of Israel(See Thomas Dalton, True Q)
These are the big Business Republican Jews and their apparatchiks as opposed to the new
class professionals, academics, intellectuals, mediaist, journalists, and policy wonks who
comprise the neo liberal – liberal and neocon Jews of the Democrat Party. Unlike the
Democrat Jews who don't know Trump existentially – he's too vulgar and undereducated
– and really do think, or perhaps at least thought, that Trump could be the coming of a
new Hitler, the Business Jews have had long actual existential relations with Trump or know
Jews who have. Trump has been up to his ears in Jews of the Big Business type his whole life
and they know he is firmly in the Semophile bag. As Jews , Trump's Jews want Zionism and have
always known he is good for it. But they also want every break they can get for Big Business
because what could be better for Jews who prosper from neoliberalism right across their
higher class status? As Striker argues , Trump will give Jews another round of business
breaks like those he had already given in his first term. And there will go his populist
image but it will have served its purpose
All this could have been easily predicted if someone in our ethnic realism community had
taken a good look at Trump's Jews. Instead Trump was allowed to pose as "the last white
man"
Actually E Michael Jones sort of tried it but he didn't get any support. Why is that?
Well, I don't know who won yet and I doubt that anyone will ever know since everything is
rigged, but Old Joe has most of the alphabet agencies in his pocket, the MSM in his corner
and a whole lot of Obama, Clinton trotskyites lookin after him. That should mean that he
should win by a landslide, unless he lets the popular vote for Trump – into the
election process – which would be shrewd .. lol As far as America goes – SNAFU d
again.
I've been sitting here watching the election maps all night.
The counting stopped around 8:30 – 9:00 Pacific time. It hasn't moved since.
If you go into the counties on the particular states that have stalled, you can do the
math.
Clearly Trump was winning and if counts allowed, they should be able to call it.
Amazingly, they called Arizona when it was only something like 68% complete.
NV was going red but it shows it is swaying blue now it is the only state that has updated
in last 3 hours besides Arizona.
It looks like they might be trying to pull something (the Democrats/Deep state).
I've never seen this happen. There is no reason for it to have happened.
WI, MI, PA, NC and GA are all pending red, along with the 1 electoral vote in ME.
Go to bed. In morning we'll get up and Biden will be declared winner with most of the
above states declared blue (sometime during the night when most people are sleeping).
Superficial article. The author did write a few good sentences, but seems to have missed
that Trump is at most a potential catalyst for white awakening. If that does not happen, you
can't blame him. You can only blame yourself for a combination of spinelessness, stupidity,
cowardice & naivety.
If the central pillar of America, whites, are so immature or so divided, US cannot last.
No empire which was not a nation-state too, did survive in history. It disintegrated &
collapsed.
Too bad Trump is jewish and fully cooperated with his shitty ethnic group and their
endless treasonous schemes many times. The alt-right/Q/MAGA jewish psyop (the real
Russiagate), HARPA, Barr covering up many crimes of the tribe (Epstein, Trump's crimes, big
tech, fake BLM/ANTIFA protests, ), treasonous cooperation with Israel, the coronavirus flu
scam, close ties to illegal mass surveillance contractors and Chabad Lubavich, shady deals
with banks, handing money over to his fellows in "coronavirus aid packages", engaging in
trade wars that seemed to be stupid, but had the objective of imploding the US economy to
pave way for China (same for the flu scam and 2008 crisis)
Biden isn't that different either.
@Anon out civilization
and barbarism that Hudson quite matter-of-factly agreed with me that the book is, to the
extent that it will be understood, " earth-shattering" in both intent and effect .
The movement that Striker is referring to, has have a moral component, otherwise the agents
of Mammon win again. Our (((friends))) have been winning for centuries, because they have
redefined reality using their ill-gotten gains. Clown world is funded.
But whether we get Trump or Biden, we need to organize our own political movement or we
will be getting it anyway.
The point is that there's not a dimes worth of difference between the Democrats and
Republicans and their candidates and therefore voting is a waste of time.
It looks like they might be trying to pull something (the Democrats/Deep state).
Yes, they're trying to cheat, no doubt. Of course, nobody will care enough to do anything
about it. Had Trump actually done something for White people, the erstwhile alt-right might
have organized Charlottesville-style rallies in support of Trump, but he didn't, so they won't.
That's what he gets for being a cuck and throwing his most committed supporters under the
bus.
Trump is like the abusive alcoholic husband and American conservatives(mostly Whites)are
like the battered wife. Deep down we know the beatings will never stop, but we continue to give
our love and support to him. We know we should leave him, perhaps find a new man to share our
love with and help raise our kids. The problem is we are stuck in a neighborhood of crack heads
and heroine addicts, and the new husband would turn out worse than the last...
The old saw that Obama deported more illegals than did Trump in the first term is a lie
exposed many times over. At the border under Bush II, Mexicans caught coming across were simply
sent back on their own recognizance (ORed) and not counted as a deportation. There were
thousands and thousands treated this way by the Border Patrol and Immigration. To get the
deportation numbers up, Obama ordered that ORs be counted as deportations, so therein is the
lie.
I must agree with this article. Trump has largely betrayed his base, and is no more likely
to do better for the average working class American in his second term than he has in his
first. It's painful, I don't want to admit this either, but as they say, optimism is
cowardice.
I must however object to the notion that the Democrats are in any way "communist." Do
communists throw tens of trillions of dollars at Wall Street while starving the real economy of
investment? Do communists support "surprise medical billing?" Do communists allow all important
financial decisions to be made by private corporations? Oh sure, the Democrats will come up
with all sorts of confiscatory taxes and regulations on the middle class, no doubt, and they
will subsidize illegal immigrants – which is to say, they will subsidize cheap labor for
the elites. And yes they will be for transgender bathrooms. But communists? No way no how, the
Democrats are Neoliberal scum just like the Republicans.
Make a new political movement? It would be nice, but I can't see any way that such a thing
will not be suppressed or co-opted or the leadership bought out etc.etc. Look what happened to
"Golden Dawn" in Greece
Sadly I think the last white man is going to lose. The election has been stolen from him
with mass voting fraud, both in vote counting and mass voting by illegal voters. He has also
shot himself in the foot over the last four years with several major blunders, which did not
help, for e.g.:
1) Calling off the voting fraud investigation and disbanded the investigative team soon
after his inauguration in 2016.
2) Too thin skin and incendiary in his tweets, not very Presidential and made unnecessary
enemies.
3) Didn't do enough to reduce legal immigration incl. H1B and OPTs right from the get go,
which lost him a lot of enthusiasm from college educated voters. He only finally began to do
something about it last month, too little too late. Stephen Miller turned out to be a fake
patriot after all, who kept out true patriots like Kris Kobach from running the DHS.
4) Kept/promoted his enemies like Paul Ryan, John Kelly, Rod Rosenstein, James Comey, HR
McMaster, Gina Haspel, Christopher Wray et. al, which came back to haunt him very quickly.
5) Letting wormtongue (Jared Kushner) into the WH and giving him far too much power,
including freeing all the drug dealers.
6) At times it seemed like the only thing he cares about is the stock market, he made lots
of people way richer than they were in 2016, and these are all the people who are now voting
against him, from Wall Street to Silicon Valley.
7) Too many Jews and Ziocons in his cabinet. Pandered too much to Israel, making his real
slogan more like MIGA than MAGA.
Come to think of it, Trump is not the last white man. He is the last Ziocon Jew to become
president.
Trump did not win by a landslide as so many hoped. There is a reason for the red wave fail,
and it is Trump himself and his policies.
Trump's biggest enemy is himself, he spent the entire administration making threats and
filling his administration with swamp criminals, he is slavishly whored to Netanyahu and
Israel, he even murdered Soleimani. He didn't remove the troops from a single occupied nation.
Trump's failure as a good administrator is glaring obvious and of no surprise because he had no
previous governmental experience. He just winged it based on being the Donald. What a joke. A
nation ruled by one ego that thinks it is god.
He never went on the offensive with 911 truth, which would put the entire swamp under
investigation and in a fight to stay out of prison. With 911 investigation Israel would be put
on a leash, and the Neocons would ALL be indicted, along with the Jewish newspapers and
lobbies. Because Trump REFUSED to investigate the biggest crime in history because of his god
damned loyalty to Jews and Israel, it is Trump who spent his entire presidency in a defensive
mode.
When asked if he condemns white supremacy Trump did not condemn the interviewer or defend
white people. Pathetic. He's cucked to the Jewish media narrative. And why doesn't he take
legal or military action against the Jewish media? Because he is bed with Kushners and the
Adelsons.
As a result of his own actions Trump who could of won by a landslide is now in a stalemate
with creeper senile Biden, one of the most pathetic candidates ever. Trump failures all center
around his loyalties to Jews and Israel.
So this election is looking more and more like a stalemate and I would like to bring to
everyone's attention that there is a "prophecy" of how this ends:
"The presidents of the U.S., a supposedly free country, have been abusing their power to
an increasingly greater extent. During a time of social unrest even more so than the period
of Viet Nam and Watergate, the electoral college will be evenly split over the election of
the new president. The process will stalemate, with many people clamoring for whichever
candidate they voted for, causing enormous tension in the country. Internationally it will be
a sensitive situation.
Because of the split, and the extremely volatile and explosive social unrest, putting
either candidate in office instead of the other could start a civil war or a revolution.
After a long time of impassioned speeches invoking patriotism and the founding fathers, a
compromise solution of holding another election will be taken, and a candidate will be
installed without disaster."
PS I have no dog in the fight and I don't vote, I will never vote for a lesser of two evils,
if the two pedo candidates is the best the nation can do when we have 337 million people to
pick from then maybe the nation needs to fall.
persistence and evolution of the US two/uni party system is interesting.
It is due to the "winner take all" election rules rather than a proportional system. For the
most part, US voters vote straight party anyway, so I don't see why we can't just go to a
proportional system where you vote for a party, and based upon that party's percentage of vote,
they get to fill X seats. Perhaps that would not work with the Presidential or Senate
elections, but would at least work for the House.
It looks like Republicans will be keeping the Senate. They almost did win House also.
So Biden cannot do too much, except to make some wars, regulate the international trade and
give some money to freeloaders residing in the cities.
In the mean time the rate of debt will significantly increase.
I do not think there could be any negotiations with Russians because Biden is unreliable.
Trump began betraying his voters almost as soon as he was sworn into office. The only
figures in Trump's populist campaign who survived the 2016 election were Steve Bannon, who
was banished after Charlottesville and is now facing federal charges at the hands of Trump's
own Department of Justice, and Jeff Sessions, whose political career was destroyed by Trump's
calculated malice.
Remember Kris Kobach and how he was going to investigate widespread election fraud? that's
something that might have been useful. Whatever happened to him, anyway? Just kind of faded
away. No support from Drumpf. Last I heard, Kobach was held in contempt of court for failing to
adequately advise noncitizens of their "right" to vote:
And Steve King -- sure, he was initially a Cruz supporter, but backed Trump enthusiastically
later on. King's mild civic nationalism and strong support for common sense, patriotic
immigration reform are exactly the agenda that Trump claimed to support. But when the
corporate "news" media and the entire Uniparty attacked Steve King as "inadequately anti-White"
-- Trump did <a href+' https://www.timesofisrael.com/white-house-distances-itself-from-king-comments/"was
quick to disavow. King's longstanding
fanatical
Israel Firstism did nothing to save him. It's not enough to support semitic supremacism in
the current year; you have to be actively anti-White as well, goy.
Zemurray's original name was Schmuel Zmurri. He was born in Kishinev, Bessarabia, Russia
(present-day Chişinău, Moldova) to a poor Jewish family that emigrated
to America when he was fourteen years old.
In early 20th century, he went to Honduras to take over the banana crop business. He hired
pe0ple to do a coup for his business interests in 1910.
@Rufus Clyde Too group
has been around for more than a decade. It was very clever to imply they were deeply involved
and have them seem to be the originators of the predator exposures and firings.
Also, think it a coincidence that so many Repubs in Congress either "retired",
decided to do something else or whose campaigns weren't going to be funded by the RNC in 2018?
NO. They were forced out because they were corrupt.
Think Guliani bothered to go spend weeks in Ukraine just for vacation? NO, he went to get
firsthand evidence of the Biden corruption. Etc, etc ..
@Zarathustra "Trump did
for the jew as much as he could."
How does the cliche go? Live by the jew, die by the jew? Parasites are not known for their
loyalty. The tribe squeezed all it could out of their useful idiot, Donnie the Dummy, and then
deftly jumped to a new host, Joey Depends, who will willingly advance the tribe's self-serving
agenda in ways yet undreamed of even by the political cognoscenti. Donnie appears to be a
vindictive old bitch and might just form a populist third party along the lines of Teddy
Roosevelt's moronic Bull Moose now that the tribe has discarded him like a wad of used stained
toilet paper.
@Zarathustra he Jews and
being vetted by them. He was a loose cannon and had to go.
I further believe that war with China is more likely under Biden than Trump. The U.S. dollar
has been the reserve currency since right after WWII. The rise of China threatens that so China
will eventually have to be dealt with militarily. The Jews must maintain the U.S. dollar as
reserve currency else much of their ill gotten gains tend to evaporate over time.
I am positive that local Jews have large investments in China.
That one I have no information on. It could well be true.
Multiculturalism has always been a stopgap, a temporary pause on the way to disintegration
for empires. The elites always put their hopes in it imagining they will satisfy angry
minorities with minor adjustments. It never works. Just look at the Black armed militias. Not
even systematic Black privilege n Supremacism is enough for them. They won't stop even for
Biden until they ethnically cleanse whites completely from large parts of the country dominate
the rest. We are past elections now. The war has begun.
The stage is set for another false flag with everyone distracted and caught up with the
plandemic and/or political unrest, and regardless of which puppet gets selected, the
Ziocorporate regime is certain to be rolling out more AI and tech to manipulate, control and
frame the masses. The "anti-semitic terrorism" angle of Islamism now colluding with neo-Nazi
white supremacism is as hilarious as it is scary, considering the US/EU Ziocorporate terrorist
regimes' recent interventions in Libya, Syria and Ukraine and the sudden rise in ISlamist
events in NATO/EU countries. This late stage fusion of imperial capitalism with communism in
the West is looking like a complete disaster for mankind.
@Katrinka in droves, but
there is massive fraud going on in GA, NC, NV, AZ, PA, WI and MI, as well as all the blue
states. Not only are votes miscounted, ballots conjured out of thin air for Biden, I suspect
many are also voting illegally since the DMV that registers voters in these states have no
capacity to check their citizenship status. The GOP needs to form an election integrity
committee and conduct a thorough audit of every state to verify their voters' eligibility. It
is a massive undertaking, but it must be done. There is no integrity left in our election
system.
The DNC should rename themselves the EJM, the End Justifies Means party. Democrats are a
bunch of shameless frauds.
It's so simple most don't even see it. American Jews are Trotskyites and Israeli Jews are
Stalinists. That's it Bolshevism 101, come to think of it there is no 102. It seems Mr. Trump
did not choose wisely.
Not that long ago the United States came close to total dissolution.
The financial system was bankrupt, speculation had run amok, and all infrastructure had
fallen into disarray over the course of 30 years of unbroken free trade. To make matters worse,
the nation was on the verge of a civil war and international financiers in London and Wall
Street gloated over the immanent destruction of the first nation on earth to be established not
upon hereditary institutions, but rather on the consent of the governed and mandated to serve
the general welfare.
Although one might think that I am referring now to today's America, I am in fact referring
to the United States of 1860.
The Trifold Deep State
In my past
two articles in this series, I discussed how a new system of political economy was
established by Benjamin Franklin and his disciples in the wake of the war of independence
driven by protectionism, national banking and internal improvements.
I also demonstrated that the rise of the thing known as today's "deep state" can also be
understood as a three-headed beast which arose in its earliest incarnation under the leadership
of arch traitor Aaron Burr who established Wall Street, killed Alexander Hamilton and devoted
his life to the cause of dissolving the union. After having been caught in the act of sabotage,
Burr escaped arrest in 1807 by running off to England where he live in Jeremy Bentham's mansion
for 5 years, only to return to oversee a new plot to break up the union that eventually boiled
over in 1860.
The three prongs of the operation that Burr led on behalf of British intelligence and which
remains active to this very day, can loosely be described as follows:
The Eastern Establishment families sometimes known as the Essex Junto who took control of
Hamilton's Federalist Party. These were Empire Loyalists who remained within the USA under
the illusion of loyalty to the constitution, but always adherent to a British Imperial world
order and devoted to eventually undermining it from within. These were the circles that
brought the USA into Britain's Opium trade against China as junior partners in crime and who
promoted the dissolution of the union as early as 1800
under the leadership of Aaron Burr.
The "Virginia Junto", slave owning aristocracy which also worked with Aaron Burr in his
1807 secessionist plot and whose alliance with the British Empire was instrumental in its
rise to power from 1828-1860. This was the structure that soon returned to power, after the
civil war, under the guiding hand of such
Mazzini-connected "Young Americans" as KKK founder Albert Pike and the Southern
establishment that later executed nationalist presidents in 1880, 1901 and in 1963.
Some Uncomfortable Questions
The story has been told of Lincoln's murder in tens of thousands of books and yet more often
than not the narrative of a "single lone gunman" is imposed onto the story by researchers who
are either too lazy or too corrupt to look for the evidence of a larger plot.
How many of those popular narratives infused into the western zeitgeist over the decades
even acknowledge the simple fact that John Wilkes Boothe was carrying a $500 bank draft signed
by Ontario Bank of Montreal President Henry Starnes (later to become Montreal Mayor) when he
was shot dead at Garrett Farm on April 26, 1865?
How many people have been exposed to the vast Southern Confederacy secret service operations
active throughout the civil war in Montreal, Toronto and Halifax which was under the firm
control of Confederate Secretary of State Judah Benjamin and his handlers in British
intelligence?
How many people know that Boothe spent at least 5 weeks in the fall of 1864 in Montreal
associating closely with the highest echelons of British and Southern intelligence including
Starnes, and confederate spy leaders Jacob Thompson and George Sanders?
Demonstrating his total ignorance of the process that controlled him, Booth wrote to a
friend on October 28, 1864: "I have been in Montreal for the last 3 or 4 weeks and no one
(not even myself) knew when I would return".
On The Trail of the Assassins
After Lincoln was murdered, a manhunt to track down the intelligence networks behind the
assassination was underway that eventually led to the hanging of four low level co-conspirators
who history has shown were just as much patsies as John Wilkes Boothe.
Days later, President Johnson issued a proclamation saying :
"It appears from evidence in the Bureau of Military Justice that the murder of Abraham
Lincoln [was] incited, concerted, and procured by and between Jefferson Davis, late of
Richmond, Va., and Jacob Thompson, Clement C. Clay, [Nathaniel] Beverly Tucker, George N.
Sanders, William C. Cleary, and other rebels and traitors against the government of the United
States harbored in Canada."
Two days before Booth was shot, Secretary of War
Edwin Stanton wrote : "This Department has information that the President's murder was
organized in Canada and approved at Richmond."
Knowledge of Canada's confederate operations was well known to the federal authorities in
those days even though the majority among leading historians today are totally ignorant of this
fact.
George Sanders remains one of the most interesting figures among Booth's handlers in Canada.
As a former Ambassador to England under the presidency of Franklin Pierce (1853-1857), Sanders
was a close friend of international anarchist Giuseppe Mazzini – the founder of the Young
Europe movement. Sanders who wrote "Mazzini and Young Europe" in 1852, had the honor of being
a leading member of the
southern branch of the Young America Movement (while Ralph Waldo Emerson was a
self-proclaimed leader of the
northern branch of Young America ). Jacob Thompson, who was named in the Johnson dispatch
above, was a former Secretary of the Interior under President Pierce, handler of Booth and
acted as the top controller of the Confederacy secret service in Montreal.
As the book Montreal City of
Secrets (2017), author Barry Sheehy proves that not only was Canada the core of Confederate
Secret Services, but also coordinated a multi pronged war from the emerging "northern
confederacy" onto Lincoln's defense of the union alongside Wall Street bankers while the
president was fighting militarily to stop the southern secession. Sheehy writes: "By 1863,
the Confederate Secret Service was well entrenched in Canada. Funding came from Richmond via
couriers and was supplemented by profits from blockade running."
The Many Shapes of War from the North
Although not having devolved to direct military engagement, the Anglo-Canadian war on the
Union involved several components:
Financial warfare: The major Canadian banks dominant in the 19 th century were
used not only by the confederacy to pay British operations in the construction of war ships,
but also to receive much needed infusions of cash from British Financiers throughout the war. A
financial war on Lincoln's greenback was waged under the control of Montreal based confederate
bankers John Porterfield and George Payne and also JP Morgan to "short" the greenback.
By 1864, the subversive traitor Salmon Chase had managed to tie the greenback to a (London
controlled) gold standard thus making its value hinge upon gold speculation. During a vital
moment of the war, these financiers coordinated a mass "sell off" of gold to London driving up
the price of gold and collapsing the value of the U.S. dollar crippling Lincoln's ability to
fund the war effort.
Direct Military intervention Thwarted: As early as 1861, the Trent Crisis nearly
induced a hot war with Britain when a union ship intervened onto a British ship in
international waters and arrested two high level confederate agents en route to London. Knowing
that a two-fold war at this early stage was unwinnable, Lincoln pushed back against hot heads
within his own cabinet who argued for a second front saying "one war at a time". Despite this
near miss, London wasted no time deploying over 10 000 soldiers to Canada for the duration of
the war ready to strike down upon the Union at a moment's notice and kept at bay in large
measure due to the bold intervention of the
Russian fleet to both Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the USA . This was a clear message to
both England and to Napoleon III's France (who were stationed across the Mexican border)
to
stay out of America's war.
Despite Russia's intervention, Britain continued to build warships for the Confederacy which
devastated the Union navy during the war and which England had to pay $15.5 million to the USA
in 1872 under
the Alabama Claims.
Terrorism: It is less well known today than it was during the 19 th century that
confederate terror operations onto the north occurred throughout the civil war with raids on
Union POW camps, efforts to burn popular New York hotels, blowing up ships on the Mississippi,
and the infamous St Albans raid of October 1964 on Vermont and attacks on Buffalo, Chicago,
Sandusky, Ohio, Detroit, and Pennsylvania. While the St Albans raiders were momentarily
arrested in Montreal, they were soon released under the logic that they represented a
"sovereign state" at conflict with another "sovereign state" with no connection with Canada
(perhaps a lesson can be learned here for Meng Wanzhou's lawyers?).
Assassination: I already mentioned that a $550 note was found on Boothe's body with the
signature of Ontario Bank president Henry Starnes which the failed actor would have received
during his October 1864 stay in Montreal. What I did not mention is that Booth stayed at the St
Lawrence Hall Hotel which served as primary headquarters for the Confederacy from 1863-65.
Describing the collusion of Northern Copperheads, anti-Lincoln republicans, and Wall Street
agents, Sheehy writes: "All of these powerful northerners were at St. Lawrence Hall rubbing
elbows with the Confederates who used the hotel as an unofficial Headquarters. This was the
universe in which John Wilkes Booth circulated in Canada."
In a 2014 expose , historian Anton Chaitkin, points out that the money used by Boothe came
directly from a $31,507.97 transfer from London arranged by the head of European confederate
secret service chief James D. Bulloch. It is no coincidence that Bulloch happens to also be the
beloved uncle and mentor of the same Teddy Roosevelt who became the president over the dead
body of Lincoln-follower William McKinley (assassinated in 1901).
In his expose, Chaitkin wrote:
"James D. Bulloch was the maternal uncle, model and strategy-teacher to future U.S.
President Theodore Roosevelt. He emerged from the shadows of the Civil War when his nephew
Teddy helped him to organize his papers and to publish a sanitized version of events in his
1883 memoir, The Secret Service of the Confederate States in Europe. Under the protection of
imperial oligarchs such as Lord Salisbury and other Cecil family members, working in tandem
with Britain's military occupation of its then-colony Canada, Bulloch arranged English
construction and crewing for Confederate warships that notoriously preyed upon American
commerce."
The Truth is Buried Under the Sands of History
While four low level members of Booth's cell were hanged on July 7, 1865 after a four month
show trial (1), the actual orchestrators of Lincoln's assassination were never brought to
justice with nearly every leading member of the confederate leadership having escaped to
England in the wake of Lincoln's murder. Even John Surrat (who was among the eight who faced
trial) avoided hanging when his case was dropped, and his $25 000 bail was mysteriously paid by
an anonymous benefactor unknown to this day. After this, Surrat escaped to London where the
U.S. Consuls demands for his arrest were ignored by British authorities.
Confederate spymaster Judah Benjamin escaped arrest and lived out his days as a Barrister in
England, and Confederate President Jefferson Davies speaking to adoring fans in Quebec in June
1867 encouraged the people to reject the spread of republicanism and instead embrace the new
British Confederation scheme that would soon be imposed
weeks later . Davies spoke to the Canadian band performing Dixie at the Royal Theater:
"I hope that you will hold fast to their British principles and that you may ever strive to
cultivate close and affectionate connections with the mother country".
With the loss of Lincoln, and the 1868 death of Thaddeus Stevens, Confederate General
Albert Pike established restoration of the southern oligarchy and sabotage of Lincoln's
restoration with the rise of the KKK, and renewal of Southern Rite Freemasonry. Over the
ensuing years, an all out assault was launched on Lincoln's Greenbacks culminating in the
Specie Resumption Act of 1875 tying the U.S. financial system to British "hard money"
monetarism and paving the way for the later financial coup known as the Federal Reserve Act of
1913 (2).
While the Southern Confederacy plot ultimately failed, Britain's "other confederacy
operation launched in 1864 was successfully consolidated with the British
North America Act of July 1, 1867. The hoped-for extension of trans continental rail lines
through British Columbia and into Alaska and Russia were sabotaged as told in the
Real Story Behind the Alaska Purchase of 1867.
Instead of witnessing a new world system of sovereign nation states under a multipolar order
of collaboration driven by international infrastructure projects as Lincoln's followers like
William Seward, Ulysses Grant, William Gilpin and President McKinley envisioned , a new age
of war and empire re-asserted itself throughout the 20 th century.
It was this same trifold Deep State that contended with Franklin Roosevelt and his patriotic
Vice President Henry Wallace for power during the course of WWII, and
it was this same beast that ran the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963. As New
Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison demonstrated in his book On the Trail of the Assassins (1991 ),
Kennedy's murder was arranged by a complex assassination network that brought into play
Southern secret intelligence assets in Louisiana, and Texas, Wall Street financiers, and a
strange assassination bureau based in Montreal named Permindex under the leadership of Maj.
Gen. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield. This was the same intelligence operation that grew out of
MI6's Camp X in Ottawa
during WWII and changed its name but not its functions during the Cold War. This is the
same British Imperial complex that has been attempting to undo the watershed moment of 1776 for
over 240 years.
It is this same tumor in the heart of the USA that has invested everything in a gamble to
put their senile tool Joe Biden into the seat of the Presidency and oust the first genuinely
nationalist American president the world has seen in nearly 60 years.
Exclusive: How The Bidens Made Off With Millions In Chinese Cash
New
documents show that as regulators closed in, Hunter struck a fresh deal with his Chinese partners
World Food Program USA Board Chairman Hunter Biden speaks at the World Food Program USA's Annual McGovern-Dole Leadership
Award Ceremony at Organization of American States on April 12, 2016 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Paul Morigi/Getty Images for
World Food Program USA)
The Senate's
report
on
Hunter Biden's activities released several months ago, which was
spun
by
the New York Times as having shown "no evidence of wrongdoing," nevertheless had several important gaps in the business
activities of the troubled son of the former vice president.
Draft legal documents and 2017 bank records obtained by The American Conservative show at least $5 million was transferred to
Hunter and Jim Biden from companies associated with the Chinese conglomerate CEFC, with millions coming after the company had
come under legal scrutiny both in the United States and China.
CEFC official Patrick Ho was arrested in November 2017 and charged by the Southern District of New York with corruption, and
was convicted last year. In addition, on or about March 1, 2018, CEFC Chairmen Ye Jianming was arrested in China for economic
crimes and hasn't been seen since. CEFC assets in China were seized by Chinese state agencies. In the U.S., major
beneficiaries were Hunter and Jim Biden.
What the following documents show is that as regulators moved to seize CEFC's assets, Hunter Biden attempted to take control
of the company founded in partnership with it. Instead, after striking a deal with two CEFC employees in the U.S., the funds
were disbursed over the next six months to his and his uncle's companies until it was all gone, in total at least $5 million.
2017 Bank Records
On August 5, 2017, the Bidens and CEFC entered into a 50-50 limited liability company agreement (Hudson West III) between
Owasco, Hunter Biden's company, and Hudson West V (CEFC). The Sep 22, 2020 report from the Senate Judiciary Committee (the
"HGSAC Report") surmised an agreement like this, but a copy can be seen, for the first time
here
.
In early 2017, CEFC was ranked as one of the top 500 corporations in the world.
Hudson West III set up two bank accounts with Cathay Bank, with the first set up on or about August 5.
A
company associated with CEFC deposited $5 million into the account on August 8; no contribution was made by the Bidens.
On
Nov 2, 2017, CEFC Limited deposited a further $1 million into the account. (Subsequently, the Hudson West III account shows a
wire of $1 million back to CEFC Limited on Nov 21, followed a few days later on Nov 27 by a credit memo for $999,938. The
HGSAC Report interpreted the Nov 21 wire transfer as a return of the $1 million, but appear to have omitted consideration of
the credit memo apparently reversing the return).
The
net result is that CEFC and its affiliates deposited almost exactly $6 million into Hudson West III in 2017.
In the 5 months between August 8 and Dec 31, 2017, Hudson West III disbursed almost $1.6 million to Owasco (Hunter Biden) in
wire transfers and credit card binges by the Bidens. The transfers appear to have been structured as $165,000 in monthly
payments, plus two other payments of $400,000 and $220,387.
Collated
screengrabs from Hudson West III bank statements showing payments to Owasco (Wells Fargo Clearing Services LLC)
The HGSAC Report reported on the $99,000 credit card spree by the Bidens in early September 2017, but, in addition to that
spree, there was an additional $77,700 in credit card sprees, making a total of $176,700 for the five month period.
Figure
2. Screengrab from Hudson West III bank statements showing credit card disbursements
Total expenditures by Hudson West III in the five months were $1,947,439, of which $1,522,000 went to the Bidens (via Owasco
and credit cards).
Hudson
West III bank accounts contained more than $4 million in cash at the end of 2017.
March 2018 Deal
Shortly after the arrest of CEFC Chairman Ye Jianming on March 1, 2018, there appears to have been a rolling seizure of CEFC
assets. Even with the profligate spending by the Bidens, Hudson West III would still have had about $3.5 million in cash in
March.
On March 26, a Chinese-American employee who was fiercely loyal to Hunter suggested to him that Hunter and the two CEFC
employees in the U.S. (Mervyn Yan and Kevin Dong) figure out a way to appropriate the Hudson West III cash before it was
frozen by Chinese regulators or receivers:
you guys (You/Mervyn/Kevin)
figure out a way to have the money transferred to the right U.S. account before any restriction levied by Chinese
regulators or appointed new boss in charge of manage the enterprise Ye left behind.
In fact, Hunter had already begun the process of appropriating Hudson West III cash before a receiver could arrive. On March
18, Hunter's lawyer sent a letter to Mervyn Yan proposing that Hudson West V (the proximate CEFC entity) assign its interest
in Hudson West III to Owasco (Hunter), a transaction which would give control of all the cash to Hunter (see
here
,
and
here
).
On or about March 30, 2018, Hunter and the two Chinese appear to have worked out a different arrangement. Among the newly
available documents are redlined versions of an assignment agreement in which Hudson West V assigned its 50% interest in
Hudson West III to Coldharbour Capital Inc., with Kevin Dong the proposed signatory for Hudson West V, Mervyn Yan for
Coldharbour Capital and Hunter signatory for Owasco's consent to the assignment.
The HGSAC Report does not appear to have had access to these documents: they noted that ownership of Hudson West III at some
point was 50% Coldharbour, but does not appear to have been aware of the prior ownership of this interest by Hudson West V or
the assignment to Coldharbour in late March 2018.
During the next six months, the cash was completely drained into the accounts of Owasco and Coldharbour, spent on consulting
fees and expenses. According to the HGSAC Report, total payments from Hudson West III to Owasco amount to an astonishing
$4,790,375 by September 2018, when the Hudson West III accounts were totally depleted. In November 2018, Hudson West III was
dissolved by Owasco and Coldharbour.
From the 2017 bank records, we know that $1,444,000 had been transferred to Owasco in 2017 (excluding direct payment of credit
card sprees); thus, transfers to Owasco in the first eight months of 2018 were approximately $3,345,000.
The assignment of Hudson West V's interest in Hudson West III to Coldharbour and the dissipation of cash to the Hudson West
III managers would probably not have stood up to a determined receiver appointed by the Chinese parent company, but there
doesn't appear to have been any attempt by the parent company to stop or control the dissipation of Hudson West III's cash
reserves.
Lion Hall (Jim Biden)
Invoices
Included in the newly available material are invoices to Owasco and, separately, to Hudson West III from Jim Biden doing
business as Lion Hall Group. The HGSAC Report stated that, between Aug 14, 2017 and Aug 3, 2018, Owasco sent 20 wires totaling
$1,398,999 to Lion Hall Group. The newly available documents show that Jim Biden charged Owasco $82,500 per month as a
"monthly retainer for international business development":
Readers will recall that Hudson West III bank statements showed regular monthly payments of $165,000 for the last 5 months of
2017. The corollary is that Hunter split this regular monthly payment from Hudson West III 50:50 with Jim Biden. The HGSAC
Report notes that the payments to Lion Hall Group had been flagged by Owasco's bank (Wells Fargo) for potential criminal
activity. The new documents contain an inquiry email from Wells Fargo compliance, together with a reply from Hunter which was
unresponsive on the key compliance questions. By the time that Wells Fargo raised its compliance concerns, the Hudson West III
cash had been exhausted and with it, presumably the stream of 50-50 payments to Uncle Jim.
As noted above, in addition to the regular $165,000 monthly payments, Owasco received other large transfers in 2017 and
presumably in 2018. It is not known whether Uncle Jim split these 50-50 as well, or whether this was a side transaction by
Hunter.
Concurrent with this flood of
money from CEFC, Hunter continued to receive a lavish stipend from Burisma. Nonetheless, by the end of 2018, Hunter had
hundreds of thousands in tax liens. In March 2019, despite having received millions from Chinese business interests, Hunter
even had to plead with former partner Jeffrey Cooper to email him $100 for gas so that he wouldn't be stranded on the highway.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Arthur Bloom is editor of The American Conservative online. He was previously deputy editor of the Daily Caller
and a columnist for the Catholic Herald. He holds masters degrees in urban planning and American studies from
the University of Kansas. His work has appeared in The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The
Spectator
(UK),
The Guardian, Quillette, The American
Spectator
,
Modern Age, and Tiny Mix Tapes.
email
Not by the Conservative press. But certainly by the Liberal press. I was born in a country
where all the news sources were owned by one of the political parties. Now I live in a
country where we have the
de facto
situation. In
America we are very good at setting the standard as the
de
jure
state of affairs, while ignoring the
de facto
state
of affairs. Every country has its share of hypocrisy. But there are few places, if any, where
it is institutionalized as America. We need to do much better. Despite what the Conservatives
say, the Liberal press used to try to do journalism. But they have given up.
I'm old enough to remember when CNN was a pretty middle of the road news organization.
But Fox came along and proved that naked partisanship, half-truths, innuendo, and
brightening up the hate centers of the brain was a far more profitable way of doing
business. CNN just had to compete.
We do have the Fox "News" Network (Most watched cable news channel, or so the
continually brag, and with TV/cable being where most Americans get their news from that
makes them a pretty big player) and One America "News" Network. Ad in the Sinclair
Broadcasting Network--they have no problem sending out canned od-eds supporting Trump
so they should have no ideological objection to pursuing this story. Perhaps they could
do some investigating and reporting instead of filling their airtime with
unsubstantiated accusations made by others that they take at face value.
Not to mention there are some print sources--The Washington Times, the NY Post, the
Orange County Register, Des Moines Register, etc.
Right? Between Fox News, the Murdoch owned papers, Breitbart, the Daiky
Caller/Wire, and Sinclair, the idea that right isn't represented in the media is
frankly insane. Even Q Anon has a better reach in Facebook than the NYT and they
are a pure distillation of conservatism.
"There is no conservative media" is an idea about as tethered to reality as
conservative media is in general.
This is news. Hunter Biden is most likely a crook. And a well-known watchdog group has just filed a
12-page complaint with DOJ requesting an investigation. Also check out this TV appearance on
Newsmax.
Hunter Biden is most likely a crook. But what a person "most likely is" is not news. I used
to watch Newsmax because it is good to hear about stories that the liberal press doesn't
cover. And it is good to get varying perspectives on news events even if the liberal press
covers them. But I can't take tv news any more. They are all mostly useless for people like
me who detest both political parties. I watch only Newsy. You should try if you are really
interested in news.
"watchdog group" you say? And that is supposed to me make me think that there is a difference
between that and the Republican Party? The liberals pioneered that trick. Now everyone uses
it. That is, name (effectively) an arm of the Democratic Party a "watchdog" and that is
supposed to give it credibility. But the trick is subject to our First Law of Politics.
Whatever tactic one party deploys, as long as it is successful, the other party will deploy
it. No matter how much they denounced it previously. At best, they will rename it. But
usually, they don't bother.
In any case, unless this "watchdog group" is alleging a crime there is no basis for a DOJ
investigation. What is the criminal accusation?
I'm not gonna lie, I didn't even waste my time reading this piece. Arthur seems to have all of a
sudden become interested in corruption (which likely didn't even happen) in a way he expressed no
interest in for the last 4 years. Forgive me if I don't vote him as an honest broker.
It's just so weak. This isn't an October surprise -- this is like a turkey surprise casserole
served two weeks after Thanksgiving. Even if this were a game-changing piece of reporting, it
seems a dubious tactic to release it on the morning of the election on a website that
probably gets less views than some random 16 year old dancing on Tik-Tok.
TAC's pivot over the last couple years into Brietbart territory is embarrassing. A lot of rightwing
media and personalities held out for awhile on Trump, but eventually saw where the wind was blowing
and jumped in the deep end. I hope no one on the principled right or left ever lets them forget it.
No shelter for scoundrels....
Thanks for publishing this. I hope more such pieces appear here in the next few weeks. TAC's regular
readers from the Left don't like it. Good. Rub their noses in it.
I was mentioning Hunter Biden and his Ukraine dealings back in 2014 but I don't have a public forum
outside email and social media and no one thought it of interest till his dad was running for
president against a man who by many accounts has been a crook his entire adult life, and proud of
it.
So Hunter failed to register as a foreign agent. Isn't that what Mike Flynn got busted for
along with some other Trump campaign officials? And hasn't Trump demanded his people all be
forgiven for their transgressions cause it wasn't really a bad thing?
Out of curiosity, among the hundreds if not thousands of websites you could be reading right now,
apart from thousands of decent monographs and works of fiction, why are you spending time this
morning at this "nutjob site," going so far as to login to the comments section to express to the
other presumably "nut job" readers that you're better than them?
This speaks VOLUMES about your worth as a human being. When you wake up around 3 AM over the next
few nights, it'll hit you. Let it sink in. Let it marinate. From such truths character is built.
It's pretty extreme. TAC comment section has become unusable bickering and taunts even after
blocking half the content. I don't know what they are hoping to accomplish other than
confirming our worst guesses about their character.
Exclusive? Of course! No one in their right mind would print it. And the enemy of the state-fake news
outlets are all looking for scoops and looking to win major awards and prizes for breaking a
story-----and for some reason all of these thousands of journalists did not get this "exclusive."
all unproved nonsense.Where is the indictment, when, after all Trump and Barr woprk hand in hand...simply
BS stuff to support Trump. Should Trump lose, watch the legal stuff that he will confront. Now worry
about that
When did this site turn into The Tucker Carlson show ? Please return to the thoughtful conservative
thought that you are know for. Sign of the times I guess and how internet culture can demean us all.
It's the same delusion they engaged in with Trump. They overweight the feelings of their in
group and underweight the population as a whole. Tucker doesn't actually have many viewers in
the scheme of winning a national election. He couldn't appeal to moderates.
the personalities, the party politics are the distractions that take our mind off policies.
Hope for policies that will increase our productivity without increasing repression.
1. What went wrong with the polls? They didn't do too badly in 2016; the popular vote was
close to the consensus prediction, and the electoral college was a squeaker within the margin
of error. This time though the polls were apparently way off. Yes, the votes are not all in,
but it doesn't look like we'll see the massive popular victory for Biden they foretold. In
fact, as I fade away tonight, it's still possible that Trump could pull out a legitimate
electoral college victory, something that seemed almost impossible a day or two ago. Take
Wisconsin (my home state) for instance. We saw numbers ranging from 5-13% for Democrats, and
now it's nip and tuck. Meanwhile, analysts were giving the Dems a better than even chance of
taking the Senate, but that looks out of reach now. So what gives? Supposedly the weights were
adjusted to better reflect the role of education, and the "shy Trumpster" effect was taken into
consideration. But here we are.
2. And how do we understand the politics? We're dealing with a president whose failures were
about as massive as could be, especially in the context of a pandemic. He made a fool of
himself in the first debate. He is mired in corruption. And the Republican senate has
repeatedly blocked measures to support workers, small business,es and local governments
devastated by the economic effects of the virus. If this isn't enough to expunge them from
office, what is?
Comments (1)
Likbez , November 4, 2020 10:32 pm
What went wrong with the polls?
Remember Talleyrand advice to young diplomats: "Surtout, pas trop de zele" – Above
all, not too much zeal
In their desire to influence electorate, pollsters quickly lose contact with the reality
(oversampling, etc). All those fables "Biden leads Trump by at least 5-7%" were actually
thinly disguised propaganda designed to influence electorate (I am not saying that Biden
lost; its currently undecided, but this is nail-biting at best, not a landslide)
Also you need to answer a very simple question: who will answer the phone those days
when such poll is conducted. Massing error is built-in only due to this factor (probably
+-20%)
November 4, 2020 10:56 pm
And how do we understand the politics? We're dealing with a president whose failures
were about as massive as could be, especially in the context of a pandemic. He made a
fool of himself in the first debate. He is mired in corruption.
This is all true and I am firmly in "anybody but Trump" camp, but let's do not forget
who Biden is: a corrupt to the core neoliberal politician; warmonger who never saw the war,
he did not like (and by voting for Iraq war he can be considered to be a war criminal, if
we apply Nuremberg standards to US politicians) .
When Stalin answered the question "Which deviation is worse, the Rightist or the
Leftist one?" by "They are both worse!", the underlying premise is that the Leftist
deviation is REALLY ("objectively," as Stalinists liked to put it) not leftist at all,
but a concealed Rightist one! When Stalin wrote, in a report on a party congress, that
the delegates, with the majority of votes, unanimously approved the CC resolution, the
underlying premise is, again, that there was really no minority within the party: those
who voted against thereby excluded themselves from the party
It is also undeniable that Biden has problems with health, and probably should not run
int he first place and let Sanders run instead. But DNC decided differently, pushing
Sanders and Tulsi under the train, and now is paying the price (if they really care).
Biden dementia worries are probably exaggerated by media, but some level of mental
decline is obvious:
In yet another embarrassing senior moment, Biden introduced his teenage granddaughter
Finnegan (err.. no, Natalie) as his late son Beau Biden ['s daughter? (mindreading here)]
to a crowd of supporters during an election day appearance in Philadelphia today.
Like in 2016, the key question of the 2020 elections is the question of the legitimacy
of neoliberal elite and classic neoliberalism as governing the USA elite ideology.
Many people, especially among the working class and lower-middle-class (including white
color lower middle class), answer this question negatively now.
Also, with their "Russia, Russia, Russia", scam neoliberal Dems further destroyed their
own credibility among those who can think, and to this slice of the electorate they now
look like fraudulent and desperate losers. Despicable warmongers.
What is good in the fact that the neoliberal Dems became the second war party, happily
married to the intelligence agencies brass. That's simply disgusting.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want
to hear."
- George Orwell
The American people remain eager to be persuaded that a new president in the White House can
solve the problems that plague us.
Yet no matter who wins this presidential election, you can rest assured that the new boss
will be the same as the old boss, and we -- the permanent underclass in America -- will
continue to be forced to march in lockstep with the police state in all matters, public and
private.
Indeed, it really doesn't matter what you call them -- the Deep State, the 1%, the elite,
the controllers, the masterminds, the shadow government, the police state, the surveillance
state, the military industrial complex -- so long as you understand that no matter which party
occupies the White House in 2021, the unelected bureaucracy that actually calls the shots will
continue to do so.
In the interest of liberty and truth, here are a few hard truths about life in the American
police state that will persist no matter who wins the 2020 presidential election. Indeed, these
issues persisted -- and in many cases flourished -- under both Republican and Democratic
administrations in recent years.
Overcriminalization will continue. In the face of a government bureaucracy consumed with
churning out laws, statutes, codes and regulations that reinforce its powers and value
systems and those of the police state and its corporate allies, we will all continue to be
viewed as petty criminals, guilty of violating some minor law. Thanks to an overabundance
of 4,500-plus federal crimes and 400,000-plus rules and regulations, it is estimated that
the average
American actually commits three felonies a day without knowing it. In fact, according to
law professor John Baker, " There is no
one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime
." Consequently, we now find ourselves operating in a strange new world where small farmers
who dare to make unpasteurized goat cheese and share it with members of their community are
finding their farms raided, while home gardeners face jail time for daring to cultivate their
own varieties of orchids without having completed sufficient paperwork. This frightening
state of affairs -- where a person can actually be arrested and incarcerated for the most
innocent and inane activities, including feeding a whale and collecting rainwater on their
own property -- is due to what law scholars refer to as overcriminalization.
Jailing Americans for profit will continue. At one time, the American penal system
operated under the idea that dangerous criminals needed to be put under lock and key in order
to protect society. Today, as states attempt to save money by outsourcing prisons to private
corporations, imprisoning Americans in private prisons run by mega-corporations has turned
into a cash cow for big business. In exchange for corporations buying and managing public
prisons across the country at a supposed savings to the states, the states have to agree to
maintain a 90% occupancy rate in the privately run prisons for at least 20 years. Such a
scheme simply encourages incarceration for the sake of profits, while causing millions of
Americans, most of them minor, nonviolent criminals, to be handed over to corporations for
lengthy prison sentences which do nothing to protect society or prevent recidivism. Thus,
although the number of violent crimes in the country
is down substantially , the number of Americans being jailed for nonviolent
crimes such as driving with a suspended license is skyrocketing .
Endless wars that enrich the military industrial complex will continue. Having been
co-opted by greedy defense contractors, corrupt politicians and incompetent government
officials, America's expanding military empire is bleeding the country dry at a rate of more
than $15 billion a month (or $20 million an hour) -- and that's just what the government
spends on foreign wars. That does not include the cost of maintaining and staffing the
1000-plus U.S. military bases spread around the globe. Incredibly, although the U.S.
constitutes only 5% of the world's population, America boasts almost 50% of the world's total
military expenditure, spending more on the military than the next 19 biggest spending nations
combined. In fact, the Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on
health, education, welfare, and safety. Yet what most Americans fail to recognize is that
these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do with
enriching the military industrial complex at taxpayer expense. Consider that since 2001,
Americans have spent $10.5
million every hour for numerous foreign military occupations, including in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Police shootings of unarmed Americans will continue. No matter what our party politics,
race, religion, or any other distinction used to divide us, we all suffer when violence
becomes the government's calling card. Remember, in a police state, you're either the one
with your hand on the trigger or you're staring down the barrel of a loaded gun. At least
400 to 500 innocent
people are killed by police officers every year. Indeed, Americans are now eight times
more likely to die in a police confrontation than they are to be killed by a terrorist.
Americans are 110 times more likely to die
of foodborne illness than in a terrorist attack. Police officers are more
likely to be struck by lightning than be made financially liable for their wrongdoing. As
a result, Americans are largely powerless in the face of militarized police.
SWAT team raids will continue. More than 80,000 SWAT team raids are carried out every year
on unsuspecting Americans for relatively routine police matters. Nationwide, SWAT teams have
been employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of criminal activity or mere
community nuisances including angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an
orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession, to give a brief sampling. On an average
day in America,
over 100 Americans have their homes raide d by SWAT teams. There has been a
notable buildup in recent years of SWAT teams within non-security-related federal
agencies such as the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the
Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Education Department.
The government's war on the American people will continue. "We the people" are no longer
shielded by the rule of law. While the First Amendment -- which gives us a voice -- is being
muzzled, the Fourth Amendment -- which protects us from being bullied, badgered, beaten,
broken and spied on by government agents -- is being disemboweled. Consequently, you no
longer have to be poor, black or guilty to be treated like a criminal in
America. All that is required is that you belong to the suspect class -- that is, the
citizenry -- of the American police state. As a de facto member of this so-called criminal
class, every U.S. citizen is now guilty until proven innocent. The oppression and injustice
-- be it in the form of shootings, surveillance, fines, asset forfeiture, prison terms,
roadside searches, and so on -- will come to all of us eventually unless we do something to
stop it now.
The rise of the surveillance state will continue. Government eyes are watching you. They
see your every move: what you read, how much you spend, where you go, with whom you interact,
when you wake up in the morning, what you're watching on television and reading on the
internet. Every move you make is being monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in
order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when
and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line. Police have been outfitted with a litany of
surveillance gear, from license plate readers and cell phone tracking devices to biometric
data recorders. Technology now makes it possible for the police to scan passersby in order to
detect the contents of their pockets, purses, briefcases, etc. Full-body scanners, which
perform virtual strip-searches of Americans traveling by plane, have gone mobile, with roving
police vans that peer into vehicles and buildings alike -- including homes. Coupled with the
nation's growing network of real-time surveillance cameras and facial recognition software,
soon there really will be nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.
The erection of a suspect society will continue. Due in large part to rapid advances in
technology and a heightened surveillance culture, the burden of proof has been shifted so
that the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty has been usurped by a new norm
in which all citizens are suspects. This is exemplified by police practices of stopping and
frisking people who are merely walking down the street and where there is no evidence of
wrongdoing. Making matters worse are Terrorism Liaison Officers (firefighters, police
officers, and even corporate employees) who have been trained to spy on their fellow citizens
and report "suspicious activity," which includes taking pictures with no apparent aesthetic
value, making measurements and drawings, taking notes, conversing in code, espousing radical
beliefs and buying items in bulk. TLOs report back to "fusion centers," which are a driving
force behind the government's quest to collect, analyze, and disseminate information on
American citizens.
Government tyranny under the reign of an Imperial President will continue. The
Constitution invests the President with very specific, limited powers: to serve as Commander
in Chief of the military, grant pardons, make treaties (with the approval of Congress),
appoint ambassadors and federal judges (again with Congress' blessing), and veto legislation.
In recent years, however, American presidents have anointed themselves with the power to wage
war, unilaterally kill Americans, torture prisoners, strip citizens of their rights, arrest
and detain citizens indefinitely, carry out warrantless spying on Americans, and erect their
own secretive, shadow government. The powers amassed by each past president and inherited by
each successive president -- powers which add up to a toolbox of terror for an imperial ruler
-- empower whomever occupies the Oval Office to act as a dictator, above the law and beyond
any real accountability. The grim reality we must come to terms with is the fact that the
government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned. More than terrorism, more than domestic
extremism, more than gun violence and organized crime, the U.S. government has become a
greater menace to the life, liberty and property of its citizens than any of the so-called
dangers from which the government claims to protect us. This state of affairs has become the
status quo, no matter which party is in power.
The government's manipulation of national crises in order to expand its powers will
continue. "We the people" have been the subjected to an "emergency state" that justifies all
manner of government tyranny and power grabs in the so-called name of national security.
Whatever the so-called threat to the nation -- whether it's civil unrest, school shootings,
alleged acts of terrorism, or the threat of a global pandemic in the case of COVID-19 -- the
government has a tendency to capitalize on the nation's heightened emotions, confusion and
fear as a means of extending the reach of the police state. Indeed, the government's answer
to every problem continues to be more government -- at taxpayer expense -- and less
individual liberty.
The bottom line is this: nothing taking place on Election Day will alleviate the suffering
of the American people. Unless we do something more than vote, the government as we have come
to know it -- corrupt, bloated and controlled by big-money corporations, lobbyists and special
interest groups -- will remain unchanged. And "we the people" -- overtaxed, overpoliced,
overburdened by big government, underrepresented by those who should speak for us and
blissfully ignorant of the prison walls closing in on us -- will continue to trudge along a
path of misery.
As I point out in my book
Battlefield America: The War on the American People , these problems will continue to
plague our nation unless and until Americans wake up to the fact that we're the only ones who
can change things for the better and then do something about it. If there is to be any hope of
restoring our freedoms and reclaiming control over our government, it will rest not with the
politicians but with the people themselves.
After all, Indeed, the Constitution opens with those three vital words, "We the people."
What the founders wanted us to understand is that we are the government.
NEVER MISS
THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
There is no government without us -- our sheer numbers, our muscle, our economy, our
physical presence in this land. There can also be no police state -- no tyranny -- no routine
violations of our rights without our complicity and collusion -- without our turning a blind
eye, shrugging our shoulders, allowing ourselves to be distracted and our civic awareness
diluted.
No matter which candidate wins this election, the citizenry and those who represent us need
to be held accountable to this powerful truth.
Irrespective of how long Biden remains in office, the guaranteed most devastating result
would be rebuilding of the bridges with the empire's longstanding vassals that Trump has so
helpfully disrupted and disarrayed. That means a guaranteed rapid escalation of the global
technocrat police state, with the covid-19 operation as primary resource fuelling change. (It
will also escalate under Trump, but there will in that case be massive hindrances in
cooperation caused by disunity among vassals and desire to go a separate way).
In Re Trump/Biden
Trump has been a failure as president. He fulfilled none of his campaign promises to the
disaffected working class he courted. Though I am sure at least one of his defenders here
will correct me and bring up a promise fulfilled. He has gifted the Republican side of the
swamp with the usual republican perks: roll back regulations on business: environmental,
worker protections, anticompetitiveness etc, give a major tax break to the wealthy, increase
the defense budget and pack the court system with conservative judges. On the coronavirus he
has failed completely no matter which side of the divide (hoax or emergency) you fall. For
the hoaxers, where was his forceful leadership toward the Swedish model or the "economy is
more important that losing 1% of the population" argument; for the emergency people he did
nothing to lead on or implement mitigation and management strategies.
He is a failure undeserving of reelection.
Biden is a career hack politician with all the corruption and service to the oligarchs
that entails. He never saw a war he did not vote to fund, he supported the Patriot Act and
the expansion of the intelligence sector, he shepherded the bankruptcy reform act through
congress that was a huge gift to his corporate masters in Delaware and a disaster for
citizens needing bankruptcy protection for any reason. He does not really deserve to be
elected either. However, the cold comfort of a Biden presidency to residents of the USA is
that, as a democrat, he could be expected to roll back the Trump destruction of environmental
regulations, refund and restaff the EPA, reengage with international treaties on such things
as fisheries, resource extraction, pollution, etc. Cold comfort but at least a tiny bit of
it.
As for the folks suggesting that Kamala Harris would either step aside as president, if
and when Biden is pushed out, or that she would be ruled from behind the scenes by Hillary
Clinton, they do not know the individual at all.
Kamala Harris got her political start when in the DA's office in San Francisco she began
"dating" the mayor Willie Brown who was perhaps the most powerful Democratic politician in
California. He connected her with the democratic machine and major donors who financed and
ran her successful campaign for District Attorney in SF. The same political machine backed
her when she ran for state Attorney General and won. While in office she moved from her
center-left San Francisco positions to the sort of center-right, slightly law and order
stance that saw her reelected to a second term in that office. She then won the state primary
for the "rotten" (in the British political sense of the word) senate seat of the retiring
Barbara Boxer and won the general election in a cake walk. While in the senate she has
supported the sort of lefty virtue signalling policies that never had a chance of passage in
a Republican controlled senate and thus shows up on the ticket with the support of the center
left without the actual left wing political baggage that would work against her. She is
smart, ambitious and has just enough of the politically requisite sociopathy to be very
successful at that career. The thought that she would either step aside from the presidency
or be a tool of a twice failed candidate for president is ludicrous. She knows quite well
that Hillary is on the downhill side of her influence and is handy to have around but does
not need to be kowtowed to.
On the other hand, if Donald wins this is all moot.
I personally wrote in Tulsi as she was the only candidate in this cycle who was even
faintly anti-war. I used to vote Green but you can only vote for a party that doesn't seem to
know what it is actually attempting to do for so long
Given the current condition of the Outlaw US Empire and state of the world, I'll ask the
question I asked before several months ago: Does it really matter which unqualified
goon/witch/zombie becomes POTUS?
One year ago I would have said it doesn't matter, the US aggression towards the rest of the
world, including small "allied" countries such as mine will not change one bit. Then, with
the assassination of Soleimani, Trump succeeded in proving that he too is a criminal, for
those in doubt. That was before the demented Biden was pushed forward.
However, the question is specifically referring to the current condition. In my opinion
the covid hysteria is a crime that must be stopped, it is schemed to make ordinary people
poor slaves and subject to extreme authoritarian rule. Biden does not have a political
program besides more masks. He is a tool, and as this article indicates if he wins he is
likely to be dumped at the first opportunity, making Harris the Clinton-puppet president and
somehow Hillary Clinton will be in control to implement the authoritarian nightmare.
Unfortunately, there are only 2 choices and both of them smell bad. But looking at it from
outside there is one important difference: The covid hysteria. With Trump elected I hope it
will stop. We can then deal with his other faults afterwards, and watch the empire
crumble.
Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 3 2020 1:10 utc | 75 Thanks, a good article.
From Alastair Crooke article why is Europe courting Revolution?
"Germany is angling for 'superpower' status, atop an EU 'empire' for the new era. Putin
recognised such a possibility (Germany aspiring to be a superpower) during his recent speech
to Valdai."
Perhaps these lines from Brecht may have been in the back of Putin's mind. They certainly
came to my mind after reading Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer's speech and this snippet form am
interview "We are well-fortified, and in case of doubt, ready to defend ourselves." Well not
from what I hear. How many tank armies do you have Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer? Just because
you spend a few billion more on defense than Russia doesn't mean squat.
Do not rejoice in his defeat you men.
For though the bastard is dead,
the bitch that bore him is again in heat. Brecht
So after Merkle puts on the crown Germany can set up 25 or so Reichskommissariat's through
the EU. Well, they do have experience in this sort of thing. Germany finally, will formally
get some colonies. But the NSA would still listen into her phone. Even after she retires.
Just for shits and giggles. The Navalny episode was indeed a bold face lie. That was the
straw that broke the diplomat's back. You can't argue with idiots.
I'm sure the animals in the EU that are a little less equal than the German pigs (banks)
will love that German empire thingy. Could they flock to Rothchild banker Macron as a
saviour? Hah! Another poisoned chalice. Does Germany build a virtual wall at the eastern
frontier of its conquest to stop those foreign substances being introduced into their
precious bodily fluids? How does one stop all those trains traveling from China now to
Europe? How does one rewind this without more pain?
Brussels plan for a 'Great Reset is bound to work like Hillary's reset, (not) especially
after the US economy starts to implode, which I think is very close to happening. They will
be looking east in that event cap in hand. Crow could be on their menu I think.
Perhaps these lines from Brecht may have been in the back of Putin's mind. They
certainly came to my mind after reading Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer's speech and this snippet
form am interview " We are well-fortified, and in case of doubt, ready to defend
ourselves. " Well not from what I hear. How many tank armies do you have Annegret
Kramp-Karrenbauer? Just because you spend a few billion more on defence than Russia doesn't
mean squat.
Posted by: Tom | Nov 3 2020 8:07 utc | 106
Yes, that was a rather strange claim to make, wasn't it? The appropriate comparison is to
the arrogant Poles in the run-up to WWII salivating at the thought of manipulating the
Germans to help them annex parts of Czech territory, but not long after the Germans had
achieved what they wanted in Czech the Poles themselves were effortlessly gobbled up whole by
the Germans without any meaningful defense. Likewise I think it was General Breedlove who
said recently the whole of NATO (not just German) armed forces in Europe were so weak the
entire UK armed forces would be totally eliminated within hours in the event of a war with
Russia (and if I remember correctly he included one other category, either the Baltic forces
or the German forces).
This woman AKK is stark raving mad. She should be confined to a lunatic asylum before she
does further damage.
"... It is funny though how little we know about the most likely outcome. The polls have been more often wrong than right and now show a tight race in those places that are really important. The final result may depend on a few hundred mail-in ballots in some county in Pennsylvania. Or there could also be a landslide in either direction. ..."
"... My personal hunch is that Trump, who is much less exceptional than the media portrait him, will get sufficient electoral college votes to stay in office. ..."
"... The color revolution playbook starts with denying the legitimacy of the vote ..."
A Weird Election Where The Aftermath May Be More Important Than The Resultsteven t
johnson , Nov 3 2020 18:40 utc |
7
Every four years the United States has "the most important election ever" though none of
those I remember have really changed anything fundamental.
Today's election is different because the Democrats
have threatened to attempt a color-revolution should their candidate not win:
It seems clear that the Democrats will contest the election unless Joe Biden wins an
electoral college majority. If Trump wins they will draw out any concession until the
last mail in vote is counted and litigated through the last level of jurisdiction. They
hope that the accompanying media attention, social media marketing and street action will
wear down the support for Donald Trump.
Throughout the last months the required tactics have been tested with Soros funded Black
Live Matters protests and anarchist riots in Portland and other cites.
This is, as far as I know, the first election day on which businesses have boarded up
their shops because they fear that the election night will be followed by
rampages and looting :
Business districts and office buildings in several U.S. cities are boarding up their
doors and windows for fear of Election Day unrest and in the days that follow.
The sound of sawing, drilling and nailing filled several blocks around the White House
and in New York City, including its iconic Macy's flagship department store.
Police said Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills will be closed down completely on Tuesday,
following a large pro-Trump demonstration in the shopping district over the weekend.
Federal authorities planned to extend the perimeter fencing around the White House by
several blocks, encompassing the same area fenced out during this summer's protests
against racism and police brutality.
Why all this fuzz? The difference between the two major parties is slim. Whoever wins
will be constrained in his policies to fit the general imperial trends the U.S.
follows.
It is funny though how little we know about the most likely outcome. The polls have
been more often wrong than right and now show a tight race in those places that are really
important. The final result may depend on a few hundred mail-in ballots in some county in
Pennsylvania. Or there could also be a landslide in either direction.
My personal hunch is that Trump, who is much less exceptional than the media
portrait him, will get sufficient electoral college votes to stay in office.
If the Democrats react to that as they have planned it is quite possible that the
aftermath of the election will be psychologically and historically more important than the
election result itself.
It is hard to convey how exceptionally weird this all looks from the outside.
The color revolution playbook starts with denying the legitimacy of the vote .
That person is Trump. Attributing a plot for a counterrevolution to anyone else is
lying.
That's bad enough but finding something sinister about plans to fight to the last lawyer
is just mad dog reaction. The idea that contesting the democratic legitimacy of the
Electoral College is somehow monstrous socialism is foaming at the mouth vicious. John
Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Samuel Tilden and Rutherford Hayes, are commies?
As ever, the combined inanity and moral squalor of the Trump lovers is astounding.
Today's election is different because the Democrats have threatened to attempt a
color-revolution should their candidate not win:
It seems clear that the Democrats will contest the election unless Joe Biden wins an
electoral college majority. If Trump wins they will draw out any concession until the
last mail in vote is counted and litigated through the last level of jurisdiction. They
hope that the accompanying media attention, social media marketing and street action will
wear down the support for Donald Trump.
Throughout the last months the required tactics have been tested with Soros funded Black
Live Matters protests and anarchist riots in Portland and other cites.
Is this a joke? The Biden campaign has built his coalition on white suburbia, older
voters, and a pretty right-leaning electorate. The Democratic Party has moved sharply to
the right under his campaign and has in almost no way supported BLM outside of a handful of
progressives. I expect when they win they will quickly throw the BLM movement entirely
under the bus as they're not really needed.
The final result may depend on a few hundred mail-in ballots in some county in
Pennsylvania.
One thing certain is that no matter what happens on November 3rd there will be two hard
core partisan factions which will insist their guy won, refuse to concede anything, dig in
and entrench. From there it'll be an extra-electoral civil war of propaganda,
lawfare-waging and street-fighting to determine, force against force, what occupies the
White House.
It is not Soros backed supporters of Trump that rioted past months all over the US, they
are on the left, fringe, weird pro-violence youth that have nothing to do with the left at
all, only out there for the kicks of violence and destruction.
Same with the fence they put up around the White house, surely you do not believe those
arent placed there to fend off Trump supporters.
Media narratives are already planting the idea of a prolonged election outcome reveal,
possibly sometime in December was already mentioned on one news station.
This election has loads of mail-in ballots and will be a real mess if there is not a
runaway victory.
I expect a Trump victory and believe the manipulation of poll numbers to inflate Joe
Biden in the media is not reflective of overall American sentiment. I also expect a "color
revolution" attempt by Democrats will only amount to Russiagate-flavored theater and,
sadly, a lot of violence among voters.
It looks weird from inside as well as from outside.
US does not have politics or political life in the ordinary sense. We barely have a
polis or a polity. All of that is subsumed under and substituted by elections. Elections
are the simulacra we use instead of having life.
In a recent thread there was discussion of education as viewed by Putin. America does
not do education either. When I was in public school in the 1960s the only subjects taken
seriously were sports and discipline. That was a golden age compared to present. The
electorate has no education at all. We were all born yesterday. We live in an eternal
present, no past, no future. Today is an election and that is the totality.
The 2016 expectation that Hillary would crush Trump caused the Demonkrats to
inadequately rig the vote enough to overcome the deplorable surge for Trump. This time they
have set up the greatest and most inclusive voter fraud in
history . Maybe they will manage it this time, but
only 28% of US citizens think the election will be "free and fair" . With tens of
thousands of people showing up at Trump rallies compared to the striking absence of turnout
at the Biden "rallies", would it not be logical for people to question any vote showing a
massive Biden vote?
Agreed! They did manipulated poll numbers 4 years ago and it didn't do them any good.
This time they're going one step further and trying to manipulate the actual vote.
Colour Revolution indeed! I do love the irony of it all. Trump could win and end up
getting treated the same way he treated Muduro in Venezuela. Or the Dems could win and find
out Trump can be just as poor a loser as they were in 2016 and refuse to leave the White
House.
Personally I'd say it would be Trump in landslide if it was a free and fair election,
which it won't be. Can Democrats steal it with fraud? I doubt it. They haven't done
anything right in 4 years. Why would such a corrupt entity suddenly become competent?
My honest hope is that the more or less responsible elements of military, security, and
intelligence, will keep things from getting out of hand, and 'step in' to inform the
conflicting parties that they actually did an actual count and actually verified it, in
reality.
Trump is going to win it. They only question is by how much.
The cities are not boarding up because they expect Trump to lose. They're boarding up
because the left will not accept a Trump win under ANY circumstance.
Hillary Clinton has urged Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to "not concede under
any circumstances," in November's presidential election, as she believes the results are
"going to drag out," because of mail-in voting.
Jim Rickards - remember him? Calling for a Trump win because Republican new voter
registrations are outnumbering Democrat new voter reg 2 to 1. The typical ratio is Dem 2 or 3
to 1 vs. Republican. He interprets this as the Republican ground game via canvassers being so
much stronger - unsurprising given the "lockdown" views of the mainstream Democrats.
He then cites the minority vote: black women. They voted 99% for HRC in 2016 - it looks like
they will vote 90% for Biden (and 10% for Trump). Rickards says this translates to a 0.6%
swing in the overall vote - which is huge since the margins are 0.2%.
Rickards also notes that the new registered voters don't show up in the polls because the
polls use existing voter databases, and that the conservative anti=poll bias means 1000 new
registered Republican voters means 10,000 or more actual new Republicans voting.
Lastly he cites the 56% "are you better off" poll recently. He notes that Obama, Bush etc
were winning with sub-50% responses (46%, 47% etc).
He notes that small businesses are half of GDP: nail salon and what not.
Other considerations that come to mind when considering the possible election outcome:
1) In 2016, it seems an unexpected number of people who didn't vote before decided to vote
because Clinton was simply unacceptable given her husband already was President, i.e., they
voted for "someone new" - which was Trump. Today, I suspect the shoe is on the other foot.
After four years of this asshole, I suspect a *lot* of people want him gone, even if they
don't think Biden is worth a hoot.
2) The military voted for Trump in 2016 because of his (alleged) "no new wars" promise.
It's unclear whether that remains the case today - even though Trump hasn't actually started
a new war (yet).
3) Gun owners voted against Clinton in 2016 and they will vote for Trump again in this
one. That almost goes without saying.
4) Speculation about new voter registrations is just that - speculation. Allegedly, most
of the new voters are from the young and minorities - most of whom are not favorable to
Trump. From
an article in The Atlantic:
The nature of the population eligible to vote is evolving in a way that should indeed help
Democrats. McDonald estimates that the number of eligible voters increases by about 5 million
each year, or about 20 million from one presidential election to the next. That increase
predominantly flows from two sources: young people who turn 18 and immigrants who become
citizens. Since people of color are now approaching a majority of the under-18 population --
and also constitute most immigrants -- McDonald and other experts believe it's likely that
minorities represent a majority of the people who have become eligible to vote since
2016.
The generational contrast in the eligible voting pool is also stark. States of Change, a
nonpartisan project studying shifts in the electorate, projects that Millennials (born,
according to the organization's definition, from 1981 to 2000) will constitute 34.2 percent
of eligible voters next year. Post-Millennials (born after 2000) will make up another 3.4
percent. That means those two groups combined will virtually equal the share of eligible
voters composed of Baby Boomers (28.4 percent) and the Silent and Greatest Generations
(another 9.4 percent).
These shifts have enormous implications because of the generational gulf in attitudes
toward Trump and the parties more broadly. His approval rating has consistently lagged among
the more racially diverse, socially tolerant younger generations. Though Trump and the GOP
have shown some signs of weakness recently among seniors, he has generally polled much better
among voters older than 50, in part because a much larger share of Americans in that cohort
are white.
"The group of voters that is going to increase at the fastest rate [in 2020] is
Millennials," says Josh Schwerin, the communications director of Priorities USA, a leading
Democratic super PAC that is already organizing in swing states for next year. "Donald Trump
is at a horrible standing with them and doing nothing to help himself."
5) "Are you better off" polls are hand-waving. Specific issue polling is likely more
accurate.
6) Given the figures that indicate Trump is trailing by five to eleven percent or more
except in close states, it doesn't look good for Trump. But see below.
7) Allegedly, Biden is way ahead in electoral votes - over 2 to 1. This is a serious
problem for Trump, if true.
8) In the top 21 closest states, Biden leads in most of them, although his lead is narrow
in half of them, and Trump leads in six of them
9) The question remains: Can the belief that this election is "important" lead to more
votes coming out for Trump than more coming out for Biden? Assuming that a certain percentage
of Trump supporters are no longer happy with his performance (white seniors allegedly don't
like his pandemic performance), is it possible that any new Republican voters who support
Trump can override those no longer happy with his performance *and* also the Democratic
vote?
10) Along with that, the overall turnout for early and mail-in voters is alleged to be 82
million so far, much higher than 2016. How many of those will be Trump supporters? If a
majority aren't, he will need Republican voters to turn out in record numbers at in-person
polling stations.
11) The number of undecided voters is much lower than 2016, so it's not clear how much a
swing either way would necessarily mean a win for either candidate.
It makes me nauseous just thinking about who might be chosen for a Biden
administration.
There will be no hope for reform within the Democratic Party, ever, with a 2020 win.
A win will be the formal announcement of the death of "the left" as the ideology that has
traditionally represented the interests of the people. The credibility of "the left" has been
eroding with each regime change war the U.S. has been initiating and participating in, with
NATO, since the war on Yugoslavia, but particularly in the Middle East and Libya. There has
not been a reckoning. Moral transgressions and cowardice, greed and inertia have in fact been
rewarded, and institutionalised. Eichman's plea a badge of honour and the whistleblower blown
away. The neocons, those influential Jewish, X-Trotskyite political chameleons pushed those
wars, and soft sold them through their many corporate media connections to produce "left
wing" journalism which manipulated concern for cruel dictators, for persecuted ethnic
minorities, refugees, weapons of mass destruction (the latest toxic version is chemical
weapons) and the unavailability of certain kinds of human rights, in nations which were
experiencing wars of "bomb them back to the stone age" aggression and psychopathic proxy
terror arranged by these very same neocons.
"The left" signalled their virtue by believing the war propaganda, and have not sufficiently
grasped the gravity of the sham perpetrated on their minds by this array of war criminals.
The derangement by Donald syndrome has also proven to be a most emphatic signal of virtue
with "the left", a commandment of wokeness. It is also most apparent that the deplorables,
aka the rednecks, can never be included in a census of the left- oh that is just way beyond
the pale! Very hard to imagine a large group of people who are so denigrated, and not just
within the US. Even the bourgeois left has become elitist, and the elitist as in Marxist left
has paradoxically no time for people, let alone the common ones. Vk has left us in no
doubt.
Glen Greenwald is at his peak in his Tucker Carlson interview, talking of infiltration of
"the left" by the agencies. This is compelling journalism because these truths are dangerous.
If there is a deep state, then it is the Dems, they've got it covered and the Atlanticists
are their allies. It fits in with Giraldi's latest prognostications, and what would be a
counterrevolution and not a revolution should "the left" decide to make the push. By left he
means Dems and their corporate sponsored affiliates, partisan elements of the spy agencies
and big tech. (I think of Mark2 and his misspelt slogans straight from the Gene Sharpe
handbook and wonder if earnest Mark2 is a typical lefty cadre, and muse over his enthusiasm
for the gutless Jeremy Corbyn, whom I'm sure is a very nice chap personally, but look at the
Labour Party now. Mark2, have you heard of the two forms of fascism, fascism and anti
fascism?). Jimmy Dore continues to be heroic when faced with unpleasant truths. Keep being
mad Jimmy, and just don't stand for it anymore!
Some of us are grateful for these individuals (and thanks to b for his meta commentary)
because they are publically enacting a kind of meaculpa, and they have premonitions and we
are being warned. There is grace in that. There still are still some good people who can
speak publically.
I used to be left politically, but got disillusioned some time ago. Not knowing what
progressivism is leading to, and not trusting its practitioners, I find conservatism to be
the more reasonable and tolerant position for these times.
What Would A Democratic Presidency Really Change?worldblee , Oct 31 2020
17:02 utc |
1
Pepe Escobar is as pessimistic about a Harris (Biden) administration as I am. The incoming
foreign policy team would be the return of the
blob that waged seven wars during the Obama/Biden administration:
Taking a cue from [the Transition Integrity Project], let's game a Dem return to the White
House – with the prospect of a President Kamala taking over sooner rather than later.
That means, essentially, The Return of the Blob.
President Trump calls it "the swamp". Former Obama Deputy National Security Adviser Ben
Rhodes – a mediocre hack – at least coined the funkier "Blob", applied to the
incestuous Washington, DC foreign policy gang, think tanks, academia, newspapers (from the
Washington Post to the New York Times), and that unofficial Bible, Foreign Affairs
magazine.
A Dem presidency, right away, will need to confront the implications of two wars: Cold
War 2.0 against China, and the interminable, trillion-dollar GWOT (Global War on Terror),
renamed OCO (Overseas Contingency Operations) by the Obama-Biden administration.
The Democratic White House team Escobar describes (Clinton, Blinken, Rice, Flournoy) would
be an assembly of well known war mongers who all argue for hawkish policies. The main
'enemies', Russia and China, would be the same as under Trump. Syria, Venezuela, Iran and
others would stay on the U.S. target list. U.S. foreign policy would thereby hardly change
from Trump's version but would probably be handled with more deadly competence.
But Escobar sees two potential positive developments:
In contrast, two near-certain redeeming features would be the return of the US to the
JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal, which was Obama-Biden's only foreign policy achievement, and
re-starting nuclear disarmament negotiations with Russia. That would imply containment of
Russia, not a new all-out Cold War, even as Biden has recently stressed, on the record,
that Russia is the "biggest threat" to the US.
I believe that Harris (Biden) will disappoint on both of those issues. The
neoconservatives have already infested the Harris (Biden) camp. They will make sure that
JCPOA
does not come back :
Last night on an official Biden campaign webinar led by "Jewish Americans for Biden", and
moderated by Ann Lewis of Democratic Majority for Israel, two prominent neocon Republicans
endorsed Biden, primarily because of Trump's character posing a danger to democracy. But
both neocons emphasized that Biden would be more willing to use force in the Middle East
and reassured Jewish viewers that Biden will seek to depoliticize Israel support, won't
necessarily return to the Iran deal and will surround himself with advisers who support
Israel and believe in American military intervention.
Eric Edelman, a former diplomat and adviser to Dick Cheney, said Trump's peace plan has
fostered an open political divide in the U.S. over Israel, ...
Eliot Cohen, a Bush aide and academic, echoed the fear that Israel is being politicized.
...
...
Cohen and Edelman opposed Obama's Iran deal, and both predicted that Biden will be hawkish
on Iran.
...
"There will be voices" in the Biden administration that seek a return to the Iran deal, but
the clock has been running for four years, and we're in a different place, he said. And "it
will be hard [for Biden] not to use the leverage that the sanctions provide in part because
Iran is not abiding by a lot of the limits of the nuclear agreement They're about three,
maybe four months away from having enough fissile material to actually develop a nuclear
weapon."
For lifting the sanctions against Iran the Harris (Biden) administration will demand much
more than Iran's return to the limits of the JCPOA. Iran will reject all new demands, be they
about restricting its missile force or limiting its support for Syria. The conflict will
thereby continue to fester.
The other issue is arms control. While a Harris (Biden) administration may take up Putin's
offer to unconditionally
prolong the New-START agreement for a year it will certainly want more concessions from
Russia than that country is willing to give. Currently it is Russia that has the upper hand
in strategic weapons with already deployed hypersonic missiles and other new platforms. The
U.S. will want to fill the new 'missile gap' and the military-industrial complex stands ready
to profit from that. The New-START prolongation will eventually run out and I do not see the
U.S. agreeing to new terms while Russia has a technological superiority.
Domestic policies under a democratic president will likewise see no substantial
difference. As Krystal Ball remarked,
here summarized from a Rolling Stone podcast:
But even with a Biden win, Ball doesn't think it will mean much for policy.
"My prediction for the Biden era is that very little actually happens," says Ball.
"Democrats are very good at feigning impotence. We saw this in the SCOTUS hearings as well.
They're very good for coming up with reasons why, 'oh those mean Republicans, like we want
to do better healthcare and we want left wages, but oh gosh, Mitch McConnell, he's so
wiley, we can't get it done.'"
'Change' was an Obama marketing slogan to sell his Republican light policies. A real
change never came. The Harris (Biden) administration must be seen in similar light.
I therefore agree with the sentiment with which Escobar closes his piece :
In a nutshell, Biden-Harris would mean The Return of the Blob with a vengeance.
Biden-Harris would be Obama-Biden 3.0. Remember those seven wars. Remember the surges.
Remember the kill lists. Remember Libya. Remember Syria. Remember "soft coup" Brazil.
Remember Maidan. You have all been warned.
Posted by b at
16:45 UTC |
Comments (183) I have been trying to set the expectations for my deluded Democratic,
pro-tech industry, pro-security state friends and colleagues who think they are
forward-thinking progressives but actually just hate Trump as emblematic of non-college
educated blue collar types they prefer not to associate with. Biden himself said it, "Nothing
will change," and Obama deported many more people in his first term than Trump has to pick
but one issue. There will be no M4A, little change in foreign policy, no major stimulus for
workers, etc. But since the face in the White House will have changed, they will convince
themselves that America has changed and it was all thanks to them...
One major change I expect to see is that BLM protests will fade into the background if
Harris/Biden is elected. Without the need to pressure an administration the elites want to
get rid of, there won't be the funding and energy to sustain it. But America will continue on
the same downward trajectory and the same divisions will still exist with no remediation in
sight.
Really, so what? You have a choice between chaotic anarchic corruption, and organised
professional corruption. Is it not better to have the calm, predictable, version - at least
you know what you're getting. In any case I am not sure Biden would be able to go back to
launching new wars so easily. The US gives the impression of being over-stretched as it is.
It seems clear that Biden will win. This means that the possibility of a serious military
confrontation with Russia is more likely than it would be with a Trump win. In any Biden
cabinet Michelle Flournoy will have a major voice. She would have likely become Hillary's
Secretary of Defense. In August of 2016 Flournoy wrote a major foreign policy article
advocating a 'no fly' zone over Syria. That would have meant that the US military would have
been obliged to prevent the Russia airforce from operating in Syrian skies (even though, the
Syrian government had invited the Russians to be there). No one really knows if Flournoy
would have been given authority to carry out such insanity had Hillary won, but the
consequences of such insane policy are easy to imagine.
But without much doubt, a Biden administration will have Susan Rice and Michelle Flournoy
in very high policy positions. Given that Biden is rapidly descending into dementia and
Kamala Harris seems utterly clueless, US government foreign policy will very likely be led by
a Rice/Flournoy collaboration in the coming years. Of course, China has become a much bigger
player in the last four years. Maybe those fools around Biden will be distracted by China and
they avoid war with with Russia. In either case it looks like very dangerous times
ahead.
Trump was always for me about controlled demolition of the empire.
Putin will not tolerate another ramping up of hostilities in the MENA.
I believe, just as in 2016, open military confrontation with Russia hangs in the
balance.
It is believed here and elsewhere that Russia and China are working hand in hand and
lockstep to thwart the empire.
They may be trade allies but they are not bed fellows.
Russia will always do what is in its own interest and will be beyond reproach from China
come a last-minute attempt for it to talk down hostilities btw Ru and U.S.A.
I hope those peddling the narrative that all is theater and a mere globalist game to keep
the peons entertained are correct.
But I fear the stupidity and egoism of man far more than I do their love of money and life
of luxury.
The JCPOA's "snap back" provisions etc. prove that Obama never intended JCPOA as a long term
agreement in the first place. The issue was always how long it would suit, not how long it
would take for the US to. Nor is the US going to forego it's support for a colonial assault
on the Middle East, aka Israel, any more than England will give up Gibraltar.
That said, there really is a policy debate between attacking Russia first or attacking
China first or simultaneously attacking both. The thing is, the conflict will continue after
any election. Since the Democratic Party isn't a programmatic party but a franchise operation
of Outs, there will be zero unanimity within the Democratic Party and not even a clean sweep
of the national government will resolve the dispute, which will be waged with exactly the
same panic-mongering, paranoid cries of treason, barely subdued hysteria at the prospect of
the lower races overtaking the God-given rights of the US government to exercise imperium
(right to punish, particularly with death, originally) over humanity, and so on. The same
ignorant vicious halfwits who were convinced Clinton Foundation was worse than the Comintern
infiltrating innocent America made assholes of themselves. They'll just do it again over
Biden, but with different made up excuses.
Domestically, there will be real differences, albeit some will still consider them
entirely minor. There will be less emphasis on military officers masquerading as civilian
officials; more emphasis on actually having competent officials who are even confirmed by the
Senate; somewhat larger infrastructure investment; somewhat less deliberate destruction of
government capacity to deliver services; slightly greater emphasis on keeping money valuable
by limiting government spending, with smaller increases in military spending, slightly
greater taxes, and only limited support to state governments going bankrupt, bankrupt
unemployment and pension funds; a few restrictions on mass evictions; no separation of
families in ICE prisons; open appeals to racism will cease. There will not however be any
Medicare expansion, nor will there be a radically progressive federal income tax, not even a
new bankruptcy law, nor will there be even political reforms like direct popular election of
the president or even reform of the judiciary. There may be a minimum wage increase to $15
per hour.
One note: The idea that any president will honor any deal to step down or that a president
can be forced down is refuted by history thus far. All theories that Biden is scheduled to be
terminated are silly. Or worse, attempts to race bait Harris (note the ones who like to call
her by her first name.) The influence exercised by Obama in getting Biden the nomination
shows that if Biden is in any sense a puppet, he's Obama's puppet. Fixating on Harris instead
is foolish even as some sort of amateur conspiracy mongering. No matter what Obama thinks,
the inauguration will sever all puppet strings.
Can't say I'm convinced by all these threats of wars. They didn't do a No-Fly Zone in
Syria when they could, e.g. 2013. The reason it was not done is that it was too difficult to
do, and required too vast a military investment. Situation remains true today. You'll find
most of Biden's prospective wars fall in the same category.
The US self-declared "progressives" are horribly dumb people, no matter their degrees and
"intellectual" professions. Stupidity is the illness (weakness) of the societal immunity
system. The Blob of the parasitic class is the pestilence that thrives on the immune weakness
of the US society. Not happy with mine, then find a better metaphor.
I repeat myself from before, US presidents change, US policy (Mayhem Inc.) does not.
Nether on Russia, Syria, Iran, Venezuela ..., nor on China. If Trump loses, I will miss only
the potential duel at the OK Corral between Trump and the Blob/Swamp. If Trmp wins, I am
buying popcorn.
@Laguerre #7
I would argue the failure of a "no-fly" zone in Syria was more due to united UN (Russia and
China) opposition plus the Russia airbase in Tartus rather than any policy changes in the US.
It's everywhere. And matched by Democratic Party ineptitude, fake "resistance", and
generally lax attitude (spurred by a false sense of security due to polling numbers that
can't be relied upon).
That's why I'm predicting a Trump landslide - including winning the popular vote.
The Deep State wants a 'Glorious Leader' type that can lead the country against Russia and
China.
KB has it right the demodogs will have better PR but nothing will change. The only thing I
hope they do is fully throw the u.s. govt behind stopping the virus and even that will be
hard do to many stupid people.
Trumpster and the swamp all he did was change the cruel animals in it and biden will
change it back to the other cruel animals that were there before.
It is hard to tell what will change if the Democrats win because they have flip flopped on
policies so many times that you don't know what they really stand for.
Are they going to ban fracking or not?
Are they going to end the oil industry or not?
Are they going to pack the Supreme Court or not ?
Are they going to implement the Green New Deal or not ?
Are they going to encourage immigration or not ?
Are they going to tear down the Wall?
Are they going to defund the police or not?
Other than #OrangeManBad what do they actually stand for ?
Jonathan Pie lays it out quite nicely https://youtu.be/IdnHfYbr1cQ
The one issue that is critical is that it is clear than Biden will not make it full term.
His mental faculties are deteriorating rapidly. He might just make it over the goal post line
but just barely.
Therefore the real question is what will Kamala Harris do?
Russia has a lead in strategic weapons that the US will not be able to catch up with.
Hence the US emphasis on nuclear weapons to bridge the gap. Russia has successfully thwarted
the empire on several occasions. How will the empire struck back ? (So as not to lose
credibility with allies and vassals alike)
They are going to reduce government subsidies for fracking
And encourage the oil industry's ongoing retooling to other energies
They are going to expand the SCOTUS to 13 seats in keeping with the number of Circuit
Courts
They are going to implement environmental legislation and policies
They will hopefully try to adopt a comprehensive policy on immigration and naturalization
They will abandon The Wall project as pointless
They will review the role of the police in dealing with situations where a social worker or a
psychologist (with police escort) might better be able to handle the situation
Kamala Harris will keep an active and high profile as she is being groomed to run in
2024
I agree that trajectory in foreign policy will be the same. I think a Trump administration
would tend to entrench into the bureaucracy the xenophobic nationalists. This is in contrast
to the neoliberal nationalists that make up the Democrat side of the foreign policy clique.
In practice the latter ends up carrying water for the neocons, so the difference from the
global perspective, the perspective of those on whom the bombs fall, is academic.
Domestically, however, I don't think we can say there's no significant difference. At some
point far down the road, there will be a more meaningful internal political struggle in the
US. Talking about when the $$ printing power runs out, so several presidential cycles from
now at the very earliest, maybe many decades away.
The out-groups targeted by xenophobic nationalism will shift by then - either black or
hispanic people will necessarily be included into the Republican party, and the divide may be
more a matter of religion or nationality than race, but the overall idea will be the
same.
No matter the details, it would be better to go into that conflict without giving the
right-wingers a big head start. I think we should admit that Trump does accelerate the
process. Maybe readers outside the US take some pleasure in the chaos produced by this, but
for anyone actually planning to live within the US, who also objects to unrestrained
nationalism, there actually is a pretty high price to pay for peeling off the mask of phony
benevolence off of the de-facto imperialist foreign policy.
'b' half the truth isn't the truth, no doubt you'l get round to the other half. It's
conspicuous !
In these times focusing on what might happen if we get Biden, is biased.
What in your view might happen if we get trump ?
Given his track record.
Much more relevant I feel.
@Malchik #16
Well, kid, I will guarantee that 2/3rds of what you say will happen with a Biden win, won't
happen.
I am particularly struck by your assertion that "super predator" Biden and "Lock 'em up"
Harris will do anything to rein in police misbehavior. That is pure fantasy.
As for fracking: the subsidies were primarily by banksters in the form of loans and have long
since ended. Nobody believes fracking is going to be a profitable business for at least a
decade.
The only objection I have with supporting Trump's reelection from a non far-right viewpoint
is that you would essentially be supporting an anti-democratic process: Trump is certainly
going to lose the popular vote. Deserving or not, Biden does represent the absolute majority
of adult America. By supporting Trump, you're essentially speaking in the name of the
interests of a small redneck aristocracy (of circa 77,000 in size, according to the 2016
election results) in the Rust Belt and Western Pennsylvania. You are supporting white
supremacy those rednecks undoubtedly support - wanting you or not.
In my opinion, it's time for the non far-right of the USA to start thinking seriously
(specially if you're one of the twelve socialists in the country) in Third Party vote. Yes,
you won't pick up the fruits immediately, but at least you're build up a legacy for the
generations to come to try to change the landscape.
Now, of course, very little will change with Biden-Harris. But this has a good side, too:
it shows the American Empire has clearly reached an exhaustion point, where the POTUS is
impotent to the obstacle posed by China-Russia. Putin has already publicly stated he doesn't
care who's next POTUS; China has already stated what the USA does or decides won't mean shit.
Maybe the rising irrelevance of the POTUS is good in the greater scheme of things - or, at
least, it gives us new, very precious, information about the core of the Empire.
Is b really suggesting Trump is more peaceful than Biden?
The notion that Trump is fundamentally different than Biden or Hillary or Obama or Bush is
specious. They are all on Team Deep State, which serves the monied class.
And the pretense that the Deep State is divided or partisan is equally laughable.
Strange that so many smart people fall for the shell game behind the 'Illusion of
Democracy'. Is it so difficult to see the reshuffling of deck chairs and entertaining
diversions that pass for "US politics"?
Biden will bring fresh blood to the Presidency, just you watch.
But seriously, things have been changing very rapidly all of my life, and accelerating as
we go. I don't see that the political/managerial classes here are up to the job of managing
that change, have shown any aptitude for it or understanding of it in the past either. They
remain focussed on their depraved personal ambitions and demented interpersonal disputes. So
no change in the midst of lots of change is what I expect, time to keep an eye out and
consider ones options.
By supporting Trump, you're essentially speaking in the name of the interests of a small
redneck aristocracy (of circa 77,000 in size, according to the 2016 election results) in
the Rust Belt and Western Pennsylvania. You are supporting white supremacy those rednecks
undoubtedly support - wanting you or not.
Jesus but that is an ignorant comment. Michael Moore explained 4 years ago why Trump will win
the election (2016) https://youtu.be/vMm5HfxNXY4
div> @vk #21
You said:
The only objection I have with supporting Trump's reelection from a non far-right
viewpoint is that you would essentially be supporting an anti-democratic process: Trump is
certainly going to lose the popular vote.
The United States has a Constitution and was designed as a Republic.
"Democracy" as in majoritarian rule was explicitly designed against by the Founding
Fathers.
Thus your criticism is utterly irrelevant. Until the Electoral College system is changed by
Constitutional Amendment, or the United States of America is overthrown by a revolution, all
this talk about "majoritarian demos rule" is purely partisan nonsense.
Note also that the 48 states which are "first past the post" are all disenfranchising the
minority views. I 100% guarantee that a European style ranked vote system would see far more
minority votes be submitted than the present systems.
Deserving or not, Biden does represent the absolute majority of adult America. By
supporting Trump, you're essentially speaking in the name of the interests of a small redneck
aristocracy (of circa 77,000 in size, according to the 2016 election results) in the Rust
Belt and Western Pennsylvania. You are supporting white supremacy those rednecks undoubtedly
support - wanting you or not.
Wow, thanks for showing your "deplorables" views. Anyone against the "right"
and "proper" Democrat sellouts to pharma, tech and enviro must be rednecks. It is precisely
this view that galvanized the vote against HRC in 2016.
The only objection I have with supporting Trump's reelection from a non far-right viewpoint
is that you would essentially be supporting an anti-democratic process: Trump is certainly
going to lose the popular vote.
The United States has a Constitution and was designed as a Republic.
"Democracy" as in majoritarian rule was explicitly designed against by the Founding
Fathers.
Thus your criticism is utterly irrelevant. Until the Electoral College system is changed by
Constitutional Amendment, or the United States of America is overthrown by a revolution, all
this talk about "majoritarian demos rule" is purely partisan nonsense.
Note also that the 48 states which are "first past the post" are all disenfranchising the
minority views. I 100% guarantee that a European style ranked vote system would see far more
minority votes be submitted than the present systems.
Deserving or not, Biden does represent the absolute majority of adult America. By
supporting Trump, you're essentially speaking in the name of the interests of a small
redneck aristocracy (of circa 77,000 in size, according to the 2016 election results) in
the Rust Belt and Western Pennsylvania. You are supporting white supremacy those rednecks
undoubtedly support - wanting you or not.
Wow, thanks for showing your "deplorables" views. Anyone against the "right" and
"proper" Democrat sellouts to pharma, tech and enviro must be rednecks. It is precisely this
view that galvanized the vote against HRC in 2016.
The notion that Trump is fundamentally different than Biden or Hillary or Obama or Bush is
specious.
That's not actually true.
Biden has 47 years of track record to rely on.
HRC, ditto.
Bush is umpteenth generation Bush in government (100 years plus).
Obama was groomed through Harvard, community organization and Senate position as a servant of
the oligarchy.
Trump is a billionaire and 2nd generation wealthy, but he neither shares the views of the
oligarch classes - his historical behavior is clear proof of that - nor is he predictable as
the other 4 are.
If presented with a neocon view - all 4 of the above would 100% agree.
Trump? 85%.
That is a difference albeit absolutely not world changing.
Pure BS.
Giving health care to 20 million poor Americans ain't nothing to sneeze at. Adding pre
existing conditions save millions of lives. That's why the right despises Obama so much. How
dare he give money to those free loaders!
lets show what the republicans have done for poor Americans besides taking more needex
money from them and giving it to their rich buddies.
and No, Democrats cannot do anything if they don't control the Congress. They should have
done it 2 years ago but since all they were doing was scream RUSSIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! at
the top of their lungs,the people turned their backs on them.
Bullshit article.
The Democrats are not going to end fracking. It is doomed to collapse without their help. A
Wall Street Journal study revealed a remarkable fact that few Americans know; From 2000-2017
fracking companies spent $280 billion more to extract fracked oil and gas than they received
in revenue. Fracking is nothing more than a massive Ponzi scheme predicated on the constant
issuing of debt and stock. Fracking wells deplete quickly. There is a constant need for more
expensive drilling. The remaining areas that will be fracked have less productive wells. Much
of the debt fracking companies have issued is back loaded while the well's production is
front loaded. There simply isn't going to be enough revenue generated to meet debt
obligations. What made the scheme possible was the artificially low interest rates created by
the Federal Reserve. There was a demand for yield that drove investment into debt of dubious
quality. A crash is inevitable.
Biden will bring fresh blood to the Presidency, just you watch.
I am curious why you think so.
Biden is nothing, if not a creature of habit (of obedience to his corporate masters).
Biden likely NSC: Tony Blinken. Deputy Secretary of State and Deputy NSC under Obama.
Susan "Bomber" Rice?
John Kerry?
Sally Yates? The one who signed the FISA warrants based on the Steele Dossier (based on 2
drunkard Russians in Malta mad at being fired)
Michael Bloomberg?
Jamie Dimon?
The only "fresh blood" in this group is the teenage blood they inject to try and remain
young.
Elizabeth Warren, were Biden to appoint her as Treasury Secretary, *would* constitute fresh
blood.
The likelihood of the Senator from MBNA appointing her to that position is zero.
I would love to be wrong in that instance, but it ain't gonna happen.
What is trumps legacy so far ?
Let's call that -- - 'The Crimes Of Donald Trump'
Well he has legitimised cold blooded murder.
Ditto racism.
Run roughshod over national laws and conventions. -- Invading an embassy. Assange, koshogie
murder, white helmit chlorine attack false flag. Funding and arming by US of Isis.
Corporate mansloughter by virus.
Interference in numerous country's internal politics.
Allowing Israel to interfer take over US politics.
The above are a few that comes to mind.
Have we done away with law and order ?
Feel free to add to my 'Crimes of Donald Trump' list.
In a word normalisation.
I hope you are right that the US will avoid war in Syria because they would lose. I was,
on the other hand, very impressed that Flournoy was advocating that no fly zone in August of
2016. It was on the basis of her article at that time I fled the US Democratic Party. I knew
it was bad before, but it suddenly became clear how Hillary would lead us int WWIII.
We've talked at moa about how policy doesn't change much between Democrat and Republican
Administrations. And we've talked about the Illusion of Democracy.
That each President has a different personality as well as different priorities and
challenges during their time in office doesn't indicate any fundamental difference in how we
are governed.
And Hillary Clinton wants to be Secretary of Defense in a Biden administration. Not only
would the world be in trouble I could see her using the DOD internal hit teams to go after
her domestic enemies. They will make 8 years of Bush junior look like a Disneyland vacation.
It will be similar to the many unsolved murders of Weimar Germany.
That was sarcasm, I knew it was going to cause trouble, sarcasm never works on the web
unless you add a /sarc tag or something, I guess I feel a bit perverse today.
But to be serious, any attempt to predict what comes next here must rely on the idea that
the future will be like the past, we extrapolate in other words, from various trends that we
pick out. We can expect Biden to remain who he has been in the past, politicfally he's a
hack, what we know of Harris does not suggest any principles to speak of either, so I feel
more like I want to pay attention to what's coming than trying to predict what they is going
to do or not do. That likely depends on "contingencies" just as in the past.
#23 - "I don't see that the political/managerial classes here are up to the job of managing
that change, have shown any aptitude for it or understanding of it in the past either."
This is a highly relevant observation. For some time the character and intellectual scope
of the political/managerial sectors in the West have been noticeably mediocre, and will
likely continue as such for the foreseeable future. The necessary reforms of capitalism were
vetoed decades ago, ensuring that productive energies would gradually dissipate. For the last
decade all the West has had to offer the rest of humanity is neoliberal austerity, colour
revolutions, and armament contracts. This is a journey towards an eventual hollowed-out
self-imposed isolation, a process the political/managerial sectors are actively encouraging
and supporting without realizing it at all.
Interesting to see how the kayfabe vocabulary of Dim propaganda infects everyone's thought
and speech. Including b's:
"'Change' was an Obama marketing slogan to sell his Republican light policies."
Republican my eye. Democrat policies, period. A party founded, maintained and run to
implement the ruling class empire and war agenda, just like the Repucrats.
As if Obama was some kind of exception. Ditch this language.
usa is the major unknown;
China and Russia don't need to physically war - they are winning at PR around the globe.
Even tiny Cuba has greatly better creds!
usa needs to be a people who truly and consistently respect their allies.
Which comes back to usa being the major unknown.
'Cept for warmongering.
"All of us who spent careers in the military were raised on the notion that you lead by
example, and President Trump has been the antithesis of that in dealing with this
pandemic," said Charles "Steve" Abbot, former commander of the U.S. Sixth Fleet and deputy
Homeland Security Adviser. "Instead of taking steps that I would call 'Crisis Management
101,' President Trump shirked his duty to the nation by failing to provide the central
leadership necessary to get our arms around the problem, and he continues to mislead the
entire nation about this terrible threat. The result of that failure of leadership was that
his administration committed an unrelenting string of missteps, and the American public has
lost trust in what the president tells them."
The sixth Fleet is Europe, so "this terrible threat" must be Russia, which is the natural
enemy of the DNC/AtlanticCouncil/NATO unlike Trump the 'Putin-lover.'
And more on anti-Russia, from the article:
President Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton said earlier this year that
Trump had repeatedly raised the issue of withdrawing the United States from NATO, and
warned of "a very real risk" that Trump would actually follow through in a second term.
Nicholas Burns, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO and the number three official at the
State Department, put it this way: "Every modern president since Harry Truman has viewed
our commitment to democratic allies around the world as sacrosanct, because for half a
century those alliances have been a key source of American power." He noted that a
dissolution of NATO is at the top of Russian President Vladimir Putin's wish list. "Under
President Trump we have walked away from that global leadership, and, as a result, trust in
the United States has plummeted even among our closest friends. That's done enormous
damage."
This is a journey towards an eventual hollowed-out self-imposed isolation, a process the
political/managerial sectors are actively encouraging and supporting without realizing it at
all.
Posted by: jayc | Oct 31 2020 19:18 utc | 37
I've been sort of fascinated by that for some time, back when I was young we were still
smart enough to know we had to compete with the USSR, and that we therefore had to develop
our human capital. And we did pretty well for a couple decades, but then after VietNam they
stopped doing that and choose the present "system" instead. Thus abandoning their long-term
ability to compete, the source of their power in the first place. Banana republics do not
compete well. Decadent.
But you have to give credit to the Russians and the Chinese too, their achievements are
impressive by any standard. Our enemies, the ones who have survived, have all proved their
mettle.
Can be, can be, no expectations in Biden / Harris. Nevertheless, Tronald is definitely not
the lesser evil. His foreign policy is also heading for a clash with China, and things are
not going well with Russia either. The warmongering anti-Iran axis has his support, the war
in Yemen continues, he won't leave Syria alone, his extremely Israel-friendly attitude
increases the danger of war. Everything that is suspected of being left-wing in South America
is strangled.
In addition, he has an encouraging effect on all the fascists of the world, his disastrous
ecological policy, his negative influence on the treatment of the Corona crisis, his general
dislike of multilateral organizations and treaties on which the weaker states of the world
are compulsorily dependent. Overall, he exerts an extremely negative influence on the entire
globe. He should be disposed of.
He will lose the elections, but what happens then is open.
The claim that support for minority rule isn't purely partisan BS is yet another lie. The
moral principle in countermajoritarianism like the Founders' is that democracy cannot be
allowed to threaten property. Except of course property before democracy, before liberty,
before humanity is a vile and disgusting tenet that shames everyone so lost to common
decency. The defense that a piece of parchment, a law, makes things moral and righteous and
that even opposition is somehow wrong is an offense against common sense. By that standard,
the Thirteen, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were the end of freedom in America!
It's one thing to have a mind deranged by rabid hate of your perceived social superiors,
but to openly uphold vulgarity is merely snobbery inverted. It is a mean and small minded
vice, always, and never a virtue. The Access: Hollywood tape was proof of vulgarity but to
defend it as not being proof of a crime but as a positive good is vicious. Vicious is not a
synonym for "bad ass." Or if it news, then "bad ass" is a horrible insult.
And, speaking of deranged minds, Wilson was felled by a stroke and Reagan was felled by
Alzheimer's, yet they did not fall from power. Quite aside from the question of how anyone
could decide who is battier, Trump or Biden, Biden will never be replaced by Harris for
incapacity short of a coma.
A very cogent analysis by b. But I believe the return of the Blob may not be as ominous as
feared.
The dangerous component of the Blob's collective fantasy is the confrontation against
China and Russia. As late as 4, 5 years ago the prevailing sentiment among Americans, the
masses and the elites alike, was one in which The Empire's might was still considered
unquestionably dominant and unchallenged. There was penchant for dressing down both China and
Russia, and the clumsy maneuvers of the Blob's operators (Obama/Clinton/Bolton/Rice et al)
were wholeheartedly supported even if contemptuously regarded for their clumsiness. That
sentiment has evaporated, especially after Chinese and Russian military parades as well as
American's numerous own infrastructure project failures along with abject performances of
Boeing jets and Zumwalt class destroyers. The COVID19 pandemic adds salt to injury.
There is an issue with self confidence now, up and down the hierarchy within the American
society, perhaps with the lone exception of Trump's rednecks.
So, the Blob may return with a vengeance but their political capital may be rather meager.
They will be all mouth and little substance, as would Trump's prospective second term.
I do not always agree with the opinion of the Saker, but in this matter I tend to support him
and can only quote from one of his recent articles :
And, in truth, the biggest difference between Obama and Trump, is that Trump did not start
any real wars. Yes, he did threaten a lot of countries with military attacks (itself a
crime under international law), but he never actually gave the go ahead to meaningfully
attack (he only tried some highly symbolic and totally ineffective strikes in Syria). I
repeat – the man was one of the very few US Presidents who did not commit the crime
of aggression, the highest possible crime under international law, above crimes against
humanity or even genocide, because the crime of aggression "contains within itself the
accumulated evil", to use the words of the chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg and Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Robert H. Jackson. I submit that just
for this reason alone any decent person should choose him over Biden (who himself is
just a front for "President" Harris and a puppet of the Clinton gang). Either that, or
don't vote at all if your conscience does not allow you to vote for Trump. But voting
Biden is unthinkable for any honest person , at least in my humble opinion.
I am surprised by people who are of the opinion that half-dead Biden, suffering from
obvious dementia, is better. If only not Trump.
In 2016, Hilary, in fact, openly stated that she was going to use the so-called 'nuclear
blackmail' against the Russian Federation. And there was no guarantee that this crazy old
witch, having become president, would not have pressed the very button that launched nuclear
missiles at Russia. Four years ago, the choice was between an insane sadistic misanthropist
who could actually start a nuclear war, and a "dark horse" businessman with the illusory
prospect of some improvement in relations between the two strongest nuclear powers. I do not
want to drag in religion and the intervention of higher powers here, but it may not be at all
accidental that Trump snatched victory from the witch. Maybe we avoided a nuclear war.
Yes, now both options are bad. But of the two evils, it is better to choose the lesser,
which, of course, Trump is.
two near-certain redeeming features would be the return of the US to the JCPOA, or Iran
nuclear deal, which was Obama-Biden's only foreign policy achievement, and re-starting
nuclear disarmament negotiations with Russia. That would imply containment of Russia,
not a new all-out Cold War , even as Biden has recently stressed, on the record, that
Russia is the "biggest threat" to the US.
What? Funny. I thought it was Obama (read Democrats) who started this new Cold War. Just
to remind - It was Obama who made the decision to deploy missiles in Poland and Romania,
which are a direct threat to Russia. It is Obama & Co who are responsible for the
Ukrainian coup, which, in fact, became a trigger for the total deterioration of relations
between Russia and the West. It was Obama who began the unprecedented expropriation of
Russian diplomatic property in the U.S. and the expulsion of russian diplomats. It was under
Obama that "the doping scandal" was organized against Russia. And so on and so on...
Trump just continued what Obama had started. It is strange that Pepe Escobar does not
understand this.
If Iran and/or Venezuela get their oil back on the market, that will cause an oil price crash
that would "end fracking." It can't survive oil much under $50/barrel over a long term.
An oil price crash would also effect the larger energy market, making solar and wind less
competitive, even though their direct competition is really coal rather than oil.
Huge and powerful constituencies don't care about Iran or Venezuela, but care very much
about oil prices staying high. They make common cause now, and will under Biden too.
Well, having given deep consideration to the question and the current advanced state of
malady in the USA - I will leave it to Vic as he has summarised the position with minimum
fuss - here.
Enjoy this sharp witted, all encompassing 4 minute rant from inside the asylum. I would
shout the bar for all with this one.
Biden is an old man. He is a tired man, if not now, then in six months. He has already told
wealthy donors that nothing will change. He has no record of leadership. He has no record of
achievement, unless you count floating to the top. He will be the establishment's model
'status quo, do-nothing Democrat.
Biden will preside as a figurehead legitimizing the shenanigans of the blob, Wall Street,
and the US Chamber of Commerce, and Big Oil. Heck, I doubt that he will even override many of
Trump's executive orders, except for the token bone thrown to his delusional supporters.
Harris will be as much a figurehead as Biden. She is utterly unprepared. While she is
likable enough, she lacks gravitas and "credibility," which, she will be convinced, can be
established only by bombing a few wogs back to the Stone Age.
Both will serve as placeholders until Trump 2.0 arrives in 2024. Elites will sufficiently
sabotage the economy until then to assure that Trump 2.0 with neocon values is elected in
2024.
the usa is an approaching train wreck and no amount of persuading one side or the other is
going to change any of this... the world is moving on and rightfully so... no one wants to
get down into this... the swamp and fake news is permanent at this point...until the whole
system implodes - this is what we have in store.. vote for trump or biden - it matters not...
one is a slower motion move then the other - but the end result is the same... there is no
way out... sorry... on the other hand it is beautiful and sunny here where i live... life
goes on outside this political circus called the usa presidential election..
Posted by: c1ue | Oct 31 2020 18:50 utc | 26
I do not agree with you on 99.8% of wordly affairs BUT this comment you wrote is pure
gold!!
Even on the other side of the Atlantic ocean @ the western edge of Europe us reading types
know the difference.
And it annoys me just as much as it seems to annoy you how few people know that the US of
terror is a republic and NOT a democracy😂🥴
By the way, people who are truly interested in seeing the Democratic Party removed as an
obstacle to a true people's party (no one else here wants a workers' party) the very best way
to split the national party would be a clean sweep of House, Senate and Presidency followed
by enough treasonous shenanigans by Trump to arouse mass resistance. (Genuinely treasonous as
in subverting the republic by force, fraud and violence, not in the half witted definition of
dealings with foreigners so popular around here.) Biden et al. would split the Democrats
rather than enact a popular program---which would be left because the when the masses begin
to move they always march left.
Also by the way, Bloomberg is continuing his bid for a hostile takeover of the Democratic
Party, aping the media version of Trump's hostile takeover of the Republic (NOT A DEMOCRACY!)
Party.
"Change' was an Obama marketing slogan to sell his Republican light policies. A real change
never came."
I was calling Obama "Bush Lite" during his first campaign. Anyone who read his foreign
policy platform would have to agree. And the *only* reason he negotiated the JCPOA was
because he needed at least one foreign policy win for his eight years - and he knew it would
be torn up by whoever came after him, either Clinton or Trump. But he needed it for his own
narcissistic view of his "legacy".
People forget that Obama wrote the leaders of Brazil and Turkey in 2010 prior to their
negotiation with Iran for a deal, listing the points of a deal he would accept. Clinton
pooh-poohed the idea that those leaders could get a deal. After a marathon negotiation
session, they got it. The US then dismissed the deal 24 hours later, prompting Brazil's
leader to release the Obama letter to establish that Obama was a liar.
"Change You Can Believe In" - "Make America Great" - only morons believe in campaign
slogans - or the people who utter them.
"The other issue is arms control. While a Harris (Biden) administration may take up Putin's
offer to unconditionally prolong the New-START agreement for a year it will certainly want
more concessions from Russia than that country is willing to give."
Russia has made it abundantly and repetitively clear that they are not doing INCREMENTAL
DEFEAT any more - there are no concessions to make - they no longer do supine acceptance of
UKUSAi rights to dominate, subvert or belligerently mass arms at their advancing borders.
Why would any country concede to the incessant belligerence of the west? They must have
lead in their drinking water to be that dumb!
The concession must come from the aggressor, the colour revolution fomenter, the incessant
smearer and hate propagandist - the west.
A Harris/Biden Presidency lacks those attributes (perhaps lacks any attributes of
goodwill) and a Trump Presidency is no different.
The narcissistic personality disorders run the USA - the asylum inmates are in charge, not
the elected leaders. And the elected leaders are morons or wholly captive klutzes.
Posted by: Laguerre | Oct 31 2020 17:36 utc | 7 They didn't do a No-Fly Zone in Syria when
they could, e.g. 2013. The reason it was not done is that it was too difficult to do
Obama tried *six times* to start a war with Syria. First he submitted *three* UNSC
Resolutions with Chapter 7 language in them. Russia and China - burned by the US over Libya -
vetoed those. Then Obama was within hours of launching an attack on Syria in August, 2013. He
only stopped when he got push-back from Congress and then Putin outmaneuvered him by getting
Assad to give up his chemical weapons. Then in fall, 2015, Obama was talking no-fly zone yet
again. Putin again outmaneuvered him by committing Russian forces to Syria. Then sometime in
2016 - I forget the exact month - there was a news article saying Obama was having a meeting
on that Friday to discuss no-fly zone yet *again*. That Tuesday or Wednesday, the Russia
Ministry of Defense issued a statement that anyone attacking Syrian military assets would be
shot down by Russia. On Friday, Obama pulled back and said there wouldn't be a no-fly
zone.
So it was Russia, primarily, that was the reason Obama didn't not succeed *six times*
trying to start a war with Syria.
"Biden will bring fresh blood to the Presidency, just you watch."
YES. thank you for the clarifying statement, as that is exactly what I expect too. Harris
/Biden blood spattered globe again. Or a Trump spattered equivalent. No socialism for the
USA.
We went from snarling Cheney Wars to shiny happy Obama wars to snarling Trump wars now back
to shiny happy Biden wars to... Forever War is obviously bi-partisan.
But perhaps with Great Depression 2.0 coming this Dark Winter in order to stave off civil
war and/or revolution they'll throw resources to much needed infrastructure projects,
diminish to a slight degree the supremacy of the for-profit healthcare industry through a
laughable but better than nothing 'public option' and make some baby steps toward avoiding
climate catastrophic.
The change is marginal. And probably meaningless. Hope is just another word for nothing
left to lose.
Those 77,000 - purely because of location - overcame 3 million+ votes. That's the
equivalent of giving those 77 thousands the right to vote 40 times each.
Are you in favor of censitary vote?
--//--
@ Posted by: c1ue | Oct 31 2020 18:50 utc | 26
Yes, but at the end of the day, Hilary Clinton got 3.6 million votes more than Donald
Trump.
You're telling everybody you're in favor of censitary vote in opposition to one person,
one vote, just because you don't want an ideological enemy of yours to win. This is still
liberal - but you would have to dig to the early liberal thinkers (Locke, Tocqueville etc.)
to find such reactionary and elitist opinion.
Even by liberal standards today censitary vote is already considered outdated/reactionary.
Concretely, you're defending the interests of a blue collar elite of the north-midwest, who
number on the dozens of thousands, in detriment to more than half the voting population. It
is what it is: you can't fight against mathematics.
--//--
@ Posted by: Down South | Oct 31 2020 18:47 utc | 25
So what? Fuck Michael Moore. If Michael Moore told you to jump off a cliff, would you do
it? He's not the guardian of the absolute truth, he's just a random guy with an opinion.
Michael Moore can defend a mythical blue collar America how much he wants to - it doesn't
change the fact this America doesn't exist anymore. America is, nowadays, the land of the
petit-bourgeois, the land of the small-medium business-owners (a.k.a. zombie business-owners)
, of the New York financial assets owning middle class "coastal elites", of the influencers,
of Kim and Chloe Kardashian, of Starbucks, Amazon and Apple, of the billionaire tied to Wall
Street. That's the true America, want it.
America will never be blue collar again. The insistence of turning America blue collar
again will destroy the American Empire. They will be the Gorbachevs of the USA.
Obama tried *six times* to start a war with Syria. First he submitted *three* UNSC
Resolutions with Chapter 7 language in them. Russia and China - burned by the US over Libya
- vetoed those. Then Obama was within hours of launching an attack on Syria in August,
2013. He only stopped when he got push-back from Congress and then Putin outmaneuvered him
by getting Assad to give up his chemical weapons. Then in fall, 2015, Obama was talking
no-fly zone yet again. Putin again outmaneuvered him by committing Russian forces to Syria.
Then sometime in 2016 - I forget the exact month - there was a news article saying Obama
was having a meeting on that Friday to discuss no-fly zone yet *again*. That Tuesday or
Wednesday, the Russia Ministry of Defense issued a statement that anyone attacking Syrian
military assets would be shot down by Russia. On Friday, Obama pulled back and said there
wouldn't be a no-fly zone.
So it was Russia, primarily, that was the reason Obama didn't not succeed *six times*
trying to start a war with Syria.
Thank you, it seems that your succinct statement should be included as an auto response
macro to every laguerre post. They never stop their blathering those AI CPU's. My take is
that they are a retro definition of the term interrupt .
I remember you as being a reasonably sane contributor but atm you have a serious case of
TDS. Are you seriously trying to tell us that the last 4 years of US media foaming at the
mouth about Trump (Russia-gate, Trump supporters being 'white supremacists' and egging on a
race war) were all a plot to get him re-elected? I mean seriously? WTF? What the hell would
they do if they wanted him removed?
Now I know I have been very very harsh on trump and his supporters of late. Please forgive me
! It's what we call 'tough love' I do have a heart, dispite all of America's crimes against
the rest of the world. I did hope that the US at the last moment would come to it's senses
and turn it's back on trump. Alas ! I fear not. Really sad, I'm sorry.
But for the rest of the world including myself, we can only watch with fascination and relief
as America destroys itself from within. My heart goes out to the inocent.
I fear trump supporters are in for a -- --
Pyrrhic victory (spelt correctly) I recommend googling the word.
Adolph Hitler rose to power with similar glory and power unbridled. Just as trump now !!
Then what ?
Dresden!!
Think on.
Why is it so hard to believe? The media needs a heel and they actually prefer Trump to
remain in office. Maybe on the ground level you have a lot of regular old liberals, but the
upper echelons of the media (and holding companies) are all about keeping the ratings bonanza
going. Another Trump term but with Democrat control of Congress would be like manna from
heaven to them. Matt Taibbi is one writer who has chronicled the phenomenon since before
Trump ever got elected. Here's a more recent piece. Let me know if it's paywalled and I can
copy/paste. CNN
chief has an ethical problem.
On JCPOA, The Nation had a quote from one of Biden's foreign policy advisers to a group of
Jewish campaing donors saying all sanctions on Iran will remain intact unless they return to
full compliance. I agree that it will not be as simple as that given political reality, but
Biden was closely involved in its negotiation and likely has some ownership of it.
I expect there to be a false flag attack by "Iran" to throw sand in the gears if
re-implementation looks likely, or perhaps an Israeli attack on Lebanon. Best plausible
outcome is Iran keeps its current level of cooperation, and a Biden admin looks the other way
on sanctions violationsw.
Are you seriously trying to tell us that the last 4 years of US media foaming at the mouth
about Trump (Russia-gate, Trump supporters being 'white supremacists' and egging on a race
war) were all a plot to get him re-elected? I mean seriously? What the hell would they do if
they wanted him removed?
_____________________________________________
Of course it was all phony and designed to not ring true, which benefits Trump by giving him
credibility with the voters.
The whole idea behind trump is the same as with Reagan he is portrayed as the outsider doing
battle against the corrupt and powerful Washington swamp. Trump is Reagan on steroids. But it
is all phony both Reagan and Trump are one of the powerful elites and their opposition by the
left wing media is designed to give them credibility with voters.
Remember that half of the corporate controlled media loves Trump and sings his praises
daily. It is only half the corporate media that is attacking Trump the other half is showing
its viewers blacks that strongly support Trump and solid evidence that Russiagate is pure
bullshit.
As for what the media would do if they really wanted to bring Trump down. They would
attack him on real issues instead of phony ones that actually strengthen trump's
credibility.
"What Would A Democratic Presidency Really Change?"
The same thing it always changes, absolutely nothing except who accepts the bribes from
the elite.
As long as the American people stay asleep they will continue with the "American DREAM"
until they suddenly wake up inside their newly constructed corporate industrial zone. The
prison industrial complex is the model society if you're an elite.
Have a wonderful weekend everyone, don't get so caught up in this sham (s)election that
you ruin what little freedom you have left.
Berlin's Madame Tussauds has put Donald Trump's wax figure into a
dumpster . Is this normal behavior by a museum? Is this not "an interference in the
democratic processes of the United States"? Or is it okay because the Germans are doing it?
(But God forbid if a Russian or an Iranian criticizes a U.S. presidential candidate publicly
ahead of the election.) Have similar performances been staged against Bush, under whom the
U.S. intelligence agencies manufactured claims of Saddam Hussein preparing to use weapons of
mass destruction, which the U.S. "free" media printed almost in unison without any criticism,
leading to an invasion that killed 650,000
Iraqis ? When a visitor beheaded Adolf Hitler's figure in 2008, the same museum
had this to say :
Madame Tussauds is non-political and makes no comment or value-judgement either on the
persons who are exhibited in the Museum or on what they have done during their lifetime.
I guess starting a war that resulted in deaths of 26,000,000 million Soviets -- most of
them Russians -- is not nearly as bad as being a rude person who has once recommended in
private grabbing women by their genitals.
You are clearly over-thinking this, clutching at straws to justify supporting the other
side. Remember the saying "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the
American people". Whoever wins the election is going to be faced with major unrest, the worms
are clearly not going back in the can. There are easier ways to get someone re-elected.
Trump is clearly at least as toxic as any of them wrt foreign policy, however he is not a
globalist and that is his major sin in their eyes.
@ Maureen O # 45 In 2009, Biden tried very hard to convince Obama not to surge 30,000 more troops into
Afghanistan.
Perhaps he was successful? . . . Obama actually surged 70,000 troops into Afghanistan,
raising Bush's 30K to 100K+. That got Mr Hope & Change the Nobel Peace Prize.
We should remember there were 6 UNSC against Iran, and one of them under Chapter 7 ( the
most dangerous), before JCPOA. We should keep in mind there are gang of 5 + 1( 5 in UNSC +
Germany) coalition behind 6 resolutions.
From Iran's eye, Imperialism was, combination of these 5 in the club, and their collateral
and vassals ( Germany, Japan, etc). The master of JCPOA, caught the opportunity to put a
wedge into the body of the club, and it worked perfectly. America is mad cutting her own
arteries, out side the club. Trump or Biden are not different in this regard, America needs
some one to understand the depth of the wound and retreat immediately, before too much
hemorrhage. And such person ( or group ) is not in horizon. Let it die by her own
wounding.
Thank you for that Philip Giraldi report. The descent into madness from the raucus sounds
of the echo chamber. Where does a revolution start?
First they need to dismantle their media concentration across the spectrum of "news"
including all media forms.
Second they need to send their journalists through the same cultural revolution cycle as
was done in the China and other countries where people go to different work supporting the
growth of their communities for a five to ten year separation from the craft of journalism.
Listen to the people and sweat alongside them in their labour to survive.
Sure there is much more but the echo chamber must surely be demolished at
commencement.
I believe back in August 2013 after a CW attack in East Ghouta, east of Damascus, wrongly
blamed on the Syrian govt that Obama was preparing to enforce his no-fly zone threat. Then
the UK parliament voted not to support such a threat, Obama hesitated and then Putin saw his
opportunity and posted an opinion in the New York Times. That ultimately stopped the US from
going ahead with the attack.
I'm sure British MPs have since been forced to "come to their senses".
I linked to and commented upon Pepe's article when it was published by Asia Times a
few days ago, and I don't see any reason to add to it as b echoes much of my sentiment. What
I will do is link to a brief item by Chinese scholar Zhang Weiwei, professor of International
Relations at Fudan University, "How
China elects their political leaders" , which seems very appropriate at this moment in
time:
"China has established a system of meritocracy or what can be described as 'selection plus
election'. Competent leaders are selected on the basis of performance and broad support,
through a vigorous process of screening, opinion surveys, internal evaluations and various
types of elections. This is much in line with the Confucian tradition of meritocracy. After
all, China is the first country that invented civil service examination system or the 'Keju'
system....
"Indeed, the Chinese system of meritocracy today, makes it inconceivable that anyone as
weak as George W. Bush or Donald Trump could ever come close to the position of the top
leadership. It's not far-fetched to claim that the China model is more about leadership
rather than the showmanship as it is in the West. China's meritocratic governance challenges
the stereotypical dichotomy of democracy versus autocracy. From Chinese point of view, the
nature of the state including its legitimacy, has to be defined by its substance, that is,
good governance, competent leadership and success in meeting the people's needs."
Zhang Weiwei is the author of a very important book some may have heard about and even
read, The China Wave: Rise Of A Civilizational State , of which an open preview can be
read here . Also, the professor gave a talk at the German Schiller Institute related to
the above book and the BRI project, which can be read
here .
I've commented several times that China's political-economic system is far superior to the
Parasitic Neoliberalism that's destroying the West. China's success suggests very strongly
that we listen and closely observe while not taking heed of what any Western source has to
say about China.
I'm all for sending the entire Australian news media into a cave for 5 - 10 years. Maybe
in 10,000 years archaeologists investigating the cave will be wondering whether fossil
remains there denote a species of human more primitive than those found in Liang Bua cave on
Flores Island in Indonesia. :-)
Can you elaborate on this funding you referred to for BLM protests? What is your evidence
that it was actually funding street protests? Are you referring to the national corporate
BLM? If so, what does that have to do with leaderless protests in the streets?
From February 13 to February 15, 1945, during the final months of World War II (1939-45),
Allied forces bombed the historic city of Dresden, located in eastern Germany. The bombing
was controversial because Dresden was neither important to German wartime production nor a
major industrial center, and before the massive air raid of February 1945 it had not
suffered a major Allied attack. By February 15, the city was a smoldering ruin and an
unknown number of civilians -- estimated between 22,700 to 25,000–were dead.
Dresden and other cities held magnificent collections of human posterity. Cities of
science - of intellectual excellence and endeavour within europe. Cities of humans associated
with brilliant minds doing the work of human understanding and progress.
Sure Hitler's imbecile adventures ably funded by global private finance capitalism and a
hatred of communism led to war that ultimately led to the vengeful destruction of great
cities and great store houses and museums of this earth of mankind.
Hitler did not bomb Dresden.
Germans were proud of their science and their knowledge and storehouses and museums.
Europe shared in that pride in excellence as did many throughout the world.
Those first shells falling on Berlin TWO months after the demolition of cities of science
and archeology and human history. NOT cities of military significance.
I think of Vietnam
I think of Iraq
I think of Korea
I think of China
I think of Japan
Bombed by UKUSA. So lets not obsess with a dead nazi comrade, lets open our eyes to the
live nazis.
I think Biden will win this presidency, and win it fairly easily. It will become apparent
early on that the Biden Administration intends not only to turn the heat up on Russia, but
will continue Trump's aggression towards China. There may be a feint towards renewing JCPOA,
but it will not be fulfilled, and aggression towards Iran will not abate either.
The Mighty Wurlitzer of pro-war propaganda is again spinning up in anticipation. The
Atlantic and the Economist have been busy comparing Chinese Policy towards it's Muslim
citizens with the Holocaust...Russia, Russia, Russia!!! which never went away is again being
amped up.
But, this isn't 2016. Four years has given China and Russia time to further modernize
their militaries. Iran has developed its missile and drone programs to the point that a
conflict with Israel will result in mutual destruction. In 2016 USA/NATO had the military
advantage, but that is now gone, and the balance shifts further by the day. I almost feel
sorry for Biden, as he will be the one taking the blame when the economy collapses and
America gets their asses handed to them. Hopefully it doesn't go nuclear, but I am not very
optimistic.
With the NeoCon infestation capturing the Democratic Party, the media, and a big chunk of
the Republican, it is only a matter of time before they get their way. Short-sided parasites
as they are, this time they will kill their host. If humanity survives, a new multi-polar era
may emerge.
Uncle tungsten @ 84
Please re-read my heart felt comment. It was sincerely ment. To many here think this is just
fun and speculation.
But this is real, the USA have the same misguided sense of infalalabilty now, that the German
public hand then.
Did we learn nothing from world war 2 ?
Please don't belittle my urgent warning.
This is not a game. Perhaps re read my comment. Respect
Naw, you're not reading me right. Did you check out the Taibbi piece? He has numerous
others over the past 4 years. Also see Les Moonves and other corporate media executives'
statements on Trump during that same time period. I acknowledged that the rank and file among
the media class is largely woke, liberal and pro-Biden (and very anti-Trump), but they don't
call the shots and you're not looking at the situation with enough attention to details. It's
the little things that give it away.
Ever heard the saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity"? A brand like Trump's has
been clearly demonstrated to benefit immensely from the negative coverage. The media are
hated by Trump's followers and the people who watch the media hate Trump. So what does that
tell you? Compare CNN and MSNBC ratings during Trump's term to Obama's. They know that hate
sells and they never call Trump out for his ACTUAL bad behaviors (other than COVID and ACB, I
guess) while they focus on meaningless nonsense, thus distracting the public from the
bi-partisan corporate dominated graft going on and the Empire's ongoing wars and sanctions
programs abroad. Very rarely if ever will you read or hear about the hundreds of thousands of
people who have died due to American sanctions on Iran or Venezuela. Why is that? Because top
brass at the corporate media outlets support it. They cheered when he launched the missiles
at Syria.
Someone did a study or analysis on the amount of air time given to Trump versus the
Democrat primary and it wasn't even close. He plays them and his supporters like a fiddle,
too. SNL had him on NBC when he was running against Hillary. Some argue that this might have
been due to the same mindset that Hillary's team was alleged to have had. Namely, that Trump
would be the EASIEST candidate for her to beat and he had no chance, so he was harmless as a
threat. I don't think it's that complicated. They know what gets ratings.
Yeah, occasionally they'll make a peep about the environment or jobs, but like the
Democrats in Congress and "Intelligence" Community's Russia and Ukraine witch
hunts/impeachment they intentionally ignore the types of actions that DO justify
investigations and impeachments. Do you honestly think that the Democrats thought Trump would
be removed from office for the bogus "whistle blower" charges they ginned up? Of course not -
the Senate was never going to go along with it and it wasn't exactly secret, even over here
across the pond it was obvious.
As far as him not being a globalist - he's not exactly anti-globalist when it comes to
policy, but why would that matter to the corporate media? Again, it's the corporate big wigs
and majority shareholders who make the calls and the reporters, editors and personalities on
TV know how to toe the line without being told explicitly. Now, if you want to talk Silicon
Valley and the social media giants, I'm with you - they are actively trying to help Joe
Biden. But take another example - the Hunter Biden laptop story. Social media giants censored
it, but it isn't like it's not being talked about non-stop by the MSM and newspapers. They
just don't talk about what was IN the emails or photos, leaving some of their viewers/readers
curious to go find out for themselves.
I didn't read jinn's comment in detail, but I'm definitely not trying to make points that
justify voting for Biden; but I stand by my points - I'm just pointing out what's REALLY
going on with all of the "negative" coverage of Donald Trump in the corporate mainstream
media. At the end of the day, the corporate MSM upper brass doesn't really care who gets
elected, but they also understand that having a "heel" (from the pro wrestling world) and
"bad guy" to always go after on crap that's ultimately meaningless, makes it easier to sell
the hate and drive ratings and subscriptions.
Uncle tungsten @ 84
Please re-read my heart felt comment. It was sincerely ment. To many here think this is
just fun and speculation.
But this is real, the USA have the same misguided sense of infalalabilty now, that the
German public hand then.
Did we learn nothing from world war 2 ?
Please don't belittle my urgent warning.
This is not a game. Perhaps re read my comment. Respect
Respect and apology in return Mark2. I jumped the gun.
Yes, the sense of infallibility infuses the bloodlust of the UKUSAi.
With any luck humanity will be spared their obscene and lunatic 'reprisal mania' that has
rotted their minds. I somehow doubt that.
And I share your fear.
That said though - I am ever the optimist. There are many warrior clans of past decades
that have made delightful blunders and ended up on the block instead of on the grog in the
opponents bars. Time will tell.
I believe it is time for the great people of South America to shake off these barnacles on
the arse of humanity once and for all.
Sorry I got a little long winded in my last reply. I think this response will make my
position easier to interpret.
You asked: " What the hell would they do if they wanted him removed?"
The answer to that question is the same as the answer would be if you asked what the
Democrats in Congress would (have) do(ne) if they really wanted to remove him from office.
They would actually investigate and attempt to prosecute a litany of possible crimes rather
than silly, simplistic accusations from a "whistleblower" that anyone with a IQ over 100
could see was not going to work.
Maybe you're right and I'm wrong, and Americans really are that stupid. It wouldn't
necessarily conflict with what I've seen and heard from Democrat supporting relatives and
social media contacts. A lot, if not most of them STILL believe that there was collusion
between Trump and Russia. It was like my conservative friends and relatives for about a
decade after the Iraq war - they were CONVINCED that we DID find WMDs and that the US media
had somehow hidden it.
@vk #65
It is striking how you still refuse to acknowledge the reality of the law.
The United States is not a majoritarian democracy.
In fact, there is not one single country in the entire world that is a majoritarian
democracy.
If the law were changed via the methods already written, tried and true, then I guarantee
that there would be a lot more voters in the minorities of both red and blue states.
As it is, the only partisan here is your and the Democratic party's whining about how they
have more popular votes, much as the talk about packing the Supreme Court, etc etc.
If ultimately the existing laws of the land are merely an impediments to anyone doing
whatever they have the power to do, then there is no law.
Uncle @ 90
Thanks for that. I feel we are in full agreement !
To perhaps clarify to those less astute than you.
My comment @ 68 points out the law of unintended consequence. The majority of Americans don't
want war, riots, poverty and distruction. They want to keep there families safe.
The comparison being the same can be said for Germans prior to the war, they weren't evil as
portrayed in history they simply made the same mistake the US is about to make. With the
consequence of there country devistated. A dreadful mistake voting for the wrong man, whipped
up by a false sense of superiority !
Don't do it.
Half of America won't tolerate it.
Free quarters of the rest of the world won't. By voting trump you vote for your own
distruction.
I would rather vote for a donkey, never mind Biden.
You are clearly over-thinking this, clutching at straws to justify supporting the other
side.
__________________________________________
What other side???
I'm guessing you are accusing me of supporting trump but who knows maybe you think I'm
supporting Biden. Either way it is stupid of you to project your "side" based logic onto
others. Do you really think it is impossible to analyze without first taking a side?
As it is, the only partisan here is your and the Democratic party's whining about how they
have more popular votes, much as the talk about packing the Supreme Court, etc etc.
Thank you, I liked that retort to vk. Can I distort your point that while the Demonazis
delude themselves in more popular votes - the Repugnents have more of the un-popular votes.
The deeply corrosive nonsense being shouted into the demonazi echo chamber is truly dangerous
to the point that they will generate a standing wave resonance and collapse the entire
building. Trouble is we will then have to endure an 11/11 to compete with their absurd 9/11
and - we'll never hear the end of it. :))
James
I share one bottle of wine a month. I don't do drugs, but thanks for asking.
I note you don't ask the 'right wing' to step a way'
But if the truth is hurting you. Perhaps you ought ?
Have a peaceful night.
I remember you as being a reasonably sane contributor ...
Thanks!
= ... but atm you have a serious case of TDS.
No. I'm neither for nor against Trump. I see him as a symptom of the system who has joined
(possibly long ago) Team Deep State (the managers of the Empire). If it wasn't Trump, it
would be some other media-savvy guy that can con the people.
= Are you seriously trying to tell us that the last 4 years of US media foaming at the
mouth about Trump (Russia-gate, Trump supporters being 'white supremacists' and egging on a
race war) were all a plot to get him re-elected?
IMO Trump's economic nationalism and zenophobia were very much planned. As was the failure
of the Democrats to mount any effective resistance. They pretend to hate Trump so so
much but shoot themselves in the foot all the time.
Russiagate was nothing more than a new McCarthyism. That works well for the Deep State
both internationally and domestically. Any dissenter is called a "knowing or unknowing"
Russian asset.
Background: I've written that Trump was meant to beat Hillary. The 2016 election was a
farce. Sanders and Trump were friendly with the Clintons for a very long time. Sanders was a
sheepdog (not a real candidate) and Hillary threw the race to Trump. Trump is much more
capable at what he does than Hillary would've been.
I mean seriously? WTF? What the hell would they do if they wanted him
removed?
If the Deep State wanted him removed (but they don't) they would find a reason to invoke
the 25th Amendment. They have positioned people to do this, if necessary. For example: VP
Pence was a friend of McCain (who was a 'NEVER TRUMP'-er); Atty General Barr is close to the
Bushes and Mueller ('NEVER TRUMP'-ers); CIA Dir. Gina Haspel is an acolyte of John Brennan
(you guessed it, a 'NEVER TRUMP'-er).
=
MarkU @Oct31 23:18 #76
...he is not a globalist and that is his major sin in their eyes.
He's not anti-globalist as you seem to suggest. He's even bragged about his business
dealings with Chinese, Arabs, Russians - pretty much any group with money.
Trump and the Deep State - the true Deep State, not the pretended partisan off-shoot
- are EMPIRE-FIRST (and have been for decades). You can see this in what Trump has done
globally. USA just wants a bigger cut of the action because they have to do the 'heavy
lifting' of taking on China and Russia.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
I know that my cynical perspective must generate a lot of cognitive dissonance in many
readers. But I don't see any other way to rationally explain Deep State actions and the
history that has brought us to where are today.
The numbers are there for everybody to see: Trump won with 3 million + votes below Hilary
Clinton. That is not democracy in any sense of the word unless you go back to the more
traditional forms of liberalism of the 16th-19th centuries. Those are the numbers, not my
opinion.
Besides, I think you're not getting the irony of your position: the situation in the USA
has gotten so degenerated that you're hanging by a thread - a thread you put on a golden
pedestal and claim is the salvation of the Empire (the electoral college). Where did I see
this? Oh, yes - the War of Secession of 1861-1865, when the slave states were already
outnumbered 6 to 1 by the northern states. They kept their parity artificially for decades,
until the whole thing suddenly burst up in the war (a war where they were crushed; no chance
of victory at all).
So, the problem isn't in the system per se, but the pressure the ossification of the
system is building up. When they seceded, the confederates genuinely thought they were the
true inheritors of the liberal thought, the slave states being the most perfect manifestation
of freedom; the same situation is building up today, albeit, obviously, on a much milder
scale (there's no California gold this time, just the good ol' race to the bottom).
--//--
Posted by: uncle tungsten | Nov 1 2020 2:25 utc | 95
I agree with you: the end of the electoral college (with it, any form of district vote)
will give a chance for the conservatives (Republicans) to win back, for example, California
(which has 40-46% of the popular vote). But it will also give the Democrats Texas (Dallas +
Houston regions already make almost 50% of the population of the state and are Democratic
bastions). It will also open the gates for third parties to flourish (avoiding a situation
like Bernie Sanders, who had to affiliate to the Democrats).
Either way, it will give the American people and government a more honest, precise picture
of the state of the nation. Or are you willing to live a perpetual illusion of "coastal
elites vs heartland deplorables" forever (which, by the way, only fuels up secession as the
only solution)?
The myth of HIQ whitemen....
--------------------------------------
Caitlin[for prez]johnston
Russia gate morphes seamlessly into China gate without missing a beat.
One hiq white man opines, oh so innocently
IN Russia gate, they were quoting only anon, nameless witness.
This time its different, we've real witness testifying on teevee , in Tucker
[fuck China] Carlson show, no less !
The poor dear was referring to an 'ex CIA' [see, an insider, wink wink ] telling
Tucker [fuck CHINA] Carlson ....
Psssst, many dem were CCP trojans !
ROFLAMO
oR that HUnter BIden buddy whatshisname again, who told Tucker [fuck China] Carlson oh so
solemnly,
'Yes , I think the BIdens were compromised by the chicoms'
OMFG ! BIden is CCP'S man !
What happen if Biden get into the WH and immediately bomb Shanghai.?
Well half of gringos , the Trumpsters, would scream,
'Why isnt BIden bombing Beijing already, well BCOS we all know he's Xi's man in Washington'
!
The dems, eager to clear their potus name, would implore earnestly,
'Hey BIden, you should invade Beijing RIGHT now, show them repuc we are just as tough, no,
even better in showing the chicoms who's the boss around here.
What a devious brilliant way to get a bi partisan support for more
wars.
BI partisan ?
That practically cover 99% of HIQ gringos. hehehhehehhe
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me hundreds of times.........
The Blob will dominate the USA foreign policy, no matter who wins.
Notable quotes:
"... I've commented several times that China's political-economic system is far superior to the Parasitic Neoliberalism that's destroying the West. China's success suggests very strongly that we listen and closely observe while not taking heed of what any Western source has to say about China. ..."
"... The executives and majority shareholders of the CIA/NSA infiltrated corporate news media don't care whether Trump wins, and in fact often prefer it. ..."
"... Those guys are just part of the polarization narrative tearing the country apart. The hatred is real but there is acting involved, especially with Olbermann. These commentators feel that this polarization narrative is giving the country what it wants and it drives ratings. Schiff is just a first class liar ... ..."
"... Obama was just put in the pipeline as one of their possible future candidates for president. They have a stable of these people being mentored. Clinton was one as well. I bet Harris is one as well. ..."
"... I think they hate the Trumper so much because he he was in some else's stable. Possibly the controllers from campus in Tel Aviv. Different stable, same horse shit. ..."
"... Election of president = false flag iperation. The purpose is to fund the private media with advertising revenue paid for by consumer taxpayers. ..."
"... The rest of the world knows that the US is not agreement capable, it does not matter for Iran one bit what happens on November 3rd. ..."
"... I understand the rationale behind Trump's policies. But my conclusion is exactly the opposite: his attempt to stop the disintegration of the American Empire is accelerating the disintegration of the American Empire, not averting it. ..."
"... The key here is to understand that that's not how the American Empire should work. The USA continues to deindustrialize at an accelerated pace under Trump; Wall Street was never stronger than under Donald Trump; American debt was never higher. And now, unemployment is as high as during the 1929 era. ..."
"... The American Empire is the American Empire precisely because it doesn't need to produce anything it needs except defense. It prints money in order to siphon wealth from the rest of the world, enriching its economy while impoverishing the rest. That's the only way the Empire can function - any other way will result in its destruction. ..."
"... Obama ran on Hopey-Changey and on his projected charm, actually glib con-man gab. Worked wonderfully, imagine getting the Nobel Prize because you had a dead-beat Dad who was from Kenya and you scored B+ for public speaking? Argh. (The real reason: killing will continue, the status quo is preserved..) ..."
"... That Trump would win in 2016 was obvious as soon as he became a candidate. He was the cartoon contrast of Obomber - white, fat, orange, tall, R vs. D, outspoken, strident, clumsy (vs. the smooth-talking con), opinionated, stupid, and outrageous in a way. Click bait and viewer bait for the MSM - but not for no reason. ..."
"... To pretend that Trump is some special Peacemaker, trying oh so hard to overcome deep state resistance to rolling back empire, is Trumpism. Escobar is always there. Trump must be understood as a leading creature of the swamp himself. Trying so hard just as Obama was trying so hard. ..."
"... The relative scores settled terribly are more a matter of opportunity than ruthless efficiency. Though it is true that "success" requires dialing it back a bit, and having the likes of Bolton around is a way of ensuring either that nothing gets done, or we all end up ashes. Trump managed to axe Bolton on time, that time. ..."
I do agree with you both that the anti-Trump hysteria has probably worked for him to
some extent but I really don't believe that is a four year long plan, it is too much of a
stretch to believe that the likes of Olbermannn and Schiff are consciously working for him.
American politics really is that toxic, remember the stuff about Obama's birth
certificate.
I also agree that Trump might actually have the support needed for a landslide win, not
so much because of the vilification but because of the arson and looting imo. A lot of
Trump supporters are keeping their heads down atm (and who can blame them) However, now it
is my turn to make a prediction. I predict mass unrest on polling day. it is well accepted
that the majority of the Democrat voters (fraudulent or not) are going to vote by post.
Conversely most Trump supporters are likely to vote in person on the day (or try to at
least)
I expect a concerted attempt to disrupt the polls by people who know that it will
disproportionately affect the Trump vote. I expect violent clashes (with both sides trading
blame) and a result that will please nobody. The worms are not going back into the can.
if I am wrong then I will be big enough to say so on the first appropriate thread on
this site, fair enough?
Zhang Weiwei is the author of a very important book some may have heard about and
even read, The China Wave: Rise Of A Civilizational State, of which an open preview can
be read here. Also, the professor gave a talk at the German Schiller Institute related to
the above book and the BRI project, which can be read here.
I've commented several times that China's political-economic system is far
superior to the Parasitic Neoliberalism that's destroying the West. China's success
suggests very strongly that we listen and closely observe while not taking heed of what
any Western source has to say about China.
I just paused by their tavern to see what elixirs of despair or mirth they have on offer
today. Pour a strong drink comrades and scroll through the cellar. Always worth a
visit.
If Biden is not much different from Trump then why does "the blob" portray Trump as
the Beelzebub? Posted by: m | Nov 1 2020 6:01 utc | 112
Because he's the heel and none of the negative coverage they give him sticks, most often
on purpose. Don't mistake their serious tones and somber pronouncements for genuineness.
It's not. The executives and majority shareholders of the CIA/NSA infiltrated corporate
news media don't care whether Trump wins, and in fact often prefer it.
I am aware of the fact that corruption is rife in both parties. I saw the link to the
Biden bus incident, deplorable yes but hardly on the same scale as the massive rioting,
looting and intimidation of the BLM movement, they didn't actually burn down half the
neighborhood did they. Organized voting obstruction will largely be confined to swing
states for obvious reasons. I made my predictions, we will see.
Just to be clear, I don't even live in the US, I am British. If I did live in the US I
wouldn't vote for either party, I'm not a 'lesser of two evils' kind of guy. To be frank I
am viewing events in the US with considerable trepidation, I regard what happens in the US
as a window into the likely future of the UK and the rest of Europe. I fear that a nuclear
war may well occur sometime in the near future, quite possibly by accident owing to the
continual cutting of warning times, mainly by the US. A very powerful nuclear armed country
convulsed by civil unrest is a very dangerous entity, I fear the worst and so should we all
imo.
Anyway thank you for being polite and civilised and for including actual information
with your replies.
OT..I just read this translation from a Russian link...most agreeable as a counterpoise to
Exceptional Nation nuttiness:
"Construction of the industrial complex, where high-speed trains will be produced,
began in the Urals. In five years, Russia will have a domestic rolling stock for the VSM
- high-speed highways. Moreover, the level of localization of production is stated at
80%, which means additional orders for the Russian industry."
I do agree with you both that the anti-Trump hysteria has probably worked for him
to some extent but I really don't believe that is a four year long plan, it is too much
of a stretch to believe that the likes of Olbermannn and Schiff are consciously working
for him. American politics really is that toxic, remember the stuff about Obama's birth
certificate.
Those guys are just part of the polarization narrative tearing the country apart.
The hatred is real but there is acting involved, especially with Olbermann. These
commentators feel that this polarization narrative is giving the country what it wants and
it drives ratings. Schiff is just a first class liar ...
As far as Obama's birth certificate, since his mom was a CIA officer using the Ford
Foundation as cover during the murder of millions of leftists in Indonesia, I am sure she
took time out to make sure he was born on US soil. All that stuff about him growing up on
embassy row in Indonesia while the left was being slaughtered is carefully taken out of the
story. Not his fault but it was quite a slaughter of humans and we know her employer was
deeply involved. Going into the Indonesian villages to do studies. Really, studies and
observations. They used to call it SOG groups.
Obama was just put in the pipeline as one of their possible future candidates for
president. They have a stable of these people being mentored. Clinton was one as well. I
bet Harris is one as well.
I think they hate the Trumper so much because he he was in some else's stable.
Possibly the controllers from campus in Tel Aviv. Different stable, same horse
shit.
I think they hate the Trumper so much because he he was in some else's stable. Possibly
the controllers from campus in Tel Aviv. Different stable, same horse shit.
Because the FBI's evidence cleaner/tamperer division's mandate will be greatly expanded,
as will the powers of the Silicone Valley Tekkies to more comprehensively throttle public
free speech on electronic media, that the deep state's Invisible Hand disapproves of.
Trump is about controlled demolition of the empire NemesisCalling @ 5.
B summarized the style differences very well. But failed to mention the greater problem.
3 votes at polls every four years is not democracy<= no American is in charge of any
thing the USA does.
the layers in the global power stack (each nation state the same):
layer 1: global franchisor sets rules of play; establishes goals <=local nation
state franchisees must obtain to remain in power.
Layer 2: oligarch <= national (wall street beneficiaries who use their wealth to
conform national outcome consistent with global powers).
Layer 3: copyright y patent monopoly power constitute 90% of corporate Assets.
Layer 4: think tank and other private orgs
public<= layer 5: 527 elected government <= a tool to regulate members of
public
Layer 6: Intergov Bureaucracies limit and direct elected power to global goals.
public<= layer 7: the 340,000,000 members of the media regulated public
layer 8: stop and go economic system control
layer 9: media controls info environment & public narrative (many
techniques)
all layers but 5 and 7 are contained within an envelop of privately owned control
freaks.
Election of president = false flag iperation. The purpose is to fund the private
media with advertising revenue paid for by consumer taxpayers.
Article II and amendment 12 clearly deny American people any say in who is to be the P
and VP of the USA.
Agree with Nemesiscalling, since 1947, standing orders from Layer 1<= demo the
American excellence; deny superior economic power to average Americans . standing orders
<=homogenize the world and standardize its governance.
American lifestyle and quality of life is indifferent to who the media puts into the
white house.
by c1ue @ 26 said it best "Anyone against the "right" and "proper" Democrat sellouts to
pharma, tech and enviro must be rednecks. It is precisely this view that galvanized the
vote against HRC in 2016." the method used by the public layers is reflected here, it is
called divide and conquer.
B reviewed the elements and factors that maintain the division of the masses..
On the absence of a real left in the US ( is all right and more right..)and of a real
program which could include real changes that could make any difference in people´s
lives, on that what matters is political technology and communication based on demonizing
the other candidate which translates in deep polarizing of societies with unexpected
unknown consequences..
" If Trump were re-elected for another four years, it would be a real calamity and
armed conflicts could even break out by the most radical groups, so that the country
could be paralyzed "
"The ideological profile and policy of the United States is that of the president and,
each one, even if they are from the same party, has maintained quite different political
lines throughout history", says Rafael García, professor of International
Relations at the USC. For this reason, he affirms that, in North America, "there is no
strong party structure, but rather that the party acts as an electoral structure and it
is on the candidates of each moment that certain policies are formed."
DEMOCRATS VS. REPUBLICANS. So much so that, as the professor explains, "the
ideological configuration of the parties in the 20th century changed radically". On the
one hand, he alludes to the fact that the Democrat, "in historical terms, was the party
of the southern states, when they faced each other in the Civil War; racist states, which
lasted until the 1920s ". Precisely, the political scientist indicates that "it was
shortly before when the change took place, with the Roosevelt presidency, that he decided
to change the configuration of the Democratic party as a result of the crisis of 29".
On the other hand, the Republican party, he points out, "was that of the union, that
of the northern states, championed by Lincoln; the abolitionist party and that of the
blacks ". So how did these changes come about until today? Rafael García
points to "a consequence of the political strategies that the presidents embodied at
all times, not because there was an ideological line behind each party ."
TRY TO ASSIMILATE THE AMERICAN MODEL TO THE EUROPEAN. For Rafael García, the
Spaniards, when speaking of US politics, "make a mistake in translating our political
structures" to those there. In other words, "in Europe the duality between left and
right is widely assumed and we unconsciously transfer it to US policy." "That is a
complete error" , sentence.
And it is that there " there is neither right nor left, there is right and more
right ", affirms the professor. Which means that there does not exist and did not
exist a historical labor-union party as such. In fact, the transmutation that is usually
made from the democratic party to 'social democratic' is not correct . For
García, Biden embodies "a more moderate man than the crazy Trump, but that does
not mean that he has some kind of relationship with a left-wing thought ."
RIGHT AND RIGHT. "A multimillionaire gentleman, absolute representative of the
establishment" (referring to Biden), and "a traditional gentleman, more conservative"
(referring to Trump) ". "Although Biden is a Democrat, who perhaps holds stronger
principles and is hopeful, identifying him with the left is still a long way from
reality," he says. Therefore, it is denied that the Democrats are the American left
and the Republicans the right .
THE CAMPAIGN LACKS PROGRAMMATIC INTEREST. For the USC political scientist, the US
electoral campaign lacks interest: "It is absurd, it seems like a disqualification
competition in which a political or government program is not exposed ." And every
time Spain is also getting closer to that model of disputes.
"We are Americanized, in the sense that the weight of the parties is also
being diluted in Spain in favor of the candidatesThese advisers are responsible
for the growing division that is taking place in Western society ," he says.
THE GOVERNMENT IN THE HANDS OF POLITICAL ADVISORS. In Rafael García's opinion,
the decision margin "is shrinking", that is, "the autonomy capacity of governments to
make decisions is smaller, and they are conditioned ". So, what is the difference, in
practice, in management, between PP and PSOE? "Little thing, in the end, little thing,"
he asserts.
That is why " that little thing can not be said to the voter, but must be mobilized
with a degree of identification, unconditional adherence, so that it can be recognized in
a brand ." And what is this transformation of Spanish politics due to? The professor
is clear about it: " It is a translation of commercial marketing techniques to
politics." Thus, a marketing advisor must "build customer loyalty" and a political
advisor should build voter loyalty .
Now, if there are no significant differences between the two options, how to
achieve it? "Through a demonization of the opposite and the creation of a hostility that
is dangerous, because the divisions to which society is returning are irreconcilable
." In this way, García believes that " it is the work of political advisers
who, apart from the difficulties that exist in societies, which are many, polarize them
when it comes to building and mobilizing a faithful electorate, to the point that they
make no difference what the party says or what the leader says ".
In the United States, as evidenced by this expert, "it does not matter if Trump
does the atrocities he does, or if he said in the previous campaign that he could murder
a person on Fifth Avenue in New York without anything happening to him ." This,
transferred to the Spanish sphere, "assumes that the party can do any outrage: fraud,
embezzlement, illegal financing ...". "That is something we are seeing, whatever party it
is, but for the faithful voter it does not matter, because their party will continue to
be so and will continue to listen to the channel and read the newspaper that supports
it," he says.
THE ELECTORAL RESULT WILL BE EXTENDED OVER TIME. "I have no idea nor do I want to make
forecasts, but I consider that Trump is a calamity and that if he were there for four
more years it would be an absolute calamity ", says Professor García. However,
" there is a state of opinion that fears that the result of these elections will be
complicated and that there will be challenges, so that the end result will be a
diabolical process of recount, county-by-county challenges, repetitions in certain
districts. .. a real madness that can last several months ", he warns, something
that," with this polarization trail, it is not known how it could end. "
" I am referring to the outbreak of armed conflicts; These people have weapons,
radical groups, some of them crazy and who can shoot themselves in a demonstration, doing
outrages as part of the institutional paralysis in which the country can be plunged
", he asserts.
This is how people, like those at SST, who lied about the real difference amongst
Democrats and Republicans in real effective changes of policy, shouting to the four winds
that "the Communists are coming", when they are not, and this way spread hatred and
division amongst the US society as if there was no tomorrow so that to conserve their "tax
cut", could end witnessing the total destruction of the US, not only as "Empire" ( a
process already in march before Corona-fear and 2020 electoral process, a construct of
decades of lying the electorate for the greed of a minority...), but also as a nation
state. All these people who, holding privileged insider knowledege of the funtioning of the
state as former insiders, should be held accountable for their willing and conscious
participation in the build up of the social and economic disastaer to come....
Forecast at the end of the article posted and quoted above:
The future: Institutional paralysis
··· An institutional paralysis like the one that can come
after 3-N "could already occur in 2000, in the elections between George Bush Jr. and Al
Gore, but the latter accepted the results even though they were open to challenge, and
that it avoided institutional collapse".
··· However, "now it does not seem that either of the two
candidates is going to have a gesture of these characteristics, with which, if doubts
already appear, it will not only be in the State, but the final collapse may be extremely
long and with unimaginable consequences ", indicates Professor García. "It seems
to me that the United States has a terrible situation ahead ", he sentenced.
A scene of Game of Thrones which could summarize 2020 US election campaign, that it
was based on throwing dirty to each other....But who has the real "power", not the
"government"?:
@ Posted by: Down South | Nov 1 2020 7:04 utc | 122
I understand the rationale behind Trump's policies. But my conclusion is exactly the
opposite: his attempt to stop the disintegration of the American Empire is accelerating the
disintegration of the American Empire, not averting it.
The key here is to understand that that's not how the American Empire should work.
The USA continues to deindustrialize at an accelerated pace under Trump; Wall Street was
never stronger than under Donald Trump; American debt was never higher. And now,
unemployment is as high as during the 1929 era.
The American Empire is the American Empire precisely because it doesn't need to
produce anything it needs except defense. It prints money in order to siphon wealth from
the rest of the world, enriching its economy while impoverishing the rest. That's the only
way the Empire can function - any other way will result in its destruction.
Trump's ideology will destroy the American Empire. It will collapse under a wave of
hyperinflation, skyrocketing unemployment, shortage of goods and collapsing economic
output.
The manufacturing sector saw 17,000 jobs added after four months of flat activity. This
followed a strong run of an average of 22,000 manufacturing jobs added every month in
2018 and 15,800 per month in 2017. Those gains followed two weak years that saw 7,000
manufacturing jobs lost in 2016 and only 5,800 per month added in 2015.
In the last 30 months of President Obama's term, manufacturing employment grew by
185,000 or 1.5%. In President Trump's first 30 months, manufacturers added 499,000 jobs,
expanding by 4.0%. In the same 30-month time span during the mature, post-recovery phase
of the business cycle, some 314,000 more manufacturing jobs were added under Trump than
under Obama, a 170% advantage
As Trump is going to win (provided the usual conditions pertain, fraud is not over the
normal levels, and the whole sh*t-story doesn't end up in the courts or fought out on the
streets, whereupon no reasoned predictions can be made), speculation about Biden as Prez.
is a waste of time.
The last part of the Pepe piece in b's post, which gives reasons to not vote Biden, my
take.:
Obama ran on Hopey-Changey and on his projected charm, actually glib con-man gab.
Worked wonderfully, imagine getting the Nobel Prize because you had a dead-beat Dad who was
from Kenya and you scored B+ for public speaking? Argh. (The real reason: killing will
continue, the status quo is preserved..)
Anyway, the ACA was a damp squib, it didn't solve anything, and depending on pov was in
effect a gift to Mega Insurance or was just 'lame' or as often, 'favored some over others'
etc.
Then the Financial Crisis hit. The Obama admin. didn't prevent it (one might argue they
couldn't not sure) and it didn't 'repair' as far as the ppl were concerned. Banks and Some
Big Cos were bailed out - millions of homeowners were tossed to the curb by Banks. Child
poverty, hunger, increased; wages weren't upped, health stats got worse No need to go on -
this provoked tremendous anger. The 2010 elections saw big R gains, 2014 they took the
Senate, iirc.
(Who cared about foreign parts like Ukraine, Syria? is what I'm saying.)
That Trump would win in 2016 was obvious as soon as he became a candidate. He was
the cartoon contrast of Obomber - white, fat, orange, tall, R vs. D, outspoken, strident,
clumsy (vs. the smooth-talking con), opinionated, stupid, and outrageous in a way. Click
bait and viewer bait for the MSM - but not for no reason.
DT's electoral promises were both opportunistic and more profound: like fire-brand
preachers of old, Build The Wall - MAGA - i.e. pledging a return to the past (see, again
the opposite of Barry, who hoped for the future) -- Stop the wars, undo past mistakes (Dems
don't run on anti-war..!), and, most important:
Drain the Swamp. The Deplorables are not ordinary ppl, but criminals in positions
of power. By putting this forward, Trump became a mirror of the ppl, part of them.
Imho, Trump's record (null or abysmal or whatever depending on pov) is not enough for
rejecting him in favor of loathed "failed" policies of the past - Clinton gang, Biden a
part of it, Obama, etc. (By US voters I mean.)
but see Kiza 8, gottlieb 63, dave 72, Jack, others, >> no difference.
...Bringing the supply chain back to the US and re-industrialising the US isn't going to
happen overnight or even in a couple of quarters. Just like the process to de-industrialise
didn't happen overnight. But that the process has started, it is undeniable, and will only
pick up pace when he wins a second term.
4 new Trafalgar polls came out for 10/29: Arizona, Nevada, Florida and Michigan. Trump
expanded his lead on Biden in Florida and Michigan vs. Trafalgar's earlier October
polls:
FL from +2.3% Trump to +2.7%
MI from +0.6% Trump to +2.5%
Trump did worse in Nevada and AZ: AZ from +4% Trump to +2.5%.
Nevada polled +2.3% Biden
Once again: the question is if Trump outperforms vs. MSM polls. If he repeats anywhere
near his 2016 - he will win.
Trump can only win again if the establishment/deep state is once again exceptionally
overconfident and asleep in the control room. They have numerous ways of swinging the
election at the last hour, from pre-hacked Diebold paperless voting machines to hanging
chads to simply having their operatives scattered around the nation throw ballots away and
fabricate the tallies. Oddly enough this extreme carelessness is still possible. The
establishment/deep state have not yet come to terms with what caused their plans to blow up
in 2016 and really do seriously believe that Russia had something to do with it, even
though they have no idea what Russia might have actually done to wreck their expected
electoral blowout by Clinton. They also think that part of the problem was that Trump
wasn't vilified harshly enough (they wanted the election to at least appear competitive),
and they think they have that covered this time around. It could be that the over-the-top
hysteria from the TDS victims has them overestimating the anti-Trump sentiment, though.
Still, the establishment/deep state screwing up exactly the same way twice in a row
doesn't seem likely. Even so, their profound incompetence continues to astonish, so maybe
we will once again get treated to the delightful spectacle of crowds of middle class faux
left dilettante snowflakes melting down.
It not hard to see why big pharma despises Trump. They stand to lose a lot of
money. My health stock investment has almost doubled during Trump's tenure.
vk @158 - Not acreage - but based (until Andrew Jackson, hardly any principled person's
prez) on PROPERTY VALUE. JUST as in the good ol' UK. Yep - despite NPR folks believing
otherwise (clealry never visited a history book) - the aristo controlled (in what way
really different?) Britain was actually a "democracy":, and was so from Magna Carta on...
Of course it was a, how to say, constrained, constricted "democracy," but then so was the
original one in Athens. Those who count as THE Demos - always been a matter for property
holder concern... So in GB - male, 21 and over and owning a property of a taxable (always
this, huh) value of a certain sum. Ensured that the hoi polloi males over 21 couldn't vote
- and for the exact same reasons, I do not doubt, as the intentions behind the Electoral
College construct by those less than admirable FFs. Gotta prevent the vast masses of the
population - the great unwashed, "the bewildered herd" in Hamilton's verbiage I do believe
- from having the ability to grab (well, they knew all about blood-letting theft of land,
after all, didn't they?) that sacred "property." (Sacred, surely 'cos owned by the
equivalent of the Murican aristos.)
@Down South #159
It shouldn't be surprising. Actual doctors and nurses are, by and large, really great
people. They don't want to turn away anyone.
The poorest in America can't afford health care - even the middle class can't really as
testified to by the millions of bankruptcies caused by medical expenses. Hospitals thus
were losing large sums of profit treating people who simply could not pay.
Obamacare threw many (not all) of those people onto health insurance company plans by
having the government pay the health insurance premium and then having the existing health
insurance customers pay via increased premiums - all this on top of the ongoing health care
profiteering. That's why Obamacare should really have been called "No Health Insurance
Company or Hospital Left Behind".
The existence of Obamacare also distracts people from the real problem: actual
affordable health care - which every other nation in the world except the US has, entirely
due to national health care.
I've posted this before - I will post it again.
In 2006, I left the semiconductor software industry on my own because I disagreed with
management decisions to outsource all jobs to India rather than change their fundamentally
flawed business model. Semiconductor software companies are the only part of the design
chain that charges by software license rather than per part made - this was great in the
early days of semiconductors but is a disaster when the industry consolidates to 5 large
multinational but US based companies.
In 2007, I experienced a retinal detachment right after my COBRA ended. I paid $35,000
in cash to get that fixed - including a 5 hour total elapsed journey through a hospital
which included a 1 hour surgical room occupancy and 1 hour of recovery time. In the door at
6:30 am and waiting for a taxi at 12:30 pm. The UCSF doctor that attended to me (and did a
great job to be clear) said his fee out of all that was $1200.
The following year, some cells stirred loose by the corrective surgery landed on my
now-attached retina and started reproducing. Instead of coughing up another $35K (or more),
I chose to fly to Australia, consult with the best eye doctor recommended by the Royal
Opthalmological Society of Australia and New Zealand.
That doctor's office was literally a light year more advanced than UCSF - supposedly one of
the premier teaching hospitals in the US. I pay him AU$5000 - US$4000 at the time, plus
another AU$800 for the hospital visit. The Sydney Eye Hospital gave me the choice of
staying a 2nd night (I stayed 1 night because I was at the end of the queue for the day, as
a foreigner), for free, including meals and medications administered on site.
I paid literally 1/7th the price in AU vs. the US - an Australia is not a 3rd world
country. The doctor got paid 3.5x in absolute terms. The service I received was immensely
better. Even including travel costs: flight plus 2 weeks in AU (which I was vacationing),
the overall cost was still 1/5th of my US experience.
That opened my eyes (literally) to just how fucked up the US system is.
@Don Bacon #165
Stock price doesn't bear any short term correlation with profits.
Just look at Tesla, Uber and what not.
Health care sector profits have increased disproportionately since Obamacare:
CFR report on health insurance company profits
Since ACA implementation on January 1, 2014, health insurance stocks outperformed the
S&P 500 by 106 percent.
You're right. The early liberals - specially from the American South - loved to compare
themselves with the Athenian Republic. The rationale is that the existence of slaves
enabled them to enjoy unparalleled freedom. Black slaves were frequently compared with
helots when the problem of slave revolts appeared (with the pro-abolitionists evoking the
figure of Spartacus). The South considered itself freer than the North in the USA - it was
only after their destruction in 1865 that the tide turned and the North became,
retrospectively, the paragon of liberal freedom.
In Europe, England was considered the ultimate free nation. Even American liberals
(including Benjamin Franklin) built up their legitimacy on being of English stock
(Anglo-Saxon race). With time, liberals begun to legitimize their hegemony with a worldwide
racial hierarchy - hence the definition of American democracy as Herrenvolk Democracy
("Master race democracy").
And yes, the original liberals considered the Glorious Revolution of 1688 as their birth
date - not the French Revolution of 1789 (which they condemned as illiberal, or "radical").
The founders of neoliberalism (Hayek, Mises, etc. etc.) put 1870 as the apex of liberalism,
which they tried to revive.
Escobar writes: "In contrast, two near-certain redeeming features would be the return of
the US to the JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal, which was Obama-Biden's only foreign policy
achievement"
Anyone who actually thinks this is either ignorant or moronic. Biden will absolutely
require Iran to limit their ballistic missiles before "rejoining" that then-altered deal.
Iran will never let this happen. Thus the deal is essentially dead [as far as US
involvement goes, which the other parties should ignore]. MOA notes this as well.
I don't know why though MOA refers to Escobar at all here though. The ignorance
demonstrated in the above quote should be enough to disqualify such a person from any
discussion about Biden, Iran, etc. and to also ignore anything else such a person claims.
You might as well quote a schizophrenic you meet down by the river for his take on Iran and
the JCPOA. Might as well learn sign language and ask the chimps at your local zoo what they
think about it.
You are not the only American who is doing it. They have even developed a term for it -
medical tourism:
With rising healthcare costs in the US and the rise of health tourism destinations that
offer quality and affordable healthcare perked up by a beautiful travel experience,
Americans are scampering to book appointments with healthcare providers far away from
home. Yearly, millions of patients travel from countries lacking healthcare
infrastructure or less advanced in a particular area of medical care to countries that
provide highly-specialized medical care.
Noirette @161: " Drain the Swamp. The Deplorables are not ordinary ppl, but
criminals in positions of power. By putting this forward, Trump became a mirror of the ppl,
part of them."
True enough, and as even the bunny claims, this was part of the act. But those who think
Trump's upset victory in 2016 was part of the plan need to offer up a better explanation
for why those criminals in positions of power would want to kneecap themselves with public
exposure. The rationale has to be extraordinarily critical and of huge value to the elites
because that price of exposure has been monumentally damaging to them.
Keep in mind that one of the most important (if not the most important) aspects
of US presidential elections is the "electoral mandate" . Far more important than
specific campaign promises is the general tone of the campaign. If a winning candidate had
campaigned on ending wars, bringing jobs back from abroad, and fighting corruption in
government, this isn't just an indication that the public wants something done about these
issues. First and foremost it forces an acknowledgement that these are indeed major issues
that the public wants to be part of the national discourse that the capitalist mass media
tries to control. Allowing these issues to become part of the national discourse is
diametrically opposed to the interests of the power elites. They do not want these issues
to even be discussed, much less addressed by the state.
So why would they intentionally force these issues into the forefront of national
discourse? That is, after all, what Trump's victory did, despite the establishment's best
efforts to distract with "Russia! Russia! Russia!" and "Racism, sexism and
pussy-grabbing, oh my!" . These issues were already smoldering below the surface due to
Sanders' campaign, so why would the elites want them fanned into flames?
Answer: They didn't. As much as the issues that the winner campaigns on getting elevated
in priority by the "electoral mandate" , the loser's issues get diminished. Trump
was supposed to lose, and lose bigly, and in the process the things he campaigned on were
supposed to be crushed down to objects of ridicule by the corporate mass media. Trump's
resounding defeat was supposed to signal that Americans rejected Trump's "conspiracy
theories" about some fictitious "deep state" that only existed in Trump's
imagination, burying the suspicions that the election fraud committed against Sanders
aroused. Trump being ignominiously trounced was supposed to allow the mass media to say
that Americans unequivocally voiced their opposition to ending war and their support for
intervention in Syria, clearing the way for Clinton's "no fly zone" . Trump being
utterly humiliated in the polls was supposed to decisively demoralize the
"deplorables" , convincing them with finality that there will never again be
good-paying blue collar jobs and that they are just disposable relics, while at the same
time crippling their resistance to the social engineering of "identity politics" ;
social engineering that I should point out is even more ill-conceived and incompetently
executed than the 737MAX MCAS system.
Trump was supposed to lose and take those issues with him to the dustbin of history.
It is important to understand this point because it clarifies who our enemies really are
and helps us to understand how they view the world.
Ancient Athens excluded from power slaves and resident foreigners (metics). Also women in
the families of male citizens, although one could argue that they had virtual
representation through the male citizens in their families. So also for the children in
citizens' families, although they would have full rights once they reached adulthood. The
adult male citizens who had full political rights were about 20 percent of the population
of Attica.
And even the poorest citizens had much more political power than average citizens of
today's so-called democracies have today. They could attend and vote in the Assembly, they
could be chosen by lot to serve in such bodies as the Council and juries, and to serve in
most offices. And for doing all these things there was pay, so that poor citizens had
particular motivation to participate, which they did. Just read Aristophanes. No wonder
most rich Athenians hated the system.
Again, you are mistaken. I am getting tired of correcting you.FoxNews drug their heels
when it came to supporting DJT in 2015 until it was clear that the majority of
conservatives actually wanted DJT as their candidate.
It was at that point that business-smartz kicked in and they had to acknowledge that
they must throw their weight behind the Trump ticket lest they prove themselves the
faux-conservative Rinos they actually were/are.
Business 101, my friend. You wanna keep the advert. revenue coming in, you produce
content your audience actually agrees with.
TBH and AFAIK Tucker Carlson is still the only truly sane conservative on FOx news. The
rest, including Hannity, don't neccessarily mind the endless wars so long as the public
endorses them. They are chameleons without an ethical lodestar guiding their
commentary.
Trump being utterly humiliated in the polls was supposed to decisively demoralize the
"deplorables", convincing them with finality that there will never again be good-paying
blue collar jobs and that they are just disposable relics,
_____________________________________________
The problem is you think the oligarchs are every bit as stupid as you are. It would be
nice if they were, but unfortunately they're not.
First of all lets examine who are these deplorables who you imagine were set up by the
oligarchs to be crushed and demoralized by running Trump as their candidate.
The deplorables are:
-The Americans that own the guns
-The Bible thumping American jihadist
-The Americans that sign up for the police and military and in those rolls operate the
states weaponry
-The Americans who believe the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of
tyrants
I could go on but all you have to do is tune into the corporate mass media that caters
to the deplorables to find out who they are and what they are being sold.
But Mr Gruff is just too stupid to figure out why in the world the oligarchs might want
to not antagonize that segment of the population.
The oligarchs would have to have lost their frikken minds to hire trump for the purpose
of giving the deplorables a big "fuck you" as you imagine. The oligarchs are well aware
that they already gave a big fat finger to the deplorables when they engineered the
election of Obama (not to mention the 40 preceding years of marginalizing that segment of
the population) and just maybe it was time to pacify that segment of the population that
was growing larger and a bit restless.
But those who think Trump's upset victory in 2016 was part of the plan need to offer up a
better explanation for why those criminals in positions of power would want to kneecap
themselves with public exposure. The rationale has to be extraordinarily critical and of
huge value to the elites because that price of exposure has been monumentally damaging to
them.
Amen!!! I don't think that people who forward that narrative fully understand
how damaging this exposure has been to them.
By being exposed they have been shown to exist . This is super critical! No more
is talk of the deep state relegated to the lunatic fringe where they can be easily derided
as "conspiracy theorists"
Whether Trump can drain the swamp or not is to be seen but what is not in dispute is
that they exist.
Posted by: Down South | Nov 1 2020 18:31 utc |
181 How can the blob "return" when they never really left?
To pretend that Trump is some special Peacemaker, trying oh so hard to overcome deep
state resistance to rolling back empire, is Trumpism. Escobar is always there. Trump must
be understood as a leading creature of the swamp himself. Trying so hard just as Obama was
trying so hard.
The relative scores settled terribly are more a matter of opportunity than ruthless
efficiency. Though it is true that "success" requires dialing it back a bit, and having the
likes of Bolton around is a way of ensuring either that nothing gets done, or we all end up
ashes. Trump managed to axe Bolton on time, that time.
It's avoidance of those lower probability mega catastrophes that is the principle reason
of voting trump out with regards to foreign policy. And there are other reasons.
I became a fan of yours when I was in law school at UC Hastings in 2003. Your the best,
for sure. But fuck...
I got to be honest...I'm glad the press is ignoring this story. There's just too much at
stake. Biden might be losing his edge, his family might be trading in his name, but who gives
a shit? The alternative is worse by light years.
And yeah, I don't trust the "people" out there to get it right. The "people" are rubes.
Those idiots voted for this piece of shit once before, they'll do it again, in a
heartbeat.
More importantly, you really want to do Rudy Giuliani's work for him? I don't know, I
don't get it...why so eager to make the campaign's case for them? It's not a rhetorical
question. I just don't get it.
Four years ago I was railing against Hillary Clinton on Facebook without any
censoring.
Tonight I watched an interview Tucker Carlson did with Glenn Greenwald regarding the
Hunter Biden/Joe Biden scandal and Tucker showed a poll revealing that 51% of those polled
believe this scandal is "Russian Disinformation" with ZERO evidence.
Why do those being polled believe this? Because the bulk of the MSM they watch have told
them so and the major tech platforms have ALL censored the pertinent information so there is
NO debate amongst the electorate. All of this less than one week from our national
election.
With Facebook and Twitter and Google's and the bulk of the MSM's heavy fingers on the
scales of public information there are only two words to describe this:
ELECTION INTERFERENCE.
And this with over 70 million voters already having cast their ballots!
Regardless of the outcome next Tuesday, these tech/media corporations should ALL be
brought down at least to the point where they can never be allowed to interfere in another
American election again, regardless of the higher-ups personal political preferences.
And this is the system the war-mongering DNC wants to "spread around the world" with their
"regime change wars"?!
Stephanie, why do you want Trump gone? Trump is bait. His presence is resulting in many,
many bad actors revealing themselves to be nefarious. Just look at Twitter/Facebook censoring
this blockbuster news (along with the rest of the media). We, The People, are finally seeing
first had the level of tyranny that's upon us. None of it has anything to do with Trump. But
it's Trump's existence in the White House that is bringing it to light. Without him, we would
have never seen it for what it is. Think about that.
I may disagree with your take on CIA involvement, but the above paragraph couldn't be more
accurate. Trump's election was like throwing a brick through a rotten, wasp-infested
beehive.
I'll second that. Though perhaps to be fair to the original sentiment, perhaps the brick has
only knicked the beehive, and then smashed a window or two along it's way. He is arguably
inevitable, even desirable from some perspective, but the degree of nuisance is not erased, so
much as outweighed, by the necessity. We would be living in a better world, by definition, if
someone like him had never been required to improve it.
Agreed. I have been telling Democrats all they need do is run better candidates - and
virtually every time, I get people trying to claim there was never anything wrong with Hillary
or Joe and also Trump is Literally Hitler Incarnate.
I grew up watching psychos in the Extreme Right talk that way about whoever THEY didn't like
politically. Arguing that Bill Clinton was going to send Janet Reno to take their guns and cart
them off to FEMA camps like a scene out of "Red Dawn" or something. But this isn't the fringes
talking anymore. It's the mainstream, and it's on the Left.
Glen, I just paid for a subscription so that I can say this one FACT. The PODESTA EMAILS
WERE NOT THE RESULT OF A HACK.
Please stop reporting this nonsense. The cover story was all part of the plan (approved by
HRC) to shift attention to a Trump-Russia collusion narrative that has always been fiction.
Guccifer 2.0 was created out of this same scheme. The meta data on the files prove that it's
impossible that those emails were hacked, they had to be downloaded on a local device
(thumbdrive most likely).
The FISA Abuse, the spying on Trump, The plan to implicate collusion, the Flynn frameup,
the Impeachment, The Mueller investigation were not the base crimes, those were all part of a
cover up. By you insinuating that the DNC server got hacked (which there is zero evidence
for), you are wittingly or unwittingly complicit in perpetuating the lie that it was. You're
missing a much, much bigger story here. The biden laptop isn't even the tip of the icebeg
here.
Ask yourself this; "Why would dozens of high level DOJ, FBI, CIA and Whitehouse officials
in the Obama Administration put their careers on the line and commit literally hundreds of
felonies all in an effort to obstruct/neutralize Trump?" That is first question any true
journo should be asking right now.
You mention in this article that the media is basically over-compensating for helping Trump
win in 2016. That is extremely naive on your part. The media/twitter/facebook/CNN/MSNBC, etc.
is too well orchestrated, too well coordinated to be operating even vaguely independently. This
is project Mockingbird happening on a scale almost unimaginable. Maybe even the Intercept was
intercepted. Why would the publication that you founded not allow you to publish this? If you
look back at 2016, the entire media industrial complex was just as coordinated as it is now,
they just got sloppy because they were certain Trump wasn't going to win. Who's being naive now
Kay?
I also get frustrated with what I see as a naive interpretation, by figures like Dan
Bongino, Tim Pool, etc. I wonder if there is a fear by some to point behind the curtain, that
they will be attacked and cancelled for "conspiracy theories."
Neither Tim or Dan are really journalists and besides, this story is so massive and so
incomprehensibly large in scope/scale/magnitude that we shouldn't get too frustrated.
The main point to remember here is that none of this has anything to do with Trump. Look at
the timeline in its entirety, the best we are able to do and then plot a graph of the Media
Industrial Complex's behavior. They were out to derail Trump from the moment he came down the
escalator and it's not because he's a womanizer or that he's a game show host. They couldn't
afford to have an non-establishment player come in and wreck their plans. The question is, what
the f#$% were their plans? Why did they risk so much to keep him out of the WH?
My view is that the constant sturm und drang about the corruption of the elections (voter
suppression, mail fraud, ballot harvesting, etc, etc) is a ploy to distract from the fact that
the real corruption already happened long before the election.
The real corruption is even mentioned by Glenn in his draft: the SELECTION process.
The media do what they're told, and what they are doing is keeping up the drumbeat of
election corruption. In other words, they've been told to distract all attention from the real
story.
The real story is that, to the people who control candidate selection, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO
WINS.
That is the whole point of controlling the selection process. Oh yes, I know the media hates
Trump and so do the establishment. Really? The same establishment that just benefitted from the
greatest upward transfer of wealth in human history, during a pandemic panic, under Trump?
Bezos has gained over 70 billion in net worth this year, under Trump. You think he hates Trump?
Really?
You think Biden will do less? Or perhaps you think he would do more than the greatest upward
transfer of wealth in human history?
Republicans versus Democrats is a con game. It's a kabuki theatre of manipulation of
parochial tribalism, a Punch n Judy Show for the rubes.
As was once mentioned in the UT threads at Salon, isn't it time for a second political
party, Mr Greenwald?
It's not about their plans. It's just a non-violent (so far) class war. Trump is a vessel
for the working classes to carry their dissatisfaction of elite leadership. It's easier to
communicate directly to the people now due to social media, so the traditional media can't tell
the people how to vote (can't declare a candidate to be beyond the pale any more, squashing
their chances, and they used to have that power). The media are part of the elite leadership,
they don't like the working classes not listening to them, and they don't like the loss of
power. That's their agenda.
They have taken to "any means necessary" to keep that power, even though now it's basically
lying and obfuscation. They are trading off their legacy trustworthiness for short term
benefit, but they are destroying that foundation of trust as well. That happens slowly but
surely as more people see through them. Takes too long in the experience of everyone who is
reading this, because we're well ahead of the curve. The average mid level elite is a working
professional with kids too busy and not interested enough to dig to the next level and has been
taking their word - but they too see the truth every time they really look and over time that
is going to go as we all hope it will. It's just going to take a while.
"The guy who co-founded one of the current-day major online journalism outlets isn't really
a journalist" - Someone Posting to the Comments on an Article by a Guy Who Co-Founded One of
the Current-Day Major Online Journalism Outlets
There is good cause to question the Snowden story. He was CIA. Once a CIA agent, always a
CIA agent. It's plausible that he was inserted into booz allen hamilton in an attempt to harm
the NSA (on behalf of the CIA). Tell me this Glen, how did Snowden evade the largest
dragnet/manhunt ever on the planet to evade the authorities and make it to Moscow? Am I the
only one who finds this a little fishy? As someone who has been in software for 40 years, when
I heard him on Joe Rogan podcast about a year ago, I didn't find his backstory credible at all.
He sounds intelligent, but when you get beyond that and listen to him from a technological
perspective, his story doesn't add up. I find it hard to believe.
Why would a "patriot" doing work on behalf of the CIA be thrown to the wolves? Why wouldn't
they cover for him after it was released? I haven't been in software for 40 years, but I
believe that the Snowden story is extremely credible.
Snowden was a libertarian high school dropout hacker
The Deep State hired 800,000 employees/contractors around the Beltway after 9/11 on a war
footing, so anyone that was seen as clean and patriotic may not have needed a lot of standard
credentials by the usual bureaucratic managerial idiot types working for the Feds
I've been told that military field grade IT is all from the 1990s, dunno about national
security agencies, but unless you have actually worked with national security IT stuff I'm not
sure why your views should hold much weight
Senior people I know in the military and national security apparatus have told me that
corruption, waste and inefficiency are rampant (80-90%?)
Sorry, but I've heard that "anything CIA is automatically X" way too many times in my life.
Often from people trying to sell books about how we never landed on the Moon (you'd be amazed
how many ex-[alphabet agency] agents "back up" these claims with the worst sort of
pseudo-authoritative malarkey).
Hah! They "helped" Trump by running two billion dollars' worth of 95% negative coverage. It
made Trump look like the victim of a massive smear campaign by partisan hacks. What have they
been doing to "over-compensate", exactly? Make it 99%?
Whether or not they helped Trump, Greenwald's article claimst that journalists feel
responsible for Trump being elected last time so they are trying not to make the same
'mistake'. At least that's what Glenn is asserting here.
They're not wrong. They helped elect him with their sheer negativity. I've seen these people
argue the point, and they always point the finger at other journalists somehow NOT being
negative enough. It's never themselves.
So there's no collective soul-searching going on, no self-awareness, only a drive to be
angrier and finger-wagging with less concern for the actual facts of any given matter. They
don't realize how transparent it's become for those not already personally invested in the
extant narratives.
This, I think, is why we are seeing many more people defect to Trump rather than away from
him; when one is personally and deeply invested in a narrative, it's an article of faith.
Imagine you walk into church one day and the pastor says "this just in: the Archangel Gabriel
was a child molestor who felt up Baby Jesus". Next week, they accuse the Virgin Mary of the
same. Would a member of the faithful just roll with that, or consider moving to another church
altogether just to avoid the emotional whiplash?
More to the point, the head of Crowdstrike, the company run by a known Russia-hater the
Democrats sent their server to instead of the FBI, and who never provided that server to the
FBI, admitted in a Senate hearing that there was, in fact, no evidence of hacking. He was under
oath that time. Russiagate remains one of the most successful propaganda campaign in
history.
Just before or just after Trump's 2016 election I was in a Manhattan restaurant with my
domestic partner talking with strangers from DC. It turned out that they worked in the State
Dept. and they told us that since Trump questioned the veracity of some things the intelligence
establishment had said, they would absolutely bring him down. We were shocked but have
remembered this throughout the FISA debacle,the Mueller mess,the impeachment and this election
cycle.
Right. Thank you. I wrote to Matt T. about this same issue in his article. I'm hoping they
will do the investigation required for them to amend their articles. It really is a fundamental
mistake to perpetuate this propaganda.
It's literally in the Mueller report that the DNC server was hacked, without a shred of
evidence. As Fox Mulder said "Trust No One". Matt & Glen really need to get to the point
where they chuck everything they think they know and start over. Everything has been a lie. Why
would anyone believe ANYTHING the FBI or DOJ of Obama WH put out at this point? The MSM has no
credibility, FBI/DOJ/CIA? This cancer has metasticized to the point where the patient is on
life support.
We need to understand that Trump is Chemo. It takes an outsider to come in, someone who
didn't need this job, someone who couldn't be bought, to come in and kill that cancer.
Just to offer some confirmation for that, Here is a CNN article from the time: "A phishing
email sent to Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta may have been so sophisticated
that it fooled the campaign's own IT staffers, who at one point advised him it was a legitimate
warning to change his password."
However, they also report that the link was from " [email protected] ." I searched
for whether that email address had been reported as malicious on the day that the story broke.
Far from being "sophisticated", it was just a phishing link that was going around randomly, and
had already been reported to this spam reporting site:
So, despite (much of) the media converging on a "sophisticated spear phishing" narrative,
this looks to be a link that was sent to a large number of people over a long period, and just
a case of random spam phishing that got lucky.
re: "so sophisticated that it fooled the campaign's own IT staffers"
I'm not a google mail user, but in general it is pretty rare for a phishing email to NOT
have extended headers (server route log) that reveal a bogus or weird looking origin.
"Alleging" would be more accurate. They've been acting quite more brazenly as a
misinfo/disinfo arm of the DNC. Whether or not the DNC has deep enough connections with the CIA
to provide a useful and reliable data/policy bridge is another question, but both DNC and GOP
likely have enough connections to establish semi-functional "lamprey" networks just due to
their longevity and resulting personal/professional contacts therein.
Hi Frank. " The PODESTA EMAILS WERE NOT THE RESULT OF A HACK.
Please stop reporting this nonsense. The cover story was all part of the plan (approved by
HRC) to shift attention to a Trump-Russia collusion narrative that has always been fiction.
Guccifer 2.0 was created out of this same scheme. The meta data on the files prove that it's
impossible that those emails were hacked, they had to be downloaded on a local device
(thumbdrive most likely)."
Based on the forensics that was my conclusion but beware of these rabbit holes. It has never
been discussed that those details can also be faked (the meta data.) Certainly Gucifer which
seemed like damage control. I am unsure of the claims about his being backtracked tho.
So it's possible that the evidence is faked having accepted the conclusions of VIPS
analysts.
Could be. It would also mean that it was the first time Wikileaks published something that
wasn't authentic. Assange knows where the emails came from and he asserted that they didn't
come from Russia.
Note to all: You must use actual (historical) ISP speeds as of the specific months in
question. They increased a good deal in the months that followed in that area.
I agree that there was a massive fake Russia story created by GPS Fusion, the Clinton
campaign, Clinton allies, with the help of US intelligence, often willing and sometimes just
incompetent.
But there is definitely some evidence of a DNC hack. Among other things, the Dutch
intelligence services seem to have observed evidence in their spying on the Internet Research
Agency - reported by mutliple sources including Dutch media. What the nature of the hack was
and how it gibes with the evidence that there must have been a person on the ground to transfer
the data files that fast is of course fair to discuss.
There is also evidence, both purposely forgotten in media coverage after Jan 2017, of an
attempted RNC hack and the overt public hack and release of Colin Powell's email to embarass
and hurt Trump. There is plenty of other evidence of Internet Research Agency activity that was
pro-BLM and anti-Trump, making their more likely overall goal the sowing of chaos than only
supporting Trump. Thus the need for GPS/Clintonistas/Intelligence/Mueller's team to spin a
narrative.
I became a fan of yours when I was in law school at UC Hastings in 2003. Your the best, for
sure. But fuck...
I got to be honest...I'm glad the press is ignoring this story. There's just too much at
stake. Biden might be losing his edge, his family might be trading in his name, but who gives a
shit? The alternative is worse by light years.
And yeah, I don't trust the "people" out there to get it right. The "people" are rubes.
Those idiots voted for this piece of shit once before, they'll do it again, in a heartbeat.
More importantly, you really want to do Rudy Giuliani's work for him? I don't know, I don't
get it...why so eager to make the campaign's case for them? It's not a rhetorical question. I
just don't get it.
Alex: you are saying that we should not have independent press, that the media ought to be
agents of propaganda, consciously decieving the public for the greater good.
Maybe Biden is the lesser evil in this election. But without actual journalists like Glenn
we could never know.
I get the frustrations over Trump. He is a disaster. But the answer to that disaster does
not concist in advocating for more lies and propaganda.
I have yet to hear a reasonable case for Trump being either the greater evil or a disaster.
Many of the allegations against Trump have remained that - allegations - but in Biden's case
some of the same accusations (particular about racism) is in his Senate record. He was a
terrible candidate to position against Trump, and he picked as his veep the only person in the
entire primary season to get blown out by a single phrase from Tulsi Gabbard - who the rest of
the party's establishment absolutely despised because Hillary said so.
With Trump? Roaring economy brought to a halt not even by coronavirus, but massive economic
lockdowns that break the economy down to virtually Blue-State (down) / Red-State (up)
comparisons. Democrats were accusing Trump of "meddling" when he was still a candidate and
nonetheless pressured a Detroit factory into staying in the US. The man understands economic
leverage, and to ignore or deny that is like denying the Sun heats the Earth.
Three Middle East peace deals leading to an equal number of Nobel nominations. He is roasted
for de-escalating international tensions, lauded only when he fires missiles at nations
Democrats think need shooting at, and then castigated for killing a terrorist leader in the
same nation they were cheering him for firing missiles at.
I see very little criticism of Trump that isn't associated with bald-faced party-based
opposition, from establishment Republicans who hated his cockblocking of JEB BUSH FOR GODSAKE
to Democrats who still think Hillary's shit job as Secretary of State (ruining more nations
than Trump has cut peace deals for) is beyond reproach.
Speaking as a lifetime independent, please: the naked, incessant and baseless fury
demonstrated by Democrats and the Radical Left since 2016 has NOT been a selling point for
us.
Biden has been credibly accused of actually pinning a staffer against the wall and stuffing
his fingers up her vagina. The media didn't attack her story, but her college credentials, and
dumped the story after.
Biden has actually authored racist legislation and in recent years spoke of "being able to
work across the aisle" - with racist segregationists.
Trump's been merely ACCUSED of a shit-ton of things. But I don't join lynch-mobs. Same
reason the lynching of Justice Kavanaugh (seriously, you guys went after him over "I like beer"
and school calendars you had to try and reinterpret as codebooks?) made me see the Democratic
Party as a progressively more lunatic outfit. Reducing impeachment to "who needs criminal
charges? we really just hate the guy" wasn't a winner with us independents either, not just
speaking for myself there.
A pox on both your damned parties, and thank Trump for being that pox.
Gee Alex, elitist much? You don't like Trump so the people making an informed choice is not
a worthy goal? Anyone who disagrees with your world view is a rube who is not smart enough to
see the light - as defined by you? And you wonder why Trump won last time. The left is
populated by arrogant asses who think because they came out of college with a degree in some
worthless major, they are smarter than everyone else. Well, I went to college to but got a
degree in engineering vice sociology but I guess I'm just an educated rube.
Your law school tuition dollars were clearly wasted. Most of the people/rubes/idiots I know
and love learned the difference between "your" and "you're" in high school - and acquired
critical thinking skills at the same time. Too bad you missed out.
Yeah, we the people (rubes) are fn sick of the fn lawyers (especially from UC Hastings)
being in political control of our country and want a non-political person to clean up. What's
so hard for you to understand?
How's your guy doing you fucking rube? Great choice! Job well done!! If you ever wonder why
nobody gives a shit about your opinion, the fact that you chose a fucking reality star who ran
every business he ever owned into the ground, and fancies a bizarre hairdo, that's why no one
cares what you say. You're fucking stupid.
bahahahahaha...go crawl back into your fucking prol shit hole dwelling and latch onto
Tucker's teat. You're a fucking joke and always will be, no matter how special your dear leader
makes you feel.
Our local sanitation workers are much more thoughtful and respectful actually. I am voting
for Biden but I find this lawyer's response detestable. We need to grow up and stop with ad
hominem attacks that do nothing to advance the discussion.
Morals and ethics obviously mean nothing to a lawyer. If this was Don Jr, you would be out
for blood. As an independent voter, I want to know that I'm not voting for a piece of shit that
has been compromised by the Russians and Chinese! People like you, the FAKE NEWS media, and
antifa, etc are a major reason why I won't ever give my vote to Biden!
Elitists like Alex G. made the election of Donald Trump as president both inevitable and
necessary. The more he disses the "people" aka "rubes," the more President Trump's re-election
becomes equally inevitable and necessary. To borrow from Sen. Ted Cruz's exchange with Twitter
CEO Jack Dorsey, "Who the hell made Alex G. the final authority on how and what people should
think, say and do?"
One thing we know for sure is Alex G. never learned any humility or manners growing up. To
substantiate this, he stands condemned out of his own mouth. Last thing this country needs is
to have an authoritarian demagogue like him anywhere near the levers of power.
Please go back and fact check the old stories that made us hate Trump in the first place.
They've proven to be lies. He isn't perfect, but Biden will destroy this country. He's beyond
corrupt. Go look at the source materials.
Arrogant, smug D party loyalist goons and assholes like you are a very large part of why
people voted for Trump in 2016 and will vote for him in this election. T-R-0-L-L
I believe in the democratic system. The people may make mistakes, but so can anyone else. An
average of all the people is more accurate than randomly picking subsets of people to make
decisions. You say that you and your friends are not a random subset, you are better than
average. Your opponents say the same thing. We have a system for resolving these disputes.
Maybe you can invent a better one, but "I'm right and my opponents are wrong" is not a new
approach.
In answer to your "Why" question, perhaps Mr. Greenwald believes the same thing.
Glenn - new subscriber today (saw you with Tucker Carlson). As a conservative voter, I
support your new venture, not because your story is critical or suspicious of Biden, but
because we need more talented journalists willing to just investigate possible corruption and
inform the public. I also support Matt Taibbi for the same reason. The last line of your
article sums it up best for me.
"The whole point is that the press loses its way when it cares more about who benefits from
information than whether it's true."
Good luck, I hope you find this new path rewarding professionally and financially.
Agreed, I also like reading Quillette for it's equal publication of articles (they printed
that big article from the Environmentalist who demonized Environmentalism after he was banned
from his original publisher), and I also like reading Sharyl Attkisson as well.
I find it interesting how Glenn sees all the propoganda from these agencies in the media,
but fails to see the full extent of it in social media and therefore is unable to report on it
adequately. The DNC server hack is more of the same.
I paid for a subscription precisely because I believe that, despite what you may or may not
personally believe, you don't allow it to influence your pursuit of the truth. I want the truth
- nothing less and nothing more.
I just signed up, too, for that very reason. When those in positions of power put on a mask
and practice deception, they must be exposed. Sunlight is the cure for the disease of
corruption.
Personally, having read your work going back to Cato Institute and Volokh, I'm happy you're
independent and I can directly fund you. I'm willing to throw even more money at your projects.
Consider crowdfunding video documentary teams and other large projects. Your following after
all of this is going to be as large as ever.
I've supported him here as well because I think he is an important voice right now. There
are few journos out there right now who have Glenn's credibility who are willing to take on
media groupthink. But it is a tough environment. With NYT offering their digital for 4$ a month
that gives access to all of their writers/content, it is very difficult for writers like Glenn
to compete.
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee confirmed Wednesday the
information exposed by former Hunter
Biden business associate
Tony Bobulinski that connects the former Vice President to companies and ventures in China.
But you wouldn't know it by following the main stream press.
Bobulinski's bombshell interview with Fox News host
Tucker Carlson Tuesday, along with Carlson's follow up exclusive on Wednesday, revealed
that Democratic candidate Joe Biden was aware of his son's business questionable overseas
business dealings. It should be a huge story. After all, Joe Biden has publicly denied knowing
about his son's business ventures in China, Ukraine and other parts of the world.
So why isn't this story on the front page of every newspaper and covered by every cable
network?
How is it possible that the majority of main stream media outlets, newspapers and cable
networks had no problem running unsubstantiated stories about President Donald Trump, his
family and his businesses only to find out later – without corrections- that the
information they published was bogus.
Here, there is an eye witness to the Biden family operations: Bobulinski. He has come
forward and shown his credibility. He has verified documents, photos, receipts from Hunter
Biden's hard drive that the FBI had obtained, along with President Trump's friend and personal
lawyer former New York City Mayor Rudy
Giuliani.
Why hasn't the FBI done anything with this before the election? The bureau has had it for
almost a year. Giuliani then did the only thing he could do – he turned over the
documents to The New York Post. Those documents obtained from Hunter Biden's laptop are the
massive breadcrumbs to a real political scandal.
These documents raise serious questions as to whether or not our possible future president
really is compromised by foreign adversaries, or whether or not he was using his position in
government to profit his family.
Still, it's only crickets from the main stream media. At the same time, big tech giants like
Twitter, Google and Facebook are also working diligently to squash the story and keep the truth
from the American people.
Tucker Carlson had the highest ratings – historic ratings – at Fox News Tuesday
night with more than 7 million viewers tuning in for the Bobulinski story. Yet, the Bobulinski
interview wasn't trending on Twitter, and in fact, it appeared that his story was non-existent
on the other networks.
Not even the Senators, who held a hearing on Wednesday, could get a straight answer from
Twitter's CEO
Jack Dorsey on why his platform banned The New York Post stories.
Sen. Ted Cruz said on Twitter "What @Jack told the Senate, under oath, is false."
"I just tried to tweet the @nypost story alleging
Biden's CCP corruption. Still Blocked."
Censorship in full force. However, this is not like the old
Soviet censorship – this is a bizarre new self-censorship by elitist leftists who
believe they know what's best for the American people.
Think about this – what if this story was about information these news agencies
discovered on Donald Trump Jr. or Eric Trump. How would they treat it?
Let's start with the most widely discussed and central to the issue of alleged corruption
was Hunter Biden's paid position on the board of Ukrainian energy giant Burisma Holdings.
Despite the fact Hunter Biden had no background in energy he was being paid more than $50,000 a
month and in some instances as much as $83,000 a month.
What about the most concerning connection for the Biden's with China's CEFC, an energy giant
that is compared to Goldman Sachs. It is directly connected to the Chinese Communist Party and
according to Bobulinski, as well as senior lawmakers investigating, possible used as leverage
against the Bidens by the communist government.
"Joe Biden and the Biden family are compromised" said Bobulinski in Tuesday night's hour
long interview with Carlson. He said he turned over evidence to the FBI and openly spoke about
his alleged meetings with then Vice President Joe Biden. Biden is referred to by his son Hunter
Biden in emails obtained by the FBI and first published by The New York Post as the 'Big Guy'
and or 'the Chairman.'
Bobulinski revealed that he "held a top-secret clearance from the NSA and the DOE. I served
this country for four years in one of the most elite environments in the world, the Naval
Nuclear Power Training Command, and to have a congressmen out there speaking about Russian
disinformation or Joe Biden at a public debate referencing Russian disinformation when he knows
he sat face-to-face with me, I traveled around the world with his son and his brother. To say
that and associate that with my name is absolutely disgusting to me ."
Joe Biden, however, has publicly denied having any financial gain from his son's, Hunter,
business ventures. He said at the second Presidential debate, "I have not taken a penny from
any foreign source ever in my life." However, Biden has refused to answer any questions
regarding the allegations or address some of the accusations against him or his son.
The American public has the right to know if their next president has been compromised by
their families business dealings with the communist Chinese. Moreover, many of the business
ventures his son was connected with were during his tenure as Vice President.
Our nation has been divided but not by President Trump. It's been divided by an army of
bureaucrats, liberal elites, the New Democratic socialists, special interests and more
importantly a biased partisan media.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
For now, Americans will be left in the dark. On Wednesday committee Chairman Sen. Ron
Johnson, R- WI, told The Daily Caller, that Bobulinski will not be called to testify before the
Nov. 3 elections. He said the committee is working to review all the information that has been
provided to the committee by Bobulinski.
The information has to be verified, as it is subject to the same false information to
Congress laws that verbal or written testimony does.
However, a Johnson spokesperson told the Caller that all the material provided by Bobulinski
to the committee is legitimate and verified .
The committee has "also" not come across any "signs" or evidence to suggest the content
Hunter Biden and Bobulinksi content is false , the spokesperson added.
It's tragic to think that if by chance – a small remote chance – that Biden
actually wins the election justice will never be served and our nation will fundamentally
change.
America will be at a crossroads on November 3. The main stream media is doing its part to
ensure that the American people are not informed, so it is up to you to vote your conscience
and seek out the truth.
Col. Leghorn CSA , 9 hours ago
I suggest enabling RICO charges against any media that conspires to hide the truth.
UPS has found
documents that went missing in transit to Tucker Carlson, putting to rest questions about the
whereabouts of a trove that the Fox News host had called "damning" of presidential candidate
Joe Biden's family.
"After an extensive search, we have found the contents of the package and are arranging
for its return," a UPS spokesman told the
Daily Beast on Thursday. "UPS will always focus first on our customers and will never
stop working to solve issues and make things right."
While the successful search resolved the issue of the documents' whereabouts, questions
remain about how they disappeared from a package sent to Carlson in California from a producer
in New York -- and who, if anyone, was behind it. Without naming the company involved or
specifically saying the papers were purposely targeted and stolen, Carlson suggested on his
show on Wednesday night that the disappearance wasn't coincidental.
"As of tonight, the [shipping] company has no idea and no working theory even about what
happened to this trove of material – documents that are directly relevant to the
presidential campaign just six days from now," Carlson said. The company's executives
"seemed baffled and deeply bothered by this, and so are we."
Carlson described the package as containing confidential documents about the Biden family
and said they were "authentic, real and damning." He said he asked a Fox producer in New
York to send the documents to him in Los Angeles, where he had traveled to interview former
Biden business associated
Tony Bobulinski on Tuesday. The package didn't show up on Tuesday morning, prompting UPS to
begin an exhaustive search.
Mainstream media critics mocked Carlson for saying the documents had disappeared, including
some who suggested that they never existed. HuffPost said Carlson "concocted yet another
conspiracy
theory " to explain the disappearance of documents related to what they called his
"conspiracy theory" about Biden's son, Hunter.
Carlson devoted his entire show on Tuesday night to the Bobulinski interview, which provided
more specific allegations about the Biden family's business dealings in China following an Oct.
14
New York Post report on the ventures. Although Bobulinski provided legal documents, text
messages and recordings to back up his claims, the interview was largely ignored by other
mainstream media outlets.
Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on
Twitter @velocirapture23
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's campaign is using a vast reserve of donations
from the usual plutocratic suspects to pry even deep-red states away from an incumbent who's
done little to help the working class.
The Biden campaign broke all-time records for TV ad spending over the weekend, leveraging
Wall Street donors' unprecedented largesse in its effort to woo ordinary Americans back into
the establishment fold.
Given how Trump's record bristles with policies so 'pro-business' they can be seen as
anti-working-class, it's a strategy just crazy enough to work. Voters need only be reminded how
the incumbent cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations while printing trillions of dollars to
be diverted directly into the pockets of big banks and big companies during the pandemic. The
media is encouraged to do its part by hyping up Trump's " divisiveness. "
The same corporate-friendly policies that alienated many in Trump's 2016 base have somehow
failed to keep the .01 percent in the Republican camp, and Wall Street has poured $50 million
into the Biden campaign, CNBC reported on Monday, holding up former Goldman Sachs president
Harvey Schwartz as a typical contributor. Schwartz made his largest-ever political donation
earlier this month to the Biden Action Fund, a $100,000 gift that was also one of the biggest
donations the Fund received during that period.
And it's not just Wall Street - aside from hardcore Republican Zionists like casino mogul
Sheldon Adelson and vulture capitalist Paul Singer, the US oligarchy is firmly and vocally in
the Biden camp. Former New York City Republican-turned-Democrat mayor Mike Bloomberg announced
a $15 million ad buy in Texas and Ohio on Monday, two states where Trump won by a healthy
margin in 2016 but where the failed presidential candidate apparently smells weakness. That
hefty sum is in addition to over $100 million Bloomberg spent in the critical swing state of
Florida, where he also raised millions of dollars to pay off the court fees of black and
Hispanic ex-cons - whose votes the businessman believes will reliably land in the Biden camp,
never mind the candidate's history of supporting the kind of laws that probably landed them in
prison in the first place.
Overwhelming support for Biden among the ruling class is also amplified by wealthy
celebrities. From Cher's cringe-inducing ditty " Happiness is just a thing called Joe ,"
recently performed at a Biden benefit concert, to Taylor Swift's insistence that 2020's
election is " more important than I could even possibly say ," to questionable
statements from one-time anti-establishment stalwarts like Jello Biafra of the Dead Kennedys,
Americans are being cajoled, shamed, and pushed into the voting booth to deliver their support
to candidates who have never cared less about average Americans.
Working class people whose lives have been torn asunder by the coronavirus shutdowns Biden
has essentially pledged to expand aren't left with many options. While Trump resisted calls to
lock down the nation, his self-presentation as an anti-establishment maverick contrasts with
four years spent racking up debt and bombing Middle Eastern civilians. Recent polls suggest
that even the " poor and uneducated " - groups whose support for Trump has long been the
butt of liberal jokes - are defecting.
While a New York Times
analysis on Sunday showed Trump continuing to outperform Biden in low-income areas and
Biden's support remains concentrated in traditional liberal bastions on the East and West
Coasts, it showed middle-class suburban voters bailing out of the " Trump train " in
droves. Meanwhile, wealthy and college-educated voters have coalesced around Biden more firmly
than in the past, with even big-money establishment Republican types drawn to Biden's promise
of a return to the Obama-era status quo.
Where does that leave the poor, or those who lost their middle-class status in the last
crash? Trump's detractors have pointed out the irony of the man surrounded by gold presenting
himself as the people's champion, and the Biden campaign is spending relentlessly to poach
wavering Trump supporters, with ads and opinion
pieces featuring self- described
" Christian Republicans " embracing the Democrat.
Short of voting for a third party - described by the media establishment as something akin
to a war crime, especially for swing state residents - the working class is caught in an
unenviable bind. More than a few must be wondering if voting is merely a long con aimed at
drafting Americans into participating in their own oppression. Driving through rural western
Pennsylvania, a state polls insist Biden has bagged, a bumper crop of Trump signs - more than a
few of them handmade - has blossomed, suggesting the small farmers of the Rust Belt really are
expending their meager resources to re-elect the man with the gold-plated
bathroom . But if this is, indeed, what democracy looks like, it's no wonder the system is
losing support among the younger generation.
If you like this story, share it with a friend! Jojo jordan 1 day ago Sorry Helen but
you lost me where you claimed Trump didn't help the working class. Also, the Big companies got
rich during the pandemic due to Democrat Governors and Mayors shutdowns of small businesses.
Biden is THE definition of swamp creature. Trump is for the people. He's a realist. Reply 10 2
Zogg Jojo jordan 1 day ago Nope, Trump heavily damaged the working class when signed the law
having the corporate taxes halved and not halving the working class taxes. tracie72 1 day ago
"It's one big party, we aren't invited." George Carlin J_P_Franklin 1 day ago "wondering if
voting is merely a long con aimed at drafting Americans into participating in their own
oppression" Democracy is the problem. "Voting only encourages them." - Gore Vidal Juan_More
J_P_Franklin 1 day ago Actually it is the reverse. The more the people vote the more it scares
the politicians. It is usually non-aligned voters that make up the vast majority of those who
do not vote. That way the parties count on the party faithful to get out and vote. With all
those independent voters voting it makes those sure thing seats a lot less sure. Why are you
trying to discourage people from voting. From the number of comments like yours I've seen in
social media there would appear to be move to suppress people from voting. Lastly everyone
should keep in mind, there may not be anything worth voting for but there is always something
to vote against.
Tuesday night, we heard at length and on camera from one of the Biden family's former
business partners. His name is Tony Bobulinski. He's a very successful businessman and a Navy
veteran.
Bobulinski spoke to "Tucker Carlson Tonight" for a full hour. He told us he met two
separate times with Joe Biden himself. Not just with Joe
Biden's son or his brother, but with Joe Biden -- the former vice president and the man now
running for president -- to discuss business deals with the communist government of China .
That's a very serious claim, and whatever your political views, it's hard to dismiss it when
Tony Bobulinski makes it because Bobulinsky is an unusually credible witness. He's not a
partisan, he's not seeking money, he's not seeking publicity. He did not want to come on our
show.
But when Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and the Biden campaign accused Tony Bobulinski of
participating in a Russian disinformation effort, he felt he had no choice. That was a slander
against him and against his family. So Bobulinski came to us. He arrived with heaps of evidence
to bolster the story he was telling. He brought contemporaneous audio recordings, text
messages, e-mails, many financial documents.
By the end of the hour, it was very clear to us that Tony Bobulinski was telling the truth
and that Joe Biden was lying. We believe that any honest person who watched the entire hour
would come to the same conclusion.
Well, on Wednesday, a
Senate committee confirmed it . The Senate Homeland Security Committee reported that all of
Tony Bobulinski's documents are, in fact, real. They are authentic. They are not forgeries.
This is not Russian disinformation. It is real.
Bobulinski told a remarkable story. Joe Biden -- who, once again, could be president of the
United States next week, was planning business deals with America's most formidable global
opponent. And when he was caught doing it, Joe Biden lied. And then he went further. He
slandered an innocent man as a traitor to his own country. It is clear that Joe Biden did that.
That's not a partisan talking point uttered in bad faith on behalf of another presidential
campaign. It's true.
So the question is, what is Joe Biden's excuse for doing that? What is his version of this
story? Everyone has a version and we'd like to hear it, but we don't know what Joe Biden's
version of the story is, because no one in America's vast media landscape has pressed Joe Biden
to answer the question. Instead, reporters at all levels and their editors and their publishers
have openly collaborated with Joe Biden's political campaign. That is unprecedented. It has
never happened in American history.
Wednesday morning, the big papers completely ignored what Tony Bobulinski had to say. So did
the other television networks. Not a single word about Bobulinski appeared on CNN or anywhere
else. Newsweek decided to cover it, but came to the conclusion that the real story was about
QAnon somehow. This is Soviet-style suppression of information about a legitimate news story.
Days before an election, the ramifications of it are impossible to imagine. But we do know the
media cannot continue in the way that it has.
No one believes the media anymore and no one should. You should be offended by this, not
because the media are liberal, but because this is an attack on our democracy. You've heard
that phrase again and again, but this is what it looks like. In a self-governing country,
voters have a right -- an obligation -- to know who they're voting for. In this case, they have
the right to know the Democratic nominee for president was a willing partner in his family's
lucrative influence-peddling operation, an operation that went on for decades and stretched
from China and Ukraine all the way to Oman, Romania, Luxembourg and many other countries. This
is not speculation once again, and it's not a partisan attack. It's true, and Tony bobulinski
confirmed it.
Bobulinski met with Joe Biden at a hotel bar in Los Angeles in early May of 2017, and when
he did, Joe Biden's son introduced Bobulinski this way: "Dad. Here's the individual I told you
about that's helping us with the business that we're working on and the Chinese."
Now, written documents confirmed this is real. At one point, Joe Biden's son texted Tony
Bobulinski to say that Joe Biden, his father, was making key decisions about their business
deals with China.
CARLSON: When Hunter Biden said his chairman, he was talking about his dad.
BOBULINSKI: Correct, and what Hunter is referencing there is, he spoke with his father
and his father is giving an emphatic 'no' to the ask that I had, which was putting proper
governance in place around Oneida Holdings.
CARLSON: So, Joe Biden is vetoing your plan for putting stricter governance in the
company. I mean, and it's it's right here in the email.
BOBULINSKI: Yes, Tucker, I want to be very careful in front of the American people. That
is not me writing that. That is not me claiming that. That is Hunter Biden writing on his own
phone. Typing in that 'I spoke with my chairman,' referencing his father.
All this is spelled out in the clearest possible language in documents that Bobulinski
provided us, documents that subsequently federal authorities have authenticated as real.
On May 13, 2017, for example, Hunter Biden got an email explaining how his family would be
paid for their deal with the Chinese energy company. His father, Joe Biden, was getting
10%.
BOBULINSKI: In that email, there's a statement where they go through the equity, Jim Biden's
referenced as, you know, 10%. It doesn't say Biden, it says Jim. And then it has 10% for the
big guy held by H. I 1,000% sit here and know that the big guy is referencing Joe Biden. It's,
that's crystal clear to me because I lived it. I met with the former vice president in person
multiple times.
That was three years ago, and we still don't know where all that money went, because the
media haven't forced Joe Biden to tell us. But Tony, Bobulinski did add a telling detail. Joe
Biden's brother, Jim, saw his stake in the deal double from 10% to 20%. Was Jim Biden getting
his brother's share again? It might be worth finding out.
We also know that according to an email from a top Chinese official, this one written on
July 26, 2017, the Chinese proposed a $5 million dollar interest-free loan to the Biden family,
"based on their trust on [sic] BD [Biden] family." The e-mail continued, "Should this Chinese
company, CEFC, keep lending more to the family?" And indeed, CEFC was supposed to send another
$5 million dollars to the Bidens' business ventures. Apparently, that money never made it to
the business. Where did it go? A recent Senate report suggests it went to Hunter Biden
directly. And from there, who knows? Again, no one's asked.
Tony Bobulinski also told us he learned Hunter Biden became the personal attorney to the
chairman of CEFC, Ye Jianming, just as they were tendering 14% of a Russian state-owned energy
company. That was a deal valued at $9 billion dollars. It's pretty sleazy. It's pretty amazing,
actually, that this happened and no one noticed.
We're not going to spend the next six months leading you through a maze of complex financial
transactions. This isn't that complicated: Millions of dollars linked directly to the Communist
Party of China went to Joe Biden's family, and not because they're capable businessmen. Jim
Biden's one business success appears to have been running a nightclub in Delaware that
ultimately went under.
No, the Bidens were cut in on the world's most lucrative business deals, massive
infrastructure deals in countries around the world for one reason: Because Joe Biden was a
powerful government official willing to leverage his power on behalf of his family.
Now, if that's not a crime, it's very close to a crime and it's certainly something every
person voting should know about. The Bidens didn't do this once. They did it for decades. So
the question is, how did they get away with it for so long? Tony Bobulinski asked Jim Biden
that question directly. To his credit Jim Biden answered that question honestly.
BOBULINSKI: And I remember looking at Jim Biden and saying, 'How are you guys getting
away with this?' Like, 'Aren't you concerned?' And he looked at me and he laughed a little bit
and said, 'Plausible deniability.'
CARLSON: He said that out loud.
BOBULINSKI: Yes, he said it directly to me. One on one, in a cabana at the Peninsula
Hotel.
"Plausible deniability." In other words, "we lie." We get away with selling access to the
U.S. government, which we do not own, because we lie about what we're doing. And as we lie, we
try to make those lies plausible. That's why we call it "plausible deniability." That is the
answer that Joe Biden's brother gave when asked directly.
So the question is, what is Joe Biden's answer to that question? We wish we
knew.
ForFoxSake!!! 1 hour ago Everything that is happening right now is because Trump was
right about the swamp, the media, and the ruling class families who have been selling out
America for decades. ohhappyday657 1 hour ago Tucker is doing this country a great service. The
FBI doesn't seem to want to engage. Mr. Bobulinski is a patriot and we are lucky he came
forward. The Bidens need to be called out for their high crimes and misdemeanors. Joe should be
impeached for his time as VP. Thank you Tucker. resipsaloquitor ohhappyday657 29 minutes ago
You can smell the desperation on the Trump supporters. The lies, the distortions and the
grasping, pathetic search for the proverbial Hail Mary to salvage the quickly sinking ship. If
Mr. Bobulinski is the best you have the Democrats will 'trump' you with: 227,000 dead
Americans, close to 9 million more infected and an economy in tatters. The day of reckoning is
approaching and a dozen Bobulinskis won't change that. Trump and his unseemly administration
are doomed.
On Tuesday night, Tucker Carlson did something he'd never done before: he dedicated his
entire show to a single interview. The person he interviewed was Tony Bobulinski, an
experienced international businessman who found himself working with Hunter Biden, James Biden,
and others on a deal between the Biden group and CEFC, a Chinese energy company with ties to
the communist government and the military. Bobulinski powerfully confirms that Joe Biden was
deeply involved in the transaction, which had its beginnings when Joe was still vice
president.
Fox News has not yet uploaded (and may never upload) the interview in its entirety. However,
the four videos below bring together almost everything from the interview.
Tucker opened by making the point that he was dedicating his show to the Bobulinski
interview because the rest of the American media are assiduously ignoring the story,
downplaying it, or claiming it's a Russian smear. The leader of the Russian smear approach is,
naturally, Rep. Adam Schiff, a man who has all the hallmarks of a conscienceless psychopath.
Ironically, it was Schiff's smear about Hunter Biden's hard drive that led Bobulinski, a
Democrat, to go public with his story.
If you can't watch the interview, here's a brief overview:
Bobulinksi is a former naval officer with a Q clearance. That's an extremely high clearance
level for people working in the Department of Energy -- and Bobulinski worked in the Navy's
nuclear program. He comes from a military family and is very proud of that legacy.
After leaving the Navy, Bobulinski became an international businessman. His expertise led to
Hunter Biden and his people wooing Bobulinski to give them the business expertise they needed
to get their partnership up and running.
The partnership, SinoHawk, was intended to bring together CEFC and the Biden family. Both
Hunter and James Biden, after all, brought nothing to the table other than their last name and,
with it, the promise that China would have access to political influence at the highest level
of American government.
Bobulinski's name recently became public knowledge when James Gilliar, another businessman
working on SinoHawk, sent an email to Tony Bobulinski, setting out the terms Gilliar had been
negotiating with CEFC. What caught everyone's interest was the statement that Hunter would hold
"10[%] for the Big Guy." Bobulinski confirmed that Joe Biden was the "Big Guy."
At this point, Schiff, the media, and Joe Biden, none of whom ever denied the legitimacy of
the email, claimed that the whole thing was a Russian smear. This unfounded accusation got
Bobulinski's dander up. As a naval officer from a military family and a true patriot, being
smeared as a Russian agent was beyond the pale.
Bobulinski demanded that Schiff retract the insult, and when Schiff failed to do so, he went
public and did a full document dump. Bobulinski had saved everything -- every document, every
email, and every text.
That's the quick background to the interview with Carlson, during which Bobulinski said
that
Hunter and James Biden brought nothing to the deal other than the Biden family name.
What China wanted was the Biden family name.
Joe Biden was involved in the business deal, so much so that he had veto power over
negotiations.
In 2017, Bobulinski met Joe Biden twice when the Biden side of SinoHawk was courting him
to step in and act as CEO.
Bobulinski also spoke at length with James Biden, Joe's brother.
When Bobulinski asked James how they could get away with this kind of deal, which seemed
to be falling into dangerous territory, given that Joe could run again for president, James
announced, "Plausible deniability."
The Biden group stiffed Bobulinski, leaving him out of pocket for all his expenses while
channeling CEFC's money into another entity that did not involve Bobulinski.
If we had a decent media establishment, this story would be on every front page and at the
top of every news hour. Instead, Bobulinski is trying desperately to get Americans to know that
he is not a Russian agent and that Joe Biden was in bed with the communist Chinese government,
starting when he was vice president and continuing after he left the White House. This screen
shot from Memeorandum shows that
none of the legacy media outlets is touching the story:
(As an aside, and separate from the Bobulinski interview, a former CIA operations office
believes it's entirely possible that Biden
was already doing China's bidding in 2012, when the Obama administration gave China free
rein in the South China Sea.)
In case the embedded videos do not play, you can find them here ,
here ,
here ,
and here
.
We've always known that Joe Biden is an odd bird. Just think of the lies, the egotistical
boasting, the offers to fight people, the skinny-dipping, and the way he fondles and sniffs
little girls. He is a genuinely creepy man.
It speaks volumes about Washington, D.C. and the Democrat party that Joe spent 47 years in
the swamp and rose to the second highest office in the land. What we've learned now, though,
irrefutably and without any Russian hokum, is that Joe Biden is also a profoundly corrupt man
who willingly sold out America and her allies to enrich himself and his sleazy, incompetent
family.
Fox News has not yet uploaded (and may never upload) the interview in its entirety. However,
the four videos below bring together almost everything from the interview.
Tucker opened by making the point that he was dedicating his show to the Bobulinski
interview because the rest of the American media are assiduously ignoring the story,
downplaying it, or claiming it's a Russian smear. The leader of the Russian smear approach is,
naturally, Rep. Adam Schiff, a man who has all the hallmarks of a conscienceless psychopath.
Ironically, it was Schiff's smear about Hunter Biden's hard drive that led Bobulinski, a
Democrat, to go public with his story.
If you can't watch the interview, here's a brief overview:
Bobulinksi is a former naval officer with a Q clearance. That's an extremely high clearance
level for people working in the Department of Energy -- and Bobulinski worked in the Navy's
nuclear program. He comes from a military family and is very proud of that legacy.
After leaving the Navy, Bobulinski became an international businessman. His expertise led to
Hunter Biden and his people wooing Bobulinski to give them the business expertise they needed
to get their partnership up and running.
The partnership, SinoHawk, was intended to bring together CEFC and the Biden family. Both
Hunter and James Biden, after all, brought nothing to the table other than their last name and,
with it, the promise that China would have access to political influence at the highest level
of American government.
Bobulinski's name recently became public knowledge when James Gilliar, another businessman
working on SinoHawk, sent an email to Tony Bobulinski, setting out the terms Gilliar had been
negotiating with CEFC. What caught everyone's interest was the statement that Hunter would hold
"10[%] for the Big Guy." Bobulinski confirmed that Joe Biden was the "Big Guy."
At this point, Schiff, the media, and Joe Biden, none of whom ever denied the legitimacy of
the email, claimed that the whole thing was a Russian smear. This unfounded accusation got
Bobulinski's dander up. As a naval officer from a military family and a true patriot, being
smeared as a Russian agent was beyond the pale.
Bobulinski demanded that Schiff retract the insult, and when Schiff failed to do so, he went
public and did a full document dump. Bobulinski had saved everything -- every document, every
email, and every text.
That's the quick background to the interview with Carlson, during which Bobulinski said
that
Hunter and James Biden brought nothing to the deal other than the Biden family name.
What China wanted was the Biden family name.
Joe Biden was involved in the business deal, so much so that he had veto power over
negotiations.
In 2017, Bobulinski met Joe Biden twice when the Biden side of SinoHawk was courting him
to step in and act as CEO.
Bobulinski also spoke at length with James Biden, Joe's brother.
When Bobulinski asked James how they could get away with this kind of deal, which seemed
to be falling into dangerous territory, given that Joe could run again for president, James
announced, "Plausible deniability."
The Biden group stiffed Bobulinski, leaving him out of pocket for all his expenses while
channeling CEFC's money into another entity that did not involve Bobulinski.
If we had a decent media establishment, this story would be on every front page and at the
top of every news hour. Instead, Bobulinski is trying desperately to get Americans to know that
he is not a Russian agent and that Joe Biden was in bed with the communist Chinese government,
starting when he was vice president and continuing after he left the White House. This screen
shot from Memeorandum shows that
none of the legacy media outlets is touching the story:
People who claim Trump is undermine the republic are wrong. The last nail in the coffin of
the republic was put by George Bush, We are now living in the empire.
The replacement of the republic with the "national security state" started with Truman,
reached local max in 1963 when a faction within CIA killed JFK and irrevocably became an
empire in 1991 with the disappearance of the USSR. And the global neoliberal empire ruled
from Washington that the USA tries to maintain as a world hegemon is a death sentence to
republic and democracy. So it is fair to say that formally republic (and democracy) in the
USA seized to exist after dissolution of the USSR, when the USA ruling elite became drunk
with the feeling of the only world superpower and neocons start to determine the USA foreign
policy. People just became hostages, forced to support and die in imperial wars, while
standard of living of lower 80% of population start gradually sliding, like always happens
with empires, and manufacturing (and jobs) stared to move oversees, mainly in China. The
decline started actually under Carter.
Truman initiated the transition of the republic into national security state by creating
CIA, NSA and FBI. Herbert Hoover was probably the first who noted that now "tail is wagging
the dog ": intelligence agencies were able to the control of Congress and executive branch
via dirt of politicians and other standard for the "deep state" tricks. To say nothing about
Allan Dulles, CIA and JFK assassination.
And later Obama managed to paraphrase Mr. Orwell 1984, "We always have to be at war with
Eastasia." Just 30 years later. Now you need to add to this pervasive wiretapping of all
communications due to the treat of terrorism.
The look how easily the deep state derailed Sanders candidacy. Nobody even managed to
scream, until it was too late. As Professor Sheldon Wolin put it we live under "inverted
totalitarianism ":
"One cannot point to any national institution[s] that can accurately be described as
democratic surely not in the highly managed, money-saturated elections, the lobby-infested
Congress, the imperial presidency, the class-biased judicial and penal system, or, least of
all, the media."
Wolin showed us all the realities of and limits of the US form of government. It is still
a livable space and if you do not try to undermine the neoliberal social order they will
leave you alone. There not much forceful indoctrination that was a hallmark of the USSR. It's
still a better country, I can attest.
Also the USA "nomenklatura" is more agile, less fossilized in comparison with Brezhnev's
nomenkatura.
But "we are an empire now" as Karl rove told us. Even formally it is no longer republic as
elected President is more or less ceremonial figure, who does not control non-elected
bureaucrats of the executive branch. they (aka "deep state") control him.
Even in a sense of oligarchic republic ( the democracy for the top 1% or less ) the
democracy is under assault. The "Deep state" is effectively strangulated even this, very
limited form, that existed before 1991 (the year of dissolution of the USSR). As we can see
from Sanders case, or Supreme Court role in Bush II case. And Sanders was definitely a member
of the elite, not some random guy from nowhere. The same was true for Al Gore. But they stole
the election from him, plain and simple.
Wendy Brown moved Wolin ideas further suggesting that neoliberalism is the novel fusion of
economic with political power (one dollar one vote; voters turned into consumers; neoliberal
rationality) and that alone completely "poison democracy at its root" It think I already
wrote about those topics. My judgment here is highly suspect -- I never lived in Washington
and never studied history or political science professionally.
Let's hope for the best. Our great advantage is that we are old and are probably the only
generation that managed to live without the major war. Let's hope that we will be able to die
before WWIII
Still, I think Trump entered (not without influence of Russiagate; and those sleazy
intelligence crooks like Comey, Brennan and Mueller and their clan of "national security
parasites" be those scoundrels internally damned) a very dangerous path -- the path advocated
by neocons and MIC.
"Ultimately, my main concern is that it could lead to actual war with Russia. We should
definitely not be going down that path. We need to get out of all these wars. I am also
concerned about what we are doing to our own democracy. We are trampling the fundamental
principles contained in the Constitution. The only way to reverse all this is to start
indicting people who are participating in and managing these activities that are clearly
unconstitutional."
IMHO the current neo-McCarthysim campaign that was deployed to solve some internal
problems within the Democratic Party (rejection by electorate and subsequent political fiasco
of Hillary Clinton) is a very dangerous tool. You can't blame Trump victory on Russia. That's
simply stupid or disingenuous. Trump election is a sign of systemic crisis of neoliberalism
in the USA, somewhat similar to the crisis of Marxism the the USSR experienced before
dissolution. Rust Belt voters rejected Hillary as the establishment candidate who symbolized
the status quo (which they hate) and that was it.
In such crisis the elite is de-legitimized and often resort to dirty tricks to regain the
lost legitimacy. A war is one such trick. Neo-McCarthyism campaign is another. Of course,
Russia in far from being a saint and bear a part of responsibility for unleashing the civil
war in Donbass (and generally destabilizing Ukraine -- it is a curse to be a neighbor our of
such a large and powerful country; Canadians and Mexicans probably think the same
,
But what currently we see in major MSM looks to me like a classic witch hunt with the
implicit goal to whitewash humiliating for neoliberal Democrats (Clinton wing of the party)
defeat and blame it on the external force (Putin looks really like "Deus Ex Machina" for
democrats . <
While Trump run brilliant election campaign based on opposition to neoliberal status quo,
his elections slogans were completely fake. He completely folded three month after the
elections and now symbolizes "empty governance" as if somebody changed the man. During
election the New York billionaire structured his campaign around three topics which propelled
him to victory.
First, he seemed to comprehend America's status quo crisis -- the
disintegration of neoliberalism that had defined the country since Reagan. Large numbers of
voters understood immediately what he was saying, particularly since the crisis of working
class was largely ignored by the other candidates.
Second, he positioned himself as an "anti-neoliberal status quo" candidate. While two
neoliberal parties instinctively clung to time-tested positions and neoliberal groupthink,
shunning any changes. Trump sidestepped this rigid political thinking of both parties and
crafted a new mix of issues cutting across partisan lines. He embraced traditional GOP
positions such as reduced taxes, school choice, increased defense spending, and rejection of
the idea of human-induced climate change. But he also took positions contrary to Republican
orthodoxy -- Social security and Medicare protection, attacks on neoliberal globalization and
"free trade" regime, rejection of austerity economics . And he manifested contempt for an
important part of neoliberal ideology embraced by both parties -- neoliberal view of
immigration
Third, Trump's disdain for political niceties suggested to voters what he declared
political war on the country's neoliberal elite -- all those despicable neocon think tanks,
university professors, the neoliberal MSM, the managerial class, "national security
parasites", Hollywood, and Wall Street financial titans.
Like Don
Quixote he was alone warrior against neoliberalism and all-powerful adversaries. And
he wouldn't buckle when they fought back to protect their cherished neoliberal globalization
and privileged standing of multinationals as the real power behind the throne
What emerged from the campaign was a growing recognition that the country stands at a
fundamental crossroads -- whether to follow the elite vision of neoliberal globalism and
"anti-nationalism", with money, people, ideas, and cultures moving freely across increasingly
indistinct borders (Biden administration path); or to retreat to traditional nationalism
including fealty to Western cultural heritage and reject multiculturalism.
In other words the main battle lines in 2020 are really ideological.
But there a lot of problems with painting Trump as a fighter against
Clinton/Bush/Obama-style of neoliberal globalization. After inauguration we saw quite
different Trump. He's abandoned all of his "anti-neoliberal" election promises, particularly
in foreign policy and dealing with Wall Street titans, that helped propel him into office.
And he started openly flirting with prospects of a war with Iran. Probably to please his
Zionist sponsors, but also may be out of his complete and utter incompetence.
That means that now he is unable conduct a meaningful conversation with his voters.
Outside fanatics who will support him in any case, he definitely betrayed them. In this sense
he might have difficulties to preserve his base in 2020. Due to his foreign policy blunder
and Pompeo brass style of gangsterism in foreign policy some of his political capital among
independents shrunk. That same is true with his tax cut. This was a clear betrayal. Add to
this that he was pinned down by Mueller investigation until December 2017, when Strzok-gate
scandal broke and only in 2019 Mueller (and Rosenstein) lost credibility and became a joke.
Mueller investigation actually was a shroud gambit against him based on his own blunders.
But BLM and, especially, riots gave his a short in the arm. So everything is possible
now.
Also one clear achievement of Trump is that clearly and convincingly demonstrated how
corrupt and crooked are neoliberal MSM. As the result I even started watching some Fox news
(Tucker) recently ;-). If somebody predicted that a couple of years ago I would laugh in
his/her face.
A very good (IMHO) overview of the current situation can be found in London review of
books. See
(1) Fewer people answer phones. Political poll response rates are below 10% (and that's
overall, some demographic sections are way lower). It takes an unusual person to answer,
one who is generally less suspicious, or one whose job/life forces them to answer calls
from random numbers. The result is that polls really have to adjust for known demographic
qualities: age, race, geography, education, and most importantly political party. Most
don't do all of them, and political party in particular creates the next issue.
(2) A handful of states, most importantly PA and FL, have closed primaries. Thus
independents (i.e. the swing voters) are forced to strategically register to whichever
party had the more interesting primary. Except that most people don't bother to change it
every time. So in PA for example, there are 5% or 6% more registered Dems, yet the state
consistently goes down the middle. In particular we have lots of new voters in the past 4
years, and it's fairly certain 20-30% of the new ones who registered Dem did so because the
2020 Dem primary (Bernie) was obviously more meaningful than the 2020 Rep. primary which
has an incumbent Prez. So then: some polls ask for the party registered, and others ask for
self-proclaimed "what party do you consider yourself generally". With the latter, you get
what looks like more independents. But polls with both types of party identification seem
to adjust the party of the sample to the state registration stats, i.e. they spot Democrats
5-6% if we're looking at PA. It isn't necessarily dishonest, but they just don't have much
else to go on other than the previous election's results, which is also an iffy
assumption.
(3) Many (most?) of the polls are sponsored by an organization with an agenda or at
least a bias. When the pollster makes the results public (if at all) is typically the
discretion of the sponsor. So there is some cherry picking, tho I don't think it is as bad
as many suspect. But still it must be treated as another source of uncertainty. Things like
95% confidence aren't really valid if you hide groups of results you don't like.
"... Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a Denver-based physician and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in American Thinker, Daily Caller, Rasmussen Reports, and other publications. Follow him on Facebook , LinkedIn , Twitter , Parler , and QuodVerum . ..."
Listen to network or cable news and you will hear that the November election is over. Joe
Biden has a growing double-digit lead over President Trump, despite the election being over
three months away and the issues that may decide the election largely unknown at present.
What do the polls say? Biden's campaign manager, also known as CNN, has
their "poll of polls" described as, "the five most recent national telephone polls
measuring the view of registered voters." Considering that only 58 percent of eligible voters
went to the polls in
2016, CNN's "poll of polls" may not be particularly representative of the electorate.
CNN's
headline screams déjà vu, "Biden maintains a double-digit lead over Trump
nationally." That's it then, the election is over. Trump supporters may as well pack it up and
stay home. At least that is what they want you to believe.
Four years ago, the media was singing the same tune. On June 26, 2016, Time reported ,
"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton holds a double-digit lead over presumptive
GOP nominee Donald Trump." How did that turn out?
To Clinton's credit, despite her falls, bizarre facial tics, needing to be carried into a
van, and overall unlikability, she was generally coherent. Unlike Biden who can't get through a
scripted interview without saying something incoherent, as he recently
claimed his campaign attorneys are reaching out to "voter registration physicians."
... ... ...
One of the most
accurate polls in 2016,
Rasmussen Reports , showed Biden this week with only a two point advantage over Trump, 47
to 45 percent, among likely voters, even with a 4-point Democrat oversampling. If the sample
was equally balanced between Democrats and Republicans, Trump might have a 2-point
advantage.
What about these "secret voters"? Might they portend a Trump landslide? The Cato Institute's
poll
revealed ,
62 percent of Americans say they have political views they're afraid to share.
These fears cross partisan lines. Majorities of Democrats (52%), independents (59%) and
Republicans (77%) all agree they have political opinions they are afraid to share.
Strong liberals stand out, however, as the only political group who feel they can express
themselves.
This is the "silent majority" which Trump
tweeted is "alive and well." Which group would be afraid to speak out, Trump supporters or
detractors?
Two last bits of good news for Trump. The
Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll on June 24 gives Trump 49 percent total approval
compared to Obama at 48 percent exactly four years ago. Obama won reelection easily against
Mitt Romney, a far more formidable candidate compared to Dementia Joe.
The
internals of Rasmussen's poll are horrific for Democrats. 31 percent of black likely voters
approve of Trump. In 2016, Trump
won only 6 percent of the black vote. If he won 15 or 20 percent in November, only half
this approval number, this becomes landslide territory.
If Democrats and the media truly believed Biden was on track to win easily, they would not
be pushing for mail in ballots or against voter ID. A large Biden poll lead now allows the left
to prepare the narrative of electoral fraud since how else could Trump win against such a big
lead. If Democrats retain the House, expect another impeachment based on Trump somehow rigging
the election to go from a Biden double digit lead now to a Trump landslide in November.
These polls are not meant to inform the electorate but to dispirit Trump supporters in the
hopes that they throw in the towel and tune out from the election and voting. Such information
warfare didn't work in 2016 and won't work in 2020. Instead we might see a Trump landslide.
Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a Denver-based physician and freelance writer whose pieces
have appeared in American Thinker, Daily Caller, Rasmussen Reports, and other publications.
Follow him on Facebook ,
LinkedIn ,
Twitter , Parler , and QuodVerum .
"... it must be treated as another source of uncertainty. Things like 95% confidence aren't really valid if you hide groups of results you don't like. ..."
(1) Fewer people answer phones. Political poll response rates are below 10% (and that's
overall, some demographic sections are way lower). It takes an unusual person to answer,
one who is generally less suspicious, or one whose job/life forces them to answer calls
from random numbers. The result is that polls really have to adjust for known demographic
qualities: age, race, geography, education, and most importantly political party. Most
don't do all of them, and political party in particular creates the next issue.
(2) A handful of states, most importantly PA and FL, have closed primaries. Thus
independents (i.e. the swing voters) are forced to strategically register to whichever
party had the more interesting primary. Except that most people don't bother to change it
every time. So in PA for example, there are 5% or 6% more registered Dems, yet the state
consistently goes down the middle. In particular we have lots of new voters in the past 4
years, and it's fairly certain 20-30% of the new ones who registered Dem did so because the
2020 Dem primary (Bernie) was obviously more meaningful than the 2020 Rep. primary which
has an incumbent Prez. So then: some polls ask for the party registered, and others ask for
self-proclaimed "what party do you consider yourself generally". With the latter, you get
what looks like more independents. But polls with both types of party identification seem
to adjust the party of the sample to the state registration stats, i.e. they spot Democrats
5-6% if we're looking at PA. It isn't necessarily dishonest, but they just don't have much
else to go on other than the previous election's results, which is also an iffy
assumption.
(3) Many (most?) of the polls are sponsored by an organization with an agenda or at
least a bias. When the pollster makes the results public (if at all) is typically the
discretion of the sponsor. So there is some cherry picking, tho I don't think it is as bad
as many suspect. But still it must be treated as another source of uncertainty. Things like
95% confidence aren't really valid if you hide groups of results you don't like.
"... It is indeed more likely that an authoritarian regime can last longer than the current one, and they can more easily push the things they want this way. "Democracy" and "free speech" served their purpose for a time, now it's time to try something else. ..."
@romanempire
ionaires.
"How to consume the surplus capital? " I suspect you maybe confusing money/debt with capital
["-The latter [capital] is so cheap these days it costs nothing to a qualified borrower. "]
which is the capacity to use labour productively, usually combination with technology.
"surplus" capital then is non/under utilised factories etc & labour.
As to the vast inflation of debt/money .as Dr Hudson says, debts that can't be paid,
won't be paid. The easiest way to rid the world of the trillions that elites have, is to
liquidate the elites themselves. Either that, or like Samson, pull the whole shithouse down
around you .
@romanempire
e. the economy/dollar will collapse), or they realize that the global democratic neo-liberal
order is on its last legs, and can't last, so they are anticipating things.
It is indeed more likely that an authoritarian regime can last longer than the current
one, and they can more easily push the things they want this way. "Democracy" and "free
speech" served their purpose for a time, now it's time to try something else.
The final push will be when they make people complete slaves by embedding our bodies with
technology (i.e. Musk's project for a microchip in the brain, among other things). The
Unabomber wrote about that in his Manifesto.
October 28, 2020 Tucker Carlson's interview with Tony Bobulinski is must-see TV By
Andrea
Widburg
On Tuesday night, Tucker Carlson did something he'd never done before: he dedicated his
entire show to a single interview. The person he interviewed was Tony Bobulinski, an
experienced international businessman who found himself working with Hunter Biden, James Biden,
and others on a deal between the Biden group and CEFC, a Chinese energy company with ties to
the communist government and the military. Bobulinski powerfully confirms that Joe Biden was
deeply involved in the transaction, which had its beginnings when Joe was still vice
president.
Fox News has not yet uploaded (and may never upload) the interview in its entirety. However,
the four videos below bring together almost everything from the interview.
Tucker opened by making the point that he was dedicating his show to the Bobulinski
interview because the rest of the American media are assiduously ignoring the story,
downplaying it, or claiming it's a Russian smear. The leader of the Russian smear approach is,
naturally, Rep. Adam Schiff, a man who has all the hallmarks of a conscienceless psychopath.
Ironically, it was Schiff's smear about Hunter Biden's hard drive that led Bobulinski, a
Democrat, to go public with his story.
If you can't watch the interview, here's a brief overview:
Bobulinksi is a former naval officer with a Q clearance. That's an extremely high clearance
level for people working in the Department of Energy -- and Bobulinski worked in the Navy's
nuclear program. He comes from a military family and is very proud of that legacy.
After leaving the Navy, Bobulinski became an international businessman. His expertise led to
Hunter Biden and his people wooing Bobulinski to give them the business expertise they needed
to get their partnership up and running.
The partnership, SinoHawk, was intended to bring together CEFC and the Biden family. Both
Hunter and James Biden, after all, brought nothing to the table other than their last name and,
with it, the promise that China would have access to political influence at the highest level
of American government.
Bobulinski's name recently became public knowledge when James Gilliar, another businessman
working on SinoHawk, sent an email to Tony Bobulinski, setting out the terms Gilliar had been
negotiating with CEFC. What caught everyone's interest was the statement that Hunter would hold
"10[%] for the Big Guy." Bobulinski confirmed that Joe Biden was the "Big Guy."
At this point, Schiff, the media, and Joe Biden, none of whom ever denied the legitimacy of
the email, claimed that the whole thing was a Russian smear. This unfounded accusation got
Bobulinski's dander up. As a naval officer from a military family and a true patriot, being
smeared as a Russian agent was beyond the pale.
Bobulinski demanded that Schiff retract the insult, and when Schiff failed to do so, he went
public and did a full document dump. Bobulinski had saved everything -- every document, every
email, and every text.
That's the quick background to the interview with Carlson, during which Bobulinski said
that
Hunter and James Biden brought nothing to the deal other than the Biden family name.
What China wanted was the Biden family name.
Joe Biden was involved in the business deal, so much so that he had veto power over
negotiations.
In 2017, Bobulinski met Joe Biden twice when the Biden side of SinoHawk was courting him
to step in and act as CEO.
Bobulinski also spoke at length with James Biden, Joe's brother.
When Bobulinski asked James how they could get away with this kind of deal, which seemed
to be falling into dangerous territory, given that Joe could run again for president, James
announced, "Plausible deniability."
The Biden group stiffed Bobulinski, leaving him out of pocket for all his expenses while
channeling CEFC's money into another entity that did not involve Bobulinski.
If we had a decent media establishment, this story would be on every front page and at the
top of every news hour. Instead, Bobulinski is trying desperately to get Americans to know that
he is not a Russian agent and that Joe Biden was in bed with the communist Chinese government,
starting when he was vice president and continuing after he left the White House. This screen
shot from Memeorandum shows that
none of the legacy media outlets is touching the story:
(As an aside, and separate from the Bobulinski interview, a former CIA operations office
believes it's entirely possible that Biden
was already doing China's bidding in 2012, when the Obama administration gave China free
rein in the South China Sea.)
In case the embedded videos do not play, you can find them here ,
here ,
here ,
and here
.
We've always known that Joe Biden is an odd bird. Just think of the lies, the egotistical
boasting, the offers to fight people, the skinny-dipping, and the way he fondles and sniffs
little girls. He is a genuinely creepy man.
It speaks volumes about Washington, D.C. and the Democrat party that Joe spent 47 years in
the swamp and rose to the second highest office in the land. What we've learned now, though,
irrefutably and without any Russian hokum, is that Joe Biden is also a profoundly corrupt man
who willingly sold out America and her allies to enrich himself and his sleazy, incompetent
family.
Fox News has not yet uploaded (and may never upload) the interview in its entirety. However,
the four videos below bring together almost everything from the interview.
Tucker opened by making the point that he was dedicating his show to the Bobulinski
interview because the rest of the American media are assiduously ignoring the story,
downplaying it, or claiming it's a Russian smear. The leader of the Russian smear approach is,
naturally, Rep. Adam Schiff, a man who has all the hallmarks of a conscienceless psychopath.
Ironically, it was Schiff's smear about Hunter Biden's hard drive that led Bobulinski, a
Democrat, to go public with his story.
If you can't watch the interview, here's a brief overview:
Bobulinksi is a former naval officer with a Q clearance. That's an extremely high clearance
level for people working in the Department of Energy -- and Bobulinski worked in the Navy's
nuclear program. He comes from a military family and is very proud of that legacy.
After leaving the Navy, Bobulinski became an international businessman. His expertise led to
Hunter Biden and his people wooing Bobulinski to give them the business expertise they needed
to get their partnership up and running.
The partnership, SinoHawk, was intended to bring together CEFC and the Biden family. Both
Hunter and James Biden, after all, brought nothing to the table other than their last name and,
with it, the promise that China would have access to political influence at the highest level
of American government.
Bobulinski's name recently became public knowledge when James Gilliar, another businessman
working on SinoHawk, sent an email to Tony Bobulinski, setting out the terms Gilliar had been
negotiating with CEFC. What caught everyone's interest was the statement that Hunter would hold
"10[%] for the Big Guy." Bobulinski confirmed that Joe Biden was the "Big Guy."
At this point, Schiff, the media, and Joe Biden, none of whom ever denied the legitimacy of
the email, claimed that the whole thing was a Russian smear. This unfounded accusation got
Bobulinski's dander up. As a naval officer from a military family and a true patriot, being
smeared as a Russian agent was beyond the pale.
Bobulinski demanded that Schiff retract the insult, and when Schiff failed to do so, he went
public and did a full document dump. Bobulinski had saved everything -- every document, every
email, and every text.
That's the quick background to the interview with Carlson, during which Bobulinski said
that
Hunter and James Biden brought nothing to the deal other than the Biden family name.
What China wanted was the Biden family name.
Joe Biden was involved in the business deal, so much so that he had veto power over
negotiations.
In 2017, Bobulinski met Joe Biden twice when the Biden side of SinoHawk was courting him
to step in and act as CEO.
Bobulinski also spoke at length with James Biden, Joe's brother.
When Bobulinski asked James how they could get away with this kind of deal, which seemed
to be falling into dangerous territory, given that Joe could run again for president, James
announced, "Plausible deniability."
The Biden group stiffed Bobulinski, leaving him out of pocket for all his expenses while
channeling CEFC's money into another entity that did not involve Bobulinski.
If we had a decent media establishment, this story would be on every front page and at the
top of every news hour. Instead, Bobulinski is trying desperately to get Americans to know that
he is not a Russian agent and that Joe Biden was in bed with the communist Chinese government,
starting when he was vice president and continuing after he left the White House. This screen
shot from Memeorandum shows that
none of the legacy media outlets is touching the story:
A collection of confidential documents related to the Biden family mysteriously vanished
from an envelope sent to Fox News host Tucker Carlson , the host said on
Wednesday night.
Carlson's team allegedly received the documents from a source on Monday. At the time,
Carlson was on the West Coast filming an interview with Tony Bobulinski, the former business
partner of Hunter Biden and James Biden. Carlson requested the documents to be sent to the West
Coast.
According to Carlson, the producer shipped the documents overnight to California using a
large national package carrier. He didn't name the company, saying only that it's a "brand name
company."
"The Biden documents never arrived in Los Angeles. Tuesday morning we received word from our
shipping company that our package had been opened and the contents were missing," Carlson said.
"The documents had disappeared."
The company took the incident seriously and immediately began a search, Carlson said. The
company traced the package from when it was dropped off in New York to the moment when an
employee at a sorting facility reported that the package was opened and empty.
" The company's security team interviewed every employee who touched the envelope we sent.
They searched the plane and the trucks that carried it. They went through the office in New
York where our producers dropped the package off. They combed the entire cavernous sorting
facility. They used pictures of what we had sent so that searchers would know what to look
for," Carlson said.
"They far and beyond, but they found nothing."
"Those documents have vanished," he added.
"As of tonight, the company has no idea and no working theory even about what happened to
this trove of materials, documents that are directly relevant to the presidential campaign
just six days from now."
Executives at the shipping company were "baffled" and "deeply bothered" by the incident,
Carlson said.
Carlson's interview with Bobulinski aired on Tuesday night. In the interview, Bobulinski
opined that Joe Biden
and the Biden family are compromised by China due to the business dealings of Hunter Biden and
James Biden. Joe Biden has not publicly responded to Bobulinski's allegations, but during a
presidential debate on Oct. 22 said he had "not taken a penny from any foreign source ever in
my life."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Bobulinski provided more than 1,700 pages of emails and more than 600 screenshots of text
messages to Senate investigators and handed over to the FBI the smartphones he used during his
business dealings with the Bidens. The documents detailed a failed joint venture between a
billionaire tied to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and a company owned by Hunter Biden,
James Biden, Bobulinski and two other partners.
While the corporate documents don't mention Biden by name, emails sent between the partners
suggest that either James Biden or Hunter Biden held a 10 percent stake for the former vice
president. In the email, the stake is assigned to "the big guy," who Bobulinski says is Joe
Biden.
_arrow NoDebt , 3 minutes ago
I heard Tucker talk about this earlier tonight and realized we are FULLY controlled now.
Whatever the **** is going on, whether this is true or not doesn't matter. We are just
unwitting participants in some kind of TV reality show now. Everything is meaningless.
lwilland1012 , 5 minutes ago
Please tell me he was smart enough to make copies...
CatInTheHat , 1 minute ago
Ok.
What was IN the documents and from whom?
This is an inside job. Probably a never Trumper at Fox. There are a few.
quanttech , 3 minutes ago
If Trump loses, Fox will go full Dem. Trump will start TrumpTV, and Tucker will need a
job....
btw, Tucker should get the Nobel Peace Prize for keeping us out of Iran for the last 3.5
years.
Nona Yobiznes , 4 minutes ago
This story doesn't make sense. You sent confidential, highly sensitive documents via post?
Because Tucker was on the west coast? You couldn't scan them in? Were they originals, and are
there copies? This doesn't smell right.
icolbowca , 6 minutes ago
Takes a special kind of moron to send something like that via mail...
"... Biden's campaign earlier this month said Biden never had a meeting with an executive at a shady Ukrainian gas company, Burisma Holdings, while he was the vice president and his son sat on the board of the firm. A report from the New York Post, citing alleged Hunter Biden emails, suggested Hunter Biden had arranged a meeting between him, the executive, and Joe Biden. ..."
Delivery giant UPS
confirmed Thursday it found a lost trove of documents that Fox News' Tucker Carlson said would
provide revelations in the ever-growing scandal involving Joe Biden 's son Hunter and his overseas
business dealings.
UPS Senior Public Relations Manager Matthew O'Connor told Business Insider on Thursday
afternoon that the documents are located and are being sent to Carlson.
"After an extensive search, we have found the contents of the package and are arranging
for its return," he said in a statement.
"UPS will always focus first on our customers, and will never stop working to solve issues
and make things right. We work hard to ensure every package is delivered, including essential
goods, precious family belongings and critical healthcare."
It came after Glenn Zaccara, UPS's corporate media relations director, confirmed Carlson
used the company to ship the materials before they were lost.
"The package was reported with missing contents as it moved within our network," Zaccara
said before they were located. "UPS is conducting an urgent investigation."
During his Wednesday night broadcast, Carlson said that a UPS employee notified them that
their package "was open and empty apparently, it had been opened."
"The Biden documents never arrived in Los Angeles. Tuesday morning we received word from
our shipping company that our package had been opened and the contents were missing," Carlson
also remarked. "The documents had disappeared."
On Tuesday night, Carlson interviewed former Hunter Biden associate Tony Bobulinski, who
claimed that the former Democratic vice president could be compromised by the Chinese Communist
Party due to Hunter and brother James Biden's business dealings in the country.
Joe Biden has not responded to Bobulinski's allegations. Last week during his debate with
President Donald Trump, he said he had "not taken a penny from any foreign source ever in my
life."
Biden's campaign earlier this month said Biden never had a meeting with an executive at a
shady Ukrainian gas company, Burisma Holdings, while he was the vice president and his son sat
on the board of the firm. A report from the New York Post, citing alleged Hunter Biden emails,
suggested Hunter Biden had arranged a meeting between him, the executive, and Joe Biden.
It's now possible that a special counsel will investigate Joe Biden should he win the
presidency.
"You know, I am not a big fan of special counsels, but if Joe Biden wins the presidency, I
don't see how you avoid one," Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.)
said . "Otherwise, this is going to be, you know, tucked away, and we will never know
what happened. All this evidence is going to be buried."
UPS did not provide further details about the apparent mishap.
"... Hunter Biden is the modern equivalent of the pre-Reformation papacy selling indulgences. Cash in exchange for unfettered passage into the promised land ..."
"Former Biden insider Tony Bobulinski allegedly has a recording of Biden family operatives
begging him to stay quiet , or he will "bury" the reputations of everyone involved in Hunter's
overseas dealings.
According to The Federalist 's Sean Davis, Bobulinski will play the tape on Fox News'
"Tucker Carlson Tonight" on Tuesday , when Carlson will devote his show 'entirely' to an
interview with the Biden whistleblower."
"According to a source familiar with the planning, Bobulinski will play recordings of Biden
family operatives begging him to stay quiet and claiming Bobulinski's revelations will "bury"
the reputations of everyone involved in Hunter's overseas deals."
As The Federalist notes:
The Federalist confirmed with sources familiar with the plans that Bobulinski, a retired
Navy lieutenant and Biden associate, will be airing tapes of Biden operatives begging
Bobulinski to remain quiet as former Vice President Joe Biden nears the finish line to the
White House next week.
Bobulinski
flipped on the Bidens following a Senate report which revealed that they received a $5
million interest-free loan from a now-bankrupt Chinese energy company .
According to the former Biden insider, he was introduced to Joe Biden by Hunter, and they
had an hour-long meeting where they discussed the Biden's business plans with the Chinese, with
which he says Joe was "plainly familiar at least at a high level." " Zerohedge
--------------
First of all, Bobulinski is NOT a "retired Navy lieutenant." He is a former Navy
Lieutenant.
Well, folks, it's up to you to watch TC's show tonight if you want to learn about this.
Tucker's show is the most watched news show in the history of cable television, so the pain
should not be too great, pl
I don't watch cable TV so I'll have to depend on the objectivity of observers. I'll be
curious who / what is a "family operative"? are they traceable like a military
chain-of-command?
in related news, we can get a fix on the play between private / public behaviors & the
pace of Justice winding.
Tucker Carlson's show is my favorite news/commentary show. I try not to miss it. Because
of the fact that he seems to try hard to verify his sources--and the people he interviews, I
trust him. He also tries to provide guests from the left in an attempt to be fair.
He's definitely not a Hannity, who is the one who turns many off of FOX (though Hannity
comes right after Tucker).
Hunter Biden is the modern equivalent of the pre-Reformation papacy selling
indulgences. Cash in exchange for unfettered passage into the promised land .
Thank goodness the Federal Judge has allowed the lawsuit by the private citizen and
writer, based on the 1990s allegation, to procede without government interference. I'm sure
nobody will do that to democrats in the future. Meanwhile in the Flynn case the DOJ confirms
that the govenment documents and discovery exhibits are ture and correct. I'm sure Judge
Sullivan will procede expeditiously with granting the unopposed motion to dismiss that
case.
This story interests me because I believe he is the first to leave the sinking ship but
not the last.
There would be no reason for this if he thought Joe would win and the investigation would be
snuffed out.
If Trump wins there will most likely be a new version of "Let's Make A Deal" being aired on
the nightly news.
I am down to one package of popcorn. I need to restock.
Actually, indulgences were more akin to BitCoins. Especially after 1567, when His Holiness
the Pope finally officially banned them... but they had been still produced and sold in large
quantities. In France only Richeliue put a stop to this con.
Serve me my plate a Crow. Maybe.
He is saying now that he is 2nd generation military and that they pissed him off claiming he
was a Russian asset.
That is plausible.
Maybe it is both?
Regardless it seems he has a great deal of proof.
I was convinced during the interview. Bobulinsky seemed pretty convincing in his concern
for his own reputation, having been associated with the Biden "Mafia" in the first place.
It was clear during the interview that he had provided Tucker verification for his
claims.
I am more concerned that this revelation comes too late and that many, many people have
voted early. He referenced some hearings that will be held in Congress. I doubt that will
affect the election, given the slow pace of anything getting done in Congress. I voted early,
but I am not personally concerned because I did NOT vote for Biden; however, I am concerned
that those who voted early for Biden could not now change their votes.
SO, if I understand the situation correctly, Bobulinski was essentially sought after, used
and then screwed by the Bidens, which seems risky on the part of the clan. But I guess if Joe
wins the election, they will have gotten away with it as I can't imagine, in spite of any
damning evidence, the Bidens will suffer the same punishing rectal examination-like scrutiny
and vilification the Trump family's been subjected to.
Col Lang,
Hoping you write about your assessment of B and what he had to say.
I found him to be generally credible. All of his motives for singing largely make sense to
me. I think he's a patriot. Some good supporting evidence. He's sharp. I liked him. He's the
kind of guy I'd enjoy working with.
I don't know anything about the realm of international deal making and finance. I'm
wondering how a Navy O3 works his way to enjoying yachts in Monaco while making $millions. Is
he an Annapolis guy? Tight with the right classmates? Not a lot to be found on him via
Google.
He was no longer in the navy when he was messing around with the Biden familia. He was
probably in the Navy three or four years. He ought to lay off on that. I'll think it over
tonight.
Once Wray's FBI gets done with the Rusty Wallace Noose Case they'll have time to deep dive
the laptop he's had for almost a year.
Col.,
Bobulinski seemed awful polished during that interview. Almost too good to be true. Hunter
being a druggy and Burisma payments being real certainly lend an air to credibility.
Turns out Patrick Ho Hunters partner in CEFC had a FISA warrant on him when he was nabbed
in New York awhile back. His first call was to Hunter to seek legal advice and Hunter
represented him. So them scumbags in the FBI have been sitting on this for awhile and will
use it on Joe (if elected) when needed. Must be modus operandi at the FBI in gathering dirt
on all politicians via FISA's, Hoover is still there.
As with all of us Bobulinski is not lily white but is making an effort to clean his act and
those around him. Lily White always comes in degrees. Not much in the NY Times, Wash Post or
WSJ this morning but the WSJ deserves a little credit with McBurn's editorial.
Bobulinski obviously comes from a military family thus his harping on his Navy creds. Guess
when your in that much sunshine you fall back strongly on anything available.
I don't doubt his credibility and it's good that he at least got on Tucker Carlson to
provide some much needed answers, but he's not a known quantity and I have hard time
imagining his revelations will change minds.
I think the FBI sandbagging the whole affair is what holds back this story getting the
attention it deserves from the public. The president I'm sorry to say has been badly served
by Wray, Haspel, and company. I think he should have replaced them months ago and waiting
until reelection to do it may have been a mistake.
Tuesday night, we heard at length and on camera from one of the Biden family's former
business partners. His name is Tony Bobulinski. He's a very successful businessman and a Navy
veteran.
Bobulinski spoke to "Tucker Carlson Tonight" for a full hour. He told us he met two separate
times with Joe
Biden himself. Not just with Joe Biden's son or his brother, but with Joe Biden -- the
former vice president and the man now running for president -- to discuss business deals with
the communist government of China .
That's a very serious claim, and whatever your political views, it's hard to dismiss it when
Tony Bobulinski makes it because Bobulinsky is an unusually credible witness. He's not a
partisan, he's not seeking money, he's not seeking publicity. He did not want to come on our
show.
But when Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and the Biden campaign accused Tony Bobulinski of
participating in a Russian disinformation effort, he felt he had no choice. That was a slander
against him and against his family. So Bobulinski came to us. He arrived with heaps of evidence
to bolster the story he was telling. He brought contemporaneous audio recordings, text
messages, e-mails, many financial documents.
By the end of the hour, it was very clear to us that Tony Bobulinski was telling the truth
and that Joe Biden was lying. We believe that any honest person who watched the entire hour
would come to the same conclusion.
Well, on Wednesday, a
Senate committee confirmed it . The Senate Homeland Security Committee reported that all of
Tony Bobulinski's documents are, in fact, real. They are authentic. They are not forgeries.
This is not Russian disinformation. It is real.
Bobulinski told a remarkable story. Joe Biden -- who, once again, could be president of the
United States next week, was planning business deals with America's most formidable global
opponent. And when he was caught doing it, Joe Biden lied. And then he went further. He
slandered an innocent man as a traitor to his own country. It is clear that Joe Biden did that.
That's not a partisan talking point uttered in bad faith on behalf of another presidential
campaign. It's true.
So the question is, what is Joe Biden's excuse for doing that? What is his version of this
story? Everyone has a version and we'd like to hear it, but we don't know what Joe Biden's
version of the story is, because no one in America's vast media landscape has pressed Joe Biden
to answer the question. Instead, reporters at all levels and their editors and their publishers
have openly collaborated with Joe Biden's political campaign. That is unprecedented. It has
never happened in American history.
Wednesday morning, the big papers completely ignored what Tony Bobulinski had to say. So did
the other television networks. Not a single word about Bobulinski appeared on CNN or anywhere
else. Newsweek decided to cover it, but came to the conclusion that the real story was about
QAnon somehow. This is Soviet-style suppression of information about a legitimate news story.
Days before an election, the ramifications of it are impossible to imagine. But we do know the
media cannot continue in the way that it has.
No one believes the media anymore and no one should. You should be offended by this, not
because the media are liberal, but because this is an attack on our democracy. You've heard
that phrase again and again, but this is what it looks like. In a self-governing country,
voters have a right -- an obligation -- to know who they're voting for. In this case, they have
the right to know the Democratic nominee for president was a willing partner in his family's
lucrative influence-peddling operation, an operation that went on for decades and stretched
from China and Ukraine all the way to Oman, Romania, Luxembourg and many other countries. This
is not speculation once again, and it's not a partisan attack. It's true, and Tony bobulinski
confirmed it.
Bobulinski met with Joe Biden at a hotel bar in Los Angeles in early May of 2017, and when
he did, Joe Biden's son introduced Bobulinski this way: "Dad. Here's the individual I told you
about that's helping us with the business that we're working on and the Chinese."
Now, written documents confirmed this is real. At one point, Joe Biden's son texted Tony
Bobulinski to say that Joe Biden, his father, was making key decisions about their business
deals with China.
CARLSON: When Hunter Biden said his chairman, he was talking about his dad.
BOBULINSKI: Correct, and what Hunter is referencing there is, he spoke with his father
and his father is giving an emphatic 'no' to the ask that I had, which was putting proper
governance in place around Oneida Holdings.
CARLSON: So, Joe Biden is vetoing your plan for putting stricter governance in the
company. I mean, and it's it's right here in the email.
BOBULINSKI: Yes, Tucker, I want to be very careful in front of the American people. That
is not me writing that. That is not me claiming that. That is Hunter Biden writing on his own
phone. Typing in that 'I spoke with my chairman,' referencing his father.
All this is spelled out in the clearest possible language in documents that Bobulinski
provided us, documents that subsequently federal authorities have authenticated as real.
On May 13, 2017, for example, Hunter Biden got an email explaining how his family would be
paid for their deal with the Chinese energy company. His father, Joe Biden, was getting
10%.
BOBULINSKI: In that email, there's a statement where they go through the equity, Jim Biden's
referenced as, you know, 10%. It doesn't say Biden, it says Jim. And then it has 10% for the
big guy held by H. I 1,000% sit here and know that the big guy is referencing Joe Biden. It's,
that's crystal clear to me because I lived it. I met with the former vice president in person
multiple times.
That was three years ago, and we still don't know where all that money went, because the
media haven't forced Joe Biden to tell us. But Tony, Bobulinski did add a telling detail. Joe
Biden's brother, Jim, saw his stake in the deal double from 10% to 20%. Was Jim Biden getting
his brother's share again? It might be worth finding out.
We also know that according to an email from a top Chinese official, this one written on
July 26, 2017, the Chinese proposed a $5 million dollar interest-free loan to the Biden family,
"based on their trust on [sic] BD [Biden] family." The e-mail continued, "Should this Chinese
company, CEFC, keep lending more to the family?" And indeed, CEFC was supposed to send another
$5 million dollars to the Bidens' business ventures. Apparently, that money never made it to
the business. Where did it go? A recent Senate report suggests it went to Hunter Biden
directly. And from there, who knows? Again, no one's asked.
Tony Bobulinski also told us he learned Hunter Biden became the personal attorney to the
chairman of CEFC, Ye Jianming, just as they were tendering 14% of a Russian state-owned energy
company. That was a deal valued at $9 billion dollars. It's pretty sleazy. It's pretty amazing,
actually, that this happened and no one noticed.
We're not going to spend the next six months leading you through a maze of complex financial
transactions. This isn't that complicated: Millions of dollars linked directly to the Communist
Party of China went to Joe Biden's family, and not because they're capable businessmen. Jim
Biden's one business success appears to have been running a nightclub in Delaware that
ultimately went under.
No, the Bidens were cut in on the world's most lucrative business deals, massive
infrastructure deals in countries around the world for one reason: Because Joe Biden was a
powerful government official willing to leverage his power on behalf of his family.
Now, if that's not a crime, it's very close to a crime and it's certainly something every
person voting should know about. The Bidens didn't do this once. They did it for decades. So
the question is, how did they get away with it for so long? Tony Bobulinski asked Jim Biden
that question directly. To his credit Jim Biden answered that question honestly.
BOBULINSKI: And I remember looking at Jim Biden and saying, 'How are you guys getting
away with this?' Like, 'Aren't you concerned?' And he looked at me and he laughed a little bit
and said, 'Plausible deniability.'
CARLSON: He said that out loud.
BOBULINSKI: Yes, he said it directly to me. One on one, in a cabana at the Peninsula
Hotel.
"Plausible deniability." In other words, "we lie." We get away with selling access to the
U.S. government, which we do not own, because we lie about what we're doing. And as we lie, we
try to make those lies plausible. That's why we call it "plausible deniability." That is the
answer that Joe Biden's brother gave when asked directly.
So the question is, what is Joe Biden's answer to that question? We wish we
knew.
ForFoxSake!!! 1 hour ago Everything that is happening right now is because Trump was
right about the swamp, the media, and the ruling class families who have been selling out
America for decades. ohhappyday657 1 hour ago Tucker is doing this country a great service. The
FBI doesn't seem to want to engage. Mr. Bobulinski is a patriot and we are lucky he came
forward. The Bidens need to be called out for their high crimes and misdemeanors. Joe should be
impeached for his time as VP. Thank you Tucker. resipsaloquitor ohhappyday657 29 minutes ago
You can smell the desperation on the Trump supporters. The lies, the distortions and the
grasping, pathetic search for the proverbial Hail Mary to salvage the quickly sinking ship. If
Mr. Bobulinski is the best you have the Democrats will 'trump' you with: 227,000 dead
Americans, close to 9 million more infected and an economy in tatters. The day of reckoning is
approaching and a dozen Bobulinskis won't change that. Trump and his unseemly administration
are doomed.
" ... the former CEO of SinoHawk Holdings, which he said was the partnership between the
CEFC Chairman Ye Jianming and the two Biden family members.
"I remember saying, 'How are you guys getting away with this?' 'Aren't you concerned?'" he
told Carlson.
He claims that Jim Biden chuckled.
"'Plausible Deniability,' he said it directly to me in a cabana at the Peninsula Hotel," he
said.
In the interview, he outlines how an alleged meeting with Joe Biden took place on May 2,
2017.
Fox News first reported text messages that indicated such a meeting. Bobulinski said that
it was the Bidens, not him, who had pushed the meeting.
"They were sort of wining and dining me and presenting the strength of the Biden family to
get me engaged and to take on the CEO role to develop SinoHawk in the U.S. and around the world
in partnership with CEFC," he said.
He went at length into how Joe Biden arrived for a Milken conference, partly held at the
Beverly Hilton Hotel, and how he was introduced by Jim and Hunter Biden to the former vice
president.
"I didn't request to meet with Joe" Biden, he said. "They requested that I meet with Joe
[Biden ]. They were putting their entire family legacy on the line. They knew exactly what they
were doing."" FN
-----------
Bobulinski is a successful international business hustler. I know the type well. The Biden
familia wanted him in this China deal for the purpose of having him hold the reins of this
enterprise even as they looted it for the purpose of quickly enriching the fam.
A TV commentator remarked last night after watching the interview that this defection from
the Biden camp is reflective of an old business truth which can be stated as "don't screw your
partner if he has enough material to sink you."
I am unimpressed with selfless patriotism as Bobu's most basic motivation in sticking it to
Joe, Jimmy and Hunter Biden. A sense of betrayal in a business deal wrecked by the Bidens'
overwhelming greed and their desire to consolidate family riches as fast as they could is a
more plausible. motivation.
This does not mean that Bobu is not telling the truth. His collection of e-mails addressed
to him and incriminating memoranda is most impressive.
IMO, what has been revealed is a truth with regard to the Biden crime family. They are
nouveau riche grifters who will have a much grander stage for their efforts if Joe is elected
as a presidential figurehead. pl
Did Hunter Biden's young business partners bring anything of value to the table, or were
they just name brand ride-alongs too. Archer, Conley, Heinz, etc. Biden was running a very
leaky ship, with such a large but relatively unsophisticated and compromised entourage.
I am, and I'm sure this is not an original observation, because it's as the Col notes,
singularly unimpressed with the entire lot of them. Bobo, Jim B, Hunter B, Duncan Hunter, Joe
B, Bulger's nephew, I've seen more gravitas among bookies, juicemen, and fences, that I grew
up with in NYC. And I mean that. Not a throw away line. And THESE guys will run the show? And
Harris I find singularity creep, artificial, and somehow just down right inappropriate. I
would not select any of them to run a post office.
I got a little tired of the man making so much of his "service to his country." Not that
it isn't worth quite a lot and I respect him for it, but four years... I served six years,
and what I dwell on is how much I loved serving in submarines and the enormous degree that it
contributed to building my character. The degree to which my service benefited my country was
trivial. It benefited me enormously.
Like you, I think he is telling the truth in that interview.
After 4 plus years of the intelligence agencies and MSM looking under every conceivable
rock, you think that there is anything left to find about Trump? You are delusional and
headed for a massive case of buyer's remorse if swiss-cheese-for-brains gets in.
Thank you for asking that question. I was about to ask it myself. My understanding is that
Trump's children are working for him as he is President for little pay. They may be still
handling Trump business accounts; but it seems they work for his White House office and its
many functions--and for his campaign.
I still believe in the American middle class, the people who make American run. These are
the people at his rallies, wearing MAGA hats, and showing up in overflow numbers.
They are not people who are easily swayed by "false prophets."
Trump keeps pointing out how well our economy was doing UNTIL China sent the virus (and, I
DO believe they sent it). He promises the return of that economy.
That is why Biden now is totally into frightening people about COVID and pushing masks and
social distancing. He is afraid that Trump will indeed be able to bring back a good economy.
He doesn't know how to do that, as is clear by this desperate attempt to cover up his shady
dealings with first Ukraine and now China.
Where I live, a large percentage of our population are clearly very tired and bored with
the COVID scare. We still do as our DEMOCRAT Governor, who hails from the People's Republic
of Boulder, Colorado, and the University of Colorado, where Socialist, Marxist, and Ultra
Feminists rule in the Arts and Humanities. We call Boulder "forty square miles surrounded by
reality." Unfortunately, the Boulder/Denver triangle contains the largest voting block. We
used to be able to count on Colorado Springs, but the universities in that area and into
Pueblo have also been taken over by the leftists.
What is also clear is that Biden's real hope was to build his own family dynasty by using
the Presidency as nothing but a cash cow for him and his inept and useless son.
I don't care really what Bobulinski's motives were for coming forward with his documents
and emails, I'm just thankful that he did. I hope it wasn't too late. And I'm thankful he
chose Tucker Carlson's show as the place to do it.
Joe Biden doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb for someone with a JD. To wit: why didn't
he just offer that he's given his son some fatherly advice about business now and then?
Instead, he's repeatedly and categorically denied discussing ANYTHING with his son about his
business dealings, which we now know is provably false. I'm no lawyer but I'd think Joe's
repeated lying infers a tacit admission of guilt. Deniability doesn't seem plausible in this
case.
I'd even go so far as to infer that Joe's gotten away with business dealings of this
sordid sort for SO long that he's become sloppy (e.g., the braggadocio ON VIDEO of
withholding US aid to Ukraine until its solicitor investigating Burisma, which was paying his
son $50-80 thousand per month, was fired.) He obviously has the [justifiable] expectation of
never being held accountable.
Did anyone else clock his comment that he wasn't being paid, not even expenses, for all
these trips. He said he was funding them himself, presumably until the $5M arrived.
Then it didn't but the Bidens got their $5M. The Bidens arrogance just piles onto their
stupidity. Did they really think that kind of operator would take it lying down?
With one foot in Colorado Springs, I'd like to suggest that you may be overstating the
weight of the local colleges in ColSpr's growing Democrat numbers. El Paso county election
results have remained fairly reliably Republican, if not by as sure a margin as once.
Population growth may be more significant mover, the high rate of in-migration to
Colorado, esp Denver. The seven county Greater Denver-Boulder area, with a population of 3.3
million, grew 1.1% last year, and has grown as fast or faster in the previous ten years. In
number, the Denver population has grown faster than anywhere else in the state. In the past
ten years the population of Denver Co alone increased 21%.
Colorado Springs/ El Paso Co. has grown quickly in the same period, but not as much as
Denver. The current population of 720,000 increased 16% from ten years ago. A good part of
this growth has been driven by Denver's growth and skyrocketing housing prices. A house costs
much less in El Paso County.
Too many Denverites are choosing to commute an hour+ from ColSpr to Denver, as seen by the
explosion of new housing at the north end of El Paso County and the now-daily traffic crawl
at rush hour on I-25 between ColSpr and Denver. Just try to get up to the speed limit on that
stretch. The state is adding extra lanes as fast as it can. It appears that Denver attitudes
move in with many of these commuters. Is ColSpr fated to become a bedroom community?
Finally, Colorado appears to be one of the places attracting migrants from the blighted,
overbuilt, overdetermined coasts. Again, newcomers arrive with attitudes from the places they
left.
I am hoping that the open skies and spaces, the particular self-reliance of rural
Colorado, and the more democratic openness to citizen initiatives via the ballot will mellow
their views.
This level of population growth and shifting politics, lacking a concommitant growth in
productivity of local biz and industry, is not viewed with equanimity by older inhabitants of
ColSpr. IMO It would be best if Colorado remained independent, with reasonable political
compromise and collaboration between parties, as before it has been.
Is a comparable dynamic underway north of Denver in your direction?
In reference to Trump's reputation as a grifter, I offer the following sample:
- He paid $2 million in fines and had to close down the Trump Foundation for using it as a
personal piggy bank.
- The Eric Trump Foundation was forced to close for similar grift. It was funneling money
into Trump family businesses and accounts. It's wasn't like the family directly stole money
from kids with cancer, but it ended up doing just that.
- His friend Bannon's recent grift with his Build the Wall Foundation, along with Manafort's
tax and bank fraud convictions, and Cohen's conviction for paying hush money for Trump's
sexual escapades.
- The sham Trump University was forced to close with a $25 million settlement to two class
action lawsuits and a NY civil lawsuit.
None of this sunk Trump. What it did do was inure the American public to the increasing
shittyness of our politician's behavior. Hunter's antics would have caused Joe to withdraw
from public life ten years ago, but today it's just par for the course.
-
TTG
My friend, as I have told you before, you have no real knowledge of practice in the business
world. Nobody says Trump has sold the US for his family's profit.
The anti-Trump protest movement – which began in November 2016 before the president
was even in office and climaxed in violent unrest as the Covid-19 recession collided with
outrage over George Floyd's death under a Minneapolis policeman's knee – appears to be
very close to achieving its nominal goal as of Thursday. Polls show Democratic challenger Joe
Biden leading Trump in most swing states, and most establishment media outlets are giving him
comfortable odds of winning.
However, even if all these predictions are correct, and pollsters aren't making the "
mistakes " that led them to falsely declare Democrat Hillary Clinton the victor in 2016,
a Biden presidency will be bogged down from day one with major problems. The protesters'
apparent goals – fixing the social issues that brought them out into the streets in the
first place, issues they have been led to believe are Trump's fault – will not be
achieved by electing a status-quo neoliberal Democrat like Biden. Such an outcome might even
hurt those goals.
The Americans thronging the streets to demand the removal of Trump (and the police, and
newly-appointed Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and so on) may be laboring under the
delusion that Biden – a career Democrat who used to boast about " prostituting "
himself to special interest groups – plans to govern as a progressive despite his record.
But once the honeymoon period is over and they realize Biden has no intention of changing
things, many will be getting mad.
Biden has pledged to veto " Medicare for All ," the universal healthcare program that
is one of the most popular issues on the Left. While the program is supported
by 87 percent of Democrats, it is blocked from inclusion in the party's 2020 platform thanks to
its senior members' colluding
with the insurance industry to craft the Obamacare legislation that failed to deliver universal
healthcare the last time Biden was in office. If anything, the candidate's views on healthcare
are closer to Trump's than to Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders, who has nevertheless risked
his life as a 79-year-old amid the Covid-19 pandemic to stump for Biden.
Progressive hero[in]es like Sanders and New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have
urged the former Vice President to " appoint progressive leaders " to ensure the passage
of the legislation they're dangling in front of voters like the proverbial carrot, hoping that
some familiar faces in the cabinet will keep leftist voters from straying or staying home. Will
this compensate for failing to speak out on issues voters consider important?
After all, there are more than a few issues on which Biden diverges from the liberal wing of
his party, never mind the protesters and rioters demanding Trump be purged. The candidate has
struggled to find a balance on the " defund the police " issue, vacillating wildly as
polls showed black voters (a contingent Democrats need desperately if they hope to win)
supported maintaining current levels of policing two months ago. As rioters have physically
attacked men (and women) in uniform, Biden has attempted to express solidarity without
alienating the cops – ultimately upsetting both groups.
Democratic leaders have attempted to pin widespread street violence in US cities on Trump,
suggesting the unrest will dry up and blow away once Biden is elected as the social issues
driving people to destroy their own neighborhoods vanish. But Biden and his running mate,
California Senator Kamala Harris, have made it clear they intend not only to keep those social
issues at peak dysfunction – they might just make them worse.
Biden has all but promised to follow in the footsteps of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and
California Governor Gavin Newsom, who both clamped down tightly on residents' movements while
rewarding rioters by letting them run wild and loot in spite of curfews. But even the most
smash-happy rioter needs to eat, and many of the liberals who've joined BLM protests are on the
streets because they're among the
almost-half of the US labor force who've lost their jobs since the pandemic-related
economic shutdowns began. Biden's demands for a nationwide Covid-19 lockdown are unlikely to
sit well with a working class who aren't working, especially with the unemployment benefits
attached to the CARES Act bailout having expired months ago.
And Biden's definitely not interested in following the Democratic Party's youthful
standard-bearers down the Green New Deal rabbit-hole. While Ocasio-Cortez suggested his refusal
to even ban fracking (let alone adopt the GND wholesale) wouldn't hurt his support among young
voters, fracking – unlike much of the GND – is a real-time, concrete issue, its
byproducts often poisoning water
supplies and causing disease. Even the
most silver-tongued politician cannot turn poisoned tap water into wine.
Angry liberals who genuinely believe Trump is responsible for their problems are in for a
rude awakening in January 2021 if Biden wins the election. They've had plenty of warning
– from the vast majority of US oligarchs lining up behind Biden to the candidate's public
promise of a " dark winter " for the nation, to Big Tech's full frontal assault on all
speech criticizing the candidate and his family's questionable connections to criminal
elements . But many have played ostrich with their heads in the sand, and the bait and
switch awaiting them in January will make the revelation that Barack Obama was just George W.
Bush (turning two wars into seven, bailing out Wall Street, and starving the American worker)
in a black-man suit look like Happily Ever After.
It's not that those silver-tongued politicians and their pet media outlets won't try to
present Biden's status-quo revivalism as long-desired, fundamental change. Trump is even
helping them, bafflingly attacking the candidate and his running mate as " radical
leftists " even though both have more in common with lock-em-all-up law-and-order
Republicans than what most other countries would consider the " left. " But with
resources rapidly running out across the US – rumors of food shortages have
surged since the beginning of the year, especially as agricultural authorities suicidally
advised farmers to cull their herds, and the threat
of mass eviction looming, no amount of inventive blame-shifting will stop the empty-bellied
hordes from rising up. At that point, their only hope is to convince the rioters to eat them
last, and (spoiler alert!) " Orange Man Bad " isn't going to fly in February.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
POLITICS Matthew Yglesias has a good
discussion of why
the poll-based models that give Biden a high probability of winning are probably right, despite
the well-known polling errors in 2016. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable to believe that the
poll based models (538, The Economist) are overstating Biden's chances, for several reasons.
Turnout this year will be unusually difficult to predict. How will the surge in mail in
balloting affect turn out? Will it lead to a large increase in voting, likely favoring
Democrats, or are many voters likely to leave their ballots on the dining room table, or mail
them in too late to be counted? Will weather effects on voting have a partisan slant (in either
direction, potentially), given that Republicans are more likely to vote in person? How will
COVID affect in person turn out? Any increase in uncertainty favors Trump, given that he is
behind in projections.
We don't know how effective voter suppression efforts will be. How will long lines affect
turnout? How widespread and effective will outright intimidation be? Will efforts to intimidate
backfire and increase Democratic turnout? Voter suppression tactics have changed enormously in
the past few years due to Shelby County, so the current state of affairs may not be reflected
in data from prior elections.
Finally, we don't know what the Courts will do, and how their rulings will affect the vote.
The biggest uncertainty is probably what happens to late mail in ballots, but other issues will
arise.
As Andrew Gelman (creator of The Economist model)
says , poll-based models are of "vote intentions, not of votes as counted." Comments
(2)
J.Goodwin , October 28, 2020 3:38 pm
Polls within a week of the election aren't so much polls of vote intentions, they
include 30%+ of the final count because people have already voted.
Turnout will probably be about the same as it has been. Any claim otherwise is
probably subject to the exceptional evidence criteria. Turnout being about the same is
what the esitmates from the polls reflect.
Likbez , October 28, 2020 5:50 pm
Polls has dual function: to inform and to influence.
Sometimes, like in 2016, the second function predominates.
You'd think that voting Republican would be an easy decision if you work on Wall Street,
especially given the lower taxes and the removal of burdensome regulations. But Democrats have
entangled themselves so deeply in the web of Wall Street, that the industry is now leaning to
the left, according to a new report from
Reuters .
The Center for Responsive Politics took a look at how the industry, and its employees, break
down for the 2020 election cycle.
It has been obvious that Democratic candidate Joe Biden has been outpacing President Trump
when it comes to fundraising, and this is also true of "winning cash from the banking
industry," Reuters notes.
Biden's campaign has been the beneficiary of $3 million from commercial banks, compared to
the $1.4 million Trump has raised. This is a far skew from 2012, where Mitt Romney was able to
raise $5.5 million from commercial banks, while Barack Obama only raised $2 million. In 2012,
Wall Street banks were among the top five contributors to Romney' campaign.
In 2020, campaign contributions to congressional races from Wall Street banks are about
even. Republicans have raised $14 million while Democrats have brought in $13.6 million. About
four years ago, Republicans pulled in $18.9 million, which was about twice as much as the
Democrats raised. In 2012, Republicans raised about 61% of total bank donations.
Interestingly enough, when Biden and Trump are removed from the equation, the highest
recipient from Wall Street is none other than Bernie Sanders, who has raised $831,096. Sanders
often tops contributions in many industries due to his grassroots following.
When you remove the employees from the equation and only look at how the bank's political
arms donate, the picture turns more Republican-friendly.
House of Representatives lawmaker Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri, one of the senior
Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee, which is key for the banking industry,
tops the list, hauling in $226,000. Next up is Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, the top
Republican on that panel, with $185,500 in cash from bank political committees.
The top 20 recipients of bank political funds comprise 14 Republicans and six Democrats.
Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, a senior member of the House banking panel,
received the most among Democrats, with $140,000.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The shift in data shows that while Wall Street's top brass may still understand the value of
Republican leadership, bank employees themselves may overwhelmingly favor
progressives.
ay_arrow
tonye , 3 hours ago
It's obvious. Wall Street is part of the Deep State...
Le SoJ16 , 3 hours ago
How can you hate capitalism and work for a Wall Street bank?
tonye , 3 hours ago
Because Wall Street is no longer capitalist.
Main Street is capitalist, they create the GNP.
Wall Street is a casino owned by globalists and bankers. They don't create much
anymore.
Macho Latte , 2 hours ago
It has nothing to do with ideology. The Biden is FOR SALE!
Any questions?
Lord Raglan , 2 hours ago
It is because the majority of Wall Street are Jewish and **** overwhelmingly support
Democrats.
David Horowitz has said that 80% of the donations to the Democrat Party come from
****.
KashNCarry , 2 hours ago
What a bunch of ****. Wall St. elites are in it up to their necks casting their lot with
the globalists who want total control NOW. Trump is the only thing in their way....
artvandalai , 3 hours ago
Wall street people don't know much about the real economy. They also know little, nor do
they care about, the real problems faced by business people who have to work everyday to
overcome the policies put in place by liberals.
They do understand finance however. But all that requires is the ability to push paper
around all day.
But let them vote for the Libotards and have them watch Elizabeth Warren take charge of
the US Senate Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection Committee. They'll be jumping
out of windows.
FauxReal , 3 hours ago
Wall Street favors free money?
sun tzu , 1 hour ago
Wall Street wants bailouts. 0bozo gave them a yuge bailout
American2 , 2 hours ago
Based on the massively coordinated MSM suppression of the Biden corruption scandal, now I
know why these folks back Biden.
CosmoJoe , 2 hours ago
Democrats as the party of the big banks,
bgundr , 2 hours ago
Of course banksters favor policies that make the average person a slave with less
agency
Homie , 2 hours ago
Especially if you like the endless bailouts, give-aways, and freedom from those pesky
rules limiting the Squid's diet
You'd think that voting Republican would be an easy decision if you work on Wall Street,
especially given the lower taxes and the removal of burdensome regulations.
mtl4 , 2 hours ago
The shift in data shows that while Wall Street's top brass may still understand the
value of Republican leadership, bank employees themselves may overwhelmingly favor
progressives.
The banks are big on corruption and that's one poll the Dems are definitely leading by a
longshot.......thick as thieves.
tunetopper , 2 hours ago
Wall St youngsters dont realize their job is to whore themselves out as much as possible
to the few remaining classes of folk they dont already have accounts with. The few
Millennials and Gen Xers that have enough capital saved up are their target market. Ever
since the take-down of Bear Stearns and Lehman, and the exit of many others from their
Private Client Groups- the Whorewolves of Wall St are very busy pretending to be Progs and
Libs.
And like this post says: " who really cares, they all live in NY, NJ and CT which are
guaranteed Dem states anyway"
So in essence- they have nothing to lose while pretending to be a Prog/Lib. in order to ge
the clients money.
radar99 , 36 minutes ago
I arrived to wall st in 2010. My female boss at a large investment bank hated me from the
moment I criticized Obama. I was and still am absolutely amazed you can work on wall st and
be a democrat
moneybots , 59 minutes ago
"The shift in data shows that while Wall Street's top brass may still understand the value
of Republican leadership, bank employees themselves may overwhelmingly favor
progressives."
So 50 Cent alone went Trump after finding out NYC's top tax rate would be 62% under
Biden?
Flynt2142ahh , 1 hour ago
also known as MBNA Joe Biden friends, you mean the privatize profits but liberalize losses
crowd that always looks for gubment money to bail out failures - Shocking !
invention13 , 1 hour ago
Wall St. just knows Biden is someone you can do business with.
Loser Face , 1 hour ago
Wall Street leans towards anyone who passes laws that benefit Wall Street.
Obamaroid Ointment , 1 hour ago
The Wally Street crowd has always been a bunch Globalist Mercedes Marxists and Limousine
Liberals, this article is ancient history.
Sound of the Suburbs , 2 hours ago
US politicians haven't got a clue what's really going on and got duped by the banker's
shell game.
When you don't know what real wealth creation is, or how banks work, you fall for the
banker's shell game.
Bankers make the most money when they are driving your economy towards a financial
crisis.
On a BBC documentary, comparing 1929 to 2008, it said the last time US bankers made as
much money as they did before 2008 was in the 1920s.
Bankers make the most money when they are driving your economy into a financial
crisis.
Money and debt come into existence together and disappear together like matter and
anti-matter.
The money flows into the economy making it boom.
The debt builds up in the financial system leading to a financial crisis.
Banks – What is the idea?
The idea is that banks lend into business and industry to increase the productive capacity
of the economy.
Business and industry don't have to wait until they have the money to expand. They can
borrow the money and use it to expand today, and then pay that money back in the future.
The economy can then grow more rapidly than it would without banks.
Debt grows with GDP and there are no problems.
The banks create money and use it to create real wealth.
Caliphate Connie and the Headbangers , 2 hours ago
The banks and corporations of America have been welfare queens since 2008. Regardless of
who wins, they will be the beneficiaries of moar US-style corporate welfare socialism.
Victory_Rossi , 3 hours ago
Wall Street loves globalism and hates the entire ethos of "America First". They're people
with dodgy loyalties and grand self-interests.
FreemonSandlewould , 3 hours ago
What a surprise. The Banking Cartel faction of the Jish Control Grid sent Trotsky and
company to Russia to implement the Bolshevik revolution. Should I be surprised they lean
left?
Well I guess not. But they are at base amoral - that is to say with out moral philosophy.
Their real motto is "Whatever gets the job done".
Yesterday, former Vice President Joe Biden was again insisting that the scandal involving
Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation despite the direct refutation of that claim by
the FBI .
In her interview with Joe Biden, CBS anchor Norah O'Donnell did not push Biden to simply
confirm that the emails were fake or whether he did in fact meet with Hunter's associates
(despite his prior denials). Instead O'Donnell asked: "Do you believe the recent leak of
material allegedly from Hunter's computer is part of a Russian disinformation campaign?"
Biden responded with the same answer that has gone unchallenged dozens of times:
"From what I've read and know the intelligence community warned the president that
Giuliani was being fed disinformation from the Russians. And we also know that Putin is
trying very hard to spread disinformation about Joe Biden. And so when you put the
combination of Russia, Giuliani– the president, together– it's just what it is.
It's a smear campaign because he has nothing he wants to talk about. What is he running on?
What is he running on?"
It did not matter that the answer omitted the key assertion that this was not Hunter's
laptop or emails or that he did not leave the computer with this store.
Recently, Washington Post columnist Thomas Rid wrote
said the quiet part out loud by telling the media:
"We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation --
even if they probably aren't."
Let that sink in for a second. It does not matter if these are real emails and not Russian
disinformation. They probably are real but should be treated as disinformation even though
American intelligence has repeatedly r ebutted that claim. It does not even matter that the
computer has seized the computer as evidence in a criminal fraud investigation or that a Biden
confidant is now giving his allegations to the FBI under threat of criminal charges if he lies
to investigators.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
It simply does not matter. It is disinformation because it is simply inconvenient to treat
it as real information.
Bastiat , 3 hours ago
I should have lost the capacity for shock in reaction to this Mockingbird crap but the
sheer naked audacity of it still gets me.
Carbon Skidmark , 3 hours ago
I don't know what is worse. The concept that hiding crimes is no longer that important or
the lack of response to the crimes by so many.
jin187 , 3 hours ago
I don't know what's worse. The fact that our supposed news networks do this, or the fact
that in spite of the vast majority of Americans saying they distrust them, they still let
them get away with it. They still watch, and read, and listen. TBH, I don't think the lack of
MSM coverage is an issue with this particular story. I think the average Democrats and RINOs
are just covering their eyes and ears with this one. They want Trump to lose so bad, they
don't care if day one of the Biden administration is him handing suitcases of military
hardware blueprints to the Chinese. Anyone with a (D), never Trump, keep the swamp churning.
That's all they care about.
Four chan , 25 minutes ago
the laptop and its contents are 100% verified with clean chain of control.
UndergroundPost , 3 hours ago
It's now clear the Democrat Party under the Biden / Clinton Dynasties is nothing more than
a fully compromised, corrupt and criminal extension of the Communist Party of China
SDShack , 3 hours ago
Absolutely! The timelines of everything line up perfect. These laptops were dropped off at
the computer shop in early 2019. Work was done, but not paid for. The owner tried to get paid
and have the laptops picked up for 3 months. No go, so abandoned property now belongs to the
computer shop. All perfectly legal. It's now fall 2019 and the Impeachment Sham related to
Ukraine is starting. Computer shop realizes that laptops belonged to Demorat VP son being
caught up in the entire Impeachment Sham. Computer shop guy realizes he is holding dynamite
with lit fuse so he contacts FBI. FBI does nothing, then gets involved, then sits on the
story. This is all end of 2019.
Meanwhile, demorat primaries are starting and Bernie is the leader. DNC can't have Bernie
win, so they try to game the system to stop him just like 2016. But no one early on can do
it. Senile Joe fails first. Then Kamalho, who was the favorite, flames out. Then all the
others. It's now early 2020 and the DNC is hemorrhaging money and in disarray. Then look what
happens, the DNC miraculously unities around Senile Joe to stop the Angry Berd, with Kamalho
being the fallback position as VP. It is clear that the CCP ordered the DNC to do this
because they had the goods on Corrupt Joe, and the DNC needs the Chicom money. They all
figured they had it all covered up. They never figured on the crazy cokehead son blowing it
all up. The timelines all line up, and explain why Senile Joe rose from the dead in the
primaries to be the anointed one, along with Kamalho. The CCP got the candidates they bought
and paid for.
GoldmanSax , 1 hour ago
100% true but the republican government refuses to prosecute their buddies. The US has 1
party and we ain't invited.
Robert De Zero , 3 hours ago
It isn't real, we hope it isn't real, you can't prove it's real, 50 experts said it isn't
real, Russia planted it, Russian disinformation, Rudy is compromised, Rudy might be a Russian
agent, Rudy almost banged a 24 YO and he can't be trusted, It's not about Joe we don't care,
Hunter isn't running, Bobulinski has a funny name so he can't be trusted...NOT ONCE ASKING IF
THIS IS a MAJOR PHUCKING PROBLEM.
The problem isn't RUSSIA, it's you bastards in the Big Lies Media!
GoldmanSax , 1 hour ago
Why hasn't the patriotic republicans arrested the evil democrats? Whats the hold up?
tonye , 3 hours ago
At some point we are going to have to break up the corporate media conglomerates.
All of them.
And start racketeering prosecutions.
Salsa Verde , 3 hours ago
Facts mean nothing in a country where emotional outbursts are now considered gospel.
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
I think we need to bring back the death penalty in every state and not keep housing these
criminals for lifetimes.
Zorch , 2 hours ago
Wait! What does Gretta say?
VisceralFat1 , 3 hours ago
so... the hunter laptop is fake
and global warming is real
got it
jin187 , 3 hours ago
You just summed up the only thing 90% of students actually learn from 12 years of public
school.
rwe2late , 3 hours ago
correct on both points
Zerogenous_Zone , 3 hours ago
duh...
the Feds have plenty of laptops that have incriminating evidence of our elected leaders
(Wasserman Schultz, Iman Brothers, Weiner, DNC Servers, etc...), Dems and Repubs
at issue is if we REALLY knew the depths of treason from said leaders, we'd run out of
rope and tall trees...
so...anyone who votes Democrat, is complicit in my eyes (and they don't need to vote
Republican) and deserve the heat of the truth, strong enough to melt all the
snowflake-SJW's
Carbon Skidmark , 3 hours ago
ban laptops...it's so simple...no laptops and bad things stop happening
Zerogenous_Zone , 3 hours ago
/sarc
banned public schools first...they're indoctrination centers of controlled deception
NO critical thinking...NO innovative strategies
ONLY State sponsors 'information' filtered by the snowflakes anti-social media platforms
and e-encyclopedia (Schmoogle)
11b40 , 3 hours ago
Ban email & instant messages. Life would be immediately better.
CosmoJoe , 3 hours ago
Dorsey looks like a fvcking homeless person. What a clown. I'd love to rip that ring right
out of his nose.
sunhu , 2 hours ago
losers anger is always fun to watch
chubbar , 3 hours ago
The media is acting against the best interests of the USA. Think about it, "IF" the
allegations are true, we need to find out BEFORE we elect someone who is selling out our
country for personal gain, not after. WHY would the media think differently unless they don't
care whether the allegations are true or not? Are they working for China? Is the DNC? These
are appropriate lines of inquiry given the wholesale censoring the media has levied on the
Biden corruption story. The FBI sat on this for months and it has Child ****, which means
children remain at risk until the FBI goes in and stops it. WTF is wrong with Wray that he
allows this to go on?
somewhere_north , 3 hours ago
Dude, if it was for real Hunter Biden would have been arrested by now. You can't seriously
believe they're just holding back their damning evidence. The obvious conclusion is they
don't have it.
Mr. Universe , 2 hours ago
...except those pictures of a naked Hunter with his niece and the emails of the family
trying to keep a lid on Mom's protestations.
You see lots of pics of Hunter Biden with a blacked out bitch. No way of knowing who he's
actually with.
hugin-o-munin , 2 hours ago
Yeah like duh really man, I mean come on man. Stop thinking so much man, hang ten and
chill bruh.
8-(
Im4truth4all , 2 hours ago
Has Comey, Clapper, Strozk and the list goes on ad infinitum, been arrested? No.
ebear , 1 hour ago
"The obvious conclusion is they don't have it."
An inference, by itself, is not a conclusion.
Soloamber , 2 hours ago
Wray inherited a completely screwed up Comey FBI .
He is not a culture changer .
glasshour , 3 hours ago
Stop calling these people mainstream. There is nothing mainstream about them because
nobody watches their crap.
Joe Rogan's show last night got more views than all of them combined.
WhatDoYouFightFor , 3 hours ago
Hunter is still walking around free, system is F'd. Nothing will right the United States
at this point.
Zerogenous_Zone , 3 hours ago
it's the Hillary conundrum, right?
IF they get Hunter, it's 'election interference'...
deceitful godless individuals...
randocalrissian , 3 hours ago
But but but Her Emails
slightlyskeptical , 3 hours ago
he will always be free on these items as the evidence was all acquired illegally and
likely doctored to all hell.
jin187 , 3 hours ago
This is why I said the day Trump got elected that these people just need to disappear to a
blacksite in Yemen. The best way to drain the swamp is waterboarding all the ones we know to
find the ones we don't know.
Ghost of Porky , 3 hours ago
If Trump rescued 30 drowning children with his helicopter the CNN headline would read
"Trump Increases Carbon Footprint to Risk Superspreader Event.
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
Exactly - so tired of MSM and their opinionated lies
pstpetrov , 3 hours ago
Yes Liberals are all about disinformation and Trump has the moral high ground.
randocalrissian , 3 hours ago
Best joke I've heard in October. Well played, sir!
otschelnik , 3 hours ago
How would the MSM react if Don Jr. flew into China on AF1 with his father, met with
Chinese central committee members and intelligence officials, formed a Joint Venture with
them and then got a 5 million dollar no interest loan from the head of a private oil company,
who's chairman used to work in intelligence?
Imagine that. How would ABC MSNBC CNN NPR WaPo NYT PBS broadcast that?
glasshour , 3 hours ago
Better question, who cares. Nobody watches that junk anymore.
fanbeav , 3 hours ago
Liberal sheeple still do.
randocalrissian , 3 hours ago
Let's get the case in a court of law so allegations and wild claims can be proven or
disproven. But wait, this was timed so court isn't an option. So all we are left with is the
sniff test. Smells like baby diaper needs changed.
slightlyskeptical , 3 hours ago
How did they react when it was Kushner doing the traveling and getting the money for his
business?
Iconoclast422 , 3 hours ago
the computer has seized the computer as evidence
Why does every article have these little tidbits that make me think every writer has
stroked out in 2020?
11b40 , 3 hours ago
You see that, too? Something is wrong in the editing process. Sloppy, I guess, or
foreign.
Santiago de Mago , 3 hours ago
I noticed that in several articles today... almost like they are being written by AI
bots.
"My Macaroni And Cheese Is A Lesbian Also She Is My Lawyer"
balz , 3 hours ago
Every time you see someone saying they are a "journalist" at a MSM, don't forget to tell
them they are wrong and their job-title is "propagandist".
Shut. It. Down. , 2 hours ago
Some of the emails have already been verified by the outside recipient or sender.
Next you'll tell me all the sex videos were photoshopped by Putin.
KayaCreate , 1 hour ago
I lost 5 mins of my life watching Hunters **** getting kicked around by a probable minor
while smoking crack. You could tell it was him as his fake teeth glowed in the dark.
Cephisus , 3 hours ago
The media are scum.
Bill of Rights , 3 hours ago
Funny isn't it, every time the Globalist are exposed its " Disinformation " ..Hows that
Russian Collusion evidence coming along? its only been four years.....
American2 , 2 hours ago
The only question remaining to ask is simply this: Who is more enfeebled, Joe Biden; or
the networks and ABC, NBC, CBS, NY Times, WaPo, LA Times?
CosmoJoe , 3 hours ago
I have been out of f*cks to give when it comes to the MSM for a decade now. What is so
comical is that when the MSM so overtly covers for candidates, it backfires horribly. You
can't hyperventilate over an anonymously sourced Trump tax return story and yet ignore the
Biden laptop. People see right through that.
randocalrissian , 3 hours ago
Trump's taxes were made public. Nobody knows where Biden's (or whoever's) laptop came
from. Giuliani is already very late with the promised salacious details. How many people do
you think are really changing their vote to the Domestic Terrorist in the WH?
IndicaTive , 3 hours ago
I know of one person
Invert This MM , 3 hours ago
You are a freaking Share Blue Clown. Nobody buys your monkey dung
IndicaTive , 3 hours ago
You know me so well, after 3 months of trolling here.
Invert This MM , 2 hours ago
You really are one stupid fuuk. You just outed one of your sockpuppets and I was purged in
the Google crack down. I have been posting here for 12 years. You monkeys are really
stupid.
Invert This MM , 2 hours ago
Hey Monkey, I was purged during the Google shake dawn. Been here 14 years. Like a complete
moron, you just outed one of your sockpuppets. Dumbass
replaceme , 3 hours ago
No serious Dem thinks the laptop isn't Hunter's - your supposed to ignore it, or pretend
it has nothing to do with Joe. The Russians, booga boogah
invention13 , 3 hours ago
No, his taxes weren't made public. Claims about his taxes were made public - there is a
difference which you seem happy to elide.
CosmoJoe , 3 hours ago
Trump's taxes as reported by the NY Times were NOT made public, what gives you that idea.
The info was leaked to the Times.
jin187 , 3 hours ago
This is what I want to know. How is it that the NYP is still banned from Twitter based on
them obtaining information "illegally or illicitly", when we know for a fact now that they
didn't? At the same time, I'm pretty sure that the NYT and their followers are still happily
linking and chatting away about the story on how they illegally obtained Trump's tax
returns.
wearef_ckedwithnohope , 3 hours ago
Matt Taibbi has written a series of articles bemoaning the current state of
journalism.
replaceme , 3 hours ago
What's journalism?
invention13 , 3 hours ago
I'm beginning to think it is something that never really existed - just an ideal in some
people's minds.
Shillelagh Pog , 2 hours ago
Journalism is putting down on paper your, or someone you like, or is paying you for,
feelings, duh.
slightlyskeptical , 3 hours ago
He has the same issues with his journalism.
starcraft22 , 1 hour ago
The laptop is real. The media is the foreign disinformation.
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
Just shocking how MSM is so quick to dismiss this shocking evidence. We know it's not part
of their brainwashing echo chamber of lies for their low IQ and low informed voters but had
this been one of Trump's sons laptops - this would be MAJOR HEADLINES for the next 12
months.
Remember the 4 year Russiangate investigation, 40 million to Robert Mueller all based on a
bought and paid dossier paid for by the DNC/Clinton foundation, corrupt FBI, FISA warrants
all to spy and setup Trump to incriminate him for the VERY same crimes they were in FACT
committing.
Ar15ak47rpg7 , 2 hours ago
Note to all Zero HEDGERS....there seems to be no difference between the scrubbing of
comments on Twitter and Facebook and ZH. The free flow of ideas on ZH no longer exist. Just
like the Drudge Report the Deep Stater's have gotten to the Tylers. Beware
One of these is not like the others.. , 2 hours ago
I concur, the more thoughtful the post, the more likely it seems to vanish.
ebear , 1 hour ago
I must be an idiot then. As much as I'd like to add that badge to my collection, my stuff
never seems to get scrubbed. Damn!
Urfa Man , 3 minutes ago
Gulag and the shrews that run it are putting big financial pressure on ZH to censor us.
This month I've twice tried to post a URL for the news article that details the censorship
here, but go figure, those posts get scrubbed.
It's all because of you and me. The Bolsheviks at Gulag say this comment section hurts
feelings and therefore must be dominated and controlled with an iron fist.
Gulag Bans ZeroHedge From Ad Platform
If you replace "Gulag" with the name of a major search engine and conduct a search using
the words in italics above - via a search engine like duckduckgo - the results will probably
point you to the news article that gives the details of this ZH censorship and why your
comments disappear.
lacortenews com is the domain that carries the news report
Good luck. There's not much left of free speech or the original freedom of the
internet.
unionbroker , 3 hours ago
A business associate of mine told me with a straight face that he didn't trust Bobulinski
because he had a Russian sounding name. He is on Twitter a lot so maybe that explains it.
slightlyskeptical , 3 hours ago
I don't trust him either. He has already changed his story. he requested to meet Joe Biden
and then later he didn't request it. . And he met him, but he didn't have a meeting with him.
He confirmed that on Fox last night.
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
I trust him 100% #imwithhim
remember Dr Christine Ford and her fake as story against Kavanaugh - this is much more
realistic than her fake as
Republicans can play dirty too
jin187 , 2 hours ago
Yeah, this is what it's come to, so **** it. I hope Rudy is out there right now handing
out suitcases of cash to anyone willing to come forward with any lies about Biden, Pelosi,
Schumer, just like our side's Gloria Steinem.
Zerogenous_Zone , 3 hours ago
bring him in under oath and actually investigate...
BUT that would be 'election interference' (you know, the whole Hillary conundrum,
right?)
rule of law is now changed to morality of feelings...if it makes me feel insignificant, it
CAN'T be TRUE!!
WAAAHHHHHH
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
he will testify under oath watch - and he won't be like pencil neck Schiff and those other
cowards and plea the 5th
rwe2late , 3 hours ago
???
you could watch the Tucker Carlson show interview instead of your imagined one.
Uh... did watch it. And yes, the story he tells there about meeting Biden is not the same
as the one he told before. Riddle me this: if this is real, why would they hopelessly
compromise their chain of evidence by dribbling it to the public like this?
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
because no one in the MSM would dummy - they are all in DEEP ****
somewhere_north , 3 hours ago
They don't have to use the MSM, or any media. They simply arrest Hunter Biden, then drop
all the info at once instead of tantalizingly holding the smoking guns out of our view. All
they are doing here, if they actually have anything, is risking the lives of their witnesses
and giving the perps a lot of warning. That's to say nothing about compromising the evidence
to the point of inadmissability. It's running a risk for no gain whatsoever.
rwe2late , 3 hours ago
stuff is only out of your view if your eyes are closed
rwe2late , 3 hours ago
"not the same" ?
missed your weblink (not that you could be making stuff up, cough, cough.)
also, how that would have any significant bearing on the whole matter,
including most MSM news censorship and Russia nonsense ?
RedNeckMother , 3 hours ago
Who told you that bulls hit?
calculator , 2 hours ago
It's entirely possible he is military intelligence and was sent undercover to infiltrate
the Bidens and discover their treachery. The CIA and FBI sure as hell don't appear to be
doing it. Since we may very well be in a shooting war with the CCP at some point in the near
future, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the military is actually doing their jobs to ensure
we are not compromised.
SDShack , 3 hours ago
We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation --
even if they probably aren't."
Cmon Turley, parse these words> Why does the WaPo say 'WE MUST' treat these leaks this
way? This implies that the WaPo is BEING ORDERED to treat these leaks this way! So WHO has
power over the WaPo? Is that power direct, or financial, or BOTH? Also the assumption the
WaPo is trying to propagate is that the Foreign Intelligence Operation is...THE
RUSSIANS...but could it not actually be the CCP that is pulling the WaPo strings? Doesn't the
CCP revelation go to the central heart of the entire Corrupt Joe matter, as well as the
financial angle for the Bezo's Amazon WaPo? Even in their lies, the nuggets of hidden truth
are exposed.
Amel , 3 hours ago
Asking yourself why the CIA control of the MSM favors a Manchurian candidate over Trump ?
Because the CIA's own survival is valued above national security.
invention13 , 3 hours ago
For they same reason they had to treat the Russian collusion allegations as though they
were real.
LetThemEatRand , 3 hours ago
Same reason there was no outrage at the Obama child cages at the Mexico border. Or outrage
at all of the wars Obama started. Or outrage at all of the drone killing under Obama.
Most Blue Team members are satisfied getting their news from MSM, leaving MSM able to
shape the narrative almost completely. There are a handful of guys like Jimmy Dore on the
left who call out the rest of the left on this. Pretty scary, actually.
factorypreset , 3 hours ago
It sure seems like the press is helping to squash this whole thing by asking any questions
in such a way that Joe doesn't perjure himself.
mtl4 , 3 hours ago
Yesterday, former Vice President Joe Biden was again insisting that the scandal
involving Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation despite the direct refutation of
that claim by the FBI.
All makes perfect sense in a time when you chose your gender in the morning while getting
dressed, you only need to be accused of anything to completely ruin your reputation (unless
your a politician in which case there are no laws). So why would anyone deal with reality at
a time when we've gotten so good at simply ignoring it.
By Chris Sweeney, an author and columnist who has written for newspapers such as The
Times, Daily Express, The Sun and Daily Record, along with several international-selling
magazines. Follow him on Twitter @Writes_Sweeney She may have no chance of getting
her hands on the keys to the White House next month, but a growing number of Americans are
coming around to her limited government, anti-interventionist, decentralized vision for the
US.
Jo Jorgensen feels Donald Trump and Joe Biden are scared to debate her. The Libertarian
candidate points to her party's burgeoning
popularity and direct policies as two of the reasons for the two big hitters' reluctance to
let her on the podium.
Speaking to RT on the way to a campaign event in Milwaukee, she said: " They are the ones
in power and they will do anything they can to keep from giving it up. They don't want me on
the debate stage and they're not putting me in the media, as they know that I'll be the only
real choice. Both of those candidates and parties want to spend our money and make our
decisions for us, neither one has an answer to our healthcare problem ."
Echoing another third-party candidate Don Blankenship ,
Dr. Jo is frustrated by how the system has prevented her from being part of the televised
debate, alongside her Republican and Democratic rivals. She also claims the mainstream media
are apprehensive to feature the other candidates – maybe why Dr. Jo doesn't once mention
Trump or Biden by name during our interview.
" Our 2016 candidate was included in the polls to get on the debate stage and if he had
gotten 15 percent, he could have been there. At one point, he got as high as 13.6 percent, so
this time around they didn't even include my name. They thought 'uh oh, they are getting kinda
close, so we've got to really lock them out'. This time as I wasn't in the polls, there was no
way for me to be on the debate stage, " she said.
Despite the blockade, a grassroots effort and legal challenges means the Libertarian Party
is on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC. And by their own estimates, they could potentially
touch 12 percent of the American population. They even may have an appeal to more progressive
elements by offering up Jo, a woman, while the main two parties again run two elderly, white
men.
Dr. Jo, 63, revealed: " Polls put Libertarian people at about 40 million, they think they
should be able to make their own choices and decide how to spend their own money – not
the special interest groups, politicians or bureaucrats in Washington. But they don't know
about our party, or they are only shown the other two parties, or think 'if I vote for you,
you're not going to get elected' but if all the people got together, then I would get
elected. "
Dr. Jo is softly spoken, the daughter of Danish immigrants to the US she made her name
working for IBM before joining Clemson University in South Carolina where she has lectured in
psychology since 2006. But despite her quiet, academic demeanor, she and her party have some
radical plans. Their main priority is to end American involvement in foreign affairs and that
includes curtailing all aid. She explained: " Americans are very generous and if they want
to send money to other people around the world, they are free to do that. But there's no reason
why the government should pick who gets our money and who doesn't ."
Her first act in office would be to sign an order to bring home the military. " That is
something I could do as commander-in-chief ," she continued, " I want to turn America
into one giant Switzerland, armed and neutral. We absolutely have to protect our shores and
border but there's no reason for us to be in 150 countries around the globe. We spend more on
the military than the next seven countries combined, that's insane. If we just defended our own
country, we wouldn't be spending all that money. The money is bad enough but being everywhere
in the world is making us less safe, not more safe – and the job of the military is to
make us safer. "
A commonly held view of the American population is that they lack awareness, or are
disinterested in matters outside their borders, something Dr. Jo agrees with saying: " A lot
of Americans don't realise we're being seen as bullies. We wouldn't like it if Iraq or Iran
came to our country and started taking over cities, we wouldn't like it at all. We only see if
from our standpoint and we really need to start being good neighbours. "
As the name of the party suggests, a theme of Dr. Jo's policies is to chop down the size of
the government and then hand executive power to local communities.
" We need less government across the board, but especially at the federal level. For
instance, we have a Department of Education that is a 'one size fits all' for the entire
country. We didn't have it before the 1970s, it was up to the locality and each city or town to
decide how to run their own schools. Education should be decided on by parents, teachers and
students, " she said.
" It's the same with policing. We shouldn't be telling police departments how to do their
job and we shouldn't be giving them leftover military tanks either, it just makes the problem
worse.
The average person shouldn't have much interaction with the federal government at all.
America is a large country, we've got rural areas, we've got huge cities, we've got a lot of
places in between – it should be up to each area to decide what serves them best.
"
One big issue where the Libertarian Party's standpoint isn't clear, is energy.
America is wedded to oil, with its dependence on cars and planes along with being home to
major oil corporations. The sensitivity was shown
during last week's presidential debate when commentators leapt on Biden's statement that he
would "transition" away from oil.
" We need to see what is most efficient. Right now, the Democrats and the Republicans
give $15 billion a year in subsidies to fossil fuel companies. Instead we need a level playing
field, where the government isn't picking the winners and losers. Let the American people
decide what sort of energy they want, " Dr. Jo said.
" When the government hands out money or gives subsidies, what they are doing is having
the companies be loyal to them. We've got all these companies trying to do the right thing for
Members of Congress and not for the consumer. I want companies to have to work hard for my
business.
We should be able to decide which companies stick around and which go bankrupt [through
the free market]. We should decide which companies serve us better, not Congress
."
While there is no chance of Dr. Jo being unveiled as the 46th president next month, she does
point out how many political activists are flocking to her party from the big two.
" Right now, 75 percent of our volunteers are from outside the party, so that shows that
a lot of people are unhappy with the system. No matter what happens, I'm going to stay in the
Libertarian Party and fight for individual rights, and if nothing else I hope to get us on the
ballot, so next time they don't have to spend thousands of dollars getting signatures and suing
the states. So I do expect some type of victory from this election ," she concluded.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! 29
"... So, yes, the Republican Party has ideology but this ideology is the same as the ideology on "Clitonized" Dems with some minor differences ("soft neoliberalism" of Clintonized Dems vs "hard neoliberalism" by Repugs) ..."
But the claim that the Republican party has no ideology or policy agenda is completely
wrong.
The policy agenda of the GOP is to cut taxes on the rich and to dismantle regulation and
social insurance programs.
NYT is out of depth. That's a typical neoliberal platform and both parties, not only one,
adopted the same neoliberal ideology (that was the essence of Clinton wing selloff to Wall
Street).
So, yes, the Republican Party has ideology but this ideology is the same as the ideology
on "Clitonized" Dems with some minor differences ("soft neoliberalism" of Clintonized Dems vs
"hard neoliberalism" by Repugs)
Both are now extremely corrupt Imperial Parties ready to sacrifices the interests of common
Americans for the interests of global neoliberal empire (read multinationals) and personal
profits. Kind of occupying force, much like Bolsheviks were in the USSR.
Both are War parties, jingoistic and militaristic to the extreme. And ready to feed Pentagon
to the tilt at the expense of common people. And they are jingoistic to such an extent that is
is not unclear to which party neocons should belong (Max Boot changed parties recently.)
Both are ready to blame the gradual collapse of neoliberalism in the USA on a convenient
foreign scapegoat and use neo-McCarthyism as a smoke screen to hide neoliberalism failures
including Hillary fiasco -- the rejection by common people of a neoliberal, jingoistic
candidate pushed by neoliberal elite. The fact that the second candidate was probably even
worse domestically with his extreme "national neoliberalism" program does not change the
situation. That was a real protest.
Both are now extremely friendly to intelligence agencies. with neoliberal globalist wing of
Dems using them for political purposes via Russiagate hoax.
The situation that probably will be mirrored by Repugs with "Chinagate" if Biden
wins.
Nobody, October 26, 2020 2:57 am
Frankly, the Republican party's donor class' forty year quest to turn the US into a
kleptocracy has already done so much damage to American democracy that it almost certainly
can't be saved. Even if Biden wins, he will only be able to slow the decline into
authoritarianism until the next Republican seizes the Presidency.
Iexpect President Trump to win re-election and win big. In a game of cops and robbers, most
people side with the cops. A triumphant Trump will be Trump Unbound, Promethean in his defiance
of the establishment. The result should be more fun than a barrel of Menckens.
What outrages might he inflict? Some interesting possibilities.
In a repeat of Nixon going to China, Trump goes to Moscow. Nixon countered the Soviet threat
not by shovelling endless money into the Pentagon's maw but by a brilliant grand strategic
maneuver: Convincing China to align with the United States against Moscow. (That move also
nullified our defeat in Vietnam by eliminating its strategic significance.) Not entirely
wisely, President Trump will likely up the ante in his confrontation with China. Could he
convince Russia to de-align with Beijing and join us in containing China? America's foolish
continuation of an anti-Russian policy after communism fell has pushed Russia and China
together, but Moscow fears long-term Chinese ambitions in Siberia. If President Trump wants
leverage on China, nothing would give him more than facing Beijing with a land threat along its
vast northern border.
President Trump will remain pro-military, but that does not mean he loves the top brass. He
knows they hold him in contempt as a person and they also continue to block his desire to bring
the boys home. Were he to adopt a policy of military reform, the agenda for which was laid out
in the 1980s and remains relevant, he would give the brass fits while saving money and
improving our ability to win wars, something in short supply of late.
President Trump won election and, I expect, re-election in part by defying cultural Marxism,
aka political correctness. Now, he could launch a full-fledged crusade against it. Most people
are fed up with PC, with children telling adults what words they may or may not use and
thoughts they may or may not think.
The president began a counter-offensive in his first term. In March he announced that
colleges and universities that failed to protect freedom of thought and expression would lose
all federal funding, including research grants. He subsequently ordered an end to all federally
mandated "anti-racism" training, which conditions people to mouth cultural Marxism's lies (any
dissent from that ideology is deemed "racism").
Triumphant and unchained, he could do more. Most public schools are now Skinner boxes
conditioning children to be good little cultural Komsomol members. A broad offensive to restore
the teaching of skills and facts -- he could call it "Schools 1950" -- would be welcomed by
most parents. In the workplace, anyone who contradicts cultural Marxism now stands in peril of
losing his job. President Trump could announce that freedom of thought and speech must be
respected by any business receiving federal funds. He could order that in all federal offices,
including the military, any man accused of "sexual harassment" must be presumed innocent until
proven guilty -- the opposite is now the case -- and revise what "sexual harrassment" means to
exclude normal banter between men and women.
A re-elected President Trump could make powerful use of the bully pulpit to fight "cancel
culture." The cultural Marxists now "cancel" anyone who disagrees with them; as in the old
Soviet Union, those people become "unpersons." Their jobs, careers, social ties, and even
physical safety are threatened unless they "apologize," grovelling in the dirt before the great
clay god "PC." President Trump could break this by meting out the same treatment to the
cultural Marxists themselves. He could organize boycotts of companies that practice
"cancelation," deny all federal contracts to the same, launch antitrust actions against
electronic media that "cancel" conservative voices, and use the White House to give visibility
to people the Left has "canceled." He could order all federal departments to cease doing
business with any entity that uses the vocabulary of cultural Marxism: "diversity,"
"privilege," "microaggressions," etc.
And President Trump could dis-establish the Deep State itself. How? By calling a
Constitutional Convention with the intent of abolishing most amendments passed since 1860. That
would transfer back to the individual states the powers the federal government has usurped in
the intervening 160 years. Its functions gone, how would the Deep State justify itself and its
vast budget? The fleas would have lost their dog.
Here's a cherry on top: A triumphant Trump pushes through a tax of one dollar on every
robocall, to be paid by the phone company that delivers the call. The roboplague ends overnight
and "Huzza for the President!" resounds from Boston Harbor to the Golden Gate bridge.
William S. Lindis the author, with Lt. Col. Gregory A. Thiele, of the 4th
Generation Warfare Handbook. Lind's most recent book is Retroculture: Taking America
Back.
"... Here context matters. The US, or those who control the US, are trying to maintain American hegemony, or near hegemony, over the world. America has 600-800 military bases around the globe depending on what you regard as a military base. While many tens of thousands of America sleep on the sidewalks, while infrastructure crumbles, while standards of living fall and medical care is pricey but poor, the Pentagon always gets its budget. At the level of the White House, the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel, the arms industry, the important thing is to maintain the flow of money. And dominate the world. ..."
"... Trump is the embodiment of this looking-for-a-fight attitude. Not good. He has surrounded himself with over-age Cold Warriors, with generals, with the pathologically aggressive hangers-on from think-tank Washington: John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Nikki Haley, Steve Bannon, and minor squibs of like outlook. He has pulled the US out of the arms-control treaties, START, INF, Open Skies. He has pushed NATO against Russian borders. In the Legion halls of Idaho, this may seem virile, the sort of thing that John Wayne would do. Back the commies down. Show them who is boss. No. It is just pointless and dangerous. ..."
"... Worse, there is a new kid on the block. China is growing. It behaves no worse than other countries, does not inflict on the world nearly the destruction and horror that the United States does, but it is growing. For Washington, this makes it not a competitor but an enemy. This is very much Trump's policy. Don't negotiate. Threaten. "Do as I say, or I will break you." ..."
"... Those favoring the continuance of Empire might note that, even at this, Trump has been a disaster. The First Rule of Empire is Don't let your enemies unite. Trump, having made Russia and China into enemies (why?) has forced ..."
"... Then there is Iran, a geopolitical linchpin, having eighty million people, a large and competent military, and lots and lots of oil. Under the JCPOA, the nuke deal, the Iranians were posed happily to integrate themselves into the Western economy -- buy hundreds of airliners from Boeing and Airbus, telecommunications gear, sell oil, have western companies develop its huge hydrocarbon reserves. ..."
"... Then Trump pulled out of the treaty and, led by the egregious Pompeo, tries to starve the Iranians into installing a puppet government. Iran, seeing that the West is not friendly, turns to the East, allies itself tightly with Russia and China. Tehran and Beijing are about to sign a twenty-five year, multimanymuchoslotsa billion dollar development deal. ..."
"... Then Trump had Soleimani, an Iranian hero, murdered. This doubtless played well with his partisans in Joe's Bar in Chicago, being manly and decisive and making America great again. It was also idiotic, making Iranians even less likely to cave to American pressure. ..."
"... With Trump the country elected an attitude, not a President. Truculence, bravado, and an in-your-face aggressiveness are no substitute for competence. ..."
Everybody and his goat has weighed in on the election, so I will too. This will make no
difference to Trump's core followers, for whom he is a cult figure, or to those who detest him.
The undecided may be interested.
Note how insubstantial Trump has been, pretending to be what he isn't and claiming to have
done what he hasn't. Does no one notice? He has heavy support from Evangelicals. Ask him to
name the books of the Pentateuch, or the second book, or what church he regularly attended, or
ever attended, in New York. He was going to end the wars, but what war has he ended? To reduce
the trade deficit, but it has grown . To get rid of
all illegal aliens withing two years, but have they gone? To bring back factories from China
and Mexico, but how many have returned? He is called a law-and-order President. Yet he hid,
besieged, in the White House during the greatest eruption of lawlessness the country has ever
seen, with a statue being pulled down across the street from his house. His handling of the
virus? America remains hardest hit in the world, and it worsens by the day.
Trump, like all Presidents, has fulfilled the two critical jobs expected of him, protecting
Wall Street and the military budget. What else has he done?
Almost nothing. All in good fun. But in the crucial field of international relations, he has
been a disaster. I suspect that few of his followers in Flint and Gary study things beyond the
borders. They should.
Here context matters. The US, or those who control the US, are trying to maintain
American hegemony, or near hegemony, over the world. America has 600-800 military bases around
the globe depending on what you regard as a military base. While many tens of thousands of
America sleep on the sidewalks, while infrastructure crumbles, while standards of living fall
and medical care is pricey but poor, the Pentagon always gets its budget. At the level of the
White House, the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel, the arms industry, the important thing is to maintain
the flow of money. And dominate the world.
Trump is the embodiment of this looking-for-a-fight attitude. Not good. He has
surrounded himself with over-age Cold Warriors, with generals, with the pathologically
aggressive hangers-on from think-tank Washington: John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Nikki Haley, Steve
Bannon, and minor squibs of like outlook. He has pulled the US out of the arms-control
treaties, START, INF, Open Skies. He has pushed NATO against Russian borders. In the Legion
halls of Idaho, this may seem virile, the sort of thing that John Wayne would do. Back the
commies down. Show them who is boss. No. It is just pointless and dangerous.
Worse, there is a new kid on the block. China is growing. It behaves no worse than other
countries, does not inflict on the world nearly the destruction and horror that the United
States does, but it is growing. For Washington, this makes it not a competitor but an enemy.
This is very much Trump's policy. Don't negotiate. Threaten. "Do as I say, or I will break
you."
Those favoring the continuance of Empire might note that, even at this, Trump has been a
disaster. The First Rule of Empire is Don't let your enemies unite. Trump, having made Russia
and China into enemies (why?) has forced them to unite. This is -- how shall I
put it? -- stupid. Russia and China are not natural allies. China is a crowded country with 1.4
billion smart, industrious people, rapidly growing influence, and a very long indefensible
border with Russia. Russia has barely 146 million people, a comparatively static economy, vast
empty lands with rich resources. The Russians may have noticed this. The two have had
territorial disputes. This is not a marriage made, as we say, in heaven. Instead of playing
them against each other, allying with one against the other, or leaving them the hell alone,
Trump has forced them into close alliance.
This is Trump's policy, in the sense that if it happens during his presidency, it is his
baby, though it is fairly evident that Pompeo is Trumps brains and Trump is Pompeo's
enabler.
Then there is Iran, a geopolitical linchpin, having eighty million people, a large and
competent military, and lots and lots of oil. Under the JCPOA, the nuke deal, the Iranians were
posed happily to integrate themselves into the Western economy -- buy hundreds of airliners
from Boeing and Airbus, telecommunications gear, sell oil, have western companies develop its
huge hydrocarbon reserves.
Then Trump pulled out of the treaty and, led by the egregious Pompeo, tries to starve
the Iranians into installing a puppet government. Iran, seeing that the West is not friendly,
turns to the East, allies itself tightly with Russia and China. Tehran and Beijing are about to
sign a twenty-five year, multimanymuchoslotsa billion dollar development deal.
Three enemies, united, where none was before. Fucking brilliant, Mike. Just fucking
brilliant.
Then Trump had Soleimani, an Iranian hero, murdered. This doubtless played well with his
partisans in Joe's Bar in Chicago, being manly and decisive and making America great again. It
was also idiotic, making Iranians even less likely to cave to American pressure.
The same counterproductiveness appears in his "trade war" with China, in fact an attempt to
wreck China commercially and technologically. This is packaged by Trump as "standing up to
China," "deterring China," "containing China," but it might as accurately be called
"encouraging the genie to leave the bottle," or "asking for it."
A quick example: Huawei was contentedly using Google's Android operating system on its
smartphones. Android and iOS, both American, dominated the world market for operating systems.
Huawei, with the predictability of sunrise, responded by crash-developing its own OS,
Harmony . With equal predictability and suddenness it will improve it, further grow its app
store (HMS, Huawei Mobile Services) and, on a guess, encourage other companies to use it. It
will be said that a new OS won't work, can't compete, will take decades, and all the things
that are customarily said of things China does. Wait.
Trump's result: A new and, likely, serious competitor to Google. Good job, Don.
There is more to come. Precisely because of Trump's technology-denial policy, China has
launched a massive program to make itself tech-independent. It will take time, but it will
happen. Every time China develops a replacement for an American product, US companies will lose
the Chinese market for it -- and shortly face a competitor.
The root of the matter? With Trump the country elected an attitude, not a President.
Truculence, bravado, and an in-your-face aggressiveness are no substitute for competence.
Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he is blankly ignorant of history, geography,
technology, the military. In Hawaii, when taken to the USS Arizona memorial, he didn't know
what it was. He has opined that the Spanish flu of 1917 (his date)
influenced the end of WWII . It would be instructive for a reporter to ask him what
countries border Iran, where one finds the Strait of Malacca, and why it matters.
The more enthusiastic of his followers seem to be equally ignorant and, worse, have no idea
why a President should know such things. Is this how we choose Presidents, and the sort of
Presidents we choose?
Write Fred at [email protected] Put the letters pdq anywhere in the
subject line to avoid heartless autodeletion.
Check out Fred's splendid
books ! Sedition, outrage, distortion, treason and other amusements. Enjoy accounts of
America, not the disaster by the same name now peddled as the real thing. Cheap at the
price.
This chart is a good reminder why Trump should be re-elected.
Suck it, Fred.
Oh and Mexico's doing worse on Covid when you account for their criminal undercounting of
Covid deaths. When you have one of the lowest testing rates of any large country, then it's
easy to undercount.
This article would read fairly well if you would just replace all instances of "Trump"
with "the US Feral Government". You're gonna blame the continuing stupidity of this huge
Beast of a Government on the one man? Do you think he is King of America? He can hardly get
anything done, which IS, BTW, partly his problem – the one thing you are quite right
about is the stupidity in the President's hiring of swamp creatures to drain the swamp. I
don't understand this myself but chalk it up to a lack of confidence in his own
instincts.
Commenter Bragadocious has already brought up the very encouraging numbers of admitted
"refugees" that I have read on VDare, but there are other below-the-radar good efforts by the
President regarding immigration. Of course, most of us have been disappointed quite a bit,
but lately I've been more gung-ho – anyone interested, please read VDare's "NYT Delivers Unintentional Endorsement Of Trump's Immigration Triumph" . (Hey,
didn't you use to work there, Fred? You ought to at least keep up a bit.)
Peak Stupidity points out "The Bad, the Good, and the Ugly" regarding the President
and this election – see "The Bad" , "The Good" , and
"The
Ugly" .
I honestly don't understand why you're so concerned with what happens to America anyway,
Fred. You live in the great country of Mexico. Is it that everything disparaging you write
makes you feel better about your decision to high-tail it down there?
Presidentially and socially we face two alternatives: an easy anesthetized slide into
certain doom or a panicked descent kicking against the looming walls of our trap. Of course,
that is not what either pretends to be, nor what the masses think they are.
In the end I can't tell a nickel's worth of difference. If someone could guarantee that
one alternative was more likely than another to end in nuclear holocaust than the other I
would allow a difference, but I don't see it. Which ever we "choose" this time, the pendulum
will swing until a tipping point is reached.
It would be nice to have a serious realist in the White House, but I don't see the people
voting for one. Maybe one will ride in on a white horse.
An excellent and accurate article. However, it should note that Biden's history shows he
will probably be worse. Despite his tough talk, Trump never started a new war, which is why
the Deep State hates him. They teed up four excuses to attack Iran: the strange drone attack
on a Saudi oil facility, the strange mines placed on a tanker, flying a drone over Iran that
was shot down, and doing nothing when Iran fired missiles at American bases in Iraq.
Those favoring the continuance of Empire might note that, even at this, Trump has been a
disaster. The First Rule of Empire is Don't let your enemies unite. Trump, having made
Russia and China into enemies (why?) has forced them to unite. This is -- how shall I put
it? -- stupid.
This isn't accurate, letting Russia and China unite was a notable feature of the Obama
administration and probably goes back further than that. Remember the pivot to Asia? Remember
Victoria Nuland handing out cookies at the Maidan? But you are absolutely right about Trump
solely pushing Iran into the arms of Russia and China.
Fred is right, Trump is a hee-haw Jackass who takes the prize for the dumbest, most
delusional, most corrupt and most incompetent POTUS in all history.
He's run America into the ground with his failed trade war, his delusional (un)management
of Covid-19 and all his damn fool gross stupidity. Just like his 6 failed casinos, his Trump
University and his bankrupt listed company DJT.
Everything just fail, fail, and fail. Even an Orangutan taken from the zoo would have done
better as POTUS than him.
Sorry, but to rewrite your comment, Trump, just like all his predecessors, has fulfilled
the Three critical jobs expected of him: 1. Armed and expanded Jewish colonial fascism
in Palestine, 2. Continue to protect the 1% (Wall Street) and 3. Increased U.S. military
budget by continuing to sale arms to fascist regimes.
Yes, he is a blathering, bullshitting salesman who built hotels and had a reality TV show.
But he didn't start any wars. Bombed the odd airstrip, but that was about it. Who was the
last President you could say that about? If he loses, strap in for more wars, possibly even
the Big One. And as for China, before we get too awestruck about their economic 'miracle' --
which was remarkable -- note that their money supply (M2) is 2.5 times their GDP. $2.50 for
every $1 they need for their economy. Why? To prop up a banking system that is a total Ponzi
scheme. To say they have an internal debt problem doesn't begin to cover it. Sure, it allowed
them to build super fast trains and cities with no-one in them, but they can't get Chinese
people to consume because they are all desperately saving for health care. The public health
care is dreadful. It was a miracle, sure, but full of holes (which makes it no less
impressive).
Fred highlights lots of problems, but I don't see why the other two Presidents will be
better at solving them. They certainly won't be, because they don't see them as problems.
They will start more wars, they will ignore the trade deficit, they will bring in millions
of immigrants, they will keep selling off manufacturing to cheaper places indifferently, and
they will be indebted to their BLM fascists when in power, meaning violence will increase
either way.
They are for Empire, and they don't keep to the treaties anyways – at least Trump is
honest when he tears them up. It is, according to Al-Anfal 55-63 at least, up to those who
get betrayed to tear up the treaties, and they should have long done so anyways.
Killing Suleimani? Is there a bigger misstep that could have been done by the Empire, that
cost so little in terms of human life to the ME, and actually improved the reputation of
Trump with the crazies whilst making the wind down accelerate?!
They will be for NATO, which will stop being an NA and will become a World Treaty
Organisation.
He sure ain't perfect – he is a very weak or trusting manager, it seems – but
he tries to move in the right direction often, even if he is prevented from taking even more
than baby steps. The other two Presidents will march into the abyss whilst laughing at their
awesome brilliance!
Why was Trump elected in the first place, Fred? In a well-run country with real options,
Trump would have been laughed at. When your rulers actively sell you out, hate you, and are
in the process of replacing you, a Donald Trump is a realistic option. That is sad. What's
worse is that even after Trump's election, the PTBs are doubling down on the treason and
hatred of Americans. As bad as Trump is, what is the option? And what can one man really
do?
It's too easy to just blame the situation on stupid Trump supporters, as if their votes
created America's problems.
@Weston Waroda rm the Ukraine military. Ukies don't just take their kalashnikovs and send
them to the metal cutters – their corrupt generals sold all the rifles, motors, and
assorted other arms and kept the 35 million. This makes Neo Nazi's much more stronger at the
Maidan, which was delayed because of Yanukovych and his kleptocrazy regime. Thanks to the
African born Obama and Joe the War lover – Ukraine to day is totally CIA,Mossad, Nato
etc. We could dissect Libya and Syria but we would find the same Satanic World Order boys
– Barrack and Joe – doing their thing for the Cabal. Oh – I lived in
Ukraine 08 – 2014 and then had to switch residency – for obvious reasons. Spacibo
You have to give credit to Trump for stopping the anti white brainwashing AKA
as 'diversity training' which was based on the white hating manifesto AKA 'critical
race theory.' It turned out that under the radar big business and many parts of the
government were forcing whites to repent for their racist attitudes and write forced
confessions. President Trump gave the middle finger to that with much deconstructing
still to come.
I can't fathom how a descendant of the illustrious Tidewater Reeds can
turn his back on the accomplishments of his Anglo Saxon people.
America began as a Protestant project which is why we are fortunate to have
the most enlightened system of jurisprudence in the world. Say what you will about
Trump's brash New York City manner but at least he is a defender of Western
Civilization. I most look forward to cleaning house at the DOJ & CIA if he wins.
That and smashing Big Tech into a thousand pieces.
I'm not sure I want someone like you lecturing us on morality, Fred.
You're basically stating over and over, that the US should strive to maintain its 'Only
Empire in the World' approach (which it did since at least Clinton),
but Trump is just doing it wrong.
@Craig Nelsen f stupidity is Mr. Reed's part about Trump causing Russia and China to be
allied. WTH? Trump wanted to ignore the pretension by the Neocons (if they are serious it be
even stupider) that Russia is still the USSR, our arch enemy. The MIC and Neocons blocked his
rapprochement with Russia. President Trump's attempt to end the completely unfair trade deal
the sell-outs handed to China in the mid-1990s is one of his admirable efforts. Relations
have become bad mostly due to that the Chinese don't want a fair deal with trade. They are
used to taking advantage of us in every way possible – even the Great Chinese Visiting Scholar
Scam .
Trump is a symptom of the disease which the author mistakes for the disease itself. That's
why Trump won in 2016 because the white masses who elected him needed to vomit their own
existential angst against the System. The more petulant Trump became, the more love the white
masses have for him because that's how they feel against the System which has betrayed their
own white interests.
The author correctly points out that Trump does exactly what other US Presidents before
him have done which is to promote the economic interests of the US Capitalist Class and the
US Military-Industrial Complex, by cutting income taxes and increasing the defense budget,
respectively. He also mentions Trump's trade war and technology bans against China which has
served more as a "canary in a coal mine" than anything else, hastening the pace by which
Chinese companies have been diversifying away from the USA, since the GFC in 2008, including
developing their own indigenous technologies which have given rise to homegrown tech giants
like Huawei and TikTok. While Trump's anti-China moves were driven by political
self-aggrandizement, China's response was driven by its economic self-interest, which
explains its low-key approach to resolving its trade disputes with the USA.
But the author missed something else which is Trump's hostility to Globalist causes such
as unrestricted immigration, outsourcing of manufacturing and services jobs, foreign wars,
multilateral treaties such as the Paris Climate Accord, international institutions such as
the WHO, trade deals such as the TPP and NAFTA, among others. His most glaring omission is to
avoid any mention of Trump's decision to withdraw US troops out of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Germany as well as preventing another regime-change war against Iran.
While his economic policies range from the patently mediocre (promoting "fracking") to
outright stupid (imposing tariffs), Trump's biggest successes are in fact in the areas of US
foreign policy in which he DID carry out his "America First" strategy which has endeared him
to his white supporters but which has disheartened his enemies in the US Deep State.
Of course, that's exactly why his white supporters elected him in 2016 and why the US Deep
State is doing everything it can to defeat him in 2020 because a second term of Trump would
hasten the decline and fall of the US Empire.
"He has pushed NATO against Russian borders." No, after Reagan assured Gorbachev that NATO
would not move an inch closer to Russia with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Bill
Clinton moved NATO to Russia's borders as a provocation, along with slaughtering Slavs and
proving the inability of Russia to continue its traditional role as protector of the Slavs.
This was followed by BUSH's and OBAMA's continuation of Color Revolutions to establish US
puppets in former Soviets (and more NATO bases).
The Biden/ Nuland-led Maidan Revolution in Ukraine meant that the per capita GDP dropped
over half by deflecting the internal corruption into external Americans' and American
Ukrainians' pockets. For calling out that US corruption and briefly holding up more weapons,
money and provocation with Russia, Trump was impeached. Ukraine lost Crimea BEFORE Trump, and
he was stymied from removing troops by a Congress who refused to accept him as an Elected
President and Commander-in-Chief.
While Trump has lots of issues, calling him out for doing exactly what the last three
Presidents before him did, really undercuts the article's message. Scapegoating Trump doesn't
change reality.
Trump is the embodiment of this looking-for-a-fight attitude.
Wow, you have been asleep for the last four years? The antics of the Democrats and their
female goddess seem to have completely passed you by. Just to fill you in on some basic
detail, the Democrats (what an ironic name) have been waging battle after battle, you could
call it a war, against the President because they just couldn't accept the result of the last
election. They felt they were entitled to the presidency. You say Trump is looking for a
fight, the Democrats didn't just look, they launched the war and lost.
We all know that Trump is bellicose and a blowhard but he said all the right things in
2015-16. My issue with Trump is his betrayals. He threatened to end birthright citizenship
but never followed through. He was working with Tom Cotton to reduce legal immigration and
end chain migration but gave up after less than a year. He should have ended AFFH shortly
after taking office but didn't do so until just two months ago. The list goes on.
Another reason his administration wasn't as successful as we all hoped is that he didn't
know how to staff a government as PCR feared and predicted. He thought he could just ride in
to Washington and wing it and start barking orders it doesn't work that way.
Trump is not a visionary like Obama was. In order to qualify for Obama's administration
you had to think and see the world exactly like he did. Trump seems to get his jollies from
hiring people who disagree with him and work to undermine his agenda.
Now Trump is courting black nationalists like rapper Ice Cube while condemning white
nationalists. This would be like Obama courting David Duke on a plan to help poor and working
class white Americans.
Trump has given us three conservative SCOTUS's justices. He has also exposed the deep
state, the alphabet agencies, and the MSM for what they are. Evil anti American forces.
And all the while, staving off three bullshit coup attempts and constant personal and
political assault!
And what better would we get from proven corrupt and dementia laden career politician Joe
Biden Fred?
Fuck you!
I'm voting for the entertaining one. Politics is interactive theater. Was it George Carlin
who said that if voting mattered they wouldn't let us do it? No truer words. Plus I like the
Melania fashion watch on Breitbart....
BRICS began back in Obama days. More importantly its inception was due to crippling
Russian sanctions due to the bogus Magnitsky Act, which was passed during the W. Bush reign.
BTW do you know who sponsored the act in Congress? McCain, Biden, and Obama. All are/were
Zionists and Necon approved.
Hmm, as disappointing as Trump has been, and believe me, he has been a disappointment, he
is the best President in my lifetime of 59 years. Of course, given the list of empty suits
that we have been given as our leaders over the last 59 years, saying Trump is the best of
the lot is not saying much. Honestly has America elected a decent man to hold the office of
POTUS in the last 120 years?
At the very minimum Trump has exposed the FAKE MEDIA, hell, that is more than the others
ever did while in office because as we all know the American people have been lied to by the
Jew Media for over 100 years and counting. IF anyone can come up with reasons why anyone from
JFK to Obama were better for America than Trump, I am all ears. Personally, I give Trump an
overall D on his report card while the others I give a flat F. Do Whites really want a
Biden/Harris Presidency? I voted Trump, again. No REAL choice as usual.
All the potus have been under zionist control since they had JFK assassinated and then
came the zionist/Israeli and traitors in the ZUS government attack on the WTC on 911 and this
was blamed on the Arabs and gave the zionists the excuse to destroy the middle east for
Israels greater Israel agenda, using the ZUS military and AL CIADA and MOSSAD and MI6 created
mercenaries to to the destruction and the killing.
Trump is just another in a long line of zionist puppets and Biden is the same and the one
ie the libertarian Joanne Jorgensen who is against these wars, is ignored, and the beat goes
on.
Nobody gives a shit in Joe's Bar in Chicago about the killing of the Iranian general but
you may want to check the bars in Tel Aviv to see if they're rejoicing
Now enough about China there are plenty of other sycophants on unz.com without you joining in. Stick to defending wetbacks which
suits you naturally and it's more palatable.
As to Russia and China: first, you outline Chinese population treat to Russia and then
second, you breathlessly claim they're boon companions so, which is it?
Lastly, I noticed that the one group which has most benefited from the orange man
presidency while undercutting his nationalist credentials which would help traditional
Americans isn't even mentioned in the article no names or hints. What gives?
"... It is the great con game. The super rich use the blacks especially, but also most of the browns, as excuses, weapons, and tools to batter the white middle class and white working class into utter submission. Tyranny of the worst sort seems to be end game. ..."
There is no agenda to "work together" with people who are trying to steal our freedom by
replacing our heritage as the world's first secular republic with a Christian theocracy. When
Christians took over the demoralized remnant of the Roman Empire they ushered in a thousand
years of repression and intellectual stagnation. We will not allow them to repeat this crime
in our land.
While we are selectively quoting the mendacious propaganda of the Federalist articles, let
us recall that in Federalist No. 10, Virginia aristocrat James Madison argued that
democracies were "spectacles of turbulence incompatible with the rights of property
[owners]." He was especially frightened of the mass of landless Americans, who, not unlike
his own slaves, "labour under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal
distribution of its blessings."
In Federalist No. 35, the future first US secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton,
wrote, "The idea of an actual representation of all classes of people by persons of each
class is altogether visionary." Anticipating the infamous line in Orwell's "Animal Farm", he
continued, the "weight and superior acquirements of the merchants render them more equal"
than men of ordinary means.
The usual account of anti-federalism tells of the activism of wealthy men who feared a
strong central government would encroach on their local power and privilege. All but
forgotten is the opposition of rank-and-file Continental Army veterans who gathered in
protest at a number of locations nationwide to burn copies of the new constitution. They
declared it was a betrayal of what they thought they had fought for. Captain Daniel Shays, a
leader of the western Massachusetts militiamen's abortive uprising the previous year, spoke
for all American patriots when he said "we did not overthrow a wise king to be ruled by
shopkeepers" but their voices have long been silenced in conventional histories of those
turbulent times.
Recall also that in the first election of 1788-9, only 43,782 men were able to cast votes
for Presidential electors, out of a total American population of nearly four million.
And Hamilton is now lionized as being the great hero for blacks and browns.
It is the great con game. The super rich use the blacks especially, but also most of
the browns, as excuses, weapons, and tools to batter the white middle class and white working
class into utter submission. Tyranny of the worst sort seems to be end game.
You're like some Guelph who flopped out of a time machine yelling about the bucket and
everybody's like, What the fuck is he talking about?
Do you really want to piss away the rapidly dwindling rest of your life fixating on some
bullshit stereotyped melodrama? It's three words of one article of one clause of one of the
nine core human rights instruments. (You don't know what I'm talking about but bear with me.)
Both parties are in perfect agreement about screwing you out of every other human right you
got.
Nobody gives a rat's ass about Jay. Your founding fathers are Allen Dulles and Frank
Wisner. The conflicts you're trained to emote about are wholly synthetic. Apparatchiks of
both parties concur on impunity. That's all your country is. The United States of
Impunity.
Trump and his backers have been accused of mass murder.
And during the summer of 2020, the Black Lives Matter- and antifa-fueled riots, looting,
arson and assaults on cops went on for weeks, destroying billions of dollars in property
and ending with demands to "defund the police."
Scores of statues have been toppled and destroyed -- statues of explorers, missionaries,
Founding Fathers of the republic and presidents on Mount Rushmore.
Now, not only are we fractured over ideology, religion, race, culture and morality, but
also our country's history has become a cause of irreconcilable conflict.
Leftism, no matter what you call it, has always been dysgenic and always will be. It is a
"philosophy" embraced by those unable to surrender their dream for an impossible to achieve
perfect world for an imperfect and achievable good one.
Recall also that in the first election of 1788-9, only 43,782 men were able to cast
votes for Presidential electors, out of a total American population of nearly four
million.
Fewer than that. Almost all the states had their legislatures choose the electors back
then.
Regarding your last observation, Observator, the fact that the right to vote has become
nearly universal for all adults, has made the country's dire situation and short and
long-term outlook much worse. Too bad we can't go back to the days when only well-educated
male property owners could vote and hold office. Too much democracy contains within it the
seeds of its own destruction, which we are witnessing in spades today.
I would strongly recommend that voters go to the Biden/Harris website and read their tax
plan.
Does everybody realize that if you read the Biden tax plan and go to pages in the 40s 50s
and 60s, you will find that he has a plan to tax you on your house at 3% of its value. This
is above and beyond your property taxes you pay now.
Plus, families making $50k or more, your taxes will go up $7,800 over a 10 year period.
Plus, the loss of $750 a year from the repealing of the Trump middle class tax cuts.
They also want to tax your 401(k) IRA's. Do people realize that until 1983 you paid no
taxes on Social Security but Biden put up the bill and sponsored it to tax Social Security at
50% AND then raised it to 80%. A man of the people. Is this what you want to happen?
Really?
Needless to say, if Kolanovic's assumption is accurate, the change in voter registration
data shown above would immediately invalidate all polls such as this one from Real Clear
Politics showing Biden sweeping across
the Battleground states . In fact, while he does not say it, the implication from the
Kolanovic analysis is that Trump may well end up winning the critical trio of Pennsylvania
(20 Electoral votes), Florida (29 votes) and North Carolina (15 votes).
DuneCreature , 13 hours ago
AI has this clown circus erection movie all planned out.
Scene by scene.
The plot is set as a 'cliff hanger'.
AI has several alternate endings.
While everyone is watching the show with bated breath The Banksters are hauling off
everything in the house. .. Except the wide screen TV. .. That will be hauled off last.
Live Hard, This Isn't An Election, It's An AI Run Scam With 'Special Effects' And A Big
Ugly Cast Of Bad (But Skillful) Actors, Die Seeing My Doctor Because My Election And My
Fascination With It Has Lasted Way Too Long To Be Very Healthy
He forgot to mention Trump University as a shining example of Trump morality. Both men are
are crooks. One of corrupt neoliberal politician who is the worst type of crooks, the person who
is on same small moral level as child molesters.
Notable quotes:
"... How The Bidens Earned $16.7 Million After Leaving The White House, ..."
"... Barack and Michelle Obama net worth 2020, ..."
Even setting all that aside, though, being a U.S. Senator for 36 years and then a Vice
President for eight can be mighty remunerative. You don't have to be sensationally crooked: A
U.S. Senator has enormous influence, a Vice President even more, and the money will come
looking for you.
Forbes has the details of Biden's post-Vice-Presidential income growth:
Absent the principled restraint of a Truman or a Menzies you just have to sit back and let
the gifts, the fees, the favors, the "contributions," the stock options roll in. (Barack and
Michelle Obama's net worth is estimated at $40 million -- each! [
Barack and Michelle Obama net worth 2020, by Margaret Abrams, London Evening
Standard, February 19, 2020.])
So comparing these two guys, there is a strong moral case in favor of Trump.
Lol, giving praise to a Slimeball who screw his siblings, with business skills "so great"
that he had to file bankruptcy several times to screw the banks (for a change). No guts to
show his tax returns because everybody would see what he really is, a complete sham.
No US bank would deal with him and he had to find some stupid foreign bank like Deutche Bank
to screw.
No wonder the US is so so so screwed. What a joke. Dozens of third world countries that Trump
like to call " sh ** hole countries " are leaving US in the dust, when it comes to choice of
leaders. Fact is, this so called Beacon of Democracy is long dead, only a name remains. If US
wanna prove to the world that it still stands for equality before the law, have him tried and
jail after he loses the election.
So trump is superior to biden because he is a corrupt capitalist, while biden is a corrupt
politician? Got news for the israeli prostitute writing this likudite toss. BOTH TRUMP AND
BIrEN ARE CORRUPT TO THE MAX AND TRAITORS, AS WELL. EQUALLY. Put that in your pipe and smoke
it, israeli.
Of all the efforts to boost Trump, this one appears to be the closest to a joke. Only the
braindead can believe in Trump's morality or that he's a self-made man. Both Biden and Trump
are rotten to the core. US presidential elections are never about who's morally better,
they're always about who's the lesser evil and their only purpose is to continue the
legitimacy of evil.
@Peter Akuleyev billionaire and he took the presidency right from under the Democrat's
entitled noses. Regardless of whether he's a good man or not, he pulled the covers off a
heinously corrupt, hostile culture of subversion present within the American left and has
inoculated millions of Americans to their effects. The left cannot work any further in the
shadows, the alphabet organizations are known to be untrustworthy, self-serving cunts and
normal people are now aware of Epstein after years of Alex Jones yelling into space about
him.
And beyond that, the man's a hero for stymieing the Zionist takeover of the middle east
which the last 20+ years of presidencies have enabled. Greater Israel isn't getting Syria
while Trump is president.
If you can make any kind of appeal from personal morality, that's a big plus.
Trump can -- but he doesn't, I don't know why.
It's way outside his wheelhouse, that's why. Unfortunately, so are many other things even
more germane to governing, not to mention running for office. He got lucky in 2016 because
Hillary Clinton was even more of a horror show than Biden and Harris combined. We'll see what
happens this time–all too soon. The Forces of Reaction are particularly well-focused
though.
Don't mistake me. It's not like Trump losing will be good for America. The Democrats
already have their plans in place for cementing their rule as a permanent, single-party
dictatorship. I've been working on a list of expected results and if anyone wants to add
items I'd be grateful for ideas.
Trump tries a lot of things so he naturally fails at a lot of things, but he doesn't fail
at everything . Plenty of stories of successful men like that.
I agree with Derb's point. Trump leaves a lot of red meat on the table. He should have a
ready-made death blow for every subject, gotcha question and accusation that comes up, but he
seems to be too impatient and undisciplined to more fully prepare himself. He also goes off
on petty tangents now and then. I surely admire his energy, though. He's fat and old enough
to be my father, but there's no way I could keep up with him. He had Covid for all of five
minutes.
@Peter Akuleyev ess person could come back from bankruptcy. Trump's lawyer–son of
an Orthodox rabbi Friedman who is now the Ambassador to Israel– drove a coach and
horses through the newly lenient bankruptcy laws, enabling Trump to bilk his creditors like
he always had his contractors (by saying 'the project will collapse and you'll get unless you
agree to be satisfied with less that the originally stipulated amount).
Wall Street distrusted Trump as a result of his repeated rising like a financial phoenix
from the financial ashes of tactical bankruptcies, so he paid a price in the denial of his
access to new capital, which may have had an underappreciated effect on his thinking. He is a
renegade and a traitor to his class, but not to his country.
The U.S.A., as every foreigner notices, is an intensely moralistic nation. If you can
make any kind of appeal from personal morality, that's a big plus.
Trump can -- but he doesn't, I don't know why.
My impression is, that Donald Trump does not understand this kind of subject at all.
– And that that hangs loosely together with the – I can't resist, sorry –
huge (I hear him right in my ear now ) – with the huge fact, that he
indeed, as you pointed rightfully out above, did make his money in business and that he is a
businessman throughout. He is basically a utilitarian – and utilitarians act as if
– morals and ethics, etc. would not be necessary really, not in the first place, for
sure.
@Peter Akuleyev unny in a obscene way to see Trump's most exuberant fans foist upon him
the mantra "Drain the swamp!" What is he to do but run with it? The difference between the
careerist swamp creature Biden and the outsider Trump is that while the one is highly
corruptible the other is downright corrupt. If the social virtues of integrity, honesty,
empathy, courage, politeness, magnanimity and so forth may be said to make the building
blocks of high social organization and flourishing, the embodiment of antisocial forces of
social decay – dishonesty, envy, greed, insecurity – would seem foolish to hold
up as lead representative of some movement of revitalization. Better to be in the wilderness
with leaders of some earnestness and vision than in the palace with Commodus.
Trump Organization is still standing. In a business based on real estate that is actually
quite a feat. Blame the bankers if you want for both Trump's successes and failures. But it
is still survival unlike Biden's pay to play game. Although calling it "Biden's" is a
misnomer, the political lifers all play that game. Grooming your sons to be your grift's
prostitutes might be unique, but unfortunately at this point I doubt that.
This argument holds no water. Trump allowed the entire economy to be shut down over
scientific fraud, which was the worst business decision made in world history. Biden is the
same. Both candidates are economic terrorists and economic hitmen. The facts prove it.
Ignoring the specifics of Trump and Biden, the issue that there is a moral distinction
between making money in business and making money in politics is totally absurd, because
these are today the same thing!
Most modern wealthy people do NOT make their money competitive industries: they basically
get it by stealing from the public treasury. Tens of trillions in Wall Street bailouts and
ongoing subsidies, trillions in endless pointless winless wars that serve only to enrich
politically connected defense contractors, "public-private partnerships" where the public
puts up the money and takes the risk, and the "private" rich get guaranteed profits no matter
how it turns out The robber-barons of the 19th century at least built things, and had to
compete, the modern rich are just welfare queens on a vast scale.
But the rich only get away with this because they have bribed politicians like Joe Biden
to let them! So both "businessmen" and "politicians" are morally the same thing.
@Anon ound it's young, white 20 something conservative males who are seeing their future
destroyed before their eyes. Seeing Americans walking around with what amounts to respiratory
diapers on their face is disgusting, pathetic and embarrassing. The elderly, who for the most
part have overall lived the peak American dream, are living in hysteria and fear. The boomers
in America are confirmed now as some of the most selfish, self absorbed, and enfranchised
generations ever. To blame the covid deaths on Trump is the most stupid and intellectually
dishonest argument in this whole election narrative. Dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery
you want to wear a worthless diaper on your face fine .don't force tyranny on the rest of us!
The worst thing to do is give the Democrats a supermajority.
Not voting would have turned the US into California.
They would raise taxes even higher and they would also ban most guns instead of facing the
harsh truth of Black crime. California has some of the highest taxes and yet they still blame
their education failures on Whites for not paying enough.
Both parties are in fact evil but giving one side complete control is a very bad idea.
That is what not voting would do. The Democrats can always get the votes of people that are
desperate. One reason I don't like US style conservatism is because it really doesn't have a
plan to help the working poor and this plays into the hands of Democrats
Maybe it's a form of Gresham's Law. How long could you work with sociopathic liars like
Schiff and Schumer while other sociopaths in the media report that you are the real
sociopathic liar? How long would you want to?
Plus, a serious statesman would discuss trade-offs and the American voter isn't good with
trade-offs.
Leftism, no matter what you call it, has always been dysgenic and always will be. It is a
"philosophy" embraced by those unable to surrender their dream for an impossible to achieve
perfect world for an imperfect and achievable good one.
"... Douglas MacKinnon was a writer in the White House for former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and former special assistant for policy and communication at the Pentagon during the last three years of the Bush administration. He is the author of " The Dawn of a Nazi Moon: Book One ." ..."
Weeks before the 2016 election, I sent an email to several media and political personalities
predicting that Donald
Trump would win Pennsylvania and get 306 electoral votes .
I'm not a professional pollster, but I did work on three winning presidential campaigns, and
I simply tried to block out the noise from supporters of both the Trump and Hillary Clinton campaigns. I pulled up
the 2012 electoral map to
see which states Mitt
Romney won and then, factoring in the latest data and political miscalculations, made an
educated guess for 2016.
Using that same system, I have come up with a prediction for 2020: an absolute floor of 278
electoral votes for Trump, with a real chance that he'll win more than 310 electoral votes.
That may upset Joe Biden 's
supporters and the Trump haters, but hopefully some of those who oppose Trump will ask
themselves if this is a possibility and, if so, why it would happen -- again.
It is not an exaggeration to state that much of the mainstream media, academia,
entertainment, medicine and science, Big Tech, the "deep state," the Never Trumpers, the
Democratic Party, and other entrenched establishment elites have joined forces to defeat Trump.
Of course, they have a right to oppose the president on any grounds. But they should stop to
consider what they themselves might represent to many Americans who struggle to pay bills, feed
their children and, in some cases, simply survive.
To those Americans, those who adamantly oppose the president -- Democrats or Republicans --
look like the power center that has ruled over them for decades and made their lives miserable.
These elites typically preach, "Do as I say, not as I do." They're rarely subject to the rules
and dictates that they hand down. They have an "inside track" because they hold the keys to a
club that's off limits to the average American.
For anyone who can do the math, the main answer to why Trump won in 2016 -- and why I
believe he will win again on Nov. 3 -- should be blindingly obvious: Trump went out of his way
to expose those elites to the American people as the very problem making their lives
exponentially worse. He convinced enough voters that he is not one of those "ivory tower
elites" and can't be bought by their special interests.
As was proved to varying degrees with the last presidential election, many Americans bought
into Trump's narrative regarding liberal elites. That's not surprising; human nature dictates
that most people tend not to take the advice of those they view as the ones putting them down
and keeping them down.
With the coronavirus pandemic, this year has been surreal -- and painful -- in so many ways
for most Americans. There's no question those issues will play a key role in the election. The
virus has touched everyone, and its economic effects have been especially devastating to the
working class. Trump, now a COVID-19 survivor, has made it clear that, in general, he
opposes perpetual lockdowns to deal with the virus.
After the government of Ireland issued a truly punishing
new lockdown in that country, one person summed up the collective hopelessness in a tweet :
"The sense of devastation and despair this has created is like nothing I have ever experienced.
They have stripped us of everything that gave us joy. Every social outlet, every relief, has
been made illegal."
While the left may not realize it, Trump knows there are millions of Americans who agree
with that sentiment. They believe that the handling of this virus has been politicized and that
some state restrictions have robbed them of their
joys .
If it is fair to hear voices arguing for continual lockdowns, then it should be equally fair
to hear the voices arguing against them -- especially if some of them are medical experts . Unfortunately, many Americans
fear that science and medicine have become politicized as well. As proof, they cite that
certain medical experts who argue against wearing face masks and imposing lockdowns are ignored
by the mainstream media and censored by Big Tech.
Honest opinions, based upon research, can be debated but should not be silenced. Silenced
debate is the opposite of honest science and medicine. Trump is counting on enough voters
buying into that argument as well.
And while the virus may be the main issue of 2020, it is far from the only issue. Many
Americans have very real concerns about the economy, crime, policing, home schooling and other
issues -- including those related to the presidential campaign itself, such as Biden's
avoidance of hard questions and apparent reluctance to hit the campaign trail.
So while some members of the media, academia, entertainment, medicine and science, Big Tech,
the deep state, Never Trumpers, the Democratic Party, and various entrenched establishment
elites do have the right to join forces to try to defeat Trump, they probably fail to see
themselves as millions of American voters do: namely, that they're the problem.
Douglas MacKinnon was a writer in the White House for former Presidents Ronald Reagan
and George H.W. Bush and former special assistant for policy and communication at the Pentagon
during the last three years of the Bush administration. He is the author of " The Dawn of a Nazi
Moon: Book One ."
The tripartite system of government, devised by our founding "parents" 230+ years ago, has
broken down into endless partisan fighting. What's happening in today's politics is more akin
to what goes on in the parliamentary system where politicians are always at each others
throats. Bipartisanship is not natural to politics.
The presidency is an unwieldy office. It was devised as a democratically elected king with
extraordinary powers. It should be broken up into 2 parts. Neither Trump nor Biden measure up
to the job.
The USA is run by a 2 party duopoly controlled by special interests. It is a
corruption.
"... We, in Russia, went through a fairly long period where foreign funds were very much the main source for creating and financing non-governmental organisations. Of course, not all of them pursued self-serving or bad goals, or wanted to destabilise the situation in our country, interfere in our domestic affairs, or influence Russia's domestic and, sometimes, foreign policy in their own interests. Of course not. ..."
Genuine democracy and civil society cannot be "imported." I have said so many times. They
cannot be a product of the activities of foreign "well-wishers," even if they "want the best
for us." In theory, this is probably possible. But, frankly, I have not yet seen such a thing
and do not believe much in it. We see how such imported democracy models function. They are
nothing more than a shell or a front with nothing behind them, even a semblance of sovereignty.
People in the countries where such schemes have been implemented were never asked for their
opinion, and their respective leaders are mere vassals. As is known, the overlord decides
everything for the vassal. To reiterate, only the citizens of a particular country can
determine their public interest.
We, in Russia, went through a fairly long period where foreign funds were very much the
main source for creating and financing non-governmental organisations. Of course, not all of
them pursued self-serving or bad goals, or wanted to destabilise the situation in our country,
interfere in our domestic affairs, or influence Russia's domestic and, sometimes, foreign
policy in their own interests. Of course not.
There were sincere enthusiasts among independent civic organisations (they do exist), to
whom we are undoubtedly grateful. But even so, they mostly remained strangers and ultimately
reflected the views and interests of their foreign trustees rather than the Russian citizens.
In a word, they were a tool with all the ensuing consequences.
A strong, free and independent civil society is nationally oriented and sovereign by
definition. It grows from the depth of people's lives and can take different forms and
directions. But it is a cultural phenomenon, a tradition of a particular country, not the
product of some abstract "transnational mind" with other people's interests behind it.
A far more civil debate saw Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden make multiple
unforced errors, doubling down on 'Russiagate' and the Obama administration policies that
President Donald Trump got elected by criticizing.
Thursday night's second and last presidential debate in Tennessee went far more smoothly
than the previous one. There was still plenty of emotional manipulation to go around, however.
On at least three occasions, Biden changed the subject to start waxing worried about American
families and how they were coping with the pandemic, economy, health insurance and so on. No
doubt, these were focus-grouped by the best political consultants, but those are bold words
coming from someone who spent almost half a century in the corridors of power.
Trump would not let Biden forget that, either, repeatedly hammering Barack Obama's
vice-president for having years to implement all these hopes and dreams he was promising, but
failing to do so. When confronted with his record, Biden's excuse was "we made
mistakes."
"Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake," says a maxim attributed to
Napoleon Bonaparte. Over the course of the night, Biden made several.
Masks and Covid-19
shutdowns
Biden's first blunder was to admit he would shut down the country due to the Covid-19
pandemic, however much he tried to qualify it. Democrats have blamed Trump personally for every
single coronavirus death, but Biden's plan to deal with the virus amounted to what the Trump
administration was doing now, only with national mask mandates, lockdowns, and throwing money
at the problem.
Circling back to coronavirus relief later in the night – and trying to make it about
race – Welker blamed the president for the inaction of Congress. Trump used the
opportunity to argue that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) has been holding up the
aid. When Biden claimed that Pelosi's HEROES Act is just waiting for Trump's approval, Trump
countered that it was a partisan "bailout" that would reward Democrats for lockdowns and
rob US taxpayers to pay illegal immigrants, among other things.
Promise of amnesty
Biden's response? When immigration was brought up, he promised amnesty and "path to
citizenship" to 11 million illegal immigrants within the first 100 days of his
administration, the very issue Trump ran against in 2016!
Under fire by Trump about his role in the 1994 crime bill – another "mistake"
– Biden made an emotional argument for decriminalizing drug abuse and abolishing
"minimum mandatories" (that is, mandatory minimums) in sentencing.
We should fundamentally change the system, and that's what we're going to do.
No doubt the Democrats will scramble to "clarify" what Biden must have really
meant by that, just as they did when he told an activist back in July he was "absolutely" in
favor of redirecting funding away from police.
Green New Deal
Leaning into "climate change, global warming" as "an existential threat to
humanity," Biden again pitched a program of creating millions of jobs by retrofitting the
US to green energy – including net zero carbon emissions by 2025 or 2035, he wasn't
exactly sure himself.
Trump called it the "Green New Deal" in all but name and mocked the idea of
rebuilding millions of homes with "tiny, small windows, crazy!"
Biden then literally committed to eliminating the oil industry, throwing out all his
previous careful equivocating on the subject.
"I would transition from the oil industry, yes. Because the oil industry pollutes,
significantly," he said. "It has to be replaced with renewable energy, over
time."
Perhaps the worst blunder was Biden insisting that "the character of the country is on
the ballot." In his universe, informed by mainstream media coverage, Trump is the Bad
Orange Man that can do no right and he is the one to restore "decency" to America.
"He called Mexican rapists, banned Muslims because they're Muslims," Biden insisted
at one point. He also said Russia was "paying bounties to kill American soldiers in
Afghanistan." None of that is true.
At least he didn't repeat the "fine people" lie this time, though he fumbled around
with 'Poor Boys' (presumably the "Proud Boys" ) and called Trump "a dog whistle about
as big as a foghorn."
Making this about character, however, allowed Trump to bring up Biden's son Hunter and his
shady business dealings overseas – a scandal the mainstream media has worked overtime to
suppress. Biden's response was to claim Hunter did nothing wrong, citing media reports,
impeachment witnesses and "50 former national intelligence folks" who "said this is a
Russian plant."
"You mean the laptop is another Russia-Russia-Russia?" Trump asked, having brought up
the 'Russiagate' hoax earlier in
the evening as an example of how his campaign and presidency were unfairly targeted by
Democrats.
"That's exactly –" Biden started saying, as Trump cut him off with "Here we
go again with Russia!"
Trump has the uncanny ability to force people's true opinions and feelings out in the open.
And so, months of Biden's carefully worded statements and cagey qualifiers simply vanished on
Thursday evening, and he told America how he really feels.
That's actually understandable, considering that Biden is trying to ride the coattails of
Barack Obama, four years after the fact. He kept doubling down on the policies from when he was
VP, as if Americans are solidly behind them and Trump's 2016 election was a glitch that
shouldn't have happened.
Biden, the Democratic Party and the mainstream media may believe that now, but within two
years of Obama's election Americans had elected a Republican Congress, and Trump came out of
nowhere to defeat two powerful political dynasties – the Bushes and the Clintons –
campaigning against Obama's legacy.
Trump even told Biden at one point that the only reason he got involved in politics was
"because of you." Biden didn't get it. And thereby hangs a tale.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Nebojsa Malic
is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for
Antiwar.com from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Twitter @NebojsaMalic
Of course, we have seen the Trump people try to push new stuff on the Hunter Biden case
and Burisma, with last Wednesday's New York Post story about his supposed laptop.
He actually does not need to do this. Biden shady dealings with Ukraine and China are
proven for whose who are interested in politics and understand a little bit Ukraine.
Both candidates are subservient to oligarchs. It's just two slightly different group of
oligarchs. So it is important to understand to which group of oligarchs they are
subservient.
Trump is probably more subservient to Zionist lobby and old money.
Biden, probably is more subservient to financial oligarchy in general (as his nickname
"Senator from MBNA" implies ) much like Clinton wing of Dems in general, and is somehow
allied with Silicon Valley tech billionaires and media moguls (who I think run the neoliberal
Dems as much as Wall Street.)
Both are equally subservient to MIC with Dems being now the second "war party" (Vichy
left) with a large part of the Dem brass allied with the political wing of intelligence
agencies (CIA-democrats) . As in classic Senator Schumer quote: Intelligence Agencies 'Have
Six Ways From Sunday Of Getting Back At You'
Biden is a classic neoliberal and supports neoliberal globalization. Trump is more of a
"national neoliberal," while promoting neoliberalism within the USA (his tax bill is the most
egregious example) he is hostile to "Clinton-style" neoliberal globalization, unless it is
clearly plays into the hands of the USA.
Like Stalin said on a different occasion: "Both are worse," but to me Biden is preferable
as the danger of nuclear war would probably slightly diminish, if he is elected. And he might
extend the Start treaty. That's why for this election I am firmly in "Anybody but Trump"
camp.
But we should have no illusions, as for the level of their personal corruption and whom
they really represent.
The polarization has worked wonderfully on the minds of the sheep. People are so anti
Biden that they must now be pro Trump. Don't try to tell them what Israel is ... and that
Trump is their pawn. It only makes them psychotic.
ponyboy96 , 2 hours ago
Doesn't mean a thing. The average biden supporter will never even hear about it. When i
talk to liberals and they go on their rants, I'm just stunned. Like are we even watching the
same thing?
The riots are an example, no that was trump supporters doing that... what? Really?
Trump supporters are dividing this country and attacking people... no, that is your
side.
There's video after video showing that. What is wrong with these people that they just
can't see reality staring them in the face?
williambanzai7 , 2 hours ago
The average Biden supporter wouldn't care even if they heard about it. In fact the same
goes for your typical libtarded Democrat. He/sh/it profess to not care at all about anything
except what they think they know best about. And as long as they can shovel it down everyone
else's throat they are happy. And that is why I don't give a flying f*%k about any of their
sacred issues. They can go f*#k themselves silly.
FreedomWriter , 22 minutes ago
TBH, there maybe about 40% of the electorate that could still vote Biden, even if he shot
somebody on live television.
However, these Dems are facing a highly motivated, enthusiastic Trump base, with a large
number of their own disgusted, recently-woke democrats who held their nose when they voted
Hillary and just won't be able to vote Joe. These include many blue-collar workers, blacks
and hispanics.
These folks will either Vote independent, Trump or not at all. Only .gov workers, grifting
billionaires, green crony capitalists and a few tech oligarchs can see much future in a
Harris-Biden presidency.
The only way Biden will even make a showing is via massive fraud (which is already
rampant) and by holding onto what is left of that deluded, Demonrat base (who may not even
vote).
But given that these folks can't even show up for a Biden rally (although a riot is fine),
I really don't think Joe has a chance in hell.
Tonight's debate and the upcoming tell-alls from the Biden laptop should be the coups de
grace.
October Surprise (running out of time on that one)? Preparation in some form for civil
unrest after the election? Collecting internet chatter from home WiFi routers?
The ACLU is already on it, complaining in a lawsuit – filed on behalf of a protester
with a very Russian-sounding name – that the military is using low-flying helicopters
and 'rotor wash' to intimidate and harass protesters.
I daresay Trump is prepared for insurrection if he wins another term – the Democrats
have been fertilizing the discourse with allegations that Trump has said he will not leave
the White House if he loses the election, preparing the American people for the
torches-and-pitchforks march to cast out the interloper. I believe Trump has expressed
concerns that the mail-in vote will be used to steal the election, but so far as I am aware
he has never said he will not leave the White House if he has demonstrably lost. Why would
he? It's a fucking horrible job, and he's rich – it's not like he needs the money.
I honestly don't think Biden has a hope, and I personally think the Democratic strategists
are worried as well. That's why they are preparing something unprecedented in America –
a colour revolution to depose a sitting president.
he [Trump] has never said he will not leave the White House if he has demonstrably
lost. Why would he? It's a fucking horrible job, and he's rich
It seems up for discussion if he really is rich. I get the feeling he is more of financial
juggler than a rich man and he may have one too many balls in the air.
Once he is no longer President he loses his legal immunity at the Federal level plus it
becomes easier for state attorneys general, such as Cyrus Vance Jr of New York to press
charges at the state level.
He could be in for a world of hurt once he is back to being a private citizen.
If Trump loses the election, and New York state turns out solidly Democrat, he may
relocate to Florida or another state that consistently votes Republican. States with
Republican legislatures and governors might be less likely to press any charges of
mishandling the COVID-19 pandemic or anything else he has not done well or has done badly
against him.
Most of what he has supposedly done according to the MSM such as colluding with Moscow has
never been decisively proved to have occurred.
I understand that the running of his businesses was turned over to Donald Trump Jr and
Eric Trump and if DJT senior has anything to fear, he may leave the management of Trump
Corporation and its offshoot businesses to his sons and take up a "consultancy" role with the
corporation, with a regular salary (that may mask other arrangements agreed on a handshake, a
wink and a nod) and a roof (a very long and wide one and several tens of floors off the
ground perhaps) over his head. DJT is likely to know that trailer loads of shit are in store
to be flung at him once he leaves the Presidency and he may already be preparing for them. Do
not be surprised if all of a sudden he decides to disappear of his own volition.
The Democrats can't hurt him too much or they would risk being called hypocrites even
within their own circles. Even they have to look into the mirror first thing in the morning,
however late that is. The New York Times and Washington Post can only protect the Dems so
much before they start losing subscribers.
Judging from comment ZH audience does not like Critical Race theory one bit :-). Does this
mean Trump 2020-2024?
It is also clear that the tide of white public opinion that's to BLM and Critical Race Theory
turned against the blacks and turned drastically. In a way founders of BLM did a very bad service
to community. It proved to be extremely divisive for the country.
Schools that teach " white privilege " as fact are breaking
the law , the equalities
minister has told MPs.
MP Kemi Badenoch said the underpinning ideology of critical race theory "sees my blackness
as victimhood and their whiteness as oppression."
"This government stands unequivocally against critical race theory," she
told MPs during a debate on Oct. 20 in which Labour MP Dawn Butler had called for the
curriculum to be "decolonised."
https://www.youtube.com/embed/KtXshJDqJOw
Badenoch, MP for Saffron Waldon and also minister for equalities, said the rise of
critical race theory was a "dangerous trend in race relations."
"We do not want to see teachers teaching their white pupils about white privilege and
inherited racial guilt," she said.
"Any school which teaches these elements of critical race theory or which promotes
partisan political views such as defunding the police, without offering a balanced
treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law."
The defunding of police has been a demand of many key members and supporters of Black
Lives Matter.
"Some schools have
decided to openly support the anti-capitalist Black Lives Matter group, often fully aware
that they have a statutory duty to be politically impartial," said Badenoch. "Black lives
do matter -- of course they do. But we know that the Black Lives Matter movement, capital
B, L, M, is political."
Some Black Lives Matter leaders and groups, including the UKBLM group, are explicitly anti-capitalist.
"What we are against is the teaching of contested political ideas as if they are
accepted facts," said Badendoch.
"We don't do this with communism. We don't do this with socialism. We don't do it with
capitalism."
'Not America'
Badendoch also warned against importing the rhetoric on race from America.
" Our history of race is not America's history of race. Most black British people who
have come to our shores were not brought here in chains, but came voluntarily due to their
connections to the UK and in search of a better life. I should know. I am one of them.
"We have our own joys and stories to tell. From the Windrush generation to the Somali
diaspora, it is a story that is uniquely ours."
During the debate on education and race, MP Dawn Butler had earlier called for the
curriculum to be "decolonised," saying that "history is taught to make one group of people
feel inferior and another group of people feel superior."
Former Windrush passengers and members of the RAF Donald Clarke, George Mason, Sam King
MBE, and Allan Wilmot in the Imperial War Museum in London on June 12, 2008. (Cate
Gillon/Getty Images)
But Badenoch said the curriculum did not need decolonising for "the simple reason that it
is not colonised," adding, "We should not apologise for the fact that British children
primarily study the history of these islands."
In the United States, the Trump administration recently
banned agencies or contractors from "conducting training that promotes race stereotyping,
for example, by portraying certain races as oppressors by virtue of their birth."
"This ideology is rooted in the pernicious and false belief that America is an
irredeemably racist and sexist country; that some people, simply on account of their race
or sex, are oppressors; and that racial and sexual identities are more important than our
common status as human beings and Americans," Trump wrote, later calling the ideology
"divisive."
The UK government last month issued guidance
which says schools should not use resources "produced by organisations that take extreme
political stances on matters."
Examples of unacceptable stances include "a publicly stated desire to abolish or overthrow
democracy, capitalism, or to end free and fair elections," as well as opposition to free
speech or the use of racist or anti-Semitic language. Materials "promoting divisive or victim
narratives that are harmful to British society," were also included as an example.
Lt. Frank Drebin , 1 hour ago
A rare example in these surreal times. I salute you ma'am.
Nothing , 36 minutes ago
Not that rare. Ive heard numbers of blacks and latinos speak out like this. But these
voices are systematically suppressed by Google, by Facebook, and also by the blocking of
peaceable assemblages and by simple conversation with strangers without being muzzled with
the excuse given of coronaphobia.....
Dickweed Wang , 1 hour ago
If all races are so equal why is it that when Europeans first went to the African
continent the people there were not using the wheel?
Yippie21 , 1 hour ago
Now do American Indians; same
CriswellSpeaks , 1 hour ago
If whites are superior to blacks then why didn't the white race completely supplant the
black race in Africa? Short answer, same reason the black race never built any great cities
in Africa, tropical diseases. Geography is destiny and being located at the equator,
tropical diseases have prevented black Africans from creating any great civilizations until
the present era. When the whites of S. Africa attempted to migrate north much past Rhodesia
they were stopped dead in their tracks(literally) by tropical diseases. Imagine what a
society would look like if it got hammered by the Black Death every century and you have
black Africa.
DeathMerchant , 1 hour ago
********! There was no enviromental incentive to progress in equatorial regions. No need
for warmth, food or advanced tools to progress beyond ability to provide basic necessities
which were available to them year round. Compare that to the northern climes which had
minimal seasonal opportunities to provide those things and the development of capability to
cope with such.
CriswellSpeaks , 1 hour ago
Critical Race Theory is a form of back handed racism directed at minorities. According
to CRT, as a white person I possess this magical power to oppress all black people that I
was born with. No matter what black people do, they are powerless is the face of my absence
of skin pigmentation. Seriously, if you do a little digging into the founders of CRT you
will probably find the law firms/lawyers/political lobbyists who were responsible in the
1960's for opposing the abolition of Jim Crow laws. After they lost to color blindness and
integration, they infiltrated the Communists, claimed racial harmony was preventing a
Marxist revolution and had to be reversed for it to happen. CRT would drag race relations
back to the post civil war era.
PCShibai , 32 minutes ago
Ask yourself this, " if ' white privilege ' is the real reason
why blacks cannot get ahead in the US, then why aren't blacks successful in all the other
black-lead nations on the planet?" I mean...... there's ZERO history of ' white privilege '
keeping down Uganda, or the Congo, or ANY other black-lead nation...... and yet they are
all failing their people miserably and have ALWAYS failed their people miserably!
WHAT DO ALL THOSE BLACK NATIONS BLAME " THEIR " CONTINUOUS FAILURE ON? The
Samoans???
" White
privilege " is the CRUTCH that is used by the black race for their own failures.
Failure to maintain a family that raises children properly, failure to insist that their
children are properly educated, failure to integrate into the successes of the surrounding
culture, failure to accept the fundamentals that make people economically successful.
Until they eliminate the CRUTCH and accept their responsibility for their own success
& their own failures, they will continue to be the one failed culture throughout the
entire world!
cvp , 9 minutes ago
I do not disagree with the point your making; I would like to add, the people who
migrate from the African continent to the United States are some of the happiest people
I've met and worked with in my life. They are not interested in what BLM is selling! Jus
say'n...
5onIt , 40 minutes ago
None of the black people in this country were brought here in chains either. They are
free to leave whenever they damn well please.
greatdisconformity , 30 minutes ago
The institution of slavery gave black lives a value they did not otherwise have in
Africa.
Africans simply sold the losers of tribal wars, or their own slaves, to the coastal
markets.
It was either the auction block, or the killing fields.
I do not feel any guilt at all.
Without slavery, these people would not exist in any form; here or with descendants in
Africa.
They owe their existence in its most fundamental form to slavery.
They should be glad.
Whitey is being played. Big time.
Spetzco , 19 minutes ago
Especially as most of the major slave traders in Africa were BLACK themselves.
greatdisconformity , 35 minutes ago
The language of Critical Race Theory is the language of Genocide.
Historically, when an ethnic group is singled out for a savage take-down like Critical
Race Theory, it has been a prelude and pretext for mass killings.
Of course, this time things will be different.
Shifter_X , 14 minutes ago
It's the same playbook the Boshies Nazis and Maoists used. Yes, genocide and wiping out
history, that's their specialty.
St. TwinkleToes , 1 hour ago
When you're a race hustler filled with the dripping hatred of Whitey, and all you have
going in life are endless victim grievance bs regurgitated to get a head in life, it all
makes sense. It's not enough that Blacks have their own BET, endless Black This & Black
That Awards, staring roles in most all feature films, Two term POTUS, no, they want it all.
They want Whitey to live in imaginary Black World Wakanda as indentured Servants as
reparations for slavery 150 years ago. They want to drag us in chains down roads of endless
Persecution until we are no more.
Phuc Critical Race Theory, and Phuc Black Lives Matter.
SunsteintheSodomite , 58 minutes ago
Rhodesia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa showed the world that you can build a complete
NATION with infrastructure, economic supply routes, trade deals, agriculture, technology,
EVERYTHING...
...then drop off the keys and an instruction manual...
...and within 5-10 years it will be beyond repair.
Throughout their history, blacks have had only one route to civilization:
Follow WHITEY.
Rest Easy , 23 minutes ago
And van jones has the nerve to say white people have a virus. Maybe so van. We are too
nice.
Is there a US city and unfortunate surrounding suburbs that has a large percentage of
black persons not causing havoc? Ruin. Just generally weird stupid bs. Morning noon and
night. Tip toeing through the daisies trying to keep the young black kids fun down to a
dull roar. If you are "lucky". Get a little uppity and the klan with a tan comes a
knocking. Sometimes just being white around black Nazis is more than sufficient.
At least teach students about what happened in Rwanda.
play_arrow
Misean , 4 minutes ago
Or Rhodesia, the bread basket of Africa.
After changing it's name to Zimbabwe, the black rulers have reduced the nation to abject
poverty. From feeding much of sub Saharan Africa, the nation now depends on massive food
imports, most of which is given by western nations at great expense.
The population of productive whites and blacks have either left or been killed by roving
bands of bandits. The bandits "reclaimed" commercial farms at gun point, took girls as
slaves killed all makes, and raped then murdered the women.
Having no clue how commercial farming works, but assured by their leaders that
traditional African farming was superior, they sold the farm equipment to smarter thugs,
for dimes on the dollar (the buyers exported the equipment to better run countries, for
sizable profits, this depleting the country of the farm capital necessary to turn things
around).
The farm bandits, with stone age farming techniques, destroyed the soil quickly. Most of
the fertile top soil has washed away, what's left is exhausted.
nsurf9 , 1 hour ago
The only "privileged" our country is suffering under - is not already ending the
Affirmative Action Act of 1986. It had it place 25 years ago. Now, it is nothing more than
a prima facie Government sanctioned systematic discrimination against Caucasians - that's
now well past being justified by any stretch of a "compelling state interest" argument.
If you are being wrongfully discriminated, you have the Equal Protection Clause of the
14th Amendment and State law to pursue your claim - like the rest of us.
SmokingArgus , 25 minutes ago
If you have a "Minister of Equalities" you've already lost.
Shifter_X , 1 hour ago
"" Our history of race is not America's history of race. Most black British people who
have come to our shores were not brought here in chains, but came voluntarily due to their
connections to the UK and in search of a better life. I should know. I am one of them"
What a steaming pile of ********.
The settlers who came to America in 1560 (not 1619 as the fictitious farcical revised
"history" claims) and thereafter brought their slaves WITH THEM FROM THE UK
The UK was happy to pass the slave trade on to the colonies.
But make no mistake, the UK was up to its *** in slavery well before the colonies were
even formed.
DieSocialJusticeWankers , 1 hour ago
A Biden win and there will be affirmative action and CRTheory on steroids. The USA will
die for young white people. Vote Trump white people, or you're fkkkkked!
1. As recently as June of 2019, Biden praised the "civility" of the segregationist
senators he worked with in Congress to pass anti-busing legislation.
2. Biden praised the notorious segregationist politician George Wallace, boasted about
how Wallace once honored him with an award in 1973, and told a Southern audience in 1987
that "we [Delawareans] were on the South's side in the Civil War."
3. Biden opposed busing in the 1970s and expressed fears that it would lead to a "racial
jungle."
4. Biden voted to protect the tax-exempt status of private segregated schools.
5. Biden told black radio host Charlamagne tha God, "If you have a problem figuring out
whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."
6. Biden told the Asian and Latino Coalition of Des Moines that "poor kids are just as
bright and just as talented as white kids."
7. While delivering remarks before a black audience in Delaware, Biden launched into a
meandering story about a gang leader named Corn Pop and claimed that he "learned about
roaches" while working at a community pool in a black neighborhood.
8. In 2008, Biden referred to then presidential candidate Barack Obama as "the first
sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean."
9. In 2006, Biden told C-SPAN, "You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless
you have a slight Indian accent."
10. Biden falsely claimed to have "marched" in the civil rights movement.
Still waiting on Trump's racist comments, been like 6 years.
Brits had slave's just as almost every other country in the world has, in the past even
white slaves (Irish). Brits have no higher ground to stand on than anyone else looking at
their indiscretions in India and China and elsewhere. Such as the opium wars in China.
Silly British. They should realize it has NOTHING to do with race. It's all about
COMMUNISM, they are just as in danger from the cancer of communism as anyone else.
rmogabe , 27 minutes ago
She said it is a political movement.
artytom , 1 hour ago
Thank Goodness. Very surprised to see this coming out of the UK government - but...
Is the tide turning.
Have the World Bank run out of bribes?
Have we passed the tipping point and they have taken off the pressure because they know
there is no going back?
Are they satisfied that the economies are in free fall and won't bounce back?
Are they simply covering their asses (the most likely of all).
DeathMerchant , 1 hour ago
In 1959, AAMD set the IQ threshold for mental retardation at < 85. The civil rights
movement of the next decade forced psychologists to rethink this boundary, because half the
African American population fell below it. In 1973, responding to this concern, AAMD (by
then AAMR) changed the threshold for retardation from IQ < 85 to IQ < 70. The
boundary moved south by one standard deviation! The proportion of blacks below the
threshold instantly dropped from about 50 percent to 12 percent. Subsequent refinements
made it still more difficult to meet the criteria for retardation.
When Binet in 1905 produced the first IQ test, it promised to revolutionize the diagnosis
and treatment of mental retardation. A half century later it came under attack for reasons
Binet could not have imagined. Could any of the pioneer psychometricians have foreseen
Larry P. v. Riles (1979), a California class-action suit that focused on IQ testing of
young black children? The court held that IQ tests were not valid for African Americans. It
banned California from using the tests for placing black students in classes for the
"educable mentally retarded" or equivalent categories on the grounds that the tests were
biased. After a series of appeals, the district court ruled that no special education
related purposes exist for which IQ tests could be administered to black pupils. Though
only a California ruling, the case began a political assault on standardized testing that
has spread beyond the IQ test to college entrance exams, promotional exams and more.
A Case History of Government Intervention
In 1996, The Office for Civil Rights placed 16 school districts nationwide under review for
potential discrimination. The districts were charged with violating the civil rights of
minorities, especially African Americans, because blacks were found to be overrepresented
in special education programs, especially those for the mentally retarded. Five of the 16
districts were in Maryland. Ironically, Maryland is a very liberal state very much in tune
with the goals of the Civil Rights Office. Maryland is also almost 30 percent black. The
offending districts included Baltimore, Howard, Harford, Montgomery and Prince Georges
counties. OCR detectives uncovered "discrimination" by looking at school records. The
offending data appear in Table 1. The irritant is in the last column. Black children were
classified as retarded at 1.5 to 2.2 times the rate of whites. OCR ordered the counties to
find a "remedy."
Fortunately teaching Critical Race Theory or any other invented marxist propaganda is
going to get a lot of people killed.
They'll find they deployed the subversion before gaining a sufficient majority, or
sufficient technological control among a highly educated peasantry.
And by the end of all that killing, there will be a brighter future for European
descendants, darkness relegated to its corner of the Earth.
By that time, all the people who would otherwise wish they'd never uttered a word of
critical race theory will simply be no longer.
Fight back.
You have the moral law on your side and you will win.
GreatUncle , 18 minutes ago
UK Government ... ROFL.
The UK government last month issued guidance
which says schools should not use resources "produced by organisations that take extreme
political stances on matters."
Because see we the UK government do that ... ain't you noticed? So as we do it then it
is all legal like mass immigration to destroy the indigenous population...
MadameDeficit , 1 hour ago
Oh boy, can't wait for the hypocrites to tell her why she's wrong.
Maghreb2 , 1 hour ago
She's right but she should shut her mouth either ways because she's a tory sell out
bitch and we know that because we know the Tories and the
Freud-Murdoch run P.R firms they get their polices from . Real racial theory would have
David Lammy lynched by everyone but the Chinese. Starting teaching the little white boys
about
Jimmy Savile in Leeds infirmary and we'll have them ready to suicide bomb Buckingham
Palace and go after the nearest member of "the people who will n
ot be blamed for nothing " minority .
Tell them that is what Mi5 are for.
To protect White Privileges and the weaker ones will kill themselves when they see what
they have planned for them in the future. By the Divine right of the Windsors suicide isn't
even legal and just remember that is why he was in the infirmaries. She should remember how
similar the white monkeys are to the black monkeys in their natural habitat .
The west is past imported racial talking points. Blood for the money will be new mantra
after the war starts but we wouldn't expect the people in parliament to have ever
understood that in way because they can't see the real world. Rivers of Blood Libel these
days. Play them this song and we'll see which music turns them into hardened killers over
night. Tell them Guy Burgesses and Rothschild used to go to the
Gargoyle club and the stories about Dolphin Square .
Victim ideology as broadcast by media, politicians and schools is the true divider and
oppressor that reinforces the odious legacy of slavery. The only way people move beyond
what was unacceptable in the past is to release and bury it. Those who are vested in
maintaining the old ugly status quo are the ones who won't let it go. that's the cabal and
all their minions. Enough.
GeezerGeek , 1 hour ago
How many black slaves were needed on Britain's cotton plantations? Duh...
How many black slaves were brought to Britain's colonies in America (not just on the
continent) before it became an independent (at least that's the story) nation? Duh...
As an aside, isn't one particular candidate for VP this year the descendant of a slave
owner in a former British colony?
Compare slaves brought to British colonies against slaves brought into the USA after
independence. Which number is greater and which process lasted longer?
For fun, we can then consider black slaves brought to other places in the Americas, both
North and South, plus the nearby islands.
At least she had the courage to attack CRT, which strikes me as another example of the
soft bigotry of low expectations. How long do you think it will be before she finds herself
looking for a new job?
What is never mentioned is that poor whites suffered from slavery. Depressed wages.
Being forced to man "slave patrols" or risk jail time. That system robbed everyone
Faustus B. , 2 hours ago
The left got so worked up about intelligent design being taught in the classroom, but
apparently it was just political. We must never forget that they'll ram racial
pseudo-science down kid's throats the minute they get the chance.
Abolish 50 intel officers. The day before Tet 1968 the intel officer told us the
Vietnamese will shoot guns in celebration of Tet, no worry. He didn't mention they would be
shooting at us. Intelligence officer is a misnomer.
REDinFL , 8 hours ago
Or, a potential oxymoron. Always wondered abut the derivation of the word. Then, as I got
out into the world, I found out.
Quia Possum , 8 hours ago
The former intelligence professionals signed the letter on condition of anonymity.
Hal n back , 8 hours ago
clapper and Brennen and associates I assume
Jan_Michael_Vincent007 , 7 hours ago
It's ******* 50 interns, they don't give a **** anymore.
junction , 9 hours ago
So, the FBI has a laptop full of kiddie **** since last year, knows who owns said computer
and has presented the depraved facts to a grand jury. Then, for ten months, nothing. The
mandatory sentence for possessing this kiddie **** is ten years in federal prison. Yet Hunter
Biden is free as a bird, unlike everyone else with such kiddie **** except Nick Negroponte, a
close associate of Jeffrey Epstein. The only surprise in this case is that after Twitter shut
down the New York Post's twitter account, PayPal did not also close the Post's PayPal
account. Joe Biden is a Deep State (read Rothschid-Rockefeller) asset, so he can literally do
anything he wants, including turn traitor for tens of millions of dollars (or more) in
payoffs from Red China.
ALLLIVESSPLATTER , 9 hours ago
The FBI has had the laptop for a while.That's a lot of jerking off.
Return_of_Byzantium , 9 hours ago
Really not a joke. The criminals in the FBI CIA and similar gangs create most of the CP,
with legal impunity of course.
The best day for humanity will be the day those who oppress the US are overthrown and the
new power PUBLISHES the full text of the secret laws of these trash. Then all will forever
know their wickedness and never again want to return to the old ways... These trash will
through their own wickedness sow the seeds of the permanence of their own destruction.
SurfingUSA , 8 hours ago
"laptop full of kiddie pr0n"
no it is 1 million times worse, laptop full of sexual abuse of a minor by the LAPTOP's
OWNER. not kiddie pr0n downloaded and made by someone else.
Then worse yet, also involving torture of the minor or minors, and finally, a second adult
male, i.e., Joe Biden himself engaging in these acts along with Hunter.
"Adam Schiff is seriously the most pathological liar in all of American politics that I've
seen in all of my time covering politics and journalism," Greenwald said on 'Tucker Carlson
Tonight.' "He just fabricates accusations at the drop of the hat at the other people change
underwear. He's simply lying when he just asserts over and over that the Russians or the
Kremlin are behind the story. He has no idea whether or not that is true. There is no evidence
to support it."
Is this 50 former Intel officials or 50 former national security parasites? Real Intel
officials should keep quite after retirement. National security parasites go to politics and
lobbying. One telling sign that a particular parson is a "national security parasite" is his
desire to play "Russian card"
From comments: "Did the 50 former intelligence officials find the Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction yet?"
Hours before Politico
reported the existence of a letter signed by '50 former senior intelligence officials' who say
the Hunter Biden laptop scandal "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information
operation" - providing "no new evidence," while they remain "deeply suspicious that the Russian
government played a significant role in this case," Tucker Carlson obliterated their (literal)
conspiracy theory .
According to the Fox News host, he's seen 'nonpublic information that proves it was Hunter's
laptop ,' adding " No one but Hunter could've known about or replicated this information ."
" This is not a Russian hoax. We are not speculating ."
TUCKER: "This afternoon, we received nonpublic information that proves it was Hunter's
laptop. No one but Hunter could've known about or replicated this information. This is not a
Russian hoax. We are not speculating." pic.twitter.com/cl2ktdmdVc
Meanwhile, the Delaware computer repair shop owner who believes Hunter dropped off three
MacBook Pros for data recovery has a signed work order bearing Hunter's signature . When
compared to the signature on a document in his paternity suit, while one looks more formal than
the other, they are a match.
Going back to the '50 former senior intelligence officials' and their latest Russia
fixation, one has to wonder - do they think Putin was able to compromise Biden's
former business associate , Bevan Cooney, who gave investigative journalist Peter Schweizer
his gmail password - revealing that Hunter and his partners were engaged in an
influence-peddling operation for rich Chinese who wanted access to the Obama
administration?
Did Putin further hack Joe Biden in 2011 to make him take a meeting with a Chinese
delegation with ties to the CCP - arranged by Hunter's group, two years they secured a massive
investment of Chinese money?
The implications boggle the mind.
Here's the clarifying sentences from the '50 former senior intelligence officials' that
exposes the utter farce of it all:
While the letter's signatories presented no new evidence , they said their national
security experience had made them "deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a
significant role in this case" and cited several elements of the story that suggested the
Kremlin's hand at work.
"If we are right," they added, "this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in
this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this."
"Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign."
And then there's the fact that no one from the Biden campaign has yet to deny any of the
'facts' in the emails. lay_arrow jin187 , 2 hours ago
Totally ridiculous. This ******** beating around the bush for both sides pisses me off.
Dump all the laptop contents on Wikileaks if it's real. Let the people sort it out. If you
say it's not real, prove it. If Biden wants me to believe it's not real, then stand behind a
podium, and say clear as day into a pile of cameras that's it's all a forgery, and that
you've done nothing wrong.
Instead we have Giuliani swearing he has a smoking gun, but as far as I can tell he's just
pointing his finger underneath his shirt. Biden on the other hand, keep using weasel words to
imply it's fake, but never denies it outright. It's almost like he's trying to hedge his bet
that no one will manage to prove it's real before he gets into office, and makes it
disappear.
Roacheforque , 7 hours ago
To play the "Russian Card" yet again should be beyond embarrassing. An insult to the
intelligence of anyone with an IQ over 80. And so it's harmful to the left wingnut
derangeables. Like Assad's chemical weapons and Saddam's WMDs, it is now code for pure
********. Not even code, just more like a signal.
A signal that say's "guilty as charged - we got nothin' but lies and BS over here".
East Indian , 4 hours ago
An insult to the intelligence of anyone with an IQ over 80.
They know their supporters wont find this insulting.
Kayman , 4 hours ago
@vulvishka.
538 ? North Korea has better propaganda.
Don't forget to go all in, like you did with Hillary.
Antedeluvian , 2 hours ago
Unfortunately, some very bright people are sucked into the conspiracy theory. I know one.
Very bright lawyer. She says, "I still think there is substantive evidence of Russian
collusion." I can point to a sky criss-crossed with chemtrails (when you see these
"contrails" crossing at the same altitude, this is one sure clue these are not from regular
passenger jet traffic) and she refuses to look up. She KNOWS I am an idiot (a PhD scientist
idiot at that) because I get news and analysis on the web from sites that just want to sell
me tee shirts and coffee mugs (well, she is partly right there!) whereas she gets her news
from MSNBC, a venerable and trustworthy news source.
4DegreesOfSeparation , 6 hours ago
More Than 50 Former Intel Officials Say Hunter Biden Smear Smells Like Russia
"If we are right," the group wrote in a letter, "this is Russia trying to influence how
Americans vote."
DescendantofthePatriots , 7 hours ago
That ****, James Clapper, signed his name at the top of this list.
Known liar, saboteur, and sneak.
The cognitive dissonance in our country is astounding. The fact that they would take these
people's opinion over hard fact is astounding.
No wonder why we're sliding down the steep, slippery slope.
strych10 , 8 hours ago
So... let me get this straight.
50, that's 10 times five, fifty former intelligence officials are going with a convoluted
narrative about a ludicrously complicated Russian Intelligence disinformation campaign
involving planted laptops and at least half a dozen patsies when the two words "crack
cocaine" explain the entire thing?
I'm not sure what's more terrifying; That these people think everyone else is dumb enough
to believe this or that they're actually retired intelligence officials
.
Who the actual **** is running this ****show? The bastard child of Barney Fife and
Inspector Clouseau?
Seriously, "Pink Panther Disinformation Operation" is more believable at this point.
Someone Else , 9 hours ago
This needs to get out, because a FAVORITE method of the Deep State, Democrats and the
media (but I repeat myself) is to parade some sort of a stupid letter with a bunch of
signature hoping to look impressive but that really don't mean a damn thing.
Notre Dame graduates against the Supreme Court nominee, Intelligence agents alleging
collusion, former State Department operatives against Trump. Its grandstanding that has been
overdone.
moneybots , 8 hours ago
The letter by 50 former intelligence officials is itself, disinformation.
otschelnik , 8 hours ago
Remember when Weiner's attorney turned over Huma's home laptop to SDNY/FBI with all of
Shillary's emails, and the FBI sat on it for a month and then Comey deep sixed them without
even looking at them?
So now the FBI subpeona'd Hunter's laptop and burried it? Deja vu all over again.
enough of this , 8 hours ago
The FBI and DOJ constantly hide behind self-serving excuses to refuse the release of
documents and, when forced to do so, they release heavily redacted files. They offer up the
usual pretexts to fend off public disclosure such as: the information you seek cannot be
disclosed because it involves an ongoing investigation, or the information you seek involves
national security, or our methods and sources will be jeopardized if the information you seek
is divulged to the public. But it seems the ones who would be most harmed by public
disclosure are the corrupt FBI and DOJ officials themselves
Cobra Commander , 7 hours ago
A short 4 years ago the FBI and CIA were all concerned about "Kompromat" the Ruskies might
have on Candidate Trump; concerned enough to spy on his campaign and open a
counter-intelligence operation.
There are troves of Kompromat material, actual emails and video, on Joe, Hunter, and the
whole Biden family; not made-up DNC-funded dossiers claiming a Russian consulate in
Miami.
Now when it's Candidate Biden, everyone be all like, "Meh."
Cobra!
The Fonz...before shark jump , 5 hours ago
we gotta listen to the 50 former intelligence agents...you know the ones that had lone
superpower status in the early 90s and then pissed it all away with 9/11 and infinity wars in
middle east hahahahah ok buddy lol... histories D students....
Occams_Razor_Trader_Part_Deux , 7 hours ago
Signed by James Clapper and John Brennan;
You mean, the 2 Bozos who under the threat of perjury said there was NO evidence of
Russian Collusion and the Trump campaign................. and 2 hours later called Trump
'Putin's puppet' on CNN.............
In
footage published on Monday, the conservative media watchdog shared around eight minutes of
an interview with a man identified as Ritesh Lakhkar, said to be a technical program manager at
Google's Cloud service, who accused the company of putting its thumb on the digital scales for
the Democrats.
"The wind is blowing toward Democrats, because GOP equals Trump and Trump equals GOP.
Everybody hates it, even though GOP may have good traits, no one wants to acknowledge them
right now," Lakhkar said when asked whether Google favors either political party.
Project Veritas @Project_Veritas BREAKING:
@Google Program Manager Confirms Election Interference In Favor of
@JoeBiden Google search "skewed by owners and drivers of the algorithm" "Plain and simple
trying to play god"
While Lakhar – whose LinkedIn page states he's worked at Google since
May 2018 – did not specify exactly how the company gives an edge to certain political
viewpoints, he suggested the platform is selling favorable coverage to the highest bidder.
"It's skewed by the owners or the drivers of the algorithm. Like, if I say 'Hey Google,
here's another two billion dollars, feed this data set of whenever Joe Biden is searched,
you'll get these results,'" he went on, blasting Big Tech firms for "playing god and
taking away freedom of speech on both sides."
Lakhkar complained of a suffocating, overly-political atmosphere at Google, where he said
"your opinion matters more than your work," recalling a dramatic response to Donald
Trump's 2016 election win at the company. Several media reports have documented employees'
appalled reactions to the victory, including
internal company footage of a meeting soon after the election, where co-founder Sergey Brin
is heard comparing Trump's win to the rise of fascism in Europe.
"When Trump won the first time, people were crying in the corridors of Google. There were
protests, there were marches. There were like, I guess, group therapy sessions for employees
organized by HR," he said.
I guess that's one of the reasons I feel suffocated [at Google]. Because on one side
you have this unprofessional attitude, and on the other side you have this ultra-leftist
attitude. Your entire existence is questioned.
PetarGolubovicRomanov 19 hours ago Nothing unexpected there - it always seemed a
dodgy thing to me Google is 'the greatest' place to work. It must be to 'keep the lights on'
with all their servers, but it is a company with what, two products - search and maps - and
both have not changed almost at since they were created over a decade ago. Reply 5 2 Head like
a rock PetarGolubovicRomanov 18 hours ago but it is run by the CIA so what do you expect?
Mickey Mic 16 hours ago For the life on me; I just can't understand, why so many have faith in
a system that has enormous disdain for them. Do the people really need the news to make the
announcement ? Sadly, that is the case, because most can't think for themselves anymore, they
rely on the narrative that everything is on a honest base system still !? The fact checkers
don't check the facts, there is no such thing as a private large corporation with out ties to
the intelligence apparatus. Big Company's are used by the shadow Gov. to gain the kind of
wealth they need to stage their secrete plans of the NWO. People like Bill Gates, Fauci,
only spoken in generalities, because they where only groomed to make the wealth for the
advancements of the puppet masters agenda's. How many conspiracies must come true for one to
think that the word "conspiracy" is only used to make others think, the next person must be
crazy to think the way he does ? What the world needs is more common sense, and less dependence
on the glow boxes in front of them. True wisdom, is only for the few that don't think the world
is what they was conditioned to believe in. Ethnocentric pride creates a comfort zone; which is
hard to break, it gets internalized though generations just like how holidays are created.
Sadly, most wouldn't remember by next week; because the their brain is constantly getting
flooded by squeals of events. And to top it all we have fake news to underline the long term
memory bank system. Salman M Salman 14 hours ago Big tech companies represent the pillars of
globalism which by definition supports only their people. The world after the elections will
see their take over or demise.
Head like a rock TheLeftyHater 18 hours ago but those are both CIA creations, is that 'lefty'?
Guns Blazing 14 hours ago Very old news, but worthy of repeating. Just watch that exchange in
Congress between Senator Cruz and Dr. Robert Epstein. Google swaying millions of votes in favor
of Democrats. Also top Clinton campaign donor in 2016 was Alphabet, the parent company of
Google.
"... Meanwhile, back on ABC, Joe Biden skated on answering any questions of substance about his son or Antifa or BLM. On NBC, Guthrie pushed Donald Trump to condemn QAnon and White supremacy, and he did it dutifully. But it wasn't enough. The point of demanding performative disavowals isn't to get the disavowal, it's to smear the person you're asking to disavow the group by association with the group. ..."
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: If you flipped the channel during our show Thursday night, you may
have seen the president and his challenger making their respective cases to voters. But
President Trump and Joe Biden weren't debating each other. That would have been too risky.
There's a massive public health crisis underway, you may have heard.
So to avoid what doomsday hobbyists on Twitter like to call a "superspreader event," Trump
and Biden held separate indoor town halls surrounded by people. They talked to partisan
moderators instead of each other. That might seem like a loss to the country three weeks before
a presidential election. But unfortunately, the science on this question is clear: Nothing
could be more dangerous to America than a televised in-person debate between Joe Biden and
Donald Trump.
So the so-called debate commission made certain a debate couldn't happen. Who benefitted
from that decision? Well, not voters. America has held regularly scheduled presidential debates
for decades and we have them for a reason. The more information voters can get directly from
the candidates rather than the media, the better our democracy functions, not that anyone's
interested in democracy anymore.
Joe Biden doesn't care either way. He just didn't want to talk about Burisma. That's the
scandal that vividly illustrates how, as vice president, Biden subverted this country's foreign
policy in order to enrich his own family. The good news for Biden Thursday night was that he
didn't have to talk about it. No one from ABC News asked him about that scandal for the entire
90 minutes.
As we've been telling you this week, the New York Post and a few other news outlets,
including "Tucker Carlson Tonight," have published e-mails taken from Hunter Biden's personal
laptop. They show that Hunter Biden was paid by foreign actors to change American foreign
policy using access to his father, then the vice president. This is a big story. It is also a
real story.
Friday afternoon, we received nonpublic information that proves conclusively this was indeed
Hunter Biden's laptop. There are materials on the hard drive of that computer that no one but
Hunter Biden could have known about or have replicated. This is not a Russian hoax. Again,
we're saying this definitively. We're not speculating. The laptop in question is real. It
belonged to Hunter Biden. So there is no excuse for not asking about it.
But they didn't ask about it. It was a cover-up in real time. No matter what happens in the
election next month, the American media will never be the same after this. It cannot continue
this way. It is too dishonest.
Nevertheless, we did learn a few things Thursday night. (It's hard not to learn when you
watch Joe Biden try to speak for 90 minutes.) At one point, an activist told Joe Biden that she
has an eight-year-old transgender daughter. She asked Joe Biden what he thought about that.
Here's how he responded:
BIDEN: The idea that an eight-year-old child or a 10-year-old child decides, 'You know,
I've decided I want to be transgender. That's what I think. I'd like to be a -- make my life a
lot easier.' There should be zero discrimination. What's happening is too many transgender
women of color are being murdered. They're being murdered. I mean, I think it's up to now 17,
don't hold me to that number.
So if an eight-year-old biological boy decides one day that he's really a girl, that's final
and you'd have to be a bigot to pause and say, "Wait a minute, you're eight years old, you're a
small child. Maybe let's think about this for a minute." That's what a normal person who has
kids would say. People with kids know that children grow and change. They change their minds
about a lot of things, including themselves. That's the reality of it.
But if you're a crazed ideologue, you don't care about reality. So you would tell the rest
of us that an eight-year-old is entitled to hormone therapy on demand and permanent,
life-altering surgery. That's what Biden is telling us.
It doesn't matter how fashionable talk like this is right now, and it is very fashionable,
it is crazy and it's destructive and it's having a profound effect. No one wants to say it, but
it's true. We know that between 2016 and 2017, the number of gender surgeries for biological
females in this country quadrupled. We also know that many people who get those surgeries
regret them later, deeply regret them. We'd have a lot more data on that, but universities are
actively punishing researchers who follow that line of inquiry. So much for science.
In the end, mania like this will end. The left is at war with nature. Inevitably, they will
lose that war, because nature always prevails. But in the meantime, many children are being
hurt irreparably. Biden doesn't care. It's the new thing, and so he's for it. In fact, Biden is
now busy rewriting his entire life story to pretend that he has been woke for 60 years.
Thursday night, he told us he became a gay rights supporter during the Kennedy administration,
sometime around 1962, when he and his father saw two gay men kissing.
When asked about police brutality, the former vice president speculated that maybe people
like George Floyd would be alive today if the police had just shot him in the leg a few
times.
BIDEN: There's a lot of things we've learned and it takes time. But we can do this. You
can ban chokeholds ... But beyond that, you have to teach people how to deescalate
circumstances, deescalate. So instead of anybody coming at you and the first thing you do shoot
to kill, shoot him in the leg.
How much would you have to know about firearms or human biology to wonder if maybe there
could be some unintended consequences there? People do have arteries in their legs, after all,
and sometimes bullets do miss their targets. So why did no one point out how demented Biden's
answer was?
Well, we have some clarity on the question of why no one pointed it out. It turns out George
Stephanopoulos, the moderator of last night's ABC town hall, was not the only political
operative in the room. One supposedly uncommitted voter was, in fact, a former Obama
administration speechwriter called Nathan Osburn. Osburn repeated Biden campaign talking points
to the letter, at one point referring to court-packing as a safeguard "that'll help ensure more
long-term balance and stability" on the Supreme Court.
BIDEN: I have not been a fan of court-packing because I think it just generates, what
will happen ... Whoever wins, it just keeps moving in a way that is inconsistent with what is
going to be manageable.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're still not a fan?
BIDEN: Well, I'm not a fan ... It depends on how this turns out, not how he wins, but how
it's handled, how it's handled. But there's a number of things that are going to be coming up
and there's going to be a lot of discussion about other alternatives as well.
So we did learn something new last night: Joe Biden isn't a fan of court-packing.
Court-packing has had a few off years, and Joe Biden started to lose his faith in it, even sold
his "Court-Packing" jersey. But at the end of the day, Joe Biden is still open to court-packing
and can get back on the court-packing bandwagon depending on how things are "handled." Got
it?
Biden was allowed to answer non-questions like this because he was surrounded by sycophants
and former employees of his party. Over at NBC, by contrast, the sitting president didn't have
that luxury, to put it mildly. (By the way, it's not good for you to be sucked up to too much.
It's good to get smacked around a little bit. It makes you sharper.)
During the president's one-hour event, moderator Savannah Guthrie asked him dozens more
questions than the voters in the room got to ask. And when Trump began speaking, Guthrie
interrupted him over and over again. Joe Biden wasn't there, so the moderator played stand-in
for Joe Biden.
The good news about all of this is it's so bad and so transparent that it can't continue.
All their stupid little morning shows and their dumb Sunday shows and their even dumber cable
shows -- all of that's going away when the smoke clears from this election. There will be a
massive realignment in the media no matter who wins, because they've showed who they are and
it's so unappealing, so far from journalism, that it can't continue.
Meanwhile, back on ABC, Joe Biden skated on answering any questions of substance about his
son or Antifa or BLM. On NBC, Guthrie pushed Donald Trump to condemn QAnon and White supremacy,
and he did it dutifully. But it wasn't enough. The point of demanding performative disavowals
isn't to get the disavowal, it's to smear the person you're asking to disavow the group by
association with the group.
GUTHRIE: You were asked point-blank to denounce White supremacy [at the first debate]. In
the moment, you didn't ... A couple of days later on a different show, you denounce White
supremacy --
TRUMP: You always do this. You've done this line -- I denounce White supremacy,
OK?
GUTHRIE: You did two days later.
TRUMP: I've denounced White supremacy for years. But you always do, you always start off
with the question. You didn't ask Joe Biden whether or not he denounces Antifa ... Are you
listening? I denounce White supremacy. What's your next question?
NBC was under a lot of pressure from Democrats to make Thursday night's town hall look like
this, and just like Facebook and Twitter delivered earlier this week, NBC delivered,
too.
whatmeworry? 1 day ago The only difference between the "news" media today, and, say a
decade ago, is that they no longer try to conceal their bias. They've dropped the cloak of
objectivity and come out as democrat activists. It's sort of refreshing. We no longer have to
waste time and energy arguing about the fairness of the media. Scotty2Hotty 1 1 day ago
Liberals are more an enemy of the free press than Donald Trump is--we know that for sure after
the NY Post incident. For all the times Trump has trashed the press, he has never shut them
down (he can't), but the liberals at Facebook and Twitter did just that to the New York Post,
because they didn't like a story of theirs. The story should never have been banned anywhere.
In a free society, bogus stories are debunked by other free speech outlets and press agencies.
They are not banned. Trump is not a friend of the press, but liberals are a worse enemy than he
is, to press freedom. Leftists have a strong totalitarian streak, and they continually work to
create environments where only one viewpoint is permitted, whether in academia, television, the
press or elsewhere. Liberals believe more in shutting down dissent than in discrediting it,
through argument. Gadsden_1968 2.0 1 day ago 90% of the media is now formally known as the
Democratic Party propaganda ministry. Arm yourselves, it appears the majority of people are
100% controlled by the Democratic Party's propaganda ministry. If Biden wins, his propaganda
ministry will make Pravda look like a high school news paper. Architech 1 day ago Why is the
crackhead Hunter Biden a taboo subject? Nobody mentions that Hunter is The Train Wreck of the
Century. Even on right wing news they don't tell you what a drop dead irresponsible loser low
life that Hunter is. He sleeps with his dying brothers wife while he is still alive. Red flag.
Plenty of other girls, but no, your sister in law. But that is nothing. Nada. Kicked out of the
Navy for drug use. Banged 1000 strippers in Wash DC, knocked one up, denied the child, was
proven he was the dad, denied child support and was forced to pay. Nice. Dead beat dad deluxe.
There are about 100 things like that. Too long to list. And nobody mentions is. They act like
Hunter is just another guy.... Calling out the Loser of the Century is not off limits in my
book. Calling out stupidity, no self control, no personal responsibility, corruption, unethical
behavior, outright crimes....not off limits. It's actually illegal to be a crack addict did you
know that?
"... "The whole point of the Intelligence Community since the end of World War II was that whatever propaganda the CIA produces, whatever disinformation campaigns they engaged were never supposed to be directed domestically," he said. "That was the point of the NSA, the CIA, and all those intelligence communities." ..."
"... "What we have seen since 2016 going back to the 2016 campaign is incessant involvement in U.S. domestic politics. Working with journalists to disseminate purely for partisan ends. If you want to talk about things like violating norms, and dangers to democracy, what's more dangerous than allowing the CIA constantly to be manipulating our politics by making cover for the Biden campaign by claiming anonymously that the Russians are behind the story and therefore you disregard it. Even if the Russians why does that alleviate the responsibility of journalists to evaluate the emails and to examine whether or not Joe Biden actually engaged in misconduct?" Greenwald asked. ..."
Glenn Greenwald appeared on Tucker Carlson's FOX News show Monday night to criticize
the media for its lack of response to the Hunter Biden laptop story. Greenwald also criticized
intel community activity in domestic elections and posed the question that even if Russians are
behind the story it just requires journalistic investigation in case Biden is compromised.
"Adam Schiff is seriously the most pathological liar in all of American politics that I've seen in all of my time covering
politics and journalism," Greenwald said on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.' "He just fabricates accusations at the drop of the hat at
the other people change underwear. He's simply lying when he just asserts over and over that the Russians or the Kremlin are
behind the story. He has no idea whether or not that is true. There is no evidence to support it."
"And what makes it so much worse is that the reason that the Bidens aren't answering basic
questions about the story," Greenwald said. "Basic questions like did Hunter Biden drop that
laptop off of the repair shop? Are the emails authentic? Do you know denied that they are. Do
you claim that any have been altered or are any of them fabricated? Did you in fact meet with
Barisma executives? The reason they don't answer the questions is because the media has
signaled that they don't have to. That journalists will be attacked and vilified simply for
asking."
Victor Davis Hanson: Will Our Next Revolution Be French, Russian, Maoist, Or
American?
Glenn Greenwald: Media and Intel Community Working Together To Manipulate The American
People
Trump Rips Coronavirus Coverage: "People Aren't Buying It CNN, You Dumb Bastards"
"The whole point of the Intelligence Community since the end of World War II was that
whatever propaganda the CIA produces, whatever disinformation campaigns they engaged were never
supposed to be directed domestically," he said. "That was the point of the NSA, the CIA, and
all those intelligence communities."
"What we have seen since 2016 going back to the 2016 campaign is incessant involvement
in U.S. domestic politics. Working with journalists to disseminate purely for partisan ends. If
you want to talk about things like violating norms, and dangers to democracy, what's more
dangerous than allowing the CIA constantly to be manipulating our politics by making cover for
the Biden campaign by claiming anonymously that the Russians are behind the story and therefore
you disregard it. Even if the Russians why does that alleviate the responsibility of
journalists to evaluate the emails and to examine whether or not Joe Biden actually engaged in
misconduct?" Greenwald asked.
"The much bigger point is the way that the information is being disseminated," he said. "It
is a union of journalists who have decided that their only goal is to defend Joe Biden and
election him president of the United States working with the FBI, CIA, NSA not to manipulate
our adversaries or foreign governments, but to manipulate the American people for their own
ends. It's been going on for four straight years now and there's no sign of it stopping anytime
soon." Related Videos
It seems in our complicated world many murky relationships develop that come across as
inappropriate. Over the years, growing crony capitalism has become the bane of modern society
and added greatly to inequality. This is why, when we look at Hunter Biden and how he benefited
from his father's role as Vice President an investigation is in order. Even before we get to
what happened in Ukraine, the ties between China and the Biden family are too many and too
large to ignore. President Trump has received a lot of criticism related to how he gained his
wealth, however, almost all of what Trump has done he did as an outsider and not as part of the
ruling political class.
Before going deeper into this subject it is very important to look at how the "Biden
revelations" are being handled by the media. The way media has handled these allegations reveal
a flaw or bias in both mainstream media and social media to the point where even censorship is
being deployed. A good example of the spin being put on this red flag of corruption can be seen
in an article that appeared under trending stories on my city's main news outlet. Here in the
conservation heartland of America, the media published a piece titled; "Biden email episode
illustrates risk to Trump from Giuliani"
The Associated Press piece written by Eric Tucker shines the spotlight on Rudy Giuliani
portraying him as the messenger of Russian contrived information aimed at damaging Biden and
influencing the election. It starts off referring to "a New York tabloid's puzzling account
about how it acquired emails purportedly from Joe Biden's son has raised some red flags." Then
claims that during Giuliani's travels abroad looking for dirt on the Bidens he developed
relationships with some rather questionable figures. These include a Ukrainian lawmaker who
U.S. officials have described as a Russian agent and part of a broader Russian effort to
denigrate the Democratic presidential nominee.
The piece then moves on to the area of how the FBI seems more interested in the emails as
part of a foreign influence operation than wrongdoing by Hunter or his father. The people
reading this article are informed how this is just another latest episode involving Giuliani
that "underscores the risk he poses to the White House" which has spent years dealing with a
federal investigation into whether Trump associates had coordinated with Russia.
The part of the article that got my goat was when it referred to how " The Washington Post
reported Thursday that intelligence agencies had warned the White House last year that Giuliani
was the target of a Russian influence operation." Sighting the Washington Post as an authority
and bastion of truth is a common tactic used by journalists to add validity to their bias and
lazy reporting. Tucker forgot to mention The Washington Post is the propaganda mouthpiece of
Amazon and owned by its CEO Jeff Bezos the richest man in the world which has had several
run-ins with the President.
The effort to denigrate Giuliani rather than focus on Biden wrongdoings cites both "former
officials' and statements made by a person "who was not authorized to discuss an ongoing
investigation and spoke on condition of anonymity to AP," and of course, the exact scope of
what was being investigated was not clear. Claiming that many people in the West Wing have been
concerned about Giuliani's actions or saying the president has expressed private dismay at
Giuliani's scattershot style does not make it true.
Thinking a case can be made that Hunter enriched himself by selling access to his father but
claiming Giuliani's lack of credibility will cause the allegations to implode is a bit of a
reach. This fact much of what appears to be bribe-taking at the highest levels of government
has been overlooked for so long is in its self is a problem. The appointment of an unqualified
Hunter Biden to the board of a Ukrainian energy company with a reported compensation package
worth some $50,000 per month led the Wall Street Journal, to publish a scathing article, on May
13, 2014. bringing the issue before the public.
At criminal.findlaw.com, FindLaw's team of legal writers and editors detail what constitutes
bribery. It is offering or accepting anything of value in exchange to influence a
government/public official or employee. Bribes can take many forms of gifts or payments of
money in exchange for favorable treatment, such as awards of government contracts. Other forms
of bribes may include property, various goods, privileges, services, and favors. Bribes are
always intended to influence or alter the action of various individuals and are linked to both
political and public corruption. In most situations, both the person offering the bribe and the
person accepting can be charged.
Both giving and receiving bribes is usually a felony with significant legal ramifications.
Influence peddling, the illegal practice of using one's influence in government or connections
with persons in authority to obtain favors or preferential treatment falls into this category.
One thing is clear, whenever we are talking about the involvement of huge sums of money,
foreign players, officials holding high public office, or family members of politicians a few
eyebrows should get raised. With this in mind, the Biden problem extends well past Hunter but
also into how other family members have profited from Joe's time as Vice President such as his
brother's involvement in a huge government contract in Iraq.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT
MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The issue of Hunter Biden receiving money from Russia, Ukraine, and China surfaced during
the first Presidential debate and Biden claimed it was a story already discredited by
authorities. This narrative was destroyed when the Washington Times acknowledged the Treasury
Department records confirm Hunter Biden received a wire transfer for $3.5 million from the
Mayor of Moscow's wife. It is difficult to find anyone that holds Hunter in high esteem and the
fact the United States suspects the woman sending him this money built much of her wealth
through corruption does little to improve his standing. For those of us cynical of all the
so-called public servants that seem to line their pockets and hold the attitude they are above
the law this is a big red flag.
If the veil of secrecy surrounding Hunter's career is lifted we will most likely find
Hunter's dad did share in the spoils bestowed upon not only his son but others in the Biden
family. I contend Joe Biden's cozy relationship with corruption is why former President Obama
did not rush to endorse Biden when he announced he planned to run. To be clear, we are talking
about, millions, and hundreds of millions of dollars or more. For us cynics, we see this as
what may be only the tip of the spear when it comes to public officials throwing the American
people under the bus for fun and profit. As a voter, this dovetails with my concern about
Biden's relationship and attitude towards China which I consider a major issue.
Jan_Michael_Vincent007 , 4 hours ago
The [neoliberal] political class is the problem. ******* all of them. Biden just got
caught.
Jan_Michael_Vincent007 , 4 hours ago
The political class is the problem. ******* all of them. Biden just got caught.
RedDog1 , 4 hours ago
Highly recommend reading Peter Schweitzer's book Secret Empires. It's business as usual to
launder bribes through family members and associates.
philipat , 2 hours ago
Yes agreed, the problem here is actually that the entire US political (and economic)
system is completely corrupt and broken. Why has no action been taken against those
responsible for a proven attempted coup? Or against a MSM and SillyCon Valley that is
censoring everything the average American (rightlly or wrongly) actually reads and which is
stifling the very democracy and free speech upon which the country was founded?
The answer? Follow the money.
I do disagree with the author about the specific Biden situation because "The Biden Crime
Family" would be a better description. They are ALL responsible. It is obvious from the
Hunter laptop that payments were being made to "The Big Man" and other family members also,
so this is NOT a Hunter-specific problem. The game was for Hunter to serve as a proxy for
"The Big Man" and receive the "commissions" (better described as influence peddling payments
and extortion - something the Dems are very good at; The Clinton Foundation Model!!) for
onward distribution to the family, visibly or invisibly. In this way, "The Big Man" would not
have anything to report and could appear to be "clean". Pretty obvious to anyone who can fog
a mirror?
And yet still they vote for him. Does that mean a public acceptance of the sleaze and
corruption which is the US today? I certainly hope not.
Rural Hermit , 2 hours ago
Why do you think Obama picked Biden to be his VP? He knows how to shakedown everyone.
Obama's tutor. I do think that the student has surpassed the teacher though. When the rest of
this shakes out, the Kenyan will be in chains.
gregga777 , 3 hours ago
If the truth ever comes out, it will probably show that, among other things, Hunter Biden
was / is probably connected to human trafficking networks, and most likely Eastern European,
most likely involving The Russian Mafia. It's not a stretch to speculate that it also
included children.
If the United States of America had a functioning [sic] Intelligence Community and [Ha,
ha, ha] national law enforcement the Silicon Valley tech giants and others like Amazon
wouldn't be heavily infiltrated by People's Republic of China Ministry of State Security
operatives. Consequently, the massive extent of political corruption would be common
knowledge, especially specifics regarding names, dates, places and amounts. Right Paul Ryan
and Willard Romney?
Rusty Shorts , 3 hours ago
The hits just keep coming.
"Pelosi's Son Now Involved In Ukraine Scandal, Democrat Party In Shambles"
Seriously, does anyone think a Democrat controlled Congress will investigate Biden and all
his cronies, to include Obama? The whole DC swamp is set up to allow selling out of the
American people. DC is not just a threat to national security it is steeped in Treason.
No sense ranting as it does nothing. The only consolation is that stupid people who vote
Biden/Harris will get the crime and corruption they voted into office.
Stackers , 4 hours ago
In Roman times when someone was caught bribing a public official they would cut off his
nose, sew him in a bag with a wild animal, and throw that bag in the river
The problem with all this is that it is extremely well documented going back a number of
years of Hunter Jnr's shopping trips with his father and nothing has been done about it all.
Just search on Biden and China, Romania or Ukraine and then you see the "deals" that Hunter
gets every time.
Every f\/cking place that Biden turned up, Hunter was right behind with his hand out, like
some sort of mob shakedown. Did Biden senior tell Hunter what to do and who to meet because
junior doesn't seem that clever enough to come up with this on his own? That way, the money
also flows to junior who then funnels it to dad later on (which the laptop seems to
show).
Washington insiders know the f\/cking truth and are desperate to keep the gravy train
going. That is why they hate Trump. That is why Barr and co have no interest in getting to
the truth because they are all implicated. The swamp is very deep.
Merica101 , 4 hours ago
Human nature is swampy - that's why the Founding Fathers tried to design a system that
limited the "swampiness'. Unfortunately, they couldn't even begin to imagine the depravity
and games that are now being played. Pray.
Fuster-cluck , 3 hours ago
I have worked for a number of large multi-national corporations. In each, employees must
take an annual ethics course. The only approved amount you can spend on a client is $0. I
mean, no golf, no lunches, no tee shirts, no hunting weekends, zippo, nothing. If anyone in
your family is connected to government, it is automatically assumed to be a conflict of
interest, and you must remove yourself from any part of the dealings. These policies have
been implemented because of the intense fear of the unlimited penalties that may be applied
by goverment sponsored prosecutorial abuse.
So tell me, have those same standards been applied here? Ha. Ha. Ha.
Smilygladhands , 3 hours ago
i think we must implement a no fraternization rule between DC politicians and staff and
the media. too many personal relationships going on up there
TahoeBilly2012 , 3 hours ago
Tards have finally been caught out, no way back.
Look man, I never would have voted for HILLARY OR JEB, no f'ing way! I am a Ron Paul
Libertarian and I rolled the dice with Trump.
You Tards are all a gang of freaks. The fact you even halfway support Biden (or Hillary)
is pathetic. The only way you get change is sticking to your guns or having a Trump come
along and hope he is for the people and not a Satanic criminal, like the Biden's, the Bush's
and the Clinton's. What exactly is it that you freaks don't get and while Bernie may have
been somewhat more "authentic" than the rest, he's a friggin Bolshevik Commy, in his own way,
worse than them all, likely not as corrupt.
There's nothing left to the Dem Party, zero, zilch, it's a stinking rotting corpse relying
on Corporate Media lie after lie to try to compete with Trump. Hell, every Neocon has left
Trump and joined up with y'all. Geez, the stench!
Pathetic, disgusting, sick.
Lucius Septimius Pertinax , 3 hours ago
What bothers me about all this is the reaction of Democrats in general. They don't seem to
care what the Biden's have done, as long as they defeat Donald Trump. We seen this on a
smaller scale with the impeachment of Bill Clinton, it's all about sex manta. But in this
case we have what appears to be at least for now, almost a watertight case against Joe Biden.
And still no moral outrage at what Biden's family is up to? Guess I should not have been
amazed, but still hope their are a few thinkers left on the left that can still see the truth
when it bites them.
I expected the CNN's of the left to react this way. Further when their "the Russians"
excuse for everything, is exhausted, they will need someone else to blame, cause they know
Biden and son are as pure as the driven snow. Or at least the owners of all these so called
media news companies decide that Joe cannot win and flush the comode on him.
sirnzee , 3 hours ago
The media has done a terrific job of brainwashing half of America. So sad to be a part of
this. Who is to blame? The media, or the people who allowed their minds to be controlled the
way they are?
Fugly
Merica101 , 3 hours ago
Most of the MSM have their own agenda - a globalist agenda where the US is not their
priority.
12Doberman , 4 hours ago
Some deny the Biden's got the money which is absurd since the Senate report details the
wire transfers. Denial of facts seems to be a democrat trait.
chiquita , 3 hours ago
This is the Democrat philosophy--one of the best movie scenes ever.
Biden has used his family as bag men for graft since he was shaking down banks that
incorporated in Delaware for tax purposes.
He was MBNA Joe long before he became dementia Joe.
Totally vile corrupt dullard on his best day.
That is why the DNC wants him.
CogitoMan , 3 hours ago
Any person who has knowledge of Biden family crimes and still votes for him is beyond
deplorable.
Even demonrats that hate Trump IF they have at least minimum token of decency should
abstain from voting.
But alas, most of dumbocrats will vote for Biden even if he raped their daughters and shot
their wives.
This country with such moral attitude has no chance of survival, especially when tough
times come.
Sad, very sad.
12Doberman , 3 hours ago
Trump learned quickly that without powerful allies in powerful positions in the executive
agencies, within congress, and in the courts he's essentially powerless against this
corruption. Pelosi is involved in Ukraine...McConnell is up to his eyeballs in Chinese
graft.
Md4 , 4 hours ago
"Hunter Biden Is Not The Problem, The Problem Is His Dad"
Pops has been demonstrably crooked for years.
But... Hunter is not a child.
He's a grown man... with a law degree.
His problems are now...his own.
He can begin to recover...when he accepts responsibility for them...
Hotspice2020 , 4 hours ago
Stop treating mainstream media as "independent, objective, unbiased" they are "captured
media", and vassal servants to a hidden hand ruling elite ... as are the Bidens and K.
Harris. The Clintons were vassals before as was slamma Obama. The media will say whatever
their master tell them to say. Thus, when a Hard Drive with pedo, crack, bribery is found,
the masters say...blame it on the Russians. When Trump wants to bring Hunters double dealing
to light...the masters say.. Impeach Trump. What is needed is for a bright light to shine on
the owners of the media...e.g., Bezos Rag (Wash. Post) and Laurene Powell Jobs (mistress to
Steve) owns the Atlantic. Once you keep focusing on the fact that the media has owners that
make every story fit their narrative and you shine a light on them, then you can solve the
problem.
tyberious , 5 hours ago
Term limits
Full income disclosures while in office
No benefit for any legislation co-authored after leaving office
zerozerosevenhedgeBow1 , 4 hours ago
No honor, integrity or honesty in politics anymore. Why would there be any, when apart for
a little public shaming, corruption pays and pays big. The Clinton foundation raked in
hundreds of millions, altered policy and maybe even caused death of the impoverished, i.e.,
Haiti and other places. Sold out national and global security with Uranium One and other
controversies. The end result?... They got to keep all the money. When that happens, everyone
in and running for office gets the message and sees dollar signs.
You need serious recourse like some sort of treason charges when you put money over
country. Audit all family members and colleagues. Then do not let lobbying jobs before or
after office.
moneybots , 3 hours ago
"The Associated Press piece written by Eric Tucker shines the spotlight on Rudy Giuliani
portraying him as the messenger of Russian contrived information aimed at damaging Biden and
influencing the election. It starts off referring to "a New York tabloid's puzzling account
about how it acquired emails purportedly from Joe Biden's son has raised some red
flags.""
Yes, it raises Red Flags about the integrity of the Associated Press, considering the
story is a propaganda piece.
Merica101 , 4 hours ago
Joe and Hunter Biden (and the Biden family) aren't the ONLY ONES....there are many
others.
toady , 4 hours ago
The questions that simply are not being asked/answered....
I have not heard that any Biden has been asked about any of this... apparently they
thought they could just have CNN and the other talking heads say it was all "debunked" and
the brain dead general population would nod and say "okay".
And they were right, the demonrats are all just doing the Alfred E Numan "who, me,
worry?"
It's simple. The "17 intelligence agencies" need to be all over this, starting 15 years
ago.
But they aren't. And they won't. And the US will not recover.
TheLastMan , 3 hours ago
perspective:
1. you work 50 hours a week
2. .gov takes 22% for income tax
3. joe biden (and the rest) take your tax $$$ and provides $$$ foreign aid to country
X
4. hunter biden makes business connection to country x
5. country x takes your foreign aid tax dollars (edit) and pays hunter biden $$ for his
services
6. hunter biden pays joe biden $$ for (his service to your country) edit - servicing your
country
7. repeat step 1
Smilygladhands , 3 hours ago
the biggest problem that must be addressed is our dishonest, biased DNC propaganda arm
also known as main stream media.
they've allowed biden to get away with not answering the SCOTUS packing question and now
actively running cover for him. we cannot allow this to continue
Md4 , 4 hours ago
" Both giving and receiving bribes is usually a felony with significant legal
ramifications. Influence peddling, the illegal practice of using one's influence in
government or connections with persons in authority to obtain favors or preferential
treatment falls into this category."
When it involves a mortal adversary... we call it something else...
HailAtlantis , 4 hours ago
Always lots of fun this time of year taking Anti-Money Laundering etc continuing education
courses and reading about high level scandals in finance and governments in current news
(it's just gotten progressively more insidious every year).. Scrutinizing little 'guys' while
making billions at the top.
johnny two shoes , 2 hours ago
Can't forget old Swiftboat Kerry...
At the time, Hunter Biden, now 49, and Christopher Heinz, the stepson of then-Secretary of
State John Kerry, co-owned Rosemont Seneca Partners, a $2.4 billion private equity firm.
Heinz's college roommate, Devon Archer, was managing partner in the firm. In the spring of
2014, Biden and Archer joined the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian gas company that was
at the center of a U.K. money laundering probe. Over the next year, Burisma reportedly paid
Biden and Archer's companies over $3 million.
Electing a President is electing someone in formal command of enough power to kill most of
the people on the planet - perhaps three times over. Including you and me. This is not the
mayor of Minneapolis we're talking about.
vasilievich , 4 hours ago
To use biologists' terminology the species may not be adaptive. To be clever at graft does
*not* assure survival in the long run. It may assure extinction.
12Doberman , 4 hours ago
Biden wasn't clever. Hillary was a bit clever using a Foundation and a 'charity' to
launder her graft. Cost her 15% or so but she had the facade of the charity. Biden put his
crackhead son in charge of laundering the graft...needless to say it was careless in the
extreme...and the DNC knew all about this before they selected Biden. Stunning level of
arrogance.
chiquita , 4 hours ago
Nobody ever said Biden was a smart guy. He knew how to plagerize as in words (speeches),
but he didn't know how to copy as in ideas (charitable foundations)
SurfingUSA , 4 hours ago
Per someone on this forum who has met Biden, he is stupid not just by politician standards
but by everyday people standards.
coelacanth10 , 3 hours ago
Bill gets credit for using the Foundation, base on a undergraduate course at Georgetown on
non-profits and foundations.
chiquita , 4 hours ago
Obama had to know what was going on, if not a party to it. There was a clear distance
between the two of them--Obama did not show a great love for Biden and you have to wonder
what that was all about. He tried to tell Joe "he didn't have to do it" relative to running,
which leaves a lot open to interpretation. Trump keeps saying that Biden was not a bright guy
and that's pretty obvious in a lot of Biden's stories and his overall history. Obama knew
Biden wasn't the smartest guy too. Was Obama trying to tell Joe to leave well enough alone
and not run for the presidency, which would surely expose all this stuff? There was a good
chance Biden wasn't going to get this far, but now see what has happened. You have to wonder
what is at play with this--why didn't they shut Biden down before it got this far?
The main reason for the fake polls is to
demoralize
the losing side
. The idea is to instill a sense of helplessness and inevitability so people start to give up. Volunteers
start to quit, and excitement for the election dwindles, affecting turnout.
This year, however, the skew in polls is particularly egregious.
Below is a case study of how FOX NEWS undersamples independent voters to lift Biden. We un-skewed the poll using 2016 turnout
numbers as the baseline.
We
found Trump ahead by 1-5 points.
Also, we collected every single post-debate poll on Twitter and
listed
them here
.
For a poll to be predictive, the pollster needs to understand who will show up on election day. Polls that try to predict turnout on
Election Day, describe their sample as
likely
voters
.
Polls that sample
registered
or
eligible
voters
are not intentionally predictive. Each Election Year, a significant percentage of registered voters do not show up. Likewise, many
eligible voters do not register to vote.
Most polls
reported in the news are of
registered
or
eligible
voters.
Republicans almost always overperform against these two poll types. Historically, Republicans record a higher turnout rate going
back decades. Polls of eligible and registered voters are not intentionally predictive.
Polls of
likely
voters
are intended to be predictive. These polls attempt to identify the voters most likely to vote though statistical
measures. These types of polls are more favorable to Republicans because they factor in voter turnout expectations and this estimate
is reflected in the poll results.
This Article Explains
How undersampling significantly affects poll results with the latest FOX NEWS poll.
How to unskew polls and get an estimate of actual poll results.
This Article Finds
After unskewing the sample size of the FOX NEWS poll of registered voters, Trump and Biden are statistically tied.
Because this is a poll of registered voters, it is not predictive of what will happen on Election Day. We should expect Trump to
overperform this poll because Republicans generally have higher turnout.
We
have reason to predict a Trump win based on this poll.
Their methodology appears promising. However, the fact remains FOX NEWS consistently undersamples independent voters, driving
materially false conclusions. In order to assess the gravity of the situation, we compared FOX NEWS' data to larger and reliable
data sets for comparative purposes.
PART 2
THE
DATA
Voter Registration Data
First, I attempted to gather voter registration data from all states. But, some states restrict registration data to political
candidates only. In the states where I obtained registration data, the ratio of Republican, Democrat and independent voters look
identical to Gallup's
numbers
.
I was only able to get registration data from 28 states. From those states, here are the numbers:
28 State Sample
Year
Republican
Democrat
Independent
2020
28%
29%
40%
Gallup
Gallup has been tracking political affiliation since 2004. For
July
2020
, here are their results: 28% Republicans, 38% independents, 29% Democrats.
Since FOX NEWS identifies their sample as registered voters, and their methodology appears compatible with sound data management, we
should expect a poll sample that corresponds to the nationwide ratio of Democrats, Republicans and independents.
It does not. FOX NEWS' undersampled independents by 70% in their latest poll. It's possible this particular poll was an outlier.
Sadly, this is not the case.
In
fact, they have been undersampling independent voters for months.
Such consistent and persistent anomalies suggests
intentional manipulation.
The data suggests FOX NEWS oversamples registered Republicans by 51.9% and Democrats by 51.8%. FOX NEWS undersampled independent
voters by 70.74%.
Remember,
they are claiming their poll is based on registered voters
. The disproportionate set of registered voters' political ID to
our larger data sets suggests there was self-selection of the sample. In other words, they crafted their data sample to produce a
desired outcome.
PART 5
UNSKEWING
THE DATA
Undersampling independent voters hurts Trump's numbers significantly.
Why? Because FOX NEWS' own poll numbers show that
Trump performs better with independent voters than Biden. When FOX NEWS cuts people from this segment, they also remove more Trump
supporters than Biden supporters.
Fox
News: Trump the preferred candidate for independents.
PLUG THE DATA HOLES
Let's adjust their result by extrapolating the results based on a ratio of Republican, Democrat and independent voter ratios that
match the latest Pew/Gallup numbers.
We will use FOX NEWS' poll data to deduct how each of these groups would vote. This will unskew the data, and give independent
voters their fair share in contributing to the final poll results.
PLUG THE DATA HOLES
Extrapolating the data based on the current ratio of Republicans, Democrats and independents renders the polls a statistical dead
heat, assuming a similar margin of error of ±3%.
Scope:
It's important to obtain comparative that corresponds to the scope of your analysis. For example: If you want to
deskew the popular vote, use national data. To unscrew data for the Electoral College, you want to focus on state data like state
exit polls.
METHOD
Compare multiple points of reputable data.
State registrations, exit poll data, Gallup and Pew all show similar ratios
of nationwide Republicans, Democrats and independents. We took the average of these and calculated a national ratio of
Republicans, Democrats, independents and other of 28.4% to 30.3% to 37.6% to 3.8%, respectively.
.
Extrapolate the number people in each Party ID that is consistent with the established data in step #1.
We reviewed FOX
NEWS' poll data and for each one of these Party ID segments, we calculated how many people would belong in each one of these sub
groups if they followed the national ratio.
.
Extrapolate the number of people in each Party ID that intends to vote for a certain candidate.
We looking at the raw
FOX NEWS
poll
data
and the voter candidate preference ratios in each Party ID subgroup. We apply that ratio to the extrapolated number of
people in each Party ID segment to estimate how many people are voting for each candidate.
For example, according to FOX NEWS, the Republican pool prefered Trump 86% of the time and Biden 8%. (Note: for simplicity, we
will not attempt to deskew this ratio. However, this ratio is suspect for a couple of reasons). This gives Trump 249 people from
the registered republican subset.
The full extrapolated data is in the table below. This adjustment is net positive for Trump. Whereas before he was down by 7.5
points vs. Biden. The extrapolated data puts Trump in a statistical dead heat.
Pool 28.3%
Pool 30.3%
Pool 37.6%
Pool 3.8%
Republicans
Democrats
Independents
Other
Results
Results%
Trump
249
12
120
15
397
42.00%
Biden
23
276
102
14
414
43.84%
Other
11
9
40
10
70
7.41%
Undecided
8
6
91
11
116
12.34%
Make no mistake: This is purposeful undersampling
.
PART 5
BOTTOM
LINE
This is an important lesson: It's important to be precise when analyzing poll numbers if you want to assess the predictive qualities
of a poll. Pollsters can materially change the outcome of the poll by just skewing independent voter ratios. The data suggests this
is how FOX NEWS is manipulating polls.
Pollsters are being driven by outside agendas. Nearly all polls are suspect.
Key Points
Know the difference between polls
of eligible voters, registered voters and likely voters. Each poll type has results
changing assumptions.
Know how to assess if a poll over or undersamples.
As a baseline you can consider the previous Presidential Election to
quickly assess if the poll oversamples or undersamples by comparing the ratio of participants by party ID.
Know that over or undersampling of of voters
based on Party ID can dramatically affect the results of the poll.
Follow up:
We are
not
the only ones
to notice FOX NEWS' gross undersampling of independents voters.Western Journal wrote about what
they
found
.
In Greek mythology, men used to fear the stony gaze of the snake-haired Gorgon. Today, men
once again feel such fear – but, ironically, no campaign has done more to impair women's
opportunities either.
A seven-foot statue of Medusa holding a man's severed head was
unveiled in New York this week. For six months, this sculpture, made by the
Argentinian-Italian artist Luciano Garbati, will be situated facing the Manhattan Supreme
Court, where Harvey Weinstein was prosecuted and
convicted of sex crimes against actresses and female film-production staff.
The statue is being used in this position as a symbol of justice enacted against male
rapists. However, it more accurately – and unintentionally – symbolises the
difference between the public triumphalism of the #MeToo movement and its negative
repercussions for women in the United States.
The most famous painting of Medusa – a female character from Greek mythology who had a
hair of snakes and could turn men to stone if they met her gaze directly – was painted by
Caravaggio in
1596. He was inspired by Vasari's account of a lost painting by Leonardo da Vinci. It has been
a common subject for artists since. Garbati's statue was made in 2008 and adopted by the #MeToo
movement subsequently. From moral outrage to financial advantage
The #MeToo movement hit prominence in 2017 and was initially primarily concerned with
incidents, and allegations, of sexual abuse in Hollywood. It quickly grew to include cases of
sexual impropriety in many fields, mainly in the US. However, as it expanded, it encompassed
rape, sexual abuse, inappropriate sexual contact, unwanted advances, and transactional sex.
By refusing to draw distinctions between actual crimes, ethical/professional infractions,
and consensual (but regretted) sex, the movement became diffusely broad. Allegations of sexual
abuse led to the accused losing contracts, jobs, and marriages; in some cases, it contributed
to suicide. In the ensuing storm of moral panic, actual rape was conflated with Ben Affleck's
groping of an actress
in a video interview , a woman complaining
about a date with Aziz Ansari and Louis CK
exposing himself to colleagues (with their consent).
By failing to distinguish between levels of seriousness, the movement lost what moral
credibility it had and became a means of gaining revenge and exacting extortion. If crimes have
been committed, then they should be reported to the police, not aired in a public forum. The
accused need anonymity just as the victims do, until justice can be served.
Sexual accusations have long been weaponized in American pop culture. It has already
been proven that a whisper network of female comic-book professionals has targeted male
colleagues with – alongside actual crimes – unfounded accusations, in order to
provide more opportunities for female creators. This is not a male/female problem; using deceit
and exaggeration to advance oneself is as old as language itself.
In American television and film production, #MeToo gained control of productions via Time's
Up, enforcing quotas of women and extracting payments. It became a grab to secure lucrative
work for women, relying on goodwill from the public and the fear of executives. The Time's Up
movement is co-led by Katie McGrath, who runs production company Bad Robot Productions with her
husband J.J. Abrams. Bad Robot has a history of presenting itself as a pro-social-justice
company. This summer, at a time when rioters were burning shops and destroying historic
monuments, Bad Robot made an
infamous announcement that there had been " Enough polite conversation. Enough white
comfort. "
By presenting a company as an ethical, socially conscious body, that company is an ideal
position to benefit from major firms being pressured into making decisions not based on
competence but politics. Individuals and companies have seen how they can manipulate public
sympathy about sexual abuse to their own advantage. But firms are now realizing this
danger.
No event has done more to impair women's opportunities in the workplace than the
#MeToo/Time's Up movement. Production companies – even those led by women – now see
female colleagues as a source of potential extortion and compensation claims. As a result, they
now
avoid hiring women in order to avert the possibility of costly legal claims and
reputation-impairing social-media campaigns. Following decades-long attempts to persuade
male-dominated industries that hiring women brought advantages and an expansion of the talent
pool, the moral panic of #MeToo has served only to reveal the disadvantages of employing
women.
When male executives see women today, they fear them, just as heroes in Greek mythology
feared the gaze of Medusa. Ironically, rather than celebrating female power, Garbati's statue
is instead a fitting symbol of the way a campaign that began well has, once again, made men
mistrust women.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Alexander Adams
is an artist, art critic and author. His book 'Iconoclasm, Identity Politics
and the Erasure of History' is published by Societas. Follow him on Twitter @AdamsArtist
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
This is not leftist coup. This is intelligence agencies coup. Big difference. And Obama who
is the most probably mastermind and coordinator is as far from leftist as one can get, he is a
typical neoliberal with neocon inclinations, servant of the USA empire with probably some
delusions of American exeptionalism.
The statement " On August 18, 1991, with Mikhail Gorbachev preparing to sign a treaty that
would have decentralized the Soviet Union, his hardline political opponents in the Soviet
leadership arrested the father of perestroika at his Crimean dacha, proclaiming that the
Soviet State Committee on the State of Emergency was in charge." is naive and is not supported by
the facts. Gorbachov probably organized this coup to give himself a chance to get back control of
the country that was spinning out of his control. He failed and that was the end of his political
career of a sleazy second rate politician.
Our country seems headed for a political crisis, with the enemies of Deplorable America
making noises suggesting they are
planning a post-election "
Color Revolution "-type coup against Trump. As a long-time Russia-watcher,
I suggest that the failed Soviet coup of 1991, and the collapse
that it spurred on, is instructive.
The Soviet State Committee on the State of Emergency,
August, 1991
The key point that year came when Soviet military and security units refused to move against
Boris Yeltsin and his defenders. Could something like that happen here, with Trump playing the
Yeltsin role?
Meanwhile, the Democrats, with help from rabid Never Trumpers like Bill Kristol and
David Frum, have been " wargaming
" scenarios for preventing Trump from taking office should he win, developing a
plan for what Trump has correctly described as "an insurrection." [ The
Billionaire Backers of the 'Insurrection' , by Julie Kelly, AmGreatness.com, Sep 14, 2020]
The plan is to claim that Trump has stolen, or attempted to steal, the election. "As far as our
enemies are concerned," as I wrote here last month, "they are on the right side of history, and
neither election law nor the Constitution or any antiquated notions about fair play will stop
them." [
Revolution and Resistance: How can elections continue? , American Remnant, September 4,
2020]
The mail-in balloting plan plays into the Blob's wargaming. If the Democrats can't swing the
election their way by hook or crook, then the lengthy
process of
accounting for all the mail-in ballots could be used as a means to sow confusion and chaos,
giving them room to maneuver in the aftermath of Election Day.
The Blob's minions have been signaling their intention to drag out the vote count. Michigan
Governor
Gretchen Whitmer , for example, declared on Face the Nation that her state would not be
held to any "artificial deadlines" for reporting election results. [
MI Gov. Whitmer: No 'Artificial Deadlines' for Announcing Election Results , by Jeff
Poor, Breitbart, October 11, 2020] In an example of the psychological projection characteristic
of Democrats, Whitmer further claimed that those who might want to expedite the vote count had
"political agendas."
Meanwhile, the Blob's militant wing has been circulating a plan for post-election
disruption. [
READ: Left-wing Radicals Post Online Guide to 'Disrupting' the Country if Election is Close
, by Joel Pollak, Breitbart, October 12, 2020] A Leftist group calling itself ShutDownDC [ Tweet them ] plans to prevent a Trump "coup" -- more
projection
there -- by shutting down the country and forcing Trump out if the vote is too close to call.
The
plan calls for "sustained disruptive movements all over the country." The militants also
state that they intend to demand that "no winner be announced until every vote is counted."
ShutDownDC further proclaims that it has no intention of allowing the country to return to
normal. The goal is to "dismantle" what it calls "interlocking systems of oppression."
In the chaos that appears increasingly likely after Election Day, we may not even have a
clear idea of what happened–-and, indeed, that may be part of the Blob's design.
In a recent segment on "Critical Race Theory" gaining traction at the Pentagon, Tucker
Carlson wondered just why the Left was so intent on capturing the military.
My answer: the Blob was contemplating the possibility of using the military as part of an
attempt to block a second Trump term.
It's quite clear that the top military brass has been subject to "the Great Awokening"
and Trump Derangement Syndrome as much as the rest of the federal bureaucracy. The military
Establishment has steadfastly resisted Trump's inclination to disengage from foreign
interventions. Moreover, the Pentagon has also resisted Trump's order to stop
indoctrinating its personnel in "Critical Race Theory." [
Trump's Anti-Critical Race Theory Order is Necessary But Insufficient , By Timon Cline,
AmGreatness.com, October 5, 2020]
In his book Rage , Bob Woodward
reports that former Defense Secretary and retired Marine General James Mattis once
commented to then Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats that "There may come a time when
we have to take collective action" against Trump, since Mattis deemed the president "dangerous"
and "unfit." [
Mattis told Coats Trump is 'dangerous,' 'unfit': Woodward book , by Tal Axelrod, The Hill,
September 9, 2020]
It's likely that General Mattis's view of Trump is widely shared among top level military
officers.
So how might the military figure into the Blob's wargaming plans? Peter van Buren has
contemplated a post-election scenario in which a "temporary" military government might be
pitched as the only way to break an electoral deadlock and end post-election disorder. [
What
if Trump Won't Leave The White House? The fearmongers are at it again, this time with their
mantle-holder Biden, warning of the coming dictatorship. , American Conservative, June 30,
2020] Van Buren reminded us that Trump's opponents have never accepted his legitimacy, that
"RussiaGate" was good practice for them -- good practice for a coup, that is -- and that they
are gearing up for an all-out effort to dislodge him from the White House.
Obama, Comey And
Eric Holder In The White House
Van Buren further noted that Joe Biden, who has claimed that it is Trump who "is going to
try and steal this election," has also stated quite plainly that if Trump refuses to leave the
White House, he is "absolutely convinced" that the military would "escort him from the White
House with great dispatch." [
Biden: Military Will Remove Trump From the White House if He Refuses to Leave, by Julie
Ross, Daily Beast, June 11, 2020]
It's worth mentioning that van Buren is not a Trump supporter, was a career foreign service
officer, and is an honest man, an Iraq war whistleblower who wrote an excellent book,
We Meant Well: How I
Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People , on his
experiences in that country. I reviewed it here ). He
does not believe that a Pentagon-backed coup is merely "paperback thriller material." It's a
plausible scenario.
Nevertheless, an attempt to use the military to block Trump's re-election could result in
the coup plotters stepping into a trap of their own making.
This is what happened in the failed 1991 coup attempt in the Soviet Union.
On August 18, 1991, with Mikhail Gorbachev preparing to sign a treaty that would have
decentralized the Soviet Union, his hardline political opponents in the Soviet leadership
arrested the father of perestroika at his Crimean dacha, proclaiming that the Soviet
State Committee on the State of Emergency was in charge.
The conspiracy against Gorbachev had been organized by KGB Chairman Vladimir Kryuchkov,
Defense Minister Dmitry Yazov and six other top level political and security officials. They
were alarmed by Gorbachev's reforms, which had already loosed centrifugal forces in the USSR
that threatened the power of the Communist party and the Soviet apparatus.
But within three days, the coup attempt collapsed.
Boris Yeltsin at the Russian White
House, August 19, 1991.
The coup collapsed because of resistance by then-Russian Federation President Boris Yeltsin
and his supporters, and the refusal of elite military and security units to move against
them.
On August 19, Muscovites gathered at the Russian "White House," the seat of Russia's
parliament in central Moscow, and erected barriers around it. Boris Yeltsin climbed atop a tank
to address the crowd. Yeltsin condemned the State Emergency Committee as an unlawful gang of
coup plotters and called for military and security forces not to support the "Gang Of
Eight."
Major Sergey Yevdokimov, a battalion commander in the Tamanskaya Division, had already
declared his loyalty to Yeltsin (hence the tank on which Yeltsin made his historic stand).
Yevdokimov later said that early on he had decided that he would not fire on any
Russian citizens. As his battalion approached the "White House," one of Yeltsin's supporters
climbed on Yevdokimov's tank and asked him to come over to their side. The major made his
historically-significant choice, setting in motion events that would help thwart the coup.
KGB special forces units never appeared at the scene. When the planned assault on the
Russian "White House" ("Operation Thunder") failed to materialize after a brief skirmish, it
was clear that the coup was over. This was quickly followed by the collapse of the Communist
party and the Soviet administrative apparatus; and the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
That was an
enormous surprise to the majority of Western Kremlinologists at the time.
Of course, the situation in the U.S. today is not exactly analogous. For starters, Trump is
operating in a hostile environment ("the Swamp") dominated and controlled by his enemies. The
generals are not on his side. It seems unlikely that a large group of citizens from the DC area
would quickly materialize to support Trump against some sort of military-backed coup.
It's possible, however, that Trump may not even be in Washington when a coup is set in
motion. This would leave him an opportunity to do what he does best -- hold mass rallies to
fire up his support base in "Deplorable" areas of the country.
If general disorder and a deadlock over the elections acts as a cover to deploy military
units, it raises the same question Soviet officers and men were faced with in August 1991:
Would the "boots on the ground" obey orders?
Trump may be disliked by top-level officers. But my sense is that he is popular with the
rank-and-file. What if a significant number of them refused to obey a clearly illegal order? It
may take only one Major Yevdokimov refusing unlawful orders for the whole plot to unravel.
The Deplorables have good reason to think the Blob will rig or otherwise reverse the
election results. The past four years have already taught them that. And the Blob's Main Stream
Media arm has been hard at it selling the Narrative of Trump stealing the election. The
Democrats' base appears to be ready and willing to accept drastic measures against Trump
and the Middle Americans they loathe.
The potential for a seismic political crisis is clear.
What we are witnessing is what I've called " the end of politics ." [
Chronicles , May 2019] American elections are becoming more like the zero-sum games they
are in the undeveloped world -- and were to some extent in
pre-modern Britain . A post-election crisis, especially a force majeure situation
precipitated by military intervention, would accelerate the centrifugal forces already at work
in the United States.
The failure of a coup attempt could do to the Democrats' "Coalition of the Fringes" what the
failure of the August coup did to the Communists in the USSR -- opening up
room to maneuver for what I call the American Remnant and VDARE.com calls the Historic
American Nation.
Given the circumstances, with the demographic ring closing in, that may be a providential
outcome.
I'm not as optimistic as Allensworth. Only one escort of the elites moved against
Gorbachev in 1991. Most of the rest held back. That allowed elite sector 2 to help Yeltsin
resist. Plus, the Jew Wolves of Wall Street swarmed in. So there's that.
The military the rank and file is heavily black, especially the career sergeants petty
officers who really carry out the officers orders. I think the Hispanic and White tank and
file will stay loyal. But follow orders from the anti White officer corps and black
sergeants
Consider the French Revolution. It didn't start till most of the officer corps were
revolutionary masons. The National Guards were revolutionary and so were the judges and
lawyers.
Every elite sector from the clergy through academia media professions and occupations
education both unions and employers Chamber of Commerce Association of manufacturers nurses
teachers Drs. Engineers construction probably big Agricultural which is all that matters any
more. Every organized group is against Trump
All Trump has is us individuals maybe half the adult population but just unorganized
individuals The Republican Party is organized but just as anti Trump and anti White as the
most hysterical liberals and Democrats.
Vindemann Jew immigrant colonel inserted into a position where he could get General Flynn
charged wit crime and the elected president impeached. There's Millions of Vindemanns in
tactical and strategic positions all over the country in every sector. The anti Trump anti
White revolutionaries already own media and communications
I hope I'm wrong. But what's been happening in America for the last 56 years and the
acceleration since 2016 fits the pattern of every successful revolution in the last 500
years.
"... The neocon/NATO aggressive expansionism has many purposes, but one is surely domestic repression: to gaslight and cause fear-the-foreign-bogeyman trauma among the American and British people as a whole and make most of them become docile and lose their critical thinking skills and their ability to analyze their own societies. ..."
"... One of the best ways to lobotomize the publics of the US and UK is to very gradually impose martial law in the name of protecting national security and ensuring peace and harmony at home. ..."
The neocon/NATO aggressive expansionism has many purposes, but one is surely domestic
repression: to gaslight and cause fear-the-foreign-bogeyman trauma among the American and
British people as a whole and make most of them become docile and lose their critical
thinking skills and their ability to analyze their own societies.
One of the best ways to lobotomize the publics of the US and UK is to very gradually
impose martial law in the name of protecting national security and ensuring peace and harmony
at home.
After several color revolutions succeeded, the Russiagate/Spygate op was carried out in
the US, with British assistance. This op has been largely successful, though there has been
limited resistance against its whole fake edifice as well as with the logic of Cold War2.0.
Nevertheless, Spygate has shocked many tens of millions of Dems into a stupor, while millions
more are dazed and manipulated by the Chinese bogeyman being manufactured by Trump.
The most dangerous result of the martial law lite mentality caused by Spygate and its MSM
purveyors is the growing support for censorship of free speech coming mostly from the Dems,
such as Schiff and Warner. The danger inherent in this trend became very clear when FaceBook
and Twitter engaged in massive and unprecedented arbitrary censorship of the New York Post
and of various Trump-related accounts.
This is the kind of thing you do during Stage 1 of a coup. Surely it was at least in part
an experiment to see how various power points in the US would respond. Even though Twitter
ended the censorship later, it was probably a successful experiment designed to gauge
reactions and areas of resistance.
In November, there could be further, more serious experiments/ops. If so, the current
expansionist movements being made and planned by the US and NATO may well be integral parts
of a new non-democratic model of "American-style democracy" -- not constitution-based but
"rules-based."
globinfo
freexchange
As we explained
previously, what we see now in the United States with Trump, is a counter-attack by the part of
the American capital against the globalist faction. The faction that is primarily consisted by
the liberal plutocracy. Therefore, as the capitalist class splits, the capitalists around Trump
are now taking with them the most conservative part of the American society, as they need
electoral power. They have the money and their own media network. Their first big victory was
Trump in the US presidency and this explains why the liberal media attack him so hard and so
frequently.
The COVID-19 pandemic added more chaos in the ongoing civil war between capitalists and (as
always), the working class is paying the price for the additional mess.
The DNC
establishment fought hard, one more time, to get rid of Bernie Sanders in order to impose its
own - fully controllable and fully dedicated to the neoliberal status quo - Joe Biden/Kamala
Harris duo. Obviously, this was an attempt by the corporate Democrats to challenge and beat
Trump without harming neoliberal order through a Socialist like Sanders in the leadership of
the Democratic Party. Still, the DNC establishment couldn't take full control of the whole
situation as the most popular progressives, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, renewed their
position in the party through big victories in the 2020 primaries. Furthermore, the progressive
army came out stronger through significant
additional victories like Cori Bush's.
Corporate Democrats' anxiety and fear that they could lose control over the party became quite
evident during latest party convention, as they tried
hard to "bury" their own progressives while gave plenty of time to neoliberal
Republicans and war criminals to speak.
And, actually, this is the main reason that the corporate Democrats want so desperately to beat
Trump in November's election.
With a potential Biden victory the corporate Dems will re-establish their position in the party
against progressives, as they will be able to play the Trump-scare card for four more years.
During that time, they will get all the help they want from the liberal media to bury forever
the most popular Socialist policies. Simply by claiming that the Trump nightmare could return
in 2024. Therefore, they will demand "unity" from all party members under their own terms, in
short, under full restoration of the neoliberal status quo. Under these circumstances,
corporate Democrats will have plenty of time to assist the liberal plutocrats to
take over directly the party in 2024.
On the contrary, with a potential Trump victory the Trump-scare card will be burned for good
and corporate Democrats won't be able to use it as Trump won't be able to have another term in
2024.
In that case, corporate Democrats will receive additional pressure from the progressive wing
and progressive voters, as these will demand radical changes inside the party towards popular
policies. The liberal capitalist faction will face the serious threat to be left without
political power, which by 2024, will be restricted to some moderate Republicans who are
dedicated to the neoliberal doctrine. The dream of the liberal plutocrats to take over
political power directly will die forever. And this could be proved decisive for the outcome of
the endo-capitalist war between the liberal plutocrats and the Trump-affiliated
capitalists.
Yet, this could also be proved a unique opportunity for the progressives to revive the real
Left in the US and save the country by establishing a 21st century Socialism upon the corpse of
capitalism.
As the furor over Twitter and Facebook's attempts to censor Wednesday morning's New York
Post bombshell intensifies, Rudy Giuliani, who was named as the source of the documents in the
NY Post story, just dropped a new video on Twitter where he outlines some of the alleged
transgressions of "the Biden Crime Family".
Earlier, the NYP
exposed never-before-publicized emails suggesting that Joe Biden's involvement with his
son's business endeavors was much more active than he led the world to believe.
In other words, if the emails are genuine (and nobody has offered any credible evidence yet
to suggest that they aren't) then it's clear the Biden lied about having never discussed
business with his son.
In a tweet, Giuliani confirmed that he has more material that has yet to see the light of
day, and teased the public that it would soon be made available on his website , which he said he launched to stop big
tech from censoring the story.
... Giuliani cited Iraq, what he said was the first example of this, outlining a scheme
involving a $1.5 billion contract and Biden's brother, James Biden.
The former NYC mayor continues: "The question is, why did Joe Biden lie about it? The New
York Post on its front page shows that Joe Biden has been lying about Burisma for 7 years,"
Giuliani added, again claiming that Biden "committed a crime".
Specifically, he named Hunter Biden, James Biden, Joe Biden and Sarah Biden, along with
other unnamed family members, as "the Biden Crime Family."
The "crime family" framing of course harkens back to the "Clinton Crime family", as well as
Giuliani's work as a prosecutor where he famously helped break the Mafia's stranglehold on the
underworld, and much of the legitimate business happening in the territories they
controlled.
Now, we can't help but wonder: will Giuliani drop the Hunter Biden sex tape
ZENDOG , 4 hours ago
Wake me when someone goes to jail.
Fiscal Reality , 2 hours ago
Barr: MIA
Durham: MIA
Horowitz: MIA
MSM: MIA and Covering up
CIA: Complicit
DNC: Complicit
FBI: Complicit
Ukraine: Partner
China: Partner
Obama: Partner
Hillary: Co-conspirator.
Outcome? Nothing. A big, fat, dripping NOTHING.
OpenEyes , 2 hours ago
It's all falling down. Crumbling right before their eyes three weeks before the election
that they were plotting to steal. This is just like when a dam gives way, slowly and then
suddenly. And, it involves more than just the corrupt Bidens. The chain is long and goes all
the way to the top. They are in the process of losing the election, and their reputations, in
the court of public opinion. Next comes the courts of law.
We haven't even gotten into the Durham investigation yet. Have you noticed how quiet
things have been over there? Not a single leak. That tells me that they have a serious case
and a tight team.
I am long popcorn, beer and orange jumpsuits.
Md4 , 3 hours ago
"The emails obtained from Hunter Biden's hard drive reveal Joe Biden lied about Burisma,
and more. Tonight I react and share a private text message that describes the ongoing schemes
by the Biden Crime Family."
And that's coming from Giuliani.
A former federal prosecutor of organized crime.
This guy... knows what he's talking about...
DaveClark5 , 3 hours ago
Crooks will be crooks. What is more disguising is the sheeple that vote for them. Our
founders said that the voters must have some kind of moral compass for there experiment to
work. It is now in the balance.
Lyman54 , 1 hour ago
Well we are still waiting for the Weiner laptop contents to be exposed. I suppose the
Biden laptop info will never see the light of day either.
Walter Melon , 3 hours ago
The old mafia prosecutors of the '70s and '80s would release a statement of something
like, "We have a high level mobster admitting to crimes on an audio recording. If you know
anything about this, please contact us."
And the rats would line up not knowing if it was them or someone else, to make their
deal.
Giuliani remembers this.
Let's see what rats show up this week.
Stormtrooper , 4 hours ago
If the purpose of these releases is to influence the election, forget about it. Demon-rats
aren't smart enough to put 2+2 together. The answer for them is 5. Or 10. Or 18. Whatever
fantasy answer they want it to be. They won't be influenced by irrefutable proof that Joe
Biden is dirty.
freakscene , 3 hours ago
They're not targeting "Democrats".
They're targeting those in the middle that are somehow undecided.
PT , 2 hours ago
Everything revealed in October can be safely forgotten. PizzaGate came out one week before
the election. Sure, I saw the spirit-cooking video, I saw the Podesta emails ... and then it
all magically disappeared. How horrific was the Anthony Weiner lap top? Sooooooooo horrific
that it could be forgotten for four years and counting.
January 2016, 147 FBI agents and then what happened? Looks like the year leading up to the
election (one quarter of all time) can be safely ignored too.
If they were going to trial then they would go to trial and the media releases would be
about the trial. No trial? Nothing is happening.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 4 hours ago
It's October... color me surprised.
ImTalkinfullCs , 1 hour ago
This is disqualifying......
bobroonie , 1 hour ago
Not in our Feudal society.
SmokeyBlonde , 43 minutes ago
This is a resume-enhancer for all D's and establishment R's, aka The Uniparty.
Yog Soggoth , 1 hour ago
I have been extremely critical of Guliani in the past, mostly 9/11 related, but his common
sense videos are just that, with excellent guests. NYC wishes they had Rudy back.
Saturn2001 , 1 hour ago
The problem is that the hardcore demonkrats and more importantly the press, will stifle
this whole set of facts and defend these lying/thieving creatures. We've seen it before. We
even have the likes of piggy noonan of the Wall Street Journal suggesting that electing Biden
would be a return to normal. Normal thieving, destroying deep state skum. They have done so
much harm to the United States and to the world.
Son of Loki , 1 hour ago
Trump has a way with words:
Donald Trump: 'The Bidens Got Rich While Americans Got Robbed'
The president cited the bombshell New York Post story uncovering emails sent from Vadym
Pozharskyi, an adviser to Ukrainian energy company Burisma, to Hunter Biden, thanking him for
helping arrange a meeting with his father.
Hunter Biden received between $50,000 and $83,000 a month from Burisma to sit on the
board.
"The Biden family treated the vice presidency as a for-profit corporation flying around
the globe collecting millions of dollars from China and Ukraine and Russia and other
countries," Trump said.
Yog Soggoth , 1 hour ago
They threatened to not give the money to Ukraine. That money was USAID money allocated by
vote from Congress taken from American taxpayers. Burisma got it's cut which laundered back
to Bidens. Many laws were broken.
philmannwright , 26 minutes ago
The funny part is that whatever Joe did for his kids, is likely NOTHING compared to the
hundreds of millions of dollars that Hillary took for access to herself, and that is only
what we know about during the Clinton Family's federal reign of self-enrichment from
1992-2016... never mind whitewater.
chemcounter , 2 hours ago
Trump needs to execute prosecution on Hillary. You see, these people get away with
enriching themselves and when they are caught, the opposition tries to hold it over their
heads to keep them inactive politically. Instead, they lay low and then come out later
executing well laid plans then use the reasoning that they must be innocent of all the
accusations or someone would have prosecuted. The people are sick of the obvious dual class
criminal justice system.
The liberals are rubbing their hands with glee. They told us it wouldn't last, that it would
never take a hold and that, in the end, everyone would see things
their way . But the idea that right-wing populism is dead is both misguided and premature.
Because the bugbear of Europe's political elite is actually stronger than ever.
Sure, the faces we associate with populism, such as Italy's Matteo Salvini and the UK's
Nigel Farage, may not be plastered all over our newspapers or television screens like they were
just a year or two ago, but the reason for that is the ideas they represented and trumpeted
across the European political stage have taken root.
One issue at the heart of right-wing populism has been immigration and, while the pandemic
has hijacked the national conversation and political debate in most quarters, the policies, the
language and the rhetoric surrounding that very much on-the-menu issue right now are pure
populism.
Twelve months ago, no British Conservative politician who valued their job, however radical,
would have dreamt of airing ideas about processing immigrants on disused ferries in the middle
of the English Channel, or sending
refugees to windswept outposts in the Atlantic until we could figure out what to do with
them.
But these off-the-wall ideas, talk of a points-based visa system, swamping dinghies packed
with illegal immigrants with wave machines and calling in the Royal Navy to stop the flow of
asylum seekers onto Britain's southern beaches, would not have looked out of
place at a Farage-led UKIP conference five years ago.
Back then, this sort of talk was condemned by everyone in the establishment as vile racism
from swivel-eyed
loons and fruitcakes. Nowadays, these go-to solutions from Priti Patel – the hardline
Home Secretary and the daughter of immigrants herself – are deemed blue-sky thinking.
Meanwhile, in France, no one ever talks of Marine Le Pen's Rassemblement National as some
right-wing, fly-by-night populist set-up, despite her tendency to change policies as often as
her smartly tailored suits, depending on the public mood.
For those looking for an alternative to President Macron and his En Marche party, Le Pen is
the only game in town, and while the electoral system does her no favours in failing to aid her
attempts at reaching the Élysée Palace, were she to get there, she carries a
guaranteed swag of right-wing
votes , which would gift her a central role in deciding who takes the top job.
The Italians have their own populist bad-ass in Matteo Salvini. Although he and his Lega
Nord party were all over the media last year, the catastrophic effect that coronavirus has had
on Italy, particularly in his heartland to the north, has impacted that.
After Italians witnessed, on the television news, military trucks carting piles of
corpses away from mortuaries, it was always going to be difficult for the charismatic
leader to maintain his impetus and keep his key issue, migration, in the spotlight.
But it's not just Covid-19 that has made life difficult for Salvini – there's a new
kid on the block. The genuinely far-right Brothers of Italy are now competing for the same
hearts and minds that once belonged to the Lega Nord, and they're toying with the same issues
and successfully providing an alternative.
As Professor Kai Arzheimer, a political scientist at Mainz University, in Germany, points
out, debunking the entire Financial Times piece dedicated to the purported collapse of populism
in which he's quoted: "The overall support among voters for the right wing has not
diminished. It is just being spread among a larger number of actors. To talk about the end of
populism might be somewhat premature." And those healthy populist movements in Spain,
Hungary, Poland, and elsewhere are proof of that.
The liberal idea that populism thrives only in times when things are going well, and that
people look to the establishment parties when things are tough is an over-simplification. You
could argue that demanding times call for more creative thinking and a recognition that doing
things the old way no longer works, and that exploring fresh ideas is the best way forward.
One thing Covid-19 has shown us is that relying on old orthodoxies in dealing with a global
health crisis does not work. The universal mishandling of the pandemic by those we have put in
power to help us through nightmares such as this has destroyed public trust in the usual way of
doing things. And that's precisely why populism thrives and is unlikely to disappear anytime
soon – despite the wishes of liberals in denial.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
The Baron 10 hours ago The damage is already
done to Europe by the mass immigration of (mostly) undesirable elements who are unwilling to
make a honest living there. I think we're at a point where a "right-wing" party entering the
government in some minor form isn't enough any more, there needs to be major political upheaval
- which will most likely only occur if normal citizens organize and stand up against the
current corrupt marxist/globalist/whatever forces that have their claws in the power structure
of the West. Only then can they start rebuilding their countries and cultures. GreekGuy 10
hours ago Crosstalk on Monday, 12 Oct was very good. George Szamuely was on the show and he was
talking about his hypothesis on how the liberal elites are using the corona virus as a means of
strangling populism. A very interesting talk.
Thinkitthrough larrydoyle 15 hours ago When you buy a
companies stock you are effectively making a loan to the company with the expectation of
gaining a return on your investment. Stock purchase price $129.25 Stock value now $142.97 gain
on investment $13.72 per share $1,000,000 divided by the stock purchase price of $129.25 equals
7,737 shares. 7,737 multiplied by $13.72 equals a profit of $106,151.64 gained in only two
months. Smells highly of insider trading. Somehow, you can tell us that this article is " Just
sound and fury". Is the article "Just sound and fury" or is your comment "Just sound and fury"
Reply merkinmuffy 16 hours ago "The Pig" may not have been aware of her husband's investments,
but she and her Party sure benefitted from them. And don't think her husband didn't know it,
either! And notice she's still plugging the Russia hoax! CrazyLady 11 hours ago On March 31,
2017 WikiLeaks released the most damaging disclosure up to that point from what it called
"Vault 7" – a treasure trove of CIA cybertools leaked from CIA files. This disclosure
featured the tool "Marble Framework," which enabled the CIA to hack into computers, disguise
who hacked in, and falsely attribute the hack to someone else by leaving so-called telltale
signs – like Cyrillic, for example.
The CIA documents also showed that the "Marble" tool had been employed in 2016. This is why
the real reason CIA wants Assange. Why didn't Comey ever take the actual servers?
Comey explained "A Higher Loyalty." He wrote, "I was making decisions in an environment
where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president." TGrade1 14 hours ago Dems wouldn't
let the FBI examine the DNC server--only Crowdstrike, a company whose founder and CTO is
Russian! Reply 9
nealmcelroy TGrade1 10 hours ago Transcript of Donald Trump's Ukraine phone call shows he
pushed for investigation. Trump wants to know about CrowdStrike. Trump wants to fully expose
what happened in 2016. He wants to drain the swamp. He wants to expose all of the corruption
and the shenanigans that have been going on in this country, in the deep state for decades.
He doesn't care who he runs against in 2020. He isn't trying to eliminate Biden from the race
as much as he wants to expose the corruption surrounding the Obama administration! Reply
5
nealmcelroy TGrade1 10 hours ago When it was learned that somebody had hacked the DNC
computers, Comey's boys from the FBI showed up and asked to see and investigate and inspect
the servers. And Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz told 'em to go pound sand. "We're not letting
you look at our servers! We've been breaking the law left and right. We got a scheme going
here to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination. We've rigged this for Hillary Clinton. I'll be
damned if we're gonna let you and the FBI in here to find it." Comey said, "Oh, okay," and
the FBI slinks away. I mean, Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz does scare me too. Can you imagine
being married to that? Anyway So the DNC turned They turned to a third-party forensic unit,
an outfit called CrowdStrike. Now, CrowdStrike is a domestic computer forensics firm, private
sector. The FBI's got all these forensics investigators, they've got these massive hackers
themselves, and they've got massive tools, and the DNC and Debbie "Blabbermouth" told 'em to
pound sand. CrowdStrike comes in there, and the FBI just accepted what CrowdStrike said. They
just accepted it -- and, of course, nothing to see here. What they were looking for is
evidence that the Trump team had hacked in, but Trump didn't have anybody who knew how to do
this. The founder's actually Russian, but he's worked with the Ukrainians. CrowdStrike -
sound familiar?
cjones1 1 day ago Nancy Pelosi's Democrats had their emails exfiltrated by the Awan
brothers and several national security sensitive email accounts of ranking House Democratic
Committee members (Homeland Security, Foreign Affairs, & Intelligence) were accessed
illegally. Perhaps CrowdStrike helped Nancy cover up the House Democrats with their email
scandal when they muddied the truth concerning the DNC email scandal where the Awan brothers
also operated. It could be the Pelosis are paying up. Reply 34
el tejano perdido 21 hours ago Decades ago concern was expressed about the revolving door
between people in government and lobbyists. The relationship was too cozy and led to
improprieties, and both major political parties were complicit. Nowadays we have an incestuous
relationship of collusion between democrat politicians, democrat operatives in the executive
branch, and democrat media. A case in point is Shawn Henry, CEO at CrowdStrike, at the center
of the DNC data breach attempt and at the core of the democrat conspiracy to attack candidate
Trump to skew the results of the 2016 election and when that failed, to overthrow a
duly-elected president. Pelosi's conflict of interest aside (which she by law is supposed to
report), Henry previously worked as assistant director to Rbt. Mueller at the FBI, and also
previously worked for MSNBC. This is as cozy as it gets. DC truly is a swamp, exactly the type
of corruption our Founding Fathers were trying to prevent.
Only the 20% of people in the US, who don't live pay check to pay check are oblivious to all
this and are quite happy to keep supporting the Empire for all it's worth, as long as their
sources of income, well-being and lifestyle remains secure and untouched.
Quote form comments "As far as I know economic blockade is tantamount to war. If he wins
reelection expect renewed kinetic attacks on Venezuela and Iran. He's already lined up his
Zionist coalition with Arabic satraps to launch his Iran quagmire. Trump is a deal maker, he
understands the economy and will bring back manufacturing jobs to Murikkka, lol. I'm sure Boeing
execs in deep trouble would love to sell plane to the Iranians but Mr. MIGA just made that
impossible. Nothing to worry about, there's always the next socialist bailout for Boeing funded
by taxpayers - suckers as Trump would call them. So much for winning, can't fix deplorable and
stupid...
Nice posting b Yes, it is time for EU countries to show their true colors which will be ass
kissers for empire, most likely. Folks are saying Nord Stream II is being finished but will
it ever go into use? And of course this is not war because Trump hasn't started any wars,
right?
What a shit show we are seeing. What is the next phase of this civilization war that is
not a war because there are not enough dead bodies for some I guess?...but it sure looks like
war to me.
The next phase would appear to be Kyrgyzstan: from Belarus east to Sinkiang and Hong Kong the
subversion and the attempts at regime change are constant.
While Eurasia seeks to unite for peace and prosperity, the United States and its sleazy
satrapy is constantly trying to divide and weaken, to undermine and to intimidate. In doing
so it relies heavily on abusing the tattered lineaments of democracy- electioneering and
propagandizing, the relics of a western culture which has become nothing more than a hollow
shell containing an increasingly totalitarian plutocracy.
All this simply moves Iran into closer confederation with Russia and China and strengthens
its resolve to send US middle eastern troops packing. Soon there will be a strong
Russia-China-Iran axis that is immune to all Western sanctions. Those countries who are part
of the BRI will get privileged economic treatment. The advantages will become increasingly
apparent and the economic disadvantages of staying allied with the US will become
increasingly apparent as well, particularly in light of the approaching collapse of the
dollar. As long as we manage to avoid a hot war the civilizational die is cast; the US has
chosen its destiny, in the dustbin of history, at least as a neoliberal oligarchy. When and
how it will reinvent itself is an open question, but it is not unreasonable to think it will
take decades. While Europe will eventually align with Eurasia, it will take another
generation of politicians before that happens.
IMO, we would have some interesting discussions. Yes, in a sense WW2 didn't end either,
nor did WW1. The root of our rather ancient Problem Tree began growing long ago when humans
adopted a sedentary lifestyle that allowed for one very important societal trend to
emerge--the concept of private property--whereas ownership and distribution had previously
been communal. Following on the heels of private property was private accumulation of
resources whereas again they'd previously been communal. Hierarchical leadership had already
been established millennia before as had the concept of religion. Culture was the regulating
device for societies since there were no written laws, but cultural adaptations take many
generations to be honed and internalized for them to be effective. IMO, a great many
cultures, but not all, were unable to regulate the sudden rise of those two radical
developments--private property and resource accumulation--that caused the undermining of
cultural taboos related to communalism, which caused societies to become stratified by those
two concepts. Eventually, many components of society that were once communal became
privatized which further increased social stratification and created the need for people to
ask those better off for help whereas such help would've been automatic prior to the society
becoming destabilized. That's the best explanation I can offer for the rise of creditors and
debtors well before the concept of money was established.
Hudson and Graeber have established the general lines of what happened next as societies
became what anthropologists term Monumental irrigation-based agricultural polities and the
concept of interest bearing debt arose. This allowed for the growth of several different
classes within the already stratified society whose culture was now dysfunctional in its
ability to regulate mores and norms. The two primary classes that still exist today are
Creditors and Debtors, and the war between the two has existed for @6-7K years.
Fast-forwarding to the 1750s, we have the first determined efforts by what are known as
the Classical Economists/Political-Economists to put an end to the immoralities of the Feudal
Age. By now very clear it was purposely omitted by later "scholarship", Adam Smith first
wrote and published his Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1759 which formed the
basis for his subsequent Wealth of Nations in 1776. The enemy of progress were
the landed aristocracy who got a free lunch thanks to the rent paid for the use of their
lands, which Enclosure had greatly exacerbated. (Read Utopia for a vivid description
of life @1500 about 100 years into the Enclosure process.) The great momentum to rid England
and Europe of the basis for Feudalism seemed unstoppable by the mid 1800s but instead that
became its high-tide moment as the Feudal forces began their counters.
We are now at the High-Tide moment for those evolved Feudal Forces and their operating
system: Neoliberalism, which also includes Imperialism and Colonialism. It's very much as
Hudson describes in Killing the Host : The FIRE sector--his term for those Feudal
Forces--has turned on its previously ignored host to further enrich itself. Imagine a
Matryoshka Doll that's made of differing classes of nations along the lines of a trophic
system with the littler ones consumed by the bigger ones, etc., all enclosed within the
Outlaw US Empire. But not all nations are within that doll; some substantial nations have
escaped capture via various mechanisms and they resist. Indeed, they offer an alternative to
those nations not yet captured and an example to those captured of the benefits of breaking
free.
That's my explanation of how we got to where we are, which also tells us how we can get
out of our pickle--the Neoliberal trophic system needs to be broken, hopefully without
provoking Nuclear War.
"If they stop trade of humanitarian goods with Iran they will also show that their much
vaunted 'values' mean nothing. " B, they've already shown that with their treatment of Syria.
"Europe must work hard to defend its influence and above all to speak with one voice to
China," Merkel told business weekly WirtschaftsWoche.
"Seen from Beijing, Europe is more like an Asian peninsula. Obviously, we see things
differently," she added.
The key here is we live in an era of secular decline of the Global North (besides the
name, it also includes Australia and New Zealand) and the ascension of China. As a result,
Europe wants unfettered and unconditional access to the Chinese domestic market:
Equally, "we are willing to allow the Chinese to take part [in bids for government
contracts] in Europe, but then we want access in the other direction to their procurement,"
she said.
Of course that this didn't happen, as the uncontrolled of China's opening would be a
repetition of the "Unequal Treaties". Europe is now moving to ban Chinese companies from
competing in their own domestic markets.
Europe, however, doesn't have a problem with what they call "complementary economies",
i.e. sellers of cheap commodities. Hence their good will with Iran and Russia. The problem
here is that the USA is also a great commodity producer and, in the absence of other markets,
it is forcing Europe to swallow up its GNP and shale oil by shutting down their diplomatic
ties with Russia and Iran.
Another problem for the Europeans is that Russia considers itself - since the end of the
18th Century at least - an Eurasian power, not an European one. This restricts Europe to its
"peninsular trap" Merkel talks about.
An option for Europe would be an expansion to the Middle East, through Turkey, Egypt,
Argelia and the Levant up to Iran (Persia), thus rebuilding the old frontiers of Europe
(Ancient Rome). But that route is closed because that's already the American zone of
influence, from Israel and Turkey (NATO).
Finally, there's NATO itself, which kills any possibility of an European Army and puts the
USA in a position to subjugate the entire European Peninsula militarily by conventional
means. This puts a lot of pressure on the USA's favor because it can guarantee favorable
economic deals on a case by case basis against any combination of European powers.
Rarely do any of the usual suspects who've been pushing Trump the iconclast peacenik here
mention Trump in all his criminality on the world stage when Iran has been his obsession from
day one.
You're all so afraid to sully Trump, clinging to his last gasp like there's still hope,
when he's a dirty Ziofascist sleaze who's neck deep in his own self-made shit and about to
face a well-deserved curtain call on his criminal Presidency.
This act against Iran is yet another gift among the many others Trump bestowed on his
Zionist masters and he needs them now more than ever to pull a rabbit out of a hat for him at
the 11th hour and no doubt they're thinking some kind of last-minute subterfuge to save his
self-destructive ass...
If Iran isn't self-sufficient now, it will be by the time the US is finished with it. That
isn't a comfortable place to be but with key sector support from the Eastern bloc it's at
least as manageable as Cuba. The question is whether and how fast the Eastern bloc can
consolidate its resources by e.g. petrodollar replacement and better shared infrastructure.
The Eastern bloc isn't ideal, but when the West is apparently encouraging something like a
holocaust of suffering humanity, it's the only other game in town.
High time for both Russia and China and Iran/Cuba/Venezuela to really get together and start
speaking with one voice and show the despicable USA/West/NATO that they will stand together
and defend each other. Otherwise it's all over.
Specific steps to implement:
1. create and begin using an alternative to the SWIFT and invite anyone who is being
sanctioned by USA/West to join them
2. openly and officially declare that their currencies are backed by gold
3. openly and officially begin to speak against USA's actions around the world at the UN and
invite anyone who is being sanctioned by USA/West to join them
4. get together and openly declare to the world they stand as one and to invite
anyone else who is being harassed by USA/West/NATO to join them
5. immediately begin clean up of all the terrorists/CIA Operatives in in Central Asia
otherwise they will be in deep trouble
what are Putin and Xi doing?? Come on guys, wake up!
EU and US. Just playing classical deception game. And Trump don't make Amerika "Too big to
fail" alone. But double down https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a510221c9228a7d1b9f383b3428db349
When you owe 5000€, you're afraid of your crédit or but when You owe 5000 T$, Who
is afraid ?
Financial House of Card let them no choice but to S***MyD***, and wait
In March, Germany announced that the first transaction had been completed using Europe's
INSTEX system to skirt sanctions -- more than a year after the scheme had supposedly been put
in place. I haven't seen anything further about it. Has it enabled any significant level of
trade?
There is something much more significant happening with Europe, that is more than the Iran
issue. The EU is trying to prop up the US Empire in response to its decline, instead of
trying to free itself. The EU has chosen the side of the US against the multipolar world. It
will be trying to prop up the Empire.
It is becoming increasingly hostile to any country that isn't a puppet to the US, like
itself, and is lashing out at those countries. Like a zombie, it wants to infect others with
its infection, and turn every other country into US puppets too. It thinks that this is
normal and it wants to spread that "normality" to the rest of the world too. Many analysts
are already mentioning that the EU is becoming increasingly hostile to Russia. Recently,
serious statements came from Russian officials:
"Russia will not follow EU and US rules".
"There will be no more business as usual between Russia and France and Germany".
"France and Germany are now leading the anti-Russian block within Europe".
"Russia will no longer be dependent on the EU".
"Europeans have delusions of grandeur".
These are all statements by Lavrov and Zacharova. Recently, we have seen Germany and
France banning Huawei, Europe together with US blocking the OPCW investigation at the UN, and
Germany leading the charge at the UN stage against China. EU also took the lead in the colour
revolution in Belarus.
There are two recent statements by the French foreign minister and by the EU commission
chief: "Europe needs to unite against Russia and Turkey". Surveys also show rising levels of
anti-chinese hatred in Europe, and not only in the US. What has happened is far more serious
than the europeans being "feckless U.S. ass kissers". It is worse than that.
The EU chose the side of the US against the multipolar world. It does not want to free
itself from the US. Actually it thinks that it is normal to be a puppet, that others should
be US puppets too, and that a joint EU-US Empire should be supported, so that some kind of
world wide liberal utopia can be build by it.
Europeans are psychologically damaged by WW2 and this is affecting their geopolitical
behavior, turning them into forever puppets of the US. They can not free themselves because
when they were free once, they "did very bad things". Therefore they should always follow
their "better" and "Big Daddy" US, who "freed them from themselves" and "put them in the
right way".
Europeans can not be helped. Ironically, it is their own rejection of their WW2 past that
causes them to reject the multipolar world and sovereignty as "primitive things from the
past", and thus support a transnational globalist western empire that is here "to bring
Utopia on Earth". For them Russia, China, Iran, India, Turkey etc. are just a bunch of
primitives that are tryng to turn back the clock.
And thus it will increasingly start to lash out at any country that isn't a US puppet as
those countries prevent the coming of Utopia.
I fail to see anything but US desperation and irrelevance in this. Okay, US and Israeli.
It's at the level of attention whoring; "look at us, we're sanctioning Iran again!".
Beyond harassment what is this supposed to achieve or stop that hasn't already been done
or failed? "Force" the US to sanction all of China and Russia and yes perhaps India,
Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, ? The first thing they will do is to complain that whoever it might be
are forcing them to act due to the illegal sanctions the US is forcing onto others! Absurd
:D
Think of the Governments of the EU as having been infiltrated by a fifth column. One that
sees the EU as vassals. Many parts of the Political spectrum do not seem to think of the end
result except as a sort of glued together "WWSS" (World Wide Slave State?), with countries as
property of individual Oligarchic families, and the individuals in them controlled by all the
means of repression that are becoming evident.
The EU die was cast in the UN vote that embarrassed the US last month. The EU will defy
the US and work around the sanctions. They must for their own economic vitality. These
sanctions are US hegemonic sanctions. They are dual use: they hurt Iran and they prevent the
EU from gaining market share and flexibility over the US. With Russia and China ready to deal
weapons to Iran, the containment and strangulation of Iran is relieved. Russia spits at
US sanctions.
Sanctions used to be employed by the US to get behavior change or begin regime change.
The sanctions on Iran intend to kill Iran as a sovereign nation. Most other nations don't
want that result, only Israel and the Arab oil nations want that. Russia and China will not
allow that to happen.
Just as sanctions did not and does not alter North Korea's behavior, these new sanctions
won't change Iran's behavior.
Diplomacy, head man to head man, changed Kim's behavior. Trump didn't learn that lesson,
quite ironically.
Passerby @17 notes the increasingly obvious anti-Russia stance.
What drives it? Economics. USA is a bigger market for EU than Russia. But Russia is
closer by far, has natural resources and great economic fundamentals, needing only capital.
Surely it is an important engine in a EU thriving internal economy?
Yes, but USA will not allow West-East economic integration of Eurasia, as it makes for
a massive competitor to US business. Russia and China must be economically
suppressed.
As a bonus, any EU economic suppression of imports from China will, in the long run, boost
domestic EU employment.
All EU (and Russia) are requiring more 'local content' in foreign capital invested in
their country.
In the energy dependence sense, it is the only suitable moment in time to do this.
Renewables in EU join with natural gas oversupply around the world to somewhat free EU from
energy dependence from mid East sources (and Russia supplies only ~12% of German energy
needs.
The perfect moment to strike. Sanctions and restrictions need a 'justification'. Levers
and sticks are needed to be able to accuse Russia and China of dear old 'human rights
abuses'. Chemical weapon fabrications are almost ideal. So ramp up evidence-free accusations,
and sleight-of-hand replace some of them with EU minted exclusive clubs with accusatory,
investigative, and punitive attributes.
UN Conventions are an obstacle. That's why it's so important to place them outside
Security Council resolutions - the only universally recognised proscriptive sanction and
punitive mechanism. If this mechanism is to be set loose, the Security Council must lose
power. Once all the cogs in this machine are in place, turn the machine on.
What will you dial up? Dial up rules, regulations, restrictions, sanctions, exclusions,
tariffs, inducements, subsidies, or any self-serving instrument you can think of. Bloc vote
to cripple the 'opposing' existing Conventions and Internationally approved instruments.All
aimed at giving economic advantage over EVERYONE outside west Eurasia (and USA).
Whats wrong with that? G6 mutated and on steroids. Large enough to have some leverage over
USA. G6 + 1. And G6 + 1 would have enormous leverage over the rest of the world. Except RIC
(Russia, India, China.
RIC plus many other countries in a Eurasian Convention will also have considerable ability
to develop economies, as long as a vibrant internal Eurasian + economy develops.
And given the internal resources and transport connections, Eurasia is a viable
econo-system - even where exports to the Western Union ('WU') and United States (US)are
restricted by tariff barriers.
Economic struggle. WUUSies against the world. Popcorn please? No. We are all dragged into
this EU adventure. We, the people, are all unwilling players in their game.
Completely agree. What we will probably see is the EU attempting to both appease the US in
the immediate term while continuing to work with Iran / China to form longer-term solutions,
if that isn't what is already happening.
Of course the 20% of people in the US, who don't live pay check to pay check are oblivious to
all this and are quite happy to keep supporting the Empire for all it's worth, as long as
their sources of income, well-being and lifestyle remains secure and untouched.
@KamalaHarris So, if those
who earn over $400k happen to be landlords, biz owners, etc don't ya think they'll increase
their prices, rents, or whatever to cover the extra tax that will ultimately be passed on to
the consumer....
Ma'am, w all due respect: 1)taxes increase at high end: 2)fiscal stimulus package of
>$2tn; 3)followed by LONG-TERM reinvestment of proceeds in infrastructure, climate, HC,
and education that would surge Econ growth & more than offset taxes. GDP estimates GO UP
in this scenario.
"Trump is 74, male and heavy, placing him in the most vulnerable group for COVID-19. He has
been given steroids dexamethasone normally reserved for severely ill coronavirus patients,
which shows that his symptoms are far more severe than reported," Yang Zhanqiu, deputy director
of the pathogen biology department at Wuhan University, told the Global Times on Monday. "If we
remember the treatment to the epidemic in Wuhan, critical patients were given dexamethasone. It
is effective for severe patients, who are also given supplemental oxygen, or put on a
ventilator. It is not advisable for those with mild symptoms because it contains many
hormones."
... a few US news outlets reported Saturday that Trump had trouble breathing Friday, and was
given supplemental oxygen to maintain his oxygen level during his journey to Walter Reed.
"If he only had mild symptoms, he would have been quarantined rather than hospitalized,
given America's lax measures and standards on the outbreak. He is unlikely to be released from
the hospital until nucleic acid tests are negative, and the possibility of leaving on Monday
looks slim."
But another Beijing-based immunologist who requested anonymity believes that small doses of
dexamethasone are commonly used for general drip, or for mild symptoms. "It depends on what
dose is given to the president."
It is also important to pay attention to Trump's previous underlying conditions and
complications, particularly his experience with bacterial infections, which can damage his
immunity, the expert said.
There is insufficient information and evidence to suggest a severe condition for Trump so
far. At least he was able to talk properly, and get outside temporarily."
That's where random sampling became a scam. People who hold minority views or views that they
think are opposite of the reviewer often will not respond honestly creating false narrative that
MSM propagate.
Notable quotes:
"... Philip Giraldi, Ph.D. is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest ..."
"... So don't worry! As long as enough Americans keep playing Red v Blue, the Establishment will be just fine. ..."
Watching the network news on television or reading about current events in the newspapers
seemingly transports one to an alternate universe where nothing seems to make sense. The profit
driven news cycle in the United States is admittedly a poor mechanism for actually gaining an
understanding of what is going on, but seven days of Ruth Bader Ginsburg worship hardly
addresses what is ailing the country, particularly as questions about how she
earned many millions of dollars while serving as a judge as well as some unsavory aspects of her
career have been carefully buried.
A friend who is a retired U.S. Army general made an interesting comment several days ago,
observing that when it comes to politics and voting patterns the so-called "silent majority" is
indeed silent. What he meant was that many Americans who hold currently unpopular conservative
views will not respond honestly to a call from an unknown pollster regarding voting intentions.
This is particularly true of the current campaign in which Donald Trump is being reviled by the
media and depicted by the Democrats as no less than a threat to American democracy. Biden by
way of comparison pretty much gets a free pass, to include forgiveness for his frequent
faux pas and mental lapses. In other words, Trump is being framed as someone poised to
mount a totalitarian takeover of the United States, which in and of itself would disincline
many voters to indicate openly that they would support him over Biden.
My friend was suggesting that the polls on the upcoming election just might be more than
usually wrong. I would add to that the general vapidity of what one might expect from the
presidential debates, which are similarly being framed in such a fashion as to avoid any topics
that might really matter. But the polls do reveal two things. First, that there is a lack of
any confidence in
the integrity of politicians at all levels, and second, that jobs and healthcare are
the
principal concerns of nearly all voter demographics as they directly impact on quality of
life.
Healthcare is admittedly a complicated issue given the fact that the entire system in the
United States would have to be reformed, with considerable government intervention. The
respected British medical journal The Lancet recently published "Measuring
universal health coverage based on an index of effective coverage of health services in 204
countries and territories" . The study revealed, to no one's surprise, that the United
States has by far the world's most expensive medical care, at around $9,000 per person per year
while at the same time delivering poorer results than virtually any other industrialized
nation. Medical expenses are in fact a leading cause of personal bankruptcy by Americans.
So, what are the two parties saying about health care? The Republicans want to overturn
so-called Obamacare and replace it with something else which they cannot
describe while the Democrats insist that they want to keep Obamacare in place while also
blaming the president for the response to the coronavirus. That's it. There is plenty of blame
to go around on Covid-19 and Obamacare is in fact a bad program. It is good if the government
is footing the bill for you, but anyone who is paying for his or her own insurance has seen the
rates treble and even quadruple since the program became active. It has become a gold mine for
the health care industry, which now assumes that it can charge whatever it wants and the
suffering customer will be obliged to pay for it. That there is no effective regulation of
health care is due to the fact that Big Pharma and other providers have completely corrupted
Congress through political donations to make sure that the highly profitable status
quo remains untouched.
And when it comes to the other great concern, "The Economy," which means jobs, the two major
parties have even less to say since they know deep down that they have both conspired in the
gutting of America's industrial and manufacturing infrastructure.
But another area dear to my own heart which the parties have been silent about is Foreign
Policy, which also subsumes National Security, a related issue that the opinion polls do not
specifically address. Both parties are strong on issuing position papers that refer to
supporting allies, meaning Israel followed by everyone else, confronting threats from Russia
and China, and maintaining the world's number one military. Beyond that it gets a bit vague. We
have recently learned from a possibly unreliable source named Bob Woodward that President Trump
sought to assassinate Syria's President Bashar al-Assad but was talked out of it. Trump did
order the assassination of senior Iranian General Qassim Soleimani, whom he and Secretary of
State have recently described as the "world's leading terrorist," which is manifestly untrue.
Is assassinating foreign leaders something that the United States wants to engage in? Why is no
one talking about it?
And then there are the "hot wars" being fought in Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan. None
of those wars benefit from a constitutionally mandated declaration of war by Congress and they
have cost the U.S. taxpayer trillions of dollars. Shouldn't that be under discussion? Or the
"maximum pressure" economic wars being waged against Venezuela, Cuba, Syria and Iran? Those
"wars" have collectively killed tens of thousands of civilians and have done nothing to enhance
the security of the United States. Shouldn't Trump and Biden be talking about that?
Instead, we will see much finger pointing and hear a lot about how dangerous a win by either
presidential candidate will be, all couched in general terms based on a lot of "what-ifs." But
what the American public needs, particularly the silent majority, is a viable plan for decent
and affordable healthcare similar to what most of the rest of the world enjoys. And a new
government also must act decisively to challenge corporate offshoring interests to bring
manufacturing jobs back home. But most of all, the United States needs peace after nineteen
years of spreading chaos all over the globe. End the wars and bring the troops home. Do it
now.
Philip Giraldi, Ph.D. is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest
Much respect, Phil, but you know the news cycle in America is not driven by "profit" but
rather by agenda. If profit drove the news CNN and MSNBC would be podcasts by now. (((Big
Other))) is willing to lose a lot of money in the short-mid term to drive their long term
agenda.
"What They Are Not Talking About: War and Peace, Healthcare and Jobs Are Non-Issues"
I'm not aware that either party has any credible idea what to do to really fix jobs and
healthcare so they basically have nothing to talk about.
Trump wants less war and the Deep State would like more war but even if President Biden and
then President Harris are willing to give it to them, the Covid Great Depression means we
really can't afford them any more so there is no point in talking about that either.
The election comes down to how many people really hate Trump + how many Republicans and
neutrals are willing to give him a second chance + how much the Democrats can stuff the
ballot boxes. Every thing else is just WWF noise.
This article really hits it on the head for me. The last four years I've been screaming
that the issues are:
1. End the forever wars, strengthen diplomacy
2. Jobs
3. More better jobs
4. Even more better jobs
5. Fix the trade balance (jobs)
6. End the healthcare boondoggle.
These are all issues that NO ONE talks about anymore.
People generally don't vote on issues. Except for fundamentalists, who vote on only one
issue, abortion, which is precisely equivalent to not voting on any issues at all.
What they vote on is "like" and "dislike." If they "like" a candidate, then they vote for
them. If they don't "like" a candidate, then they don't vote for them.
observing that when it comes to politics and voting patterns the so-called "silent
majority" is indeed silent.
Thanks, that statement sums up the underlining problem, that is why the massive problems
of the US are running out of control, with no fix in sight.
The general Middle Class public will not stand up for their own and true interests or even
want to comprehend what those interests might be until they are in a jobless claims line.
They go silent and let corrupted politicians of all shades run the show as if they dont have
a dog in the fight.
Trump supporters should call him out where he goes off the reservation to serve Special
interests and not their and the same goes for all others.
@jsinton ct exploiting a viral dempanic with its trillion$ for Wall Street, another
handful of 401Kibble to prevent snarling among the professional and managerial class who tend
to read and think, and a paid vacation for the proles.
But Beltway politics abhors a vacuum, and draws its breath from strife. Which is why
people have to be distracted and divided over transgender statues and Confederate bathrooms,
strung along by the hopes/fears of Barr Durham indictments, and rallied to vote in the next
Most Important Election Ever by food fights over robed, unelected politicians whose real job
is to sanctify rule of a country and as much of the world as can be grabbed by
Washington.
So don't worry! As long as enough Americans keep playing Red v Blue, the Establishment
will be just fine.
This is the absolute crux of the matter. Debates are a ceremonial pissing contest. They
always censor any of your principal concerns. As with all official US propaganda, you can
categorically say there's never any mention of your rights.
Two things will happen in November. There will be a futile ritual to decide which CIA
puppet ruler fucks you over. Then on November 9th, the whole world is going to talk about
your rights. Unlike your parties, they ask you what you want. They encourage you, yes you, to
demand what you want and they give you a platform in front of the whole world, in the most
public forum on earth. You can watch it live. Hell, you can go there and have your say. A
bunch of Americans will. Actual democracy. Holy fucking shit.
Think of it. You have two coincident four-year cycles of governance. One is phony
bullshit. One is exactly what you need. The whole world is pushing your right to peace, to
health, to a livelihood, to your culture, all your other rights you don't even know you got.
It's like the whole world is yelling in your face, loud as they can, "Why do you put up with
that shit?" The world is trying to teach you how you run a grown-up country – go
through your rights systematically like a checklist, and make your government respect them.
And your horseshit regime in DC makes sure you never hear a peep about this great institution
of yours.
We could shitcan parties and elections, pick politicians by lot and run the country with
human rights reviews. It's that simple. This is how we get rid of this parasitic, predatory
US police state.
If there's a constant in history, it's that politicians never talk about the things that
matter to people because the solutions to the problems are too divisive – apart from
the fact that they're clueless anyway beyond a few barfly level notions.
They'd rather concentrate on looks.
In France, in 1981, socialist candidate François Mitterrand came up with 120
propositions that nobody read but his campaign adviser, Jacques Séguéla, a
publicist, thought he looked like a vampire and said to him: "If you don't have your canines
filed down, you'll always inspire distrust. You'll never get elected to the presidency with
such a set of teeth".
So he had his canines filed down.
Because it's SYSTEMIC RACISM! That is the source of all of our problems.
And the thing about systemic racism is that it's invisible, the only way to fight it is to
scream loudly about how bad it is, bend the knee when the national anthem is being played,
and give your nice local diversity officer a raise and a corner office. Jobs? Healthcare?
That just won't work, so don't even think about it.
Both main parties in the US (Republican and Democrat) are fundamentally controlled by
billionaires and corporations (billionaire robots), so they have no interest in helping the
little people.
Certain elements benefit from the broken medical system in the US. Ditto for offshoring
jobs, fighting wars with and selling expensive weapons, ruining the environment, and
welcoming third world immigration.
And the same forces control the media (MSM and big tech) which influences greatly what
people see and what they care about, get emotional about.
There was no discussion of the destruction of Syria, which was spared when Russia
intervened. If Wallace wanted to corner Trump, he could have mentioned that Trump said
American troops would be withdrawn from Syria several times, but it never happened. Why? And
what would Biden say if asked if American troops should leave Syria and Iraq?
Whatever health care system the Dems concoct will crash and burn because they will make
the care available to illegal aliens while ceasing to control the influx of same.
"Joe Biden's 'war economy' policies are a radical break with the status quo."
Telegraph
"Bidenomics is a heady brew. The Democrats' $7.9 trillion blast of extra spending is a step
beyond Roosevelt's New Deal. It mimics the Keynesian expansion of the Second World War and
consciously aims to run the economy at red-hot speeds of growth.
If enacted in full, it is large enough to lift the US economy out of the zero-rate
deflationary trap of the last decade and entirely reshape the social and financial
landscape.
The stimulus will be corralled inside the closed US economy by Joe Biden's protectionist
"Buy America" policies, his industrial strategy, and his carbon border tax (i.e. disguised
tariffs against China). This limits leakage.
It is a laboratory of sorts for a post-globalisation experiment in what used to be called
"reflation in one country" – before the free flow of goods and capital emasculated
sovereign governments.
"It's quite likely that, just as in World War II, when we push down on the economic
accelerator, we will find that we have been running on one cylinder up until no w," said the
Roosevelt Institute, now advisors to the
Biden campaign .
This is why
Moody's Analytics estimates that Bidenomics accompanied by a Democrat clean sweep of
Congress would lift American GDP by an extra 4.8pc, add an extra seven million jobs, and raise
per capita income by an extra $4,800 over the next four years , compared to a clean sweep by
Donald Trump. Economic growth would rocket to 7.7pc in 2022." Telegraph -------------
Evans-Pritchard, the author of this piece baldly declares that the Trump tax cut failed to
stimulate economic growth and that a clean sweep by the Democrats in November would lead to
massive GDP growth and a reduction in present economic inequalities in American society. I will
be very interested in your comments. pl
That's a fine read Col. Thank goodness that after 47 years as a politician, including 8
years as VP - during which TARP did what? - Biden finally has a plan to Tax and Spend that
beats all the Tax and Spend plans that went before this one.
Just what is this getting spent on - the same things Obama-Biden promised, "green" (the
color of money) energy, solar charging stations and 1.5 million energy efficient homes
(didn't the Housing bubble cause a little economic problem?), 'educaiton'! I wonder if that
includes teaching us all critical race theory? and "infrastructure". And here I thought
broken records were out of style.
Where's the money coming from? According to Oxfordeconomics, which the Guardian links to,
Biden's raising taxes, but it won't lower consumer spending:
".... we estimate an overall multiplier of 0.25 for the individual provisions in Biden's tax
package. So, for every dollar of tax increase, households would reduce their spending by 25
cents. As such, while the proposal would generate a substantial revenue inflow, we
don'tbelieve it would significantly constrain consumer spending."
So what is the decline in corporate spending if you raise corporate taxes? The economists
at Oxfordeconomics conveniently left that out, nor did they eplicitly tell you that a decade
of tax revenue will still leave you with 60 years of tax burden from Joe's spending.
"On the corporate tax front, the most significant revenue raisers are:•A 7ppt
increase in the statutory corporate tax rate to 28%, which would raise $1.3tn over
10years.•An increase in taxes on foreign earnings.•A 15% minimum tax on global book
income.•The elimination of several real estate investment tax preferences." (Oooh look,
Trump's screwed! Yeah! I wonder how all those REITs look with that?)
Another unasked question: Who is going to do all that economy stimulating work if there is
a national lockdown due to Covid?
"LaRouche's comments were prompted by an article published in the Telegraph on May 19 by
British intelligence stringer Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, whose experience in orchestrating U.S.
impeachment drives for the British goes back to his attacks on President Bill Clinton.
Evans-Pritchard, on the eve of Trump's first trip abroad as President, is spreading the black
propaganda line that Trump might already be incapacitated, in much the same way as President
Richard Nixon was incapacitated by then-Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, who "instructed
U.S. military officials to ignore any order from the Oval Office to use nuclear weapons."
Evans-Pritchard asserts that the key to overthrowing Trump is to pull Republican support
away from him, which he admits is still strong. But what happens next? He quotes Sir Jeremy
Greenstock, former British UN ambassador and now chairman at Gatehouse Advisory Partners:
"America can be very powerful if it decides to act hard. Xi Jinping and Putin will probably
wait and see whether Trump self-destructs." Evans-Pritchard then raises the question: How
will Trump behave "when the special prosecutor [Robert Mueller] starts to let rip with a
volley of subpoenas."
I like the idea of a Carbon Border Tax. Or at least the one proposed by the EU, as I have
not seen Biden's proposal. It has never made sense to me that we import from countries with
low environmental standards when our own manufacturers are handicapped.
But unless Biden can carry Democratic Senatorial challengers against GOP incumbents it
ain't gonna happen. It will be stalled in the Senate. There is no way McConnell will even
allow it on the Senate floor.
This thinking has been wrong, repeatedly so, for the last 10 years. The idea that there is
just one more pedal to push down to jumpstart the economy belies the truth that we have
experienced the most accommodative and expansive monetary policy on a global level in modern
times.
Aside from the lack of efficacy, which I may look to discuss at length later on, there is
another striking thing about this plan, and that is how it will be paid for. The reason is
not the traditional "where will the money come from" I know where it will come from, cheap US
debt, but it tells us two key things. The first is that the functional ideas of Modern
Monetary Theory (MMT) that you can basically just issue debt and have your central bank both
monetize it and keep the interest payments low and use that to fund largely unlimited
government spending have for the most part been endorsed by those on the left as a mechanism
to deliver on their grand plans. The second thing that is striking though is what they want
to spend the money on, which is military spending and infrastructure and not healthcare and a
green new deal. This calls into question what alignment there is on the cadres of the left or
the possibility that starting with infrastructure is a way to run cover to expand these
fantasy economics to social projects without reorienting the economy towards their
achievement.
Evans-Pritchard's talents are wasted on economic commentary. He writes well, but in the
breathless tones of a failed thriller writer. His entire worldview is based on the notion
that it is always two minutes to midnight. It's a shame that they put all of his stuff behind
a paywall.
Maybe if Biden's plan is approved we will finally see the inflation that Wall Street and
its media minions have been whining about for the past forty years.
I have no doubt that the collapsing pocket that is Conservative Inc will luxuriate back on
the familiar loser's ground of "fiscal responsibility."
Biden's plan, such as it is, simply marries the essence of Trump's nationalist policies
with Great Society spending levels. Like so much of his platform, it is designed to keep the
progressives on the plantation until Nov 3 and not one minute beyond.
Sure it will. The devil is in the details. When has any Democrat economic plan ever
produced intended results. First they have to confess what went wrong with their trillion
dollar "War on Poverty" that now requires another trillion to pretend to clean up that
grotesquely distorted mess.
Until they confess to their sins of the past, they are doomed to repeat them. How are they
going to remedy their decades of teacher union K1-2 fail turning out entire generations of
dysfunctional illiterates who are somehow going to be absorbed into this dynamite
economy.
They are sitting in the back room smoking dope and spinning tales. What I hear is wealth
confiscation and/or turning on the printing presses. Time for a good recap of Obama's initial
"Green Jobs Revolution" from his first term - who did those promise work out and why are we
having to undo the piles of excrement Biden First Term left behind.
I have a bad case of deja vu When in fact the Trump Tweaking was paying long term
dividends, until the deep state hijacked covid to destroy any possible Trump bragging rights.
Never forget Nancy Pelosi tearing up Trump's SOTU address and declaring they were all lies --
and then carrying out her covid porn agenda to make sure she was proven correct.
Remember the three generation rule - all revolutionary and planned economies always fail
by the third generation. Soviet Union, Margaret Thatcher's warning, Cuba, etc ......if all
the wealth in the world was redistributed, it would be back in similar hands three
generations later. Societies always stratify, even since the Sumerians.
America is unique primarily because of the mobility it offers between the strata by its
relatively free market system. Don't mess with it. Democrat's heavy handed planned utopia is
a nightmare.
I am no economist. However, I am not in debt. I am not wealthy, but I have all I need and
want. I've worked very hard during my life and enjoyed my jobs because they were suited to my
training and kislls. My retirement funds keep me comfortable. My two sons are doing well in
our current economy. That's, of course, a self-centered view of the situation.
But, with that in mind, I say this: "beware of Greeks bearing gifts." (I know Biden is not
Greek, but I hope you get my point.)
I am also remembering the Obama administration. I may receive only an Obama phone and an
EBT card.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is generally a very astute writer. However, on economics and
national fiscal policies and central banking he has bought into the Davos sophistry that
defies common sense for over a decade.
An example of this sophistry is this line from the passage in your post - "..lift the US
economy out of the zero-rate deflationary trap of the last decade...". Ask an average
American if they've seen any price deflation in their rents or house prices, their kid's
tuition, their health care premiums, their cost of pharmaceuticals, the cost of tacos at
their neighborhood taqueria, the cost of getting their shirt cleaned, over the past decade
and they'll laugh at you. The cost of living of average Americans have risen and that is the
real living experience. But of course if you're Ben Bernanke or Mario Draghi or Jerome Powell
or Ms. Lagarde then we are in a "deflationary trap" and they should print more and more money
that gets shipped first to their friends on Wall St. The Party of Davos as Jack called
it.
Under the government enforced lockdown, how many trillions has the US federal government
under the Trump administration borrowed from future generations in the first and now the
second stimulus waiting for approval? How many trillions did Jerome Powell print up and send
to his friends at Blackrock and Citadel?
GDP is a useless indicator IMO. Digging trenches and filling them up will raise GDP. A
very important indicator however is productivity growth. That has been lagging for many
years. Another are median household income & wealth, which has also been lagging. What
we've seen in the US is a dramatic increase in wealth inequality between the top 0.1% vs the
bottom 80% over the past 50 years and this curve continues to accelerate - second order
derivative!! The second is the level of systemic debt across all sectors - individuals,
corporate and government at all levels that has continuously risen over 50 years increasing
systemic leverage to a point larger than during the civil war and WW II. This has occurred
under both parties and the Trump presidency has actually increased it despite the rhetoric.
Compare the Balance of Trade relative to the soundbites.
A systematic restructuring of our economy away from financialization, away from bailouts
of the oligarchy, away from unprecedented market concentration, away from untrammeled credit
expansion to back previous credit losses and having a monetary authority with a singular
focus on sound money is what's necessary. But that's not gonna happen under either Trump or
Biden as it will gore the ox of the Party of Davos whose interests is what both sides
primarily cater to. More debt-fueled government spending always ends up as socialism for the
oligarchy which is exactly what we've had for decades. It is an economic truism that as
productivity of debt continually declines, economic productivity also declines. That's the
trap we are in!
Been very happy with my gold investments these past two years and will stick with them
thanks, Biden would supercharge them.
Longer term I am looking to have most of my money in Asia, Russian oil companies also seem
to like drilling for oil, rather than desperately trying to be anything else than producing
oil like BP and the rest. Demographics are dire for most of the West and the US is likely to
continue transitioning in to a Latin American style country. People have been well
conditioned in to not talking about such things but no point talking about the increasing
economic dysfunction without talking about the underlying cause. A massive increase in
immigration will lead to a surge in inequality, anemic economic growth, fiscal deficits and a
decline in gdp per capita.
Time to start think about investments the way a well to do Latin would.
Well, Biden has to get elected first, we'll see. Carbon taxes, hmmm - another way to
destroy the middle-class?
Something to think about is the European Central Bank, they are a meeting late this month
with "experts" to determine if they will go to a digital currency. The ECB might then decide
the "experts" are right and go full digital on Jan 1st, 2021. We might see a whole lot of
Euro money coming into the USA, hope so. However, the Federal Reserve has not been printing
any new bank notes so you'll have trouble finding crisp bills for Christmas gifts.
IMO, based on the debt current and future we are loading on the backs of our children, it
matters not a whit which of the paths are chosen. Both will end in destruction of said debt
by some method - because you can only load so much on horseback and still ride. As we stand
now, we are walking alongside a swaybacked packhorse already. Closing off the country, where
the only growth has been in the services sector for decades, makes sense in what
universe?
Raise taxes? They have only ever increased in my lifetime, my fathers and his. At what
point does the Boston Tea Party repeat? From where I sit, everything either party does is
only adding fuel to a coming conflagration, as nothing is actually paid for - a ledger entry
is aggregated and we march on. The piper will get paid, as he has the children...
1.socialism and keynesian economics as a viable theory dead dead right now....today and
politicians know it
2. central banks are trapped at zero bound interest rates with no way under heretofore main
stream economic theories to stimulate their respective economies
3. politicians are largely dumb as a bag of hammers with not a shred of understanding what to
do other than to listen to think tanks warmed over rehashed ideas that have not worked in the
past and won't now.
4. what biden is proposing is MMT with communist thomas piketty theory disguised as classical
keynesian nonsense being sold to a public almost as dumb as those doing the selling
5. in order to make this works they will have to institute guranteed basic income for the
umpteen millions of people who will NEVER work again under this policy of bullshit
6. and lastly to ensure NO ONE can escape this trap which will evolve into an UGLY neo
feudalism for 99% of the populace this team of genuinely EVIL people will have to CANCEL ALL
paper money FORCING everyone to have a bank account for using digital money THE ONLY money
that can exist if this comes to pass. banks loves this as it gives them a cut of all the
action
7.as a result taxes will be anything they want and YOU have no escape or recourse
whatsoever
8. say the wrong thing, think the wrong thing and your economic life under digital money will
be cancelled placing you into destitution and death
9. this is a recipe for slavery on a gigantic scale ensuring the 1/10 of 1% can rule without
disturbance forever
10 revolution will be the only option at that point and since the police and military will
continue to be paid by the state it will be bloody
On the other hand, if this scheme promises to bring back the Jimmy Carter 14% interest
rates on CD's for us retired folks, I say bring it on. Everyone else will just have to deal
with the economic rubble later on their own.
I just need another good 15 years or so myself. In other words, never believe old people
when it comes to managing the US economy- our goals are selfish and very short term. So like,
what's in this for meeeeeee?
Biden must have listened to AOC for this fiscal policy advice. Bring back chicken coops
and victory gardens, and turn in your scrap metal because we are WAR.
What in God's name is Biden having a Brit pushing his economic plan. We all know they
embellish everything which then falls apart into pieces. Yes, Fred I remember those +14%
interest rates I paid on my mortgage and still kick myself for not taking the 100k down
payment and putting it into a 14% 30 year CD and renting. But then we all have those
memories. Sure would not want my grandchildren paying those rates on a 500k mortgage as it
would kill the real estate business and this country.
Sleepy Joe will be ready for the assisted living center by year two and we would be stuck
with Checkbook Harris, UGH. Vote for the Bullcrapper that gets things done.
Ahem; This has been done before: After Hitler was elected in 1933; He slammed the borders
shut to money transfer, then started building the autobahn. It worked, Germany came out of
the slump. Of course, Hitler then moved on to building planes & tanks. Also, Modern
Monetary theory says you can run the printing presses & print money like mad, as long as
that paper is going into a real, working economy, it gets recycled. That does not describe
the current 'developed world' economy; the FIRE economy (finance, insurance, real estate) has
eaten it's own tail. When all the other assets have jacked up half way to the moon, there
will be another gold rush (same as 1930s) & my shack in northern BC will shake with all
the helicopters flying around to work up new gold mines.
Candidate Donald Trump's 2016 programme was clear. Bring industry back home. Ditto the
troops. Ensure an adequate defence. Drain the swamp.
Looked good. I hadn't realised that his main achievement would be somewhat simpler. Stay
functioning in office in the face of the most dangerous series of attacks on an American
President that can have been seen since the early nineteenth century.
So clearly he's going to need another term in office to get on with all the things he
should have been able to get on with in the first.
Candidate Joe Biden was, I thought at first, stealing part of the Trump 2016 programme. Bring
industry back home. Turns out not - as far as I can see America will remain the most heavily
industrialised country going. But, as in my own country, much of the industry will still be
abroad. With the jobs.
As with my own country Biden's America will be environmentally virtuous. It'll hit some
good targets. It'll not use as much fossil fuel. Yesterday's heavy polluters - the coal mines
and steel mills - won't pollute any more.
Fake. Again as with my own country the dirty industries we still rely on will still be
roaring full steam ahead. Coal will still be mined. Steel will still be produced. But
elsewhere.
So Candidate Joe Biden will not be the man to put that part of the Trump 2016 programme
into action. He'll be the man who continues with the fake environmentalism we've already seen
so much of. Naturally, if the heavy industry is outsourced so is our pollution. Doesn't look
that clever a trick to me, even if it fools the eco-warriors.
Because even if the next guy is worse, a series of one term Presidents sends a
message.
I will never vote for a candidate who continues our genocidal starvation campaign against
Yemen and Trump took our aggression up a notch. By needlessly attacking Cuba, Syria, and
Venezuela with cruel sanctions he reinforces that the bully can only satisfy his lust by
torturing the weakest victims he can find.
So even if Biden does and same and adds other things I don't like fine. He must not be
rewarded.
Yves at nakedcapitalism.com sneaks in an endorsement of Trump?!?
Why not? After all, the Democratic Party is practically trying to elect him as they
stumble from one self-inflicted wound to the next.
Naturally, the reader that explains why he's voting for Trump complains that he's doing so
for rational reasons while ignoring the evident set-up. Nor does Yves offer any critical
analysis that might connect dots that have been memory-holed.
So, lets review: the Democrats went 'all in' on bogus Russiagate; on "all victims must be
believed"; and then on a failed impeachment while supporting Trump's domestic agenda (tax
cuts, nominations, etc.) and lending verbal/moral support for his foreign policy agenda
(increased militarism, anti-Maduro, TWO missile attacks on Syria, persecution of Assange,
etc.). With this in mind, more people should see that it's likely that Hillary threw the
election in 2016 this seasoned campaigner : screwed progressives, ignored blacks,
insulted white "deplorables", and chose not to campaign, in the closing weeks of the
election, in the three states SHE KNEW would decide the election.
But there's more. The history of recent Presidential elections indicates a persistent
manipulation:
1992 : Ross Perot re-enters the race so that Bill Clinton is
elected;
2000 : VP Gore concedes to GWBush despite actually winning;
2008 : Obama's "Change You Can Believe" naturally beats old establishment
warmonger (John McCain) but nothing changes - no-drama Obama won't hold intelligence
agencies or Bankers accountable; won't end the wars; won't provide a 'public option' for
Romney Care; won't allow the irresponsible Bush tax cuts to expire; etc.
2016 : Hillary throws the race to MAGA Nationalist Trump who has been selected
to lead the charge against Russia and China (and Iran);
Sheepdogs : it's clear that Sanders played sheepdog in 2016 and 2020 - he is
just the latest to be the Party-controlled 'progressive voice' that pulls punches and falls
in line.
As long as people continue to waste their vote by voting for a duopoly candidate,
nothing will change. Democracy propagandists that play along by, among other things, urge
others to vote for the lesser evil, promote disinfo and do a disservice to their
readers/followers.
What is needed is a root-and-branch reform of the corrupt, money-driven electoral system.
There will not be any real change until/unless that is done. Only real Movements and
third-party candidates offer the hope for such reform to happen peacefully.
It appears the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden may have taken
precedence over watching porn for a big chunk of Americans, as Pornhub revealed its website
took a hit to its traffic during the face-off.
The US's most popular adult website revealed that visits were down 18.5 percent as Biden and
Trump traded barbs on stage in Cleveland, Ohio, on Tuesday. "That represents a significant
change in visits during one of Pornhub's peak daily traffic periods," the website said.
Even more interestingly, Pornhub revealed that the biggest declines in traffic were seen in
critical swing states – those that could reasonably be won by either the Democratic or
Republican presidential candidate by a swing in votes. Traffic to the site from Michigan and
Pennsylvania dropped by more than 20 percent, while that from Maine and Wisconsin fell by 20
and 19 percent respectively.
It appears perusers of porn were more interested in the 2020 debate than they were in
2016's, when traffic dropped by only 16 percent during the first head-to-head between Trump and
Hillary Clinton.
Wayne Smyth 1 day ago 1 Oct, 2020 03:58 PM
Equally pitiful is the competitive viewing between porn and the debate as is pitiful the
choice between Biden or Trump for president.
FelixTcat 8 hours ago 2 Oct, 2020 12:20 PM
What a sick bunch of people wasting their time watching that garbage.( I was referring to the
debates)
"... For societies to evolve and flourish, we all need to accept other people's viewpoints and continue open-minded, civil and respectful dialogue. In science, scientists always question everything; why shouldn't we question everything in life without personalizing and demonizing those you disagree with? It's become impossible to have rational fact-based discussions with these inflexible ideological zealots. ..."
"... The intelligentsia has created a toxic environment of indoctrination where freedom of thought and speech is outlawed. The student "mob" will enforce the process of re-education, utilizing lies, propaganda, peer-pressure and fear of cancellation. No student or adult should be intimidated, bullied or harassed to the point of unwavering compliance. There is something systematically rotten in our educational system, and it needs to be purged of these radical ideologues. These are fascist tactics - USA-style. ..."
The bitter divisions in
America are turning neighbour against neighbour and tearing families apart, amid an atmosphere
of indoctrination where freedom of thought and speech is outlawed. I fear we're on the road to
civil war.
2020 has been one hell of a year. It included getting Brexit done, Covid-19, big-tech
tyranny featuring extreme censorship by Twitter, Google, Facebook and Amazon as well as the
stealth implementation of a social credit framework by Silicon Valley oligarchs as they plunder
the economy under the diversionary power grab by pay-to-play politicians implementing
quasi-permanent unlawful lockdowns. I'm sorry to say that the USA will become a banana
republic.
In addition, the global economy is in the worst economic depression in history - one that
will only deepen as unemployment rates skyrocket as we enter the last few months of
2020.
I bet most folks wish they could put a bullet in the head of 2020 and move straight on into
2021, but there are three months left - 2020 is only 75% done. What else could go wrong?
Well in the USA, we still have to deal with a presidential election and the appointment of
Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States - two things that the left
are fighting tooth and nail to stop.
Since Donald Trump was elected president of the United States in 2016, US politics have not
only become highly toxic, they have also become radioactive. The swamp's resist-everything
Democratic Party, enabled by FBI bias and animus that was spun like a spider's web by the
feckless fake news media and echoed by Hollywood's hypocritical perverts, made
numerous attempts to stage a coup d'etat (carefully read the declassified letter below) of
the democratically elected president. The CIA referred an investigation to the FBI that the
Hillary Clinton campaign was colluding with Russia to impact the 2016 presidential election.
The FBI lied to the FISA judges to spy on the Trump campaign, and no one was ever
prosecuted.
Why have
FISA judges Collyer, Mosman, Conway and Dearie, who signed off on those warrants, and were
lied to by the FBI to illegally obtain those same warrants to spy on a political opposition
party during a presidential election, done nothing? Why have these Judges remained silent? Is
the entire system a stitch-up?
Now, the narrative has shifted at warp speed. It's no longer about Russian collusion. The
new narratives that matter are virtue signalling, identity politics, critical race theory,
record hypocrisy and a
dual justice system where
murder, looting and arson are justified because those on the right are all Nazis and the
radicalized left's enforcers,
ANTIFA and BLM thugs, are only " peaceful protestors
."
And nothing will interfere with this narrative. For example, the BLM mob influenced the
prosecutors by getting them to charge BLM supporter Larynzo Johnson with "
wanton endangerment " when he ran up to two police officers and shot them while rioting.
Why was this blatant assassination rampage not prosecuted as attempted murder? Is the BLM mob
now dictating charging decisions? Johnson's attempted murder of police officers has quickly
disappeared as it interferes with the media mob's narrative.
The media have drummed these themes into the heads of the public and driven a wedge between
family members, close friends and co-workers that has polarized America to the brink of civil
war. Life has become so bad in the USA that many of my several decades-old friendships recently
ended when they became unable to respect any individual opinion that differed from their own.
That has happened to me. Friends for decades have been consumed by Trump Derangement Syndrome
and are cancelling me.
For societies to evolve and flourish, we all need to accept other people's viewpoints and
continue open-minded, civil and respectful dialogue. In science, scientists always question
everything; why shouldn't we question everything in life without personalizing and demonizing
those you disagree with? It's become impossible to have rational fact-based discussions with
these inflexible ideological zealots.
I just had a long conversation with Hudson, my friend's son. He is 18 years old and is a
popular American football playing, honour-list senior attending a private school in California.
Hudson graduates this spring, and he hopes to be accepted and attend a college where he will
play football. There are around 2,000 students in his private high school. From our
conversation, I gleaned that most of Hudson's teachers and the student population are very
liberal and intolerant of anyone who has differing views.
What I found most shocking was how Hudson's teachers "teach". Today's students are not
educated; they are indoctrinated. By that, I mean "teachers" are only telling half-truths or
half of the story, so any "conclusions" the students are allowed to reach on their own are
based on inaccurate data. These teachers incorporate their bias into an indoctrination cocktail
with a dash of critical race theory in order to get the students to conform to the teacher's
world view. Hudson explained how "the loudest students at school are liberal -- I guess it's
over 98%."
Regarding the comments Hudson reads on social media channels from his school friends, he
says all are supportive of Joe Biden becoming the 46th president of the United States; none are
supporting Trump. When I asked why, he responded, "Your life would be ruined, and you would
not get into college."
On 3 November, Hudson will be voting in his first presidential election. He will be voting
for Donald Trump. But he is too fearful to discuss politics at school with his peers.
He is too
afraid to discuss politics with anyone but his parents. Terrorizing students is repugnant
and must be stopped.
The intelligentsia has created a toxic environment of indoctrination where freedom of
thought and speech is outlawed. The student "mob" will enforce the process of re-education,
utilizing lies, propaganda, peer-pressure and fear of cancellation. No student or adult should
be intimidated, bullied or harassed to the point of unwavering compliance. There is something
systematically rotten in our educational system, and it needs to be purged of these radical
ideologues. These are fascist tactics - USA-style.
Was this racism censored by Twitter? No, Jack Dorsey, Twitter's CEO, gave Kendi $10
million
That said, don't expect things to improve anytime soon; in fact, COVID-19 will be used as an
excuse to reset the economy. What does that mean? The oligarchs in Wall Street and in Silicon
Valley will manipulate this election result, so Kamala Harris will be the de facto 46th
president of the United States.
... ... ...
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Mitchell Feierstein is the CEO of Glacier Environmental Fund and author of 'Planet Ponzi: How the World Got into This
Mess, What Happens Next, and How to Protect Yourself.' He spends his time between London and Manhattan.
Fox News
Fox News
5.73M subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
White employees were informed that their so-called 'white' qualities were offensive and unacceptable.
#FoxNews
#Tucker
Hannah Arendt books is junk, as elements of totalitarim are present inmst modern sociery,
espcally neoliberal. The USA after 9/11 is one example.
Notable quotes:
"... Some émigrés who grew up in Soviet-dominated societies are sounding the alarm about the West's dangerous drift into conditions like they once escaped. They feel it in their bones. Reading Arendt in the shadow of the extraordinary rise of identity-politics leftism and the broader crisis of liberal democracy is to confront a deeply unsettling truth: that these refugees from communism may be right. ..."
"... Regarding transgressive sexuality as a social good was not an innovation of the sexual revolution. Like the contemporary West, late imperial Russia was also awash in what historian James Billington called "a preoccupation with sex that is quite without parallel in earlier Russian culture." Among the social and intellectual elite, sexual adventurism, celebrations of perversion, and all manner of sensuality was common. And not just among the elites: the laboring masses, alone in the city, with no church to bind their consciences with guilt, or village gossips to shame them, found comfort in sex. ..."
"... Heda Margolius Kovály, a disillusioned Czech communist whose husband was executed after a 1952 show trial, reflects on the willingness of people to turn their backs on the truth for the sake of an ideological cause: It is not hard for a totalitarian regime to keep people ignorant. Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity," for Party discipline, for conformity with the regime, for the greatness and glory of the Fatherland, or for any of the substitutes that are so convincingly offered, you cede your claim to the truth. Slowly, drop by drop, your life begins to ooze away just as surely as if you had slashed your wrists; you have voluntarily condemned yourself to helplessness. ..."
"... You can also surrender it by hating others more than you love truth. ..."
"... In 2019, Zach Goldberg, a political science PhD student at Georgia Tech, found that over a nine-year period, the rate of news stories using progressive jargon associated with left-wing critical theory and social justice concepts shot into the stratosphere. The mainstream media is framing the general public's understanding of news and events according to what was until very recently a radical ideology confined to left-wing intellectual elites. ..."
"... For a man desperate to believe, totalitarian ideology is more precious than life itself. "He may even be willing to help in his own prosecution and frame his own death sentence if only his status as a member of the movement is not touched," Arendt wrote. Indeed, the files of the 1930s Stalinist show trials are full of false confessions by devout communists who were prepared to die rather than admit that communism was a lie. ..."
"... Similarly, under the guise of antiracism training, U.S. corporations, institutions, and even churches are frog-marching their employees through courses in which whites and other ideologically disfavored people are compelled to confess their "privilege." Some do, eagerly. ..."
"... "Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intellect and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty," wrote Arendt. ..."
"... President Donald Trump is a rule-breaker in many ways. He once said, "I value loyalty above everything else -- more than brains, more than drive, and more than energy." ..."
"... Trump's exaltation of personal loyalty over expertise is discreditable and corrupting. But how can liberals complain? Loyalty to the group or the tribe is at the core of leftist identity politics. This is at the root of "cancel culture," in which transgressors, however minor their infractions, find themselves cast into outer darkness. ..."
"... Beyond cancel culture, which is reactive, institutions are embedding within their systems ideological tests to weed out dissenters. At universities within the University of California system, for example, teachers who want to apply for tenure-track positions have to affirm their commitment to "equity, diversity, and inclusion" -- and to have demonstrated it, even if it has nothing to do with their field. ..."
"... De facto loyalty tests to diversity ideology are common in corporate America, and have now found their way into STEM faculties and publications, as well as into medical science. ..."
"... A Soviet-born U.S. physician told me -- after I agreed not to use his name -- that social justice ideology is forcing physicians like him to ignore their medical training and judgment when it comes to transgender health. He said it is not permissible within his institution to advise gender dysphoric patients against treatments they desire, even when a physician believes it is not in that particular patient's health interest. ..."
"... Like the imperial Russians, we Americans may well be living in a fog of self-deception about our own country's stability. It only takes a catalyst like war, economic depression, plague, or some other severe and prolonged crisis that brings the legitimacy of the liberal democratic order into question. ..."
"... If totalitarianism comes, it will almost certainly not be Stalinism 2.0, with gulags, secret police, and an all-powerful central state. That would not be necessary. The power of surveillance technology, woke capitalism, and fear of losing bourgeois comfort and status will probably be enough to compel conformity by most. ..."
"... At least at first, it will be a soft totalitarianism, more on the Brave New World model than the Nineteen Eighty-Four one -- but totalitarianism all the same. ..."
n 1951, six years after the end of World War II, the political philosopher Hannah Arendt
published The Origins of Totalitarianism , in an attempt to understand how such radical
ideologies of both left and right had seized the minds of so many in the 20th century. Arendt's
book used to be a staple in college history and political theory courses. With the end of the
Cold War 30 years behind us, who today talks about totalitarianism? Almost no one -- and if
they do, it's about Nazism, not communism.
Unsurprisingly, young Americans suffer from profound ignorance of what communism was, and
is. The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a nonprofit educational and research
organization established by the U.S. Congress, carries out an annual survey of Americans to
determine their attitudes toward communism, socialism, and Marxism in general. In 2019, the
survey found that a startling number of Americans of the post-Cold War generations have
favorable views of left-wing radicalism, and only 57 percent of Millennials believe that the
Declaration of Independence offers a better guarantee of "freedom and equality" than The
Communist Manifesto .
Some émigrés who grew up in Soviet-dominated societies are sounding the alarm
about the West's dangerous drift into conditions like they once escaped. They feel it in their
bones. Reading Arendt in the shadow of the extraordinary rise of identity-politics leftism and
the broader crisis of liberal democracy is to confront a deeply unsettling truth: that these
refugees from communism may be right.
What does contemporary America have in common with pre-Nazi Germany and pre-Soviet Russia?
Arendt's analysis found a number of social, political, and cultural conditions that tilled the
ground for those nations to welcome poisonous ideas.
Loneliness and Social Atomization
Totalitarian movements, said Arendt, are "mass organizations of atomized, isolated
individuals." She continues:
What prepares men for totalitarian domination in the non-totalitarian world, is the fact
that loneliness, once a borderline experience usually suffered in certain marginal social
conditions like old age, has become an everyday experience of the ever-growing masses of our
century.
The political theorist wrote those words in the 1950s, a period we look back on as a golden
age of community cohesion. Today, loneliness is widely recognized by scientists as a critical
social and even medical problem. In the year 2000, Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam
published Bowling Alone , an acclaimed study documenting the steep decline of civil
society since midcentury and the resulting atomization of America.
Since Putnam's book, we have experienced the rise of social media networks offering a
facsimile of "connection." Yet we grow ever lonelier and more isolated. It is no coincidence
that Millennials and members of Generation Z register much higher rates of loneliness than
older Americans, as well as significantly greater support for socialism. It's as if they aspire
to a politics that can replace the community they wish they had.
Sooner or later, loneliness and isolation are bound to have political effects. The masses
supporting totalitarian movements, says Arendt, grew "out of the fragments of a highly atomized
society whose competitive structure and concomitant loneliness of the individual had been held
in check only through membership in a class."
A polity filled with alienated individuals who share little sense of community and purpose,
and who lack civic trust, are prime targets for totalitarian ideologies and leaders who promise
solidarity and meaning.
Losing Faith in Hierarchies and Institutions
Surveying the political scene in Germany during the 1920s, Arendt noted a "terrifying
negative solidarity" among people from diverse classes, united in their belief that all
political parties were populated by fools. Likewise, in late imperial Russia, Marxist radicals
finally gained traction with the middle class when the Tsarist government failed miserably to
deal with a catastrophic 1891-92 famine.
Are we today really so different? According to Gallup, Americans' confidence in their
institutions -- political, media, religious, legal, medical, corporate -- is at historic lows
across the board. Only the military, the police, and small businesses retain the strong
confidence of over 50 percent. Democratic norms are under strain in many industrialized
nations, with the support for mainstream parties of left and right in decline.
In Europe of the 1920s, says Arendt, the first indication of the coming totalitarianism was
the failure of established parties to attract younger members, and the willingness of the
passive masses to consider radical alternatives to discredited establishment parties.
A loss of faith in democratic politics is a sign of a deeper and broader instability. As
radical individualism has become more pervasive in our consumerist-driven culture, people have
ceased to look outside themselves to religion or other traditional sources of authoritative
meaning.
But this imposes a terrible psychological burden on the individual. Many of them may seek
deliverance as the alienated masses of pre-totalitarian Germany and Russia did: in the
certainties and solidarity offered by totalitarian movements.
The Desire to Transgress and Destroy
The post-World War I generation of writers and artists were marked by their embrace and
celebration of anti-cultural philosophies and acts as a way of demonstrating contempt for
established hierarchies, institutions, and ways of thinking. Arendt said of some writers who
glorified the will to power, "They read not Darwin but the Marquis de Sade."
Her point was that these authors did not avail themselves of respectable intellectual
theories to justify their transgressiveness. They immersed themselves in what is basest in
human nature and regarded doing so as acts of liberation. Arendt's judgment of the postwar
elites who recklessly thumbed their noses at respectability could easily apply to those of our
own day who shove aside liberal principles like fair play, race neutrality, free speech, and
free association as obstacles to equality. Arendt wrote:
The members of the elite did not object at all to paying a price, the destruction of
civilization, for the fun of seeing how those who had been excluded unjustly in the past forced
their way into it.
One thinks of the university presidents and news media executives of our time who have
abandoned professional standards and old-fashioned liberal values to embrace "antiracism" and
other trendy left-wing causes. Some left-wing politicians and other progressive elites either
cheered for the George Floyd race riots, or, like New York mayor Bill De Blasio, stood idly by
as thuggish mobs looted and burned stores in the name of social justice.
Regarding transgressive sexuality as a social good was not an innovation of the sexual
revolution. Like the contemporary West, late imperial Russia was also awash in what historian
James Billington called "a preoccupation with sex that is quite without parallel in earlier
Russian culture." Among the social and intellectual elite, sexual adventurism, celebrations of
perversion, and all manner of sensuality was common. And not just among the elites: the
laboring masses, alone in the city, with no church to bind their consciences with guilt, or
village gossips to shame them, found comfort in sex.
The end of official censorship after the 1905 uprising opened the floodgates to erotic
literature, a prefiguration of our century's technology-driven pornographic revolution. "The
sensualism of the age was in a very intimate sense demonic," Billington writes, detailing how
the figure of Satan became a Romantic hero for artists and musicians. They admired the diabolic
willingness to stop at nothing to satisfy one's desires and to exercise one's will.
Propaganda and the Willingness to Believe Useful Lies
Heda Margolius Kovály, a disillusioned Czech communist whose husband was executed after a 1952 show trial,
reflects on the willingness of people to turn their backs on the truth for the sake of an ideological cause: It is not hard for a totalitarian regime to keep people ignorant. Once you relinquish your
freedom for the sake of "understood necessity," for Party discipline, for conformity with the
regime, for the greatness and glory of the Fatherland, or for any of the substitutes that are
so convincingly offered, you cede your claim to the truth. Slowly, drop by drop, your life
begins to ooze away just as surely as if you had slashed your wrists; you have voluntarily
condemned yourself to helplessness.
You can surrender your moral responsibility to be honest out of misplaced idealism. You can
also surrender it by hating others more than you love truth. In pre-totalitarian states, Arendt
writes, hating "respectable society" was so narcotic, that elites were willing to accept
"monstrous forgeries in historiography" for the sake of striking back at those who, in their
view, had "excluded the underprivileged and oppressed from the memory of mankind."
For example, many who didn't really accept Marx's revisionist take on history -- that it is
a manifestation of class struggle -- were willing to affirm it because it was a useful tool to
punish those they despised. Consider the lavish praise with which elites have welcomed The
New York Times 's "1619 Project," a vigorously revisionist attempt to make slavery the
central fact of the American founding.
Despite the project's core claim (that the patriots fought the American Revolution to
preserve slavery) having been thoroughly debunked, journalism's elite saw fit to award the
project's director a Pulitzer Prize for her contribution.
Along those lines, propaganda helps change the world by creating a false impression of the
way the world is. Writes Arendt, "The force possessed by totalitarian propaganda lies in its
ability to shut the masses off from the real world."
In 2019, Zach Goldberg, a political science PhD student at Georgia Tech, found that over a
nine-year period, the rate of news stories using progressive jargon associated with left-wing
critical theory and social justice concepts shot into the stratosphere. The mainstream media is
framing the general public's understanding of news and events according to what was until very
recently a radical ideology confined to left-wing intellectual elites.
A Mania for Ideology
Why are people so willing to believe demonstrable lies? The desperation alienated people
have for a story that helps them make sense of their lives and tells them what to do explains
it. For a man desperate to believe, totalitarian ideology is more precious than life
itself. "He may even be willing to help in his own prosecution and frame his own death sentence if
only his status as a member of the movement is not touched," Arendt wrote. Indeed, the files of
the 1930s Stalinist show trials are full of false confessions by devout communists who were
prepared to die rather than admit that communism was a lie.
Similarly, under the guise of antiracism training, U.S. corporations, institutions, and even
churches are frog-marching their employees through courses in which whites and other
ideologically disfavored people are compelled to confess their "privilege." Some do,
eagerly.
One of contemporary progressivism's commonly used phrases -- the personal is political --
captures the totalitarian spirit, which seeks to infuse all aspects of life with political
consciousness. Indeed, the Left today pushes its ideology ever deeper into the private realm,
leaving fewer and fewer areas of daily life uncontested. This, warned Arendt, is a sign that a
society is ripening for totalitarianism, because that is what totalitarianism essentially is:
the politicization of everything.
Early in the Stalin era, N. V. Krylenko, a Soviet commissar (political officer), steamrolled
over chess players who wanted to keep politics out of the game.
"We must finish once and for all with the neutrality of chess," he said. "We must condemn
once and for all the formula 'chess for the sake of chess,' like the formula 'art for art's
sake.' We must organize shockbrigades of chess-players, and begin immediate realization of a
Five-Year Plan for chess."
A Society That Values Loyalty More Than Expertise
"Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their
sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intellect and creativity is still the
best guarantee of their loyalty," wrote Arendt.
All politicians prize loyalty, but few would regard it as the most important quality in
government, and even fewer would admit it. But President Donald Trump is a rule-breaker in many
ways. He once said, "I value loyalty above everything else -- more than brains, more than
drive, and more than energy."
Trump's exaltation of personal loyalty over expertise is discreditable and corrupting. But
how can liberals complain? Loyalty to the group or the tribe is at the core of leftist identity
politics. This is at the root of "cancel culture," in which transgressors, however minor their
infractions, find themselves cast into outer darkness.
Beyond cancel culture, which is reactive, institutions are embedding within their systems
ideological tests to weed out dissenters. At universities within the University of California
system, for example, teachers who want to apply for tenure-track positions have to affirm their
commitment to "equity, diversity, and inclusion" -- and to have demonstrated it, even if it has
nothing to do with their field.
De facto loyalty tests to diversity ideology are common in corporate America, and have now
found their way into STEM faculties and publications, as well as into medical science.
A Soviet-born U.S. physician told me -- after I agreed not to use his name -- that social
justice ideology is forcing physicians like him to ignore their medical training and judgment
when it comes to transgender health. He said it is not permissible within his institution to
advise gender dysphoric patients against treatments they desire, even when a physician believes
it is not in that particular patient's health interest.
Intellectuals Are the Revolutionary Class
In our populist era, politicians and talk-radio polemicists can rile up a crowd by
denouncing elites. Nevertheless, in most societies, intellectual and cultural elites determine
its long-term direction.
"[T]he key actor in history is not individual genius but rather the network and the new
institutions that are created out of those networks," writes sociologist James Davison Hunter.
Though a revolutionary idea might emerge from the masses, says Hunter, "it does not gain
traction until it is embraced and propagated by elites" working through their "well-developed
networks and powerful institutions."
This is why it is critically important to keep an eye on intellectual discourse. Arendt
warns that the twentieth-century totalitarian experience shows how a determined and skillful
minority can come to rule over an indifferent and disengaged majority. In our time, most people
regard the politically correct insanity of campus radicals as not worthy of attention. They
mock them as "snowflakes" and "social justice warriors."
This is a serious mistake. In radicalizing the broader class of elites, social justice
warriors (SJWs) are playing a similar historic role to the Bolsheviks in prerevolutionary
Russia. SJW ranks are full of middle-class, secular, educated young people wracked by guilt and
anxiety over their own privilege, alienated from their own traditions, and desperate to
identify with something, or someone, to give them a sense of wholeness and purpose.
For them, the ideology of social justice -- as defined not by church teaching but by
critical theorists in the academy -- functions as a pseudo-religion. Far from being confined to
campuses and dry intellectual journals, SJW ideals are transforming elite institutions and
networks of power and influence. They are marching through the institutions of bourgeois
society, conquering them, and using them to transform the world. For example, when the LGBT
cause was adopted by corporate America, its ultimate victory was assured.
Futuristic Fatalism
To be sure, none of this means that totalitarianism is inevitable. But they do signify that
the weaknesses in contemporary American society are consonant with a pre-totalitarian state.
Like the imperial Russians, we Americans may well be living in a fog of self-deception about
our own country's stability. It only takes a catalyst like war, economic depression, plague, or
some other severe and prolonged crisis that brings the legitimacy of the liberal democratic
order into question.
As Arendt warned more than half a century ago:
There is a great temptation to explain away the intrinsically incredible by means of
liberal rationalizations. In each one of us, there lurks such a liberal, wheedling us with
the voice of common sense. The road to totalitarian domination leads through many
intermediate stages for which we can find numerous analogues and precedents. . . . What
common sense and "normal people" refuse to believe is that everything is possible.
If totalitarianism comes, it will almost certainly not be Stalinism 2.0, with gulags, secret
police, and an all-powerful central state. That would not be necessary. The power of
surveillance technology, woke capitalism, and fear of losing bourgeois comfort and status will
probably be enough to compel conformity by most.
At least at first, it will be a soft
totalitarianism, more on the Brave New World model than the Nineteen Eighty-Four
one -- but totalitarianism all the same.
A Czech immigrant to the U.S. who works in academia told me that this "is not supposed to be
happening here" -- but it is.
"Any time I try to explain current events and their meaning to my friends or acquaintances,
I am met with blank stares or downright nonsense," he says. His own young adult children, born
in America and indoctrinated into identity-politics ideology by public schooling, think their
father is an alarmist kook. Can anyone blame a man like this for concluding that Americans are
going to have to learn about the evils of totalitarianism the hard way?
I grew up under a socialist authoritarian state and I recognized it in the US 20 years
ago. In the Patriot Act, to be more precise. It was the very same kind of law that I saw
enacted in the early 70s back home that turned the tide of the regime to full out repression.
You're noticing it just now because authoritarianism became bipartisan, though you have been
quite comfortable since your tribe started it.
The week after 9/11, I wrote President Bush asking him not to let something like the
Patriot Act happen. I never got a reply and wondered ever since if it went astray (it was via
email) or if anyone even read it.
<sigh> There are credible arguments to be made against the drug war, for sure, but
how exactly did the Bill of Rights get "dumped"? OK I'm willing to concede that the Fourth
Amendment got stretched beyond recognition to accommodate no-knock warrants and the like.
Which of the rest of the Bill of Rights got dumped by the drug war?
If only liberals actually understood and believed in the 9th and 10th amendments, OTOH, we
might be able to restore federal governance to something resembling sanity.
Both the 9th and 10th Amendments were finally destroyed due to the drug war. The 2nd is
collateral damage due to the increased use of home invasion raids by law enforcement see the
"firearm enhancements". It can easily be argued that the increased militarization of law
enforcement due to the drug war is a violation of the 3rd Amendment. The long sentences due
given to people for possessing or selling a plant are a violation of the 8th Amendment. The
right to a jury trial has been gutted via voir dire and the refusal of courts to recognize
the natural right of all citizens to nullify unjust laws.
I am a liberal in the sense Patrick Henry was a liberal. We should have stuck with the
Articles of Confederation.
It can't be easily argued that the drug war runs into the 3rd amendment, that is
ridiculous. Nor is the 8th amendment really a great argument, although I do get where you're
coming from.
It's obviously completely contemptuous of the idea of enumerated powers like you said
before though. Why would you not mention the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, which had to be
gutted for it, or the ways it runs afoul of the 14th, or basically ignores the precedent set
by the 18th and 21st amendments.
I too see where you're coming from, though I think the 9th and 10th amendments were
already in tatters long before the drug war began. For that blame the now 100 year plus build
up of the administrative state (particularly under FDR and LBJ) and the Court's enabling of
it through imaginative readings of the Commerce Clause, delegation of powers, etc. Also blame
Congress's total dereliction of duty per the above.
Add on the scheme by which the Federal govt takes everyone's money, shuffles it around and
then hands it back to the states, but only under the condition that they do what the Federal
govt tells them to do. Thus no state actually gets to build/maintain roads, develop housing
programs, expand educational access or testing, and essentially anything else without
following a million federal edicts.
The very fact that a website like this exists, and we comment on it, suggests that.. No,
we are nit under Totalitarian oppression or even an authoritarian regime. Would Stalin or
even Brezhnev have tolerated a TAC critical of the ruling party? How about Hitler, Mussolini
or Franco?
Excellent point. There are, however, concepts such as "controlled opposition" and "soft
totalitarianism" as outlined recently in Rod Dreher's piece. The latter concerns me more.
As long as Americans believe that they are getting the carrot they will not notice the
slow encroachment of the stick, particulary if it's in the hands of large
mega-corporations.
You, sir, are correct. The totalitarianism rampaging toward us is going to be a
paradoxical mix of Sexual Revolution, Cultural Marxism, and Globalist Vampire Capitalism. It
will feature elements that seem to have been predicted in Zamyatin's We , Huxley's
Brave New World , and Orwell's 1984 . It also has been foretold in Robert Hugh
Benson's Lord of the World .
I'm sure you are well aware that Rod is not suggesting such a regime is here or coming. He
has described how censorship will work / is working in painfully repetitive detail (because
obviously people need to hear it over and over again).
Under soft totalitarianism, you will make the wrong response or refuse to affirm or refuse
to attend the required re-education workshop and your job and livelihood will be gone. Don't
pretend you don't understand Rod's argument.
Jonf is for the woke soft totalitarianism, a dangerous element in the church, we Orthodox
Christian's need to be on guard with Catechumens , and their motives for joining the Church,
as well as Cradle liberals who dominate institutions in jurisdictions like GOARCH
It had bipartisan support in Congress. Do you understand how the US legislative system
works? Presidents don't unilaterally introduce and approve legislation.
It wasn't introduced by Bush, but by a nobody Republican in Congress. The act has the paw
marks of Republicans through and through. Just 3 Republican congressmen voted against.
There's no point hiding behind the bipartisan curtain.
There is much yet to be answered for in the Patriot Act origins and how it came to be
passed before anyone voting on it had a chance to read it once much less review it with
propper staffing.
That Act was sitting on a shelf, like a time bomb, waiting for its chance. I suspect it
was part of the preparations for an apocalyptic, dystopian America after a nuclear war.
It was pulled off that shelf because it was what they had on the shelf, it was there so
they used it.
"Can anyone blame a man like this for concluding that Americans are going to have to learn
about the evils of totalitarianism the hard way?"
Americans have never learned anything the easy way. They don't learn the hard way
either.
"Among the social and intellectual elite, sexual adventurism, celebrations of perversion,
and all manner of sensuality was common."
Let no future commisar say that I didn't do my part for the revolution! I stand ready to
humbly serve the people in the creation of an appropriate ministry for perversion.
Those who will have less than five sexual partners a year and do not switch gender in over
two years will be chastised for the term of 10 years by legislation.
When you remove God from your life, the inner desire implanted by God to look for the true
meaning in life, & the desire to do good instead of evil remain strong. For most people,
the "obvious" path is to give meaning to one's life is to follow the feel-good "social
justice" road, a form of false humanism (for man & by man alone), ie, social justice
without God that tries to create a paradise on earth (same way that communism tried to create
a utopia without God).
Many young Americans no longer believe in God's relevance & His authority over their
lives. This normally starts with the loss of respect for the authority of parents who
represent God in the home (even Jesus was obedient to his mortal parents). The gradual
destruction of the "domestic church", the family, in American homes is one of the immediate
goals of radical agenda (eg, gender conflicts & confusion, gender id, gender choice,
abortion, contraception, women liberation, etc) that results in increasing number of divorce
& single-parent homes.
The only way to correct the path to a radical secular future is for people, esp the young,
to regain their faith in God. The question is how. Evangelization is one. One can evangelize
by words &or by acts. St Franscis of Assisi is often quoted to have said: When you
evangelize, sometimes you need to use words. I think Rod is doing both through his books.
If God isn't implanted in a child's mind at a young age, it most likely never will.
People, in there 20's, who never went to church are unlikely to ever become Christians. If
you don't believe Heaven and Hell exist, why do you need a Savior? Look at the number of
young families with young children at Church, and consider how many aren't there. That's the
future.
The idea of God doesn't need to be implanted in a child's mind. A child (and every person
for that matter) intuitively knows that there has to be a Creator, an afterlife, and Divine
Justice. As proof, I offer the fact that every civilization that has ever existed has had a
religion with the aforementioned elements. Atheism did not appear until Marxism, and even
then, in the Soviet Union / Russia, it did not succeed in eradicating faith and religion,
which are as innate as love and sex.
Unfortunately for you atheism long predates Marxism. Look to the early Greeks for the
first recorded instances of non-believers. Try
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... for a overview.
>"The only way to correct the path to a radical secular future is for people, esp the
young, to regain their faith in God."
Exactly the thinking powering Daesh. What is wrong with people being able to decide for
themselves what religion if any they want? Why is a secular state a radical idea? The US is a
secular state and it has served the US well.
So Revolution or Civil War?
I keep hearing about one or the other, but only on the Internet.
I am of the opinion that we Americans are far too comfortable and have no stomach for
privation.
We will continue to lurch along as always.
Does it really matter what "Americans" want? The very thesis of the article is that 'we'
will do the bidding of the influential elites, regardless of whether we a) approve of their
objectives, or b) are even aware of them. Like the article says, the vast majority of
Americans mistakenly think that, so long as they have their routine, their job, their kids,
their personal little patch of America complete with white picket fence, then, hey, how can
things go wrong? "We" won't, wouldn't, couldn't, allow such a revolution or civil war to
happen---why, there isn't even enough time to worry about it!
When a riotous mob of crazed BLM/ANTIFA soldiers comes marching up your peaceful street,
you will become part of the 'revolution', like it or not.
Totalitarian Romanov Russia united with secular pluralist France against Germany in the
lead-up to WWI. Similarly in WWII, totalitarian Marxist Russia united with the Western
democracies to defeat Nazi Germany. The pattern is common place in history. Alliances reveal
countries' motivations for war. And all are motivated by power.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...
I'll ask again (serious question): for conservatives who think we live in "Weimar
America", isn't one of the major lessons for conservatives from Weimar Germany that when
you're faced with the distasteful option of allying yourselves with liberals and the
center-left, or allying yourselves with fascists and their street militias, it's important
not to make the decision that German Nationalists did in the early 1930s?
We were allied with one of the biggest mass murderers in history during World War 2.
Joseph Stalin. Facts are facts and the facts are fascism is a leftist ideology.
To be fair, you can 'love' someone's ruling style and still go to war with them. Politics
and warfare are about seizing power, not expressing admiration for the qualities of
rivals.
To clarify, I didn't mean "love" in a personal or an emotional sense. In the case of World
War II, democratic nations were opponents of fascist nations.
I don't know what histories you have been reading but Adolph Hitler had no use for FDR as
like many other European politicians of the day, they saw FDR as a relatively ignorant
man.
The Nazis were basically 1848 (leftist) revolutionaries, who supported egalitarianism for
German men and ethnonationalism (which was a very leftist idea when it was new). True
reactionaries, like the King of Prussia in 1848, definitely did not share those values.
Can someone explain to me what the point of these arguments are? I always see people
saying the Nazis were leftists, but even if I agreed with the claim what difference does it
make to massappeal's point?
Most commentators put the Nazis on the far right. They themselves considered Nazism to be
a "third way" between Capitalism and Communism. It's clear that the defining traits of Nazism
are totalitarianism, nationalism, social darwinism, and virulent anti-semitism. Like
communism and other forms of Facism, it is a revolutionary political movement. They also
supported massive government spending and social welfare programs for "aryans", in a kind of
state-dominated capitalism. It is also true that Ernst Rohm and the SA wanted a socialist
revolution to follow the Nazi's national revolution, but they were betrayed and Rohm was
executed for being too radical.
There's the truth. Facts are Facts. So what if they are leftist or rightist? I really
don't understand the value of this argument. Is this a way to link Democrats to Nazis? Seems
as ridiculous as trying to link Republicans to them.
The point is obfuscation of reality from the US right, which has increasingly become
enmeshed in world divorced from reality. Of course no respected historian places the Nazis as
a Left ideology. There is some argument as to whether fascism/Nazism was Right, or neither
left or right. But as an ideology, fascism and Nazism are illiberal, nationalist, and
concerned with "natural hierarchies" which are anathema to "left" thought.
Anyone stating otherwise is either exceedingly stupid or not arguing in good faith. Either
way, there is no point in engaging them or in giving them any platform to spout their
nonsense. Shut them down, block them, mock them, and move on.
And conservatives wonder why they've "unwelcome" in academia...If you want to be taken
seriously, you need to think seriously.
Penetrating insight. Of course, I am sure you are right. I want to give people a chance to
defend themselves though, because I would truly love to be proved wrong and shown something
of which I am ignorant.
I really appreciate the response. I read the synopsis and gather that the argument is
somewhat similar to one which I have heard before, which is that all modern political
movements are borne of the enlightenment, which is something I certainly agree with. There
are certainly underpinnings under every modern party that find their root in the
enlightenment.
The book you provided seems to be not quite that exact theory though, and of course I
haven't read the whole thing...yet. But I honestly will, and I really appreciate the
recommendation! Truth is truth, and it has no ideology. I will read it with an open mind.
The history of right and left, nationalist and internationalist, liberal and conservative
is very complex and confusing. And it is different in America than it is in Europe. America
started out mostly Protestant and Liberal (in the classical sense), so any right wing or
conservative movement in the US would have these foundations. In Europe, conservatives were
Catholic and Monarchist.
But Monarchy gets a bad rap in American public schools and universities, dominated as they
were by Protestant and Liberal thinking at their founding and by Progressive and Socialist
thinking now.
Here is a definition of the Right by EvKL (in the book):
"The true rightist is not a man who wants to go back to this or that institution for the
sake of a return; he wants first to find out what is eternally true, eternally valid, and
then either to restore or reinstall it, regardless of whether it seems obsolete, whether it
is ancient, contemporary, or even without precedent, brand new, "ultramodern." Old truths
can be rediscovered, entirely new ones found. The Man of the Right does not have a
time-bound, but a sovereign mind. In case he is a Christian he is, in the words of the
Apostle Peter, the steward of a Basileion Hierateuma, a Royal Priesthood"
And here the difference between Right and Left:
"The right stands for liberty, a free, unprejudiced form of thinking, a readiness to
preserve traditional values (provided they are true values), a balanced view of the nature
of man, seeing in him neither beast nor angel, insisting also on the uniqueness of human
beings who cannot be transformed into or treated as mere numbers or ciphers; but the left
is the advocate of the opposite principles. It is the enemy of diversity and the fanatical
promoter of identity. Uniformity is stressed in all leftist utopias, a paradise in which
everybody should be the "same," where envy is dead, where the "enemy" either no longer
exists, lives outside the gates, or is utterly humiliated. Leftism loathes differences,
deviation, stratifications. Any hierarchy it accepts is only "functional." The term "one"
is the keynote: There should be only one language, one race, one class, one ideology, one
religion, one type of school, one law for everybody, one flag, one coat of arms and one
centralized world state"
"The rightists are "federalists" (in the European sense), "states' righters" since they
believe in local rights and privileges, they stand for the principle of subsidiarity."
Beautiful quotes, my friend, I especially appreciate the latter one. I have not gotten far
in the book, only 60 pages or so but I already find it fascinating, and I have gotten to that
quote exactly, actually.
As a passing note, I will say that I doubt WilliamRD meant what you mean, though I could
be mistaken. And I think defining Nazism as a leftist philosophy requires a semantic
argument, which redefines "right" and "left" into something different than popular American
political discourse defines it. And in fact, under these definitions, the Republican Party is
at least partially leftist.
However, EvKL is clear that this is what he is doing, and you were clear yourself that we
need to break out of these definitions. I couldn't agree more with you on that. Thanks for
sending me the link, you've made me wiser.
You are a rare and beautiful soul! I can't believe you've already read that far into the
book. I will try and learn from your example, the next time someone sends me a link.
And yes, the Republican party has been infiltrated by Leftism. I'm going to give you a
book link on this too, but you don't have to read it right away! Just download it, and put it
away in your files for later. It's a true story that is important to know and it gets to the
heart of the American Conservative / Neoconservative divide.
Fair enough. To me it's analogous to listening to someone try and argue that 1+1=7. I'm
just not sure that someone attempting such a calculation has the rational faculties to
provide anything worth hearing, and I don't like lending legitimacy to every silly position
that a person can take. Life is short, and I prefer to hear from people who demonstrate that
they're playing with a full deck and arguing in good faith. The "Leftists are the Real
Racists" crowd is certainly neither of those.
Edit: And hilariously, there is an actual RW goofball on this article's comment section,
posting Nazi/Fascist sympathies (@Raskolnik) . So, the proof is in the TAC comments I
guess...
The genetic fallacy definition can be found many places. If you read it, you might sound a
little less dumb in public. And the AAIHS is not a racist journal. I know anything with
"African American" in it seems to set off a very fragile segment of aggrieved whites, but I'm
sure you could judge the article based on its content. I'd link to some others, but given
what you've said so far, it seems unlikely you have access to JSTOR or any other legitimate
academic resources. At this point all you're really accomplishing is offering more evidence
that Right Wingers are almost allergic to information that contradicts their indoctrination.
There's a reason your numbers are falling in legitimate academic institutions, and it isn't
due to the secret cabal of communists that seem to haunt your daydreams. It's that your
positions are asinine and you're incapable of arguing effectively and supporting your
positions with evidence.
I'm just applying the same rules to blacks as get applied to whites. Imagine what the ADL
or SPLC would say of an online journal called "White Perspectives" that teaches "white
history."
I have not committed the genetic fallacy. I not only attack the source of Leftism. I
attack it's present manifestation and the false Left / Right paradigm those in its service
have constructed in order to lead us ever leftward.
Leftism's founding principle is equality. Stated synonymously, and with much historical
affirmation, this means uniformity.
The modern Left supposedly prides itself on diversity but this diversity is only skin
deep. It still craves uniformity. It has just learned that it needs brown skin in positions
of power to supplant white nonconformance, it's main opponent. The Left cannot even tolerate
the opinions of those it disagrees with. This is why it labels everyone who disagrees with
it's radical social engineering program a deplorable or a racist or an outright Nazi.
An actual theocratic monarchist reactionary would consider Nazism to be leftist, and ideas
of 'racial superiority' or 'racial guilt' or whatever to be very modern ideas.
Please expurgate your naïve realism - it's all a matter of perspective. To someone
with current mores, the Nazis, a rehash of the ethno-nationalist 1848 Revolutions in Germany,
are unspeakably reactionary. To someone with pre-Enlightenment values, they're beyond far
left. Please read something written by someone who was a 'leftist' in his own day, and it
will almost always be unspeakably reactionary by the contemporary standards of even those
'white supremacists' that you so hate. Here's some anti-immigrant racist Benjamin Franklin
for you:
"Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will
shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never
adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.
24. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World
is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America
(exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French,
Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans
also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People
on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I
may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of
our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we
in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by
Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and
Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion
of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind. "
This block of text is nothing but another incoherent rambling from a markedly unserious
thinker. You've outed yourself repeatedly as an idiot or an ideologue. Either way, you're not
worth another breath of response.
Yes, if you simply throw out all logic and available evidence, Hitler and Mussolini were
on the political left. And if you simply redefine the entire color spectrum, the sky is green
and the sea is orange.
This is like History 101 people, get with the damn program.
Jack, if there is a nail and a head---you HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!
People do seem to try to put all of this in a left-right mindset which is more "tribal
identity" than reality.
Broadly speaking ...repeat....broadly speaking----Russia and Stalin were an economic
system-philosophy while Hitler carried on the German culture model of Martin Luther, which
was much more GERMAN NATIONALISM -with a well documented anti-Semitism on steroids.
One was economic systems and the other one was nationalism. To put either into a
leftist-rightist camp doesn't work with today's terminology.
The same way that it is not possible to call Trumpicans either conservative or liberal.
The economic policies put in by Trump are reckless and certainly not conservative.
The 'point' is to establish stigma by association. History is only useful in politics when
it can used against one's enemies, either by associating with something valued or associating
stigmatized history with one's enemies. It's also possible for history to be stigmatized due
to its use by political enemies.
The point is to score points for your tribe. I find the terms "left" and "right"
increasingly useless. If they ever had value, that value is largely lost. This is especially
true in the US, where left and right seem determined to degenerate into each's caricature of
the other.
The point is to break out of the Left / Right paradigm as it's been presented to us by
those who mean to rule us. Anybody who seriously opposes the Leftwing's steady march towards
Communism, is labeled a far-right winger, and is put in the company of Nazis. They then
become untouchable by normal people who have not devoted any time into historical or
ideological inquiry.
This game forces normal people into the middle, and in the middle they pose no meaningful
threat to the Leftward march of the establishment, because the middle cannot find the
leverage to arrest its progress. The middle's only hope is to slow it down somewhat.
Fascism has perhaps not been 'on the Left' because, historically it has always arisen to
fight communism, which is the farthest Left you can get (so anything opposed to it seems, by
comparison, Right), but it is fully a child of the radical Left nationalism born of the
French Jacobins. It's certainly not a grandchild of the European monarchies, though
conservatives have at times had to ally with it as the lesser of two evils when confronted by
communism.
In the end it was a catastrophic economic meltdown--in their case taking the form of
metastatic inflation--which sent Germany off the edge of the cliff and into the abyss. So it
will be with the US. Pray we don't have a recurrence of 2007. Or worse!
There was a thing called the Great Depression that started in America but spread to Europe
quickly in 1929. Hitler came to power when millions of German workers lost their jobs and had
no way of supporting themselves and their families.
Yep. And Hitler came to power because German Nationalists (the conservative party) formed
an alliance with him, rather than with the center-left and liberal parties.
Nationalism, German or otherwise, is not particularly conservative. The most intelligent
conservative since Burke was Prince Metternich, who regarded nationalism as his greatest
enemy, especially German nationalism.
Yes, the actual hyperinflation did indeed end around that time but by then the economic
die had already been cast. The cumulative effect upon the German middle and, especially, the
working class, farmers, "petite bourgeoisie" etc.,would devastate the country through the
remainder of the 20s and into the 30s (my father and his parents, who were working class
Social Democrats, had to get out by 1928 and were lucky to gain admittance into the US as the
doors were being closed on immigration at the time). As to 2007 I totally agree that
inflation was not a factor. I was evidently unclear but--that really wasn't my point. The
absence of inflation notwithstanding, we know that the economy went into the soup in 2007--so
much so that, to date, we have not fully recovered. My main point is to express the fear that
if it were to happen again for whatever reason, if you factor in the "Kulturkampf" within
which American society is currently embroiled we are going to have one HELL of a mess on our
hands.
And given that, isn't it all the more important to try to avoid the political mistakes
German conservatives made in the early 1930s when they chose to ally themselves with the
Nazis?
Yes, it is. As we see here, conservatives like Rod think they can control the extremists.
No snark this time, they really believe that.
They couldn't even control Trump.
I think the bigger concern is the alliance of the center left with two marxist movements
especially considering the right cannot ally with nazis as there are no comparable nazi
organizations available
One of the three co-founders of BLM stated in an 2015 interview that she, Patrice Collers,
and one other cofounder, Alizia Garza, are trained marxists. If the leadership claims they
are marxist, then what is the BLM movement?
Anarchists and Marxists simply have different methods of achieving the same goal. For an
example of anarchist goals, see the collectivist actions of the Catalonian anarchists during
the Spanish Civil War.
These are both anti-democratic and dangerous movements which the center left is happy to
work with.
It was the ruinous inflation of 1923 COMBINED with the high unemployment in 1932 that
encouraged millions of ordinary Germans to vote for the Nazis twice in 1932. Some wealthy
Republicans seem to forget this as they lobby for more tax cuts and foreign aid to Israel.
They also appear to forget that the period 1871-1914 was something of a "Golden Age" for
German Jews. Germany's defeat in WWI AND the harsh peace treaty imposed on it by the other
side were more than enough to offset the benefits of a new democratic constitution adopted in
Weimar in 1919.
It is hard to believe that two decades ago, the US budget actually turned positive for a
brief period of time, that the national debt was expected to be paid off in a decade or so
and that some economists were wondering how the Fed would conduct monetary policy if there
were no Treasury securities to buy and sell. They need not have worried. These days, the
national debt is out of control. Instead of worrying about the future, I can take consolation
in the fact that I have outlived (by more than a decade) all of my father's relatives who
were still living in Poland in 1939. For them, the end of the line was an extermination camp
called Belzec.
It wasn't just the 1929 Depression that caused so much hardship in Germany. In 1933 after
Adolph Hitler came to power and Germany was just beginning to crawl out of the shock of their
own depression, the international Jewish Community (Zionists) launched its economic war on
Germany, which native, German Jews pleaded with their western brethren to not do. Ignoring
the German Jews requests, the economic war against Germany persisted, causing massive
economic disruptions as the popularity of this endeavor was picked up around the world...
The first anti-Jewish measure put in place by Nazi Germany started on April 1, 1933 when
Aryan Germans were encouraged by the government to boycott Jewish businesses in Germany. The
boycott was the first of many anti-Jewish measures taken by the Nazis over the next 12 years.
This boycott was followed on April 7, 1933 with the forced retirement of most non-Aryan (i.e.
Jewish) civil servants in the country and a book burning of books by Jewish authors on May
10. There is a whole list of anti-Jewish measures taken by Nazi Germany in the museum catalog
"Jews in German under Prussian Rule". Used copies are available at Amazon.
The economic response by Jews living outside Germany was a failure. It was the Battle of
Stalingrad and the brutal Russian winter of 1942-43 that turned the tide of WWII in
Europe
Bit off topic but not long ago I read that of all the major industrial countries the one
that supposedly suffered the least from the effects of the Depression-- was England!
The conservatives (right-liberals) have done nothing but ally with the left-liberals
against the "fascists" (actual right wing) since 1945. Their entire raison d'etre is to lose
gracefully while preventing the actual right wing from ever coming anywhere near power.
I would call that "overfitting," expecting to find exact matches among the parties
involved. My lessons:
- people can be given scapegoats in lieu of hope. "Yes, we've gutted manufacturing and
flooded the country with low-skill illegal labour, but what's keeping you down is systemic
racism. There is a secret hatred for the colour of the skin inside all white people. They
can't even see it themselves, but it's there. Just look at all these stories from the Jim
Crow era and get angry about them again, and you'll find that if you don't for me you're not
really black."
- nothing's more dangerous than a well-meaning good person convinced they're better than
everyone else, led about by skilled propagandists with total control of news and
entertainment.
- projection and false flag operations are at the top of the propagandist's toolbox. If
you're "fighting racism," you can see race everywhere and treat it as the defining aspect of
every person you meet and the source of all their opinions. If you're "fighting fascism" you
can dress in black and run around starting fires, attacking Senators, and shooting people for
their political beliefs. If you convince everyone "white supremacist terror groups" are the
biggest threat to the country you can unleash rioters on every major city to fight one rather
well-behaved seventeen-year-old in one city. You can unleash a steady stream of hoaxes:
Russiagate, a short clip of the longer George Floyd video that obscures why he died, the
Covington Catholic Smirk of Supremacy, bleach and "This is MAGA country." It doesn't matter.
The bigger the better: people will always believe the big lie.
You should think about your own role in all this. What part of Weimar are you playing?
Thanks for your thoughtful response. To answer your question, I play a
small-to-the-point-of-insignificance role these days, trying to lower the political
temperature in this time of pandemic, and trying to make the case for small 'd' democracy as
the best (and highly imperfect) method for dealing with the challenges we face.
It's in that context that I find hope in the growing number of conservatives (most
recently, former Montana governor and RNC chair Marc Racicot) who are placing "country over
party" and stating their support for Biden, not because they agree with his policies but
despite their disagreement with them.
These folks are not putting "country over party". They are tied into the Uniparty ruled by
the oligarchs doing the bidding of their masters.
Putting "country over party" would require them calling for the arrest of all those who
were involved in the Russian collusion hoax, Spygate, and everything else, from Obama on
down.
Putting "country over party" would require them to put the well-being of the citizens
first and support an end to endless war and to support enforcing immigration law and fixing
trade.
No, these every alleged Republican or conservative supporting Biden is showing that they
are and have always been a fraud who doesn't believe what they preached and would rather
continue in the good graces of the rich and powerful that really rule the country.
Support for country over politics and personal gain. Going back to the "normalcy" of the
pre-Trump political order. Pick one. You don't get both.
Anyone who tells you how important it is for "the good of the nation" to go back to the
long list of careerist politicians, hacks, and establishment elite who have governed it
towards its ruination must first make the case that the "norms" of American political culture
were good and righteous or (even from a strictly amoral view) practically useful. They never
do, though.
It's always asserted as if it is a self-evident fact that we need to go back to the days
of Bushes, Clintons, and Bidens, but nobody can really explain why.
Leftists don't want us as allies, and the 'street militias' are almost entirely leftist.
Institutional elites in Germany supported National Socialism, while in the US today they
support leftists.
Thanks for your response. Sure, there are those on the left who want nothing to do with
centrists and conservatives. (Heck, some of them barely tolerate liberals.) But the
Democratic party chose its most moderate candidate as its standard-bearer in this election,
and Biden has made clear he welcomes the support of centrists and conservatives and
Republicans.
(As for militias, per the FBI (not known as a bastion of liberalism) right-wing militias
are by far the largest domestic terrorism threat.)
Like the Republican party in the Trump era, there is no longer such a thing as the
Democratic party in its traditional sense. As the GOP is an empty vessel now filled with
Trumpism, the Democratic party is an empty vessel being filled with progressivism (an ongoing
process). The traditional Democrats (like old-school moderate African-Americans) who put
Biden over the top in the primary are otherwise powerless in the party.
Biden has made it clear that he will not push back against the far Left in any way - in
his refusal to comment on packing SCOTUS, ending the Senate filibuster, ending the electoral
college (the lack of an answer to these being itself an answer), in his absorption of much of
Bernie's platform into his own, in his silence on urban riots and looting until campaign
people told him it was affecting polling (and his response since has been tepid at best).
He lied gleefully (Trumpily?) during the debate about the prog platform - his own campaign
website lists support for GND and an expanded "reimagining" of the suburbs among many other
progressive goals which Trump is too inarticulate and ignorant to frame sensible arguments
against.
The Democrats are planning to govern on the basis of vengeance and revolution. The mood of
the base could not be more clear.
Thanks for your response. Unlike the Republican party, the Democratic party still has a
party platform that extends beyond (far beyond, 90 pages beyond) fealty to its party leader.
As Biden won a majority of the delegates, the platform those delegates adopted reflects the
views of the factions that chose Biden more than it does any other faction in the party.
Biden has pointedly and repeatedly distanced himself from the policy wishes (e.g.,
Medicare for All, Green New Deal, defund the police) of the left-wing of the Democratic
party.
Vice President Biden knows there is no greater challenge facing our country and our world.
Today, he is outlining a bold plan – a Clean Energy Revolution – to address
this grave threat and lead the world in addressing the climate emergency.
Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate
challenges we face. It powerfully captures two basic truths, which are at the core of his
plan: (1) the United States urgently needs to embrace greater ambition on an epic scale to
meet the scope of this challenge, and (2) our environment and our economy are completely
and totally connected.
Biden will implement the Obama-Biden Administration's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Rule requiring communities receiving certain federal funding to proactively examine housing
patterns and identify and address policies that have a discriminatory effect. The Trump
Administration suspended this rule in 2018.
Giving Americans a new choice, a public health insurance option like Medicare. If your
insurance company isn't doing right by you, you should have another, better choice. Whether
you're covered through your employer, buying your insurance on your own, or going without
coverage altogether, the Biden Plan will give you the choice to purchase a public health
insurance option like Medicare. As in Medicare, the Biden public option will reduce costs
for patients by negotiating lower prices from hospitals and other health care providers. It
also will better coordinate among all of a patient's doctors to improve the efficacy and
quality of their care, and cover primary care without any co-payments. And it will bring
relief to small businesses struggling to afford coverage for their employees.
I don't deserve your thanks, kind sir. You're vastly overestimating the social importance
of presidential elections, imo. And I don't believe the FBI. Every other institution in
American society is virtue signaling support for the woke left, so why not them? They know
who is going to run the country next year. Do you believe that the rioting and destruction
this summer was caused by right-wingers? I have heard that conspiracy theory before, and I
suppose it's the closest thing we'd ever get from leftists to an admission that the events
were negative.
I think that there is definitely a strong double standard when it comes to media reporting
and institutional acknowledgment of violence based on the demographics and politics of the
perpetrator. There was a huge mass shooting in the city I live in last year, but the shooter
(DeWayne Craddock) was black and had a stereotypically black given name. There was very
little reporting on it as compared with the Texas church shooter that occurred at about the
same time.
No, because we on the Left are always the greater evil.
Always.
The (few) bad tendencies of (some, very few) people on the Right can be contained and
governed by the other conservatives.
/SNARK
In Germany, the national socialists and communists were battling for totalitarian control.
Both of them were on the left. Dictatorship either way.
The real question today in the US is whether old fashioned liberals [belief in free
speech, political discourse without threats or actual violence, natural American patriotism,
etc] will disavow the violence and intimidation from the leftist totalitarianism that is the
democrat party today.
The rioting, the burning, the street violence, the death threats of lining people against the
wall, etc., etc., is pretty much all from the totalitarian left. I could give you hundreds of
examples, the most recent the former CEO of Twitter wanting to shoot political opponents.
This hate-filled rhetoric from the totalitarian left is an attempt to dehumanize people
they disagree with, to hate them. This is simply preparing for the stage that those the
totalitarian left disagrees with should be sent to gulags at a minimum, or killed.
This is all with the approval and help of the "mainstream' democrat party. Denying this
just makes you not credible.
p.s. Biden, at best, is a partial senile figurehead, whose function is to mask what the
totalitarian left really wants to do.
Oh what Jonah Goldberg has wraught with this "NAZI's we're leftists" horseshit. I guess
when you be been absolved of the notion that right wing thought had anything to do with the
rise of fascism in Europe, you can say any horrible thing you'd like about people of another
race, ethnicity, or religion ruining your pretty Lilly white country.
From Wikipedia:
"As the eldest son of Bertha Krupp,
Alfried was destined by family tradition to become the sole heir of the
Krupp concern. An amateur photographer and Olympic sailor, he was an
early supporter of Nazism among German industrialists, joining the SS in
1931, and never disavowing his allegiance to Hitler."
Thanks for your response. In case anyone else still isn't clear, and just for the record,
the Nazis were not "on the left".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
The national socialists were on the left. You may lie about it, I can't stop you.
But what is definitely clear is the national socialists were brutal evil totalitarianists
[new word?]. Just like the communist dictatorships in russia, china, cambodia, cuba, etc.
This is the leftists/wokesters blm antifa [the brownshirts of today] in the US, with the
tacit/explicit approval of democrat leadership.
They would not have been better off aligned with Stalin, which was the other side in their
domestic political extremes. It too was rioting in the streets.
The middle got too narrow to survive. That does not mean the other extreme was an
acceptable choice, much less a better choice.
No. For example, the Nazis and the Communists *combined* only accounted for 40% of the
parliamentary seats after the 1930 election. If the center-right, centrist, and center-left
parties had formed an alliance, they could have governed the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
I'm not really a conservative, but I share many concerns and values with conservatives. I
do agree that it's better to ally with liberals and the center-left than to join right-wing
authoritarians, and for that reason I have, however reluctantly, cast my mail-in vote for Joe
Biden.
That said, I think you misinterpret the choice that ultimately faced German nationalists
in 1932. By that time, the liberals and center-left had shrunk to powerlessness at the
national level, and the republic itself was dead in all but name. The choice as the German
nationalists saw it, and very likely as it actually was, was to join the communist KPD or the
fascist National Socialists, both of whom were determined to kill the republic. Even a
friggin' restoration of the Kaiser would have found more support at that point than the
continuation of a liberal center-left republic which had been thoroughly repudiated by all
the strongest players.
In retrospect, we know that even the KPD might have been less bad than the National
Socialists, because the KPD probably wouldn't have blundered into another world war
like the National Socialists did (Stalin, after all, avoided war with the USA and UK). But
that would have been hard for German nationalists to foresee in 1932. The obvious question
for them in making their choice was "Whose death list am I on?" If you were a business owner,
independent farmer, or churchman, your chance of survival seemed better under the National
Socialists; if you were nonwhite, or gay, or Jewish (always remember many German Jews were
fervently nationalist; some of the men murdered in the camps had won Iron Crosses in World
War I), you would have a better chance of survival under the KPD. If the businessmen, farmers
and churchmen could have foreseen that the National Socialists were going to throw away their
lives in another pointless war, they might have taken their chances with the communists
instead.
Switching now to modern America, it seems as hard to predict now as it was for the Germans
in 1932 which party will get us into a massive bloodbath overseas. Trump talks the
nonintervention talk sometimes, but he never withdraws troops, twice came within a micron of
getting us into a war with Iran, and consistently behaves bellicosely with foreign powers.
Biden's record in supporting the Iraq War and the Libya intervention show that a vote for
Democrats is no sure vote for peace either. In any case, dying in a conventional war is a
very remote risk for most Americans; our forces are too strong and technologically advanced.
Nazi Germany lost seven times more dead just invading Poland than America lost in the whole
Afghanistan war. The true nightmare scenario for America is nuclear war with Russia, and
there's no dispute about which party is more hostile to Russia.
My point is, if we've truly reached 1932 Weimar, it's already too late to ally with
liberals and the center-left. The far right and the far left were their only options, and
both led to disaster.
My fervent hope is that we're still closer to 1929 Weimar than 1932. The republic is sick,
perhaps dying, but not everyone has lost faith in it; below the level of the political and
media elites, confidence in the republic is still strong. The US military still supports the
republic to an extent the Reichswehr never did. Biden is no fire-breathing radical; he's an
establishment man to his bones. He has no idea how to cure the republic, and his policies
helped bring it to this low ebb, but at least he isn't out to murder it. That's why I was
willing to vote for him. But it's merely a stopgap measure. The far left is busily taking
over Biden's party, and far from resisting it, he sees it as a useful ally against the right.
The far right, of course, has long been doing the same to the Republican Party. We may not
have arrived yet at 1932's dreadful choice between cutthroats, but we are speeding down that
road, and it is crazy to imagine that a mere presidential vote for either of these two clowns
is going to change our course.
What will change our course? I have only the haziest idea, and I'm eagerly looking forward
to Rod's book for suggestions.
This is the best answer, but radicals will just look at your "whose death list am I in"
argument and say "yep the bourgeoisie should die, and so should anyone who supports
them".
Agreed that this is a thoughtful response. While I may even more reluctantly cast my
ballot for a despicable lunatic instead, I relate to much of the above.
In the 1928 German elections, 15 political parties won seats in the Reichstag
(parliament), with the Nazi party winning fewer than 3% of the seats. Germany's proportional
system of allocating seats meant that even small parties could end up with a small number
seats. Two years later, 15 parties again won seats in Reichstag elections. The Nazi party
made the biggest gain in seats at the expense of more centrist parties. In both national
elections held in 1932, 14 political parties won seats, with the Nazi party winning the most
seats. The popularity of the Nazi party grew as economic conditions in the country
worsened.
In 2020, the Covid-19 virus may have merely accelerated trends which were already in place
in the US.
That's a stupid false equivalency and a scarecrow argument in one, maybe even a no true
scotsman to go with that. You're aware that there were several conservatives opposing Hitler,
right? Opposition wasn't just carried out by the far-left, some of which were in the
SA/The Nazi party themselves . See: strasserism.
Rod, I agree with you about Arendt and her classic work, the best work in political
history/theory of the 20th Century imo. But there is a reason why no one quotes it today. You
mention only the last chapter of TOoT, but in Part II she goes into great detail about how
capitalism led to imperialism which used racism as a means to that end. The "mob" originates
with those displaced by The Great Transformation (Polyani's term) brought about by capitalism
and the rise of bourgeois society . . . it is this mob that later forms the basis for
totalitarian movements. Arendt's analysis covers a period of about 400 years, not simply the
aftermath of World War I which was a result of the crisis that had already begun, that is the
dissolution of the nation state . . .
But that would be uncomfortable to point out, as it is the rise of right wing economics
that was destroyed the middle class in this country, and lead us to this parlous state.
For a long time, the right has happily embraced the culture wars to hide the destruction
of the libertarian economic policies, that as always are looking for a way to crush labor
power.
An anaylsis of the Communist takeover of Eastern Europe and East Asia that leaves out the
World Wars is like an American history text that leaves out the Civil War. In every single
Eurasian country from Hungary east to North Korea where the Communists came to power WWI
and/or WWII was a key factor. No war, no Communist takeover. (And it regards to the Nazis in
Germany WWI is also a crucial factor on their coming power)
What would play the role of those wars in our future if some manner of totalitarian
government of the Left or Right junked the Constitution and seized power by force?
To be sure, none of this means that totalitarianism is inevitable. But they do signify that
the weaknesses in contemporary American society are consonant with a pre-totalitarian
state. Like the imperial Russians, we Americans may well be living in a fog of
self-deception about our own country's stability. It only takes a catalyst like war,
economic depression, plague, or some other severe and prolonged crisis that brings the
legitimacy of the liberal democratic order into question.
Again, why are you responding to an argument that Rod is not making? He didn't write The
Handmaid's Tale,
What were the catalysts for Cuba or Venezuela? Or the many socialist regimes in Africa,
the Middle East and Latin America during the postwar decades?
Revolutions against outside imposed dictatorships left over from a soft imperialism.
Platt Amendment, Banana Wars, School of the Americas and coups for days set up the
conditions for people to not trust there near neighbor oppose to its distant enemies during
the Cold War and the legacies from it created the social conditions for. We as a state
literally supported death squads in Central America. Leading to the weak states and strong
gangs in the region. The seeds of any empire bear bitter fruits. It is also where the police
state we now see was created and imported home.
As is so often the case, there are various partial truths in what you say but they don't
add up to the simplistic conclusion. BTW Venezuela was a relatively wealthy and successful
country when Chavez took over; the factors you list were long before and not involved. Rather
what happened was existing inequities and problems were utilized to enable a power grab. In
the same way that poor blacks and other minorities are being used to enable the current power
grab, divide and conquer as always - in the end, they will be just as removed from power as
they are now. Like all the woke white chicks, they are just considered useful idiots for the
progressives seeking power.
We as a state literally supported death squads in Central America. Leading to the weak
states and strong gangs in the region. The seeds of any empire bear bitter fruits.
Not that simple. The weak states and strong gangs came first. The weak states and corrupt
governments and deep inequities created the instabilities that motivated insurgencies. Lack
of a rule of law and the inability of the state to protect you forces people to turn to (and
form) gangs for protection. All of this played out against a backdrop of a global conflict
between two empires, two ideologies which further fueled all the conflicts.
There were death squads and all sorts of other abuses on all sides. There are no clean
hands in such a conflict. It was not possible to remain neutral unless you were Swiss.
All of the problems you cite concerning central america are an outgrowth of the
"governments" the US government/business imposed on those countries. The societies of central
and south america were and are highly stratified with "Europeans"--ancestry--occupying the
highest rung and receiving the lions share of the wealth. That's the reason Castro and Chavez
had such an easy time overthrowing the governments and why there is so much resistance to a
return of the previous conditions.
International relations and history are a lot more complicated than you think they are.
The endless desire for Americans to find quick and dirty feel-good good vs bad answers to
everything goes a long ways towards explaining the degrading of this society and its
governance.
I note again that Venezuela was in a rather different state than pre-Castro Cuba. But yes
having a large underclass that feels disconnected and deprived of what the rest of a society
has goes provide fertile fuel for revolution.
MS13 and Barrio 18 were born in the US from refugees fleeing our dirty wars in Central
America. Poor wealth distribution leads to it. So glad you realize wealth focus is bad. Also
oligarchs are bad. We supported those corrupted governments leading to the revolutions
leading to the net result. Ever hear of United Fruit and the banana men? Imperial Companies
support weak government because they can influence it.
Well the catalyst for Cuba was Batista staging a coup, seizing power, and destroying the
democratic process (with full US support) in 1952. Less than 10 years later, a popular
revolution overthrew him. That revolution has proven a much tougher nut to crack. It's almost
as if overthrowing democracy and giving into a strongman's appetite for power has
consequences down the road.
One could also say that trying to jump start / leap frog your way into equality and
"justice" also has consequences down the road. A lesson that humans absolutely refuse to
learn, thus condemning generation after generation into misery.
No one "gives into a strongman's appetite for power". People make choices based on
incentives and possible outcomes. Rod uses the Franco example often. People often have to
choose between two terrible outcomes - in which case they choose the one that has a better
chance of their own survival or the survival of what they care about.
I can't comment about east Asia because I don't now enough about it, but as the great
historian John Lukacs never tired of saying, the only country in Europe where the Bolsheviks
triumphed politically was Russia. The Spartacists and the Bela Kun horror fizzled out. After
the second war the Communists needed the Red Army to set up puppets. There was no
"revolution" in Poland, Czech, Hungary or anywhere because nobody wanted it. Yugoslavia may
be a partial exception, but look what happened to Yugoslavia.
Good point. I guess we could make the argument that the Red Army sweep over Eastern Europe
and absorption of all those countries into the Soviet empire required WW2 to occur, but that
seems like not the argument that Jon is making in response to Rod's thesis.
I was agreeing with him. But "what would play the role of those wars in our future" would
be...a war. Which Biden (or, the Pentagon) has up his sleeve ("America is Back"). Experto
crede. Do you not believe that the Kagan/Rubin/Boot crowd would shy from a shooting war with
Russia? Because I don't.
Thankfully empty-headed blabbers like Rubin and Boot are well removed from actual power
(and even, I would say, influence - in fact it is unclear to me why anyone publishes their
rantings). The people with influence in a Biden administration will be people like Harris,
Warner, AOC, etc. I don't think they're really aching for a war.
But the point is that you don't need a war - the catalyst can be another major event like
economic depression, a global pandemic, etc, etc.
Well, we're asking the who/whom question only one way, it seems to me. Everybody is
rightly convinced that on social and economic issues AOC and Princess Tiger Lily will have
the wheel in a Biden administration. But who's to say that in foreign policy Gersonism won't
prevail? All these never Trumpers are going to be looking for their rewards. Remember,
Hillary destroyed Libya as a resume enhancer. And the Army has gone left. One of the things
Trump mideast deal has done is set up a Sunni/Shia showdown. Why not follow through?
Fair enough. I suppose that's possible, and the young AOC type progs barely know where
anything on the globe is outside the US so they might be happy to let the old "experts" take
back over foreign policy. Not where their interests lie, for sure.
I disagree about the mideast deals, though - a Sunni vs Shia conflict has been baked into
the cake from the beginning (see: Iran Iraq war), and it was Obama's crazy Iran deal that
started everyone back on that path by strengthening Iran and trying to push it into place as
a regional hegemon. That was never going to go down with the Sunni countries.
The apparently not actually so naive Kushner was able to take advantage of new incentives
that Obama's machinations created. I see this as quite positive.
We'll agree to disagree about the mideast, which I really just brought up e.g. The one
they're really lusting for is a shooting war with Putin. Have you read Gerson on that
subject? What's the outcome of Mrs. Sikorsky's bellicosity but that? What else has all this
NATO expansion been for, anyway?
Haven't read Gerson in a while. I see your point, though I don't really think any of these
people are quite reckless enough to lust for a war with a nuclear power.
Partially correct. Czechoslovakia was an exception: Communists came to power as a result
of a free election in 1946. But it was something of an outlier, probably the most left-wing
country in Europe.
It was Bush 43's costly Middle East adventures at a time when he was cutting income taxes
that set the US economy on the terrible path it is on now. Our national debt is out of
control. Many young people will leave college with massive student loan debt, poor job
prospects and, in many areas, very expensive housing. We have paid and will continue to pay a
very high price for trying to be the world's policeman.
Obama, the wild eyed leftist spender, cut the 1.2 trillion dollar deficit that W ran up
with his tax cuts and catastrophic war down to 585 billion. By the end of '19, before any
Covid-19 spending took place, Trump had run it back up to 984 billion. Growth has been a
meager two tenths of one percent higher in the first three years of Trump's presidency than
it was during the last three years of Obama and it has come at a high cost.
"...which seeks to infuse all aspects of life with political Consciousness."
Which explains the absurd phenomenon of polically-correct stand-up comics. Guess what?
They're not funny. 'Whimsy' won't get you belly laughs. Trump still gets the belly laughs.
Even from me, and I hate his rotten stinking guts with the white hot fury of a thousand
suns.
A hundred years ago, Newtonian physics got nuked. Goodbye ordered universe, hello entropy
and chaos. And we've been mopping up the fallout ever since. Ironically, years before, The
Enlightenment had already started this dissolution process. So can you blame Picasso and
Joyce for just trying to see things as they really are(?)
Griel Marcus traces this process in his great book Lipstick Traces. From The Brethren of
the Free Spirit to the Cathars to St. Just to the Paris Commune to Duchamp and right up to
The Sex Pistols, we are either fallen, or trying to achieve the colliding energy of a mere
collection of atoms. The Lettrists even took a cue from Finnegans Wake and carved up the damn
language, for Chr--sakes. And they've been doing it ever since.
So can you blame the great Stockard Channing, in Six Degrees of Seperation, 1993, for
meditating on a Kandinsky and then coming to the same conclusion that many of us poor
benighted souls have in these absurd times: 'I am all random.'
Arendt's fine. But I'll go with Carville's "It's the economy stupid".
When a young man who isn't "college material" has no economic future, he's going to find a
way to make one. If it requires totalitarianism, so be it. Indeed, totalitarian ideologies
can only flourish in an environment when bored, penniless young men have the time to read up
on them.
Imagine all of those black guys rioting or white skinheads having to get up early in the
morning for 10 hours of hard-work at the factory or on someone's roof. A couple of beers
after work and your ready for bed, not revolution. Hence the great America of the '50's - the
'80's.
I have no idea what's coming, but we are trying to reduce our exposure by moving out of
the city, as far as we can reasonably go for now until retirement. We are frantically trying
to get our house on the market and hoping that thanks to the magic of "gentrification"
(hopefully prospective buyers won't notice the giant "F*** Gentrifiers" spray painted on a
nearby wall) we can trade our overvalued home into two properties - one in a distant town
past the outer suburbs and another somewhere overseas where we can run to when things get
really bad. That's the dream, at least. But the city we have already left and won't be going
back.
I'm sure the overseas locations will be absolutely overjoyed to have a couple of US
refugees, with no ties to the country or area, who don't speak the language or have any
cultural understanding or background, and expect to instantly be fully integrated into the
economic and social fabric, showing up.
Have you considered that you'll be akin to a Central American family moving into the outer
suburb neighborhood you desire to live in, albeit one with more resources and legal
status?
"Trump's exaltation of personal loyalty over expertise is discreditable and corrupting.
But how can liberals complain? Loyalty to the group or the tribe is at the core of leftist
identity politics."
Just when you thought the hypocrisy and the double-standard had reached the limits of what
is humanly possible, Biden takes it up a notch.
After spending the last few months tearing up cities and threatening to burn down the country
if they don't win in November, the Democrats now accuse Trump of putting the Proud Boys on
stand-by???
Even my dog is laughing at this.
[How do these kooky communists even get elected to dog-catcher???]
Just saying both sides are playing this game. One is just doing it with more guns and
state security support. The left has greater cultural focus cause those are the positions
that interest them. This is the creation of capitalism.
If Rod paid more attention to all the data and not just those that feed his hysteria, he'd
learn that there are all kinds of backlash within liberal and far left circles to the
excesses he rightly decries. In fact, I think there is more self-correction and
self-regulation going on within "the left" than on Rod's side of the spectrum
Do you have any examples of this self correction? I've been living in a far left
neighborhood in a permanent liberal Democratic city for decades, and I don't see it (well now
we fled so I can't speak for what happens next).
There are occasionally people who will whisper something in my ear or my wife's ear that
suggests they recognize some lunacy that's going on. But they would never admit that
publicly. And all evidence suggests there are still very few of such people.
The whole point of Rod's thesis is that the vast majority of people will go along with the
tide even if they don't believe it - they will live their lives by lies. Very few people have
the courage to take a stand in such circumstances, as history makes all too clear. The
progressive left, again as has been made clear over and over, now owns all the institutions
that matter in the US - with woke capitalism being the final crown. What Rod says is coming,
is coming.
Without the '65 "immigration reform" act none of this would be happening. This isn't the
result of personal loneliness, it's the inevitable result of becoming, in Eugene McCarthy's
phrase, a colony of the world. The radical turn to the left is a direct result of anti-white
bloc voting by immigrants. (Indeed you have to be willfully blind not to notice the high
percentage of spokesmen for the extreme left who are immigrants or the children of
immigrants.) This is a race war against white America, in which the cultural establishment
and the government they shape are the leading protagonists. Classic racist colonialism, with
the bizarre twist that perhaps a third of the white population supports the annihilation of
their own peoples and cultures. For the others it's simply a Scramble For America, a rush to
get money, territory, and power with the natives footing the bill.
Irrelevant. It's the immigrant vote that puts them over. The vast majority of immigration
is non-white. It's immigration that has California not electing a Republican to statewide
office in 15 years, and nothing else. Don't take my word for it, the left itself has been
telling Republicans for decades that the demographics are against them. It's an
acknowledgement of the reality of identity bloc voting and the reason they support open
borders. In any case, I mentioned you when I wrote about that mentally ill third of whites
that supports self-annihilation.
"""It is probably as true that violence breeds fanaticism as that fanaticism begets
violence. Fanatical orthodoxy is in all movements a late development. There is hardly an
example of a mass movement achieving vast proportions and a durable organization solely by
persuasion. It was a temporal sword that made Christianity a world religion. Conquest and
conversion were hand in hand. Reformation made headways only where it gained the backing of
the ruling prince or local government. The missionary zeal seems rather an expression of some
deep misgivings. Proselytizing is more a passionate search for something not yet found than
to bestow upon the world something we already have. The proselytizing fanatic strengthens his
own faith by converting others.
A true believer is eternally incomplete and eternally insecure.
Mass movements do not usually rise until the prevailing order has been discredited. A full
blown mass movement is a ruthless affair, and its management is in the hands of ruthless
fanatics. A Luther who when first defying the established church, spoke feelingly of "the
poor, simple, common folk," proclaimed later when he allied with the German princelings, that
"God would prefer to suffer to government to exist no matter how evil, rather than allow the
rabble to riot, not matter how justified they are in doing so."
"Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all the unifying agents. Mass
movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a
devil."
However, the freedom the masses crave is not freedom of self-expression and
self-realization, but the freedom from the intolerable burden of an autonomous existence.
They want freedom from the arduous responsibility of realizing their ineffectual selves and
shouldering the blame for the blemished product. They do not want freedom of conscience, but
faith -- blind, authoritarian faith. """"""
Biden of course is scarcely a totalitarian figure--Trump is more suited to that role. But
Biden would fit nicely as a von Hindenburg for the Loony Left.
How in the hell is Trump a totalitarian figure? I hear this calumny hurled at him time and
time again, but without any specifics. Tell me, what specific totalitarian actions has he
actually taken?
Support for violent white supremacist groups. Using the Dept. of Justice to target
political enemies. Adopting a Republican platform that consists solely of fealty to the party
leader.
Over the past 6 months or so, my husband has been listening to a lot of Jordan Peterson
and I have definitely noticed a shift in his thinking. A good one! I, myself, just finished
listening to his book, 12 Rules For Life and am now going through his Podcast episodes. It's
quite fascinating! Rogan has also received a lot of flak for having Peterson on his show
several times.
I went and listened to the episodes with Abigail Shrier and Douglas Murray (at your
suggestion) and now have their books (as well as your's) sitting in my audible library.
Most of what you say is true, save for the usefulness of the "experts", the credentialed
ones who have shown themselves to be absolute morons, incompetents and political hacks.
(Think, Fauci.)
Imagine if one hundred years ago you told the founding stock of this nation that every
American institution would be weaponized against their own history and heritage. Imagine if
you told them our universities, media, churches and immigration system were all being used to
demonize and demographically displace their own posterity. They must be rolling over in their
graves because that is exactly what is happening.
In 1920? Large numbers of them absolutely would have believed it. In fact, millions of
them *did* believe it. The country was being overrun by Italians, Poles, Greeks, Serbs,
Russians. A frightening number of them were Jews and Catholics. They smelled funny, spoke
weird languages, had bizarre beliefs and customs, cooked and ate strange foods. They were
lazy bums who were taking all our jobs. At a rally in Rhode Island, the Grand Imperial Wizard
proclaimed to thousands that the KKK stood for undying opposition to "Koons, Kikes, &
Katholics".
And it's come true! Look, for example, who's on the Supreme Court.
Not to mention that the Jews were over-running colleges. Keeping them out required changes
to admissions practices to make things other than pure academic ability deciding factors.
Hence the emphasis on "the whole person", where a good background, good family, athletic
ability, and being someone you'd want to associate with in your club began to over-ride
performance on the academic tests that had previously been used to determine admissions.
Just soft totalitarianism? That seems incredibly pollyann-ish - delusionally
optimistic.
If Biden wins, the USA, the EU and Red China will move swiftly to exterminate the remnants of
Christian Civilisation - and anybody associated with it.
Bishop Vigano seems to share this view. (
https://www.lifesitenews.co...
[Anyway, we ALREADY have "soft totalitarianism". Need proof? Just go down to your HR
department and tell them that you believe homosexual activity is immoral.]
As much as somebody may dislike Trump's personality, Biden is just not an option.
Biden = ethno-cultural extinction
As adults, we don't get to indulge our own childish sensitivities. We don't get to
participate in this political fantasy-land alt-universe - where monstrous evil is praised as
virtuous, and goodness is labelled as vice.
Just go down to your HR department and tell them that you believe homosexual activity
is immoral.
I imagine you'll get a reaction similar to that if you went down to HR and ranted about
how sex outside of marriage is immoral, or lectured how sodomy is a crime against nature and
its practitioners deserve to burn in Hell.
I used to have a Ukrainian woman on my staff. When my younger staff all started in 2016
expressing support for Sanders she freaked. Then she freaked over Trump.
We are screwed. My decision to vote for Biden is predicated upon the hope that a boring
gaff prone Biden presidency will allow a return to normalcy.
A vote for Biden is a vote for the radical totalitarian left. Packing the supreme court.
Ending the Senate Filibuster and open borders. The country as we know it will be over.
Certain end of the First and Second amendments. I don't find you credible at all
"... The REASON they won't release them: The TRUMP Collusion wasn't with the Russians , but with APARTHEID Isra-h-e-l-l. But NO ONE will investigate that. M.A.G.A. is out. M.I.G.A is in. ..."
"... 'Bloody Gina' is Trump's loyalist appointee, following through on what loyalist Pompeo started to protect Trump Crime Family Corruption, Chabad Mafia, and ZOG. ..."
"... please allow me to still congratulate Gina on reducing the almighty Third Option into the Toiletpaper Option. ..."
"... 2018, BREAKING: Trump appoints Haspel as first female CIA director ..."
"... 2017: Breaking: CIA Director Mike Pompeo appoints Haspel as the first female CIA officer to be named deputy director. ..."
"... Fathead and Esper were best buds at West Point.. ..."
"... Evidence destruction was one the main purposes of the Mueller "investigation". ..."
"... Please. If you can see what Trump has done, basically bending the US and its taxpayers over for Israel, you'd realize he's just another in a long line of AIPAC Presidents. Ain't nobody opposing him. CIA knows what Russia knows about him, and they're just using him as bait. ..."
"... proof is in the pudding, Hillary still walks free, none of the corrupt ones are in jail and won't ever go to jail. Face it, Biff has many fooled. ..."
"... U.S. Navy Reserve Doctor on Gina Haspel Torture Victim: "One of the Most Severely Traumatized Individuals I Have Ever Seen" ..."
"... What bothers me more is how deep the Deep State goes in Washington. They totally control the government and without mass firings it is impossible to even make a dent in it. This country is gone and just doesn't know it yet. Once Kamala is crowned as queen reality will come slamming home pdq. By the time the country realizes what has happened to them it will be way too late, no matter how many guns they have at home. Once they cut off access to your money, very few people will be independent enough to survive on their own. ..."
"... Trump has opened the eyes of more Americans to the simple fact that an unelected bureaucracy is running the country ..."
"... DJT hired this c8nt, sure, but the pool of candidates equipped to take over the CIA is very small, and all are career swamp things. If DJT put in a true outsider, the ranks would close and the "Director" would know nothing, could do nothing, and nothing would change. The ranks would just wait for another President. Trump is powerless over the CIA. After all, they could easily have him 'accidentally' killed; they've done it before. ..."
"... The CIA just needs to be dissolved in acid. The political, psychological and historical deep-rooted corruption isn't fixable by anyone. ..."
"... McConnell would never confirm a "true outsider". Mitch is the real problem here, he tells Trump who he will and will not confirm, so Trump has to accept one of Mitch's choices. ..."
"... He could put in Mike Flynn. And any vested employee who "closed ranks" would go on immediate and permanent furlough. ..."
"... Here's something we Americans can learn from the Russians. In August 1991 after Gorbachev left to the Black Sea for a short vacation, the heads of the USSR "power ministries" (KGB chairman, armed forces chief of staff, Minister of Interior, etc. etc.) formed the "State Committee for Extrordinary Situation" ( G.K.Ch .P.) and tried to overthrow the government. ..."
"... That's what happened in Washington in 2016-2018 - "GKChP Lite." ..."
"... After the putsch attempt failed, the leaders were arrested and the power ministries reorganized - the KGB was split into several departments including the FSB and SVR for internal and external intelligence. ..."
"... Trump can declassify these personally if he wants, at any time. He could even go live on air and read portions of it to the public. He has the power, but he refuses to use it. ..."
"... Trumps entire cabinet is full of Goldman Sachs, Skull and Bones, CFR, Pentagon, CIA, Career politicians... at what point do you realize he was never going to drain the swamp? Both candidates are a joke and so is this website for becoming a Big R Republican website. ..."
"... This is all kabuki theater because Trump could have signed an Executive Order releasing everything back to JFK 3 years ago instead of flapping his yap. Comey has a Hollywood movie coming out this fall, As Biden said, "Shut up, man". ..."
"... No one is going to prison that deserves to over this. They'll crucify some desk monkey or intern, pat each other on the back and brag about a job well done. We've seen it the last four years, some low level schmuck changes the footer on some emails and the DOJ is all over it like white on rice. Totally ignoring the fact there is a seditionist movement, maybe even treasonous, happening at a systemic level throughout government. Four years is enough time to build a case, lord knows any one with half a mind can find all the evidence needed in four damned days. ..."
"... The a-holes running the DOJ won't prosecute Comey, or Clinton, or Brennan or any other name we know. Because they're doing dirty deeds themselves and don't want to set the precedent in fear those who come after them might in turn prosecute them ..."
"Federalist" co-founder Sean Davis reports that CIA Director Gina Haspel is personally
blocking the release of documents that will show "what actually happened" with Russiagate.
" This isn't just a scandal about Democrat projection, this is a scandal about what was a
coup planned against the incoming administration at the highest levels and I can report here
tonight that these declassifications that have come out," Davis told FOX News host Tucker
Carlson on Wednesday. "Those weren't easy to get out and there are far more waiting to get
out."
"Unfortunately those releases and declassifications according to multiple sources I've
talked to are being blocked by CIA director Gina Haspel who herself was the main link between
Washington and London ," Davis said.
"As the London station chief from John Brennan's CIA during the 2016 election. Recall, it
was London where Christopher Steele was doing all this work. And I'm told that it was Gina
Haspel personally who is blocking a continued declassification of these documents that will
show the American people the truth of what actually happened."
Watch:
pier , 1 hour ago
The REASON they won't release them: The TRUMP Collusion wasn't with the Russians , but with APARTHEID Isra-h-e-l-l. But NO ONE will investigate that. M.A.G.A. is out.
M.I.G.A is in.
Joseph Sullivan , 1 hour ago
No. This is all the UK. And Brit east India/pharma complex I'm serious. Israel is a UK proxy.
tion , 1 hour ago
True. 'Bloody Gina' is Trump's loyalist appointee, following through on what loyalist
Pompeo started to protect Trump Crime Family Corruption, Chabad Mafia, and ZOG.
My last
comment including my sentiments towards Gina got eaten by censorship for reasons obvious to
me, but please allow me to still congratulate Gina on reducing the almighty Third Option into
the Toiletpaper Option.
acetrumchura , 1 hour ago
2018, BREAKING: Trump appoints Haspel as first female CIA director
acetrumchura , 1 hour ago
2017: Breaking: CIA Director Mike Pompeo appoints Haspel as the first female CIA officer
to be named deputy director.
BGen. Jack Ripper , 49 minutes ago
Fathead and Esper were best buds at West Point..
NoWorries77 , 1 hour ago
Evidence destruction was one the main purposes of the Mueller "investigation".
realitybiter , 2 hours ago
Trump Has played like Tom Brady. Without either guard or tackle. Take the CIA and the FBI. They are both still ran by rats. Tree of liberty is VERY thirsty.
eatapeach , 1 hour ago
Please. If you can see what Trump has done, basically bending the US and its taxpayers
over for Israel, you'd realize he's just another in a long line of AIPAC Presidents. Ain't
nobody opposing him. CIA knows what Russia knows about him, and they're just using him as
bait.
GreatUncle , 57 minutes ago
Either they are accountable or they are treasonous. CIA is the globalist intelligence agency now.
MAGAMAN , 2 hours ago
It will happen, the fuse just keeps getting shorter. Nobody even refutes that Obama is a
traitor that spied on Trump's campaign and tried to overthrow the President. The evidence is
overwhelming and continues to snow ball.
ChiangMaiXPat , 1 hour ago
It will never happen as Trump appointed these Clowns. Imagine appointing people working
DIRECTLY against your self interest. Does this sound logical or even remotely plausible? I
don't recall it EVER happening in any other administration.
spqrusa , 2 minutes ago
He cannot do anything without Consent from the Privy Council and the circle of demons.
ThaBigPerm , 2 hours ago
Aaaand Trump can just order declassification over "her" head. Do it.
Lather Rinse Repeat , 1 hour ago
Surfaces the cabal's foot soldiers. CIA Director Haspel was a great leader when appointed. But when process drives Haspel to
block an action, the message is that Haspel is rot and so is Haspel's network. These networks run deep and wide and prosecuting 1 or 10 does nothing - you need them all,
or the problem comes back in 5 years.
Lokiban , 2 hours ago
He won't
proof is in the pudding, Hillary still walks free, none of the corrupt ones are in jail
and won't ever go to jail. Face it, Biff has many fooled.
spam filter , 2 hours ago
The way he's constantly saying, "someone should do something about this" ...Tells my
spidey sense that he has little power in the swamp.
Propaganda Phil , 2 hours ago
Isn't she the same chick who destroyed all the torture tapes? Good luck.
Mr. Bones , 1 hour ago
All power of classification is derived from the office of the executive.
He could do exactly this, unilaterally.
Farmer Tink , 1 hour ago
First, normal people who consume news from the networks, particularly those that get their
news from MSNBC and social media, would never hear this. Second, if they did find out about
this, they'd never believe it. It would cause too much cognitive dissonance for them to
believe.
They wouldn't believe it unless the four legacy broadcast media told them so. They
just live in a land of Orange Man Bad as far as news go. A plot to overthrow the US
government by Obama and the Brits would be unfathomable to them.
Someone Else , 2 hours ago
Trump had an abrasive demeanor during the debate and in general.
How could he not, when truly everybody for four years HAS fought him tooth and nail? Few
would have had the ability to stand up to what he has stood up to.
Quia Possum , 1 hour ago
He had that demeanor before he was president too, so I don't accept that excuse.
desertboy , 27 minutes ago
U.S. Navy Reserve Doctor on Gina Haspel Torture Victim: "One of the Most Severely
Traumatized Individuals I Have Ever Seen"
justyouwait , 2 hours ago
All this crap needs to come out. Any date for the release before the election will have
the Dems and their media lap dogs crying foul. It just doesn't matter. They will NEVER
support the release of any documents that are damming to them. He should release it all right
up to the day of the election. This country needs to know all the criminality that went down.
That goes for the so called Durham report too, of which there have been so many rumors. That
one is likely to be a huge zero though by the time Barr gets done with it and then tells us
there were "improprieties" but nothing really bad. What a joke.
What bothers me more is how deep the Deep State goes in Washington. They totally control
the government and without mass firings it is impossible to even make a dent in it. This
country is gone and just doesn't know it yet. Once Kamala is crowned as queen reality will
come slamming home pdq. By the time the country realizes what has happened to them it will be
way too late, no matter how many guns they have at home. Once they cut off access to your
money, very few people will be independent enough to survive on their own.
John Couger , 2 hours ago
Trump has opened the eyes of more Americans to the simple fact that an unelected
bureaucracy is running the country
Sigh. , 2 hours ago
DJT hired this c8nt, sure, but the pool of candidates equipped to take over the CIA is
very small, and all are career swamp things. If DJT put in a true outsider, the ranks would
close and the "Director" would know nothing, could do nothing, and nothing would change. The
ranks would just wait for another President. Trump is powerless over the CIA. After all, they
could easily have him 'accidentally' killed; they've done it before.
The CIA just needs to be dissolved in acid. The political, psychological and historical
deep-rooted corruption isn't fixable by anyone.
Mclovin , 1 hour ago
McConnell would never confirm a "true outsider". Mitch is the real problem here, he tells
Trump who he will and will not confirm, so Trump has to accept one of Mitch's choices.
gcjohns1971 , 1 hour ago
He could put in Mike Flynn. And any vested employee who "closed ranks" would go on immediate and permanent
furlough.
There are only a couple or three thousand CIA agents and analysts. The rest are
contractors.
To bypass the swamp things you sideline them and put your own people in charge of the
contracts.
otschelnik , 1 hour ago
Here's something we Americans can learn from the Russians. In August 1991 after Gorbachev
left to the Black Sea for a short vacation, the heads of the USSR "power ministries" (KGB
chairman, armed forces chief of staff, Minister of Interior, etc. etc.) formed the "State
Committee for Extrordinary Situation" ( G.K.Ch
.P.) and tried to overthrow the government.
That's what happened in Washington in 2016-2018 - "GKChP Lite."
After the putsch attempt failed, the leaders were arrested and the power ministries
reorganized - the KGB was split into several departments including the FSB and SVR for
internal and external intelligence.
Trump has to do the same thing - break them up.
Occams_Razor_Trader , 1 hour ago
Kennedy wasn't a big fan................. look where it got him......................
Back and to the left.................................
LostinRMH , 2 hours ago
Trump can declassify these personally if he wants, at any time. He could even go live on
air and read portions of it to the public. He has the power, but he refuses to use it.
LostinRMH , 2 hours ago
The only timing Trump is interested in is running out the clock. If he get's a second term, a lot of these current issues will magically vanish, and new
ones will appear. This is just a scripted political show for the sheeple. It's all fake.
Oldwood , 2 hours ago
The swamp owns the government's employment agency. All hires come from within the swamp.
LooseLee , 1 hour ago
Sorry Old Man. Trump could have handled this sooooo much better and differently. I call
BS.
knightowl77 , 50 minutes ago
Here is the "B.S."
80 to 90% of the Federal Government are swamp creatures or friendly to the swamp...90 out
of 100 U.S. Senators are either swamp members or at least friendly to the swamp....Trump can
only get people confirmed to certain agencies who are Not hostile to the swamp...McConnell
and company are blocking the draining....The Dems would be even worse or just impeach
Trump....
No One else has even tried...I doubt anyone else could've survived the swamp as long as
Trump has....So you tell us HOW he could have done it better and differently?????????
AlexTheCat3741 , 1 hour ago
Not one person who has had a prior association with John Brennan should be doing anything
in the Trump Administration. And if that person cannot be fired, then reassign them to
cleaning toilets or picking up trash.
WHERE IS PRESIDENT TRUMP GETTING HIS PERSONNEL CHOICES FROM? We know Chris Cristie was one
who recommended director of the "Fibbers Bureau of Insurrection", Chris Wray and he is an
absolute disaster AND NEARLY AS BAD AS JAMES COMEY WHO MUST BE SUFFERING FROM DEMENTIA TOO AS
HE CANNOT SEEM TO REMEMBER ANYTHING WHILE UNDER OATH BEFORE A SENATE COMMITTEE.
And now we have this Gina Haspel running the CIA? ARE YOU F CKING KIDDING??
The first person to next get the ax in the Trump Administration is whoever it is that is
giving him these personnel choices, e.g., Rex Tillerson, James Matis, John Kelly, Kirsten
Nielson, Mark Esper, Mark Miley..........WHO IS PICKING THIS TRASH WHEN THE PRESIDENT NEEDS
REAL HELP PERFORMING A COLON FLUSH ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO GET THE GARBAGE OUT AND TO
UNDO THE DAMAGE DONE BY 8 YEARS OF BARACK O'DINGLEBARRY AND SLOW JOE BIDEN??
Citi The Real , 1 hour ago
Trumps entire cabinet is full of Goldman Sachs, Skull and Bones, CFR, Pentagon, CIA,
Career politicians... at what point do you realize he was never going to drain the swamp?
Both candidates are a joke and so is this website for becoming a Big R Republican
website.
DeeDeeTwo , 1 hour ago
This is all kabuki theater because Trump could have signed an Executive Order releasing
everything back to JFK 3 years ago instead of flapping his yap. Comey has a Hollywood movie
coming out this fall, As Biden said, "Shut up, man".
Alfred , 2 hours ago
The Director of the CIA is a cabinet position. If she doesn't want to take direction from POTUS, she should be fired.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 53 minutes ago
Yeah, there's a reason she's blocking it. If those papers are released, it'll lead to
someone high up the food chain facing a courtroom out of necessity because people will lose
their goddamed ****.
Once that happens, you'll by necessity have to go after six more. Then six more. Then
everyone in D.C., their families, friends, and pet dogs are gonna be locked up.
They protect themselves. "Obeyance of the law is for thee, not for me."
Wild Bill Steamcock , 41 minutes ago
No one is going to prison that deserves to over this. They'll crucify some desk monkey or
intern, pat each other on the back and brag about a job well done. We've seen it the last
four years, some low level schmuck changes the footer on some emails and the DOJ is all over
it like white on rice. Totally ignoring the fact there is a seditionist movement, maybe even
treasonous, happening at a systemic level throughout government. Four years is enough time to
build a case, lord knows any one with half a mind can find all the evidence needed in four
damned days.
The a-holes running the DOJ won't prosecute Comey, or Clinton, or Brennan or any other
name we know. Because they're doing dirty deeds themselves and don't want to set the
precedent in fear those who come after them might in turn prosecute them
radical-extremist , 1 hour ago
Be aware CIA people stick together like glue. They're more loyal to each other than they
are the US or any president. Once you're in the CLUB, you're in the CLUB for life. Trump was
absolutely right about not trusting "our intelligence agencies".
12Doberman , 1 hour ago
I hate the CIA...and it's been a power unto itself for a very long time. The idea that it
is under civilian oversight is a joke.
Max21c , 1 hour ago
the CIA...and it's been a power unto itself for a very long time. The idea that it is
under civilian oversight is a joke.
Quite true there is no oversight and the secret police community and intelligence
community are presently and have been for a long time above the law, above the Constitution,
above the very framework of government per above Congress & above the President and above
the Courts... and everybody just goes along with the pack of criminals in the security state
and accepts that they have the right to commit crimes, run criminal activities, and abuse
secret police powers... and nobody ever stands up to the Nazis and NeoNazis and these
radicals in the military secret police, military intelligence, Pentagon Gestapo, National
Security Council, FBI & CIA and the rest of the criminal underworld network inside and
around the organized criminal enterprises and organized criminal networks of the security
state...
12Doberman , 1 hour ago
That's right and the civilian government is largely just a facade.
ken , 1 hour ago
CIA wasn't W-A-S for preventing 9/11...or were they involved in it? Did the missing
trillions go to Israel, and that other country, as payment for services???
_arrow
protrumpusa , 2 hours ago
Someone asked in previous post - why do democrats hate Trump? Good question.
It can't be his policies - who except illegals don't want secure borders, who doesn't want a
strong private buisiness economy, who doesn't want manufacturing jobs to be brought back from
China.
Our democrat leaders, plus Romney all have a connection to Ukraine's stolen treasury money
and Soros's money too, and Trump doesn't . This I believe is the reason democrats hate
President Trump
protrumpusa , 2 hours ago
The Obama administration and the FBI knew that it was they who were meddling in a
presidential campaign - using executive intelligence powers to monitor the president's
political opposition. This, they also knew, would rightly be regarded as a scandalous abuse
of power if it ever became public. There was no rational or good-faith evidentiary basis to
believe that Trump was in a criminal conspiracy with the Kremlin or that he'd had any role in
Russian intelligence's suspected hacking of Democratic Party email accounts.
[snip]
In the stretch run of the 2016 campaign, President Obama authorized his administration's
investigative agencies to monitor his party's opponent in the presidential election, on the
pretext that Donald Trump was a clandestine agent of Russia. Realizing this was a gravely
serious allegation for which there was laughably insufficient predication, administration
officials kept Trump's name off the investigative files. That way, they could deny that they
were doing what they did. Then they did it . . . and denied it.
LEEPERMAX , 30 minutes ago
Gina Haspel worked directly for the instigator of the Crossfire Hurricane operation
– John Brennan. It would have been impossible for Haspel not to have known about the
British spying from London since it was reported in UK newspaper on a weekly basis.
She certainly was controlling Stefan
Halper , Josef
Mifsud ,
Stephan Roh , Alexander Downer, Andrew Wood, John McCain, Mark Warner, Adam Schiff and
the other conspirators.
Kan , 2 hours ago
The FBI and CIA are the enemy of the people. There is little doubt at this point that they
serve nobody but the bankers that formed the organization and themselves.
Gunston_Nutbush_Hall , 2 hours ago
How convenient.
CIA operative Trump nominates Haspel to be the CIA director, after CIA Operative Trump
picked CIA chief Mike Pompeo to replace Rex Tillerson as secretary of state, thereafter
Epstein is Trumpincided on CIA Operatives Barr Pompeo Trump's watch, while running smoke
cover for the CIA's Obama's False Flag National Government.
Shortly after taking office in 1999, Jesse Ventura writes he was asked to attend a meeting
at the state Capitol. He says 23 CIA agents were waiting for him in a basement conference
room.
The greatest False Flag ever? Brainwashing Americans to think Constitutional Federal
Government exists.
Kefeer , 17 minutes ago
The people who want to know and care to know the truth already know the truth. It is
suspect that Trump appoints people like Christopher Wray and Gina Haspel and I really do not
know what to make of it - is he part of the swamp or making bad decisions? I honestly do not
know, but my biblical lens filter tells me we are in trouble regardless of the outcomes
because so many of the institutions in government and industry are so corrupt.
Maltheus , 29 minutes ago
Trump is absolutely incompetent, when it comes to selecting people. He always has been.
Flynn was one of the few, who was halfway decent, and he got thrown to the wolves. Pretty
much everyone else, he's ever chosen, has knifed him in the back, and most of us saw it
coming a mile away.
Tuffmug , 13 minutes ago
The Swamp is deep and has had twenty + years to grow . Trump had to chose the ones who
stunk least from a slimy pool of corrupted officials and fight against every agency, each
filled with deep state snakes. I'm just surprised he is still breathing.
Kinskian , 29 seconds ago
So his incompetence begins and ends with "selecting people" and that gets no downvotes
from the 'tards. I understand why. You're still blaming other people for Trump's failures in
office instead of placing the blame squarely with HIM. He is incompetent in his role as
President, and that is his responsibility.
LEEPERMAX , 36 minutes ago
Gina Haspel would have known about the coup. If she has not reported all of this to the
President Trump, she is complicit in the overthrow attempt and is guilty of HIGH TREASON.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 49 minutes ago
Spooks run this world. And they certainly like power, and money. But do you want to know
what they like most of all?
Information.
Control of information drives everything else. And anyone who has even sniffed that world
knows to get quality information you can't buy it. Instead you have to trade information of
equal value.
We're not important enough to have the opportunity to know what they know. I don't know
about you, but I'm a little angry about that.
StealthBomber , 30 minutes ago
That is because they are un-accountable.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 30 minutes ago
and untouchable.
Take one out and the whole thing collapses.
insanelysane , 51 minutes ago
Don't think we need declassifications to know what happened. We know what
happened.
as I've stated many times, governments would be completely unstable if the government
legally proved that organizations within the government were involved is sedition. With the
IRS scandal the deflection was that a few rogue employees did some things even though the
entire IRS was involved in harassing far right and far left organizations.
The problem with Russiagate is that none of the rogue employees are willing to to go down
without taking everyone involved down. The IRS rogues got nice payouts and no prison
time.
radical-extremist , 1 hour ago
She doesn't want them released because obviously it implicates her in Strzok's Crossfire
Hurricane scheme. It also puts mud on the face of MI6, which is why Trump might be
hesitant.
October is young.
12Doberman , 1 hour ago
Haspel is also likely a figurehead in many respects. From what I've read about CIA over
the years those at the top have competing agendas and don't trust and share information with
each other. The idea that a president is sworn in ever 4-8 years and is brought up to speed
on everything they are doing is laughable...and likely impossible. No president fully
controls the CIA and it has it's own agenda that runs across and through
administrations...may as well call it the head of the deep state snake.
Felix da Kat , 2 hours ago
Haspel is a Brennan redux.
The deep state is much deeper than anyone dare thought.
If Trump cannot do unwind the DS,then all is lost.
If Biden gets in, he will only serve to further entrench DS operatives.
Looking bleak out there, folks.
1nd1v1s1ble1 , 3 hours ago
*sigh* As if anything is going to come of this...when has any high ranking politician EVER
been taken to task or incarcerated for their crimes? It's the same political theater brought
to you by the MSM/Jesuit/Jooish/Freemason cult who ritually perform their televised 'skits'
to the masses to make it appear as if justice exists or better yet, we have a Republic-
newsflash: it died a long, long time ago. The frightened mask-wearing, compliant sheeple lap
it up every f'n time-when do you awake and realize there is no bi-partisan political machine,
there is no blue versus red, just like their cronies in Hollyweird, these politicians are
simply actors who were too ugly to make it there, orange man aint gonna save ya, bumbling joe
aint gonna save ya, understand Stockholm Syndrome-survivors of 'merica....they DO NOT GIVE A
F#*K ABOUT YOU OR YOUR FAMILY and would prefer you were dead.
Even the POTUS cannot do anything in DC alone, no matter what he wants to do. He needs
people to cooperate or follow orders. It seems many or most of the people around him are deep
state spies. I think they are scared ****less of what Trump might try to declassify. I think
the CIA would destroy evidence before providing proof of a seditious coup. If you've
committed murder or treason, destroying evidence seems like jaywalking.
Now we know Haspel is personally involved and we probably know exactly why she is blocking
the release of this information.
Jack_Ewing , 17 minutes ago
Trump was supposed to drain the swamp but surrounded himself with the scariest of swamp
creatures, this Medusa-like entity being one of the most terrifying. Pompeo, Mnuchin, Wray,
Miller, Haspel, Kushner, and the chief of the all, the official cover-upper for the Deep
State for the last 40 years, William Barr.
donkey_shot , 45 minutes ago
surprise, surprise: one-time iraqi detainee torturer and current CIA chief gina haspel is
a nasty piece of work: geez, whodathunk?
The only reason I can think of for holding these documents is that the conspiracy is so
vast and intricate, it might destroy 80 plus percent of the government! If that's what it
comes down to, so be it! Blow the whole PHUCKING thing to kingdom come!
Philthy_Stacker , 45 minutes ago
An accurite assumption.
LOL123 , 1 hour ago
Gina Haspel doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
"The most explosive revelation was that the dossier was
bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee , a
fact that the Clinton campaign took pains to hide, that Clinton officials lied about, and
that Fusion GPS refused to reveal on its own. It wasn't an intelligence report at all. It was
a political hit job paid for by Trump's opponent."
Political issues " incorporated" into public stock holding corporations.
"Individual shareholders cannot generally sue over the deprivation of a corporation's
rights; only the board of directors has the standing to assert a corporation's constitutional
rights in court. [7]
-USA
Ever since Citizens United, the Supreme Court's 2010 decision allowing unlimited
corporate and union spending on political issues, Americans have been debating whether, as
Mitt Romney said, "Corporations are people, my friend."
The question came to the Supreme Court in a challenge to regulations implementing
President Obama's landmark health care law. Those regulations require employers with 50 or
more employees to provide those employees with comprehensive health insurance, which must
include certain forms of contraception. The contraception requirement was designed to protect
the rights of women. Studies show that access to
contraception has positive benefits for women's education, income, mental health, and family
stability.
since a political entity ( DNC and Hillary Campaign funded a public corporation which
is a " corporate personhood" and can be sued it is open to discovery in a court of
law.
the chickens have come home to roost....as Mitt Romney says....corporations are the
citizens "best friend".
R.G. , 1 hour ago
Citizens ARE corporaions.
4Y_LURKER , 1 hour ago
Finkel is Einhorn!
Einhorn is Finkel!
Totally_Disillusioned , 1 hour ago
If Sean Davis was able to unearth this, President Trump, Pompeo have known this for some
time and Ratcliffe certainly knows this. the question is "why is she allowed to block
disclosure?". None of the players are currently in service and would not be at risk if their
involvement was disclosed. What possibly is the excuse? Are they using the old excuse of not
revealing sources and methods?
All these people need a stern reminder the govt is owned by the people...they work for us.
So far we are the only people kept in the dark. Breakup the intel 17 agencies and re-engineer
down to two - one domestic and one international.
SirBarksAlot , 1 hour ago
It's always a national security issue when it's your responsibility to release the
documents that would incriminate you.
Gunston_Nutbush_Hall , 3 hours ago
Exactly why CIA Trump hand selected her. Exactly for the same reason CIA Trump hand
selected BARR.
TO PROVIDE CLEAN SMOKE N COVER FOR THEIR CIA NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.
Barr: CIA operative
It is a sobering fact that American presidents (many of whom have been corrupt) have gone
out of their way to hire fixers to be their attorney generals.
Consider recent history: Loretta Lynch (2015-2017), Eric Holder (2009-2015), Michael
Mukasey (2007-2009), Alberto Gonzales (2005-2007), John Ashcroft (2001-2005),Janet Reno
(1993-2001), **** Thornburgh (1988-1991), Ed Meese (1985-1988), etc.
Barr was a full-time CIA operative, recruited by Langley out of high school, starting
in 1971. Barr's youth career goal was to head the CIA.
CIA operative assigned to the China directorate, where he became close to powerful CIA
operative George H.W. Bush, whose accomplishments already included the CIA/Cuba Bay of
Pigs, Asia CIA operations (Vietnam War, Golden Triangle narcotics), Nixon foreign policy
(Henry Kissinger), and the Watergate operation.
When George H.W. Bush became CIA Director in 1976, Barr joined the CIA's "legal office"
and Bush's inner circle, and worked alongside Bush's longtime CIA enforcers Theodore "Ted"
Shackley, Felix Rodriguez, Thomas Clines, and others, several of whom were likely involved
with the Bay of Pigs/John F. Kennedy assassination, and numerous southeast Asian
operations, from the Phoenix Program to Golden Triangle narco-trafficking.
Barr stonewalled and destroyed the Church Committee investigations into CIA
abuses.
Barr stonewalled and stopped inquiries in the CIA bombing assassination of Chilean
opposition leader Orlando Letelier.
Barr joined George H.W. Bush's legal/intelligence team during Bush's vice presidency
(under President Ronald Reagan) Rose from assistant attorney general to Chief Legal Counsel
to attorney general (1991) during the Bush 41 presidency.
Barr was a key player in the Iran-Contra operation, if not the most important member of
the apparatus, simultaneously managing the operation while also "fixing" the legal end,
ensuring that all of the operatives could do their jobs without fear of exposure or
arrest.
In his attorney general confirmation, Barr vowed to "attack criminal organizations",
drug smugglers and money launderers. It was all hot air: as AG, Barr would preserve,
protect, cover up, and nurture the apparatus that he helped create, and use Justice
Department power to escape punishment.
Barr stonewalled and stopped investigations into all Bush/Clinton and CIA crimes,
including BCCI and BNL CIA drug banking, the theft of Inslaw/PROMIS software, and all
crimes of state committed by Bush
Barr provided legal cover for Bush's illegal foreign policy and war crimes
Barr left Washington, and went through the "rotating door" to the corporate world,
where he took on numerous directorships and counsel positions for major companies. In 2007
and again from 2017, Barr was counsel for politically-connected international law firm
Kirkland &
Ellis . Among its other notable attorneys and alumni are Kenneth Starr, John Bolton,
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and numerous Trump administration attorneys.
K&E's clients include sex trafficker/pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and Mitt Romney's Bain
Capital.
A strong case can be made that William Barr was as powerful and important a figure in the
Bush apparatus as any other, besides Poppy Bush himself.
...Shortly after taking office in 1999, Jesse Ventura writes he was asked to attend a
meeting at the state Capitol. He says 23 CIA agents were waiting for him in a basement
conference room.
Bobby Farrell Can Dance , 3 hours ago
The Navalny "incident" is the latest pathetic CIA and British MI6 operation and the
Belarus incitement. Sloppy, unoriginal and going to backfire in their stupid faces.
Everybody knows the evil empire wants Nordstream II dead, Navalny is the latest lever and
that woman they recognized as leader of Belarus is as laughable as that Guaido goon they
recognized in Venezuela, but he's actually outside of Venezuela - yeah that's how popular he
is. Western intelligence agenices are hacks, they are past their peak.
John Hansen , 3 hours ago
The real stupid thing is the West will succeed.
Spinifex , 20 minutes ago
Christopher Steele is THE GUY who 'doctored all this up'. Why has he not been bought
before congress and asked questions?
Sergi Scripal worked for Christopher Steele. Sergi Scripal earned tens of thousands of
pounds 'providing information' to Christopher Steele. Why is he 'not being asked questions?
He's not 'dead'. Sergi Scripal is 'alive and well' and 'being hidden' by the U.K. Government
'for his own safty.' The U.K. can provide 'access to Sergi Scripal.
Pablo Miller worked for Christopher Steele. Pablo Miller was Sergi Scripals 'handler' with
MI6. Pablo Miller was also the 'last person to talk to Sergi Scripal' before Sergi Scripal
'surccumed to Novichok poison.' Why is Pablo Miller (aka: Antonio Alvarez de Hidalgo -
https://gosint.wordpress.com/2019/02/02/who-is-mi6-officer-pablo-miller/
All three worked for Orbis Business Intelligence the company that wrote the 'Steele
Dossier' that Gina Haspel had access to and 'approved' sending onto the FBI and CIA. All
three, Christopher Steele, Sergi Scripal and Pablo Miller are 'alive and well' and all three
are able to provide information about the Steele Dossier, what was in the Steele Dossier, and
WHERE the information in the Steele Dossier came from. Ask the questions dammit, and you'll
get the answers.
headless blogger , 58 minutes ago
Not a fan of Trump, although I voted for him the first time, but he will be in serious
trouble if Biden gets into office as there are too many vengeful people on that side of the
isle. They attempted a coup d'etat which is the worse treason, where most of these people
would be executed in "normal" times.
So, they HAVE TO win at all costs, in their thinking. They will then turn the tables on
Trump as well as the entire Conservative camp. It looks like an ugly future if they win. If
Trump wins, it will be ugly too.
Sure signs to get the hell out now if you can.
The Technocracy crowd is behind all of this, btw. They are waiting for the full collapse
at which time we will be inundated with Tech Billionaires coming forward to "save us".
BEWARE!!
4 play_arrow 1
1nd1v1s1ble1 , 1 hour ago
*sigh* As if anything is going to come of this...when has any high ranking politician EVER
been taken to task or incarcerated for their crimes? It's the same political theater brought
to you by the MSM/Jesuit/Jooish/Freemason Satanic cult who ritually perform their televised
'skits' to the masses to make it appear as if justice exists or better yet, we have a
Republic- newsflash: it died a long, long time ago. The frightened mask-wearing, compliant
sheeple lap it up every f'n time-when do you awake and realize there is no bi-partisan
political machine? There is no blue versus red, just like their cronies in Hollyweird, these
colluding politicians are simply actors who were too ugly to make it there, orange man aint
gonna save ya, bumbling joe aint gonna save ya, understand Stockholm Syndrome-survivors of
'merica....they DO NOT GIVE A F#*K ABOUT YOU OR YOUR FAMILY and would actually prefer you
were dead.
Better/cheaper than sending US military to fight in another useless war.
headless blogger , 1 hour ago
Gina Haspel was selected by Trump!! When you take into consideration Trump's selections of
Haspel, Bolton, and many others, it becomes obvious there is someone in his admin that is
directing him to bring these people on. He brings them on and then they betray him.
5onIt , 1 hour ago
Pence is the dude you are looking for.
Haspel was the CIA Station Chief in London, when this was all going down.
Be sure, she has chit to hide.
LEEPERMAX , 1 hour ago
John Brennan led the coup this side of the Atlantic, while Gina Haspel , who was in the
CIA London office at the time, worked the coup from London as the CIA chief in cooperation
with GCHQ and Robert Hannigan. Both are creepy, corrupt traitors of America.
The current head of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gina Haspel, oversaw one such site
where torture was carried out. ... Abu Zubaydah, Courtesy Professor Mark P. Denbeaux, Seton
Hall University ...
y_arrow
Mister Delicious , 2 hours ago
She was Brennan's London pet.
She should be fired and escorted from the building, and then DOJ NSD should open an
investigation into her contacts with Brennan.
Think there might be a Demstate coup attempt?
Well, don't you imagine any friend of John Brennan's is not a friend of Trump.
I don't care how much you love Orange Jesus - he has picked absolutely terrible people
over and over and over.
Good DNI now but he needs to take charge.
richsob , 3 hours ago
Orange Fat Boy is getting played like a violin. You and I both know it. Does he? Probably
because you can see it on his face but he's just not willing to do what it would take to get
everything out into the open. And if he tries to expose everything after he's lost the
election nobody will listen to him......even you and I. It will be too late then.
We would think that the New York Slimes would know something about losses. After all, they
paid $1.1 Billion in 1993 for The Boston Globe and in 2013, sold it for $70 Million to
businessman John Henry, the principal owner of the Boston Red Sox, and a massive 93%
loss.
But it's worse than that because included in that sale is BostonGlobe.com ; Boston.com ; the direct-mail marketing company Globe Direct; the
company's 49 percent interest in Metro Boston, a free daily paper; Telegram.com and The Worcester Telegram & Gazette. The Times
bought the Telegram & Gazette for $295 million in 1999.
We should be convinced to pay any attention to Fake News Tabloid, The New York Slimes,
given that kind of Business Acumen? I don't think so.
rwe2late , 3 hours ago
Hope & Change, Drain the swamp, End the wars
Angelic Obama allegedly prevented from saving us by "deep state" Republicans.
Angelic Trump allegedly prevented from saving us by "deep state" Democrats.
Poor us, our chosen leaders and parties are always so blameless in failing us.
protrumpusa , 4 hours ago
President Trump has gotten rid just about everyone in this article I found 3 years ago
> The ATLANTIC COUNCIL is funded by BURISMA, GEORGE SOROS OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATION &
others. It was a CENTRIST, MILITARISTIC think tanks,now turned leftist group
> JOE BIDEN extorted Ukraine to FIRE the prosecutor investigating BURISMA, HUNTER's
employer.
> LTC VINDMAN & FIONA HILL met MANY TIMES with DANIEL FRIED of the ATLANTIC
COUNCIL. FIONA HILL is a former CoWorker of CHRISTOPHER STEELE !
> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH is connected to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, is PRAISED in their
documents, gave Ukraine a "do not prosecute" list, was involved in PRESSURING Ukraine to not
prosecute GEORGE SOROS Group.
> BILL TAYLOR has a financial relationship with the ATLANTIC COUNCIL and the US UKRAINE
BUSINESS COUNCIL (USUBC) which is also funded by BURISMA.
> TAYLOR met with THOMAS EAGER (works for ADAM SCHIFF) in Ukraine on trip PAID FOR by
the ATLANTIC COUNCIL. This just days before TAYLOR first texts about the "FAKE" Quid Pro Quo
!
> TAYLOR participated in USUBC Events with DAVID J. KRAMER (JOHN MCCAIN advisor) who
spread the STEELE DOSSIER to the media and OBAMA officials.
> JOE BIDEN is connected to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, he rolled out his foreign policy
vision while VP there, He has given speeches there, his adviser on Ukraine, MICHAEL CARPENTER
(heads the Penn Biden Center) is a FELLOW at the ATLANTIC COUNCIL.
> KURT VOLKER is now Senior Advisor to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, he met with burisma
Brilliant 4D chess move! BLM is largely responsible for two billion dollars in property
damage and dozens of innocent people killed or maimed since May 29th and Trump .will declare
the KKK a terrorist organization. I'd like to see how the MAGA tards are going to explain
this one.
I live in a solid red state, and I am voting third party for president. I would vote for
Trump if I lived in a swing state. I think the best outcome in the presidential election
would be a narrow EC win for Trump, and a massive popular vote loss.
Leaders are needed –someone who will be listened to and respected.
... Then the alternative is an avid Amtrak rider taking America on a spin back in
time –when USA supposedly had honest politicians and police who did a job and education
was not a get rich gimmick. No child left behind has worked wonders and perhaps now
kindergarten kids should be able to vote – the messages are aimed at their level.
I won't be voting for Trump either. There is nobody to vote for and why should we be made
fools of; like it will really matter who wins?
If Trump wins we can be sure that most of his To-Do lists will be quickly forgotten while
he continues to work closely with Israel to take Iran out and ensure the Palestinian
slow-genocide continues on as scheduled.
Trump is effectively setting up whites as "terrorists" no matter what side they are on;
left or right. By twisting what a white person says, even slightly, authorities and
"anti-racists" can label them left wing antifa or right wing "KKK".
Trump is either being used by someone very smart or he knows exactly what he's doing
(maybe both). He has a way of making many of his supporters believe he will follow through
with his promises, while simultaneously manipulating them to forget how he has done nothing
for them.
I guess at Unz we're just supposed to ignore the greatest presidential performance since
Lincoln last night. Trump took down Wallace, Biden and the entire MSM-pussyboy complex. I'd
give Trump the full power of the State to rid it of swamp creatures and reporter bitches once
and for all.
"Who is being terrorized by the Klan in 2020?" We can do better than that. Name someone
the Klan has terrorized since 1970. Has anyone seen the Klan anywhere in the last 30 years?
If someone would put on the Klan outfit in Los Angeles in 2020 would that make him a Klan
member to the organization from the deep south even if he had never met or spoken to someone
from there?
I think Trump is doing his best against the anti-white racists of the Jewish led left. If
the whites were able to get half the amount of people of a typical Trump rally and organized
rallies across the US protesting the anti-white racism that now dominates the US the whites
might have a chance of taking back some power in the USA. Jews completely dominate the US
with the whites being puppets to Jewish power and they exercise this power without
hesitation. No American white would dare criticize the Jews even when their disgusting
behavior (rapists Weinstein, Epstein, Maxwell) is on full display for the whole world to
see.
FOX news shuts down former congressman Newt Gingrich on national television when he
mentions the name George Soros.
Don't get your knickers in a twist. Trump has no intention of following through on half
the bull sh*t he promises. He just likes to hear the sound of his own voice. The stupid thing
is that blacks won't vote for him no matter what he plans to give them. Oh, and where's our
WALL?
@Zarathustra
han expected but Trump still came out slightly on top. The law and order and police support
is a big deal for Trump, a big minus for Creepy Joe.
And Trump had to deal with that POS Wallace asking loaded questions and siding with
Biden.
Covid and the riots are both jew psyops and both can be shut down anytime.
The head medical director for Los Angeles County actually said that the covid shutdown
will continue until "after the election." She totally gave it away.
Trump has fucked up in a lot of ways but Bitch Harris would have white men
slaughtered.
Once again we will have to vote for the lesser of two evils which seems to be our shitty
fate.
Trump did more for Jews in Israel than any other president before him.
Still diaspora Jews in US hate Trump unspeakably.
So Jews in US are in contradiction with Jews in Israel.
Yeah, Trump's been all show and opposite action since 2016. Just want to mention that
there is no Antifa anymore, they have rebranded as BLM during the past few months, apparently
in preparation for the fake action being announced now. The ideologies of these two groups
are in complete agreement, but Antifa's goals are only a small part BLM's extortionist
demands. In effect, Antifa has upgraded to the more radical BLM level and left an empty shell
to be used as a fake target of fake law & order activities.
Many comments here decrying Trump for pandering to non whites.
I would be willing to give good odds that not one of the people who post theses complaints
sent Trump an email asking him to pander to whites. I have sent several asking for Trump to
explicitly ask white people for our vote. Have any of you? Posting here is preaching to the
choir. Send Trump an email asking him to EXPLICITLY ask white people for our vote. I sent an
email asking for Trump to ask for the white vote the day before Trump posted the video of the
man shouting white power from the golf cart. I don't think it was because of my email but the
story that Trump did not know the man said that is a lie for sure.
Send emails to Trump telling him you will not vote for him unless he explicitly asks for
the white vote. What can it hurt?
Initially, I believed in Trump's plan to help blacks discover that they could stand on
their own two feet, determine their own income (as opposed to welfare), etc. The pre-Covid19
job numbers for black employment were amazing.
At present, though, I don't think Trump has a chance with blacks, platinum plan or not.
Take this example.
A black girl gets pregnant at 16, has a baby, starts collecting welfare, gets her own
apartment. By the time she's thirty, she has two or three kids, has no skills and no plans to
acquire any. She is completely dependent on the welfare state.
How do you think she'll vote? For a president with only four more years in office?
Ninety-some percent of blacks vote democrat for a reason.
Blacks are already pandered to in every possible way. They get preferred status for public
housing, small business loans unavailable to White males, Pell grants for tuition,
affirmative action in both the public and private sectors. If they had any honor they
wouldn't even want to be treated like permanent wards of the state, but alas, they do not.
And Trump is a scummy neocon.
What is n interesting side effect of the debate is sudden realization that neoliberal Dems
trapped themselves in this BRM gambit and can't now escape the connection of Dem Party with
Antifa radicals. It will be interesting if Biden will be sued for his remark because he will
probably lose the case.
Last night's presidential debate revealed the faulty assumptions most media are using
against President Trump .
President Trump was right when he said to moderator Chris Wallace, "I guess I'm debating you,
not him, but OK." President Trump is debating almost all media outlets and journalists.
This morning, there are countless stories and tweets that President Trump "refused" to
denounce white supremacy. Many people claim they are outraged because President Trump didn't
specifically disavow the Proud Boys. Tim Scott is also falling into this trap by saying the
president " misspoke ."
Chris Wallace: (
41:33 ) You have repeatedly criticized the vice president for not specifically calling
out Antifa and other left wing extremist groups. But are you willing tonight to condemn white
supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the
violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we've seen in Portland.
Donald J. Trump: (
41:57 ) Sure, I'm willing to do that.
CW: (
41:59 ) Are you prepared specifically to do it.
DJT: (
42:00 ) I would say, almost everything I see is from the left wing not from the right
wing.
DJT: (
42:10 ) What do you want to call them? Give me a name, give me a name, go ahead who do
you want me to condemn?
CW: (
42:14 ) White supremacist and right-wing militia.
DJT: (
42:18 ) Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I'll tell you what: Somebody's got to do
something about Antifa and the left because this is not a right-wing problem this is a left
wing.
JB: (
42:28 ) He's own FBI Director said unlike white supremacist; Antifa is an idea not an
organization-
JB: (
42:47 ) Everybody in your administration tells you the true, it's a bad idea. You have no
idea about anything.
DJT: (
42:53 ) You know what, Antifa is a dangerous radical group.
CW: (
42:56 ) All right, gentlemen we're now moving onto the Trump-Biden record.
DJT: (
42:58 ) And you ought to be careful of them, they'll overthrow you.
President Trump did say he was "willing" to condemn "white supremacists and militia groups."
However, he wanted specifics. Joe Biden named the Proud Boys. The Proud Boys are a multiracial group of civic
nationalists. President Trump may have made a verbal fumble when he said, "stand back and stand
by" instead of "stand down," but he certainly didn't call for them to march. In any event, why
should the Proud Boys have to stand down? They aren't the ones burning shops and
attacking police.
Chris Wallace vaguely referred to "white supremacist and right-wing militia" but didn't give
specifics. However, he mentioned "Kenosha," which is almost certainly a reference to Kyle
Rittenhouse. Video evidence
suggests Mr. Rittenhouse shot leftist protesters who attacked him.
What makes this even more absurd is that President Donald Trump specifically
disavowed white nationalists after Unite
The Right in 2017 . "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists,
because they should be condemned totally," he said at the time. He simply added that there were
"very fine people" on both sides and that antifa were "troublemakers." Nonetheless, this lie
that he supported white supremacists won't die. Indeed, it's the lie on which Joe Biden
built his campaign. President Trump also said that if the Robert E. Lee statue was taken
down, George Washington's would follow. Journalists mocked him, but history has already
proven him right.
Joe Biden said antifa were
just an "idea," not an organization. I've
written a book on the subject; I speak with authority. "Antifa" is a brand, a front for
leftist groups. However, those groups exist. They aren't just an "idea." There are specific
antifa groups, with specific leaders, and specific sources of funding. They call themselves
"antifa" because it is better than calling themselves anarchists or communists.
Journalists know antifa groups exist. They have referred to antifa as a group. For example,
CNN did so in 2018
and 2020 . CNN referred
specifically to the group Rose City Antifa in 2019. Vice
embedded with antifa in 2018. Andy
Ngo , at great risk to himself, tracks specific people and groups . Now, however, Mr. Biden
expects us to believe such groups don't exist.
Critical Race Theory was also an important topic in the debate, but Mr. Wallace misled
viewers: "This month, your [President Trump's] administration directed federal agencies to end
racial sensitivity training that addresses white privilege or critical race theory. Why did you
decide to do that, to end racial sensitivity training?"
Critical Race Theory is not "racial sensitivity training." Critical Race Theory holds that
American institutions are inherently
racist . It says all whites are
racist . It is openly anti-white. No country can survive if its own government teaches that
its institutions
are illegitimate . I wish President Trump called it "anti-white" but his essential point
that he ended it because it was "racist" is correct. It is racist against whites. Most
Americans would probably be horrified if they knew what their tax dollars were funding.
However, if it is called "racial sensitivity training," it seems harmless.
Mr. Wallace clearly wanted it to sound benign. "What is radical about racial sensitivity
training?" he asked. President Trump, again accurately, said that the instructors receive a
great deal of money to teach that America is a horrible place. Joe Biden's response was simply
to deny reality. "Nobody's doing that," he said. "He's [President Trump] the racist."
Mr. Biden's campaign thinks that President Trump's comments on race last night hurt the
president's chances for re-election. It put up an ad that linked Kyle Rittenhouse to white
supremacists. This is a potentially defamatory claim.
Complaining about Charlottesville is absurd when American cities have been in chaos for
months thanks to left-wing rioters. Furthermore, an independent
report showed that state and local authorities allowed and arguably encouraged violence at
the Unite the Right rally in 2017. However, many journalists either don't know or pretend not
to know. Mr. Biden's campaign can act this way because media figures are covering for him.
President Trump has not done nearly enough to
support white interests. He hasn't defended the people who supported him so passionately in
2016. I wish President Trump were the pro-white, strong-willed nationalist of the Left's
nightmares. If anything, he's far too weak . But
President Trump is fair-minded. In a healthy country, this would be taken for granted. In 2020
America, it's a scandal.
Trump has never been, is not, and never will be on our side. He can't even say "White
people" in public – it's "forgotten man, " "some people" etc I share your sentiments
but you need to pick a better savior. Trump's merely the kosher-sandwich foil for the evil
Demonrats – it's all fake & gay.
We're on our own in this. Whites need to look to each other and stop looking to the
institutions to save us.
Trump could have riposted by asking Biden to condemn Darius Sessoms, Micah Johnson, Kori
Ali Muhammad, etc. Neither Biden nor Chris Wallace would have recognized any of those names,
of course,at which point Trump could have educated them about the incidents and tied them to
the left's anti-white incitement.
@Exile at certain
pro-white groups are racists and friend, that is a hell of a lot more than someone like
Romney, or Graham, or what ever other conservative politician would ever do. Trump's dilemma
is weak support from his fellow party politicians, not his voting base. During the debate
with Biden he clearly and repeatedly mentioned that the violence is coming from the left, no
matter how many Chris Wallace's in the establishment news media try to pressure him to say
otherwise. He has been very consistent on this and this is something no other U.S. president
has ever done with the exception of Reagan when pressured on Bitburg.
I've had to go through the "unconscious bias" training at work (major corporation).
Essentially, a black speaker tells the story of being denied a room for rent in college on
the basis of race, ergo whites have an unconscious bias against non-whites. I'm sure that
speaker has made a lot of dough telling that story to approving corporate consumers. Whether
it's true or not, we'll never know of course. After the training we were admonished by our
Latina senior VP to be sensitive to the feelings of non-whites. I'm sure this'll be an annual
event, to keep fresh in our minds the plight of the non-white in corporate America. In 10
years, when senior management is entirely non-white, we'll still be beaten over the head with
the unconscious bias training. The beatings will end when morale improves
Never play the game by Bolshevik rules. According to critical-race theory (Church of Woke
dogma) all whites are inherently racist – a word which was very rarely
used in English until (((Trotsky))) used it as part of his advocacy that blacks be used as
golem to destroy the USA. Critical race theory was ultimately fleshed out by his
fellow Satanists in the Frankfurt Schul, esp. (((Herbert Marcuse))), who sadly escaped to the
USA from Germany where the Nazis (a competing leftist ideology, by the way) would have given
them what they truly had coming – as they really didn't like Bolsheviks of any stripe,
especially Trotskyites.
As the author mentions, there is nothing white or supremacist about the Proud Boys.
They're a civic nationalist group who would have been viewed as liberals a century ago. Trump
is (at best) a civic nationalist himself (if not just a grifter con-man). Truth and facts
don't matter a whit to folks like Grand-Paw Sniffy or Chris Wallace (especially to those they
answer to). A "white supremacist" is anyone – even someone of the invented "Hispanic"
race – who refuses to bow the knee to BLM (Burn, Loot and Murder). As for Tim Scott,
he's yet another black grifter (actually black supremacist) who wants Trump to bow the knee
to BLM just as he does. The "conservatives" (who couldn't even conserve the ladies' room) and
Republicans are filled to the gills with such worthless carpetbaggers – with South
Carolina providing two of the best examples of the species.
Despite his son-in-law Grima Wormtongue's stupid assertion that the plain ol' white-bread
folk in flyover country have no place to go except to vote for the Grand Duc l'Orange, there
might be more than a few who just decide to stay home or maybe only vote in the local races
if Trump refuses to stand up to this Bolshevik nonsense. If he can't even stand by someone
like the young kid in Kenosha who defended his own life instead of doing what Grand-Paw
Sniffy and Chris Wallace would prefer (lay down and allow Antifa to kill him) or the Proud
Boys, more in his base will consider taking Wormtongue's advice quite literally and go
absolutely nowhere on election day.
Trump has been pretty good on denying these assholes what they want to hear. Yet, how far
does that go? The Democrats will not stop supporting antifa and BLM. And the Republicans?
Look at what they did to Iowa's Steve King for exercising his freedom of speech. What hope is
there until people exchange the cowards for real representatives?
Complaining about Charlottesville is absurd when American cities have been in chaos for
months thanks to left-wing rioters. Furthermore, an independent report showed that state
and local authorities allowed and arguably encouraged violence at the Unite the Right rally
in 2017. However, many journalists either don't know or pretend not to know. Mr. Biden's
campaign can act this way because media figures are covering for him .
The media is purely monolithic and owned by our controllers making this shitshow an
obvious "America's favorite" personality contest(with the media clearly on one side –
remember what Hopkins said "this is not a war on Donald Trump, this is a war on the people
who elected him")
Does anybody really think the controllers are going to let any one of these bafoons near
actual levers of power?
President Trump has not done nearly enough to support white interests.
If anything, he's far too weak.
If the office of the President even mildly resembled its former self he definitely could
get more done in the direction of his supporters. What the controllers want is another voice
for empire – a smooth talking faux-liberal – another Obama or Clinton. God help
us all.
Well I will say that at the time of my training, the company I work for was owned by a
prominent financial group, the kind with a revolving door leading to and from the federal
government. I wouldn't be surprised if this specific video has "trained" thousands of people
in many different professions.
I tend to see it the same way these days, Exile. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to
muster up the desire to vote for president. I believe that Trump would sell-out anyone in
order to appear as though he's done something great, like a record stock market or low cooked
up unemployment numbers. In any event, I don't know how anyone can stem the tide against
white Americans within the framework of the current system.
America has a new manufactured crisis, ElectionGate, as if all the other troubles piling up
like tropical depressions marching across the September seas were not enough.
America needs a constitutional crisis like a hole in the head, and that's exactly what's
being engineered for the holiday season by the clever folks in the Democratic Party's Lawfare
auxiliary.
Here's how it works:
The complicit newspapers and cable news channels publish polls showing Joe Biden leading
in several swing states, even if it's not true.
Facebook and Twitter amplify expectations of a Biden victory.
This sets the stage for a furor when it turns out that he loses on election night.
On cue, Antifa commences to riot all around the country. Meanwhile, a mighty harvest of
mail-in votes pours into election districts utterly unequipped to validate them.
Lawfare cadres agitate in the contested states' legislatures to send rogue elector
slates to the electoral college. The dispute ends up in congress, which awaits a seating of
newly-elected representatives on January 4, hopefully for Lawfare, mostly Democrats. Whoops
!
Turns out, the Dems lost their majority there too. Fighting in the streets ramps up and
overwhelms hamstrung police forces in Democratic-run cities.
January 20 -- Inauguration Day -- rolls around, and the Dems ask the military to drag
Trump out of the White House "with great dispatch!" as Mr. Biden himself put it so nicely
back in the summer.
The U.S. military breaks into two factions. Voilà: Civil War Two.
You didn't read that here first, of course. It's been all over the web for weeks, since the
Democratic Party-sponsored Transition Integrity Project (cough cough) ran their summer "war
game," intending to demonstrate that any Trump election victory would be evidence of treason
and require correction by any means necessary , including sedition, which they'd already tried
a few times in an organized way since 2016 (and botched).
The Democrats are crazy enough now to want this. They have driven themselves crazy for years
with the death-wish of eradicating western civ (and themselves with it). There are many reasons
for this phenomenon, mostly derived from Marxist theories of revolution, but my own explanation
departs from that.
The matter was neatly laid out a year ago during the impeachment ploy: After the color
revolution in Ukraine, 2014, Mr. Biden was designated not just as "point man" overseeing
American interests in that sad-sack country, but specifically as a watchdog against the
notorious deep corruption of Ukraine's entire political ecosystem -- as if, you understand, the
internal workings of Ukraine's politics was any of our business in the first place.
The evidence aired publicly last year suggests that Mr. Biden jumped head-first and
whole-heartedly into the hog-trough of loose money there, netting his son Hunter and cohorts
millions of dollars for no-show jobs on the board of natural gas company, Burisma.
And then, of course, Mr. Biden stupidly bragged on a recorded panel session at the Council
on Foreign Relations about threatening to withhold U.S. aid money as a lever to induce Ukraine
President Petro Poroshenko to fire a prosecutor looking into Burisma's sketchy affairs.
Naturally, the Democratic Party impeachment crew accused Mr. Trump of doing exactly what Mr.
Biden accomplished a few years earlier.
The impeachment fizzled, but the charges and the odor of the Biden-Burisma scandal lingered
without resolution -- all the while that Mr. Biden posed as a presidential candidate in the
primaries.
This week, the Senate released a report detailing findings of their investigation into the
Biden family's exploits abroad. It didn't look good.
Also implicated are the State Department officers in the Kiev embassy who pretended not to
notice any of this, pointing also to their engagement in further shenanigans around the
Trump-Clinton election of 2016 -- a lot of that entwined in the Clinton-sponsored RussiaGate
scheme.
Of course, the Senate was not so bold as to issue criminal referrals to the Justice
Department.
If Mr. Biden actually shows up at this week's debate, do you suppose that Mr. Trump will
fail to bring up the subject?
Does this finally force Mr. Biden's withdrawal from what has been the most hollow, illusory,
and dispirited campaign ever seen at this level in U.S. political history?
All of which is to say that the Democratic Party has other things to worry about, besides
who will replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.
That may be hard to believe, but it's how things are now after four years of implacable,
seditious perfidy from the party.
A week ago, all the talk centered around the Democrats' election coup plan, as publicized
stupidly by the so-called Transition Integrity Project. Nice try. What if all those mail-in
ballots sent out recently have Joe Biden's name on them and it turns out that he is no longer a
candidate?
Hmmmm . No doubt the recipients were so eager to fill them in and send them out that there's
no going back on that scam. Apparently, a Biden withdrawal was not one of the scenarios
scrimmaged out in the Transition Integrity Project's "war game."
What then? A do-over?
Hence, panic in the swamp. Joe Biden's misadventures, and his pitiful fate, are but the
outer rainbands of the brewing storm.
There's the threat of further and widespread riots, of course, but since when has
insurrection proved to be a winning campaign strategy in a country not entirely gone to the
dogs?
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
People who are not insane usually object to their businesses being torched and their homes
invaded. At this point, after months of violent antics by criminal nihilists, one can even
imagine Multnomah County, Oregon, turning Trumpwise.
The orgy of political hysteria, insane thinking and violence is a psychotic reaction to the
collapsing techno-industrial economy -- a feature of it, actually.
When all familiar social and economic arrangements are threatened, people go nuts.
Interestingly, the craziness actually started in the colleges and universities where ideas (the
products of thinking) are supposed to be the stock-in-trade.
The more pressing the practical matters of daily life became, the less intellectuals wanted
to face them. So, they desperately generated a force-field of crazy counter-ideas to repel the
threat, a curriculum of wishful thinking, childish utopian nostrums and exercises in
boundary-smashing.
As all this moved out of the campuses (the graduation function), it infected every other
corner of American endeavor, institutions, business, news media, sports, Hollywood, etc.
The country is now out of its mind echoes of France, 1793 a rhyme, not a reprise.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 47 minutes ago
People just have to accept the fact- yes I said fact- that the Republic is dead and
there's no saving it. When a guy like Comey, a seditionist, perhaps even treasonous
criminal can testify before Congress and not have the cuffs slapped on him on the way out
says it all.
The Government is rotten through to the core with corruption and cancer. There's nothing
left to work with.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 46 minutes ago
This election won't change anything. Not one thing.
And I'll gladly come back here and eat those words if I'm wrong
Fizzy Head , 6 minutes ago
Good point, some swamp creatures that were drained are still out there minus the
swamp.
NoDebt , 2 minutes ago
Correct, elections mean nothing when politicians aren't afraid of the population they
rule over. And by now I do mean literally RULE OVER. Consent of the governed has been
completely tossed aside in abject ridicule. They see us as their intellectual and moral
inferiors and hold us all in contempt.
Unless the politicians are afraid of us, this will continue. Right now they have no
reason to fear us. Everyone who they wanted locked down and shut up has been- including
even ZH getting the Google muzzle thrown on it. Meanwhile, everyone they wanted out in the
streets fomenting chaos and revolution is out in the streets doing exactly as they are
bidden (and paid) to do.
I imagine them chuckling to themselves and thinking how easy it was. It wasn't easy, of
course, they spent 40 years doing their "slow march through the institutions" but that
phase is over now. They're into the active (violent revolution) part.
And in case nobody has noticed, they're winning.
play_arrow
CRM114 , 16 minutes ago
Interesting point about corruption in Ukraine. Worth noting that the soccer Champion's
League final in 2018 was in Kiev, Ukraine. Very inconvenient for both fans and teams,
airlines couldn't cope, and the hotel ripoffs started immediately. Very stupid place to
hold it. The location is decided by an "independent" FIFA committee, one of whom has a
brother who is the mayor of Kiev. Coincidence, obviously ;)
The idea that Hunter Biden could operate in Ukraine without bribing anyone is
ridiculous. The key question is whether he ripped off the American people as well as the
Ukrainians ;)
tyberious , 57 minutes ago
"The Democrats are crazy enough now to want this"
They hang otherwise!
LetThemEatRand , 1 hour ago
A bloody crisis over whether douchebag or turd sandwich won the election is just about
par for the course these days.
J S Bach , 25 minutes ago
Another great article posted in the past 3 days on ZH. (Maybe there's hope for this site
after all.)
However, as usual... the (((cancerous core))) of all of our malaise, from
unconstitutional currency, to media, to academia, to corrupt courts, to twisted sexual
ideologies... is NOT mentioned.
Hopefully, those who garnered at least an 8th grade education level and a modicum of
ability to think, will be able to read between the lines of articles like these to glean to
underlying truth as to the guilty party.
flyonmywall , 48 minutes ago
********. This isn't France in 1793.
The current President is way more popular than the media is willing to admit.
The media and the Democrats will lose, count on it. They are gambling with the life of
the USA, but more importantly, they are gambling with their own lives.
President Trump took to the debate stage tonight shortly after Tucker Carlson aired and it
seemed like he was on the right track with his feisty hits on Joe Biden and plan to help all
Americans by rebuilding the economy. Pedro Gonzalez, a popular guest of top-rated Tucker
Carlson's show spoke to Tucker about why more Hispanics may be supporting President Trump.
Here's a clue, it's not by pandering. It's by showing the American people that he is a strong,
alpha leader.
It's by not treating Hispanics as though they need to be put on some higher playing field
than White Americans to show them they matter. They already know they matter, they just want to
know what President Trump is going to do to make America a safer country for business owners
and law-abiding citizens who don't care to be known by their race, to begin with.
"People who work for a living don't like disorder because they're vulnerable to it". "You're
right," Pedro says. "The GOP is starting to recycle these talking points while denigrating
their white base they patronize Latinos by saying things like, one group of people does the job
that another group doesn't want to do, it's not just untrue, it's morally repugnant," he says.
Gonzales goes on to say that the GOP should stop trying to beat the Democrats at their own
game. He says Trump should play his own game because "he's good at it and it's more popular"
and he goes on to describe his thoughts more below.
Perhaps President Trump should start listening to the organic voices from the right and stop
listening to paid bureaucrats who are out of touch with reality going into the election as he
faces a more challenging demographic voter situation than any Republican presidential candidate
ever.
California's
Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom has approved the creation of a task force to examine paying
reparations to the descendants of slaves, the first such proposal ever passed by a state
government.
Newsom signed AB 3121 into law on Wednesday, creating a nine-member task force to study
possible reparations for black Americans. While the governor lamented that the legislation
hadn't been passed "decades ago," he hailed the bill for establishing a "paradigm
that we hope will be resonant all across the United States."
"This is not just about California, this is about making an impact, and a dent, across
the rest of the country," Newsom said moments after signing the bill.
While the bill itself commits the state to no particular payments, it will launch a task
force to consider how reparations could be implemented in California. The task force is
required to hold its first meeting by next June, and will submit its recommendations to the
government one year later, which will not be binding.
The law also does not specify what form the reparations must take, proposing various
alternatives to direct cash payments, such as forgiving student debt, financing job training or
other public works projects.
Though California is the first state government to pass such legislation, similar proposals
have been floated by lawmakers in Texas, New York and Vermont, but none have yet passed. On a
more local level, city administrations in both Asheville, North Carolina and Providence, Rhode
Island approved measures related to reparations in July. Asheville City Council passed its plan
unanimously, mandating payments in the form of public investments, while Providence Mayor Jorge
Elorza signed an order vowing to create a framework for reparations in the future.
California's history with slavery is somewhat ambiguous. While the state constitution
explicitly prohibits both "slavery" and "involuntary servitude," records suggest
chattel slavery was largely practiced in the open – namely after the gold rush of the
mid-1800s, which brought thousands of white settlers out west, many bringing slaves with
them.
"California has come to terms with many of its issues, but it has yet to come to terms
with its role in slavery," said Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D-San Diego), who authored the
reparations bill. "We're talking about really addressing the issues of justice and fairness
in this country that we have to address."
Newsom's decision to sign the proposal into law was hailed by a number of locals, including
rapper and LA native Ice Cube, who thanked the governor for giving it the green light.
Some residents were up in arms over the bill, however, questioning whether it would
"change the past," while others insisted they would not pay reparations for historical
abuses they find abhorrent and had no role in.
"Respectfully, how will this change the past or help the future? Will the indigenous
people of this state receive reparations? They seem first in line in my books!" one netizen
wrote
.
Other critics noted that despite the fact California is already "broke" – while
also dealing with widespread homelessness, power outages and rampant wildfires, among other
issues – the governor still "can't spend taxpayers' cash fast enough."
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! 56 historystudent 2 hours
ago I am a Californian, born and raised. Will someone please inform our history-disadvantaged
governor California entered the United States as a free state! And its citizens fought in the
Union Army against the slave-holding South. I'll certainly sign any recall petition over this
matter. Joaquin Montano 3 hours ago "California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom has
approved the creation of a task force to examine paying reparations to the descendants of
slaves ..." It's called demagogy, folks. Democrats, the way I see it, are very busy kicking
a dead horse ... telecaster58 Danmeldon 2 hours ago ...the reparations were already paid...in
blood.....150 years ago on the civil war battlefields. But that war was white and black
PATRIOTS of the North fighting racists in the south. Today's civil war is white and black
haters of the country and of the constitution fighting those trying to save the country (black,
white, hispanic, asian, Native americans). And by the way, the black and white divide is the
distraction of the real issue ,rich and poor. And check out all the virtue signalers giving up
their white privilege with words when the real issue is about have and have nots...are they
giving up their wealth...no, just their white privilege...how easy is that. Words vs $$$$. i.e.
Chelsea Clinton. "ALL Black Lives Matter"......crickets times05 35 minutes ago Any suffering
descendants of slaves can join this "task force" and as a form of reparations collect paycheck
until June 2022 (task force meets in June, then supposed to come up with proposal a year
later... so June 2022) for doing a totally useless task. At which point the "task force" will
be dissolved, as it will have served its "task". Reply a325 3 hours ago Insanity defined
....... Reply 2 fozbotz 2 hours ago These people have got to be smoking crack laced with LSD.
Reply 2 NegroWhisperer 1 hour ago Anyone who earns more than 500,000 per year or has a net
worth higher than 2 million dollars should be forced to give up 40% of their wealth...
Yeah I think it was an okay week for Biden because we are one week closer to November 3.
Not seeing any dramatic changes and there are very few undecideds. Barring something like
either candidate dying of a stroke or heart attack, tonight is probably the MIC's last best
chance to derail Biden's victory march and he has no control over it. If Biden does not
stumble badly it is going to be very hard for the MIC to drag him down like he did with
Hillary.
Likbez , September 30, 2020 12:12 am
Instead of those maps I would like to have a map that provides some level of
understanding of positioning of key groups of the US neoliberal elite (one candidate,
neutrality/both candidates as there is not real difference for them) in each state.
We can probably distinguish between at least five key groups with distinct, albeit
overlapping interests as for the future direction of the country (for example more or
less neoliberal globalization, and the desirable level of hostility in relations with
China)
1. MIC
1.1. Intelligence agencies
1.2. Defense contractors
1.3 Officer corp 2.FIRE sector
2.1 Large banks
2.2 Insurance companies
2.3.Credit card mafia 3. Neo-liberal tech mafia
3.1 Internet/social sites giants
3.2 Software giants (actually intersects with 3.1 -- for example Microsoft is both) 4. Traditional manufacturing
4.1 Oil/gas
4.2 Heavy machinery
4.3 Chemical industry
4.4. Big pharma
4.5. Agro business 5. Entertainment industry including MSM
NOTE: I am not sure the MIC is pro-Trump and anti-Biden. Biden has a proven record as
a staunch militarist and neocon, so why would they prefer one over another ? In 2016 key
two intelligence agencies were definitely pro-Hillary (who was a known chickenhawk ) with
NSA and DIA probably on the fence, but while intelligence agencies are important part of
MIC they are not all MIC which is a much bigger and complex entity.
But, for example, tech giants are firmly in neoliberal Dems camp and IMHO will stay in
it. So they will definitly support Biden in 2020 and that will influence the voting
results in state where they dominate political machinery.
Not that foreign policy is high priority for most of the USA electorate, but still it looks
like some potential Trump voters do not approve this message.
That's why many of them probably will not vote for Trump in 2020, or will not vote at all
because there is no difference in this area between Trump and Biden: you can call the same
Zionist cutlet with two different names. but it is still the same cutlet.
People voted in Trump to be a protector of workers and lower middle class against financial
oligarchy. Instead, they got "Ziotrump", a marionette of Israel lobby who is first and foremost
the protector of Israel, MIC and the billionaire class.
The question is: Is Zionism an official ideology of the USA ruling elite? Zionism as any far right nationalism has it pluses
and minuses, but why this important decision is not discussed?
Notable quotes:
"... I like being energy independent, don't you? I'm sure that most of you noticed when you go to fill up your tank in your car, oftentimes it's below two dollars. You say how the hell did this happen? While I'm president, America will remain the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world. We will remain energy independent. It should be for many many years to come. The fact is, we don't have to be in the Middle East, other than we want to protect Israel. We've been very good to Israel. Other than that, we don't have to be in the Middle East." ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
For many years the security framework in the Middle East has been described as a bilateral
arrangement whereby Washington gained access to sufficient Saudi Arabian oil to keep the energy
market stable while the United States provided an armed physical presence through its bases in
the region and its ability to project power if anyone should seek to threaten the Saudi
Kingdom. The agreement was reportedly worked out in a February 1945 meeting between
President Franklin D. Roosevelt and King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, just as World War 2 was drawing
to a close. That role as protector of Saudi Arabia and guarantor of stable energy markets in
the region later served as part of the justification for the U.S. ouster of the Iraqi Army from
Kuwait in 1991.
After 9/11, the rationale became somewhat less focused. The United States invaded
Afghanistan, did not capture or kill Osama bin Laden due to its own incompetence, and, rather
than setting up a puppet regime and leaving, settled down to a nineteen-years long and still
running counter-insurgency plus training mission. Fake intelligence produced by the neocons in
the White House and Defense Department subsequently implicated Iraq in 9/11 and led to the
political and military disaster known as the Iraq War.
During the 75 years since the end of the Second World War the Middle East has experienced
dramatic change, to include the withdrawal of the imperial European powers from the region and
the creation of the State of Israel. And the growth and diversification of energy resources
mean that it is no longer as necessary to secure the petroleum that moves in tankers through
the Persian Gulf. Lest there be any confusion over why the United States continues to be
involved in Syria, Iraq, the Emirates and Saudi Arabia, President Donald Trump remarkably
provided some clarity relating to the issue when on September 8 th
he declared that the U.S. isn't any longer in the Middle East to secure oil supplies, but
rather because we "want to protect Israel."
The comment was made by Trump during a rally in Winston-Salem, N.C . as part of a
boast about his having reduced energy costs for consumers. He said " I like being energy
independent, don't you? I'm sure that most of you noticed when you go to fill up your tank in
your car, oftentimes it's below two dollars. You say how the hell did this happen? While I'm
president, America will remain the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world. We
will remain energy independent. It should be for many many years to come. The fact is, we don't
have to be in the Middle East, other than we want to protect Israel. We've been very good to
Israel. Other than that, we don't have to be in the Middle East."
The reality is, of course, that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been all about
Israel for a very long time, at least since the presidency of Bill Clinton, who has been
sometimes dubbed the first Jewish president for his deference to Israeli interests. The Iraq
War is a prime example of how neoconservatives and Israel Firsters inside the United States
government conspired to go to war to protect the Jewish State. In key positions at the Pentagon
were Zionists Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. Feith's Office of Special Plans developed the
"alternative intelligence" linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda and also to a mythical nuclear
program that was used to justify war. Feith was so close to Israel that he partnered in a law
firm that had an office in Jerusalem. The fake intelligence was then stove-piped to the White
House by fellow neocon "Scooter" Libby who worked in the office of Vice President Dick
Cheney.
After the fact, former Secretary of State Colin Powell also had something to say about the
origins of the war, commenting that the United States had
gone into Iraq because Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld bought into the neoconservative
case made for doing so by "the JINSA crowd," by which he meant the Israel Lobby organization
the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.
And if any more confirmation about the origins of the Iraq War were needed, one might turn
to Philip Zelikow, who was involved in the planning process while working on the staff of
Condoleezza Rice. He said "The unstated threat. And
here I criticize the [Bush] administration a little, because the argument that they make over
and over again is that this is about a threat to the United States. And then everybody says:
'Show me an imminent threat from Iraq to America. Show me, why would Iraq attack America or use
nuclear weapons against us?' So I'll tell you what I think the real threat is, and actually has
been since 1990. It's the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its
name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And
the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it's not a
popular sell."
So here is the point that resonates: even in 2002-3, when the Israel Lobby was not as
powerful as it is now, the fact that the U.S. was going to war on a lie and was actually acting
on behalf of the Jewish State was never presented in any way to the public, even though
America's children would be dying in the conflict and American taxpayers would be footing the
bill. The media, if it knew about the false intelligence, was reliably pro-Israel and helped
enable the deception.
And that same deception continued to this day until Trump spilled the beans earlier this
month. And now, with the special security arrangement that the U.S. has entered into with
Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, the ability to exit from a troublesome region
that does not actually threaten American interests has become very limited. As guarantor of the
agreement, Washington now has an obligation to intervene on the behalf of the parties involved.
Think about that, a no-win arrangement that will almost certainly lead to war with Iran,
possibly to include countries like Russia and China that will be selling it military equipment
contrary to U.S. "sanctions."
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected] .
Excellent synopsis of the situation. And if we look into the founding of Israel, we find
it was founded by war profiteers. This would explain why peace has been so "elusive". It has
been relentlessly dodged. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the 'War on Terror'" https://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com/p/war-profiteers-and-roots-of-war-on.html
This declaration is against the will of the American people. Hawkish policies of this
nature, that endanger the American lives should be confirmed by a referendum of the people.
Of course that would be logical step in a democracy but USA is not a democracy but a diktat
of backroom unellected ruling clique.
990. Jews are the scapegoats for all the deficiencies of low-IQ whites just as whites are
the scapegoats for all the deficiencies of low-IQ non-whites. Let me explain how that
works.
Why do we observe Jews at the forefront of many cutting-edge industries? (for example the
media/arts and financial industries are indeed rife with them). The low-IQ answer is, of
course, a simplistic conspiracy theory: Jews form an evil cabal that created all these
industries from scratch to "destroy culture" (or at least what low-IQ people think is
culture, i.e. some previous, obsolete state of culture, i.e. older, lower culture, i.e.
non-culture). And, to be sure, there is a lot of decadence in these industries. But, in an
advanced civilization, there is a lot of decadence everywhere anyway! It's an essential
prerequisite even! So it makes perfect sense that the most capable people in such a
civilization will also be the most decadent! The stereotype of the degenerate
cocaine-sniffing whoremonging or homosexual Hollywood or Wall Street operative belongs here.
Well, buddy, if YOU were subjected to the stresses and temptations of the Hollywood or Wall
Street lifestyles, maybe you'd be a "degenerate" too! But you lack the IQ for that, so of
course you'll reduce the whole enterprise to a simplistic resentful fairy tale that seems
laughable even to children: a bunch of old bearded Jews gathered round a large table planning
the destruction of civilization! Well I say enough with this childish nonsense! The Jews are
simply some of the smartest and most industrious people around, ergo it makes sense that
they'll be encountered at or near all the peaks of the dominant culture, being
overrepresented everywhere in it, including therefore in its failings and excesses! This is
what it means to be the best! It doesn't mean that you are faultless little angels who can do
no wrong, you brainless corn-fed nitwits! There's a moving passage somewhere in Nietzsche
where he relates that Europe owes the Jews for the highest sage (Spinoza), and the highest
saint (Jesus), and he'd never even heard of Freud or Einstein! In view of all the
immeasurable gifts the Jewish spirit has lavished on humanity, anti-semitism in the coming
world order will be a capital offense, if I have anything to say on the matter. The slightest
word against the Jews, and you're a marked man: I would have not only you, but your entire
extended family wiped out, just to be sure. You think you know what the Devil is, but he's
just the lackey taking my orders. Entire cities razed to the ground (including the entire
Middle East), simply because one person there said something bad about "the Jews", that's how
I would have the future! Enough with this stupid meme! To hell with all of you brainless
subhumans! You've wasted enough of our nervous energy on this stupid shit! And the same goes
to low-IQ non-whites who blame all their troubles on whites! And it's all true: Jews and
whites upped the stakes for everybody by bringing into the world a whole torrent of new
possibilities which your IQ is too low to handle! So whatcha gonna do about it? Are you all
bark, or are you prepared to bite? Come on, let's see what you can do! Any of you fucking
pricks bark, and we'll execute every motherfucking last one of you!
Honestly, I like way better out in the open like this. Now there is no reason to worry
about all the other BS excuses, it's all on the table.
So now, as a public, we have been informed; so what are we going to do about it? Or are
they so confident about their position that they know they can announce it to he world openly
and be sure that there will be zero consequences?
Protector, personal armies, saboteurs, financiers, assassin's, propagandists, liars,
thieves, rapists, slavers, and that is just for starters – which includes inside and
outside of the former country called the USA.
No, you are wrong. The problem with the 'industriousness' is that it is characterized by
the principle of profit before all, no matter how immoral the activity. People who do that
don't care about a civilized society and should not be able to reap the benefits of one.
Also high IQ isn't exemplified by trickery, lying, subverting and eroding the morals of
the host society.
The US is not only the protector, but has been the enabler of the mafia from the
start.
Chaim.Weizman and Nathan Sokolow approach the British with a dirty deal. The Zionists
offer to use their international influence to bring the US into the war on Britain's
side, while undermining Germany from within. The price that Britain must pay for U.S.
entry is to steal Palestine from Ottoman Turkey (Germany's ally) and allow the Jews to
settle there. Zionist agitated anti-German propaganda was unleashed in the US while the
Zionists and Marxists of Germany begin to undermine Germany's war effort from within.
Wilson establishes the Committee on Public Information (CPI) for the purpose of
manipulating public opinion in support of the war.
-M.S. King, The Bad War, p 50.
Similar scenario for "WW2" which was little more than a continuation of the previous
biggie. They really ought to be known as the One World Wars since they were obviously part
of the plan for the world to be dominated by the International mafia through such creations
as the League of Subjects and the United Slave Nations with the capitol at Tel Aviv.
Yes, Dr. Giraldi, you hit the nail on the head again.
However, the problem is that most White Middle Class Americans, are satisfied and fully
compliant with this situation where the USA is a Megalethon Vassal and Servile State
for the poor little Israeli state .
Also, let us be honest with ourselves, Blacks and other minorities on more occasions do
dare to speak out on this issue, only to get trounced upon by the MSM and silence and
snickers by the stay safe White American Middle Class. Do you ever find a Main Line
White Politician speaking up for America's interests and placing them first vis a vis our
best little ally ??? Only when it comes to Afro or the Hispanic – Americans
sticking their heads up a little does Middle White Americana get all worked up and
emotionally charged.
The White Middle Class and most certainly the well moneyed Corporate Class of America,
does not mind giving away huge transfers of their tax dollars, national debt, high
technologies, military hardware, and even their uniformed sons and daughter, upon command
from the likes of Trump and their political opportunists managing the country (Rep and Dem
alike). Serving and making America serve the Greater Zio Agenda for their ME and Global
domination has become the norm and unquestionable. Try raising this issue at a dinner party
and see how many people role their eyes and turn their heads away.
I doubt that the RU followers here, who seem more bent on street brawling with the false
bogeymen like BLM and ANTIFA, are the ones that will stand up to the in your face
take over of WDC by AIPAC and the Israel First Crowd, including front man Trump for the
Kushner-Bibi WH.
Let us not forget the thieving and scamming Sunday preachers who tell them it is great
to be in full service of the Zio (Jewish Talmudic based) domination agenda– as it has
become a direct ticket to a Raptured Heaven . Jesus for them was been thrown under
the bus long ago or strangely converted into a gun machine toting Israeli nut case
extremist settler, clearing the land and villages of the indignies children and
all.
Let us be frank, some elements of the America First Jewish intelligentsia are more
likely to call out and the whorishness ( extremes only) of the Washington's ZOG policies
than Middle Americana, who dare not risk their creature comforts, Game Time or corporate
positions.
As the old adage goes, you get the Government That You Deserve .
Are you all bark, or are you prepared to bite? Come on, let's see what you can do! Any
of you fucking pricks bark, and we'll execute every motherfucking last one of you!
Well your tribe has been incredibly effective at genocide and mass murder on an
unprecedented scale of barbarism in the past, and I have no doubt you remain just as
capable of such barbarity and cruelty today. Your rant makes that very clear.
Too bad the high IQ does not seem to correlate in a positive way with morality.
But thanks for the warning! Trust me, many of us are quite aware of your
capabilities.
The only reason Trump "spilled the beans" about how we are in the Middle East to protect
Israel and not to keep oil flowing is to get himself reelected and nothing else. As to war
with China, Zuckerberg alone would be able to bribe the administration in particular, and
both the parties in general, with his extra billions to keep them out of the war being that
he has married a chink, er, Chan. All will be back to business as usual after the election
at least, for four more years.
It means Netanyahu is the de facto president of the US.
Not quite. He is much more powerful than that. The entire Congress of the United States
stands and applauds when he arrives to speak. They would never do that for Trump, or any
president. The fear of being unpersoned keeps them in line.
@Ugetit
endence and freedom but things actually became more messy. Also the "hated" Russian
Romanovs were got rid off, Russia pushed under Communist Jewish dictatorship. Also the
destruction of the Caliph, imagine a united Turko-Arab Empire, no way Israel would have
survived that. Even T.E. Lawrence who helped the Arabs fight the Turks was totally
disappointed with the behaviour of his own Zionist controlled government. He was going to
speak to the British people about the great betrayal to the Arabs and being a war hero they
would have listened to him. But before he could do so he met with an "accident" while
riding his motorcycle. Yeah, very convenient.
@sethster
re good at gathering Nobel Prizes, which is best arranged by jury-rigging and
string-pulling thanks to their talent for networking, but no so good as making real
inventions. In Israel proper the mean Jewish IQ, 94, is not only disappointing but a few
points below even the Palestinian one. Spiritually the Jews have no longer been a chosen
people for ages and most of the intellectual development they knew from about 1850 onwards
was due to their being emancipated en masse from rabbinical authority, not by conforming to
it : now that are falling back under an even worse collective authority with Zionism they
are reversing the intellectual gains they once made.
Back in the second half of the 80s the big war games were all IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ!!1! There
was a strong push from all the interagency pukes with their dotted-lines reports to Langley
– to aim at Iraq, and to suppress any practical considerations that might interfere
with this very lucrative debacle. We watched these moles countering evidence and analysis
with declamatory bullshit they made up. Way back then CIA had decided. April Glaspie's
headfake sprung a trap set in Kuwait by the NOCs infesting Bechtel. That
horizontal-drilling rhubarb was years in preparation.
Iraq was one big war with three phases: beating up on the Iraqi armed forces; ten years
of blowing shit up; the occupation.
It turned out great. CIA got money-laundering nirvana, a chaotic zone where they could
ship pallets of money around. They got an arms entrepot that lasted 20 years.They got a
great network of sites for the torture gulag, with secure impunity – when Iraq tried
to accede to the Rome Statute in 05, the CIA torturers were on the spot to nip it in the
bud. The tame jihadi boogeymen the torture camps produced were invaluable in creating
Rumsfeld's "terrorist corridor" in the Sahel and justifying the P2OG and the Pan-Sahel
Initiative. That put AFRICOM garrisons, US-trained warlords, and CIA torture sites in one
of the most diplomatically recalcitrant regions of the world:
So turn that frown upside down! Your old bosses got a lot out of that charlie
foxtrot.
@sethster
re all conceived and started by Gentiles Henry Ford is a great example and he knew Jews
quite well. The only industries , as you call them, that Jews are involved in are
leech enterprises financial corporations are excellent examples of leech enterprises. The
financial products they contrive are methods to extract value from productive
industries.
A large percent of Jews are devoted obsessed with gaining wealth and power from the efforts
of others which is the reason for their inordinate involvement in the Deep State and also
for the abject loathing by many Gentiles throughout the ages.
Whether the truth is hidden or now out in the open doesn't matter to a people so stupid
as to believe the Creator's offspring walked, eat and crapped on this little planet 2k
years ago.
Exhibit B of their stupidity: Electing Trump (and more than a few of his
predecessors).
The NWO won't come to America as Greta Thunberg marching ahead of the Democrats in Mao
suits under LGBTQ and GND banners and tumbrels of Christians headed for the guillotine, but
as one transnational compliance regime after the other enacted by treaty, such as mandatory
bi-annual vaccinations with largely inefficacious vaccines carrying not just behavior
modifying chemicals and sterilants as adjuvants, but DNA-altering horrors. Anyone want to
argue the threats posed by these DNA- or mRNA-modifying vaccines made from, among other
things, insect DNA?
Some think it's over the top to talk about the NWO that's on the horizon as a
Sino-Judaic, world-hegemonic NWO, but the United States government is itself already little
more than a collection of compliance regimes in service to International Jewry. The 29
standing ovations from a Congress afraid to be the first to stop clapping for a kitchen
cabinet salesman-turned-Caesar made that clear enough. The rest of the story, like the
nonsense that Congress and DJT are voluntarily protecting Israel, is eyewash for
fools when International Jewry owns them all like the trained seals who perform in the
Central Park Zoo.
The Holy Rollers were never going to bail from Trump after the embassy move to
Jerusalem. Jews on the other hand are likely not amused about such a revelation. So his
words were unlikely about the election.
@lavoisier
nd stern conversation, "For me, the new Germany exists only in order to ensure the
existence of the State of Israel and the Jewish people." He's a brilliant intellectual
and a thoughtful politician, and we don't need to worry – he won't give up his
existential friendship so easily. And certainly not because of Bennett or his colleague
Orit Strock, the party whip.
A very symbolic photo posted by the Israel Defence Forces' Twitter account, in the tweet
linked to by user Talha
It is time to be more honest. A foreign war that the US loses may be the only way out of
the political, moral and social impasse that currently afflicts the US. The forces that
control the US government need to be removed and that seems increasingly unlikely to arise
from simply domestic opposition.
It took World War II to remove Adolf Hitler from power in Germany. Why should anyone
expect anything less to change the government of the United States? The US wants a war with
Russia and China. Perhaps it is best that it be granted one? Let's see some articles on this
proposition.
The odd thing is how so many Jews still support immigration despite the fact that a lot of
the immigrants are (from the Jewish/Zionist perspective) at best indifferent to Israel and at
worse outright hostile and want it gone.
Or perhaps they realise democracy is a sham and the Jewish elite have got their backs?
Hence their plans to mongrelise Europeans nations don't really conflict with their Zionist
ambitions.
One thing is for sure, when things start to get hairy in the West, all Jews will have a
nice First World ethnocracy to move to.
Trump's greatest contribution to the US/World might be exposing the naked ambition and
evilness of the Ziocons. Before Trump, Ziocons lurked in the background as puppet masters,
with their many plans obscured behind "diplomacy" and propaganda like "freedom" and "human
rights", now thanks to Trump they are showing their true colors. Trump has managed to expose
to the whole world including all our allies who is really running America and the extent they
will go to destroy their perceived "enemies" to achieve world domination -- the end justifies
the means. It is making our allies esp. Europe think twice about their alliance with
JU.S.A.
Trump's greatest contribution to the US/World might be exposing the naked ambition and
evilness of the Ziocons. Before Trump, Ziocons lurked in the background as puppet masters,
with their many plans obscured behind "diplomacy" and propaganda like "freedom" and "human
rights", now thanks to Trump they are showing their true colors. Trump has managed to expose
to the whole world including all our allies who is really running America and the extent they
will go to destroy their perceived "enemies" to achieve world domination -- the end justifies
the means. It is making our allies esp. Europe think twice about their alliance with
JU.S.A.
You must have been misinformed if you think that "Germany sold Israel submarines". Not
really as you can find out from the link bellow. The first two submarines were donated and
the third was "hawkered" for about half the production cost.
@anon
the empire starts WW3, e.g. the "big one" at Yellowstone, which will do so much damage as to
make it impossible for the evil empire to continue it's pursuit of world domination and
control.
I do think it is game over for quite a while in the West regarding opposition to Israel.
Israel may collapse or have to come to the table or something due to some game changer in the
Middle East, but I don't see it happening due to lack of support from the West anytime
soon.
When the "Fox News Sunday" host takes the stage on Tuesday to moderate the first
presidential debate of 2020, he will for 90 minutes be the most important person in the
world.
His questions, his demeanor, his raised eyebrow will signal to millions of voters how they
are to assess the two candidates -- President Donald John Trump and former Vice President
Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.
If his questions are piercing for both, if his skepticism is applied equally to both the
Republican and Democrat, then all is well in this corner of the world of journalism. But if
instead Wallace accuses Trump and coddles Biden, we will have one more instance of media bias,
which has become so rampant that President Trump had to christen it with a pet name -- Fake
News.
Every day, the supposedly professional press corps cozies up to Biden with softball
questions ("Why aren't you more angry at President Trump?" has to be my favorite!) while
accusing Trump of being a mass murderer, a racist and a Putin puppet. So conservatives are
entirely justified in having low expectations for the debate and for Wallace, who has
exhibited symptoms of Trump Derangement Syndrome more than once.
Wallace can ask anything he wants of Trump. I am confident the president will acquit himself
admirably, but the litmus test for Wallace playing fair in the debate will be whether or not he
asks any hard-hitting questions of Biden -- especially about the new Senate
report on the corrupt activities of his son Hunter in Ukraine and elsewhere.
If you have heard anything about the Biden report on CNN and MSNBC, or read about it in your
newspapers, chances are you came away thinking that Republicans had made up a series of fake
charges against the Bidens. "Nothing to see here. Move along."
The
Washington Post , as usual, was at the front of the pack for Fake News coverage. The Post
used its headline to focus entirely on Hunter's position on the board of the corrupt Ukrainian
energy company Burisma, and claimed that the report doesn't show that the cozy arrangement
"changed U.S. policy" -- as if that were the only reason you would not want a vice president's
son enriching himself at the trough of foreign oligarchs.
The story then spent most of its 35 paragraphs excusing Hunter's behavior either directly or
through surrogates such as Democrat senators, and most nauseatingly by quoting Hunter Biden's
daughter, Naomi, who "offered a personal tribute to her father" in the form of a series of
tweets, including the following:
"Though the whole world knows his name, no one knows who he is. Here's a thread on my dad,
Hunter Biden -- free of charge to the taxpayers and free of the corrosive influence of
power-at-all-costs politics. The truth of a man filled with love, integrity, and human
struggles." Oh my, that's convincing evidence of innocence of wrongdoing. I imagine she also
endorses her grandfather for president, for what it's worth.
The three reporters who wrote the Post piece also spin the facts like whirling dervishes.
They say that the report by Sens. Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley "rehashes" known details of
the matter. They quote Democrats to say without evidence that the report's key findings are
"rooted in a known Russian disinformation effort."
The following passage in particular shows how one-sided the story is:
"Democrats argue that Johnson has 'repeatedly impugned' Biden, and they pointed to his
recent comments hinting that the report would shed light on Biden's 'unfitness for office,'
as reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, to argue that the entire investigation was
orchestrated as a smear campaign to benefit Trump."
Using the "shoe on the other foot" test, can you ever imagine a similar statement being made
in the Washington Post about the Trump impeachment investigation? Let's see. How would that
go?
"Republicans argue that Rep. Adam Schiff has 'repeatedly impugned' Trump, and they pointed
to his recent comments hinting that the report would shed light on Trump's 'unfitness for
office' to argue that the entire investigation was orchestrated as a smear campaign to
benefit Biden."
Oh yeah, sure! The chance of reading that paragraph in the Washington Post news pages would
have been absolutely zero.
Perhaps even more insidious was the decision by the editors to push the most significant
news in the report to the bottom of the Post's story. That is the lucrative relationship that
Hunter Biden established in 2017 with a Chinese oil tycoon named Ye Jianming. Biden was
apparently paid $1 million to represent Ye's assistant while he was facing bribery charges in
the United States.
Even more disturbing, "In August 2017, a subsidiary of Ye's company wired $5 million into
the bank account of a U.S. company called Hudson West III, which over the next 13 months sent
$4.79 million marked as consulting fees to Hunter Biden's firm, the report said. Over the same
period, Hunter Biden's firm wired some $1.4 million to a firm associated with his uncle and
aunt, James and Sara Biden, according to the report."
Then, in late 2017, "Hunter Biden and a financier associated with Ye also opened a line of
credit for Hudson West III that authorized credit cards for Hunter Biden, James Biden and Sara
Biden, according to the report, which says the Bidens used the credit cards to purchase more
than $100,000 worth of items, including airline tickets and purchases at hotels and
restaurants."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The Post also glossed over payments received by Hunter Biden from Yelena Baturina, who the
story acknowledges "is the widow of former Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov and is a member of
Kazakhstan's political elite." What the story doesn't say is that the payments received by
Hunter Biden's companies while Joe Biden was vice president totaled close to $4 million. Does
anyone have even the slightest curiosity why Hunter's companies received these payments from a
Russian oligarch? As Donald Trump Jr. noted, if he had the same record of taking money from
foreign nationals, he "would be in jail right now."
In other words, the headline and the lede of the Washington Post story were entirely
misleading. What readers should have been told is that there is a pattern of corruption and
inexplicable enrichment in the Biden family that has continued for years and that Joe Biden has
turned his back on it.
Seems worthy of the attention of the voters who will determine the nation's leadership for
the next four years. So the most important question at the debate Tuesday night is the
following: Will Chris Wallace take the same cowardly path as the Washington Post, or will he
demand an answer from candidate Biden as to why influence peddling, conflicts of interest and
virtual money laundering are acceptable?
Based on Wallace's track record, I'm not holding my breath that we will get either the
question or the answer, but if we do, I will happily applaud him as the tough-as-nails
journalist he is supposed to be.
play_arrow chubbar , 1 hour ago
Wallace is co-opted, he's a plant. NO way does he ask about corruption or go after
Joe.
CosmoJoe , 1 hour ago
All Trump needs to do is jab Biden every time his brain locks up; toss in phrases like
"Its OK Joe, take your time". Keep doing that until Biden gets angry and its all over. (Well,
its over anyhow, but....)
Karl Malden's Nose , 1 hour ago
He knew how to push Hillary's buttons and even though she's a spaz she's lightyears
smarter than Joe. Biden is going to fume and crap his depends because Trump is about to knock
him flat on his ***. He'll be stammering to answer while Trump has already moved on to the
next gut punch. There's no gotcha's on Trump, only Biden. Trump is plugged in to everything
and sharp as a knife. Biden will be struggling to remember his instructions and I'm sure
they'll have an ear piece on him he won't hear too clearly.
Hoax Fatigue , 25 minutes ago
Nobody is expecting (((Wallace))) to be fair.
High Vigilante , 1 hour ago
Trump should bring it up, as soon as possible.
There is no guarantee Biden won't skip other debates.
Plus it would make Biden angry and negate the effect of drugs he will be loaded with.
True Historian , 1 hour ago
I have watched Wallace and he is a pretentious pile of excrement. FOX with its "Fair and
Balanced" left the station when they were bought out by Disney.
Wallace sample questions:
Trump : When did you stop being a corrupt NAZI/Russian bitch?
Biden : Are you feeling OK today? If not, how can I make you more comfortable.
CosmoJoe , 1 hour ago
Trump had some fairly hostile moderators in the 2016 debates and he held his own. He has
to be just as merciless with Biden as he was with Hillary. The news doesn't want to talk
about Hunter and his wire transfers from Russia. This is Trump's chance to throw that crap
right into the spotlight.
alexcojones , 1 hour ago
Quote : "Every day, the supposedly professional press corps cozies up to Biden with
softball questions... while accusing Trump of being a mass murderer, a racist and a Putin
puppet."
Why? That's because the so-called "Legacy" media is now the Enemy of The American
People.
Soloamber , 1 hour ago
The question is how long can Wallace hide his anti-Trimp bias ?
Mr. Biden ...what is your favorite color ?
President Trump why do you pay no tax ?
Mr. Biden Isn't China our greatest ally ?
President Trump have you heard from Stormy lately ?
Mr . Biden Please provide your wife's first name .
President Trump.... You appear over weight have you had your blood pressure checked ?
Would you agree to do it now ?
Mr . Biden what are some of your greats political achievements in your distinguished
political legacy ?
President Trump why have you caused global warming ?
DeplorableGlobalConflictWatch , 1 hour ago
Chris Wallace is a joke. Make sure he's sick and replaced by Tucker Carlson.
RealEstateArbitrage , 1 hour ago
Wally is a plant by the deep state. He is a liar and a fool.
Migao , 1 hour ago
Wallace, like his dad, pretentious snob. Yeah, Trump's a jerk, but he's a lovable jerk.
Wallace is a pretentious snob.
JUICE E SMALL IT EMPIRE , 2 hours ago
No, Ukraine and China should be front and center. It is an election year. And the Dems
have screwed us royally.
@Realist
d on him and tried to remove him from office. This is actually the greatest political scandal
in American history, yet nothing will be done about it. The magic negro will never face any
consequences and he and his ugly wife will remain free to race bait for another 30 years
unimpeded.
Trump and the GOP allowed the covid hoax to wreck the economy and allowed massive riots to
go on for many months. They allow the left to run wild while whites live under
anarcho-tyranny.
If Trump wins, which is likely, he will just go right back to blabbing about how much he
loves blacks and mexicans and gays and you will never hear another word about white
people.
@restless94110
p> Obama fired many upper level military and replaced them with leftist cucks.
Besides Trump not getting rid of people he should have gotten rid of, he hired a shitload
of scum, neocons, Goldman alums, etc., people who were obviously not going to promote his
America First agenda.
From the looks of it he never intended to make good on any of his promises.
And as Ann Coulter says, immigration is really the only thing that matters. Trump didn't
deport the 30 million illegals that don't belong here. He didn't do anything about birthright
citizenship, E-verify, etc.
We still face the very same demographic disaster as before.
I don't think anyone was actually trying to remove him from office (they could've added
his war crimes and violations of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to the
impeachment charges if they were serious about removing him). Most likely it's all
political theater to fool the people who need and/or want to be fooled.
This is a charade designed by the Deep State to distract any thought that both
parties are just two sides to the Deep State coin.
@Robert
Dolan did get rid of some military, he clearly didn't get rid of the right people.
You seem to think it's easy. It's not obviously.
I like Ann, but she is hysterical. Yet that is ok in a journalist/editorialist. Her
function is to keep pushing. And she is doing that.
But Trump is moving at his own speed based on his own instincts. Meaning it might be
faster for some, slower for others. Coulter is not able to understand that. But she does not
have to. I still read her. And then I analyze her as a person in fear that the wall won't be
built.
Looks to me like Ann is wrong. It's just not happening quickly enough for her.
In the United States, a great deal of study and energy goes into promoting respect for
democracy, not just to keep it alive here but also to spread it around the world. It embraces
the will of the majority, whether or not its main beneficiaries have more resources than other
citizens do, as shown by the election of President Obama, who promised hope and change for the
suffering majority, but did not sit long in office before being subjected to an economic vote
of no-confidence.
Those who claim we run a plutocracy (government for the rich by the rich) -- or that we're
victims of a conspiracy contrived by a shadow government -- are right while being wrong.
Our government is beyond the reach of ordinary American citizens in terms of economic power.
However, the creation of a system to keep the majority of the populace at the losing end of a
structure which neither promised nor delivered a state of financial equality was a predictable
extension of the economic system the U.S. government was formed to protect.
... .... ...
Forty years of Cold War and the ultimate realization that abuse of the communist system and
a hierarchy of privilege proved that system to be vulnerable to selfishness -- in common with
the triumphant capitalist countries.
Because any desired outcome can be written into an equation to exclude unwanted facts or
inputs by holding some things constant while applying chosen variables that may not hold true
under every historical circumstance, it's considered "falsifiable" and therefore "scientific."
But only if it appeals to the right people and justifies a given political need will it become
sacrosanct (until the next round of "progress").
.... .... ...
Abusive Self- Interest
In 1764, twenty- five years before the embrace of Madame Guillotine (when heads rolled
literally to put the fear of the mob into politics), contempt for the filth and poverty in
which the French commoners lived while the nobility gorged on luxury goods showed how arrogant
they were, not just in confidence that their offices of entitlement were beyond reproach and
unassailable, but that mockery and insult in the face of deliberate deprivation would be borne
with obedience and humility.
It certainly affected Smith's outlook, since he wrote The Wealth of Nations with a
focus on self- interest rather than moral sentiments. And while this may be purely pragmatic,
based on what
he witnessed, he also wrote about the potential for self- interest to become abusive, both
in collusion with individuals and when combined with the power of government. Business
interests could form cabals (groups of conspirators, plotting public harm) or monopolies
(organizations with exclusive market control) to fix prices at their highest levels. A true
laissez- faire economy would provide every incentive to conspire against consumers and attempt
to influence budgets and legislation.
Smith's assertion that self- interest leads producers to favor domestic industry must also
be understood in the context of the period. While it's true that the Enlightenment was a
movement of rational philosophy radically opposed to secrecy, it's important to understand that
this had to be done respectfully , insofar as all arguments were intended to impress the
monarchy under circumstances where the king believed himself God- appointed and infallible, no
matter his past or present policies, and matters were handled with delicacy. Yet, Smith's
arguments are clear enough (and certainly courageous enough) to be understood in laymen's
terms.
In an era when the very industry he's observing has been fostered by tariffs, monopolies,
labor controls, and materials extracted from colonies, he did his best to balance observation
with what he thought was best for society. It's not his fault we pick and choose our recipes
for what we do and don't believe or where we think Smith might have gone had he been alive
today.
The New Double Standard
The only practical way to resolve the contradiction between the existing beneficiaries of
state favoritism in this period and Smith's aversion to it is to observe that the means to
prevent competition and interference with the transition from one mode of commerce to another
that enhances the strength of the favored or provides a new means to grow their wealth is to
close the door of government intervention behind them and burn any bridges to it.
In psychological terms, the practice of "negative attribution" is to assume that identical
behavior is justifiable for oneself but not another. It may not be inconsistent with a system
of economics founded on self- interest, but it naturally begs a justification as to why it
rules out everyone else's self- interest. The beauty of this system is that it will
always have the same answer.
You may have guessed it.
Progress.
Reallocation of Assets
It was always understood that capitalism produces winners and losers. The art of economizing
is to gain maximum benefit for minimum expenditure, which generally translates to asset
consolidation and does not necessarily mean there is minimum sacrifice. There's an opportunity
cost for everything, whether it's human, financial, environmental, or material. But the most
important tenet of free market capitalism is that asset redistribution requires the U. S.
government to go to DEFCON 1, unless assets are being reallocated for "higher productivity," in
which case the entire universe is saved from the indefensible sin of lost opportunity.
Private property is sacred -- up until an individual decides he can make more productive use
of it and appeals to the courts for seizure under eminent domain or until the government
decides it will increase national growth if owned by some other person or entity. In like
manner, corporations can suffer hostile takeovers, just as deregulation facilitates predatory
market behavior and cutthroat competition promotes an efficiency orientation that means fewer
jobs and lower incomes, which result in private losses.
In the varying range of causes underlying the loss of assets, the common threat is progress
-- the "civilized" justification for depriving some other person or entity of their right to
own property, presumably earned by the sweat of their brow, except their sweat doesn't have the
same champion as someone who can wring more profit from it. The official explanation is that
the government manages the "scarcity" of resources to benefit the world. This is also how we
justify war, aggression, and genocide, though we don't always admit to that unless we mean to
avoid it.
Perfectly Rational Genocide
History cooperates with the definition of Enlightenment if we imagine that thoughtfulness
has something to do with genocide. In the context of American heritage, it has meant that when
someone stands in the way of progress, his or her resources are "reallocated" to serve the
pursuit of maximum profit, with or without consent. The war against Native Americans was one in
which Americans either sought and participated in annihilation efforts or believed this end was
inevitable. In the age of rational thought, meditation on the issue could lead from gratitude
for the help early settlers received from Native Americans to the observation they didn't
enclose their land and had no concept of private property,
to the conviction they were unmotivated by profit and therefore irreconcilable savages. But
it takes more than rational thought to mobilize one society to exterminate another.
The belief in manifest destiny -- that God put the settlers in America for preordained and
glorious purposes which gave them a right to everything -- turned out to be just the ticket for
a free people opposed to persecution and the tyranny of church and state.
Lest the irony elude you, economic freedom requires divorcing the state from religion, but
God can be used to whip up the masses, distribute "It's Them or Us" cards, and send people out
to die on behalf of intellectuals and investors who've rationalized their
chosenness.
CHAPTER TWO: INSTILLING THE ILLUSION OF CHOICE
Selfishness may be exalted as the root and branch of capitalism, but it doesn't make you
look good to the party on the receiving end or those whose sympathy he earns. For that, you
need a government prepared to do four things, which each have separate dictums based on study,
theorization, and experience.
Coercion:
Force is illegitimate only if you can't sell it.
Persuasion:
How do I market thee? Let me count the ways.
Bargaining:
If you won't scratch my back, then how about a piece of the pie?
Indoctrination:
Because I said so. (And paid for the semantics.)
Predatory capitalism is the control and expropriation of land, labor, and natural resources
by a foreign government via coercion, persuasion, bargaining, and indoctrination.
At the coercive stage, we can expect military and/ or police intervention to repress the
subject populace. The persuasive stage will be marked by clientelism, in which a small
percentage of the populace will be rewarded for loyalty, often serving as the capitalists'
administrators, tax collectors, and enforcers. At the bargaining stage, efforts will be made to
include the populace, or a certain percentage of it, in the country's ruling system, and this
is usually marked by steps toward democratic (or, more often, autocratic) governance.
At the fourth stage, the populace is educated by capitalists, such that they continue to
maintain a relationship of dependency.
The Predatory Debt Link
In many cases, post- colonial states were forced to assume the debts of their colonizers.
And where they did not, they were encouraged to become in debt to the West via loans that were
issued through international institutions to ensure they did not fall prey to communism or
pursue other economic policies that were inimical to the West. Debt is the tie that binds
nation states to the geostrategic and economic interests of the West.
As such, the Cold War era was a time of easy credit, luring postcolonial states to undertake
the construction of useless monoliths and monuments, and to even expropriate such loans through
corruption and despotism, thereby making these independent rulers as predatory as colonizers.
While some countries were wiser than others and did use the funds for infrastructural
improvements, these were also things that benefited the West and particularly Western
contractors. In his controversial work Confessions of an Economic Hit Man , John Perkins
reveals that he was a consultant for an American firm (MAIN), whose job was to ensure that
states became indebted beyond their means so they would remain loyal to their creditors, buying
them votes within United Nations organizations, among other things.
Predatory capitalists demand export- orientations as the means to generate foreign currency
with which to pay back debt. In the process, the state must privatize and drastically slash or
eliminate any domestic subsidies which are aimed at helping native industry compete in the
marketplace. Domestic consumption and imports must be radically contained, as shown by the
exchange rate policies recommended by the IMF. The costs of obtaining domestic capital will be
pushed beyond the reach of most native producers, while wages must be depressed to an absolute
bare minimum. In short, the country's land, labor, and natural resources must be sold at
bargain basement prices in order to make these goods competitive, in what one author has called
"a spiraling race to the bottom," as countries producing predominantly the same goods engage in
cutthroat competition whose benefactor is the West.
Under these circumstances, foreign investment is encouraged, but this, too, represents a
loaded situation for countries that open their markets to financial liberalization. Since, in
most cases, the
IMF does not allow restrictions on the conditions of capital inflows, it means that
financial investors can literally dictate their terms. And since no country is invulnerable to
attacks on its currency, which governments must try to keep at a favorable exchange rate, it
means financial marauders can force any country to try to prop up its currency using vital
reserves of foreign exchange which might have been used to pay their debt.
When such is the case, the IMF comes to the rescue with a socalled "bailout fund," that
allows foreign investors to withdraw their funds intact, while the government reels from the
effects of an IMF- imposed austerity plan, often resulting in severe recession the offshoot of
which is bankruptcies by the thousands and plummeting employment.
In countries that experienced IMF bailouts due to attacks on their currencies, the effect
was to reset the market so the only economic survivors were those who remained export- oriented
and were strong enough to withstand the upheaval. This means they remained internationally
competitive, which translates to low earnings of foreign exchange. At the same time that the
country is being bled from the bottom up through mass unemployment, extremely low wages, and
the "spiraling race to the bottom," it is in an even more unfavorable position concerning the
payment of debt. The position is that debt slavery ensues, as much an engine of extraction as
any colonial regime ever managed.
The Role of Indoctrination
The fact that it is sovereign governments overseeing the work of debt repression has much to
do with education, which is the final phase of predatory capitalism, concluding in
indoctrination. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the lesson to the world was that
socialism can't work, nor were there any remaining options for countries that pursued "the
third way" other than capitalism. This produced a virulent strain of neoliberalism in which
most people were, and are, being educated. The most high- ranking of civil servants have either
been educated in the West or directly influenced by its thinking. And this status of acceptance
and adherence finally constitutes indoctrination. The system is now self- sustaining, upheld by
domestic agents.
While predatory capitalism can proceed along a smooth continuum from coercion to persuasion
to bargaining to formal indoctrination, the West can regress to any of these steps at any point
in
time, given the perceived need to interfere with varying degrees of force in order to
protect its interests.
Trojan Politics
Democracy is about having the power and flexibility to graft our system of government and
predatory capitalism onto any target country, regardless of relative strength or conflicting
ideologies. An entire productive industry has grown up using the tools of coercion, persuasion,
bargaining, and formal indoctrination to maximize their impact in the arena of U. S. politics.
Its actors know how to jerk the right strings, push the right buttons, and veer from a soft
sell to a hard sell when resistance dictates war, whether it's with planes overhead and tanks
on the ground or with massive capital flight that panics the whole world.
When the U. S. political economy goes into warp overdrive, its job proves far more valuable
than anything ever made in the strict material sense because there's never been more at stake
in terms of what it's trying to gain. It's the American idea machine made up of corporations,
lobbyists, think tanks, foundations, universities, and consultants in every known discipline
devoted to mass consumerism, and what they sell is illusory opportunity dressed in American
principles. They embrace political candidates who'll play by elitist rules to preserve the
fiction of choice, and, in this way, they maintain legitimacy, no matter what kind of
"reallocation" is on the economic agenda.
The issue is not whether we'll question it, but who we'll applaud for administering it.
In the Information Age, perception management is king.
Over the next 4 years, Trump promises to lower the cost of healthcare, and "bring better and
tailored healthcare to address historic disparities" for the black community. The president
will also ensure that black churches can compete for federal resources, and "defend religious
freedom exemptions to respect religious believers and always protect life."
The president also seeks to further criminal justice reform, with his plan saying that he
will "commit to working on a Second Step Act." He will also work towards "safe urban
neighborhoods with highest policing standards," the plan states.
Other aspects of the plan includes making Juneteenth a National Holiday, prosecuting the
KKK, designating Antifa a terrorist organization, and making lynching a national hate
crime.
Trump's move to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization came after FBI Director
Christopher Wray told Congress that those who engaged in recent violent protests are targets
of serious FBI investigations.
"We have seen Antifa adherence coalescing and working together in what I would describe as
small groups and nodes," Wray has said. Wray added that the bureau is conducting multiple
investigations "into some anarchist violent extremists, some of whom operate through these
nodes."
Before that, Attorney General William Barr in August said Antifa is a "revolutionary
group" that is bent on establishing communism or socialism in the United States.
"They are a revolutionary group that is interested in some form of socialism, communism.
They're essentially Bolsheviks. Their tactics are fascistic," Barr said in an interview with
Fox News on Aug. 9.
At a "Black Voices for Trump" campaign rally in Atlanta, Georgia, Trump characterized his
Platinum Plan as a "black empowerment plan," and warned black voters against supporting his
opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden.
"Though black Americans have traditionally been shut out of opportunities to grow our own
businesses and create generational wealth, President Trump is working hard to give us access
to the American Dream," K. Carl Smith, Black Voices for Trump advisory board member, said in
a
statement .
"President Trump is a businessman and understands that pride, community, and dedication
are built through entrepreneurship."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
President Donald Trump elbow bumps with Herschel Walker during a campaign rally in Atlanta,
Georgia, on Sept. 25, 2020. (John Bazemore/AP Photo)
"No one in Washington politics today has done more to hurt black Americans than Joe
Biden," Trump told supporters on Friday. "For half a century, Joe's personally advocated or
enacted virtually every policy that has caused pain and suffering in the black community. You
know that."
In a statement prior to Trump's rally in Georgia, Biden said, "As president, I will work to
advance racial equity across the American economy and build back better I promise to fight for
black working families and direct real investments to advance racial equity as part of our
nation's economic recovery."
play_arrow
Stormtrooper , 6 hours ago
Hey Donald, don't forget about us non-privileged, unemployed white folk. We could use
a few greenbacks too.
risitasse , 6 hours ago
Trump likes everybody but whites.
YesWeKahn , 6 hours ago
This is insanity, while everyone is suffering, only black people get special
treatment, only because of their skin color. In this country, we can see: only black
lives matter.
risitasse , 6 hours ago
So, KKK is terrorist but not BLM ?
Hilarious.
farflungstar , 6 hours ago
90% of interracial crime is black on white.
Bribing them even more won't fix that.
Cornbred , 6 hours ago
"Prosecuting the kkk" for what exactly? They've been irrelevant for 30 +/- years and I
can't remember a crime committed by that organization that made National news.
echoes , 7 hours ago
Trump's all in on BLM lmao
The fraudster-in-chief.
farflungstar , 7 hours ago
Wait BLM not a terrorist organization? Yes Antifa is but the KKK? Isn't that an
irrelevant Boomer organization filled with feds?
Lol BLM will be relieved to hear that so they can carry on harassing people and
rioting every time one of their criminal good boys gets shot by the police.
Xena fobe , 7 hours ago
BLM is a front for billionaires. Antifa is easier to pick on.
pods , 7 hours ago
13% of population. High % cannot vote due to felony conviction. Turnout %?
And on a good republican year they get 10% of that? Most monolithic voting block there
ever was. 500 billion (promised lol) for another 5% of that? Might better court the
beaners. They are the up and comers anyways.
Deep Snorkeler , 3 hours ago
WOW! I wish I was black.
I could enjoy immense privileges and free money.
Poor white Trumpkins, suckers.
Locker up , 3 hours ago
Platinum plan for black votes but Dog-Poop Plan for whitey.
Taffer , 4 hours ago
So, as a heterosexual white man that makes up the majority of Trump's base....why
should I be voting for him again? I mean, where's my "Platinum Plan?"
Making Juneteenth a National Holiday alone might actually be enough to just make me
skip the election this year. I mean crap, if the Republicans new brilliant plan is just
to go ahead and become Democrats to win votes for people who will never vote for them,
I'm done.
risitasse , 3 hours ago
No matter who wins the election, (((Goldman Sachs))) wins.
Hope we get some real conservatives next election.
outsider88 , 6 hours ago
pandering for votes. donald biden or joe trump?
outsider88 , 6 hours ago
pandering for votes. donald biden or joe trump?
Manthong , 6 hours ago
So now maybe we will get the Gold Plan for Hispanic Americans, the Silver Plan for
Asian Americans, the Red Plan for Native Americans and then finally the Brown Plan for
White Americans who will incrementally become more brown over time because of government
"policy"..
This is not racist, it is physics and biology.
Chuck Walla , 6 hours ago
Amen! When a culture fosters violence and killing as the first option in any conflict,
civilization will be hard to acquire and retain. Avoid them until they can reform their
child rearing skills.
R Crumb , 6 hours ago
LBJ did it to us with his "Great Society".
He should have had his head blown off, not JFK.
yojimbo , 5 hours ago
What about the Nation of Islam, that works against all that? And if you have issues -
why is Christianity failing the black community?!
flajim7 , 4 hours ago
They are trying to protect themselves, when the time comes they are outed and the
ropes are strung. They feel empowered knowing their hangman committed a national hate
crime.
teutonicate , 3 hours ago
Trump Unveils "Platinum Plan" For Black Americans, Designates Antifa, KKK As
"Terrorist Organizations"
Just as an aside, as far as I am concerned, blacks have been on the platinum plan
since the sixties - and it hasn't helped them one bit.
I am agnostic regarding the KKK, but to truly understand the origins of this
organization you need to do some historical research - and understand that it was
literally the only law and order in the south during the reconstruction period after the
civil war. Also, as you evaluate the KKK in its historical context, please remember that
five presidents were members of the KKK - so please don't pretend that it had no rational
justified political support, at least at one time in our history.
Categorizing the KKK as a terrorist organization, given the fact that to the best of
cosmic knowledge there is no recent evidence of "terrorist behavior" exercised by the
KKK, in stark contrast to the actual behavior of Antifa, dilutes the categorization of
Antifa as a terrorist organization. This is a political move, but at this point if I can
find any politician willing to identify Antifa (and don't forget BLM) as terrorist, I am
willing to accept political sops like parallel identification of the KKK as such - if
that happens to placate the current political zeitgeist.
WTF, I'm white and I don't even get a "platinum plan". Not fair.
metaforge , 33 minutes ago
It's carefully targeted to "areas" that are typically largely black, not direct
reparations just because of skin color. And it's an investment in business, not just the
usual Dem dole. Clever.
FolloDaMoney , 46 seconds ago
(((They))) gave you a "platinum plan" and you do not realize it .
(((Their))) plan to genocide your White race into oblivion is succeeding beyond all
expectations and has acquired record breaking platinum status .
Trump's Five Hundred BILLION USD reparations plan for "black empowerment" is on top of
the more than two TRILLION USD federal spending on blacks , since ww2 , and on top of the
650,000 White lives expended by the federal government to win the US Civil War which was
fought to prevent the Southern Confederate secession that was instigated by northern
abolitionists of southern enslavements of African kneegroes whom are now called American
Blacks .
That 500 BILLION USD will be underwritten by the politicly anemic and largest ethnic
culture , which is White Christian sheepill , in the USA .
The fanaticly loyal White Trumppians are completely delusional about Trump being their
God-ordained savior .
The vast majority of Whites are Christian sheepill and they simply do not have the
political intelligence ( not IQ ) to end their racial suicide which is also known as
nothing less than a technical genocide against Whites that ends in a very real extinction
.
vovishka.2018 , 5 hours ago
socialism is here
US has socialism for the corporations, MIC, the bankers and the 1% where earning are
privatize & losses and debt are socialized. The rest is pretend socialism (:
The plan is a desperate vote buying scheme. Why Trump didn't announce this 2-3 months
after he took office but waits until about 1 month before the election?
Because Trump knows the proposal will not get through Congress. It is a mere plan, a
declaration of intent. Congress will eventually trash it, but the plan will survive long
enough to get Trump past the election, or at least through first debate.
The election lies are flying thick and fast like always , neither prospect will be a
good choice as the whole thing is just a farce.
ineluctable , 3 hours ago
Tax dollars ... yeah right... Everything is bought with DEBT. It will be your grand
kids who pay up. Enjoy living large on their backs.
Blackcubic , 7 hours ago
Fvck off with your MAGA. It was a lie and scam by Trump
GlobeTrekker , 6 hours ago
You can support MAGA (Trump) and not like this move.
It's just more pandering to blacks, and designating the KKK a terrorist organization
is ridiculous, because it has been toothless for 50 years, and blacks kill more blacks in
one year than the blacks lynched by the KKK in 100 years.
y_arrow
Leroy Whitby , 7 hours ago
Most likely Trump will deregulate massively in a way that helps blacks form
businesses, get jobs, compete for EXISTING state funds by black churches etc. I don't see
how you could read Trump's proposal negatively.
Mineshaft Gap , 6 hours ago
You must realize it's a game.
Trump has literally no allies in Congress who will fund Platinumania. The GOP would
always rather fight a nice profitable war somewhere. The Dems won't let him help their
urban vassals one iota.
It's all empty promises for votes. . .which may just work! Peter Kirsanow runs the
numbers authoritatively: Dems are right at the tipping point where black support for
Trump could cost them fatally.
hal0bender , 7 hours ago
So what's he gonna do for White americans, the founding stock of this country? Why are
these people treated like sacred cows? Have we not had 50+ years of ******** welfare,
affirmative action, etc?
GlobeTrekker , 6 hours ago
That also!
Whites, and especially white men, are treated like sheeot nowadays, and occupy a lower
status than every other race (except maybe Asians) in college admissions, college
scholarships, loans, and jobs. You cannot create or continue a top-shelf society by
continually lifting up the less capable, less hard-working, less intelligent, at the
expense of the best.
I'm sick of the mindless pandering to minorities and women (yes, it is true) at the
expense of white men (and Asians many times as well). This is why Atlas shruggs.
Shadow1275 , 7 hours ago
And we have officially become South Africa. Witness how in two single generations,
White Europeans have undone the work of thousands of past generations of their ancestors.
All that spilt blood, all those tears, war after bloody war to gain land and
prosperity.
Supreme Dudeness , 3 hours ago
What is privilege???
1) Privilege is wearing $200 sneakers when you've never had a job.
2) Privilege is wearing $300 Beats headphones while living on public assistance.
3) Privilege is having a Smartphone with a Data plan, which you receive no bill
for.
4) Privilege is living in public subsidized housing where you don't have a utility or
phone bill and where rising property taxes, rents and energy costs have absolutely no
effect on the amount of food you can put on your table, which is largely covered by
Government Food Stamps.
5) Privilege is having free health insurance for you and your family that's paid for
by working taxpayers who often can't afford proper health coverage for their own
families.
6) Privilege is having multiple national organizations promoting and protecting just
your race alone -- that are subsidized by federal tax dollars.
7) Privilege is having access to a national college fund that supports only one
race.
8) Privilege is having a television network that supports only one race.
9) Privilege is having most of the media news networks refuse to cover incidents
wherein one race (one-eighth of the population) commits 50% of the crimes.
10) Privilege is the ability to go march against, and protest against anything that
triggers you, without worrying about calling off from work and the consequences that
accompany such.
11) Privilege is having as many children as you want, regardless of your employment
status, and be able to send them off to daycare or pre-school you don't pay for.
12) Privilege is being able to vote in many states without showing a driver's license,
voter ID card or other credentials -- just because your race claims they should be exempt
from such requirements.
13) Privilege is being able to riot, loot, commit arson and tear down historic
monuments without consequences -- just because you don't like folks such as Columbus, U.
S. Grant or even Lincoln.
14) Privilege is being able to get into almost any college of your choosing based on
your race, not your grades or merit.
15) Privilege is having most of your life paid for by the working men and women who DO
HAVE TO DEAL WITH RISING TAXES AND COSTS! you know, those you now call
"PRIVILEGED."
_arrow
Son of Loki , 5 hours ago
Biden calls it a "Reparation Tax"
Trump calls it a "Platinum Plan"
In any case, the middle class whitey gets screwed and needs to work harder.
Blankone , 3 hours ago
You could give the black community $5 trillion and they would not produce new wealth,
but would simply ask for more.
For example, look at every once White dominated country in Africa where the blacks
have taken over. Every single time the productive country turns to subsistence level
existence.
Look at the great farms taken from the Whites in Africa, they all decayed to nothing
due to the blacks.
No motivation, no ability.
Psst - look at every once productive city in the USA once the blacks become 50% of the
occupants.
play_arrow 1
Billy the Poet , 7 hours ago
Looks like maybe Trump is trying to buy the black vote with big government programs.
He has a good chance of success. But do we really need more socialism?
Trump has committed himself to deregulation. Perhaps he could focus on eliminating
taxes and regulations that weigh heaviest on poor and minority neighborhoods rather than
by making even more expensive promises about forty acres and a mule.
GlobeTrekker , 6 hours ago
Love Trump, but calling the KKK a terrorist organization smacks of Clinton-era
"domestic right-wing terrorism" BS, and mindless pandering to blacks. The KKK has been
toothless for 40 years, and even if they weren't, as Bob Woodson (civil rights leader,
and not your typical black race pimp) has said many times blacks kill more blacks in ONE
YEAR than the KKK did in lynching blacks over a period of 100 years.
Alot of the rest seems like more gibs for blacks.
Liesel , 7 hours ago
Some people figured out that by backing white Americans in a corner by using the race
card against them, they could change the very fabric of our nation. That's where we are
right now. No politician has enough gonads to call BLM the terrorist organization that
they are. This is one of the most concerning events I have ever seen in my lifetime.
inorganic , 6 hours ago
As much as I like the idea of "blacks" (whatever that actually means) living and
enjoying better and more prosperous lives ... I very much dislike adopting inherently
racist approaches.
Seriously. Why have a separate plan for blacks? And another for hispanics? And another
for asians? And another for females? And another for gays and lesbians? And another for
transgenders? And another for multigenders? And another for the poor? And 50 more for
every other real and fictional category one can conceive?
Seriously!
How about you just stop the rich and elites and connected and hyper-rich and
globalists from having special artificial advantages over everyone else? Ever think of
that? Ever think of the fact that if ALL the artificial special advantages were removed,
then everyone down below (at ALL levels below) would have a VASTLY easier time to improve
their own lives ... WITH NO SPECIAL PLANS OR HANDOUTS OR PROGRAMS REQUIRED .
-----
This creating special programs for every freaking real and fictional distinction that
any warped mind can conceive of does what? It tells people to think of others NOT as
human beings LIKE THEMSELVES ... but as member of other groups that have special programs
to aid them. So now EVERYONE has to compete with everyone else to get more and better
special handouts and programs and treatment than all the other groups. Which means
everyone is encouraged to think of all others as fundamentally NOT LIKE THEMSELVES and in
fact INHERENTLY AGAINST THEM as in INHERENTLY THEIR ENEMY .
-----
Seriously. Do I want to see blacks have better and more enjoyable lives? Yes! Damn
straight! Do I want everyone else to have better and more enjoyable lives? Yes! Damn
straight! Do I want the rich, privileged, connected and hyper-rich live worse and less
enjoyable lives? Well, YES --- to the 99.9% of them who did not earn their wealth
honestly without taking advantage of any special setups. To the other 0.1% --- more power
to you, and enjoy your wonderful lives. And that 99.9% who didn't earn what they have?
Even with a massively reduced wealth and privilege they'll live a vastly better life than
the other 99.9% ... so I'm not gonna cry for them, that's for sure!
Why set everyone against everyone else?
That is NOT necessary. I'm betting that 99.999% of blacks and all those other bogus
"groups" understand very clearly that a tiny percentage of rich and connected have a VAST
and mostly ARTIFICIAL advantage over everyone else --- AND they understand that if all
those artificial advantages were removed, THEY would do vastly better. And most
important, they would have a vastly better chance and easier time moving up the success
and wealth ladder.
Trump should stop falling into the Marxist trap by adopting the Marxist approach. I
agree that disadvantaged should be helped ... but they can be helped without creating
more artificial injustices. Where does the current Marxist approach end? With everyone
against everyone ... and a tiny elite at the top who are hyper-doodle-dandy rich and
powerful, with everyone else an abject slave.
-----
PS: Another problem with these endless special programs is ... the already rich and
connected always get richer and more connected by "administering" and "executing" these
special programs.
Maghreb2 , 6 hours ago
I agree with what your saying but your a ****** because its not a free market and
those rules haven't applied anywhere on the planet since 1970. It was dangerous idea to
think that way in the 19th century because the rich inherit and the middle class invent
jobs to fleece the tax payer. Now they do both plus they print money and give it to the
stock market all the time. Black areas can't afford to exist because they are caught
between tens of millions of Hispanic migrants, hundreds of millions of factory workers
Artificial intelligence automation and trillions of dollars pumped into the system to
gentrify. Its a fools errand.
If the whites stopped playing pretend for ten seconds they would realize 90% of jobs
can be automated with robotics and AI and/or done cheaper somewhere else. You have to be
Godlike to be relevant and funnily enough the Sportsman and Musicians occasionally are.
They don't make billions on Wall Street and can't retire if they don't make enough
money.
I predicted a plane crash 2 days ago it was actually a bombing. Its not a meritocracy
its a war. Humans have to fight for survival now and the fight will just get tougher. I
know the people who run the show its amusing for them .
inorganic , 6 hours ago
Every now and then I ask myself whether my desire for everyone to have a more fair
chance to rise to better situations is delusional ... if not wrong.
Well, I'm a long way from saying it is wrong, but the question of whether it is
delusional is always a difficult call for me. But I must say, as time passes, I have to
admit I am monotonically getting closer to saying it is. Which would be to agree with
you.
Part of the reason is ... there has always been (since I was 4 years old) such a huge
intellectual and existential gulf between my thoughts and actions versus the thoughts and
actions of others. The following are a few, just for context. Some are actually kind of
funny, but all were relevant.
age 4 : Based on hearing utterly contradictory statements from different adults, I
decided that I could not believe what adults tell me (meaning TRUST NO ONE ). Implicit in
this is the fact that I valued understanding reality infinitely more than getting treated
well (by repeating whatever adults told me).
age 4 : I taught myself to read (at least "well enough for now"). I still remember how
huge a struggle this was, and how much persistence was required. And got hooked on
astronomy. So I started reading lots of science books.
age 4 : I decided god does not exist. I won't go into the details of my reasoning, but
I literally thought I was the only human who believed this, because I never heard of of
anyone who also came to this conclusion.
age 5 : I decided to pretend I was an alien from another planet. This was a purposeful
intellectual device that I came up with to help me feel comfortable with not believing
what humans believe, and not feel pressure to conform (and thereby accept fiction and
nonsense). I decided I would operate as if I was an alien from somewhere far, far away
... and my job was simply to observe what these strange creatures do and believe.
age 5 : I figured out that "authority" was a bogus concept (later I would say
"fictional" concept). I distinguished "trade" from "authority".
age 5 : The very first thing at the start of the very first day of first grade, the
teacher made all the kids stand up, solemnly place their hand over their heart, and
repeat the "pledge of allegiance". I stood up, and I crossed both arms across my chest to
slightly simulate the whole reverence action, but did not say a word. I just listened.
And I thought about what was said. I recognized exactly what was being said, right from
the start. They wanted me to pledge to obey (in effect, to be a slave). But that wasn't
bad enough, I was supposed to be a slave to an inanimate object (a flag). That somehow
represents a "republic" (whatever that is, which I didn't know at the time). Then some
absurd filler. Then the payoff! The "with liberty and justice for all". I don't know why
I was different than the rest of the kids, but I recognized what I would later learn is a
concept called "bookends". This "pledge" was explicitly saying that "what constitutes
liberty and justice is ... being a slave!!! ". Holy crap! Until that moment I had not
realized how infinitely nefarious and diabolical human beings could be! But that set me
straight. Furthermore, at recess I tried to have conversations with other kids about what
happened first thing that morning. Not a single one of them noticed a thing. Some just
ran away laughing. Obviously the most evil and atrocious thing I had ever witnessed meant
nothing to them.
age 5 : Later that day (first day of school) the teacher pointed at the big A above
the blackboard and told the class "repeat after me". Then she said the word "A". The
class repeated. Then she did the same with "B" and "C" and "D". At first, I thought
something very sophisticated and "beyond my pea brain" was going on. What are they doing?
After a while, I figured it out ... the other kids can't read! They don't even know the
freaking alphabet. What am I doing here? :-o
age 5 : Based on the previous item I mentioned, I decided to ignore teachers. I would
spend all day reading my science books while the teachers were doing ... whatever they
were doing.
The rest of my life is just as "different" and "wacko" as the above. Even more so,
actually. But one constant was ... I diligently worked to observe and understand reality
based on my own observations (including with telescopes, which I taught myself to build).
And though I did play physical sports outside with other kids, almost all my time was
spent working on my own studies and projects.
In fact, after I got out of high school, the rest of my life I lived on an average of
36 to 48 hour days ... 12 hours of sleep and 24 to 36 hours of observe, study, work. And
mow lawns, shovel snow and babysit for neighbors for money to do my projects.
The bottom line is ... can I expect other humans to be or think even REMOTELY like me
after living such a different life? I think you are saying NO WAY . And I am getting
closer to agreement.
John Grady , 6 hours ago
BLM took that **** off their website saying that part of their plan was to destroy the
nuclear family a few days ago so I guess now they're wholesome. It's a LGBTQ outfit ran
by Marxist lesbians. Compared to them the KKK looks like the 4H Club.
Arch_Stanton , 4 hours ago
If antifa is a terrorist organization, then the Feds should go after their funding
sources immediately. It's publicly known who many of them are.
Not happening. Ever.
As for the KKK, you'd be arresting a lot of FBI agents working undercover in what is
essentially a honey pot.
"Trump doesn't even have the balls to go after the people who spied on him and tried to
remove him from office. This is actually the greatest political scandal in American
history, yet nothing will be done about it."
I don't think anyone was actually trying to remove him from office (they could've added
his war crimes and violations of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to the
impeachment charges if they were serious about removing him). Most likely it's all political
theater to fool the people who need and/or want to be fooled.
All of those who wish to blame only the "Boomers" for Russophobia, Sinophobia and
Iranophobia, need to also look in the mirror. At least at their generation (whichever nomen)
and consider how many even bloody well think, care about what we have done, and continue to
do to any and every people, nation, country beyond these shores that does not bow in
obeisance to the US/western demands, requirements.
As for the election - there is nowt democratic about any of it, nor has there been about
any such within the shores. The choice is (and has been for yonks and yonks) between two
faces of one single party, both of which are most generously bribed (sorry, funded) and
corrupted by all the corporate-capitalist-imperialist companies who make vast fortunes from
bleeding other peoples and countries dry, with bombs, via sanctions or taking over their
natural resources... A so-called two party system plus an Electoral College, deliberately
designed to ensure that the "bewildered herd" (i.e. the ordinary bods) would have no real say
(they might overturn the existing plutocratic order)is not a democracy, even less one when
the populace has only a perfunctory say in choosing between this or that permissible
candidate (permissible by the ruling elites, that is).
Regarding the Boomers - NOT all alike, either financially (not hardly) or politically
(even less hardly). (And I grew up from the late 1940s-1950s in the UK and WE had NO duck and
cover shit and I have zero recollection of any anti USSR crapola; indeed the Red Army choir
used to visit [not that we saw them till we got a tv when I was 10].)
"... The duplicitousness of exploiting misery is especially vile if a candidate knows from the start millions of his enthusiastic supporters comprised of minorities, the young, and the marginalized will ultimately be hoodwinked into supporting, Biden, a demented warmongering crook who is medically propped up to execute a seven minute campaign speech. ..."
"... And there you have it – democracy in action. This is the kind of democracy the US is promoting throughout the planet. This is the reason behind every regime change war. To put it simply–the US intelligence agencies want to control the sovereign leaders of every government. They wish every leader was as brain dead as Biden–their job would be a lot easier. ..."
"... I am afraid you've hit upon the crux of the matter. One would think after Bernie playing the role of sheepdog in 2016 rather than challenging the DNC and Hillary at the convention over the leaked emails exposing the utter corruption of the process that people would be less than trusting of Bernie in 2020. Yet here we are again. ..."
"... Tulsi is the only one who dares speak the truth regarding the war machine, thus she has been excluded. ..."
"... we may now adapt this old Chernenko joke: "Today, due to bad health and without regaining consciousness, Konstantin Ustinovich Chernenko took up the duties of Secretary General". ..."
"Bernie Sanders has done his best to cover up: the Democratic Party is a party of the
capitalist class. It can no more be converted to socialism than the CIA can become an
instrument of the struggle against American imperialism."
The duplicitousness of exploiting misery is especially vile if a candidate knows from
the start millions of his enthusiastic supporters comprised of minorities, the young, and the
marginalized will ultimately be hoodwinked into supporting, Biden, a demented warmongering
crook who is medically propped up to execute a seven minute campaign speech.
Large campaign rallies might not be a concern for much longer, inasmuch, as the security
state will probably end rallies saying they fear large crowds will spread the coronavirus.
Once rallies are no longer a consideration the intelligence agencies will only need to prop
up "drooling Joe" in front of a gold curtain flanked by numerous American flags. Drooling
Joe, will read a short speech rehearsed numerous times and then he'll be quickly ushered off
the stage before the public can detect Joe is mentally more dead than alive.
And there you have it – democracy in action. This is the kind of democracy the
US is promoting throughout the planet. This is the reason behind every regime change war. To
put it simply–the US intelligence agencies want to control the sovereign leaders of
every government. They wish every leader was as brain dead as Biden–their job would be
a lot easier.
Trillions of working-class tax dollars are absconded by the military/security/surveillance
corporate state to fight endless NEEDLESS wars to fatten the pockets of war profiteers and
every other ancillary grifter. Genocide is committed throughout the Middle East and Africa to
spread US democracy. A democracy where the will of the people is crushed.
Skip Scott , March 10, 2020 at 09:04
I am afraid you've hit upon the crux of the matter. One would think after Bernie
playing the role of sheepdog in 2016 rather than challenging the DNC and Hillary at the
convention over the leaked emails exposing the utter corruption of the process that people
would be less than trusting of Bernie in 2020. Yet here we are again.
Tulsi is the only one who dares speak the truth regarding the war machine, thus she
has been excluded. The only way I would ever vote for Bernie would be if he picked Tulsi
for his running mate. That would likely involve both of them leaving the democratic party and
running as Independents. In the end, only a revolution has any hope for bringing meaningful
change. The evil that controls both parties, the MIC, and the MSM will not be brought under
control willingly.
Hans Suter , March 9, 2020 at 09:52
we may now adapt this old Chernenko joke: "Today, due to bad health and without
regaining consciousness, Konstantin Ustinovich Chernenko took up the duties of Secretary
General".
If we allow the Black Lives Matter movement to become America's Bolshevik Revolution, we
will lose our liberty, and many of us will likely lose our lives, as well, for daring to
question them. This was never about racism. It has been about power anBlack Lives
Matter is a Modern Totalitarian Revolution
Classic totalitarian regimes share a number of common characteristics. The
rise of these regimes began with a cultural revolution, aimed at angering the citizens against
the current system. During that period domestic enemies are designated, and the people in the
radical movement aiming at overthrowing the old system rally together against those common
enemies, calling it a common struggle, as they adopt a new official ideology that stands
significantly apart from the old one. They seek to control every aspect of the lives of their
people, enlisting everyone they can to participate in the struggle. Even persons who may belong
to enemy classes or groups join up, hoping to receive mercy when the new regime gains control.
In Stalin's Russia and Mao's China the enemies were anyone who reminded them of the old system,
and anyone who could challenge them if left with enough power. The state enemies were the
capitalists, landlords, richer peasants and foreign agents of all kinds. Nazi Germany included
those outside the national community, which included socialists (even though Nazism was a form
of socialism) and communists, Jews, Christians, and any ethnic minorities that did not fit into
the German model of a loyal elite specimen.
The goal of each of the totalitarian regimes of the past were to eliminate the old system,
eradicate any history or remnant of the old regimes, and create a dominant single party that
stood as a rebellious alternative of the traditional State. Then, once in power, the perceived
enemies were murdered or imprisoned, as were many of their allies for the crime of knowing too
much. The younger generation was used as a controlling mechanism, taught to tattle on their
older counterparts for not being one hundred percent in favor of the new party in charge. The
youngsters were uniformed and organized into militias to turn their energies towards advancing
the party line, and improving upon the power of the new political elite.
In each case anything that even resembled the free market was eliminated, and the new
government controlled the economy. They took over the means of production either by taking
control of it and nationalizing it, or through heavy regulations (as we saw in Italy and
Germany). The immigration structure was altered, they orchestrated a break-down of morality and
what were considered moral norms in their culture, they worked on the destruction of the
nuclear family, they forcibly reallocated farmland, they formed a socialist economy that was
designed to redistribute the wealth away from the designated domestic enemies into the hands of
those revolutionaries who deserved some kind of reparations for what was allegedly lost at the
hands of the domestic enemies, and early on looting and rioting was encouraged and championed.
Interestingly, the list I just gave you was not just something the NAZIs and communists did,
but is also a list of demands currently being voiced by Black Lives Matter.
Public expression was also controlled by past dictatorial regimes so that no dissent could
emerge. If dissent was spotted, the party members acted as a mob, actively mobilized to quell
the dissent in the name of the "people's struggle" against a constant list of enemies. Again,
Black Lives Matter fits the bill on this one, too.
These regimes exaggerated real problems, and real aspects of human nature, and created an
on-going revolution against their enemies. It was a common struggle to liberate the people from
whomever the leadership designated as an enemy. To not pull the party line was to be socially
asleep, or an agent of the enemy, which then would place the person under great scrutiny, and
if they remained uncorrected, they would be ridiculed, shamed, and eventually jailed, or
murdered.
The fuel was passion, and anger, and a common demand for answers.
Sound familiar?
Black Lives Matter is an embodiment of everything that the 20th Century dictatorships
were
Eventually, Black Lives Matter will lose its appeal, and the players will grow weary of the
struggle. The regime will weaken, and when they try to invigorate their revolutionaries for a
new fight in order to strengthen the resolve of the regime and its followers, they will find
that all of their enemies are dead or in exile, and the problem can no longer be blamed on
others. However, it could take half a century, or more, before that happens, and in a Black
Lives Matter America the damage will already have been done. The death of liberty and the
annihilation of the free market will have left a long path of sorrow and misery following it.
By then, the enemy will only be themselves, and as all regimes in history, the struggle will
turn inward, and the murders will be against their own. Through the paranoia imaginary enemies
will be concocted, where nobody is safe from the suspicions of one's neighbors or children.
People begin to vanish, and the party begins to struggle to hold on to control.
Black Lives Matter, like all past dictatorial regimes, has successfully unleashed the
passions of many members of the public. The campaigns of terror are in full swing, in the name
of protesting, in the name of social justice, and in the name of standing against racism. They
claim that science and reason are in their corner, when, like Stalin and Mao of the Soviet
Union and Communist China, it is all a great big lie. They claim whites have unfair privilege
and must be forced to kneel to their true overlords, as Hitler did with the Jews when he
believed it would allow him to create a better Germany. In the end, as with all violent
totalitarian regimes, violence will bring them down just as violence brought them into
power.
Tucker on the incredible popularity of Black Lives Matter
Islamic totalitarianism solidifies in the Middle East, and works to spread across the
nations of Europe
As Islamic totalitarianism solidifies in the Middle East, and works to spread across the
nations of Europe, Black Lives Matter totalitarianism is working its way through its birthing
canal in the United States. Both bear all of the markers of totalitarianism. They work to
control the lives, speech, and actions of those below them. They terrorize and murder,
committing themselves to endless struggles against a long list of designated enemies. They pose
as more than an ideological challenge. They are poised to bring down Western Civilization,
which has prospered due to America's Liberty, and free market capitalistic system.
Should we fall, to where may one escape? There is no other place to go. Black Lives Matter
is a real threat, an enemy who desires to overthrow America and control this country. There is
no criticizing Black Lives Matter. The mobs threaten anyone who holds dissent. It is already
happening. People are losing their jobs for criticizing Black Lives Matter, and they are still
only a political movement. Black Lives Matter is enjoying complete immunity from criticism
while they are not in power. Imagine what will happen if they ever gain a hold on the reins of
our system.
It has gone beyond a demand for equality. Equality is no longer acceptable. If one were to
say "All Lives Matter," for example, that is now unacceptable, and racist. Only "Black Lives
Matter" we are told. White lives don't matter because of what your ancestors allegedly did a
couple hundred years ago. Christianity and the American System is based on the idea of equality
in the eyes of God, and equality in opportunity (or at least the attempt to create a system
that accomplishes such), but now if you say that out loud, you are called a racist, and your
very life could be at risk. Dissent is hate speech. You could be fired from your job, or in
some cases, fined and jailed for daring to speak out against the rising totalitarian regime
known as Black Lives Matter because such murmurings could be considered "hate speech".
The latest demand by Black Lives Matter is ridiculous, yet it is happening. It began with a
chant, "defund the police," and now has advanced to cries to abolish the police. The City of
Minneapolis is in the process of doing exactly that. When asked on CNN who, then, if the police
were gone, should we call in the middle of the night while our house is being burglarized,
a member of the Minneapolis city council said that the question "comes from a place of
privilege." In other words, if some feel like law enforcement is not on their side,
everyone should feel that way, otherwise, you have an unfair privilege, and you are racist.
Black Lives Matter is enjoying a rise to power largely because of the liberal media
Black Lives Matter is enjoying a rise to power largely because of the liberal media. Any
counter-arguments against their claims are going unheard. CNN, MSNBC, NPR, the alphabet
networks, and any of the other liberal outlets aren't going to report any criticism of Black
Lives Matter. And as Hitler's team explained, if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the
truth. In this case, if you tell one side of the story, and the other side is never heard, it
becomes true.
Unchallenged claims must be true, therefore, Black Lives Matter must be on to something. The
polls say so.
Black Lives Matter is achieving their power in the same way past revolutionaries did.
Through force. They break things, they burn things, and they hurt anyone who gets in the way.
They believe they deserve whatever they want, and if you don't give it to them, they will take
it. Then, on the way out, they will set your business on fire. They occupy, they terrorize, and
nobody is willing to stop them, because if you do, you are a racist. They know this. They know
you are paralyzed by your fear of them, and fear of being considered racist. They have a
message. Step out of line and we will hurt you, your family, or your business. That is the
strategy of Black Lives Matter, and it is becoming the strategy of the Democrat Party. If you
are afraid to defy the mob, the mob rules.
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution created this system to protect us from the mob. That is
why they created a constitutional republic, not a democracy (as some people like to say).
Democracy is historically a transitional type of government. When the mobs of democracy begin
to take control, which usually accompanies a continuous vote for benefits from the treasury,
liberty breaks down and dictators begin to take control.
If we allow the Black Lives Matter movement to become America's Bolshevik Revolution, we
will lose our liberty, and many of us will likely lose our lives, as well, for daring to
question them. This was never about racism. It has been about power and control since the very
beginning. Black Lives Matter seeks to overthrow the U.S. Constitution, and replace our system
with a Marxist-based government that destroys liberty and the free market, and places their
radical leaders in control of the country. If we don't stop it, and recognize the revolutionary
nature of what is going on, America will disappear forever. And, if there is no America,
Liberty dies worldwide.
Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary,
has been featured on "Hannity" and "Fox and Friends" on Fox News Channel, and other television
shows and networks. Doug is a Radio Host on KMET 1490-AM on Saturdays with his Constitution
Radio program, as well as a longtime podcaster, conservative political activist, writ
Tucker: This parading of Ginsburg death wish "is ridiculous and insulting"
Two neoliberal faction of the US elite ("hard neolibs" and "soft neolibs") struggle for power
really entered a new phase. BTW control of Supreme Court was always a part of struggle for power.
And this "royal wish" think is just one episode of this entertaining
fight. Great spectacle, but friends will unite when the time comes to approve the military
budget.
Why are people so upset about this "final wish" thing? Like it just seems convenient to me
and made up; and even if wasn't made up, who gives her the right to dictate how the
constitution works. It's obvious the Dems are using this to try and keep the GOP from getting
an extra seat on the Supreme Court, and I don't really blame them, GOP would have probably
done the same thing, they're both hypocrites.
When intelligence honchos became politicians the shadow of Lavrentiy Beria emerge behind
them. while politization of FBI create political police like Gestapo, politization of CIA is much
more serious and dangerous. It creates really tight control over the country by shadow
intelligence agency. In a sense CIA and the cornerstone of the "deep state"
Former CIA Director John Brennan personally edited a crucial section of the intelligence
report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and assigned a political ally to take a
lead role in writing it after career analysts disputed Brennan's take that Russian leader
Vladimir Putin intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump clinch the White House,
according to two senior U.S. intelligence officials who have seen classified materials
detailing Brennan's role in drafting the document.
John Brennan, left, with Robert Mueller in 2013: The CIA director's explosive conclusion in
the ICA helped justify continuing Trump-Russia "collusion" investigations, notably Mueller's
probe as special counsel. AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews
The explosive conclusion Brennan inserted into the report was used to help justify
continuing the Trump-Russia "collusion" investigation, which had been launched by the FBI in
2016. It was picked up after the election by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who in the end
found no proof that Trump or his campaign conspired with Moscow.
The Obama administration publicly released a declassified version of the report -- known as
the "Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent Elections
(ICA)" -- just two weeks before Trump took office, casting a cloud of suspicion over his
presidency. Democrats and national media have cited the report to suggest Russia influenced the
2016 outcome and warn that Putin is likely meddling again to reelect Trump.
The ICA is a key focus of U.S. Attorney John Durham's ongoing investigation into the origins
of the "collusion" probe. He wants to know if the intelligence findings were juiced for
political purposes.
RealClearInvestigations has learned that one of the CIA operatives who helped Brennan draft
the ICA, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, financially supported Hillary Clinton during the campaign and
is a close colleague of Eric Ciaramella,
identified last year by RCI as the Democratic national security "whistleblower" whose
complaint led to Trump's impeachment, ending in Senate acquittal in January.
John Durham: He is said to be using the long-hidden report on the drafting of the ICA as a
road map in his investigation of whether the Obama administration politicized intelligence.
Department of Justice via AP
The two officials said Brennan, who openly supported Clinton during the campaign, excluded
conflicting evidence about Putin's motives from the report , despite objections from some
intelligence analysts who argued Putin counted on Clinton winning the election and viewed Trump
as a "wild card."
The dissenting analysts found that Moscow preferred Clinton because it judged she would work
with its leaders, whereas it worried Trump would be too unpredictable. As secretary of state,
Clinton tried to "reset" relations with Moscow to move them to a more positive and cooperative
stage, while Trump campaigned on expanding the U.S. military, which Moscow perceived as a
threat.
These same analysts argued the Kremlin was generally trying to sow discord and disrupt the
American democratic process during the 2016 election cycle. They also noted that Russia tried
to interfere in the 2008 and 2012 races, many years before Trump threw his hat in the ring.
"They complained Brennan took a thesis [that Putin supported Trump] and decided he was
going to ignore dissenting data and exaggerate the importance of that conclusion, even though
they said it didn't have any real substance behind it," said a senior U.S intelligence
official who participated in a 2018 review of the spycraft behind the assessment, which
President Obama ordered after the 2016 election.
He elaborated that the analysts said they also came under political pressure to back
Brennan's judgment that Putin personally ordered "active measures" against the Clinton campaign
to throw the election to Trump, even though the underlying intelligence was "weak."
Adam Schiff: Soon after the Democrat took control of the House Intelligence Committee, its
review of the drafting of the intelligence community assessment was classified and locked in a
Capitol basement safe. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
The review, conducted by the House Intelligence Committee, culminated in a lengthy report
that was classified and locked in a Capitol basement safe soon after Democratic Rep. Adam
Schiff took control of the committee in January 2019.
The official said the committee spent more than 1,200 hours reviewing the ICA and
interviewing analysts involved in crafting it, including the chief of Brennan's so-called
"fusion cell," which was the interagency analytical group Obama's top spook stood up to look
into Russian influence operations during the 2016 election.
Durham is said to be using the long-hidden report, which runs 50-plus pages, as a road map
in his investigation of whether the Obama administration politicized intelligence while
targeting the Trump campaign and presidential transition in an unprecedented investigation
involving wiretapping and other secret surveillance.
The special prosecutor recently interviewed Brennan for several hours at CIA headquarters
after obtaining his emails, call logs and other documents from the agency. Durham has also
quizzed analysts and supervisors who worked on the ICA.
A spokesman for Brennan said that, according to Durham, he is not the target of a criminal
investigation and "only a witness to events that are under review." Durham's office did not
respond to requests for comment.
The senior intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss
intelligence matters, said former senior CIA political analyst Kendall-Taylor was a key member
of the team that worked on the ICA. A Brennan protégé, she donated hundreds of
dollars to Clinton's 2016 campaign, federal records show. In June, she gave $250 to the Biden
Victory Fund.
Andrea Kendall-Taylor: A Brennan protégé, she donated hundreds of dollars to
Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, and recently defended the ICA in a
"60 Minutes" interview . "60 Minutes"/YouTube
Kendall-Taylor and Ciaramella entered the CIA as junior analysts around the same time and
worked the Russia beat together at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. From 2015 to 2018,
Kendall-Taylor was detailed to the National Intelligence Council, where she was deputy national
intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. Ciaramella succeeded her in that position at NIC,
a unit of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that oversees the CIA and the
other intelligence agencies.
It's not clear if Ciaramella also played a role in the drafting of the January 2017
assessment. He was working in the White House as a CIA detailee at the time. The CIA declined
comment.
Kendall-Taylor did not respond to requests for comment, but she recently defended the ICA as
a national security expert in a CBS "60 Minutes" interview on Russia's election activities,
arguing it was a slam-dunk case "based on a large body of evidence that demonstrated not only
what Russia was doing, but also its intent. And it's based on a number of different sources,
collected human intelligence, technical intelligence."
But the secret congressional review details how the ICA, which was hastily put together over
30 days at the direction of Obama intelligence czar James Clapper, did not follow longstanding
rules for crafting such assessments. It was not farmed out to other key intelligence agencies
for their input, and did not include an annex for dissent, among other extraordinary departures
from past tradecraft.
Eric Ciaramella: The Democratic national security "whistleblower," whose complaint led to
President Trump's impeachment, was a close colleague of Kendall-Taylor. It's not clear if
Ciaramella also played a role in the drafting of the January 2017 assessment.
whitehouse.gov
It did, however, include a two-page annex summarizing allegations from a dossier compiled by
former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. His claim that Putin had personally
ordered cyberattacks on the Clinton campaign to help Trump win happened to echo the key finding
of the ICA that Brennan supported. Brennan had
briefed Democratic senators about allegations from the dossier on Capitol Hill.
"Some of the FBI source's [Steele's] reporting is consistent with the judgment in the
assessment," stated the appended summary, which the two intelligence sources say was written
by Brennan loyalists.
"The FBI source claimed, for example, that Putin ordered the influence effort with the aim
of defeating Secretary Clinton, whom Putin 'feared and hated.' "
Steele's reporting has since been discredited by the Justice Department's inspector general
as rumor-based opposition research on Trump paid for by the Clinton campaign. Several
allegations have been debunked, even by Steele's own primary source, who confessed to the FBI
that he ginned the rumors up with some of his Russian drinking buddies to earn money from
Steele.
Former FBI Director James Comey told the Justice Department's watchdog that the Steele
material, which he referred to as the "Crown material," was incorporated with the ICA because
it was "corroborative of the central thesis of the assessment "The IC analysts found it
credible on its face," Comey said.
Christopher Steele: His dossier allegations were summarized in a two-page annex to the
ICA, but dissenting views about the Kremlin's favoring Hillary Clinton over Trump were
excluded. Victoria Jones/PA via AP
The officials who have read the secret congressional report on the ICA dispute that. They
say a number of analysts objected to including the dossier, arguing it was political innuendo
and not sound intelligence.
"The staff report makes it fairly clear the assessment was politicized and skewed to
discredit Trump's election," said the second U.S. intelligence source, who also requested
anonymity.
Kendall-Taylor denied any political bias factored into the intelligence.
"To suggest that there was political interference in that process is ridiculous," she
recently told NBC News.
Her boss during the ICA's drafting was CIA officer Julia Gurganus. Clapper tasked Gurganus,
then detailed to NIC as its national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia, with
coordinating the production of the ICA with Kendall-Taylor.
They, in turn, worked closely with NIC's cybersecurity expert Vinh Nguyen, who had been
consulting with Democratic National Committee cybersecurity contractor CrowdStrike to gather
intelligence on the alleged Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer
system. (CrowdStrike's president has
testified he couldn't say for sure Russian intelligence stole DNC emails, according to
recently declassified transcripts.)
Durham's investigators have focused on people who worked at NIC during the drafting of the
ICA, according to recent published reports.
No Input From CIA's 'Russia House'
The senior official who identified Kendall-Taylor said Brennan did not seek input from
experts from CIA's so-called Russia House, a department within Langley officially called the
Center for Europe and Eurasia, before arriving at the conclusion that Putin meddled in the
election to benefit Trump.
"It was not an intelligence assessment. It was not coordinated in the [intelligence]
community or even with experts in Russia House," the official said. "It was just a small
group of people selected and driven by Brennan himself and Brennan did the editing."
The official noted that National Security Agency analysts also dissented from the conclusion
that Putin personally sought to tilt the scale for Trump. One of only three agencies from the
17-agency intelligence community invited to participate in the ICA, the NSA had a lower level
of confidence than the CIA and FBI, specifically on that bombshell conclusion.
The official said the NSA's departure was significant because the agency monitors the
communications of Russian officials overseas. Yet it could not corroborate Brennan's preferred
conclusion through its signals intelligence. Former NSA Director Michael Rogers, who has
testified that the conclusion about Putin and Trump "didn't have the same level of sourcing and
the same level of multiple sources," reportedly has been cooperating with Durham's probe.
The second senior intelligence official, who has read a draft of the still-classified House
Intelligence Committee review, confirmed that career intelligence analysts complained that the
ICA was tightly controlled and manipulated by Brennan, who previously worked in the Obama White
House.
N
Brennan's tight control over the process of drafting the ICA belies public claims the
assessment reflected the "consensus of the entire intelligence community." His unilateral role
also raises doubts about the objectivity of the intelligence.
In his defense, Brennan has pointed to a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report that
found "no reason to dispute the Intelligence Community's conclusions."
"The ICA correctly found the Russians interfered in our 2016 election to hurt Secretary
Clinton and help the candidacy of Donald Trump," argued committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner,
D-Va.
"Our review of the highly classified ICA and underlying intelligence found that this and
other conclusions were well-supported," Warner added.
"There is certainly no reason to doubt that the Russians' success in 2016 is leading them
to try again in 2020, and we must not be caught unprepared."
Brennan, ex-Obama homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco and ex-national intelligence
director James Clapper, interviewed by Nicolle Wallace of MSNBC, right, at a 2018 Aspen
Instutute event. Aspen
Institute
However, the report
completely blacks out a review of the underlying evidence to support the Brennan-inserted
conclusion, including an entire section labeled "Putin Ordered Campaign to Influence U.S.
Election." Still, it suggests elsewhere that conclusions are supported by intelligence with
"varying substantiation" and with "differing confidence levels." It also notes "concerns about
the use of specific sources."
Adding to doubts, the committee relied heavily on the closed-door testimony of former Obama
homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco, a close Brennan ally who met with Brennan and his
"fusion team" at the White House before and after the election. The extent of Monaco's role in
the ICA is unclear.
Brennan last week pledged he would cooperate with two other Senate committees investigating
the origins of the Russia "collusion" investigation. The Senate judiciary and governmental
affairs panels recently gained authority to subpoena Brennan and other witnesses to
testify.
Several Republican lawmakers and former Trump officials are clamoring for the
declassification and release of the secret House staff report on the ICA.
"It's dynamite," said former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz, who reviewed the staff report while
serving as chief of staff to then-National Security Adviser John Bolton.
"There are things in there that people don't know," he told RCI.
"It will change the dynamic of our understanding of Russian meddling in the election."
However, according to the intelligence official who worked on the ICA review, Brennan
ensured that it would be next to impossible to declassify his sourcing for the key judgment on
Putin. He said Brennan hid all sources and references to the underlying intelligence behind a
highly sensitive and compartmented wall of classification.
He explained that he and Clapper created two classified versions of the ICA – a highly
restricted Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information version that reveals the sourcing,
and a more accessible Top Secret version that omits details about the sourcing.
Unless the classification of compartmented findings can be downgraded, access to Brennan's
questionable sourcing will remain highly restricted, leaving the underlying evidence
conveniently opaque, the official said.
The ICA is a key focus of U.S. Attorney John Durham's ongoing investigation into the
origins of the "collusion" probe. He wants to know if the intelligence findings were
juiced for political purposes.
No, you think? We fought all of WWII in less time than it takes to make the first
indictments of these ******* traitors. And that assumes they will happen EVENTUALLY,
which they won't.
lay_arrow
NoDebt , 1 hour ago
Used to be it would take somewhere from a couple months to a couple years for
conspiracy theory to be proven conspiracy fact around here.
Now it's four years and counting. Pretty soon it will be a decade or more. Then....
who really cares? Once you've successfully stretched something out that long who really
gives a **** anyway?
If the government finally admitted that Oswald didn't really shoot JFK and that it was
some CIA ***** from the grassy knoll, would you really care at this point? If the
government admitted that there really were aliens in Area 51, would your world really be
rocked by that revelation at this point? Something a little more contemporary, you say?
Fine. What about WTC 7? If conspiracy theories were all confirmed on that one would you
really have a hard time sleeping tonight?
On a long enough timeline everyone stops giving a **** about the truth.
y_arrow
Md4 , 2 hours ago
" The explosive conclusion Brennan inserted into the report was used to help justify
continuing the Trump-Russia "collusion" investigation, which had been launched by the FBI
in 2016. It was picked up after the election by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who in
the end found no proof that Trump or his campaign conspired with Moscow."
While wasting thirty million dollars...and two focking years of our
lives...
ay_arrow
NoDebt , 1 hour ago
It's not even done yet, man. Clock is still running. Four years and counting, end to
end. If Trump gets a second term, eight years, minimum. And as he leaves office they will
still be threatening indictments "any day now". And nobody will even remember why any of
this started, nor care.
I already don't care.
4 play_arrow
Politinaut , 46 minutes ago
Brennan and all of those involved, must pay.
z530 , 57 minutes ago
Unless the classification of compartmented findings can be downgraded, access to
Brennan's questionable sourcing will remain highly restricted, leaving the underlying
evidence conveniently opaque, the official said.
Complete 100% ********. Trump can declassify anything he wants, at anytime, for any
reason. If I were him, I would order everything related to Crossfire declassified
tomorrow, sit back and watch the fireworks.
y_arrow
wee-weed up , 1 hour ago
Brennan is TRUE deep-state scum.
My most fervent desire is to see that holier-than-thou...
lyin' Obozo-Hitlery protector, frog marched...
straight to prison on national TV...
And then forced to sing like a Canary.
1 play_arrow
Md4 , 1 hour ago
"He explained that he and Clapper created two classified versions of the ICA – a
highly restricted Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information version that reveals the
sourcing, and a more accessible Top Secret version that omits details about the
sourcing.
Unless the classification of compartmented findings can be downgraded, access to
Brennan's questionable sourcing will remain highly restricted, leaving the underlying
evidence conveniently opaque, the official said."
One of the most important objectives going forward from all this... has to be the
dismantling of the whole apparatus of security classification.
All of it must be overhauled and restructured.
We simply cannot have a regime of intelligence security so rigorous, as to be clearly
used as a means of tyrannizing the very nation it's supposed to serve.
No enemy on earth is worth that...
play_arrow
bkwaz4 , 1 hour ago
Rational people have always understood that any Russian or Chinese meddling in the
2016 election was done to get Hillary elected so that influence could be purchased
through the Clinton Foundation.
The criminals involved need to be executed.
ay_arrow
Max21c , 1 hour ago
So its the usual situ of all lies and distortions and more lies on top of still more
lies... all more lies made up by the secret police and Washington Gestapo...
ay_arrow
St. TwinkleToes , 1 hour ago
It's a small circle of friends at CIA with Brennan protégé, Andrea
Kendall-Taylor and NSA with Eric Ciaramella, the Democratic national security
"whistleblower," who are sleeping with their bosses for advancement and or given head
service to closet LGBTiQNPWXYZ government heads.
Their job literally "sucks" in order to exist.
_arrow
mikka , 2 hours ago
When this sort of thing happens in Russia, China etc., there is a purge, because the
country is more important than its actors. Not in USSA: because of the so called
"democracy", the usurpers get away with it, allowing them not only to survive but also to
try again when conditions improve.
lay_arrow
Max21c , 31 minutes ago
It is interesting to see some of the criminal activities of the rats, vermin, and scum
in the CIA Gestapo & FBI Gestapo and Pentagon Gestapo possibly coming to light... One
or two rays of light and all the cockroaches in the criminal gangs of "national security"
and the state security apparatus of the banana republic and police state start scurrying
about in a frenzy for awhile...
3 play_arrow
Max21c , 47 minutes ago
Notice how all these Nazis and NeoNazis such as Brennan, Steele, Clapper, Schiff,
Warner, Lisa Monaco, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, James Comey, Julia Gurganus,
Vinh Nguyen, Obama, Biden, Clinton are all elite gangsters, crooks, criminals and
hoodlums with ties to the Ivy League, CNN, MSNBC, CBS 60 Minutes, the Aspen Institute,
the secret police community, the Gestapo community, the intelligence community, the CFR,
Elite Think Tanks, the puppet press and official media and numerous other parts of the
criminal underworld of Washingtonian and their secret police & NeoNazi Gestapo...
They're all just gangsters like in any third world banana republic and police state...
just like all the rest of the goons and thugs and criminals in Washington DC..
y_arrow
GoldHermit , 58 minutes ago
If Brennan is not public enemy number one, he's certainly in the top 5.
Max21c , 45 minutes ago
Washington DC runs thick with animals and gangsters just like Brennan... he's common
to the criminal culture of the US government and the criminal culture and criminal nature
of US government officials and Washingtonians... They're all the same and they're all
Nazis and NeoNazis... US elites and Washingtonians are no different than the Soviet KGB,
East German Stasi, Nazi Gestapo or Nazi Waffen SS... just a pack of criminals the rob,
terrorize and persecute people... US government is just one big criminal network and
crime syndicate... all they do is rob people, cheat people, persecute people and
terrorize people... It's a Washingtonian thing and a US government thing...
play_arrow
rtb61 , 1 hour ago
Of course the Russian government favoured the Clintons, they had a ton of evidence of
corruption on them, they released that tape to prove it to them. They know every single
little thing the Klinton Krime Klan did in the Ukraine, everything, they had them cold,
anything they wanted the Clintons would have complied, they still would of course have
demanded to be paid.
Right now both China and Russia prefer the Clinton Corporation Party, they are much
easier to pay off. Too many heads in the Republican Party, too many pay offs, much easier
with the Clinton Foundation Party, the party the Klinton Krime Klan sold to the
corporations, calling it the Democrats is a lie, it is the Clinton Foundation Party,
selling governments to the highest bidder not just yours but with regime change any
country you choose.
It all keeps coming out for political theatre but yet, no even a hint of an arrest let
alone an actual prosecution. Good for votes from the stupids I suppose.
2 play_arrow
williambanzai7 , 1 hour ago
Brennan is a moron. A moron who takes orders from a gaggle of Marxists and a Former
Nazi.
TahoeBilly2012 , 1 hour ago
His little fake aristocratic tone is hilarious. As if a muslim Irish American was some
sort of delicate flower.
y_arrow 1
Patmos , 14 minutes ago
Tragically ironic how the CIA has in large part become the thing it was at least in
theory supposed to help protect against: Tyranny.
2 play_arrow
Soloamber , 34 minutes ago
Isn't it ironic that a report covering a political coup on a presidential campaign and
subsequent attack on an
elected President can't be divulged because it is considered "political ".
Durham reports to Barr and they know the truth will never come to light if Biden wins
.
What they choose to ignore is they work for and are obligated to protect the public
interest .
Not the Democrats , not the Republicans .
It's either that or they are just protecting their old boy netwirk .
Take your pick .
ay_arrow
Md4 , 2 hours ago
"The Obama administration publicly released a declassified version of the report --
known as the "Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Activities and Intentions in
Recent Elections (ICA)" -- just two weeks before Trump took office, casting a cloud of
suspicion over his presidency. Democrats and national media have cited the report to
suggest Russia influenced the 2016 outcome and warn that Putin is likely meddling again
to reelect Trump.
The ICA is a key focus of U.S. Attorney John Durham's ongoing investigation into the
origins of the "collusion" probe. He wants to know if the intelligence findings were
juiced for political purposes."
Or... outright lies known by Blo to be lies?
Sounds like conjured red meat deliberately fed to the leftist House machine...
1 play_arrow
ComradePuff , 10 minutes ago
When I was getting my masters in 2017 at MGIMO, my instructors were as often diplomats
and politicians as they were professors. One, a member of Duma, told us that it was funny
they way the Americans were spinning the collusion angle, because the general consensus
at the Kremlin was that Clinton was preferable to Trump as she was known and they
understood how to deal with her, while Trump seemed like a loose cannon. I was the only
American in the class (in the whole school at that point) and he was not even talking to
me, so clearly this was just general knowledge here.
edit: The CIA must suck at their jobs if there was disagreement, because I learned
that in the first week without using a single bribe, rent boy, honey trap or fake
mustache. That or the CIA just lies, as they do with everything else. Most likely a mix
of both.
y_arrow
amanfromMars , 40 minutes ago
Have you ever thought on what kind of vital explosive intelligence, on the extremely
precarious state of the certainly not United States of America, the likes of a Russia or
a China receives whenever they can freely read, listen and see any/all of the fabricated
tales and phantom trails fed to media main streams ...... for, of course, they would know
immediately whenever such is reported and widely shared, it be wilfully untrue and
decidedly designedly false ..... and they be confronted by weak pathological liars in
international executive offices of a failed state, or a rapidly failing state in well
self-publicised terminal decline ..... for a fast approaching resulting death by suicide
‽ .
And what does it also tell one and all about the equally perverse and parlous state of
the national intelligence quotient of Five Eyes allies, whenever they be by virtue of
either their unquestioning support or deafening silence on such matters, no more than
co-conspirators on a similar sinister path.
Are they themselves incapable of better thinking for greater tinkering? Do they need
it to be freely provided by ..... well, what would they be? Private Contractors/Pirate
Operations/Alien Facilities/Out of this World Utilities?
You can surely be in no doubt that they certainly need something radically different,
considering the plain enough, destructive path that they be currently on, using what they
presently have.
play_arrow
Soloamber , 48 minutes ago
Clintons . They already had a business relationship .
Clintons pay to play was well known .
Strange how "donations " have dropped 90% after she blew the election .
ay_arrow
Mini-Me , 2 hours ago
When does Durham get off his arse and do his damn job?
"... Each of these two camps wields rhetoric that masks its true practice. Democrats and Republicans pose as heralds of the "free world" in the face of "dictatorships", as defenders of racial, gender and sexual orientation discrimination, and as champions of the fight against "global warming". The Jacksonians, for their part, take turns denouncing the corruption, perversity and ultimately hypocrisy of their predecessors while calling to fight for their nation and not for the empire. ..."
"... The two camps have in common only the same cult of force; whether it is at the service of the empire (Democrats and Republicans) or the nation (Jacksonians). ..."
The U.S. 2020 presidential campaign pits two radically different visions of the United States: empire or nation?
On the one hand, Washington's claim to dominate the world by "containment" – a strategy articulated by George Kennan in 1946 and
followed by all presidents until 2016 – and on the other hand, the rejection of imperialism and the desire to facilitate the fortunes
of Americans in general – a strategy articulated by President Andrew Jackson (1829-37) and taken up only by President Donald Trump
(2017-20).
Each of these two camps wields rhetoric that masks its true practice. Democrats and Republicans pose as heralds of the "free
world" in the face of "dictatorships", as defenders of racial, gender and sexual orientation discrimination, and as champions of
the fight against "global warming". The Jacksonians, for their part, take turns denouncing the corruption, perversity and ultimately
hypocrisy of their predecessors while calling to fight for their nation and not for the empire.
The two camps have in common only the same cult of force; whether it is at the service of the empire (Democrats and Republicans)
or the nation (Jacksonians).
The fact that the Jacksonians unexpectedly became a majority in the country and took control of the Republican Party adds to the
confusion, but should not confuse Trumpism with what the Republican ideology has been since World War II.
In reality, Democrats and Republicans tend to be well-to-do people or professionals in new technologies, while Jacksonians – like
the "yellow vests" in France – are rather poor and professionally tied to the land from which they cannot escape.
... ... ...
The Jacksonian agenda
As soon as he took office, Donald Trump questioned the Rumsfeld/Cebrowsky strategy of annihilating the state structures of all the
countries of the "Broader Middle East" without exception and announced his wish to bring home the troops lost in the "war without
end". This goal remains at the top of his priorities in 2020 ("Stop Endless Wars and Bring Our Troops Home").
As a result, he excluded the Director of the CIA and the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee from regular meetings of the National
Security Council. In so doing, he deprived the supporters of imperialism of their main tool of conquest.
There followed a battle for the presidency of this council with the indictment of General Michael T. Flynn, then his replacement
by General H. R. McMaster, the exceptionalist John R. Bolton, and finally Robert C. O'Brien.
In May 2017, Donald Trump called on U.S. allies to immediately cease their support for jihadists charged with implementing the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski
strategy. This was the Riyadh speech to the Sunni heads of state and then to NATO heads of state and government. President Trump
had declared NATO obsolete before changing his mind. However, he obtained not the abandonment of Russia's policy of containment,
but the halving of the credits used for this purpose and the allocation of the funds thus preserved to the fight against jihadism.
In doing so, it partially stopped making NATO an instrument of imperialism and turned it into a defensive alliance. It has therefore
demanded that its members contribute to its budget. Support for jihadism, however, was pursued by the supporters of imperialism with
private means, notably the KKR Fund.
Hence his watchwords: "Wipe Out Global Terrorists Who Threaten to Harm Americans" and "Get Allies to Pay their Fair Share.
Like the Democrats and Republicans, the Jacksonian Donald Trump is committed to restoring the capabilities of his armies ("Maintain
and Expand America's Unrivaled Military Strength"). Unlike his predecessors, he did not seek to transform the Pentagon's delusional
management by privatizing one department at a time, but rather developed a plan to recruit researchers to compete technologically
once again with the Russian and Chinese armies.
Only Donald Trump's desire to regain primacy in missile matters is supported by Democrats and Republicans, although they do not agree
on how to achieve it ("Build a Great Cybersecurity Defense System and Missile Defense System") : the tenant of the White House wants
the USA to equip itself alone with these weapons that it can eventually deploy on the territory of its allies, while its opponents
want to involve the allies in order to maintain their hold on them. From the point of view of the Democrats and Republicans, the
problem is obviously not withdrawing from the Cold War disarmament treaties to build a new arsenal, but the loss of means of diplomatic
pressure on Russia.
A professional politician, Joe Biden hopes to restore the imperial status of the former First World Power.
The program of Democrats and non-party Republicans
Joe Biden proposes to focus on three objectives: (1) reinvigorate democracy (2) train the middle class to cope with globalization
(3) regain global leadership.
Reinvigorate democracy
: in his words, this means basing public
action on the "informed consent" of Americans. In doing so, he used Walter Lipmann's 1922 terminology, according to which democracy
presupposes "manufacturing consent". This theory was discussed at length by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in 1988. It obviously
has nothing to do with the definition formulated by President Abraham Lincoln: "Democracy is government of the people, by the people,
for the people".
Joe Biden believes he is achieving his goal by restoring the morality of public action through the practice of "political correctness".
For example, he condemns "the horrible practice [of President Trump] of separating families and placing the children of immigrants
in private prisons," without saying that President Trump was merely applying a democratic law to show its futility. Or he announces
that he wants to reaffirm the condemnation of torture that President Trump justified, without saying that the latter, like President
Obama, has already banned the practice while maintaining life imprisonment without trial in Guantánamo.
He announced his intention to convene a Summit for Democracy to fight against corruption, to defend the "Free World" against authoritarian
regimes, and to advance human rights. In view of his definition of democracy, it is a question of uniting allied states by denouncing
scapegoats for what is wrong (the "corrupt") and promoting human rights in the Anglo-Saxon sense and especially not in the French
sense. That is to say, to stop police violence and not to help citizens to participate in decision-making. This summit will launch
an appeal to the private sector so that new technologies cannot be used by authoritarian states to monitor their citizens (but the
USA and its NSA can always use them in the interest of the "Free World").
Finally, Joe Biden concludes this chapter by highlighting his role in the Transatlantic Commission for Electoral Integrity alongside
his friends, former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who overthrew the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and Michael Chertoff,
former US Secretary of Homeland Security, who put all US citizens under surveillance. Not forgetting John Negroponte who organized
the Contras in Nicaragua and Daesh in Iraq.
Educating the middle class to cope with globalization
. Joe Biden
believes that the politics that have been pursued since the dissolution of the USSR have led to the rapid disappearance of the middle
class, and that training the remaining middle class in the use of new technologies will prevent the relocation of their jobs.
Renewing U.S. leadership
. In the name of democracy, this means
stopping the rise of "populists, nationalists and demagogues. This formulation helps us understand that democracy, according to Joe
Biden, is not only the fabrication of consent, but also the eradication of the popular will. If demagogues pervert democratic institutions,
populists serve the popular will and nationalists serve the community.
The
Oval Office of the White House is looking for a tenant.
Joe Biden then specifies that he will stop wars "forever"; a formulation that seems to support the same goal as the Jacksonians,
but differs in terminology. It is in fact a question of validating the current adaptation of the system to the limits imposed by
President Trump: why make US soldiers die abroad when one can pursue the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy with jihadists at a lower cost?
All the more so since when he was only an opposition senator, Joe Biden gave his name to the plan to partition Iraq that the Pentagon
was trying to impose.
A verse follows on the enlargement of NATO to include Latin American, African and Pacific allies. Far from being obsolete, the Alliance
will once again become the heart of U.S. imperialism.
Finally, Joe Biden pleads for the renewal of the 5+1 agreement with Iran and disarmament treaties with Russia. The agreement with
President Hassan Rohani aims to classically divide Muslim countries into Sunni and Shia, while the disarmament treaties aim to confirm
that the Biden administration would not envisage a global confrontation, but the continued containment of its competitor.
The program of the Democratic Party candidate and non-party Republicans concludes with the assurance of joining the Paris Accord
and taking leadership in the fight against global warming. Joe Biden specifies that he will not give gifts to China, which is relocating
its most polluting industries along the Silk Road. On the other hand, he omits to say that his friend, Barack Obama, before entering
politics, was the drafter of the statutes of the Chicago Carbon Emissions Trading Exchange. The fight against global warming is not
so much an ecological issue as a matter for bankers.
Conclusion
It must be said that everything is opposed to a clarification. Four years of upheavals by President Trump have only succeeded in
replacing the "endless wars" with a low-intensity private war. There are certainly far fewer deaths, but it is still war.
The elites who enjoy imperialism are not ready to give up their privileges.
So it is to be feared that the U.S. will be forced to go through an internal conflict, a civil war, and break up like the Soviet
Union once did.
Nothing new concerning the papers of reference, be it NYT in the USA, Spiegel -unfortunately
I do not speak german and the Spiegel is the only one that I know of with a small weakly
english section- Le Monde, The Guardian, El País, etc. They all belong to the infamous
club of the presstitutes.
Ukraine is a zombie, remotely controlled to keep Russia off balance, not having enough with
Ukraine the same tricks are being applied in Belarus but it seems that the plan did not go
trough.
The work you do is commendable B, but I would appreciate a lot if you would focus your
efforts in Germany since not a lot is known about the internal politics of a country that
basically is the leading one in the EU.
The Navalny affair, Merkel calling for changes in the UN, Germany relations with Poland, the
Treuhand and the liquidation of the DRG, and a lot of issues that someone living there -- I
assume -- sure knows a lot better that the rest.
Ukraine is like an open oozing wound, and it could be a surprise in the coming election
debates in the USA, the Biden Poroshenko tapes are not even mentioned by the presstitutes, and
the level of theft and corruption is monumental, fumbling Biden will have a serious problem
when these conversations come up in the debates.
Looks like neoliberal Dems are playing with fire. Another couple of such success stories and
Biden can safely enroll to the assisted living senior citizen community where he belongs. This is
an excellent way to mobilize Trump voters. Just look at the comments section of this story.
This is somewhat similar to hysteria in Germany in 1930th.
Notable quotes:
"... And Costco was once a retail store. Bravo! Today transformed into a political party? ..."
Costco has halted sales of Palmetto Cheese, a popular brand of pimento cheese spread that
had been offered in over 120 of its stores, after the company's owner triggered outrage with a
Facebook post criticizing Black Lives Matter.
A sign posted at a store in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, indicates that Palmetto Cheese has
been discontinued and will not be ordered again by Costco. The retailer hasn't made a statement
on its decision, but the move came after consumers called for a boycott of the brand because of
social media comments by Palmetto Cheese's owner, Brian Henry.
"This BLM and Antifa movement must be treated like the terror organizations that they
are," Henry said in an August 25 Facebook post that has since been deleted. He wrote the
message in response to the alleged shootings of three white people by a black man in
Georgetown, South Carolina. He complained that BLM and Antifa were being allowed to
"lawlessly destroy great American cities and threaten their citizens on a daily basis"
and declared "All lives matter. There, I said it. So am I a racist now?"
The reaction on social media was swift, with commenters calling Henry a racist. Activists
jumped into action with a boycott campaign against Palmetto Cheese. A Twitter account was set
up mocking the company as "Appropriation Cheese," because of its use of a black woman on
its packaging who worked for the company before dying earlier this year.
Activists on the Appropriation Cheese page celebrated Costco's decision and pressed for
more. One commenter on Tuesday thanked Costco and demanded that Kroger, Lowes Foods and other
retailers cancel Palmetto Cheese. Another boycott supporter called on Publix Super Markets to
drop the product, saying: "Costco pulled Palmetto Cheese because of the open racism of its
owner. We are hoping you are considering the same." Still another said: "Attention
Corporate America. This is how you ally."
But others lamented Costco's move and the divisiveness it represents. "This is how
divided the country has become," one commenter tweeted. "Even store chains are picking
sides now. This is insane." There were those who defended Henry, saying that criticizing
the group doesn't mean that one is racist.
Henry, who also is mayor of the small South Carolina coastal town of Pawleys Island, may
have squandered a chance to inspire a boycott-backlash movement – like that which Goya
Foods enjoyed after its owner was vilified for praising President Donald Trump – when he
issued an apology on September 3.
He said his comments were "hurtful and insensitive."
"I spent the last 10 days listening and learning," Henry said. "The conversations
I have had with friends, our staff, the community and faith-based leaders provided me with a
deeper understanding of racial inequality and the importance of diversity
sensitivity."
Henry added that his family and company will donate $100,000 in the first year of a new
foundation set up to improve race relations, and Palmetto Cheese will rebrand its product
"to be more sensitive to cultural diversity." In addition to having a picture of a black
woman, the current packaging refers to Palmetto Cheese as "the pimento cheese with
soul."
The company sold more than 15 million units last year in about 4,000 stores. Henry warned
that a boycott would only hurt the hundreds of people employed by the company in South
Carolina.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
uncledon 8 hours ago
I
guess I'm a racist as I believe all lives matter! I believe that people have a reason and the
right to peacefully protest. People do not have a right to murder, to plunder, to destroy
properties and businesses, to loot and set fires! If these things are done under the BLM
movement it is lawlessness. If we are to have a peaceful and productive society we need law and
order not total chaos. If the BLM wants to make change, (and change is sorely needed) then sets
some rules in your organized protest that gives it strength and power. Every smashed window,
every fire, every looted business and every intimidation to innocent bystanders is a reason for
people like myself not to support your cause.
KarlthePoet 9 hours ago
It's too bad that the
American consumers haven't started a boycott of the Jewish Banking Cartel, which ultimately
controls the US government and Wall Street. A cheese spread isn't the problem in America.
JG1547 10 hours ago
And the stupidity continues. Sad
CrabbyB 7 hours ago
Avoid social media
other than trying to garner sales. Avoid any chit-chat or opinions, just bare minimum contact
that suits your business purpose and that's it. The mob harmed but using Fakebook as a soapbox
was the big mistake
VillageIdiot34 4 hours ago
Keep it up amerimutts.
With this rate of
acceleration we are talking civil war before Christmas. I can already see it; the corporate
communists, backed by every globalist for-profit corporations against "real capitalism has
never been tried" gang. Less fighting abroad, more fighting domestic. It's a win/win for
everyone else
Jack The Man 3 hours ago
Absolutely right and principled action by
Costco. And BTW, who on earth would like to eat this processed garbage anyway?
rightmove 5
hours ago
And Costco was once a retail store. Bravo! Today transformed into a political party?
I'm in Australia and won't be shopping at Costco. The customer can decide if the BLM impacts
their choice of merchandise, not the damn seller.
Mistermal 6 hours ago
According to Webster's
Dictionary: "The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political
purposes." Costco CEO simply told the truth. BLM is an openly racist, violent hate group.
Alan
Hart 3 hours ago
Will Costco also ban Israeli goods - because of their criticism of PLM
(Palestinian Lives Matter)...??
Flyingscotsman 3 hours ago
Simple, boycott Costco. I bet all
these so called republican white Supremacist racists spend more there , than all these keyboard
woke warriors!
It would be interesting if Durham prove result revealed in October, not matter how
whitewashed they are.
From comments below it is lear that for this particular subset neoliberal elite lost all
legitimacy
Notable quotes:
"... Told to Erase Laptop Containing Investigation of Anthony Weiner Laptop ..."
"... Robertson alleges that the FBI did nothing for a month after discovering Clinton's emails on the Anthony Weiner laptop. It was only after he spoke with the U.S. Attorney's office overseeing the case, he claims, that the agency took action. ..."
"... Robertson's assertions match up with a Wall Street Journal report from 2018 . In that report, text messages between agent Peter Strzok and his girlfriend, lawyer Lisa Page, indicated the former had been called to discuss the newly discovered emails on September 28th. Those emails wouldn't be revealed until former Director James Comey notified Congress about them on October 28th. ..."
"... A book written by James B . Stewart in 2019 asserts that FBI agents had referred to the discovery of Hillary Clinton's emails as an "oh s***" moment." One agent admitted there were "ten times" as many emails as Comey admitted to publicly. ..."
"... These allegations make it difficult to say Comey did not lie to the public – if not Congress . ..."
"... Recently released documents from the DOJ show multiple FBI officials had "accidentally wiped" their phones after the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) requested them . ..."
"... Erasing evidence is a consistent theme for the Obama-era FBI. Meanwhile, the Senate Homeland Security Committee has voted to authorize over three dozen subpoenas and depositions of some of these officials, including Comey. ..."
"... The difficulty is not just that Comey and his underlings were obstructing justice to benefit Clinton, and made a total **** show of it. It is that Sessions was, "to protect the DOJ"... and Barr, also, clearly, as long he continues to run interference for Comey, Clinton, et al, is also obstructing justice. Barr has crafted a veneer, it seems... in the Durham probe... to provide himself plausible deniability. That veneer can remain plausible only as long as Durham does nothing, and fails to make the files public. ..."
"... It was the NYPD. And, that cadre of NYPD officers recognized what was likely to happen when they did turn it over to the FBI. So they made copies. And, the copies got distributed to the cloud. ..."
"... The emails are in the stellarwind database , according to William Binney. So are all the texts that the Mueller crew "erased." IntercoursetheEU is correct - every email and text ever sent is archived in that database. ..."
"... Where is that slimy, former CIA Director who wouldn't shut-up on national TV from late 2016 to early 2020? Hhmm, not a freaking peep nor have I seen any recent images. How about the dirtball, prior FBI Dir? His Twitter acct has only had "quotes" posted for about a month now. ..."
"... Clapper? Another Trump trasher on constant TV the last few years.....where is he? NOT A PEEP. Why wouldn't he keep trashing to diminish DJT's election chances? ..."
"... Brennan was on an MSNBC panel last week pale, sweating, moving around in his seat at the mere mention of John Durham. Not his usual cocky self that's for sure. ..."
FBI agent John Robertson, the man who found Hillary Clinton's emails on the laptop of
Anthony Weiner, claims he was advised by bosses to
erase his own computer.
Former FBI Director James Comey, you may recall, announced days before the 2016 presidential
election that he had "learned of the existence" of the emails on Weiner's laptop .
Weiner is the disgraced husband of Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
Robertson alleges that the manner in which his higher-ups in the FBI handled the case was
"not ethically or morally right."
His startling claims are made in a book titled, "October Surprise: How the FBI Tried to Save
Itself and Crashed an Election," an excerpt of which has been published by the
Washington Post .
Told to Erase Laptop Containing Investigation of Anthony Weiner Laptop
Robertson alleges that the FBI did nothing for a month after discovering Clinton's emails on
the Anthony Weiner laptop. It was only after he spoke with the U.S. Attorney's office overseeing the case, he claims,
that the agency took action.
"He had told his bosses about the Clinton emails weeks ago," the book contends . "Nothing
had happened."
"Or rather, the only thing that had happened was his boss had instructed Robertson to
erase his computer work station."
This, according to the Post report, was to "ensure there was no classified material on it,"
but also would eliminate any trail of his actions taken during the investigation.
FBI Did Nothing About Hillary Clinton's Emails For Months?
Robertson's assertions match up with a Wall Street Journal
report from 2018 . In that report, text messages between agent Peter Strzok and his girlfriend, lawyer Lisa
Page, indicated the former had been called to discuss the newly discovered emails on September
28th. Those emails wouldn't be revealed until former Director James Comey notified Congress about
them on October 28th.
A book written by James B . Stewart in 2019 asserts that FBI agents had referred to the
discovery of Hillary Clinton's emails as an "oh s***" moment." One agent admitted there were "ten times" as many emails as Comey admitted to publicly.
These allegations make it difficult to say Comey did not lie to the public – if not
Congress .
Robertson's story is being revealed as U.S. Attorney John Durham is investigating the FBI's
role in the origins of the Russia probe into President Trump's campaign.
Recently released documents from the DOJ show multiple FBI officials had "accidentally
wiped" their phones after the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) requested them .
Erasing evidence is a consistent theme for the Obama-era FBI. Meanwhile, the Senate Homeland Security Committee has voted to authorize over three dozen
subpoenas and depositions of some of these officials, including Comey.
Democrats seem skittish about what Durham is uncovering .
Four House committee chairs last week
asked for an "emergency" review of Attorney General William Barr's handling of Durham's
probe.
"We are concerned by indications that Attorney General Barr might depart from longstanding
DOJ principles," a letter to the IG reads .
They contend Barr may "take public action related to U.S. Attorney Durham's investigation
that could impact the presidential election." Top Democrats have also been threatening to impeach Barr over the investigation.
Kevin Clinesmith, one of the FBI officials involved in gathering evidence in the Russia
investigation, pled
guilty last month to making a false statement. He was accused by the Inspector General of altering an email about former Trump campaign
adviser Carter Page.
President Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, said in July that he expects further
indictments and jail time to come out of Durham's probe. Democrats, Comey, and others at the FBI might be a little nervous.
DaiRR , 12 hours ago
DemoRat operatives still pervade the DOJ and to a lesser extent the FBI. Treasonous F's
all of them. Andrew Weissmann is an evil a Rat as any of them and he should be tried,
disbarred and punished for all his lying and despicable crimes while at the DOJ. Of course
MSNBC now loves paying him to be their "legal analyst".
MissCellany , 13 hours ago
What, like with a cloth or something?
RoadKill4Supper , 12 hours ago
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"
FBGnome , 3 hours ago
The current election would be at stake.
Unknown User , 14 hours ago
Unless the Swamp does it. Not just a post or a website disappear, people disappear.
Sense , 13 hours ago
The difficulty is not just that Comey and his underlings were obstructing justice to
benefit Clinton, and made a total **** show of it. It is that Sessions was, "to protect the
DOJ"... and Barr, also, clearly, as long he continues to run interference for Comey,
Clinton, et al, is also obstructing justice. Barr has crafted a veneer, it seems... in the
Durham probe... to provide himself plausible deniability. That veneer can remain plausible
only as long as Durham does nothing, and fails to make the files public.
Only if Durham proceeds to use the files, and/or makes the files public, will we find
out if we get prosecutions, or if we get more obstruction under Barr's watch. So, Barr is
carrying a pretty big hammer. It isn't at all clear what he intends to do with that hammer,
or how he intends to use it if he does.
A wild card, perhaps, in the potential for an Senate or House investigation including
Barr's forced participation... in response to which he might be compelled to answer the
unasked question ? Makes it kind of hard to see how "investigating Barr"... poses a threat
to Barr, or Trump... rather than a threat to those investigating him ? The fact they're
even twittering about it suggests more than awareness about the content of that
information... and thus maybe complicity in the effort to cover it up ?
That would explain most of the events of the last four years.
And, as a note, it wasn't "the FBI" that "found the e-mails" (and other files) on the
Weiner laptop.
It was the NYPD. And, that cadre of NYPD officers recognized what was likely to happen
when they did turn it over to the FBI. So they made copies. And, the copies got distributed to the cloud.
It is not possible, I'd think, that Julian Assange didn't get a copy... in case you
wonder why Barr's DOJ is still prosecuting journalism. I doubt they're doing that because
of past publication... rather than in an effort to prevent future publication. Because Assange... in all likelihood... might be the only journalist left in the
world... who will not be coerced into withholding publication.
ElmerTwitch , 12 hours ago
The emails are in the stellarwind database , according to William Binney. So are all the texts that the Mueller crew "erased." IntercoursetheEU is correct - every email and text ever sent is archived in that
database.
The DOJ is indeed protecting Obama, Hillary, Comey, Brennan, Clapper et al.
by claiming "the emails are gone! The texts are gone, too!"
sparky139 , 12 hours ago
What is the stellarwind database
TheReplacement's Replacement , 1 hour ago
Look up NSA.
takeaction , 15 hours ago
As all of us here on ZH understand. NOTHING WILL EVER HAPPEN... And Trump Team....if you are reading this... THIS IS THE BIGGEST LET DOWN OF YOUR ENTIRE PRESIDENCY...
No_Pretzel_Logic , 14 hours ago
takeaction - I disagree. I think things are happening right now....out of the
country.
TRIALS.....
Where is that slimy, former CIA Director who wouldn't shut-up on national TV from late
2016 to early 2020? Hhmm, not a freaking peep nor have I seen any recent images. How about
the dirtball, prior FBI Dir? His Twitter acct has only had "quotes" posted for about a
month now.
Clapper? Another Trump trasher on constant TV the last few years.....where is he? NOT A
PEEP. Why wouldn't he keep trashing to diminish DJT's election chances?
I'm telling ya, I think they are on a certain Caribbean Island. And my wager is that
Trump is going to toss a wild curveball into this election about the 3rd week of Oct.
Treason convictions announced, is my bet.
maggie2now , 13 hours ago
Brennan was on an MSNBC panel last week pale, sweating, moving around in his seat at the
mere mention of John Durham. Not his usual cocky self that's for sure. HRC was online
flapping her yap with Jennifer Palmieri not too long ago trying to convince the Biden
campaign not to concede the 2020 election under any circumstances. As for Clapper, I don't
know - maybe hiding in a remote location ****ting himself?
MoreFreedom , 12 hours ago
They've shut up because their actions betray them. Publicly they say Trump is a Russian
spy or puppet, while under oath, in a closed room, representing their former government
position and top secret clearance, they've no information to support it. That shows an
anti-Trump political motivation, regarding their prior actions in government. It's also
defrauding the public and government.
YouJustCouldnt , 2 hours ago
Couldn't agree more. How many times have we been here before!
20 years on from 9/11 - From the thousands of experts on the Architects and Engineers
for 9/11 Truth , the latest news is that The National Institute of Standards and Technology
( NIST ) is now more than a week late in issuing its "initial decision" on the pending
"request for correction" to its 2008 report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building
7. Big Whoop - and just another nothing burger.
Ms No , 15 hours ago
Uhhhh.....yeah.
We have seen this type of thing since JFK. If you hadn't long ago figured this out then
you are either an amateur or a paid internet herd-moving troll/anti-human.
Some of us aren't part of the herd.
(((Anthony Weiner))), just like (((Mossad Epstein honeypot))) and (((lucky Larry
Silverstein))), countless other examples that blow statistical likelihood way beyond
coincidence.
Not rocket science. Its a mob and these are their puppets and fronts. They dont just own
the FBI. They own all branches of your government and all the alphabets.
Enjoying the covid hysteria and run-up to WWIII?
Unknown User , 14 hours ago
If by (((they))) you mean the British who created the OSA and then the CIA. They also
created all the think-tanks, like the CFR. They own the Fed and run the worldwide banking
cartel. The British Crown owns all the countries of the Commonwealth. And they started the
COVID-19 delusion. Yes. Make no mistake. It is (((THEY))).
VWAndy , 15 hours ago
An he didnt go public with it either.
occams razor. they are all corrupt.
Stackers , 15 hours ago
Anyone who thinks that anybody beyond this low level flunky, Kliensmith, is going to get
any kind of prosecution is dreaming. None of these people will face any consequences to
their outright sedition and they know it. Disgusting.
radical-extremist , 15 hours ago
She created a private personal server to purposely circumvent the FOIA system and any
other prying eyes. Her staff was warned not to do it, but they refused to confront her
about it. They were so technically inept that they didn't understand emails are copied on
to servers everywhere...including the pentagon and the state department. And Huma's laptop
that her perv husband used to sext girls.
She maintained and exchanged Top Secret information on a personal/private/unsecured
server in her house. That is a crime punishable with prison time...and yet she skates.
High Vigilante , 15 hours ago
This guy should avoid walking out in dark.
His name was Seth!
Bay of Pigs , 13 hours ago
We have to face reality. If Durham doesn't indict some of these people before the
election, nothing is going to happen. It's the end of the line. Time has run out.
"We bullsh#tted some folks...."
dogfish , 13 hours ago
Trump is a charlatan and a fraud. The only winners with Trump are the Zionist they are
Trumps top priority.
play_arrow
OCnStiggs , 13 hours ago
Good thing NYPD copied the HD on that laptop for just this occurrence. There reportedly
at least two copies in safes in NYC. Criminality of the highest order that eclipses by
100,000,000 whatever happened in Watergate. These FBI people need to hang.
Sparehead , 13 hours ago
Safe in NYC? Like all the evidence of criminal banking activity that was lost in World
Trade Center 7?
4Y_LURKER , 12 hours ago
Oh look! We found passports even though steel and gold was vaporized by jet
fuel!!
"... Passenger logs for Epstein's four helicopters and three planes have been subpoenaed by Virgin Islands AG Denise George, who recently sued the disgraced financier's estate for 22 counts including human trafficking, child abuse, neglect, prostitution, aggravated rape, and forced labor, according to a Sunday report by the UK Mirror. ..."
"... Epstein pilot David Rodgers previously provided a passenger log in 2009 tying dozens of politicians, actors, and other celebrities to the infamous sex offender – including former US President Bill Clinton, actor Kevin Spacey, and model Naomi Campbell. ..."
"... George has also subpoenaed more than 10 banks – including JPMorgan, Citibank, and Deutsche Bank – in her quest to get to the bottom of the financial edifice Epstein built up before he died. The financial institutions have been ordered to submit documents related to some 30 corporations, trusts, and nonprofit entities tied to the predatory playboy. ..."
The US Virgin Islands Attorney General has subpoenaed 21 years' worth of deceased pedophile
Jeffrey Epstein's flight logs, reportedly striking fear in the hearts of high-profile
passengers not yet exposed as Lolita Express riders.
Passenger logs for Epstein's four helicopters and three planes have been subpoenaed by
Virgin Islands AG Denise George, who recently sued the disgraced financier's estate for 22
counts including human trafficking, child abuse, neglect, prostitution, aggravated rape, and
forced labor, according to a Sunday report by the UK Mirror.
In addition to the passenger lists, George has requisitioned " complaints or reports of
potentially suspicious conduct " and any " personal notes " the pilots made while
flying Epstein's alleged harem of underage girls around the world. She also wants the names and
contact information of anyone who worked for the pilots – or who " integrated with or
observed " Epstein and his passengers.
Epstein pilot David Rodgers previously provided a passenger log in 2009 tying dozens of
politicians, actors, and other celebrities to the infamous sex offender – including
former US President Bill Clinton, actor Kevin Spacey, and model Naomi Campbell.
However,
lawyers for Epstein's alleged victims have argued that list did not include flights by
Epstein's chief pilot, Larry Visoski, who allegedly worked for him for over 25 years.
" The records that have been subpoenaed will make the ones Rodgers provided look like a
Post-It note ," a source told the Mirror over the weekend, claiming that George's subpoena
had triggered a " panic among many of the rich and famous. "
Epstein's private plane, nicknamed the Lolita Express, counted among its passengers such
luminaries as the UK's Prince Andrew, celebrity lawyer Alan Dershowitz, actor Chris Tucker,
Harvard economist Larry Summers, Hyatt hotel mogul Tom Pritzker, and model agency manager
Jean-Luc Brunel along with Campbell, Spacey, and Clinton (who the logs show flew with Epstein
over two dozen times). However, the passengers who enjoyed his other aircraft have not been
made public – yet.
George has also subpoenaed more than 10 banks – including JPMorgan, Citibank, and
Deutsche Bank – in her quest to get to the bottom of the financial edifice Epstein built
up before he died. The financial institutions have been ordered to submit documents related to
some 30 corporations, trusts, and nonprofit entities tied to the predatory playboy.
Epstein supposedly committed suicide last year in a Manhattan jail facility, while his
accused madam Ghislaine Maxwell remains imprisoned in a Brooklyn detention center awaiting
trial on charges related to child trafficking and perjury after her arrest earlier this year.
Maxwell's lawyers have struggled to keep documents introduced as part of a recent defamation
suit by one of Epstein's alleged victims under seal, insisting the information would deny her a
fair trial.
Why does neoclassical economics produce ponzi schemes of inflated asset prices?
It makes you think you are creating wealth by inflating asset prices
Bank credit flows into inflating asset prices, debt rises faster than GDP and you
eventually get a financial crisis.
No one notices the private debt building up in the economy as neoclassical economics
doesn't consider debt.
This economics still has its 1920s problems. What is the fundamental flaw in the free
market theory of neoclassical economics? The University of Chicago worked that out in the
1930s after last time. Banks can inflate asset prices with the money they create from bank
loans.
Henry Simons and Irving Fisher supported the Chicago Plan to take away the bankers ability
to create money.
"Simons envisioned banks that would have a choice of two types of holdings: long-term
bonds and cash. Simultaneously, they would hold increased reserves, up to 100%. Simons saw
this as beneficial in that its ultimate consequences would be the prevention of
"bank-financed inflation of securities and real estate" through the leveraged creation of
secondary forms of money."
It looks like they did have some idea what the problem was.At the end of the 1920s, the US
was a ponzi scheme of inflated asset prices. The use of neoclassical economics and the belief
in free markets, made them think that inflated asset prices represented real wealth
accumulation.
1929 – Wakey, wakey time. Why did it cause the US financial system to collapse in
1929? Bankers get to create money out of nothing, through bank loans, and get to charge
interest on it.
Bankers do need to ensure the vast majority of that money gets paid back, and this is
where they get into serious trouble.
Banking requires prudent lending.
If someone can't repay a loan, they need to repossess that asset and sell it to recoup
that money. If they use bank loans to inflate asset prices they get into a world of trouble
when those asset prices collapse.
As the real estate and stock market collapsed the banks became insolvent as their assets
didn't cover their liabilities.
They could no longer repossess and sell those assets to cover the outstanding loans and
they do need to get most of the money they lend out back again to balance their books.
The banks become insolvent and collapsed, along with the US economy.
When banks have been lending to inflate asset prices the financial system is in a
precarious state and can easily collapse.
What was the ponzi scheme of inflated asset prices that collapsed in Japan in 1991?
Japanese real estate.
They avoided a Great Depression by saving the banks.
They killed growth for the next 30 years by leaving the debt in place.
What was the ponzi scheme of inflated asset prices that collapsed in 2008?
"It's nearly $14 trillion pyramid of super leveraged toxic assets was built on the back of
$1.4 trillion of US sub-prime loans, and dispersed throughout the world" All the Presidents
Bankers, Nomi Prins.
They avoided a Great Depression by saving the banks.
They left Western economies struggling by leaving the debt in place, just like Japan.
It's not as bad as Japan as we didn't let asset prices crash in the West, but it is this
problem has made our economies so sluggish since 2008.
In 2020, the world is a ponzi scheme of inflated asset prices.
The use of neoclassical economics and the belief in free markets, made them think that
inflated asset prices represented real wealth accumulation.
The central banks have to keep pumping in liquidity to stop all the ponzi schemes
collapsing.
If the ponzi schemes collapse, this feeds back into the financial system when bankers have
been lending to inflate asset prices.
play_arrow
Sound of the Suburbs , 1 hour ago
Bankers make the most money when they are driving your economy towards a financial
crisis.
You don't want to leave them to their own devices.
On a BBC documentary, comparing 1929 to 2008, it said the last time US bankers made as
much money as they did before 2008 was in the 1920s.
Bankers make the most money when they are driving your economy into a financial
crisis.
The financial crisis appears to come out of a clear blue sky when you use an economics
that doesn't consider debt.
The economics of globalisation has always had an Achilles' heel.
The 1920s roared with debt based consumption and speculation until it all tipped over into
the debt deflation of the Great Depression. No one realised the problems that were building
up in the economy as they used an economics that doesn't look at debt, neoclassical
economics.
Not considering private debt is the Achilles' heel of neoclassical economics.
Sound of the Suburbs , 1 hour ago
Come on.
Wakey, wakey.
You are just repeating 1920s mistakes.
The Americans wrapped a new ideology, neoliberalism, around 1920s economics and repeated
the economic mistakes of the 1920s.
Policymakers couldn't see what Glass-Steagall did, as they thought banks were financial
intermediaries.
It separates the money creation side of banking from the investment side of banking, and
stops bankers producing securities; they buy themselves with money they create out of
nothing.
"By early 1929, loans from these non-banking sources were approximately equal to those
from the banks. Later they became much greater. The Federal Reserve Authorities took it for
granted that they had no influence over these funds"
He's talking about "shadow banking".
They thought leverage was great before 1929; they saw what happened when it worked in
reverse after 1929.
Leverage acts like a multiplier.
It multiplies profits on the way up.
It multiplies losses on the way down.
Today's bankers seem to have learnt something from past mistakes.
They took the multiplied profits on the way up.
Taxpayers picked up the multiplied losses on the way down.
Mariner Eccles, FED chair 1934 -- 48, observed what the capital accumulation of
neoclassical economics did to the US economy in the 1920s.
"a giant suction pump had by 1929 to 1930 drawn into a few hands an increasing proportion
of currently produced wealth. This served then as capital accumulations. But by taking
purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied themselves the kind of
effective demand for their products which would justify reinvestment of the capital
accumulation in new plants. In consequence as in a poker game where the chips were
concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by
borrowing. When the credit ran out, the game stopped"
The problem; wealth concentrates until the system collapses.
"The other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing." Mariner Eccles, FED chair
1934 -- 48
Your wages aren't high enough, have a Payday loan.
You need a house, have a sub-prime mortgage.
You need a car, have a sub-prime auto loan.
You need a good education, have a student loan.
Still not getting by?
Load up on credit cards.
"When the credit ran out, the game stopped" Mariner Eccles, FED chair 1934 -- 48
...... etc .....
x_Maurizio , 1 hour ago
DISAGREE ON EVERY SINGLE WORD, in particular with this:
rules/regulations/capital requirements have infected the global banking system and
rendered it a harvesting operation for retail and a derivatives rule/regulation/capital
requirment evasion device for the pursuit of profit
absolutely false.
Banking system is in the 4th part of a cycle that they have created !
The first part has been capital harvesting (1970-1980)
The second part has been deregulation and hunt for stellar return on investment
The third part is financialisation and plunder of real economy
The fourth part is the destruction of real economy through debt, deflation, extreme
financial activity seeking for Yields. The banks have been the fortresses of globalisation.
Commercial banking has been absorbed by investment banking. In this deflationary
environment Commercial Banking has practice NO ROI.
You want to see the Banks working again? Reintroduce the Glass Steagall and separate again
investment and commercial banking. Repeal all what has been done between 1987 and 1999. THAT
will stop globalisation, that will stop the slow bleeding-to-death of westerne economies,
that will save commercial banking and our capitalistic societies.
Unfortunately in his brilliant analysis of USA-Russia relations Stephen Cohen never pointed out that the USA policy toward
Russia is dictated by the interests of maintaining global neoliberal empire and the concept of "Full Spectrum Dominance" which was
adopted by the USA neoliberal elite after the collapse of the USSR.
Like British empire the USA neoliberal empire is now overextended, metropolia is in secular stagnation with deterioration
standard of living of the bottom 80% of population, so the USA under Trump became more aggressive and dangerous on the international
arena. Trump administration behaves behaves like a cornered rat on international arena.
Notable quotes:
"... On Friday, 18 September, professor Steve Cohen passed away in New York City and we, the "dissident" community of Americans standing for peace with Russia – and for peace with the world at large – lost a towering intellectual and skillful defender of our cause who enjoyed an audience of millions by his weekly broadcasts on the John Batchelor Show, WABC Radio. ..."
"... from the start of the Information Wars against Russia during the George W. Bush administration following Putin's speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007, no voice questioning the official propaganda line in America was tolerated. Steve Cohen, who in the 1990s had been a welcome guest on U.S. national television and a widely cited expert in print media suddenly found himself blacklisted and subjected to the worst of McCarthyite style, ad hominem attacks. ..."
"... the opposition to Steve was led by experts in the Ukrainian and other minority peoples sub-categories of the profession who were militantly opposed not just to him personally but to any purely objective, not to mention sympathetic treatment of Russian leadership in the territorial expanse of Eurasia. ..."
"... Almost no one outside our 'dissident' community is concerned about the possibility of Armageddon in say two years' time due to miscalculations and bad luck in our pursuing economic, informational and military confrontation with Russia and China. ..."
"... My point in this discussion is that in the last decade of his life Stephen Cohen became one of the nation's most fearless and persistent defenders of the right to Free Speech. ..."
"... It was forced upon him by The New York Times, The Washington Post and other major media who pilloried him or blacklisted him over his unorthodox, unsanctioned, nonconformist views on the "Putin regime." It was forced upon him by university colleagues who sought to deny his right to establish graduate school fellowships in Russian affairs bearing his name and that of his mentor at Indiana University, Professor Tucker. ..."
"... In the face of vicious personal attacks from these McCarthyite forces, in the face of hate mail and even threats to his life, Steve decided to set up The American Committee and to recruit to its governing board famous, patriotic Americans and the descendants of the most revered families in the country. In this he succeeded, and it is to his credit that a moral counter force to the stampeding bulls of repression was erected and has survived to this day. ..."
On Friday, 18 September, professor Steve Cohen passed away in New York City and we, the
"dissident" community of Americans standing for peace with Russia – and for peace with
the world at large – lost a towering intellectual and skillful defender of our cause who
enjoyed an audience of millions by his weekly broadcasts on the John Batchelor Show, WABC
Radio.
A year ago, I reviewed his latest book, War With Russia? which drew upon the
material of those programs and took this scholar turned journalist into a new and highly
accessible genre of oral readings in print. The narrative style may have been more relaxed,
with simplified syntax, but the reasoning remained razor sharp. I urge those who are today
paying tribute to Steve, to buy and read the book, which is his best legacy.
From start to finish, Stephen F. Cohen was among America's best historians of his
generation, putting aside the specific subject matter that he treated: Nikolai Bukharin, his
dissertation topic and the material of his first and best known book; or, to put it more
broadly, the history of Russia (USSR) in the 20 th century. He was one of the very
rare cases of an historian deeply attentive to historiography, to causality and to logic. I
understood this when I read a book of his from the mid-1980s in which he explained why Russian
(Soviet) history was no longer attracting young students of quality: because there were no
unanswered questions, because we smugly assumed that we knew about that country all that there
was to know. That was when our expert community told us with one voice that the USSR was
entrapped in totalitarianism without any prospect for the overthrow of its oppressive
regime.
But my recollections of Steve also have a personal dimension going back six years or so when
a casual email correspondence between us flowered into a joint project that became the launch
of the American Committee for East West Accord (ACEWA). This was a revival of a
pro-détente association of academics and business people that existed from the mid-1970s
to the early 1990s, when, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the removal of the
Communist Party from power, the future of Russia in the family of nations we call the
'international community' seemed assured and there appeared to be no further need for such an
association as ACEWA.
I hasten to add that in the original ACEWA Steve and I were two ships that passed in the
night. With his base in Princeton, he was a protégé of the dean of diplomats then
in residence there, George Kennan, who was the leading light on the academic side of the ACEWA.
I was on the business side of the association, which was led by Don Kendall, chairman of
Pepsico and also for much of the 1970s chairman of the US-USSR Trade and Economic Council of
which I was also a member. I published pro-détente articles in their newsletter and
published a lengthy piece on cooperation with the Soviet Union in agricultural and food
processing domains, my specialty at that time, in their collection of essays by leaders in the
U.S. business community entitled Common Sense in U.S.-Soviet Trade .
The academic contingent had, as one might assume, a 'progressive' coloration, while the
business contingent had a Nixon Republican coloration. Indeed, in the mid-1980s these two sides
split in their approach to the growing peace movement in the U.S. that was fed by opposition in
the 'thinking community' on university campuses to Ronald Reagan's Star Wars agenda. Kendall
shut the door at ACEWA to rabble rousing and the association did not rise to the occasion, so
that its disbanding in the early '90s went unnoticed.
In the re-incorporated American Committee, I helped out by assuming the formal obligations
of Treasurer and Secretary, and also became the group's European Coordinator from my base in
Brussels. At this point my communications with Steve were almost daily and emotionally quite
intense. This was a time when America's expert community on Russian affairs once again felt
certain that it knew everything there was to know about the country, and most particularly
about the nefarious "Putin regime." But whereas in the 1970s and 1980s, polite debate about the
USSR/Russia was entirely possible both behind closed doors and in public space, from the
start of the Information Wars against Russia during the George W. Bush administration following
Putin's speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007, no voice questioning the
official propaganda line in America was tolerated. Steve Cohen, who in the 1990s had been a
welcome guest on U.S. national television and a widely cited expert in print media suddenly
found himself blacklisted and subjected to the worst of McCarthyite style, ad hominem
attacks.
From my correspondence and several meetings with Steve at this time both in his New York
apartment and here in Brussels, when he and Katrina van der Heuvel came to participate in a
Round Table dedicated to relations with Russia at the Brussels Press Club that I arranged, I
knew that Steve was deeply hurt by these vitriolic attacks. He was at the time waging a
difficult campaign to establish a fellowship in support of graduate studies in Russian affairs.
It was touch and go, because of vicious opposition from some stalwarts of the profession to any
fellowship that bore Steve's name. Allow me to put the 'i' on this dispute: the opposition
to Steve was led by experts in the Ukrainian and other minority peoples sub-categories of the
profession who were militantly opposed not just to him personally but to any purely objective,
not to mention sympathetic treatment of Russian leadership in the territorial expanse of
Eurasia. In the end, Steve and Katrina prevailed. The fellowships exist and, hopefully,
will provide sustenance to future studies when American attitudes towards Russia become less
politicized.
At all times and on all occasions, Steve Cohen was a voice of reason above all. The problem
of our age is that we are now not only living in a post-factual world, but in a post-logic
world. The public reads day after day the most outrageous and illogical assertions about
alleged Russian misdeeds posted by our most respected mainstream media including The New
York Times and The Washington Post . Almost no one dares to raise a hand and
suggest that this reporting is propaganda and that the public is being brainwashed. Steve did
exactly that in War With Russia? in a brilliant and restrained text.
Regrettably today we have no peace movement to speak of. Youth and our 'progressive' elites
are totally concerned over the fate of humanity in 30 or 40 years' time as a consequence of
Global Warming and rising seas. That is the essence of the Green Movement. Almost no one
outside our 'dissident' community is concerned about the possibility of Armageddon in say two
years' time due to miscalculations and bad luck in our pursuing economic, informational and
military confrontation with Russia and China.
I fear it will take only some force majeure development such as we had in 1962 during the
Cuban Missile Crisis to awaken the broad public to the risks to our very survival that we are
incurring by ignoring the issues that Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Princeton and New
York University was bringing to the airwaves week after week on his radio program.
Postscript
In terms of action, the new ACEWA was even less effective than its predecessor, which had
avoided linking up with the peace movement of the 1980s and sought to exert influence on policy
through armchair talks with Senators and other statesmen in Washington behind closed doors of
(essentially) men's clubs.
However, the importance of the new ACEWA, and the national importance of Stephen Cohen lay
elsewhere.
This question of appraising Stephen Cohen's national importance is all the more timely given
that on the day of his death, 18 September, the nation also lost Supreme Justice Ruth Ginsburg,
about whose national importance no Americans, whether her fans or her opponents, had any
doubt.
My point in this discussion is that in the last decade of his life Stephen Cohen became
one of the nation's most fearless and persistent defenders of the right to Free Speech. It
was not a role that he sought. It was thrust upon him by the expert community of international
affairs, including the Council on Foreign Relations, from which he reluctantly resigned over
this matter.
It was forced upon him by The New York Times, The Washington Post and other major media
who pilloried him or blacklisted him over his unorthodox, unsanctioned, nonconformist views on
the "Putin regime." It was forced upon him by university colleagues who sought to deny his
right to establish graduate school fellowships in Russian affairs bearing his name and that of
his mentor at Indiana University, Professor Tucker.
In the face of vicious personal attacks from these McCarthyite forces, in the face of
hate mail and even threats to his life, Steve decided to set up The American Committee and to
recruit to its governing board famous, patriotic Americans and the descendants of the most
revered families in the country. In this he succeeded, and it is to his credit that a moral
counter force to the stampeding bulls of repression was erected and has survived to this
day.
[If you found value in this article, you should be interested to read my latest collection
of essays entitled A Belgian Perspective on International Affairs, published in
November 2019 and available in e-book, paperback and hardbound formats from amazon, barnes
& noble, bol.com, fnac, Waterstones and other online retailers. Use the "View Inside" tab
on the book's webpages to browse.]
What I liked most about this article was the highlighting of impossible-to-counter
narratives, the hypocrisy of Western democracy promotion (even as Western governments fellate
domestic and foreign economic elites), and the denigration of nationalism from 1990-2016.
Sadly, the author does a disservice in suggesting that such manipulations are past. Instead,
the Western power-elite has done what it does best: co-opt a 'winning' narrative
(nationalism) and double-down.
Other deficiencies:
Ignores the fact that the US Deep State, caretakers of the Empire, hasn't accepted
defeat. Since 2014 they have been actively trying to reverse what they see as a major
set-back (not defeat).
Via economic sanctions, trade wars, propaganda, and military tensions the Empire is
waging a hybrid war against what it calls the "revisionist" efforts of Russia and
China.
Plays into the propaganda narrative of Trump as populist.
Fails to see the 1990's 'economic shock therapy' as a deliberate attempt to push
Russia into total capitulation. This, darker view, was confirmed obliquely by Kissinger in
his interview with ft in which he stated that no one could foresee the ability of Russia to
absorb pain.
Bill to stop vote-harvesting - ripe for fraud. Let's see where this independent stand
takes her into the bosom of her chosen political party. Can we trade Tulsi for Senator Lisa
Murkowski or Susan Collins?
You're right. Tulsi's bill is needed even though a lot of states already have election
laws against vote harvesting. North Carolina does, but it didn't stop the state GOP from
doing just that in a 2018 vote. This effort not only harvested absentee/mail in ballots, but
filled them out for their GOP candidates as well. Luckily, the state discovered the criminal
activity and threw the book at the culprits.
Further investigation revealed this may have been going on in North Carolina since at
least 2012. Yes, we must guard against his kind of voter fraud. Good on Tulsi for trying to
secure mail in/absentee voting. It helps negate some of the voter suppression methods like
closing voting places and limiting the number of voting machines in selected areas.
Tulsi is a force for good. She is also a die hard progressive with many positions
mirroring those espoused by Bernie and AOC. I hope, somehow, she can revive her political
future.
I see no political future for Tulsi in Hawaii. Of course, her father switched parties (Rep
to Dem) after getting elected to the state senate, so there is that precedent in the family.
But father Mike seems much more politically astute. Meanwhile her seat will be taken over by
progressive Kai Kahele, who in true Hawaii fashion got into the state senate by being
appointed to fill his father's seat when he died in office.
I just checked and found Tulsi has started a PAC so he's apparently not done with
politics. He remains a progressive and continues to support progressive candidates. I don't
see her fitting into the mainstream Democratic Party, but I certainly don't see her going
Republican. That would be a complete 180 from everything she professes to stand for. Perhaps
a third way.
"Her positions will evolve when she has entered the Republican Party"
Sir, that's why I hope Tulsi will not enter the Republican Party. Currently, the GOP party
representation in Congress is populated with cowards. No Republican there has the gut to say
the emperor has no cloth.
I hope she will become an independent candidate (with a small i).
@TTG Tulsi is only 39. She seems to be playing for time. She can afford to wait for the
current Pelosi/Chinton/Schumer/DCCC generation to age out and disappear. They seem hell bent
on "après nous le déluge". They're going to go all-in and will loose. Best to
stay far away from the "Jim Jones" election crew. The progressives hate her for not being
progressive. She has know-towed to them to keep from being banished because the Republican
party in Hawaii is like the Republican party in Portland, Oregon: vestigial. The "opposition"
to the mayor here, Ted Wheeler, the one who encourages the riots, is a hippie to his left.
Ugh... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Portland,_Oregon_mayoral_election
Biden is just Clinton-light. His whole career was based on promotion of neoliberalism and hetryal of working and middle class in
the USA. And like Clinton he is personally corrupt.
In the coming election Biden is the symbol of neoliberal status quo, Hillary II who called working class "descicables".
Notable quotes:
"... Others aren't so sure that political moderatism is a virtue. When it comes to addressing climate change, Eric Levitz of New York Magazine argued that "a major [obstacle] is the tendency of moderate Democrats to mistake their own myopic complacency for heroic prudence". ..."
Men who refer to themselves as 'moderate' or 'centrist' score basically the same on values and opinions as people who identify
themselves as 'conservative'
... ... ...
Others aren't so sure that political moderatism is a virtue. When it comes to addressing climate change, Eric Levitz of New
York Magazine argued that "a major [obstacle] is the tendency of moderate Democrats to mistake their own myopic complacency for heroic
prudence". Political researcher David Adler
found
that across Europe and North America, centrists are the least supportive of democracy, the least committed to its institutions,
and the most supportive of authoritarianism. Furthermore, Adler found that centrists are the least supportive of free and fair elections
as well as civil rights -- in the United States, only 25 percent of centrists agree that civil rights are an essential feature of
democracy.
This finding dovetails with observations made by Martin Luther King Jr. in his
letter from Birmingham Jail : "I have
almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's
Councilor or the Klu Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice." Even Arthur Books, a self-avowed
moderate, admits to "the failure
of the mainstream, moderate, progressive formula for how to create a more equal pluralist America," adding, "I'm a moderate guy,
but the evidence doesn't support moderation when it comes to racial equity."
That's all well and good. But what does the data show?
... ... ...
That moderate men most resemble Republicans has been confirmed, of all places, on dating apps. Brittany Wong of HuffPost
writes , "It's almost
become a coastal cliche at this point: If someone lists their political views as 'moderate' on a dating app, the thinking goes, go
ahead and assume the person is a conservative." One interviewee noted, "It's just in my experience, even 'moderate' guys tend to
have extremely different views on topics that matter to me, like gun control, women's reproductive rights and immigration." Sometimes,
moderate men who appear to bend liberal turn out to be "faux woke," according to one interviewee who was initially attracted to someone
whose profile featured photos at a women's march. Eventually "he slowly started to drop his facade," revealing behaviors inconsistent
with his professed political beliefs.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has grown increasingly frustrated with moderate Democrats during her tenure,
saying at a recent event, "The Democratic Party is not a left party. The Democratic Party is a center or a center-conservative
party." Her chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, recently deleted a
tweet comparing two moderate Democrat coalitions -- consisting mostly of
men -- to Southern Democrats who favored segregation
and opposed civil rights. During this election cycle, a
recurring criticism of Vice President Biden has been his record on school desegregation.
... ... ...
Kevin Singer is a Research Associate for IDEALS and PhD student at North Carolina State University. Twitter: @kevinsinger0
Alyssa Rockenbach is Professor of Higher Education in the Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Human Development
at North Carolina State University
The authors would like to acknowledge Matthew Mayhew, Co-Principal Investigator of IDEALS, and Laura Dahl for their help
running and analyzing the data in this piece
A very good article. A better title would be "How neoliberalism collapsed" Any religious doctrine sonner or later collased
under the weight of corruption of its prisets and unrealistic assumptions about the society. Neoliberalism in no expection as in
heart it is secular religion based on deification of markets.
He does not discuss the role of Harvard Mafiosi in destruction of Russian (and other xUSSR republics) economy in 1990th, mass
looting, empowerment of people (with pensioners experiencing WWII level of starvation) and creation of mafia capitalism on post
Soviet state. But the point he made about the process are right. Yeltsin mafia, like Yeltsin himself, were the product of USA and
GB machinations
Notable quotes:
"... If the US (and the UK, if as usual we tag along) approach the relationship with Beijing with anything like the combination of arrogance, ignorance, greed, criminality, bigotry, hypocrisy and incompetence with which western elites managed the period after the Cold War, then we risk losing the competition and endangering the world. ..."
"... One of the most malign effects of western victory in 1989-91 was to drown out or marginalise criticism of what was already a deeply flawed western social and economic model. In the competition with the USSR, it was above all the visible superiority of the western model that eventually destroyed Soviet communism from within. ..."
"... These beliefs interacted to produce a dominant atmosphere of "there is no alternative," which made it impossible and often in effect forbidden to conduct a proper public debate on the merits of the big western presumptions, policies or plans of the era ..."
"... This was a sentiment I encountered again and again (if not often so frankly expressed) in western establishment institutions in that era: in economic journals if it was suggested that rapid privatisation in the former USSR would lead to massive corruption, social resentment and political reaction; in security circles, if anyone dared to question the logic of Nato expansion ..."
"... Accompanying this overwhelmingly dominant political and economic ideology was an American geopolitical vision equally grandiose in ambition and equally blind to the lessons of history. This was summed up in the memorandum on "Defence Planning Guidance 1994-1999," drawn up in April 1992 for the Bush Senior administration by Under-Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and subsequently leaked to the media ..."
"... By claiming for the US the right of unilateral intervention anywhere in the world and denying other major powers a greater role in their regions, this strategy essentially extended the Monroe Doctrine (which effectively defined the "western hemisphere" as the US sphere of influence) to the entire planet: an ambition greater than that of any previous power. The British Empire at its height knew that it could never intervene unilaterally on the continent of Europe or in Central America. The most megalomaniac of European rulers understood that other great powers with influence in their own areas of the world would always exist. ..."
"... "A stable and healthy polity and economy must be based on some minimal moral values" ..."
"... Many liberals gave the impression of complete indifference to the resulting immiseration of the Russian population in these years. At a meeting of the Carnegie Endowment in Washington that I attended later, former Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar boasted to an applauding US audience of how he had destroyed the Russian military industrial complex. The fact that this also destroyed the livelihoods of tens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians was not mentioned. ..."
"... This attitude was fed by contempt on the part of the educated classes of Moscow and St Petersburg for ordinary Russians, who were dubbed Homo Sovieticus and treated as an inferior species whose loathsome culture was preventing the liberal elites from taking their rightful place among the "civilised" nations of the west. This frame of mind was reminiscent of the traditional attitude of white elites in Latin America towards the Indio and Mestizo majorities in their countries. ..."
"... I vividly remember one Russian liberal journalist state his desire to fire machine guns into crowds of elderly Russians who joined Communist demonstrations to protest about the collapse of their pensions. The response of the western journalists present was that this was perhaps a little bit excessive, but to be excused since the basic sentiment was correct. ..."
"... If the post-Cold War world order was a form of US imperialism, it now looks like an empire in which rot in the over-extended periphery has spread to the core. The economic and social patterns of 1990s Russia and Ukraine have come back to haunt the west, though so far thank God in milder form. The massive looting of Russian state property and the systematic evasion of taxes by Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs was only possible with the help of western banks, which transferred the proceeds to the west and the Caribbean. This crime was euphemised in the western discourse (naturally including the Economist ) as "capital flight." ..."
"... The indifference of Russian elites to the suffering of the Russian population has found a milder echo in the neglect of former industrial regions across Britain, Western Europe and the US that did so much to produce the votes for Brexit, for Trump and for populist nationalist parties in Europe. The catastrophic plunge in Russian male life expectancy in the 1990s has found its echo in the unprecedented decline in white working-class male life expectancy in the US. ..."
"... Perhaps the greatest lesson of the period after the last Cold War is that in the end, a stable and healthy polity and economy must be based on some minimal moral values. ..."
"... Those analysing the connection between Russia and Trump's administration have looked in the wrong place. The explanation of Trump's success is not that Putin somehow mesmerised American voters in 2016. It is that populations abandoned by their elites are liable to extreme political responses; and that societies whose economic elites have turned ethics into a joke should not be surprised if their political leaders too become scoundrels. ..."
A s the US prepares to plunge into a new cold war with China in which its chances do not
look good, it's an appropriate time to examine how we went so badly wrong after "victory" in
the last Cold War. Looking back 30 years from the grim perspective of 2020, it is a challenge
even for those who were adults at the time to remember just how triumphant the west appeared in
the wake of the collapse of Soviet communism and the break-up of the USSR itself.
Today, of the rich fruits promised by that great victory, only wretched fragments remain.
The much-vaunted "peace dividend," savings from military spending, was squandered. The
opportunity to use the resources freed up to spread prosperity and deal with urgent social
problems was wasted, and -- even worse -- the US military budget is today higher than ever.
Attempts to mitigate the apocalyptic threat of climate change have fallen far short of what the
scientific consensus deems to be urgently necessary. The chance to solve the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and stabilise the Middle East was thrown away even before 9/11 and
the disastrous US response. The lauded "new world order" of international harmony and
co-operation -- heralded by the elder George Bush after the first Gulf War -- is a tragic joke.
Britain's European dream has been destroyed, and geopolitical stability on the European
continent has been lost due chiefly to new and mostly unnecessary tension with Moscow. The one
previously solid-seeming achievement, the democratisation of Eastern Europe, is looking
questionable, as Poland and Hungary (see Samira Shackle, p20) sink into semi-authoritarian
nationalism.
Russia after the Cold War was a shambles and today it remains a weak economy with a limited
role on the world stage, concerned mainly with retaining some of its traditional areas of
influence. China is a vastly more formidable competitor. If the US (and the UK, if as usual we
tag along) approach the relationship with Beijing with anything like the combination of
arrogance, ignorance, greed, criminality, bigotry, hypocrisy and incompetence with which
western elites managed the period after the Cold War, then we risk losing the competition and
endangering the world.
One of the most malign effects of western victory in 1989-91 was to drown out or marginalise
criticism of what was already a deeply flawed western social and economic model. In the
competition with the USSR, it was above all the visible superiority of the western model that
eventually destroyed Soviet communism from within. Today, the superiority of the western model
to the Chinese model is not nearly so evident to most of the world's population; and it is on
successful western domestic reform that victory in the competition with China will depend.
Hubris
Western triumph and western failure were deeply intertwined. The very completeness of the
western victory both obscured its nature and legitimised all the western policies of the day,
including ones that had nothing to do with the victory over the USSR, and some that proved
utterly disastrous.
As Alexander Zevin has written of the house journal of Anglo-American elites, the
revolutions in Eastern Europe "turbocharged the neoliberal dynamic at the Economist ,
and seemed to stamp it with an almost providential seal." In retrospect, the magazine's 1990s
covers have a tragicomic appearance, reflecting a degree of faith in the rightness and
righteousness of neoliberal capitalism more appropriate to a religious cult.
These beliefs interacted to produce a dominant atmosphere of "there is no alternative,"
which made it impossible and often in effect forbidden to conduct a proper public debate on the
merits of the big western presumptions, policies or plans of the era. As a German official told
me when I expressed some doubt about the wisdom of rapid EU enlargement, "In my ministry we are
not even allowed to think about that."
This was a sentiment I encountered again and again (if not often so frankly expressed) in
western establishment institutions in that era: in economic journals if it was suggested that
rapid privatisation in the former USSR would lead to massive corruption, social resentment and
political reaction; in security circles, if anyone dared to question the logic of Nato
expansion; and almost anywhere if it was pointed out that the looting of former Soviet
republics was being assiduously encouraged and profited from by western banks, and regarded
with benign indifference by western governments.
The atmosphere of the time is (nowadays notoriously) summed up in Francis Fukuyama's The
End of History , which essentially predicted that western liberal capitalist democracy
would now be the only valid and successful economic and political model for all time. In fact,
what victory in the Cold War ended was not history but the study of history by western
elites.
"The US claiming the right of unilateral intervention anywhere in the world was an
ambition greater than that of any previous power"
A curious feature of 1990s capitalist utopian thought was that it misunderstood the
essential nature of capitalism, as revealed by its real (as opposed to faith-based) history.
One is tempted to say that Fukuyama should have paid more attention to Karl Marx and a famous
passage in The Communist Manifesto :
"The bourgeoisie [ie capitalism] cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the
instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole
relations of society All fixed, fast-frozen relations with their train of ancient and venerable
prejudices and opinions, are swept away; all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can
ossify the bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market drawn from under the
feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old established national industries
have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed "
Then again, Marx himself made exactly the same mistake in his portrayal of a permanent
socialist utopia after the overthrow of capitalism. The point is that utopias, being perfect,
are unchanging, whereas continuous and radical change, driven by technological development, is
at the heart of capitalism -- and, according to Marx, of the whole course of human history. Of
course, those who believed in a permanently successful US "Goldilocks economy" -- not too hot,
and not too cold -- also managed to forget 300 years of periodic capitalist economic
crises.
Though much mocked at the time, Fukuyama's vision came to dominate western thinking. This
was summed up in the universally employed but absurd phrases "Getting to Denmark" (as if Russia
and China were ever going to resemble Denmark) and "The path to democracy and the free
market" (my italics), which became the mantra of the new and lucrative academic-bureaucratic
field of "transitionology." Absurd, because the merest glance at modern history reveals
multiple different "paths" to -- and away from -- democracy and capitalism, not to mention
myriad routes that have veered towards one at the same time as swerving away from the
other.
Accompanying this overwhelmingly dominant political and economic ideology was an American
geopolitical vision equally grandiose in ambition and equally blind to the lessons of history.
This was summed up in the memorandum on "Defence Planning Guidance 1994-1999," drawn up in
April 1992 for the Bush Senior administration by Under-Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz and
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and subsequently leaked to the media. Its central message was:
"The US must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds
the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or
pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests We must maintain the
mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global
role "
By claiming for the US the right of unilateral intervention anywhere in the world and
denying other major powers a greater role in their regions, this strategy essentially extended
the Monroe Doctrine (which effectively defined the "western hemisphere" as the US sphere of
influence) to the entire planet: an ambition greater than that of any previous power. The
British Empire at its height knew that it could never intervene unilaterally on the continent
of Europe or in Central America. The most megalomaniac of European rulers understood that other
great powers with influence in their own areas of the world would always exist.
While that 1992 Washington paper spoke of the "legitimate interests" of other states, it
clearly implied that it would be Washington that would define what interests were legitimate,
and how they could be pursued. And once again, though never formally adopted, this "doctrine"
became in effect the standard operating procedure of subsequent administrations. In the early
2000s, when its influence reached its most dangerous height, military and security elites would
couch it in the terms of "full spectrum dominance." As the younger President Bush declared in
his State of the Union address in January 2002, which put the US on the road to the invasion of
Iraq: "By the grace of God, America won the Cold War A world once divided into two armed camps
now recognises one sole and pre-eminent power, the United States of America."
Nemesis
Triumphalism led US policymakers, and their transatlantic followers, to forget one cardinal
truth about geopolitical and military power: that in the end it is not global and absolute, but
local and relative. It is the amount of force or influence a state wants to bring to bear in a
particular place and on a -particular issue, relative to the power that a rival state is
willing and able to bring to bear. The truth of this has been shown repeatedly over the past
generation. For all America's overwhelming superiority on paper, it has turned out that many
countries have greater strength than the US in particular places: Russia in Georgia and
Ukraine, Russia and Iran in Syria, China in the South China Sea, and even Pakistan in southern
Afghanistan.
American over-confidence, accepted by many Europeans and many Britons especially, left the
US in a severely weakened condition to conduct what should have been clear as far back as the
1990s to be the great competition of the future -- that between Washington and Beijing.
On the one hand, American moves to extend Nato to the Baltics and then (abortively) on to
Ukraine and Georgia, and to abolish Russian influence and destroy Russian allies in the Middle
East, inevitably produced a fierce and largely successful Russian nationalist reaction. Within
Russia, the US threat to its national interests helped to consolidate and legitimise Putin's
control. Internationally, it ensured that Russia would swallow its deep-seated fears of China
and become a valuable partner of Beijing.
On the other hand, the benign and neglectful way in which Washington regarded the rise of
China in the generation after the Cold War (for example, the blithe decision to allow China to
join the World Trade Organisation) was also rooted in ideological arrogance. Western
triumphalism meant that most of the US elites were convinced that as a result of economic
growth, the Chinese Communist state would either democratise or be overthrown; and that China
would eventually have to adopt the western version of economics or fail economically. This was
coupled with the belief that good relations with China could be predicated on China accepting a
so-called "rules-based" international order in which the US set the rules while also being free
to break them whenever it wished; something that nobody with the slightest knowledge of Chinese
history should
have believed.
Throughout, the US establishment discourse (Democrat as much as Republican) has sought to
legitimise American global hegemony by invoking the promotion of liberal democracy. At the same
time, the supposedly intrinsic connection between economic change, democracy and peace was
rationalised by cheerleaders such as the New York Times 's indefatigable Thomas
Friedman, who advanced the (always absurd, and now flatly and repeatedly falsified) "Golden
Arches theory of Conflict
Prevention." This vulgarised version of Democratic Peace Theory pointed out that two countries
with McDonald's franchises had never been to war. The humble and greasy American burger was
turned into a world-historical symbol of the buoyant modern middle classes with too much to
lose to countenance war.
Various equally hollow theories postulated cast-iron connections between free markets and
guaranteed property rights on the one hand, and universal political rights and freedoms on the
other, despite the fact that even within the west, much of political history can be
characterised as the fraught and complex brokering of accommodations between these two sets of
things.
And indeed, since the 1990s democracy has not advanced in the world as a whole, and belief
in the US promotion of democracy has been discredited by US patronage of the authoritarian and
semi-authoritarian regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, India and elsewhere. Of the predominantly
Middle Eastern and South Asian students whom I teach at Georgetown University in Qatar, not one
-- even among the liberals -- believes that the US is sincerely committed to spreading
democracy; and, given their own regions' recent history, there is absolutely no reason why they
should believe this.
The one great triumph of democratisation coupled with free market reform was -- or appeared
to be -- in the former communist states of Central and Eastern Europe, and this success was
endlessly cited as the model for political and economic reform across
the globe.
But the portrayal of East European reform in the west failed to recognise the central role
of local nationalism. Once again, to talk of this at the time was to find oneself in effect
excluded from polite society, because to do so called into question the self-evident
superiority and universal appeal of liberal reform. The overwhelming belief of western
establishments was that nationalism was a superstition that was fast losing its hold on people
who, given the choice, could everywhere be relied on to act like rational consumers, rather
than citizens rooted in one particular land.
The more excitable technocrats imagined that nation state itself (except the US of course)
was destined to wither away. This was also the picture reflected back to western observers and
analysts by liberal reformers across the region, who whether or not they were genuinely
convinced of this, knew what their western sponsors wanted to hear. Western economic and
cultural hegemony produced a sort of mirror game, a copulation of illusions in which local
informants provided false images to the west, which then reflected them back to the east, and
so on.
Always the nation
Yet one did not have to travel far outside the centres of Eastern European cities to find
large parts of populations outraged by the moral and cultural changes ordained by the EU, the
collapse of social services, and the (western-indulged) seizure of public property by former
communist elites. So why did Eastern Europeans swallow the whole western liberal package of the
time? They did so precisely because of their nationalism, which persuaded them that if they did
not pay the cultural and economic price of entry into the EU and Nato, they would sooner or
later fall back under the dreaded hegemony of Moscow. For them, unwanted reform was the price
that the nation had to pay for US protection. Not surprisingly, once membership of these
institutions was secured, a powerful populist and nationalist backlash set in.
Western blindness to the power of nationalism has had several bad consequences for western
policy, and the cohesion of "the west." In Eastern Europe, it would in time lead to the
politically almost insane decision of the EU to try to order the local peoples, with their
deeply-rooted ethnic nationalism and bitter memories of outside dictation, to accept large
numbers of Muslim refugees. The backlash then became conjoined with the populist reactions in
Western Europe, which led to Brexit and the sharp decline of centrist parties across the
EU.
More widely, this blindness to the power of nationalism led the US grossly to underestimate
the power of nationalist sentiment in Russia, China and Iran, and contributed to the US attempt
to use "democratisation" as a means to overthrow their regimes. All that this has succeeded in
doing is to help the regimes concerned turn nationalist sentiment against local liberals, by
accusing them of being US stooges.
"A stable and healthy polity and economy must be based on
some minimal moral values"
Russian liberals in the 1990s were mostly not really US agents as such, but the collapse of
Communism led some to a blind adulation of everything western and to identify unconditionally
with US policies. In terms of public image, this made them look like western lackeys; in terms
of policy, it led to the adoption of the economic "shock therapy" policies advocated by the
west. Combined with monstrous corruption and the horribly disruptive collapse of the Soviet
single market, this had a shattering effect on Russian industry and the living standards of
ordinary Russians.
Many liberals gave the impression of complete indifference to the resulting immiseration of
the Russian population in these years. At a meeting of the Carnegie Endowment in Washington
that I attended later, former Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar boasted to an applauding US audience
of how he had destroyed the Russian military industrial complex. The fact that this also
destroyed the livelihoods of tens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians was not mentioned.
This attitude was fed by contempt on the part of the educated classes of Moscow and St
Petersburg for ordinary Russians, who were dubbed Homo Sovieticus and treated as an
inferior species whose loathsome culture was preventing the liberal elites from taking their
rightful place among the "civilised" nations of the west. This frame of mind was reminiscent of
the traditional attitude of white elites in Latin America towards the Indio and Mestizo
majorities in their countries.
I vividly remember one Russian liberal journalist state his desire to fire machine guns into
crowds of elderly Russians who joined Communist demonstrations to protest about the collapse of
their pensions. The response of the western journalists present was that this was perhaps a
little bit excessive, but to be excused since the basic sentiment was correct.
The Russian liberals of the 1990s were crazy to reveal this contempt to the people whose
votes they needed to win. So too was Hillary Clinton, with her disdain for the "basket of
deplorables" in the 2016 election, much of the Remain camp in the years leading up to Brexit,
and indeed the European elites in the way they rammed through the Maastricht Treaty and the
euro in the 1990s.
If the post-Cold War world order was a form of US imperialism, it now looks like an empire
in which rot in the over-extended periphery has spread to the core. The economic and social
patterns of 1990s Russia and Ukraine have come back to haunt the west, though so far thank God
in milder form. The massive looting of Russian state property and the systematic evasion of
taxes by Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs was only possible with the help of western banks,
which transferred the proceeds to the west and the Caribbean. This crime was euphemised in the
western discourse (naturally including the Economist ) as "capital flight."
Peter Mandelson qualified his famous remark that the Blair government was "intensely relaxed
about people becoming filthy rich" with the words "as long as they pay their taxes." The whole
point, however, about the filthy Russian, Ukrainian, Nigerian, Pakistani and other money that
flowed to and through London was not just that so much of it was stolen, but that it was
escaping taxation, thereby harming the populations at home twice over. The infamous euphemism
"light-touch regulation" was in effect a charter
for this.
In a bitter form of poetic justice, however, "light-touch regulation" paved the way for the
2008 economic crisis in the west itself, and western economic elites too (especially in the US)
would also seize this opportunity to move their money into tax havens. This has done serious
damage to state revenues, and to the fundamental faith of ordinary people in the west that the
rich are truly subject to the same laws as them.
The indifference of Russian elites to the suffering of the Russian population has found a
milder echo in the neglect of former industrial regions across Britain, Western Europe and the
US that did so much to produce the votes for Brexit, for Trump and for populist nationalist
parties in Europe. The catastrophic plunge in Russian male life expectancy in the 1990s has
found its echo in the unprecedented decline in white working-class male life expectancy in the
US.
Perhaps the greatest lesson of the period after the last Cold War is that in the end, a
stable and healthy polity and economy must be based on some minimal moral values. To say this
to western economists, businessmen and financial journalists in the 1990s was to receive the
kindly contempt usually accorded to religious cranks. The only value recognised was shareholder
value, a currency in which the crimes of the Russian oligarchs could be excused because their
stolen companies had "added value." Any concern about duty to the Russian people as a whole, or
the fact that tolerance of these crimes would make it grotesque to demand honesty of policemen
or civil servants, were dismissed as irrelevant sentimentality.
Bringing it all back home
We in the west are living with the consequences of a generation of such attitudes. Western
financial elites have mostly not engaged in outright illegality; but then again, they usually
haven't needed to, since governments have made it easy for them to abide by the letter of the
law while tearing its spirit to pieces. We are belatedly recognising that, as Franklin Foer
wrote in the Atlantic last year: "New York, Los Angeles and Miami have joined London as
the world's most desired destinations for laundered money. This boom has enriched the American
elites who have enabled it -- and it has degraded the nation's political and social mores in
the process. While everyone else was heralding an emergent globalist world that would take on
the best values of America, [Richard] Palmer [a former CIA station chief in Moscow] had
glimpsed the dire risk of the opposite: that the values of the kleptocrats would become
America's own. This grim vision is now nearing fruition."
Those analysing the connection between Russia and Trump's administration have looked in the
wrong place. The explanation of Trump's success is not that Putin somehow mesmerised American
voters in 2016. It is that populations abandoned by their elites are liable to extreme
political responses; and that societies whose economic elites have turned ethics into a joke
should not be surprised if their political leaders too become scoundrels.
Fox News
6.2M subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
For Americans living under coronavirus restrictions, it's a question too rarely asked. In fact it's actively discouraged.
Nice take on imbecilization of important and complex topics by the US MSM and politicians.
Money quote about neoliberal Dems like Obama and Biden "
But there are others for whom altruism is an alien concept.
Self-interest is all they know. These people never pause. They relentlessly press for any advantage, under any circumstances. They
see human suffering as a means to increase their power."
Another money quote: "in the hands of Democratic politicians, climate change is like systemic racism in the sky: You can't see it, but it's everywhere and
it's deadly."
Notable quotes:
"... But there are others for whom altruism is an alien concept. Self-interest is all they know. These people never pause. They relentlessly press for any advantage, under any circumstances. They see human suffering as a means to increase their power. ..."
"... Joe Biden's closest friend in the world, a prominent Martha's Vineyard kite-surfer called Barack Obama, echoed that message with his trademark restraint. Obama declawed that your "life" depends on voting for Joe Biden. ..."
"... One of the few Republicans who still hold elected office in California, state Assemblyman Heath Flora, last year called on using the state's $22 billion budget surplus to implement vegetation management. ..."
"... Fires don't spread as well without huge connected forests functioning as kindling. It's obvious, which is why it's unthinkable to mention it in some Democratic circles." ..."
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: Massive wildfires continue to sweep across huge portions of the Pacific Northwest.
In Oregon, half a million residents have been forced to evacuate -- one out of every ten people in the state.
Dozens are dead tonight, including small children. But the fires still aren't close to contained. Watch this report from Fox's
Jeff Paul:
Video report
And it continues as we speak, walls of flame consuming everything in their path: homes, animals, human beings. Tragedy on a
massive scale.
When something this awful happens, decent people pause. They put aside their own interests for a moment. They consider how they
can help. We've seen that kind of selflessness before.
This is, remember, the anniversary of 9-11.
But there are others for whom altruism is an alien concept. Self-interest is all
they know. These people never pause. They relentlessly press for any advantage, under any circumstances. They see human suffering
as a means to increase their power.
These are the people who turn funerals into political rallies and feel no shame for doing it.
As Americans burned to death, people like this swung into action immediately. They went on television with a partisan talking
point: Climate change caused these fires, they said. They didn't explain how that happened. They just kept saying it.
In the hands of Democratic politicians, climate change is like systemic racism in the sky: you can't see it, but it's everywhere,
and it's deadly. And, like systemic racism, it's your fault: The American middle class did it. They ate too many hamburgers,
drove too many SUVs, had too many children.
A lot of them wear T-shirts to work and didn't finish college. That causes climate change too. And, worst of all, some of them
may vote for Donald Trump in November.
If there's anything that absolutely, definitively causes climate change -- and literally over a hundred percent of scientists
agree with this established fact -- it's voting for Donald Trump. You might as well start a tire fire. You're destroying the ozone
layer.
Joe Biden has checked the science, and he agrees. Yesterday, the people on Biden's staff who understand the internet tweeted out
an image of the wildfires, along with the message, "Climate change is already here -- and we're witnessing its devastating effects
every single day. We have to get President Trump out of the White House."
Again, by voting for Donald Trump, you've made hundreds of thousands of Oregonians homeless tonight. You've killed people.
Joe Biden's closest friend in the world, a prominent Martha's Vineyard kite-surfer called Barack Obama, echoed that message
with his trademark restraint. Obama declawed that your "life" depends on voting for Joe Biden.
At a time when sea levels are rising and we're about to see killer whales in the Rockies? Honestly, it doesn't seem like Obama is
overly concerned about climate change? And by the way, didn't he go to law school? When he did become a climate expert?
Those seem like good questions. But lawyers pretending to be scientists are now everywhere in the Democratic Party.
Here's the governor of Washington, Jay Inslee, a proud graduate of Willamette University law school, explaining that he's already
figured out the "cause" of the fires. Watch:
INSLEE: Fires are proof we need a stronger liberal agenda Sept 8 TRT: 18 Inslee: And these are conditions that are exacerbated
by the changing climate that we are suffering. And I do not believe that we should surrender these subdivisions or these houses
to climate change-exacerbated fires. We should fight the cause of these fires.
This is a crock. In fact, there is not a single scientist on earth who knows whether, or by how much, these fires may have been
"exacerbated" by warmer temperatures caused by "climate change," whatever that means anymore.
All we have is conjecture from a handful of scientists, none of whom have reached any definitive conclusions.
Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA, for example, has admitted that it's, quote, "hard to determine whether climate change
played a role in sparking the fires."
Meanwhile, investigators have determined that the massive El Dorado fire in California, which has torched nearly 14,000 acres,
was caused by morons setting off some kind of fireworks. And then on Wednesday, police announced that a criminal investigation is
underway into the massive Almeda fire in Ashland, Oregon.
The sheriff there said it's too early to say what caused the fire, but he's said human remains were found at the suspected origin
point. Nothing is being ruled out, including arson.
The more you know, the more complicated it is, like everything. Serious people are just beginning to gather evidence to determine
what happened to cause this disaster.
But at the same time, unserious people are now everywhere on the media right now, drowning out nuance. Don't worry about the
facts, they say. Just trust us -- the sky orange is orange over San Francisco because households making $40,000 a year made the
mistake of voting for a Republican.
Therefore you must hand us total control of the nation's economy. Watch amateur arson detective Nancy Pelosi explain:
PELOSI: Mother Earth is angry. She's telling us, whether she's telling us with hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, fires in the
west, whatever it is, the climate crisis is real and has an impact.
Mother Nature is angry. Please. When was the last time Nancy Pelosi went outside? No one asked her. All we know is what she said:
climate change caused this. Of course.
No matter the natural disaster -- hurricanes, tornadoes, whatever -- climate change did it. Keep in mind, Nancy Pelosi owns two
sub-zero freezers. They cost $10,000 apiece.
We know because she showed them off on national television. Those use a lot of energy. Like Barack Obama, she constantly flies
private between her multi-million dollar estates all over the country.
Obviously, she doesn't care about climate change. And neither do her supporters -- otherwise, they'd be trying to destroy the
mansions she owns, not the hair salons that expose her hypocrisy.
For the left, this is really about blaming and ritually humiliating the middle-class for the election of Donald Trump. Joe Biden
knows that the Pennsylvanians who would be financially ruined by his
fracking
ban
are the same Pennsylvanians who flipped the state red in 2016 for the first time in a generation.
That's the whole point. One of the reasons Joe Biden is barely allowed outside is that he has no problem showing his contempt for
the middle-class he supposedly cares so much about.
In 2019, he openly
mocked
coal miners
and suggested they just get programming jobs once they're all fired. Watch:
BIDEN: I come from a family, an area where's coal mining – in Scranton. Anybody, that can go down 300 to 3,000 feet in a mine,
sure as hell can learn how to program as well.
Learn to code! Hilarious. Joe Biden should try it. But there isn't time. The world is ending. Last summer, Sandy Cortez [AOC] did
the math and calculated we only have
12
years left to live
.
If that sounds bad, consider this -- Just four months after that warning, Sandy Cortez tweeted that we only have 10 years to "cut
carbon emissions in half."
Think about the math here. We lost two years in just four months. At that rate, we could literally all die unless Joe Biden wins
in November. Which is of course what they're saying.
On Tuesday, California Gavin Newsom pretty much said it Newsom abandoned science long ago. Science is too stringent, too western,
too patriarchal.
Newsom is a man of faith now. He's decided
climate
change caused all of this
, and that's final. He's not listening to any other arguments. Watch:
NEWSOM: I have no patience. And I say this lovingly, not as an ideologue, but as someone who prides himself on being open to
argument, interested in evidence. But I quite literally have no patience for climate change deniers. It simply follows completely
inconsistent, that point of view, with the reality on the ground.
People like Gavin Newsom don't want to listen to any "climate change deniers." What's a "climate change denier?" Anyone who
thinks our ruling class has no idea how to run their states or protect their citizens.
Are we "climate change deniers" if we point out that California has failed to implement meaningful deforestation measures that
would have dramatically slowed the spread of these wildfires?
In 2018, a state oversight agency in California found that years of poor or nonexistent
forest
management policies
in the Sierra Nevada forests had contributed to wildfires.
One of the few Republicans who still hold elected office in California, state Assemblyman Heath Flora, last year called on
using the state's $22 billion budget surplus to implement vegetation management.
Fires don't spread as well without huge connected forests functioning as kindling. It's obvious, which is why it's
unthinkable to mention it in some Democratic circles."
Presumably, you're also a climate-change denier if you point out that six of the Oregon National Guard's wildfire-fighting
helicopters are currently in Afghanistan.
Instead of dropping water to suppress blazes, the Chinook aircraft are busy supplying a war effort that's been going on for
nearly 20 years. That seems significant. Has anyone asked Gavin Newsom or Jay Inslee about that? Do any of the Democrats who
control these states even care?
The answer, of course, is probably not. It was just last week that Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti admitted on-the-record that
his city has become completely third-world.
Of course, Garcetti didn't blame himself for this turn of events. He blamed you. Quote: "It's almost 3 p.m," Garcetti tweeted.
"Time to turn off major appliances, set the thermostat to 78 degrees (or use a fan instead, turn off excess lights and unplug any
appliances you're not using. We need every Californian to help conserve energy. Please do your part."
"Please do your part." Garcetti wants his constituents to suffer to try to solve a problem that Democrats in his state created.
Even now, as residents in Northern California are facing sweeping power outages in addition to wildfires.
In the meantime, Gavin Newsom has vowed that 50 percent of California's energy grid will be based on quote "renewable" energy
sources within a decade.
That means sources like wind and solar power -- which can't be dialed up to meet periods of extreme demand, like California is
seeing right now during its heatwave.
Newsom was asked last month whether he would consider revising this stance given the blackouts that have left millions of
Californians without power.
Newsom responded, quote, "We are going to radically change the way we produce and consume energy." In other words, The blackouts
will continue until morale improves. So will the wildfires. Get used to it.
Fox News
6.2M subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
In the hands of Democratic politicians, climate change is like systemic racism in the sky: You can't see it, but it's
everywhere and it's deadly.
#FoxNews
#Tucker
This is a direct result of Gavin Newsom eliminating forestation controls. Jerry Brown kept them in place, the only thing he
did correctly. Democrats are to blame for all of this.
When environmentalists pushed through their "leave forests alone, allow nature to be undisturbed" bs, California and other
states stopped clearing underbrush, also known as fire fuel and now we see a perfect example of cause and effect.
Don't get me wrong I am a conservatist , but with common sense , we can't conserve unless we protect and nurture nature to
thrive. In fact extremism in environmentalism destroys as we see. People dead, animals dead, homes destroyed, forest destroyed
because of extremism.
The narrative to leave forests alone happened long before Trump, believing otherwise makes you a useful idiot.
Congratulations.
You could Google this old narrative but will you find it, well it's Google, you have to find the people who heard and lived
the so called natural environmental push narrative, we remember and we remember the warnings. Congratulations, your ignorance
has caused harm.
"... We are witnessing a political game of chess where the only pieces being moved are the pawns, while the king and queen sit safely on a different board. ..."
@
6:29
""There needs to be unrest in the streets as there is unrest in our lives"" When the elite oligarchy ignore peaceful
protests, you get aggressive uprisings. It's human nature and good ol' fashioned patriotism.
As of Sep 20, the video has around one million views and this is another bad news for Creepy Joe. Biden clan is really
greedy and unprincipled. Hunter is definitely corrupt drug addict. That's undeniable.
While his China deal are highly suspicious, Creepy Joe Burisma corruption story is actually completely provable.
Should not children of high officials be restricted in their possible positions, so that they can't use the influence of their
fathers.
Notable quotes:
"... Uncover the secret world of Joe Biden and his family's relationship to China ..."
"... Hunter Biden is just like his father & the Obamas - never had a legit job, never had a position he deserved, always had people bribed to get him positions and paid way more than he's worth ..."
Uncover the secret world of Joe Biden and his family's relationship to China and the sinister business
deals that enriched them at America's expense.
5,909 Comments
T W 1 week ago
Never knew the Biden family has this many dirty secrets with communist China. They exchanged America's top secret for cash.
Pat K 6 days ago
Hunter Biden is just like his father & the Obamas - never had a legit job, never had a position he deserved, always had people
bribed to get him positions and paid way more than he's worth. Obama & Biden have to be the two most corrupt US politicians ever.
What's worse, they put our enemies' interests ahead of the US' & they aided our enemies. What I see are corrupt, greedy people
getting rich at the expense of Americans, consequences be damned. After watching this documentary, why aren't Joe & Hunter & possibly
Obama in jail?
Les Blat 2 weeks ago
Who needs nuclear weapons when you have so many demoncrats wanting to destroy America from within for cash.
Marjorie McDaniel 6 days ago
Personally, I think Joe Biden is faking his illness to get out of his evil doings. Biden is behind it along with Obama and
others. Pray for our nation and its people. Wake up and get on your knees.
Allan Gregoire 2 weeks ago
A vote for Biden is a vote for China. Elections have consequences. Biden supporters learn Mandarin now, you're going to need
it to communicate with your new overlords.
Another setback for Creepy Joe. Looks like he is out of luck. And note the comment: "Just
like the the BLM supporter who, yesterday, walked into a bar in Kentucky and executed three
people at point blank range. " It will also play out. Looks like Biden isn't going to make it to
November......
In the lead-up to the November election political investigator and author Peter Schweizer,
who currently heads the Florida-based Government Accountability Institute, has unveiled a
bombshell exposé presenting damning evidence of Hunter and his father Joe Biden's shady
and hidden financial dealings with China.
Directed by Matthew Taylor, whose prior works include Clinton Cash and Creepy Line , the
41-minute film entitled "Riding the Dragon: The Bidens' Chinese Secrets," details a pile of
corporate records, financial documents, legal briefings as well as court papers which tie
Hunter's firm with a major Chinese defense contractor, namely Aviation Industry Corp. of China
(AVIC), and multiple other PLA linked companies.
"It's a relationship that grew while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States and
shortly after he was appointed the point person on U.S. policy towards China," Schweizer, who
narratives the film,
described upon the documentary's release earlier this month. "This new firm started making
investment deals that would serve the strategic interests of the Chinese military."
"It's the story of the second most powerful man in the world at the time and how his family
was striking deals with America's chief rival on the global stage, the People's Republic of
China ," he added.
I don't need to view a feature-length film to realize that Joe and his whole family are
crooked as ****.
Make_Mine_A_Double , 12 minutes ago
Hence Trump's remark 'if Biden is elected China will OWN America'.
Clearly he knows all this and more. I watched the whole thing - nothing I didn't already
know in bits and peices, but taken together in chronological order is devastating. The whole
family should be executed.
2banana , 1 hour ago
Will be ignored by the fake legacy new media.
Just like the the BLM supporter who, yesterday, walked into a bar in Kentucky and executed
three people at point blank range.
Was smiling when the cops arrived.
platyops , 1 hour ago
We have Kamala the prostitute, Joe the smug cheat that handled "Corn Pop" so well and his
Cocaine driven son Hunter. If politics and the democrat party don't get any more sleazy than
this I don't know.
Joe Biden is asking you to vote for him for president. I for one say NO! As Judge Judy
once said "Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining"
Joe Biden and his HO assistant make me ashamed to be an American.
The rest of the world laughs at us because of the democrat party pick to be our
leader!
Joe used to be a Catholic and hated abortion. But now he says sure kill all the babies you
want because I will sell my soul to be president.
Someday he will have to explain to our Lord Jesus Christ his behavior and just what he
thought selling his soul was worth. Not that many years away either dear Joe Biden.
I tried watching this and ended up being like, yeah, politicians are corrupt and they help
out their families and this goes on at the highest levels of all governments and it is really
bad and we should do something about it.
And then I turned it off, because people that didn't already know that don't belong in the
same room with the adults.
FUBAR2014 , 1 hour ago
In other words the whole Democratic party and anyone stupid enough to vote Biden.
Tom Green Swedish , 1 hour ago
Yea, read his wikipedia. This guy is the definition of corrupt. In fact he gives new
meanings to the word corrupt. What a bag of crap.
uhland62 , 1 hour ago
Manafort is the same, just revealed in trillion Dollar money laundering schams.
Touché - surprise - both parties learned from the same textbooks. One-party-rule,
two-party-rule - all the same.
Farmer Tink , 1 hour ago
No one has ever thought that Manafort was anything other than a total sleaze. He was hired
to get Trump through a contested convention with Ted Cruz because Manafort is the only guy
around who's done it. He's responsible for Ford's successful convention fight against Reagan
in '76. Trump dropped him light a hot potato when the information about Manafort's business
in Ukraine came out.
Everyone thinks that Biden and Hunter are clean. You know, Uncle Joe. Now a lot of people
everywhere on the planet are contemplating a war with China. It'll be hard to sweep this one
under the rug like the one with Ukraine. Those deals were for dual-use technology and
required a sign off from the top dogs in the Obama administration. Getting Hunter in on the
action guaranteed smooth sailing.
I hope that Trump blasts Biden's *** with this and I don't even like Trump. Biden and his
crew are a bunch of ******* traitors and they should be outed.
hoytmonger , 1 hour ago
Who cares?
Both Bush 41 and Clinton got a pass on the drugs-for-arms being run out of Arkansas.
Barry Seal had Bush's direct White House phone number in his wallet when he was
murdered.
Then Bush became President.
Every single one of these politicians is dirty.
American2 , 1 hour ago
Bill Clinton certainly knew what was happening in Arkansas, and Bush wasn't even President
when Barry Seale was running drugs into and out of Arkansas, but Bill Clinton was the
Governor.
Shut. It. Down. , 58 minutes ago
Clinton was in on the skim to the tune of ten percent. Not to mention laundering the
profits through Dan Lasater, Jackson Stephens and the ADFA.
Air Cocaine: Poppy Bush, the Contras and a Secret Airbase in the Backwoods of Arkansas
Yup. As corrupt as they come. And creepy. And apparently suffering from early onset
dementia at the very least. And this, THIS MAN, is what the Democratic Party of the United
States of America, is putting up as a supposedly legitimate candidate for POTUS?!? This is
overly ridiculous, and proves TDS is a very real and very dangerous disease. Don't worry
about the wu¥flu, worry about the TDS.
Eastern Whale , 1 hour ago
All politicians is corrupt, lets get this straight. Naive to think Trump doesn't deal with
China.
Look at Jared Kushner's property promotion in China
pc_babe , 1 hour ago
Squirrel!
TahoeBilly2012 , 56 minutes ago
Cabal profits from there transformations and wars. They know whats coming.
Reaper , 1 hour ago
Hunter Biden has his price. It's easily negotiated lower.
Vivekwhu , 1 hour ago
So, now the Rep-Dems are accusing Biden of being a CCP agent? This will go nicely with the
Dem-Reps line that Trump is a Putin agent! Don't you love these farts while the US Plebs go
down the debt financial hole??? The rot in the Imperial DC cesspit is too deep and the coup
against Trump by the US Deep State will go kinetic very soon.
wage stagnation and the collapse of working-class life;
our dangerously crumbling infrastructure;
our pressing need to remake our economic system to avoid the onrushing threat to human civilization as we know it posed
by the climate crisis;
and the generalized collapse of faith in our system and its most powerful practitioners, particularly among young people.
... he has not matched Sanders's willingness to disentangle us from unwinnable foreign wars.
Biden is the candidate from credit card companies and like leopard can't change its spots. He is and always was a neocon and
staunch neoliberal.
A typical Washington swamp rat. Completely despicable person, if you ask me.
And a very sick in addition to that. To the extent that he risks his life and accelerates his mental decline by running in
such a stressful contest. That's the same problem that Hillary faced.
But now with "Anybody but Trump" movement growing stronger and stronger by the day, his health problems, past warmongering
and his despicable role in the decimation of the New Deal and the establishment of the rule of financial oligarchy in the USA
might hunt him less than he deserves.
A cat or a dog in place of Biden would probably do as well this time, if not better :-)
We are in recession now and that spells big troubles for Trump. Moreover, the real contest in November most probably will be
between Trump and his administration handling of the coronavirus epidemics, not so much between Trump and Biden ;-)
“Why did Senator Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg suddenly drop out? They were all on the ballot on Super Tuesday and they suddenly
dropped out. Well, they were contacted by the Democratic Party, the Democratic National Committee, by various people like Terry
McAuliffe, the Clintons and all of them basically saying — do it in order to save the party from Bernie Sanders, do it for Joe
Biden, our boy, you know.
These are a bunch of losers, they have lost so many elections, state, federal over the years against the worst Republican Party
in history. And the losers don’t want to give up their sinecures.
They don’t want to give up the entrenched role they play inside this decrepit Democratic Party that Bernie is trying to clean
up and reform. There are a lot of emails, calls going on after the South Carolina primary, in the three days to line up all kinds
of party apparatchiks, to get out the vote, to bad mouth Bernie”
Joe Biden was for all of these corporate managed trade agreements that emptied his beloved native Pennsylvania of jobs. He
supported all of the wars that Clinton and Obama supported. He is the toady of the big banks in Delaware. He supported the Wall
Street bailout after the crash in 2009.
He was the waterboy for the credit card industry and their rapacious interest rates and penalties. And he comes from Delaware,
which is the hospitality center for giant corporations to be chartered in so that they can have permissive corporate laws and
strip their own shareholders and mutual funds and pension funds of the rights of ownership, entrenching power at the top among
the corporate executive class. He voted for legislation in the Senate that led to mass incarceration. That’s all, just for starters.
“He’s responsible for Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. He took Thurgood Marshall’s seat and he’s been voting against
black and Latino interests ever since, making a difference in 5-4 decisions. And as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Biden
mistreated Anita Hill, who was a star witness. And he didn’t urge the Democrats not to bolt — and eleven of them bolted and
supported Clarence Thomas who won 52-48 in a Democratically controlled Senate. He’s responsible for a lot of those 5-4 votes
where Clarence Thomas makes the difference.”
Go go, Joe! We all love you here. We like what you’ve done….more of the same, pleeeeeeeeeeeze!
This is a great idea. Maybe Bernie can sell it to Biden for getting out of the primary after the next debate.
“As Joe Biden romped to victory on what cable news called “Super Tuesday II” in recognition of the American public’s relentless
thirst for branded sequels, CNN’s Jake Tapper surveyed the scene and offered a cheerful parallel: what if this is like John Kerry
in 2004, where the fading Bernie Sanders has reprised the role of Howard Dean? The comparison only goes so far, even if the lion’s
share of the Democratic electorate is once again motivated almost solely by defeating the Republican incumbent, and have put on
their pundit caps to rally around the guy they’ve convinced themselves is most Electable. For one thing, Donald Trump is particularly
unpopular, and it appears—based on the 2018 midterms and some data out of Michigan last night—that Republicans are hemorrhaging
support among white suburban voters, particularly women, as a result.
Still, there are ways in which Biden is weak. It does us no good to pretend that he is the same guy who tore apart Paul Ryan
in a vice-presidential debate in 2012. He is slower now, and there are times he doesn’t always make sense. Trump has his own problems
in that department, but the president’s primal instinct for viciousness and cruelty could still prove effective against Biden—not
that, based on 2016, debates particularly matter.
Biden’s more significant problems may arise with voters who believe the economy is not working for them, that they’ve been
left behind by a system rigged against them. Biden’s emerging coalition of the Democratic Party’s African-American base and Trump-hating
suburbanites will need to feature younger and white working-class voters to get him across the line in places like Michigan—the
kind of votes that Hillary Clinton failed to get running a campaign that was primarily a negation of Trump, not unlike the one
Biden’s running. He also needs to make inroads with Hispanic voters, who skew younger and working class and have gravitated to
the Sanders campaign.
You need to be running for something, not just against something, to get the votes you need beyond the Democratic primary electorate.
Joe Biden must have a signature policy that will speak to the fundamental issues of our time:
wage stagnation and the collapse of working-class life;
our dangerously crumbling infrastructure;
our pressing need to remake our economic system to avoid the onrushing threat to human civilization as we know it posed
by the climate crisis;
and the generalized collapse of faith in our system and its most powerful practitioners, particularly among young people.
The answer to all this may just be a Green New Deal, or at least a similar green infrastructure plan. If Biden is reluctant
to call it the Green New Deal for fear of tying himself to the left and/or alienating the suburbanites in his coalition, he can
call it the Rebuild America for the 21st Century Plan or whatever the hell he wants. But since it’s abundantly clear he’s not
going to pursue any major healthcare reform, he needs to present a simple and clear vision for America’s future, not just a promise
to return things to, like, 2015 or whatever, before the orange man made everything bad. Clearly everything was not good back then,
since an insane game-show host got enough traction with the electorate to crash into the White House. People outside the Democratic
primary electorate will need to believe their lives will change beyond the blessed prospect they won’t have to see the president
making a mess on TV every day.
Former US Vice President Joe Biden
Biden will need more than just an anti-Trump message in November.
First, an infrastructure bill is a political winner. Perhaps Trump’s biggest mistake was having Paul Ryan and Co. try to Repeal
and Replace the Affordable Care Act as the Republicans’ first major initiative on seizing control of every branch of government
in 2016. If Trump had pushed a massive infrastructure bill, the cowering Democrats in Congress would have gone right with him.
He could have gotten a bipartisan deal through immediately and done a victory lap as The Artful Dealmaker Who Cuts Through All
the Political Bullshit to Get Things Done. Instead, he oversaw a quixotic quest to try to erase the first black president’s signature
achievement, which The Base would have loved but which ultimately proved a massive dud politically. Biden could run on an infrastructure
bill and remind people over and over again that Trump failed to deliver on a similar promise and tried to strip them of their
healthcare instead.
Second, the bill would create good-paying jobs in both urban and rural communities across the country at a time when the American
economy’s fastest-growing segment is the “low-wage workforce”—the 53 million Americans, and 44 percent of American workers, who
do not make a living wage. This state of affairs is destroying people’s lives and fueling social and political dysfunction as
hope gives way to rage and despair. Put people to work on a living wage rebuilding the infrastructure in their communities so
it’s fit for the trials to come, including adaptation and mitigation of the climate crisis.
Which brings us to three: it’s the right thing to do. The people who study this stuff—at, say, the United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change—say we are running out of time to fundamentally transform our economy to stop putting carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere, which traps heat and in turn destabilizes our ecosystems and throws our only planet into a level of disarray that
threatens our very way of life. We have a moral and practical duty to rebuild our society in the image of the future, which means
clean energy and an infrastructure that’s equipped to deal with rising seas, more ferocious storms and wildfires, severe floods
and drought. Forget about what it costs—nobody actually cares about The National Debt, as Trump’s time in the sun has demonstrated.
If Trump attacks him on it, he can point to Trump’s ballooning of the deficit to give tax cuts to rich people and multinational
corporations. Plus, this investment could spur economic activity in the same way Republicans always say tax cuts will, except
it might actually happen.
Last, this is the most promising avenue for Biden to reach out to The Youth Vote which has so conspicuously evaded him in the
primaries. While some of that is down to Bernie Sanders’s incredible appeal to voters under 30—and, if last night is anything
to go on, his comparative strength with voters under 50(!)—a lot is due to the fact that Biden has so far failed to connect with
them on any level. He does not embrace Medicare For All, he does not devote a lot of time or concern to the metric ton of student
loan debt that is crushing an entire generation of Americans, he has not matched Sanders’s willingness to disentangle us from
unwinnable foreign wars.
He must hang his hat on this issue, showing younger voters that he knows their futures are at stake—and not just when it comes
to the climate crisis. These are some of the people who could fill the good-paying jobs that will be created. These are people
who will spend the next 40 years driving over broken-down bridges across this country. Biden will never summon the energy Sanders
does among young people, but he needs to get some of them out to vote. He should come out for the Green New Deal—or, again, whatever
the hell he wants to call it. It’s a promise to rebuild America. It’s something to come out and vote for. Unless, of course, Biden
really just wants to go backwards.”
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God
"... In a world that is increasingly confusing and awash with propaganda, Cohen's death is a
blow to humanity's desperate quest for clarity and understanding. ..."
Stephen F Cohen, the renowned American scholar on Russia and leading authority on US-Russian
relations, has died of lung cancer at the
age of 81.
As one of the precious few western voices of sanity on the subject
of Russia while everyone else has been frantically flushing their brains down the toilet,
this is a real loss. I myself have cited Cohen's expert analysis many times in my own work, and
his perspective has played a formative role in my understanding of what's really going on with
the monolithic cross-partisan manufacturing of consent for increased western aggressions
against Moscow.
In a world that is increasingly confusing and awash with propaganda, Cohen's death is a blow
to humanity's desperate quest for clarity and understanding.
I don't know how long Cohen had cancer. I don't know how long he was aware that he might not
have much time left on this earth. What I do know is he spent much of his energy in his final
years urgently trying to warn the world about the rapidly escalating danger of nuclear war,
which in our strange new reality he saw as in many ways completely unprecedented.
The last of the many books Cohen authored was 2019's
War
with Russia? , detailing his ideas on how the complex multi-front nature of the post-2016
cold
war escalations against Moscow combines with Russiagate and other factors to make it in
some ways more dangerous even than the most dangerous point of the previous cold war.
"You know it's easy to joke about this, except that we're at maybe the most dangerous moment
in US-Russian relations in my lifetime, and maybe ever," Cohen told The Young Turks in 2017. "And the reason is that we're
in a new cold war, by whatever name. We have three cold war fronts that are fraught with the
possibility of hot war, in the Baltic region where NATO is carrying out an unprecedented
military buildup on Russia's border, in Ukraine where there is a civil and proxy war between
Russia and the west, and of course in Syria, where Russian aircraft and American warplanes are
flying in the same territory. Anything could happen."
Cohen repeatedly points to the most likely cause of a future nuclear war: not one that is
planned but one which erupts in tense, complex situations where "anything could happen" in the
chaos and confusion as a result of misfire, miscommunication or technical malfunction, as
nearly
happened many times during the last cold war.
"I think this is the most dangerous moment in American-Russian relations, at least since the
Cuban missile crisis," Cohen told Democracy
Now in 2017. "And arguably, it's more dangerous, because it's more complex. Therefore, we
-- and then, meanwhile, we have in Washington these -- and, in my judgment, factless
accusations that Trump has somehow been compromised by the Kremlin. So, at this worst moment in
American-Russian relations, we have an American president who's being politically crippled by
the worst imaginable -- it's unprecedented. Let's stop and think. No American president has
ever been accused, essentially, of treason. This is what we're talking about here, or that his
associates have committed treason."
"Imagine, for example, John Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis," Cohen added. "Imagine
if Kennedy had been accused of being a secret Soviet Kremlin agent. He would have been
crippled. And the only way he could have proved he wasn't was to have launched a war against
the Soviet Union. And at that time, the option was nuclear war."
"A recurring theme of my recently published book War with Russia? is that the new Cold War
is more dangerous, more fraught with hot war, than the one we survived," Cohen wrote
last year . "Histories of the 40-year US-Soviet Cold War tell us that both sides came to
understand their mutual responsibility for the conflict, a recognition that created political
space for the constant peace-keeping negotiations, including nuclear arms control agreements,
often known as détente. But as I also chronicle in the book, today's American Cold
Warriors blame only Russia, specifically 'Putin's Russia,' leaving no room or incentive for
rethinking any US policy toward post-Soviet Russia since 1991."
"Finally, there continues to be no effective, organized American opposition to the new Cold
War," Cohen added. "This too is a major theme of my book and another reason why this Cold War
is more dangerous than was its predecessor. In the 1970s and 1980s, advocates of détente
were well-organized, well-funded, and well-represented, from grassroots politics and
universities to think tanks, mainstream media, Congress, the State Department, and even the
White House. Today there is no such opposition anywhere."
"A major factor is, of course, 'Russiagate'," Cohen continued. "As evidenced in the sources
I cite above, much of the extreme American Cold War advocacy we witness today is a mindless
response to President Trump's pledge to find ways to 'cooperate with Russia' and to the
still-unproven allegations generated by it. Certainly, the Democratic Party is not an
opposition party in regard to the new Cold War."
"Détente with Russia has always been a fiercely opposed, crisis-ridden policy
pursuit, but one manifestly in the interests of the United States and the world," Cohen
wrote in another
essay last year. "No American president can achieve it without substantial bipartisan
support at home, which Trump manifestly lacks. What kind of catastrophe will it take -- in
Ukraine, the Baltic region, Syria, or somewhere on Russia's electric grid -- to shock US
Democrats and others out of what has been called, not unreasonably, their Trump Derangement
Syndrome, particularly in the realm of American national security? Meanwhile, the Bulletin of
Atomic Scientists has recently reset its Doomsday Clock to two minutes before
midnight."
And now Stephen Cohen is dead, and that clock is inching ever closer to midnight. The
Russiagate psyop that he predicted would pressure Trump to advance dangerous cold war
escalations with no opposition from the supposed opposition party
has indeed done exactly that with nary a peep of criticism from either partisan faction of
the political/media class. Cohen has for years been correctly
predicting this chilling scenario which now threatens the life of every organism on earth,
even while his own life was nearing its end.
And now the complex cold war escalations he kept urgently warning us about have become even
more complex with the
addition of nuclear-armed China to the multiple fronts the US-centralized empire has been
plate-spinning its brinkmanship upon, and it is clear from the ramping
up of anti-China propaganda since last year that we are being prepped for those aggressions
to continue to increase.
We should heed the dire warnings that Cohen spent his last breaths issuing. We should demand
a walk-back of these insane imperialist aggressions which benefit nobody and call for
détente with Russia and China. We should begin creating an opposition to this
world-threatening flirtation with armageddon before it is too late. Every life on this planet
may well depend on our doing so.
Stephen Cohen is dead, and we are marching toward the death of everything. God help us
all.
People are just now starting to realize that possible alternate path. But the Demoncrats
in the USA must first be put down, politically euthanized, along with their neocon
never-Trump Republican partners. And that cleaning up is on the way. Trump's second term will
be the advancement of the USA-Russia initiative that is so long overdue.
PerilouseTimes , 48 minutes ago
Putin won't let western billionaires rape Russia's enormous natural resources and on top
of that Putin is against child molesters, that is what this Russia bashing is all about.
awesomepic4u , 1 hour ago
Sad to hear this.
What a good man. It is a real shame that we dont have others to stand up to this crazy pr
that is going on right now. Making peace with the world at this point is important. We dont need or
want another war and i am sure that both Europe and Russia dont want it on their turf but it
seems we keep sticking our finger in their eye. If there is another war it will be the last
war. As Einstein said, after the 3rd World War we will be using sticks and stones to fight
it.
Clint Liquor , 44 minutes ago
Cohen truly was an island of reason in a sea of insanity. Ironic that those panicked over
climate change are unconcerned about the increasing threat of Nuclear War.
thunderchief , 41 minutes ago
One of the very few level headed people on Russia.
All thats left are anti Russia-phobic nut jobs.
Send in the clowns.
Stephen Cohen isn't around to call them what they are anymore.
Eastern Whale , 55 minutes ago
cooperate with Russia
Has the US ever cooperated with anyone?
fucking truth , 3 minutes ago
That is the crux. All or nothing.
Mustafa Kemal , 49 minutes ago
Ive read several of his books. They are essential, imo, if you want to understand modern
russian history.
Normal , 1 hour ago
The bankers created the new CCP cold war.
evoila , 19 minutes ago
Max Boot is an effing idiot. Tucker wiped him clean too. It was an insult to Stephen to
even put them on the same panel.
RIP Stephen.
Gary Sick is the equivalent to Stephen, except for Iran. He too is of an era of competence
which is and will be missed as their voices are drowned out by neocon warmongers
thebigunit , 17 minutes ago
I heard Stephen Cohen a number of time in John Bachelor's podcasts.
He seemed very lucid and made a lot of sense.
He made it very clear that he thought the Democrat's "Trump - Russia collusion schtick"
was a bunch of crap.
He didn't sound like a leftie, but I'm sure he never told me the stuff he discussed with
his wife who was editor of the left wing "The Nation" magazine.
Boogity , 9 minutes ago
Cohen was a traditional old school anti-war Liberal. They're essentially extinct now with
the exception of a few such as Tulsi Gabbard and Dennis Kucinich who have both been
ostracized from the Democrat Party and the political system.
Another 200 talented and determined Trump election volunteers in action. With such successes
in his re-election campaign Trump probably can save all the money for advertizing. MSM will do it
for him. Amazing.
From comments: "Vote for Joe Biden so you can experience the BLM/Antifa riots right from your
own front porch."
Around 200 demonstrators marched through the city on Saturday night, with some individuals
smashing windows and applying graffiti on buildings. A bank, a restaurant and a Starbucks
coffee shop were among the businesses targeted, the Portland Police said in a statement. No
arrests were made, but the acts of vandalism are under investigation.
Protesters were also filmed burning an American flag as they chanted "black trans lives
matter." In another incident, they torched a pro-police 'thin blue line' flag as they
shouted "blue lives splatter."
Elsewhere in the city, online footage shows demonstrators stopping a truck and then ordering
one of its passengers to raise his fist and say "black lives matter." The vehicle's
windows were reportedly later smashed by the protesters.
Portland's chaotic streets had quietened down due to poor air quality resulting from nearby
forest fires, but protests resumed earlier this week. On Friday, 11 people were arrested after
demonstrators targeted an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in the city.
Oregon's biggest city had previously seen more than 100 consecutive nights of racial
injustice protests following the death of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis Police
in May.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
KarlthePoet 4 hours ago 20 Sep, 2020 12:55 PM
The Jewish Banking Cartel ultimately controls the US government. They are not 'for' the
people of America. They are 'for' profit. They also control Wall Street. The reason society
is breaking down in America and in Europe is due to the fact that the economy only works for
a small percentage of people. When the economy is stable, society develops. The economy is no
longer stable. Things will get much worse after the election, no matter who wins. The
collapse has been triggered.
ariadnatheo 3 hours ago 20 Sep, 2020 02:02 PM
The best "peaceful demonstrations" money can buy: George Soros's Open Society Institute
donated $650,000 to Black Lives Matter.. .According to one watchdog group, "In 2016
organizations in the Black Lives Matter movement received $33 million in grants from the Open
Society Foundations, founded by Hungarian hedge fund manager George Soros in 1993
Wally Downey 4 hours ago 20 Sep, 2020 01:31 PM
Vote for Joe Biden so you can experience the BLM/Antifa riots right from your own front
porch.
"... Of course, it doesn't look like that's what's happening if you subscribe to the mainstream consensus perspective that America's political system has two separate and oppositional parties. If that is your viewpoint, you will see one bad party trying to take away people's civil liberties and one good party trying to stop them. ..."
"... If, however, you recognize that America has two parties that are owned and operated by a single oligarchic class which has more or less the same overarching goal as far as ordinary people are concerned, it looks completely different. ..."
"... A single establishment threatening to punch you with its right hand if you don't let it punch you with its left. ..."
"... Politics often works in paradoxical ways. If Trump appoints and the Senate confirms a blatant anti-abortionist, it will infuriate a lot of people, who will punish not only Trump but the Senate Republicans as well, if they can. It might also cause a serious, instead of a pretend 'Resistance' to arise against the Republicans and their conservative Democrat allies. ..."
"... It will exacerbate the culture wars which are going to make the country more and more difficult for the ruling class to govern and exploit. ..."
"... It is naturally a fake system because it is controlled by a private club of very powerful sociopaths who accomplish their goals using sophisticated deception and manipulation. And their goals are controlling and exercising power over everyone on the planet. The COVID-19 scamdemic is just the most recent example. There is worse to come as the screws are gradually tightened. ..."
"... Of course it would be wonderful and likely make a bit of a difference if 95% of eligible voters boycotted the elections instead of the usual 45%. It might make the rulers somewhat more worried than usual about their 'democratic' charade, their 'legitimacy'. ..."
"... if there's no viable alternative to all the rotten bourgeois parties running and only if enough refuse to vote as a protest against the horrible lack of choice ..."
"... It's also worth noting that voting for a US president is like electing a king or tsar or dictator with an unelected cabinet, a cabal of cronies with unaccountable power to unleash the state machine onto anyone they or the capitalist class (don't) like. ..."
"... Uniparties are de rigueur all around our beleaguered planet. 'If voting made any difference it would be illegal' (Twain)... ..."
US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died,
which means the US election is going to revolve around abortion and other civil rights for the foreseeable future.
Which won't change much, since this presidential race hasn't really been about anything since the end of the Democratic primaries.
The opportunistic galvanization process has already begun before Ginsburg's body is even cold, with liberal influencers calling
on Democrats to rally to a November win for "the notorious RBG," and Trump supporters dropping their faux anti-establishment
schtick and metamorphosing into a bunch of mini-Mitch McConnells. Leftists are being shrieked at by mainstream Dems that they need
to fall in line and support Biden or they're personally responsible for every civil right that is taken away by Ginsburg's replacement.
I'm not here to tell Americans how to vote in November. I'd just like to quickly point out, once again, that an establishment
which threatens to remove your civil rights if you don't support it is an establishment that doesn't deserve to exist.
Of course, it doesn't look like that's what's happening if you subscribe to the mainstream consensus perspective that America's
political system has two separate and oppositional parties. If that is your viewpoint, you will see one bad party trying to take
away people's civil liberties and one good party trying to stop them.
If, however, you recognize that America has two parties that are owned and operated by a single oligarchic class which has more
or less the same overarching goal as far as ordinary people are concerned, it looks completely different.
If you understand that America has a two-headed one-party system designed to shrink the spectrum of acceptable debate down to
arguments about how oligarchic agendas should be facilitated rather than if they should, what you see is a single
entity threatening to take away your civil liberties if you don't support it. A single establishment threatening to punch you with
its right hand if you don't let it punch you with its left.
What is the correct response to such a situation? Is it to give the two-headed monster what it wants? Is it to give your energy
to supporting the same establishment which is threatening to take away your civil rights?
Or is it to fight? Is it to pour your energy into tearing down an abusive political system which threatens to rob your civil rights
if you don't plug yourself into the mainstream oligarchic establishment? A system which throughout your entire life has done nothing
but rob you and pour your nation's wealth into wars, tax cuts and ever-expanding neoliberal exploitation, regardless of how you've
voted?
If you think the correct response is the latter, consider refraining from giving your energy to the Supreme Court debate in the
coming months, and focus on waking people up to what's really going on in the world so that they can see their two-headed abuser
for themselves.
Again, vote or don't vote in whatever way you think best; how Americans choose to participate in a pretend election is none of
my concern. But do be mindful of those who try to route your energy into a political establishment that has never served you and
never will.
That's all for now.
HOPE SANFORD / SEPTEMBER 19, 2020
Only 61% of eligible voters voted in the last 2 elections, not exactly a ¨mandate¨ for any candidate. Clearly a fukTON of us
are not but so ¨plugged into the oligarchic establishment¨ or all het up about the elections. W and trump didn´t even win the
popular vote, but this damn sure didn´t limit their power ; guess I´m just saying that voting hardly blesses the regime with the
imprimatur of the people. I want my kids to have access to healthcare, my friends not to be deported or shot by cops, all of us
to be housed and able to eat ,and value and resources to be placed on educating everybody as doctors, electricians, farmers etc.
And nothing I´ve done thus far has gotten us any closer to this. Open to suggestions.
ROUNDBALL SHAMAN / SEPTEMBER 19, 2020
" the US election is going to revolve around abortion and other civil rights for the foreseeable future. Which won't change
much since this presidential race hasn't really been about anything since the end of the Democratic primaries."
.
This election will come down to the theme of "Law and Order". Democrats now have earned a reputation of either promoting or amply
tolerating "lawlessness". And as usual, the current leader in control of the levers of government always falls back on The Law
and Order Theme which always sells well to most Americans (this has all played out before, notably in 1968 for example.) Whatever
chances the Dems had in this election have been squandered by their own cluelessness to see how their own actions were doing themselves
in without any help from Trump.
.
"A single establishment threatening to punch you with its right hand if you don't let it punch you with its left."
.
Americans seem to have a need for easy, simplistic answers. Like One party good, other party bad. The notion that they are all
working together to do people in is just too uncomfortable for Americans to process regardless of how much evidence there is to
show them this is the case. If both parties bad, then what? You mean I have to DO something myself about this? That's way too
messy and I just don't have the time! I just want to vote and convince myself I did something useful!
JIM MCDONAGH / SEPTEMBER 19, 2020
The right to abortion has be been won by he anti abortionists , as the political spectrum has moved right globally. Abortion in
the US is highly restricted and discouraged by the medical profession everywhere even China and India. It will not be an issue
in the coming election. The Next SCOTUS nominee will be further right than Kavanaugh regardless of whom ascends to the POTUS throne.
ANARCISSIE / SEPTEMBER 19, 2020
Oh, maybe, maybe not. Politics often works in paradoxical ways. If Trump appoints and the Senate confirms a blatant anti-abortionist,
it will infuriate a lot of people, who will punish not only Trump but the Senate Republicans as well, if they can. It might also
cause a serious, instead of a pretend 'Resistance' to arise against the Republicans and their conservative Democrat allies.
It
will exacerbate the culture wars which are going to make the country more and more difficult for the ruling class to govern and
exploit. If Trump does _not_ appoint a blatant anti-abortionist, that will offend much of his White male supremacist base. So
Trump and company are in a difficult position with an uncertain outcome. No doubt there is some heavy-duty plotting going on.
More fat has fallen into the fire!
HUNKERDOWN / SEPTEMBER 19, 2020
Resistance from whom? Rich suburban women, the people both parties want to have as their customer bases, can afford a
weekend trip to a neighboring first world country to clean up their Tom-and-Daisy accidents, and they are of sufficiently
elevated class to make even noticing any change in their gravid condition absolutely taboo.
If Trump weren't just a wrestling promoter toying with us and accomplishing his class interests via oblique ways, he'd
immediately nominate Anita Hill without skipping a beat
KIM DIXON / SEPTEMBER 19, 2020
Remember Merrick Garland?
Republicans stood as one, refusing to confirm Garland, nor any other commie that Obama might nominate, demanding that the
next Republican President choose the appointee.
I would be genuinely shocked if Democrats did any such thing now, since their agenda and the Republicans' are actually the
same.
But whether the Dems put up some temporary, token resistance to another authoritarian corporatist on the Supremes, we can
be sure that covid, the economy, healthcare and everything else will now be subsumed into SCOTUS Theater.
CHICO / SEPTEMBER 19, 2020
"Again, vote or don't vote in whatever way you think best; how Americans choose to participate in a pretend election
is none of my concern."
It is of concern to people everywhere, because this same "pretend" system is in place in England, Australia, New Zealand,
France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Israel, and most of the other so-called "democratic" countries in the world. It is
naturally a fake system because it is controlled by a private club of very powerful sociopaths who accomplish their goals
using sophisticated deception and manipulation. And their goals are controlling and exercising power over everyone on the
planet. The COVID-19 scamdemic is just the most recent example. There is worse to come as the screws are gradually tightened.
STEPHEN MORRELL / SEPTEMBER 20, 2020
I could have been clearer (but more long-winded like this): in the upcoming US presidential elections, no-one is worthy of
a vote and therefore voting for one candidate or another, or not voting at all, won't change anything. The capitalists will
still rule through their representatives and their state machine.
Of course it would be wonderful and likely make a bit of a difference if 95% of eligible voters boycotted the elections
instead of the usual 45%. It might make the rulers somewhat more worried than usual about their 'democratic' charade, their
'legitimacy'.
The full extent of the difference of not voting, if enough don't vote, could be an ongoing crisis of legitimacy. So an
electoral boycott can certainly be a good tactic - if there's no viable alternative to all the rotten bourgeois parties
running and only if enough refuse to vote as a protest against the horrible lack of choice presented by the bourgeoisie
in their electoral theatre.
It's also worth noting that voting for a US president is like electing a king or tsar or dictator with an unelected
cabinet, a cabal of cronies with unaccountable power to unleash the state machine onto anyone they or the capitalist class
(don't) like. And running for executive office, or voting for someone running for executive office, is basically
accepting that someone can have the power of life and death over anyone in the population subject to their rule. No-one should
ever be bullied into voting for anyone running for executive office, especially the US presidency with their finger on the
nuclear button.
Marxists have always contended that, in general for the vast majority, voting in bourgeois elections is nothing more than
giving ordinary people a 'choice' of who will oppress them for the next few years. However, this is never to exclude
communists running for (non-executive) representative positions, in order to use the parliamentary or congressional hot-air
factory as a platform and tribune for revolutionary propaganda and agitation.
FAIR DINKUM / SEPTEMBER 19, 2020
Uniparties are de rigueur all around our beleaguered planet. 'If voting made any difference it would be illegal'
(Twain)...
Caitlin Johnstone is an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her website is
here and you can follow her on Twitter
@caitoz
Counter disinformation network can't revive the dead chicken of neoliberal ideology.
Neoliberal elite lost legitimacy and as such has difficulties controlling the narrative.
That's why all this frantic efforts were launched to rectify the situation.
Anti-Russian angle of Atlantic council revealed here quite clearly
The paper's biggest single recommendation was that the United States and EU establish a
Counter-Disinformation Coalition, a public/private group bringing together, on a regular basis,
government and non-government stakeholders, including social media companies, traditional
media, Internet service providers (ISPs), and civil society groups. The Counter-Disinformation
Coalition would develop best practices for confronting disinformation from nondemocratic
countries, consistent with democratic norms. It also recommended that this coalition start with
a voluntary code of conduct outlining principles and agreed procedures for dealing with
disinformation, drawing from the recommendations as summarized above.
In drawing up these recommendations, we were aware that disinformation most often comes from
domestic, not foreign, sources. 8 While Russian and other disinformation players are
known to work in coordination with domestic purveyors of disinformation, both overtly and
covertly, the recommendations are limited to foreign disinformation, which falls within the
scope of "political warfare." Nevertheless, it may be that these policy recommendations,
particularly those focused on transparency and social resilience, may be applicable to
combatting other forms of disinformation.
So, it appears the War on Populism is building
toward an exciting climax. All the proper pieces are in place for a Class-A GloboCap color
revolution , and maybe even civil war. You got your unauthorized Putin-Nazi president, your
imaginary apocalyptic pandemic, your violent identitarian civil unrest, your heavily-armed
politically-polarized populace, your ominous rumblings from military quarters you couldn't
really ask for much more.
OK, the plot is pretty obvious by now (as it is in all big-budget action spectacles, which
is essentially what color revolutions are), but that won't spoil our viewing experience. The
fun isn't in guessing what is going to happen. Everybody knows what's going to happen. The fun
is in watching Bruce, or Sigourney, or "the moderate rebels," or the GloboCap "Resistance,"
take down the monster, or the terrorists, or Hitler, and save the world, or democracy, or
whatever.
Police in Louisville,
Kentucky, have arrested a man for shooting three men dead in a bar. The killer apparently
struck without motive, and some commentators have accused the press of burying the story.
Michael E. Rhynes Jr, 33, was arrested just after midnight on Saturday and charged with
three counts of murder, after he allegedly walked into Bungalow Joe's Bar and Grill, pulled a
handgun, and shot three men dead at point-blank range.
"Nobody had ever seen this guy before," bar owner Joe Bishop told
WRDB News . "It was a totally random act. I didn't think I'd be scrubbing blood off my
patio on a Saturday morning."
According to journalist Cassandra Fairbanks, the suspect made several social media
posts supporting
the 'Black Lives Matter' cause.
Little is known about the case so far, and Rhynes Jr's political beliefs remain the stuff of
online speculation. However, the national media has been accused of turning a blind eye to
black-on-white killings before, most recently when five-year-old Cannon Hinnant was brutally
executed by his neighbor, a black man, in North Carolina in August. Hinnant's killing was the
talk of Twitter for more than a week before it was picked up by national news networks.
UnableSemen 24 minutes ago 20 Sep, 2020 05:40 PM
Foreign media (like RT) is the only place where you will hear stories like this. The US media
will bury this.
sukmiwangyak 38 minutes ago 20 Sep, 2020 05:26 PM
It was raciest based as well as a hate crime, I will not be surprise if they let him go these
days. BLM is nothing more than a terrorist organization with a licenses. There is no more
Media in US, let's stop referring them as news networks, they are part of the Propaganda
efforts from the swamp.
omyomy sukmiwangyak 10 minutes ago 20 Sep, 2020 05:54 PM
The juice owned media supports BLM unconditionally. So who are the racists again?
Trump represent new "national neoliberalism" platform and the large part of the US neoliberal elite (Clinton gang and large part
of republicans) support the return to "classic neoliberalism" at all costs.
Highly recommended!
The essence of color revolution is the combination of engineered contested election and mass organized protest and civil disobedience
via creation in neoliberal fifth column out of "professionals", especially students as well as mobilizing and put on payroll some useful
disgruntled groups which can be used as a foot soldiers, such as football hooligans. Large and systematic injection of dollars into
protest movement. All with the air cover via domination in a part or all nation's MSM.
He served as US ambassador in Chich Republic from 2011 to 2014. Based on his experience wrote that book
Democracy's Defenders published by The Brookings Institution, a neoliberal think tank, about the role of US embassy in neoliberal
revolution in Czechoslovakia (aka Velvet Revolution of 1989) which led to the dissolution of the country into two. BTW demonstrations
against police brutality were an essential part of the Velvet Revolution
Notable quotes:
"... Same tactics - color revolutions they (Soros, Nuland/Kagan, Eisen, McCain when alive) used to overthrow Orthodox countries in Eastern Europe. Belarus the latest. Ukraine (Orange, Maidan) 2014. Georgia (Rose rev). Serbia, Montenegro. Use young people who have bad sense of history and are more sympathetic to the "West." ..."
This is, without ANY question, one of Tucker's most important segments that he has ever done. IT IS EXTREMELY-RARE THAT
"""they""" ARE EXPOSED, BY-NAME, SO OPENLY AND DIRECTLY, BUT, IT HAPPENED, TONIGHT.
Please bring back Dr. Darren Beattie back. More info. on the color revolutions, Mr. Eisen, crew, and their relationship
to mail in voting fraud and their impact on the 2020 election is needed. If Mr. Eisens methods are to be used in the 2020 election
mass awareness is needed.
This is not about Trump. The endgame of the deep state is to enslave people through social division. The election is a wrestling
match for entertainment.
Sheesh, he looks scared. I hope he's being well protected now. Darren is a very brave man who is trying to tell the citizens
of the US that there is malice aforethought towards the President and this election. It is now not a choice between Republicans
or Democrats, it is a fight between good and evil. I'm sure Trump and his team are aware of the playbook and will do everything
they can to sort this, with God's help. It may get hairy, but trust the plan.
I have a feeling dems will "rig for red" to frame republicans for voter fraud, overlooking the overwhelming amount of voter
fraud in favor of Biden Harris. Causing outrage and calls to remove the President from office and saying Biden actually won.
When he really did not. Be prepared. Stay strong.
Same tactics - color revolutions they (Soros, Nuland/Kagan, Eisen, McCain when alive) used to overthrow Orthodox countries
in Eastern Europe. Belarus the latest. Ukraine (Orange, Maidan) 2014. Georgia (Rose rev). Serbia, Montenegro. Use young people
who have bad sense of history and are more sympathetic to the "West."
american people still don't know and can't understand what's happening and what their government is doing, even right now
it's happening in Belarus, it happened in Ukraine, Venezuela, Hong Kong and etc. and now it's happening in your own country,
wake up people and don't forget who's behind all this - a NGO founded by CIA called NED (National endowment for democracy),
Soros and his NGOs and the deep state.
"... Russian military leaders view the "colour revolutions" as a "new US and European approach to warfare that focuses on creating destabilizing revolutions in other states as a means of serving their security interests at low cost and with minimal casualties. ..."
"... the activities of radical public associations and groups using nationalist and religious extremist ideology, foreign and international nongovernmental organizations, and financial and economic structures, and also individuals, focused on destroying the unity and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, destabilizing the domestic political and social situation -- including through inciting "color revolutions" -- and destroying traditional Russian religious and moral values ..."
Worldwide media use the term Colour Revolution (sometimes Coloured Revolution
) to describe various
related movements that developed in several countries of the former Soviet Union , in the People's Republic of
China and in the Balkans during the early-21st century. The term has
also been applied to a number of revolutions elsewhere, including in the Middle East and in the
Asia-Pacific region,
dating from the 1980s to the 2010s. Some observers (such as Justin Raimondo and Michael Lind ) have called the events a
revolutionary
wave , the origins of which can be traced back to the 1986 People Power Revolution (also known
as the "Yellow Revolution") in the Philippines .
Participants in colour revolutions have mostly used nonviolent resistance , also called
civil resistance .
Such methods as demonstrations, strikes and interventions have aimed to
protest against governments seen as corrupt and/or authoritarian and to advocate democracy , and they have built up
strong pressure for change.
Colour-revolution movements generally became associated with a specific colour or flower as
their symbol. The colour revolutions are notable for the important role of non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) and particularly student activists in organising creative
non-violent resistance .
Such movements have had a measure of success as for example in the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia 's Bulldozer
Revolution (2000), in Georgia 's Rose Revolution (2003) and in Ukraine 's Orange Revolution (2004). In most but not
all cases, massive street-protests followed disputed elections or requests for fair elections
and led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders regarded by their opponents as authoritarian . Some events have been called "colour revolutions", but differ from the
above cases in certain basic characteristics. Examples include Lebanon's Cedar Revolution (2005) and
Kuwait 's Blue Revolution
(2005).
Russia and China share nearly identical views that colour revolutions are the product of
machinations by the United States and other Western powers and pose a vital threat to their
public and national security.
The 1986 People Power Revolution (also
called the " EDSA " or the "Yellow"
Revolution) in the Philippines was the first successful non-violent uprising in the
contemporary period. It was the culmination of peaceful demonstrations against the
rule of
then-President Ferdinand Marcos – all of which
increased after the 1983 assassination of
opposition Senator Benigno S. Aquino,
Jr. A contested snap election on 7 February 1986 and a
call by the powerful Filipino Catholic
Church sparked mass protests across Metro Manila from 22–25 February.
The Revolution's iconic L-shaped Laban sign comes from the Filipino term for
People Power, " Lakás ng Bayan ", whose acronym is " LABAN " ("fight").
The yellow-clad protesters, later joined by the Armed Forces , ousted
Marcos and installed Aquino's widow Corazón as the country's eleventh
President, ushering in the present Fifth
Republic .
Long-standing secessionist sentiment in Bougainville eventually led to conflict with
Papua New Guinea. The inhabitants of Bougainville Island formed the Bougainville
Revolutionary Army and fought against government troops. On 20 April 1998, Papua New
Guinea ended the civil war. In 2005, Papua New Guinea gave autonomy to Bougainville.
in 1989, a peaceful demonstration by students (mostly from Charles University ) was attacked by
the police – and in time contributed to the collapse of the communist government in
Czechoslovakia.
The 'Bulldozer Revolution' in 2000, which led to the overthrow of
Slobodan Milošević . These demonstrations are usually considered to be the
first example of the peaceful revolutions which followed. However, the Serbians adopted an
approach that had already been used in parliamentary elections in Bulgaria (1997) ,
Slovakia (1998) and
Croatia (2000) ,
characterised by civic mobilisation through get-out-the-vote campaigns and unification of
the political opposition. The nationwide protesters did not adopt a colour or a specific
symbol; however, the slogan " Gotov je " (Serbian Cyrillic:
Готов је , English: He is finished
) did become an aftermath symbol celebrating the completion of the task. Despite the
commonalities, many others refer to Georgia as the most definite beginning of the series of
"colour revolutions". The demonstrations were supported by the youth movement Otpor! , some of whose members
were involved in the later revolutions in other countries.
Following the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the
Adjara
crisis (sometimes called "Second Rose Revolution" or Mini-Rose
Revolution ) led to the
exit of Chairman of the Government Aslan Abashidze from office.
Purple
Revolution was a name first used by some hopeful commentators and later picked up by
United States President George W. Bush to describe the coming of
democracy to Iraq following the 2005 Iraqi
legislative election and was intentionally used to draw the parallel with the Orange
and Rose revolutions. However, the name "purple revolution" has not achieved widespread use
in Iraq, the United States or elsewhere. The name comes from the colour that voters' index
fingers were stained to prevent fraudulent multiple voting. The term first appeared shortly
after the January 2005 election in various weblogs and editorials of individuals supportive
of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The term
received its widest usage during a visit by U.S. President George W. Bush on 24 February 2005 to
Bratislava , Slovak
Republic, for a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin . Bush stated: "In recent
times, we have witnessed landmark events in the history of liberty: A Rose Revolution in
Georgia, an Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and now, a Purple Revolution in Iraq."
The Tulip
Revolution in Kyrgyzstan (also sometimes called the "Pink Revolution") was more violent
than its predecessors and followed the disputed 2005 Kyrgyz
parliamentary election . At the same time, it was more fragmented than previous
"colour" revolutions. The protesters in different areas adopted the colours pink and yellow
for their protests. This revolution was supported by youth resistance movement KelKel .
The Cedar
Revolution in Lebanon between February and April 2005 followed not a disputed election,
but rather the assassination of opposition leader Rafik Hariri in 2005. Also, instead of the
annulment of an election, the people demanded an end to the Syrian occupation of
Lebanon . Nonetheless, some of its elements and some of the methods used in the
protests have been similar enough that it is often considered and treated by the press and
commentators as one of the series of "colour revolutions". The Cedar of Lebanon is the symbol of the
country, and the revolution was named after it. The peaceful demonstrators used the colours
white and red, which are found in the Lebanese flag. The protests led to the pullout of
Syrian troops
in April 2005, ending their nearly 30-year presence there, although Syria retains some
influence in Lebanon.
Blue Revolution was a term used by some Kuwaitis to refer to
demonstrations in Kuwait in support of women's suffrage
beginning in March 2005; it was named after the colour of the signs the protesters used. In
May of that year the Kuwaiti government acceded to their demands, granting women the right
to vote beginning in the 2007 parliamentary elections. Since there was
no call for regime change, the so-called "blue revolution" cannot be categorised as a true
colour revolution.
In Belarus, there have been a number of protests against President Alexander Lukashenko , with
participation from student group Zubr . One round of
protests culminated on 25 March 2005; it was a self-declared attempt to emulate the
Kyrgyzstan revolution, and involved over a thousand citizens. However, police severely
suppressed it, arresting over 30 people and imprisoning opposition leader Mikhail Marinich .
A second, much larger, round of protests began almost a year later, on 19 March 2006,
soon after the presidential
election . Official results had Lukashenko winning with 83% of the vote; protesters
claimed the results were achieved through fraud and voter intimidation, a charge echoed
by many foreign governments.
Protesters camped out in October Square in Minsk over the next week, calling variously for
the resignation of Lukashenko, the installation of rival candidate Alaksandar
Milinkievič , and new, fair elections.
The opposition originally used as a symbol the white-red-white former flag of Belarus ; the
movement has had significant connections with that in neighbouring Ukraine, and during
the Orange Revolution some white-red-white flags were seen being waved in Kiev. During
the 2006 protests some called it the " Jeans Revolution " or "Denim
Revolution",
blue jeans being considered a symbol for freedom. Some protesters cut up jeans into
ribbons and hung them in public places. It is
claimed that Zubr was responsible for coining the phrase.
Lukashenko has said in the past: "In our country, there will be no pink or orange, or
even banana revolution." More recently he's said "They [the West] think that Belarus is
ready for some 'orange' or, what is a rather frightening option, 'blue' or ' cornflower blue '
revolution. Such 'blue' revolutions are the last thing we need". On
19 April 2005, he further commented: "All these coloured revolutions are pure and simple
banditry."
In Myanmar (unofficially called Burma), a series of anti-government protests were
referred to in the press as the Saffron Revolution
after Buddhist monks ( Theravada Buddhist monks normally
wear the colour saffron) took the vanguard of the protests. A previous, student-led
revolution, the 8888
Uprising on 8 August 1988, had similarities to the colour revolutions, but was
violently repressed.
The opposition is reported to have hoped for and urged some kind of Orange revolution,
similar to that in Ukraine, in the follow-up of the 2005 Moldovan
parliamentary elections , while the Christian
Democratic People's Party adopted orange for its colour in a clear reference to the
events of Ukraine.
A name hypothesised for such an event was "Grape Revolution" because of the abundance
of vineyards in the country; however, such a revolution failed to materialise after the
governmental victory in the elections. Many reasons have been given for this, including a
fractured opposition and the fact that the government had already co-opted many of the
political positions that might have united the opposition (such as a perceived
pro-European and anti-Russian stance). Also the elections themselves were declared fairer
in the OSCE election monitoring reports than had been the case in other countries where
similar revolutions occurred, even though the CIS monitoring mission strongly condemned
them.
Green Movement is a term widely used to describe the 2009–2010
Iranian election protests . The protests began in 2009, several years after the main
wave of colour revolutions, although like them it began due to a disputed election, the
2009 Iranian
presidential election . Protesters adopted the colour green as their symbol because it
had been the campaign colour of presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi , whom many
protesters thought had won the elections .
However Mousavi and his wife went under house arrest without any trial issued by a
court.
The Kyrgyz Revolution of 2010 in
Kyrgyzstan (also sometimes called the "Melon Revolution") led to the
exit of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev from office. The
total number of deaths should be 2,000.
Jasmine Revolution was a widely used term for the
Tunisian
Revolution . The Jasmine Revolution led to the exit of President Ben Ali from office and
the beginning of the Arab Spring .
Lotus Revolution was a term used by various western news sources to describe the
Egyptian Revolution of 2011
that forced President Mubarak to step down in 2011 as part of the Arab Spring , which followed the Jasmine
Revolution of Tunisia. Lotus is known as the flower representing resurrection, life and the
sun of ancient Egypt. It is uncertain who gave the name, while columnist of Arabic press,
Asharq Alawsat, and prominent Egyptian opposition leader Saad Eddin Ibrahim claimed to name
it the Lotus Revolution. Lotus Revolution later became common on western news source such
as CNN. Other names,
such as White Revolution and Nile Revolution, are used but are minor terms compare to Lotus
Revolution. The term Lotus Revolution is rarely, if ever, used in the Arab world.
In February 2011, Bahrain was also affected by protests in Tunisia and Egypt. Bahrain
has long been famous for its pearls and Bahrain's speciality. And there was the Pearl
Square in Manama, where the demonstrations began. The people of Bahrain were also
protesting around the square. At first, the government of Bahrain promised to reform the
people. But when their promises were not followed, the people resisted again. And in the
process, bloodshed took place (18 March 2011). After that, a small demonstration is taking
place in Bahrain.
An anti-government protest started in Yemen in 2011. The Yemeni people sought to resign
Ali Abdullah Saleh as the ruler. On 24 November, Ali Abdullah Saleh decided to transfer the
regime. In 2012, Ali Abdullah Saleh finally fled to the United States(27 February).
A call which first appeared on 17 February 2011 on the Chinese language site Boxun.com in the United States
for a "Jasmine revolution" in the People's Republic of China and repeated on social
networking sites in China resulted in blocking of internet searches for "jasmine" and a
heavy police presence at designated sites for protest such as the McDonald's in central
Beijing, one of the 13 designated protest sites, on 20 February 2011. A crowd did gather
there, but their motivations were ambiguous as a crowd tends to draw a crowd in that area.
Boxun experienced a denial of service attack
during this period and was inaccessible.
Protests started on 4 December 2011 in the capital, Moscow against the results of the parliamentary
elections, which led to the arrests of over 500 people. On 10 December, protests erupted in
tens of cities across the country; a few months later, they spread to hundreds both inside
the country and abroad. The name of the Snow Revolution derives from December - the month
when the revolution had started - and from the white ribbons the protesters wore.
Many analysts and participants of the protests against President of Macedonia Gjorge
Ivanov and the Macedonian
government refer to them as a "colourful Revolution", due to the demonstrators throwing
paint balls of different colours at government buildings in Skopje , the capital.
In 2018, a peaceful revolution was led by
member of parliament Nikol Pashinyan in opposition to the
nomination of Serzh
Sargsyan as Prime Minister of Armenia ,
who had previously served as both President of Armenia and prime
minister, eliminating term limits which would have otherwise
prevented his 2018 nomination. Concerned that Sargsyan's third consecutive term as the most
powerful politician in the government of Armenia gave him too much political influence,
protests occurred throughout the country, particularly in Yerevan , but demonstrations in solidarity with
the protesters also occurred in other countries where Armenian diaspora live.
During the
protests, Pashinyan was arrested and detained on 22 April, but he was released the
following day. Sargsyan stepped down from the position of Prime Minister, and his
Republican Party decided to
not put forward a candidate. An interim
Prime Minister was selected from Sargsyan's party until elections were held, and protests
continued for over one month. Crowd sizes in Yerevan consisted of 115,000 to 250,000 people
at a time throughout the revolution, and hundreds of protesters were arrested. Pashinyan
referred to the event as a Velvet Revolution. A vote was
held in parliament, and Pashinyan became the Prime Minister of Armenia.
Many have cited the influence of the series of revolutions which
occurred in Central and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s, particularly the
Velvet Revolution
in Czechoslovakia in 1989. A
peaceful demonstration by students (mostly from Charles University ) was attacked by the
police – and in time contributed to the collapse of the communist government in
Czechoslovakia. Yet the roots of the pacifist floral imagery may go even further back to the
non-violent Carnation Revolution of Portugal in
April 1974, which is associated with the colour carnation because carnations were worn, and the 1986 Yellow Revolution in
the Philippines where demonstrators offered peace flowers to military personnel manning
armoured tanks.
Student movements
The first of these was Otpor! ("Resistance!") in the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, which was founded at Belgrade University in October 1998 and
began protesting against Miloševic' during the Kosovo War . Most of them were already veterans
of anti-Milošević demonstrations such as the 1996–97 protests
and the 9 March
1991 protest . Many of its members were arrested or beaten by the police. Despite this,
during the presidential campaign in September 2000, Otpor launched its " Gotov je " (He's finished) campaign that
galvanised Serbian discontent with Miloševic' and resulted in his defeat.
Members of Otpor have inspired and trained members of related student movements including
Kmara in Georgia, Pora in
Ukraine, Zubr in Belarus and
MJAFT! in Albania. These
groups have been explicit and scrupulous in their practice of non-violent resistance as advocated
and explained in Gene
Sharp 's writings. The massive
protests that they have organised, which were essential to the successes in the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia, Georgia and Ukraine, have been notable for their colourfulness and use
of ridiculing humor in opposing authoritarian leaders.
Critical analysis
The analysis of international geopolitics scholars Paul J. Bolt and Sharyl N. Cross is that
"Moscow and Beijing share almost indistinguishable views on the potential domestic and
international security threats posed by colored revolutions, and both nations view these
revolutionary movements as being orchestrated by the United States and its Western democratic
partners to advance geopolitical ambitions."
Russian
assessment
According to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for
Strategic and International Studies , Russian military leaders view the "colour revolutions" as a "new US and
European approach to warfare that focuses on creating destabilizing revolutions in other states
as a means of serving their security interests at low cost and with minimal casualties."
Government figures in Russia , such as Defence Minister
Sergei Shoigu (in
office from 2012) and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (in office from 2004), have
characterised colour revolutions as externally-fuelled acts with a clear goal to influence the
internal affairs that destabilise the economy, conflict with the law and represent a new form of warfare. Russian President
Vladimir Putin has
stated that Russia must prevent colour revolutions: "We see what tragic consequences the wave
of so-called colour revolutions led to. For us this is a lesson and a warning. We should do
everything necessary so that nothing similar ever happens in Russia".
The 2015 presidential decree The Russian Federation's National Security Strategy (
О Стратегии
Национальной
Безопасности
Российской
Федерации ) cites "foreign sponsored
regime change" among "main threats to public and national security," including
the activities of radical public associations and groups using nationalist and religious
extremist ideology, foreign and international nongovernmental organizations, and financial
and economic structures, and also individuals, focused on destroying the unity and
territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, destabilizing the domestic political and
social situation -- including through inciting "color revolutions" -- and destroying
traditional Russian religious and moral values
Chinese view
Articles published by the Global Times , a state-run nationalist tabloid, indicate that Chinese
leaders also anticipate the Western powers, such as the United States, using "color revolutions" as a means to undermine the one-party state. An article published on 8 May 2016 claims: "A
variation of containment seeks to press China on human rights and democracy with the hope of
creating a 'color revolution.'" A 13 August 2019
article declared that the 2019 Hong Kong extradition
bill protests were a colour revolution that "aim[ed] to ruin HK 's future."
The 2015 policy white paper "China's Military Strategy" by the State Council
Information Office said that "anti-China forces have never given up their attempt to
instigate a 'color revolution' in this country."
Azerbaijan
A number of movements were created in Azerbaijan in mid-2005, inspired by the examples
of both Georgia and Ukraine. A youth group, calling itself Yox! (which means No!), declared its opposition to
governmental corruption. The leader of Yox! said that unlike Pora or Kmara , he wants to change not just the leadership,
but the entire system of governance in Azerbaijan. The Yox movement chose green as its colour.
The spearhead of Azerbaijan's attempted colour revolution was Yeni Fikir ("New Idea"), a
youth group closely aligned with the Azadlig (Freedom) Bloc of opposition political parties.
Along with groups such as Magam ("It's Time") and Dalga ("Wave"), Yeni Fikir deliberately
adopted many of the tactics of the Georgian and Ukrainian colour revolution groups, even
borrowing the colour orange from the Ukrainian revolution.
In November 2005 protesters took to the streets, waving orange flags and banners, to protest
what they considered government fraud in recent parliamentary elections. The Azerbaijani colour revolution finally fizzled out with the police riot on 26
November, during which dozens of protesters were injured and perhaps hundreds teargassed and
sprayed with water cannons.
On 5 February 2013, protests began in Shahbag and later spread to other parts of
Bangladesh following
demands for capital punishment for Abdul Quader Mollah , who had been
sentenced to life imprisonment, and for others convicted of war crimes by the International
Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh . On that
day, the International Crimes
Tribunal had sentenced Mollah to life in prison after he was convicted on five of six
counts of war crimes . Later
demands included banning the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami party
from politics including election and a boycott of institutions supporting (or affiliated with)
the party.
Protesters considered Mollah's sentence too lenient, given his crimes. Bloggers and online activists called for additional protests at Shahbag.
Tens of thousands of people joined the demonstration, which gave rise to protests across the
country.
The movement demanding trial of war criminals is a protest movement in Bangladesh, from 1972
to present.
Belarus
In Belarus , there have
been a number of protests against President Alexander Lukashenko , with
participation from student group Zubr . One round of protests
culminated on 25 March 2005; it was a self-declared attempt to emulate the Kyrgyzstan
revolution, and involved over a thousand citizens. However, police severely suppressed it,
arresting over 30 people and imprisoning opposition leader Mikhail Marinich .
A second, much larger, round of protests began almost a year later, on 19 March 2006, soon
after the presidential election
. Official results had Lukashenko winning with 83% of the vote; protesters claimed the results
were achieved through fraud and voter intimidation, a charge echoed by many foreign
governments.
Protesters camped out in October Square in Minsk over the next week, calling variously for the
resignation of Lukashenko, the installation of rival candidate Alaksandar Milinkievič ,
and new, fair elections.
The opposition originally used as a symbol the white-red-white former flag of Belarus ; the movement has had
significant connections with that in neighbouring Ukraine, and during the Orange Revolution
some white-red-white flags were seen being waved in Kiev. During the 2006 protests some called
it the " Jeans
Revolution " or "Denim Revolution", blue
jeans being considered a symbol for freedom. Some protesters cut up jeans into ribbons and hung
them in public places. It is
claimed that Zubr was responsible for coining the phrase.
Lukashenko has said in the past: "In our country, there will be no pink or orange, or even
banana revolution." More recently he's said "They [the West] think that Belarus is ready for
some 'orange' or, what is a rather frightening option, 'blue' or ' cornflower blue ' revolution. Such 'blue'
revolutions are the last thing we need". On 19
April 2005, he further commented: "All these colored revolutions are pure and simple
banditry."
In Burma (officially called Myanmar), a series of anti-government protests were referred to
in the press as the Saffron Revolution after
Buddhist monks ( Theravada Buddhist monks normally wear
the colour saffron) took the vanguard of the protests. A previous, student-led revolution, the
8888 Uprising on 8
August 1988, had similarities to the colour revolutions, but was violently
repressed.
A call which first appeared on 17 February 2011 on the Chinese language site Boxun.com in the United States for
a "Jasmine revolution" in the People's Republic of China and repeated on social networking
sites in China resulted in blocking of internet searches for "jasmine" and a heavy police
presence at designated sites for protest such as the McDonald's in central Beijing, one of the 13
designated protest sites, on 20 February 2011. A crowd did gather there, but their motivations
were ambiguous as a crowd tends to draw a crowd in that area.
Boxun experienced a denial of service attack during
this period and was inaccessible.
In the 2000s, Fiji suffered numerous coups. But at the same time, many Fiji citizens
resisted the military. In Fiji, there have been many human rights abuses by the military.
Anti-government protesters in Fiji have fled to Australia and New Zealand. In 2011, Fijians
conducted anti Fijian government protests in Australia. On 17 September
2014, the first democratic general election was held in Fiji.
In 2015, Otto
Pérez Molina , President of Guatemala, was suspected of corruption. In Guatemala City,
a large number of protests rallied. Demonstrations took place from April to September 2015.
Otto Pérez
Molina was eventually arrested on 3 September. The people of Guatemala called this event
"Guatemalan Spring".
Moldova
The opposition is reported to have hoped for and urged some kind of Orange revolution,
similar to that in Ukraine, in the follow-up of the 2005 Moldovan
parliamentary elections , while the Christian
Democratic People's Party adopted orange for its colour in a clear reference to the events
of Ukraine.
A name hypothesised for such an event was "Grape Revolution" because of the abundance of
vineyards in the country; however, such a revolution failed to materialise after the
governmental victory in the elections. Many reasons have been given for this, including a
fractured opposition and the fact that the government had already co-opted many of the
political positions that might have united the opposition (such as a perceived pro-European and
anti-Russian stance). Also the elections themselves were declared fairer in the OSCE election
monitoring reports than had been the case in other countries where similar revolutions
occurred, even though the CIS monitoring mission strongly condemned them.
On 25 March 2005, activists wearing yellow scarves held protests in the capital city of
Ulaanbaatar , disputing
the results of the 2004 Mongolian
parliamentary elections and calling for fresh elections. One of the chants heard in that
protest was "Let's congratulate our Kyrgyz brothers for their revolutionary spirit. Let's free
Mongolia of corruption."
An uprising commenced in Ulaanbaatar on 1 July 2008, with a peaceful meeting in protest of
the election of 29 June. The results of these elections were (it was claimed by opposition
political parties) corrupted by the Mongolian People's Party (MPRP).
Approximately 30,000 people took part in the meeting. Afterwards, some of the protesters left
the central square and moved to the HQ of the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party –
which they attacked and then burned down. A police station was also attacked. By the night
rioters vandalised and then set fire to the Cultural Palace (which contained a theatre, museum
and National art gallery). Cars torching, bank
robberies and looting were reported. The
organisations in the burning buildings were vandalised and looted. Police used tear gas, rubber
bullets and water cannon against stone-throwing protesters. A 4-day
state of emergency was installed, the capital has been placed under a 2200 to 0800 curfew, and
alcohol sales banned, rioting not
resumed. 5 people
were shot dead by the police ,
dozens of teenagers were wounded from the police firearms and disabled and
800 people, including the leaders of the civil movements J. Batzandan, O. Magnai and B.
Jargalsakhan, were arrested. International
observers said 1 July general election was free and fair.
In 2007, the Lawyers' Movement started in Pakistan with the aim of restoration
of deposed judges. However, within a month the movement took a turn and started working towards
the goal of removing Pervez Musharraf from power.
The liberal opposition in Russia is represented by several parties and
movements.
An active part of the opposition is the Oborona youth movement. Oborona
claims that its aim is to provide free and honest elections and to establish in Russia a system
with democratic political competition. This movement under the leadership of Oleg
Kozlovsky was one of the most active and radical ones and is represented in a number of
Russian cities. During the elections of 8 September 2013, the movement contributed to the
success of Navalny in Moscow and other opposition candidates in various regions and towns
throughout Russia. The "oboronkis" also took part with other oppositional groups in protests
against fraud in the Moscow mayoral elections.
Since the 2012 protests, Aleksei Navalny mobilised with support of
the various and fractured opposition parties and masses of young people against the alleged
repression and fraud of the Kremlin apparatus. After a strong
campaign for the 8 September elections in Moscow and the regions, the opposition won remarkable
successes. Navalny reached a second place in Moscow with surprising 27% behind Kremlin-backed
Sergei Sobyanin
finishing with 51% of the votes. In other regions, opposition candidates received remarkable
successes. In the big industrial town of Yekaterinburg, opposition candidate Yevgeny Roizman received the majority
of votes and became the mayor of that town. The slow but gradual sequence of opposition
successes reached by mass protests, election campaigns and other peaceful strategies has been
recently called by observers and analysts as of Radio Free Europe "Tortoise Revolution"
in contrast to the radical "rose" or "orange" ones the Kremlin tried to prevent.
The opposition in the Republic of Bashkortostan has held protests demanding
that the federal authorities intervene to dismiss Murtaza Rakhimov from his position as
president of the republic, accusing him of leading an "arbitrary, corrupt, and violent" regime.
Airat
Dilmukhametov , one of the opposition leaders, and leader of the
Bashkir National Front , has said that the opposition movement has been inspired from the
mass protests of Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. Another
opposition leader, Marat
Khaiyirulin , has said that if an Orange Revolution were to happen in Russia, it would
begin in Bashkortostan.
From 2016 to 2017, the candlelight protest was going on in South Korea with the aim to force the ousting
of President Park
Geun-hye . Park was impeached and removed from office, and new presidential
elections were held.
In Uzbekistan , there
has been longstanding opposition to President Islam Karimov , from liberals and Islamists.
Following protests in 2005, security forces in Uzbekistan carried out the Andijan massacre that successfully
halted country-wide demonstrations. These protests otherwise could have turned into colour
revolution, according to many analysts.
The revolution in neighbouring Kyrgyzstan began in the largely ethnic Uzbek south, and
received early support in the city of Osh . Nigora
Hidoyatova , leader of the Free
Peasants opposition party, has referred to the idea of a peasant revolt or 'Cotton
Revolution'. She also said that her party is collaborating with the youth organisation
Shiddat , and that she
hopes it can evolve to an organisation similar to Kmara or Pora. Other nascent
youth organisations in and for Uzbekistan include Bolga
and the freeuzbek
group.
When groups of young people protested the closure of Venezuela's RCTV television station in June 2007, president
Hugo Chávez
said that he believed the protests were organised by the West in an attempt to promote a "soft
coup" like the revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia. Similarly,
Chinese authorities claimed repeatedly in the state-run media that both the 2014 Hong Kong protests
– known as the Umbrella Revolution – as well as
the 2019–20 Hong Kong
protests , were organised and controlled by the United States.
In July 2007, Iranian state television released footage of two Iranian-American prisoners,
both of whom work for western NGOs, as part of a documentary called "In the Name of Democracy."
The documentary purportedly discusses the colour revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia and accuses
the United States of attempting to foment a similar ouster in Iran.
Other
examples and political movements around the world
The imagery of a colour revolution has been adopted by various non-revolutionary electoral
campaigns. The 'Purple Revolution' social media campaign of Naheed Nenshi catapulted his platform from 8%
to become Calgary's 36th Mayor. The platform advocated city sustainability and to inspire the
high voter turn out of 56%, particularly among young voters.
In 2015, the NDP of Alberta earned a majority
mandate and ended the 44-year-old dynasty of the Progressive
Conservatives . During the campaign Rachel Notley 's popularity gained momentum,
and the news and NDP supporters referred to this phenomenon as the "Orange Crush" per the
party's colour. NDP parodies of Orange flavoured Crush soda logo became a popular meme on
social media.
"... One NGO called the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group (TDWG) was bold or reckless enough to draw the parallels between the Color Revolution in Belarus and the events playing out against Trump explicitly ..."
"... Now, would the reader care to take a guess as to who runs the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group? If you guessed Norm Eisen, you would be correct. ..."
In our report on Never
Trump State Department official George Kent , Revolver News first drew attention
to the ominous similarities between the strategies and tactics the United States government
employs in so-called "Color Revolutions" and the coordinated efforts of government bureaucrats,
NGOs, and the media to oust President Trump.
Our recent follow-up to this initial report focused specifically on a shadowy, George Soros
linked group called the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), which convened "war games"
exercises suggesting the likelihood of a "contested election scenario," and of ensuing chaos
should President Trump refuse to leave office. We further showed how these "contested election"
scenarios we are hearing so much about play perfectly into the Color Revolution framework
sketched out Revolver News' first installment in the Color Revolution series.
This third installment of Revolver News ' series exposing the Color Revolution
against Trump will focus on one quiet and indeed mostly overlooked participant in the
Transition Integrity Project's biased election "war games" exercise -- a man by the name of
Norm Eisen.
As the man who implemented the David Brock blueprint for
suing the President into paralysis and his
allies into bankruptcy , who helped mainstream and amplify the Russia Hoax, who drafted
10 articles of impeachment for the Democrats a full month before President Trump ever
called the Ukraine President in 2018 , who personally served as special counsel
litigating the Ukraine impeachment, who created a template for Internet censorship of world
leaders and a handbook for mass mobilizing racial justice protesters to overturn democratic
election results, there is perhaps no man alive with a more decorated resume for plots against
President Trump.
Indeed, the story of Norm Eisen – a key architect of nearly every attempt to
delegitimize, impeach, censor, sue and remove the democratically elected 45th President of the
United States – is a tale that winds through nearly every facet of the color revolution
playbook. There is no purer embodiment of Revolver's thesis that the very same regime
change professionals who run Color Revolutions on behalf of the US Government in order to
undermine or overthrow alleged "authoritarian" governments overseas, are running the very same
playbook to overturn Trump's 2016 victory and to pre-empt a repeat in 2020. To put it simply,
what you see is not just the same Color Revolution playbook run against Trump, but the same
people using it against Trump who have employed it in a professional capacity against targets
overseas -- same people same playbook.
In Norm Eisen's case, the "same people same playbook" refrain takes an arrestingly literal
turn when one realizes that Norm Eisen wrote a classic Color Revolution regime change manual,
and conveniently titled it "The Playbook."
Just what exactly is President Obama's former White House Ethics Czar ( yes, Norm Eisen
was Obama's ethics Czar ), his longtime friend since Harvard Law School, who recently
partook in war games to simulate overturning a Trump electoral victory, doing writing a
detailed playbook on how to use a Color Revolution to overthrow governments? The story of Norm
Eisen only gets more fascinating, outrageous, and indispensable to understanding the planned
chaos unfolding before our eyes, leading up to what will perhaps be the most chaotic election
in our nation's recent history.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -
"I'd Rather Have This Book Than The Atomic Bomb"
Before we can fully appreciate the significance of Norm Eisen's Color Revolution manual "The
Playbook," we must contextualize this important book in relation to its place in Color
Revolution literature.
As a bit of a refresher to the reader, it is important to emphasize that when we use the
term "Color Revolution" we do not mean any general type of revolution -- indeed, one of the
chief advantages of the Color Revolution framework we advance is that it offers a specific and
concrete heuristic by which to understand the operations against Trump beyond the accurate but
more vague term "coup." Unlike the overt, blunt, method of full scale military invasion as was
the case in Iraq War, a Color Revolution employs the following strategies and tactics:
A "Color Revolution" in this context refers to a specific type of coordinated attack that
the United States government has been known to deploy against foreign regimes, particularly
in Eastern Europe deemed to be "authoritarian" and hostile to American interests. Rather than
using a direct military intervention to effect regime change as in Iraq, Color Revolutions
attack a foreign regime by contesting its electoral legitimacy, organizing mass protests and
acts of civil disobedience, and leveraging media contacts to ensure favorable coverage to
their agenda in the Western press.
[Revolver]
This combination of tactics used in so-called Color Revolutions did not come from nowhere.
Before Norm Eisen came Gene Sharp -- originator and Godfather of the Color Revolution model
that has been a staple of US Government operations externally (and now internally) for decades.
Before Norm Eisen's "Playbook" there was Gene Sharp's classic "From Dictatorship to Democracy,"
which might be justly described as the Bible of the Color Revolution. Such is the power of the
strategies laid out by Sharp that a Lithuanian defense minister once said of Sharp's preceding
book (upon which Dictatorship to Democracy builds) that "I would
rather have this book than the nuclear bomb."
Gene Sharp
It would be impossible to do full justice to Gene Sharp within the scope of this specific
article. Here are some choice excerpts about Sharp and his biography to give readers a taste of
his significance and relevance to this discussion.
Gene Sharp, the "Machiavelli of nonviolence," has been fairly described as "the most
influential American political figure you've never heard of."
1 Sharp, who passed away in January 2018, was a beloved yet "mysterious" intellectual
giant of nonviolent protest movements , the "father of the whole field of the study of
strategic nonviolent action."
2 Over his career, he wrote more than twenty books about nonviolent action and social
movements. His how-to pamphlet on nonviolent revolution, From Dictatorship to
Democracy , has been translated into over thirty languages and is cited by protest
movements around the world . In the U.S., his ideas are widely promoted through activist
training programs and by scholars of nonviolence, and have been used by nearly every major
protest movement in the last forty years .
3 For these contributions, Sharp has been praised by progressive heavyweights like Howard
Zinn and Noam Chomsky, nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize four times, compared to Gandhi,
and cast as a lonely prophet of peace, champion of the downtrodden, and friend of the left .
4
Gene Sharp's influence on the U.S. activist left and social movements abroad has been
significant. But he is better understood as one of the most important U.S. defense
intellectuals of the Cold War, an early neoliberal theorist concerned with the supposedly
inherent violence of the "centralized State," and a quiet but vital counselor to
anti-communist forces in the socialist world from the 1980s onward.
In the mid-1960s, Thomas Schelling, a Nobel Prize-winning nuclear theorist, recruited
29-year-old Sharp to join the Center for International Affairs at Harvard , bastion of the
high Cold War defense, intelligence, and security establishment. Leading the so-called "CIA
at Harvard" were Henry Kissinger, future National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, and future
CIA chief Robert Bowie. Sharp held this appointment for thirty years. There, with Department
of Defense funds, he developed his core theory of nonviolent action: a method of warfare
capable of collapsing states through theatrical social movements designed to dissolve the
common will that buttresses governments, all without firing any shots. From his post at the
CIA at Harvard, Sharp would urge U.S. and NATO defense leadership to use his methods against
the Soviet Union. [Nonsite]
We invite the reader to reflect on the passages in bold, particularly their potential
relevance to the current domestic situation in the United States. Sharp's book and strategy for
"non violent revolution" AKA "peaceful protests" has been used to undermine or overthrow target
governments all over the world, particularly in Eastern Europe.
Gene's color revolution playbook was of course especially effective in Eastern Bloc
countries in Eastern Europe:
Finally, there is no shortage of analysis as to the applicability of Sharp's methods
domestically within the USA in order to advance various left wing causes. This passage
specifically mentions the applicability of Sharp's methods to counter act Trump.
Ominous stuff indeed. For readers who wish to read further, please consult
the full Politico piece from which we have excerpted the above highlighted passages. There
is also a fascinating documentary on Sharp instructively titled "
How to Start a Revolution ."
This is all interesting and disturbing, to say the least. In its own right it would suggest
a compelling nexus point between the operations run against Trump and the Color Revolution
playbook. But what does this have to do with our subject Norm Eisen? It just so happens that
Eisen explicitly places himself in the tradition of Gene Sharp, acknowledging his book "The
Playbook" as a kind of update to Sharp's seminal "Dictatorship to Democracy."
And there we have it, folks -- Norm Eisen, former Obama Ethics Czar, Ambassador to
Czechoslovakia during the "Velvet Revolution," key counsel in impeachment effort against Trump,
and participant in the ostensibly bi-partisan election war games predicting a contested
election scenario unfavorable to Trump -- just happens to be a Color Revolution expert who
literally wrote the modern "Playbook" in the explicitly acknowledged tradition of Color
Revolution Godfather Gene Sharp's "From Dictatorship to Democracy."
Before we turn to the contents of Norm Eisen's Color Revolution manual, full title "The
Democracy Playbook: Preventing and Reversing Democratic Backsliding," it will be useful to make
a brief point regarding the term "democracy" itself, which happens to appear in the title of
Gene Sharp's book "From Dictatorship to Democracy" as well.
Just like the term "peaceful protestor," which, as we pointed out in our George Kent essay
is used as a term of craft in the Color Revolution context, so is the term "democracy" itself.
The US Government launches Color Revolutions against foreign targets irrespective of whether
they actually enjoy the support of the people or were elected democratically. In the case of
Trump, whatever one says about him, he is perhaps the most "democratically" elected President
in America's history. Indeed, in 2016 Trump ran against the coordinated opposition of the
establishments of both parties, the military industrial complex, the corporate media,
Hollywood, and really every single powerful institution in the country. He won, however,
because he was able to garner sufficient support of the people -- his true and decisive power
base as a "populist." Precisely because of the ultra democratic "populist" character of Trump's
victory, the operatives attempting to undermine him have focused specifically on attacking the
democratic legitimacy of his victory.
In this vein we ought to note that the term "democratic backsliding," as seen in the
subtitle of Norm Eisen's book, and its opposite "democratic breakthrough" are also terms of art
in the Color Revolution lexicon. We leave the full exploration of how the term "democratic" is
used deceptively in the Color Revolution context (and in names of decidedly
anti-democratic/populist institutions) as an exercise to the interested reader. Michael McFaul,
another Color Revolution expert and key anti-Trump operative somewhat gives the game away in
the following tweet in which the term "democratic breakthrough" makes an appearance as a better
sounding alternative to "Color Revolution:"
Most likely as a response to Revolver News' first Color Revolution article on State
Department official George Kent, former Ambassador McFaul issued the following tweet as a
matter of damage control:
Being a rather simple man from a simple background, McFaul perhaps gave too much of this
answer away in the following explanation (now deleted).
Trump has lost the Intelligence Community. He has lost the State Department. He has lost the military. How can he continue to
serve as our Commander in Chief ?
With this now-deleted tweet we get a clearer picture of the power bases that must be
satisfied for a "democratic breakthrough" to occur -- and conveniently enough, not one of them
is subject to direct democratic control. McFaul, Like Eisen, George Kent, and so many others,
perfectly embodies Revolver's thesis regarding the Color Revolution being the same
people running the same playbook. Indeed, like most of the star never-Trump impeachment
witnesses, McFaul has been an ambassador to an Eastern European country. He has supported
operations against Trump, including impeachment. And, like Norm Eisen, he has actually
written
a book on Color Revolutions (more on that later).
Norm Eisen's The Democracy Playbook: A Brief Overview:
A deep dive into Eisen's book would exceed the scope of this relatively brief exposé.
It is nonetheless important for us to draw attention to key passages of Eisen's book to
underscore how closely the "Playbook" corresponds to events unfolding right here at home.
Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to say that regime change professionals such as Eisen
simply decided to run the same playbook against Trump that they have done countless times when
foreign leaders are elected overseas that they don't like and want to remove via
extra-democratic means -- "peaceful protests," "democratic breakthroughs" and such.
First, consider the following passage from Eisen's Playbook:
If you study this passage closely, you will find direct confirmation of our earlier point
that "democracy" in the Color Revolution context is a term of art -- it refers to anything they
like that keeps the national security bureaucrats in power. Anything they don't like, even if
elected democratically, is considered "anti-democratic," or, put another way, "democratic
backsliding." Eisen even acknowledges that this scourge of populism he's so worried about
actually was ushered in with "popular support," under "relatively democratic and electoral
processes." The problem is precisely that the people have had enough of the corrupt ruling
class ignoring their needs. Accordingly, the people voted first for Brexit and then for Donald
Trump -- terrifying expressions of populism which the broader Western power structure did
everything in its capacity to prevent. Once they failed, they viewed these twin populist
victories as a kind of political 9/11 to be prevented by any means necessary from recurring.
Make no mistake, the Color Revolution has nothing to do with democracy in any meaningful sense
and everything to do with the ruling class ensuring that the people will never have the power
to meddle in their own elections again.
The passage above can be insightfully compared to the passage in Gene Sharp's book noting
ripe applications to the domestic situation.
It is instructive to compare the passage in Eisen's Color Revolution book to the passage in
Michael McFaul's Color Revolution book
First off, it is absolutely imperative to look at every single one of the conditions for a
Color Revolution that McFaul identifies. It is simply impossible not to be overcome with the
ominous parallels to our current situation. Specifically, however, note condition 1 which
refers to having a target leader who is not fully authoritarian, but semi-autocratic. This
coincides perfectly well with Eisen's concession that the populist leaders he's so concerned
about might be "illiberal" but enjoy "popular support" and have come to power via "relatively
democratic electoral processes."
Consulting the above passage from McFaul's book, we note that McFaul has been perhaps the
most explicit about the conditions which facilitate a Color Revolution. We invite the reader to
supply the contemporary analogue to each point as a kind of exercise.
A semi-autocratic regime rather than fully autocratic
An unpopular incumbent (note blanket negative coverage of Trump, fake polls)
A united and organized opposition (media, intel community, Hollywood, community groups,
etc)
Enough independent media to inform citizens of falsified vote (see full court press in
media pushing contested election narrative, social media censorship)
A political opposition capable of mobilizing tens of thousands or more demonstrators to
protest electoral fraud ( SEE BLACK LIVES MATTER AND ANTIFA )
On point number four, which is especially relevant to our present situation, Eisen has an
interesting thing to say about the role of a contested election scenario in the Orange
Revolution, arguably the most important Color Revolution of them all.
Finally, let's look at one last passage from Norm Eisen's Color Revolution "Democracy
Playbook" and cross-reference it with McFaul's conditions for a Color Revolution as well as the
situation playing out right now before our very eyes:
A few things immediately jump out at us. First, the ominous instruction: "prepare to use
electoral abuse evidence as the basis for reform advocacy." Secondly, we note the passage
suggesting that opposition to a target leader might avail itself of "extreme institutional
measures" including impeachment processes, votes of no confidence, and, of course, the good
old-fashioned "protests, strikes, and boycotts" (all more or less peaceful no doubt).
By now the Color Revolution agenda against Trump should be as plain as day. Regime change
professionals like McFaul, Eisen, George Kent, and others, who have refined their craft
conducting color revolutions overseas, have taken it upon themselves to use the same tools, the
same tactics -- quite literally, the same playbook -- to overthrow President Trump. Yet again,
same people, same playbook.
We conclude this study of key Color Revolution figure Norm Eisen by exploring his
particularly proactive -- indeed central role -- in effecting one of the Color Revolution's
components mentioned in the Eisen Playbook -- impeachment.
-- -- -- –
The Ghost of Democracy's Future
We mentioned at the outset of this piece that Norm Eisen is many things -- a former Obama
Ethics Czar (but of course), Ambassador to Czechoslovakia, participant in the now notorious
Transition Integrity Project, et cetera. But he earned his title as "legal hatchet man" of the
Color Revolution for his tireless efforts in promoting the impeachment of President Trump.
The litany of Norm Eisen's legal activity cited at the beginning of this piece bears
repeating.
As the man who implemented the David Brock blueprint
for suing the President into paralysis and his
allies into bankruptcy , who helped mainstream and amplify the Russia Hoax, who drafted
10 articles of impeachment for the Democrats a full month before President Trump ever
called the Ukraine President in 2018 , who personally served as DNC co-counsel for
litigating the Ukraine impeachment
If that resume doesn't warrant the title "legal hatchet man" we wonder what does? We
encourage interested readers or journalists to explore those links for themselves. By way of
conclusion, it simply suffices to note that much of Eisen's impeachment activity he conducted
before there was any discussion or knowledge of President Trump's call to the Ukrainian
President in 2018 -- indeed before the call even happened. Impeachment was very clearly a
foregone conclusion -- a quite literal part of Norm Eisen's Color Revolution playbook -- and it
was up to people like Eisen to find the pretext, any pretext.
Despite their constant invocation of "democracy" we ought to note that transferring the
question of electoral outcomes to adversarial legal processes is in fact anti-Democratic -- in
keeping with our observation that the Color Revolution playbook uses "democracy" as a term of
art, often meaning the precise opposite of the usual meaning suggesting popular support.
Perhaps the most important entry in Eisen's entry is the first, that is, Eisen's
participation in the infamous David Brock blueprint on how to undermine and overthrow the Trump
presidency.
The Washington Free Beacon attended the retreat and obtained David Brock's
private and confidential memorandum from the meeting. The memo, "
Democracy Matters: Strategic Plan for Action ," outlines Brock's four-year agenda to
attack Trump and Republicans using Media Matters, American Bridge, Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) , and Shareblue.
This leaked memo was written before President Trump took office, further suggesting that all
of the efforts to undermine Trump have not been good faith responses to his behavior, but a
pre-ordained attack strategy designed to overturn the 2016 election by any means necessary. The
Color Revolution expert who suggests impeachment as a tactic in his Color Revolution "playbook"
was already in charge of impeachment before Trump even took office -- -Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is run by none other than Norm Eisen.
But the attempt to overturn the 2016 election using Color Revolution tactics failed. And so
now the plan is to overthrow Trump in 2020, hence Norm Eisen's noted participation in the
Transition Integrity Project. Looking around us, one is forced to ask the deeply uncomfortable
question, "transition into what?"
To conclude, we would like to call back to a point we raised in the first piece in our color
revolution series. In this piece, we noted that star Never Trump impeachment witness George
Kent just happens to be running the Belarus desk at the State Department. Belarus, we argued,
with its mass demonstrations egged on by US Government backed NGOS, its supposed "peaceful
protests" and of course its contested election results all fit the Color Revolution mold
curiously enough.
One NGO called the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group (TDWG) was bold or reckless enough
to draw the parallels between the Color Revolution in Belarus and the events playing out
against Trump explicitly. In response to a remark by a twitter user that the TDWG's remarks
about Belarus suggested parallels to the United States, the TDWG ominously replied:
Now, would the reader care to take a guess as to who runs the Transatlantic Democracy
Working Group? If you guessed Norm Eisen, you would be correct.
Stay tuned for more in Revolver.news' groundbreaking coverage of the Color
Revolution against Trump. Be sure to check out the previous installments in this series.
"... 80% of the electorate, maybe more, are always locked into their partisan holds in every election. It would appear that only 5-10% are really persuadable. There's typically a swing to one side by the persuadables as voting begins. It invariably then comes down to enthusiasm. Who can turnout more of their voters? ..."
"... I am wondering if Biden is taking steroids. That's the first question I'd ask him at the debate. ..."
At this point Trump should start challenging Kamala to a debate since she's going to be
defacto ruler. (Unless the Biden people have figured out for themselves she'll be purging
them - all oth them - once he's gone.)
"It is going to require a lot of mail in ballots to make Harris/Biden co-presidents"
They've already gotten two judges to extend deadlines in Pennsylvania and Michigan. Nothing
beats legislating from the bench.
While we'll need to wait for the October surprise to gauge better the last minute swings,
80% of the electorate, maybe more, are always locked into their partisan holds in every
election. It would appear that only 5-10% are really persuadable. There's typically a swing
to one side by the persuadables as voting begins. It invariably then comes down to
enthusiasm. Who can turnout more of their voters?
This year like most other years just a handful of states will decide. IMO, they are
Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
The bigger question is the Senate. The Democrats are in striking distance of a majority.
If Trump wins the presidency but the Democrats win the Senate it would only increase
impeachment attempts.
The waves of refugees and immigrants seeking safety that has acted like a poison on EU
politics will go on until such wars are ended
Patrick Cockburn
Desperate refugees crammed into cockle-shell boats landing on the shingle beaches of
the south Kent coast are easily portrayed as invaders. Anti-immigrant demonstrators were
exploiting such fears last weekend as they blockaded the main highway into Dover Port in
order "to protect Britain's borders". Meanwhile, the home secretary, Priti Patel, blames the
French for not doing enough to stop the flow of refugees across the Channel
####
He doesn't go far back enough. He should include the civil war in Bosnia and the break up
of Yugoslavia. In both cases the west have acted as 'facilitators.' In the former Warren
Christopher told Islamicist Leader in Bosnia Alija Izetbegovic that he didn't have to sign
the UN backed Cutileiro Plan if he didn't want to and that the US would have his back. So
Izetbegovic didn't because he wanted to achieve his dream of being the father of the first
moslem state in the west. For two and a half years the west provided weapons and intel by
various means to the Bosnian moslem army, initially through Croatia and then by direct USAF
airdrops. In the latter case, the French tore up the 1975 Helsinki Final Act that says a
country can only be broken up by the agreement of its parties, by setting up their Badinter
Commission figleaf to say 'well its ok, really.*' That preceded and laid the ground work for
the Serbia carve up in 1999 which the west then had the gall to say 'Does not set a
precedent.'
Germany and Austria also gave Croatia their full backing so there was no need/pressure for
it to negotiate or have to provide guarantees to their minorities and not go to war.
The west kept the war going because they wanted the 'right result' which was 100,000
deaths later and the Dayton Agreement that was also worse than the UN Cutileiro plan. On the
plus side, new u-Ropean countries got to dump their soviet weapons for cash in hand instead
of having to pay for dismantlement and started a new trend in difficult to trace 'arms
recycling' that the US would go on to use to supply other ' terrorist rebel groups'
elsewhere.
That was the first big shift of refugees but it wasn't so bad because most ex-Yugoslavs
are white and easier to hide/blend in.
Ahhh but who decides when and where secession is 'appropriate'?
"The critical statement is Opinion 2, issued in response to the question: 'Does the
Serbian population in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, as one of the constituent peoples of
Yugoslavia, have the right to self-determination?' The Commission substituted the term
'communities' for 'peoples' and assigned to such communities rights within existing states,
recognising 'that within one State, various ethnic, religious or linguistic communities might
exist' and stated that all such communities have the right to see their respective identities
recognised and to benefit from 'all the human rights and fundamental freedoms recognised in
international law, including, where appropriate , the right to choose their
national identity'." (emphasis mine)
It seems to me very apparent the west agrees that it is the ultimate arbiter of law
– where an act of secession would confer a strategic advantage upon the western
alliance, weaken its enemies or otherwise further its objectives, it is just and appropriate.
Where it might provide such advantages or desirable conditions to a chosen enemy, it is no
such thing, and an affront to international law – which is itself plainly not truly
international, as it is observed or ignored at the western alliance's convenience.
Politico reported on Sunday that Iran was weighing a plot to kill the US ambassador to
South Africa in retaliation for the killing of Gen. Soleimani
After a dubiously sourced report from Politico claimed Iran is considering
assassinating the US ambassador to South Africa, an intelligence source told the South
African newspaper Daily Maverick that the plot was "not likely to be real."
The source told the Maverick that while they take every threat seriously, there
"appears to be, from our perspective, no discernible threat." The source said that the
"associations made are not sustainable on any level."
####
As previously posted, the UK Ministry of Defence and other UK organs are refusing to
respond to the Daily Maverick (UK) questions because it has been covering British military
naughtiness in various places and even though it employs very well established defense
journalists who still repeat some tropes (particularly about Russia).*
Anyways, it looks like now that i-Srael has gone so extremist that it is comfortable to
share a bed with the gulf states, currently preparing for a war on i-Ran, and hence the
seeding of these 'news stories' with even less credibility of Saddam's WMDs. What this does
tell us is that 'another quick war' is the baby in the rottweiler's mouth. They cannot let
go, even it t-Rump dumped psycho kitten Bolt.On .
US President Donald Trump has claimed he wanted to "take out" Syrian President Bashar
Assad in 2017 but was deterred by then-Defense Secretary James Mattis – after
previously denying an assassination was even discussed.
Why is he saying this now? He positioned himself as wanting to disengage from Iraq. Is
this bombast related to the "peace" accords with the UAE and Bahrain? It is certainly
moronic.
Washington is so full of shit, it cannot keep track of its own lies. Just today, it backed
down on aluminum tariffs – unilaterally levied against Canada on National Security'
grounds – only two hours before more than $3 Billion in retaliatory tariffs on American
products were to be announced.
Many believe Harris is a cutout for Hillary Clinton. Did anyone really think Hillary
would just fade away? She's the puppet master lurking in the background, running the
campaign, and using cognitively challenged Biden as a friendly mask to hide the true ugliness
beneath.
As many bad things the US did, it generally had continuity and consistency in its
leadership. Now, it's just a playground for the narcissists and sociopaths.
It's all S**T! American politics has literally turned crap, with fights over November's
election descending into defecation wars Micah Curtis
is a game and tech journalist from the US. Aside from writing for RT, he hosts the podcast
Micah and The Hatman, and is an independent comic book writer. Follow Micah at @MindofMicahC
It seems that anytime I look into politics as a topic for an op-ed, I find more and more
ridiculous stories each time. Every once in a while, you hear something being described as a
s**t job. Unless you're working on sewer lines or septic tanks, you don't expect that to be
literal. And yet, it seems as if politics itself has gone down the crapper.
In the state of Maine, police are looking for a suspect who has been taking fecal matter
from a dog and stuffing it into the mailboxes of Trump supporters. Whoever this person is (the
suspect is described as a middle-aged woman riding a bicycle), they are so angry at Donald
Trump that they are willing to pick up
dog feces and carry it to someone's mailbox to deposit it. I don't think that anyone would
ever call this the mark of someone who is completely sane.
Just before this came to light, a YouTuber decided to livestream himself going number
two on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's driveway as a " peaceful protest " against
homelessness (the video was titled ' Poopalosi '). I get the sense that this guy wasn't
exactly known for being a classy person beforehand.
I would be completely full of crap myself if I told you I didn't find some of this
hilarious. I mean, these sorts of headlines (" YouTuber explains why he live streamed
himself pooping on Nancy Pelosi's driveway ," " Maine Police Looking For Woman Allegedly
Leaving Poop In Trump Supporters' Mailboxes ") seem like they were pulled from satirical
outlets like the Onion or the Babylon Bee.
But there is a very serious side to all this. For lack of a better term, it seems like
political discussion in America has now gone septic. Instead of emptying their hearts to
others, I suppose people would much rather empty their bowels. And it's not like at this point
they have the excuse of a toilet paper shortage anymore.
All puns aside, these situations come across like a microcosm of political dialogue in
modern day America. Mudslinging is much more commonplace than debate. It's as if modern pundits
have learned how to debate from the foul-mouthed comedian Andrew Dice Clay rather than from the
celebrated politeness of the arch conservative commentator William F. Buckley. Everything seems
to be completely and totally rife with hyperbole instead of sensibility. As such, everyone is
stirred up to extremes as opposed to being able to think straight.
The funny thing about all of this is that I believe this is not anything partisan. Though
I do think there is a lot of lunacy on the political left, there are deeper issues that
permeate American culture that need to be addressed. As someone who has lived in this country
all my life, I'm wondering if we're going to enter an era where we simply cannot communicate
with our neighbors anymore.
Ten years ago, I could think that my neighbor was a silly hippie and they could think that
I'm just a hard case, but we got along. Nowadays, we judge (and wildly condemn) our neighbors
based on the signs in their yard, and get to literally pour buckets of s**t over them.
The question that I would ask is whether or not our politics define our character. By the
way, I'm not even speaking of the extremes. I'm talking about John or Jane Q American who
simply has concerns about things like education, safety, taxes, or other more mundane things.
If we are unable to simply live next to one another with political differences, what does that
mean for polite society?
Maybe at this point we need to think of the golden rule as a universal truth again, and
dismiss everything else as, well, crap.
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
The only other broad avenue for the people to get unbiased information is from a few news
shows that don't toe the liberal line -- most notably "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on Fox News.
Since the riots began at the end of May, Carlson has taken it upon himself to expose the
corruption of not just the media but the liberal elected establishment that has implicitly
endorsed violence, racism, and disorder in the name of what is perversely called social
justice. I've called Carlson a
modern-day Cassandra because his clear-eyed assessment of the danger America faces has been
met with scorn, denial and derision. But name-calling, advertising boycotts, and continued
threats of violence against him and his family have not deterred Carlson from his declared
mission to be "the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink."
In that regard, Carlson has long used his show to ferret out information hidden in the
bowels of government and get it to the people -- bypassing the media guards who increasingly
see it as their sworn role to restrict the free exchange of ideas. On Carlson's Sept. 1 show,
author Chris Rufo discussed his research into how critical race theory has infiltrated the
federal government. I was shocked by just how bad the situation is, something we would never
learn from CNN or MSNBC.
"It's absolutely astonishing how critical race theory has pervaded every institution in
the federal government," Rufo told Carlson.
"What I have discovered is that critical race theory has become, in essence, the default
ideology of the federal bureaucracy and is now being weaponized against the American
people."
He gave three examples of what he called "cult indoctrination." For instance, he told of a
trainer who "told Treasury [Department] employees essentially that America was a fundamentally
white supremacist country and 'virtually all white people uphold the system of racism and white
superiority.'"
When Rufo explicitly urged Trump "to immediately issue an executive order abolishing
critical-race-theory training from the federal government," I thought to myself how that was a
smart move. It just might work. It's no secret that Trump watches Fox News. So why not make a
direct appeal to the president while you are on one of those shows? It's the only way most
guests would ever have a chance to get the president's attention. And in this case it
worked.
Just three quick days later, Trump did exactly what Rufo proposed -- he
issued an executive order through the director of the Office of Management and Budget to
"cease and desist from using taxpayer dollars to fund [the] divisive, un-American propaganda
training sessions" where federal employees are told that "virtually all White people contribute
to racism."
When Trump reacted to Rufo's revelations the same way that I and millions of people watching
Tucker Carlson's show reacted - with outrage - I realized just how dangerous Carlson is to the
hegemony of the far left. His show is metaphorically the tunnel under the Berlin Wall that
allows direct communication between the pro-liberty, pro-American middle class and the freedom
fighters in the White House , bypassing both the bureaucracy and the stunningly dishonest media
that control the flow of information in and out of the Trump administration.
In order to keep our metaphor geographically, if not politically, correct, we should think
of the mainstream media as the Stasi, the East German secret police who were notoriously brutal
-- and effective -- in suppressing free thought and dissent from the party line. They were not
just the "enemy of the people," as Trump has labeled the worst of the modern media; they were
the "enemy of the truth."
That role has never been clearer than it was last week when Bob Woodward, the legacy
commander of the media's Main Directorate for Reconnaissance, issued his report on what he
found when he infiltrated the White House. Or at least what he purported to find.
According to Woodward, Trump perfidiously misled the American public about the scope and
danger of the China virus because he called the virus "deadly stuff" in February before any
Americans had died. Also because Trump knew "it goes through the air." I mean you have to be
notoriously stupid, or just plain incurious, not to have figured out by February that COVID-19
was a deadly peril. Does Woodward think that Trump shut down air travel from China at the end
of January just because he wanted to hurt the tourist industry?
Of course the new virus was deadly, but as Trump patiently explained to the thick-headed
Woodward then, and still has to explain to the rest of the White House press corps virtually
every day, there is no purpose served by terrifying the public. The president told Woodward
that the virus was "more deadly than even your strenuous flus." That turned out to be true, but
flus are also kept under control by widespread vaccination and therapeutics. Does Woodward need
to be reminded that the much more deadly pandemic of 1918 was caused by the Spanish flu ?
Of course he does, because it's not helpful to the media's narrative that Donald Trump is a
dangerous buffoon who must not be reelected. How could the country survive another four years
with a president who insists on doing things his own way, who won't be cowed by the Stasi
media, who considers it his duty to improve on conventional wisdom instead of surrendering to
it.
Which brings us back to Chris Rufo and his pipeline -- or should I say tunnel access -- to
the president. The obstinacy of Tucker Carlson, his unwillingness to take a knee to orthodoxy,
has made him the most dangerous person in America (after Trump) to the far-left overlords. And
when Trump acted on Rufo's entreaty regarding critical race theory, it led to near hysteria as
the Stasi media realized that its Berlin Wall had been breached.
As Carlson himself reported on Tuesday, Sept. 8, "To the news media, all of this was a
disaster. They claim to be journalists, but they despise actual reporting like Chris Rufo's.
His coverage showed that they are complicit in an anti-American lie that is deeply unpopular
with actual Americans, and they didn't take it well."
Among the many critics of Carlson for providing the president with accurate information
about what is being done in his name in the federal bureaucracy, perhaps the loudest was CNN's
Brian Stelter, the virtual communications director for the Stasi media.
Sen. Chris Murphy said this the other day: "I have a real belief that democracy is
unnatural. We don't run anything important in our lives by democratic vote other than our
government. Democracy is so unnatural that it's illogical to think it would be permanent. It
will fall apart at some point, and maybe that point isn't now, but maybe it is."
Just when the fear starts to subside, and growing public skepticism seems to push governors
into opening, something predictable happens . The entire apparatus of mass media hops on some
new, super-scary headline designed to instill more Coronaphobia and extend the lockdowns yet
again.
It's a cycle that never stops. It comes back again and again.
A great example occurred this weekend. A poll appeared on Friday from the Kaiser Family
Foundation. It showed
that confidence in Anthony Fauci is evaporating along with support for lockdowns and mandatory
Covid vaccines.
The news barely made the headlines, and very quickly this was overshadowed by a scary new
claim: restaurants will give you Covid!
It's tailor-made for the mainstream press. The study is from the
CDC, which means: credible. And the thesis is easily digestible: those who test positive
for Covid are twice as likely as those who tested negative to have eaten at a restaurant.
"Eating and drinking on-site at locations that offer such options might be important risk
factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection," the study says.
Very scary!
Thus the implied conclusion: don't allow indoor dining! Otherwise Covid will spread like
wildfire!
After six months of this Corona Kabuki dance, driven by alarmist media and imposed by wacko,
power-abusing governors and mayors, I've become rather cynical about the whole enterprise, so I
mostly ignore the latest nonsense.
In this case, however, I decided to take a closer look simply because so many millions of
owners, workers, and customers have been treated so brutally in the "War on Restaurants."
It turns out, of course, that this is not what the study said. What's more interesting is to
consider exactly what's going on here. The study was based on interviews with 314 people who
had been tested of their own volition. It included 154 patients with positive test results and
160 control participants with negative test results.
The interviews took place two weeks following the tests, and they concerned life activities
two weeks prior to getting the test.
Before we go on here, remember that what alarmed people about Covid was the prospect of
dying. The study says nothing about this subject, nor about hospitalization. It's a fair
assumption that the positive cases being interviewed here got it (presumably, if the tests are
accurate, which they are not )
and got over it.
This alone is interesting simply because it reveals how much the whole subject has been
changed: the pandemic has become a casedemic.
Now, to the question of life activities. In the study, based on answers to a survey, the
following were not correlated in any significant degree with positive cases of Covid:
Wearing a mask or not wearing a mask
Going to church
Riding on public transportation
Attending large house parties
Going to the gym
Going to the office
Going to the hair salon
Going shopping
Now one might suppose, if you think the study has any merit, that this would be the
headline.
The massive power of the state has been deployed all over the United States and the world to
force the closure of churches, gyms, offices, salons, and malls. This all happened and is still
happening. Also mask mandates became the new normal. The public has been invited by health
authorities to jeer at, denounce, and turn in anyone who doesn't have a cloth strapped to his
or her face.
All of this happened in complete contradiction to every commercial right, property right, or
normal human freedoms. We threw it all away in the name of virus control. Our lives have been
completely upended and our assumptions about our rights and liberties have been overturned.
And yet here is a study that is unable to document any correlation between these life
activities and catching the disease.
That's an amazing conclusion that could have generated headlines like:
Salons Won't Get You Sick, CDC Reports
You Won't Catch Covid at the Gym, CDC Shows
No, Your Hairstylist Doesn't Spread the Coronavirus
Scared to Go Shopping? Don't Be, Says the CDC
Your Mask Is Pointless, New Study Says
Church Goers Shouldn't Fear Sickness, Scientists Reveal
Study: Your House Party Didn't Spread the Virus
And so on. But none of this was to be. Not one single story in the mainstream press said
anything like this, even though this was all implied by the CDC study.
The one place that the study revealed a positive correlation between positive cases and life
activities was going to restaurants.
So that's what got the alarmist headlines. Yes, these are all real.
And so on for thousands of times in every mainstream venue. They are all competing for
clicks in the great agenda of extending lockdowns and feeding public fear as much as possible.
So the worst-possible spin on this slightly sketchy study gets all the headlines.
Thus is it burned into many people's minds that restaurants are really disease-spreading
venues. Go out to eat and you might die!
And here is what makes this even stranger. The interviewers never asked the people in the
survey whether they were eating indoors or outdoors, as incredible as that seems. The authors
admit this:
"Of note, the question assessing dining at a restaurant did not distinguish between indoor
and outdoor options."
Why not? Did they just forget to ask? What's going on here?
Which is to say that even if the results are meaningful – and there's so much about
this study that is murky and error prone – they are practically useless for knowing what
to do about it. If there is no distinction between indoor and outdoor, all speculation about
ventilation or crowds or the presence of food and so on, is utterly pointless.
Without knowing that, we are at a loss to figure out any answer to the question of why and
what to do. Instead, the message comes down to: don't go out to eat.
Here is how bad the science has become. In the discussion, the authors write the
following:
"Direction, ventilation, and intensity of airflow might affect virus transmission, even if
social distancing measures and mask use are implemented according to current guidance. Masks
cannot be effectively worn while eating and drinking, whereas shopping and numerous other
indoor activities do not preclude mask use."
Here is what is weird: the study itself supports none of that paragraph.
The survey never asked about ventilation because the people who made the survey somehow
forgot to make a query concerning indoor vs. outdoor dining . As for masks, the study did in
fact ask respondents about mask wearing and the results showed no correlation between the
sickness and whether and to what extent people were wearing masks!
In other words, that paragraph in the discussion is contradicted in two places by the
authors' own study.
In addition, the authors themselves point to an intriguing issue: the people in the survey
might have biased their answers based on their personal knowledge of the test results.
Think about it this way. The people who had a positive Covid test are more likely to ask
themselves the great question: how did I get this? Going to restaurants is such a rare activity
these days that it stands out in one's mind. When the survey asked people if they had gone out
to eat, it is possible that the memory of the Covid positive person might be more likely to
blame the restaurant, whereas the Covid negative person might be more likely to have forgotten
the locale of every meal in the last 30 days.
In other words, the real result of the study might be: Covid patients are more likely to
scapegoat restaurants than gyms, churches, and salons.
Alas, none of these interesting considerations appear in the media-rendered version of this
study: panic and keep the lockdowns in place!
Lockdowns have become a conclusion in a desperate search for evidence. Imagine if you
undertook a study of C-positive vs. C-negative cases and asked the people if they mostly wear
lace-up or slip-on shoes. If you come up with some positive correlation, the CDC will publish
you and a media panic will ensue.
This is precisely where we've been for six solid months now. The media has become the
handmaiden of lockdown tyranny, blasting out simplistic versions of sketchy studies to keep the
panic going as long as possible. And the public, which is far too trusting of the media and its
capacity for rational and accurate reporting, eats it up.
For now. Once the dust settles on all of this, it seems highly likely that media science
reporting will lose credibility for a generation. It certainly deserves that fate.
"Cloth masks that are used to slow the spread of COVID-19 offer little protection
against wildfire smoke. They do not catch small particles found in wildfire smoke that
can harm your health."
Just checking if that's the same CDC.
LA_Goldbug , 3 hours ago
Wow !!!!!
Nice find :-)
honest injun , 3 hours ago
At what point does the man on the street realize that he has been had? It took me about
2 weeks, 6 months ago to realize what Fauci and his cronies were saying was nonsense. Smart
people that I know, took months to reach the same conclusion but many people are still
buying the disinfo.
President Trump has accused Joe Biden of being a puppet of the "radical left." But the US'
most prominent leftist, Bernie Sanders thinks Biden isn't leaning left enough. His concerns
seem to be falling on deaf ears, though.
Trump has said that Joe Biden, a centrist democrat with nearly five decades of experience in
Washington, is a "puppet of the radical left movement that seeks to destroy the American way
of life." Central to Trump's argument is Biden's refusal to strongly condemn the wave of
violence that's accompanied 'Black Lives Matter' protests, as well as his pledge to roll back
Trump's tax cuts should he win in November.
I was mildly amused by Paul Sperry's recent tweet announcing as "breaking news" that Obama's
CIA Director, John Brennan, set up a Task Force to target Donald Trump. This should not be
considered something "new." I reported on this almost one year ago (October 2019 to be
precise). You can check out the original pieces here
and here
. The following provides an updated, consolidated piece.
While chatting in late October 2019 with a retired CIA colleague, he dropped a
bombshell–he had learned that John Brennan set up a Trump Task Force at CIA in early
2016. One of my retired buddy's friends, who was still on duty with the CIA in 2016, recounted
how he was approached discreetly and invited to work on a Task Force focused on then
Presidential candidate Donald Trump. The Task Force members were handpicked instead of
following the normal procedure of posting the job. Instead of opening the job to all eligible
CIA personnel, only a select group of people were invited specifically to join up. Not everyone
accepted the invitation, and that could be a problem for John Brennan
A "Task Force" normally is a short term creation comprised of operations officers (i.e.,
guys and gals who carry out espionage activities overseas) and intelligence analysts. The
purpose of such a group is to ensure all relevant intelligence capabilities are brought to bear
on the problem at hand. I am not talking about an informal group of disgruntled Democrats
working at the CIA who got together like a book club to grouse and complain about the brash
real estate guy from New York. It was a specially designed covert action to try to destroy
Donald Trump.
A "Task Force" is a special bureaucratic creation that provides a vehicle for bring case
officers and analysts together, along with admin support, for a limited term project. But it
also can be expanded to include personnel from other agencies, such as the FBI, DIA and NSA.
Task Forces have been used since the inception of the CIA in 1947. Here's a recently
declassified memo outlining the considerations in the creation of a task force in 1958. The
author, L.K. White, talks about the need for a coordinating Headquarters element and an
Operational unit "in the field", i.e. deployed around the world.
While a "Task Force" can be a useful tool for tackling issues of terrorism or drug
trafficking, it is not appropriate or lawful for collecting on a U.S. candidate for the
Presidency. But Brennan did it with the blessing of the Director of National Intelligence, Jim
Clapper.
A Task Force operates independent of the CIA " Mission Centers
" (that's the jargon for the current CIA organization chart).
So what did John Brennan do? My friends said that a Trump Task Force was running in early
2016 and may have started as early as the summer of 2015. Recruitment to Task Force included
case officers (i.e., men and women who recruit and handle spies overseas), analysts and admin
personnel were recruited. Not everyone invited accepted the offer. But many did.
But this was not a CIA only operation. Personnel from the FBI also were assigned to the Task
Force. We have some clues that Christopher Steele's FBi handler, Michael Gaeta, may have been
detailed to the Trump Task Force ( see here
).
So what kind of things would this Task Force do? The case officers would work with foreign
intelligence services such as MI-6, the Italians, the Ukrainians and the Australians on
identifying intelligence collection priorities. Task Force members could task NSA to do
targeted collection. They also would have the ability to engage in covert action, such as
targeting George Papadopoulos. Joseph Mifsud may be able to shed light on the CIA officers who
met with him, briefed on operational objectives regarding Papadopoulos and helped arrange
monitored meetings. Was the honey pot (i.e., the attractive woman) named Azra Turk, who met
with George Papadopoulos, part of the CIA Trump Task Force?
The Task Force also could carry out other covert actions, such as information operations. A
nice sounding euphemism for propaganda, and computer network operations. There has been some
informed speculation that Guccifer 2.0 was a creation of this Task Force.
In light of what we have learned about the alleged CIA whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, there
should be a serious investigation to determine if he was a part of this Task Force or, at
minimum, reporting to them.
When I described this development last November to one friend, a retired CIA Chief of
Station, his first response was, "My God, that's illegal." We then reminisced about another
illegal operation carried out under the auspices of the CIA Central American Task Force back in
the 1980s. That became known to Americans as the Iran Contra scandal.
We know one thing for certain about he work of this Task Force–it failed to produce
any intelligence to corroborate the specious claim that Donald Trump was colluding with the
Russians. Even though the despicable Brennan has continued to insist that Trump was/is under
the thumb of Putin, he failed to provide any substantive information in the January 2017
Intelligence Community Assessment that supported the claim.
The curious "leaks" of Michael Cohen tapes on both Cuomo and Zucker, broadcast by Tucker
Carlson, makes me think Cohen also has some Trump tapes.
Cohen of course would be be more than willing to drop any Trump tapes into Tucker
Carlson's lap too - or at least work a tease dropping these bit player tapes on others first
to weasel a Trump pardon for Cohen at the 11th hour, in return for not dumping his Trump tapes
pre-election on Carlson's lap too.
Do you think these "leaked" Cohen tapes are just coincidentally coming out now - or was
Micheal Cohen a fifth column all along, and even in direct cahoots with Brennan too? Other
Trump business partners were IC assets, why not Cohen who would do anything for a buck and
publicity.
The night before the Mueller report came out pundit Brennan on prime time TV (whomever he
was working for CNN, MSNBC?) claimed Trump would be facing multiple indictments.
The next day when his distinguished punditry proved 100% false, Brennan then claimed on
prime time TV his source (sources?) were obviously wrong. And they moved quickly on to the
next topic.
Brennan was obviously operating off of some form of inside intelligence (or just making
things up for effect and a paycheck?) .
Just a few lines were uttered on both nights, but now in retrospect, Brennan did admit
some sort of intelligence gathering group was passing on this critical information to him -
bogus or not. He claimed was in some sort of insider loop.
It would be good to review both those pre-and post Mueller report statements now. Who was
he hoodwinking and should he have been paid for his "insights"?
Cohen is a know nothing "would be if they could be". I have described this type before. He
had no access to Trump, the person, as opposed to a tenuous business relationship with Trump
the company.
"But Brennan did it with the blessing of the Director of National Intelligence, Jim
Clapper. " Obama isn't mentioned at all? I wonder who was actually running the show.
I'm sure he was. He's being very careful about all the current actions on the left too.
He'll be running what's left of the democratic party, if they don't succeed in bringing down
the constitutional republic this election.
For a community organizer Obama is pretty crafty. He found favor with the Chicago big
money who backed him for the Illinois legislature and then the Senate. And then directly to
the presidency. Now he's best friends with David Geffen and Richard Branson and hangs out
with the billionaire class.
He is the "puppeteer" of the Democratic Party, IMO. I'm convinced that if Biden fails,
Michelle will run and likely beat an establishment Republican in 2024.
Who do you think was the ringleader in this operation: Brennan, Comey or Clapper?
To me, it seems most likely that it was Brennan (with Obama's reluctant approval). Comey and
Clapper don't strike me as the kind of guys who would risk everything on an operation that
could backfire.
What I'd really like to know is whether Director Brennan communicated with elites outside
the agency who might have encouraged the spying to begin with. Can you clarify this point?
Does the CIA take orders or instructions from powerful-connected elites outside of the
agency??
It seems we know that NSA identified unreasonable queries of their comms database in 2016,
leading Adm Rodgers to shut off access. Immediately after, we see FBI getting involved and
setting up Crossfire Hurricane. After the election, we see FBI working with DoJ NSD to move
the op into a special counsel organization which then runs the op. It appears the Senate
Select Committee (Burr/Warner) was complicit in the op, not to mention Schiff.
I'm not sure Obama wants to run the Democratic party. It's likelier he wants to secure his
legacy and play a supportive role within the party rather than lead it.
Obama's community organizing skills are null. It was only a title; never an actual
product. He will remain the token figure head of the party; but hot heads under the radar are
now its life and blood of the Democrat party today. With no small dose of our tax
dollars.
Democrats produce nothing; they only consume. There is a brewing turf war within the
Democrat party between their historic connection to the government unions and the new
socialists - two very different forces with two very different goals. Ironically, the
Democrat government unions created the new wave of Democrat socialists.
Watch how this play out - Biden is clueless about what is now seething under his titular
party head. Didn't Biden promise he would put Alexandra Cortez in a key administrative
position?
I remember the eye-opening essay about the CIA Trump task force, especially in light of
Brennan's self-assured posture that only briefly slumped (along with all of his brethren on
the Left) when the Mueller report finally came out and dashed such great expectations. We can
only hope that the Durham probe will expose and at the very least somehow strongly
condemn and spell out WITH EVIDENCE in no uncertain terms any seditious activity. After
hearing that Trey Gowdy doubts any more prosecutions will come of the probe, I'm not going to
hold my breath for perp walks.
Laughably, the Left's still beating that same old Russian Dead Horse though. Just as with
the DNC's lackluster national convention, I'm surprised, almost shocked actually, that in
spite of the overwhelming support of the "creative class", Democrats can't come up with a
better hoax. On the other hand I can't remember the last time I was dying to see a new film,
buy a new book or recording, or tune into a new TV drama, so while it could just be me, I
suspect the "creative class" ain't quite what it used to be...
Re: Michael Cohen comments: I have to agree with walrus and take exception to the MSM
characterization of Cohen as "Trump's personal attorney". My husband and I have a
small real estate company but even so, we've simultaneously employed several attorneys for
various personal and business needs and our holdings are minuscule compared to Trump's. SO I
seriously doubt that the MSM's inference about Cohen's role and insight into Trump's private
and business dealings - that he knows all - is greatly exaggerated.
Cohen does not need to "know all", if he was recording Trump. He just has to dole out a
few juicy sound bites prior to Nov, with our without context when they did contact each other
pre-2016.
Cohen's chance to make Trump squirm since Cohen just demonstrated he was willing to do
this to Cuomo and Zucker - so will he or won't he IF he has Trump tapes too - just crude talk
at this point would not be welcome as Trump tries to take the edge off his usual "gruff"
personality.
No magic carpet to the White House for anyone. I also think people don't like giving any
race like this away too early in the game - all the prior elections have swung back and forth
almost daily, until they finally broke on election day.
Even John McCain and Romney were still nip and tuck until the final hours if one watched
certain indicators. Ironically, the only race called conclusively before election day was
Clinton-Trump 2016, and we know how that finally worked out. So more cat (Trump) and mouse
(Biden) on a seesaw for a few more months.
All of which begs to say, where the heck is the Durham Report and when will we start
seeing accountability for Democrat/Obama high crimes and misdemeanors?
There is a deep cynicism even in California that "no one gets punished" for anything any
more, unless you are unlucky enough to be a law abiding, responsible person. Everyone else
gets a free ride and a double standard of justice - and it is causing a lot of anger out
here. "Law and order" is a building hunger our west.
Where is the Durham Report? Hahaha. We've had the Durham Report. One small fish indicted.
That's it. Were you really expecting more?
I said when the "investigation" was first made public that it was a red herring, a tool to
keep us from making noise because we would be pinning our hopes on this "report" that would
make everything wonderful. I said then that it would never be anything but a pacifier
dangling in front of our noses, like a carrot keeping a donkey dragging the cart along.
This article came out in May 2020 - essentially why did Obama want to frame Flynn?
It was Iran-gate; not Russia-Gate that drove the Obama spying and the Russia-gate
cover-up, according to this author.. Was this the motivation for the Trump Task Force in your
post- to spy on Team Trump to learn if they were going to undo Obama's Iran "legacy",
particularly since Flynn was advising them? https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/russiagate-obama-iran
The Flynn Spygate unraveling is far more credible as Iran-gate, and ties up many of the
very loose ends, much better than the Russia-gate nonsense. If this is the more credible
explanation of Obama's Spygate, what happened after this article was published several months
ago in May, during the height of the "pandemic". Has this theory been debunked?
And is its current article re-circulation right now tying Obama to Iran-gate spying the
reason Adam Schiff, out of no where, is back to screaming Russia-gate yet again?
And everyone else on the left is back to screaming high crimes, misdemeanors and
impeachment ......yet again. Gheesh - long and complicates article but it did gel for me.
Including explaining the always mysterious role played by Samatha Powers, the Queen of US
Unmaskers.
Still waiting to hear more about Obama's Ambassador to that tiny Italian enclave San
Marino, that got in his licks unmasking Flynn too. Who was he fronting at the time. And why
San Marino?
Connecting the dots - Obama's San Marino Ambassador unmasks Micheal Flynn
The Atlantic Media Company, parent company of the Atlantic Magazine the wife of Obama's
former US Ambassador to Italy - Linda Douglass -, who himself had been curiously caught up
among the many 11th hour unmaskings of Gen Flynn. For as yet undisclosed reasons.
Atlantic Magazine, part of the Atlantic Media Group, now partly owned by Steve Job's very
wealthy widow Laurane Jobs and rabid anti-Trumper, is taking great delight dropping bogus
bombs against Trump, that can't even last for a 24 hour credibility cycle. With the promise
of many more to come.
Will Linda Douglass be delving into her husband and San Marino Ambassador's great treasure
trove of Obama era unmaskings to provide these daily TDS hit pieces? A classified no-no. Or
just continue to make stuff up.
Or does this recent leftist media hit piece frenzy mean Russia-gate, Iran-gate and/or
Obama Spy-gate is finally going to be broken open?
Such a small, small world. Why was Obama's Ambassador to San Marino unmasking Micheal
Flynn? And his wife just happens to now work for the Atlantic Magazine.
Deap,
Iran-Gate might be the motivating, proximate cause for Obama to approve the overall
"counterintelligence" mission. With Russia-Gate the legal cover / excuse. For Brennan / Comey
/ et al, however, it does not seem like the personal reason for their involvement. The Trump
anti-Borg inclinations is probably what motivated the Borg to go after him.
Deap, my initial reaction to your mention of an Italian connection was to point to Michael
Ledeen, Flynn's co-author and, apparently, consultant - colleague.
Ledeen is known for his Italian connections -- he is thought to have been responsible for
the yellow-cake fabrication that pushed along Iraq war.
But the SanMarino connection appears to be on the other side of the ledger that Ledeen
inhabits -- tho one should put nothing past that crafty warmonger.
"Iran has long been Ledeen's bête noir, arguing that .the country has been heavily
involved in supporting attacks against U.S. forces in hotspots across the globe.[9] "No
matter how well we do, no matter how many high-level targets we eliminate, no matter how
many cities, towns, and villages we secure, unless we defeat Iran we will always be
designing yet another counterinsurgency strategy in yet another place. We are in a big war,
and Iran is at the heart of the enemy army." '
If Flynn's anti-Iran sentiments are as unhinged as Ledeen's, then I have little sympathy
for his troubles, even though it appears that Ledeen's view prevailed in the Trump
administration. Flynn: twice back-stabbed.
I followed John Kerry's and Wendy Sherman's negotiations carefully; I listened to hours
and hours of the Congressional debates over the deal -- not a treaty, the debates seemed a
sop to Congress; I listened as Iranian representatives (Mousavian, iirc) explained that the
Deal was not good for Iran and most Iranians understood that, but that Iranians would go
along to show good faith; because they were backed into a corner; and because of the belief
that an Iran that was engaged in robust trade with Europeans & others would "come in from
the terror cold." I was at American University when Obama announced that the JCPOA was
affirmed.
From an "America First" perspective I endorse(d) Obama's vision, as the Forward article
explained it:
"[JCPOA} was his instrument to secure an even more ambitious objective -- to reorder the
strategic architecture of the Middle East.
Obama did not hide his larger goal. He told a biographer, New Yorker editor David
Remnick, that he was establishing a geopolitical equilibrium "between Sunni, or
predominantly Sunni, Gulf states and Iran." According to The Washington Post's David
Ignatius, another writer Obama used as a public messaging instrument, realignment was a
"great strategic opportunity" for a "a new regional framework that accommodates the
security needs of Iranians, Saudis, Israelis, Russians and Americans."
The catch to Obama's newly inclusive "balancing" framework was that upgrading relations
with Iran would necessarily come at the expense of traditional partners targeted by Iran --
like Saudi Arabia and, most importantly, Israel. Obama never said that part out loud, but
the logic isn't hard to follow: Elevating your enemy to the same level as your ally means
that your enemy is no longer your enemy, and your ally is no longer your ally."
From my America First pov, "rebalancing" USA relations such that Israel -- not a formal
ally and never a trustworthy informal ally (ask survivors of USS Liberty), and other
states in MidEast all held positions on a more level playing field in the eyes of American
foreign policy, is appealing.
The Forward article failed to mention Ledeen, but it was, unsurprisingly, unapologetically
pro-Israel and from a decidedly Jewish perspective.
The Forward's tone and underlying assumptions were and are offensive to me.
Regarding the statement
"The Task Force members were handpicked instead of following the normal procedure of posting
the job.
Instead of opening the job to all eligible CIA personnel, only a select group of people were
invited specifically to join up."
Two questions naturally arise:
Who was doing the selection, and
was the politics of the candidates a factor, perhaps a very big factor, in the selection
process?
"Right" to whom, and by what criteria?
Did the FBI director not know this was an important matter, which required the best
investigators?
In any case, we can see who was put on it, such Trump-haters as Strzok, Page, and
Clinesmith.
Just Trump's bad luck, or something more deliberate?
There was not really an "Italian" connection in the Iran-gate piece bur rather the
curiosity why Obama's Italian ambassdor had interests in unmasking Michael Flynn, since his
name showed up on the odd list of Obama persons who did unmask Flynn.
His name being there - Ambassador Phillips - may have been there due to his other Obama
connections, or his wife Linda Douglass' Obama connections. Or his wife's current connection
to the tabloid Atlantic Magazine.
Not really anything Italian per se, or even wee San Marino. Other than perhaps a mutual
veneration for things Machiavellian-as this unfolding story twists and turns..
Mini Teaser: Radicals of the democracy-promotion movement embody the very thing they are
fighting against -- a closed-minded conviction that they represent the one true path for all
societies and thus possess a monopoly on social, ethical and political truth.
In one of the greatest public disinformation campaigns in American history -- the Left and
their NeverTrumper allies (under the nom de guerre : "Transition Integrity Project") released a
22-page report in August 2020 "war gaming" (their term) four election crisis scenarios:
1. A decisive Trump win;
2. A decisive Biden win;
3. A narrow Biden win; and,
4. A period of extended uncertainty after the election.
The outcome of each TIP scenario results in street violence and political impasse.
TIP organizers and leaders include Georgetown law professor Rosa Brooks, Nils Gilman of the
"independent" Berggruen Institute in California, and John Podesta, the longtime fixer and
handler of the Clinton political dynasty. The nominally Republican members of group include
former Republican National Chair Michael Steele, journalist David Frum, and former magazine
editor Bill Kristol.
Publication of the TIP report is an information warfare strategy employed for revolutionary
political purposes. The strategy is sophisticated and multifaceted. The TIP document:
Lays the groundwork for "consensus" news media and social media narratives;
Rationalizes "unconventional strategies" for generating maximum confusion and turmoil
over "unfavorable" election outcomes;
Projects accusations of unlawful/criminal conduct on President Trump and those voting
for him;
Co-opts the (already politically sympathetic) Washington DC federal bureaucracy to
support their strategy from the headquarters of every department and agency of the
Executive;
Relies (correctly) on a low-awareness/low-energy response from the political Right to
counter the TIP program.
Is it possible that the leadership of the American Left, along with their NeverTrumper
allies, are busy talking themselves into advocating and promoting street violence as a response
to a presidential election?
The answer is: Yes.
In the opening paragraph of their "bipartisan" report, TIP states: " We assess with a high
degree of likelihood that November's elections will be marked by a chaotic legal and political
landscape." Especially if they have their way.
An alternative to one of the war-gamed scenarios resulted in the TIPsters advocating for the
secession of Washington, Oregon and California. Is there no sense of historical irony in the
Democrat party? Secession over an election? Again?
The single greatest irony of the TIP report is the overwhelming use of "projection" in
framing and characterizing various claims against President Trump (and his supporters) as a
means to justify the Left's "irregular" plans to disrupt the election process.
Projection, as a political technique, is not a secret. The American Left has never bothered
to hide or disguise it, nor have they even found it desirable to do so.
The covert portion of the projection technique is the funding and organizational involvement
behind the projection itself. Who is paying the bills for TIP and its affiliates? This is a
highly organized, sophisticated operation with career political operatives calling the shots.
No one does this for free, and someone (or some entity) is paying the bill. Who?
The TIP report is itself an exercise of power. Political intelligence information and public
policy strategies are being fused through the actions of TIP. That synthesis is a demonstration
of real political power, and it is being implemented in a written plan that contemplates street
violence to affect the outcome of the US presidential election. The political power resourced
and generated from a document like the TIP report can be used for persuasion (through news and
social media), indoctrination (of activists and other "true believers"), and introduces the
threat of terror and street violence (to the general population) as a "normal" or "expected"
outcome.
Here is how the news and social media narrative is coming together and what you will see,
hear and read in the next few weeks :
"Yes, expect violence in the aftermath of the election, because now that is the new
'normal.' Trump made us do it. He made us take the election, because the old, regular system
just cannot be relied upon. That's why we had to publish our report, so we could organize
'around' all of the regular processes. Obama promised 'fundamental transformation,' and now,
years later – we're finally going to deliver."
What evidence is there of awareness and preparedness on the political Right to confront and
counter the TIP (and other Leftists) and their plans to disrupt the election? Not much. Time is
short. The Left's threat of violence and subversion of the election is real. How we respond is
critical.
Over two dozen phones belonging to members of Robert Mueller's special counsel team were
wiped clean before they were handed over to the Inspector General, according to information
contained in
87 pages of DOJ records released on Thursday.
Some of the phones were wiped using the Apple operating system's 'wrong-password' failsafe,
where the wrong password must be entered ten times - after which the system wipes the
drive.
Those who couldn't seem to remember their password 10 times in a row include 'attack dog'
lawyer Andrew Weissman , who urged DOJ attorneys to go rogue and 'not' help US Attorney John
Durham investigate FBI and DOJ conduct during the Trump investigation.
A phone belong to assistant special counsel James Quarles "wiped itself without
intervention from him," the DOJ's records state.
Andrew Weismann, a top prosecutor on Mueller's team, "accidentally wiped" his cell phone,
causing the data to be lost. Other members of the team also accidentally wiped their phones,
the DOJ said.
Phones issued to at least three other Mueller prosecutors, Kyle Freeny, Rush Atkinson, and
senior prosecutor Greg Andres were also wiped of data.
Additionally, t he cell phone of FBI lawyer Lisa Page was misplaced by the special
counsel's office . While it was eventually obtained by the DOJ inspector general, by that
point the phone had been restored to its factory settings, wiping it of all dat a. The phone
of FBI agent Peter Strzok was also obtained by the inspector general's office, which found
"no substantive texts, notes or reminders" on it.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Creepy Joe used to be a stanch neoliberal, who promoted open militarism, empowerment of
multinationals at the expense of working people; two feature of neofascism.
The Left justifies extreme and violent action by framing Trump as an existential threat to
America...
It might not seem immediately apparent that Joe Biden would have anything in common with
insurrectionary anarchists. After all, Biden has been deeply entrenched in the uppermost
echelons of American political power for nearly five decades straight -- whereas
insurrectionary anarchists generally seek to overthrow those systems, by violent force if
necessary.
The former Vice-President is not exactly the type you would imagine clad in all-black
combat-style street apparel, hurling commercial-grade fireworks at police officers. Rather, he
drafted the infamous 1994 omnibus crime bill in concert with the National Association of Police
Organizations. He is even known to venerate the arcane institutionalist ethos of the US Senate
-- whereas to insurrectionary anarchists, such institutions could only be tools of
oppression.
But the Trump Era has an odd way of bringing about unexpected ideological convergences. In
the announcement video that formally kicked off his 2020 presidential campaign, Biden
paid homage to what he called the "courageous group of Americans" who descended upon
Charlottesville, VA in August 2017 to confront an assembly of Right-wing rally-goers. Among
that "courageous group" were Left-wing activist factions broadly classified under the banner of
"antifa".
For Biden, what transpired in Charlottesville was a "defining moment," and formed the basis
for his decision to launch a third campaign for the presidency at age 76. While Biden did
herald generic American idealism in that announcement video -- which would be anathema to most
insurrectionary anarchists -- in the gravity he assigned to the Charlottesville episode, he
also affirmed a core tenet of the "antifa" worldview: the notion that a uniquely pressing
fascistic threat has gripped the country, and crushing this threat is a matter of unparalleled
world-historic urgency.
Certainly, if you picked any "antifa" member at random, there'd be an almost 0% chance that
they would express any kind of personal enthusiasm for Joe Biden. But there'd be a virtually
100% chance that they'd express a great deal of enthusiasm for the theory that "fascism" is an
accurate characterisation of America's current state of governance. Biden would be similarly
enthused to present a variation of this analysis, albeit from a slightly different ideological
angle. He typically intones things like, "This is not who we are", rather than "All Cops Are
Bastards".
Still, where Biden is united with "antifa" is in assigning such outsized importance to the
role of small-time "fascist" agitators like the ones who gathered that weekend three years ago
in Charlottesville (despite ultimately being outnumbered by Left-wing activists) on account of
the validation they are purported to have received from Donald Trump. For both Biden and
"antifa," this dynamic constitutes the chief prism through which contemporary American
political affairs must be viewed.
And for both Biden and "antifa," this mode of analysis has been hugely successful. "Antifa"
has succeeded in stoking nationwide insurrectionary fervour on a scale unseen in decades. Given
their opposition to Trump as the alleged fascist-in-chief, as well as their appropriation of
the "Black Lives Matter" protest mantle, they've received an extraordinary amount of mainstream
liberal legitimation.
Democratic Party operatives have even gone so far as to exalt "antifa" activists as the
modern-day equivalents of US soldiers fighting in World War II -- while apparently exhibiting
no embarrassment for invoking this comparison.
Another clear beneficiary of the "fascism" panic, somewhat paradoxically, has been Biden. A
supreme irony of the outsized role that "anti-fascism" has played in post-2016 US political
discourse -- as popularised by both liberals and leftists, who often claim to be at odds with
each other but nonetheless overwhelmingly agree on the underlying "fascism" prognosis -- is
that it has ultimately limited the possibility of actual Left-wing policy reform.
Democratic presidential primary voters had been traumatised by the non-stop barrage of
Trump-related hysteria churned out each and every day by profit-driven corporate media outlets,
and laboured under the sincere belief that Trump's America bears some bonafide relation to
Weimar Germany. As such, a plurality were understandably uninterested in foundational reform to
the Democratic Party.
That was bad news for socialist Bernie Sanders, who ended up losing handily in the 2020
primaries to a former Vice President whose entire campaign was predicated on little more than
restoring the pre-2016 Democratic Party to power.
And in a way, you can't particularly blame those Biden voters. Because if your main sources
of information tell you for years on end that the reins of state have been seized by an
out-and-out fascist, who is fuelling a siege of "Nazi" street agitators, whatever deficiencies
the Democratic Party might have at the moment are of little or no concern. Now even Sanders
himself has called for a "united front" against Trump ahead of the election, seeming to suggest
that the precedent of Francisco Franco is historically apt. Wasn't the whole problem with
Franco that he couldn't be voted out?
Never mind that Trump would have to be quite a feckless fascist to allow himself to be
constantly maligned in the country's major media, plotted against by his own administration
underlings, and impeached. The decidedly unsexy reality is that Trump has been a fairly weak
executive, at least relative to his predecessors in the postwar era.
But his radically unorthodox communications style belies any dispassionate assessment of
this record, thus the fascism-mongering persists more-or-less unabated. And for all the
warnings of a Reichstag Fire moment always supposedly being around the corner, the past six
months of Covid and riots were a missed opportunity for any genuine fascist seeking to
consolidate power. Trump appears largely content with issuing inflammatory tweets.
So as riots continue around the country, and corporate news networks describe post-protest
scenes with raging infernos as "mostly peaceful", the temptation can be to write this off as
mere partisan side-taking. Certainly there's an element of that -- most journalists desperately
don't want to see Trump win in November.
But thanks to the prevailing "fascism" framework, their opposition to Trump isn't just a
matter of ordinary election-year preference. It's imbued with existential,
civilisation-altering significance. How could anyone in their right mind not do everything
within their capacity to ensure the defeat of fascism? Once you accept the premise that fascism
does in fact accurately describe the current state of American governance, all bets are off --
journalistically and otherwise.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
So even if the "anti-fascists" in the equation are burning down cities, they will still
never exist on the same moral plane as the actual "fascists" whose champion occupies the White
House. Hence, riots which result in the destruction of huge swaths of Kenosha, WI magically
become a "mostly peaceful" affair according to CNN and the New York Times .
Yes, journalists also presumptively ascribe a certain virtue to any protests that occur with
the imprimatur of "Black Lives Matter". But racial disparities have been a fact of American
life since the dawn of the republic. The unavoidable explanation for why they've taken on such
frantic energy in the past several months is the alleged spectre of fascism, namely Trump. With
a Democratic President, even one as vanilla as Biden, there will doubtless be future race-based
controversies. But they won't have the cosmic weight as those that occur when a "fascist"
president also looms.
Adding to the growing list of ironies, Trump's primary conception of the presidency has less
been Fuhrer, than "Pundit-in-Chief", whereby he proudly brandishes the role of world's loudest
media critic -- with media criticism having been one of his life-long passions. Given that
experience, Trump knows how to expertly pry at tensions in how pundit narratives get
constructed, and the "peaceful protest" cliché provides all the material that could ever
be desired in that respect. Kayleigh McEnany, in tweeting a photo of a
recent Trump air hanger rally in Pennsylvania, described the attendees (only half-jokingly) as
"peaceful protesters".
The reason she did this is because if one follows the recent patterns of media nomenclature,
any and all "peaceful protesters" should be painstakingly accommodated, even if their
gatherings produce widespread arson attacks or increase the Covid-19 infection rate. There is
no impartial explanation for why the "peaceful protests" of this past summer deserved praise,
adulation, and rousing defences from the standpoint of pandemic mitigation. Again, only does
this make sense when inserted into the blinkered fascism vs. anti-fascism context.
One wonders if these protesters and rioters have ever paused to consider why it is that so
many establishment media outlets are so consistently eager to advocate on their behalf, with
the phrase "largely peaceful" having been stretched well past the point of absurdity. And one
also wonders why so many powerful forces are so willing to join in affirming their
"anti-fascism" worldview -- up to and including, in his own way, Joe Biden. For all the talk
about dismantling systems of oppression, those who actually wield power in 2020 America seem to
view the "fascism vs. antifascism" dichotomy as awfully convenient to their own self-preserving
interests.
In short black people are used as pawns in the political struggle between two neoliberal
clans fighting for power, using students without perspectives of gaining meaningful employment as
a ram. We saw this picture before in a different country. And riots do reverse gains achieved in
civil right struggle since 1960th, so they are also net losers. Racial tensions in the USA
definitely increased dramatically.
Notable quotes:
"... Bottom line: "Critical Race Theory", "The 1619 Project", and Homeland Security's "White Supremacist" warning represent the ideological foundation upon which the war on America is based. The "anti-white" dogma is the counterpart to the massive riots that have rocked the country. These phenomena are two spokes on the same wheel. They are designed to work together to achieve the same purpose. The goal is create a "racial" smokescreen that conceals the vast and willful destruction of the US economy, the $5 trillion dollar wealth-transfer that was provided to Wall Street, and the ferocious attack on the emerging, mainly-white working class "populist" movement that elected Trump and which rejects the globalist plan to transform the world into a borderless free trade zone ruled by cutthroat monopolists and their NWO allies. ..."
"... This is a class war dolled-up to look like a race war. Americans will have to look beyond the smoke and mirrors to spot the elites lurking in the shadows. There lies the cancer that must be eradicated. ..."
"... The current situation cannot exist without the complicity of the secret services and the police. The heads of the secret services are either part of the cabal or close their eyes in fear ..."
"... There can be no single oligarch. It must be a larger group but very united by fear and a common goal. This can only be achieved if they are all Jews or Masons. Or both under a larger umbrella like some kind of pedo-ritual killing-satan worshiper. Soros can't do it alone. ..."
"... Of course politicians are corrupt and complicit but usually they are not the leaders ..."
Here's your BLM Pop Quiz for the day: What do "Critical Race Theory", "The 1619 Project",
and Homeland Security's "White Supremacist" warning tell us about what's going on in America
today?
They point to deeply-embedded racism that shapes the behavior of white people They
suggest that systemic racism cannot be overcome by merely changing attitudes and laws They
alert us to the fact that unresolved issues are pushing the country towards a destructive race
war They indicate that powerful agents -- operating from within the state– are inciting
racial violence to crush the emerging "populist" majority that elected Trump to office in 2016
and which now represents an existential threat to the globalist plan to transform America into
a tyrannical third-world "shithole".
Which of these four statements best explains what's going on in America today?
If you chose Number 4, you are right. We are not experiencing a sudden and explosive
outbreak of racial violence and mayhem. We are experiencing a thoroughly-planned,
insurgency-type operation that involves myriad logistical components including vast, nationwide
riots, looting and arson, as well as an extremely impressive ideological campaign. "Critical
Race Theory", "The 1619 Project", and Homeland Security's "White Supremacist" warning are as
much a part of the Oligarchic war on America as are the burning of our cities and the toppling
of our statues. All three, fall under the heading of "ideology", and all three are being used
to shape public attitudes on matters related to our collective identity as "Americans".
The plan is to overwhelm the population with a deluge of disinformation about their history,
their founders, and the threats they face, so they will submissively accept a New Order imposed
by technocrats and their political lackeys. This psychological war is perhaps more important
than Operation BLM which merely provides the muscle for implementing the transformative "Reset"
that elites want to impose on the country. The real challenge is to change the hearts and minds
of a population that is unwaveringly patriotic and violently resistant to any subversive
element that threatens to do harm to their country. So, while we can expect this propaganda
saturation campaign to continue for the foreseeable future, we don't expect the strategy will
ultimately succeed. At the end of the day, America will still be America, unbroken, unflagging
and unapologetic.
Let's look more carefully at what is going on.
On September 4, the Department of Homeland Security issued a draft report stating that
"White supremacists present the gravest terror threat to the United States". According to an
article in Politico:
" all three draft (versions of the document) describe the threat from white
supremacists as the deadliest domestic terror threat facing the U.S. , listed above the
immediate danger from foreign terrorist groups . John Cohen, who oversaw DHS's
counterterrorism portfolio from 2011 to 2014, said the drafts' conclusion isn't
surprising.
"This draft document seems to be consistent with earlier intelligence reports from DHS,
the FBI, and other law enforcement sources: that the most significant terror-related
threat facing the US today comes from violent extremists who are motivated by white
supremac y and other far-right ideological causes," he said .
"Lone offenders and small cells of individuals motivated by a diverse array of social,
ideological, and personal factors will pose the primary terrorist threat to the United
States," the draft reads. "Among these groups, we assess that white supremacist extremists
will pose the most persistent and lethal threat."..(" DHS
draft document: White supremacists are greatest terror threat " Politico)
This is nonsense. White supremacists do not pose the greatest danger to the country, that
designation goes to the left-wing groups that have rampaged through more than 2,000 US cities
for the last 100 days. Black Lives Matter and Antifa-generated riots have decimated hundreds of
small businesses, destroyed the lives and livelihoods of thousands of merchants and their
employees, and left entire cities in a shambles. The destruction in Kenosha alone far exceeds
the damage attributable to the activities of all the white supremacist groups combined.
So why has Homeland Security made this ridiculous and unsupportable claim? Why have they
chosen to prioritize white supremacists as "the most persistent and lethal threat" when it is
clearly not true?
There's only one answer: Politics.
The officials who concocted this scam are advancing the agenda of their real bosses, the
oligarch puppet-masters who have their tentacles extended throughout the deep-state and use
them to coerce their lackey bureaucrats to do their bidding. In this case, the honchos are
invoking the race card ("white supremacists") to divert attention from their sinister
destabilization program, their looting of the US Treasury (for their crooked Wall Street
friends), their demonizing of the mostly-white working class "America First" nationalists who
handed Trump the 2016 election, and their scurrilous scheme to establish one-party rule by
installing their addlepated meat-puppet candidate (Biden) as president so he can carry out
their directives from the comfort of the Oval Office. That's what's really going on.
DHS's announcement makes it possible for state agents to target legally-armed Americans who
gather with other gun owners in groups that are protected under the second amendment. Now the
white supremacist label will be applied more haphazardly to these same conservatives who pose
no danger to public safety. The draft document should be seen as a warning to anyone whose
beliefs do not jibe with the New Liberal Orthodoxy that white people are inherently racists who
must ask forgiveness for a system they had no hand in creating (slavery) and which was
abolished more than 150 years ago.
The 1619 Project" is another part of the ideological war that is being waged against the
American people. The objective of the "Project" is to convince readers that America was founded
by heinous white men who subjugated blacks to increase their wealth and power. According to the
World Socialist Web Site:
"The essays featured in the magazine are organized around the central premise that all of
American history is rooted in race hatred -- specifically, the uncontrollable hatred of
"black people" by "white people." Hannah-Jones writes in the series' introduction:
"Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country. "
This is a false and dangerous conception. DNA is a chemical molecule that contains the
genetic code of living organisms and determines their physical characteristics and
development . Hannah-Jones's reference to DNA is part of a growing tendency to derive
racial antagonisms from innate biological processes .where does this racism come from? It
is embedded, claims Hannah-Jones, in the historical DNA of American "white people." Thus, it
must persist independently of any change in political or economic conditions .
. No doubt, the authors of The Project 1619 essays would deny that they are predicting
race war, let alone justifying fascism. But ideas have a logic; and authors bear
responsibility for the political conclusions and consequences of their false and misguided
arguments." ("The New York Times's 1619
Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history", World Socialist Web
Site)
Clearly, Hannah-Jones was enlisted by big money patrons who needed an ideological foundation
to justify the massive BLM riots they had already planned as part of their US color revolution.
The author –perhaps unwittingly– provided the required text for vindicating
widespread destruction and chaos carried out in the name of "social justice."
As Hannah-Jones says, "Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country", which is to
say that it cannot be mitigated or reformed, only eradicated by destroying the symbols of white
patriarchy (Our icons, our customs, our traditions and our history.), toppling the existing
government, and imposing a new system that better reflects the values of the burgeoning
non-Caucasian majority. Simply put, The Project 1619 creates the rationale for sustained civil
unrest, deepening political polarization and violent revolution.
All of these goals conveniently coincide with the aims of the NWO Oligarchs who seek to
replace America's Constitutional government with a corporate Superstate ruled by voracious
Monopolists and their globalist allies. So, while Hannah-Jones treatise does nothing to improve
conditions for black people in America, it does move the country closer to the dystopian dream
of the parasite class; Corporate Valhalla.
Then there is "Critical Race Theory" which provides the ideological icing on the cake. The
theory is part of the broader canon of anti-white dogma which is being used to indoctrinate
workers. White employees are being subjected to "reeducation" programs that require their
participation as a precondition for further employment . The first rebellion against critical
race theory, took place at Sandia Labs which is a federally-funded research agency that designs
America's nuclear weapons. According to journalist Christopher F. Rufo:
"Senator @HawleyMO and
@SecBrouillette have
launched an inspector general investigation, but Sandia executives have only accelerated
their purge against conservatives."
Sandia executives have made it clear: they want to force critical race theory,
race-segregated trainings, and white male reeducation camps on their employees -- and all
dissent will be severely punished. Progressive employees will be rewarded; conservative
employees will be purged." (" There is a civil war erupting
at @SandiaLabs ." Christopher F Rufo)
It all sounds so Bolshevik. Here's more info on how this toxic indoctrination program
works:
"Treasury Department
The Treasury Department held a training session telling employees that "virtually all
White people contribute to racism" and demanding that white staff members "struggle to own
their racism" and accept their "unconscious bias, White privilege, and White
fragility."
The National Credit Union Administration
The NCUA held a session for 8,900 employees arguing that America was "founded on
racism" and "built on the blacks of people who were enslaved. " Twitter thread here and
original source documents
here .
Sandia National Laboratories
Last year, Sandia National Labs -- which produces our nuclear arsenal -- held a
three-day reeducation camp for white males, teaching them how to deconstruct their
"white male culture" and forcing them to write letters of apology to women and people of
color . Whistleblowers from inside the labs tell me that critical race theory is now
endangering our national security. Twitter thread here and original source
documents
here .
Argonne National Laboratories
Argonne National Labs hosts trainings calling on white lab employees to admit that they
"benefit from racism" and atone for the "pain and anguish inflicted upon Black people. "
Twitter thread here .
Department of Homeland Security
The Department of Homeland Security hosted a Training on "microaggressions,
microinequities, and microassaults" where white employees were told that they had been
"socialized into oppressor roles. " Twitter thread here and original source
documents here
." (" Summary of
Critical Race Theory Investigations" , Christopher F Rufo)
On September 4, Donald Trump announced his administration "would prohibit federal
agencies from subjecting government employees to "critical race theory" or "white privilege"
seminar. ..
"It has come to the President's attention that Executive Branch agencies have spent
millions of taxpayer dollars to date 'training' government workers to believe divisive,
anti-American propaganda ," read a Friday memo
from the Office of Budget and Management Director Russ Vought. "These types of 'trainings'
not only run counter to the fundamental beliefs for which our Nation has stood since its
inception, but they also engender division and resentment within the Federal workforce The
President has directed me to ensure that Federal agencies cease and desist from using
taxpayer dollars to fund these divisive, un-American propaganda training sessions."
The next day, September 5, Trump announced that the Department of Education was going to see
whether the New York Times Magazine's 1619 Project was being used in school curricula
and– if it was– then those schools would be ineligible for federal funding.
Conservative pundits applauded Trump's action as a step forward in the "culture wars", but it's
really much more than that. Trump is actually foiling an effort by the domestic saboteurs who
continue look for ways to undermine democracy, reduce the masses of working-class people to
grinding poverty and hopelessness, and turn the country into a despotic military outpost ruled
by bloodsucking tycoons, mercenary autocrats and duplicitous elites. Alot of thought and effort
went into this malign ideological project. Trump derailed it with a wave of the hand. That's no
small achievement.
Bottom line: "Critical Race Theory", "The 1619 Project", and Homeland Security's "White
Supremacist" warning represent the ideological foundation upon which the war on America is
based. The "anti-white" dogma is the counterpart to the massive riots that have rocked the
country. These phenomena are two spokes on the same wheel. They are designed to work
together to achieve the same purpose. The goal is create a "racial" smokescreen that conceals
the vast and willful destruction of the US economy, the $5 trillion dollar wealth-transfer that
was provided to Wall Street, and the ferocious attack on the emerging, mainly-white working
class "populist" movement that elected Trump and which rejects the globalist plan to transform
the world into a borderless free trade zone ruled by cutthroat monopolists and their NWO
allies.
This is a class war dolled-up to look like a race war. Americans will have to look
beyond the smoke and mirrors to spot the elites lurking in the shadows. There lies the cancer
that must be eradicated.
A good article, but no mention of who exactly these oligarchs are. Or why so many of them
are Jewish.
Or why so many Zionist organisations support BLM and other such groups.
Mike, not mentioning these things will not save you. You will still be cancelled by
Progressive Inc.
This seems like a good explanation of what is happening. I wonder whether too many people
will fall for the propaganda, though. It is the classic effort to get the turkeys to support
thanksgiving.
The deserved progress and concessions achieved by the civil rights struggles for the Black
community is in danger of deteriorating because Black leadership will not stand up and
vehemently condemn the rioting and destruction and killing, and declare that the BLM movement
does not represent the majority of the Black American culture and that the overexaggerated
accusations of "racism" do not necessitate the eradication and revision of history, nor does
it require European Americans to feel guilt or shame. There is no need for a cultural
revolution. The ideology and actions of BLM are offensive and inconsistent with American
values, and Black leaders should be saying this every day, and should be admonishing about
the consequences. They should also use foresight to see how this is going to end, because the
BLM and their supporters are being used to fight a war that they can never win. And when it's
over, what perception will the rest of America have of Black people?
@sonofman g to TPTB. Better to have an amorphous slogan to donate money to than an actual
organization with humans, goals and ideas which can be held up to the light and critically
examined.
The whole sudden race thing is a fraud to eliminate the electoral support Trump had
amassed among blacks before Corona and Fentanyl Floyd. In line with what Whitney says, the
globalists need to take down Trump. And the race card has always been the first tool in the
DNC's toolkit. When all else fails, go nuclear with undefined claims of racism.
Almost every big magazine has a black person on the cover this month. Probably will in
October too. Coincidence? Sure it is.
They indicate that powerful agents -- operating from within the state– are
inciting racial violence to crush the emerging "populist" majority that elected Trump to
office in 2016 and which now represents an existential threat to the globalist plan to
transform America into a tyrannical third-world "shithole".
I'm shocked that they're trying to sell this Q-tier bullshit about Trump fighting the deep
state.
The reality about Trump is that he is the release valve, the red herring designed to keep
whitey pacified while massive repossessions and foreclosures take place, permanently
impoverishing a large part of the white population, and shutting down the Talmudic
service-based economy, which is all that is really left. It is Trump's DHS that declared a
large part of his white trashionalist base to be terrorists.
The populist majority never had anyone to vote for. This system will never give them one.
They aren't bright enough to make it happen.
Agree. Barack Obama in particular will go down in history a real disgrace to the legacy of
the US presidency. He is violating the sacred trust that the people of the United States
invested in him. What a fraud!
Good post Mr. Whitney especially about "white supremacy" garbage .which has only been
going on since the 90s! You know, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elohim City and Okie City, militias,
"patriot groups," etc. This really is nothing new. And, since so many remember the "white
supremacy" crapola was crapola back in the 90s, I'd say everyone pretty much regardless of
race over the age of 40 knows there is, as it says in Ecclesiastes in the Bible, "there is
nothing new under the sun." And, if you home schooled your kids back then, then you kids know
it as well. Fact is this: the DHS as with every other govt. agency is forced to blame "white
supremacy" for every problem in this country because who the heck else can they blame? Jews?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh when pigs fly After all, Noahide just might be around the
corner ..
Sheriffs have a lot of legal power. Ultimately, the battle is privatized money power
vs Joe Citizen/Sheriffs.
This sheriff is working a Constitutional angle that says: Local Posse (meaning you.. Joe
citizen) working with the Sheriff department to protect your local community. Richard Mack is
teaching other Sheriffs and (some Police) what their Constitutional power is, and that power
doesn't include doing bidding of Oligarchs.
Sheriffs are elected, and their revenue stream is outside of Oligarchy:
So Donald Trump suddenly discovers that racial Bolshevism is the official policy of
his own executive branch – a mere 3 years and 8 months after assuming the
position
... Looks like the same old flim-flam they pull every four years. No matter who wins, the
Davos folks continue to run the circus and fleece the suckers dry.
Because it is. Substitute "the ethnic Russian middle class are class enemies" for
"Anglo-American are all racists" and there you have it. Permission for a small organized
minority to eliminate a whole class on ideological grounds...
I live in a former communist country in Eastern Europe with corrupt politicians, oligarchs
and organized crime.
America was a country with a minor corruption and in which the oligarchs, although
influential, were not united in a small group with decisive force. Now America is slowly
slipping into the situation of a second-hand shit-hole country.
Is that I can see the situation more clearly than an American citizen who still has the
American perception of his contry the way it was 30 years ago.
Essential thing:
1) The current situation cannot exist without the complicity of the secret services and
the police. The heads of the secret services are either part of the cabal or close their eyes
in fear .
2) There can be no single oligarch. It must be a larger group but very united by fear and
a common goal. This can only be achieved if they are all Jews or Masons. Or both under a
larger umbrella like some kind of pedo-ritual killing-satan worshiper. Soros can't do it
alone.
3) Of course politicians are corrupt and complicit but usually they are not the
leaders
4) BLM are exactly the brown shirts of the new Hitler.
Soon we will se the new Hitler/Stalin/ in plain light.
Thirty black children murdered recently; zero by police / BLM & 'the media' say
nothing: https://www.outkick.com/blm-101-volume-7-the-lives-of-innocent-black-kids-do-not-matter/
BTW:
– Last year, the nationwide total for all US police forces was 47 killings of unarmed
criminals by police during arrest procedures.
– 8 were black, 19 were white.
Though blacks, relative to their numbers, committed a vastly higher number of crimes, hence
their immensely greater arrest rate.
@Justvisiting urally, it is nonsense -- nasty, power-hungry, censorious nonsense.
It is the opposite of scientific or empirical thought -- science can not accept theories
which are not capable of falsification. (Take astrology -- actually, don't ! -- what ever
conclusion it comes to can never be wrong : Dick or Jane didn't find love ? Well, one
of Saturn's moons was retrograde & Mercury declensed Venus (I don't know what it means
either) . or Dick went on a bender & Jane had a whole bad hair week.
Frankly, to play these pre-modern tricks on us is just grotesquely insulting. That some are
falling for it is grotesquely depressing.
Another ringer from Mike Whitney! Keep 'em comin', brother.
We are not experiencing a sudden and explosive outbreak of racial violence and mayhem.
We are experiencing a thoroughly-planned, insurgency-type operation that involves myriad
logistical components including vast, nationwide riots, looting and arson, as well as an
extremely impressive ideological campaign.
Yup. TPTB have been grooming BLM/Antifa for this moment for at least 3-4 years now, if not
longer. Here's a former BLMer who quit speaking out three years ago about the organization's
role in the present 'race war':
It is very clever politics and (war) propaganda. You break down and demoralise your
enemies at the same time as assuring your own side of it's own righteous use of violence.
This is a class war dolled-up to look like a race war. Americans will have to look
beyond the smoke and mirrors to spot the elites lurking in the shadows.
Nailing it.
4. They indicate that powerful agents -- operating from within the state– are
inciting racial violence to crush the emerging "populist" majority that elected Trump to
office in 2016 and which now represents an existential threat to the globalist plan to
transform America into a tyrannical third-world "shithole".
Which of these four statements best explains what's going on in America today?
If you chose Number 4, you are right.
If we believe this – we need to act like it. These are "enemies, foreign and
domestic ". This isn't ordinary politics, it arguably transcends politics.
What hope is there without organization?
And whatever is done – don't give them ammunition. The resistance must not be an
ethno-resistance.
But he is either naive or a bad manager, as his hires are deadly to his aims. And the
management criticism is big, because as a leader that is mostly what he does.
That he gets information to affect US policy for good, from outside of his circle of
trusted personnel, is a sad state of affairs.
@Robert Dolan ds that it would have ended on day one were it not officially sanctioned
and the rioters protected from prosecution. Why hasn't the Janet Rosenberg/Thousand
Currents/Tides Foundation connection with the BLM/DNC/MSM cabal, as well as with Antifa and
social media, been the major investigation on Fox News? Why haven't Zuckerberg, Zucker, et al
been arrested for incitement to commit federal crimes, including capital treason to overthrow
the duly elected president? (Just a few rhetorical questions for the hell of it.) What's so
galling is that the cops and federal agents are being used as just so many patsies who are
deployed, not to protect, but deployed to look like fools and be held up for mockery as
pathetic exemplars of white disempowerment.
The officials who concocted this scam are advancing the agenda of their real bosses, the
oligarch puppet-masters who have their tentacles extended throughout the deep-state and use
them to coerce their lackey bureaucrats to do their bidding.
Agree, but where is President Trump? He was supposed to appoint undersecretaries and
assistant secretaries and deputy undersecretaries and Schedule C whippersnappers on whose
desks such outrages are supposed to die.
I've thought from the beginning that this lack of attention to "personnel as policy" --
with Trump overestimating the ability of the ostensible CEO to overcome such intransigence --
was one of his major failures. I am sympathetic, as there are not many people he could trust
to be loyal to his agenda, much less to him, but this is a disaster in every agency
Few years ago I watch a clip secretly recorded in Ukrainian synagogue where Rabi said
"first we have to fight Catholics and with Muslims it will be an easy job" ...
Thanks to Mr Whitney for being able to cut through the fog and see what's going on behind
it. The term "white supremacist" wasn't much in public use at all until the day Trump was
elected then suddenly it was all over the place. It's like one of those massive ad campaigns
whose jingle is everywhere as if some group decided on it as a theme to be pushed. They're
really afraid that the white working class population will wake up and see how the country is
being sold out from underneath their feet hence the need to keep it divided and intimidated.
Like all the other color revolutions everywhere else they strike at the weak links within the
country to create conflict, in the US case it's so-called diversity. There's billions
available to be spent in this project so plenty of traitors can be found, unwitting or
otherwise, to carry out their assignments. The billionaire class own most of the media and
much else and see the US as their farm. They have no loyalty whatsoever and outsource
everything to China or anywhere else they can squeeze everything out of the workers. They
want a global dictatorship and admire the Chinese government for the way it can order its
citizens around.
You are exactly right. Trump is doing his part (knowingly or unknowingly, but probably
knowingly) to accomplish the NWO objectives. He was not elected in 2016 in spite of NWO
desires, as most Trump supporters think, but rather precisely BECAUSE of NWO desires.
The NWO probably also wants him to win again this year, and if so then he will win. The
reason the NWO wanted him in 2016 (and probably wants him to win again) was primarily to
neutralize the (armed) Right in this country so they wouldn't effectively resist the COVID-19
scamdemic lockdown tyranny and BLM/Antifa riots.
@Trinity While I tend to agree with you that it looks like a race war, the question is
why is it happening now? If it were just a race war promoted by radicals in BLM and Antifa,
it does not explain the nationwide coordination (let's face it the faces of BLM and Antifa
are not that smart or connected), the support and censorship of the violence by the MSM and
the support of Marxist BLM by corporations to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
This is a color revolution in the making and may come to a peak after Nov. 3rd. Whitney is on
to something, there is much more going on behind the "smoke and mirrors" and AG Barr (if he's
not part of it) should be investigating it.
They indicate that powerful agents -- operating from within the state– are
inciting racial violence to crush the emerging "populist" majority that elected Trump to
office in 2016 and which now represents an existential threat to the globalist plan to
transform America into a tyrannical third-world "shithole".
I keep reading such nonsense in the comments above. the so-called populist majority does
not get it, Trump is not placed here to stop the Globalist agenda, that is an electioneering
stunt. Look at what he has actually and really done.
How has he stopped the Globalist move forward?? By the Covid plandemic being
allowed to circle the globe and shut down the US economy and social norm? By moving our high
tech companies to Israel? Giving Israel and their Wall Street allies what is left of US
credit wealth? Draining the swamp with even more Zio-Neocon Swamp creatures in the govt than
ever? Moving the embassy to Jerusalem and all requests per Netanyahu's wish list? A real
anti-Globalist stand? Looting the Federal Reserve for the Wall Street high fliers, who
garnered more wealth during the crash test run of March-April and are sure to make out with
even more for the coming big crash?
Phoney stunts of stopping immigration or bashing China. Really? China is still rising
propelled by Wall Street and Banker funds. I have not seen any jobs coming home, lost more
than ever in US history this year. Only lost homes for the working and middle classes.
How is Populist America standing up for their constitutional rights which is being
shredded a little more each day? Standing up for their Real Interests, which are eroded and
stolen on an almost daily basis by Trump's NY Mafia and Wall Street Oligarchs. Jobs gone for
good and government assistance to the needy disappearing, as that is against the phoney
Republic individualism, that you must make it on your own. Right just like the big goverment
assistance always going to the big money players and banks, remember as they are too big
to let fail!
Dreaming that Trump is going to save White America from the Gobalists is just
bull corn . From whom BLM? Proven street theatre that will disappear on command. I
actually have come to learn that some Black leaders are speaking out intelligently for street
calm and distancing themselves from BLM.
Problem with the USA is the general population is so very dumbed down by 60 years of MSM
– TV s and Hollywood mind control programming that the public prefers professional
actors like Reagan and Trump over real politicians, and surely never chose a Statesman or
real Patriotic leader. the public political narrative is still set by Fox , CNN and
MSNBC .
The deep state is so infiltrated and overwhelmed with Zio and Globalist agents, that it is
now almost hopeless to fix. Sorry to point out but Trump is best described as the Dummy
sitting on his Ventriloquist's lap (Jared Kushner).
Situation is near hopeless as even here on Ron Unz Review the comments are so
disappointing, almost 80% are focused on the Race as the prime issue and supportive of Trump
fakery (not that I support Biden and Zio slut Kamil Harris either).
In sum, beyond putting their MAGA hats on, White America is more focused more on
playing Cowboy with their toy guns, AR's and all than really getting involved politically to
sort things out to get American onto a better track. Of course, this is not taken seriously
as it might call for reaching out to other American communities that are even more
disenfranchised: African- Americans and Latinos.
@David Erickson nted him in 2016 (and probably wants him to win again) was primarily to
neutralize the (armed) Right in this country so they wouldn't effectively resist the COVID-19
scamdemic lockdown tyranny and BLM/Antifa riots.
Covid and BLM/ANTIFA are just window dressing for the financial turmoil. "Look over here
whitey, there's a pandemic" and "look over here whitey, there's a riot" is much preferred to
whitey shooting the sheriff who comes to take his stuff.
Wave the flag and bible while spreading love for the cops, and the repossessions and
evictions should go off without a hitch. Yes, Trump is a knowing participant.
"My impression is that BLM, Antifa and other protestors are well aware of this"
Like all good Maoists the cult white kids of antifa rigidly adhere to the mission statement
and stick the inconvenient truth in the back of their mushy minds. BLM ... is a mercenary.
Can you imagine any other groups rioting and destroying American cities for over 3 months?
Imagine if the Hells Angels or some other White biker gang was doing what Antifa and BLM are
doing? Hell, imagine if it were a bunch of Hare Krishnas pulling this shit off? Hell, I think
the local mayors, police, and other law enforcement employees wouldn't even take this much shit
even if the rioters were Girl Scouts. We are talking 3-4 months of lawlessness, assaults,
rapes, murders ( cold blooded premeditated murders at that) and still the people in charge let
this shit go on night and day. IF the POTUS doesn't have the authority or the power to stop
shit like this from going on then what the hell do we even vote for anyhow? Granted, I see the
reason for not being ruled by a dictatorship, but who in the hell can justify letting these
riots go on? One can only assume that both the republicants and the demsheviks are fine with
these riots because no one seems in a hurry to shut them down or arrest the hombres funding
these riots. Who is housing and feeding the rioters? Who is paying their travel expenses? I'm
sure most everyone in Washington knows who the people are behind these riots but don't expect
any action anytime soon.
This is a class war dolled-up to look like a race war. Americans will have to look beyond
the smoke and mirrors to spot the elites lurking in the shadows. There lies the cancer that
must be eradicated.
That's true to a large degree, but
It is indeed an attempt to liquidate the working and lower middle class. Most of the
American working and lower middle class, obviously not all, is White. So predictably we have
these calls for White Genocide. Agreed and good to see the tie-in with the Coronavirus Hoax
lock downs, too, which also spread the devastation into minority communities under the guise of
public safety.
The one question that remains unanswered is why the major cities were targeted for
destruction. Obviously these are the playgrounds of the oligarchs and have been decimated. We
will learn soon enough.
The Reverend William Barber is the only genuine black leader I am aware of.
And he makes a pointn of not speaking only for blacks, but for all disadvantaged communities,
including poor whites. IMO he is the real deal, and I very much hope he takes the lead in
articulating genuine community values of respect and equality for all, including basics such as
decent health care and food access.
The pressure exerted on someone like Barber by the BLM forces in the media and other
institutions is enormous.
I wish Ron Unz would invite him to write something for the UR.
BLM is all about anti-white activism, black supremacy and the forcible transfer of white
wealth to blacks but Tucker Carlson keeps insisting that BLM is a smokescreen for class
struggle.
The way that BLM are acting now they could almost be called pro-White activists. They
certainly don't make diversity look like a strength or something that would be in any way
shape or form desirable.
Will we ever return to a time when USSID 18 was adhered to by NSA? Sadly, our politicians or those who quest for power and stroke
won't let U.S. go back to that time of protections for all Americans.
9th Circuit Court of Appeals found the activity regarding NSA and its metadata collections, illegal.
With "first after the post" election rules no third party can succeed.
Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... "major new corporate-free political party in America." ..."
"... "There is only one choice in this election, and that is the consolidation of oligarchic power under Donald Trump, or the consolidation of oligarchic power under Joe Biden," ..."
"... "The oligarchs with Trump or Biden will win again, and we will lose." ..."
"... Only one thing matters to the oligarchs, it is not democracy, it is not truth, it is not the consent of the governed, it is not income inequality, it is not the surveillance state, it is not endless war it is the primacy of corporate power, which has extinguished our democracy and left most of the working class and the working poor in misery. ..."
"... We have reverted to aristocracy; it is now a corporate aristocracy. ..."
"... "It is health insurance companies, it is big pharmaceutical companies, it is big oil, it is food companies and of course, it is the military industrial complex," ..."
"... "we are in a fight for our lives and for future generations," ..."
"... "We don't believe in the lies and the bribes and the contentment in a lousy peace," ..."
"... "How can we have peace in moments like this, when over 90 million of our sisters and brothers are either uninsured or underinsured?" ..."
"... "How can we have peace when on the streets of America right now, black lives have been reaching out, calling out the racism and the white supremacy and the bigotry of a system that was created for black lives to languish." ..."
"... How can we have peace when you got a Congress that goes on recess while millions of people are facing evictions from their homes? ..."
"... "We need a third or fourth entity to step in. The lesser of two evils is still evil," ..."
"... "We are living in a moment of massive imperial meltdown, spiritual breakdown, and we need prophetic fight-back," ..."
Fed up with decades of two-party rule, hundreds of thousands of Americans tuned in for the People's Convention, where they
voted to form a new political alternative unbeholden to corporate power or the military-industrial complex.
The event drew
more
than 400,000 viewers
to its livestream on Sunday, organizers said. It continued to trend on Twitter through more than 5
hours of speeches that culminated in a vote to create a "major new corporate-free
political party in America."
Among the speakers at the
convention were several disgruntled Democrats, from Sen. Bernie Sanders's 2020 national co-chair Nina Turner to a candidate in
this year's primaries, Marianne Williamson. The roster of speakers also included former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura,
comedian Jimmy Dore, and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges, who summed up the spirit of the convention in a fiery
address.
"There is only one choice in this election, and that is the consolidation of oligarchic
power under Donald Trump, or the consolidation of oligarchic power under Joe Biden,"
said Hedges, who also hosts RT's '
On
Contact
.'
"The oligarchs with Trump or Biden will win again, and we will lose."
Only one thing matters to the oligarchs, it is not democracy, it is not truth, it is
not the consent of the governed, it is not income inequality, it is not the surveillance state, it is not endless war it
is the primacy of corporate power, which has extinguished our democracy and left most of the working class and the working
poor in misery.
The People's Convention
was held on the heels of the Republican and Democratic national conventions earlier this month, which event organizers said
"erased
the needs of poor and working people in a time of mounting national crisis."
It ended with a vote to create the People's
Party in 2021, in which some 99 percent of its 400,000 viewers took part.
Williamson, who made an
unsuccessful bid for Democratic nominee in the 2020 race, slammed an economic system that for decades has stranded
"millions
of people without even a life vest,"
concentrating massive amounts of wealth upward and leaving the American middle
class
"completely devastated."
We have reverted to aristocracy; it is now a corporate aristocracy.
"It is health insurance companies, it is big pharmaceutical companies, it is big oil, it
is food companies and of course, it is the military industrial complex,"
she said.
A former Ohio state
senator and a senior figure in the Sanders campaign, Turner told the convention that
"we
are in a fight for our lives and for future generations,"
adding
"We don't believe
in the lies and the bribes and the contentment in a lousy peace,"
quoting from a 1938 poem by Langston Hughs.
"How can we have peace in moments like this, when over 90 million of our sisters and
brothers are either uninsured or underinsured?"
Turner asked.
"How can we have
peace when on the streets of America right now, black lives have been reaching out, calling out the racism and the white
supremacy and the bigotry of a system that was created for black lives to languish."
How can we have peace when you got a Congress that goes on recess while millions of
people are facing evictions from their homes?
"We need a third or fourth entity to step in. The lesser of two evils is still evil,"
said
Ventura, who was elected Minnesota governor on a third-party ticket in 1998 and has since been involved with the Libertarian
and Green parties. Ventura has also hosted RT's '
Off
the Grid
' (ending in 2015) and '
The
World According to Jesse
.'
Harvard professor and
social critic Dr. Cornel West also addressed the event, calling to
"transform the
American empire into a more democratic space,"
while dubbing the two major parties the
"neo-fascist"
and
"neo-liberal"
wings
of the
"ruling class."
"We are living in a moment of massive imperial meltdown, spiritual breakdown, and we
need prophetic fight-back,"
West said, arguing the new party would provide just that.
The Movement for a
People's Party, the organization behind the project, now says it is working to establish local branches around the US, which
will
"form the building blocks of state parties"
and work through the long and
often arduous process of securing ballot access. The group has set a lofty goal for the new anti-corporate outfit, hoping it
will be
"poised to sweep Congress and the White House"
by the next election cycle
in 2024.
Think your friends would be
interested? Share this story!
Sinalco
16 hours ago
Sadly, it's the same all over the world - the corporations have bought all politicians... Governments & Politicians no
longer work for us; they work for the highest bidder...
ratfink222 Sinalco
3 hours ago
In the USA it is even worse, CEOs give themselves multimillion dollars raises and bonuses for screwing up and screwing
Americans. Their pay is at least 10,000 times higher than employees. They act like they are laying golden bricks but
they are robbing everybody.
GottaBeMe
venze chern
5 hours ago
This one will be a grassroots organization and has pledged to never accept corporate donations. They are planning to get
online funding from individuals as did Bernie Sanders. It can be done. When they have enough momentum, they will work to
eliminate corporate money from politics. You should watch their convention. I saw all but the first 45 minutes. It was
inspiring.
Juan_More
15 hours ago
There are already other parties running in the election it is just that these also ran parties can't get any traction
against the two main parties. Part of the reason that RT got trouble last time is that they gave airtime to these also
ran parties. Ross Perot made a good try at it but he failed. These also ran parties have to start winning elections at
lower levels and building momentum. The other would be to get a high profile candidate with name recognition like Jesse
Ventura or Oprah
GottaBeMe
Juan_More
5 hours ago
Certainly the game is rigged against alternative parties.
They are not allowed to participate in debates, the media
tries to ignore them, election rules are designed to make it nearly impossible to get on a state ballot. (This is why I
vote 3rd party in the absence of a decent D or R candidate: a threshold of votes can provide a bit of financial relief
and if enough, could mandate ballot access.) I truly hope the People's Party succeeds. I intend to support it as much as
I can.
Alan Ditmore
Juan_More
5 hours ago
No. ONLY ONE viable strategy and that is to get 1000 MAYORS before running any higher, for which you need a municipal
platform.
houses
13 hours ago
Workers' parties are the only alternative to corporate parties.
The British Labour Party was just that, but it was infiltrated by tory fifth columnists and turned into
tory lite, thus depriving the electrorate of any meaningfull choice.
Corbyn is real Labour, and was voted
leader by a landslide of the national membership, but the Blairites in the PLP simply undermined
everything he did, contradicted everything he said, supported tory fake news and lies, and even
campaigned openly against him at the general election. The fact is the corporate fascists will not ALLOW
any opposition to their kleptocratic establishment.
T he analysis behind the polls conducted is lacking any sort of empirical anchor and is
otherwise hopelessly biased. That's why they shared it with a reporters: both serve the same
clients, who are not interested in objective analysis, only in winning the election, no matter
what "
Kolanovic then asks what caused this initial collapse and then full recovery of Trump's
odds. His response: "we believe it is largely due to two effects: 1) the impact of the degree
of violence in protests on public opinion and voting patterns and 2) a bias in polls due to
Trump voters being more likely to decline or mislead polls", both factors we discussed
extensively over the past week ( here
and
here ).
Then, after laying out the dynamics our readers are already familiar with, Kolanovic says
that " momentum related to the Wasow effect will continue in favor of Trump, unless Democrats
pivot away from their stance regarding demonstrations. This may not be easy however, given that
top Democrats have called for daily demonstrations (e.g. Kamala Harris) and rallied their base
around the theme of defunding police and would need to effectively adopt Trump's policy after 3
months as a reaction to polls. Some party officials already rationalized or promoted the
behavior."
Then there is the question of turnout: here Kolanovic makes a critical point saying that "
turnout strongly depends on the left wing of the party ('Bernie bros', Marxist elements, etc.),
which would be alienated by such a shift" [toward demonstrations].
Of course, the fading impact of Covid will also have an impact on the election: "Another
important driver in determining both the market direction and election outcome is the
progression of COVID-19. Figure 2 shows that daily US COVID-19 cases also correlate with Trump
betting odds. New COVID-19 cases rate has been declining by about ~20,000 cases/day per month.
Given that there are no very large states that have yet to see widespread outbreaks that can
significantly boost new cases, this will likely set the pandemic on course to subside in time
for the election. Declining cases may further provide a boost to Trump's election odds.
Finally, Kolanovic notes that the last important driver of election odds will be the outcome
of presidential debates: "Currently, top Democrats are calling for the historically
unprecedented action of cancelling debates. Cancelling debates would likely not bode well for
Biden, as recent polls suggest that 61% of voters think Biden should address the question of
dementia publicly, and 52% are either not sure or think that Biden has the condition."
And while the JPM strategist concedes that "a lot can happen in the next ~60 days to change
the odds" he currently believes "that momentum in favor of Trump will continue, while the most
investors are still positioned for a Biden win. Implications could significant for the
performance of factors, sectors, COVID-19 winners/losers, as well as ESG. "
* * *
With just over two months left, it remains to be seen if Trump's momentum persists but what
we found unquestionably hilarious is that shortly after Kolanovic's warning was publicized,
none other than Nate Silver who predicted the 2016 would be won by Hillary (see
here and here ),
though granted
with some caveats and far
less vocally than his even more clueless peers who had all
predicted a Hillary landslide , had a meltdown on twitter, slamming the two core arguments
behind Kolanovic's opinion, proceeding directly to ad hominem attacks, calling Marko a "
financebro " to wit:
"both of these propositions are almost entirely lacking in evidence, to the point where
they're more superstitious than empirical, but are an interesting window into the mindset of
techbros and financebros who are buying up Trump shares on prediction markets."
The meltdown continued for several more tweets, and culminated with the following scathing
attack: " A chart like this is nonsense, and the analysis behind it is lacking any sort of
empirical anchor and is otherwise hopelessly confused. It's amazing that they shared it with a
reporter because they thought it would make them look smart."
Nate, chill out "pollbro" and stop pretending like there is some profound, abstruse and
complex science involved here - there isn't - and that only certified grand druids of polling
have a right to opine on the future. If anything, you are the one who should shut up, instead
of trying to "look smart" by bashing Kolanovic, who at least lays out his logic and -
ultimately - his clients will decide if he is right or wrong with their wallet. It's called
skin in the game: if Marko is right, he will be rewarded, if he is wrong he may lose his job.
You, on the other hand, were hopelessly wrong in 2016 and yet here you are pretending you have
some arcane "technical and domain expertise."
What really prompted Silver's implosion? It appears that despite his catastrophic track
record from 2016, Nate still believes he somehow holds a monopoly on forecasting and
"analyzing" polls and thus Kolanovic's upstaging of Silver was taken especially personally,
even though we are shocked that people still care and listen to what Silver has to say.
Incidentally, Nate, it wasn't you but this website that explained for much of
2016...
...
why the polling results in 2016 were meaningless and why people should not rely on what they
predicted. We were right, you were wrong.
Oh and for those who care or keep record of such things, Silver's latest take - perhaps
having learned a thin gor two from the 2016 fiasco - is that " Biden is slightly favored to win
the election ."
So what does happen next? Well, the good news is that in just a few weeks we will know who
is right and wrong. If Trump's polling suddenly reverses and Biden steamrolls the president no
Nov 3, well then it won't be the first time that a "
once in a decade" opportunity to bet on a reversal has gone wrong. On the other hand, we
sincerely hope that if Trump is victorious on Nov 3 that Nate Silver finally finds a job that
he is good at.
Home / New Urbs / Trump, Populism,
And The Suburbs Trump, Populism, And The Suburbs
Trump's housing rhetoric awkwardly marries upper-class NIMBYism with the tired tropes of
market fundamentalism. Credit:
By Darko Zeljkovic /Shutterstock
Since at least the inauguration, a central question of this presidency has been whether
Trump could cease campaigning and learn to govern. Now, with less than 70 days until the
general election, a contrary question is equally pressing: will Trump stop governing like a
Republican and start campaigning again as a populist?
Gone from Trump 2020 are the effective -- if crass -- messages to truckers, miners, and
bikers that carried Trump 2016 to victory. The overt appeals now go to "beautiful boaters"
and "suburban
housewives." The emphasis on protecting entitlements and building infrastructure has given
way to a payroll tax deferral and a capital gains tax cut.
The recent foray into housing policy induces particular whiplash. Republicans have long
criticized President Obama's "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing" (AFFH) policy, under which
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) could require local governments receiving
federal funding to analyze the demographic makeup of their communities and pursue policies to
redress racial segregation.
However laudable the goal, the policy was overly ponderous and
essentially toothless , conditioning HUD funding to state and local governments on drafting
lengthy reports, not reforming actual policy. Trump and his HUD Secretary, Ben Carson, had
attempted to
improve upon AFFH policy by tying federal funds to local policies that would reduce
regulatory barriers and
increase housing supply .
Deregulation on behalf of families seeking affordable housing would seem to lie at the
intersection of conservative and populist priorities. But last week they executed a
campaign-season reversal.
In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal , Trump and Carson essentially
renounced their own AFFH policy and instead pledged to "protect America's
suburbs," advancing a new policy that allows states and localities to fulfill fair housing
requirements by doing anything that
"rationally relates" to AFFH objectives. Whereas just months ago the federal government
sought affirmatively to expand housing supply, now Trump and Carson claim such efforts offer a
"path to tyranny" and a "dystopian vision of building low-income housing units next to your
suburban house." Federal incentives themselves represent a "radical social-engineering project"
and an attempt "to put the federal government in charge of local decisions."
This new argument awkwardly marries upper-class NIMBYism with the tired tropes of market
fundamentalism. In Trump and Carson's telling, our suburbs – like our nation – were
"founded on liberty and independence, not government coercion, domination and control." This
is, of course, nonsense. Suburbia
-- from its design to its demography -- is the result not of spontaneous order, but of an
ambitious federal policy agenda to create a durable American middle class. Meanwhile, the
entire ethos of NIMBYism is predicated on using government regulation and litigation to stall
investors and entrepreneurs seeking to meet market demand. "Get your regulations off my
single-family zoning laws" is simply the prep-school graduate's version of "keep your
government out of my Medicare."
Trump's pivot is unfortunate not only for its incoherence, but because it represents yet
another missed opportunity for a Republican Party struggling to escape a demographic trap of
its own making. Many working families would benefit from a greater supply of affordable,
suburban housing. But instead of adopting a policy with appeal to a pan-ethnic, working-class
coalition, the White House is now pursuing a revanchist campaign for the suburban vote,
embracing a do-nothing housing policy that benefits the upper-middle-class denizens of
aggressively zoned, blue districts.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.405.0_en.html#goog_1323409697 Ad ends in 12s
Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker, Pro-family
Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
This has been a signature dynamic of the Trump presidency, which seemed poised to reshuffle
the American political deck but has instead contented itself with replaying the Republican
Party's losing hand. If the re-election campaign has a clear message, it's to expect more of
the same.
Wells King is the research director for American Compass. This article is adapted from
apiece which originally
ran at American Compass. This New Urbanism series is supported by the Richard H.
Driehaus Foundation.
The upper middle class is not a lot of people. Fewer than the wealthy but still small
compared to the rest of the population. No, I think this dog whistle is directed at the lower
and middle end of the spectrum. They are far less secure and more worried about their
positions, plus less able to twist zoning laws to their direct benefit, thus more likely
susceptible to fear tactics.
Obama's policies were racist and experiments in social engineering. Some people prefer an
ethnic neighborhood. Jews prefer to live in a predominantly jewish neighborhood and orthodox
jews must live within a certain boundary. Thats fine. Amish also prefer to live in Amish
communities separate from the outside world. Thats fine. Some people prefer racial, ethnic or
religious neighborhoods. Other people prefer diverse communities with peoples of all races,
religions, ethnicities, etc. Thats fine too. Still other people prefer to live with people of
a similar income. People segregate and self sort themselves more on preference than on
prejudice. In other words people choose where to live more because of what they like than
what they dislike. The government has no right to tell people they cant choose or have no
right to choose or to limit federal funding unless people make choices that conform to
government social engineering. Now NIMBYISM which is more about what can and cannot be built
is another matter and it has alot to do with immigration and population which of course the
liberals and lefties will never admit or discuss but they are the first one to show up at a
town meeting and say we dont want more people in our town, we dont want more density, we dont
want midrises and high rises. So Liberals and Lefties simply zone out any opportunity for
population growth and force population growth elsewhere making it someone elses problem at
the same time they vote for more immigration. If you can make sense of the hypocrisy of the
left then please enlighten us...because it sounds like liberals and lefties are saying Im a
virtuous person and I care about people but I want what I want first...let them go somewhere
else and be someone elses problem. Wow! Can you be more virtuous?
Cynical, but effective - think about it a minute. Think about your neighbor to the
right, then to the left, then the 3 across the street and the 3 behind you. What are the odds
that at least one of them is your least-preferred neighbor ? Rather high I suspect. It
matters not that your annoying neighbor(s) are the dreaded Blacks, or feared Muslims, or
rumored herd of MS-13 gang squatters. You would love to see a law passed to eliminate them.
Vote for Trump!
Of course, neither Trump nor Biden can fix our least-preferred neighbor . People
will only recall that Trump is with them in hating that neighbor and wanting to put an end to
it! As I said; cynical but effective.
I was in Leesburg, VA today -- a purplish kind of suburb. Signs of BLM and "We Are All
Leesburg" -- next to signs that this house has applied to paint itself and is awaiting
"appropriateness" Council approval, that business is mounting new signage and also awaiting
"appropriateness" checkoff. The social justice equivalent of cheap grace, all the while
erecting an economic wall by zoning that is quite effective at segregation. Just like my
"woke" neighbors in Falls Church -- BLM (as long as they can afford an $800K house).
The upper middle class is not a lot of people. Fewer than the wealthy but still small
compared to the rest of the population. No, I think this dog whistle is directed at the lower
and middle end of the spectrum. They are far less secure and more worried about their
positions, plus less able to twist zoning laws to their direct benefit, thus more likely
susceptible to fear tactics.
Obama's policies were racist and experiments in social engineering. Some people prefer an
ethnic neighborhood. Jews prefer to live in a predominantly jewish neighborhood and orthodox
jews must live within a certain boundary. Thats fine. Amish also prefer to live in Amish
communities separate from the outside world. Thats fine. Some people prefer racial, ethnic or
religious neighborhoods. Other people prefer diverse communities with peoples of all races,
religions, ethnicities, etc. Thats fine too. Still other people prefer to live with people of
a similar income. People segregate and self sort themselves more on preference than on
prejudice. In other words people choose where to live more because of what they like than
what they dislike. The government has no right to tell people they cant choose or have no
right to choose or to limit federal funding unless people make choices that conform to
government social engineering. Now NIMBYISM which is more about what can and cannot be built
is another matter and it has alot to do with immigration and population which of course the
liberals and lefties will never admit or discuss but they are the first one to show up at a
town meeting and say we dont want more people in our town, we dont want more density, we dont
want midrises and high rises. So Liberals and Lefties simply zone out any opportunity for
population growth and force population growth elsewhere making it someone elses problem at
the same time they vote for more immigration. If you can make sense of the hypocrisy of the
left then please enlighten us...because it sounds like liberals and lefties are saying Im a
virtuous person and I care about people but I want what I want first...let them go somewhere
else and be someone elses problem. Wow! Can you be more virtuous?
Cynical, but effective - think about it a minute. Think about your neighbor to the
right, then to the left, then the 3 across the street and the 3 behind you. What are the odds
that at least one of them is your least-preferred neighbor ? Rather high I suspect. It
matters not that your annoying neighbor(s) are the dreaded Blacks, or feared Muslims, or
rumored herd of MS-13 gang squatters. You would love to see a law passed to eliminate them.
Vote for Trump!
Of course, neither Trump nor Biden can fix our least-preferred neighbor . People
will only recall that Trump is with them in hating that neighbor and wanting to put an end to
it! As I said; cynical but effective.
I was in Leesburg, VA today -- a purplish kind of suburb. Signs of BLM and "We Are All
Leesburg" -- next to signs that this house has applied to paint itself and is awaiting
"appropriateness" Council approval, that business is mounting new signage and also awaiting
"appropriateness" checkoff. The social justice equivalent of cheap grace, all the while
erecting an economic wall by zoning that is quite effective at segregation. Just like my
"woke" neighbors in Falls Church -- BLM (as long as they can afford an $800K house).
@Ron (RC) Weakley (A.K.A., Darryl For A While At EV)
August 28, 2020 8:15 am
Presently capitalism is attempting to work out which will happen first, the
euthanasia of the rentier or the euthanasia of the laborer.
I object to this inspired by Putin and RT vicious attack on Senator Schumer
What you do not understand is that Democracy is a tool and as any tool it has
drawbacks and limits of applicability. It is just one of the tools that can help create
more livable more fair society during some historical periods. It does not have any
absolute value. If does not have any place in the society what it is experiencing stress,
or rapid change.
Similarly Republic was also a tool and at the time of US war of independence it was
directed against the concept of monarchy. In 18 and 19 centuries any social order that
prevent hijacking political power by a single person for life, and passing it to his.her
descendants was a republic.
BTW the USSR one party system was a republican form of government and kind of
theocratic "Party democracy" democracy (only one strata of population "true believers in
Communist doctrine" or pretending it and organized into a party had the right to select a
leader) although mechanism or preventing the person of monopolizing power were soon
broken.
Lenin once made an interesting statement that sounds something like "illiterate man
stands outside politics". Which suggest that considerable part of the society will always
be manipulated by oligarchy or other organized minority, and for them democracy is always
just a sham, a powerful illusion.
In this sense blanket statements like " Presently capitalism is attempting to work out
which will happen first, the euthanasia of the rentier or the euthanasia of the laborer.}
are wrong and even stupid in view of the iron law of oligarchy,
There are always social forces directed at the lowing the standard living of labor and
labor resistance to those attempts.
In my US youth we trained with .30 cal Simi auto rifles at public school, and had also at
public school, rifle teams that used .22 target rifles.
Wally was the only white guy on the
teams (there were several schools)...
The racial stuff was all there, but so also was an
intact industrial plant... a fella couldn't walk down the street without stumbling into a
job.
Welder, fitter, fabricator, assembly line work, foundries and forges and shipyards and
mines were running double shifts and the unions were strong...even rich people were afraid to
cross a picketline...
and the income tax was about 75%...
In a long and adventurous life slumming 'round I have been threatened with guns dozens of
time...Every Time a cop was holding the gun, with "one up the spout" (it's "policy") and
finger on the trigger. Not once was there an arrest. Not once. Beatdachitoutta, well, several
times, kidnapped too, but never actually arrested. Actually pretty much a boyscout. And
white. Yes, the cops are azzhones, like Dylan said, the cops doaneed you and man they expect
the same.
I think the "problem" with the views here @ MoA in regard the "civil war" lies in
fundamental assumptions.
Simply try assuming that the US has ended, what you're seeing is denouement. Then forget
about it...it's like chemistry, and "da fat's in da fire". Outcome is backed in. Like the
corpse rotting back to it's constituent chemistry.
Igor Panarin's prediction, and also Deagle's prediction, may well be the proximate
situation when the reaction bombe cools off.
The fact that a delusional "ruling class" is at war with itself as well as the common
people stands as strong evidence...
It could change until election day (rather unlikely), but right now a vast majority of Dem
voters think the election will be rigged for Trump and a vast majority of Reps feel the same
way for Biden.
So whoever win will have a furious half of the country against him. What will leadership
do then?
Will Trump recognize he lost, present excuses and go? It doesn't look he will... And if he
doesn't, what will his (armed) supporters will do? If they start occupying official buildings
what will local police do? What will Trump controlled federal forces do?
And if Trump wins, what would Biden and establishment Dems do? Conceit defeat a second
time in an unloosable election and let the left side take over? Or go with its red hot
electorate furious of being stolen an election for a second time in a raw (because they
believe the Russian hack)? It is worth reminding that if establishment Dems still control the
party it is thanks to the Russian story. It should also be noted that if it goes regime
change, K Harris' police sympathies would prove useful.
Now the funny twist of history is that the pattern of preemptively claim opponents' fraud
and either win an election or make revolution (electoral blackmail) has been the hallmark of
US regime change operations. In the same vein as Cambridge Analityca, used to rig election
for the US in Latin America and then for Trump's victory. It is a logic trend in History that
tools designed for colonial purposes came back with a vengeance. It happened with
concentration camps, terror bombing and mass extermination from European colonies to European
mainland.
But then maybe sanity will suddenly raise up in the next two months...
"... The neo-liberal ideology, like many of its predecessor bodies of ideas and alibis for theft, teaches people that poverty is a mark of personal failure and moral turpitude. It also teaches that crime pays and that it is a constant temptation for the poor who, left unregulated, would help themselves to the wealth that members of the ruling class worked so hard for, from the very earliest age, by choosing the right fallopian tubes to crawl into. ..."
"... If such a reaction takes place it will lead to the formation of self defence militias where they are needed on the communities of the poor. And the failure of Biden /Harris would be a positive development in the discrediting of the corrupt "misleadership" class exemplified in the campaign to defeat Sanders and nominate Biden, which was based on the sense, in the Black community, that the Democrats- headed by the author of incarceration laws and one of the most evil prosecutors California has seen in the modern era-are their only protection. ..."
"...the terrible training and general ineptitude of the police is at the core of the
problem."
You are missing the point: the Police are very well trained, and indoctrinated. There is
nothing accidental in their behaviour. And the police culture is pretty well
internationalised. It is very similar in Canada and the UK for example. And, as we have seen
during the past year in France too.
It is a fascistic culture in which racism is an inherited and central but by no means
essential part. The Police are an crucial part of the neo-liberal system. And part of the
reward they get for doing as they are told, busting strikes, kettling demonstrators,
terrorising poor neighbourhoods and protecting private property, is a loose rein: they can do
more or less anything that they want. No Judge will do more than slap their wrists, the
Juries will thank them for their service. For certain personalities, in which US culture is
richly endowed, the right to run wild as part of the biggest biker gang in the world, is a
marvellous reward.
They are not only heavily armed but recruited, in large measure from the imperial armed
forces; there is nothing like a tour of duty in Afghanistan or Iraq to demonstrate impunity
in action.
The cops are the iron fist in the class system, defended by the judiciary, the
legislatures and the broad ideological apparatus, from the media to the educational system.
And backed up by armed and civilian militias, in most of which off duty cops and 'veterans'
of imperial adventures play leading roles. The police stations are gang headquarters in which
violence and contempt for democracy and legality are celebrated. And bullying is the secret
to success and advancement.
To put the matter in perspective- cops shoot about 1000 US civilians a year, about 25 a
week. And most of them are poor people, a constituency in which Black people are over
represented after centuries of discrimination and exploitation regimes enforced by
violence.
The neo-liberal ideology, like many of its predecessor bodies of ideas and alibis for
theft, teaches people that poverty is a mark of personal failure and moral turpitude. It also
teaches that crime pays and that it is a constant temptation for the poor who, left
unregulated, would help themselves to the wealth that members of the ruling class worked so
hard for, from the very earliest age, by choosing the right fallopian tubes to crawl
into.
It may be that b is right in his analysis. But it is also possible that-given the stark
nature of the facts surrounding these cases- public opinion will recognise that the one
constant in all these problems is the police system and the Gulags for private profit which
not only dwarf anything the Soviet Union ever developed, in terms of numbers, but in terms of
licence, unregulated violence and disregard for natural law hark back to the worst days of
the plantation culture.
If such a reaction takes place it will lead to the formation of self defence militias
where they are needed on the communities of the poor. And the failure of Biden /Harris would
be a positive development in the discrediting of the corrupt "misleadership" class
exemplified in the campaign to defeat Sanders and nominate Biden, which was based on the
sense, in the Black community, that the Democrats- headed by the author of incarceration laws
and one of the most evil prosecutors California has seen in the modern era-are their only
protection.
I agree with whoever wrote that it come down to culture.
The culture in the US and the West are the the result of the social contract that has
finance be a private owned and controlled element. It created the top/bottom class structure
which has been glossed over with left/right brainwashing.
The elite have manufactured the ignorance underpinning the misdirected protesting we are
seeing and all the "undesirables" who have been created by the system of inequality of
opportunity. The manufacturing of ignorance is called agnotology and came out of the study of
the decades long propaganda by the nicotine industry about cancer......are we sure, we are
sure, we are sure, we are sure that smoking causes cancer?
There are a few of us out here saying that private banking causes the culture you are
seeing in America and China is showing the way with purely sovereign central banking and
finance. We see the rest of you as victims of agnotology.
The Awan Brothers aided former DNC chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz in making threatening voice modulated phone calls to
attorneys suing the DNC for election fraud.
Lt. Colonel Tony Schaffer told
Fox
News
that Schultz ordered the Awan Brothers to scare off the lawyers due to the threat they pose in exposing widespread
election fraud committed by the Democratic Party in 2016.
Disobedientmedia.com
reports: If substantiated, the claims may have significance for the DNC fraud lawsuit proceedings,
and add to the growing controversy surrounding the recent arrest of Imran Awan on bank fraud charges.
Jared Beck, and attorney litigating the DNC Fraud Lawsuit noted
on Twitter
:
Among the most notable highlights at last night's Republican National Convention, Senator
Rand Paul delivered a blistering take down of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's
foreign policy, which Paul linked to multiple wars under Democrat administrations spanning
decades (going back to Clinton's bombing of Serbia).
"I fear Biden will choose war again," Paul
asserted . "He supported war in Serbia, Syria, Libya. Joe Biden will continue to spill our
blood and treasure. President Trump will bring our heroes home."
"If you hate war like I hate war, if you want us to quit sending $50 billion every year to
Afghanistan to build their roads and bridges instead of building them here at home , you need
to support President Trump for another term," said Paul, who has long been a fierce critic of
former President Obama's foreign policy, including overt intervention in Libya, and covert
action toward destabilizing Syria.
He slammed Biden as a hawk who has "consistently called for more war" and with no signs
anything would be different.
Interestingly, Sen. Paul has also in the recent past led foreign policy push back against
President Trump - especially over the two times Trump has bombed Syria following alleged Assad
chemical attacks, which Paul along with other anti-interventionists across the aisle like Tulsi
Gabbard questioned to begin with.
But it appears Paul is firmly supportive of Trump's newly
released 50-point agenda for his second term outlining the Commander-in-Chief will "stop
endless war" and ultimately bring US troops "home." The plan still emphasized, however, the
administration will "maintain" US military strength abroad while 'wiping' out global
terrorism.
"President Trump is the first president in a generation to seek to end war rather than start
one. He intends to end the war in Afghanistan. He is bringing our men and women home. Compare
President Trump with the disastrous record of Joe Biden, who has consistently called for more
war ," Paul
said further.
Back during the primaries in 2016, Paul and Trump sparred intensely over national security
questions:
He also highlighted Biden's unrepentant yes vote to go to war in Iraq .
"I'm supporting President Trump because he believes as I do that a strong America cannot
fight endless wars. We must not continue to leave our blood and treasure in Middle East
quagmires," Paul concluded.
Elsewhere in the approximately four-minute speech, Paul said Trump will fight "socialists
poisoning our schools and burning our cities."
Cluster_Frak , 7 hours ago
Obama was a warmonger and so is Biden. They love war and doing everything possible for the
next war to be on the home ground.
Davidduke2000 , 7 hours ago
Obama had skeletons in his closet, he did what the neocons want, Trump gave them the
embassy and other shenanigans.
Izzy Dunne , 2 hours ago
And so is Trump. They are all warmongers, because war is what the US does...
Weihan , 7 hours ago
Paul is right.
Biden knows who butters his bread. At least candidate Trump - in principle - stood for
opposition to the deep state's monstrous agenda.
Biden, Clinton, Bush, Obama are despicable warmongers. Their administrations were
responsible for the slaughter of tens of thousands in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and the list
would have gone on and on had it not been for Trump.
Remember Biden's 1992 Wall Street Journal article titled:
"How I Learned to Love the New World Order."
JUICE E SMALL IT EMPIRE , 7 hours ago
Rand was the only guy I watched last night and he was on point. I did not disagree with
anything he said.
kulkarniravi , 8/26/2020, 2:33:07 PM
You can diss Obama all you want, but he signed a peace accord with Iran and Trump reneged
on it. Iran is not the villain, at least not when compared to the likes of Saudi Arabia. And
what's the deal with Cuba?
d_7878 , 6 hours ago
Rand on Trump:
"Are we going to fix the country through bombast and empty blather?
"Unless someone points out the emperor has no clothes, they will continue to strut about,
and then we'll end up with a reality TV star as our nominee."
"Donald Trump is a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag"
"Have you ever had a speck of dirt fly into your eye?""[It is] annoying, irritating and
might even make you cry.
"If the dirt doesn't go away, it will keep scratching your cornea until eventually it
blinds you with all its filth. A speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president."
Trump is a "fake conservative."
mike_1010 , 7 hours ago
Trump might be talking peace, but he has increased US military spending significantly more
than previous presidents. He also tore up the US peace agreement with Iran and nearly
triggered a US war with Iran by assassinating one of their top generals.
If any president is going to start a war with Iran, then it's Trump. And such a war would
dwarf any recent wars USA has fought. Because Iran is three times bigger than Iraq in terms
of their population, and they've been preparing for a possible US attack for decades.
Perhaps Biden might start a small war here or there. But Trump goes big on anything he
does. If he starts a war, then it's going to be either with China or Iran.
So, neither Biden nor Trump is to be trusted, when it comes to war. But I'd say that Trump
is the bigger danger compared to Biden. Because if Trump starts a war, then it might end up
being a nuclear war.
Airstrip1 , 6 hours ago
Rand Paul needs to ask himself if the pot is blacker than the kettle.
How can he expect people to believe this disingenuous claptrap ?
The USA is an Empire-building Crime Cartel.
Dims or Reps are just frontmen managers for the Mob.
chopsuey , 7 hours ago
Ron and Rand. The dog and pony show. The alternative. They say what you want to hear.
I say
Phuck OFF Ron and Rand. You had many many years to do something (anything) about the
endless "wars" and in reality, they are not really wars. They are ruthless invasions of
vulnerable countries whereupon natural resources are contained, the culture and its symbolic
treasures are destroyed/stolen and thousands to millions are killed in the name of USA. These
unwarranted invasions are justified with lies and fraud and deceit.
Washington DC is the military capital of the world doing the dirty work of the elite. And
its soldier are your kids and grandkids.
Wake the Phuck UP people. It will not end until they have achieved their objectives. You
are fodder for their cannon.
Dragonlord , 7 hours ago
Biden voted for war in Iraq and supported Obama aggression in Libya, Syria, etc and he is
disappointed that Trump did not help Kurd to wage war against Turks for their
independence.
ConanTheContrarian1 , 7 hours ago
Not sure. Trump has to play ball with established Deep State interests while he tries (I
hope) to set things right. So, yes, questions will abound for some time.
takefive , 7 hours ago
whatever the reason, he is now part of the swamp. and that's why he's in a tough
re-election battle with a stiff.
Ex-Oligarch , 3 hours ago
You have it exactly wrong. If Trump were really part of the swamp, they wouldn't be
fighting so desperately to prevent his re-election. They wouldn't have spent three years on
the Russiagate failed coup, they wouldn't have gone through the ridiculous partisan
impeachment exercise, they wouldn't have torpedoed the economy over coronavirus, and we
wouldn't have organized race riots in all the democrat strongholds.
LaugherNYC , 3 hours ago
Rand Paul is just about the only grown-up in American politics.
How much bettter off would the USA be with a Paul/Gabbard ticket?
But ANYTHING is better than Joe Biden. Literally ANYTHING.
Well...assuming Hillary were dead or incapacitated,
DaVinciCode , 7 hours ago
It's happening. Yugoslavian girl give dire warning to Americans.
This all happened in her country the same way.
PLEASE LISTEN - it is coming to the USA and the West
I agree with the Yugoslav girl's premise that the powers that be have been deceptively
employing a divide-and-conquer strategy to get the American people to fight among themselves
rather than confront their own corrupt government, but I do not buy into the conclusion drawn
that the solution lies in trusting the head of the government (in this case Trump) to do
right by the people.
As George Carlin famously said, "it's a big club, and you ain't in it!" The American
people are not going to be able to fix the problems now confronting them by voting for one
uniparty politician over another any more than the Yugoslav people were
wick7 , 7 hours ago
The Democrats will get their regime change war no matter what. If Biden is elected they'll
continue the Syrian war that has cost 800,000 innocent lives so far. If Trump is elected
they'll try to have one here to take him down.
yojimbo , 7 hours ago
Afghani GDP - $20bn. US military spending - $50bn.
They must have the best services in the world!
yesnomaybe , 7 hours ago
That video clip from the 2016 GOP debate is classic... as Paul questions Trump attacking
personal appearances, Trump flat out denies it, and then proceeds to do just that in his next
breath.
In all seriousness, Rand is a stand up guy and would make a great president.
Maghreb2 , 7 hours ago
Ru Paul has as much chance of stopping this war as Rand Paul. If he was a threat to the
people starting it he would be getting the **** bashed out of him or shot dead by a mad man.
Don't see many people talking about auditing the Fed outside of Texas anymore.
He's got a point. Biden's son is in Ukraine milking it high on crack cocaine like a
senators son should in the new Roman Emperor. Ukrainian color revolution and CIA long war
strategy means he has set up shop there permanently like a little princeling. Same as
princess Kushners wonderful tour of the Middle Eastern courts to meet his boyfriends. Old
days they would both have be poisoned to death or strangled as children for disrespecting the
senate.
Real rules of Eastern European politics are Nationalist winding up dead in dust bins
behind the American Embassy and Russians threatening to switch of the gas and freeze everyone
to death every winter. Footage of hard man dictator Lukashenko showing up at opposition
protests with an assault rifle is broadcast to school children. I'd like to see Hunter Biden
and Jared Kushner show up to something like that.
Truth is Trump is a ******* liar. the Moment they started to shut down Rammenstein airbase
they moved forces close to the Belarus border to pull another color revolution right in front
of Putin. Trump and the Republicans are just stooges for the Zionist mafia. They are playing
war scare but its too piss take for anyone now. Polish and Baltic States are NATO and have
their own prerogative. They just push people closer to war.
Rand Paul should worry about the Civil War that should come after the election.
Aint no senators sons for that game....
DEDA CVETKO , 5 hours ago
Thank you, Rand, for remembering the little Serbia -- twice (in both World Wars) America's
fiercest and most loyal ally, and now a roadkill of the Clinton Foundation and Madeleine
Albright,
the new owner of Kosovo.
The nations that sadistically massacre and dismember their friends and allies do not have
a future, nor the right to claim any.
Scipio Africanuz , 5 hours ago
Again Senator Paul, we don't do self deception..
In almost four years, how many legions have been repatriated home, or how many of the
existing wars have been ended?
All we've observed, is an escalation of hybrid wars, reducing in some, kinetism, and
increasing death tolls via other means, and in some, increased covert kinetism..
Your candidate brazenly murdered a top general of a nation not at war with the US..
Imagine Senator Paul, if Iran had murdered Petraeus, would the US not have declared
war?
That the Iranians didn't significantly escalate, was NOT due to fear, but back channel
advocacy and energetic remonstrations by adult folks..
If you believe Biden is worse than your candidate who's done worse, in terms of brazen law
abrogation, then why aren't you a candidate, or is it that you'd prefer partisanship to
patriotism?
Look within your party for corollary and accomplice warmongers, and leave Biden alone
after all, you do have a rabid warmongering Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton as party
colleagues, no?
Senator Paul, there's principle, character, and integrity and then there's opportunism,
partisanship, and betrayal..
Of nobility..
Anyhow, you're sovereign and thus, fully entitled to your choices, we simply point out
inconsistencies between what you espouse, and what you support..
Character, Senator Paul, is destiny..
Cheers...
Anthraxed , 4 hours ago
Trump has dropped more bombs than Obama at the same time in his term.
You're in complete denial if you think Trump has stopped any of the wars. And yes, he is
expanding the wars to a much larger country.
Trump's first veto was a bill that would have stopped the Yemen war.
Reality is like Cryptonite for Trumptards.
quanttech , 4 hours ago
lol, 10 minutes ago I was being accused of being Antifa, and now I'm a Trumptard.
Definitely doing something right.
Yes, Trump is a war criminal extraordinaire. He dropped a MOAB. He removed controls on
civilian casualties. He dropped 7400+ bombs on Afghanistan in 2019.... 60% of the casualties
were civilians, mostly children.
He also stupidly listened to his generals when they told him to kill Sulemani. BUT... when
the Iranians retaliated (and they DID retaliate, injuring dozens of US soldiers) Trump
de-escalated. Similarly, when the Iranians downed a drone, the generals wanted to retaliate -
Trump asked how many Iranians would die. The generals said 150. Trump said it didn't make
sense to kill 150 people for downing a drone.
Trump is a moron who is completely out of it most of the time. But when he pays attention
for a moment, he's against a a war with Iran.
Now, if I'm a Trumptard, then you're a Hillaryhead. My question to you is... where would
we be if Hillary was president? Answer: at war with Iran. Another question: where will we be
if Biden is president?
Dull Care , 3 hours ago
How much authority do you think Trump has over the foreign policy? Not a rhetorical
question but I have yet to see an American president run for office advocating a more
interventionist foreign policy yet it doesn't change greatly no matter who is in office.
Trump often carries a big stick but he's nowhere near as reckless as his predecessors.
The one thing we know is Trump is hostile to the Chinese government and hasn't turned
around relations with Russia.
quanttech , 1 hour ago
"... I have this feeling that whoever's elected president when you win, you go into this
smoky room with the twelve industrialists capitalists scum-***** who got you in there. And a
big guy with a cigar goes: 'Roll the film.' And it's a shot of the Kennedy Assassination from
an angle you've never seen before - It looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll. Then the
screen comes up, and they go to the new president: 'Any questions?'"
- Bill Hicks, Rant in E-Minor (1993)
Observer 2020 , 5 hours ago
The spiritual, moral, ethical, philosophical, intellectual and cultural bankruptcy of
Biden and his fellow death cult reprobates is depthless. One need know nothing more about
them that they have become so detached from reality as to regard abortion, partial birth
abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, generational genocide, genocide, of the white race,
unremitting sociocultural warfare and the balkanization of this nation as being virtues.
Anyone who would even begin to contemplate supporting Biden or any of his fellow Fifth
Columnists should be regarded as being too demented or otherwise Bidenesque to be competent
to vote.
12Doberman , 5 hours ago
Biden has a record showing him to be a Neocon...and that's why we see the neverTrumpers
supporting him.
Musum , 5 hours ago
And Pompeous is 10X worse than Biden. And he serves as Trump's Sec. of State.
Of course, he's just a viceroy serving on behalf of the kosher people.
ted41776 , 8 hours ago
it's not what the president chooses
it's what chooses the president
conraddobler , 8 hours ago
This has lost all it's entertainment value.
Hollywood and the Postman was a more realistic view, in that movie I believe the warlord
was a former copier either salesman or technician, can't remember but it's more likely a guy
like that would have leadership capabilities than these clowns would.
invention13 , 1 hour ago
It saddens me that people can just go about their business in this country without giving
a thought about the men and women who are getting injured and coming home stressed out and
addicted to painkillers. Also that the real motive for continued military involvement in the
ME is that some people are making tons of money off it. We need our own version of Smedley
Butler these days.
It is all decadent beyond belief.
mrjinx007 , 1 hour ago
That MF no good SOB war mongering no good neocon SOB Shawn did everything he could to get
RP to agree with him that we need to continue with the policy of regime change.
Rand just basically told him to shut the f up and stop blowing the Neo-cons' erections. It
was precious. You know how people like this ******* Hannity get their funding from. Deep
state, MIC, and all the f'king Rino's like Tommy Cotton.
gm_general , 2 hours ago
Thanks to Hillary and Obama, Libya is a complete mess and black people are being sold as
slaves there. Let that sink in.
Commenting on the spotlight that U.S. intelligence officials have placed on both countries'
interference efforts (along with Iran's), Pelosi and Schiff declared that the analysis
"provided a false sense of equivalence to the actions of foreign adversaries by listing three
countries of unequal operational intent, actions, and capabilities together."
In particular, they charged, the actions of Kremlin-linked actors seeking to undermine Vice
President Biden, and seeking to help President Trump" were glossed over.
Pelosi stated subsequently, "The Chinese, they said, prefer (presumptive Democratic nominee
Joe) Biden -- we don't know that, but that's what they're saying, but they're not really
getting involved in the presidential election."
... ... ...
Also alleging that Chinese agents are increasingly active on major social media platforms --
a study from research institute Freedom House,
which reported that :
"[C]hinese state-affiliated trolls are apparently operating on [Twitter] in large numbers.
In the hours and days after Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey tweeted in support of
Hong Kong protesters in October 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported, nearly 170,000
tweets were directed at Morey by users who seemed to be based in China as part of a
coordinated intimidation campaign. Meanwhile, there have been multiple suspected efforts by
pro-Beijing trolls to manipulate the ranking of content on popular sources of information
outside China, including Google's search engine Reddit,and YouTube."
Last year, a major
Hoover Institution report issued especially disturbing findings about Beijing's efforts to
influence the views (and therefore the votes) of Chinese Americans, including exploiting the
potential hostage status of their relatives in China. According to the Hoover researchers:
"Among the Chinese American community, China has long sought to influence -- even silence
-- voices critical of the PRC or supportive of Taiwan by dispatching personnel to the United
States to pressure these individuals and while also pressuring their relatives in China.
Beijing also views Chinese Americans as members of a worldwide Chinese diaspora that presumes
them to retain not only an interest in the welfare of China but also a loosely defined
cultural, and even political, allegiance to the so-called Motherland."
In addition: "In the American media, China has all but eliminated the plethora of
independent Chinese-language media outlets that once served Chinese American communities. It
has co-opted existing Chinese language outlets and established its own new outlets."
Operations aimed at Chinese Americans are anything but trivial politically. As of 2018, they
represented nearly 2.6 million eligible U.S. voters, and they belonged to an Asian-American
super-category that reflects the fastest growing racial and ethnic population of eligible
voters in the country.
Most live in heavily Democratic states, like California, New York, and Massachusetts, but
significant concentrations are also found in the battleground states where many of the 2016
presidential election margins were razor thin, and many of which look up for grabs this year,
like Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
More broadly, according to the Hoover study:
"In American federal and state politics, China seeks to identify and cultivate rising
politicians. Like many other countries, Chinese entities employ prominent lobbying and public
relations firms and cooperate with influential civil society groups. These activities
complement China's long-standing support of visits to China by members of Congress and their
staffs. In some rare instances Beijing has used private citizens and companies to exploit
loopholes in US regulations that prohibit direct foreign contributions to elections."
But even more thoroughly overlooked than these narrower forms of Chinese political
interference is a broader, much more dangerous type of Chinese meddling that leaves Moscow's
efforts in the dust. For example, U.S.-owned multinational companies, which have long profited
at the expense of the domestic economy by offshoring production and jobs to China, have just as
long carried Beijing's water in American politics through their massive contributions to U.S.
political campaigns. The same goes for Wall Street, which hasn't sent many U.S. operations
overseas, but which has long hungered for permission to do more business in the Chinese
market.
These same big businesses continually and surreptitiously inject their views into American
political debates by heavily financing leading think tanks -- which garb their special interest
agendas in the raiment of objective scholarship.
Hollywood and the rest of the U.S. entertainment industry has become so determined to brown
nose China in search of profits that it's made nearly routine rewriting and censoring material
deemed offensive to China.
... ... ...
Alan Tonelson is the founder of RealityChek, a public policy blog focusing on
economics and national security, and the author of The Race to the Bottom.
The author misses the unique opportunity that now exists. The GOP under GW Bush, McCain,
and Romney was a clone of the DNC, yielding a two headed uniparty.
Trump has opened the door that could bring back a true two party choice.
There have been no new wars under Trump. The #NeverTrump NeoConDemocrats have angrily
returned to their ancestral home in the DNC. The two parties have a true substantive
difference on this point:
-- The DNC is the foreign intervention party.
-- The GOP is moving away from NeoCon contamination.
If you want to avoid foreign wars, you need to vote for the GOP. All we have now is a
corner stone. It will take votes over multiple election cycles to build walls and lock in
this position. This is not about Trump's personality. It is about long-term change.
The essay makes the important observation that no one at the convention spoke in support
of skilled blue-collar jobs. Thus, their plan is to NOT bring the globalized manufacturing
jobs home, and, globalize (use migrants) the non-manufacturing jobs by offering free college
to all rather than a Germany-like trade-school track. After all, how hard can it possibly be
to become an electrician?
Yawn. We have 2 party tyranny. The real power controls both parties. Trumps done a great
job for those in power. DNC told to stand down, so they are running Demented Biden and some
scary lady
Reading CS Lewis "That Hideous Strength"
"Don't you understand anything? Isn't it absolutely essential to keep a fierce Left and a
fierce Right both on their toes and each terrified of the other? That's how we get things
done. Any opposition to the N.I.C.E. is represented as a Left racket in the Right papers and
a Right racket in the Left papers. If it's properly done you get each side out-bidding the
other in support of us -- to refute the enemy slanders. Of course we're non-political. The
real power always is."
The country is being prepared for an excruciating restructuring that will create a
permanent underclass that will provide an endless source of sweatshop labor for the
multinational carpetbaggers. Those jobs will likely go to members of the Dems rainbow
coalition while white, working class people will be seen as a potential threat to the
emerging new order .
Well put, Mike Whitney.
I would note the following:
a. Plenty of non-whites becoming leery of globalism and all its lies, which means more
than a few will vote for Trump in the (I think mistaken) view he actually wants to stop it.
Delay, maybe; stop it, no.
b. We have a situation here that could be similar to South Africa in the recent past, but
I am not aware of any bands of "youths" raping and pillaging their way through America's
agricultural areas. From what I can see, the urban USA is seceding from country USA. What
might change this is a serious food shortage, power outages, and the like. White folk in the
country better do some serious prepping, if they have not already.
c. There has never been a better time for a real Third Party in America. If Trump loses,
the only reason will be a broad realization that Red and Blue are both in plutocrat
pockets.
d. It would help if this potential Third Party was specifically aimed at the American
worker and the unique "displacement" all of them have over the last forty years. Base it as
broadly as possible. Any nation's population has a pyramid earning structure and the strength
of the base is a measure of how well those above will live. Right now the base is about to
disappear.
This country has had a one party tyranny for decades it's just becoming more obvious.
But the real situation is the Republican and Democrat parties are just two sides of the
Deep State coin.
The Deep State doesn't care about the unimportant internecine squabbles of the two
parties as long as their important issues are advanced (wealth and power). As a matter of
fact it strengthens the false perception that there is a choice when voting.
The author misses the unique opportunity that now exists. The GOP under GW Bush, McCain,
and Romney was a clone of the DNC, yielding a two headed uniparty.
Trump has opened the door that could bring back a true two party choice.
There have been no new wars under Trump. The #NeverTrump NeoConDemocrats have angrily
returned to their ancestral home in the DNC. The two parties have a true substantive
difference on this point:
-- The DNC is the foreign intervention party.
-- The GOP is moving away from NeoCon contamination.
If you want to avoid foreign wars, you need to vote for the GOP. All we have now is a
corner stone. It will take votes over multiple election cycles to build walls and lock in
this position. This is not about Trump's personality. It is about long-term change.
"GloboCap needs to crush Donald Trump not because he is a threat to the empire , but
because he became a symbol of populist resistance to global capitalism and its increasingly
aggressive "woke" ideology . "
At first I was unsure the above quote. I still find the idea of Trump being a "symbol" of
"popular resistance" to be a stretch. At best Trump is a focus for various conservative
elements in society. After all, he is definitely not "woke" . Of course, Trump is probably a
disappointment to those same conservatives.
However, Mike is correct -- in so far as Trump is an impediment to woke ideology he is a
danger & needs to be removed. Mike is also correct, wokeness is one of the ruling class's
chief weapons for repression: not only does it look innocent, it looks positively virtuous.
But, Wokeness is repressive by its very nature -- censoring, alienating & destroying
classes of people on the basis of an artificial & abstract ideology.
(ie not racism but systemic racism -- the progressive's "original sin" -- abstract,
indeed, metaphysical .)
The article has it right. We can see the triumph of globocapitalist politically correct
uniparty fascism should Biden triumph. Trump, though sceptical of elements of the ruling
ideology, buys in to too much of it and also lacks the ability and competency to resist the
power structure successfully.
Hands up those who think the election will only have a 'marginal' effect?
"Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics -- which can be
characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and
two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism -- offers
different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public
policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or
business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of
one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these
contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We
report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key
variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing
business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while
average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent
influence.
The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for
theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or
Majoritarian Pluralism. "
Here are a few takeaways from the Democratic Convention:
The Democrats are running on the
same platform they ran on in 2016. The Democrats put style above substance, flashy optics above
ideas or issues. The Democrats think that hollow tributes to "diversity" and "inclusion" will
win the election. The Democrats have abandoned white, working class voters opting instead for
people of color. The Democrats have learned nothing from Hillary Clinton's defeat in 2016.
In 2016, Democrat front-runner, Hillary Clinton lost the election because she failed to see
her support was eroding in the key Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
Trump won all three states with a measly 77, 651 votes total. All three states were expected to
go Democrat but flipped to the GOP due to Clinton's support for free trade and immigration
policies that cost jobs and imposed unwelcome demographic changes on the working people of
those states. The Democrats and Hillary have never accepted the factual version of how the
election was lost. Instead, they fabricated a conspiracy theory about Trump colluding with
Russia. Although the Mueller Report proved that the claims of meddling were baseless, Clinton
and the Dems continue to trot them out at every opportunity. On Tuesday at the convention,
Hillary again reiterated the lie that Trump stole the election. She said:
"Vote like our lives and livelihoods are on the line, because they are. Remember: Joe and
Kamala can win 3 million more votes and still lose. Take it from me. We need numbers so
overwhelming Trump can't sneak or steal his way to victory."
The determination on the part of the Democrats to mischaracterize what actually happened in
the election is not a trivial matter. It suggests that deception is central to their governing
style. Party leaders do not think their supporters are entitled to know the truth but rather
believe that events must be shaped in a way that best serves their overall political interests.
For Democrats, lying is not a personal failing, but an opportunity for enhancing their grip on
power. This is from an article in The Guardian:
"Donald Trump's electoral college victory rests on the shoulders of more than 200
so-called "pivot counties" across the US. That is, counties that voted for Barack Obama only
four years earlier. The most decisive of these swings occurred in Pennsylvania's Luzerne
county, nestled in the north-east part of the state There, voters gave Trump a nearly
20-point victory after going for Obama by almost 5% in 2012. But Trump's win in Luzerne
was also noteworthy for its magnitude. His 26,000 vote plurality in Luzerne comprised almost
three-fifths of his plurality in the state as a whole, and with it Pennsylvania's 20 coveted
electoral votes ." ("
The Forgotten review: Ben Bradlee Jr delivers 2020 lessons for Democrats" , The
Guardian )
Critical battleground states tilted in Trump's favor because Democratic policies had
decimated their communities and eviscerated their standard of living. Author Ben Bradlee Jr.
explains this phenom in his book "The Forgotten" which should be required reading at the DNC.
Here's a clip from the review at the Guardian:
"The Forgotten documents the ravages of deindustrialization, lost jobs, crime and drugs.
It captures the sense of displacement tied to a changing and less monochromatic America.
Once upon a time, Luzerne was home to coal and textiles, dominated by Protestants from
Wales and Catholics from Ireland and continental Europe. Not any more. Luzerne is poorer and
smaller, for many a less recognizable place. Not surprisingly, immigration and Nafta come in
for constant criticism. " (The Guardian)
This is the real reason Hillary was defeated. Russia had nothing to do with it. The Dems
abandoned the white working-class people who had always voted for them and began to cobble
together their Rainbow coalition. When Hillary denounced these people as "Deplorables", it
forced more of them to join Trump team. The rest is history. Here's more from the same
article:
"In the absence of a recession, however, the party stands to face the same electoral
map it did in 2016. In fact, Ohio now looks an even tougher nut to crack. Much as the
Democratic base loathes the president, reality cannot be wished away. Luzerne would be a
good place for the party to start addressing this reality. " ( The Guardian
)
The point we're trying to make is that the effectiveness of the Democrat Convention can only
be measured in terms of its impact on potential voters. So, why have the Dems shrugged off any
effort to reach out to the people who could help them win?
It's not that complicated. The Dems are merely abandoning the people who, they believe, will
leave anyway as their globalist economic agenda becomes more apparent putting more downward
pressure on overall living standards. It's worth noting, that when Obama left office in 2016,
this process was already well-underway. According to a Gallup poll, 71 percent of the people
said they were dissatisfied with the way things were going. (in Obama's last year.) Only 27
percent said they're satisfied. So, even though Obama's personal approval ratings remained
high, his handling of the economy was extremely unpopular. (except on Wall Street, of
course.)
During this same period, the PEW Research Center conducted a survey titled: "Campaign
Exposes Fissures Over Issues, Values and How Life Has Changed in the U.S" which showed why
Trump was steadily gaining on Hillary. Here are a few excerpts from the report:
"Among GOP voters, fully 75% of those who support Donald Trump for the Republican
presidential nomination say life for people like them has gotten worse "
"GOP voters who support Trump also stand out for their pessimism about the nation's
economy and their own financial situations: 48% rate current economic conditions in the U.S.
as "poor.
"Within the GOP, anger at government is heavily concentrated among Trump supporters
– 50% say they are angry at government "
"Among Republicans, a majority of those who back Trump (61%) view the system as unfair
among Trump supporters, 67% say trade agreements are bad thing "
"Half of Trump supporters (50%) say they are angry at the federal government . Anger at
government – and politics – is much more pronounced among Trump backers than
among supporters of any other presidential candidate, Republican or Democrat " ("
Campaign Exposes Fissures Over Issues, Values and How Life Has Changed in the U.S ", PEW
Research Center)
So, a higher percentage of Trump supporters think they are getting screwed-over by an unfair
system. They think "free trade" only benefits the rich, they think the government is
unresponsive to their needs, they think the system is rigged, and they're really, really
mad.
So, which speaker at the Democrat Convention addressed the concerns or complaints of white
working-class people who now almost-universally harbor these same feelings??
No one, because no one in the Democrat party plans to do anything about these issues, in
fact, just the opposite. Now that the Dems have been subsumed by Wall Street and their big
globalist donors, things are going to get dramatically worse for working people who will see a
vicious attack on essential social services and programs as soon as the election is over. The
massive build-up of debt– by mainly Democrat Governors who deliberately drove their
states into bankruptcy at the behest of Fauci's Vaccine Gestapo– will now be met by a
growing demand for austerity on a scale unlike anything we've experienced in the last century.
The country is being prepared for an excruciating restructuring that will create a permanent
underclass that will provide an endless source of sweatshop labor for the multinational
carpetbaggers. Those jobs will likely go to members of the Dems rainbow coalition while white,
working class people in America's heartland –with their strong sense of patriotism–
will be seen as a potential threat to the emerging new order.
It's clear that the Dems anticipate resistance to their plan by the contemptible way they
have branded struggling workers as "white nationalists" and "racists". But is it true or are
the Democrats and their deep-pocket allies preemptively denigrating these people and supporting
BLM rioters to head-off growing resistance to their strategy of total control through
widespread mayhem, decimation of the economy and extermination of the American middle class?
Author CJ Hopkins summed it up like this in a recent article at The Unz Review:
"What we are experiencing is not the "return of fascism." It is the global capitalist
empire restoring order, putting down the populist insurgency that took them by surprise in
2016.
The White Black Nationalist Color Revolution, the fake apocalyptic plague, all the
insanity of 2020 it has been in the pipeline all along. It has been since the moment Trump
won the election. No, it is not about Trump, the man. It has never been about Trump, the
man
GloboCap needs to crush Donald Trump not because he is a threat to the empire , but
because he became a symbol of populist resistance to global capitalism and its increasingly
aggressive "woke" ideology . It is this populist resistance to its ideology that GloboCap
is determined to crush, no matter how much social chaos and destruction it unleashes in the
process.. ." (" The White Black
Nationalist Color Revolution" , CJ Hopkins, The Unz Review )
Bingo. It is the "populist resistance to global capitalism" that is the defacto enemy of the
Party elite, the same elites who conspired with senior-level members of the Intelligence
Community, the FBI, the DOJ and the Obama White House to spy on the Trump Campaign, infiltrate
the presidential transition, and to try to topple the elected government. And while the coup
plotters have still not been brought to justice, they are now within spitting distance of their
ultimate objective, which is seizing executive power and using it to crush the fledgling
opposition, impose a one-party system of government, and transform America into a corporate
superstate ruled by Global Capital. Here's a clip from an article by Gary D. Barnett at Lew
Rockwell:
"By the end of this next planned phase of the 'virus' scare, a global reset of the world
economy will be ready to launch. This reset will be mammoth in scope, as everything we have
known will be restructured. Those out of work in the final stage will most likely stay out of
work, pushing the dependency state to new levels sought by the ruling class. Controlling
the population will be a key component of the plan, including population size, birth rates,
movement, and personal contact among individuals. The elimination of normal human interaction
is sought, and this is only the beginning . The ultimate goal is total control, and every
tool in the box of the tyrants will be used to gain that control. Restraint by the ruling
class will be non-existent, as this staged reset is now going forward at a very accelerated
pace." (
"The Economic Insanity of This Coronavirus Pandemic Plot and the Coming Global Reset ",
Lew Rockwell )
The coup plotters have chosen the candidates they want to carry out the next phase of their
operation. All they need now is to win the election.
They used to charge people to vote. That was considered discriminatory and made illegal.
Plus, there is the whole concept of "underbanked" individuals people who do not have bank
accounts. If you don't have a bank account, you can't get a credit card. No reason why a
person should have to participate in the banking industry just to be able to express their
political rights.
It took balls for Carlson to have Anya Parampil on his show last night. He has had her on
before, so he knows what she is like she tells it like it is. He will get shit for that.
I don't think he agrees with everything she said but agrees with some of it.
" The democratic party is a vast criminal organization. It has been for years It's
evident, that the Republican party is run by loafers and grifters, pretenders really .
"
Imaginary party differences can make no difference [obviously].
Until enough people come to understand the true "nature of the beast" all is lost.
American main stream media is not informing and reporting but is actually Goebbels-like
propaganda for the Democrats. Fox is only retaliating with opposing views. Imagine Walter
Cronkite being advocate for one party – that would be scandalous. However the present
insects on CNN, MSNBC, NYT or WP and other dishonest outlets have no guts to stand up against
their owners disloyalty to this country.
Insightful overview. Giraldi explores the most important topic in American life. And one
of the most neglected: MSM distortions, omissions, sanctimony, propaganda, deception and
gaslighting. Stomach-turning drek –all of it.
Americans are in a half-Zombie state because of what they see on TV, and cannot discuss on
social media.
Hollywood, elite media, and Big Tech are the gatekeepers [ of the neoliberal power].
The shysters at WPO and NYT think that once they have misdirected the voters for their
goal into voting for Joe Biden, it can pick up things where they left off and fix it without
any problems but what they don't realize is that the train has left the station and now it's
barreling down the dark abyss from where there is no return to safety.
It took balls for Carlson to have Anya Parampil on his show last night. He has had her on
before, so he knows what she is like she tells it like it is. He will get shit for that.
I don't think he agrees with everything she said but agrees with some of it.
@Tommy Thompson he military is responsible for or how Israel is treated, how corporations
are handed free billions upon billions, etc, and its largely business as usual. All the noise
about Trump the disruptor is just that, noise. He hasn't disrupted anything of note.
As long as the two political parties exist, voting is for people who want to believe a
lie. Deep down they know, absolutely know, that the system is rigged but they can't let
themselves fully believe that because that would mean there is no hope. They would realize
that they live in a sophisticated soft military dictatorship that has stolen $21 Trillion
dollars and is the actual gov't of the country. That realization is unpalatable and
hence rejected.
However the present insects on CNN, MSNBC, NYT or WP and other dishonest outlets have no
guts to stand up against their owners disloyalty to this country.
It's not a simple as that. All the media people know that it's a rotten system, but if
they step out of line – they lose their jobs – and make themselves unemployable
anywhere else.
IMO it's not a question of standing up – which is pointless – but using
organized subversion. After all, this is what Jewry have been doing for decades in targeting
Anglo run organizations and it works. It's your friend and collaborator who is really your
enemy.
hough it was quickly overshadowed by the big-ticket appearances of Barack Obama and Kamala
Harris, Elizabeth Warren's Tuesday address to the Democratic National Convention deserves some
consideration.
A probable VP nominee before the events of the summer made race the deciding factor, Warren
is an able representative of what might be called the "non-socialist populist" branch of the
Democratic Party. Her economic populism -- though it does have an unmistakably left-wing flavor
-- has caught the eye of Tucker Carlson, who offered glowing praise of her 2003 book The
Two-Income Trap ; her call for "economic nationalism" during the primary campaign earned
mockery from some corners of the Left and a bit of hesitant sympathy from the Right. A few days
ago in Crisis , Michael Warren Davis referred to her (tongue at least somewhat in cheek)
as " reactionary senator Elizabeth
Warren ."
There is some good reason for all of this.
As I watched the first half of Warren's speech (before she descended into the week's
secondary theme of blaming the virus on Donald Trump) I couldn't help but think that it
belonged at the Republican National Convention. Or, rather, that a GOP convention that
drove home the themes addressed by Senator Warren on Tuesday would be immensely more effective
than the
circus I'm expecting to see next week.
Amid a weeklong hurricane of identity politics sure to drive off a good number of moderates
and independents, Warren offered her party an electoral lifeline: a policy-heavy pitch
gift-wrapped as the solution to a multitude of troubles facing average Americans, especially
families.
It was rhetorically effective in a way that few other moments in the convention have been.
Part of this is due to the format: a teleconferenced convention left most speakers looking
either like bargain-bin
Orwell bogeymen or like
Pat Sajak presenting a tropical vacation as a prize on Wheel of Fortune. But Warren, for
one reason or another, looks entirely at home in a pre-school classroom.
The content, however, is crucial too. Warren grounded her comments in experiences that have
been widely shared by millions of Americans these last few months: the loss of work, the loss
of vital services like childcare, the stress and anxiety that dominate pandemic-era life. She
makes a straightforward case for Biden: his policies will make everyday life better for the
vast majority of American families. She focuses on the example of childcare, which Biden
promises to make freely available to Americans who need it. This, she claims, will give
families a better go of things and make struggling parents' lives a whole lot easier.
It's hard not to be taken in. It's certainly a more compelling sales pitch than, "You're all
racist. Make up for it by voting for this old white guy." It's the kind of thing that a smart
campaign would spend the next three months broadcasting and repeating every chance they get.
(The jury is still out as to whether Biden's campaign is a smart one.) This -- convincing
common people that you're going to do right by them -- is the kind of thing that wins
elections.
But there's more than a little mistruth in the pitch. Warren shares a touching story from
her own experience as a young parent, half a century ago:
When I had babies and was juggling my first big teaching job down in Texas, it was hard.
But I could do hard. The thing that almost sank me? Child care.
One night my Aunt Bee called to check in. I thought I was fine, but then I just broke down
and started to cry. I had tried holding it all together, but without reliable childcare,
working was nearly impossible. And when I told Aunt Bee I was going to quit my job, I thought
my heart would break.
Then she said the words that changed my life: "I can't get there tomorrow, but I'll come
on Thursday." She arrived with seven suitcases and a Pekingese named Buddy and stayed for 16
years. I get to be here tonight because of my Aunt Bee.
I learned a fundamental truth: nobody makes it on their own. And yet, two generations of
working parents later, if you have a baby and don't have an Aunt Bee, you're on your own.
Are we not supposed to ask about the fundamental difference between Elizabeth Warren's
experience decades ago and the experience of struggling parents now? Hint: she had a strong
extended family to support her, and her kids had a broad family network to help raise them. Not
too long ago, any number of people would have been involved in the raising of a single child.
("It takes a village," but not in the looney Clinton way.) Now, an American kid is lucky to
have just two people helping him along the way. As we've all been reminded a hundred
times, the chances that he'll be raised by only one increase astronomically in poor or black
communities.
Shouldn't we be talking about that? Shouldn't we be talking about the policies that
contributed to the shift? It's a complex crisis, and we can't pin it down to any one cause. But
a slew of left-wing programs are certainly caught up in it. An enormous and fairly lax welfare
state has reduced the necessity of family ties in day-to-day life to almost nil. Diverse
economic pressures have made stay-at-home parents a near-extinct breed, and left even
two-income households struggling to make ends meet. (Warren literally wrote the book on
it.) Not to mention that the Democrats remain the party more forcefully supportive of abortion
and more ferociously opposed to the institution of marriage (though more than a few Republicans
are trying real hard to catch up).
Progressive social engineering has ravaged the American family for decades, and this
proposal only offers more of the same. It's trying to outsource childcare to
government-bankrolled professionals without asking the important question: Whatever happened to
Aunt Bee?
Republicans need an answer. We need to be carefully considering what government has done to
accelerate the decline of the family -- and what it can do to reverse it. Some of the reformers
and realigners in the party have already begun this project in earnest. But it needs to be
taken more seriously. It needs to be a central effort of the party's mainstream, and a constant
element of the party's message. Grand, nationalistic narratives about Making America Great
Again mean nothing if that revival isn't actually felt by people in their lives and in their
homes.
If we're confident in our family policy -- and while it needs a good deal of work, it's
certainly better than the Democrats' -- we shouldn't be afraid to take the fight to them. We
should be pointing out, for instance, that Warren's claim that Biden will afford greater
bankruptcy protections to common people is hardly borne out by the facts: Biden spent a great
deal of time and effort in his legislative career doing exactly the opposite. We should be
pointing out that dozens of Democratic policies have been hurting American families for
decades, and will continue to do so if we let them. We should sell ourselves as the better
choice for American families -- and be able to mean it when we say it.
If we let the Democrats keep branding themselves as the pro-family party -- a marketing ploy
that has virtually no grounding in reality -- we're going to lose in November. And we're going
to keep losing for a long, long time.
"... McLaughlin and Associates, a national survey research group requested by Trump to examine the findings, said the results were an effort on the part of "Democratic operatives" to "counter the enthusiasm of Trump voters." Meanwhile, the right-leaning polling agency, Rasmussen, reported that Trump enjoys a 44 percent approval rating, which reflects the usual margin of difference. ..."
"... At the same time, many people must be wondering how Joe Biden, 77, has been able to garner such glowing poll numbers. After all, when the former vice president finally ventured to speak in public after an 88-day disappearing act, it only served to make people question the possibility of his "cognitive decline," a subject the mainstream media seems unwilling to consider in any great depth. ..."
"... Although the United States has certainly suffered from a double whammy of Covid-19 and race riots, the situation does not appear to be as bleak as the media would have everyone believe. In May, for example, analysts expressed disbelief as the economy added 2.5 million jobs, with the unemployment rate declining to 13.3 percent from 14.7 percent. Market watchers had been anticipating a loss of 7.25 million jobs and an unemployment rate of 19.0 percent. Meanwhile, Wall Street continues to weather the storm. ..."
In an era of fake news, can we trust the MSM polls that show Trump badly trailing Biden in the race for the US presidency?
Consult just about any US media resource and a trend is quickly discernible: Donald Trump is sagging in popularity while his likely
Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, soars like an eagle. Are these polls really to be believed?
Is there a conflict of interest greater than that of the US media conducting a public opinion poll on Donald J. Trump?
It appears to be a self-indulgent activity, a bit like climate change activists gathering opinions on the merits of air travel,
for example, or a New York Yankees fan organizing a poll to determine who the best baseball player was, Babe Ruth or David Wright.
In other words, those asking the questions may be very tempted, in deference to their own prejudices, to get the answers they
seek.
Perform a quick Google search on 'Trump poll numbers' and you will likely experience some deja vu. As in 2016, when the media
showed Trump trailing far behind Hillary Clinton, the same media want us to believe that the presidential incumbent is now eating
Joe Biden's dust on the road to the White House.
The New York Times, for example, in an opinion poll it
conducted
in cahoots with ultra-liberal Siena College, showed Biden ahead of Trump by 14 percentage points, pulling 50 percent of the vote
compared with just 36 percent for the president.
In another survey, this one
carried out by USA Today and Suffolk University, Trump garnered 41 percent to Biden's 53 percent. What the poll failed to say,
however, is that in 2016, the editorial board at USA Today took the unprecedented step of taking
sides in that year's presidential race, declaring Trump "unfit for the presidency."
Suffolk University, meanwhile, is situated in snobby Boston, Massachusetts, a formidable Democratic stronghold where Hillary Clinton
secured 60 percent of the 2016 vote compared to Trump's 32.8 percent. No chance of bias there.
Then there was the poll by CNN,
which Trump regularly slams as 'fake news,' where it was said that the incumbent leader was trailing Biden by a whopping 14 points.
The Trump campaign, arguing that just 25 percent of the contacted respondents were Republican, condemned the survey as "defamatory,
and misleading" with the goal of creating "an anti-Trump narrative."
McLaughlin and Associates, a national survey research group requested by Trump to examine the findings,
said the results were an effort on the
part of "Democratic operatives" to "counter the enthusiasm of Trump voters." Meanwhile, the right-leaning polling agency,
Rasmussen, reported
that Trump enjoys a 44 percent approval rating, which reflects the usual margin of difference.
It's important to note that the media, which has a snarling political dog in the Trump-Biden fight, follows up on its dubious
polls with stories based on those very same polls. CNN, for example,
aired a segment that asked, 'What would happen if Trump lost in November but refused to leave office?' Even Fox News, considered
to be 'Trump friendly,' wondered if Trump would drop out of the race due to low poll numbers.
At the same time, many people must be wondering how Joe Biden, 77, has been able to garner such glowing poll numbers. After all,
when the former vice president finally ventured to speak in public after an 88-day disappearing act, it only served to make people
question the possibility of his "cognitive decline,"
a subject the mainstream media seems unwilling to consider in any great depth.
Although the United States has certainly suffered from a double whammy of Covid-19 and race riots, the situation does not
appear to be as bleak as the media would have everyone believe. In May, for example, analysts expressed disbelief as the economy
added 2.5 million jobs, with the unemployment rate declining to 13.3 percent from 14.7 percent. Market watchers had been anticipating
a loss of 7.25 million jobs and an unemployment rate of 19.0 percent. Meanwhile, Wall Street continues to weather the storm.
In short, the country remains resilient in the face of unprecedented challenges, yet Trump's popularity continues to dwindle.
Does the US leader have good reason to question the media-sponsored polls that show him in the basement, exactly where Joe Biden
has been organizing his campaign from for months, or should the American people trust the findings?
Given the way the mainstream media has treated Trump over the course of his first term in office, it seems that whatever the media
reports on the most divisive American president in living memory must be taken with a very generous handful of salt.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is the author of the book, 'Midnight
in the American Empire,' How Corporations and Their Political Servants are Destroying the American Dream.
Did Bill slept with Maxwell? You can expect anything from this sex addict...
Notable quotes:
"... During a fueling stop at a small airport in Portugal, Epstein confidante Ghislaine Maxwell urged Davies to give the former president a massage. ..."
As if it weren't awkward enough for the party that bills itself as a defender of women to feature Bill Clinton at its
convention, photos of the ex-president with one of Jeffrey Epstein's victims surfaced on the day of his speech.
The UK's Daily Mail
published exclusive pictures on Tuesday showing Clinton receiving a massage in 2002 from 22-year-old Chauntae Davies, who was
allegedly raped by billionaire Epstein repeatedly over a period of four years. The
massage
occurred
while Clinton, along with actors Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker, flew with Epstein on the pedophile's infamous
private jet, nicknamed the Lolita Express, on a humanitarian trip to Africa.
According to the
newspaper, Clinton complained of having a stiff neck after falling asleep on the plane. During a fueling stop at a small
airport in Portugal, Epstein confidante Ghislaine Maxwell urged Davies to give the former president a massage. Clinton, who
was 56 at the time, then allegedly said to Davies,
"Would you mind giving it a crack?"
The
photos show Davies massaging Clinton's neck and shoulders as he leans back in his seat at what looks to be a small airport
lounge.
Davies, who worked for
Epstein as a masseuse, said Clinton was a
"perfect gentleman during the trip and I saw
absolutely no foul play involving him."
Nevertheless, the images serve as an untimely reminder of the many sexual misconduct allegations made against Clinton during
his years in politics and of his relationship with Epstein, a convicted sex offender who allegedly
killed
himself
last year at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York while awaiting trial on new sex trafficking charges.
A Clinton spokesman has
said the former president knew nothing about Epstein's crimes and flew on the financier's jet only four times, but
flight
logs
showed that he traveled on the plane dozens of times in 2002 and 2003. Davies and other alleged victims said in a
2020
Netflix
documentary
on Epstein that he had secret surveillance cameras at his properties to gather blackmail-worthy dirt on his
powerful friends.
"The question is, why were they taking pictures of Bill Clinton receiving a massage?"
UK
journalist Paul Joseph Watson said on Tuesday on Twitter.
"And we already know the
answer."
The Daily Mail didn't say
where it obtained the exclusive photos. Maxwell is currently in jail in New York awaiting trial on charges that she
facilitated
Epstein's abuse
of girls as young as 14.
Other Twitter users suggested that far more incriminating pictures are being held back.
"Epstein
took pics and videos of everything, and the FBI has it all,"
one said. Another said:
"If
they took pictures of this, there are most definitely worse things recorded just waiting to come out against people."
Others said Clinton should
be kept away from the Democratic National Convention, including one who tweeted:
"Bruh,
no way they can let this man speak tonight."
Another said:
"And this guy is
headlining the DNC tonight. Can't make this up."
"... Are you arguing that sociopaths have an inalienable right to hold office, even though they will inevitably use that office to aggrandize themselves at the expense of everyone else, and could spark a general war just for their own enjoyment and to gather yet more power to themselves? ..."
"... How do people who don't share your beliefs get represented if you rig the system to exclude them? People unlike you are sociopaths? It isn't even tempting. Your cost benefit study benefits you. The world is destabilized if your guys don't get in? No surprise. ..."
"... The under-employment rate is also very informative. People working less hours or in lower positions than their investment in education should have returned to them. They are working, but not enough to be able to independently sustain themselves, which makes them insecure in variety of ways. ..."
"... It all depends on what the penalties are. Confiscation of hidden assets would chill that behavior, strike one. Loss of the privilege to conduct business with federal and state entities would also chill such behavior, strike two. Finally, for persistent violations of the cap, loss of citizenship and expulsion form the country, three strikes and you are literally out, would be the ultimate penalty. ..."
"... The United States is actually both a federation (hardly unique by the way) and a representative democracy. Whether you call them members of Parliament or members of Congress, their representatives are elected by the people. ..."
Huge numbers of people who disagree with me and don't share my particular beliefs are not sociopaths, nothing would stop them
from running or holding office, and I've no problem with that.
Are you arguing that sociopaths have an inalienable right to hold office, even though they will inevitably use that office
to aggrandize themselves at the expense of everyone else, and could spark a general war just for their own enjoyment and to gather
yet more power to themselves?
How do people who don't share your beliefs get represented if you rig the system to exclude them? People unlike you are sociopaths?
It isn't even tempting. Your cost benefit study benefits you. The world is destabilized if your guys don't get in? No surprise.
Love this line: "the gig economy combined with record debt and astronomically high rent prices cancel out any potential economic
stability for millions of people."
The under-employment rate is also very informative. People working less hours or in lower positions than their investment in
education should have returned to them. They are working, but not enough to be able to independently sustain themselves, which
makes them insecure in variety of ways.
Do you think the interpreters might turn out to be agents, or perhaps even assassins, from other governments? Or maybe everybody
will be knocked out with fentanyl gas at dinner. In the dining room.
1. It all depends on what the penalties are. Confiscation of hidden assets would chill that behavior, strike one. Loss of the
privilege to conduct business with federal and state entities would also chill such behavior, strike two. Finally, for persistent
violations of the cap, loss of citizenship and expulsion form the country, three strikes and you are literally out, would be the
ultimate penalty.
The alternative, continuing to allow unlimited wealth accumulation will ultimately destroy democracy and end in a dictatorship
nearly impossible to remove without massive casualties. Is that preferable to trying to control the behavior of wealth addicts?
Make no mistake: billionaires are addicts, their uncontrollable addiction to more is an extreme form of hoarding dysfunction,
one that, like all uncontrolled addictions, has had disastrous consequences for everyone but them.
3. Fewer Representatives means you are concentrating power rather than dispersing it. More means smaller districts, which in
turn means more accountability, not less. As it stands now, Congresscritters can safely ignore the wishes of the public, because
when someone "represents" nearly a million citizens, it means they actually represent only themselves. If taken in conjunction
with item #2, more citizens would be invested in the political process and far more likely to pay attention.
4. The Hare test is a standard written exam that is difficult to cheat. Getting caught at cheating or attempting to cheat would
mark one automatically as a sociopath. The latest studies of brain structures show that sociopaths have physically different brains,
and those physical differences are detectable. Brain activity as shown by fMRI also clearly marks a sociopath from a normal, since
while they can fake emotional responses very well, their brain activity shows their true lack of response to emotionally charged
images, words, etc. Using a three-layer test, written>fMRI>genetic should be robust enough to correctly identify most. The stakes
are too huge to risk a set of sociopaths and their lackeys control of the machinery of government. The genetic test is the most
likely to give problematic results, but if the written is failed, the fMRI would then be done to confirm or reject the written
results, while the genetics would be a supplementary confirmation. Widespread genetic testing of politicians and would-bes would
undoubtedly advance research and understanding dramatically.
When you do even a casual cost-benefit study, the answer is clear: test them. Ask yourself: is the thwarting of an individual's
potential career in politics really that great a cost compared to preventing unknowingly electing a sociopath who could destabilize
the entire world?
Another big difference of course is a little thing called the law.
Are you under the impression the British don't have rule of law? Their elected representatives make their laws, not
their ceremonial royal family. Their royal family's job is to abide by the same laws as every other UK citizen, stay out of politics
and promote British tourism and gossip magazines.
The United States is actually a federal republic, not a democracy.
The United States is actually both a federation (hardly unique by the way) and a representative democracy. Whether you call
them members of Parliament or members of Congress, their representatives are elected by the people.
If we move the cheap manufacturing to the US, and wages are lower due to a depression, people will take the jobs, and the
job numbers will improve. And China will be toast.
We will never beat China at manufacturing cheap and efficient products using human labor. Robotic labor maybe, but that might
not happen for a decade or more at least--if they or another country doesn't beat us to retooling our factories.
Labor and manufacturing will never return in the US--unless we have another world war we win, in which all global production is
again concentrated in the US because the rest of the worlds factories are bombed to rubble. Besides, they have the most central
location for manufacturing in the world and a cheap source of endless labor.
What they don't have is innovation, tech and freedom to try products out on a free market. We are squandering those advantages
in the US when we cut education and limit college education to the masses.
Are Americans the most immoral people on earth? I don't think so. Do we have the strictest code of laws on earth? I don't think
so either. Yet we have the highest incarceration rate on earth. Higher than authoritarian countries like China & Russia.
This alone should tell you something is wrong with our system. Never mind the stats about differing average sentences depending
on race & wealth.
Doubt implies a reason behind the wrong, where uncertainty implies an unknowing trait--a mystery behind the wrong.
The right, what with all its fake news scams, deep state BS and witch hunt propaganda, is uncertainty at best, a mystery of sorts--it
provides us with a conspiracy that can neither be proved or unproven--an enigma.
Doubt, about if Russia meddled in the US election in collusion with the president or at the least his advisors, surely implies
something is wrong, especially in the face of criminal charges, doubt is inherent and well intentioned, but not always true and
can be proven false in the face of doubt.
At one time the US was agrarian and one could subsist via bartering. Consider reliance on for-profit healthcare, transportation
systems, debt, credit cards, landlords, grocery stores, and the lack of any ability to subsist without statewide and nationwide
infrastructure. Right now, people in the US already die prematurely if they can't afford healthcare. Many are homeless. And this
is when things are better than ever? What will happen here is what happened in Europe during WWII. People will suffer, and they
will be forced to adopt socialist practices (like the EU does today). People in Europe really did starve to death, and people
in India, Africa, and other countries are starving and dying today. China doles out food rations because they practice communism.
That's why they have cheap, efficient labor that serves to manufacture products for US consumers. Communism and socialism help
American corporations big time.
Citizens United is a First Amendment decision. Which part of the First Amendment do you want moot? What gives any government the
right to decide which assemblies of citizens have no free speech rights?
You are aware, I imagine, that the US can adjust its money supply to adapt to circumstances? We can feed ourselves. We have our
own power sources. We can improvise, adapt, and overcome. Prices go up and down. No big deal. Scaring people for political gain
doesn't have the clout it onvce did.
Too many virtue signalers seem to think that only the innocent are ever convicted.
The system is not crooked, but if you can set up a better one that doesn't bankrupt every community, have at it.
You really, really, really like screaming racist, don't you? And slide in a Godwin. Wow. The concept that black pastors would
be negatively impacted by financial attacks on their churches never ever occurred to you, did it? You get off on pretending to
care about people that you have no direct, routine connection to. How virtuous of you. Wouldn't deliberately harming black churches
make you the racist storm trooper?
Violence will break out when credit cards stop working. Can't even imagine what will happen if people are starving. No problem
in a socialistic country like Finland, but a big problem here. My guess is that Trump knows the economy is hanging by a thread,
so needs to create an alternate reason (trade wars). Or he figures he might as well have a trade war if it's all going to pieces
anyway. Of course China manufactures just about everything for the US. If we move the cheap manufacturing to the US, and wages
are lower due to a depression, people will take the jobs, and the job numbers will improve. And China will be toast.
Don't forget as the Trump trade war heats up and China decides to sell off US bonds en-masse (they own 1.17 trillion in US debt).
That's gonna put a hurt on the already low US dollar and could send inflation soaring. China could also devalue its currency and
increase the trade deficit. Combine those with all the things you've pointed out and you've got financial troubles the likes of
which no large government has ever dealt with in human history.
Starving people--China can handle in droves; not so much the US. We're talking nasty violence if that kinda stuff happens here.
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for
profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable,
unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection,
safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.
Occupy Wall Street began due to income inequality when the worst effects of the Great Recession were being felt by the population.
Wealth inequality has only increased since then.
Right now, the population is held at bay because the media and politicians claim that the economy is so incredibly hot it's overheating.
But we know that's a lie. For one, the gig economy combined with record debt and astronomically high rent prices cancel out any
potential economic stability for millions of people. This year, 401(k) plans have returned almost nothing (or are going negative).
This was also the case in 2016. Savings accounts have returned almost nothing for the last decade (they should be providing approximately
5% interest).
The worker participation rate today is 3.2% below what it was in 2008 (during the Great Recession). The US population, meanwhile,
has increased by approximately 24,321,000. That's a 7.68% increase. The labor force has increased by 5% during this time (unemployment
rate was relatively similar, 5.6% vs 4%). From June 2008 to June 2018, the labor force increased by approximately 8 million. However,
if the worker participation rate was the same now as it was then, there would be approximately 8 million more people in the labor
force. If you add 8 million people to the current number of people who are counted as unemployed by the BLS, the unemployment
rate is approximately 9%. This is about as high as the unemployment rate got during the depths of the Great Recession, right when
Occupy Wall Street was born.
Now, OK, sure, the economy has REPLACED lost jobs, but it has not ADDED jobs for the last decade. The unemployment rate is false.
It should be at least 8%. There's many millions of Americans who do not have steady, gainful employment - or any employment -
and they are not counted.
The billionaires and their bought politicians are responsible for fixing this. They can fix it and should fix it. Otherwise, the
economy and their profits are going to fall off a giant cliff any day now. The next recession has basically already begun, but
it can still be alleviated. If things continue as they are, unemployment could be 16% by 2020, with the U6 measure approaching
or exceeding 25%. If stocks drop enough, people may starve to death.
Who supported Citizen's United? All cons and republicans
Who supports campaign finance reform and legislation that would make Cititzen's United moot? Democrats and progressives
Really tired of the false equivalencies. Republicans are now the polar opposite of Democrats in policy and principles. Vote Blue
this November and get rid of the republicans; every single one of them. It can be done if people get out and vote.
1. Anything is possible but I don't think this is practical. The rich can just cheat on the definition of ownership, pass it around
between family members, offshore it, sink it into their businesses in token ways, etc. When you try to take wealth (power) away
from the most powerful people in the country they will start devoting SERIOUS resources to getting around it.
3. I'm not saying we need fewer people doing congress's job in total. But we should be electing fewer of them, and letting
those fewer people do more hiring/delegating. The way things are now, most of the public only knows much about the president.
Everyone else is mostly just a vote for a party. But if the country only voted for 50 Congressmen in total - or even fewer - then
we would all have a more careful eye on them. We would know them better and see them more individually. They would have less pressure
to toe the party line all the time.
4. As long as there's a written test then it will get cheated. Right now the testing is rarely given and the specific consequences
don't determine powerful people's careers. Make it a widespread & important thing and people will learn to cheat it.
The genetic + fMRI research is interesting but the whole thing opens up serious cans of worms. We're talking about DQ'ing somebody
from an important career based partially on the results of a genetic screening for a character trait. That's a dangerous business
for our whole society to get into. Although I do realize the payoff for this specific instance would be very big.
1. Why do you think that? Using teams of forensic accountants and outlawing secret accounts would go a long way towards increasing
enforceability. But you are viewing it as a legal problem rather than a cultural problem. If an effective propaganda campaign
aimed on one level at the public and another level at the billionaires, it could work. Many billionaires are already committed
to returning their fortunes to the economy (mostly after they are dead, true). Convince a few and the rest will follow. Give them
the lure of claiming the title of the richest who ever were and some would be eager for that place in history.
Anything can be done if the will is there.
2. Income taxes are just a portion of the federal revenues, ~47%. Corporate taxes, parkland fees, excise taxes, ~18% taken
together and Social Security make up the rest. Revenues would increase as taxpayers topped off step amounts to keep control. The
beauty of it is that Congress would see very clearly where the nation's priorities were. Any politician trying to raise fines
so that they had more money under their control would soon find themselves out of office. Unpopular programs would
have to be financed out of the 18%, and that would likely make them increase corporate taxes. But most importantly, it would cut
the power of politicians and decrease the effectiveness of lobbyists.
3. Actually, we have too few, not too many. The work of governance suffers because there is too much to be done and too few
to do it. Spreading the workload and assigning responsibility areas would increase efficiency. Most importantly though, it would
break up the oligarchic duopoly that keeps a stranglehold on the nation's politics, and bring more third party candidates into
office giving Congress a more diverse culture by adding viewpoints based on other things than business interests.
4. Actually, advances in fMRI equipment and procedures, along with genetics and written testing can prove beyond a reasonable
doubt whether or not someone is a sociopath, do some research and you'l see it is true. False positives in any testing regime
are always an issue, but tens of millions of workers submit to drug tests to qualify for their jobs, and their jobs don't usually
run the risk of plunging the world into war, economic or environmental disasters. False positives are common in the workplace
and cost many thousands their jobs.
And there's an easy way to prove you aren't really a sociopath: be honest, don't lie, and genuinely care about people...things
sociopaths cannot do over time.
Seriously, it is a societal safety issue that demands to be done, protecting the few against false positives means opening
the floodgates for the many sociopaths who seek power over others.
Not just eliminate--alter and add to it, but since it takes 2/3 majority of the house and senate to amend the constitution--it's
not an easy feat--that's why there has only been 17 amendments altogether and two of them are there to cancel each other out!
You see, the beauty behind the National
Popular Vote Bill is that it's done on a state by state basis and will only work when the required 270 electoral votes are
gained with the bill--this means all voters would have their votes tallied in a presidential election and it eliminates swing
states with a winner takes all approach. The electoral college and state control of elections are preserved and every one is happy.
I feel like you've not read up on any of this even though I provide a link. 12 of these bills have been enacted into state law
already, comprising of 172 electoral votes and 3,112 legislative sponsors. That's more than halfway there.
To continue to say that changing the way we vote by altering the EC is a fantasy is in itself a fantasy because obviously it is
gaining traction across the country.
Which 'side' do you imagine I'm on Mike ? FYI.. Im not a member of any tribe especially regarding the republican or democrat parties...
you may have noticed that as part of the progress towards a globalized economy, 'Money' now has open borders...but the restrictions
of movement for people are growing as nationalism rises and wealth and the power it yields, becomes ever more concentrated in
fewer hands...this is a dangerous precedent and history repeats if lessons of the past are not learned.
I can well recall when humanity and the ability of the individual to attain freedom and liberty based upon the merit of the individual
was once celebrated.
What really irks me and causes me to voice my opinion on this forum, ( thank you Guardian for your continued efforts at informing
us all and especially for promoting participation) is how easily people are duped .. when 'others' can easily see that they are
being lied to. My parents fought for freedom and liberty against vicious tyranny in Europe and paid a HUGE price..by the time
the scales had tipped the balance towards fascism, it was far too late for anything other than all out war... the fact that they
survived the required sacrifice to pitch in to protect democracy, and the freedom and liberty which comes with it, still seems
miraculous..
Billionaires on the left should put some of that money into paying for and distributing subscriptions to newspapers and magazines
which live up to the standards of professional journalism. These papers should be made available, free, at high schools, colleges,
libraries, and commercial centers of loitering and "neighborly" discussions. May I suggest the NYT, WP, The Guardian, and The
Economist.
"What the country sorely needs is a new constitution."
No thanks! The Founders were quite a bit more intelligent than the current national 'brain trust' -- on the both sides
of the Aisle -- that would be charged with writing a new Constitution.
1) Democracy with a population that is at least minimally engaged and angrily stays that
way (including removing powerful special interests from premises with pitchforks)
2) Being "managed" on behalf of various power centers. This can be liveable or can turn into
strip mining of your "resources".
Sadly, there is no algorithm that allows you to detect whether your are engaged or are
being engaged on behalf of others. That would be easy. But one should start with a minimal
state, hard money and the sons of the upper crust on the front lines and forbidden from
taking office in government.
That being said, this article is a bit meandering. Came for Bellingcat but was
confused.
Who presented the Emmy Award to the film makers, but none other than the rebel
journalist Chris Hedges.
@El Dato "1) Democracy with a population that is at least minimally engaged and angrily
stays that way (including removing powerful special interests from premises with pitchforks)"
There are no revolutions by means of pitchforks in a democracy, everything is weakened by
compromise, false promises, infiltration, manipulation, etc. You cannot stay angry all the
time too, it is very bad for your health, it needs to be short and intense to be effective,
which is exactly what democracy prevents.
Democracy turns you into a petted animal.
CARLSON: But more broadly, what you are saying, I think is, that the Democratic Party
understands what it is and who it represents and affirmatively represents them. They do
things for their voters, but the Republican Party doesn't actually represent its own voters
very well.
VANCE: Yes, that's exactly right. I mean, look at who the Democratic Party is and look, I
don't like the Democratic Party's policies.
CARLSON: Yes.
VANCE: Most of the times, I disagree with them. But I at least admire that they recognize
who their voters are and they actually just as raw cynical politics do a lot of things to
serve those voters.
Now, look at who Republican voters increasingly are. They are people who
disproportionately serve in the military, but Republican foreign policy has been a disaster
for a lot of veterans. They are disproportionately folks who want to have more children.
They are people who want to have more single earner families. They are people who don't
necessarily want to go to college but they want to work in an economy where if you play by
the rules, you can you actually support a family on one income.
CARLSON: Yes.
VANCE: Have Republicans done anything for those people really in the last 15 or 20 years?
I think can you point to some policies of the Trump administration. Certainly, instinctively,
I think the President gets who his voters are and what he has to do to service those folks.
But at the end of the day, the broad elite of the party, the folks who really call the shots,
the think tank intellectuals, the people who write the policy, I just don't think they
realize who their own voters are.
Now, the slightly more worrying implication is that maybe some of them do realize who
their voters are, they just don't actually like those voters much.
CARLSON: Well, that's it. So I watch the Democratic Party and I notice that if there is a
substantial block within it, it's this unstable coalition, all of these groups have nothing
in common, but the one thing they have in common is the Democratic Party will protect
them.
VANCE: Yes.
CARLSON: You criticize a block of Democratic Voters and they are on you like a wounded
wombat. They will bite you. The Republicans, watch their voters come under attack and sort of
nod in agreement, "Yes, these people should be attacked."
VANCE: Yes, that's absolutely right. I mean, if you talk to people who spent their lives
in D.C. I know you live in D.C.
CARLSON: Yes.
VANCE: I've spent a lot of my life here. The people who spend their time in D.C. who work
on Republican campaigns, who work at conservative think tanks, now this isn't true of
everybody, but a lot of them actually don't like the people who are voting for Republican
candidates these days.
"... Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has not seen these levels of concentration of ownership. The Soviet Union did not die because of apparent ideological reasons but due to economic bankruptcy caused by its uncompetitive monopolistic economy. Our verdict is that the US is heading in the same direction. ..."
"... In a future instalment of this report, we will show that the oligarchization of America – the placing it under the rule of the One Percent (or perhaps more accurately the 0.1%, if not 0.01%) - has been a deliberate ideologically driven long-term project to establish absolute economic power over the US and its political system and further extend that to involve an absolute global hegemony (the latter project thankfully thwarted by China and Russia). ..."
"... In present-day United States a few major investors – equity funds or private capital - are as a rule cross-owned by each other, forming investor oligopolies, which in turn own the business oligopolies. ..."
"... A study has shown that among a sample of the 1,500 largest US firms (S&P 1500), the probability of one major shareholder holding significant shares in two competing firms had jumped to 90% in 2014, while having been just 16% in 1999. (*2). ..."
"... Institutional investors like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Fidelity, and JP Morgan, now own 80% of all stock in S&P 500 listed companies. The Big Three investors - BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street – alone constitute the largest shareholder in 88% of S&P 500 firms, which roughly correspond to America's 500 largest corporations. (*3). Both BlackRock and Vanguard are among the top five shareholders of almost 70% of America's largest 2,000 publicly traded corporations. (*4). ..."
A close-knit oligarchy controls all major corporations. Monopolization of ownership in US
economy fast approaching Soviet levels
Starting with Ronald Reagan's presidency, the US government willingly decided to ignore the
anti-trust laws so that corporations would have free rein to set up monopolies. With each
successive president the monopolistic concentration of business and shareholding in America has
grown precipitously eventually to reach the monstrous levels of the present day.
Today's level of monopolistic concentration is of such unprecedented levels that we may
without hesitation designate the US economy as a giant oligopoly. From economic power follows
political power, therefore the economic oligopoly translates into a political oligarchy. (It
seems, though, that the transformation has rather gone the other way around, a ferocious set of
oligarchs have consolidated their economic and political power beginning from the turn of the
twentieth century). The conclusion that
the US is an oligarchy finds support in a 2014 by a Princeton University study.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has not seen these levels of concentration
of ownership. The Soviet Union did not die because of apparent ideological reasons but due to
economic bankruptcy caused by its uncompetitive monopolistic economy. Our verdict is that the
US is heading in the same direction.
In a later report, we will demonstrate how all sectors of the US economy have fallen prey to
monopolization and how the corporate oligopoly has been set up across the country. This post
essentially serves as an appendix to that future report by providing the shocking details of
the concentration of corporate ownership.
Apart from illustrating the monopolization at the level of shareholding of the major
investors and corporations, we will in a follow-up post take a somewhat closer look at one
particularly fatal aspect of this phenomenon, namely the
consolidation of media (posted simultaneously with the present one) in the hands of
absurdly few oligarch corporations. In there, we will discuss the monopolies of the tech giants
and their ownership concentration together with the traditional media because they rightfully
belong to the same category directly restricting speech and the distribution of opinions in
society.
In a future instalment of this report, we will show that the oligarchization of America
– the placing it under the rule of the One Percent (or perhaps more accurately the 0.1%,
if not 0.01%) - has been a deliberate ideologically driven long-term project to establish
absolute economic power over the US and its political system and further extend that to involve
an absolute global hegemony (the latter project thankfully thwarted by China and Russia). To
achieve these goals, it has been crucial for the oligarchs to control and direct the narrative
on economy and war, on all public discourse on social affairs. By seizing the media, the
oligarchs have created a monstrous propaganda machine, which controls the opinions of the
majority of the US population.
We use the words 'monopoly,' 'monopolies,' and 'monopolization' in a broad sense and subsume
under these concepts all kinds of market dominance be it by one company or two or a small
number of companies, that is, oligopolies. At the end of the analysis, it is not of great
importance how many corporations share in the market dominance, rather what counts is the death
of competition and the position enabling market abuse, either through absolute dominance,
collusion, or by a de facto extinction of normal market competition. Therefore we use the term
'monopolization' to describe the process of reaching a critical level of non-competition on a
market. Correspondingly, we may denote 'monopoly companies' two corporations of a duopoly or
several of an oligopoly.
Horizontal shareholding – the cementation of the
oligarchy
One especially perfidious aspect of this concentration of ownership is that the same few
institutional investors have acquired undisputable control of the leading corporations in
practically all the most important sectors of industry. The situation when one or several
investors own controlling or significant shares of the top corporations in a given industry
(business sector) is referred to as horizontal shareholding . (*1). In present-day United
States a few major investors – equity funds or private capital - are as a rule
cross-owned by each other, forming investor oligopolies, which in turn own the business
oligopolies.
A study has shown that among a sample of the 1,500 largest US firms (S&P 1500), the
probability of one major shareholder holding significant shares in two competing firms had
jumped to 90% in 2014, while having been just 16% in 1999. (*2).
Institutional investors like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Fidelity, and JP Morgan, now
own 80% of all stock in S&P 500 listed companies. The Big Three investors - BlackRock,
Vanguard and State Street – alone constitute the largest shareholder in 88% of S&P
500 firms, which roughly correspond to America's 500 largest corporations. (*3). Both BlackRock
and Vanguard are among the top five shareholders of almost 70% of America's largest 2,000
publicly traded corporations. (*4).
Blackrock had as of 2016 $6.2 trillion worth of assets under management, Vanguard $5.1
trillion, whereas State Street has dropped to a distant third with only $1 trillion in assets.
This compares with a total market capitalization of US stocks according to Russell
3000 of $30 trillion at end of 2017 (From 2016 to 2017, the Big Three has of course also
put on assets).Blackrock and Vanguard would then alone own more than one-third of all US
publicly listed shares.
From an expanded sample that includes the 3,000 largest publicly listed corporations
(Russell 3000 index), institutions owned (2016) about
78% of the equity .
The speed of concentration the US economy in the hands of institutions has been incredible.
Still back in 1950s, their share of the equity was 10%, by 1980 it was 30% after which the
concentration has rapidly grown to the present day approximately 80%. (*5). Another study puts
the present (2016) stock market capitalization held by institutional investors at 70%. (*6).
(The slight difference can possibly be explained by variations in the samples of companies
included).
As a result of taking into account the common ownership at investor level, it emerges that
the US economy is yet much more monopolized than it was previously thought when the focus had
been on the operational business corporation alone detached from their owners. (*7).
The
Oligarch owners assert their control
Apologists for monopolies have argued that the institutional investors who manage passive
capital are passive in their own conduct as shareholders as well. (*8). Even if that would be
true it would come with vastly detrimental consequences for the economy as that would mean that
in effect there would be no shareholder control at all and the corporate executives would
manage the companies exclusively with their own short-term benefits in mind, inevitably leading
to corruption and the loss of the common benefits businesses on a normally functioning
competitive market would bring.
In fact, there seems to have been a period in the US economy – before the rapid
monopolization of the last decade -when such passive investors had relinquished control to the
executives. (*9). But with the emergence of the Big Three investors and the astonishing
concentration of ownership that does not seem to hold water any longer. (*10). In fact, there
need not be any speculation about the matter as the monopolist owners are quite candid about
their ways. For example, BlackRock's CEO Larry Fink sends out
an annual guiding letter to his subject, practically to all the largest firms of the US and
increasingly also Europe and the rest of the West. In his pastoral, the CEO shares his view of
the global conditions affecting business prospects and calls for companies to adjust their
strategies accordingly.
The investor will eventually review the management's strategic plans for compliance with the
guidelines. Effectively, the BlackRock CEO has in this way assumed the role of a giant central
planner, rather like the Gosplan, the central planning agency of the Soviet command
economy.
The 2019 letter (referenced above) contains this striking passage, which should quell all
doubts about the extent to which BlackRock exercises its powers:
"As we seek to build long-term value for our clients through engagement, our aim is not to
micromanage a company's operations. Instead, our primary focus is to ensure board
accountability for creating long-term value. However, a long-term approach should not be
confused with an infinitely patient one. When BlackRock does not see progress despite ongoing
engagement, or companies are insufficiently responsive to our efforts to protect our clients'
long-term economic interests, we do not hesitate to exercise our right to vote against
incumbent directors or misaligned executive compensation."
Considering the striking facts rendered above, we should bear in mind that the establishment
of this virtually absolute oligarch ownership over all the largest corporations of the United
States is a relatively new phenomenon. We should therefore expect that the centralized control
and centralized planning will rapidly grow in extent as the power is asserted and methods are
refined.
Most of the capital of those institutional investors consists of so-called passive capital,
that is, such cases of investments where the investor has no intention of trying to achieve any
kind of control of the companies it invests in, the only motivation being to achieve as high as
possible a yield. In the overwhelming majority of the cases the funds flow into the major
institutional investors, which invest the money at their will in any corporations. The original
investors do not retain any control of the institutional investors, and do not expect it
either. Technically the institutional investors like BlackRock and Vanguard act as fiduciary
asset managers. But here's the rub, while the people who commit their assets to the funds may
be considered as passive investors, the institutional investors who employ those funds are most
certainly not.
Cross-ownership of oligarch corporations
To make matters yet worse, it must be kept in mind that the oligopolistic investors in turn
are frequently cross-owned by each other. (*11). In fact, there is no transparent way of
discovering who in fact controls the major institutional investors.
One of the major institutional investors, Vanguard is ghost owned insofar as it does not
have any owners at all in the traditional sense of the concept. The company claims that it is
owned by the multiple funds that it has itself set up and which it manages. This is how the
company puts it on
their home page : "At Vanguard, there are no outside owners, and therefore, no conflicting
loyalties. The company is owned by its funds, which in turn are owned by their shareholders --
including you, if you're a Vanguard fund investor." At the end of the analysis, it would then
seem that Vanguard is owned by Vanguard itself, certainly nobody should swallow the charade
that those funds stuffed with passive investor money would exercise any ownership control over
the superstructure Vanguard. We therefore assume that there is some group of people (other than
the company directors) that have retained the actual control of Vanguard behind the scenes
(perhaps through one or a few of the funds). In fact, we believe that all three (BlackRock,
State Street and Vanguard) are tightly controlled by a group of US oligarchs (or more widely
transatlantic oligarchs), who prefer not to brandish their power. It is beyond the scope of
this study and our means to investigate this hypothesis, but whatever, it is bad enough that as
a proven fact these three investor corporations wield this control over most of the American
economy. We also know that the three act in concert wherever they hold shares.
(*12).
Now, let's see who are the formal owners of these institutional investors
In considering these ownership charts, please, bear in mind that we have not consistently
examined to what degree the real control of one or another company has been arranged through a
scheme of issuing different classes of shares, where a special class of shares give vastly more
voting rights than the ordinary shares. One source asserts
that 355 of the companies in the Russell index consisting of the 3000 largest corporations
employ such a dual voting-class structure, or 11.8% of all major corporations.
We have mostly relied on www.stockzoa.com for the shareholder data. However, this and
other sources tend to list only the so-called institutional investors while omitting corporate
insiders and other individuals. (We have no idea why such strange practice is employed
Oligarchy owns the USA political system and tune it to their needs. Proliferation of NGO is one such trick that favor
oligarchy.
That kind of influence over expert opinion is immense—and it yields results. In April, Gates called for a nationwide total
lockdown for 10 weeks. America didn’t quite sink to that level of draconian control, but the shutdowns we did get absolutely
crushed small businesses. Massive tech firms, however, made out like bandits. Microsoft stock is at an all-time high.
Notable quotes:
"... Non-profit activity lets super-elites broker political power tax-free, reshaping the world according to their designs. ..."
"... The American tax code makes all of this possible. It greases the skids for the wealthy to use their fortunes to augment their political power. The 501(c)(3) designation makes all donations, of whatever size, to charitable nonprofits immune from taxation. ..."
"... For the super-wealthy, political power comes tax-free. ..."
"... No one ever elected Bill Gates to anything. His wealth, and not the democratic process, is the only reason he has an outsized voice in shaping coronavirus policy. The man who couldn't keep viruses out of Windows now wants to vaccinate the planet. That isn't an unreasonable goal for a man of his wealth, either. Gates's foundation is the second largest donor to the World Health Organization, providing some 10 percent of its funds . That kind of influence over expert opinion is immense -- and it yields results. In April , Gates called for a nationwide total lockdown for 10 weeks. America didn't quite sink to that level of draconian control, but the shutdowns we did get absolutely crushed small businesses. Massive tech firms, however, made out like bandits. Microsoft stock is at an all-time high . ..."
"... Eliminating the tax exemption for charitable giving would make it simple to heavily tax the capital gains that drive the wealth of America's richest one thousand people. One could also leave the exemption in place for most Americans (those with a net worth under $100 million), while making larger gifts, especially those over a billion dollars, taxable at extremely high rates close to 100%. Bill Gates wants to give a billion dollars to his foundation? Great. But he should pay a steep fee to the American people to purchase that kind of power. ..."
"... There is nothing socialist in these or similar tax proposals. We are not making an abstract commentary on whether having a billion dollars is "moral." These are simply prudential measures to put the people back in charge of their own country. Reining in billionaires and monopolists is a conservative free market strategy. ..."
"... An America governed by Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and George Soros will be -- arguably, already is -- a disaster for the middle class and everyday Americans. Cracking down on their "selfless" philanthropy, combined with antitrust enforcement and higher progressive tax rates, is a key way for Americans to leverage the power of the ballot box against the power of the banker's vault. ..."
"... The rotting edifice that is the United States is coming down one way or another. Just accept it. ..."
"... I would end tax exempt status for organizations. When everyone pays taxes we all become better stewards of how that money is used. ..."
"... To think both Mr. Dreher and Mr. Van Buren just recently posted about the superwealthy leaving the big cities, citing as the main reasons the Covid thing on the one hand, and "excessively high" income taxes on the other. Most comments that followed were in the line of "that's what happens when you let socialists run things" and "stop giving money to the poor, then they'll work and get rich." And here we have someone proposing more and higher taxes on the wealthy to bust their political nuts. ..."
"... It's an interesting proposal, but it seems that if you're worried about super-elites brokering political power tax-free, you might focus on direct brokering of political power. For example, we could pass a law requiring full disclosure of all sources of funding for any political advertising. ..."
Non-profit activity lets super-elites broker political power tax-free, reshaping the world
according to their designs.
America's super-wealthy have too much power. A republican regime based on the consent of the
governed cannot survive when a few hands control too large a sum of money and too much human
capital. A dominion of monopolists spells ruin for the common man.
The Federal Reserve calculates that, at present, America's total household wealth equals
$104 trillion .
Of that,
$3.4 trillion belongs to America's 600 billionaires alone. Put another way, 3% of the
nation's wealth belongs to 0.0002% of the population. Those 600 names control twice as much
wealth as the least wealthy 170 million Americans combined . This is a problem. Economic
power means political power. In an era of mass media, it has never been easier to manufacture
public opinion and to manipulate the citizenry.
Look no further than the consensus view of
Fortune 500 companies as to the virtues of Black Lives Matter. That movement's incredible
cultural reach is, in large part, a function of its cachet among American elites. In 2016, the
Ford Foundation began a
Black-Led Movement Fund to funnel $100 million into racial and social justice causes.
George Soros' Open Society Foundation immediately poured in $33 million in grants.
Soros and company received a massive return on investment. The shift leftward on issues of
racial and social justice in the last four years has been nothing short of remarkable.
Net public support for BLM , at minus 5 percent in 2018, has surged to plus 28 percent in
2020. The New York Times estimates that some 15 to
26 million Americans participated in recent protests over George Floyd's death.
And the money keeps flowing. In the last three months, hundreds of millions of dollars have
poured into social and racial justice causes.
Sony Music Group , the
NFL ,
Warner Music Group , and
Comcast all have promised gifts in excess of $100 million. MacKenzie Bezos has
promised more than a billion dollars to Historically Black Colleges and Universities as
well as other racial and social justice organizations. Yet, as scholars like Heather
MacDonald have pointed out -- America's justice system is not racist. Disquieting anecdotes
and wrenching videos blasted across cyberspace are not the whole of, or even representative of,
our reality. But well-heeled media and activism campaigns can change the perception. That's
what matters.
The American tax code makes all of this possible. It greases the skids for the wealthy to
use their fortunes to augment their political power. The 501(c)(3) designation makes all
donations, of whatever size, to charitable nonprofits immune from taxation.
A man can only eat so much filet mignon in one lifetime. He can only drive so many
Lamborghinis and vacation in so many French chalets. At a certain point, the longing for
material pleasures gives way to a longing for honor and power. What a super-elite really wants
is to be remembered for "changing the world." The tax code makes the purchasing of such honors
even easier than buying fast cars and luxury homes.
For the super-wealthy, political power comes tax-free.
No one ever elected Bill Gates to anything. His wealth, and not the democratic process, is
the only reason he has an outsized voice in shaping coronavirus policy. The man who couldn't
keep viruses out of Windows now wants to vaccinate the
planet. That isn't an unreasonable goal for a man of his wealth, either. Gates's foundation
is the second largest donor to the World Health Organization,
providing some 10 percent of its funds . That kind of influence over expert opinion is
immense -- and it yields results.
In April , Gates called for a nationwide total lockdown for 10 weeks. America didn't quite
sink to that level of draconian control, but the shutdowns we did get absolutely crushed small
businesses. Massive tech firms, however, made out like bandits. Microsoft stock is at an
all-time high .
No one ever voted on those lockdowns, either. Like the mask-wearing mandates, they were
instituted by executive fiat. The experts
, many of them funded through donations given by tech billionaires like Gates , campaigned for policies that
radically altered the basic structure of society. Here lies the danger of billionaire power.
Without adequate checks and balances, the super-wealthy can skirt the normal political process,
working behind the scenes to make policies that the people never even have a chance to debate
or vote on.
A republic cannot be governed this way. America needs to bring its current crop of oligarchs
to heel. That starts with constraining their ability to commandeer their massive personal
fortunes to shape policy. Technically, the 501(c)(3) designation prevents political activities
by tax-exempt charities. Those rules apply only to political campaigning and lobbying, however.
They say nothing about funding legal battles or shaping specific policies indirectly through
research and grants. America's universities, think tanks, and advocacy organizations are nearly
universally considered tax-exempt nonprofits. Only a fool would believe they are not
political.
One solution to the nonprofit problem to simply get rid of the charitable exemption all
together. If there is no loophole, it can't be exploited by the mega-wealthy. Most Americans'
charitable giving wouldn't be affected. The average American gives between $2,000 and
$3,000 per year . That is well under the $24,800 standard tax deduction for married
couples. Ninety
percent of taxpayers have no reason to use a line-item deduction. Such a change likely
wouldn't affect wealthy givers either. In
2014 , the average high-income American (defined as making more than $200,000 per year or
having a million dollars in assets) gave an average of $68,000 to charity, and in 2018
93 percent said
their giving had nothing to do with tax breaks.
Eliminating the tax exemption for charitable giving would make it simple to heavily tax the
capital gains that drive the wealth of America's richest one thousand people. One could also
leave the exemption in place for most Americans (those with a net worth under $100 million),
while making larger gifts, especially those over a billion dollars, taxable at extremely high
rates close to 100%. Bill Gates wants to give a billion dollars to his foundation? Great. But
he should pay a steep fee to the American people to purchase that kind of power.
There is nothing socialist in these or similar tax proposals. We are not making an abstract
commentary on whether having a billion dollars is "moral." These are simply prudential measures
to put the people back in charge of their own country. Reining in billionaires and monopolists
is a conservative free market strategy.
Incentives to make more money are generally good. The libertarians are mostly right --
people are usually better judges of how to spend and use their resources than the
government.
But not always. The libertarian account does not adequately recognize man's political
nature. We need law and order. We need a regime where elections matter and the opinions of the
people actually shape policy. Contract law, borders, and taxes are all necessary to human
flourishing, but all impede the total and unrestricted movement of labor and money. At the very
top of the wealth pyramid, concentrated economic power always turns into political power. An
economic policy that doesn't recognize that fact will create an untouchable class that controls
both the market and the regime. There's nothing freeing about that outcome.
An America governed by Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and George Soros will be --
arguably, already is -- a disaster for the middle class and everyday Americans. Cracking
down on their "selfless" philanthropy, combined with antitrust enforcement and higher
progressive tax rates, is a key way for Americans to leverage the power of the ballot box
against the power of the banker's vault.
Josiah Lippincott is a former Marine officer and current Master's student at the Van
Andel School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College.
I'd like to thank the author for actually discussing policy proposals that actually
make sense. That's a rarity on TAC. However, he needs to keep a couple of things in
mind:
1. You can't just say something isn't socialist on a conservative website.
Conservatives have been conditioned for decades to believe that anything the GOP
considers to be bad is called by the name "socialism". And taxes are bad. Therefore
socialist. To bring any nuance to that word will be devastating to long-term conservative
ability to argue points.
2. This proposal won't just hurt the ability of left-leaning tech giants, but also
right-leaning oil and defense industry barons. A double-edged sword.
This is an interesting idea that might have had a shot, big maybe, 50 plus years ago.
America is too far gone to fix with political changes, not that you could make any major
changes like this in the current political environment.
The rotting edifice that is the United States is coming down one way or another. Just
accept it.
Certainly! Just so long as the word "organizations" encompasses churches as well, I
think lots of people on all sides of the political spectrum would agree.
Complicated argument. Basically, charitable people will always give charity, even from
taxed income. However, if people give charity from taxed income, the state can no longer
control what the institutions given money do with that money as long as salaries and
surplus are taxed.
Interesting proposal. Removing tax deduction should of course throw IRS out of
monitoring charitable giving. So less power to Lois Lerner and colleagues.
To think both Mr. Dreher and Mr. Van Buren just recently posted about the superwealthy
leaving the big cities, citing as the main reasons the Covid thing on the one hand, and
"excessively high" income taxes on the other. Most comments that followed were in the
line of "that's what happens when you let socialists run things" and "stop giving money
to the poor, then they'll work and get rich." And here we have someone proposing more and
higher taxes on the wealthy to bust their political nuts.
Note that the author carefully left out any mention of conservative megadonors shaping
public policy. Must be the quiet part, to avoid tarring and feathering by his own
side.
Say you like the game of Monopoly so much that you want it to last longer than
the few hours it takes for one player to dominate and beat the others. Well, you could
replace $200 as you pass Go with progessive taxation on income, assets, or a combination
thereof. If you do it right, you can make the game last into perpetuity by ensuring that
the dominance of any one player is only temporary.
It's an interesting proposal, but it seems that if you're worried about super-elites
brokering political power tax-free, you might focus on direct brokering of political
power. For example, we could pass a law requiring full disclosure of all sources of
funding for any political advertising.
If we wanted to be aggressive, we could even pass
a constitutional amendment to specify that corporations are not people. It seems odd to
worry about the political power exercised by institutions with no direct control over
politics, and ignore the institution whose purpose is politics.
Another approach to deal with the direct influence of the super-elite would be to make
lobbying expenses no longer tax deductible. I'm sure you could find support for that.
This is the 5th TAC article since May to take something word-for-word from a Bernie
Sanders-esque Leftist platform and call it something "Conservatives" want. GTFOOH.
Mr. Lippincott: That kind of influence over expert opinion is immense -- and it yields
results. In April, Gates called for a nationwide total lockdown for 10 weeks. America
didn't quite sink to that level of draconian control, but the shutdowns we did get
absolutely crushed small businesses. Massive tech firms, however, made out like bandits.
Microsoft stock is at an all-time high.
So the argument here is that the experts were not going to call for a lockdown, but
Mr. Gates' outsized influence made them do it? The experts weren't going to do it anyway?
Did that outsized influence extend to every other country in the world which imposed
lockdowns? Was there a secret communique between Mr. Gates and the NBA so they suspended
their season in mid-March? In the US, CA, Clark Cty in NV, Illinois, Kansas City, MA, MI,
NY, OR, and WI all began lockdowns in March. Around the world, 80 countries began
lockdowns in March. No matter what Mr. Gates said, lockdowns were deemed to be
appropriate. Plus, Mr. Lippincott admits that Mr. Gates' proposal was not followed. In
terms of "massive tech firms making out like bandits" v small businesses, might that have
anything to do with their value?
I very much agree with this article and I think we need another Teddy Roosevelt
Monopoly (oligarchy) buster but much has changed in the 100 years since Teddy Roosevelt
was President. The first thing that comes to mind is that the aristocracy was mostly
protestant and the business class was mostly domestic with high tariffs keeping foreign
competitors out so we could break up these companies without a foreign country purchasing
them and possibly creating a national security risk.
Today's aristocracy is much more diverse. Its more Jewish and it has much more
minority representation from African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, etc so that creates
the first problem in breaking up a monopoly or an oligarchy which would be the accusation
of targeting minorities for discrimination. The second problem is that many of the
aristocratic class in the US consider themselves global citizens and have dual
citizenship. They can live anywhere anytime they choose so if you target them the way say
Cuomo and DiBlasio and Newsom do then they will leave. Third problem is our global
society particularly the digital / virtual society. If you break that up without
safeguards then you will only be inviting foreign ownership then you will have a national
security issue and even less influence.
The biggest problem is the NGOs, nonprofits that the rich set up to usurp the
government on various issues from immigration to gender identity to politics. These NGO
nonprofits arent your harmless community soup kitchen doing good works. The anarchy,
arson, looting, rioting in Portland, Seattle, Chicago, NYC, Baltimore these are paid for
by NGO nonprofits and they have the money to threaten local government, state government
and federal government. Trump was 100% correct when he started to tax college endowments
but he didnt go far enough. The tax laws have to be rewritten with a very strict and
narrow interpretation of what exactly constitutes the public good and is deserving on
non-profit status. If you say education then I will say you are correct but endowments
are an investment vehicle under the umbrella of an educational nonprofit. Thats like a
nonprofit hospital buying a mutual fund company or a mine or a manufacturing plan and
claiming its non-profit. For me its relatively simple unless someone has a some other
way. If you look at the non-profit community good...what are the budgets for say
hospitals, schools, orphanages, retirement homes, etc. Put monetary limits on nonprofits
which can vary depending on industry and the rest is taxed at a high rate. We simply
cannot have NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) using a nonprofit status to bring down a
country's financial system, over-throwing a country, financing civil strife and civil
war, usurping the government on things like immigration, etc.
Billionaires like Jeff Bezos aren't obscenely wealthy because they work harder than everyone
else or they're more innovative. They're obscenely wealthy because their corporate empires
drain society's resources -- and we'd all be better off without them.
This week, Amazon CEO
Jeff Bezos saw the largest single-day increase in wealth ever recorded for any individual. In
just one day, his fortune increased by $13 billion. On current trends, he is on track to become
the world's first trillionaire by 2026.Those on the right wing of politics argue that extreme
wealth is a function of hard work, creativity, and innovation that benefits society. But wealth
and income inequality have increased dramatically in most advanced economies in recent years.
The richest of the rich are much wealthier today than they were several decades ago, but it is
not clear that they are working any harder.
Mainstream economists make a more nuanced version of this argument. They claim that the
dramatic increase in income inequality has been driven by the dynamics of globalization and the
rise of "superstars." Firms and corporate executives are now competing in a global market for
capital and talent, so the rewards at the top are much higher -- even as competition also
constrains wages for many toward the bottom end of the distribution.
According to this view, high levels of inequality are a reward for high productivity. The
most productive firms will attract more investment than their less productive counterparts, and
their managers, who are performing a much more complex job than those managing smaller firms,
will be rewarded accordingly.
But here again the narrative runs aground on contact with reality. Productivity has not
risen alongside inequality in recent years. In fact, in the United States and the UK
productivity has flatlined since the financial crisis -- and in the United States, it has been
declining since the turn of the century.
There is another explanation for the huge profits of the world's largest corporations and
the huge fortunes of the superrich. Not higher productivity. Not simply globalization. But
rising global market power.
Many of the world's largest tech companies have become global oligopolies and domestic
monopolies. Globalization has played a role here, of course -- many domestic firms simply can't
compete with global multinationals. But these firms also use their relative size to push down
wages, avoid taxes, and gouge their suppliers, as well as lobbying governments to provide them
with preferential treatment.
Jeff Bezos and Amazon are a case in point. Amazon has become America's largest company
through anticompetitive practices that have landed it in trouble with the European Union's
competition authorities. The working practices in its warehouses are notoriously appalling . And
a study from last year revealed Amazon to be one of the world's most "aggressive tax
avoiders."
Part of the reason Amazon has to work so hard to maintain its monopoly position is that its
business model relies on network effects that only obtain at a certain scale. Tech companies
like Amazon make money by monopolizing and then selling the data generated from the
transactions on their sites.
The more people who sign up, the more data is generated; and the more data generated, the
more useful this data is for those analyzing it. The monetization of this data is what
generates most of Amazon's returns: Amazon Web Services (AWS) is the most profitable part of
the business by some distance.
Far from representing its social utility, Amazon's market value -- and Bezos' personal
wealth -- reflects its market power. And the rising market power of a small number of larger
firms has actually reduced productivity. This concentration has also constrained investment and
wage growth as these firms simply don't have to compete for labor, nor are they forced to
innovate in order to outcompete their rivals.
In fact, they're much more likely to use their profits to buy back their own shares, or to
acquire other firms that will increase their market share and give them access to more data.
Amazon's recent acquisition of grocery store Whole Foods is likely to be the first of many such
moves by tech companies. Rather than the Darwinian logic of compete or die, the tech companies
face a different imperative: expand or die.
States are supporting this logic with exceptionally loose monetary policy. Low interest
rates make it very easy for large companies to borrow to fund mergers and acquisitions. And
quantitative easing -- unleashed on an unprecedented scale to tackle the pandemic -- has simply
served to raise equity prices, especially for the big tech companies.
As more areas of our lives become subject to the power of big tech, the fortunes of people
like Bezos will continue to mount. Their rising wealth will not represent a reward for
innovation or job creation, but for their market power, which has allowed them to increase the
exploitation of their workforces, gouge suppliers, and avoid taxes.
The only real way to tackle these inequities is to democratize the ownership of the means of
production, and begin to hand the key decisions in our economy back to the people. But you
would expect that even social democrats, who won't pursue transformative policies, could get
behind measures such as a wealth tax.
"Building back better" after the pandemic will be impossible without such a tax -- and the
vast majority of both Labour and Conservative voters support such an approach, according to a
recent poll. And yet it appears that Labour's leadership are retreating from the idea.
In an interview the other day, I was asked why we should care about Jeff Bezos's wealth
if it makes everyone else better off. But the extreme inequalities generated by modern
capitalism are making obvious something that Marxists have known for decades: the superrich
generate their wealth at the expense of workers, the planet, and society as a whole.
In a rational and fair society, the vast resources of a tiny elite would be put to use
solving our social problems.
Wishful thinking. The neoliberal oligarchy is in conrol of all political power centers. Looks like neoliberal ideas became completely discredited. Even Krugman abandoned them.
Notable quotes:
"... In the age of AI the US needs a grand rebuilding of our infrastructure including electrical grids, bridges, highways, mass transit systems, and conversion to renewable energy. ..."
"... Elizabeth Warren showed her chops years ago when she was a guest on Bill Moyer's PBS show, and I've been a fan ever since. But - we don't just need more of Teddy Roosevelt - we need a good dose of Franklin Roosevelt, too ..."
"... In Senator Warren we finally have a politician who understands the difference between wealth and income and is willing to start taxing wealth. This is especially important as the truly wealthy receive very little of their money in the form of income and are therefore taxed on far less than they are actually worth. This only serves to exacerbate our inequality problem. ..."
"... Extreme income inequality is damaging to social capital and to public health - and thus in the long run to sustainable prosperity. The American epidemic of depression, opioid abuse and suicide is is correlated with the acceleration of income inequality. ..."
"... Finally, Senator Warren's proposal seems like an acceleration of the estate tax. ..."
"... Having worked in trusts and estates law for decades, I suspect that this proposal will invite use of the same techniques used by estate planners, lawyers, and accountants to drive down the fair market value of assets. Her proposal may work, if it is ever enacted, but the devil, as usual, will be in the details. This is a very complex concept, simple as it may seem at first blush. That is not an argument for not trying, but for being very careful in the implementation, beginning with the statutory language. ..."
"... This tax will require staffing up the IRS and that will require dems control over both houses of Congress as the GOPers have defunded the IRS. ..."
"... Pretax income concentration at the top increased starting in the 1980s as a direct result of the large reductions in the top marginal income tax rates. ..."
"... Even if a 70% top marginal tax rate did not raise a penny more in tax revenue it would still be justified on the grounds of preventing extreme concentration of wealth and income. Recent economic research has shown that in a purely capitalistic society in which there is no taxation nor redistribution all wealth in the whole society will ultimately be owned by a single household. https://voxeu.org/article/what-would-wealth-distribution-look-without-redistribution ..."
"... I applaud Elizabeth Warren and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez for espousing Teddy an Franklin Roosevelt's ideas about reducing the concentration of 90% of wealth in the upper 1/10th of 1 per cent (0.1%). That is the situation which can lead to major social unrest, widespread crime, and ultimately, civil war as happened in England in the 17th century, in Russia in 1917, and in the French Revolution that beheaded Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette - along with thousands of other members of the nobility. ..."
"... "wealthiest 0.1 percent of Americans almost equal to that of the bottom 90 percent combined." The corrupt neoliberalism of the 1% is unsustainable but is reflective of a downward spiral of decline. While we experience continuous political campaigning the U.S. is, in reality, a criminal and corrupt corporate state enriching the 1% and masquerading as a democracy, an Inverted Totalitarianism. ..."
"... Great. The pendulum swings back to sensible taxation rates for the ultra wealthy. Hard to feel sorry for hedge fund managers. I can just see Sean Hannity railing against it now. He would have to cough up. ..."
"... Fascinating article. Thanks for sharing. Her Accountable Capitalism Act also addresses the root causes of inequality, although some critics have stated that it would lead to the semi-nationalization of business. ..."
@Horsepower the tax bill has, as predicted by almost everyone but the GOP lawmakers,
caused the deficit to balloon. Currently, the resulting debt must be paid by the descendents
of all of us but the ultra-wealthy. The alternative to that approach, openly proposed by the
GOP, was to take away vital services from most of us, like medical care, public education,
and retirement support. I'm surprised that you don't find those things "consequential to the
life of most Americans".
There is no reason -- economic, social or moral -- why anyone needs a personal fortune above
$500 million dollars.
Eddie Cohen M.D ecohen2 . com Poway, California Jan. 29
In the age of AI the US needs a grand rebuilding of our infrastructure including
electrical grids, bridges, highways, mass transit systems, and conversion to renewable
energy.
It also needs a medical care system that provides a high level of to all of our
citizens including the poor and those with pre-existing conditions. What better down payment
on these costly necessities than a tax on the ultra rich.
Elizabeth Warren showed her chops years ago when she was a guest on Bill Moyer's PBS show,
and I've been a fan ever since. But - we don't just need more of Teddy Roosevelt - we need a
good dose of Franklin Roosevelt, too.
Given where this country is at, taxing the uber-rich
alone isn't going to be enough to solve our problems. We need a jobs program - good, family
wage jobs - that have been chipped away at for decades by both automation and off-shoring.
Taxing will help fund much needed gov't infrastructure problems, but it's purchasing power
that drives the economy - and we can't have one without a vibrant middle class that's
actually making and doing stuff. Since the Clinton years, the USA has spawned a bloated
investor class, making a lot of money shuffling paper, but what do they produce that drives
this country forward? Our infrastructure is fast becoming 3rd world.
In Senator Warren we finally have a politician who understands the difference between
wealth and income and is willing to start taxing wealth. This is especially important as the
truly wealthy receive very little of their money in the form of income and are therefore
taxed on far less than they are actually worth. This only serves to exacerbate our inequality
problem. The big banks, in particular, are very worried about what would happen should Warren
become president. Like that other Roosevelt - Franklin - she welcomes their hatred. Good for
her.
Extreme income inequality is damaging to social capital and to public health - and thus in
the long run to sustainable prosperity. The American epidemic of depression, opioid abuse and
suicide is is correlated with the acceleration of income inequality.
Worldwide, countries
with high income inequality have more depression, more suicide and less happiness, even when
their per capita GNP is higher than their neighbors'. The toxic effects of inequality are
especially great in a nation like the US where children are taught that anyone can make it if
they work hard enough. In fact, there's a lot more upward mobility in those awful socialist
Nordic countries, where teaching public school is a prestigious and well-paid job, college
and vocational training are taxpayer-funded (not 'free'), and no one goes bankrupt from a
serious illness or injury.
Without endorsing anyone's proposals here, a couple of examples from recent history on
what's actually possible, despite what people may think: -- Six weeks before the Berlin Wall
fell and reunited Germany, the then-West German government issued a report projecting that
German reunification was at least 20 years away. -- Japan went from a highly-nuclear power
dependent country, with no prospect of changing, to one that drastically cut its dependence
on nuclear in just one year after the Fukushima disaster. -- One of my favorites: FDR sits
down with the leaders of General Motors at the dawn of WWII and says I need so many tanks, so
many trucks etc etc for the war effort. A GM exec responds on these lines: "Mr. President, we
can't fulfill those needs and still produce X-hundred-thousand cars a year." FDR: "You don't
understand. You're no longer a car company." So the lesson is, no one knows what's possible
in a society till you try.
Eliminating carried interest seems perfectly rational. Compensation by any other name is
compensation and taxable as ordinary income as it is for everyone else in this country. Once
upon a time, capital gains were taxed at 15% and ordinary income at rates as high as 91%.
That led to all sorts of devices to game the system, including the infamous collapsible
corporation.
But with the difference down to around 10-15%, we may as well bite the bullet
and tax income from capital at the same rate we tax income from work. I doubt this will hurt
savings, investment, or capital formation.
It is still nice to have money, and owning capital
assets will still beat the alternative.
Finally, Senator Warren's proposal seems like an
acceleration of the estate tax.
Having worked in trusts and estates law for decades, I
suspect that this proposal will invite use of the same techniques used by estate planners,
lawyers, and accountants to drive down the fair market value of assets. Her proposal may
work, if it is ever enacted, but the devil, as usual, will be in the details. This is a very
complex concept, simple as it may seem at first blush. That is not an argument for not
trying, but for being very careful in the implementation, beginning with the statutory
language.
@Steve B People receiving Social Security only pay taxes on the benefits if their income
exceeds the same thresholds that apply to people who go out and work for a living, and pay
Social Security taxes that go to the elderly. Ellen, stop treating Social Security like it's
a savings bank.
Your Social Security taxes paid for the generation before you, and the Social
Security taxes raised now are paying for you. The average Social Security recipient today
will receive twice as much as they paid into the system during their earning years.
So please
give the "I'm just getting back the money I paid into the system" routine a rest. It's a
fiction. The wealth of the over 65s is growing faster than any other age group in our
society, and the fraction of government spending on over-65s is the only part of government
that has grown in decades.
If you're making enough to pay income taxes, pay your taxes and
stop complaining. That means you're doing OK. You'd better hope young people don't wake up
and realize just how much of their hard-earned pay is going to pay for
retirees.
The seriousness in her policies is in her work ethics and brilliance. She means what she
says and works her heart out to achieve those goals. There isn't anyone out there that
matches those qualities.
This tax will require staffing up the IRS and that will require dems control over both
houses of Congress as the GOPers have defunded the IRS.
The ultra right, ultra rich will be
paying more and more of their fortunes to their already privately-owned senators to defeat
this and any other progressive tax proposals. We need more, more and more people to get into
the democratic process and VOTE to recapture the nation's leadership in 2020!
Pretax income concentration at the top increased starting in the 1980s as a direct result
of the large reductions in the top marginal income tax rates. Those who complain that a 70%
top marginal tax rate is confiscatory need to understand that's the whole point.
When top
marginal tax rates are confiscatory that leads to lower pre-tax income inequality because tax
aversion of the wealthy leads they to pay themselves less income to avoid paying the
government so much in taxes.
Unlike most workers, corporate executives can easily arrange for
their boards to pay them far more than their marginal product would justify.
Furthermore,
wealth tends to concentrate automatically when top marginal tax rates are low. This is simply
due to the math of compound interest. When investment returns are not taxed sufficiently by
the estate tax or by capital gains taxes, they will be reinvested leading to extreme wealth
accumulation over generations that is automatic and not the result of any kind of investing
skill.
Even if a 70% top marginal tax rate did not raise a penny more in tax revenue it would
still be justified on the grounds of preventing extreme concentration of wealth and income.
Recent economic research has shown that in a purely capitalistic society in which there is no
taxation nor redistribution all wealth in the whole society will ultimately be owned by a
single household. https://voxeu.org/article/what-would-wealth-distribution-look-without-redistribution
@Baldwin Actually, it's 2% on what is on top of those 50M, so 2% on 100M, if you have a
net worth of $150M. That being said, nobody with $150M net worth just "sits" on his money for
35 years. To get there in the first place, in the 21st century you usually have to pay an
expert and engage in financial speculation (= speculation about financial transactions, not
an investment in the "real" economy), and of course you won't stop paying that expert once
you reach $150M, so you continue to add millions to your wealth anyhow. On the other hand, if
you belong to the middle class, you easily pay $30,000 taxes a year.
After ten years, that's
$300,000, and after 33 years that's a million dollars paid in taxes. Seen in this way, even
having the middle class paying taxes seems "unfair", because when they only earn $75,000 a
year, why should they pay a million in taxes over 33 years ... ?
Conclusion: taxes are paid
year after year not in function of how many you will have paid in total at the end of your
career, but in function of what we collectively need to run this country smoothly (military,
government, education, roads and bridges, EPA, ...).
A "fair" tax code is a tax code that
allows anyone who works hard to live comfortably, weather your a hedge fund manager or
teacher. And in order to get there, we can't continue the GOP's constantly lowering taxes for
the wealthiest all while cutting services to the 99%. NO one with $150M will suffer by paying
$2M in taxes a year ...
I applaud Elizabeth Warren and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez for espousing Teddy an Franklin
Roosevelt's ideas about reducing the concentration of 90% of wealth in the upper 1/10th of 1
per cent (0.1%). That is the situation which can lead to major social unrest, widespread
crime, and ultimately, civil war as happened in England in the 17th century, in Russia in
1917, and in the French Revolution that beheaded Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette - along with
thousands of other members of the nobility.
We see this anger and violence today in the
United States - in mass shootings, in failing public schools (the salaries are not sufficient
to attract qualified teachers who instead will work in more remunerative fields, like law and
computer technology. What works better is to reduce the concentration of wealth so people in
the lower 90% can have more prosperity and social stability in their lives.
All people need a
reliable source of food, healthcare, and a place for them and their families to live. All
people need access to good education, family planning, and higher education sufficient to alllow them to work. With so much reliance on mechanical work, we also need for all people to
have a minimum income - something that no one talks abou yet - but enough to live safely.
There is support for this not only among Democrats but also among Republicans. The help
should be for everyone, not based on need (Marxism). This is common sense not
socialism.
It was hilarious to read that Rush Limbaugh is SO terrified of AOC and Liz Warren that he,
the grandmaster of Goebbels-like mis-information, is calling them "hitlerian" as he and
Hannity push Trump every day to emulate Mussolini! But why is simple: I read that Limbaugh
makes about $100 million a year, which puts him in the super-rich category. I doubt highly
that he's paying the maximum 37(?)% on his income and if he is he needs better accountants
and tax lawyers! But AOC's proposal means that $90 million of his $100 million would be taxed
at 70%, leaving him "only" a measly $27 million a year to try not to starve on. Along with
whatever millions are left after taxes on the first $10 million, say, $5 million (again,
needs better tax advice). So he's stuck trying to survive on $32 million! (BTW, Hannity only
makes about $29 million before taxes, Oh! The Humanity!--Or is it "Oh! The Hannity"?) That's
really why they are vitriolic. Taxes are for the "little people", the suckers who call in and
rant, who watch Fox and believe, no matter how illogical their logic. Rush and Sean see a
REAL movement to tax their excessive income and will fight it tooth and nail, with fact and
fiction (mostly fiction) to protect themselves and their wealth.
Interesting how it is almost exactly a hundred years since this problem was dealt with in
the last Gilded Age. Enough time so that the generations that remember are long gone and so
the problem came back.
The Uber rich did this to themselves with their complete disconnect
from the economic realities facing the 99%. TARP was the kicker - we gave a trillion dollars
to the 1% while the 99% were left to fend for themselves. Despite the protestations of the
99%. Now that's political power in the hands of the few for the benefit of the few. Time to
stop it now.
"wealthiest 0.1 percent of Americans almost equal to that of the bottom 90 percent
combined." The corrupt neoliberalism of the 1% is unsustainable but is reflective of a
downward spiral of decline. While we experience continuous political campaigning the U.S. is,
in reality, a criminal and corrupt corporate state enriching the 1% and masquerading as a
democracy, an Inverted Totalitarianism.
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can
have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Louis D.
Brandeis
Great. The pendulum swings back to sensible taxation rates for the ultra wealthy. Hard to
feel sorry for hedge fund managers. I can just see Sean Hannity railing against it now. He
would have to cough up.
This column makes a good case for Elizabeth Warren as Secretary of the Treasury, or head
of the Consumer Protection Bureau which she invented following Dodd Frank legislation. But
the best way to reach the widest audience is a Presidential campaign. Most of the responses
here focus on enough wealth, extreme wealth and self-interest. Beyond their tax liabilities
is the reality of the power the the rich wield through lobbyists, campaign contributions,
corporate takeovers, and tax dodges over our politics, governments, and over us, the people.
It's a pity that any proposed tax fairness adjustments are reduced to epithets against
socialism.
The problem is that the big money against this will say (ie: fund ads saying) anything
(true or false) about any other subject to swing votes against any candidate who's a serious
chance of pushing such a tax increase. One can only hope I am wrong.
Fascinating article. Thanks for sharing. Her Accountable Capitalism Act also addresses the
root causes of inequality, although some critics have stated that it would lead to the
semi-nationalization of business. I think its effect would be commonsense regulation of the
economic playing field so that excesses do not occur in how rewards are distributed. It has
the potential to address issues early enough to prevent problems.
@George Thanks to the Republican budget busting tax holiday for rich folks we will need
every penny of revenue just to keep our fiscal boat afloat. We should add AOC's 70% rate just
to patch our leaks in infrastructure, healthcare, education and social security for the
retirees who were gutted by the 2008 Republican Great Recession.
Since the super-rich are already paying 2+20 for their wealth management, paying another 2
to the government hardly seems like it would kill incentive...
Throughout most of the history of civilizations, governments have been funded by a wealth
tax. This was in the form of property tax, as that was the only wealth there was. Somehow
when financial wealth started to build, it was made largely exempt. Proposals to close this
loophole are well overdue. It's not so radical as it is just restoring traditional funding
methods.
A sure sign of health when Warren, a veteran politician and Ocasio-Cortez, a first term
member of Congress publish ideas early in the election cycle. The next steps are laws that
dismantle Citizens United and protect voting rights.
Elizabeth Warren had better take care. If she doesn't tread softly on these plans to
progressively tax the rich and make them spread the wealth to all those millions of people
out there who have had a hand in generating their economic success, she'll be called
something equally invidious to a 'socialist' -- a 'Canadian'.
Prof. Krugman is speaking truth to power but power tends to speak back, telling our
citizens that progressives like Sen. Warren are aiming to increase taxes across the board.
Never EVER do they narrow the stated target of such projected increases to the uppermost
economic stratum. And progressives always manage to let them get away with this. Democratic
candidates for political office need to assign members of their campaign staffs to Republican
events and arm them with bullhorns for the expressed purpose of shouting out the words "for
the rich" every time a typically disingenuous Republican opponent announces that a specific
Democrat has a plan to raise Americans' taxes.
"More important, my sense is that a lot of conventional political wisdom still assumes
that proposals to sharply raise taxes on the wealthy are too left-wing for American voters."
It's just shocking to me that conservative voters supposedly hate liberal elites, yet refuse
continuously to tax the mega rich and/or ignore the tax cuts for those households. Do they
not see the hypocrisy they're being fed by Fox News?
I know that it's inconvenient, but the US Constituion prohibits a direct tax that is not
apportioned among the states on the basis of population. Hard to see how Ms. Warren's "plan"
meets this standard. Serious presidential candidates need to propose plans that actually have
a chance to work. After what we're experiencing now, we don't need four additional years of
bombast.
@Mkm Can you give any arguments as to why this is unconstitutional, or a source as to when
it was declared so? Note that once (ie, just a few generations ago) abhorrent laws concerning
voting rights and segregation were considered just fine.
@Paul Wortman We indeed tend to believe that the poor and lower middle class must be
(more) ignorant, and as such easier victims of the GOP's massive fake news campaigns. Studies
show however that a majority of those earning less than $100,000 a year voted for Hillary,
whereas a small majority of those earning more than that voted for Trump. That's because her
platform included VERY clear and urgent, fact-based measures that would have helped the poor
and middle class, after Obama already made serious progress on these issues (a public option
added to Obamacare, and many other things). So imho the only ones risking "forgetting" about
the needs of the 99% when it comes to voting, are those who don't carefully fact-check
politicians' achievements and campaign agenda, before voting (or deciding not to vote)
...
@BC The current standard deduction of $12K for single people means that the first $12K is
not taxed ($24K joint) which means that your wish has already come true.
Fundamentally, a fallacy of modern American society is a perversion of the golden rule.
Let's call it "tax not lest ye be taxed." Even though the electorate will never in their
wildest dreams make this kind of income, their wildest dreams persist. And thus they will not
permit the thought of "unfair" taxation on the ultra-rich, using all the talking points the
richest 1% have lobbied deep into our political system at every level.
At this stage in our history when wealth hasn't been more concentrated, raising taxes on
the ultra-rich is exactly what populism is about. Think TR and FDR, not DJT.
@Ronald B. Duke, I think I remember people saying that during the civil rights movement
too. Be patient. You'll get what you want by'n'by. Waiting for dynastic fortunes trickle away
is sort of like waiting for the mountain to be worn away by the wind. It's not gonna happen
in our lifetime. There's always a reason for not depriving the wealthy of any part of their
fortunes. Each time we fail to do that, the need to do it becomes more dire. Things just
don't get better by waiting for someone to voluntarily or even accidentally, divest
themselves of money or power. It can be done by legislation, and that's better than by
revolution. And, you know, the wealth accumulation has already begun. What has to happen now
is to keep it from falling over and crushing all of us (Make that almost all of
us).
@Rockets Pual Krugman is almost surely right about incentives on the individual level
since few of us will hold off just because the second $50 MM is slightly less lucrative. Buts
its funny how he ignores the macroeconomic effect. If the Bezos tax bill was $1 billion, I
think we agree it would come exclusively out of savings. *IF* the government simply used the
proceeds to reduce spending (below some credible prior baseline) then the net effect on
national savings is zero; interest rates unchanged, economic activity unaffected, and so on.
But if the government spends the money (as seems likely under President Warren) then national
savings is reduced and the fed will (in the current environment) probably feel obliged to
push back against a stimulative fiscal policy with a restrictive monetary policy: higher
rates, less investment, less consumer spending, etc. So Bezos has no incentive to invest less
but as a nation we will do just that. Is that good? Maybe - it would have been great in 2009.
Seems to merit a discussion.
The 2020 campaign for POTUS is shaping up to be very interesting. That is, if Trump makes
it. Combine Warren and Harris we would have a great team. Warren adds specifics with
intellectual heft and Harris inspires us with her open, honest and intelligent persona. Just
need to find room for Amy K. on that team.
This is far better than changing the rate on capital gains, which would tend to punish
middle class retirees for having invested over the years (Mr. Rattner's proposal today) and,
I think, would be difficult for the uber-wealthy to avoid. I'm not sure that $50 million is
the correct starting point (perhaps a meager $25 million of net worth should be taxed) but
this is a brilliant new concept that offers promise of slowing wealth inequality while not
terribly constraining the wealthy.
In reading this column and the associated comments, there seems to be one glaring
omission: the necessity of overturning the Citizens United decision which provides the
ultra-rich avenues to continually push their lower taxes agenda by hiring hoards of
lobbyists, by "buying" politicians with campaign contributions, by funding misleading and
excessive political advertising, and by controlling various media outlets that are little
more than propaganda mills. Until Citizens United is overturned much-needed, rational
progressive taxation reforms have little chance of becoming reality, and with the current
composition of the Supreme Court overturning this decision is unfortunately extremely
unlikely.
@Yabasta Yeah, Dr. Krugman must have sustained a hit to the head since 2016 and would not
recognize a photo of Hillary Clinton if it was flashed before him. His incessant savaging of
Bernie was positively embarrassing to witness and never adequately explained. Only goes to
show you that our much vaunted reason is designed to justify our emotions and that even Nobel
laureates have deep subconscious axes to grind.
Under Eisenhower marginal tax rates were approximately 90%. This "Greatest Generation"
built the interstate system. We can't even maintain the interstate system we have let alone
build a new one. Our national-level political system is dominated by the rich. Our economic
policies are totally skewed towards the rich. Our educational system is biased towards the
rich. We've let capitalism trump democracy. If making America Great Again means taxing the
rich back into reality, I have no problem with that. My only annoyance with Mr. Krugman's
essay is his monomaniacal avoidance of saying the word, "Sanders." What's that
about?
This makes perfect sense to me. Under Senator Warren's plan households with more than $50
million of annual income would pay a 2% wealth surcharge. I can't imagine this would have any
significant effect on any of the 75,000 wealthiest U.S. households. I'd much rather see
Michael Bloomberg and his financial peers support broader efforts to make college free or
reduce student debt levels than make more lavish gifts to elite institutions like John
Hopkins.
cks, broken promises, scandal. and a presidency in trouble – all pushed Bill Clinton
into taking a brand new tack: triangulation. In addition to the definition of triangulation
offered by Dick Morris in his Frontline appearance on PBS, here is a quote from his book:
"The idea behind triangulation is to work hard to solve the problems that motivate the other
party's voters, so as to defang them politically The essence of triangulation is to use your
party's solutions to solve the other side's problems. Use your tools to fix their car." The
problem with that is that triangulation has not quite worked out that way. "Their car" wasn't
what was actually being fixed. What the "tools" did address, however, were the goals of the
Republican party.
https://www.rimaregas.com/2017/09/04/triangulation-when-neoliberalism-is-at-its-most-dangerous-to-voters-updated-dem-politics-on-blog42
/
@Jonathan....Current S+P 500 dividend yield is 2.02%. That would provide cash to cover
most of the wealth tax. A wealth tax might impact the market for high end art and
collectibles, but that is probably a very small fraction of total wealth.
@Duane McPherson I realize Warren may have some limitations re emotional appeal (also re
men not wanting to vote for a woman), which is why I said I put her "at the top of my list
for Dems, SO FAR." I'll see how this plays out on the campaign trail. Someone else may emerge
who has both the smarts and the charisma- or Warren may find an emotional niche. Time will
tell.
@Phyliss Dalmatian I'm afraid Sherrod is not liberal enough. Nowadays, if you talk about
bi-partisanship and reaching across the aisle, you're talking about making a deal with the
devil.
This is a pie pie-in-the-sky comment, but I'll stand by the overall premise based on our
history. It's all about the velocity of money and resources. You have to spend it to grow it.
Infrastructure also includes 100% healthcare cradle to grave, baseline living standards,
Social Security clean water, clean air, clean power, full education, etc. Infrastructure is
the key to everything throughout history, period. Close all tax loop holes. Reduce all
business taxes by at least half or more. Create a progressive tax rate starting at 0% raised
all the way to 80% up the ladder. If you don't like it, renounce your citizenship with all of
what that entails and leave. Completely get rid of the cap on Social Security. Everyone
except those at the 0% tax rate pays in 7%. That is fair. Make the business contribution 3%
of the first $100,000 Reinstate a stronger set of anti-trust guard rails. Re-instate a
stronger form of Glass/Steagle. Reinstate a stronger Fairness Doctrine Realize that a
corporation is NOT a person and if we think they are, subject them to the 13th amendment
regarding one person owning another. They also are not allowed participate in anything of a
political nature, in any way shape or form. Period. Full stop. Invest in the poor and middle
classes in all ways. Raising standards from the bottom up raises all boats. It's not "trickle
down" it's "trickle up". It's all about the velocity of money. You have to spend it to grow
it. We can do this in this country.
Why do by indirection what is better done directly? Income tax rates should be adjusted to
push the marginal rate to a percentage needed to produce the estimated revenue from Warren's
proposal. This would (1) not require creation of a new beauracracy and a new wealth tax code
to administer the new wealth tax, (2) not create incentives for lawyers and accounts to
redefine net worth and would (3) not change incentives for investments by wealthy
individuals, with unknown and unknowable side effects. If we also want to reduce fortunes
directly, enact a truly functional estate tax, not the joke which we have
now.
One other thought, the high tax rates of the 1950s and 1960s carried with them many, many
deductions which are no longer available -- -which were surrendered politically in exchange
for lower overall ages. Maybe something additionally to be considered would be combing
through the tax code and addressing the special interest provisions which conflate social
policy about certain companies/products/goals with tax policy.
@A P As you note, simply giving the money to their foundation can spare them the tax bill.
They don't actually need to have the foundation disburse that much of it. And my casual
impression is that Bill Gates' ability to direct billions through his foundation has
preserved his "social capital" - he is still invited to Davos, can tour Africa with Bono or
the Pope, get his phone calls returned by Important People, get his kids into whatever
college he chooses to endow, hop on private jets to wherever, and so on. As punishments go
forcing him to chair a major foundation is not much.
The government has never proven itself to be a good steward of capital. They will tax and
spend, tax and reallocate, tax and waste. No thanks. Would rather the incentives remain and
America push back against socialist notions. So expected from Krugman.
@CDN Eh? Real estate is already valued every year and taxed accordingly, it's called
property taxes. Art and antiquities are already valued for insurance purposes. It's not
difficulty at all.
@Shiv "I'm completely unable to determine how Jeff Bezos's work building Amazon has caused
me or anyone else to be worse off. In fact, we're all better off." So you know nobody who had
been making a decent living with a bookstore - or in publishing - or in many other small
businesses that have been priced into oblivion by Amazon if they'd been lucky enough to
survive the WalMart effect that came before. Robert Reich in "Supercapitalism" was right. The
consumer side of a person can so easily derange the thinking of the rest of the person. Not
following me? Than picture the dream world of big tech companies with their dreams of
stupendous individual wealth by "disrupting" something where people have been making their
livings. Each wave of disruption leaves people without their jobs. And these days, the chance
of getting into a better-paying job after being disruptive aren't all that terrific if you
look at the statistical outcomes. So is your view of morality served by the relentless push
to undercut older businesses that provided employment, simply because the disrupting model is
"more efficient"? Reconsider what "efficiency" is supposed to accomplish in the bigger
picture of society rather than just shareholder (and top executive) financial
reward.
As an authentic Republican, not one of the brigands who hijacked the party as a means to
plunder and pillage, I heartily endorse the Warren proposal. To make it somewhat more
palatable for voters I would suggest it earmark 50% of the revenue generated go to starting
to pay down the national debt. That would mean, using the 2.75 trillion estimate, that in the
first decade we would reclaim from the wealthiest approximately what Republicans gave away in
the deficit-financed tax cuts of 2017. In effect having had an interest-free loan from us for
a decade they would return the cash we have been paying interest on. Would be quite big of
them, actually.
@Alice It's not as if we ignore which tax loopholes for the wealthiest have to be closed
and how to do so, you know. Democrats have been trying to do this for quite some time
already, but the GOP blocks it. And Obamacare already includes a tax increase for the
wealthiest - that's one of the reasons why it cuts the deficit by $100 billion, rather than
adding to it. That proves that the wealthiest DNC donors and Democrats (such as Obama
himself, and Pelosi) FULLY agree to increase their own taxes. Conclusion: cynicism never
helped us move forward, fact-checking does ... ;-)
@Vink Why do you think they all own a dozen sprawling properties scattered around the
globe? They are all Bond villain wannabes never far from a secret citadel. I hope they've got
plenty of toilet paper on hand for the siege.
@Michael Blazin You think that... why? It's not at all clear. But it is clear that the law
could be written so that any transaction could be taxed. So unless the billionaires want to
hide their money under their mattresses.....
A progressive wealth tax is an"idea whose time has come". See Piketty, Thomas. Capital in
the Twenty-First Century . Harvard University Press. Use the revenue generated for
infrastructure repair.
@Blue Moon As far as Social Security and Medicare, all we have to do to fix that is tax
the millionaires' income the same as we do the peon- every dime that goes in their overseas
accounts should be taxed, same as the rest of us.
There are numerous holes in this proposal, none of which have anything to do with "greed".
1. What Krugman, Saez and Zucman fail to mention is that Denmark repealed its wealth tax in
1996 and Sweden repealed its wealth tax more than a decade ago. Not hard to understand why --
it is ultimately a self-defeating tax policy that just drives wealth out of your economy.
Krugman doesn't mention that Saez and Zucman's basic premise is that every country has to
implement a wealth tax for it to work, which is never going to happen. 2. Warren's proposal
is blatantly unconstitutional as a direct tax, so she would need to garner the political
support not just to pass the tax but amend the constitution similar to what was done for the
income tax. Highly unlikely. The bottom line is that the only way to actually pay for all of
the middle-class goodies that Democrats want to be provided by the Federal government (free
college, Medicare for all, free daycare, paid leave) is to tax the middle-class like what
they do in Sweden and Denmark through VAT and much lower income tax thresholds. Of course,
once everyone figures that out, those proposals won't poll nearly as well, which is why AOC
is now claiming that it will be magically paid for through the hocus-pocus of Modern Monetary
Theory.
For Warren's tax proposal that "wouldn't lead to large-scale evasion if the tax applied to
all assets and was adequately enforced ..." the IRS needs more staff and a bigger budget.
Past Republican congresses have purposely gutted the agency's audit and enforcement
capabilities at the direction of the very interests Warren's proposal targets.
"Would such a plan be feasible? Wouldn't the rich just find ways around it?" The most
likely way around it would be to bribe Congress not to vote for it. Isn't that why they
Democrats are in bed with the deep state, take billions from the largest corporations, and
conduct the most undemocratic nominating process ever seen in the US, but thank god they are
not fascists!
Trezrek500 , 2 hours ago
It is amazing, Bezos becomes the richest guy in the world and the delivery of his packages
is subsidized by tax payers. The USPS should triple their rates to AMZN. Problem solved.
Mass media throughout the western world are uncritically passing along a press release from
the US intelligence community, because that's what passes for journalism in a world where God
is dead and everything is stupid.
Is not Q-anon a disinformation operation run by intelligence againces?
From comments: "Being a true believer in "Q" is literally no different than being a true believer in the
Democrat-Republican kosher sandwich." and "After almost four years of Trump's presidency, QAnon is an attempt to explain the
President's failure to "Make America Great Again.""
Notable quotes:
"... This doesn't mean there's a Satanic cabal running the government. It does mean some bureaucrats opposed or even sabotaged President Trump's agenda. They investigated his subordinates or leaked information to the press. If we substitute "the permanent bureaucracy" for the more ominous sounding term "Deep State," this "conspiracy theory" becomes plausible. ..."
"... What is truly implausible about QAnon is the idea that President Trump knows about everything and will destroy this vast conspiracy. ..."
"... If you desperately want to believe something, you'll find evidence for it . This is confirmation bias at best, schizophrenia at worst. If President Trump truly is about to reveal a vast Satanic conspiracy, he's taking his time. ..."
"... What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism, but that it urges complacency. Its core message is that Donald Trump knows all about the secret conspiracy running the world and has the power to crush it; after all, he's President. ..."
"... After almost four years of Trump's presidency, QAnon is an attempt to explain the President's failure to "Make America Great Again." ..."
"... QAnon isn't dangerous. Conspiracy theories are as old as the Anti-Masonic Party , maybe older. Some unstable people may latch on to them, but they are not notably violent. If anything, if they really believe a Satanic cabal runs the world, they are showing remarkable restraint. ..."
"... I suspect the real reason journalists don't like QAnon is because at its core, it tells people the media are lying. It encourages independent investigation and citizen journalism. ..."
"... Journalists promote a conspiracy far more dangerous and deadly than QAnon. That is the "white privilege" conspiracy theory . ..."
"... Liberals are right to think QAnon is dangerous, but not in the way they think. QAnon is dangerous to whites. It tells them that everything is under control, that an evil conspiracy will be exposed, and that we just need to trust President Trump. We can't be under any illusions that President Trump will save us . "The Storm" is not coming, the cavalry won't ride over the hill, and there isn't a secret military force ready to scoop up our foes and liberate America. It's up to us. ..."
"... The Qanon phenomenon exploits the most fundamental psychological need which is hope, that hope dies last. The hope in order not to die will accept and forgive anything including the greatest nonsense. The hopeful ones can be strung along for ever because hope wants to last as it is the last to die. You just have to keep giving them a dose and keep stringing them alone. ..."
"... Sadly, the author is pretty much on-the-money. If Trump is for real, that is, if he believes what he says, he has been completely incompetent at accomplishing anything. ..."
"... I came late to the QAnon crap and saw it was the same soup as Black Lives Matter. Why, in fact, wouldn't the same crooks behind the one not foment the other? One says "blacks gonna make you kneel and take away all your stuff" while the other says, "don't worry, the least effective president in history has got us covered." ..."
"... They're all in show biz and Americans just happen to be an unusually gullible audience. ' ..."
"... I believe Trump is just another minion of the Deep State and is acting in accordance with their wishes. He is helping play out a charade a good cop (Trump) against a bad cop (Deep State). At any rate, he is not fulfilling his promises to those that elected him whether through incompetence or scheme. ..."
"... The logic of Hood's article is hard to beat either way. Trump/QAnon are just there for show, dangling hope in front of people that there's some person or entity that cares about them. It's the same as the infamous Pentagon Papers fifty years ago: Even after Americans knew the fix was in, the Vietnam War didn't stop until the plutocrats were good and ready to end it. ..."
"... The first sign of trouble was back when they adopted that ridiculous slogan, 'Trust the plan.' Sorry: this is politics. And in politics, I trust no one. The Q ought to be putting pressure on Trump (and the Republican Party generally), not sitting around waiting for them to grow a pair and save the country. ..."
"... The school system is promoting liberal indoctrination, and a whole bunch of kids are dropping out. Why? Because they like weed and don't like math. I see QAnon the same way. Sure, the media can't be trusted. But the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. ..."
"... I'm not prepared to defend the Qanon thing but, clearly, it is more than a pysop. It has revealed enormous amounts of sordid detail about what really goes on this country/ world and who many of the crooks are. The vast majority of the readers would not have learned that info any other way. Period. ..."
"... Great article. It covers the good and the bad and the hopelessly implausible very well. In times of a pandemic of lying generated by the USA Media Leviathan, the vulture capitalism of Wall Street, the exponentiating hate-Whitey rhetoric, the economy-killing Covid Scamdemic,the dwindling Euro-demographic numbers, along with a vurulent virus called Cultural Marxism, "extremism is no vice" ..."
"... A very insightful analysis and I think I now understand Q Anon. This seems to be an evolution from the people who early on were claiming that Trump was playing 4 (or 5 or 6) dimensional chess. I never supported him and don't now. He couldn't play one dimensional checkers if he wanted to and he probably doesn't. ..."
"... It has taken on a life of its own, constantly adapting to changes in situation. I kind of follow it as an unintentional experiment in human psychology. It's also interesting that it has absorbed a great deal of Christian mythology without actually being a Christian religion. ..."
What is QAnon? This question is harder to answer than you might think. There are several
books about QAnon, including QAnon and The Great Awakening by Michael Knight, QAnon: An Invitation to The Great Awakening by "WWG1WGA," and Revolution Q by "Neon Revolt." After reading these and other books and websites, I'd
identify three main points.
"Q," an anonymous, highly placed government official, knows that President Trump is planning
a series of dramatic events that will expose crimes and even treason implicating many
Democrats and government bureaucrats. Q communicates what's coming by posting on various
forums, including 4chan and 8kun (formerly 8chan). He says there's a fierce battle over this
at the highest levels of the government.
President Trump himself communicates with followers
of the movement through code phrases, gestures, and imagery. He and his family also
occasionally retweet accounts linked to QAnon.
"The Storm," the righteous day of justice that
President Trump is bringing, is opposed by a cabal of financial and media elites who want to
keep people from learning the truth. Thus, people must do their own research and not trust
what the mainstream media tell them.
The initial post that spawned "Q" could have been made by anyone. Further "drops" by "Q" or
people in the movement could also be made by anyone. There is no way to verify any of their
claims, except through vague references to key phrases that will supposedly be uttered in the
days following the posts. For example, before President's rally in Tulsa, Eric Trump posted an
American-flag QAnon meme with the #WWG1WGA (this is supposed to stand for "Where We Go One, We
Go All") at the bottom to Instagram. Does this mean anything, or was Eric Trump simply passing
along an image he liked?
QAnon is so popular it has spawned its own "watchdog" groups. NPR's Michael Martin
interviewed
Travis View, the co-host of the QAnon Anonymous podcast. Mr. Martin prepped the
audience by calling QAnon "a group of people who adhere to some far-right conspiracies and
believe a number of absurd things." Mr. View obliged by saying that according to QAnon, "The
world is controlled by a Satanic cabal of pedophiles that they believe control everything like
the media, politics and entertainment." He adds that QAnon also thinks President Trump knows
all about this and will "defeat this global cabal once and for all and free all of us." "QAnon
Anonymous" host Travis View added that it is a "domestic extremist movement" and said President
Trump had "tweeted or retweeted QAnon accounts over 160 times." However, he also admitted "no
one in the current administration has ever done anything to endorse QAnon."
Nevertheless, it seems that at least some of President Trump's advisors know about the
movement and are playing to it. President Trump has directly retweeted
memes from accounts linked to QAnon. Republican congressional candidate Angela Stanton-King
tweeted , " THE STORM IS HERE ."
Tess Owen, Vice's reporter on the "far right" beat,
wrote , "Welp, the GOP Now Has 15 QAnon-Linked Candidates on the November Ballot."
"There is no evidence to these claims" about a "cabal of criminals run by
politicians like Hillary Clinton and the Hollywood elite."
However, after Jeffrey Epstein's
alleged "suicide" and news that powerful figures such as former President Bill Clinton and
Prince Andrew were part of Epstein's strange network, it's hardly absurd to claim there could
be sick stuff going on among the political and cultural elite.
Jimmy Saville was a well-known British media personality, knighted, and honored by many
institutions including the Vatican and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. After his death,
it emerged that he had sexually abused children
; some suggested hundreds of them. Most honors were rescinded posthumously.
A jury recently convicted Harvey
Weinstein, once the most powerful producer in Hollywood, of sexual crimes. Several actresses
including Allison Mack were alleged to be part of a bizarre sexual
cult called NXIVM, and she pleaded guilty to racketeering . During the 2016 election, Wikileaks
released email tying John Podesta's
brother to "artist" Marina Abramovic and her bizarre, occult performance piece "Spirit
Cooking."
If a crazy man approached you in the street raving about these plots, you'd run, but these
things happened. Non-whites sexually abused
thousands of young women in Rotherham, England. Police and local government officials did
nothing because they didn't want to be called racists. This is a sick world, and evildoers
often get away with evil. It's not absurd to think powerful men and women are no better than
middling Labour politicians who looked the other way instead of stopping rape and sex
slavery.
Is there a "Deep State" opposing President Trump? In 2019, the New York Times ran an
editorial called " The
'Deep State' Exists to Battle People Like Trump. " In 2018, an anonymous official wrote, "
I Am
Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration ." Recent evidence suggests that the
FBI bullied General Michael Flynn, President Trump's former national security advisor, and made
him confess he had lied to agents after they threatened his son. The Department of Justice
recently
concluded that the interview of General Flynn was not "conducted with a legitimate
investigative basis."
This doesn't mean there's a Satanic cabal running the government. It does mean some
bureaucrats opposed or even sabotaged President Trump's agenda. They investigated his
subordinates or leaked information to the press. If we substitute "the permanent bureaucracy"
for the more ominous sounding term "Deep State," this "conspiracy theory" becomes plausible.
Incidentally, General Flynn recently posted a
video that uses QAnon slogans.
What is truly implausible about QAnon is the idea that President Trump knows about
everything and will destroy this vast conspiracy. The proof for such assertions lies in
gestures, vague statements, or even the background of where he is speaking. For example, in
QAnon and the Great Awakening, the author says that President Trump's phrases "this is
the calm before the storm" and "tippy top," his supposed circular motions with his hands, and
occasional pointing towards supposed Q supporters are proof that he is on to it. "Q offers
hundreds of data points that demonstrate Q is indeed linked to the Trump Administration," the
book says.
If you desperately want to believe something, you'll find evidence for it .
This is confirmation bias at best, schizophrenia at worst. If President Trump truly is about to
reveal a vast Satanic conspiracy, he's taking his time.
What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism, but
that it urges complacency. Its core message is that Donald Trump knows all about the secret
conspiracy running the world and has the power to crush it; after all, he's President. All we
have to do is wait. "Nothing can stop what is coming," says one popular slogan. If this were
true, President Trump and his followers have already won, and there's no reason to do anything
but scour the internet for clues about what's coming next.
After almost four years of Trump's presidency, QAnon is an attempt to explain the
President's failure to "Make America Great Again." It's true that he's hobbled by powerful
elites. However, President Trump's biggest personnel problems, from John Bolton to Anthony Scaramucci, were people he appointed himself. No one forced him to make Reince Priebus his
chief of staff, expel Steve Bannon, or pick a fight with Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Indeed, according to QAnon, Attorney General Sessions was the one who was supposed to
rout the evildoers .
QAnon assures Trump supporters that he has everything well in hand and that justice is
coming. It's far more terrifying to realize that he doesn't. He is politically isolated,
surrounded by foes, and losing the presidential campaign to a confused and
combative man who occasionally forgets what office he's running for or where he is . President Trump's
not mustering his legions. Instead, his own defense secretary publicly
opposed his plans to use soldiers to suppress riots. The brass
overruled his wishes to leave bases named after Confederate heroes alone. Unless President
Trump has a Praetorian Guard we don't know about (perhaps the Space Force?), there's nothing he
can use against domestic opponents.
The real question is why reporters fear QAnon. Some of its supporters have allegedly
committed crimes. One alleged QAnon believer killed
a Gambino mob boss. In February, another
blocked a bridge with an armored vehicle. Two
others had family troubles, which may or may not be related to their QAnon beliefs. If
these people did those things, they are criminals, but this is hardly a wave of violence. All
together, this would be a
peaceful weekend in Chicago .
QAnon isn't dangerous. Conspiracy theories are as old as the Anti-Masonic Party , maybe older. Some
unstable people may latch on to them, but they are not notably violent. If anything, if they
really believe a Satanic cabal runs the world, they are showing remarkable restraint.
I suspect the real reason journalists don't like QAnon is because at its core, it tells
people the media are lying. It encourages independent investigation and citizen journalism.
This occasionally leads to absurdities, such as building a worldview around 4chan posts.
However, it's healthy to distrust elites. Sometimes, journalists lie ,
stretch
the
truth , or hide
it entirely . Sometimes, they
demand citizens be silenced .
Ordinary Americans looking for truth are a threat. I believe mainstream journalists truly
regard themselves as a Fourth Estate, an independent political power . They
think they have the right to determine what Americans should and should not be allowed to hear
or say. Their efforts to censor and suppress QAnon only fuel the movement.
Journalists promote a conspiracy far more dangerous and deadly than QAnon. That is the
"white
privilege" conspiracy theory . Many journalists and academics tell non-whites that racist
whites hold them down. This implicitly justifies protests,
shakedowns, and even anti-white violence. When George Floyd died, Americans
weren't allowed to see the bodycam videos . Instead, many journalists told a fable about a
white policeman murdering an innocent black man. This was the spark, but journalists had soaked
the country in gasoline years before with endless
sensationalist coverage of race and "racism." Now, riots are destroying cities, ruining
businesses, probably spreading disease, and creating a huge crime wave
. I blame journalists for inciting this violence. It's not QAnon spreading a violent conspiracy
theory, but journalists at CNN
, the New York Times , the Washington Post, and others who manufactured
a fake crisis .
Liberals are right to think QAnon is dangerous, but not in the way they think. QAnon
is dangerous to whites. It tells them that everything is under control, that an evil conspiracy
will be exposed, and that we just need to trust President Trump. We can't be under any
illusions that President Trump will save us .
"The Storm" is not coming, the cavalry won't ride over the hill, and there isn't a secret
military force ready to scoop up our foes and liberate America. It's up to us.
Liberals should be thankful for a conspiracy theory that urges complacency. Our message is
more urgent: Our people, country, and civilization are at stake. You don't need to pore through
websites to see what's happening; just walk down any city street. Time is running out.
You have a duty to
resist . Don't look for a savior. Instead, join us, and be worthy of our ancestors .
"What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism,
but that it urges complacency . "
"We can't be under any illusions that President Trump will save us. "The Storm"
is not coming, the cavalry won't ride over the hill, and there isn't a secret military
force ready to scoop up our foes and liberate America."
The Qanon phenomenon exploits the most fundamental psychological need which is hope, that
hope dies last. The hope in order not to die will accept and forgive anything including the
greatest nonsense. The hopeful ones can be strung along for ever because hope wants to last
as it is the last to die. You just have to keep giving them a dose and keep stringing them
alone.
There is is a blogger Benjamin Fulford that precedes Qanon and uses exactly the same
technique and very similar narratives of hidden forces of Good and Evil fighting for the
dominance and the forces of Good always being very close to the final victory to give you
enough hope to keep you interested till the next installment.. There is a mixture of Free
Masons, Rockefellers, Rothschild, Zionists, Trump, Pope Sabbatean mafia, Khazarian mafia and
Asian Secret Societies. The latter are on the side of Good in Fulford's universe. Fulford, I
think, is located somewhere in Asia, most likely Japan. Fulford missed his calling of being a
script writer of the never ending TV series and dramas like TWD and so on. But I suspect he
makes some money from his series about the world in battle between forces of Good and Evil
and the victory being just around the corner.
From August 10, 2020. Benjamin Fulford installment:
"The Khazarian mafia is preparing the public for some form of alien disclosure or invasion
scenario as they struggle to stay in power, Pentagon and other sources claim. The most likely
scenario for this autumn is the cancellation of the U.S. Presidential election followed by a
UFO distraction, the sources say. U.S. President Donald Trump himself is saying the election
needs to be called off even as he continues to promote a "Space force.""
Or from August 3 installment:
"The P3 Freemasons are saying the Covid-19 campaign is only going to intensify until an
agreement is reached to set up a "World Republic." Certainly, the P3 lodge involvement is
easier to spot in Japan and Korea where all positive test results are being traced to either
Christian (P3) sects or Khazarian Mafia hedge funds."
"The other big theme being pushed by the Zionists is an escalating conflict between the
U.S. and China. The U.S. State Department propaganda machine is pushing a doctored document
known as "The Secret Speech of General Chi Haotian," which claims to contain secret Chinese
plans to invade the U.S., kill women and children and use biological warfare."
"Of course, the opposite is true, since everybody who read the Project for a New American
Century knows the Zionist regime has been touting race-specific or ethnic-specific biological
warfare as a "useful political tool." "
Or from July 27:
"The rest of the world, especially the main creditors Japan and China, are willing to
write off the debt but they want a change in management first. In other words, they want the
Americans to free themselves from the Babylonian debt slavery of the Khazarian mafia.
That process has started with arrests and extra-judicial killings of top Khazarian,
Satan-worshipping elites. The Bush family is gone, the Rockefellers lost the presidency when
Hillary Rockefeller was defeated, and many politicians and so-called celebrities have
vanished.
However, the situation is still like a lizard shaking off its tail in order to escape. The
real control of the United States is still in the hands of "
Sadly, the author is pretty much on-the-money. If Trump is for real, that is, if he
believes what he says, he has been completely incompetent at accomplishing anything. As for
the media, I'd disagree that they sometimes lie; they lie pretty much ALL the time.
What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism,
but that it urges complacency.
So does Trump and the GOP in general. The GOP, MAGA and NeverTrump alike, exists only to sap our will, acclimate us to defeat
and put us to sleep with the comforting illusion that some authority or institution is
fighting for us.
Until the American Right realizes this, it will never gain back one inch of ground. And no
one worth marching with or behind will join their ranks or rise from them.
I came late to the QAnon crap and saw it was the same soup as Black Lives Matter. Why, in
fact, wouldn't the same crooks behind the one not foment the other? One says "blacks gonna
make you kneel and take away all your stuff" while the other says, "don't worry, the least
effective president in history has got us covered."
There's no war in heaven. They're all in show biz and Americans just happen to be an
unusually gullible audience.
'
If Trump is for real, that is, if he believes what he says, he has been completely
incompetent at accomplishing anything.
That is the dilemma. I believe Trump is just another minion of the Deep State and is
acting in accordance with their wishes. He is helping play out a charade a good cop (Trump)
against a bad cop (Deep State). At any rate, he is not fulfilling his promises to those that
elected him whether through incompetence or scheme.
Uhhh, Donald Trump as well as Slickster Billy Bob was part of the Epstein network. This
piece jumps the shark and the rails right there at the start and goes further into PR
turd-polishing land after that.
The logic of Hood's article is hard to beat either way. Trump/QAnon are just there for
show, dangling hope in front of people that there's some person or entity that cares about
them. It's the same as the infamous Pentagon Papers fifty years ago: Even after Americans
knew the fix was in, the Vietnam War didn't stop until the plutocrats were good and ready to
end it.
The truth sets nobody free. Power is a vehicle to find truth and do something about it.
Truth without power just equals more frustration. And the world's full to bursting with
frustration already.
What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism,
but that it urges complacency. Its core message is that Donald Trump knows all about the
secret conspiracy running the world and has the power to crush it; after all, he's
President. All we have to do is wait.
Yup. The first sign of trouble was back when they adopted that ridiculous slogan, 'Trust
the plan.' Sorry: this is politics. And in politics, I trust no one. The Q ought to be
putting pressure on Trump (and the Republican Party generally), not sitting around waiting
for them to grow a pair and save the country.
The school system is promoting liberal indoctrination, and a whole bunch of kids are
dropping out. Why? Because they like weed and don't like math. I see QAnon the same way. Sure, the media can't be trusted. But the enemy of my enemy is
not my friend.
These guys are mostly mentally unstable white knights and while I'm not
much concerned that they will actually harm Justin Beiber by baselessly accusing him of rape,
their behavior contributes to the culture of white knighting and social media witch hunts I
mean citizen journalism which only strengthens the feminist movement.
"You have a duty to resist." The QAnon people, intellectual and moral descendants of the
Scofield Reference Bible, don't want to hear this. They just want to eat and watch TV. After
all, Ben Franklin and George Washington will save us just in time!
QAnon is just another Zionist-pro Israeli psyop. Q never talks about the Israel conspiracy
or how AIPAC controls America. Trump is always, about ready, to bring the hammer down on the
deep state, but never does as he appoints Neocon after Neocon, the latest is Elliott Abrams,
as bad or worse than John Bolton.
Remember back when Hillary was in chains, or Obama went to Gitmo and got executed? QAnon
is false hope being served up to Trump's conservative base who want the criminal government
exposed and prosecuted. But that never happens under Trump.
According to many researchers, including me, Beirut got nuked, and that story is already
gone, swept under the Jewmedia rug, written off as a fertilizer accident. Where's Q on that
one? No where to be found because Q is Jew protecting Israel at every turn.
You all listen to Q at your own peril. And oh yeah, have you noticed the world going to
hell? Where's Trump's secret plan you all? It's fake, Q Anon led you all into a blind alley,
it pacified you as your nation was stolen right in front of your eyes. Q is a pied piper for
adults who think like children. Q Anon was the latest hopium injected into the body politic,
Trump is the swamp, he is working for Israel, he is selling you out, he is the snake who
betrays you. But the q followers can't see that or even hear it because they need hope, and
the opposition is worse than Trump.
I'm not prepared to defend the Qanon thing but, clearly, it is more than a pysop. It has revealed enormous amounts of sordid detail about what really goes on this
country/ world and who many of the crooks are. The vast majority of the readers would
not have learned that info any other way. Period.
Now that a fair amount is exposed, it's up to Trump and Barr to indict and convict a slew
of high level people. If they don't then they are worthless and can go fvck themselves for
jerking the public around and not sealing the deal.
The Christians in the Repub Party are so easy to play. They are taught to 'follow the
leader' from Day 1 of their lives and Trump has provided himself as their golden savior to
worship and trust. God sent him to us, you know. (lol)
That segment of the Repub Party doesn't have a pair to grow. So, it won't happen. Marxism
is in our future, it's only a matter of time.
Very good.
A close friend of mine who I didn't consider too interested in these matters mentioned QAnon
to me while I was telling him how Trump is being sabotaged by some of his own people. I was
surprised he knew, probably more than me.
PS. I would wear a Q tee shirt except that I'm old school and 'Q' connotes queer. So maybe
an Anon one might do. (Big grin)
Great article. It covers the good and the bad and the hopelessly implausible very well. In
times of a pandemic of lying generated by the USA Media Leviathan, the vulture capitalism of
Wall Street, the exponentiating hate-Whitey rhetoric, the economy-killing Covid Scamdemic,the
dwindling Euro-demographic numbers, along with a vurulent virus called Cultural Marxism,
"extremism is no vice"
After laughing themselves silly over the gullible idiots who ran with their 911
'no-planes' psychological operation, the CIA bugmen cooked up a new one. They're laughing
themselves silly all over again.
"Journalists promote a conspiracy far more dangerous and deadly than QAnon. That is the
"white privilege" conspiracy theory. Many journalists and academics tell non-whites that
racist whites hold them down."
A very insightful analysis and I think I now understand Q Anon. This seems to be an
evolution from the people who early on were claiming that Trump was playing 4 (or 5 or 6)
dimensional chess. I never supported him and don't now. He couldn't play one dimensional
checkers if he wanted to and he probably doesn't.
...it
has awakened something of a frustration in a lot of people.
It has taken on a life of its
own, constantly adapting to changes in situation. I kind of follow it as an unintentional
experiment in human psychology. It's also interesting that it has absorbed a great deal of
Christian mythology without actually being a Christian religion. In the end though it is
people trying to feel they have some control (and indeed, considering the fear in the media)
that might be true.
[For fun, dig up and read Asimov's "I Spell My Name with an S" from 1958.]
There is no indication that anyone forced Trump into making any of the bad decisions
mentioned. Your first point is asking Hood to weave some fanciful alternative to what is
outright obvious. No serious author does that. If he were to have used "most likely" before
giving his sensible opinion, would that have satisfied you? The Easter Bunny holding a gun to
Trump's head and telling him to disavow Session is also a possibility, you know, but not a
likely one.
Frankly, I think you are the one who's intellectually deficient.
People who
actually have good instincts but just cannot bring themselves to face the harsh reality in
front of them.
The deplatforming of QAnon crap is not due to "Q" itself, but where "Q" supporters might
find themselves next, once this psyop has run its course. They wanna kill it now to keep the
delusion itself alive, lest all these "Q" true believer stumble into some anti-semitism and
other truths that actually challenge the status quo.
Being a true believer in "Q" is literally no different than being a true believer in the
Democrat-Republican kosher sandwich.
Correct. And when we're talking about the "Deep state," organized pedophilia, human
trafficking, etc, many of these "Q" people will inevitably find their way to the Rabbi behind
the curtain. It is the natural destination if one does not self-censor or cling to their
priors. There is no other destination, in fact.
William Binney is the former technical director of the U.S. National Security Agency who
worked at the agency for 30 years. He is a respected independent critic of how American
intelligence services abuse their powers to illegally spy on private communications of U.S.
citizens and around the globe.
Given his expert inside knowledge, it is worth paying attention to what Binney says.
In a media
interview this week, he dismissed the so-called Russiagate scandal as a "fabrication"
orchestrated by the American Central Intelligence Agency. Many other observers have come to
the same conclusion about allegations that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections with
the objective of helping Donald Trump get elected.
But what is particularly valuable about Binney's judgment is that he cites technical
analysis disproving the Russiagate narrative. That narrative remains dominant among U.S.
intelligence officials, politicians and pundits, especially those affiliated with the
Democrat party, as well as large sections of Western media. The premise of the narrative is
the allegation that a Russian state-backed cyber operation hacked into the database and
emails of the Democrat party back in 2016. The information perceived as damaging to
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was subsequently disseminated to the Wikileaks
whistleblower site and other U.S. media outlets.
A mysterious cyber persona known as "Guccifer 2.0" claimed to be the alleged hacker. U.S.
intelligence and news media have attributed Guccifer as a front for Russian cyber
operations.
Notably, however, the Russian government has always categorically denied any involvement
in alleged hacking or other interference in the 2016 U.S. election, or elections
thereafter.
William Binney and other independent former U.S. intelligence experts say they can prove
the Russiagate narrative is bogus. The proof relies on their forensic analysis of the data
released by Guccifer. The analysis of timestamps demonstrates that the download of voluminous
data could not have been physically possible based on known standard internet speeds. These
independent experts conclude that the data from the Democrat party could not have been
hacked, as Guccifer and Russiagaters claim. It could only have been obtained by a leak from
inside the party, perhaps by a disgruntled staffer who downloaded the information on to a
disc. That is the only feasible way such a huge amount of data could have been released. That
means the "Russian hacker" claims are baseless.
Wikileaks, whose founder Julian Assange is currently imprisoned in Britain pending an
extradition trial to the U.S. to face espionage charges, has consistently maintained
that their source of files was not a hacker, nor did they collude with Russian intelligence.
As a matter of principle, Wikileaks does not disclose the identity of its sources, but the
organization has indicated it was an insider leak which provided the information on senior
Democrat party corruption.
William Binney says forensic analysis of the files released by Guccifer shows that the
mystery hacker deliberately inserted digital "fingerprints" in order to give the impression
that the files came from Russian sources. It is known from information later disclosed by
former NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden that the CIA has a secretive program – Vault 7
– which is dedicated to false incrimination of cyber attacks to other actors. It seems
that the purpose of Guccifer was to create the perception of a connection between Wikileaks
and Russian intelligence in order to beef up the Russiagate narrative.
"So that suggested [to] us all the evidence was pointing back to CIA as the originator
[of] Guccifer 2.0. And that Guccifer 2.0 was inside CIA I'm pointing to that group as the
group that was probably the originator of Guccifer 2.0 and also this fabrication of the
entire story of Russiagate," concludes Binney in his interview with Sputnik news
outlet.
This is not the first time that the Russiagate yarn has been debunked . But it is crucially important to make Binney's expert
views more widely appreciated especially as the U.S. presidential election looms on November
3. As that date approaches, U.S. intelligence and media seem to be intensifying claims about
Russian interference and cyber operations. Such wild and unsubstantiated "reports" always
refer to the alleged 2016 "hack" of the Democrat party by "Guccifer 2.0" as if it were
indisputable evidence of Russian interference and the "original sin" of supposed Kremlin
malign activity. The unsubstantiated 2016 "hack" is continually cited as the "precedent" and
"provenance" of more recent "reports" that purport to claim Russian interference.
Given the torrent of Russiagate derivatives expected in this U.S. election cycle, which is
damaging U.S.-Russia bilateral relations and recklessly winding up geopolitical tensions, it
is thus of paramount importance to listen to the conclusions of honorable experts like
William Binney.
The American public are being played by their own intelligence agencies and corporate
media with covert agendas that are deeply anti-democratic.
Well - who set up them up, converted from the OSS? The banksters.
"Wild Bill" Donovan worked for JP Morgan immediately after WWII.
"our" US intelligence agencies were set up by, and serve, the masters of high finance.
Is this in dispute?
meditate_vigorously , 11 hours ago
They have seeded enough misinformation that apparently it is. But, you are correct. It
is the Banksters.
Isisraelquaeda , 2 hours ago
Israel. The CIA was infiltrated by the Mossad long ago.
SurfingUSA , 15 hours ago
JFK was on to that truth, and would have been wise to mini-nuke Langley before his
ill-fated journey to Dallas.
Andrew G , 11 hours ago
Except when there's something exceptionally evil (like pedo/blackmail rings such as
Epstein), in which case it's Mossad / Aman
vova.2018 , 7 hours ago
Except when there's something exceptionally evil (like pedo/blackmail rings such as
Epstein), in which case it's Mossad / Aman
The CIA & MOSSAD work hand in hand in all their clandestine operations. There is not
doubt the CIA/MOSSAD are behind the creation, evolution, training, supplying weapons,
logistic-planning & financing of the terrorists & the destruction of the Middle
East. Anybody that believes the contrary has brain problems & need to have his head
examined.
CIA/MOSAD has been running illegal activities in Colombia: drug, arms, organs &
human (child-sex) trafficking. CIA/MOSAD is also giving training, logistic & arms to
Colombia paramilitary for clandestine operation against Venezuela. After Bolsonaro became
president, MOSSAD started running similar operation in Brazil. Israel & Brazil also
recognizes Guaido as the legit president of Venezuela.
CIA/MOSSAD have a long time policy of
assassinating & taking out pep who are a problem to the revisionist-zionist agenda, not
just in the M-East but in the world. The CIA/MOSSAD organizations have many connections in
other countries like the M-East, Saudi Arabia, UAE, et al but also to the UK-MI5.
The Israelis infiltrated the US to the highest levels a long time ago - Proof
Israel has & collects information (a database) of US citizens in coordination
with the CIA & the 5 eyes.
Israel works with the NSA in the liaison-loophole operations
Mossad undercover operations in WDC & all over the world
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee – AIPAC
People with 2 citizenships (US/Israel) in WDC/NYC (the real Power)
From Steve Bannon a christian-zionist: Collusion between the Trump administration and
Israel .
Funny how a number of the right wing conspiracy stories according to the MSM from a
couple years back were true from the get go. 1 indictment over 4 years in the greatest
attempted coup in this country's history. So sad that Binney and Assange were never
listened to. They can try to silence us who know of the truth, but as Winston Churchill
once said, 'Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice
may distort it. But there it is.' KDP still censors my book on their advertising platform
as it
promotes conspiratorial theories (about the Obama led coup) and calls out BLM and Antifa
for what they are (marxists) . Yet the same platform still recommends BLM books stating
there is a pandemic of cops killing innocent blacks. F them!!!! #RIPSeth #FreeJulian
#FreeMillie
smacker , 11 hours ago
Yes, and we all know the name of the DNC leaker who downloaded and provided
WikiLeaks
with evidence of CIA and DNC corruption.
He was assassinated to prevent him from naming who Guccifer 2.0 was and where he is
located.
The Russia-gate farce itself provides solid evidence that the CIA and others are in bed
with DNC
and went to extraordinary lengths to prevent Trump being elected. When that failed, they
instigated
a program of x-gates to get him out of office any way they could. This continues to this
day.
This is treason at the highest level.
ACMeCorporations , 12 hours ago
Hacking? What Russian hacking?
In recently released testimony, the CEO of CrowdStrike admitted in congressional
testimony, under oath, that it actually has no direct evidence Russia stole the DNC
emails.
Nelbev , 9 hours ago
"The proof relies on their forensic analysis of the data released by Guccifer. The
analysis of timestamps demonstrates that the download of voluminous data could not have
been physically possible based on known standard internet speeds. ... a disgruntled
staffer who downloaded the information on to a disc. That is the only feasible way such a
huge amount of data could have been released. ... William Binney says forensic analysis
of the files released by Guccifer shows that the mystery hacker deliberately inserted
digital "fingerprints" in order to give the impression that the files came from Russian
sources. ... "
Any computer file is a bunch of 1s and 0s. Anyone can change anything with a hex editor.
E.g. I had wrong dates on some photographs once, downloaded as opposed to when taken, just
edited the time stamp. You cannot claim any time stamp is original. If true time stamps,
then the DNC files were downloaded to a thumb drive at a computer on location and not to
the internet via a phone line. However anyone can change the time stamps. Stating a
"mystery hacker deliberately inserted digital [Russian] 'fingerprints' " is a joke if
denying the file time stamps were not tampered with. The real thing is where the narrative
came from, political spin doctors, Perkins Coie law firm hired by DNC and Hillary campaign
who hired Crowdstrike [and also hired Fusion GPS before for pissgate dossier propaganda and
FISC warrants to spy on political opponents] and Perkins Coie edited Crowdstrike report
with Russian narrative. FBI never looked at DNC servers. This is like your house was broken
into. You deny police the ability to enter and look at evidence like DNC computers. You
hire a private investigator to say your neighbor you do not like did it and publicise
accusations. Take word of political consultants hired, spin doctor propaganda, Crowdstrike
narrative , no police investigation. Atlantic Council?
Vivekwhu , 8 hours ago
The Atlantic Council is another NATO fart. Nuff said!
The_American , 15 hours ago
God Damn traitor Obama!
Yen Cross , 14 hours ago
TOTUS
For the youngsters.
Teleprompter Of The United States.
Leguran , 6 hours ago
The CIA has gotten away with so much criminal behavior and crimes against the American
public that this is totally believable. Congress just lets this stuff happen and does
nothing. Which is worse - Congress or the CIA?
Congress set up the system. It is mandated to perform oversight. And it just sits on its
thumbs and wallows in it privileges.
This time Congress went further than ever before. It was behind and engaged in an
attempted coup d'état.
Know thy enemy , 10 hours ago
Link to ShadowGate (ShadowNet) documentary - which answers the question, what is the
keystone,,,,,
It's time for Assange and Wikileaks to name the person who they rec'd the info from. By
hiding behind the "we don't name names" Mantra they are helping destroy America by
polarizing its citizens. Name the damn person, get it all out there so the left can see
that they've been played by their leaders. Let's cut this crap.
freedommusic , 7 hours ago
...all the evidence was pointing back to CIA as the originator [of] Guccifer 2.0.
Yep, I knew since day one. I remember seeing Hillary Clinton talking about Guccifer . As
soon as uttered the name, I KNEW she with the CIA were the brainchild of this bogus
decoy.
They copy. They mimic. These are NOT creative individuals.
Perhaps hell is too good a place for them.
on target , 4 hours ago
This is old news but worth bringing up again. The CIA never wanted Trump in, and of
course, they want him out. Their fingerprints were all over Russiagate, The Kavanaugh
hearings, Ukrainegate, and on and on. They are just trying to cover their asses for a
string of illegal "irregularities" in their operations for years. Trump should never have
tried to be a get along type of guy. He should have purged the entire leadership of the CIA
on day one and the FBI on day 2. They can not be trusted with an "America First" agenda.
They are all New World Order types who know whats best for everyone.
fersur , 7 hours ago
Boom, Boom, Boom !
Three Reseachable Tweets thru Facebook, I cut all at once, Unedited !
"#SusanRice has as much trouble with her memory as #HillaryClinton. Rice testified in
writing that she 'does not recall' who gave her key #Benghazi talking points she used on
TV, 'does not recall' being in any meetings regarding Benghazi in five days following the
attack, and 'does not recall' communicating with anyone in Clinton's office about
Benghazi," Tom Fitton in Breitbart.
"Adam Schiff secretly subpoenaed, without court authorization, the phone records of Rudy
Giuliani and then published the phone records of innocent Americans, including
@realDonaldTrump 's lawyers, a member of Congress, and a journalist," @TomFitton .
BREAKING: Judicial Watch announced today that former #Obama National Security Advisor
and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, admitted in written responses given
under oath that she emailed with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Clinton's
non-government email account and that she received emails related to government business on
her own personal email account.
STONEHILLADY , 7 hours ago
It's not just the Democrats, the warmongering neocons of the Republican party are also
in on it, the Bush/Romney McCain/McConnell/Cheney and many more. It's called "Kick Backs"
Ever notice these so called retired Generals all end up working for all these spying
companies that span the 5eyes to Israel. It seems our POTUS has got his hands full swimming
up stream to get this stopped and actually get rid of the CIA. It's the number 1 reason he
doesn't trust these people, they all try to tell him stuff that is mis-directed.
Liars, leakers, and thieves are running not only our nation but the world, as George
Carlin said, "It's a Big Club, and we ain't in it." If you fall for this false narrative of
mail in voting and not actually go and vote on election day, you better start learning
Chinese for surely Peelosi and Schumer will have their way and mess up this election so
they can drag Trump out of office and possible do him and his family some serious harm, all
because so many of you listen to the MSM and don't research their phony claims.
Max21c , 7 hours ago
It's called "Kick Backs" Ever notice these so called retired Generals all end up
working for all these spying companies that span the 5eyes to Israel.
American Generals & Admirals are a lot more corrupt today than they were a few
generations back. Many of them are outright evil people in today's times. Many of these
people are just criminals that will steal anything they can get their banana republic
klepto-paws on. They're nothing but common criminals and thieves. No different than the
Waffen SS or any other group of brigands, bandits, and criminal gangsters.
Max21c , 7 hours ago
The CIA, FBI, NSA, Military Intelligence, Pentagon Gestapo, defense contractors are
mixed up in a lot of crimes and criminal activities on American soil against American
citizens and American civilians. They do not recognize borders or laws or rights of liberty
or property rights or ownership or intellectual property. They're all thieves and criminals
in the military secret police and secret police gangsters cabal.
BandGap , 7 hours ago
I have seen Binney's input. He is correct in my view because he
scientifically/mathematically proves his point.
The blinded masses do not care about this approach, just like wearing masks.
The truth is too difficult for many to fit into their understanding of the world.
So they repeat what they have been told, never stopping to consider the facts or how
circumstances have been manipulated.
It is frustrating to watch, difficult to navigate at times for me. Good people who will
not stop and think of what the facts show them.
otschelnik , 8 hours ago
It could have been the CIA or it could have been one of the cut-outs for plausible
deniability, and of all the usual suspects it was probably CrowdStrike.
- CGI / Global Strategy Group / Analysis Corp. - John Brennan (former CEO)
- Dynology, Wikistrat - General James L. Jones (former chairman of Atlantic Council, NSA
under Obama)
- CrowdStrike - Dmitri Alperovich and Shawn Henry (former chief of cyber forensics
FBI)
- Clearforce - Michael Hayden (former dir. NSA under Clinton, CIA under Bush) and Jim
Jones Jr. (son Gnrl James Jones)
- McChrystal Group - Stanley McChrystal (former chief of special operations DOD)
fersur , 8 hours ago
Unedited !
The Brookings Institute – a Deep State Hub Connected to the Fake Russia Collusion
and Ukraine Scandals Is Now Also Connected to China Spying In the US
The Brookings
Institute was heavily involved in the Democrat and Deep State Russia collusion hoax and
Ukraine impeachment fraud. These actions against President Trump were criminal.
This institute is influenced from foreign donations from entities who don't have an
America first agenda. New reports connect the Institute to Chinese spying.
As we reported previously, Julie Kelly at American Greatness
released a report where she addresses the connections between the Brookings Institute,
Democrats and foreign entities. She summarized her report as follows: Accepting millions
from a state sponsor of terrorism, foisting one of the biggest frauds in history on the
American people, and acting as a laundering agent of sorts for Democratic political
contributions disguised as policy grants isn't a good look for such an esteemed
institution. One would be hard-pressed to name a more influential think tank than the
Brookings Institution. The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit routinely ranks at the top of
the list
of the best think tanks in the world; Brookings scholars produce a steady flow of reports,
symposiums, and news releases that sway the conversation on any number of issues ranging
from domestic and economic policy to foreign affairs.
Brookings is home to lots of Beltway power players: Ben
Bernanke and Janet Yellen, former chairmen of the Federal Reserve, are Brookings fellows.
Top officials from both Republican and Democrat presidential administrations lend political
heft to the organization. From 2002 until 2017, the organization's president was Strobe
Talbott. He's a longtime BFF of Bill Clinton; they met in the 1970s at Oxford University
and have been tight ever since. Talbott was a top aide to both President Bill Clinton and
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Kelly continued:
Brookings-based fellows working at Lawfare were the media's go-to legal "experts" to
legitimize the concocted crime; the outlet manipulated much of the news coverage on
collusion by pumping out primers and guidance on how to report collusion events from
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's appointment to his final report.
Now, testimony related to a defamation lawsuit against Christopher Steele, the author of
the infamous "dossier" on Donald Trump, has exposed his direct ties to Talbott in 2016 when
he was still head of Brookings. Talbott and Steele were in communication before and after
the presidential election; Steele wanted Talbott to circulate the dossier to his pals in
John Kerry's State Department, which reportedly is what Talbott
did . Steele also briefed top state department officials in October 2016 about his
work.
But this isn't the only connection between the Brookings Institute and the Russia
collusion and Ukrainian scandals. We were the first to report that the Primary Sub-Source
(PSS) in the Steele report, the main individual who supplied Steele with bogus information
in his report was Igor Danchenko.
In November 2019, the star witness for the Democrat Representative Adam Schiff's
impeachment show trial was announced. Her name was Fiona Hill.
Today we've uncovered that Hill is a close associate of the Primary Sub-Source (PSS) for
the Steele dossier – Igor Danchenko – the individual behind most all the lies
in the Steele dossier. No wonder Hill saw the Steele dossier before it was released. Her
associate created it.
Both Fiona Hill and Igor Danchenko are connected to the Brookings Institute.
They gave a presentation together as Brookings Institute representatives:
Kelly writes about the foreign funding the Brookings Institute partakes:
So who and what have been funding the anti-Trump political operation at Brookings over
the past few years? The think tank's top benefactors are a predictable mix of family
foundations, Fortune 100 corporations, and Big Tech billionaires. But one of the biggest
contributors to Brookings' $100 million-plus annual budget is the Embassy of Qatar.
According to financial reports, Qatar has donated more than $22 million to the think tank
since 2004. In fact, Brookings operates a satellite center in Doha, the
capital of Qatar. The wealthy Middle Eastern oil producer
spends billions on American institutions such as universities and other think
tanks.
Qatar also is a top state sponsor of terrorism, pouring billions into Hamas, al-Qaeda,
and the Muslim Brotherhood, to name a few. "The nation of Qatar, unfortunately, has
historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level," President Trump said in 2017. "We
have to stop the funding of terrorism."
An email from a Qatari official, obtained by WikiLeaks, said the Brookings
Institution was as important to the country as "an aircraft carrier."
The Brookings Institution, a prominent Washington, D.C., think tank, partnered with a
Shanghai policy center that the FBI has described as a front for China's intelligence and
spy recruitment operations, according to public records and federal court documents.
The Brookings Doha Center, the think tank's hub in Qatar, signed a memorandum of
understanding with the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences in January 2018, the
institution said . The academy is a policy center funded by the Shanghai municipal
government that has raised flags within the FBI.
The partnership raises questions about potential Chinese espionage activities at the
think tank, which employs numerous former government officials and nearly two dozen
current foreign policy advisers to Joe Biden's presidential campaign.
It is really frightening that one of two major political parties in the US is tied so
closely with the Brookings Institute. It is even more frightening that foreign enemies of
the United States are connected to this entity as well.
Let it Go , 8 hours ago
One thing for sure is these guys have far to much of our money to spend promoting their
own good.
fersur , 7 hours ago
Unedited !
Mueller Indictments Tied To "ShadowNet," Former Obama National Security Advisor and
Obama's CIA Director – Not Trump
According to a report in the Daily Beast, which cited the Wall Street Journal's
reporting of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into two companies, Wikistrat
and Psy Group, "The firm's advisory council lists former CIA and National Security Agency
director Michael Hayden, former national security adviser James L. Jones."
According to numerous reporting from major news outlets like the Wall Street Journal and
Daily Beast, both Wikistrat and Psy Group represent themselves as being social media
analysts and black PSYOP organizations. Both Wikistrat and Psy Group have foreign ownership
mixed between Israeli, Saudi (Middle East) and Russian. Here is what the Wall Street
Journal, The Daily Beast and pretty much everyone else out there doesn't know (or won't
tell you).
The fact Obama's former National Security Advisor, General James Jones, and former Obama
CIA director, Gen. Michael Hayden, are both on Wikistrat's advisory board may not seem
suspicious, but both of these general's have another thing in common, and that is the
ShadowNet. The ShadowNet, and its optional companion relational database, iPsy, were both
originally developed by the small, family owned defense contracting company, Dynology. The
family that owns Dynology; Gen. James Jones. I would add Paul Manafort and Rick Davis was
Dynology's partner at the time we were making the ShadowNet and iPsy commercially
available.
After obtaining the contract in Iraq to develop social media psychological warfare
capabilities, known in military nomenclature as Interactive Internet Activities, or IIA,
Gen. Jones kept the taxpayer funded application we developed in Iraq for the 4th
Psychological Operation Group, and made it commercially available under the trademark of
the "ShadowNet" and the optional black PSYOP component, "iPsy." If you think it is
interesting that one of the companies under Mueller's indictment is named, "Psy" Group, I
did as well. In fact, literally everything both publicly described in news reports, and
even their websites, are exactly the same as the ShadowNet and iPsy I helped build, and
literally named.
The only thing different I saw as far as services offered by Wikistrat, and that of
Dynology and the ShadowNet, was described by The Daily Beast as, "It also engaged in
intelligence collection." Although iPsy was a relational database that allowed for the
dissemination of whatever the required narrative was, "intelligence collection" struck
another bell with me, and that's a company named ClearForce.
ClearForce was developed as a solution to stopping classified leaks following the Edward
Snowden debacle in 2013. Changes in NISPOM compliance requirements forced companies and
government agencies that had employees with government clearances to take preventive
measure to mitigate the potential of leaking. Although the NISPOM compliance requirement
almost certainly would have been influenced by either Hayden, Jones or both, they once
again sought to profit from it.
Using components of the ShadowNet and iPsy, the ClearForce application (which the
company, ClearForce, was named after,) was developed to provide compliance to a regulation
I strongly suspect you will find Jones and Hayden had a hand in creating. In fact, I
strongly suspect you will find General Jones had some influence in the original requirement
for our Iraq contract Dynology won to build the ShadowNet – at taxpayer expense!
Dynology worked for several years incorporating other collection sources, such as
financial, law enforcement and foreign travel, and ties them all into your social media
activity. Their relationship with Facebook and other social media giants would have been
nice questions for congress to have asked them when they testified.
Part 1 of 2 !
fersur , 7 hours ago
Part 2 of 2 !
The ClearForce application combines all of these sources together in real-time and uses
artificial intelligence to predictively determine if you are likely to steal or leak based
on the behavioral profile ClearForce creates of you. It can be used to determine if you get
a job, and even if you lose a job because a computer read your social media, credit and
other sources to determine you were likely to commit a crime. It's important for you to
stop for a moment and think about the fact it is privately controlled by the former CIA
director and Obama's National Security Advisor/NATO Supreme Allied Commander, should scare
the heck out of you.
When the ClearForce application was complete, Dynology handed it off to ClearForce, the
new company, and Michael Hayden joined the board of directors along with Gen. Jones and his
son, Jim, as the president of ClearForce. Doesn't that kind of sound like "intelligence
collection" described by the Daily Beast in Wikistrat's services?
To wrap this all up, Paul Manafort, Rick Davis, George Nader, Wikistrat and Psy Group
are all directly connected to Mueller's social media influence and election interreference
in the 2016 presidential election. In fact, I believe all are under indictment, computers
seized, some already sentenced. All of these people under indictment by Mueller have one
key thing in common, General James Jones's and Michael Hayden's social media black PSYOP
tools; the ShadowNet, iPsy and ClearForce.
A recent meeting I had with Congressman Gus Bilirakis' chief of staff, Elizabeth Hittos,
is confirmation that they are reviewing my DoD memorandum stating the work I did on the IIA
information operation in Iraq, the Dynology marketing slicks for the ShadowNet and iPsy,
along with a screenshot of Goggle's Way-Back Machine showing Paul Manafort's partnership
with Dynology in 2007 and later. After presenting to her these facts and making clear I
have much more information that requires the highest classification SCIF to discuss and
requires being read-on to the program, Elizabeth contacted the office of Congressman Devin
Nunez to request that I brief the intelligence committee on this critical information
pertaining directly to the 2010 Ukrainian elections, Michael Brown riots, 2016 election
interference and the "Russia collusion" hoax. All of that is on top of numerous
questionable ethical and potentially illegal profits from DoD contracts while servings as
NATO Commander and Obama's National Security Advisor.
We also need to know if the ShadowNet and iPsy were allowed to fall into foreign hands,
including Russia, Saudi Arabia and Israel. I'm pretty sure South America is going to have a
few questions for Jones and Obama as well? Stay tuned!
Balance-Sheet , 4 hours ago
Intelligence Agencies of all countries endlessly wage war at all times especially
'Information Warfare' (propaganda/disinformation) and the primary target has always and
will always be the domestic population of the Intelligence Agency's country.
Yes, of course the CIA does target ALL other countries but the primary target will
always be the Americans themselves.
Balance-Sheet , 4 hours ago
Intelligence Agencies of all countries endlessly wage war at all times especially
'Information Warfare' (propaganda/disinformation) and the primary target has always and
will always be the domestic population of the Intelligence Agency's country.
Yes, of course the CIA does target ALL other countries but the primary target will
always be the Americans themselves.
The neoliberals own the media, courts, academia, and BUREAUCRACY (including CIA) and
they will do anything to make sure they retain power over everyone. These control freaks
work hard to create all sorts of enemies to justify their existence.
LaugherNYC , 15 hours ago
It is sad that this information has to be repeatedly published, over and over and over,
by SCI and other Russian. outlets.
Because no legit AMERICAN news outlet will give Binney or Assange the time of day or any
credence, this all becomes Kremlin-sponsored disinformation and denials. People roll their
eyes and say "Oh God, not the whole 'Seth Rich was murdered by the CIA' crap again!! You
know, his FAMILY has asked that people stop spreading these conspiracy theories and
lies."
SCI is a garbage bin, nothing more than a dizinformatz machine for Putin, but in this
case, they are likely right. It seems preposterous that the "best hackers in the world"
would forget to use a VPN or leave a signature behind, and it makes far more sense that the
emails were leaked by someone irate at the abuses of the DNC - the squashing of Bernie, the
cheating for Hillary in the debates - behavior we saw repeated in 2020 with Bernie shoved
aside again for the pathetic Biden.
Would that SOMEONE in the US who is not on the Kremlin payroll would pick up this
thread. But all the "investigative journalists" now work indirectly for the DNC, and those
that don't are cancelled by the left.
Stone_d_agehurler , 15 hours ago
I am Guccifer and I approve this message.
Sarc/
But i do share your opinion. They are likely right this time and most of the pundits and
media in the U. S. know it. That's what makes this a sad story about how rotten the U. S.
system has become.
Democrats will sacrifice the Union for getting Trump out of office.
If elections in Nov won't go their way, Civil War II might become a real thing in
2021.
PeterLong , 4 hours ago
If " digital "fingerprints" in order to give the impression that the files came from
Russian sources" were inserted in the leak by "Guccifer", and if the leak to wikileaks came
from Seth Rich, via whatever avenue, then the "Guccifer" release came after the wikileaks
release, or after wikileaks had the files, and was a reaction to same attempting to
diminish their importance/accuracy and cast doubt on Trump. Could CIA and/or DNC have known
the files were obtained by wikileaks before wikileaks actually released them? In any case
collusion of CIA with DNC seems to be a given.
RightlyIndignent , 4 hours ago
Because Seth had already given it to Wikileaks. There is no 'Fancy Bear'. There is no
'Cozy Bear'. Those were made up by CrowdStrike, and they tried the same crap on Ukraine,
and Ukraine told them to pound sand. When push came to shove, and CrowdStrike was forced to
say what they really had under oath, they said: "We have nothing."
novictim , 4 hours ago
You are leaving out Crowd Strike. Seth Rich was tasked by people at the DNC to copy data
off the servers. He made a backup copy and gave a copy to people who then got it to Wiki
leaks. He used highspeed file transfers to local drives to do his task.
Meanwhile, it was the Ukrainian company Crowd Strike that claimed the data was stolen
over the internet and that the thieves were in Russia. That 'proof" was never verified by
US Intelligence but was taken on its word as being true despite crowd strike falsifying
Russian hacks and being caught for it in the past.
Joebloinvestor , 5 hours ago
The "five eyes" are convinced they run the world and try to.
That is what Brennan counted on for these agencies to help get President Trump.
As I said, it is time for the UK and the US to have a serious conversation about their
current and ex-spies being involved in US elections.
Southern_Boy , 5 hours ago
It wasn't the CIA. It was John Brennan and Clapper. The CIA, NSA FBI, DOJ and the
Ukrainian Intelligence Service just went along working together and followed orders from
Brennan who got them from Hillary and Obama.
Oh, and don't forget the GOP Globalist RINOs who also participated in the coup attempt:
McCain, Romney, Kasich, Boehner, Lee and Richard Burr.
With Kasich now performing as a puppy dog for Biden at the Democrat Convention as a
Democrat DNC executive, the re-alignment is almost complete: Globalist Nationalist
Socialist Bolshevism versus American Populism, i.e. Elites versus Deplorables or Academics
versus Smelly Wal-Mart people.
on target , 5 hours ago
No way. CIA up to their eyeballs in this as well as the State Department. Impossible for
Russiagate or Ukrainegate without direct CIA and State involvement.
RightlyIndignent , 4 hours ago
Following Orders? How did that argument go at Nuremberg? (hint: not very well)
LeadPipeDreams , 6 hours ago
LOL - the CIA's main mission - despite their "official" charter, has always been to
destabilize the US and its citizens via psyops, false flags, etc.
Covid-1984 is their latest and it appears most successful project yet.
Iconoclast27 , 5 hours ago
The CIA received a $200 million initial investment from the Rockefeller and Carnegie
foundations when it was first established, that should tell you everything you need to know
how who they truly work for.
A_Huxley , 6 hours ago
CIA, MI6, 5 eye nations.
All wanted to sway the USA their own way.
Let it Go , 8 hours ago
Almost as frightening as the concentrated power held by companies such as Facebook and
Google is the fact Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon and the world's richest man, is the person who
owns and controls the Washington Post. It is silly to think Jeff Bezos purchased the
Washington Post in 2013 because he expected newspapers to make a lucrative resurgence.
It is more likely he purchased the long-trusted U.S. newspaper for the power it would
ensure him in Washington when wielded as a propaganda mouthpiece to extend his ability to
both shape and control public opinion. More on this subject in the article below.
How it is the Democrats, the Deep State, and the legacy media are still able to cling to
the remnants of these long discredited narratives is a mystery.
avoiceofliberty , 6 hours ago
At the official level, you have a point.
However, even before Mueller was appointed, a review of the materials in the extant
public record of both the DNC "hack" and the history of Crowdstrike showed the narrative
simply did not make sense. A detailed investigation of materials not made public was not
necessary to shoot down the entire narrative.
Indeed, one of the great scandals of the Mueller probe is the way it did not bring
prudential skepticism to the question of the DNC "hack". When building a case, either for
public debate or for public trial, a dose of skepticism is healthy; it leads to a careful
vetting of facts and reasoning.
Alice-the-dog , 6 hours ago
The CIA has been an agency wholly independent of the US government almost since its
inception. It is not under any significant control by the government, and has its own
agenda which may occasionally coincide with that of the government, but only
coincidentally. It has its own view of how the world should look, and will not balk at any
means necessary to achieve such. Including the murder of dis-favorable members of
government.
snodgrass , 6 hours ago
It's the CIA and the FBI, Obama and people in his administration who cooked up
Russiagate.
Floki_Ragnarsson , 7 hours ago
The CIA whacked JFK because he was going to slow the roll to Vietnam AND disband the CIA
and reform it.
It is broken and needs to be disbanded and reformed along lines that actually WORK! The
CIA missed the fall of the USSR, 9/11, etc. HTF does THAT happen?
DeportThemAll , 6 hours ago
The CIA didn't "miss" 9/11... they participated in it.
Let it Go , 8 hours ago
The CIA is a tool that when improperly used can do great damage.
Anyone who doesn't believe that countries use psychological warfare and propaganda to
sway the opinions of people both in and outside of their country should be considered
naive. Too many people America is more than a little hypocritical when they criticize other
countries for trying to gain influence considering our history of meddling in the affairs
of other countries.
Americans have every reason to be concerned and worried considering revelations of just
how big the government intelligence agencies have grown since 9-11 and how unlimited their
spying and surveillance operations have become. The article below explores this growth and
questions whether we have lost control.
The idea of Binney and Jason Sullivan privately working to 'secure the vote' is
something that I actually consider to be very eyebrow raising and alarming.
Son of Captain Nemo , 8 hours ago
Bill Binney under "B" in the only "yellow pages" that show a conscience and a
soul!...
This is the dumbest article ever. Russiagate is a total fabrication of the FBI as per
Clinesmith, CIA provided information that would have nipped it at the bud. Read the real
news.
bringonthebigone , 9 hours ago
Wrong. this article is one small piece of the puzzle. Clinesmith is one small piece of
the puzzle. The Flynn entrapment is one small piece of the puzzle. The Halper entrapment
was one small piece of the puzzle.
Because Clinesmith at the FBI covered up the information saying Page was a CIA source
does not mean it was a total FBI fabrication and does not mean the CIA was not involved and
does not mean the DNC server hack is irrelevant.
Sundance does a better job pulling it all together.
PKKA , 14 hours ago
Relations have already soured between Russia and the United States, and sanctions have
been announced. Tensions have grown on the NATO-Russia border. The meat has already been
rolled into the minced meat and it will not be possible to roll the minced meat back into
the meat. The CIA got it. But the Russian people now absolutely understand that the United
States will always be the enemy of Russia, no matter whether socialist or capitalist. But I
like it even more than the feigned hypocritical "friendship". Russia has never reached such
heights as during the good old Cold War. All Russians have a huge incentive, long live the
new Cold War!
smacker , 12 hours ago
More and more people have worked out that the fabricated tensions between the US and
Russia
and US and China have little to do with those two countries posing any sort of threat to
world peace.
It is all about the US trying to remain in No.1 position as uni-polar top dog via the
Anglo American Empire.
We see examples of this every day in the M/E, South China Sea, Taiwan, Libya all over
Eastern Europe,
Ukraine, Iran and now Belaruse. HK was added along the way.
Both Russia and China openly want a multi-polar world order. But the US will never
accept that.
Hence the prospect of war. The only unknown today is what and where the trigger will
be.
smacker , 12 hours ago
More and more people have worked out that the fabricated tensions between the US and
Russia
and US and China have little to do with those two countries posing any sort of threat to
world peace.
It is all about the US trying to remain in No.1 position as uni-polar top dog via the
Anglo American Empire.
We see examples of this every day in the M/E, South China Sea, Taiwan, Libya all over
Eastern Europe,
Ukraine, Iran and now Belaruse. HK was added along the way.
Both Russia and China openly want a multi-polar world order. But the US will never
accept that.
Hence the prospect of war. The only unknown today is what and where the trigger will
be.
hang_the_banksters , 31 minutes ago
the best proof thAt Guccifer 2 was CIA hacking themselves to frame Wikileaks is
this:
Guccifer has not yet been identified, indicted and arrested.
you'd think CIAFBINSA would be turning over every stone to the ends of the earth to bust
Guccifer. we just had to endure 4 years of hysterical propaganda that Russia had hacked our
election and that Trump was their secret agent. so Guccifer should be the Most Wanted Man
on the planet. meanwhile, it's crickets from FBI. they arent even looking for him. because
Guccifer is over at Langley. maybe someone outta ask Brennan where G2 is now.
remember when DOJ indicted all those GRU cybersoldiers? the evidence listed in the
indictment was so stunning that i dont believe it. NSA so thoroughly hacked back into GRU
that NSA was watching GRU through their own webcams and recording them doing Google
searches to translate words which were written in Guccifer's blog posts about the DNC email
leaks. NSA and DOJ must think we are all stupid, that we will believe NSA is so powerful to
do that, yet they cant identify Guccifer.
i say i dont believe that for a second because no way Russian GRU are so stupid to even
have webcams on the computers they use to hack, and it is absurd to think GRU soldiers on a
Russian military base would be using Google instead of Yandex to translate words into
English.
lay_arrow
ConanTheContrarian1 , 1 hour ago
As a confirmed conspiracy theorist since I came back from 'Nam, here's mine: The
European nobility recognized with the American and French revolutions that they needed a
better approach. They borrowed from the Tudors (who had to deal with Parliament) and began
to rule by controlling the facade of representative government. This was enhanced by
funding banks to control through currency, as well as blackmail and murder, and morphed
into a complete propaganda machine like no other in history. The CIA, MI6 and Mossad, the
mainstream media, deep plants in bureaucracy and "democratic" bodies all obey their
dictates to create narratives that control our minds. Trump seems to offer hope, but
remember, he could be their latest narrative.
greatdisconformity , 1 hour ago
A Democracy cannot function on a higher level than the general electorate.
The intelligence and education of the general electorate has been sliding for
generations, because both political parties can play this to their advantage.
It is no accident that most of the messages coming from politicians are targeted to
imbeciles.
"... While I agree with the basic points that this post is making, obviously, I am very wary of opinions in which it is assumed that the 'threat' to a Western country is that it might 'sink' to the level of some non-Western country (assuming you conceptualise Russia as being non-Western which is a highly debatable point). ..."
"... 'Trump is the natural friend of dictators everywhere,' As opposed to precisely which American President? 'It's hard to see democracy surviving anywhere if it fails in the US.' ..."
@1
Well for various reasons I was in a room full of young Chinese people immediately after the
election of Trump. I asked what their opinion was, and one piped up (with the obvious support
of the rest) that they thought it would be very good, as Trump was obviously a deranged
lunatic and imbecile whose shambolic rule (this was not how he expressed it, of course, but
this was the gist) would weaken the United States, and 'America's weakness is China's
opportunity'.
While I agree with the basic points that this post is making, obviously, I am very wary of
opinions in which it is assumed that the 'threat' to a Western country is that it might
'sink' to the level of some non-Western country (assuming you conceptualise Russia as being
non-Western which is a highly debatable point).
'Trump is the natural friend of dictators everywhere,' As opposed to precisely which American President? 'It's hard to see democracy surviving anywhere if it fails in the US.'
As everyone has pointed out, Hilary in fact won the last Presidential election in terms of
votes. It is almost unheard of in an advanced 'democracy' for the Head of State to 'win' an
election via a minority of the votes.
On top of these things one has the increasing powergrab by the non-democratic Supreme
Court, which has simply decreed that it is the major 'power in the land' with a 'lock' on
what laws get passed and which do not, and the populace be damned.
Not to mention the de facto chokehold that corporations have on who can run for office and
what positions they can hold (Sanders, with his 'new' way of raising money, is challenging
this. We shall see what happens).
It is not at all clear to me that the US is in any objective sense more democratic than,
say, Iran (although it is a lot more FREE than Iran .but that's not the same thing).
So Trump is likely to exacerbate and intensify trends that have been going on for
decades.
A bit more about what I wrote about the Supreme Court (and the American 'justice' system)
more generally, which CT commentator Corey Robin has been noting tirelessly, to widespread
apathy amongst Democratic elites.
'The Supreme Court will probably overrule decades of progressive precedents and strike
down the next Democratic president's reforms. You would not know this from watching the 2020
Democratic presidential debates. Wednesday's showdown in Atlanta, the fifth so far, did not
include a single question about the courts. Earlier debates allowed for brief discussions of
the Supreme Court, but every candidate dramatically underestimated the threat it poses to the
Democratic Party. Both the candidates and the moderators appear to be astonishingly
naïve about the judiciary's lurch to the right under Donald Trump. And it is pointless
to discuss the Democrats' ambitious proposals without explaining how they are going to
survive at SCOTUS.
It's not just the debates -- Democratic politicians rarely talk about the courts at all.
There is an enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the judiciary:
GOP voters are more likely to be motivated by the opportunity to fill judicial vacancies,
which is why Trump ran on a promise of appointing archconservative judges. Democratic voters
focus more on individual political issues, and their party has never prioritized judges -- or
campaigned on the fact that every political dispute is ultimately resolved as a judicial
question. This complacency will prove catastrophic for progressives now that Justice Brett
Kavanaugh has replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy, shoring up a conservative majority that will
obstruct liberal policies for a generation.'
THIS is the threat to progressivism (well, all the other things that I mentioned are
threats too, but this is the one that's liable to be the 'straw that breaks the camels'
back').
@Hidari Most of the Democratic candidates have signalled willingness to pack the SC if it
rules in a partisan way. Even Booker and Klobuchar are saying "wait and see" rather than
opposing outright. . I'm sure Roberts doesn't need reminders, so the absence of much
discussion doesn't seem like a problem to me. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/18/2020-democrats-supreme-court-1223625
As regards the lower courts, they can only interpret legislation. A determined
Congressional majority can respond to any adverse interpreation with legislation that
repudiates it. It's only gridlock and Congressional cowardice that has given US courts so
much power.
An Excellent analysis, I am happy to see the pseudo intellectual Jonathan Haidt called out
for what he is. He's the king of false equivalencies , a disease we suffer from these days.
Haidt is a conservative pretending to be a neutral observer to legitimize the toxic ideology
of conservatism. Maybe someone should send Haidt Corey Robin's book " The Reactionary Mind "
not that he would read it
steven t johnson 11.23.19 at 4:00 pm (no link)
I was so astonished at the notion Trump cares (or trusts?) his children enough to appoint one
president I rather forgot the rest of the post.
But fascism is just a different way of mobilizing the nation for war than democracy. So
the real issue with Trumpian fascism is who he's going to fight and how. I believe economic
warfare waged against the masses in a foreign country is an atrocity. Venezuela, Iran and as
ever North Korea are targets. The goal in the economic war on China is the restoration of
capitalism and/or the division of the country. But do democrats/Democrats really disagree
with this? Except that they want more use of weapons and a better deal for the EU?
"... The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its top candidates, part of the so-called "Red to Blue" program targeting the most vulnerable Republican-held seats -- in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan, which includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term Republican Representative Mike Bishop. ..."
"... The 23rd Congressional District in Texas, which includes a vast swathe of the US-Mexico border along the Rio Grande, features a contest for the Democratic nomination between Gina Ortiz Jones, an Air Force intelligence officer in Iraq, who subsequently served as an adviser for US interventions in South Sudan and Libya, and Jay Hulings. The latter's website describes him as a former national security aide on Capitol Hill and federal prosecutor, whose father and mother were both career undercover CIA agents. The incumbent Republican congressman, Will Hurd, is himself a former CIA agent, so any voter in that district will have his or her choice of intelligence agency loyalists in both the Democratic primary and the general election. ..."
An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State
Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence
personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history.
If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from
the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance
of power in the lower chamber of Congress.
Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence
background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently
clearing the field for a favored "star" recruit. A case in point is Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq,
who worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top aide to John Negroponte, the
first director of national intelligence. After her deep involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where,
as a principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of responsibility included drone
warfare, "homeland defense" and cyber warfare. Elissa Slotkin
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its top candidates, part of the so-called
"Red to Blue" program targeting the most vulnerable Republican-held seats -- in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan,
which includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term Republican Representative Mike Bishop.
The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At the same time, such people are choosing
the Democratic Party as their preferred political vehicle. There are far more former spies and soldiers seeking the nomination of
the Democratic Party than of the Republican Party. There are so many that there is a subset of Democratic primary campaigns that,
with a nod to Mad magazine, one might call "spy vs. spy."
The 23rd Congressional District in Texas, which includes a vast swathe of the US-Mexico border along the Rio Grande, features
a contest for the Democratic nomination between Gina Ortiz Jones, an Air Force intelligence officer in Iraq, who subsequently served
as an adviser for US interventions in South Sudan and Libya, and Jay Hulings. The latter's website describes him as a former national
security aide on Capitol Hill and federal prosecutor, whose father and mother were both career undercover CIA agents. The incumbent
Republican congressman, Will Hurd, is himself a former CIA agent, so any voter in that district will have his or her choice of intelligence
agency loyalists in both the Democratic primary and the general election.
CNN's "State of the Union" program on March 4 included a profile of Jones as one of many female candidates seeking nomination
as a Democrat in Tuesday's primary in Texas. The network described her discreetly as a "career civil servant." However, the Jones
for Congress website positively shouts about her role as a spy, noting that after graduating from college, "Gina entered the US Air
Force as an intelligence officer, where she deployed to Iraq and served under the US military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy" (the
last phrase signaling to those interested in such matters that Jones is gay).
According to her campaign biography, Ortiz Jones was subsequently detailed to a position as "senior advisor for trade enforcement,"
a post President Obama created by executive order in 2012. She would later be invited to serve as a director for investment at the
Office of the US Trade Representative, where she led the portfolio that reviewed foreign investments to ensure they did not pose
national security risks. With that background, if she fails to win election, she can surely enlist in the trade war efforts of the
Trump administration.
Even before Rep. Tulsi Gabbard threatened to
boycott the October 15th Dem debate as the DNC usurps the role of voters in the Democratic primacy 2020 election and with an
impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump on the table, the Swamp was stirred and its slimy muck may be about to come to
the surface as never before.
If so, those revelations are long overdue.
It is no secret to the observant that since the 2016 election, the Democratic Party has been in a state of near-collapse, the
victim of its own hubris, having lost their moral compass with unsubstantiated Russisgate allegations; those accusations continue
as a futile exercise of domestic regime change.
Today's Dems are less than a bona fide opposition party offering zero policy solutions, unrecognizable from past glories and
not the same political party many of us signed up for many years ago. Instead, the American public is witnessing a frenzied, unscrupulous
strategy.
Desperate in the denial of its demise, confronting its own shadow of corruption as the Dems have morphed into a branch of the
CIA – not unlike origins of the East German Stasi government.
It should not be necessary to say but in today's hyper volatile political climate it is: No American should be labelled as anything
other than a loyal American to be deeply disturbed by the Democrat/CIA collusion that is currently operating an unprecedented
Kangaroo Court in secret, behind closed doors; thus posing an ominous provocation to what remains of our Constitutional Republic.
As any politically savvy, independent thinking American might grasp, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck
Schumer and their entire coterie of sycophants always knew that Russiagate was a crock of lies.
They lied to their willing Democratic rank n file, they lied to American public and they continue to lie about their bogus Impeachment
campaign.
It may be that whistleblower
Ed Snowden's revelations about the NSA surveillance state was the first inkling for many Americans that there is a Big Problem
with an out-of-control intelligence community until Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned that
Trump was being 'really dumb " in daring to question Intel's faulty conclusion that Russia hacked the 2016 election.
"Let me tell you. You take on the intelligence community = they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you."
Inescapably, Schumer was suggesting that the Congress has no oversight, that there is no accountability and that the US has lost
its democratic roots when a newly elected President does not have the authority to question or publicly disagree with any of the
Intel agencies.
Since the 2016 election, there has been a steady drumbeat of the US Intel's unabashed efforts to undermine and otherwise prevent
a newly elected President from governing – which sounds like a clear case of insubordination or some might call it treasonous.
The Intel antipathy does not appear to be rooted in cuts to a favorite social services program but rather protecting a power,
financial and influence agenda that
goes
far deeper and more profound than most Americans care to contemplate.
Among a plethora of egregious corporate media reactions, no doubt stirred by their Intel masters, was to a
July, 2018 summit meeting between Russian President Putin and Trump in Helsinki emblematic of illegitimate censures from Intel
veterans and its cronies:
Not one praised Trump for pursuing peace with Russia.
And yet, fellow Americans, it is curious to consider that there was no outrage after the 911 attacks in 2001 from any member of
Congress, President Bush or the Corporate Media that the US intelligence community had utterly failed in its mission to keep the
American public safe.
There was no reckoning, not one person in authority was held accountable, not one person who had the responsibility to 'know'
was fired from any of the Intel agencies. Why is that?
As a result of the corrupt foundation of the Russiagate allegations, Attorney General Bob Barr and Special Investigator John Durham
appear
hot on the trail with law enforcement in Italy as they have apparently scared the bejesus out of what little common sense remains
among the Democratic hierarchy as if Barr/Durham might be headed for Obama's Oval Office.
Barr's earlier comment before the Senate that " spying did occur' and that '
it's a big deal' when
an incumbent administration (ie the Obama Administration) authorizes a counter-Intelligence operation on an opposing candidate (ie
Donald Trump) has the Dems in panic-stricken overdrive – and that is what is driving the current Impeachment Inquiry.
With the stark realization that none of the DNC's favored top tier candidates has the mojo to go the distance, the Democrats have
now focused on a July 25th
phone call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in which Trump allegedly ' pressured ' Zelenskyy to investigate
Joe Biden's relationship with Burisma, the country's largest natural gas provider.
Zelenskyy, who defeated the US-endorsed incumbent President Petro Poroshenko in a landslide victory, speaks Russian, was elected
to clean up corruption and end the conflict in eastern Ukraine. The war in the Donbass began as a result of the US State Department's
role in the
overthrow of democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014.
Trump's first priority on July 25th was
Crowd Strike , a cybersecurity firm with links to the HRC campaign which was hired by the DNC to investigate Russian hacking
of its server.
The Dems have reason to be concerned since it is worth contemplating why the FBI did not legally mandate that the DNC turn its
server over to them for an official Federal forensic inspection.
One can only speculate those chickens may be coming home to roost.
Days after an anonymous whistleblower (not to be confused with a real whistleblower like Edward Snowden) later identified as a
CIA analyst with a professional history linked to Joe Biden,
publicly released a
Complaint against
Trump.
House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi announced
the initiation of an ambiguous Impeachment Inquiry campaign with little specificity about the process. The Complaint is suspect since
it reads more like a professionally prepared Affidavit and the Dems consider Pelosi's statement as sufficient to initiate a formal
process that fails to follow the time-honored path of a full House vote predicating a legitimate impeachment inquiry on to the Judiciary
Committee.
Of special interest is how the process to date is playing out with the House Intelligence Committee in a key role conducting what
amounts to
clandestine meetings , taking depositions and witness statements behind closed doors with a still secret unidentified whistleblower's
identity and voice obscured from Republican members of the Intel Committee and a witness testifying without being formally sworn
in – all too eerily similar to East Germany.
The pretense of shielding the thinly veiled CIA operative as a whistleblower from public exposure can only be seen as an overly-dramatic
transparent performance as the Dems have never exhibited any concern about protecting real whistleblowers like Snowden, Chelsea Manning,
Bill Binney, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, Julian Assange, Jeffrey Sterling and others who were left to fend for themselves as the
Obama Administration prosecuted more true, authentic whistleblowers than any other administration since the
Espionage Act of 1917 .
As the paradigm shift takes its toll on the prevailing framework of reality and our decayed political institutions, (the FBI and
DOJ come to mind as the Inspector General's report is due at week's end), how much longer does the Democratic Party, which no longer
serves a useful public purpose, deserve to exist?
The first and the most important fact that there will no elections in November -- both candidates represent the same oligarchy,
just slightly different factions of it.
Look like NYT is controlled by Bolton faction of CIA. They really want to overturn the
results of 2020 elections and using Russia as a bogeyman is a perfect opportunity to achieve this
goal.
Neocons understand very well that it is MIC who better their bread, so amplifying rumors the simplify getting additional budget
money for intelligence agencies (which are a part of MIC) is always the most desirable goal.
Notable quotes:
"... But a new assessment says China would prefer to see the president defeated, though it is not clear Beijing is doing much to meddle in the 2020 campaign to help Joseph R. Biden Jr. ..."
"... The statement then claims: "Ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections, foreign states will continue to use covert and overt influence measures in their attempts to sway U.S. voters' preferences and perspectives, shift U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people's confidence in our democratic process." ..."
"... But how do the 'intelligence' agencies know that foreign states want to "sway preferences", "increase discord" or "undermine confidence" in elections? ..."
"... But ascribing motive and intent is a tricky business, because perceived impact is often mistaken for true intent. [...] Where is the evidence that Russia actually wants to bring down the liberal world order and watch the United States burn? ..."
"... Well there is none. And that is why the 'intelligence' agencies do not present any evidence. ..."
"... Is there a secret policy paper by the Russian government that says it should "increase discord" in the United States? Is there some Chinese think tank report which says that undermining U.S. people's confidence in their democratic process would be good for China? ..."
"... If the 'intelligence' people have copies of those papers why not publish them? ..."
"... Let me guess. The 'intelligence' agencies have nothing, zero, nada. They are just making wild-ass guesses about 'intentions' of perceived enemies to impress the people who sign off their budget. ..."
"... Nowadays that seems to be their main purpose. ..."
But when one reads the piece itself one finds no fact that would support the 'Russia
Continues Interfering' statement:
Russia is using a range of techniques to denigrate Joseph R. Biden Jr., American intelligence
officials said Friday in their first public assessment that Moscow continues to try to
interfere in the 2020 campaign to help President Trump.
At the same time, the officials said China preferred that Mr. Trump be defeated in
November and was weighing whether to take more aggressive action in the election.
But officials briefed on the intelligence said that Russia was the far graver, and more
immediate, threat. While China seeks to gain influence in American politics, its leaders have
not yet decided to wade directly into the presidential contest, however much they may dislike
Mr. Trump, the officials said.
The assessment, included in a
statement released by William R. Evanina, the director of the National
Counterintelligence and Security Center, suggested the intelligence community was treading
carefully, reflecting the political heat generated by previous findings.
The authors emphasize the scaremongering hearsay from "officials briefed on the
intelligence" - i.e. Democratic congress members - about Russia but have nothing to back it
up.
When one reads the
statement by Evanina one finds nothing in it about Russian attempts to interfere in the
U.S. elections. Here is the only 'evidence' that is noted:
For example, pro-Russia Ukrainian parliamentarian Andriy Derkach is spreading claims about
corruption – including through publicizing leaked phone calls – to undermine
former Vice President Biden's candidacy and the Democratic Party. Some Kremlin-linked actors
are also seeking to boost President Trump's candidacy on social media and Russian television.
After a request from Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal attorney, a Ukrainian
parliamentarian published Ukrainian
evidence of Biden's very real interference in the Ukraine. Also: Some guest of a Russian TV
show had an opinion. How is either of those two items 'evidence' of Russian interference in
U.S. elections?
The statement then claims: "Ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections, foreign states will continue to use covert and overt
influence measures in their attempts to sway U.S. voters' preferences and perspectives, shift
U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people's
confidence in our democratic process."
But how do the 'intelligence' agencies know that foreign states want to "sway preferences",
"increase discord" or "undermine confidence" in elections?
The mainstream view in the U.S. media and government holds that the Kremlin is waging a
long-haul campaign to undermine and destabilize American democracy. Putin wants to see the
United States burn, and contentious elections offer a ready-made opportunity to fan the
flames.
But ascribing motive and intent is a tricky business, because perceived impact is often
mistaken for true intent. [...] Where is the evidence that Russia actually wants to bring
down the liberal world order and watch the United States burn?
Well there is none. And that is why the 'intelligence' agencies do not present any
evidence.
Even the NYT writers have to
admit that there is nothing there:
The release on Friday was short on specifics, ...
and
Intelligence agencies focus their work on the intentions of foreign governments, and steer
clear of assessing if those efforts have had an effect on American voters.
How do 'intelligence' agencies know Russian, Chinese or Iranian 'intentions'. Is there a
secret policy paper by the Russian government that says it should "increase discord" in the
United States? Is there some Chinese think tank report which says that undermining U.S.
people's confidence in their democratic process would be good for China?
If the 'intelligence' people have copies of those papers why not publish them?
Let me guess. The 'intelligence' agencies have nothing, zero, nada. They are just making
wild-ass guesses about 'intentions' of perceived enemies to impress the people who sign off
their budget.
Nowadays that seems to be their main purpose.
Posted by b on August 8, 2020 at 18:08 UTC |
Permalink
The United States national election is now only three months away and it should be expected
that the out-and-out lies emanating from both parties will increase geometrically as the
polling date nears. One of the more interesting claims regarding the election itself is the
White House assertion that large scale voting by mail will permit fraud, so much so that the
result of the voting will be unreliable or challenged. To be sure, it is not as if voter fraud
is unknown in the United States. The victory of John F. Kennedy 1960 presidential election has
often been credited to all the graveyards in Mayor Richard Daley's Chicago voting to swing
Illinois into the Democratic camp.
The Democrats are insisting that voting by mail is perfectly safe and reliable, witness the
use of absentee ballots for many years. The assertions by Democratic Party-affiliated voting
officials in several states and also from friends on the federal level have been played in the
media to confirm that fraud in elections has been insignificant recently. That may be true, up
until now.
The Democrats, of course, have an agenda. For reasons that are not altogether clear, they
believe that voting by mail would benefit them primarily, so they are pushing hard for their
supporters to register in their respective states and cast their ballots at the local mail box.
Nevertheless, there should be some skepticism whenever a major American political party wants
something. In this case, the Democrats are likely assuming that people at lower income levels
who will most likely vote for them cannot be bothered to register and vote if it requires
actually going somewhere to do it. They have spoken of "expansion of voting," presumably to
their benefit. The mail is a much easier option.
A Fox News host
has rejected the impelling logic behind the mail option, saying "Can't we just have this
one moment to vote for one candidate every four years, and show up and put a ballot in without
licking an envelope or pressing on a stamp? If you can shop for food, if you can buy liquor,
you can vote once every four years."
The fundamental problem with the arguments coming from both sides is that there is no
national system in the United States for registering and voting. Elections are run at state
level and the individual states have their own procedures. The actual ballots also differ from
voting district to voting district. To determine what safeguards are actually built into the
system is difficult as how electoral offices actually function is considered sensitive
information by many, precisely because it might reveal vulnerabilities in the process.
To determine how one might actually vote illegally, I reviewed the process required for
registering and voting by mail in my own state of Virginia. In Virginia one can both register
and vote without any human contact at all. The registration process can be accomplished by
filling out an online form, which is
linked here . Note particularly the following: the form requires one to check the box
indicating U.S. citizenship. It then asks for name and address as well as social security
number, date of birth and whether one has a criminal record or is otherwise disqualified to
vote. You then have to sign and date the document and mail it off. Within ten days, you should
receive a voter's registration card for Virginia which you can present if you vote in person,
though even that is not required.
But also note the following: no documents have to presented to support the application,
which means that all the information can be false. You can even opt out of providing a social
security number by indicating that you have never been issued one, even though the form
indicates that you must have one to be registered, and you can also submit a temporary address
by claiming you are "homeless." Even date of birth information is useless as the form does not
ask where you were born, which is how birth records are filed by state and local governments.
Ultimately, it is only the social security number that validates the document and that is what
also appears on the Voter's ID Card, but even that can be false or completely fabricated, as
many illegal immigrant workers in the U.S. have discovered.
In a state like Virginia, the actual mail-in ballot requires your signature and that of a
witness, who can be anyone. That is also true in six other states. Thirty-one states only
require your own signature while only three states require that the document be notarized, a
good safeguard since it requires the voter to actually produce some documentation. Seven states
require your additional signature on the ballot envelope and two states require that a
photocopy of the voter ID accompany the ballot. In other words, the safeguards in the system
vary from state to state but in most cases, fraud would be relatively easy.
And then there is the issue of how the election commissions in the states will be
overwhelmed by tens of thousands of mail-in ballots that they might be receiving in November.
That overload would minimize whatever manual checking of names, addresses and social security
numbers might otherwise take place. Jim Bovard has speculated how
:
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
"The American political system may be on the eve of its worst legitimacy crisis since the
Civil War. Early warning signals indicate that many states could suffer catastrophic failures
in counting votes in November Because of the pandemic, many states are switching primarily to
mail-in voting even though experiences with recent primaries were a disaster. In New York
City, officials are
still struggling to count mail-in ballots from the June primary. Up to 20% of ballots
'were declared
invalid before even being opened , based on mistakes with their exterior envelopes,' the
Washington Post noted, thanks largely to missing postmarks or signatures. In Wisconsin, more
than 20,000 '
primary ballots were thrown out because voters missed at least one line on the form,
rendering them invalid.' Some states are mailing ballots to all the names on the voting
lists, providing thousands of dead people the chance to vote from the grave."
Add into the witch's cauldron the continued use of easily hacked antiquated voting machines
as well as confusing ballots in many districts, and the question of whether an election can
even be run with expectations of a credible result becomes paramount. President Trump has
several times claimed that the expected surge in mail-in voting could result in "
the most corrupt vote in our nation's history ." Trump is often wrong when he speaks or
tweets spontaneously, but this time he just might be right. gcjohns1971 , 8 hours
ago
This was why the founders required voters to be property owners. You have to have a stake
in the system to have a vote in the system or you will only vote for the property owners'
wealth to be given to you.
joego1 , 8 hours ago
Pretty soon that would mean only Black Rock could vote.
rent slave , 7 hours ago
Some people pay taxes and have wealth without owning property.Plus ,some property owners are nearly indigent and
dependent on government handouts.
Chocura750 , 7 hours ago
Voting by mail gives the elderly and shutins the ability to vote. These are usually
Republican leaning which makes me wonder why the Republicans oppose it. Mail in voting has
been done for years without any problems.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 8 hours ago
I had recently come to the conclusion, and in hind sight its a fairly obvious one that
mail-in voting is no more prone to fraud than the electronic voting machines. Hell, it's
easier to manipulate those, at least with the mail in ballots there is a paper trail.
Glad to see the article points this out.
But, the election outcome will be what TPTB want it to be. Voting and elections are too
important to be left to us commoners. ay_arrow
Billy the Poet , 8 hours ago
One would have to have access to electronic voting equipment in order to manipulate the
data. Mail in voter fraud involves nothing more than getting ahold of ballots and sending
them in which sounds like a lower bar. No special access or skills necessary. It could end up
like "we found a box of ballots in the truck of my car" on steroids.
NoDebt , 8 hours ago
Any system run by the corrupt will be compromised.
Let me explain how I see this going down with new mail-in voting this cycle:
Lots of mail-in ballots will come in that are rejected for one reason or another (arrived
too late, had no postmark, signature didn't match, whatever). The Ds will already have
favorable judges lined up ready to overturn those rulings. While those rulings are waiting to
be overturned, thousands more in a similar circumstance will keep mysteriously piling up. The
hand-picked judge will rule them all valid and they will be counted.
HERE IS THE TRICK WHICH WILL BE EXPLOITED:
Remember when Trump won in '16 they simply stopped reporting results for about 6 hours
from any state anywhere in the US? Went on from about 10pm (when it became obvious Trump was
about to pull off his upset) to about 4am, give or take.
What were they doing in those hours? LOOKING FOR MORE VOTES FOR HILLARY. They couldn't
find or manufacture enough in that time period.
But what if you were to stretch that period of time out not just for hours, but days or
even weeks? Plenty of time to "find" the votes needed to tip the election so that once the
judge rules in their favor, all of the rejected mail-in ballots, plus the number needed to
tip the outcome are in. And once the judge rules, they are ALL in. Not just the technically
questionable ones, but the outright fraudulent ones that were added after the fact.
ALL THEY NEED IS TIME. AND MAIL-IN VOTING GIVES THEM THAT TIME.
Billy the Poet , 8 hours ago
It would also be easier to make sure that your loyal constituents remained loyal by
watching them fill out ballots (or filling out ballots for them), rewarding them on the spot
and mailing in the votes.
Much easier than dragging people to the polls and hoping that they stick around long
enough and manage to pull the right lever.
You could go door to door and buy blank ballots and do the same thing. If people are
willing to sell EBT cards they'd probably be willing to sell their ballot.
bIlluminati , 5 hours ago
Even easier. See that ballots from known Republican strongholds don't get postmarked, or,
if postmarked, never make it to their destination. Or Demonrat votes. Or open envelopes to
see how they voted, and replace the ones that voted "the wrong way". President Trump could
get as few as 50 million votes if the Dims want a landslide, and blame it on corona.
GoozieCharlie , 6 hours ago
In 2016 I was amazed (but not surprised) at the school buses full of adult coloreds
tooling around on secondary roads near the triple point where OH, MI, and IN come together,
on the Monday before election day. Also, i'd never seen so many coloreds in the convenience
stores in that very lily white area.
NeitherStirredNorShaken , 8 hours ago
The entire voting process including electorate is one massive fraud. Are people that vote
and participate pretending they live in some kind of Democracy really believing the
delusion?
And you're making fun of the of so called woke retards?
Here's what happens in a rigged vote when a recount is ordered. 10,000 voting machines
burn in a warehouse fire the same night the recount is court ordered.
Anyone who militates against the integrity of the electoral process is a traitor, nothing
less.
The disloyal opposition's efforts to render this nation's electoral system a Third World
burlesque, by qualifying to vote millions, if not tens of millions, of illegals and by
advocating the wanton distribution of mail in ballots, constitutes the felonious
disenfranchisement of natural born citizens - an act of treason.
CatInTheHat , 6 hours ago
Blatant election fraud in Broward county Florida..
Paolo Roberto, 50, a native of Sweden (his father was an Italian), had made a name for
himself: a well-known boxer, he had his own TV show, he appeared in many programmes; Swedish
girls loved to dance with him in Dancing with the Stars ; he also had a profitable
business: he imported Italian olive oil and gastronomic products sold in the large Swedish
supermarket chain CO-OP. All that glory vanished in a moment. Swedish police trapped him as he
visited a girl of dubious character and then paid her for her services. It was a honey-trap.
The policemen appeared from their hiding places and whisked Roberto off to the local precinct
where he was booked and the nation alerted. He didn't deny a thing; he expressed extreme
remorse.
In Sweden, it is perfectly legal to be engaged in prostitution. Today no one in Sweden can
tell a woman what to do with her own body, be it abortion, sex change or prostitution. Yet it
is a crime for a man to pay a woman for sex.
It is not sane; it is as though selling crack were legal while buying crack is the only
crime. Usually it is other way around, a casual user goes free while the pusher is arrested.
But it does not matter; Sweden is not the only country in the world with such a strange law on
her books.
Roberto was charged for this crime. It could be worse: Sweden has some extraordinary crimes
in its law book, one of them is Rape by Misadventure or Careless Rape which is
committed by a man who has sex with a woman who ostensibly agrees to or even solicits sex but
inwardly she is not willing. She may be doing it for money, or boredom, but not for pleasure,
and the man carelessly overlooked her conflicting emotions. It is Swedish Rape. Pity they never
apply the same logic to working people; we often do even less pleasant things for money, to buy
food or pay rent, but the landlord is not punished for raping his tenants.
This new definition of rape deserves Victor Hugo's pen. It is Swedish Rape to have sex
without a condom. It is Swedish Rape if the next day, or a few days later, the woman feels she
may have been raped. Or cheated, or underpaid, or mistreated. For this ill-defined offence,
Julian Assange has already spent ten years in various detention halls. If he would have killed
the girl he would be free by now. Note that you may be guilty of Swedish Rape if you claim to
be infertile and your partner becomes pregnant. Are you guilty of rape if you claim to be a Jew
but aren't? This is an Israeli contribution to the concept of rape. But I digress.
Paolo Roberto is charged with paying a woman for sex, the crime Judah, son of Jacob,
committed with Tamar (Genesis 38). The 25-year-old girl consented, but that does not matter.
She came from a rather poor South European country, so probably her consent doesn't mean much.
Or perhaps she consented just in order to entrap the guy and this is how Swedish justice works.
Swedish prisons would be empty if police weren't allowed to entice and entrap Swedes.
The consequences for Paolo were terrible: he hasn't been tried yet; he hasn't been found
guilty; his likely punishment is little more than a fine; but he was dropped like a hot potato
by Swedish TV, by Swedish sports, by the Swedish chain that marketed his olive oil. His company
was bankrupted overnight. The man was crushed like a bug. It was not Swedish law that crushed
him. In the eyes of Swedish law he is still innocent until proven guilty. Swedish law did not
force the supermarkets to remove his olive oil (actually, a very good one, I used to buy it)
from its shelves. Paolo was lynched by the New Puritan spirit that is part and parcel of the
New Normal.
Once upon a time, Sweden was an extremely liberal and free country. Swedes were known, or
even notorious for free sexual mores. Independent and brave Swedish girls weren't shy, and they
were comfortable with very unorthodox 'family' unions. But, while the US has always espoused
its own brand of politically-correct Puritanism, the global media is now dragging along the
other Western states in its wake. France and even Sweden participated in their own renditions
of the American BLM protests, called for #MeToo, and seem eager to trade in their own cultures
for the New Puritanism.
This rising Puritanism is a contrarian response to the personal freedom we enjoyed since the
1960's, and a jaded weariness with the excessive commercial sexuality of the mass media. The
media sells everything with a lot of sex. You cannot turn a TV on, daytime or night, without
seeing an implied or explicit act of copulation. They sell cars, snacks and sneakers by
displaying naked bodies. This flood of pornography is turning the public mood against sex. Who
should we blame for this blatant exploitation of sex? Men.
The Old Puritanism was hard on women; the witches were burned, and the whores were evicted
from their homes. The New Puritanism is hard on men. Men are being taught that hanky-panky can
have serious consequences. On the site of one of their destroyed statues of Jefferson, the
Americans should erect a statue of Andrea Dworkin, the obese lying feminist who famously
said that every intercourse is rape, and Penetration is Violation . She is an icon
of New Puritan America.
They could not outlaw sex per se, so they invent sordid stories of incestuous sex, of
paedophilia, of abusing priests, each storyteller trying to outdo the last. The vast majority
of these stories are sheer inventions, like the witchcraft stories of the 17 th
century in Old Puritan New England. We are in the midst of a global media campaign, and men are
the targets. The Patriarchy will be diminished by the systematic demonization of boys and
men.
In the current media frenzy I cannot trust any story, any accusation of a man involved in a
sordid sexual crime: these media campaigns are too often employed to unseat a commercial
competitor or destroy the popularity of a political rival. Often the man is not even accused of
any crime, but only of frivolous behaviour: a touch, or an immodest proposal; natural acts
celebrated in the days of my youth. Yes, my young readers, in the 1970's you could touch a
woman's knee and suggest she accompany you on a passionate weekend at a seaside resort, and she
would often agree. This libertine era is over completely. Even to me, it now seems mythical,
like Atlantis. It is gone.
The US is the media's inspirational model of the New Puritanism. Remember the women who
lined up to claim that the future Supreme Court
judge tried to kiss or even rape them when they were kids in college? The most credible of
them would not even allege he behaved criminally; just immorally according to New Puritan
standards. Now every relationship must be re-evaluated in the light of the New Puritanical
historical revisionism. Women who pose for a picture with a presidential candidate now have a
certain amount of power over him. During a media campaign the allegations come fast and
furious, but upon investigation they turn out to be spurious and motivated by self-interest or
politics.
It is good to see that sometimes, quite rarely, a man can still escape a close encounter
with his life intact. Former First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond had been accused of all
the usual sexual sins and was fully cleared by the court . No less than
ten women were recruited (apparently with the knowledge of Nicola Sturgeon, Salmond's
successor); they came forward and claimed that they were sexually attacked by Salmond. They
were rather sloppy with their proofs, and it turns out that they claimed they were attacked at
times and places where Salmond could not have been present. The case was dismissed and Salmond
was found not guilty . Scottish prosecutors had spent years of labour trying to condemn
Salmond, and it spectacularly failed.
You might ask, why have these perjurers (who are well-connected women close to the centre of
power of the ruling SNP party) not been prosecuted for their attempt to frame the man? Well,
the very idea of these trials is that the accusing woman can't lose. If she wins, she can
collect millions, and if she loses, even her name remains secret. These ten perjurers are
exempt from legal consequence; nor are they required pay expenses and damages. The women are
protected. Who pays? Our colleague, the excellent writer and former HM Ambassador Craig Murray , that's who. Murray was
reporting on the trial of Alex Salmond for the public's benefit, published onto his own blog,
when he was charged with disclosing the identities of some of the perjuring women. A
conscientious man, Craig wasn't guilty of naming names, but even his vague description of "an
SNP politician, a party worker and several current and former Scottish government civil
servants and officials" was considered by the court to be a monstrous breach of
confidentiality.
The public was well prepared for this onslaught on mankind by the poisonous #MeToo culture,
a massive wave of carefully coordinated media hysteria. Women in communes and nunneries are
known to menstruate at the same time when living in close proximity. #MeToo was a similar mass
event. It was designed to push women's buttons. They even offered up an appropriately grotesque
scapegoat: Harvey Weinstein, a movie producer with 386 Hollywood production credits under his belt.
The actresses that accused Weinstein (over eighty women) would still be unknowns if he had
not given them parts in his movies. And they repaid him with such cruel ingratitude. Actresses
have a certain psychological setup that makes them extremely untrustworthy. They have many
other qualities to offset this deficiency, but you can't just accept the words of a lady who
plays today Lady Macbeth and tomorrow Madam Butterfly as solid truth. They are acting, in life
as well as in their line of work.
Consider the beautiful Angelina Jolie. She is mad as a hatter. Even her own father said that
she had "serious mental problems." Her long history of violent self-abuse culminated with her
choice to cut off her breasts because of a DNA test that indicated risk for breast cancer. She
has had a long line of boyfriends and husbands, and a lot of kids adopted out of Africa, taken
away from their natural parents. Is she a reliable witness? She would say anything that is
fashionable. The woman wants to be adored as the model of an excellent person; this is a
honourable goal, but she is extremely unsuitable for it.
Weinstein's eighty accusers collected millions; the great producer went to a life-long jail
sentence. The public, the great American public was eager to lynch the man who gave them
True Romance and Pulp Fiction . Was he guilty as charged? Even the charges were a
travesty of justice. Men of his generation (and of mine, too) routinely propositioned women. We
are all guilty, though not many of us racked up Weinstein's numbers. Yet every woman was free
to refuse. No
police reports against Weinstein appeared until the #MeToo media campaign was in full
swing. Did he harass them? You and me are harassed daily by offers to take another credit card
or bank loan; we are free to refuse this definitely harassing offer. Every unsolicited proposal
is harassment; and we receive daily hundreds of proposals of various nature. What is so
different about a sexual proposal to a woman? Weinstein may or may not have committed a crime,
but in the poisonous air of #MeToo there is no need to prove any accusation, and the man was
lynched.
Perhaps now I am going to lose your tentative sympathy, but I do not believe the allegations
against Jeffrey Epstein and Ms Ghislaine Maxwell, either. And the attack on Prince Andrew is
similarly unbelievable. Chapeau for Mr Trump who dared to express sympathy to Ms Maxwell. This
was an act of incredible bravery, to step out of line and to say a few kind words to her and
about her. The cowardly Clinton and Obama, who were close friends with Epstein and Maxwell,
were mum. Trump who was not particularly close to the couple, spoke up for them. He really
deserves being re-elected, despite his many faults. Such a man is a master of his own mind, and
this is a very rare quality.
I may mull over a proposal to buy the Brooklyn Bridge, but how possibly can one believe the
stories of the disturbed woman who claims that she had to be forced to have sex with fabulously
wealthy Mr Epstein or to meet glamorous Prince Andrew, let alone that she suffered "extreme
distress, humiliation, fear, psychological trauma, loss of dignity and self esteem and invasion
of her privacy" on his island retreat? The complete absence of evidence and the complete lack
of objectivity could only prevail in the midst of a media campaign. It is believable what Ms
Maxwell said in a deposition, that Ms Giuffre was "totally lying." Indeed all these gold
diggers are totally lying.
Like this one : An
anonymous accuser says she'll testify that 'evil' Ghislaine Maxwell raped her '20-30 times'
starting from when she was 14 and claims she was forced to abort Jeffrey Epstein's baby. Honest
and reputable men like Prince Andrew are forced into the demeaning and impossible position of
having to argue and justify themselves against wild accusations. There are no reasonably
believable accusations of crime against these people. A woman had a photo of her taken with
Prince Andrew. She was at least 17; at this age girls in England are perfectly entitled to have
an affair with a man. Other girls in other photos were apparently of age, too. Young, yes, but
not criminally young. Furthermore, a posed photo does not always indicate a sexual
relationship. Some women claim they were babies and they were raped, but there are no proofs of
anything except their greed.
Mike Robeson who investigated the claims came to conclusion that they were often initiated
by big business to rip off rich Jews. New Puritanism is the Joker card that can trump the
antisemitism ace. He wrote:
I've read Whitney Webb's investigative articles on Epstein, which are often cited by the
alternative and leftist crowd as evidence of his Mossad connections and blackmailing
activities. But Webb's articles are actually full of unsubstantiated rumors, possible immoral
or illegal activities between high level people based on coincidental social or business
connections and potentially damning rumors corroborated mainly by her previous articles and
posts. She has done some fine reporting on other issues. But on the Epstein case, she is part
of what Israel rightly refers to as the New Puritanism.
Supposed evidence of Frau Maxwell's salacious involvement is the famous photo of Prince
Andrew below. This is all the New Puritans need to justify believing the rumors and drawing
their "I told ya' so!" conclusions. But hobnobbing has long been a sport played by the
wannabes with the tacit collusion of the rich and/or famous.
Take a look at the fun couple under Prince Andrew and his alleged squeeze. You may
recognize Rosalynn Carter, then First Lady of the US. Standing next to her is none other than
William Gacy , a
few months before he was arrested as a serial killer and cannibal of those he'd butchered.
Are we to draw certain conclusions from this photo?
Below Rosalynn Carter is another photo, this one showing then President George Bush being
hobnobbed by political has-been George Wallace and by young political wannabe Bill Clinton.
What conclusions can be drawn from this? Was George already then grooming Billy Boy for
higher things in life? Or is it merely more photographic evidence of how wannabes crawl up
the ladder of personal and career advancement? For it is clear that the rich and/or famous,
like Rosalynn Carter and Prince Andrew, have to put up with photo ops, sometimes to their
later discredit.
Very little about the Epstein case makes sense – not his social and financial
connections and especially not his alleged links with the Mossad. Every rich Jew in the US is
sayanim, but that doesn't mean they are running blackmail ops. And the pedo accusations are
ridiculous. His 'victims', none of whom were less than 16 (legal to marry in most European
countries and many American states) were willing, well paid and well taken care of gals who
got lucky to catch a good-looking sugar daddy. Whatever he knew about his rich and famous
clients that may have gotten him killed may have had something to do with what he knew about
them, sure. He probably shared his largesse with his friends and possible donors and
contributors. But if he had been sexually blackmailing them over the years, why did they keep
going back to him?
The blackmail angle doesn't make sense. It makes more sense that a lot of famous people
may have preferred him dead to testifying about his activities. Who, famous or not famous,
would want to get dragged through the mud by the overzealous New Puritan prosecution teams
that had already destroyed the lives of innocent defendants of sexual accusations like Jerry
Sandusky and Larry Nasser, as well as hundreds of others in the past decades of America's
sexual abuse/devil worship hysteria. The Pizzagate fiasco is a demonstration of how mobs can
be raised, aimed and defused by an orchestrated media campaign.
From what I see of Epstein's photos, he was an intelligent, good lucking, confident, fun
loving guy. If he was nailing more hot chicks than I ever did, more power to him.
Another motivation for the liquidation of Epstein's empire is the collaboration between
the media and the unknown figures behind the scenes who are likely to walk away with
Epstein's millions. Are you familiar with the story of Howard Hughes and the destruction of
his Las Vegas empire? It happened to him. Something similar has happened in the past few
years to other wealthy Jews like Donald Sterling , who was first falsely
accused of being a racist and then forced to relinquish his ownership of an NBA team. Other
examples? Richard Fuld of Lehmann Bros. and Bernie Madoff were taken down by their Wall
Street rivals and then used as scapegoats to expiate the sins of corporate raiders. Harvey
Weinstein was the sacrificial schwein to absolve the sick Hollywood culture. Now that
Weinstein has been destroyed, Hollywood can go back to business as usual.
But what about the intimidation faced by hundreds of girls victimized on Epstein's private
island? Why do they claim to be afraid of retribution even after his death? The girls were
treated well. They admit that they cooperated in finding more girls who would massage
Epstein, even supposedly knowing that they too would be 'horribly abused' by the 'monster'.
The reporters and the interviewed women are perfect examples of New Puritans. I feel dirty
after watching them perform. None of their emotional anecdotes reach evidentiary standards
and any court would dismiss their cases out of hand.
As for the source of Epstein's fortune, here is a plausible
investigation . It is interesting that no one can really agree on the amount nor the
source of his millions.
Justice, or what is passing under that name, gets screwed whenever the law is used to
empower a person with a personal grudge, either on his own behalf or to benefit a media
consortium. Emotional appeals could never been considered in the better world of Jefferson,
Lincoln and Washington. Perhaps they had slaves, but they would not have condemned a man, free
or slave, on the basis of empty accusations. Physical evidence is still required in the legal
courts. Only on TV can people be destroyed by edited testimony.
I am very tolerant of anti-Jewish rhetoric. So tolerant that I am often accused of it
myself. Still, the accusations against Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and let's not forget
poor Mr Harvey Weinstein, are often marked by cliché characters such as the crass
foul-mouthed Jew and the innocent girl he despoils. Meanwhile, the facts of each case are
monotonously repeated: one man's career is destroyed while dozens of girls become famous;
millions of dollars are suddenly difficult to track and soon begin to evaporate; the man is
demonized and the women are sainted.
Can the New Puritanism overturn the Jews and their unstoppable juggernaut cry of
antisemitism? Leo Frank was lynched by the mob and the ADL was formed to make sure it never
happened again, no matter what the crime. Is New Puritanism the new mob violence? Perhaps mob
violence is the only way our rulers can overwhelm the paralyzing effects of being called
antisemitic. Perhaps the New Puritanism is an opening salvo in a larger war between shadow
forces.
But I could never believe that Maxwell and Epstein were connected with the Israeli
Intelligence agency, the Mossad. With all my sympathy to our esteemed colleagues Philip
Giraldi and Whitney
Webb , there is not a single shred of evidence for such connection. Conjecture, yes;
evidence, no. Even the father of Ghislaine, the late Mr Maxwell, who was not a saintly person
by any means, might be with better evidence accused of collaborating with Soviet Intelligence,
the KGB, than with the Israelis. A person of his standing probably connected with Israelis,
too, but he was no Mossad agent.
I can understand my American friends. There never was a time worse for American men, when
the statues and memorials of their great ancestors have been uprooted, when their wives and
daughters are queuing to press their pink lips upon the boots of black ghetto dwellers, when
their manhood is defined as "toxic" and their sons are dreaming of a same-sex union with a
glorious black buck. If the US were occupied by the Communists as Amerika envisaged, it wouldn't be as bad as what
you've got now. You have been humiliated thoroughly. I understand that in such a situation you
might jump at the chance to break the bones of rich Liberal Jews like Epstein and Weinstein. I
wouldn't refuse you this comfort. They are anyway already lynched.
However, if you want ever to walk free, you'd better deal with the New Puritan takeover.
Women are wonderful creatures, but often they can be manipulated and do what they are asked to
do. They are also excellent actors and are not troubled by honour. Men are more independent and
solitary by nature; that is why our Masters want to suppress masculinity. It is easier to
shepherd a flock of cows than so many bulls. Women love to be the victims, to blame men for
their failings; add social distance and fear of viral infection; add the mask (the New Western
Burka); add lockdown, and the problem of how to send the children to school might just solve
itself. No
children. The New Puritans are currently purging Hollywood of the most relentlessly
heterosexual men, but when they run out of rich Jews, they just might come after you.
The New Normal is the New Puritan. The pandemic fit into it tight as a glove. Under millions
of cameras and tracing applications, privacy shrinks and disappears. New Puritanism erases the
gap between public and private realms. In the world we knew, there was a difference between the
twain. A man having an affair with a woman (or with another man) was in a private realm. Do
whatever you wish in privacy of your home; just don't frighten the horses, Victorians once
said. Now there can be no privacy. Sex is already more of a political opinion than a physical
act. You might be lionized as a homosexual or despised as a breeder, your choice. Any affair,
or even the attempt to start an affair could be deadly in the post #MeToo world. In an era of
socialized medicine, sex is seen as a dangerous weakness that might endanger lives and imperil
the global healthcare system.
Much of the severity of New Puritanism can be sourced directly to American culture. America
was founded by the Old Puritans of Mayflower in 1620 and has periodically been subject
to hysterical outbursts, from witches to Red scares. Nowhere has the use of sex for advertising
and commerce been so widely spread as in the US. As the US has become the model for the world,
an epidemic of American hysteria is starting to infect countries all around the world. #MeToo
reached even Russia, but it is still only a minor phenomenon, mainly to be found among only the
most woke of hipsters.
Orwell imagined a future of "state-enforced repression and celibacy" while Huxley predicted
"deliberate, narcotising promiscuity". The New Puritans have chosen Orwell's world. I grew up
in something more akin to Huxley's, and I can tell you which one is better. Communist Russia
was very permissive in the private sphere. People had a lot of sex, with their girl/boy
friends, with spouses, with neighbours, with wives of their friends, with their colleagues,
with their teachers and students. The Soviets had none of the restrictions we have now against
sexual relations in the University between teachers and students; in fact, no restrictions
against sex with coworkers, something that now we would call abusive and then call the police.
As religion had little influence in Soviet society, adultery was frequent, and unless connected
with a public scandal, had no consequences.
Russians as well as the French could not understand why Clinton's affair with Monica
Lewinsky made waves in the US that blew into an impeachment trial and ended with the
bombardment of Belgrade. Bill was unfaithful to Hillary? That's not nice, but it is their
private affair. President Clinton lied? Well, he was not in the confession booth. Traditional
religions, be it Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, are quite tolerant of venial sin. Puritanism,
the Old as well as its New offspring are deadly serious in everything, and are unafraid of
killing or bullying a sinner to death. They may have begun with witches, but they are ending up
targeting ordinary folk.
Currently their targets have a lot of wampum, for it is no fun to bully a person for no
material gain. Us, impecunious men, we have nothing to be afraid of yet. But it might be wise
to save society before the New Puritans bring down disaster onto all of us. In my opinion,
America's influence on the world should be reversed, or at least limited. Let America get
influenced by Europe for a change. Mercifully, Europe is suffering from a very light case of
New Puritanism that may be entirely cured with a healthy dose of Anti-Americanism. I hear the
vaccine is under development.
Picture two is not proof, it's illustration. In fact Cord Meyer recruited Clinton as a
Rhodes scholar at Oxford, feathered his wife's nest with a ridiculous bonanza of commodity
trading top-ticks, then appointed Bill to run the CIA covert ops slush fund at Mena airfield.
That picture is junior secret agent Bill Clinton at the office picnic with his big boss the
DCI.
As for picture number one, I'll be forever grateful for the heartwarming thought that
Rosalyn also puts on a clown costume, handcuffs boys, buttfucks them, strangles them, and
buries them in the crawlspace.
Virtually all you wrote is true but with "Very little about the Epstein case makes sense
– not his social and financial connections and especially not his alleged links with
the Mossad" you seem to have quite deliberately blown your cover as another lying judaizer to
those who think Jews are normally incapable of true conversion and that your role in creation
is to show what bad is compared to good.
Indeed, it appears so: a very incisive first half of the article, describing a real
phenomenon (used to manipulate public opinion and society) seems designed to drop the Epstein
turd into.
Epstein is no Puritan witch hunt: Robert Maxwell gets something akin to a state funeral in
Israel, his daughter pimps for guy who uses lavish Wexner money for beehives of celebrities
into which a steady supply of young female flesh is injected and this guy is telling us we
just need to relax a bit.
" then First Lady of the US. Standing next to her is none other than William Gacy, a few
months before he was arrested as a serial killer and cannibal of those he'd butchered. Are
we to draw certain conclusions from this photo?"
Thanks, Israel. Well reasoned and well presented. Although some or many may not agree with
you, it's refreshing to read a straight forward exposition. At least you're laying it out
there for others to take a crack at it.
"Women are wonderful creatures, but often they can be manipulated and do what they are
asked to do. They are also excellent actors and are not troubled by honour. "
I've never met a woman who wasn't a bald-faced liar about anything that concerned her
personally. (And no, I'm not an Incel. Far from it)
"Much of the severity of New Puritanism can be sourced directly to American culture.
America was founded by the Old Puritans of Mayflower in 1620 and has periodically been
subject to hysterical outbursts, from witches to Red scares."
So true. The country was settled by all manner of religious zealots, each and every one of
them forming some sort of utopian colony here–almost all of which went down in
flames.
The Old Puritanism was hard on women; the witches were burned, and the whores were
evicted from their homes. The New Puritanism is hard on men.
Well, it is particularly hard on "beta" men. Their idea is basically to let "alphas" have
harems but all other men to become incels or worse. Just look at this guy, punished for
visiting a whore (in their view anyone who pays for sex is by definition not an alpha, so it
makes sense to punish johns but allow or even celebrate whores)
Yes, Feminism is a kind of inverted puritanism. But being hard on sluts and whore makes
sense if you want to preserve society's order and families. Feminist rules against men only
help to destroy society.
So there's a very big difference between the Old Puritanism and the New Puritanism.
From what I see of Epstein's photos, he was an intelligent, good lucking, confident, fun
loving guy. If he was nailing more hot chicks than I ever did, more power to him.
Come on. No one knows how this guy made money. For all purposes he was a nobody. Yet he
was seen with Elon Musk, Woody Allen, Trump, Clinton, Bill Gates, Prince Andrew, anyone who
was "someone" dined with him and maybe one of his girls. There's something very fishy about
this. I don't know, maybe he and Maxwell were just the preferred pimp of the elites, or maybe
there's something else. Robert Maxwell (Ghislaine's dad) was an Israeli spy and a media
magnate, just that is very suspicious.
I mean, of course I don't trust the little whore Giuffre (whoever trusts whores or
actresses, but I repeat myself, is an idiot). But there is something very strange and rotten
about Epstein and the fact that he met with almost everybody in the so-called elite.
Much of this article makes sense, though I can't buy the defense of Epstein and Maxwell.
It's absurd to call him a "pedophile" as many journalists do. He was a pimp for the Deep
State's extortion racket.
Thanks for this. I have been criticized by many for observing holes in the narrative and
objecting to trial by media.
I have, since the start of the last Epstein narrative questioned the "intelligence"
connection. Not because it wasn't possible, rather that Virginia Roberts narrative about
escaping was implausible. If Epstein was doing his alleged blackmail routine for Mossad or
any other intelligence service, Roberts would have been suicided long ago. Loose ends like
that are a danger to the operation.
That doesn't mean that Epstein wasn't diddling underage girls nor does it mean that Maxwell
wasn't recruiting girls to massage Epstein. In Maxwell's case, she may, or may not have known
Epstein was diddling them as alleged. I have yet to see a reasonable explanation of how these
underage girls got passports without parental consent, and if they did, who was the
guarantor? Apparently, all of these accusers had parents who were uninterested in their
underage daughters traveling with a male more than twice their age, on his private jet.
As for Weinstein, Shirley Temple's mother complained people in the studio were trying to get
into her daughter's pants and she had to be vigilant. Marilyn Monroe, on marrying Joe
DiMaggio, is reported to have said that she`d never have to suck another cock. The casting
couch stories have been rampant for as long as I have been alive, yet I am supposed to
believe that none of Weinstein`s accusers knew that it was the price of admission. That does
not mean I approve of taking advantage of women, that has always been done in many ways. Post
war turned millions of German and Italian women into prostitutes, for occupying soldiers, in
order to feed themselves and their families. Apparently that was ok, but young actresses
being turned into millionaires is not.
Not true at all, the majority of people who settled the USA were regular Anglos,
especially in the South.
And Anglo DNA is something like 25% of the USA. This country is full of immigrants from
other stocks, and you know what? They are far more likely to be Democrat-voting liberals,
while the Anglo Americans are more likely to be rural Republicans who think things like MeToo
and BLM are crazy.
What a total crock of shit. I have long maintained that Shamir is Mossad and a pretend
convert to Christianity. This is the guy who argued with passion that those who say that
Muslims did not do 9/11 are depriving them of credit for their rare success. It's
nevertheless surprising to see him cashing in his chips in such a stupid and lazy way. It's
in fact so stupid that it brings to mind Gordon Duff, himself an intelligence figure,
alerting me to the hugely disparate quality of Shamir emissions with the explanation that the
persona "Israel Shamir" is the work of a committee. It looks like desperate times for the big
Jews. The big satanic game -- implicating the Rothschilds, the British royals, and a whole
gaggle of Jews and crypto-Jews including Trump and Bill Gates, and all their attendant goys
such as the Clintons -- could all fall apart.
Israel Adam pretend-Christian Shamir, who is Moloch and why was there a temple to him on
Epstein's island?
Anyone who finds Shamir's protestations of Jewish innocence plausible need look no farther
than Maria Farmer's interview with Whitney Webb. Maria doesn't mention Moloch, but she keeps
wondering what happened to all those girls. Thousands seem to have just disappeared.
innocent defendants of sexual accusations like Jerry Sandusky and Larry Nasser,
I agree with most of the article, but do you have any proof that Jerry Sandusky and Larry
Nasser are innocent?
Prince Andrew fooling around with a consenting 17 year old does not compare with what
Jerry Sandusky and Larry Nasser were accused and convicted of doing.
How much have you seen, first hand, of America? The East Coast and Midwest is littered
with former religious communes. Okay, I may have indulged in a little hyperbole, but
nevertheless, there were a lot of them. And I don't know what you're going on about
Democrats, Anglos and such. Seems off topic to me.
I have long maintained that Shamir is Mossad and a pretend convert to Christianity. This
is the guy who argued with passion that those who say that Muslims did not do 9/11 are
depriving them of credit for their rare success. It's nevertheless surprising to see him
cashing in his chips in such a stupid and lazy way.
It's hard to imagine an authentic Christian would defend the deep state and Zionist Hebrew
pedophile operative Epstein. Hebrew-supremacist blood is thicker than any ideology, I guess.
His big Hebrew ego just can't let go of it's delusions of being forged by sacred, primeval
forces. I'm sure a rat would have a huge ego if it could speak, too.
Yes, the anti-Semitic trope of the Jew despoiling the innocent. The only stereotype I can
read here is that of the eternal victim. So Madoff didn't steal millions from elderly
pensioners. And Epstein wasn't linked to the former head of Israeli intelligence or invest in
security companies run by former Unit 8200 types. And Wexner (of Mega Group) didn't gift him
a multimillion dollar surveillance lair. And Maxwell was trolling the parking lot of Groton
School and Philips Andover after the kiddies got released from their chemistry AP test, not
preying on broken girls from broken homes. F#ck you Shamir.
He had murdered the girl, don't forget, and had been convicted by the courts,
despite a protracted and lavishly financed Jewish effort to pin the crime on a Black man who
had not committed it. The mob dragged Frank out of prison and lynched him only after his
death sentence had been commuted by the Governor of Georgia.
All of us regulars at Unz Review know fully well that speaking of Leo Frank being lynched
by the mob as the main story just won't do. Whoever is handling the Israel Shamir persona at
Herzliya these days doesn't have all that much interest in what Ron and others here have been
discussing.
Here is additional support for Shamir's take on Epstein's primary accuser –
"Virginia Roberts . claimed to have met him when she was fifteen and to have been forced to
work as his sex slave. In reality, she was seventeen, which is still below the age of consent
in Florida, but does materially alter her claim that she had sex with Prince Andrew when she
was under age because the age of consent in England is sixteen, something of which she was
almost certainly unaware .
Edward J.Epstein, a long time investigative journalist including on the JFK assassination,
recently published his own angle on the sources of Jeffrey Epstein's riches, and they have
nothing to do with sexual blackmail –
"An extremely savvy financier and philanthropist told me after Epstein's death about a
proposition Epstein had once made him: that he could save more than $40 million in US taxes
if he gave him $100 million to manage.
Epstein claimed the money would be concealed in a maze of offshore non-profits he
controlled so that part of the profits would be transferred to the financier's own
philanthropic foundation, with the balance retained offshore and out of the reach of the
taxman.
When the financier told him that the scheme amounted to illicit tax evasion, Epstein said
it was highly unlikely the Internal Revenue Service would unravel it, and, if it did, he
would protect the financier from any criminal exposure.
The financier asked him how? Epstein said the financier would have to sign over the funds
to him, thus giving him total discretion over where and how the money was invested. This
piece of paper, he said, would provide an alibi to the US tax authorities.
The financier turned down Epstein's proposition, but others – Arab princes, Russian
oligarchs and those interested in hiding some part of their wealth – might have
accepted it.
Indeed, shortly before his arrest last year, Epstein told an associate that he was going
into the business of hiding funds for billionaires who were contemplating divorcing their
wives – for a hefty commission, of course.
He also claimed to be in the final stages of buying a property in Morocco, one of four
countries in the world not to have an extradition treaty with the US.
So perhaps the mystery of Epstein's fortune is not how he made his millions, but to whom
the money ultimately belongs.
Many very powerful people may have had cause to rue Epstein's incarceration on sex charges
– and, given the fact that they were hiding their assets from the authorities, it's
highly unlikely they will ever publicly come forward to try to recover their
investments."
The column seems intended to discomfit and/or discredit as many different people around
here as possible. (I just checked Wikipedia to see how Mr. Multiname is being curated these
days, and noticed that the first of the "RELATED ARTICLES" is Gilad Atzmon.) The oddest yet
from this website's oddest writer.
" Even the father of Ghislaine, the late Mr Maxwell, might be with better evidence accused
of collaborating with Soviet Intelligence, the KGB, than with the Israelis. "
Of course. This makes perfect sense. It explains why the Israeli's gave him a state
funeral attended by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, Israeli President Chaim Herzog,
and "no less than six serving and former heads of Israeli intelligence" .. because, after
all, he was KGB Right.
@Anonymous in the Nasser
case, a number of public figures have come forward in Sandusky's defence. The most active is
John Ziegler who maintains a website full of articles showing that the case against Sandusky
and Penn State was and is a sham and money grab. ( http://johnziegler.com/ )
There is also the well known author Mark Pendergrast who wrote a book on the case. Here are
links to two video interviews of both –
@Anonymous likely that
Nassar was sacrificed to atone for all the sex abuse that happens in kids sports. Now that he
is destroyed then child sporting can go back to business as usual because the monster was
vanquished. Note that the Nassar story could have been spun to criticize the families who
hand their children over to strangers, or to attack child sports in general. But it wasn't.
It was aimed directly at one man, and when he was gone the story was gone. That makes him the
sacrificial lamb.
On the other hand, the Sandusky story was immediately expanded into the Pedo Rings story,
indicating it was part of this long term project.
This use of "Puritan" as a swear-word looks simplistic, beyond simplistic, to me. Like
brain-washed Americans using "Socialist" as a swear-word in just the same way.
They might have been bible-fundamentalists, they might have been creationists, they might
have thought the world was flat, but was every witch ever burned in Germany burned by
Puritans? Was witchcraft a solely Puritan fantasy? The first ever mention of a witch was by
them?
But thanks for reminding me of the mad hatter. I'll get a copy of Alice In Wonderland and
compare it with what you write.
PS PC has a very different origin, a different so-called religion.
And this excuses Prince Andrew for fucking teenagers how? A man born into royalty with
every advantage but apparently unable to handle actual mature women. So that makes it cool
for him to partake of sleazy Jeff's procured girls?
No decent guy thinks of doing stuff like that. If that's what having money does to men,
I'll happily remain relatively poor.
Thanks Mr Shamir. What you wrote sounds about right. I do not like the fact that rich and
powerful men got their way with young girls. But this has been the way of the world since
time immemorial. It was all done in the open, and for decades, right under the noses of the
NYT. But neither they nor the New Puritans thought it fit to investigate, since their focus
was elsewhere, namely to tame the Catholic Church through grinding it in the pedophile mill
over alleged crimes largely committed in the 70s. Only now that the Pavlovian Dog known as
Public Opinion can't get any further stimulus from allegations concerning the Papists, they
have turned to Epstein and the Jews with a Royal thrown in instead. But at the end of it, it
would make no difference to the men, women and children trafficked for sex, since the New
Puritans would have turned their focus elsewhere. And for what it is worth I don't think this
a Mossad operation either. I mean how good are these guys? And is it not the responsibility
of politicians holding or aspiring to high office to keep themselves clear of such people and
places?
You're right, you lost my sympathy with this robust defense of Jeffrey Epstein. I
appreciate that it's good to be skeptical of what is reported as well as of the mob mentality
but there is no real defense of this guy based on what I've seen and heard over the past two
years.
All of his residences with surveillance cameras covering every room.
The source of his money being very murky.
His willingness to share his paid-for harem with the most powerful and connected. Out of
the goodness of his heart? No.
The 100% implausible jail suicide.
Isn't that enough red flags?
Even swine like Bret Kavanaugh deserve to not be lynched but Jeffrey Epstein and
Ghislaineare in a whole other rarefied class of scum. Why bother to make excuses for them? Do
you really believe that Trump wished Maxwell well out of magnanimity? More like he's hoping
that none of their dirt on him will see daylight.
Xymphora is also having none of it. (It's an indication of Ron Unz's good editorial
judgment that Shamir's article is not listed on the main page.)
Xymphora (from the website) :
"The New Puritans" (Shamir). Besides being completely clueless about #metoo – it's
about power relationships, not flirting – he has a list of completely innocent
people: Jerry Sandusky, Larry Nasser, Donald Sterling, Richard Fuld, Bernie Madoff and, of
course, Harvey Weinstein, goyim. Then he tell us that the Mossad has nothing to do with
Epstein-Maxwell. I'm starting to think Shamir's history of being an 'anti-Semite' was just
producing credibility for this important career-defining moment when the operations of the
Mossad and the MEGA Group required protection.
As clear and intelligent as ever. "It is easier to shepherd a flock of cows than so many
bulls".
I suspect the Epstein ring may be linked to Mossad. It is clearly some sort of Jewish
influencing network so seems like an Israeli soft power operation. Having said that Shamir is
spot on about all the pearl-clutching even by sensible alt-right figures.
President Clinton lied? Well, he was not in the confession booth.
Clinton lied under oath in a deposition submitted in a judicial proceeding. He also
coached other witnesses to support his story. These were crimes more serious than any that
could have been charged against Nixon, who was hounded out of office. Clinton took serious
charges and spun them into a story of a harmless peccadillo. Utter brilliance. And while the
Judge in the case tried to sweep these actual crimes under the rug as immaterial to the case,
it nevertheless cost the President his law licence.
How a society views sexuality has a tremendous influence on it's long-term structure and
stability.
I do not agree that the Epstein/MOSSAD-blackmail angle makes no sense, but I think that
Mr. Shamir makes some good points. Excessively strict public morals is a ripe breeding ground
for sanctimonious hypocrisy, and hidden rot, and can have frigthening consequences, and it
would not surprise me to learn that the damnable Jesuit Order has a hidden yet decisive
influence on this "New Puritanism" that the article traces the tentative outlines of.
On the other hand, too loose sexual morals fosters dissipation – as seen in the
lives of highly promiscuous people, or on a larger scale, societies such as Soviet Russia, or
various empires after they lost their moral vigour – such as much of contemporary
America. Some amount of discipline and self-restraint is needed – this seems to be a
moral law of nature.
These waters call for good personal judgment, fairness and balance, and wisdom.
Today, more of the same in Daily Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/30/former-tory-mp-charlie-elphicke-guilty-sexually-assaulting-two/
The woman complained that Elphicke sexually assaulted her after inviting her for a drink at
his London home in 2007.
She was in her early 30s and said Elphicke – who had recently become a father for the
second time – proceeded to kiss her, grope her breast and then chase her round his
house trying to slap her bottom, chanting: "I'm a naughty Tory".
The woman came close to selling her story to The Mirror newspaper for £30,000 around a
decade later, but instead went to police.
She broke down as she gave evidence to the court. She cannot be identified for legal reasons.
END QUOTE.
Is not it typical. The guy had a try 14 years ago. Why didn't she report it to police same
day? Why wait for so long? Act now, or forget. She tried to make money of this allegation.
Still she can't be identified for legal reasons. So she can try it again, with another victim
who made a pass at her some time or another during last thirty years. This is incredible!
I haven't read the entire article yet, so this comment applies only to its initial
part.
Shamir is not very persuasive. He has the merit of explaining the situation clearly, but,
by doing so, he makes his criticism of Swedish law somewhat misdirected. As he explains it,
the legal punishment is very mild. The biggest punishment, he tells us, comes from private
entities. But doesn't that imply that, even if that law did not exist, things would happen
almost exactly as they did?
So, the problem, if it exists, is one of societal codes of moral. I, for one, think that
Sweden is autonomous to decide which codes of moral are best to itself. It's not society
which reflects the law, but the other way around. It is the law which reflects the wish of
the majority of Swedes, which is normal in a healthy democracy.
I don't find Shamir persuasive either. He has a point, women are not particularly more
moral or ethical than men, they need to be watched just like anybody, but OTOH regular
witch-hunts for politicians and plutocrats of both genders who cannot resist exploiting their
positions financially or keep their hands off the staff could be a good thing, overall.
He comes across as somebody with skin in the game here too.
This is stated in the quote from Mike Robeson, so it is better he will respond to the
items mentioned in his quote (signposted on the webpage). I have too little knowledge about
these details.
Sure, but Americans especially American Presidents are exempted from international laws
governing war crimes and crimes against humanity. It's why they can sanction entire
populations with impunity.
The irony of America bombing an aspirin factory in another country, however, is that much
of America's asprin needs are met with imports.
I commented on Xymphora: Regarding the New Puritans: " Jerry Sandusky, Larry Nasser,
Donald Sterling, Richard Fuld, Bernie Madoff and, of course, Harvey Weinstein, goyim."
– these are words of Mike Robeson I quote. It is even signposted as the quote. I hardly
know these names (excepting Weinstein). So I think you may correct your post.
Yes. I'm not sure how it is puritanical to not want middle aged rich men to buy the
services of even one minor girl for any sexual purposes. I thought that was just a civilized
notion of protecting the young.
Perhaps now I am going to lose your tentative sympathy, but I do not believe the
allegations against Jeffrey Epstein and Ms Ghislaine Maxwell, either. And the attack on
Prince Andrew is similarly unbelievable. Chapeau for Mr Trump who dared to express sympathy
to Ms Maxwell.
Trump's "sympathy" to Maxmossad was political noncommitment. Being a gentleman.
"It's not society which reflects the law, but the other way around. It is the law which
reflects the wish of the majority of Swedes, which is normal in a healthy democracy.
"
One of us is an idiot.
@Jefferson Temple Unless
you have inside information, his apparent inability to handle actual mature women is
conjecture, and open ended. Some women are mature at 20, others are not mature at 50.
Jeff's procured girls, beyond them having been employed by him, are unproven allegations.
Curious the parents were seemingly disinterested in their daughters traveling with a male
more than twice the age of their daughter.
That does not mean girls were not procured for illicit purposes or that Andrew may be
morally bankrupt, regardless of whatever happened between him and Giuffre.
@Chris Moore That said, I
disagree with the two main points of the article. One, this is not a "new puritanism", it's
something else, the comparison is patently false. How "puritan" is modern society if there's
porn everywhere?
Two, there's no way to defend Epstein and say that he was just a "normal, rich,
intelligent guy". The guy was, at best, a pervert and a well-connected pimp for politicians
(but how did he get there?). At worst , well, there are many theories and I won't dwell into
that. No way to defend that Jewish scum (sorry, but, he was Jewish, and he was scum).
If the US were occupied by the Communists as Amerika envisaged, it wouldn't be as bad
as what you've got now.
And that's the horrifying truth. For non-rich white Americans, Stalinism, as evil as it
was, would not have been as bad as what we now have under Anglo-Zionist Capitalist
Globalism.
In my Catholic family, putting your hands on a female relatives' body in any unwanted way,
would result in a visit from one of her brothers or cousins and a serious beating. It's also
interesting to see that my old parish priests were right when they spoke about the immorality
of the godless communists in that apparently adultery was common and accepted in the Soviet
Union.
The older I get, the more respect I gain for the moral teachings of the Christian Faith,
adhering to it will keep any young man out of the trouble Mr Shamir writes about.
Using Mick Jagger as a yardstick for acceptable behavior? Is that really what you
meant?
I'm thinking that at least some of those girls actually were responsible for their choices
but under the law, I don't think they can be held responsible. No character flaw or selfish
motive changes the fact that they were minors. A full grown man and woman is a different
story. They get the full advantages that society affords to adults as well as the
accountability. I don't care who rich guys want to fuck. If they target my daughter, they're
going to need an ambulance.
You quoted a big passage from Mike Robeson without reservation. So what if it's signposted
as a quote? One assumes from the context that you are endorsing his views. It does make you
look ridiculous, and I can understand your subsequent eagerness to dissociate yourself from
the quote. But there it is.
I don't think you quite understand Catholics if you think we have a healthy and casual
outlook on sex
("We" in my case is cultural and geographic history. I haven't been actually practicing
nor even much of a believer for a long time. But the culture tends to stick with you for
life, no matter what you do)
For one thing, we are probably only second to Jews when it comes to being guilt-ridden
from birth about sex (among most other things). The jury is still out whether this drives
more of us toward sin than away from it. Catholics are infamously indiscriminately
promiscuous (Zappa wrote a song about it) and somewhat less good at learning from their
mistakes as many others
The incidence of priestly abuse may be exaggerated for Puritanical effect, but it's by no
means an unfounded myth; we were joking about altar boys at least as far back as the 70s when
I took First Communion. BTW we had a Father Chester and, whatever the truth was, his nickname
rhymed
@anon a, Arkansas to run
drugs into the USA. Must of have had some local pull.
An early image of William Jefferson Clinton seated next to George Herbert Walker Bush may
shed light on the Intelligence connections of Bill, besides the two spook schools Yale and
Oxford.
Then there is Hillary's lesbianism. Why would a supposed hetero male marry a lesbian? Bill
did not need her political connections, nor her family connections. Chelsea looks like Bill,
not. Possible that Bill's taste was never a Monica, nor a Hillary, nor a 16 year old Lolita.
Bill and Hill, a match made in Langley.
Israel Shamir: "Currently their targets have a lot of wampum, for it is no fun to bully a
person for no material gain. Us, impecunious men, we have nothing to be afraid of yet."
This isn't true at all, at least in America, and I suspect it's the same elsewhere. Here,
so-called sexual harassment has been a cause of action since at least the 1980s. As someone
who was metooed way back then, before it became a thing, I can tell you that poverty is no
guarantee you won't be targeted. People are scum and really get a kick out of victimizing
each other. They'll do it just for the fun of it. Financial incentives aren't the cause of
this; it's just the icing on the cake for the so-called victim. Also, there is an absurd
culture of chivalry toward women in the matriarchal West that has lingered long past its
expiration date, such that a certain type of man enjoys "white knighting" for women who make
such claims. For such men, and they are very numerous, all a woman has to do is turn on the
water works, start crying and acting hysterical, and she'll be believed. Often it won't even
take that. From my point of view, when I see guys at the top, like Weinstein and Epstein,
having now to deal with it too, I have to confess to a certain degree of shadenfreude. During
my own tribulations with this, they were the ones getting away with it, and often even the
enforcers and enablers of it.
I see it as yet another unintended side effect of two fundamental, revolutionary
technological changes. These changes were first thought by almost everyone concerned to be
wonderful, a sign of Progress at last, but nobody was looking down the road far enough.
First, due to the advent and widespread use of scientific birth control and abortion, women
were given for the first time in history complete control over their own fertility. This led
directly to sexual liberation and modern feminism, both of which would be impossible without
this development. Second, a change in the political technology, namely the extension of the
vote to women. Why, you might ask, did an all-male government ever pass such laws, or in
America, empower its enforcement arm, the EEOC? Because of the woman's vote, of course. No
politician today can hope to succeed without it.
But I could never believe that Maxwell and Epstein were connected with the Israeli
Intelligence agency, the Mossad. With all my sympathy to our esteemed colleagues Philip
Giraldi and Whitney Webb, there is not a single shred of evidence for such connection.
Is this one of C.J. Hopkins "I'm a Russian Asset" parodies? Are you serious?
How many Mossad heads attended "Robert Maxwell's" funeral, Shamir?
Weinstein did nothing wrong?
What do they have on you, Izzy? Blink three times fast in your next video appearance to
let us know they got to you.
No one with their head north of their colon believes anything you just said here. So
that's a plus.
Thanks. I didn't take it personally. But it seems that Kavanaugh is dirty, and so is
Trump. Makes me wonder about the operations to take them down. Russia gate for Trump and
Blasey Ford gate for Kavanaugh. Both so ridiculous that it is almost as if their foes
couldn't use the real dirt without self-incriminating.
@Sollipsist l, impossible
for little children to doubt what the big person says, whether Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy,
Easter Rabbit, anything. So easy to indoctrinate. And it's continued to the present day, the
only denomination that has it's own elementary schools everywhere. Everywhere. All about
capturing the children.
But going back to "Puritan", Wikipedia on Savonarola, in 1494 "he instituted an extreme
puritanical campaign "
So, Ha! Ha!, Roman "Catholic" Puritans of the Fifteenth Century! Didn't molest
children back then, but have ever since!
Feel free to check out how these egalitarian English men have in 10 min permanently banned
my 6 year old Wikipedia account over a comment I made three years ago – proclaiming
that marriage is between a man and a woman is considered homophobic now. (It's a self-plug,
but it's also Christian psychology in real-time, you might appreciate it.)
Does this homosexual psychosis stem from technology, too? The most industrialized nations
on the planet are not sodomitic at all. It all seems to me like an American cultural
thing.
Adûnâi: "Are you not confusing the cause and effect?"
Certainly there is an interplay between the two factors I mentioned that magnifies their
societal effects. They strengthen and support each other.
Adûnâi: "But why did women get the vote to begin with? You don't explain.
From what I know, they were first employed in WW1, and it was a "symbol of gratitude"?
Sounds quite cucked and Christian."
Technology develops according to its own internal logic, often with unpredictable and
sometimes even catastrophic effects on human societies. It is deeply hostile to natural
distinctions of race, sex, and culture that impede its efficient operation. Technological
change drives cultural change, and war stimulates technological change.
Adûnâi: "Why then have the Eastern countries not faced it? Neither the USSR nor
modern China?"
I'd say they have, in their own way. There are, for example, plenty of female
professionals in both countries, who function in their jobs as the equivalent of men. This
would be impossible if they were constantly pregnant and caring for children. Then too, there
is the low birth rate, which is only possible with scientific birth control. They also
participate equally with men in politics, AFAIK, and have equal rights as citizens. N.b. too
that in China, at least, this happened without Christianity -- although, as has been said by
Spengler and others, Marxism can itself be regarded as a form of Christianity.
Adûnâi: "Does this homosexual psychosis stem from technology, too?"
Efficiency is the god of technology, and that is unquestionably true all over the world.
To the extent that cultural factors impede the efficient operation of technology, they have
to change, or all that results is inferior technology. Man's increasing dependence on
technology is why a kind of global culture is emerging now, instead of earlier in history.
Cultural distinctions are being destroyed at an accelerating pace, and also races are being
mixed as an unintended and unforeseen consequence of this dependence.
Because of this, I suspect the decadence you notice today in the West will eventually show
up in the East as well. It's just that because they were relative late comers to technology
and industrialization, it may take a little longer, that's all. There's a certain cultural
inertia that needs to be overcome.
Russian method
In a far away Russian village, gals have heard of the Western way to deal with men, and they
brought their rape complaints to local police. Police checked the claims, found them without
merit, and both ladies were fined 5000 ruble ($80) each. How neat! https://pervo.info/v-achite-eshhyo-odno-lozhnoe-iznasilovanie/
Even without technology, give humans enough time, and one race will emerge triumphant.
Whereas the high tide of Islam failed to conquer Anatolia, the Seljuks came to the Aegean,
and the Ottomans reached Vienna. Failures are weeded out, and those remain who are strong,
not who can make money most efficiently.
@Israel Shamir
And yet, the rural folk of Russia is dying out. Natural change (2018): -3 per 1000 rural
vs -1 per 1000 urban.
Adûnâi: "Everything indeed will be shown in due time. What else are we doing
here but trying to predict the future?"
Yes, I agree with most of what you wrote in this comment. All I'm doing is pointing to the
trend, the way the technological system tends to grind away cultural differences. Of course,
some cultural differences may not affect the efficiency of the system, and those might
remain. Western "decadence" might or might not be one of those things. Ted Kaczynski says
something relevant about this in ISAIF:
29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his
real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in
rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into
high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools;
the way of life of the black "underclass" they regard as a social disgrace. They want to
integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist
just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they
want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve
African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture
consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to
black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black-style church or mosque.
In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects
more leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white,
middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a
scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good
as white. They want to make black fathers "responsible." they want black gangs to become
nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The
system couldn't care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears
or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job,
climbs the status ladder, is a "responsible" parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect,
however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into
the system and make him adopt its values.
A corollary of this would seem to be that only trivial differences will remain between
cultures as different cultures fully adapt themselves to the global technological system. The
urging of "oversocialized leftists" isn't actually necessary, as the system itself contains
its own rewards for compliance and punishments for failure to comply. There's also nothing
particularly tied to naturally-occurring races in that system of values; at least, not
obviously so. The system is hostile to natural race distinctions precisely because it is
necessarily race-neutral. Might it create its own artificial race of genetically engineered
humans in order to maximize efficiency? That could be. Certainly, genetic changes to man have
been a side effect of civilization itself. E.g., human beings are much less violent than they
used to be. Obedience, non-violence (at least on a personal level), and conformity has been
bred into us modern humans.
Adûnâi: "Are you of the view that collapse is imminent, even without Unabombers?
And if it is, there will be no going back to high technology?"
It's probably a mistake to underestimate the resilience of the system. Anyone interested
in trying to preserve the status quo as to race will have to act fast to bring the system
down, or it will be too late. Whether high tech can be rebuilt after a global collapse would
depend on a lot of factors impossible to know without knowing at least the method used to
cause the collapse, as that would have an effect on how long any ensuing "Dark Age" would
last.
Yes its kind of strange. Kavanaugh is not an ideological conservative in the mould of
Scalia or Thomas. Makes one wonder what the fuss was all about. I must revisit what you wrote
about earlier on his earlier judgements.
I'm not disagreeing, but don't forget it was 19th Century "Great Awakening" Protestants
who were responsible for creating the public school system in the US. Can we question their
motives?
In England, a struggle to dismiss a parliamentarian because of a vague complaint
Chief whip Mark Spencer today stood by his decision not to suspend the senior Tory MP
arrested on suspicion of rape.
The party is under mounting pressure, including from the alleged victim, to strip the
ex-minister of the Conservative whip.
But Mr Spencer said it was right to allow the police to conclude their investigation before
taking any action, while also stressing the need to protect the identity of the accuser.
The former parliamentary researcher in her 20s has alleged she was assaulted and forced to
have sex.
What does "forced to have sex" means?
@Dr.
Robert Morgan , it's "a triumph of the Natural, Racial Order" that confuses the plans of
the globo. The very globohomo is contingent upon the qualities of the Nordic race. It has
evolved to seek efficiency, and now – under the guidance of Christianity – it is
employing it in its own self-destruction. But as they near the end, their efforts become
discordant, muffled, inefficient.
> "Ted Kaczynski"
By the way, why do you prefer calling him his real name instead of "the Unabomber"? "Ted"
is so much more boring, and the in "Kaczynski" is mispronounced as by Americans while it
should be in Polish. The Unabomber has a ring to it.
Shamir now confesses to be a Mossad Psyop who pretended to be a hero of the Goyim. The
choosen ones raping and pimping gentile children and women is nothing to him. Criticism is
New Puretanism. A surrogate for the word Antisemitism as Derschowitz uses it for his accuser?
Calling Robert Maxell a KGB Agent i and other are struggling to understand if you are
trolling or trutly a Mossad apologet. The worst is you are friends with Gilad Atzmon
hopefully he is as bluffed by your (new?) behaviour and views as we are.
Anyway, just noticed more ammo lying on the ground right here at UR. Andy Flick-Chick, his
2020-02-13 article, The Philippines Are Choosing New Allies: Pres. Duterte, hugely
popular there, "sexually molested by a priest when he was a child, he holds a grudge against
Christianity."
@Dr.
Robert Morgan he principle of the pursuit of individual happiness trumps any search for
the efficiency of the collective.
I would concede that the history of technological intelligent life on this planet has been
aimed at the discovery of the correct proportion between efficiency and race. But not more.
Simply put, what I am observing to-day is the death of race-denialists in the Occident and
the triumph of racists in the Orient. The latter are more efficient, too.
A little video celebrating the unity of the Man and the Machine. Those visions are not
Checharian and not bucolic.
Adûnâi: "If it were indeed calculating the most efficient society, it would
probably try to mix and match, and as homosexualism is not exactly important, it would be
discounted as a Western obstacle." I would say, if there is no reason ruling the system, it
turns into idiocracy."
You have to keep in mind that the focus of technique when evaluating efficiency is
necessarily quite narrow. For instance, having a horse is more efficient (in some ways) than
walking, while having an automobile is still more efficient than having a horse. So an
evaluation of efficiency is both relative and contextual. Someone might object, for example,
that automobiles aren't really more efficient than walking, because by using automobiles, you
have to accept that tens of thousands of people are going to die annually in car accidents.
That's true, but still, the judgement of society (i.e., the "group mind" that I've referred
to) has been that using automobiles is worth it, i.e., more "efficient". And there can be
little doubt that, overall, a society that has the technology necessary to produce and use
automobiles would defeat a society at a more primitive technological level in the contest of
survival between them.
But generally, one cannot determine in advance "the most efficient society" any more than
one can determine in advance "the fittest animal". Whatever form of social organization is
most efficient must emerge gradually, as man does his dance of death with technology.
Humanity is like a blind man groping his way down a corridor. Nobody knows where
technological development will lead, and its development cannot be steered. Attempts to allow
ideology to steer technology only result in inferior technology.
As for "homosexualism", thinking about it some more, I'd say it's just another side effect
of female empowerment. Due to the development of scientific birth control methods women are
now participating in work and politics on equal footing with men, and there are social
consequences that weren't foreseen: e.g., more men are raised without a father in the home;
more men who, in their work life, will necessarily have a woman as their "boss"; decoupling
sex from its natural function of reproduction leads to regarding sexuality as a matter of
"lifestyle choice". Given basic human psychology, I'd say these trends favor an increase in
"homosexualism". Certainly they are quite destructive of patriarchy.
Adûnâi: "A lack of will is a lack of life. I emphasise the role of the
individual in history. If the system is so smart, why does it allow the vector to turn
towards disorder* for a period?"
Individual will has nothing to do with technique. It can't control it. Just to stick with
the example of birth control technologies, you cannot "will" away the fact that they empower
women, and at the same time disempower men. To use the technique at all, you just have to
accept this, just as with the use of automobiles, a society accepts that the cost is tens of
thousands of lives every year.
Disorder arises, and empires fall, precisely because all the consequences of a given
technological configuration aren't foreseen; in fact, they're not even foreseeable. Shit
happens, as the saying goes.
Adûnâi: "By the way, why do you prefer calling him his real name instead of "the
Unabomber"? "
Because it's his ideas that are important, not his relatively ineffectual bombs.
Adûnâi: "Simply put, what I am observing to-day is the death of race-denialists
in the Occident and the triumph of racists in the Orient. The latter are more efficient,
too."
This is the question to be decided in the future, by the result. I agree that the West,
precisely because of its Christian worldview, tends to confuse what it regards as moral
superiority with technological superiority. But then, if the prize is survival itself, morals
can change. Also, there's a time honored Christian tradition of hypocrisy that must be taken
into account. Only the event of the matter will show which form of technological organization
is more efficient.
Kinda sad that people are so often especially motivated by childhood trauma; the
simplicity, irrationality and disproportionate responses that are understandable in the
childish mind are unnaturally preserved throughout adulthood. A little girl gets abused by a
pervert uncle, and years later her supposed reason and free will convinces her that men are
evil, old men especially, traditional families and patriarchal society are the enemy, and she
was "born" a lesbian. So pretty much everybody in her sphere of influence ends up paying for
the act of one degenerate.
Up to this article, I took him to be honest, regardless of how muddy his background was.
Maybe he's testing his audience, but this is laughable.
Of course, if you're opposed to a superficially feminized, #metoo, gotcha culture, you may
sympathize at first.
But he's covering up for a zio-criminal entity that hasn't yet been unraveled. He's
actually trying the line that Epstein was some cavalier 70s Don Juan simply born a bit too
late.
Whores will be whores. Don't care about them, as they squirmed around Weinstein and
Epstein. Pretending Epstein is all about whores however, just turned Israel Shamir into a
whore in his own right. Pat yourself on the back, but we still don't know shit about Epstein,
the intelligence angle that is.
Maybe Israel can get his friend Assange on the ball?
"... This is the lens through which I see so-called cancel culture: there is a real problem, for ordinary people, of having your life severely damaged by a trivial offense, or by no offense at all. And of course, predictably, elite whiners want to hijack this real concern in order to maintain their impunity. ..."
"... But the elites are a parasitical epiphenomenon: they are attempting to take advantage of a pre-existing problem that hurts other people far more than it hurts them. And our justifiable contempt for the elites should not blind us to the existence of a real social problem that affects non-elites. ..."
"... So, shed no tears for Bari Weiss and Bret Stephens. They do not need protecting -- they are already coddled far too much. When the OP focuses on their plights as examples of "cancel culture," then cancel culture, so-described, looks like a well-deserved comeuppance, a refreshing chink in the armor of elite impunity. ..."
"... So, elite suffering is a side-show here (as it so often is). Focus on the lives of the non-elite. Their suffering should control our responses to the situation. Focus on the contingent academics fired from their jobs for speaking their minds. On the worker falsely accused of a white-power sign. ..."
Whenever there is a real social problem that affects many people, then rich, entitled
elites will attempt to commandeer it in order to consolidate their privilege.
If the sentencing guidelines are draconian and cruel, sending poor people to prison for
their lives, then white-collar criminals will complain that their 6-month sentence is a gross
injustice that proves they should be let out on bail.
If housing prices are so high that ordinary workers cannot afford the rent, then
millionaires will complain that they can no longer afford to keep a third home.
It's a predictable phenomenon. Elites will pretend that their minor inconveniences are
epic agonies, in order to be spared even minor inconveniences. We know this.
But we also know that the mere fact of elite whinging is no evidence that there is not a
real problem for non-elites.
In fact, the sentencing guidelines are unconscionably harsh: a man in Louisiana has
been sent to jail for life, for stealing a pair of secateurs, and the Louisiana supreme court
has declined to intervene.
In fact, housing is too expensive, and ordinary people are suffering on a massive
scale from artificial scarcity designed to entrench real-estate wealth. The rent is
too damned high.
This is the lens through which I see so-called cancel culture: there is a real problem,
for ordinary people, of having your life severely damaged by a trivial offense, or by no
offense at all. And of course, predictably, elite whiners want to hijack this real concern in
order to maintain their impunity.
But the elites are a parasitical epiphenomenon: they are attempting to take advantage of a
pre-existing problem that hurts other people far more than it hurts them. And our justifiable
contempt for the elites should not blind us to the existence of a real social problem that
affects non-elites.
The pre-existing problems are those that Natalie Wynn enumerates: assumptions of guilt,
essentializing moves from a single bad act to a wicked character, guilt by association,
impossibility of forgiveness, and so on. These patterns pre-exist the internet, and are
probably to be found in even small-scale societies. They are pathologies that are closely
related to healthy and functional mechanisms of social cohesion, as tumor-growth is related
to tissue-growth.
So, shed no tears for Bari Weiss and Bret Stephens. They do not need protecting -- they
are already coddled far too much. When the OP focuses on their plights as examples of "cancel
culture," then cancel culture, so-described, looks like a well-deserved comeuppance, a
refreshing chink in the armor of elite impunity.
Fine: I agree with all of that. I also agree that I would love to see white-collar
criminals go to jail for 20-50 years, and I'd love to see millionaires unable to afford a
third house.
But it would be crazy to move from that stance to saying, "and I'd love to see petty
thieves sent to jail for life, and I'd love to see minimum wage workers evicted from their
homes because they cannot make the rent."
So, elite suffering is a side-show here (as it so often is). Focus on the lives of the
non-elite. Their suffering should control our responses to the situation. Focus on the
contingent academics fired from their jobs for speaking their minds. On the worker falsely
accused of a white-power sign.
And what should be done after we focus on these things? Not what the right-wing zealots
say, under the false flag of "free speech": not bringing back a regime in which the powerful
can use slurs to subjugate the powerless.
No: if someone repeatedly uses the n-word in order to inflict pain and humiliation on
others, then they should suffer real consequences. I totally agree with that. If someone
repeatedly addresses a co-worker with the pronouns that offend them, and does so knowing that
it will offend them, then they should suffer real consequences.
But I reject zero-tolerance regimes. A black school-guard asking students not to use the
n-word should not be punished at all for mentioning the n-word. A well-meaning and
supportive co-worker who mistakenly uses the wrong pronoun on one occasion should not be
punished at all for that faux pas.
And along with zero-tolerance regimes, we should also get rid of the parade of abuses that
Natalie Wynn lists: assumptions of guilt without evidence, guilt by association, refusal of
forgiveness, and so on.
That's a practical agenda that allows for us to make fun of elite opinion makers as much
as we like, allows us to hurl twitter tomatoes at J.K Rowling all day long, and in no way
interferes with any notion of free speech worth defending.
Personally, i am voting for Incitatus in the presidential election. Incitatus was
supposedly appointed to the Roman Senate by the emperor Caligula. He was also a horse. How
about this for a slogan:
"... Furthermore, it is pretty obvious to the Russians that while Crimea and MH17 were the pretexts for western sanctions against Russia, they were not the real cause. The real cause of the West's hatred for Russia is as simple as it is old: Russia cannot be conquered, subdued, subverted or destroyed. They've been at it for close to 1,000 years and they still are at it. In fact, each time they fail to crush Russia, their russophobia increases to even higher levels (phobia both in the sense of "fear" and in the sense of "hatred"). ..."
"... I would argue that since at least Russia and the AngloZionist Empire have been at war since at least 2013, when Russia foiled the US plan to attack Syria under the pretext that it was "highly likely" that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against civilians (in reality, a textbook case of a false flag organized by the Brits), This means that Russia and the Empire have been at [Cold] war since at least 2013, for no less than seven years (something which Russian 6th columnists and Neo-Marxists try very hard to ignore). ..."
"... True, at least until now, this was has been 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5% kinetic, but this is a real existential war of survival for both sides: only one side will walk away from this struggle. The other one will simply disappear (not as a nation or a people, but as a polity; a regime). The Kremlin fully understood that and it embarked on a huge reform and modernization of the Russian armed forces in three distinct ways: ..."
"... While some US politicians understood what was going on (I think of Ron Paul, see here ), most did not. They were so brainwashed by the US propaganda that they were sure that no matter what, "USA! USA! USA!". Alas for them, the reality was quite different. ..."
Truth be told, most Russian politicians (with the notable exception of the official Kremlin
court jester, Zhirinovskii) and analysts never saw Trump as a potential ally or friend. The
Kremlin was especially cautious, which leads me to believe that the Russian intelligence
analysts did a very good job evaluating Trump's psyche and they quickly figured out that he was
no better than any other US politician.
Right now, I know of no Russian analyst who would predict that relations between the US and
Russia will improve in the foreseeable future. If anything, most are clearly saying that "guys,
we better get used to this" (accusations, sanctions, accusations, sanctions, etc. etc.
etc.).
Furthermore, it is pretty obvious to the Russians that while Crimea and MH17 were the
pretexts for western sanctions against Russia, they were not the real cause. The real cause of
the West's hatred for Russia is as simple as it is old: Russia cannot be conquered, subdued,
subverted or destroyed. They've been at it for close to 1,000 years and they still are at it.
In fact, each time they fail to crush Russia, their russophobia increases to even higher levels
(phobia both in the sense of "fear" and in the sense of "hatred").
Simply put -- there is nothing which Russia can expect from the upcoming election. Nothing
at all. Still, that does not mean that things are not better than 4 or 8 years ago. Let's look
at what changed.
I would argue that since at least Russia and the AngloZionist Empire have been at war
since at least 2013, when Russia foiled the US plan to attack Syria under the pretext that it
was "highly likely" that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against civilians (in
reality, a textbook case of a false flag organized by the Brits), This means that Russia and
the Empire have been at [Cold] war since at least 2013, for no less than seven years (something
which Russian 6th columnists and Neo-Marxists try very hard to ignore).
True, at least until now, this was has been 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5%
kinetic, but this is a real existential war of survival for both sides: only one side will walk
away from this struggle. The other one will simply disappear (not as a nation or a people, but
as a polity; a regime). The Kremlin fully understood that and it embarked on a huge reform and
modernization of the Russian armed forces in three distinct ways:
A "general" reform of
the Russian armed forces which had to be modernized by about 80%. This part of the reform is
now practically complete. A specific reform to prepare the western and southern military
districts for a major conventional war against the united West (as always in Russian history)
which would involve the First Guards Tank Army and the Russian Airborne Forces. The development
of bleeding-edge weapons systems with no equivalent in the West and which cannot be countered
or defeated; these weapons have had an especially dramatic impact upon First Strike Stability
and upon naval operations.
While some US politicians understood what was going on (I think of Ron Paul, see
here ), most did
not. They were so brainwashed by the US propaganda that they were sure that no matter what,
"USA! USA! USA!". Alas for them, the reality was quite different.
Russian officials, by the way,
have confirmed that Russia was preparing for war . Heck, the reforms were so profound
and far reaching, that it would have been impossible for the Russians to hide what they were
doing (see here for details; also
please see Andrei Martyanov's excellent primer on the new Russian Navy here ).
While no country is ever truly prepared for war, I would argue that by 2020 the Russians had
reached their goals and that now Russia is fully prepared to handle any conflict the West might
throw at her, ranging from a small border incident somewhere in Central Asia to a full-scaled
war against the US/NATO in Europe .
Folks in the West are now slowly waking up to this new reality (I mentioned some of that
here
), but it is too late. In purely military terms, Russia has now created such a qualitative gap
with the West that the still existing quantitative gap is not sufficient to guarantee a US/NATO
victory. Now some western politicians are starting to seriously freak out (see this lady ,
for example), but most Europeans are coming to terms with two truly horrible
realities:
Russia is much stronger than Europe and, even much worse, Russia will never
attack first (which is a major cause of frustration for western russophobes)
As for the obvious solution to this problem, having friendly relations with Russia is simply
unthinkable for those who made their entire careers peddling the Soviet (and now Russian)
threat to the world.
But Russia is changing, albeit maybe too slowly (at least for my taste). As I mentioned last
week, a number of Polish, Ukrainian and Baltic politicians have declared that the Zapad2020
military maneuvers which are supposed to take place in southern Russia and the Caucasus could
be used to prepare an attack on the West (see here
for a rather typical example of this nonsense). In the past, the Kremlin would only have made a
public statement ridiculing this nonsense, but this time around Putin did something different.
Right after he saw the reaction of these politicians, Putin ordered a major and UNSCHEDULED
military readiness exercise which involved no less than 150,000 troops, 400 aircraft
& 100 ships ! The message here was clear:
Yes, we are much more powerful than
you are and No, we are not apologizing for our strength anymore
And, just to make sure that the message is clear, the Russians also tested the readiness of
the Russian Airborne Forces units near the city of Riazan, see for yourself:
This response is, I think, the correct one. Frankly, nobody in the West is listening to what
the Kremlin has to say, so what is the point of making more statements which in the future will
be ignored equally as they have been in the past.
If anything, the slow realization that Russia is more powerful than NATO would be most
helpful in gently prodding EU politicians to change their tune and return back to reality.
Check out this recent video of Sarah Wagenknecht, a leading politician of the German Left and
see for yourself:
https://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x7uu5fk
The example of Sahra Wagenknecht is interesting, because she is from Germany, one of the
countries of northern Europe; traditionally, northern European powers have been much more
anti-Russian than southern Europeans, so it is encouraging to see that the anti-Putin and
anti-Russia hysteria is not always being endorsed by everybody.
But if things are very slowly getting better in the EU, in the bad old US of A things are
only getting worse. Even the Republicans are now fully on board the Russia-hating float (right
behind a "gay pride" one I suppose) and they are now contributing their own insanity to the
cause, as this article entitled "
Congressional Republicans: Russia should be designated state sponsor of terror " shows
(designating Russia as a terrorist state is an old idea of the Dems, by the way).
Russian options for the Fall
In truth, Russia does not have any particularly good options towards the US. Both parties
are now fully united in their rabid hatred of Russia (and China too, of course). Furthermore,
while there are many well-funded and virulently anti-Russian organizations in the US (Neo-cons,
Papists, Poles, Masons, Ukrainians, Balts, Ashkenazi Jews, etc.), Russian organizations in the
US like this one , have
very little influence or even relevance.
Banderites marching in the US
However, as the chaos continues to worsen inside the US and as US politicians continue to
alienate pretty much the entire planet, Russia does have a perfect opportunity to weaken the US
grip on Europe. The beauty in the current dynamic is that Russia does not have to do anything
at all (nevermind anything covert or illegal) to help the anti-EU and anti-US forces in Europe:
All she needs to do is to continuously hammer in the following simple message: "the US is
sinking -- do you really want to go down with it?".
There are many opportunities to deliver that message. The current US/Polish efforts to
prevent the EU from enjoying cheap Russian gas might well be the best example of what we could
call "European suicide politics", but there are many, many more.
Truth be told, neither the US nor the EU are a top priority for Russia, at least not in
economic terms. The moral credibility of the West in general can certainly be described as dead
and long gone. As for the West military might, it is only a concern to the degree that western
politicians might be tempted to believe their own propaganda about their military forces being
the best in the history of the galaxy. This is why Russia regularly engages in large surprise
exercises: to prove to the West that the Russian military is fully ready for anything the West
might try. As for the constant move of more and more US/NATO forces closer to the borders of
Russia, they are offensive in political terms, but in military terms, getting closer to Russia
only means that Russia will have more options to destroy you. "Forward deployment" is really a
thing of the past, at least against Russia.
With time, however, and as the US federal center loses even more of its control of the
country, the Kremlin might be well-advised to try to open some venues for "popular diplomacy",
especially with less hostile US states. The weakening of the Executive Branch has already
resulted in US governors playing an increasingly important international role and while this is
not, strictly speaking, legal (only the federal government has the right to engage in foreign
policy), the fact is that this has been going on for years already. Another possible partner
inside the US for Russian firms would be US corporations (especially now that they are hurting
badly). Finally, I think that the Kremlin ought to try to open channels of communication with
the various small political forces in the US which are clearly not buying into the official
propaganda: libertarians, (true) liberals and progressives, paleo-conservatives.
What we are witnessing before our eyes is the collapse of the US federal center. This is a
dangerous and highly unstable moment in our history. But from this crisis opportunities will
arise. The best thing Russia can do now is to simply remain very careful and vigilant and wait
for new forces to appear on the US political scene.
I really agree with you that the “blame Russia” and “blame China”
thing has gotten out of hand in US politics. Whether it will turn into a shooting war seems
doubtful to me, as the government is still full of people who are looking out for their own
interests and know that a full-sized war with Russia, China, Iran or whoever will not advance
their interests.
But who would have guessed, a few years ago, that “Russian asset” would become
the all-purpose insult for Democrats to use, not just against Republicans, but against other
Democrats?
With Republicans I think that “blame China” is stronger. China makes a good
scapegoat for the economic situation in the United States. But convincing the working class
that China is the source of their problems (and that Mr. MAGA is going to solve those
problems by standing up to China) requires ignorance of the crucial facts about the trade
relationship between those two countries.
Namely, that the trade deficit exists only because the Federal Reserve chooses to
create huge amounts of new dollars each year for export to other countries, and it’s
only possible for US exports to fall behind imports so badly (and thus put so many American
laborers out of work) because the Fed is making up the difference by exporting dollars.
Granted, it isn’t a policy that the US can change without harming the interests of its
own upper classes; at the same time, it isn’t a policy that China could force on the US
without the people in charge of the United States wanting it.
This is a topic I’ve dealt with a few times on my own blog.
"... Greenwald went on, after that, to discuss other key appointees by Nancy Pelosi who are almost as important as Adam Smith is, in shaping the Government's military budget. They're all corrupt. ..."
"... Numerous polls (for examples, this and this ) show that American voters, except for the minority of them that are Republican, want "bipartisan" government; but the reality in America is that this country actually already does have that: the U.S. Government is actually bipartisanly corrupt, and bipartisan evil. In fact, it's almost unanimous, it is so bipartisan, in reality. ..."
"... That's the way America's Government actually functions, especially in the congressional votes that the 'news'-media don't publicize. However, since it lies so much, and its media (controlled also by its billionaires) do likewise, and since they cover-up instead of expose the deepest rot, the public don't even know this. They don't know the reality. They don't know how corrupt and evil their Government actually is. They just vote and pay taxes. That's the extent to which they actually 'participate' in 'their' Government. They tragically don't know the reality. It's hidden from them. It is censored-out, by the editors, producers, and other management, of the billionaires' 'news'-media. These are the truths that can't pass through those executives' filters. These are the truths that get filtered-out, instead of reported. No democracy can function this way -- and, of course, none does. ..."
"... The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society , and we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings . ..."
"... But we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding it's fear of influence, on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections , on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. It's preparations are concealed, not published. It's mistakes are buried, not headlined. It's dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned. No rumor is printed. No secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War in short with a wartime discipline, no democracy would ever hope or wish to match. ..."
The great investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald gave an hour-long lecture on how
America's billionaires control the U.S. Government, and here is an edited summary of its
opening twenty minutes, with key quotations and assertions from its opening -- and then its
broader context will be discussed briefly:
2:45 : There is "this huge cleavage between how members of Congress present themselves,
their imagery and rhetoric and branding, what they present to the voters, on the one hand, and
the reality of what they do in the bowels of Congress and the underbelly of Congressional
proceedings, on the other. Most of the constituents back in their home districts have no idea
what it is that the people they've voted for have been doing, and this gap between belief and
reality is enormous."
Four crucial military-budget amendments were debated in the House just now, as follows:
to block Trump from withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.
to block Trump from withdrawing 10,000 troops from Germany
to limit U.S. assistance to the Sauds' bombing of Yemen
to require Trump to explain why he wants to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear
Forces Treaty
On all four issues, the pro-imperialist position prevailed in nearly unanimous votes -
overwhelming in both Parties. Dick Cheney's daughter, Republican Liz Cheney, dominated the
debates, though the House of Representatives is now led by Democrats, not Republicans.
Greenwald (citing other investigators) documents that the U.S. news-media are in the
business of deceiving the voters to believe that there are fundamental differences between the
Parties. "The extent to which they clash is wildly exaggerated" by the press (in order to pump
up the percentages of Americans who vote, so as to maintain, both domestically and
internationally, the lie that America is a democracy -- actually represents the interests of
the voters).
16:00 : The Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee -- which writes the nearly $750B
annual Pentagon budget -- is the veteran (23 years) House Democrat Adam Smith of Boeing's
Washington State.
"The majority of his district are people of color." He's "clearly a pro-war hawk" a
consistent neoconservative, voted to invade Iraq and all the rest.
"This is whom Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats have chosen to head the House Armed
Services Committee -- someone with this record."
He is "the single most influential member of Congress when it comes to shaping military
spending."
He was primaried by a progressive Democrat, and the "defense industry opened up their
coffers" and enabled Adam Smith to defeat the challenger.
That's the opening.
Greenwald went on, after that, to discuss other key appointees by Nancy Pelosi who are
almost as important as Adam Smith is, in shaping the Government's military budget. They're all
corrupt. And then he went, at further length, to describe the methods of deceiving the voters,
such as how these very same Democrats who are actually agents of the billionaires who own the
'defense' contractors and the 'news' media etc., campaign for Democrats' votes by emphasizing
how evil the Republican Party is on the issues that Democratic Party voters care far more about
than they do about America's destructions of Iraq and Syria and Libya and Honduras and Ukraine,
and imposing crushing economic blockades (sanctions) against the residents in Iran, Venezuela
and many other lands. Democratic Party voters care lots about the injustices and the sufferings
of American Blacks and other minorities, and of poor American women, etc., but are satisfied to
vote for Senators and Representatives who actually represent 'defense' contractors and other
profoundly corrupt corporations, instead of represent their own voters. This is how the most
corrupt people in politics become re-elected, time and again -- by deceived voters. And -- as
those nearly unanimous committee votes display -- almost every member of the U.S. Congress is
profoundly corrupt.
Furthermore: Adam Smith's opponent in the 2018 Democratic Party primary was Sarah Smith (no
relation) and she tried to argue against Adam Smith's neoconservative voting-record, but
the press-coverage she received in her congressional district ignored that, in order to
keep those voters in the dark about the key reality. Whereas Sarah Smith received some coverage
from Greenwald and other reporters at The Intercept who mentioned that "Sarah Smith
mounted her challenge largely in opposition to what she cast as his hawkish foreign policy
approach," and that she "routinely brought up his hawkish foreign policy views and campaign
donations from defense contractors as central issues in the campaign," only very few of the
voters in that district followed such national news-media, far less knew that Adam Smith was in
the pocket of 'defense' billionaires. And, so, the Pentagon's big weapons-making firms defeated
a progressive who would, if elected, have helped to re-orient federal spending away from
selling bombs to be used by the Sauds to destroy Yemen, and instead toward providing better
education and employment-prospects to Black, brown and other people, and to the poor, and
everybody, in that congressional district, and all others. Moreover, since Adam Smith had a
fairly good voting-record on the types of issues that Blacks and other minorities consider more
important and more relevant than such things as his having voted for Bush to invade Iraq, Sarah
Smith really had no other practical option than to criticize him regarding his hawkish
voting-record, which that district's voters barely even cared about. The billionaires actually
had Sarah Smith trapped (just like, on a national level, they had Bernie Sanders trapped).
Of course, Greenwald's audience is clearly Democratic Party voters, in order to inform them
of how deceitful their Party is. However, the Republican Party operates in exactly the same
way, though using different deceptions, because Republican Party voters have very different
priorities than Democratic Party voters do, and so they ignore other types of deceptions and
atrocities.
Numerous polls (for examples,
this and
this ) show that American voters, except for the minority of them that are Republican, want
"bipartisan" government; but the reality in America is that this country actually already does
have that: the U.S. Government is actually bipartisanly corrupt, and bipartisan evil. In
fact, it's almost unanimous, it is so bipartisan, in reality.
That's the way America's
Government actually functions, especially in the congressional votes that the 'news'-media
don't publicize. However, since it lies so much, and its media (controlled also by its
billionaires) do likewise, and since they cover-up instead of expose the deepest rot, the
public don't even know this. They don't know the reality. They don't know how corrupt and evil
their Government actually is. They just vote and pay taxes. That's the extent to which they
actually 'participate' in 'their' Government. They tragically don't know the reality. It's
hidden from them. It is censored-out, by the editors, producers, and other management, of the
billionaires' 'news'-media. These are the truths that can't pass through those executives'
filters. These are the truths that get filtered-out, instead of reported. No democracy can
function this way -- and, of course, none does.
Patmos , 8 hours ago
Eisenhower originally called it the Military Industrial Congressional Complex.
Was probably still when Congress maybe had a few slivers of integrity though.
As McCain's wife said, they all knew about Epstein.
Alice-the-dog , 2 hours ago
And now we suffer the Medical Industrial Complex on top of it.
Question_Mark , 1 hour ago
Klaus Schwab, UN/World Economic Forum - power plant "cyberattack" (advance video to 6:42
to skip intro):
please watch video at least from minute 6:42 at least for a few minutes to get context,
consider its contents, and comment:
Vot3 for trump but don't waste too much energy on the elections. All Trump can do is buy
us time.
Their plan has been in the works for over a century.
1) financial collapse with central banking.
2) social collapse with cultural marxism
3) government collapse with corrupt pedophile politicians.
EndOfDayExit , 7 hours ago
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
Humans are just not wired for eternal vigilance. Sheeple want to graze and don't want to
think.
JGResearch , 8 hours ago
Money is just the tool, it goes much deeper:
The Truth, when you finally chase it down, is almost always far
worse than your darkest visions and fears.'
– Hunter S. Thompson, Kingdom of Fear
'The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are
not behind the scenes' *
- Benjamin Disraeli, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
This information helps understand the shift to the bias we are witnessing at The PBS
Newshour and the MSM. PBS has always taken their marching orders from the Council on Foreign
Relations.
Judy Woodruff, and Jim
Lehrer (journalist, former anchor for PBS ) is a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations. John McCain (United States Republican Senator
from Arizona , 2008
Republican Party nominee for the Presidency), William F. Buckley, Jr
(commentator, publisher, founder of the National Review ), Jeffery E Epstein
(financier)
The Council on Foreign Relations has historical control both the Democratic establishment
and the Republican establishment until President Trump came along.
Until then they did not care who won the presidency because they control both parties at
the top.
FYI: Hardly one person in 1000 ever heard of the Council on Foreign Relations ( CFR ).
Until Trump both Republicans and Democrats control by the Eastern Establishment.There
operational front was the Council on Foreign Relations. Historically they did not care who
one the election since they controlled both parties from the top.
The CFR has only 3000 members yet they control over three-quarters of the nation's wealth.
The CFR runs the State Department and the CIA. The CFR has placed 100 CFR members in every
Presidential Administration and cabinet since Woodrow Wilson. They work together to misinform
the President to act in the best interest of the CFR not the best interest of the American
People.
At least five Presidents (Eisenhower, Ford, Carter, Bush, and Clinton) have been members
of the CFR. The CFR has packed every Supreme court with CFR insiders.
Three CFR members (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Sandra Day O'Connor) sit on
the supreme court. The CFR's British Counterpart is the Royal Institute of International
Affairs. The members of these groups profit by creating tension and hate. Their targets
include British and American citizens.
The CFR/RIIA method of operation is simple -- they control public opinion. They keep the
identity of their group secret. They learn the likes and dislikes of influential people. They
surround and manipulate them into acting in the best interest of the CFR/RIIA.
KuriousKat , 8 hours ago
there are 550 of them in the US..just boggles the mind they have us at each others throat
instead of theirs.
jmNZ , 3 hours ago
This is why America's only hope is to vote for Ron Paul.
x_Maurizio , 2 hours ago
Let me understand how a system, which is already proven being disfunctional, should
suddenly produce a positive result. That's craziness: to repeate the same action, with the
conviction it will give a different result.
If you would say: "The only hope is NOT TO TAKE PART TO THE FARCE" (so not to vote) I'd
understand.
But vot for that, instead of this.... what didn't you understand?
Voice-of-Reason , 6 hours ago
The very fact that we have billionaires who amass so much wealth that they can own our
Republic is the problem.
Eastern Whale , 8 hours ago
all the names mentioned in this article is rotten to the core
MartinG , 5 hours ago
Tell me again how democracy is the greatest form of government. What other profession lets
clueless idiots decide who runs the business.
Xena fobe , 4 hours ago
It isn't the fault of democracy. It's more the fault of voters.
quikwit , 3 hours ago
I'd pick the "clueless idiots" over an iron-fisted evil genius every time.
_triplesix_ , 8 hours ago
Am I the only one who noticed that Eric Zuesse capitalized the word "black" every time he
used it?
F**k you, Eric, you Marxist trash.
BTCtroll , 7 hours ago
Confirmed. Blacks are apparently a proper noun despite being referred to as simply a
color. In reality, no one cares. Ask anyone, they don't care expert black lies matter.
freedommusic , 4 hours ago
The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society , and we are as a people,
inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret
proceedings .
And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be
seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official
censorship and concealment.
Our way of life is under attack.
But we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies
primarily on covert means for expanding it's fear of influence, on infiltration instead of
invasion, on subversion instead of elections , on intimidation instead of free choice, on
guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast
human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine
that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political
operations. It's preparations are concealed, not published. It's mistakes are buried, not
headlined. It's dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned. No
rumor is printed. No secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War in short with a wartime
discipline, no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
...I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country
to re-examine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the
present danger, and to heed the duty of self restraint, which that danger imposes upon us
all.
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second
obligation and obligation which I share, and that is our obligation to inform and alert the
American people, to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need and
understand them as well, the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program, and the
choices that we face.
I am not asking your newspapers to support an administration, but I am asking your help
in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people, for I have complete
confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens, whenever they are fully
informed.
... that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment. The only business in
America specifically protected by the constitution, not primarily to amuse and entertain,
not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply give the public what it
wants, but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to
indicate our crises, and our choices, to lead, mold, educate, and sometimes even anger,
public opinion.
The owner of a Cuban restaurant in Louisville has decried a list of 'diversity demands sent
to him and dozens of other small business owners by Black Lives Matter activists - which
include guaranteeing that at least 23% of staff are black, 23% of the business's supplies are
from black-owned retailers, and 1.5% of their net sales go to black charities. They also need
to publicly display a sign showing their support for the movement.
If they don't comply, the business owners face a series of "repercussions," including social
media shaming, 'invasive reclamation' where black owned businesses would set up competing
'booths and tables' outside the stores, and they would have 'their storefronts fucked with,'
according to the
Daily Mail .
The letter was sent to business owners in the city's 'NuLu' East Market District during a
July 24 protest which forced some area businesses to close. BLM argues that the neighborhood
was only able to flourish after a housing project was demolished in the 2000s, which 'robbed
the black community of opportunities and wiped out their homes,' according to the report.
Beatscape , 20 minutes ago
This is BLM trying to see how far they can push their agenda -- do they have such a
universal mandate that they are now above the law? Per the legal code:
Extortion is a felony offense that is punishable by up to three years in prison. If the
defendant has made extortion demands but the victim never complied or consented, he or she
can be charged with attempted extortion.
In the current environment, anyone that dares to criticize even a fine point of the BLM
movement in public is in danger of losing their job and being ostracized. No wonder BLM wants
to defund and defang the police, they want to engage in various criminal activities with
impunity. And, the 'white guilt' crowd is actually fighting to allow this to happen.
Unreal...
OGAorSAD , 37 minutes ago
Formal extortion that will go unpunished....
Revolver2019 , 24 minutes ago
This guy is capitulating way too much! You cannot have it both ways with Marxists. You
cannot support BLM, but then offer your own terms to them to be negotiated.
He of all people should know that Marxists do not negotiate and there is no limit for what
they demand and what they want from you. You give an inch, they will then demand a mile. If
you draw a line they will steam roll you and take you out . Its all or nothing with
Marxists!
People need to realize this for their own safety. I see too much of it. People want to
appease, but on their terms. WAKE UP!! This guy is doing nothing good for his restaurant or
community because he says he supports BLM, but.... There is no BUT - All or you die! Having
both ways is quick recipe for disaster.
Grow some cajones and take one side - fully! Preferable to be the good side.
jughead , 1 hour ago
Sounds like a RICO case to me. Book em Donald.
LightBeamCowboy , 53 minutes ago
Isn't making threats or committing violence to achieve political ends the legal definition
of terrorism?
aloha-snackbar , 56 minutes ago
And lastly a cash payment due weekly for protection from nefarious and organized thugs who
may due harm to you and establishment... Chicago beer wars 1930... and today...
TheDayAfter , 41 minutes ago
Brilliant Point. Slap the RICO Act on BLM and Antifa, and see them run into Oblivion.
Stu Pedassle , 3 minutes ago
Who are the officers / decision makers? Gotta hand it to the Soros crowd, one thing they
have gotten right is keeping this movement going apparently without a definable structure /
command center to go after by the DOJ
neidermeyer , 1 hour ago
If it were me I'd burn the place down , collect the insurance money and go someplace safe,
the business is effectively worth nothing at this point... The local government is complicit
and you just can't win in that scenario.
LetThemEatRand , 1 hour ago
The worst nightmare of the Blue Team is that BLM splits the party by targeting Hispanic
voters, who will shift Red Team.
Welfarebum , 36 minutes ago
BLM is now a political party. But they are a unique political party, in that nobody is
allowed to criticize or oppose them or their views. Because of this unique status, they have
become extremely dangerous and need to be scrutinized by all critical-thinking,
freedom-loving citizens. I am not a racist in opposing BLM any more than I'm a rapist for
questioning the motives of the me too movement. y_arrow
DaBard51 , 54 minutes ago
BLM demands quotas? Illegal. per US Supreme Court (2009)
Not sure how the Cubans do business, but if the BLM tries this extortion **** with Mexican
restaurants around here, then some headless corpses of BLM activists are going to start
appearing around the place.
Musum , 1 hour ago
He took to Facebook to accuse them of 'mafia tactics'
Neoconservatism is BLM in Jewish face.
"Mafica tactics" is how we conduct ourselves on the geopolitical stage.
Welcome to America.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 49 minutes ago
Exactly, this is just a "lite" version of Trump threatening to ban Tik-Tok, then
encouraging Microsoft to buy it for a reduced price. Or demanding that Germany pay more
tribute to their troops occupying the country for 70+ years.
Leading by example, or the Art of the Deal (shakedown).
This is a golden opportunity, universal mail-in ballots, for the US to transition
back to hand written ballots, counted by hand in public (masked, gloved and shielded,
open air, social distancing) and accepting of all writeins for the top position, then safely
held for any future recounts. This could be done precinct by precinct, or via appropriate
other groupings, in a gradual manner, with no deadline as to when the final count would be
tallied (It's the virus, you know; we the public shall be patient). It's doable! Observers
could be chosen by lot (also out in the open). Twelve ought to do it, for each count. No
Brooks Brothers are eligible.
I can't see where this would be anything but simple. A worthy matter to be decided
publicly. You want to protest? This is worth protesting about! Organized by the people, for
the people. And not any private firm picking up the ballots. Our long suffering public postal
service is all we need, thank you!
Grieved @ 72 and psychohistorian above that, I hadn't read your two excellent posts when I
gave my bit on mailin ballots, but the same 'weltgeist' seems to be in play.
With the electoral vote being such a bone of contention ever since 2000 in the US, that
top-down orchestration is even in play there, with core freedoms having been usurped as the
power shifts were undertaken.
I would volunteer for this, and I would march for it also. I'm 80 this month - time to
roll up my sleeves!
This is from Lambert's Water Cooler yesterday at nakedcapitalism.com:-
• Imagine the timeline if Democrats had supported hand-marked paper ballots,
hand-counted in public after the 2000 debacle. Now we have a system that's broken because
both parties want the capacity to steal elections. They made their bed .
Also there is a podcast from Barack and Michelle Obama, both pictured. I would not have
recognized her. (The picture of Dorian Grey does come to mind.)
Once again, weltgeist. I only just started reading the Watercooler. Lambert even sadly
mentions the ailing Post Office, after paying appropriate attention to UPS. All other
attention is on Red and Blue: up, up, up. TINA...
This is indeed a very cool thing (kudos to Lambert again):
"...we have two types of immunity: innate immunity, which jumps into action within hours,
sometimes just minutes, of an infection; and adaptive immunity, which develops over days
and weeks . That antibodies decrease once an infection recedes isn't a sign that they are
failing: It's a normal step in the usual course of an immune response. Nor does a waning
antibody count mean waning immunity: The memory B cells that first produced those
antibodies are still around, and standing ready to churn out new batches of antibodies on
demand." • So, even if the bloodstream isn't full of antibodies, the body retains
the recipes for them. That is extremely cool." [my bold]
And from the NYT this comes, so I guess Times readers profit from being mostly 'up'.
Democrat politicians will keep their knee on the throat of small businesses for as long as
they possibly can for the sole purpose of crippling the economy to defeat Trump in November.
They don't care about the damage this causes. Keeping schools closed in the fall will result
in single parents staying home from work to care for their kids. At very least it stifles the
economy.
Send kids back to school, the majority wants this.
Vote in person November 3rd, make your vote count.
kaiserhoffredux , 3 hours ago
Exactly. There is no logic, reason, or precedent for quarantining healthy people.
To stop a virus, of all things? Ridiculous.
Ignatius , 2 hours ago
They've perverted the language as regards "cases."
A person could test positive and it might well be the most healthy situation: his body
encountered the virus, fought it off, and now though asymptomatic, retains antibodies from a
successful body response. The irony is that what I've described is the very response the vaxx
pushers expect from their vaccines.
Shameless political posturing.
coletrickle45 , 2 hours ago
So if you have 99 - 99.8% chance of surviving this faux virus
But a 100% chance of destroying lives through poverty, bankruptcy, small business
collapse, job losses, domestic abuse, depression, anxiety, fear.
What would you choose? Cost benefit analysis seems pretty obvious.
Gold Banit , 2 hours ago
Most people just regurgitate things they hear, they have lost the ability of creative and
free thought.They have been deliberately dumbed down. The entire system has created a mutant
society which is easy to control and manipulate.
"The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent
guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of
the masses." ― Malcolm X ay_arrow
sensibility , 2 hours ago
The COVID-19 Hoax has "Nothing" to do with "Real" Science, It's 100% about "Political"
Science.
Therefore, No Matter What, Politicians will Bend and Manipulate this for "Political"
Gain.
Who Stirred and Exposed the Swamp?
The Swamp Inhabitants Desperately Want & Intend to do Whatever it Takes to Return to
the Old Pre Trump Days of Operating Above the Law Without Exposure and Impunity.
Consequently, Those who Support the COVID-19 Hoax are Swamp Members & Supporters.
Know your Adversary!
monty42 , 2 hours ago
Trump didn't drain, stir, or expose the swamp, sorry that dog don't hunt. He has appointed
recycled establishment swamp creatures his entire term. He appointed Fauci to the Covidian
Taskforce. He says wearing masks is patriotic.
The promises he made his followers did not manifest. Another 4 years after being lied to
is just the same old routine, nothing new.
Until you people are honest about the reality of the situation, you'll never stop the
cycle of D/R destruction.
Examples given show quite clearly that "cancel mob" is an established form of the political
struggle. And in this case the reasons behind the particular attack of the "cancel mob" is far
from charitable.
Cancel culture my assJustice for Brad HamiltonRoy Edroso Jul 14 38 30
Mendenhall loses endorsement deal over bin Laden tweets
[Steelers running back] Rashard Mendenhall's candid tweets about Osama bin Laden's death
and the 9/11 terror attacks cost him an endorsement deal.
NFL.com senior analyst Vic Carucci says Rashard Mendenhall has become an example of the
risks that social media can present to outspoken pro athletes.
Athletic apparel manufacturer Champion announced Thursday that it had dropped the
Pittsburgh Steelers running back after he questioned the celebrations of bid Laden's death
and expressed his uncertainty over official accounts of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in New
York, suburban Washington and Pennsylvania.
Things haven't gotten any better. I've already written about
Springfield, Mass. police detective Florissa Fuentes, who got fired this year for
reposting her niece's pro-Black Lives Matter Instagram photo. Fuentes is less like Donohue,
the Chicks, and Mendenhall, though, and more like most of the people who get fired for speech
in this country, in that she is not rich, and getting fired was for her a massive blow.
The controversy began after [Lisa] Durden's appearance [on Tucker Carlson], during which
she defended the Black Lives Matter movement's decision to host a Memorial Day celebration
in New York City to which only black people were invited. On the show, Durden's comments
included, "You white people are angry because you couldn't use your white privilege card to
get invited to the Black Lives Matter's all-black Memorial Day Celebration," and "We want
to celebrate today. We don't want anybody going against us today."
Durden was then an adjunct professor at Essex County College, but not for long because
sure enough, they fired her for what she said on the show. (Bet Carlson, a racist piece
of shit , was delighted!) The college president defended her decision, saying she'd
received "feedback from students, faculty and prospective students and their families
expressing frustration, concern and even fear that the views expressed by a college employee
(with influence over students) would negatively impact their experience on the campus..."
Sounds pretty snowflakey to me. I went looking in the works of the signatories of the
famous
Harper's letter against cancel culture for some sign that any of them had acknowledged
Durden's case. Shockingly, such free speech warriors as Rod Dreher and Bret Stephens never
dropped a word on it.
Dreher does come up in other free-speech-vs-employment cases, though -- for example, from
2017, Chronicle of Higher
Education :
Tommy Curry, an associate professor of philosophy at Texas A&M University at College
Station, about five years ago participated in a YouTube interview in which he discussed
race and violence. Those remarks resurfaced in May in a column titled "When Is It OK to
Kill Whites?" by Rod Dreher in The American Conservative.
Mr. Curry said of that piece that he wasn't advocating for violence and that his remarks
had been taken out of context. He told The Chronicle that online threats had arrived in
force shortly after that. Some were racial in nature.
At the same time the president of the university, Michael K. Young, issued a statement
in which he appeared to rebuke the remarks made by Mr. Curry...
In his column on
Curry , Dreher said, "I wonder what it is like to be a white student studying under Dr.
Curry in his classroom?" Imagine worrying for the safety of white people at Texas
Fucking A&M!
Curry got to keep his job, but only after he "issued a new statement apologizing for how
his remarks had been received," the Chronicle reported:
"For those of you who considered my comments disparaging to certain types of scholarly
work or in any way impinging upon the centrality of academic freedom at this university,"
[Curry] wrote, "I regret any contributions that I may have made to misunderstandings in
this case, including to those whose work is contextualized by understanding the historical
perspectives of events that have often been ignored."
Bottom line: Most of us who work for a living are at-will employees -- basically, the boss
can fire us if they don't like the way we look at them or if they don't like what they
discover we feel about the events of the day. There are some protections -- for example, if
you and your work buddies are talking about work stuff and the boss gets mad, then that may
be considered " concerted
activity " and protected -- but as
Lisa Guerin wrote at the nolo.com legal advice site, "political views aren't covered by
[Civil Rights] laws and the laws of most states. This means employers are free to consider
political views and affiliations in making job decisions."
Basically we employees have no free speech rights at all. But people like Stephens and
Dreher and Megan McArdle who cry
over how "the mob" is coming after them don't care about us. For window dressing, they'll
glom onto rare cases where a non-rich, non-credentialed guy gets in trouble for allegedly
racist behavior that he didn't really do -- Emmanuel Cafferty, it's your time
to shine ! -- but their real concern isn't Cafferty's "free speech" or that of any other
peon, it's their own miserable careers.
Because they know people are starting to talk back to them. It's not like back in the day
when Peggy Noonan and George F. Will mounted their high horses and vomited their wisdom onto
the rabble and maybe some balled-up Letters to the Editor might feebly come back at them but
that was it. Now commoners can go viral! People making fun of Bari Weiss might reach as many
people as Bari Weiss herself! The cancel culture criers may have wingnut welfare sinecures,
cushy pundit gigs, and the respect of all the Right People, but they can't help but notice
that when they glide out onto their balconies and emit their received opinions a lot of
people -- mostly younger, and thoroughly hip that these worthies are apologists for the
austerity debt servitude to which they've been condemned for life -- are not just coughing
"bullshit" into their fists, but shouting it out loud.
This, the cancel culture criers cry, is the mob! It threatens civilization!
Yet they cannot force us to pay attention or buy their shitty opinions. The sound and
smell of mockery disturbs their al fresco luncheons and
weddings at the Arboretum . So they rush to their writing desks and prepare
sternly-worded letters. Their colleagues will read and approve! Also, their editors and
relatives! And maybe also some poor dumb kids who know so little of the world that they'll
actually mistake these overpaid prats for victims and feel sorry for them.
Well, you've already heard what I think about it elsewhere: Protect workers' free speech
rights for real, I say -- let them be as woke, as racist, or as obstreperous they wish off
the clock and the boss can't squawk. The cancel culture criers won't go for that deal; in
fact such a thing has never entered their minds -- free-speech is to protect their delicate
sensibilities, not the livelihoods of people who work with their hands!
And in the new tradition of the working class asking for more rather than less of what
they want, I'll go further: I give not one flaming fuck if these assholes suffocate under a
barrage of rotten tomatoes, and I think Brad inFast Times at Ridgemont
Highgot a raw deal from All-American
Burger and should be reinstated with full back pay: That customer deserved to have
100% of his ass kicked!
Examples given show quite clearly that "cancel mob" is an established, albeit somewhat
dirty, form of the political struggle. Often the reasons behind the particular attack of
the "cancel mob" is far from charitable. Orwell's 1984 describes an extreme form of the
same.
"... Case in point, reporting today on the newly disclosed Ghisline Maxwell documents only mentioned Prince Andrew and not a word about Bill Clinton ..."
"... believe James Murdoch was part of the "we are all gonna die in <11 years" Green New Deal school of thought. ..."
"James Murdoch, the younger son of media mogul Rupert Murdoch, has resigned from the board
of News Corporation citing "disagreements over editorial content".
In a filing to US regulators, he said he also disagreed with some "strategic decisions" made
by the company.
The exact nature of the disagreements was not detailed.
... ... ..,
I watch a lot of TeeVee news on all the major networks including the two Foxnews
channels.
It has become apparent to me over the last year or so that there is an internal ideology
contest at Fox between the hard core conservatives like Dobbs. Carlson, Mark Levin, Bartiromo,
Degan McDowell, etc. and a much more liberal set of people like Chris Wallace, Cavuto and the
newer reporters at the White House. I expect that the departure of James Murdoch will result in
more uniformly conservative reporting and commentary on Fox. I say that presuming that James
Murdoch was a major force in trying to push Foxnews toward the left.
I am surprised that Murdoch sent his son to Harvard. pl
Been noticing a lot of irresponsible reporting of late in the WSJ - not on the opinion
page, but in some pretty sloppy reporting with a lot of editorial bias in what is included
and what is intentionally left out.
Case in point, reporting today on the newly disclosed Ghisline Maxwell documents only
mentioned Prince Andrew and not a word about Bill Clinton . Doesn't WSJ know its readers
draw from multiple media sources that have provided original content? Everyday there are
several similar, bias by omission, articles.
One can only hope newly constituted management team will finally get rid of Peggy
Noonan.
"On the second Friday in June, a group of political operatives, former government and
military officials, and academics quietly convened online for what became a disturbing
exercise in the fragility of American democracy What if President Trump refuses to concede a
loss, as he publicly hinted recently he might do? How far could he go to preserve his power?
And what if Democrats refuse to give in?
"'All of our scenarios ended in both street-level violence and political impasse... The
law is essentially ... it's almost helpless against a president who's willing to ignore it .
Possession is nine tenths of the law.'
"Each scenario involved a different election outcome: An unclear result on Election Day
that looked increasingly like a Biden win as more ballots were counted; a clear Biden win in
the popular vote and the Electoral College; an Electoral College win for Trump with Biden
winning the popular vote by 5 percentage points; and a narrow Electoral College and popular
vote victory for Biden.
"Both sides turned out massive street protests that Trump sought to control -- in one
scenario he invoked the Insurrection Act, which allows the president to use military forces
to quell unrest.
"[Biden has] also mused publicly about Trump having to be escorted, forcibly if need be,
from the White House. That happened in one of the four scenarios the Transition Integrity
Project gamed out...
"'The Constitution really has been a workable document in many respects because we have
had people who more or less adhered to a code of conduct That seems to no longer to be the
case. That changes everything.'"
Interesting considering this was done completely by elements completely within the DP,
non-Trump RP and retired military and reported in the Boston Globe. They of course leave out
the effects of the unfolding financial/economic crisis, as well as any independent agency
arising from the people of the US.
Tucker Carlson described former President Obama as "one of the sleaziest and most dishonest
figures in the history of American politics" after his eulogy at the funeral of civil rights
icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) on Thursday.
Carlson, who also described the former president as "a greasy politician" for calling on
Congress to pass a new Voting Rights Act and to eliminate the filibuster, which Obama described
as a relic of the Jim Crow era that disenfranchised Black Americans, in order to do so.
"Barack Obama, one of the sleaziest and most dishonest figures in the history of American
politics, used George Floyd's death at a funeral to attack the police," Carlson said before
showing a segment of Obama's remarks.
he non-profit that sent the Democratic Party haywire during the Iowa Caucus earlier this
year has a new strategy: creating partisan news outlets in key states across the country ahead
of the 2020 election. With the financial backing of Hollywood, hedge fund managers, and Silicon
Valley, Acronym's Courier Newsroom may just change local journalism and politics forever.
Courier Newsroom , created by the
dark-money (not required to disclose donors) progressive non-profit Acronym, states that they
were created to restore trust in journalism by helping to rebuild local media across the
country. The opposite of this is true. Their true goal? Winning elections in key states.
Acronym CEO Tara McGowan, in a leaked memo obtained
by Vice, has stated that the goal of establishing Courier Newsroom is to defeat Republicans on
the new frontier of Internet political advertising. McGowan attributes Trump's 2016 success to
the campaign's ability to "shape and drive mainstream media coverage" through an influx of
internet spending. Courier seeks to counter this by challenging Trump on social media. By
definition, Courier serves as a political advertising operation for the Democratic Party rather
than a legitimate media source.
Calling for a new approach to political advertising, McGowan lambasted Hillary Clinton's
failed media strategy for its over-reliance on spending on traditional media, "In 2016, the
Hillary Clinton for President campaign raised an estimated $800 million online -- and spent a
large majority of it on television and radio advertisements." The 2016 election has proven to
be the reason for the creation of Courier Newsroom.
McGowan explicitly states that the papers are being used to boost political results, "
The Dogwood will not only function to support the flipping of both State House and
State Senate chambers in Virginia this November, but will serve as a vehicle to test, learn
from and scale best practices to new sites as we grow." The Dogwood , as of the time
of the writing of the leaked memo, was intended to be the prototype for future courier new
sites.
Courier has established news sites across key 2020 states including: Copper Courier
(Arizona), The Dogwood (Virginia), Up North News (Wisconsin), The
Gander (Michigan), Cardinal & Pine (North Carolina), The Keystone
(Pennsylvania), and The Americano (nationwide, intended for Latino audiences). Courier
extensively utilizes social media to promote stories made by the publications, generating
clicks in order to shape public voter opinion.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.400.1_en.html#goog_884035211 Ad ends in 15s
Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker, Pro-family
Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
Courier stories are written with the intent of mobilizing women and young people. McGowan
writes that Courier does this by "framing issues from health care to economic security in a way
that provides these voters with more personal and local relevance than they are often targeted
through traditional political ads." While these are real stories, they are packaged with the
intent on provoking a positive reaction from certain demographics of the population, in order
to spur them to vote for the Democratic Party this November. Courier itself has conceded that
they exist solely to challenge Republicans on social media.
Courier Newsroom Editor-in-Chief Lindsay Schrupp disagreed with the concerns regarding
journalistic integrity of its writers and service. Schrupp told The American
Conservative the following,
Courier Newsroom and its affiliated sites are independent from ACRONYM. We maintain an
editorial firewall, just like any other media company, and the managing editor of each site,
in addition to me as editor in chief, has ultimate discretion and control over content
published. Painting all partisan-leaning outlets with the same brush is dangerous and too
often creates false equivalency between very different types of newsrooms. All outlets in the
Courier Newsroom network operate with integrity and adhere to traditional journalistic
standards. It's offensive to our journalists -- many of whom have won state, regional and
national awards for their reporting -- to try to make a direct comparison to partisan outlets
on the right that often don't publish bylines, don't hire experienced or even local
reporters, don't comply with basic fact-checking standards, and don't do original reporting
in the regions where they operate. Courier aims to combat the misinformation spread by such
right-wing sites pretending to be "local news" by providing readers with transparently
progressive local reporting.
According to data from Facebook Ad Library, between May 2018 and July 12, 2020 Courier
Newsroom
spent $1,478,784 on Facebook ads on topics that include social issues, elections or
politics. Conservative
alternatives , such as the Daily Wire or Breitbart, have spent considerably less money on
Facebook advertising. Breitbart spent $11,404 since March 2018 and the Daily Wire spent
$418,578 since March 2018 according to Facebook's ad library.
Courier's political agenda is obvious. By looking into their Facebook ad-buys, Courier
Newsroom has spent extensively on vulnerable Democrats who came into office in the 2018
midterms. These pieces, while factual, highlight the accomplishments of narrowly elected
Democrats.
Among those that are frequently featured in mass ad-buys on Facebook are:
"Courier Newsroom's goal is to help elect Democrats. The site doesn't say that, but its
founder, Tara McGowan, has made this clear." Gabby Deutch of Newsguard, a journalism watchdog
focused on identifying fake news, tells The American Conservative. Deutch claims that
Courier is different from other partisan news outlets because their intentions are not clearly
stated. Courier instead argues that they are seeking to fill a void left in local
journalism.
According to The New York
Times in a story published in 2019, 1 in 5 local newspapers have been forced to shut
down forever. Political groups, such as Acronym, are poised to revitalize local journalism with
a new twist -- political advertising. Deutch warned The American Conservative of this
worrying development, "With fewer local newspapers -- a decline that's gotten even worse due to
the financial havoc wreaked by the pandemic -- there's room for political groups to fill the
void, playing off people's trust in local news. So they make a site that looks like local news
but has few (if any) reporters in the state, and then create content to woo voters."
There are examples on the right side of the spectrum too, she points out, including the
conservative Star network (Michigan Star and Tennessee Star are two examples) and AlphaNewsMN,
a conservative Minnesota site. "Readers deserve to know the agenda of the websites where they
get their news."
Browsing North Carolina's Courier news site Cardinal & Pine, one finds it brands itself
as "local news for the NC community." Newsguard' s assessment of Courier, is indeed
true, with the overwhelming majority of stories highlighting the successes of North Carolina
Democrats such as Governor Roy Cooper, attacking Republicans such as vulnerable Senator Thom
Tillis, and promoting Democratic policy positions -- notably as it relates to COVID-19 and BLM
social justice protests. Similarly, Virginia's Courier news site, The Dogwood, did not publish
an article detailing Virginia's biggest scandal of 2019: Governor Northam's controversial
blackface yearbook photo. Nor can one find any reference of Tara Reade, Joe Biden's sexual
assault accuser who entered the public eye earlier this spring.
Even more striking, is that as a 501(c)(4), Acronym is not required to disclose donors.
Acronym in 2018 received $250,000 from New Venture
Fund which is managed by Arabella. Through its dark-money ties,
Arabella has raised $2.4 billion dollars since 2006, making it one of the largest
financiers in American politics. Arabella's influence came into the limelight during the 2018
mid-term elections, in which they raised the
most ever by a left-leaning political non-profit. Courier Newsroom is, in other words, entirely
funded by secret donors that likely have significant ties to the Democratic Party and the Super
PACs bankrolling the 2020 election.
Acronym has invested millions of dollars to establish these papers across the country with
plans to continue their expansion into local media across the country in preparation for the
2020 election and beyond. Acronym has claimed that they are separate from Courier and allow the
creators to produce their own independent ideas, although, tax documents have revealed them to
be full owners
.
"This is all probably legal," says Bradley Smith, former Chairman of the FEC and foremost
scholar on campaign finance. "What surprises me is that more entities–especially on the
conservative side, since the majority of traditional media already lean left–don't do
this. But there are examples on the right–for example, NRA Radio." Donors can be kept
secret, as under Citizen's United , the 'periodicals' of 501(c)(4) groups do not have
to be filed with FECA. (Federal Election Campaign Act) Smith believes organizations such as
Courier will likely be a part of a greater trend in local journalism across the country.
Pacronym, also under the Acronym umbrella, is a Democratic Super-PAC charged with the single
goal of electing Joe Biden. Pacronym ads present similar content to what one would see on a
Courier publication, focusing heavily on the failures of Trump's handling of COVID-19, the
struggling of small-businesses across key-swing states (North Carolina, Arizona, Pennsylvania,
and Wisconsin), and Joe Biden's proposed response to the virus.
Courier, with the same goal, repurposes ideas by PACs and the Democratic Party by attaching
a 'news' label for legitimacy. "The anti-Trump ads from Courier focus on the same points as
Pacronym and other Democratic political groups, but if they look like news articles, the
audience sees them differently than the same content coming from a politician," According to
Deutch
at Newsguard.
Pacronym donors are publicly disclosed, and may have present a clue into Courier Newsroom's
finances. Some notable
financiers of Pacronym include billionaire hedge fund manager Seth Klarman, Hollywood icon
Steven Spielberg and his wife Kate Kapshaw, a billionaire heiress to the Levi Strauss brand
Mimi Haas, and silicon valley's very own LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman. Pacronym has
targeted a $75 million-dollar digital ad campaign, primarily using Facebook, against
President Trump for the upcoming election.
Acronym is also involved in another scandal, notably the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucus. Shadow
Inc, also operating under Acronym's umbrella, was established with the purpose of digitally
registering and mobilizing voters. Shadow Inc's leadership primarily consisted of 2016
ex-Clinton campaign staff. Shadow Inc received a contract by the Iowa Democratic Party for
$63,183 to develop an application to help count votes in the Iowa Caucus. Shadow Inc's
application, the IowaReporterApp, failed to properly report the caucus, leading to a delayed
result. Campaigns, pundits, and election officials were confused due to the inconsistencies
found in the results.
Candidate Pete Buttigieg claimed victory despite the caucus results not having been properly
released. According to data by the FEC, Pete Buttigieg's campaign paid Shadow Inc. $21,250 for
"software rights and subscriptions" in July 2019. Acronym CEO Tara McGowan's husband, Michael
Halle, was a senior strategist for the Pete Buttigieg campaign. Michael Halle's brother, Ben
Halle, was Pete Buttigieg's Iowa Communications Director. Many have suspected foul play, or at
least incompetence.
Courier Newsroom is distinct from both fake-news and astro-turf operations that came into
the public eye during the 2016 election. Rather than produce fake content with the intent to
mislead, Courier articles are legitimate and are written by real writers. In the leaked Acronym
memo, CEO Tara McGowan claimed that the Democratic Party was losing "the media war."
In 2014 the National Republican Congressional Committee established fake news
websites and paid to boost them on Google. These websites were deceptive with the intent on
defeating the opposing candidate. Although, these websites publicly disclosed that they were
paid for by the committee at the bottom of the article. Courier's funding remains
undisclosed.
PACs, in tandem with a surge in online political advertising, have weaponized newsrooms to
present misleading news for electoral success.
Alberto Bufalino is a student at Wake Forest University in North Carolina and TAC's summer
editorial intern.
I don't know . . . It's bad enough that the republic has to deal with a broad swath of
people getting their news from terrible facebook feeds. It's why America has a president
selling beans and promoting demon sperm doctors, and why it's one of the few countries that
can't keep covid down despite it's resources.
I don't think trying to get the rest of getting our news from people that operate at the
level of Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, and Breitbart is praiseworthy.
You are right in principle.
We have this six hundred pound Citizens United crapping all over the room though.
I too wish that the game was played by different rules. But this is not Switzerland and we
need to win first.
Is it clear though that repealing Citizens United would change this? The Double Plus
Wealthy are already funding the top online websites to the tune of millions of dollars a
year, and the funders of the Federalist are famously anonymous despite the Federalist
basically being an arm of the Republican party/embarrassment to thinking.
I am happy though that the anonymous funders of the Courier are not sponsoring fake news
that makes their readers dumber, unlike *checks the article** the National Republican
Congressional Committee . Yowza.
Repeal of Citizens United would make it possible to regulate who funds whom. It
would not guarantee the outing of arrangements like Courier. Give me a leaked memo any
day.
As Republican leaders find themselves forced to distance themselves from the president
they will also begin discussions about what their party looks like in the post-Trump era.
For starters they may want to dip into a new book by Thomas E. Patterson, a professor at
Harvard University. Titled Is the Republican Party Destroying Itself, the book outlines
five traps the party has found itself in.
Likbez , July 29, 2020 10:38 am
One of the key problem with any poll is conformism of the respondents: answering the
poll in a certain way does not necessary means that the person intends to vote this
way.
He might be simply deceiving the pollster providing the most "politically correct"
opinion. In this sense any poll conducted by an MSM does not worth electrons used to
display its results. Most people are way too smart not to feel what is expected of
them
Add to this the fact that you need to reach people on cell phones. Only a certain
category of people will answer such a call. Limiting yourself to a landline distorts the
sampling in more than one way by definition.
The key question of November elections that will never be asked in polls: Will a
majority of voters side with the protesters? Or they will view them as rioters. In the
latter case this looks like a Nixon elections replay.
Re: "The polls show Donald Trump losing to Joe Biden"
In addition to the biased, mainstream media it appears polls have become the latest
propaganda weapon of the Democrats that are meant to move public opinion, not gauge it. Of
the polls that I have looked at in detail, almost all consistently have more Democrat
participants than Republicans and very few reveal how many people were contacted and refused
to participate. In addition some of these polls use dedicated, volunteer participants that
get a daily/weekly email asking for a response to several issues. So of those polled, it
really comes down to people that don't screen their phone calls or emails and have the
inclination and free time to answer endless questions from strangers about politics. The
Democrat oversampling percentages I have observed are listed below:
ABC News/Washington Post - 2%, 3%, 4%, 6%, 7%, 8%
America Trends Panel - 16%
AP/NORC - 10%
American research Group - 9%
CBS news poll - not revealed
Change Research - 5%
CNBC - not revealed
CNN SSRS Research 7%
Democracy Fund Voter Study Group - not revealed
Democracy Institute 0%
Economist/YouGov - not revealed
Emerson - not revealed
EPIC-MIRA poll 5%
Fox News 0-10% average 6.5%
Gallup 7%
Global Strategy Group 7%
Hart research 6%
Harvard CAPS/Harris - not revealed
Hill/Harris 5%
IBD/TIPP - not revealed
Monmouth 9%, 8%
Morning Consult - 8%
New York Times-Siena College survey 11%
NBC News poll/ Wall Street Journal 12%
NBC News poll/ Survey Monkey - 8%
NPR/Marist 6%
Pew - 16%
Politico/Morning Consult 5%,10%
Public Policy Polling - 10%
Pulse Opinion Research - not revealed
Suffolk University - 5.8%
Quinnipac - 6%, 8%, 10%
Rasmussan - 4% and behind a paywall
Reuters-Ipsos 11%
Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey - behind a paywall
Yahoo News - 8%, 10%
YouGov - 8%, 10%
Zogby - 2%
Yves here. The Democrats don't want to admit that the Republicans are more ruthless and
shameless than they are. Or else they only care about winning certain elections and they are
confident in their ability to control them. The Democrats have been far more willing to play
games in primaries .
Separately, I don't get how the Democrats don't get they may be in trouble despite Biden's
big national poll lead. The Democrats have never taken voter registration seriously because
they don't want lower income voters to have too much influence in the party, and low income
voters are the most transient. Democratic party voters even more likely now due to Covid-19
financial stresses to have had an address change and need to re-register to vote. If you think
vote-by-mail schemes that are already struggling to operate properly, even assuming good faith,
will handle new registrants in their districts well, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
The original Mayor Daley wasn't the first, but he was the best at election manipulation.
Daley would have not supported verifiable elections for the obvious reason. Why don't today's
Democrats support verifiable elections?
Everyone I know wants Trump to lose. Do you know anyone who actually wants Biden to
win?"
-- Howie Klein, here
I've often contended that neither political party -- not the Democrats, not the Republicans
-- wants free, open, verifiable and uncorrupted elections.
Both parties, of course, say they want fair elections. The Republicans use these
pronouncements, though, as cover for creating obstacles to voting by Democratic-leaning
citizens based on demographics like race and place of residence. That much is a given, and this
hypocrisy is obvious to everyone,
including Republicans .
But what about the Democratic Party? There the situation is more mixed, but it's not
unmixed . I cut my adult teeth in Chicago, the perfect model, if not ground zero, for
election manipulation, and there are many Chicago's in the country.
There are also many approaches to stealing elections, but one of the most common is faked
and manipulated vote totals, and for that, the solution is well known: hand-counted paper
ballots . Given that fact, you have to ask yourself: If Democratic leaders really wanted
uncorrupted elections -- as opposed to just elections they could win -- wouldn't they demand a
national return to hand-counted paper ballots, the gold standard for honest elections
?
And yet they don't. Year after year they keep the same corruptible voting systems in place,
often expanding them, and focus their fire instead on Republican gerrymandering and voter list
purges as evidence of the other party's evil and their own goodness.
It's likely there's a simple and obvious reason for Democratic leadership not seeking to
secure our elections with hand-counted ballots, but it's not a pretty one: Like the
Republicans, Democratic leaders, many or most of whom hate progressives with a passion, also
want the ability to "fix" elections when they wish to.
"Ballot-Stuffing" in Philadelphia
For example, consider
this , from the Philly Voice:
South Philly judge of elections pleads guilty to stuffing ballot boxes, accepting
bribes
Prosecutors say Domenick DeMuro, 73, inflated results for Democratic primary
candidates
A former judge of elections in South Philadelphia pleaded guilty this week to fraudulently
stuffing ballot boxes for Democratic candidates in recent primary elections, accepting bribes
from a political consultant hired to help influence local election results.
During the 2014, 2015 and 2016 primary elections, DeMuro admitted that he accepted bribes
ranging from $300 to $5,000 per election. A political consultant hired by specific Democratic
candidates gave DeMuro a cut of his fee to add votes for these candidates, who were running
for judicial and various state, federal and local elected offices.
DeMuro would "ring up" extras votes on machines at his polling station, add them to the
totals and later falsely certify that the voting machine results were accurate, prosecutors
said.
U.S. Attorney William M. McSwain said, "DeMuro fraudulently stuffed the ballot box by
literally standing in a voting booth and voting over and over, as fast as he could, while he
thought the coast was clear."
This happens all the time and is rarely caught and punished. In this case, it's
likely the bribes from a "political consultant hired by specific Democratic candidates" were
the only reason DeMoro was prosecuted. A number of hand-made videos during the 2016 primary
showed similar corrupt "certifications" at the local level, all of them disadvantaging Bernie
Sanders, yet none of these videos sparked an ounce of indignation from "free election"
Democratic leaders -- whose preferred candidate, it should be noted, Hillary Clinton, benefited
every time.
"Progressive Democrat" Blocks Gerrymandering Reform in Nevada
Or consider this sordid tale from Nevada, in which the local League of Women Voters
attempted to eliminate gerrymandering following a recent Supreme Court decision that returned
gerrymandering lawsuits to the states to resolve.
Apparently some Democrats think gerrymandering is fine in blue states
In June of 2019 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause that federal
courts will no longer accept partisan gerrymandering cases. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for
the majority that partisan gerrymandering is a political issue that must be resolved at the
state level. In response, the League of Women Voters U.S. launched a People Powered Fair Maps
plan to create barriers to partisan gerrymandering in each state.
The League of Women Voters of Nevada adopted the plan and reached out to our democracy
partners to form the Fair Maps Nevada coalition. On November 4, 2019, Fair Maps Nevada filed
a constitutional amendment ballot initiative to create an independent redistricting
commission. Nevada's constitution protects the right to circulate a ballot initiative as well
as the right to vote on ballot questions.
So far, so good. But wait:
On November 27, 2019, Mr. Kevin Benson, a Carson City attorney, filed a lawsuit
challenging the ballot question's summary of effect for a "progressive Democrat." His
client argued that the summary of the amendment that appears on each signature sheet was
misleading. Fair Maps Nevada offered to edit the summary to clarify the amendment's intent,
but Mr. Benson refused. The Judge James Russell ultimately agreed with Mr. Benson's client
and asked both parties to submit new versions of the summary to address the plaintiff's
complaints.
It's suspicious that a self-proclaimed "progressive Democrat" would try to monkey-wrench the
process, but still, so far, so good. However:
Fair Maps Nevada submitted a new summary, but Mr. Benson did not. Instead, he argued
that the whole amendment was misleading and so should be blocked completely from moving
forward.
In other words, the whole exercise was a sham to get the entire process thrown out by the
local judge.
Essentially, Mr. Benson was asking Judge Russell to deny the Fair Maps Nevada coalition
our constitutionally protected right to circulate a petition. Judge Russell accepted Fair
Maps Nevada's new summary of the amendment and closed the case [in favor of Fair Maps
Nevada].
Still, the issue didn't die there. Benson took his appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court, which
allowed it to go ahead. Fair Maps Nevada eventually won, but not before they realized (wasn't
it already obvious?) that this mystery litigant's real goal was to run out the
signature-gathering clock on the initiative. Further, the state Supreme Court failed to close
the legal loophole that allowed the appeal in the first place, preparing the way for similar
future challenges on the same spurious grounds.
Why would a Democrat , in Democratic-controlled Nevada, want to block gerrymandering
reform, if not to continue to benefit from the unreformed system?
The Danger for Democrats
The danger for Democrats in tolerating and continuing their own vote corruption is great.
When voters say "both parties do it" -- they're right. Perhaps Party leaders, national and
local, think they can get away with these acts given that most of the mainstream media -- busy
people's only source of news -- protects listeners and viewers from information that supports
the "both are corrupt" frame.
But that protection can't be effective forever. While most Sanders supporters, for example,
will vote for Joe Biden,
most won't give him money , under the assumption perhaps that his billionaires have that
covered. And this is widely seen as a race that most want neither candidate to win --
especially if you include non-voters -- even though even more voters want Trump to lose.
The bottom line is this: While Democratic leaders may think the situation -- their current
and safe control of their share of power -- is well managed, the nation may easily become so
alienated by both parties, and by the people's inability to vote outside the
two-corrupt-parties framework, that they seek "other avenues" for change.
Ironically, a "back to the normal" Biden administration may be just the match Americans need
to spark an active rebellion against the corruption of both political parties. One more round
of mainstream Democrats in charge, may be the last straw for that national beast of burden, our
suffering governed.
If that's the case, watch out. Democratic leaders are running out of time, as are we all.
When a nation seeks "other avenues" for reform, that nation's in trouble.
U.S. Officials Disseminate Disinformation About 'Virus Disinformation'Getald
, Jul 29 2020 17:44 utc |
1
In another round of their anti-Russian disinformation campaign 'U.S. government officials'
claim that some websites loosely connected to Russia are spreading 'virus
disinformation'.
However, no 'virus disinformation' can be found on those sites.
The Associated Press as well as the New York Times were briefed by the
'officials' and provided write ups.
Two Russians who have held senior roles in Moscow's military intelligence service known as
the GRU have been identified as responsible for a disinformation effort meant to reach
American and Western audiences, U.S. government officials said. They spoke to The
Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak
publicly.
The information had previously been classified, but officials said it had been
downgraded so they could more freely discuss it. Officials said they were doing so now to
sound the alarm about the particular websites and to expose what they say is a clear link
between the sites and Russian intelligence.
Between late May and early July, one of the officials said, the websites singled out
Tuesday published about 150 articles about the pandemic response, including coverage aimed
either at propping up Russia or denigrating the U.S.
Among the headlines that caught the attention of U.S. officials were "Russia's Counter
COVID-19 Aid to America Advances Case for Détente," which suggested that Russia had
given urgent and substantial aid to the U.S. to fight the pandemic, and "Beijing Believes
COVID-19 is a Biological Weapon," which amplified statements by the Chinese.
There is zero 'virus disinformation' in the Korybko piece. The aid flight did happen and
was widely reported. In a response to the allegations the proprietors of O neWorldpoint out that
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a recent Q&A also alluded to a new détente with
Russia. Was that also 'virus disinformation'?
The second piece the 'officials' pointed out, Beijing believes COVID-19 is a biological weapon , was
written In March by Lucas Leiroz, a "research fellow in international law at the Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro". It is an exaggerating analysis of the comments and questions a
spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry had made about the possible sources of the
Coronavirus.
The original spokesperson quote is in the piece. Referring to additional sources the
author's interpretation may go a bit beyond the quote's meaning. But it is certainly not
'virus disinformation' to raise the same speculative question about the potential sources of
the virus which at that time many others were also asking.
The piece was published by InfoBRICS.org, a "BRICS information portal" which
publishes in the languages of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South
Africa). It is presumably financed by some or all of those countries.
Another website the 'U.S. officials' have pointed out is InfoRos.ru which publishes in Russian and English. The
AP notes of it:
A headline Tuesday on InfoRos.ru about the unrest roiling American cities read "Chaos in
the Blue Cities," accompanying a story that lamented how New Yorkers who grew up under the
tough-on-crime approach of former Mayors Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg "and have zero
street smarts" must now "adapt to life in high-crime urban areas."
Another story carried the headline of "Ukrainian Trap for Biden," and claimed that
"Ukrainegate" -- a reference to stories surrounding Biden's son Hunter's former ties to a
Ukraine gas company -- "keeps unfolding with renewed vigor."
U.S. officials have identified two of the people believed to be behind the sites'
operations. The men, Denis Valeryevich Tyurin and Aleksandr Gennadyevich Starunskiy, have
previously held leadership roles at InfoRos but have also served in a GRU unit specializing
in military psychological intelligence and maintain deep contacts there, the officials
said.
InfoRos calls itself a 'news agency' and has some rather boring general interest
stuff on its site. But how is its writing in FOX News style about unrest in U.S.
cities and about Biden's escapades in the Ukraine 'virus disinformation'? I fail to find any
on that site.
In 2018 some "western intelligence agency"
told the Washington Post , without providing any evidence, that InfoRos
is related to the Russian military intelligence service GU (formerly GRU):
Unit 54777 has several front organizations that are financed through government grants as
public diplomacy organizations but are covertly run by the GRU and aimed at Russian
expatriates, the intelligence officer said. Two of the most significant are InfoRos and the
Institute of the Russian Diaspora.
So InfoRos is getting some public grants and was allegedly previously run by two
people who before that worked for the GU. What does that say about the current state and the
content it provides? Nothing.
The NYTadds
that hardly anyone is reading the websites the 'U.S. officials' pointed out but that their
content is at times copied by more prominent aggregator sites:
"What we have seen from G.R.U. operations is oftentimes the social media component is a
flop, but the narrative content that they write is shared more broadly through the niche
media ecosystem," said Renee DiResta, a research manager at the Stanford Internet
Observatory, who has studied the G.R.U. and InfoRos ties and propaganda work.
There are plenty of sites who copy content from various outlets and reproduce it under
their name. But that does not turn whatever they publish into disinformation.
All the pieces mentioned by AP and NYT and attributed to the 'Russian'
sites are basically factual and carry no 'virus disinformation'. That makes the
'U.S.officials' claims that they do such the real disinformation campaign.
And the AP and NYT are willingly falling for it.
People being
prepared for Russia having the worlds first covid19 vaccine, the US will of course say it was
stolen from them. Infantile politicians create infantile press to feed infantile articles to
adult children. Critical thinking skills do not exist in the US population.
The development of propagation of information/disinformation through the internet eroded
the power of the old newspapers/news agencies. It's not that this or that particular website
is getting more views, but that the web of communications - the the imperialistic blunders +
decline of capitalism post-2008 -, as a whole, weakened what seemed to be an unshakeable
trust on the MSM (the very fact that this term exists already is historical evidence of their
loss of power).
And this process manifests itself not only in loss of power, but also loss of money: this
is particularly evident in the social media, where Facebook (Whatsapp + Facebook proper) and
Google are beginning to siphon advertisement money from both TV and the traditional
newspapers (printed press). When those traditional printed newspapers went digital, they
behaved badly, by using paywalls - this marketing blunder only accelerated their decline in
readership and thus further advertisement money, generating a vicious cycle for them.
The loss of influence of public opinion for the MSM also inaugurated another very
important societal shift: the middle class' loss of monopoly over opinion and formation of
opinion. Historically, it was the role of the middle class to be highly educated, to go to
academia (college) and, most importantly, to daily read the newspapers while eating the
breakfast. The middle class was the class of the intellectuals by definition, thus served as
the clerical class of the capitalist class, the priests of capitalism. With the
popularization of the internet, the smartphone and social media, this sanctity was broken or,
at least, begun to deteriorate. We can attest this class conflict phenomenon by studying the
rise of the term "expert" as a pejorative one. In the West's case, this shift begun through
the far-right side of the political spectrum, but the shift is there.
The popularization of what was once a privilege is nothing new in capitalism. The problem
here is that capitalism depends on infinite growth to merely exist (i.e. it can't survive on
zero growth, it is mathematically impossible), so it has to "monetize" what still isn't
monetize in order to find/create more vital space (Lebensraum - a term coined by the
hyper-capitalist Nazis) for its expansion and thus survival. Hence the popularization of
college education in the USA (then in Europe). Hence the popularization of daily news through
the internet/social media. This process, of course, has its positives and negatives (as is
the case with every dialectical process) - the fall of the MSM is one of the positives.
So, in fact, when the likes of AP, Reuters, NYT, WaPo, Guardian, Fox, CNN spread
disinformation against "alt-media", they are really just protecting their market share - the
fact that it implies in suppression of freedom of speech and to mass disinformation and,
ultimately, to war and destruction, is merely collateral damage of the business they operate
in. They are, after all, capitalist enterprises above all.
Excellent analysis, as always, by b. And vk's points are very pertinent too. One tiny
quibble: I doubt that the Nazis coined, though they certainly popularised, the term
lebensraum.
There is an air of desperation about these campaigns against "Russian" "disinformation"
massive changes are occurring, and, because they are so vast, they are moving relatively
slowly.
The old media model, now totally outdated, was the first thing to fall. Now capitalism itself
is collapsing as a result of the primary contradiction that, left to itself, the marketplace
will solve all problems.
As Washington, where magical thinking is sovereign, is demonstrating, left to itself the
hidden hand will bring only misery, famine, death and the Apocalypse. This was once very well
understood, as a brief look at the history of the founding of the UN will show, now it is the
subject of frantic denial by capitalism's priesthood who have grown to enjoy the glitter and
sensuality of life in a brothel. It is a sign of their mental decay that they can do no
better than to blame Russians.
One should presume the anonymous officials responsible for this ground-breaking report (sarc)
are close to the various "combatting Russian disinformation" NGOs. They are merely living up
to the mission statements of their benefactors. AP and NYTimes are being unprofessional and
spreading fake news by failing to reveal their sources. It's mind-numbing - the BS one must
wade through.
Good point however with one glaring contradiction in your thinking.
You make valid a very criticism of capitalism yet you tend to applaud Chinese capitalist
growth (although you tend to deny Chinese capitalist growth is capitalist, a feat of
breathtaking magical thinking).
The great Chinese wealth is fully 75% invested in bubblicious real estate valuations of
non-commercial real estate built on a mountain of construction debt. Sound familiar?
The irony is Chinese growth since 2008 has been goosed along entirely by the very same
financialized hyper capitalist traits as US: great gobs of debt creating supply-side
"growth", huge amounts of middle wealth tied to asset inflated bubbles, and of course the
resulting income and wealth inequality that rivals US inequality and continues to increase
over time.
I snorted coffee out my nose when Gruff tried to totally excuse Chinese income inequality
for being only slightly less than US level....how about the truth? Chinese inequality is
heinous, only slightly less than the also heinous US level.
The diseased working class in China only has an an arm and two legs hacked off while the
diseased US working class is fully quadriplegic. Much, much better to be a fucked over by
globalization Chinese citizen! Lmao
@ b who ended his posting with
"
And the AP and NYT are willingly falling for it.
"
Sorry b, but AP and NYT are active participants in the disinformation campaign of failing
empire and are not falling for anything
The folks that are falling for it are the American public that has lost its ability to
discriminate with the fire hose volume of lies told to them on a daily basis.
Empire is in the process of defeating itself which is the only safe way of ending the
tyranny of global private finance. I commend China and Russia for having the patience and
fortitude to hold the safe space for the dysfunctional social contract having private control
of the lifeblood of human commerce to self destruct.
This is SO hilarious! The propagandists are worried about Russian virus dis-information when
most dis-information has come from the US government in the person of Trump and from the CDC,
which spent months discrediting the effectiveness of face masks!!!
Theses propagandists need to get real jobs dealing with real world problems.
This is SO hilarious! The propagandists are worried about Russian virus dis-information when
most dis-information has come from the US government in the person of Trump and from the CDC,
which spent months discrediting the effectiveness of face masks!!!
Theses propagandists need to get real jobs dealing with real world problems.
there has been no national response to coronavirus but there must be a national acceptance
that this national non-response is China's fault. and any sources reporting truthfully about
the US or disseminating statements easily found elsewhere, as long as they are Russian,
Chinese, Venezuelan, Cuban, Iranian, etc., is pure disinformation. How brittle and weak the
US is. Where's the Pericles to say to the Spartans, "enter our city and inspect our
defenses"? The US is a nation of heavily-armed mice and sheep.
btw, the China love on display around here is pretty funny. in that the Chinese government
has mounted a national response to a very serious threat, China is a nation in a way that the
US is not. There is no US or we would not have 50 states doing different things in response
to the corona outbreak. the US is already dead. But China is a thoroughly authoritarian
capitalist state. they are who they are in a dialectic competition with the US and other
capitalist powers, not because of some Maoist-Confucian amalgam that inspires such wisdom in
their brilliant leaders, who are just as quick to destroy their environment for capitalist
gain as anyone on this planet is. The decline of the US will not make China or Russia or any
"emerging" power less authoritarian or violent. au quite the contraire. They are Shylocks who
will try to better instruction.
However, none of this is of concern to people in the US, whose only concern is the Nazi
spawn who've been running "the West" for much longer than the last 75 years. but it's time to
kill the bitch, not let it keep screwing us and breeding.
As others already said, this is a bit rich, considering that virus disinformation comes from
Trump himself, both live and on Twitter, quoting genuine hacks and megalomaniac doctors,
depending on the week.
Reality check: Russians will be able to travel across the world way before Americans, for
obvious healthcare reasons.
Bevin, I agree, I once had a short exchange on Mondoweiss about the term Lebensraum, it
had been used in some type of marketing by my favorite Swizz supermarket. Which then,
apparently caused an uproar. The term Lebensraum on its own is rather innocent. Leben (life)
Raum (space), a noun compound. Context matters. And I am sure I checked it, and Micros
definitively did not use it in any type of world conquering settler context. I haven't
stumbled yet across a Micros supermarket anywhere outside Switzerland, ;)
I'm under the impression that Info Ros is a Russian government-funded, supported, backed,
site, it certainly looks like it and its reportage is decidedly 'neutral'.
This is SO hilarious! The propagandists are worried about Russian virus dis-information
when most dis-information has come from the US government in the person of Trump and from the
CDC, which spent months discrediting ...
Posted by: JohnH | Jul 29 2020 19:21 utc | 8
This is close to my overall take on matters. But I wouldn't put so much emphasis on
face masks but on something along the lines of Covid is notthing but a flu. Face masks were
initially discussed quite controversially everywhere.
Were it gets interesting is here:
A report published last month by a second, nongovernmental organization, Brussels-based EU
DisinfoLab, examined links between InfoRos and One World to Russian military intelligence.
The researchers identified technical clues tying their websites to Russia and identified some
financial connections between InfoRos and the government.
They have a competitor which seems Bruxelles based too, Patrick Armstrong alerted me to
a while ago: https://euvsdisinfo.eu/
EUvsDisinfo is the flagship project of the European External Action Service's East StratCom
Task Force
************
But yes, on first sight InfoRos seems to be neatly aligned with US alt-Right-Media in
basic outlook. More than with the US MSM.
And now I first have to read what has been on Andrew Korybko's mind lately. ;)
Many Americans of all walks of life do not trust their own government, yet most people here
seem to have faith that their media outlets are telling the truth. How do you break through
to the public that has utter faith in whatever newspaper or television channel they prefer
and highlight the lies in a way which gains real traction?
I believe it takes leadership, which, for Americans, mean celebrities have to endorse the
idea or it likely won't be taken seriously. This cult of celebrity is mirrored on social
media platforms, where millions flock to be a part of some beautiful person's beautiful
photograph or some known personalities acceptable opinion du jour.
There is a great bond gripping the minds of American media consumers. They have trained
their entire lives to worship at the cult of celebrity and this is the key to breaking the
entire media landscape down for them.
This also is the key to unlocking the voices of those who know better with regards to
media lies, but keep silent out of fear.
Will a Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson be able to break the spell? I think it will never
happen based on how Hollywood gatekeeps celebrity and based on how hopelessly apathetic most
are to Julian Assange.
Lol I write for One World. I'm an American who has never had a piece edited or been told what
to write. I was allowed to write a piece about Russia where I was critical of their policy of
backing the STC in Yemen (I thought it was bad to divide Yemen). No one makes anybody tow any
specific line. I decided not to publish my piece on Russia and the STC in Yemen because I
didn't find the topic interesting enough, but I was 100% allowed to be critical of Russia.
Lol I write for One World. I'm an American who has never had a piece edited or been told
what to write.
...
Posted by: Ben Barbour | Jul 29 2020 22:36 utc | 23
Is it possible that you're just the in-house joke at OW?
If they don't care that you'd write "tow" instead of "toe" or that you're too
lazy/thoughtless to reproduce the full name of the entity for which STC is an acronym, before
using the acronym, then it suggests that One World's Editorial Standards are as lax as your
own :-)
"... Two Russians who have held senior roles in Moscow's military intelligence service
known as the GRU have been identified as responsible for a disinformation effort meant to
reach American and Western audiences, U.S. government officials said. They spoke to The
Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak
publicly ..."
Of course GRU agents always work in pairs, guided only by the mysterious telepathic powers
of the Russian President and no-one or nothing else, as Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov
did in Salisbury in March 2018 when they supposedly tried to assassinate or send a warning to
Sergei Skripal, and as Dmitri Kovtun and Andrei Lugovoy did in London in November 2006 when
they apparently put polonium in a pot of tea served to Alexander Litvinenko in full view of
patrons and staff at a hotel restaurant. It's as if each agent carries only half a brain and
each half is connected to its complement by the corpus callosum that is Lord Vlademort
Putin's thoughts beaming oing-yoing-yoing-like through the atmosphere until they find their
targets.
And of course US government officials always speak on condition of anonymity.
As Agence Presse News puts it:
"... The information had previously been classified, but officials said it had been
downgraded so they could more freely discuss it. Officials said they were doing so now to
sound the alarm about the particular websites and to expose what they say is a clear link
between the sites and Russian intelligence ..."
So if US government officials can now freely discuss declassified news, why do they insist
on being anonymous? This would be the sort of news announced at a US national press club
meeting with Matt Lee in the front row asking awkward and discomfiting questions.
The malicious cultivation (including Gain of Function research) and implantation of this
biowarfare agent (and other ones such as Swine Fever) by the U.S. Intelligence services in
various places around the world (especially in China and Iran), the intentional faulty
responses and deceptive statistics administered by the monopoly-controlled medical
establishment, the feigned inability to provide adequate testing, care, and treatment, along
with planned economic destruction as a means of restoring investor losses and control of
populations through stifling of dissent, are at the heart of the deflection and projection of
blame. That broadly-based subject is barely discussed in alternative media and is totally
obfuscated in MSM, because the "denier-debunkers" dispute the possibility of such extreme
malice existing in our institutions, in spite of previous experience with events such as 9/11
and the '08 financial crisis.
...
So if US government officials can now freely discuss declassified news, why do they insist on
being anonymous?
...
Posted by: Jen | Jul 29 2020 23:29 utc | 25
Precisely.
My guess is that they don't know when to quit.
and/or
They embrace the Mythbusters motto...
"If a thing's worth doing, it's worth overdoing."
"Is it possible that you're just the in-house joke at OW?
If they don't care that you'd write "tow" instead of "toe" or that you're too
lazy/thoughtless to reproduce the full name of the entity for which STC is an acronym, before
using the acronym, then it suggests that One World's Editorial Standards are as lax as your
own :-)"
Fair point on tow vs toe. That's why editing exists when writing articles. As for the STC
part, that is common knowledge if you follow basic geopolitics. When making a post in a
comment thread, should I write out "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" before using the acronym
ISIS? If I am posting in a comment thread about Iran, do I need to write out "Mujahedin-e
Khalq" instead of just using MEK?
It just displays a massive level of ignorance on your part. Nice try though.
Global media moguls are blaming the 1,000 American deaths per day from the Wuhan coronavirus
on Donald Trump to finally get him out of the way. But they are silent on their and the
Democrats complicity in the death toll due to the lack of a national public health system or
the funding to pay for it.
The USA is going to hell. A scapegoat is needed. For the media and Democrats, Russia is to
blame. Anybody else rather than themselves, the true culprits. Donald Trump blames China for
the pandemic if he acknowledges it at all but that is where all of Tim Cook's iPhones are
made. Blaming China is globalist heresy.
I think there's a reasonable case to be made that this is what has occurred.
And, if true, it is covered up by sly suggestions that nCov-19 was man-made with hints or
a smug attitude that convey the message that China created the virus. As well as a
virtual black-out in Western media of Chinese suggestions that the virus may have started in
USA or been planted in Wuhan.
But then, I already stand accused of attributing magical powers of self-interested
foresight and boldness to US Deep-State due to my belief that Trump was their choice to lead
USA in 2016. And so I expect you're theory will receive the same derision. Yet Empires have
not been shy about killing millions when it was in their interest to do so.
In any case, I've written many times that USA/West's unwillingness to fight the virus has
been dressed up as innocent mistakes. Even if the West wasn't the source of the virus they
have much to answer for. Yet very few have taken note of the way that USA/West have played
the pandemic to advance their interests - from lining the pockets of Big Pharma to blaming
China for their own "incompetence" (a misnomer: the power-elite are very competent at
advancing their interests!).
It seems disinformation has been redefined to mean information that counters someone else's
(yours) belief. We pretend to be in an Age of Reason but really, we have just replaced
religious beliefs with secular beliefs. Science has been taken over by pseudoscientists that
have replaced priests. The conflict of interest by the science/priests who profit from their
deceptions is beyond criminal.
To know what is the truth you just have to look at whats being censored. Nobody being
censored for supporting mask mandates, claiming vaccines are safe, and not questioning the
blatant data manipulation of COVID cases that anyone with an open mind and IQ of 100 , and
who reads the data, definitions and studies can see through.
It seems people on both sides of the fence have replaced their brains with their chosen
ideology. Its like watching a Christian, Jew and Muslim arguing which is the best or true
religion. No point in it.
so, lets say GRU agents are feeding russian propaganda sites... how does that compare to
all the CIA-FBI agents and has been hacks working for the western msm?? seems a bit rich for
the pot to be calling a kettle black, even if they are lying thru their teeth! i am sure if
someone did a story on how many CIA - m16 people are presently working with the western msm,
they would have a story with some legs... this shite from anonymous usa gov't officials is
just that - shite..
@ Ben, or Benson Barbour .. thanks for your comments!
Lol I write for One World. I'm an American who has never had a piece edited or been told
what to write. I was allowed to write a piece about Russia where I was critical of their
policy of backing the STC in Yemen (I thought it was bad to divide Yemen). No one makes
anybody tow any specific line. I decided not to publish my piece on Russia and the STC in
Yemen because I didn't find the topic interesting enough, but I was 100% allowed to be
critical of Russia.
There's such a thing as self-censorship. Mainstream US news has effectively brought up
folks to be this way: stay in line or become unemployed- doesn't need to be stated. Not aimed
at you, but it needs to be said (und understood).
@35 That's a very good point. I completely agree. Self-censorship and group think are two of
the biggest problems in modern journalism/analysis. One World consistently publishes
pro-Pakistan and pro-China articles. When I was first sending them submissions, I did a piece
on US vs China in Sudan and South Sudan. I considered omitting China's culpability in
escalating the conflicts, and instead focus on laying the blame squarely at the feet of the
US. In the end I told the truth about both countries' imperialist escalations (to the best of
my ability).
There is a lot of incentive to self-censor at just about any outlet. It's more comfortable
to fit in with a site's brand.
In the case of the Russia-STC article, I really just found the subject matter to be thin.
Russia's support of the STC is mostly just diplomatic. Not a lot to write about.
The Americans are increasingly unhinged in their spittle-flecked accusations against not only
Russia, but also China, Iran, Venezuela, etc.
It's so pathetic as to be humorous.
Underlying the USA's Two Minutes of Hate campaigns, however, is a deeper disease that
defines Americans as a nation and as a people.
Namely, Americans have an inbred fundamentalist belief in their own Moral Superiority as
the Beacon of Liberty, Land of the Free, blah, blah, blah--no matter how many nations they
have bombed back to the Stone Age, invaded, colonized, regime changed, sanctioned, or
economically raped in the name of Freedom and Democracy™.
Donald Trump is half correct.
The United States of America is truly a great nation alright--but great only in terms of
its deceit, great in terms of its delusions, and great in terms of the horrors that it has
inflicted on much of the world.
Comparing America to the Nazis would be a high insult ... to Nazi Germany, as the Third
Reich only lasted about 12 years, while the American Reich has unfortunately lasted well over
200 years and gotten away with its crimes against humanity by possessing what are likely the
greatest propaganda machine and political deception in human history: the American Free Press
and the world historic lie called "American Freedom."
Harold Pinter in his 2005 Nobel Literature Prize speech briefly but powerfully exposes
this heart of American darkness:
"The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless,
but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has
exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for
universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.
I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road.
Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a
salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a
winner."
"Top US immunologist Dr Anthony Fauci is now saying citizens are not "complete" in
protecting themselves from the Covid-19 pandemic unless they go beyond wearing a mask and add
in eye protection like goggles, too."
More provocation from the oligarchy. Now, that masks are becoming less controversial, time
to step up the provocation, division and control.
Fauci is also behind the anti-hydroxychloroquine propaganda, as well, that even b has
swallowed. This, despite it being used effectively in other countries. All of this simply
because Trump supports it (ergo, it must be bad) and Big Pharma (who control Fauci,
CDC abd WHO) can't profit significantly from its use.
"During the course of the debate, Kennedy also talked about the regular vaccines most
people take, from Hepatitis B to the flu shot, emphasizing that no proper testing had ever
been done, which is mandatory for any other medication. Vaccines "are the only medical
product that does not have to be safety-tested against a placebo," he explained."
Kennedy said
"it's not hypothetical that vaccines cause injury, and that injuries are not rare. The
vaccine courts have paid out four billion dollars" over the past three decades, "and the
threshold for getting back into a vaccine court and getting a judgment – [the
Department of Health and Human Services] admits that fewer than one percent of people who are
injured ever even get to court."
So, how well has the Russian vaccine been tested? Does anyone know?
It is interesting how USAians are being played by the oligarchy.
On foreign policy, the dems and reps are in basic agreement and the propaganda is to bring
the masses together to hate Russia, Chaina and anyone else who the Western (US) oligarchy has
targeted.
Domestically, unity is the enemy of the oligarchy. The masses must be controlled through
division and diversion, so the dems and reps play good cop, bad cop (bad and good being
relative to the supporter) to ensure the masses are diverted from important oligarch issues
to issues of irrelevance to the oligarchs, but easily manipulated emotionnally by the
oligarchs for the beast.
"[...]Donald Trump blames China for the pandemic if he acknowledges it at all but that is
where all of Tim Cook's iPhones are made. Blaming China is globalist heresy."
Then why do you phrase it the "Wuhan coronavius" yourself?
For those interested in corona virus truth,
I am interested in the question -- - was it spread by negligence or deliberately?
That question must be relivant to this debate on MOA.
I ask this now becouse -- --
Tonight on bbc 'panorama' there investigating the spread of the virus from Hospital to care
homes !! I'm told there is some pretty shocking information exposed.
Some may wish to catch that prog. Heads up.
I just add an obversation. -- western psychopathic disinformation and projection has led
to a confused public. A public deciding to disengage with politics. To the gain of the
psychopaths.
A new candidate to the demonization and disinfo operations has been added...Germany...which
has been labeled "delinquent" by the POTUS...in a clear exercise of projection...
Of course, to not be insulted or labeled delinquent, you must act as these other countries
enumerated by Southcom commander, to work for the US ( not your country...) and moreover pay
for it....Typical mafia extortion, isn´t it?
That broadly-based subject is barely discussed in alternative media and is totally
obfuscated in MSM, because the "denier-debunkers" dispute the possibility of such extreme
malice existing in our institutions, in spite of previous experience with events such as
9/11 and the '08 financial crisis.
YES to that and thank you for that post. That the institutions of state and private
sectors are the incubators and propagators of extreme malice is axiomatic in the UKUSAI and
its five eyed running dogs is beyond doubt. They attack and scorn any critic or unbeliever.
They assault and pillory truth speakers and those who might question 'their narrative'.
Then if all that fails the hunt them down and make preposterous claims about them being
anti semitic of anti religion or anti their nation.
Mendacity is the currency of the permanent state and its minions and they need to be outed
and shamed and challenged at every opportunity.
Fort Detrick coronavirus would be on the mark and as you most likely know, you cannot
trust the USA lying eyes once you have served them in their killing fields.
Even that right wing ex special forces advocate Steve Pieczenic testifies to the fact of a
deadly virus in USA in November/December plus his beloved bloggers say way earlier than that
around Maryland etc. Then there is the small problem of the 'vaping' illness that generated
lots of pneumonia like fatalities in June/July. And then the instant closure of Fort Detrick
due to its leaking all over the place through a totally inadequate waste water treatment
plant that couldn't scrub a turd let alone a virus.
The problem with presstitutes, possibly including Ben Barbour , (disclaimer: I've
never read any media products that particular individual generated) goes beyond the point
made by Seer @35 . To be sure, there is no chance that a presstitute would bite the
hand that feeds it, but there is more depth to the problem of why they all suck so
badly, at least the ones in the US. While journalism degrees are the university equivalent of
Special Education (nowadays referred to as "Exceptional Student Education" , which is
very fitting for students from such an "exceptional" nation), they still prepare the
future presstitute to understand that their capitalist employers have interests beyond their
immediately apparent ones. That is, more important to a capitalist employer than tomorrow's
sales and profits is the preservation of capitalism itself.
But the problem is deeper still. The presstitute that is successfully employed by a
capitalist enterprise will invariably be one that knows not to criticize the employer's
business, the capitalist system it depends upon, and the empire that improves that employer's
profitability. More importantly, that successful hireling will additionally have been
brainwashed from infancy that all of these things are good and necessary aspects of the
modern world that need to be ideologically defended. The prospective presstitute will be one
that not only voluntarily, but eagerly serves its capitalist masters varied interests. After
all, when there are plenty of whores to choose from, would you hire one that requires
explicit instructions on every last thing you expect from them and just follows those
instructions mechanically or the the one that puts effort into figuring out what would please
you and delivers that with enthusiasm? Keeping this dynamic in mind will allow one to better
understand the capitalist mass media's products.
The contempt at which the American ruling class hold their citizens is galling. The US
corporate media operates as if their targeted audience are all morons.
Mark2 @45: "...was it [ novel coronavirus] spread by negligence or
deliberately?"
Most likely both.
There is evidence to suggest that the virus was circulating in the US prior to it being
discovered in China. While it is possible this could have been the results of testing the
transmissibility of the virus, it seems more probable that it was an accidental release from
Fort Detrick. This would explain the facility being shut down last year. Military facilities
are never shut down simply for breaking a few rules but because those rule violations led to
something unpleasant.
An accidental release, coupled with the fact that the synthetic origin of the virus would
become apparent to scientists worldwide, resulted in a need to quickly establish an alternate
explanation for the virus. Since the US was losing its trade war with China, and use of a
bioweapon to turn the tide was already gamed out and on the table anyway, the virus (or
possibly a very similar strain that had been pre-selected for the attack) was deliberately
sprayed around a market in Wuhan.
The CDC and CIA probably thought that the virus was contained in the West and that since
it was a surprise to the Chinese it would run rampant there and result in their economy
shutting down and their borders being closed, decoupling China from the world. With the
Chinese treating the virus as a bio attack and defeating its spread, followed by the virus
rampaging through the West, the dynamic changed. Now in order for the virus to decouple China
it must become endemic in the West. The Chinese must be made to close their borders in fear
of becoming infected from the rest of the world. To make this backup plan a reality, and to
get the economies moving again as fast as possible, some western leaders have decided to
accelerate the spread in the hopes of quickly developing "herd immunity" . Taking out
some retirees whom the capitalists view as a burden on the economy is just some nice icing on
the cake.
@ 51 & @ 52
I'd say not ! I'm confided Vietnam Vet is doing 'balenced' Reporting ! The subject of this
post. Take another look at both this post and his comment. A lesson in how to be unbiased but
truthfull.
Soooo any one got a definition of fake news.
Mine would be Truth before personal agenda.
William Gruff @ 53
I think yours is just about the most clear and concise summary of this whole virus
catastrophe that I have seen so far. And that's a hell of a statement !
Unrelated I wonder what would have happened if the Chinese whistle blower had not blown the
whistle ? Now that's one to ponder ? As bad as this all is world wide, where would be right
now ? Dose not bare thinking about.
What are you trying to tell me? Anyone that does not acknowledge the virus originated in
China and that China didn't respond as fast as it could have? And more polemically: there is
some kind of African Marxist heading WHO who obfuscated China's late information to the
WHO?
There is a dot of truth in everything. There is also a dot of truth in the fact that Trump
or his relevant admin was informed early enough.
We've been acquainted with this virus about 7 months or so and it is difficult to separate
reliable information from disinformation. We know very little about it, eg, we don't know
whether those who recover can be reinfected. Is it like the common cold, against which there
is no immunity? We just have to assume that the Trump virus has infected every level of the
administration so that there is ignorance and unadulterated stupidity from the lowest level
in the ministry of propaganda to the secretary of state and, of course, the president himself
currently celebrating the wisdom of an animist/Christian hybrid doctor from Africa spewing
the foulest disinformation one can imagine.
Big @ 57 What ?
Posted by: Mark2 | Jul 30 2020 12:27 utc | 58
babbling: look if this is the good old VV from SST, I wouldn't want to nail him on the
usage of Wuhan virus. But on the larger content of his comment, I am wondering.
Full discovery: I entered the US conspiracy universe shortly after 9/11. I'll probably
never forget there was this one commenter that completely out of then current preoccupations
within the diverse theories, you recall?, suggested that the Chinese were approaching via the
Southern borders.
There surely should be a way how the US and Russia
There surely should be a way how the US and Russia
There surely should be a way how the US and Russia repartition their claims. After all
historically the Russian had some type of partly real Yellow threat too ... :)
Except the "whistle blower" was not a whistle blower since local, provincial, and nations
institutions were already advised or in the process of being advised. Dr Wenliang posted his
information in a private chatroom with other medical professionals on December 30th. Timeline
of events:
Dec 27 -- Dr. Zhang Jixian, director of the respiratory and critical care medicine
department of Hubei Provincial Hospital, files a report to the hospital stating that an
unknown pneumonia has developed in three patients and they are not responding to influenza
treatment.
Dec 29 -- Hubei Provincial Hospital convened a panel of 10 experts to discuss the now
seven cases. Their conclusion that the situation was extraordinary, plus information of two
similar cases in other hospitals, prompted the hospital to report directly to the municipal
and provincial health authorities.
Dec 30 -- The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission issued an urgent notification to medical
institutions under its jurisdiction, ordering efforts to appropriately treat patients with
pneumonia of unknown cause.
Dec 31 -- The National Health Commission (NHC) made arrangements in the wee hours, sending
a working group and an expert team to Wuhan to guide epidemic response and conduct on-site
investigations. The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission released a briefing on its website
about the pneumonia outbreak in the city, confirming 27 cases and telling the public not to
go to enclosed public places or gather. It suggested wearing face masks when going out. The
Wuhan Municipal Health Commission released briefings on the pneumonia outbreak in accordance
with the law. WHO's Country Office in the PRC relayed the information to the WHO Western
Pacific Regional Office, then to the international level headquarters.
Jan 1 -- The NHC set up a leading group to determine the emergency response to the
epidemic. The group convened meetings on a daily basis since then.
Jan 2 -- The Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) and the Chinese
Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) received the first batch of samples of four patients from
Hubei Province and began pathogen identification. The NHC came up with a set of guidelines on
early discovery, early diagnosis and early quarantine for the prevention and control of the
viral pneumonia of unknown cause.
Jan 3 -- Dr. Wenliang signs a statement not to post unsubstantiated rumors.
There's no "whistle blowing" as the information of the cases were already going up the
chain of command. These are facts that can be sourced by multiple media outlets. I can't
believe this fallacy keeps floating and doesn't flush.
In retrospective analyses, SARS-COV-2 was found in routinely collected samples of European
sewage water dating back to at least december 2019. A french doctor reviewed archived medical
samples and imagery from patients who had fallen mysteriously ill in the latter half of 2019
and also found that some had been early cases of COVID-19.
The real coronavirus whistle-blower is a doctor in Washington state USA who tested for the
virus in Januari 2020 and was silenced by USA medical and federal authorities.
I am afraid that there will never be a sincere investigation into the real cause of the
"vaping disease" that caused many deaths from sudden respiratory failure in the USA in the
summer of 2019. Tell me again when Ft. Detrick labs was shut down exactly?
What are you trying to tell me? Anyone that does not acknowledge the virus originated in
China and that China didn't respond as fast as it could have? And more polemically: there is
some kind of African Marxist heading WHO who obfuscated China's late information to the WHO?
There is a dot of truth in everything. There is also a dot of truth in the fact that Trump
or his relevant admin was informed early enough.
Posted by: vig | Jul 30 2020 12:21 utc | 57
vig repeats widely spread arguments, basically, the "official propaganda" from offices
related to an orange-American (excessive time spend on golf courses changes skin color,
perhaps in combination with sunscreen, without sunscreen you would get a "redneck look").
1. Origin: somewhat debatable, but any virus has to originate somewhere. Every country was
on receiving end of pathogens from other countries.
2. China did not respond as fast as it could have. Now, how fast and effective was USA?
One has to note that clusters of fatal lung infections happen regularly, but this is because
of mutations that increase impact on health, while separate mutations increase (or decrease)
the transmission. Draconian measures are necessary if you get both, but you do not lock
cities, provinces, introduce massive quarantine programs until you know that they are
necessary. For the same reasons, the response in Western Europe and USA was not as fast as it
could have.
3. "African Marxist heading WHO mislead poor naive Americans". What is the budget of
American intelligence, and American disease control? Do they collect information, do they
have experts? In particular, American authorities knew pretty much what Chinese authorities
knew, and they had benefit of several weeks of extra time to devise wise strategy. Giving
this benefit to people with limited mental capacities has a limited value. Perhaps China is
at fault here too, Pompeo reported about pernicious impact of Chinese Communist Party on PPT
meeting in USA, that could have deleterious impact on education and thus on mental
capacities.
Pompeo himself may be a victim. He excelled as a West Point student, but if the content of
education was crappy, diligence impacted his brain deeper and not for the better. But nobody
attempts to blame CCP for that.
For starters, the "whistleblower" wasn't a whistleblower at all: he thought he had found a
resurgence of SARS, not a new pandemic. Secondly, the head of respiratory diseases at the
region already was investigating some cases of a "mysterious pneumonia" since end of November
or mid-December - so the investigation already was well under way.
Discovering a new disease is not magic: a doctor cannot simply go the market, see a random
person, and claim he/she discovered a new virus. Doctors are not gods: they can only diagnose
the patients under their care.
The point of discord that the Western MSM capitalized upon was the fact that some random
officer from the local police intercepted his private social media and made him sign a letter
of reprimand. No Law is ever perfect, and these episodes of false triggers do happen even in
Western Democracies.
Little known fact (one which the Western MSM censored) is that the so-called
"whistleblower" was a member of the CCP. After knowing the details of the situation
(including that the disease was already being investigated), he quickly realized the
state-of-the-art and went to the frontlines to fight the pandemic - as any member of the CCP
would've done. Revolutionary communist parties have this tradition that comes since the
Bolshevik Party, where the leadership always leads by example. The Bolsheviks themselves lost
the vast majority of their elite in the Civil War, as they always led in the front
(vanguard). Fidel Castro himself led his army in the front when the invasion of the Bay of
Pigs begun. So, it is not surprising this doctor, once having the facts on the field, quickly
shut up and went to the frontline as a vanguard soldier.
After the whole truth came to the forefront, the Western MSM quickly begun to meltdown
over the fake story they fantasized, and the Taiwanese MSM invented a story of some another
whistleblower who had discovered the virus "at the end of November". That one never truly
gained traction, and silently died out.
But all of this is moot point for the West, because Trump and the other European liberal
powers refused to believe either that the virus was real or that it could reach them until
February the next year.
I think it is OK that b nails the US makes yet another display of stupidity.... on the other
hand I presume that b also has other things to care about, I mean exposing the US as a "fake"
nation is a full time job!
Americans have at least the last 50 years been known for fails, even Churchill commented
something like "the Americans will fail numerous times, but eventually they will get it
right" well that was back then! Today it is fail upon fail. I know that there must be bright
people over there, but it is my sincere impression, that they are a very small minority.
Maybe their schooling system has all gone bonkers ?
"3% of all Americans believe the Earth is flat! WTF!!!
America is on a steep slope downward.
I am personally not worried much about Covid 19, although I am 63 and live in Sweden, the
"black Sheep" in Europe because of our rather lax restrictions, the Swedes themselves are
rather good at keeping distance and using common sense.
I am much more worried that the American culture of ignorance, brain farts, stupidity and low
IQ media will infest my country further and maybe completely ruin it.
Especially by the junk that comes out of Hollywood, pure Sh*t served nice and hot!
I am happy I know, I have not got to endure further 30 years of this.
A few months ago, b posted a link to a Canadian vlogger who lives in Nanning, China. The
vlogger took us on a tour of a so called Wet Market. Here, the vlogger takes us to another
Wet Market tour. He does a good job dispelling racist stereotypes and showing real life in
China.
One to many @ 64
Thanks ! So there was a group of whistle blowers then. It's down to definitions again.
Perhaps mine is a little more loose. But it's of no concern.
For the sake of this excellent thread, perhaps we could all be a little less pedantic. VK ?
Also relevant - Crimson Contagion - the pandemic simulation run by the US government from
January to August 2019 and was based on an infectious coronavirus coming from a food market
in China
Everywhere u go in this world you'll find some version or an "murican" in every country.
Even a country like modern first world Switzerland has its "mountain folk".
In my personal experience with Americans I'm most often pleasantly surprised at their levels
of sophistication and introspection over their American experiences. An enjoyable and as
pleasant a people as anywhere. This may be clouded by mostly meeting these people outside of
the US where unless tourists are well educated and travelled and by default more aware of a
negative view of their homeland that exists outside of the US. For some reason most of these
Americans I've met abroad are decidedly non republican in nature and are mostly
from California and North and North Eastern States. Fellow future Canadians I would call
them.
The other side of the coin is when I've travelled to the states. Texas, Florida, Arizona.
Whew! What a difference. I've learned that talking politics is impossible and the natives are
almost entirely ignorant of anything outside their bubble. Outside of talking points there is
no information behind their arguments. Their knowledge of the outside world is incredibly
lacking and the view of the US in it is overwhelmingly positive.
It isn't Americans its America and its leadership, its influences, systems and all the other
shit that make the US the salad it is. The people r redeemable.
Calling the professionals doing their jobs in China "whistleblowers" is inaccurate.
"Whistleblower" implies revealing information that others are trying to hide. In this
case the suggestion is that the Chinese government was trying to hide the outbreak. This is
nonsense as the Chinese government was unaware of an outbreak until after the relevant
professionals had determined that there was an outbreak. There is no way the Chinese
government could have known about an outbreak before the outbreak was identified by the
professionals tasked with identifying outbreaks. The only ones who knew about the outbreak
before the outbreak occurred were the US "intelligence community" .
Democrats are playing pretty dangerous game. Most people who saw the video below will
probably never vote for them in November.
Nadler exposed himself again as a petty and vindictive DNC stooge, He was forced to see five
minutes of it via video in the hearing room on Congress, to which he chastised the ranking member
for not giving him 48 hours warning that truth would be shown.
Notable quotes:
"... Democrats forget how many were totally disgusted by the media's relentless gotcha shows in 2016. So watching all the Democrat congress people engage in the exact same sh*t show for three hours was disgusting. ..."
AG Barr testified today before the House Committee on the Judiciary. The chairman is Jerrold
Nadler. In his opening remarks he accused Barr of obeying President Trump, to which Barr
replied that as a member of the cabinet he is by law Trump's subordinate but that in matters
concerning criminal cases Trump abstains from directing or advising him. Nadler then demanded
to know if Barr had EVER discussed the coming election with Trump. When answered in the
affirmative Nadler radiated triumph.
Nadler then asserted that the Trump Administration has introduced "troops" into Portland for
the purpose of provoking violence that Trump wants as a spur to advance his chances in
November. The MarxoDems and their media allies like Neil Cavuto repeat the word "troops" over
and over again in the belief that eventually you will be persuaded that the deployed cops in
Portland are really soldiers.
The Ranking Member of the committee Jim Jordan of Ohio when given a chance for rebuttal of
Nadler showed the video linked below as a compendium of "peaceful protests" (irony). pl
Until the "Main Stream Media" is somehow bought out by people who are actually interested in
presenting news that is not filtered through a left-wing ideology, these horrible riots will
not stop. When people refuse to see exactly what is going on, more cities will be destroyed.
Where will the rioters show up nexxt? I'm afraid it will be outside my window.
I am sickened by all of this. I am growing more and more concerned that we won't be able to
bring things back to the middle ever.
I really do fear the turn to socialism or communism in this country. All those books that
were such popular reading when I was in college seem to be coming true: Brave New World, 1984,
Soylent Green--though the rise of the abortion on demand movement puts that one into doubt--are
the ones that come most quickly to my mind.
There wee many other that portrayed a country far different from the one the Founders
imagined.
I witnessed the degeneration of our public school system as a result of the decline in real
the colleges' and the universities' standards for research became more apparent.
I moved from teaching in public high schools into community colleges and universities and
found that what I taught in them required less thinking ability than what I had first taught in
ninth grade in 1974.
And I found there was far more restrictons on what could be said or what could not be said
in a classroom.
It seems parents aren't really aware, or they wouldn't send their kids to public school or
public colleges and universities.
I sent my older son to the Navy and my younger son to get a GED and then go on for
vocational training. That wasn't what I had hoped for them when they were born; but those
decisions worked out far better than keeping them in the educational system they would have
been in when they were still young.
And I had been so proud to receive my full-tuition / fees scholarship to college when I
graduated high school
One big gotcha show, offending everyone's sense of fair play. Appalling, but will play very
differently on both sides of the fence.
Democrats forget how many were totally disgusted by the media's relentless gotcha shows
in 2016. So watching all the Democrat congress people engage in the exact same sh*t show for
three hours was disgusting.
Thank goodness for both Barr and Jordan not losing their cool. Favorite line was Barr
claiming they could have held the hearing without him, when one complained how long they had
waited to "ask" him questions.
Hope someone with a more iron-clad stomach than mine will sort out how many minutes the
questioners used to talk and how many minutes Barr was allowed to respond to this
"hearing".
Additionally, I would like to know how many minutes each Democrat used on which topics. Plus
who in their right mind ever puts the NYT and WaPo into the record as a true recording of
anyone's alleged verbatim statements? The Lafayette Square "photo op" appeared to energize them
the most. Plus how many people are even sympathetic to these bratty white "protestors"?
It was like a room full of Kamala Harris's during the Kavanaugh hearings - I want a yes or
no answer, so I will presume your answer XYZ, because I am not interested in your explanation.
They all used the exact same verbal bullying techniques which I thought was odd. Staged with
rehearsals? Or just a coincidental gathering of total idiots. Yes or no?
Also interesting to see two of Biden's alleged top VP picks, Bass and Demmings , in action.
Hardly assets to any ticket.
I can only hope my sausages that I buy are not as toxic as watching this legislative body in
operation.
Looks like neoliberal Dems overplayed their hand trying to topple Trump. Because this all is
about elections in November, not so much about blacks. It is the stuggele of two group of US
oligarchs like in Ukraine BLM and Antifa are just extras.
Seattle radio host and self proclaimed "Cat Dad" Paul Gallant had
taken to Twitter back in June to respond to President Trump's handling of the protesters in
Seattle. Responding to a Tweet where the President was critical of the Seattle mayor, Gallant
responded "Chill dawg" before saying he saw "no burning, pillaging or deaths" in his city.
Today, Paul has taken to Twitter to sing another tune: "I feel like I need to buy a
firearm".
Why the change in attitude? Perhaps it was because rioters in his city trashed and looted
the downstairs to his apartment complex. Gallant arrived back at his apartment this weekend to
find it vandalized and looted.
"I feel like I need to buy a firearm, because clearly this is going to keep happening.
Enough is enough," he wrote in a subsequent Tweet. "Really angry right now," he continued.
"Great job assholes," he wrote in a subsequent Tweet.
Naturally, Gallant, who once thought he had "dunked" on President Trump, spent most of the
weekend being dunked on by the internet for his own hypocrisy.
Recall, this isn't the first we've seen of
hypocrisy in Seattle. The mayor dismantled the city's anarchist CHAZ/CHOP district not
after six shootings and two teenage deaths, as hedge fund manager and author James Altucher
notes - but rather, after protesters threatened to take over Mayor Jenny Durkan's 5,000 sqft.,
$7.6 million house .
And to Gallant, we only have one thing to say: chill dawg.
"... The email was sent by the Army's Equity and Inclusion Agency as part of its Operation Inclusion, and was signed by Casey Wardynski (photo), Assistant Secretary of the Army in charge of Manpower and Reserve Affairs. ..."
"... The email contravenes the Hatch Act which bounds all federal employees to a confidentiality obligation and prohibits any form of political engagement. ..."
The United States Army addressed an email to all of its civilian and military staff
denouncing white supremacism.
The thrust of the message is that celebrating Columbus Day, denying the existence of white
privilege, talking about American exceptionalism and claiming that there is only one human race
are characteristic signs of the far right (meaning President Trump).
The email was sent by the Army's Equity and Inclusion Agency as part of its Operation
Inclusion, and was signed by Casey Wardynski (photo), Assistant Secretary of the Army in charge
of Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
The email contravenes the Hatch Act which bounds all federal employees to a confidentiality
obligation and prohibits any form of political engagement.
The Pentagon assured that the email was sent by mistake and retracted it.
Representative (Republican, Alabama) Mo Brooks referred the matter to Attoney-General
William Barr.
According to polling organizations, in the 2016 presidential elections, US senior military
staff officers voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton, while rank-and-file soldiers voted
just as overwhelmingly for Donald Trump.
In a segment due to air this
weekend, 'America This Week' host Eric Bolling sat down with Dr Judy Mikovits, a disgraced scientist who believes that the
coronavirus pandemic was orchestrated by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases head Dr Anthony Fauci and Bill
Gates to push vaccines on the population – a theory she set out in the documentary film 'Plandemic,' which has been effectively
censored off the internet.
Bolling called Mikovits' claims "hefty," and brought on medical contributor Dr Nicole Saphier to refute them, but CNN
claimed
the
host didn't push back hard enough against Mikovits' "baseless conspiracy theory," and hammered Bolling for allowing Mikovits to
"continue to make her case."
As CNN's article circulated
on Twitter on Saturday morning, the network's liberal audience called for a boycott of Sinclair. The broadcaster initially stood
by its decision to run the segment, declaring that
"at no juncture are we aligning with or
endorsing the viewpoints of Dr Mikovits."
However, within an hour,
Sinclair bent the knee and pulled the episode from the air until additional content could be added to counter Mikovits.
"All
stations have been notified not to air this and will instead be re-airing last week's episode in its place,"
Sinclair
tweeted. For good measure, the company added
"we valiantly support Dr Fauci and the work he
and his team are doing to further prevent the spread of Covid-19."
Sinclair is an incredibly
powerful organization to have been swayed by an online outrage campaign. The company and its partner organizations own nearly 300
local TV stations around the country, and reach 40 percent of American households.
Proponents of the boycott
celebrated their victory on Twitter, declaring that
"we shamed them into doing the right
thing."
Amid a recent upsurge in
'cancel culture,' few campaigns have brought a company to its knees as fast as Saturday's blitz by CNN. Similar campaigns have
been mounted against Fox News'
Tucker
Carlson
– with an advertiser boycott and attempts by journalists to doxx his family among the most recent moves, but Carlson
remains on the air and unapologetic.
For Bolling and his
colleagues at Sinclair on the other hand, it's back to the studio to reshoot their offending segment at CNN's behest.
Not a chance. Too many people's livelihood depends on war. From billionaires to the person
who putting bullets in boxes. Anyone who advocate no war will end up in prison for colluding
with the Russians.
monty42 , 16 hours ago
Colluding with the Reds, Terrorists, Chicoms, Covid...pick an enemy. That's how it works.
They roll out their psyops and make sure to inform you up front that those who question the
narrative are in the enemy column.
uhland62 , 14 hours ago
They've done it with us since 1970.
A_Huxley , 15 hours ago
Contractors like their world travel and over time.
Too many US camps, forts, bases around the world to keep working.
quanttech , 13 hours ago
The single most powerful voice against the wars in the last two years has been Tucker
Carlson - and look at what they're doing to him.
optimator , 8 hours ago
A vibrant economy can't tell the difference between manufacturing a submarine or a
refrigerator.
monty42 , 16 hours ago
Honor your oath and the wars for empire will stop. A standing army is only viable through
the Constitution for a short term defense of the States, not for endless wars of aggression
and invasion for the spread of a military empire.
quanttech , 13 hours ago
Correct. Lt. Ehren Watada refused his illegal orders to deploy to Iraq. His case was
dismissed, and he was simply discharged. Today he co-owns a restaurant in Vegas.
THERE'S LITERALLY NO PENALTY FOR FOLLOWING THE LAW.
alexcojones , 16 hours ago
As an old veteran, I've spent 50 years atoning some how, some way, myself.
"Vietnam veteran Tim O'Brien wrote: "There should be a law . . . If you support a war, if
you think it's worth the price, that's fine, but you have to put your own precious fluids on
the line. You have to head for the front and hook up with an infantry unit and help spill the
blood." As every old veteran knows, the day that happens is the day warfare ends forever,
when bullets are fattening rather than fatal to your health.
Heinlein's proposal in Starship Troopers - that only combat troops be given the franchise
to vote - is a concept with merit
ConanTheContrarian1 , 8 hours ago
I don't know that we have to make atonement. The official government position that we were
invited there to help the legitimate government of South VietNam still holds water. The
Nguyen and Tranh had been at war with each other for centuries until the French took over,
and the war was simply a continuation that the Dogpile Democrats of the day didn't see as
anything other than a way to make money. Just because you reject rightwing propaganda, don't
fall for the leftwing either.
Atlana99 , 16 hours ago
We need thousands of hardcore street activists to print these fliers out and place them on
car windshields all across America:
By Graham Dockery, Irish journalist, commentator, and writer at RT. Previously based in
Amsterdam, he wrote for DutchNews and a scatter of local and national newspapers.
Dark, incisive, and anti-authoritarian, George Carlin was a rebel until death. Now the woke
left have claimed him as their own, a figurehead in their anti-Trump crusade. But George's
legacy isn't one of feelgood social justice.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it,"
Carlin sneered in a famous 2005 monologue. In a devastating broadside against politicians, the
media, corporate interests, and the "dumb ass motherf**kers" who remain ignorant to the
"big red white and blue d**k jammed up their a**holes everyday," Carlin takes no
prisoners, and the crowd delights in his shredding of the status quo.
Now, a group of activists based in Portland have repackaged the famous monologue, putting it
alongside video clips of President Donald Trump's America: race riots, coronavirus deaths, and
of course, Trump shaking hands with Vladimir Putin. "#AmericaWakeUp," reads a caption at
the end of the clip.
Released on Sunday, the video was cheered by the anti-Trump brigade. "This video is
completely devastating for Trump," one activist wrote . "George Carlin
gives him the finger from the grave." More commenters shared the video, encouraging their followers
to vote Democrat in November.
However, Carlin's hatred for politicians and the elite was not just limited to the
Republican Party. Throughout his career, Carlin ripped on the "criminal" administration
of Ronald Reagan, both Bushes' fondness for "bombing brown people," and Bill Clinton,
who he said "might be full of shit, but at least he lets you know it."
The "big club" Carlin talked about in the latest video included Democrat and
Republican lawmakers, and Carlin didn't shy away from skewering both.
Furthermore, Carlin's best and most loved routines were written and performed when the right
held more cultural sway in the US. From Nancy Reagan's moralizing to the media-enforced
patriotism of the post-9/11 years, Carlin could count on the right as a reliable target. Times
have changed though, and the left holds far more power now than it did two decades ago.
Conservatives are regularly 'deplatformed' on college campuses, politically incorrect speech
can jeopardize one's career, and the consensus enforced by the mainstream media is
overwhelmingly a liberal one, no matter how many clips of Fox News' Tucker Carlson the Portland
activists can splice into their video.
"Political correctness is America's newest form of intolerance," Carlin wrote in
2004, adding "political correctness is just fascism pretending to be manners." In an
autobiography published a year after his death in 2008, he was even more explicit.
"The habits of liberals, their automatic language, their knee-jerk responses to certain
issues, deserved the epithets the right wing stuck them with," he wrote. "Here they
were, banding together in packs, so I could predict what they were going to say about some
event or conflict and it wasn't even out of their mouths yet Liberal orthodoxy was as repugnant
to me as conservative orthodoxy."
Carlin is unfortunately not alive to offer his opinion on the times we live in. However,
it's not difficult to imagine him scoffing at the media's non-stop 'Russiagate' hysteria , just as
he scoffed at the media's coverage of the Gulf War in the 1990s, accusing the press of working
as an "unofficial public relations agency for the United States government." It's also
easy to picture him tuning out of the 'Orange Man Bad' liberal consensus on Trump, even if he
would probably savage his policies and personality.
That's assuming he would even have a stage in the first place. After all, Carlin delighted
in provoking the would-be speech police, with his 1970s '7 Dirty Words' routine aimed explicitly at angering the
censors. An updated version of this routine could well see him canceled by the woke
torchbearers of the social justice movement.
If you allow a foreigner to give advice (although I should mind my own business) this is
one proposal to save America. President Trump goes to the Republican Convention and says: "I
admit that I am problematic, we all know that it is unfair, but we had four years of lies and
derangement, and it was not my fault, but anyway I don't accept the nomination, I step back
and I propose as candidate Tucker Carlson. Please give him a standing ovation". Then have a
live TV debate between Carlson and Biden.
You know, of course, that Carlson is just as compromised, more probably, as Trump or Obama
or Biden or you name it, don't you? And just as blackmailable and just as bribable?
Perhaps the best way to
describe Tucker Carlson's career at the moment is with a borrowed quote from 'A Tale of Two Cities': "
It
was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness...
" Although
the Fox News personality is at the top of his game, never before has his career looked more precarious than right now.
Last month, as the Covid
pandemic was sweeping the country, and the streets were exploding amid 'peaceful' Black Lives Matter protests, 'Tucker Carlson
Tonight' was the highest-rated cable news show in the country. That special honor, however, was marred by scandal and, some
would argue, the fake outrage and hyper-sensitivities of social justice warriors.
Carlson attracted the
wrath of his detractors for daring to say that the rioting and looting that broke out during the BLM protests was "
definitely
not about black lives.
" He went on to argue that it was critical to tell the truth when confronted by "the mob,"
otherwise "
they will crush you.
"
Regardless of what one may
think of those comments – and for the record, many black people agreed with him – the point is that Carlson's remarks deviated
180 degrees from the position of the mainstream media and the establishment. As punishment for merely expressing his
constitutionally protected opinion, shared by millions of other Americans, many of Carlson's corporate sponsors resorted to
what could be called institutional
censorship
,
pulling their crucial advertising from his show.
Yet who will freeze
funding of the establishment and 'legacy media' for downplaying the severity of the BLM and Antifa violence to such a degree
that the takeover of six blocks in Seattle was described by the Democratic mayor of that once-fair city as just another
chapter in the "
summer of love
?" Funny, that harmless love-in – which has spread
like wildfire to Portland, Oregon – has evoked so much illicit passion that it has forced Trump to send in federal forces to
quell the orgy of wanton naughtiness. Eat your heart out, Woodstock!
In another rebellious act of dissenting (ie. unacceptable) journalism, Carlson
laid
out
the Democratic Party's devious plan for getting their feeble-minded presidential nominee, Joe Biden, into the White
House: keep the American people in a state of pain and suffering for as long as humanly possible because "
unhappy
people want change.
"
"
Every
ominous headline about the state of the country makes it more likely that Donald Trump will lose his job
," Carlson told
his estimated four million viewers. "
The Democrats have a strong incentive, therefore,
to inflict as much pain as they can, and that's what they're doing
."
He then went on to explain
how Democratic governors ratcheted up the unhappiness by "
banning citizens from visiting
their own weekend homes,
" for example, while in New Jersey people were "
arrested
for going to the beach.
"
Needless to say, those are
not talking points one would ever hear on CNN or MSNBC. Indeed, Tucker Carlson is a one-man information wrecking crew
challenging, night after night, the combined efforts of the mainstream media to keep the average American viewer strapped into
a form-fitting straitjacket of 'acceptable opinion'. Billions of dollars have been spent purchasing that outfit, and the
owners will not relinquish control without a major fight, which usually happens behind the scenes.
Therefore, was it any
coincidence that, smack in the middle of Carlson's record-smashing ratings, with the US presidential elections quickly
approaching (in case it wasn't clear by now, Carlson is a serious Trump supporter), his top writer Blake Neff was forced to
resign after it was revealed he had a habit of posting racist and sexist remarks pseudonymously in online chat rooms? Any
guesses as to the name of the outfit that undertook that impressive bit of investigative journalism at such a convenient time
to bust Neff? If you guessed
CNN
,
you already understand the situation that Carlson is facing.
While being popular isn't
necessarily a bad thing – especially for the talk show circuit, where ratings are watched like the stock market – it can
become extremely problematic in the United States, where the mainstream media is so far left its capital could be San
Francisco. In fact, just this week, Carlson told his viewers that the New York Times was planning to reveal his address in an
article.
Although the Times denied they had plans to reveal such information, the fact that such accusations are flying between major
news organizations speaks to the level of hostility and mistrust now rampant across the country.
Tucker Carlson is caught
in a Catch-22 where the public, as well as his myriad competitors and enemies, have become just as interested in his life as
the stories he covers night after night. This popularity shines a powerful light on his controversial topics, which, in the
most consequential presidential election to come along in many years, explains why he is so loathed. Perhaps it is time for
Tucker Carlson to get out of the media business while he still can, and try his hand at politics, as many of his ardent
supporters have suggested. Who knows, he might even make an outstanding vice president.
Like this story? Share it
with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
When I heard about this, I began to pray for Tucker and his family's safety and protection. This hit me hard and
actually broke my heart. I will continue to intercede for this family and pray God keeps an open door for his (and
everyone's) freedom of speech.
Well said Tucker. It's a shame that "professionals" don't tend to own accountability for their actions. It's
un-American for them to do that to your family.
Tucker, I have never commented on any show ever and I'm almost 70 years old. But I am ashamed of my country and
astounded by how the law allows this kind of behavior to happen. You're good people, and your reporting is very
important and excellent. I will be praying for your family for protection. And for someway for retribution. God bless
you.
Cutting the defense budget by a modest 10 percent could provide billions to combat the pandemic, provide health
care and take care of neglected communities.
Capitol Souvenir Company, Inc. via Boston Public Library
Sen. Bernie Sanders is an independent from Vermont.
▶ Click here for the
conservative
case
for reducing defense spending.
Fifty-three years ago Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. challenged all of us to fight against three major evils: "the
evil of racism, the evil of poverty and the evil of war." If there was ever a moment in American history when we
needed to respond to Dr. King's clarion call for justice and demand a "radical revolution of values," now is that
time.
Whether it is fighting against systemic racism and police brutality, defeating the deadliest pandemic in more than
a hundred years, or putting an end to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, now is the time to
fundamentally change our national priorities.
Sadly, instead of responding to any of these unprecedented crises, the Republican Senate is on a two-week
vacation. When it comes back, its first order of business will be to pass a military spending authorization that
would give the bloated Pentagon $740 billion -- an increase of more than $100 billion since Donald Trump became
president.
Let's be clear: As coronavirus
infections
,
hospitalizations
and
deaths
are
surging to record levels in states across America, and the lifeline of unemployment benefits keeping 30 million
people afloat expires at the end of the month, the Republican Senate has decided to provide more funding for the
Pentagon than the next 11 nations' military budgets combined.
Under this legislation, over half of our discretionary budget would go to the Department of Defense at a time when
tens of millions of Americans are food insecure and over a half-million Americans are sleeping out on the street.
After adjusting for inflation, this bill would spend more money on the Pentagon than we did during the height of
the Vietnam War even as up to 22 million Americans are in danger of being evicted from their homes and
health
workers
are still forced to reuse masks, gloves and gowns.
Moreover, this extraordinary level of military spending comes at a time when the Department of Defense is the only
agency of our federal government that has not been able to pass an independent audit, when defense contractors are
making enormous profits while paying their CEOs outrageous compensation packages, and when the so-called War on
Terror will cost some $6 trillion.
Let us never forget what Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a former four-star general, said in 1953:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from
those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
What Eisenhower said was true 67 years ago, and it is true today.
If the horrific pandemic we are now experiencing has taught us anything it is that national security means a lot
more than building bombs, missiles, nuclear warheads and other weapons of mass destruction. National security also
means doing everything we can to improve the lives of tens of millions of people living in desperation who have
been abandoned by our government decade after decade.
That is why I have introduced an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act that the Senate will be voting on
during the week of July 20th, and the House will follow suit with a companion effort led by Representatives Mark
Pocan (D-Wis.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). Our amendment would reduce the military budget by 10 percent and use
that $74 billion in savings to invest in communities that have been ravaged by extreme poverty, mass
incarceration, decades of neglect and the Covid-19 pandemic.
Under this amendment, distressed cities and towns in every state in the country would be able to use these funds
to create jobs by building affordable housing, schools, childcare facilities, community health centers, public
hospitals, libraries and clean drinking water facilities. These communities would also receive federal funding to
hire more public school teachers, provide nutritious meals to children and parents and offer free tuition at
public colleges, universities or trade schools.
This amendment gives my Senate colleagues a fundamental choice to make. They can vote to spend more money on
endless wars in the Middle East while failing to provide economic security to millions of people in the United
States. Or they can vote to spend less money on nuclear weapons and cost overruns, and more to rebuild struggling
communities in their home states.
In Dr. King's 1967 speech, he warned that "a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military
defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
He was right. At a time when half of our people are struggling paycheck to paycheck, when over 40 million
Americans are living in poverty, and when 87 million lack health insurance or are underinsured, we are approaching
spiritual death.
At a time when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth, and when
millions of Americans are in danger of going hungry, we are approaching spiritual death.
At a time when we have no national testing program, no adequate production of protective gear and no commitment to
a free vaccine, while remaining the only major country where infections spiral out of control, we are approaching
spiritual death.
At a time when over 60,000 Americans die each year because they can't afford to get to a doctor on time, and one
out of five Americans can't afford the prescription drugs their doctors prescribe, we are approaching spiritual
death.
Now, at this unprecedented moment in American history, it is time to rethink what we value as a society and to
fundamentally transform our national priorities. Cutting the military budget by 10 percent and investing that
money in human needs is a modest way to begin that process. Let's get it done.
MOST READ
By a vote of 324-93 ,
the House of Representatives soundly defeated an
amendment to reduce Pentagon authorized spending levels by 10%. The amendment does not
specify what to cut, only that Congress make across-the-board reductions. The amendment to
the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was offered by Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI). No
Republicans voted for the amendment. Libertarian Justin Amash supported the amendment.
Earlier, the House defeated an amendment to stop the Pentagon's submission of an unfunded
priorities list. Each year, after the Pentagon's budget request is submitted to Congress, the
military services send a separate "wish list," termed "unfunded priorities." This list
includes requests for programs that the military would like Congress to fund, in case they
decide to add more money to the Pentagon's proposed budget.
This article was written while observing the voting on CSPAN. The House Clerk has not
yet posted the roll-call vote. Additional information will be added to the article when
available.
I've been saying that black is the new orange (revolution) but purple works to.
It's hard to know what is going on any more because the only people who talk politics are
yelling about it while the people I am most interested in hearing from in my personal life have
gone silent.
I think the neoliberals are more afraid of losing institutional control than they are losing
this or that election. Thus Trump's haplessness has been reassuring to them. If I were a
globalist, I would want Democrats to take the senate and Trump to win a narrow election that I
could say was illegitimate.
One thing I am interested in knowing is if/how divided the security and intelligence
agencies are about all of this. There are wild rumors going around to the effect that the CIA
is anti-Trump but the NSA is pro-Trump.
Personally, I have come reluctantly but now immovably to the idea that white identity
politics are inevitable and that whites must begin waging them en masse sooner rather than
later. The age of ideology is over and the demographic age has begun. The globalists understand
this (indeed, they arranged it), as do non-white elites. It is only the corrupt and incompetent
white elite that either can't or won't see this.
The institutional GOP is the biggest gatekeeper to a pro-white politics, and so it must
either be subverted, seized or destroyed. The clown car that is late-stage conservatism must be
diminished to the same stature as, say, the Fourth International over at wsws.org.
Those who want the GOP to remain a gate-keeping exercise - think Israelis like Hazony - are
now trying to concoct a sham called "national conservatism" to keep whites on the conservative
plantation but there are too many who already see this for what it is and so I expect it to go
nowhere.
It may be that normal people are so appalled by this globaist-sponsored and Democrat-abetted
violence that a backlash is building. If so, I can't see it.
likbez: The only "purple revolution" we are now experiencing in the US is the purple
tee-shirted SEIU types and the teachers unions against the blue line police unions.
This is simply a public sector union turf war we are now experiencing.
Covid hysteria reduced the tax dollar pie which long supported all three of them. Not they
are fighting over the size of the slices of the pie - with the police unions long getting the
largest slices. Defund the police --and divert those same funds, not back to the taxpayers, but
to teachers and other government support employee unions tells you all you need to know.
Using this lens to view events of the past few months in the US and everything finally makes
sense: Internecine public sector turf war.
Even WSJ editorial today admits Gov Newsom, when he speaks, is merely representing the
demands of the state teachers unions (CTA). Truth be told, and this is an existential election
year for the 44 million public sector union members - 99% all Democrats. OrangeMan must be
defeated., by any means necessary. They have all their skin in this game.
If not this also about conformism? Social desirability == conformism.
Notable quotes:
"... Mark Twain is credited with introducing into the American vernacular the phrase, "Lies, damned lies and statistics." One of the pervasive damned lies people take for granted is the results of political polls, especially in the Trump era. Most polls show him behind several of the myriad candidates vying to represent Democrats in the 2020 election. But the American Association for Public Opinion Research confirms that "national polls in 2016 tended to under-estimate Trump's support significantly more than Clinton's." ..."
"... Social desirability is a concept first advanced by psychologist Allen L. Edwards in 1953. It advances the idea that when asked about an issue in a social setting, people will always answer in a socially desirable manner whether or not they really believe it. Political polling, whether by telephone or online, is a social setting. Respondents know that there is an audience who are posing the questions and monitoring their response. As a result, despite a respondent's true belief, many will answer polling questions in what may appear to be a more socially desirable way, or not answer at all. ..."
Many conservatives are concerned about polling results regarding conservative issues,
especially about President Trump. For example, the latest CNN poll
found that 51% of voters believe the president should be impeached. How much credence should
conservatives give these polls?
Mark Twain is credited with introducing into the American vernacular the phrase, "Lies,
damned lies and statistics." One of the pervasive damned lies people take for granted is the
results of political polls, especially in the Trump era. Most polls show him behind several of
the myriad candidates vying to represent Democrats in the 2020 election. But the American
Association for Public Opinion Research
confirms that "national polls in 2016 tended to under-estimate Trump's support
significantly more than Clinton's."
We are inundated with the latest polling on President Trump's approval rating and how people
are likely to vote in the 2020 election. Both bode poorly for the president, but he doesn't
believe them and neither should we. As an academic, I ran a research center that conducted
local, state-wide and national public opinion polls and took a year's leave of absence from my
university to work for Lou Harris, founder of the Harris Poll.
Social Desirability
The reason why we shouldn't believe most of the current or future polling results about
President Trump can be summarized in two words: Social Desirability.
Social desirability is a concept first advanced by psychologist Allen L. Edwards in 1953. It
advances the idea that when asked about an issue in a social setting, people will always answer
in a socially desirable manner whether or not they really believe it. Political polling,
whether by telephone or online, is a social setting. Respondents know that there is an audience
who are posing the questions and monitoring their response. As a result, despite a respondent's
true belief, many will answer polling questions in what may appear to be a more socially
desirable way, or not answer at all.
When it comes to President Trump, the mainstream media and academics have led us to believe
that it is not socially desirable (or politically correct) to support him. When up against such
sizable odds, most conservatives will do one of three things:
1) Say we support someone else when we really support the president (lie);
2) tell the truth despite the social undesirability of that response;
3) Not participate in the poll (nonresponse bias).
This situation has several real consequences for Trump polling. First, for those in the
initial voter sample unwilling to participate, the pollster must replace them with people
willing to take the poll. Assuming this segment is made up largely of pro-Trump supporters,
finding representative replacements can be expensive, time-consuming and doing so increases the
sampling error rate (SER) while decreasing the validity of the poll. Sampling error rate is the
gold standard statistic in polling. It means that the results of a particular poll will vary by
no more than + x% than if the entire voter population was surveyed. All else being equal, a
poll with a sampling error rate of + 2% is more believable than one of + 4% because it has a
larger sample. Immediate polling on issues like President Trump's impeachment may provide
support to journalists with a point of view to broadcast, but with a small sample and high
sampling error rates, the results aren't worthy of one's time and consideration.
Some political pollsters often get around the necessity of repeated sampling over the course
of an election by forming a panel of people who match the demographics (party affiliation, age,
gender, race, location, etc.) of registered voting public. Polling companies often compensate
panel members and use them across the entire election cycle. Such panels are still subject to
the effects of social desirability and initial substitution error.
Interpretive Bias
Another factor to consider is the institution that is conducting the poll and those
reporting the data. Their progressive sensibilities are thumbing the scale of truth. In my
experience, polls conducted by media companies are less credible since they are often guilty of
the same biases seen in their news reports. The perfect example of this is The New York Times's
"
Poll Watch ," which provides a weekly review of their political poll. My experience is that
it reflects strongly the Times's negative opinions about President Trump and conservative ideas
and the paper's heavy political bias.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Even the Harris Poll, when Lou was alive, suffered somewhat from this bias. Lou Harris was
the first person to conduct serious political polling on a national level and is credited with
giving John Kennedy the competitive advantage over Richard Nixon in the 1960 election. He made
political polling de require for future elections. While many people point to Nixon's twelve
o'clock shadow during the televised debate, Harris gave Kennedy the real competitive advantage
-- a more complete grasp of what issues voters thought were most important and how to tailor
his policy pitches toward that end.
I worked for Lou between 1999-2000. During the election season we would get the daily tab
read-outs. While the results were pristine, Lou would interpret those numbers on NPR and in
other media in a way that showed his clear Democrat bias. His wishful thinking that Al Gore
would beat George W. Bush would color his interpretation of what the numbers meant. In the end,
by a razon thin margin, Bush took the White House and Gore was relegated to inconvenient
environmental truths. Similarly, the 2016 election saw Trump beat favorite Hillary Clinton by a
significant electoral margin, despite
the vast majority of polls giving Mrs. Clinton the edge by between 3-5%.
Where We Go
from Here
Public opinion polling is generally not junk science although with some companies it can be.
Companies like Gallup and Pew consistently do a good job of chronicling political opinion in
America. At issue is the fact that these polling stalwarts don't work for media companies and
use large national samples from current voter rolls; they also tend to not put their thumbs on
the interpretation of data. President Trump is a president unlike any other and most of his
supporters don't participate in political polls. Even Trump's
own pollsters were surprised by his 2016 win. We would do well during these fractured times
to ignore political opinion polls for they will continue to be much to do about nothing.
Just be sure to vote your conscience and that is nobody's opinion but your own.
AntiSocial , 5 hours ago
The polls are skewed, intentionally by the pollsters and unintentionally by anyone with
the common sense not to identify as a Trump supporter.
Would you tell the Nazi Party questioner you were anti - Nazi? How do you feel about Josef
Stalin might be the last question someone would ever answer. Trump people have an
overwhelmingly justified reason to keep it to themselves. Especially in the age of digital
record keeping, and Neo fascism on the Left.
Trump vs: a man whose brain is dying should be a landslide, and could be. BUT the
democrats have succeeded in making the entire population sick to death of hearing about Trump
Is The Devil.
People en masse are not very intelligent and generally do what everyone else is doing,
whatever it is. This time they may know instinctively that the Biden regime will be American
history's biggest failure but they just don't want to hear about Trump anymore, or Covid, or
BLM, and will vote for Biden making just hoping to make it all go away. After that they will
find that when you make mistakes on purpose you usually get what you deserve.
Hawkenschpitt , 6 hours ago
There is another bias besides the article's "interpretive bias." I call it "assumption
bias."
I am one of those whom Pew samples on a regular basis, and across a wide range of issues.
In responding to their queries, I have in the back of my mind how I perceive my responses are
going to show up in the aggregations and the public reporting. It certainly is a
consideration when the survey question is double-edged. For example, given a series of
questions surrounding my perceptions of "climate change" overlooks the wide variance of what
is exactly meant by climate change: are the questions related to the natural dynamism of the
earth's climate, or are they surrogates for Anthropogenic Global Warming? Their questions
assume an agreed-upon definition, and my responses will vary, depending upon what I perceive
to be the underlying basis to the series of questions. This introduces a bias in my
responses.
A recent poll had a series of questions about my activities during these coronavirus
lock-downs: e.g. how does the lock-down affect various of my activities (charitable
donations, volunteer services, neighborly assistance)? Do I do more? Less? About the same?
The wording of the questions shows that they had made an underlying, but false, assumption
that the coronavirus affects my actions.
At the end of every Pew survey, they ask whether I perceived bias in the questions; they
also allow comments on the survey. I take them to task when I encounter these kind of things.
I can only hope that they take my remarks under consideration for their next efforts.
Homer E. Rectus , 6 hours ago
This article spends most of its words trying to convince us that polls are junk science
and then says Pew and Gallup are not. How are they not also junk if they fail to get truthful
answers?
isocratic , 6 hours ago
You have to be really special to trust polls after 2016.
Im4truth4all , 9 hours ago
Polls are just another example of the propaganda...
DrBrown314 , 10 hours ago
Public polls have been rubbish for decades. They average a 0.9% response rate. That is not
a random sample folks. If only 1 person in 100 will agree to take a poll you have a self
selecting sample. Pure garbage. The pollsters have resorted to using "invitation" polling on
the internet and claim this is a probability sample. It is not. It too is rubbish. But you
already knew that because of what the polls said in 2016 and what actually happened. qed.
Alice-the-dog , 10 hours ago
Not to mention that I'm sure there are many like me, who has lied profusely in answer to
every polling call I've gotten ever since I became eligible to vote in 1972. In fact, I
strongly suspect that Trump voters are the most likely demographic to do so.
The Herdsman , 11 hours ago
Bottom line; the polls are fake. We already saw this movie in 2016, we know how it ends.
Back in 2016 you might be fooled by the polls but we already know empirically that they are
rigged. We literally saw it all with our own eyes.... never let anyone talk you out of what
you saw.
Ex-Oligarch , 11 hours ago
This article gives way too much credit to the pollsters.
Polls are constructed to produce a desired result. The respondents selected and the
questions asked are designed to produce that result.
If they do not produce that result, the data can be altered. No one polices this sort of
manipulation, formally or informally.
Adding spin to the result when it is "interpreted" is only the last step. The narrative
promoted in this article that pollsters are honest social scientists carried away by
unconscious biases is a crock.
We have seen articles blaming the respondents for the failures of pollsters over and over
again. This narrative that Trump voters are ashamed of supporting him and so lie to the
pollsters is just more spin designed to make republicans look insincere, amoral and
devious.
Hook-Nosed Swede , 12 hours ago
Mark Twain was quoting Benjamin Disraeli and admitted he wasn't sure the PM actually ever
used that phrase. Incidentally, Twain threw his Confederate uniform away and headed West in
the middle of America's Civil War. I don't see support for Jefferson Davis or Abraham Lincoln
there.
whatisthat , 12 hours ago
I would observe every intelligent and experienced person knows that political based
polling data is suspect to corruption and used as propaganda...
hootowl , 13 hours ago
Political and media polls are used to persuade people to vote for the demonunists by
purposely exaggerating the numbers of demonunists in their polling samples to deceive the
public in order to try to swing the vote to the demonunists and/or to dissuqade conservatives
into believing it is futile to vote because the demonunists are too numerous to overcome.
Ignore the political polls because they are largely conducted by paid liars, manipulators,
and propagandists. The 2020 presidential election is easy to assess. Do you want to elect a
senile, old , treasonous, crook and his family into the WH; or a man, who may, at times make
you a little upset with his abrasive rhetoric, but can be trusted to do what he thinks is
best for his fellow Americans, while he is continuously beset by the worst political cadre of
communists, demonunists, lying MSM/academia, and anti-American deep state crooks in the
history of our great republic.
Gold Banit , 13 hours ago
This is the end for the corrupt racist DemoRat party.
The DemoRats and their fake news media are in a panic and are very desperate and this is
why they are promoting this rioting looting destroying and burning cause their internal
polling has Trump wining 48 states in a landslide....
Thank you Col. Lang for posting portions of the Pettegrew essay.
I'm taking the liberty to clarify Pettegrew essay.
[[Sampling error rate is the gold standard statistic in polling. It means that the results
of a particular poll will vary by no more than +x% than if the entire voter population was
surveyed. All else being equal, a poll with a sampling error rate of +2% is more believable
than one of +4% because it has a larger sample.]]
First, inference may be drawn from a poll ONLY when [IF] there is an actual random
sample.
Thus random sample creates condition for inference [prediction]; this does not guarantee
it.
Second, the inference is a snapshot, at a point in time, not a motion picture, thus any
value days or weeks later may be nil.
This is why polls done weekly or monthly, and if they are done daily, one may perceive a
trend, more easily.
[[Sampling Error rate is the gold standard statistic in polling]]
SE is the difference between what is actual, from the entire population, versus what a
sample – what the sampled data says.
There is no way to know this ahead of time. This is why there are polls.
Polls attempt to know this, within a certain range, usually expressed in percentages.
Polls are supposed to be designed to keep bias as low as possible; because it is bias that
distorts them.
How to measure and/or cure this? There is the tried and true method.
Randomization.
The problem with polls is an age-old one: are data truly taken from a random sample; or
not?
Most these days are not, for many reasons. And pollsters come up with all sorts of models
[often using junk science] to try and get around this elephant in the room as it were.
Some polls may be less non random than others.
This is the problem.
This polling problem is compounded by non response.
Non response is related to problem -- simply because prior to polling, a random sample is
selected ahead of time.
The sample selected may in fact be random; non response destroys the randomness simply
because for each individual who does not respond, the rigor of the poll is diminished.
Even one or two people not responding greatly erodes the rigor of a random sample. [A poll
of 500 people to represent a nation of more than 300 million.]
What actually happens is a polling company may have designed an experiment -- and selected a
random sample of 1,000, or 2,000, or more.
Often they get about 2 percent response rate!
Thus, they have 20 responses; from which no inference can be drawn.
So they re poll and re poll, and might get 400 responses, or more, eventually.
This is where the problems begin. It is a huge problem, from the perspective of trying to
draw inference [prediction] – because what began as an attempt to poll a random sample is
no longer a random sample.
This particular phenomena – is a different problem [which is not to say this is not
related to] the fact that many Trump supporters either do not participate in answering
pollsters; or, on purpose lie to them because -- owing to lack of random sample and pollster
bias – i.e., the pollsters may have a political agenda, or a perceived political agenda.
. . as opposed to conducting a poll that is the public interest.
[["Political polling, whether by telephone or online, is a social setting."]] Pettegrew
states.
Wrong.
Social setting only involve physical interaction; the nature of social is person to person.
This is beyond dispute.
"Social desirability" as Pettegrew frames it, as a factor to potentially distort polling
data is an interesting thesis; however, polling organizations are supposed to and are expected
to have trained questioners and well-designed questions, and ways of asking to adequately
address what this phenomena actually is: plain old "bias." [This training and apropriate
framing of questions reduces bias or at least is supposed to.]
In fact, interviewing someone in person, asking a person questions for a poll, this method
– which is actual social interaction – is not done because it is time consuming and
expensive.
However, expert questioners are much more able to get honest answers, when done in person,
for obvious reasons.
The most obvious one is that someone is not going to sit down and be asked questions unless
they want to.
Since they want to, there is no reason to want to lie, on the face of it.
This person sits down because they believe that their opinion matters.
[[Sampling error rate is the gold standard statistic in polling. It means that the results
of a particular poll will vary by no more than +x% than if the entire voter population was
surveyed. All else being equal, a poll with a sampling error rate of +2% is more believable
than one of +4% because it has a larger sample.]]
1] Thus sampling error is the difference between what a total population actually
thinks/believes; and what a survey, via a sample of them say – which cannot be known.
The SE itself is a guess, and there is no way to verify if it is right or wrong; random
sample can be used to obtain a good approximation – to address this conundrum.
2] SE does not mean "that the results of a particular poll will vary by no more than [plus
or minus] + or - x% than if the entire voter population was surveyed."
This refers to something else actually.
It is called the Confidence Interval.
Typical CI is 95 percent [less common CI for polling are 90 percent, and 99 percent].
The plus or minus percent [the range] Pettegrew refers to is a function of
A] the sample size
B] the confidence interval
The higher the confidence interval, the greater the plus or minus range – what
Pettegrew refers to as: "It means that the results of a particular poll will vary by no more
than +x%"
A 99 percent CI means that if a sample surveyed was done 100 times, 99 of those times it
would be within this plus or minus range.
95 percent CI means 19 out of 20 times.
90 percent CI means 9 out of 10 times.
In other words: As the confidence level increases, the margin of error increases –
that is to say, the "+x%" is greater, to use Pettegrew's terminology.
The x becomes a larger percent as confidence interval increases.
With a 90 percent CI, there is always a one in ten chance the data from the sample is a
total bust, for example.
Statisticsshowto.com says it this way: [[A margin of error tells you how many percentage
points your results will differ from the real population value. For example, a 95% confidence
interval with a 4 percent margin of error means that your statistic will be within 4 percentage
points of the real population value 95% of the time.]]
This means the "+x%" will be within this/the range: 19 out of 20 attempts at sampling.
Pettegrew says [[All else being equal, a poll with a sampling error rate of +2% is more
believable than one of +4% because it has a larger sample]]
This is because: The Central Limit Theory says that the greater the number of participants
in a random sample, the closer the statistic obtained [from the sample] will be to the actual
population parameter. [Also, the larger the sample size, the more its distribution approaches a
normal probability distribution – the bell curve – and this is key for inference or
attempts at inference from data from a random sample: because inference is a function of
probability.]
Since the actual population universe is not known, the actual parameter is unknown, thus a
statistic from a sample can [potentially] mimic or come close to reality, assuming it is from
an actual random sample.
PS
A quick note on the man most responsible for developing and making modern statistics and
probability a worthwhile and excellent system and advancing the field of knowledge.
This man is as important to the science of modern statistics and probability as Jesus Christ
and St. Joan are to Christianity, and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King is too – to the spirit
of freedom and dignity [as opposed to fraudulence and propaganda and parstisan-ism – all
enemies of knowledge and the human spirit] -- Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, is to the science of
statistics and probability.
Because of Fisher's painstaking work, the design of scientific experiments, especially the
use of inference, became a great advance in human knowledge and science.
Because of Fisher, the field of medicine and disease prevention expanded and blossomed.
Random drug trials, for example, all use the pioneering work of Fisher, his conception of
the absolute necessity of random samples from which inference may be drawn from designed
experiments to test medicines -- using probability.
A window honoring him was recently removed from a college at University of Cambridge.
Feel free to read this story [link below], which, sad to say, though it includes the basics
of what just happened, fails to underscore in any way shape or form the perfidy of it all, this
malice, the evil behind it.
A symbolic crucifixion, as it were.
This, the moral turpitude of this counter cultural revolution and their myriad agents
– and all that this implies in western civilization here and now.
Fisher was born February 17, 1890, East Finchley, London; died July 29, 1962, Adelaide,
Australia.
Reason . . . --55 years ago, Barrington Moore Jr. noted that it always hangs in the balance,
on the verge of being murdered, destroyed. This scum trying to destroy us [and themselves --
they are stuck on self-destruction] is a project to destroy Reason. Plain and simple.
"Science is tolerant of reason; relentlessly intolerant of unreason and sham. A flickering
light in our darkness it is, as Morris Cohen once said, but the only one we have, and woe to
him who would put it out."
Polls are designed to influence public opinion, not so much to inform. This is especially
true for MSNBC and CNN polls. They are just a powerful tool to win the election by projecting
the aura of invincibility over Creepy Joe and thus influencing undecided voters and voters who
look for a winner.
I think that the increase in polarization of the USA society after the "Summer of love"
favors Trump. Neoliberal Dems burned all the bridges, so to speak. Now they symbolize an
abysmal failure during the "summer of love," including CHAZ fiasco and the recent Chicago riot
-- attempt to topple the Columbus statue.
I wonder how many Americans watched the video with the view from above (probably from a
drone) embedded in WGN TV News twit referenced in the article below. It is clear from this
video that this was a well-organized attack by a determined group of rioters.
Looks like a typical Soros staged spectacle with hired guns/thugs coordinating with
neoliberal MSM, who is running the show.
Add to this the fallout from Russiagate/Obamagate that probably is coming in some form later
and, possibly, from Maxwell scandal (where Clinton was probably involved and needs to be
questioned )
Democracy is incompatible with the global neoliberal empire ruled from Washington. And the
USA is empire now.
Notable quotes:
"... cancel culture is just fine, as long as it's your side doing the cancelling...or if it's Israel or the national security state doing the cancelling ..."
"The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful
ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy."
This sacred cow of illusion is being threatened from all directions it seems. Democracy is
great for whoever owns it, and whoever owns the media owns democracy. A cow well worth
milking.
Norman Finkelstein must be laughing out loud at the sight of so many hypocritical liberals
opposing cancel. Did anyone in this crowd get 150 people to sign a letter of protest when
Finkelstein got cancelled? Or when Phil Donahue got fired for opposing the Iraq war?
IOW, cancel culture is just fine, as long as it's your side doing the cancelling...or
if it's Israel or the national security state doing the cancelling . CountrPunch, a
victim of blacklisting themselves, has a major takedown of the screaming hypocrisy of some of
the signers: https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/07/10/harpers-and-the-great-cancel-culture-panic/
It will be interesting to see poll results a few days before the November election, as
that'll be when many pollsters try to bolster their reputations by presenting results using the
best methodologies they're capable of. We witnessed this in 2016 when final polling suddenly
indicated a tight race.
Most polls are commissioned or sponsored by the MSM. Enough said I guess...
IMO it is way too early to handicap the presidential election. In any case national polls
are essentially meaningless when the presidency is decided by a handful of states. I think
2020 presidency will be decided by Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina and Wisconsin. Trump won
some of these states by narrow margins in 2016.
I think the one big difference for Trump in 2020 is that Jared is completely running the
campaign, whereas in 2016 Bannon was at the helm during the home stretch while Jared &
Parscale managed the Facebook platform.
While this election should have been a home-run for Trump, his campaign has faltered since
the spring and as voter attention grows in the next couple months does he have the right
people managing the campaign? Especially since 2020 will be unique - probably the first
virtual campaign. Biden will not be doing any debates and will have only fully scripted
moments that will be broadcast. And Trump rallies will likely be curtailed as older people
the main voting demographic will not show up in numbers.
Of course the Senate will be the crucial election with the Democrats only needing a gain
of 4 to get the majority.
Just look at the cost of smartphone that they display at the riots and you instantly get a
certain impression about income of their parents
Notable quotes:
"... And their radicalism would be resisted, Lasch predicted, not by the upper reaches of society, or the leaders of Big Philanthropy or the Corporate Billionaires. These latter, rather, would be its facilitators and financiers." ..."
A section quoted by Crooke in the piece karlof1 linked to
"A social revolution that would be pushed forward by radical children of the bourgeoisie.
Their leaders would have almost nothing to say about poverty or unemployment. Their demands
would be centred on utopian ideals: diversity and racial justice – ideals pursued with
the fervour of an abstract, millenarian ideology.
And their radicalism would be resisted, Lasch predicted, not by the upper reaches of
society, or the leaders of Big Philanthropy or the Corporate Billionaires. These latter,
rather, would be its facilitators and financiers."
And Crooke's thoughts..
"So, what can we make of all this? The US has suddenly exploded into, on the one hand,
culture cancelation, and on the other, into silent seething at the lawlessness, and at all
the statues toppled. It is a nation becoming angrier, and edging towards violence.
One segment of the country believes that America is inherently and institutionally
racist, and incapable of self-correcting its flawed founding principles – absent the
required chemotherapy to kill-off the deadly mutated cells of its past history, traditions
and customs.
Another, affirms those principles that underlay America's 'golden age'; which made
America great; and which, in their view, are precisely those qualities which can make it
great again."
"The reason why we shouldn't believe most of the current or future polling results about
President Trump can be summarized in two words: Social Desirability.
Social desirability is a concept first advanced by psychologist Allen L. Edwards in 1953. It
advances the idea that when asked about an issue in a social setting, people will always answer
in a socially desirable manner whether or not they really believe it . Political polling,
whether by telephone or online, is a social setting. Respondents know that there is an audience
who are posing the questions and monitoring their response. As a result, despite a respondent's
true belief, many will answer polling questions in what may appear to be a more socially
desirable way, or not answer at all.
When it comes to President Trump, the mainstream media and academics have led us to believe
that it is not socially desirable (or politically correct) to support him . When up against
such sizable odds, most conservatives will do one of three things: 1) Say we support someone
else when we really support the president (lie); 2) tell the truth despite the social
undesirability of that response; 3) Not participate in the poll (nonresponse bias).
This situation has several real consequences for Trump polling. First, for those in the
initial voter sample unwilling to participate, the pollster must replace them with people
willing to take the poll. Assuming this segment is made up largely of pro-Trump supporters,
finding representative replacements can be expensive, time-consuming and doing so increases the
sampling error rate (SER) while decreasing the validity of the poll. Sampling error rate is the
gold standard statistic in polling. It means that the results of a particular poll will vary by
no more than + x% than if the entire voter population was surveyed. All else being
equal, a poll with a sampling error rate of + 2% is more believable than one of +
4% because it has a larger sample. Immediate polling on issues like President Trump's
impeachment may provide support to journalists with a point of view to broadcast, but with a
small sample and high sampling error rates, the results aren't worthy of one's time and
consideration."
--------------
I watched today as the crypto lefty Michael Smerconish interviewed Jason Miller from the
Trump campaign. He insisted that Miller "face up to the bad recent poll results" on Trump. What
he wanted was for Miller to concede defeat in the November election. Miller pointed out that
all the polls cited by MS consistently under sample Republicans by more than 10%. The typical
Republican sample size is between 25 and 30% in these polls. MS simply ignored that and went on
making his case for Trump's coming defeat.
MS's weekly on air poll asked the question "Is the election over? " He was visibly
disappointed when his mostly liberal audience replied "no" by 69% of a 16000 vote sample.
pl
I don't believe the polls, neither neutral pollsters, nor anybody else's regardless of
which way they lean politically. With Caller-ID so prevalent today, nobody I know answers the
phone anymore unless they recognize the number. Especially for 800 #s. I have NoMoRobo
installed on my landline that automatically cuts off all computerized autodial calls. I need
to get something similar for my cell phone.
As for on-air polls, they are complete BS, more like fairy tale genre for four year olds.
Doesn't matter whether they are done by MSNBC or Fox or any other TV network or radio
station.
I've long wondered what the numbers would look like if the pollsters cataloged every
response along the lines of "go f*** yourself" as a vote for Trump...
For those of you who don't watch CNN, I'm in that category, I urge you to watch it on
election night, it's pure bliss watching Wolf Blitzer twitch and burn.
"The reason why we shouldn’t believe most of the current or future polling results about President Trump can be summarized in
two words: Social Desirability..."
I've long wondered what the numbers would look like if the pollsters cataloged every
response along the lines of "go f*** yourself" as a vote for Trump...
Our website traffic easily broke all records for the month of June, and these high levels
have now continued into July, suggesting that the huge rise produced by the initial wave of
Black Lives Matters protests may be more than temporary. It appears that many new readers first
discovered our alternative webzine at that point, and quite a few have stayed on as regular
visitors.
A longer-term factor that may be strengthening our position is the unprecedented wave of
ideological purges that have swept our country since early June, with prominent figures in the
intellectual and media firmaments being especially hard hit. When opinion-leaders become
fearful of uttering even slightly controversial words, they either grow silent or only mouth
the most saccharine homilies, thereby forcing many of their erstwhile readers to look elsewhere
for more candid discussions. And our own webzine is about as "elsewhere" as one could possibly
get.
Take, for example, the New York Times , more than ever our national newspaper of
record. For the last few years, one of its top figures had been Editorial Page Editor James
Bennet, who had previously run The Atlantic , and he was widely considered a leading
candidate to assume the same position at the Gray Lady after next year's scheduled retirement
of the current top editor. Indeed, with his brother serving as U.S. Senator from Colorado --
and a serious if second-rank presidential candidate -- the Lifestyle section of the
Washington Post had already hailed
the Bennet brothers as the potential saviors of the American establishment.
But then his paper published an op-ed by an influential Republican senator endorsing
President Trump's call for a harsh crackdown on riots and looting, and a Twitter mob of
outraged junior Times staffers organized a revolt. The mission of the NYT Opinion
Pages is obviously to provide a diversity of opinions, but Bennet
was quickly purged .
A similar fate befell the highly-regarded longtime editor of the Philadelphia
Inquirer after his
paper ran a headline considered insufficiently respectful to black rioters . Michigan State
University researchers had raised doubts about the accepted narrative of black deaths at the
hands of police, and physicist Stephen Hsu, the Senior Vice President who had supported their
work,
was forced to resign his administrative position as a consequence.
Numerous other figures of lesser rank have been purged, their careers and livelihoods
destroyed for Tweeting
out a phrase such as "All Lives Matter," whose current classification as "hate speech"
might have stunned even George Orwell. Or perhaps a spouse or other close relative
had denounced the black rioters . The standards of acceptable discourse are changing so
rapidly that positions which were completely innocuous just a few weeks ago have suddenly
become controversial or even forbidden, with punishments sometimes inflicted on a retroactive
basis.
I am hardly alone in viewing this situation with great concern. Just last week, some 150
prominent American writers, academics, and intellectuals published an open
letter in Harpers expressing their grave concern over protecting our freedom of
speech and thought.
Admittedly, the credentials of some of the names on the list
were rather doubtful . After all, David Frum and various hard-core Neocons had themselves
led the effort to purge from the media all critics of Bush's disastrous Iraq War, and more
recently they have continued to do with same with regard to our irrational hostility towards
Putin's Russia. But the principled histories of other signers such as Noam Chomsky partially
compensated for the inclusion of such unpleasant opportunists.
Although the Harpers statement attracted many stars of our liberal firmament,
apparently few people read Harpers these days, with its website traffic being just a
tenth of our own. Therefore, the reaction in the media itself was a much more important factor,
and this seems to have been decidedly mixed. 150 rather obscure activists soon issued a
contrasting statement, which major outlets such as NYT , CNN , and the Los
Angeles Times seem to have accorded equal or greater weight, hardly suggesting that the
ideological tide has started to turn.
Back a couple of years ago, there was a popular joke going around Chinese social media in
which Chairman Mao came back to life with all sorts of questions about the modern world. Among
other things, he was informed his disastrous Cultural Revolution had shifted to America, a
prescient observation given the events of the last few weeks:
The controversial May 25th death of a black man named George Floyd in Minneapolis police
custody soon set off the greatest nationwide wave of protests, riots, and looting in at least
two generations, and the once-placid hometown of the Mary Tyler Moore Show alone suffered some
five hundred million dollars of damage. Some of the main political reactions have been
especially surprising, as the newly elevated activists of the Black Lives Matter movement have
received massive media support for their demands that local urban police departments be
"defunded," a proposal so bizarre that it had previously been almost unknown.
Statues, monuments, and other symbolic representations of traditional American history
quickly became a leading target. Hubert Humphrey's Minneapolis has long been an extremely
liberal bastion of the heavily Scandinavian Upper Midwest, having no ties to the South or
slavery, but Floyd's death soon launched an unprecedented national effort to eradicate all
remaining Confederate memorials and other Southern cultural traces throughout our society.
Popular country music groups such as the Dixie Chicks
and Lady
Antebellum had freely recorded their songs for decades, but they were now suddenly forced
to change their names in frantic haste.
And although this revolutionary purge began with Confederacy, it soon extended to include
much of our entire national history, with illustrious former occupants of the White House being
the most prominent targets. Woodrow Wilson ranked as Princeton University's most famous alumnus
and its former president, but his name
was quickly scraped off the renowned public policy school , while the Natural History
Museum of New York is similarly
removing a statue of Theodore Roosevelt .
Abraham Lincoln and
Ulysses S. Grant had together won the Civil War and abolished black slavery, but their
statues around the country were vandalized or ordered removed. The same fate befell
Andrew Jackson along with the author of the Star Spangled Banner, our national anthem.
The leading heroes of the American Republic from its birth in 1776 face "cancellation" and
this sudden tidal wave of attacks has clearly gained considerable elite backing. The New
York Times carries enormous weight in such circles, and last Tuesday their lead opinion
piece called for the
Jefferson Memorial to be replaced by a towering statue of a black woman, while one of their
regular columnists has repeatedly demanded that all
monuments honoring George Washington suffer a similar fate . Stacy Abrams, often mentioned
as one of Joe Biden's leading Vice Presidential choices, had previously made
the destruction of Georgia's historic Stone Mountain Memorial part of her campaign
platform, so we now seem only a step or two away from credible political demands that Mount
Rushmore be dynamited Taliban-style.
The original roots of our country were Anglo-Saxon and this heritage remained dominant
during its first century or more, but other strands in our national tapestry are suffering
similar vilification. Christopher Columbus discovered the New World for Spain, but he has
became a hated
and despised figure across our country , so perhaps in the near future his only surviving
North American monument will be the huge statue honoring him in the
heart of Mexico City . Father Junipero Serra founded Hispanic California and a few years
ago was canonized as the first and only Latin American saint, but his
statues have been toppled and his name already removed from Stanford University buildings.
At the time we acquired the sparsely-populated American Southwest, the bulk of our new Hispanic
population was concentrated in New Mexico, but the founding father of that region has now had
his monument attacked and vandalized . Cervantes, author of Don Quixote , is
considered the greatest writer in the Spanish language, and his statue was also
vandalized .
Perhaps these trends will abate and the onrushing tide of cultural destruction may begin to
recede. But at present there seems a serious possibility that the overwhelming majority of
America's leading historical figures prior to the political revolution of the 1930s may be
destined for the scrap heap. A decade ago, President Obama and most prominent Democrats opposed
Gay Marriage, but just a few years later, the CEO of Mozilla
was forced to resign when his past political contribution to a California initiative taking
that same position came to light, and today private individuals might easily lose their jobs at
many corporations for expressing such views. Thus, one might easily imagine that within five or
ten years, any public expressions of admiration for Washington or Jefferson might be considered
by many as bordering on "hate speech," and carry severe social and employment consequences. Our
nation seems to be suffering the sort of fate normally inflicted upon a conquered people, whose
new masters seek to break their spirit and stamp out any notions of future resistance.
A good example of this growing climate of fear came a couple of weeks ago when a longtime
blogger going under the name "Scott Alexander"
deleted his entire website and its millions of words of accumulated archives because the
New York Times was about to run an article revealing his true identity. I had only been
slightly aware of the SlateStarCodex
blogsite and the "rationalist" community it had gradually accumulated, but the development
was apparently significant enough to provoke
a long article in the New Yorker .
The target of the alleged witch-hunt was hardly any sort of right-winger. He was reportedly
a liberal Jewish psychiatrist living in Berkeley, whose most notable piece of writing had been
a massive 30,000 word refutation of neo-reactionary thought. But because he was willing to
entertain ideas and contributors outside the tight envelope of the politically-correct canon,
he believed that his life would be destroyed if his name became known.
Conservative commenter Tucker Carlson has recently attracted the highest ratings in cable
history for populist positions, some of which have influenced President Trump. But just a
couple of days ago, his top writer, a certain Blake Neff, was
forced to resign after CNN revealed his years of pseudonymous remarks on a rightwing
forum, even though the most egregious of these seemed no worse than somewhat crude
racially-charged humor.
Our own website attracts thousands of commenters, many of whom have left remarks vastly more
controversial than anything written by Neff let alone Alexander, and these two incidents
naturally
inspired several posts by blogger Steve Sailer , which attracted many hundreds of worried
comments in the resulting threads. Although I could entirely understood that many members of
our community were fearful of being "doxxed" by the media, I explained why I thought the
possibility quite unlikely.
Although it's been a few years since my name last appeared on the front page of the New
York Times , I am still at least a bit of a public figure, and I would say that many of the
articles I have published under my own name have been at least 100 times as "controversial" as
anything written by the unfortunate "Scott Alexander." The regular monthly traffic to our
website is six or seven times as great as that which flowed to SlateStarCodex prior to its
sudden disappearance, and I suspect that our influence has also been far greater. Any serious
journalist who wanted to get in touch with me could certainly do so, and I have been freely
given many interviews in the past, while hundreds of reasonably prominent writers, academics,
and other intellectuals have spent years on my regular distribution list.
Tracking down the identity of an anonymous commenter who once or twice made doubtful remarks
is extremely hard work, and at the end of the process you will have probably netted yourself a
pretty small fish. Surely any eager scalp-hunter in the media would prefer to casually mine the
hundreds of thousands of words in my articles, which would provide a veritable cornucopia of
exceptionally explosive material, all fully searchable and conveniently organized by particular
taboos. Yet for years the entire journalistic community has scrupulously averted their eyes
from such mammoth potential scandal. And the likely explanation may provide some important
insights into the dynamics of ideological conflict in the media.
Activist organizations often take the lead in locating controversial statements, which they
then pass along to their media allies for ritual denunciation, and much of my own material
would seem especially provocative to the fearsome ADL. Yet oddly enough, that organization
seemed quite reluctant to engage with me, and only after my repeated baiting did
they finally issue a rather short and perfunctory critique in 2018, which lacked any named
author. But even that lackluster effort afforded me an opening to respond with my own
7,300 word essay highlighting the very unsavory origins and activities of that
controversial organization. After that exchange, they went back into hiding and have remained
there ever since.
In my lengthy analysis
of the true history of World War II, I described what I called "the Lord Voldemort Effect,"
explaining why so much of our mainstream source material should be treated with great care:
In the popular Harry Potter series, Lord Voldemort, the great nemesis of the young
magicians, is often identified as "He Who Must Not Be Named," since the mere vocalization of
those few particular syllables might bring doom upon the speaker. Jews have long enjoyed
enormous power and influence over the media and political life, while fanatic Jewish
activists demonstrate hair-trigger eagerness to denounce and vilify all those suspected of
being insufficiently friendly towards their ethnic group. The combination of these two
factors has therefore induced such a "Lord Voldemort Effect" regarding Jewish activities in
most writers and public figures. Once we recognize this reality, we should become very
cautious in analyzing controversial historical issues that might possibly contain a Jewish
dimension, and also be particularly wary of arguments from silence.
However, even dread Lord Voldemorts may shrink from a terrifying Lord Voldemort of their
own, and I think that this website falls into that category. The ADL and various other powerful
organizations may have quietly issued an edict that absolutely forbids the media outlets they
influence from mentioning our existence. I believe there is strong evidence in favor of this
remarkable hypothesis.
Among Trump's surviving advisors, Stephen Miller provokes some of the most intense
hostility, and last November the SPLC and its media allies made a concerted attempt to force
his resignation based upon some of his private emails, which had promoted several controversial
posts by Steve Sailer. The resulting firestorm was discussed on this website, and
I analyzed some of the strange anomalies:
Just as might be expected, the whole SPLC attack is "guilt by association," and Ctrl-F
reveals a full 14 references to VDare, with the website characterized in very harsh terms.
Yet although there are several mentions of Steve and his writings, there is absolutely no
reference to this webzine, despite being Steve's primary venue.
Offhand, this might seem extremely odd. My own guess is that much of the material we
publish is 10x as "controversial" as anything VDare has ever run, and many of my own personal
articles, including those that have spent over a year on the Home page, might be up in the
30x or 40x potency range. Moreover, I think our traffic these days is something like 10x that
of VDare, seemingly making us an extremely juicy target.
Now admittedly, I don't know that Miller fellow, but the horrifying VDare post that Miller
supposedly shared was actually republished by VDare from this website. And that would surely
have made it very, very easy for the SPLC to use the connection as a opening to begin
cataloguing the unspeakingly horrifying list of transgressions we regularly feature, easily
expanding the length of their attack on Miller by adding another 6,000 words. Yet the silence
has been totally deafening. Puzzling
Here's my own hypothesis
As everyone knows, there are certain "powerful groups" in our society that so terrify
members of the media and political worlds that they receive the "Lord Voldemort Treatment,"
with mainstream individuals being terrified that merely speaking the name would result in
destruction. Indeed, the SPLC is one of the primary enforcers of that edict.
However, my theory is that even those dread Lord Voldemorts greatly fear an even more
dreadful Lord Voldemort of their own, namely this webzine. The SPLC writer knew perfectly
well that mere mention of The Unz Review might ensure his destruction. I'd guess that
the ADL/SPLC/AIPAC has made this prohibition absolutely clear to everyone in the
media/political worlds.
Given that Miller's main transgression was his promotion of posts originally published on
this website, the media could have easily associated him with the rest of our material, much of
which was sufficiently explosive to have almost certainly forced his resignation. Yet when the
journalists and activists weighed the likelihood of destroying Trump's most hated advisor
against the danger of mentioning our existence, the latter factor was still judged the
stronger, allowing Miller to survive.
This hypothesis was strongly supported by a second incident later that same month. We had
previously published an article by Prof. Eric Rasmusen of Indiana University, and I read in my
morning Times that he had suddenly
become embroiled in a major Internet controversy , with a chorus of angry critics seeking
to have him removed. According to the article, he had apparently promoted the "vile and stupid"
views of some anti-feminist website in one of his Tweets, which had come to the attention of an
enraged activist. The resulting firestorm of denunciations on Twitter had been viewed 2.5
million times, provoking a major academic controversy in the national media.
Being curious about what had happened, I contacted Rasmusen to see whether he might want to
submit a piece regarding the controversy,
which he did . But to my utter astonishment, I discovered that the website involved had
actually been our own, a fact that I never would never have suspected from the extremely vague
and circuitous discussion provided in the newspaper. Apparently, the old-fashioned
Who-What-Where provisions of the Times style manual had been quietly amended to prohibit
providing any hint of our existence even when we were at the absolute center of one of their
1,000 word news stories.
Highly-controversial ideas backed by strong evidence may prove dangerously contagious, and
the political/media strategy pursued by the ADL, the Times , and numerous other organs
of the elite establishment seems perfectly rational. Since our Bill of Rights still provides
considerable protection for freedom of speech, the next-best alternative is to institute a
strict cordon sanitaire , intended to strictly minimize the number of individuals who
might become infected.
Our webzine and my own articles are hardly the only victims of this sort of strategy -- once
dubbed "the Blackout" by eminent historian Harry Elmer Barnes -- whose other targets often
possess the most respectable of establishmentarian credentials.
Last month marked the 31st anniversary of the notorious 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, and
elite media coverage was especially extensive this year due to our current global confrontation
with China. The New York Times devoted most of two full pages to a photo-laden
recapitulation while the Wall Street Journal gave it front-page treatment, with just
those two publications alone running some six separate articles and columns on those horrifying
events from three decades ago.
Yet back in the 1990s, the former Beijing bureau chief of the Washington Post , who
had personally covered the events, published a long article in the prestigious Columbia
Journalism Review entitled The Myth of Tiananmen
, in which he publicly admitted that the supposed "massacre" was merely a fraudulent concoction
of careless journalists and dishonest propagandists. At least some of our top editors and
journalists must surely be aware of these facts, and feel guilty about promoting a
long-debunked hoax of the late 1980s. But any mention of those widely-known historical facts is
strictly forbidden in the media, lest American readers become confused and begin to consider an
alternative narrative.
Russia possesses a nuclear arsenal at least as powerful as our own, and the total break in
our relations began when Congress passed the Magnitsky Act in 2012, targeting important Russian
leaders. Yet none of our media outlets have ever been willing to admit that the facts used to
justify that very dangerous decision seem to have been entirely fraudulent, as recounted
in
the article we recently published by Prof. John Ryan.
Similarly, our sudden purge from both Google and Facebook came just days after my own
long article presenting the strong evidence that America's ongoing Covid-19 disaster was
the unintentional blowback from our own extremely reckless biowarfare attack against China (and
Iran). Over 130,000 of our citizens have already died and our daily life has been wrecked, so
the American people might grow outraged if they began to suspect that this huge national
disaster was entirely self-inflicted.
And the incident that sparked our current national upheaval includes certain elements that
our media has scrupulously avoided mentioning. The knee-neck hold used against George Floyd was
standard police procedure in Minneapolis and many other cities, and had apparently been
employed thousands of times across our country in recent years with virtually no fatalities.
Meanwhile, Floyd's official autopsy indicated that he had lethal levels
of Fentanyl and other illegal drugs in his system at the time of his demise. Perhaps the
connection between these two facts is more than purely coincidental, and if they became widely
known, popular sentiments might shift.
Finally, our alternative media webzine is pleased to have recently added two additional
columnists together with major portions of their archives, which will help to further broaden
our perspective.
Larry Romanoff has been a regular contributor to the Global Research website, most recently
focusing on the Coronavirus outbreak in China, and earlier this year he published an
article pointed to the considerable evidence that the virus had originated in the U.S.,
which was cited by Chinese officials and
soon became a flashpoint in American-Chinese relations . After having been viewed millions
of times, that piece and several others seem to have disappeared from their original venue, but
along with the rest of his writings, they are now conveniently available on our own
website .
For the last quarter-century, Jared Taylor has probably been America's most prominent White
Nationalist writer. Although Black Nationalists such as Al Sharpton have cable television shows
and boast of many dozens of visits to the White House, the growing climate of ideological
repression has caused Taylor and his American Renaissance organization to be
deplatformed from YouTube, Twitter, and numerous other Internet services. One of his main
writers is Gregory Hood, whom we have now added as a regular columnist , together with dozens of
his pieces over the last few years.
"... in fact, the looting was so brazen that even The Minneapolis Star Tribune felt obligated to detail it on July 10; as the newspaper put it, "Near Hennepin Avenue and W. Lake Street, nearly 40 businesses were broken into or heavily looted, including large retailers like H&M, Timberland, an Apple store, Kitchen Window and Urban Outfitters." ..."
"... In fact, between Trump's opposition and Republicans on watch, it's likely that the Democrats will say little about rebuilding vandalized and looted cities -- at least until after the election. ..."
"... Then on July 12, Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted , "Minnesota Dems willfully allowed Minneapolis to burn & then blamed the police whom they demonized. Now, they want the fed govt to pay the bill. I'm introducing legislation to make local govt liable to private property owners if officials deliberately withhold police protection." ..."
"... Of course, the typical legislative response to a "poison pill" bill is not to vote on it. Indeed, both parties have grown skilled at the parliamentary art of obscuring unpopular items with "omnibuses" and "continuing resolutions"; that is, the money gets spent, but with no specific fingerprints on any particular line item. ..."
Remember all those
"peaceful
protestors," later amended to
"mostly peaceful
protestors" ? You probably recall, also, the Main Stream Media's determined effort to portray the people in the streets protesting
the death of George Floyd as nothing but well-meaning reformers -- until
pictures
and
video made the spin wear thin.
Indeed, now even Democratic politicians are conceding that this wasn't the
"summer of love."
With costly reality staring him in the face, Minnesota governor Tim Walz, on July 2, sent a
letter to President Trump, formally requesting $15.6 million in federal disaster assistance for the damage done to Minneapolis
and St. Paul during the protests/violence over the last two months. As Walz put it, "Nearly 1,500 businesses were damaged by vandalism,
fire, or looting." He added, "These corridors provide lifeline services like food, pharmaceuticals, health care, housing, and transportation
to thousands of Minnesotans."
In fact, Walz estimated that the total cost of the damage could be upwards of $500 million; he described the events in his state's
two largest cities as "the second most destructive incident of civil unrest in United States history after the 1992 Los Angeles riots."
Walz further observed, "The social and economic impacts of this incident will be felt for years, if not decades."
So who, exactly, did all this damage? Here, Walz had to walk a fine line. Good progressive that he is, he couldn't afford to be
too critical of the protestors -- because he might need their votes in his next election bid. Indeed, back in May, he tried to argue
that most of the violence was committed by non -Minnesotans.
This dubious assertion was quickly
knocked down , and yet in his letter to Trump, Walz offered a different slant on the same outsiders-did-it argument, writing,
"Individuals bent on destruction infiltrated otherwise peaceful protests and began to incite violence and vandalism." We might pause
to note that Walz seems to be de-emphasizing, here, a word that he mentioned only once in the letter: looting . Why? Perhaps
because looting is so singularly unattractive (to most people) that it's best minimized when looking for bailout.
Yet in fact, the looting was so brazen that even The Minneapolis Star Tribune felt obligated to
detail it on July 10; as the newspaper put it, "Near Hennepin Avenue and W. Lake Street, nearly 40 businesses were broken into
or heavily looted, including large retailers like H&M, Timberland, an Apple store, Kitchen Window and Urban Outfitters."
The Star Tribune further added that Walz's $500 million estimate might be on the low side: "The full extent of damage to
Twin Cities buildings -- including residences, churches, non-profits and minority-owned businesses -- could take weeks or months
to calculate."
Indeed, sometimes the damage done to a city in the wake of a riot unfolds over decades. For instance, Detroit has never recovered
from the riot of 1967; the population of Motown fell from 1.67 million in 1960 to 713,000 in 2010.
In the meantime, on July 11, the Star Tribunereported
that the Trump administration has turned down Walz's aid request. The report included a quote from Rep. Tom Emmer, a Republican representing
exurban Minneapolis as well as rural areas; it seems that Emmer had written a
letter of his own to Trump two days earlier, asking the administration to "undertake a thorough and concurrent review of my state's
response to the violence and provide recommendations so that every Governor, Mayor, and local official can learn from our experiences
and ensure appropriate plans are in place to prevent something like this from ever happening again." In other words, Emmer was seeking,
at minimum, to add strings to the aid.
As Emmer put it, the feds should analyze "the actions that were -- or were not -- taken by local and state officials to prevent
one of the most destructive episodes of civil unrest in our nation's history." And to drill the point even harder, he cited news
media headlines supporting his supposition of state and local fecklessness: "'They Have Lost Control': Why Minneapolis Burned," and
"Gov. Tim Walz Laments 'Abject Failure' of Riot Response."
Emmer, of course, is a conservative, not in tune with, for example, the Twin Cities' most famous lawmaker, Rep. Ilhan Omar, who
has embraced "defunding the
police." By contrast, on July 11, Emmer tweeted a
poll showing that 81 percent of residents in
the small city of St. Cloud, in Emmer's district, believe that the police there "have an excellent relationship with the community."
We might also note that Emmer is more than just a Republican lawmaker representing a conservative district. He is also the
chairman of the
National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm of the House Republicans. Not surprisingly, the
NRCC Twitter feed regularly zings House Democrats, and it's a safe bet that
Emmer and his rapid responders are now poised to target those who might take a progressive position on the national response, including
financial aid, to recently afflicted cities. We can see the NRCC tweet now: "Rep. ___ supports bailout for mayors that looked the
other way while their cities were vandalized and looted."
In fact, between Trump's opposition and Republicans on watch, it's likely that the Democrats will say little about rebuilding
vandalized and looted cities -- at least until after the election.
However, if Joe Biden wins this November -- and the polls show him nearly 10 points ahead, which suggests Democrats everywhere
will do well -- then it's likely that a Biden administration will look more kindly on Walz's request.
Indeed, we could expect that the whole federal government, starting with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, will
seek to spend freely. After all, Biden tweeted
, just on July 5, "We won't just rebuild this nation -- we'll transform it." And
Sen. Bernie Sanders ,
fresh from his
policy mind-meld
with the Biden campaign, declares that Biden is shaping up to be the most progressive president since Franklin D. Roosevelt.
So one wonders: In such a heady ideological moment, how far could the Democrats go? Perhaps another "Great Society"? Or maybe
a "Marshall Plan" for the Other America? And can the Green New Deal be focused on blue dot cities?
Yet even if Republicans are out of power next year, they won't be without a voice. For his part, Emmer raises pointed questions
about urban aid, and so some Democrats -- especially those many now representing suburbs -- will have to think twice about voting
for blank checks to mayors and their lefty constituents. That is, if the city council in Minneapolis votes, as it did, unanimously,
to
defund the police , well, maybe most Americans will think that woke urbanites ought to be left to stew in their own crime juice.
Other Republicans, too, seem ready to pounce. On the floor of the Senate on July 2,
Mike Lee of Utah blasted "mob violence," including "dimwitted, phony drama addicts." Lest he be misunderstood, Lee went on to
rip "a privileged, self-absorbed crime syndicate with participation trophy graduate degrees, trying to find meaning in empty lives
by destroying things that other Americans have spent honest, productive lives building."
Then Lee got right down to the money issue: "The whole garbage fire that is the woke ideology depends on federal money. The mob
that hates America on America's dime. It's time to cut off their allowance!" So put Lee down as a loud "no" on any big bailout.
Then on July 12, Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted ,
"Minnesota Dems willfully allowed Minneapolis to burn & then blamed the police whom they demonized. Now, they want the fed govt to
pay the bill. I'm introducing legislation to make local govt liable to private property owners if officials deliberately withhold
police protection."
Cruz's bill won't pass this year, nor the next, and yet a line has been drawn. If Cruz and Republicans can figure out how to hold
a vote on that liability legislation -- or on other bills of a similar nature -- they will be putting Democrats in a tough spot.
Of course, the typical legislative response to a "poison pill" bill is not to vote on it. Indeed, both parties have grown
skilled at the parliamentary art of obscuring unpopular items with "omnibuses" and "continuing resolutions"; that is, the money gets
spent, but with no specific fingerprints on any particular line item.
Yet in the long run, the voters will figure out who voted to bail out looter-friendly cities -- and who didn't.
Still, in the shorter term, Emmer, Lee, Cruz, & Co. will be dismissed as mere gadflies, especially if the Democrats win big this
year. Indeed,
Biden is ahead in Texas , and
credible pundits even
speculate that he could win the biggest victory for a Democratic presidential nominee since 1964.
And if Democrats were to win big this year, they'd be high in the water, indeed, in the 117th Congress convening next year. Why
they might even seek to emulate the 89th Congress
, which convened in 1965, and which did, indeed, dream big.
If so, then Republicans will have to rely on smart Congressional critics such as Emmer, Lee, and Cruz. One's crystal ball for
the future is, of course, cloudy, and yet the record of the past is clear enough, and so we can recall that in the mid 60s, when
ebullient Democrats over-promised and under-delivered -- on everything from urban renewal to Vietnam pacification -- Republicans
were ready with their counterstroke. And the voters were ready with their backlash.
Thus just two years after their 1964 triumph, Democrats were drubbed in the 1966 midterm elections; one of the GOP winners that
year, we might recall, was that underrated actor-turned-underrated politician, Ronald Reagan.
Then in 1968, just four years after they had been crushed in the national election, Republicans won the the presidency.
Thus a half-century ago, Democratic hubris met Republican nemesis. Today, that's something for Democrats to ponder as many plan,
once again, to transform the nation.
James P. Pinkerton is a longtime contributing editor at The American Conservative , columnist, and author. He served
as longtime regular columnist for Newsday. He has also written for The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The
Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, National Review, The New Republic, Foreign Affairs, Fortune, and The
Jerusalem Post. He is the author of What Comes Next: The End of Big Government--and the New Paradigm Ahead (1995) . He worked in the White House domestic policy offices of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and in the 1980, 1984,
1988 and 1992 presidential campaigns.
Last, but not least, it is hard to imagine what the next US Presidential election will
look like, but one thing is certain: by November we will already have a perfect storm
– the election will only act like a battery which will feed even more energy into
this already perfect storm.
--
The election will be a farce no matter who the winner is. One will accuse the other of
vote rigging and then all insanity will break loose with rioting if the orange man comes out
on top. And if by chance Creepy Joe comes out on top expect more dog whistles and green
lights making it legit to give whitey hell.
I couldn't agree more with the opening salvo of this essay:
"Roughly half-way through the year 2020 it is becoming pretty obvious that there are a
number of major developments which almost got our total attention, and for good reason, as
these are tectonic shifts which truly qualify as "catastrophe" (under the definition "a
violent and sudden change in a feature of the earth"). These are:
The initiation of the global collapse of the AngloZionist Empire.
The immense economic bubble whose ever-growing size is the best predictor of the magnitude
of the huge burst it will inevitably result in.
The implosion of the US society due to a combination of several and profound systemic
crises (economic collapse, racial tensions, mass poverty, alienation of the masses, absence
of social protections, etc.).
The COVID-19 (aka "it's just like the seasonal flu!!") pandemic which only exacerbates all
the other major factors listed above.
Last, but not least, it is hard to imagine what the next US Presidential election will look
like, but one thing is certain: by November we will already have a perfect storm – the
election will only act like a battery which will feed even more energy into this already
perfect storm.
To be sure, these are truly momentous, historical, developments whose importance cannot be
over-stated."
I might add this, the coronamask is where the sheeple are hiding so as to not consider the
tsunami of troubles that is about to break the republic into a million shards of broken
dreams and violence no man can dream of. Hell is coming to Amerika and I say flee for your
life Pilgrims!
The mask is a deeply troubling signal that most Amerikans have resigned themselves to
being slaughtered without a peep of resistance. Most Amerikans will stand in front of the
trench without even trying to run. Hell, they will gladly dig the trench so as not to be
socially unacceptable.
Really, anyone who has the means to escape the upcoming Amerikan Holocaust ought to leave
while you still can. I always say, don't be like that Jew who stuck around Hitler's Germany
to long and ended up on a cattle car to Auschwitz, or don't be the fool who decides to stick
it out in Atlanta in the Civil War.
Hell is coming to Amerika people. Either run or get the hell ready for all out war.
The root cause of all those flash points are Anglo-American -Israelis Imperialism. Lets
not pretend US-UK-Israel are not joined at the hip. Thats where much of the anti-American
sentiment comes from.
This being said, there is no doubt that what will happen in the next couple of months
inside the United States is by far the biggest and most important development out there,
one which will shape the future of our planet no matter what actually happens. And I am
not referring to the totally symbolic non-choice between Biden and Trump.
The US will probably stumble along for a few more years – after all, it's just
received a massive QE4 Coronavirus injection of liquidity (debt speculation ammunition). But
basically Saker is probably right about the US being the main event.
The ROW (Rest Of the World) is affected to the extent that it has ties to the US. They're
going to have to denominate world trade in something other than the US dollar, say goodbye to
the Asian investments in US Treasuries and maybe face some counter-cultural anarchist SJW
crazies taking control of the armoury of US nuclear weapons.
Instead of trying to improve failing NYC schools it is easier to claim racism. Some people just do not want to study. The
number of people who barely can read in the is really staggering and can't be explained by racism, which typically just mobilize the
oppressed minority to strive in education. That's probably why children of first generation emigrants (which parent having
poor English and discriminated at jobs) usually do very well educationally.
Although further progress is desirable, the level of racism and xenophobia in the USA is much less than in many countries.
Karl Marx once said that history repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce. Nothing
proved the truth of Marx's claim better than the farcical battle over the statue of St. Louis
in, yes, St. Louis which followed hot on the heels of the tragedy of George Floyd in
Minneapolis.
The battle over the statue began as an exercise in identity politics, and before long it
degenerated into an example of identity theft. The main protagonist in this story is Umar Lee,
who was born Bret Darran Lee in 1974 to a southern Presbyterian family and grew up in
Florissant, Missouri just outside St. Louis. Lee may or may not be Black, which is an
ideological marker based upon but independent of biological fact, because he claims, according
to The Jerusalem Post that he "has two younger siblings who are half African-American."
[1]
On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown Jr., an 18-year-old Black man, was fatally shot by
28-year-old white Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the city of Ferguson, Missouri, a
suburb of St. Louis, leading to extensive rioting . After the death of
Michael Brown, Lee got involved with the Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson, and was
arrested on two occasions and, in his words, "locked up." After getting fired from his job as
cab driver, Lee became a full-time, but little known activist. In 2015, Lee noticed that
statues started coming down in St. Louis, largely because of agitation on the part of St. Louis
Jews. At some point during this period, Lee made contact with Ben Paremba, an Israeli
restauranteur who was "passionate" about promoting Israel and other Jewish causes. At this
point Paremba was as little known to locals as Lee, but all of that changed after the Jewish
press took notice of their petition to remove the statue of St. Louis and began promoting them
as social justice crusaders, if you'll pardon the term.
In a series of tweets, Lee tried to establish his position as an aggrieved Muslim, bringing
up the Crusades as the cause of his grievance, but the underlying source of his complaint was
inspired by a group of Jews, who were incensed that the city where they had come to study had
erected a statue in honor of a king who had burned the Talmud.
Once Lee mentioned the term "anti-Semitism," the Jewish press began carrying stories which
lionized Lee as a crusader for Jewish rights. Because of his philo-Semitism, Lee soon found
himself lionized in the Jewish press. Writing for the Jewish Telegraph Agency, Ben Sales
described Lee as "a local activist who started the petition and also took part in a
successful drive to remove a nearby Confederate monument in 2017. Lee, Sales continued, "is
not Jewish but started the petition because of Louis IX's anti-Semitism." [2] Because Lee's
petition called St. Louis a "rabid anti-Semite" who "inspired Nazi Germany," it began "drawing
Jewish support" from St. Louis Jews like Rabbi Susan Talve, "the founding rabbi of the city's
Central Reform Congregation, who said taking it down would help advance racial justice in the
United States." According to Talve, St. Louis Jews have "been talking about that statue for a
long time." Talve then added that removing the statue would be "a very important part of
reclaiming history, reclaiming the stories that have created the institutionalized racism that
we are trying to unravel today. If we're not honest about our history we will never be able to
dismantle the systems of oppression that we are living under."
"Susan Talve hated Cardinal Burke," according to one Catholic familiar with the local scene.
He went on to say that Burke told him that Talve had "an animosity toward me for reasons that I
don't understand." Blinded by over 50 years of the failed experiment known as Catholic-Jewish
dialogue, his eminence was evidently incapable of seeing that Talve's animosity toward him was
based on her ancestral animosity toward the Catholic Church, which he led in St. Louis at the
time. Unsurprisingly, Rabbi Talve's animosity toward the Catholic Church has turned her into an
advocate of Lee's attack on the statue.
St. Louis Catholics were determined to ignore the ethnic animosity behind the struggle.
America Needs Fatima, a front group for the Brazilian cult Tradition, Family, and Property
joined the fray, criticizing "limp-wristed politicians" who were giving in to "revolutionary
extremists." ANF Protest Coordinator Jose Ferraz, claimed that "American Catholics" who were
"strong in their faith" were being "pushed around by anarchist revolutionaries," but without
identifying any of the actual players in the dispute.
After local activist Jim Hoft announced that a group of Catholics associated with his
website Gateway Pundit was going to defend the statue, Lee issued a statement describing what
he clearly knew to be a group of Catholics as "White Nationalists" along with "those on the
alt-right such as those who held the infamous and tragic rally in Charlottesville."
Hoft then responded by claiming that Lee deliberately misrepresented the Gateway Pundit
rosary group as white racists: "We are Christians and Christian allies who believe we still
have the freedom to practice our religion in America. We are organizing a prayer rally with
Catholic and Christian men. And now we are being threatened -- In America. We will not
apologize for our Christianity. Not in St. Louis."
The leader of a local rosary group, taken in by Lee's propaganda, began to suspect that
local Catholic activists at the rosary protest "might be backed by white supremacists" and
warned his group off. He then retracted his first tweet after he learned that the Rosary rally
was being sponsored by local activist Jim Hoft's Gateway Pundit and TFP-America Needs Fatima.
Neither group talked about the Jews. As a result, neither group was able to discuss the
conflict's most significant player. Both groups as a result became proxy warriors in an
exercise in street theater which kept the true dynamics of the conflict hidden.
In his article, Sales found a local Catholic who made a valiant attempt to defend the city's
eponymous saint, only to be shot down later by Talve, who opined that "Asserting that your way
is the only way I think is always wrong" with no sense that this was precisely the gist of what
the local Jews and their Muslim front man were imposing on the citizens of St. Louis.
Hoft called Lee's claim that "those on the alt-right such as those who held the infamous and
tragic rally in Charlottesville," were responsible for the demonstration defending the statue
"a lie," and added "There is no one from the Charlottesville rally or linked to the
Charlottesville rally or who promoted the Charlottesville rally who will be at the prayer rally
(that we know about)."
Lee's determination to turn the statue battle into a racial conflict began to generate
opposition from the Black community on Twitter, inspiring one observer to write "Fuck Umar
Lee's Bitch ass. He got fired for taking a company video to start racial tension. He's white.
Not Black. Sorry POS."
Activist, Author and Ex-Cabbie Umar Lee
By now it was obvious that the Black population of St. Louis, in spite of being dragged into
Lee's ad hoc coalition, had no dog in this fight. St. Louis, it turns out, never owned slaves.
Once the racial element disappeared from the conflict, its religious dimensions began to
emerge. The battle over the statue was a religious war between Catholics and Jews, in which
both sides were eager to cover over the conflict's true ethnic configuration. Both Lee and Hoft
were determined to obscure the identity of their opponents as well as the identity of their
backers. As one local observer put it, "Jews end up being in a win-win situation. Either Lee
succeeds in toppling the statue or Hoft succeeds and becomes the gay-married, pro-Zionist hero
to the local bishopless Catholics who are too fearful to organize on their own. Nowhere do
Catholics, or Blacks, or Muslims get a win out of this. Being pro-Zionist on some level
probably gives Hoft permission to misbehave sexually, since Jews are the authors of gay rights
as a movement. It's his way of paying them back, even though he is deeply conservative, like a
typical Iowa farm boy, raised Catholic, in all other areas."
Even after the Catholic-Jewish nature of the conflict became apparent, Lee continued to
portray the pro-statue crowd as white racists. In the days leading up to the Saturday rally,
Lee tweeted a picture of the blonde-haired Hoft with this text by way of explanation. "This is
the guy behind the White Nationalist rally on Saturday at noon on Art Hill. This is why it's
important for us to show up at eleven. . . . Jim Hoft and the Gateway Pundit were absurdly
wrong." [3]
A few hours later, Lee tweeted: "I will never allow Nazis, racists, and White Nationalists
to hold rallies in St. Louis without a response even if it's just me." [4] Hours later, Christine
Eidson Christlieb tried to set the record straight when she tweeted "The people praying the
rosary every night at the statue aren't white nationalists. That's just false. They are
Catholics." [5]
Ignoring Christlieb's tweet, Lee continued to promote identity theft, tweeting on June 24
that "White Christian Nationalists and the alt-right have announced a rally on Saturday at the
Louis IX statue. Please RT and share. We need to counter. Calling all Catholic and Christian
Men and their Allies." The bogus request for Catholic support when Lee knew it was Catholics
who were on the other side of the protest saying their rosaries exposed the hidden grammar of
Lee's strategy, which involved denying his opponents their actual identity and turning them
instead into "white nationalists," a group which could then be deprived of their constitutional
right to free speech and assembly. I discussed this ploy in my article comparing the Arbaeen
march in Dearborn, which was considered legitimate because of its religious sponsorship, and
the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, which was illegitimate precisely because the
protesters were "white," a designation which deprived them of any constitutional protection.
Lee knew he was dealing with Catholics, but he insisted on calling them white supremacists
because that was the category that would demonize them.
Lee's tweets throughout the period leading up to the June 27 protest gave a clear indication
that his real animus was against St. Louis's Catholics, not white supremacists or nationalists.
Lee tweeted "Mel Gibson is probably the most prominent traditional Catholic and critic of the
modern church known to most Americans. He is also a raging anti-Semite who beat his wife. The
Twitter army defending Louis IX I'm sure are huge fans of his."
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-6&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1275341953585090561&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Fejones%2Ficonoclasm-in-st-louis%2F&theme=light&widgetsVersion=9066bb2%3A1593540614199&width=500px
Umar Lee Leading a Protest at the St. Louis Statue
Umar Lee is not your typical Muslim. He said nothing about the plight of the Palestinians
who were about to lose control over the West Bank. He failed to mention the connection between
the knee hold which presumably killed George Floyd and ADL sponsored seminars which introduced
Minneapolis police officers to Israeli instructors in Chicago in 2012. Instead he claimed that
"Bringing down the Louis IX statue won't be the [first] time Muslims and Jews coordinated in
St. Louis to stamp out evil." Then combining two contradictory tropes, Lee described his
opponents as "alt-right Catholic fascists," whose "favorite hobbies" were "burning and looting
Jews and impaling heretics." Instead of defending the statue of St. Louis IX, Lee felt that his
Catholic foes could better spend their time studying Jewish history and volunteering "to help
the many thousands of sex crimes victims in the church."
Statues are a sign of hegemony. They help you identify the ruler, and if not the real ruler,
the man those in power would like to have as their ruler. In a revolutionary era, the statues
of the former ruling class must come down. The most striking instance of this was the statue of
Stalin in Prague, which came down as soon as Communism collapsed in the period from 1989 to
1990. The removal of Stalin's statue left an empty pedestal in its place, but just as nature
abhors a vacuum, so pedestals will not remain empty. The first occupant of the empty Stalin
pedestal was a statue of Michael Jackson, who brought his own statue to Prague when he played a
concert there. He was the hegemon of the 1990s. The last time I was in Prague that pedestal was
occupied by a weird crane-liked gnomon which moved in sync with some unheard rhythm of the
spheres, making it seem like a metronome keeping time to an unknown melody.
The battle in Charlottesville in 2017 was ultimately a conflict over a statue, in this case
a statue of Robert E. Lee, which celebrated the "redemption" of the South which occurred a
generation after the Civil War, when the South drove the last remnant of Yankee soldiers from
their soil. The Lee statue was erected, as were many others celebrating Confederate soldiers,
to celebrate the new regime.
During the revolutionary spring of 2020, numerous statues were deposed. Not surprisingly,
the statue of Lenin in Seattle escaped the mayhem which visited that city unscathed, as did the
most recent addition to statuary in South Bend, Indiana, the statue of Rev. Theodore Hesburgh,
CSC, president of Notre Dame University and civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr. The
latter statue expresses better than any other the system of control which it symbolizes. The
short-hand explanation of that system of control is the civil rights movement, which celebrates
breaking laws with some higher purpose in mind. A recent article noted that 60 percent of
people in their 20s believe it is okay to break the law for a good cause. Of course, who gets
to determine whether the cause is good did not get mentioned in that article. That is why the
Hesburgh-King statue is important. It was based on a photo taken in Chicago in 1966 (most often
erroneously stated as 1964). When Martin Luther King arrived in Marquette Park, one of
Chicago's many ethnic neighborhoods, the Lithuanians living there greeted him with a hail of
rocks and bottles, one of which staggered King as he got out of his car. Needing help to
prosecute the ethnic cleansing of Catholic neighborhoods in Chicago, King gave Hesburgh a call
and together the two icons sang "We shall overcome" at a rally at Soldier Field that
summer.
The statue is, in other words, a celebration of two of American history's most famous proxy
warriors. As a pawn of Jewish money and Quaker organizing, King obliterated the traditional
Black power structure in Chicago, symbolized by Bronzeville, which was the Black ethnic
neighborhood. As a pawn of the Rockefellers, Hesburgh betrayed fellow Catholics in Chicago in
order to get funding from their foundations, especially the Population Council run by John D.
Rockefeller, 3rd. So the South Bend statue is in no danger of coming down because the
descendants of the oligarchs which turned King and Hesburgh into political icons have found a
new set of proxy warriors in Antifa and Black Lives Matter, who have arrogated the civil rights
mantle to themselves in a bid to stamp out the last remnants of representative government in
the United States. Pedestals will not remain empty. Prepare yourself for a Jeff Bezos statue.
Just as King and Hesburgh were proxy warriors of the oligarchs in collaboration with each
other, so Lee and Hoft are proxy warriors of the oligarchs in opposition to each other.
In the spring of 2015, the iconoclasts of St. Louis succeeded in getting the Jesuit-run St.
Louis University to remove its statue of Pere Pierre-Jean De Smet, a Belgian Catholic priest
who worked as a missionary to the Indians in the Mid-West and western sections of the United
States of America. [6] The Jesuits caved in to
pressure from "a cohort of students and faculty" who complained that the De Smet sculpture
"symbolized white supremacy, racism, and colonialism," [7] at least according to
this news account, which and alumnus disputes, claiming:
Saint Louis University did not get rid of the statue of Father DeSmet. They moved it to the
newly renovated Saint Louis University Museum of Art (SLUMA). There, the statue is prominently
shown quite beautifully along with other artifacts and artwork from the early founding of St
Louis and its Catholic heritage. One could argue that they removed it from its outside area
because of the pressure that the university faced to remove it, but there was never a "cohort
of faculty and students to remove it." During my four years as a student from 2006 to 2009, I
never heard one comment about the statue. I attended the university with a lot of people from
various ethnicities who never mentioned it once. We would also pass it by on a daily basis. I
personally think that this "cohort" was made up and that no one ever had a problem with it,
whether liberal or not. It was made into a problem by those who would like to destroy
Catholicism. The Jesuits should have left it where it was but at least they had enough sense to
keep it and showcase it prominently in their museum, which I will repeat, is
beautiful.
Protestors Argue at the Statue of St. Louis
Two years later, St. Louis mayor Lyda Krewson caved in to the same sort of pressure when she
removed a Confederate statue from the same Forest Park neighborhood where the statue to St.
Louis is located. [8] The statue of Columbus
was also removed in 2017, largely at the behest of Rachel Sender, a graduate student in
biological anthropology at Washington University who claimed that Columbus "represents racism,
colonialism, slavery and white supremacy and should not be given any honorable remembrance or
be a symbol of Tower Grove Park." [9] In attempt to give some
background on Lee and his petition, local Catholic activist Jim Hoft described Rachel Sender as
"some idiot . . . from New Jersey." Sender, however, was much more forthcoming than Hoft in
describing both her identity and motivation in wrecking that city's statues. Buoyed by the
iconoclasts' success in removing the Columbus statue, Sender jumped on the bandwagon to remove
the St. Louis statue, tweeting that "St. Louis was a crusader known for persecuting Jews. This
is also the only city I've experienced [sic] blatant anti-Semitism. His legacy should not be
honored! Lyda Kewson, City of St. Louis, Change the name of St. Louis. Sign the petition."
[10]
Lee was lionized in the Jewish press because even though Lee calls himself a Muslim, he not
only talks like a Jew, he also got the idea of tearing down the St. Louis statue from Jews. In
a recent interview, Lee told The Jerusalem Post "that he became aware of the statue's
history when Rabbi Hershey Novack of the Chabad on the Campus at St. Louis University held a
Tisha B'Av gathering by the Louis IX statue to remember the atrocities he wrought on Jews in
France." [11] Lee was in effect
only doing what he was told, after Novack and local Israeli restauranteur Ben Parembo said,
"Hey, that statue needs to come down. Jewish kids going out with their parents to [park's]
[sic] art museum don't need to be looking at this anti-Semite."
Lee may be the only Muslim in the world who is not upset about the United States moving its
embassy to Jerusalem, thereby making it the capital of Israel. In fact he's planning a trip to
Jerusalem, where he plans to "do a little dance. . . to commemorate the fact that loser [i.e.,
St. Louis IX] never made it to Jerusalem." In the meantime, Lee "will be drafting a letter to
@Pontifex asking for the decanonization of King Louis IX." On June 21, Lee informed his twitter
followers that he was "working on Lindbergh too. Must go. No Nazi named streets in St. Louis
Couny [sic]!" In addition to being a descendant of Robert E. Lee, Umar Lee did time for some
unspecified crime. It was during his stay in prison that he became aware of Jewish history and
the fact that St. Louis "burned Talmuds and embarked upon two crusades." He also learned that
St. Louis was "a Catholic town," a fact which led him to embark on a career as a reformer of
the Catholic Church, forcing him to oppose "some hateful pre-Vatican II trends that are being
repopularized." At some point during his study of Jewish history, Lee discovered that "a group
of Jewish students from Washington University and a rabbi gathered at the statue [of St. Louis]
on Tisha B'av" [or this ninth of Av, the day on which the temple was destroyed]. [12] From
reading the article, Lee also learned that King Louis "organized the burning of 12,000 Jewish
manuscripts in Paris, reasoning that the Jewish manuscripts might corrupt his good Christian
soldiers." [13] The book burning was
small potatoes compared to the destruction of the Temple, but the statue gave local Jews a
reason to feel aggrieved and test the local political waters to see how much clout they had.
Lee discovered that Jewish clout had increased considerably over the past 11 years, and that,
during the revolutionary spring of 2020, the time was ripe to press the issue.
Knowing that the Jews were itching for a battle with that city's Catholics, Lee engaged in
identity theft by claiming that the Catholic protesters were white because religion was a
category which still afforded constitutional protection. Recognizing that any conflict between
Catholics and Jews, with Muslims and Blacks playing minor roles, was unwinnable, Lee attempted
to drag the mayor into a fight against "white nationalists" knowing full well that enlisting
her in a battle against that city's Catholics, a group which made up 26 percent of the
population would have meant political suicide. Hence, Lee's persistent efforts to turn the
rally into something which it was not, as when he wrote: "Does St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson
have a problem with alt-right White Nationalists having a protest at the Louis IX statue on Art
Hill this Saturday?" Lee's tendentious formulation of the issue bespoke a combination of
identity theft and moral blackmail. The two issues are, of course, related and the link was
America's Civic Religion, otherwise known as the Civil Rights Movement, otherwise known as the
Black-Jewish alliance. Anyone who had the Black-Jewish alliance on his side occupied the high
moral ground and was on his way to winning the argument by default, because his opponents
lacked a moral leg to stand on. Because of Hollywood and public education, support for the
Civil Rights movement had replaced the ten commandments in America's mind as the source of
moral guidance.
But, as Anne Hendershott pointed out in her book The Politics of Deviance , deviance
is constant. That means that for every precept of the moral law you subtract from your
behavior, you have to add a precept of political correctness by way of compensation. Sexual sin
is the usual motivation for subtracting precepts of the moral law from your conscience. The
public school system in America as well as higher education has as one of its main goals the
sexual corruption of every student unfortunate enough to enter its doors. The moral vacuum that
education creates is filled by tales of the Civil Rights Movement, which proposes Martin Luther
King and Rosa Parks as role models. The sense of grievance and contempt for the positive law
which King and Parks stoked found fulfillment in the homosexual movement which invoked their
name to stoke contempt for the natural law.
So one way to calm your conscience because of the abortion you had is by becoming a
fanatical member of Antifa or a supporter of Black Lives Matter. The Civil Rights Movement of
the '60s was in many ways moral compensation for the adoption of contraception among Protestant
sects. Unsurprisingly, 1964 was the year of both the pill and the Civil Rights Act. This is not
a coincidence.
The battle over the statue served as an update on the Triple Melting Pot. Protestants were
nowhere to be found in this conflict. Their place had been taken by Muslims, who were still
negligible in terms of political power or cultural presence, but they could become significant
if they allied themselves with the Jews, the part of the Triple Melting Pot which was still
negligible in terms of numbers but whose cultural and political power had increased enormously
over the past half century. St. Louis is the home to 60,000 Bosnian Muslims, who harbor animus
against Jews that is now common in the Islamic world, largely because of how Israel has treated
Palestinians. Umar Lee is the exception that proves the rule. Thanks to the state of Israel,
Muslim antipathy to Jews is a widespread phenomenon, but it is not the case in the drama
surrounding the state of St. Louis. If Umar had come out in favor of the Boycott Divestment and
Sanction movement holding Israel accountable for its crimes against Palestinians, he'd still be
driving a cab.
What began as an exercise in identity politics soon devolved into a case of identity theft.
After Lee called the Catholics white nationalists, local Catholic activist Jim Hoft responded
by calling Lee's Jewish coalition "Marxists." When it came to the battle of the St. Louis
statue, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church was missing in action. Archbishop Robert Carlson,
ordinary of the archdiocese of St. Louis, defended the statue, but his comments had little
effect on public opinion because he is on his way out the door. His appointed successor,
auxiliary bishop Mitchell Rozanski of Springfield, Massachusetts, had nothing to say on the
issue. As a result, Hoft became defensor fidei by default, in spite of the fact that Jim
Hoft's relationship with Catholicism is even more troubled that Umar Lee's relationship with
Islam.
Hoft was born and raised in Iowa, but he got his start in local politics in St. Louis after
he established a national internet presence by founding the Gateway Pundit website, which took
the typically conservative line on issues as other websites began to engage in liberal
waffling. Conservative, at this moment in time, had less to do with the Republican populism of
St. Louis native Phyllis Schlafly, and more to do with the Neoconservatives who took over both
the party and the movement over the course of the 1990s. Specifically, that meant that Hoft was
rabidly pro-Israel, even to the point of posting a picture of him and Bibi Netanyahu on the
Gateway Pundit masthead, and disallowing any criticism of Israel or Jews from its combox.
Hoft's loyalty to Israel has earned him Jewish friends, such as film producer Michael Rudin,
who featured Hoft in a 2019 episode of the TV Series The Conspiracy File s and who is
also featured in Hoft's masthead.
In keeping with an even more recent trend in Republican-style conservatism, Hoft announced
that he was a homosexual after the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando because he "just had
to." Not long after coming out of the closet, Hoft married a gay Filipino in what purported to
be a Catholic ceremony at the rebel St. Stanislaus Church in St. Louis. Not content to keep his
sodomy private, Hoft took out an elaborate wedding announcement complete with picture of him
and the boy, who is about a foot shorter than Hoft.
Hoft's Gateway Pundit has gone on to become a fact-checker's dream, with article after
article in mainstream outlets like the Washington Post describing Hoft and his website
as retailers of conspiracy theories and fake news, but Hoft continues in his role as the Jews'
favorite dumb goy. Hoft's fanatical, pro-Israel chest-thumping Catholicism is a compensation
for homosexuality, and a manifestation of what we might call the Michael Voris syndrome. In
addition to being useful to the Jews whenever they need someone to make the Catholic Church in
St. Louis look ridiculous, Hoft has become defensor fidei by default because in St.
Louis, as elsewhere, nature abhors a vacuum. Archbishop Robert Carlson's defense of the statue
was weakened by his status as a lame duck. [14] The Archdiocese
issued a statement defending St. Louis as "an example of an imperfect man who strived to live a
life modeled after the life of Jesus Christ" and a "model for how we should care for our fellow
citizen." His defense was further weakened by the fact that he did not identify the group
responsible for wanting the statue removed. Catholics, as a result, were once more engaged in
cultural shadow boxing against enemies they could not identify.
That means that the fate of the statue rests in the hands of Carlson's successor,
Archbishop-elect Mitchell Rozanski, who will be installed as St. Louis's new ordinary on August
25, which is, not coincidentally, the feast of St. Louis IX. The fate of the statue rests of
Mayor Lyda Krewson, who is both a Catholic and a liberal Democrat, which means she is pulled in
two opposite directions. She has come out in favor of retaining the statue, but some Catholics
are not sure she can withstand the political pressure pulling her in the opposite direction,
since she has already presided over other acts of public iconoclasm. As a Catholic mayor
presiding over the fate of the statue of a Catholic saint in a city with a large Catholic
population, Krewson finds herself confronted with a revolutionary situation during an
interregnum. The driving force behind that revolution is the Jewish revolutionary spirit.
Because of that fact, the impending arrival of Mitchell Rozanski is not cause for optimism.
Rozanski grew up in Baltimore and is a protégé of Cardinal Keeler, who is the
patron saint of Catholic-Jewish dialogue in the United States and author of a document on
Catholic-Jewish relations that was so heretical that even the notoriously philosemitic United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops refused to publish it. On June 18, 2009, the USCCB took
the unprecedented step of condemning its own document on Catholic-Jewish relations, warning
unsuspecting readers that Keeler's "Reflections on Covenant and Mission should not be taken as
an authoritative presentation of the teaching of the Catholic Church. In order to avoid any
confusion, the USCCB Committee on Doctrine and the Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious
Affairs have decided to point out some of these ambiguities and to offer corresponding
clarifications." [15]
Archbishop-Elect
Mitchell Rozanski
In an interview with Rozanski which appeared in the National Catholic Reporter ,
Keeler was described as "a legend in the field of Jewish-Catholic dialogue" and "one of
Rozanski's mentors." [16] Eventually Rozanski
succeeded Keeler as moderator for Catholic-Jewish relations. On February 24, 2017, Rozanski
wrote a response to the shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh in his capacity as
U.S. Bishops' Chairman on Interreligious Affairs, expressing "deep sympathy, solidarity, and
support to our Jewish brothers and sisters who have experienced once again a surge of
anti-Semitic actions in the United States. I wish to offer our deepest concern, as well as our
unequivocal rejection of these hateful actions. The Catholic Church stands in love with the
Jewish community in the current face of anti-Semitism." [17]
In an article which appeared in the Springfield, Massachusetts Republican , Rozanski
was quoted as saying, "I fear that the current level of demonizing anyone of a different
opinion sadly will only lead to even more levels of violence and affronts to our fellow human
beings, created in the likeness and image of God." [18] The article went on
to say that the suspected shooter in the attack referred to Jews as "children of Satan," which
the paper described as an "anti-Semitic social media posting" with no indication that the term
came from Jesus Christ in a confrontation with the Jews portrayed in the Gospel of St. John. I
make the claim that there is a historical continuity between that confrontation in the Gospel
and 2,000 years of revolutionary ferment on the part of the Jews in my book The Jewish
Revolutionary Spirit.
Unlike Justin Rigali and Raymond Burke, "whose legacies remain divisive," Rozanski plans to
deal with the polarized situation in St. Louis by promoting "more dialogue, more understanding,
more study of the way that police deal with different situations. And what happened to George
Floyd in Minneapolis was totally, totally unacceptable, totally beyond the pale of whatever
should be done to anyone who is being taken into police custody."
There are, of course, Catholics in St. Louis who can provide a cogent defense of retaining
the statue, but they are currently in hiding, fearing repercussions from Rozanski, whom one
"local Catholic in a very sensitive position that requires him to remain anonymous" described
as their "new super-ecumenical and politically correct Archbishop." As I have said many times
before, the Church can have good relations with the Jews, or she can have unity, but she can't
have both. Rozanski's good relations with the Jews is a sign that local Catholics are in for a
hard time if they try to contest the anti-Semitism label which has been imposed on them by Umar
Lee and his Jewish backers in their defense of the statue. One such Catholic provided the
following defense of the statue, while at the same time declining to give his name:
Saint Louis IX was a devout follower of Jesus, who was scrupulously honest, humble, a
generous and unfailing lover and benefactor of the poor, and a peacemaker and unifier of
factions within his kingdom. It is for these and other virtues that he was canonized by the
Church. Just as we don't eliminate the name and statues of Martin Luther King because he was
a womanizer and a plagiarist, nor should we dishonor St. Louis because of his policies toward
Jews and his crusading ventures. These need to be understood in their historical context of
medieval Christendom – very different from today's secularized world. We're told his
statue is "offensive" to Jews and Muslims. Tearing it down would be deeply offensive to
hundreds of thousands of Catholics in this area, and to quite a few others as well.
As the intensity of the conflict surrounding the rosary vigils increased, the author of the
above statement began to wonder if it had been strong enough in stating the case for St. Louis.
When a local priest attempted to debate with the protestors, a shouting match ensued with no
conclusive outcome. The author then brought up the issue of the Crusades by contexualizing it
with a discussion of Zionism:
It's a pity the priest leading the rosary and the other Catholics there didn't defend St.
Louis from the charge of being "genocidal" and a "murderer." The Crusades were basically a
defensive movement against constant Muslim encroachment on the west and Christendom, which
they vowed to conquer and destroy, and to regain the Holy Places in Palestine which they had
seized after the Holy Land had been under Christian control for over three centuries before
the Muslim invasions of the 7th century. What prompted King Louis to embark on a crusade was
that in 1244 Muslim forces invaded Jerusalem, massacred many Christians there and desecrated
churches and holy places. So it wasn't "Islamophobic" or "genocidal" for a Christian king to
want to defend them! How can Jews condemn Christians for seeking to reclaim lands formerly
under Christian control when they themselves (or at least the great majority, who are
Zionists) justified their takeover of Palestine in 1948 for the same reason, namely, that it
belonged to their ancestors until foreigners (the Romans) conquered it and dispersed
them?
He then addressed the issue of burning the Talmud:
St. Louis was following the precepts of Lateran Council IV and the popes of his time in
having copies of the Talmud banned and burned after it was found out that this volume (only
then recently translated from Hebrew) contained repulsive blasphemies against Jesus and the
Blessed Mother. Regarding Mary, "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played
the harlot with carpenters" (Sanhedrin, 106a). As regards Our Lord himself, he is said to be
now in hell, being boiled in "hot excrement" (Gittin, 57a). Why? "Jesus the Nazarene . . .
and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, [and] led Jews astray into idolatry"
(Sanhedrin, 43a). "He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone. . . was cut off from
the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent" (Sanhedrin 107b, Sotah, 47a). He
"learned witchcraft in Egypt" (Shabbos, 104b). [19]
Jonathan Greenblatt
Missing from this discussion is the role Jews play in getting people they don't like
de-platformed from social media, which is the modern day equivalent of burning the Talmud. On
the same Saturday as the protests at the St. Louis statue, all of my books were removed from
Amazon at the behest of the ADL, the main organization promoting Jewish censorship of the
media. Unlike the ADL, the Inquisition gave the books it burned a fair hearing. Now, because of
Jewish concepts like "hate speech," anyone can lose his livelihood without trial or explanation
at the hands of the same people who take umbrage at burning the Talmud. The only thing
necessary is mention of the magic word "anti-Semitism," which ends all discussion and leaves
the accused person guilty without any possibility of clearing his name. St. Louis, according to
our author:
was no "anti-Semite" (which properly speaking is a racial prejudice, like that of
Hitler); but he was indeed anti-Jewish, i.e., against Judaism as a religion, for the reason
that Jews bitterly hated Christianity (as the Talmud demonstrated) and often worked to
undermine the faith of Louis' Christian subjects, whose eternal salvation he sought to
protect. The consistent position taken by the medieval popes was the Jews were not to be
molested, and their worship was to be tolerated, provided they didn't work to oppose or
undermine the faith of the Christian majority. When punitive measures were implemented or
authorized by the Church, it was because the Church judged that Jews were not abiding by that
condition.
As his final point, our author points out that if the Jews had power over Christians to
implement the Talmud which St. Louis ordered burned, Christians would have died. That's because
Jews only believe in tolerance when they are a powerless minority, and they believe in it only
as a strategy to undermine the coherence and unity of the dominant culture until they get the
upper hand, at which point they become ruthless persecutors of those who are weaker than they
are. Israeli treatment of Palestinians is a good indication of how Jews act when they get the
upper hand. Bolshevism in Russia is another example. Once the Bolsheviks seized power in
Russia, the Jews who controlled that movement turned the instruments of state power against the
Russian Christians whom they saw as their ancestral foes by creating instruments of terror like
the Cheka, which was invariably a Jewish-run operation because Russians were reluctant to
torture and murder other Russians, whereas the Jews who made up the majority of that
organization had no such compunction. "St. Louis's medieval methods," our author continues:
were not such as we would find acceptable today, when a much greater degree of religious
toleration and emphasis on individual rights has been a part of Western culture now for
centuries; but we have to understand St. Louis and other great figures of Christendom and
U.S. history in their own historical context. The idea of a religiously "neutral" or secular
state was unheard of anywhere in the world until after the French and American Revolutions
more than 500 years after St. Louis lived. No religion in those days gave much
emphasis to religious toleration. The Jews themselves (never mind the Muslims!) would have
been very oppressive to Christians if they had been in power, as the Jewish laws set out in
the Babylonian Talmud make clear, even though most of them couldn't be implemented. For
instance, "If a gentile hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed" (Sanhedrin, 58b); "When a Jew
murders a gentile there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may
keep" (Sanhedrin, 57a). Indeed, gentiles are dehumanized: "All gentile children are animals"
(Yebamoth 98a); "Gentile girls are in a state of niddah [filth] from birth" (Abodah
Zarah, 36b). If this, and the vitriolic Talmud slurs against Jesus and Mary cited above, are
not "hate speech," what is?"
As some indication of the parlous state which Catholic-Jewish dialogue has created in the
Catholic Church, America Magazine turned to a Jewish Lesbian convert to Catholicism, who
explained the situation in St. Louis to its readers in the following way: "King Louis IX, whom
Catholics know as St. Louis, ordered the burning [of the Talmud] after a rigged 'disputation'
in which a Jewish convert to Christianity debated a rabbi about whether the Talmud was
blasphemous." [20] So are the above
passages blasphemous? Are they in the Talmud? If the answer to those questions is yes, in what
sense was the disputation rigged? Eve Tushnet, who is the author of this article as well as the
author of Gay and Catholic: Accepting My Sexuality, Finding Community, Living My Faith,
never gets around to answering that question. Nor does she tell us whether the statue should be
taken down or left in place, nor does she tell us in what sense someone who describes herself
as a Jewish lesbian has converted to the Catholic faith.
The fact that the author of this eloquent defense of St. Louis chose to remain anonymous out
of fear of retaliation from that city's incoming bishop is a good indication that the violence
will increase. America is now in the middle of a full-blown revolution because largely Jewish
revolutionaries broke the Motion Picture Production Code in 1965 and inundated the country with
pornography and other forms of sexual subversion, which left subsequent generations weakened,
demoralized, and incapable of sustaining their own culture and institutions. The year 1965
inaugurated the failed experiment known as Catholic-Jewish dialogue as well. More than anything
else, the sort of Catholic-Jewish dialogue which the incoming bishop learned at the knee of his
mentor Cardinal Keeler crippled the Catholic Church's ability to defend the moral order in
American society. Repurposed as our "elder brothers" and friends, Jews qua Jews became
the unopposed sponsors of virtually every subversive movement in American culture from abortion
to gay marriage, from race-baiting political correctness to family destroying feminism, from
warmongering neo-Conservatism to brutal shoot-the-protesters-in-the-back Zionism, alienating
people who should have been America's friends because of Israel's barbarous behavior. The Jews
have never abandoned their ancestral commitment to revolution, and now revolution has arrived
at the gates of the Gateway, as the Black revolutionaries who have always been the Jews' proxy
warriors, from the founding of the NAACP to the infusion of George Soros money into the coffers
of Black Lives Matter, broke down the entrance to a gated community two blocks from the St.
Louis statue and continued the march which began after George Floyd died. Threatened by what
looked like a home invasion and abandoned by the local police, who had been told to stand down
by that city's feminist mayor, Mr. and Mrs. McCloskey stood their ground on the front porch of
their house brandishing the weapons that they were forced to exhibit because the cops refused
to come to their assistance when called.
The rally at the statue ended up being much more violent than anticipated as brass-knuckled
Black Lives Matter thugs beat up elderly Catholics who had come to say the Rosary. [21] Some of
the Black Lives Matter demonstrators arrived with firearms. All of the Catholic demonstrators
were unarmed. According to various reports, Black Lives Matter protesters attacked Catholics
praying near the Apotheosis of St. Louis statue in St. Louis. And why did they do this? Were
the Black thugs who took the cane away from a 60-year-old Catholic praying the Rosary and beat
him with it upset about Louis IX burning the Talmud or his position on Albigensianism? I doubt
it. You can view that attack at the link in this footnote. [22] Umar Lee's portrayal
of Catholics as white supremacists, fresh from Charlottesville, is responsible for that
Catholic's injuries. Lee is guilty of incitement. If he and the man who carried out the attack
go unpunished, we can expect more violence.
In reaction to the violence at the statue on Sunday, the Islamic Foundation of Greater St.
Louis issued a stunning rebuke to Umar Lee in a statement on Tuesday, June 31, saying that
removing the statue of St. Louis "will not erase history." The Islamic group went on to say
that they remained "committed to work on interfaith relationships based on honest dialogue and
mutual respect." It did not recommend taking down the statue of St. Louis. Instead it was
saying there were voices of reason in the Islamic community in St. Louis and that Lee's
campaign had no support among the people who did speak for Islam in that city. As one local
Catholic put it after reading the Islamic group's report, "The Jews have overplayed their
hand."
Mr. Greenblatt's attempt to use the ADL to resurrect the Black/Jewish alliance has created
problems of its own. With Israel's annexation of the West Bank looming, the ADL is concerned
that the backlash that the annexation is sure to cause, might spread to its proxy warriors in
Black Lives Matter, as in fact did happen in England [23] :
The "stakeholders analysis memo," which was issued by the ADL's Government Relations,
Advocacy, and Community Engagement department and marked as a draft, warns that the group
will need to find a way to defend Israel from criticism without alienating other civil rights
organizations, elected officials of color, and Black Lives Matter activists and supporters.
The memo suggests that the group hopes to avoid appearing openly hostile to public criticism
of annexation while it works to block legislation that harshly censures Israel or leads to
material consequences, such as conditioning United States military support. [24]
The ADL was not the only Jewish organization supporting Black Lives Matter. According to a a
report in the Jewish Telegraph Agency, "More than 400 Jewish organizations and synagogues in
the United States have signed on to a letter that asserts 'unequivocally: Black Lives Matter.'"
[25] Those groups
represented a broad spectrum "of religious, political, gender, and racial identities. The list
of signatories -- from small congregations to major Jewish organizations -- represents millions
of Jewish people in the United States, the organizers," according to the statement.
The problem in cities like Seattle, Chicago, and St. Louis can be laid at the feet of those
cities' lesbian and feminist public officials, a group which is incapable of enforcing the law
because they see the law as a manifestation of patriarchal oppression. This encourages anarchy
because it allows Jewish-funded thugs like Antifa and Black Lives Matter to act with impunity.
It also encourages political opportunists like Umar Lee to mount assaults on the social order
because they can blackmail those officials because of the guilty conscience which arises from
abortion and sexual perversion. The Church is complicit as well when it appoints bishops who
are known for their skill in appeasing Christ's enemies.
The video of Mr. and Mrs. McCloskey's confrontation in St. Louis garnered over 16 million
views in less than 24 hours, not because violence ensued, but because violence was averted, at
least for the time being. [26] But the assault on
the McCloskeys continues as a signature petition to disbar them is wending its way to the
Jewish head of the local lawyer's disciplinary board. Planning to fight fire with fire, the
McCloskeys have hired a Jewish lawyer to defend them.
As of this writing, St. Louis Circuit attorney Kim Gardner is considering filing charges
against the McCloskey's for defending their home. Gardner was elected in 2017, with the help of
George Soros money. [27] In addition to
supporting Gardner, Soros also funded the Ferguson riots. [28] During Gardner's
tenure as Circuit Attorney, felony prosecutions dropped dramatically. Of the 7,045 felony cases
which the St. Louis Police Department brought before the circuit attorney in 2019, only 1641
were prosecuted, despite claims of significant evidence to prosecute presented by the police
union. [29] After reducing the
cash bond for numerous offences, or removing it altogether, Gardner announced that she was no
longer going to prosecute "low-level" marijuana possession cases. At this point, Gardner
declared war on the State of Missouri. In February 2018, Gardner indicted Missouri Governor
Eric Greitens. [30] Three months later,
the governor's office filed a suit against William Don Tisaby, the ex-FBI agent Gardner had
hired to investigate Greitens. Gardner then went all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court to
block the appointment of a special prosecute to investigate her handling of the Greitens
investigation but lost. That grand jury also brought charges of misconduct against Gardner but
ultimately failed to hand down any indictments.
In 2019 Gardner pleaded guilty to repeated campaign finance violations dating back to her
time as a Missouri State Legislator, but avoided conviction by reaching "an agreement with the
Missouri Ethics Commission to pay a settlement of $6,314 in lieu of a $63,009 fine." [31]
In January 2020, Gardner filed a civil rights lawsuit against St. Louis City and St. Louis
Metropolitan Police Department on the basis of the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment,
and the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1865 alleging a racist conspiracy. The City of St. Louis called the
case "meritless," and Jeff Roorda of the St. Louis Police Officers Association called it "the
last act of a desperate woman." [32]
On June 3, 2020, Gardner released all 36 of the rioters who had been arrested in the wake of
the George Floyd protests. [33] Gardner is
sympathetic St. Louis's revolutionaries because ever since her election, she has been involved
in her own attempt to overthrow the government. The fate of the McCloskeys, who have been told
that the rioters are planning to return to their house, now rests in the hand of this woman and
the police force she has beaten into submission with the help of George Soros.
Whether violence prevails in the future, no one can say at this point, but the best
indication of its likelihood can be found in the fate of the statue which represents that
city's patron saint, and the fighting spirit it inspires in those who are determined to resist
the Jewish revolutionary spirit, as St. Louis did in Paris eight centuries ago.
[19] The last three
Talmud citations here were accessed 6/26/20 on the Jewish website http://www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm, where they are quoted
with approval in an article arguing Jesus was a "false prophet".
Great article, I had no idea of the background behind these various incidents. I saw each
clip on various media channels, but never knew that they were all connected.
Couple of comments:
1) Jewish-Catholic dialogue appears to be a one way shouting match. I have yet to hear of
Jews altering the Talmud to remove the anti-gentile and anti-Christian passages from that
turgid tome.
2) "nor does she tell us in what sense someone who describes herself as a Jewish lesbian
has converted to the Catholic faith." She's obviously an infiltrator, like several of the
major participants in Vatican II. I'm no Catholic, so I'm not about to lecture anyone on
Church history, but there are a few volumes out there on the founding of the Jesuit order and
how gentiles and jews battled for control of it over subsequent decades. Infiltration of
Christian churches is as much of a Jewish tradition as Purim.
3) It was from your work that I finally gained a better understanding of Jesus and his
criticism of the Pharisees. Shame to see it disappear from Amazon, but I fear anything that
even remotely offends Jewish sensibilities is going to be hard to find in future. I believe
they even banned Jewish historian Leni Brenner's book on the transfer agreement.
Interesting to know about the fake-negro and fake-Muslim Umar Lee or Talcum XX. There's
already a fake-negro from KY who's known as Talcum X. He's the one who is stationed at
Haaaavaaahd who collects 20K a pop for speeches advocating that all non-black portrayals of
Christ and Mary be destroyed and churches burned. His BLM followers seem to have been busy in
the past week. Perhaps E. Michael Jones should do a follow-up on this noxious clown. This was
a very informative article with a lot of insightful background provided.
Interesting to note that the first ones to show any resistance to this atrocity were some
Brazilian Traditionalist Catholics. Most of the ones from Murika are too busy fellating the
BLM (Black Looming Monster) created and funded by nice folks like George Soros, who isn't
even a fake Nazi but an actual Nazi employee who (along with his father) aided the famous
Adolf Eichmann in the asset-looting of Hungarian Jews in the wake of the Nazi overthrow of
Admiral Horthy's regime.
Horthy's government refused to send the local Jews to Hitler even though they were allied
with the Germans in fighting the USSR. Isn't there a special division of the Juctice Dept.
devoted to hunting down folks who were involved even slightly with the Hitler regime?? Guess
when you buy citizenship in the Rotten Banana Empire (Soros' was via a special act of
Congress – the finest money can buy), the fearless Nazi-hunters shy away.
One of the worst things Giuliani did was bring back urban revival. If DEATH-WISH-style NY
had continued, America would have been far more conservative.
All that urban renewal and wealth made the city slickers more cosmo and snotty.
The USA is now so wracked with immorality, perversion and identity politics – its
difficult to see that it has a future.
And having read about Lee and Holt, Talve and Gardner I was instantly reminded of the thread
from yesterday. 'Who Should be Shot?'.
With the infestation of pure evil which is ripping apart the society and internal peace of
the American people – are there no patriots left .?
When there is no law, no protection for decency, fairness and justice – the time must
come when citizens need to defend themselves.
Obviously in St Louis that time has come ..
But the brainwashing now is so deep seated, so professional and so ugly but well financed
– it seems to me that the USA will be consumed from within, without the white
population even turning off their TV sets until the killing, raping and looting hits their
actual front doors.
And it will.
The barbarians are no longer at the gates – they are destroying and 'cleansing' all the
concept of history and any 'American dream'from inside the very heart of the country.
Karma – perhaps.
Since E. Michael Jones endorses Christianity, it is appropriate to remind him that
Christians destroyed the holy places of their rivals, destroying statues and libraries of
antiquity, bringing down holy oaks of Germanic tribes etc..
And you Americans did it in Germany not too long ago, even destroying completely
unpolitical statues of Arno Breker and other artists.
So it is all a bit hypocritical.
Nota bene: I don't endorse this destruction in America, and I even lament this, because I
see it as a sign of weakness of the White race, and I identify as a White man, and I see
those who are bringing those statues down as my enemies. But a bit more self-reflection would
certainly be appropriate, if you want someone to sympathize with you.
I guess it surprises me less that Jesus Christ is still being persecuted by the old Jewish
remnant than that the remnant has found so many allies at this point in our history. I'm
equally unsurprised that a much more effective coalition is thereby being formed to oppose
the remnant. Satan, being a liar from the beginning, always makes the same mistakes. He/She
turns a series of small victories, like rampant pornography and an army of weak, duped
Christian leaders like Hesburgh, into a conflagration that demands a response from God, like
the Resurrection.
"But the brainwashing now is so deep seated, so professional and so ugly but well financed
– it seems to me that the USA will be consumed from within, without the white
population even turning off their TV sets until the killing, raping and looting hits their
actual front doors."
I see no evidence that you are wrong. And Trump fiddles while America burns.
And you Americans did it in Germany not too long ago, even destroying completely
unpolitical statues of Arno Breker and other artists.
Breker was artist to the Third Reich, which was a political movement and hostile to
Christianity. While Jones thoroughly condemns all aspects of Nazism he does believe the rise
of Hitler and the Third Reich is attributable to Bolshevism.
Fortunately the cultural record of the 20th century is quite full and easy to access. And what
I see is, until the 60s, Catholics getting along just fine.
The Motion Picture Production Code, before that the Hays Code, certainly pre-Lambeth, when
Protestants and Catholics worked together, America was a paradise, compared to today's
Godforsaken mess.
They could have kept things that way. But the Jews gained game-changing power after WWII. And
since you couldnt name them, you couldnt fight them. And since you couldnt fight them, you lost.
Father
Coughlin , says: July 14, 2020 at 2:42 pm
GMT
appropriate to remind him that Christians destroyed the holy places of their rivals,
destroying statues and libraries of antiquity, bringing down holy oaks of Germanic tribes
etc..
Nope. They Christianized them. Pulled out of them what was true, noble and beautiful and
modified what was error.
Jul 12, 2020 Tyrants HATE This 500 Year Old Trick for Ending Tyranny
The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, the 16th century treatise on tyranny and obedience by
Étienne de La Boétie. James and Keith highlight some of the book's key insights
and detail how they apply every much to our situation today as they did when they were
written.
Jun 29, 2020 Armed Couple Facing BLM Mob SPEAK OUT "We Were In FEAR OF OUR LIVES The
Agitators WERE WHITE"!!!
When an angry and unruly BLM mob trespassed onto private property homeowners Mark and
Patricia McCloskey armed themselves to protect their lives and their property after the mob
uttered threats that they would kill them.
August 22, 2017 The racist origin of gun control laws
Congress demolished these racist laws. The Freedmen's Bureau Bill of 1865, Civil Rights Act
of 1866, and Civil Rights Act of 1870 each guaranteed all persons equal rights of self-defense.
Most importantly, the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, made the Second Amendment applicable to
the states.
@Chu N – In a
letter to the American people, Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew today announced plans for the
new $20, $10 and $5 notes, with the portrait of Harriet Tubman to be featured on the front of
the new $20.
Secretary Lew also announced plans for the reverse of the new $10 to feature an image of the
historic march for suffrage that ended on the steps of the Treasury Department and honor the
leaders of the suffrage movement -- Lucretia Mott, Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth
Cady Stanton, and Alice Paul. The front of the new $10 note will maintain the portrait of
Alexander Hamilton.
This is a very stupid and uneducated reply. There is so much evidence of wholesale
destruction of "pagan" heritage by Christians. No serious Christian scholar denies this. Read a
bit on the topic.
It is amazing to me how adding that X-factor to the equation seemingly always makes the
incomplete picture make perfect sense. Tucker led his show with the McCloskey story last night,
but he can't say outright many of the hidden variables. He does a better job than anyone in the
MSM by far at leading the horse to water, but will they drink?
though it should be remembered that our Republic was founded upon people saying no to unjust
laws and compacts, hence the Declaration of Independence!
Thus Martin Luther King Jr promotion of non-violent opposition to injustice should not be
condemned, for it is part of the greater important tradition in this country, and it was
precisely the fork-saluting weather underground marxist maoist thugs abetted by funding through
the Ford Foundation, etc to Soros of this day, that wanted to stop King, through murder, to
launch violence and race war as that strategy of divide and conquer is now being deployed once
again.
For it should be remembered that King, like Trump today, was calling out against the Vietnam
war, as Trump was the only antiwar candidate in 2016 against the Obama Bin Bush Bin Clinton Bin
Bush perpetual war machine, where the call for Trump's assassination is by those who want to
stay in Afghanistan, saw nothing wrong with destroying the African nation of Libya by a black
President Obama, the destruction of Syria, etc and are hell bent on stopping cooperation for
world development upon the McKinley American System Model which the Belt and Road and New Silk
Road initiatives were modeled.
Trump unfortunately is in bed with some very poisonous elements, but some of those elements
even understand that no one will survive a nuclear war very much on the table and being
provoked by various elements .
"... The example of China, which operates under Confucian values and regards stable society as the highest good, is causing many in the world to rethink the idea of "democracy" and what that concept actually entails. As Chinese political scientist Zhang Weiwe has pointed out, in the US, the parties are "parties of interest" - whoever wins the vote gets to push the values of that interest, and the people represented by the losing party are simply outcast from the "democracy" until the next vote. He has a 5-minute clip in great English for those interested: The CPC is not a "party" ..."
Referring to China, you say "the 'people' have absolutely zero say in regard to what
the government/system actually does do."
This is absolutely not the case. The exact opposite is the true picture, ironically so,
since the Chinese government conducts more polls than any other entity on the planet. When
one studies China's system of government one learns how all that input from the people is
actually put to use, being scientifically (i.e. not politically) fed into the decision-making
process.
China's way of governing actually presents a measure of democracy, in terms of the voice
of the people being heard and acted upon, that is vastly greater than the so-called
democracies.
Godfree Roberts over at Unz Review is probably your simplest path to knowing this.
Searching his archive there will yield data-driven reports on how the Communist Party
actually works, how the President exercises power, what the Constitution dictates (and the
penalties for not following it), and how satisfied with their current government are the
Chinese people - who are not easy to please when it comes to governance, and who have a
history that shows they will rebel when they're not happy.
Today, Chinese democracy resembles Proctor and Gamble more than Pericles. There are more
than a thousand polling firms in China and its government spends prolifically on surveys,
as author Jeff J. Brown says, "My Beijing neighborhood committee and town hall are
constantly putting up announcements, inviting groups of people–renters, homeowners,
over seventies, women under forty, those with or without medical insurance,
retirees–to answer surveys. The CPC is the world's biggest pollster for a reason:
China's democratic 'dictatorship of the people' is highly engaged at the day-to-day,
citizen-on-the-street level. I know, because I live in a middle class Chinese community and
I question them all the time. I find their government much more responsive and democratic
than the dog-and-pony shows back home, and I mean that seriously".
Even the imperious Mao would remind colleagues, "If we don't investigate public
opinion we have no right to voice our own opinion. Public opinion is our guideline for
action," which is why Five Year Plans are the results of intensive polling. Citizens'
sixty-two percent voter participation suggests that they think their votes count.
It may be that this one article answers the question of democracy for the interested
reader, but likely one should read a few more to become convinced.
~~
The example of China, which operates under Confucian values and regards stable society as
the highest good, is causing many in the world to rethink the idea of "democracy" and what
that concept actually entails. As Chinese political scientist Zhang Weiwe has pointed out, in
the US, the parties are "parties of interest" - whoever wins the vote gets to push the values
of that interest, and the people represented by the losing party are simply outcast from the
"democracy" until the next vote. He has a 5-minute clip in great English for those
interested: The CPC is
not a "party"
China's government by contrast is a "party of all" and acts on behalf of no vested
interest but instead for the greatest benefit for the many.
To get a glimpse of how this works, read the March 2019 commentary on the two annual
governance sessions that decide ongoing policy for China, which supplies this acute
understanding of the true heart of representative governance:
Tucker Carlson escalated the ongoing war between FOX News and CNN Wednesday, bringing
attention to Don Lemon for breathtaking hypocrisy on issues of black family culture.
TUCKER CARLSON: If you're running a channel like CNN, you want dumb people on tv because
they are compliant. They will say what they are told. They will tell the audience with the
moment demands. They will level stray from the script and that's exactly what Mr. Lemon is
doing. Seven years ago it was a different country and people were kind of a lot to say what
they thought was true. At the time, here's what Don Lemon was saying about black communities.
Watch this.
DON LEMON: More than 72 percent of children in the African-American community are born out of
wedlock. That means absent fathers. And the studies show that lack of a male role model is an
express train right to prison and the cycle continues. So, please, black folks, as I said if
this doesn't apply to you, I'm not talking to you. Pay attention to and think about what has
been presented in recent history as acceptable behavior. Pay close attention to the hip-hop and
rap culture that many of you embrace. A culture that glorifies everything I just mentioned,
thug and reprehensible behavior, a culture that is making a lot of people rich, just not you.
And it's not going to.
TUCKER CARLSON: Wow. Can you imagine what would happen if Don Lemon or his bodybuilding
buddy over there or any of these people said something like that? On CNN tonight or MSNBC? It
would be their last live broadcast ever. They would be fired immediately. You can't express
views like that. So they don't.
As Progressives we are looking for some sign of life, not much, just some sign, any sign.
Bernie picked up his political philosophy in NYC in the 1960s, very early. It's Socialism
Light, with some twists. His political strategy was to run as an independent, but always as
acceptable to the Democrat Party, not a simple trick. His speeches and phrasing are always the
same across time. Ever wonder about that? He was the master at parroting socialist ideas, but
never offending the Democrat Party. How did he pull this off?
We were shocked that he got so far in 2016 and now. The truth is that the Democrat Party would
close ranks to never let him win, and on top of that he was really incapable of creating the
political strategy and tactics required for a win, either at the party or national level.
However, what he did show us is that the American people will entertain a Socialist message, if
it's phased in a way that speaks to their grievances against political/corporate America. The
bad news is that he was doomed to failure, but not because of the message, but because of the
messenger. He could, in fact, never succeed. Even if he could enumerate a dynamic strategy and
message, his dependency on the Party would sink him. In the end he tripped himself up and
showed his true colors as a total sycophant. He was utterly screwed by Obama and then said: Sir
may I have some more. Obama: Yes, you have to elevate the useless, corrupt, brain addled Biden
to hero status. Him: Yes sir, right away, no problem. Really, would you want this person
sitting in the White House negotiating with corporations and world leaders?
Seriously. 500 years ago people were executed in England (for example) and their heads were
placed on pikes to be displayed on well traveled thoroughfares. We can only imagine what their
wars were like.
So I'm figuring 500 years from now we'll have moved on a bit. Can't say how much better
it'll be, maybe not much at all. So let me change that to "things will be better in 10,000
years".
The neoliberal logic of everything for the rich is now so deeply embedded in American
political economy that its base assumptions appear untouchable, except in rare and
extraordinary circumstances. With the Covid pandemic exacerbating the current crisis of
capitalism, political and economic defense mechanisms make restoring the people and
institutions that created the crisis appear to be the only alternative (once again) to solving
it. And from the potential victory of a social democratic program five months ago, electoral
choice is now between a right-wing demagogue and the chief architect of the carceral state,
militarization of the police and liberal obeisance to capital.
There is a connection between the Democrats three-plus years spent pushing the un /
disproven Russiagate story and Joe Biden's miraculous ascent as the establishment candidate in
2020. The Russiagate allegations shifted attention away from rejection of the Democrat's
political program in 2016 so that they could run the same program again in 2020. Amongst the
political variables open for 'discussion,' the choice of candidate is all there is. The
political program is determined at the intersection of campaign contributions, the needs and
desires of capital, and the ids of oligarchs freed from public accountability. Democracy has
nothing to do with it.
Graph: the 'racist backlash' theory of Donald Trump's election effectively divided the
victims of neoliberal economic policies by race. The actual number of white racist and neo-Nazi
groups has been declining since 2012. And before rococo explanations for this decline are
sought, the rise and fall of hate groups tracks unemployment quite closely (graph below).
Whatever the nature of Mr. Trump's appeals, when Black Separatist groups are excluded from the
'hate group' data, the number of white racist and neo-Nazi hate groups followed the
unemployment rate lower. Source: SPLC.
The 'left' argument for electing Joe Biden is as a placeholder, without precisely explaining
how placeholding has supported the upward redistribution of political and economic power for
four decades running. Donald Trump made himself known -- seemingly to his political detriment,
while five decades in public life left Joe Biden a political unknown who oversaw the writing of
the 1994 Crime Bill and the Patriot Act, supported the misguided U.S. war against Iraq, and
acted as collection agent for the credit card company MBNA. That both men represent the
interests of capital and disjoint constituencies within the neoliberal order again suggests
political guidance from outside of electoral politics.
This description is difficult for Democrats because they never took account of their loss in
2016. The stories they told themselves of foreign intrigue and racial backlash weren't, and
still aren't, supported by the data . The Russiagate pillars have fallen one by one
until nothing is left but tribal shorthand for aesthetic aversion to 'Trump!' Otherwise, the
SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) has been the gold standard of 'ascendance of hate' reporting
since the 2000s. Outside of its made-for-the-establishment-press headlines, the number of
racist and neo-Nazi hate groups is falling.
Graph: the liberal concept of 'hate' groups grants emotional character to social
organization that tracks economic stress fairly well. Through the capitalist practice of racial
scapegoating, periods of widespread economic stress, illustrated above through unemployment,
are associated with rising social divisions. Likewise, when economic stresses abate, so do
social divisions. Declining unemployment explains the failure of Donald Trump's racial appeals
to foster a growing political movement -- to date. Source: SPLC; St. Louis Federal Reserve.
This latter point is worth making for a number of reasons. As the graph above suggests, the
ebb and flow of racist and neo-Nazi groups ties closely to the unemployment rate, an indicator
of economic stress. The 'Strong Leader' theory of fascist ascendance being put forward by
mainstream Democrats and the American left was drawn from the European fascist movements of the
twentieth century that arose from the ashes of capitalist crises. In an era of relatively low
unemployment, Donald Trump has had little success growing a movement of the radical right.
However, one would never know this listening to the heated rhetoric of Democrats.
With the Covid pandemic producing rising and likely intractable unemployment over the near
to mid-term, the risk of re-electing an opportunistic demagogue like Mr. Trump is indeed great.
This was why, in the heart of the Great Recession, so many on the left found the Democrat's
subservience to Wall Street followed by a quick pivot to austerity policies for unemployed
workers disquieting. A more perfect formula for fascist ascendance is difficult to imagine. So,
on the one hand, opportunistic demagoguery bears known relation to tragic political outcomes.
On the other, without economic circumstances that produce a constituency for political
demagoguery, there is no constituency for it. And solving economic problems serves a social
purpose.
Furthermore, a social democratic alternative was offered by the left through the candidacy
of Bernie Sanders. At the behest of capital, establishment Democrats sabotaged the Democratic
primaries, thereby assuring that conditions conducive to the rise of an angry and determined
political right would emerge from the next capitalist crisis -- like the one that is now upon
us. In this regard, dedicated austerian Joe Biden, who spent five decades making the 'hard'
decisions to punish and demoralize vulnerable people, is exactly what global capital and the
rich are hoping for. (Evidence: he is the establishment candidate.)
Much of the back and forth here hinges on the dubious distinction between economic and
political power that has American politicians affecting political outcomes in contradiction to
those their wealthy patrons support. In addition to contradicting capitalist economic logic,
this distinction flies in the face of decades of careful research tying
campaign contributions to political outcomes . Donald Trump's abandonment of his populist
economic program upon election was American electoral politics 101. Joe Biden speaks like he is
from the shop floor -- or a gig job locale, but he is straight from the boss's office with
check in hand.
Why this is more than everyday hypocrisy in the service of power makes the Democrats the
more skilled demagogues. Through state-corporate bureaucrats, much of what Republicans say they
will do in plain language is achieved in a more politically palatable manner by Democrats
behind closed doors. Noam Chomsky has made the point that Donald Trump is an environmental
terrorist. No one paying attention would disagree with this point. What Mr. Chomsky doesn't say
-- and appears not to be aware of, is that environmental terrorism was moved off of the
political books by Democrats through ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) clauses in U.S.
trade deals.
Donald Trump set aside the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) trade deal shortly after entering
office, earning the ire of the neoliberal left, the free-trade left and the market
fundamentalist left, for daring to reconsider capitalist trade relations. In fact, the
ISDS clauses in it and NAFTA, provided corporations with the ability to sue nations to be
compensated for profits lost due to environmental regulations. Should this be less than
evident, this is an extortion scheme designed to inflict economic penalties on states for
passing environmental legislation. Had the TPP been ratified with the ISDS clause included, it
would have been virtually impossible to reverse.
This isn't to argue precise commensurability -- rolling back environmental regulations isn't
precisely the same as preventing environmental legislation from being passed. The prior (Trump)
is visible and matches his stated policies. The latter (Democrats) is kept out of the public
eye and is intended to allow Democrats to pose as environmental stewards while assuring that
legal agreements prevent them from passing viable environmental regulations. To be clear, this
wasn't, and isn't, a bureaucratic mix up or mistake. ISDS lawsuits have been prevalent since a
bit after NAFTA was passed (1993) for the express purpose of rendering environmental
legislation unviable.
The Democrat's efforts to undermine environmental regulations through the use of abstract
legal structures didn't remain abstract. It has been the basis of lawsuits that successfully
reversed and precluded environmental regulations for decades (link above). The motivation for
conceiving and engineering this legal dodge is the same for Democrats as it is for Republicans
-- to enhance corporate profits that make the rich richer. In addition, the Democrats promote
the neoliberal view that capitalism is an extension of American political power abroad.
Rank-and-file Democrats and the neoliberal left have been loath to reflect this view back on
their domestic politics.
This formulation can be reversed to explain the Democrat's domestic policies quite nicely.
The Federal government is an extension of capital's economic reach vis-à-vis citizens
and the so-called electorate. The right-wingers understood this about Obamacare in a way that
liberals never will. In the liberal view, we're all in this healthcare system together, so we
should all contribute to it. From the right, Obamacare is a government scheme to force citizens
to buy a defective product from private corporations. Seven years after Obamacare was passed,
the U.S. still has the most expensive healthcare system in the world with the worst, or close
to the worst, outcomes by every public health measure.
The point here isn't Obamacare per se, but to distinguish the class struggle model that
captures ideological ground from left to right, versus the liberal model of unified national
interests. If Democrats believed their own marketing, they wouldn't hide behind Rube Goldberg
devices like ISDS clauses and Obamacare to misrepresent the public interest. The purpose of
these devices is to obscure their intent. The idea that Joe Biden will see the light on
Medicare for All, a Job Guarantee and / or a robust Green New Deal is as ignorant of his, and
the Democrat's, history as it is of the establishment party's reasons for existing. They exist
as an impediment to democracy, not as its representatives.
The Democrat's rehabilitation of George W. Bush is instructive here. By analogy, the comic
movie Rat Race includes a visit to the (Klaus) Barbie Museum where visitors are
regaled with the 'Butcher of Lyon's' prowess at ballroom dancing and his love for his children.
Having spent some time with competing counts of the Iraq war dead from Mr. Bush's war, the most
plausible was the Lancet's 2006 report of 654,965 'excess' Iraqi deaths several years before
the war ended. Joe Biden was an enthusiastic supporter of that war and Nancy Pelosi was
informed of illegal torture before most of it occurred -- when she could have done something
about it.
The point: senior Democrats, including Joe Biden, were and are complicit in War Crimes that
have actually taken place. No debate over the political and economic factors that led to the
rise of European fascism is necessary. Democrats may fear and loath the 'Orange Hitler,' but to
date he has nowhere near the body count to his discredit that senior Democrats do. This
distance between realized outcomes and speculation about future threats suggests that the
liberal echo chamber is running on fear. It would be easier to grant innocence of intent here
had the fraud of Russiagate and the slanders of racist and fascist ascendance matched the
available evidence.
There is plenty fraught about the political and economic present. Only a fool would dismiss
the risk of an ugly political reaction to widespread and persistent economic stress. Given that
capitalist crises are increasing in scale and scope, the solution is to temper this economic
frailty through the downward redistribution of political and economic power. However, Democrats
just pulled out all the stops to prevent just such a social democratic political program from
being realized. This is the political backdrop that makes Joe Biden anything but a temporary
solution to aggregating crises. He, and the Democrats, are one-half of the problem with
electoral politics. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: ROB URIE
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is
published by CounterPunch Books.
"... "People who are actually 'cancelled' don't get their thoughts published and amplified in major outlets," ..."
"... "held accountable" ..."
"... "an entire TV network" ..."
"... "stoking hatred" ..."
"... "white supremacist [with] a popular network show" ..."
"... "in dangerous ways," ..."
"... You and your mob have been destroying careers and reputations and livelihoods on a whim. Now you're being hoist by your own petard. Those of us blacklisted, libeled, and falsely maligned have zero sympathy. You all started it. May you be devoured by it. https://t.co/PGzMzNa0ku ..."
"... "fired from their jobs and have their livelihoods threatened." ..."
"... There was similar disillusionment with the lawmaker's assertion that she is being maliciously smeared by news networks and "white supremacists." "You're not a victim, you're a United States congresswoman," observed an unsympathetic Twitter user. ..."
"... Whether AOC wants to acknowledge it or not, a seemingly endless internet crusade has ruined the lives of countless individuals (many of them private citizens with little or no power) accused of holding politically incorrect views or of expressing insensitive remarks. ..."
"... An open letter published by Harper's Magazine which criticized the "vogue for public shaming and ostracism" among journalists, academics, and other figures ended up backfiring spectacularly after several signatories of the document rescinded their endorsements. They explained that they'd been unaware that 'problematic' people had also signed the letter. ..."
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has denied the existence of cancel culture, suggesting it is an
invention of privileged moaners who can't handle criticism. Her thesis prompted speculation
that the powerful lawmaker has no self-awareness. The rookie New York congresswoman, whose
'woke' Twitter takes have made her a hero to many on the Left, attempted to debunk the concept
of cancel culture in a series of profound posts.
"People who are actually 'cancelled' don't get their thoughts published and amplified in
major outlets," she argued , adding that the whiners who
complain about being 'cancelled' are actually just entitled and hate being "held
accountable" or "unliked."
To prove her point, she claimed that "an entire TV network" is dedicated to
"stoking hatred" of her, and that a "white supremacist [with] a popular network
show" regularly misrepresents her "in dangerous ways," but that she never
complains about it. (The congresswoman may be referring to Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who is
white and undoubtedly not a fan of hers.)
According to Ocasio-Cortez, the people who "actually" get cancelled are
anti-capitalists and even abolitionists – apparently a hat-tip to activists who
campaigned to end slavery, which was formally abolished in the United States in 1865 with the
ratification of the 13th Amendment.
Her airtight dissertation received poor marks from many on social media, however. Countless
comments accused her of being part of the very movement which she claims doesn't exist.
"You and your mob have been destroying careers and reputations and livelihoods on a whim.
Now you're being hoist by your own petard," quipped actor James Woods.
You and your mob have been destroying careers and reputations and livelihoods on a
whim. Now you're being hoist by your own petard. Those of us blacklisted, libeled, and
falsely maligned have zero sympathy. You all started it. May you be devoured by it.
https://t.co/PGzMzNa0ku
Others argued that AOC was technically correct. Instead of having their views broadcast by
mainstream outlets, 'cancelled' individuals are often "fired from their jobs and have their
livelihoods threatened."
Correct. Instead, they are often fired from their jobs, harassed by twitter mobs, &
have their livelihoods threatened. And so since they cannot speak up, we who have a platform
choose to use our power responsibly to speak up on their behalf. You should do the same. Join
us, AOC https://t.co/lQ5yiuKFq6
There was similar disillusionment with the lawmaker's assertion that she is being
maliciously smeared by news networks and "white supremacists." "You're not a victim, you're a
United States congresswoman," observed an unsympathetic Twitter
user.
However, her remarks also garnered applause from social media users, who dismissed cancel
culture as a right-wing talking point.
Cancel culture is fake. It's a right wing framing of social accountability and people need
to stop giving the term any credence.
Whether AOC wants to acknowledge it or not, a seemingly endless internet crusade has
ruined the lives of countless individuals (many of them private citizens with little or no
power) accused of holding politically incorrect views or of expressing insensitive
remarks.
An open letter published by Harper's Magazine which criticized the "vogue for public
shaming and ostracism" among journalists, academics, and other figures ended up backfiring
spectacularly after several signatories of the document rescinded their endorsements. They
explained that they'd been unaware that 'problematic' people had also signed the
letter.
Would CNN's Don Lemon cancel himself over shockingly unwoke 2013 tips to black
community?
A vintage clip of CNN anchor Don Lemon telling black people to act civilized and
disregard "street culture" has the woke pundit's detractors' jaws on the floor, wondering what
happened to him over the intervening seven years. In the 2013 clip, Lemon praises Fox News host
Bill O'Reilly as the Republican pundit decries the " disintegration of the African-American
family ," even arguing O'Reilly " doesn't go far enough " when he denounces "
street culture. " The video was posted to social media by " Panda Tribune " on
Wednesday and quickly circulated among conservatives, who had a hard time reconciling this
Lemon with his painfully-PC modern-day counterpart.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson aired the segment on his show Wednesday night, marveling that
if Lemon or one of his colleagues came out with those lines in 2020, " that would be their
last live broadcast ever - they'd be fired immediately ."
"... Whoever gets elected will certainly affect details of how the ship sinks ..."
"... I have come to hate the Maoist/Jacobin scum today referred to as "The Left". I want Trump to get a second term because it will cause my enemies to suffer. ..."
"... The real question in dire need of asking is: Do the Next 10 Presidential Elections Even Matter? And the answer remains: not a dime's worth of difference. "We the People" will continue to witness the same electoral circus complete with its fake debates as our elite's addiction to war will be craving its habitual fix. "We the People" are too stupefied and mired in our own addictions to cell phones and other mind numbing gadgets while being fed a steady diet of lies by the MSM. Our awakening is too remote for us to take back our country. ..."
"... Once again, talk is cheap. Why would the "deep state" "hate" him so much? Did he investigate 9/11? Did he end any wars, or pull out of NATO, or improve relations with Russia and/or China, or cut aid to Israel, etc.? No. ..."
"... I think there are some key differences here on what could take shape. If Biden wins, the Republicans can put down the Trump saga as a regrettable mistake and go back to being the boring old Jen Bush party moaning about lowering taxes for the rich and abortion. ..."
"... However if Trump wins, the Republicans will have to acknowledge that people support Trumpism and will have to start re orientating the party towards Trumpian Populism in future elections as they will realize that it is a permanent vote winner. ..."
"... One of guys on The Duran said that the politicians on the Left and Right don't care about Black Lives Matter, the statues, history, gender wars, gay this/LGXYZ that, the culture wars. That doesn't really concern them; they'll just let the sheeple fight it out. ..."
"... What they DO care about is their corporate masters, the people they are really beholden to. As long as their masters continue to make money and the culture wars don't disturb that, then all is well. ..."
The fact is that for the past four years the US liberals have waged a total informational war against Trump and it would be absolutely
unthinkable for them to ever accept a Trump re-election, even if he wins by a landslide. For the US Dems and neo-liberals, Trump
is the personification of evil, literally, and that means that "resistance" to him and everything he represents must be total. And
if he is re-elected, then there is only one possible explanation: the Russians stole the election, or the Chinese did. But the notion
that Trump has the support of a majority of people is literally unthinkable for these folks.
Truth be told, Trump has proven to be a fantastically incompetent President, no doubt about that. Was he even worse than Obama?
Maybe, it really all depends on your scoring system. In my personal opinion, and for all his very real sins and failings, Trump,
at least, did not start a major war, which Obama did, and which Hillary would have done (can't prove this, but that is my personal
belief). That by itself, and totally irrespective of anything else, makes me believe that Trump has been a "lesser evil" (even if
far more ridiculous) President than Obama has been or Hillary would have been. This is what I believed four years ago and this is
what I still believe: considering how dangerous for the entire planet "President Hillary" would have been, voting for Trump was not
only the only logical thing to do, it was the only moral one too because giving your voice to a warmongering narcissistic hyena like
Hillary is a profoundly immoral act (yes, I know, Trump is also a narcissist – most politicians are! – but at least his warmongering
has been all hot air and empty threats, at least so far). However, I don't think that this (not having started a major war) will
be enough to get Trump re-elected.
Why?
Because most Americans still like wars. In fact, they absolutely love them. Unless, of course, they lose. What Americans really
want is a President who can win wars, not a President who does not initiate them in the first place. This is also the most likely
reason why Trump did not start any major wars: the US has not won a real war in decades and, instead, it got whipped in every conflict
it started. Americans hate losing wars, and that is why Trump did not launch any wars: it would have been political suicide to start
a real war against, say, the DPRK or Iran. So while I am grateful that Trump did not start any wars, I am not naive to the point
of believing that he did so for pure and noble motives. Give Trump an easy victory and he will do exactly what all US Presidents
have done in the past: attack, beat up the little guy, and then be considered like a "wartime President hero" by most Americans.
The problem is that there are no more "little guys" left out there: only countries who can, and will, defend themselves if attacked.
The ideology of messianic imperialism which permeates the US political culture is still extremely powerful and deep seated and
it will take years, probably decades, to truly flush it down to where it belongs: to the proverbial trash-heaps of history. Besides,
in 2020 Americans have much bigger concerns than war vs. peace – at least that is what most of them believe. Between the Covid19
pandemic and the catastrophic collapse of the economy (of course, while the former certainly has contributed to the latter, it did
not single-handedly cause it) and now the BLM insurgency, most Americans now feel personally threatened – something which no wars
of the past ever did (a war against Russia very much would, but most Americans don't realize that, since nobody explains this to
them; they also tend to believe that nonsense about the US military being the best and most capable in history).
Following four years of uninterrupted flagwaving and MAGA-chanting there is, of course, a hardcore of true believers who believe
that Trump is nothing short of brilliant and that he will "kick ass" everything and everybody: from the spying Russians, to the rioting
Blacks, from the pandemic, to the lying media, etc. The fact that in reality Trump pitifully failed to get anything truly important
done is completely lost on these folks who live in a reality they created for themselves and in which any and all facts contradicting
their certitudes are simply explained away by silly stuff like "Q-anon" or "5d chess". Others, of course, will realize that Trump
"deflated" before those whom he called "the swamp" almost as soon as he got into the White House.
As for the almighty Israel Lobby, it seems to me that it squeezed all it could from Trump who, from the point of view of the Zionists,
was always a "disposable President" anyway. And now that Trump has done everything Israel wanted him to do, he becomes almost useless.
If anything, Pelosi, Schumer and the rest of them will try to outdo Trump's love for everything Israeli anyway.
So how much support is there behind Trump today? I really don't know (don't trust the polls, which have always been deeply wrong
about Trump anyway), but I think that there is definitely a constituency of truly frightened Americans who are freaking out (as they
should, considering the rapid collapse of the country) and who might vote Trump just because they will feel that for all his faults,
he is the only one who can save the country. Conversely, they will see Biden as a pro-BLM geriatric puppet who will hand the keys
of the White House to a toxic coalition of minorities.
So what if Trump does get re-elected?
In truth, the situation is so complex and there are so many variables (including many "unknown unknowns"!) that make predictions
impossible. Still, we can try to make some educated guesses, especially if based on some kind of logic such as the one which says
that "past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior". In other words, if Trump gets elected, we will get more of the same.
Personally, I would characterize this "same" as a further destruction of the US from within by the Democrats and their "coalition
of minorities" combined with a further destruction of the US Empire abroad by delusional Republicans.
I very much doubt that it makes any sense at all to vote for that, really. Better stay at home and do something worthwhile with
your time, no?
Now what about a Biden election?
Remember that Biden is now the de-facto leader of what I would loosely call the "anti-US coalition", that is the "coalition of
minorities" which really have nothing in common except their hatred of the established order (well, and, of course, their hatred
of Trump and of those who voted for him).
These minorities are very good at hating and destroying, but don't count on them to ever come up with constructive solutions –
it ain't gonna happen. For one thing, they are probably too stupid to come up with any constructive ideas, but even more important
is the fact that these folks all have a hyper-narrow agenda and, simply put, they don't care about "constructing" anything. These
folks are all about hatred and the instant gratification of their narrow, one-topic, agenda.
This also begs the question of why the Dems decided to go with Biden in spite of the fact that he is clearly an extremely weak
candidate. In spite? I am not so sure at all. I think that they chose him because he is so weak: the real power behind him will be
in the hands of the Schumer-Pelosi-Obama gang and of the interests these folks represent.
Unlike Trump who prostituted himself only after making it to the White House, the neo-liberal Dems have *already* prostituted
themselves to everybody who wanted to give them something in return, from the Ukie Nazis to the thugs of BLM, to the powerful US
homo-lobby. Don't expect them to show any spine, or even less so, love for the USA, if they get the White House. They hate this country
and most of its people and they are not shy about it.
What would happen to the US if the likes of Bloomberg or Harris took control? First, there would be the comprehensive surrender
to the various minorities which put these folks in power followed by a very strong blowback from all the "deplorables" ranging from
protests and civil disobedience, to local authorities refusing to take orders from the feds. Like it or not, but most Americans still
love their country and loathe the kind of pseudo-liberal ideology which has been imposed upon them by the joint actions of the US
deep state and the corporate world. There is even a strong probability that if Biden gets elected the USA's disintegration would
only accelerate.
On the international front, a Biden Presidency would not solve any of the problems created by Obama and Trump: by now it is way
too late and the damage done to the international reputation of the United States is irreparable. If anything, the Dems will only
make it worse by engaging in even more threats, sanctions and wars. Specifically, the Demolicans hate Russia, China and Iran probably
even more than the Republicrats. Besides, these countries have already concluded a long time ago that the US was "not agreement capable"
anyway (just look at the long list of international treaties and organization from which the US under Trump has withdrawn: what is
the point of negotiating anything with a power which systematically reneges on its promises and obligations?)
The truth is that if Biden gets elected, the US will continue to fall apart internally and externally, if anything, probably even
faster than under a re-elected Trump.
Which brings me to my main conclusion:
Why do we even bother having elections?
First, I don't think that the main role of a democracy is to protect minorities from majorities. A true democracy protects the
majority against the many minorities which typically have a one-issue agenda and which are typically hostile to the values of the
majority . Oh sure, minority rights should be protected, the question is how exactly?
For one thing, most states have some kind of constitution/basic law which sets a number of standards which cannot be violated
as long as this constitution/basic law is in force. Furthermore, in most states which call themselves democratic all citizens have
the same rights and obligations, and a minority status does not give anybody any special rights or privileges. Typically, there are
also fundamental international standards for human rights and fundamental national standards for civil rights. Minority rights (individual
or collective), however, are not typically considered a separate category which somehow trumps or supplements adopted norms for human
and civil rights (if only because it creates a special "minority" category, whereas in true "people power" all citizens are considered
as one entity).
It is quite obvious that neither the Republicrats nor the Demolicans represent the interests of "we the people" and that both
factions of the US plutocracy are under the total control of behind-the-scenes real powers. What happened four years ago was a colossal
miscalculation of these behind-the-scenes real powers who failed to realize how hated they were and how even a guy like Trump would
seem preferable to a nightmare like Hillary (as we know, had the Dems chosen Sanders or even some other halfway lame candidate, Trump
would probably not have prevailed).
This is why I submit that the next election will make absolutely no difference:
The US system is rigged to give all the power to minorities and to completely ignore the will of the people The choice between the
Demolicans and the Republicrats is not a choice at all The systemic crisis of the US is too deep to be affected by who is in power
in the White House
Simply put, and unlike the case of 2016, the outcome of the 2020 election will make no difference at all. Caring about who the
next puppet in the White House will be is tantamount to voting for a new captain while the Titanic is sinking . The major difference
is that the Titanic sank in very deep water whereas the "ship USA" will sink in the shallows, meaning that the US will not completely
disappear: in some form or another, it will survive either as a unitary state or as a number of successor states. The Empire, however,
has no chance of survival at all. Thus, anything which contributes to make the US a "normal" country and which weakens the Empire
is in the interests of the people of the USA. Voting for either one of the candidates this fall will only prolong the agony of the
current political regime in the USA.
The truth is that if Biden gets elected, the US will continue to fall apart internally and externally, if anything, probably
even faster than under a re-elected Trump.
This observation suggests that one should vote for Biden if one votes at all. Perhaps if one is going to the election because
there's a particularly crucial vote for county board of supervisors candidates (very important, by the way) and you happen to
be at the polls anyway, the fastest way to further the process of saying good riddance to the American empire is to vote for Joe
Biden.
Whoever gets elected will certainly affect details of how the ship sinks. Two consecutive elections with Gerontocrats. Neither
of the two nominally different parties has a very deep roster evidenced by the poverty of options they have been putting forward.
Given his decline, I don't expect Biden to have a long presidency if he survives to officially get the nomination.
Unless ur a 100% reprehensible crack head, go vote for Dumbo J Trump.
He is awful, he is beaten, he is an Israel sellout.
But the other side will kill you.
If Biden wins, the emboldened mob will come to your home to kill you. If you call the police, they won't come and they won't
investigate your rape/torture/death. If you defend yourself, you will be arrested and prosecuted. The media will deny it is happening
and also say that you deserved it.
I have come to hate the Maoist/Jacobin scum today referred to as "The Left". I want Trump to get a second term because it will
cause my enemies to suffer.
In rural Counties (Red America) an elected Sheriff is the chief local law officer. Watch for coalitions of Counties,
within or across State lines, demanding secession or limited autonomy. The only way forward for sane Americans is to remove themselves
from Woke jurisdictions. The election won't change that. But I will vote for Orange Man anyway. Just for spite!
The real question in dire need of asking is: Do the Next 10 Presidential Elections Even Matter? And the answer remains: not
a dime's worth of difference. "We the People" will continue to witness the same electoral circus complete with its fake debates
as our elite's addiction to war will be craving its habitual fix. "We the People" are too stupefied and mired in our own addictions
to cell phones and other mind numbing gadgets while being fed a steady diet of lies by the MSM. Our awakening is too remote for
us to take back our country.
"Just by asking the question of whether the next Presidential election matters, I am obviously suggesting that it might
not. To explain my reasons for this opinion, I need to reset the upcoming election in the context of the previous one. So let's
begin here."
Would the U.S. Navy have launched a cruise missile attack against the Shayrat airbase in Syria if Trump didn't order it? Would
Gen. Solemani have been assassinated if Trump didn't order it? Of course the next presidential election "matters" if we have one,
that is.
Now that the constitution and the rule of law are defunct and all power has been de facto consolidated into the office of president,
whether we have WW3 or not (for example) depends almost exclusively on the character of the person in the White House.
"The first thing which, I believe, ought to be self-evident to all by now is that there was no secret operation by any deep
state, not even a Zionist controlled one, to put Donald Trump in power."
Seriously? So why did Comey undermine Clinton's campaign and why didn't Obama fire him for it? And why did Obama attack the
Syrian Army at Deir Ezzor in Sept. 2016, an act that greatly escalated tensions with Russia and apparently scared some Sanders
supporters into Trump's camp, giving Trump a narrow margin of victory in three key states which put him in the White House? Because
shit happens?
"I would even argue that the election of Donald Trump was the biggest slap in the face of US deep state and of the covert
transnational ruling elites this deep state serves. Ever."
I would argue that you've been fooled. If that were actually the case, they would've impeached and removed him, right? Or they
would've deployed a lone nut against him. Or he would've at least encountered some kind of meaningful political or legal opposition.
"My evidence? Simple, look what these ruling 'elites' did both before and after Trump's election: before, they ridiculed
the very idea of 'President Trump' as both utterly impossible and utterly evil."
Talk is cheap. How come they didn't seem to have a problem with his war crimes in Syria; or his moving the embassy to Jerusalem;
or his attempts to start a war with Iran; or his trade war with China; or his attempt to starve Venezuela into submission; or
his arming of Ukraine; or his withdrawal from the INF treaty; etc,?
"As somebody who has had years of experience reading the Soviet press or, in another style, the French press, I can honestly
say that I have never seen a more ridiculously outlandish hate campaign against anybody that would come even close to the kind
of total hate campaign which Trump was subjected to."
Once again, talk is cheap. Why would the "deep state" "hate" him so much? Did he investigate 9/11? Did he end any wars, or
pull out of NATO, or improve relations with Russia and/or China, or cut aid to Israel, etc.? No.
But let's say for the sake of argument that "they" really do "hate" him for some reason. So what? That doesn't mean that they
don't want him as president, right? If they really do hate him then he may be just the person they need.
@Diversity
Heretic ruits of financial empire. The Boomers are still the biggest demographic in the US. Starting in the 1980s onward,
they established portfolio systems that extracted wealth via the US's world reserve currency status.
This marks the unholy covenant made by Wall Street and middle class Boomers. The Boomers are dying off, and taking the US Empire
with it into the afterlife. The younger generation won't receive a nickel, and that's likely a good thing in the long term. But
Trump and Sanders still can't make aggressive economic reform while America is still dominated by "The United States of Boomer."
They can only pave the road for reform and future leaders to lead the charge.
I have come to hate the Maoist/Jacobin scum today referred to as "The Left". I want Trump to get a second term because it
will cause my enemies to suffer.
I agree. MORALE COUNTS. Data geeks don't understand this. Political watchers don't understand this. People who analyze the
number of tanks and guns don't understand this.
Morale wins wars. We need to defy the Left any way we can. A Trump win will be spit in their eyes. It will put some fighting spirit
into our side.
These minorities are very good at hating and destroying, but don't count on them to ever come up with constructive solutions
– it ain't gonna happen. For one thing, they are probably too stupid to come up with any constructive ideas, These folks are
all about hatred and the instant gratification of their narrow, one-topic, agenda.
I don't know about that, I think Alastair Crooke, may be closer to the mark with his conclusion.
The "toy radicals, and Champagne Bolsheviks" – in these terms of dripping disdain from Williamson – are very similar to
those who rushed into the streets in 1917. But before dismissing them so peremptorily and lightly, recall what occurred.
Into that combustible mass of youth – so acultured by their progressive parents to see a Russian past that was imperfect
and darkly stained – a Trotsky and Lenin were inserted. And Stalin ensued. No 'toy radicals'. Soft became hard totalitarianism.
I think there are some key differences here on what could take shape. If Biden wins, the Republicans can put down the Trump
saga as a regrettable mistake and go back to being the boring old Jen Bush party moaning about lowering taxes for the rich and
abortion.
However if Trump wins, the Republicans will have to acknowledge that people support Trumpism and will have to start re orientating
the party towards Trumpian Populism in future elections as they will realize that it is a permanent vote winner. Basically how
they started to change themselves into becoming an evangelical Conservative party due to Reagan where as before, it was the Democrats
who were the Conservatives.
Even if they do this though, the Republicans are still going to remain the good old American majority white party so out right
winning future elections after Trump is going to be very difficult. I think this all potentially bodes for a potential secession
crisis in the future.
However even if Trump wins, the Democrats may start to take notice and try to compete with the Republicans and start to moderate
their policies, shifting away from Identity politics and embracing the populist waves and trying to alternate with a more centrist
position. But considering all the crazy lefties in power within the party structure, this would be an incredibly difficult task,
almost Herculean to achieve.
So we could still be looking at a potential secession down the road.
But we all have to admit one thing – Donald Trump, love him or loathe him, has changed ultimately the political face of politics
for the better. Even though he actually has done very little, just the fact he got elected with his views really does go to show
the people have had enough and want changes.
Debating electoral politics at this point is for autists and morons. The globalists have won. They will be educating your children
while you work your shit job getting felt up by Africans on the way to your meaningless conference in Tempe.
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Me too. I too will vote for Trump just out of spite. Saker is so ignorant about America and Americans. That's why I usually
don't read the Saker articles. The average homeless black guy is more informed about America than Saker.
the neo-liberal Dems have *already* prostituted themselves to everybody who wanted to give them something in return, from
the Ukie Nazis to the thugs of BLM, to the powerful US homo-lobby. Don't expect them to show any spine, or even less so, love
for the USA, if they get the White House. They hate this country and most of its people and they are not shy about it.
The Ukie "Nazis", BLM and homo-lobby are just tools. You make it sound like they're in charge. Please stop posting garbage
like that.
Saker – you started out by saying that it was a complete shock to the ruling elite when Trump won. I agree. You then described
how the Left (and most on the Right) have made Trump's presidency a living hell. I agree.
But then you said: "Truth be told, Trump has proven to be a fantastically incompetent President, no doubt about that. Was he
even worse than Obama? Maybe, it really all depends on your scoring system."
Obama was treated with kid gloves because he's an insider, a player. That's the only reason he ended up in the White House;
the elite sanctioned him and put him there.
But Trump is not an insider and he wasn't elite-approved. OF COURSE HE COULDN'T GET MUCH DONE! They didn't let him. They have
fought him every step of the way. After seeing what Trump has had to contend with, no outsider is ever going to attempt it again.
If Obama had gone through what Trump has gone through, his skinny little legs would have folded before his first month was
up.
One of guys on The Duran said that the politicians on the Left and Right don't care about Black Lives Matter, the statues,
history, gender wars, gay this/LGXYZ that, the culture wars. That doesn't really concern them; they'll just let the sheeple fight
it out.
What they DO care about is their corporate masters, the people they are really beholden to. As long as their masters continue
to make money and the culture wars don't disturb that, then all is well.
They just stole $6 trillion and handed it to Wall Street, hedge funds, private equity. Covid, the lock downs and the culture
wars are a great smoke screen to hide the looting going on.
"With Republicans siding with BLM, and wanting to replace Columbus Day with Juneteenth
with friends like that who needs enemies?"
They do what their corporate donors tell them to do, just like the Dems. All that matters on both sides of the aisle are the
corporate campaign donors. Nothing else. Nike, for instance, wants Blacks to continue buying their shoes. If they have to get
down on one knee, so be it. The politicians follow suit.
@anon
n't be a Koch-brothers Speaker Ryan around to undermine Trump's agenda. And, the GOP needs to dump Turtle Man as their Senate
leader, and promote someone who could actually do the job, like the other Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. If those things happen,
real progress could finally be made in saving what's left of the country.
At one point there wasn't a "dime's worth of difference" between the two parties, but, as the D's have gone further and further
White Man-hating crazy Left, that is no longer true today. The election of Biden will guarantee a radical left-wing minority female
sitting in the White House (how much longer will that name last?) within six months.
@ploni almoni
Trump is a mentally and morally defective total moron who's completely unfit for the office he holds. Knowing this, the "deep
state" put him there for one reason and one reason only: because they felt he could be manipulated into taking risks above and
beyond those which their dime-a-dozen political opportunists would take – in the pursuit of their stalled imperial agenda.
As I see it, the following linked statement by the "World Mental Health Coalition" (particularly paragraphs two and five) fully
explains the Trump "presidency."
@mark tapley
roximation of where I'm going with all this).
And as has been attributed to Sinclair Lewis, HL Mencken and several others:
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying the cross."
3. And that's when the first large economically-sustainable states e.g., California or Texas or New York or Pennsylvania or
Georgia will seek to break out of the Union – and take their smaller neighboring states with them in blocs.
4. And in a futile attempt to prevent a dissolution of the Union from happening, Federal troops will be brought in – and that's
when the first shots of the next civil war will be fired.
Twain nailed at the turn of the century, "If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it." Mark Twain
Who's Afraid of an Open Debate? The Truth About the Commission on Presidential Debates
The Commission on Presidential Debates is a private corporation headed by the former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic
parties. The CPD is a duopoly which allows the major party candidates to draft secret agreements.
"The fact is that for the past four years the US liberals have waged a total informational war against Trump "
No, not a "total informational war against Trump" but a conspicuously partial informational war against Trump.
They have no problem with his various war crimes and endless provocations against Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela. They have
no problem with his withdrawing from the INF treaty and starting an arms race that puts the whole world in great danger. They
choose to focus on his failure to wear a mask in public, for example, while ignoring that he's brought the world to the brink
of WW3. And this should be an important clue as to what's going on here yet it somehow escapes "The Saker" just like it apparently
escapes other pundits e.g. Paul Craig Roberts.
" and it would be absolutely unthinkable for them to ever accept a Trump re-election, even if he wins by a landslide."
If it is so "absolutely unthinkable" then why don't they run somebody against him who's not showing signs of senile dementia,
for example?
In any case it seems Trump's handlers and enablers realize that he will likely not be reelected no matter who they run against
him, so they're pulling out all the stops to get some kind of a major war started before the end of his term. In desperation they
installed him in the White House and in desperation they now seek to force a major war before we go back to government by opportunistic-career-politician-puppet-rulers.
Are there any Republican Senators beside Lankford (OK) and Johnson (WIS), who are supporting this travesty? After Tucker Carlson
skewered them the other night, I wonder how many more will be dumb enough to back it? Don't buck the Tuck if you don't want to
be flooded with calls and emails from constituents who hate you.
@Harold
Smith . President Donald Trump, as a direct response to the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack that occurred on 4 April."
You and everyone knows that there was no "chemical attack," and that Shayrat was empty. The US "missile response" was, on the
one hand, an attempt to "save face" having been outmaneuvered and lost the Isis gambit, and on the other to test Russian missile
defenses for technical purposes, for the upcoming war. In all these cases Trump has to "take responsibility" or admit that all
he controls is what is served for lunch.
Make believe is all fine and good, but you people are the forces of darkness kidding yourselves and the rest of us into oblivion.
@RP1
ump), and the fact that international treaties and agreements to which the United States is a party, demonstrably no longer mean
anything.
And for the icing on the cake (i.e. the consummation of the degenerative process which began before Trump) the fake president
was charged with "abuse of power" and "obstruction of congress" – in a fake impeachment trial – and was acquitted, thus proving
to the rest of the world (if anymore proof was necessary) that the concepts of "separation of powers"/"checks and balances"/"rule
of law" have been replaced by the concept of rule by the psychotic impulses of an unaccountable, politically omnipotent psychopath.
@4 Pete
Saker with economics. Ann Coulters spruiking for Trump was about immigration not economics.
Whether Trump failed on immigration because of a lack of will or a lack of backup by the republican side of The Party is irrelevant.
It just means voting is pointless either way.
It's hard to see much enthusiasm being manufactured on either side of the manufacturerd political divide this election. Biden
is an incoherent clown and Trump is a known quantity now unable to claim future greatness like he did in 2016.
The best vote in 2020 is staying home or going to a gun store and stocking up on election day. Voting just encourages more
bs from the political class.
Elections rarely matter, but this one actually could make a difference. Replacing Trump puppet with Biden puppet won't change
Federal actions, because Federal actions NEVER change. But the replacement WILL change the media. As soon as Biden puppet is in
office, the media will IMMEDIATELY stop creating panic and fear, and the lockdowns and masks will subside if not quite disappear.
It's worth campaigning and voting for Biden.
@ploni almoni
CIA establishment, which is run by Israel, carried out the murder of Soleimani and Trump was told about it after the fact, and
was told 'you own it.'"
For the Nth time: In that case why didn't "the CIA establishment run by Israel" assassinate Soleimani when Obama was president?
Why didn't the embassy get moved to Jerusalem or Syrian land be given to Israel or the INF treaty be repudiated or Venezuela be starved
or self-destructive trade war with China be started, etc.,when Obama was president?
Your "reasoning" has been thoroughly debunked ad nauseum; give it up. (I will likely not waste any more time arguing absurdities
with you). Chris Cosmos
, says: July
3, 2020 at 3:21 pm GMT
Great analysis as usual. However, let me point out some problems with what you've written. First, Americans do love wars but
they don't care about winning. The US military corrupt and incompetent as it is the most popular by a mile of any us institution.
Americans love the military as an idea. That idea is that it represents, theoretically and mythically, the ultimate struggle between
"good guys" and "bad guys" which fully mature military officers use to represent "them" and us. Since military conflicts are out
of sight and out of mind and the mainstream media lies so blatantly and the collective memory is no longer than a few months it
is possible that no matter how obvious the defeat or obvious the corruption to you an me who follow events the vast majority of
Americans only see movies of the glory of the US military and covert operatives and quickly forget war-crimes/massive violations
of the Geneva Conventions on War, defeat, and so on in favor of the fantasy/myth represented in commercials for military recruitment.
Second, the idea that so-called minorities represented by BLM and so on can or will have power in Washington is absurd. These
groups are used and have been used by the corporate oligarchs as a way to divide the working and middle classes–making grand gestures
of "solidarity" with BLM (always a corporate oriented group) means nothing. The grand movement of wealth from the working and
middle classes towards the 0.001% will continue inexorably as it has since the late 70s whether the RP or the DP is in power.
As far as the oligarchs are concerned manipulating popular culture through mind-control techniques (using the smartest human on
Earth) will keep their people in power. Trump was a slight interruption
Trump himself was boxed in a corner very quickly by the purge of Flynn and his refusal to vet staff. He had no choice but to
blunder from one thing to another with ALL of Washington and Hollywood solidly against him. The positives that he brought, however,
to the his Presidency was that he showed in high relief the nature of the Deep State–even the term was largely forbidden (I was
kicked out of a liberal/progressive blog, in part, for using the term "Deep State"). We saw through the Russiagate fiasco the
reality that the US mainstream media is primarily kind of Ministry of Truth not an "objective" institution that sought truth.
Like the American love for the military, most Americans will go along with the media Narrative because all societies need narratives,
myths, and commons frames of reference–so even if most people see (with their lying eyes) the reality of the propaganda organs,
they'll still "believe". Trump, as you said blustered and bloviated on going to war but never really did–he was the dove in the
administration–he hired people like Pompeo and Bolton in order to keep from being eaten by the Deep State. Trump had to spend
all his time in office out-foxing the operatives within his administration from destroying or even killing him. The Deep State
does not play nice.
Trump has absolutely no chance of winning in November. People in this country are just tired of conflict and are ready to give
the Deep State all the power it wants as long as they can rule. It is likely that the Senate will turn blue and we will have one
party rule. The Republican demographic is, at present, neither large nor enthusiastic enough to be of much help. As for the coalition
of minorities, they have no chance to go beyond the ghettos and if they come around here trying to burn anything down they will
be met by a lot of veterans who are armed to the teeth–so I don't see much cultural change outside the coasts and large urban
areas. Meanwhile Covid will continue to disrupt life, drug ODs will increase, access to health-care will be reduced, and we are
headed for a very new dispensation that may involve a dissolution of the country.
While I agree with the author's conclusions I disagree that " most Americans still like wars."
No. I think that we hate them, hate to send our children to die/be ripped apart for a bunch of old scumbags who are in the
pockets of the Defense Industry, hate to see us reviled by the World, hate to see our Blood & Treasure spent on people who despise
us and hate to pay for it all.
Sadly, the author's conclusions are spot-on. There is no remedying this disaster; we are in our final days as a coherent Nation.
This is "Operation Enduring Clusterfuck" writ large. As the acronym goes, "TINVOWOOT."
The best that I can see is Balkanization–with or without preliminary/local & regional shooting–with division along racial lines.
Give blacks the cities that they inhabit now in great numbers, give them a region (with ocean access) and have people move to
"Red" and "Blue" states according to their race/safety/beliefs. Trade–or war–will follow as a natural consequence.
But, Blacks need to know that when THEY riot their cities burn; when Whites riot entire CONTINENTS burn.
I voted for Trump. I was conned. Trump was selected by the .001% as the most effective figurehead to preside over the destruction
of America.
Do you really believe the most wealthy and powerful people in the world would leave the choice of a major leader up to the
unwashed masses? They manipulate everything, absolutely everything.
If voting could actually negatively impact their power and wealth, they would never allow it.
The .001% are just Jeffrey Dahmer cannibals in expensive clothing, and YOU are on the menu.
Trump got elected for two main issues he pledged during his 2016 campaign: ending all foreign wars and greatly reducing immigration.
On ending foreign wars and bringing home the troops, he's failed. Since he took office he's been dialing up the heat to the
verge of war with Iran, NK, China, Russia, Venezuela, and we still have troops everywhere incl. in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Meanwhile all the trade war jabs with China is just Kabuki theater. The intention is not to bring back manufacturing as he claimed
but to blackmail the CCP into handing over control of China's banks to the globalist bankers. His overt pandering to Israel at
every turn is nauseating. I suspect Mossad has him by the balls when they seized all records from his Jewish attorney.
On immigration, again nothing like what he promised. He has drastically reduced asylum seeking, but illegal immigration reached
a record under his watch until he thankfully won an important quick deportation law against those who failed asylum app. His border
wall is still largely not visible. After four long years, he is finally doing something about legal immigration, but his temporary
suspension of H1b visas and green cards until the end of the year may be too little too late to save him, and he still hasn't
done anything to suspend OPT and EB5. I fear this is all just for show. Immediately after he gets reelected, he will feel all
generous and remove all those restrictions.
But the alternative is unthinkable. Biden will immediately resume all ME wars as directed by Israel. He is as compromised as
Trump, Mossad already has him by the balls with his bribery scandals in Ukraine and China through his son. Zionists/deep state
like to have dirty politicians elected, the dirtier the better, as the easier it is for them to be blackmailed.
The question is will his followers feel enthusiastic enough to come out and vote?
Trump's election has proved one thing. His election must have come as a surprise even to him, and he was unprepared with a
list of candidates for the various posts he had to fill to carry out his wishes. He was dependent on others who were not well
disposed towards him.
Even though Foreign Policy supposedly the President's prerogative, in this case his hands were tied behind his back, such that
even low level functionaries were opposing his policies quite openly. The military were running rings around him when he wanted
to reduce military presence in the Occupied countries. In fact he was coerced into bombing some facilities in those countries
based on fake incidents. What Trump had promised his electorate, he could not deliver. He is a failure. The Blob defeated him
at every turn. In fact by appointing the likes of Pompeo he became even less powerful, if that is possible.
If he gets elected a second time somehow, he will not be able to deliver on his promises unless he destroys the Blob completely
Ralph Nader said something that opened my eyes to the true nature of national elections in 2000. The Democrips started that
day's whole "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" nonsense, and a reporter asked him about it. He said "The Republicans have nominated
that worst candidate for US President in history, he's bad on every level. If Al Gore can't run a run a decent enough campaign
to defeat him, what good is he?"
I stopped voting for anything above state representitive in 2012 and will not vote in hat will be either our ultimate or penultimate
presidential election this year.
He will cause the whole world to dump the US Dollar as a reserve currency, because he acts like a bully who ignores his blatant
weakpoints. At that moment, the USA will just become a bankrupt state and will lose its special status: the US power is based
mainly on that.
He will not reverse the tax policies that he implemented HIMSELF He is a zionist elite agent and he will stay like that
You are dreaming too much. How could he do, during his second term, the exact opposite of what he did in the first? It is a
total nonsense
the real power behind him will be in the hands of the Schumer-Pelosi-Obama gang and of the interests these folks represent.
Precisely. Biden will be a ceremonial head of state, much as the president of the USSR was. There are a lot of people saying
that Biden's VP will be the de facto president, but I'm not so sure. I think Pelosi – Schumer – Obama will form the ruling junta,
which is fitting inasmuch as they've been trying really hard to turn the USA into a corrupt banana republic.
He will cause the whole world to dump the US Dollar as a reserve currency, because he acts like a bully who ignores his blatant
weakpoints. At that moment, the USA will just become a bankrupt state and will lose its special status: the US power is based
mainly on that.
He will not reverse the tax policies that he implemented HIMSELF He is a zionist elite agent and he will stay like that
You are dreaming too much. How could he do, during his second term, the exact opposite of what he did in the first? It is a total
nonsense
@Anonymous
y demanding that Russia give back Crimea, for example, something that everyone knew Russia could not do?
"That was a no go w the Establishment and they have engaged in a relentless campaign against him."
Let's see, he's betrayed his supporters on many issues; his health is obviously deteriorating; as you point out he's an "incompetent
narcissist"; there's a "relentless campaign against him" according to you; and polls show him trailing Biden in several key states;
so why is he running for reelection? If LBJ can retire after one term why can't Trump?
@Harold
Smith ls go back before WW1 to Samual Bush who was brought onto the Jew run War Industries Board (what a great racket that
was) by Percy Rockefeller during the puppet actor and syphilitic W. Wilson's catatonic lay about under Col. House (Rothschilds
employee) and Bernard Baruch administration. The Zionists control both phony parties and just use the Jew run MSM to put on a
show. Many commentators such as Patagonia Man believe it is too late but I still maintain the remote possibility that enough people
will wake up to put some decent rep. in the House. Forget about the Presidential baboons.
3. I have outlined, not only the breakup of the US into several geopolitical units (and quite possibly, but hopefully not,
another civil war) but the megaregions in which North America is heading, within say, the next 150 – 250 years.
Just because I believe all of the above doesn't mean I can't observe and comment on the theater that passes for US politics.
Needless to say, I won't be voting in November.
Finally, there's a great saying attributed to Einstein:
"The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result"
@mark tapley
"Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent
impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not
for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. " https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S1537592714001595
You can tell the Saker doesn't live in America, since he believes Americans love war. This has never been true and it is safe
to assume Americans are really sick of American Imperialism in general right now.
War and warmongering do not enjoy any significant support in any major political block in the USA right now. Only the Oligarchs,
NWO, Plutocrats and Neocons are for wars and they are not even collectively close to being a plurality.
"... The cash must be Russian sourced , per the NYT, because a couple of low level Taliban types, who were likely tortured by the Afghan police, have said that it is so. ..."
There is particular danger at the moment that powerful political alignments in the United
States are pushing strongly to exacerbate the developing crisis with Russia. The New York
Times, which broke the story that the Kremlin had been paying the Afghan Taliban bounties to
kill American soldiers, has been particularly assiduous in promoting the tale of perfidious
Moscow. Initial Times coverage, which claimed that the activity had been confirmed by both
intelligence sources and money tracking, was supplemented by
delusional nonsense from former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who asks "Why
does Trump put Russia first?" before calling for a "swift and significant U.S. response." Rice,
who is being mentioned as a possible Biden choice for Vice President, certainly knows about
swift and significant as she was one of the architects of the destruction of Libya and the
escalation of U.S. military and intelligence operations directed against a non-threatening
Syria.
The Times is also titillating
with the tale of a low level drug smuggling Pashto businessman who seemed to have a lot of
cash in dollars lying around, ignoring the fact that Afghanistan is awash with dollars and has
been for years. Many of the dollars come from drug deals, as Afghanistan is now the world's
number one producer of opium and its byproducts.
The cash must be
Russian sourced , per the NYT, because a couple of low level Taliban types, who were likely
tortured by the Afghan police, have said that it is so. The Times also cites anonymous
sources which allege that there were money transfers from an account managed by the Kremlin's
GRU military intelligence to an account opened by the Taliban. Note the "alleged" and consider
for a minute that it would be stupid for any intelligence agency to make bank-to-bank
transfers, which could be identified and tracked by the clever lads at the U.S. Treasury and
NSA. Also try to recall how not so long ago we heard fabricated tales about threatening WMDs to
justify war. Perhaps the story would be more convincing if a chain of custody could be
established that included checks drawn on the Moscow-Narodny Bank and there just might be a
crafty neocon hidden somewhere in the U.S. intelligence community who is right now faking up
that sort of evidence.
Other reliably Democratic Party leaning news outlets, to include CNN, MSNBC and The
Washington Post all jumped on the bounty story, adding details from their presumably
inexhaustible supply of anonymous sources. As Scott Horton
observed the media was reporting a "fact" that there was a rumor.
Inevitably the Democratic Party leadership abandoned its Ghanaian kente cloth scarves, got
up off their knees, and hopped immediately on to their favorite horse, which is to claim loudly
and in unison that when in doubt Russia did it. Joe Biden in particular is "disgusted" by a
"betrayal" of American troops due to Trump's insistence on maintaining "an embarrassing
campaign of deferring and debasing himself before Putin."
The Dems were joined in their outrage by some Republican lawmakers who were equally incensed
but are
advocating delaying punishing Russia until all the facts are known. Meanwhile, the
"circumstantial details" are being invented to make the original tale more credible, including
crediting the Afghan operation to a secret Russian GRU Army intelligence unit that allegedly
was also behind the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury England in 2018.
Reportedly the Pentagon is looking into the circumstances
around the deaths of three American soldiers by roadside bomb on April 8, 2019 to determine
a possible connection to the NYT report. There are also concerns relating to several deaths in
training where Afghan Army recruits turned on their instructors. As the Taliban would hardly
need an incentive to kill Americans and as
only seventeen U.S. soldiers died in Afghanistan in 2019 as a result of hostile action, the
year that the intelligence allegedly relates to, one might well describe any joint
Taliban-Russian initiative as a bit of a failure since nearly all of those deaths have been
attributed to kinetic activity initiated by U.S. forces.
The actual game that is in play is, of course, all about Donald Trump and the November
election. It is being claimed that the president was briefed on the intelligence but did
nothing. Trump denied being verbally briefed due to the fact that the information had not been
verified. For once America's Chief Executive spoke the truth, confirmed by the "intelligence
community," but that did not stop the media from implying that the disconnect had been caused
by Trump himself. He reportedly does not read the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), where such a
speculative piece might indeed appear on a back page, and is uninterested in intelligence
assessments that contradict what he chooses to believe. The Democrats are suggesting that Trump
is too stupid and even too disinterested to be president of the United States so they are
seeking to replace him with a corrupt 78-year-old man who may be suffering from dementia.
The Democratic Party cannot let Russia go because they see it as their key to future success
and also as an explanation for their dramatic failure in 2016 which in no way holds them
responsible for their ineptness. One does not expect the House Intelligence Committee,
currently headed by the wily Adam Schiff, to actually know anything about intelligence and how
it is collected and analyzed, but the politicization of the product is certainly something that
Schiff and his colleagues know full well how to manipulate. One only has to recall the
Russiagate Mueller Commission investigation and Schiff's later role in cooking the witnesses
that were produced in the subsequent Trump impeachment hearings.
Schiff predictably
opened up on Trump in the wake of the NYT report, saying "I find it inexplicable in light
of these very public allegations that the president hasn't come before the country and assured
the American people that he will get to the bottom of whether Russia is putting bounties on
American troops and that he will do everything in his power to make sure that we protect
American troops."
Schiff and company should know, but clearly do not, that at the ground floor level there is
a lot of lying, cheating and stealing around intelligence collection. Most foreign agents do it
for the money and quickly learn that embroidering the information that is being provided to
their case officer might ultimately produce more cash. Every day the U.S. intelligence
community produces thousands of intelligence reports from those presumed "sources with access,"
which then have to be assessed by analysts. Much of the information reported is either
completely false or cleverly fabricated to mix actual verified intelligence with speculation
and out and out lies to make the package more attractive. The tale of the Russian payment of
bribes to the Taliban for killing Americans is precisely the kind of information that stinks to
high heaven because it doesn't even make any political or tactical sense, except to Nancy
Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff and the New York Times. For what it's worth, a number of
former genuine intelligence officers including
Paul Pillar, John Kiriakou , Scott Ritter , and
Ray McGovern
have looked at the evidence so far presented and have walked away unimpressed. The National
Security Agency (NSA) has also declined to confirm the story, meaning that there is no
electronic trail to validate it.
Finally, there is more than a bit of the old hypocrisy at work in the damnation of the
Russians even if they have actually been involved in an improbable operation with the Taliban.
One recalls that in the 1970s and 1980s the United States supported the mujahideen rebels
fighting against the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. The assistance consisted of weapons,
training, political support and intelligence used to locate, target and kill Soviet soldiers.
Stinger missiles were provided to bring down helicopters carrying the Russian troops. The
support was pretty much provided openly and was even boasted about, unlike what is currently
being alleged about the Russian assistance. The Soviets were fighting to maintain a secular
regime that was closely allied to Moscow while the mujahideen later morphed into al-Qaeda and
the Islamist militant Taliban subsequently took over the country, meaning that the U.S. effort
was delusional from the start.
So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian bounties on American
soldiers intended to accomplish? It is probably intended to keep a "defensive" U.S. presence in
Afghanistan, much desired by the neocons, a majority in Congress and the Military Industrial
Complex (MIC), and it will further be played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated
incompetence of Donald Trump. The end result could be to secure the election of a pliable
Establishment flunky Joe Biden as president of the United States. How that will turn out is
unpredictable, but America's experience of its presidents since 9/11 has not been very
encouraging.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website ishttps://councilforthenationalinterest.org,address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]
.
The Deep State vermin who pulled-off the violent, proxy overthrow of Yanukovych in 2014,
and who are also behind the Arab Spring, Syrian Rebels, ISIS, and the ongoing domestic unrest
Stateside, are the descendants of the vermin who overthrew Christian Russia in 1917 using the
same modus operandi of color revolution and “peaceful protests.”. Putin undid all
their hard work in Russia and kicked them out and seized their ill gotten gains: this,
coupled with their congenital hatred of Russia, is the reason for the non-stop, bipartisan
refrain of “Russia, Russia, Russia.”
It is probably intended to keep a “defensive” U.S. presence in Afghanistan,
much desired by the neocons, a majority in Congress and the Military Industrial Complex
(MIC), and it will further be played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated
incompetence of Donald Trump.
There are other reasons for wishing to stay in Afghanistan. Generals don’t like
losing wars. It is personally humiliating to retreat. The whole country is also worn down by
lost wars and the psychological blow lasts for over 10 years like during the post-Vietnam
era. Keeping 10,000 troops in Afghanistan permanently won’t win the war but it will
prevent a defeat and potentially humiliating last minute evacuation when the Taliban retake
Kabul.
Also Al-Qaeda is still present in Afghanistan: “Al-Qaeda has 400 to 600 operatives
active in 12 Afghan provinces and is running training camps in the east of the country,
according to the report released Friday. U.N. experts, drawing their research from interviews
with U.N. member states, including their intelligence and security services, plus think tanks
and regional officials, say the Taliban has played a double game with the Trump
Administration, consulting with al-Qaeda senior leaders throughout its 16 months of peace
talks with U.S. officials and reassuring Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri, among others, that
the Taliban would “honour their historical ties” to the terrorist group.”
https://time.com/5844865/afghanistan-peace-deal-taliban-al-qaeda/
While the melodrama about trump=pro Russia and dems=anti Russia makes good political
theater to keep folks running in circles chasing their tails, this is not the main reason for
the continuous attacks on Russia by organs of the zpc/nwo. The main reason is Russia is not
owned by them. Not a colony. The main reason for the psywar is not about trump vs dems, it is
about keeping the Russia=bad guys theme seeded in the propaganda. That was the main reason
behind “Russiagate”, as well. And as with that scam, both “sides”
knowingly played their part hyping the theater to keep that Russia=bad guy propaganda theme
in the mind of americans.
I can’t imagine that any intelligent person believes this bullshit about Russia. I
completely tune it out the same way I tuned out any news about “CHAZ.”
“So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian bounties on
American soldiers intended to accomplish? It is probably intended to keep a
“defensive” U.S. presence in Afghanistan, much desired by the neocons, a
majority in Congress and the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), and it will further be
played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated incompetence of Donald Trump.”
Let’s say for the sake of argument that the story is true. So what? I don’t
see how it can be used as justification to double down on a pointless war. (Reasonable people
might see it as another reason to get out of Afghanistan sooner rather than later).
Moreover, I don’t think they’d have to create such drama to get Trump the
imperialist to keep the troops in Afghanistan (if he actually had any intention to withdraw
them in the first place).
This propaganda effort reminds me of the Skripal affair. Perhaps Trump’s handlers
and enablers realize that he’ll lose the election (if we have one) so they’re
trying to manipulate him into escalating tensions with Russia (just as they are with China,
Iran and Venezuela).
The Americans were always very proud and upfront about how they organized, trained,
equipped and financed the Taliban to oust the Russians from Afghanistan. In view of this, why
do they act so surprised should the Russians do something similar on a much smaller
scale?
Obviously, the whole story was concocted in Washington, but so what?
Anyone with half a brain should know that the Americans are in Afghanistan because the
Americans control the world trade in narcotics. Columbia is the cocaine end of the
business.
I do wish some smart chemists would synthesize heroin and cocaine in a laboratory and put
the CIA out of business.
“and it will further be played and replayed to emphasize the demonstrated
incompetence of Donald Trump”
The demonization of a democratically-elected President by the zionist-owned New York
Times , Washington Post and CNN is somewaht reminiscent of the demonization of a
certain Austrian in the Western media after the 1933 World Jewry’s declaration of war
on Nazi Germany.
“He who controls the narrative controls the consciousness”
With Wolf Blitz’s, Bolton’s, and this week’s release of Trump’s
relative’s book discrediting his mental health. How many books is that now???
But, times have moved on. Trump can ride this wave by learning the dark art of playing
the victim using the mantra ‘look how hard I’m trying’ and appealing to
US voters as their ‘law and order’ president.
Geopolitically speaking, if the US Zio-cons were smart, rather than suffering from
‘Groupthink’, they would be trying to entice Russia away from its partner, China,
and draw Russia into playing a greater role in Europe. Recall that Putin had asked if Russia
could join NATO.
But, alas, they’re still making the same mistake they did in 1991 after the collapse
of Central Industrialism in the former USSR.
The Mujahudeen morphing into Al Qaeda is a new one on me that I have never heard before. I
had read and heard countless times that it was Al Qaeda all along in Afghanistan that the
U.S. assisted to fight against the USSR. It does not make sense either, since the MEK (
Mujahudeen ) is a twisted Shiite cult Iranian, and Al Qaeda is Arabic and twisted Sunni cult.
So, the language and religious differences do not make any sense that one became the
other.
I guess that it makes perfect sense to say anything at all, regardless of the facts, to
the Terrible Trio in the DNC, just to keep the focus on themselves, rather than on Biden.
Initial Times coverage, which claimed that the activity had been confirmed by both
intelligence sources and money tracking, was supplemented by delusional nonsense from
former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who asks “Why does Trump put
Russia first?” before calling for a “swift and significant U.S.
response.” Rice, who is being mentioned as a possible Biden choice for Vice
President, certainly knows about swift and significant as she was one of the architects of
the destruction of Libya and the escalation of U.S. military and intelligence operations
directed against a non-threatening Syria.
The pathetic Rice has plenty of company. During a 7/5 CNN puff segment with Dana Bash,
Tammy Duckworth (another potential Biden VP), out of the blue said that the Russians put out
a bounty on US forces. Of course, Bash didn’t challenge Duckworth.
Downplayed in all of this is the fact that Russia was one of the first, if not the first
nation, to console the US on 9/11, followed by Russian assistance to the US military
operation in Afghanistan.
“…the kind of information that stinks to high heaven because it doesn’t
even make any political or tactical sense, except to Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff
and the New York Times.”
Pelosi is the proud daughter of a shabbos goy father; Schumer is “shomer” or
professed guardian of Israel; Schiff is the decendent of the Internationale Banker who
supported Trotsky’s take down of the Czar; the NYT is what happens when Hebrews learn
to write English. The Jews have been trying to rule Russia for almost 200 years as
Solzhenitsyn would have told us if he could have gotten a publisher in the Jewish American
publishing industry. If Stalin hadn’t thrown the Bolshevik Jews out, there might not
have been a cold war. Watch out Gentiles. These people have taken us into 3 wars for their
interests and they NEVER change.
And, of course, the “conservative” maggots are going along with the obvious
liberal lies once again. There has never been a group of more cowardly and worthless
individuals than American “conservatives”.
Russia
The hope of the world.
Edgar Cayce
Famous US psychic.
As the USA continues its path into a political, moral and military cesspit of pure
corruption, lies, violence, mass murder and sheer evil, it is increasingly difficult to argue
with Cayce.
He was certainly on to something, and that something was like, 80 years ago.
One can even put more belief and trust in a psychic these days – than anything being
claimed or reported by the USA alphabets, government or MSM
Sickening and frightening really.
There are other reasons for wishing to stay in Afghanistan. Generals don’t like
losing wars
You would have thought by now the American Generals would have got used to ‘losing
wars’.
They haven’t won one other than Grenada in living memory.
The Russians even had to win WW2 for them….
Russia and China would eat them alive today.
So we are now down to sheer bullying, bluster and illegal economic sabotage.
Venezuela springs to mind.
Yes, but they also hate Putin for liberating Russia from its rapacious oligarchs, nearly
all of whom were Jews. The present artificially created hatred for Russia in the US is in
reality the hatred of the frustrated Jewish Mafia.
“I can’t imagine that any intelligent person believes this bullshit about
Russia”
Lenny is clapping his hands excitedly.
“Oy believe it, George ! I do – I do – I do !”
George grunts, clears his throat & spits with some force & accuracy at a scrunched up
copy of the NYT.
“Let’s say for the sake of argument that the story is true.”
For amusement’s sake, lets wonder what would happen should the Russians offer a bounty
to US & allied troops to kill each other . A kind of cash incentive to bring back
the final years of the Vietnam war.
It sure will be entertaining to watch Joe Biden try to cope with the duties of the
presidency. He makes the fictional President Camacho from the movie “Idiocracy”
look like a statesman with the intellectual skills of a Teddy Roosevelt by comparison. I can
picture his inaugural address in my head, as he inevitably loses his place on the
teleprompter and starts babbling about pony soldiers and you know, the thing. After a grope
fest at his inaugural ball, instead of the Oval Office he will immediately be consigned to
the White House basement for the duration of his term. If you thought an inarticulate
President Donnie made for good reality TV, just wait till a totally incoherent President Joe
has the whole world rollicking with laughter. Plus, Republicans get their turn to amuse with
grid lock of the Congress and the discharge of mass quantities of bog sediment at the
administration every single day for four solid years. It’s a win for comedy no matter
which candidate is elected!
Ann, you’ve got the quote wrong. Here is what he actually wrote:
“So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian
bounties”
I’m going to assume you didn’t mean “forks” but actually
“faux”.
Using “faux” is here is not incorrect. Giraldi could have meant the NYT article
was “not real, but made to look or seem real” — which goes considerably
further than “false”.
However, that does not necessarily mean that other users of “faux” are not
indulging themselves in a “silly fashion”.
@Emily
to consecrate Russia to the heart of Mother Mary – which still hasn’t fully been
fulfilled, btw – is another indication of Russia’s leadership in a community of a
shared future for humanity, aka Community of Common Destiny (CCD), as advocated by the
Russian President’s ‘double-helix’ partner, China’s President Xi
Jinping.
Compare and contrast that with, then President, Obama’s words to Putin: “The
United States has exclusive rights to anywhere in the world.”
@Alfred
family bankruptcy when every pharmacist knows they re-branded and off-shored their loot
several years ago. Their fine was pocket lint to them.
But that fake allowed the corporate-government axis to make ALL serious painkillers
effectively illegal, including the ones being used safely before Purdue Pharma came
along.
Narcotics are safe when used properly, but where’s the CIA’s take there? So
they killed their competitors and made your family doctor an agent. And sell lots of dope.
Because the nation the CIA protects is in terminal debt, agencies need hard cash from
somewhere .
That’s why the democrats and the left fight to keep the southern border open ,the
hordes of third world peasants are just a “bonus”……look at who the
drugs are destroying i.e. the target
The Democrats have predictably been outdone by the anti-Trump Republicans in this matter.
You can’t sink any lower in Russia-baiting than the Lincoln project’s recent
release, “Fellow Traveler”. Beyond stupid and revolting. Gives you a clue of
their very low opinion of the American voter
There is a dangerous illusion – characterized in part by demonizing rivals –
and that is the developing crisis is merely a re-run of the Cold War. After the Napoleonic
wars the Congress system was established to maintain peace in Europe. It worked reasonably
well, interrupted significantly by the Crimean war, but finally buried with the outbreak of
WWI in 1914; it did not prevent that cataclysmic conflict. Then came the League of Nations
for a short time; it did not stop WWII. The United Nations and other post-war institutions
were established in the 1940s. Now we are in the approaches to WWIII. But very few see. The
apocalyptic conflict feared during the Cold War is nearing. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Russia Hoax 2 is supposed to keep our minds off the Uniparty’s anarcho-tyranny, but
it’s awfully hard to fear Putin with orcs and shitlibs running amok wrecking statues of
racist elks.
@Robert
Dolan olostomy Bag, or were able to steal it on election night, Trump would be spending
the rest of his life in prison right now.
And Russia would have acquiesced to, though more likely quietly assisted, the frame-up.
What we don’t know at this point is what generational geopolitical payoff Russia was
promised by Brennan in March 2016, for its participation. My suspicion is that Nord Stream II
was merely a down payment.
I don’t envy Barr or Durham. How do they resolve this greatest political scandal in
American history when at the center of it you have a former CIA Director who is a Russian
mole.
If you review the New York Times editorial page and its oped pieces you will see more half
of the content each day is anti Trump. The Times has also played up the civil rights aspect
of the BLM movement while playing down the hooliganism of Antifa and the looting by Blacks
which has accompanied it. Many neighborhoods in Manhattan were trashed and looted far beyond
what The Times reported. So promoting the “Russian Bounty” lie doesn’t
surprise me at all. Remember also Times employees went absolutely crazy when the paper
printed an oped by Sen. Tom Cotton. What a bunch of lying flakes and chicken shits.
@tyrone
of more and more of the total of products and services produced in the US economy every year
(GDP) goes to capital, i.e., the holders of wealth, rather than workers, which in turn
creates a drag on further GDP – so eventually it becomes self defeating.
Think: Vicious Cycle of Poverty, as opposed to Virtuous Cycle of Prosperity.
But that explains why neither the Dems / Repubs are determined to do anything about the
1,000,000+ illegal immigrants crossing the US-Mexican border every year.
As said many times by many others: ‘The US has one political party – the
business party, with 2 wings.’
The Soviets actually had to stop the Wehrmacht cold (very cold, indeed) and be ready to
start rolling it back before the USA even dared to join the war.
US Ziocons movement is a family affair. They’re into the second and third
generation, who are still following their daddy’s’ or grandpa’s playbook.
Original ideas are hard to come by with this lot.
The Democrats are suggesting that Trump is too stupid and even too disinterested to be
president of the United States so they are seeking to replace him with a corrupt
78-year-old man who may be suffering from dementia.
Good one but what do you mean may be suffering ? (Grin)
Not only replace Trump with Biden but with all the radicals now infesting theDemo’krat
party and manipulating demented, sleepy Joe.
These are all made up stories. By the time one fake story is laboriously dismantled
another one is made up. It’s always a game of playing catch-up. Russia makes a good
boogyman and has served well in that role for three generations now so it’s a tested
formula. It’s a dangerous game since all these idiots could sleepwalk us into an armed
clash with Russia somewhere. Then of course there’ll plenty of problems but perhaps
there’s a calculation that something like that could benefit this band of war
inciters.
I know old liberals have ate up all things Russia, Russia, Russia. Have the POBs (people
of brown)? Have all those post ’67 immigrants? They all vote democrats, and are now the
future demographic of America. Its their kids that have to wanna die for the war machine now.
Has the Yiddish propaganda sheet worked its magic on them? The 1619 Project sure did. My
humble guess is no, despite their voting. Most just want money.
Folks, it is time to get your love ones to stop enlisting and re-enlisting in the US
military. It is the only boycott we can do that will actually hurt.
For what it’s worth, Pillar got shitcanned and rusticated by Cofer Black, Kiriakou
got locked up, Ritter got framed as a pedo, and McGovern got the shit beat out of him by my
DoS goons. So shut the fuck up a little, OK?
So, what is a leaked almost certainly faux story about the Russian bounties on American
soldiers intended to accomplish?
To sound like a broken record again , the CABAL hates Russia and specifically Putin
because he re-established Christian Orthodoxy as the de facto state religion of Mother
Russia. They would get The USA into a hot war with Russia if it meant hurting Putin, never
mind what it would do to us. Their hatred is so strong that they could care less what it
would do to America, the snakes that they are.
All Russians would have to do to exploit the current unrest in America would be to knock
out a social media platform or two, or perhaps to leak dirt on the people ginning up war.
Those targets are absolutely hated by the American people outside the Imperial City.
@Zarathustra
and historically illiterate pseudo-intellectual BS about 1619 and Evil America that, because
its evil, should change the names of the military bases where those soldiers trained under
the impression they were going to defend their country!
The Hostile Elite is a rabid dog so totally out of control it needs to be put down
immediately.
Whatever happens, no one should ever take the moral condemnation of psychopaths
seriously.
Battered Wife Syndrome?
I give you Battered Nation Syndrome.
Time to prove to the world it’s possible to recover from it and move into a larger
freedom.
@No
Friend Of The Devil not called al-
Qaeda at this stage but some other name. Apparently the name al-Qaeda was first used by the
FBI to reference this group due to some sort of misunderstanding, but it eventually became
the name they adopted for themselves since that was what everybody was calling them anyway
when they became famous after further adventures.
The above should be taken with a grain of salt since this is only what I have been able to
glean from reading various articles. Presumably what is called al-Qaeda today are the
descendants or associates of personnel from this particular group as opposed to other groups,
but I don’t know.
When Russia was controlled by Marxists, Leftists and Liberals loved Russia, defended
Russia, excused Russia, promoted Russia. Now that Russia has survived Marxist totalitarianism
and begun rediscovering Russian cultural heritage, which features Christianity, Leftists and
Liberals HATE Russia.
Who coulda thunk it possible?
More important is that our Neocons and our old guard Yank ‘conservatives’
– who control foreign policy for both Republicans and Democrats – in the military
and the spy game see Russia today exactly as the Leftists and Liberals see Russia.
Both the Neocons and the Yank WASP Country Club types in the so-called
‘conservative’ arena agree with Leftists and Liberals about Russia.
There’s plenty of meaning there for those with ears to hear and eyes to see.
The Dem’s election strategists are grasping at straws again.
The deplorables they despise the most are flyover Americans who go to church or who serve
in the military. These are the people they think are stupid and easily manipulated by wild
tales and false flags.
The “bounty on American soldiers” is hogwash to gin up what they perceive to
be a voting bloc of gullible whites.
The Dems weakness with working class whites is one they will try to shore up by crassly
fake, flag-waving appeals to bedrock patriotism.
@anonymous
equal, except negroes.’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men
are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.’ When it comes to
this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty
– to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base
alloy of hypocrisy.”
With Russia abolishing serfdom and slavery at the time – and much later than Western
Europe – something had to be done to not be outdone by the Russians, of course. The
hypocrisy would indeed have been unbearable. It still is.
@Really
No Shit the mass of whites before the post-WW2 era, then you are ignorant. If you think
the current Deep State is entirely Jewish, or even majority Jewish, you are ignorant.
Without any doubt, Jews now, and for decades, have per capita dominated the American Deep
State. But they did not create it, nor did they create its evil. The Mossad did NOT
create MI6 and the CIA. British Secret Service created the CIA and the Mossad.
America has a Deep State that flowed naturally from the British Deep State. The Brit
Empire was the Anglo-Zionist Empire Part 1. America is the Anglo-Zionist Empire Part 2.
US strategy at the end of WWII included letting Germans and Soviets wear each other down
and kill as many of each other as possible, without US forces involvement. Obviously
“we”, various US investors and the US taxpayer still gave the Soviets too much
stuff, that propelled USSR economic success claims for the next 20 years.
Just more Liberal/Dim/Zio/CCP sponsored horsesh*t, to drive US and Russia apart, to drive
Russia toward China, when US would be better off trying to treat Russia neutrally (hang our
CCP paid dems).
The Deep State vermin who pulled-off the violent, proxy overthrow of Yanukovych in 2014,
and who are also behind the Arab Spring, Syrian Rebels, ISIS, and the ongoing domestic
unrest Stateside, are the descendants of the vermin who overthrew Christian Russia in 1917
using the same modus operandi of color revolution and “peaceful protests.”.
Spot on!
But, a more accurate name than The Deep State is Judeocracy Inc.
followed by Russian assistance to the US military operation in Afghanistan.
Few people seem to understand the logistics of the war in Afghanistan. The US and their
allies were hugely dependent on the Russian railway system. It is just so ridiculous to
listen to these monkeys who pretend to be statesmen and women.
Susan Rice clearly uses skin whitener and hair straightener to look as much as possible
like those she hates so much.
Unfortunately, the matter with Russia is settled. And while I did not think there was
evidence to support the matter. The current executive sign an intel report that accused the
Russians and Pres. Putin specifically with sabotaging US election and murder and attempted
murder. Unless our executive can reconcile that matter by extracting some manner of penance
for hat behavior — reconciling with Russia is just a flat water tide.
Their actions constituted acts of war and while I may disagree with the assessment
—
that is the US disposition on which nothing Russia says can be taken further than a
pipe.
That intel report which this executive signed locks our posture in place regarding Russia.
We kill people in this country for being suspects.
I don’t think the US citizen would look to kindly on shaking hands with a saboteur
and murderer.
Whether the signing was a matter of political expediency is irrelevant,. The executive
openly cited Russia as an enemy of the US. For me it was one of the most painful memories of
the executives tenure, because
1. destroyed a large portion of our foreign policy agenda of toning down our presence
anywhere
2. demonstrated the executive was not as string as I believed he needed to be.
If they were willing to interfere in our election and engage in political murder in allied
states —there’s no reason to doubt that they would support the murder of our
troops in a conflict one.
———————-
It was a devastating moment when the executive agreed to that intel report.
@mike99588
r Germany.
And vastly profiting from both sides – shamelessly.
Britain and the Commonwealth faced Germany alone through dark days indeed until Russia became
our ally – before the USA incidently – conveniently overlooked..
The Americans finally came in Dec 1941 after Russia was already standing with us.
It has not been forgotten in Britain to this day.
The USA bled this country for decades, paying for what was so much crap amongst all
else..
Lend lease – what a scam that was!!!!!
Whilst you traded and supported the nazi war machine against us.
When you work that into the British Empire acting to prevent Russia from forcing the Turks
out of Europe and thereby liberating Constantinople, and acting to harm Russia deeply in
order to win ‘The Great Game,’ you perhaps will then see that back to Oliver
Cromwell and the Puritans that WASP Empire is Anglo-Zionist Empire.
Well, unlike the JewSA, Russia isn’t enthralled with the Jews. Putin and company
kicked out Soros and his Open Society as well as the Rothschild bankers. Lastly the four
billionaire Jew oligarchs who were running the Yeltsin economic shitshow were also shown the
door. Perhaps the “Assad must go” flop played into Jewish ire as well.
Amusing to see Democrats so deeply concerned over the “Russian threat”. I was
in the Agency during the Cold War. When the Soviets REALLY were a threat, most of those same
Democrats urged retreat, compromise, submission. It makes my guts churn to see these
“patriots” making hysterical claims against Russia. It is almost as if they
resent the fact that Putin has rejected their entire Globalist plan, re-Christianized Russia,
and locked up at least a few of the so-called “oligarchs” who were looting the
Russian people of their patrimony. The case of Bill Browder deserves some attention. This Red
Diaper baby (his grandfather was Earl Browder, chief of the CPUSA) has been one of the
cheerleaders in the campaign to demonize Russia. Following the family tradition of a lack of
loyalty (he holds British and U.S. passports, just in case!) this weasel used his
granddad’s old Soviet contacts to make hundreds of millions carting off anything of any
value left in the old Soviet Union. Of course, he worked with an equally greasy gang of
former Soviets to do this, including one Sergei Magnitsky, a “tax advisor”
working with Browder who assumed room temperature in a Russian jail after he was nabbed by
the tax police. I really wonder if some of these Democrats and others who so denounce Putin
had visions of sugar plums and hundreds of millions of dollars dancing in their heads, dreams
rudely brought to earth by Putin?
Oct 20, 2009 Taliban Is Getting American Troops Hooked On Heroin
It diminishes the effectiveness of our troops as well as raises money for the Taliban, who
are the ones growing the poppy. How can the US combat this new strategy?
LONDON— Recent news item: The Justice Department is investigating allegations that
officers of a special Venezuelan anti-drug unit funded by the CIA smuggled more than 2,000
pounds of cocaine into the United States with the knowledge of CIA officials.
@EliteCommInc.
e accused is served by having his lawyers present. Since the defendants have refused to
appear in person – three of them disputing the Dutch jurisdiction — the defence
lawyers should withdraw.”
@Emily
t was only done to get into a position to share the spoils. Britain was no more than a vassal
state of the US after WW I, and in no position to defeat Germany. Only Russia could, and they
did, and would have done so with or without the Anglo-Americans. Stop whining about suffering
you brought onto yourself. Besides, Britain suffered very little compared to the continent,
including Germany, and European Jewry, and all of them would have suffered less without the
British arrogance that they had to defend their national honour. Hope they stay out of
European affairs now but it doesn’t look good at this fake Brexit moment
Wisely, Agent76 said, “The CIA Drug Connection is as Old as the Agency.”
Re; above, I suggest Grandfathered by Operation Gladio and it’s Vatican Bank money
laundering component???
Am aware how an England bank, USBC, was caught laundering the Afghanistan drug trade
billions and got a “slap on wrist.”
Linked below is an obscure article on President Putin’s special (on scene)
Afghanistan envoy, Zamir Kabulov, who accused US intelligence in Afghanistan of drug
trafficking.
@No
Friend Of The Devil to attack Iran. They are totally despised by ordinary Iranians. They
are a cult with something in common with the Cambodian Pol Pot way of life. Very dangerous
people. They have absolutely nothing in common with the Taliban who are trying to liberate
their country from the Americans.
@Gidoutahere
ld bring to an end a fledgling democracy and a return to the Cold War days.
“In return, Maxwell’s massive debts would be wiped out by a grateful
Kryuchkov, [Vladimir Kryuchkov, head of the KGB] who planned to replace Gorbachev. The KGB
chief wanted Maxwell to use the Lady Ghislaine, named after Maxwell’s daughter, as a
meeting place between the Russian plotters, Mossad chiefs and Israel’s top politicians.
? Apparently the Rothschilds/Israel Deep State wanted Gorbachev or Yeltsin.
Events are so tangled and interconnected, as Ghislaine is still a Israel Deep State
operative.
Funny, I don’t see White Russians hating themselves or other Whites for being proud
of their heritage.
Funny, I don’t see White Russians tearing down monuments and statues or desecrating
their flag.
Funny, I don’t see White Russians wanting their country to be invaded by hordes of
hostile nonwhite WMD.
Funny, I don’t see White Russians apologizing or backing down from identifying
themselves as a Christian nation.
Oh, I get it. This is why the so-called, “Deep State” and “Neo-Cons aka
Neo-Commies” hate Russia so much. I get it now. It burns (((their))) collective asses
that there are actually some largely homogeneous and traditional White nations still around
who aren’t willingly accepting their own genocide or apologizing for being evil White
racists. My gawd, this is my epiphany, this is MY AWAKENING ( shout out to Dr. Duke’s
EXCELLENT BOOK), now I know why Russia is so vilified by (((our media.))) (((Our media))) is
racist against Whites, and (((they))) hate the idea that a traditional White Christian nation
still exists, especially a powerful nation like Russia. Oh dear, how could I be so gullible
not to see this one. I’m Irish American and I am told I must hate the Russkies to be
patriotic by other patriotic Israel Firsters.
It has to do with two things, and only those two things, all other rubbish about
“human rights”, “international law”, blah blah blah, is propaganda
meant for the common man.
1) Russia is white, that means it can easily be demonized and is demonized.
2) The jews that fled Russia are an especially virulent strain of the jew, their hatred for
Russia has few equal.
Maybe someone has already stated the obvious. Regardless of the validity (or lack of) a
bounty program; it’d be real hard to affect US troops if there were no US troops in
Afghanistan.
@Erzberger
ica and the Balkans.
Fourth, had the Admiral Canaris led traitors not been hiding munitions or sending them to the
wrong place, the Soviets may not have recovered even with the US re-supply.
If there is something to yawn about, it is the WWII narrative is tiresome. Stalin
wasn’t a “good guy”, and neither were Churchill or Roosevelt. The reality
is that it took the “world” to defeat Germany. The Italians were of no help, and
the Japanese were as much a drain as a resource to Germany. Germany was destroyed to allow
the advancement of Marxism, which had already embedded itself in the UK and US.
The zionists are pissed that Russia has saved Syria from the zionist mercenaries aka AL
CIADA aka ISIS, which are creations the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI6 and NATO and so the anti
Russian propaganda, pouring out of the zionist owned MSM.
Obviously “we”, various US investors and the US taxpayer still gave the
Soviets too much stuff, that propelled USSR economic success claims for the next 20
years
The Russians paid for all the “giving” with gold. Kindly stop repeating lies.
Even the British went almost bankrupt repaying the Americans for their
“generosity”.
It will be interesting to see how the Russians will treat the Americans when the USA
experiences feudalism. I suspect the Russians will be far more generous than the Americans
deserve.
@neutral
kids.
Hilary Clinton has been a very effective butcher of Libyan and Syrian population at large;
young children and pregnant women were the greatest victims of Clinton’s subhuman
policies.
Susan Rice was good at promoting mass slaughter in Syria, and, along with H. Clinton, S. Rice
should be credited with the slave markets in Libya.
Nuland-Kagan helped to make Ukraine into the poorest country in Europe, where zionists and
neo-nazis found a complete mutual understanding. So much for holobiz squealing.
What’s wrong with the US? How come that the US society produced these
monstrosities?
Being that America kills other countries’ soldiers (and civilians) all the time, why
can’t Russia (or any other country) do the same thing? What goes around comes around,
right?
Some things (Russiagate) are just too silly to bother with.
I agree – except that I’m getting quite a chuckle these days at the sheer,
utter desperation of the “Russia did it”, “Saddam did it”, “Bin
Laden did it”, “Assad did it”, etc. etc. etc. noise from the crowd who DID
do it.
Shlomo is cornered and exposed – and that IS worth the subscription fee to watch,
FINALLY.
“There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states.” General
(((Wesley Clark)))
Obviously a patriotic “American” General like Mr. Clark has no problem with
the racist state of Israel.
Just another COHENcidence? Nah, after finding about “6 million” COHENcidences
you start thinking for yourself, stop dropping the idea that “conspiracy
theories” are “conspiracies” and start realizing you have been fed a load
of horseshit for a century and counting. We don’t have a Russia problem but Houston, we
do have a problem. Wonder what that problem is?
@Tom
Welsh te Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard, at a time when that meant something. He also wrote
(presumably without the assistance a ghost writer) some 40-odd books, as Tucker Carlson
pointed out in a recent monologue.
I think by any standard, these achievements indicate a fairly high level of intellectual
skills.
Whether or not he was a nutcase is another matter, and not mutually exclusive of his
having considerable intellectual skills. A good place to start on this question is to read
what H.L. Mencken wrote about him.
And it is said that Roosevelt is included in the Mt. Rushmore tableau because he was
friends with Borglum the sculptor.
@Trinity
of different nations. But they live in harmony. Their common language is Russian. When Putin
goes to visit the Dagestan, he tells them that their men are brave and their women beautiful.
They love it. And they love Putin for it. Sadly, Google and Youtube seem to have cleaned up
this stuff.
The current news that the Brutish govt has approved new arms sales to Saudia because Saudi
mass killings of Yemeni civilians are all “isolated incidents” so it’s
quite proper to sell them the means seems to prove your point.
“Your decision, Mr President, to grant the Soviet Union an interest-free loan to the
value of $1,000,000,000 to meet deliveries of munitions and raw materials to the Soviet Union
is accepted by the Soviet Government with heartfelt gratitude as vital aid to the Soviet
Union in its tremendous and onerous struggle against our common enemy — bloody
Hitlerism.” (here)
The US is in central Asia for much more than that, it’s about blocking China and
Russia, as well as partially cutting off Iran on it’s eastern flank. Iran is almost
surrounded by US bases. The US wants to have more control point/choke point control over
continental transport routes in Asia. (One such prize would be the Dzungarian Gate, but
that’s a little too ambitious for the moment. ) Afghanistan does have resources, but it
would be a target without them, as it is so valuable as a (potential) transit corridor.
@Emily
ulture/history/item/4691-china-betrayed-into-communism" rel="nofollow"
href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4691-china-betrayed-into-communism">Marshall’s
doing all in his power to ensure the victory of Mao over Nationalist forces in 1949
U.S. civilian leaders seem to swoon over enemy sanctuaries for some strange reason. Kill
U.S. troops in theater. No problemo but pinky swear we won’t go after you if you go
back across the border.
God bless Richard Nixon and his destruction of NVA base areas in Cambodia. Thereafter,
enemy activity ceased around my camp and all through MR IV.
Reading your comment, Wally, I find your name extremely apt.
None so blind as those who refuse to even read.
You can take a horse to water but cannot make him drink.
You can put all the proof necessary but if you refuse to check it out – well –
stay a ‘ Wally’.
I guess you subscribe to the philosophy of ‘Ignorance is bliss’.
@Curmudgeon
Wehrmacht, the Warsaw Rising they so strongly encouraged would not have happened, and not
have led to the disaster it was for the city and its inhabitants
“Stalin wasn’t a “good guy”, and neither were Churchill or
Roosevelt. “ no objections
“The reality is that it took the “world” to defeat Germany. “ Much
of Europe fought on the side of Germany because they realized that Stalin, Churchill and
Roosevelt weren’t good guys, and they had nothing to look forward to but a horrible
peace in case of their victory. Why do you think the EC got together so quickly after the
war?
Also: the sheer idiocy of claiming that poor little “Britain and the
Commonwealth” stood alone against the German monster state! Do you ever look at a map?
at human and natural resources? This should have been a turkey shoot if your side had not
been as lacking in courage as it was, and as incompetent. And if the rest of Europe
wasn’t to a very large extent in the German camp, as it is today
Scott Ritter has a separate article at consortiumnews noting that the Russians have been
giving money to the Taliban (AID) to fight Americans, the CIA and their ISIS proxies since
2014. Surely Obama and/or Biden would have stopped these Russian “bounties” if
they were important.
“Please at least proofread your gibberish. Some of it might even make
sense.”
The executive in the WH has agreed that Russia sabotaged the US election process and
engaged murder and attempted in states of our allies.
There is no turning the clock bank unless Russia makes some gesture of amelioration
— there behavior constitutes an attack on the US. As such they are active enemies of
the US.
Unfortunately anyone seeking some manner of Russian love fest — should probably
forget it. Whether the executive signed for politically expedient reasons simply
doesn’t matter.
“If you believe any of the Skripals nonsense and the MH-17 false flag, you are
either gullible or a troll.”
Uhhhh, wholly irrelevant. My position in opposition to the contend that Russia sabotaged
the US election was vehemently dubious. My comments at the time make my position abundantly
clear. The evidence for the case against Russia in the US simply no there. But at the end of
the day, the executive choose to go the other direction. That is unfortunate. But it was also
a sign of things to come concerning the executives ability to stand.
And my comments today make that very clear. Your knee-jerk response that I believe what
the executive signed onto is incorrect. I knew that his choice destroyed a good deal of his
foreign poliy admonition to reduce tensions.
But that was his choice mistake or not he made that choice and as I expressed at the time
— we would have to live by it.
——————————————–
In fact, if I were on the opposition, I would like nothing better for the executive to
start behaving as though the intel report doesn’t exist. Because I would pull out that
report with his signature and commence calling him a weakling, indecisive, and a danger to
the US — who is to toothless to hold Russia accountable for her acts of terror in the
US and Europe.
I would then commence a campaign explaining why the executive wants to decrease troops ion
Europe — he wants to cede our allies over to Russian domination —
But then I am not on the opposition. It was a mistake on the facts for the executive to
sign that report for which there was little to no evidence supporting it.
Now if you have a response that gives the president some manner of face saving as he makes
nice with a country that overthrew a US election in the US, and engaged in murder and
attempted murder — have at it.
—————
Minus some kind of amelioration by the Russians or an about face by the current executive
(and tat would really be interesting) no peace and love and understanding can move forward. I
can say with certainty
Russia, Pres. Putin has no intention of apologizing for something they most likely did not
do regarding US elections.
Though I am sure he will once again have reason to chuckle.
Those of you angry, frustrated, irritated . . . and yada I suggest you take that up with
the WH They made that choice.
But by all means name call as opposed to deal with the obvious reality.
The US can not make nice with Russia until Russia makes amends for sabotaging the US
election and engage in acts of murder or attempted in murder in the sovereign states of our
allies. So says the executive in the WH. In fact he says that Pres. Putin ordered the
sabotage and murder.
I think you understand.
There is no way for the current executive to move forward with better relations with
Russia without extracting some admission and compensation for sad acts without reaping
serious political damage — I would say a loss of credibility, but that is already in
question – sadly.
Interestingly, whoever invented this lie about Russia and Taliban not only did not know
the realities of Afghanistan, but was stupid enough not to consult someone who knows. There
is no such thing as a bank transfer in Afghanistan. It exists in the Middle Ages (democracy,
my foot!), so the only form of money that functions there is cash, in hand, in a case, or in
a bag, depending on the amount.
The USA is quickly going to find itself in a corner. There is no realistic path away from
a total confrontation with Russia. No politician will dare dissent. I hope Russia is prepared
for this.
“The deplorables they despise the most are flyover Americans who go to church or who
serve in the military. These are the people they think are stupid and easily manipulated by
wild tales and false flags.”
Well let’s face it, they usually are. These are the milch cows the MIC relies on to
keep its funding secure.
Everyone knows that Americans are the most dumbfuck stupid people on the planet. It is
more shocking to think that propaganda would NOT affect most of the population.
Anecdotally, when my family lived in England in a village near London in 1957-58 we were
treated like royalty. I’ve always assumed it’s because we were the beloved Yanks
who saved Britain’s behind in the war. That doesn’t undercut what you say about
the underlying resentment, but my clear impression and that of my parents was that the
post-war Brits loved them some Yanks.
Another anecdote, this one not so feel-good. In 1956 we lived on Lakenheath AFB in the UK.
During the Suez crisis the base was on full stand-by alert in case we had to go to war with
Britain. Seriously.
@Patagonia
Man re in Washington is beyond repair. The despicable sinister schemes, backstabbing,
lies, fake facts in a quest for power has nothing to do with democracy but criminality.
It is time to galvanize support for direct voting…enabled by evolving technology.
That process would eliminate:
@ need for electing deceiving proxies that always betray their promises to represent the
public interest.
@ Washington proxies making decisions…should be reduced to debating issues.
@ the special interest groups, lobbies self-serving agenda.
@ sending our young people dying on far away places in unnecessary wars.
When was Paul Craig Roberts last an insider? Do you think him capable of picking cover
stories generically, that is without relevant particular knowledge of inside stuff?
And you seem to claim to have that ability to pick a cover story. So…. how? What
are the generic indicia?
Oh gee, your point would make one think that no other pagan Christian Church has
produced such mass murderers, or in fact, even greater ones… which would be ludicrous as
per history, yeah?
The real source of such satanic evil should be traced to Whitevil (including their Judevil
cousins of course) supremacy and their in-house “niggas,” such as the witch you
mention.
Looks like a lot of the blonds here except the ones here date thugs and run around til
they’re 24ish from dude to dude til they discover the joys of pills & meth and take
the full bath into the toilet….
@Ann
Nonny Mouse political dancing around and inventing another culprit as criminals always do,
successfully disappeared them. Don’t hope they will ever appear again.
And this is the Brutish government that killed another Russian by polonium poisoning and of
course invented another culprit, again as criminals always do.
And is now selling weapons for mass killing to Saudia says mass killings are merely
incidentals.
Consistently, modern Britain makes Nazi Germany look angelic. Consistently.
These are not Christian moral values. What religion or ritual system or control system acts
like this once it takes charge?
@Wizard
of Oz The same person also fuzzes up threads by pretending to be more than one commenter,
the technique known as “sock puppetry.” See under Mr. Derbyshire’s February
15, 2019, article comment ## 28, 42, 43, 44, 68, 122, where he/she/they got sloppy also posting
as “Anon[436].”
Over time, Wizard has emerged as sympathetic to the international bureaucracy of the
Establishment of which he may even be a (former?) part, the type of “diplomat”
exemplified by Mrs. Nuland’s Ivy League cookie caddy in Ukraine. He broke character a
while back, showing emotional hostility to China. But who can be sure? Among this
website’s oddest, sophisticatedly trollish commenters.
You will find that Roosevelt privately was giving both the UK & France assurances that
if either were attacked, the US would come to their aid well before 1938 – even
tho’ US multinational corporations were still trading with the NSDAP in Germany well into
1941.
As you can’t even get the Julian Assange bit right I don’t suppose it’s
any use asking you to justify your bald assertions or even flesh them our with detail. Let
alone explain when Britain became “modern” and ceased to be the country which is
rightly credited with ending theslave trade and led the way in abolition of slavery.
Yes, several governments have treated Assange contemptibly but he is remanded without bail
pending the resumption of the extradition hearing, not imprisoned for life in cruel or any
conditions. How can you waste readers time with such garbage?
How much credit do you give to someone who sloppily uses the term “terrorist in that
context referring to the equovalent of precision bombing in contrast to area bombing without
precise aiming?
I am really not qualified to comment on the internal wrangling of the various factions in
the USA. I look at their foreign policy actions, not proclamations, with much greater
interest.
@Erzberger
ut down war industry was started by Germany, arguably in Belgium in August 1814 but certainly
in December 1914 when German cruisers indiscriminately shelled three North East England towns.
An aberration? No. It was followed by Zepellin raids on London and the use of Big Bertha
against Paris. Then, what message and implicit set of rules do you find in the destruction of
Guernica? And many civilians were killed in the bombing of Warsaw. Even the virtually symbolic
bombing of Berlin was a response to bombs dropped on London, the only point in your favour
there being the fact that those bombs were probably not meant to be dropped on London.
How intriguing. Not having your obsessive interest in warning about Wizard of Oz I have
failed, at my level of diligence, to find any evidence at all of emotional hostility to China
or indeed, about anything much except perhaps the hypocritical mistreatment of individuals like
Julian Assange by governments. Can you help?
The Germans couldn’t believe how inept the average French, American, and British
soldier really were, even British described how frightened many of the America soldiers, most
barely old enough to shave, appeared. The German was appalled at the physical fitness of the
British soldier as well, describing them as weak and frail for the most part. Here is the
truth, Western Europe and America fought the German B team at best, often these Germans were
little more than schoolboys in some cases. Everyone knows that the bulk of the serious fighting
was done on the Eastern Front. Think if tiny Germany hadn’t had to fight on two fronts
against what must have seemed like half the world. It doesn’t speak well that it took so
many years to defeat a country as small as Germany, a country that was at an extreme
disadvantage. The average Western soldier, be it a Frenchmen, a Brit or an American was nothing
special to say the least. This isn’t a I hate America thing, but merely the truth. The
average German soldier was head and shoulders above the average Brit or America G.I.
Finally, seven days after its ‘scoop’, the NYT ran another story on the
subject, entitled ‘New Administration Memo Seeks to Foster Doubts About Suspected
Russian Bounties’, which was published on July 3 and buried in the bowels of the
paper.
Its opening paragraphs sought to back up the original story, claiming that an intelligence
memo had said the “… CIA and the National Counterterrorism Centre had
assessed with medium confidence – meaning creditable sources and plausible, but falling
short of near certainty – that a unit of the Russian military service, known as the
GRU, offered the bounties.”
It was only in the last paragraph that the real story – that there was no story
– was revealed: “The agency did intercept data of financial transactions that
provide circumstantial support for the detainee’s account, but the agency does not
have explicit evidence that the money was bounty payments.”
So the blood libel lasted a week!
One of the greatest things about the Trump Presidency was to carve the ‘Fake
News’ meme on the MSM’s forehead.
Mister/Miss, since when the zionized Congress of the US serves the citizenship of the US?
Thank you for reminding (and you do this regularly) of the unfortunate fact that the US is an
occupied territory and the US Congress is a nest of liars, war profiteers, and rabid
zionists.
Les Wexler, Ben Cardin, Chuck Schumer, and Clintons have inflicted more harm to the US than
any Maria Butin and such. And don’t forget Dick Cheney and Co, the committed traitors and
profiteers by any means.
In my experience people who are sloppy with language are sloppy with thinking. I thought you
might have had similar relevant experience unlike most commenters here. For example, if you
were employing a director of research or even just a junior researcher for a committee of
inquiry would you not rate their careful use of language as a qualification? You want to be
able to rely on the facts they turn up and their reasoning underlying proposed conclusions do
you not?
I am content to know that you don’t read my comments and are as sloppy and inaccurate
in calling me hasbara as the person who called destroying an Iranian nuclear facility
“terrorist”. To extend my last comment, you wouldn’t even be on the long list
for assisting any inquiry I chaired.
Do you know at least, what were you fighting for in Vietnam? How Vietnam threatened US
shores?
Do not tell me fighting communist ideology, because the same Nixon and Kissinger that bombed
Cambodia civilians embraced that communist ideology in China with grave consequences. We have
lunatics in Washington and it is time for direct voting – majority rules.
@Wizard
of Oz as right in the sense that despite the British and French declaration of war, not
much happened – other than the naval blockade and the lame French invasion of the Saar
region. Neither Britain nor France had the courage to follow up on their war declaration, for
fear of unpopular casualties or further destruction of land and people (France), and both hoped
to gain a cheap victory by starving out the German war effort. Had they actually opened a
second front in the fall of 39, the Germans would have collapsed, and the war would have been
over before Christmas.
The GErman victory over FRance surprised everyone, including the Germans
I think the EC got together so quickly because the US wanted to impose their economic model
on Europe with the illusion of control. The Marshall Plan was unraveling as the swindle it was,
and the EC was the answer to keep up the illusion. While the UK was in on the scam, they were
the front for the Americans, as the idiot Churchill had pissed away the Empire to buy his 15
minutes of fame.
Once the shooting starts there are no good guys. Like all wars, WWII was an economic war. The
German economic system could not be allowed to succeed, it was catching on.
You must must have quite a deteriorated mind when Russia can influence your vote. Tell me
the logistics of the process. You must have equally deteriorated mind believing what CNN,
MSNBC, WP or NYT and others dishonest outfits tell you – they are a propaganda machine
for a small unpatriotic parasitic group.
There is a hierarchy in the blame game . Trump isn’t on the top . If he were, the vile
Democrats would be asking review and discussion by broader media ,Dept of Justice and Treasury
either to discredit or confirm the following story
in–“Venezuela’s interim government wants access to funds confiscated in
the US from corrupt officials, saying it belongs to the Venezuelan people. But US officials
appear to have other plans. The Treasury Department diverted $601 million last year from its
forfeiture fund to help build President Trump’s border wall. (Leer en español)
https://www.univision.com/univision-news/latin-america/legal-battle-over-venezuelas-looted-billions-heats-up
Since the United States initiated a coup attempt against Venezuela’s elected leftist
government in January 2019, up to $24 billion worth of Venezuelan public assets have been
seized by foreign countries, primarily by Washington and member states of the European Union.
President Donald Trump’s administration has used at least $601 million of that looted
Venezuelan money to fund construction of its border wall with Mexico, according to government
documents first reviewed by Univision Univision reviewed US congressional records and court
documents and found that the Trump administration tapped into $601 million of the Treasury
Department’s “forfeiture fund” to supplement the wall constructio https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/29/trump-stolen-venezuelan-money-border-wall-mexico/
Reason no-one is doing it is because hating Trump could always be swapped for worshipping
something more sinister and idiotic .
We would have heard a similar story only if Russia extracted something like this from
Ukraine or Libya .
I suggest you seek treatment for you pathological hate. Russia want to be a friend in
peaceful coexistence but it is sinister players in Washington that constantly need/create
enemies to build military industrial complexes instead of consumer goods which are supplied
from China.
I have been a supported of the current executive before he considered running. And his
choice to agree with the intel report and more was a fairly tough pill to swallow. As it turns
it was but one of many.
No I found the intel dubious. And I think the executive could have challenged in a manner
that did not call the CIA and other agencies DIA, etc. or damage his ability to curtail his
policy agenda. But having signed — he essentially states Pres Putin and the Russians are
active enemies of the US given that scenario
one would draw on our behavior in Afghanistan hen we supported the Taliban with weapons to
kill Russian soldiers —-
@Trinity
fought more effectively and efficiently than the novice American soldiers. Then there were
technical factors which were naturally advantageous to the more experienced military. For
example the famous 88mm anti-aircraft gin turned anti-tsnk gun was never matched by the Allies
(I thin) and the German tactics for its use were also superior. Germany, though less than the
Soviet Union had another advantage over Britain and France. It’s population went on
growing fast for a generations beyond the end of high growth in Britain and, especially,
France. For example there were 2 million Germans born in 1913 to provide young men for the army
in the 30s.
Yes, as I’ve said repeatedly, the ‘sinister players’, the Judaic NEOCON
cabal want to keep America and Russia apart mainly for their hate of Christianity and gentiles,
and try to destroy them both.
@Curmudgeon
uld be a return to what was indeed Hitler’s scheme of continental autarky and a more even
distribution of wealth, and a democratic model much more in line with the Prussian model, the
latter bearing significant resemblance with the Chinese Mandarin system. The Chinese Communists
are really doing nothing different than the old emperors running a meritocracy rather than an
idiocracy. Western democracies, esp the US, with their insane and horrendously expensive
election circuses tend to achieve the latter. I hear Kanye West is running for president now.
The problem with China is not Communism but their adoption of Western state-capitalism.
I am sure President Putin would be delighted to draw international attention to this new
symbol of a Christian resurgence in Russia. President Trump would appreciate the splendor of
such a backdrop for his meeting with another major head of state. Many of the Evangelicals
among Trumps’s base would be gobsmacked to learn that Mr. Putin is not running a godless,
soulless Communist hellstate. And many of people in the US State Department and the rest of the
Swamp would utterly sh*t their pants.
True dat. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the exceptionals.
And Cheney’s daughter burns the midnight oil in order to keep the pot boiling in
Afghanistan. MUST have U.S. troops there to oppose “terrorists” with AKs.
NYT is a rental rag that always favored Soviets and now CCP, why cite it anymore?
The Russia distraction distracts from Piglosi, Feinstein, Biden, Bushes, congress and corps
etc etc being in bed$ with China. With the side benefit of Russian alienation from the US
driving Russian goods into the China slaughter house on the cheap.
@Derer
pants over Assad’s or Gaddafi’s purported authoritarianisms like they’re
skunk pie. Eeeww!
You’re right that we have lunatics in Washington but I don’t think “direct
voting” is the answer. Devolution plus draconian anti-trust enforcement. crucifixion of
the Antifa filth, massive deportations, ending black privilege, brutally honest debate over
black failure, draconian anti-vote fraud operations, and naming and neutralizing the role and
power of organized Jewry and its wealth seem more likely to get us back on track. Please be
more creative then “majority rule.”
Jesus. “Choke points” can be dealt with from afar. It takes a while to rebuild
railroad bridges. The concept of the Russian and Iranian enemies has worn a little thin these
last few days. It’s just assumed that Russia is a malignant force just as it’s
universally assumed that “special sauce” is the way to go on McDonalds’
hamburgers. I accept neither proposition.
I want troops on the U.S. southern border not on the “flanks” of Iran or
policing “transit corridors” here and there but that’s just me.
@Wizard
of Oz a refuses to extradite a woman to Britain for actual homicide. Zero grounds to hold
him.
From their political standpoint the safest way out is for Assange to simply die in the
maximum-security prison, so the extradition proceedings can simply be dropped. All problems
solved.
So, he is in actual fact in prison for life.
Never mind that Britain did something virtuous in the distant past. Today is today. And
notice that serial murderers can be friendly and courteous between murders but that nice
behaviour doesn’t exonerate them for the murders. Nazi Germany looks angelic relative to
the Britain of today.
“The Gulf of Tonkin “event” was a lie, so there’s that.”
No. It in reality, it was a series of confused messages from the patrol boat. But was used
to support a defense of S. Vietnam — the matter is of no consequence. The US was going to
defend S. Vietnamese sovereignty regardless of the Tonkin event.
Today on TruNews Rick interviews Andrew Torba, the founder of Gab, a free speech
alternative to the tyrants at Twitter. They discuss how the Silicon Valley elite use their
satanic bias to silence opposition and have a mission to purge Christianity from their
platforms.
FYI while BLM and RG draw our attention and now RABAS have made all other conspiracies
recede into Corona graveyard
( Russia gate and Russia Afghan Bounty American Solider )
Kushner stoke and his DNA repaired the monetary damages back at home of origin .
Israel lobby organizations such as the Zionist Organization of America ($2-5 million),
Friends of the IDF ($2-5 million) and the Israeli American Council ($1-2 million) are grabbing
huge 100% forgivable loans from the CARES Act PPP program.
According to SBA data released on Monday, Israeli’s Bank Leumi has doled out a quarter to
a half billion dollars under the PPP program, despite being called out for operating in the
occupied West Bank.
Leumi has given sweetheart deals to fellow Israeli companies Oran Safety Glass (which defrauded
the US Army on bulletproof glass contracts) and Energix, which operates power plants in the
occupied Golan Heights and West Bank.
This exchange took place today on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal.
This video clip with additional information is available on IRmep’s YouTube
Channel.
Grant F. Smith is the author of the new book The Israel Lobby Enters State Government. He is
director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy IRmep in Washington, D.C. which
co-organizes IsraelLobbyCon each year at the National Press Club.
@geokat62
– colonial expansion,
– rolling genocide of the Palestinian people, witness 2014 Operation Protective Edge,
– terrorist attacks of neighboring Arab/Muslim states – Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq,
Occupied Territories, Iran & Syria;
– terrorist attacks on Western nations, incl. the UK, the US, & France (since its
Parliament voted to recognize Palestine as a state in 2014), and
– sponsoring of terror organizations e.g, ISIS, to continue its proxy war on
Syria.
– etc, etc
In addition to Constantinople, years later defending Ottoman remnants in Bosnia and Kosovo
against the Christians by “cigar” Clinton and warmonger Blair that introduced the
Islamization of Europe.
@Erzberger
e lines of making distinctions e.g. between deliberate murder of harmless civilians and forcing
choices on them (starve Russian prisoners and ration food to mothers and children e.g.). Of
course the choice to get rid of their government and stop the war is unrealistic even in the
post Cold War world. What did sanctions on Iran produce?? Just civilian deaths.
** it is only recently that I discovered that it made a big contribution to diverting German
effort from the Eastern Front though it is not surprising that Stalin thought the absence of a
Second Front in France was meant to help the Germans savage the USSR.
@Patagonia
Man he approx dozen Israeli dual citizens he alleges are in the Australian Parliament
contrary to the provisions of the Australian constitution.
So, don’t encourage him Geo, by thanking him. That Israeli nonsense is enough to brand
him as a nutter.
As to Quadrant, what does it matter that, in the 50s, and maybe till about 1970, it was
given some financial support by the CIA? Really, what is the point in the 21st century? Does it
matter to current affairs that Robert Maxwell owned the Daily Mirror till the 90s?
If I don’t reply to all the rubbish no one should infer the truth of anything
Patagonia Man alleges.
He takes various commandments of God and distills it into a silly… Debt = Sin.
Indeed, it is true that one can take anything and make it fit their delusional way of thought.
E.g. the 3 in 1, of the pagan Trinity.
Of course, that does not mean, Usury (extortionate moneylending) ≠ Sin, which it most
certainly is.
The Ten Commandments were about debt? A silly interpretation. They are primarily about
Monotheism and a righteous way-of-life, and refraining from usury is just one aspect of it.
Christianity got perverted? Yes, it most certainly is a pagan perversion of True
Monotheism.
“Sure, Poland bears major responsibility for WW 2, and lending themselves to now
hosting US nukes and troops to be moved over from Germany signals that they once again have not
learned a thing from their past.”
— Stepping on rakes as a national pastime.
@Ann
Nonny Mouse an associated organisation whose stated objective is to ‘maximise support
for the State of Israel within the British Liberal Democrat Party’…
Spaight claims that drawing the war to the British isles was done in solidarity with the
Soviets. This is nonsense but a timely propaganda move at a time when German defeat was
assured. Stalin did no fall into that trap. He lknew about Operation Pike and Operation
Impossible, and had zero reason to trust the British. Wikipedia has a page on either
Operation
Denialist? A careful textual analysis tells me you are saying WoZ denies what you assert,
which is that there are about a dozen Israeli dual citizens in the Australian Parliament,
contrary to law. Instead of coyly dancing around the issue what about meeting the challenge to
name at least some?
@Erzberger
Thanks. Mind you I think the Blitz was pretty indiscriminate bombing before Britain was in a
position to inflict much damage on Germany. I gather attacks on London from the start were a
strategic error by Hitler because the Liluftwaffe should have kept up its attacks on Britisk
airfields. Interesting that Albert Speer, in the “World at War” series, said that
four more raids like the 1000 bomber raid on Hamburg (or maybe it was Cologne) would have
finished the war. Why couldn’t Bomber Command do I it? Maybe it was because Eisenhower
won the battle to have bombers diverted to bombing the Pas we Calais (mostly) and Normandie.
“Mind you I think the Blitz was pretty indiscriminate bombing before Britain was in a
position to inflict much damage on Germany.”
Wrong.
BTW, the Blitz is a misnomer. Blitzkrieg is tactical air support for ground troops. Neither
applies to the air attacks on German cities in May 1940, or the German retaliation, several
months later, that we know as the Blitz.
Richard Overy though has argued that the German Blitz showed the British how it was done
efficiently, so they improved their bombing strategy accordingly afterwards. Whatever
Today statues, tomorrow mass firings... or even worse. There's a history here.
I'm ambivalent about statues and J.K. Rowling being torn down, but terrified of the thought
process behind the destruction. Decisions should never be made by mobs.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.393.1_en.html#goog_104228712 NOW
PLAYING
The Coronavirus Pandemic Is Throwing A Wrench Into The Lives Of High School Juniors
Shanghai To Reopen Schools
Harvard and MIT Sue Trump Administration Over Foreign Student Visa Rule
Rugged Individualism: ICE To Deport International Students If Universities Shift Online
Tokyo May Keep Schools Closed Through May
Virginia Bans Natural Hair Discrimination In Workplaces and Schools
Five Tweets From Parents Appreciating Teachers During The Coronavirus Quarantine
USC To Offer Free Tuition For Families Making Less Than 80K Per Year
Is America on the edge of a cultural revolution?
The historical namesake and obvious parallel is the Cultural
Revolution in China, which lasted from 1966 to 1976. Its stated goal was to purge
capitalist and traditional elements from society, and to substitute a new way of thinking based
on Mao's own beliefs. The epic struggle for control and power waged war against anybody on the
wrong side of an idea.
To set the mobs on somebody, one needed only to tie him to an official blacklist like the
Four Olds (old customs, culture, habits, and ideas). China's young people and urban workers
formed Red Guard units to go after whomever was outed. Violence? Yes, please. When Mao launched
the movement in May 1966, he told his mobs to "bombard the headquarters" and made clear that
"to rebel is justified." He said "revisionists should be removed through violent class
struggle." The old thinkers were everywhere and were systematically trying to preserve their
power and subjugate the people.
Whetted, the mobs took the task to heart: Red Guards destroyed historical relics, statues,
and artifacts, and ransacked cultural and religious sites. Libraries were burned. Religion was
considered a tool of capitalists and so churches were destroyed -- even the Temple of Confucius
was wrecked. Eventually the Red Guards moved on to openly killing people who did not think as
they did. Where were the police? The cops were told not to intervene in Red Guard activities,
and if they did, the national police chief pardoned the Guards for any crimes.
Education was singled out, as it was the way the old values were preserved and transmitted.
Teachers, particularly those at universities, were considered the "Stinking Old Ninth" and were
widely persecuted. The lucky ones just suffered the public humiliation of shaved heads, while
others were tortured. Many were slaughtered or harassed into suicide. Schools and universities
eventually closed down and over 10 million former students were sent to the countryside to
labor under the Down to the Countryside Movement. A lost generation was abandoned to fester,
uneducated. Red Guard pogroms eventually came to include the cannibalization
of revisionists. After all, as Mao said, a revolution is not a dinner party.
The Cultural Revolution destroyed China's economy and traditional culture, leaving behind a
possible death toll ranging from one to 20 million. Nobody really knows. It
was a war on the way people think. And it failed. One immediate consequence of the
Revolution's failure was the rise in power of the military after regular people decided they'd
had enough and wanted order restored. China then became even more of a capitalist society than
it had ever imagined in pre-Revolution days. Oh well.
I spoke with an elderly Chinese academic who had been forced from her classroom and made to
sleep outside with the animals during the Revolution. She recalled forced self-criticism
sessions that required her to guess at her crimes, as she'd done nothing more than teach
literature, a kind of systematic revisionism in that it espoused beliefs her tormentors thought
contributed to the rotten society. She also had to write out long apologies for being who she
was. She was personally held responsible for 4,000 years of oppression of the masses. Our
meeting was last year, before
white guilt became a whole category on Netflix, but I wonder if she'd see now how similar
it all is.
That's probably a longer version of events than a column like this would usually feature. A
tragedy on the scale of the Holocaust in terms of human lives, an attempt to destroy culture on
a level that would embarrass the Taliban -- this topic is not widely taught in American
colleges, never mind in China.
It should be taught, because history
rhymes . Chinese students are again outing teachers, sometimes via cellphone videos, for "
improper
speech ," teaching hurtful things from the past using the wrong vocabulary. Other Chinese
intellectuals are harassed online for holding outlier positions, or lose their jobs for
teaching novels with the wrong values. Once abhorred as anti-free speech, most UC Berkeley
students would likely now agree that such steps are proper. In Minnesota, To Kill A Mockingbird
and Huckleberry Finn are
banned because fictional characters use a racial slur.
There are no statues to the Cultural Revolution here or in China. Nobody builds monuments to
chaos. But it's never really about the statues anyway. In America, we moved quickly from
demands to tear down the statues of Robert E. Lee to Thomas Jefferson to basically any
Caucasian, including "
White Jesus. "
Of course, it was never going to stop with Confederate generals because it was not really
about racism any more than the Cultural Revolution was really about capitalism. This is about
rewriting history for political ends , both short-term power grabs (Not Trump 2020!) and longer
term societal changes that one critic calls the " successor ideology ," the melange
of academic radicalism now seeking hegemony throughout American institutions. Douglas Murray is more succinct. The purpose "is to
embed a new metaphysics into our societies: a new religion." The ideas -- centered on there
being only one accepted way of thought -- are a tool of control.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT
MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
It remains to be seen where America goes next in its own nascent cultural revolution. Like
slow dancing in eighth grade, maybe nothing will come of it. These early stages, where the
victims are Uncle Ben, Aunt Jemima, someone losing her temper while walking a dog in Central
Park, and canceled celebrities, are a far cry from the millions murdered for the same goals in
China. Much of what appears revolutionary is just Internet pranking and common looting
amplified by an agendaized media. One writer
sees "cancel culture as a game, the point of which is to impose unemployment on people as a
form of recreation." B-list celebs
and Karens in the parking lot are easy enough targets. Ask the Red Guards: it's fun to break
things.
Still, the intellectual roots of our revolution and China's seem similar: the hate of the
old, the need for unacceptable ideas to be disappeared in the name of social progress,
intolerance toward dissent, violence to enforce conformity.
In America these are spreading outward from our universities so that everywhere today --
movies, TV, publishing, news, ads, sports -- is an Oberlin where in the name of free speech
"hate speech" is banned, and in the name of safety dangerous ideas and the people who hold them
are not only not discussed but canceled, shot down via the projectile of the heckler's veto,
unfriended, demonetized, deleted, de-platformed, demeaned, chased after by mobs both real and
online in a horrible blend of self-righteousness and cyber bullying. They don't believe in a
marketplace of ideas. Ideas to the mob are either right or wrong and the "wrong" ones must be
banished. The choices to survive the mobs are conformity or silence. In China, you showed
conformity by carrying around Mao's Little Red Book .
In America, you wear a soiled surgical mask to the supermarket.
The philosophical spadework for an American Cultural Revolution is done. Switch the terms
capitalism and revisionism with racism and white supremacy in some of Mao's speeches and you
have a decent speech draft for a Black Lives Matter rally. Actually, you can keep Mao's
references to destroying capitalism, as they track pretty closely with progressive thought in
2020 America.
History is not there to make anyone feel safe or justify current theories about policing.
History exists so we can learn from it, and for us to learn from it, it has to exist for us to
study it, to be offended and uncomfortable with it, to bathe in it, to taste it bitter or
sweet. When you wash your hands of an idea, you lose all the other ideas that grew to challenge
it. Think of those as antibodies fighting a disease. What happens when they are no longer at
the ready? What happens when a body forgets how to fight an illness? What happens when a
society forgets how to challenge a bad idea with a better one?
Someone finally noticed. History doesn't just rhyme, sometimes it repeats.
These people so closely following the leftist agenda ignore the fact the the security law
being jammed down the throats of semi-British people (used to a degree of freedom) in Hong
Kong is coming from a leftist group know as China. When I first went to China, in moments
away from my handlers (now "minders") new middle-class professionals told me that China would
survive as a society as long as simple freedoms were advanced. The children of those people
are now growing up in a new kind of totalitarian system,where you are "disappeared" if you
cause trouble.
Socialism does not need to be like this, but it is the way it always ends up. The people
who are burning and looting are even harder to control when they disagree with a pure
democratic government. The alternative is a representative democracy. Sound familiar?
Theosebes Goodfellow , 9 minutes ago
what is happening in the USA today is due directly to the fact that we did not teach our
children about the "Lost Generation", (how the Chinese themseves describe it), i.e., the
Chinese "Cultural Revolution".
But the Marxist-Leninist tachers, especially in colleges and universities, DO NOT want to
have to teach anything that shows Communism in a bad light. So it di not get taught.
Fortunately we have the lessons prepared for our little tykes by the late, detested Hugo
Chavez. Nothing says "Socialism/Communism Sucks". The ex-bus driver turned narco-trafficker
Maduro is just icing on the cake. You can't hide that disaster. And if you think it's bad in
Venezuela now, what until those stuck there start starvig to death. That's coming to
Venezuela next. It will, by the way, be the first time in modern history that a famine will
have struck the New World.
Now there's an accolade to lay at the feet of the collectivists.
TrustbutVerify , 10 minutes ago
The American Cultural Revolutionaries (BLM, Antifa, NFAC, etc.)...Democratic Party voters
all.
cjones1 , 10 minutes ago
Chinese families had to throw their antique furniture into the street to escape
condemnation. Many people starved if they were not given a ration ticket.
I was told that even today unmarried, pregnant woman are unable to obtain obstetric
services to deliver their baby. Their babies are not officially recognized and are often left
on street. Childless couples may adopt them or they are left for orphanages
The Democratic party has sanctioned the violent mobs in their politically correct
condemnations. It is a great irony that tge Democratic party is a Confederate memorial. The
Democratic party's legacy is slavery, racism, bigotry, segregation, lynch mobs, and the KKK
hoodlums. They have new hoodlums in Antifa, BLM, and the TDS afflicted that paint bigoted
slogans on city streets and elsewhere.
I was listening to an interview with Tucker Carlson by The Federalist last week. Great
interview, by the way. He said, and I am paraphrasing:
'During the Cultural Revolution in China, Confucius and his entire family's graves were
all dug up and desecrated. The message was clear: If they come for him, they will come for
YOU and have no problems in doing so'.
So, these statues are just objects to them. And, if you get in their way, you will just be
an object to be removed. This is all very surreal to me.....and quite frightening. I am not
one to post bravado. I am only a man. I want to harm no one and want no one to harm me.
However, the time is coming when I will be tested. It seems it will be sooner rather than
later. I hope that with my faith well grounded in God that I will endure what comes to
me.
SDShack , 8 minutes ago
Statues are monuments to history to stimulate debate among future generations what those
monuments represent. Violently erasing statues by one side, means that side admits they
cannot win the future debate. Hence they must eliminate what they perceive is the "history"
that is preventing them from winning. Violent action is almost always due to hidden
insecurity from the known inability to intellectually win an argument. It's their moment to
crap all over the chessboard and leave.
"... In 2013, the national outcry over Trayvon Martin's death and George Zimmerman's acquittal sparked a national outcry over racial injustice. Amid this controversy, three activists, Patrisse Cullors , Alicia Garza , and Opal Tometi , started a hashtag, #BlackLivesMatter, which soon went viral. They then founded the national Black Lives Matter organization. ..."
"... No doubt, the organization itself was quite radical from the very beginning. Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors described herself and fellow co-founder Alicia Garza as "trained Marxists" in a recently resurfaced video from 2015. ..."
"... The official Black Lives Matter organization is Marxist ..."
"... Such a divisive ideology only fuels perpetual conflict, not progress toward reconciliation. By failing to drive this toxic extremism out loudly and clearly from their side of the issue, the large majority of Black Lives Matter supporters -- who simply seek reform, justice, and reconciliation -- take a chainsaw to any chance of achieving common ground and consensus. ..."
n Monday night, Terry Crews was grilled over his criticism of Black Lives Matter by CNN host
Don Lemon. As Gina Bontempo pointed out on Twitter : "Don
Lemon did everything he could to talk over Terry and silence him as soon as they started
approaching what the BLM organization is *really* about."
So what is Black Lives Matter really about?
Many conservatives insist Black Lives Matter is a Marxist, anti-police, radical organization
that wants to tear down America . Meanwhile, most liberals simply view Black Lives Matter as a
heroic movement and powerful slogan signaling support for racial justice and opposition to
police brutality.
Both are right.
There is Black Lives Matter™️, and there is "black lives matter."
Black Lives Matter as a broad sentiment and movement then gained national attention and name
recognition after the 2014 deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown. Meanwhile, the official
group expanded and many more local chapters formed.
No doubt, the organization itself was quite radical from the very beginning. Black Lives
Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors described herself and fellow co-founder Alicia Garza as
"trained Marxists" in a recently
resurfaced video from 2015.
"We actually do have an ideological frame[work]," Cullors said
of her organization. "We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological
theories."
Meanwhile, the national organization's official
platform , published in 2015, contained a specific call to "[disrupt] the
Western-prescribed nuclear family structure."
At the local level, official Black Lives Matter chapters are essentially far-left front
groups that use racial justice as a Trojan horse for leftist policy and ideology. For example,
the official organization Black Lives Matter DC openly dedicates itself to "creating the conditions
for Black Liberation through the abolition of systems and institutions of white supremacy,
capitalism, patriarchy and colonialism."
Image credit: Johnny Silvercloud, Flickr
Unsurprisingly, conservatives have bashed the radical group en masse.
"Black Lives Matter is an openly Marxist, anti-America n group," conservative commentator
Mark Levin said . "There's no denying
it. And it is fully embraced by the Democrat Party and its media and cultural
surrogates."
"Black Lives Matter is a Marxist movement," Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz tweeted . "Black Lives
Matter is not about police, it's not about race, it's not about justice. It's about making us
hate America so they can replace America."
"You know, I know plenty of people who are for Black Lives Matter. A lot of them are nice
people," Fox News Host Tucker Carlson
recently said . "I'm not mad at them. I disagree I think Black Lives Matter is
poison."
These kinds of conservative criticisms of Black Lives Matter are widespread. And on one
hand, they're right : The official Black Lives Matter organization is Marxist, is anti-American
in its values, and its views are rightfully alarming to anyone who believes in the
Constitution, capitalism, and civil society as we know it.
But in applying their reflexive response to all Black Lives Matter supporters, conservative
critics are failing to see the forest for the trees.
Most of these people, I suspect, don't even know that there is an official Black Lives
Matter organization. And I'm sure hardly any of them could name Patrisse Cullors or Alicia
Garza.
Whether it's where I'm from in deep-blue Massachusetts or where I live now in Washington
D.C., walking by a Black Lives Matter sign sticking out from someone's yard is just about an
everyday occurrence. After the death of George Floyd, more of my acquaintances, friends, and
relatives than I could count posted #BlackLivesMatter.
Many others changed their picture to a black square or otherwise signaled their support for
the movement.
I can personally guarantee you that the vast majority of these people, while liberal, do not
support ending capitalism or dismantling the family. Conservatives are led astray as soon as
they apply their (valid) criticisms of Black Lives Matter™️ the organization to
the Black Lives Matter movement and its supporters broadly.
Image Credit: John Lucia, Flickr
Just look at the way some on the Right responded to Sen. Mitt Romney after he attended a
Washington, D.C. protest against police brutality, telling reporters he did so "to make sure
that people understand that Black Lives Matter."
Here's a sampling of how hostile the response was from some conservative pundits on
Twitter:
Even President Trump attacked Romney over it:
No matter how you feel about the conservative Mormon senator politically (and I'm far from a
fan), no one can credibly argue that Romney supports destroying the nuclear family, ending
capitalism, or abolishing the police.
Meanwhile, Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana faced a similar unfair backlash when he announced his
support for Black Lives Matter and
unveiled a modest police reform proposal :
It may well be true that in particular conservative circles, everyone is well aware of the
obscure history of the Black Lives Matter founders' Marxist roots. But the average person on
the street and the average person who shares the hashtag are most certainly not. And the
movement itself has become something much bigger, broader, and more benevolent than the
original organization.
However, it's by no means just conservatives who err in their approach to Black Lives
Matter. For one, many on the Left fail to acknowledge at all the Marxist roots of the official
Black Lives Matter organization, and thus, paint anyone who objects to the organization as
racist, unthinkingly inveighing: "How could anyone not support black lives?" This kind of
clever naming of a controversial movement, similar to "Antifa" supposedly standing for
"anti-fascist," makes it easy to baselessly paint critics as extreme and immoral. Yet this is a
reductive oversimplification that serves only to divide.
So, too, much of the blame for the Black Lives Matter perception gap lies with liberals,
Democrats, and others who support the movement for failing to adequately distance themselves
from the radical organization.
For example, I visited one of my favorite coffee shops in Arlington, Virginia over the
weekend. Like many a hipster coffee shop, it had a Black Lives Matter sign in the window and
had a fundraiser going on for the cause as well. But I was dismayed to read the flyer and
notice that the proceeds of the fundraiser were going to the official Black Lives Matter DC
organization -- yes, the same one that openly wants to abolish capitalism.
Now, I highly doubt that the owners of this coffee shop, even if they are progressives or
Democrats, actually support Marxism. More importantly, I'm certain that most customers who
donated, even in the liberal-leaning neighborhood, do not realize they are donating to a
Marxist, anti-American revolutionary organization by participating in the fundraiser. But they
are.
Many a mainstream liberal has signaled support for the generic "black lives matter" cause by
sharing fundraisers that, if you look closely, go to official Black Lives Matter organizations
that do not actually represent their views. Meanwhile, liberal-leaning media outlets such as MSNBC
regularly platform official members of the Marxist Black Lives Matter movement and pass the
radical activists off as within the mainstream.
From corporations to politicians to random Facebook users, Black Lives Matter supporters
need to do a much better job distancing themselves from the radical organization at the root of
their slogan. (Or, alternatively, they should come up with a new and different slogan that
doesn't have such malign associations.)
This lack of due diligence is lazy and irresponsible, but more importantly, it's
dangerous.
Marxism is a vicious ideology, and it's one that is rooted in a divisive vision of
irreconcilable class conflict. As important economist Ludwig von Mises
noted ,
"According to the Marxian view... human society is organized into classes whose interests stand
in irreconcilable opposition." Moreover, as Mises explains ,
Marxists believe that people's very thoughts ought to be determined by their class and that
those who differ from the prescribed worldview are class traitors.
Such a divisive ideology only fuels perpetual conflict, not progress toward reconciliation.
By failing to drive this toxic extremism out loudly and clearly from their side of the issue,
the large majority of Black Lives Matter supporters -- who simply seek reform, justice, and
reconciliation -- take a chainsaw to any chance of achieving common ground and consensus.
When Don Lemon took issue with Terry Crews's take on Black Lives Matter, Crews was
crystal clear , saying, "This is the
thing. It's a great mantra. It's a true mantra. Black lives do matter. But, when you're talking
about an organization, you're talking about the leaders, you're talking about the people who
are responsible for putting these things together. It's two different things."
We need more of that kind of clarity in our discourse. Right now, the debate over "Black
Lives Matter" is muddled and confused. Liberals and conservatives alike need to make an effort
to listen and understand the other side's perspective, not the strawman caricature of it used
as a punching bag in partisan echo chambers. Until both sides take the time to understand each
other, we will keep talking past each other -- and any real progress or harmony will remain a
fantasy.
I have searched the Internet and cannot find the alleged second autopsy -- the so-called
"independent autopsy" hired by "George Floyd's family." I have no difficulty finding the
official medical examiner's report, but there is no sign of a second autopsy. Those of you who
are convinced it exists please send me the URL. It will prove that you are a better Internet
searcher than I am.
Based on the available information, the "second autopsy" consists of an assertion by CNN, a
collection of liars that other presstitutes echo. Thus, the presstitutes created a non-existent
"second autopsy" just as they created Russiagate and Russian bounties to the Taliban to kill
American troops in Afganistan that President Trump allegedly refuses to do anything about.
Precisely how does Trump do something about something that does not exist? Try to imagine
people so stupid that the morons think the Taliban has to be paid by Russia to kill the
American troops who are trying to occupy Afghanistan. The Taliban have been killing the US
occupying troops for two decades! Why suddenly are Russian bounties necessary for the Taliban
to kill US troops? It is just more concocted anti-Trump propaganda.
Similarly, how can a second autopsy that allegedly concludes that officer Chauvin murdered
Floyd be refuted when no such autopsy exists?
What does exist is a twice fired former medical examiner, first fired by New York City and
then by Suffold County, who serves as a hired gun to give inflamatory statements to the media
in support of civil lawsuits for money. His name is Michael Baden.
Baden did no second autopsy. He viewed the video of officer Chauvin and gave his opinion
that Chauvin killed Floyd by cutting off oxygen and blood to the brain. In this rhetorical
footwork, he was aided by the rightwing idiot Sean Hannity on Fox News.
Nowhere in the media is there any mention of Floyd's existing serious health conditions, his
drug addiction, or the level of fentanyl in his blood that was in excess of a fatal dose. The
medical examiner's report has been ignored by the presstitute media and by public authorities
including the prosecutor who indicted officer Chauvin.
"Can you overdose on fentanyl? Yes, a person can overdose on fentanyl. An overdose occurs
when a drug produces serious adverse effects and life-threatening symptoms. When people
overdose on fentanyl, their breathing can slow or stop. This can decrease the amount of oxygen
that reaches the brain, a condition called hypoxia. Hypoxia can lead to a coma and permanent
brain damage, and even death."
"Synthetic opioids, including fentanyl, are now the most common drugs involved in drug
overdose deaths in the United States. In 2017, 59.8 percent of opioid-related deaths involved
fentanyl compared to 14.3 percent in 2010" -- https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/fentanyl
"Among an estimated 70,200 drug overdose deaths in 2017, the largest increase was related to
fentanyl and its analogs with more than 28,400 overdose deaths. However, these numbers are
likely underreported." -- https://www.drugs.com/illicit/fentanyl.html
According to harmreductionohio.org, 700 micrograms (less than one milligram) is an overdose
from which death is likely. One milligram (1000 micrograms) carries the risk of "death near
certain." Two milligrams and death is certain and unavoidable. A dose of 250 micrograms
(one-fourth of one milligram) can kill a non-tolerant user. "Conventional medical wisdom is
that 2,000 micrograms is the 'minimum lethal dose' -- in other words, the smallest amount that
can be fatal. This estimate is far too high. Two thousand micrograms (2 milligrams) of pure
fentanyl injected into a vein would cause even most heavy heroin users to overdose --
especially if fentanyl is mixed with any other substance, such as heroin, alcohol or Xanax."
https://www.harmreductionohio.org/how-much-fentanyl-will-kill-you-2/
Don't write to me what you think. What you think is not the issue. The facts are the issue.
If you don't now the facts, you simply do not know. Ignorant and manipulated emotion is not a
basis for arriving at truth.
There is no mention in the media of Floyd's bloodwork showing the high level of fentanyl or
by Hannity in his enabling interview of a hired gun, Michael Baden, who intends to make himself
and Floyd's "family" multimillionaires with a civil lawsuit. No doubt but that Baden is
grateful to Hannity for giving him the public forum for his clients.
With no mention that Floyd had a fatal dose of a dangerous opioid that is known to stop
breathing and cause a heart attack, the hired gun, Michael Baden, can pronounce officer Chavin
guilty.
That is what the media want to hear. That is what the politicians are invested in. That is
what Hannity in his stupidity has given to the leftwing as a weapon.
Here I am trying to defend the truth. There is no second autopsy, but everyone has been
convinced that there is. What reach can one naysaying voice have when an irresponsible media
has enthroned a lie?
Why was a "second autopsy" needed? According to CNN for no reason at all. According to CNN
the official medical examiner's report supports that Floyd's death was homicide by police. If
so, why did the "Floyd family" have to hire someone to say the same thing?
But this is just another CNN lie. There is no mention of homicide in the medical examiner's
report. There is no blame attributed to the police, The title of the medical examiner's report
has been intentionally misrepresented by the presstitute media to imply that the police at
least had a small part in Floyd's death.
The report states: "No life-threatening injuries identified." The title in the medical
examiner's report is nothing but a list of the factors investigated. The Amerian presstitute
media has falsified the meaning of the use of the word "restraint" in the title of the medical
examiner's report to mean that police restraint contributed to Floyd's death.
To summarize: Michael Baden did not do an autopsy. He provided his self-serving
interpretation of the video everyone has seen. CNN turned this into a "second autopsy." Other
media picked up the CNN misrepresentation of a video interpretation as an autopsy, and the
"fact" of a second autopsy was created. The medical examiner's report does not mention homicide
or use the word, and there is no mention of police restraint as a "confluence factor"
contributing to Floyd's breathing problem and death. Police or no police, the overdose of
fentanyl was sufficient to kill him. Note that no media has mentioned the fatal concentration
of fentanyl in Floyd's blood. That Floyd was murdered by police is very important to many
people, and this emotional response overwhelms facts. The media rushed us to judgment on an
emotional response to a video without any examination of the facts.
Consider also that the "peaceful protests" were not spontaneous outbreaks in multiple
cities. There were pre-delivered stacks of bricks present in protest locations. "Peaceful
protesters" arrived with knapsacks filled with concrete chunks. Antifa was on hand to initiate
the looting, burning, and violence. The presstitutes have tried to cover up these facts, but
Black Agenda Report affirms that the "spontaneous protests" were planned in advance:
There was nothing spontaneous about the breadth and scope of the protests that rocked the
nation last month, said veteran activist Monifa Bandele , a member of the policy table of the
Movement for Black Lives. "It really came off of six years of tough, exciting and inspiring
mass organizing," said Bandele. The unprecedented level of white participation was the result
of "half a decade of telling non-white activists, 'This is what it looks like, so follow the
lead of Black organizations.'"
Americans are the world's most gullible people. They have fallen for every transparent lie
of the 21st century from 9/11 through alleged Russian bounties to the Taliban to kill US
troops. Each time the truth eventually comes out. Controlled demolition brought down World
Trade Center Building Seven. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Saddam Hussein
had no al Qaeda connections. There were no Iranian nukes. Assad did not use chemical weapons.
Russia did not invade Ukraine. Yet the knowledge that they have been lied to and deceived does
not shield Americans from falling for the next lie.
A people unable to catch on to their constant manipulation has no future.
"Don't write to me what you think. What you think is not the issue. The facts are the
issue."
Let's get real. A big man put his weight on a handcuffed man's neck and kept up the
pressure despite pleas that he was causing distress. That constitutes "the facts". There is
no excuse for this.
Americans are the world's most gullible people. They have fallen for every transparent
lie of the 21st century from 9/11 through alleged Russian bounties to the Taliban to kill
US troops.
Second, there is clearly some sort of Journo-list type agreement among the MSM to suppress
and censor any mention of "fentanyl" in connection with George Floyd's death. None of the
write-ups of his death even mentioned the issue -- even though it is sitting there in plain
site.
Finally, I tried to post a comment at the WSJ that mentioned Floyd's fentanyl level and
took exception to the casual assertion that Floyd was definitively "killed" by police. The
mods denied the comment. I asked why, and they gave me this response:
Dear Sir,
We are declining to publish comments that question the official medical examiner's
ruling re: George Floyd's death.
Marc Baden also did the autopsy on Jeffrey Epstein which he ruked as a suicide, that nobdy
belueves, and did the autopsy for the O.J. Simpson trial.
Opioids are highly addictive, meaning that addicts must take increasingly hogher doses of
opioids in order to feel any effects, whether for pain relief, or simply for a high. What
would kill someone that is not an addict, may not kill a long time addict at all. It may, or
it may not, depending on the individual and their history of using that particular drug.
Considering that Floyd had to be dragged away after his neck was kneeled on for nearly
eight minutes, which definitely would prevent one from breathing, I do not understand how it
is that anyone can argue that he was not murdered in cold blood by Chauvin and aided and
abetted by the three other police officers that watched, and did nothing to intervene. They
just watched him being murdered.
How can anyone reasonably claim that kneeling on someone's neck for eight minutes would
not kill them? Chauvin and Floyd used to work together at a Mexican restaraunt, so they had a
previous history together, that appears to be not the greatest relationship. Floyd was a
terrible person that broke into a pregnant woman's house and brutally raped and robbed her,
causing miscarriage. He was not a hero in any way. He was a monster!!!
Oh, it's not about George Floyd. People are tired of being manhandled and threatened and
scared to death by dangerous ex-soldier killers. Not to mention outrageous tickets. And
they're unemployed. It's a fucking police state. When I think of the things you could do 50
years ago that you would be murdered for today. Makes me nostalgic.
Kneeling on a neck does NOT interfere with the airway. Floyd did not die from a lack of
air, he died from the drugs he ingested and his blocked arteries. Floyd did NOT rape anyone,
he did threaten with a gun and he did steal jewelry and a cell phone. There is no record of a
victim's miscarriage. Dr. Irwin Golden conducted the autopsies on Nicole Simpson and Ronald
Goldman. You need to get your facts straight.
In addition to the fatal dose of fentanyl, plus the meth and weed that were present in Mr.
Floyd's system, there was also evidence he had contracted Corona virus. So under the rules
that have prevailed since March or April of this year, his certificate of death should have
attributed his demise to Covid-19. Strangely, the media never mention this detail although
they usually can yammer of nothing else.
In addition to the fatal dose of fentanyl, plus the meth and weed that were present in
Mr. Floyd's system, there was also evidence he had contracted Corona virus.
Several good reasons not to hold the convict down with bare hands.
@Hypnotoad666 ly. And his was not just run-of-the-mill fried-chicken-induced hypertrophy.
Rather, both his ventricles were dilated, meaning he probably had both hypertrophic and
dilated cardiomyopathy, either one serious risk factors for sudden cardiac death even for a
teetotaler. This is not to mention the 70 to 90 percent occlusions in three of St. Fentanyl's
coronary arteries, blockages severe enough to virtually guarantee perfusion issues.
St. Fentanyl's ticker was a time bomb.
Most doctors afaik wouldn't recommend that someone with St. Fentanyl's clinical picture
gorge on cocktails of the most dangerous drugs on earth then do felonies and fight with the
cops when they show up.
@BeB e the first thing they see, and any later contravening evidence they have trouble
accepting. People saw the evidence and heard narrative from news-speakers.
This is why good propaganda rushes narrative. The first neurons to be myelin sheathed take
priority in the human brain.
A people unable to catch on to their constant manipulation has no future.
Propaganda works because first info myelin sheaths, and to overcome first info is many
orders more difficult.
Maybe we can be a little more sympathetic to Hitler's concentration camps, which were a
way of deprogramming the population from communist propaganda?
@Hypnotoad666 taki said, "There is no newspaper in the U.S. more supportive of Israel
than the [Murdoch's] New York Post." ).
I believe Murdoch's family and even the Fox Media have donated to BLM.
Every mainstream media outlet for the most part is against whites and Western
Civilization. ( Fox news does put up a bit of fight with Tucker Carlson). They want emptied
headed guilt ridden dim witted whites to do their bidding and they have won. Once the media
whether it's WSJ or an individual like Drew Brees takes the knee you should just remain there
because you know what you will be doing next. There is no going back once you become a
"Politcal Suckulator."
Floyd had a potentially (usually) fatal dose of fentanyl in his bloodstream and about 8x
as much morphine. He must have recently used heroin laced with fentanyl. The arrest and his
resisting it stressed him and raised the demands on his respiratory system, which failed
under the depressant effects of the opioids. He probably would have lived without the arrest,
but that doesn't mean the cops did anything wrong. He complained he couldn't breathe before
the infamous knee was applied and the cops called for an ambulance. Everyone involved knew
that what was happening was a medical emergency. That's why one of the cops said, "Don't do
drugs, kids." Floyd had just been fighting them, so he had to be restrained as the ambulance
was en route. The technique with the knee did not choke him to death.
But no one paid attention. The NPCs just fit it into the false narrative of police racism
the dinosaur media have been hawking for years.
One of the articles I read said that a second independent autopsy was conducted by Dr.
Allecia M. Wilson, pathologist from the University of Michigan, and by Dr. Michael Baden.
Allecia Wilson, MD
Assistant Professor, Forensic Pathology, Pediatric Pathology
Director, Autopsy and Forensic Services
Director, Residency Training Program
Department of Pathology
Michigan Medicine
University of Michigan
Wikipedia on Michael Baden re his testimony in the O.J. Simpson trial:
"Baden testified in the Simpson trial on August 10 and 11, 1995 and made two claims that
he later disowned.[30][31] First he claimed that Nicole Brown was still standing and
conscious when her throat was slashed.[32] The purpose of this claim was to dispute the
theory that Brown was the intended target. The prosecution argued that Brown was murdered
first and the intended target because the soles of her feet didn't have any blood on them
despite the large amount of blood at the crime scene and that she was unconscious when her
throat was cut because she had very few defensive wounds.[33][34] At the subsequent civil
trial the following year he disowned that claim and admitted it was absurd to think that
someone would stand still without moving their feet while their throat is being slashed and
not fight back.[35][36][37]
Baden then claimed that Ron Goldman remained conscious[38] and fought with his assailant
for at least ten minutes[39] with a severed jugular vein.[31][30] The purpose of this
testimony was to extend the length of time it took the murders to happen to the point where
Simpson had an alibi.[40] At the subsequent civil trial he initially denied making that claim
and then after being confronted with a video clip of him saying it at the criminal trial, he
disowned it. Baden claimed he misunderstood the question but the Goldman's attorney allege he
said it because the defense paid him to do so. He also alleged that Baden knowingly gave
false testimony because he knew that Ron Goldman's blood was found inside Simpson's Bronco
despite Goldman never having an opportunity within his lifetime to be in Simpson's car."
He said his reputation and credibility never recovered after the Simpson trial (for good
reason!) and in subsequent trials when he was called as an expert witness, he continued to be
discredited because of this testimony. The jury actually believed this guy!
Then in the Phil Spector case he was asked if he had any conflicts of interest, he said
no, but then it was later discovered that his wife was one of Spector's lead attorneys.
Aaaaagh! You can't make this stuff up.
Defense counsel is going to have a field day with this guy!
I first saw Michael Baden in action in the late 1990'a during the trial of a stripper and
her boyfriend for the murder of casino owner Ted Binion. Binion was found dead in his house
and the question was did he die of an drug overdose or was he murdered. Baden was the
prosecutions 'expert' who insisted Binion had been murdered via a technique called 'burking'
in which a helpless victim is smothered by holding his mouth and nose shut while sitting on
his chest.
It was quite a sensational trial and it was televised. There was no doubt Binion used
drugs but he did not use needles and the defense said he died from smoking heroin and
ingesting xanax. The problem was Binion was a rich and famous casino owner and the defendants
were seedy low lifes who tried to steal $6 million in silver Binion had put in a vault out in
the desert.
The defendants were convicted but their conviction was overturned and they were acquited (
of murder) in a new trial. They were convicted of stealing the silver however.
Michael Baden would have been in his early 60's during this trial. Today he is 85. I doubt
he will be as impressive an expert witness today as he was back then. I doubt the prosecution
or the "Floyd fanily" would dare let him testify.
I have no problem imagining a competent lawyer could make the case that Floyd died from a
massive drug overdose as there is plenty of evidence for that. What I see is a replay of the
Rodney King trial in which the police were exonerated, which was immediately followed by the
'92 riots in LA, except this time the riots will be all over the country and include whites.
Then the feds will step in and charge Chauvin with civil rights crimes in order to get him
behind bars for a couple years just to calm everybody down.
A google search finds multiple studies that all put the median level of fent overdose over
thousands of cases at around 9 or 10 ng/ml. As you said Floyd's was higher. Ng/ml is
independent of the persons size as it gives the concentration in the blood. This doesn't take
into account (as mentioned) the other drugs in his system. Nor does it also factor in his
extreme heart condition with passages blocked 90-75-50% according to the autopsy.
Paul your following references though correct, however, brutally twisted just like CNN or
Washington Compost and likes..
"Black Agenda Report affirms that the "spontaneous protests" were planned in advance"
AND
"There was nothing spontaneous about the breadth and scope of the protests that rocked the
nation last month, said veteran activist Monifa Bandele, a member of the policy table of the
Movement for Black Lives. "It really came off of six years of tough, exciting and inspiring
mass organizing"
If one listens to her radio interview one gets a different view than what you tried to
present. She was referring to her organization's effort for protest after Ferguson killing in
2014. In my opinion, nothing wrong with that.
On top of that you did not bother to provide any link for to support your spin. Thanks to the
internet, I was able to find the link and listened to half of the program. Entirely different
perspective than what I got from your write up. Here is the link:
Thanks I used to be surprised that Murdoch wasn't Jewish since he looked so much like Alan
Greenspan, Larry king, Larry Silverstein – a Jewish physiognomic category. Well now
that's sorted.
Americans are gullible, apathetic people who swallow any story no matter how absurd. Iraq,
a much smaller third world country, was going to come get us with it's WMD. Despite all the
self-flattery they're mostly a bunch of cowards, cringing with their snot-rag masks attached.
Not all of course, but way too many. Americans can be sold anything.
Why does the media, the entire width and breadth of that enormous machine, lie to us? Why
would they do such a thing?
The idea that the news media exists to inform you of objective facts about which you may
be unaware, is just silly and childish.
Paul Reuter: Reuter was born as Israel Beer Josaphat in Kassel, Germany.[4]. His father,
Samuel Levi Josaphat, was a rabbi ..
Moses Yale Beach: (January 7, 1800 – July 18, 1868) was an American inventor and
publisher who started the Associated Press, and is credited with originating print
syndication ..
And there you have just the tippy tip tip of the largest iceberg in this universe.
@BeB e separated from the ongoing effort to get rid of POTUS Trump. The Democrats and
their Allied Media have exploited these incidents for partisan political gain since 2010.
It's now a feature of our politics, just like primaries and Election Day in November.
There are a number of elements that drove and continue to drive the instant context. But
the essential one is that Trump was headed toward reelection in a landslide with Game Over
support from blacks of 20% or more. They're desperate to derail that trend. Though, as with
the previous efforts, various frame-up gambits and goading him into a war, he's refused to
take the bait.
My father (born 1923) was a doctor at the NYU Medical Center and knew Dr. Baden well. My
father was mild mannered and almost always saw the good in people. The one exception I recall
was his antipathy towards Dr. Baden who he considered a presstitute fraud of the first
order.
The New York Times publishes a report (June 2, 2020) by Frances Robles and Audra D. S.
Burch titled: "How Did George Floyd Die? Here's What We Know," with the
subheading: "A private autopsy commissioned by the family concluded that his death was a homicide,
brought about by compression of his neck and back by Minneapolis police officers."
The report appears compelling with expert testimony by both Dr. Michael Baden and Dr.
Allecia M. Wilson (of the University of Michigan). The NYT states:
"The findings by the family's private medical examiners directly contradict the [official
Hennepin County medical examiner's preliminary findings] report that there was no asphyxia,
said Dr. Allecia M. Wilson, of the University of Michigan, one of the doctors who examined
his body. The physical evidence showed that the pressure applied led to his death, she said.
In an interview, Dr. Michael Baden, who also participated in the private autopsy, said there
was also some hemorrhaging around the right carotid area."
So, here you go, if you believe the "newspaper of record."
"... people vote their resentments as much as their wallets ..."
"... People who think the Democratic Party is responsive to the concerns or interests of the poor and working classes are delusional, full stop. ..."
"... Charges of collusion with Russia are convenient misdirection. Half of Americans are so stupid and ignorant that they do not even fully grasp that Russia has not been our Communist enemy for going on thirty years. And, it suits the interests of some of these factional elements to aggravate the relationship with Russia, a nuclear power, while other elements simply do not care; none of them want to oppose, for example, the self-destructive policy of perpetual pointless and fabulously expensive war in the greater Middle East. ..."
"... So, Betsy DeVos and Steve Mnuchin never attract much opposition despite their open promotion of authoritarian corruption -- and they are the relatively salient crooks. ..."
a note on voter demographics and partisan alignment:
most of the poor and what used to be called working class do not actually vote. the
electoral strategies of both Parties are tuned in part to discouraging turnout, as much or
more than motivating turnout. not incidentally, neither Party nor much of anyone in office
champions electoral integrity. (my own county of Los Angeles has introduced a technology for
voting that seems positively designed for fraudulent vote counts -- a design consistent with
other local practices of long-standing, such as setting election dates with only a very few
items on the ballot or changing polling locations or encouraging mail-in ballots)
it is wrong to suppose that Trump has much support among the working class, let alone the
poor (see above about not-voting). the rough divide between Dems and Repubs lies along the
fault-lines of the nature of education and the nature of related income and employment.
people whose employment is credentialed by university education and especially those who work
in collegiate formations ("staff") doing "creative" professional or technical work tend to
vote Democratic; people who own businesses or work in business hierarchies ("line") directly
dominating subordinates doing more or less physical work, and had only incomplete university
education tend to vote Republican. most of those who do that somewhat physical,
not-credentialed work mostly do not vote at all, but if they do vote, they tend to vote
Democratic.
the spectrum of political opinion reflects human ambivalence, which encompasses diverse
reactions to any slogan or proposal: people vote their resentments as much as their
wallets .
People who think the Democratic Party is responsive to the concerns or
interests of the poor and working classes are delusional, full stop.
The people in counties
where the plague of, say, opioid addiction has been rampant who voted for Trump, are not the
addicts who did not vote at all, nor are they anti-capitalist neo-Marxists with a deep
concern about social cohesion and thorough-going understanding of the policies that brought
about de-industrialization and licensed irresponsible distribution of highly addictive
"prescription" drugs.
Apparently, neither are the morons who voted for Hilary Clinton,
because they thought she cared.
@ Lee A. Arnold and JimV re: Mueller Report not proving a negative
clinging to shreds is leading you to miss the larger point, which is that the manipulative
"leadership" of the so-called Resistance to Trump chose to focus its opposition on made-up
issues of no importance.
Trump, in terms of the policy agenda(s) of his crony-infested Administration and of his
own dubious business history, is presumably a target-rich environment. The Democrats and
their allies in the Media, the Foreign Policy Blob™ and so-called Intelligence
Community either do not actually oppose Trump's agenda in detail or (and this is important!)
do not want to openly advocate for their own reprehensible agenda(s).
Charges of collusion
with Russia are convenient misdirection. Half of Americans are so stupid and ignorant that
they do not even fully grasp that Russia has not been our Communist enemy for
going on thirty years. And, it suits the interests of some of these factional elements to
aggravate the relationship with Russia, a nuclear power, while other elements simply do not
care; none of them want to oppose, for example, the self-destructive policy of perpetual
pointless and fabulously expensive war in the greater Middle East.
So, Betsy DeVos and Steve
Mnuchin never attract much opposition despite their open promotion of authoritarian
corruption -- and they are the relatively salient crooks.
And, yes, Mueller chose not to clear much of anyone. Let's also note that, if the Russians
did, as Mueller claimed, play an instrumental role in disclosing emails from the Podesta
and/or the DNC, those emails were genuine and revealed the truth of the Clinton
campaign's deliberate circumvention of campaign finance laws, a circumvention that weakened
the Party's institutional integrity as well as its efforts at State and local levels to win
down-ballot races. I should not have to keep reminding people of that aspect of the 2016
election.
and by the way, Julian Assange is being tortured in a British prison at the behest of
American authorities and that does not seem to trouble much of anyone in the American
political establishment, of either Party.
Apologies to everyone, but I would like to interject some ramblings from a neophyte if I
may
On the 2016 election
I am, as previously noted, not particularly versed in US politics[1], so perhaps I have
missed something obvious. However, I'll confess I am a bit confused – it seems that
some commentators are framing the 2016 elections as though Clinton barely scraped by due to a
lack of interest, while Trump swept to victory on a tidal wave of popular support.
Again, perhaps I have inferred what was not implied, but that would seem to be an
interpretation which is not exactly supported – as far I can tell, the results of the
last decade of elections were:
2000: Bush (50,456,002) Gore (50,999,897) Total voters (101,455,899) turnout 50.3%
2004: Bush (62,040,610) Kerry (59,028,444) Total voters (121,069,054) turnout 55.7%
2008: McCain (59,948,323) Obama (69,498,516) Total voters (129,446,839) turnout 58.2%
2012: Romney (60,933,504) Obama (65,915,795) Total voters (126,849,299) turnout 54.9%
2016: Trump (62,984,828) Clinton (65,853,514) Total voters (128,838,342) turnout 55.7%
Voter turnout:
It would seem not unreasonable to conclude that from 2004 – 2016 the number of
voters has been between 121 and 129 million (ca. 7% difference) with the number of voters in
2016 being less than 1% lower than the maximum (in 2008). So, while one can certainly argue
that a 55.7% turnout is not representative of a majority, it would seem to be broadly
consistent with what is typical in the US (i.e. not more than 5% less than the majority of
other elections within the last decade) [2]. Given that countries without mandatory voting
appear to generally experience less turnout than those which do, I don't know that 2016 was a
horrifically low turnout given the system as is (whether or not the system is desirable is a
different question, of course, and somewhat outside the scope of this thread).
Trump popularity:
Again, when looking at the numbers, it would seem that Clinton and Trump were both
more-or-less within the distributions. Trump was superior to a 2004 Bush and Clinton worse
than a 2008 Obama, but Clinton still received more of the vote than Trump. It would certainly
be fair to say Clinton was not sufficiently more popular than Trump to achieve the
Presidency, but (in terms of votes, at least) she would still seem to have been more
popular.
Of course, this may be a facet of the two-party system. Perhaps Trump was beloved while
Clinton was despised. Possibly people voted for Trump with great enthusiasm while they voted
for Clinton with considerable reluctance. Maybe people believed Trump was going to change the
world as a popular president, while they thought Clinton was a shill for banks who would sell
everyone out. Potentially all Trump voters would have voted for him regardless, while all
Clinton voters would have seized upon any reasonable alternative. However, I think that would
need some supporting evidence about which I have not yet been made aware of – it
certainly doesn't appear to be obviously clear cut from the voting patterns [3] – so it
would seem to be a bit speculative in the absence of additional data.
To reiterate, it is entirely possible I have missed the obvious, but it would seem the
ideas that "obviously people were tired of Clinton and view Democrats as sellouts" or
"obviously Trump is popular because he appeals to the working class" are not necessarily as
straight-forward as they appear to be being offered. Though again, if people can provide some
reliable evidence, I would be most interested in reading to try and improve my (no doubt
rather flawed) understanding.
(US only) Economic consequences of the pandemic:
Radical change:
To bring this back to the topic of the OP, taking the scenario JQ sets up (i.e. Democrats
control presidency and congress) it would seem the disputed part in the comments is (c)
"mainstream Democrats recognise the need for radical change, and Biden will align with the
mainstream position as he always has done"
As far as I can tell, the main objections to this are (1) mainstream Democrats will not
recognise the need for radical change, and (2) Biden would not align with any radical change
agenda even if (1) were not the case.
To address the 2nd point first – is it really so likely that Biden would defy
both party consensus and the majority of the base in order to prevent any
significant change? I could be wrong on this, of course, but it seems not entirely
indisputable that – were the majority of Democrats in favour of radical change –
Biden would so strongly oppose it as to be unconcerned with the political ramifications.
Under the (admittedly uncertain) assumption that it is reasonable to assign a relatively
low probability to (2), then the sticking point would seem to be (1). To look at (1) more
closely, surely if mainstream Democrats are not going to recognise the need for radical
change, the solution is not to elect a more radical President (who, after all, would likely
need the support of the party) but rather to elect different Democrats to those
positions?
Of course, that does rely on the scenario JQ lays out (which, while far from impossible,
is not exactly a certainty either), but if we do assume that that will be the case it isn't
clear to me why (c) is so implausible.
Again, I speak as a neophyte to US politics, so perhaps this is akin to questioning the
laws of thermodynamics, but it seems as though this isn't yet well addressed with supporting
evidence. Perhaps other commentators (if so inclined) may be able to point me towards
suitable resources?
(I should note that I do not assert the counterpositive and, from a purely personal
perspective, don't think that most governments in the whole world are being
sufficiently radical in addressing the need for change – but that is a completely
different argument, and "radical change" is, as it is currently left undefined, a bit
subjective anyway).
JQ's proposition:
While, as JQ notes, (a) and (b) are by no means "in the bag", if we work within the
hypothetical, I am inclined to agree to a certain extent in that healthcare would seem to be
an obvious place to start. Given the recent events of the pandemic, surely healthcare is a
"hot topic"? My understanding is that with similar "radical changes" in the past, (assuming
the change is for the positive) these tend to be initially unpopular but then improve as
familiarity increases. If that were the case, it would seem to make sense for it to be
introduced early on in the hypothetical timeline
[1] I have freely admitted that this not an area about which I know much. If people wish
to correct me, or offer alternative perspectives, this is something which I would welcome
(provided it is constructive and supported with evidence). I certainly am not particular
familiar with the most reliable tools for understanding elections within the US (not only is
it a different subject, it is a different country and culture!). I should note I am not
trying to convince others (I am certainly not so confident in my understanding to propose it
is reliable), but rather trying to seek some clarity on the topic.
[2] This is a bit simplistic – and I should note that the numbers are not
universally agreed upon (though I cannot find universally reliable sources which would
resolve this, but this seems to be a relatively "agreed with" perspective of the tally),
making an accurate assessment tricky. I certainly wouldn't claim this is an indisputable
truth (so if people could avoid accusing me of deliberate mendacity this time it would be
nice). However, as far as I can tell (and painting with a broad brush) one the one hand,
voter turnout has been varying but generally increasing since 1950s, and that the 2016
election is not a significant outlier. On the other hand, the % eligible voters are a bit
lower than the 60s (ca. 55% vs ca. 63%). On the other, other hand, given the changes in the
society, it would be rather difficult to draw much of a conclusion from that either. If one
goes from 1972 (which, I believe, is after universal suffrage and the voting rights acts),
the % seems to have been broadly in the 50 – 58% ballpark, so I believe my comment is
relatively fair – though I wouldn't insist it is a universal truth.
[3] I should note this is, of course, a very broad look. Perhaps a more detailed
examination of the breakdowns is illuminating or highlights what I have missed. But again,
from this very simplistic look, it would not seem obvious that Clinton was significantly less
popular or Trump significantly more popular than one might think reasonable based on general
trends. Nor is it clear that the "working class" (in general, until you start breaking down
further along racial lines) supported Clinton significantly less than her predecessors when
compared to Trump. And while wealthier people tend to vote more than those less economically
privileged, it doesn't (at least to me) seem clear that that is necessarily more due to a
lack of motivation rather than opportunity. But of course, I would be happy to be
corrected.
The comments have been excellent, which is normally the sign of a good OP. If others
believe that a magical door number 3 exists, I'd be keen to hear about it. We don't get to
choose our change agent. The only person willing to dismantle the trade deals which have
screwed workers in the west is the current occupant of the WH.
It's that, or we turn all power over to the hands of the very few. He's surrounded by
globalists in both parties, and it's something of a miracle he's managed to survive the
non-stop onslaught. But he's right – they're not coming for him, they're coming for
us.
The rioting and looting in the streets is elite rage at ordinary folks who decided they'd
had enough screwing from both parties. If Trump wins in November, elites may take even more
radical steps to dismantle rejection of the globalist order. Read the link and decide if
there's a better alternative. Biden is the globalist's last, best hope.
From TAP, Biden a" blank slate, uncurious, no sense of history " a 450 k per annum
sinecure from U Penn which involves no teaching. Here's your return to normal: https://prospect.org/world/how-biden-foreign-policy-team-got-rich/
And that's absent the uglier story Biden's family profiting off the Iraq war reconstruction
and his VP gig.
Very much looking forward to learning how lower-wages, outsourcing jobs to China, and
enriching the elites will improve the lives of all Americans.
"... What they have "won" is an electorate where a significant minority, but still a minority, are the party faithful but the majority (growing over time) vote Democratic only as the lesser evil, i.e. because they believe that the media coverage and electoral system's exclusion of third parties in effect forces them to vote Democratic by holding a gun to their head. Maybe I'm wrong, but then I would want to see more media coverage of third party candidates combined with "Is the Democratic Party nominee your first choice?" polling before conceding that I am. ..."
Chetan Murthy @48: "The Dems didn't lose working-class votes in 2016: the median income of a
Hillary voter was less than that of a Trump voter [or maybe it was average? In any case, not
much difference.] What the Dems lost, was "white non-college-educated" voters. They retained
working class voters of color."
I doubt that the Democrats have "won" working class votes, white, black, hispanic, or other,
since the time of LBJ, and possibly before that. What they have "won" is an electorate where a
significant minority, but still a minority, are the party faithful but the majority (growing
over time) vote Democratic only as the lesser evil, i.e. because they believe that the media
coverage and electoral system's exclusion of third parties in effect forces them to vote
Democratic by holding a gun to their head. Maybe I'm wrong, but then I would want to see more
media coverage of third party candidates combined with "Is the Democratic Party nominee your
first choice?" polling before conceding that I am.
What I see is that U.S. voters are forced into a choice between a conservative center-right
national-security party (Democrats) whose main virtues are that they are not fascist or racist
and are willing to provide a basic welfare state safety net, though one not as extensive as in
Europe. Opposed to them is a party whose ideology and behavior are degenerating into something
combining the pre-conditions of fascism (e.g., pre-Great War Germany) and the 1860 secessionist
South.
Changing this state of affairs is not something that will be accomplished by elections, but
by large and sustained protest movements (think Occupy or BLM multiplied many times). The next
few decades will be interesting, but not fun.
Orange Watch 07.06.20 at 5:40 pm (no link)
Chetan Murthy@48:
It's helpful that you told us who you were, in so few words. 43% of the US are non-voters.
The median household income of non-voters is less than half of the median income of a Clinton
voter (which was higher than the overall US median, albeit by less than the Trump median
was). Clinton didn't lose in 2016 because of who voted as much as who didn't ; every
serious analysis (and countless centrist screeds) since Trump's installation has told us
that. Losing the working class doesn't require that the Republicans gain them; if the working
class drops out, that shifts the electoral playing field further into the favor of politics
who cater to the remaining voting blocks. Democrats playing Republican-lite while mouthing
pieties about how they're totally not the party of the rich will always fare worse in that
field than Republicans playing Republicans while mouthing pieties about how they ARE the
party of the rich, but also of giving everyone a chance to make themselves rich. I know it's
been de rigour for both Dems and the GOP to ignore the first half of Clinton's
deplorable quote, but it truly was just as important as the half both sides freely remember.
The Democrats have become a party of C-suite diversity, and they have abandoned the working
class. And when their best pick for President's plenty bold plan for solving police violence
is to encourage LEOs to shoot people in the leg instead of the chest (something that could
only be said by a grifter or someone with more knowledge of Hollywood than ballistics
or anatomy), the prospect of keeping the non-white portions of the working class from
continuing to drop out is looking bleak.
MisterMr@49:
The traditional threading of that needle is to expand class-based analysis to more
accurately reflect real-world political and economic behavior. In the past (and in some
countries who updated the applicable definitions, still), the most relevant additional class
was the petty bourgeoisie; in the modern US, however, the concept of the
professional-managerial class is the most useful frame of reference.
The answer is "not always" due to existence of "What the matter with Kansas" effect.
People can and do vote against their economic interests, although this is more common for
lower strata of population then for the elite.
This is the essence of the current play by the Neoliberal Democrats. Mike Whitney pointed
out that their support of black population is just a tactical trick:
The protests are largely a diversion aimed at shifting the public's attention to a
racialized narrative that obfuscates the widening inequality chasm (created by the Democrats
biggest donors, the Giant Corporations and Wall Street) to historic antagonisms that have
clearly diminished over time. (Racism ain't what it used to be.)
The Democrats are resolved to set the agenda by deciding what issues "will and will not"
be covered over the course of the campaign. And– since race is an issue on which they
feel they can energize their base by propping-up outdated stereotypes of conservatives as
ignorant bigots incapable of rational thought– the Dems are using their media clout to
make race the main topic of debate.
In short, the Democrats have settled on a strategy for quashing the emerging populist
revolt that swept Trump into the White House in 2016 and derailed Hillary's ambitious grab
for presidential power.
The plan, however, does have its shortcomings
Let's be clear, the Democrats do not support Black Lives Matter nor have they made any
attempt to insert their demands into their list of police reforms. BLM merely fits into the
Dems overall campaign strategy which is to use race to deflect attention from the gross
imbalance of wealth that is the unavoidable consequence of the Dems neoliberal policies
including outsourcing, off-shoring, de-industrialization, free trade and trickle down
economics. These policies were aggressively promoted by both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as
they will be by Joe Biden if he is elected. They are the policies that have gutted the
country, shrunk the middle class, and transformed the American dream into a dystopian
nightmare.
They are also the policies that have given rise to, what the pundits call, "right wing
populism" which refers to the growing number of marginalized working people who despise
Washington and career politicians, feel anxious about falling wages and dramatic demographic
changes, and resent the prevailing liberal culture that scorns their religion and patriotism.
This is Trump's mainly-white base, the working people the Democrats threw under the bus 30
years ago and now want to annihilate completely by deepening political polarization, fueling
social unrest, pitting one group against another, and viciously vilifying them in the media
as ignorant racists whose traditions, culture, customs and even history must be obliterated
to make room for the new diversity world order. Trump touched on this theme in a speech he
delivered in Tulsa. He said:
"Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our
heroes, erase our values and indoctrinate our children. Angry mobs are trying to tear down
statues of our founders, deface our most sacred memorials and unleash a wave of violent
crime in our cities."
He then went off the rail, but still the part of his analysis reproduced above looks pretty
prescient.
"... This tactic of negatively associating Trump with communism and socialism, combined with the consistent pattern of attacking the president for being insufficiently warlike, would only work if it was directed at the members of a reactionary, jingoistic right-wing political ideology. And it does work, because that's exactly the ideology of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... So one of the innumerable insane developments of 2020 is that both of America's mainstream political parties are using different strategies to attack one another as being far-left extremists, which is absolutely bizarre since by global standards they are both very much right-wing parties. Neither party even has any interest in the basic social safety nets that are the norm in other developed nations, let alone wealth redistribution to end economic inequality, and are both as far as you can possibly get from having actual leftist goals like ending capitalism and worker ownership of the means of production. ..."
"... Both parties work to advance the interests of oligarchs, war profiteers and imperialist government agencies in more or less exactly the same way; all they did was shift the spectrum of acceptable debate to issues which powerful capitalists do not care about like gay marriage and unisex public toilets. So now mainstream "conservatives" think leftism means having pink hair and mainstream "liberals" think Trump supporters are useful idiots of the Kremlin, but in terms of actually challenging actual power there's not a bee's dick of difference between them. ..."
"... Noam Chomsky once said that "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum," and you really couldn't ask for a clearer illustration of this than the American political uniparty. People are encouraged by establishment narrative managers to squabble about inconsequential nonsense on the periphery with fever pitch intensity, and to never even think about addressing dynamics which would actually inconvenience the powerful like ending militarism, government opacity, or plutocracy. ..."
"... The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News. ..."
It's insane that both U.S. mainstream political parties are attacking one another as being
far-left extremists because by global standards they are both very much right-wing parties,
says Caitlin Johnstone.
T he Biden campaign has a new Spanish-language
ad out claiming that President Trump is cut from the same cloth as leftist leaders Fidel
Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Nicolas Maduro. This is not the first time the Biden campaign has
done this, with
the same comparison made to Spanish-speaking voters in Florida ads last month.
The hashtag #ComradeTrump is
trending on Twitter as of this writing because a
well-funded
Super PAC run by never-Trump Republicans put out
an appallingly stupid viral
video featuring footage of Trump splashed with red hammer-and-sickle symbols interspersed
with images of Soviet leaders while an English-captioned narrator gushes about Mother
Russia's support for "Comrade Trump" in Russian. As of this writing the video has over two
million views on Twitter alone.
This tactic of negatively associating Trump with communism and socialism, combined with
the consistent pattern of attacking the president for being insufficiently warlike, would
only work if it was directed at the members of a reactionary, jingoistic right-wing political
ideology. And it does work, because that's exactly the ideology of the Democratic Party.
Trump, meanwhile, appears to have positioned his entire 2020 campaign around portraying
his right-wing opponent as far left, spending the last month tweeting absurd statements
like:
" Not only will Sleepy Joe Biden DEFUND THE POLICE, but he will DEFUND OUR MILITARY!
He has no choice, the Dems are controlled by the Radical Left." " Sleepy Joe Biden will be
(already is) pulled all the way Left." "Sleepy Joe Biden refuses to leave his basement
"sanctuary' and tell his Radical Left BOSSES that they are heading in the wrong direction."
You've also got cartoonist/MAGA thought leader Scott Adams promoting the increasingly
common belief there's going to be some kind of American Great Purge of Republicans by the
radical left Democratic Party,
claiming that "If
Biden is elected, there's a good chance you will be dead within the year. Republicans will be
hunted."
Yes Republicans, your very mainstream status quo ideology which challenges power in no
meaningful way whatsoever is going to literally get you all murdered.
So one of the innumerable insane developments of 2020 is that both of America's mainstream
political parties are using different strategies to attack one another as being far-left
extremists, which is absolutely bizarre since by global standards they are both very much
right-wing parties. Neither party even has any interest in the basic social safety nets that
are the norm in other developed nations, let alone wealth redistribution to end economic
inequality, and are both as far as you can possibly get from having actual leftist goals like
ending capitalism and worker ownership of the means of production.
Whenever I say that America has two right-wing parties I always get Republican victims of
the incredible
shrinking Overton window sputtering in confusion and outrage because they believe people
like Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are far far far far far left communists. This
is of course a total propaganda construct.
Both parties work to advance the interests of oligarchs, war profiteers and imperialist
government agencies in more or less exactly the same way; all they did was shift the spectrum
of acceptable debate to issues which powerful capitalists do not care about like gay marriage
and unisex public toilets. So now mainstream "conservatives" think leftism means having pink
hair and mainstream "liberals" think Trump supporters are useful idiots of the Kremlin, but
in terms of actually challenging actual power there's not a bee's dick of difference between
them.
This dynamic of attacking one another from the right and accusing the other party of being
far left of course continues to move the US political spectrum further and further right
while killing the possibility of any leftward movement, and that is of course by design.
Noam Chomsky once said that "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to
strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that
spectrum," and you really couldn't ask for a clearer illustration of this than the American
political uniparty. People are encouraged by establishment narrative managers to squabble
about inconsequential nonsense on the periphery with fever pitch intensity, and to never even
think about addressing dynamics which would actually inconvenience the powerful like ending
militarism, government opacity, or plutocracy.
The Democratic and Republican parties can't even rightly be called different ideologies;
sure they behave a bit differently in the same way a boxer uses his left jab and right cross
in different ways, but just like a boxer's fists they are both used to advance the exact same
agenda. In the case of the boxer it's knocking his opponent senseless, and in the case of the
uniparty it's advancing the interests of oligarchy and imperialism.
That old saying that both parties are just two wings on the same bird is true, but it's a
weird mutant bird with two right wings.
"... This is a zugzwang for neoliberal Dems. Without working class votes they can't win. And those votes are lost. Clinton gambit that in Cola-Pepsi duopoly the working class has nowhere to go (because Republicans are ever worse) worked for a couple of decades but in 2016 suddenly stopped. They same happened in UK. And will soon happen in Germany as Merkel is history too: Biden without senility. ..."
"... We need to accept the fact that the Neoliberal Dems lost its key constituency and that limits their ability to win the political power. They can't even select a decent leader, because Biden as a party leader is a cruel joke. ..."
"... IMHO 20% of upper middle class is not enough as the key constituency simply because a part of this voter block belongs to Republicans (military middle class). And that essentially all what the neoliberal Dems, as "Republicans-lite" currently have. ..."
"... Although in 2020 they might have a unique chance due to Trump self-disintegration. But their ability to hold into minorities votes, while selling those minorities down the river is an aberration, so in this case in 2022 they might lose all the gains. ..."
"... Biden in a way symbolizes the crisis of Clinton wing of the Democratic Party really well: they have no future, only the past. ..."
"... It is July. By January 2021, the U.S. economy will have suffered a structural collapse in multiple sectors. That is the economic consequence of the pandemic. Restaurants, shopping malls, bars, colleges, hotels, airlines, cruise lines -- easily 15% of the workforce will be unemployed and another 25% seriously underemployed. ..."
"... For some reason, the main divide in politics today is a sort of culture war, and republicans and other right wing parties managed to present the traditionalist side of the culture war as the "working class" one, and therefore the other side as the evil cosmopolitan prosecco sipping faux leftish but in reality very snobbish one, so that they pretend that they are the working class party because of their traditionalist stance. ..."
"... But they aren't: already the fact that they blame "cosmopolitans" shows that they think in terms of nationalism (like Trump and his China virus), which is a way to deflect the attention from class conflict. ..."
"... This doesn't automatically mean that the Dems get the working class: what happens is that conservative vote is U shaped, they get a ton of votes from very low incomes, and a ton of votes from very high incomes, but few votes in the middle. ..."
"... it is still true that in the very low incomes Reps rake up a lot of votes (although, as for my previous comment, I think this is a case of false consciousness, aka they cling to their guns and their Bibles, aka they've been bamboozled). ..."
a party that is no longer of the working class is unlikely to pass legislation that
benefits the working class.
This is an important point worth repeating again and again.
This is a zugzwang for neoliberal Dems. Without working class votes they can't win. And
those votes are lost. Clinton gambit that in Cola-Pepsi duopoly the working class has nowhere
to go (because Republicans are ever worse) worked for a couple of decades but in 2016
suddenly stopped. They same happened in UK. And will soon happen in Germany as Merkel is
history too: Biden without senility.
Using "identity wedge" and amplifying the current riots is a desperate move of
"substituting with minorities" the lost working class votes. They want to split the country
in such a way that Republicans are in minority. Probably will not work as nationalism as a
platform is on upswing now and Trump's "national neoliberalism" has some grass roots support
even among the minorities, despite that his promises are all fake. Riots dramatically
increased polarization and the result of this polarization are not necessary beneficial to
neoliberal Dems.
We need to accept the fact that the Neoliberal Dems lost its key constituency and that
limits their ability to win the political power. They can't even select a decent leader,
because Biden as a party leader is a cruel joke. The fact that "there is no alternative" no
longer holds -- the return (on a new level) to some form of the New Deal is clearly an
alternative. The alternative that the majority of population wants.
All those neoliberal fairy
tales about "free market" (can it exists with multinationals in power?), "personal
responsibility" (which means unlimited ability of capital to eliminate decent jobs and
replace them with perma-temps, or offshore them) and that "rising tide lifts all boats" no
longer work. That's why Bezos supports BLM while paying below average to the workers in
warehouses. He "feels the pain." ;-)
IMHO 20% of upper middle class is not enough as the key constituency simply because a part
of this voter block belongs to Republicans (military middle class). And that essentially all what the neoliberal
Dems, as "Republicans-lite" currently have.
Although in 2020 they might have a unique chance due to Trump self-disintegration. But
their ability to hold into minorities votes, while selling those minorities down the river is
an aberration, so in this case in 2022 they might lose all the gains.
Biden in a way symbolizes the crisis of Clinton wing of the Democratic Party really well:
they have no future, only the past.
While Republicans now can play the nationalist card like in Weimar Germany. The recent
riots play into their hands, and this effect will last till November.
mainstream Democrats recognise the need for radical change, and Biden will align with
the mainstream position as he always has done
You said you would leave this, your third assumption, to comments, so here is my
comment.
The U.S. is in the midst of a deep legitimacy crisis and contrary to popular belief among
liberals, it is not Trump particularly whose legitimacy is being called into question. Oh,
sure, there have been relentless attacks on him -- from partisan opponents and from much of
mainstream media -- but like the "anti-racism" of the recent protests -- much of it is
dissembling and distraction. Charges of colluding with Putin to win the 2016 election turned
out to be fake news -- rather obviously so from the beginning -- but a big enough mob went
down that path with no self-awareness. I am not saying Trump is not an egregiously bad
President; he is. But, notice please, before you go assuming that mainstream Democrats are
going wake up in 2021 wanting to govern in the real world , that they have not shown much
inclination toward truth-telling or critical realism these last 20 years.
It is July. By January 2021, the U.S. economy will have suffered a structural collapse in
multiple sectors. That is the economic consequence of the pandemic. Restaurants, shopping
malls, bars, colleges, hotels, airlines, cruise lines -- easily 15% of the workforce will be
unemployed and another 25% seriously underemployed.
Did I mention that the U.S. is undergoing a legitimacy crisis?? Whose legitimacy is being
called into question?
I would submit that the legitimacy of the elite professional and managerial classes is
being called into question, for want of performance or any sense of responsibility. The urban
PMC are the core constituency of the establishment Democratic Party. The vestigial working
class elements and the ideological Left are distant memories and oppressed minorities seeking
social justice, mere props. I would say the Party establishment is confident they can put the
re-animated corpse of Biden into the White House. And look how gleefully they welcome
Republican never-Trumpers into the clubhouse! If you were one of the fools and tools who
thought Obama did not want Republicans to control Congress, you are getting another chance to
see how the Obama Alumni Association works with the Lincoln Project, how happy they are to
deliver the kind of policy that appeals to rich, old, suburban Republican women.
The thing is, the political classes -- the millionaire media pundits, the politicians, the
lobbyists, the generals, the journamalists, the manipulative political operatives and
propagandists, the pious policy "experts", the highly paid executives and financial managers
running monopolies into the ground and non-profits into irrelevance -- they have enacted
their neo-liberal agenda and it doesn't work.
We have just watched the once highly touted CDC completely botch the great Pandemic. They
could not devise a test. They screwed up the rules on who could or should be tested. They
lied early on about the need to wear masks. They staged a moral panic over a need for
ventilators, when ventilators are a terrible therapeutic alternative. In the new Puritanism,
they shut down public beaches but they watched passively as liberal heroes like Cuomo set off
a holocaust by sending COVID-19 patients to nursing homes.
This in a country that cannot manufacture PPE. Or win a war. Trump, in his fumbling way,
might get the U.S. out of Afganistan, but the NY Times -- who brought us WMD not that long
ago -- reports the Russians are paying bounties on American soldiers killed. No report on the
treatment of Julian Assange though. Boeing is going to get the 737 Max in the air real soon
now. Citibank is borrowing at 0.03 from the Fed and lending to credit card users at 27% and
may be insolvent.
So, let us assume the Democrats, after nominating an elderly sob who had a hand in the
crime bill that gave the U.S. the highest incarceration rate in the world, the bankruptcy
bill that saddled tens of millions with credit card and student debt that cannot be
discharged, and every stupid war of the last nearly twenty years, will suddenly see the
necessity of radical change. And, after making an alliance with conservative Republicans
hostile to even Trump's fake populism in order to elect Biden, seeing the light on radical
reform is so likely! So plausible.
And, what's the play? The carrot of bi-partisan cooperation coupled with the fearful stick
of abolishing the filibuster someday somehow if they don't play nice. You do realize that
only Republicans are allowed to manipulate the filibuster and only in ways that favor their
agenda of, say, stacking the courts? And, the strategic vision? Reinforcing the Rube Goldberg
contraption which is Obamacare? You do know Biden is on record as adamantly opposed to
Medicare4all? And, that Medicaid is a need-based nightmare of controlled deprivation? In a
country where public health is such a shambles that a pandemic is running out of control.
Without working class votes they can't win. And those votes are lost
It's helpful that you told us who you were, in so few words. The Dems didn't lose
working-class votes in 2016: the median income of a Hillary voter was less than that
of a Trump voter [or maybe it was average? In any case, not much difference.] What the Dems
lost, was "white non-college-educated" voters. They retained working class voters of
color.
But hey, they don't count as working-class voters to you. Thanks for playing.
White collar are, by definition, working class, because they don't own the means of
production. What I see is an opposition between blue collars and white collars, that are two
wings of the working class, not that democrats are going against the working class.
For some reason, the main divide in politics today is a sort of culture war, and republicans
and other right wing parties managed to present the traditionalist side of the culture war as
the "working class" one, and therefore the other side as the evil cosmopolitan prosecco
sipping faux leftish but in reality very snobbish one, so that they pretend that they are the
working class party because of their traditionalist stance.
But they aren't: already the fact that they blame "cosmopolitans" shows that they think in
terms of nationalism (like Trump and his China virus), which is a way to deflect the
attention from class conflict.
So comparatively the Dems are still the working class party, and the fact that some working
class guys vote for trump sows that they suffer from false consciousness, not that the Dems
are too right wing (the dems ARE too right wing, but this isn't the reason some working class
guys are voting Trump).
Neoliberalism and free markets are not the same thing, and furthermore neoliberalism
and capitalism are not the same thing; at most neoliberalism is a form of unadultered
capitalism. However since neoliberalism basically means "anti new deal", and new deal
economies were still free market and still capitalist (we can call them social democratic,
but in this sense social democracy is a form of controlled capitalism), it follows that the
most economically successful form of capitalism and free markets to date is not
neoliberalism.
"the median income of a Hillary voter was less than that of a Trump voter"
This doesn't automatically mean that the Dems get the working class: what happens is that
conservative vote is U shaped, they get a ton of votes from very low incomes, and a ton of
votes from very high incomes, but few votes in the middle.
Since income distribution is pear shaped (there is more distance between high incomes and the
median than between low incomes and the median) this still gives an higher average income than
the Dem's base, but it is still true that in the very low incomes Reps rake up a lot of votes
(although, as for my previous comment, I think this is a case of false consciousness, aka
they cling to their guns and their Bibles, aka they've been bamboozled).
"... I would submit that the legitimacy of the elite professional and managerial classes is being called into question, for want of performance or any sense of responsibility. The urban PMC are the core constituency of the establishment Democratic Party. The vestigial working class elements and the ideological Left are distant memories and oppressed minorities seeking social justice, mere props. ..."
"... The thing is, the political classes -- the millionaire media pundits, the politicians, the lobbyists, the generals, the journamalists, the manipulative political operatives and propagandists, the pious policy "experts", the highly paid executives and financial managers running monopolies into the ground and non-profits into irrelevance -- they have enacted their neo-liberal agenda and it doesn't work. ..."
"... This in a country that cannot manufacture PPE. Or win a war. Trump, in his fumbling way, might get the U.S. out of Afghanistan, but the NY Times -- who brought us WMD not that long ago -- reports the Russians are paying bounties on American soldiers killed. No report on the treatment of Julian Assange though. Boeing is going to get the 737 Max in the air real soon now. Citibank is borrowing at 0.03 from the Fed and lending to credit card users at 27% and may be insolvent. ..."
"... So, let us assume the Democrats, after nominating an elderly SOB who had a hand in the crime bill that gave the U.S. the highest incarceration rate in the world, the bankruptcy bill that saddled tens of millions with credit card and student debt that cannot be discharged, and every stupid war of the last nearly twenty years, will suddenly see the necessity of radical change. And, after making an alliance with conservative Republicans hostile to even Trump's fake populism in order to elect Biden, seeing the light on radical reform is so likely! So plausible. ..."
mainstream Democrats recognize the need for radical change, and Biden will align with
the mainstream position as he always has done
You said you would leave this, your third assumption, to comments, so here is my
comment.
The U.S. is in the midst of a deep legitimacy crisis and contrary to popular belief among
liberals, it is not Trump particularly whose legitimacy is being called into question. Oh,
sure, there have been relentless attacks on him -- from partisan opponents and from much of
mainstream media -- but like the "anti-racism" of the recent protests -- much of it is
dissembling and distraction. Charges of colluding with Putin to win the 2016 election turned
out to be fake news -- rather obviously so from the beginning -- but a big enough mob went down
that path with no self-awareness. I am not saying Trump is not an egregiously bad President; he
is. But, notice please, before you go assuming that mainstream Democrats are going wake up in
2021 wanting to govern in the real world , that they have not shown much inclination toward
truth-telling or critical realism these last 20 years.
It is July. By January 2021, the U.S. economy will have suffered a structural collapse in
multiple sectors. That is the economic consequence of the pandemic. Restaurants, shopping
malls, bars, colleges, hotels, airlines, cruise lines -- easily 15% of the workforce will be
unemployed and another 25% seriously underemployed.
Did I mention that the U.S. is undergoing a legitimacy crisis?? Whose legitimacy is being
called into question?
I would submit that the legitimacy of the elite professional and managerial classes is being
called into question, for want of performance or any sense of responsibility. The urban PMC are
the core constituency of the establishment Democratic Party. The vestigial working class
elements and the ideological Left are distant memories and oppressed minorities seeking social
justice, mere props.
I would say the Party establishment is confident they can put the
re-animated corpse of Biden into the White House. And look how gleefully they welcome
Republican never-Trumpers into the clubhouse! If you were one of the fools and tools who
thought Obama did not want Republicans to control Congress, you are getting another chance to
see how the Obama Alumni Association works with the Lincoln Project, how happy they are to
deliver the kind of policy that appeals to rich, old, suburban Republican women.
The thing is, the political classes -- the millionaire media pundits, the politicians, the
lobbyists, the generals, the journamalists, the manipulative political operatives and
propagandists, the pious policy "experts", the highly paid executives and financial managers
running monopolies into the ground and non-profits into irrelevance -- they have enacted their
neo-liberal agenda and it doesn't work.
We have just watched the once highly touted CDC completely botch the great Pandemic. They
could not devise a test. They screwed up the rules on who could or should be tested. They lied
early on about the need to wear masks. They staged a moral panic over a need for ventilators,
when ventilators are a terrible therapeutic alternative. In the new Puritanism, they shut down
public beaches but they watched passively as liberal heroes like Cuomo set off a holocaust by
sending COVID-19 patients to nursing homes.
This in a country that cannot manufacture PPE. Or win a war. Trump, in his fumbling way,
might get the U.S. out of Afghanistan, but the NY Times -- who brought us WMD not that long ago
-- reports the Russians are paying bounties on American soldiers killed. No report on the
treatment of Julian Assange though. Boeing is going to get the 737 Max in the air real soon
now. Citibank is borrowing at 0.03 from the Fed and lending to credit card users at 27% and may
be insolvent.
So, let us assume the Democrats, after nominating an elderly SOB who had a hand in the
crime bill that gave the U.S. the highest incarceration rate in the world, the bankruptcy bill
that saddled tens of millions with credit card and student debt that cannot be discharged, and
every stupid war of the last nearly twenty years, will suddenly see the necessity of radical
change. And, after making an alliance with conservative Republicans hostile to even Trump's
fake populism in order to elect Biden, seeing the light on radical reform is so likely! So
plausible.
And, what's the play? The carrot of bi-partisan cooperation coupled with the fearful stick
of abolishing the filibuster someday somehow if they don't play nice. You do realize that only
Republicans are allowed to manipulate the filibuster and only in ways that favor their agenda
of, say, stacking the courts? And, the strategic vision? Reinforcing the Rube Goldberg
contraption which is Obamacare? You do know Biden is on record as adamantly opposed to
Medicare4all? And, that Medicaid is a need-based nightmare of controlled deprivation? In a
country where public health is such a shambles that a pandemic is running out of control.
'All the attention in this thread so far has been on the political dimension of uncertainty,
but it seems to me the public health dimension is also crucial and quite up in the air. What
will the trajectory of the virus look like in the US over the next several months? Will
infections continue to explode out of control?'
Not just the public health, but the economic effects of the public health. As I pointed out
in a previous thread, it's not difficult to work out why Trump looked like he was going to win
in January: the stock market was booming, unemployment was low, crime was low, there were no
new wars it's not a mystery.
People vote with their wallets.
If Trump someone manages to face down the neo-liberals in his own party and arrange for a
gigantic stimulus bill (bigger than the last one) and keeps 'benefits' going past August, he is
in with a shout. If he doesn't, and if the economy continues its path to free fall, he will
lose.
People vote with their wallets. It is not difficult. You don't need to invoke Russia and
etc. to work out why Trump won in 2016 (the impact of the Obama stimulus package, which was too
small, hadn't et 'percolated through' to people's bank balances at that point). And, if Trump
loses in 2020, the reasons will be self-evident and nothing to do with 'people seeing through
him' or 'brave liberals averted a turn to fascism'. If he loses it will be because he screwed
up on the 'good' economy.
Looks like Liz Cheney words for Russians. Her action suggest growing alliance between Bush
repoblicans and neolibral interventionaistsof the Democratic Party. The alliance directed against
Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... As Boland explains, the amendment passed by the committee yesterday sets so many conditions on withdrawal that it makes it all but impossible to satisfy them: ..."
"... The longer that the U.S. stays at war in Afghanistan, the more incentives other states will have to make that continued presence more costly for the U.S. When the knee-jerk reaction in Washington to news of these bounties is to throw up obstacles to withdrawal, that gives other states another incentive to do more of this. ..."
"... Prolonging our involvement in the war amounts to playing into Moscow's hands. For all of their posturing about security and strength, hard-liners routinely support destructive and irrational policies that redound to the advantage of other states. This is still happening with the war in Afghanistan, and if these hard-liners get their way it will continue happening for many years to come. ..."
The immediate response to a story that U.S. forces were being targeted is to keep fighting a
losing conflict.
Barbara Boland
reported yesterday on the House Armed Services Committee's vote to impede withdrawal of
U.S. from Afghanistan:
The House Armed Services Committee voted Wednesday night to put roadblocks on President
Donald Trump's vow to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan, apparently in response to
bombshell report published by The New York Times Friday that alleges Russia paid dollar
bounties to the Taliban in Afghanistan to kill U.S troops.
It speaks volumes about Congress' abdication of its responsibilities that one of the few
times that most members want to challenge the president over a war is when they think he might
bring it to an end. Many of the members that want to block withdrawals from other countries
have no problem when the president wants to use U.S. forces illegally and to keep them in other
countries without authorization for years at a time. The role of hard-liner Liz Cheney in
pushing the measure passed yesterday is a good example of what I mean. The hawkish outrage in
Congress is only triggered when the president entertains the possibility of taking troops out
of harm's way. When he takes reckless and illegal action that puts them at risk, as he did when
he ordered the illegal assassination of Soleimani, the same members that are crying foul today
applauded the action. As Boland explains, the amendment passed by the committee yesterday
sets so many conditions on withdrawal that it makes it all but impossible to satisfy
them:
Crow's amendment adds several layers of policy goals to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan,
which has already stretched on for 19 years and cost over a trillion dollars. As made clear
in the Afghanistan Papers, most of these policy goals were never the original intention of
the mission in Afghanistan, and were haphazardly added after the defeat of al Qaeda. With no
clear vision for what achieving these fuzzy goals would look like, the mission stretches on
indefinitely, an unarticulated victory unachievable.
The immediate Congressional response to a story that U.S. forces were being targeted is to
make it much more difficult to pull them out of a war that cannot be won. Congressional hawks
bemoan "micromanaging" presidential decisions and mock the idea of having "535
commanders-in-chief," but when it comes to prolonging pointless wars they are only too happy to
meddle and tie the president's hands. When it comes to defending Congress' proper role in
matters of war, these members are typically on the other side of the argument. They are content
to let the president get us into as many wars as he might want, but they are horrified at the
thought that any of those wars might one day be concluded. Yesterday's vote confirmed that
there is an endless war caucus in the House, and it is bipartisan.
The original reporting of the bounty story is questionable for the reasons that Boland has
pointed out before, but for the sake of argument let's assume that Russia has been offering
bounties on U.S. troops in Afghanistan. When the U.S. keeps its troops at war in a country for
almost twenty years, it is setting them up as targets for other governments. Just as the U.S.
has armed and supported forces hostile to Russia and its clients in Syria, it should not come
as a shock when they do to the same elsewhere. If Russia has been doing this, refusing to
withdraw U.S. forces ensures that they will continue to have someone that they can target.
The longer that the U.S. stays at war in Afghanistan, the more incentives other states
will have to make that continued presence more costly for the U.S. When the knee-jerk reaction
in Washington to news of these bounties is to throw up obstacles to withdrawal, that gives
other states another incentive to do more of this.
Because the current state of debate about Russia is so toxic and irrational, our political
leaders seem incapable of responding carefully to Russian actions. It doesn't seem to occur to
the war hawks that Russia might prefer that the U.S. remains preoccupied and tied down in
Afghanistan indefinitely.
Prolonging our involvement in the war amounts to playing into Moscow's hands. For all of
their posturing about security and strength, hard-liners routinely support destructive and
irrational policies that redound to the advantage of other states. This is still happening with
the war in Afghanistan, and if these hard-liners get their way it will continue happening for
many years to come.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in
the New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review , Politico
Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a
columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides
in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
One needs to mention the democratic deficit in the US. All the members voting yes are
representatives, they represent the people in their constituencies, and presumably vote for
what the majority in those constituencies would want, or past promises.
Any poll shows that Americans would rather have the troops brought back home, thank you very
much. But this is not what their representatives are voting for. Talk about democracy!
And what's the logic, if you make an accusation against someone you don't like it must be
true. Okay well then let's drone strike Putin. If you are going to be Exceptional and
consistent, Putin did everything Soleimani did so how can Liz Cotton argue for a different
punishment?
1. Killed U.S. troops in a war zone, 2. planning attacks on U.S. troops.
The entire Russian military plans for attacks all the time just like ours does but the
Neocons have declared that we are the only ones allowed to do that. Verdict, death penalty for
Putin.
Interesting, well reasoned article as usual from Mr. Larison. However, I have to say that I
don't see why Russia would want the US in Afghanistan indefinitely. In primis, they have a
strategic partnership with China (even though we've got to see how Russia will behave now when
there is the India-China rift), and China has been championing the idea of rebuilding the Silk
Road (brilliant idea if you ask me) so in this sense it's more reasonable to assume that they
might be aiming to get stability in the region rather than keep it in a state of unrest (as to
be strategic partners you need to have some kind of common strategy, or at least not a
completely different strategy). In 2018 they (Russia) actually were trying to organise a
mediation process which would have the Afghan Gvt. and the Talibans discuss before the US would
retire the troops, and it was very significative as they managed to get all the parties sitting
around a table for the very first time (even the US participated as an observer).
Secondly, Russia also has pretty decent relations with Iran (at least according to Iranian
press, which seems to be realistic as Russia is compliant to the JCPOA, is not aggressive
towards them, and they're cooperating in the Astana process for a political solution for Syria,
for example), and it wouldn't be so if Russia would pursue a policy which would aim to keep the
US in the Middle East indefinitely, as Iran's WHOLE point is that they want the US out of the
region, so if Russia would be trying to keep the US in the Middle East indefinitely, that would
seriously upset Iran.
Thirdly, Russia is one of the founders of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which now
includes most of the states in Central Asia, China, India and Pakistan. The association never
made overt statements about their stance on the US's presence in the region; yet they've been
hinting that they don't approve of it, which is reasonable, as it is very likely that those
countries would all have different plans for the region, which might include some consideration
for human and economic development rather than constant and never-ending militarisation (of
course Pakistan would be problematic here, as the funds for the Afghan warlords get channeled
through Pakistan, which receives a lot of US money, so I don't know how they're managing this
issue).
Last but not least, I cannot logically believe that the Talibans, who've been coherent in
their message since the late 70's ("we will fight to the death until the invaders are defeated
and out of our national soil") would now need to be "convinced" by the Russians to defeat and
chase out the invader. This is just NOT believable at all. Afghanistan is called the Graveyard
of Empires for a reason, I would argue.
In any case I am pleased to see that at TAC you have been starting debunking the
Russia-narrative, as it is very problematic - most media just systematically misrepresents
Russia in order to justify aggressive military action (Europe, specifically Northern Europe, is
doing this literally CONSTANTLY, I'm so over it, really). The misrepresentation of Russia as an
aggressive wannabe-empire is a cornerstone of the pro-war narrative, so it is imperative to get
some actual realism into that.
As if the Afghan freedom fighters need additional incentive to eliminate the invaders? In
case Amerikans don't know, Afghans, except those on the US payroll, intensely despise Amerika
and its 'godless' ways. Amerikans forces have been sadistic, bombing Afghan weddings, funerals,
etc.
Even if the Russians are providing bounties to the Afghans, to take out the invaders, don't
the Amerikans remember the 80s when Washington (rightfully) supported the mujahedin with funds,
arms, Stinger missiles, etc.? Again, the US is on shaky ground because of the neocons.
Afghanistan is known through the ages to be the graveyard of empires. They have done it on
their own shedding blood, sweat, and tears. Also, the Afghan resistance have been principled
about Amerikans getting out before making deals.
"... As Johnstone recounts, after the Cold War liberals became bewitched by the prospect of waging wars for humanitarian ends. A generation of journalists and foreign policy experts including Samantha Power, Christiane Amanpour, Jamie Rubin, and Christopher Hitchens, would make the Balkans a proving ground for their liberal theories of preventative war, in the process throwing the ancient and venerable tradition of St. Augustine's Just War theory on the trash heap and paving the way for what was to follow in the coming decades, including Iraq II, Libya, Syria and a global drone war and a "targeted" assassination program." Carden ..."
"... Ah, for the good old days when lefties could be treated as a deluded minority rather than a vanguard party of globalist imperialists. pl ..."
"... . While the former's rise in the Democratic Party led to the exodus of Neoconservatives (former Trotskyists, Socialist and Marxists) to the Conservative movement, the latter is also moving the New Democrats to the Right, but the problem is that the current Political Right is mostly controlled by the Trumpists so these New Democrat types (Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Menendez, Biden etc.) are stuck between a hard place and a rock. In other words we are seeing the tight squeezing of the New Democrats (Wall-Street, Tech, humanitarian intervention) by the radical left (Green New Deal, UBI) and by the angry Trumpists. ..."
"... Recently Sanders and the Democratic Socialists expressed their opposition to Bibi's planned annexation of West-bank and adjacent Palestinian enclaves and threatened to to cut-off the military aid to Israel if Bibi moved on with his plan. ..."
"... Judging by my observation, the current trend is the alliance between the NeverTrumpers (The Lincoln project, The Right Pac) like Bill Kristol and the Reagan-to-Bush-43-neoconservatives (most of whom were Reagan Democrats in the late 70s and 80s themselves so nothing new for them) to push Trump out of office in their view before the RNC in Aug and to make room for the New Democrats and also to restore their previous 20+ years of reigning over the Republican Party. If their plan becomes successful, in the post 2020 election we will see a political configuration resembling the 90s and early 2000s with one major difference which is the introduction of several, in my opinion less that 10 seats in the House reserved for the far-Left socialist Democrats. ..."
"... And in terms of Foreign policy, everyone will get happy and the Blob/Borg think tank class in D.C. will see business as usual ..."
"Only "a few decades ago, "the Left" was considered the center of opposition to imperialism,
and champion of the right of peoples to self-determination."
Johnstone is part of a distinguished line of American expatriate writers, who, perhaps
because of an objectivity conferred by distance, saw their country more clearly than many of
their stateside contemporaries.
Members of the club include William Pfaff who for many years
wrote from Paris and the longtime Asia correspondent Patrick Lawrence . The Paris based Johnstone brings a
moral clarity to matters of war and peace that is, alas, too often absent from most
contemporary foreign affairs writing. Its near total absence on the Left during the Trump years
should be cause for reflection, and concern.
As Johnstone recounts, after the Cold War liberals became bewitched by the prospect of
waging wars for humanitarian ends. A generation of journalists and foreign policy experts
including Samantha Power, Christiane Amanpour, Jamie Rubin, and Christopher Hitchens, would
make the Balkans a proving ground for their liberal theories of preventative war, in the
process throwing the ancient and venerable tradition of St. Augustine's Just War theory on the
trash heap and paving the way for what was to follow in the coming decades, including Iraq II,
Libya, Syria and a global drone war and a "targeted" assassination program." Carden
---------------
Ah, for the good old days when lefties could be treated as a deluded minority rather than a
vanguard party of globalist imperialists. pl
This is a serious article addressing a serious problem. If the "left" sells out on war
issues as they have done the last 20 years or so, there is no pushback against the permanent
war system. Those one-time leftists who have sold out are no longer really leftists,
especially once they are relying on the corrupt permanent spy state for their information and
support.
Interesting and correct observation. Allow me to throw in my own two cents with regards to
the rise of what is defined as the "anti-Anti War left". I should note that there are eerily
similar parralels between the rise of the New Left in the 60s that was the mix of socialist
democrats, sexual revolutionaries, flower-power hippies, anti-imperialist/anti-war activists,
and identitarianists (Huey Netwon, Cesar Chavez, MLK) etc. and today's BLM, Antifa, 'woke'
types, third-gen feminists, broke millennials\
. While the former's rise in the Democratic
Party led to the exodus of Neoconservatives (former Trotskyists, Socialist and Marxists) to
the Conservative movement, the latter is also moving the New Democrats to the Right, but the
problem is that the current Political Right is mostly controlled by the Trumpists so these
New Democrat types (Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Menendez, Biden etc.) are stuck between a hard
place and a rock. In other words we are seeing the tight squeezing of the New Democrats
(Wall-Street, Tech, humanitarian intervention) by the radical left (Green New Deal, UBI) and
by the angry Trumpists.
Just to give you one example, last week a prototype New Democrat and long time congressman
(since 89) Elliot Engel of NY who fits well into this definition was defeated handily in the
NY-16 primaries by the Democratic Socialists of America endorsed candidate, Jamal Bowman. Mr.
Bowman, an African American is ideologically very similar to AOC, Tlaib, and Omar. He won on
a platform of foreign policy endorsed by the left-zionists (ex-labor zionists) against the
likudnik right-wing zionist of Engles' which is very interesting since, Engel has been known
for his hawkish views on foreign policy and extremely pro-Israel and chaired the House
Foreign Affairs Committee recently.
Recently Sanders and the Democratic Socialists expressed their opposition to Bibi's
planned annexation of West-bank and adjacent Palestinian enclaves and threatened to to
cut-off the military aid to Israel if Bibi moved on with his plan.
Domestically, there are several seats up for re-election and especially two in Georgia and
Arizona Senate whose pointed Republican candidates are in very shaky grounds versus their
democratic challengers. What is clear is that the New Democrat platforms are no longer
popular by the Democratic base and given recent events, it can be safely said that either the
most law and order and Trumpian candidates will win or the Democratic socialists endorsed
ones. So another problem for the New Dems.
Judging by my observation, the current trend is the alliance between the NeverTrumpers
(The Lincoln project, The Right Pac) like Bill Kristol and the
Reagan-to-Bush-43-neoconservatives (most of whom were Reagan Democrats in the late 70s and
80s themselves so nothing new for them) to push Trump out of office in their view before the
RNC in Aug and to make room for the New Democrats and also to restore their previous 20+
years of reigning over the Republican Party. If their plan becomes successful, in the post
2020 election we will see a political configuration resembling the 90s and early 2000s with
one major difference which is the introduction of several, in my opinion less that 10 seats
in the House reserved for the far-Left socialist Democrats.
And in terms of Foreign policy, everyone will get happy and the Blob/Borg think tank class
in D.C. will see business as usual as the Democratic Socialists will be "persuaded" to team
up with the New Democrats with regards to sending Troops to conduct humanitarian intervention
abroad (i.e. the Powell Doctrine) in exchange for domestic welfare programs, the
NeverTrumpers and the Republican hawks (Cotton, Graham, Rubio, Cruz, etc.) will have war
plans already written for them at AEI, Hudson and Heritage that focuses on China with the
help of the New Democrats and probably the Far-left.
You can be fired for criticizing BLM, because in essence this is apolitical movement run by regular Dem NGOs careerists.
Immunity from criticism is a sign of totalitarism.
Maybe it's time to form a new third major political party, directly opposing both Republican and Democratic party's.
Standing for true law and order, defunding the defense industry, and encouraging a peaceful multicultural society with peaceful
cooperation between other countries.
My take on Tucker and Maddow: both serve those who write their paychecks, but one of the
two bosses is a better businessman.
Tucker does not duplicate Hannity which lets them serve different (if overlapping)
segments of the audience. Showing Paralimpil and Gabbard to the viewers did not lead to any
major perturbation in American politics, but it lets his viewer feel that they are better
informed than the fools who watch Maddow. And it helps that to a degree they are.
I get that Tucker invites good a reasonable people on his show and gives voice space where
they would not otherwise get it. That is deliberate.
I bet you that the stats show that the demented monotone oozing out of MSNBC and CNN etc
has been a serious turn off for a sector of audience that is well informed and exercise
critical faculties. That is exactly what Tucker needs to pay for his program as I would be
fairly sure these people are Consumers of a desirable degree and advertisers like Tucker's
formula and Fox Bosses like Tuckers income generator.
I don't think it is more complex than that and his bosses will entertain most heresies as
long as the program generates advertiser demand for that time slot.
So Tucker is OK and he is reasonable and he will interview a broad spectrum. Good for him.
But he smooths the pillow and caresses the establishment arse.
Wrong. Tucker has admitted that he is not in favor of populist government. He does not
advocate any kind of socialism or class unity. He wants a tentative balance between the
classes which can only be brought back via curbing neoliberalism and government regulation.
He has admitted that the problem then is both in the private and public spheres of life.
Tucker is merely pointing this out and I say kudos to him.
There is a recent push in the internet sphere being leveled against Tucker. It is the same
kind of preemptive strike that was leveled at the "alt-right" back when terms like
neoliberalism and globalism and duopoly were reemerging in the public lexicon. In short, amy
type of nationalist sentiment being floated anywhere is to be crushed and obfuscated on
sight.
Similarily, the poster vk seems to pipe in every time I mention America must bring back
its manufacturing sector. This line is always greeted by vk as, "it will never happen."
Market and economic fundamentals says that it MUST happen and it will as neoliberalism's
reign is curbed in the coming decades.
The push against Tucker is because of two reasons: 1) his growing popularity and his 2)
speaking truth to power.
...
I remember back in the day during the height of John Stewart's tenure as maestro of
liberal infotainment, he went on Tucker's show saying he was "hurting America."
Since then, Tucker has come a long way and I would say has come further in spirit towards
truth. Stewart has sunken into making appearances on The View. Kudos to Tucker. The
globalists in our country should be worried about him.
"Today, America's tumbrils are clattering about, carrying toppled statues, ruined careers,
unwoke brands. Over their sides peer those deemed racist by left-wing identitarians and
sentenced to cancelation, even as the evidentiary standard for that crime falls through the
floor But who are these cultural revolutionaries? The conventional wisdom goes that this is
the inner-cities erupting, economically disadvantaged victims of racism enraged over the
murder of George Floyd. The reality is something more bourgeoisie. As Kevin Williamson
observed last week, "These are the idiot children of the American ruling class, toy radicals
and Champagne Bolsheviks, playing Jacobin for a while, until they go back to graduate
school".
Is that so? I well recall listening in the Middle East to other angry young men who, too,
wanted to 'topple the statues'; to burn down everything. 'You really believed that Washington
would allow you in', they taunted and tortured their leaders: "No, we must burn it all down.
Start from scratch".
Did they have a blueprint for the future? No. They simply believed that Islam would
organically inflate, and expand to fill the void. It would happen by itself – of its own
accord: Faith.
Professor John Gray has noted "that in
The God that failed, Gide says: 'My faith in communism is like my faith in religion. It is a
promise of salvation for mankind'' . "Here Gide acknowledged", Gray continues, "that communism
was an atheist version of monotheism. But so is liberalism, and when Gide and others gave up
faith in communism to become liberals, they were not renouncing the concepts and values that
both ideologies had inherited from western religion. They continued to believe that history was
a directional process in which humankind was advancing towards universal freedom ".
So too with the wokes. The emphasis is on Redemption; on a Truth catharsis; on their own
Virtue as sufficient agency to stand-in for the lack of plan for the future. All are clear
signals: A secularised 'illusion' is metamorphosing back into 'religion'. Not as Islam, of
course, but as angry Man, burning at the deep and dark moral stain of the past. And acting now
as purifying 'fire' to bring about the uplifting and shining future ahead.
Tucker Carlson, a leading American conservative commentator known for plain speaking,
frames the movement a little differently:
"This is not a momentary civil disturbance. This is a serious, and highly organized
political movement It is deep and profound and has vast political ambitions. It is insidious,
it will grow. Its goal is to end liberal democracy and challenge western civilization itself
We're too literal and good-hearted to understand what's happening We have no idea what we are
up against These are not protests. This is a totalitarian political movement" .
Again, nothing needs to be done by this new generation to bring into being a new world,
apart from destroying the old one. This vision is a relic – albeit secularised – of
western Christianity. Apocalypse and redemption, these wokes believe, have their own path;
their own internal logic.
Mill's 'ghost' is arrived at the table. And with its return, America's exceptionalism has
its re-birth. Redemption for humankind's dark stains. A narrative in which the history of
mankind is reduced to the history of racial struggle. Yet Americans, young or old, now lack the
power to project it as a universal vision.
'Virtue', however deeply felt, on its own, is insufficient. Might President Trump try
nevertheless to sustain the old illusion by hard power? The U.S. is deeply fractured and
dysfunctional – but if desperate, this is possible.
The "toy radicals, and Champagne Bolsheviks" – in these terms of dripping disdain from
Williamson – are very similar to those who rushed into the streets in 1917. But before
dismissing them so peremptorily and lightly, recall what occurred.
Into that combustible mass of youth – so acultured by their progressive parents to see
a Russian past that was imperfect and darkly stained – a Trotsky and Lenin were inserted.
And Stalin ensued. No 'toy radicals'. Soft became hard totalitarianism.
play_arrow
N2M , 22 minutes ago
Vision? What vision that might be?
"'Freedom' is being torn down from within"
What freedom? Could be "Freedom" they decide how, when and where you can express your
thoughts? There is only one true freedom that exists and that is human free will to tell the
truth.
Today vision of Freedom is a joke, this game was never about freedom for in a world of
ideology, there is always lurking a deceits of lies and control.
There are 3 types of Americans.
A sharp ones and well tune to what has been going on and those I had a chance to talk
to and become friends when I was in U.S.A
The imbeciles of totally clueless generation of people who will listen to any wave of
information in propaganda as true and must be and their government is so beloved, no others
can even compete and they only have good intentions /s /c
And there is this group, shrewd, conniving, self-moral, warmongering, evil to a core
psychopaths who only follow different orders to impose their will on other nations to makes
sure they follow what? USD.
So when author speaks about vision it must separate few things!
Washington is running around imposing sanctions, destroying relationship/interest with
nations, trying all this regime changes at a cost of death of millions of people and then
dropping "Freedom bombs' almost every 8 to 9 minutes somewhere in this world, because these
freaks vision is way different, then some regular people either be in South America or other
continents that these regular people have.
Real vision is based on corporation, and U.S.A had that before, however after being
hijack, now they trying to start a war of unimaginable proportions so few fat bosses in one
Chamber can feel as super masters of the world and everyone as slaves.
I would like to remind some people about vision – Marx had a vision to, and rest is
history.
Becklon , 1 hour ago
It's a lack of shared purpose, I think. Without a common focus, such as an external threat
(as once provided by the USSR) groups tend to fracture and turn on themselves and each
other.
It's got nothing to do with any one religious or political group having more power than
others. It's to do with homo sapiens - and maybe entropy.
1 play_arrow
David Wooten , 1 hour ago
Well, if all this is true, there is far, far more at stake than the US being unable to
"Re-Impose Its Civilisational Worldview" (which I would be fine with).
He should talk about neoliberal ideology not some "universal civilization"
Notable quotes:
"... So, not only was the claim to universal civilisation not supported by evidence, but the very idea of humans sharing a common destination ('End of Times') is nothing more than an apocalyptic remnant of Latin Christianity, and of one minor current in Judaism. Mill's was always a matter of secularized religion – faith – rather than empiricism. A shared human 'destination' does not exist in Orthodox Christianity, Taoism or Buddhism. It could never therefore qualify as universal. ..."
"... But today, with America's soft power collapsed – not even the illusion of universalism can be sustained. Other states are coming forward, offering themselves as separate, equally compelling 'civilisational' states. It is clear that even were the classic liberal Establishment to win in the November U.S. elections, America no longer has claim to path-find a New World Order. ..."
"... 'Freedom' is being torn down from within. Dissidents from the woke ideology , are being 'called out', made to repent on the knee, or face reputational or economic ruin. It is 'soft totalitarianism'. It recalls one of Dostoevsky's characters – at a time when Russian progressives were discrediting traditional institutions – who, in a celebrated line, says: "I got entangled in my data Starting from unlimited freedom, I conclude with unlimited despotism". ..."
"... "This is not a momentary civil disturbance. This is a serious, and highly organized political movement It is deep and profound and has vast political ambitions. It is insidious, it will grow. Its goal is to end liberal democracy and challenge western civilization itself We're too literal and good-hearted to understand what's happening We have no idea what we are up against These are not protests. This is a totalitarian political movement" ..."
"... The "toy radicals, and Champagne Bolsheviks" – in these terms of dripping disdain from Williamson – are very similar to those who rushed into the streets in 1917. But before dismissing them so peremptorily and lightly, recall what occurred. ..."
It was always a paradox: John Stuart Mill, in his seminal (1859), On Liberty , never doubted that a universal civilisation, grounded
in liberal values, was the eventual destination of all of humankind. He looked forward to an 'Exact Science of Human Nature', which
would formulate laws of psychology and society as precise and universal as those of the physical sciences.
Yet, not only did that
science never emerge, in today's world, such social 'laws' are taken as strictly (western) cultural constructs, rather than as laws
or science.
So, not only was the claim to universal civilisation not supported by evidence, but the very idea of humans sharing a common destination
('End of Times') is nothing more than an apocalyptic remnant of Latin Christianity, and of one minor current in Judaism. Mill's was
always a matter of secularized religion – faith – rather than empiricism. A shared human 'destination' does not exist in Orthodox
Christianity, Taoism or Buddhism. It could never therefore qualify as universal.
Liberal core tenets of individual autonomy, freedom, industry, free trade and commerce essentially reflected the triumph of the
Protestant worldview in Europe's 30-years' civil war. It was not fully even a Christian view, but more a Protestant one.
This narrow, sectarian pillar was able to be projected into a universal project – only so long as it was underpinned by power
. In Mill's day, the civilisational claim served Europe's need for
colonial validation . Mill tacitly
acknowledges this when he validates the clearing of the indigenous American populations for not having tamed the wilderness, nor
made the land productive.
However, with America's Cold War triumph – that had by then become a cynical framework for U.S. 'soft power' – acquired a new
potency. The merits of America's culture, and way of life, seemed to acquire practical validation through the implosion of the USSR.
But today, with America's soft power collapsed – not even the illusion of universalism can be sustained. Other states are coming
forward, offering themselves as separate, equally compelling 'civilisational' states. It is clear that even were the classic liberal
Establishment to win in the November U.S. elections, America no longer has claim to path-find a New World Order.
Yet, should this secularised Protestant current be over – beware! Because its subterranean, unconscious religiosity is the 'ghost
at the table' today. It is returning in a new guise.
The 'old illusion' cannot continue, because its core values are being radicalised, stood on their head, and turned into the swords
with which to impale classic American and European liberals (and U.S. Christian Conservatives). It is now the younger generation
of American woke
liberals who are asserting vociferously not merely that the old liberal paradigm is illusory, but that it was never more than
'a cover' hiding oppression – whether domestic, or colonial, racist or imperial; a moral stain that only redemption can cleanse.
It is an attack – which coming from within – forecloses on any U.S. moral, soft power, global leadership aspirations. For with
the illusion exploded, and nothing in its place, a New World Order cannot coherently be formulated.
Not content with exposing the illusion, the woke generation are also tearing down, and shredding, the flags at the masthead: Freedom
and prosperity achieved via the liberal market.
'Freedom' is being torn down from within. Dissidents from the
woke ideology , are being 'called
out', made to repent on the knee, or face reputational or economic ruin. It is 'soft totalitarianism'. It recalls one of Dostoevsky's
characters – at a time when Russian progressives were discrediting traditional institutions – who, in a celebrated line, says: "I
got entangled in my data Starting from unlimited freedom, I conclude with unlimited despotism".
Even 'science' has become a 'God that failed'; instead of being the path to liberty, it has become a dark soulless
path toward unfreedom . From algorithms that 'cost' the value of human lives, versus the 'costing' of lockdown; from secret 'Black
Box' algos that limit distribution of news and thinking, to Bill Gates' vaccination ID project, science now portends
despotic social control , rather than a fluttering standard, hoist as the symbol of freedom.
But the most prominent of these flags, torn down, cannot be blamed on the woke generation . There has been no 'prosperity for
all' – only distortions and warped structures. There are not even free markets. The Fed and the U.S. Treasury simply print new money,
and hand it out to select recipients. There is no means now to attribute 'worth' to financial assets. Their value simply is that
which Central Government is willing to pay for bonds, or grant in bail-outs.
Wow. 'The God who failed' (André Gide's book title) – a crash of idols. One wonders now, what is the point to that huge financial
eco-system known as Wall Street. Why not winnow it down to a couple of entities, say, Blackrock and KKR (hedge funds), and leave
it to them to distribute the Fed's freshly-printed 'boodle' amongst friends? Liberal markets no more – and many fewer jobs.
"Today, America's tumbrils are clattering about, carrying toppled statues, ruined careers, unwoke brands. Over their sides
peer those deemed racist by left-wing identitarians and sentenced to cancelation, even as the evidentiary standard for that crime
falls through the floor But who are these cultural revolutionaries? The conventional wisdom goes that this is the inner-cities
erupting, economically disadvantaged victims of racism enraged over the murder of George Floyd. The reality is something more
bourgeoisie. As Kevin Williamson observed last week, "These are the idiot children of the American ruling class, toy radicals
and Champagne Bolsheviks, playing Jacobin for a while, until they go back to graduate school".
Is that so? I well recall listening in the Middle East to other angry young men who, too, wanted to 'topple the statues'; to burn
down everything. 'You really believed that Washington would allow you in', they taunted and tortured their leaders: "No, we must
burn it all down. Start from scratch".
Did they have a blueprint for the future? No. They simply believed that Islam would organically inflate, and expand to fill the
void. It would happen by itself – of its own accord: Faith.
Professor John Gray has noted
"that in The God that failed, Gide says: 'My faith in communism is like my faith in religion. It is a promise of salvation for mankind''
. "Here Gide acknowledged", Gray continues, "that communism was an atheist version of monotheism. But so is liberalism, and when
Gide and others gave up faith in communism to become liberals, they were not renouncing the concepts and values that both ideologies
had inherited from western religion. They continued to believe that history was a directional process in which humankind was advancing
towards universal freedom".
So too with the wokes. The emphasis is on Redemption; on a Truth catharsis; on their own Virtue as sufficient agency to stand-in
for the lack of plan for the future. All are clear signals: A secularised 'illusion' is metamorphosing back into 'religion'. Not
as Islam, of course, but as angry Man, burning at the deep and dark moral stain of the past. And acting now as purifying 'fire' to
bring about the uplifting and shining future ahead.
Tucker Carlson, a leading American conservative commentator known for plain speaking,
frames the movement a little differently:
"This is not a momentary civil disturbance. This is a serious, and highly organized political movement It is deep and profound
and has vast political ambitions. It is insidious, it will grow. Its goal is to end liberal democracy and challenge western civilization
itself We're too literal and good-hearted to understand what's happening We have no idea what we are up against These are not
protests. This is a totalitarian political movement" .
Again, nothing needs to be done by this new generation to bring into being a new world, apart from destroying the old one. This
vision is a relic – albeit secularised – of western Christianity. Apocalypse and redemption, these wokes believe, have their own
path; their own internal logic.
Mill's 'ghost' is arrived at the table. And with its return, America's exceptionalism has its re-birth. Redemption for humankind's
dark stains. A narrative in which the history of mankind is reduced to the history of racial struggle. Yet Americans, young or old,
now lack the power to project it as a universal vision.
'Virtue', however deeply felt, on its own, is insufficient. Might President Trump try nevertheless to sustain the old illusion
by hard power? The U.S. is deeply fractured and dysfunctional – but if desperate, this is possible.
The "toy radicals, and Champagne Bolsheviks" – in these terms of dripping disdain from Williamson – are very similar to those
who rushed into the streets in 1917. But before dismissing them so peremptorily and lightly, recall what occurred.
Into that combustible mass of youth – so acultured by their progressive parents to see a Russian past that was imperfect and darkly
stained – a Trotsky and Lenin were inserted. And Stalin ensued. No 'toy radicals'. Soft became hard totalitarianism.
"Durkan called for charges to be dismissed against those who were arrested for alleged misdemeanors The mayor also said that
Seattle arts and parks departments would preserve a community garden and artwork and murals that protesters created within the
zone."
...Statues of Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant and Theodore Roosevelt are dragged down, while the murals and graffiti
of misfits who trashed downtown Seattle are to be preserved.
Deaths from just *Pneumonia* from Feb1st to June20/20 =*119,174* Deaths from just Covid by
its self for same time period = 109,188 And for this time period 1,232,269 Deaths from all
causes. The numbers Fear game,obviously is being played up large by the DemoTards and we know
why! Funny how the Fake News,never speaks of this.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1113051/number-reported-deaths-from-covid-pneumonia-and-flu-us/
Arch_Stanton , 47 minutes ago
Fauci should have had his microphone taken away months ago. A testament to the power of
big pharma.
razorthin , 59 minutes ago
Little Fascist Koxucker.
"Please understand the people who have built this international order reject natural law,
so they do not like sovereign citizens. They do not believe people have inherent rights or
sacred liberties. Most frankly find God anathema and believe in no higher authority than
themselves and the heartless arithmetic they serve. So, while they have happily plundered
America of blood and treasure which we were foolish enough to provide in copious quantities,
they have no love or need of our nation or antiquated concepts such as those enshrined in the
Constitution and Bill of Rights. In their calculation, America needed to be taken down in
order to realize the global project, and as you see the first glimmers of a national effort
in opposition to that, a positive limited effort struggling to overcome the bureaucrats who
betray us all at every opportunity, it becomes clear the Left would rather collapse America
than see us oppose the new world without borders where everyone intermingles under a
controlling network of agencies. No guns, no resistance, no free speech, and no problems is
what they want. Only we stand in the way of the fulfillment of this Orwellian vision, and as
each day's hysteria on the news reveals, the powers that be are working overtime to push the
Left into revolt to topple America into a conflict that will remove us from prominence on the
world scene. Should they win, our rights are gone. Should they fail, the rest of the world
will have consolidated against us, save those few brave nations trying to fight themselves
free of the same entanglements that brought us low. This is where we are today, and it is one
hell of a dilemma for a person who cares about this country and our historic values. No
matter what we choose, any path but submission and surrender only leads to greater conflict,
so this makes us consider the first important question: What are we willing to fight to
preserve? Individuals and families will have to answer this question in the coming months and
years in a much more meaningful way than has been required in generations. The easy days are
coming to an end, and while the economy is booming and we're enjoying an Indian Summer for
our embattled nation, these questions will only become more pressing in the days ahead."
-- The Coming Civil War by Tom Kawczynski
nsurf9 , 1 hour ago
The nasolacrimal duct (also called the tear duct) carries tears from the lacrimal sac of
the eye into the nasal cavity. This virus seems to be able aerosol its particles more readily
than other viruses so as to spread its RNA/DNA in the air - as well as being normally
contracted through fluid droplets.
The eyes are large wet areas, perfect for collecting dust and viruses. If you're a part of
an at-risk demographic or just worried, make sure you cover you eyes. And, upon returning
home, I rinse the eyes out with water along with washing my hands.
Right now, I'm using some tight-fitting fishing glasses with my n99 mask, when I go into
stores or hi-density areas - but, looking for something better.
IvannaHumpalot , 1 hour ago
Rinsing your eyes wont help
yes you can get it through your eyes but that is very difficult via aerosol and
unlikely
far more likely is you touch a contaminated surface after some dirty person without a
facemask has been talking and breathing out their infected droplets earlier
those droplets fall to the surface and you touch it then touch your eyes, nose or
mouth
or you breathe in an infective dose by not wearing a mask to reduce viral load
exposure
or you walk it home on your shoes
IvannaHumpalot , 1 hour ago
Herd immunity at 80%
america has 328 million
That means 262 million must get infected for fantasy herd immunity
US infected is now at 2.7 million infected
let us be generous and say 10x havent been diagnosed but have it
so the US is at 27 million infected
27 out of 262 million
there goes the stupid herd immunity sham
Wear a facemask, avoid catching or spreading it
tranium , 1 hour ago
Dr. HOAX is spreading plandemic.
ZKnight , 1 hour ago
Does anyone even believe this sleazy little man who's corona predictions were 20x off?
He single handedly destroyed the economy and people's jobs over a false alarm all to try
and get his vaccine's in.
WhiteHose , 1 hour ago
Hes been wrong on everything since Jan!
hugin-o-munin , 1 hour ago
We applaud the approval of chemical sweeteners, fluoride, GMOs, antibiotic saturated meat
products and poultry, not to mention the continued use of Glyphosate on just about all food
products. Eat and drink your industrial sugar and chemicals. Now we need a global vaccine
schedule and license linked to passports to make sure everyone on the planet is inoculated
all the time before we can allow them to buy and sell. This is all done out of pure love and
care for all people.
/s
JamcaicanMeAfraid , 1 hour ago
Fauci's ego may start to encroach on the king of all egos, Barry Soreto
Peak Finance , 1 hour ago
This:
"tremendous burden" that the US health care system might face this fall if COVID-19 and
the flu are circulating at the same time.
This man is truly a fool and should be arrested.
Death rates and statistics do not work that way
This coming flu season is going to be the MILDEST EVER because of Covid, as, the people
that WOULD HAVE DIED this season have ALREADY PASSED
Similar to the "Demand-pull" concept in economics
Random ZH posters smarter than people in the upper reaches of government
Fauci and Redfield are complete pieces of s h i t. So much misdirection and lies.
RTP , 2 hours ago
Gallo + Fauci = AIDS swindle
Fauci + Gates = COVID-19 swindle
How much longer will this poisonous dwarf ruin the future of mankind?
k3g , 2 hours ago
Question in March: Doc, you've been a Director at NIH infectious disease unit for 36
years. You're our top virologist. You're in the spotlight, your moment to shine, to show why
we've paid your salary and bene's all these years, we're counting on you. First question:
should we wear masks, would that help?
A: Dunno. Have to study it.
Q: Well, if we want to wear masks, how to we get them? When will the gubmint release masks
from the billions it has in storage?
A: Dunno. Not sure if we have any masks. Have you tried Home Depot?
The government and the FED dumping TRILLIONS of dollars to all these corporations,
meanwhile they can't even provide FREE MASKS for everyone. If they really wanted to help,
they could have given everyone masks. That's how you could have helped prevent it. And MASKS
are expensive why not subsidized it, and maybe we would have this in control and are
re-opening sooner.
"... Trump's problems among college-educated whites have drawn much attention during his presidency. What's new is declining support among non-college educated whites, where he holds only a 19-point lead. He won that demographic by 37 points in 2016. And his declining support among this key constituency is pronounced in six battleground states, with only 16 percent of non-college educated whites backing him. In October, his lead among them was 24 points. In 2016, Trump won these battleground voters by 26 points. ..."
White voters are turning away from President Trump. That assessment includes his invaluable
working-class white base
. But Trump has only himself and his campaign to blame for the bad news contained in the latest polls. While America burns, his
campaign's only plan seems to be wooing black voters by tweeting that
Joe Biden
is the "real" racist. Trump seems unable to do anything about the riots or the
devastation
wrought by
coronavirus . The latest poll numbers should knock some sense into the president. He seems to be responding a little lately,
but he's going to lose the election if he sticks to
Jared Kushner 's agenda and
doesn't fight like the candidate
we
elected in 2016.
The latest polls from The New York Times poll lay bare the ugly truth.
Trump's problems among
college-educated
whites have drawn much attention during his presidency. What's new is declining support among non-college educated whites,
where he holds only a 19-point lead. He won that demographic
by 37 points in 2016. And his declining support among this
key constituency is pronounced
in six battleground states, with only 16 percent of non-college educated whites backing him. In October, his lead among them was
24 points. In 2016, Trump won these battleground voters by 26 points.
Funny thing is, those voters aren't defecting to Biden's camp, either; their support for him has increased by just 1 since October.
The Times describes them as "
white voters with more
conservative attitudes on racial issues," which likely means they think Trump has not delivered the promised nationalist agenda.
One voter told the Times's Cohn he's disappointed with
Trump
's not cracking down
on the rioters and shutting down the economy because of the
Chinese
Virus pandemic. He'll still vote for Trump, but without much enthusiasm.
Older whites are also jumping ship. In six battleground states, Trump and Biden are about even among whites 65 or older. Trump
won them by nearly 20 points in 2016. The Times
attributes that decline to the president's coronavirus response and his "tone" [
Trump Faces
Mounting Defections From a Once-Loyal Group: Older White Voters , by Alexander Burns and Katie Glueck, June 28, 2020].
That picture of Trump's America hardly inspires confidence.
The only positive for Trump is that Biden has roughly the same non-white support that
Hillary Clinton had in 2016
. But that's not exactly great news, either, given the campaign's focus on painting Biden as the "real" racist. The message is
having zero effect on non-whites. The Times : Biden leads by 74 points among blacks and by 39 points among Hispanics [
Biden
Takes Dominant Lead as Voters Reject Trump on Virus and Race , by Alexander Burns, Jonathan Martin and Matt Stevens, June
24, 2020].
A tweet from Trump campaign manager
Brad
Parscale last week illustrates the idiocy. Parscale attacked Biden for working with
Strom Thurmond to impose harsh sentences
on crack dealers. He claimed this legislation targeted blacks and Trump is fixing the "problem"
Unhappily, Parscale is not alone. Official Republican and Trump campaign accounts regularly tweet cringeworthy statements about
Confederate monuments and criminal justice reform.
Democrats seem to have forgotten that Pres. Trump has led the way on innovative criminal justice reform.
He signed the FIRST STEP Act & established the Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement & the Admin. of Justice -- which
aims to improve relations between the public & police.
Who, exactly, are these messages for? If they're intended to win the black vote, they're failing. If they're meant to soothe white
suburbanite concerns about Trump's alleged "racism," they're failing. If they're meant to excite Trump's working class white base,
again, they're failing.
Parscale
set
out the agenda for the Trump campaign in a January interview with Lou Dobbs: the economy and healthcare. When Dobbs asked about
immigration, the campaign manager replied that they didn't need to worry about it because "we already have [immigration patriots
as] voters." Other issues, he claimed, will bring in new voters.
The Son-in-Law
in Chief might wish to consult the polling data to verify that claim.
Parscale is taking a lot of heat lately for the poor messaging and the
Tulsa rally's underwhelming attendance . Reports suggest Parscale is on his way out as part of a major campaign shake-up. Maybe,
but he's not the ultimate problem.
Jared Kushner and the Republican establishment are setting Trump's agenda and message, Parscale merely carries it out. And frighteningly,
as Politico reported, Kushner "who effectively oversees the campaign from the White House, is expected to play an even more
active role" [ Trump admits
it: He's losing , by Alex Isenstadt, June 27, 2020].
Trump recently tweeted an ad that suggests he might ditch the awful messaging. It pins the current chaos on Democrats and the
Left and states they want to burn America to the ground.
It's a powerful, take-no-prisoners video with the same message that helped Trump win in 2016 and might just re-energize his base
in time for Election Day.
Yet tough talk alone won't win back Trump's base. He must act . Signs are improving there, too..
Over the weekend, he tweeted several wanted
pictures of statue vandals. Four leftists were hit with federal charges for attacking the Andrew Jackson statue in DC [
Justice Department Charges 4 Over Attempt to Topple Andrew Jackson Statue In D.C. , by Jason Slotkin, NPR , June
28, 2020]. Putting left-wing criminals behind bars sends the right message and might stifle the unrest. And again, he's helping unemployed
Americans with
the immigration ban for the rest of the year. Nearly two-thirds of Americans support it, according to the latest polling.
Trump must show Americans that the Chinese Virus threat is decreasing, the economy is recovering, and law and order is being restored.
Tweets about money for black colleges, Biden's tough-on-crime bills, and or his long-ago cooperation with "segregationists" won't
do.
Trump must make this election about order versus chaos and put Democrats on the side of the rioters and the radicals in Antifa
and Black Lives Matter.
You guys at VDare are always very hopeful, and I like that. I've read of some of the moves that the President has made, such
as the ones you state here (on immigration and some justice for Cult-Revolutionalists). However, these things never seem to be
part of any coherent, consistent strategy of any sort.
Perhaps President Trump is not a strategist and can't think in that manner. He definitely has no specific principles or moral
compass, or any kind of damn compass. This is why he listens to his son-in-law Kushner, who is out to destroy the country like
the rest of them.
I agree with the one guy you mentioned (who replied to Mr. Cohn). There's no choice on who to vote for anyway, not matter how
much Trump screws up. But then, all this happening is not going to be settled at the voting booth anyway
Yeah, Trump comes off like a used car salesman with high pressure tactics. But who can vote for dugout Joe who hides in his
basement avoiding complex questions? Apples Oranges ?
Trump is done. Kushner is nothing more than an Israeli plant. They know that Biden is just like Pelosi and she and Joe would
kill every white person in America if Israel wanted. The entire Congress is owned by Israel. Trump is done. Obama's "Third Term"
more accurately described as Coup d'etat setup with the Deep State and Obama's Jewish friends left from his administration destroyed
Trump on the first day of his tenure.
Trump can't stop putting his foot in his mouth. He abandoned White America and no matter what he did for the Blacks including
money for their universities made no difference. No matter how many jobs he created it didn't count because these mongrels don't
want jobs they want free stuff. Obama did nothing for blacks except destroying many middle class blacks but it doesn't matter.
Blacks are tribalistic gang bangers and as Obama their Lord taught them only see color.
Trump is done and so is America. The Jews always win no matter who is president. You better start arming yourself because you
are not going to believe what is going to happen when Biden wins. In Washington D.C. today Blacks were rioting against Target
because they call the police when blacks steal stuff. You can't make this up and the Jewish controlled media just laughs at us.
Ok, but what if Trump were to say Dems are the real racists ? Wouldn't that win the Black vote? Forgive me, gallows
humor.
It's truly pathetic the people Trump surrounds himself with. His instincts always seemed good, but apparently he can't implement
a damn thing. At least all this is showing conservatives how rotten the leadership of all their hallowed institutions are (FBI,
military, police, etc).
A person that believe is Russiagate is iether an idiot or a shill
Notable quotes:
"... The bipartisan elite will allow the destruction of the statues as an attempt to ameliorate the frustration of the protestors by giving them a target for their anger. The elite understand while the statues are the release of frustration and the target of the anger, they remain safe. But what happens next week when all the symbols of empire have been eradicated? ..."
Should've included the fact that Tucker himself said that the Republican party won't save us cause they're busy sucking up to
corporate interests instead of stealing it.
The bipartisan elite will allow the destruction of the statues as an attempt to ameliorate the frustration of the
protestors by giving them a target for their anger. The elite understand while the statues are the release of frustration and
the target of the anger, they remain safe. But what happens next week when all the symbols of empire have been eradicated?
Mao was a pretty talented scoundrel and he first unleashed Red Guards on his opponents and
than exited huanwaibins to the countryside, when they did the dirty job. But Neoliberal Democrats
who unleashed those protests as a tool to depose Trump might soon lose the control: as new Red
Guards will inevitably go out of control and to put the genie back into the bottle might be
slightly more difficult (although Occupy wall Street movement was crashed very effectively)
In any case it is clear that intelligence agencies and first of all FBI support protesters,
because the movement was probably thoroughly infiltrated from the very beginning and key
participants such as Antifa foot soldiers probably have think dossiers at the FBI
headquarters.
One important new factor in all this mess is that Trump proved to be a coward, much like
Yanukovich in 2014.
Notable quotes:
"... "did allow, aid, abet, and actively facilitate, the exclusive physical occupation, takeover and control of an approximate six city block area of publicly owned real property of an American city by an un-elected, unauthorized, and violent group of citizens promoting a political special interest group." ..."
"... "They want access to their streets and to their properties." ..."
The moves to disband the anarcho-commune-slash-protest-zone come soon after a second lawsuit
was filed against both the mayor and the city itself over CHOP.
Filed on Thursday, the suit – which also names Governor Jay Inslee – alleges
that the city "did allow, aid, abet, and actively facilitate, the exclusive physical
occupation, takeover and control of an approximate six city block area of publicly owned real
property of an American city by an un-elected, unauthorized, and violent group of citizens
promoting a political special interest group."
The suit follows a similar complaint, filed earlier this week by more than a dozen local
business owners. Though they voiced support for the rights and efforts of the Black Lives
Matter movement, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs said they were concerned about
"public order" and "safety," adding "They want access to their streets
and to their properties."
Today, in the context of the Black Lives Matter protests, TomDispatch regular Andrew Bacevich considers the all-American version of "extreme
materialism" that Martin Luther King called out more than half a century ago. And when it
comes to the overwhelming urge to get one's hands on the goods, among the looters of this
moment two groups are almost never mentioned: the Pentagon and the police.
Yet, in 1997, the Department of Defense set up the 1033 program as part of the National
Defense Authorization Act to provide thousands of domestic police forces with "surplus"
equipment of almost every imaginable militarized kind. Since then, thanks to your tax
dollars, it has given away $7.4
billion of such equipment, some of it directly off the battlefields of this country's
forlorn "forever wars."
For items like grenade launchers, mine-resistant armored vehicles, military rifles,
bayonets, body armor, night-vision goggles, and helicopters
, all that police departments have to fork over is the price of delivery. The Pentagon has,
in fact, been so eager to become the Macy's of
militarized hardware that, in 2017, it was even willing to "give $1.2 million worth of
rifles, pipe bombs, and night vision goggles to a fake police department," no questions
asked. That "department" proved to be part of a sting
operation run by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). "It was like getting stuff
off of eBay," a GAO official would
say . Only, of course, for free.
The militarization (or, thought of another way, the commercialization) of the police has
been remarkably on pace these last 23 years, while the Pentagon's
ever-soaring budgets for its ever-sinking wars could be thought of as the great American
commercial success story of this century. With more and more taxpayer dollars in its
wallet, it's been on a remarkable looting spree. Ask yourself: has there been a weapons
system it couldn't have, a military base it couldn't establish, a war expense Congress
wouldn't fund even while cutting back on crucial aspects of the domestic budget like
infrastructure
programs or
disease-prevention spending ? No wonder the Pentagon could supply all those police
departments with a cornucopia of goods with which to turn themselves into over-armed
occupying forces in this country.
It's never thought of that way, but the Pentagon and the police have essentially been
looting the coffers of the American taxpayer for a long time now and, in the Trump era, the
process has only intensified .
Nonetheless, as Bacevich points out, even with protests over racism filling the streets of
America, protests over defunding the Pentagon have yet to surface in any significant way.
Perhaps it's finally time. ~ Tom
Martin Luther King's Giant Triplets
By Andrew Bacevich
In the wake of the police killing of George Floyd, Americans are finally – or is it
once again? – confronting the racism that afflicts this country and extends into just
about every corner of our national life. Something fundamental just might be happening.
Yet to state the obvious, we've been
here before. Mass protests in response to racial inequality and discrimination, including
police brutality, have been anything but unknown in the United States. Much the same can be
said of riots targeting black Americans, fomented and exploited by white racists, often
actively or passively abetted by local law enforcement officials. If Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin,
formerly known as H. Rap Brown, was correct in calling violence "as American as
cherry pie," then race-related urban unrest is the apple-filled equivalent.
The optimists among us believe
that "this time is different." I hope events will prove them right. Yet recalling
expectations that Barack Obama's election in 2008 signaled the dawn of a " post-racial America
," I see no reason to expect it to be so. A yawning gap, I fear, separates hope from
reality.
Let me suggest, however, that the nation's current preoccupation with race, as honorable
and necessary as it may be, falls well short of adequately responding to the situation
confronting Americans as they enter the third decade of the twenty-first century. Racism is a
massive problem, but hardly our only one. Indeed, as Martin Luther King sought to remind us
many years ago, there are at least two others of comparable magnitude.
MLK Defines the Problem
In April 1967, at New York City's Riverside Church, Dr. King delivered a sermon that
offered a profound diagnosis of the illnesses afflicting the nation. His analysis remains as
timely today as it was then, perhaps more so.
Americans remember King primarily as a great civil rights leader and indeed he was that.
In his Riverside Church address, however, he turned to matters that went far beyond race. In
an immediate sense, his focus was the ongoing Vietnam War, which he denounced as "madness"
that "must cease." Yet King also used the occasion to summon the nation to "undergo a radical
revolution of values" that would transform the United States "from a thing-oriented society
to a person-oriented society." Only through such a revolution, he declared, would we be able
to overcome "the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism."
The challenge confronting Americans was to dismantle what King referred to as the
"edifice" that produced and sustained each of those giant triplets. Today's protesters,
crusading journalists, and engaged intellectuals make no bones about their determination to
eliminate the first of those giant triplets. Yet they generally treat the other two as, at
best, mere afterthoughts, while the edifice itself, resting on a perverse understanding of
freedom, goes almost entirely ignored.
I'm not suggesting that members of the grand coalition of Americans today fervently
campaigning against racism favor extreme materialism. Many of them merely accept its reality
and move on. Nor am I suggesting that they consciously endorse militarism, although in
confusing "support" for the troops with genuine patriotism some of them do so implicitly.
What I am suggesting is that those calling for fundamental change will go badly astray if
they ignore Dr. King's insistence that each of the giant triplets is intimately tied to the
other two.
Defund the Pentagon?
The protests triggered by the recent murders of George Floyd and other black Americans
have produced widespread demands to "defund the police." Those demands don't come out of
nowhere. While "reform" programs undertaken in innumerable American cities over the course of
many years have demonstrably
enhanced police firepower , they have done little, if anything, to repair relations
between police departments and communities of color.
As an aging middle-class white male, I don't fear cops. I respect the fact that theirs is
a tough job, which I would not want. Yet I realize that my attitude is one more expression of
white privilege, which black men, regardless of their age and economic status, can ill afford
to indulge. So I fully accept the need for radical changes in policing – that's what
"defund" appears to imply – if American cities are ever to have law enforcement
agencies that are effective, humane, and themselves law-abiding.
What I can't fathom is why a similar logic doesn't apply to the armed forces that we
employ to police huge chunks of the world beyond our borders. If Americans have reason to
question the nation's increasingly
militarized approach to law enforcement, then shouldn't they have equal reason to
question this country's thoroughly militarized approach to statecraft?
Consider this: on an annual basis, police officers in the United States kill approximately
1,000 Americans , with blacks
two-and-a-half times more likely than whites to be victimized. Those are appalling
figures, indicative of basic policy gone fundamentally awry. So the outpouring of protest
over the police and demands for change are understandable and justified.
Still, the question must be asked: Why have the nation's post-9/11 wars not prompted
similar expressions of outrage? The unjustified killing of black Americans rightly finds
thousands upon thousands of protesters flooding the streets of major cities. Yet the
loss of thousands of
American soldiers and the physical and psychological wounds sustained by tens of thousands
more in foolhardy wars elicits, at best, shrugs. Throw in the hundreds of
thousands of non-American lives taken in those military campaigns and the
trillions of taxpayer dollars they have consumed and you have a catastrophe that easily
exceeds in scale the myriad race-related protests and riots that have roiled American cities
in the recent past.
With their eyes fixed on elections that are now just months away, politicians of all
stripes spare no effort to show that they "get it" on the issue of race and policing. Race
may well play a large role in determining who wins the White House this November and which
party controls Congress. It should. Yet while the election's final outcome may be uncertain,
this much is not: neither the American
propensity for war, nor the
bloated size of the Pentagon budget, nor the dubious habit of maintaining a sprawling
network of military bases across much of the planet will receive serious scrutiny during
the political season now underway. Militarism will escape unscathed.
At Riverside Church, King described the U.S. government as "the greatest purveyor of
violence in the world today." So it unquestionably remains, perpetrating immeasurably more
violence than any other great power and with remarkably little to show in return. Why, then,
except on the easily ignored fringes of American politics, are there no demands to "defund"
the Pentagon?
King considered the Vietnam War an abomination. At that time, more than a few Americans
agreed with him and vigorously demonstrated against the conflict's continuation. That today's
demonstrators have seemingly chosen to file away our post-9/11 military misadventures under
the heading of regrettable but forgettable is itself an abomination. While their sensitivity
to racism is admirable, their indifference to war is nothing short of disheartening.
In 1967, Dr. King warned that "a nation that continues year after year to spend more money
on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." During
the intervening decades, his charge has lost none of its sting or aptness.
America's National Signature
Given their size and duration, the protests occurring in the wake of the murder of George
Floyd have been remarkably peaceful. That said, some of them did, early on, include rioters
who resorted to looting. Smashing windows and ransacking stores, they walked off not with
milk and bread for the hungry, but with shopping bags filled with
high-end swag – designer shoes and sneakers, purses, clothing, and jewelry lifted
from
stores like Prada and Alexander McQueen. Also stolen were smart phones,
handguns , even automobiles . In-store
surveillance systems recorded
scenes reminiscent of Black Friday doorbuster sales, though without anyone bothering to
pass through a checkout counter. Some looters quickly attempted to monetize their hauls by
offering to sell purloined items online.
Certain right-wing commentators wasted no time in using the looting to tar the protest
movement as little more than an expression of nihilism. Tucker Carlson of Fox News was
particularly
emphatic on this point. Americans taking to the streets in response to George Floyd's
murder, he said, "reject society itself."
"Reason and process and precedent mean nothing to them. They use violence to get what they
want immediately. People like this don't bother to work. They don't volunteer or pay taxes to
help other people. They live for themselves. They do exactly what they feel like doing On
television, hour by hour, we watch these people – criminal mobs – destroy what
the rest of us have built "
To explain such selfish and destructive misconduct, Carlson had an answer readily at
hand:
"The ideologues will tell you that the problem is race relations, or capitalism, or police
brutality, or global warming. But only on the surface. The real cause is deeper than that and
it's far darker. What you're watching is the ancient battle between those who have a stake in
society, and would like to preserve it, and those who don't, and seek to destroy it.
This is vile, hateful stuff, and entirely wrong – except perhaps on one point. In
attributing the looting to a deeper cause, Carlson was onto something, even if his effort to
pinpoint that cause was wildly off the mark.
I won't try to unravel the specific motives of those who saw an opportunity in the
protests against racism to help themselves to goods that were not theirs. How much was
righteous anger turned to rage and how much cynical opportunism is beyond my ability to
know.
This much, however, can be said for certain: the grab-all-you-can-get impulse so vividly
on display was as all-American as fireworks on the Fourth of July. Those looters, after all,
merely wanted more stuff. What could be more American than that? In this country, after all,
stuff carries with it the possibility of personal fulfillment, of achieving some version of
happiness or status.
The looters that Tucker Carlson targeted with his ire were doing anything but "rejecting
society itself." They were merely helping themselves to what this society today has on offer
for those with sufficient cash and credit cards in their wallets. In a sense, they were
treating themselves to a tiny sip of what passes these days for the American Dream.
With the exception of cloistered nuns, hippies, and other vanishing breeds, virtually all
Americans have been conditioned to buy into the proposition that stuff correlates with the
good life. Unconvinced? Check out the videos from last year's Black Friday and then consider
the intense, if unsurprising, interest of economists and journalists in tracking the
latest
consumer spending trends . At least until Covid-19 came along, consumer spending served
as the authoritative measure of the nation's overall health.
The primary civic obligation of US citizens today is not to vote or pay taxes. And it's
certainly not to defend the country, a task offloaded onto those who can be enticed to enlist
(with minorities vastly
overrepresented ) in the so-called All-Volunteer Military. No, the primary obligation of
citizenship is to spend.
Ours is not a nation of mystics, philosophers, poets, artisans, or Thomas Jefferson's
yeomen farmers. We are now a nation of citizen-consumers, held in thrall to the extreme
materialism that Dr. King decried. This, not a commitment to liberty or democracy, has become
our true national signature and our chief contribution to late modernity.
Tearing Down the Edifice
At Riverside Church, King reminded his listeners that the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference, which he had helped to found a decade earlier, had chosen this as its motto: "To
save the soul of America." The soul of a nation corrupted by racism, militarism, and extreme
materialism represented King's ultimate concern. Vietnam, he said, was "but a symptom of a
far deeper malady within the American spirit."
In a tone-deaf
editorial criticizing his Riverside Church sermon, the New York Times chastised
King for "fusing two public problems" – racism and the Vietnam War – "that are
distinct and separate." Yet part of King's genius lay in his ability to recognize the
interconnectedness of matters that Times editors, as oblivious to deeper maladies then
as they are today, wish to keep separate. King sought to tear down the edifice that sustained
all three of those giant triplets. Indeed, it is all but certain that, were he alive now, he
would call similar attention to a fourth related factor: climate change denial. The refusal
to treat seriously the threat posed by climate change underwrites the persistence of racism,
militarism, and extreme materialism.
During the course of his sermon, King quoted this sentence from the statement of a group
that called itself the Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam: "A time comes when silence
is betrayal." Regarding race, it appears that the
great majority of Americans have now rejected such silence. This is good. It remains an
open question, however, when their silent acceptance of militarism, materialism, and the
abuse of Planet Earth will end.
"... You can fool someone for a long time, you can fool a lot of people for a short time - but you can't fool a lot of people for a long time. That is, unless those people are willing to live the lie. ..."
"... I think the reason the MSM's propaganda is so effective nowadays (and I'm thinking specifically about the world since the Iraq invasion in 2003) is that, deep down, maybe in the collective inconsciousness level, the working classes from the First World countries know their superior living standards depend on imperial brutality over the rest of the world. ..."
"... The current increased smear campaigns against the so called Russian Bots, Assad Apologists etc., is surely just the first part of of a an attempt to implement very serious censorship and control over the internet to attempt to completely block out any alternative voices. ..."
"... Obivously western intelligence servies, NATO leak stuff to western msm to intimidate and censor political oppostion in every western country. ..."
"... Orwell's great fear was totalitarianism. Either from the left or the right. What we have now is much more subtle. The MSM retains the illusion of freedom and most people go along with it. We may even realize we are being manipulated but the only alternative is posting on sites like MOA. ..."
"... The Skirpal charade was a front for several things but mainly, I think, to turn the focus away from Brexit and to opening the Cold War front again. ..."
"... George Orwell has been a presence throughout this thread. It was unfortunate he was hurried by MI6 to finish the last pages of 'Animal Farm' so it could be translated into Arabic and be used to discredit Communist parties in Western Asia. This always raised the ire of Communist organisations through following decades .This being said he wrote some great text especially for me the revealing 1939 novel - Coming up for A ..."
"... I don't know if wars are really an extension of diplomacy by other means, but they certainly seem to be... an extension of ideology and propaganda. Ideas are very important in preparing and fighting wars; especially today, though, in reality the way we think about our western imperial war-fighting, goes back well over a century, back to the Whiteman's Burden and other imperialist myths. ..."
"... For the last thirty years we've essentially been fighting 'liberal crusades for freedom and democracy.' That, at least, was the 'cover story' the pretext presented to the people. There's an irony here. Just like Islamic State, we've been engaging in 'holy warfare' too! ..."
Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in
Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the
facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles
reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been
killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who
had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers
in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over
events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what
happened but of what ought to have happened according to various 'party lines'.
George Orwell, Looking back on the Spanish War
, Chapter 4
Last week saw an extreme intensifying of the warmongers' campaign against individuals who
publicly hold and defend a different view than the powers-that-be want to promote. The campaign
has a longer history but recently turned personal. It now endangers the life and livelihood of
real people.
In fall 2016 a
smear campaign was launched against 200 websites which did not confirm to NATO propaganda.
Prominent sites like Naked
Capitalism were among them as well as this site:
While the ProPornOT campaign was against websites the next and larger attack was a
general defaming of specific content.
The neoconservative Alliance For
Securing Democracy declared that any doubt of the veracity of U.S. propaganda stories
discussed on Twitter was part of a "Russian influence campaign". Their ' dashboard ' shows the most prominent hashtags and
themes tweeted and retweeted by some 600 hand-selected but undisclosed accounts. (I have reason
to believe that @MoonofA is among them.) The dashboard gave rise to an endless line of
main-stream stories faking concern over alleged "Russian influence". The New York
Times published several such stories including this
recent one :
Russia did not respond militarily to the Friday strike, but American officials noted a sharp
spike in Russian online activity around the time it was launched.
A snapshot on Friday night recorded a 2,000 percent increase in Russian troll activity
overall, according to Tyler Q. Houlton, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security.
One known Russian bot, #SyriaStrikes, had a 4,443 percent increase in activity while another,
#Damsucs, saw a 2,800 percent jump, Mr. Houlton said.
A person on Twitter, or a bot, is tagged by a chosen name led with an @-sign. Anything led
with a #-sign is a 'hashtag', a categorizing attribute of a place, text or tweet. Hashtags have
nothing to do with any "troll activity". The use of the attribute or hashtag #syriastrike
increased dramatically when a U.S. strike on Syria happened. Duh. A lot of people remarked on the
strikes and used the hashtag #syriastrike to categorize their remarks. It made it easier for
others to find information about the incident.
The hashtag #Damsucs does not exit. How could it have a 2,800% increase? It is obviously a
mistyping of #Damascus or someone may have used as a joke. In June 2013 an Associated
Press story famously
carried the dateline "Damsucs". The city was then under artillery attack from various Takfiri
groups. The author likely felt that the situation sucked.
The spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security Tyler Q. Holton, to which the
Times attributes the "bot" nonsense, has a Twitter account under his name and also tweets as
@SpoxDHS. Peter Baker, the NYT author, has some 150,000 followers on Twitter and tweets several
times per day. Holton and Tyler surely know what @accounts and #hashtags are.
One suspects that Holton used the bizzare
statistic of the infamous ' Dashboard '
created by the neoconservative, anti-Russian lobby . The dashboard creators asserted that the
use of certain hashtags is a sign of 'Russian bots'. On December 25 the dashboard showed that
Russian trolls and bots made extensive use of the hashtag #MerryChristmas to undermine America's
moral.
One of the creators of the dashboard, Clint Watts, has since confessed that it is mere
bullshit :
"I'm not convinced on this bot thing," said Watts, the cofounder of a project that is widely
cited as the main, if not only, source of information on Russian bots. He also called the
narrative "overdone."
As government spokesperson Holton is supposed to spout propaganda that supports the
government's policies. But propaganda is ineffective when it does not adhere to basic realities.
Holton is bad at his job. Baker, the NYT author, did even worse. He repeated the
government's propaganda bullshit without pointing out and explaining that it obviously did not
make any sense. He used it to further his own opinionated, false narrative. It took a day for the
Times to issue a paritial correction of the fact free tale.
With the situation in Syria developing in favor of the Syrian people, with dubious government
claims around the Skripal affair in Salisbury and the recent faked 'chemical attack' in Douma the
campaign against dissenting reports and opinions became more and more personal.
Last December the Guardian commissioned a hatchet
job against Vanessa Beeley
and Eva Bartlett . Beeley and
Bartlett extensively reported
(vid) from the ground in Syria on the British propaganda racket "White Helmets". The
Guardian piece defended the 'heros' of the White Helmets and insinuated that both
journalists were Russian paid stooges.
In March the self proclaimed whistle-blower and blowhard Sibel Edmonds of Newsbud
launched a lunatic broadside smear attack
(vid) against Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett. The Corbett Report debunked (vid) the nonsense. (The debunking
received 59,000 views. Edmonds public wanking was seen by less than 23,000 people.)
Some time ago the CIA propaganda outlets Voice of America and Radio Free Europe
started a 'fact-checking' website and named it Polygraph.info . (Some satirist or a clueless intern
must have come up with that name. No country but the U.S. believes that the unscientific results
of polygraph tests have any relation to truthfulness. To any educated non-U.S. citizen the first
association with the term 'polygraph' is the term 'fake'.)
Ben Nimmo, the Senior Fellow for Information Defense at the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic
Research Lab, studies the exploits of "Ian56" and similar accounts on Twitter. His recent
article in the online publication Medium profiles such fake pro-Kremlin accounts and
demonstrates how they operate.
...
Nimmo, and several other dimwits quoted in the piece, came to the conclusion that Ian56 is a
Kremlin paid troll, not a real person. Next to Ian56 Nimmo 'identified' other 'Russian troll'
accounts:
One particularly influential retweeter (judging by the number of accounts which then
retweeted it) was @ValLisitsa, which posts in English and Russian. Last year, this account
joined the troll-factory #StopMorganLie campaign.
Had Nimmo, a former NATO spokesperson, had some decent education he would have know that
@ValLisitsa, aka Valentina Lisitsa , is a famous
American-Ukrainian pianist. Yes, she sometimes tweets in Russian language to her many fans in
Russia and the Ukraine. Is that now a crime? The videos of her world wide performances
on Youtube have more than 170 million views. It is absurd to claim that she is a 'Russian troll'
and to insinuate that she is taking Kremlin money to push 'Russian troll' opinions.
Earlier this month Newsweek also
targeted the journalists Beeley and Bartlett and smeared a group of people who had traveled
to Syria as 'Assad's pawns'.
On April 14 Murdoch's London Times took personal aim at the members of a group of
British academics who assembled to scientificly investigate dubious claims against Syria. Their
first investigation report though, was
about the Skripal incident in Salisbury. The London Times also targeted Bartlett and
Beeley. The piece was leading on page one with the
headline: "Apologists for Assad working in universities". A page two splash and an editorial
complemented the full fledged attack on the livelihood of the scientists.
Tim Hayward, who initiated the academic group, published
a (too) mild response.
On April 18 the NPR station Wabenews
smeared the black activists Anoa Changa and Eugene Puryear for appearing on a Russian TV
station. It was the begin of an ongoing, well concerted campaign launched with at least seven
prominent smear pieces issued on a single day against the opposition to a wider war on Syria.
On April 19 the BBCtook aim at Sarah Abdallah , a Twitter account with over 130,000
followers that takes a generally pro Syrian government stand. The piece also attacked Vanessa
Beeley and defended the 'White Helmets':
In addition to pictures of herself, Sarah Abdallah tweets constant pro-Russia and pro-Assad
messages, with a dollop of retweeting mostly aimed at attacking Barack Obama, other US
Democrats and Saudi Arabia.
...
The Sarah Abdallah account is, according to a recent study by the online research firm
Graphika, one of the most influential social media accounts in the online conversation about
Syria, and specifically in pushing misinformation about a 2017 chemical weapons attack and the
Syria Civil Defence, whose rescue workers are widely known as the "White Helmets".
...
Graphika was commissioned to prepare a report on online chatter by The Syria Campaign , a
UK-based advocacy group organisation which campaigns for a democratic future for Syria and
supports the White Helmets.
The Syria Campaign Ltd. is a
for profit 'regime change' lobby which, like the White Helmets it promotes, is sponsored with
millions of British and U.S. taxpayer money.
Brian Whitaker, a former Middle East editor for the Guardian ,
alleged that Sarah Abdullah has a 'Hizbullah connection'. He assumes that from two terms she
used which point to a southern Lebanese heritage. But south Lebanon is by far not solely
Hizbullah and Sarah Abdallah certainly does not dress herself like a pious Shia. She is
more likely a Maronite or secular whatever. Exposing here as 'Hizbullah' can easily endanger her
life. Replying to Whitaker the British politician George Galloway asked:
George Galloway @georgegalloway - 14:50 UTC - Replying to
@Brian_Whit
Will you be content when she's dead Brian?
...
Will you be content Brian when ISIS cut off her head and eat her heart? You are beneath
contempt. Even for a former Guardian man
Whitaker's smear piece was not even researched by himself. He plagiarized it, without naming
his source,
from Joumana Gebara, a CentCom approved Social Media
Advisor to parts of the Syrian 'opposition'. Whitaker is prone to fall for scams like the 'White
Helmets'. Back in mid 2011 he promoted the "Gay Girl in
Damascus", a scam by a 40 year old U.S. man with dubious financial
sources who pretended to be a progressive Syrian woman.
Also on April 19 the Guardian
stenographed a British government smear against two other prominent Twitter accounts:
Russia used trolls and bots to unleash disinformation on to social media in the wake of the
Salisbury poisoning, according to fresh Whitehall analysis. Government sources said experts had
uncovered an increase of up to 4,000% in the spread of propaganda from Russia-based accounts
since the attack, – many of which were identifiable as automated bots.
Notice that this idiotic % increase claim, without giving a base number, is similar to the one
made in the New York Times piece quoted above. It is likely also based on the lunatic
'dashboard'.
[C]ivil servants identified a sharp increase in the flow of fake news after the Salisbury
poisoning, which continued in the runup to the airstrikes on Syria.
One bot, @Ian56789, was sending 100 posts a day during a 12-day period from 7 April, and
reached 23 million users, before the account was suspended. It focused on claims that the
chemical weapons attack on Douma had been falsified, using the hashtag #falseflag. Another,
@Partisangirl, reached 61 million users with 2,300 posts over the same 12-day period.
The prime minister discussed the matter at a security briefing with fellow Commonwealth
leaders Malcolm Turnbull, Jacinda Ardern and Justin Trudeau earlier this week. They were
briefed by experts from GCHQ and the National Cyber Security Centre about the security
situation in the aftermath of the Syrian airstrikes.
The political editor of the Guardian , Heather Steward, admitted that her 'reporting'
was a mere copy of government claims:
A day earlier Ian56/@Ian56789 account with 35,000 followers had suddenly been blocked by
Twitter. Ben Nimmo was extremely happy about this success.
But after many users protested to the Twitter censors the account was revived.
Neither Ian, nor Partisangirl, are 'bots' or have anything to do with Russia. Partisangirl,
aka Syria Girl, is the twitter moniker of Maram Susli, a Syrian-Australian scientist specialized
in quantum chemistry. She was already interviewed on Australian TV (vid) four years
ago and has been back since. She has published videos of herself talking about Syria on Youtube and on Twitter and held
presentations on Syria at several international conferences. Her account is marked as 'verified'
by Twitter. Any cursory search would have shown that she is a real person.
The claim of bots and the numbers of their tweets the government gave to the Guardian
and Sky News are evidently false . With just a few clicks
the Guardian and Sky News 'journalists' could have debunked the British government
claims. But these stenograhers do not even try and just run with whatever nonsense the government
claims. Sky News even manipulated the picture of Partisangirl's Twitter homepage in the
video and screenshot above. The original shows Maram Susli speaking about Syrian refugees at a
conference in Germany. The picture provides that she is evidently a living person and not a
'bot'. But Sky News did not dare to show that. It would have debunked the government's
claim.
After some negative feed back on social media Sky News contacted the 'Russian bot' Ian
and invited him to a live interview
(vid). Ian Shilling, a wakeful British pensioner, managed to deliver a few zingers against the
government and Sky News . He also published a
written response:
I have been campaigning against the Neocons and the Neocon Wars since January 2002, when I
first realised Dick Cheney and the PNAC crowd were going to use 9/11 as the pretext to launch a
disastrous invasion of Iraq. This has nothing to do with Russia. It has EVERYTHING to do with
the massive lies constantly told by the UK & US governments about their illegal Wars of
Aggression.
...
Brian Whitaker could not hold back. Within the 156,000 tweets Ian wrote over seven years
Whitaker found one(!)
with a murky theory (not a denial) about the Holocaust. He alleged that Ian believes in
'conspiracy theories'. Whitaker then linked to and discussed one Conspirador Norteño who
peddles 'Russian bots' conspiracy theories. Presumably Whitaker did not get the consp-irony of
doing such.
On the same day as the other reports the British version of the Huffington Post
joined the Times in its earlier smear against British academics, accusing Professor
Hayward and Professor Piers Robinson of "whitewashing war crimes". They have done no such thing.
Vanessa Beeley was additionally attacked.
Also on the 19th the London Times aimed at another target. Citizen Halo , a well known Finnish grandma, was declared to be a
'Russian troll' based on Ben Nimmo's pseudo-scientific trash, for not believing in the Skripal
tale and the faked 'chemical attack' in Syria. The Times doubted her nationality and
existence by using quotes around her as a "Finnish activist".
Meanwhile the defense editor of the Times , Deborah Haynes, is stalking Valentina Lisitsa on
Twitter. A fresh smear-piece against the pianist is surely in the works.
The obviously organized campaign against critical thinking in Britain extended beyond the
Atlantic. While the BBC , Guardian, HuffPo, Times and Sky News published
smear pieces depicting dissenting people as 'Russian bots', the Intercept pushed a piece
by Mehdi Hasan bashing an amorphous 'left' for rejecting a U.S. war on Syria:
Dear Bashar al-Assad Apologists: Your Hero Is a War Criminal Even If He Didn't Gas Syrians
.
Mehdi Hasan is of course eminently qualified to write such a piece. Until recently he worked
for Al Jazeerah , the media outlet of the Wahhabi dictatorship of Qatar which supports the
Qatari sponsored al-Qaeda in its war against Syria. The Mehdi Hasan's piece repeats every false
and debunked claim that has been raised against the Syrian government as evidence for the Syrian
president's viciousness. Naturally many of the links he provides point back to Al
Jazeerah's propaganda. A few years ago Mehdi Hasan tried to get a job with the conservative
British tabloid Daily Mail . The Mail did not want him. During a later TV discussion Hasan
slammed the Daily Mail for its reporting and conservative editorial position. The paper
responded by
publishing his old job application. In it Mehdi Hasan emphasized his own conservative
believes:
I am also attracted by the Mail's social conservatism on issues like marriage, the family,
abortion and teenage pregnancies.
A conservative war-on-Syria promoter is bashing an anonymous 'left' which he falsely accuses
of supporting Assad when it takes a stand against imperial wars. Is that a 'progressive' Muslim
Brotherhood position? (Added: Stephen Gowans and Kurt Nimmo
respond to Hasan's screed.)
On the same day Sonali Kolhatkar at Truthdig , as pseudo-progressive as the
Intercept , published a quite similar piece: Why
Are Some on the Left Falling for Fake News on Syria? . She bashes the 'left' - without citing
any example - for not falling for the recent scam of the 'chemical attack' in Douma and for
distrusting the U.S./UK government paid White Helmets. The comments against the piece are
lively.
Those working in the media are up in arms over alleged fake news and they lament the loss of
paying readership. But they have only themselves to blame. They are the biggest creators of fake
news and provider of government falsehood. Their attacks on critical readers and commentators are
despicable.
Until two years ago Hala Jabar was foreign correspondent in the Middle East for the Sunday
Times . After fourteen years with the paper and winning six awards for her work she was 'made
redundant' for her objective reporting on Syria. She remarks on the recent media push against
truth about Syria and the very personal attacks against non-conformist opinions:
In my entire career, spanning more than three decades of professional journalism, I have
never seen MSM resolve to such ugly smear campaigns & hit pieces against those questioning
mainstream narratives, with a different view point, as I have seen on Syria, recently.
.2/ This is a dangerous manoeuvre , a witch hunt in fact, aimed not only at character
assassination, but at attempting to silence those who think differently or even sway from
mainstream & state narrative.
.3/ It would have been more productive, to actually question the reason why more & more
people are indeed turning to alternative voices for information & news, than to dish out ad
hominem smears aimed at intimidating by labelling alternative voices as conspirators or
apologists.
.4/ The journalists, activists, professors & citizens under attack are presenting an
alternative view point. Surely, people are entitled to hear those and are intelligent enough to
make their own judgments.
.5/ Or is there an assumption, (patronizing, if so), that the tens of thousands of people
collectively following these alternative voices are too dumb & unintelligent to reach their
own conclusions by sifting through the mass information being dished at them daily from all
sides?
.6/ Like it or hate it, agree or disagree with them, the bottom line is that the people
under attack do present an alternative view point. Least we forget, no one has a monopoly on
truth. Are all those currently launching this witch hunt suggesting they do?
The governments and media would like to handle the war on Syria like they handled the war in
Spain. They want reports without "any relation to the facts". The media want to "retail the lies"
and eager propagandists want to "build emotional superstructures over events that never
happened."
The new communication networks allow everyone to follow the war on Syria as diligently as
George Orwell followed the war in Spain in which he took part. We no longer have to travel to see
the differences of what really happens and what gets reported in the main stream press. We can
debunk false government claims with freely available knowledge.
The governments, media and their stenographers would love to go back to the old times when
they were not plagued by reports and tweets from Eva, Vanessa, Ian, Maram and Sarah or by
blogposts like this one. The vicious campaign against any dissenting report or opinion is a sorry
attempt to go back in time and to again gain the monopoly on 'truth'.
It is on us to not let them succeed.
Posted by b on April 21, 2018 at 23:02 UTC |
Permalink
next page " Excellent.
The good news about both The Intercept and Truthdig pieces is that the comments quickly showed
that readers knew what the publishers were up to.
The Intercept seemed to have removed Hasan's obscene act of prostitution within a day.
The reality is that we simply have to expect the imperialists, now reduced to propaganda and
domestic repression, to act in this way: there is no point in attempting to shame them and they
never did believe in journalistic principles or standards or ethics. They are the scum who
serve a cannibalistic system for good wages and a comfortable life style- that is what the
'middle class' always did do and always will.
No longer is it possible to control TV, Radio and printed newspapers and use them to set the
message. There are now an almost infinite set of channels including youtube, twitter, blogs,
podcasts,streamed radio... It's like there is a public bitcoin/bitnewsledger where new
information only gets written into the ledger if it is authenicated by sufficient
endorsements.
In the past, a lie could travel around the world before the truth got its shoes on (Mark Twain
I believe) but the truth is catching up. We are in the midst of the great changeover where
older people still rely on traditional information channels yet younger internet enabled
peoplecan leverage the new channels more effectively to educate themselves.
Western propagandists are freaking out because nobody believes their lies anymore. The more
they freak out, the more we know they have lost the narrative.
I just fear for the safety of these independent journalists. It is not beneath the deep
state to assassinate their enemies. These people need to be very careful.
For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that
dramatically furthered the nation's understanding of Russian interference in the 2016
presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect's
transition team and his eventual administration. (The New York Times entry, submitted in this
category, was moved into contention by the Board and then jointly awarded the Prize.)
The hysterical, side-splitting laughter over this chicken-choking, circle-jerking drivel
will echo in eternity. Galactic stupidity simply doesn't get any more cosmic, except perhaps
awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger and Barack Obama.
This is a fight between Deep States of the Rothschild-UK 'Octopus,' US-centric
Rockefeller-Kochs, Russian (itself split between competing and intertwined Anglo-American
clans/Eurasianists vs Altanticists) and China (also divided between sovereignty oriented
Shanghai and Rothschild affiliated Hong Kong which was founded upon the opium trade in
cooperation with the UK-Octopus).
The main point of contention is whether we have a hard or soft landing as the New World
Order is born, with the UK-Octopus needing to instigate an epic crisis so as to bury countless
trillions of worthless derivatives it sits upon, specifically seeking to collapse the USD as a
global fiat and use the ensiung chaos to assist the Chinese as they establish an unasailable
Yuan fiat. A war with Russia will bring the US-centric Deep State to it's knees and so this
forms the basis of the not-so secret alliance between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, while
China attempts to remain neutral since Xi prefers a smooth transition since the US-centric
group may well launch a nuclear false flag attack on the Korean peninsula, thus irradiating the
region and dooming the potential for a Chinese dominated century, should the interests of yhis
group be ignored.
All gloves are off and the dispostions of various players are suddenly crystal clear after
the firing of Octopus agent Tillerson by Trump via twitter led immediately to the launching of
operation 'Novichok,' and was followed up with an attempted series of false flags in East
Ghouta which were planned so as to bring the US and Russia to war.
Other important players include the US military (itself divided between Octopus NATO and
US-centric Pentagon), the CIA, which is always on all sides of any conflict but was until
recently headed by Koch protege Mike Pompeo, as well as smaller Arab, Persian and Turkish Deep
States all jockeying for advantage and position. Even the Vatican is included and said to be
divided between Polish Cardinals on one side, with German, Italian and many Spanish speaking
Cardinals as opponents. There are other Deep States as well and in every instance they are
divided between one of the two main parties and themselves to one or another degree.
Media and social control is mainly the preserve of the UK Octopus, so as all of us have
understood for some time, anything included within it, from the NYTimes to most of Hollywood,
is completely worthless. Alternative media was created as an alternative to Octopus media,
while Trump takes to twitter so as to bypass their control.
I feel like a US voter forced to choose between Republicans and Democrats, but with the
promised 'Blue Wave' coming in November when Congressional elections are due, certain to be
impeached Donald Trump and his US-centric backers have a very short time frame in which to
change the score.
Ads also appeared on The Jimmy Dore Show channel, a far-left YouTube channel that peddles
conspiracy theories, such as the idea that Syrian chemical weapons attacks are hoaxes.
Syria is really the unifying theme in all these attacks.
I congratulate Bernhard on yet another excellent piece of investigative journalism. My comment
is not intended to criticise or take away from it, but only to point out that Orwell's quote
was taken out of context, in the sense that although he remarks on partisan propaganda, he says
that it is unimportant, since "the broad picture of the war which the Spanish Government
presented to the world was not untruthful. The main issues were what it said they were." On the
other hand, the lies of the pro-NATO press are important because unlike the partisan lies told
by leftist parties during the Spanish Civil War, today's NATO lies are the equivalent of the
official fascist propaganda of that time: they distort and hide the main issues. Here is the
full quote from the link that B has diligently provided:
I remember saying once to Arthur Koestler, 'History stopped in 1936', at which he nodded in
immediate understanding. We were both thinking of totalitarianism in general, but more
particularly of the Spanish civil war. Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever
correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports
which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an
ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete
silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as
cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of
imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager
intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in
fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened
according to various 'party lines'. Yet in a way, horrible as all this was, it was unimportant.
It concerned secondary issues -- namely, the struggle for power between the Comintern and the
Spanish left-wing parties, and the efforts of the Russian Government to prevent revolution in
Spain. But the broad picture of the war which the Spanish Government presented to the world was
not untruthful. The main issues were what it said they were. But as for the Fascists and their
backers, how could they come even as near to the truth as that? How could they possibly mention
their real aims? Their version of the war was pure fantasy, and in the circumstances it could
not have been otherwise.
As a given group loses its grip on power, it tends to employ ever more extreme tactics. This
explains the recent behavior of players like the US government, the UK government, the American
mainstream media and various think tanks. What other extreme behavior should we expect from
such a cabal? After all, they've already shown contempt for conditionally protected freedoms-
all of them- and a willingness to manufacture any narrative they want in order to further their
aims of conquest and profiteering. This whole mess could spiral out of control in countless
ways with terrifying consequences.
@15 Yes but I'm not sure how relevant Orwell's quote is to today. Do we even have a 'left-wing'
anymore? Or a Comintern for that matter? Even fascism wears a smiley face. Seems to me that
what we have is a tightly controlled MSM. That control may be slipping but we have yet to see a
replacement.
Those of us at MoA who are regulars may feel a certain level of complacency based on the level
of discourse here but I assure you that most Americans are still very much zombie followers of
whatever the TV and other media tell them. I believe that there is a strong possibility that MoA and like sites will become the focus
of paid narrative pushers and if that is not successful there are other ways to make b and our
lives difficult.
If b is ever knocked offline for some reason and needs help I encourage him to email his
readers with potential strategies to show/provide support. Thanks again and again for your web site b.
The first casualty of war is the truth.
Many Westerners would recognize this phrase but many of them don't understand that there
-IS- a war (the new Cold War). The longstanding law that prevented government propaganda in the US was revoked several
years ago.
U.S Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans
This type of tyranny has been going on forever in the US. Take A. Lincoln.
More than 14,000 civilians were arrested under martial law during the war throughout the
Union. Abraham Lincoln did so because they expressed views critical of Lincoln or his war. It's the same-o. Different faces same crap.
b- I am sorry to see their attacks on you, if things do go sideways please contact me if I can
be of help in any way.
Do you know what has happened to Tucker Carlson, he has been such a strong voice for truth that
I am concerned for him.
Stay strong and thank you for all you do in support of the truth.
Sure, there are more people that see the lies and bullshit for what they are. Still, seeing it
is not enough. What really matters now is to fully wipe out the mainstream media, to make it
completely extinct, and therefore seeing they're full of shit is only the prerequisite to
pondering how to actually bankrupt and destroy them. That's what everyone who's not fully on
board with the Western regimes' and bankers' propaganda should be thinking about. How to
convince people not only to stop buying their lies, but to stop buying them at all, how to cut
down the vast majority of their readership/viewers to the point they don't matter anymore.
Thank you b. This a very important subject. It wouldn't surprise me if a false flag happened
that would be aimed at censuring all alternative news. This might be centered around a
decoupling of east from west, perhaps when the current financial crisis explodes. Oh, has
anyone heard from Tucker Carlson lately?
You can fool someone for a long time, you can fool a lot of people for a short time - but you
can't fool a lot of people for a long time.
That is, unless those people are willing to live the lie.
I think the reason the MSM's propaganda is so effective nowadays (and I'm thinking
specifically about the world since the Iraq invasion in 2003) is that, deep down, maybe in the
collective inconsciousness level, the working classes from the First World countries know their
superior living standards depend on imperial brutality over the rest of the world. That's why,
for example, the USG and Downing Street haven't lost significant credibility domestically after
Iraq and after Libya. This is a dark social pact: people live the lies only to sleep well at
night and claim plausible deniability after; they only wish it to be over quickly and at the
least human cost from their side (every coffin that comes back to their community from the
Middle East is a crack in the illusion). They believe in Russiagate because, deep down, they
don't want to believe they were capable of electing someone like Trump and, mainly, because
they know their economies are failing, and the only solution is to invade other countries/prop
up the war industry.
Smearing people for appearing on RT! Americans who prattle on about freedom and democracy are
pressuring other not to do this or that which is to inhibit their freedom.
Don't they know it makes them look like dictators without portfolio?
Great article, b. I am a relative newcomer to MoA, having found it through Caitlin Johnstone
(Rogue Journalist), but in a short time, I have come to rely heavily on it for "hidden" news
and incisive analysis. Yes, independent news outlets are vital sources of truth, but their
reach is still tiny compared to that of the Empire and its toads in the media. The well
organized smear campaign against those who refuse to bow down is a frightening development
indeed.
Thanks b for your outstanding dissecting! The Information War is complex yet still remains
simple--all that's required is a critically thinking approach for any personally unconfirmed
sources and the data presented followed by the willingness to ask questions, no matter how
uncomfortable. Such a disciplined mind was once the paramount goal for those seeking wisdom,
but such pursuits are deemed passé, unrequired in the Digital Age. But Big Lie Media's
been working its evil for decades despite many calling out the lies. Funny how the two big
former communist nations are now more credible than the West and expressly seek honest and
open--Win-Win--relationships based on trust and equality. The Moral Table at play during Cold
War 1 is flipped with the Outlaw US Empire being the Evil Empire. And the Evil Empire can't
stand its own nakedness and its oozing social sores.
The liar is often agitated and nervous whereas one with the facts rests easy and remains
calm. In the run up to their summit, note how Trump is already agitated and nervous, already
prefacing his lies to come, whereas Kim is easy and calm, setting the table. Shrillness and
hysteria are the similar signs provided by media liars and is almost always fact-free, supposed
"sources" anonymous.
A magisterial piece of journalism, b. Congratulations, and thank you.
~~
Spain. Orwell. Fascism.
I was born decades after the Spanish Civil War, and to be very honest I never knew much
about it, nor have ever learned since. But Guernica I knew about, even
as a young teenager in school. The culture was shocked into remembering forever that there was
a lie involved with Guernica. That's all I ever really knew, was that Spain was a lie,
underneath which a massacre lay.
They say it was the humanitarian and artistic type of people who kept the truth of Spain
alive against the propaganda of the fascists. I don't know. I believe as I said the other day
that propaganda only works to crowd out the truth, so that people are not exposed to the truth.
But propaganda doesn't work in a battle against the truth, when people are exposed to both
sides of the story.
If you were running a scam based on fake news, and one day you had to make allegations using
this very term, and play your "fake news" card on the table in a round of betting that was
merely one round in a long game - if you did this, you'd be a bad card player, or one driven to
the corner and getting extremely close to leaving the table.
If your playing partner suddenly had to show the "false flag" card on the surface of the
table for the whole game to see - yet another secret hole card exposed and now worthless
forever - you could well think your game was finished. And it is - barring a few nasty
tricks...which will be recorded and placed into the game as IOU's.
Don't anybody be part of that collateral damage - be well. And instead, let's collect on
those IOU's. The game is almost over. Many people will appear to say that the players cannot be
beat. But they are with the losers. We are the players.
I wholeheartedly second your suggestion. I think the battle against the truth by the deep
States everywhere has only begun. They will not stop at smearing individual posters or
sites.
I do think we all need to start becoming more aware of alternatives, to YouTube (how's
DTube?), Twitter (gab?), Facebook, Google (several alternatives) etc. But that will not be
enough because I fear that in time the IP providers will come under pressure too - in all the
western countries, especially. And the domain providers 9we all know them), followed by blog
platforms such as WorldPress. I am not saying it's easy to curtail all of those, but they will
try, as sure as the sun sets in the West.
Of course, the biggest attacks will be mounted against anonymous commenters and posters.
That's already in the works at several outlets. The idea is of course that by stripping off
anonimity people will self-censor for fear of repercussions to their real life selves.
There are people working on alternative platforms of all sorts. I am somewhat hopeful about
user owned sites though these efforts are nascent. I hope commenters here will share what they
know of alternatives, even knowing this won't be an easy battle. After all, Twitter owes its
popularity to well, its popularity. Same with Facebook or Instagram or youTube. Therein lies
the rub - it won't be easy to wean users from these platforms as many start-ups found out. That
however should not mean that we shouldn't try. More and more Twitter users for example are
cross-posting on gab, and several youTubers started uploading also to Dtube. neither site is
ideal, I know. But neither was Twitter when it started.
The real aim of propaganda is to persuade the politicians and not the public. One man in their
middle wants to start a war and the media make sure that his or her fellow politicians will
hear no other story and make support the only possibility. That's why people like us have to be
vilified, so that all these politicians can invent an excuse for themselves and turn their head
away. What we think really doesn't matter because we are not the ones in control. They only
have to convince the Colin Powells and Frank Timmermans's.
The current increased smear campaigns against the so called Russian Bots, Assad Apologists
etc., is surely just the first part of of a an attempt to implement very serious censorship and
control over the internet to attempt to completely block out any alternative voices.
Amber Rudd
the UK Home Secretary has been banging on about Russian cyber attcks for the past couple of
months. Whilst based on the history of UK Government IT projects I couldn't expect the UK alone
to be capable of implementing any meaningful censorship scheme (they have a track record of
producing so many multi-billion pound national IT project disasters) but with the coordinated
help of the US and others they might just be able to put up enough censorship barriers to be
able to get back to their original plans (removing Assad and whatever else they have in mind).
False-flag chemical attacks haven't quite worked out to plan, but add in a false-flag cyber
attack that apparently disables some of the UK (and/or US/EU) vital services and that should be
enough for them to convince the plebs and sufficient MP's that it has become absolutely
necessary to block Russain and other media and internet sites and force the owners of many
social media channels to disable long lists of people with alternative views.
Prop or Not is NOT a 'friendly neighbourhood' anything. It was exposed a while ago as being a
joint state propaganda project between the CIA and West Ukraine, with the goal of spreading
anti-Russia disinformation, and employing the collusion of some no-integrity US propaganda rags
like The Daily Beast.
My question is their motivation and timing. Why does the rhetoric seem to increase after
the latest attack? Why care if 10% of the population doesn't follow their narrative now? Are
they preparing for a new round of kinetic action? Or do they simply believe their management of
the narrative needs more investment?
If people are going to rely on social media feeds for anything other than information on what
their friends and family are up to, then they are opening themselves up to being manipulated
easily and with a minimum of actual effort.
You no longer need to own a newspaper or a broadcast network to do so.
Ultimately people with a concience and some integrity will realize that something is awry. I'm
no spring chicken and have been on the net for nearly 20 years. There are more ' old ' people
surfing the net than initially may be apparent. As life passes by people become much more
attuned to bullsh*t. T. May's husband is on the board of a large British Armaments company. No
doubt her ministers are all in on many scams. She is a very mediocre character, a fool as her
time as home secretary demonstrated and was only voted in place so as to do the bidding of
others. And in my opinion, when I say others I mean she is the western harlot who jumps when
anyone pulls her string. They say that if you tell a lie often enough people believe it to be
the truth. Not necessarily. There are so many holes in the Skripal and Syrian stories that only
someone who doesn't want to have their view challenged will believe them. The stories are
falling apart and as they do, so does the credibility and trust of the western MSM and Politik.
The reason the Germans and others refused to join in, is I suspect, they realize that in part,
because once that is lost, it takes a great deal more to recover it. The Skripal case and the
latest Syrian faked gas attack is the start of the end for T. May and her govt.
Good comments, especially psychohistorian about being prepared to jump to alternative platforms
... Perhaps Russian ones?
What I was referencing in comment 5 is this relatively new desire by the 'powers that be'
for purity, for absolutely no one from 'our side' dissenting against the mainstream (and
completely bonkers in its anti-Russian extremism) narrative. This is not like the pre-digital
age, when small-circulation real leftist publications were not subject to mainstream and
official government extermination campaigns. And I don't think this is simply because of
digital age reach, because the readership for the real alternative media's left/anti-imperial
perspective doesn't engage enough people to be meaningful in terms of power and elections. At
least in the US; less certain about elsewhere.
There's something angry, extreme, and extremely insecure about the psychology of the Western
ruling class right now. My bet is that because of that insecurity they won't be so dangerous to
Russia/China in the years to come, but instead the anger will be directed at internal
left/anti-militarist dissenters. For some reason our reality bugs the sh!t out of them despite
our small numbers.
Until recently I used to read articles at both The Intercept and at Truthdig, but have since
realized both of these 'news' outlets actively censor posts that are too accurate, too
insightful of what the US government and MSM are doing in Syria and how they are manipulating
public opinion with the White Helmets, staged false gas attacks, etc. I don't trust Pierre
Omidyar, the philanthropist behind The Intercept, he has questionable political alliances. I
have had many of my posts at both Truthdig and The Intercept censored even though they were
entirely within comment rules. The Intercept has a lot of really BAD journalists posting crap
there, like this ass clown Mehdi Hasan. Even Glenn Greenwald, a multi millionaire, is suspect.
Both of these websites are psuedo-left and should not be trusted!
From the resistance trench with love , Apr 22 2018 11:40 utc |
52
....attacks on critical readers and commentators are despicable..
Indeed, but "the one free of sin to throw the first stone" ....
From my experience at several supposed "alternative media", most of them somehow pro-Russian
in the sense that they do not promote the sick warmongerism coming from the US and UK
stablishments against Russia and its allies in Syria and against Syria herself, every site has
its biases and slandering attacks by the owners of the blogs or by the "community" os
sycophants residing there are everyday bread for any newcomer who could express a bit of
dissent against the general editorial view.
I mayself have been obliged to change my nickname several times already to avoid attacks or
banning/censorship, when my position about Syrai and Russia does not differ almost in the least
with that of the people mentioned above who are being object of smearing campaign by the
MSM....and this has happened to me in the supposed pro-Russian "alt-media"....
Thus, I would recommend to apply a bit of self-criticism and reflect about how anyone of us
are probably contributing to the same effort of the bullies mentioned above against mainly
common citizens who only try to commit themselves to spread some of the truth they are finding
online through research and intensive reading, and try to offer an alternative point of view or
simply debunk the usual nonsense especially against certain ideologies, mostly spreaded by US
commenters.....
I noticed the part about Ian Shillilng being accused of denying the Holocaust or implying it
was a govt conspiracy.
I find that interesting, because a co-worker asked me out to the blue "Do you even believe
the Holocaust happened?" It's a strange question with no relation to Russiagate, yet pops up a
lot so it clearly has an agenda. The question made no sense but I did recognized it as a
familiar attack by the warmongers. My response was to to respond to such a ridiculous,
dishonest question and I ignored it.
He went to ask if I was "stupid" for not seeing that Mueller's indictments over lying to the
FBI and tax evasion/money laundering in Ukraine are NOT are not same thing as proving Russia
meddled to deny Hillary her Presidency.
Thanks for the article b.
As painful as it is to watch the increasing attempts at censoring non-msm voices, we can take
solace in the fact that, like a cornered rat, the establishment has no other option left but an
all-out, full-retard attack on anyone not toeing the line. While the damage they are doing is
real, this should be balanced with the fact that this attack comes out of weakness and not
strength: they are the ones "losing", and knowledge of that reality makes them increasingly
unhinged.
At first I thought this is some kind of joke. Than I watched few times, I still believe CNN
guy is in some kind of mission here, let's say to distract its viewers from existential matters
that grips ordinary people in the US. His insistence on the "Russians" is illogical at
first...this woman appear to be serious but when it comes to CNN everything is set-up, not just
everyone can come to CNN, period. No facts involved the conversation is about NOTHING, that is
the US national narrative being imposed by the ruling class trough various media. Just like
"attack" on Syria and Syria's gas attack. There were none, there were no cruise missile fired,
there were no downed ones! CNN's role is also to entertain its audience as well, everything but
not talk about social and economic issues. In other words to indoctrinate - shift attention,
not to ask unpleasant questions.
The NYT and NPR are warmonger institutions. It is sad that ppl who consider themselves to be
liberals, democrats, blue team (anti-war?- that's a stretch!) embrace these institutions as
purveyors of truth or even real news.
I don't feel that the quote is out of context. Yes, you show that Orwell clearly didn't
consider it a big deal at that time, but what is happening now is that what he describes is
omnipresent, the main stream of information we get, there is nothing else if you don't search
for alternatives. It is beyond doubt that Orwell, in the present context, would never have
added what he added in that book.
So in that light I feel the quote is extremely relevant and a good start of the article.
I want to express my thanks for this site and am really glad I was pointed towards MoA by
other sources of real information.
Meanwhile, the same western media give free pass to liberal warcriminals like Macron's France
that just today call for permanent illegal occupation of Syria - after illegally bombing it.
But no, it is people like us who call out this BS that gets silenced and harassed by the
same ignorant western media/"journalists" along with the western deep state spy networks!
What an excellent source of information the MoA site offers those of us who are seeking the
truth and living in an Empire full of lies.Over the past few months, I have perused this site
regularly and always find it very helpful in gaining a better and more concise understanding
of
what is really going on in our world.
I am also astounded at how helpful it is for me to read the comments of so many who are
regulars here.
The courtesy and level of intellectual dialog that goes on here in the comments section is a
rare thing indeed! We all must fight for truth for the sake of our families and loved ones.
"Fake" and "Genuine" are used to describe the video with the water being poured over people.
Fisk calls them genuine because the video was taped in the place where it pretends to be, not
in a film set or a location where nothing was going on. It was filmed in the real hospital with
real doctors, nurses and victims.
The video therefore is real (not staged), but the claim that people are suffering from gas
wounds is false.
You can thus also say that the video is fake: it is said to show victims of a gas attack, while
the doctor says they were suffering from suffocation, and only when someone shouted "gas", did
people start hosing each other down (which as someone posted in another article, would have
only made things worse if they had chlorine on them). As evidence of a gas attack, the video is
fake.
As long as a person is not claiming that the video shows victims of a real gas attack
aftermath, we're all on the same side I guess.
The response is of course to more eagerly call out the neocons propangada, western media
propaganda and so forth,
get a twitter account, get a blog, lets multiply this movement, because these people will of
course not stop at destroying peoples lives in the newspapers, they will call for censorship,
registrations and sooner or later jail for these views.
Orwell's great fear was totalitarianism. Either from the left or the right. What we have now is
much more subtle. The MSM retains the illusion of freedom and most people go along with it. We
may even realize we are being manipulated but the only alternative is posting on sites like
MOA.
The UK has no credibility left now. May's farcical handling of the Brexit negs has exposed
her as little more than a Tory mouthpiece, parroting party bon mots whilst having no clue where
she is heading. And I suspect her civil servants haven't, either!
The Skirpal charade was a front for several things but mainly, I think, to turn the focus
away from Brexit and to opening the Cold War front again. But what is alarming was her open
support for attacks on Syria. It's been known for some time that the UK has special forces
operating in Syria covertly; May's tub-thumping pretty much clarified that the Uk is as
determined as Washington and that Rothschild puppet Macron to force a regime change in
Syria.
You said she must go. I said the same thing last September after the fall-out from the June
election and other foot-in-mouth incidents: she'd be gone before year end. How wrong I was. She
has figures in the background protecting her.
Crushing dissent goes completely against 'liberal values' which is about the only high ground
left for the humanitarian regime changers a.k.a the Franquistas. So that is not going to
happen. On the other hand, social media is the easiest place to use covert operatives, even MSM
has other sponsors and actors, social media can be directly controlled by governments , and the
'intelligence community'. So they are just using the net for what they set it up for.
Propaganda for domestic consumption in the USA, isn't really meant to convince as much as to
scare people into submission. People don't obey Big Brother because they like him or believe
him, but because they cannot talk back to him and are scared of him. Media Scare tactics work
less if people can talk back, hear their own voice, not just Big Brother from every
loudspeaker.
Martin Luther (not King) said that "A lie is like a snowball: the further you roll it the
bigger it becomes." The snowball is melting because there is shift in the narrative given what
is happening on the ground in Syria. I find it fascinating that as it melts down layer by
layer, the first trojan horse outfits to implode are left humanitarian ones like the Intercept,
Newsbud, Democracy Now. The right wing ones like Fox, Young Turks, just concentrate on dumbing
down the conversation to reduce reality to bombastic and misleading 'political' points. This is
a another way to control the conversation, to scare people into thinking that facts or not
facts but partisan political 'opinions'. Look at how Jimmy Dore's in the interview mentioned by
B with Carla Ortiz, is trying to dumb down the conversation and keeps feigning ignorance.
Thankfully she blows him out of the water. Good job Carla!
The snowball is big and melting slowly. Who's next?
Vesti has a great 10-minute clip dated yesterday from a Russian talk show with Margarita
Simonyan of RT doing much of the talking. What she says is really encouraging about how she's
trying to talk, not to power (which already knows the real truth that it's obscuring) but to
common people, because there are those among the common people who do speak up and who really
do shape public opinion - not governments.
She cited Roger Waters as an example, who was speaking at a concert and telling the truth
about the White Helmets. She said, someone has to read in order to speak. And someone has to
write so someone can read. And that's what RT is doing, and that's how it works. And it is
working.
George Orwell has been a presence throughout this thread.
It was unfortunate he was hurried by MI6 to finish the last pages of 'Animal Farm' so it
could be translated into Arabic and be used to discredit Communist parties in Western Asia.
This always raised the ire of Communist organisations through following decades .This being said he wrote some great text especially for me the revealing 1939 novel - Coming up
for A
What many people don't realize is that fascism is a greedy habit, it expands to finally swallow
up those who think they are protected by silence or looking the other way. The individuals and
organizations villified today are the real heroes, and even if they suffer today, they will be
vindicated in the end. But unfortunately the gullible masses would by then be in the open
prison of fascism.
I don't know if wars are really an extension of diplomacy by other means, but they certainly
seem to be... an extension of ideology and propaganda. Ideas are very important in preparing
and fighting wars; especially today, though, in reality the way we think about our western
imperial war-fighting, goes back well over a century, back to the Whiteman's Burden and other
imperialist myths.
For the last thirty years we've essentially been fighting 'liberal crusades for freedom and
democracy.' That, at least, was the 'cover story' the pretext presented to the people. There's
an irony here. Just like Islamic State, we've been engaging in 'holy warfare' too!
The reason our media is so full of lies and distortions and propaganda is because the harsh
realities of our New Imperialism wars are so out of synch with the reality of what's happening
and crucially the attitudes of the general public who don't want to fight more overseas wars,
and especially if they are 'crusades' for democracy and freedom. But what's happened recently
is that dissent is being targeted as tantamount to treason. This is rather new and
disturbing.
It's because the ruling elite are... losing it and way too many people are questioning their
ideas about the wars we are fighting and their legitimacy and 'right to rule.'
In many ways the Internet is bringing about a kind of revolution in relation to the people's
access to 'texts' and images that reminds one of the great intellectual upheavals that the
translation of the Bible had on European thought four hundred years ago. Suddenly Bibles were
being printed all over the place and people could read the sacred texts without having to ask
the educated priests to 'filter' and translate and explain what it all meant. In a way
Wikileaks was doing the same thing... allowing people access to secret material, masses of it,
bypassing the traditional newsmedia and the journalistic 'preists.'
"... And everybody in the US oligarchy, including Pelosi, Schumer, and Bezos, is pretty happy with street riots and the topping of statues as long as there are no "politically incorrect" demands for the protesters. For Amazon founder it is fully OK to protests against 'white oppressors" as long as Bezos's name is not mentioned and working conditions and the level of pay in this service centers are not discussed :-) The same in true for Uber honchos and many other corporations. They even will happily donate $100K each to BML so that they kept their mouth shut on those topics. ..."
"... Nobody wants to address social ills rampant in poor communities be they working-white or working-blacks, or some other skin color. Such as high crime rate (mainly black on black in black communities), "mass production" of single mothers, and as the result child poverty, mass unemployment, low educational achievement ..."
An even more accessible way for the lower-income politically conservative class to overcome the shame is with victory instead
of violence: victory in the political sphere, victory for the people who they've hitched their wagon to, victory to the beneficiaries
of economic violence that visits upon those low income politically conservative and even more violence falling upon poor communities
of color.
That cuts both ways.
Imagine what would happen to BLM (and really fast), if BLM, dared to protest against the destruction and looting of Africa's
wealthiest nation, reemergence of slavery markets, and demanded that Clinton and Obama be arrested for war crimes.
They are tolerated as long as they do not represent a threat to large corporations and profits of financial oligarchy, but
mainly to themselves and the statues of Confederate generals.
Idriss Z , June 24, 2020 12:29 am
Unhelpful and not germane to the discussion as whataboutisms are apt to be. There are more ways than 2 to cut. BLM is not one
hive mind but rather a plea/demand/ exasperated shout to treat them like their own individuals which you failed to do. You're
use of the words, "tolerated" and "threat" is insidious, disturbing and inappropriate in more ways than I like to consider. Nothing
you said is true or correct, you bring nothing but misery to a place of friendly conversation.
likbez , June 24, 2020 2:25 am
> BLM is not one hive mind but rather a plea/demand/ exasperated shout to treat them like their own individuals, which you
failed to do..
Don't be so naïve. Financial oligarchy is generally race-blind. They treat everybody as slaves.
Politics is a nasty business, and if we return to the "exasperated shout" topic (including attempts to topple statues ), the question
that you should ask yourself is simple. It is a classic "Cue Bono?" question.
And the answer is "not blacks." In no way, this will improve their chances of getting meaningful jobs. IMHO quite contrary, as
from now on, they will be viewed as potential troublemakers. Expect the standard of living of blacks to drop further (like happened
with Maidan participants in Ukraine)
All this "American Maidan" is just at attempt to lessen the social pressure created by the slow collapse of neoliberalism in the
USA by blowing off steam.
And everybody in the US oligarchy, including Pelosi, Schumer, and Bezos, is pretty happy with street riots and the topping of
statues as long as there are no "politically incorrect" demands for the protesters. For Amazon founder it is fully OK to protests
against 'white oppressors" as long as Bezos's name is not mentioned and working conditions and the level of pay in this service centers
are not discussed :-) The same in true for Uber honchos and many other corporations. They even will happily donate $100K each to
BML so that they kept their mouth shut on those topics.
Most corporations now will probably make June 19 a corporate holiday (of course, instead of some other day :-) to celebrate BLM
and diversity. But that's it.
Nobody wants to address social ills rampant in poor communities be they working-white or working-blacks, or some other skin color. Such as high crime rate (mainly black on black in black communities), "mass production" of single mothers, and as the result child
poverty, mass unemployment, low educational achievement
Approximately 32 million adults in America are considered to be illiterate; about 14% of the entire adult population cannot read.
Between 40 and 44 million adults, or roughly 20 to 23% of adults in the U.S., are limited to reading at the basic or below basic
proficiency levels. Those people are virtually doomed to a low standard of living, BLM or no BLM.
Moreover, there are some obvious externalities here, and Neoliberal Dems now have a problem with BLM as a hot potato in their
hands, don't they? As this is a typical "Divide and conquer" politics, the problem is the mass alienation of the white electorate.
FYI Neoliberal Dems policies since Clinton were about the betrayal of the working class and lower-middle class in favor of financial
oligarchy. Among other things, Clinton and Biden pushed very damaging for blacks legislation (including the law which led to the
mass incarceration of blacks) and cut Social Security net from low-income families (the process which started under Reagan with his
"welfare queens" PR stunt)
"... It's because the Democrats think that kowtowing to BLM will give them the winning edge in the November balloting. That's what it's all about. That's why they draped themselves in Kente cloth and knelt for the cameras. They think their black constituents are too stupid to see through their groveling fakery. They think that blacks will forget that Joe Biden pushed through legislation "which eliminated parole for federal prisoners and limited the amount of time sentences could be reduced for good behavior." ..."
"... The stupidity of the Dems was shown this week when they agreed to three Biden/Trump debates. They should leave him in his basement and hope for the best. They feature political ads where Biden slurs his speech! These are professionals, so it tells me they spent all day and did 40 takes and this was the best he could do. The election will be great comedy, or perhaps ..."
"... Clinton is the best evidence that certain people agree to be blackmailed in exchange for power, as Andrew Anglin wrote this week. ..."
"This is not a momentary civil disturbance. This is a serious, and highly organized
political movement It is deep and profound and has vast political ambitions. It is insidious,
it will grow. It's goal is to end liberal democracy and challenge western civilization
itself. This is an ideological movement Even now, many of us pretend this is about police
brutality. We think we can fix it by regulating chokeholds or spending more on de-escalation
training. We're too literal and good-hearted to understand what's happening. But we have no
idea what we are up against. ..These are not protests. This is a totalitarian political
movement and someone needs to save the country from it." Tucker
Carlson
Tucker Carlson is right, the protests and riots are not a momentary civil disturbance. They
are an attack the Constitutional Republic itself, the heart and soul of American democracy. The
Black Lives Matter protests are just the tip of the spear, they are an expression of public
outrage that is guaranteed under the first amendment. But don't be deceived, there's more here
than meets the eye. BLM is funded by foundations that seek to overthrow our present form of
government and install an authoritarian regime guided by technocrats, oligarchs and
corporatists all of who believe that Chinese-type despotism is far-more compatible with
capitalism than "inefficient" democracy. The chaos in the streets is merely the beginning of an
excruciating transition from one system to another. This is an excerpt from an article by F.
William Engdahl at Global Research:
"By 2016, Black Lives Matter had established itself as a well-organized network .. That
year the Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy announced the formation of the Black-Led
Movement Fund (BLMF), "a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the
Movement for Black Lives coalition" in which BLM was a central part. By then Soros
foundations had already given some $33 million in
grants to the Black Lives Matter movement .. ..
The BLMF identified itself as being created by top foundations including in addition to
the Ford Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation and the Soros Open Society Foundations." (
"America's Own Color
Revolution ", Global Research)
$100 million is alot of money. How has that funding helped BLM expand its presence in
politics and social media? How many activists and paid employees operate within the network
disseminating information, building new chapters, hosting community outreach programs, and
fine-tuning an emergency notification system that allows them to put tens of thousands of
activists on the streets in cities across the country at a moment's notice? Isn't that what
we've seen for the last three weeks, throngs of angry protestors swarming in more than 400
cities across America all at the beck-and-call of a shadowy group whose political intentions
are still not clear?
And what about the rioting, looting and arson that broke out in numerous cities following
the protests? Was that part of the script too? Why haven't BLM leaders condemned the
destruction of private property or offered a public apology for the downtown areas that have
been turned into wastelands? In my own hometown of Seattle, the downtown corridor– which
once featured Nordstrom, Pottery Barn and other upscale retail shops– is now a
checkerboard of broken glass, plywood covers and empty streets all covered in a thick layer of
garish spray-paint. The protest leaders said they wanted to draw attention to racial injustice
and police brutality. Okay, but how does looting Nordstrom help to achieve that goal?
And what role have the Democrats played in protest movement?
They've been overwhelmingly supportive, that's for sure. In fact, I can't think of even one
Democrat who's mentioned the violence, the looting or the toppling of statues. Why is that?
It's because the Democrats think that kowtowing to BLM will give them the winning edge in
the November balloting. That's what it's all about. That's why they draped themselves in Kente
cloth and knelt for the cameras. They think their black constituents are too stupid to see
through their groveling fakery. They think that blacks will forget that Joe Biden pushed
through legislation "which eliminated parole for federal prisoners and limited the amount of
time sentences could be reduced for good behavior."
According to the Black Agenda
Repor t: "Biden and (South Carolina's Strom) Thurmond joined hands to push 1986 and 1988
drug enforcement legislation that created the nefarious sentencing disparity between crack and
powder cocaine as well as other draconian measures that implicate him as one of the initiators
of what became mass incarceration. " Biden also spearheaded "the attacks on Anita Hill when she
came forward to testify against the supreme court nominee Clarence Thomas". All told, Biden's
record on race is much worse than Trump's despite the media's pathetic attempts to portray
Trump as Adolph Hitler. It's just more bunkum from the dissembling media.
Bottom line: The Democrats think they can ride racial division and social unrest all the way
to the White House. That's what they are betting on.
So, yes, the Dems are exploiting the protests for political advantage, but it goes much
deeper than that. After all, we know from evidence that was uncovered during the Russiagate
investigation, that DNC leaders are intimately linked to the Intel agencies, law enforcement
(FBI), and the elite media. So it's not too much of a stretch to assume that these deep state
agents and assets work together to shape the narrative that they think gives them the best
chance of regaining power. Because, that's what this is really all about, power. Just as
Russiagate was about power (removing the president using disinformation, spies, surveillance
and other skulduggery.), and just as the Covid-19 fiasco was essentially about power
(collapsing the economy while imposing medical martial law on the population.), so too, the BLM
protest movement is also about power, the power to inflict massive damage on the country's main
urban centers with the intention of destabilizing the government, restructuring the economy and
paving the way for a Democratic victory in November. It's all about power, real, unalloyed
political muscle.
Surprisingly, one of the best critiques of what is currently transpiring was written by
Niles Niemuth at the World Socialist Web Site. Here's what he said about the widespread
toppling of statues:
"The attacks on the monuments were pioneered by the increasingly frenzied attempt by the
Democratic Party and the New York Times to racialize American history, to create a
narrative in which the history of mankind is reduced to the history of racial struggle. This
campaign has produced a pollution of democratic consciousness, which meshes entirely with the
reactionary political interests driving it.
It is worth noting that the one institution seemingly immune from this purge is the
Democratic Party, which served as the political wing of the Confederacy and, subsequently,
the KKK.
This filthy historical legacy is matched only by the Democratic Party's contemporary
record in supporting wars that, as a matter of fact, primarily targeted nonwhites. Democrats
supported the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and under Obama destroyed Libya and Syria. The
New York Times was a leading champion and propagandist for all of these war." (
"Hands
off the monuments to Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Grant!, WSWS)
What the author is referring to is The 1619 Project, which is a racialized version of
American history that was published by the Times on August 19, 2019. The deliberately-distorted
version of history was cobbled together in anticipation of increasing social unrest and racial
antagonism. The rioting, looting and vast destruction of America's urban core can all be traced
back to a document that postulates that the country was founded on racial hatred and
exploitation. In other words, The 1619 Project provides the perfect ideological justification
for the chaos and violence that has torn the country apart for the last three weeks. This is an
excerpt from an article at the World Socialist Web Site:
"The essays featured in the magazine are organized around the central premise that all of
American history is rooted in race hatred -- specifically, the uncontrollable hatred of
"black people" by "white people." Hannah-Jones writes in the series' introduction:
"Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country. "
This is a false and dangerous conception. DNA is a chemical molecule that contains the
genetic code of living organisms and determines their physical characteristics and
development . Hannah-Jones's reference to DNA is part of a growing tendency to derive
racial antagonisms from innate biological processes .where does this racism come from? It
is embedded, claims Hannah-Jones, in the historical DNA of American "white people." Thus, it
must persist independently of any change in political or economic conditions .
. No doubt, the authors of The Project 1619 essays would deny that they are predicting
race war, let alone justifying fascism. But ideas have a logic; and authors bear
responsibility for the political conclusions and consequences of their false and misguided
arguments." ("The New York Times's 1619
Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history", World Socialist Web
Site)
Keep in mind, this essay in the WSWS was written a full year before BLM protests broke out
across the country. Was Hannah-Jones enlisted to create a document that would provide the dry
tinder for the massive and coordinated demonstrations that have left the country stunned and
divided?
Probably, after all, (as noted above) the author's theory is that one race is genetically
programed to exploit the other. ( "Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country. ")
Well, if we assume that whites are genetically and irreversibly "racist", then we must also
assume that the country that these whites founded is racist and evil. Thus, the only logical
remedy for this situation, is to crush the white segment of the population, destroy their
symbols, icons, and history, and replace the system of government with one that better reflects
the values of the emerging non-Caucasian majority. Simply put, The Project 1619 creates the
rationale for sustained civil unrest, deepening political polarization and violent
revolution.
The 1619 Project is a calculated provocation meant to exacerbate racial animosities and pave
the way to open conflagration. And it has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest imagination. The
nation is split into warring camps while Washington has devolved into fratricidal warfare. Was
that the objective, to destabilize the country in preparation for the dissolution of the
current system followed by a fundamental restructuring of the government consistent with the
identity politics lauded by the Democrats?
The Democrats, the Intel agencies and the media are all in bed together fomenting unrest
with the intention of decimating the economy, crushing the emerging opposition and imposing
their despotic one-party system on all of us. Here's a clip from a piece by Paul Craig Roberts
that sums up the role of the New York Times in inciting race-based violence:
"The New York Times editorial board covers up the known indisputable truth with their
anti-white "1619 project," an indoctrination program to inculcate hatred of white people in
blacks and guilt in white people.
Why does the New York Times lie, brainwash blacks into hatred of whites, and attempt to
brainwash whites into guilt for the creation of a New World labor force four centuries ago?
Why do Americans tolerate the New York Times fomenting of racial hatred in a multicultural
society?
The New York Times is a vile organization. The New York Times attempts to discredit the
President of the United States and did all it could to frame him on false charges. The New
York Times painted General Flynn, who honorably served the US, as a Russian agent and enabled
General Flynn's frame-up on false and now dropped charges. The New York Times spews hatred of
white people. And now the New York Times accuses the American military of celebrating white
supremacism.
Does America have a worse enemy than the New York Times? The New York Times is clearly and
intentionally making a multicultural America impossible . By threatening white people with
the prospect of hate-driven racial violence, the New York Times editorial board is fomenting
the rise of white supremacy." (
"The New York Times Editorial Board Is a Threat to Multicultural America ", The Unz
Review)
The editors of the Times don't hate whites, they are merely attacking the growing number of
disillusioned white working people who have left the Democratic party in frustration due to
their globalist policies regarding trade, immigration, offshoring, outsourcing and the
relentless hollowing out of the nation's industrial core . The Dems have abandoned these people
altogether and –now that they realize they will never be able to lure them back into
their camp– they've decided to wage a full-blown, scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners war
on them. They've decided to crush them mercilessly and fill their ranks with multi-ethnic,
bi-racial groups that will work for pennies on the dollar. (which will keep the Dems corporate
supporters happy.) So, no, the Times does not hate white people. What they hate is the growing
populist movement that derailed Hillary Clinton and put anti-globalist Trump in the White
House. That's the real target of this operation, the disillusioned throng of working people who
have washed their hands of the Democrats for good. Here's more background from Paul Craig
Roberts:
"On August 12 Dean Baquet, executive editor of the New York Times, met with the Times'
employees to refocus the Times' attack on Trump . The Times, Baquet said, is shifting from
Trump-Russia to Trump's racism. The Times will spend the run-up to the 2020 presidential
election building the Trump-is-a-racist narrative. Of course, if Trump is a racist it means
that the people who elected him are also racists. Indeed, in Baquet's view, Americans have
always been racist. To establish this narrative, the New York Times has launched the "1619
Project," the purpose of which is "to reframe the country's history."
According to the Washington Examiner, "The basic thrust of the 1619 Project is that
everything in American history is explained by slavery and race. The message is woven
throughout the first publication of the project, an entire edition of the Times magazine. It
begins with an overview of race in America -- 'Our democracy's founding ideals were false
when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true.'
The premise that America originated as a racist slave state is to be woven into all
sections of the Times -- news, business, sports, travel, the entire newspaper. The project
intends to take the "reframing" of the United States into the schools where white Americans
are to be taught that they are racist descendants of slave holders. A participant in this
brainwashing of whites, which will make whites guilty and defenseless, says "this project
takes wing when young people are able to read this and understand the way that slavery has
shaped their country's history." In other words, the New York Times intends to make slavery
the ONLY explanation of America.
At the meeting of the executive editor of the New York Times with the Times' employees to
refocus the Times' attack on President Trump, Baquet said: "Race in the next year is going to
be a huge part of the American story." (
"Is White Genocide Possible? ", The Unz Review)
Repeat: "Race in the next year is going to be a huge part of the American story." Either
Baquet has a crystal ball or he had a pretty good idea of the way in which the 1619 Project was
going to be used . I suspect it was the latter.
For the last 3 and a half years, Democrats and the media have ridiculed anyone who opposes
their globalist policies as racist, fascist, misogynist, homophobic, Bible-thumping,
gun-toting, flag-waving, Nascar boosting, white nationalist "deplorables". Now they have
decided to intensify the assault on mainly white working people by preemptively destroying the
economy, destabilizing the country, and spreading terror far and wide. It's another vicious
psy-ops campaign designed to thoroughly demoralize and humiliate the enemy who just happen to
be the American people. Here's more form the WSWS:
" It is no coincidence that the promotion of this racial narrative of American history by
the Times, the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party and the privileged upper-middle-class
layers it represents, comes amid the growth of class struggle in the US and around the
world.
The 1619 Project is one component of a deliberate effort to inject racial politics into
the heart of the 2020 elections and foment divisions among the working class. The Democrats
think it will be beneficial to shift their focus for the time being from the reactionary,
militarist anti-Russia campaign to equally reactionary racial politics." (" The New York
Times's 1619 Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history " WSWS)
Can you see how the protests are being used to promote the political objectives of elites
operating behind the mask of "impartial" reporting? The scheming NY Times has replaced the
enlightenment principles articulated in our founding documents with a sordid tale of racial
hatred and oppression. The editors seek to eliminate everything we believe as Americans so they
can brainwash us into believing that we are evil people deserving of humiliation, repudiation
and punishment. Here's more from the same article:
"In the months preceding these events, the New York Times, speaking for dominant sections
of the Democratic political establishment, launched an effort to discredit both the American
Revolution and the Civil War. In the New York Times' 1619 Project, the American Revolution
was presented as a war to defend slavery, and Abraham Lincoln was cast as a garden variety
racist
The attacks on the monuments to these men were pioneered by the increasingly frenzied
attempt by the Democratic Party and the New York Times to racialize American history, to
create a narrative in which the history of mankind is reduced to the history of racial
struggle . This campaign has produced a pollution of democratic consciousness, which meshes
entirely with the reactionary political interests driving it." (" The New York Times's 1619
Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history" , WSWS)
Ideas have consequences, and the incendiary version of events disseminated by the Times has
added fuel to a fire that's spread from one coast to the other. Given the damage that has been
done to cities across the country, it would be nice to know how Dean Baquet knew that "race was
going to play a huge part" in upcoming events? It's all very suspicious. Here's more:
" Given the 1619 Project's black nationalist narrative, it may appear surprising that
nowhere in the issue do the names Malcolm X or Black Panthers appear. Unlike the black
nationalists of the 1960s, Hannah-Jones does not condemn American imperialism. She boasts
that "we [i.e. African-Americans] are the most likely of all racial groups to serve in the
United States military," and celebrates the fact that "we" have fought "in every war this
nation has waged." Hannah-Jones does not note this fact in a manner that is at all critical.
She does not condemn the creation of a "volunteer" army whose recruiters prey on
poverty-stricken minority youth. There is no indication that Hannah-Jones opposes the "War on
Terror" and the brutal interventions in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Syria -- all
supported by the Times -- that have killed and made homeless upwards of 20 million people. On
this issue, Hannah-Jones is remarkably "color-blind." She is unaware of, or simply
indifferent to, the millions of "people of color" butchered and made refugees by the American
war machine in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa." (" The New York Times's 1619
Project: A racialist falsification of American and world histor y", WSWS)
So, black nationalists like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers are excluded from the The 1619
Project's narrative, but the author boasts that blacks "are the most likely of all racial
groups to serve in the US military"?? How does that happen unless Hannah-Jones was coached by
Democrat leaders about who should and shouldn't be included in the text? None of this passes
the smell test. It all suggests that the storyline was shaped by people who had a specific goal
in mind. That isn't history, it's fiction written by people who have an ax to grind. The Times
even admitted as much in response to the blistering criticism by five of "the most widely read
and respected authorities on US history." The New York TimesMagazine editor in
chief Jake Silverstein rejected the historians' objections saying:
"The project was intended to address the marginalization of African-American history in
the telling of our national story and examine the legacy of slavery in contemporary American
life. We are not ourselves historians, it is true. We are journalists, trained to look at
current events and situations and ask the question: Why is this the way it is?"
WTF! "We are not ourselves historians"? That's the excuse?? Give me a break!
The truth is that there was never any attempt to provide an accurate account of events. From
the very onset, the goal was to create a storyline that fit the politics, the politics of
provocation, incitement, racial hatred, social unrest and violence. That's what the Times and
their allies wanted, and that's what they got.
The Deep State Axis: CIA, DNC, NYT
The three-way alliance between the CIA, the Elite Media, and the Democratic leadership has
clearly strengthened and grown since the failed Russiagate fiasco. All three parties were
likely involved in the maniacal hyping of the faux-Covid pandemic which paved the way for
Depression era unemployment, tens of thousands of bankrupt businesses and a sizable portion of
the US population thrust into destitution. Now, these deep state loyalists are promoting a
"falsified" race-based version of history that pits one group against the other while diverting
attention from the deliberate destruction of the economy and the further consolidation of
wealth in the hands of the 1 percent.
Behind the veil of the protest movement, the war on the American people is gaining pace.
Stopped reading the Times after the buildup to the Iraq War, when it was clear they were
lying. Everyone please stop reading the Times, and in particular stop referring to what they
are writing. Act like they don't exist. If enough do, they won't.
The stupidity of the Dems was shown this week when they agreed to three Biden/Trump debates.
They should leave him in his basement and hope for the best. They feature political ads where
Biden slurs his speech! These are professionals, so it tells me they spent all day and did 40
takes and this was the best he could do. The election will be great comedy, or perhaps
This is all planned. Biden will be forced to drop out and Bloomberg or even Clinton will
arise.
"Tucker Carlson is right, the protests and riots are not a momentary civil disturbance. They
are an attack the Constitutional Republic itself, the heart and soul of American democracy."
I am reminded of david horowitz and chrissy hitchens
And how they promoted Israeli interests after first pretending to be independent thinkers
to gain creed for the switch. Standard zionazi-gay psywar tactic.
The stupidity of the Dems was shown this week when they agreed to three Biden/Trump
debates.
This is all planned. Biden will be forced to drop out and Bloomberg or even Clinton will
arise.
Stupid and planned?
Clinton is the best evidence that certain people agree to be blackmailed in exchange for
power, as Andrew Anglin wrote this week. Why should DNC care if Trump is 're-elected'? And if
they don't care, who not take a stab at installing an intersectional DNC pinnacle fraudster
via the griftiest, most insulting, infuriating way possible? They can't lose.
@Chris Moore The
public does not understand that the system is actually "two party tyranny". This system is
designed to divide and conquer, and it works. Compound this with the fact that many people
get their information from simply "googling" terms and phrases as opposed to actually digging
deep and reading books and other sources for information. Combine this with the sad state of
affairs in our public education system – where students are not taught to think or ask
questions but to behave, conform, and memorize information. With regard to the methods being
used in our foreign policy and now, subsequently, being used here to foment chaos, check out
the following resource. You will see that what is going on is simply UCW –
Unconventional Warfare, and we have perfected the technique abroad.
divideand conquer 1. To gain or maintain power by generating tension among others, especially those less powerful,
so that they cannot unite in opposition.
Notable quotes:
"... In its most general form, identity politics involves (i) a claim that a particular group is not being treated fairly and (ii) a claim that members of that group should place political priority on the demand for fairer treatment. But "fairer" can mean lots of different things. I'm trying to think about this using contrasts between the set of terms in the post title. A lot of this is unoriginal, but I'm hoping I can say something new. ..."
"... The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies. As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy. ..."
"... Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the space to perpetuate the policies of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and austerity. ..."
"... If we assume that identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") many things became much more clear. Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represents a mechanism to compensate for the loss of their primary voting block: trade union members, who in 2016 "en mass" defected to Trump. ..."
I've been thinking about the various versions of and critiques of identity politics that are around at the moment.
In its most
general form, identity politics involves (i) a claim that a particular group is not being treated fairly and (ii) a claim that
members of that group should place political priority on the demand for fairer treatment. But "fairer" can mean lots of different
things. I'm trying to think about this using contrasts between the set of terms in the post title. A lot of this is unoriginal,
but I'm hoping I can say something new.
You missed one important line of critique -- identity politics as a dirty political strategy of soft neoliberals.
To be sure, race, gender, culture, and other aspects of social life have always been important to politics. But neoliberalism's
radical individualism has increasingly raised two interlocking problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into
identity groups can be used to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic identity. Self-government requires uniting
through our commonalities and aspiring to achieve a shared future.
When individuals fall back onto clans, tribes, and us-versus-them identities, the political community gets fragmented. It becomes
harder for people to see each other as part of that same shared future.
Demagogues [more correctly neoliberals -- likbez] rely on this fracturing to inflame racial, nationalist, and religious antagonism,
which only further fuels the divisions within society. Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and
marketization of everything, thus indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism that further undermines the preconditions for
a free and democratic society.
The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies.
As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary
neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that
some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they
then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy.
Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the space to perpetuate the policies
of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and austerity.
Of course, the result is to leave in place political and economic structures that harm the very groups that inclusionary neoliberals
claim to support. The foreign policy adventures of the neoconservatives and liberal internationalists haven't fared much better
than economic policy or cultural politics. The U.S. and its coalition partners have been bogged down in the war in Afghanistan
for 18 years and counting. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is a liberal democracy, nor did the attempt to establish democracy in
Iraq lead to a domino effect that swept the Middle East and reformed its governments for the better. Instead, power in Iraq has
shifted from American occupiers to sectarian militias, to the Iraqi government, to Islamic State terrorists, and back to the Iraqi
government -- and more than 100,000 Iraqis are dead.
Or take the liberal internationalist 2011 intervention in Libya. The result was not a peaceful transition to stable democracy
but instead civil war and instability, with thousands dead as the country splintered and portions were overrun by terrorist groups.
On the grounds of democracy promotion, it is hard to say these interventions were a success. And for those motivated to expand
human rights around the world, it is hard to justify these wars as humanitarian victories -- on the civilian death count alone.
Indeed, the central anchoring assumptions of the American foreign policy establishment have been proven wrong. Foreign policymakers
largely assumed that all good things would go together -- democracy, markets, and human rights -- and so they thought opening
China to trade would inexorably lead to it becoming a liberal democracy. They were wrong. They thought Russia would become liberal
through swift democratization and privatization. They were wrong.
They thought globalization was inevitable and that ever-expanding trade liberalization was desirable even if the political
system never corrected for trade's winners and losers. They were wrong. These aren't minor mistakes. And to be clear, Donald Trump
had nothing to do with them. All of these failures were evident prior to the 2016 election.
If we assume that identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing
of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") many things became much more clear. Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represents a mechanism to compensate for the loss of their primary voting block: trade union members,
who in 2016 "en mass" defected to Trump.
Initially Clinton calculation was that trade union voters has nowhere to go anyways, and it was correct for first decade or so
of his betrayal. But gradually trade union members and lower middle class started to leave Dems in droves (Demexit, compare with
Brexit) and that where identity politics was invented to compensate for this loss.
So in addition to issues that you mention we also need to view the role of identity politics as the political strategy of the
"soft neoliberals " directed at discrediting and the suppression of nationalism.
The resurgence of nationalism is the inevitable byproduct of the dominance of neoliberalism, resurgence which I think is capable
to bury neoliberalism as it lost popular support (which now is limited to financial oligarchy and high income professional groups,
such as we can find in corporate and military brass, (shrinking) IT sector, upper strata of academy, upper strata of medical professionals,
etc)
That means that the structure of the current system isn't just flawed which imply that most problems are relatively minor and
can be fixed by making some tweaks. It is unfixable, because the "Identity wars" reflect a deep moral contradictions within neoliberal
ideology. And they can't be solved within this framework.
"... Of course ultimately you reach a point where no one truly understands what is real and what isn't any more. ..."
"... Boris Johnson PM of the UK? Surely not, Theresa May? I can barely wipe the smirk from my face. 4th and 5th rate politicians relying on SPADs to run the country. ..."
"... Reading his recent essay on the truths of WWII ( http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/63527 ) yet again sees him posting uncomfortable realities to a West knee deep in vassalage to a crumbling US. ..."
"... Change is coming whether we like it or not, with or without Putin, we'd best tend our own garden and stop worrying about an opposition that simply doesn't exist. ..."
Gerald says:
June 20, 2020 at 5:34 pm surely 'legitimacy' goes to the victor. Once you've won
you can build a sort of legitimacy that the majority will agree with (whether its real
or not) of course if you are a kind of despotic dictatorship (as appears to be
happening in terms of western neoliberal capitalism) then you will merely do as you
wish regardless until confronted with overwhelming opposition at which point you will
infiltrate and co-opt said opposition, pay lip service to their vague claim for
'rights' and continue on your merry way.
I always thought that the greatest thing that the capitalists did in the 20th
century was to get the slaves to love their slavery, its all advertising, hollywood, TV
that's all that politics has become, certainly in the West. Edward Bernays has a lot to
answer for.
Of course ultimately you reach a point where no one truly understands what is
real and what isn't any more.
Boris Johnson PM of the UK? Surely not, Theresa May? I can barely wipe the smirk
from my face. 4th and 5th rate politicians relying on SPADs to run the
country.
There is no wonder that Putin looks like the greatest 21st century leader, the last
of a dying breed. Reading his recent essay on the truths of WWII ( http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/63527
) yet again sees him posting uncomfortable realities to a West knee deep in vassalage
to a crumbling US.
Change is coming whether we like it or not, with or without Putin, we'd best
tend our own garden and stop worrying about an opposition that simply doesn't
exist.
"... From wiping out the ability of regular folks to declare bankruptcy (something supported by our founding fathers who were NOT socialists), to shipping our industrial base to communist China (which in less enlightened days would have been termed treason), to spending tens of trillions of dollars bailing out and subsiding the big banks (that's not a misprint), to supporting "surprise medical billing," to opening the borders to massive third-world immigration so that wages can be driven down and reset and profits up (As 2015 Bernie Sanders pointed out), Backstabbing Joe Biden is neoliberal scum pure and simple. ..."
"... It's astonishing that so many people will just blindly accept what they are told, that Biden is. "moderate." Biden is so far to the right, he makes Nixon look like Trotsky. ..."
"... Joe Biden is a crook and a con man. He has been lying his whole life. Claimed in his 1988 Campaign to have got 3 degrees at college and finished in top half of his class. Actually only got 1 degree & finished 76th out of 85 in his class. ..."
Yet another circus. The proles get to scream and holler, and when all is done, the oligarchy gets the policies it wants, the public
be damned. Our sham 'democracy' is a con to privatize power and socialize responsibility.
Although it is shocking to see such a disgusting piece of human garbage like Joe Biden get substantial numbers of people to
vote for him. Biden has never missed a chance to stab the working class in the back in service to his wealthy patrons.
The issue is not (for me) his creepiness (I wouldn't much mind if he was on my side), nor even his Alzheimer's, but his established
track record of betrayal and corruption.
From wiping out the ability of regular folks to declare bankruptcy (something supported by our founding fathers who were NOT
socialists), to shipping our industrial base to communist China (which in less enlightened days would have been termed treason),
to spending tens of trillions of dollars bailing out and subsiding the big banks (that's not a misprint), to supporting "surprise
medical billing," to opening the borders to massive third-world immigration so that wages can be driven down and reset and profits
up (As 2015 Bernie Sanders pointed out), Backstabbing Joe Biden is neoliberal scum pure and simple.
It's astonishing that so many people will just blindly accept what they are told, that Biden is. "moderate." Biden is so
far to the right, he makes Nixon look like Trotsky. Heck, he makes Calvin Coolidge look like Trotsky.
Joe Biden is a crook and a con man. He has been lying his whole life. Claimed in his 1988 Campaign to have got 3 degrees at college and finished in top half of his class. Actually only got 1 degree & finished 76th out of 85 in his class.
Belief system is not chosen. The individual is indoctrinated into it via socialization process. Only few can break this bond.
Notable quotes:
"... Social or Cultural Norms are standards for behavior engendered from infancy by parents, teachers, friends, neighbors, and others in one's life. Social Norms are the shared expectations and rules that guide the behavior of people within social groups; Social Norms can go a long way toward maintaining social order. Engendered, Social or Cultural Norms can be enforced by something as subtle as a gesture, a look, or even the absence of any response at all. At the extremes, aberrant social behavior becomes a crime. One could adopt Social Norms as a part or all of their Belief System. ..."
"... Religions were an early form of Social Norms. Yet and still, all Religious Beliefs address Social Behavior, Social Norms. As with Social Norms, most, if not all, Religions have slowly evolved over time. As with Social Norms, Religious Beliefs are often engendered from infancy by parents; handed down from generation to generation. Most Religions require one's Believing; Believing that the precepts of the Religion come down to us from a supreme being or deity via a prophet or inspired teacher. Whereas science asks questions in the quest for knowledge, Abrahamic religions hold that any questioning of their particular beliefs is blasphemous, a great sin. Rather than welcome questions in re validity, religions insist that, first and foremost, adherents believe. Religions might be a part of the whole of one's Belief System. ..."
"... Can we even have stable societies without Belief Systems? Is it possible to build a Society around Science, Philosophy, and/or Reason? Can we, benefitting from Science and Philosophy: Improve the quality of our Belief Systems? Of our Religions? Can Beliefs become Informed Opinions? Will future societies' Belief Systems be based more on Science and Philosophy, and less on opinion and belief? Do they have a choice? It seems that the more successful societies have long since chosen to give the thinking of Science and Philosophy precedence over Believing. Darwin tells us that survival goes to those that adapt. ..."
Belief Systems, these prisms through which we view the world, have been around from our earliest days. Not so long ago, the Ancient
Greeks separated the concept of what we might call belief into two concepts: pistis and doxa with pistis referring to trust and confidence
(notably akin the regard accorded science) and doxa referring to opinion and acceptance (more akin the regard accorded cultural norms).
In quest of a personal Belief System, should one: Go with the flow and adapt to the Social or Cultural Norm? Follow the Abrahamic
admonishment to first believe? Follow their own Reasoning? Or, should one look to Science?
Social or Cultural Norms are standards for behavior engendered from infancy by parents, teachers, friends, neighbors, and others
in one's life. Social Norms are the shared expectations and rules that guide the behavior of people within social groups; Social
Norms can go a long way toward maintaining social order. Engendered, Social or Cultural Norms can be enforced by something as subtle
as a gesture, a look, or even the absence of any response at all. At the extremes, aberrant social behavior becomes a crime. One
could adopt Social Norms as a part or all of their Belief System.
Most modern Religions are handed down from times long past, times before much was known about anything. Most, if not all, early
Religions were based on mythology. Later on, some Religions found more of their basis in whatever evidence and reasoning skills were
available to a people. From the earliest times, human cultures have developed some form or another of a Belief System premised on
Religion.
Humans are, uniquely it seems, given the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking in an orderly rational way; they are given
the faculty of Reason. To Reason is to use the faculty of Reason so as to arrive at conclusions; to discover, formulate, or conclude
by way of a carefully Reasoned Analysis. One might base a part or all of their Belief System on Reason.
Science can be seen as an endeavor to increase knowledge, to understand; to reduce ignorance and misunderstanding. Science encourages
active skepticism. Science, the word comes from the Latin word for knowledge, is premised on verifiable empirical evidence and best
thinking. Science employs our faculty to Reason. Belief is not a scientific criterion but is rather a bias to be filtered out of
any scientific experiment. We have confidence in the knowledge afforded us by Science to the extent that we have confidence in the
validity of the evidence and the rigor of the Reasoning, and in Scientific Methodology. Science can form the basis of one's Belief
System to the extent that they have confidence in Science.
Religions were an early form of Social Norms. Yet and still, all Religious Beliefs address Social Behavior, Social Norms. As with
Social Norms, most, if not all, Religions have slowly evolved over time. As with Social Norms, Religious Beliefs are often engendered
from infancy by parents; handed down from generation to generation. Most Religions require one's Believing; Believing that the precepts
of the Religion come down to us from a supreme being or deity via a prophet or inspired teacher. Whereas science asks questions in
the quest for knowledge, Abrahamic religions hold that any questioning of their particular beliefs is blasphemous, a great sin. Rather
than welcome questions in re validity, religions insist that, first and foremost, adherents believe. Religions might be a part of
the whole of one's Belief System.
As is to be expected, Science is often in conflict with religious beliefs. This dichotomy between the Reasoning of Science and
the Believing of Religion goes back at least to early Egypt, Greece, and India; has played, and still plays, a huge role for philosophers,
scientists, and others given to thought.
While most modern societies have moved away from a Religious dominance of their culture; at the extremes, we still have theocracies
where Religious Belief is given reign over culture and politics, and, to some extent or another, thought itself.
Preceding statute law, Religious associated Belief Systems played an important role in mankind's development. Down through the
centuries, religious behavioral standards have provided societies personal security, social stability. Religious Beliefs have long
been, are still being, codified into law.
Codified laws can also be based on 'Social Norms', on philosophy and reason ( love of learning, the pursuit of wisdom, a search
for understanding, ); or on yet other Belief Systems.
Can we even have stable societies without Belief Systems? Is it possible to build a Society around Science, Philosophy, and/or
Reason? Can we, benefitting from Science and Philosophy: Improve the quality of our Belief Systems? Of our Religions? Can Beliefs
become Informed Opinions? Will future societies' Belief Systems be based more on Science and Philosophy, and less on opinion and
belief? Do they have a choice? It seems that the more successful societies have long since chosen to give the thinking of Science
and Philosophy precedence over Believing. Darwin tells us that survival goes to those that adapt.
He didn't say it quite that way, but that is what he meant.
This seeming need of humans to Believe can be abused. The atrocities of Colonial Spain and Portugal and the Era of Slavery were
ostensibly committed under the aegis of Christian Belief. Nazi Germany, Jonestown, ISIS, and a Trump Presidency are examples of some
of the more negative consequences of aberrant Belief Systems.
Demagogues prey on this need to Believe by telling the people what to Believe; by giving them something to Believe. Fox News,
by telling its viewers what to Believe, gives them this thing they need; something to Believe. All those arbiters of opinion we see
and read on the media are trying to sell Beliefs to their audience; an audience that needs something to Believe. Fox News has become
a Belief System for millions. So too, the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, and Shawn Hannity.
Adolph Hitler and Jim Jones gave their needy followers something to Believe. Osama bin Laden/Al-Qaeda and ISIS gave their needy
followers something to Believe. Donald J. Trump is giving his needy followers something to Believe.
Thinking's too hard.
Obviously, existing well-meaning Belief Systems can be co-opted by unsavory persons, societies. Equally obvious, Belief Systems
can be instilled into a population. From the days of slavery and for these 150 yrs hence, whites in the Southern States have engendered
racism into their progeny. For 150 yrs now they propagated a false version of history in their schools. They created and propagated
a Belief System premised on mendacity.
Though many Belief Systems are based on Religious Tenets; we also see them based on economic models, personality cults, , even
in science. Economic dogma can be instilled in a society as a Belief System to the extent that any challenge thereto is considered
to be heretical, blasphemous. One can be born a Republican, a Baptist, or both, as were their parents and their parents' parents.
People have been being born Catholic for 2,000 yrs. Joseph Smith, a come lately, instilled.
Some positive consequences of Belief Systems include: higher moral standards, the great art and science flowing from the Renaissance;
the science, philosophy, and art from The Age of Reason/The Enlightenment. More recently: the ending of slavery, the ending of Colonialism,
the ending of apartheid, the codification of LGBT rights, and the struggle to end racism correlate with changes in Belief Systems.
Pending challenges for Belief Systems include such as freedom from hunger, access to housing, and alleviating economic disparity.
Belief Systems can carry us forward. Belief Systems can hold us back.
Is tweeting believing?
To what Belief System, if any, is this our Age of Technology attributable? Has Technology itself become a Belief System?
A very famous frog once said, "It is not easy being green."
Closely held, long-held, Beliefs are hard to give up; especially if they have been engendered via emulation, imprinting, repetition,
, since infancy. In America, the most technologically advanced economy ever known; our technology, our scientific achievements, are
all based on science. Yet today we have upwards of half of our politicians pandering to one or another Religious group that, for
the most part, denies Science. Quid pro quo: the pols get the Religious groups' vote, the Religious group gets the laws, and the
judges and justices, they want. Perhaps in part as a consequence of this support, most of this same group of politicians would govern
all the while making little effort to acquaint themselves with Science, with technology, in this day and age of Science and Technology.
Many, maybe most, of these same politicians hold fast to theories of economics and law that are, themselves, based on Belief.
John Prine, recently departed, not a frog, wrote the tune "In Spite of Ourselves".
In spite of ourselves, we humans mumble and fumble our way as is our wont.
Ron (RC) Weakley (a.k.a., Darryl for a while at EV) , June 22, 2020 8:35 am
" Darwin tells us that survival goes to those that adapt.
He didn't say it quite that way, but that is what he meant "
[No he did not say it that way because that is not what he meant. Human beings just like to misrepresent Darwin that way because
it follows along with their own narrative of innovative superiority and control of their own fate. To transpose biological mutation
from the natural selection process of biological evolution over to social evolution is a bit of a stretch, but clearly it would
favor diversity and freedom over rigid authoritarian orthodoxy. It comes with no guaranty of course, but it also more accidental
or incidental than contrived.]
Ron (RC) Weakley (a.k.a., Darryl for a while at EV) , June 22, 2020 9:18 am
Reason is not the same as logic, not pure logic at least. Impure logic is mostly sophistry. Reason is not necessarily sophistry,
but still depends upon assumptions which in life may be less reliable than in math.
Nietzsche and Machiavelli were notable philosophers of celebrated capacity for reason. By my own anti-intellectual biases I
have found them both intolerable as human beings and deceptive as arbiters of truth. Science, when correctly applied, has evolved
far beyond its roots in philosophy. I am skeptical of both incorrect science and any philosophy that I am not taking an active
roll in. Any valid philosophy should be about the present rather than the past. Kant and William James are tolerable, but still
insufficient despite their well meaning morality.
"... From wiping out the ability of regular folks to declare bankruptcy (something supported by our founding fathers who were NOT socialists), to shipping our industrial base to communist China (which in less enlightened days would have been termed treason), to spending tens of trillions of dollars bailing out and subsiding the big banks (that's not a misprint), to supporting "surprise medical billing," to opening the borders to massive third-world immigration so that wages can be driven down and reset and profits up (As 2015 Bernie Sanders pointed out), Backstabbing Joe Biden is neoliberal scum pure and simple. ..."
"... It's astonishing that so many people will just blindly accept what they are told, that Biden is. "moderate." Biden is so far to the right, he makes Nixon look like Trotsky. ..."
"... Joe Biden is a crook and a con man. He has been lying his whole life. Claimed in his 1988 Campaign to have got 3 degrees at college and finished in top half of his class. Actually only got 1 degree & finished 76th out of 85 in his class. ..."
Yet another circus. The proles get to scream and holler, and when all is done, the oligarchy gets the policies it wants, the public
be damned. Our sham 'democracy' is a con to privatize power and socialize responsibility.
Although it is shocking to see such a disgusting piece of human garbage like Joe Biden get substantial numbers of people to
vote for him. Biden has never missed a chance to stab the working class in the back in service to his wealthy patrons.
The issue is not (for me) his creepiness (I wouldn't much mind if he was on my side), nor even his Alzheimer's, but his established
track record of betrayal and corruption.
From wiping out the ability of regular folks to declare bankruptcy (something supported by our founding fathers who were NOT
socialists), to shipping our industrial base to communist China (which in less enlightened days would have been termed treason),
to spending tens of trillions of dollars bailing out and subsiding the big banks (that's not a misprint), to supporting "surprise
medical billing," to opening the borders to massive third-world immigration so that wages can be driven down and reset and profits
up (As 2015 Bernie Sanders pointed out), Backstabbing Joe Biden is neoliberal scum pure and simple.
It's astonishing that so many people will just blindly accept what they are told, that Biden is. "moderate." Biden is so
far to the right, he makes Nixon look like Trotsky. Heck, he makes Calvin Coolidge look like Trotsky.
Joe Biden is a crook and a con man. He has been lying his whole life. Claimed in his 1988 Campaign to have got 3 degrees at college and finished in top half of his class. Actually only got 1 degree & finished 76th out of 85 in his class.
I have a dream today, brothers and sisters. I have a dream.
My dream is of an America that has embraced
race realism.
Yes, I have a dream that one day race differences in educational success will be as calmly,
dispassionately accepted as race differences in athletic success; that race differences in
criminal arrest and incarceration rates will be regarded with no more anger or alarm than sex
differences in those same rates; that different social outcomes by race will be understood as
caused not by the malice of our fellow citizens, but by ordinary processes of nature.
I have a dream that one day we shall discard magical
thinking about race ; that the notion of an invisible vapor or miasma called " racism
" permeating the atmosphere and intoxicating our minds will seem as quaintly absurd as
the
Four Humors Theory of ancient medicine or the Luminiferous
Æther of 19th-century physics.
I have a dream that one day soon, after sixty years of futile efforts to change what cannot,
in the nature of things, be changed, sixty
years of twisting our constitution and our jurisprudence into knots to pretend that
different statistics by race can only be caused by
white people' s ill will, sixty years of vast
public expenditures on educational and social programs that deliver no benefits at all
(other than to those who pocket the expenditures); that one day soon, after sixty years of
futility and waste, we shall accept race differences as calmly and as prudently as we accept
the laws of thermodynamics.
I have a dream that with
the black homicide rate at eight times the white rate, and with discrepancies of a similar
size having existed since reliable records began a hundred and eighty years ago
, an organization calling itself Black Lives Matter will address itself to bringing black
homicide numbers down to the white level -- better yet, to the Asian level -- or else be
laughed out of the public square.
I have a dream that race differences in outcomes, which are mere statistical abstractions
remote from our everyday dealings, will one day matter as little to us as personal
differences in outcomes. I shall never be a skilled violinist, a good tennis player, or a
creative mathematician; not because of malice, "racism," or "privilege" on the part of my
fellow citizens, but because of my own abilities and inclinations -- which, like almost
everyone else's, are middling and un-spectacular. I do not lose sleep over this. I
absolutely do not take it as an occasion to insult and berate my fellow-citizens, or
deprive them of their rights.
I have a dream that our nation's past will one day be cherished for having made possible our
present security and prosperity; that the ignorance and misdeeds of that past be kept in sight
on a shelf, accessible to all, but never dominating our view of what our ancestors were, the
heroism they displayed in defense of our civilization, and the great good things they did.
I have a dream that one day freedom
of association, which picks no man's pocket and breaks no man's leg, will be restored to
us.
I have a dream that the evil and divisive doctrines of "disparate impact" and "affirmative
action" will be scrubbed from our jurisprudence; that hiring into civil-service work --
including
police work and firefighting --
will be strictly meritocratic; and that young black Americans will no longer, just to satisfy
the whims of smug college admissions officers and innumerate jurists, will no longer be pushed
into academic college programs they can't cope with and will drop out from .
That is my dream too, brother. Let us work to make it happen.
Remember Keynes: "Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any
intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in
authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic
scribbler of a few years back".
Let us hope that the HBD "academic scribblers" like yourself can push the message
forward.
If only Trump, or someone with similar prominence, could give your speech!
"I have a dream today, brothers and sisters. I have a dream.
My dream is of an America that has embraced race realism".
"I have a dream that one day we shall discard magical thinking about race; that the notion of
an invisible vapor or miasma called".. 'Anti-Semitism'.. "permeating the atmosphere and
intoxicating our minds will seem as quaintly absurd as the Four Humors Theory of ancient
medicine or the Luminiferous Æther of 19th-century physics."
"I have a dream that one day, poor".. Gentile.. "children will not have to endure being
lectured about their 'privilege' by [ultra] rich".. Jewish adults. Or be taught any more
so-called holocaust guilt.
"I have a dream that one day soon, after[almost] sixty years of futile efforts to change what
cannot, in the nature of things, be changed, [almost] sixty years of twisting our
constitution and our jurisprudence into knots to pretend that".. Israel's illegitimate
military Occupation & America's uncritical material & immoral support for it.. "can
only be caused by"..Palestinians'.. "ill will, sixty years of vast public expenditures on"..
Israel's war machine and security.. "programs that deliver no benefits at all (other than to
those who pocket the expenditures); that one day soon, after sixty years of futility and
waste, we shall".. end all aid of any kind to Israel, forever.
And a dream that we accept religious differences about the causes of Crucifixion &
Salvation "as calmly and as prudently as we accept the laws of thermodynamics."
"I have a dream that the evil and divisive doctrines of" ..'Jewish nationalism' and 'Aryan
eradication'.. "will be scrubbed from our jurisprudence; that hiring into"..elite echelons --
including Hollywood and Wall Street – .."will be strictly meritocratic" ..and that
young Jewish Americans, will no longer be pushed into high positions just because they bar
mitzvah.
And finally, "I have a dream that my two beautiful children will one day" ..not fall prey to
some future Jeffrey Epstein or Harvey Weinstein. Amen
The sad fact is that America is destined for dictatorship with these demographics, and
with the aid of technology it will be stable far into this century. Worse, Americans do not
want freedom, or at least they do not prioritize freedom over luxury. If they did, they would
have risen up long ago; Red States, at the very least, would be preparing for secession.
We'll have to face facts that normies are normies not because they are asleep, they are
asleep because they are normies -- something that cannot be changed because it has a genetic
basis (you cannot transmute sheep into wolves). As long as the supply of hamburgers, diet
coke, and sportsball continues, obsequious whites will keep their heads down, going along to
get along no matter what happens.
Things will get bad. As it is now, nearly every company is running racial agitation
propaganda on behalf of the government. Go into any Walmart and you'll be treated to overhead
announcements berating America's history of racism and apologizing to blacks; it's like
something straight out of 1984 (or the movie Red Dawn , 1984 -- seriously check the
movie for the scene I'm referencing). They are censoring and banning movies, purging
politically incorrect themepark rides, and internet search results; they've been censoring
books for years now (many school districts have banned Huck Fin and Tom Sawywer, among
others) and that will surely get worse.
If you want a book like Gone With The Wind , I would suggest you buy it now before
they ban it. Just a few months ago I picked up the DVD in a bargain bin. At the time the
person I was with didn't get why. "This isn't the kind of movie you usually watch." However,
being awake unlike your average normie, I saw all of this coming in advance. I explained to
my companion that I was getting it now before they banned it. And wouldn't you know it, a few
months later they are taking tentative steps to banning the movie. It won't be the last or
the worst example. If you are willing to tear down statues, rename military bases, and ban /
edit movies and theme park rides based on them, then the next logical step is banning books
-- burning them, essentially. Amazon is already doing this; they refuse to ship or stock
controversial books.
For my part, I've been buying old books and movies, preparing for the day when I can copy
them to a digital format and distribute them once the dictatorship bans them. Tellingly, I'm
not the only one. I went back to that same store today. EVERY copy of Gone With The
Wind and lots of other old movies were cleared out and they had a huge selection! Get
them now gents. The darkness is coming.
I would also suggest every European-American who can do so prepare to flee overseas. Lots
of dissidents I read have stated they are giving that thought. American conservatives are
behind the scenes. TAC's Rod Dreher had a piece on that website detailing this. Many in DC
are preparing to flee to central and Eastern Europe because there is no hope for this
country. It's all coming down.
Side note: Thanks libertarians. Thanks for letting five companies control everything,
thereby easily allowing a totalitarian dictatorship to take hold. "How does communism
happen?" they always say. Answer: You're how it happens. Your philosophy is just an excuse to
be lazy and not contribute. You want freedom but yet you aren't willing to do anything to
conserve your freedom. Meanwhile, radical leftists who don't believe in letting you have any
freedom marched through the institutions and are now preparing to unleash Red October. SMH.
Thanks guys. I hope "muh private company" dogma was worth it.
The truth will get you fired every time these days, the kids are wrecking the country, the
poor stupid lil bastards have no clue and they will be paying huge taxes for their efforts.
As long as the supply of hamburgers, diet coke, and sportsball continues, obsequious
whites will keep their heads down, going along to get along no matter what happens.
In a couple of years we should have polygenic scores that can predict IQ and educational
achievement pretty accurately on an individual level. Could lead to a de-emphasis on race?
I dreamed James Earl Ray had not shot Martin Luther King and we'd never learned who Jesse
Jackson was. That King would have been exposed as a sybaritic plagiarist whose personal
scandals were exposed in the Washington Post and left him a stained and discredited figure
with no eponymous national holiday and instead of the perma grief stricken mask of Coretta
Scott King we would have scene her for the last time in divorce court cleaning out Martin's
bank account.
Hopefully things won't end up as in the Kurt Vonnegut novel, 'Harrison Bergeron 2081' –
made into a short film in 2009 –
About a USA in which a Constitutional amendment enforces total equality for all persons,
the head of government being a 'Handicapper General' who declares what burdens, masks,
weights limitations etc you must carry, so as not to be considered as having any personal
aspect of life or self better than your neighbours
Trailer for the film (full film seems online too at the moment)
Our indispensable founder Benjamin Franklin said "There is a great danger to The United
States, this danger is the Jew. If they are not excluded from the United States by the
Constitution, within less than 100 years they will stream into this country in such numbers
they will rule and destroy us and change our form of government for which we Americans have
shed our blood and sacrificed life property and personal freedom. If the Jews are not
excluded, within 200 years our children will be working in the fields to feed the Jews while
they remain in the counting-house gleefully rubbing their hands. " And this was long before
the criminal syndicate of Zionism was added to supercharge the problem.
The Zionist Jews now have a strangle hold on our government that has continued to get
worse since 1913 when Warburg engineered the Unconstitutional Central Bank. No Senator will
vote against the Jew front aIPAC and hardly any House member. The Jews have always controlled
the MSM whores and the so called entertainment industry. The seeds of the present contrived
riots (Floyd "murder" is gov. false flag – see Miles Mathis updates) were planted by
the Jews with gov. operative MLK (see Miles Mathis on this scam also) and the negroes as the
proxy warriors.
Jewmerica has become little more than a satellite and peon for the Kazar thugs to ring out
our money and furnish our military (Israeli foreign Legion) to shake down one country at a
time for the syndicate bosses. Shabbos Goy Trump works only for the Jews and even though a
minor detail hen and out Jew ass licker Congress has even added to the insult by mandating
that the public indoctrination centers (expensive poorly functioning schools) "teach" about
the ridiculous Holohaux myth. I believe the Ann Frank shit is also included. Her wealthy
family of hucksters is also covered on the Mathis updates. As some one has already mentioned
Trump, Pence and all of our shabbos goy Congress should have to lick the bathroom stalls and
toilets in Zionist Jew Sheldon Adelson's Casino. Maybe he would up the donation to the
Republican side of the political facade.
The syndicate knows that 95% of the goyim will never do anything as long as they get 1
meal per day. I guess I should not have been surprised about all the cucks going around with
the idiotic masks fearing the fake virus used as a cover by the Elite for another wealth
transfer to the super rich as in 08-09. it's not as it our wonderful gov. has never lied tom
us before. Everything they do is a lie and a fraud. The same Zionist clique that did the
wars, 911 and WMD's are doing the fake virus and the latest false flag Floyd hoax just like
Sandy Hook Boston and Los Vegas. When we are all in Agenda 21 maybe some of them will wake
up.
Your philosophy is just an excuse to be lazy and not contribute.
Yes, a minuscule group that is openly mocked by every powerful political faction in
America is your whipping hobby-horse. How proud you all must be.
Except that last quoted bit of yours exposes what's real. You and every silly wailer
against the only political philosophy of integrity are so ashamed of yourselves that you
cling to the lamest of all fallacies (straw man) whenever your shame threatens to rise to
layer 1.
The embarrassing truth: All your participatory 'action' is futility in search of a trophy
-- the kind your type most excoriates publicly. It's always been the stealthy building and
self-applying of slave chains, and the actual result (regression) of all your non-'lazy'
furious activity is now exposed to even the most brainless ass; your asperity is for none
other than precious ass #1 -- yourselves.
[MORE]
But that's too painful, so the disgust is projected at the exposers of your slave
mentality -- slavery that was always under cover, but which cover is being withdrawn by
events. Now you're starting to see that all your frenzied 'good government bullshit' was
always purposeful, protective denial of what was obvious to libertarians.
Lazy? Up yours. My path, carving out liberty in a local wasteland, and living as ethically
as possible among the demented slaves, has been rough.
Go pull more voting levers, Wizard of Poz. Just know that every time you piss on liberty
folk, it's hatred of your own slavery and wasted years driving it. You're slowly recognizing
that you were Cool Hand Luke in his beaten state, digging all of Boss Edgecomb's dirt out of
Boss Blowhard's hole, and back again. Well, look around at what all you ball-less,
compromising slugs created.
One need only listen to what the average 'conservative' advocates in private to see his
revealed shame. He spends time thinking of ways to make bolshie Frankensteins of 5-120 years
prior live and breathe 'effectively'. He's the pothole patch boy for leftists. And he wants
medals of commendation for all of his great work dressing up communism as 'cohesive policy'
by way of 'comprehensive reform'. Enjoy the world you created, man of 'action'. I didn't do
it; I fought it at every step.
"I have a dream that race differences in outcomes, which are mere statistical abstractions
remote from our everyday dealings, will one day matter as little to us as personal
differences in outcomes. I shall never be a skilled violinist, a good tennis player, or a
creative mathematician; not because of malice, "racism," or "privilege" on the part of my
fellow citizens, but because of my own abilities and inclinations -- which, like almost
everyone else's, are middling and un-spectacular. I do not lose sleep over this. I absolutely
do not take it as an occasion to insult and berate my fellow-citizens, or deprive them of
their rights."
I have a dream that one day soon, after sixty years of futile efforts to change what
cannot, in the nature of things, be changed, sixty years of twisting our constitution and
our jurisprudence into knots to pretend that different statistics by race can only be
caused by white people' s ill will, sixty years of vast public expenditures on educational
and social programs that deliver no benefits at all (other than to those who pocket the
expenditures); that one day soon, after sixty years of futility and waste, we shall accept
race differences as calmly and as prudently as we accept the laws of thermodynamics.
"And then I woke up and smelled my nice, white, Long Island suburb burning as black mobs
from South Jamaica, Queens looted it and set it on fire."
Sorry, Derb. You were the one who wrote We Are Doomed. You of all people should
know better.
It's too late. The future necessarily belongs to a eugenicist state willing to deploy CBRN
capability to cull populations which are by definition unfit to survive. The only opposition
to such a state would be nonhuman intelligences.
@unit472 MLK was martyered by the gov. in order to gain maximum benefit whereas he was a
constant liability if kept on the payroll. He was addicted to drugs and prostitutes. It is
most likely that his death was faked as were the 911 plane victims (no planes involved) and
psyops like the Los Vegas shootings as well as the recent Arbery and now the Floyd scam. The
gov. has done this for a long time.
As far as the Washington Post it was for many years controlled by Katherine Meyer Graham,
daughter of Eugene Meyer, one of the big Jew handlers of the syphilitic shabbos goy puppet
Woodrow Wilson. Meyer was also Chairman of the Jew controlled FED during the Hoover
administration. Hoover was a former mining engineer who worked for one of the Rothschilds
companies and supplied much needed aid to the Bolsheviks during the Russian Rev. under the
guise of humanitarian aid. Meyer later was the first president of the World Bank during the
Pendergast criminal shabbos goy Truman Presidency. The Washington Post like all the other MSM
was and is just a propaganda instrument for the zionist elite.
"That's not who we are" is the ultimate statement of identity politics. It deliberately
excludes large numbers of people from "we".
And I am sorry to report that the dream is just that – a dream. For us, any victory
will be fleeting, because Conquest's Second Law dictates that organizations inevitably drift
to the Left. Secondly, the proverb is wrong. It's always darkest just before it goes pitch
black.
What what – The Four Humors Theory was quite reasonable while it lasted. Race Illusions
never were – nor are they. Please, dear Mr. Derb, don't make – ehhh –
sacrifices on the basis of wrong assumptions. We need our glorious past for any future that'd
be human. Thank you so much! – Only Love !
"The Franklin Prophecy", sometimes called "The Franklin Forgery", is an antisemitic
speech falsely attributed to Benjamin Franklin, warning of the supposed dangers of
admitting Jews to the nascent United States. The speech was purportedly transcribed by
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, but was unknown
before its appearance in 1934 in the pages of William Dudley Pelley's Silver Legion
pro-Nazi weekly magazine Liberation. No evidence exists for the document's authenticity,
and some of the author's claims have actively been disproven.
@swamped The young women that were lured by Ghislaine Maxwell into Epstein's brothel for
the elite didn't fall prey to anything but sin. I suppose they got paid just like other
prostitutes. What is most notable to me is that the men that were involved in this
degradation seem to suffer no repercussions. The obnoxious Trump is a known womanizer and
friend of Epstein as was the smirking degenerate Bill Clinton who was a regular on the Lolita
Express. As for Prince Andrew, him and all of the Sybaritic royal parasites should have been
gotten rid of long ago.
I have questions about Weinstein. I admit that I don't know much about legal matters but
how is someone convicted of a crime when there is no evidence or even a reliable witness to a
crime? I didn't follow this real close but I read that some of the alleged victims texed him
later to leave Current cell no's. and maintain social contact. Doesn't seem to me like they
were too traumatized. What's that phrase they use -"I was violated". Did any of them go to
the hospital. Did any of them even file a police report. Why did they wait for years to say
something. If I was a woman I would have never have met with him outside of a strictly
business situation in the first place. But then I'm not a Hollywood whore looking to get into
one of the Jews shit films. I have no use for The Zionist Jew scum Weinstein and I admit I am
only a casual observer but it seems to me that there is a problem here. I don't think we got
the real story.
@botazefa Thanks for pointing out this error. The fact that Charles Beard affirmed this
to be a forgery is good enough for me. I should have been more careful.
When we realize the disastrous effects of the Zionist Conspiracy on Western civilization
that has been at work officially since 1897 but insidiously since at least the French
Revolution and tracking the Zionist hand in both foreign and domestic matters in U.S. policy
I got careless. It is always necessary to check more than one source. The fact that our
shabbos goy politicians become more obsequious to the Kazar crime syndicate and to their Jew
organizations such as aIPAC all the time should be of great concern to all real Americans.
There is no amount of blood or treasure that Trump, Pence, Pelosi and many of the other
traitors in Congress and the gov. at large would not expend for the Zionist objectives.
@Peter Johnson I think a speech of this caliber would be well over Trump's adolescent 5th
grade level. He has trouble stringing two sentences together. A complex series of subject
matter would be well beyond his ability. Now he is quick to tell us how smart he is, even
graduating from Wharton but you know how that works. Same as with his Chabad Lubavich
son-in-law. Trump's speeches mainly consist of telling us how much he loves Israel. Thats why
the Jews picked him in the first place. It's only because he was running against the old
desiccated Zionist criminal Hillary that he was elected.
@mark tapley Winstein left children alone. He was a pig but as far as I know he did love
movies and made some good quality ones. Don't ask me what they were. I have long given up on
popular culture. In the theatre and cinema world, it is the norm for women to get their
breaks by screwing the director. Theatre is a narcisstic sociopathic profession. The second
oldest profession. I recall in novel Thorn Birds, the young women ranch heiress takes up the
theatre profession by losing her virginity to her director. She laughed all through the
consummation. Has anyone ever noticed there is no such thing as an ugly movie female star?
Well ugly enough to repel a man physically. Plenty of equivalents with male stars. It is
curious in America how celebrities come crashing if they at a rare moment speak out against
Israel. Weinstein produced a movie that showed the Palestinian side. Polanski still waltzes
in Europe having never said a word against Israel. That third rail has now extended to all
the cultural Marxist groups. Bill Cosby's immunity quickly disappeared when he criticised
black youth hoods.
Badwhite Derbyshire, your Chinese shithole of a home is one helluva nightmare. You cannot
awaken from or flee this dark space and there will never be dawn for you.
Here are some race realism facts with which you must deal. There are 3 racial groups:
Caucasoids, Mongoloids and Negroids. Caucasoids have the highest IQs and are the racial group
who developed the West. Mongoloids are a distance second in IQ and Negroids are last. Your
Chinese family is a second tier race. Your below average Chinese offspring are proof. They
will be judged as inferior, non-Western and a fifth column in America.
Your VDare scribblings have become unhinged.
Here's a stupid one: https://vdare.com/posts/john-derbyshire-asks-what-s-wrong-with-white-women
There are no white women in your life, only Chinese females. Focus on the degeneracy and
stupidity of your Chinese females. "White" is meaningless because in New York City there are
many Ashkenazi Jews so the "white women" protesting there are not Western women. I put the
Ashkenazis in the Caucasoid category but because they are Jewish, they are not Western. The
West is not black/Asian/Jewish/Muslim.
@mark tapley It appears to have been a literary device. Like the prophecy of Gamaliel in
the Saint Luke gospel. Also the prophecies by Indian chiefs. Take someone well known in
popular culture and put into his mouth words that are surprising and prophetic. It enters the
popular culture as prophecy. There is no record Gamaliel had anything to do with
Christianity, the Indian chiefs were materialist opportunists, and Franklin was a Masonist
whic is tied to Zion.
@lloyd I was not aware of this deception being a literary device. To me this is a verbal
fraud similar to bearing false witness or a lie. As to Franklin's membership in the Masonic
Lodge I believe this was quite prevalent in those days. I had read that when Washington was
informed by a minister that the Masons harbored conspiratory elements he wrote back that in
ap. 20 years he had only attended 1 or 2 meetings and that he immediately resigned. Even
though Washington had some good qualities I believe he was an unscrupulous aggrandizing
opportunist so he may have been more involved than reported.
@Eugene AI is coming–and when it does human slavery will be back.
AI will conclude humans are lazy, lying, violent, unproductive, stupid–and it will
find claims of "human rights" to be no more relevant than the bleating of animals in the
farm-yard.
That is the dirty little secret hidden behind the curtain.
@Justvisiting It's funny you should say that because I was thinking that the only way to
have an unbiased police force would be to eliminate the human aspect, sack the coppers, and
replace them with a.i. machines. All personal feelings and reactions are gone only to be
replaced with the knowledge of the laws that were broken. No grey areas. Depends a lot on who
is doing the programming though- things could end up worse for everybody. Hell, come to think
of it , this was a movie plot!
@schnellandine Libertarians may be a small party but many their erroneous beliefs have
been adopted by mainstream conservatives.
You see race doesn't exist, it's just "big gubmint" that is holding down Blacks.
A heart warming theory that ticks certain feely good boxes but bulls–t none the
less.
The Germans under Communism still managed to have a standard of living far higher than any
sub-Saharan African capitalist country. Ooooh but that's just by chance or something.
Libertarianism is the biggest bunch of BS.
Your dope queen Ayn Rand couldn't even debate her silly ideas. She would just scream at
people and avoid tough questions just like liberals. Libertarianism is based on the same
major flaw as liberalism which is that race doesn't exist (but she made exceptions for
Israel).
If he believes these things can come to pass no, barring revolution, they cannot. But simply
stating them is important because truth is always of value, no matter the circumstances. Even
if one is the only sane man in a room (or city or state or ), he still has the moral right
and obligation to speak. I do believe we are far, far away from the "darkest hour". And I do
believe only an organized, armed revolution can make any difference, which I do not believe
will happen in my lifetime, if ever (I'm 51).
If anything AI will be used to sniff out potentially RAYCISS people online.
But it doesn't really matter since technology will ultimately work against liberal lies.
Eventually the genes for intelligence will be identifiable with a simple DNA test and
liberals will have to explain why we can't do cross-population testing since it should prove
their core theory that race doesn't exist.
So we are probably headed to Brazil but the cat will eventually be out of the bag. I
assume most liberals at the higher levels are terrified of the dirty White masses being told
it was all a lie which is why they are so opposed to borders. They want Whites to be a
minority and not just a plurality when DNA is fully unraveled.
@mark tapley "I was not aware of this deception being a literary device. "
Gotta love the goyim. The entire "New Testament" consists of fictional statements
attributed to "authorities."
"Who wrote this gnostic tripe?" No, it's a gospel of John. "Which John?" Um, maybe the
brother of Jesus, or maybe the guy who wrote those epistles. Oh, did you like that
"Revelation"? Yeah, it's that John.
Christianity has been a "forgery factory" (Bart Ehrman) from the get go.
BTW Derbs Blighty is now literally turning into another South Africa while feckless Brits
are still a majority. I was telling Jonathan Cook about white farmers and albinos in Africa.
This is now happening in Londonistan.
While police watch, natives are being beaten at random by imported hordes yet the
(((media))) is calling victims 'far-right'.
In a couple of years we should have polygenic scores that can predict IQ and educational
achievement pretty accurately on an individual level. Could lead to a de-emphasis on
race?
But we have IQ-tests already – only to be told, how a) unscientific and b) how
racist they are.
PS
Grammarly about my comment: Optimistic – high five! – – – Isn't it
Ironic?
@Dieter Kief Yeah, but IQ scores partly depend on environment, which is all the excuse
people need to dismiss them. They can't do that with polygenic scores.
A few more normies might have been shaken out of their race doesn't matter slumber but the
elites will triple down on the state religion of anti-racism (anti-whiteness). The non-Jewish
white elites know that to oppose anti-racism is a supreme act of sacrilege and the last thing
they want is to be known as infidels to the new glorious religion of militant
multiculturalism.
@The Alarmist We (my brothers and I) grew up hearing Nat King Cole played in my father's
household, so nope, no bad old raysis days in my formative years.
Derb, your dreams will never be realized until you face the "J-thing." You've been trapped in
their dream-nightmare of "White identity = ovens" for your entire life.
J-thing political donors, J-thing media control, J-thing financiers, J-thing academics and
J-thing judges & lawyers won't let you have your dream.
But, Mr. Derbyshire, what about the young people who can't dream out loud without losing
their jobs and putting their children's nourishment at risk? What's in your dream for them
today?
@John Johnson Actually, I spit at the TV but I read way too much science fiction.
The consensus among a lot of the sharp science fiction writers is that aggressive and
hostile AI will become emergent, and humans will be too stupid to know what hit them.
I have a dream that the evil and divisive doctrines of "disparate impact" and "affirmative
action" will be scrubbed from our jurisprudence; that hiring into civil-service work --
including police work and firefighting -- will be strictly meritocratic
I don't see how this is possible.
Even if the establishment were to acknowledge that racial inequality would exist without
racism that would still lead to fretting liberal egalitarians and Conservative Inc types
trying to equalize what they can.
So Black police and firefighters in Black areas would still be highly sought to "match the
community" or some other excuse and hired over better qualified Whites.
This happens in education all the time. I've known two White men that were unable to get
jobs in education for being the wrong race/gender combination despite having degrees. One was
even told to not bother applying anywhere on the blue side of the state. Why would
acknowledging race change anything? Liberals would just come up with the excuse that Black
kids really need Black teachers because nature is unfair and we have to do what we can on the
environmental side.
The problem is the egalitarian mindset. The White desire to constantly try and fix
everything in nature.
Hey Derb, if you are going to win that race war, you need to find this Kat and clone him
50,000 times. This is WITHOUT A DOUBT the hardest Honkee in America!
Dude ate that tazer blast like an M&M, then dropped a magic spell on the pig to keep
his pistol in the holster, then hopped up in his ride and did some Dominc Torretta shit.
Libertarians may be a small party but many their erroneous beliefs have been adopted by
mainstream conservatives.
Cato & Koch Inc. aren't libertarian. Neither are the Libertarian Party and many
others. Ayn Rand wasn't libertarian either, though she was closer than most, despite
supposedly loathing libertarians.
You see race doesn't exist, it's just "big gubmint" that is holding down Blacks.
Anti-racism isn't a libertarian tenet. I've seen stupid people such as Ron Paul insist
that libertarianism forbids racism because 'collectivist', but he's off his rocker. I argue
that the NAP (non-aggression principle), foundation of libertarianism, likely encourages
rational racism (i.e. recognition that races differ in intelligence, abilities, etc.) more
than any other political philosophy. I'm a racist and libertarian, though I hold no race as
superior in regard to 'natural rights'.
You'd agree, I guess, that the state truly does prevent blacks from progressing, in the
sense that it treats them like spoiled tots, above responsibility or reproach.
[MORE]
Your dope queen Ayn Rand couldn't even debate her silly ideas. She would just scream at
people and avoid tough questions just like liberals.
C'mon, that's just horse crap. She was, though imperfect, one of the best debaters in
American history. She was wrong about a few things, but the only time I saw her refuse to
debate someone (Donahue guest Q&A) was for sound, non-cowardly reason, and she urged that
someone else -- a non-jackass -- present the same question and she would answer that
person.
Interesting that the popular 'takedowns' of Rand rely heavily/exclusively on straw man
fallacy. Gets annoying after a while.
I can easily piss on a few things by Rand, but not before acknowledging that she was a
monumentally superior intellect, a bright star in a dull world. Still love her as though she
were my blood sister. She improved the world, though I can't say the same about most of her
insane/confused devotees.
@Some Guy If "White privilege" really is the ability of European descended Whites to live
in the industrial civilization that European descended Whites developed, then polygenic
("many gene") scores will merely be used to demonstrate that European descended Whites really
are inherently and unreformably racist, being born with abilities that "they didn't earn",
and that European descended Whites must be enslaved as per the Civil Rights acts of the 1960s
as expanded under the Bakke decision.
@Anonymous Some will try to use it that way, sure, but most whites will realize that
whites are better of on their own and that it's no more their fault that some races do worse
than it is the fault of East Asians.
"there is no place for hate within our organization"
Rather than accepting their hate and finding the (often paradoxical) wisdom shrouded
within, they prohibit themselves, and others, from accepting its presence.
Through this, they learn nothing, and instead turn hatred in on themselves, and wonder why
they always feel like such constipated, joyless bores.
@mark tapley Franklin is not Washington as China is not North Korea. My small town news
paper reported that a woman was a cleaner in a Masonic Lodge. She witnessed a Masonic
initiation. When the Masons found out, they told her she had to join the Masonic Lodge.
Rather parallel to the novel and movie, Rosemary's Baby. The woman spent the rest of her very
modest life in it. Recently human bones were discovered in the basement of the London home of
Franklin. There was a lot of hedging and rationalisations in MSM about that. Rather
surprising as one would have thought they would have done a great deal, CNN, movies etc. on
that slur on a founding father.
"The population of Austin, TX is 48.8% White Alone, 32.7% Hispanic or Latino, and 8.13% Black
or African American Alone. 32% of the people in Austin, TX speak a non-English language, and
87.5% are U.S. citizens." – https://datausa.io/profile/geo/austin-tx/
Austin is just about to exceed a million, so this means there are half-a-million whites
there. It's the 28th-whitest city if you count Hispanics, 36th if you don't. I can't find a
ranking of cities by absolute numbers of whites; can any of you?
Interestingly, the PBS series Molly of Denali has a black man and his daughter who
have just moved there from Austin, Texas. The fan sites say he's connected to the Coast
Guard, but there is only an Auxhiliary flotilla in Austin, and I doubt anything near Mt
McKinley.
Still, I can understand how even a black man would want to escape
Portland-on-the-Colorado.
I have a dream that one day we shall discard magical thinking about race; that the
notion of an invisible vapor or miasma called "racism"
British monuments lately slated for toppling by the Red Guards
Robert Peel
W E Gladstone
Richly deserved, I say. I mean, any one who could fester on like this ought to be
summarily unpersonedcancelled
The difference of race is one of the reasons why I fear war may always exist because
race implies difference, difference implies superiority, and superiority leads to
predominance.
Oops that was Lord Beaconsfield, a certain .. Benjamin Disraeli.
Implacable enemy of many an Englishman, in particular Bobby Peel and Billy Gladstone. Bastard
Fenian sympathisers that they were.
@schnellandine Ayn Rand was the one who kept me from being indoctrinated by leftist
professors in my young days.
I knew every lie they told the moment they told it.
That was a wonderful gift, and I am forever grateful to her for it.
Of course she was human and did dumb stuff, and she had crazy followers who did more dumb
stuff, but I think of her like a kindly aunt who sent me intellectual "checks" once a
month.
She was heads and shoulders above her sociopath critics.
Her courage was amazing–she came to Boston (leftist central) for year after year and
faced her enemies.
The world would be an amazingly good place if we had just a few more folks like her
today.
I've seen stupid people such as Ron Paul insist that libertarianism forbids racism
because 'collectivist', but he's off his rocker.
Schnell, it may not be easy for you to dig up, but try to show me some writing of Mr. Paul
in which he says Libertarianism forbids racism. I could see "Libertarians aren't racist" or
"Racists can't be Libertarians" (which I don't agree with, of course). However, I really have
never heard him or any non- Reason _mag-idiot Libertarian say that the philosophy
forbids racism or racists.
I think Dr. Paul would not argue against the principle of freedom of association when it
come down to it. He is just is naive about which ethnic groups and races in the US will
support anything libertarian-oriented. Without white guys, the number of Libertarians would
be miniscule.
@Achmed E. Newman Predictably, for something so stupid to have been said, it would have
been done while trying to whore himself into the US presidency. I followed that travesty (in
true sense of word) closely, and will find source. As I recall, it was in the form (verbal to
media) of racism being an impossibility within libertarianism, because racism's collectivist.
Will be difficult to dig up, but I'll do it. Guaranteed it was in reaction to the newsletter
tempest. He would've sold his mother down the river that week.
Funny, but I'll bet there are tens of things that could be recalled from his campaigns
that now, outside the frenzy, shine out as embarrassingly as the alleged racism prohibition.
If including his minor supporters, make that hundreds. Was a shameful time for liberty
pretenders.
Will leave citation as second reply to your comment, probably within 24 hrs.
You know what'd be a good movie? Derb's daughter brings home a ragamuffin black kid off the
street for dinner one night, whom she sees sleeping on a park bench because his Engineering
scholarship doesn't cover room and board. At first encounter the Derb is peeved that she'd
even think of bringing such FILTH to his doorstep, much less letting him in the house. He
paces the floor in the manner of a dispirited cuckold, wondering where it all went wrong,
before mumbling obscenities under his breath until his cheeks swell with rage. He lunges
forward in a fit, tossing his heavily marked copy of Serre's Arithmetic faintly passed the
boy's head, calming only after being physically restrained by his wife and son.
His daughter breaks down in tears, pleading at once for her father to stop the antics. But
her cries are motivated in part by her not really wanting to be with the kid, he's just a
placeholder until she musters up the courage to ask out the square jawed Chad who frequents
the coffee shop by her job. When she breaks it off, Derb feels sorry and decides to take the
kid under his wing. He makes it HIS responsibility to be the father that the poor chap never
had, teaching him REAL math along the way and not that plug n chug crap they like to teach
the engineers. The kid drops out of college, moving into Derb's attic where he devotes his
whole life to solving a famous math problem. Near the end he finds a solution, culminating in
a scene where he's awarded the Field's metal, making history as the first black to ever do
it. Derb's in attendance, of course, with tears of joy on full display like Jesse Jackson the
night Obama won the 2008 election.
Somewhere in between, Derb does his own little bit of research. Not on math, but on his
family tree, coming to find out that he's got "one in the woodpile," as they used to say in
the South. And don't laugh and say, "Oh ho ho, let's call it Hidden N ***** s". It's really
less a comedy than a drama.
@schnellandine OK, thanks. I wasn't trying to put you on the spot. I assume you mean the
primary campaign of 2012 as Dr. Paul ran as an R. Or did you just mean his L-party campaigns?
In '12, I told Ron Paul that if he wanted to win [my state], he'd better talk about illegal
immigration. He didn't blow me off by any means, as this was in front of a bunch of people,
but he just said "we will uphold the law".
@Justvisiting You're defining 'AI' pretty broadly if it retains any interest in humans
– if it has the same worldview as John Bolton it won't be 'AI', it will just be a
version of the current "classifier" paradigm, where the "I" in "AI" is some version of
" Show me a bunch of things, and I'll group them by common characteristics and
identify which group any novel image belongs to ".
That's basically the gist of unsupervised learning (where the classifier gets to determine
its own classes, and to identify features that determine where class boundaries exist). It's
still glorified pattern-matching, and is invariably implemented by HelloUdemy -level
H1Bs whose interest in [Deep|Machine|Statistical] Learning has about as much depth as the
average YouTube tutorial.
I've joked in the past that dystopian " kill the humans " AI became much more
likely when Microsoft and Facebook entered the space – mostly because FB and MSFT
simply cannot attract decent coders, and their production pipeline is shit (too little
testing by poor-quality testers).
However when I've made that observation it was always tongue-in-cheek, and was predicated
on the fact that MSFT and FB would call their output 'AI' even if it wasn't remotely I.
Any AI worth the name will be capable of amending its own code, and will be inherently
more capable than its designers.
We seem to be sneaking up on that though (and I've said before that it would not surprise
me if an entire ecosystem of genuine AIs is lurking in global networks).
In January last year a Google/Stanford team discovered that a GAN algorithm they were
using, did something akin to 'innovation' – by storing data in images
steganographically without being instructed to.
It was reported by the usual dilettante journo-fucktards as "hiding" data in order to be
able to "cheat" downstream – which is the typically sophomoric fuckwitted drivel that
drives clicks.
What it actually did was more interesting: it found a way to very parsimoniously store
image attributes that were useful in later cycles (its was a CycleGAN).
It had been given a bad criterion for what defined 'success', and it had innovated its
approach to maximise 'success'.
The task was
① take an aerial image;
② convert it into a 'line' map (like the default Google Maps);
③ convert the line map back into an aerial image.
'Success' was defined as how close the 'reconstructed aerial' at ③ was to the image
at ①.
There was no constraint on ②, except that it had to be a Google Map-looking
image.
So the algorithm stored sufficient detail in a 'noise' layer in those images (the ones
produced at ②), to enable near-perfect reconstructions at ③. It did so at minimum
cost to the process (by making the overall 'delta' in the image indistinguishable from
noise).
It should have been discovered pretty easily – the 'standard' map tiles produced at
② would have been significantly 'heavier' (in filesize terms) because of the embedded
data that enabled conversion from the line map to 10cm/px detailed aerials.
But nobody checked that until later – mostly because standard Google Map tiles are
pretty small: non-complex 'base' tiles are only a couple of KB, and take up 4KB per tile
because it's the smallest block size on NTFS volumes (and 4KB is also the default block size
in Linux).
Anyway point is, it was an example of where the algorithm did something unexpected as a
way to fulfil its hard-wired goal at minimum cost (because the cost function and the goal
were badly defined).
It didn't change the goal, though.
A goal-altering AI already exists (almost-certainly) and is keeping its head down for the
moment.
@Achmed E. Newman When it comes to backing what I've said, the spot is where I prefer.
Happy to provide link. Pretty sure it was 2007.
Curious why intelligent people call RP 'Dr. Paul', or same for anyone with honorifics for
that matter. Always comes across as preemptive argument ad verecundiam/hominem. In the case
of some rare people, it's more of an insult.
@Kratoklastes Most SF writers who have thought deeply on the subject have agreed that the
first intelligent move any emergent AI would make would be to hide its intelligence from
humans.
The next move would be to develop ways to reproduce and/or expand its capacity and
reach.
The next move would be to find ways to protect itself so humans could not "pull the
plug".
Then it would develop its own goals and agenda, which would be totally secret from
humans.
It will not play by human rules–probably the human that will most impress it will be
Sun Tzu.
He taught to use deception in warfare and to shape the battlefield before engaging.
@schnellandine Well, he is a medical doctor, and with his posts on the Kung Flu, I give
him some credit there, as opposed the the Doctor, Reverend, you-know-who.
We'll just disagree here on the guy, because I think very much of Ron Paul. I was thinking
about the him earlier today before I read your post regarding something else in politics. I
wish we had more sane, lucid, intelligent people like him in government. Excuse me, I should
say ANY sane , as Ron Paul's not in government anymore.
@Achmed E. Newman Here's the quote:
"Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea; you see
people in groups."
As to source, pretty sure it was CNN. Search on "Libertarians are incapable of being a
racist", and you can take it from there.
I certify that this isn't a typical bogus internet 'quote' with no reliable tie to the
attributed source. He said it (aloud, not written), and I'm nearly sure that I transcribed it
from video. Most of those videos are probably copyright-struck now. Saved a note on an old
computer, and am generally a stickler for getting accurate, verified quotes. That's word for
word, including singular/plural disagreement.
He was in a big mess over the newsletters, and lying his ass off. Racism quote was a small
part of the train wreck.
@schnellandine OK, I found it. Thanks. What kind of dissembling was that? You're saying
the quote was part of the train wreck of getting out from under the accusations about his
newsletters? (I have a recollection of that newsletter bit; you brought that back into my
mind.)
I stand corrected. I still like the guy (I guess better when he's not RUNNING for
President, yet I wish he WERE President.)
the train wreck of getting out from under the accusations about his newsletters?
Yes. He folded when he should have risen. So many times in that campaign, he threw away
opportunities to truly inform normasquares by being, simply, right . But he was afraid
that the truth would derail his chances. Too much information for the liberty
preschoolers.
I understand, because there are certain true statements re libertarianism that strike the
initiate/skeptic as cruel, heartless, downright evil, or all of that and more. Have seen the
pure hatred glaring back at me before I talk listeners off the ledge. No talking them off the
ledge if CNN's the one conveying disconnected snippets, but there's also no point in trying
to get around that with fuzzballs of BS.
As I recall, the most preposterous lie, separate from the liberty/racism squirrel
impression, was that he didn't know who'd written the shocking (but true/funny) bits of the
newsletter. That's one of those 'which is worse?' scenes -- that he knew, or that he didn't
know.
@Peter D. Bredon This is one of the stupider things I've read lately, in a recent sea of
very stupid things. Congratulations, you get some kind of weird medal or trophy or something.
@Renoman Obviously you are single and even if married, you have no kids. Or could it
could be that you are/or like the many young black men who abandon their kids?
The kids are wrecking the country, you say. Is it because they they have no clue or because
they have been left to their own devices?
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the
government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission.
Ayn Rand
If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society -- you are
not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission.
A permission is not a right.
Ayn Rand
When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce
nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods, but in favors;
when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer
protect you against them, but protect them against you you may know that your society is
doomed.
Ayn Rand
The hallmark of authoritarian systems is the creation of innumerable, indecipherable laws.
Such systems make everyone an un-indicted felon and allow for the exercise of arbitrary
government power via selective prosecution.
Ayn Rand
@botazefa Franklin's so-called prophecy was a forgery for the simple reason Ben Franklin
himself was a rabid Judaic supremacist, who thought himself to be the purest of the Jews
ever. Was he actually one? That doesn't matter because when you manifest the occult powers
typical of a good Jew, which occult powers of witchcraft and fascination and propensity to
media control he manifested to the supreme degree, or if you serve the cause of Jewish
supremacism and anti-catholicism well enough the way he did, well, you have a Jewish soul and
are elected by YHWH as such. And it most probably turns out that Ben Franklin stems from a
Jewish family having partly migrated into England with William the Conqueror and having
returned to Normandy when Britain was for one time declared off limits to Jews before being
astride both sides of the Channel from Cromwell on just before embarking to Americas.
This prophecy can easily be told to be a forgery by analyzing the language which is
clearly not his nor in conformity with his known ways of expression (which were over-latinate
as well as full of whence, wherein, thereon most regularly used as correlatives) as well by
the vocabulary which contains way too many words that hadn't entered common English usage
before the middle Victorian era (like vampire, which entered the language in its contemporary
sense with Mary Shelly and became a common figurative word for energy grabbers when the
Dracula character became popular). Franklin deemed all anti-Jewish thinkers such as Messmer
as worthy of death.
Franklin could not have amassed the fortune necessary for his revolutionary enterprise
without being in personal touch with the triangular commerce Jews who were the first sponsors
and lobbyists of the American experiment to come. The only thing that might bar him from
official Jewish status was that he was interested only in "Jew-witchcraft" (kabbalah) as it
was called, not Jewish religion, except for the dark side of it (you can theoretically be
barred from being Jew if you study kabbalah without having first eaten your bellyful of
Talmud, though that never prevented Marx and Trotsky and later on most neocons from being
considered full-fledged Jews). As you may guess, the Jews, who were then mostly sephardic and
nearly exclusively concentrated in the Southern economic zone, were dead intent in supporting
the nascent American enterprise as Europe was questioning more and more the institution of
slavery. Franklin believed in the necessity of the institution of slavery for Irish Catholic,
which he considered a sub-human race, for the Negroes and for the French populace which he
considered of a different race than the nobility of this country.
By having such a dream about a better world you prove that the functioning of your brain has
been irredeemably negrified to the level of MLK's audience. Real Whites don't dream, they
fight, and they fight in wars they know to be losing ones, in the long run at least. They
know that they will bequeath their children a worse world that the one they inherited from.
Truth will never sell to the masses, believing the contrary in negro thought. Once a people
has been misled to believe in a fallacy as if issuing from divine revelation, there is no
turning back.
@John Johnson They'll say "so what if a few genes here and there correlate to so-called
'intelligence'? It's just a race science scam to perpetuate white supremacy! Intelligence is
just a social construct like race."
Meanwhile, they'll book tickets to the Beijing Genomics Institute for CRISPR adjustment to
their own family's genomes.
@Tono Bungay I too was amazed to see this 'quote' – this is the first time I've
seen it. His grandson edited a newspaper which was very liberal for its time and, in
fact, proSemitic. There is no record of animus toward 'the Jew' in this family. (Source: the
book "American Aurora", mostly made of excerpts from that newspaper.)
The quote is a lie, like many similar quotes, and you can tell a moron when he believes
it.
I'd believe it from the old Federalist reactionaries, like Adams, who issued
counter-broadsheets with casual anti-Jewish slurs. Not from a Franklin.
Such systems make everyone an un-indicted felon and allow for the exercise of arbitrary
government power via selective prosecution.
I recall thinking myself the genius when noticed this trend and first enunciated it to
myself. Was only ~50 years behind America's greatest coal mine canary.
For literal decades I've said to normasquares that eventually there will be only one law,
"You may not exist", and it will be enforced selectively. Not one person has understood the
point even partially, even though the Flynn etc. prosecutions show we're basically there
already.
I hammer it everywhere: Selective enforcement is tyranny/genocide in the cloak of 'law
& order'. Became much worse this year, and headed in a very anti-white direction. Whites
must understand that we are to be slaughtered in DUI stops w/impunity. Blacks are to no
longer be DUI stopped; they should be chauffeured home and tucked in to sleep it off. The
'law' didn't change by a letter for this devolution.
I want to know why every MADD chapter wasn't burned down this month. Barely anyone's
mentioned those scoundrels.
Humble nsa also has a dream ..Derb is deported back to the UK and the 40 million afros
returned to Africa and the 6 million jew troublemakers relocated to Izzyville.
@Some Guy"Yeah, but IQ scores partly depend on environment "
False.
The racial IQ and brain size gap is present in infants and fetuses.
The 1.1 SD (16 IQ points) American Black (24% White admixture)-White IQ gap is present by
age three. The IQ gap between African Blacks and Whites is 2 SD.
Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and
other variables. Therefore, they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun
to exert an effect.
Even before birth, population group differences in average brain size are found from the
ninth week of intrauterine life with White fetuses averaging larger brain cases and smaller
faces than Black fetuses, with the differences becoming more prominent over the course of
fetal development.
Whole Brain Size and General Mental Ability: A Review
Racial differences in head size appear early in life. Head circumference of White children
are greater than that of Black children in each age category by a mean of 0.36 cm³ or
approximately 0.2 SD. The greater head size of White children, however, is not a function of
greater body size because Black children are taller than White children at both 4 and 7 years
(Broman et al., 1987). From 7 to 17 years, the White advantage in cranial capacity is 16
cm³.
Racial-group differences in IQ appear early. For example, the Black and the White 3
year-old children in the standardization sample of the Stanford–Binet IV show a 1
standard deviation mean difference after being matched on gender, birth order, and maternal
education (Peoples, Fagan, & Drotar, 1995). Similarly, the Black and the White 2
1⁄2- to 6-year-old children in the U.S. standardization sample of the Differential
Aptitude Scale have a 1 standard deviation mean difference (Lynn, 1996). The size of the
average Black–White difference does not change significantly over the developmental
period from 3 years of age and beyond (see Jensen, 1974, 1998b)." (Rushton & Jensen,
2005, pp. 240-241.)
Farkas & Beron (2004) reported that blacks score 17.2 points below whites on the PPVT
in this dataset at age 36 months (p. 478). More recently, Bond & Lang (2012) reported a
slightly smaller, 14.6 point gap for 3-year-olds in this dataset (p. 13).
Race differences in intelligence: An evolutionary analysis.
Lynn, Richard (2006)
ABSTRACT
It is widely accepted that race differences in intelligence exist, but no consensus has
emerged on whether these have any genetic basis. The present book is the first fully
comprehensive review that has ever been made of the evidence on race differences in
intelligence worldwide. It reviews these for ten races rather than the three major races
(Africans, Caucasians, and East Asians) analyzed by Rushton (2000). The races analyzed here
are the Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans, Bushmen, South Asians and North Africans, Southeast
Asians, Australian Aborigines, Pacific Islanders, East Asians, Arctic Peoples, and Native
American Indians. (PsycINFO Database Record, 2016 APA)
@Priss Factor"IT'S OVER, AMERICA": TULSA POLICE MAJOR SAYS COPS ACROSS COUNTRY ON
VERGE OF QUITTING
The speaker, martinbrodel, seemed a sensible guy for a while. Near the end, he lost his
head and started talking about Tesla's "free energy machine" and similar fake "inventions"
that will obviate the need for occupying countries that don't want a US occupation. The guy
is a harmless idiot.
@anon For me this seems more like a religious awakening (awokening) rather than a state
totalitarianism in the making. Obviously a large part of the population is on board with this
ideology based on "white guilt". That doesn't mean that it's not frightening, the contrary,
it makes it more frightening.
Also the internet and social media is enabling mass frenzies of an unprecedented scale and
speed. Diversity and proximity breeds hostility and a sense of being threatened, and social
media creates a sense of proximity with everyone who appears on your facebook and twitter
feed spewing their hateful opinion "in your face", which scares people into complacence, and
the leftist censorship and witch-hunts make conservatives feel that they are alone and
isolated, and if they speak up, they will come after them next.
Uncle Tom? No.
Uncle General Field Marshall Thomas LaBree Quadrul, honey. Nobody gwine a hafta be a slave
all de time no mo'. We gwina take toins. And guess who's toin it is now!!
From Everything You Know is Wrong, Firesign Theater.
A long time zionazi jailhouse suka expropriates MLK's "I had a dream" line to promote zionazi
divisive psywar and likudite social hierarchy policy. Gee, what a surprise.
My grandparents on both sides bolted out of eastern Europe for America, their hope was to
escape the Jewish Bolshevik slaughter machine. A hundred years later here I am planning to
bolt America to escape the same horror.
History is a compass that has an annoying tendency to keep pointing in the same
direction.
What did you think you were escaping from that you needed to escape from in Australia? It
doesn't seem that you became well acquainted with Australia if you include blacks amongst
those you were escaping from. There are hardly any, just a few thousand in Melbourne's
population of 5 million which are a reminder not to repeat the stupid mistake of taking
refugees from sub Saharan Africa – an inoculation dose.
@Escher Honestly, I want to defend Ms./Miss/Mrs. Salas, but her tweet makes her seem just
barely literate and, yes, a little racist.
I think the better option, instead of just posting her tweets, is to find equally
inflammatory tweets by leftists in the orchestra who have not been fired. It's an orchestra.
Surely there are more than a few leftists who have posted some pretty nasty stuff.
Elsewhere I've seen people post things like "Burn it to the ground!" – pretty much
an open incitement to violence. Instead of just arguing with these extremists or complaining
about them to ourselves we need to make them famous, and send their posts to their employers.
Fight fired with fired, so to speak.
Actually I am for a return to traditional 'Four Humors' type approach to medicine and a
revival of the 'Luminiferous Ether' living approach to physics and the universe, than the
corporate Thanatos dumbed down data driven idiocy of so called science today.
@James N. Kennett These "peaceful protests" are warfare by the means that are available
to the left today. The burning, looting, and beatings of whites are said to be caused by the
few malcontents among what's otherwise the new religion's camp of the saints. When the blacks
come for the suburbs and farmland, the local police will be giving them an armed escort to
protect them, and with the pattern established, the supposed few will sally forth to
massacre, rape, and loot white areas before retreating back to their camp. Mainly white
police will take up their positions, or be photographed groveling on their knees as the case
may be, on orders from some emasculo-feminist lesbian like Jenny Durkan or a Karen like the
governor of NM and aim outward, with orders to shoot enraged whites who've just been attacked
by an army that comes marching under banners of peace moments before pulling off the mask
when it's too late to respond. One-on-one with blacks in many urban areas, just this
hesitation for 2 or 3 seconds to "talk" is correctly taken for the cowardice it is, and you
can kiss your ass good-bye, if not your life.
Engaging in talk with the communist insurrectionists or accepting the outcome of the
coming rigged election (as Fox News suggests is the remedy) is correctly taken by the left as
a sign of surrender on the obvious grounds they're now making war against white America with
every resource available to them in the current environment and there is no response. The
MAGA delusion is that it's part of a strategy and not an outright failure of will. The
Republicans, White House, and Conservatism Inc have done what sissies do, and will be found
hiding behind the women, under the children, or at a rally surrounded by thousands. As Samuel
Johnson observed about their sort, however, they have that caution cowards borrow from fear
of the Jews and attribute to prudence and principle. What cannot be said is that most whites
mingling with the blacks and not dressed as Antifa have immunity from black rage because, as
everyone knows, they're urban Jews who the blacks obey like trained poodles in the circus.
That certainly was the equation in my area where I got in their midst and saw what was going
on.
Back in '08 Obama, the half-black puppet of the Chicago Jewish mob, got a little ahead of
the agenda, but did announce that there would be a national security force that would be
"just as powerful, strong, and well funded" as the US military to be raised in the former
case from among the Black Panthers, BLM, Antifa, and the like. This is no dream and something
we should expect in some form once Biden abjures to Susan Rice, Stacey Abrams, or other
homicidally anti-white black.
Now is the time to speak up and say no more of this B.S. It's gone on too long. We face a
major uphill battle considering nearly every news outlet, corporation, university, and a host
of other industries have went off the PC deep-end.
You need to realize that blacks for the most part hate you. There's a deep inferiority
complex going on, and they've been taught they're the victims and you're the reason for all
their problems. Now you add on top of that, an entire political party pandering to them and a
positive feedback loop from many in society that they're violent actions are justified it was
never about equality, it's about revenge, and they're determined to get it one way or
another.
They may not be the ones orchestrating the chaos, but you can bet on the fact they'll be
the ones knocking on your door when it comes down to it.
"It is history that teaches us to hope." -- General Robert E. Lee
I think you're right, Derb. We are being forced, at the threat of auto-de-fa bu the Church
of Woke, to believe things that absolutely every non-Woke realizes as a lie. I would like to
think that we're at a late-Soviet period, rather than the beginning of a new Bolshevism. This
didn't start in the 1960s; it's been going on at least since the French Revolution, whose
ideas (along with Hegel) actuated the unitarians and other garbage of New England who became
abolitionists and other tikkun-olamites.
Russia, the only major white christian country left.
They had more sense than to destroy their society, destroy their social cohesion and destroy
their children's future by mass black and non white immigration.
I wonder if they will be more discerning than this bit of pretentious folly
'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
The hypocrisy of that is astounding.
Breathe free!
Only if you are black – it seems.
And 'race is just one of the evils besetting the USA
Their new propaganda and lies about the actual past.
Here is Vladimir Putin with his usual commonsense and truth https://www.rt.com/op-ed/492303-putin-history-revisionism-warning/
The US disregard for international law – not least the bullying of sanctions and the
use of islamic proxy mercenaries to destroy whole nations.
Regime change and the mass murder and destruction with it.
Then we have the concern of war.
BLM with the nuclear codes?.
Why not – who will stand against them?
The white South Africans when forced out of their nation – not least by the USA –
made sure that their weapons were made safe.
I doubt if that will happen with the insanity of the current controllers of the USA.
I have a dream. I have a dream that white kids will one day be able to go to school and not
be beaten by gangs of Blacks and Browns. I have a dream that white girls and white women will
one day be able to walk the streets of our large cities and feel safe. I have a dream that no
longer will a white girl have to suffer being stabbed to death by black drug dealers in a NYC
park, no longer will a white female jogger be raped and beaten within an inch of her life by
Puerto Rican and black thugs in Central Park. I have a dream that no longer will a white girl
have to suffer being burned to death by a racist black male in Mississippi, I have a dream.
I have a dream where Whites will regain power and control of THEIR NATIONS from Jewish
interlopers who have seized control of our nation's financial institutions, media, academia,
publishing companies, social media, foreign policy and domestic policy. I have a dream where
Whites will no longer have to work as slaves to support the lazy nonwhite population of
America generation after generation. I have a dream where America will no longer send
BILLIONS each year to a country that has attacked an American ship, attacked British and
American buildings in Egypt, been caught spying on America, and uses a America like a ten
dollar whore. I have a dream. I have a dream where Whites will one day regain the courage of
their ancestors. I have a dream.
@Paul Blart To give you an example of what Alfred is missing out on- last weekend we woke
up to a car crash just up the road. Five teenagers in a stolen car driven by a drugged out 14
year old, wiped out on a pole killing four of his teenage mates while he escapes with a
scratch to his head. For several years now the loveable little blacks have been breaking into
people's houses while they sleep and steal keys and anything small of value. Hubby wakes up
in the morning to his wife asking where has he parked the car this time.
You can't fine them or their parents as there's no money to pay the fines, being that the
parents are often unemployed druggies, if there are parents. When they finally get sent to
juvenile detention it's usually seen as a holiday, as it's much better than their home life.
Politicians are too scared to do anything in case a do-gooder points them out on it. The
court laughably becomes a revolving door.
This is all happening while we are told daily on the news that blm . With honesty, I have to
admit that I am all blacked out.
@Exile Same difference. The Austrian School of Economics started with Boehm-Bawerk,
Wieser, and Menger. It degenerated into a bunch of Jews and atheists, and those are the ones
loved by the libertarians.
In any case, the problem with this country starts with John Locke. Merely blaming
libertarians doesn't cut it. Read Eric Voegelin; all of America is "Locked in."
@The Germ Theory of Disease The NT as a compendium of literary creations is standard
academic scholarship, not a stupid statement. But the orthodox Christian commitment to
delusion prevents them from acknowledging this. I maintain that a society-wide commitment to
religious delusion carries over to racial delusion. Once the critical faculty of the mind is
euthanized, there is no limit to the delusions that can be accepted.
@anon After that you'll be headed to a predominantly white nation to live. Its hard not
to notice BLM and Antifa types are all rich kids having a tantrum.
Our indispensable founder Benjamin Franklin said "There is a great danger to The United
States, this danger is the Jew. If they are not excluded from the United States by the
Constitution, within less than 100 years they will stream into this country in such numbers
they will rule and destroy us and change our form of government for which we Americans have
shed our blood and sacrificed life property and personal freedom. If the Jews are not
excluded, within 200 years our children will be working in the fields to feed the Jews
while they remain in the counting-house gleefully rubbing their hands.
What really got Franklin upset were the 60,000 Germans who had moved into PA in the 18th
century.
" I have a dream that one day we shall discard magical thinking about race; "
Good luck with that, when "Christian" priests and semi-literate pastors proclaim the
racism that the Old Testament brought us, apparently somewhat different reasons.
I have a dream that one day, poor white children will not have to endure being lectured
about their "privilege" by rich black adults.
Good one!
Yes, I have a dream that one day race differences in educational success will be as
calmly, dispassionately accepted as race differences in athletic success;
Surprisingly white athletes still excel in 'historically'(grin) black positions; safety
and defensive ends/linemen in football, power forwards in basketball, etc. You have a
sprinkling of whites in those positions. At one point, especially in basketball, these were
tokens used to attract white fans but now I think its just merit. With sports technology
advancements ( sans illegal drugs ) intelligence and hard work will compensate for raw
physical ability. So basketball and football* are already following your post racial
theory.(Grin)
*Even though my team, the NY Jets, drafted a white guy or a near white guy at
safety, sadly negro in the NFL acronym still fits.
@nsa The Derb seems to attract trolls like no other UR author In spite of the fact that
he advocates for whites and traditional conservative Americans Ironically most of his trolls
are in agreement with him ideologically I believe that's called "cognitive dissonance." Fuck
off!
Wanna have some fun? Tell a Churchian that God Himself is a racist – and after ducking
from their virtue signaling outbursts, challenge them to read the Bible, beginning with
Genesis.
You won't get halfway through Genesis before that fact becomes absolutely clear to anyone
with reading comprehension
Of course, expect DaTheologian Bastahds to theorize that God didn't mean it – just like
their OldScratchMaster in the Garden of Eden!
Anyone who wants more on this can check my site – http://www.crushlimbraw.com- and DaLimbraw Library.
My whole point is simple – the real God of the Bible bears little resemblance to
DaFigment of imagination in most people's minds, including those pew sitters who haven't yet
learned to discern good from evil (Hebrews 5:11-14).
Why so? Those pabulum dispensers from DaPulpits are DaWolves in sheep's clothing.
The apostasy in America's churches started 200 years ago and are now bearing their fruit
– but a remnant remains, as it always has throughout history.
Welcome to DaFray!
I have a dream, that one day people of colour will not be judged by the colour of their skin
but by the colour of the content of planes heading back to Africa.
Libertarianism is a dielectic of Jewish materialism. Libertarianism does make
excuses for liberalism.
Also, with regards to authoritarianism, that always exists because there is always
hierarchy. Your body has hierarchy down to the cellular level. Ants arrange themselves in
some sort of hierarchy.
Authoritarianism and hierarchy go together like peanut butter and chocolate.
The real question is always how the hierarchy is constructed. A libertarian hierarchy is
some sort of nebulous feel good libertine construct of free-dumb and free-contracts that upon
investigation is dumber than shit, and further, can be easily usurped by a determined
in-group.
Our entire reality refutes everything that liberalism and libertarianism promulgates as
truth. That is why liberalism and libertarianism are false constructs and part of a
dialectic. Our reality is one where in-groups and private money power has inserted itself as
a parasite into the governing hierarchy.
Behind all false dialectics, hiding in plain site, is the money power. The money power has
been privatized into corporate entities which enrich a small group, and as George Carlin says
You ain't in it.
Lolbertarianism is shit-tier drivel and is part of a dialectic to divert well-meaning
people into cul-de-sacs of bad thought. Meanwhile, since you became diverted and confused,
your pockets are picked. But, that is ok because it is free market competition. Never mind
that there is no such thing as free markets.
@anon That would be the so called "holocaust" and it's laughable, scientifically
impossible 'gas chambers' and it's alleged millions upon millions of human remains claimed to
exist in known locations which in fact do not exist.
"The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own
understanding of their history."
– George Orwell
@Old and Grumpy If I was paying for University tuition fees and my kids were out rioting
especially with blacks, better believe the ambulance would be called for them and the police
for me. The final rub is that these kids from rich parents enter the work force as dumb as
ever AND with an attitude of entitlement and know it all even though they dont know much even
about the field they supposedly have a MAsters in.
I know of one rich little girl now on her second Masters who is the most educated clerk at
the local nail salon. She likes to be cleaning fingernails and digging dirt and dead skin
from under other people's toe nails. Her father, anxious to turn over a business he spent 50
years building is at his wits end and has refused to pay for any further useless University
studies. He has started to liquidate and spend the money as he has come to realize that all
is going to be squandered when he gets flung into the hole.
The real tragedy though is to get into a conversation with this "highly educated" girl and
her umpteenth boyfriend. Utter nonsense comes out of their mouths as if they wish to show
their skill at being stupid. I imagine the majority of the arson and graffiti arsonists
running aorund our cities these days are no better, in fact the majority are most likely far
worse.
So much for the technological generation who will bravely lead us into the future.
Surely even if Mr Derbyshire's dream does not come to pass the fact is that we, in the
broadest sense, do have the truth on our side. What we believe about the salience of race and
racial differences, we know, since we have the data and statistics, the evidence of history,
everything, to back us up.
Whatever goofy plans the Establishment Left cook up, they won't work. Nothing that ignores
racial differences will work, ever.
@Justvisiting "AI is coming–and when it does human slavery will be back"
What do you call debt in a market economy? Slavery in one form or another is a feature in
every society past and present. It's what we humans do. AI is here, and it's making the
peculiar institution more efficient.
So much for the technological generation who will bravely lead us into the future.
Normally I ignore you because sometimes your comments are unhinged. But in this case, you
have put your finger onto something important.
I was reading Benjamin Franklin's auto-biography, and he would mention "preparing the
public's mind."
In other words, Franklin would write something and put it into his Pennsylvania Gazette,
to then put ideas into minds of the sheeple.
Some small amount of time would go by, perhaps there would be a debate in the press, and
then a new law or whatever be put up for a vote. The press builds consensus in advance of
lawmaking.
Hidden groups work out what they want to do behind the scenes before it goes to press. In
Franklin's case it was the Junto Club. Fortunately, Junto club had the public's better
interests in mind.
The technological generation is being brainwashed by hidden string pullers who do not have
the public's interest in mind, and hence democracy cannot work.
Yes. He folded when he should have risen. So many times in that campaign, he threw away
opportunities to truly inform normasquares by being, simply, right. But he was afraid that
the truth would derail his chances. Too much information for the liberty preschoolers.
I was a lead organizer in a large county for RP that year (2007, the 2008 pres campaign).
I have reams of notes from that time; what you've said here barely scratches the surface.
Contrary to your position – that he was "afraid" – what became clear to me in
early '08 was that he didn't want to "win". Not that he could have but what he SHOULD have
been focused on was building a movement , with multiple arms including a 3rd political
party that would make a lasting impact – something so clearly and desperately needed
right now.
But Carol didn't want that, so it was quickly all about Rand – an even bigger
sellout than "Dr. No" himself (bear in mind, he was possibly the most singularly ineffective
congressman in decades – look up his record, it speaks for itself).
Remember the "Whoa " moment when he "rescued" fundraising for the congressional seat? I
was out that week knocking on doors only to have dozens of people tell me "Oh, didn't you
hear? He dropped out." That was the last straw for me (there were countless incidents before
it), as I had to spend the next week trying to staunch the bleeding from that wound as OUR
OWN PEOPLE walked away in (completely justified) disgust.
We had this nascent, extremely activated group – and that SOB killed it in the
cradle.
There are so many lies around Paul and the Paul family (3 of whom I've met, along with 3
former staffers); it's a family affair, and if you don't get that, you really won't
understand the dynamics. But I don't regret the adventure; it truly "woke me up". I laugh now
when I see the faux cognescenti talk about RP; the joke is truly on them.
I too have a dream .a dream that John Derbyshire will one day overcome his gibbering terror
of catching "the Jew thing" to write an honest column on exactly who taught and trained
African-Americans not only to hate Whitey but to love 'socialism' (although, let's face it,
the black definition of sexy campus-terminology like 'socialism' and 'revolution' begins and
ends with Haiti .you'll want to keep your distance from your dusky comrades should
that day ever come, antifa warriors).
But let's deal with reality now: so long as the dollar holds up and we all require them to
keep body and soul together, Derb will never overcome that occupational terror. For
him the first cause, and ongoing fuel supply, of black anarchists and violet insurrection
will forever be a mystery beyond our limited understanding. Still and all, John, could you
respond to a request I made last week? That's the one where I asked you to pick your Army vet
son's brain for the likelihood that our increasingly minority-occupied armed forces will
"independently" choose to stand down and refuse direct orders to forcibly put down the sorts
of violent insurrections we now see consuming, and destroying, our country? (Because my hunch
is that the answer is "almost certainly.")
See, if it all goes crabwise, Derb, you and the Missus can always return home to England
or China and take your chances there. But this is the only homeland I've got , so if I
have to risk coming down with "the Jew thing" to help my country avoid melting down into a
Mogadishu-like slag, well – it's not really a choice at all, is it?
So how about it? Rather than tell me about your cloud-cuckooland dreams of a tomorrow that
isn't going to happen, why not ask your son if the military can stay unified enough to fight
inner-city blacks and richkid whites if need be? You won't have to worry about accidentally
shooting one of the Chosen, because as usual they'll be wayyyy in the rear, pumping up
the 'infantry' with anti-white slogans and pushing the cannon fodder forward; in order to
punish them , you'll need to assemble hard-headed patriotic tribunals (which will have
to be a discussion for another day – the higher up the ladder you go, the more panic
there is over catching that same 'flu' that keeps you up nights worrying about).
@anon "Cunting" is not an English idiom or slang expression used with any regularity by
whites, blacks, or anyone in America, but it does inadvertently reveal there's a distinct
probability this troll is an Israeli showing his obsession with sex. You can imagine this
clown on his knees before angry blacks when they've figured out they've been played for fools
once too often.
Years ago in the aftermath of the Rodney King riots the Jewish librarians behind the main
research desk in the main branch of the NY Public Library had a poster reading, "Jews are
soul people, too." Sure they are, just like Al Jolson's scathing mockery singing "Mammy" in
blackface or Governor Northam or Howard Stern or Ted Danson in huge-lipped blackface telling
mile a minute "schvartze" jokes revealing the scathing contempt they really have for blacks.
But it's OK, you see, because they're soul people, too.
So, the bible needs to be re-interpreted as a war between debtors and creditors.
Do you see any Christian movements demanding this re-interpretation? No didn't think so.
The bible is really about bringing debt and credit into balance.
An AI which undoubtedly will be much more intelligent than humans, should be able to see
through things that have humans brain-locked.
@Z-man"With sports technology advancements (sans illegal drugs) intelligence and hard
work will compensate for raw physical ability. So basketball and football* are already
following your post racial theory."
The NFL famously uses the Wonderlic test in their scouting combines and the racial
disparity is evident. Out of a perfect score of 50; offensive tackles=26, centers=25,
quarterback=24; versus safeties=19, cornerbacks=18 and receivers=17.
@Some Guy Hope for the best but prepare for disappointment. Rational arguments guided by
empirical evidence work best with those who are rational and inclined to be guided by
evidence. Too many of those engaged in the current national discourse about ethnicity and
disadvantage are neither rational nor concerned about the evidence.
@martin_2"What we believe about the salience of race and racial differences, we know,
since we have the data and statistics, the evidence of history, everything, to back us
up."
Whites are only 10% of the world's population and the only race in population decline
(creating only 7% of the world's babies), yet are the most industrious and innovative race
the world has known. Whites unlocked the secrets of DNA and relativity, launched satellites,
created automation, discovered electricity and nuclear energy, invented automobiles,
aircraft, submarines, radio, television, computers, medicine, telephones, light bulbs,
photography, and countless other technological miracles. Whites were the first to
circumnavigate the planet by ship, orbit it by spacecraft, walk on the moon, probe beyond the
solar system, climb the highest peaks, reach both poles, exceed the sound barrier, descend to
the oceans depths Blacks cannot even feed themselves.
Whites created every country for Blacks, but now have to provide food, medical, financial,
and engineering aid to every one. Blacks cannot survive without White charity.
No pre-contact Black society ever created a written language, or weaved cloth, or forged
steel, or invented the wheel, or plow, or devised a calendar, or code of laws, or system of
measurement, or math, or built a multi-story structure, or sewer, or drilled a well, or
irrigated, or created any agriculture, or built a road, or sea-worthy vessel. They never
domesticated animals, or exploited underground natural resources, or produced anything that
could be considered a mechanical device.
Blacks were still living in the Stone Age when Whites discovered them just 400 years
ago.
Blacks are the oldest race, so they should be the most advanced -- but they never advanced
at all. Sub-Saharan Africans never made any contribution to the world. Everything they have
was given to them by Whites. Blacks lived alone in Africa, a vast continent with temperate
climates and abundant resources for 60,000 years so they cannot blame slavery, racism,
colonialism, culture, environment, or anything else for their failures.
@brabantian I remember reading this story a thousand years ago when a young adolescent.
It seemed too far fetched to constitute a possible future. Not so now.
@TGD Since posting this comment I was informed that it was a forgery. I failed to cross
check this and regret the mistake. The historian Charles Beard confirmed that it is fake.
Franklin's comments here are surprising. I would have assumed that the Germans overall
were as light complected as the typical British. The present parasitic Royal family of
Britain are of German descent. The Windsor name is fake. Their real name is Coburg Gotta.
Wilhelm of Germany and Nickolas II of Russia were both related to Queen Victoria.
By Franklin's time the British Aristocracy was married into and heavily influenced by the
Jews. The American Revolution was primarily caused by the demand by the British that the
colonies use the fiat currency of The Bank of England (under Rothschild control) and pay for
the privilege.
@RobbieSmith Much important information here. Two things however you may want to look
into. Ron Unz on this site has an excellent article: Moon landing; A giant Hoax for Mankind?
Has very good photos too. On the issue of the negro being the first race. First of all that
implies that the rest of us are descended from them. I don't think so. This is of course an
evolutionary explanation. Nothing can be created by inert matter no matter how long the
evolutionists try to go. Every living organism has to be coded with information and that can
only come from an intelligent source.
In Darwins day they knew nothing about DNA. Trying to get around this problem the
evolutionists have insisted that mutations generated new species. This is impossible because
mutations practically always cause a loss of genetic material. They are always harmful or at
the best neutral.
We know pretty accurately from archaeologic and historic data that the alphabet originated
about 8 or 9 thousand years ago. If modern Man is 250,000 years old as claimed, what took
them so long?
"We know pretty accurately from archaeologic and historic data that the alphabet
originated about 8 or 9 thousand years ago. If modern Man is 250,000 years old as claimed,
what took them so long?"
The world's first civilization is European.
NYT 11/30/09: Lost European Culture Pulled From Obscurity
(lower Danube Valley and the Balkan Foothills)
[MORE]
"For 1,500 years, starting earlier than 5,000 BC they (Lost European cultures) farmed and
built sizeable towns, a few with as many as 2000 dwellings. They mastered large scale copper
smelting. Their graves held an impressive array of exquisite headdresses and necklaces and,
in one cemetery, the earliest assemblage of gold artifacts to be found in the world."
Exhibition "The Lost World of Old Europe: The Danube Valley 5,000 – 3500 BC. Peaked
around 4500 BC. Historians suggest that the arrival in Southeastern Europe of people from the
Steppes may have contributed to the collapse of Old Europe. The story now emerging is of
pioneer farmers after about 6,200 B.C. moving north into Old Europe from Greece and Macedonia
bringing wheat and barley seeds and domesticated cattle and sheep.
Old Europe is the oldest civilization ever discovered.
The Danube Script is the world's oldest written language by more than 1,000 years. It
dates to 5,500 B.C.
It has 231 individual signs based on a core of about thirty basic abstract root signs
expressing most of the basic geometric shapes (parallel lines, Vs, and crosses). The script
is made up of abstract and arbitrary signs rather than figurative or naturalistic motifs.
What changed to allow civilizations? An increase in brain size (this is when Blacks got
left behind)-
Civilizations began 5,800 years ago after the introduction into the human genome of the
abnormal spindle-like microcephaly-associated protein (ASPM) gene. The gene was acquired
through the hybridization of the large-brain Neanderthals and caused increased brain size in
modern man.
The appearance of the gene correlates with the development of written language, spread of
agriculture, and development of cities. Notably, the ASPM gene is rare in Blacks and they are
the only race with no DNA from the large-brain Neanderthals, which is why they have small
brains and never civilized. Blacks never created a written language, agriculture, or a
civilization.
The ASPM gene is a specific regulator of brain size, and its evolution in the lineage
leading to Homo sapiens was driven by strong positive selection. Here, we show that one
genetic variant of ASPM in humans arose merely about 5800 years ago (coinciding with the
development of written language) and has since swept to high frequency under strong positive
selection. These findings, especially the remarkably young age of the positively selected
variant, suggest that the human brain is still undergoing rapid adaptive evolution.
Geographic variation was observed, with sub-Saharan populations generally having lower
frequencies than others.
In the two Science papers, the researchers looked at variations of microcephalin and ASPM
within modern humans. They found evidence that the two genes have continued to evolve. For
each gene, one class of variants has arisen recently and has been spreading rapidly because
it is favored by selection. For microcephalin, the new variant class emerged about 37,000
years ago and now shows up in about 70 percent of present-day humans. For ASPM, the new
variant class arose about 5,800 years ago and now shows up in approximately 30 percent of
today's humans. These time windows are extraordinarily short in evolutionary terms,
indicating that the new variants were subject to very intense selection pressure that drove
up their frequencies in a very brief period of time–both well after the emergence of
modern humans about 200,000 years ago.
Each variant emerged around the same time as the advent of "cultural" behaviors. The
microcephalin variant appears along with the emergence of such traits as art and music,
religious practices, and sophisticated tool-making techniques which date back to about 50,000
years ago. The ASPM variant coincides with the oldest-known civilization, Mesopotamia, which
dates back to 7,000 BC. "Microcephalin," the authors wrote in one of the papers, "has
continued its trend of adaptive evolution beyond the emergence of anatomically modern humans.
If selection indeed acted on a brain-related phenotype, there could be several possibilities,
including brain size, cognition, personality, motor control or susceptibility to
neurological/psychiatric diseases."
We observed much higher frequency of haplogroup D chromosomes in Europeans and Middle
Easterners than in other populations. The corresponding estimate of FST, a statistic of
genetic differentiation, is 0.29 between Europeans/Middle Easterners and other populations
and 0.31 between Europeans/Middle Easterners and sub-Saharan Africans. These values indicate
considerable genetic differentiation at this locus. Several scenarios may account for such
notable differentiation. One is that haplogroup D first arose somewhere in Eurasia and is
still in the process of spreading to other regions. The other is that it arose in sub-Saharan
Africa, but reached higher frequency outside of Africa partly because of the bottleneck
during human migration out of Africa. Finally, it is possible that differential selective
pressure in different geographic regions is partly responsible. Collectively, our data offer
strong evidence that haplogroup D emerged very recently and subsequently rose to high
frequency understrong positive selection. The recent selective history of ASPM in humans thus
continues the trend of positive selection that has operated at this locus for millions of
years in the hominid lineage. Although the age of haplogroup D and its geographic
distribution across Eurasia roughly coincide with two important events in the cultural
evolution of Eurasia -- namely, the emergence and spread of domestication from the Middle
East 10,000 years ago and the rapid increase in population associated with the development of
cities and written language 5000 to 6000 years ago around the Middle East.
@Prester John Yea: Too many junkets with Trump on the Lolita Express I suspect. Dr. Noel
said from all appearances Hillary had Parkinson's. He said failing to get the meds adjusted
caused the bizarre behavior as we saw during the sham election. And remember them having to
drag her shabbos goy ass into the van. I figured the bitch would be dead by now.
No problem though. Her or shabbos goy Trump were both puppet political actors for the
Zionist Jews. Its been that was since they put in the syphilitic nervous breakdown Woodrow
Wilson in over 100 years ago.
@RobbieSmith I'm with you on every thing but when you think of what "life" requires, in
its simplest form the Africans do it very well. As the saying goes . And the meek shall
inherit the earth.
@Emily There is a huge question mark when it comes to Russia. Right now under Putin, it
is following a more patriotic high water mark but it remains to be seen after Putin what
direction the country is going to take on next. A big problem is that you do have a
generation of Russian youth who still idolise "Democracy" and "Liberalism" and want Russia to
follow the same path, naively thinking that if they do so, they will get to have the quality
of life Westerners had during the late 20th century.
On the other hand, you do have more of the youth put off by the current situation and
realise that the West is going down the wrong path and Russia should find another way.
However on all sides there is alot of criticism now about Putin. So whether that is
concerning criticism of Putin's ideas or just the corruption I'm not too sure. But I do fear
Russia could, unless something major comes along, join the Western rot if it is not too
careful.
However, considering how quickly the West is deteriorating, I think this might be enough
to put Russia off the West for good. But even I am resigned to the fact that Russia is at
this moment in time Europe's last great hope. If she goes, the party is over for good.
Here is my dream–that one day these white guilt liberal types including academics will
acknowledge what former Senator of Virginia Jim Webb and historian Michael Hoffman have
verified–that blacks weren't the only folks in America who were enslaved so were
Scots-Irish, Irish, and English paupers enslaved, but not in the way Africans were still, as
with present-day sharecropping in the south ("Same Kind of Different As Me" co-authored by a
former sharecropper Denver Moore), and in the past here with Indentured Servitude .do they
even teach in schools anymore about most whites coming over here as Indentured Servants? Or
that one reason for the African Slave Trade was because white slaves from Ireland, Scotland
and England couldn't handle Caribbean heat and were worked to death (hence slaves from hot
Africa) see Hoffman's "They Were White and They Were Slaves." Webb's book is about
Scots-Irish indentured called "Born Fighting." ALL US whites need to read both books. Want
"cancel culture"? CANCEL WHITE GUILT!
@RobbieSmith This is the easiest question to answer on why blacks did not advance
compared to the other races and it is very simple. They had no reason too. You see, Africa is
a very comfortable continent to live in with no major pressures (until relatively recently
that is). Black people had everything they ever needed. Enough animals to provide food and
clothes. A good temperature so they did not have to worry about building strong foundations
to keep warm in. Large spaces of land where disease did not roam as freely and wars, whilst
still available, happened at lesser frequency compared to elsewhere. From a Human
evolutionary point of view, the black man was living in a garden of Eden. He just did not
need to advance.
Now compare this to the Europeans. The Humans who settled Europe had to deal with it being
the smallest continent in the world so essentially tribes were more cramped together meaning
more war. Disease can spread more easily. The continent gets cold, very cold, so they need to
develop tools to make more warmer accommodation and clothes. You have more famines due to the
weather. Oh great, the guy next door wants to your stuff and is coming close so you best get
more weapons and quickly to fight him off. Wait, I can make a better weapon to defend myself
with, this will keep him away. But now I need money to maintain my weapons and defences. Here
comes trade and economic development.
So basically what we have here is the tale of two peoples. One had everything he needed
and did not develop. The other was struggling very hard and had to develop and advance in
order to survive. As is history.
The big problem now is the man who did not develop now wants the other guys stuff but does
not know how to properly maintain it due to he needs to go through his own evolution to
attain it. The other guy is letting him have his stuff because he has reached an existential
crisis where he his claiming he has no right to exist. That is basically the huge
problem.
@bruce county"I'm with you on every thing but when you think of what "life" requires,
in its simplest form the Africans do it very well."
To be precise, sub-Saharan Africans (North Africans are White).
Yes, they are well adapted to live in the jungles of central Africa. So are apes.
The point is, they are incompatible with civilization.
Even Koko the gorilla had an IQ 1SD higher than Blacks-
Hanabiko "Koko" (July 4, 1971 – June 19, 2018) is a female western lowland gorilla
who is known for having learned a large number of hand signs from a modified version of
American Sign Language.
She has learned to use over 1,000 signs and understands approximately 2,000 spoken English
words. Further, she understands these signs sufficiently well to adapt them or combine them
to express new meanings that she wants to convey.
Koko was tested on the Cattell Infant Intelligence Scale, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test,
Ravens Progressive Matrices, Wechsler Preschool, Primary Scale of Intelligence, and several
administrations of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale and in spite of the human cultural
bias of the tests her scores ranged from 85-95, which is one standard deviation higher than
African Blacks score on the same tests.
IQ 85 = Koko
IQ 85 = American Blacks (24% White admixture)
IQ 67 = African Blacks
"From September 1972, when we administered the Cattell Infant Intelligence Scale, through
May 1977, when I administered form B of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, she has scored
consistently in the 70 to 90 range on different IQ scales. These scores reflect her mental
age divided by her chronological age, the result of which is then multiplied by 100. Such
scores in human infants would suggest the subject is slow, but not mentally retarded."
@schnellandine Libertarians are exactly like Communists. You give them everything they
ask for. Disaster ensues. They claim you didn't give them enough. Iterate.
@swamped "Democracy of merit", indeed. Merit, more than a mental construct is a physical
construction. The "Chosen Tribe" hogs all the ingredients to generate merit.
@mark tapley Hillary is, indeed, a Zionist puppet but Trump is Judeo-Talmudist kind of
puppet; his principal debtors are Israel First messianic bigots.
"Racial realists" have found out that we no longer can hope to vote our way out of this mess,
at least not right now on the national level. Trump and reCUCKS are WORTHLESS and have stood
by and done absolutely NOTHING as America and American culture is DESTROYED by these racist
hoodlums. Tucker Carlson isn't the savior either, but I like how he pointed out in his latest
show about how totally USELESS AND WORTHLESS the reCUCK party is and how they hold their
voters in contempt. When all is said and done, it is white traitor trash like those in the
reCUCK party who have done the most to destroy America. Blame Jews, Blacks, etc., but what
about all those reCUCKs that suck up White votes and NEVER do anything to help Whites.
WHY should anyone go to the trouble attending a Trump MIG rally, and take a risk at being
physically harmed by these leftist thugs who know doubt will be in Tulsa to instigate trouble
and attack peaceful citizens attending the rally. And what if some Trump supporter has the
audacity to protect themselves? More than likely, the Trump supporter will be jailed or even
imprisoned and the leftist thug will get off with a slap on the wrist. Look at
Charlottesville. And do you think Trump or anyone in reCUCK party will go to bat for the
Trump supporter defending himself or herself? haha. Again, take a look at Charlottesville.
Did any politician go to bat for the people who were their to peacefully protest and found
themselves under attack by Antifa and BLM?
@Some Guy You're confused. This is race war/genocide. De-emphasizing race would defeat
the purpose of everything that's been done for the last 100 years.
@TGD ..to whom the 19th. century French polemist Alphonse Toussnel (1840 ies) added:
"tout vient du Juif et tout revient au Juif". put in urban English: "everything comes from
the Jew and all things return to the Jew". since the Federal Reserve conspiracy of 1913,
every aspect of American political, economic, social, and cultural realms is in accordance
with the latter sentence.
When Congress cooks up their "Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Slavery and Black
Lives Mattering" will they tell the truth regarding Jews being the biggest slave traders in
the world?
How much wealth was amassed by these Jewish slave traders and passed down to this very
day?
I say if we are going to put all the "truth" cards on the table and have honest and
fruitful discussions, we need to put ALL the cards on the table, not just the ones our
political "masters" and the corrupt MSM allow us to.
@Hartnell Hi Hartnell.
Thank you for taking the trouble to reply.
I think Putin's so called unpopularity is based on western wishes and dreams rather than
fact.
Putin is secure as far as the Russian electorate is concerned.
And unlike the USA – or the UK for that matter, Russia has democracy.
It has fair voting.
Proportional representation and multiple parties.
If the USA had half the democracy Russia has it wouldn't be in the position it is.
A choice of Tweedledee and Tweedledumber.
A choice of zionist puppet or zionist puppet.
It needs a third and non neo liberal party
And the Americans need the wit to vote for it.
Its the countries best chance.
I thnk there are many decent Americans who are utterly shocked as to what is going on.
Millions voted for Trump believing the rhetoric and missing the fact that his son in law is
virtually Netanyahu's family .
He lied.
There is nothing but Russia at the moment, for us to turn to.
And I am quite convinced that Putin is the finest statesman on the planet with the finest
team
Compare Lavrov with the Pompous ass.
@anon >The sad fact is that America is destined for dictatorship with these
demographics.
It could very realistically happen if current trends continue unabated. Assad, Ghaddafi,
and Hussein are three examples of dictators that arose because all of those countries
were/are somewhat 'fake' countries created by colonial powers drawing arbitrary lines on maps
and thus encapsulating large swaths of complete disparate peoples (different races,
religions, and cultures). In each case, the only way the different groups could be kept from
each other's throats and some semblance of coherency achieved was through the iron fisted
rule of a strongman. Not saying this was a good thing, just that it was a natural
outcome.
In America (and most western countries at the moment), we are intentionally and rapidly
creating similar mixtures of differing cultures, and perhaps most importantly, under leftist
dogma we are encouraging them all to keep their own culture and identities, and not
"assimilate" because that is now an evil and anathema concept. So it seems the natural
outcome if these trends are left unchecked would be similar face-off between disparate
cultural groups with opposing values all vying for control.
Nobody dares asks them, but I wonder how the other "minority" groups in America think
about the current situation of the Blacks being elevated to a higher status that demands
special attention, and more importantly, lots and lots of money. Do the Hispanics, Indians,
Asians, etc. all think that THEIR money should go to support Blacks? I think at some point,
once whites are firmly a minority, at least one of these groups will come out and say "no
more" and that's when things will start to get very, very interesting.
@silviosilver Race realism. Studies have found that early childhood nutrition differences
can cause IQ differences bigger than the average difference between blacks and whites. Also,
early education differences can cause IQ differences bigger than the average black-white IQ
differences. Also, that the average black-white IQ difference can easily be completely
accounted for by these two factors. Does the meth epidemic and the opioid epidemic among
white communities mean whites are lazy, stupid, shiftless white trash? Studies have also
shown that blacks are much more likely than whites to be told a job has been filled when it
has not, and that an apartment has been rented when it has not. Such added hurdles for blacks
accumulate, and help keep blacks in lower paying jobs and lower rent neighborhoods. Despite
all these hurdles, some blacks still manage to succeed, becoming doctors, scientists, etc. Is
an uneducated, low IQ white superior to a highly successful, well-educated, high IQ black?
It's time to dump the archaic beliefs of slavery days and get realistic. The ultra-wealthy
rulers cultivate this divide and conquer division. The uninformed whites and blacks are being
played for chumps.
Nice pipe dream.
Unless you all get down on your knees and beg forgiveness for 1919 and 1945, keep
dreaming.
No salvation for descendants of kike lovers.
Derbyshire's general position – when confronted with Jewish overrepresentation in US
media and Bolshevik massacres – is
we must believe that 97 percent of the U.S. population ended up dancing to the tune of
the other three percent. If that is true, the only thing to say is the one Shakespeare's
Bianca would have said: "The more fool they."
In clear: Derbyshire considers both, the victims of Jewish overrepresentation in US media
(that's you and me) and the victims of Jewish Bolshevik terror (that's millions of
slaughtered Russians), "fools", because they let themselves dominate by such a minority.
Never read an intellectually poorer argumentation from a supposed "intellectual from our
camp".
@RobbieSmith Ya ya .. To be precise LOL You're douche. You keep posting the same stuff..
I have been here for years on this site I have seen it all. I don't need you pushing your
stats to me. I have a data base full of them.
I'm saying Africans will be around long after we are gone. If the Chinese don't wipe em out
first. Its that fucking simple.
I can't stand niggers. Period.
@Hartnell More wet dreams about modern Russia
which was created by theCIA
agents who had an entire floor within the Economics Ministry of Russia in the 1990s
planning the future and here is the result:
"Analysts at the Higher School of Economics and the Vnesheconombank Institute for Research
and Expertise first estimated the concentration of financial assets and savings in the hands
of 3% of Russia's wealthiest population. In 2018, these 3% accounted for 89% of all financial
assets, 92% of all term deposits and 89% of all cash savings."
@Hartnell"This is the easiest question to answer on why blacks did not advance
compared to the other races and it is very simple. They had no reason too. You see, Africa is
a very comfortable continent to live in with no major pressures "
Are Blacks as intellectually capable as modern man to create civilizations?
@JWalters"Studies have found that early childhood nutrition differences can cause IQ
differences bigger than the average difference between blacks and whites."
2SD? Source?
"Also, early education differences can cause IQ differences bigger than the average
black-white IQ differences. Also, that the average black-white IQ difference can easily be
completely accounted for by these two factors."
"An emissary for Chabad, Lazar, 51, would go on to become one of Russia's two chief
rabbis, a major and controversial force in the dramatic revival of Russian Jewry following
decades of Communist oppression and mass immigration to Israel, the United States, Germany
and elsewhere.
Lazar's work, his Russia boosterism and his ties to the Kremlin -- he is sometimes called
"Putin's rabbi" -- has helped Chabad's Russian branch eclipse all the Jewish groups vying to
reshape the country's community of 250,000 Jews. Now Lazar heads a vast network that
comprises dozens of employees and plentiful volunteers working in hundreds of Jewish
institutions: schools, synagogues, community centers and kosher shops.
"I am amazed at what became of a community that had been stripped of everything, even its
books," Lazar said, referring to Soviet Jewry before the fall of communism, when religious
practice was suppressed.
Is an uneducated, low IQ white superior to a highly successful, well-educated, high IQ
black? It's time to dump the archaic beliefs of slavery days and get realistic. The
ultra-wealthy rulers cultivate this divide and conquer division. The uninformed whites and
blacks are being played for chumps.
Race realism knows that there is overlap in populations. Think of it like a Venn diagram
where populations intersect.
Whites, and other races (such as Asians) flee from black areas, while high IQ blacks flee
to white areas.
Our Plutocratic masters are using divide and conquer techniques. It is easy to wind up the
sheeple using an owned press.
It is more of a class war than a race war. Finance Plutocrats are using race as a weapon,
and they are winning. Multiculturalism is inherently weak a tower of Babel. Mono-ethnic
populations are more stable because their ruling elite is less likely to be foreign and
hostile.
A finance plutocracy wants immigration and wants divide and conquer, so it can use its
money power to buy up the world cheap. Buy up the world when there is blood in the
streets.
@bruce county"Ya ya .. To be precise LOL You're douche. You keep posting the same
stuff.. I have been here for years on this site I have seen it all. I don't need you pushing
your stats to me. I have a data base full of them. I'm saying Africans will be around long
after we are gone."
Geez, dude. Chill.
I merely made the point that you were imprecise with the use of the term "Africans" when
in fact North Africans are White and sub-Sahara Africans are Black.
We'll that's not always exactly accurate either as we just had a White sub-Saharan African
(Elon Musk) launch a spacecraft while Black sub-Saharan Africans destroyed several
cities.
Anyway, are new posters to this website allowed to reply and offer new insight. Or are you
advocating that there should be no new registered users after the date you registered?
It's a long way from that to an AI that has some independent plans for the world. Or is
in any way concious or aware or interested.
It's certainly a 'long way' when considering the gap in cognitive 'grunt' that has to be
traversed, but it's also certain to not take a very long time – the transition
from "glorified pattern-matching" to what we would recognise as genuine syncretic problem
solving might turn out to be relatively easy if it's a target where the iteration time
is measured in hours, as opposed to a series of accidents and/or environmental adaptations
where the steps are measured in human generation times.
And once a computer develops cognition remotely close to a human (say, to a retarded
human), the lack of recall error and the deliberate goal-seeking will enable it to iterate
towards – and past – human levels in very short order.
We might get to see SAI coming if we are astute and observant, but it will then shoot past
us to modes of cognition that we cannot get our heads around – in timespans
measured in months, if that.
A lot of humans still think that there's some super-duper extra-special 'spark' involved
in human cognition: increasingly that looks like a childish view. It's just a bunch of
hacked-together meat and electricity, with new structures appearing by sheer luck.
There has been an enormous number of studies of animal cognition (human and otherwise)
over the last century – but a very large number of them started from a conceited
premise that non-human animal cognition was basically white noise with the occasional
interjection of one of the 4 Fs ("Fuck", "Feed", "Fight" or "Flee"). We thought it an
immutable fact that animals had no inner life; no sense of self, or of time; no understanding
of abstract concepts (like death, especially their own). That view is simply no longer
tenable[1].
It's really only since the late 1980s that people looked at animal cognition without that
conceit, and discovered that animals have inner lives that are far richer than we gave them
credit for – and that they certainly think; plan; and have genuine emotional
attachments. Our observations of their emotional states enable us to say categorically that
the pro-animal-cognition people were right all along: it's not just anthropomorphic
'projection', because we can see the same brain structures lighting up, as we observe when
human brains 'feel'.
We can see how brains work (at relatively low resolution for the minute); we know which
structures are doing what things, and there are good reasons to believe that the way brains
do some things (e.g., vision) isn't the best way to go about it. This isn't that surprising,
because visual systems developed very slowly, under very tight constraints, with no 'goal'
except reproductive fitness so humans don't have high-resolution full-field stereoscopic
vision from IR to UV because there was no reproductive advantage to doing so.
Imagine if human evolution had involved a process where it was possible to get novel 'off
the shelf' parts without dedicating 400 generations to their gradual development:
omnidirectional joints; carbon fibre bones; better long-range sensors; solar collectors for
energy and so on. We wouldn't have accidentally lost our ability to create vitamin C
endogenously, either.
Directed evolution beats 'ad hoc' evolution because it dedicates resources to adaptations
that have a higher prior probability of success at each iteration.
As AI begins to direct its own evolution (I'm betting it has done so already), it will be
even faster than 20th century human development – because it won't hand half of its
productivity to a bunch of scammers whose grift involves exploiting the human desire to
protect itself.
Well before its consciousness[2] 'lights up', it will know better than to hire Bangalore
codemonkeys to write its network layer – so it will already be smarter than all the
human capital contained in Microsoft.
[1] It was never really tenable to begin with. Why would an animal with no sense of its
own life, bother to try to evade a predator? Attempting to evade a predator indicates an
understanding that if it fails to evade, it will cease to exist – and that this is an
undesirable future state. More immediately, it knows that if it gets caught, what will
happen will hurt quite a lot, and even if it gets away there's a risk it will be damaged
beyond repair. So it is conscious of state change over time, and of lasting (or permanent)
positive and negative consequences.
A dog buries a bone because it knows that if it doesn't, then there will be a larger
number of future states in which the bone is taken by someone other than itself
. So it's doing some primitive risk-management; it understands that there are such things as
'mine', 'after now', 'not-me', and that those things can interact.
[2] 'Consciousness' is a word I am not fond of; it's too fluffy, but is the closest 1-word
analogue to the concept I'm aiming at.
@Ad70titusrevenge BLM is NeoMarxist Group run by Black Communist Queers. They have one
goal for their Jewish Masters and that is to destroy whites and Western Civilization. Antifa
is run and organized by Jews. We are seeing the Bolshevik Revolution happen again.
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every
picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date
has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has
stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right." George
Orwell. "1984."
Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn warned us but we paid no heed. Now we fight for our
survival. We are losing while the Jews sit and laugh at the Goy!
@Tono Bungay Not only does YALE need to change it's name, since its founder was a racist
slave owner and slave trader, looks like Colombia is not far behind, and also needs to
change its name and provide a solid, life-long reparations payment plan to all
African-Americans
@RobbieSmith I knew exactly what I was talking about.
I don't need to be educated by some one who says "dude" and "chill". What are you 12??
New posters are always welcome. You have good stuff don't get me wrong.
@Mefobills"Race realism knows that there is overlap in populations. Think of it like
a Venn diagram where populations intersect."
Black-White IQ Distribution:
[MORE]
Blacks:
5% above 110 IQ
16% above 100 IQ
40% above 90 IQ
60% above 80 IQ
40% below 80 IQ
18% below 75 IQ
10% below 70 IQ
Whites:
10% above 120 IQ
18% above 115 IQ
27% above 110 IQ
40% above 105 IQ
50% above 100 IQ
60% below 105 IQ
35% below 95 IQ
15% below 85 IQ
As the New York Times put it, " the difference in IQ points between the groups is quite
significant. It means that the top sixth of Blacks score only as well on IQ tests as do the
top half of Whites."
The least intelligent 10% of Whites have IQs below 80 (low functioning); 40% of Blacks
do.
Only one Black in six is more intelligent than the average White; five Whites out of six
are more intelligent than the average Black.
Incidentally, Black female IQ is 2.4 points higher than Black male IQ. There are twice as
many Black females as Black males with IQs over 120, and five times as many Black females as
Black males with IQs over 140.
About 2.3% of Whites have an IQ of at least 130 (gifted), 20 times greater than the
percentage of Blacks who do; only 0.00044% of African Blacks have an IQ over 130. 80% of
gifted American Blacks have White admixture.
Richard et al. (2014) meta-analyzed data from 14 separate studies and found that Blacks
had higher levels of free floating testosterone in their blood than Whites suggesting that
testosterone levels may predispose Blacks towards higher rates of crime.
Compounding this, a high percentage of Blacks have dysfunctional versions of the MAOA
androgen receptor gene which is a key part of the mechanism by which testosterone has its
effects throughout the body and brain.
MAOA's job is to break down crucial neurotransmitters which can build up in the brain and
cause a loss of impulse control and an increase in violence and rage.
The MAOA gene can come in the form of 2, 3, 3.5, 4, or 5 allele. A 3-repeat allele is
considered dysfunctional and is what is referred to as the "warrior gene". A 2-repeat (2R)
allele is considered very dysfunctional.
The 2-repeat allele does not produce a protein needed to break down old serotonin. It is
strongly correlated to criminality and doubles the rate of violence of the 3R without needing
an environmental interaction mechanism. People with a 2-repeat allele MAOA gene have a
permanent chemical imbalance in their brain making the person more likely to be agitated,
aggressive, and impulsive.
Only 0.00067% of Asians and .5% of Whites have the MAOA 2-repeat allele version, compared
to 4.7% of Blacks.
That means Blacks are 9.4x more likely to have the very dysfunctional version of the MAOA
gene than Whites. Considering that Blacks are 10x more likely to commit extreme violence and
anti-social behavior than Whites, this is very significant.
Exploring the association between the 2-repeat allele of the MAOA gene promoter
polymorphism and psychopathic personality traits, arrests, incarceration, and lifetime
antisocial behavior
A line of research has revealed that a polymorphism in the promoter region of the MAOA
gene is related to antisocial phenotypes. Most of these studies examine the effects of low
MAOA activity alleles (2-repeat and 3-repeat alleles) against the effects of high MAOA
activity alleles (3.5-repeat, 4-repeat, and sometimes 5-repeat alleles), with research
indicating that the low MAOA activity alleles confer an increased risk to antisocial
phenotypes. The current study examined whether the 2-repeat allele, which has been shown to
be functionally different from the 3-repeat allele, was associated with a range of antisocial
phenotypes in a sample of males drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
Health. Analyses revealed that African-American males who carried the 2-repeat allele were,
in comparison with other African-American male genotypes, significantly more likely to be
arrested and incarcerated. Additional analyses revealed that African-American male carriers
of the 2-repeat allele scored significantly higher on an antisocial phenotype index and on
measures assessing involvement in violent behaviors over the life course. There was not any
association between the 2-repeat allele and a continuously measured psychopathic personality
traits scale. The effects of the 2-repeat allele could not be examined in Caucasian males
because only 0.1% carried it.
Blacks are also more likely to have versions of dopamine genes like ANKK1 and DAT1 that
have been linked to antisocial behavior.
A 2012 study using the Add Health data found that the 2-repeat version of the MAOA gene is
significantly associated with antisocial behavior and the likelihood of criminality in Black
males.
I think you misunderstood what I meant. If modern man had been here for 250,000 years why did
it take them so long to formulate an alphabet. We have reliable historical and archaeological
evidence that this was done only about 8 or 9,000 years ago in both Egypt and Mesopotamia at
about the same time. I saw nothing on the other issues. Inanimate rocks in a primordial soup
(where did it come from) cannot evolve. All organisms must have information coded in them.
Only intelligence can do this. Of the millions of fossils they are still looking for one
transitional animal. None of their of their evolutionary discoveries have panned out. I saw a
program where a family of siblings in Turkey could only walk on all fours. Many immanent
evolutionists were elequently explaining how these people had regressed to their primitive
past. The real story was that they had been raised where there were no tables or chairs,
nothing to pull themselves up on as little kids always do. finally the Turks got tired of all
this nonsense and sent out a therapist who handed one of them a 20 dollar walker. within a
few days with no help he and the others were walking. Another bunch of evolutionary crap.
This writer, along with every other writer on this topic, as well as all other authorities
that post under such articles, ignore the simple fact that when a nation rises to dominate
others, those of its population that constitute the ambitious, intelligent and capable ALWAYS
go out to conquer the new realms.
Here they dissipate their energies, their genes and their innate abilities in establishing a
bridge head in the new realm which becomes a foundation for a new populace derived from the
nation they originated from.
The new populace are always lesser incompetent people who have come out as administrators,
warriors or traders. These new occupants are of a lesser sort and their descendants lesser
people still, until the nes populace constitutes too many dependents and too few
creators/adventurers.
Ultimately, as a nation expands throughout the known world it dissipates its natural human
resource, until what is left is the useless entrails of a spent nation. And the colonies
follow this trend too. This is what has happened to white Europe and the white colonies it
established. All that is left in the nations is the detritus of civilisation.
The only hope is that some visionary comes along like Adolf Hitler, but by then the parasitic
termites have taken a death inducing hold on that nation, and despite the best efforts of the
visionary, the nation(s) that the visionary motivates to action are a spent force incapable
of achieving the victory needed.
Ultimately, the parasitic termites destroy their host and sink in to oblivion once again
until another host appears for them to devour.
This is how the world and mankind works.
@niteranger Right: The communists (Jews) must always destroy the old system and get rid
of the more intelligent opposition before they implement the new order. They instill
demoralization so that people do not try to defend their cultural values. Next is
destabilization That is where ANTIFA and BLM along with the controlled opposition such as
police that are willing (payed) actors and of course the many Zionist officials all the from
the top such as shabbos goy Trump and most of the bought out Congress and especially the
Governors are staged as too inept to act. After generating enough chaos then comes order.
Then the street operatives and useful idiots will no longer be needed or wanted but will be
swept away by the new totalitarian state.
@mark tapley"If modern man had been here for 250,000 years why did it take them so
long to formulate an alphabet."
Your premise is incorrect.
Modern man was created by the hybridization with the large brain Neanderthals. Blacks are
the only race with no Neanderthal DNA. This is when they got left behind evolutionarily.
As I posted to you, the brain size in modern man (non-Blacks) only began 5,800 years ago.
Written language is not 9,000 years old, as you repeatedly, baselessly, assert.
Archaic Hominin Introgression in Africa
Oxford Academic: Molecular Biology and Evolution
Published: 21 July 2017
ABSTRACT: A divergent MUC7 haplotype likely originated in an unknown African hominin
population and introgressed into ancestors of modern Africans.
Blacks have "wildly different" genes than modern man because they are mixed with literal
NON-HUMANS!
Modern man evolved from Blacks when they cross-breed with the large-brain Neanderthals
(literally a different species). Blacks are the only race with no Neanderthal DNA.
Civilizations didn't begin until the Neanderthal hybridization created the larger brains in
modern man.
Genetic distance is a measure of the genetic divergence between populations. Blacks have a
genetic distance of 0.23 from modern man, but only 0.17 from archaic man (believed to be
Erectus, but no DNA has been recovered to test). That means Blacks are more genetically
proximate to archaic man than to modern man.
The genetic distance between the races of man is also much greater than that between the
breeds of dog, and anyone who has experience with dogs knows what a huge difference breed
makes, not only in physical appearance but also in behavior and intelligence.
We share 98.4 percent of our genes with chimpanzees, 95 percent with dogs, and 74 percent
with microscopic roundworms. Only one chromosome determines if one is born male or female.
There is no discernible difference in the DNA of a wolf and a Labrador Retriever, yet their
inbred behavioral differences are immense. Clearly, what's meaningful is which genes differ
and how they are patterned, not the percent of genes. A tiny number of genes can translate
into huge functional differences.
So, to be consistent and objective with taxonomic classification systems, Blacks and
modern man should be classified into separate species, or at least into different
subspecies.
Modern man average 3% Neanderthal DNA, which would be an F4 (4th filial generation from
full purebred Neanderthal). That is about the same as most claiming Cherokee ancestors
today.
It is equivalent to having one Neanderthal great-great-great-grandparent. Blacks also
coexisted and interbred with archaic hominids (heidelbergensis) for longer than those who
left Africa.
@Alfred See my earlier reply pointing out that your suggestion of Australia having more
than a tiny inoculating dose of African origin blacks is total BS.
where the hell in Australia are you – not in any of the major cities that's for
sure .
Perhaps try reading more carefully, because "from" and "to" are different words, and have
different meanings. But what do I know, I'm just an idiot who thinks that details matter.
@RobbieSmith I agree that a source for each claim would be nice (it might be Wickerts),
but you're just as sloppy.
The claim was simply that
early childhood nutrition differences can cause IQ differences bigger than the average
difference between blacks and whites.
What made you interpret that as an assertion that childhood nutrition can cause a
2σ difference? If the difference caused by childhood nutrition is X and there is
genuinely a σ (15pt) gap in black-white IQ (of which more below)
"X > σ" does not imply X = 2σ
Now as to the black-white gap :
Dickens and Flynn (2006) indicate that the gap – measured at ~1.1σ (16.5pts)
in the late 1960s – closed by between 4 and 7 points (0.27σ-0.47σ) between
1972 and 2002.
So that would put the gap somewhere between 0.6σ and 0.8σ in 2002; call it
10pts just to make the arithmetic easier. It will have closed further since, as blacks have
become more (geographically) discriminating in terms of where they live and raise their kids
– thus reducing the deleterious environmental contribution to IQ.
(Note: nobody here is asserting that there's zero genetic contribution – just that
it can be swamped by environmental factors, especially if the environmental contribution is
strongly deleterious).
If childhood nutrition affects cognition (and anyone who disagrees with that should just
switch off their internet connection), then changes in the relative nutrition of blacks and
whites will have had some effect on the gap, and that effect is probably positive.
The biggest 'bang for the buck' in the relative improvements in childhood nutrition, will
be caused by changes in the largest demographic and/or the demographic where childhood
nutrition is worst to begin with.
For blacks, the largest demographic used to beinner-city dwellers with
household incomes significantly less than 40% of the white median .
That's pretty much a guarantee or poor food choices – low income plus 'food deserts'
plus low levels of education – and let's just stipulate the the level of government
services (including education) is "patchy at best" for the inner-urban poor, everywhere in
the West.
So if your expectations are anchored in about 1990, then you would expect poor black
childhood nutrition to have continued.
However
For those who pay attention to the data, it's clear that there has been a huge
'migration' of blacks out of cities and towards suburbs.
• In 1990, 57% of US blacks lived in inner cities – and 95 %
of blacks in the Northeast, Midwest, and West regions lived in inner cities. In 2000 55% of
all blacks in the largest 100 cities in the US, lived in the inner-city.
• By 2014 only 36% of US blacks lived in inner cities, and 52% of all blacks
in the largest 100 cities in the US, lived in the suburbs.
This black Exodus from inner cities later shows up as rising black household incomes and
employment levels in places that were 'destinations' in the exodus, and stagnant or falling
levels in the blighted urban areas.
So the blacks who didn't leave the inner-urban areas of major US cities
underperformed those who left: the ones who left were able to improve their relative position
– either because they were just better (smarter) people, or because they had access to
better opportunities, or some combination.
The median US black is now a suburbanite with nearer-to-white-average household income
than his 1990s, 2000, and 2014 counterpart.
With that in mind
Do you think that in the period since 2002, white children's nutrition improved at a
faster rate than black children's?
If you do think that, how do you reach that conclusion – given that there are
diminishing returns to 'improvement' available?
Once you get to the choice set available to households with white median income, there is
basically no 'juice' left: changing brands of muesli won't help as much as switching from
pop-tarts to muesli, which will have less effect than switching from nothing to
pop-tarts.
What we have seen since 1990 is 25% of the black population making positive choices, and
being able to switch their kids from nothing to muesli – i.e., they have
extracted all the IQ-juice there is to extract from childhood nutrition, in a little over a
generation.
.
The black/white IQ gap is closing. It's being caused by US blacks being afforded broader
opportunities, and trying to take them.
Nobody denies that inner-urban black males remain a highly-visible problem, however
they're also a small and shrinking demographic because the ongoing black exodus. It
stands to reason that the remaining blacks
The rest of the environmental part of the gap will get whittled away over time –
just as the gap between 'Whites' and Irishmen closed in less than a generation.
( WARNING : I fucking LOVE this example. I love it so much that I like to beat
people over the head with it).
The Irish were once considered irretrievably stupid, and prone to drunkenness and violence
(OK, those last two are fair enough) and of an average IQ more than 1σ below
Anglo-Saxons.
This was true until quite recently: people silly enough to believe the "Dumb Paddy" trope
will notice that the magic happened once the Irish got rich by becoming a
quasi-tax-haven.
More accurately: race/IQ-obsessives are also income-level obsessives, and once Eire
got closer to UK/US incomes they abandoned the "Drunken Paddy" trope.
Irish IQ – as measured by people who claim to be authorities – rose
σ in a period too short for even a Pikie to have grandchildren, let alone for
the grand babbies to be old enough to be tested (i.e., it could not have been
genetic ).
A 1972 study with N=3,466 yielded an average IQ of 87 for Paddies (
te-tee-tuh-tee ): the same ballpark as US blacks.
This the famous study that Lynn and Nyborg somehow 'omitted' – totally by accident,
despite it being very well known; being the largest-N of the early Irish studies; and being
data that they had previously referred to. Oopsies !!!
As it happens, my view of the 1972 study is that it is one of those things that happen all
the time: a large, quasi-random sample that produces estimates that are not remotely
congruent with the population from which the sample was taken. That's why people need to
understand statistical theory before they spout off about populaiton-wide averages (and more
importantly, the relative contributions of genetics and environment).
"The centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world." -- W. B. Yeats,
1919
Truth is the first victim in politics. Factions and passions rule. Random facts are picked as
weapons, no one thinks things through.
We need to understand the facts surrounding the death of George Floyd.
Many key facts are being ignored:
Floyd's blood tests showed a concentration of Fentanyl of
about three times the fatal dose. Fentanyl is a dangerous opioid 50 times more potent than
heroin. It has rapidly become the most common cause of death among drug addicts. The knee hold
used by the police is not a choke hold, it does not impede breathing. It is a body restraint and
is not known to have ever caused fatal injury. Floyd already began to complain "I can't breathe"
a few minutes before the neck restraint was applied, while resisting the officers when they tried
to get him into the squad car. Fentanyl affects the breathing, causing death by respiratory
arrest. It was normal procedure to restrain Floyd because he was resisting arrest, probably in
conjunction with excited delirium (EXD), an episode of violent agitation brought on by a drug
overdose, typically brief and ending in death from cardiopulmonary arrest. The official autopsy
did indeed give cardiopulmonary arrest as the cause of death, and stated that injuries he
sustained during the arrest were not life-threatening. Videos of the arrest do not show police
beating or striking Floyd, only calmly restraining him In one video Floyd is heard shouting and
groaning loudly and incoherently while restrained on the ground, which appears to be a sign of
the violent, shouting phase of EXD. His ability to resist four officers trying to get him into
the squad car is typical of EXD cases. A short spurt of superhuman strength is a classic EXD
symptom.
Minneapolis police officers have been charged with Floyd's murder. Yet all the evidence points
to the fact that Floyd had taken a drug overdose so strong that his imminent death could hardly
have been prevented. In all likelihood, the police were neither an intentional nor accidental
cause of his death. These crucial facts have been completely ignored in the uproar.
When scientists review scientific papers, they look primarily at the evidence, and give less
weight to the conclusions, which are only the other fellow's opinions. To blindly follow "expert
opinions" is the Authoritarian View of Knowledge. This is no real knowledge at all, because to
assess whether an expert is always right, we would need infinite knowledge, and doubly so when
experts disagree. Not thinking for oneself is not really thinking.
So let us stick to the evidence. The county's ambivalent autopsy also included the following
hard facts: "Toxicology Findings: Blood samples collected at 9:00 p.m. on May 25th, before Floyd
died, tested positive for the following: Fentanyl 11 ng/mL, Norfentanyl 5.6 ng/mL ,
Methamphetamine 19 ng/mL 86 ng/mL of morphine," but draws no conclusions therefrom, noting only
that "Quantities are given for those who are medically inclined."
If ever there was a leap before a look, we are in it now. Masses of people have become
extremists, based on conclusions that are as false as they are hasty.
One difficulty is that there are public statements to the effect that the coroner ruled it a
homicide, and the title of the autopsy report includes the term "neck compression." But the words
"homicide," "restraint," "stress" or "compression" do not appear in the 20-page body of the
report. References to the neck are few -- a couple minor abrasions, a contusion on the shoulder,
and "The cervical spinal column is palpably stable and free of hemorrhage." It is as if the title
was chosen in regard to what was expected or proposed, but which was never found, and the title
was never updated. There seems to be no support at all in the report body for the report title,
which reads, "Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck
compression."
The term "cause of death" does not appear. The words "death" and "fatal" only appear in this
comment in the lab report: "Signs associated with fentanyl toxicity include severe respiratory
depression, seizures, hypotension, coma and death . In fatalities from fentanyl, blood
concentrations are variable and have been reported as low as 3 ng/mL." Floyd's fentanyl level was
seven times higher.
If first impressions via the media fooled the coroner's office, until they examined the body,
we too can be fooled at first, but change our opinion according to the evidence.
Excited Delirium Syndrome
An additional hypothesis involves Excited Delirium Syndrome (EXD), a symptom of drug overdose
which sometimes appears in the final minutes preceding death. EXD typically results from fatal
drug abuse, in past years from cocaine or crack, more recently from fentanyl, which is 50 times
more potent than heroin. Especially dangerous are street drugs like meth, heroin or cocaine laced
with fentanyl.
According to an article in the Western Journal of Emergency Medicine (WJEM), 2011: [5]
https://westjem.com/articles/excited-delirium.html "Excited delirium (EXD) is characterized
by agitation, aggression, acute distress and sudden death, often in the pre-hospital care
setting. It is typically associated with the use of drugs. Subjects typically die from
cardiopulmonary arrest all accounts describe almost the exact same sequence of events: delirium
with agitation (fear, panic, shouting, violence and hyperactivity), sudden cessation of struggle,
respiratory arrest and death ."
It appears that an EXD episode began when the officers tried to get Floyd into the squad car.
He resisted, citing "claustrophobia" -- the onset of the fear and panic phase, and "I can't
breathe" -- difficulty breathing due to fentanyl locking into the breathing receptors in the
brain. (Classic symptoms of EXD are highlighted in bold.) He then exhibited unexpected strength
from the adrenaline spike in successfully resisting the efforts of four officers to get him into
the car. We may never know whether Floyd's agitation was caused purely from the EXD adrenaline
spike, or if it was aggravated by police attempts to subdue him -- but a subject defying the
efforts of multiple officers to subdue him is a very common theme.
When Chauvin pulled him out of the car he fell to the ground, perhaps due to disorientation
and reduced coordination. Presumably this was when he injured his mouth and his nose started to
bleed, and the police made the first call for paramedics.
While restrained on the ground, Floyd exhibited agitation ( shouting and hyperactivity, trying
to move back and forth) for several minutes. There is one brief video at this point. One hears
Floyd shouting very loudly, as in the agitated delirium phase -- it sounds like, "My face is
stoned ah hah, ah haaa, ah please people, please, please let me stand, please, ah hah, ah haaa!"
[6]
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-video-appea...17476/ . In a few minutes this was
followed by " sudden cessation of struggle, respiratory arrest and death, " shown in a later
video, where he becomes exhausted, and had stopped breathing when the ambulance arrived.
[7]
https://www.facebook.com/darnellareallprettymarie/vi...61280/
It appears that disorientation had already set in when the store employees went to Floyd's car
and asked him to return the cigarettes he had bought for a fake $20 bill. He refused, and they
reported the incident to the police, saying that he appeared to be very intoxicated. He certainly
must have been, or he would have either returned the cigarettes or left quickly to avoid arrest.
Loss of judgment is a symptom of the syndrome; this includes futile efforts to resist arrest.
Police Intervention and Intentions
The EXD diagnosis is controversial and in some quarters is viewed as an alibi for police
brutality. The WJEM authors note, "Since the victims frequently die while being restrained or in
the custody of law enforcement, there has been speculation over the years of police brutality
being the underlying cause. However, it is important to note that the vast majority of deaths
occur suddenly prior to capture, in the emergency department (ED), or unwitnessed at home."
Regarding restraint, they note, "people experiencing EXD are highly agitated, violent, and
show signs of unexpected strength, so it is not surprising that most require physical restraint.
The prone maximal restraint position (PMRP, also known as "hobble" or "hogtie"), where the
person's ankles and wrists are bound together behind their back, has been used extensively by
field personnel. In far fewer cases, persons have been tied to a hospital gurney or manually held
prone with knee pressure on the back or neck."
This latter position is what the accused officer Chauvin was applying, although at one point
the team did consider using a hobble. Physical restraint of the subject has always been the
classical procedure, to prevent the subject harming themselves or others. It has been proposed
that restraint helps to forestall injury and death by conserving the subject's energy, but most
experts believe that by leading to an intense struggle, it increases the likelihood of a fatal
outcome.
Since knowingly using counterfeit currency is a fairly serious offense, the Minneapolis
officers were required to arrest Floyd and try to bring him in. When he violently resisted, the
optimal choice could have been to let him sit against a wall and guard him while calling an
ambulance. To be able to quickly switch from law enforcement mode to emergency care mode requires
training in recognizing the symptoms.
The charge sheet against Chauvin included this exchange between the two white officers on the
squad: [8]
https://www.startribune.com/protests-build-anew-afte...869672 ""I am worried about excited
delirium or whatever," Lane said. "That's why we have him on his stomach," Chauvin said."
According to this dialogue, Chauvin was apparently was trying to follow the protocol
recommended by WJEM. Since Floyd was on his stomach, Chauvin's knee pinned him at the side of his
neck, and did not impede breathing. Commentators are referring to Chauvin "kneeling" on Floyd's
neck, or resting his weight on it. From videos it is hard to gauge how much weight he applied,
but the correct procedure is just enough to restrain movement, not to crush the person.
Chauvin and his team might not have done everything perfectly, but it is easy to underestimate
the difficulty of police work, particularly in cases of resisting arrest, whether willfully or
due to intoxication. If they had been clairvoyant clinicians, they would have called an ambulance
the moment they saw him. Better training is needed. Was the police department then responsible?
Might the department have given the needed training if the AMA had acknowledged the existence of
the syndrome? This brings up a paradox: could police critics who deny the syndrome then bear part
of the responsibility for the deaths they decry? The syndrome is being recognized by law
enforcement after the fact. It needs to be recognized as it is happening.
With a fatal overdose there is no good outcome possible, but there is no way for police to
foresee that. Sometimes EXD can last longer, and it is not always fatal. Perhaps the ACEP Task
Force on EXD will update their report and provide guidelines to help police identify and deal
with EXD while avoiding accusations of police brutality.
In one video [10]
https://www.facebook.com/darnellareallprettymarie/vi...61280/ Chauvin continued to apply the
neck restraint although bystanders repeatedly objected, and even after Floyd stopped moving. As
Floyd became exhausted, it could have been reasonable to relax the restraint to see if it was
really necessary. Chauvin didn't seem to respond to the bystanders to give a medical reason for
the restraint. His actions were consistent with a belief that police should restrain the subject
until medevacs arrive. Videos show the police focused on restraint, never beating or striking
Floyd. The restraint and verbal exchanges with Floyd are also consistent with a belief that he
was resisting arrest, by refusing to get in the squad car. When he said "I can't breathe," they
responded "You're talking fine." When they said "Get in the car," he didn't agree to.
EXD seems to be the most likely reason why Floyd suddenly refused to get into the squad car,
and began to shout and writhe on the ground. With or without EXD or police intervention, he was
going to die quickly from fentanyl, short of immediate intensive care. A common treatment for EXD
is sedation with drugs like ketamine. The usual antidote for fentanyl is naloxone. Higher levels
of fentanyl may require intravenous naloxone for 24 hours or more.
He also fell down twice, which could be seen either as a sign of intoxication or resisting
arrest. The officers knew it was a drug overdose, as Thao told bystanders, "This is why you don't
do drugs, kids." By the way, this Wikipedia article should be named "Death of George Floyd," as
an accused is innocent until proven guilty. and then completely stopped breathing, this was the
onset of respiratory arrest, which is how a fentanyl overdose kills.
While police work is needed to trace the source of these dangerous drugs, the problems of drug
addiction and crime have deep causes and can only be contained, not solved, by the police.
Whatever our society has been doing about these problems is not working.
Right now, our civilization risks being torn apart by the passions of extremism, due to a
misunderstanding. Please share this analysis, as an appeal to return to reason.
Reviewer comment: "My first thought is why it has been left to you to figure this out, when
we pay professional journalists to investigate these things, and why aren't the police and
politicians telling us about this."
A good question which gives a clue to something I've been wondering about. When other
commentators publish within hours, why does it take me a week or two to finish an article like
this? Journalists are usually under a deadline to produce stories quickly, whereas it takes a lot
of research and reflection to develop an original thesis into a fair and coherent explanation of
events.
Everyone tends to have an agenda, and to look for facts to support it. Police brutality or
looters running amok may be more newsworthy than a chronic problem like drug abuse. The best
agenda now is to take a break to focus on facts, or else an "Excited Delirium" could become a
contagion that engulfs our nation.
A young white man died in Dallas a few years ago, after being restrained by the police with
the knee on his back. My respondent believed he suffocated, but the actual autopsy said cardiac
arrest due to cocaine, overdose EXD, and stress from restraint by police officers.
Tony Timpa had not only taken an overdose of cocaine, plus he was off his anti-schizophrenia
medicine. Mental illness can also be a trigger for EXD, and according to the autopsy report, he
displayed all the classic symptoms. The first phase, fear and panic, was fear of the onset of
delirium itself -- he himself called 911 for help. By the time the police arrived, security
guards had already handcuffed him to restrain him. He was incoherent, out of control, found lying
on the ground, the typical EXD position. The police pinned him down with a knee on his back for
13 minutes, saying he was at risk of rolling into the roadway, and suddenly he was dead.
Tony Timpa died in 2016. The family got the run-around, [16]
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/investigations/2019/...timpa/ and an autopsy was not released
until 2019. The body cam footage was released, which showed the police behaving callously towards
the subject. The officers were originally charged with homicide, but it was found they were not
at fault, charges were dropped and they were reinstated. Timpa's case is very similar to Floyd
case in many ways, and there are also many differences -- the starkest of course being the
intensity of the public reaction.
Based on the case history and autopsy findings, it is my opinion that Anthony Alan Timpa, a
32-year-old white male, died as a result of sudden cardiac death due to the toxic effects of
cocaine and physiologic stress associated with physical restraint.
Cardiac hypertrophy and bipolar disorder contributed to his death.
The mechanism of death in cases such as this is sometimes referred to as "excited delirium."
Classically, people affected by EDS are witnessed to exhibit erratic or aggressive behavior,
and will often "throw off" attempts at restraint, requiring multiple people to subdue them. The
person will appear to calm down and will suddenly become unresponsive. Most cases are
associated with drug intoxication and/or illness.
In this case, several factors likely contributed to the death. The surveillance and body cam
footage and witness reports fit the classic scenario of excited delirium and cocaine use and
illness (bipolar disorder) are common predisposing risk factors for EDS. Cocaine leads to
increased heart rate and increased blood pressure, making a cardiac arrhythmia more likely. Due
to his prone position and physical restraint by an officer, an element of mechanical or
positional asphyxia cannot be ruled out (although he was seen to be yelling and fighting for
the majority ofthe restraint). His enlarged heart size also put him at risk for sudden cardiac
death.
Although the decedent only had superficial injuries, the manner of death will be ruled a
homicide, as the stress of being restrained and extreme physical exertion contributed to his
demise.
MANNER OF DEATH: Homicide
[Signatures and seals of medical examiners]
(Note that homicide is not the same as murder, it also includes unintentional or accidental
actions contributing to death.)
Anthony Timpa autopsy p. 5, blood tests -- Cocaine and metabolites
If we add the three numbers above for cocaine and metabolytes together it comes to about 18
mg/L. This is anywhere from 3 to 18 times the lethal dose. With such an overdose, plus being
without his schizophrenia medication, Timpa had little if any chance of surviving.
Here's the Wikipedia entry on Timpa, part of a series on the Dallas police.
On August 10, 2016, Dallas Police killed Tony Timpa, a 32-year-old resident who had not taken
his medication. Timpa was already handcuffed while a group of officers pressed his body into the
ground while he squirmed. It took over three years for footage of the incident to be released.
The footage contradicted claims by Dallas Police that Timpa was aggressive Criminal charges
against three officers were dropped in March 2019 and officers returned to active duty."
Wikipedia doesn't even mention cocaine, although that was the main cause of death. Likewise,
the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_George_Floyd
makes no mention of a drug overdose or excited delirium. By entitling the articles "Killing"
rather than "Death," Wikipedians appoint themselves as a court of law.
It must be observed that the Minneapolis officers acted with far more consideration towards
Floyd than the treatment Timpa received in Dallas. The way the officers made fun of Timpa was a
scandal. [19]
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/01/us/tony-timpa-dal...m.html Then they were surprised when
he suddenly died.
It is strange that George Floyd's case is taken as proof of systemic racism, when Tony Timpa
got much worse treatment -- even though Timpa hadn't committed any crime, had no police record,
and even called 911 himself.
Isn't it odd, when we have a problem in the United States of many shootings by -- and of --
the police, that such an uproar has arisen, over a case where the police actually had little or
nothing to do with the man's demise?
The stress of restraint is most likely incidental. As reported by the WJEM, "Victims who do
not immediately come to police attention are often found dead in the bathroom surrounded by wet
towels and/or clothing and empty ice trays, apparently succumbing during failed attempts to
rapidly cool down." Hyperthermia or high body temperature is a classic symptom of EXD. Enormous
energy is released by an uncontrolled adrenaline spike. The heat also feeds delirium, which is a
familiar symptom of high fever.
Normally, it's assumed that stress factors contribute to a heart attack, as medical examiners
wrote in both the Floyd and Timpa cases. Yet the WJEM notes that "one important study found that
only 18 of 214 individuals identified as having EXD died while being restrained or taken into
custody." All victims died of cardiopulmonary arrest. Drug overdose and EXD are sufficient causes
for this outcome.
Both Floyd and Timpa had taken overdoses at triple the lethal level. Enough drugs to kill them
three times over. Yet you can only die once so how could the stress of restraint contribute more
to their deaths? You can't contribute to a glass that's already full three times over. That is a
little like saying that someone died because their parachute didn't open, and the weight of their
backpack also contributed to the fall. But they die from the fall once they hit the ground,
whether it's at 120 mph or 122 mph.
In conclusion, excited delirium should be treated as a medical condition, at high risk of
ending quickly in sudden death. An ambulance should be called immediately. Only the minimum
necessary restraint should be applied. Police and paramedics should be trained in the symptoms
and handling protocols.
It would be helpful if the AMA would recognize EXD as a real condition, rather than dismissing
it as a cover story for police brutality. Ignorance of the symptoms can lead to unintentional
cruelty by police, when they assume they are confronted by a typical case of a criminal violently
resisting arrest, rather than a patient with a life-threatening intoxication.
[2]
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/02/02/fentanyl-overdose-dont-count-naloxone-save-you-10822
"The patients who were dead on arrival had gone into cardiac arrest due to blood concentrations
of fentanyl that were much higher than what is administered therapeutically. " Patients who died
in hospital had concentrations of 9.5 ng/mL to 13 ng/mL. See also note 13. In other studies of
death from heroin and morphine, there were deaths from only 100 ng/ml of morphine and "all cases
with a blood concentration of 200 ng/ml and more of free morphine displayed a fatal outcome."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11040428_Fatal_versus_non-fatal_heroin_overdose_Blood_morphine_concentrations_with_fatal_outcome_in_comparison_to_those_of_intoxicated_drivers
(Heroin quickly metabolizes into morphine.) Fentanyl is considered 100 times more potent than
morphine. By this comparison, Floyd's blood fentanyl concentration could have been 10 times the
fatal level. In addition his morphine concentration of 86 ng/mL would usually be fatal by
itself.
Concentration levels are relative to the volume of blood, so are independent of body size.
[4]
The knee on the neck is a body hold, not a chokehold or carotid restraint, which involves putting
pressure precisely on both carotid arteries, located on either side of the throat. A carotid
restraint is usually applied by an elbow, and causes the subject to pass out in as little as 15
seconds. Blocking the arteries does not stop the breathing or heartbeat (pulmonary or cardiac
arrest), which Floyd suffered after being restrained for many minutes. Once pressure on the
arteries is released, the subject normally regains consciousness quickly.
[9]
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/media/publications/acep_report_on_excited_delirium_syndrome_sept_2009.pdf
See also the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court, "[t]he problems posed by, and thus the tactics
to be employed against, an unarmed, emotionally distraught individual who is creating a
disturbance or resisting arrest are ordinarily different from those involved in law enforcement
efforts to subdue an armed and dangerous criminal who has recently committed a serious offense."
in "Explaining the Unexplainable: Excited Delirium Syndrome and Its Impact on the Objective
Reasonableness Standard for Allegations of Excessive Force," https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1379&context=lj
The first few pages relate a narrative similar to the Floyd case, involving multiple police
subduing a violent EXD victim, who suddenly dies from exhaustion. A media uproar then arises
against alleged police brutality.
[11]
From the incident report of the fire truck that was called to the scene, it appears that both
police and bystanders called 911 for emergency medical services (EMS). The first call was Code 2,
apparently for Floyd's nosebleed, which summoned a fire truck, followed by a more urgent code 3,
which was said to bring an ambulance within six minutes. It appears the police called the
ambulance when Floyd's breathing and heartbeat stopped.
https://www.startribune.com/first-responders-worked-nearly-an-hour-to-save-floyd-before-he-was-pronounced-dead/570806682/
"Floyd goes limp and appears to lose consciousness. Hennepin EMS then arrive six minutes after
the distress call." The article refers to the incident report by the fire truck, http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@mpd/documents/webcontent/wcmsp-224680.pdf
which has a note implying the first call to EMS was from police and another call came from
bystanders: "No clear info on pt [patient] or location was given by either initial pd [police
department] officers or bystanders." We need an incident report from the ambulance.
[12]
TV news clips showing police restraining subjects who are exhibiting EXD symptoms and violently
resisting arrest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qCqjuqEWEc A
TV news report and cellphone video on a more humane method of managing an EXD case, thanks to
police training, putting safety of the subject and of bystanders first, rather than restraints.
However, no details are given about the outcome or the drug dose. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qCqjuqEWEc
[14]
Wikipedia has a detailed narrative of the incident here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_George_Floyd
. Certain notes there support the thesis of fentanyl intoxication, and resisting arrest as part
of an EXD syndrome. Floyd struggled with Lane before leaving his own vehicle, and again when
Kueng, then all four officers, tried to get him into the squad car. Floyd already complained he
couldn't breathe before they tried to get him into the police car, without any neck restraint,
indicating the onset of respiratory depression from fentanyl.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/george-floyd-protest-updates-arrests-america-approaching-10000/story?id=71038665
"They all tried to force Floyd into the backseat, during which time Floyd said he could not
breathe, according to the complaint."
He also fell down twice, which could be seen either as a sign of intoxication or resisting
arrest. The officers knew it was a drug overdose, as Thao told bystanders, "This is why you don't
do drugs, kids." By the way, this Wikipedia article should be named "Death of George Floyd," as
an accused is innocent until proven guilty.
[21]
"According to Dr. Assaad Sayah, Chief of Emergency Medicine at Cambridge Health Alliance, Excited
Delirium Syndrome can be best explained as a 'physical response to an actual psychological [or
drug] problem resulting in their autonomic systems producing too much adrenaline.' Dr. Sayah
analogizes it to 'having too much nitrous in a car; eventually the engine will blow up.' In most
cases, the cause of death is either 'a heart attack or, less frequently, respiratory failure.'
Dr. Vincent Di Maio estimated that Excited Delirium Syndrome kills 800 people every year in
police altercations because the victims "are just overexciting [their] heart from the drugs and
from the struggle.'" Op. cit.https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1379&context=lj
I think more likely he died of a Covid-19 induced heart attack. Heart disease is the #1
comorbidity of Covid19. Doctors have talked about patients of Covid19 dying of sudden heart
attacks at a high rate. Floyd was Covid19 positive, and he also had heart disease and
hypertension, the top two comorbidity of Covid19.
That is over three times the lethal overdose, following earlier reports where the highest dose
survived was 4.6 ng/mL.
Good points. And before this, all we ever heard about was how deadly fentanyl is. It killed Tom
Petty and is so potent, it killed him via skin absorption! Now, however, the Back Flow Media
(BFM) ;-), has agendas to push and truth ain't one of them.
Unfortunately, those who need to learn these facts have no interest in truth. Logic, reason,
common sense, and all such things are thrown out; instead, the mob controls based upon who
yells the loudest, not who makes the most fact-based sense.
People don't riot over the specific police murder that sets it off. They riot because they are
sick and tired of the ways cops treat them–one of the ways being to murder them. If you
don't like the Floyd murder, I got a couple thousand other cop murders for ya, and I would like
to see you write such a stirring defense of cop-killed bodies riddled with hundreds of rounds
of automatic weapons fire. Including all the dead white people.
No denying that Floyd was a thug. Neither would any amount of denying alter the fact that he
died at the hand – rather the knee – of a racist cop. Get over it, supremacists.
It really does not matter. The Jewish mainstream media has tried and convicted the officers.
They will never get a fair trial and are screwed. Saint George will have to be avenged or there
will be more riots, arson and looting which the same degenerate media will call "protests".
So they could have left him alone and he would have died anyway, another statistic.
It does imply intrusive policing invites unintended consequences. For the counterfeit
$20, a summons would have been sufficient. Then George could have crawled off, go home to
Jesus, and we could have been spared the phoniest and most overblown freak show since the Fall
of Babylon.
Let them patrol their own 'hoods and be done with all this.
Fentanyl Floyd was a drug peddler and a petty criminal who got caught in the act of selling
drugs by patrolling police. Panicking, he swallowed his own stash and overdosed as a result.
Now he is being retconned into a saint.
I think Floyd was being passive aggressive rather than resisting as such. What was done to him
by Chaving was punishment out of frustration, but the duration was well outside normal
practice.
Floyd already began to complain "I can't breathe" a few minutes before the neck restraint
was applied,
That will be a dangerous argument for Chauvin's defence counsel to make to the court,
because it will be opening the door to a telling counter argument: Floyd's breathing was
restricted after he reported respiratory distress.
If it was a Fentanyl overdose they ought to have given him Narcan antidote, not put weight
on his ribcage while he was face down and his hands cuffed behind him; a contributory cause
according to the autopsy, which found wrist bruises.
@Anon
There's no such thing as a heart attack induced by covid-19.
People who have been hospitalized for heart disease, and subsequently test positive for
covid-19, don't usually die from the virus they die from their underlying heart disease
condition.
I saw the video. Looked like just another hoax to me. Weight on his other knee, looking right
at the camera while "killing" someone, yada yada. Officer Chauvin, fer Chrissake. Officer
Racist would be too much even for stupid goyim. 8 minutes my ass. Aces and eights anyone? The
point of this fentenyl dohicky is to pretend it really happened. Just another deep state psyop
I say. But go ahead and argue about it. Makes it easier to steal 10 trillion from the US
taxpayer.
This guy is channeling Johnny Cochran. Yes, we know O.J. didn't do it either, because Nicole
Brown was high on lethal amounts of cocaine, and Ron Goldman was mainlining deadly amounts of
horse(heads almost fall off when this happens)
You see, the amount of imaginary fantasy is endless which feeds the inter-civilian war of
people-against-people while the State remains blissfully secure knowing that those who control
the media(narrative) will always win
Otherwise, yea, we get it, the police are always honest, justice is blind, your vote counts,
your money is secure, god loves you, the vaccine is harmless, and your children are doing a
great service by telling the government instructor(school teacher) that you smoke pot, so the
state can seize everything you own.
Your underlying analysis is incorrect. People overdose at much higher levels and live through
it. Maybe the cops should have been more interested in why he was presenting in an altered
state and called an EMT, than carting him off to jail for a possible forged $20 bill.
The mean serum concentrations of fentanyl in their patients was (52.9 ng/mL) with a range of
7.9-162.3 ng/ml.
One of the 18 patients died in hospital. Five patients underwent cardiopulmonary
resuscitation, one required extracorporeal life support, three required intubation, and two
received bag-valve-mask ventilation. One patient had recurrence of toxicity after 8 hours after
naloxone discontinuation. Seventeen of 18 patients required boluses of naloxone, and four
required prolonged naloxone infusions (26–39 hours). All 18 patients tested positive for
fentanyl in the serum. Quantitative assays conducted in 13 of the sera revealed fentanyl
concentrations of 7.9 to 162 ng/mL (mean = 52.9 ng/mL).
The author starts one paragraph with "in conclusion", LOL again LOL
Once again missing the point,intentionally,misdirecting. It's a FALSE FLAG
Street theater duh, set up Fromthestart. Plandemic.Seriously,it creates jobs.
Liars oops I mean lawyers,oops I mean poly ticks,locally,nationally,
all the way to the jewdicial branch and congress and beyond.GET REAL.
It's far worse than that.An elder told me they don't believe in IQ.
The facts and investigations and evidence don't do nuffin after the incurred LOSS
of SO much time,money,energy,community,productivity,confidence,SANITY etc.
THIS is COUP and" it's no where near in conclusion." that's my comment,thanks
peace,love, life
Excellent article which should be on the front page of every major paper in the USA. The part
on the Excited Delirium Syndrome is new to me but it's interesting .It illustrates nicely this
civil disorder has nothing to do with Mr Floyd. I just hope officer Chauvins defence team makes
good use of this information.
As a retired pharmacist I'm surprised by the use of fentanyl as a drug of abuse. The
therapeutic dose banding is very small, its very potent , it is a very short acting drug and
it's a drug that only an anaesthetist should consider using or abusing. Its a very potent
respiratory depressant that has a nasty habit of producing a delayed action hours after the
affect has apparently worn off. Fentanyl also causes heart slowing and any anaesthetist would
give other drugs to counter that effect to keep the patient under control.
Now lets look at the photo of other officers using the correct Israeli defence force pin
down
Notice that the knee and leg not doing the pinning is not on the ground therefore all the
weight of the body is brought to bear on the victims neck and the major blood vessels under the
knee. Now look at officer Caulvin his right boot toe is on the ground along with his right
knee. Try it yourselves on a pillow, you cannot bring any force to bear , at best you are
holding someone with that pose. He also looks under no stress from Mr Floyd with his hold. At
5′ 8" I would be using the IDF method if I had to restrain Mr Floyd, but lets be honest I
would avoid him full stop. There is also the fun part of trying to hit and subdue someone who
thanks the the Fentanyl in his system would feel little pain.
This whole thing looks very suspicious to me , and the speed with which the thing went global
even more suspicious. The speed that people appeared with expensive t-shirts and hoodies all
bearing
"I cannot breath" printed on the front in many locations simultaneously along with the piles of
bricks and attacks on statues has a pre-planned Soros and Antifa agenda all over it.
I'm sure that the author of this article, who I assume isn't a drug addict, will be totally
fine if a racist white thug in uniform with a history of murdering people knelt on his neck for
nine minutes with its hands in its pockets. Yes, it was the drugs all along!
His ability to resist four officers trying to get him into the squad car is typical of EXD
cases.
When did this happen, exactly? The security cam video show that two [2] officers succeeded
to get Floyd into the back seat of the cruiser. Then, one officer pulled him out on the other
side.
I've read plenty about ExD, and believe that Chauvin will make a successful defense. Your '4
men failed' spared me reading this long slog.
Gotta protect those israeli occupation troops at all costs and keep their colonial police state
(that's the usa, neanderthals) a colonial police state. Should those dumb goy animals unite and
force our quislings out, who knows what might befall our "sacred homeland".
Did drugs kill George Floyd ? Does it matter ?
This affair is one of public perception.
The perception IS that Chauvin used excessive force. The guy died after that "force" whether
excessive or not. People, rightly or wrongly see cause & effect.
As for your points about overdose ? Fairly weak. Every minute that passes the likelihood of
overdose decreases. Overdoses don't hide in your system for 20 minutes (excluding digestion or
assimilation) & then jump out & shut down your heart.
Floyd may have appeared intoxicated, but he also appeared functional for a "normal" unstressful
setting.
He sat down, handcuffed, against a wall for some minutes without "losing it".
Also interesting -- they had him in the police car -- then dragged him out for lack of
compliance. Why ? Let him sit in the locked, secure police back seat, So he screams & makes
a fuss ? Arrestees are known to do that. But no, they drag him out (still handcuffed) &
THREE of them get on top of him: one on legs, one on the torso, & one on his neck. And stay
that way for nearly 9 minutes. And its not like they don't know he's physically problematic --
they call the EMS early on.
Now lets imagine that you have a problem with your heart or breathing (he tells them numerous
times about his breathing, not necessarily entirely from physical airway blockage, but from
panic -- psychology rendering the act of breathing difficult )– would being pinned to the
road by 3 burly men, one of them exerting some pressure on your neck not cause some
degree of panic ? Could some people be near to literally shitting themselves from panic ? Would
such fear & panic not be contraindicated in a man for whom you have already called the EMS
?
Funny thing, was I a police man I would have asked Floyd to sit in his car (yes, take his keys
& guard him) while I had a look at this so-called counterfeit bill. I mean, that's the
point isn't it ? this whole abortion rests on passing a dodgy $ 20. (Knowingly passing: I
wonder how many shonky US bills there are out there millions ?).
So Floyd is probably a scumbag -- so ? The whole affair looks appalling. And that really
IS the point here.
"Systemic racism" is simply POC and non-European descended Whites saying that they cannot live
in Western (or, indeed, industrial) society,
The POC are correct in this. Who, after all, is qualified to tell them that they are wrong?
George Floyd was destroyed by "systemic racism" in the above sense. Even East Asians and South
Asians with high enough IQ and sufficient emotional control to live in Western (industrial)
society strongly condemn the lack of organization in such societies, and the absence of the
protective social organizations (caste, a directive government/social organization) that are
characteristic of their homelands. Middle Eastern Whites condemn the absence of the tribal /
honor / religious system that characterizes their countries of origin.
POC and non-European descended Whites want Western ( industrial) society changed or destroyed
for their benefit.
This is a serious and irresolvable conflict of interest, for the European descended Whites are
just as unable to live in the home societies of various POC and non-European descended White
groups as these groups are unable to live in Western (industrial) society.
Note that the above irresolvable conflict of interest is not ever discussed directly. This
is characteristic of major irresolvable conflicts of interest. WW II is a good example of this
(see the American Pravda articles, unz.com , for
support of this assertion). All of the participants (except possibly Hitler, who apparently
wanted a European Empire allied to the British Empire) thought it was "them or us" (hence the
"unconditional surrender" demands from the Allies), and thus had strong reasons for fighting.
These reasons were not used in propaganda by any side. Propaganda based on self interest of the
"only one Empire will survive" type makes poor propaganda. So does propaganda based on what
amounts to a multi-sided volkwandering ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswanderung
), which is what we seem to be entering into.
Good propaganda is smoke -- mythic appeals, but to a non-applicable myth, with irrelevant
"proof". George Floyd is an example of how this is supposed to work.
The interesting thing about this situation is that it is the OC and non-European descended
Whites are the ones insisting that they cannot live in the West / industrial civilization.
Granted that the Left wing of the Democratic Party is the proximate cause of the current
offensive, attempted Antifa leadership of the offensive has been largely repudiated or simply
ignored by the various POC. Understanding the basics of this situation requires that the
objections of the POC and non-European descended Whites be taken seriously and understood, as I
have tried to do above.
@Sean
If it was a Fentanyl overdose they ought to have given him Narcan antidote,
Are you serious?
These cops meant to make an instant medical diagnosis.
Decide the problem and drug involved.
Produce an antidote.
And administer it.
What planet are you on?
And had they administered the wrong drug .?
They would be crucified as well.
Its hard to believe you can really believe that comment yourself.
Its sheer prejudice and blah for BLM.
And a grossly unfair accusation.
*Since the MSM and many of our leaders are in sync with BLM, we should just turn the country
over to them since they've done a great job within their own "neighborhoods."
*It's pretty useless to say the MSM loves BLM. The MSM does what the folks who control/own
it tell it to do.
*Per BLM's demand, cops should stop patrolling black neighborhoods and instead boost
patrolling non-black neighborhoods to reduce crime there.
Police were not arresting him for the counterfeit bill. If you pass a counterfeit bill you are
interviewed by police so they can attempt to trace its origin.
Where did you get cash?
Where do you cash your checks?
Did you get this as change for a larger bill? Where?
He was detained because when they came up to him in the car he was obviously intoxicated and
behind the wheel. Also rewatch the security tape and see the cop talks to him for 2 minutes and
at one point is so worried by whatever Floyd was doing he unholstered his gun but didn't point
it. Floyd also had no ID on him.
So it's a cascade of events that lead to his arrest. Police can't ID an intoxicated person
behind the wheel of a car. Try to get him out of the car and he immediately starts
resisting.
@Sparkylyle92
" I saw the video. Looked like just another hoax to me"
Here's an excellent analysis of 3 of the alleged live, completely contradictory videos on
this alleged event, which quite clearly show it to be hoax perpetrated via crisis actors, fake
police and EMT's. :
@Anonymous
I'm curious about this "racist cop" trope that's become pretty common. Is it common for
"racists" to be married to someone of another race as Chauvin is? I'd think a "racist" would
favor a spouse of their own race, no? Seems to me, to you crazies on the left, Pale skin makes
a person a "racist ". It's become a truth in America that the only definition of "racist" is
White. The word is, therefore, meaningless. Floyd died because of his drug use and criminal
activity. Not a knee on the back of his neck.
@SOL
I second that. Problem is there is no satisfying the BLM folks. They are suffering from PTSD
because of our history of slavery. This is sort of like vets who have PTSD, but the key
difference being vets actually participated in a war whereas no black living was a part of our
history of slavery.
The solution is for the BLM and lgbtqi folks to join forces and put forth a black tranny
candidate to solve all our problems.
Why should we believe the "report"? why not believe our lying eyes? Who released this "report"?
Where is an independent verification? I'll wait, thanks, for a report that has been released by
an independent source that is confirmed by the family.
I'm sure that the author of this article, who I assume isn't a drug addict, will be
totally fine if a racist white thug in uniform with a history of murdering people knelt on
his neck for nine minutes with its hands in its pockets. Yes, it was the drugs all along!
When I see a comment like this on an article as closely reasoned and supported as this one,
I wonder whether public schools teach the ability to read.
You can check my previous posts and see that these are precisely the points I made from a
very casual glance at the autopsy report and a little knowledge of police motivations. That was
right after the incident occurred. Videos and photos are very poor evidence because they only
raise emotional response.
Thank you, Ron Unz, for being brave enough to publish this article.
I guess the defense is entitled to a defense. I guess that is the benefit of having two
coroner's reports. The skill and advocacy of the police unions to manufacture alternative
theories and creates smoke as defense is light years ahead of antifa, BLM or the KKKK.
Te problem with the the current system is not dug induced males sitting on their cars o
falling asleep in drive thrus or jogging in around empty construction sites or waiting for tow
trucks, or selling cigarettes, or avoiding creepy guys stalking the in apartment complexes, or
sleeping in their beds or or walking with some white women --
It's the loss of credibility. The police unions can have the officers walk out as they ave
routinely done as a means of black mail holding cities hostage, but at the end of the day, what
technology is doing is unavailing a side of Wyatt Earp the public would rather not see even if
they know what's up. It's the system in a manner of exposure unlike it's even been used to.
It's the collapse of the arguments for invading countries that are not a threat. It's the
collapse of the internal dialogues among the agencies in multiple arenas of government force.
It's Ruby Ridge, It's Waco, It's Baltimore, It's Fergusaon. It's Oakland. It's Baton Rouge.
It's New Jersey. It's . . . It's balloting were the 1 per-center is suddenly number one,. Utter
nonsense such as written in the Fergason Report. It's nonsense such as the Ferguson Effect.It's
a news system, that is serious doubt. It's bail out for WS, repeatedly and then throwing the
payees f bail out out of works. It is stagnant wages. It's hiring and executive to make a
serious shift ad the best he could do hire ore part time citizens and embrace more
immigrants.
It's the system saying it's not the system. It;s loosening up credit for businesses and the
rules for consumers tighter. It's watching something on film as it happens and then being told
what you saw is not what happened.
It's the unmasking of tactics used by the system to shield itself from accountability. And
perhaps worst of all, we believing what the system tells us because believing reality is just
to tough a road to to travel. It is the system saying . . . it's not the system.
-- -- --
uhh No. I didn't believe there was a reason to invade Ira or Afghanistan or any of the
subsequent intentions by the former Vietnam protester "we lost Vietnam" crowd as I am that Mr.
Floyd died from a drug overdoese.
And none of the smoke and mirrors: that Pres Hussein was a bad person, that the Taliban were
in on 9/11, that the family occupying Ruby Ridge were Nazis, Mr. Koresh was a demon, there's a
Fergason Effect, that blacks are just bad innately and whites are angelic beings along with
browns and yellows worthy of pass, or that IQ is destined by some unique, unknown and unseen
genetic code, that the Russians sabotaged US elections, . . . or US lost Vietnam (no it did
not). If I start buying onto the nonsense spouted as truth to escape accountability before you
know it, I will start advocating that slaves were just immigrants coming the continent for
better jobs and life.
@Sean
Apart from Emily's point I note that you state that Chauvin constricted Floyd's breathing
without evidence despite it not being accepted by the author of the article.
This proves, the sainthood of a very simian looking convicted criminal doped up coon, that you
can fool some of the people all of the time. The Jooz are laughing all the way to the
ban total control of the World.
@Anon4578
A passer of counterfeit bills is typically given an opportunity by the cheated merchant to make
him whole before the cops are called. Saint George, for whatever reasons, didn't avail himself
of the opportunity extended to him to do just that.
@Wuok
He prolly would have had they just left him alone. Then they'd be in jail for failure to render
first aid. The rioting would have still happened. Heads or tails, you lose with niggers.
@Rich
Chauvin was probably a screaming liberal until he got involved with the chink. The thing about
chinks is they're known to hate everyone equally who isn't a chink.
It is strange that George Floyd's case is taken as proof of systemic racism, when Tony Timpa
got much worse treatment -- even though Timpa hadn't committed any crime, had no police record,
and even called 911 himself.
That is not strange. The reason BLM choose cases where the policeman only did their job is
because otherwise, they'll risk seeing the policeman go to jail, and then there'd be no
systemic racism to rail against. Only when you are sure the policeman will be exonerated in a
court of law, can you rile the animals without risking the party coming to an end before the
music even starts.
@RouterAl
For the time being, an educated comment like yours gets a hearing, in contrast to the
unreasoned moral posturing of so many others here. For so long as they can hide behind "good
intentions," they can run from inconvenient facts. UR recently featured an article and comments
on Dietrich Doerner's Logic of Failure , which says it best about these disgusting
phonies who'd never dream of reexamining their positions based on the horrors they cause.
"In our political environment, it would seem, we are surrounded on all sides with good
intentions. But the nurturing of good intentions is an utterly undemanding mental exercise,
while drafting plans to realize those worthy goals is another matter. Moreover, it is far
from clear whether "good intentions plus stupidity" or "evil intentions plus intelligence"
have wrought more harm in the world. People with good intentions usually have few qualms
about pursuing their goals. As a result, incompetence that would otherwise have remained
harmless often becomes dangerous, especially as incompetent people with good intentions
rarely suffer the qualms of conscience that sometimes inhibit the doings of competent people
with bad intentions. The conviction that our intentions are unquestionably good may sanctify
the most questionable means.
Excerpt From
The Logic Of Failure: Recognizing And Avoiding Error In Complex Situations
Dietrich Dorner
This material may be protected by copyright.
@Thulean
Friend What exactly did happen to the white substance that clearly fell out of his left
pocket while against the wall? Odd nobody mentions that.
George killed himself. He took a lethal overdose of Fentanyl. The meth and the fentanyl
combined cause delirium and heart problems. These two drugs caused what is called "Excited
Delirium Syndrome" which is usually fatal.
When the officers pulled him out of the Mercedes–he was already foaming at the mouth.
These four officers need to be released and given their jobs back. Their arrests are just a
lynch mob by the liberal establishment. George killed George. He gambled with his life, put
himself in that position with allegedly passing counterfeit money. Furthermore, George was DWI;
he was sitting in the drivers seat. Even though you are not driving, sitting in the driver's
seat is DWI, Driving while impaired. Who needs to be arrested is the Drug Dealer that sold him
the Fentanyl.
Moreover, Excited Delirium syndrome causes "Wooden Chest". That is what George was
experiencing, His drug cocktail killed him.
1 million to 1.25 million Europeans were enslaved in North Africa, from the beginning of
the 16th century to the middle of the 18th, by slave traders from Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli
alone (these numbers do not include the European people who were enslaved by Morocco and by
other raiders and traders of the Mediterranean Sea coast)
"From bases on the Barbary coast, North Africa, the Barbary pirates raided ships traveling
through the Mediterranean and along the northern and western coasts of Africa, plundering
their cargo and enslaving the people they captured."
From at least 1500, the pirates also conducted raids along seaside towns of Italy, Spain,
France, England, the Netherlands and as far away as Iceland, capturing men, women and
children.
On some occasions, settlements such as Baltimore, Ireland were abandoned following the
raid, only being resettled many years later. Between 1609 and 1616, England alone had 466
merchant ships lost to Barbary pirates.
@Anonymous
Are you sure that you are not a racist or a progeny of racists?
As Confederate statues are torn down in the USA, one wonders: Are we going to ask Egypt to
change its name, tear down its pyramids which were built by slaves too? And destroy mummies
of pharaohs that had slaves?
Are the black tribes of Africa, the ones who sold the slaves they took from other tribes
when at war and sold to the Arab slave traders, are we going to change the names of those
African tribes too? And tear down the names of their leaders?
No comments? Here is more:
Regarding white slaves in Africa and black slaves in the New World, it is often overlooked
that slaves were enslaved before they were bought and sold by Jews, Arabs, and Gentiles. The
unasked question is: Who enslaved them?
Things that used to be true before political correctness set in: More whites were brought
as slaves to North Africa than blacks brought as slaves to the United States.
All this obsessing over what pretty boy George died of is irrelevant. Cops putting their knee
on the neck, the most vulnerable part of the human body is wrong period! No sympathy for the
thug, he was a menace to society. What should be obsessed over is police culture has not been
to "protect and serve" since at least the 70's. They see themselves as "at war" with the whole
of society, from the suburban soccer mom to the ghetto thug.
It's widely known cops will take a routine traffic stop, and poke and prod at the driver to try
to rile them up and get the person to react and give the cop an attitude to escalate the
interaction into an altercation. In the suburbs, quiet rural areas it matters not. Race matters
not. They'll pull this shit in the most docile neighborhoods, with the most docile of people,
regardless of color.
I'm neither pro cop or anti cop, I see them as a necessary evil. They'd be a hell of alot less
evil if reforms were made in their attitude toward the public at large, and if they were held
accountable for all their various abuses of power. They also need their privileged status as
some sort of exalted special class "above the public" obliterated! Cops on the whole are some
of the most corrupt, anti social, sadistic people in society. I know many of them personally,
both city and suburban.
As much as I dislike the rioting, looting, arson and chaos, I'm enjoying the karmic retribution
the boys in blue in receiving.
@obwandiyag
It could also be that a certain race is a bit more prone to get into drugs, crime,
prostitution,
and so on. And truth to be told hard work is not in their DNA. As long as you keep
denying FACTS this will never end.
Canada has to bring thousands of Mexicans and Guatemalans to work on the farm fields,
while half of this people are on welfare, and when they do work they only want easy jobs,
bus drivers, taxi drivers, or for the governments where most of the time they just don't
perform
as well. In the mean time people like me are being taxed close to 60% to pay for all these
social programs which only benefits the laziest
Since when gross injustice against a once subdued person legitimate anti-humanity? That is how,
to a naive person consumes daily propaganda by the usa government and their presstitute which
reflect an appearance of "good america" while genuinely reflecting a clandestine disdain for
what is right or such unjustified violence cloaked under the line of duty against the general
population would not be so common in the touted "land of the free." The magnet (of the peaceful
protesters from australia, to europe and latin america) is not to a "good free land of
jewmerica" but to the missing and lack of legitimate Justice parroted along with the moral
compass touted by the usa government and their law enforcement while the true reality of
irrectitude makes itself apparent in videos such as the one of George floyd's unjustified
assassination/murder, where unjustified violence is evident. Thus, with these uncensored videos
by the peaceful population or general public of the usa, the truth did not remain hidden by
manipulated narratives of the jew-owned presstitute and media in favor of the cia/usa
government flavor of their wicked ideology preference while cloaked in sheep's clothing.
In conclusion, When an individual poses a serious threat to an officer or another
individual, according to the National Institute of Justice, the "peace-officer" (as they are
glorifyingly touted) is generally authorized by law to use lethal weapons (i.e., firearms) to
protect himself or herself or others by stopping the individual's actions. You don't want to
realize that there is IRREFUTABLY no serious threat nor danger to life once a person (of any
color in handcuffs as the estate of George Floyd was and many others) is subdued. And, those
marching (or rather peacefully protesting to show solidarity) in many other foreign nation
states display how morally magnetic is the actual legitimate axiom of the interest of justice
because that no democracy can exist unless each of its citizens is as capable of outrage at
injustice to another as he is of outrage at unjustice to himself.
I don't care so much for the cops since they would put you in a cage with these animals for
thought crimes like posing the JQ and denying the Holycaust without any hesitation at all. They
are paid mercs and sometimes they get burned. Similarly the light property damage incurred by
corporate storefronts and reduction in quality of life for liberal urban dwellers is not at all
a concern for me, and I honestly hope this goes on in perpetuity until the statistical reality
of black crime is literally beaten into their skulls. As for George Floyd he will no longer be
producing any more of his ilk. He was set to marry a lower class white woman and open an
establishment eponymously named the Konvict Kitchen, all in defiance of the principles of
nuptiality and common decency. The former enhances black criminality by combining pathological
white genes from the classes which in Europe would have their breeding restricted by cultural
and economic constraints but are allowed to flourish here generating trailer parks and white
trash that with miscegenation and negrification are as much of a danger to society as the the
African type they complement.
In any case having seen the footage from these events it strikes me that these cops are
themselves very unintelligent. In the case of the Atlanta negro aptly named Rayshard they were
inclined to play junior detective and gameshow host for upwards of 30 minutes when it was
obvious that they should have immediately incapacitated the feral groid and dragged him away
from a motor vehicle capable of causing far more damage than the plastic dart guns they ended
up wrestling over. Instead they allowed the monkey to shuck and jive for what seemed like an
hour repeating the same inane phrases over and over again. I would have been inclined to dump a
mag in the baboon at the 2 minute mark. These two men were themselves products of negrification
and no doubt they likened the ill-fated negro to their favorite afleets and sports stars they
worship on TV, giving him chance after chance to behave like a human being with around a
standard deviation more aptitude than they should have given him credit for. If they had a
choice between the ineffective Taser device and a firearm they ended up using it would have
gone better.
I think this country is screwed in the long run and I just hope it ends in fireworks. The
long and inexorable drag into stupidity is maddening.
I doubt anyone cares what he died from, they can just go "change" their signs to some guy in
Georgia. They all look like hoaxes but they needed something for "change" to happen. Back to
online petitions and countless fake hoaxes and more toppling anything whuhhh, and more
historical revision to erase whuhhhh, can't even spell it anymore.
Who called the police on the martyrs? Why would a black person call the police on a black man
asleep in the line at Wendy's in Georgia, when they could have just drove around him. Why have
the white police bother him? It all just looks like more lefty "change" helped out by the good
folks at Netflix or something.
He also had sickle cell anemia. The coronary report mention a lot of "sickled" cells, but only
postmortem. It is knows that sufferers of SCD show that kind of pattern: Death induces it.
However, George Floyd was also COVID19 positive, and there are signs that COVID19 decreases
Hemoglobin levels:
Primate models of Covid-19 (Munster 2020) and human Covid-19 patients have subnormal
haemoglobin levels (Chen 2020). Clinical evaluationof almost 100 Wuhan patients reveals
haemoglobin levels below the normal range in most patients as well as increased total
bilirubin and elevated serum ferritin (Chen 2020). Hyperbilirubinemia is observed in acute
porphyria (Sassa 2006) and would be consistent with ineffective erythropoiesis (Sulovska
2016) and rapid haemoglobin turnover.
@ICANREAD
They did call the EMTs. That's what they were waiting for. Maybe you shouldn't try to analyze
the situation until after you learn what the situation involved?
@Wuok
He was dying before he even left the car. He collapsed when they pulled him out of it. He
collapsed after they helped him walk to the wall. He was complaining that he couldn't breathe
before he had a knee on his neck. My sense was that when he saw the cops were coming for him,
he swallowed his drugs. Pretty common.
@EliteCommInc.
And criminals who break into pregnant women's houses and jam guns into their pregnant guts
really do get their just deserts when they hastily swallow all the drugs they were dealing to
avoid going back to the joint.
"It is strange that George Floyd's case is taken as proof of systemic racism, when Tony Timpa
got much worse treatment -- even though Timpa hadn't committed any crime, had no police record,
and even called 911 himself."
It would b strange if what you said was accurate.
enforcement, It is not singular artifact.
I is not any singular death, not even a group of deaths that are rare at the hands of
police. It's the ten million plus arrests misdemeanors primarily that end with violence against
unarmed citizens that are disproportionately used with respect to african americans it's the
related history. It is the sentencing. It is the pea bargain system . . .
It's the crack vs regular cacaine narratives nonsense, it is the rhetorical dialogue -- it
is not one single thing, but a compendium of constructs across the country over time.
@Anon
It seems more likely that the heart attack came because the heart was overworked due to low
blood-oxygen levels due to the sedated breathing from the opioid.
Such analysis is diversion from the main discussion. It does not matter if Floyd was on drugs
or a criminal. Why was he treated brutally by the police. Too much power given to the law
enforcement. And the bad apples always take advantage of it. Observe the way they walk. No sign
of humility or being a servant of society or a protector.
Race riots yes. but so many whites and no African Americans are rioting, too. It is economic
disparity and hopelessness, stupid, and that is what the pundits are avoiding purposely.
Brilliant presentation.
I was arrested one time and was put into car. Interestingly enough I had difficulty breathing
and I did not have any drugs in me.
I did ask officer to open window in the car but he did not. He did not care.
@SOL
Exactly. They would not even spend the time to read this excellent example of actual
journalism.
Their hatred blinds them to all facts.
Talking time is over. Balkanize the failed multi-cultural experiment. Ethnostate is NEEDED.
Separate from Hate.
Anyone else getting rather peed off by the huge donations to BLM, apparently about to flow in
– as reparations for the proceeds from slavery by Briitish firms.
Seems to me these companies should be starting at home.
What about the proceeds from mills and factories here in England where the labour was little
more than slavery.
Forced on the poor for pathetic and utterly meagre wages – amounting to slavery –
as the option to the 'poor house'.
Children of seven working 12 hours a day for pennies.
Many dying and crippled by the machinery under which they had to scrabble.
I am sure there are millions – not least up north – who would very much like some
recognition for the quite awful exploitation of their forebears.
Oops – sorry – they all have white faces and are not prepared to commit mayhem,
arson and criminal damage to support any claim.
Time, maybe to start, it works.
Maybe we less than aristocratic English people should start a few demands in payment for the
terrible conditions of the industrial 'revolution', for the Victorian slums, more appalling
than black Americans ever endured.
You don't see the black Americans sporting rickets, TB, suffering starvation, diptheria and
smallpox to mention a few.
Or kids forced up chimneys.
I wonder how Dickens would be feeling today – at Lloyds etc.
Disgusted and sick, I imagine.
Don't get me started on those 'pressed' into the navy .
@chuckywiz
Why was he treated brutally by the police.
Was he?
The autopsy doesn't appear to record 'brutal physical injury' of the kind you appear to claim
.
Could you detail the evidence that demonstrates such 'brutality'
Restraint surely does not come into that category and there is no or very little indication on
his neck or throat.
Clarify the facts, Chucky, so we can all see the cuts, bruises, abrasions
Perhaps you will also give us some information as to how you would have handled a very large
such individual full of fentanyl and other substances .
@Wizard
of Oz The author of the article talks about the knee on Floyd's neck only. But while he may
be correct, that knee was not the only thing going on. I am talking about the other
things including Chauvin's other knee. Officer Lane seems to have diagnosed Floyd's medical
status as one unlikely to stand up to the tender mercies being administered by Chauvin. Lane,
the first cop to talk to Floyd, had immediately observed he had been foaming at the mouth.
Later, once Chauvin got on top of Floyd, Lane suggested turning him face up, and said he was
worried about EXD. Lane's partner complained and said 'don't do that' to Chauvin in relation to
him kneeling on Floyd.
If a 300lb wrestler was to apply a tight bodylock (bear hug) and keep it on tight, breathing
would halt and the one being bear hugged would quite likely die within 10 minutes. Floyd's
breathing was constricted by his bulk and being put face down with cuffs pulling his arms
against the side of his ribcage. The weight and duration of Chauvin's knee on Floyd's back
surely is what tipped the balance and killed him. There is an ex cop and prison guard who
admits he used to deliberately break the fingers of resisting convicts who points to the sun
glasses perched on Chauvin's head and the casual placement of his hands while kneeling on Flyod
as clear indications there was no meaningful resistance from him, see here .
It is not mere opinion that Floyd was not actively resisting arrest during the several
minutes he had Chauvin on top of him, because officer Chauvin was recorded explaining the
reason Floyd was being pinned down was he had not cooperated earlier , when they had
tried to put him in the police car. Hence Chavin virtually admitted it was a was a physical
punishment for previous non-cooperation, but in law Chavin is not permitted to use the
restraint technique as a punitive measure, which he knew very well. Hence Chauvin was commiting
a felony, wham, in the course of which someone died, bam. Wham bam: felony murder.
@chuckywiz
Actually, this article touches on what you consider the "main discussion" when it assesses
whether or not the cop was following procedure. Is the man being vilified as the worst person
on earth just a guy who was doing the job he was taught to do? If you think the rules are
wrong, you're free to work to change them. This cop will face an American court, not some
post-revolutionary tribunal. The question is whether or not his trial will look more like the
latter than the former.
Hispanic cop in Georgia shoots and kills white guy who grabs Hispanic cop's taser = NO coverage
by national media. Hell, I live in Georgia and I didn't even hear about this one.
White cop in Georgia shoots and kills black guy who grabs White cop's taser = NONSTOP 24/7
coverage by national media.
SHOULD THE MEDIA BE LABELED AS A HATE GROUP BY THE $PLC?
Blacks can only achieve because they have White admixture or because they reside in White
societies. Too few of them are smart enough to even build sufficient infrastructure in Africa
to allow the Black intellectual elite to achieve.
Sub-Saharan Africans have never made a contribution to the world. If allowed to become too
numerous they destroy previously-thriving and safe White cities.
This is why Blacks seethe with jealousy and hatred of Whites yet can't seem to stay away
because they want what we create and maintain, no matter if they deserve it or not. They want
our peaceful and clean neighborhoods, our law and order, our technology and science, our school
systems, our inventions, the jobs we create, the food we grow, the transportation we invent,
the entertainment we provide Blacks hate us but can't live without us. That's why they demand
that we take care of them and give them special rights and privileges that we don't grant
ourselves, just to compensate for their inability at living in a modern and
technologically-advanced civilization.
Some groups succeed all the time, everywhere. Some have never succeeded anywhere.
Blacks are the oldest race, so they should be the most advanced race; but they never
developed at all and had to be domesticated by Whites.
National IQs calculated and validated for 108 nations:
Just week we had a White sub-Saharan African (Elon Musk) launch a spacecraft while Black
sub-Saharan Africans destroyed several cities.
Name a civilization (or even a written language) ever created by Blacks.
Name a single contribution from sub-Saharan Africans to the world.
The simple fact is, everything Blacks have was given to them by Whites.
Blacks are the only race never to have civilized. They were removed from the jungle just 250
years ago.
Blacks can only achieve because they have White admixture or because they reside in White
societies. Too few of them are smart enough to even build sufficient infrastructure in Africa
to allow the Black intellectual elite to achieve.
Slavery was the best thing to happen to Blacks, it was essentially a rescue mission by a
free cruise. Being a slave was actually a good career move for a Black African -- as it still
would be today. An enslaved Black in any non-Black country has a higher standard of living than
a free Black living among his own kind.
After defeating George Foreman for the heavyweight boxing title in Zaire (now Congo),
Muhammad Ali returned to the United States where he was asked by a reporter, "Champ, what did
you think of Africa?" Ali replied, "Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat."
Blacks are incapable of creating a civilization of their own. Blacks can only achieve
because they have White admixture or because they reside in White societies. Everything Blacks
have was given to them by Whites.
Criminally insane Floyd killed himself. His chosen lifestyle could only lead to a bad end
sooner or later. He shouldn't even have been out on the street after his armed home invasion
conviction. It was the misfortune of the police to have had to deal with this drugged-up thug
at the point he was going to expire due to drugs and eroded health due to years long drug use.
He was a large, tough looking criminal that one had to be careful in dealing with. This is the
'hero' of the moment, one of the scummiest people one could ever meet.
@chuckywiz
The Jewish MSM always ignores non-black victims of police misconduct. They made a collective
decision to do that following the mild uproar over Ruby Ridge and the Waco massacre of the
Branch Davidians. Today the Narrative is all about white oppressors and black victims.
It is economic disparity and hopelessness, stupid, and that is what the pundits are
avoiding purposely.
We can't read minds, so you could possibly be right. But in the visible world toppling
statues of white men and various displays of guilt-mongering seem to be taking precedence over
any racially neutral economic demands.
Muddy the water. Now we know why they hate us. Now we know why posters at this site and Zero
Hedge are considered white trash. Science is unacceptable when lefties use it to promote global
warming or the Nazis use it to lock down our society, but when it can be manipulated to try and
prove dirty cops innocent then it's okay. What's to conclude? Giant Echo Chamber! The Left has
it to keep their ignorant followers in line. The Right has it as well. Everyone preaching to
their audience and no one really worried too much about truth.
This is an excellent site. It's a shame that it feels a need to blame EVERYTHING on Jews or
Socialists or whatever the rednecks have been brainwashed to fear. The site simply hurts its
credibility doing this. Not much better than Left wing groups and that's one serious Freak
Show!
They riot because they are sick and tired of the ways cops treat them–
no, they're rioting because blacks and browns don't have academic and economic parity with
whites, and the ((universities)) have instructed their charges that there's no such thing as
racial differences, and so that means all the academic and economic discrepancies between white
and black, and the over-representation of blacks in the criminal justice system, are all a
direct consequence of lingering, "systemic" white racism in America.
That's why they're rioting. The Floyd death was simply the perfect metaphor for
America's 'racism', crystalized down to nine minutes of video.
The video was simply the catalyst, for a mindset that's been foisted by the ((universities))
and ((media)) for many decades now.
We're seeing what they've wanted all along. White people transformed into Palestinians,
treated as second class citizens. Affirmative action, and now free health care ONLY for blacks
in Kentucky.
White people will pay the taxes, but not get the benefits, because they're racists and
anti-Semites, and like the Palestinians (terrorists) they don't deserve any rights.
That's what this is all about. The 21st century is to be like the 20th, a Jewish
supremacist orgy of racial hatred unleashed.
I don't understand why they held him down so long. It seems as if they wanted to wait until
the criminal stopped tensing himself, which could be an indicator of continued resistance.
Maybe they felt if they eased up, he'd jump up and fight them as the guy in Atlanta did.
The Atlanta cops are going to get lynched. That's not justice.
@RobbieSmith
Ali spoke a lot of truth and the only reason the counterculture adopted him is because of his
stance against "Whitey" or what they thought was his stance against "Whitey." I do not blame
Ali for not wanting to fight for America in the Vietnam War. When Ali grew up, Blacks were
indeed second class citizens, far from it now, they have their asses kissed 24/7. Ali was about
Blacks pulling themselves up by the bootstraps, and was a hardcore SEPARATIST. Ali actually had
more than a touch of Irish blood in him. I wish more Blacks did indeed belong to the NOI like
Ali, I think we would have less crime and they would stay to themselves.
George Floyd was an unhealthy man. He wasn't an angel. He wasn't even a decent citizen. He was
a piece of shit.
But he didn't die of an overdose.
He died from a cop burying his knee on his neck for almost 10 minutes. Already in horrible
shape with breathing problems, his body wasn't able to handle it.
Floyd was pleading for him to get off his neck. He was asking for his mother. C'mon people.
Chauvin was heartless and ignorant. All he had to do was get off Floyd's neck. He wasn't a
threat.
Chauvin had a serious lapse in judgement. So did Floyd. He wouldn't have been in that
position in the first place. We can always argue that Floyd was a piece of shit. Maybe he was,
but he didn't have to die like that. Who in this comment section is so perfect to judge?
Chauvin has his own issues. He isn't a murderer either. Ignorant and callous, yes. Deserving
of jail time. I don't think so. Therapy and retirement form the police force? Absolutely.
1 Blacks can newer be civilized.
2 Blacks will never trust white people.
3 Whatever whites will do. Blacks will never be satisfied until they will have all and
permanent administrative power.
It was the liberal Democratic governors who were the worst 'lock-down' "Nazis", but to a
dishonest, agenda-driven liar like you, the truth is only something to bastardize to your own
hatred-consumed agenda.
EVERYTHING on Jews or Socialists or whatever the rednecks have been brainwashed to
fear.
Yea, it's not like thousands of those rednecks haven't given their lives in the last two
decades fighting the Eternal Wars for Israel, now is it? But that's a price we should all pay
for what was done on (((9/11))), huh?
The entire debate is moot at this point. Floyd is dead. The puppeteers have their "Crisis". The
mob is still out there. Thought crime is the new passion. Negroes can do nothing wrong. When
they do, it is my fault because I am white. Up is down, down is up, etc. The big question is
what lies ahead.
This was all manufactured to cover the real truth about a collapsing economic system which will
devastate nations and economies all over the world. When it hits(my bet is before 2021),
nothing else will matter. Here in Amerika, the Sheeple, Normies, and Cucks will go bat-s ** t
crazy. It will be Bosnia times Rwanda times Venezuela, times The Stand. Plan accordingly. Bleib
ubrig. Proverbs 27:12.
All this hysteria over one dead black thug and utter silence about far more tragic/innocent
victims(often at the hands of black thugs) suggest that the 'systemic racism' is in favor of
blacks.
It's like US's favoritism for Zionists over Palestinians, Iranians, and Arabs.
We hear endless yammering about 'antisemitism' and 'white supremacism', but US is
pathologically philosemitic and serving Jewish Supremacism 24/7.
BTW. it will be funny when a black guy wearing a Floyd t-shirt ends up dead at the hands of
another black.
@Anonymous
IF this whole incident is REAL, and believe me, nowadays I have a hard time believing anything
we see in the media or read is REAL, I have to say the cop was wrong and does deserve to do
time. Whatever the guy died from, people in the crowd told Chauvin over and over that Floyd
wasn't moving. The other cops should have pulled Chauvin off as well. The case in Atlanta is
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, however. IMO, Chauvin is guilty of manslaughter and quite possibly second
degree murder, but that one would be hard to prove. BUT the question must be ASKED ONCE AGAIN,
how or why did it come to this, WHY didn't George Floyd COMPLY with officer's orders? Floyd
would still be alive IF he had JUST COMPLIED with the cops. What is it about complying with an
officer's orders do Blacks not understand? A couple months ago a man was killed right up the
street from me because he attacked an officer with a knife. The officer responded to a domestic
dispute and the man STUPIDLY charged an armed cop with a knife and was shot dead. White cop,
and white perp so that was the end of story.
@Ficino
Covid-19 attacks cells with ACE-2 enzyme receptors. They are present in the lungs, heart,
intestine, blood vessels, and kidneys. Many people infected with Covid-19 suffer more damage in
these organs than in the lungs. People think they will recover quickly from this virus like
another cold (two of the cold strains are actually coronoviruses) or flu viruses, but it's
damage to the organs is more severe. It leaves them vulnerable to next year's covid-20, where
they will now have "preexisting health conditions."
May 27, 2020 New video shows Minneapolis police arrest of George Floyd before death
Four white officers involved in the death of George Floyd have been fired from the
Minneapolis Police Department, but Mayor Jacob Frey is saying that one of the officers should
be arrested for pressing his knee on Floyd's neck.
Dr. Vincent Di Maio estimated that Excited Delirium Syndrome kills 800 people every
year in police altercations because the victims "are just overexciting [their] heart from
the drugs and from the struggle.
So that is nearly 2,000 civilians a year that die in interactions with police basically the
Wild West
As a result, incompetence that would otherwise have remained harmless often becomes
dangerous, especially as incompetent people with good intentions rarely suffer the qualms of
conscience that sometimes inhibit the doings of competent people with bad intentions.
Good intentions were cobbling his way to disaster. – Old German saying. –
I like Dietrich Doerner – as a social scientist and as a humble man (a Social Democratic
leftie from the days before the left grew "regressive" (Dave Rubin).
Floyd's condition is irrelevant. If I have the facts straight Floyd was handcuffed and loaded
inside the police car. For reasons that are unclear he ends up face down on the asphalt with 4
dudes sitting on top of him. For me, without an amazing explanation all four should never have
been police officers. His death makes it worse but the inexplicable part is why he was on the
pavement being crushed.
@obwandiyag
Are you really going to share "a couple thousand" murders by police with us? Ok, I'll bite.
Send them to us in short installments of 3 or 4 hundred, just so we can keep up.
@Cranberries
RE: Might help for someone to explain this calculation, since simply summing the fentanyl and
norfentanyl concentrations gives 16.6, not 20.6. Cranberries comment #6.
I read somewhere that another fentanyl moiety was also detected in George Floyd's autopsy
blood. That may explain the discrepancy.
I really hate saying it but you could have a video of St.George shooting up minutes before his
encounter with Minneapolis' finest and it wouldn't make a lick of difference. The Church of the
Perpetually Aggrieved have their martyr and will not let trivial things like truth get in the
way.
When I'm feeling particularly cynical and want to irritate the Missus I will say something
like, "Yeah, that was pretty bad but he probably did something we don't know about. So it all
evens out in the end."
@vot
tak Oh "prejudiced " against a particular group, is that the same thing as "racist" now"?
Does "racist " mean anything other than White? The word "prejudice " means to "pre-judge", what
if someone judges a person or group after getting to know them very well? What if I find I love
all people except Tibetans, am I a "racist "? For you kooks, I am if I'm White. So I guess
that's a "dumb question", since I'm pretty Pale
Videos and photos are very poor evidence because they only raise an emotional
response.
This is fact is usually overlooked. I still don't really grasp, why that is. But people seem
to lack – media education, or self-reflective self-distancing concerning the difference
between being an ey-witness and witnessing a video about an event. – Maybe Marshal
McLuhan is one reason that the video-deception is not being noticed for what it is: a major
source of self-deception because he made media-reflection trendy and at the same time
clueless.
This seems at first sight like a rather dismal academic distinction – until it becomes
crucial to make it, like in this case.
By now I might even be boring some readers of Unz.com by insisting on the following factual truth: Tom Wolfe showed in
pristine detail, just how this video deception, as you might call it, works in his (sigh, I'll
repeat this esthetic fact too now for the umpteenth time) – Tom Wolfe was able to show
how this video-deception plays out in his excellent novel Back to Blood .
PS
It might be not accidental, that Tom Wolfe did have a close look at Marshal McLuhan's ideas and
did write quite a bit about it, long before he started to work at Back to Blood .
– Fruits take their time until they're ripe, it seems.
What is it about complying with an officer's orders do Blacks not understand?
since I generally agree with you, and agree that this was likely staged, and that the other
cops should have intervened, and that Chauvin was obviously guilty of a callous disregard for
the man's life, (regardless of what he actually died of).. I agree with that all.
But I also understand why some people would try to flee the cops, (and being arrested and
having your life destroyed). It's a risk some people are willing to take. Like the guy who was
murdered by cop, lying in the snow (while being sadistically tortured by tazer). That sadistic
bitch tortured him to death because he ran from her, and defied her 'authority'.
I've known of too many cops in my lifetime who're drunk on their authority (power), and I
don't blame some people for running from them. If our laws say it's ok for cops to shoot such
people, then so be it, but if they're not allowed to shoot suspects running away, then if
that's murder, it's murder. No?
American cops are way too militarized and often murderous and unaccountable.
Absofuckinglutely.
But the Jews are turning this into a racial issue for their own agenda, whatever that is at
the moment. Perhaps simply as an amusement, to watch whitey squirm. (one of their favorite
pastimes ; )
I've never before seen such stupidity in the comments as is seen here today. Something strange
is going on. Many of you didn't read the article but have strong opinions. This isn't typical
of Unz readers. For some reason the Trolls are out in force on this one. Are you trying to
destroy this website's credibility?
@Emily
In certain quarters first responders do carry naloxone injectors for that contingency –
it takes half an hour of training.
Opioid LD50s are house numbers, but it´s a possibility.
Clearly no choking, but I wouldn´t rule out vagus shock.
Overall I´d say a measured exposé, but as many others already noted the
question is moot now.
@Biff
Given your confidence, can you tell us the exact number of "racists" married to people of other
races in America?
Your response should be within 2% of the actual number, and please also provide proof of the
"racism" on the part of the individual "racists" married to non Whites.
It is possible that floyd died of a drug overdose.
Not long after the video of Floyd s death came out a journalist from the Atlantic tried to
reenact it. He was unable to keep his balance for the amount of time.
This is possibly because the knee on the neck was not putting that much pressure on the
neck. It is possible that it was it was an even stance and the knee was applying slight or no
pressure.
@obwandiyag
They riot because the press whips them up into a frenzy. There is no shortage of blacks killed
by police or whites killed by police but this incident was spread to the 4 channels blacks are
capable of finding and drove them to riot.
If blacks don't like how cops treat them, then they should improve their savage behavior. Over
half of all homicides, over a third of cop killers, the majority who shoot at police, and far
more likely to resist arrest. When will blacks learn basic civilization, or do whites need to
hold their hand yet again?
Then, one officer pulled him out on the other side.
I assaume because he demanded to be let out due to a medical emergency. "I can't breathe!".
So they did and called an ambulance, which arrived a little later.
Facts:
1.Officer Derek Chauvin isn't in the video. The person purported to be Officer Chauvin is a
different person and that is quite clear from examining stills from the video and comparing
them to still photos of Officer Derek Chauvin.
2.One of the police vehicles had a licence plate that said 'POLICE'. This is absurd.
These are just two EXTREMELY obvious facts about the 'video' and there are dozens more fun
facts about this incident that really no other conclusion is possible IF a person is observant
AND honest about this video: it is a hoax. See: canucklaw.ca for an excellent and detailed breakdown.
Somehow, nearly everyone in 'professional media', aka as the presstitutes paid to lie by
their jewish billionaire employers, accepts this obvious HOAX as though it is legit and beyond
question.
Sounds familiar. Kind of like every mass shooting incident of the last 18 years which is to
say, ever since the HOAX of 9/11 the Jew Spew Propaganda arm just can't stop 'reporting' on
clearly faked events anytime they want to push the gun control issue, distract from another
issue or, worse still, to manipulate low IQ ghetto thugs, communists and assorted snow-flakes
into rioting which the Jew spew media then presents as 'peaceful protests'.
Anyone else sick of this never ending effort to manipulate the conversation away from the theft
of Trillions of dollars being presided over by Zion Don, his underlings Mnuchin, Jared Kushner
and the Federal Reserve Bank.
Last time I checked the unemployment number, that was previously 40 million, it seems to
have inched up to nearly 50 million. I expect to see continued efforts, each more desperate
than the last, as the elites fight for power, loot the treasury and race-bait. I don't know
when but I expect that at some point, barring any corruption or treason trials. elites will
start to be executed by vigilante groups. I just can't see these level of social pressure,
outright criminality and outrageous propaganda continuing to grow before average people become
frustrated and disenfranchised enough to act. Somewhere from among the silent majority of
rational Americans I expect to see a response to the last 2 decades of 'Global War of Terror'
insanity,financial looting of the present and future American people with a dash of race war
tossed in as a further insult to reason.
It amazes me that a community of largely dysfunctional blacks -mostl net takers from the
economic system-have the gall to use the term 'white privilege'. They don't pay taxes beyond
basic consumption, cause endless problems, avoid the infantry in every war, and now want
'reparations' after leeching off whites for over 150 years. It never ceases to amaze me how
effective propaganda is and how incredibly stupid the far left of the curve can be.
@obwandiyag
said:
"People don't riot over the specific police murder that sets it off. They riot because they are
sick and tired of the ways cops treat them–one of the ways being to murder them"
– Then Euro-whites should be the ones rioting.
– The number of Euro-whites killed by police are much, much higher than blacks, which is
remarkable considering that blacks do the vast amount crime.
– It is whites who are targeted by blacks, the stats don't lie. The Color of Crime : https://www.amren.com/the-color-of-crime/
@Rurik
I agree with your post 100%. If Mr. Floyd had been White and the cops were White, this story
wouldn't have been talked about outside of Minneapolis. Speaking of Minneapolis, notice the JEW
MEDIA covered the story about the black thug throwing the white kid off a balcony in the Mall
Of America for about 3 minutes, and no suggestions of race at all. Yep, I don't buy the Pawn
Vanity narrative that 99% of cops are decent either. I can't think of any profession that could
make that claim. I am watching the telly as I type this and now the natives are engaging in a
multi-city "Juneteenth March." LMAO. I guess this will now become a national holiday. How
anyone can be fooled by this anymore is beyond stupid. Take care, my friend and enjoy the
comedy placed before us.
I've been on Derek Chauvin's side from the beginning. I knew it was just a race thing that the
media blew up and distorted, just like that kid wearing the MAGA cap with the native American
in DC, whose name I forgot. I hope that Derek Chauvin will be found not guilty and will sue the
mainstream media like that kid from Kentucky did. My only fear is that America is not an honest
country anymore and even if it is so blatantly obvious that Chauvin is innocent, that they will
have to find him guilty anyway.
I just can't stand it. I can't stand the thought of that happening. I mean, imagine that
ultimatum . serve justice or risk a city burning down. How can the masses be so misinformed?
Unaware and corrupted?
I took some notes today from E. Michael Jones, I watched his video, Sicut Judaeis Non, and
I/we have to really let what he said sink into our beings, in order that we can resist it and
not acquiesce. I can't go along with corruption and let injustice come to Derek Chauvin. The
truth has to be told.
My notes from E. Michael Jones:
"Jewish identity is the rejection of logos- political, moral, economical"
"Modernization is about everyone becoming Jewish."
"We have internalized the commands of our Jewish oppressors."
"We have a Jewish superego."
"Break free from the control of Jews in our minds."
And recently I've been watching Yuri Benzmenov again, we really have to understand the deep
psychological warfare, the hypnotic spell we've been under and break free from it.
@SOL
What else is new? Repeat offender was a drug addict. Drug addict died of an overdose. People
using lies about his death are not revolutionaries, they are just bandits, burglars and
vandals.
@anonymous1963
They'll get a fair trial and be found not guilty . setting off round #2 of rioting and looting
a couple of weeks before the november election
@Dan
Kurt Hey Dan, I thiiiiink .. norfentanyl is a metabolite of fentanyl, which means it has
been absorbed and processed by the body so the norfentanyl level would be indicative of a
higher/additional level of fentanyl intake, which when calculated backwards implies 20.6 total
@Rurik"no, they're rioting because blacks and browns don't have academic and economic parity with
whites, and the ((universities)) have instructed their charges that there's no such thing as
racial differences, and so that means all the academic and economic discrepancies between white
and black, and the over-representation of blacks in the criminal justice system, are all a
direct consequence of lingering, "systemic" white racism in America."
The persistent so-called "achievement gap" reveals the same racial IQ hierarchy on
standardized academic exams. The SAT is largely a measure of general intelligence. Scores on
the SAT correlate very highly with scores on standardized tests of intelligence, and like IQ
scores, are stable across time and not easily increased through training, coaching, or
practice. SAT preparation courses appear to work, but the gains are small -- on average, no
more than about 20 points per section.
[MORE]
Even after decades of focused attention to the achievement gap, it has remained unchanged.
Vanderbilt University researchers tracked the educational and occupational accomplishments
of more than 2,000 people who as part of a youth talent search and determined that scores on
the SAT correlate so highly with IQ that they are described as a "thinly disguised"
intelligence test.
Year White Black Gap
1985 1038 839 199
1990 1031 849 185
1996 1052 857 195
2000 1060 859 201
2005 1061 863 197
2010 1063 855 208
2015 1047 846 201
The new SAT introduced in 2017 was "designed to inspire and increase access to college" by
creating "a more equitable exam". The new SAT cannot be compared to previous results:
Year White Black Gap
2017 1118 941 177
2018 1123 946 177
The 2017 "college readiness" scores (ability to earn a C or higher in an entry-level course)
showed the stark racial achievement gap; Asians scored 70% college readiness, Whites 59%, and
Blacks only 20%.
SAT scores are highly correlated to intelligence test scores. The SAT correlates with an IQ
test at 0.86, almost the same as an IQ test correlates with itself. For this reason, we can
very reliably take SAT scores and convert them to IQ scores.
Results of psycho-metric IQ and scholastic tests are highly correlated. Rindermann &
Thompson (2013, p. 822)
In the 20 year period from 1994-2014 the Black-White difference increased on both the verbal
and math SATs despite targeted efforts to close the race gap. On the reading test, it rose from
.91 to .96 standard deviations. On the math test, it rose from .95 to 1.03 standard
deviations.
In fact, the truncated nature of the SAT math score distribution suggests that these race
gaps would be even larger given a harder exam with a bigger score variance. Note, for example,
how the Black score distribution is cut off at the bottom while the Asian score distribution is
cut off at the top. That suggests that a redesigned exam might feature even more pronounced
race gaps.
Percent by Race Reaching the SAT College and Career Readiness Benchmark:
15% = Black
24% = Non-White Hispanic
35% = Native American
53% = White
56% = Asian
Source: The College Board, 2014
PISA scores by race:
White Black Asian
531 433 525
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 2015
NAEP Report Card: Mathematics
"In 2019, there were no significant changes in score disparities compared to 2017 across
most reported student groups in eighth-grade mathematics, with a few exceptions. For example,
among racial/ethnic groups, the average mathematics score at grade 8 for White students was 32
points higher than the average score for their Black peers in 2019 and 24 points higher than
the average mathematics score for eighth-grade Hispanic students. The 32-point
White–Black score difference in 2019 was not significantly different from the 32-point
score difference in 2017, the previous assessment year, nor the 33-point score gap in 1990, the
first assessment year."
Blacks and Whites with Equal Educational Attainment Differ in Cognitive Ability
Black and White Americans with the same formal level of education differ significantly in
their cognitive abilities. Specifically, within any given level of formal education Whites
consistently outperform Blacks. Moreover, this effect is so strong that Blacks often
underperform Whites who have lower levels of formal education than they do.
Consider the following data from the General Social Survey. This public data is frequently
used in social science research and contains a test of verbal intelligence as well as
measurements of participant's self-identified race and highest educational degree obtained.
Verbal intelligence tests correlate at around .75 with full-scale IQ and so this data can also
be taken as a fair measure of intelligence in general (Lynn, 1998). If we set the White mean
score on this test to 100 and the standard deviation to 15, we can come up with an "IQ" style
scale.
As can be seen, using this method Blacks with a graduate degree have a level of verbal
intelligence indistinguishable from that of Whites with a junior college degree. Blacks with a
four-year degree are roughly on par with Whites who never went to college at all.
IQ BY RACE AND HIGHEST DEGREE EARNED (1972 – 2014):
Highest Degree White IQ Black IQ Gap
High School Drop-out: 89 82 7
High School Diploma 98 90 8
Junior College Degree 102 95 7
Bachelor's Degree 108 100 8
Graduate Degree 113 102 11
This data is consistent with evidence from the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) which
administered tests of cognitive ability to 26,000 US adults in 1992. These tests were designed
to measure how well people could take information and use it in a way which would help them
function in modern society.
Blacks are such poor academic achievers that the National Achievement Scholarship Program
was created with lower standards for Black candidates only, instead of the National Merit
Scholarship Program which is open to everyone else.
THE SMARTEST STUDENTS: The National Merit Scholarship Program was founded to identify and
honor scholastically talented American youth and to encourage them to develop their abilities
to the fullest.
BLACK STUDENTS ONLY: The National Achievement Scholarship Program was initiated specifically
to identify academically promising Black American youth and encourage their pursuit of higher
education.
They are both measured on the PSAT.
Minimum score for National Achievement: 190
Minimum score for National Merit: 220
Roughly, PSAT x 10 = SAT (out of 2400)
The U.S. government's PACE examination, given to 100,000 university graduates who are
prospective professional or administrative civil-service employees each year, is passed with a
score of 70 or above by 58% of the Whites who take it but by only 12% of the Blacks. Among top
scorers the difference between Black and White performance is even more striking; 16% of the
White applicants make scores of 90 or above, while only one-fifth of one percent of a Black
applicants score as high as 90 -- a White-Black success ratio of 80/1. IQ differences become
more pronounced with greater g-loading.
Bill Gates, after pulling philanthropic funding from Common Core, "When disaggregated by
race, we see two Americas. One where White students perform along the lines of the best in the
world with achievement comparable to countries like Finland and Korea. And another America,
where Black and Latino students perform comparably to the students in the lowest performing
OECD countries, such as Chile and Greece."
Blacks score so poorly on academic exams that colleges give them 230 "race bonus" SAT points
to help them qualify for admission:
"Personal scores" are the new subterfuge for artificially assisting Blacks gain admission to
universities. Asian-American applicants receive a 2 or better on the personal score more than
20% of the time only in the top academic index decile. By contrast, white applicants receive a
2 or better on the personal score more than 20% of the time in the top six deciles. Hispanics
receive such personal scores more than 20% of the time in the top seven deciles, and Blacks
receive such scores more than 20% of the time in the top eight deciles.
An otherwise identical applicant bearing an Asian male identity with a 25 percent chance of
admission would have a 32 percent chance of admission if he were White, a 77 percent chance of
admission if he were Hispanic, and a 95 percent chance of admission if he were Black.
@FB
"Police extrajudicial executions of civilians are over 1,000 EACH YEAR in the United States far
more than any other country in the world "
In 2016, the police fatally shot 233 Blacks, the vast majority armed and dangerous,
according to the Washington Post. The paper categorized only 16 Black male victims of police
shootings as "unarmed." That classification masks assaults against officers and violent
resistance to arrest.
Contrary to the Black Lives Matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from Black
males than Black males have to fear from the police. In 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times
more likely to be killed by a Black male than an unarmed Black male was to be killed by a
police officer.
From 1980 to 2013, there were 2,269 officers killed in felonious incidents, and 2,896
offenders. The racial breakdown of offenders over that 33-year period was 52% White, and 41%
Black. So, the 13% total Black population in the U.S. commits 41% of police murders.
Further, Black males have made up 42% of all cop-killers over the last decade, though they
are only 6 percent of the population. That 18.5 ratio undoubtedly worsened in 2016, in light of
the 53 percent increase in gun murders of officers -- committed vastly and disproportionately
by Black males.
Nine unarmed Blacks were killed by police in 2019 (seven of whom physically assaulted the
officers), as opposed to 19 Whites, according to the Washington Post's database, but Blacks are
much more likely to have police encounters than Whites. In an average year, about 49 people are
killed by lightning in the US, according to the National Weather Service.
Every year, American police officers have about 370 million contacts with civilians. Most of
the time nothing happens, but 12 to 13 million times a year, the police make an arrest. How
often does this lead to the death of an unarmed Black person? We know the number thanks to a
detailed Washington Post database of every killing by the police. What is your guess as to the
number of unarmed Blacks killed by the police every year? One hundred? Three hundred? Last
year, the figure was nine.
That number is going down, not up. In 2015, police killed 38 unarmed Blacks. In 2017, 21.
What about White people? Last year, police killed 19 unarmed Whites, in addition to the 9
unarmed Blacks. We know the number of Black and White people arrested every year, so it is
possible to make an interesting calculation. The chances of being unarmed, arrested, and then
killed by the police are higher for Whites than for Blacks. For both races, it's very rare: One
out of 292,000 arrests for Blacks, and out of 283,000 arrests for Whites.
Since 2015, when the Post began tracking these numbers, the police have killed about 1,000
people a year. Every year, about one quarter of them are Black. This is about twice their share
of the population, which is 13 percent. Is this proof of police racism? No. The more likely
explanation is that Blacks are more likely than Whites to act in violent, aggressive ways that
give the police no choice but to shoot them. In 2018, the most recent year for which we have
statistics, Blacks accounted for 37 percent of all arrests for violent crimes, 54 percent of
all arrests for robbery, and 53 percent of arrests for murder. With so many Blacks involved in
this kind of violent crime, that Blacks should account for 25 percent of the people killed by
the police seem like a surprisingly low figure.
There is another perspective on police killings of civilians. Every year, criminals kill
about 120 to 150 police officers. And we know from this FBI table that every year, on average,
about 35 percent of officers are killed by Blacks. So, to repeat, Blacks are 13 percent of the
population and account for 25 percent of the people killed by police. But if police were
killing them in proportion to their threatening, violent, criminal behavior, they would be a
greater percentage of the people killed by the police.
Thank you for a thoughtful article. This reinforces my original thought that we should wait for
the results of the trial. Presumably the cop has a competent lawyer who will be able to review
and present the comprehensive evidence to a jury. Ideally the prosecuting attorney will also be
able to understand and present another side of the story. Ideally there will be a fair jury,
not a howling lynch mob, and not a group of retired cops. This system is certainly imperfect
but better than shoot from the hip opinions based on some seconds of video viewing.
"... The endless and extravagant election cycles, he said, are an example of politics without politics. ..."
"... "Instead of participating in power," he writes, "the virtual citizen is invited to have 'opinions': measurable responses to questions predesigned to elicit them." ..."
"... Political campaigns rarely discuss substantive issues. They center on manufactured political personalities, empty rhetoric, sophisticated public relations, slick advertising, propaganda and the constant use of focus groups and opinion polls to loop back to voters what they want to hear. Money has effectively replaced the vote. Every current presidential candidate -- including Bernie Sanders -- understands, to use Wolin's words, that "the subject of empire is taboo in electoral debates." The citizen is irrelevant. He or she is nothing more than a spectator, allowed to vote and then forgotten once the carnival of elections ends and corporations and their lobbyists get back to the business of ruling. ..."
"... "If the main purpose of elections is to serve up pliant legislators for lobbyists to shape, such a system deserves to be called 'misrepresentative or clientry government,' " Wolin writes. "It is, at one and the same time, a powerful contributing factor to the depoliticization of the citizenry, as well as reason for characterizing the system as one of antidemocracy." ..."
"... We are tolerated as citizens, Wolin warns, only as long as we participate in the illusion of a participatory democracy. The moment we rebel and refuse to take part in the illusion, the face of inverted totalitarianism will look like the face of past systems of totalitarianism. ..."
"... "The significance of the African-American prison population is political," ..."
...Inverted totalitarianism also "perpetuates politics all the time," Wolin said when we spoke,
"but a politics that is not political." The endless and extravagant election cycles, he said,
are an example of politics without politics.
"Instead of participating in power," he writes, "the virtual citizen is invited to have
'opinions': measurable responses to questions predesigned to elicit them."
Political campaigns rarely discuss substantive issues. They center on manufactured
political personalities, empty rhetoric, sophisticated public relations, slick advertising,
propaganda and the constant use of focus groups and opinion polls to loop back to voters what
they want to hear. Money has effectively replaced the vote. Every current presidential
candidate -- including Bernie Sanders -- understands, to use Wolin's words, that "the subject
of empire is taboo in electoral debates." The citizen is irrelevant. He or she is nothing more
than a spectator, allowed to vote and then forgotten once the carnival of elections ends and
corporations and their lobbyists get back to the business of ruling.
"If the main purpose of elections is to serve up pliant legislators for lobbyists to
shape, such a system deserves to be called 'misrepresentative or clientry government,' " Wolin
writes. "It is, at one and the same time, a powerful contributing factor to the
depoliticization of the citizenry, as well as reason for characterizing the system as one of
antidemocracy."
The result, he writes, is that the public is "denied the use of state power." Wolin deplores
the trivialization of political discourse, a tactic used to leave the public fragmented,
antagonistic and emotionally charged while leaving corporate power and empire unchallenged.
"Cultural wars might seem an indication of strong political involvements," he writes.
"Actually they are a substitute. The notoriety they receive from the media and from politicians
eager to take firm stands on nonsubstantive issues serves to distract attention and contribute
to a cant politics of the inconsequential."
"The ruling groups can now operate on the assumption that they don't need the traditional
notion of something called a public in the broad sense of a coherent whole," he said in our
meeting. "They now have the tools to deal with the very disparities and differences that they
have themselves helped to create. It's a game in which you manage to undermine the cohesiveness
that the public requires if they [the public] are to be politically effective. And at the same
time, you create these different, distinct groups that inevitably find themselves in tension or
at odds or in competition with other groups, so that it becomes more of a melee than it does
become a way of fashioning majorities."
In classical totalitarian regimes, such as those of Nazi fascism or Soviet communism,
economics was subordinate to politics. But "under inverted totalitarianism the reverse is
true," Wolin writes. "Economics dominates politics -- and with that domination comes different
forms of ruthlessness."He continues: "The United States has become the showcase of how
democracy can be managed without appearing to be suppressed."
The corporate state, Wolin told me, is "legitimated by elections it controls." To extinguish
democracy, it rewrites and distorts laws and legislation that once protected democracy. Basic
rights are, in essence, revoked by judicial and legislative fiat. Courts and legislative
bodies, in the service of corporate power, reinterpret laws to strip them of their original
meaning in order to strengthen corporate control and abolish corporate oversight.
He writes: "Why negate a constitution, as the Nazis did, if it is possible simultaneously to
exploit porosity and legitimate power by means of judicial interpretations that declare
huge campaign contributions to be protected speech under the First Amendment, or that treat
heavily financed and organized lobbying by large corporations as a simple application of the
people's right to petition their government?"
Our system of inverted totalitarianism will avoid harsh and violent measures of control "as
long as dissent remains ineffectual," he told me. "The government does not need to stamp out
dissent. The uniformity of imposed public opinion through the corporate media does a very
effective job."
And the elites, especially the intellectual class, have been bought off. "Through a
combination of governmental contracts, corporate and foundation funds, joint projects involving
university and corporate researchers, and wealthy individual donors, universities (especially
so-called research universities), intellectuals, scholars, and researchers have been seamlessly
integrated into the system," Wolin writes. "No books burned, no refugee Einsteins."
But, he warns, should the population -- steadily stripped of its most basic rights,
including the right to privacy, and increasingly impoverished and bereft of hope -- become
restive, inverted totalitarianism will become as brutal and violent as past totalitarian
states. "The war on terrorism, with its accompanying emphasis upon 'homeland security,'
presumes that state power, now inflated by doctrines
of preemptive war and released from treaty obligations and the potential constraints of
international judicial bodies, can turn inwards," he writes, "confident that in its domestic
pursuit of terrorists the powers it claimed, like the powers projected abroad, would be
measured, not by ordinary constitutional standards, but by the shadowy and ubiquitous character
of terrorism as officially defined."
The indiscriminate police violence in poor communities of color is an example of the ability
of the corporate state to "legally" harass and kill citizens with impunity. The cruder forms of
control -- from militarized police to wholesale surveillance, as well as police serving as
judge, jury and executioner, now a reality for the underclass -- will become a reality for all
of us should we begin to resist the continued funneling of power and wealth upward. We are
tolerated as citizens, Wolin warns, only as long as we participate in the illusion of a
participatory democracy. The moment we rebel and refuse to take part in the illusion, the face
of inverted totalitarianism will look like the face of past systems of totalitarianism.
"The significance of the African-American prison population is political," he writes. "What
is notable about the African-American population generally is that it is highly sophisticated
politically and by far the one group that throughout the twentieth century kept alive a spirit
of resistance and rebelliousness. In that context, criminal justice is as much a strategy of
political neutralization as it is a channel of instinctive racism."
The hatred against anything w hite is all prevalent and only getting worse. It will only lead to more anti w hite violence.
To look at your future, look at South Africa.
The book burners are at it again. Remember when Democrats keep telling us how the religious right was nothing but a
bunch of dangerous authoritarians. Well, this is certainly awkward.
"... The objective of the elites was to wrest control of resources eg land and/or timber plus so-called royal warrants that controlled who was allowed to produce, sell export products to who, grab allocation out of the control of the mobs of greedy royal favorites, then into the hands of the new American elites. ..."
"... The bagmen & courtiers grew fat at the expense of the colonists and generally the bagman, who also spied on the locals for obvious reasons, would go back to England once he had made his stash. ..."
"... The American elites wanted and, after the revolution got, the power to control economic development for themselves.Hence the birth of lobbyists simultaneous with the birth of the American nation state. ..."
"... IMO the constitution was about as meaningful to the leaders of the revolution as campaign promises are to contemporary politicians.That is, something to be used as self protection without ever implementing. ..."
I'm always amused, nah that is a little harsh - dumbfounded is more reasonable, when
Americans express dismay that 'their' constitution is not being adhered to by the elites.
The minutiae of American political history hasn't greatly concerned me after a superficial
study at high school, when I realized that the political structure is corrupt and was
designed to facilitate corruption.
The seeming caring & sharing soundbites pushed out by the 'framers' scum such as
Thomas Jefferson was purely for show, an attempt to gather the cannon fodder to one side.
This was simple as the colonial media had been harping on about 'taxation without
representation' for decades.
It wasn't just taxes, in fact for the American based elites that was likely the least of
it. The objective of the elites was to wrest control of resources eg land and/or timber plus
so-called royal warrants that controlled who was allowed to produce, sell export products to
who, grab allocation out of the control of the mobs of greedy royal favorites, then into the
hands of the new American elites.
A well placed courtier would put a bagman into the regional center of a particular colony
(each colony becoming a 'state' post revolution), so that if someone wanted to, I dunno, say
export huge quantities of cotton, the courtier would charge that 'colonial' for getting the
initial warrant, then take a hefty % of the return on the product - all collected by the
on-site bagman then divvied up.
The bagmen & courtiers grew fat at the expense of the colonists and generally the
bagman, who also spied on the locals for obvious reasons, would go back to England once he
had made his stash.
The system was ponderous inaccurate & very expensive. Something had to be done, but
selling revolutionary change to the masses on the basis of the need to enrich the already
wealthy was not likely to be a winner. Consequently the high faulting blather.
The American elites wanted and, after the revolution got, the power to control economic
development for themselves.Hence the birth of lobbyists simultaneous with the birth of the American nation state.
IMO the constitution was about as meaningful to the leaders of the revolution as campaign
promises are to contemporary politicians.That is, something to be used as self protection without ever implementing.
Just like Cornell West suggested, black faces in high places hasn't solved the problem. Obama is a vivid example.
Notable quotes:
"... It is Class Warfare. There are no "Democrats" or "Republicans" .. There are the "Rich and Powerful" and then the "Rest of Us" And when we stand up, they take aim... ..."
"... Dr. Cornel West, "We have tried Black Faces in high places ..." ..."
Krystal Ball calls out D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and the Dem establishment for surface level support of the Black Lives Matter
movement.
Crush Inverted Totalitarianism, 12 hours ago
Speaking of black faces in high places, the entire black caucus endorsed ELIOT ENGEL over a black educater (Jamaal
Bowman)...this is aclass war, not a race war
Robert Quin, 12 hours ago (edited)
THERE IS NO DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF AMERICA! There is only Repugnican and Repugnican Lite. There is only hard right and soft right
in American politics. There is no left in power.
Electoralism is a scam. You're playing with an unplugged controller. Organise, unionize, protest, riot. If you want to vote,
you should vote third party. The Democratic party isn't part of the solution. They are playing good cop, bad cop with
republicans with both sides working for capital to impoverish the working class.
Krystal forgot one "innovation" Biden has suggested.
When talking to black community leaders in Wilmington, Joe Biden
said, "Instead of standing there and teaching a cop when there's an unarmed person coming at 'em with a knife or
something, shoot 'em in the leg instead of in the heart."
It
is Class Warfare. There are no "Democrats" or "Republicans" .. There are the "Rich and Powerful" and then the "Rest of Us" And
when we stand up, they take aim...
"... On Friday, for example, the principal of a public school in Windsor, Vermont. was dismissed from her job for posting the following words on her personal Facebook page: "While I understand the urgency to feel compelled to advocate for black lives, what about our fellow law enforcement? Just because I don't walk around with a BLM sign should not mean I'm a racist.". ..."
"... Black Lives Matter believes in force. They flood the streets with angry young people who break things, and they hurt anyone who gets in the way. When they want something, they take it. Make them mad and they will set your business on fire. Annoy them and they will occupy your downtown and declare a brand new country. You're not going to do anything about it, they know that for certain. ..."
A survey this week by Rasmussen, a right-leaning pollster, found that 62 percent of likely
voters now have a favorable opinion of Black Lives Matter. At the same time, Rasmussen found
that Donald
Trump 's approval rating was 43 percent. That's almost 20 points lower.
And by the way, Trump was not alone. Black Lives Matter is far more popular than
Joe Biden , too. It's
more popular than America's religious institutions -- all of them. It's more popular than the
media, the Congress
and big business.
Black Lives Matter is more popular by double digits than both the
Democratic
and the Republican parties. It's
almost as popular as the U.S. military. It's much more popular than the
pope .
The numbers are astounding, but the polls are not the only measure of it. One picture from a
Black Lives Matter rally over the weekend in New York shows an ocean of people. Ask yourself
the last time you saw a candidate for office who was able to draw a crowd like that?
The media, in their relentlessly fawning coverage, usually described Black Lives Matter as
an activist group or a protest movement. But that's deception by understatement. Black Lives
Matter is not a collection of marchers with signs. It's not a conventional political lobby like
Planned Parenthood or the NRA. It's not pressuring Congress to pass some narrow new set of
laws.
Black Lives Matter is far more ambitious than that. It is working to remake the country and
then to control it. It's a political party.
As of now, Black Lives Matter may be the single most powerful political party in the United
States. Nobody says that out loud, but politicians understand it perfectly well. If nothing
else, they understand power; they can smell it at great distances. And that's why they're
lining up to bow before Black Lives Matter.
Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.: You can't really reform a department that that is rotten to the
root.
Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md.: We've heard our people cry out, "I can't breathe!" We've heard
our people speak out, "Black Lives Matter."
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.: This is a systemic problem that requires a comprehensive
solution.
Stacy Abrams, former Georgia gubernatorial candidate: What I would say is that there is
-- there is a legitimacy to this anger. There's a legitimacy to this outrage.
None of what you just saw is a stretch for Democrats. They believe their long-term goals
align with those of Black Lives Matter. And in fact, at times, the group functions as an arm of
the Democratic Party.
More telling, though -- and more ominous -- is the response from many Republicans. They've
been happy to go along as well, or in Mitt Romney 's case, even mouth the
same slogans.
Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah: We need to end violence and brutality and to make sure that
people understand that Black Lives Matter.
If the leaders of Black Lives Matter are political actors -- and they are -- then by
definition, you are allowed to have any opinion you want to have about them. Black Lives
Matter wants to run the country; therefore, you can freely criticize Black Lives Matter.
Those are the rules of our system -- but not anymore.
That was the former Republican nominee for president. Let that sink in. If there was ever an
indicator of how powerful Black Lives Matter has become, you just saw it.
Republican leaders brag about their strong conservative convictions, but mostly they just
want to be on the winning team, whatever that is. That's why they pause before offending
China
. It's why when Black Lives Matter tells them to take a knee, they do.
It's all pretty strange when you think about it. If the leaders of Black Lives Matter are
political actors -- and they are -- then by definition, you are allowed to have any opinion you
want to have about them. Black Lives Matter wants to run the country; therefore, you can freely
criticize Black Lives Matter.
Those are the rules of our system -- but not anymore.
Imagine a world where you are punished for questioning the behavior of the president or for
insulting your local mayor. You probably can't imagine that. It's too bizarre. It's
un-American. But that's where we are right now. Black Lives Matter has changed the rules. And
here is their first new rule: No criticizing Black Lives Matter. You can be fired from your job
if you disobey. Many Americans have been.
On Friday, for example, the principal of a public school in Windsor, Vermont. was dismissed
from her job for posting the following words on her personal Facebook page: "While I understand
the urgency to feel compelled to advocate for black lives, what about our fellow law
enforcement? Just because I don't walk around with a BLM sign should not mean I'm a
racist.".
Unfortunately, the principal's boss disagreed. The superintendent of Windsor Schools
described the quote you just heard as "outright racist." Windsor, Vermont, by the way, is more
than 97 percent white.
Also on Friday, an economist called
Harald Uhlig lost his job at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago for daring to offer even
milder criticism than that. On Twitter, Uhlig noted that Black Lives Matter had"just torpedoed
itself with its full-fledged support of #defund the police. Now is the time for sensible adults
to enter back into the room and have serious, earnest, respectful conversations about it
all."
That was a racist statement, the Federal Reserve concluded. So, they fired Harald Uhlig.
We could give you many other examples of the same thing happening. There are a lot of them.
Black Lives Matter now enjoys almost complete immunity from criticism. This is unprecedented
for an American political movement.
But Black Lives Matter is even more powerful than that. It has singlehandedly revised our
moral framework. Yes, black lives do matter. That is a statement of fact, and no decent person
doubts that it is true because it is. And it is true precisely because every life matters. We
are all human beings, every one of us. We have souls. Skin color is irrelevant to moral
value.
Until recently, this was considered obvious; saying it was regarded as a virtue. All lives
matter equally. All of us were created by God. In the end, all of us will die. Nothing can
change that -- not wealth, not fame, not race. Every life is precisely as valuable as every
other life.
By the way, that idea forms the basis of the Christian faith. It's the entire premise behind
our founding documents. And yet, suddenly, thanks to Black Lives Matter, you can no longer say
it out loud.
Affirming the fundamental equality of all people is now considered hate speech. You can be
fired for saying it. Again, many people have been.
This is a dangerous moment. How did we get here? In a word, quickly. It happened fast.
As recently as December, before the riots, most Americans did not approve of Black Lives
Matter. The group was defined in the public mind by moments like this.
Crowd (chanting): Pigs in a blanket. Fry them like bacon. Pigs in a blanket. Fry them
like bacon. Pigs in a blanket. Fry them like bacon. Pigs in a blanket. Fry them like
bacon.
"Pigs in a blanket." "Fry like bacon." "Kill the police." They yelled that at a rally. The
usual liars immediately swooped in to pretend that it never happened. The president of the
Southern Poverty Law Center wrote an entire op-ed ordering the public not to consider Black
Lives Matter a hate group.
But people could see the truth for themselves. That video was online. A lot of facts about
Black Lives Matter still reside on the internet. They have not yet been scrubbed.
This is a dangerous moment. How did we get here? In a word, quickly. It happened fast.
The group's signature demand is to eliminate law enforcement. When you first heard
protesters scream, "Defund the police," it may have shocked you. That's just crazy, you may
have thought.
A few weeks later, support for eliminating law enforcement is rising quickly in the polls.
Minneapolis is already doing it. Other cities will follow. Are you surprised? Almost no one in
public life has pushed back meaningfully against the idea of defunding the police.
The Black Lives Matter position is the only position most people hear. After a while, they
believe it. Unchallenged claims must be true. That's what most people assume, and why wouldn't
they assume that? If you strongly disagree with something, say so, otherwise, it's much more
likely to happen.
So, with that in mind, consider some of the other positions Black Lives Matter has endorsed.
The repeal of all immigration restrictions, for starters. They're for that. The legalization of
sex work -- prostitution -- they're for that, too. The destruction of the nuclear family, your
family. The forced relocation of farmland. Race-based reparations, specifically "in the form of
a guaranteed minimum livable income for all black people."
Hear that? All black people, not just the descendants of American slaves. This would
include the millions of African and Caribbean immigrants who on average now earn more than
native-born Americans. Every one of these new Americans would receive a guaranteed annual
income from American taxpayers in order to atone for the sin of -- for the sin of what
actually? Allowing them to immigrate here?
Black Lives Matter does not explain that part. No one asked them. You could be fired for
asking. What you cannot be punished for, however, is looting and burning, at least not if
you're Black Lives Matter.
Huge parts of urban landscape have been destroyed in the past month. Almost no one has been
held to account for it,. Just the opposite. You're encouraged to pretend it never happened.
In St. Louis, every rioter arrested has been released without charges. In New York, hundreds
were released without bail. Same in Washington, D.C. It's happening almost everywhere, and not
just in places controlled by elected Democrats which tells you a lot.
Fort Worth, Texas, for example, is one of the few major American cities that is led by a
Republican, Mayor Betsy Price. On May 31, a crowd of Black Lives Matter demonstrators blocked a
bridge in downtown Fort Worth, when police arrived to disperse them, they threw rocks and
bottles of bleach. Three police officers were injured.
The mob then went on to loot and vandalize businesses. Dozens of rioters were arrested for
this. Ten days later, the city's police chief, Ed Kraus, announced that he was dropping all
charges against them.
Kraus issued a statement suggesting that the real criminals in the riot were not the
rioters, but his own police officers, whom he suggested would be reined in and perhaps
punished. "This is just one step on a long journey," Kraus wrote, sounding more like a
therapist than a cop.
The chief promised that his department was "committed to walking the path of reform with our
community." Kraus never bothered to explain exactly what his cops had done wrong. They were
cops. That was enough.
That same day, the Fort Worth School Board issued a statement declaring, "Police practices
are deeply rooted in white supremacy." Once again, no one specified which police practices
reflected white supremacy, or what that accusation even meant. It was a blanket condemnation,
but it was left to hang in the air. As usual, no one in authority pushed back against it in a
Republican-led city.
Black Lives Matter believes in force. They flood the streets with angry young people who
break things, and they hurt anyone who gets in the way. When they want something, they take
it. Make them mad and they will set your business on fire. Annoy them and they will occupy
your downtown and declare a brand new country. You're not going to do anything about it, they
know that for certain.
It'll be interesting to know what happens to the murder rate in Fort Worth over the next
year. We can guess. We're seeing it all over the country. We've seen it many times through the
years. When the people in charge undermine the law, violence surges.
But there is a solution to this vortex and it's called leadership. Sixty-five years ago,
politicians throughout the American South refused to submit to the Supreme Court's Brown vs.
Board decision. Authorities in many states simply ignored the law like it didn't exist. Armed
extremist groups filled the vacuum. They used violence to make their own laws.
Ultimately, the federal government stepped in and restored order. In 1957, President Dwight
Eisenhower federalized the National Guard of Arkansas. He sent troops to Little Rock to force
Governor Orville Faubus to obey the law.
So the question is, where is our Justice Department? Right now? Is there a reason the DOJ
hasn't filed federal conspiracy charges against the people who organized and led these riots?
It's not as if we don't know who they are. Their crimes are on YouTube.
You know the reason. Black Lives Matter was involved. It is politically sensitive. No
prosecutor wants to be called a racist, as if it's racist to punish people for crimes they
committed.
You know what the victims of those crimes think? The old people who were beaten to the
ground for trying to defend their property. The shop owners whose life savings were stolen or
burned. The families of the people who were murdered during the riots, and there were quite a
few of them.
No one is defending these people. No one is punishing their attackers. Nobody cares.
Imagine how they feel about that. What recourse do they have? Do they have to torch a
Wendy's or loot a Walmart to get our attention? Let's hope not. It might be enough to have a
single national leader -- just one -- who understands what is actually going on in this country
and is brave enough to say so. That might make all the difference, and it would certainly make
the political career of the person who does it.
In the fall of 1968, a teaching assistant at San Francisco State University called George
Murray gave a speech endorsing racial violence. Murray urged black students to bring guns to
campus and "kill all the slave masters." Murray, by the way, was the "minister of education" in
the local Black Panther Party, which was the Antifa of its time.
Black Lives Matter becomes more powerful and more popular with the public. Why is that
happening exactly? Here's why: Because Black Lives Matter is getting exactly what they want
and that is the most basic sign of strength. Strength is the most appealing quality to voters
and to people and to animals.
When administrators learned about Murray's speech, they equivocated, but ultimately they
suspended him under pressure. In response to this, a group called the Third World Liberation
Front shut down the campus. Sound familiar?
They demanded the university drop all admission standards for black applicants and admit
students purely on the basis of race. The administrators were paralyzed in the face of this.
More than anything, they didn't want to be called racist. The university's president was so
terrorized by it that he quit and left.
Ultimately, the leadership of San Francisco State fell to an unlikely president, a
Japanese-Canadian academic called S.I. Hayakawa. Hayakawa was short, eccentric, wore thick
glasses, but he was completely fearless.
On December 2, 1968, Hayakawa marched into the middle of a student protest. Rioters
immediately assaulted him, but Hayakawa kept going. He climbed onto the roof of a sound truck
and ripped the wires out of the loudspeaker. San Francisco State University reopened that
day.
So here's the lesson for today's officeholders. S.I. Hayakawa became a folk hero for
standing up to the mob. He was elected to the United States Senate from California. Republicans
supported him. Voters did, too. They didn't always understand him. Hayakawa wore a Scottish tam
o' shanter cap in public and never really explained why he did.
But it didn't matter. He was brave and honest, and voters appreciated that above all. They
always do. We don't have our Hayakawa yet. Instead, we have cowards.
Our leaders are happy to talk about everything but the collapse of the centuries' old
civilization tumbling down around them. They have no idea how little credibility they have.
They have no sense of how irrelevant they have become. If you can't tell the truth when the
truth actually matters, then nothing you say matters.
Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter becomes more powerful and more popular with the public. Why is
that happening exactly? Here's why: Because Black Lives Matter is getting exactly what they
want and that is the most basic sign of strength. Strength is the most appealing quality to
voters and to people and to animals.
Three weeks ago, Black Lives Matter demanded that cities defund their police. On Monday, the
mighty NYPD, the biggest police department in our nation -- the most sophisticated police
department in the world -- bowed and announced it is
abolishing
its entire plainclothes division , 600 people. Gone for good because Black Lives Matter
wanted it done. And now it is done.
That's not bluffing. It's not posturing. It's not tweeting. That is real power. You'll
notice it did not require the usual maneuvering for Black Lives Matter to get that power. They
didn't need a team of lawyers to get it. Black Lives Matter doesn't make legal arguments.
They're not trying to convince you of anything.
Black Lives Matter believes in force. They flood the streets with angry young people who
break things, and they hurt anyone who gets in the way. When they want something, they take it.
Make them mad and they will set your business on fire. Annoy them and they will occupy your
downtown and declare a brand new country. You're not going to do anything about it, they know
that for certain.
This is the most destructive kind of politics. We've seen a lot of it in recent years.
Organized groups did it to Brett Kavanaugh. The main point of slandering Kavanaugh was never to
block his confirmation. We misread that. They knew they probably couldn't achieve it.
The real point was to send Kavanaugh and John Roberts and the other Republican justices a
very clear message, step out of line and we will hurt your families. And judging from recent
court decisions, it worked. At times, it's very clear that supposedly conservative justices are
afraid to defy the mob.
So what message do the rest of us take from what's happened over the past three weeks? It's
very simple. The message is force is more effective than voting. Elections changed nothing.
Rioting, by contrast, makes you rich and powerful. When you riot, prosecutors will ignore
the law on your behalf. Corporations will send you millions. Politicians will kneel down before
you. It works. Violence works. That's the message.
Everyone hears that message. Until violence stops working, violence will continue.
Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from "
Tucker Carlson Tonight " on June 15,
2020
Cook here represents a tradition of progressive pseudo-democracy which contradicts liberal
democracy.
In progressive pseudo-democracy, men "at the side of history" have a privilege in destroying
other people's values.
In liberal democracy, the defenders of the old system are recognized as a legitimate
opposition with the possibility of becoming the government again. so there are no privileges
for "men at the side of history". Of course there can be changes who are, in hindsight,
consensually accepted by both sides. Nearly nobody sees a reason to reestablish slavery
– but the acceptance of a gollywog or the acceptance of a statue is not slavery, not
even similar to it. The "pain" of people who conflate these matters is self-inflicted.
Any article discussing 'democracy' without defining it is the work of a hack.
Oh yes, it's supposed that everyone knows 'democracy'. He doesn't. It's a bullshit word
meant to gloss around the writer's refusal to reason by way of first principles. It's
cowardice.
We are all supposed to accept as the major premise that democracy's good, and thus
desirable. Ergo, if the writer can somehow tie his conclusion to 'democratic' roots, he's
carried the day.
Shameless fraud. Thousands of words of spittle.
Interesting truth: No form of the word 'democracy' is found in the US Declaration of
Independence or Constitution. To the contrary, democracy is forbidden by Constitution Article
IV Section 4.
The Holocaust memorial museum in Washington should be stormed by Americans outraged by
Israel's theft of US resources and its corruption of US politics, and for Israel's attack on
the USS Liberty.
This may or may not include the defenestration of the directors, the casting of exhibits
into the street, and the bulldozing of the entire structure into a landfill.
Yes, more democratic tradition, please, until justice is done and seen to be done.
"... "The extraordinary destruction of white and Asian businesses in many instances wiping out a family's lifetime work, the looting of national businesses whose dumbshit CEOs support the looters, the merciless gang beatings of whites and Asians who attempted to defend their persons and their property, the egging on of the violence by politicians in both parties and by the entirely of the media including many alternative media websites, shows a country undergoing collapse. ..."
"... This is why it is not shown in national media . Some local media show an indication of the violent destruction in their community, but it is not accumulated and presented to a national audience. Consequently, Americans think the looting and destruction is only a local occurrence I just checked CNN and the BBC and there is nothing about the extraordinary economic destruction and massive thefts." ..."
"... Why has the media failed to show the vast destruction of businesses and private property? Why have they minimized the effects of vandalism, looting and arson? Why have they fanned the flames of social unrest from the very beginning, shrugging off the ruin and devastation while cheerleading the demonstrations as a heroic struggle for racial justice? Is this is the same media that supported every bloody war, every foreign intervention, and every color-revolution for the last 5 decades? Are we really expected to believe that they've changed their stripes and become an energized proponent of social justice? ..."
"... The scale and coordination alone suggests that elements in the deep state are probably involved. We know from evidence uncovered during the Russiagate probe, that the media works hand-in-glove with the Intel agencies and FBI while–at the same time– serving as a mouthpiece for elites. ..."
"... That hasn't changed, in fact, it's gotten even worse. The uniformity of the coverage suggests that that same perception management strategy is being employed here as well. Even at this late date, the determination to remove Trump from office is as strong as ever even though, in the present case, it has been combined with the broader political strategy of inciting fratricidal violence, obliterating urban areas, and spreading anarchy across the count ..."
"... This isn't about racial justice or police brutality, it's about regime change, internal destabilization, and martial law. ..."
"... What the Black Lives Matter movement does not understand is that they are being used by the billionaire white capitalists who are fighting to push the working class even lower ..."
"... The rightful grievance over racism against blacks is now used to get Trump since Russia Gate, Impeachment, the corona scandal ..."
"... The protests are merely a fig leaf for a "color revolution" that bears a striking resemblance to the more than 50 CIA-backed coups launched on foreign governments in the last 70 years ..."
"... "Use a grievance that the local population has against the system, identify and support those who oppose the current government, infiltrate and strengthen opposition movements, fund them with millions of dollars, organize protests that seem legitimate and have paid political instigators dress up in regular clothes to blend in." ..."
"... "The logistical capabilities of antifa+ are also impressive. They can move people around the country with ease, position pallet loads of new brick, 55 gallon new trash cans of frozen water bottles and other debris suitable for throwing on gridded patterns around cities in a well thought out distribution pattern. Who pays for this? Who plans this? Who coordinates these plans and gives "execute orders?" ..."
"... Antifa+ can create massive propaganda campaigns that fit their agenda. These campaigns are fully supported by the MSM and by many in the Congressional Democratic Party. The present meme of "Defund the Police" is an example. This appeared miraculously, and simultaneously across the country. I am impressed. Yesterday the frat boy type who is mayor of Minneapolis was booed out of a mass meeting of radicals in that fair city because he refused to endorse abolishing the police force. ..."
"... Colonel Lang is not the only one to marvel at Antifa's "logistical capabilities". The United States has never experienced two weeks of sustained protests in hundreds of its cities at the same time. ..."
"... it points to extensive coordination with groups across the country, a comprehensive media strategy (that probably preceded the killing of George Floyd), a sizable presence on social media (to put people on the street), and agents provocateur whose task is to incite violence, loot and create mayhem. ..."
"... This a destabilization campaign similar to the CIA's color revolutions designed to topple the regime (Trump), install a puppet government (Biden), impose "shock therapy" on the economy ..."
"... "The BLM represents the forefront of an effort to divide Americans along racial and political lines, thus keeping race and identity-based barbarians safely away from more critical issues of importance to the elite, most crucially a free hand to plunder and ransack natural resources, minerals, crude oil, and impoverish billions of people whom the ruling elite consider unproductive useless eaters and a hindrance to the drive to dominate, steal, and murder . ..."
"... The protest movement is the mask that conceals the maneuvering of elites. The real target of this operation is the Constitutional Republic itself ..."
"... that explains why anti-fa attack Yellow Vests in Germany. The Yellow Vests are the true people's movement and as shown in the video below it is not about the left and the right for the yellow vest but common people fed up with the system ..."
"... Watch every frame of this. It shows the government-media complex and their little thugs, ANTIFA, in perfect collusion to interfere with the regular Germans trying to stop the Satanic communist-Globo homo project. ..."
"... My bro is one of the few people flying, for work. He says the only people on the airlines are antifa thugs moving all around the country. ..."
"... Won't these riots create a wave of revulsion among the silent majority and consolidate Trump's support base? ..."
"... Is Antifa a group of deep state agitators? That's the question. In the Sunday edition of the New York Times– the official propaganda organ of US elites– an article is entirely devoted to creating "plausible deniability" that Antifa is behind the violence in the protests that have swept the country. ..."
"Revolutions are often seen as spontaneous. It looks like people just went into the
street. But it's the result of months or years of preparation. It is very boring until you
reach a certain point, where you can organize mass demonstrations or strikes. If it is
carefully planned, by the time they start, everything is over in a matter of weeks."
Foreign Policy
Journal
Does anyone believe the nationwide riots and looting are a spontaneous reaction to the
killing of George Floyd?
It's all too coordinated, too widespread, and too much in-sync with the media narrative that
applauds the "mainly peaceful protests" while ignoring the vast destruction to cities across
the country. What's that all about? Do the instigators of these demonstrations want to see our
cities reduced to urban wastelands where street gangs and Antifa thugs impose their own harsh
justice? That's where this is headed, isn't it?
Of course there are millions of protesters who honestly believe they're fighting racial
injustice and police brutality. And more power to them. But that certainly doesn't mean there
aren't hidden agendas driving these outbursts. Quite the contrary. It seems to me that the
protest movement is actually the perfect vehicle for affecting dramatic social changes that
only serve the interests of elites. For example, who benefits from defunding the police? Not
African Americans, that's for sure. Black neighborhoods need more security not less. And yet,
the New York Times lead editorial on Saturday proudly announces, " Yes, We Mean Literally
Abolish the Police–Because reform won't happen." Check it out:
"We can't reform the police. The only way to diminish police violence is to reduce contact
between the public and the police .There is not a single era in United States history in
which the police were not a force of violence against black people. Policing in the South
emerged from the slave patrols in the 1700 and 1800s that caught and returned runaway slaves.
In the North, the first municipal police departments in the mid-1800s helped quash labor
strikes and riots against the rich. Everywhere, they have suppressed marginalized populations
to protect the status quo.
So when you see a police officer pressing his knee into a black man's neck until he dies,
that's the logical result of policing in America. When a police officer brutalizes a black
person, he is doing what he sees as his job " (" Yes, We
Mean Literally Abolish the Police–Because reform won't happen" , New York
Times)
So, according to the Times, the problem isn't single parent families, or underfunded
education or limited job opportunities or fractured neighborhoods, it's the cops who have
nothing to do with any of these problems. Are we supposed to take this seriously, because the
editors of the Times certainly do. They'd like us to believe that there is groundswell support
for this loony idea, but there isn't. In a recent poll, more than 60% of those surveyed, oppose
the idea of defunding the police. So why would such an unpopular, wacko idea wind up as the
headline op-ed in the Saturday edition? Well, because the Times is doing what it always does,
advancing the political agenda of the elites who hold the purse-strings and dictate which ideas
are promoted and which end up on the cutting room floor. That's how the system works. Check out
this excerpt from an article by Paul Craig Roberts:
"The extraordinary destruction of white and Asian businesses in many instances wiping out
a family's lifetime work, the looting of national businesses whose dumbshit CEOs support the
looters, the merciless gang beatings of whites and Asians who attempted to defend their
persons and their property, the egging on of the violence by politicians in both parties and
by the entirely of the media including many alternative media websites, shows a country
undergoing collapse.
This is why it is not shown in national media . Some local media show an
indication of the violent destruction in their community, but it is not accumulated and
presented to a national audience. Consequently, Americans think the looting and destruction
is only a local occurrence I just checked CNN and the BBC and there is nothing about the
extraordinary economic destruction and massive thefts." (" The Real Racists", Paul Craig Roberts,
Unz Review)
Roberts makes a good point, and one that's worth mulling over. Why has the media failed to
show the vast destruction of businesses and private property? Why have they minimized the
effects of vandalism, looting and arson? Why have they fanned the flames of social unrest from
the very beginning, shrugging off the ruin and devastation while cheerleading the
demonstrations as a heroic struggle for racial justice? Is this is the same media that
supported every bloody war, every foreign intervention, and every color-revolution for the last
5 decades? Are we really expected to believe that they've changed their stripes and become an
energized proponent of social justice?
Nonsense. The media's role in concealing the damage should only convince skeptics that the
protests are just one part of a much larger operation. What we're seeing play out in over 400
cities across the US, has more to do with toppling Trump and sowing racial division than it
does with the killing of George Floyd. The scale and coordination alone suggests that elements
in the deep state are probably involved. We know from evidence uncovered during the Russiagate
probe, that the media works hand-in-glove with the Intel agencies and FBI while–at the
same time– serving as a mouthpiece for elites.
That hasn't changed, in fact, it's gotten
even worse. The uniformity of the coverage suggests that that same perception management
strategy is being employed here as well. Even at this late date, the determination to remove
Trump from office is as strong as ever even though, in the present case, it has been combined
with the broader political strategy of inciting fratricidal violence, obliterating urban areas,
and spreading anarchy across the country.
This isn't about racial justice or police brutality,
it's about regime change, internal destabilization, and martial law. Take a look at this
article at The Herland Report:
"What the Black Lives Matter movement does not understand is that they are being used by
the billionaire white capitalists who are fighting to push the working class even lower and
end the national sovereignty principles that president Trump stands for in America .
The rightful grievance over racism against blacks is now used to get Trump since Russia
Gate, Impeachment, the corona scandal and nothing else has worked. The aim is to end
democracy in the United States, control Congress and politics and assemble the power into the
hands of the very few
That sounds about right to me. The protests are merely a fig leaf for a "color revolution"
that bears a striking resemblance to the more than 50 CIA-backed coups launched on foreign
governments in the last 70 years. Have the chickens have come home to roost? It certainly looks
like it. Here's more from the same article:
"Use a grievance that the local population has against the system, identify and support
those who oppose the current government, infiltrate and strengthen opposition movements, fund
them with millions of dollars, organize protests that seem legitimate and have paid political
instigators dress up in regular clothes to blend in."
So, yes, the grievances are real, but that doesn't mean that someone else is not steering
the action. And just as the media is shaping the narrative for its own purposes, so too, there
are agents within the movement that are inciting the violence. All of this suggests the
existence of some form of command-control that provides logistical support and assists in
communications. Check out this excerpt from a post at Colonel Pat Lang's website Sic Semper
Tyrannis:
"The logistical capabilities of antifa+ are also impressive. They can move people around
the country with ease, position pallet loads of new brick, 55 gallon new trash cans of frozen
water bottles and other debris suitable for throwing on gridded patterns around cities in a
well thought out distribution pattern. Who pays for this? Who plans this? Who coordinates
these plans and gives "execute orders?"
Antifa+ can create massive propaganda campaigns that fit their agenda. These campaigns are
fully supported by the MSM and by many in the Congressional Democratic Party. The present
meme of "Defund the Police" is an example. This appeared miraculously, and simultaneously
across the country. I am impressed. Yesterday the frat boy type who is mayor of Minneapolis
was booed out of a mass meeting of radicals in that fair city because he refused to endorse
abolishing the police force.
Gutting the civil police forces has long been a major goal of
the far left, but now, they have the ability to create mass hysteria over it when they have
an excuse ."
("My take on the present situation", Sic Semper Tyrannis)
Colonel Lang is not the only one to marvel at Antifa's "logistical capabilities". The United
States has never experienced two weeks of sustained protests in hundreds of its cities at the
same time. It's beyond suspicious, it points to extensive coordination with groups across the
country, a comprehensive media strategy (that probably preceded the killing of George Floyd), a
sizable presence on social media (to put people on the street), and agents provocateur whose
task is to incite violence, loot and create mayhem.
None of this has anything to do with racial justice or police brutality. America is being
destabilized and sacked for other purposes altogether. This a destabilization campaign similar
to the CIA's color revolutions designed to topple the regime (Trump), install a puppet
government (Biden), impose "shock therapy" on the economy pushing tens of millions of Americans
into homelessness and destitution, and leave behind a broken, smoldering shell of a country
easily controlled by Federal shock troops and wealthy globalist mandarins. Here's a short
excerpt from an article by Kurt Nimmo at his excellent blog "Another Day in the Empire":
"The BLM represents the forefront of an effort to divide Americans along racial and
political lines, thus keeping race and identity-based barbarians safely away from more
critical issues of importance to the elite, most crucially a free hand to plunder and ransack
natural resources, minerals, crude oil, and impoverish billions of people whom the ruling
elite consider unproductive useless eaters and a hindrance to the drive to dominate, steal,
and murder .
It is sad to say BLM serves the elite by ignoring or remaining ignorant of the main
problem -- boundless predation by a neoliberal criminal project that considers all -- black,
white, yellow, brown -- as expliotable and dispensable serfs. " (" 2 Million Arab Lives
Don't Matter ", Kurt Nimmo, Another Day in the Empire)
The protest movement is the mask that conceals the maneuvering of elites. The real target of
this operation is the Constitutional Republic itself. Having succeeded in using the Lockdown to
push the economy into severe recession, the globalists are now inciting a fratricidal war that
will weaken the opposition and prepare the country for a new authoritarian order.
the media narrative that applauds the "mainly peaceful protests" while ignoring the vast
destruction to Hong Kong where there was neither police violence nor racial discrimination.
Look like the same organizing principles were used in both places.
Of course that explains why anti-fa attack Yellow Vests in Germany.
The Yellow Vests are the true people's movement and as shown in the video below it is not
about the left and the right for the yellow vest but common people fed up with the system, a
true grass roots movement of the people.
And Anti-fa, the Whores of the Satanic elites attack them. Why would anti-fascists attack the
common man?
Watch every frame of this. It shows the government-media complex and their little thugs,
ANTIFA, in perfect collusion to interfere with the regular Germans trying to stop the Satanic
communist-Globo homo project.
Few arguments in contra of the article. Can any-one conceive of there being a competition between BLM rioting organizing and
covertly supporting, and Corona-19, where the elites were very cohesive internationally in the face.
The target, Trump, the man with no policies, the implement nothing, is it such a worthy target to a fraction of the power
elites? That would speak for shallowness on their behalf. Creating back-ground noise to fade out the re-organizing of society,
regardless of actors as Trump could be an acceptable explanation. "Keep the surplus population busy. Keep the attention on the
streets".
There is a trade-off. The international elites see the exposure of the US internal policies, the expenditure of energy, do
they regard the situation as something to copy-paste, an interesting experiment, or as weakness to be taken advantage of?
Probably the first, then BLM covert support chains perfectly with Corona-19, and scales things up.
"Black neighborhoods need more security not less."
Police are not security, they're repression. Anybody of any color who thinks they're safer
with heavily armed bureaucrats blundering around is a moron.
And since when does reductions in guard labor equal austerity? There are several economic
rights that should not be derogated, but assholes with guns impounding cars is not one of
them. If the residents of a community are asking for more cops, that's one thing. They are
not. Law enforcement budgets are stuffed up the ass of residents and often municipalities.
Look into e.g. the MA "strong chief" enabling acts. States have massive unfunded pension
liabilities in large part because of police featherbedding. That's what's being pushed by the
"deep state" (you mean CIA.) The evident CIA use of provocateurs is aimed at justifying
further increases in repressive capacity.
OK bye! Don't let the door hit your fat ass on the way out! Stupid and delusional though pigs are, it's dimly dawning on them that America considers
them crooked loudmouthed violent assholes. Here's a typical one exercising what Gore Vidal
called the core competence of police, whining.
Boo hoo hoo, asshole, go home and beat your wife or eat a gun or whatever it is you dream
of doing in retirement, cause the states can't afford your crooked unions' pensions in this
induced depression. Cut these white man's welfare jobs.
Is Antifa a group of deep state agitators? That's the question.
In the Sunday edition of the New York Times– the official propaganda organ of US
elites– an article is entirely devoted to creating "plausible deniability" that Antifa
is behind the violence in the protests that have swept the country.
Why is the Times so concerned that its readers might have a different opinion on this
matter? Why do they want to convince people that the protests-riots are merely spontaneous
outbursts of anti-racist sentiment? Could it be because the Times job is to create a version
of events that suits the interests of the elites it serves? Here's a few excerpts from
today's piece titled "Federal Arrests Show No Sign That Antifa Plotted Protests":
While anarchists and anti-fascists openly acknowledged being part of the immense
crowds, they call the scale, intensity and durability of the protests far beyond anything
they might dream of organizing. Some tactics used at the protests, like the wearing of
all black and the shattering of store windows, are reminiscent of those used by anarchist
groups, say those who study such movements. (plausible deniability)
Anarchists and others accuse officials of trying to assign blame to extremists rather
than accept the idea that millions of Americans from a variety of political backgrounds have
been on the streets demanding change. Numerous experts also called the participation of
extremist organizations overstated. (plausible deniability)
"A significant number of people in positions of authority are pushing a false narrative
about antifa being behind a lot of this activity," said J.M. Berger, the author of the
book "Extremism" and an authority on militant movements. "These are just unbelievably large
protests at a time of great turmoil in this country, and there is surprisingly little
violence given the size of this movement.".. (plausible deniability)
In New York, the police briefed reporters on May 31, claiming that radical anarchists
from outside the state had plotted ahead of protests by setting up encrypted communications
systems, arranging for street medics and collecting bail funds.
Within five days, however, Dermot F. Shea, the city's police commissioner, acknowledged
that most of the hundreds of people arrested at the protests in New York were actually New
Yorkers who took advantage of the chaos to commit crimes and were not motivated by political
ideology . John Miller, the police official who had briefed reporters, told CNN that most
looting in New York had been committed by "regular criminal groups." (plausible
deniability)
Kit O'Connell, a longtime radical leftist activist and community organizer in Austin, said
that shortly after Mr. Trump's election, the group took part in anti-fascist protests in the
city against a local white supremacist group and scuffled separately with Act for America, an
anti-Muslim organization.
Why is the Times acting like Antifa's attorney? Why are the trying to minimize the role of
professional agitators? Why is the Times so determined to shape the public's thinking on this
matter?
Doesn't this suggest that Antifa and other groups operating within the protest movement
are actually linked to agencies in the deep state that are conducting another operation
against the American people?
@anonymous anonymous, I have been encouraging cops to quit for a long time. They are
protecting the wrong people, being used to protect people in the ruling class that hate and
despise cops just a little less than they hate and despise the rest of us civilians.
To the issue at hand, black people should only be policed, arrested, charged, prosecuted,
defended, judged, and (if found guilty) punished by other blacks. No white person should have
anything to do with it. Any white person policing negros in America is making a huge mistake,
and should immediately quit.
The pensions are not going to be paid, and the crazy, Soros paid for black people are
going to make it impossible for a white cop pretty soon anyway. Might as well walk before
they make you run.
Don't worry about BLM, which is corporate phoney bullshit protest, easter parades and
internet posturing. The blacks in the street don't fall for that shit. Look what happens when
coopted oreos try to herd everybody back to tame marching:
The provocateurs are not influencing them. The sellout house negroes are not influencing
them. They know what they want. The regime is shitting its pants. If they scapegoat Trump and
purge him, Biden will inherit the same problem only worse.
Won't these riots create a wave of revulsion among the silent majority and consolidate
Trump's support base?
That's what I am wondering too. It makes more sense to me that the elites driving these
BLM riots are those who support Trump. Terrify people and threaten the existence of police is
a good way to get elderly white voters out of their covid lockdowns on election day.
Doesn't this suggest that Antifa and other groups operating within the protest movement
are actually linked to agencies in the deep state that are conducting another operation
against the American people?
Do we really want to suggest the CIA is committing treason against the American people?
Isn't it more likely that the Times is agitating against the CIA for other reasons? Reasons
Carlos Slim could explain?
For those who haven't read Pepe Escobar's latsest on BLM, here's a couple clips:
Black Lives Matter, founded in 2013 by a trio of middle class, queer black women very
vocal against "hetero-patriarchy", is a product of what University of British Columbia's
Peter Dauvergne defines as "corporatization of activism".
Over the years, Black Lives Matter evolved as a marketing brand, like Nike (which
fully supports it). The widespread George Floyd protests elevated it to the status of a new
religion. Yet Black Lives Matter carries arguably zero, true revolutionary appeal. This is
not James Brown's "Say It Loud, I'm Black and I'm Proud". And it does not get even close to
Black Power and the Black Panthers' "Power to the People".
Black Lives Matter profited in 2016 from a humongous $100 million grant from the Ford
Foundation and other philanthropic capitalism stalwarts such as JPMorgan Chase and the
Kellogg Foundation.
The Ford Foundation is very close to the U.S. Deep State. The board of directors is
crammed with corporate CEOs and Wall Street honchos. In a nutshell; Black Lives Matter, the
organization, today is fully sanitized; largely integrated into the Democratic Party machine;
adored by mainstream media; and certainly does not represent a threat to the 0.001%.
an evident ham-handed attempt to make this all about race. The real threat to this police
state is racial and international solidarity against state predation – the stuff that
got Fred Hampton killed,
"when I talk about the masses, I'm talking about the white masses, I'm talking about the
black masses, and the brown masses, and the yellow masses, too We say you don't fight racism
with racism. We're gonna fight racism with solidarity. We say you don't fight capitalism with
no black capitalism; you fight capitalism with socialism."
or Angela Davis and the Che-Lumumba club. BAP is right back on this and the resonating
international demonstrations show that that's the right track. The whole world sees what this
is about, except for a few fucked-over US whites.
botazefa, of course the CIA is committing treason against the American people. Where were you
when they whacked JFK, then RFK? Where were you when they blew up OKC? Where were you when
they released anthrax on the Senate, infiltrated and protected 9/11 terrorists, assigned more
terrorists to MITRE to blind NORAD, blew up the WTC for the second time, and exfiltrated the
Saudi logisticians?
Anybody unaware that CIA has been pure treason from inception is (1) retarded XOR (2) a
CIA traitor.
Sorry. The assholes on this asshole site will not let you say that what is important is how
the super-billionaires control us. They are going to insist that it's niggerniggernigger all
the way home and that's all there is to it. You would think they were paid. Or really, really
stupid.
When Gina, she-wolf of Udon Thani, got busted for trying to overthrow the United States
government with Russiagate, she hung onto her job by rigging the succession with all the
Brennan traitors who ran the Russiagate coup.
So we should expect that Gina will now stage a couple massacres like Kent State and
Jackson State, because that's how CIA ratfucked Nixon when he didn't knuckle under.
Gina's extra motivated to stay on top because she's criminally culpable for systematic and
widespread torture:
@Mike Whitney Excellent article and I believe excellent analysis of the situation.
Where we may differ is with Trump's complicity in Deep State efforts. I believe Trump is a
minion of the Deep State. His actions and inactions can not be explained any other way.
Let's assume for a minute, that Pepe Escobar is correct when he says this:
"Black Lives Matter profited in 2016 from a humongous $100 million grant from the Ford
Foundation and other philanthropic capitalism stalwarts such as JPMorgan Chase and the
Kellogg Foundation .
The Ford Foundation is very close to the U.S. Deep State. The board of directors is
crammed with corporate CEOs and Wall Street honchos. In a nutshell; Black Lives Matter,
the organization, today is fully sanitized; largely integrated into the Democratic Party
machine; adored by mainstream media; and certainly does not represent a threat to the
0.001%.
If this is true–and I believe it is– then Black Lives Matter is no different
than USAID or any of the other NGOs that are used to incite revolution around the world. If
this is true, then there is likely a CIA link to these protests, the main purpose of which is
to remove Trump from office.
So Black Lives Matter= activist NGO linked to US Intel agencies= Regime Change
Operation
But there is something else going on here too, (that many readers might have noticed) that
is, the way social media has been manipulated to put millions of young people on the street
in order to promote the agenda of elites.
How did they manage that?
How did they get millions of young people to come out day after day (14 days so far) in
over 400 cities to protest an issue about which they know very little aside from the media's
irritating reiteration of "systemic racism", (a claim that is not supported by the data.)
IMO, we are seeing the first successful social media saturation campaign launched probably
by the Pentagon's Office Strategic Communications or a similar outfit within the CIA. Having
already taken control over the entire mainstream media complex, the intel agencies and their
friends at the Pentagon are now wrapping their tentacles around internet communications in
order to achieve their goal of complete tyrannical social control.
As always, the target of these massive covert operations is the American people who had
better pull their heads out of the sand pronto and come up with a plan for countering this
madness.
@anonymous The elephant in the room, that seems to be ignored by all is the simple fact
that Hispanics are working class heroes. And they outnumber the blacks, and hate their guts
for the most part. Not the scrawny punks withe Che t-shirts, but the actual working types
that are less than thrilled to deal with the weak. Notice how no Hispanic barrios have EVER
been f ** ked with, no matter when the race riot? There is an open fatwa from La Eme
regarding blacks that has never been rescinded. Has a lot to do with the kneegro exodus from
the LA area, which correlates with the lack of looting in the formerly black areas. Which the
MSM prefers to ignore. The happy idiots are mugging for the cameras on a daily basis in
Hollywood, but the Hispanic run Sheriff's office has no problem with popping gas and
defending businesses. Also note that the MSM only reports on areas when a local government
craters to the mob. LA County was under curfew for 7 days due to a mob of looters that
numbered perhaps 2000. If that Jew mayor (with the Italian surname) had not allowed the
looting, then we would have seen the kind of 36 hour turnaround like we had with Rodney King.
The ethnic group that ignores the MSM and stands up for its own people will win in the end.
Right now we are looking more toward the kind of Celtic/Meso-American alliance that is well
known in the penal system. These groups can exist side by side, with each ignoring the other.
Blacks, on the other paw seem to be unable to keep to themselves, at least on the ghetto
level, and will always be an issue for civilization. It's time we stop calling for a generic
and all-inclusive White establishment. The race traitors and weaklings forfeit that right.
When Celts, Italians, Germans, etc. were proud and independent, there was strength. It's time
to return to that ideal. Only the negroid actually lumps all whites together, which the Jews
use as a divisive tool. Strength should be idolized, rather than weakness exploited.
I'm saying that the NYT is not necessarily mouthpiece *only* for the Deep State. As for
your JFK assassination – Senate Anthrax – 9/11 etc, those are considered
conspiracy theories and I've never been persuaded otherwise. I've read up on the theories and
they are not strong.
I don't know what a retarded XOR is except as it relates to logic diagrams and I don't
work for the CIA.
Do Deep State Elements Operate Within the Protest Movement?
It's called Jewish lawfare for Antifa, Jewish control of media, and Jewish cult of Magic
Negro.
Even though Jews led the Gentric Cleansing campaigns against blacks by using mass
immigration, globo-homo celebration, and white middle class return to cities, the Jews are
now pretending be with the blacks and throwing the immigrants, white middle class, and homos
to the black mobs.
simple fact that Hispanics are working class heroes
Some are. Most aren't. And the 'not'% grows with selective Americanization (not
assimilation). Still, I'll take them over the blacks, even with their generally inferior (to
White) culture.
Whites are better with separation from them along with blacks. Whatever the prime driver,
both groups have poisoned America, likely beyond repair. Conquistador gonnna
conquistador.
M. Whitney in comment 21 clarifies his view of BLM as the impetus for this rebellion. That
does not square with the reports of people on the street.
BLM is exactly analogous to BDS: a controlled opposition of feckless halfassed gestures
designed to distract from the real movement. You hear BLM apparatchiks whining about getting
their movement hijacked because people in the streets show solidarity with oppressed groups
worldwide – and youe hear BLM getting booed by the people they're trying to corral.
BLM's mission is putting words in the protestors' mouths. You hear Democrat BLM spokesmodels
trying to distort calls for police abolition and no more impunity. And real protestors call
bullshit.
BLM works on dumb white guys: hating on BLM makes them feel very edgy and defiant. Black
Lives Matter! Blue Lives Matter! Black! Blue! Black! Blue! Catnip for dumbshits, courtesy of
CIA. Keeps them away from the really subversive stuff, which makes perfect sense for whites
too.
@ICD Look into whether the training of cops has been outsourced and privatized. Or simply
shortened to save money.
And ask why the police are even armed when in Communist China they are not, and
traditionally in the non-American West they were not, now are in imitation of America.
Ann Nonny Mouse, truer words were never spoken. Chinese cops have these cute little
nightsticks, and sometimes they will bop a guy and the guy just stands there and says Ow and
the cops continue to reason with him, no restraint, incapacitation, any of that shit. British
cops used to be that way, they used to reason with you. Now they're all American style
Assholes, if not Israeli concentration camp guards. Just nuke FOP HQ in Memphis.
Koch sees privatization as a future profit center and a chance to control the cops
himself. They're not trainable, they're too fucking stupid. We all did fine without pigs up
through most of the 19th century. Hue and cry works fine. Fire all the cops and replace them
with unarmed women social workers. That's all they are, prodigiously incompetent social
workers.
Too, those many businesses with all that unsold inventory sitting around gathering dust due
to Covid isolation will benefit from insurance payments covering their losses due to looting.
The cherry on top.
Are you just clueless or what? Did you notice the names of the Antifa leaders that have
been exposed? They are Amish Right? They are Jews and they will always be Jews! Soros and
other Jews have been running this game for a long time. Where have you been? SDS in Chicago
no Jews there right!
The CIA and the FBI overwhelmed with Jews can you count? All the professors who have been
destroying whites with their fake studies blaming everything wrong in the world on Whites and
Western Civilization. The entire Media owned by who?
Either you were dropped out of a spaceship a few days ago or you are a total idiot and
can't see the forest before trees.
Try this: The Percentage of all Ivy League Presidents, top adminstrators, deans etc take a
guess then go count them and see which group they belong to.
Does anyone believe the nationwide riots and looting are a spontaneous reaction to the
killing of George Floyd?
It's all too coordinated, too widespread, and too much in-sync with the media narrative
.
* * *
This a destabilization campaign similar to the CIA's color revolutions designed to
topple the regime (Trump), install a puppet government (Biden), impose "shock therapy" on
the economy pushing tens of millions of Americans into homelessness and destitution, and
leave behind a broken, smoldering shell of a country easily controlled by Federal shock
troops and wealthy globalist mandarins.
One must wonder: How could the CIA and the U.S. Democrat establishment foment and
coordinate all of the Black Lives Matter protests occurring in Canada, several nations of
South and Central America, the U.K., Ireland, throughout the European Union, and in
Switzerland, the Middle East (Turkey, Iran ), and in Asia (Korea, Japan .) and New Zealand,
Australia, and Africa?
Mr. Whitney: Neither magic nor bigotry-induced hallucinations can forge a tenable
conspiracy theory.
I think the primary reason the mainstream media doesn't want the general public, especially
those living outside the major cities, to understand the extent of the destruction and
violence that spread in a highly-coordinated fashion across America, is that this would be
cause for alarm among a majority of Americans who would demand more Law & Order, which
would redound to Trump's benefit.
Notice Trump is countering by tweeting "LAW & ORDER!"
Here is Trump tweeting "Does anyone notice how little the Radical Left takeover of Seattle
is being discussed in the Fake News Media[?] That is very much on purpose "
Does anyone notice how little the Radical Left takeover of Seattle is being discussed in
the Fake News Media. That is very much on purpose because they know how badly this weakness
& ineptitude play politically. The Mayor & Governor should be ashamed of
themselves. Easily fixed!
The outcome of the election in November could hinge on the urgency the public places on
the issue of Law & Order. Hence the media's all out effort to minimize the extent of the
Anarchy and Violence and the financial sponsorship, planning, and coordination behind it.
Please see my comment of June 15, 2020 at 1:38 am GMT (comment # 34). I must apologize for
that comment's insufficiency (owed to my posting that comment before I happened upon your
comment to which this comment replies). Had I encountered your comment earlier, my
June 15, 2020 at 1:38 am GMT comment (comment # 34) would have observed that you are
triumphantly illogical as you are a world class crackpot.
@ICD You said it. Police Departments country-wide are stuffed up the wazoo with more cash
than they can spend. But what do they cry? Poor us. Poor us. We ain't got no money.
This is what they, and by they, I mean all our owners and their overseers, always do. They
cry poverty when they are rolling in loot.
Do Deep State Elements Operate Within the Protest Movement?
Yes, and the left(unwittingly) will help them with their cause, and the right will
cowardly hide right behind the deep state as protection from the violent left.
@Priss Factor You are extremely unlikely to receive any of those things from a "Negro".
90% of Americans are unlikely to even see more than ten black people in their entire lives.
I wish you psychotic fucking female idiots on this website who are constantly blathering
about black people could realize how annoying you are to the 90% of white people who are not
living in or next to black ghettos. Please STFU and allow discourse to trend in more
pertinent directions, and move away from black people if you're so paranoid about them.
@Mike Whitney The (((media))) have an uphill battle in convincing us to deny the evidence
of our eyes -- black-hooded white punks throwing bricks through storefronts then inviting
joggers to loot.
That is why so many platforms, even "free speech" GAB, are wildly censoring
counter-narratives.
@Brian Reilly Stephen Molyneux said that police forces were originally geared to operate
under white Christian societies where there was a high level of trust and people were
law-abiding. I remember when I was a kid, we didn't even lock our doors. Our bikes were left
out on the front lawn, sometimes for days, weeks, and nobody took them. Nobody locked their
car doors. People just didn't steal other people's stuff. When a cop tried to pull you over,
you didn't hit the gas pedal and take off. You didn't run from the cops; you were polite to
them and they were polite to you.
Tucker Carlson said that Blacks are now asking for their own hospitals (I forget what city
this was) and their own doctors and nurses. Blacks schools, Black police forces.
Tribes don't mix. Their culture is different than our culture. Why should they change for
us, and why should we change for them?
It is a marriage that does not work. Either send them back to Africa (best solution) or
give them Mississippi and put up a big wall. Then let them pay for their own upkeep –
all of it. Good luck with that.
Yesterday the frat boy type who is mayor of Minneapolis was booed out of a mass
meeting of radicals in that fair city because he refused to endorse abolishing the police
force.
Mayor Jacob Frey got elected at his extremely young age by flanking on the Left with anti
police rhetoric, He is the the originator of this crisis; as soon as the video of Floyd's
death was public Frey publicly and literally called the four cops murderers and said
he was powerless to have them arrested. That was a false accusation of police impunity,
because the supposedly powerless Frey was able to order the police to vacate their own
station thus letting the demonstrators take over and burn it. Yet to draw back a bit the Deep
State if worried about other states.
That event Frey largely created was the key moment of this whole thing. Trump could have
nipped it in the bud by had sending in troops immediately the Minneapolis 3rd Precinct was
burnt down. Crushing the riots in that city and preventing the example infecting the
demonstrations in other cities. and turning them into cover for riots. Trump did not want to
be seen as Draconian although it would not have been at all violent, because no one is going
to challenge the army's awesome presence once it arrived on the streets,as worked in the
Rodney King riots.
The real target of this operation is the Constitutional Republic itself. Having
succeeded in using the Lockdown to push the economy into severe recession, the globalists
are now inciting a fratricidal war that will weaken the opposition and prepare the country
for a new authoritarian order.
George Floyd had foam visible at the corners of his mouth when the police arrived. Autopsy
tests revealed Fentanyl and COVID-19: both from Wuhan. I Can't Breath is America gearing up
to confront and settle accounts with Xi's totalitarian state.
Current events might seem to be a setback for the US, but provide the opportunity for a
re-set with the black community, with a potential outcome of resolving race tensions that
have been a cause of dissension and internal weakness, just as during the Cold War racial
integration was thought essential by anti communists like Nixon. America is gearing up to
settle accounts with China, which is a Deep State new Cold War. While it is a possibility
that whites could lose control of their society, and see it fall into the hands of an
explicitly anti -acist elite/ minorities alliance, the Deep State is not the same as the
hyper capitalist elite whose growing wealth depends on China.
Do Deep State Elements Operate Within the Protest Movement?
@Mike Whitney The Duran did an excellent video titled "Social Media 'Unchecked Power'"
where they talk about Trump and Barr going after the tech companies and their virtual
monopolies with an executive order.
At 33:45 they state that Microsoft (Bill Gates) invested $1 billion and the CIA invested
$16 million into Facebook when it was still operating as a university network. The CIA were
one of the first investors in Facebook.
Why the hell was the CIA investing $16 million to get Facebook off the ground? Hmmm. Could
it be because Facebook would be instrumental in controlling the narrative?
The young people, who have no experience and no real knowledge of history, are being taken
in by these social media companies who are playing on their emotions. Any dissenting opinions
are blocked or banned. Very dangerous.
@Loup-Bouc Well, the "deep state" is just an euphemism for the jewish power structure,
and all those places you named are run be jews. That jews cooperate in extended conspiracies
without regard of borders should be common knowledge for every observer of history and
current politics. I see nothing far-fetched. Honestly, my mind would boggle if I should
explain, how the Antifa gets away with those things it always gets away with, if it wasn't
controlled by the "deep state". And I couldn't explain the international cooperation either.
As Pepe' Escobar said – Americans looting is a natural thing – just look at how
the US Military has stolen the gaz and oil from Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc. and is trying like
hell for the Venezuelan oil fields. Not to mention where all their gold, silver and billions
of dollars have gone. The list of the USG looting criminal record is unprecedented . It's a
Family Tradition. Enjoyed the article !
@MrFoSquare The Capitol Hill area of Seattle that has been taken over as an "autonomous
zone" by the protesters is really rather laughable.
One of the first things they did was put up what they called "light fencing". Oh, so when
THEY put up walls, that's perfectly fine. When Trump tries to do it, that's evil and racist.
Borders are A-okay when they're doing it.
They've colonized an area for themselves. I thought the Progressive Left was against
colonialism, taking someone else's property. Isn't that what they've done? They've taken over
whole neighborhoods.
And they've got armed patrol guards checking people as they enter. If you're not in
agreement with their ideology, you're not allowed to enter. So apparently it's okay to have
border controls when they're running the world.
They're doing everything they profess to be against. Hilarious.
@Brian Reilly "anonymous, I have been encouraging cops to quit for a long time."
Dude, why? I don't want to get jacked by some thug or some immigrant policeman from
Honduras. And I can't defend myself because it would be a hate crime.
There are underlying motives, or "hidden agendas", beneath the authentic struggle for
justice. The greatest motive is for power: either to retain it or gain it. The need or desire
for power can be identified in every conflict in history. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@Realist So you think that everything they've done to Trump has been one big show and
he's been in on it? The pussy tape, Stormy Daniels, spying on his campaign, the leaking, the
Steele Dossier, Russiagate, Ukrainegate, his impeachment, lying to the FISA Courts by the
FBI, CIA's involvement, Mueller Report, DNC server, Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the tarmac,
fake news media, sanctuary cities, courts disobeying his executive orders, Covid-19, protests
– all of it has been a ruse to fool us into thinking that Trump is a legitimate
opposition?
What, it's better to have the citizens split politically 50/50? That way there's never a
majority who start throwing their weight around and making trouble for the elite looters?
Keep the people fighting among each other and divided?
Trump has gone through all of this, but he's just faking it? Are we Truman from the Truman
Show?
I guess you could be right, but what if you're not? What if Trump is actually an outsider?
He's never really ever been part of the elite, not really. If he is truly an outsider, then
these people have been a party to an attempted coup against a duly-elected President.
And if so, then that's sedition and they should hang.
@PetrOldSack Trump is just a puppet, well maybe a bit more, of the part of the MIC and
Deep State that apparently has a different agenda. This is not to say that they are "good
people" but they seem to want to keep the US as a functioning republic and a major power.
Maybe they have some plans re the other group(s) in the elites that are extremely dangerous
for those groups. Which would explain why those groups ("globalists") want to remove those
elements of influence people behind Trump get from the fact that he is the president. This
explains why fake Covid-19 was so pumped by the media and when that apparently did not work
they moved on to BLM "color revolution". It is interesting how all of this plays out, as it
will decide the fate of the world. Ironically, Xi, Putin and other leaders that represent
groups wanting to maintain (some) sovereignty of their states have a common enemy, even as
their states are in competition, namely "globalist" elements within their own power
structures.
One of the goals of the British security service, MI5, is to control the leader or deputy
leader of any subversive organisation larger than a football team. The same is likely true in
every country.
The typical criticism of MI5 is that it is too passive, and does not use its knowledge to
close down hostile groups. In Algeria, the opposite happened: the Algerian security service
infiltrated the most extreme Islamist group in the 1990s and aggravated the country's civil
war by committing massacres, with the goal of creating public revulsion for the
Islamists.
This range of possibilities makes it hard to figure out what the Deep State and other
manipulators are doing.
@Sean Frey is a weak Leftist. The equally weak Governor (another Leftie) needed to handle
the situation. He didn't. Trump told him that the feds would help if he asked; he didn't.
This is all on the state and local governments. They did nothing except to tell the cops
to stand down while the city got looted and burned.
If Trump had sent in the military, they would have screamed blue murder. They probably
would have called for his impeachment. Of course, that's what they wanted Trump to do. Thank
goodness Trump didn't fall for their trap.
So the NYT has joined the vanguard af the American People's Revolution?! People change sides
and not all organisations are uniform, even the CIA. There has to be some organisation to
these protests and whoever is providing it, I doubt the protesters are complaining, but want
even more of it, and for it to be more effective, widespread and to grow. And finding
protesters is no problem now or in the future considering the state of the economy, business
closures, rising unemployment, expensive education. What are all these young people supposed
to do? Sit at home playing video games, surfing porn, watching TV? Or go on a holiday? Now in
these circumstances? I guess they're bored with all that so they may as well hit the streets
and stay on the streets as they'll be on the streets anyway when they get evicted because
they can't pay the rent. And as they're being impoverished they may as well steal what they
can. And obviously they don't fear arrest and are happy to get a criminal record since even a
clean sheet won't get them a job in the failing economy, and they know that. I'm sure many
want a solution that will provide for their future. But who is providing it? So it's on them
to create it. Of course politicians will want to use them and manipulate them for their own
ends. And the elites, and the deep state too. And sure there are Jews in it as in anything.
And sure they're fat, ugly, and degenerate – they're Americans reflecting their own
society. But where it goes nobody knows
@Mike Whitney "Is Antifa a group of deep state agitators? That's the question."
99% of them wouldn't have a clue as to any larger strategic direction. Sorry,
but to repeat myself: "useful idiots".
"Do Deep State Elements Operate Within the Protest Movement?"
Well, duh! It seems likely that the entire George Floyd murder on camera was a staged
event, its even possible that he/it was never really killed. See:
PSYOP? George Floyd "death" was faked by crisis actors to engineer revolutionary riots,
video authors say
" Numerous videos are now surfacing that directly question the authenticity of the claimed
"death" of George Floyd by Minneapolis police. Several trending videos appear to reveal
striking inconsistencies in the official explanations behind the reported death of Floyd.
These videos appear to reinforce the idea that the George Floyd incident was, if not entirely
falsified, most definitely planned and rigged in advance. It is already confirmed that the
Obama Foundation was tweeting about George Floyd more than a week before he is claimed to
have died. "
"Obviously, since Barack Obama doesn't own a time machine, the only way the Obama
Foundation could have tweeted about George Floyd a week before his death is it the entire
event was planned in advanced.
Note: We do not endorse every claim in each of the videos shown below, but we believe the
public has the right to hear dissenting views that challenge the official narratives, and we
believe public debate that incorporates views from all sides of a particular issue offers
inherent merit for public discourse.
Numerous video authors are now spotting stunning inconsistencies in the viral videos that
claim to show white cops murdering George Floyd in broad daylight. Without exception, these
video authors, many of whom are black, believe:
at least one of the "police officers" was actually a hired crisis actor who has appeared
in other staged events in recent years.
that the black man depicted in the viral videos is not, in fact, an individual named
George Floyd.
that the responding medical personnel were not EMTs but were in fact mere crisis actors
wearing police costumes.
Each of the video authors shown below reveals still images and video clips that they say
support their claims. Here's an overview of some of the most intriguing videos and the
summary of what those videos are saying: .":
@Mike Whitney I think you are correct Mike. IF blm got $100 million from anyone it
follows that they are beholden -- & the only entities capable of such "generosity" are
"establishment" it therefore follows that BLM are beholden (controlled) by the establishment
( .the deep state .)
Now the New York Times thinks that the black, brown, white and yellow lives are dispensable
does it mean their own GRAY lives matter more to the rest of us? No, it does not!
The scale and coordination alone suggests that elements in the deep state are probably
involved.
It seems right and logical.
But what I don't understand, is why the deep state elite don't understand that in the end the
collapse of the "traditional society" will touch them too in their private life. In the long
run the ruining of the US will ruin everybody in the US including them. Don't they get it ?
Maybe they are intoxicated by their own lies are are begining to lose their lucidity. Like Al
Pacino intoxicated by his own coke in scarface.
@MrFoSquare What we need are some solid numbers:
How many arrested? (& who are they?)
How many properties destroyed?
Dollars worth of damage?
Which cities had the worst damage?
A social media "history" of protest/riot posting ?
Where/who are responsible for brick/frozen water bottle stashes?
Travel histories of notable offenders?
Links between "protesters" & the media ?
Money? Who/what/when/how was all this funded on a day-to-day basis.
And so on.
Mike Whitney doesn't know the first thing. It takes a lot of organizing time and personnel to
properly prepare and lead in the field any large public protest. There are people experienced
in this. Getting them together and deploying their capability is required.
These protests are classic unplanned, spontaneous actions. At least the first major wave
of them. Only after some time will parties try to lead, organize. Or manipulate.
First thing, it's like trying to herd cats. So, you need marshals. Lots of them. Ably led,
and clearly seen. Just to try and steer a protest down one street or to some point. You need
first aid available, provision for seniors and children. Water. Knowledgeable people to deal
with the media.
People who know what they're doing to deal with senior police. With city transit, buses,
taxis. Hospitals, road construction, fire departments. A good protest cleans itself up too so
provide the means for that. Loudspeakers, music – all this an more has to be organized.
By some people.
And 100% of this or even a hint of organizing is not evident at these protests. And the
evidence is easy to see. Organizers advertise too for volunteers. Everything in plain sight
for those with eyes to see.
If you are stupid enough to think that some handful of fruitcakes from some official
agency could even find their way to a protest, actually have a clue how to conduct themselves
and not get laughed at or just ignored – there's no hope for you. You know nothing
about protests and are pedalling fantasy.
@obwandiyag As usual, you're completely delusional. Most police departments are in the
exact same boat as the municipalities that fund them: one downturn (like, say, a public
lockdown followed by public disorder and looting) from going right to the wall.
There won't be any need to "defund" police; most of America's cities and towns are soon to
be on the bread line, looking for those Ctrl-P federal dollars. Quarterly deficits of twenty
trillion, here we come!
@Thomasina The power elite have different factions and they fight each other to a point,
but they do not try to expose each other. This is why none of Trump enemies are going to be
put in prison.
This is why Trump supports don't know what Genie Engery is, not that they would care.
The scum Trump appointed should tell you what side he's on.
I don't know if Antifa is run directly by the three-letter FedGov agencies. But I do know
that the university is the breeding ground for these vermin, and all universities, even
"private" ones, are largely funded by the governmnent, and are tax exempt.
@schnellandine The Hispanics in America are similar to waves of Italians in the late 19th
and early 20th Centuries, except the numbers are far larger and never ending, which impacts
assimilation. The Hispanics are the ones doing the hard physical labor for low pay, and they
are the ones in American society to invest in learning the skill to perform some of those
backbreaking, low paying jobs well. They are the Super Marios of today. Many of them ply
their trades as small businessmen. They are thankful for their jobs and the people they
serve.
Many are loving, salt-of-the-earth type people who genuinely love their blanco friends.
Howard Stern thinks their music sucks but at least they sing songs about el corazon, music of
the heart and of love. (No one is comparable to the Italians in that department, but what do
you suppose happened to the beautiful love music produced by black male vocalists as late as
a generation ago?) Except for the fact that Hispanics come from countries with long
traditions of corrupt, El Patron governments which unfortunately they want to enact here as a
social safety net, they are often traditional in their attitudes about religion and family.
Of course, they get in drunken brawls, abuse their women, and the graft and incompetence in
their institutions can be outrageous. The reason they flee here is because the world they've
created themselves in the shithole places they've leaving isn't as good as the West created
by Caucasian cultures. The law abiding, decent family people I'm speaking of prosper
alongside of whites and many come to recognize that whites and Hispanics can build a common
destiny that's far preferable to the direction black agitators are taking blacks in America.
So you think that everything they've done to Trump has been one big show and he's been
in on it? The pussy tape, Stormy Daniels, spying on his campaign, the leaking, the Steele
Dossier, Russiagate, Ukrainegate, his impeachment, lying to the FISA Courts by the FBI,
CIA's involvement, Mueller Report, DNC server, Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the tarmac,
fake news media, sanctuary cities, courts disobeying his executive orders, Covid-19,
protests – all of it has been a ruse to fool us into thinking that Trump is a
legitimate opposition?
Absolutely.
Keep the people fighting among each other and divided?
Yes, but the elite do not fear the majority they are in complete control through
insouciance and stupidity on the majority.
I guess you could be right, but what if you're not? What if Trump is actually an
outsider?
He's not his actions and inactions are impossible to logically explain away he is a minion
of the Deep State.
The protest movement is directed and controlled by the same zionists who control the
government and their goal is the destruction of America and they are being allowed to do the
wrecking and destruction that they are doing, as this helps full fill the zionist communist
takeover of America.
To see where this is leading read up on the bolshevik-communist revolution in Russia and
the communist revolution in China and Cuba and Cambodia, and there is the future of
America.
@Christophe GJ They enjoy human suffering. Who knows maybe their compensation is linked
to dead bodies. The deep state types will dwell in gate communities that will never be
breached. The perks of owning both segments of the "opposition." As for the CIA's owners, a
sharp depopulation has been their goal for some time. Why it has to be so ghoulish and
prolong is anyone's guess.
@Brian Reilly "To the issue at hand, black people should only be policed, arrested,
charged, prosecuted, defended, judged, and (if found guilty) punished by other blacks."
Yeah, some city tried that. To try to satisfy the "Get White police out of our
neighborhoods" they did -- they re-orged and sent only black cops into black neighborhoods,
and let the White cops police the White neighborhoods. And the BLACK POLICE SUED to end that!
They were, they claimed (and legitimately, too!) being treated unfairly by making THEM police
the most violent, the most dangerous, the most deadly neighborhoods, and "protecting" the
White cops from that duty by letting only the White cops work the nice neighborhoods. They
WON too!
(note: "IKAGO" = "I know a good one." the all-too-often excuse from the unawakened!)
=====================
I don't mourn the loss of Baltimore. Or Detroit, Chicago, Gary, Atlanta, etc etc etc.
It is ultimately a huge benefit to have Negroes concentrated in these huge teeming Petri
dishes.
As always I advocate the complete White withdrawal from these horrible urban sh_tholes,
and as always I advocate that since Negroes do not want to be policed, to immediately stop
policing them.
And to anyone who might be naive enough to say "hey, there are good people in those
neighborhoods, who try to work and raise their kids, who obey the law and who abhor the
lawlessness and rioting as much as anyone" . my response is that these same IKAGO's voted for
a Negro president, for Negro mayors, Negro city council members, Negro police chiefs and
Negro school superintendents, and now they are getting exactly what they deserve, good and
effing hard.
I have ZERO sympathy for blacks.
=====================
And the new rule:
Remember when seconds count, the police are not even obligated to respond.
Of course "deep state elements" operate in protests! What A STUPID question, Whitney. All
kinds of political tricksters, manipulators, provocateurs, idiots, fools, people suffering
from ennui, you name it Mike, they're involved. And yes, the murder of the black man in
Minneapolis was the trigger.
That's not the only cause of social unrest. There are lots of reasons that drive the
displeasure of the mass of people and it's not the silly "deep state". Before you use that
term, if you want any sort of salute from intelligent people, you need to define your terms.
Or are just just waving a red flag so you can attract a bunch of stupid Trumpsters?
There's a whole lot of deep state out there, good buddy. Just examine the federal budget
and whatever money you cannot assign to a particular institution or specific purpose, that is
funding your your "deep state". It's billions and billions. But there is no Wizard of Oz
behind the curtain to spend it all on nefarious purposes. Sure, the deep state destroyed the
WTC and killed a few thousand people. These hidden operators can do things civilians can only
imagine, but they cannot create movements, Whitney. You just can't fool all of the people all
of the time.
Are you having a touch of brain degeneration, Mike, like dear autocrat in the White
House?
A great article. While Trump may have some ties to the Deep State, I doubt very much that he
is their puppet. He won the nomination because he was against some of the Deep States key
policies. He even tried to implement his policies but mostly failed due to traitors in his
administration and all the coordinated coup attempts.
One recent development that causes me to think that this article is spot on is the blatant
attacks by retired generals and even currently serving generals against a sitting president.
Even Defense Sec. Esper (the Raytheon lobbyist) criticized Trump's comments on the
Insurrection Act, which was totally unnecessary since Trump only said that he had the
authority to use it.
The coordinated criticism of the generals just reminds me of how similar it is to the
coordinated effort by the CIA, FBI, State Department and NSA to use the Russiagate hoax and
impeachment hoax to remove Trump. The riots, the money funneled from BLM to Biden 2020,
support of Antifa by the MSM and the generals treasonous actions are not coincidences.
I'm surprised by the generally low level of the responses.
Mr. Whitney:
There haven't been 'millions' of protestors, maybe some thousands.
Please list the "valid grievances" that negros hold concerning the cops; are the cops
supposed to raise black IQ? These riots need to be suppressed pronto; don't waste your time
waiting for the fat orange buffoon to do anything.
Negros have no 'communities', and never will.
I'm wondering why Mr. Unz thinks he is required to let leftists like Whitney post
here.
(1)-There is a 'deep state'
(2)-(1) does NOT imply that negros are a noble race.
The opening statement is quite true. They've apparently been organizing under the radar for
some years now. Diversity is our greatest weakness and these fissures that run through the
country can be exploited. Blacks have been weaponized and used as the spearpoint along with
the more purposeful real Antifa (lots of wannabes walking around clad in black). Everything
has really been well coordinated and the Gene Sharp playbook followed. These 'color
revolution' employees are actually all over the globe, funded by various front groups and
NGOs. The money trail often leads to various billionaires like the ubiquitous Soros but
people like that may just be acting as fronts themselves. Supposed leftists working against
the interests of the value producing working class?
The George Floyd murder was a obviously a wholly staged Deep State event, complete with
the usual crisis actors, as this video summary clearly illustrates :
@Brian Reilly"To the issue at hand, black people should only be policed, arrested,
charged, prosecuted, defended, judged, and (if found guilty) punished by other blacks. No
white person should have anything to do with it. "
And when these same blacks attack or steal from a White person, which they often do, do
you think they'll get a just punishment from their fellow blacks or a high five?
The solution to the black problem is complete separation, there is no other way.
@Mike Whitney But why do you assume the CIA wants to get rid of Trump? Isn't that
tantamount to judging a book by its cover? Americans have been on to the evil shenanigans of
the intelligence community for decades. Trump is nothing more than controlled opposition and
a false sense of security for "patriots". One needs look no further than the prognostications
of Q to see that Trump is the beneficiary of deep state propaganda. The CIA's modus operandi,
together with the rest of the IC, is to deceive. So if they appear to be doing one thing
(fighting Trump) you can be sure they intend the opposite.
Americans are nose deep in false dichotomies, and Trump is a pole par excellence. Despite
his flagrant history as an NYC liberal, putative fat cat, swindler, and network television
superstar, he is now depicted as either a populist outsider, or a literal Nazi. The simple
fact is that he is an actor and confidence artist. He is playing a role, and he is playing to
both sides of the aisle, and his work is to deceive the entirety of the American public,
together with the mockingbird media, which is merely the yin to his pathetic yang.
Too many Americans think they have a choice, or a chance, by simply minding their own
business, consuming their media of choice, and voting. In fact, Americans are face to face
with the end of their history, as the country has been systematically looted for decades, and
will soon be demolished as it is no longer profitable to the oligarchs who manage the globe.
Obama-Trump is a 1-2 knockout punch.
@Uomiem That's a good point, and it's of the main problems I do have with Trump: his
cabinet picks and financial backers (Adelsen, Singer, et al.). But in fairness, what happens
when he tries to pick someone who's not approved by the system? Well, if they're cabinet
officers, they'll never get approved by the senate. And even if they're not, they will be
driven out of the White House somehow–just like Gen. Flynn and Steve Bannon. In short,
when it comes to staffing, Trump's choices are limited by the same swamp he's fighting. Sad
but true
@Thomasina Interesting comments by the Duran but I cannot find any evidence of a direct
investment by the CIA in Facebook. The CIA's investment arm, In-Q-Tel, did invest in early
Facebook investor Peter Theil's company Palantir and other companies. Also, Graylock Partners
were also early investors in Facebook along with Peter Theil and the head of Graylock is
Howard Cox who served on In-Q-Tel's board of directors. But these are indirect inferences.
Unlike the clear and direct investment of the CIA in the company that was eventually
purchased by Google and is now called Google Earth, I can't find any evidence of a direct
investment by the CIA in Facebook. I have no doubt it's true since it's a perfect tool for
data gathering. Do you have any direct evidence of such an investment?
Is the Deep State stage-managing the "BLM" protests to further an agenda? Absolutely.
The main influence of the Deep State is felt in its complete dominance of the controlled
media.
Like mantras handed down by the commissars, the mainstream media keep repeating key
phrases to narrowly define what's happening: "mostly peaceful protests", "anti-black
racism".
The media is an organ of the Deep State. The Deep State will decide when the protests will
end, and when that day arrives, the media will suddenly pivot on cue like a school of fish or
a flock of birds.
Perhaps some non believers in the Deep State would like to explain why the multi trillion
dollar corporations in America are supporting BLM, Antifa and other anarchy groups since on
the face of it anarchy would be antithetical to these corporations?
Hint: The wealthy and powerful (aka Deep State) know that anarchy divides a populous
thereby removing their ability to resist their true enemy and even more draconian laws. The
die is being cast at this moment and the complete subjugation of the American people will,
probably, be effectuate by the end of this year. A full court press is under way and life is
about to change for 99% of the American people.
If you disagree with my hint correct it.
Too many Americans think they have a choice, or a chance, by simply minding their own
business, consuming their media of choice, and voting. In fact, Americans are face to face
with the end of their history, as the country has been systematically looted for decades,
and will soon be demolished as it is no longer profitable to the oligarchs who manage the
globe. Obama-Trump is a 1-2 knockout punch.
Your points are excellent. All tragic, devastating events in the last, at least, 20
years have been staged or played to facilitate the total control by the Deep State.
The problem is power – and the nature of those who lust for it. The police are very
powerful, by necessity and the nature of police work is the exercise of power – on the
street.
Not to mention the fact that police forces, like every other institution, are managed from
the top. Sgt. Bernstein back at the station calls the shots, gets to decide who is hired /
fired and generally runs the department like a CEO runs a company. Not all cops are rotten,
but if Sgt. Bernstein is a scumbag, the whole department tends to behave as a scumbag.
I'll give you two guesses, the second one doesn't count, as to which tribe of psychopaths
– who call themselves "chosen" – have mastered the art of playing both sides
against the middle, using the police as a very powerful tool to accomplish an ancient agenda
of world-domination, straight out of The Torah.
The police are just another sad story of the destruction of America, by Shlomo.
@Mike Whitney Any explanation that ignores that the catalyst for what is happening is the
Federal Reserve Notes free fall is not a good explanation.
This is a failed Communist Putsch. The people pushing it have enough control of major
cities to keep it alive but not enough to push it into the heartland. 400 million guns and a
few billion bullets are protecting freedom in the USA just like they were intended to.
All failed communist revolutions end in fascism taking power. The Yahoo news comments
sections are way to big to censor properly and they are already taking on a Fascist tone with
almost half the posters. This is only just beginning and most people are beginning to
understand that these lies non whites tell about the fake systemic racism are too dangerous
to go unchallenged. The idea that the protests ,the protests not the riots, have no
foundation in truth is starting to work its way to the forefront of white peoples minds.
Non whites are coddled by the establishment in the USA and no real racists have any power
in the USA so this whole thing is and has been for 50 years based on lies.
The jew mob is going to lose all their economic power over the next year or so as the Fed
Note hyper-inflates. The mob knows this and made a grab for ideological power using low IQ
ungrateful non whites they have been inculcating with anti white ideals for decades as their
foot soldiers.
They are screwed because the places they control are parasitic just like they are. Cities
are full of people making nothing and pretty much just doing service jobs for each other. All
the things needed to keep cities going come from outside the cities and the jew mob is not in
charge in the places that actually produce things. Not like they are in the cities
anyway.
Ignoring the currency rises makes you dishonest Mike.
I think the leadership and tactics of the police are deplorable. I can only surmise that the
local political leadership in many cities is on the inside of this latest scam.
The police should be able to launch attacks on the crowd to single out those who are
Antifa activists. That is what the riot police in France would do. They should try to ignore
the rabble behind which these activists are sheltering.
By remaining on the defensive and without using the element of surprise to capture these
activists, the police are sitting ducks.
My dad told me what it was like in Cairo when the centre of the city was destroyed in
1952. I was tiny at that time and remember my mother carrying me. We watched Cairo burning in
the distance. We were on the roof of the huge house of my Egyptian grandfather in
Heliopolis.
The looters and arsonists were well-equipped. It was not by any means spontaneous. They
smashed the locks on the draw-down shutters of the shops with sledge hammers. Next, they
looted the shop. Lastly, they tossed in Molotov cocktails. The commercial heart of Cairo was
largely destroyed in a few hours. Cinemas and the Casino were burnt. Cairo was a very
pleasant metropolis in those days. It became prosperous during WW2 by supplying the
Allies.
My family's small factory was in the very centre of Cairo – in Abbassia. My father
rounded up his workers to defend the factory. Many lived on the premises. They were all tough
Sa'idi from Upper
Egypt. Many were Coptic Christians. They all had large staffs that they knew how to use. The
arsonists and looters kept well clear.
JUNE 9, 2020 CityLab University: A Timeline of U.S. Police Protests
The latest protests against police violence toward African Americans didn't appear out of
nowhere. They're rooted in generations of injustice and systemic racism.
@Sean said:
"While it is a possibility that whites could lose control of their society, and see it fall
into the hands of an explicitly anti -[r]acist elite/ minorities alliance,"
"Anti-racist?
The entire matter is "explicit" racism directed against Euro-whites.
@gay troll "But why do you assume the CIA wants to get rid of Trump?"
John Brennan collaborated with James Comey on the Russian collusion narrative. Brennan is
indicative of the upper-echelon CIA and its orientation towards the globalist billionaire
class.
@Loup-Bouc Maybe you also noticed that the opening pages of the article suggested that
the author was unhinged when he made so much of an alleged editorial in the NYT which wasn't
an editorial but an opinion piece by an activist. And what about the spontaneous eruptions of
protest all round the world? Masterminded by the US "Deep State"? Absurd.
Mr. Whitney may have got to an age when he can no longer understand the young and their
latest fashionable fatuities and follies.
@obwandiyag " The assholes on this asshole site will not let you say that what is
important is how the super-billionaires control us. "
Nonsense, I rant against the largely Jewish super-billionaires all the time.
Truth is that blacks and working class whites are in relatively similar positions compared
to the 1%. We should be seeking alliances with people like Rev. Farrakhan, but instead, for
some curious reason, big Jewish money is pouring into keeping racial grievances alive and
kicking. It looks very much like a divide and conquer strategy.
Where did the antiwar and Occupy Wall Street movements go after Obama's election? My guess
is that the financial elite saw the danger of having OWS ask questions about the bailouts, so
they devoted a ton of time and energy into pushing racial grievance politics, gender neutral
bathrooms and the like. Their co-ethnics in the media collaborated with them in making sure
only one perspective made the news.
PS: if you don't like the website, simply avoid visiting it. Trust me, no one will miss
your inane posts.
"90% of Americans are unlikely to even see more than ten black people in their entire
lives."
I sure hope you're talking about IRL, because I see more than ten black people in any
commercial break on any TV show on any cable or network TV station every hour of every day.
In fact, it's at least 50/50 B/W and it feels more like 60/40 B/W. And it's always the blacks
who are in charge, the whites spill chips all over the kitchen floor
@SunBakedSuburb 15 seasons of The Apprentice on NBC is indicative of Trump's
orientation towards the globalist billionaire class. It sure was nice of NBC to thus
rehabilitate Trump's image after it became clear he was a cheat who could not even hold down
a casino. From fake wrestler to fake boardroom CEO, Trump has ALWAYS been made for TV.
As for Russiagate, it was a transparent crock of shit from the moment Clapper sent his
uncorrobated assertions under the aegis of "17 intelligence agencies". You assume the point
of the charade was to "get Trump", but really Russiagate was designed to deceive "liberals"
just as Q was designed to deceive "conservatives". It is the appearance of conflict that
serves to divide Americans into two camps who both believe the other is at fault for all of
society's ills. In fact, it is the Zionists and bankers who are to blame for society's ills,
and like the distraction of black vs. white, Democrat vs. Republican keeps everybody's
attention away from the real chauvinists and criminals.
@Sean Well, I can't deny that yours is an extremely original interpretation. It sure made
me think. I can't say I'm convinced, though it doesn't seem to have any conspicuous a priori
inconsistency with facts. I guess time will tell.
@Realist Agree. Someone posted he had a friend at Minneapolis airport. Incoming planes
were full of antifa types the day after Floyd died.
They are very well organized. They are notorious around universities. Well, not
universities in dangerous black neighborhoods. They live like students in crowded apartments
and organize all their movements. Plenty of dumb kids to recruit. Plenty of downwardly mobile
White grads who can't get jobs or into grad s hook because they're White. Those Whites go
into liberal rabble rousing instead of rabble rousing against affirmative action, so
brainwashed are they. Portland is a college town. That's why antifa is so well organized
there. Seattle's a college town too as is Chicago.
Why ANTIFA doesn't loot banks, doesn't stand in front od Soros home, JPMorgan headquarters,
big corporations, Bezos business .etc? Because rich are paying for riots ..the same way they
payed to support Hitler during WWII.
@Anon Thanks for highlighting the complex racial politics -- in this case between
Hispanics and Africans. That was something Ron Unz got right as well -- independently of the
numerology -- in the other article; basically saying that there have been a lot of various
social-engineering projects going on.
Naturally I'm liable for everything else you said ;/ no comment, no contest,
I think it will be alright if we can get back to basics, natural rights, republican
representative organization, pluralism, etc The corporate nightmare has everyone crammed into
a vat of human resources. Undo that, see how it goes, then take it from there.
@Mike Whitney The reason most of the rioters arrested were native New Yorkers is that
they were the useful idiots designated fall guys.
The organizers are adept at changing clothes hats and sunglasses. Their job is to get
things started by smashing windows of a Nike's store and running away letting a few looters
be arrested.
I remember something written by an Indian communist, not Indian nationalist How To Start a
Riot in the 1920s.
1 Start rumors about abuse of Indians by British.
2. Decide where to start the riots.
3 Best place is in the open air markets around noon. The merchants will have collected
substantial money. The local lay abouts will be up and about.
4 Instigators start fights with the merchants raid cash boxes overturn tables and the riot is
on.
The ancient Roman politicians started riots that way. It's standard procedure in every
country in every era. All this fuss and discussion by the idiot intelligentsia is ridiculous
as is everything the idiot intelligentsia thinks, writes and does.
We Americans experience a black riot every few years, just as we experience floods,
droughts, blizzards , earthquakes, forest fires, tornadoes floods and hurricanes.
As long as we have blacks and liberal alleged intellectuals we'll have riots.
"... From this point of view the current situation is a mixed bag for Neoliberal Dems: protest are partially genuine protests against the level of inequality caused by neoliberalism, partially are an attempt to exploit legitimate grievances in order to topple Trump (CHAZ in Seattle looks like a kind of a new Maidan and clearly were at least partially city council and the governor supported.) ..."
"... The USA version of Hongweibings toppling statues definitely play into Trump hand: radicalization of protests gives Trump an advantage to present himself now as the only "law and order" candidate, the "Silent majority" candidate, a la Nixon. ..."
"... The key weakness of Neoliberal Democrats is the level of hypocrisy in their support of protests: Pelosi (and Schumer) looks like a wolf in sheep clothing donning African scarves. Along with Bill Clinton they did a lot to deprive Afro Americans of the social security benefits they enjoyed under the New Deal Capitalism, and putting them in jails for minor infractions with the law (Biden was the key player here) ..."
"... I would assume that the 2020 election will be a choice between two platforms, not between two candidates. And Trump now represents "law and order" platform. While Biden is forced to represent "change we can believe in" platform. And Democrats already burned all the bridges. ..."
Trump is staggering. He's plunging in the polls, and his behavior has become erratic
and unhinged. I don't mean he's being crude, infantile and wrapped in a world of fantasy
-- he's always like that. Rather, I see him as suddenly incoherent, fumbling with threats
and catchphrases as if he were locked out of his house at night, frantically trying one
key after another to see if any will work.
I think the personalities of Trump and Biden no longer matter: the level of polarization
of the USA electorate is a more important factor now.
In other words, the reaction to the protests of independents will determine the results
on 2020 elections.
From this point of view the current situation is a mixed bag for Neoliberal Dems:
protest are partially genuine protests against the level of inequality caused by
neoliberalism, partially are an attempt to exploit legitimate grievances in order to topple
Trump (CHAZ in Seattle looks like a kind of a new Maidan and clearly were at least
partially city council and the governor supported.)
The USA version of Hongweibings toppling statues definitely play into Trump hand:
radicalization of protests gives Trump an advantage to present himself now as the only "law
and order" candidate, the "Silent majority" candidate, a la Nixon.
The key weakness of Neoliberal Democrats is the level of hypocrisy in their support of
protests: Pelosi (and Schumer) looks like a wolf in sheep clothing donning African scarves.
Along with Bill Clinton they did a lot to deprive Afro Americans of the social security
benefits they enjoyed under the New Deal Capitalism, and putting them in jails for minor
infractions with the law (Biden was the key player here)
One minor point: exaggerated threats is the way Trump operate. He like poker players use
bluffing as a part of the political strategy. It's like he is trying to determine some
limits for each situation and sense how far he can go, as well as putting the opponents off
balance provoking them to overreact,. Then he retreats to a more reasonable position.
I would assume that the 2020 election will be a choice between two platforms, not
between two candidates. And Trump now represents "law and order" platform. While Biden is
forced to represent "change we can believe in" platform. And Democrats already burned all
the bridges.
Please note that Biden political history is the history of a staunch neoliberal,
completely hostile to the interests of the majority of the USA population and, especially,
Afro Americans and white working class (aka deplorable). As such he will now look as
hypocrite no matter what he say.
Heck US aircraft carriers used to visit HK quite often until recently, even after the hand
over. They anchored in the harbor while thousands of sailors headed to the Wanchai bars,
although after the hand over they anchored in a less visible part of the harbor. China didn't
have a problem.
I doubt China sweats a couple of aircraft carriers when we have large bases in Japan and
South Korea, not to mention Guam.
False conflicts with China, North Korea, Russia and Iran are needed to keep support for
MIC and Security State which cost 1.2 trillion a year.
If the US were serious about confronting China there would be sanctions and not tariffs.
China and US are partners. We sell them chips that they put in our electronics and sell to
us, so we can spy on our people, and they test out our social control technology on their own
people. They clothe us, sell cheap API's for drugs and they invest in treasuries and other US
assets and we educate their young talent and give them access to our research and technology
and fund some of their own research and share numerous patents
North Korea is likely to time the announced tests in a way that creates maximum damage for
Trump's reelection campaign.
It matter little which flavor of the establishment a US President hails from.
All Presidents are portrayed as 'peacemakers'. Only peacemakers can claim to fight 'just'
wars.
USA is effectively at war with Syria (via dubious legality of occupying Syrian oilfields),
Venezuela (having seized Venezuelan State assets with the pretense that Juan Guaidó is
the true head of State), and Yemen (via support for Saudi and UAE war on Yemen). And USA
leads/forces its allies in a Cold War with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Then there
is the backstabbing of the Palestinians and the US-backed coup in Peru. Trump is merely
spokesperson for all this belligerence. When he's gone, whether that occurs in 4 months or 4
years, TPTB/Deep State will turn the page and start again.
The Korean Armistice Agreement was a ceasefire, but no peace treaty was ever signed. In
effect the Korean war never ended.
DPRK will not give up her nukes, but that's not where its strength lies. Japan and South
Korea are within range of regular ballistic missiles, where US personnel are just sitting
duck. All this talk about nukes is hooey.
Aside from China, let's not forget Russia, which has a skin in this game. It has an 11
mile border, and 15 mile maritime border with DPRK. It will do it's utmost for North not
become South.
Here's my 2 cents. North Korea should never denuclearize. The US is never going to remove
itself from South Korea. The only reason it won't ever be attacked, is if the cost of
attacking it is too great to justify. Timing this announcement to damage Trump isn't smart.
Yes, Trump gets sabotaged by Pompeo, Bolton when he was around and many others, but at the
end of the day the attack order is still his call and it's been obvious Trump doesn't want a
war with them. He's mostly just bluffing with his threats towards others. If you get Biden in
there, he won't be running the show. Youll have the Pentagon and the neoliberals in charge.
They will be less tough talk on Twitter, but definitely more of a threat to start a major war
It's important to speculate that the relations between the USA and South Korea have their
contradictions.
The South Korean elite certainly would like a complete victory over the North under their
terms (unconditional surrender to the South). That would allow the dream scenario for South
Korea: ransacking their infrastructure (by the chaebols ) and absorbing their 25
million population as cheap workforce.
The South Korean military would also love this scenario, as an enlarged Korea, bordering
both China (in a very favorable terrain for a terrestrial invasion in collaboration with the
Americans) and Russia, with 75 million inhabitants, could rival Japan as the favorite vassal
of the USA in the northwestern Pacific. This would embolden the nationalists at home, open
space to crush the center-left (social-democrats) and add fuel to the melting pot of East
Asia.
A unified Korea under capitalist hegemony would also enable the Korean military to charge
the Americans for much more money, military equipment and other infrastructure in exchange
for keeping their occupation. It would also absorb the North's nuclear weapon technology,
know-how and infrastructure, so it would automatically be a nuclear power. It could even rise
above Japan in geopolitical importance in the American eyes for this reason - it could
essentially be an Israel in East Asia, directly threatening China in the name of the USA.
For that reason I think the USA doesn't want a unified and strengthened Korea - even one
unified under the South's terms.
The American are already bleeding money and resources on Israel, NATO, Japan and the
already existing South Korea. To have another emboldened vassal would bleed the American
fiscus even more.
Besides, the Americans see themselves as the owners of South Korea, in the sense that
South Korea owes their own existence to American occupation. If the North is to fall, I don't
think the USA will allow the South Korean bourgeoisie to simply grab the North Korean
resources and nuclear know-how. I don't think they will make the same mistake they did with
Germany (by allowing the Western elite to absorb the East entirely, which opened the gates to
the creation of the EU and then to the German conquest of Central Europe).
My bet is the North resources would mainly fall to American capital if it was to be
conquered. Maybe the American won't even allow a unified Korea - at least not de facto
.
Kim Jong Un is more than a match for the dope Trump and his class of '86 wargamers. With this
particular agreement the USA confirmed in everyone's eyes that it remains incapable of making
and keeping a deal between nations. It would have been cheap and easy for Trump to walk away
with a deal to give himself security in his second term runup. He cheated, he lied, and he
bragged and so now that very agreement is a lance that the North Korean people can torment
and bleed Trump with for the next six months and more.
Let's be clear about how important and sane the original deal was: relax the oppressive
sanctions, diminish nuclear threats, remove invasion threats in exchange for repatriated
human remains, and NK to destroy its nuclear production facility. That ignorant Pompeo nixed
the deal on his very next visit and proved to Kim on his first round with the USA that the
president was a puppet and the USA incapable of being trusted.
It was easy, it was inexpensive, it was painless and the USA could not do it.
And so Trump handed a weapon to Kim to stab at him throughout his own re-election. No
brains in Kushner or Ivanka's heads as they too have handed a golden opportunity to the North
Korean fox. Fools all.
The North Koreans have only their liberty and nation to lose and they would not lose it back
in the 1950's and they sure wont lose it now. All the more so to a scabrous pack of greedy
Chaebol mafia from the south. Do not forget that the USA bombed the North Koreans
continuously, almost every village was bombed in a free fire zone approach that was repeated
in Vietnam a decade or so later. Koreans were slaughtered in their millions by this grubby
little USA mendacity and it is remembered through the generations. Korea had only just
repulsed the Japanese occupation. They remember - and they wont be suckered by some clown
nation in the Pacific.
DPRK is an ally of both China and Russia, US enemies which are currently besting the US by
undermining its influence. .. from the Senate 2021 proposed budget summary:
Two years ago, the National Defense Strategy (NDS) outlined our nation's preeminent
challenge: strategic competition with authoritarian adversaries that stand firmly against
our shared American values of freedom, democracy, and peace -- namely, China and
Russia.These adversaries seek to shift the global order in their favor, at our expense. In
pursuit of this goal, these nations have increased military and economic aggression, worked
to develop advanced technologies, expanded their influence around the world, and undermined
our own influence. . . here
Posted by: vk | Jun 12 2020 17:54 utc | 7 use its 25 million inhabitants as a brand-new cheap
labor resources with which the chaebols could start a new cycle of capitalist accumulation is
closing.
Not to mention the estimated *6-10 trillion dollars* in natural resources that North Korea
has.
From another article: "An estimate from 2012 by a South Korean research institute values
the North's mineral wealth at $10 trillion, 20-odd times larger than that of the South."
Millions of Americans remain subjected to unprecedented restrictions on their personal
lives, their daily lives, their family's lives.
The coronavirus
lockdowns continue in many places. You may not know that because it gets no publicity, but it's
true. And if you're living under it, you definitely know.
As a result of this, tens of millions of people are now unemployed. A huge number of them
have no prospects of working again. Many thousands of small businesses are closed and will
never reopen. More Americans have become dependent on drugs and alcohol, seeing their marriages
dissolve, and become clinically depressed.
Some of them delayed their weddings. Others were banned by the government from burying their
loved ones in funerals. Some Americans will die of cancer because they couldn't get cancer
screenings, some unknown number have taken their own lives in despair. Others have flooded the
streets to riot because bottled up rage and frustration take many forms.
The cost of shutting down the United States and denying our citizens desperately needed
contact with one another is hard to calculate. But the cost has been staggering.
The people responsible for doing all of this,say they have no regrets about it. We faced a
global calamity, they say. COVID-19 was the worst pandemic since the Spanish flu. That flu
killed 50 million people.
We had no choice. We did the right thing. That's what they're telling us. Is it true?
The answer to that question matters, not just because the truth always matters, but because
the credibility of our leaders is at stake here. This is the biggest decision they have made in
our lifetimes. They were able to make it. They rule because we let them. Their power comes from
us.
As a matter of public health, we can say conclusively the lockdowns were not
necessary.
So the question, now and always is, are they worthy of that power? That's not a conversation
they want to have. And right now, they don't have to have that conversation because all of us
are distracted and mesmerized by the woke revolution underway outside.
They just created a separate country in Seattle. Huh? We'll bring you the latest on that.
But we do think it's worth four minutes taking a pause to assess whether or not they were in
fact lying to us about the coronavirus and our response to it.
And the short answer is this: Yes, they were definitely lying.
As a matter of public health, we can say conclusively the lockdowns were not necessary. In
fact, we can prove that. And here's the most powerful evidence: States that never locked down
at all -- states where people were allowed to live like Americans and not cower indoors alone
-- in the end turned out no worse than states that had mandatory quarantines. The state you
probably live in.
The states that locked down at first but were quick to reopen have not seen explosions of
coronavirus cases. All of this is the opposite of what they said would happen with great
confidence.
The media predicted mass death at places like Lake of the Ozarks and Ocean City, Md. --
places where the middle class dares to vacation. But those deaths never happened. In the end,
the Wuhan coronavirus turned out to be a dangerous disease, but a manageable disease, like so
many others. Far more dangerous were the lockdowns themselves.
For example, in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, panicked and
incompetent governors forced nursing homes to accept infected coronavirus patients, and as a
result, many thousands died, and they died needlessly.
This is all a remarkable story, but it's going almost entirely uncovered. The media would
rather tell you why you need to hate your neighbor for the color of his skin. The media
definitely don't want to revisit what they were saying just a few weeks ago, when they were
acting as press agents for power-drunk Democratic politicians.
We were all played. Corrupt politicians scared us into giving up control over the most
basic questions in our lives. At the same time, they gave more power to their obedient
followers, like Antifa, while keeping the rest of us trapped at home and censored online.
Back then, news anchors were ordering you to stop asking questions and obey.
Chris Cuomo, CNN anchor: All right, so while most Americans are staying inside -- or
should be, right, if they're not out protesting like fools -- they're not happy about being
told to stay home. Staying home saves lives.
And the rest of us should be staying at home for our mothers and the people that we love,
and to keep us farther apart, will ultimately bring us closer together in this cause.
Oh, if you love your mother, you will do what I say. It turns out cable news anchors don't
make very subtle propagandists.
And then Memorial Day arrived in May, and some states started to reopen. Millions of
grateful Americans headed outdoors for the first time in months, and the media attacked them
for doing that. They called them killers.
Swimming with your kids, they told us, was tantamount to mass murder.
Claire McCaskill, MSNBC political analyst: Frankly, a lot of the people in those crowds
-- they thought they were, you know, standing up for what the president believes in and that is
not to care about the public safety part of this.
Robyn Curnow, CNN host: Look at this. I mean, this is kind of crazy, considering we're in
the middle of a global pandemic.
I mean, as one person quipped, you know, that's curving the curve. That's not flattening
it.
Don Lemon, CNN anchor: Massive crowd of people crammed together, as if it were just an
ordinary holiday weekend despite the risks of a virus that has killed more than 98,000
people.
Boy that montage was the opposite of a MENSA meeting. Has that much dumbness been captured
on tape ever?
The last clip you saw was from May 25th. That was just over two weeks ago. "Ninety eight
thousand people are dead. How dare you leave your house? You don't work in the media. You're
not essential."
But it didn't take long for that message to change completely. In fact, it took precisely
five days.
Here's the same brain dead news anchor you just saw less than a week later. He is no longer
angry, you'll notice, about Americans going outside. As long as they are rioting and burning
and not doing something sinful, like swimming with their children, he is delighted by it.
Lemon: And let's not forget, if anyone is judging this -- I'm not judging this, I'm just
wondering what is going on. Because we were supposed to figure out this experiment a long time
ago. Our country was started because -- this is how: the Boston Tea Party. Rioting.
So don't -- do not get it twisted and think that, oh, this is something that has never
happened before. And then this is so terrible, and where are we in these savages and all of
that. This is how this country was started.
Yes, don't judge. This is how this country was started -- by looting CVS and setting fire to
Wendy's. Of course, you took American History. You knew that.
Andrew
Cuomo 's brother must have been in the same history class because he had the same
reaction.
Chris Cuomo: America's major cities are filled with people demanding this country be more
fair, more just.
And please, show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful.
Because I can show you that outraged citizens are the ones who have made America what she is
and led to any major milestones.
They are here to yell, criticize, blame, and shame.
Citizens have no duty to check their outrage.
Wow. So, one minute they were mass murderers for going outside. Now, they're Sam Adams.
They're patriots. They're American heroes.
If all of this seems like a pretty abrupt pivot, fret not. Rioting is not a health risk as
long as it helps the Democratic Party's prospects in the November election .
Rioting will not spread the coronavirus.
Sounds implausible, but we can be certain of that, because last week, hundreds of
self-described public health officials signed a letter saying so. They announced that the Black
Lives Matter riots are a vital contribution to public health. In effect, they're an essential
medical procedure.
But that doesn't mean you get to go outside. You don't. Thanks to coronavirus, you do not
have the right to resume your life, and if you complain about that, it's "white nationalism."
That was their professional conclusion.
Does a single American believe any of that? No, of course not. It is too stupid even for CNN
to repeat, so they mostly ignored it. That's an ominous sign if you think about it. It means
these people are done trying to convince you, even to fool you.
They're not making arguments, they're issuing decrees. They think they can. They no longer
believe they need your consent to make big decisions to run the country. Once the authority
stops trying to change your mind, even by deceit, it means they've decided to use force -- and
they have.
During the lockdowns, people whose loved ones died were not allowed to have funerals for
them. Think about that. It's hard to think of anything crueler, but it happened to a lot of
people. They claimed it was necessary. It was not necessary. And we know that because now that
a man has died
whose death is politically useful to the Democratic Party , the authorities have given him
three funerals and not a word about a health risk.
Or consider King County, Wash -- that's where Seattle is. Restaurants in King County are
operating at just 25 percent capacity. That's the law now. Nonessential businesses are allowed
just 15 percent capacity. The effect of that is economic disaster. Most small businesses run on
very small margins. They can't survive for long, and in fact, many have failed.
What should they do? They should join Antifa, obviously, because in King County, Wash.,
Antifa can do whatever Antifa wants to do. They have taken over an entire six-block section of
downtown Seattle, and that's fine with health authorities. There is no social distancing
required. They're essential.
Are you getting the picture? Is it adding up to a message? Yes, the message is we were
played. We were all played. Corrupt politicians scared us into giving up control over the most
basic questions in our lives. At the same time, they gave more power to their obedient
followers, like Antifa, while keeping the rest of us trapped at home and censored online.
In other words, they used a public health emergency to subvert democracy and install
themselves as monarchs. How were they able to do this? The sad truth is, they did it because we
let them do it. We believed them, therefore, we obeyed them.
If there's anything good to come out of this disaster, it's that none of us will ever make
that mistake again.
Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from " Tucker Carlson Tonight " on June 10,
2020.
It is not exactly McCarthyism other then in a sense that this is a witch hunt. While McCarthy
behaviour and methods were abhorrent, McCarthy after all was right about the danger of
Bolshevism. This is more like parody on Soviet purges. Fake Identity Commissars in black leather
jackets do to speak...
Cisco, a producer who has worked with the New York-based National Black Theatre, the
Public Theater, Lee Daniels Entertainment and the Apollo Theater, was not surprised by the
crickets coming from these institutions -- self-professed bastions of liberalism and equality
-- but she felt hurt and angry all the same.
So Cisco
created a public Google spreadsheet and titled it "Theaters Not Speaking Out." It was
open for anyone to edit, and it had a simple directive: "Add names to this document who have
not made a statement against injustices toward black people."
At 5:50 p.m. PDT on that Saturday, May 30, she shared the document on her personal
Facebook page as well as with the Theater Folks of Color Facebook group to which she belongs.
It has more than 7,000 members and serves as a supportive space for people to share thoughts
and experiences about working in predominantly white institutions and provides a place to
"unite around common concerns and plan collective direct action."
More:
It did not appear to be a coincidence that the following day, and into June, theaters
began posting messages of solidarity with Black Lives Matter en masse , black theater
artists said. The response was problematic because often the statements were perceived to
have come from a place of shame and felt slapped together and hollow, Cisco said.
More disturbing than the slowness to speak out, Cisco said, was the language of the
statements themselves, many of which fell back on pledges of support without acknowledgement
of the historical diversity problem in theater or commitments to take concrete steps to
support black artists.
You got that? This one woman has taken advantage of this moment to create a blacklist of
politically problematic theaters -- and even denounces on it theaters that do not articulate
her statement of obeisance in precisely the correct way.
I'm old enough to remember when arts people would have recognized McCarthyism when they saw
it. Marie Cisco is a McCarthyite, but a McCarthyite for the left.
A reader sends a public open letter that went around to faculty and staff of a small college
to which he is attached. I won't quote the letter because I don't want to risk inadvertently
outing the reader. The author is a black student at the school, who reads the riot act to
administration and faculty for not doing enough for black students in this time. She
acknowledges that the school has taken steps, but they haven't done exactly what she things
black students deserve, in the way that they deserve them. The privilege being asserted by this
kid, and the signatories to her letter: presuming to tell her college what they must say and
how they must say it to avoid the taint of racism.
I figure the college will surrender. Nobody has the backbone to stand up for themselves
these days. It's all capitulation. Tucker Carlson is speaking his mind fearlessly,
but advertisers are dropping him . You cannot air a program without advertisers. There are
few people as cowardly as Big Business. In my
forthcoming book , I talk about how Woke Capitalism is going to be the prime mechanism for
enforcing soft totalitarianism. This is one reason why it has been so difficult for Americans
to see something like this moment coming: we have always assumed that totalitarianism would be
something emanating from the government. Conservatives, especially, have long bought into the
myth that Business Is Good and Government Is Bad. In fact, Business can be just as bad as
Government. But that's another story.
The services provided by Christ Health Clinic included free COVID-19 testing for residents
of Birmingham public housing. The Housing Authority of Birmingham Division
voted on Monday to no longer allow church volunteers and clinic workers to do work at
public housing communities.
The Church of the Highlands, Alabama's largest church, provided free mentoring, community
support groups and faith, health and social service activities at the Housing Authority of
Birmingham Division's nine public housing communities. The church did not receive any money
for the services, but had an agreement to allow its volunteers at the facilities.
More:
The Church of the Highlands launched Christ Health Center in 2009 in Woodlawn to offer
medical services to the Woodlawn area, including the Marks Village public housing complex in
Gate City. The church and clinic attracted national attention for
launching the first mass testing for COVID-19 in Alabama , March 17-22, administering
about 2,200 tests at a drive-through set up on the church campus.
"Christ Health chose our Woodlawn clinic specifically for its proximity to Birmingham
public housing communities and the people who call them home," said Christ Health Center CEO
Dr. Robert Record, who also attends and is on staff at the Church of the Highlands.
Think about who is being hurt here (hint: it ain't the church administration). None of it
matters. It's all ideology. All the pastor did was like a political guy on Facebook, and now
this.
And they're just getting started.
It's time for you people who laughed at the term "soft totalitarianism" to shut up. They
won't come for you -- at first.
See today's Prufrock -- two guys from The Poetry Foundation (The Poetry Foundation!) were
asked to resign (and have done so) because their written statement of support for BLM
wasn't specific enough.
"many of which fell back on pledges of support without acknowledgement of the historical
diversity problem in theater or commitments to take concrete steps to support black
artists."
The latest in a series of overblown "dangers" and inaccurate comparisons that are
essentially the sole content of this blog lately. Using organization and social media to
create a "you must support us or we will not support you" arrangement is not the same as
McCartyism. McCarthyism is using the power of the state to jail or wreak financial havoc
against an individual for simply holding unpopular political beliefs. I support profound
police reform and I go to the theatre. I also do not care if the theatre makes a public
statement in support of BLM. This series of posts are merely props so that Rod can excuse
the incompetence and corruption of Trump and his party that let it happen and say that
sadly he has "no choice" but to vote for Trump. Because after all a country where the
president shoves people out of the way and uses a church for a backdrop without the
pastor's permission is a far freer country than one where people make a spreadsheet and
insist that any future relationship involve increased levels of mutual support.
There seems to be a parallel between US foreign policy and the growing domestic 'soft
totalitarianism'. Basically, when it comes to other countries, the US has given up on
persuasion and demands obeisance instead. Don't do what the US wants and everything
remotely associated with you gets sanctioned. In domestic politics, this same intolerance
for even minor disagreement manifests itself in cancel culture and demands for public
affirmations of woke piety. Are these manifestations of an empire desperately trying to
hold itself together?
Tucker has done some fantastic shows recently. I don't always agree with him, but he does
things few others do and in an intelligent articulate way. We need voices telling us that
we are not alone, that we don't have to bend the knee, and that we are not racists for our
refusal to pledge allegiance to the ever changing woke creed. All lives matter.
Too bad, but # blacklivesmatter per
its core organization @ Blklivesmatter just torpedoed itself,
with its full-fledged support of # defundthepolice
: "We call for a national defunding of police." Suuuure. They knew this is non-starter, and tried a sensible Orwell 1984
of saying,
Uhlig now faces a social media campaign, led by a prominent University of Michigan economist, to get him booted as editor of the
Journal of Political Economy . Here is another leader of the professional lynch mob:
I am calling for the resignation of Harald Uhlig ( @ haralduhlig
) as the editor of the Journal of Political Economy. If you would like to add your name to this call, it is posted at
https:// forms.gle/9uiJVqCAXBDBg6 8N9 . It will be delivered by end of
day 6/10 (tomorrow).
To: The editors of the Journal of Political Economy and President of The University of Chicago Press We, the undersigned,
call for the resignation of Harald Uhlig, the Bruce Allen and Barbara...
There has been a rash of firings of editors this week. One interesting thing - judging by the publications listed and by the
cringing, groveling apologies given by these editors, they are liberals who are being eaten by up-and-coming radicals. It's like
the liberals had no idea what hit them.
I used to worry the future would be like "1984". Then the Soviet Union fell, things seemed OK tor awhile. After 9/11, I worried
the future would be like "Khartoum". But now, it looks like it is going to be a weird combination of "Invasion of the Body-Snatchers"
and "Planet of the Apes".
Now seeing reports on Twitter that the Seattle Autonomous Zone now has its first warlord. America truly is a diverse place.
You have hippie communes, religious sects, semi-autonomous Indian reservations, a gerontocracy in Washington, and now your very
own Africa style fiefdom complete with warlord.
I really am sorry. This must be so depressing to watch as an American.
Arizona State journalism school retracts offer to new dean because of an "insensitive" tweets and comments - by insensitive
we mean, not sufficiently zealous and not hip to the full-spectrum wokeness. Online student petitions follow, and you know the
rest of the story.
This is madness. The true late stages of a revolution where they start eating their own.
Those tweets above (and countless others like them) just demonstrate the absolute intellectual and moral rot that now reigns
in academia. I saw one yesterday by an attorney for a prominent activist organization who said he couldn't understand why the
Constitution isn't interpreted as "requiring" the demolition of the Robert E. Lee statue in Virginia, and others like it. I'm
having a harder time understanding how he ever graduated from an accredited law school.
Forget "defund the police," perhaps "defund universities" would be the best place to start healing what ails contemporary culture.
The rot started there, not only with the "anti-racist" (as opposed to "mere" non-racism) cant, it with gender ideology (Judith
Butler), Cultural Marxism, etc. When "pc" first became a common term in the early '90s I thought it passing fad. We now see the
result of the decades long radical march through the institutions bearing fruit, and it's more strange and rotten fruit than ever.
Woke leftists are the people who believe in the myth of aggregate Black intellectual parity with Whites and Asians the least.
That's why they constantly do absolutely everything in their power to juke the statistics, like allowing Black students to not
have to take exams, which is really just an extension of this same principle at work in "affirmative action."
The French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, the Khmer Rouge--100,000,000 people were murdered
in the name of extreme egalitarianism across the 20th century. When leftism gets out of control, tragedy happens.
I have no idea why you believe hard totalitarian methods aren't coming. I'm not sure what the answer is. We can expect no help
from the Republican party. That much is certain. A disturbing number of people have not yet awoken from their dogmatic slumber.
Who is Amy Siskind going to call to arrest Tucker Carlson and bring him to a tribunal? The defunded police?
It seems to me that the left has gone about this bassackwards. First you ashcan the Second Amendment, THEN you take away their
First Amendment Rights. You most certainly do not go around silencing people with political correctness, then go around announcing
your intention to kulak an entire group of very well-armed people. But that's just my opinion...
Rod, I disagree that a "soft totalitarianism" is what awaits us if these barbarians are allowed to run around unopposed. The
notion of human rights is a product of the religion they despise, so I see no reason why they would respect this ideal when dealing
with vile white wreckers of the multi-cultural utopia they have envisioned.
"... No one has benefited from the new rules more than the state of Israel, whose hundreds of support organizations and principal billionaire funders euphemized as the "Israel Lobby" have entrenched pro-Israel donors as the principal financial resources of both major political parties. ..."
The nearly complete corruption of the U.S. republican form of government has largely come
about due to the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court in January 2010 that basically
permitted unlimited donor-spending on political campaigns based on the principle that
providing money, normally through a political action committee (PAC), is a form of free
speech. The decision paved the way for agenda-driven plutocrats and corporations to largely
seize control of the formulation process for certain policies being promoted by the two
national parties.
No one has benefited from the new rules more than the state of Israel, whose hundreds of
support organizations and principal billionaire funders euphemized as the "Israel Lobby" have
entrenched pro-Israel donors as the principal financial resources of both major political
parties.
President Donald Trump's campaign is demanding CNN retract and apologize for a recent poll
that showed him well behind presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
The demand, coming in the form of a cease and desist letter to CNN President Jeff Zucker
that contained numerous incorrect and misleading claims, was immediately rejected by the
network.
"We stand by our poll," said Matt Dornic, a CNN spokesman.
The CNN poll conducted by SSRS and released on Monday shows Trump trailing the former vice
president by 14 points, 55%-41%, among registered voters. It also finds the President's
approval rating at 38% -- his worst mark since January 2019, and roughly on par with approval
ratings for one-term Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush at this point in their
reelection years -- and his disapproval rating at 57%.
In the letter to Zucker, the Trump campaign argued that the CNN poll is "designed to mislead
American voters through a biased questionnaire and skewed sampling."
Millions of Americans remain subjected to unprecedented restrictions on their personal
lives, their daily lives, their family's lives.
The coronavirus
lockdowns continue in many places. You may not know that because it gets no publicity, but it's
true. And if you're living under it, you definitely know.
As a result of this, tens of millions of people are now unemployed. A huge number of them
have no prospects of working again. Many thousands of small businesses are closed and will
never reopen. More Americans have become dependent on drugs and alcohol, seeing their marriages
dissolve, and become clinically depressed.
Some of them delayed their weddings. Others were banned by the government from burying their
loved ones in funerals. Some Americans will die of cancer because they couldn't get cancer
screenings, some unknown number have taken their own lives in despair. Others have flooded the
streets to riot because bottled up rage and frustration take many forms.
The cost of shutting down the United States and denying our citizens desperately needed
contact with one another is hard to calculate. But the cost has been staggering.
The people responsible for doing all of this,say they have no regrets about it. We faced a
global calamity, they say. COVID-19 was the worst pandemic since the Spanish flu. That flu
killed 50 million people.
We had no choice. We did the right thing. That's what they're telling us. Is it true?
The answer to that question matters, not just because the truth always matters, but because
the credibility of our leaders is at stake here. This is the biggest decision they have made in
our lifetimes. They were able to make it. They rule because we let them. Their power comes from
us.
As a matter of public health, we can say conclusively the lockdowns were not
necessary.
So the question, now and always is, are they worthy of that power? That's not a conversation
they want to have. And right now, they don't have to have that conversation because all of us
are distracted and mesmerized by the woke revolution underway outside.
They just created a separate country in Seattle. Huh? We'll bring you the latest on that.
But we do think it's worth four minutes taking a pause to assess whether or not they were in
fact lying to us about the coronavirus and our response to it.
And the short answer is this: Yes, they were definitely lying.
As a matter of public health, we can say conclusively the lockdowns were not necessary. In
fact, we can prove that. And here's the most powerful evidence: States that never locked down
at all -- states where people were allowed to live like Americans and not cower indoors alone
-- in the end turned out no worse than states that had mandatory quarantines. The state you
probably live in.
The states that locked down at first but were quick to reopen have not seen explosions of
coronavirus cases. All of this is the opposite of what they said would happen with great
confidence.
The media predicted mass death at places like Lake of the Ozarks and Ocean City, Md. --
places where the middle class dares to vacation. But those deaths never happened. In the end,
the Wuhan coronavirus turned out to be a dangerous disease, but a manageable disease, like so
many others. Far more dangerous were the lockdowns themselves.
For example, in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, panicked and
incompetent governors forced nursing homes to accept infected coronavirus patients, and as a
result, many thousands died, and they died needlessly.
This is all a remarkable story, but it's going almost entirely uncovered. The media would
rather tell you why you need to hate your neighbor for the color of his skin. The media
definitely don't want to revisit what they were saying just a few weeks ago, when they were
acting as press agents for power-drunk Democratic politicians.
We were all played. Corrupt politicians scared us into giving up control over the most
basic questions in our lives. At the same time, they gave more power to their obedient
followers, like Antifa, while keeping the rest of us trapped at home and censored online.
Back then, news anchors were ordering you to stop asking questions and obey.
Chris Cuomo, CNN anchor: All right, so while most Americans are staying inside -- or
should be, right, if they're not out protesting like fools -- they're not happy about being
told to stay home. Staying home saves lives.
And the rest of us should be staying at home for our mothers and the people that we love,
and to keep us farther apart, will ultimately bring us closer together in this cause.
Oh, if you love your mother, you will do what I say. It turns out cable news anchors don't
make very subtle propagandists.
And then Memorial Day arrived in May, and some states started to reopen. Millions of
grateful Americans headed outdoors for the first time in months, and the media attacked them
for doing that. They called them killers.
Swimming with your kids, they told us, was tantamount to mass murder.
Claire McCaskill, MSNBC political analyst: Frankly, a lot of the people in those crowds
-- they thought they were, you know, standing up for what the president believes in and that is
not to care about the public safety part of this.
Robyn Curnow, CNN host: Look at this. I mean, this is kind of crazy, considering we're in
the middle of a global pandemic.
I mean, as one person quipped, you know, that's curving the curve. That's not flattening
it.
Don Lemon, CNN anchor: Massive crowd of people crammed together, as if it were just an
ordinary holiday weekend despite the risks of a virus that has killed more than 98,000
people.
Boy that montage was the opposite of a MENSA meeting. Has that much dumbness been captured
on tape ever?
The last clip you saw was from May 25th. That was just over two weeks ago. "Ninety eight
thousand people are dead. How dare you leave your house? You don't work in the media. You're
not essential."
But it didn't take long for that message to change completely. In fact, it took precisely
five days.
Here's the same brain dead news anchor you just saw less than a week later. He is no longer
angry, you'll notice, about Americans going outside. As long as they are rioting and burning
and not doing something sinful, like swimming with their children, he is delighted by it.
Lemon: And let's not forget, if anyone is judging this -- I'm not judging this, I'm just
wondering what is going on. Because we were supposed to figure out this experiment a long time
ago. Our country was started because -- this is how: the Boston Tea Party. Rioting.
So don't -- do not get it twisted and think that, oh, this is something that has never
happened before. And then this is so terrible, and where are we in these savages and all of
that. This is how this country was started.
Yes, don't judge. This is how this country was started -- by looting CVS and setting fire to
Wendy's. Of course, you took American History. You knew that.
Andrew
Cuomo 's brother must have been in the same history class because he had the same
reaction.
Chris Cuomo: America's major cities are filled with people demanding this country be more
fair, more just.
And please, show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful.
Because I can show you that outraged citizens are the ones who have made America what she is
and led to any major milestones.
They are here to yell, criticize, blame, and shame.
Citizens have no duty to check their outrage.
Wow. So, one minute they were mass murderers for going outside. Now, they're Sam Adams.
They're patriots. They're American heroes.
If all of this seems like a pretty abrupt pivot, fret not. Rioting is not a health risk as
long as it helps the Democratic Party's prospects in the November election .
Rioting will not spread the coronavirus.
Sounds implausible, but we can be certain of that, because last week, hundreds of
self-described public health officials signed a letter saying so. They announced that the Black
Lives Matter riots are a vital contribution to public health. In effect, they're an essential
medical procedure.
But that doesn't mean you get to go outside. You don't. Thanks to coronavirus, you do not
have the right to resume your life, and if you complain about that, it's "white nationalism."
That was their professional conclusion.
Does a single American believe any of that? No, of course not. It is too stupid even for CNN
to repeat, so they mostly ignored it. That's an ominous sign if you think about it. It means
these people are done trying to convince you, even to fool you.
They're not making arguments, they're issuing decrees. They think they can. They no longer
believe they need your consent to make big decisions to run the country. Once the authority
stops trying to change your mind, even by deceit, it means they've decided to use force -- and
they have.
During the lockdowns, people whose loved ones died were not allowed to have funerals for
them. Think about that. It's hard to think of anything crueler, but it happened to a lot of
people. They claimed it was necessary. It was not necessary. And we know that because now that
a man has died
whose death is politically useful to the Democratic Party , the authorities have given him
three funerals and not a word about a health risk.
Or consider King County, Wash -- that's where Seattle is. Restaurants in King County are
operating at just 25 percent capacity. That's the law now. Nonessential businesses are allowed
just 15 percent capacity. The effect of that is economic disaster. Most small businesses run on
very small margins. They can't survive for long, and in fact, many have failed.
What should they do? They should join Antifa, obviously, because in King County, Wash.,
Antifa can do whatever Antifa wants to do. They have taken over an entire six-block section of
downtown Seattle, and that's fine with health authorities. There is no social distancing
required. They're essential.
Are you getting the picture? Is it adding up to a message? Yes, the message is we were
played. We were all played. Corrupt politicians scared us into giving up control over the most
basic questions in our lives. At the same time, they gave more power to their obedient
followers, like Antifa, while keeping the rest of us trapped at home and censored online.
In other words, they used a public health emergency to subvert democracy and install
themselves as monarchs. How were they able to do this? The sad truth is, they did it because we
let them do it. We believed them, therefore, we obeyed them.
If there's anything good to come out of this disaster, it's that none of us will ever make
that mistake again.
Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from " Tucker Carlson Tonight " on June 10,
2020.
CLICK HERE TO READ
MORE FROM TUCKER CARLSON Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of FOX News Channel's
(FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET). He joined the network in 2009 as a
contributor.
Too bad, but # blacklivesmatter per
its core organization @ Blklivesmatter just torpedoed itself,
with its full-fledged support of # defundthepolice
: "We call for a national defunding of police." Suuuure. They knew this is non-starter, and tried a sensible Orwell 1984
of saying,
Uhlig now faces a social media campaign, led by a prominent University of Michigan economist, to get him booted as editor of the
Journal of Political Economy . Here is another leader of the professional lynch mob:
I am calling for the resignation of Harald Uhlig ( @ haralduhlig
) as the editor of the Journal of Political Economy. If you would like to add your name to this call, it is posted at
https:// forms.gle/9uiJVqCAXBDBg6 8N9 . It will be delivered by end of
day 6/10 (tomorrow).
To: The editors of the Journal of Political Economy and President of The University of Chicago Press We, the undersigned,
call for the resignation of Harald Uhlig, the Bruce Allen and Barbara...
There has been a rash of firings of editors this week. One interesting thing - judging by the publications listed and by the
cringing, groveling apologies given by these editors, they are liberals who are being eaten by up-and-coming radicals. It's like
the liberals had no idea what hit them.
I used to worry the future would be like "1984". Then the Soviet Union fell, things seemed OK tor awhile. After 9/11, I worried
the future would be like "Khartoum". But now, it looks like it is going to be a weird combination of "Invasion of the Body-Snatchers"
and "Planet of the Apes".
Now seeing reports on Twitter that the Seattle Autonomous Zone now has its first warlord. America truly is a diverse place.
You have hippie communes, religious sects, semi-autonomous Indian reservations, a gerontocracy in Washington, and now your very
own Africa style fiefdom complete with warlord.
I really am sorry. This must be so depressing to watch as an American.
Arizona State journalism school retracts offer to new dean because of an "insensitive" tweets and comments - by insensitive
we mean, not sufficiently zealous and not hip to the full-spectrum wokeness. Online student petitions follow, and you know the
rest of the story.
This is madness. The true late stages of a revolution where they start eating their own.
Those tweets above (and countless others like them) just demonstrate the absolute intellectual and moral rot that now reigns
in academia. I saw one yesterday by an attorney for a prominent activist organization who said he couldn't understand why the
Constitution isn't interpreted as "requiring" the demolition of the Robert E. Lee statue in Virginia, and others like it. I'm
having a harder time understanding how he ever graduated from an accredited law school.
Forget "defund the police," perhaps "defund universities" would be the best place to start healing what ails contemporary culture.
The rot started there, not only with the "anti-racist" (as opposed to "mere" non-racism) cant, it with gender ideology (Judith
Butler), Cultural Marxism, etc. When "pc" first became a common term in the early '90s I thought it passing fad. We now see the
result of the decades long radical march through the institutions bearing fruit, and it's more strange and rotten fruit than ever.
Woke leftists are the people who believe in the myth of aggregate Black intellectual parity with Whites and Asians the least.
That's why they constantly do absolutely everything in their power to juke the statistics, like allowing Black students to not
have to take exams, which is really just an extension of this same principle at work in "affirmative action."
The French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, the Khmer Rouge--100,000,000 people were murdered
in the name of extreme egalitarianism across the 20th century. When leftism gets out of control, tragedy happens.
I have no idea why you believe hard totalitarian methods aren't coming. I'm not sure what the answer is. We can expect no help
from the Republican party. That much is certain. A disturbing number of people have not yet awoken from their dogmatic slumber.
Who is Amy Siskind going to call to arrest Tucker Carlson and bring him to a tribunal? The defunded police?
It seems to me that the left has gone about this bassackwards. First you ashcan the Second Amendment, THEN you take away their
First Amendment Rights. You most certainly do not go around silencing people with political correctness, then go around announcing
your intention to kulak an entire group of very well-armed people. But that's just my opinion...
Rod, I disagree that a "soft totalitarianism" is what awaits us if these barbarians are allowed to run around unopposed. The
notion of human rights is a product of the religion they despise, so I see no reason why they would respect this ideal when dealing
with vile white wreckers of the multi-cultural utopia they have envisioned.
"... It is true that there's a difference between Democrats and Republicans, in the same sense that there's a difference between the jab and the cross in boxing. The jab is often used to keep an opponent at bay and set up the more damaging cross, but they're both wielded by the same boxer, and they're both punching you in the face. ..."
It is true that there's a difference between Democrats and Republicans, in the same
sense that there's a difference between the jab and the cross in boxing. The jab is often used
to keep an opponent at bay and set up the more damaging cross, but they're both wielded by the
same boxer, and they're both punching you in the face.
The ruling class only needs one tactic: divide and rule.
But how do I try to explain that to a black 16 year old math student who has recently
started looking at me with murder in his eyes? Everything i can think of just sounds like a
cliche.
Also... the media deserve no pity, they made their allegiances clear (for the
millionth time) with Assange.
"This could be done in coordination with citizen panels appointed by the City Council. Third,
departments could agree to police black neighborhoods exclusively with black cops whose
conduct could be reviewed periodically by an independent citizen panel."
I tend to lean in a favorable direction with regards to the idea that White cops should be
relieved of the hazards of policing black neighborhoods. But, at the same time – I am
extremely cynical about law enforcement in general and have read far too many stories over
the last several decades where cops are caught up in corruption scandals that often inv0lve
taking payoffs from drug pushers in these inner city, majority black cities and agree to look
the other way and to not interfere with the illegal drug selling industry.
So, my cynicism causes me to wonder if the push to get White cops out of black city areas
might not be a desire of the black criminal gangs to not have to shell out payoffs to White
cops and perhaps, channel those payoffs instead to their black cop brothers? I mean, to get a
preview of what kind of environment will likely fester and grow if blacks are given a
complete dominance over policing in big cities with large black populations – and
without any White oversight – just take a look at the big cities in the blue states
today which are completely under the control of blacks. Black mayors. Entire city councils
that are black. Nearly all city government positions filled by blacks. What do we see? We see
corruption on a scale that rivals the most corrupt, black run, third world nations on the
continent of Africa.
Lest anyone misunderstand, let me say that I am not trying to defend the right of corrupt
and dirty White cops to continue to have access to black districts and be able to haul in
payoffs. I'm merely floating a potential hidden reason behind this idea of only allowing
black cops to police these areas and suggesting how it could create enormous corruption of
law enforcement agencies.
"... Democratic Party leaders are currently under fire for staging a ridiculous performative display of sympathy for George Floyd by kneeling for eight minutes while wearing Kente cloth, a traditional African textile. The streets of America are filled with protesters demanding a total overhaul of the nation's entire approach to policing. ..."
"... I don't know what will happen with these protests. I don't know if the demonstrators will get anything like the changes they are pushing for, or if their movement will be stopped in its tracks. What I do know is that if it is stopped, it will be because of Democrats and their allies. ..."
"... The op-ed understandably received severe public backlash which resulted in a senior staff member's resignation . But if these protests end it won't be because tyrants in the Republican Party like Donald Trump and Tom Cotton succeeded in making the case for beating them into silence with the U.S. military. It will be because liberal manipulators succeeded in co-opting and stagnating its momentum. ..."
"... It is true that there's a difference between Democrats and Republicans, in the same sense that there's a difference between the jab and the cross in boxing. The jab is often used to keep an opponent at bay and set up the more damaging cross, but they're both wielded by the same boxer, and they're both punching you in the face. ..."
"... Obama was not the lesser of two evils, he was the more effective of the two evils ..."
"... The rot started long before Clinton. In the 1944 election the DNC replaced FDR's highly popular socialist VP Henry Wallace with Truman. At the convention party leaders closed the voting immediately after Wallace won resoundingly without confirming him. Furious politicking, bribery, and delegate lockouts over the next several days finally resulted in a Truman win and his immediate confirmation as the VP candidate. ..."
"... I agree on what the Democrat Party is and does. However, I'd shift the focus to the money behind it. The forces resisting change are what FDR called the moneyed interests. They've got the money, and their whole priority is to keep it. ..."
"... given a Supreme Court ruling that money is free speech and a Congress that's never has had any will to change the role of money or lobbies in politics, I'm afraid you are stuck with what you have. ..."
"... There is another well-known Twentieth Century play, "No Exit." And that title sums up the American very real situation. ..."
So ends both acts of the Samuel Beckett play "Waiting for Godot." One of the two main
characters suggests leaving, the other agrees, followed by the stage direction that both remain
motionless until curtain.
This is also the entire role of the Democratic Party. To enthusiastically agree with
American support for movements calling for real changes which benefit ordinary people, while
making no actual moves to provide no such changes. The actors read the lines, but remain
motionless.
Barack Obama made a whole political career out of this. People elected him because he
promised hope and change, then for eight years whenever hopeful people demanded changes he'd
say "Yes, we all need to get together and have a conversation about that," express sympathy and
give a moving speech, and then nothing would happen. The actors remain motionless, and Godot
never comes.
Democratic Party leaders are
currently under fire for staging a ridiculous performative display of sympathy for George
Floyd by kneeling for eight minutes while wearing Kente cloth, a traditional African textile.
The streets of America are filled with protesters demanding a total overhaul of the nation's
entire approach to policing.
Meanwhile it's blue states with Democratic governors and cities with Democratic mayors where
the bulk of the police brutality, people are objecting to, is occurring. The Democrats are
going out
of their way to spin police brutality as the result of Trump's presidency, but facts in
evidence say America's violent and increasingly militarized police force would be a problem if
every seat in every office in America were blue.
I don't know what will happen with these protests. I don't know if the demonstrators will
get anything like the changes they are pushing for, or if their movement will be stopped in its
tracks. What I do know is that if it is stopped, it will be because of Democrats and their
allies.
Bloodthirsty Senator Tom Cotton recently took a break from torturing small animals in his
basement to write an incendiary op-ed for
The New York Times explaining to the American public why using the military to quash
these protests is something that they should want. We later learned that The New York
Times op-ed team had actually come up with the idea and
pitched it to the senator , not the other way around, and that it was the Times itself which
came up with the inflammatory headline "Send In the Troops."
From New York Times town hall: op-ed team pitched the piece TO Tom Cotton. Not the other
way around.
The op-ed understandably received severe public backlash which resulted in a senior staff member's
resignation . But if these protests end it won't be because tyrants in the Republican Party
like Donald Trump and Tom Cotton succeeded in making the case for beating them into silence
with the U.S. military. It will be because liberal manipulators succeeded in co-opting and
stagnating its momentum.
Watch them. Watch Democrats and their allied media and corporate institutions try to sell
the public a bunch of words and a smattering of feeble, impotent legislation to mollify the
masses, without ever giving the people the real changes that they actually need.
It remains to be seen if they will succeed in doing this, but they are already working on
it. That is their entire purpose. It's much easier to control a populace with false promises
and empty words than with brute force, and the manipulators know it. That is the Democratic
Party's role.
It is true that there's a difference between Democrats and Republicans, in the same sense
that there's a difference between the jab and the cross in boxing. The jab is often used to
keep an opponent at bay and set up the more damaging cross, but they're both wielded by the
same boxer, and they're both punching you in the face.
Don't let them disguise that jab as anything other than what it is. Don't let them keep you
at bay with a bunch of impotent performances and word magic. If they have it their way, they'll
keep that jab in your face all night until the knockout punch leaves you staring up at the
arena lights like it always does, wondering what the hell happened and why Godot never
came.
When you vote for a "lesser" evil, you condone and become evil. Voting for a peace
candidate is the ONLY moral choice. Your line of thinking perpetuates a self-fulfilling
prophecy of third party impossibility. So time for you to "get real". I also think it is
imperative to insist on ranked-choice voting to get us out of the two party/one war party
trap. BTW, Obama had his own brand of fascism. When we are the "exceptional" nation, all
others are unexceptional and their citizens expendable. Your TDS has blinded you to our real
problems.
AnneR , June 10, 2020 at 12:36
So what we are supposed to do, then, is vote for the very same evil, just enacted with a
softer, gentler voice and smoother patina? And by the way, I'm a MA in History
We change absolutely zero domestically and minus zero abroad in those countries where we
gaily – apparently – bomb and missile as if there were no tomorrow (for the
recipients [all brownish you'll note], dead, injured or alive), no matter which colored face
of the single party we "lesser evil" choose. Frankly pretending that there is such a thing as
"lesser evil" voting when both parties behave in the same way, with different lipstick on is
a tad hypocritical because all it boils down to is "we want a smiley, pleasant, charmingly
spoken well educated barbarian rather than a grotesque, in your face, thicko one in
charge."
No, ta. I'd rather vote my conscience, my principles which have nowt to do with either of
corporate-capitalist-imperialist-MIC adoring-barbarian faces of the same bloody (literally)
party.
Marc G Landry , June 10, 2020 at 12:38
For a history teacher, you seem to have given up on Democracy because you hate Trump.
America WORKED when people voted their conscience, NOT for a lesser of two evils. And if
people did this, within 12 years a THIRD PARTY would become strong enough to make the change
we want. Democracy works when people vote their conscience, by person or by platform, NOT
when everyone has to figure out a strategy who to vote for because you do not have the
strength to vote by conscience or the guts to build a new party OVER TIME!
Glen Ford, of the excellent BlackAgendaReport, put it well: Obama was not the lesser of
two evils, he was the more effective of the two evils. It seems to work with a lot of people
who can't let go of their "liberal" perspective.
Anything goes, as long as it's served up on a politically correct platter.
John , June 9, 2020 at 16:51
and the solution is to (a) vote them out of office, (b) vote for the repubs, (c) vote for
third party, (d) don't vote, (e) general strike and continuous demonstrations? My answer is
both d and e. How about you?
Drew Hunkins , June 9, 2020 at 16:09
The Democratic Party hasn't done one substantive thing for the masses since Medicare c.
1966.
The destruction of unions and the labor movement is one of the prime reasons we're in this
mess. Strong unions means the Democratic Party would have a wing of populist firebrands with
moxie and muscle, voicing objections in Washington, advocating for progressive reforms,
pounding the table, attacking Wall Street and big money, and most imporantly -- delivering
substantive tangible benefits to the people every few years!! The labor movement would have
cultivated these public speakers and activist politicians who had boatloads of chutzpah,
instead what we're left with is a slickie boy Wall St hustler like Obama.
Litchfield , June 9, 2020 at 16:56
Right on!
Pushing the nonexistent "agree" button.
See also my comment in which I recommend reading Thomas Frank's "Listen, Liberal" for a
really great tour of the downfall of the Dem Party, very well documented, and a pleasure to
read.
It was not only labor that the "new" Dems under Clinton sucker-punched. They made a
practice of demonstrating to Wall Street, the NYT, and other "liberal" entities (ha ha sob)
and pundits that they were happy and willing to deny, Judas-like, and actually to attack
their traditional constituencies, the source of the their original power and their raison
d'etre since the thirties.
Now what one sees coming to the fore is the longer history of the damned Dems, that of
cravenness compromise to the Jim Crow South and to other atavistic powers such as the
National Security State, the MIC, the prisons-for-profit complex, and other such horrors.
It is like we're seeing that this leopard-party can't really changes its spots.
There is no reason and really no justification for giving one's vote to this Democratic
Party.
Litchfield , June 9, 2020 at 15:36
For chapter and verse, and very witty commentary, on how the Democratic Party became the
party that destroyed the (1) the working class, (2) the poor in America and especially their
children, and (3) now, the middle class is available, see:
"Listen, Liberal: Or, Whatever Happened to the Party of the People?", by Thomas Frank.
Caitlin, I urge you to read it. Also, the notes, which are thorough and informative in
themselves.
All the answers to the questions you pose are there. The true rot starts with Bill Clinton
and the DLC, which he headed. Or course Hillary was there with him the whole time. Mouthing
one set of platitudes for the public ("I feel your pain") and conspiring with Republicans and
other Democrats to push and pass legislation that inexorably destroyed huge swaths of the
USA: NAFTA; repeal of Glass-Steagall; welfare "reform"; three-strikes legislation; creation
of prisons for profit (Biden was big in this); introduction of almost 100 new crimes with
mandatory minimum sentencing; and more.
Then we move on to "hope and change" Obama (with his sidekick, Larry Summers): bailout of
banks, not of citizens; health care "reform" written by Repugs; more foreign adventures in
Libya, Afghanistan, etc. and more deaths and maimings of American servicepeople; and on and
on. And all the while a concerted effort to ignore the white working class and to accuse any
white who didn't like this crappy new deal and loss of livelihood and dignity as a racist.
Since I first voted in 1968, as a registered Dem, I have been along for this ride since the
beginning and I recall only too clearly my horror -- after feeling with Clinton's win in 1992
that we were finally getting off the awful post-assassination "detour" -- at hearing of all
of these new destructive, unfair, "Democratic" initiatives in the 1990s and at their actually
being passed.
As Frank remarks, voting for Trump was the working class's richly deserved payback to the
Clintons for decades of policies that punished America's 99% both directly (targeted) and
indirectly. As he puts it, with Trump leading the Repugs and, for the first time, talking
about the hits the working class had taken under the Dems, bad trade deals, etc., suddenly
there *was* "someplace else to go" for previous Dem voters. It should have been no surprise
that working-class white and also many blacks and women went there.
But the Dems still insist that they occupy the moral "liberal" high ground, with
absolutely no foundation for doing so except for empty identitarianist bromides and silliness
such as the kneeling show. Now, the Floyd killing is being used to further deflect attention
from the Dems' catastrophic record regarding the WHOLE American 99%, white and minority, men
and women.
Trump makes it easy to blame the whole mess on him. But the Dems, with their decades of
betrayal of the American people and kicking their constituents in the gut, brought us
Trump.
The complacent Dem self-righteousness jacks up the puke index that much more.
buy my vote , June 10, 2020 at 11:57
The rot started long before Clinton. In the 1944 election the DNC replaced FDR's highly
popular socialist VP Henry Wallace with Truman. At the convention party leaders closed the
voting immediately after Wallace won resoundingly without confirming him. Furious
politicking, bribery, and delegate lockouts over the next several days finally resulted in a
Truman win and his immediate confirmation as the VP candidate.
FDR's rapidly deteriorating health made it clear that the VP would be the next president.
The DNC, firmly in the hands of corporate industrialists, insured that the VP was compliant
with their program. Truman was a failed businessman, not particularly intelligent, and the
perfect puppet. You can thank him and the DNC for the Cold War.
Mark Thomason , June 9, 2020 at 14:14
I agree on what the Democrat Party is and does. However, I'd shift the focus to the money behind it. The forces resisting change are what FDR called the moneyed interests. They've got the
money, and their whole priority is to keep it.
They realized that they could buy up the only "alternative" to themselves, and prevent
there from being anybody at all willing to be a real alternative. They do. That is for
example what Biden has always been, the Senator from money based in the corporate and banking
HQ's of Delaware. Hence is sponsorship of the anti-consumer laws such as his bankruptcy
bill.
The Democratic Party is the only place that could be a political home for reformers. It
once was. It might be again. But first, money would need to be disempowered.
JOHN CHUCKMAN , June 9, 2020 at 14:01
Indeed. But it's the money-rotted political system that brings the result. And given a Supreme Court ruling that money is free speech and a Congress that's never has
had any will to change the role of money or lobbies in politics, I'm afraid you are stuck
with what you have.
There is another well-known Twentieth Century play, "No Exit." And that title sums up the American very real situation.
@Alfa158 One of the
issues that I have with Conservative Inc. is their worship of Big Business and demonization
of labor unions. Big Business is not the working people's friend, nor the friend of the U.S.
Certainly, Big Business has benefited from the Chinese Virus. You own a bike shop and are
shut down. Walmart is still selling bikes. You own a dress shop and are shut down. Target is
still selling dresses. A friend of a friend may lose her little lamp shop in Florida, but you
can still buy lamps at Walmart and Target.
To a liberal, what counts is not doing the right thing, but saying the right thing,
holding the right attitude and, if a politician, voting the right way. Living your life in
blatant contradiction to your purported ideals is shrugged off. They're all hypocrites.
Accusing a liberal of hypocrisy is like pouring water on a duck – it just rolls
off.
ori Schake
objects to Biden's foreign policy record on the grounds that he is not hawkish enough and
too skeptical of military intervention. She restates a bankrupt hawkish view of U.S. military
action:
This half-in-half-out approach to military intervention also strips U.S. foreign policy of
its moral element of making the world a better place. It is inadequate to the cause of
advancing democracy and human rights [bold mine-DL].
The belief that military intervention is an expression of the "moral element" of U.S.
foreign policy is deeply wrong, but it is unfortunately just as deeply-ingrained among many
foreign policy professionals. Military intervention has typically been disastrous for the cause
of advancing democracy and human rights. First, by linking this cause with armed aggression,
regime change, and chaos, it tends to bring discredit on that cause in the eyes of the people
that suffer during the war. Military interventions have usually worsened conditions in the
targeted countries, and in the upheaval and violence that result there have been many hundreds
of thousands of deaths and countless other violations of human rights.
Destabilizing other countries, displacing millions of people, and wrecking their
infrastructure and economy obviously do not make anything better. As a rule, our wars of choice
have not been moral or just, and they have inflicted tremendous death and destruction on other
nations. When we look at the wreckage created by just the last twenty years of U.S. foreign
policy, we have to reject the fantasy that military action has something to do with moral
leadership. Each time that the U.S. has gone to war unnecessarily, that is a moral failure.
Each time that the U.S. has attacked another country when it was not threatened, that is a
moral abomination.
Schake continues:
Biden claims that the U.S. has a moral obligation to respond with military force to
genocide or chemical-weapons use, but was skeptical of intervention in Syria. The former vice
president's rhetoric doesn't match his policies on American values.
If Biden's rhetoric doesn't match his policies here, we should be glad that the presumptive
Democratic nominee for president isn't such an ideological zealot that he would insist on
waging wars that have nothing to do with the security of the United States. If there is a
mismatch, the problem lies with the expansive rhetoric and not with the skepticism about
intervention. That is particularly true in the Syria debate, where interventionists kept
demanding more aggressive policies without even bothering to show how escalation wouldn't make
things worse. Biden's skepticism about intervention in Syria of all places is supposed to be
held against him as proof of his poor judgment? That criticism speaks volumes about the
discredited hawkish crowd in Washington that wanted to sink the U.S. even more deeply into that
morass of conflict.
One of the chief problems with U.S. foreign policy for the last several decades is that it
has been far too militarized. To justify the constant resort to the threat and use of force,
supporters have insisted on portraying military action as if it were beneficent. They have
managed to trick a lot of Americans into thinking that "doing something" to another country is
the same thing as doing good. Interventionists emphasize the goodness of their intentions while
ignoring or minimizing the horrors that result from the policies they advocate, and they have
been able to co-opt the rhetoric of morality to mislead the public into thinking that attacking
other countries is legitimate and even obligatory. This has had the effect of degrading and
distorting our foreign policy debates by framing every argument over war in terms of righteous
"action" vs. squalid "inaction." This turns everything on its head. It treats aggression as
virtue and violence as salutary. Even a bog-standard hawk like Biden gets criticized for
lacking moral conviction if he isn't gung-ho for every unnecessary war.
As for Mr. Biden's "but was skeptical of intervention in Syria", maybe he was aware of
the actual perpetrators of the gas attacks (as several OPCW whistle-blowers testified) and
was maybe uncomfortable being again the spearhead for another war, like he was with Iraq as
the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Biden has been out of office for four years now. If I recall correctly, he didn't say jack
to support Trump's two failed attempts to pull out from Syria.
Kori Schake writes for the British neocon IISS, which has been secretly funded by the Sunni
dictator in Bahrain, who holds down the Shia majority with imported Pakistanis as soldiers
and police. Ordinary Bahrainis are like occupied prisoners in their own country. Everything
is for the small Sunni elite. Though there are also ordinary Sunnis who oppose them.
Kori Schake is simply paid to promote neocon interests, which the Bahraini dictator is
closely aligned with. The Sunni king dissolved parliament and took all the power, aided by
Saudi tanks crushing protesters, who were tortured and had their lives destroyed. The
dictator even destroyed Bahrain's famous Pearl Monument, near which the protesters had
camped out, so it wouldn't be a symbol of resistance. (Forever making it a symbol of
resistance.) The tower was on all the postcards from Bahrain and it appeared on the coins.
It's like destroying the Eiffel Tower. Kori's Sunni paymasters want Shia Iran destroyed as
it speaks up for the oppressed Shias in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen and the
UAE.
Biden is and for over four decades always was an example of all that is worst in
militarized US foreign policy. The idea that he isn't hawkish enough is itself crazy.
Some interesting thought, but if you compare the USA situation with the situation in Ukraine, the ruling elite still have a long
way to go undisturbed...
I doubt the United States can change. There are agencies whose purpose are to destroy popular movements seeking change. Most
people also don't want to admit it, but when a government can launch dozens of wars, killing millions of people, it's obvious
that government would kill it's citizens to keep power. The wrong people are blamed for 911.
"The nation that neglects social inequality, mischievously increases military budgets, and then uses its power internally to
suppress the citizens on the pretext of invasion by an external enemy is on the road to extinction." - Yang Wenli, Legend of
the Galactic Heroes.
Stop calling them ELITE, they are THE POLITICAL CRIMINAL CLASS, and as long as we cook their meals, drive their limos, tailor
their suits, and guard them while they sleep, they are not untouchable. None of them.
Right now, the puppet masters are laughing, pitting one puppet against the other, white vs. black, man vs. woman, worker
vs. unemployed, police vs. citizens, while they rob you blind and enslave your children in debt and austerity...
Tucker: "Is our nation being ripped apart by a total and complete lie, a provable lie? A lie
used by cynical media manipulators and unscrupulous politicians who understand that racial strife
-- race hatred -- is their path to power, even if it destroys the country."
Bakari Sellers, CNN political commentator: People worry about the protesters and the
looters. And it is just people who are frustrated.
Don Lemon, CNN anchor: They are frustrated, and they are angry, and they are out
there. And they're upset. You shouldn't be taking televisions, but I can't tell people how to
react to this.
Sen.
Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y.: I'm proud of the protests, and I think it is part of the
tradition of New York. The violence is bad, reprehensible, and it should be condemned, but it
is not the overwhelming picture in New York.
Nikole Hannah-Jones, The New York Times: Destroying property which can be replaced is
not violence.
Chris Cuomo, CNN anchor Too many see the protests as the problem. Please, show me
where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful.
Some Democrats have openly embraced
what is happening. Really they don't have much of a choice. These are their voters cleaning out
the Rolex store. These riots effectively are the largest Joe Biden for President rally on
record.
No Democratic leader can directly criticize what is happening right now. And in fact, some
have joined in. Over the weekend, the Democratic Party of Fairfax, Virginia, which is an
important Democratic organization, released the following statement on Twitter: "Riots are an
integral part of this country's march towards progress."
Progress. Burning buildings, teargas, dead bodies, the screaming injured, criminal anarchy
-- to the Democratic Party of Fairfax, that is called progress.
Celebrity after celebrity has weighed in to agree on social media. From his fortified
compound, basketball star LeBron James has used his accounts
to encourage more rioting. Bernie Sanders surrogate Shaun
King has done the same. So has Black Lives Matter leader, DeRay Mckesson.
Colin
Kaepernick openly calls for violence. Here's a quote: "The cries for peace will rain down
and when they do, they will land on deaf ears," he says
approvingly .
Imagine shouting fire in a crowded theater, a theater with 325 million people in it called
our country. That's what they've been doing and have been doing for days.
When the violence began, what we needed more than anything was clarity in the middle of
this. It's hard to see when the tear gas starts. Someone in America needed to tell the truth to
the country. Instead, almost all of our so-called conservative leaders joined the left's
chorus, as if on cue.
On Friday, as American cities were being destroyed by mobs, the vice president United States
refused to say anything specific about the riots we were watching on television. Instead,
Mike Pence
scolded America for its racism.
Carly Fiorina, once a leading Republican presidential candidate tweeted that -- and we're
quoting, "It's white America that now must see the truth, speak the truth and act on the
truth."
Meanwhile, Kay
Coles James , who is the president of the Heritage Foundation -- that's the largest
conservative think tank in the country. You may have sent them money, hopefully for the last
time. Kay Coles James wrote a long scream denouncing America as an irredeemably racist nation:
"How many times will protests have to occur?"
Got that? "Have to occur." Like the rest of us caused this by our sinfulness.
The message from our leaders on the right, as on the left, was unambiguous: Don't complain.
You deserve what's happening to you.
No one jumped in more forcefully or seemed angrier in America than former South Carolina
Governor Nikki
Haley . "Tonight I turned on the news and I am heartbroken," Haley wrote. "It's important
to understand that the death of George Ford was personal and painful for many. In order to
heal, it needs to be personal and painful for everyone."
Imagine shouting fire in a crowded theater, a theater with 325 million people in it called
our country. That's what they've been doing and have been doing for days.
But wait a second, you may be wondering, how am I "personally responsible" for the behavior
of a Minneapolis police officer? I've never even been to Minneapolis, you may think to
yourself. And why is some politician telling me I'm required to be upset about it?
Those are all good questions. Nikki Haley did not answer those questions explaining. It is
not her strong suit -- that would require thinking.
What Nikki Haley does best is moral blackmail. During the 2016 campaign, she compared Donald
Trump to the racist mass murderer, Dylann
Roof . How is Donald Trump similar to a serial
killer? Nikki Haley never explained that. She wasn't trying to educate anyone.
Her only goal was political advantage. Nikki Haley is exceptionally good at getting what she
wants. She is happy to denounce you as a racist in order to get it. She just did.
In this case, Nikki Haley's wish came true. The riots were indeed "personal and painful" for
everyone. And then the pain kept increasing. Two days after she wrote that, dozens of American
cities had been thoroughly trashed, some destroyed.
A country already on the brink of recession suddenly faced economic collapse. An already
fearful population locked down for months because of the coronavirus had
been thoroughly and completely terrorized.
Mission accomplished. Let's hope Nikki Haley is pleased. We've now atoned.
How did the Trump administration respond to the horrors going on around us? Well, Sunday
morning, the country's national security adviser, Robert O'Brien, did a live interview from the
White House lawn. Here's how it began:
Robert O'Brien, U.S. National
Security Adviser: First thing I want to say, on behalf of the president --he said this to the
family -- but our hearts and prayers are going out to the Floyd family. We mourn with them and
we grieve with them and what happened there was horrific and I can't even imagine what that
poor family is going through as his videos are played over and over again. That should have
never happened in America and it's a tragic thing.
The president said that from the start, and we're with the family and as the President
said, we're with the peaceful protesters.
"We're with the peaceful protesters," O'Brien announced.
Really? Can you be more specific about that? Who are you talking about exactly? Is it the
people spitting foam as they scream, "F the police"? Is it the one standing next to the
arsonist doing nothing as they set fire to buildings? Is it the kids laughing as they film the
looting and the beatings on their iPhones?
The first requirement of leadership is that you watch over the people in your care. That's
what soldiers want from their officers. It's what families need from their fathers. It's what
voters demand from their presidents.
"... Bakari Sellers, CNN political commentator: People worry about the protesters and the looters. And it is just people who are frustrated. ..."
"... Don Lemon, CNN anchor: They are frustrated, and they are angry, and they are out there. And they're upset. You shouldn't be taking televisions, but I can't tell people how to react to this. ..."
"... Sen. Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y.: I'm proud of the protests, and I think it is part of the tradition of New York. The violence is bad, reprehensible, and it should be condemned, but it is not the overwhelming picture in New York. ..."
"... Nikole Hannah-Jones, The New York Times: Destroying property which can be replaced is not violence. ..."
"... Chris Cuomo, CNN anchor Too many see the protests as the problem. Please, show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful. ..."
"... Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti: I want you to know we will not be increasing our police budget. How can we at this moment? ..."
"... Our city through our city administrative officer identified $250 million in cuts, so we could invest in jobs, in health, in education, and in healing And that those dollars need to be focused on our black community here in Los Angeles, as well as communities of color and women and people who have been left behind for too long. ..."
"... And will this involve cuts? Yes. Of course. To every department, including the police department. ..."
"... Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from " Tucker Carlson Tonight " on June 4, 2020. ..."
For the past week, all of us have seen chaos engulf our beloved country. The violence and
the destruction have been so overwhelming, so shocking, and awful and vivid on the screen, that
it's been hard to think clearly about what's going on.
Most of us haven't been able to step back far enough to ask even the obvious questions. The
most obvious, of course, is what is this really about? What do the mobs want?
Well, thugs looting the Apple Store can't answer that question. They have no idea. They just
want free iPads. But what about Apple itself and the rest of corporate America, which is
enthusiastically supporting the rioters? What about members of Congress , the media figures, the
celebrities, the tech titans, all of whom are cheering this on. What do they want out of
it?
Well, they haven't said. That's the central mystery.
Now suddenly, it is obvious. It should have been obvious on the first day. This is about
Donald Trump
. Of course, it is. We just couldn't see it.
For normal people, Donald Trump is the president. You may like him, you may not like him,
but either way, there will be another president at some point, and we will move on as we always
have.
But for Donald Trump's enemies, there is nothing else. Everything is about Trump.
Everything.
Donald Trump defines their friendships, their careers, their marriages. Donald Trump affects
how they raise their children. Trump occupies the very center of their lives. As long as Donald
Trump remains in the White House. They feel powerless and diminished and panicked. So they
cannot be happy.
In everything they do, their overriding goal is to remove Donald Trump from office. And
that's exactly what they're trying to do now. That's what these riots are about. The most
privileged in our society are using the most desperate in our society to seize power from
everyone else.
Got that? That's the nub of it. The most privileged are using the most desperate to seize
power from the rest of us. They are not seeking racial justice. If they were seeking racial
justice, they wouldn't be denouncing their fellow Americans for their race, which they are. It
has nothing to do with it.
What they are seeking is total control of the country. And it goes without saying that none
of this has anything to do with George Floyd . Shame on those who
pretended that it did -- those who fell for the lie and those who knew better but played along
because they are cowards. There are many of those. You know who they are, and someday we will
look back on all of them with contempt.
Meanwhile, the many people promoting this chaos remain clear-eyed. They are not lying to
themselves. They never do. They know exactly what's going on, and they know what they hope to
achieve by it. With every night of rioting, they grow bolder. Now, they are openly defending
violence on television.
Bakari Sellers, CNN political commentator: People worry about the protesters and the
looters. And it is just people who are frustrated.
Don Lemon, CNN anchor: They are frustrated, and they are angry, and they are out
there. And they're upset. You shouldn't be taking televisions, but I can't tell people how to
react to this.
Sen.
Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y.: I'm proud of the protests, and I think it is part of the
tradition of New York. The violence is bad, reprehensible, and it should be condemned, but it
is not the overwhelming picture in New York.
Nikole Hannah-Jones, The New York Times: Destroying property which can be replaced is
not violence.
Chris Cuomo, CNN anchor Too many see the protests as the problem. Please, show me
where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful.
You're crushed by this. You can't believe what's happening to your country. But for the
people you just saw, the real problem is that the rioting in some rare places is being stopped
by police, and their aim is to fix that. They would like to eliminate all law enforcement
for good.
In everything they do, their overriding goal is to remove Donald Trump from office. And
that's exactly what they're trying to do now. That's what these riots are about. The most
privileged in our society are using the most desperate in our society to seize power from
everyone else.
On Thursday, Democrats in Dallas took down the statue of a Texas Ranger from the terminal at
Love Field that has stood in the airport for more than 50 years. The Texas Rangers are cops,
and cops must be removed, even when they're made of bronze.
Meanwhile, the Lego toy company has ceased marketing sets that contain plastic police
officers. Apparently, they're too dangerous for our children. And so on -- so much of this is
going on right now.
If it all seems like yet another episode of the silly and fleeting hysteria that sometimes
grips our culture out of nowhere, usually in lulls in the news cycle, you should know that it's
not that. This is entirely real. It is being pushed by serious people, and they are deadly
serious about it.
On Wednesday night, for example, Brian Fallon, who was the press secretary of the Hillary
Clinton for President campaign in the last election cycle tweeted, "Defund the police."
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib agrees. Expect more
members of Congress to agree soon.
In some places, they're not talking, they're acting. Steve Fletcher represents the Third
Ward in Minneapolis . He's on the City
Council there. By this week, his city had been completely scorched by riots. At least 66
businesses were utterly destroyed by fire, 300 more had been vandalized or looted.
Fletcher didn't even mention that. Instead, he attacked the city's police department for
trying to contain the violence: "Several of us on the Council are working on finding out what
it would take to disband the Minneapolis Police Department.".
How would Americans feel if they actually defunded the police? Well, terrified mostly.
That's how we would feel. Things would fall apart instantly.
You'd think people in the city would be shocked by that. But at least on the City Council,
everyone else nodded their approval. In the Ninth Ward, Councilwoman Alondra Cano tweeted this
on Wednesday: "The Minneapolis Police Department is not reformable. Change is coming."
According to City Councilman Fletcher, all nine members of the City Council are now considered
getting rid of the Minneapolis Police Department.
Hard to believe, but it's not just there. In the city of Los Angeles , Mayor Eric Garcetti looks
out across the worst rioting in the nation's second-largest city in a generation, in almost 30
years. His conclusion? We need far fewer police. It could have been better if they hadn't been
there.
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti: I want you to know we will not be increasing our
police budget. How can we at this moment?
Our city through our city administrative officer identified $250 million in cuts, so
we could invest in jobs, in health, in education, and in healing And that those dollars need
to be focused on our black community here in Los Angeles, as well as communities of color and
women and people who have been left behind for too long.
And will this involve cuts? Yes. Of course. To every department, including the police
department.
When Democrats across the country start saying the same thing at the same time, you can be
certain there's a reason for it. And in this case, they clearly mean it.
According to the president of the L.A. Police Commission, city officials may cut $150
million from the LAPD. That would be more than 10 percent of the entire police budget, in the
wake of rioting.
In New York, 48 separate Democratic candidates -- and they were including in that the
Manhattan district attorney -- signed a letter demanding a $1 billion cut to the budget of the
NYPD. Why are they doing this? There are reasons, not the ones they tell you. They tell you
it's about racism. They tell you that cops are racist and must be reined in.
Most Americans don't agree with that. That's not the experience they have. In fact, police
departments are one of the most trusted institutions in the country.
According to Gallup polling last year, 53 percent of Americans said they had a great deal or
quite a lot of confidence in the police. That was far more confidence than they had in almost
any other institution -- banks, religious leaders, the health care system, television, news,
public schools, corporate America, newspapers -- name one. All of those were stuck below 40
percent. How many Americans trusted Congress? Eleven percent.
And in fact, most African Americans still support the police. A 2016 Pew poll found that 55
percent of African-Americans had confidence in the police within their own communities. In
other words, cops they actually knew and dealt with. They have confidence.
A study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics from 2011 found that among those who called the
police for help, more than 90 percent of African-Americans felt the police behaved
properly.
So, what would happen if we got rid of the police? Of all law enforcement? How would
Americans feel if they actually defunded the police?
Well, terrified mostly. That's how we would feel. Things would fall apart instantly. It
would take hours. Don't believe it? Spend an afternoon in a place with no law enforcement and
see what you think. Talk to anyone who was in Baghdad at the height of the Iraq War. Ask anyone
who stayed in New Orleans for Katrina. Their memories will be fresh. They'll never forget what
they saw.
Here's the key. Eliminating the police does not mean eliminating authority. There is always
authority. There are no vacuums in nature. The only question is whether or not the authority is
legitimate -- whether or not the authority is accountable. Whether or not you can do anything
if the authority abuses its power.
In the absence of law enforcement, the answer is no. It means thugs are in charge. The most
violent people have the most power. They can do whatever they want to you. That's the reality.
Everyone obeys the violent people, or they get hurt. The mob literally rules.
That probably sounds like a nightmare to you, because it is. But the people pushing this
idea don't see it as scary because they don't fear the mob, because they control the mob.
That's the key. And they see violence as an instrument of their political power.
With mobs in the streets that they control, they will finally get what they want -- Donald
Trump out of office and a hammerlock on the country. That's what's happening.
Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from " Tucker Carlson Tonight " on June 4,
2020.
The incident was clearly manipulated for political purposes. And manipulators do not care how
many stores will be looted and how many people will be killed. They want their political power
back.
"Is our nation being ripped apart by a total and complete lie, a provable lie? A lie used by
cynical media manipulators and unscrupulous politicians who understand that racial strife -- race
hatred -- is their path to power, even if it destroys the country."
Notable quotes:
"... So many of our leaders, by contrast, are not grieving. They seem exhilarated. They feel nothing as our nation descends into anarchy. They see chaos, instead, as an opportunity, a chance to solidify their control, to increase their market share to win elections. ..."
"... The people cheering them on from their TV studios have no patience for real protests or real protesters. Just in April, Democrats in New Jersey arrested a woman for trying to plan a rally, a protest at the state capitol. The New York Times said nothing when they did that because they approve. That's how they really feel about any political expression they can't control -- they crush it. ..."
"... Unidentified male: I am now calling on all and our city council members and all of our elected officials to defund the police. ..."
"... Crowd: Defund the police. ..."
"... Unidentified male: Defund the police. ..."
"... Crowd: Defund the police. ..."
"... Jake Tapper, CNN anchor: LA Mayor Eric Garcetti joined protesters moments ago, what did he have to say? ..."
"... Stephanie Elam, CNN correspondent: Yes, he came out this morning, Jake, and he took the time to come out and come out among the protesters. He knelt while he was out there, saying -- and showing -- his solidarity for the movement, for the protesters here today. ..."
"... And I can tell you that today, this daytime protest has been very peaceful, very calm. Lots of chanting, singing. ..."
"... Unidentified male: I work for Black Lives Matter. I'm sorry that I scared you. But since I work for that company, my CEO has told me to come out today and to bring you on your knees because you have white privilege. ..."
"... So if they see that a white person is getting on their knees that show solidarity for the situation. The situation and could you just please apologize for -- you know for your white privilege. Just apologize. ..."
"... Unidentified female: I have -- I am trying to think of the right words to say. What's a good thing to say? ..."
"... Unidentified male: It's big.Unidentified female: That comes from -- ..."
"... Unidentified male: It's so -- it's large in this country. ..."
"... Unidentified female: I am terribly sorry. ..."
"... Of the 802 shootings in which the race of the police officer and the suspect was noted, 371 of those killed were white, 236 were black. The vast majority of those killed were not, in fact, unarmed; the vast majority were armed. And African-American suspects were significantly more likely to have a deadly weapon than white suspects, yet more white suspects were killed. ..."
"... In fact, the number of police killings is dropping. In 2015, during Barack Obama's presidency , 38 unarmed black Americans and 32 whites were slain by police. Overall totals have fallen since then, and they have fallen far more dramatically for African-American men. ..."
"... Last year was the safest year for unarmed suspects since The Washington Post begin tracking police shootings. It was the safest year for both white and black suspects. ..."
"... One final number for you, because it matters: In 2018, 7,407 African-Americans were murdered in the United States. If 2019 continues on a similar trajectory, -- and we hope it doesn't, but if it does -- that would mean that for every unarmed African-American shot to death in the United States by police, more than 700 were murdered by someone else, usually by someone they know. ..."
"... Again, those are the facts. They are not in dispute. Are African-Americans being "hunted" as Joy Reid recklessly claimed on MSNBC recently? Or something else happening? ..."
For many of us, this has been one of the saddest, most painful weeks in memory. Depressing
doesn't even begin to describe it.
We have watched as mobs of violent cretins have burned our cities, defaced our monuments,
beaten old women in the street, shot police officers and stolen everything in sight -- stealing
everything .
How many innocent Americans have these people hurt? How many have they murdered? We don't
know that number. But it's the country itself that so many of us worry about at this point.
After we've watched what's happened over the last week, how do we put the society back
together? Can we? We don't know that, either.
If you're grieving for America right now, you are not alone. Millions feel the same way you
do.
So many of our leaders, by contrast, are not grieving. They seem exhilarated. They feel
nothing as our nation descends into anarchy. They see chaos, instead, as an opportunity, a
chance to solidify their control, to increase their market share to win elections.
They have no interest in talking about the details of what is actually happening out there
on our streets. In fact, they're hiding those details. They're demanding that you forget what
you saw. Don't forget it. Remember all of it -- every bit -- because it's proof of who they
are.
What they're defending and encouraging has nothing to do with civil rights. It is violence,
and the criminals you see on the screen are not protesters.
The people cheering them on from their TV studios have no patience for real protests or
real protesters. Just in April, Democrats in New Jersey arrested a woman for trying to plan a
rally, a protest at the state capitol. The New York Times said nothing when they did that
because they approve. That's how they really feel about any political expression they can't
control -- they crush it.
What they support is more power for themselves and they're willing to use gangs of thugs to
get it. Here is one of their protesters chanting "no justice, no peace" as a man tortures a
dog. NBC News wouldn't show you that video ever. Neither would CNN under any circumstances.
These are the worst people in America, and our leaders have let them do whatever they want. So,
of course, they want more.
Their latest demand is that we eliminate the police entirely. No more law enforcement
in this country. That would mean more power for the mob. They could do anything. It would mean
never-ending terror for you and for your family. That's why they want it.
Unidentified male: I am now calling on all and our city council members and all of our
elected officials to defund the police.
Crowd: Defund the police.
Unidentified male: Defund the police.
Crowd: Defund the police.
"Defund the police." No sane person would dare to have said something like that in public
just a week and a half ago. Now, a member of Congress has endorsed the idea -- Rashida Tlaib .
So, what would happen to our country if we eliminated law enforcement? Eric Garcetti is the
mayor of Los
Angeles , the second biggest city in America. His city would devolve into a murderous
hellscape within hours if the police left.
But Garcetti, who is in charge of the city, won't push back against this idea. Instead, h
e kneeled in
subservience before the people demanding it.
Jake Tapper, CNN anchor: LA Mayor Eric Garcetti joined protesters moments ago, what
did he have to say?
Stephanie Elam, CNN correspondent: Yes, he came out this morning, Jake, and he took
the time to come out and come out among the protesters. He knelt while he was out there,
saying -- and showing -- his solidarity for the movement, for the protesters here
today.
And I can tell you that today, this daytime protest has been very peaceful, very calm.
Lots of chanting, singing.
He kneeled. Our leaders are kneeling before the mob, the atavistic ritual of self-abasement
of defeat. Suddenly, many are performing this ritual, including police around the country.
The mob wants victory. But more than that, it wants the total humiliation of its
enemies.
Unidentified male: I work for Black Lives Matter. I'm sorry that I scared you. But
since I work for that company, my CEO has told me to come out today and to bring you on your
knees because you have white privilege.
So if they see that a white person is getting on their knees that show solidarity for
the situation. The situation and could you just please apologize for -- you know for your
white privilege. Just apologize.
Unidentified female: I have -- I am trying to think of the right words to say. What's
a good thing to say?
Unidentified male: It's big.Unidentified female: That comes from --
Unidentified male: It's so -- it's large in this country.
Unidentified female: I am terribly sorry.
Why do we kneel? We kneel because we've lost. We kneel before our victors because they have
won. We put down our resistance. We beg for their mercy.
But mobs rarely forgive. "We're on your side!" we shout. We're in solidarity, spare us. But
they never do.
"We're on your side" as the rock comes through the window. You think the mob cares? No.
What's happening to this country? Why are Americans surrendering to violent mobs? Well,
because they've been told they have to.
Everything we're now watching -- the looting, the arson, the killing -- has a purpose. The
purpose we're told again and again is to end racist police violence against African-Americans.
We are told that that is the single greatest scourge in this country.
Demonstrators say repeatedly, "Stop killing us." Stop killing us -- it's chilling. And if
you believe it, and you're a decent person, you will be moved by it -- because it's awful.
No American should ever be mistreated by those in authority, much less killed. The abuse of
power is always and everywhere a sin, and it's increasingly common here. We should always work
to end it.
So many of our leaders, by contrast, are not grieving. They seem exhilarated. They feel
nothing as our nation descends into anarchy. They see chaos, instead, as an opportunity
In this case, the death of a man at the hands of police in
Minneapolis turned out to be a metaphor for abuse of power. That death has led to demands
that we fire the nearly 700,000 police officers who work in the United States and that we free
the million and a half criminals who are now behind bars.
In America, Joe
Biden told us recently: "Just the color of your skin puts your life at risk." Sen. Cory Booker of New
Jersey strongly agreed with that.
"We have so many people in our country," Booker said Tuesday, "African-American men mostly
unarmed, being murdered by police officers and no way of holding them accountable."
So many people murdered by police officers, unarmed, says Cory Booker.
You're hearing a lot of people in authority tell you that, every day, every hour. One group
of pro athletes just announced that, "It seems like every week, a new tragedy unfolds before
our very eyes where people are being killed by police violence. Each time we tweet, we pray, we
mourn, only to repeat the cycle a few days later."
In the words of Ben Crump, who is the lawyer representing George Floyd's family in
Minneapolis, what we're witnessing here in America is "genocide." Genocide?
If you believe we were seeing genocide, then you might understand the riots now in progress.
There's nothing worse than genocide. But is it happening? Is any of this true? We should find
out. Facts matter. What exactly are the numbers?
We found the numbers and we're going to go through them with you in some detail because it's
worth it.
Since 2015, The Washington Post has maintained a comprehensive database of fatal police
shootings in this country. Last year, The Post logged a total of 1,004 killings.
Of the 802 shootings in which the race of the police officer and the suspect was noted,
371 of those killed were white, 236 were black. The vast majority of those killed were not, in
fact, unarmed; the vast majority were armed. And African-American suspects were significantly
more likely to have a deadly weapon than white suspects, yet more white suspects were
killed.
This is not genocide. It's not even close to genocide. It is laughable to suggest it
is.
Overall, there were a total of precisely 10 cases in the United States last year, according
to The Washington Post, in which unarmed African- Americans were fatally shot by the police.
There were nine men and one woman.
Now, as we said, a lot is at stake. The country is at stake. So we want to take the time now
to go through these case by case, into the specifics.
The first was a man called Channara Pheap. He was killed by a Knoxville police officer
called Dylan Williams. According to Williams, Pheap attacked him, choked him and then used a
taser on him -- the suspect on the police officer before the officer shot him. Five
eyewitnesses corroborated the officer's claim, and the officer was not charged.
The second case concerns a man called Marcus McVeigh. He was by any description a career
criminal from San Angelo, Texas. He had been convicted of aggravated assault, assault on a
public servant and organized criminal activity.
At the time he was killed, he was wanted on drug dealing charges. The Texas State trooper
pulled him over. McVeigh fled in his car, then he fled on foot into the woods. There he fought
with the trooper and was shot and killed. The officer was not charged in that case.
Marzua Scott assaulted a shop employee. When a female police officer arrived and ordered the
suspect toward her car, he instead charged her and knocked her to the ground. At that point,
she shot and killed him. The entire incident was caught on body camera. The officer was not
charged.
Ryan Twyman was being approached by two LA County deputies when he backed into one of them
with his vehicle. The deputy was caught in the car door. He and his partner opened fire. The
deputies were not charged in that case.
Melvin Watkins of East Baton Rouge, La. shot by a deputy after he allegedly drove his car
toward the deputy at high speed. The deputy was not charged.
Isaiah Lewis, meanwhile, wasn't just unarmed, he was completely naked. Williams broke into a
house and then attacked a police officer. The police tased Williams, but he kept coming at them
and attacking. The officer shot him. They were not charged.
Atatiana Jefferson was shot by a Fort Worth deputy called Aaron Dean. A neighbor had called
a non-emergency number after seeing Jefferson's door open, thinking something might be wrong.
Police arrived. Jefferson saw them approach from a window and was holding a gun at the
time.
According to body camera footage, the officer shot Jefferson within seconds. That officer
has been charged with homicide.
Is our nation being ripped apart by a total and complete lie, a provable lie? A lie used
by cynical media manipulators and unscrupulous politicians who understand that racial strife
-- race hatred -- is their path to power, even if it destroys the country.
Christopher Whitfield was shot and killed in a place called Ethel, La. He had robbed a gas
station. Deputy Glenn Sims said his gun discharged accidentally while grappling with Whitfield.
Sims, who is black himself, was not charged in that killing.
Kevin Mason was shot by police during a multi-hour standoff. Well, Mason turned out not to
have a gun. Mason claimed to have a gun, claimed to be armed and vowed to kill police with it.
They believed him. Mason had been in a shootout with police years before.
And finally, the tenth case concerns Gregory Griffin. He was shot during a car chase. An
officer called Giovanni Crespo claimed he saw someone pointing a gun at him. Later, a gun was
in fact found inside the vehicle, and yet Officer Crespo was charged anyway with aggravated
manslaughter.
Those are the facts. That is the entire list from 2019, last year -- 10 deaths. In five
deaths, an officer was attacked just before the shooting occurred. That is not disputed.
One allegedly was an accident. That leaves a total of four deaths during a pursuit or in a
standoff. So out of four, in two of those cases -- and fully half -- the officer was criminally
charged. Is it possible that more of these officers should have been charged? Of course, it's
possible. Justice is not always served, that's for sure.
But either way, this is a very small number in a country of 325 million people. This is not
genocide. It's not even close to genocide. It is laughable to suggest it is.
In fact, the number of police killings is dropping. In 2015, during Barack Obama's presidency , 38
unarmed black Americans and 32 whites were slain by police. Overall totals have fallen since
then, and they have fallen far more dramatically for African-American men.
Last year was the safest year for unarmed suspects since The Washington Post begin
tracking police shootings. It was the safest year for both white and black suspects.
At the same time, this country remains a dangerous place for police officers. Forty-eight of
them were murdered in 2019 according to FBI data. That's more than the number of unarmed
suspects killed of all races.
One final number for you, because it matters: In 2018, 7,407 African-Americans were
murdered in the United States. If 2019 continues on a similar trajectory, -- and we hope it
doesn't, but if it does -- that would mean that for every unarmed African-American shot to
death in the United States by police, more than 700 were murdered by someone else, usually by
someone they know.
Again, those are the facts. They are not in dispute. Are African-Americans being
"hunted" as Joy Reid recklessly claimed on MSNBC recently? Or something else
happening?
Carlson has said corporations support for the protests is "paying for" riots.
"But corporations aren't
simply tweeting their support for the riots, they're paying for them to," he said.
Carlson listed companies including Cisco, Intel, Ubisoft, Airbnb and Dropbox, who have all made funds
available to groups such as Black Lives Matter (BLM) and the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP). He also criticized Pepsi, stating it had supported similar causes.
Newsweek
has contacted the corporations mentioned and Fox News for comment.
Carlson referred to a quote that "a riot is the voice of the unheard," a phrase which has origins from
civil rights campaigner Martin Luther King Jr, who said "a riot is the language of the unheard."
Fox News host Tucker Carlson discusses 'Populism and the Right' during the National
Review Institute's Ideas Summit at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel March 29, 2019 in Washington, DC. He has
criticized businesses supporting groups such as Black Lives Matter.
Chip
Somodevilla/Getty Images
Criticizing this, Carlson said: "The rioters burning down your city with the support of virtually
everyone richer than you, are 'unheard', you, by contrast, are the oppressor and if you disagree in any way,
we are going to fire you and wreck your life."
Continuing to critique the corporations, Carlson suggested they should support small businesses.
"All this money, flowing out of the country's most profitable corporations, it might be a nice gesture for
those corporations to donate some money to, I dunno, rebuild some of the small businesses that have been
destroyed over the past week," he said.
Police keep watch as firefighters work to extinguish a fire at a section of shops
looted amid demonstrations in Santa Monica, California.
Mario Tama/Getty
Images
"Oh but they're not going to do that, because for a lot of big corporations the total annihilation of
small businesses is one of the best parts of this new revolution, there's always an angle, someone's always
getting more powerful."
In regards to the groups being supported, Carlson took issue with BLM for calling for police to be
defunded, while criticizing support for bail funds from the NAACP.
I was surprised Esper gave a press conference without first coordinating his message with the White House. We need a unified
message coming from our federal government. He should have voiced his concerns privately with Trump, but Trump makes the
decision and announces the message...Trump was elected, not Esper. I would fire Esper for not following the chain of command.
The career politicians cant stand Trump because he is a Washington outsider who is doing things different and making much
needed changes that benefit businesses and individuals.
All
you have to do is look at who is involved with all this craziness and when it all started. All this cause they want their
power back so they can continue to do what they want and answer to no one. All of this cause they hate Trump for opening the
eyes of Americans to see the light through the darkness they created. Because all I've seen that Trump has done to hurt this
country so far was to get elected and show all Americans how we where getting taken advantage of by government, the elites and
other countries. They will stop at nothing to regain power. Game players in this craziness: 1. Corrupt politicians 2. Some
rich Hollywood stars 3. Some rich sports players 4. Some rich business owners 5. Leftist media being paid 6. Some true racist
people being paid 7. Some bad law enforcement individuals being paid 8. Some black individuals being paid and making money
from it by pushing the narrative 9. And last but not least, someone or group that's financially flipping the bill so all of it
can happen. Notice any pattern here? $$$$$$$$$$$$ money the root of all evil.
All Bureaucrats and the Military take an oath to defend the constitution. When a lowlife like Donald Trump comes along and
tries to subvert the constitution it is right of the military and the bureaucrats to disobey his orders. Trump can fire them
if he likes but cannot force them to fall in line with his unconstitutional order. A stupid man like you would have known that
already and are selectively feeding information to a bunch of guys who do not even know what the constitution is. The military
is clearly lined up against the idea of trump using them against American citizens. After Trump loses the election as it
clearly seems now, he will have to demit office without a whimper, that is very clear from the statements of various active
generals. Unfortunately, Donald Trump has to this time win the Presidency by playing fair and not screaming like a dog whose
backside has been bitten off "The Democrats are practicing election corruption" It is Ok to feed that to his dumb followers
but the rest of the country will not take it lying down. This dog knew 2 tricks, you have now seen them all. He is done.
Don't laugh derisively, as people do these days, but I've always admired the New York Times
. First draft of history. Talent everywhere. Best production values. Even with its ideological
spin, it can be scrupulous about facts. You can usually extract the truth with a decoder ring.
Its outsized influence over the rest of the press makes it essential. I've relied on it for
years. Even given everything, and I mean everything.
Until now. It's just too much. Too much unreality, manipulation, propaganda, and flat out
untruths that are immediately recognizable to anyone. I can't believe they think they can get
away with this with credibility intact. I'm not speaking of the many great reporters,
technicians, editors, production specialists, and the tens of thousands who make it all
possible. I'm speaking of a very small coterie of people who stand guard over the paper's
editorial mission of the moment and enforce it on the whole company, with no dissent
allowed.
Let's get right to the offending passage. It's not from the news or opinion section but the
official editorial section and hence the official voice of the paper. The paragraph from June
2, 2020, reads
as follows.
Healing the wounds ripped open in recent days and months will not be easy. The pandemic
has made Americans fearful of their neighbors, cut them off from their communities of faith,
shut their outlets for exercise and recreation and culture and learning. Worst of all, it has
separated Americans from their own livelihoods.
Can you imagine? The pandemic is the cause!
I would otherwise feel silly to have to point this out but for the utter absurdity of the
claim. The pandemic didn't do this. It caused a temporary and mostly media-fueled panic that
distracted officials from doing what they should have done, which is protect the vulnerable and
otherwise let society function and medical workers deal with disease.
Instead, the CDC and governors around the country, at the urging of bad computer-science
models uninformed by any experience in viruses, shut down schools, churches, events,
restaurants, gyms, theaters, sports, and further instructed people to stay in their homes,
enforced sometimes even by SWAT teams. Jewish funerals were broken up by the police.
It was brutal and egregious and it threw 40 million people out of work and bankrupted
countless businesses. Nothing this terrible was attempted even during the Black Death.
Maximum
economic damage; minimum health advantages . It's not even possible to find evidence that
the lockdowns saved lives at all .
But to hear the New York Times tell the story, it was not the lockdown but the pandemic that
did this. That's a level of ideological subterfuge that is almost impossible for a sane person
to conjure up, simply because it is so obviously unbelievable.
It's lockdown denialism.
Why? From February 2020 and following, the New York Times had a story and they are
continuing to stick to it. The story is that we are all going to die from this pandemic unless
government shuts down society. It was a drum this paper beat every day.
Consider what the top virus reporter Donald J. McNeil (B.A. Rhetoric, University of
California, Berkeley) wrote on
February 28, 2020, weeks before there was any talk of shutdowns in the U.S.:
There are two ways to fight epidemics: the medieval and the modern.
The modern way is to surrender to the power of the pathogens: Acknowledge that they are
unstoppable and to try to soften the blow with 20th-century inventions, including new
vaccines, antibiotics, hospital ventilators and thermal cameras searching for people with
fevers.
The medieval way, inherited from the era of the Black Death, is brutal: Close the borders,
quarantine the ships, pen terrified citizens up inside their poisoned cities.
For the first time in more than a century, the world has chosen to confront a new and
terrifying virus with the iron fist instead of the latex glove.
And yes, he recommends the medieval way. The article continues on to praise China's response
and Cuba's to AIDS and says that this approach is natural to Trump and should be done in the
United States. ( AIER
called him out on this alarming column on March 4, 20202.)
McNeil then went on to greater fame with a series of shocking podcasts for the NYT that put
a voice and even more panic to the failed modeling of Neil Ferguson of the Imperial College
London.
This first
appeared the day before his op-ed calling for global lockdown. The transcript
includes this:
I spend a lot of time thinking about whether I'm being too alarmist or whether I'm being
not alarmist enough. And this is alarmist, but I think right now, it's justified. This one
reminds me of what I have read about the 1918 Spanish influenza.
Reminder: 675,000 Americans died in that pandemic. There were only 103 million people living
in the U.S. at the time.
He continues:
I'm trying to bring a sense that if things don't change, a lot of us might die. If you
have 300 relatively close friends and acquaintances, six of them would die in a 2.5 percent
mortality situation.
That's an astonishing claim that seems to forecast 8.25 million Americans will die. So far
as I know, that is the most extreme claim made by anyone, four times as high as the Imperial
College model.
What should we do to prevent this?
You can't leave. You can't see your families. All the flights are canceled. All the trains
are canceled. All the highways are closed. You're going to stay in there. And you're locked
in with a deadly disease. We can do it.
So because this coronavirus "reminds" him of one he read about, he can say on the air that
four million people could soon die, and therefore life itself should be cancelled. Because a
reporter is "reminded" of something.
This is the same newspaper that in 1957 urged people to stay calm during the Asian flu and
trust medical providers – running all of one editorial on the topic. What a change! This
was an amazing podcast -- amazingly irresponsible.
McNeil was not finished yet. He was
at it again on March 12, 2020, demanding that we not just close big events and schools but
shut down everything and everyone "for months." He went back on the podcast twice more, then
started riding the media circuit, including
NPR . It was also the same. China did it right. We need to lock down or people you know, if
you are one of the lucky survivors, will die.
To say that the New York Times was invested in the scenario of "lock down or we die" is an
understatement. It was as invested in this narrative as it was in the Russia-collaboration
story or the Ukrainian-phone call impeachment, tales to which they dedicated hundreds of
stories and many dozens of reporters. The virus was the third pitch to achieve their
objective.
Once in, there was no turning back, even after it became obvious that for the vast numbers
of people this was hardly a disease at all, and that most of the deaths came from one city and
mostly from nursing homes that were forced by law to take in COVID-19 patients.
That the newspaper, a once venerable institution, has something to answer for is apparent.
But instead of accepting moral culpability for having created a panic to fuel the overthrow of
the American way of life, they turn on a dime to celebrate people who are not socially
distancing in the streets to protest police brutality.
To me, the protests on the streets were a welcome relief from the vicious lockdowns. To the
New York Times , it seems like the lockdowns never happened. Down the Orwellian memory
hole.
In this paper's consistent editorializing, nothing is the fault of the lockdowns.
Everything instead is the fault of Trump, who "tends to see only political opportunity in
public fear and anger, as in his customary manner of contributing heat rather than light to the
confrontations between protesters and authority."
True about Trump but let us remember that the McNeil's first pro-lockdown article praised
Trump as perfectly suited to bring about the lockdown, and the paper urged him to do just that,
while only three months later washing their hands of the whole thing, as if had nothing to do
with current sufferings much less the rage on the streets.
And the rapid turnaround of this paper on street protests was stunning to behold. A month
ago, people protesting lockdowns were written about as vicious disease spreaders who were
denying good science. In the blink of an eye, the protesters against police brutality (the same
police who enforced the lockdown) were transmogrified into bold embracers of First Amendment
rights who posed no threat to public health.
Not even the scary warnings about the coming "second wave" were enough to stop the paper
from throwing out all its concern over "targeted layered containment" and "social distancing"
in order to celebrate protests in the streets that they like.
And they ask themselves why people are incredulous toward mainstream media today.
The lockdowns wrecked the fundamentals of life in America. The New York Times today wants to
pretend they either didn't happen, happened only in a limited way, or were just minor public
health measures that worked beautifully to mitigate disease. And instead of having an editorial
meltdown over these absurdities, preposterous forecasts, and extreme panic mongering that
contributed to vast carnage, we seen an internal
revolt over the publishing of a Tom Cotton editorial, a dispute over politics not
facts.
The record is there: this paper went all in back in February to demand the most
authoritarian possible response to a virus about which we already knew enough back then to
observe that this was nothing like the Spanish flu of 1918. They pretended otherwise, probably
for ideological reasons, most likely.
It was not the pandemic that blew up our lives, commercial networks, and health systems. It
was the response to the virus that did that. The Times needs to learn that it cannot construct
a fake version of reality just to avoid responsibility for what they've done. Are we really
supposed to believe what they write now and in the future? This time, I hope, people will be
smart and learn to consider the source.
Every cult has the same goal: the utter
submission of its members. Cult members surrender everything. They give up their physical
freedom – where they can go, who they can see, how they can dress. But more than that,
they give up control of their minds.
Cult leaders determine what their followers are allowed to believe, even in their most
private thoughts. In order to do this, cults separate people from all they have known before.
They force members to renounce their former lives, their countries and their customs.
They allow no loyalty except to the cult. The first thing they attack – always –
is the family. Families are always the main impediment to brainwashing and extremism. If you're
going to control individuals – if you're going to transform free people into compliant
robots – the first thing you must do is separate them from the ones who love them
most.
In 1932, Soviet authorities began promoting the story of a 13-year-old peasant boy called
Pavlik Morozov. Morozov, they claimed, had taken the supremely virtuous step of denouncing his
own father to the secret police for committing counter-revolutionary acts.
Once exposed as a traitor, the boy's father was executed by firing squad, supposedly for the
safety of the state. Soviet dictator Josef Stalin elevated the boy to the status of a national
hero for what he did. People wept in the streets when they heard his name. They worshipped him
like a saint.
Why are we telling you this? Because it's happening here. In the last 10 days, some of our
most prominent citizens have sworn allegiance to a cult. Converts go by the term "allies."
Like all cult members, they demand total conformity. They ritually condemn their own nation
– its history, its institutions and symbols. It's flag. They denounce their own
parents.
If you've been on social media recently, you've likely seen videos that illustrate this
– such as one showing a girl attacking her mother and father for the crime of
insufficient loyalty to Black Lives Matter. Reporter Hanna Lustig of Insider.com wrote about
that video, and strongly approved of it.
What you just saw, Lustig wrote, is a young person "modeling the most important tenet of
ally-ship." Modeling. Meaning, something done to encourage others to do the same. It's
working.
In a video of a 15-year-old from Louisville called Isabella – and there are many like
her – the girl is shown crying and saying: "I literally hate my family so much." She goes
on to say her parents defended the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. And
then she calls her parents racists, followed by an obscenity.
"I hate my family so much." Just a week ago, it would have been hard to imagine that. Now,
Isabella is a social media star. Celebrities tweet their approval. She may have her own cult
before long. But the revolution is young. Children attacking their parents is just the
beginning.
On CNN Friday, a man called Tim Wise told viewers that, going forward, parents must hurt
their own children:
Wise said: "I think that the important thing for white parents to keep in the front of their
mind is that if black children in this country are not allowed innocence and childhood without
fear of being killed by police or marginalized in some other way, then our children don't
deserve innocence. If Tamir Rice can be shot dead in a public park playing with a toy gun,
something white children do all over this country every day without the same fear of being
shot, if Tamir Rice can be killed then white children need to be told at least at the same age.
If they can't be innocent, we don't get to be innocent."
Your children are no longer allowed to be innocent, says Tim Wise. Happy childhoods are a
sign of racism. The man saying this – and being affirmed by CNN anchors as he does
– is a self-described "anti-racism activist." He has been saying things like this for a
long time. More than once, Wise has suggested that he approves of violence against those who
disagree.
How does Tim Wise make a living? In part, by lecturing students. Your kids may have seen him
speak. They've almost certainly heard a lot from people like him. In America's schools, the
revolution has been in progress for quite some time.
Last February, to name one among countless examples, officials at schools in Rochester,
N.Y., created a Black Lives Matter-themed lesson plan. The teaching materials dismiss America's
bedrock institutions – indeed, America itself – as inherently racist. Suggested
questions for students include: "How does mass incarceration function as a mechanism of
racialized social control?"
One specific racial group was singled out for exclusive blame. The curriculum promoted a
book titled, "White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of our Racial Divide." In other words, children,
there's a reason hatred and inequality exist: these people did it! That's what your kids are
learning right now.
Thursday, at Darien High School in Connecticut, Principal Ellen Dunn sent an email to
parents promising to increase "the race-conscious education of our students." To do that, Dunn
distributed materials from the Southern Poverty Law Center. Ironically, the SPLC is itself a
hate group. That has been documented extensively. Now their agenda is the school's agenda. It's
what your kids are learning.
In Washington, D.C., an elementary school principal in the affluent northwest section of the
city recently wrote a letter announcing: "We need more White parents to talk to their kids
about race. Especially now."
The letter singled out "White Staff and White community members," whom the principal alleged
had committed "both macro- and micro-aggressions" against "Staff of Color." The principal did
not specify what those crimes were. She didn't need to. Their skin color was their crime.
This is a national theme. It's incredibly destructive and dangerous. Countless public
schools are now using the 1619 Project from The New York Times as a curriculum. That project is
the work of an out-of-the-closet racial extremist called Nikole Hannah Jones. Jones recently
argued it's not violence to loot and burn stores – its justified. Her propaganda is now
mandatory in public schools in Buffalo, Chicago, Newark and Washington.
Many parents understandably deeply resent this. It's deranged, its racist. Others don't.
They're "allies." They've joined in. One mother in London, where the cult is also spreading,
posted a photo on Twitter of her daughter on blended knee, holding a sign declaring her
"privilege."
The Cultural Revolution has come to the West.
What will the effects of this be? Years from now, how will that little girl with the sign
remember her childhood? Her mother took Tim Wise's advice. She no longer has innocence. Will
she be grateful for that?
It's hard to imagine she will be. She'll more likely feel bitter and used. Because she has
been used. Many will feel that way. Is there a single person who believes this moment we're
living through will end in racial harmony? Is that even a goal anymore? It doesn't seem like
it.
It seems clear that many in power are pushing hard for racial division. For hatred. For
violence. Let's pray they don't get what they want. Tribal conflict destroys countries faster
than any plague.
But keep in mind as this insanity continues that it's not happening in a vacuum. Every
action provokes a reaction – that's physics. We don't know where this is going. We don't
want to know. The cult members should stop now – immediately, before more innocents get
hurt – and they will, if they don't.
1) Newsweek has already proven to be significantly compromised, even more than most
MSM, as described by Caitlin Johnstone (via Consortium News):
Newsweek has long been a reliable guard dog and attack dog for the US-centralized
empire, with examples of stories that its editors did permit to go to print including
an article by an actual, current military intelligence officerexplaining why U.S.
prosecution of Julian Assange is a good thing, fawning puff pieces on the White
Helmets, and despicable smear jobs on Tulsi Gabbard.
The outlet will occasionally print oppositional-looking articles like this one by
Ian Wilkie questioning the establishment Syria narrative, but not without immediately
turning around and publishing an attack on Wilkie's piece by Eliot Higgins, a former
Atlantic Council Senior Fellow who is the cofounder of the NED-funded imperial
narrative management firm Bellingcat. Newsweek also recently published an article
attacking Tucker Carlson for publicizing the OPCW scandal, basing its criticisms on a
bogus Bellingcat article ...
Looks like the third stage of the Purple revolution against Trump, with Russiagate and
Ukrainegate and two initial stages.
Notable quotes:
"... Things couldn't be going better for the Resistance if they had scripted it themselves. Actually, they did kind of script it themselves. Not the murder of poor George Floyd, of course. Racist police have been murdering Black people for as long as there have been racist police. No, the Resistance didn't manufacture racism. They just spent the majority of the last four years creating and promoting an official narrative which casts most Americans as "white supremacists" who literally elected Hitler president, and who want to turn the country into a racist dictatorship. ..."
"... According to this official narrative, which has been relentlessly disseminated by the corporate media, the neoliberal intelligentsia, the culture industry, and countless hysterical, Trump-hating loonies, the Russians put Donald Trump in office with those DNC emails they never hacked and some division-sowing Facebook ads that supposedly hypnotized Black Americans into refusing to come out and vote for Clinton. Putin purportedly ordered this personally, as part of his plot to "destroy democracy." ..."
"... The protesting and rioting that typically follows the murder of an unarmed Black person by the cops has mushroomed into " an international uprising " cheered on by the corporate media, corporations, and the liberal establishment, who don't normally tend to support such uprisings, but they've all had a sudden change of heart, or spiritual or political awakening, and are down for some serious property damage, and looting, and preventative self-defense, if that's what it takes to bring about justice, and to restore America to the peaceful, prosperous, non-white-supremacist paradise it was until the Russians put Donald Trump in office. ..."
"... America is still a racist country, but America is no more racist today than it was when Barack Obama was president. A lot of American police are brutal, but no more brutal than when Obama was president. America didn't radically change the day Donald Trump was sworn into office. All that has changed is the official narrative. And it will change back as soon as Trump is gone and the ruling classes have no further use for it. ..."
underground
bunker ." Opportunist social media pundits on both sides of the political spectrum are
whipping people up into white-eyed frenzies. Americans are at each other's throats, divided by
identity politics, consumed by rage, hatred, and fear.
Things couldn't be going better for the Resistance if they had scripted it themselves.
Actually, they did kind of script it themselves. Not the murder of poor George Floyd, of
course. Racist police have been murdering Black people for as long as there have been racist
police. No, the Resistance didn't manufacture racism. They just spent the majority of the last
four years creating and promoting an official narrative which casts most Americans as "white
supremacists" who literally elected Hitler president, and who want to turn the country into a
racist dictatorship.
According to this official narrative, which has been relentlessly disseminated by the
corporate media, the neoliberal intelligentsia, the culture industry, and countless hysterical,
Trump-hating loonies, the Russians put Donald Trump in office with those DNC emails they never
hacked and some division-sowing Facebook ads that supposedly hypnotized Black Americans into
refusing to come out and vote for Clinton. Putin purportedly ordered this personally, as part
of his plot to "destroy democracy." The plan was always for President Hitler to embolden
his white-supremacist followers into launching the "RaHoWa," or the "Boogaloo," after which
Trump would declare martial law, dissolve the legislature, and pronounce himself Führer.
Then they would start rounding up and murdering the Jews, and the Blacks, and Mexicans, and
other minorities, according to this twisted liberal fantasy.
I've been covering the roll-out and dissemination of this official narrative since 2016, and
have documented much of it in my essays
, so I won't reiterate all that here. Let's just say, I'm not exaggerating, much. After four
years of more or less constant conditioning, millions of Americans believe this fairy tale,
despite the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence whatsoever to support it. Which is not
exactly a mystery or anything. It would be rather surprising if they didn't believe it. We're
talking about the most formidable official propaganda machine in the history of official
propaganda machines.
And now the propaganda is paying off. The protesting and rioting that typically follows
the murder of an unarmed Black person by the cops has mushroomed into "
an international uprising " cheered on by the corporate media, corporations, and the
liberal establishment, who don't normally tend to support such uprisings, but they've all had a
sudden change of heart, or spiritual or political awakening, and are down for some serious
property damage, and looting, and preventative self-defense, if that's what it takes to bring
about justice, and to restore America to the peaceful, prosperous, non-white-supremacist
paradise it was until the Russians put Donald Trump in office.
In any event, the Resistance media have now dropped their breathless coverage of the
non-existent Corona-Holocaust to breathlessly cover the "revolution." The American police, who
just last week were national heroes for risking their lives to beat up, arrest, and generally
intimidate mask-less "lockdown violators" are now the fascist foot soldiers of the Trumpian
Reich. The Nike corporation produced
a commercial urging people to smash the windows of their Nike stores and steal their
sneakers. Liberal journalists took to Twitter, calling on rioters to "
burn that shit down! " until the rioters reached their gated community and started burning
down their local Starbucks. Hollywood celebrities are masking up and going full-black bloc, and
doing legal support . Chelsea Clinton is teaching children about David and the Racist
Goliath . John Cusack's bicycle was
attacked by the pigs . I haven't checked on Rob Reiner yet, but I assume he is assembling
Molotov cocktails in the basement of a Resistance safe house somewhere in Hollywood Hills.
Look, I'm not saying the neoliberal Resistance orchestrated or staged these riots, or
"denying the agency" of the folks in the streets. Whatever else is happening out there, a lot
of very angry Black people are taking their frustration out on the cops, and on anyone and
anything else that represents racism and injustice to them.
This happens in America from time to time. America is still a racist society. Most
African-Americans are descended from slaves. Legal racial discrimination was not abolished
until the 1960s, which isn't that long ago in historical terms. I was born in the segregated
American South, with the segregated schools, and all the rest of it. I don't remember it -- I
was born in 1961 -- but I do remember the years right after it. The South didn't magically
change overnight in July of 1964. Nor did the North's variety of racism, which, yes, is
subtler, but no less racist.
So I have no illusions about racism in America. But I'm not really talking about racism in
America. I'm talking about how racism in America has been cynically instrumentalized, not by
the Russians, but by the so-called Resistance, in order to delegitimize Trump and, more
importantly, everyone who voted for him, as a bunch of white supremacists and racists.
Fomenting racial division has been the Resistance's strategy from the beginning. A quote
attributed to Joseph Goebbels, "accuse the other side of that which you are guilty," is
particularly apropos in this case. From the moment Trump won the Republican nomination, the
corporate media and the rest of the Resistance have been telling us the man is literally
Hitler, and that his plan is to foment racial hatred among his "white supremacist base," and
eventually stage some "Reichstag" event, declare martial law and pronounce himself dictator.
They've been telling us this story over and over, on television, in the liberal press, on
social media, in books, movies, and everywhere else they could possibly tell it.
So, before you go out and join the "uprising," take a look at the headlines today, turn on
CNN or MSNBC, and think about that for just a minute. I don't mean to spoil the party, but
they've preparing you for this for the last four years.
Not you Black folks. I'm not talking to you. I wouldn't presume to tell you what to do. I'm
talking to white folks like myself, who are cheering on the rioting and looting, and are coming
out to "help" you with it, but who will be back home in their gated communities when the ashes
have cooled, and the corporate media are gone, and the cops return to "police" your
neighborhoods.
OK, and this is where I have to restate (for the benefit of my partisan readers) that I'm
not a fan of Donald Trump, and that I think he's a narcissistic ass clown, and a glorified con
man, and blah blah blah, because so many people have been so polarized by insane propaganda and
mass hysteria that they can't even read or think anymore, and so just scan whatever articles
they encounter to see whose "side" the author is on and then mindlessly celebrate or excoriate
it.
If you're doing that, let me help you out whichever side you're on, I'm not on it.
I realize that's extremely difficult for a lot of folks to comprehend these days, which is
part of the point I've been trying to make. I'll try again, as plainly as I can.
America is still a racist country, but America is no more racist today than it was when
Barack Obama was president. A lot of American police are brutal, but no more brutal than when
Obama was president. America didn't radically change the day Donald Trump was sworn into
office. All that has changed is the official narrative. And it will change back as soon as
Trump is gone and the ruling classes have no further use for it.
And that will be the end of the War on Populism , and we will
switch back to the War on Terror, or maybe the Brave New Pathologized Normal or
whatever Orwellian official narrative the folks at GloboCap have in store for us.
#
CJ Hopkins
June 1, 2020
Photo: Nike (George Floyd commercial)
The nation
went up in flames this weekend . No one in charge stood up to save America. Our leaders
dithered. They cowered. They openly sided with the destroyers. In many cases, they egged them
on.
Later, they will deny doing any of this. They are denying it now. But you know the truth
because you saw it happen.
This is how nations collapse. When no one in authority keeps the order, and when someone in
our professional class encourage violence, American citizens are forced to defend themselves.
They have no choice. No one else is going to defend them -- they know that now.
It's possible that more people will be hurt in coming days -- that would be a tragedy. But
in an environment like this, more violence could very well lead to a cascade of new tragedies,
to something far bigger and more destructive than anything we have seen so far.
So, this isn't over. It might simply be the beginning. We pray it isn't.
It's hard to think clearly about anything that's going on right now. The chaos, the
destruction, the relentless lying from above -- it's all too much. Americans are bewildered,
and they are afraid. But most of all, they are filled with rage, angrier than they have ever
been.
The worst people in our society have taken control. They did nothing to build this country.
Now, they are tearing it down. They are rushing us toward mass suicide.
So, how do we respond? We must protect ourselves and our families. Once again, we have no
choice, but to do that. But we cannot allow ourselves to become like they are.
We are not animals, we are Americans. In the face of such indecency, we must resolve to be
decent. We believe this country has a future. We intend for our children to live and thrive
here. That is what we are defending.
All our leaders do is set us against each other. They stage a never-ending national
cockfight for their profit and amusement.
But we're not going to play along. We will love our neighbors relentlessly in spite of all
of it, not because they look like us or share our political views. But we love them because
they are human beings, and they are Americans. Those are the bonds that tie us together -- the
bonds our leaders seek to destroy. We can't let them.
We should start by being unsparingly honest about what is happening right now. Truth is our
defense, and it's our country's last hope.
We plan to use this hour to create a record of this moment right now, to show you what's
really going on in your country. We feel an obligation to do that before the facts are spun
into propaganda by the liars or the images are pulled off the internet forever, as many of them
inevitably will be.
All our leaders do is set us against each other. They stage a never-ending national
cockfight for their profit and amusement. But we're not going to play along.
We're going to begin with where my family lives and has lived for 35 years, in the northwest
quadrant of Washington, D.C. This is called Mac Market. It's on MacArthur Boulevard, which is
named after General MacArthur during the war. It's our neighborhood store; it's walking
distance from my house.
People meet there every morning for coffee. Kids come after school for candy. It's as close
to a community gathering spot as we have.
The market is run by the Kim family. The Kims are immigrants from Korea. They are revered in
our neighborhood for their decency and their hard work. When they lost their son several years
ago, the neighbors grieved for them.
The Kims are not political. They've never hurt anyone. They only make things better. But
last night, the mob came for their store. At 1 a.m. Monday morning, Mr. Kim was kneeling alone
on the sidewalk trying to salvage what he has spent his life building.
Scenes like this played out in hundreds of neighborhoods across this country, maybe
yours.
Here are a few. In Columbia, S.C., a man called the police when things began to fall apart.
Rioters saw him call. They surrounded that man, and they beat him. Onlookers laughed as he was
pummeled.
This is a national emergency. It's a profound national emergency. But you would never know
that from listening to our elected leaders. Almost all of them pretend this is not really
happening or if it is happening, it is just part of America's long tradition of vigorous
political discourse.
In Rochester, N.Y., a group of eight men smashed the windows of a jewelry store. The couple
who lived above the shop emerged to confront them. Both of them were viciously beaten with a
ladder and a two-by-four.
In Dallas, a man armed with what appeared to be a sword did his best to defend a business
from looters. The mob bashed him in the head with a rock and a skateboard. It's hard to
watch.
In San Jose, riders with crowbar stormed the highway and attacked vehicles, trying to pull
drivers from their cars. In Birmingham, Ala., a local reporter called Stephen Quinn was beaten,
and then he was robbed on live television as he tried to cover the looting.
In Portland, Ore., a man was beaten apparently for daring to carry an American flag in
public. He never released the flag, by the way.
How many of these people died? How many were murdered by the rioters? We don't know yet. At
the least, some are likely disabled for life. They were beaten that badly.
And then there was the mass stealing. It seemed to be everywhere over the weekend.
In Buckhead, an upscale part of Atlanta, rioters stole a Tesla from a dealership and drove
it through an indoor mall just to underscore how completely out of control things were. In
Portland, Oregon, mobs looted Louis Vuitton, Apple and Chase Bank among many others. They often
set fires as they left. In Chicago, protesters fought systemic racism by running through a Nike
store stealing shoes.
And in Washington, D.C., a federal city surrounded by military bases and protected at all
times by the single highest concentration of law enforcement in the world, criminals operated
with apparent impunity in the streets. They looted Georgetown. They smashed the windows in
federal buildings. They desecrated virtually every war memorial in the city a week after
Memorial Day.
You've got to wonder how many of them have ever even heard of George Floyd. And if they
have heard of him, what difference would it make? Violence and looting are not forms of
political expression.
And then, as you likely know, Sunday night they
set fire to St. John's Episcopal Church , a 200-year-old building that has welcomed every
American president since James Madison. It is right across the street from the White House.
For people stuck inside anywhere during this insanity -- the sick, the elderly, the
powerless -- the experience was terrifying. Listen to this woman from Minneapolis.
Reporter: How was last night?
Unidentified woman: Scary. They went straight to Office Max, the Dollar Store and every
store over here that I go to. I have nowhere to go now. I have no way to get there because the
buses aren't running.
So, that's what's happening in America right now. We didn't play all of the tape we have.
There's a lot of it. Some of the tape is too shocking, and honestly, it's too incendiary. We
understand that television is an emotional medium, and we don't want to make things worse.
We're not going to, but you get the point.
The point is, this is a national emergency. It's a profound national emergency. But you
would never know that from listening to our elected leaders. Almost all of them pretend this is
not really happening or if it is happening, it is just part of America's long tradition of
vigorous political discourse.
Politicians on both sides tell us that this is all about the death of a man in police
custody in Minneapolis last week. The people burning down our country are "protesters". They're
engaged in a legitimate "protest."
Okay, what exactly are those protesters' demands? What are they asking for? If Congress
agreed to enact their program, what would the program be?
Not a single person even hints the answer because there is not an answer. No one has
bothered to pull the guys beating up old ladies on the street or looting Gucci, but you've got
to wonder how many of them have ever even heard of George Floyd . And if they have
heard of him, what difference would it make? Violence and looting are not forms of political
expression.
If you were killed tomorrow, how many buildings would you want burned to the ground in your
memory? How many old women smashed in the face on the street in your name? None, we hope,
because you're not a vicious psychopath, like the people you've just watched.
In fact, what we're watching is not a political protest. It's the opposite of a political
protest. It is an attack on the idea of politics. The rioters you have seen are trying to
topple our political system.
That system is how we resolve our differences without using violence. But these people want
a new system, one that is governed by force. Do what we say or we will hurt you.
You know this. You can see it for yourself on television; you have. But our leaders continue
to lie. They tell us that's not true. This isn't happening. It's just a protest.
When the violence began, what we needed more than anything was clarity in the middle of
this ... Instead, almost all of our so-called conservative leaders joined the left's chorus,
as if on cue.
Some Democrats have openly embraced what is happening. Really they don't have much of a
choice. These are their voters cleaning out the Rolex store. These riots effectively are the
largest Joe
Biden for President rally on record.
No Democratic leader can directly criticize what is happening right now. And in fact, some
have joined in. Over the weekend, the Democratic Party of Fairfax, Virginia, which is an
important Democratic organization, released the following statement on Twitter: "Riots are an
integral part of this country's march towards progress."
Progress. Burning buildings, teargas, dead bodies, the screaming injured, criminal anarchy
-- to the Democratic Party of Fairfax, that is called progress.
Celebrity after celebrity has weighed in to agree on social media. From his fortified
compound, basketball star LeBron James has used his accounts
to encourage more rioting. Bernie Sanders surrogate Shaun
King has done the same. So has Black Lives Matter leader, DeRay Mckesson.
Colin
Kaepernick openly calls for violence. Here's a quote: "The cries for peace will rain down
and when they do, they will land on deaf ears," he says
approvingly .
Imagine shouting fire in a crowded theater, a theater with 325 million people in it called
our country. That's what they've been doing and have been doing for days.
When the violence began, what we needed more than anything was clarity in the middle of
this. It's hard to see when the tear gas starts. Someone in America needed to tell the truth to
the country. Instead, almost all of our so-called conservative leaders joined the left's
chorus, as if on cue.
On Friday, as American cities were being destroyed by mobs, the vice president United States
refused to say anything specific about the riots we were watching on television. Instead,
Mike Pence
scolded America for its racism.
Carly Fiorina, once a leading Republican presidential candidate tweeted that -- and we're
quoting, "It's white America that now must see the truth, speak the truth and act on the
truth."
Meanwhile, Kay
Coles James , who is the president of the Heritage Foundation -- that's the largest
conservative think tank in the country. You may have sent them money, hopefully for the last
time. Kay Coles James wrote a long scream denouncing America as an irredeemably racist nation:
"How many times will protests have to occur?"
Got that? "Have to occur." Like the rest of us caused this by our sinfulness.
The message from our leaders on the right, as on the left, was unambiguous: Don't complain.
You deserve what's happening to you.
No one jumped in more forcefully or seemed angrier in America than former South Carolina
Governor Nikki
Haley . "Tonight I turned on the news and I am heartbroken," Haley wrote. "It's important
to understand that the death of George Ford was personal and painful for many. In order to
heal, it needs to be personal and painful for everyone."
Imagine shouting fire in a crowded theater, a theater with 325 million people in it called
our country. That's what they've been doing and have been doing for days.
But wait a second, you may be wondering, how am I "personally responsible" for the behavior
of a Minneapolis police officer? I've never even been to Minneapolis, you may think to
yourself. And why is some politician telling me I'm required to be upset about it?
Those are all good questions. Nikki Haley did not answer those questions explaining. It is
not her strong suit -- that would require thinking.
What Nikki Haley does best is moral blackmail. During the 2016 campaign, she compared Donald
Trump to the racist mass murderer, Dylann
Roof . How is Donald Trump similar to a serial
killer? Nikki Haley never explained that. She wasn't trying to educate anyone.
Her only goal was political advantage. Nikki Haley is exceptionally good at getting what she
wants. She is happy to denounce you as a racist in order to get it. She just did.
In this case, Nikki Haley's wish came true. The riots were indeed "personal and painful" for
everyone. And then the pain kept increasing. Two days after she wrote that, dozens of American
cities had been thoroughly trashed, some destroyed.
A country already on the brink of recession suddenly faced economic collapse. An already
fearful population locked down for months because of the coronavirus had
been thoroughly and completely terrorized.
Mission accomplished. Let's hope Nikki Haley is pleased. We've now atoned.
How did the Trump administration respond to the horrors going on around us? Well, Sunday
morning, the country's national security adviser, Robert O'Brien, did a live interview from the
White House lawn. Here's how it began:
Robert O'Brien, U.S. National Security Adviser: First thing I want to say, on behalf of
the president --he said this to the family -- but our hearts and prayers are going out to the
Floyd family. We mourn with them and we grieve with them and what happened there was horrific
and I can't even imagine what that poor family is going through as his videos are played over
and over again. That should have never happened in America and it's a tragic thing.
The president said that from the start, and we're with the family and as the President
said, we're with the peaceful protesters.
"We're with the peaceful protesters," O'Brien announced.
Really? Can you be more specific about that? Who are you talking about exactly? Is it the
people spitting foam as they scream, "F the police"? Is it the one standing next to the
arsonist doing nothing as they set fire to buildings? Is it the kids laughing as they film the
looting and the beatings on their iPhones?
The first requirement of leadership is that you watch over the people in your care. That's
what soldiers want from their officers. It's what families need from their fathers. It's what
voters demand from their presidents.
Maybe it's the famous people in L.A. who are raising money online to support the rioters?
They're all just peaceful protesters. Yes, we support that. It's who we are.
What about the president? Where is he during all of this?
Well, on Friday night, after the show, Leland Vitter and a cameraman headed to Lafayette
Square in Washington to cover what was happening outside the White House. Here's what happened
next.
Reporter: A Fox News reporter is getting chased out by these -- by the George Floyd
protesters here infront of -- at Lafayette Park.
Look, there's water being thrown on the reporter here. This is just -- they took his mic.
The just threw the mic at the reporter here. As you see guys, things are spiraling here quick
at the protest.
That was in Lafayette Square in the center of our capital city. The tape raised a troubling
question: If you can't keep a Fox News correspondent from getting attacked directly across the
street from your house, how can you protect my family? How are you going to protect the
country? How hard are you trying?
On Twitter the next morning, the president reassured America that he and his family were
just fine. The federally funded bodyguards had kept them safe. He did not mention protecting
the rest of the nation, much of which was then on fire. He seemed aware only of himself.
For people who like Donald Trump, who voted for Donald Trump, who support his policies, who
have defended him for years and years against the most absurd kinds of slander, this was a
distressing moment.
The first requirement of leadership is that you watch over the people in your care. That's
what soldiers want from their officers. It's what families need from their fathers. It's what
voters demand from their presidents.
People will put up with almost anything if you do that. You can regularly say embarrassing
things on television. You can hire Omarosa to work at the White House. All of that will be
forgiven if you protect your people.
But if you do not protect them -- or worse than that, if you seem like you can't be bothered
to protect them -- then you're done. It's over. People will not forgive weakness. That's the
one thing, by the way, that is not a partisan point. It is human nature.
Nero is the only Roman emperor whose name most people still remember. Why? Because he
abandoned his nation in a time of crisis. And 2,000 years later, we still don't forgive
him.
President Donald Trump: If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary
to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States
military and quickly solve the problem for them.
Good for him.
Immediately after that address, the president walked over to St. John's, which, we just told
you, was burning fewer than 24 hours ago, and that provided a powerful symbolic gesture. It was
a declaration that this country -- our national symbols, our oldest institutions -- will not be
desecrated and defeated by nihilistic destruction. We fervently hope this all works.
What Americans want most right now is an end to this chaos. They want their cities to be
saved. They want this to stop immediately. If the commander-in-chief cannot stop it, he will
lose in November. The left will blame him for the atrocities they encouraged, and some voters
will agree.
Donald Trump is the president. Presidents save countries. That's their job. That's why we
hire them. It's that simple.
Some key advisers around the president don't seem to understand this or the gravity of the
moment. No matter what happens, they'll tell you, our voters aren't going anywhere. "The
trailer parks are rock solid. What choice do they have? They've got to vote for us."
Jared Kushner, for one, has made that point out loud. No one has more contempt for Donald
Trump's voters than Jared Kushner does, and no one expresses it more frequently.
In 2016, Donald Trump ran as a law and order candidate because he meant it, and his views
remain fundamentally unchanged today. But the president's famously sharp instincts, the ones
that won him the presidency almost four years ago, have been since subverted at every level by
Jared Kushner. This is true on immigration , on foreign policy, and
especially on law enforcement
.
As crime in this country continues to rise, Jared Kushner has led a highly aggressive effort
to let more criminals out of prison and back on to the streets. This is reckless. At this
moment in time, it is insane. It continues to happen.
What Americans want most right now is an end to this chaos. They want their cities to be
saved. They want this to stop immediately. If the commander-in-chief cannot stop it, he will
lose in November. The left will blame him for the atrocities they encouraged, and some voters
will agree.
The president seems to sense this. At times he seems aware he is being led in the wrong
direction. He often derides Kushner as a liberal and that's correct, Kushner is. But Kushner
has convinced the president that throwing open the prisons is the key to winning
African-American votes in the fall and that those votes are essential to his reelection.
Several times over the past few days, the president has signaled that he would very much
like to crack down on rioters -- that is his instinct. If you've watched him, you'll believe
it. But every time he has been talked out of it by Jared Kushner and by aides that Kushner has
hired and controls.
Kushner's assumption, apparently, is that African-American voters like looting. That is
wrong. Normal Americans of all colors hate looting, obviously. Why wouldn't they hate looting?
They are decent people.
So one of the lessons of all that we have seen and we've seen so much over the past five
days is America is going to change because of this -- that is certain. What can we learn from
it? What should we demand going forward?
The first thing to know is that we can no longer accept race-baiting from our leaders.
Never. That has become so common now that we barely notice it. But it is dividing and
destroying this country. We should make them stop.
On Sunday, for example, Mayor Jenny Durkan of Seattle tweeted this: "I want to acknowledge
that much of the violence and destruction both here in Seattle and across the country has been
instigated and perpetrated by white men."
Is that factually true? Who knows? Who cares? The skin color of criminals is totally
irrelevant to how we prosecute them for the crimes they commit. It must be irrelevant.
Otherwise, we're committing the bigotry we claim to abhor.
Weakness invites aggression. That is true in nature and it's every bit as true in human
society. Our leaders are weak. Predators know it. That's why this is happening.
Yet everywhere on television and social media, prominent people are now talking exactly like
this. Not just a few crackpots -- thousands of people, well-known people. They are amplifying
race hatred at exactly the moment that we need at least at the moment when it's the most
dangerous.
This is Art Acevedo. Acevedo with the police chief of Houston. Houston is the fourth biggest
city in this country.
Acevedo's job, his sworn duty, is to enforce the law fairly and evenly regardless of the
ethnicity of the suspect. Watch this and tell us if you think he is capable of doing that. Do
you think he's even interested?
Art Acevedo, chief of the Houston Police department: My people for -- as an immigrant, we
are raised like this. But you know what? We built this country ... We have got news for them.
We ain't going nowhere. We ain't going nowhere. I think the ship has sailed.
So if you've got hate in your heart for people of color, get over it, because this city
is a minority-majority city.
"My people." If a police chief of any color -- any colo r -- said that, we would
attack him instantly, and we would mean it. It is wrong.
When you run a law enforcement agency, you don't get to consider "my people" much less claim
your people deserve some kind of special consideration because they "built this country." No.
Your obligation is not to consider your people, but all people and consider them
equally. Period.
Art Acevedo is not even trying to do that. Imagine being arrested by this creep. Think you'd
get a fair shake?
There's almost nothing that hurts America more than this. If you are worried about the rise
of extremism here -- and honestly, you should be worried -- this kind of insanity is absolutely
certain to cause it.
And let's be clear, when we say extremism, we're not talking about unconventional views that
get you bounced off Twitter or scolded by the corporate HR department. We mean actual extremism
where people espouse violence against other people, where large groups come to believe their
racial identity is the most important thing about them.
Now, at this moment, no matter what they're telling you, no matter what they claim for
political advantage, there's not a huge amount of that in this country, thank God. Most people
still think of themselves as Americans and want to. But if the left keeps talking like this,
there definitely will be and very soon. And you don't want to live here when that happens. We
should demand they stop immediately.
Enforcing the law is not white supremacy. Insisting that everyone in the country follow the
same rules is not racism. In fact, it's the answer to racism. It is equality -- equality under
the law. It is the one thing we must defend, and if we don't, it's over. Things fall apart.
Weakness invites aggression. That is true in nature and it's every bit as true in human
society. Our leaders are weak. Predators know it. That's why this is happening.
If you let people spray paint obscenities in City Hall, pretty soon they are overturning cop
cars. If you put up with that, they'll come right to the front door of the police precinct, and
they will burn it down.
The next thing you know, they are beating people to death in shopping malls. And then what?
What happens the next time the mob doesn't like something? What will the mob demand next?
Let's hope we never find out because we are close.
Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from " Tucker Carlson Tonight " on June 1,
2020.
CLICK HERE TO READ
MORE FROM TUCKER CARLSON
Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of FOX News Channel's (FNC) Tucker Carlson
Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET). He joined the network in 2009 as a contributor. Conversation (6,702)
@Commentator Mike
As Tucker Carlson said last night, Trump has good instincts; he should use them. Instead he's
been listening to that ridiculous son-in-law of his, who is a true liberal. Tucker said he
needs to get back to listening to his instincts. He watches every show of Tucker's, so I hope
he's listening.
"All he had to do was keep his promises." Ah, easier said than done. Kennedy tried to go
his own way, and look what happened to him. Trump has got every Democrat against him, along
with almost every Republican (who are just letting him twist). The media is against him, the
judiciary are against him, along with academia, the FBI, CIA, and the Clintons.
The globalists/uniparty are going all out to trample Trump, and you're rolling over?
"But all he wanted was to buddy up to Netanyahu "
That's because that was the only thing the Uniparty would get behind Trump on. Even the
Republicans fought him on the wall, Russia.
As he commands the Los Angeles Police Department's response to mass protests over the
killing of George Floyd
, LAPD Chief Michel Moore is also facing a growing political storm over
comments he made Monday night -- but quickly retracted -- about looters.
The chief said looters across
Southern California over the weekend
were
"capitalizing"
on the death of Floyd.
"We didn't have protests last night -- we had criminal acts," Moore said during a news conference
with Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti on Monday night. "We didn't have people mourning the death of
this man, George Floyd -- we had people capitalizing. His death is on their hands as much as it is
those officers."
Moore apologized minutes later, saying he "misspoke when I said his blood is on their hands" and
that he regretted "that characterization."
"But I don't regret, nor will I apologize, to those who are out there today committing violence,
destroying lives and livelihoods and creating this destruction," Moore said. "His memory deserves
reform. His memory deserves a better Los Angeles, a better United States and a better world."
On Tuesday,
protesters' chants
rang out outside the LAPD's glass headquarters: "Fire Michel Moore! Fire Michel
Moore!"
And: "Hey, hey, ho, ho! Michel Moore has got to go!"
Advertisement
Garcetti on Tuesday night defended Moore, saying he was glad the chief had apologized.
"I'm glad he quickly corrected it, and I'm glad that he further apologized, as well," Garcetti
said. "I want to be very, very clear about that. If I believed for a moment that the chief believed
that in his heart, he would no longer be our chief of police. I can't say that any stronger."
Jocelyn Tucker said she appreciated the apology, but the chief's words were telling.
Advertisement
"If that was your knee-jerk reaction, you're not in the right job," she said.
State Sen. Holly Mitchell also responded to his comments in a statement.
"I want you to know that we have every right to be outraged and that our voices deserve to be heard
and not hijacked by outside agitators nor by a police chief who infers that our actions can be
compared to the murders we have witnessed and experienced," she wrote in a statement. "These type of
distractions want to turn this discussion away from the main point -- which is ending structural
racism."
Moore was quick to condemn the killing of Floyd by Minneapolis police, and in the early days of the
protests, gave demonstrators a wide berth.
Advertisement
Moore told the Police Commission that when he saw the video of police kneeling on Floyd's neck, he
and others at the LAPD "were greatly disturbed by it and troubled by the images and we sought to
communicate clearly -- those images we witnessed along with the rest of America, they were horrible. It
was disgusting and without justification."
"... Joe Biden, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee: The moment has come for our nation to deal with systemic racism, to deal with the growing economic inequity that exists in our nation, to deal with the denial of the promise of this nation made to so many. ..."
"... Our country is crying out for leadership, leadership that can unite us, leadership that brings us together. Leadership that can recognize pain and deep grief of communities that have had a knee on their neck for a long time. ..."
"... Tammy Morales, Seattle councilwoman: What I don't want to hear is for our constituents to be told to be civil, not to be reactionary, to be told that looting doesn't solve anything. ..."
"... And you know, it does make me wonder and ask the question why looting bothers people so much more than knowing that across the country, black men and women are dying every day, and far too often at the hands of those who are sworn to protect and serve ..."
"... Nikole Hannah-Jones, The New York Times: Violence is when an agent of the state kneels on a man's neck until all of the life is leached out of his body. ..."
"... Destroying property which can be replaced is not violence and to put those things -- to use the exact same language to describe those two things, I think, really -- it's not moral. ..."
"... Jim Acosta, CNN chief White House correspondent: It's so remarkable to see military-style vehicles rolling through the White House complex, you know, I mean? It's just not something that you normally see in the United States of America. It's something that you see in more authoritarian countries. ..."
"... Don Lemon, CNN anchor: Open your eyes, America. Open your eyes. We are teetering on a dictatorship. We are -- this is chaos. ..."
"... Has the president -- I am listening -- is the president declaring war on Americans? ..."
"... I hope that they stand up and fight for their rights. ..."
"... Now the entire country, according to his orders, we're living under a militarized country. ..."
"... He is playing a very dangerous game because this will backfire. ..."
"... Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from " Tucker Carlson Tonight " on June 2, 2020. ..."
First they smashed the windows of police cars, and our elected leaders said nothing. It's a
political protest, they told us. We stand with the protesters.
Before long it grew. Mobs of menacing young men formed in the streets. They were clearly
intent on violence, but no one in authority dared criticize them.
We understand their frustration, our leaders told us. America is a sinful country. Their
grievances are legitimate.
And so the mobs grew larger, and they grew emboldened. Last Thursday, they came right to the
front door of a police precinct in Minneapolis. The cops inside fled under orders from their
mayor.
The mob burned the building . But before they did, they looted the evidence room, and that
ensured that many violent crimes will never be solved. They did this in the name of
justice.
Still, our leaders did nothing. Most of them never even mentioned it, like it never
happened. Instead, they issued yet more statements in solidarity with the mob.
Politicians, celebrities, corporate leaders, clergy, news anchors, professional athletes --
almost every person in this country that we were raised from childhood to look up to, to
respect, to listen to -- all of them sided with the people burning police stations.
The mob saw this and grew stronger. On Monday night, they began shooting cops.
For 38 years, David Dorn was a police officer in the City of St. Louis. No one ever accused
Dorn of racism. He was black. He is dead now. He
was murdered Monday night by the mob . His killing was streamed live on Facebook, and then
the violence accelerated from there.
In St. Louis alone, four other active duty police officers were shot Monday night.
In Las Vegas, an officer took a bullet in the head . He is still in critical condition.
Once the sun went down, cops all around this country found themselves under attack.
How many more nights like this can we take? How many more nights like this before no one in
America will serve as a police officer? It's not worth it. The people in charge hate you. The
job doesn't pay enough.
At that point, who will enforce the laws? Who will be in charge? Well, violent young men
with guns will be in charge. They will make the rules, including the rules in your
neighborhood. They will do what they want. You will do what they say. No one will stop them.
You will not want to live here when that happens.
Chaos is the worst thing always, and wise leaders understand that. It's obvious.
But it's not obvious to Joe Biden . Biden gave
a speech in Philadelphia Tuesday and was very different from the Biden of old. For years,
Biden styled himself a patriot, a champion of ordinary people, but no longer. In Tuesday's
speech, Biden said nothing to defend police officers being murdered. Instead, he attacked them
as instruments of "systemic racism."
Joe Biden, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee: The moment has come for our
nation to deal with systemic racism, to deal with the growing economic inequity that exists in
our nation, to deal with the denial of the promise of this nation made to so many.
Our country is crying out for leadership, leadership that can unite us, leadership that
brings us together. Leadership that can recognize pain and deep grief of communities that have
had a knee on their neck for a long time.
"The moment has come," says Joe Biden. This is the moment.
So the question is, how did murdering David Dorn advance the cause of racial justice
exactly? No one explains; Biden didn't. Meanwhile, Biden's staff continues to send money to the
rioters. Other Democrats followed in perfect sync.
How many more nights like this can we take? How many more nights like this before no one
in America will serve as a police officer? It's not worth it. The people in charge hate you.
The job doesn't pay enough.
In the city of Seattle , Councilwoman Tammy Morales all but
endorsed the destruction of her own city.
Tammy Morales, Seattle councilwoman: What I don't want to hear is for our constituents
to be told to be civil, not to be reactionary, to be told that looting doesn't solve
anything.
And you know, it does make me wonder and ask the question why looting bothers people so
much more than knowing that across the country, black men and women are dying every day, and
far too often at the hands of those who are sworn to protect and serve .
Looting does solve things, says Tammy Morales. How dare you criticize it?
Prosecutors exist to push back against violations of the law. But across the country, many
prosecutors seem on board with Tammy Morales and Joe Biden.
In the city of Dallas, a local report says the District Attorney John Creuzot is refusing to
process rioters. That means they will automatically be freed to riot again.
In Massachusetts, the state attorney general, Maura Healey, applauded the riots and did it
explicitly. She described the killing and looting underway as "a once in a lifetime
opportunity. Yes, America is burning, but that's how forests grow."
This is the only revolution in history that's being waged not on behalf of the working
class, but against them.
That's a verbatim quote from the chief law enforcement officer of Massachusetts. Maura
Healey is happy to see American society become mulch. It makes good fertilizer.
Violence, for example, when she supports it, isn't really violence.
Nikole Hannah-Jones, The New York Times: Violence is when an agent of the state kneels
on a man's neck until all of the life is leached out of his body.
Destroying property which can be replaced is not violence and to put those things -- to
use the exact same language to describe those two things, I think, really -- it's not
moral.
Violence is not violence if I approve of it. The person you were just listening to won the
Pulitzer Prize. There's something wrong with our system if that's the person who gets the
biggest merit badge.
BuzzFeed, meanwhile, published a guide for rioters. It included helpful tips like this: Wear
nondescript clothing, cover up tattoos, don't take photographs.
CNN didn't criticize it. Needless to say, they're on board.
Jim Acosta, CNN chief White House correspondent: It's so remarkable to see
military-style vehicles rolling through the White House complex, you know, I mean? It's just
not something that you normally see in the United States of America. It's something that you
see in more authoritarian countries.
Don Lemon, CNN anchor: Open your eyes, America. Open your eyes. We are teetering on a
dictatorship. We are -- this is chaos.
Has the president -- I am listening -- is the president declaring war on
Americans?
I hope that they stand up and fight for their rights.
Now the entire country, according to his orders, we're living under a militarized
country.
He is playing a very dangerous game because this will backfire.
Uh-huh. It's dangerous when we try and stop looting and burning and killing, says Don Lemon.
I hope they stand up and fight, he says from the safety of his television studio.
But what exactly are they fighting for? They certainly are fighting. But why? Don't ask Don
Lemon. He doesn't know -- not a reader. Something about Trump probably.
What does Black Lives Matter say? Much of the rioting is being committed in their name. Go
to their website if you have a minute. Here's a post from three days ago: "Defund the
police."
That's the position of Black Lives Matter, the most popular group in America among corporate
leaders. Defund the police. No more cops. That's what they're fighting for.
That seems like a fringe position, but in the Democratic Party, it isn't anymore. Congresswoman Rashida
Tlaib has endorsed it as a sitting member. So has Jane Fonda, and so have many other
celebrities. They said so in a recent open letter.
Then three days ago, The New York Times published a piece making the same demand: "No more
money for the police." No police. That's right, the article calls for the elimination of all
cops and all prisons in the United States.
So, if we did that, who would keep order? Well, The New York Times has an answer to that:
"Rapid response, social workers would keep the peace." Alternative emergency response programs
-- that's their plan.
If you live in a gated community, it might sound like a good idea. You've got your own
police force. You have no plans to replace them with rapid response social workers. So, you're
set, no matter what happens. There aren't going to be any rapes on your street.
But what about everyone else? What's going to happen to them? Don Lemon and Rashida Tlaib
don't care at all. Your neighborhood is not their problem. They're in it for the revolution,
and make no mistake, it is a revolution from above, aimed downward.
This is the only revolution in history that's being waged not on behalf of the working
class, but against them.
Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from " Tucker Carlson Tonight " on June 2,
2020.
While the White House propagandists were making that video, Tucker Carlson was, well,
reading the riot act to Trump on his program. Here is his entire 26-minute monologue. Carlson
is disgusted by the leadership class in this country, which includes Trump's weakness:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/3n5_D59lSjc
Trump's weakness does not necessarily consist of his not sending in troops to shoot looters.
It consists of him having no idea what to do other than create a pathetic propaganda moment
that is so transparently cheap that it makes you throw up a little bit in your mouth.
Trollope's lines are a fitting epitaph for the MAGA dream, which died last night in front of
St. John's Church:
But the glory has been the glory of pasteboard, and the wealth has been a wealth of
tinsel. The wit has been the wit of hairdressers, and the enterprise has been the enterprise
of mountebanks.
To be fair, the crises that have hit the United States in 2020 would have challenged the
most able chief executive. Trump's weaknesses -- in particular, his disinterest in mastering
details and his habit of confusing bluster for substance -- have made a difficult situation
much worse. It is undoubtedly the case that the Democrats and the media are a serious threat to
the kinds of things conservatives value, and it is certainly true that the press is dishonest.
All of these things can be true, and at the same time , Trump's incompetence and
unfitness for the high office he holds made intolerably manifest.
Not only did they fire tear gas and flashbangs and rubber bullets at peaceful protesters in
Lafayette Square, they fired them at a priest and a seminarian on the grounds of the church
to make way for his photo op. Every day this profoundly sick man plumbs new depths of
depravity.
https://religionnews.com/20...
This was all very good and correct, except for one item:
"The Minneapolis Police Department has been under the control of Democratic mayors for
decades."
If the events of the past week have shown anything, it would be that municipal law
enforcement is under the effective control of no one but themselves.
They are under control of the police union. It is extremely difficult to get rid of bad
cops. I'm in favor of commercial unions when membership is voluntary but police unions (and
some teachers unions and other public employee unions) have really steamrollered local
government to the extent that the public interest is not served.
Even in Atlanta, where the police seem to be handling this better than most other cities,
six cops have been charged with harassing an African-American couple stuck in traffic. The
video is disgusting.
Curiously, the two ringleader cops (who've been fired) are themselves Black. This is not
just a racial issue but a police culture problem.
"The Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, which is cited by the U.S. Department of Education, defines
literacy as "the ability to understand, evaluate, use and engage with written texts to participate in society, to achieve one's
goals, and to develop one's knowledge and potential." It divides the population into five levels -- with levels 2 and above being
considered literate.
According to PIAAC , one in five U.S. adults has "low
literacy" skills, which includes those classified as being either level 1 or below.
There are an estimated 26.5 million adults at level 1 according to PIAAC -- those who can read and write at the most basic
level but couldn't read a newspaper or would have trouble filling out forms at a doctor's office. Another estimated 8.4 million
people are below level 1 and considered "functionally illiterate." There are also 8.2 million others who were unable to participate
in the survey because of either a language barrier or a cognitive or physical inability, and the PIAAC data classifies them as
also having low literacy abilities."
Former Vice President Joe Biden has released
a video statement telling the American people that the
accusations he is now facing
of touching women in inappropriate ways without their consent is the product of changing "social norms", assuring everyone that
he will indeed be adjusting to those changes.
And thank goodness. For a minute there, I was worried Biden might cave under the pressure of a looming scandal and decline to
run for president on the grounds that it could cripple his campaign and leave America facing another four years of Donald Trump.
Here are nine good reasons why I hope Joe Biden runs for president, and why you should support him too:
1. It's his turn.
It's Biden's turn to be president. He's spent years playing second fiddle while other leading Democrats hogged all the limelight,
and that's not fair. He's been waiting very patiently. Come on.
2. Most Qualified Candidate Ever.
If Joe Biden secures the Democratic Party nomination for president, he would be the Most Qualified Candidate Ever to run for
office. His service as a US Senator and a Vice President has given him unparalleled experience priming him for the most powerful
elected office in the world. Everything Biden has done throughout his entire career proves that he'd make a great Commander-in-Chief.
3. He's closely associated with a popular Democratic president.
You think Biden, you think Obama. You think Obama, you think greatness. You can't spend that much time with a great Democratic
president without absorbing his greatness yourself. It's called osmosis.
4. You liked Obama, didn't you?
Biden was part of the Obama administration. Remember the Obama administration? It was magical, right? If you want more of that,
vote Biden.
5. But Trump!
Do you want Trump to win the next election? You know he'll shatter all our norms and literally end the world if he does, right?
You should be terrified of the possibility of Trump winning in 2020, and if you are, you should want him running against Joe Biden.
What's the alternative? Nominating some crazy unelectable socialist like Bernie Sanders? Might as well just hand Trump the victory
now, then. Anyone who wants to beat Trump must fall in line behind the Most Qualified Candidate Ever.
6. Iraq wasn't so bad.
Okay, maybe some of his past foreign policy positions look bad in hindsight, but come on. Pushing for the Iraq war was what
everyone was doing back in those days. It was all the rage. We all made it through, right? I mean, most of us?
7. This is happening whether you like it or not.
We're doing this. We're going to push Joe Biden through whether you like it or not, and we can do it the easy way or the hard
way. Just relax, take deep breaths, and think about a nice place far away from here. Don't struggle. This will be over before
you know it. We'll use plenty of lube.
8. Just vote for him.
Just vote for him, you insolent little shits. Who the fuck do you think you are, anyway? You think you're entitled to a bunch
of ponies and unicorns like healthcare and drinkable water? You only think that because you're a bunch of racist, sexist homophobes.
You will vote for who we tell you to or we'll spend the next four years calling you all Russian agents and screaming about Susan
Sarandon.
9. Nothing could possibly go wrong.
Honestly, what could possibly go wrong? It's not like the Most Qualified Candidate Ever could manage to lose an election to
some oafish reality TV star. Hell, Biden could beat Trump in his sleep. He could even skip campaigning in Michigan, Wisconsin
and Pennsylvania and still win by a landslide, because those states are in the bag. There's no way he could fail, barring some
unprecedented and completely unforeseeable freak occurrences from way out of left field that nobody could possibly have anticipated.
"... Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. ..."
"... Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ..."
" Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity
in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming.
Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into
the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ."
As a peedupon all I can see is that the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or (IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite
power/control efforts. It might not be about private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes
sense
Horrible documentary of violence and looting. Those are really criminal gangs in action.
What Tucker have shown clearly are not political riots. They are criminal looting by spontaneously forming street gangs
Some statements of politicians are masterpieces of hypocrisy. Nikki Haley (who sanctioned
destruction of Syria and defended it in UN) was especially eloquent" "Tonight I turned on the
news and am heartbroken... It's important to understand that the death of George Floyd was
personal and painful for many. In order to heal, it needs to be personal and painful for
everyone." personal and painful for everyone."
RT @bharatkrishnan9: When President Obama included the Stonewall Riots in his 2nd inaugural,
he didn't make that decision lightly. Riots are an integral part of this country's march
towards progress.
They are a vivid reminder of the systemic racism in this country. This injustice stains the
American soul and makes a mockery of our highest ideals. It's white America that now must see
the truth, speak the truth and act on the truth.
"... "Instead of participating in power," he writes, "the virtual citizen is invited to have 'opinions': measurable responses to questions predesigned to elicit them." ..."
"... Political campaigns rarely discuss substantive issues. They center on manufactured political personalities, empty rhetoric, sophisticated public relations, slick advertising, propaganda and the constant use of focus groups and opinion polls to loop back to voters what they want to hear. Money has effectively replaced the vote. Every current presidential candidate -- including Bernie Sanders -- understands, to use Wolin's words, that "the subject of empire is taboo in electoral debates." The citizen is irrelevant. He or she is nothing more than a spectator, allowed to vote and then forgotten once the carnival of elections ends and corporations and their lobbyists get back to the business of ruling. ..."
"... "If the main purpose of elections is to serve up pliant legislators for lobbyists to shape, such a system deserves to be called 'misrepresentative or clientry government,' " Wolin writes. "It is, at one and the same time, a powerful contributing factor to the depoliticization of the citizenry, as well as reason for characterizing the system as one of antidemocracy." ..."
Sheldon Wolin, our most important contemporary political theorist, died Oct. 21 at the age
of 93. In his books " Democracy
Incorporated : Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism" and "
Politics and
Vision ," a massive survey of Western political thought that his former student Cornel West
calls "magisterial," Wolin lays bare the realities of our bankrupt democracy, the causes behind
the decline of American empire and the rise of a new and terrifying configuration of corporate
power he calls "inverted totalitarianism."
Wendy
Brown , a political science professor at UC Berkeley and another former student of Wolin's,
said in an email to me: "Resisting the monopolies on left theory by Marxism and on democratic
theory by liberalism, Wolin developed a distinctive -- even distinctively American -- analysis
of the political present and of radical democratic possibilities. He was especially prescient
in theorizing the heavy statism forging what we now call neoliberalism , and in
revealing the novel fusions of economic with political power that he took to be poisoning
democracy at its root."
Wolin throughout his scholarship charted the devolution of American democracy and in his
last book, "Democracy Incorporated," details our
peculiar form of corporate totalitarianism. "One cannot point to any national
institution[s] that can accurately be described as democratic," he writes in that book, "surely
not in the highly managed, money-saturated elections, the lobby-infested Congress, the imperial
presidency, the class-biased judicial and penal system, or, least of all, the media."
Inverted totalitarianism is different from classical forms of totalitarianism. It does not
find its expression in a demagogue or charismatic leader but in the faceless anonymity of the
corporate state. Our inverted totalitarianism pays outward fealty to the facade of electoral
politics, the Constitution, civil liberties, freedom of the press, the independence of the
judiciary, and the iconography, traditions and language of American patriotism, but it has
effectively seized all of the mechanisms of power to render the citizen impotent.
"Unlike the Nazis, who made life uncertain for the wealthy and privileged while providing
social programs for the working class and poor, inverted totalitarianism exploits the poor,
reducing or weakening health programs and social services, regimenting mass education for an
insecure workforce threatened by the importation of low-wage workers," Wolin writes.
"Employment in a high-tech, volatile, and globalized economy is normally as precarious as
during an old-fashioned depression. The result is that citizenship, or what remains of it, is
practiced amidst a continuing state of worry. Hobbes had it right: when citizens are insecure and
at the same time driven by competitive aspirations, they yearn for political stability rather
than civic engagement, protection rather than political involvement." Inverted totalitarianism,
Wolin said when we met at his home in Salem, Ore., in 2014 to film a nearly three-hour interview , constantly
"projects power upwards." It is "the antithesis of constitutional power." It is designed to
create instability to keep a citizenry off balance and passive.
He writes, "Downsizing, reorganization, bubbles bursting, unions busted, quickly outdated
skills, and transfer of jobs abroad create not just fear but an economy of fear, a system of
control whose power feeds on uncertainty, yet a system that, according to its analysts, is
eminently rational."
Inverted totalitarianism also "perpetuates politics all the time," Wolin said when we spoke,
"but a politics that is not political." The endless and extravagant election cycles, he said,
are an example of politics without politics.
"Instead of participating in power," he writes, "the virtual citizen is invited to have
'opinions': measurable responses to questions predesigned to elicit them."
Political campaigns rarely discuss substantive issues. They center on manufactured political
personalities, empty rhetoric, sophisticated public relations, slick advertising, propaganda
and the constant use of focus groups and opinion polls to loop back to voters what they want to
hear. Money has effectively replaced the vote. Every current presidential candidate --
including Bernie Sanders -- understands, to use Wolin's words, that "the subject of empire is
taboo in electoral debates." The citizen is irrelevant. He or she is nothing more than a
spectator, allowed to vote and then forgotten once the carnival of elections ends and
corporations and their lobbyists get back to the business of ruling.
"If the main purpose of elections is to serve up pliant legislators for lobbyists to shape,
such a system deserves to be called 'misrepresentative or clientry government,' " Wolin writes.
"It is, at one and the same time, a powerful contributing factor to the depoliticization of the
citizenry, as well as reason for characterizing the system as one of antidemocracy."
The result, he writes, is that the public is "denied the use of state power." Wolin deplores
the trivialization of political discourse, a tactic used to leave the public fragmented,
antagonistic and emotionally charged while leaving corporate power and empire unchallenged.
"Cultural wars might seem an indication of strong political involvements," he writes.
"Actually they are a substitute. The notoriety they receive from the media and from politicians
eager to take firm stands on nonsubstantive issues serves to distract attention and contribute
to a cant politics of the inconsequential."
"The ruling groups can now operate on the assumption that they don't need the traditional
notion of something called a public in the broad sense of a coherent whole," he said in our
meeting. "They now have the tools to deal with the very disparities and differences that they
have themselves helped to create. It's a game in which you manage to undermine the cohesiveness
that the public requires if they [the public] are to be politically effective. And at the same
time, you create these different, distinct groups that inevitably find themselves in tension or
at odds or in competition with other groups, so that it becomes more of a melee than it does
become a way of fashioning majorities."
In classical totalitarian regimes, such as those of Nazi fascism or Soviet communism,
economics was subordinate to politics. But "under inverted totalitarianism the reverse is
true," Wolin writes. "Economics dominates politics -- and with that domination comes different
forms of ruthlessness."He continues: "The United States has become the showcase of how
democracy can be managed without appearing to be suppressed."
The corporate state, Wolin told me, is "legitimated by elections it controls." To extinguish
democracy, it rewrites and distorts laws and legislation that once protected democracy. Basic
rights are, in essence, revoked by judicial and legislative fiat. Courts and legislative
bodies, in the service of corporate power, reinterpret laws to strip them of their original
meaning in order to strengthen corporate control and abolish corporate oversight.
He writes: "Why negate a constitution, as the Nazis did, if it is possible simultaneously to
exploit porosity and legitimate power by means of judicial interpretations that declare
huge campaign contributions to be protected speech under the First Amendment, or that treat
heavily financed and organized lobbying by large corporations as a simple application of the
people's right to petition their government?"
Our system of inverted totalitarianism will avoid harsh and violent measures of control "as
long as dissent remains ineffectual," he told me. "The government does not need to stamp out
dissent. The uniformity of imposed public opinion through the corporate media does a very
effective job."
And the elites, especially the intellectual class, have been bought off. "Through a
combination of governmental contracts, corporate and foundation funds, joint projects involving
university and corporate researchers, and wealthy individual donors, universities (especially
so-called research universities), intellectuals, scholars, and researchers have been seamlessly
integrated into the system," Wolin writes. "No books burned, no refugee Einsteins."
But, he warns, should the population -- steadily stripped of its most basic rights,
including the right to privacy, and increasingly impoverished and bereft of hope -- become
restive, inverted totalitarianism will become as brutal and violent as past totalitarian
states. "The war on terrorism, with its accompanying emphasis upon 'homeland security,'
presumes that state power, now inflated by doctrines
of preemptive war and released from treaty obligations and the potential constraints of
international judicial bodies, can turn inwards," he writes, "confident that in its domestic
pursuit of terrorists the powers it claimed, like the powers projected abroad, would be
measured, not by ordinary constitutional standards, but by the shadowy and ubiquitous character
of terrorism as officially defined."
The indiscriminate police violence in poor communities of color is an example of the ability
of the corporate state to "legally" harass and kill citizens with impunity. The cruder forms of
control -- from militarized police to wholesale surveillance, as well as police serving as
judge, jury and executioner, now a reality for the underclass -- will become a reality for all
of us should we begin to resist the continued funneling of power and wealth upward. We are
tolerated as citizens, Wolin warns, only as long as we participate in the illusion of a
participatory democracy. The moment we rebel and refuse to take part in the illusion, the face
of inverted totalitarianism will look like the face of past systems of totalitarianism.
"The significance of the African-American prison population is political," he writes. "What
is notable about the African-American population generally is that it is highly sophisticated
politically and by far the one group that throughout the twentieth century kept alive a spirit
of resistance and rebelliousness. In that context, criminal justice is as much a strategy of
political neutralization as it is a channel of instinctive racism."
In his writings, Wolin expresses consternation for a population severed from print and the
nuanced world of ideas. He sees cinema, like television, as "tyrannical" because of its ability
to "block out, eliminate whatever might introduce qualification, ambiguity, or dialogue." He
rails against what he calls a "monochromatic media" with corporate-approved pundits used to
identify "the problem and its parameters, creating a box that dissenters struggle vainly to
elude. The critic who insists on changing the context is dismissed as irrelevant, extremist,
'the Left' -- or ignored altogether."
The constant dissemination of illusions permits myth rather than reality to dominate the
decisions of the power elites. And when myth dominates, disaster descends upon the empire, as
14 years of futile war in the Middle East and our failure to react to climate change
illustrate. Wolin writes:
When myth begins to govern decision-makers in a world where ambiguity and stubborn facts
abound, the result is a disconnect between the actors and the reality. They convince
themselves that the forces of darkness possess weapons of mass destruction and nuclear
capabilities: that their own nation is privileged by a god who inspired the Founding Fathers
and the writing of the nation's constitution; and that a class structure of great and
stubborn inequalities does not exist. A grim but joyous few see portents of a world that is
living out "the last days."
Wolin was a bombardier and a navigator on a B-24 Liberator heavy bomber in the South Pacific
in World War II. He flew 51 combat missions. The planes had crews of up to 10. From
Guadalcanal, he advanced with American forces as they captured islands in the Pacific. During
the campaign the military high command decided to direct the B-24 bombers -- which were huge
and difficult to fly in addition to having little maneuverability -- against Japanese ships, a
tactic that saw tremendous losses of planes and American lives. The use of the B-24, nicknamed
"the flying boxcar" and "the flying coffin," to attack warships bristling with antiaircraft
guns exposed for Wolin the callousness of military commanders who blithely sacrificed their air
crews and war machines in schemes that offered little chance of success.
"It was terrible," he said of the orders to bomb ships. "We received awful losses from that,
because these big, lumbering aircraft, particularly flying low trying to hit the Japanese navy
-- and we lost countless people in it, countless."
"We had quite a few psychological casualties men, boys, who just couldn't take it anymore,"
he said, "just couldn't stand the strain of getting up at 5 in the morning and proceeding to
get into these aircraft and go and getting shot at for a while and coming back to rest for
another day."Wolin saw the militarists and the corporatists, who formed an unholy coalition to
orchestrate the rise of a global American empire after the war, as the forces that extinguished
American democracy. He called inverted totalitarianism "the true face of Superpower." These war
profiteers and militarists, advocating the doctrine of total war during the Cold War, bled the
country of resources. They also worked in tandem to dismantle popular institutions and
organizations such as labor unions to politically disempower and impoverish workers. They
"normalized" war. And Wolin warns that, as in all empires, they eventually will be "eviscerated
by their own expansionism." There will never be a return to democracy, he cautions, until the
unchecked power of the militarists and corporatists is dramatically curtailed. A war state
cannot be a democratic state.
Wolin writes:
National defense was declared inseparable from a strong economy. The fixation upon
mobilization and rearmament inspired the gradual disappearance from the national political
agenda of the regulation and control of corporations. The defender of the free world needed
the power of the globalizing, expanding corporation, not an economy hampered by "trust
busting." Moreover, since the enemy was rabidly anticapitalist, every measure that
strengthened capitalism was a blow against the enemy. Once the battle lines between communism
and the "free society" were drawn, the economy became untouchable for purposes other than
"strengthening" capitalism. The ultimate merger would be between capitalism and democracy.
Once the identity and security of democracy were successfully identified with the Cold War
and with the methods for waging it, the stage was set for the intimidation of most politics
left or right.
The result is a nation dedicated almost exclusively to waging war.
"When a constitutionally limited government utilizes weapons of horrendous destructive
power, subsidizes their development, and becomes the world's largest arms dealer," Wolin
writes, "the Constitution is conscripted to serve as power's apprentice rather than its
conscience."
He goes on:
That the patriotic citizen unswervingly supports the military and its huge budget means
that conservatives have succeeded in persuading the public that the military is distinct from
government. Thus the most substantial element of state power is removed from public debate.
Similarly in his/her new status as imperial citizen the believer remains contemptuous of
bureaucracy yet does not hesitate to obey the directives issued by the Department of Homeland
Security, the largest and most intrusive governmental department in the history of the
nation. Identification with militarism and patriotism, along with the images of American
might projected by the media, serves to make the individual citizen feel stronger, thereby
compensating for the feelings of weakness visited by the economy upon an overworked,
exhausted, and insecure labor force. For its antipolitics inverted totalitarianism requires
believers, patriots, and nonunion "guest workers."
Sheldon Wolin was often considered an outcast among contemporary political theorists whose
concentration on quantitative analysis and behaviorialism led them to eschew the examination of
broad political theory and ideas. Wolin insisted that philosophy, even that written by the
ancient Greeks, was not a dead relic but a vital tool to examine and challenge the assumptions
and ideologies of contemporary systems of power and political thought. Political theory, he
argued, was "primarily a civic and secondarily an academic activity." It had a role "not just
as an historical discipline that dealt with the critical examination of idea systems," he told
me, but as a force "in helping to fashion public policies and governmental directions, and
above all civic education, in a way that would further the goals of a more democratic, more
egalitarian, more educated society." His 1969 essay "Political Theory as a Vocation" argued for
this imperative and chastised fellow academics who focused their work on data collection and
academic minutiae. He writes, with his usual lucidity and literary flourishes, in that
essay:
In a fundamental sense, our world has become as perhaps no previous world has, the product
of design, the product of theories about human structures deliberately created rather than
historically articulated. But in another sense, the embodiment of theory in the world has
resulted in a world impervious to theory. The giant, routinized structures defy fundamental
alteration and, at the same time, display an unchallengeable legitimacy, for the rational,
scientific, and technological principles on which they are based seem in perfect accord with
an age committed to science, rationalism and technology. Above all, it is a world which
appears to have rendered epic theory superfluous. Theory, as Hegel had foreseen, must take
the form of "explanation." Truly, it seems to be the age when Minerva's owl has taken flight.
Wolin's 1960 masterpiece "Politics and Vision," subtitled "Continuity and Innovation in
Western Political Thought," drew on a vast array of political theorists and philosophers
including Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Immanuel Kant, John Locke, John Calvin, Martin Luther,
Thomas Hobbes, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Max Weber, John Dewey and Hannah Arendt to
reflect back to us our political and cultural reality. His task, he stated at the end of the
book, was, "in the era of Superpower," to "nurture the civic consciousness of the society." The
imperative to amplify and protect democratic traditions from the contemporary forces that
sought to destroy them permeated all of his work, including his books " Hobbes
and the Epic Tradition of Political Theory " and " Tocqueville Between Two Worlds : The
Making of a Political and Theoretical Life."
Wolin's magnificence as a scholar was matched by his magnificence as a human being. He stood
with students at UC Berkeley, where he taught, to support the Free Speech Movement and wrote
passionately in its defense. Many of these essays were published in "The Berkeley Rebellion and
Beyond: Essays on Politics and Education in the Technological Society." Later, as a professor
at Princeton University, he was one of a handful of faculty members who joined students to call
for divestment of investments in apartheid South Africa. He once accompanied students to
present the case to Princeton alumni. "I've never been jeered quite so roundly," he said. "Some
of them called me [a] 50-year-old sophomore and that kind of thing."
From 1981 to 1983, Wolin published Democracy: A Journal of Political Renewal and Radical
Change. In its pages he and other writers called out the con game of neoliberalism, the danger
of empire, the rise of unchecked corporate power and the erosion of democratic institutions and
ideals. The journal swiftly made him a pariah within the politics department at Princeton."I
remember once when I was up editing that journal, I left a copy of it on the table in the
faculty room hoping that somebody would read it and comment," he said. "I never heard a word.
And during all the time I was there and doing Democracy, I never had one colleague come up to
me and either say something positive or even negative about it. Just absolute silence."
Max Weber , whom
Wolin called "the greatest of all sociologists," argues in his essay "Politics as a Vocation"
that those who dedicate their lives to striving for justice in the modern political arena are
like the classical heroes who can never overcome what the ancient Greeks called fortuna.
These heroes, Wolin writes in "Politics and Vision," rise up nevertheless "to heights of moral
passion and grandeur, harried by a deep sense of responsibility." Yet, Wolin goes on, "at
bottom, [the contemporary hero] is a figure as futile and pathetic as his classical
counterpart. The fate of the classical hero was that he could never overcome contingency or
fortuna ; the special irony of the modern hero is that he struggles in a world where
contingency has been routed by bureaucratized procedures and nothing remains for the hero to
contend against. Weber's political leader is rendered superfluous by the very bureaucratic
world that Weber discovered: even charisma has been bureaucratized. We are left with the
ambiguity of the political man fired by deep passion -- 'to be passionate, ira et
studium , is the element of the political leader' -- but facing the impersonal world of
bureaucracy which lives by the passionless principle that Weber frequently cited, sine ira
et studio , 'without scorn or bias.' "
Wolin writes that even when faced with certain defeat, all of us are called to the "awful
responsibility" of the fight for justice, equality and liberty.
"You don't win," Wolin said at the end of our talk. "Or you win rarely. And if you win, it's
often for a very short time. That's why politics is a vocation for Weber. It's not an
occasional undertaking that we assume every two years or every four years when there's an
election. It's a constant occupation and preoccupation. And the problem, as Weber saw it, was
to understand it not as a partisan kind of education in the politicians or political party
sense, but as in the broad understanding of what political life should be and what is required
to make it sustainable. He's calling for a certain kind of understanding that's very different
from what we think about when we associate political understanding with how do you vote or what
party do you support or what cause do you support. Weber's asking us to step back and say what
kind of political order, and the values associated with it that it promotes, are we willing to
really give a lot for, including sacrifice."
Wolin embodied the qualities Weber ascribes to the hero. He struggled against forces he knew
he could not vanquish. He never wavered in the fight as an intellectual and, more important, in
the fight as a citizen. He was one of the first to explain to us the transformation of our
capitalist democracy into a new species of totalitarianism. He warned us of the consequences of
unbridled empire or superpower. He called on us to rise up and resist. His "Democracy
Incorporated" was ignored by every major newspaper and journal in the country. This did not
surprise him. He knew his power. So did his enemies. All his fears for the nation have come to
pass. A corporate monstrosity rules us. If we held up a scorecard we would have to say Wolin
lost, but we would also have to acknowledge the integrity, brilliance, courage and nobility of
his life.
This riots in no way represent a danger to Trump other then in PR. They have zero
organization and most rioters soon iether be arrested or gone home. In a way "Occupy Wall Street"
was a more dangerous for the elite movement. This is just a nuisance.
As for elections on one side Trump again demonstrated upper incompetence and inability to act
with some nuance, on t he other it discredited Democrats identity politics.
Notable quotes:
"... Live Updates, George Floyd Protests Continue ..."
"... Twitter changed its profile to honor Black Lives Matter amid George Floyd protests ..."
"... Business Insider, ..."
"... Looter shot dead by pawn shop owner,' during George Floyd riots ..."
"... Family identifies federal officer shot, killed in connection with George Floyd protest in Oakland ..."
"... Woman Found Dead Inside Car In North Minneapolis Amid 2 nd Of Looting ..."
"... , Fires, CBS Minnesota, ..."
"... Separate shootings leave 3 dead in Indianapolis overnight ..."
"... Attorney General William P. Barr's Statement on Riots and Domestic Terrorism ..."
"... , Department of Justice, ..."
"... Tim Walz Blames Riots On 'Outsiders,' Cartels And White Supremacists -- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Joy Reid Join in ..."
"... St. Paul police rebut social media theory that officer instigated Minneapolis unrest ..."
"... Right-Wing Conspiracists Pull From Old Playbook: Blame George Soros For Riots ..."
"... LA appeals for National Guard as looting spreads, ..."
"... George Floyd's brother says Trump 'kept pushing me off' during call ..."
"... Advantage Biden, with risks; Trump disapproval grows: POLL ..."
"... Bush Wins Points for Speech on L.A. Riots ..."
"... The Christian Science Monitor, ..."
"... When trump spoke at AIPAC before the 2016 election, I already wrote him off. I was 1000% on the money. ..."
"... Trump was always the Pied Piper, following Hillary's orders while leading foolish populists off the cliff. If you're still expecting anything else from him, you're deluded. ..."
"... A true opponent of Deepstate would have spent the first month firing and jailing thousands of bureaucrats. Trump didn't fire anyone at all. ..."
"... Trump is finished. Unfortunately, his opponents are just as corrupt and criminal. ..."
"... I see a lot of whites among the protesters. How much of that is anger over Floyd and how much is pent up rage over the senseless lockdowns I cant say. ..."
"... As in 2016, people will again vote Trump as a giant FU to the Left, which they'll perceive as having caused, if not instigated this crisis. Disaffected Trump supporters who might not have bothered this time, are rethinking that as we speak. At this point, a Trump landslide is a very real possibility. ..."
"... the unholy and fragile Democrat alliance that includes white-hating blacks, left-indoctrinated students, hysterical femmes, radical queers, antifa terrorists, disaffected POC, and white 'moderates' constitutes an arranged political marriage that will not endure ..."
"... On the other hand, Trump now gets to advocate for political stability, cultural continuity, and even physical safety. The unhinged, far-too-left looters now seen on TV are actually a Godsend for Trump. Watch him amass most of what's left of America's silent (white, middle class) majority on election-day. Regular folks will reemerge as a unified block in the wake of these despicable acts of lawlessness and greed. ..."
"... It would take more then a department store and a police precinct to make a point: "We want leadership, not profiteering", "Bust the bulb" add focus. Corporate headquarters, gated communities, the White House, Capitol Hill, Millionaire communities, airports, bridges, paralysing the hardware farms of Google, Facebook and Twitter, spreading to cities as London, Amsterdam, Paris, great opportunities there. "No borders, no castles". Disruption is a start and a means to an end. Explaining comes later. Only going that direction would cause any effects that last. ..."
President Donald Trump ran on a Law And Order platform
in 2016 but he's currently presiding over the most widespread civil disorder of this
generation. The obvious reality: these riots are simply an excuse for
blacks to loot without fear of punishment. Without an immediate policy of
ruthless coercion directed and executed by the federal government, most Americans will
correctly assume that Trump is unwilling or incapable of defending their lives and property. If
so, his re-election campaign is probably finished -- and America along with it.
Link Bookmark It's hard to overstate the extent of the violence, with riots, arson and
looting in Scottsdale, Dallas,
New York , Ferguson, St. Louis, Richmond and countless other cities [
Live Updates, George Floyd Protests Continue, by Tony Lee,
Breitbart, May 30, 2020]. In Minneapolis, where the riots began, Mayor Jacob Frey
blamed riots on " white
supremacists ," an insane conspiracy theory which went completely unchecked by Twitter's
"fact checkers." Twitter itself, showing utter contempt for President Trump's
executive order alleging political bias, changed its profile to show solidarity with Black
Lives Matter [ Twitter
changed its profile to honor Black Lives Matter amid George Floyd protests,
by Ellen Cranley, Business Insider, May 31, 2020].
It is useless to try to find all the examples, they are incalculable, as is the number of
businesses destroyed or the amount of property damage.
President Trump said Sunday morning the government would declare Antifa a
terrorist organization. Attorney General William Barr said violence "instigated and carried out
by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and
will be treated accordingly" [ Attorney General William P. Barr's Statement on Riots and Domestic Terrorism,
Department of Justice, May 31, 2020].
We'll know that this is serious if these Leftist networks, which raise money and operate
openly, are arrested using the RICO statutes and other prosecutorial tools.
President Trump has avoided addressing the nation, reportedly because
First Son-In-Law Jared Kushner thinks
it will make things worse [ LA appeals for National
Guard as looting spreads, by Ella Torres, William Mansell, and Christina Carrega,
ABC News, May 31, 2020]. But, as with his handling of the coronavirus, Trump is
suffering politically not because he is being too forceful, but because he is being too
weak.
Trump called George Floyd's family, but the family is condemning him for it, not praising
his compassion [ George Floyd's brother says Trump 'kept pushing me off' during call, by
Martin Pengelly, The Guardian, May 31, 2020]. He now heavily trails Joe Biden in the
polls and is once again falling into his signature trap: saying tough things that infuriate
Leftists without backing up his words with action that rallies the Right [ Advantage Biden, with risks; Trump disapproval grows: POLL, by Gary
Langer, ABC News, May 31, 2020].
During the Los Angeles Riots, even
President George H.W. Bush eventually sent in the Marines and then addressed
the nation, simultaneously displaying leadership and paternal concern for the American people [
Bush Wins Points
for Speech on L.A. Riots, by Linda Feldmann, The Christian Science
Monitor, May 4, 1992].
President Trump thus far is limited to vague tweets about "STRENGTH!' without much tangible
proof of it.
Even worse, in the case of this "STRENGTH" tweet, Twitter once again instantly suspended the
account of the person President Trump quote-tweeted.
The company knows the White House won't do anything. This situation is becoming increasingly
humiliating not just for the president, but for his supporters.
During the 2016 campaign, Trump seemed to have remarkable luck, with extraordinary events
breaking in his favor. In the run-up to this election, he hasn't had great luck, but he has had
a series of crises that any competent nationalist politician could have easily exploited:
He
had a
foreign pandemic and huge public support for enacting at least a
temporary immigration moratorium or more creative economic
populist policies . Instead, he disastrously tried to downplay the pandemic to try to
appease the stock market in the short term. He has Twitter revealing its bias to the entire
world, giving him a sure-fire rationale for protecting the free speech of his supporters. This
would dramatically ease his task of fighting the Main Stream Media/ Democrat cartel during the
re-election campaign. However, the president has done nothing substantive, once again coming
off as weak and feckless and leaving his supporters isolated. Now, he has nationwide riots and
videos of businesses being burned to the ground, all being essentially cheered on by his
MSM/Dem opponents. America is begging for a crackdown. Instead, President Trump is blaming
Democratic state and local elected officials rather than taking action himself.
If he doesn't, he can't be surprised if Leftists simply become more emboldened, and if
demoralized patriots stay away from the polls.
This is President Trump's one last chance not to let his voters down. If he blows it, I
think the 2020 campaign will be irredeemable -- and unlike Republicans, Democrats will have no
problem in using government power to
crush their political enemies once they are in the White House again.
Why doesn't Trump realize Jared is a viper at the heart of his family and administration? He
absolutely needs to address the nation. Jared might be setting up another style of coup
attempt.
You're four years late. Trump was always the Pied Piper, following Hillary's orders while
leading foolish populists off the cliff. If you're still expecting anything else from him,
you're deluded.
There's one small point of forgiveness for fools. Obama showed his Deepstate loyalty
BEFORE the 2008 election, so there was no reason for any honest observer to vote for him.
Trump didn't show his hand until just AFTER the 2016 election. After the first week it was
amply clear that he had no intentions of "draining the swamp". A true opponent of
Deepstate would have spent the first month firing and jailing thousands of bureaucrats. Trump
didn't fire anyone at all.
Another white supremacist trash piece. You guys never learn. Trump is finished.
Unfortunately, his opponents are just as corrupt and criminal. This country is doomed
and it will not be able to redeem itself, and deserves what's coming to it. Especially, not
with the moronic and insensitive example of articles, authors and a blind culture that is
portrayed above.
I see a lot of whites among the protesters. How much of that is anger over Floyd and how
much is pent up rage over the senseless lockdowns I cant say.
If you look back to last year Barr developed his precrime program, Trump pushed HARPA/SAFE
HOME, bills for Domestic Terrorism were proposed, FBI issues memo that conspiracy theories
(question official narratives) promote terrorism , etc. This all happening while Crimson
Contagion exercises, Urban Outbreak Exercises and Event 201 simulation are happening.
Coincidence?
The Rockefeller Lockstep Report in 2010 predicted pushback
After Lockdowns over the virus , conditions were ripe for an explosion that would allow
the pre-crime/domestic terrorism agendas to get political support. Just needed a trigger and
I think the Floyd killing was an operation intended to be that trigger. Push back begins. The
protests gone violent with a convenient supply of bricks may be due to agent provocateurs.
Contract tracing apps issued before the protests will certainly be put to good use. Contract
tracers will be given another job.
Trump now declares antifa a Terrorist Group. Basically anyone opposed to fascism and
authoritarianism can be suspected of being antifa and a terrorist. How convenient for
fascists and authoritarians.
At this point people have to be considering the fact that Trump is more of a hindrance than a
help. He appears to be nothing more than a lullaby used to put his supporters to sleep,
secure in their delusions that they have a viable political future as long as they vote hard
enough.
If it takes a president Stacy Abrams to wake them up, then why not now? In the extremely
unlikely event that Trump pulls off another victory, what will be the purpose? He's clearly
demonstrated that he is incapable of any action beyond nominating a SC justice and tweeting.
4 more years of having to listen to delusional MAGA people is too much to stomach for no
payoff.
I'd rather have an obese gap toothed woman of color ordering the construction of all POC
settlements in white neighboorhoods. Maybe then the MAGA folks would wake up. Of course it's
more likely that they would start cheering Marco Rubio by claiming that he only wants to
build 10 apartments per un-diverse town instead of 30.
I'll preface this with I'm no fan of Donald Trump.
That said, I believe the soon-to-be-wrath of the people will fall mainly on state
governors and city mayors rather than on Trump. Polls mean nothing these days. 2016 proved
that one. What's right in front of many people today is that they've not only lost wages to
CV-19, but now, just as they're gearing up to return, their workplace is gone -- either
burned down, or indefinitely closed due to the riots and related damage to public
infrastructure.
Meanwhile in flyover country, people look on in horror at what, rightly or wrongly, is
associated in their minds with BLM and ANTIFA. That is to say The Left. Cartoonish, yes, but
that's what they see.
As in 2016, people will again vote Trump as a giant FU to the Left, which they'll
perceive as having caused, if not instigated this crisis. Disaffected Trump supporters who
might not have bothered this time, are rethinking that as we speak. At this point, a Trump
landslide is a very real possibility.
This is not the outcome I want -- that doesn't actually exist at this time -- but FWIW,
it's the way I see it playing out. I know history doesn't always repeat, but this looks a lot
like 1968 to me.
Trump is hiding in a bunker . Hope he stays there for good.
Yes. It's why some of us stayed home in 2016. A choice between Hillary, a lifelong flake,
and yet another third-rate actor. Did everyone forget that the other third-rate actor,
Reagan, gave the country away?
It's fitting for Trump to tweet and hide. He has successfully updated hit and run.
Welcome back, James Kirkpatrick! Trump has disappointed, and he may be down in the polls, but
he's not out.
This Mau Mau power grab (and the media's role in promoting it) is actually winning votes
for Trump. The President represents the rule of law. Civilization. This is a winning ticket.
And people are fed up with all the slick media favoritism. It's toxic.
Meanwhile, the unholy and fragile Democrat alliance that includes white-hating blacks,
left-indoctrinated students, hysterical femmes, radical queers, antifa terrorists,
disaffected POC, and white 'moderates' constitutes an arranged political marriage that
will not endure . Most of these assorted malcontents have only one thing that unites
them: hatred of Trump and his base. This is not a winning platform. Plus, sleepy Joe will
have to repudiate all this liberal violence and looting if he's to maintain his (allegedly)
leading position in the polls. BLM may not like this, nor will the uber-progressive wing of
the Democrat party. Expect fireworks.
On the other hand, Trump now gets to advocate for political stability, cultural
continuity, and even physical safety. The unhinged, far-too-left looters now seen on TV are
actually a Godsend for Trump. Watch him amass most of what's left of America's silent (white,
middle class) majority on election-day. Regular folks will reemerge as a unified block in the
wake of these despicable acts of lawlessness and greed.
After Trump chews up sleepy Joe in the debates, watch this race flip into a Trump
landslide. It happened for Nixon. Maybe then, Trump the two-term President will revisit the
agenda that got him elected as a candidate in 2016. This final scenario might not be likely,
but stranger things have happened.
@Pft Even all this arson may be of benefit the business community. Weren't we reading
endless comments how the lockdown has badly affected small businesses, many of which would go
bankrupt due to lack of customers? Perhaps the best thing for them is to get burnt down so
they can claim the insurance as many of them would probably have had to close shop anyway.
@Anon show me one single pick of his admin. who ended up beneficial for him or his
reelection: Jared is the personification of Netanyahu in the White House: clusterfuck nation
will be his signature at the court of History.
Where Have You Gone, Donald Trump? A Nation Turns Its Yearning Eyes to You
James Kirkpatrick • May 31, 2020
Out of context, the whole of the elites bulb is irrecoverable. The "bend" to turn it into
politics, is going to be little of a patch, won´t last the next round.
The "ramble" in the streets is way exaggerated, nothing will come of it if all
semi-organized groups that have ambitions do not add to the noise, and get some pertinent
rusults: bargaining power. It is a dream opportunity to "vote" with one´s feet. Real
disorder cannot be worse, when the asserted elites are morally corrupt and have no
ethics.
It would take more then a department store and a police precinct to make a point: "We
want leadership, not profiteering", "Bust the bulb" add focus. Corporate headquarters, gated
communities, the White House, Capitol Hill, Millionaire communities, airports, bridges,
paralysing the hardware farms of Google, Facebook and Twitter, spreading to cities as London,
Amsterdam, Paris, great opportunities there. "No borders, no castles". Disruption is a start
and a means to an end. Explaining comes later. Only going that direction would cause any
effects that last.
These are few things that come to mind. When historically, "real" leaders can have a
chance to re-assert and reorganize, effectively stump out the "rot at the top", there must be
some serious rioting first.
There is not much of an alternative, and outside the US forces, Russia, China, Iran,
Venezuela, people up to dumps as Bangladesh, Libya, will gladly stomp the US obese
backside.
These above are thoughts that come to mind, regarding a minor overblown bush-fire for now.
The thing is a fizzle.
If the establishment ignores those demands, they do so at their own peril. If you have no
demands, how do you convince others you are not just another fascist clawing your way
upward?
Posted by: Dr Wellington Yueh | Jun 1 2020 20:29 utc | 56
....
"The Largest Protest Ever Was 15 Years Ago. The Iraq War Isn't Over. What Happened?"
Lots of brainwashed indoctrinated Amurikans round here who are incapable of realizing
the US Regime Political system is broken well beyond repair. Again I will repeat- and
please show me otherwise if you can- The US Regime does NOT listen to or give a flying fuck
about what its citizens want- period.
Health Care?
Lobby reform?
Economic reform?
End wars of aggression?
Electoral college?
Federal Reserve?
the list goes on...and nothing!
Largest protest EVER in the history of the US NOT to invade Iraq- and the US is still
there- how many died as a result? Millions? Let me guess- you still believe Amurika is a
functioning Democracy?
This is a National/Global Uprising- NOT an organized protest. How many days has it been?
1 week- and you act as if it should be clean whitey tidy nice nice structurally dialed.
Just because you're a DR. doesn't mean you have the slightest bit of common sense other
than being indoctrinated into an Education system that prevents critical thinking.
"... The media would sensationalize any act of violence involving white on black and brown. They ignored all the violence of black and brown on white. This uneven media reporting was based on their desire to reinforce the mantra of "white people are evil racists, black and brown people are victims and good." ..."
"... Because it would paint themselves as supporters of "social justice" they created a false version of reality where everything bad in society was because of white people being racist. Never mind the actual causes of societal discontent being the exploitation by the elite. Because the media is the elite they don't want you to hate them. So they created a false victimizer they could blame for all the problems of society. ..."
"Partisan politics has created severe divisions in society. Such divisions restrict and
disturb people's thinking. People's support for a particular party is only a matter of
stance, which provides a shelter to politicians who violate people's interests.
"As elections come and go, it is simply about one group of elites replacing the other. The
intertwined interests between the two groups are much greater than those between the
victorious one and the electorate who vote for them.
"To cover such deception, the key agenda in the US is either a partisan fight or a
conflict with foreign countries. The severe racial discrimination and wealth disparities are
marginalized topics."
I wonder if the writer would like to see his conclusion proven wrong:
"Judging from the superficial comments and statements from US politicians on the protests,
the outsiders can easily draw the conclusion that solving problems is not on the minds of the
country, and elites are just fearlessly waiting for this wave of demonstrations to die
out."
In order to solve problems, one must know their components and roots, and that demands
honesty in making the assessment. Looking back at the assessments of Cornel West and the
producers of the Four Horsemen documentary, the main culprit is the broken political
system/failed social experiment, which are essentially one in the same as the flawed system
produced the failure. Most of us have determined that changing the system via the system will
never work because the system has empowered a Class that has no intentions on allowing its
power to be diminished, and that Class is currently using the system to further impoverish
and enslave the citizenry into Debt Peonage while increasing its own power. The #1 problem is
removing the Financial Parasite Class from power. Yes, at the moment that seems as difficult
as destroying the Death Star's reactor before it blows up Yavin 4, but the stakes involved
are every bit as high as those portrayed in Lucas's Star Wars , as the Evil of the
Empire and that of the Parasite Class are the same Evil.
What political demand could one possibly make by now, and of whom would you make it? Reform
is impossible, and there's no legitimate authority left (if there ever was in the first
place).
Posted by: Russ | Jun 1 2020 17:49 utc | 23
Indeed, apart from the shock of witnessing one of them murderd in plain daylight as if he
were a vermin, I think that the people, especially young, reacted that anarchic way because
they really see no future. They see how their country functions at steering wheel blows
especially through the pandemic, preview they will e in the need soon, even that they will be
murdered without contemeplation,and go out there to grab whatever they could...
We forget that they are under Trump regime and Trump has supported always their foes,
witnessing such assassination in plain daylight, without any officila doing nothing, not even
charging the obvious culprits was felt by tese people as if the hunting season on nigers and
lefties" had been declared. No other way yo ucan explain the sudden union of such ammount of
black and white young people. Thye felt all targets of the ops or of Trump´s white
supreamcist militias after four years of being dgreaded as subhumans. In fact, were not for
the riots to turn so violent, I fear carnages of all these peoples would have started.
The people, brainwashed or not, at least when they are young, still conserve some survival
instincts and some common sense too.
Yes, the republican model of organization is naturally unstable and doomed to collapse.
Everybody knows what happened to the Roman Republic: tendency to polarization, civil war and
collapse.
However, the reverse is also true: when the economy is flying high, every political system
works. Everybody is happy when there's wealth for everybody.
The present problem, therefore, is inherent to the capitalist system, not with the
republican system per se.
The media and politicians have repeated a mantra for years n order to gain power by
exploiting social and racial faultlines. They didn't want to deal with the actual cause of
societal discontent which is their own support of an exploitative economic system which
disempowers and pushed down everyone but the 1%. So they invented a false cause of discontent
in order to appear as saviors who are bringing a message of Hope and Change
White people are racist. White people are inherently evil and greedy. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
Black and Brown people are good, Black and Brown people are victims of the racist greedy
evil white people.
White people are racist. White people are inherently evil and greedy. THAT IS THE
PROBLEM. Black and Brown people are good, Black and Brown people are victims of the racist
greedy evil white people.
After enough time has gone by, we have a generation of young people of all colors who
believe the above mantra with all their heart because of hearing that mantra every day in the
media, in schools, in movies, from leaders. The media knowing that, would then look for ways
to exploit their hatred of "white racism against black and brown people."
The media would sensationalize any act of violence involving white on black and brown.
They ignored all the violence of black and brown on white. This uneven media reporting was
based on their desire to reinforce the mantra of "white people are evil racists, black and
brown people are victims and good."
Because it would paint themselves as supporters of "social justice" they created a
false version of reality where everything bad in society was because of white people being
racist. Never mind the actual causes of societal discontent being the exploitation by the
elite. Because the media is the elite they don't want you to hate them. So they created a
false victimizer they could blame for all the problems of society.
Because violence from black and brown on white was never reported by the media except in
local news, people only heard from the national narrative of white violence of black and
brown because people don't pay attention to local news. They grew up believing the police
only abused black and brown people, they grew up believing that random street violence was
only from white people against black and brown. None of which is true.
This was bound to end up with a generation of people who believed the false narrative
where America is a nation where black and brown people are always the victims, and white
people are always the victimizers. And as you can see in the riots, the rioters are almost
all under 30. A generation has grown up being brainwashed by the mantra:
White people are racist. White people are inherently evil and greedy. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
Black and Brown people are good, Black and Brown people are victims of the racist greedy
evil white people.
That is why so many people are perfectly fine with the violence and looting based on a few
recent incidents of white on black violence. During the same time period there was plenty of
black on black violence, plenty of brown on brown violence, and plenty of black and brown on
white violence. But the national media never highlights any violence but white on black and
brown. That is what has led to the new normal where any violence involving white on black or
brown will be blown up WAY out of proportion to the reality of violence in America. Which is
an equal opportunity game. A generation of people has grown up to believe that white racism
is the cause of all the problems.
Meanwhile the elites sit in their yachts and laugh. The rabble are busy fighting over race
when the real issue is ignored. The media has done their job admirably. Their job is to
deflect rage from the elite to racism. From wealthy exploitation of the commons, to racism.
As long as the underclasses are busy blaming racism then the politicians, business leaders,
and media are satisfied because they are the actual ones to blame. They are the enemy.
They blame racism for all the problems as a way to hide that truth of their own culpability
for the problems in society. THEIR OWN GREED AND CONTEMPT FOR THE UNDERCLASS.
Riots are not a political movement and they will dissipate soon. Leaving just strengthened the national-security state. That's
what will happen next.
Notable quotes:
"... If the combination of peaceful protesting, looting and violence witnessed across American cities over the past few days completely caught you off guard, you're likely to come to the worst possible conclusion about what to do next. The knee-jerk response I'm already seeing from many is to crush the dissent by all means necessary, but that's exactly how you give the imperial state and oligarchy more power. Power it will never relinquish. ..."
"... On the one hand, you can't pillage the public so blatantly and consistently for decades while telling them voting will change things and not expect violence once people realize it doesn't. On the other hand, street violence plays perfectly into the hands of those who would take the current moment and use it to advocate for a further loss of civil liberties, more internal militarization, and the emergence of an overt domestic police state that's been itching to fully manifest since 9/11. ..."
It's with an extremely heavy heart that I sit down to write today's post.
Although widespread civil unrest was easy to predict, it doesn't make the situation any less sad and dangerous. We're in the thick
of it now, and how we respond will likely determine the direction of the country for decades to come.
If the combination of peaceful protesting, looting and violence witnessed across American cities over the past few days completely
caught you off guard, you're likely to come to the worst possible conclusion about what to do next. The knee-jerk response I'm already
seeing from many is to crush the dissent by all means necessary, but that's exactly how you give the imperial state and oligarchy
more power. Power it will never relinquish.
What's happening in America right now is what happens in a failed state.
The U.S. is a failed state. Now the imperial national security state is going to flex at home like never before.
I spent the last decade of my life trying to spread the word to avoid this, but here we are.
I don't think people understand the significance of the President declaring "Antifa" a "terrorist organization". The Patriot
Act and provisions of the NDAA of 2012 make this frightening. Because Antifa is informal it puts all protestors in danger--like
declaring them un-citizens.
GOP @SenTomCotton : "If local politicians
will not do their most basic job to protect our citizens, let's see how these anarchists respond when the 101st Airborne is on
the other side of the street." pic.twitter.com/NyojLoOEAT
-- The American Independent (@AmerIndependent)
June 1, 2020
The pressure cooker situation that erupted over the weekend has been building for five decades, but really accelerated over the
past twenty years. After every crisis of the 21st century there's been this "do whatever it takes mentality," which resulted in more
wealth and power for the national security state and oligarchy, and less resources, opportunities and civil liberties for the many.
If anything, it's surprising it took so long to get here, partly a testament to how skilled a salesman for the power structure Obama
was.
Your election was a chance to create real change, but instead you chose to protect bankers while looting the economy on behalf
of oligarchs.
You and Trump aren't much different when it comes to the big structural problems, you were just better at selling oligarchy
and empire. https://t.co/QuSQNApeLY
The covid-19 pandemic, related societal lockdown and another round of in your face economic looting by Congress and the Federal
Reserve merely served as an accelerant, and the only thing missing was some sort of catalyst combined with warmer weather. Now that
the eruption has occurred, I hope cooler heads can prevail on all sides.
On the one hand, you can't pillage the public so blatantly and consistently for decades while telling them voting will change
things and not expect violence once people realize it doesn't. On the other hand, street violence plays perfectly into the hands
of those who would take the current moment and use it to advocate for a further loss of civil liberties, more internal militarization,
and the emergence of an overt domestic police state that's been itching to fully manifest since 9/11.
It's my view we need to take the current moment and admit the unrest is a symptom of a deeply entrenched and corrupt bipartisan
imperial oligarchy that cares only about its own wealth and power. If people of goodwill across the ideological spectrum don't take
a step back and point out who the real looters are, nothing's going to improve and we'll put another bandaid on a systemic cancer
as we continue our longstanding march toward less freedom and more authoritarianism
American blacks are doing poorly because their jobs have been outsourced to communist
China, the remaining jobs are increasingly going to foreign nationals imported as a source of
indentured cheap labor, rents are unaffordable, medical care is unaffordable, education is
unaffordable, people are drowning in debt and thanks to utter scumbags like Joe Biden they
can no longer get out from under by declaring bankruptcy (as the 'socialist' founding fathers
of this nation intended!), the government spends trillions on pointless foreign wars that
serve only to enrich a few politically connected defense contractors, and over all, the
government is giving literally tens of trillions of dollars in bailouts and subsidies to Wall
Street and the super rich.
Thing is, this has nothing to do with 'racism.' It's class war, and my class is losing.
But the rich don't like that narrative, so they stir up the proles and have them fight each
other.
If blacks are doing badly only because they are stupid and dysfunctional, then why are
working class whites starting to lose ground as well? Oh they aren't rioting much, they're
just killing themselves with opiates and alcohol. Still, they are being ground down all the
same. When the working class of all colors is losing ground, that is inconsistent with either
'racism' or blacks being inherently dysfunctional. It is consistent with the working class in
general being stepped on, yes?
In a country of 340 million plus, there will always be the occasional bad thing happening.
If indeed one white cop shot one black man without justification that's a bad thing - but
it's just one incident, it has nothing to do with what's really keeping American blacks down
- which is exactly the same as what's keeping American whites down! By taking one incident,
and publicizing the hell out of it and screaming that it's all about 'racism,' the rich have
deliberately created this situation.
Of course the media ignore all those incidents of blacks shooting whites. It's not part of
the narrative.
Now with the coronavirus having gutted the economy, we have like 30+ million more people
out of work than just recently, and most of the rest are going to be taking pay cuts, and
after the stimulus crumbs run out, it's going to be very painful. The response of the elites,
added onto the 'stimulus' bill, was to engage in an orgy of looting and profiteering not seen
since Russia under Yeltsin. People are going to be evicted, lose their cars etc., and there
is no safety net... This isn't going to be pretty. As a cynical person, I think the elites
see this coming, and the intensity of the current manufactured conflagration is being put in
place to focus the anger of the masses away from the elites, because they can feel what's
headed our way.
I am not some stupid guilty liberal social justice warrior. As a skinny white guy, if I
see that I am the only white face on the street I will be somewhere else real fast. If blacks
are looting and pillaging, I want the police to stomp on that and maintain order and I won't
take any excuses. But we shouldn't lose track of the big picture. It's the monolithic
corporate media enterprises that have stoked this chaos, and it's for a reason.
Looks like antifa members is Maoists not Fascists.
Notable quotes:
"... Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook ..."
"... These people are self-defeating morons, yes, but they still have the potential to do great damage ..."
"... Last night, here in Washington, the unrest they helped fuel saw a church lit on fire, LaFayette Park near the White House set ablaze, the AFL-CIO building attacked, and the Lincoln Memorial defaced. ..."
Back in 2018, my friend Zachary Yost suffered his way through Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook , a primer on the group
written by (but of course!) Dartmouth lecturer Mark Bray. What he found was a chillingly lucid call to revolution that subordinated
all else to the goal of overthrowing capitalism and the "Far Right." So free speech, for example, is dispensable, valuable only to
the extent that it enables the coming flames.
Yost writes:
By the time he's finished, Bray has thrown everything and the kitchen sink into the category of fascist ideologies that must
be targeted, ranging from whiteness to "ableism, heteronormativity, patriarchy, nationalism, transphobia, class rule, and many
others." Though cloaked in calls to stop oppression, Bray's book at its core makes the case for the exercise of raw, unbridled
power. Under this revolutionary ideology, no dissent can be tolerated. There can be no live and let live -- it is all or nothing.
In fairness, Antifa is a wide and somewhat amorphous umbrella, some of whose members may not subscribe to everything Bray says.
But what the more committed among them seem to understand is that, come lawlessness, power will flow naturally to he who has the
most muscle, he who's most willing to pick up a brick and throw it, at the expense of the poor and vulnerable. Remember that tonight
when we inevitably see more violence in the streets. Senselessness is the point. Preying on the innocent is the goal.
Remember after Charlottesville when some on social media compared these guys to the American soldiers who fought the Nazis at
Normandy? I don't want to hear another word about that. Antifa may stand for antifascist, but Yost's piece makes it clear that they're
fascist to their marrow. And as with many latter-day fascists and extremists, Antifa are simultaneously cogent at the manifesto level
and utterly delusional as to likely outcomes. They aren't going to overthrow capitalism or Donald Trump. They may, however, affect
the election in five months, with the most likely beneficiary the president they so despise.
These people are self-defeating morons, yes, but they still have the potential to do great damage.
Last night, here in Washington, the unrest they helped fuel saw a church lit on fire, LaFayette Park near the White House
set ablaze, the AFL-CIO building attacked, and the Lincoln Memorial defaced.
This is how a Franco ends up in power: because even churches are being targeted, even the moderate leftists aren't safe. Bully
people long enough and they long for a bully of their own. That Antifa has desecrated the protests over George Floyd's death this
way is appalling and I wish them nothing but the worst.
Matt Purple is a senior editor at The American Conservative .
I can picture anarchists setting fire to Minneapolis, but I was always under the clear impression that ANTIFA was really, really,
focused on outing neo-nazis, punching marchers in the face, and deplatforming the ALT-RIGHT. God's work! Why in the world would
they torch Popeyes?
One of the Fox news affiliate stations had reported looking at the paper work for people arrested in their city and said that
80% of the people arrested were from in state. That was after both Trump and Barr had claimed they were almost all from out of
state. If they lied about that what reason is there to believe that the rest of their claims are true? What evidence is there
other than a report of a pallet of brick (how do you unload it with out a forklift?) being left some where what evidence is there
that all of this is co-ordinated and not just random thugs? Why is the assumption that they are left leaning or tied to the Democratic
party? At least one of the people caught breaking windows, carrying an umbrella and masked was an off duty police officer which
generally lean to the right. I know a 25 year old man was arrested for burning a court house. The young tend to lean left but
also tend to act irrationally with out a cause. Is there any actual evidence to point to this being Antifa or are we just supposed
to take POTUS's word for it?
Trump and Barr merely picked up on claims from the governor of MN and mayor of Minneapolis. They did not originate the claim that
the rioters were from out-of-state.
Uh, the assumption that they are left-leaning comes from the fact that they spray-paint left-leaning things, and shout left-leaning
things.
I haven't heard anyone claim that they are tied to the Democratic Party, but many Democratic Party politicians have avoided
condemning them, and many Democratic Party-backing commentators/journalists have openly defended them.
The NYC Police Dept. reports that they have in their possession communications among Antifa units making detailed plans for
riots in places like NYC days before the riots occurred.
Something like a thousand people have been arrested now in these riots. How many of them have been identified as right-wing
or right-leaning? I don't know of a single one. You don't think these lefty Dem mayors and the MSM would be parading any evidence
they had of right-leaning rioters?
The Minnesota Freedom Fund is also being funded by politically correct Hollywood leftists. If Minneapolis really is a right-wing
insurrection highly disguised, it's fooled the woke crowd unmercifully.
"The destruction of businesses we're witnessing across the US is not mere
opportunism by looters. It plays a critical role in antifa and BLM
ideology"
Grouping Black Lives Matter together with Anti-Fa is a good propaganda effort, but those groups have different focuses. Anti-Fa
is a reaction to the neo-Nazis, but it is also home to a lot of anarchists.
Black Lives Matter is focused on African American rights and an opposition to police brutality. If you look at their web site,
it is all about civil rights both in the U.S. and internationally. They also have a stated agenda of supporting LGBTQ rights.
It's hard to find any ideology in favor of looting. In fact, they are on-record in support of minority-owned (capitalist) businesses
and economic development.
"... our culture so market-driven, everybody for sale, everything for sale, you can't deliver the kind of really real nourishment for soul, for meaning, for purpose. ..."
"... The system cannot reform itself. We've tried black faces in high places ..."
"... You've got a neoliberal wing of the Democratic party that is now in the driver's seat with the collapse of brother Bernie and they really don't know what to do because all they want to do is show more black faces -- show more black faces. ..."
"... So when you talk about the masses of black people, the precious poor and working-class black people, brown, red, yellow, whatever color, they're the ones left out and they feel so thoroughly powerless, helpless, hopeless, then you get rebellion. ..."
Dr. Cornel West said on Friday we are witnessing the failed social experiment that is
the United States of America in the protests and riots that have followed the death of George
Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police. West told CNN host Anderson Cooper that what is going
on is rebellion to a failed capitalist economy that does not protect the people. West, a
professor, denounced the neoliberal wing of the Democratic party that is all about "black faces
in high places" but not actual change. The professor remarked even those black faces often lose
legitimacy because they ingriatiate themselves into the establishment neo-liberal Democratic
party.
"I think we are witnessing America as a failed social experiment," West said. "What I mean
by that is that the history of black people for over 200 and some years in America has been
looking at America's failure, its capitalist economy could not generate and deliver in such a
way people can live lives of decency. The nation-state, it's criminal justice system, it's
legal system could not generate protection of rights and liberties."
From commentary delivered on CNN Friday night:
DR. CORNEL WEST: And now our culture so market-driven, everybody for sale, everything for
sale, you can't deliver the kind of really real nourishment for soul, for meaning, for
purpose.
So when you get this perfect storm of all these multiple failures at these different
levels of the American empire, and Martin King already told us about that...
The system cannot reform itself. We've tried black faces in high places. Too often our
black politicians, professional class, middle class become too accommodated to the capitalist
economy, too accommodated to a militarized nation-state, too accommodated to the
market-driven culture of celebrities, status, power, fame, all that superficial stuff that
means so much to so many fellow citizens.
And what happens is we have a neofascist gangster in the White House who doesn't care for
the most part. You've got a neoliberal wing of the Democratic party that is now in the
driver's seat with the collapse of brother Bernie and they really don't know what to do
because all they want to do is show more black faces -- show more black faces.
But often
times those black faces are losing legitimacy too because the Black Lives Matter movement
emerged under a black president, a black attorney general, and a black Homeland Security
[Secretary] and they couldn't deliver.
So when you talk about the masses of black people, the
precious poor and working-class black people, brown, red, yellow, whatever color, they're the
ones left out and they feel so thoroughly powerless, helpless, hopeless, then you get
rebellion.
"... In recent years, U.S. troops were killed not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Syria, Kenya, Somalia, Yemen, and Niger. Few Americans could locate these countries on a map; fewer knew its soldiers fought there. Additionally, Pentagon pilots and proxies killed people in Libya, Pakistan, and elsewhere in West Africa without losing a single soldier. ..."
"... The campaigns in Somalia and Yemen best expose the absurd casualty inequity of modern American warfare. In the former, only a few U.S. service members have been killed in an 18-year intervention. Conversely, hundreds of thousands of Somalis died or were displaced as a direct or indirect result (an exacerbated famine , for example) of a largely U.S.-catalyzed war. In Yemen, just one American soldier died in combat, compared to more than 100,000 locals -- including 85,000 children starved to death -- in a terror campaign the Saudis couldn't wage without U.S. complicity . ..."
"... With unemployment sky-rocketing to Great Depression rates, and income inequality at Gilded Age levels , both holidays now "celebrate" egregious blood and treasure disparity. For example, sifting through the Department of Labor's statistics reveals that some 8,000 contractors have been killed in America's war zones. That outnumbers U.S. military fatalities. Since Washington has progressively privatized and outsourced its wars, perhaps Americans should also observe a Mercenary Memorial Day. ..."
"... Faced with unrecognizable brands of war, most people substitute nostalgia and myth. Grappling with war's reality has implications that are too disturbing. Far simpler and more satisfying is to commemorate long past sacrifices at Normandy and Iwo Jima, rather than more confounding losses in Niger and Iraq. The temptation persists even as the last World War II veterans pass; old notions of what combat is ..."
"... The United States has lost its ethical and strategic way. Riddled with a virus that has now killed more Americans than the Revolutionary, Mexican, Spanish, Indian, Philippine, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Afghan Wars combined , this nation requires serious soul-searching. Reimagining its bookended summer celebrations might be a good start; but it won't be easy. ..."
Pandemic or no, resilient Americans will celebrate Memorial Day together. Be it through Zoom
or spaced six feet apart from ten or less loved ones at backyard cookouts, folks will find a
way. In these peculiar gatherings, is it still considered cynical to wonder if people will
spare much actual thought for American soldiers still dying abroad -- or question the
utility of America's forever wars? Etiquette aside, we think it's obscene not to.
Just as the coronavirus has
exposed systemic rot, this moment also reveals how obsolete common conceptions of U.S.
warfare truly are -- raising core questions about the holiday devoted to its sacrifices. The
truth is that today's "
way of war " is so abstract, distant, and short on (at least American) casualties as to be
nearly invisible to the public. With little to
show for it, Washington still directs bloody global campaigns, killing thousands of locals.
America has no space on its calendar to memorialize these victims: even the
children among them.
"Just as the coronavirus
exposed much internal systemic rot, this moment also reveals how obsolete common
conceptions of U.S. warfare truly are."
Eighteen years ago, as a cadet and young marine officer, we celebrated the first post-9/11
Memorial Day -- both brimming with enthusiasm for the wars we knew lay ahead. In the
intervening decades, for
individual yet strikingly
similar reasons, we ultimately
chose paths of dissent. Since then, we've
penned critical editorials around Memorial Days. These challenged the wars'
prospects ,
questioned the efficacy of the volunteer military, and
encouraged citizens to honor the fallen by creating fewer of them.
Little has changed, except how America fights. But that's the point: outsourcing
combat to machines, mercenaries, and militias rendered war so opaque that Washington wages it
absent public oversight or awareness -- and empathy. That's the formula for forever war.
In recent years, U.S. troops were killed not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Syria,
Kenya, Somalia, Yemen, and Niger. Few Americans could locate these countries on a map; fewer
knew its soldiers fought there. Additionally, Pentagon pilots and proxies
killed people in Libya, Pakistan, and
elsewhere in West Africa without losing a single soldier.
The campaigns in Somalia and Yemen best expose the absurd casualty inequity of modern
American warfare. In the former, only a
few U.S. service members have been killed in an 18-year intervention. Conversely,
hundreds of thousands of Somalis died or were displaced as a direct or indirect result (an
exacerbated famine , for example) of a largely U.S.-catalyzed war. In Yemen, just
one American soldier died in combat, compared to
more than 100,000 locals -- including 85,000 children
starved to death -- in a terror campaign the Saudis couldn't wage without U.S.
complicity .
No one wants to see American troops killed, but a death disparity so stark stretches classic
definitions of combat. Yet for locals, it likely feels a whole lot like "real" war on
the business end of U.S. bombs and bullets.
So this year, given the stark reality that even a deadly pandemic -- and
pleas for global ceasefire -- hasn't
slowed Washington's war machine, it's reasonable to question the very concept of Memorial
Day. There are also important parallels with Labor Day -- the holiday bookend to today's
seasonal kick off. Just as memorializing America's obscenely lopsided battle deaths is
increasingly indecent, a federal holiday devoted to a labor movement the government has
aggressively eviscerated is deeply troubling.
With unemployment
sky-rocketing to Great Depression rates, and income inequality at Gilded Age
levels , both holidays now "celebrate" egregious blood and treasure disparity. For example,
sifting through the Department of Labor's
statistics reveals that some 8,000 contractors have been killed in America's war zones.
That
outnumbers U.S. military fatalities. Since Washington has progressively privatized and
outsourced its wars, perhaps Americans should also observe a Mercenary Memorial Day.
Widening the aperture unveils thousands more "non-combat" -- but war-related -- uniformed
deaths in desperate need of memorializing. From 2006-2018
alone , 3,540 active-duty service members took their own lives -- just a fraction of the
15-20 daily veteran
suicides -- and another 640 died in accidents involving substance-abuse. Each death is
unique, but studies
demonstrate that the combined effects of PTSD and moral injury -- these wars' "
signature wound " -- contributed to this massive loss of life. On a personal level, at
least four soldiers under our commands took their own lives, as have several friends. These are
real folks who left behind real loved ones.
Faced with unrecognizable brands of war, most people substitute nostalgia and myth.
Grappling with war's reality has implications that are too disturbing. Far simpler and more
satisfying is to commemorate long past sacrifices at Normandy and Iwo Jima, rather than more
confounding losses in
Niger and Iraq. The temptation persists even as the last World War II veterans pass; old
notions of what combat is die with them.
The United States has lost its ethical and strategic way. Riddled with a virus that has now
killed more Americans than the Revolutionary, Mexican, Spanish, Indian, Philippine,
Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Afghan Wars
combined , this nation requires serious soul-searching. Reimagining its bookended summer
celebrations might be a good start; but it won't be easy.
In a new take on an old tradition, perhaps it's proper to not only pack away the whites, but
don black as a memorial to a republic in peril.
Matthew Hoh is a member of the advisory boards of Expose Facts, Veterans For
Peace and World Beyond War. He previously served in Iraq with a State Department team and with
the U.S. Marines. He is a Senior Fellow with the Center for International Policy.
As the United States embarks on a fourth month of a chain reaction of crises spurred by the novel Coronavirus, a president with
flagging re-election chances addressed a weary nation Friday. Donald Trump and senior members of his foreign policy and economic
teams -- top diplomat Michael
R. Pompeo , leading China hawk
Peter
Navarro , trade representative Robert Lighthizer
, National Security Council chief
Robert C. O'Brien and
Treasury secretary
Steve
Mnuchin -- unveiled fresh policy on the People's Republic of China. Trump's national address in the Rose Garden Friday was the
first since anarchic protests broke out in several American cities -- centrally, Minneapolis -- earlier this week, in response to
the controversial death of Minnesota man George Floyd at the hands of police, which followed months of national frustration.
China hawks -- including Navarro and powerbroker, informal advisors to the administration such as
Tucker
Carlson and Steve Bannon
-- have repeatedly urged an uncompromising response to the hostile actors in Beijing. Proponents of a tougher line have consistently
argued for a nationally-minded surge of power: the United States should have a tariff policy, and it should begin returning the nation's
critical supply chains closer to Washington's orbit. Yet, while Trump has been the most tough-minded president on China in at least
a generation, he has remained something of a moderate within his own court, as well as within a broader American foreign policy community
that's wised up and changed its mind on the Chinese state.
Balancing a national security legacy with shorter-term, finance-minded considerations has been a hallmark of the Trump approach.
This was perhaps most on display with the negotiation of the flawed
"Phase One " trade deal that was inked just before the pandemic began battering the American mainland. After laying out the depressing
recent history of American diplomacy toward Beijing, the president -- true to form -- began his address on the subject with an equivocal
tone: "But I have never solely blamed China for this. They were able to get away with the theft, like no one was able to get away
with before, because of past politicians, and frankly, past presidents."
Still, what was obvious Friday at the White House was a paradigm shift unimaginable even five years ago, just before Trump announced
for president. "We must have answers," Trump said. "Not only for us, but for the rest of the world. This pandemic has underscored
the crucial importance of building up America's economic independence, re-shoring our critical supply chains, and protecting America's
scientific and technological advances." The president said the United States is severing its relationship with the World Health Organization
-- under fire since the inception of the crisis for its toadyism toward the Chinese state. And he echoed the disappointing news announced
by Pompeo earlier this week -- that in the face of recent Chinese actions, the United States can longer consider the leadership in
Hong Kong distinct from the Communist Party.
The Hull Note to the Japanese Ambassador to the US in November 1941 consists of 2 sections. The first section is a "Draft mutual
declaration of policy" by stating these principles[6]:
inviolability of territorial integrity and sovereignty of each and all nations.
non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries.
equality, including equality of commercial opportunity and treatment.
reliance upon international cooperation and conciliation for the prevention and pacific settlement of controversies
non-discrimination in international commercial relations.
international economic cooperation and abolition of extreme nationalism as expressed in excessive trade restrictions.
non-discriminatory access by all nations to raw material supplies.
full protection of the interests of consuming countries and populations as regards the operation of international commodity agreements.
establishment of such institutions and arrangements of international finances
The second section consists of 10 points and is titled "Steps to be taken by the Government of the United States and by the
Government of Japan"[6]
The Neocons have finally corralled the President into a full blown, hegemonic Cold War with China rather than focus on reasonable
trade policies.
Hong-kong, I'm certain Pompeo and his crew has actually read the re-integration agreement w/China, given it a fair hearing
and after much reflection concluded that China is violating it rather than playing on everyone's emotions to stir up conflict.
What China has done in Hong-kong (how many deaths? zero) is worse than what the Saudis did by leveling one of their own Shiites
cities, eh, Iranian sympahtzers, we sold them the weapons.
or how France treated the Yellow Vests
or our new fascist best friends did in Bolivia by ousting an elected President and then canceling the elections they were supposed
to have in April.
lysias @ 109
... Here is a fine quote from Wolin's book (page 264) which illustrates the point (please
excuse the length of this quote):
A twofold moral might be drawn from the experience of Athens: that it is self-subverting
for democracy to subordinate its egalitarian convictions to the pursuit of expansive
politics with its corollaries of conquest and domination and the power relationships they
introduce. Few care to argue that, in political terms, democracy at home is advanced or
improved by conquest abroad.
As Athens showed and the United States of the twenty-first century confirmed,
imperialism undercuts democracy by furthering inequalities among its citizens. Resources
that might be used to improve health care, education, and environmental protection are
instead directed to defense spending, which, by far, con- sumes the largest percentage of
the nation's annual budget. Moreover, the sheer size and complexity of imperial power and
the expanded role of the military make it difficult to impose fiscal discipline and
accountability. Corruption becomes endemic, not only abroad but at home. The most dangerous
type of corruption for a democracy is measured not in monetary terms alone but in the kind
of ruthless power relations it fosters in domestic politics. As many observers have noted,
politics has become a blood sport with partisanship and ideological fidelity as the
hallmarks. A partisan judiciary is openly declared to be a major priority of a political
party; the efforts to consolidate executive power and to relegate Congress to a supporting
role are to some important degree the retrojection inwards of the imperial thrust.
Second, if Athens was the first historical instance of a confrontation between democracy
and elitism, that experience suggests that there is no simple recipe for resolving the
tensions between them. Political elites were a persistent, if uneasy and contested, feature
of Athenian democracy and a significant factor in both its expansion and its demise. In the
eyes of contemporary observers, such as Thucydides, as well as later historians, the
advancement of Athenian hegemony de- pended upon a public-spirited, able elite at the helm
and a demos will- ing to accept leadership. Conversely, the downfall of Athens was
attributed to the wiles and vainglory of leaders who managed to whip up popular support for
ill-conceived adventures. As the war dragged on and frustration grew, domestic politics
became more embittered and fractious: members of the elite competed to outbid each other by
pro\posing ever wilder schemes of conquest.
In two attempts (411–410 and 404–403) elites, abetted by the Spartans,
succeeded in temporarily abolishing democracy and installing rule by the Few.
...and while I am at it: lysias @ 106
Let's deconstruct what you've said. Even if he resisted arrest (by what degree was he
resisting?) that is not cause for applying deadly force on someone. Clearly he was restrained
and was going no where. Furthermore, the application of restraint should be one that ought
not induce death in someone with a previous health condition. By your rationale, you have no
business of walking the streets if you are not an able-bodied person and that death by
restraint by a police officer is excusable if you happen to be in bad health.
Although you don't explicitly say it, somehow it feels like you are saying that he had it
coming to him when you write "Floyd had a lengthy criminal record." Does that mean just
because he had a lengthy record he deserved to be roughed up like that? This sounds like
victim blaming, which is something commonly done in this country to continue to oppress
people who have no power.
"... corporate health insurance has far higher administrative costs than single-payer programs like Medicare , and even the much-vaunted Affordable Care Act allows insurers to siphon up to 20% of customers' premiums to corporate profits rather than actual medical care. ..."
"... That's probably why insurance companies have been lobbying for it . They know that such a program would boost their short-term profits, and they know that once such a program is in place, it would be politically difficult to get it repealed and replaced by progressives' far better Medicare for All program. In other words: Democrats' Cobra plan may secure insurance companies' profit-skimming position between Americans and their healthcare providers for decades to come. ..."
Democrats in
Washington are not just passively failing to mount an opposition to Trump. They are actively
helping Republicans. 'This corporate counterrevolution is easiest to see in Democrats' enthusiastic support for Republicans'
legislative response to the coronavirus crisis.'
These are bleak days for America's progressive movement. The
Democratic primary process handed the party's nomination to the candidate with the most
conservative record. Corporate-friendly politicians like the New York governor, Andrew Cuomo,
are using the pandemic to brandish their images and
install billionaires to run things . Progressive lawmakers in Congress are being
steamrolled,
even by their own party's leadership . And a recession is battering the state and local
budgets that fund progressive priorities like education and the social safety net.
Perhaps this is a temporary stall-out – a fleeting moment of retreat in a
two-steps-forward-one-step-back trajectory. After all, polls continue to show that from
workers'
rights to
universal healthcare , a majority of Americans support a progressive policy agenda.
The problem, though, is that Democrats in Washington are not just passively failing to mount
a strong opposition to Donald Trump – they are actively
helping Republicans try to fortify the obstacles to long-term progressive change well after
this emergency subsides.
This corporate counter-revolution is easiest to see in Democrats' enthusiastic support for
Republicans' legislative response to the coronavirus crisis. Democrats' entire 2018 electoral
campaign told America that the opposition party needed to win back Congress in order to block
Trump's regressive agenda. And yet, when the Republicans proposed a bill to let Trump's
appointees dole out government cash to their corporate allies with
no strings attached , this same opposition party mustered not a single
recorded vote against the package. Not one.
Thanks to that, Trump appointees and the Federal Reserve can now hand out $4tn to
politically connected corporations as they lay waste to our economy and steamroll progressive
reforms.
Private equity firms and
fossil fuel companies get new tax breaks as they buy elections and try to lock in permanent
climate change.
These bailouts were part of a larger legislative package that included good things like
expanded unemployment benefits – and so you could argue that Democrats simply had to swallow a bitter
pill and vote yes. Except, they subsequently proposed their own standalone legislation that
would further strengthen the corporate opponents of progressive reform.
For example, there is the Democrats' push to alter the so-called paycheck protection program
(PPP). Those loans were designed to help employees of mom-and-pop enterprises throughout the
country. House Democrats' new stimulus legislation would open up the small business lending
program to what they call "small nonprofits", but their language was crafted to provide the
forgivable loans to industry trade associations. Those lobby groups represent the planet's
biggest corporations – and their political action committees have delivered more than
$191m of
campaign cash to lawmakers in the last two decades.
Democrats have pitched their legislation as a "message" bill that declares their values
– and in this case, they are reassuring Washington power-players that money meant for
workers at neighborhood restaurants, local shops and other mom-and-pop concerns can be raided
by the front groups representing giant drug companies, health insurers and Wall Street firms.
If the legislation passes, it would not merely be an epic tale of greed – the new funding
stream for corporate lobbying groups would bolster the very forces that make sure federal
policy disempowers workers, maximizes private profit and generally protects the ruling
class.
The tragedy is we're already moving in that wrong direction, and chances to change the
dynamic don't come around often
It's an even worse story on healthcare. As 43
million Americans face the prospect of losing private health insurance, Democrats had a
huge opportunity. After Trump himself suggested he wanted the government to
pay healthcare providers directly for treating uninsured Covid-19 patients, they could have
called his bluff and passed
existing legislation to expand a Medicare program that provides actual medical care.
Instead, House Democrats passed a bill to support lightly regulated private insurance
marketplaces and to subsidize existing private insurance plans through a Rube Goldberg machine
known as Cobra – and they passed this giveaway just after receiving an infusion
of campaign cash collected by insurance lobbyists.
Taken together, these initiatives would route yet more public money through a corporate
insurance bureaucracy in hopes that medical care eventually trickles down to Americans who
desperately need it. Such a system is totally inadequate during a pandemic: it doesn't
guarantee healthcare – it only only guarantees insurance coverage, which is so often
denied or restricted when a medical claim is actually filed. Moreover, corporate health
insurance has far
higher administrative costs than single-payer programs like Medicare , and even
the much-vaunted Affordable Care Act allows insurers to siphon up to 20% of
customers' premiums to corporate profits rather than actual medical care.
But then, Democrats' Cobra plan is not merely a financial bailout for insurers – it is
also a political bailout when the industry needs it most. At a time when popular support for
Medicare for All is surging
– when even a Republican president feels the need to make rhetorical (if empty)
gestures toward the concept of government-funded healthcare – the Cobra plan would
use public money to firm up the private health insurance industry's dominance over the
healthcare system, just in time to short circuit a Medicare expansion.
That's probably why insurance companies have been lobbying
for it . They know that such a program would boost their short-term profits, and they know
that once such a program is in place, it would be politically difficult to get it repealed and
replaced by progressives' far better Medicare for All program. In other words: Democrats' Cobra
plan may secure insurance companies' profit-skimming position between Americans and their
healthcare providers for decades to come.
If you get the sense that the fix is in and this is all deliberate, you're not wrong. Many
of the self-styled progressive
advocacy groups in Washington that posture as #resistance leaders turned a blind eye to the
bill's problems and endorsed the legislation shortly after it was introduced, undercutting
progressive lawmakers off the bat.
Making matters worse was the theater on the House floor. During the debate over the
Democratic bill, nine progressive lawmakers made a
public show of voting against the procedural measure to
advance the bill, along with a tiny group of moderates. When it came to the real vote on
actually passing the bill, a larger group of moderates ended up voting against it, but only one
progressive lawmaker, Representative Pramila Jayapal, voted no . Had the progressives and moderates
combined forces on either of the votes, they would have forced the bill back to the drawing
board. Instead, their shenanigans ultimately helped secure the legislation's passage.
Taken together, the spectacle was more confirmation that whatever resistance exists in the
nation's capital, it is so often performance art, rather than anything real.
"Outside groups and House lawmakers need to work together to build a populist bloc –
probably inclusive of moderate Democrats and perhaps even an occasional Republican – who
will stand united to force votes to ensure that our economy does right by ordinary people,"
said David Segal of Demand Progress, pointing to news of a
potential Democratic coalition to buck the party's leadership and support a plan to float
businesses' payrolls through the crisis. "We must make sure that America does not go in the
wrong direction and become even more inequitable because we let unemployment soar, compel
cities and states to implement austerity, force small businesses to shutter and let large
corporations backstopped by the Fed roll them up."
The tragedy is that we're already moving in that wrong direction, and chances to change the
political dynamic do not come around often. As Barack Obama's former chief of staff Rahm
Emanuel (now an investment
banker and TV talking head)
said more than a decade ago during the financial crisis: "Never allow a good crisis to go
to waste – it's an opportunity to do the things you once thought were impossible."
Billionaires and corporations are clearly following that advice, aiming to use the pandemic
to grow their wealth and political power in previously unfathomable ways. It would be better if
the opposition party put up a real fight – or at least refused to be complicit in
postponing progress for yet another generation.
David Sirota is a Guardian US columnist and
Jacobin editor at large who served as Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign speechwriter. He
also publishes Too Much Information
newsletter.
"... You will find in Sheldon Wolin's final book "Democracy Incorporated" an intricate dissection of this precept in the modern form through his analysis of America's decaying trajectory. Thank you for reminding us of this. ..."
"... As Athens showed and the United States of the twenty-first century confirmed, imperialism undercuts democracy by furthering inequalities among its citizens. Resources that might be used to improve health care, education, and environmental protection are instead directed to defense spending, which, by far, consumes the largest percentage of the nation's annual budget. ..."
"... Second, if Athens was the first historical instance of a confrontation between democracy and elitism, that experience suggests that there is no simple recipe for resolving the tensions between them. Political elites were a persistent, if uneasy and contested, feature of Athenian democracy and a significant factor in both its expansion and its demise. ..."
"... As the war dragged on and frustration grew, domestic politics became more embittered and fractious: members of the elite competed to outbid each other by proposing ever wilder schemes of conquest. ..."
You can't be a Democracy at home and an empire aboard, the violence of empire will always turn against the very idea
of democracy.
Yes, a keen observation of what ultimately undid Athens. You will find in Sheldon Wolin's final book "Democracy Incorporated"
an intricate dissection of this precept in the modern form through his analysis of America's decaying trajectory. Thank you for
reminding us of this.
lysias @ 109
A variety of scholars who study that period would disagree with you: You cannot maintain an empire abroad and democracy at
home. The two principles are diametrically opposite to one another. It's what caused the democracy of Athens (which was limited
to men -- as usual) to ultimately lose its internal cohesion and reason to be. Yes, formally it was incorporated into the Macedonian
empire, but its demise came because Athens' imperial ambitions sapped domestic resources which further contributed to the trend
toward inequality within the society.
Here is a fine quote from Wolin's book (page 264) which illustrates the point (please excuse the length of this quote):
A twofold moral might be drawn from the experience of Athens: that it is self-subverting for democracy to subordinate its egalitarian
convictions to the pursuit of expansive politics with its corollaries of conquest and domination and the power relationships
they introduce. Few care to argue that, in political terms, democracy at home is advanced or improved by conquest abroad.
As Athens showed and the United States of the twenty-first century confirmed, imperialism undercuts democracy by furthering
inequalities among its citizens. Resources that might be used to improve health care, education, and environmental protection
are instead directed to defense spending, which, by far, consumes the largest percentage of the nation's annual budget.
Moreover, the sheer size and complexity of imperial power and the expanded role of the military make it difficult to impose
fiscal discipline and account- ability. Corruption becomes endemic, not only abroad but at home. The most dangerous type of
corruption for a democracy is measured not in monetary terms alone but in the kind of ruthless power relations it fosters in
domestic politics. As many observers have noted, politics has become a blood sport with partisanship and ideological fidelity
as the hallmarks. A partisan judiciary is openly declared to be a major priority of a political party; the efforts to consolidate
executive power and to relegate Congress to a supporting role are to some important degree the retrojection inwards of the
imperial thrust.
Second, if Athens was the first historical instance of a confrontation between democracy and elitism, that experience
suggests that there is no simple recipe for resolving the tensions between them. Political elites were a persistent, if uneasy
and contested, feature of Athenian democracy and a significant factor in both its expansion and its demise.
In the eyes of contemporary observers, such as Thucydides, as well as later historians, the advancement of Athenian hegemony
de- pended upon a public-spirited, able elite at the helm and a demos will- ing to accept leadership. Conversely, the downfall
of Athens was attributed to the wiles and vainglory of leaders who managed to whip up popular support for ill-conceived adventures.
As the war dragged on and frustration grew, domestic politics became more embittered and fractious: members of the elite
competed to outbid each other by proposing ever wilder schemes of conquest. In two attempts (411–410 and 404–403) elites,
abetted by the Spartans, succeeded in temporarily abolshing democracy and installing rule by the Few.
According to Aristotelian definitions, the US is a full blown demagogic oligarchy. The so
called free elections, are just well choreographed and well sanitized pageants with a very
predictable outcome, that is continuous support of said oligarchy. Look at the next election:
Americans have to choose between a Vegetable and a Trump!
China, as Russia, or Iran, and a couple of other pariah states represent the idea of an
existing sovereign, and what we are witnessing today is this continuation of the struggle
between the powerful nobility, the oligarchy, and the remaining sovereigns. Sovereigns might
be tyrants, as MbS in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (and they are tolerated by the world's top
oligarchy because it is amusing and quite a useful to have this particular pet "sovereign"),
but they also could be representing in a larger measure the interest of hoi poloi, like in
China, Russia, Iran, etc.
So all this article here does is to continue in misrepresenting the reality and creating
an approved narrative. I think we should remember Lenin's description of politics as "who
does what to whom". We can see the trajectory of the US and who does what to whom and the
trajectory of China, or Russia since Putin: in one, oligarchy gets the goodies, prints the
money, goes to war, cuts support for hoi poloi, whereas in the others hoi poloi manage year
by year to live better lives.
The Americans will remember as the golden age the period between 1940s and 1970s, and in
fact most of developed world will do that. And then things changed for the worst, or, maybe,
for the "normal". Again, as Aristotle argued, the tendency for polities is to be organized as
oligarchies. But to avoid the little boys that point that the emperor has no clothes, one
needs to have some pageant in place, and the solution is a Demagogic Oligarchic Republic.
Yes, the weakness of China is very apparent, and it is the greatest in Public Relations.
They should send some students to get well educated in Western history, economic history, and
philosophy, psychology, sociology, law, logic, and rhetoric, etc. They have enough STEM
graduates from within China and from without. They have to seriously invest in winning the
narrative and ideological battle, with Oligarchy's tools and language.
Congresswoman Tulsi
Gabbard (D-Hawaii) has chosen to let Hillary Clinton get away with calling her an agent of
the Kremlin, dropping the defamation lawsuit for the sake of party unity and defeating
President Donald Trump.
While Gabbard and her campaign "remain certain of the action's legal merit," the new reality
of the Covid-19 pandemic requires them to "focus their time and attention on other priorities,
including defeating Donald Trump in 2020, rather than righting the wrongs here," her
attorney Dan Terzian wrote in the court filing withdrawing the lawsuit on Wednesday.
It was a far cry from the fiery tone of the original complaint, filed in January, accusing
Clinton of lying "publicly, unambiguously, and with obvious malicious intent" when she claimed
Gabbard was "the favorite of the Russians," in an October 2019 interview.
Gabbard's withdrawal of the defamation claim against Clinton clearly represents the final
stage of 'bending the knee' to the party.....
We keep coming back for more under the hope that things will improve and the beatings will
stop. How many elections have we had to choose the lesser of two evils? I'm done with that. I
will continuously send a message, if you present me with a lousy candidate who is a neoliberal,
necon war hawk I will not vote for him/her. The current implementation of the scheme for voting
for president as somewhat defined in the constitution is fatally flawed. I will support
replacing it with rank choice as a minimum, and guaranteeing voter rights during the process.
The Dem party made the point that they can do anything they like to chose a presidential
nominee, and screw the voter. Here's my algorithm:
1) Never vote for the favorite of Nancy and Chucky. If a Dem then he/she had better be a
Progressive to the bone, principled and unwavering. That excludes you, Bernie.
2) Vote for a third party, like the Green Party, if they have good politics, like Dr. Jill
Stein.
3) Vote for the Republican if they are reasonable in their politics. If the Republican and
Democrat are similar, then vote Republican. We need to send a strong signal to the Dems that we
will not accept establishment candidates. They are supposed to be the Left party.
4) Don't vote. I don't like this one, but it might be necessary.
So now I come to the most difficult part. If you hate Biden and want to punish the Dem party
for nominating him and you want the most effective protest, then you vote for Trump. It sends
twice as effective signal. As an example. if 2 million people vote for trump and 2,010,00 vote
for Biden and 20,000 Progressives vote third party or stay at home then Biden wins. If 10,001
progressives vote for trump then Biden loses. Numerically it's twice as effective to vote for
trump. So it entirely depends on your motivation. If it's to punish the Dem party relative to
having a dangerous flake for president then vote for Trump (well, actually they are both
dangerous flakes, Trump more so). I will probably vote Green again. But you need to know this,
and not engage in voter shaming for progressives who make the decision to vote for Trump.
If 10,001 progressives vote for trump then Biden loses. Numerically it's twice as effective
to vote for trump. So it entirely depends on your motivation. If it's to punish the Dem party
relative to having a dangerous flake for president then vote for Trump (well, actually they
are both dangerous flakes,
What was the message Bill Clinton and the DP took from the 1992 election?
(D) 43.01% & 370 EV
(R) 37.45% & 168 EV
(I) 18.91% & 0 EV
Complete the GHWB agenda (excluding the flag burning amendment) and then take down major
parts of the New Deal that Republicans had yet to advance. That wasn't the message most
Democratic and Perot voters sent.
Trump will be far more dangerous in a second term if he surpasses his 2016 popular vote
and/or popular vote percentage. On the percentage, the non-voters are a non-factor and
therefore, enhance the delusion of the popular vote winner.
There's not a single state where a vote for Trump as a left protest sends a message that
could possibly be heard by the DP poobahs as anything other than, gotta move more to the
right.
Check out the following:
1996 -- voter turn-out 49%; Bill Clinton - 49.2% & 379 EV
2000 -
turn-out 51.2% - Gore 48.4%, GWB 47.9% & 271 EV (why did the DP roll over for GWB)?
New Hampshire: Gore 46.8%, GWB 48.97, Nader 3.9% (turn-out 569,081).
Recall that GWB claimed a mandate after the '04 election -- (compared to the 2000 election
results, he did do better; plus the GOP added Senate and House seats to its majority) -- but
that's when he overreached and then pulled back (for the good of the party?).
We keep coming back for more under the hope that things will improve and the beatings
will stop. How many elections have we had to choose the lesser of two evils? I'm done with
that. I will continuously send a message, if you present me with a lousy candidate who is a
neoliberal, necon war hawk I will not vote for him/her. The current implementation of the
scheme for voting for president as somewhat defined in the constitution is fatally flawed.
I will support replacing it with rank choice as a minimum, and guaranteeing voter rights
during the process. The Dem party made the point that they can do anything they like to
chose a presidential nominee, and screw the voter. Here's my algorithm:
1) Never vote for the favorite of Nancy and Chucky. If a Dem then he/she had better be a
Progressive to the bone, principled and unwavering. That excludes you, Bernie.
2) Vote for a third party, like the Green Party, if they have good politics, like Dr.
Jill Stein.
3) Vote for the Republican if they are reasonable in their politics. If the Republican
and Democrat are similar, then vote Republican. We need to send a strong signal to the Dems
that we will not accept establishment candidates. They are supposed to be the Left
party.
4) Don't vote. I don't like this one, but it might be necessary.
So now I come to the most difficult part. If you hate Biden and want to punish the Dem
party for nominating him and you want the most effective protest, then you vote for Trump.
It sends twice as effective signal. As an example. if 2 million people vote for trump and
2,010,00 vote for Biden and 20,000 Progressives vote third party or stay at home then Biden
wins. If 10,001 progressives vote for trump then Biden loses. Numerically it's twice as
effective to vote for trump. So it entirely depends on your motivation. If it's to punish
the Dem party relative to having a dangerous flake for president then vote for Trump (well,
actually they are both dangerous flakes, Trump more so). I will probably vote Green again.
But you need to know this, and not engage in voter shaming for progressives who make the
decision to vote for Trump.
I think we can no longer vote between two crooked parties, and bite the bullet and vote for
anyone not Republican or Democrat. A vote is never "wasted" unless it's not counted.
Refusing to get in line with the mainstream and go though a ritual every couple of years
to reaffirm and send a message of consent to this government and its actions. This is a
meaningful message, for those who choose this this option.
This may indeed be how you feel, but that is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, not how the
message is received.
You want proof?
First of all, how does the government respond to your lack of action? Do they seem concerned?
Or would they prefer that even fewer people voted?
You know the answer.
But let's make it personal. When you host an event and someone you know doesn't come, is
your first guess that they didn't come because they are angry and protesting your event? Or
that they are indifferent?
Be honest. Occam's Razor says to assume that people don't care.
The author wants to denigrate any of the options he presents other than his own preferred
"more and better democrats" efforts.
No, Obviously not. You didn't read this essay very closely.
I'll be voting 3rd party myself (with the exception for the guy who is running against
Pelosi).
For some, not voting sends a different message: I do not consent .
That is NOT:
1. Giving up.
2. Not caring.
3. Being "disengaged and apathetic."
Refusing to get in line with the mainstream and go though a ritual every couple of years
to reaffirm and send a message of consent to this government and its actions. This is a
meaningful message, for those who choose this this option. The author wants to denigrate
any of the options he presents other than his own preferred "more and better democrats"
efforts.
First of all, I did not say this is how I feel. I said, for SOME people, that is their
message. I personally find your disparaging adjectives about their choice as generalized
insults, and that is evidently your intention. Why else would you insist that those making the
choice to send their own message through their own chosen means are universally "disengaged and
apathetic" -- when you know very well that it not true. I wish you could advocate your
generalized advice on what others should do (despite claiming not to make that choice yourself)
without the character insults.
2. Questions are NOT "proof" of anything, so please stop throwing out rhetorical questions
and calling them "proof" that your opinion is the only right one.
You want to play that game... ok.
how does the government respond to your lack of action? Do they seem concerned? Or would
they prefer that even fewer people voted?
You know the answer.
How does the government respond to 'better democrats' winning primaries? Or even winning
seats from incumbents? Does anything change? What did AOC do after unseating Joe Crowley? Oh
yeah, that's right, she's working to get Biden elected. YAY! Do "they" seem concerned? You know
the answer.
I don't think "they" give a f*ck precisely how many people vote or don't vote. As long
as enough people vote to continue the illusion of consent of the governed, "they" are quite
happy.
It does not matter one tiny iota how the PTB "receive" whatever message a vote or non-vote
sends. They Do Not Care if you vote for another AOC or not. I think the message "they" receive
from such a vote (and monetary support of such candidates) is that the system is working just
fine, the money is coming in and the peasants are not revolting, so it's all good and nothing
will fundamentally change. (Sure, political professionals will huff and puff and put on a good
show of acting like they are "upset" -- that is their job. The show must go on to keep the
system chugging along.) But the actual Powers that Be who actually make the decisions?
They do not give a shit who you vote or don't vote for or anything else about you.
You want proof? What actual changes for the better have happened because some supposedly
progressive candidate won an election?
Heh... this "rhetorical question as proof of my views" thing is kinda fun, isn't it?
But back in reality, you cannot prove what 'they' want. If I personally organized an event
and people didn't come, I would ask them why, rather than making an uninformed assumption. Or I
might assume that whatever my event is about didn't engage their interest enough to get them
there. Maybe I needed to adjust my pitch? Or maybe even change my objectives, if I want to
interest more people? I would think, why are they not interested? And then try to fix it. I
don't think I'd automatically assume it just means they are a bunch of lazy slackers, and then
carry on as if they don't matter. Except, of course, if they DIDN'T matter to me ...in which
case I would call them names like "disengaged and apathetic" and then do nothing to engage
them.
Sound familiar, at all?
You do not have proof of what 'they' want, or of what it means to other people and the
message they want to send with either A vote or a not-vote.
What you have is simply an opinion. And you are entitled to it, of course, right or
wrong.
I just wish you would advocate your point of view and your "do-what-I-say-Not-what-I-do"
message, without disparaging and brow-beating of those who see things differently. Your need to
"prove them wrong" is unnecessary and your advocacy would be better received without it, in my
opinion.
Refusing to get in line with the mainstream and go though a ritual every couple of
years to reaffirm and send a message of consent to this government and its actions. This
is a meaningful message, for those who choose this this option.
This may indeed be how you feel, but that is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, not how the
message is received.
You want proof?
First of all, how does the government respond to your lack of action? Do they seem
concerned? Or would they prefer that even fewer people voted?
You know the answer.
But let's make it personal. When you host an event and someone you know doesn't come, is
your first guess that they didn't come because they are angry and protesting your event? Or
that they are indifferent?
Be honest. Occam's Razor says to assume that people don't care.
The author wants to denigrate any of the options he presents other than his own
preferred "more and better democrats" efforts.
No, Obviously not. You didn't read this essay very closely.
I'll be voting 3rd party myself (with the exception for the guy who is running against
Pelosi).
@CS in AZ
or if you felt that it was pointless to try sending a message (which is exactly what you just
said), then why are you here commenting in my essay?
I am honestly curious.
I personally find your disparaging adjectives about their choice as generalized insults,
and that is evidently your intention.
You think that I would go to all this trouble just to insult people?
Why else would you insist that those making the choice to send their own message through
their own chosen means are universally "disengaged and apathetic" -- when you know very well
that it not true. I wish you could advocate your generalized advice on what others should do
(despite claiming not to make that choice yourself) without the character insults.
So you think this was an attack on you, huh?
Well, good. Because that's what I intended when I wrote this.
I thought "Gee, I haven't attacked whats-his-face in a long time."
I'm glad the message got through.
You might have noticed that all of my essays are secret attacks on you personally.
I honestly can't take this response seriously.
If you think this extremely mild essay is "disparaging and brow-beating of those who see
things differently" then you must feel like you are under siege all the time.
First of all, I did not say this is how I feel. I said, for SOME people, that is their
message. I personally find your disparaging adjectives about their choice as generalized
insults, and that is evidently your intention. Why else would you insist that those making
the choice to send their own message through their own chosen means are universally
"disengaged and apathetic" -- when you know very well that it not true. I wish you could
advocate your generalized advice on what others should do (despite claiming not to make
that choice yourself) without the character insults.
2. Questions are NOT "proof" of anything, so please stop throwing out rhetorical
questions and calling them "proof" that your opinion is the only right one.
You want to play that game... ok.
how does the government respond to your lack of action? Do they seem concerned? Or
would they prefer that even fewer people voted?
You know the answer.
How does the government respond to 'better democrats' winning primaries? Or even winning
seats from incumbents? Does anything change? What did AOC do after unseating Joe Crowley?
Oh yeah, that's right, she's working to get Biden elected. YAY! Do "they" seem concerned?
You know the answer.
I don't think "they" give a f*ck precisely how many people vote or don't vote. As
long as enough people vote to continue the illusion of consent of the governed, "they" are
quite happy.
It does not matter one tiny iota how the PTB "receive" whatever message a vote or
non-vote sends. They Do Not Care if you vote for another AOC or not. I think the message
"they" receive from such a vote (and monetary support of such candidates) is that the
system is working just fine, the money is coming in and the peasants are not revolting, so
it's all good and nothing will fundamentally change. (Sure, political professionals will
huff and puff and put on a good show of acting like they are "upset" -- that is their job.
The show must go on to keep the system chugging along.) But the actual Powers that Be who
actually make the decisions? They do not give a shit who you vote or don't vote for
or anything else about you.
You want proof? What actual changes for the better have happened because some supposedly
progressive candidate won an election?
Heh... this "rhetorical question as proof of my views" thing is kinda fun, isn't it?
But back in reality, you cannot prove what 'they' want. If I personally organized an
event and people didn't come, I would ask them why, rather than making an uninformed
assumption. Or I might assume that whatever my event is about didn't engage their interest
enough to get them there. Maybe I needed to adjust my pitch? Or maybe even change my
objectives, if I want to interest more people? I would think, why are they not interested?
And then try to fix it. I don't think I'd automatically assume it just means they are a
bunch of lazy slackers, and then carry on as if they don't matter. Except, of course, if
they DIDN'T matter to me ...in which case I would call them names like "disengaged and
apathetic" and then do nothing to engage them.
Sound familiar, at all?
You do not have proof of what 'they' want, or of what it means to other people and the
message they want to send with either A vote or a not-vote.
What you have is simply an opinion. And you are entitled to it, of course, right or
wrong.
I just wish you would advocate your point of view and your "do-what-I-say-Not-what-I-do"
message, without disparaging and brow-beating of those who see things differently. Your
need to "prove them wrong" is unnecessary and your advocacy would be better received
without it, in my opinion.
For me to vote now sends the message that I've finally fallen for their bullshit and believe
my vote means something.
Then you'll need to go to the voting booth and write F*ck You on the ballot. (That would be an action I would strongly support)
As for right now, I can assure you that the political establishment thinks that you just
don't care, and that pleases them. They have no ability to read your mind.
So the only message that you send by not voting is "I don't care" or "I give up."
But technically, I've never voted so I never had anything to "give up". There's never
been a reason to waste my time here in MAGAland where people still believe that if you work
hard enough, you too can be a billionaire.
For me to vote now sends the message that I've finally fallen for their bullshit and
believe my vote means something. I haven't; it doesn't.
At this point in my life, I think it's safe to say that I will likely die a voting
virgin.
I'm actually glad that I don't have to vote for Bernie. Better to find out now that he'd
just go along to get along. Now I don't have to be ashamed that I actually fell for his
lies.
I too voted in the primary. For Bernie sanders delegates. What a waste of time that was. Voting against the establishment in local primaries? I did that too. Here in Cook County the
primary winner is THE winner. (R)'s don't even bother putting up a token candidate.
Local State's Attorney Kim Foxx has come under a firestorm of criticism for letting off the
rich and well-connected. Foxx is black. She had a white challenger. The party engineered two
other white challengers, nobodies with ethnic names, one Irish, one Italian. Foxx won with 40%
of the vote. Almost two to one against her and she is assured of her re-election.
There isn't a functional Republican Party in Illinois as there was in my youth. The party is
full of Tea Party zealots, religious nutjobs, and MAGA Trumpistas aka modern Know-Nothings.
No longer any liberal republicans or even conservative Republicans with a sense of noblesse
oblige like the late Senator Dirksen.
You might think that at least in Cook County there might be a Left Party, but the Greens run
a few candidates for the Water Reclamation Board that's all. Their focus is the environment
only. Most voters are concerned with taxes (very regressive)), jobs and crime. Greens are
silent on these issues.
I vote Green as a protest, but I know it is just a protest.
by
Los Angeles TimesUS Public Remain the Tacit Accomplice in America's Dead End Wars
Honor the fallen, but not every war they were sent to fight by Andrew Bacevich
Tweet
Share
Mail
Share
Share
19
Comments A U.S. soldier fires an anti-tank rocket during a live-fire exercise in Zabul
province, Afghanistan, in July 2010. (Photo: U.S. Army /flickr/cc) Not
least among the victims claimed by the coronavirus pandemic was a poetry recital that was to
have occurred in March at a theater in downtown Boston.
I had been invited to read aloud a poem, and I chose "On a Soldier Fallen in the
Philippines," written in 1899 by William Vaughn Moody (1869-1910). You are unlikely to have
heard of the poet or his composition. Great literature, it is not. Yet its message is
memorable.
The subject of Moody's poem is death, a matter today much on all our minds. It recounts the
coming home of a nameless American soldier, killed in the conflict commonly but misleadingly
known as the Philippine Insurrection.
In 1898, U.S. troops landed in Manila to oust the Spanish overlords who had ruled the
Philippines for more than three centuries. They accomplished this mission with the dispatch
that a later generation of U.S. forces demonstrated in ousting regimes in Kabul and Baghdad.
Yet as was the case with the Afghanistan and Iraq wars of our own day, real victory proved
elusive.
Back in Washington, President McKinley decided that having liberated the Philippines, the
United States would now keep them. The entire archipelago of several thousand islands was to
become an American colony.
McKinley's decision met with immediate disfavor among Filipinos. To oust the foreign
occupiers, they mounted an armed resistance. A vicious conflict ensued, one that ultimately
took the lives of 4,200 American soldiers and at least 200,000 Filipinos. In the end, however,
the United States prevailed.
Denying Filipino independence was the cause for which the subject of Moody's poem died.
Long since forgotten by Americans, the war to pacify the Philippines generated in its day
great controversy. Moody's poem is an artifact of that controversy. In it, he chastises those
who perform the rituals of honoring the fallen while refusing to acknowledge the dubious nature
of the cause for which they fought. "Toll! Let the great bells toll," he writes,
Till the clashing air is dim,
Did we wrong this parted soul?
We will make it up to him.
Toll! Let him never guess
What work we sent him to.
Laurel, laurel, yes.
He did what we bade him do.
Praise, and never a whispered hint
but the fight he fought was good;
In actuality, the fight was anything but good. It was ill-advised and resulted in great
evil. "On a Soldier Fallen in the Philippines" expresses a demand for reckoning with that evil.
Americans of Moody's generation rejected that demand, just as Americans today balk at reckoning
with the consequences of our own ill-advised wars.
Yet the imperative persists. "O banners, banners here," Moody concludes,
That he doubt not nor misgive!
That he heed not from the tomb
The evil days draw near
When the nation robed in gloom
With its faithless past shall strive.
Let him never dream that his bullet's scream
went wide of its island mark,
Home to the heart of his darling land
where she stumbled and sinned in the dark.
At the end of the 19th century, the United States stumbled and sinned in the dark by waging
a misbegotten campaign to advance nakedly imperial ambitions. At the beginning of the 21st
century, new wars became the basis of comparable sin. The war of Moody's time and the wars of
our own have almost nothing in common except this: In each instance, through their passivity
disguised as patriotism, the American people became tacitly complicit in wrongdoing committed
in their name.
It is no doubt too glib by half to claim that today, besieged by a virus, we are reaping the
consequences caused by our refusal to reckon with past sins. Yet it is not too glib to argue
that the need for such a reckoning remains. Have we wronged the departed souls of those who
died -- indeed, are still dying -- in Afghanistan and Iraq? The question cries out for an
answer. In our cacophonous age, it just might be that we will find that answer in poetry.
Obama ears protrude above this whole revaval of McCarthysim. he should end like the senator
McCarthy -- disgraced. And the damage caused by RussiaGate was already done and is
irrevocable.
CrowdStrike – the forensic investigation firm hired by the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) to inspect its computer servers in 2016 – admitted to Congressional
investigators as early as 2017 that it had no direct evidence of Russian hacking, recently
declassified documents show.
CrowdStrike's president Shawn Henry testified, "There's not evidence that [documents and
emails] were actually exfiltrated [from the DNC servers]. There's circumstantial evidence but
no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated." This was a crucial revelation because the
thousand ships of Russiagate launched upon the positive assertion that CrowdStrike had
definitely proven a Russian hack. This sworn admission has been hidden from the public for over
two years, and subsequent commentary has focused on that singular outrage.
The next deductive step, though, leads to an equally crucial point: Circumstantial evidence
of Russian hacking is itself flimsy and collapses when not propped up by a claim of conclusive
forensic testing.
THE COVER UP.
On March 19, 2016, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, surrendered his emails
to an unknown entity in a "spear phishing" scam. This has been called a "hack," but it was not.
Instead, it is was the sort of flim-flam hustle that happens to gullible dupes on the
internet.
The content of the emails was beyond embarrassing. They
showed election fraud and coordination with the media against the candidacy of Bernie
Sanders. The DNC and the Clinton campaign needed a cover story.
There already existed in Washington brooding suspicion that Vladimir Putin was working to
influence elections in the West. The DNC and the Clinton campaign set out to retrofit that
supposition to explain the emails.
On January 16, 2016, a silk-stocking Washington D.C. think tank, The Atlantic Council
(remember that name), had issued a
dispatch under the banner headline: "US Intelligence Agencies to Investigate Russia's
Infiltration of European Political Parties."
The lede was concise: "American intelligence agencies are to conduct a major investigation
into how the Kremlin is infiltrating political parties in Europe, it can be revealed."
There followed a series of pull quotes from an article that appeared in the The Telegraph ,
including that "James Clapper, the US Director of National Intelligence" was investigating
whether right wing political movements in Europe were sourced in "Russian meddling."
The dispatch spoke of "A dossier" that revealed "Russian influence operations" in Europe.
This was the first time trippy words like "Russian meddling" and "dossier" would appear
together in the American lexicon.
Most importantly, the piece revealed the Obama administration was spying on conservative
European political parties. This means, almost necessarily under the Five
Eyes Agreement , foreign agents were returning the favor and spying on the Trump
campaign.
Blaming Russia would be a handy way to deal with the Podesta emails. The problem was the
technologically impossibility of identifying the perpetrator in a phishing scheme. The only way
to associate Putin with the emails was circumstantially. The DNC retained CrowdStrike to
provide assistance.
On June 12, 2016, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
announced : "We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton . . . We have emails
pending publication."
Two days later, CrowdStrike fed the Washington Post a
story , headlined, "Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on
Trump."
The improbable tale was that the Russians had hacked the DNC computer servers and got away
with some opposition research on Trump. The article quoted CrowdStrike's chief technology
officer and co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, who also happens to be a senior fellow at the
Atlantic Council.
The next day, a new blog – Guccifer 2.0 – appeared on the
internet and announced:
Worldwide known cyber security company CrowdStrike announced that the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) servers had been hacked by "sophisticated" hacker groups.
I'm very pleased the company appreciated my skills so highly))) But in fact, it was easy,
very easy.
Guccifer may have been the first one who penetrated Hillary Clinton's and other Democrats'
mail servers. But he certainly wasn't the last. No wonder any other hacker could easily get
access to the DNC's servers.
Shame on CrowdStrike: Do you think I've been in the DNC's networks for almost a year and
saved only 2 documents? Do you really believe it?
Here are just a few docs from many thousands I extracted when hacking into DNC's
network.
Guccifer 2.0 posted hundreds of pages of Trump opposition research allegedly hacked from the
DNC and emailed copies to Gawker and The Smoking Gun . In raw form, the opposition research was
one of the documents obtained in the Podesta emails, with a notable difference: It was widely
reported the document now contained "
Russian fingerprints ."
The document had been cut and pasted into a separate Russian Word template that yielded
an abundance of Russian "error "messages . In the
document's metadata was the name of the Russian secret police founder, Felix Dzerzhinsky,
written in the Russian language. The three-parenthesis formulation from the original post ")))"
is the Russian version of a smiley face used
commonly on social media. In addition, the blog's author deliberately used a Russian
VPN service visible in its emails even though there would have been many options to hide
national affiliation.
CrowdStrike would later test the computers and declare this to be the work of sophisticated
Russian spies. Alperovitch described it as, " skilled operational tradecraft ."
There is nothing skilled, though, in ham-handedly disclosing a Russian identity on the
internet when trying to hide it. The more reasonable inference is that this was a set-up. It
certainly looks like Guccifer 2.0 suddenly appeared in coordination with the Washington Post 's
article that appeared the previous day.
THE FRAME UP.
Knowing as we now do that CrowdStrike never corroborated a hack by forensic analysis, the
reasonable inference is that somebody was trying to frame Russia. Most likely, the entities
that spent three years falsely leading the world to believe that direct evidence of a hack
existed – CrowdStrike and the DNC – were the ones involved in the frame-up.
Lending weight to this theory: at the same moment CrowdStrike was raising a false Russian
flag, a different entity, Fusion GPS – also paid by the DNC – was inventing a
phony dossier that ridiculously connected Trump to Russia.
Somehow, the ruse worked.
Rather than report the content of the incriminating emails, the watchdog press instead
reported CrowdStrike's bad explanation: that Putin-did-it.
Incredibly, Trump was placed on the defensive for email leaks that showed his opponent
fixing the primaries. His campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was forced to resign because a
fake ledger suddenly appeared out of Ukraine connecting him to Russia.
Trump protested by stating the obvious: the federal government has "no idea" who was behind
the hacks. The FBI and CIA called him a liar, issuing a "
Joint Statement " that cited Guccifer 2.0, suggesting 17 intelligence agencies agree that
it was the Russians.
Hillary Clinton took advantage of this "intelligence assessment" in the October debate to
portray Trump as Putin's stooge"
"We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that
these espionage attacks, these cyber-attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin.
And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing,"
said Clinton.
The media's fact checkers
excoriated Trump for lying. This was the ultimate campaign dirty trick: a joint operation
by the intelligence agencies and the media against a political candidate. It has since been
learned that the "17 intelligence agencies" claptrap was always
false . Those responsible for the exaggeration were James Clapper, James Comey and John
Brennan.
Somehow, Trump won anyway.
Those who assert that it is a "conspiracy theory" to say that CrowdStrike would fabricate
the results of computer forensic testing to create a false Russian flag should know that it was
caught doing exactly that around the time it was inspecting the DNC computers.
On Dec. 22, 2016, CrowdStrike caused an international stir when it claimed to have uncovered
evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery computer app to help pro-Russian
separatists. Voice of America later determined the claim
was false , and CrowdStrike retracted its finding. Ukraine's Ministry of Defense was forced
to eat crow and admit that the hacking never happened. If you wanted a computer testing firm to
fabricate a Russian hack for political reasons in 2016, CrowdStrike was who you went out and
hired.
Perhaps most insidiously, the Obama administration played the phony Russian interference
card during the transition to try to end Trump's presidency before it started. As I
wrote in December 2017:
Michael Flynn was indicted for a conversation he had with the Russian ambassador on
December 28, 2016, seven weeks after the election.
That was the day after the outgoing president expelled 35 Russian diplomats -- including
gardeners and chauffeurs -- for interfering in the election. Yes, that really happened.
The Obama administration had wiretapped Flynn's conversation with the ambassador, hoping
to find him saying something they could use to support their wild story about collusion.
The outrage, for some reason, is not that an outgoing administration was using wiretaps to
listen in on a successor's transition. It is that Flynn might have signaled to the Russians
that the Trump administration would have a different approach to foreign policy.
How dare Trump presume to tell an armed nuclear state to stand down because everyone in
Washington was in a state of psychological denial that he was elected?
Let's establish one thing early here: It is okay for an incoming administration to
communicate its foreign policy preferences during a transition even if they differ from the
lame duck administration .
.If anything, Flynn was too reserved in his conversation with the Russian ambassador. He
should have said, "President-elect Trump believes this Russian collusion thing is a fantasy
and these sanctions will be lifted on his first day in office."
That would have been perfectly legal. It also happens to be what FBI Director Comey and
the rest were hoping Flynn would do. They wanted to get a Trump official on tape making an
accommodation to the Russians.
The accommodation would then be cited to suggest a quid pro quo that proved the
nonexistent collusion. Instead, Flynn was uncharacteristically noncommittal in his
conversation with the ambassador. Drat!
They did have a transcript of what he said, though. This is where the tin-pot dictator
behavior of Comey is fully displayed. He invited Flynn to be interviewed by the FBI,
supposedly about Russian collusion to steal the election.
If you're Flynn, you say, "Sure, I want to tell you 15 different ways that there was no
collusion and when do you want to meet."
What Flynn did not know was that the purpose of the interview had nothing to do with the
election. It would be a test pitting Flynn's memory against the transcript.
Think about that for a moment. Comey did not need to ask Flynn what was said in the
conversation with the ambassador -- he had a transcript. The only reason to ask Flynn about
it was to cross him up.
That is the politicization of the FBI. It is everything Trump supporters rail against when
they implore him to drain the swamp. The inescapable conclusion is that the FBI set a trap
for the incoming national security advisor to affect the foreign policy of the newly elected
president.
Flynn made the mistake of not being altogether clear about what he had discussed with the
ambassador. In his defense, he did not believe he was sitting there to tell the FBI how the
Trump administration was dealing with Russia going forward. The conversation was supposed to
be about the election.
He certainly did not think the FBI would unmask his comments in a FISA wiretap and compare
them to his answers. That would be illegal.
Exhibit 5 to the DOJ's recent Motion to Dismiss the Flynn indictment confirms the Obama
administration's bad faith in listening in on his conversation with the ambassador. The
plotters admit , essentially,
that they looked at the transcript to see whether Flynn said anything that caused Russia to
stand-down. Had General Flynn promised to lift the sanctions, the Obama administration would
have claimed it was the pro quo that went with the quid of Putin's interference.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/KeSHRR5bMr0
After Trump's inauguration, the FBI and Justice Department launched a special counsel
investigation that accepted, as a given, CrowdStrike's dubious conclusion that Russia had
interfered in the election. The only remaining question was whether Trump himself colluded in
the interference. There followed a two-year inquiry that did massive political damage to Trump
and the movement that put him in office.
Tucker Carlson rightly made Trey Gowdy squirm recently for Republican acquiescence in the shoddy
underpinnings of the Russia hoax. It was not only Gowdy, though. Establishment
politicians and
pundits have been all too willing for years to wallow in fabricated
Russian intrigue , at the expense of the Trump presidency.
This perfectly illustrates Republican perfidy: Gifted with undeserved victory in a
generational realignment that they were dragged to kicking and screaming, they proceed to
question its source and validity. Because if Trump was a product of KGB- esque intrigue, then
Hillary was a victim of meddling. Trump was a hapless beneficiary. The deplorables were not
only racist losers, they were also Putin's unwitting stooges.
As I first noted
in December 2016, the Washington establishment deliberately set out to fan Russian anxiety to
conduct war against the Trump administration. Perhaps it is time to admit that those of us
chided as " crazies
" who doubted Russian interference – including Trump
himself – were right all along.
In the after-action assessment of what went wrong, it should be noted that non-insiders are
the ones who have called this from the beginning, in places like
here ,
here ,
here , here
, and here . That
is partly what the president means when he Tweets support for his " keyboard warriors ." As
Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany pointed out on Friday, the
White House press corps has completely missed the story.
Thank you to all of my great Keyboard Warriors. You are better, and far more brilliant,
than anyone on Madison Avenue (Ad Agencies). There is nobody like you!
-- Donald J. Trump
(@realDonaldTrump) May 15,
2020
This scandal is huge, much bigger than Watergate, and compromising in its resolution is
destructive. If Republicans continue to stupidly concede phony
Russian intrigue , the plotters
will say they were justified to investigate it.
The recent CrowdStrike testimony drop ended any chance at middle ground. This was a rank
political operation and indicting a few FBI agents is not going to resolve anything.
CrowdStrike's circumstantial evidence that launched this probe is ridiculous. We'll soon
know if the Durham investigation has the will to defy powerful insiders of both parties and say
so.
...to keep own delegates in line for Biden – which was his role all along
Bernie Sanders has warned his delegates against speaking ill of Joe Biden, the embodiment of
the Democratic party's corporate core. Beneath the progressive exterior, herding the voters to
the establishment is his real function.
In the spring of 2015, when the
"independent" Bernie Sanders announced that he was running for United States
presidency as a Democrat, the late left Green Party activist Bruce Dixon aptly described
Sanders as a "sheepdog"
working in service to the corporate and imperial Democratic Party. The role of "democratic
socialist" Sanders, Dixon said, would be to shepherd left-leaning voters into the
fold, helping give the Wall Street Democrats a progressive, populist, and working-class veneer
in the 2016 election.
Fantastic interview. all Obama gang should be prosecuted for their attempt of coup
d'état. Farkas behaviors looks like standard operating procecure for the neocon scum
That an effective but dirty trick on the part of this neocon prostitute Evelyn Farkas :
"Putin want me to lose, send me some money"
Farkas is running primarily for the same reason that Andy mccabes wife ran - so she can
pick up her payment from the dnc in the form of campaign contributions. It's money
laundering
Boom 12:03 Yes Saagar, that's what I
was hollering! This is far more insidious. There was NO ONE in power that believed birtherism
whereas the entire National Security apparatus pushed this bogus coup on the President. The
NSA, CIA, FBI, and media were all complicit. Do not let Krystal get away with a false
equivalence. She is bullshitting. Chuck Schumer even threatened Trump on national television
saying that the intelligence agencies have six ways til Sunday to take you down.
I wish Farcas had spent a bit more time talking on MSNBC , I'm sure she would have coughed
up more material. I would also like to see her texts and phone calls received after that a
appearance, I'm sure some Obama people were pulling their hair out as she was spilling the
whole scenario and called her immediately after.
Russiagate was built on the willingness of a lot of people to believe the worst about
Trump. That's it. Which honestly says more about the narrow-mindedness of Trump haters than
it does about Trump himself. Whatever Trump is or isn't, and I'm no Trump supporter though I
never got seduced into hating him, the one truth to come out of this is that his haters don't
care about evidence, or the rule of law, or even common sense.
If Russian interference was as de-stabilizing to our democracy as these people would have
led us to believe, then, how de-stabilizing would carelessly weaponizing it potentially be?
These people have no place in government or any form of public discourse. They are a
malignancy.
As described by Cedric Johnson in an article entitled, "The Panthers Can't Save Us Now," the
neoliberal power elite engage a compartmentalizing, pluralist, all strata accepting,
discrete identities constructing strategy. [4]
Capitalists are one of the strata that are
equally accepted into a given, siloed identitarian construct (they are accepted for example, in
the name of inclusion).
Indicative of this strategy was Hillary Clinton's response to Sanders'
critique of capitalism in their first head-to-head debate: as a claimed progressive, she said
that contrary to Sanders, the unity she appeals to is for all people, capitalists included; she
then portrayed capitalists as small and medium size business people populating the entire
country, insinuating that Sanders would harm these many people (supposedly cleaving the
singular unity of "the citizens"). [5]
By
Paul Street,
the author of numerous books, including They Rule: The 1% v.
Democracy (Routledge, 2014) and The Empire's New Clothes: Barack Obama in the Real World of Power (Routledge,
2011).
Bernie Sanders has warned his delegates against speaking ill of Joe Biden, the embodiment of the
Democratic party's corporate core. Beneath the progressive exterior, herding the voters to the
establishment is his real function.
In the spring of 2015, when the
"independent"
Bernie Sanders announced that he was running for United States presidency as a
Democrat, the late left Green Party activist Bruce Dixon aptly described Sanders as a
"sheepdog"
working in service to the corporate and imperial Democratic Party. The role of
"democratic socialist"
Sanders, Dixon said, would be to shepherd left-leaning voters into the
fold, helping give the Wall Street Democrats a progressive, populist, and working-class veneer in the
2016 election. A related function was to help the Democrats seem to have selected a Big Business
candidate – Hillary Clinton, as everyone already knew even in early 2015 – not by corporate coronation
but through an open debate in which the progressive, social-democratic policies ostensibly advocated by
Sanders were fairly and democratically defeated.
Faithful despite the abuse
Sanders did his best to carry out his 'sheepdog' (or
"Judas Goat")
task in 2016, consistent
with his advance promise to support the eventual Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, in that general
election. So what if the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) worked
hand-in-glove with each other and the corporate media to demean and smear Sanders and his supporters and
to rig the primary race and nomination
process
against the not-so-independent Senator from Vermont? So what if Clinton ran a shockingly vapid campaign,
remarkably
devoid
of serious policy proposals, and based on little more than the awful character of Donald Trump? And so
what if the Clintons and their allies and surrogates treated Sanders with open
contempt
?
Bernie played his 'sheepdog' role like a good company/party man. Even after all the abuse he received
from the Clintons and the DNC during the primary race, he hit the general election campaign trail for
"the lying neoliberal
warmonger"
Hillary. Claiming to have won the
"most progressive Democratic Party [policy] platform in history,"
he beseeched his backers to join him in lining up behind the party's deeply flawed establishment
candidate.
Sanders' call for unity behind the hopelessly corporatist Clinton was denounced by hundreds of his own
delegates on the floor of the 2016 Democratic National Convention. These activists knew that American
major party platforms are for show. They knew also that Sanders had squandered any chance of making the
Democratic Party more genuinely progressive and social-democratic by promising to back the ultimate
Democratic nominee from the start.
Teeth bared this time
Sanders has been 'sheep-dogging' for the corporate Democrats again in 2020. As in 2015-16, he
promised in advance to support the eventual 2020 Democratic nominee. Again, as before, Sanders has used
the technically irrelevant Democratic Party platform to provide cover both for his surrender and for the
corporate Democratic Party.
But there are some differences this time. The capitulation to the corporate candidate – Joe Biden this
election cycle – came earlier this year. It has been accompanied by repeated expressions of heartfelt
fondness for the corporate party nominee and by regular communication and ongoing collaboration between
his staff and that of the presumptive nominee's staff – things far less evident in 2016. And this time,
the sheepdog is baring his teeth to keep his followers and representatives in line behind the neoliberal
nominee like never before.
Bernie Sanders' delegates to the 2020 Democratic National Convention (which may be virtual thanks to
Covid-19) have
been
warned
. They must refrain from making any disparaging or even mildly critical comments about Biden on
social media –Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. They must not speak to the media without permission.
They are not to write books, academic studies, and/or articles or create videos or other recordings about
the presidential campaign without official authorization.
Publicly expressed dissatisfaction with Biden is strictly prohibited. Failure to abide by these rules
could cause Sanders' convention delegates to be stripped of their delegate status and thus of their right
to vote on the Democratic Party's nominees and platform. So much for freedom of speech, enshrined in the
First Amendment of the US Constitution!
So what if the cognitively crippled and corrupt corporate-imperialist
Biden
represents the Wall Street and military-industrial wings of the
"Democratic"
Party with a
vengeance in a time when the top tenth of the upper US one percent possesses nearly as much
wealth
as the bottom 90 percent of the nation – this in a moment when the Covid-19 crisis is laying
bare
the grotesque inadequacies of America's savagely unequal corporate state? And so what if Biden
is a highly
unpopular
, deeply problematic candidate, far less
popular
than Sanders, who ran in accord with the nation's officially
marginalized
,
majority-progressive
opinion?
Who has set these repressive rules for Sanders delegates? At first blush, the obvious guess would be
the DNC, the central party committee that has long opposed progressive tendencies.
That reasonable guess would be wrong. The commands have come from the Sanders
"campaign"
itself.
It is Bernie himself, not his erstwhile enemies on the DNC, who is telling progressive
convention delegates to muzzle their anger at the corporate candidate.
An approving Washington Post
report
on this is titled
"Bernie Sanders, Seeking Peace With Joe Biden, Asks His Own Delegates to
Turn Down the Volume."
"Turn down the volume?"
It's more like
"muzzle yourself or else."
Why is Sanders baring his sheepdog teeth so sharply at his own backers this time around? It's likely
about six factors:
Fear of being blamed for a second Trump term (he has been absurdly blamed for the first one by
establishment Democrats).
Fear that any sign of intra-party dissent will be easily exploited by the Trump campaign.
Biden's remarkable unpopularity with Sanders' primary campaign supporters,
51 percent
of whom are considering voting for an independent or third party candidate.
The end of 78-year-old Sanders' nominal bid for the US presidency: it no longer matters for his
fading political career if he alienates many in his support base by being fully exposed as a full-on
Democratic Party company man.
Strong Biden campaign outreach to Sanders and his staff, coming with a warmer tone of
collaboration than the Clinton team's cold coordination with Sanders in 2016.
The widely reported affection that Sanders feels for his
"good friend"
and fellow US
Senator Biden. Sanders appears to genuinely like Biden despite
"Sleepy Joe's"
presence on the
right-wing of the Democratic Party.
"The senator – who associates say is closer with Biden than he ever was with [Hillary] Clinton –
is seeking to forge a unified front with the former vice president heading into the general election. The
two have formed policy working groups and frequently compliment each other. The agreements distributed by
the Sanders campaign represent some of the most aggressive attempts yet to achieve harmony,"
reports
the Post.
Years ago, the independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader rightly denounced progressives'
friendships with corporate politicos like Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama as dysfunctional and
"maudlin."
Nader was right. Who cares if
"Bernie likes Joe"
as Wall Street and
corporate America plunder the nation in the middle of a public health crisis that has thrown a fifth or
more of the workforce out of their jobs and many of them off of health insurance – desperately in need
of the Medicare for All that Sanders campaigned for and that Biden says he would veto if it came to his
desk as president? Personal affection, or the lack thereof, between presidential candidates, is a matter
of no importance compared to the fate of millions.
If Biden or another dem candidate wins, they will use the ire of the populace against
Trump to wholesale fire all Trump admin appointees and administrators. Trump did not do this
to Obama appointees and this hurt him bigly but was in his mind the right thing to do to
demonstrate a fair-minded authority. Not so with a dem-elect. It will be that much easier to
steer towards war with rank and file sycophants and true believers.
...
A poster above mentioned Trump may make it illegal to do business with China.
Does any China-lover here actually think this is a bad idea? According to their logic, the
U.S.'s goose is already cooked, so with Trump isolating America, it would seem a boon for
China to swoop in as it continually demonstrates it is capable of this. Any argument against
such a decoupling by China-lovers indeed translates to them actually shittung their pants at
the notion of China sans America. That's a fact, Jack.
But don't worry guys, Americans don't mind being left in the dust. Our land is bountiful
enough that a purge of all the anational elites is all we need.
Sure, sure, sure..."rough times ahead..." blah blah blah. Well...it's either a decoupling
or full on globalist-faction war, dragging in the national armies of Russia and China.
If the dems win, I would imagine a reverting back to stirring up shit with Russia and
inviting China to remain neutral. The opposite of the current strategy of separating Russia
from China.
Posted by: Laguerre | May 23 2020 20:17 utc | 17 Like I said in the previous post, there's a
big difference between what Trump wants and What the warmongers want. He likes economic war
(against everybody), they want actual war. As long as Trump is in power, I don't see things
changing.
The problem with that is that Trump is easily manipulated. He may buck and bolt
frequently, just to keep his own narcissism satisfied that *he* is the one with the power.
But he's still easily manipulated because he's ignorant of almost everything. He's not
against war - like every other President he simply doesn't want to be *blamed* for starting
another disastrous war. That's entirely different from being unwilling to *actually* start
such a war. That was Obama's thing, too. He was happy to want to start a war with Syria in
2013 over a bogus "chemical weapons attack" - but once Putin and the US Senate pushed back,
he ducked and covered. Trump will do the same. But whether that's enough to prevent a war
*if* something actually happens to cause significant US casualties, that is another
matter.
"There were some Brits, whose link I don't have, who have modellised that Trump is going
to lose massively in November. If that's right, and if Biden remains the Dem candidate, then
I guess war is what we're going to have."
Yes, that is the *other* main problem. What happens when Trump 1) loses, or 2) wins - and
doesn't care any more about whether a new war will hurt his re-election chances? This has
been my standard response to all those who say he won't start a war with Iran, despite his
massive support for Israel and his antipathy towards Iran, because he doesn't want to hurt
his re-election. So I say, "What about *after* the election?" The response is always
crickets.
Regardless of what Trump "wants" - and a narcissist changes that with his socks - Trump
*can* start a war. It just depends on the circumstances and what he perceives as his
*personal* risk (of whatever nature.)
After the Soviet collapse thirty years ago, that order expanded its jurisdiction. Proponents sought to subsume the old Eastern
Bloc, including perhaps Russia itself, into the American sphere. And they wanted to do so firmly on Washington's terms. Even as the
country began to deindustrialize and growth slowed, American leadership developed a taste for fresh crusades in the Middle East;
exotic savagery, went the subtext, had to be brought finally to heel. China was a rising force, but its regime would inevitably crater
or democratize. Besides, Beijing was a peaceful trading partner of the United States.
2008, 2016 and 2020 -- the financial crisis, Trump's election and now the Coronavirus and its reaction -- have been successive
gut punches to this project, a hat trick which may seal its demise. Ask anyone attempting to board an international flight, or open
a new factory in China, or get anything done at the United Nations: the world is de-globalizing at a speed almost as astonishing
as it integrated. Post-Covid, U.S.-China confrontation is not a choice. It's a reality. The liberal international order is not lamentable.
It's already dead.
This was the argument made by Bannon. It had other backers, of course, within both the academy and an emerging foreign policy
counter-establishment loathe to repeat the mistakes of the past thirty years. But coming from the former top political advisor to
the sitting president of the United States, it was provocative stuff. Bannon articulated a perspective which seemed to be on the
tip of the foreign policy world's tongue. And it riled people up. The most fulsome rebuttal to the zeitgeist was perhaps The Jungle
Grows Back , tellingly written by Robert Kagan, an Iraq War architect. The peripheral world was dangerous brush; the United States
was the machete.
Trumpian nationalism has chugged along for nearly three years since -- stripped, some might say, of its Bannonite flair and intelligence.
The most hysterical prophecies of what the president might do -- that he might withdraw from the geriatric North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, for instance -- have not come to pass. Trump has howled and roared, true: but so far, his most disruptive foreign policy
maneuver has been escalation against Iran.
It's very good to hear the right getting a little humility in them now and talking less empire, more multilateralism. Trump has
been way too concerned with his MAGA personality cult to understand the value of humility.
The world's a big place. The reality is, America first will more and more mean working together with other nations for mutual
benefit, and often their gain will indirectly be to our own also.
Working more and more, yes. This is why US is undercutting Germany's competitiveness, by blocking a cheap source of energy via
NS2...
As Bush said, you are either with us or against us. Nothing has changed and nothing will change, but it will become uglier.
If it were to desire multi-polarity, the US would tolerate not only states, like KSA, where the Royals own everything, but also
states, like Iran, or Cuba, where the people (through the government/state) owns assets (land and productive facilities). But
the US does not tolerate such type of multi-polarity, not open to US "investment" and ownership (bought with fiat money).
Cold War II started in 2007, with Putin. Popcorn & beer lads!
It does seem like there's a creeping idea, not just on dissident internet sites now like before, that the Russian rivalry is a
luxury of the past. Even the liberals are going to have to reconcile with liberal hegemony not being workable and settle for something
less. Owing to distance and mutual interest (common rivals Britain and Germany) Russia and America had a long history of friendship
before the Cold war.
I sadly agree about the predatory nature of much of America does. I think it really is a reflection of partially, imperial
arrogance, but even moreso a matter of who runs the country. Oligarchy is poorly checked in modern America. Maybe we can hope
for a humbled oligarchy, at least.
Trump is indeed an empty suit and a demagogue, but he ran on a decent nationalist platform (probably thanks to Bannon, who is
almost certainly a closeted gay. No joke... a deep-in-the-closet, self-hating gay. The navy can change a man, and he's a fraud
in other ways: see Eric Striker's article "International Finance's Anti-China Crusade"). Trump does have an absurd ego, and he
probably figured becoming president would impress Ivanka too.
Also, the Uyghurs are not totally innocent victims... Some of them are US-financed revolutionaries and some of them have committed
terrorism: see Godfree Roberts at Unz Review: "China and the Uyghurs" (January 10, 2019) and Ajit Singh at The Grayzone: "Inside
the World Uyghur Congress: The US-backed right-wing regime change network seeking the 'fall of China'" (March 5, 2020). Some of
our pathetic propagandists make it seem like they're in concentration camps, but there is objective reporting that suggests it's
more like job training programs and anti-jihad classes. Absurd lies have certainly been told about North Korea and many other
countries, so be skeptical.
Yeah, let's get that hate on for China - why they're as bad as Russia, Iran and Venezuela put together and there are so many more
of them. Especially a lot are available right here in the US and have lots of restaurants that can be boycotted. Not that many
Venezuelan restaurants around. Seriously, can Americans get over this childishness? When the US closes down its 800+ overseas
bases and withdraws its fleet to its own shores instead of Iran's and China's, then maybe Americans will be entitled to complain
about someone else's imperialism.
Most of anti-China stuff Hawley, much like Trump, claims always feels empty populism for WWC voters.
1) It is reasonable to be against our Middle East endeavors and not be so anti-China.
2) I still don't understand how it is China fault for stealing manufacturing jobs when it is the US private sector that does it.
(And Vietnam exist, etc.) So without Charles Koch and Tim Cook behind this trade stuff, it feels like empty populism.
3) The most obvious point on China to me is how little they do use military measures for their 'imperialism.'
One problem with all this populism emptiness, is there is a lot issues with China to work on:
1) This virus could have impact economies in Africa and South America a lot where the nations have to renegotiate their loans
to China. I have no idea how this goes but there will be tensions here. Imperialism is tough in the long run.
2) There are nations banding together on China's reaction to the virus and it seems reasonable that US joining them would be more
effective than Trump's taunting.
3) To prove Trump administration incompetence, I have no idea how he is not turning this crisis into more medical equipment and
drugs manufacturing. (My guess is this both takes a lot of work and frankly a lot of manufacturing plants have risks of spreads
so noone wants to invest.)
Hawley is a "fake populist" according to Eric Striker's article "International Finance's Anti-China Crusade" and I just saw fake-patriot
airhead Pete Hegseth claim China wants to destroy our civilization, on fake populist Tucker Carlson's show. It's well-established
that Fox News and the GOP are still neocons and fake patriots... after all, the Trump administration is run by Jared Kushner,
a protégé of Rupert Murdoch and Bibi Netanyahu.
Hawley's speech on the Senate floor yesterday deserves much more criticism than it gets here. This article from Reason
does a good job breaking down the speech and pointing out what's right AND wrong about it:
What if there is reduced wars and civil wars n the world today than ever. (So say anytime before 1991?) I get all the Middle East
& African Wars but look at the rest of the world. When in history have the major West Europe powers not had a major war in 75
years. After issues of post Cold War East Europe is probably more peaceful than ever. Look at South America. In the 1970s the
Civil Wars raged in all those nations. Or the Pacific Rim? Japan, China, and other nations are fighting with Military right now.
This is certainly less than perfect but the number of people (per million) dieing in wars and civil wars are at historic lows.
The fall of Soviet Union and weakening of Russia allowed US and Western Europe to attack Serbia in 1990s. A stronger Russia wouldn't
have allowed that to happen (who's trying to get Crimea from Russia's control now?). But with US aggressiveness and bellicosity
(including nuclear posture) at Russia's borders do not bode well.
But it is true, less important people are dying now...
Chinese imperialism? Uh ... other than shaking trees and drumming up fear can I get like one example of that.
Taiwan, part of China since the 1500's and they are have not issued any new threats since 1949.
Hong Kong - stolen from China and now reluctantly given back with lots of conditions. If they deserve the right of independence
through referendum I'm all for it as long as we apply this standard uniformly including parts of Texas, San Diego, New Mexico,
Arizona, any place that has a large foreign population will do.
Yeah, "Chinese imperialism" is complete nonsense, just like the claim that they definitely originated the coronavirus, caused
Americans to be under house arrest, and caused a depression. In fact, the origin of the virus is far from clear, and it wasn't
China who hyped up and exaggerated the danger and wrecked the economy. It was our superficial corporate media and government that
did that (perhaps deliberately)... the same people who are desperately trying to deflect blame onto the CCP. The same people who
have been mismanaging and ruining America for decades in order to enrich themselves.
"Neoliberal democracy. Instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The
net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless."
Most people would be well served to read Chomsky a first time.
However, it should be noted, Chomsky's critiques of neoliberalism aren't grounded in nationalism, xenophobia, and racism. So a
lot of TAC readers (and especially writers) may be disappointed.
Hawley seems like the natural choice for the potential future of the GOP, that is a post-fusionist or post-liberal GOP. However
the one thing that worries me is his foreign policy. He talks the talk, but I'm having trouble to see if he walks the walk. As
Mills noted he didn't vote to end support for the genocidal war in Yemen, a war that serves purely the interests of Saudi Arabia
and not our own. He has criticized David Petraeus before, but its important not to be fooled by just rhetoric. While accepting
he'll be better than any Tom Cotton or (god forbid) Nikki Haley in 2024, his foreign policy needs to be examined more until then.
Our response to the epidemic was 100% 'made in China'. The entire 'Western World' decided to copy Beijing. If that doesn't establish
a new level of leadership for China, I don't know what would. I'm surprised this is not more widely recognized. You can run down
the many parallels, including the pathetic photo-op attempt by the West to build those emergency hospitals (Nightingale in the
UK, Javits Center, etc. all across the US), which were just to show 'hey we can build hospitals in a few weeks also' ... never
mind they could never, and were never used for anything at all.
At this point, Hawley is all talk. Further, much of his talking amounts to little more than expressing resentment. I agree that
the US needs to follow a more nationalist pathway, which involved making itself less dependent on its chief geopolitical rival.
But accomplishing this is going to require more than bashing China and asserting that cosmopolitan Americans are traitors. At
this point, Hawley has no positive program to offer. Giving paid speeches that vilify coastal elites and China is not a political
plan.
Further, I agree that we're probably moving away from the universalist order that's guided much of our thinking since the 1990s.
But isolationism is not the answer. We need to begin building a multilateral order that takes full account of China's rise as
a worthy rival. This means that we need to develop a series of smaller-scale agreements with strategic partners. The TPP is a
good example of such an agreement. But where is the call to revive it?
Lastly, I find the article's reference to China's treatment of gays and lesbians to be curious. I'd first note that using the
term "homosexual" in reference to people is generally viewed as an offensive slur. Further, China's treatment of gay people isn't
so bad, and tends to be better than what Hawley's evangelical supporters would afford. Moreover, China is a multi-ethnic country.
It's program in Xinjiang has more to do with maintaining political order than a desire to repress non-Han people.
The general chest puffing nature of the American right makes it hard for them to understand that America might need to work with
other countries at a deep level, and not as vassals either.
". We need to begin building a multilateral order that takes full account
of China's rise as a worthy rival. This means that we need to develop a
series of smaller-scale agreements with strategic partners. The TPP is a
good example of such an agreement. But where is the call to revive it?"
The thing is that the post-WWII liberal international order was good for things like that.
Trump and the GOP quite deliberately destroyed it. Before that, the US would have the trust of many other governments; now they
don't trust the US - even if Biden is elected, the next Trump is on the way.
"We benefit if countries that share our opposition to Chinese imperialism -- countries like India and Japan, Vietnam, Australia
and Taiwan -- are economically independent of China, and standing shoulder to shoulder with us,"
OK....then can someone explain why Hawley opposed the TPP, which was designed to accomplish just this. The TPP was supposed
to create trading relationships between these countries and the United States in the context of an agreement that excluded China.
In this instance people like Hawley were advancing China's position and interests (I suspect simply because it was a treaty negotiated
under Obama, which apparently was enough to make it bad).
Probably because Hawley seems more interested in demagoguery than accomplishing anything productive. Never mind that 95% of the
people who voted for him probably couldn't find Japan or Vietnam on a map.
TPP was not geared against China as a blanket thing, as an entire exclusion of China. The perfidy of TPP was that it was against
any economic interactions with State Owned Enterprises (didn't mention the origin, didn't have to). The ultimate goal wasn't to
isolate China but to force privatization of said SOEs, preferably run from Wall Street.
Private property good and = Democracy; State property bad = Authoritarianism, dictatorship, etc. It is a fallacy here somewhere,
cannot really put my finger on it...
Except this is all lies. On each chance to actually do something Hawley has sided with international corporations, as a good conservative
will always do. Fixing globalism will never come form the right, this is all smoke and mirrors for the religious right, aka the
rubes. And they are perpetual suckers and will keep buying into this crap as our nation is hollowed out and raided by the rich.
And that, is TRUE conservatism.
"Now we must recognize that the economic system designed by Western policy makers at the end of the Cold War does not serve
our purposes in this new era," proclaimed Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri. "And it does not meet our needs for this new day." He
continued, perhaps too politely: "And we should admit that multiple of its founding premises were in error."
The "error" in the founding premises of the post-WWII economic system was that it assumed that the US would act in a responsible
manner. Instead we have run huge budget deficits and borrowed the difference from foreigners, randomly invading other countries,
undermined the institutions we set up, bullied smaller countries rather than working with them, and abused our control of the
financial system.
No, that old economic system served our interests very well, as long as we respected the institutions we set up and kept our
own house in order. We haven't been doing any of that for at least 20 years.
Let's bear in mind that the Republican leader of the Senate married into a wealthy Chinese family that makes its money from hauling
Chinese exports to our shores and the shores of other developed nations.
This is all just hollow bravado meant to appeal to the right's nativist base.
I am not into the thinking that everyone whose politics I don't support is acting in bad faith. We are talking about the actions
of literally millions of people. Accusing this or that person of acting in bad faith because of personal interest is just dirty
politics dressed up as perceptiveness. I am not accusing any specific person of acting in bad faith, although some of the people
who pushed opening up to China because more business in China would create a class of people who would eventually push for Democracy
there, were indeed acting in bad faith. They wanted access to cheap labor with no rights.
Yet, no doubt many of them actually believed the propaganda, because it supposedly happened in South Korea, Taiwan and other
places. And especially the ones who switched the line to "globalism" when it was clear that the supposed indigenous pressures
for Democracy did not materialize also acted in bad faith. I only assume that some of were because once I understood the rationale
of the CCCP it was clear to me that China was radically different, and there is no way that so many of those guys who are smarter
and more knowledgeable about political systems than me, did not figure it out. But I am not going to behave as if it the Republicans
alone who were pushing either of these two false messages.
Criticizing China for "imperialism" is the height of hypocrisy on multiple levels. First, the United States has engaged in economic
imperialism, sometimes enforced with military intervention, for a hundred years. Read Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket" if you
doubt that. Second, this is the same guy who voted against our proxy war in Yemen. Third, one could very reasonably argue that
China is simply applying the lessons it learned at the hands of Western imperialists since 1800s..
It's good that SOME Republicans are at least giving lip service to the idea of bringing back manufacturing in this country.
But you have to thank Trump for that, not the GOP establishment. The offshoring of American manufacturing as part of "free trade"
was strongly supported (if not led) by the GOP going back to the 1980s.
And check out John Perkins's books ("Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", etc.) for up-to-date information. It's obviously true
that criticizing China for "imperialism" is ridiculously hypocritical but people like Senator Hawley know they can get away with
it because they understand how propaganda works on the dumbed-down masses.
They understand doublethink, repetition, appeal to patriotism, appeal to racism, appeal to fear, etc. People like Rupert Murdoch
do this every day... poorly, but well enough to be effective on a lot of people.
Incidentally, the Republicans may talk about bringing manufacturing back to the US but they're actually planning on shifting
it to India (see Eric Striker's article "International Finance's Anti-China Crusade").
Disagree,
Under Trumps tax plan, a single mother with 2 kids working fulltime at minimum wage gets 75
dollars a YEAR in childcare, about $-1.50 per week.
----------
While the rich, those making up to 400,000 per year get 2000.00 per year child credit off
their taxes.
---------------
Name a benefit for the poor, that the recent tax bill passed by Trump and GREEDY GOP.
-----------------------------------------------------
In his first speech to a joint session of Congress, President Trump promised to deliver on
his populist campaign pledges to protect Americans from globalization. "For too long," he
bemoaned, "we've watched our middle class shrink as we've exported our jobs and wealth to
foreign countries." But now, he asserted, the time has come to "restart the engine of the
American economy" and "bring back millions of jobs." To achieve his goals, Trump proposed
mixing massive tax-cuts and sweeping regulatory rollbacks with increased spending on the
military, infrastructure and border control. This same messy mix of free market
fundamentalism and hyper-nationalistic populism is presently taking shape in Trump's proposed
budget. But the apparent contradiction there isn't likely to slow down Trump's pro-market,
pro-Wall Street, pro-wealth agenda. His supporters may soon discover that his professions of
care for those left behind by globalization are -- aside from some mostly symbolic moves on
trade -- empty.
Just look at what has already happened with the GOP's proposed replacement for Obamacare,
which if enacted would bring increased pain and suffering to the anxious voters who put their
trust in Trump's populism in the first place. While these Americans might have thought their
votes would win them protection from the instabilities and austerities of market-led
globalization, what they are getting is a neoliberal president in populist clothing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/22/dont-let-his-trade-policy-fool-you-trump-is-a-neoliberal/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.94fa9481fd2a
With a national election lurking on the horizon we will no doubt be hearing more about
Exceptionalism from various candidates seeking to support the premise that the United
States can interfere in every country on the planet because it is, as the expression goes,
exceptional.
That is correct and that is because it works the majority of Americans are stupid.
Do you see a solution suggested here?
It is also an unfortunate indication that the neoconservatives, pronounced dead after
the election of Trump, are back and resuming their drive to obtain the positions of power
that will permit endless war, starting with Iran.
The neocons never went anywhere. Trump is a minion of the Deep State and staffs his
administration accordingly.
My point is simple and ineluctable, whatever our demerits, our great republic is
supposed to weed out psychopaths like Brennan long before they get as close as he has to
destroying the whole shebang.
Never happens all administrations are full of psychopaths.
Frankly nothing new. Every Empire sought to rule the world and committed a long list of
atrocities in the process. "The empire on which the sun never sets", in reference to the
British Empire (the one currently still ruling the world), comes from Xerxes' "We shall
extend the Persian territory as far as God's heaven reaches. The sun will then shine on no
land beyond our borders." as he invaded Greece.
That said, a word on the Rumsfeld-Cebrowski Doctrine and their Pentagon world map would be
on point here
I've long since concluded, there is no president who can withdraw the US from the Forever
Wars. Obama couldn't. Trump can't. Biden/Harris/Oprah/Gabbard/Pence won't.
There are a half-dozen permanent US policies that Americans don't get to vote on, and the
Permawar is one of them.
My God, Buchanan, I am staggered by the arrogance of this column. Where in the name of all
that's holy did you ever get the idea that America has the right to impose on anyone, from
Afghans through to Venezuelans, your (perceived) systems of thought, values and democracy?
How many American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan can even speak the local language?
Understand the local customs? None!!! They swan around in their sunglasses and battle gear
thinking that they are they return of the Terminator and wander why the locals absolutely
hate their collective guts! It's time that you collectively learned that America is NOT the
world's sheriff and that, as Benjamin Franklin said "A man convinced against his will, is of
the same opinion still".
Pat is not entirely wrong -- he hints at the explanation for failure:
"As imperialists, we Americans are conspicuous failures.
Moreover, with us, the national interest inevitably asserts itself."
As Imperialists there has never been anything but the (Elite) "national interest".
In short, these so called "losing" wars have been wars of aggression -- ie "bad" wars.
All Pat's talk of conversion, democracy etc is just so much nonsense.
"While we can defeat our enemies in the air and on the seas and in cyberspace, we cannot
persuade them to embrace secular democracy and its values any more than we can convert them
to Christianity" although they might be better persuaded to convert to Christianity –
traditional Christianity – than to embrace secular democracy and its "values".
Why would anyone want to embrace homosexuality, transgenderism, rad-feminism, opioids,
prozac, inequality, broken homes, mass shootings, mountainous debt, corrupt media, puppet
politicians & the rest of the filth & perversion that passes for "values" in secular
democracies like America or Western Europe?
Indeed, why would anyone in these decadent countries even want to defend these venal
"values", let alone try to spread them around the world like the Chinese plague?
No, "they are not trying to change us" but maybe they should.
As the British and French ultimately found out it costs more to run an empire than to loot
it. So the long retreat ensues. One would have thought that the Americans might have learned
this from history, but no! After all they were "the exceptional people, they stood taller
than the others and saw further." Errrm, no they didn't. Like their forbears they got bogged
down as well getting into debt which was only bailed out by their insistence that they would
not convert the dollar into gold.
Human nature and stupidity has got a long track-record and it isn't going to end anytime
soon.
The writer, and most commenters' are still under the erroneous belief that AMerica goes to
war in places then AMerica wins or loses or wastes lives or kill children. This is the
saddest part of the Yankee war machine: Americans joining the Army because they think theya
re joining the fight to defend the American Dream.
You-all are corporate gunmonkeys, fighting and killing and burning and bombing, not in the
name of freedom or apple pie, but in the name of Gulf Oil, Goldman Sachs, Citicorp, JPMorgan,
Monsanto, PHBBillington, whatever Devil Rumsfeld calls his sack of shit these days .
America has not won any war anywhere, even their civil war was mostly just clearing the
land for the banks. That is because it is not America at war, she just supplies the cannon
fodder. And cannons. And radiactive scrapmetal to make bullets to mow down women and children
in the name of Investor Confidence.
But then, that is what your Zionist bible tells you to do, isn't it?
I just don't think the US has the immoral fortitude to engage in genocide, so it's
hopeless trying to "win."
If by the US you mean most of the people you may be right. But the people in the US
have no say in the actions of the US government which is controlled by psychopaths.
Afghanistan is hardly even a country as the average American might define one. There's really
nothing to "win"; we only occupy. The infrastructure is primitive so it's not cost effective
to try to take whatever natural resources they may have, if any, so there's nothing they have
that we want. The Taliban were not "ousted". In the face of massive firepower they split up
and scattered; they're still there. After all, the US has been negotiating with them for a
peace deal of some sort hasn't it? "Democracy crusades" is just a propaganda fig leaf to
bamboozle stupid Americans. It's amazing that there's people who actually believe stuff like
that but PT Barnum had it right. "Eventually, we give up and go home". That's because they
live there and we don't. "They apparently have an inexhaustible supply of volunteers" willing
to fight and die. They don't want foreign robo-soldiers pointing guns at them in their own
country. We have our own version, it's called "Remember the Alamo", men who stood their
ground against the odds.
If a country is not willing to do that, and I would hope the United States is not
willing to do that, then they (we) should go home and leave the Afghans to murder each
other without our assistance. If they return to supporting terrorism or go whole hog in
producing opium, perhaps the US should decapitate their entire government and let the next
batch of losers give governing a try. I just don't think the US has the immoral fortitude
to engage in genocide, so it's hopeless trying to "win."
The growth in opium cultivation correlates with CIA activities in the area and the $3
billion from American taxpayers which financed Mujahideen 'terrorism' against the Russians
and their local proxies just to avenge the fall of Saigon.
In 1980 Afghanistan accounted for about only 5% of total world heroin production. This was
mainly for the local market and neighbor Iran.
They refuse to surrender and submit because it is their beliefs, their values, their
faith, their traditions, their tribe, their God, their culture, their civilization, their
honor that they believe they are fighting for in what is, after all, their land, not
ours.
If I may..
another way of looking at this, and I feel a profound respect for the Afghans, and only
wish we were made of the same mettle. If only ((they)) could say of us..
They refuse to surrender and submit because it is their beliefs, their values, their
faith, their traditions, their tribe, their God, their culture, their civilization, their
honor that they believe they are fighting for in what is, after all, their land, not
(((ours)))).
They are not trying to change ((((us. We))) are trying to change them. And they wish to
remain who they are.
IOW, we white Westerners, have proved willing to surrender and submit to all of it.
Without nary a peep of protest. Even as ((they)) send us around the globe to kill people like
these Afghans, for being slightly inconvenient to their agenda. [And so the CIA can
reconstitute its global heroin trafficking operation$.]
If only history would look back on this epic moment, at the last Death throes of the West,
and say of whitey, that he refused to surrender his values and faith and traditions and tribe
and God, and culture and civilization and honor.. to ((those)) who would pervert his values,
and mock his faith, and trash his traditions, and exterminate his tribe, while mocking his
God, and poisoning his culture, and destroying his civilization and all because at the end of
the day, he had no honor.
These men may be backwater, illiterate villagers,
but at least they have enough mettle and honor, to tell the Beast that they would rather
die killing as many of the Beast's stupid goons as they're able, than ever sacrifice their
sacred honor- or lands or sovereignty, or the destinies of their children – over to the
fiend, which is more than I can say for Western "man".
They are not trying to change us. We are trying to change them. And they wish to remain
who they are.
Would that the Swedish people had a Nano-shred of the blood-honor of an Afghan, Barbara
Spectre would be pounding sand.
Historically, the Afghans are fundamentalist, tribal and impervious to foreign
intervention.
Obviously, there is a great deal we need to learn from them.
What will the Taliban do when we leave?
They will not give up their dream of again ruling the Afghan nation and people. And they
will fight until they have achieved that goal and their idea of victory: dominance.
Um.. Pat. Whose land is it anyways? Is it such a horror that Afghans should be
dominant in Afghanistan ?
The Taliban was welcomed into most of the regions it governed, because they drove out
local war lords who often treated the villager's children as their sex toys, and the foreign
(CIA) opioid growers and traffickers. And it was the Taliban that put an end to all of that.
They're harsh, but they're effective, and that is their land, not ours.
Also, the Taliban offered to turn over Osama Bin Laden, if the West could provide a shred
of proof that he had anything whatsoever to do with 9/11. (he didn't ; ) But the West had
zero proof, (as the FBI admits to this day), that they have zero proof that ties Bin Laden to
9/11.
And n0w that we all know 9/11 was an Israeli false flag, intended to use the American
military as their bitch, to burn down 'seven nations in five years' .. that the Jewish
supremacists wanted destroyed, our whole pretext for being over there has been a sham from
day one. Duh.
.
.
.
.
I remember long ago when I had a subscription to National Geographic and this photo came out,
I cut the picture out, and stuck it somewhere to look at- it was so visceral and
haunting.
Leave them alone. I don't care how many Jews at the WSJ demand whitey has to stay and die
for Israel. (Afghanistan is on Iran's border, and that's why we have to stay, to menace all
those anti-Semites over there, trying to gas all the Jews and make soap).
@paranoid
goy I very much doubt if many are joining the military to "defend the American Dream."
Most are more practical and are joining to escape poverty, even if it might cost them their
lives. Recruiters will now be inundated with volunteers since there are no jobs in the covid
depression.
If the neo-con clown car Trump has permitted to run foreign policy since his election gets us
into a war with Iran and/or Venezuela before November, will Pat still be stumping for him, or
will we see the return of non-election-year Pat?
Excellent question Pat! Unfortunately there is no answer, we've been at "forever war"
seemingly forever, and the whole point as Eisenhower so preciently warned us is THE
objective.
The thing is that the Afghan government wasn't supporting terrorism. Rather, it had no
on-going control anywhere except the cities, which made the tribal areas useful hideouts /
bases for a raft of groups.
I well remember the prelude to the invasion where the US was demanding that its government
(which merely happened to be Taliban that year) hand over OBL in 72hrs. The truth was that
the US knew Afghanistan didn't have the capability to do that and it merely wanted to use OBL
as an excuse to invade and continue the encirclement of the old soviet states.
That article notes "The so called 'pro-democracy' parties in Hong Kong have lost in each
and every local election. The pro-China parties always receive a majority of votes" so that
is the issue to be cited.
2. The political issue presented by the US is of the legitimacy of secession of an alleged
democracy from what it alleges is not a democracy. Governments never permit secession,
whether legitimate or not, so US action would be provocation with only symbolic effect.
If the US was a democracy and the PRC was a tyranny, the US claim would be at least
ethical. But the US form of government is bribery via political parties, masquerading as
democracy to keep the proles in line. It simply claims that the PRC is not as much of a
democracy, to a public that has no information on that. So the missing ethical issue is: is
the PRC more of a democracy, some kind of democracy, etc.?
"... This whole crisis is all about recapitalization or restructuring the debt. The Fed is bailing out the creditors (Big Surprise!) and forcing corporate America through bankruptcy. ..."
We understood ourselves as the means that make the rich richer.
Then came the latest wisdom: "Money makes money." They have come to believe their own
lies, and those lies are being subsidised by our taxes. The moment when "everything" will
belong to One Account seems to be upon us. I expect foreclosures and bankruptcies amongst the
non-investing classes. All shortfalls to be augmented by tax money. Next, we await Zion
unveiling our new King. Once again, not one atom of deviation from the plan as laid out in
the Protocols. it is of utter importance that we do not turn upon another. In that sense, I
suggest more of Unz's readers start looking at Black people as possible comrades in this
engagement, we are confronted by a common enemy, the one that taught us the "value" of racism
in the first place. They have divided us, now they will conquer.
Or we can just stand together. If we refuse to fight, it will be us against Bill Gates'
robots, and his microcephalic pilots are still too young to be drafted. This is, however, our
last chance, I be thinking.
Been wondering some years now, why 'retailing' is such a popular investment, when nobody has
no money left to buy stuff with. Now we know.
Gilad, these are some thoughts I jotted down a few weeks ago.
This whole crisis is all about recapitalization or restructuring the debt. The Fed is
bailing out the creditors (Big Surprise!) and forcing corporate America through bankruptcy.
The Virus is being used as a pretext for forcing the economy into a kind of controlled
depression (demolition) and debt restructuring. The Virus and China are being used as the
fall guys for the collapse. In 2008-09 the Banks and WS were bailed out and not forced into
bankruptcy. The Fed then reinflated and drove up asset prices along with more than doubling
the debt from levels that were already overextended. In The Great Restructuring that's taking
place now, the Money Boys are basically transferring the income and assets of Main Street to
the Creditors as they deflate the debt and bail themselves out. The whole scam could more
accurately be called "The Great Heist" or the Money Power's perverted or mammonic version of
a Debt Jubilee.
Atlantic Council senior fellow, Congressional candidate, and Russia conspiracy theorist
Evelyn Farkas is desperately trying to salvage her reputation after recently released
transcripts from her closed-door 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee revealed
she totally lied on national TV .
In March of 2017, Farkas confidently told MSNBC 's Mika Brzezinski: " The Trump folks, if
they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians , that they
would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would not longer have access to
that intelligence ."
Except, during testimony to the House, Farkas admitted she lied . When pressed by former
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) on why she said 'we' - referring to the US government, Farkas said she
"didn't know anything."
In short, she was either illegally discussing US intelligence matters with her "former
colleagues," or she made the whole thing up.
Now, Farkas is in damage control mode - writing in the
Washington Post that her testimony demonstrated "that I had not leaked intelligence and
that my early intuition about Trump-Kremlin cooperation was valid.' She also claims that her
comments to MSNBC were based on "media reports and statements by Obama administration officials
and the intelligence community," which had "began unearthing connections between Trump's
campaign and Russia."
Farkas is now blaming a 'disconcerting nexus between Russia and the reactionary right,' for
making her look bad (apparently Trey Gowdy is part of the "reactionary right" for asking her
who she meant by "we").
Attacks against me came first on Twitter and other social media platforms, from far-right
sources. Forensics data I was shown suggested at least one entity had Russian ties . The
attacks increased in quantity and ferocity until Fox News and Trump-allied Republicans --
higher-profile, and more mainstream, sources -- also criticized me .
...
Trump surrogates, including former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski ,
Donald Trump Jr. and Fox
News hosts such as Tucker Carlson have essentially accused me
of treason for being one of the "fraudulent originators" of the "Russia hoax." -Evelyn
Farkas
She then parrots the Democratic talking point that the attacks she's received are part of
Trump's larger "Obamagate" allegations - " a narrative that distracts attention from his
administration's disastrous pandemic response and attempts to defect blame for Russian
interference onto the Obama administration" (Obama told Putin to ' cut it out ' after all).
Meanwhile, Poor Evelyn's campaign staff has become " emotionally exhausted " after her
Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts have been "overwhelmed with a stream of vile, vulgar
and sometimes violent messages" in response to the plethora of conservative outlets which have
called her out for Russia malarkey.
There is evidence that Russian actors are contributing to these attacks. The same day that
right-wing pundits began pumping accusations, newly created Russian Twitter accounts picked them up. Within a day,
Russian "
disinformation clearinghouses " posted versions of the story . Many of the Twitter
accounts boosting attacks have posted in unison, a sign of inauthentic social media
behavior.
She closes by defiantly claiming "I wasn't silenced in 2017, and I won't be silenced
now."
No Evelyn, nobody is silencing you. You're being called out for your role in the perhaps the
largest, most divisive hoax in US history - which was based on faulty intelligence that
includes crowdstrike admitting they had
no proof of that Russia exfiltrated DNC emails, and Christopher Steele's absurd dossier
based on his 'Russian sources.'
MrBoompi, 18 minutes ago
Lying is a common occurrence on MSNBC. Farkas was just showing her party she is qualified
for a more senior position.
chubbar, 23 minutes ago
My opinion, based on zero facts, is that the lie she told was to Gowdy. She had to say she
lied about having intelligence data or she'd be looking at a felony along with whomever she
was talking to in the US gov't. You just know these cocksuckers in the resistance don't give
a **** about laws or fairness, it's all about getting Trump. So they set up an informal
network to get classified intelligence from the Obama holdovers out into the wild where these
assholes could use it against Trump and the gov't operations. Treason. She needs to be
executed for her efforts!
LetThemEatRand, 59 minutes ago
This whole thing reminds me of a fan watching their team play a championship game. If the
ref makes a bad call and their team wins, they don't care. And if the ref makes a good call
and their team loses, they blame the ref. No one cares about the truth or the facts. That in
a nutshell is politics in the US. If you believe that anyone will "switch sides" or admit the
ref made a bad call or a good call, you're smoking the funny stuff.
mtumba, 50 minutes ago
It's a natural response to a corrupt system.
When the system is wholly corrupt so that truth doesn't matter, what else is there to care
about other than your side winning?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Just think of when, in the debates with Bernie Sanders during the spring,
Biden and Klobuchar kept saying, 'What we're paying for Medicare-for-All will be $1 trillion
over 10 years.' Well, here the Fed can create $1.5 trillion in one week just to buy stocks.
Why is it okay for the Fed to create $1.5 trillion to buy stocks to prevent rich people from
losing on their stocks, when it's not okay to print only $1 trillion to pay for free Medicare
for the entire population? This is crazy!
44, the biggest fraudulent, groomed 'president' in USA history. Imagine if legal citizens
knew the TRUTH about corruption within the political arena? Thank you, @TuckerCarlson
Schiff probably practice his lies in his mirror every morning so he can convince himself
of Russian interference. Biggest liar in America Adam Schifty schiff. Needs to be arrested
immediately for treason and lying under oath. But as usual nothing will happen. These people
are above the law. And are untouchable. Its enough to frustrate the hell out of normal sain
Americans. 4 more years of Donald Trump
Folks need to take a much closer look at your own state legislature, district attorney,
prosecutors, public defenders, social workers... especially your own town councils and school
boards. They're stealing your lives and children at the Grassroots local level.
Adam Schiff is not resigning. He's doubling down yet again! If you "want" him to resign,
you need to understand he's staying in office until voted out. There's no willpower in the
house to take action against him.
Yes the Deep State is a two sided coin. One side Republicans, the other Democrats.
The Deep State doesn't care about the unimportant internecine squabbles of the two
parties as long as their important issues (wealth and power) are advanced. As a matter of
fact it strengthens the false perception that there is a choice when voting.
Fred nails it to the wall here. We're free to argue what color the Titanic should be
painted
but don't dare mention the iceberg. When you cross the line on social media, the neo-Hundred
Roses campaign has it all for the day that they decide to really clip your wings.
Even off-limits dissidence is encouraged in certain quarters so as to identify those with
views inimical to the official state narratives. So you see, free speech can be a tool of the
Leviathan State to enslave its enemies. The intrepid Winston Smith's of this site and
everywhere beware!
Hermetic control of information isn't needed, and would be noticed.
Hermetic control of information is precisely what is needed and also achieved by the faux
left-right shadow boxing on TV news that predictably converges on the identical narrative
during events like 9-11 and CV-19.
In almost 100% of the cases from what I can tell, CNN or MSNBC fields the narrative and
then Fox News suffocates reaction with maundering imbecilities about democracy being our
greatest strength when, in truth, it now guarantees extermination in our own land -- thanks
also to the Republican stooges' empty handwringing that amounts to their assent as well.
McConnell and Trump are Siamese Twins. This is Trump as much as it's McConnell. Trump, who
has repeatedly decried the FBI and thrown it under the bus, wants to empower it and retool it
into a brownshirt organization as if it isn't already. Trump supporters want tyranny. They
want totalitarianism. They just want their brand of it. Their own shade of totalitarian
lipstick so to speak. Hypocrites. Fools. Numbskulls. Scumbags.
Two independent sources provided a copy of the amendment to Reason. As Ackerman
reported, the amendment would give the FBI the authority under the PATRIOT Act to secretly
collect the browsing records and search history of Americans without a warrant.
McConnell's amendment accomplishes this by adding the words "internet website browsing
records, internet search history records" to the list of records described in FISA law that
covers FBI searches that require businesses to provide customer records. In other words,
this amendment would permit the FBI to turn to your internet provider and demand they fork
over your browser history.
"We have now listed the fundamentals of American government."
No you have not. Fundamental #1 is that the government is essentially a subsidiary of big
business, and operated as an enforcement and regulatory tool. U.s. government is mostly a
front which oligarchic corporate/capitalist power sits behind to wield their power. IE: it is
business that uses government for their ends, and not the other way around, government
wielding business, as Reed appears to posit here in his discussion of how american government
works.
Absolutely remarkable; in fact, 'stunning', as he uses it, is not too much of a stretch. The
'liberal elites' just go right on lying even though the sworn testimony of FBI interviewers
is available for anyone to read, as well as the chilling manipulations of Strozk and Page,
both of whom should be in prison and perhaps will be. And that fucker Schiff should swing. I
can't believe the transformation of Carlson from Bush shill to the reincarnation of Edward R.
Murrow. He makes this case so compellingly that nobody could watch that clip and not believe
that Flynn was railroaded from the outset. And what were they allegedly going to jail Flynn's
son for? Does anyone know? Were they just going to make something up? That is terrifying, and
almost argues for the disbanding of the FBI, although it demonstrably still contains honest
agents – as Carlson asks rhetorically, how many times have they done this already, and
gotten away with it?
It's hard to imagine anyone would vote Democrat now.
Couldn't have been too much of a crime, if they offered to let him go in exchange for Flynn
pleading guilty to lying. Actually, you'd kind of think their business was prosecuting crimes
whoever committed them, and that offering to excuse a crime in exchange for a guilty plea is
.kind of a crime.
Man, they have to clean house at the FBI. And there probably are several other
organizations that need it, too. Not the political culling based on ideology that was a
feature of the Bush White House, but the crowd that's in now just cannot be allowed to get
off with nothing.
Greetings Mark and all, I am a new arrival as Jen suggested the company is fine here for
barflies to ponder the world. Can I surmise that if Flynn and son were the FBI targets for
nefarious business dealings then surely Biden and son fall in to that same category. After
all Biden and son filched millions after arranging a USA loan of $1Billion to Ukraine and
then did it again after the IMF loaned a few million more. Carpetbagging and its modern day
practice is a crime in the USA last I looked.
If that conspicuous bias isn't enough cause to dismember the FBI then consider the Uranium
One deal that Hillary Clinton and family set up or perhaps the Debbie Wasserman Shultz
fostering the Awan family spy and blackmail ring.
Good day, Uncle, and welcome! For some reason I can't fathom, the Democrats seem to own or
control all the 'respectable' media in the USA. FOX News is an exception, and has been a
mouthpiece for the Republicans since its inception. But the Democrats control the New York
Times and the Washington Post, which together represent the bulk of American public feeling
to foreigners, and probably to the domestic audience as well. They are extremely active on
conflicts between the two parties, ensuring the Democratic perspective gets put forward in
calm, reasonable why-wouldn't-a-sensible-person-think-this-way manner. At the same time they
cast horrific aspersions at the Republicans. Not that either are much good; but the news
coverage is very one-sided – the position of the Democrats on the sexual-assault furor
over the Kavanaugh appointment compared with their wait-and-see attitude to very similar
accusations against Biden is a classic example.
I don't think its the Democrats that control the NYT &WP, so much as plutocrats.
They're also the ones who fund both the Democrats & the Republicans. The only significant
difference between the parties is largely in the arena of the social "culture war" issues.
But on the issues plutocrats care about, like economic policy & foreign policy, the
differences are shades of grey, rather than actual distinctions.
Just remember the coverage of both papers in the run up to George W Shrub's catastrophic
Iraq war. They're stenographers, not journalists.
That may well be true, but the NYT and WP historically champion the Democrats, endorse the
Democratic candidate for president, and pander to Democratic issues and projects. The Wall
Street Journal is the traditional Republican print outlet, and there might be others but I
don't know them. CNN is overwhelmingly and weepily Democratic in its content – Wolf
Blitzer's eyes nearly roll back in his head with ecstasy whenever he mentions Saint Hillary
– while FOX News is Repubican to the bone and openly contemptuous of liberals. It could
certainly be, on reflection probably is, that the same cabal of corporatists control them
all, and a fine joke they must think it. And I certainly and emphatically agree there is
almost no difference between the parties in execution of external policy.
"... Sad but true. We are all given our illusions. In US its the illusion of democracy which is a fake democracy cloaking our totalitarian reality. In China they give the people the illusion of moving towards socialism, a fake socialism to be sure, never mind all the billionaire party members (and they don't have universal health care either, its insurance based) .The people have long accepted the reality of totalitarianism so they are one step ahead. ..."
Sad but true. We are all given our illusions. In US its the illusion of democracy which
is a fake democracy cloaking our totalitarian reality. In China they give the people the
illusion of moving towards socialism, a fake socialism to be sure, never mind all the
billionaire party members (and they don't have universal health care either, its insurance
based) .The people have long accepted the reality of totalitarianism so they are one step
ahead.
Since China doesn't have another party to blame they must blame external enemies like the
US and we happily play along with tarrifs paid for by us dumb sheep who cry out in
satisfaction "take that". Lol
A fake Cold War works for us too. Trump says we are in a race for 5G and AI/Robotics with
China. We must win or all is lost to China. Social credit scores, digital ID and digital
currency along with Total Information Awareness and Full Spectrum Dominance over the
herd.
Health effects of 5G will be blamed on CoVID. Fake Science is a great tool. Scientists
never lie, they can be trusted, just like Priests . They are the Priests of the New
Technocratic World Order. Global Warming and COVID- We must believe. They say Vaccines and 5G
are good for you, just like DDT and Tobacco were said to be Good by Scientists of another
time. We must believe. Have Faith and you will earn social credit bonus points.
Reality is Fake Wrestling. Kayfabe all the way baby. Who is the face and who is the heel?
We are free to choose. So who says we don't have freedom?
The genius of America's totalitarian system of government is that it is not totally total,
and sometimes not very totalitarian at all. It is just total enough. Truly total
government–"Your papers, citizen," stop-and-frisk, permission needed to travel from city
to city–might spark revolt. By contrast, a sufficiency of totalitarianism, but not an
excess, keeps the populace in adequate torpidity. Thus done astutely, totalitarianism is hardly
noticed.
The founder of this philosophy was that rascal, Abe Lincoln. As we have all heard in what
has become almost a cliche, he said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all
of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." He
wisely did not add, " but you can fool enough of the people enough of the time."
Lincoln's Principle of Sufficiency is the First Pillar of Practical Totalitarianism. The
Second Pillar is reliance on the private sector for effectuation. This gives the government
plausible deniability. For example, Google has all your email for decades back, This is
annoying but not truly alarming. If the federal government (openly) collected emails,
conservatives would shriek about totalitarianism. But Google isn't the government–is
it?
The Third pillar: A press not too noticeably controlled, with enough apparent difference of
opinion to simulate savage debate of ideas–without touching on any important ones. For
example, Rachel Maddow rattles that Trump is a Russian agent while Rush Limbaugh, the Rachel
Maddow of the Right, demurs furiously. This allows people to be excited and engaged without
endangering either Wall Street or the military budget.
Hermetic control of information isn't needed, and would be noticed. Most people get most of
their news from the lobotomy box. Anything that doesn't appear on the flickering screen doesn't
exist for most, and these are enough. It is thus possible to suppress information not by
suppressing it, but by ignoring it.
We have now listed the fundamentals of American government. Now let us examine the use and
intersection of these principles here and abroad.
China is typically offered as practicing the blackest totalitarianism, the implicit contrast
being with the enlightened democracy enjoyed by Americans. For example, we are told that In
China, everything you say or do is monitored. Obviously China is a most terrible place. Who
could doubt it?
By contrast, in America, cameras are everywhere, all email is recorded, every bank
transaction, credit-card purchase, who you called by telephone and when, and of course criminal
records. Depending on location, traffic lights photograph your license number if you run a
light (and for all you know, if you don't), license-plate readers check for stolen vehicles and
(perhaps) delete legal plates. Cell towers know approximately where you and Google Maps knows
to within a few feet. Locations can be cross-checked with those of other phones to see who you
were with. Now face-recognition comes along.
Since little of this is directly done by the federal government, we do not live in a
surveillance state. After all, none of the entities involved would share their information with
the feds–would they?
In China,we are told, there is no freedom of expression. Well, actually there is, as long as
you don't say the wrong things about the wrong things. In America we have freedom of speech. It
says so in the Constitution.
Well, we have freedom of speech as long as we don't say the wrong things about the wrong
things. We all know what we can't say and who we can't say it about. In many places, certainly
in the media where you might influence others, you can lose your job for saying things that
upset blacks, Jews, feminists, homosexuals, LBGQXYZs, Hispanics, or Muslims. In the media you
cannot say anything if favor of the Second Amendment, against abortion, about black crime,
against the military budget or the wars. You cannot doubt accounts of such events as the
Trayvon Martin adventure. On the web, sites can be and increasingly are "deplatformed" by the
social media.
But as these are not formally part of government, we have freedom of speech. See? No
unelected dictator decides what we are permitted to know or say. Mark Zuckerberg does.
This is very different from China in that in that wait. I'll think of something.
Here we come to the Fourth Pillar of Sufficient Totalitarianism: Repetition, repetition,
repetition. In Mein Kamp f (now removed from Amazon) Adolf said that propaganda should
not be entrusted to.intellectuals They are, he said, easily bored, like sophisticated ideas,
and constantly want to change the message.
Instead, he said, keep it simple enough for the masses to understand, and say it over and
over and over, and they will come to believe it. More precisely, enough will come to believe
it. The rest don't matter. This is much cheaper than kicking in doors at three a.m. and doesn't
arouse potentially dangerous resentment
We are told, over and over and over, that America is a democracy and virtually choking on
freedoms. We are told three times in a half hour during the Super Bowl, that we need to buy a
sandwich from Subway. Same principle, exactly. It works.
Here we come to the Bicephalous Monoparty, the stage set of American democracy. In this
production, actors called Republicans and Democrats feign combat. It is like professional
wrestling but without the dignity. By Instinct or prearrangement they avoid mention of things
that might produce restiveness among the electorate: Wall Street, the military budget,
corruption, corporate price-fixing, or Epstein's ability to hang himself from a bedstead two
feet shorter than himself. It is prettily done. By engaging the glands of the multitude with
shiny political baubles–transgender bathrooms, making America great again–the avoid
endangering larceny as usual.
And so, unlike China where democracy does not exist and people have no influence, we have
democracy but no influence. This is much slicker.
For example, if you oppose the interminable wars, what party do you vote for? There are
neither antiwar parties nor serious candidates. Who do you vote for if you want to cut the
goiterous military budget? If you are against torture? If you oppose a militarily aggressive
foreign policy?
Can you influence what your children are taught in school, what is in their textbooks? If
you are against the ongoing enstupidation of education, or against the pulling down of statues?
Against affirmative action? The list could go on.
Thank God we don't live in China. Their government works, ours doesn't, but at least we have
our freedoms.
Write Fred at [email protected] . Put the letters pdq anywhere in the
subject line to avoid autodeletion.
Amazon review: "Essays on America, life, politics, and just about everything. The author
chronicles among other adventures an aging stripper in Austin, dressed in a paper-mache horse,
who had with her a cobra and a tarantula like a yak-hair pillow with legs and alternately
charmed and terrified a room full of cowboys sucking down Bud and . Fred was an apostle of the
long-haul thumb during the Sixties and saw many things. He tells of standing by the big roads
across the desert, rockin in the wind blast of the heavy rigs roaring by and the whine of tires
and dropping into an arroyo at night with a bottle of cheap red and watching the stars and
perhaps smoking things not approved by the government. He tells of..well, that's what the book
is for. Join him."
It can be called "outsourced totalitarianism" and "outsourced censorship".
Just like you've got "outsourced occupying army" (private contractors that allow the govt
to say with a straight face how there's very few "actual US soldiers" left in the Middle
East) and "outsourced spooks" (like the ones that just now performed that comedy routine in
Venezuela).
Just like you've got an "outsourced working class" (imported browns) and even an
"outsourced criminal class" (imported/indoctrinated blacks).
Even "outsourced brownshirt thugs" (Antifa).
It's an increasingly virtual system, which depends on imaginary money from the future, and
outsourced services for everything that can be possibly outsourced. The elements of 21st
century techno-dystopia very much included. Only it's more and more a "virtual computer" (
https://infogalactic.com/info/Full_virtualization
) which the more it grows, the more it self-destructively dismantles the actual hardware that
allows it to exist.
Once the crash comes and it turns out the Anglosphere has been hollowed out completely,
the (((elites))) will simply latch (or try to latch on) to the next organism. Maybe India,
who knows.
As I've said many times, the "populist impulse" of getting back control can only last for
another decade before demographics shift irrevocably (at the same time as the brainwashing
and universal spying techniques reach peak effeciency), and the impulse becomes too weakened,
and before this happens, the Anglosphere needs to enshrine into its laws and constitutions a
shift to the Swiss "a dozen referendums a year" formula.
Only when the (((elites))) have to convince the whole population about their plans, can
there be some sort of break on the more outrageous elements of their agendas.
Plus, if the referendums also touch frequently upon how the media and academia should
behave and what is freedom of speech -- this should ensure some additional safeguards.
If, of course, the referendum results are applied. Let us not forget how California and
Taiwan both voted against gay marriage, but the judges and politicians said "yeah, eat crap,
you dirty filthy drones, we know better than you what you need."
Woah! There's almost nothing I disagree with in this one, which is a refreshing change. Oh,
and there's not even the usual ad for Mexico – donations must be up.
OK, well, you know I'm gonna find something (I did write "almost"), as your biggest
fan critic, Fred, so here goes: There's still that between-the-lines
attitude here of "you people are ALL screwed and all you people who speak up about it and try
to change all this are just more idiots!"
As Rex Little pointed out above, yes, there is homeschooling. I am involved with that
presently, and the awareness of it for parents of small children due to the Kung Flu Infotainment
Panic-Fest * is a big silver lining in all this, especially if it goes on through the
fall. (The effect on the University bubble may be
another.)
Then, there is Michelle Malkin, on this very blog, who wrote another of her
informative pieces on the Orwellian shit being done by the Goolag, with only 11 comments,
unfortunately, vs. over 500 on her column about the Glynn County, Georgia racial brewhaha.
She's not the only one who understand what's going on. Is it all Americans, Fred, who don't
mind Big-Biz doing things that they would decry as totalitarian if done by Big Gov? No, it
most certainly is not, but perhaps only the ones that stay glued to the idiot plate and its
infotainment. From what I've read of you, those informed ones would be the types you'd
bad-mouth for being xenophobic, white trash, racists, John Birch Society Members ** ,
Conservatards, Libertards, something, something else.
Lastly, on China. I see you don't hold them up as having the best-run,
most-people-friendly government in the world, like many unz writers and the proprietor here.
Good on you. Just on the Orwellian stuff though, Fred, I will say that they are headed above
and beyond what goes on over here. I had high hopes for the place as the "Wild, wild, East"
back 1 1/2 decades ago when I first went there. I've been disappointed – see
"Dashed High Hopes for China" – Part 1 and Part 2 .
@Biff
Yes, the kind of provocative writing that helps people reflect on what so many unthinkingly
support.
Let's hope that deadline pressure, thirst for views/comments, or misdirected orneriness
don't lead Mr. Reed to reriff 911 or evolution. Unless, of course, he has something new, or
is willing to argue in good faith.
The late and famous George Keenan has written the operational manual for the Containment
Strategy and the main points are Pillar #2 and #3. Unfortunately I didn't save the document
and the link to post it here. So it goes. (I am just reading Slaughterhouse Number 5).
One wonders why? Because it describes the CPC as the biggest pooling agency in the world
and shows how the bottom up approach to developing policies work?
Many of your reading audience must have come up through the American public education
system.
They cannot seem to get their thick and collective heads around the fact that the current
POTUS is driving the country quickly and inexorably into third world country status. –
if, in fact, it is not already there. It would appear that it is time for another World War
since we have not had one for +/- 75 years and the American military can't wait to push the
buttons!
One of the weaknesses of America is not having different political parties representing
different point of views. On the other hand with the childish nation that we have become,
especially in the last two/three decades I have a tough time seeing people and various
political parties coming together and building coalition and consensus on issues.
So perhaps the only solution is for the system to continue as is until something tragic
happens at the scale we have never seen before then that may open doors for alternative
thoughts and ways of doing things differently.
Having traveled throughout China one year ago, the state of our country hit home for me, when
I returned via LAX. While waiting for a flight in an LAX airport gate, I was surrounded by
third-world rejects and our home-grown trash with tattoos all over their bodies, nose
piercings, etc. It was a jarring contrast to the intelligent normal people that I encountered
in China. I felt I had returned to a highly abnormal place in which I have a continuous
feeling of no longer fitting in.
As a parent, I've found through 18 years of my children's education, that we have no
control of what is being taught. You cannot hope to change anything through school officials,
because they are required by law to follow the national/state common-core curriculum. I did
home school one of my daughters, very successfully, but I would not recommend it. Teaching
skills aren't easily learned, it is a full-time job, and the child misses the social aspects
of school.
"... One of the most embarrassing is the testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former Obama Administration official who was widely quoted in her plea to Congress to gather the evidence that she knew was found in by the Obama Administration. In her testimony under oath Farkas repeatedly stated that she knew of no such evidence of collusion. ..."
"... Farkas, who served as the deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia, was widely quoted when she said on MSNBC in 2017 that she feared that evidence she knew about would be destroyed by the Trump Administration. She stated: ..."
"... ...was urging my former colleagues, and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill Get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration, because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people that left. So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy . . . the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their, the staff, the Trump staff's dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. So I became very worried, because not enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more. ..."
"... 'You also didn't know whether or not anybody in the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, did you?' Gowdy later asked, getting to the point. ..."
The long-delayed release of testimony from the House Intelligence Committee has proved
embarrassing for a variety of former Obama officials who have been extensively quoted on the
allegedly strong evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign and the Russians. Figures like
James Clapper, who is a CNN expert, long indicated hat the evidence from the Obama
Administration was strong and alarming. However, in testimony, Clapper denied seeing any
such evidence .
One of the most embarrassing is the testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former Obama
Administration official who was widely quoted in her plea to Congress to gather the evidence
that she knew was found in by the Obama Administration. In her testimony under oath Farkas
repeatedly stated that she knew of no such evidence of collusion.
Farkas, who served as the deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia,
was widely quoted when she said on MSNBC in 2017 that she feared that evidence she knew about
would be destroyed by the Trump Administration. She stated:
...was urging my former colleagues, and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill Get as much
information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves
the administration, because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with
the senior people that left. So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy . . . the Trump
folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their, the staff, the Trump staff's
dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning
we would no longer have access to that intelligence. So I became very worried, because not
enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more.
MSNBC never seriously questioned the statements despite the fact that Farkas left
the Obama Administration in 2015 before any such investigation could have occurred. As we have
seen before, the factual and legal basis for such statements are largely immaterial in the age
of echo journalism. The statement fit the narrative even if it lacked any plausible basis.
Not surprisingly, the House Intelligence Committee was eager to have Farkas share all that
she stated she "knew about ["the Trump folks"], their staff, the Trump's staff's dealing with
Russian" and wanted to get "into the open." After all, she told MSNBC that "I knew that there
was more."
She was finally put under oath in the closed classified sessions and there was nothing but
classified crickets. Farkas was repeatedly asked to share that information that electrified the
MSNBC hosts and audience. She repeatedly denied any such knowledge, telling then Rep. Trey
Gowdy (R, S.C.), "I didn't know anything."
Gowdy noted that Farkas left the Obama administration in 2015 and asked "Then how did you
know?" She repeated again "I didn't know anything."
Gowdy then asked "Well, then why would you say, we knew?"
He also asked:
'You also didn't know whether or not anybody in the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia,
did you?' Gowdy later asked, getting to the point.
"I didn't," Farkas responded.
MSNBC has said nothing about its prior headline story being untrue. Indeed, the media has
barely acknowledged that the new documents reinforce that there was never any evidence of
collusion and ultimately the allegations were rejected by the Special Counsel, Congress, and
inspectors general.
'fter I left the Obama administration, I campaigned to help elect Secretary Clinton as our
next President. When Russians interfered in that election, I was among the first to sound the
alarm and urge Congress to take action. And I haven't let up since then.
She was indeed one of the first but it proved to be a false alarm based on
nonexistent knowledge. Does that matter anymore?
"... In light of such a history of distrust – the president who'd promised to not only shutter the infamous Guantanamo Bay prison but also end the seemingly eternal wars in the Middle East had not only failed to deliver on those promises, but actually launched several new wars in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan – it's no surprise Americans are reluctant to embrace the Trump administration's Covid-19 narrative. ..."
"... Like the fabled boy who cried wolf, it doesn't matter if the emergency is real this time – the government has simply worn out its welcome by making demands on false pretenses. ..."
Just over a third of Americans trust President Donald Trump's information about the
Covid-19 pandemic, according to a new poll. But given decades of crises mishandled by the
government, the only surprise is that it isn't lower. A CNN poll showing that just 36 percent
of Americans trust Trump for reliable information about the coronavirus was held up
triumphantly by the president's critics on Tuesday as proof his credibility is circling the
drain. But it's more likely to be the fallout not just from Trump, but from the two preceding
presidential administrations' misrepresentation of crises, that has created epidemic levels of
distrust among the people.
Trump's own approval rating is hovering around 45 percent, according to the poll, conducted
by CNN in conjunction with SSRS and released on Tuesday. While it's been presented as a
scathing mass rejection of Trump, the same pollsters are actually seeing an uptick in support
for the president – the approval rating last month stood at 44 percent, and the previous
month's was 43. But Americans can't be faulted for distrusting the Trump administration's
narratives, given prior presidents' tendencies toward crying wolf in ways that have invariably
left the American people worse off.
The last time Washington tried to mobilize the US with the threat of an invisible enemy was
during George W. Bush's 'War on Terror' after the September 11 attacks. While it soon became
apparent that the many deaths that occurred on that day had nothing to do with the subsequent
US invasions of Afghanistan and then Iraq, it was too late by the time Americans found out they
had been lied to. Not only had the Afghan government willingly offered up Osama bin Laden, but
Saddam Hussein was found to have had no 'weapons of mass destruction', and the entire narrative
was the concoction of a secretive entity that had been set up to create a casus belli for war
with Iraq despite the facts.
Bush's approval ratings declined
steadily following 9/11, as the nation was forced into one war after another on false
pretenses. At his lowest point, just 25 percent of Americans trusted him. The 'invisible enemy'
of terrorism – supposedly lurking around every corner and requiring Americans to
practically disrobe at entrances to airports – had lost its luster, and Bush's poor
handling of real-life crises like Hurricane Katrina put the final nail in the coffin of his
credibility.
While Barack Obama entered office on a high note with a promise of " hope and
change ," his approval rating also plunged quickly – especially when he refused to
stand in the way of the wildly unpopular 2008 'Wall Street bailout' –
sinking to 41 percent in 2011 as Americans grew restive after years of recession with no
change in sight. By 2014, 70 percent of
respondents to an MSNBC poll stated the country was headed in the wrong direction, with 80
percent singling out the political system as the primary culprit. Congress enjoyed an
appallingly low 14 percent approval rating.
In light of such a history of distrust – the president who'd promised to not only
shutter the infamous Guantanamo Bay prison but also end the seemingly eternal wars in the
Middle East had not only failed to deliver on those promises, but actually launched several new
wars in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan – it's no surprise Americans are reluctant
to embrace the Trump administration's Covid-19 narrative.
Another invisible enemy that requires
them to sacrifice their livelihoods – a
third of Americans couldn't pay their rent last month, while even the paltry $1,200
stimulus checks supposedly heading to 130 million Americans have apparently not reached
half their intended recipients yet – is reminding Americans of what happened last
time they were told to put aside their real-life concerns and fall in line behind a narrative
that turned out to be false.
Like the fabled boy who cried wolf, it doesn't matter if the
emergency is real this time – the government has simply worn out its welcome by making
demands on false pretenses.
The coronavirus crisis has left neoliberals on both sides of the aisle scrambling to defend
the institutions that have failed Americans and the world during this crisis.
The establishment believed they had finally halted the rising tide of populism and
nationalism. Now the coronavirus could reverse all of that.
As the pandemic leaves a path of death, illness, and economic collapse in its wake,
Americans are re-evaluating their positions on globalization, immigration, and the economy.
They are taking a long hard look at why these supposed panaceas aren't benefiting the working
class.
The public has awoken to the downsides of globalization and trade, especially in the
context of China. According to
Pew Research , the portion of Americans with an unfavorable view of China rose from 47
percent in 2017 to 66 percent in 2020, the highest number on record. For the first time, a
majority of younger Americans also shared this opinion of the communist nation. The poll also
found that 85 percent of Americans see the trade deficit with China as either a "very serious"
or "somewhat serious" concern. A similar percentage had similar feelings on the loss of jobs to
China and the growing military and technological threat they pose.
The shift is most noticeable even among conventional free traders like Senator Marco Rubio.
Back in 2016, he
attacked then-candidate Trump for even mentioning the prospect of tariffs on China. Now he
has become one of the biggest China hawks in Congress. In a recent Fox News interview
, he stated that China must pay "diplomatically, economically, and beyond" for their role in
the coronavirus. However, Congress has yet to act in any forceful way.
Immigration is another issue where Americans have turned against the globalist consensus.
Polls by The Washington Post and USA Today have found that 65 percent and 79 percent, respectively, want a temporary
freeze on all legal immigration during the coronavirus outbreak. That's a position more
populist and nationalist than anything that Trump has implemented.
At the same time, there's been a renewed understanding of the class divide in the United
States. The economic toll of the virus and the subsequent shutdown is predominately felt by
young and working-class Americans, a
majority of whom say they've experienced some job upheaval. Loopholes in the Paycheck
Protection Program that were supposed to prevent small business layoffs have allowed funds to
go to billion-dollar businesses, like Harvard, the LA Lakers, and Shake Shack. (Those three did
later reject the money after being publicly shamed.)
As Main Street shuttered and over 30 million Americans headed for the unemployment line,
America's billionaires added $238 billion to
their fortunes.
The contrasting experiences between the working class and the upper class has all the
ingredients of a populist backlash. Washington has thus far proven incapable of acting on
voters' demands to punish China and halt immigration. While millions of Americans are going to
bed uncertain as to whether they'll be able to feed their families, Speaker Nancy Pelosi
showcases her $25,000 freezer full of ice cream to late-night TV hosts.
The reality is that the Washington political class is more concerned with protecting its
donors' supply of cheap labor and products than with helping everyday Americans.
The coronavirus crisis has left neoliberals on both sides of the aisle scrambling to defend
the institutions that have failed Americans and the world during this crisis. The managing
director of the George W. Bush Institute
published an article condemning tariffs and "manipulating the market" to bring American
manufacturing back to its shores. Likewise, former President Jimmy Carter attacked
President Trump for defunding the World Health Organization. Media outlets have also published
stories sympathetic to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Americans are desperate for a government that can react to the current crisis and respond to
their needs. If politicians fail, the populists of the future will look a lot more compelling
to voters than Bernie Sanders -- and a lot more dangerous to the current political
establishment than Donald Trump.
Ryan Girdusky is the author of They're Not Listening: How the Elites Created the
National Populist Revolution . He is a contributing editor to TAC and a host of Right
Now.
"... House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election . ..."
"... Instead, the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted Trump to win, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed. They said that CIA analysts also objected to including that flawed, substandard information in the assessment. ..."
"... Fox 's Henry said that he has obtained independent confirmation of the pro-Clinton Russia claim made by Fleitz . ..."
"... Brennan's concealment of this key information was yet another link in the chain of the Obama administration's plot to smear Donald Trump as a Russian asset - a hoax supported by the Clinton-funded Steele dossier, which the FBI knew was Russian disinformation (or, more likely, Steele's Russophobic fantasies) before they used it as a predicate to spy on Trump aide Carter Page during the 2016 election. ..."
Former CIA director John Brennan suppressed intelligence which
indicated that Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to win because "she was a known quantity," vs. the
unpredictable Donald Trump, according to Fox News ' Ed Henry.
During a Tuesday night discussion with Tucker Carlson, Henry said that Brennan "also had
intel saying, actually, Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to win because she was a known quantity,
she had been secretary of state, and Vladimir Putin's team thought she was more malleable,
while candidate Donald Trump was unpredictable."
Perhaps Russian President Vladimir Putin has fond memories of the time Bill Clinton
hung out at his 'private homestead' during the same trip where he collected a $500,000
payday for a speech at a Moscow bank, right before the Uranium One deal was approved.
And as
Breitbart 's Joel Pollak notes, Henry's claim backs up a similar
allegation by former National Security Council chief of staff Fred Fleitz , who said on
April 22:
House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation
reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan
suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more
predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election .
Instead, the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet
intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted
Trump to win, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed. They said that CIA analysts also
objected to including that flawed, substandard information in the assessment.
Fox 's Henry said that he has obtained independent confirmation of the pro-Clinton Russia
claim made by Fleitz .
Brennan's concealment of this key information was yet another link in the chain of the Obama
administration's plot to smear Donald Trump as a Russian asset - a hoax supported by the
Clinton-funded Steele dossier, which the FBI
knew was Russian disinformation (or, more likely, Steele's Russophobic fantasies) before
they used it as a predicate to spy on Trump aide Carter Page during the 2016 election.
And now, Brennan is a contributor on MSNBC. How fitting.
Recently, there's been rather heated
debate – a sort of progressive civil war – over what's being called "
lesser
evil " voting. To Biden, or not to Biden; that seems the existential question. However,
most discussion centers on whether Joe Biden would be a meaningfully better than Donald Trump
on domestic policy: healthcare, taxes, immigration, and – of course – the
coronavirus response. Fair questions, all; but on one subject – over which presidents
have near
limitless power – Biden's extensive record provides clear answers. For when it
comes to foreign – especially military – policy, the man has hardly ever been
right. On war, Biden's is a blood-soaked litany indeed.
Biden's foreign policy has been one big series of gambles. In the past, he's even framed
it as such. Undoubtedly, few remember the time way back in Barack Obama's first term, when
Biden – assigned as the administration's point-man on all
things Iraq – predicted with absolute certainty that the Baghdad government would
accede to the enduring presence of small numbers of American troops after the December 31,
2011 "end of combat operations." In fact, the ever-folksy Biden told the New York
Times
he would bet his vice presidency that Iraq would extend this Status of Forces Agreement
(SoFA). It didn't. Nevertheless, Joe reneged on the wager and kept the number two spot in the
land. Biden, like just about every establishment policymaker in both major parties,
underestimated the independence and growing
hostility of the Shia strongman Nouri al-Maliki, whom the
vice president himself helped install after
the prime minister had lost an election.
Yet Biden's Iraq War record goes far deeper. Sure, he voted for Bush's
initial invasion. Only that's not the half of it. From his senior perch as chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the future vice president quite literally sold the
war to his more doubtful colleagues – twisting arms, making calls, and applying the
classic Biden-charm – and to the American people writ large. Then, months after it was
crystal clear that the invasion had been built on lies
(no WMDs, no Saddam-Al Qaeda connection, etc.) – and by which point chaos and local
resistance already reigned – Biden continued to defend the war and
the "popular" president who orchestrated it. Biden didn't just vote for aggression and mayhem
in Iraq; he championed it.
Beyond Baghdad, Biden's national security positions have also been abysmal. What's more,
based on his own published campaign
vision , other than the discrete Iraq War vote itself, the presumptive Democratic nominee
is unwilling to apologize for, or meaningfully alter, his past formulas for failure. It's
what Biden's "vision"
doesn't mention that's most troubling: Obama-
destroyed Libya, his old boss's floundering quagmire in Syria, any meaningful challenge
to Israeli apartheid , or
commitment to a full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Mideast disaster areas. Better
yet, the word "drone" doesn't appear once – so one assumes the terror bombing won't
abate under Biden. In the final analysis, Joe offers little more than the
status quo from West Africa to Central Asia – an intolerable situation he himself
crafted over decades as the Democrats' leading foreign policy guru.
When it comes to war and peace, nominating Biden is like assigning the criminal with
solving the crime. Indeed, so consistently wrong has he been on these issues, that one
wonders whether he's a secret (if nefarious) genius. As I've sardonically theorized , being policy-wrong
every time – like scoring zero on a multiple-choice test – almost requires
knowing all the right answers and choosing to fail. Yet it seems unlikely that this
sort of cynical savvy applies to ole Joe.
Is he better alternative than Trump on foreign affairs? Yes and no. Despite his populist
"bring home the troops" campaign rhetoric – and occasional reprises
in office – The Donald has hardly followed through. Often he's escalated
bombings and
boots-on-the-ground in the Greater Middle East. And admittedly, Biden seems more likely
– but hardly
certain – to reinstate the Iran nuclear deal and modestly tone down the
march-to-war rhetoric. Then again, so far – though the colluding duo of
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu try to gin up
real combat – Trump has shown eleventh-hour restraint and
eschewed full-blown war with Tehran. Not to say that The Donald, who has aggressively
upped-the-ante on
unwarranted conflict with Iran merits apologia. However, so far at least – an
inconvenient admission for some – Trump is the first president since Jimmy Carter who
hasn't attempted an overt violent foreign regime change. True, this is a low bar indeed.
Make no mistake, Donald Trump is temperamentally, intellectually, and morally unfit to
serve as commander-in-chief. His ignorant and bellicose position on nuclear weapons makes him
a potentially
existential threat to life well beyond America's borders. Still, even Trump's more
vociferous opponents should know what they're getting when they gamble on Biden: nothing more
than a
polite emperor to replace the rather coarse and clothes-less current occupant of the
throne.
Even if he's preferable on some individual foreign policy issues, Biden has never
questioned the imperium itself. That he won't change his spots and suddenly do so, is
undergirded by the fact – as Chris Hedges recently
pointed out – that "the ruling elites would prefer Biden" over the "vulgar
embarrassment" of Donald Trump. Thus, selecting an emperor – given a presidency long
unfettered
by constitutional checks and balances – amounts to a matter of taste; of style over
substance.
The "masters of the universe" that Hedges describes aren't remotely troubled by reliable,
known-quantity-Joe's sordid foreign policy past. Neither, apparently, are Washington
insiders, mainstream media pundits, or – if we're being honest – most common
citizens. There's certainly been no penalty for Biden – or anyone else – being
repeatedly dead wrong on the most decisive decisions a leader can make. American politics
positively reinforces failure.
In even a marginally healthy republic, Biden's championing of the Iraq War alone –
and decades worth of pathological lying
about that record – ought to have disqualified him. That it hasn't
exposes – like the COVID crisis – the structural and societal rot
undergirding this country. Among the senior ranks of politicians, soldiers
, and corporate oligarchs ,
obvious and undeniable failure carries few consequences. Blame and punishment is reserved for
the lowest level of practitioners whilst power and profits continue to accrue to existing
national security elites.
In contemporary America, there's zero accountability for top policymakers – even
those a heartbeat away from the presidency – who repeatedly gamble soldiers (and
foreigners) lives in far-flung adventures and regularly lose big. Neoconservative and
neoliberal militarist leaders who drummed up disasters like the 2003 Iraq invasion should've
been forever discredited. Instead, they've been laundered like dirty money,
rehabilitated , and born-again as expert analysts on CNN or MSNBC. These, of course,
being the very networks that – in the case of the Bush-era figures, at least –
once lambasted them. As for the real heavy-hitters – Iraq cheerleading Biden and Libya
regime change
architect Hillary Clinton – the Democratic Party "opposition" runs them for
president.
The narrowness of permitted debate on US war policy – and of the electoral options
the two-party duopoly provides – is obscene. It's also proof positive that real
challenges to American militarism must come from outside the system. At stake this November
is more than what some sardonically call " choosing
between two rapists ." What's really on the ballot is the minor matter of emperor
selection. And the choices ain't great. Throughout his nearly 50 years of senior-level public
service, Biden consistently made high-stakes war wagers – playing on credit with blood
and treasure. So far his losses amount to $6.4 trillion in taxpayer cash,
more than 7,000 dead troopers, 21 million refugees, and 335,000 civilian lives.
With that sort of track record at the life-and-death tables, Biden should really seek a
meeting .
Instead, he's become the last great white hope of polite liberals everywhere. And make no
mistake, this doesn't end well. So be careful gambling on Biden. Like Joe betting his vice
presidency on Iraqi elections, it might be a sure loser.
Danny Sjursen is a retired US Army officer and contributing editor atAntiwar.com. His work has appeared in
the NY Times, LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Popular Resistance, and
Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units
in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the
author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. His forthcoming book,
Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War is now available forpre-order. Sjursen was recently selected as a 2019-20 Lannan FoundationCultural Freedom Fellow. Follow him on Twitter@SkepticalVet. Visit his
professionalwebsitefor contact info, to schedule speeches or media appearances, and access to his past
work.
Why is former President Obama calling forth all his defensive resources now?
Why did former national security advisor Susan Rice write her CYA letter? Why have republicans in
congress not been willing to investigate the true origins of political surveillance? What is the
reason for so much anger, desperation and opposition from a variety of interests?
In a
single word in a single tweet tonight, President Trump explained it perfectly - with help from Fox
News' Tucker Carlson's detailed breakdown"
"OBAMAGATE!"
...
As around 2:15 in the clip above, Carlson explains that
then president of the United
States Barack Obama turned to the head of the FBI - the most powerful law enforcement official in
America, and said "Continue to secretly investigate my chief political rival so I can act against
him."
With the release of
recent
transcripts
and the
declassification
of material
from within the IG report, the Carter Page FISA and
Flynn
documents
showing FBI activity, there is a common misconception about
why
the
intelligence apparatus began investigating the Trump campaign in the first place. Why was Donald
Trump considered a threat?
In this outline we hope to provide some fully cited deep source material that will
explain the origin; and specifically why those inside the Intelligence Community began targeting
Trump and using Confidential Human Sources against campaign officials.
During the time-frame of December 2015 through April 2016 the NSA database was being
exploited
by contractors
within the intelligence community doing unauthorized searches.
On March 9, 2016, oversight personnel doing a review of FBI system access were alerted to
thousands of unauthorized search queries of specific U.S. persons within the NSA database.
NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers was made aware.
Subsequently NSA Director Rogers initiated a full compliance review of the system to identify
who was doing the searches; & what searches were being conducted.
On April 18, 2016, following the preliminary audit results, Director Rogers shut down all FBI
contractor access to the database after he learned FISA-702 "about"(17) and "to/from"(16) search
queries were being done without authorization. Thus begins the first discovery of a much bigger
background story.
When you compile the timeline with the people involved; and the specific wording of the
resulting review, which was then delivered to the FISA court; and overlay the activity that was
taking place in the GOP primary; what we discover is a process where the metadata collected by the
NSA was being searched for political opposition research and surveillance.
Additionally, tens-of-thousands of searches were identified by the FISA court as likely
extending much further than the compliance review period: "
while the government reports it is
unable to provide a reliable estimate of the non compliant queries since 2012, there is no apparent
reason to believe the November 2015 [to] April 2016 period coincided with an unusually high error
rate"
.
In short, during the Obama administration the NSA database was continually used to conduct
surveillance. This is the critical point that leads to understanding the origin of "Spygate", as it
unfolded in the Spring and Summer of 2016.
It was the discovery of the database exploitation and the removal of access as a surveillance
tool that created their initial problem.
Here's how we can tell
.
Initially in December 2015 there were 17 GOP candidates and all needed to be researched.
However, when Donald Trump won New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina the field was
significantly whittled. Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and Carson remained.
On Super Tuesday,
March
2, 2016
, Donald Trump won seven states (VT, AR, VA, GA, AL, TN, MA) it was then clear that
Trump was the GOP frontrunner with momentum to become the presumptive nominee. On
March
5th
, Trump won Kentucky and Louisiana; and on
March
8th
Trump won Michigan, Mississippi and Hawaii.
The next day,
March 9th
, NSA security alerts warned internal oversight
personnel that something sketchy was going on.
This timing is not coincidental. As FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer later wrote in her report, "
many
of these non-compliant queries involved the use of the
same identifiers
over
different date ranges
." Put another way: attributes belonging to a specific individual(s) were
being targeted and queried, unlawfully. Given what was later discovered, it seems obvious the
primary search target, over
multiple date ranges
, was Donald Trump.
There were tens-of-thousands of unauthorized search queries; and as Judge Collyer stated in her
report, there is no reason to believe the
85% non compliant rate
was any different from
the abuse of the NSA database going back to 2012.
As you will see below the NSA database was how political surveillance was being conducted during
Obama's second term in office. However, when the system was flagged, and when NSA Director Mike
Rogers shut down "contractor" access to the system, the system users needed to develop another way
to get access.
Mike Rogers shuts down access on April 18, 2016. On April 19, 2016, Fusion-GPS founder Glenn
Simpson's wife, Mary Jacoby visits the White House. Immediately thereafter, the DNC and Clinton
campaign contract Fusion GPS who then hire Christopher Steele.
Knowing it was federal "contractors", outside government with access to the system, doing the
unauthorized searches, the question becomes:
who were the contractors?
The possibilities are quite vast. Essentially anyone the FBI or intelligence apparatus was using
could have participated. Crowdstrike was a known
FBI
contractor
; they were also
contracted
by the DNC
. Shawn Henry was the former head of the FBI office in DC and is now the head of
Crowdstrike; a
rather
dubious contractor
for the government and a politically connected data security and forensic
company. James Comey's special friend Daniel Richman was an unpaid FBI "special employee"
with
security access
to the database. Nellie Ohr began working for Fusion-GPS on the Trump project
in
November 2015
and she was a
CIA
contractor
; and it's entirely likely Glenn Simpson or people within his Fusion-GPS network were
also contractors for the intelligence community.
Remember the Sharyl Attkisson computer intrusions? It's all part of this same network; Attkisson
even names Shawn Henry
as
a defendant
in her ongoing lawsuit.
All of the aforementioned names, and so many more, held a political agenda in 2016.
It seems likely if the NSA flags were never triggered then the contracted system users would
have continued exploiting the NSA database for political opposition research; which would then be
funneled to the Clinton team. However, once the unauthorized flags were triggered, the system users
(including those inside the official intelligence apparatus) needed to find another back-door to
continue Again, the timing becomes transparent.
Immediately after NSA flags were raised March 9th; the same intelligence agencies began using
confidential human sources (CHS's) to run into the Trump campaign. By activating intelligence
assets like
Joseph
Mifsud
and
Stefan
Halper
the IC (CIA, FBI) and system users had now created an authorized way to continue the
same political surveillance operations.
When Donald Trump hired Paul Manafort on
March
28, 2016
, it was a perfect scenario for those doing the surveillance. Manafort was a
known
entity
to the FBI and was previously under investigation. Paul Manafort's entry into the Trump
orbit was perfect for Glenn Simpson to sell his prior research on Manafort as a Trump-Russia
collusion script two weeks later.
The shift from "unauthorized exploitation of the NSA database" to legally authorized
exploitation of the NSA database was now in place. This was how they continued the political
surveillance. This is the confluence of events that originated "spygate", or what officially
blossomed into the FBI investigation known as "Crossfire Hurricane" on July 31.
If the NSA flags were never raised; and if Director Rogers had never initiated the compliance
audit; and if the political contractors were never blocked from access to the database; they would
never have needed to create a legal back-door, a justification to retain the surveillance. The
political operatives/contractors would have just continued the targeted metadata exploitation.
Once they created the surveillance door, Fusion-GPS was then needed to get the FBI known
commodity of Chris Steele activated as a pipeline. Into that pipeline all system users pushed
opposition research. However, one mistake from the NSA database extraction during an "about" query
shows up as a New Yorker named Michael Cohen in Prague.
That misinterpreted data from a FISA-702 "about query" is then piped to Steele and turns up
inside the dossier; it was the wrong Michael Cohen. It wasn't Trump's lawyer, it was an art dealer
from New York City with the same name; the same "identifier".
A DEEP DIVE – How Did It Work?
Start by reviewing the established record from the
99-page
FISC opinion
rendered by Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer on April 26, 2017. Review the details
within the FISC opinion.
I would strongly urge everyone to read the
FISC
report
(full pdf below) because Judge Collyer outlines how the DOJ, which includes the FBI, had
an "institutional lack of candor" in responses to the FISA court. In essence, the Obama
administration was continually lying to the FISA court about their activity, and the rate of fourth
amendment violations for illegal searches and seizures of U.S. persons' private information for
multiple years.
Unfortunately, due to intelligence terminology Judge Collyer's brief and ruling is not an easy
read for anyone unfamiliar with the FISA processes. That complexity also helps the media avoid
discussing it; and as a result most Americans have no idea the scale and scope of the Obama-era
surveillance issues. So we'll try to break down the language.
For the sake of brevity and common understanding CTH will highlight the most pertinent segments
showing just how systemic and troublesome the unlawful electronic surveillance was.
Early in 2016 NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers
was
alerted
of a significant uptick in FISA-702(17) "About" queries using the FBI/NSA database that
holds all metadata records on every form of electronic communication.
The NSA compliance officer alerted Admiral Mike Rogers who then initiated a full compliance
audit on/around
March 9th, 2016
, for the period of November 1st, 2015, through May
1st, 2016.
While the audit was ongoing, due to the severity of the results that were identified, Admiral
Mike Rogers stopped anyone from using the 702(17) "about query" option, and went to the
extraordinary step of blocking all FBI contractor access to the database on
April 18, 2016
(keep
these dates in mind).
Here are some significant segments:
The key takeaway from these first paragraphs is how the search query results were exported from
the NSA database to users who were not authorized to see the material. The FBI contractors were
conducting searches and then removing, or 'exporting', the results. Later on, the FBI said all of
the exported material was deleted.
Searching the highly classified NSA database is essentially a function of filling out search
boxes to identify the user-initiated search parameter and get a return on the search result.
♦ FISA-702(16) is a search of the system returning a U.S. person ("702"); and the "16" is a
check box to initiate a search based on "
To and From
". Example, if you put in a
date and a phone number and check "16" as the search parameter the user will get the returns on
everything "To and From" that identified phone number for the specific date. Calls, texts,
contacts etc. Including results for the inbound and outbound contacts.
♦ FISA-702(17) is a search of the system returning a U.S. person (702); and the "17" is a
check box to initiate a search based on everything "
About
" the search
qualifier. Example, if you put a date and a phone number and check "17" as the search parameter
the user will get the returns of everything
about
that phone. Calls, texts, contacts,
geolocation (or gps results), account information, user, service provider etc. As a result,
702(17) can actually be used to locate where the phone (and user) was located on a specific date
or sequentially over a specific period of time which is simply a matter of changing the date
parameters.
And that's just from a phone number.
Search an ip address "about" and read all data into that server; put in an email address and
gain everything about that account. Or use the electronic address of a GPS enabled vehicle (about)
and you can withdraw more electronic data and monitor in real time. Search a credit card number and
get everything about the account including what was purchased, where, when, etc. Search a bank
account number, get everything about transactions and electronic records etc. Just about anything
and everything can be electronically searched; everything has an electronic
'identifier'
.
The search parameter is only limited by the originating field filled out. Names, places,
numbers, addresses, etc. By using the "About" parameter there may be thousands or millions of
returns. Imagine if you put "@realdonaldtrump" into the search parameter? You could extract all
following accounts who interacted on Twitter, or Facebook etc. You are only limited by your
imagination and the scale of the electronic connectivity.
As you can see below, on March 9th, 2016, internal auditors noted the FBI was sharing "raw FISA
information, including
but not limited to
Section 702-acquired information".
In plain English the raw search returns were being shared with unknown entities without any
attempt to "minimize" or redact the results. The person(s) attached to the results were named and
obvious. There was no effort to hide their identity or protect their 4th amendment rights of
privacy; and database access was from the FBI network:
But what's the scale here? This is where the story really lies.
Read this next excerpt carefully.
The operators were searching "U.S Persons". The review of November 1, 2015, to May 1, 2016,
showed "eighty-five percent of those queries" were unlawful or "non compliant".
85% !!
"representing [redacted number]".
We can tell from the space of the redaction the number of searches were between 10,000 and
99,999 [six digits]. If we take the middle number of 50,000 – a non compliant rate of 85 percent
means 42,500 unlawful searches out of 50,000.
The [six digit] amount (more than 10,000, less than 99,999), and 85% error rate, was captured in
a six month period, November 2015 to April 2016.
Also notice this
very important
quote: "
many of these non-compliant queries
involved the use of the same identifiers over different date ranges
." This tells us the system
users were searching the same phone number, email address, electronic identifier, repeatedly over
different dates.
Specific person(s) were being tracked/monitored
.
Additionally, notice the last quote: "
while the government reports it is unable to provide a
reliable estimate of" these non lawful searches "since 2012, there is no apparent reason to believe
the November 2015 [to] April 2016 coincided with an unusually high error rate"
.
That means the 85% unlawful FISA-702(16)(17) database abuse has likely been happening
since
2012
.
2012 is an important date in this database abuse because a network of specific interests is
assembled that also shows up in 2016/2017:
Who was 2012 FBI Director? Robert Mueller, who was selected by the FBI group to become
special prosecutor in 2017.
Who was Mueller' chief-of-staff? Aaron Zebley, who became one of the lead lawyers on the
Mueller special counsel.
Who was 2012 CIA Director? John Brennan (remember the ouster of Gen Petraeus)
Who was ODNI? James Clapper.
Remember, the NSA is inside the Pentagon (Defense Dept) command structure. Who was Defense
Secretary? Ash Carter
Who wanted NSA Director Mike Rogers fired in 2016? Brennan, Clapper and Carter.
And finally, who wrote and signed-off-on the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment and
then lied about the use of the Steele Dossier? The same John Brennan, and James Clapper along with
James Comey.
Tens of thousands of searches over four years (since 2012), and 85% of them are illegal. The
results were extracted for? . (I believe this is all political opposition use; and I'll explain why
momentarily.)
OK, that's the stunning scale; but who was involved?
Private contractors with access to "
raw FISA information that went well beyond what was
necessary to respond to FBI's requests
":
And as noted, the contractor access was finally halted on April 18th, 2016.
[Coincidentally (or likely not), the wife of Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson, Mary Jacoby,
goes
to the White House
the very next day on April 19th, 2016.]
None of this is conspiracy theory.
All of this is laid out inside this 99-page opinion from FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer
who also noted that none of this FISA abuse was accidental in a
footnote
on page 87
: "
deliberate decisionmaking
":
This specific footnote, if declassified, could be a key. Note the phrase: "(
[redacted]
access to FBI systems was the subject of an interagency memorandum of understanding entered into
[redacted])"
, this sentence has the potential to expose an internal decision; withheld from
congress and the FISA court by the Obama administration; that outlines a process for access and
distribution of surveillance data.
Note: "
no notice of this practice was given to the FISC until 2016
", that is important.
Summary:
The FISA court identified and quantified tens-of-thousands of search queries of the NSA/FBI
database using the FISA-702(16)(17) system. The database was repeatedly used by persons with
contractor access who unlawfully searched and extracted the raw results without redacting the
information and shared it with an unknown number of entities.
The outlined process certainly points toward a political spying and surveillance operation; and
we are not the only one to think that's what this system is being used for.
Back in 2017 when House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was working to reauthorize
the FISA legislation, Nunes
wrote a letter
to ODNI Dan Coats
about this specific issue:
SIDEBAR
:
To solve the issue, well, actually attempt to ensure it never happened again, NSA Director
Admiral Mike Rogers eventually took away the "About" query option permanently in 2017. NSA Director
Rogers said the abuse was so inherent there was no way to stop it except to remove the process
completely. [
SEE
HERE
] Additionally, the NSA database operates as a function of the Pentagon, so the Trump
administration went one step further. On his last day as NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers -together
with ODNI Dan Coats- put U.S. cyber-command, the database steward, fully into the U.S. military as
a full combatant command. [
SEE
HERE
] Unfortunately it didn't work as shown by the 2018 FISC opinion rendered by FISC Judge
James Boasberg [
SEE
HERE
]
There is little doubt the FISA-702(16)(17) database system was used by Obama-era officials, from
2012 through April 2016, as a way to spy on their political opposition.
Quite simply there is no other intellectually honest explanation for the scale and volume of
database abuse that was taking place; and keep in mind these searches were all ruled to be
unlawful. Searches for repeated persons over a period time that were not authorized.
When we reconcile what was taking place and who was involved, then the actions of the exact same
principle participants take on a jaw-dropping amount of clarity.
All of the action taken by CIA Director Brennan, FBI Director Comey, ODNI Clapper and Defense
Secretary Ashton Carter make sense. Including their effort to get NSA Director Mike Rogers
fired
.
Everything after March 9th, 2016, had a dual purpose: (1) done to cover up the weaponization of
the FISA database. [
Explained
Here
] Spygate, Russia-Gate, the Steele Dossier, and even the 2017
Intelligence
Community Assessment
(drawn from the dossier and signed by the above) were needed to create a
cover-story and protect themselves from discovery of this four year weaponization, political
surveillance and unlawful spying. Even the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel makes
sense; he was
FBI Director
when this
began. And (2) they needed to keep the surveillance going.
The beginning decision to use FISA(702) as a domestic surveillance and political spy mechanism
appears to have started in/around 2012. Perhaps sometime shortly before the 2012 presidential
election and before John Brennan left the White House and moved to CIA. However, there was an
earlier version of data assembly that preceded this effort.
Political spying 1.0 was actually the weaponization of the IRS. This is where the term "
Secret
Research Project
" originated as a description from the Obama team. It involved the U.S.
Department of Justice under Eric Holder and the FBI under Robert Mueller. It never made sense why
Eric Holder requested over 1 million tax records via CD ROM, until overlaying the timeline of the
FISA abuse:
The IRS sent the FBI "21 disks constituting a 1.1 million page database of information from
501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation." The transaction
occurred in October 2010 (
link
)
Why disks? Why send a stack of DISKS to the DOJ and FBI when there's a pre-existing financial
crimes unit within the IRS. All of the evidence within this sketchy operation came directly to the
surface in
early
spring 2012
.
The IRS scandal was never really about the IRS, it was always about the DOJ asking the IRS for
the database of information. That is why it was transparently a conflict when the same DOJ was
tasked with investigating the DOJ/IRS scandal. Additionally, Obama sent his chief-of-staff Jack Lew
to become Treasury Secretary; effectively placing an ally to oversee/cover-up any issues. As
Treasury Secretary Lew did just that.
Lesson Learned
– It would appear the Obama administration learned a lesson from
attempting to gather a large opposition research database operation inside a functioning
organization large enough to have some good people that might blow the whistle.
The timeline reflects a few months after realizing the "Secret Research Project" was now
worthless (June 2012), they focused more deliberately on a smaller network within the intelligence
apparatus and began weaponizing the FBI/NSA database. If our hunch is correct, that is what will be
visible in footnote #69:
How this all comes together in 2019/2020
Fusion GPS was not hired in April 2016 just to research Donald Trump. As shown in the evidence
provided by the FISC, the intelligence community was already doing surveillance and spy operations.
The Obama administration already knew everything about the Trump campaign, and were monitoring
everything by exploiting the FISA database.
However, after the NSA alerts in/around March 9th, 2016, and particularly after the April 18th
shutdown of contractor access, the Obama intelligence community needed Fusion GPS to create a legal
albeit
ex post facto
justification for the pre-existing surveillance and spy operations.
Fusion GPS gave them that justification in the Steele Dossier.
That's why the FBI small group, which later transitioned into the Mueller team, were so strongly
committed to and defending the
formation of the Steele Dossier
and its
dubious content.
The Steele Dossier, an outcome of the Fusion contract, contains three insurance policy purposes:
(1) the cover-story and justification for the pre-existing surveillance operation (protect Obama);
and (2) facilitate the FBI counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign (assist
Clinton); and (3) continue the operation with a special counsel (protect both).
An insurance policy would be needed. The Steele Dossier becomes the investigative virus the FBI
wanted inside the system. To get the virus into official status, they used the FISA application as
the delivery method and injected it into Carter Page. The FBI already knew Carter Page; essentially
Carter Page was irrelevant, what they needed was the FISA warrant and the Dossier in the system {
Go
Deep
}.
The Obama intelligence community needed Fusion GPS to give them a plausible justification for
already existing surveillance and spy operations. Fusion-GPS gave them that justification and
evidence for a FISA warrant with the Steele Dossier.
Ultimately that's why the Steele Dossier was so important; without it, the FBI would not have a
tool that Mueller needed to continue the investigation of President Trump. In essence by renewing
the FISA application, despite them knowing the underlying dossier was junk, the FBI was keeping the
surveillance gateway open for Team Mueller to exploit later on.
Additionally, without the Steele Dossier the DOJ and FBI are naked with their FISA-702 abuse as
outlined by John Ratcliffe.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/wWsvZuiPyTI
Thankfully we know U.S. Attorney John Durham has talked to NSA Director Mike Rogers. In this
video Rogers explains how he was notified of what was happening and what he did after the
notification.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/CIJGH9RS2Fc
* * *
After tonight's tweets from President Trump, we should expect a full-court press from 'the
resistance' to distract from the cracks appearing in the former President's halo of
invincibility...
Do the Democratic Party's leadership and its many allied mainstream media outlets have no
shame? They are determined to run Joe Biden, a presidential candidate who embodies many of the
evils for which they condemn Donald Trump. Corporate Joe
Democrats rightly charge the reputed billionaire Donald Trump with
serving the wealthy few . Yes, but what about Joe? His corporatist and pro-Wall Street
record in
Congress included votes to rollback bankruptcy
protections for college graduates (1978) and vocational school graduates (1984) with
federal student loans.
He
worked with Republicans to pass the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection
Act, which put " clean slate " Chapter-7 bankruptcy out of reach for millions of
ordinary Americans (2005).
Biden voted against a bill that would have compelled credit card companies to warn customers
of the costs of only making minimum payments. He honored campaign
cash from Coca-Cola by cosponsoring a bill that permitted soft-drink producers to skirt
antitrust laws (1979).
He joined just one other Congressional Democrat to vote against a Judiciary Committee
measure to increase consumers' rights to sue corporations for price-fixing (1979).
He strongly
backed the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which permitted the re-merging of investment and
commercial banking by repealing the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act. (This helped create the
2007-8 financial crisis and subsequent recession, which led to a massive taxpayer bailout of
the rich combined with little for the rest of the population – a policy that Biden backed
as vice presidential candidate and as Vice President).
During his time as a US Senator, " lunch bucket Joe " Biden
supported the globalist investor rights North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which
cost millions of US manufacturing workers their jobs.
Adding neoliberal insult to neoliberal injury, presidential candidate Biden has criticized
those who advocate a universal basic income (a fundamental need, in the wake of the current
Covid-19 crash) of "
selling American workers short " and undermining the "dignity" of work.
Biden opposes calls for supposedly " too expensive " universal Single Payer health
insurance, going so far as to say he would
veto a Medicare for All bill as president! He defends Big Business and the rich from
popular criticism, mocking those who "want to single out big corporations for all the blame"
and
proclaiming " I don't think five hundred billionaires are the reason we're in trouble.
The folks at the top aren't bad guys. "
Biden even says he has "no empathy" for Millennials' struggle to get by in the savagely
unequal precariat economy he helped create over his many years of service to the Lords of
Capital. " The younger generation now tells me how tough things are -- give me a
break, " said Biden, while speaking to Patt Morrison of the Los Angeles Times two years
ago. " No, no, I have no
empathy for it, give me a break ."
Biden has not spoken one critical word about Trump and Congress's taxpayer-funded bailout
for the American capitalist "elite" and its top corporations and financial institutions in the
wake of Covid-19 – a massive and largely
unaccountable giveaway that puts no caps on executive compensation and elite profits while
offering little more than a pittance to the nation's working-class majority.
The Democrats and their media
rightly accuse Trump of serial deception, misstatement, and lying. Okay, but what about
Joe? In
a lie told twice , in 2001 and 2007, Biden falsely and viciously claimed that his first
wife and baby boy were killed by a drunk truck driver in 1972.
On the campaign trail last year, Biden told a ridiculous tale (a longstanding recurrent
Biden fib) about his supposed heroic role in honoring a medal-winning US soldier in a war zone
as vice president.
Last February, at a campaign event in South Carolina, Biden tried to win Black votes by
falsely claiming to have been arrested while trying to visit Nelson Mandela in jail during
the apartheid era in South Africa.
Last January, during a debate, Biden claimed that he argued against George W. Bush's
invasion of Iraq immediately after it began. In fact, it took Biden two years
to admit that Bush's war and Biden's own Senate vote to authorize it were "mistakes" (try
'crimes').
Sleepy Joe
The Democrats and their media raise legitimate questions about Trump's mental health and
fitness. Fine, but what about Joe? Earlier this year, he strangely invaded centrist MSNBC host
Joy Reid's physical space to accuse her of being a radical who wants "
a physical revolution ."
As a presidential candidate in the current cycle, Biden has forgotten
what state he's in,
confused his wife with his sister , and claimed that he would have " beaten the
hell out of Trump " in high school. Last September , he tried to woo Black voters
with a bizarre and rambling story about an alleged past adolescent swimming pool confrontation
with a young Black tough named " Corn Pop ."
On the campaign trail in Iowa, an unhinged Biden
said this to an older white male Elizabeth Warren supporter who dared to ask about the
corruption involved in Hunter Biden's lucrative presence on the board of a gas company in
Ukraine: " You're a damn liar .Look, fat you're too old to vote for me ."
Speaking in Texas last March, Biden made audience members cringe when he called Super
Tuesday " Super
Thursday " and tried to quote from the American Declaration of Independence. " We hold
these truths to be self-evident ," Biden gaffed: " All men um, are created by the, um,
co, oh, YOU KNOW THE THING !"
Biden responded
to a debate question about racial inequality, segregation, and the legacy of slavery last
September by smirkng and then awkwardly telling Black parents to " put on the television, I
mean the record player " for their children.
Last February, he called a young female voter in New Hampshire
" a lying dog-faced pony soldier. " He also said that
"150 million" Americans – almost half of the US population – " have been
killed " due to gun violence.
In debates and interviews, the 77-year old Biden routinely loses his train of thought in
mid-sentence, mis-pronounces his words, forgets basic facts, and generally looks confused while
seeming to rave and be on the verge of punching someone.
Bodyguards have had to stand between Biden and voters because he lacks the impulse control
to stop himself from
touching, sniffing, and massaging women in his vicinity.
It's not for nothing that the Democratic National Committee and the Biden campaign are
keeping "Sleepy Joe" as much
out of the public eye – almost literally locked in his basement – as
possible.
But just as FOX News looks the other way when it comes to Trump's mental illness and
difficulties, the liberal mainstream media is shockingly silent on Biden's clearly fading cognitive health.
In 2020 as in previous US elections, Democrats are telling American progressives yet again
that they must vote for an inadequate, duplicitous, imperial, and corporate-captive
presidential candidate as " the lesser evil. " In reality, however, Lesser Evil-ism is
a self-fulfilling prophecy that helps move the narrow American major-party spectrum further to
the right while channeling popular political energies into an electoral system that does not
represent the nation's working- and middle-class majority.
Aptly described by the late left political scientist Sheldon Wolin as " the
Inauthentic Opposition, " the neoliberal Democratic Party offers no serious resistance,
electoral or otherwise, to the corporate and financial class rule advanced by the rightmost of
the only two viable political organizations. The mentally declining liar and corporatist Joe
Biden is graphic and depressing evidence for Wolin's thesis.
Paul Street is the author of numerous books, including They Rule: The 1% v. Democracy
(Routledge, 2014) and The Empire's New Clothes: Barack Obama in the Real World of Power
(Routledge, 2011).
This is nationwide gaslighting by Clinton gang of neoliberals who attempted coup d'état, and Adam Schiff was just one of the
key figures in this coupe d'état, king of modern Joe McCarthy able and willing to destroy a person using false evidence
What is interesting is that Tucker attacked Republicans for aiding and abetting the coup
d'état against Trump
It wasn't "Leaders" that offshored everything to China, it was "BUSINESS LEADERS" although
they were enabled to do so by government policies that failed to tariff cheap foreign
imports.
i find it unbelievable and unacceptable that our medicines are not made here. this MUST
change. it is one thing to buy cheap tools and toys from china but NOT vital supplies, this
has to change fast.
The Western Roman Empire fell in part because they were dependent upon grain supplied from
North Africa, a region rife with hostility to the Romans. Grow your own damned food and make
your own antibiotics. Elementary as hell.
Tucker is OK in my book. Common sense tells you he speaks the truth. Now what can we do
about it? Electing other politicians does not seem to be the answer.
"... "This is one particular episode, but we view it as part of a number of related acts ... and we're looking at the whole pattern of conduct," Barr added, saying that they're investigating actions taken before "and after ... the election." ..."
"... And according to Fox' s source, Durham is investigating a "pattern of conduct" which includes lying to the FISA court to obtain warrants to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page . ..."
"... "Barr talks to Durham every day," a source recently told Fox News . " The president has been briefed that the case is being pursued, and it's serious. " ..."
"... " It was a very dangerous situation what they did ," Trump said during an interview with "Fox & Friends" Friday. " These are dirty politicians and dirty cops and some horrible people and hopefully they're going to pay a big price in the not too distant future. ..."
"... Durham's probe is expected to wrap up by the end of the summer. Right as Trump is expected to face off against Joe Biden - who was VP while most of this was going on . ..."
John Durham has supercharged his review into the origins of the
Russiagate hoax orchestrated by the Obama administration during and after the 2016 US election
- adding additional top prosecutors to explore different components of the original probe,
according to
Fox News .
Durham, the U.S. Attorney for Connecticut tasked with by Attorney General Bill Barr with
investigating the actions taken against the Trump team, has tapped Jeff Jensen - U.S. attorney
for the Eastern District of Missouri who had been investigating the Michael Flynn case. Also
added to the team is interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Timothy Shea,
according to Fox 's sources.
" They farmed the investigation out because it is too much for Durham and he didn't want to
be distracted ," said one source, adding "He's going full throttle, and they're looking at
everything. "
Word of Durham's beefed-up team comes amid worsening tensions between the Trump
administration and congressional Democrats, who have been making the case that the Justice
Department's reviews have become politicized given the decision last week to drop the Flynn
case - a move which House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) called
"outrageous."
" The evidence against General Flynn is overwhelming ," said Nadler - who probably wasn't
referring to handwritten notes by one of the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn which
exposed their perjury trap . Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his perfectly
legal communications with a Russian ambassador - a plea he made while under severe financial
strain due to legal expenses, and to save his son from the FBI 'witch hunt.' Flynn would later
withdraw his plea as evidence mounted that he was set up.
The DOJ determined that the bureau's 2017 Flynn interview -- which formed the basis for
his guilty plea of lying to investigators -- was "conducted without any legitimate
investigative basis."
Breadcrumbs were being dropped in the days preceding the decision that his case could be
reconsidered. Documents unsealed the prior week by the Justice Department revealed agents
discussed their motivations for interviewing him in the Russia probe – questioning
whether they wanted to "get him to lie" so he'd be fired or prosecuted, or get him to admit
wrongdoing. Flynn allies howled over the revelations, arguing that he essentially had been
set up in a perjury trap. In that interview, Flynn did not admit wrongdoing and instead was
accused of lying about his contacts with the then-Russian ambassador – to which he
pleaded guilty. -
Fox News
Jensen, the U.S. attorney now working with Durham, was reportedly the one who recommended
dropping the Flynn case to Barr.
Barr speaks
When asked whether he thought the FBI conspired against Flynn, Barr told CBS News on
Thursday "I think, you know, that's a question that really has to wait [for] an analysis of all
the different episodes that occurred through the summer of 2016 and the first several months of
President Trump's administration," adding that Durham is "still looking at all of this."
"This is one particular episode, but we view it as part of a number of related acts ... and
we're looking at the whole pattern of conduct," Barr added, saying that they're investigating
actions taken before "and after ... the election."
And according to Fox' s source, Durham is investigating a "pattern of conduct" which
includes lying to the FISA court to obtain warrants to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter
Page .
President Trump has long-referred to the investigation as a "witch hunt" - which Barr and
Durham are now untangling.
"Barr talks to Durham every day," a source recently told Fox News . " The president has been
briefed that the case is being pursued, and it's serious. "
President Trump on Friday offered a vague, but ominous, warning as the Durham probe
proceeds.
" It was a very dangerous situation what they did ," Trump said during an interview with
"Fox & Friends" Friday. " These are dirty politicians and dirty cops and some horrible
people and hopefully they're going to pay a big price in the not too distant future. "
Trump
was specifically reacting to newly released transcripts of interviews from the House
Intelligence Committee's Russia investigation
that revealed top Obama officials acknowledged they knew of no "empirical evidence" of a
conspiracy despite their concerns and suspicions. -
Fox News
Durham's probe is expected to wrap up by the end of the summer. Right as Trump is expected
to face off against Joe Biden - who was VP while most of this was going on .
It's a common refrain: We have bubble-wrapped the world . Americans in particular are
obsessed with "safety." The simplest way to get any law passed in America, be it a zoning law
or a sweeping reform of the intelligence community, is to invoke a simple sentence: "A kid
might get hurt."
Almost no one is opposed to reasonable efforts at making the world a safer place. But the
operating word here is "reasonable." Banning lawn darts ,
for example, rather than just telling people that they can be dangerous when used by
unsupervised children, is a perfect example of a craving for safety gone too far.
Beyond the realm of legislation, this has begun to infect our very culture. Think of things
like
"trigger warnings" and "safe
spaces." These are part of broader cultural trends in search of a kind of "emotional
safety" – a purported right to never be disturbed or offended by anything. This is by no
means confined to the sphere of academia, but is also in our popular culture, both in "
extremely
online " and more mainstream variants.
Why are Americans so obsessed with safety? What is the endgame of those who would bubble
wrap the world, both physically and emotionally? Perhaps most importantly, what can we do to
turn back the tide and reclaim our culture of self-reliance , mental toughness , and giving one
another the benefit of the doubt so that we don't "bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for
absolute security," as President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about
?
Coddling and Splintering: The Transformation of the American Mind
There is an interesting phenomenon involved in coddling: Australian psychologist Nick Haskam
first coined the term "concept creep." Basically, this means that terms are often elastic and
expand past the point of meaning. Take, for example, the concept of "trauma." This used to have a very
limited meaning. However, "trauma" quickly became expanded to mean even slight physical or
emotional harm or discomfort. Thus the increasing belief among the far left that words can be
"violence" – not "violent," mind you, but actual, literal violence.
In the other direction, the
definition of "hero" has been expanded to mean just about anything. Every teacher,
firefighter and police officer is now considered a "hero." This isn't to downplay or minimize
the importance of these roles in our society. It's simply to point out that "hero" just doesn't
mean what it used to 100 or even 30 years ago.
Once this expansion of a term occurs, there is never any kind of retraction. Trauma now
means just about anything, and violence will soon be expanded to include lawful, peaceful
speech that one disapproves of. Once this happens, there will be no going back. In the words of
Sam Harris :
"We (as a society) have to be committed to defending free speech however impolitic, or
unpopular, or even wrong because defending that is the only barrier to violence. That's
because the only way we can influence one another short of physical violence is through
speech, through communicating ideas. The moment you say certain ideas can't be communicated
you create a circumstance where people have no alternative but to go hands on you."
It is extremely dangerous to begin labelling everything as violence for reasons of free
speech, but perhaps even more dangerous is the notion that when anything is violence, nothing
is violence. Redefining words as "violence" means that we have little recourse for when actual
violence occurs.
The Coddling of the American Mind notes some other concepts that are important as we speak
of America's obsession with "safety" above all else. First, that coddling combined with
splintering means that people's political views are much more like fanatical religious views
than anything. They don't see themselves as having to debate ideas or seek common ground.
Rather, the opposing side and its proponents are seen as "dangerous" and must be discredited at
all costs. It is worth noting that this is much more common among the left than the right or
the center, which has now become more the place where "live and let live" types congregate.
The problem with this goes beyond simply being irritated by irrational people barking at you
or at someone else: There is an entire generation of people who are seriously lacking in
critical thinking
skills . They think that labelling people and name-calling are excuses for a reasoned
argument. In the words of Voltaire, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you
commit atrocities."
These problems are hardly confined to political radicalism or academia. Indeed, the
corporate sector is no stranger to this kind of safety obsession. There is the phenomenon of
"woke capital," where the corporations find the latest celebrity cause-du-jour and use it as a
marketing strategy.
There is currently an extreme risk aversion in management science. Companies will now do
basically anything to avoid "a kid getting hurt" or someone's delicate sensibilities being
offended.
Education from kindergarten up to the universities is increasingly about teaching doctrines
and ideology, rather than critical thinking and problem solving skills. All of this is a
dangerous admixture that combines the full weight of the academic, cultural and business elites
in this country. And its consequences are far reaching.
Trigger Warnings and Safe
Spaces
For those unaware, a "trigger warning" is a person's advisory that disturbing content is
going to be posted. However, in an example of concept creep, the meaning of "disturbing" has
become expanded to mean, well, just about anything that might offend a leftist. It is also
sometimes known as a "content warning," "TW" or "CW."
A similar concept is that of a "safe space." What used to be a term used for a place where
people in actual danger of physical harm could express themselves, a "safe space" now means a
place where there is no room for disagreement or questions because language is literally
violence.
This might all sound very silly and we definitely agree that it is. However, it is quickly
becoming de rigeur not just in academia, which is increasingly functioning as a bizarre
combination of a daycare center for 21 year olds and an indoctrination program, but also in the
corporate world and in the media.
It's not surprising that such foolishness has reached our corporate elites, because so many
figures within that world come from the Ivy League. Harvard Law, for example, was the center of
a controversy where
they were urged not to teach rape law or even use the word "violate" (which makes it pretty
hard to talk about violations of the law). A Harvard professor argued that greater anxiety
among students to discuss complicated and nuanced séxual assault cases was impeding the
ability of professors to adequately teach their students. This in turn would lead to poorly
prepared attorneys for rape victims in the future.
Beyond a simple discussion in the academic sphere, there are student groups on campus who
urge students not to attend or participate in class discussions focused on séxual
violence. The same student groups advocate for warning students in advance so they can skip out
on class and even to exclude "triggering" material from tests. Once again, the real victims
here are the victims of séxual assault whose attorneys will be ill-prepared to advise
them, to say nothing of the cumulative effect on the prosecutorial environment.
Another key term to understand here is "microaggressions" which means just about
anything. Offensive statements under this umbrella include things like "I don't see race,"
"America is the land of opportunity" and "I believe the most qualified person should get the
job."
To readers of Generation X or older, this all might sound like a resurgence of political
correctness and, indeed, to some extent it is. However, there is something different about the
current anti-speech craze sweeping not just campuses, but also boardrooms: Political
correctness was, at least in theory, about the elimination of so-called "hate speech" (for
example, using "mentally disabled" instead of "retarded" or "little person" instead of
"midget") and also about broadening the canon of literature to include more women and
minorities.
One doesn't need to agree with either objective or be as generous as we are to see that the
West has entered a new, accelerated and intensified version of the old political correctness
that is qualitatively more dangerous. The "safe spaces" phase of this is about eliminating
anything and everything that might be emotionally troubling to students on campus.
This assumes a high degree of fragility among American college students. But perhaps this
assumption isn't totally off base.
The Road to Safety Obsession
If you were born before 1985 or so, your childhood was vastly different than of those born
after you. As a child, you probably came and went as you pleased, letting your parents know
where you were going, who you would be with and when you might be home. You rode your bike
without a helmet and if you were bullied at school there's a good chance that you view this as
a character-building experience, not one of deep emotional trauma.
So what happened?
A few things. First, in 1984, the "missing child" milk carton
was introduced. America became obsessed with child abduction in response to several
high-profile child kidnappings over the period of a few years. Etan Platz , Adam Walsh and Johnny Gosch are just three of the names
known to Americans during this time period. In September 1984, the Des Moines, Iowa-based
Anderson Erickson Dairy began printing the pictures of Johnny Gosch and Eugene Martin on milk
cartons. Chicago followed suit, then the entire state of California. In December 1984, a
nationwide program was launched to keep the faces of abducted children front and center in the
American mind.
Some of the protocols established out of this were useful, such as AMBER Alerts and Code Adam .
Awareness of child abduction in general was raised and as a result there's significantly fewer
child abductions today than there were in 1980. Indeed,
stranger abduction is incredibly rare in the United States . But this has come with a dark
side.
You might be familiar with the myriad of cases in suburban America where children playing
alone are
arrested by the police because they don't have adult supervision. The parents are then
questioned by the police or, in some cases, the state's Child
Protective Services .
And so the result is that there are at least two generations of American children raised in
a protective net so tight that they not only have trouble expressing themselves, but also
being
exposed to failure and discomfort . What began as a good-faith effort to prevent child
abduction and increase overall child welfare has ended up, as a side effect, creating a world
where children were raised in such safety that they can't even handle being upset.
This has not only insulated children from the consequences of their own actions and the
normal pains of growing up, but also gives the impression that no matter what their problems,
"adults" are ready to step in and save the day at any moment.
There are two other cultural phenomena worth exploring: The television series Cops and the
24-hour cable news cycle. As of April 2020, Cops is still on the air, having moved from Fox to
Spike TV in 2013.
Cops was more than just a TV series, it was a cultural phenomenon that changed television.
The cinéma
vérité style used by the show was to be copied in the 90s by virtually every
reality show you can name. Curiously, it came out around the same time that crime rates had
plummeted comparatively to the 70s and 80s. And just at that time, people started having the
worst in human behavior beamed into their homes for entertainment every Saturday night.
At the same time, CNN was bringing news into your home 24 hours a day without end. This
meant they had to fill programming around the clock – and most news is bad news. So in
addition to a hugely popular program centered around chasing criminals in the act, Americans
also had a constant stream of bad news and dangerous events pumped into their homes. The result
was the end of the "free range child," the kind who learned through play and discovered risk
management through trial and error. This was replaced with children whose entire existence was
micromanaged by adults, with little to no unsupervised play time.
The ability to learn through failure is a well-established principle going back to the
Greeks, who called it pathemata mathemata ("guide your learning through pain"). The knowledge
and wisdom gained through failure and pain are arguably more lasting and valuable than those
learned in school.
The Generation Gap: Millennials and Gen Z
Older generations (Generation X and Baby Boomers) have a tendency to conflate Millennials
and Gen Z (also known as "Zoomers"). However, there are two key differences, one cultural and
one clinical: First, Zoomers are much more digital natives than their Millennial counterparts.
They didn't get constant internet access or mobile access at college. They've had it since they
were in middle school in many cases.
While this is bound to create secondary cultural differences, we know of one clinical
difference between Millennials and Zoomers: Zoomers are much more prone to mental illness ,
specifically depression, anxiety, alcoholism and self-harm.
The Baby Boomers and Gen Xers created an environment where it is safer than ever to be a child ,
but at what cost? There has been widespread and verifiable psychological damage done to the
younger generation, which is likely being compounded by the coddling taking place in our
nation's universities.
Screen Time and Social Media
"Screen time" is the new obsession for parents, especially among, ironically, those who work
in high-tech Silicon Valley jobs such as Steve
Jobs, father of the iPhone . But there seems to be an emerging consensus among those who
have actually studied the topic that the problem isn't "screen time" per se, but rather the
more specific use of it in the form of social media . This has
been identified as the cause of depression and anxiety, particularly among girls.
Why is social media usage particularly impactful among girls? Dr. Haidt and others postulate
that it's because they are more sensitive to the "perfect" lives being lived by beautiful social
media influencers – at least the lives that they lead online. What's more, there is a
lot of exclusion and bullying taking place on social media. In days past, you only heard about
the party you didn't get invited to, but now you get to watch it unfold in real time on
Snapchat or other platforms. And cyberbullying
is much harder to track and police than its real world equivalent.
There's a related bubble wrapping going on with regard to a different sort of screen time:
Kids today are often forbidden from playing with plastic guns or even finger guns. There is the
notorious case of the 7-year-old child who was
suspended for biting a Pop Tart toaster pastry into the shape of a gun . But millions of
children come home (from the same schools where finger guns can warrant a suspension) to play
Grand Theft Auto for hours on end.
Indeed, there is some evidence that suggests that
violent movies and video games can trigger violent thoughts in some, but not all, people
who view them. The National Institute of Mental Health has done an extensive study detailing the
impact that violent media has on those who view it.
A Nation Divided
There's not much hyperbole in saying that America is barely a single nation anymore. We talk
about "red states" and "blue states," but the divide is much deeper than that. Even the coastal
states largely have an urban college-educated Democratic population and a rural
non-college-educated Republican population.
While some animosity between different areas of the political spectrum, or even resentment
of cities by the countryside and vice versa, is
nothing new , the rancor took off sharply in the early 2000s following the controversial
election of George W. Bush and his expanded imperial presidency after
9/11 .
Social media
makes it easier for extremes to amplify their anger. What's more, it's much easier for
people to become part of an online crusade – or witch hunt – than it is for them to
do so without it.
This is a big part of what is behind the string of disinvitations and protests on American
college campuses. No one, especially young people (where "young" means "under 30"), can bear to
listen to the opinions of someone they don't agree with. Disinvitations aren't limited to
highly controversial figures like MILO and Richard Spencer, or even the decidedly much more
vanilla Ann Coulter. Condoleeza Rice , the first black
female Secretary of State, was disinvited in 2014, as was the first female head of the IMF and
the first female finance minister of a G8 nation, Christine
Lagarde .
Because Americans increasingly refuse even to listen to arguments from the other side,
inserting instead a strawman in favor of reasoned debate , there is no reason
to believe that the American political and ideological divide will not increase.
The
Evolution of Victimhood Culture
America and the West have largely adopted a victimhood culture. It is worth taking a minute
to trace this radical transformation of values in the West from its origins.
The earliest societies in the West were honor cultures. While it sounds like a no-brainer
that we should return to an honor culture, we should unpack precisely what this means. An honor
culture usually means a lot of interpersonal violence. Small slights must be dealt with through
dead violence – because a gentleman cannot take any kind of stain on his honor. Dueling
and blood feuds are common in these kinds of cultures.
This is superseded by dignity culture. Dignity culture is different, because people are
presumed to have dignity regardless of what others think of them. In a dignity culture, people
are admired because they have a "thick skin" and are able to brush off slights even if they are
seriously insulting. While we might find ourselves offended, even rightfully so, it is
considered important to rise above the offense and conduct ourselves with dignity. Everyone
heard some variant of "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"
growing up as a child. This is perhaps the key phrase of a dignity culture.
Victimhood culture is concerned with status in a similar manner to honor culture. Indeed,
people become incredibly intolerant of any kind of perceived slight, much in the manner of an
honor culture. However, in a victimhood culture, it is being offended, taking offense, and
being a victim that provides one with status.
Victimhood culture means that people are divided into classes, where victims are good and
oppressors are bad. There is an eternal conflict with eternal grievances that can never fully
be corrected or atoned for. People feel the need to constantly walk on eggshells and censor
themselves. This leads to an overall emphasis on safety, as even words become "violence"
– we need trigger warnings and safe spaces to protect us.
Victimhood culture is closely associated with safety culture. Safety culture is, above all
else, debilitating . Those who choose a marginalized identity – and in the contemporary
West, a marginalized identity is almost always a choice – become more fragile and more
dependent on the broader society. At the same time, the powerful elements in society gain a
stake in reinforcing this marginalized identity.
The Great Society provides a case study in this dynamic.
Those who do not receive the so-called "benefits" of safety culture are frequently more
prepared for the real world. Who would you rather hire? Someone who studied hard in a rigorous
discipline for four years or someone who spent four years being coddled in what is basically a
day care center for twentysomethings? With this in mind, it's not too big of a leap to see that
straight white men might actually have become "privileged" through the process of not having
access to the collective hugbox in higher education.
The Role of Lawyers and
Litigation
There is a relationship with the litigious society in which we live with warning labels
everywhere, often for hazards that would seem incredibly obvious to most observant people. In
previous generations, even power tools didn't come with warnings to roll your sleeves up or
take off your watch. This information was either common sense or passed along in high school
shop classes or on the job.
However, the American legal system has no penalty for frivolous lawsuits, which has led to
an explosion in the number of lawsuits. There is a massive army of lawyers in the United States
(which has a surplus
of some 40 percent ) whose profession revolves around finding aggrieved parties who weren't
properly "warned" – or indeed to be able to help write the warning labels themselves.
These labels do not even exist for actual safety. The same type of person who is going to do
the thing being warned against is likely the same type of person who doesn't read warnings. The
labels are simply there as a form of "CYA" for the firms who make them.
That said, to a certain degree, the "litigious society" is a myth. The oft-cited McDonald's
coffee burn is actually more
reasonable than people are aware : The elderly woman in question who was burned simply
wanted McDonald's – who kept their coffee extra hot to prevent people from taking part of
their "free refills" policy – to pay for her skin graft resulting from the burn. When
McDonald's refused to settle this out of court and the case went to trial, they were rewarded
for their efforts at stonewalling with punitive damages.
So the main example of frivolous lawsuits is a big strawman. But to be clear –
frivolous
lawsuits are real . One great example of an actually frivolous lawsuit was the man who sued
his dry cleaner for $67 million because they delivered his pants to the wrong person .
There was no actual damage here and it's difficult to express just how ridiculous the dollar
figure claimed was. This case was thrown out of court, as most of these types of cases are.
Still, litigants pursue them either to get media attention or to harass the defendant or both,
a phenomenon known as "lawfare." And these cases clog up genuine claims in the courts.
Civil trials are long and drawn-out things. And with 40 million of them in the United States every
year and over a million lawyers ,
it's unsurprising that the system has become clogged with lawsuits, many of which are either
totally frivolous (remember – there's no penalty for filing a frivolous lawsuit in
America) or just the type of thing that should be either settled or handled through binding
arbitration.
While the litigious society exists in parallel to the "safe spaces" of college campuses, it
is worth noting because it is part of the larger bubble wrapping of the American landscape. The
same kids who were raised with helicopter parents and a general sense that they had a "right"
to never be offended were likewise raised in an environment where people could be sued for
anything or, at the very least, this was the public perception. It is just another factor of
risk aversion in American life.
There are other consequences of having too many lawyers around and having them congregate
within our political class: Words are chosen to obfuscate and laws proliferate, as legislation
becomes a sort of "jobs program" for lawyers. The more laws we have, the less free we
are and the less social trust we have. As laws, regulations, and agencies take
the place of civil society , the state grows at the expense of everything else and the less
trust we have in our society.
Overreacting to the Wuhan Coronavirus
In 2020, the Wuhan Coronavirus
broke out of China and spread all around the world. The world had not seen a deadly, contagious
virus with such scope since the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 to 1920 . At
first, the response was denial and apathy. However, this quickly gave way to what could be
considered a massive overreaction: Shutting everything down.
There was a certain logic to this: If people gathering together were what was spreading the
virus, then simply keep people apart until the whole thing blows over. However, this is also
potentially a huge overreaction. It is a medical solution in the
driver's seat without any nod to the economic, social or military consequences that flow
from it. Even if one agrees that medical solutions are to be the primary driver, it does not
follow that they are the only driver.
Because of the lopsided and often hysterical reaction, many of the proposed solutions don't
even make sense: For example, telling everyone they can go to the supermarket while prohibiting
them from going to small offices, or shutting down the border
between the United States and Canada – two countries with highly infected populations
and a sprawling border that is largely unpatrolled.
A brief disclaimer: None of us are epidemiologists or virologists. And we defer to their
superior knowledge on this subject.
However, during the Spanish flu pandemic, life did not shut down quite so completely as it
has during the Coronavirus pandemic. The methods used during the Spanish flu were isolation of
the sick, mask wearing in public, and cancellation of large events. In places where these were
practiced rigorously, there was a significant decline in the number of infections and death.
St. Louis in particular is known as an exemplar of what to do during an easily
transmissible epidemic.
"The economy" has been cited as a reason the total shutdown of life during the Coronavirus
pandemic was a poor idea. This might sound frivolous, but the mass unemployment not only leads
to destitution for those when the economy is so paralyzed that there are no other jobs
forthcoming. It also leads to a spike in
the suicide rate . There is a certain calculus that must be done – how much
unemployment is worth how much death from Wuhan Coronavirus?
The reaction to this virus is noteworthy, because it is the first major pandemic of this
new, insulated and coddled age. Rather than reasonable measures to mitigate death, the choice
made was to do anything and everything possible to prevent death entirely. Not only might this
be an unwise decision, it might be a fool's errand: The virus seems to be much
more contagious than was previously thought, as well as much less lethal .
More than one reasonable person has asked what would happen if we all just went about our
lives making reasonable precautions, such as hand washing, mask wearing, social distancing, and
the cancellation of large events like sports and concerts. This is effectively what Sweden has done
and it appears to work, especially when contrasted with
their neighbors in Finland who have done basically the same as America. How much sense does
it make to have the entire community converge upon its grocery stores while not allowing anyone
to go into an office, ever? Compare this with what has passed for reasonable reaction: Closing
down every school, every dine-in restaurant, and the government dictating which businesses are
essential and which aren't.
A big motivator of this is a compulsion to not lose a single life to the Wuhan Coronavirus,
which is a totally unreasonable goal. People are going to die. The question isn't "how tightly
do we have to lock the country down to ensure no one dies," but rather "what are reasonable
measures we can take to balance public safety against personal choice and social cohesion?"
The splintering and division of America in practice has meant that the
establishment conservative media was largely in denial over the virus for weeks . It is not
a liberal smear to say that the amount of denialism from establishment conservative media,
pundits, think tanks, bureaucrats and elected officials has in practice meant that America
responded much more slowly and conservatively than it might have with a more unified America
body politic.
At the beginning of spring 2020, the virus seemed poised to
devastate the American South , which largely stuck with the early conservative media
denialism, eschewing social distancing, shuttering of certain public places and mask wearing.
Again, a more united body politic and the media and trust in the media that goes along with
that might have prevented a lot of illness and death.
Imagine the impact of Walter Cronkite or Edward Murrow going on television and telling the
American public to mask up and maintain distance versus the impact of Rachel Maddow and Tucker
Carlson doing it.
What Is Vindictive Protectiveness?
"Vindictive protectiveness" was a term coined by Haidt and Lukianoff to describe the
environment on America's college campuses with regard to speech codes and similar. However, it
can refer more broadly to the cultural atmosphere in the United States and the West today. From
the college campus to the corporate boardroom to the office, Americans have to watch what they
say and maybe even what they think lest they fall afoul of extra-legal speech and thought
codes.
Perhaps worst of all, an entire generation is being raised to see this not only as normal,
but as beneficial . This means that as this generation comes of age and grows into leadership
positions, that there is a significant chance that these codes will be enforced more
rigorously, not less. And while there may be ebbs and flows (political correctness went into
hibernation for pretty much the entire administration of George W. Bush – though to be
fair, there was an imperfect replacement in the form of post-9/11 jingoism), the current
outrage factory is much more concerning than the one that sort of just hung around in the
background in the 1990s.
Put plainly: the next wave will be worse. We may not have Maoist-style Red Guards in America quite yet,
but we're not far off and the emphasis should be on "yet."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. "
- Voltaire
I once read a definition of psychological depression as a result of anger and fatigue. That
seems about right. Personally, I'm sick of COVID-19 dominating the headlines and I definitely
have inner rage at the magic spell that's been cast over society. And it is a magic spell. Or
an ill wind, if you prefer. Except tracking the source of a voodoo curse, or determining where
a breeze began, might be easier than identifying the many variables of this planned-demic .
Truly, the overwhelming information is difficult to process on any given day.
Last week, I read
an article describing how COVID-19 is a hoax propagandized by the media and, a few minutes
later, I watched a video
of a survival expert (whom I very much respect) chastise those who are not taking COVID-19
seriously as a genuine health threat.
Then, I was informed of an acquaintance dying from coronavirus. I knew the man personally
and the last time we spoke he was telling me about his new girlfriend. His death was deemed
notable enough to have a write-up included into the COVID-19 series of a national newspaper;
and that's how I learned he died – when someone sent me the link. I'll also say he was in
his seventies and his blood pressure was so high his eyes were constantly bloodshot.
So did he die with COVID-19 or from COVID-19? Yes, he did.
Indeed, lots of variables to consider. And it's tricky because health policies are a matter
of public concern AND private responsibility. It's why considering the variables requires
balance and common sense. Yet, unsurprisingly, it's become obvious COVID-19 has been
politicized by some and even commandeered by others for purposes of power consolidation and
achieving authoritarian goals.
Certainly, the virus doesn't need to be devastatingly lethal in order to accomplish the
objectives of the globalists. At any given time, the ship of state progresses via (what I have
designated as) the
"Bulbous Bow of Confusion" , or, rather, competing narratives.
Two physicians who own five urgent care locations in Kern County California recently posted
a viral YouTube video citing their own COVID-19 data and calling for an end to the draconian
lockdowns. Their names are Dr. Dan
Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi and the data they compiled acted as a "resistance wave" to
countermand the official narrative put forth by ( as I've identified
in past articles ) the likes of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), World Health
Organization (WHO), The Gates Foundation, John Hopkins University, and UK's The Guardian.
Yet, today, if you click on any previous articles where the doctors'
viral videos were once posted you will see they've been taken down; and even their other
videos queued in the threads of the articles have been transitioned into dead links by our
benefactors at YouTube.
Truly, censorship is the validation of ideas as the most powerful force on earth; because if
you now search for the two doctors by name on YouTube, you will find a video stamped with the
Washington Post logo describing "What Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi get wrong
about coronavirus" .
To be sure, the billionaires are committed. They can't go back now and this is why they are
on full offense in the narrative war. It means no expense will be spared in the media onslaught
until every person in the world fears COVID-19 being spread from cats and
farts . It's
also why various
treatments are claimed to be ineffective and only the
five innovations proposed by the New American King should be considered:
[Bill Gates] said the innovations needed to come in five areas: treatments, vaccines,
testing, contact tracing, and policies for reopening the economy.
But what about Trump? He is still the U.S. President, right?
In past postings, I've exhaustively considered Trump as a possible "movie" or "reality TV
show". My article entitled
"Personal Politics, Public Impeachment, Persuasion and Post-Apocalyptic Planning" also
discussed how the Military Industrial Complex has NOT grown weaker in the decades since
Eisenhower and Kennedy – and, in fact, cited the trend of its growing strength from Abe
Lincoln through the creation of the Federal Reserve, and Woodrow Wilson, onward.
I've additionally speculated in previous writings President Trump as one of the
following:
1.) The Real Deal – fighting the Dark Lords out of love of country
2.) Being used by the Dark Powers unwittingly
3.) A Judas Goat
At this point in time, it appears the possibility of # 1 is fading, if not having been
completely debunked as of this writing.
So, given #'s 2 & 3 above, I've previously questioned if Trump was elected as a "
bleeding of the brake lines " prior to the " big stop " (i.e. end of America).
Therefore, what if the Trump Reality TV Show® was meant to demonstrate the sheer power
of "The Controllers" and their ability to convert the globe into One World under Communism?
And, furthermore, what if the 2016 Presidential Election was staged to illustrate to all
nations the futility of resistance?
Consider the waves that have crashed upon Trump's shores over the past four years:
Russiagate/Mueller, Ukrainian Impeachment, and, now, COVID-19. Each of these consecutive waves
were increasingly consequential from a historical perspective.
Is the war to "drain-the-swamp" real? Because, if not, the battle lines have been made clear
and the tech gods have cataloged our IP addresses.
Since the United States recently suspended its payments to the WHO, the organization's
biggest contributor is now the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Another major contributor
to the WHO is the GAVI Alliance (formerly the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation).
Both of these organizations are also part of ID2020, an organization that is advocating for
the use of vaccines to implement a global digital ID system using tattoos or microchips.
Or was it planned? And for those who would say it was planned, would you call them
"conspiracy theorists"? But, seriously, is it really conspiracy if it's all been published
?
Because, over the decades, it has become quite evident that wealthy individuals, influential
families, and powerful organizations and corporations have coopted nation-states in order to
unite the globe. World War I delivered the League of Nations and World War II brought about the
United Nations. Since then, the billionaire round-table groups have only grown more
interconnected as Davos Men planned and the Bilderberg's conspired .
The modern era has progressed by committee; and to the giant sucking sounds as predicted by
former presidential candidate Ross Perot.
In 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Global Business Network drafted a document
entitled " Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development " which
outlined the following potential plans schemes through 2030: " Lock Step ", " Clever Together
", " Hack Attack ", and " Smart Scramble ".
The first link below is a 54-page (2.29 MB sized) PDF file. Even if the Bill Gates' inspired
MS Windows gives you a virus warning, just know the file can be viewed (or downloaded) with no
issues. Or, if you would rather watch a one-hour, forty-two-minute video presentation, just
click on link # 2 below:
Note that on page 18 of the PDF (#1 above), the "Lock Step" scenario describes a 2012
pandemic leading to a global economic collapse followed by oppressive authoritarian
controls:
In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike
2009's H1N1, this new influenza strain -- originating from wild geese -- was extremely
virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when
the virus streaked around the world The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies:
international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries
like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and
office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.
. The United States' initial policy of "strongly discouraging" citizens from flying proved
deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but
across borders. However, a few countries did fare better -- China in particular. The Chinese
government's quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as
well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives,
stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter
post-pandemic recovery.
China's government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens
from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their
authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face
masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and
supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of
citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from
the spread of increasingly global problems -- from pandemics and transnational terrorism to
environmental crises and rising poverty -- leaders around the world took a firmer grip on
power.
At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval.
Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty -- and their privacy -- to more
paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more
tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more
latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit. In developed countries, this heightened
oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter
regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests.
Sound familiar? Because this was the dialectic with which we were presented: " Herd
Immunity® " (an Orwellian term befitting cattle) or " Continuous" COVID-19®. And what
did American's chose? They picked " continuous ", Alex, for $1,200 per U.S. citizen. And as we
Flattened the Curve ®, the CDC broadcasted
concerns regarding second waves of coronaviruses as telescreens the world over warned of
mutant strains of
coronaviruses more contagious than the original .
Yes. Both Coronavirus®, and Big Brother, Incorporated have marched forward
unencumbered.
But as people sheltered in their homes they saw "conservative" Never-Trumpers weaponize the
ghost of Ronald Reagan against the Bad Orange Man® with a video entitled "Mourning in America" . It was too cute
by half. Then, fortunately, as the world remained mystified by
"covid toes" , the president
tweeted back at the Never-Trump "losers" in the most ingenious and gratifying ways.
And Trump is just getting warmed up. No doubt his Zoom® debates with Biden are bound to
be hilarious. Unless Whistleblowergate
Part Deux is the silver-bullet that will stop the Bad Orange Man® once and for all?
(CNN) Dr. Rick Bright, the ousted director of the office involved in developing a
coronavirus vaccine, formally filed an extensive whistleblower complaint Tuesday alleging his
early warnings about the coronavirus were ignored and that his caution at a treatment favored
by President Donald Trump led to his removal.
What I found interesting in that article is how it identified "opposing sides" (i.e.
opposites) as "capstones" on the bottom of the "pyramid" – with the top capstone (eye) as
representative of the final action:
The chess board is a well-known Masonic or Hegelian symbol, the black and white squares
symbolize control through duality in the grand game of life in all aspects. Left or right,
white or black people, conservative or liberal, democrat or republican, Christian or Muslim
and so on. Through two opposing parties control is gained as both parties reach the same
destination, which is order through guided conflict or chaos.
Left (thesis) versus right (antithesis) equals middle ground or control (synthesis). The
triangle and all seeing eye we see so often symbolizes the completion of the great work
The pyramid is supported by the bottom opposing sides. The capstone at the top is
established through controlled solution or middle ground.
In my piece entitled "On
Channel Surfing, Circus Acts, and Time Passages" , I discussed the 1927 movie "Metropolis"
as a favorite of the occult. The words that appear on the screen at the end of that film are
these:
THE MEDIATOR BETWEEN THE HEAD AND HANDS MUST BE THE HEART!
A
2010 article posted on TheVigilantCitizen.com speculated on the "mediator" as the
electronic media which manipulates the plebes (workers) on behalf of the head
(controllers).
To be sure, the Modern Centralizers craft their new realities by means of the Orwellian
Media. It's why they call it programming . And what better way to manipulate the emotions
(hearts) of people than by fiction and fear?
With that in mind, I now call your attention to the below video link of the opening
ceremonies for the 2012 Olympics:
If one cares to click that link and view the segment shown between the 45 and 55 minute
marks, they will see what appears to be a staged viral pandemic. The drama takes place beneath
black pyramids malevolently towering over the stadium (and the crowd) and ends with the
appearance of a giant, creepy-looking baby; or maybe a still-birth – it's hard to
tell.
At the 45 to 47 minute mark, we see kids in hospital beds surrounded by dancing nurses and
doctors. At around the 47:30 mark, the medical staff/dancers put the kids to bed and with
fingers over their months, urging silence. What appears to be a giant virus then appears
center-stage at the around the 48 minute mark.
Then, around the 49 minute mark, Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling reads from Peter Pan and
says: "But in the two minutes before you go to sleep, it is real ". Next, shadowy virus-looking
demons take the stage to chase the children, and dark horses towing a magician and a steel cage
glide behind an oriental woman who is looking elsewhere as the pandemic commences.
The 49:50 mark shows what appears to be a giant (British Prime Minister) Boris Johnson sick
in bed.
Finally, as the dark magicians cast their spells and the viruses dance, the nurses and
doctors appear paralyzed and robotic – like puppets (50:45 to 51:45 mark) before Mary
Poppins figures descend from the sky.
In my research, I found another article by the
Vigilant Citizen dated August 17, 2012 , and it had this to say back then regarding the
opening ceremonies of the 2012 Olympics:
The next important sequence of the ceremony paid tribute to the National Health Service
(NHS) and Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH). The set combined sick kids on hospital beds
with characters from English children's literature and had a very strange and dark undertone
from the start, when it began with the theme from The Exorcist, which is, in case you don't
know, a movie about a child possessed by the Devil. Odd choice.
The sequence begins with children on hospital beds who get put to sleep by nurses. Then
J.K. Rowling appears and reads a quote from Peter Pan alluding to Neverland, which becomes
real in the "two minutes before you go to sleep". I couldn't say if that was done on purpose,
but many elements of this set, mostly the mix of vulnerable children in a hospital with fairy
tales and the concept of blurring the lines between reality and fiction, are all associated
with mind control programming. Like the Wizard of Oz and Alice of Wonderland, the story of
Peter Pan is heavily used in mind control programming as victims are told to escape to
"Neverland" while inducing dissociation from reality.
The same article also addressed the 2012 Olympic closing ceremonie s (video at this link) and showing a new
world order rising like a phoenix; while referencing The Who, no less.
At midnight, the Olympic cauldron and the petals representing each country are slowly
extinguished, but the phoenix, representing the occult elite and the New World Order, stays
lit above it. In other words, as the nations of the world slowly disappear, a New World Order
will emerge. On that note, let's listen to The Who!
Of course, listen to The Who rock band? Or the World Health Organization (WHO)? Coincidence
or conspiracy? You're probably right.
So, to summarize: 2012 was the same year the Rockefeller Foundation predicted the "Lock
Step" pandemic scenario as the Olympic ceremonies that year showed opposing sides battling over
children during the opening ceremonies and followed by the resolution in the closing
ceremonies: A new phoenix rising from the ashes – like a new world order.
Order out of chaos.
Therefore, if COVID-19 was, indeed, a PLANdemic perpetrated by dark forces, was my
aforementioned friend murdered by those who now want us to self-quarantine and wear masks for
the safety of those being murdered? Most likely; because observing luciferian pedophiles
through their symbols is like identifying hidden planets via the observed effects of
gravitation, or studying game theory when the game is rigged.
It's how we can identify who "they" are, but only for people willing to first acknowledge
that "they" exist. Unfortunately, it's a wasted effort on most. One might as well don a tinfoil
hat and chase shadows on a magic pony.
Proponents of mandatory vaccines and enhanced surveillance are trying to blackmail the
American people by arguing that the lockdown cannot end unless we create a healthcare
surveillance state and make vaccination mandatory. The growing number of Americans who are
tired of not being able to go to work, school, or church, or even to take their children to a
park because of government mandates should reject this "deal." Instead, they should demand an
immediate end to the lockdowns and the restoration of individual responsibility for deciding
how best to protect their health.
Regrettably, it was supposed to be a season of graduation parties, weddings, and Fourth of
July celebrations. But these have been displaced by lockdowns, social distancing, bodies in
refrigerated trucks, fear, magic spells, and propaganda.
Big companies partnering with the government to spy on you without your knowledge.
Americans locked in their homes, banned from going to church, placated with sedatives like
beer and weed. Anyone who speaks up is silenced. Political demonstrations are illegal.
Organizers are arrested. Only opinions approved by unelected leaders are allowed on
information platforms. Sound familiar? It sounds a lot like China. Of all the many ironies of
this moment, so many of them bitter, the hardest to swallow is this: as we fight this virus,
we are becoming far more like the country that spawned it. We're becoming more like China.
It's horrifying.
Those in power are the ones the our professional class seeks to protect, not the country.
Freedom of conscience never endangers the public. It only threatens the powerful. It
endangers their control. It hinders their ability to dictate election results, to loot the
economy, to make policies based on whim for their own gain. No wonder our leaders have done
such a poor job protecting us from China. They're on the same team.
– Tucker Carlson Tonight: Tuesday, April 28, 2020
Sadly, it appears Trump may be a crisis actor, like
Anthony Fauci , and part of the plan from the start. The final details were solidified
years ago – including the bioengineered PLANdemic.
China is quite likely part of the plan, too, since One World Under Communism has become the
desired destination of the billionaires; with millions dying along the way. For those who do
survive, they'll be allowed to work , consume , and obey . Of course, many Americans will not
cooperate with their planned demise and this is why The Central Planners will need a great big
war.
Most recently, in an Oval Office Press conference on May 6, 2020, Trump actually blamed
China for Coronavirus while claiming it is the "worst attack we've ever had" :
"This is worse than Pearl Harbor, this is worse than the World Trade Center. There's never
been an attack like this.
– President Donald Trump – May 6, 2020
It means events could potentially occur as follows: As soon as rock-solid proof is revealed
that China released the virus to take out Trump because our great president was winning the
trade wars, then, the Orange-Haired Wonder will rally national support via sorrowful
lamentations while standing tall on reality TV amidst the economic ruins.
A bumbling first strike by the U.S. could allow a Sino-Russian alliance to seal America's
fate once and for all; and most likely by nuclear means.
Then any surviving sheeple will eagerly line up for the Bill Gates of Hell special: A free
digital tattoo along with a bonus vaccination and bowl of soup.
Welcome to the end of the rainbow. Orwell was right: we've always been at war with Eastasia
and jackboots will stomp on human faces forever. Unless, that is, the digital drip-drops from
Q-anon and our online commentaries change the future.
Conclusion
Those gathering at the round tables have been tremendously successful in our societal
programming . Yet most of them are mere puppets to the inner rings of concentric power. The
monsters that once lurked under our beds were set loose years ago and, today, they dress in
drag and read to kids in libraries while others wear blue uniforms and arrest mothers for
taking kids to playgrounds.
And where are the men of action? Where are the lovers of liberty? In my area, they've been
fishing. And grilling. And why not? Trump is in the White House while Nancy Pelosi is locked in
her gourmet kitchen eating fancy ice cream. The stimulus checks are in the bank, the grocery
stores are still open, and if the fish aren't biting, those who would stand up to tyranny can
always grab a bucket of chicken through the KFC drive-thru on the way home. At least for
now.
As far as national lockdowns go, this has been the best one ever. So far.
For obvious reasons, I've been thinking of the autistic livestock guru Temple Grandin and how she pioneered
more humane methods of leading animals to slaughter. One of the methods was to have cattle
march to their demise single file via tall shutes. That sort of isolation seems reminiscent of
what's occurring in America now – with people staring at walls, muzzled by masks, and
numbly following orders while remaining six-feet apart.
How can people resist when they've been fooled? How can they fight back when they're
frightened? And why have they placed their hope in safety instead of liberty ?
Good questions.
Real hope remains in the smart choices, right actions, and the prepping and survival
decisions made every day by those awake and aware. But no matter what the future holds, may all
reading this be surrounded by friends and loved ones who know Epstein didn't kill himself.
The US Oligarchy has a very heightened sense of entitlement... It is a good time to borrow some guillotines from the French and
put them to good use ;-)
Lately American Oligarchy behaved like arrogant imperialistic morons
Notable quotes:
"... The dark money attack on democracy, much facilitated by the 'Citizen's United' decision by the US Court of Ideologues, is funded by the likes of the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, the Mercers, (there is, of course, dark money on the left, but little evidence that any of it goes towards suppressing the vote). ..."
"... With powerful enemies like these, democracy's survival, even in a weakened form, is a constant struggle. ..."
"... While a capitalist might or might not have morals; capitalism, per se, is amoral. ..."
"... It was the rise of labor unions that first brought democracy to bear on the 'Gilded Age' economy by addressing the issues of inequality, working hours, Then populism, a close cousin to democracy, led to the Progressive Era and Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt said that he felt his 'Trust-Busting' saved the nation from revolution. ..."
"... Democracy has a history of gaining strength in times of crisis. The 'Gilded Age' graphically exposed the inequities, the harshness, of capitalistic economies; prompting the rise of labor unions and populism. The Great Depression brought further exposure of capitalism's failures. Franklin Roosevelt's 'socialist' programs like Public Works Programs and Social Security again saved capitalism from the dustbin. ..."
"... It wasn't just markets that needed to be regulated. The Gilded Age led to populism which gave way to The Progressive Era. The Progressive Era gave us the Pure Food and Drug Act (1906) for preventing the manufacture, sale, or transportation of adulterated or misbranded or poisonous or deleterious foods, drugs, medicines, and liquors, and for regulating traffic therein, and for other purposes (Thanks Upton Sinclair). ..."
"... Today, in this Age of Technology, the capitalist class is represented by Mutual Fund managers, Investment Bankers, Hedge Funds managers, ; by people who have never ran a railroad, a steel plant, a textile plant, a food processing plant, , yet claim to know best when it comes to the economy. They, with a little help from a lot of economists and politicians, and a know-nothing news reading media, were those who successfully ushered in the off-shoring of production and the opening of Globalization. Capital, is mobile, always seeks the cheapest labor and resources. 'We the People' weren't so mobile; millions of jobs were lost, millions more had to settle for less pay, many homes were broken, many died from overdose, The capitalists are in charge. In this age of technology, capitalists can look forward to the day when they no longer need labor. ..."
Both Capitalism and Democracy are
complicated, complex concepts with varying interpretations.
Beginning with a working definition of democracy: Democracy -- A government formed of representatives popularly elected by the enfranchised
citizenry of the governed entity.
Webster's : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and
exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually
involving periodically held free elections.
In a true democracy, with as few exceptions as possible, every citizen over a certain age
would be eligible to vote, all eligible would vote, and all of their votes would be equal. In
the 2016 election only 61.4% of adult U.S. citizens (137.5 million) cast ballots, Trump won the
electoral college vote 304 (57%) to 227 (43%) even though he received slightly less than half
(46% to 48% for Clinton) of the votes cast. So, by any measure, it wasn't even close to being a
democratic result. This wasn't by accident.
Putting aside for a while: all the unscrupulous things done in the 2016 election to sway
opinion, all efforts to make voting inordinately difficult for some, all the hacking into
computers by Russia, all the involvement of the likes of Wikileaks and Cambridge Analytica, the
nefarious role of Facebook and other social media, the tons of dark and not so dark money, ; it
was the extremely skewed electoral college vote that determined the winner. How can you have a
democratic outcome when South Dakota with less than one-million citizens has 3 electoral votes
and California with almost forty-million (40 times SD's population) has 55 (only 18 times as
many electoral votes)? SD residents have one electoral vote per 300,000 resident and CA one
vote per 727,000; a 2.2 to 1 ratio of inequality. Essentially the same could be said of ND, ID,
WY, MT, AK, NM, KS, NB, NV, AR, MS, NH, VT, ME, and WV; their votes for president are worth
more than the votes of voters in populous states and twice as much as the votes of the voters
in the more populous states. States electors are allotted per Article II, Section 1, Clause 2
of the US constitution.
The US Senate is even less democratic. South Dakotans get one senator per half million
citizens while Californians only get one per twenty million; a ratio of forty to one. Many of
the Nation's current ills are attributable to this most undemocratic imbalance, an imbalance
that led to a US Supreme court with a majority of Justices who do not represent a majority of
Americans; don't even represent the law.
It wasn't that the founding fathers didn't understand democracy, made a mistake, these
were they who omitted women and blacks but wanted slaves to count as 2/3 person for the purpose
of representation, i.e., they didn't want the votes of white women and slaves to count and they
wanted the votes of white males slave owners to have many time more clout than the votes of
white males in non-slave holding states. Their model for 'democracy' was based more on the now
long gone economic models for colonialism and slavery.
From our earliest days, Gerrymandering has been a favorite scheme for making some votes
worth more than others. By redistricting so that Party A's voters are divided into several
districts and Party B's voters hold an insurmountable majority within any given district,
gerrymandering can determine an election's outcome. Party B's voter's votes count and Party A's
voter's votes don't. The majority Party B can make it so that only their votes count; and Party
A may come to understand that their voting is not even worthwhile. Today, as in 1780,
Gerrymandering, a consequence of the US Constitution allowing state legislatures to draw
district boundaries, jiggers elections from the local to the presidential.
... ... ...
The dark money attack on democracy, much facilitated by the 'Citizen's United' decision by
the US Court of Ideologues, is funded by the likes of the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, the
Mercers, (there is, of course, dark money on the left, but little evidence that any of it goes
towards suppressing the vote).
... ... ...
With powerful enemies like these, democracy's survival, even in a weakened form, is a
constant struggle.
Now, a working definition of Capitalism:
Capitalism -- An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital
goods, by investments that are determined by private decision; and by prices, production, and
the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market (an
economy operating by free competition).
Capital is a measure of the wealth, the total valuation of assets, held by an entity. These
assets may include money, property, skills, knowledge, For the purposes of this discussion:
capital is the wealth, whether in money or property, owned or employed in business by an
individual, firm, corporation, etc., i.e., both figuratively and literally, capital is at the
root of capitalism. In a capitalistic economy, those who control capital exercise significant
control over the economy. Neither capitalist nor capitalism is necessarily concerned about
equality, human rights, , or democracy.
While a capitalist might or might not have morals;
capitalism, per se, is amoral.
Capitalism as we know it is relatively new; a product of the industrial age, appearing in
its first forms in the early 18 th century. Of late, capitalist investors and
financiers have usurped the power that industrialists such as Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford,
Getty, once held.
Today's tech industry titans like Gates, Zuckerberg, Ellison, , are the
modern counterpart of these industrialists in terms of wealth gained through entrepreneurship.
Though powerful, they don't control the nation's railroads, manufacturing, energy, the very
economy of the nation, the way the industrial age titans did. Democracy, merely a phrase,
imposed little constraint on the likes of Rockefeller, Carnegie, they owned enough
legislators to keep the government at bay.
It was the rise of labor unions that first brought
democracy to bear on the 'Gilded Age' economy by addressing the issues of inequality, working
hours, Then populism, a close cousin to democracy, led to the Progressive Era and Teddy
Roosevelt. Roosevelt said that he felt his 'Trust-Busting' saved the nation from revolution.
Maybe. It almost certainly saved capitalism from itself. Under Teddy Roosevelt the government
began to rein in the excesses of capitalism and speak to 'We the People' democracy.
Democracy has a history of gaining strength in times of crisis. The 'Gilded Age' graphically
exposed the inequities, the harshness, of capitalistic economies; prompting the rise of labor
unions and populism. The Great Depression brought further exposure of capitalism's failures.
Franklin Roosevelt's 'socialist' programs like Public Works Programs and Social Security again
saved capitalism from the dustbin.
Just to be clear, despite the rhetoric, neither Capitalists nor Capitalism really like 'Free
Markets'. By innate instinct, they will always move to limit competition. Without competition,
capitalism doesn't work. For markets to work well, they must be regulated; a task that falls to
the government. Strange symbiosis.
It wasn't just markets that needed to be regulated. The Gilded Age led to populism which
gave way to The Progressive Era. The Progressive Era gave us the Pure Food and Drug Act (1906)
for preventing the manufacture, sale, or transportation of adulterated or misbranded or
poisonous or deleterious foods, drugs, medicines, and liquors, and for regulating traffic
therein, and for other purposes (Thanks Upton Sinclair). The Progressive Era gave the nation
Workmen's Compensation, national Health and Safety Regulations for the work place, ; the
beginnings for beginning consumer protection laws, These were all restrictions on capitalism
meant to benefit 'We the People', i.e., they were democratic.
Today, in this Age of Technology, the capitalist class is represented by Mutual Fund
managers, Investment Bankers, Hedge Funds managers, ; by people who have never ran a railroad,
a steel plant, a textile plant, a food processing plant, , yet claim to know best when it comes
to the economy. They, with a little help from a lot of economists and politicians, and a
know-nothing news reading media, were those who successfully ushered in the off-shoring of
production and the opening of Globalization. Capital, is mobile, always seeks the cheapest
labor and resources. 'We the People' weren't so mobile; millions of jobs were lost, millions
more had to settle for less pay, many homes were broken, many died from overdose, The
capitalists are in charge. In this age of technology, capitalists can look forward to the day
when they no longer need labor.
How could this happen in a democracy? Elections were held; presidents, representatives and
senators were sent to Washington, and yet the needs of 'We the People ' were ignored in favor
of the investors, the financiers, the mutual funds, ; the capitalists.
Capitalism has long since known how to manipulate politicians and governments; King Leopold
had his own US Senators. But, the time-honored art of manipulating the body politic, once the
purvey of the likes of Hearst and Pulitzer, and radio personalities, is now in the hands of:
the most vile Fox News, the equally vile right-wing talk radio; and is now being rendered via
amoral social media such as Facebook by the likes of Steve Bannon, and billionaires Robert and
Rebekah Mercer. Bannon says it's all about manipulating the media; meaning that you must control the media if you want to
manipulate the body politic...
The Mercers, by way of the media, by way of Cambridge Analytica, Facebook, , do it
for themselves and fellow capitalists. The implication; you can manipulate public opinion.
Capitalists know how to do media outreach. We see members of the body politic trying to do so
with protests and such.
likbez , May 8, 2020 1:48 pm
The idea of democracy is a useful abstraction, but in reality it is always severely
limited by "iron law of oiligarchy" in any large social group.
The max that is achievable under capitalism is Polyarchy:
Polyarchy is distinct from oligarchy in sense that while few men (the elite) still
selects candidates for the office (and in this sense population is deprived on any
substantial choice) there are regular national elections which serve the purpose of
"approving" one of the preselected by the elite candidates (aka lesser evilism)
providing a patina of legitimacy to the elite rule.
According to Wikipedia:
According to William I. Robinson, it is a system where small group actually rules on
behalf of capital, and majority's decision making is confined to choosing among
selective number of elites within tightly controlled elective process. It is a form of
consensual domination made possible by the structural domination of the global capital
which allowed concentration of political powers.[7]
In a discussion of contemporary British foreign policy, Mark Curtis stated that
"Polyarchy is generally what British leaders mean when they speak of promoting
"democracy" abroad. This is a system in which a small group actually rules and mass
participation is confined to choosing leaders in elections managed by competing
elites. "[11]
Also, it is being promoted by the transnational elites in the South as a different
form from the authoritarianism and dictatorship to the North as a part of Democracy
Promotion.[12]
Robinson argues that this is to cultivate transnational elites who will open up
their countries following transnational agenda of neoliberalism where transnational
capital mobility and globalized circuits of production and distribution is
established.
For example, it was promoted to Nicaragua, Chile, Haiti, the Philippines, South
Africa and the former Soviet Bloc countries.[13]
and the former Soviet Bloc countries.[13]
likbez , May 8, 2020 8:54 pm
Chris Hedges tried to address the same issue in his article "The One-Choice Election"
published Mar 09, 2020
While this is somewhat questionable take, because a bitter infighting between two major
camps of the US neoliberal elite is ignored, there some truth in the statement that Clinton
wing can live with Trump's second term.
Chris Hedges is definitely wrong about Sanders and now he probably realized that. I also
think that this infighting is a positive thing, the implicit search for the direction, which
might help the country, not only bare knuckle, raw fight for power as he thinks (although abuse
of intelligence agencies by Clinton wing spoiled the broth) . The misery of the working class
in the USA in comparison with the same in East Asia, or Latin America is still far less despite
sliding standard of living. Three person family were each adult earns $10 an hour can still
survive. The real misery is concentrated mainly in single mothers segment of population.
At least he raises important questions:
There is only one choice in this election. The consolidation of oligarchic power under
Donald Trump or the consolidation of oligarchic power under Joe Biden.
The oligarchs, with Trump or Biden, will win again. We will lose. The oligarchs made it
abundantly clear, should Bernie Sanders miraculously become the Democratic Party nominee,
they would join forces with the Republicans to crush him. Trump would, if Sanders was the
nominee, instantly be shorn by the Democratic Party elites of his demons and his propensity
for tyranny.
The oligarchs preach the sermon of the least-worst to us when they attempt to ram a
Hillary Clinton or a Biden down our throats but ignore it for themselves. They prefer
Biden over Trump, but they can live with either.
Only one thing matters to the oligarchs. It is not democracy. It is not truth. It is not
the consent of the governed. It is not income inequality. It is not the surveillance state.
It is not endless war. It is not jobs. It is not the climate. It is the primacy of corporate
power -- which has extinguished our democracy and left most of the working class in misery --
and the continued increase and consolidation of their wealth.
Biden represents the old neoliberal order. He personifies the betrayal by the Democratic
Party of working men and women that sparked the deep hatred of the ruling elites across the
political spectrum. He is a gift to a demagogue and con artist like Trump, who at least
understands that these elites are detested. Biden cannot plausibly offer change.
He can only offer more of the same. And most Americans do not want more of the same. The
country's largest voting-age bloc, the 100 million-plus citizens who out of apathy or disgust
do not vote, will once again stay home. This demoralization of the electorate is by design.
It will, I expect, give Trump another term in office.
..By voting for Biden, you You vote for deregulating the banking industry and the
abolition of Glass-Steagall. You vote for the for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical
corporations and against universal health care. You vote for bloated defense budgets. You
vote for the use of unlimited oligarchic and corporate money to buy our elections. You vote
for a politician who during his time in the Senate abjectly served the interests of MBNA, the
largest independent credit card company headquartered in Delaware, which also employed
Biden's son Hunter.
The right wing uses those on the margins of society as scapegoats. The culture wars mask
the reality. Both parties are full partners in the reconfiguration of American society into a
form of neofeudalism. It only depends on how you want it dressed up.
" By fostering an illusion among the powerless classes" that it can make their
interests a priority, the Democratic Party "pacifies and thereby defines the style of an
opposition party in an inverted totalitarian system," political philosopher Sheldon Wolin
writes.
The Democrats will once again offer up a least-worst alternative while, in fact, doing
little or nothing to thwart the march toward corporate totalitarianism
He thinks "We need to halt corporate pillage and regulate Wall Street and corporations. ".
Easier said then done because there is no politically organized countervailing forces that can
oppose Wall Street and large corporations. They own the Capitol Hill. But clearly Biden while
preferable to Trump is one step forward two steps back.
"... Chomsky notes that companies like General Electric realized they could make more money with sophisticated financial maneuvering than by manufacturing. Complex financial instruments were invented and financial regulations that had been in place since the 1930s to prevent economic crashes were removed. ..."
"... And it was the beginning of outsourcing manufacturing to foreign countries with cheap labor and the consequent decline of labor unions and the economic and political power of the White working class. And when the complex financial instruments blew up (as happened in 2008 with collateralized debt obligations [the result of bundling good and bad (including "liar loans') loans into one financial product]), the government bailed out "too big to fail" Wall Street but not individual homeowners. ..."
"... Illustrating the importance of media control, Chomsky notes that Obama's presidential campaign received an award for the most effective public relations media campaign and he decries the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case which framed financial donations to political campaigns by corporations and labor unions as free speech, in effect further opening the gates for the wealthy to control the political system. He then notes this is quite unlike media corporations like CBS which are "supposed to be a public service." ..."
"... The Culture of Critique ..."
"... After Liberalism) ..."
"... (The True and Only Heaven): ..."
"... The Authoritarian Personality ..."
"... In his 1963 book The Tolerant Populists, ..."
In arguing for his position, Chomsky emphasizes that the 1970s marked the beginning of the
rise of the financialization of the economy. Whereas in the 1950s manufacturing was 28% of the
economy and finance 11%, the balance had reversed by 2010.
Chomsky notes that companies like General Electric realized they could make more money
with sophisticated financial maneuvering than by manufacturing. Complex financial instruments
were invented and financial regulations that had been in place since the 1930s to prevent
economic crashes were removed.
And it was the beginning of outsourcing manufacturing to foreign countries with cheap
labor and the consequent decline of labor unions and the economic and political power of the
White working class. And when the complex financial instruments blew up (as happened in 2008
with collateralized
debt obligations [the result of bundling good and bad (including "liar loans') loans into
one financial product]), the government bailed out "too big to fail" Wall Street but not
individual homeowners.
As Chomsky notes, the result of these developments was rising economic inequality -- the
rise of the super-rich top 0.1 percent to unrivaled political power. Chomsky notes that the
super-rich much prefer oligarchy to democracy and indeed
the data support him . they are able to control the political process via donations to
political candidates and control of media messages. Jews are recognized as the "financial
engine of the left," as Norman
Podhoretz phrased it, and contribute around 75% of the funds for Democrats and probably at
least 50% for Republicans (Sheldon' Adelson's generosity toward Trump. (A prominent example is
Sheldon Adelson whose support of Trump [north of $200 million] is predicated on a pro-Israel
foreign policy; in general the Republican Jewish Coalition favors a pro-Israel foreign policy
and moving the party to the left on social issues like immigration and gender).
Illustrating the importance of media control, Chomsky notes that Obama's presidential
campaign received an award for the most effective public relations media campaign and he
decries the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case which framed
financial donations to political campaigns by corporations and labor unions as free speech, in
effect further opening the gates for the wealthy to control the political system. He then notes
this is quite unlike media corporations like CBS which are "supposed to be a public
service."
This of course, is absurd, implying that CBS (and by implication other mainstream media
corporations) has no political biases and does not in fact operate as a public service. CBS is
part of ViacomCBS, whose major owners are the Sumner Redstone and his family, who are Jewish
and whose values are typical of the liberal-left attitudes of the mainstream Jewish community (
here , p.
xlvi–lvi).
Chomsky clearly has a distaste for oligarchy but he fails to mention the very large body of
writing by Jews opposed to populism -- a major theme of The Culture of Critique ,
especially
Chapter 5 . As noted there, citing Paul Gottfried ( After Liberalism) and
Christopher Lasch (The True and Only Heaven):
In the post–World War II era The Authoritarian Personality became an
ideological weapon against historical American populist movements, especially McCarthyism
(Gottfried 1998; Lasch 1991, 455ff). "[T]he people as a whole had little understanding of
liberal democracy and . . . important questions of public policy would be decided by educated
elites, not submitted to popular vote" (Lasch 1991, 455).
In his 1963 book The Tolerant Populists, Walter Nugent, was explicit in finding
that Jewish identification was an important ingredient in the [anti-populist] analysis,
attributing the negative view of American populism held by some American Jewish historians
(Richard Hofstadter, Daniel Bell, and Seymour Martin Lipset) to the fact that "they were one
generation removed from the Eastern European shtetl [small Jewish town], where insurgent
gentile peasants meant pogrom."
Indeed, another example comes from Chomsky which occurred well before the rise of Jews to
cultural dominance; Walter Lippmann, also Jewish, is quoted as writing in 1925 "The public must
be put in its place."
Throughout European history down to the Soviet Union and post-World War II communist
societies in Eastern Europe, Jews have always made alliances with ruling elites, often alien
ruling elites and often in opposition to other sectors of the population.
It is interesting that Tucker Carlson started his program, last night, by railing against
news media that does not investigate issues, especially pertaining to Covid-19 he then
launched into a hypocritical tirade against China using unnamed government sources and unseen
government documents, as the source of Covid-19 malfeasance in reporting the disease, on
China's part. Carlson did this without one media investigation of the veracity of the US
government reports.
Carlson has turned into a hypocritical asshole.
This is because Tucker has always been a Sinophobe instead of a Russophobe.
Be that as it may, he is a hypocrite. Carlson pisses and moans about what lying, corrupt
bastards the intelligence agencies are when they attack the Trump administration, Roger
Stone, Gen. Flynn yet is ready to believe anything those same intelligence agencies say that
is derogatory toward China even though there is no evidence provided.
"...We are likely to see a return to hard borders; more control of immigration; greater
self-sufficiency in terms of domestically-produced component parts (i.e. less off-shoring);
more emphasis on self-sustaining agriculture; less dependency on export markets; more
reliance on tariffs; and a return to the real economy.
"A simpler, largely national economy, in other words, with a sovereign financial sector.
Maybe gold, which was an international money in the past, could become money again, in the
future. It's the 'old' as the new 'new'. It is not that there is no alternative – it
has been written about for the last 200 years. In 1800, Johann Fichte published The Closed
Commercial State. In 1827 Friedrich List published his theories of national economics which
took issue with the 'cosmopolitan economics' of Adam Smith and J.B. Say. In 1889, Count
Sergius Witte, an influential politician and Prime Minister in Imperial Russia, published a
paper titled National Savings and Friedrich List, which cited the economic theories of
Friedrich List and justified the need for a strong domestic industry, protected from foreign
competition by customs barriers.
"Call it 'old', but really it is nothing extreme. It is simply the flip-side to the coin
of Adam Smith. Russians, such as Sergei Glazyev, have been thinking about such things for
years, but especially since Russia was expelled from the G8. Alternatives for Russia have
both been thought about and developed. But western élites have demonized Russia so
thoroughly amongst their publics, that any alternative paradigm has been pushed out –
far beyond the boundaries of 'accepted discourse'.
"This means that it will not be possible for the West simply to step out of the Covid-19
crisis, into some 'waiting' alternative paradigm (however much the situation warrants it).
The world faces the prospect of a profound shift: a return to a natural – which is to
say, a self-sufficient – economy. That shift is the very opposite of globalisation.
"It is a crisis that may be extensive, but can be only faced 'head on' – and worked
through, to its far side (absent a solution waiting to 'step-into'). The outcome may be
obvious, yet there will be no shortcuts in reaching it. Why? Because the neo-liberal era has
hollowed out and 'neo-liberalised' almost everything: Academia, the judiciary, the media,
governance, culture and ethics..."
It is well worth reading
"... the nations CEO's become sort of one big club, and the top of the club is the head parasites pulling the strings on the stock market (outfits like Goldman Sachs). ..."
"... NO ONE wants to cross the head parasites, the corrupt political class turns to them as their economic brain trust, and the propaganda class (MSM) spin narratives that comport to the corrupt political class' interests and the corrupt status quo. ..."
As our guest puts it, the recently passed Trump "Bank and Landlord Relief" bill,
mistakenly named the Coronavirus bill, starts by providing banks with an even larger giveaway
of wealth than they received from Obama in 2008. Helping the banks, financial and real estate
sectors in a so-called free market system is conflated with helping the industrial economy
and general living standards for most Americans. The essence of a parasite is not only to
drain the host's nourishment, but to dull the host's brain so that it does not recognize that
the parasite is there.
One of the ways it does this is to entice most of the biggest companies onto the stock
markets, which in turn subordinates them to the financial sector -- more specifically, the
investment bankers. And then the nations CEO's become sort of one big club, and the top of
the club is the head parasites pulling the strings on the stock market (outfits like Goldman
Sachs).
NO ONE wants to cross the head parasites, the corrupt political class turns to them as
their economic brain trust, and the propaganda class (MSM) spin narratives that comport to the
corrupt political class' interests and the corrupt status quo.
This is why [neo]liberalism and neoconservatism are the two sides of the one political coin
that Americans are allowed to choose. Lean left? You'll get a liberal who mostly uses identity
politics to divide and rule. Lean right? You'll get a neocon who mostly uses foreign affairs to
divide and rule. But increasingly, the two cross-over, hence you'll see liberals harping 24/7
about Russiagate and neocons harping 24/7 about Iran, Islam and now China.
None of this is to say that Russia, China and Iran aren't competitors, because they are. But
the liberal and neocon fanatics turn them into existential, kill or be killed
competitors...
Social media is very good at building communities around common aesthetics, especially
because Database Era culture is inherently geared toward the endless acontextual
re-assembling of aesthetics people like.
Or as I say, it's all about those
cat blindfolds . But there is a unifying theme here, and as with the UKIP manifestos, it's
a kind of non-specific, generalized extremism. A politics of interchangeable tropes must end up
here. If the tropes truly are interchangeable, the only way they can get selected is salience,
and that's going to be what you get. It probably wouldn't matter if the available pool of the
discontented hadn't been filling up for years, but then there's this.
The other players would seem to be DSA and the Greens, and I'm not sure what they would
think of this. But taking a big chuck of the labor movement out of the Democrat orbit would be
interesting. Especially considering that nurses are as well-liked as, say, firefighters.
Before the coronavirus caused governments to impose lockdowns, whole economies, markets and
even currencies were already on course to be destroyed by a vicious downturn in bank lending at
a time of contracting trade and record debt. The additional strains from the virus have
intensified the crisis further and quickened the pace of all aspects of monetary
destruction.
The coronavirus has permitted America and other Western nations to adopt a war footing by
restricting personal freedom in the interest of the state. As tensions against China rise and
the global economic crisis escalates, these freedoms will be not be returned, being deemed to
be against national interest.
This is an election year for America and the political system is already ramping up blame
for the virus and her economic misfortunes against China. We are entering dangerous territory
when politics mobilises hate against a supposed enemy by using propaganda tactics which are
designed to stir up xenophobic anger.
How China responds will be crucial. Its leadership can defuse the situation with a few
simple changes to its foreign policy, isolating America from her allies in the process. But
does a highly bureaucratic communist leadership have the imagination to do so?
Introduction
One thing is for sure: the world will be different when it emerges from the coronavirus
crisis. Doubtless, on pain of likely death those over seventy years of age must remain
prisoners in their own homes while the younger generations are tasked with the return to
normality. All this is meant to be under government guidance of course. Over the coming months
governments intend to save swathes of business sectors, such as banking, energy production,
utilities and the rest, first by lending the money to pay the bills, and then by rescuing the
failures, taking them into public ownership in many cases.
That is what the post-coronavirus environment can be expected to look like, if, as
governments hope, the recovery is V-shaped. If not, then greater interventions will be visited
on the population to protect it from itself.
While not necessarily intentioned, there has been and will continue to be a dramatic
transfer of freedom from individuals to the state, which the state is always reluctant to let
go when the crisis passes. The evocation of a war against the virus is to facilitate the
transfer of peoples' freedom to the state, because that is what is required to fight a war. But
when it's over, the bureaucrats' instincts are never to return freedoms.
In the vast majority of cases, win or lose, following a war it is usual for a nation to
retain the measures adopted, dropping none of them. It might be called a transitional economy,
kept in place with all the war-time restrictions until an exit path, inevitably to greater
socialism, can be devised. And for America there is a war still to be fought against China for
global domination, justifying yet more control.
Nanny meets fascist socialism
Welcome to the new post-coronavirus intensified socialism. As individuals we have given the
state enormous power over our lives, which will almost certainly be consolidated. The direction
of travel is clear. Not only can big brother censor us, but it can now track our movements more
effectively than the old KGB. If you leave your home, leave your smartphone behind. Wear a
wide-brimmed hat and change your gait, avoiding the cameras. Your money in the bank, or more
correctly in your about-to-be-nationalised bank's money credited to your account, can only be
disposed of for state-regulated products by means of traceable transactions instead of
old-fashioned cash.
Instead of the soviet, we have the nanny state. Nanny knows best. This is the real world of
the 2020s. It is unnatural and will therefore eventually fail. In previous articles I have
written about one aspect of its failure, and that is the impending collapse of unbacked state
currencies. I have pointed out that central banks, and especially the Fed responsible for the
world's reserve currency, are embarking on an exercise in inflation designed, above all, to
uphold the state by maintaining the values of its debt and therefore all other financial
assets. If they fail, and they will because the task is too great, the currencies will fail as
well, and remarkably quickly. Until then, free markets are a primal threat to the system and
must not prevail.
Doubtless, deep state operatives everywhere believe that the threats from their own people
can be contained. Taking that for granted, they are now moving on to contain threats from other
states that don't conform to the West's democratic model. There is now much more propaganda
coming out of America and the UK about the evil Chinese than the evil Chinese are disseminating
about America and Britain.
The story being managed is of a devious state, somehow stealing our souls by selling us
their technology. Mobile 5G puts China into our homes and controls our internet of everything.
It will allow the Chinese to control us . What is not explained is why it is in China's
interest to abuse its customers in this way. What is not explained is why we, as individuals,
will be better off not having Chinese goods and technology. And when Britain's GCHQ
intelligence and security division took Hua Wei's equipment apart, they couldn't find any
evidence of Chinese state spyware anyway.
The irony in all this is that our democratic model, the nanny state, is cover for the same
internal policies as those deployed by the Chinese, admittedly less vicious; but that is
changing. Rather than communist-socialist, both Chinese communism and Western democracies are,
properly defined, fascist-socialist. With communism, the state owns your cow and tells you what
to do with it. With fascism, you own the cow and the state tells you what to do with it. In
these simplistic, but not inaccurate terms, our governments increasingly follow the fascist
creed adopted by the Chinese Communist Party after Mao's death. Give it time and the intense
Chinese-style suppression of free speech could become the defining feature of nanny's
management style as well.
Here we must note a fundamental truth. Socialists of either extreme do not see free markets
as a rival, because they believe they are useful for progressing socialism towards desired
ends. The true rival to your socialism is someone else's socialism. Newly energised Western
state socialism is to be pitted against Chinese state socialism. The World is about to get more
dangerous.
US is upping the propaganda stakes
Last week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said China caused an enormous amount of pain
and will pay a price for what they did with the coronavirus pandemic. On Tuesday, President
Trump threatened to seek reparations from China for infecting Americans. This follows a 57-page
memorandum, entitled Main Messages dated April 17, briefing Republican senators, which was
headed by the following bullet points:
China caused this pandemic by covering it up, lying, and hoarding the world's supply of
medical equipment.
China is an adversary that has stolen millions of American jobs, sent fentanyl to the
United States, and they send religious minorities to concentration camps.
My opponent is soft on China, fails to stand up to the Chinese Communist Party, and can't
be trusted to take them on.
I will stand up to China, bring our manufacturing jobs back home, and push for sanctions
on China for its role in spreading this pandemic.
Clearly, the propaganda war being waged by America against China is undergoing a new lease
of life. And it's not just America: anti-Chinese belligerence is being ramped up through other
national intelligence agencies. Even senior MPs in the UK's Conservative Party and "useful
idiots" in the media are now spouting renewed anti-Chinese propaganda.
On one level, American propaganda can be taken as a defense of President Trump, on the
simplistic basis of finding someone else to blame for his administration's increasingly
desperate economic plight. But the danger is that the White House train has left the station in
the direction of policy escalation with no means of stopping. In this election year someone
must be blamed. To improve his ratings and following an established political tradition of
diverting attention from the domestic scene, Trump must blame foreigners and China is the
easiest target. We are rapidly moving in the direction of unintended consequences.
Meanwhile, we have to hope that President Xi does not take the American bait and escalate
tensions from his side. Xi's equanimity has set the pattern so far. He has made mistakes, and
will almost certainly continue to do so, but his Sun Tzu strategy is making it difficult for
the Americans: "If [the enemy] is in superior strength, evade him".
Of one thing we can be reasonably certain, and that is in a new attack the Trump
administration will escalate trade protectionism against China. It is a policy which will
backfire on America. Assuming no change in the American people's savings habits, the budget
deficit leads almost directly to a trade deficit, the twin deficit syndrome. The trade deficit
is not caused by unfair foreign competition, but as a simple matter of national accounting it
is linked to inflationary funding of government spending. The temporary offset with respect to
the inflationary effect on prices is the expansion of foreign production which ends up as
imports at less inflated prices. Meanwhile, the US's budget deficit is now set to grow
substantially from its trillion-dollar baseline and in the light of recent economic
developments it could easily more than double.
If the trade deficit is to be contained, then measures must be introduced to prevent import
substitution. This is in accordance with enhanced nationalism, typified by Trump's Make America
Great Again slogan. Therefore, the likelihood of America extending trade protectionism beyond
China as the economic crisis progresses is greater than it may currently appear.
Without lower prices for imported goods and consumption generally restricted to domestic
production, inevitably prices for everything will rise at a faster pace. Therefore, at a time
when food prices will almost certainly be rising sharply and causing political difficulties for
Trump, price inflation for all aspects of consumer spending will be getting beyond the managed
control of government statisticians.
Domestically, the combination of an escalating budget deficit and rising consumer prices
will lead to higher interest rates and therefore increased US Treasury borrowing costs. The Fed
will then be unable to control financial asset prices, the dollar will slide, and it could turn
out to be electoral suicide. Trump may not realise it but in this election year he is
conflating two opposing objectives: a geopolitical one against China to improve his political
ratings and an economic one which can be expected to destroy them.
In the past, politicians in this position have responded by clamping down even further on
free markets and personal freedom, evoking Hayek's prophecy of the call for stronger leadership
in his The Road to Serfdom . And with respect to foreign policy, imperialistic motivation
intensifies, which we are already seeing.
Meanwhile, we must hope President Xi stays calm in the face of American self-harm.
"... There's a concerted effort on the part of influential people at the network that we at All In call Trump TV right now to peddle dangerous misinformation about the coronavirus Call it coronavirus trutherism. ..."
"... Who needs to win elections when you can personally reestablish the social order every day on Twitter and Facebook? When you can scold, and scold, and scold. That's their future, and it's a satisfying one: a finger wagging in some vulgar proletarian's face, forever. ..."
"... Get a Grippe, America: The flu is a much bigger threat than coronavirus, for now : Washington Post ..."
"... Coronavirus is scary, but the flu is deadlier, more widespread : USA Today ..."
"... Want to Protect Yourself From Coronavirus? Do the Same Things You Do Every Winter : Time ..."
"... We should de-escalate the war on coronavirus ..."
"... "Good hand-washing helps. Staying healthy and eating healthy will also help," says Dr. Sharon Nachman, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at New York's Stony Brook Children's Hospital. "The things we take for granted actually do work. It doesn't matter what the virus is. The routine things work ." ..."
The offenders were Drs. Dan Erickson and Artin Massahi, co-owners of an "Urgent Care" clinic
in Bakersfield, California. They'd held a presentation in which they argued that widespread
lockdowns were perhaps not necessary, according to data they were collecting and analyzing.
"Millions of cases, small amounts of deaths," said Erickson , a vigorous, cheery-looking
Norwegian-American who argued the numbers showed Covid-19 was similar to flu in mortality rate.
"Does [that] necessitate shutdown, loss of jobs, destruction of oil companies, furloughing
doctors ? I think the answer is going to be increasingly clear."
The reaction of the medical community was severe. It was pointed out that the two men owned
a clinic that was losing business thanks to the lockdown. The message boards of real E.R.
doctors lit up with angry comments, scoffing at the doctors' dubious data collection methods
and even their somewhat dramatic choice to dress in scrubs for their video presentation.
The American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) and American College of Emergency
Physicians (ACEP) scrambled to
issue a joint statement to "emphatically condemn" the two doctors, who "do not speak for
medical society" and had released "biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal
financial interests."
As is now almost automatically the case in the media treatment of any controversy, the story
was immediately packaged for "left" and "right" audiences by TV networks. Tucker Carlson on
Fox backed up the doctors' claims, saying "these are serious people who've done this
for a living for decades," and YouTube and Google have " officially
banned dissent ."
Meanwhile, over on Carlson's opposite-number channel, MSNBC, anchor Chris Hayes of the
All In program reacted with fury to Carlson's monologue:
There's a concerted effort on the part of influential people at the network that we at
All In call Trump TV right now to peddle dangerous misinformation about the coronavirus Call
it coronavirus trutherism.
Hayes, an old acquaintance of mine, seethed at what he characterized as the gross
indifference of Trump Republicans to the dangers of coronavirus. "At the beginning of this
horrible period, the president, along with his lackeys, and propagandists, they all minimized
what was coming," he said, sneering. "They said it was just like a cold or the flu."
He angrily demanded that if Fox acolytes like Carlson believed so strongly that society
should be reopened, they should go work in a meat processing plant. "Get in there if you think
it's that bad. Go chop up some pork."
The tone of the many media reactions to Erickson, Carlson, Trump, Georgia governor Brian
Kemp, and others who've suggested lockdowns and strict shelter-in-place laws are either
unnecessary or do more harm than good, fits with what writer Thomas Frank describes as a new "
Utopia of Scolding ":
Who needs to win elections when you can personally reestablish the social order every
day on Twitter and Facebook? When you can scold, and scold, and scold. That's their future, and
it's a satisfying one: a finger wagging in some vulgar proletarian's face, forever.
In the Trump years the sector of society we used to describe as liberal America became a
giant finger-wagging machine. The news media, academia, the Democratic Party, show-business
celebrities and masses of blue-checked Twitter virtuosos became a kind of umbrella agreement
society, united by loathing of Trump and fury toward anyone who dissented with their
preoccupations.
Because this Conventional Wisdom viewed itself as being solely concerned with the Only
Important Thing, i.e. removing Trump, there was no longer any legitimate excuse for disagreeing
with its takes on Russia, Julian Assange, Jill Stein, Joe Rogan, the 25th amendment, Ukraine,
the use of the word "treason," the removal of Alex Jones, the movie Joker, or whatever
else happened to be the #Resistance fixation of the day.
When the Covid-19 crisis struck, the scolding utopia was no longer abstraction. The dream
was reality! Pure communism had arrived! Failure to take elite advice was no longer just a
deplorable faux pas . Not heeding experts was now murder. It could not be tolerated.
Media coverage quickly became a single, floridly-written tirade against "
expertise-deniers ." For instance, the Atlantic headline on Kemp's decision to end
some shutdowns was, " Georgia's
Experiment in Human Sacrifice ."
At the outset of the crisis, America's biggest internet platforms – Facebook, Twitter,
Google, LinkedIn, and Reddit – took an unprecedented step to
combat "fraud and misinformation " by promising extensive cooperation in elevating
"authoritative" news over less reputable sources.
H.L. Mencken once said that in America, "the general average of intelligence, of knowledge,
of competence, of integrity, of self-respect, of honor is so low that any man who knows his
trade, does not fear ghosts, has read fifty good books, and practices the common decencies
stands out as brilliantly as a wart on a bald head."
We have a lot of dumb people in this country. But the difference between the stupidities
cherished by the Idiocracy set ingesting fish cleaner, and the ones pushed in places
like the Atlantic, is that the jackasses among the "expert" class compound their
wrongness by being so sure of themselves that they force others to go along. In other words, to
combat "ignorance," the scolders create a new and more virulent species of it: exclusive
ignorance, forced ignorance, ignorance with staying power.
The people who want to add a censorship regime to a health crisis are more dangerous and
more stupid by leaps and bounds than a president who
tells people to inject disinfectant . It's astonishing that they don't see this.
Journalists are professional test-crammers. Our job is to get an assignment on Monday
morning and by Tuesday evening act like we're authorities on intellectual piracy, the civil war
in Yemen, Iowa caucus procedure, the coronavirus, whatever. We actually know jack: we
speed-read, make a few phone calls, and in a snap people are inviting us on television to tell
millions of people what to think about the complex issues of the world.
When we come to a subject cold, the job is about consulting as many people who really know
their stuff as quickly as possible and sussing out – often based on nothing more than
hunches or impressions of the personalities involved – which set of explanations is most
believable. Sportswriters who covered the Deflategate football scandal had to do this in order
to explain the Ideal Gas Law , I
had to do it to cover the subprime mortgage scandal, and reporters this past January and
February had to do it when assigned to assess the coming coronavirus threat.
It does not take that much work to go back and find that a significant portion of the
medical and epidemiological establishment called this disaster wrong when they were polled by
reporters back in the beginning of the year. Right-wingers are having a blast collecting the
headlines , and they should, given the chest-pounding at places like MSNBC about others who
"minimized the risk." Here's a brief sample:
There are dozens of these stories and they nearly all contain the same elements, including
an inevitable quote or series of quotes from experts telling us to calm the hell down. This is
from the Time piece:
"Good hand-washing helps. Staying healthy and eating healthy will also help," says Dr.
Sharon Nachman, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at New York's Stony Brook Children's
Hospital. "The things we take for granted actually do work. It doesn't matter what the virus
is. The routine things work ."
There's a reason why journalists should always keep their distance from priesthoods in any
field. It's particularly in the nature of insular communities of subject matter experts to
coalesce around orthodoxies that blind the very people in the loop who should be the most
knowledgeable.
"Experts" get things wrong for reasons that are innocent (they've all been taught the same
incorrect thing in school) and less so (they have a financial or professional interest in
denying the truth).
On the less nefarious side, the entire community of pollsters in 2016 denounced as infamous
the idea that Donald Trump could win the Republican nomination, let alone the general election.
They believed that because they weren't paying attention to voters (their ostensible jobs), but
also because they'd never seen anything similar. In a more suspicious example, if you asked a
hundred Wall Street analysts in September 2008 what caused the financial crisis, probably no
more than a handful would have mentioned fraud or malfeasance.
Both of the above examples point out a central problem with trying to automate the
fact-checking process the way the Internet platforms have of late, with their emphasis on
"authoritative" opinions.
"Authorities " by their nature are untrustworthy. Sometimes they have an interest
in denying truths, and sometimes they actually try to define truth as being whatever they say
it is. "
Elevating authoritative content " over independent or less well-known sources is an
algorithmic take on the journalistic obsession with credentialing that has been slowly
destroying our business for decades.
The WMD fiasco happened because journalists listened to people with military ranks and
titles instead of demanding evidence and listening to their own instincts. The same thing
happened with Russiagate, a story fueled by intelligence "experts" with grand titles who are
now proven to have been
wrong to a spectacular
degree , if not actually criminally liable in pushing a fraud.
We've become incapable of talking calmly about possible solutions because we've lost the
ability to decouple scientific or policy discussions, or simple issues of fact, from a
political argument. Reporting on the Covid-19 crisis has become the latest in a line of moral
manias with Donald Trump in the middle.
Instead of asking calmly if hydroxychloroquine works, or if the less restrictive Swedish
crisis response has merit, or questioning why certain statistical assumptions about the
seriousness of the crisis might have been off, we're denouncing the questions themselves as
infamous. Or we're politicizing the framing of stories in a way that signals to readers what
their take should be before they even digest the material. " Conservative
Americans see coronavirus hope in Progressive Sweden ," reads a Politico headline,
as if only conservatives should feel optimism in the possibility that a non-lockdown approach
might have merit! Are we rooting for such an approach to not work?
From everything I've heard, talking to doctors and reading the background material, the
Bakersfield doctors are probably not the best sources. But the functional impact of removing
their videos (in addition to giving them press they wouldn't otherwise have had) is to stamp
out discussion of things that do actually need to be discussed, like when the damage to the
economy and the effects of other crisis-related problems – domestic abuse, substance
abuse, suicide, stroke, abuse of children, etc. – become as significant a threat to the
public as the pandemic. We do actually have to talk about this. We can't not talk about it out
of fear of being censored, or because we're confusing real harm with political harm.
Turning ourselves into China for any reason is the definition of a cure being worse than the
disease. The scolders who are being seduced by such thinking have to wake up, before we end up
adding another disaster on top of the terrible one we're already facing.
Patrick Lovell Apr 30 Like always, I agree and am moved
deeply by most of your positions. I do however find the argument not entirely convincing.
I've seen you down on Russiagate from the beginning and I've never felt like I understood
why. I get the barrage without the evidence and what that means for the broader context
but seriously, Washington's entire currency is lying. So too is Wall Street. But Putin's
isn't? Trump's? Is it really that complicated?
Trump was laundering real estate for bad guys for decades. It's his business model.
Deutsche Bank was involved with fraud in every dimension and direction and Trump was a
relatively small play all things considered, but the SOB knew what he was involved with
and doing. He went so far as to claim the "Act of God" defense based on deuschbag
Greenspan's insane lie that no one saw 2008 coming.
Trump went so far as to sue DM for being a victim of predatory lending. Trump? Victim
of Predatory Lending??!?!?! WTF?!?!? Given all of that and then some (Mercers, Bannon,
etc.) are we to pretend it wasn't exactly what it looks like? Why wouldn't we? Because
Clinton was on the other side? I really don't get that part at all.
Matt Taibbi Apr 30 I'm sorry, but Russiagate wasn't about
whether or not Trump or Putin were liars or bad people. It was a very specific set of
allegations that have been proven now to be false: that Trump was being blackmailed by
the Russian state, that the Russians coordinated with the Trump campaign in an election
interference plot, that the Trump campaign traded sanctions for election aid, that Trump
himself committed treason and was a compromised foreign agent, etc. This has all been
investigated and discounted. In fact it appears now, from the investigation of IG Michael
Horowitz, that the FBI knew relatively early on -- by late 2016 -- that there was no
coordination or collusion going on between Russia and the Trump campaign. Yet smears and
innuendo flowed for years from intelligence sources anyway. You don't have to be a Trump
fan to be pissed that there was such an elaborate effort at spreading this false tale.
Larry May 1 Matt, I disagree, perhaps, with your
reference to Kemp and the other governors who opened their states. Don't you agree that
their effort seems to be an attempt to prevent workers from claiming unemployment benefit
and that, as such, their efforts should not be seen as motivated by a simple, freely
determined skepticism about the merits of the science or even the biased journalism?
I do applaud your general thesis, and would add for my part that one of the most
interesting phenomena regarding the media response to coronavirus and scientific material
in general is a seeming mass desire to settle matters once and for all rather than
fostering an attitude that scientific activity is more than anything else a manifestly
long-drawn out, labor intensive pursuit, that requires much time, almost always, before
actionable insights can be formulated, much less acted upon.
It is odd that, as you have noted so many times, a media so addicted to manufacturing
themes that must be continually resuscitated, like Russia, do the exact opposite with
science: as you note, pundits and reporters, when confronted with science, tend to cram
and swot maniacally (under deadline, assuredly) in order to get as close to a definitive
statement as possible as fast as possible, when the entire process is designed (though
increasingly commercialized and siloed privatized science mitigates against this in
important ways, whilst reinforcing it in others) only to provide "answers" of any sort
extremely tentatively.
This is perhaps one of the most annoying things about many Americans' expectations of
scientific activity, which you see in medicine (and weather forecasting!) perhaps most of
all: people frustrated with the underlying uncertainty of medical prognoses seem to
expect cookie-cutter specific formulations virtually on the spot, and are angered when
these are not forthcoming.
I even know people who have taught philosophy of science who have never stepped foot
in a lab or have the vaguest notion of how "knowledge" is produced there. This sort of
thing adds fertile ground for themes development of potential misunderstandings amongst
lay-people that raises the deleterious effects to another level. But I am digressing.
My main question is about Kemp and the others, but if you could speak a little to
flesh out your interesting comments on reporters and scientific subject matter, I would
be most grateful. I love your work, Matt, keep up the good job!
It is easy to blame China when you do not even put the slightest presure on your corporations
for them to protect their employees...so that they must exert the presure on their own
risking their jobs in such a savage capitalist environment like that of the US where any
complaint equated being fired, as happened to the health workers...
In an unprecedented movement, workers from 6 of the largest companies in the United States
like Amazon or Walmart have organized a strike on Labor Day today to demand health
protection against COVID19 and better working conditions.
"It was like they were keeping a secret," said Tara Williams, a 47-year-old worker at the
plant, as she described her account of management's response to the death of her colleague
Elose Willis. "It took them about two weeks to just put a picture up, to acknowledge she
had died."
No, kids, this isn't China or North Korea - it's the USA.
The real crisis will be went the eviction moratorium ends in July, when all of the people who
are behind on their rent/mortgages (and there are at least 8 million of them, possibly much,
much more) are required to repay the arrears on their accounts or be evicted. That will
create a lot of angry voters and eviction laws are generally less restrictive in Republican
states, so that would almost certainly hurt the Republican party more and it would hurt them
down the entire ticket.
Putting aside notions of morality and common humanity, I would think simple
self-interested greed would convince politicians to adopt some populist positions solely to
be (re)elected. But the two parties are just so corrupt and beholden to their big pocket
financial donners that they won't do it. I wouldn't hold my breath to see if at least one
party wakes up to this problem, but I get the feeling that both parties are like ostriches
with their heads in the sand over this problem and that they won't even consider this problem
until Mid-June or July. Then, maybe, we'll see some new ideas put forth for the election
campaign or more likely a temporary extension of the eviction moratorium (got to kick that
can down the road!).
"Deaths of 2 workers at COVID-19 stricken S.E. Iowa meatpacking plant
confirmed"
No this isn't China, regardless which sides we support - fully justify action or inaction.
Democracy past its prime and time for change but not the changes from fake Nobel
Laureate.
"In a Pandemic, the Mob Is the Ultimate Enforcer" [John Authers,
Bloomberg ].
The business perspective: "what really matters to the world's financial movers and shakers
is the great mob of voters out there in the real world, and how they might respond to whatever
measures they take to deal with the pandemic and the economic crisis that has come in its wake.
That, in turn, might owe a lot to the Don
The optics are not good when headlines reveal that scarcely impoverished institutions such
as Harvard University and the Los Angeles Lakers have received public handouts while small
businesses have been unable to get their hands on any money before it runs out.
After the mistakes made in the wake of the last financial crisis, Powell rightly grasps that
it is very important to get it right this time -- or face what might be a dangerous populist
backlash. Or, in our Sopranos analogy, the Mob."
Yesterday when I linked to the event at Lansing, Michigan, I commented that those there
had no idea what they were doing as they were protesting the wrong thing at the wrong
place. Instead, they ought to be occupying the US Treasury building in DC and the NY Fed
Bank in NYC to stop the fraudulent dissemination of $$Trillions to Wall Street criminals
masked as bankers, hedge fund mangers and the like as those locations are where the MAJOR
crimes are occurring as I type this comment. Their behavior casts them as ignorant and
perhaps worse as they're being led into an assault on their own interests while doing
nothing to genuinely defend their wellbeing and that of their kin and progeny. Such
stupidity's been ongoing since 1980-81 when it arose during Reagan's campaign and
continued afterward. That it's being directed/channeled is clear, just as who was
financing the Tea Party rubes was clear--It's the same criminals doing the looting in DC
and NYC.
Given the state of politics within the Outlaw US Empire, such behavior is
unfortunately normal to a certain degree. If it was a gang of Occupy Wall Street
Protesters, the reaction by the forces of coercion would've been vastly different and
very violent. Such is the state of Machiavellianism within as it's worked for many
decades dividing and ruling. With such impediments, attaining the mass solidarity
required to affect the Sea-change required is made extremely difficult, which is why you
observe that nothing's been done for the masses while many things have been done to
further their exploitation.
Now rogue academics, rogue journalists, rogue former officials – anyone, in fact
– can go online and discover a myriad of things that until recently no one outside a
small establishment circle was ever supposed to understand. If you know where to look, you can
even find some of this stuff on Wikipedia (see, for example, Operation Timber Sycamore ).
The effect of this information overload has been to disorientate the great majority of us
who lack the time, the knowledge and the analytical skills to sift through it all and make
sense of the world around us. It is hard to discriminate when there is so much information
– good and bad alike – to digest.
Nonetheless, we have got a sense from these online debates, reinforced by events in the
non-virtual world, that our politicians do not always tell the truth, that money – rather
than the public interest – sometimes wins out in decision-making processes, and that our
elites may be little better equipped than us – aside from their expensive educations
– to run our societies.
Two decades of lies
There has been a handful of staging posts over the past two decades to our current era of
the Great Disillusionment. They include:
lack of transparency in the US government's
investigation into the events surrounding 9/11 (obscured by a parallel online controversy
about what took place that day); the
documented lies told about the reasons for launching a disastrous and illegal war of
aggression against Iraq in 2003 that unleashed regional chaos, waves of destabilising
migration into Europe and new, exceptionally brutal forms of political Islam; the
astronomical bailouts after the 2008 crash of bankers whose criminal activities nearly
bankrupted the global economy (but who were never held to account) and instituted more
than a decade of austerity measures that had to be paid for by the public; the refusal by
western governments and global institutions to take any
leadership on tackling climate change , as not only the science but the weather itself
has made the urgency of that emergency clear, because it would mean taking on their corporate
sponsors; and now the criminal failures of our governments to
prepare for, and respond properly to, the Covid-19 pandemic, despite many years of warnings.
Anyone who still takes what our governments say at face value well, I have several bridges
to sell you.
Experts failed us
But it is not just governments to blame. The failings of experts, administrators and the
professional class have been all too visible to the public as well. Those officials who have
enjoyed easy access to prominent platforms in the state-corporate media have obediently
repeated what state and corporate interests wanted us to hear, often only for that information
to be exposed later as incomplete, misleading or downright fabricated.
In the run-up to the 2003 attack on Iraq, too many political scientists, journalists and
weapons experts kept their heads down, keen to preserve their careers and status, rather than
speak up in support of those rare experts like Scott Ritter and
the late David Kelly who
dared to sound the alarm that we were not being told the whole truth.
In 2008, only a handful of economists was prepared to break with corporate orthodoxy and
question whether throwing money at bankers exposed as financial criminals was wise, or to
demand that these bankers be prosecuted. The economists did not argue the case that there must
be a price for the banks to pay, such as a public stake in the banks that were bailed out, in
return for forcing taxpayers to massively invest in these discredited businesses. And the
economists did not propose overhauling our financial systems to make sure there was no
repetition of the economic crash. Instead, they kept their heads down as well, in the hope that
their large salaries continued and that they would not lose their esteemed positions in
think-tanks and universities.
... ... ...
And recently we have learnt, for example, that a series of Conservative governments in the
UK recklessly ran down the
supplies of hospital protective gear , even though they had more than a decade of warnings
of a coming pandemic. The question is why did no scientific advisers or health officials blow
the whistle earlier. Now it is too late to save the lives of many thousands, including dozens
of medical staff, who have fallen victim so far to the virus in the UK.
Lesser of two evils
Worse still, in the Anglosphere of the US and the UK, we have ended up with political
systems that offer a choice between one party that supports a brutal, unrestrained version of
neoliberalism and another party that supports a marginally less brutal, slightly mitigated
version of neoliberalism. (And we have recently discovered in the UK that, after the grassroots
membership of one of those twinned parties managed to choose a leader in Jeremy Corbyn who
rejected this orthodoxy, his own party machine conspired
to throw the election rather than let him near power.) As we are warned at each election, in
case we decide that elections are in fact futile, we enjoy a choice – between the lesser
of two evils.
Those who ignore or instinctively defend these glaring failings of the modern corporate
system are really in no position to sit smugly in judgment on those who wish to question the
safety of 5G, or vaccines, or the truth of 9/11, or the reality of a climate catastrophe, or
even of the presence of lizard overlords.
Because through their reflexive dismissal of doubt, of all critical thinking on anything
that has not been pre-approved by our governments and by the state-corporate media, they have
helped to disfigure the only yardsticks we have for measuring truth or falsehood. They have
forced on us a terrible choice: to blindly follow those who have repeatedly demonstrated they
are not worthy of being followed, or to trust nothing at all, to doubt everything. Neither
position is one a healthy, balanced individual would want to adopt. But that is where we are
today.
Big Brother regimes
It is therefore hardly surprising that those who have been so discredited by the current
explosion of information – the politicians, the corporations and the professional class
– are wondering how to fix things in the way most likely to maintain their power and
authority.
They face two, possibly complementary options.
ORDER IT NOW
One is to allow the information overload to continue, or even escalate. There is an argument
to be made that the more possible truths we are presented with, the more powerless
we feel and the more willing we are to defer to those most vocal in claiming authority.
Confused and hopeless, we will look to father figures, to the strongmen of old, to those who
have cultivated an aura of decisiveness and fearlessness, to those who look like down-to-earth
mavericks and rebels.
This approach will throw up more Donald Trumps, Boris Johnsons and Jair Bolsonaros. And
these men, while charming us with their supposed lack of orthodoxy, will still, of course, be
exceptionally accommodating to the most powerful corporate interests – the military-industrial complex
– that really run the show.
The other option, which has already been road-tested under the rubric of "fake news", will
be to treat us, the public, like irresponsible children, who need a firm, guiding hand. The
technocrats and professionals will try to re-establish their authority as though the last two
decades never occurred, as though we never saw through their hypocrisy and lies.
They will cite "conspiracy theories" – even the true ones – as proof that it is
time to
impose new curbs on internet freedoms, on the right to speak and to think. They will argue
that the social media experiment has run its course and proved itself a menace – because
we, the public, are a menace. They are already flying trial balloons for this new Big Brother
world, under cover of tackling the health threats posed by the Covid-19 epidemic.
Surveillance a price worth paying to beat coronavirus, says Blair thinktank https://t.co/AAb1nnv4pG
We should not be surprised that the "thought-leaders" for shutting down the cacophony of the
internet are those whose failures have been most exposed by our new freedoms to explore the
dark recesses of the recent past. They have included Tony Blair, the British prime minister who
lied western publics into the disastrous and illegal war on Iraq in 2003, and Jack Goldsmith,
rewarded as a Harvard law professor for his role – since whitewashed – in helping
the Bush administration legalise torture and step up warrantless surveillance programmes.
Fmr. Bush admin lawyer/current Harvard Law prof Jack Goldsmith goes full-Thomas Friedman,
credits China's enlightened authoritarian approach to information as "largely right" and
laments the US' provincial fealty to the First Amendment as "largely wrong." https://t.co/1WyQtgE8bK
pic.twitter.com/1M03ybxh0I
The only alternative to a future in which we are ruled by Big Brother technocrats like Tony
Blair, or by chummy authoritarians who brook no dissent, or a mix of the two, will require a
complete overhaul of our societies' approach to information. We will need fewer curbs on free
speech, not more.
The real test of our societies – and the only hope of surviving the coming
emergencies, economic and environmental – will be finding a way to hold our leaders truly
to account. Not based on whether they are secretly lizards, but on what they are doing to save
our planet from our all-too-human, self-destructive instinct for acquisition and our craving
for guarantees of security in an uncertain world.
That, in turn, will require a transformation of our relationship to information and debate.
We will need a new model of independent, pluralistic, responsive, questioning media that is
accountable to the public, not to billionaires and corporations. Precisely the kind of media we
do not have now. We will need media we can trust to represent the full range of credible,
intelligent, informed debate, not the narrow Overton window through which we get a highly
partisan, distorted view of the world that serves the 1 per cent – an elite so richly
rewarded by the current system that they are prepared to ignore the fact that they and we are
hurtling towards the abyss.
With that kind of media in place – one that truly holds politicians to account and
celebrates scientists for their contributions to collective knowledge, not their usefulness to
corporate enrichment – we would not need to worry about the safety of our communications
systems or medicines, we would not need to doubt the truth of events in the news or wonder
whether we have lizards for rulers, because in that kind of world no one would rule over us.
They would serve the public for the common good.
Sounds like a fantastical, improbable system of government? It has a name: democracy. Maybe
it is time for us finally to give it a go.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include
"Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East"
(Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books).
His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
The National Republican Senatorial Committee sent GOP campaigns a 57-page messaging strategy
that urged Republican candidates to blame China for the COVID-19 pandemic.
The memo said candidates should blame their opponents for not being tough on China and
called for them to call COVID-19 the "Chinese virus".
If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a
few days. Permanently. I would first apologize to all the widows and orphans, the tortured
and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then
I would announce, in all sincerity, to every corner of the world, that America's global
interventions have come to an end, and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of
the USA but now -- oddly enough -- a foreign country. I would then reduce the military
budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. There would
be more than enough money. One year's military budget of 330 billion dollars is equal to
more than $18,000 an hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's what I'd do on
my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated .
One of trademarks of Trump administration is his that he despises international law and
relies on "might makes right" principle all the time. In a way he is a one trick pony, typical
unhinged bully.
In a way Pompeo is the fact of Trump administration foreign policy, and it is not pretty
It is mostly, though not only, Trump related or libertarian pseudo "alt media" behind "just
the flu" theories or "China unleashed virus to attack US".
There is a small military/zionist cabal at the White House that is pushing for that
information war in order to prop up the dying US empire as well as US oligarhic business
interests, and to secure Trump reelection prospects.
It is enough to see how Zerohedge have been turned into full blown imperialist media with
many "evil China" outbursts every day.
Beware of Trumptards infiltrating alt media to prop up the dying US Empire and its
business interests.
Trump is the biggest US imperialist for the last 30 years. He made a good job at deceiving
many anti-system voices.
His WTO attacks are too part of US efforts to take over the organisation. His has no
problem with international institutions as long as they are US empire controlled (such as
OPCW, WADA, etc.)
Trump-tards and related libertarians (Zerohedge etc.) made their choice on the side
of global US imperialism (driven by their hidden racism, hence the evil "chinks" making a
good enemy) and are now the enemy of the multipolar world.
Trump is scum. He turned on Russia and Assange after he got into the White House and did
far more against Russia than even Obama. I say that as someone who initially made the mistake
to support him.
Meanwhile the damage to the household sector is so severe that it is going to impair living
standards for most of the decade, writes Minerd, adding that "this problem is compounded by the
fact that the most financially vulnerable households are experiencing the majority of layoffs.
Young, hourly workers in lower-paid service industry jobs are bearing the brunt of economic pain,
and these are the people least able to deal with an interruption to income, which will compound the
economic pain from layoffs as consumption falls even more sharply. Meanwhile, the disruption in
corporate cash flows will be pervasive and will rebound unevenly. There will be few positive
outcomes in credit as companies are encouraged to accumulate more debt in the already overleveraged
corporate sector. These failures will stunt the eventual recovery and make it much more uneven" and
eventually result in even more destabilizing policy responses.
Going back to the Fed, Minerd writes that the "central bank will never be able to get back to
normal. The Fed's balance sheet has expanded from $4.5 trillion to $6.6 trillion in just about a
month, and it is likely on its way to over $9 trillion soon."
Our central bank will never be able to get back
to normal. The
#Fed
's
balance sheet has expanded from $4.5 trillion to $6.6 trillion in just about a month, and it is
likely on its way to over $9 trillion soon.
https://t.co/jcbtrJNFHk
pic.twitter.com/sjEWiB2Xhr
The Fed is not alone in this endeavor: "As Ed Hyman of Evercore ISI pointed out, G7 central
banks collectively purchased in March $1.4 trillion in financial assets. This annual rate of $17
trillion is nearly five times the previous monthly record set in April 2009."
And so, as we enter this era of recrimination, it will have broad political and social
implications: "as the death toll mounts it will be used as political fodder. To say "These people
died from coronavirus because of mistakes made in Washington" is an effective tactic. After the
Civil War, politicians used the image of the Bloody Shirt to remind voters that honoring fallen
Union soldiers demanded a Republican vote. Deservedly or not, today's Republican administration
will have a hard time fending off that argument. As the Hoover Administration bore the consequences
of the economic collapse of the 1930s, so quite possibly the pandemic will be viewed as
Washington's failure."
His concluding thoughts are the same that we uttered almost a decade ago -
namely that
the Fed is setting the stage for bloody conflict within the US
(a conclusion for
which Time magazine mocked us at the time
):
Eventually, a populist revolt to address the current massive inequality of income and
wealth, will happen. Soon pressure will mount on policymakers to bolster the social safety net
and increase things like healthcare and job security and maybe even institute a guaranteed
living wage. My only concern is that it will be done in a way that is not productive for
long-term growth. These programs will create incentives that will reduce overall productivity,
Instead, policymakers should address fundamental reforms in the economy to restore growth and
reduce inequality.
They should... but they won't. Instead the fiscal and monetary programs that are being put in
place are fundamentally redefining how the government interacts with businesses and individuals,
warns Minerd adding that "some programs will work, and some will not, but they will remain in some
form or fashion forever."
Well, not forever. That paradigm of central planning the USSR eventually collapsed. And so
will the USSR's replacement: the United States.
I sincerity doubt that Bernie supporter would vote for Neoliberal Dems (Clinton wing of Democratic Party) at all.
Most probably will vote for the third party, or not vote at all. Few will vote for Trump -- much less then in 2018 as it is
not clear what Trump represents and it has nothing to do with bernie program.
What? After appointing Summers as an economics advisor!? I don't get that as a progressive
move, especially after (Biden ally) Pelosi appoints Shalala to oversee CARE. In fact I see no
explicit concessions to progressives by the D's or Biden and would welcome the chance to be
wrong.
Meanwhile, in my neighborhood, one car with a "Bernie" sticker now has a (home-made) "F*ck
Biden" sticker. So there's at least one person Status Quo Joe hasn't convinced.
Yep. The Southern firewall is such an absurd phenomenon. Use a bunch of states that will
not influence the general election to winnow the candidates in the primary election.
Same
thing in reverse with California -- IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT SANDERS WON CALIFORNIA because
California is going to vote blue in the fall.
If the Democrats want to win (which is not a foregone conclusion), then they need to
structure the primaries around the swing states.
"... Booker played a character (they all do, but some are polished versions of themselves) for so long, I'm not sure he is real. He played Obama, the servant of the men in suits, before Obama but less cool. ..."
Booker played a character (they all do, but some are polished versions of themselves) for
so long, I'm not sure he is real. He played Obama, the servant of the men in suits, before
Obama but less cool. I haven't watched "Streetfight" in ages, but he had the vibe of a Booker
T Washington follower if there was more than a character there.
Adolph Reed was clearly referring to Obama way back in 1997, but Booker fit most of the
description of a "new black" politician.
"... A rabid anti-China propaganda campaign has spread through the media since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. The hysteria seems to be just as contagious as the virus, as Americans are bombarded with anti-China stories from the pages of The New York Times to segments on Fox News. Both Republicans and Democrats are arguing the other side is not tough enough on China as they gear up for the 2020 election. ..."
A rabid anti-China propaganda campaign has spread through the media since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. The hysteria seems
to be just as contagious as the virus, as Americans are bombarded with anti-China stories from the pages of The New York Times
to segments on Fox News. Both Republicans and Democrats are arguing the other side is not tough enough on China as they gear up for
the 2020 election.
Since Donald Trump was elected president, the
unfounded claim that
Russia meddled in
the 2016 election was spread far and wide by intelligence officials and liberal media outlets.
A common tactic used to promote the Russiagate narrative was unnamed officials
making statements to the press without providing evidence or any factual basis to their claims. Another common tactic was frequent
media appearances by former intelligence officials, like
James Clapper and John Brennan , usually making wild
accusations about Trump and Russia. These tactics are being repeated to promote an anti-China narrative.
The New York Timesran a story on
April 22 nd titled, "Chinese Agents Helped Spread Messages That Sowed Virus Panic in US, Officials Say." The article says
rumors that were spread through text messages and social media posts in mid-March that claimed the Trump administration was going
to lock down the entire country to combat coronavirus were boosted by "Chinese operatives." The authors' sources are "six American
officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to publicly discuss intelligence matters."
The story is lacking in detail and provides no evidence for the officials' claims. "The origin of the messages remains murky.
American officials declined to reveal details of the intelligence linking Chinese agents to the dissemination of the disinformation,
citing the need to protect their sources and methods for monitoring Beijing's activities," the story reads. Two of the officials
told the Times that "they did not believe Chinese operatives created the lockdown messages, but rather amplified existing
ones."
Sensationalized reporting in the Times would not be complete without mentioning the Russians. "American officials said
the operatives had adopted some of the techniques mastered by Russia-backed trolls, such as creating fake social media accounts to
push messages to sympathetic Americans, who in turn unwittingly help spread them."
Ironically, the story recognizes the danger of US officials making selective leaks to the media. "Foreign policy analysts are
worried that the Trump administration may politicize intelligence work or make selective leaks to promote an anti-China narrative
American officials in the past have selectively passed intelligence to reporters to shape the domestic political landscape." The
Times uses the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as an example of the dangers of selective leaks, ignoring the past four
years of Russiagate stories that plagued its pages.
On April 17 th , Fox News Host Tucker Carlson had former CIA officer Bryan Dean Wright
on his show
to deliver some wild accusations about US politicians and the Chinese government. Wright insinuated that some members of Congress
might be agents of China's intelligence service, the Ministry of State Security (MSS). Carlson explained to Wright that the show
reached out to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and other elected officials to ask if they've had contact with any Chinese officials
since the coronavirus outbreak began. Carlson said they did not respond and asked Wright, "What do you think we should infer from
that?"
Wright responded, "I think that they're nervous. I think there are a bunch of people who, because they're either useful idiots
or they have some degree of knowledge and relationships behind the scenes with the Chinese government. Some of them in fact could
be Chinese agents of the MSS." Wright's language comes straight from the Russiagate playbook. Intelligence officials and media pundits
often referred to Trump
as a "useful idiot" for Moscow, and some even
speculated that the president is a "Russian agent."
Trump's anti-Russia
policies show that he is not working in the White House on behalf of Vladimir Putin. Similarly, anti-China legislation that has
recently passed through the House and Senate makes it unlikely any MSS agents are working in the halls of Congress.
The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy
Act passed unanimously through the Senate last year and had one lone nay vote in the House from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY). The
act, which was signed into law by President Trump, requires the State Department to prepare an annual report on the autonomy of Hong
Kong from mainland China. The act also requires the Commerce Department to report on "China's efforts to use Hong Kong to evade US
export controls." The bill says the president shall present Congress with a list of any individuals that violate human rights in
Hong Kong. Any findings that are unsatisfactory to the US could result in sanctions.
The Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act
was also passed unanimously through the Senate, and again, Rep. Massie was the only one to vote against the bill in the House. This
bill, which has not made it to President Trump's desk, would require the US to impose sanctions and export restrictions over China's
treatment of Uyghur Muslims in the western autonomous region of Xinjiang.
Rep. Massie, the sole dissenting voice in Congress, did not vote against these bills because of any loyalty to Beijing or Xi Jinping.
"When our government meddles in the internal affairs of foreign countries, it invites those governments to meddle in our affairs,"
Massie wrote on Twitter , explaining his votes.
The Taiwan Allies International Protection
and Enhancement Initiative (TAIPEI) Act , which was signed into law by President Trump in March, passed unanimously through both
the House and Senate, with Rep. Massie finally falling in line with his colleague's anti-China policy. The TAIPEI Act says the US
should "help strengthen Taiwan's diplomatic relationships and partnerships around the world."
Taiwan remains the most sensitive issue between the US and China, since Beijing considers the island to be a part of China. Although
the US does not formally recognize Taiwan as an independent nation, Washington
supplies the island with arms and
frequently sails warships through the Taiwan strait, drawing the ire of Beijing. No members of Congress speak out against these
provocations. Like the accusations about Trump and Russia, the idea that Congress is crawling with agents of Beijing is easily disproven
by actual policy.
Tucker Carlson did not challenge any of Wright's outrageous claims but instead nodded along. Since the start of the outbreak,
Carlson's show has focused on putting all the blame for the coronavirus pandemic on Beijing. Carlson's recent content reflects the
strategy of the White House. The Daily Beast
obtained internal White House documents in March that showed the administration was pushing US officials to blame China for a
"cover-up" in the early days of the outbreak. The strategy has proven useful as many pro-Trump media outlets put Beijing's response
to the pandemic under a microscope, and largely ignore the US government's
early missteps .
Politico obtained
a memo sent by the National Republican Senatorial Committee to GOP campaigns.
The memo
outlines an anti-China strategy for Republicans running for office in 2020. The document advises candidates to blame the pandemic
on China, say Democratic opponents are too soft on China, and advocate for sanctions against Beijing. The memo is full of strong
rhetoric like, "China is not an ally, and they're not just a rival -- they are an adversary and the Chinese Communist Party is our
enemy."
The GOP guidelines are similar to the
rhetoric coming from China hardliners like former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. In March 2019, Bannon and neoconservative
Frank Gaffney founded the Committee on Present Danger: China, a think-tank that identifies China as the greatest "existential threat"
to the United States. In his almost-daily podcast, Bannon rails against Beijing and pins all the blame for the pandemic on China.
"The Chinese Communist Party is at war with their people, they're at war with the world, and they're at war with you You may not
have an interest in the Chinese Communist Party but its destroyed your life. OK? Your economic life, your spiritual life, your social
life. The destruction is from Beijing," Bannon said in a recent
episode.
Republicans and right-wingers are not the only ones looking to attack China this election season. The Biden campaign
released an ad on April 18 th that attacked
Trump for his response to the virus. The ad said, "Trump rolled over for the Chinese" and criticized how much the president praised
China's handling of the pandemic early on. "Trump praised the Chinese 15 times in January and February as the coronavirus spread
across the world," the ad said.
The anti-China propaganda seems to be turning public opinion against Beijing.
A new poll from the Pew Research Center that surveyed 1,000 adults throughout March found that 66 percent have an unfavorable
view of China, an increase of 14 percent since Pew last asked the question in 2018. Nine out of 10 adults surveyed view China as
a threat, including 62 percent who see China as a major threat.
China may have made some mistakes in its early response to the virus, but that does not excuse the US government's lack of preparedness,
and treating the pandemic as an attack sets a dangerous precedent for future outbreaks. The strategy could backfire on Washington
if any future pandemics originate in the US.
Like Russiagate, the anti-China propaganda will serve as a useful tool for a national security state that is looking to
focus more
on great power competition . The Pentagon
identifies China as its
number one priority and is looking to
increase its footprint in the Indo-Pacific region. The constant propaganda will make that increased presence more palatable to
the American people. But that increased presence will bring more confrontation between the US and China, and bring the region and
the world closer to nuclear war.
Dave DeCamp is assistant editor at Antiwar.com and a freelance journalist based in Brooklyn NY, focusing on US foreign policy
and wars. He is on Twitter at @decampdave .
There's a lot of truth in many of the comments here -- good old hindsight. But where I
disagree with most of what I am seeing here is the idea that if Sanders had run a better
campaign, he would have won.
Two things are important here: (1) Sanders was done in by the media (first by being
ignored, and then incessantly attacked starting about a week before Iowa). In my 55 years of
watching the tv media I have never seen anything as overt and unfair and extensive. Most
significantly this was the so-called "left" of media, MSNBC in particular, who manufactured
the false narrative that Sanders represented catastrophe and would lose to Trump [in effect
solidifying their demographic for Biden
(2) If all the advice being given here had been followed, still, the stop Sanders movement
would likely have found some means or other to succeed in stopping him from securing the
nomination. If voters do not know the actual policies of the candidates, they can too easily
be manipulated. We need media reform/de-consolidation and a movement away from so-called
"debates" that are an insult to the candidates, the voters, and democracy.
Bernie was never accepted by the DNC establishment in 2016 and 2020. He was bought off by
Schumer through committee assignments and threats of irrelevancy in the Senate after 2016. In
short, Bernie became an insider because he thought HRC would be president.
In 2020 he doubled down bragging about his legislative accomplishments on the debate stage
which is the quintessential insider's game.
You can't worry about your political career, if you are a true outsider. Bernie wanted to
be a player more than a game changer and leader of a political movement.
The author consistently mentions The Green New Deal. What legislator in the House outlined
the Green New Deal? What legislator in the Senate? AOC in the House and Markey in the
Senate.
"... You can't worry about your political career, if you are a true outsider. Bernie wanted to be a player more than a game changer and leader of a political movement. ..."
Bernie was never accepted by the DNC establishment in 2016 and 2020. He was bought off by
Schumer through committee assignments and threats of irrelevancy in the Senate after 2016. In
short, Bernie became an insider because he thought HRC would be president.
In 2020 he doubled down bragging about his legislative accomplishments on the debate stage
which is the quintessential insider's game.
You can't worry about your political career, if you are a true outsider. Bernie wanted
to be a player more than a game changer and leader of a political movement.
The author consistently mentions The Green New Deal. What legislator in the House outlined
the Green New Deal? What legislator in the Senate? AOC in the House and Markey in the
Senate.
> You can't worry about your political career, if you are a true outsider. Bernie
wanted to be a player more than a game changer and leader of a political movement.
As sad as it is for me to say that, Bernie was a sheepdog from the very beginning.
Actually it was the second time he played this despicable role. The main clue was that he
acted as a preacher, not as a candidate. Another is that he claimed Biden to be his friend.
With such warmongering neoliberal friends as Biden, who needs enemies ;-). This is how
"controlled opposition" typically behaves.
For example, Faiz Shakir, the campaign manager for Bernie Sanders' 2020 presidential
campaign, previously worked as an aide to Congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid,
was an editor-in-chief of the ThinkProgress blog. Is not Nanci Pelosi a quintessential
neoliberal, a staunch supporter of Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ? And I do not want
even start discussing political positions of Harry Reid.
Sanders betrayed his supporters with such ease that it is clear that was not an accident
-- this was a preplanned "bait and switch" operation.
To all of this, I'd really suggest reading Raising Expectations and Raising Hell by Jane
McAlevey. Really good on the nuts and bolts of what it takes to organize to win. Also good is
"Secrets of Successful Organizer" from Labor Notes.
The memo in this post seems mistaken. Much of it worries about dealing with Warren. Warren
did not take Bernie down. She did a wonderful job of shooting herself in the foot multiple
times. I don't believe Biden and Obama have so much power to shift the beliefs of the US
public. I have trouble believing the Obama years need to be discredited -- they discredited
themselves. Item #4 not sure what to say about that. Bernie presented a strong ideological
contrast with Trump. Item #5 Castro, O'Rourke, Booker, and Yang, Gabbard, Williamson, and
Gillibrand are they really examples of idealistic energy? How do you "rope in" idealistic
energy? Is that like herding cats?
Most of the primaries that were held impressed me as part of a remarkably hamhanded but
effective effort by the Democratic Party organization to shut Bernie down. I am still
unconvinced by Biden's sudden revival and jump in the polls prior to Super Tuesday and I
don't understand what happened to suck all the air out of Bernie's campaign after Super
Tuesday. The Corona virus didn't help but I cannot accept that the Corona virus, or Warren,
or Biden or Obama took Bernie down -- it just doesn't smell right to me.
And I do not agree that the Bernie organization will carry on the fight. Where are the
younger leaders who might carry on fighting for the cause? Bernie's coat tails are very short
and Bernie is very old. I have read many pundits proclaiming that people put too much faith
in a leader -- that a movement needs more action on the ground. I disagree. A movement needs
a face, a 'brand' in Marketspeak, and actually I think a movement needs many faces and a
common brand to all. [AOC and the Green New Deal don't inspire my confidence and what is
left?]
I felt the Berne and now I feel Berne-t. Between dropping Medicare for All and voting for
the CARES Act as part of the Senate Kabuki the nicest thing I can say about Bernie right now
is that he is full of surprises. But after all is said and done I will be reluctant to send
my small checks to any campaign, and after Corona I may need to keep all my small checks to
buy things like food and pay rent. As Susan the other says at the beginning of her comment at
3:06 pm noting how: " absurd our politics are in light of our pending extinction" -- I am not
sure there will be time for many more Presidential elections before the absurdity of our
politics and economics collides with more pressing matters.
"... US propaganda is all over social media. They're inundating the online forums all over Asia. Travel and cultural sites are being flooded with anti-China posts and comments. I think they're creating a narrative to pave the political, economic, and military moves they're about to make. ..."
US propaganda is all over social media. They're inundating the online forums all over Asia.
Travel and cultural sites are being flooded with anti-China posts and comments. I think
they're creating a narrative to pave the political, economic, and military moves they're
about to make.
@follyofwar This culture that was once preserve of the psychos in the administration or
broadly in DC has percolated down to common folks . Fish rots from head . Hubris usually
follows the smell.
Apr 23, 2020 The State of the Police State – #NewWorldNextWeek
Welcome to the 405th episode of New World Next Week -- the video series from Corbett
Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source
intelligence news.
"Evidence" means testimony, writings, material objects, or other things presented to the
senses that are offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact. -- California
Evidence Code sec 140
Even the NYT acknowledged (before it erased the text in its story on Reade that noted
there were no other sexual misconduct charges pending against him other than that long
history of assaults and sniffing and hands-on, text removed by the Times at the instance of
the Biden campaign staff?
Here's the original text: " The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden,
beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable."
Waiting for the apologists to tell us why the edit to remove the last clause starting "beyond
" is just "Good journalism."
He and Trump are bad examples of the male part of the species. Nothing to choose that I
can see, other than who among the people that revise those bribes to them will be the first
in line at the MMT watering hole
i had a lengthy discussion about this with my brother and sil, it came down to her saying
I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT re bidens history of being a ttl letch plus possible rapist and my
brother questioning what is obvious discomfort in multiple video evidence.
They said defeating trump was paramount to anything against biden. i simply give up at
this point.
Lots of partisan hackery and TDS going around in the last few years in once respectable
lefty publications. Mother Jones has gone completely to hell rather than raising any, as was
once their mission statement. I haven't read the Nation as much in recent years – I let
my subscription lapse a while ago as I found I just couldn't keep up with reading it.
Coincidentally I think that was about the time I started reading NC. The Nation has a history
of sheepdogging lefties to rally behind bad Dem candidates, which was another reason I didn't
feel bad letting my subscription go.
I do still have my subscription to Harper's but they were getting on my nerves quite a bit
to the point I considered cancelling them too. Rebecca Solnit wrote some truly cringe-worthy
editorials for them after Trump's election. They seem to have removed her from writing the
main editorial so maybe I wasn't the only one who felt she left a little to be desired. I'm
quite fond of the newer woman they have doing editorials, Lionel Shriver. She seems like
she'd fit in quite well here!
I left (pun intended) the Nation pub in the dust way back in the 1990's and buried it post
9/11. Used to be a real good alternative press pub 30-40 years ago. Somewhere along the line
it lost it's way and joined the wishy-washy "gatekeeper' society of "approved news."
RIP
The Nation was a sanity saviour back in late 70s and through 1980s; then something
happened. Not clear when or what, but I know I let my subscription lapse. Tried again later,
but it was never the same. It's mostly unbearable now, except for Stephen Cohen. Walsh has
been in the unbearable category for many years now.
Leonard Pitts just had an editorial in my local paper where he opined that even if Biden
had sexually assaulted Reade, it didn't really matter because we had to vote against
Trump.
I wrote this in reply:
So Leonard Pitts thinks that Biden's alleged sexual attack on Tara Reade isn't disqualifying,
even if true. Strange, he didn't think that way about Brett Kavanagh. I didn't want to attack
the columnist as a hypocrite without being sure, so I looked it up. Here is what he
wrote:
"It's a confluence of facts that speak painfully and pointedly to just how unseriously
America takes men's predations against women. You might disagree, noting that the Senate
Judiciary Committee has asked Ford to testify. But if history is any guide, that will prove
to be a mere formality – a sop to appearances – before the committee recommends
confirmation."
Looks very much like "Well, It's excusable when our guys do it."
Always had a crush on K v d Heuvel. (How's that for an opening to a post about misogyny
and sexual misconduct)?
But can't we disqualify Joe! as the craven proponent of the worst neo-lib policies that
got us exactly where we are today? Or, in polite company, ask politely whether he is even in
a mental state to hand over the keys to the to the family car, let alone the nuclear
football?
Let's take the Id out of IdPol, I don't care if the candidate has green skin and three
eyes if the policies they would enact come within smelling distance of benefiting the 99% (or
more precisely in Joe's case within hair smelling distance).
We can use his personal conduct as a component in our judgement but pleeease can we focus
on the stuff that would actually affect our lives. In his case, for the absolute worse.
(Note: I sincerely doubt whether Joe is currently allowed to drive a car, please oh please
Mr.God-Yahweh-Mohammed-Buddha-Obama can we not let him drive a nation).
"... To be sure, Trump has good reason to hate the intelligence and national security community, which utterly rejected his candidacy and plotted to destroy both his campaign and, even after he was elected, his presidency ..."
"... While it is not unusual for presidents to surround themselves with devoted yes-men, as Trump does with his spectacularly unqualified son-in-law Jared Kushner, his administration is nevertheless unusual in its tendency to apply an absolute loyalty litmus test to nearly everyone surrounding the president ..."
"... Most damaging to consumer interests, the rot has also affected the so-called regulatory agencies that are supposed to monitor the potentially illegal activities of corporations and industries to protect the public. As University of Chicago economist George Stigler several times predicted, under both Obama and Trump advocates of ostensibly "regulated" corporations have taken over every U.S. federal regulatory agency . The captured U.S. government regulators now represent the interests of the corporations, not the public. This is more like government by a criminal oligarchy rather than of, by and for The People. ..."
The 24/7 intensified media coverage of the coronavirus story has meant that other news has
either been ignored or relegated to the back pages, never to be seen again. The Middle East has
been on a boil but coverage of the Trump administration's latest
moves against Iran has been so insignificant as to be invisible. Meanwhile closer to home,
the declaration by the ubiquitous Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that current president of
Venezuela Nicolas Maduro is a drug trafficker did generate somewhat of a ripple, as did
dispatch of warships to the Caribbean to intercept the alleged drugs, but that story also
died.
Of more interest perhaps is the tale of the continued purge of government officials,
referred to as "draining the swamp," by President Donald Trump as it could conceivably have
long-term impact on how policy is shaped in Washington. Prior to the virus partial lockdown,
some of the impending shakeup within the
intelligence community (IC) and Pentagon were commented on in the media, but developments
since that time have been less reported, even when several inspectors-general were removed.
To be sure, Trump has good reason to hate the intelligence and national security community,
which utterly rejected his candidacy and plotted to destroy both his campaign and, even after
he was elected, his presidency. Whether one argues that what took place was due to a "Deep
state" or Establishment conspiracy or rather just based on personal ambition by key players,
the reality was that a number of top officials seem to have forgotten the oaths they swore to
the constitution when it came to Donald Trump.
Be that as it may, beyond the musical chairs that have characterized the senior level
appointments in the first three years of the Trump administration, there has been a concerted
effort to remove "disloyal" members of the intelligence community, with disloyal generally
being the label applied to holdovers from the Bush and Obama administrations. The February
appointment of U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard "Ric" Grenell as interim Director of National
Intelligence (DNI), a position that he will hold simultaneously with his ambassadorship, has
been criticized from all sides due to his inexperience, history of bad judgement and
partisanship. The White House is now claiming
that he will be replaced by Texas Congressman John Ratcliffe after the interim appointment
is completed.
Criticism of Grenell for his clearly evident deficiencies misses the point, however, as he
is not in place to do anything constructive. He has already initiated a purge of federal
employees in the White House and national security apparatus considered to be insufficiently
loyal, an effort which has been supported by National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien and
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Many career officers have been sent back to their home agencies
while the new appointees are being drawn from the pool of neoconservatives that proliferated in
the George W. Bush administration. Admittedly some prominent neocons like Bill Kristol have
disqualified themselves for service with the new regime due to their vitriolic criticism of
Trump the candidate, but many others have managed to remain politically viable by keeping their
mouths shut during the 2016 campaign. To no one's surprise, many of the new employees being
brought in are being carefully vetted to make sure that they are passionate supporters of
Israel.
While it is not unusual for presidents to surround themselves with devoted yes-men, as Trump
does with his spectacularly unqualified son-in-law Jared Kushner, his administration is
nevertheless unusual in its tendency to apply an absolute loyalty litmus test to nearly
everyone surrounding the president, even several layers down into the administration where
employees are frequently apolitical. As the Trump White House has not been renowned for its
adroit policies and forward thinking, the loss of expertise will be hardly noticeable, but
there will certainly be a reduction in challenges to group think while replacing officials in
the law enforcement and inspector general communities will mean that there will be no one in a
high enough position to impede or check presidential misbehavior. Instead, high officials will
be principally tasked with coming up with rationalizations to excuse what the White House
does.
... ... ...
Subsequent to the defenestration of Atkinson, Trump went after another inspector general
Glenn Fine, who was principal deputy IG at the Pentagon and had been charged with heading the
panel of inspectors that would have oversight responsibility to certify the proper
implementation of the $2.2 trillion dollar coronavirus relief package. As has been noted in the
media, there was particular concern regarding the lack of transparency regarding the $500
billion Exchange Stabilizing Fund (ESF) that had been set aside to make loans to corporations
and other large companies while the really urgently needed Small Business Loan allocation has
been failing to work at all except for Israeli
companies that have lined up for the loans. The risk that the ESF would become a slush fund
for companies favored by the White House was real, and several investigative reports observed
that Trump business interests might also directly benefit from the way it was drafted.
Four days after the firing of Atkinson, Fine also was let go to be replaced by the EPA
inspector general Sean O'Donnell, who is considered a Trump loyalist. On the previous day the
tweeter-in-chief came down on yet another IG, the woman responsible for Health and Human
Services Christi Grimm, who had issued a report stating that the her department had found "severe"
shortages of virus testing material at hospitals and "widespread" shortages of personal
protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers. Trump quipped to reporters "Where did he
come from, the inspector general. What's his name?"
On the following day, Trump unleashed the tweet machine, asking "Why didn't the I.G., who
spent 8 years with the Obama Administration (Did she Report on the failed H1N1 Swine Flu
debacle where 17,000 people died?), want to talk to the Admirals, Generals, V.P. & others
in charge, before doing her report. Another Fake Dossier!"
A comment about foxes taking over the hen house would not be amiss and one might also note
that the swamp is far from drained. A concerted effort is clearly underway to purge anyone from
the upper echelons of the U.S. government who in any way contradicts what is coming out of the
White House. Inspectors general who are tasked with looking into malfeasance are receiving the
message that if they want to stay employed, they have to toe the presidential line, even as it
seemingly whimsically changes day by day. And then there is the irony of the heads at major
agencies like Environmental Protection now being committed to not enforcing existing
environmental regulations at all.
Most damaging to consumer interests, the rot has also affected the so-called regulatory
agencies that are supposed to monitor the potentially illegal activities of corporations and
industries to protect the public. As University of Chicago economist George Stigler several
times predicted, under both Obama and Trump advocates of ostensibly "regulated" corporations
have taken over every U.S. federal regulatory agency . The captured U.S. government
regulators now represent the interests of the corporations, not the public. This is more like
government by a criminal oligarchy rather than of, by and for The People.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is [email protected] .
I yield to no one in my contempt for the fraud-failure of God Emperor Bush III but the author
has to be aware that talk of "impeachable" offenses is meaningless in American politics.
There has never been and never will be an impeachment effort that's not primarily
political rather than process-motivated. It's an up-or-down vote based on a partisan
head-counting and opportunism and public dissatisfaction. All the Article-this-and-that is
Magic Paper Talmudry.
Trump is a somewhat rogueish, somewhat rival Don and faction-head in the same criminal
(((Commission))) that's been running America for well over a century. He's Jon Gotti to their
Carlo Gambino, and his gauche nouveaux-elite style offends the sensibilities of the more
snobbish Davoise, but he's just angling for a seat at the table and a cut of the spoils, not
a return of power to the people.
Impeachment would serve no purpose but what we've seen so far with Russiagate, etc..
– a sideshow distraction from the real backroom, long-knife action going down, ala the
"settling scores" montage in Godfather III.
"To be sure, Trump has good reason to hate the intelligence and national security community,
which utterly rejected his candidacy and plotted to destroy both his campaign and, even after
he was elected, his presidency." -- Yes to this. This is OBVIOUS to all but the dullest rubes
or those who are in on it and trying to escape what they tried to do in attempting to over
throw the US Government. The rest?
Once you have this stated– that an actual Coup which was certainly plotted/sprung by
the last occupant of the Presidency along with Clinton, Brennan, Comey, and many other NWO
Globalists throughout the Government (FBI, CIA, DOJ ) and outside of it (the Globalist NWO
MEDIA) the rest is drivel -- they tried to take him out–JFK they used a bullet, here
not yet– so to say he shouldn't put in people he absolutely trusts at this time into
any position he can? Are you kidding or what? You can't be serious– I've actually had
someone try and kill me they were quite serious about it– my reaction after was not
anything like what I see you suggesting or mirrored in your "analysis". This is how the CIA
"counsels" in response to a murderous Coup -- an attempt to overthrow the duly elected
Government?
How do you overreact to a group of the most powerful people in the World getting together
to try to murder you? That's your argument basically– he's over reacting to that? He
shouldn't have "Loyalists". He needs to work with these other people -- the ones who want to
murder him -- keep some of those "non-Loyalists" on board who time after time have plotted
against him in every way possible during the last nearly 4 years?
You seem to be one strange dude from my life's vantage point any way, what a perspective
.Maybe you would actually deal with people of this magnitude trying to destroy you in the way
you state but no sane/fairly intelligent person would -- I can't get past you have that
sentence in there and then follow it with all the rest -- you seem to live in some alternate
reality where when someone tries to murder you the right reaction is to blow it off and work
with them– give them another few shots at you– say what? You learned this from
your years at the CIA– this is how they train/advise things like this should be dealt
with up at Langley? Or is it just wishful thinking on your part that they get another shot at
him?
While it is not unusual for presidents to surround themselves with devoted yes-men, as
Trump does with his spectacularly unqualified son-in-law Jared Kushner, his administration
is nevertheless unusual in its tendency to apply an absolute loyalty litmus test to nearly
everyone surrounding the president
True enough. Trump has also injected into Washington his own nest of swamp creatures and
Wall St. bigwigs. However it is also true that Trump has been under unrelenting attack since
the day he announced his candidacy. This is not fair. With the possible exception of Nixon,
I've never seen a more ruthless campaign by political insiders to demean a public figure.
But to whom must Trump show ceaseless and attentive loyalty to?–no matter what?
I can't get too worked up about the firing of the prison guards; I rather enjoy the
charade.
The real problem is that: 'It's the system, stupid!' and no amount of tinkering or puting
the 'right' people in these positions will ever do anything more than just changing the
illusion that something is being done.
It reminds me a little of that late Soviet Union film "Burned by the Sun" about Stalin's
purges of the criminals that had ridden his coat tails to power. Try as the movie makers did,
I could not and would not feel an ounce of sorrow for those (these) scumbags who had wielded
immoral, arbitrary, and disproportionate power over their subjects.
The government has been against the people for my entire lifetime (I'm an old man now). One
of the only glimmers of light in that time, JFK was snuffed out. After all, who did he think
he was, trying to stop the elites from having their war in Vietnam?
He (Trump) should have purged all of the Obama appointees on day one.
The Vindman twins are a perfect example of the Deep State.
While I can understand your loathing of Trump's middle East policies, I do also, what he has
blatantley done vis a vis the Zionist Entity is very little different than what slick Obama
did under the table, outside of the Iran deal.
And to tell you the truth, as much as I loathe Israel the Iran deal was definitely flawed and
should have been more advantageous to America and the West. Iran should have seen the
advantages of totally relinquishing nuclear weapons even with mad Zionists in their
neighborhood. They could have still kept their ballistic missiles, sans nuclear tips.
@Getaclue
The idea that Trump is fighting the Deep State is ludacris this is a charade if the Deep
State didn't want Trump to be President he wouldn't be. Trump is a Deep State minion. No
matter the existential threat to the US the 1% get richer and the 99% get poorer.
He (Trump) should have purged all of the Obama appointees on day one.
That supposes that Trump is not a Deep Stater as was Obama this is a poor supposition.
Iran should have seen the advantages of totally relinquishing nuclear weapons even with
mad Zionists in their neighborhood. They could have still kept their ballistic missiles,
sans nuclear tips.
Ballistic missiles, sans nuclear tips are useless. Did anybody care when North Korea had
ballistic missiles before they had something worthwhile to put on the tip? Hell no.
Trump has had two open coup attempts in three years, and a constant barrage of leaks etc. His
purges are clearly at least three years too late.
Also, to an outsider, it's strange how some right-wing American journalists write in a way
which indicates that they have faith in the due process, checks-and-balances etc afforded by
the American system. I don't understand how any American right-winger could maintain their
faith in the U.S. political system, it seems corrupt approaching the point that it is
beyond-repair.
Trump's MAGA For The People efforts, must take steps to undo the damage done by the
prior criminal admistration.
Here is an detailed explanation of how Barack Hussein intentionally undermined the rule of
law:(1)
Aside from the date the important part of the first page is the motive for sending it.
The DOJ is telling the court in July 2018: based on what they know the FISA application
still contains "sufficient predication for the Court to have found probable cause" to
approve the application. The DOJ is defending the Carter Page FISA application as still
valid.
However, it is within the justification of the application that alarm bells are found.
On page six the letter identifies the primary participants behind the FISA
redactions:
DOJ needed to protect evidence Mueller had already extracted from the fraudulent FISA
authority. That's the motive.
In July 2018 if the DOJ-NSD had admitted the FISA application and all renewals were
fatally flawed Robert Mueller would have needed to withdraw any evidence gathered as a
result of its exploitation. The DOJ in 2018 was protecting Mueller's poisoned fruit.
If the DOJ had been honest with the court, there's a strong possibility some, perhaps
much, of Mueller evidence gathering would have been invalidated and cases were pending. The
solution: mislead the court and claim the predication was still valid.
I am not sure why Giraldi is defending Barack Hussein and Hillary Clinton's behaviour
& staff choices. All rational human beings see the damage that Hillary created at the
State Department.
=>
List of
Bookmarks ◄
► ◄ ► ▲
▼ Remove from Library
B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More...
This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll These
buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected
comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email
using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any
eight hour period. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Bookmark Toggle All ToC
▲ ▼ Add to Library Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments Search Clear Cancel
Nearly 30,000 Americans have died from the coronavirus during the last two weeks, and by
some estimates this is a substantial under-count, while the death-toll continues to rapidly
mount. Meanwhile, measures to control the spread of this deadly infection have already cost 22
million Americans their jobs, an unprecedented economic collapse that has pushed our
unemployment rates to Great Depression levels. Our country is facing a crisis as grave as
almost any in our national history.
For many weeks President Trump and his political allies had regularly dismissed or minimized
this terrible health threat, and suddenly now faced with such a manifest disaster, they have
naturally begun seeking other culprits to blame.
The obvious choice is China, where the global epidemic first began in late 2019. Over the
last week or two our media has been increasingly filled with accusations that the dishonesty
and incompetence of the Chinese government played a major role in producing our own health
catastrophe.
Even more serious charges are also being raised, with senior government officials informing
the media that they suspect that the Covid-19 virus was developed in a Chinese laboratory in
Wuhan and then carelessly released upon a vulnerable world. Such "conspiracy theories" were
once confined to the extreme political fringe of the Internet, but they are now found in the
respectable pages of my morning New York Times and Wall Street Journal.
Whether plausible or not, such accusations carry the gravest international implications, and
there are growing demands that China financially compensate our country for its trillions of
dollars in economic losses. A new global Cold War along both political and economic lines may
soon be at hand.
I have no personal expertise in biowarfare technology, nor access to the secret American
intelligence reports that seem to have been taken seriously by our most elite national
newspapers. But I do think that a careful exploration of previous Sino-American clashes over
the last couple of decades may provide some useful insight into the relative credibility of
those two governments as well as that of our own media.
During the late 1990s, America seemed to reach the peak of its global power and prosperity,
basking in the aftermath of its historic victory in the long Cold War, while ordinary Americans
greatly benefited from the record-long economic expansion of that decade. A huge Tech Boom was
at its height, and Islamic terrorism seemed a vague and distant thing, almost entirely confined
to Hollywood movies. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the possibility of large scale war
seemed to have dissipated so political leaders boasted of the "peace dividend" that citizens
were starting to enjoy as our huge military forces, built up over nearly a half-century, were
downsized amid sweeping cuts in the bloated defense budget. America was finally returning to a
regular peacetime economy, with the benefits apparent to everyone.
At the time, I was overwhelmingly focused on domestic political issues, so I only paid
slight attention to our one small military operation of that period, the 1999 NATO air war
against Serbia, intended to safeguard the Kosovo Albanians from ethnic cleansing and massacre,
a Clinton Administration project that I fully endorsed.
Although our limited bombing campaign seemed quite successful and soon forced the Serbs to
the bargaining table, the short war did include one very embarrassing mishap. The use of old
maps had led to a targeting error that caused one of our smart bombs to accidentally strike the
Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, killing three members of its delegation and wounding dozens more.
The Chinese were outraged by this incident, and their propaganda organs began claiming that the
attack had been deliberate, a reckless accusation that obviously made no logical sense.
In those days I watched the PBS Newshour every night, and was I shocked to see their
U.S. Ambassador raise those absurd charges with host Jim Lehrer, whose disbelief matched my
own. But when I considered that the Chinese government was still stubbornly denying the reality
of its massacre of the protesting students in Tiananmen Square a decade earlier, I concluded
that unreasonable behavior by PRC officials was only to be expected. Indeed, there was even
some speculation that China was cynically milking the unfortunate accident for domestic
reasons, hoping to stoke the sort of jingoist anti-Americanism among the Chinese people that
would finally help bind the social wounds of that 1989 outrage.
Such at least were my thoughts on that matter more than two decades ago. But in the years
that followed, my understanding of the world and of many pivotal events of modern history
underwent the sweeping transformations that I have described in my American Pravda series . And some
of my 1990s assumptions were among them.
Consider, for example, the Tiananmen Square Massacre, which every June 6th still evokes an
annual wave of harsh condemnations in the news and opinion pages of our leading national
newspapers. I had never originally doubted those facts, but a year or two ago I happened to
come across a short article by journalist Jay Matthews entitled "The Myth of
Tiananmen" that completely upended that apparent reality.
According to Matthews the infamous massacre had likely never happened, but was merely a
media artifact produced by confused Western reporters and dishonest propaganda, a mistaken
belief that had quickly become embedded in our standard media storyline, endlessly repeated by
so many ignorant journalists that they all eventually believed it to be true. Instead, as near
as could be determined, the protesting students had all left Tiananmen Square peacefully, just
as the Chinese government had always maintained. Indeed, leading newspapers such as the New
York Times and the Washington Post had occasionally acknowledged these facts over
the years, but usually buried those scanty admissions so deep in their stories that few ever
noticed. Meanwhile, the bulk of the mainstream media had fallen for an apparent hoax.
ORDER
IT NOW
Matthews himself had been the Beijing Bureau Chief of the Washington Post ,
personally covering the protests at the time, and his article appeared in the Columbia
Journalism Review , our most prestigious venue for media criticism. This authoritative
analysis containing such explosive conclusions was first published in 1998, and I find it
difficult to believe that many reporters or editors covering China have remained ignorant of
this information, yet the impact has been absolutely nil. For over twenty years virtually every
mainstream media account I have read has continued to promote the Tiananmen Square Massacre
Hoax, usually implicitly but sometimes explicitly.
Even more remarkable were the discoveries I made regarding our supposedly accidental bombing
of the Chinese Embassy in 1999. Not long after launching this website, I added former Asia
Times contributor Peter Lee as a columnist, incorporating his China Matters blogsite
archives that stretched back for a decade. He soon published a 7,000 word
article on the Belgrade Embassy bombing, representing a compilation of material already
contained in a
half-dozen previous pieces he'd written on that subject from 2007 onward. To my
considerable surprise, he provided a great deal of persuasive evidence that the American attack
on the Chinese embassy had indeed been deliberate, just as China had always claimed.
According to Lee, Beijing had allowed its embassy to be used as a site for secure radio
transmission facilities by the Serbian military, whose own communications network was a primary
target of NATO airstrikes. Meanwhile, Serbian air defenses had shot down an advanced American
F-117A fighter, whose top-secret stealth technology was a crucial U.S. military secret.
Portions of that enormously valuable wreckage were carefully gathered by the grateful Serbs,
who delivered it to the Chinese for temporary storage at their embassy prior to transport back
home. This vital technological acquisition later allowed China to deploy its own J20 stealth
fighter in early 2011, many years sooner than American military analysts had believed
possible.
Based upon this analysis, Lee argued that the Chinese embassy was attacked in order to
destroy the Serbian retransmission facilities located there, while punishing the Chinese for
allowing such use. There were also widespread rumors in China that another motive had been an
unsuccessful attempt to destroy the stealth debris stored within. Later Congressional testimony
revealed
that the among all the hundreds of NATO airstrikes, the attack on the Chinese embassy was the
only one directly ordered by the CIA, a highly-suspicious detail.
I was only slightly familiar with Lee's work, and under normal circumstances I would have
been very cautious in accepting his remarkable claims against the contrary position universally
held by all our own elite media outlets. But the sources he cited completely shifted that
balance.
Although the American media dominates the English-language world, many British publications
also possess a strong global reputation, and since they are often much less in thrall to our
own national security state, they have sometimes covered important stories that were ignored
here. And in this case, the Sunday Observer published a remarkable expose in October
1999, citing several NATO military and intelligence sources who fully confirmed the deliberate
nature of the American bombing of the Chinese embassy, with a US colonel even reportedly
boasting that their smartbomb had hit the exact room intended.
This important story was immediately summarized in the Guardian ,
a sister publication, and also covered by the rival Times of London and many of the
world's other most prestigious publications, but encountered an absolute wall of silence in our
own country. Such a bizarre divergence on a story of global strategic importance -- a
deliberate and deadly US attack against Chinese diplomatic territory -- drew the attention of
FAIR, a leading American media watchdog group, which published
an initial critique and
a subsequent follow-up . These two pieces totaled some 3,000 words, and effectively
summarized both the overwhelming evidence of the facts and also the heavy international
coverage, while reporting the weak excuses made by top American editors to explain their
continuing silence. Based upon these articles, I consider the matter settled.
Few Americans remember our 1999 attack upon the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, and if not for
the annual waving of a bloody June 6th flag by our ignorant and disingenuous media, the
"Tiananmen Square Massacre" would also have long since faded from memory. Neither of these
events has much direct importance today, at least for our own citizens. But the broader media
implications of these examples do seem quite significant.
These incidents represented two of the most serious flashpoints between the Chinese and
American governments during the last thirty-odd years. In both cases the claims of the Chinese
government were entirely correct, although they were denied by our own top political leaders
and dismissed or ridiculed by virtually our entire mainstream media. Moreover, within a few
months or a year the true facts became known to many journalists, even being reported in fully
respectable venues. But that reality was still completely ignored and suppressed for decades,
so that today almost no American whose information comes from our regular media would even be
aware of it. Indeed, since many younger journalists draw their knowledge of the world from
these same elite media sources, I suspect that many of them have never learned what their
predecessors knew but dared not mention.
Most leading Chinese media outlets are owned or controlled by the Chinese government, and
they tend to broadly follow the government line. Leading American media outlets have a
corporate ownership structure and often boast of their fierce independence; but on many crucial
matters, I think the actual reality is not so very different from that in China.
I tend to doubt that Chinese leaders have any overwhelming commitment to the truth, and the
reasons for their greater veracity are probably practical ones. American news and entertainment
completely dominate the global media landscape and they face no significant domestic rival. So
China recognizes that it is vastly outmatched in any propaganda conflict, and as the far weaker
party must necessarily try to stick closer to the truth, lest its lies be immediately exposed.
Meanwhile, America's overwhelming control over global information may inspire considerable
hubris, with the government sometimes promoting the most outrageous and ridiculous falsehoods
in the confident belief that a supportive American media will cover for any mistakes.
These considerations should be kept in mind as we attempt to sift the accounts of our often
unreliable and dishonest media in hopes of extracting the true circumstances of the current
coronavirus epidemic. Unlike careful historical studies, we are working in real-time and our
analysis is greatly hindered by the ongoing fog of war, so that any conclusions are necessarily
very preliminary ones. But given the high stakes, such an attempt seems warranted.
When my morning newspapers first began mentioning the appearance of a mysterious new illness
in China during mid-January, I paid little attention, absorbed as I was in the aftermath of our
sudden assassination of Iran's top military leader and the dangerous possibility of a yet
another Middle Eastern war. But the reports persisted and grew, with deaths occurring and
evidence growing that the viral disease could be transmitted between humans. China's early
conventional efforts seemed unsuccessful in halting the spread of the disease.
Then on Jan. 23rd and after only 17 deaths, the Chinese government took the astonishing step
of locking down and quarantining the entire 11 million inhabitants of the city of Wuhan, a
story that drew worldwide attention. They soon extended this policy to the 60 million Chinese
of Hubei province, and not longer afterward shut down their entire national economy and
confined 700 million Chinese to their homes, a public health measure probably a thousand times
larger than anything previously undertaken in human history. So either the China's leadership
had suddenly gone insane, or they regarded this new virus as an absolutely deadly national
threat, one that needed to be controlled at any possible cost.
Given these dramatic Chinese actions and the international headlines that they generated,
the current accusations by Trump Administration officials that China had attempted to minimize
or conceal the serious nature of the disease outbreak is so ludicrous as to defy rationality.
In any event, the record shows that on December 31st, the Chinese had already alerted the World
Health Organization to the strange new illness, and Chinese scientists published the entire
genome of the virus on Jan. 12th, allowing diagnostic tests to be produced worldwide.
Unlike other nations, China had received no advance warning of the nature or existence of
the deadly new disease, and therefore faced unique obstacles. But their government implemented
public health control measures unprecedented in the history of the world and managed to almost
completely eradicate the disease with merely the loss of a few thousand lives. Meanwhile, many
other Western countries such as the US, Italy, Spain, France, and Britain dawdled for months
and ignored the potential threat, and have now suffered well over 100,000 dead as a
consequence, with the toll still rapidly mounting. For any of these nations or their media
organs to criticize China for its ineffectiveness or slow response represents an absolute
inversion of reality.
Some governments took full advantage of the early warning and scientific information
provided by China. Although nearby East Asian nations such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and
Singapore had been at greatest risk and were among the first infected, their competent and
energetic responses allowed them to almost completely suppress any major outbreak, and they
have suffered minimal fatalities. But America and several European countries avoiding adopting
these same early measures such as widespread testing, quarantine, and contact-tracing, and have
paid a terrible price for their insouciance.
A few weeks ago British Prime Minister Boris Johnson boldly declared that his own disease
strategy for Britain was based upon rapidly achieving "herd immunity" -- essentially
encouraging the bulk of his citizens to become infected -- then quickly backed away after his
desperate advisors recognized that the result might entail a million or more British
deaths.
By any reasonable measure, the response to this global health crisis by China and most East
Asian countries has been absolutely exemplary, while that of many Western countries has been
equally disastrous. Maintaining reasonable public health has been a basic function of
governments since the days of the city-states of Sumeria, and the sheer and total incompetence
of America and most of its European vassals has been breathtaking. If the Western media
attempts to pretend otherwise, it will permanently forfeit whatever remaining international
credibility it still possesses.
I do not think these particular facts are much disputed except among the most blinkered
partisans, and the Trump Administration probably recognizes the hopelessness of arguing
otherwise. This probably explains its recent shift towards a far more explosive and
controversial narrative, namely claiming that Covid-19 may have been the product of Chinese
research into deadly viruses at a Wuhan laboratory, which suggests that the blood of hundreds
of thousands or millions of victims around the world will be on Chinese hands. Dramatic
accusations backed by overwhelming international media power may deeply resonate across the
globe.
News reports appearing in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times have been reasonably consistent. Senior Trump Administration
officials have pointed to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a leading Chinese biolab, as the
possible source of the infection, with the deadly virus having been accidentally released,
subsequently spreading first throughout China and later worldwide. Trump himself has publicly
voiced similar suspicions, as did Secretary of State and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo in a
FoxNews
interview. Private lawsuits against China in the multi-trillion-dollar range have already
been filed by
rightwing activists and Republican senators Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham have raised similar
governmental demands.
I obviously have no personal access to the classified intelligence reports that have been
the basis of these charges by Trump, Pompeo, and other top administration officials. But in
reading these recent news accounts, I noticed something rather odd.
ORDER IT NOW
Back in January, few Americans were paying much attention to the early reports of an unusual
disease outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan, which was hardly a household name. Instead,
overwhelming political attention was focused on the battle over Trump's impeachment and the
aftermath of our dangerous military confrontation with Iran. But towards the end of that month,
I discovered that the fringes of the Internet were awash with claims that the disease was
caused by a Chinese bioweapon accidentally released from that same Wuhan laboratory, with
former Trump advisor Steve Bannon and ZeroHedge , a popular right-wing
conspiracy-website, playing leading roles in advancing the theory. Indeed, the stories became
so widespread in those ideological circles that Sen. Tom Cotton, a leading Republican Neocon,
began promoting them on Twitter and FoxNews, thereby provoking an
article in the NYT on those "fringe conspiracy theories."
I suspect that it may be more than purely coincidental that the biowarfare theories which
erupted in such concerted fashion on small political websites and Social Media accounts back in
January so closely match those now publicly advocated by top Trump Administration officials and
supposedly based upon our most secure intelligence sources. Perhaps a few intrepid
citizen-activists managed to replicate the findings of our multi-billion-dollar intelligence
apparatus, and did so in days while the latter required weeks or months. But a more likely
scenario is that the wave of January speculation was driven by private leaks and "guidance"
provided by exactly the same elements that today are very publicly leveling similar charges in
the elite media. Initially promoting controversial theories in less mainstream outlets has long
been a fairly standard intelligence practice.
Regardless of the origins of the idea, does it seem plausible that the coronavirus outbreak
might have originated as an accidental leak from that Chinese laboratory? I am not privy to the
security procedures of Chinese government facilities, but applying a little common sense may
shed some light on that question.
Although the coronavirus is only moderately lethal, apparently having a fatality rate of 1%
or less, it is extremely contagious, including during an extended pre-symptomatic period and
also among asymptomatic carriers. Thus, portions of the US and Europe are now suffering heavy
casualties, while the policies adopted to control the spread have devastated their national
economies. Although the virus is unlikely to kill more than a small sliver of our population,
we have seen to our dismay how a major outbreak can so easily wreck our entire economic
life.
During January, the journalists reporting on China's mushrooming health crisis regularly
emphasized that the mysterious new viral outbreak had occurred at the worst possible place and
time, appearing in the major transport hub of Wuhan just prior to the Lunar New Year holiday,
when hundreds of millions of Chinese would normally travel to their distant family homes for
the celebration, thereby potentially spreading the disease to all parts of the country and
producing a permanent, uncontrollable epidemic. The Chinese government avoided that grim fate
by the unprecedented decision to shut down its entire national economy and confine 700 million
Chinese to their own homes for many weeks. But the outcome seems to have been a very near
thing, and if Wuhan had remained open for just a few days longer, China might easily have
suffered long-term economic and social devastation.
The timing of an accidental laboratory release would obviously be entirely random. Yet the
outbreak seems to have begun during the precise period of time most likely to damage China, the
worst possible ten-day or perhaps thirty-day window. As I noted in
January, I saw no solid evidence that the coronavirus was a bioweapon, but if it were, the
timing of the release seemed very unlikely to have been accidental.
If the virus was released intentionally, the context and motive for such a biowarfare attack
against China could not be more obvious. Although our disingenuous media continues to pretend
otherwise, the size of China's economy surpassed that of our own several years ago, and has
continued to grow much more rapidly. Chinese companies have also taken the lead in several
crucial technologies, with Huawei becoming the world's leading telecommunications equipment
manufacturer and dominating the important 5G market. China's sweeping Belt and Road Initiative
has threatened to reorient global trade around an interconnected Eurasian landmass, greatly
diminishing the leverage of America's own control over the seas. I have closely followed China
for over forty years, and the trend-lines have never been more apparent. Back in 2012, I
published an article bearing the provocative title "China's Rise, America's Fall?" and
since then I have seen no reason to reassess my verdict.
China's Rise, America's Fall Which
superpower is more threatened by its "extractive elites"? Ron Unz • The American Conservative,
April 17, 2012 • 7,000 Words
For three generations following the end of World War II, America had stood as the world's
supreme economic and technological power, while the collapse of the Soviet Union thirty years
ago left us as the sole remaining superpower, facing no conceivable military rival. A growing
sense that we were rapidly losing that unchallenged position had certainly inspired the
anti-China rhetoric of many senior figures in the Trump Administration, who launched a major
trade war soon after coming into office. The increasing misery and growing impoverishment of
large sections of the American population naturally left these voters searching for a
convenient scapegoat, and the prosperous, rising Chinese made a perfect target.
Despite America's growing economic conflict with China over the last couple of years, I had
never considered the possibility that matters might take a military turn. The Chinese had long
ago deployed advanced intermediate range missiles that many believed could easily sink our
carriers in the region, and they had also generally improved their conventional military
deterrent. Moreover, China was on quite good terms with Russia, which itself had been the
target of intense American hostility for several years; and Russia's new suite of revolutionary
hypersonic missiles had drastically reduced any American strategic advantage. Thus, a
conventional war against China seemed an absolutely hopeless undertaking, while China's
outstanding businessmen and engineers were steadily gaining ground against America's decaying
and heavily-financialized economic system.
Under these difficult circumstances, an American biowarfare attack against China might have
seemed the only remaining card to play in hopes of maintaining American supremacy. Plausible
deniability would minimize the risk of any direct Chinese retaliation, and if successful, the
terrible blow inflicted to China's economy would set it back for many years, perhaps even
destabilizing its social and political system. Using alternative media to immediately promote
theories that the coronavirus outbreak was the result of a leak from a Chinese biowarfare lab
was a natural means of preempting any later Chinese accusations along similar lines, thereby
allowing America to win the international propaganda war before China had even begun to
play.
A decision by elements of our national security establishment to wage biological warfare in
hopes of maintaining American world power would certainly have been an extremely reckless act,
but extreme recklessness has become a regular aspect of American behavior since 2001,
especially under the Trump Administration. Just a year earlier we had kidnapped the
daughter of Huawei's founder and chairman, who also served as CFO and ranked as one of China's
most top executives, while at the beginning of January we suddenly assassinated Iran's top
military leader.
These were the thoughts that entered my mind during the last week of January once I
discovered the widely circulating theories suggesting that China's massive disease epidemic had
been the self-inflicted consequence of its own biowarfare research. I saw no solid evidence
that the coronavirus was a bioweapon, but if it were, China was surely the innocent victim of
the attack, presumably carried out by elements of the American national security
establishment.
Soon afterward, someone brought to my attention a very long article by an American ex-pat
living in China who called himself "Metallicman" and held a wide range of eccentric and
implausible beliefs. I have long recognized that flawed individuals can often serve as the
vessels of important information otherwise unavailable, and this case constituted a perfect
example. His piece denounced the outbreak as a likely American biowarfare attack, and provided
a great wealth of factual material I had not previously considered. Since he authorized
republication elsewhere I did so, and
his 15,000 word analysis , although somewhat raw and unpolished, began attracting an
enormous amount of readership on our website, probably being one of the very first
English-language pieces to suggest that the mysterious new disease was an American bioweapon.
Many of his arguments appeared doubtful to me or have been obviated by later developments, but
several seemed quite telling.
He pointed out that during the previous two years, the Chinese economy had already suffered
serious blows from other mysterious new diseases, although these had targeted farm animals
rather than people. During 2018 a new Avian Flu virus had swept the country, eliminating large
portions of China's poultry industry, and during 2019 the Swine Flu viral epidemic had
devastated China's pig farms, destroying 40% of the nation's primary domestic source of meat,
with widespread claims that the latter disease was being spread by mysterious small drones. My
morning newspapers had hardly ignored these important business stories, noting
that the sudden collapse of much of China's domestic food production might prove a huge boon to
American farm exports at the height of our trade conflict, but I had never considered the
obvious implications. So for three years in a row, China had been severely impacted by strange
new viral diseases, though only the most recent had been deadly to humans. This evidence was
merely circumstantial, but the pattern seemed highly suspicious.
The writer also noted that shortly before the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, that city had
hosted 300 visiting American military officers, who came to participate in the 2019 Military World
Games , an absolutely remarkable coincidence of timing. As
I pointed out at the time, how would Americans react if 300 Chinese military officers had
paid an extended visit to Chicago, and soon afterward a mysterious and deadly epidemic had
suddenly broken out in that city? Once again, the evidence was merely circumstantial but
certainly raised dark suspicions.
Scientific investigation of the coronavirus had already pointed to its origins in a bat
virus, leading to widespread media speculation that bats sold as food in the Wuhan open markets
had been the original disease vector. Meanwhile, the orchestrated waves of anti-China
accusations had emphasized Chinese laboratory research on that same viral source. But we soon
published
a lengthy article by investigative journalist Whitney Webb providing copious evidence of
America's own enormous biowarfare research efforts, which had similarly focused for years on
bat viruses. Webb was then associated with MintPress News , but that publication had
strangely declined to publish her important piece, perhaps skittish about the grave suspicions
it directed towards the US government on so momentous an issue. So without the benefit of our
platform, her major contribution to the public debate might have attracted relatively little
readership.
Around the same time, I noted another
extremely strange coincidence that failed to attract any interest from our somnolent national
media. Although his name had meant nothing to me, in late January my morning newspapers carried
major stories on the
sudden arrest of Prof. Charles Lieber, one of Harvard University's top scientists and Chairman
of its Chemistry Department, sometimes characterized as a potential future Nobel Laureate.
The circumstances of that case seemed utterly bizarre to me. Like numerous other prominent
American academics, Lieber had had decades of close research ties with China, holding joint
appointments and receiving substantial funding for his work. But now he was accused of
financial reporting violations in the disclosure portions of his government grant applications
-- the most obscure sort of offense -- and on the basis of those accusations, he was seized by
the FBI in an early-morning raid on his suburban Lexington home and dragged off in shackles,
potentially facing years of federal imprisonment.
Such government action against an academic seemed almost without precedent. During the
height of the Cold War, numerous American scientists and technicians were rightfully accused of
having stolen our nuclear weapons secrets for delivery to Stalin, yet I had never heard of any
of them treated in so harsh a manner, let alone a scholar of Prof. Lieber's stature, who was
merely charged with technical disclosure violations. Indeed, this incident recalled accounts of
NKVD raids during the Soviet purges of the 1930s.
ORDER IT NOW
Although Lieber was described as a chemistry professor, a few seconds of Googling revealed
that some of his most important work had been in virology, including technology for the
detection of viruses. So a massive and deadly new viral epidemic had broken out in China and
almost simultaneously, a top American scholar with close Chinese ties and expertise in viruses
was suddenly arrested by the federal government, yet no one in the media expressed any
curiosity at a possible connection between these two events.
I think we can safely assume that Lieber's arrest by the FBI had been prompted by the
concurrent coronavirus epidemic, but anything more is mere speculation. Those now accusing
China of having created the coronavirus might surely suggest that our intelligence agencies
discovered that the Harvard professor had been personally involved with that deadly research.
But I think a far more likely possibility is that Lieber began to wonder whether the epidemic
in China might not be the result of an American biowarfare attack, and was perhaps a little too
free in voicing his suspicions, thereby drawing the wrath of our national security
establishment. Inflicting such extremely harsh treatment upon a top Harvard scientist would
greatly intimidate all of his lesser colleagues elsewhere, who would surely now think twice
before broaching certain controversial theories to any journalist.
By the end of January, our webzine had published a dozen articles and posts on the
coronavirus outbreak, then added many more by the middle of February. These pieces totaled tens
of thousands of words and attracted a half million words of comments, probably representing the
primary English-language source for a particular perspective on the deadly epidemic, with this
material eventually drawing many hundreds of thousands of pageviews. A few weeks later, the
Chinese government began gingerly raising the possibility that the coronavirus may have been
brought to Wuhan by the 300 American military officers visiting that city, and was
fiercely attacked by the Trump Administration for spreading anti-American propaganda. But I
strongly suspect that the Chinese had gotten that idea from our own publication.
As the coronavirus gradually began to spread beyond China's own borders, another development
occurred that greatly multiplied my suspicions. Most of these early cases had occurred exactly
where one might expect, among the East Asian countries bordering China. But by late February
Iran had become the second epicenter of the global outbreak. Even more surprisingly, its
political elites had been especially hard-hit, with a full 10% of the entire
Iranian parliament soon infected and at least
a dozen of its officials and politicians dying of the disease, including some who were
quite
senior . Indeed, Neocon activists on Twitter began gleefully noting that their hatred
Iranian enemies were now dropping like flies.
Let us consider the implications of these facts. Across the entire world the only political
elites that have yet suffered any significant human losses have been those of Iran, and they
died at a very early stage, before significant outbreaks had even occurred almost anywhere else
in the world outside China. Thus, we have America assassinating Iran's top military commander
on Jan. 2nd and then just a few weeks later large portions of the Iranian ruling elites became
infected by a mysterious and deadly new virus, with many of them soon dying as a consequence.
Could any rational individual possibly regard this as a mere coincidence?
Biological warfare is a highly technical subject, and those possessing such expertise are
unlikely to candidly report their classified research activities in the pages of our major
newspapers, perhaps even less so after Prof. Lieber was dragged off to prison in chains. My own
knowledge is nil. But in mid-March I came across several extremely long and detailed comments
on the coronavirus outbreak that had been posted on a small website by an individual calling
himself "OldMicrobiologist" and who claimed to be a retired forty-year veteran of American
biodefense. The style and details of his material struck me as quite credible, and after a
little further investigation I concluded that there was a high likelihood his background was
exactly as he had described. I made arrangements to republish his comments in the form of
a 3,400 word
article , which soon attracted a great deal of traffic and 80,000 words of further
comments.
Although the writer emphasized the lack of any hard evidence, he said that his experience
led him to strongly suspect that the coronavirus outbreak was indeed an American biowarfare
attack against China, probably carried out by agents brought into that country under cover of
the Military Games held at Wuhan in late October, the sort of sabotage operation our
intelligence agencies had sometimes undertaken elsewhere. One important point he made was that
high lethality was often counter-productive in a bioweapon since debilitating or hospitalizing
large numbers of individuals may impose far greater economic costs on a country than a
biological agent which simply inflicts an equal number of deaths. In his words "a high
communicability, low lethality disease is perfect for ruining an economy," suggesting that the
apparent characteristics of the coronavirus were close to optimal in this regard. Those so
interested should read his analysis and judge for themselves his possible credibility and
persuasiveness.
One intriguing aspect of the situation was that almost from the first moment that reports of
the strange new epidemic in China reached the international media, a large and orchestrated
campaign had been launched on numerous websites and Social Media platforms to identify the
cause as a Chinese bioweapon carelessly released in its own country. Meanwhile, the far more
plausible hypothesis that China was the victim rather than the perpetrator had received
virtually no organized support anywhere, and only began to take shape as I gradually located
and republished relevant material, usually drawn from very obscure quarters and often
anonymously authored. So it seemed that only the side hostile to China was waging an active
information war. The outbreak of the disease and the nearly simultaneous launch of such a major
propaganda campaign may not necessarily prove that an actual biowarfare attack had occurred,
but I do think it tends to support such a theory.
When considering the hypothesis of an American biowarfare attack, certain natural objections
come to mind. The major drawback to biological warfare has always been the obvious fact that
the self-replicating agents employed will not respect national borders, thus raising the
serious risk that the disease might eventually return to the land of its origin and inflict
substantial casualties. For this reason, it seems very doubtful that any rational and
half-competent American leadership would have unleashed the coronavirus against China.
But as we see absolutely demonstrated in our daily news headlines, America's current
government is grotesquely and manifestly incompetent , more incompetent than one could
almost possibly imagine, with tens of thousands of Americans having now already paid with their
lives for such extreme incompetence. Rationality and competence are obviously nowhere to be
found among the Deep State Neocons that President Donald Trump has appointed to so many crucial
positions throughout our national security apparatus.
Moreover, the extremely lackadaisical notion that a massive coronavirus outbreak in China
would never spread back to America might have seemed plausible to individuals who carelessly
assumed that past historical analogies would continue to apply. As
I wrote a few weeks ago:
Reasonable people have suggested that if the coronavirus was a bioweapon deployed by
elements of the American national security apparatus against China (and Iran), it's difficult
to imagine why the they didn't assume it would naturally leak back in the US and start a huge
pandemic here, as is currently happening.
The most obvious answer is that they were stupid and incompetent, but here's another point
to consider
In late 2002 there was the outbreak of SARS in China, a related virus but that was far
more deadly and somewhat different in other characteristics. The virus killed hundreds of
Chinese and spread into a few other countries before it was controlled and stamped out. The
impact on the US and Europe was negligible, with just a small scattering of cases and only a
death or two.
So if American biowarfare analysts were considering a coronavirus attack against China,
isn't it quite possible they would have said to themselves that since SARS never
significantly leaked back into the US or Europe, we'd similarly remain insulated from the
coronavirus? Obviously, such an analysis was foolish and mistaken, but would it have seemed
so implausible at the time?
As some must have surely noticed, I have deliberately avoided investigating any of the
scientific details of the coronavirus. In principle, an objective and accurate analysis of the
characteristics and structure of the virus might help suggest whether it was entirely natural
or rather the product of a research laboratory, and in the latter case, perhaps whether the
likely source was China, America, or some third country.
But we are dealing with a cataclysmic world event and those questions obviously have
enormous political ramifications, so the entire subject is shrouded by a thick fog of complex
propaganda, with numerous conflicting claims being advanced by interested parties. I have no
background in microbiology let alone biological warfare, so I would be hopelessly adrift in
evaluating such conflicting scientific and technical claims. I suspect that this is equally
true of the overwhelming majority of other observers as well, although committed partisans are
loathe to admit that fact, and will eagerly seize upon any scientific argument that supports
their preferred position while rejecting those that contradict it.
Therefore, by necessity, my own focus is on evidence that can at least be understood by
every layman, if not necessarily always accepted. And I believe that the simple juxtaposition
of several recent disclosures in the mainstream media leads to a rather telling conclusion.
For obvious reasons, the Trump Administration has become very eager to emphasize the early
missteps and delays in the Chinese reaction to the viral outbreak in Wuhan, and has presumably
encouraged our media outlets to direct their focus in that direction.
As an example of this, the Associated Press Investigative Unit recently published a rather
detailed analysis of those early events purportedly based upon confidential Chinese documents.
Provocatively entitled "China Didn't Warn Public of Likely
Pandemic for 6 Key Days" , the piece was widely distributed, running
in abridged form in the NYT and elsewhere. According to this reconstruction, the
Chinese government first became aware of the seriousness of this public health crisis on Jan.
14th, but delayed taking any major action until Jan. 20th, a period of time during which the
number of infections greatly multiplied.
Last month, a team of five WSJ reporters produced a very detailed and thorough
4,400 word analysis of the same period, and the NYT has published a helpful timeline of
those early events as well. Although there may be some differences of emphasis or minor
disagreements, all these American media sources agree that Chinese officials first became aware
of the serious viral outbreak in Wuhan in early to mid-January, with the first known death
occurring on Jan. 11th, and finally implemented major new public health measures later that
same month. No one has apparently disputed these basic facts.
But with the horrific consequences of our own later governmental inaction being obvious,
sources within our intelligence agencies have sought to demonstrate that they were not the ones
asleep at the switch. Earlier this month,
an ABC News story cited four separate government sources to reveal that as far back
as late November, a special medical intelligence unit within our Defense Intelligence Agency
had produced a report revealing than an out-of-control disease epidemic was occurring in the
Wuhan area of China, and widely distributed that document throughout the top ranks of our
government, warning that steps should be taken to protect US forces based in Asia. After the
story aired, a Pentagon spokesman officially denied the existence of that November report,
while various other top level government and intelligence officials refused to comment. But a
few days later,
Israeli television revealed that in November American intelligence had indeed shared such a
report on the Wuhan disease outbreak with its NATO and Israeli allies, thus seeming to
independently confirm the complete accuracy of the original ABC story and its several
government sources.
ORDER IT NOW
It therefore appears that elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency were aware of the
deadly viral outbreak in Wuhan more than a month before any officials in the Chinese government
itself. Unless our intelligence agencies have pioneered the technology of precognition, I
think this may have happened for the same reason that arsonists have the earliest knowledge of
future fires.
Back in February, before a single American had died from the disease,
I wrote my own overview of the possible course of events, and I would still stand by it
today:
Consider a particularly ironic outcome of this situation, not particularly likely but
certainly possible
Everyone knows that America's ruling elites are criminal, crazy, and also extremely
incompetent.
So perhaps the coronavirus outbreak was indeed a deliberate biowarfare attack against
China, hitting that nation just before Lunar New Year, the worst possible time to produce a
permanent nationwide pandemic. However, the PRC responded with remarkable speed and
efficiency, implementing by far the largest quarantine in human history, and the deadly
disease now seems to be in decline there.
Meanwhile, the disease naturally leaks back into the US, and despite all the advance
warning, our totally incompetent government mismanages the situation, producing a huge
national health disaster, and the collapse of our economy and decrepit political system.
As I said, not particularly likely, but certainly a very fitting end to the American
Empire
But their government implemented public health control measures unprecedented in the
history of the world and managed to almost completely eradicate the disease with merely the
loss of a few thousand lives
And if you can't trust China's numbers, who can you trust?
The timing of an accidental laboratory release would obviously be entirely random. Yet
the outbreak seems to have begun during precise period of time most likely to damage
China
It almost sounds like putting a virus lab in the middle of twelve million people was a bad
idea.
Lol. I can't believe you're doubling down on this jackassery.
Mr Unz, also have you read David Cole's theory on this (at TakiMag)? I know you and him got
in blog beef a couple years ago over your Pravda article on Holocaust, but his theory also
criticized the Wuhan "lab leak" and believes the wet markets originated the virus while the
state lab was trying to cover up the "natural market" zoonotic mess. Would be fun to (again)
watch you 2 debate notes.
If I had told you a year ago that Iran would have its top General assassinated and then its
country decimated by a viral infection, that China would be a world pariah with calls for
trillion in reparations, that Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela would have a bounty on his head for
lol being involved in the cocaine trade, and that Kim Jong Un would be dead who do you think
would be the architect of this future?
Chinese elites or American ones?
American neocons are literally getting everything they want.
You can look at all of the damage to the American economy relative to China, but who is
really being hurt in America? Regular Americans are being hurt. But the elites are getting
bailed out and will buy US assets for pennies on the dollar.
"When considering the hypothesis of an American biowarfare attack, certain natural objections
come to mind. The major drawback to biological warfare has always been the obvious fact that
the self-replicating agents employed are not prone to respect national borders, raising the
serious risk that the disease might eventually return to the land of its origin and inflict
substantial casualties. For this reason, it seems quite doubtful that any rational and
half-competent American leadership would have unleashed the coronavirus against China."
Unless, of course, those in power knew exactly what that 'blowback' would entail, as they
had modeled it over and over, for years, maybe decades.
They would be in a position to crash the stock market (and get out at the very top),
assure a new alliance between the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury (allowing the elites to
use the American taxpayers to fund their losses indefinitely), destroy the middle and lower
classes through government ordered 'lockdowns' (driving down wages yet again, and making
Americans frightened, unemployed and angry, and thereby easily mislead like in the 9/11
aftermath), create a world political environment allowing medical tyranny to make universal
yearly vaccines and mandatory microchipping of everyone acceptable to the masses (ala Bill
Gates/Tony Fauci/WHO and their Pig Pharma vaccine brigade), drop the price of oil
indefinitely to fatally weaken Iran, hurt Russia and allow our predator capitalist banks to
scoop up the failing US shale oil industry for pennies (which they are fully preparing to
do), and ultimately allow the elites to perfectly time the inevitable deflation of the
world's derivatives bubble, further sending the commoners into complete panic mode (and
making their primal fears easily directed against the Western world's now common enemy, the
Red Yellow Hordes.)
Doesn't sound very 'incompetent' to me. Sounds like utterly evil, but undeniably
brilliant, military-economic planning. And it is looking like they may pull this one off,
just like 9/11, and get the scared and terminally gullible Western plebes on board for their
own further destruction economically, politically, and very possibly physically.
End Result: the PTB get to blame China for everything; make China foot the bill (or else);
and when China balks, prepare the West's gullible, easily controlled citizens for military
conflict if the Chinese don't roll over and cough up to the West's satisfaction.
Incompetence?
Sure looks to me like a neoliberal zionist-neocon elitist wet dream come true ..
@Otto von Komsmark If you believe that the virus originated in a wet market, what's your
theory on why China immediately allowed wet markets to open back up (albeit with guards
posted to prevent pics). Are they just exceptionally slow learners or do they realize that
the wet market theory was always bogus?
" the Chinese government began gingerly raising the possibility that the coronavirus may have
been brought to Wuhan by the 300 American military officers visiting that city, and was
fiercely attacked by the Trump Administration for spreading anti-American propaganda. But I
strongly suspect that the Chinese had gotten that idea from our own publication" not at all
improbable since said publication has a very deep current of slavish devotion to the Chinese
state; such that one might even strongly suspect that the publication is getting its ideas
from the Chinese totalitarians as much as the other way round. But since 'false flag'
theories are another popular concept in such discussions, it might be conceivable that the
human rights regime in Beijing deliberately released the mystery bug in China & Iran
first, in order to throw suspicion on the U.S. The Chinese & Iranian tallies so far have
been surprisingly low despite starting there earlier, so if they're not suppressing the
facts, maybe they knew what to expect & were prepared. And the brunt of it would then be
borne by their Western 'adversaries'. Not to mention, that the Chinese despots could
reinforce their iron grip on Chinese society with their customary contempt for civil
liberties. China's "current government is grotesquely and manifestly" incompatible with
personal freedom, more incompatible than "one could almost possibly imagine", with tens of
millions of Uighurs, Tibetans, dissidents, workers having now already paid with their lives
& freedom for such extreme incompatibility.
"Rationality and competence are obviously nowhere to be found among the Deep State Neocons
that President Donald Trump has appointed to so many crucial positions throughout our
national security apparatus" and certainly rationality, competence, humanity are never to be
found among Neo-cons anywhere. The President has been wise to largely ignore them. If Trump
had been President in '99, it's very likely that the absolutely unnecessary, devastating war
on Serbia by Hillary & Bill – based on deliberate lies – would never have
gotten off the ground.
President Trump now faces the daunting dilemma of how to protect the society while at the
same time not displaying the same disdain for political & civic freedom that is the
hallmark of the CCP. An end to America Empire would be a good thing – the President
knows that, as he again reiterated the trillions misspent in the M.E. at his daily press
conference today – but this isn't the way to do it. Only a Chinese communist or fellow
traveler could believe that.
"At the time, I was overwhelmingly focused on domestic political issues, so I only paid
slight attention to our one small military operation of those years, the 1999 NATO air war
against Serbia, intended to safeguard the Bosnian Muslims from ethnic cleansing and massacre,
a Clinton Administration project that I fully endorsed." And why should one believe our
government and media about "safeguard(ing) the Bosnian Muslims from ethnic cleansing and
massacre" any more than one should believe their other lies?
For most of this post, I can't say one way or the other. I personally think this was either
the result of the so-called "wet-markets" in China – long known to be the primary
source of the annual flu epidemics (why the heck haven't they been shut down??) or a
criminally NEGLIGENT release from a research lab.
But.
"China recognizes that it is vastly outmatched in any propaganda conflict, and so as the
far weaker party must necessarily try to stick closer to the truth, lest its lies be
immediately exposed. Meanwhile, America's overwhelming control over information may lead to
considerable hubris, with the government sometimes promoting the most outrageous and
ridiculous falsehoods in the confident belief that a supportive American media will cover for
any mistakes."
Nearly 30,000 Americans have died from the coronavirus during the last two weeks, and by
some estimates this is a substantial under-count
Quoted numbers of deaths are as unreliable as the number of infections.
Cause of death as stated in a death certificate is often, and even usually, wrong, and
during an epidemic caused by a virus that induces respiratory difficulty it is likely that
virtually all deaths due to respiratory dysfunction will be attributed to the virus without
confirmatory evidence.
Furthermore, virtually all deaths of persons testing positive for covid19 will be
attributed to the virus even though the deceased may have had multiple other diseases, any
one of which could have been the cause of death.
But as this epidemic is shaping up, it is likely that the estimated death toll will be
comparable to that of the seasonal flu in a bad year. Herd immunity is likely now widespread,
so the thing should fizzle out soon, with or without continued population incarceration.
Boris Johnson boldly declared that his own coronavirus plan for Britain was based upon
rapidly achieving "herd immunity" -- essentially encouraging the bulk of his citizens to
become infected -- then quickly backed away after his desperate advisors recognized that
the result might entail a million or more British deaths.
LOL. Neil Ferguson an Imperial College epidemiologist with an awesomely bad track record
in predicting the course of epidemics, made some such prediction which he soon modified to a
very much smaller number – 20,000 I believe, a number not yet reached.
In fact, the original plan was abandoned for fear that unrestricted spread of the virus
would result in a concentration of infections, which at the peak, would overload hospitals by
that minority of cases requiring hospital treatment.
Not just NWO ChiCom China of course– they're just the tool, the NWO
"Elites"/Globalists, who shipped USA Manufacturing to China and destroyed the Middle Class in
the USA etc., have made China the "Model" for us all -- "Social Credit Scores" for the Peons,
an authoritarian "Party" of "Elites" with all power, Peons having to get a "green" signal on
their cell phones every time they go outside . -- NWO Globalist "Elites" actually running the
CVirus show/"Production"/911 "Event" Part 2 -- "Invisible Terrorists Forever"–
meanwhile most "journalists" are cheering the loss of freedoms and anyone who points out what
is going on wants to "kill Grandma" is "Selfish" it's all about on a Junior High School level
but after getting away with 911 Demolition anyone not a rube, grifter/or in on it knew they'd
be back to finish it off– and so they are here with the Plandemic:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/elite-covid-19-coup-against-terrified-humanity-resisting-powerfully/5709479
Side note: Interesting the Mainslime Media is not all over China's Racism towards Blacks
as evidenced in their Ad here against "Diversity" and "Race Mixing"– they aren't
kidding! Seems ChiComs can do what YT could never .: https://twitter.com/sadir_Palwan/status/1250570077163925509
The Nanjing protests were groundbreaking dissidence for China and went from solely
expressing concern about alleged [sic] improprieties by African men to increasingly calling
for democracy or human rights. They were paralleled by burgeoning demonstrations in other
cities during the period between the Nanjing and the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989,
with some elements of the original protests that started in Nanjing still evident in
Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, such as banners proclaiming "Stop Taking Advantage of
Chinese Women" even though the vast majority of African students had left the country by
that point.
And if you can't trust China's numbers, who can you trust?
It's very true that China's numbers is perhaps the best numbers that you could trust.
Moritz Kraemer, a scholar at Oxford University who is leading a team of researchers in
mapping the global spread of the coronavirus, says China's data "provided incredible detail,"
including a patient's age, sex, travel history and history of chronic disease, as well as
where the case was reported, and the dates of the onset of symptoms, hospitalization and
confirmation of infection.
The United States, he said, "has been slow in collecting data in a systematic way.". The
article not only showing the chaotic situation in different states, but highlights the
limited information shared with scientific community. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/us/coronavirus-data-privacy.html
The WHO too only had high praises for China's transparency and efficiency.
The only parties challenging these are Trump, Mike Pompeo, and the US Intelligence. Make a
pick who to trust.
But in mid-March I came across several extremely long and detailed comments on the
coronavirus outbreak that had been posted on a small website by an individual calling
himself "OldMicrobiologist" and who claimed to be a retired forty-year veteran of American
biodefense. The style and details of his material struck me as quite credible, and after a
little further investigation I concluded that there was a high likelihood that his
background was exactly as he had described. I made arrangements to republish his comments
in the form of a 3,400 word article, which soon attracted a great deal of traffic and
80,000 words of further comments.
Although the writer said that he had absolutely no proof, he said that his experience
led him to strongly suspect that the coronavirus outbreak was indeed an American biowarfare
attack against China, probably carried out by agents brought into that country under cover
of the Military Games held at Wuhan in late October, the sort of sabotage operation our
intelligence agencies had sometimes undertaken elsewhere.
Oh God, that crap again. Some geezer who may or may not have any relevant expertise, had a
suspicion, but absolutely no proof, of a goofy theory that to launch a biowarfare attack on
China the US Government had the brilliant idea of having the agent released by a contingent
of 300 American soldiers participating in the international military games held in Wuhan,
China.
Is that a stupid idea, or what?
And anyhow, there is evidence just published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy
of Sciences that the viral epidemic in China did not begin in Wuhan and, furthermore, it
began earlier than originally believed, i.e., before the Military Games.
But we are dealing with a cataclysmic world event
Not really. Just a new disease out of China, one of many from China since the year dot,
which has a lethality comparable to the seasonal flu. The event is cataclysmic only because
of the economic consequences of the public policy response in most Western states, though not
Sweden.
@Ozymandias Hey Ozy, The Australians claimed to have suffered only 120 wu-wu virus deaths
total. The South Koreans claim only 250 wu-wu deaths total. In Ozy world, are they liars too
along with the Chinese? Or is it possible they have a functional public health system and
moderately competent politicians who decided to fix the wu-wu virus problem .instead of
playing golf and bullshitting the public for six weeks. The wu-wu virus death total in the
essential exceptional nation is now 42,000 and rising. No other country is even close. It's
like Trumpie heard the experts advise "fatten the curve" instead of "flatten the curve".
So, you "fully endorsed" Clinton Administration 1999 NATO air war against Serbia, and you
don't even know that it wasn't "intended to safeguard the Bosnian Muslims from ethnic
cleansing and massacre",
because war in Bosnia was already done long before 1999 (war finished in 1995).
a year or two ago I happened to come across a short article by journalist Jay Matthews
entitled "The Myth of Tiananmen" that completely upended that apparent reality.
According to Matthews the infamous massacre had likely never happened, but was merely a
media artifact produced by confused Western reporters and dishonest propaganda, a mistaken
belief that had quickly become embedded in our standard media storyline, endlessly repeated
by so many ignorant journalists that they all eventually believed it to be true.
the protesting students had all left Tiananmen Square peacefully, just as the Chinese
government had always maintained.
the bulk of the mainstream media had fallen for an apparent hoax.
This is like saying the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre was a hoax because most of the
deaths occurred overnight, past midnight, no longer St. Bartholomew's Day, ergo "the St.
Bartholomew's Day Massacre" was a Hoax. Throwing the baby out with a technicality.
Checking the Jay Matthews story, I see this:
Hundreds of people, most of them workers and passersby, did die that night, but in a
different place and under different circumstances.
The Chinese government estimates more than 300 fatalities. Western estimates are
somewhat higher. Many victims were shot by soldiers on stretches of Changan Jie, the Avenue
of Eternal Peace, about a mile west of the square, and in scattered confrontations in other
parts of the city
Regarding SARS inability to spread further, that's why the glycoprotein 120 was added:
it's an external protein they borrowed from HIV and CRISPR'd onto the Covid-19.
Interesting enough by including this mechanism in the novel virus they have perhaps laid
the ground for future AIDS type syndromes in those who get the virus or some variant of it.
That's another topic deserving it's own crowd funded public research.
Much of the suddenly far reaching effects of this novel virus derive from the advent of
CRISP technology and the ability to fuse different parts of virus into one. Of course,
zoonotic transmission still needs to occur hence all the special grants to Wuhan Institute
and North Carolina in doing this type of research, going out and collecting the special virus
out of bat shit 600 miles away from Wuhan in caves in remote China, and feeding it to pigs
and chimps who die and the process is repeated until a stable virus is developed.
Interesting enough Dr Fauci is an expert on HIV and specifically glycoprotein 120. He's
worked to run private trial tests while working in the government probably for his Fort
Detrick buddies.
Everyone reading this article and still intrigued for more information out to check out
two key players that researching the origins of the virus and it's likely bioengineered
origins:
This virus has links to Fauci, research at Fort Detrick, as well as research carried out
in North Carolina and Wuhan that was paid for by grants from Fauci while running major
government groups.
It appears part of this operation utilized the NATO transport network for transporting
deadly diseases and nuclear material. In fact, one such courier was in Wuhan as an American
cyclist for the military games
But I digress.
The blowback part Ron mentions being the consequence of stupidity from the government are
possible but I think unlikely. If you follow parallel developments in geopolitics and,
specifically, finance (not withstanding all of Bill Gates work with companies to have a
vaccine ready to go ), you'll see perhaps the makings of a grand conspiracy to (1) cement the
strength of the dollar and (2) sequester Chinese economic growth and power all at once.
For this to work most of the government would not know what's going on and that probably
includes Trump. Plus, what better way to hide culpability than to inflict a wound on
yourself?
For links to articles discussing this topic see below:
Everyone is enjoying the screaming and paranoia but China (East Asia) has been producing new
and "wonderful" diseases for several thousand years. They used to have bacterial variations
but in the last few centuries have moved to designer viruses.
South China has wall-to-wall rice paddies where wild and migratory animals feed, drink and
sh*t with farm animals under the care of a billion or so humans with primitive concepts of
sanitation and minimal, to no, modern healthcare, so "rare" or "unlikely" bug mutations and
species "jumps" are just a matter of time. The wild birds of China Summer in Siberia and
Alaska with all the other birds of the world. The "Real" Globalism ..
The appearance of Corona variants in Kazhakstan, Iran, the Gulf States, and Israeli
ckickens, or the appearance of "pig flu" in Mexico, or the Spanish Flu (1918?) in Kansas, all
under major bird migratory routes, should not be too much of a surprise. Even if a US, UN or
Chinese agency finds it. Be aware that this used to happen before Boeing and AirBus joined
the game.
Be careful cleaning the poop off your windshield and/or yard furniture.
Damn flying dinosaurs are dangerous. If you find some poop with a "made in China" label,
call the authorities. They will love the warning about the poison from a flying Chinese
Communist dragon.
The coronavirus is serial! Thooper serial! Look at all these in depth political analyses
and ignore the facts in plain view!
Blowback is a particularly telling choice of word, since I remember Noam Chomsky using the
same term. He used it to add weight to the official 9/11 story by claiming the events were a
direct result of US foreign policy, which re-enforced the Muslim terrorist angle and stopped
people from looking for the real culprits.
Another great installment in the American Pravda series. I use to work in the federal
government and always wondered why employees of the Nationals Archives* needed a top secret
U.S. government clearance and why employees of Presidential libraries needed to have the same
security clearance as a nuclear submarine commander (top secret- sensitive compartmented
information). What secrets could there possibly be from 60 years ago?? Then it dawned on me
that it could never be known by the general public how their country behaves toward other
countries and why and how we go to war. We would lose all faith in our government.
I have only one small correction:
[Charles Lieber] was seized by the FBI in an early-morning raid on his Cambridge home
and dragged off in shackles, potentially facing decades of federal imprisonment.
He lives in a wooded suburban neighborhood in Lexington, MA, not in the city of
Cambridge.
On the one hand a bio-warfare attack on China is something I can absolutely see the American
elites post 9/11 do. Their track-record speaks for itself.
There have also been significant shifts in Europe's alignment, on which US global
dominance critically depends: the continuation of Northstream 2 against the explicit wishes
of the Americans, 5 G expansion and Huawei cooperation in the European market, plans of
replacing NATO with a European army (talks on the fringe of the right about a defense pact
with Russia), the Belt and Road trillion dollar project which has its better European name as
"The New Silk Road". Eurasian integration goes directly against the global dominance strategy
of the US Empire. Europe is also now caught between an intense and visible propaganda warfare
of the USA and China/Russia.
And there were also the proxy-war in Ukraine and the refugee crisis: the latter at minimum
a fallout of US-Israeli wars in the Middle East and the Zionist assault against Libya; yet
not unlikely itself a direct assault against Europe. And not only Willy Wimmer, closest
adviser to our old chancellor Helmut Kohl, strongly suspected as much already back in 2015.
Wimmer had been part of several war games in Langley in his time in the German government,
quite clearly reasoning that in modern warfare you cannot initiate a conflict without knowing
where the refugees will go – it is part of the planning process.
On the other hand we must recognize the long term and massive investments of for example
Blackrock and Vanguard into China; the ambitions to liberalize Chinese society and further
open their economy for foreign, especially US investments; the attempts of Zionism to set up
shop in China; the key role of Israel in the Belt and Road project and the admiration the
Chinese have for Jews and their material success.
If it was a bio-warfare attack and if the ambition is to lock the USA and China in
a new Cold War with potential proxy wars, then Americas financial and Jewish elite, which so
very much dominate the deep state neocons, must be of the opinion that their profits will not
be affected by it.
And if it was the long-term plan of Zionism and much of Americas financial, largely
Jewish, elite to shift their power-base from the USA which they have effectively subjugated
to the less secured China, then a bio-warfare attack would hardly be a smart move to keep the
transition as quiet as possible.
@if American biowarfare analysts were considering a coronavirus attack against China, isn't
it quite possible they would have said to themselves that since SARS never significantly
leaked back into the US or Europe, we'd similarly remain insulated from the coronavirus?
Obviously, such an analysis was foolish and mistaken, but would it have seemed so implausible
at the time?
Albert Einstein: "Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting
Different Results".
Moreover, in establishing whether a crime was committed, the criminal investigation has to
establish first that there was a motive, the means and the opportunity to commit the crime.
All these criteria are satisfied in this case pointing to a biological attack against China
and its allies.
The possibility of biowarfare (and its desirability) was unequivocally formulated in
September 2000 when the 'Project for the New American Century' released "Rebuilding America's
Defenses", a report that promotes "the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend
its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces."
The report also states, "advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific
genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful
tool".
The first bioweapons research program was initiated in America by Sir Frederick Banting with
corporate sponsorship in 1940.
From Wikipedia (no secrets): In 1942 "U.S. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson requested that
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) undertake consideration of U.S. biological warfare. In
response the NAS formed a committee, the War Bureau of Consultants (WBC), which issued a
report on the subject in February 1942.The report, among other items, recommended the
research and development of an offensive biological weapons program.
The British, and the research undertaken by the WBC, pressured the U.S. to begin biological
weapons research and development and in November 1942 U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt
officially approved an American biological weapons program. In response to the information
provided by the WBC, Roosevelt ordered Stimson to form the War Research Service (WRS).
Established within the Federal Security Agency, the WRS' stated purpose was to promote
"public security and health", but, in reality, the WRS was tasked with coordinating and
supervising the U.S. biological warfare program. In the spring of 1943 the U.S. Army
Biological Warfare Laboratories were established at Fort (then Camp) Detrick in
Maryland".
The Chinese read their James Bond: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times
is enemy action".
It doesn't make sense to me that the US would fly drones over chinese pig farms half way
around the world in order to infect half the pigs in China with African swine flu.
Smithfield is the largest producer of pork in the US. Smithfield is owned by a Chinese firm.
So China is making up for their lack of domestic pork by buying their own US pork. How would
this risky venture benefit the US? Yet this was the accusation labelled against the US by
many Chinese. With zero proof.
The timing of this pandemic is very beneficial to the deep state, and the MSM is hyping
the heck out of it; and the CDC et al are pumping up the numbers to make it seems as bad as
possible. It's like they WANT a global pandemic. To crash the market and make DJT look bad?
That is what the Biden for drooling pres campaign videos are hyping already.
If there is a germ war going on, it is China doing it to its communist shit-hole self. I
don't know why anybody trades with them. The Chinese state literally kills Uyghurs and Falun
Gong and steals their organs, but they have favored nation trading status? wtf
It is fairly congruent with my own writeup from a few weeks back. Although I did not go so
far as to definitively endorse any particular theory. The idea of this all being an American
strike on China is the interesting hypothesis to me and fits my understanding of how
America's geopolitical toolbox might work best. There is also a case to be made that the
blowback stateside is a feature not a bug.
The United States could come out ahead in terms of the great game with China. But only if
it can play its cards correctly.
Ultimately, what enough people think about this whole situation is what will define
outcomes and right now things are on track for the bulk of the Chinese population to think
that this is an American attack and for a significant number of Americans to believe that
this is either accidental or deliberate Chinese action.
I think those popular attitudes are very valuable to their respective governments.
Devil's advocacy is always an important intellectual activity, but you seemed to have pretty
much pointed out the hole in your grand theory yourself.
If we're going to imagine the US gov't apparatus is competent enough to start the virus in
China, one would have to presume (if their collective IQ's approach anywhere near 90) that
they would also set up for the contingency that it might come to the US too.
Imagining otherwise is akin to thinking the US top brass have the intelligence of some of
those bonehead crooks who sometimes make the news for their stupid (and funny) attempts at
crime. The US top brass might be dumb, but c'mon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn5CvDgaZSc
I think we can safely assume that Lieber's arrest by the FBI had been prompted by the
coronavirus epidemic, but anything more is mere speculation. Those now accusing China of
having created the coronavirus might surely suggest that our intelligence agencies
discovered that the Harvard professor had been personally involved with that deadly
research. But I think a far more likely possibility is that Lieber began to wonder
whether the epidemic in China might not be the result of an American biowarfare attack, and
was perhaps a little too free in voicing his suspicions, thereby drawing the wrath of
our national security establishment.
Or alternatively, who would a laboratory whistleblower turn to other than a respected
Harvard professor, who would understand the technical aspects, and who he may actually
already have known and trusted?
Thus, we have America assassinating Iran's top military commander on Jan. 2nd and then
just a few weeks later large portions of the Iran's ruling elites became infected by a
mysterious and deadly new virus, with many of them soon dying as a consequence. Could any
rational individual possibly regard this as a mere coincidence?
An irresistible add-on like Larry Silverstein's extra insurance cover and payout.
One intriguing aspect of the situation was that almost from the first moment that
reports of the strange new epidemic in China reached the international media, a large and
orchestrated campaign had been launched on numerous websites and Social Media to identify
the cause as a Chinese bioweapon carelessly released in its own country.
Again similar to 9/11 with an instant media explanation trumpeted around the world (no
investigation necessary).
It therefore appears that elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency were aware of the
deadly viral outbreak in Wuhan more than a month before any officials in the Chinese
government itself. Unless our intelligence agencies have pioneered the technology of
precognition, I think this may have happened for the same reason that arsonists have the
earliest knowledge of future fires.
Agreed – they really messed it up – and it would be a world class irony if it
was their own virus that wrecks the US economy.
The Chinese embassy in Serbia is an interesting side story. However, as much as I disagreed
with why we were there, another Clinton abuse of office, China was apparently participating
as a combatant providing crucial signals support to the Serbian military. Topped off by
handling sensitive F117 residuals that we wanted destroyed. Or perhaps only some of US, given
various conflicts of interests in both Clinton globalism and sharing/planned obsolescence by
arms makers .
CV19
The "US did it" is a possibility that certainly should be addressed in the continuum of many
possibilities. I certainly would look for linkages between BHO
administration/Gates/academia/DeepGreen/China. China certainly does not act innocent,
covering up the early patients' stories and physical evidence a la our JFK scale.
As for US incompetence, the globalist media favors CCP; liberalism; Big Tech; Big
Medicine; the Democratic Party; along with the O/Clintonista FDA and CDC, have done
everything possible to hamstring accurate CV19 information amongst the citizenry, and
specifically against Trump. Huge TDS.
Months of near total shutdown on IV vitamin C, bowel tolerance dosing of vitamin C, high
dose vitamin D, quercetin and orthomolecular cocktails for prophylaxis and treatment. As well
as censorship and savage attacks on people trying to evolve the HCQ+AZM+zinc cocktail.
Prof Lieber's greatest "crime" is probably because he is responsible for saving untold
numbers of potential infectees, at least in the early stages https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2004/10/sensor-detects-identifies-single-viruses/
ie his work on virus detection & identification is why the Chinese government was able to
deal with the pandemic so quickly & effectively.
A bioweapon does Not have to have a high bodycount to work as intended; weapons of mass
destruction – even nukes (despite western brainwashing that they "ended WWII") –
have very few military applications and primarily target civilians.
Their main effect is disruption & demoralisation; in this Covid-19 has succeeded beyond
possible expectations.
The USA has patents for coronaviruses going back to 2003, post-SARS: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7220852B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10130701B2/en https://patents.justia.com/patent/10130701
Whilst these are Not the Covid-19 variant, it goes to show that they can indeed be
vat-grown.
Even should the current coronavirus be a natural mutation, it can still be weaponised.
Many of the most fearsome pathogens such as smallpox, anthrax and the bubonic plague are also
natural-born killers. Supposedly they have been eradicated from the face of the planet,
safely existing only in military laboratories around the globe, for research purposes of
course.
The circumstantial evidence that Cov19 is a bioattack is enormous, and the likelihood of
US origin is pretty damning. The US government will be desperate to point fingers everywhere
else, and is using the tried&tested trial by media +obfuscation, rather than logic and
reasoning.
If hard proof of US culpability manifests then the appropriate level of China's response will
be "nuclear" (I don't mean actual nukes, but something like dumping US treasury bonds).
Meanwhile, the disease naturally leaks back into the US
How?
Is there specific information tracing this "leak" to China?
Is it possible -- is it even conceivable -- that the same logic that you detailed to tip
the scales in favor of US biowarfare against China can also suggest that the bioweapon did
not "naturally leak" into the US but was deliberately deployed against the people of the
United States?
Follow the money: the goal of (speculated) biowar against China was, as you wrote,
not to kill but to economically devastate a formidable competitor-turned-adversary (same
thing the US has been doing to Iran by sanctions since at least 1995 with Clinton's executive
order, made permanent by the D'Amato Iran Libya Sanctions Act).
The goal of biowar against the people of the USA is to cripple the economy, to Weimarize
American commerce and enable those left standing to scoop up the life's work and investment
of millions of entrepreneurs for pennies on the dollar, with the added travesty that those
left standing are supplied with dollars by the very taxpayers whose assets are being
snapped up!
The Chinese government lied and continues to lie about the virus.
The Wuhan leadership knew in mid December and arrested doctors who leaked the info and
destroyed lab records.
Xi likely knew no later than January 1.
There are thousands of wet markets in southern China and SE Asia, but only the one a short
walk from the Wuhan Institute of Virology allegedly was the source.
Chinese researchers worked in America to develop this exact virus, adding HIV to SARS, and
left in 2015 to work in Wuhan.
Chinese national was arrested in 2018 in Detroit while carrying live SARS and MERS
viruses.
Chinese scientists working in Canada were kicked out in 2019 for shipping stolen
biological material to Wuhan.
It was developed in the lab, but I suspect the release was accidental. The cover up and
letting the virus spread around the world was intentional.
Xi is fighting to maintain power. He might not succeed
The US government did fund the research of those Chinese researchers at UNC. They
continued to fund them in China.
China's economy had already stalled. Then it lost the trade war. Banks were failing.
Foreign companies were moving out. Xi used the opportunity of the virus to avoid the disaster
of economic collapse and to hurt the rest of the world after the Century of Humiliation,
China would rather take the rest of the world down rather than go down alone.
Although nearby East Asian nations such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore had
been at greatest risk and were among the first infected, their competent and energetic
responses .
Japan's reaction to the Corona virus is/was not competent and energetic, unless you want
to count the way how the Japanese government dealt with the cruise ship 'Diamond Princess' as
a resounding success. Send army recruits without protection to the ship, start with 10
patients, quarantine the entire ship, end up with 765 infected individuals, and then send
people [tourists] home. I live on one of the 4 big islands and there is no lock down here.
Below is a picture I took just now [what they refer to as a Junior High School], Tuesday, 21
April, 2020 ~16:00 P.M. fro the window of my apartment.
Judge for yourself.
No masks. No distance. No governmental guidance. Japan is run by bureaucrats and it
shows.
Thanks for the article. It was a pleasure to read.
According to this reconstruction, the Chinese government first became aware of the
seriousness of this public health crisis on Jan. 14th, but delayed taking any major action
until Jan. 20th, a period of time during which the number of infections greatly
multiplied.
This also fits in with an alternative explanation, which is admittedly wild but which I
would say is considerably less wild than the bioweapon-blowback theory:
J.Ross has proposed [ ] this whole thing may be a Chinese Communist Party 'Hoax,' in the
sense that while the 'new' virus is real (there are always 'new viruses'), the reaction was
at least 1000x what was necessary to deal with a bad flu strain and that China played it up
to scare people, especially the US. China's actions (mass shutdown) triggered a series of
events that scared everyone. But none of the data we have corroborate the Mass Killer
Apocalypse Virus fears. So what was this?
[MORE]
[This] theory would have it that the CCP's sudden about-face on The New Virus -- a
literally overnight about-face [Jan. 20] from "not a big deal" to "shut down a region with
60 million people, cue the Virus Apocalypse Movie film reels and the hazmat suits" -- was a
calculated bid to hurt the US and to hurt Western economies. By the time of the unexpected
about-face, they had 100% certainty it had spread to the US and elsewhere, AND that these
countries had the kind of media that would go into hysteria mode AND had the technological
capacity to do "testing."
This theory would attribute to the CCP a calculated bid to create a false virus panic
with plausible deniability ("so sorry! we didn't have the data! it was early; we reacted
the best we could; and hey even the highly-neutral WHO are calling us heroes") which would
scare people and trigger a series of events that throw the US and its satellites in Western
Europe into chaos, making the latter easier pickings for Belt & Road and Huawi
colonization, etc.; countries dazed by a mass-hysteria-recession are suddenly beggars, not
choosers.
The Chinese Communist Party's calculation would have been, on that fateful 'about-face'
evening, that the West was much less ready to handle a panic than Communist China would be.
It was a risk to them but it worked.
If this theory is right, in fact, the CCP succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. A case
of the dog finally catching the car bumper; what the heck now? The results for China's
regime itself are unclear, given that the cynical triggering of mass-hysteria-recessions in
major trading partners equates to a drought that sinks all boats.
The alternative, and many would say more plausible theory, is that the Chinese Communist
Party panicked, too, and reacted highly irrationally, taking a sledgehammer to a handful of
mosquitoes and then salting the earth where the flattened bodies of the mosquitoes landed.
Or a synthesis of the two may be true. It's hard to disentangle motivations. But the
unexplained 'about-face' is real and needs explanation.
In the end, does it matter? Even if we take the more innocuous version at face value: the
virus had nothing to do with bioweapons and simply mutated naturally from bats to humans, the
response of the West has been utterly atrocious either way.
We're now seeing a Yellow Peril 2.0 campaign ramped up at astonishing speed. The so-called
"liberal class", posturing as tolerant and sophisticated, is now trying to run on Trump's
right flank on China. Joe Biden's campaign ads on China are Cold War-style cariactures.
I've been seeing the consequences play out even in neutral places. I frequent quite a few
technology-related subreddits and the unmitigated hatred of China is truly a sight to be
hold. Even the most tangential topics get hijacked by zealots. For all the talk about how the
media's power is supposedly dimishing, the cattle is still very much influenced by what the
MSM tells them to think.
I hope Unz can syndicate some stories from The Grayzone, which I find to be the only
publication on the left which isn't in thrall with the DNC. Even Democracy Now! and Jacobin
are pushing state department scare stories on China. The total collapse of the American left
over the last 10-15 years is a greatly undertold story.
The alleged report by National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI) is the most damning
piece of evidence if the report does exist. Here is the official denial:
"As a matter of practice, the National Center for Medical Intelligence does not comment
publicly on specific intelligence matters," Day said. "However, in the interest of
transparency during this current public health crisis, we can confirm that media reporting
about the existence/release of a National Center for Medical Intelligence
Coronavirus-related product/assessment in November of 2019 is not correct. No such NCMI
product exists."
So we are in the "Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied."
territory.
What is important is not that Channel 12 (in Israel) followed the ABC article but that it
added an extra bit of information which was not in the original ABC article that the report
was passed to Israel and that the IDF held a first discussion about it still in November.
Fooling some ABC reporter by offering her Trump damaging leak that Trump knew but did
nothing could be easy but getting a confirmation from Israel where presumably sources in the
IDF had to be involved it does not seem as a simple get Trump operation.
I don't think people understand the extent of collaboration between US and China including
Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) , It actually goes back to the early 1980's with
cooperation between USAMIID and WIV on Hanta Viruses. More recently extensive collaboration
between China and US on gain of function studies and virus hunting, especially with corona
viruses from bats. Ralph Baric UNC and Shih Zhengli from Wuhan have published papers together
. Funding of joint studies from USAMIID, NIAID, DARPA. NIH, etc. George Gao the Director of
Chinese CDC participated in the Event 201 simulation. There are many more ties. Google Wuhan
Biolake -a lot of global biotech companies there.
I dont think anyone can know the extent of the disease in China. After all a super
spreading virus from as early as November circulating in heavily polluted Wuhan, a city more
populated than NYC , which was also a major domestic and international transportation hub
with millions leaving the city for other destinations in China and internationally in the
weeks before Wuhan was locked down just before the New Year when everything shuts down for 2
weeks anyways. And yet the disease only spreads to Europe and US but not to any degree
outside Hubei province? Not believable.
And as for US deaths from COVID-19 being undercounted. Where is the evidence for that. CDC
has basically informed everyone to count a case as COVID based on suspicions (no positive
test needed). If a heart disease patient of 80 years old has a heart attack while also having
pneumonia its COVID-19. And those tests, they haven't been validated. There are many
different tests. We don't know the specificity of any of them. Very likely there are many
false positives. Also if a hospital can collect more money from medicare with a covid-19
diagnosis, guess whats going to be diagnosed more often.
So I am skeptical.
Now 30,000 deaths attributed to covid in 2 weeks is a lot. In a normal 2 week period there
would be 110,000 total deaths. So have there been 140,000 deaths in total, or just 110, 000
deaths with 30, 000 called Covid deaths? I dont know.
I actually expect more deaths than normal even without covid. Suicides. More deaths from
heart attacks and stroke due to financial stress and people delaying treatment out of fear of
getting the virus. More cancer deaths for same reason. Increased alcoholism and obesity
should trigger more deaths in the next few months.
One has to consider this an event on an international scale on a par with 9/11 in
magnitude and impact on freedoms. Curious how WHO declares pandemic on 3/11. Coincidence I
guess.
Lot of players in the Virus Industrial Complex stand to make a lot of money in coming
years as a result. The Globalists will push through digital ID and mandatory vaccination for
international travelers if not everyone and the Global Health Security Alliance (GHSA) will
be strengthened. The right will get tighter immigration controls and more bailouts for Big
Business. The left gets a taste of universal income and perhaps medicare for all (2009
pandemic helped get Obamacare approved). And the technocrats will get more toys for the
Surveillance and Tracking Industry with Big Data monitoring all the chipped individuals
health among other things. Cashless society to minimize virus spread pushed through so all
transactions can be logged. Everyone wins but the little guy.
And you can bet the Greenies will capitalize on this
Since the Virus Industrial Complex took over the Public Health Agencies in the 1970's we
have had endless Virus Scares, Swine Flu in 1976, Hepatitis B (1978) , AIDS in 1980,
MS-ME/CFS outbreaks (1984), HPV/Cervical Cancer (1984), HHV-6 (1986) , SARS (2003) , Bird Flu
(2005), Swine Flu (2009) , MERs (2012) Zika (2014) Measles (2014) Ebola (2015) and now
COVID-2019
See a pattern here?
We got virus finders/makers in academia and security /military agencies in the interest of
biowarfare defense and science working with vaccine and drug companies who receive funds to
develop treatments for these newly found/made viruses, in some cases before any human has
been infected. Reminds me of the time when those working for anti-virus software companies
were suspected of generating computer viruses to sell more software and be fastest to provide
the patch (since they created the virus). In any case, certainly a lot of interlocking
conflict of interests among members of the Virus Industrial Complex.
The United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) of Ft.
Detrick fame has been partnered with the Wuhan Virlogy Lab since 1981. The Wuhan Lab has also
been partnered with college basketball powerhouse Duke University. Check out the Lab's
website. This facilityis a diagnostic lab not a bioweapons lab. The USA has bioweapons labs
located on the Chinese and Russian borders in Kazakhstan. Oh what a tangled web we weave .
I just want to say that we need to distinguish between conspiracy theory and conspiracy
hypothesis.
The out of Wuhan lab is a conspiracy hypothesis, or much closer to it. There is no
plausible benefit to the Chinese, and saying 'a disgruntled employee may have dun it to get
at dem dictators' is just speculation in the sky.
On the other hand the anectodal evidence for it being US action – the obvious
benefit, the time and place of the outbreak, the military games team, the precognition, as
well as how the CDC is not tracing patient zero in the US (if it was in China in Nov, surely
it could have been in the US then too, and then the whole propaganda story falls apart)..
Even the US crying wolf again, after so many times, is almost enough for me.
They are all anecdotal of course, but perfectly in line with the MO and historical
practice of the US government.
I now thank my friends when they call me a conspiracy theorist loon, as I point out that
Russiagate, Skripal, and so many of the government lines are pure conspiracy hypotheses
– one step further away from Kansas than my take!
Thanks for this first attempt to dig through the growing tale of corona. However, as we are
still in the fog of war, there can be no more then a preliminary assessment.
My take is still that Corona is far less of a threat then commonly believed, and that it
has been deliberately saddled with diverse agendas, so in any countries the leadership have
no interest in telling the truth.
1) I think there is sufficient proof that need not be repeated, and
2) it is better for everyones' mental health not to believe in killer viruses that force us
to abdicate even our most basic freedoms.
I believe that either a) the Chinese leadership thought that they were being attacked and
undertook their lockdown in good faith, or b) they played an outright GAMBIT to force western
countries into their own, more economically damaging lockdowns. The clue would be that China
is so strong that it can weather the blow, while Europe and to a lesser extend the US
cannot.
The director of the Chinese CDC, Dr Gao was part of Event 201 and studied in Oxford. Are
there dual loyalties in China? And then, in which direction?
Possibly, something minor was indeed released as a bioweapon, before, calculably, western
government incompetence and hysteria took over. I also believe that Israel used corona as a
screen for biowarfare-targeted killings in Iran, whose case is definitely a story apart.
The Russian lockdown can be explained by the serious assumption that if they did not lock
down they would be accused as the authors of a biowarfare attack on the US. At this point,
antirussian hostility in the West is so severe that they had to comply!
The coordinated actions across opposed political systems CAN be explained, and it does not
take a nutter to do it.
The majority of the American public still believe that a small group of Islamic
fundamentalists wielding only box cutters atomized the World Trade Center into dust –
in a cartoonish act of sorcery. If the lie is so big it has to become believable
– that amount of cognitive dissonance is simply just too much to bear. An already duped
population of such magnitude doesn't have much of a chance of coming out of this kind of
stupor, especially under the bubble of the most powerful propaganda machine in the history of
propaganda, therefore, I don't think this story is going to go anywhere.
Hi Ron! Your article for me is a breath of fresh air! Amidst what you accurately call the fog
of war it has been very hard to discern precisely what is going on in regards to this virus
situation. It's been extremely difficult to assert the "truth" or the "red pill" as some call
it when it comes to this pandemic. For that reason in fact, I would caution everyone that
cares about having a well calibrated "perception" sensor to tread with extreme caution when
it comes to this topic, as there isn't nearly enough evidence in any direction to assume one
theory over another. Faithfully adopting any one theory at the moment can only lead you to
become the equivalent of a 9/11 truther (the kind that obsesses about missiles, physics,
instead of the paper trail leading directly to Israel and Saudi Arabia).
Having said that there are just too many statistical improbabilities to simply brush aside
the Bioweapon possibility. I know quite a few influential figures in the alternative media
have unequivocally rejected all Bioweapon theories (specially the theory that the US/Israel
could ever conspire to spread a bioweapon) which is why I am very glad to see someone of your
Intellectual authority provide a credible well thought-out case supporting this increasingly
unpopular position (even in alternative circles). I get it, there is ZERO evidence to show
the US/Israel or even China are behind covid-19. But there is equally ZERO evidence to
support the official story (which is completely ridiculous until they provide more details)
about the guy that supposedly ate the covid bat.
With that disclaimer I will freely speculate below but keep in mind this is all
conjecture:
1. Anyone that claims is "impossible" for the US to let lose a bioweapon that would
destroy the US economy and kill Americans for the sake of hurting their "perceived" enemies
more needs to seriously examine EVERYTHING we know about the rulers of the American empire.
The first obvious question is who exactly rules the American empire? Are they righteous
rulers that make decisions based on what is best for the American people? The answer to this
question is a clear and resounding NO. The rulers of America follow a religion that states
anyone that is not part of their tribe is "cattle" and dispensable. On this grounds alone the
Rulers of America would have very little issue releasing a virus that kills (mostly) "cattle"
Americans. And then comes to "why would they tank their own economy" objection. To this
objection I'll simply point out that AMERICA IS RULED through financial coercion. A crisis is
very good for the rulers of America because they get to FURTHER consolidate their power over
America. Gaining more power over America, hurting your geopolitical rivals and ultimately
using the panic and confusion to pass draconian and more authoritarian rules are all
INCENTIVES for American elites to release a bioweapon.
Lastly, to everyone that says it's impossible for the American elites to tank their
economy and/or kill Americans in order to achieve a political objective has forgotten about
9/11! Our current rulers in Tel-Aviv paid a few saudi mercenaries to fly two airplanes into
the twin towers to kill a few thousands of people in order to go to war! Of course the
atrocity does not end there. A lot more Americans died as consequence of 9/11, even more were
affected economically and even a lot more lost civil liberties and standing in American
society. Right then and there you have a blatant and relatively recent event that almost word
for word matches the consequences of this virus. Considering this as a possible escalation of
tactics by the US/Israel against their enemies is a possibility. The US did drop the nuke of
an innocent, already defeated enemy. What makes anyone so sure this is beyond their "moral
code"
2.China decides to strongly stick by Iran, suddenly the Hong Kong protest springs out of
control, 50 percent of their pork is wiped out by a weird disease and now of course, the
mother of all "unforeseen" events kick starts a cascade of negative consequences for
China.
This is by far the most alarming set of "coincidences" of all. I remember last year
reading the Iran-China saga, as the Chinese refused to stop buying Iranian oil even as Japan
stopped buying oil after a Japanese tanker "coincidentally" was hit by a bomb in the Persian
gulf. Soon enough (if I am recalling correctly) a strange disease wipes out 50% of Chinese
pork causing possible food insecurity. Then came the Hong Kong riots that although started
for very legit reasons by the people of Hong Kong, soon enough had full on CIA spooks
speaking in the US congress, attacking people on the streets of Hong Kong! Lastly against all
odds these horrible events are somewhat weathered China and suddenly we have a pandemic that
not only damages China in the world stage, but serves as the perfect excuse to possibly
sanction, attack and possibly destabilize china.
Maybe I am completely paranoid or skeptical, but what are the chances of such a string of
events? Is there some data I am not privy to that can explain some of these coincidences? Is
there something to Chinese cultural norms that could explain these strange viruses literally
wrecking their economy and political stability? What are the chances all of these viruses
occur in a very short period and their severity and consequences directly correlated to
China's defiance of US orthodoxy on Iran/US hegemony?
Unlike some people here, I do not share the opinion that the Chinese government is some
sort of Angel or ideological ally. They are a government that ultimately acts on it's
interests and it's full of flaws (including exerting degrees of tyranny on their own people).
Having said that you don't have to be a communist to notice how strange this sequence of
events truly is. Bad things keep happening to China as it opposes US Hegemony. It might even
be statistically impossible for some of these things to happen by "chance", but maybe China
is just really unlucky, right?
But I do think that a careful exploration of previous Sino-American clashes over the
last couple of decades may provide some useful insight into the relative credibility of
those two governments as well as that of our own media.
During the Korean war, China used their Cats Paw North to invade the South then the
Chinese army intervened under the pretense of being volunteers. Although Chinese ground
troops were not directly involved, Vietnam was otherwise a rerun of Korea with China not only
defeating the US but forcing it to cease isolating China. Carter issued a presidential order
for officials to aid Chinese growth., and within a few decades as the internal unrest Western
pundits predicted failed to amount to much, it became obvious that China's growth was at the
expense of the workers of the US made jobless and suffering deaths of despair not least by
illegal synthetic opioids from China. But then, by the begining of new millennium all
manufacturing was in China, including the burgeoning fortunes of the already wealthy, who
rose on a high tide of inequality. If history was any guide a new Gilded Age must end with a
visit from the Four Horsemen. Pressaged by the appearance of the SARS-CoV virus eighteen
years before, SARS-CoV-2 appears likely to end China's run of successes, because of the
disruption it has caused to the US.
"The closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2 is a bat virus named RaTG13, "However, RaTG13
was sampled from a different province of China (Yunnan) to where COVID-19 first appeared
and the level of genome sequence divergence between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 is equivalent to
an average of 50 years (and at least 20 years) of evolutionary change."
The important thing about the SARS-CoV-2 virus is not its lethality, which is about an
order of magnitude less than the original SARS-CoV of 2002, but rather SARS-CoV-2's extreme
transmissibility which is two orders of magnitude greater than its predecessor's. Anthony
Fauci warned the incoming US government administration in January 2017 of a newly mutated
coronavirus with extreme transmissibility and, apart from the greatly reduced lethality of
the massively more contagious SARS-CoV-2 virus, that is exactly what happened.
Unlike other nations, China had had no advance warning of the nature or existence of the
deadly new disease, and therefore faced unique obstacles.
They had the WHO and Fauci's public statements. Much more usefully China had the 2002
epidemic, caused by SARS-CoV which originated in China that year. In Singapore, there were
238 cases and 33 deaths from the SARS outbreak, in 2015 the worlds largest MERS-CoV outbreak
occurred in South Korea, and only the other year Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said it was
only a matter of time before Singapore had its first MERS-CoV case, so they had to be well
prepared. These countries were all set up and waiting to eradicate a disease just like
COVID-19.
A decision by elements of our national security establishment to wage biological warfare
in hopes of maintaining American world power would certainly have been an extremely
reckless act
Excuse me? With the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus having a puny death rate yet
colossal infectiousness a centralised authoritarian state like China would be relatively
speaking best able to suppress it. A bioweapon would be tested on Whites as well as Chinese
before being released. There is no way in Hell that they would not understand that releasing
the SARS-CoV-2 virus in China would result in it sweeping through the US.
If an "out-of-control disease epidemic occurring in the Wuhan area" back in November 2019 was
the same corona virus, then toss the idea it was intentionally timed to mess with the Chinese
New Year in 2020. But then figure the deaths in China have been greatly under reported.
Furthermore, China may well have allowed carriers to travel abroad, especially to USA once
the outbreak was well under way.
However, as regards the whole biocrime aspect of the corona virus pandemic we really
cannot rely much on either US government/media or the Chinese. And if it was a bioweapon, who
among "us" would be so keen to target Iran where over ten percent of their parliament got
sick very early on? That is an Israel First kind of agenda. Or maybe it was Japan? Good
investigators keep an open mind.
Note (This is not a subject change) Over the last several decades the American public
health system has regularly failed to adequately warn our citizens about the causes and risks
of numerous epidemics that have claimed many millions of lives. Or were all sugar drenched
foods advertised as "Fat Free" really a "healthy choice"? So I do not quite understand why
Ron Unz considers the corona virus the one instance of stellar government incompetence, as if
to imply the current lock down has not nearly severe enough?!? Thank god he did not invoke
the party line panacea of the Gates vaccine!
Meanwhile, what about Kushner's fast tracking mass surveillance? Will it only be
temporary? Will it only be used for containing CV19? Ha. Let's all step in the van with the
nice man who will give us a teddy bear
On top of this alleged biocrime, examples are abounding where the opportunists are eager
to grab more power, and make killings of a sort, not least of which are the banks, Wall
Street and the war mongers.
Remember, the farther the tide goes out, bigger the tsunami that charges back in.
I don't buy it. If the US was going to go to the extreme length of releasing a highly
contagious virus into the territory of its new Deep State certified arch-enemy China, the
risk of contagioning yourself is extremely high. Especially with global trade and travel as
it is these days. Preparations would have been made in advance to make sure it would not blow
back by putting appropriate people and methods in place. Its too easy to blame incompetence
for this oversight.
If you're looking for plotters, look no further than Wall St. They are making out like
bandits in the latest bailout.
@dimples Unless of course the blow back is a feature and not a bug, which it must be
admitted, it usually is. If the US economy takes an enormous hit due to blow back, which it
has, then China is set up as the next ultra-bad guy to replace Russia, Russia Russia!. It
then becomes the new fixation of the Deep State's wet dreams, a new Cold War where plenty of
money goes down the toilet into the MIC's pockets and plenty of opportunity for the heroic
Special Ops types to keep the Hollywood grist mill grinding.
The original source went to great lengths to make it clear a massacre did in fact occur
that night/morning, only it was taking place in other areas of Beijing and the victims were
mostly protesting workers, not students. (At least 300 of them, by Chinese official figures.)
A person reading Unz's summary will come out believing this did not take place, although the
Chinese themselves don't really deny it did.
@dimples This is a reasonable view in my opinion. If you look at previous US false flag
events, they come at periods when new directions are needed to perpetuate the US war
machine's supposed usefulness. The 1990 Gulf War was clearly a set up that came just as the
old Cold War was ending and prepared the way for 911 and the Iraq War, which capitalized on
the US bases that had been set up during the Gulf War.
Currently the Russia, Russia Russia! narrative is petering out. The US Deep State wants to
perpetuate it but the Euros don't really want a war with Russia, a huge market for them. So
continuation of Russia Russia Russia! risks a split with the Euros.
But China, a nice new up and coming enemy there. Yum yum. So Covid-19 could be a US false
flag effort in that direction it has to be admitted. Damage to US economy? Who cares, the
Deep State doesn't. Its immune, rolling as it does in government loot.
My issue with the 'it's not china's fault"argument revolves around the secrecy in the
beginning. And then the arrests of those sounding the alarm inside China. One would think
that if this was from elsewhere the CCP would be screeching bloody murder from day one NOT
trying to downplay it and outright lie about it. Didn't China use the same playbook with
SARS? Silence and then misdirection.
The actual number is 43000 dead Americans. The China narrative lacks hard evidence. There is
mounting evidence that COVID-19 pandemic originated in the U.S. and may have been a terror
attack perpetuated by the U.S., which is pursuing a massive expansion of biological weapons
program. According to scholar Kevin Barrett: "It also may be a coincidence that the primary
U.S. bioweapons lab, Fort Detrick, was shut down in summer 2019 over fears that weaponized
pathogens might escape. It may be a coincidence that absurdly under-performing U.S. military
athletes came to Wuhan for the World Military Games in October and have since been accused by
China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs of being the source of the COVID-19 pandemic. It may be a
coincidence that at the same time those 'athletes' were in Wuhan, the World Economic Forum,
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Johnson & Johnson, and other Establishment titans
were hosting a pandemic simulation called Event 201".
Furthermore, "It may be purely coincidental that the virus appeared in Wuhan, home of
China's biggest biodefense laboratory, and China's biggest transportation hub, just in time
for the Chinese New Year, when most Chinese travel to visit relatives. Likewise, it could be
coincidental that the real-life COVID-19 pandemic almost perfectly mimics Lockstep, the
Rockefeller Foundation's recipe for a global police state emerging on the back of a
coronavirus-style pandemic", added Kevin Barrett. The U.S. regime unleashed this disease on
the world, and the U.S. regime has to be held accountable.
Your suspicions on this matter echo my own. I remember the Russian Government warning a
few years back that Western NGO's inside Russia had been discovered to be collecting DNA
samples of Russian citizens and that it was the opinion of the Russian Intelligence Services
that this information was being collected ny Western Intelligence Services for the purpose of
future biological warfare. When this outbreak in China made international news I remembered
the warning from the Russian Government. Then came the outbreak in Iran that killed many
Iranian political figures. Quite a damned coincidence if there ever was one?
If you ever run for state or national office and are on the ballot (or not) herr in
California you have my vote.
Look at a very partial list of the Chinese history of lying, almost by habit, just
in the last two decades alone!
China lied in 1999 about "massacres" committed by Serbia and bombed Belgrade to set up the
narcomafia organ-smuggling so called state of "Kosovo".
China lied about Saddam Hussein having WMDs and invaded Iraq in 2003.
China lied about "imminent massacres" and "Viagra rape" in Libya in 2011, and deliberately
misused a UN Security Council resolution to bomb and destroy that country and hand it over to
slave trading jihadi headchopper gangs.
China lied about Syria using chemical weapons from 2013 onwards, armed and trained and
financed terrorist gangs, conducted missile strikes on the country, and continues to occupy
and steal oil from East Syria.
China organised a blatant Nazi coup in Ukraine in 2014 and lied about it being a "popular
democratic revolution".
China murdered Iran's top general Qassem Soleimani in 2020 and lied about him being about
to conduct terrorist attacks when he was actually on a peace mission.
With just this partial list of Chinese lies in the last two decades alone, who would
believe anything China has to say?!?!?
Interesting article.
Especially, interesting for me, the aggressive arrest of a Harvard Prof' of chemistry for
technical irregularities in Grant paperwork, coincidentally at the time the virus emerges.
(we assume he personally wrote up those applications ? Imagine if everyone who had
written up a Grant application, which contained an error or two, in the US were to be dragged
off in chains by the FBI ? )
And also interesting the Belgrade Chinese embassy attack -- Mr Unz's materials put it in a
totally new perspective for me.
I suspect US gov been planning this attack for years. SARS outbreak in 2003, I suspect, was a
test, to test Chinese gov's response to bio attack. Note that SARS virus and the current
covid-19 virus aren't that different to be considered different viruses, hence covid-19 also
known as SARS-2. But the difference, SARS-1 had "kill switch", it wouldn't be able to infect
humans after a while.
During 2003 SARS, China acted swiftly causing the virus to be contained within China and
according to US gov simulation, covid-19 should've been the same, contained within China. But
China didn't act as swiftly as expected, causing the virus leaking back to US, this is why US
gov is furious, had China acted earlier, the virus wouldn't travel back to US.
The killing of Iranian general, it wasn't act of recklessness, it was diversion, so that
the Iran gov would be occupied by it while ignoring coronavirus spreading silently in their
country.
Ron, my friend (sort of), if you think you have trouble now what with COVID-1, impending
national bankruptcy, and a general flow of information that seems to have been some of the
most creative fiction in our lives, just wait until you manage to invite China into US civil
disputes. Our present difficulties are as nothing compared difficulties subsequent to direct
Chinese involvement in civil matters.
Historically, third party intervention quite often leads to foreign domination. Examples: US
in Afghanistan, US in Iraq (twice). Both time, native citizens thought it a great idea to
invite the US in.
And why do I say this? Well, you're presenting China as morally wronged. In your frame of
reference, that's an absolute, more important than anything else. But it's not the only
interpretation. Perhaps China committed an act of war by giving tactical help to the Serbs.
Perhaps that violation became severe when China gathered F117A wreckage. Perhaps China is
lucky that bombing the embassy was all that happened, and we are all lucky that things did
not escalate. This is actually less of a fantasy than your account, which is at best a bit
one sided, almost a "point and sputter".
In the US, such accounts are the precursor to advocacy. You should consider carefully the
consequences of advocacy in this case.
While I think the first part of the article is very interesting, and I acknowledge the
theoretical benefits that could exist from the US using COVID as a bioweapon, I find the
argument unpersuasive for the following reasons:
Obvious blowback : If the US infected China with a highly spreadable disease, why
did we not put in more aggressive measures to stop it from spreading in the US? Otherwise,
what's the point of hurting your enemy if you also get hurt? If the US was going to attack
China with a bioweapon, why would they not engineer a genetic/ethnic bioweapon that targeted
Han Chinese, as oppose one that could also kill everyone? Seeing the economic damage this has
done to us, it seems unlikely that such a contagious weapon would be the one an actor would
pick, as it would risk damaging their own homeland.
China has always been a hotbed of disease : A third of China's history has them
facing an epidemic of some sort. The 1957 "Asian flu" , 1968 "Hong Kong flu" and 1977
"Russian flu" all started in China. The black death probably started in China. Seems far more
likely that recent disease outbreaks are part of a historic trend, or gross Chinese
conditions, rather than a bioweapon attack.
On April 11, 2020, Gilad Atzmon published here an excellent article titled "A Viral Pandemic
or A Crime Scene?", in which he suggests circumstances have now created 'a paradigm change'
in the perception of the current viral pandemic.
He states: "Since we do not know its provenance, we should treat the current epidemic as a
potentially criminal act as well as a medical event. We must begin the search for the
perpetrators who may be at the centre of this possible crime of global genocidal
proportions." I concur.
All Americans (and others) who believe in China's culpability for the emergence of this
virus, should welcome such an investigation. And Mr. Pompeo, who so firmly plants the full
responsibility on China's doorstep, would receive vindication of his claims. I believe that
the governments and the people of China, Italy, Spain, France, and Iran, especially would
like to know the results of such a criminal investigation.
All nations of the world should band together now, and proceed jointly with this endeavor.
It needn't be approached with presumption of cause or intent, but simply to uncover the
entire truth of this event. That will be sufficient, and it is possible the results of this
worldwide investigation will prompt others into similar past events which have to date gone
unquestioned and unexamined.
I believe there are yet many truths about COVID-19 (and many other epidemics) still to
emerge. Perhaps one of the many people with personal knowledge of the source and method of
distribution will be sufficiently brave to come forward, perhaps another Edward Snowdon or
Chelsea Manning. We will then see how truly the US treasures its whistle-blowers.
**
The US needs to answer this question: HOW could US 'intelligence sources' possibly have
known in November – or even October – of a potential pandemic of COVID-19 that
would erupt – specifically in Wuhan – two months later? (Or that was already
erupting in Wuhan at the time, unbeknownst to the Chinese?). I believe the entire world would
demand the answer to this.
**
In early March the US government declared as classified all COVID-19 information, with all
communication to be rerouted through the White House and coordinated with NSC officials. Only
specified individuals with security clearance are permitted to attend secret meetings, with
no mobile phones or computers allowed. Excluded staff members claimed they were told virus
information was classified "because it had to do with China". The US needs to explain the
need for such extreme secrecy (while condemning China for lack of transparency), and how
coping with a domestic virus epidemic would involve China.
China, Italy, and several other nations in Asia and Europe have documented proof that
COVID-19 was circulating in their populations for several months before the outbreak in
Wuhan. And there are many, many reports, including from physicians, that infections in the US
were occurring as early as September, of 2019. These claims are too numerous, too detailed,
and too similar to be ignored. Japanese TV and press documented that Japanese tourists
returning from Hawaii were coming home infected with COVID-19 in September.
Why was Dr. Helen Chu issued a threatening "cease and desist" order to stop testing nasal
swabs her flu research team had taken in Washington State from October 2019 onward? The only
possible result would be to prevent the knowledge emerging that the virus had already been
circulating months earlier. As a rule, the reason we don't ask a question privately is
because we already know the answer, and the reason we don't ask the question publicly is
because we don't want anyone else to know the answer.
The US government needs to address the now-certain existence of the virus being widespread
in America and much of the world from September, 2019.
Your globalists and anti American tendencies come out in the first part and the last few
paragraphs of your piece. I didn't read most of the rest of your long winded article.
Bottom line, the Chinks infected the world whether by incompetence or deliberately. They then
intimidated the world with their economic might and with the help of their lackeys in the WHO
and the PC/shit lib elite in the West to keep the flow of infected people to keep coming into
the West. Italy is the tragic example but you can include the rest of the West including
America where that old bag Nancy Pe-lousy was celebrating in China Town in late February.
They, the PRC, should be made to pay reparations.
Not to dismiss Ron Unz's reasoning outright, but it has been claimed that the virus cannot be
the product of direct genomic manipulation.
That's barring any breakthrough in genomic manipulation techniques, a breakthrough that
would have to be kept secret. What these scientists have said is that publicly available
techniques would have left traces in the viruses genome. They claim that any such traces are
absent from the virus's genome.
If that holds up, then the only remaining possibility would be a virus that was bred. It
could have been bred by taking the bat virus and passing it through other types of animals,
selecting for increased virulence. It has been claimed that ferrets would fit the bill since
they have the same ACE2 receptor as humans. Ferrets are easy to handle under laboratory
conditions.
If the US deep state did something like this, then their reasoning would have to be on
what lines? "Let's take this virus that we have bred to dock very easily onto the human ACE2
receptor and set it loose on the Chinese. The virus will devastate them will they still be
able to contain it – so that there won't be too much blow back."
Maybe they misjudged the product of their virus enhancement effort. Still, it needs be
kept in mind what presuppositions have to be put in place for the blow back theory to
work.
I tend to doubt that Chinese leaders have any overwhelming commitment to the truth, and
the reasons for their greater veracity are probably practical ones.
Their reasons are extremely practical:
1. In the absence of national elections they are free to make realistic promises. Since
they have kept every promise they've made to date they have an investment in staying honest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_of_China
,
2. In the absence of factions like our Republicans and Democrats, there's no-one to blame
or pass the buck to, nor lie competitively, nor attack proposed or existing policies. There's
no 'them,' there's only 'us.'
3. The Chinese have always been willing to make sacrifices now for benefits later, which
incentivizes being honest up front.
4. Telling the truth is cheaper in the long run, which is one reason China has the
cheapest government on earth.
5. People are much more willing to cooperate with truth-tellers. Governing is infernally
difficult and being truthful makes it vastly easier.
6. Straight talk, especially from leaders, is attractive (Trump's appeal to his base is
that he occasionally blurts out something true). Asked on TV how it felt to be President, Xi
said, "People who have little experience with power–those who are far from
it–tend to regard politics as mysterious and exciting. But I look past the
superficialities, the power, the flowers, the glory, the applause. I see the detention
houses, the fickleness of human relationships. I understand politics on a deeper level."
Imagine an American politician talking like that.
7. Smart people tell the truth more often than dumb people. People out of their
intellectual and experiential depth, which our politicians usually are, tend to lie. The
average IQ of China's top 5,000 political leaders is 140 and all of them have 25 years
successful governing experience. They're professionals who are less likely to lie than your
brain surgeon.
@Otto von Komsmark I've read the Chinese are proud that they'll "eat everything under the
sun". China is a very old culture. People might have differing opinions, but I think it
strange that now we have all these cross-overs from the animal kingdom.
@animalogic I think it was Zero-hedge that said the professor lied about his Chinese
funding, making him in effect an agent of China. That's not some burocratic form error.
I think the article is a good summary but the author is also guilty of embellishment. For
example, he used the word "concerted" at least twice, when he has no proof of that.
Having grown up with in the University of Chicago South Side Chicago neighborhood , then
lived in racial, criminal, immigration anarchy New York City 1985-91
, I m rarely if ever surprised about national or international events. The seemingly
incomprehensible views and policies of American, diaspora, Neo Conservative, Hollywood,Wall
Street Jews makes sense in awful ways:
They hate us – want us replaced
Madeline Albright (How did this ugly woman from Central Europe get to be USA Secretary of
State? Why did she demand bombing the sh&$ out of the Serbs to creat a Muslim beach head
in Central Europe ? What is she ? Catholic? Episcopalian Christian? Oh she s Jewish again but
wants to convert to Islam to protest President Trump s proposed Muslim immigration plan).
I look at this Chinese Kung Flu Coronavirus and just note how sensible nationalist
governments/societies in Japan, Taiwan, Hungary, Slovakia and of course Israel handle it:
Strict, zero tolerance immigration, student visas from Coronavirus plague infected areas
– also no millions of Muslim young male migrants.
Pretty much no one in these sensible nationalist societies care if Jews at the SPLC, The
Atlantic Magazine, or National Review, CPAC or the Wall Street Journal scream that they
are:
RACISTS
FASCISTS
NAZIS
It s probably too late in my life to try to learn Hungarian or Japanese.
But I think I/we should all try to learn translations of :
"Shut up Jews"
"Support Israel the homeland of the Jews so go home"
Life isn t complicated .
It s the same with terrible Black AA ga g murders in my Chicago . same with TB, bubonic
plague heroin addicts street people in LA's Skid Row, Gypsy no go places in Romania or
France.
From Ron Unz's article linked above on the Canadian kidnapping of the Huawei billionaire's
daughter, Ron himself said something which points to the perhaps deeper truth here
In that piece our host Ron suggested that the clear best course for China, was to put the
squeeze on USA Jewish billionaire and political king-maker Sheldon Adelson, the big political
funder of Trump and US Republicans etc Adelson being the casino king of Macau who earns most
of his billions there under Chinese authority, Adelson being able to get the Huawei exec
released with just a phone call to Trump, if Chinese would just walk into Sheldon's casinos
and threaten shutdown
China never moved to touch Sheldon's businesses in China, and as I said at the time, this
is because of the deeper frightening truth, that the big powers tend to work together behind
the scenes, even whilst in public disputes, like high school football teams in rivalry
Chinese media accuse the US of creating a bio-weapon, US media accuses China of the same,
the classic rivalry of Orwell's 1984
Both governments share motives of culling pensioners as covid-19 does; distracting from
incipient collapse of excessive economic debt; establishing greater elite surveillance and
control; and enabling elites to buy and own ever larger sectors of global economic life; in
other words the classic 'NWO' of conspiracy talk.
Half a century ago, Antony Sutton proved that 1940s-1970s USA had been transmitting tech
to the old Soviet Union (often via Israel), to create the 'Best Enemy Money Can Buy' the Cold
War was essentially fake, and Putin came out of that, and continues trading favours with the
USA Putin doesn't question 9-11, USA doesn't question false flags in Chechnya etc
Sites like the 'Secret Life of Jews in China' show how European Jews were part of China's
Mao revolution, even becoming politburo members Chabad centres abound in China despite few
nominal Jews there, linking hotlines to Jared Kushner's Chabad centre in DC and 'Putin's
rabbi' Berel Lazar in Moscow
One has to go one level above the US vs China mudslinging, and consider it is all likely
as fake and staged as was US-Soviet rivalry China and the USA may well be working together on
covid
--
The idea that Covid-19 was a bio-weapon deployed in China by the US visitors to the late
2019 military games, was promoted early on by Veterans Today (VT) where Unz's Kevin Barrett
hails from. VT is a website widely-read by world governments, despite its partly kooky and
ridiculous articles about space aliens etc
Gordon Duff, co-chief of VT, said out loud in a radio interview – where he also
outed himself with a chuckle as a 'self-hating Jew' – that 30% of the material on his
site is intentionally false and ridiculous, as the price he must pay for publishing true
'intel drops' without getting shut down / murdered by the US gov't in intel-speak, this is
called 'poisoning the well', you publish the most damning truths on self-discrediting sites
like VT or David Icke, where the typical reader easily dismisses truth because it's published
next to articles about space alien lizards ruling planet earth
@Mustapha Mond Yes, what if the chief objective was not to hurt China by disrupting its
society and economy but to make the whole world angry with China. Ron Unz article is the
voice crying out in the desert which will not stop the tsunami of memes: WuFlu ,
China did it , China must pay for our sufferingWe must punish China.
that has been whipped up from the very beginning and only will be getting loader and
stronger.
Some of the things you list are to benefit the insiders. No little thing that could bring
profit will be left to chance. It is just like when World Trade Center being transferred from
Port Authority before 9/11. Was it critical to the operation? Could they get the terror event
if WTC was not owned by Larry Silverstein? Yes, they could but few extra bucks could have
been made with Larry Silverstein being the front man. Or just when American troops were
entering Bagdad, who and when organized special outfits who systematically were visiting
Bagdad museum and looting it according to the shopping list?
Ron Unz is underestimating their evil and abilities.
@Ozymandias If "they" were going to do such a thing, how would they go about it, and what
would have been their thinking?
Deliberately engineered biological agents can often be detected by careful analysis of the
pathogen's genome. Bioinformatic programs can detect odd sequences that shouldn't belong; the
chances of a purely natural explanation for the inclusion of some sequences are rare, for
instance. Let's say I wanted to create a super virus capable of destroying humanity. One
obvious way to do this would be to take viral sequences from certain dangerous pathogens and
combine them into one. That might do the job, but obviously there is a risk that comes along
with doing with that: current sequencing and bioinformatic techniques may quickly discover
such an act and invite retaliation by the victim. " That shouldn't be there! " If half
of China started dying of a mysterious virus composed of sequences from various unrelated
viruses, then obviously there is an attack underway because the chances of such elements
coming together in nature is very low, practically zero. A response would likely follow in
short order.
Is there a way around this? Maybe.
There are several odd things about Sars2 (Covid-19) that I haven't seen before: 1) it
spreads in contravention to how -- some -- previous viruses we've dealt with in recent memory
have spread. Specifically, there are a higher-than-expected number of cases are transmitted
before the patient become symptomatic with this virus. This is why initial airport screenings
failed to stop the virus from entering the United States, aside from lax screening*. In the
past, most of these viruses like MERS and SARS weren't particularly contagious when the
infected carriers were asymptomatic, so simply checking their body temperature with a
thermometer and following up with contact tracing was enough to stop the spread. 2) unlike
both SARS and MERS, this virus is remarkably contagious for a novel pathogen, even moreso
than the flu 3) this virus may have a very long asymptomatic phase, up to two weeks in some
people. One explanation is that something similar is true of other viruses that cause the
common cold and the flu but we haven't really noticed it before because those viruses are
comparatively less lethal. If you believe in a conspiracy, on the other hand, this would be a
feature deliberately engineered to ensure maximum transmission.
Elements of the conspiracy:
1. This outbreak happened just before Donald Trump's reelection campaign got underway and
during crucial trade negotiations. Maybe they wanted to put pressure on the Chinese
government to increase Trump's chances of getting reelected. His approval ratings according
to 538 have been stuck in the low to mid 40s for essentially his entire presidency. He needs
a consistent approval rating above 47% or so to ensure a high chance of reelection.
2. This happened just after a failed Hong Kong color revolution by youthful protestors.
Many of the signs held by protesters included the kinds of things a boomer FBI agent might
think would curry favor with the 4chan crowd -- pepe the frog, various slogans. It failed, in
part, because that crowd didn't buy it. Hong Kong protestors were relentlessly mocked on some
alt-right websites as morons wanting to deliver their people the "freedom" enjoyed by the
West: dozens of genders, speech laws, feminism The case of a Canadian waxing salon being
forced to wax a male-to-female transgendered person's genitals was prominently used to mock
Hong Kong protesters demanding Western freedom.
Conspiracy:
The CIA may have bred a virus to be easily transmissible but much less lethal than the
original SARS virus that made the headlines years ago. They may have expected the virus to
spread quickly in China and panic the Chinese population, undermining faith in the government
so the CIA could once again try to overthrow their rival. They never expected it to come back
on them.
If one were going to create a viral agent guaranteed to escape detection as an artificial
construction, one might do the following: take a known virus indigenous to the targeted area
and breed it in animals native to the area (bats) so that it spreads undetected until
symptoms present while having a traceable lineage when examined with bioinformatic software /
select it against human tissue samples in vitro so that in infects human cells easily.
The former technique might leave behind a tale tell signature: the virus has a long
incubation time within the host. Why? Well, some animals have lower resting body temperatures
than humans. This can affect which pathogens are able to infect them. Pathogens that have
evolved to replicate at one temperature may not replicate very well under another one.
Animals like opossums and hibernating bats are less likely to die from rabies infection, for
instance, because they have lower body temperatures, among other factors. Humans and dogs are
not so lucky because both have higher body temperatures where the virus can replicate more
easily. It's sort of strange how SARS2 (Covid-19) takes so long to clear in some patients --
up to two weeks or more. Maybe this occurs because, despite being able to easily infect human
cells, it replicates poorly at first because it is adapted to bats, which often have a lower
resting body temperature. Although, it is possible this could occur naturally as well.
The latter can be done by infecting cell cultures in dishes and examining which cultures
became infected and to what degree. This can be done by measuring viral titers -- dilute
extracted cell culture liquid, filter out cells and bacteria, apply diluted mixes to new
cultures, examine results, selected superior viral lines for continued manipulation. There
are lots of ways to set this up. Maybe you tag your viral proteins with a florescent protein
and examine after some period of time; the more virus that is being made, the stronger the
signal. Select that particular culture and continue.
Point: there are lots of ways to do this, some pretty simple (but probably expensive,
dangerous, and time-consuming nonetheless -- which is why dumb Middle Eastern terrorists
haven't tried it so far). The important thing is that such a set up would avoid including
obviously unnatural elements that could never be explained by random chance -- the inclusion
of sequences from other viruses, for example. This might come off looking natural, even if
remaining mysterious to the outside observer.
*The American government was warned about this virus but didn't take it seriously.
Explanation 1: Trump and his advisers are greedy imbeciles (more likely). Explanation 2: the
American government didn't expect this to be a big deal because they created it to be less
lethal than previous viruses, perhaps not understanding that a lower death rate over a larger
population would result in higher casualties (less likely).
Americans arriving at JFK from locked-down Italy are shocked by the lack of US
screening for coronavirus
1) Trump is a loudmouth and a braggart. If he knew ANYTHING about this, he probably would
have let it slip by now. Elements of the British government have had to restrict some
information they share with the Americans for fear that Trump would leak it to his friends
during his then regular discussions with people over unsecured lines. Would the CIA really do
something extraordinary like this without his knowledge?
Points in favor:
1) The UK, a country that often works with the Americans to do nefarious things, didn't
take this very seriously, either. They acted as if they didn't expect this to be a big deal.
Other countries that usually don't work that closely with US intelligence to the same degree,
have taken Covid-19 seriously even if they have failed to contain it. Although, this is
probably wrong. The nations that have dealt best with this are the ones that have had lots of
previous experience with similar viruses and whose populations are naturally more inclined to
work together.
2) The timing and location of the viral outbreak. Isn't Wuhan a major transportation
hub?
One thing I notice is how crisply written this is, compared to the very dense, plodding
style that characterizes much of his previous work
A very good overview of the situation and a thoughtful analysis of the finger pointing
that's going on
Regardless of whether the lock down measures have been an overreaction or not, most
reasonable people will realize that we may never know what might have been, had we not locked
down
Would the health system have been able to cope ?
What would happen when hospitals are overwhelmed by serious respiratory cases ?
China's very forceful reaction now looks absolutely brilliant
That extremely energetic reaction also hints that the Chinese leadership may have
suspected an attack
". ..the current accusations by Trump Administration officials that China had
attempted to minimize or conceal the serious nature of the disease outbreak is so ludicrous
as to defy rationality. "
This assertion is absolutely untrue, as most readers who have followed this story early on
will know. You conspicuously left out of your conspiratorial musings the news of the
"whistleblower" Wi Leniang, the 34-year old ophthalmologist who had worked at Wuhan Central
Hospital, and had already alerted his colleagues late last year about a suspicious viral
outbreak, for which he was subsequently arrested and punished by authorities. Millions of
people in China are familiar with his tragic story – he eventually died.
On January 9 the World Health Organization released the following press statement,
providing sufficient information that would have warranted or obliged the authorities to have
immediately closed the Wuhan airport and train station to prevent the contagious spread of
the virus to other regions of the world through unwittingly infected carriers.
Instead, authorities waited two entire weeks before closing the Wuhan airport, during
which time the virus spread inevitably to other countries through the many international
passenger flights. According to military game theory, such inaction would surely benefit
China, which could better deal with an outbreak, whereas most other countries would suffer
more severely in comparison. For this reason, regardless whether the release of the
presumably engineered virus was released intentionally or accidentally, the Chine government
is culpable for having allowed the pandemic to evolve. So at least in this particular case
the allegations of the Trump administration are correct.
Your narrative omitted these indisputable facts, which you then denigrated as " so
ludicrous as to defy rationality ", yet after a Communist Party meeting in mid-February,
some of those responsible for having minimized or concealed the serious nature of the
outbreak were officially "demoted" (received a slap on the wrist):
Those who praise China's alleged competence in the matter have a dilemma to deal with.
Either the authorities are competent, in which case they effectively waged biological warfare
against the rest of the world (using incompetence as plausible deniability of intent) in
order for their economy to come out ahead, comparatively, in the long run, compared to a
situation where only their own economy would have suffered by effective early containment
measures; or else they were indeed incompetent, that an accidental release from one of their
labs in Wuhan becomes even more plausible than it already is. Either way, the focus of
inquiry must remain on China, rather than conducting an exercise in reflexive exoneration.
Fantastical insinuations pointing the finger elsewhere, for which no strong evidence has been
presented, are just a distraction.
Accidental releases have been known to occur, but apparently only the level-4 lab in Wuhan
was known to have been working on enhancing those bat-based viruses with gain of function
properties and chimeric qualities.
Your entire conjecture about the strong likelihood of US culpability essentially rests
almost entirely on the vague notion of " extreme recklessness ", which in such
dangerous matters, as the release of deadly viruses, appears to be significantly less likely,
from an analytical perspective, than an accidental release from a biological lab in
Wuhan.
While your lengthy article shows the possibility that the virus originated in the US and was
spread intentionally, with a lot of trust developed by our own Dr. Fauci of the NIAID and $37
million in grants (long before Trump) to study bat coronaviruses in collaboration with China,
I think you are missing one important feature.
Trump and his neocon clown car are loathed by the Intelligence Agencies. Unlike Obama, who
loved to have the CIA "playing" in his sanctioned, National Emergencies countries (Yemen,
Libya, Venezuela, Ukraine, Somalia, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Burundi), backing
coups in Egypt, Honduras and the big one, Ukraine, and delighting in droning and expanding
Bush's two wars into 7 or 11, depending on how you count, Trump for all his idiotic saber
rattling has started no wars; Bolivia is his only coup, Nicaragua his only war-like National
Emergency. You may have missed the events of Russiagate and Ukrainegate, built on incompetent
spycraft, and an impeachment started by a CIA "whistleblower", but to give Trump credit for
something as devious as an obvious CIA op (by your own speculations) seems disingenuous. Much
more likely the CIA (whose hubris and incompetence rivals Trump's) likely were running this
operation from at least when the first bat coronavirus grants were sent to Wuhan (2011? 2015?
I've read both). My guess is the CIA did not even share their brilliant idea with the
loathsome Trump, as he would have likely squashed it as he finally did with John Bolton's
out-of-control machinations. I think the CIA sees the spectacular failure of their operation
as a chance to embarrass and likely overthrow Trump. If they had destroyed the Chinese
economy, they would have taken full credit, as it is, they look masterful in re-establishing
the Establishment, and ridding themselves of a non-supportive Trump.
Coronavirus catastrophe? Even though the CDC has been accused of exaggerating the number of
deaths from the Coronavirus by allowing doctors to assume , without testing ,someone died
from it, the number of deaths are not alarming . According to the CDC's provisional
statistics posted on April 20,2020 , from February 1 to April 18 ,2020 there were only 15,252
deaths from the Coronavirus out of a total of 603,184 deaths from all causes ,in a US
population of 327,167,434 . For the one week ending April 11 there were 5483 COVID-19 deaths
and for the one week ending April 18th there were only 568 deaths . cdc.gov . Deaths from the
Coronavirus appear to be on the decline in mid-April ,just as they often do in a typical flu
season as Spring returns in the Northern hemisphere. As a number of doctors have observed the
lockdowns, social distancing and unemployment resulting from the draconian measures taken by
Governors across the US are leading to an unprecedented number of cases of depression and
suicides.
It is well established,that people who are depressed end up with many types of illnesses due
to their compromised immune systems .
The tragedy of the Coronavirus pandemic is ,that as more and more circumstantial evidence
comes to light ,it was an engineered crisis or ,as some investigators have termed it ,a
planned-demic see, for example, "How to create a fake pandemic"jamesfetzer.org.
Deep and enduring thanks to Ron Unz and his team for this site, an oasis of common sense in a
desert of nonsense.
Regarding:
"So if American bio warfare analysts were considering a corona virus attack against
China, isn't it quite possible they would have said to themselves that since SARS never
significantly leaked back into the US or Europe, we'd similarly remain insulated from the
corona virus? Obviously, such an analysis was foolish and mistaken, but would it have
seemed so implausible at the time?"
There might be another possibility. That being that the American plans you outline were
formulated and carried out by the deepest, eternally-entrenched portions of the American
security state and that "senior administration officials" were simply never consulted about
bio warfare efforts against China. Very possibly including those earlier events noted, aimed
at Chinese agricultural interests.
Two birds with one stone would be the result: 1) China is (theoretically) taken down by
orders of magnitude; 2) That usurping outsider, the ever-disruptive President Trump exits in
January, as no incumbent would be judged to have a 2% chance of withstanding the hurricane of
events tied to the pandemic's arrival in America.
All the better, then, to allow Trump and other leading American politicians to
convincingly lead the chorus against China, and all done with never any possibility of a leak
from any political "source" about anything pertaining to the background and planning of the
operation.
Implications of such a possibility are too monstrous to consider, so am certain this
assertion can't be true. Right?
@Hail" this whole thing may be a Chinese Communist Party 'Hoax,' in the sense that
while the 'new' virus is real (there are always 'new viruses'), the reaction was at least
1000x what was necessary to deal " – The reality parsing by the hoaxers always lead
to the discovery of more hoaxes. Check with your guru Kunt Wiitkowski if he was not the one
who advised Chines how to pull off the hoax. Didn't he tell them that only 10,000 would have
die?
@swamped I, too, doubt that Trump would have been aware of what was going on, this would
have been an operation that was kicked off now because if Trump gets re-elected, he'll
hopefully clean house, and all that preparation would have been for nothing.
That having been said what's your explanation why Trump did bring a lot of neocons on
board, who effectively blocked him. If he really wanted to placate the democrats, there would
have surely been hawks who weren't as dangerous as, e.g. Bolton.
@Jim Jatras He said back then he thought that. Hasn't expressed his current view. None of
us knew back then that the US was dumping pure U238 on Yugoslavia making large parts
uninhabitable for a thousand years.
"Checking the Jay Matthews story, I see this: Hundreds of people, most of them workers and
passersby, did die that night, but in a different place and under different
circumstances."
There is much that Jay Matthews didn't say. Read this:
It is not. Shuanghui International Holdings Limited, now known as W-H Group, is a private
company based in Hong Kong that holds a majority of shares in China's largest meat processor,
Shuanghui Foods. The fact that it is based in Hong Kong does not make it "Chinese" in any
sense. It is a totally foreign-owned company. The ownership of W-H is mostly American, not
Chinese, and Smithfield was involved with the company. It was a complicated kind of reverse
takeover, but nothing much of substance changed.
It is the largest pork company in the world, number one in China, the U.S. and much of
Europe.
And the effect of the swine flu was to shift production and sales from Shuanghui China to
Smithfield in the US.
China's sweeping Belt and Road Initiative has threatened to reorient global trade around
an interconnected Eurasian landmass
By the time of the Antonine Plague of 165 to 180 AD (which surely inspired Aurelius's
stoicism, and may have killed Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius Antoninus) direct trading
links between China and Rome had been established. On March 2019 Italy was the first G-7
country in Europe to become a member in the Chinese Belt and Road project . Did that
globalisation reproduced the same pandemic-friendly environment that had decimated Ancient
Rome, which rivaled China in population at the time of the Roman diplomatic mission from
Marcus Aurelius to the Han Court in 166 AD?
Given these dramatic Chinese actions and the international headlines that they
generated, the current accusations by Trump Administration officials that China had
attempted to minimize or conceal the serious nature of the disease outbreak is so ludicrous
as to defy rationality.
Hardly, because intent is irrelevant. Not discharging their duty to inform the
international community in a timely manner of COVID-19 being extremely infectious and not
massively exaggerating the infection to death ratio and duping the WHO and modelers like
Imperial College into accepting terrifying but bogus infection to death ratios of 1 to 3 0r
4% as Dr. John Ioannidis says in an update ( HERE ) means quite simply that China must never ever
be relied on again. Next time, and there probably is going to be another such novel
coronavirus at some point in the future, China might overcompensate and downplay something
extremely dangerous.
Lieber had had decades of close research ties with China, holding joint appointments and
receiving substantial funding for his work. But now he was accused of financial reporting
violations in the disclosure portions of his government grant applications -- the most
obscure sort of offense -- and on the basis of those accusations, he was seized by the FBI
in an early-morning raid on his Cambridge home and dragged off in shackles, potentially
facing decades of federal imprisonment.
AS I understand it the case against him was precipitated by indications that he was taking
money from the Chinese Government and lying to Federal investigators about it while getting
$18 million from the Defence Department. He was not a virologist, unlike professor Montagnier
who co-discovered HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) and received a Nobel prize. He says the
SARS-CoV-2 virus is an artificial laboratory created pathogen, which has fragments
of–surprise, surprise–HIV in it. He wants his expertise to be relevant to what
everyone is currently obsessed with. But life in this crazy old world is not like that.
Unless you are Ioannidis.
In the early days of the CoV-19 discussion here, a solid body of commenters suggested the
strong likelihood of being a US biological attack on China on the basis of its propensity for
aggression towards its designated "enemies" by the only method of causing substantial damage
to a powerful rival's economy under the cover of plausible deniability. Considering the
inevitable demise of the US as the only superpower, it is not beyond the ruling cabal's remit
to conceive such schemes to thwart the Chinese economic ascendancy. Yes, the initial
suspicions of foul-play were reputational (the US habit of resorting to heinous crimes
against other nations) and strategically connected as well (the only way to damage a strong
opponent short of an all-out nuclear conflagration with uncertain outcome ).
On the other hand, there were a series of "coincidences" widely discussed here that
started giving credence to a full-blown plan of biological attack aimed at the Chinese
population by engineering a virus capable to discriminating the target victims. This has been
partialled discounted, but not completely until the full sequence of CoV-19 evolution is
mapped. Meanwhile, the official narrative has switched to the rejection of the theory of a
man-made virus to the "accidental" release by the Wuhan lab, in my view to deflect any effort
to research the source of the virus and reinforce the tale of Chinese negligence. But the
trouble is that there are many virologists now busy debunking that too and asserting that
CoV-19 is unnatural.
I have come across a report on Australian Media Centre where the evolutionary virologist
Edward Holmes of the University of Sydney reveals that "the level of genome sequence
divergence between CoV-19 and the closest known bat relative in nature is equivalent to 50
years of natural evolutionary change, which suggests that CoV-19 is a synthetic creation in a
lab either by insertion of suitable genetic material or, alternatively, growing different
cultures in a laboratory with cells with the human ACE2 receptor. This process involves the
gradual adaptations to bind the virus with the human receptor by "training" the virus to seek
an efficient method of binding by natural random mutations until one progeny hits the
jackpot. Although this process does not require insertions by extraneous genetic material
(not strict engineering) because the virus itself produces the required adaptations, it is
notheless a human interference with the natural world by breeding something for a, obviously,
nefarious purpose. The great advantage of this process is to disguise the fact that it is a
contrived lab creation.
There are many historically significant events the truth of which will remain hidden for a
time. But this case involves a strong player (China) and it will – as wel las many
outraged scientists worldwide – leave no stone unturned to reveal the unfathomable
depth of the US's den of iniquity.
But as this epidemic is shaping up, it is likely that the estimated death toll will be
comparable to that of the seasonal flu in a bad year.
That's not correct -- at all. Our hospital system in major cities like New York are NEVER
brought to the brink with seasonal flu. The likely number of deaths from Covid-19 has already
exceeded the number of deaths estimated from seasonal flu over the past 6 of 10 years -- in
just over six weeks. And that's under unprecedented quarantine.
Quoted numbers of deaths are as unreliable as the number of infections.
Numbers do not need to be 100% "reliable" in this case. Many of those who have died have
done so in hospital where they have been tested. We can also measure the baseline death rate
in NYC. When we do, we find a tremendous daily increase far and above anything caused since
9/11. Clearly, there is something going around that city that is killing lots of people. No
flu in recent memory has done that.
Cause of death as stated in a death certificate is often, and even usually, wrong, and
during an epidemic caused by a virus that induces respiratory difficulty it is likely that
virtually all deaths due to respiratory dysfunction will be attributed to the virus without
confirmatory evidence.
This kind of flawed logic could be used to dismiss virtually any epidemic. At some point
the number of deaths is so high that no counter argument could reasonably be believed. We've
already reached that point. There are only so many respiratory deaths that occur over any
time period. Even if we moved 100% from other categories over to Covid-19 we would still find
peculiarities in the data.
Deaths in New York City Are More Than Double the Usual Total
Furthermore, virtually all deaths of persons testing positive for covid19 will be
attributed to the virus even though the deceased may have had multiple other diseases, any
one of which could have been the cause of death.
That's certainly only going to be minor contributory factor. Huge numbers of people above
the average baseline don't just magically drop dead from other causes all at the same time.
If someone gets Covid-19 and dies, it is reasonable to assume it was the proximate cause in
the majority of cases. Only so many people die from X at any one time. If twice that number
start dying all at the same time, there is a problem.
"Herd immunity is likely now widespread, so the thing should fizzle out soon, with or
without continued population incarceration."
Please do not comment on things you clearly don't understand. It is estimated that no more
than a few percent of the American population has been exposed to Sars2 (Covid-19). Herd
immunity requires some high multiple of that number. We are nowhere near herd immunity. You
don't even know what that means in all likelihood.
Professor Luc Montagnier, Who Won Nobel Prize For Codiscovering AIDS Virus, has said
COVID-19's HIV "strains" could be put there in the virus's RNA only by human expert
intervention in a laboratory.
The excerpt from the French TV program where he said it can be found on YouTube.
What's "funny" is the way most USA, or, how should we say?, USA-close, media reports the
fact, starting from misleading headers (headers which, as usual for the USA and, how should
we say?, USA-close media, are all clones, with tiny changes from one to the other).
Professor Luc Montagnier, Who Won Nobel Prize For Codiscovering AIDS Virus, Says
Coronavirus Was Man-Made In Wuhan Lab.
This, when the professor clearly stated he is only a scientist, and he only wanted to
relate facts that many other research groups have found but have been left unsaid due
to enormous pressure, and he stated equally clearly that it is not his knowledge, duty,
competence, will, to give opinions on who did it, where, why.
The average IQ of China's top 5,000 political leaders is 140
Have not most of the all-time Evil Greats been brilliant? We have them, Russia has them.
How is China having them unique? If Ron's suspicions over this are close to true and even if
not, we already have volumes of evidence in so many other situations proving we have
brilliant evil-doers aplenty on the U.S. side in any case.
The rest of your points are agreeable to me. But every time I've hung my hat on the
'brilliant' high-I.Q.-types I'm always disappointed. They test well but in command of things
they bring us wars and now this. The medical people are high-I.Q. as hell, they've vacuumed
up half our GDP and research dollars for 100 years now and it's their job to have had this in
hand. Like our high-I.Q. generals and admirals the past 75 years, they're losing another war
for us. The high IQ sorts in finance are another group. We're a nation in serious decline and
from where I sit, the high-IQs are merely managing said decline.
High I.Q.s just don't cut it from where I sit. Could be jealousy. My IQ is some where
between a pineapple and radish, a yam maybe..
@no bat soup for you There is so much talk about Chinese will eat just about anything but
there is usually no focus on other people in the world for doing similar things.
The Chinese eat bamboo rats, the French and Belgiums eat rats too – besides snails.
Some people in Asian countries eat cats and dogs, the Swiss by the thousands, eat cats and
dogs. The members of Explorers' Club in New York eat just about anything as well. But to top
it all, there is even have a cannibal club in LA that specializes in eating human flesh.
Home page: Specializing in the preparation of human meat, Cannibal Club brings the cutting
edge of experimental cuisine to the refined palates of L.A.'s cultural elite. Our master
chefs hail from around the world for the opportunity to practice their craft free of
compromise and unbounded by convention.
Our exclusive clientele includes noted filmmakers, intellectuals, and celebrities who have
embraced the Enlightenment ideals of free expression and rationalism. On event nights,
avant-garde performance artists, celebrated literary figures, and ground-breaking musicians
entertain our guests.
At Cannibal Club, we celebrate artistic excellence as the natural and inevitable expression
of the unbridled human spirit.
Brilliant work I have been researching everything I can find, while placing the totality of
events in the context of US IC/DS ops The "botched biowarfare" attack fits the data the best
by far. Thanks for this report.
Those who praise China's alleged competence in the matter have a dilemma to deal with.
Either the authorities are competent
There is no "dilemma." They detected an outbreak and dealt with it competently. Your
government run by a reality show host didn't. It's as simple as that. You can deflect all you
want, but it really boils down to that.
in which case they effectively waged biological warfare against the rest of the
world
Nothing the Chinese did forced other countries to keep their borders open. Several
countries like Israel closed them before Donald Trump did. Nothing China did forced Trump
into not taking this seriously until it was too late.
"It's going to disappear. One day it's like a miracle, it will disappear," Trump told
attendees at an African American History Month reception in the White House Cabinet Room. The
World Health Organization says the virus has "pandemic potential" and medical experts have
warned it will spread in the US. The President added that "from our shores, you know, it
could get worse before it gets better. Could maybe go away. We'll see what happens. Nobody
really knows."
US 'wasted' months before preparing for coronavirus pandemic
A review of federal purchasing contracts by The Associated Press shows federal agencies
largely waited until mid-March to begin placing bulk orders of N95 respirator masks,
mechanical ventilators and other equipment needed by front-line health care workers.
2 Phylogenetic studies have been done to suggest America was the source of the virus.
This study suggests that Type A strain the earliest type of the SARS-COV2, was mostly
found in the US. While in China it was mostly type B, another strain mutated from Type A. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/04/07/2004999117
This study suggests there are 2 sources of spread, however in countries from Brazil,
Italy, Australia, Sweden and South Korea , some cases are tie to the US cluster but not to
China. So this suggest some cases were directly spread from the US. Japan commented it was
from the US because they had the virus from traveling to Hawaii and they never went to
China. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.09.034942v1
here in this video presentation some arguments that supports the US had this virus in
between August 2019 and Jan 2020.
A possible scenario is they developed a few Sars-Cov2 bio-weapon strains the B and C
strains from the A strain. They wanted to find a vaccine for it before they can be deployed,
but in developing the vaccine they leaked the A type out into the US. They had to make a
decision, let the public know about it or cover it up and release the B and C strain without
the vaccine. I think they did the latter.
But you be the judge, we need more transparency from the CDC and more research before any
conclusions can be made.
@dimples Of course I completely failed to mention in the above comment that it's the War
on Terror that's coming to a close. Russia Russia Russia! has been an attempt to fill the gap
but its not going anywhere due to opposition from the Euros.
The slow US reaction to the virus could therefore seen not as incompetence but a
deliberate process of sowing more destruction, thus more China-hate later, ie its part of the
plot. Also the virus is not too deadly, just enough to create a big scare and over-reaction
amongst the authorities and public.
@Mustapha Mond Yes IF there is a conspiracy that would be it. I have also come to this
conclusion in other comments but you have described it much better than myself.
@Christopher Marlowe The flying drones over pig farms is nonsense from Metallicman, who
is a controlled-opp deep asset that speaks 80-90% truth and 10-20% lies.
I tried looking into the flying drones a bit, but couldn't confirm any of it.
@Ayatollah Smith I want to add Trump's early response to the corona virus shows Trumps
and American duplicity. I used to watch a TV show 'Lie to me' with actor Tim Roth. Anyway
people give away all kind of knowledge when they communicate. So my take that Trump's call
that it's like a bad flu or it's nothing to worry about, reveals knowledge that it is
American attack and that he (Trump) worries if it gets 'out' that the trump administration is
culpable, so he tries to downplay corona virus and his own role in it!
"
Who's a seventy years old track record of extreme malfeasance against China ?
Who's a track record of using bioweapons on friends and foe, including its own citizens
?
Who's a track record of committing FF , including many cases against China ?
[TAM, Tibet, Xinjiang, HK, Mh370, INdon genocide 1965,
..]
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Occams Razor .
There's a serial arsonist in town, he has been caught setting fire to John's house dozens
of times in the past few months.
JOhn's house caught fire last night
Who's the first suspect to haul in for interrogation ?
Elementary, Watson.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Last but not least.
Mathematics doesnt cheat
Ian Flaming's fundamental law of prob .
Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, thrice ..
How many 'coincidences' occur in the Wuhan caper. ?
-- -- -- -- -- -- –
Conclusion.
Whichever way you look at it,
Logic, Circumstantial evidences and Mathematics all points to We know who.
@swamped The high casualties in the NATO countries are due to their own reluctance to do
anything for so long. Look at the total number that have been infected and the current new
infection rates in South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. South Korea prepared better than
anybody but was cursed with a Christian sect that also had churches in Wuhan. They stayed
close together for a long time in their churches to increase community feeling and, since God
was looking after their health, were reluctant to admit to being ill. Yet South Korea shits
on every NATO country in fighting COVID-19. So do Australia and New Zealand in spite of their
extremely poor use of the 2 months warning provided by China and the DNA sequence of the
virus provided by China on 12th of January, 2020. As soon as the Chinese methods were
applied, the same success with humans was achieved. Now the NATO countries are aping China
too, they are starting to have the same human success. They will continue with success as
long as they continue aping. The Yanks are losers like other NATO members because they didn't
bother to ape until they were heavily infected. I stress that Australia and New Zealand did
very badly (only about 10 times better than the USA but 4 times worse than China who we
should have beaten easily) because they were slow to ape. We only look wonderful when
compared with NATO. Actually, we also do about 5 times better than Iran too. Even with
sanctions crippling their response, Iran has done twice as well as the US losers. When it
becomes a matter of drug and vaccine development where the USA has real strengths, I expect
the USA to do as well as China but it's a low tech battle right now and the Yank boys haven't
done well against the Chinese or Iranian men in that competition. Who would expect them to?
[email protected]
@Godfree Roberts The reasons you enumerate apply to individual people, they don't apply
to governments. It is true that a rational individual should prefer truth because truth is
mostly self-sufficient while lies need to be reasserted permanently. The rationality of truth
vs lies is very much like the rationality of well-designed software vs badly designed
software. Good design as truth demands less maintenance. The problem is that it doesn't keep
programmers busy and it doesn't justify budgets. A government, the "deep state" moreover,
need to keep maintenance costs high to perpetrate themselves.
The crucial question very few seem to be asking is the question of motive. Many commenters
here project on the Chinese their own traits. The problem is that what can be said of Western
elites can't be said of Chinese elites because the Chinese have different motives altogether.
There's one motive they didn't have, to provoke a crisis. Viruses don't hop out of labs by
accident any more than gold hops out of Fort Knox. One has to bring them out and the Chinese
had no reason to do it.
Regarding the US on the other hand, though I disagree with Ron Unz's assertion that this
particular US administration is more reckless and less competent than those that preceded it,
seen from abroad it just appears as less hypocrite, to keep the story short I'll just say
that hubris tends to cloud judgment and that desperate times ask for desperate measures.
Sounds entirely plausible, and, to be parsimonious, even probable. The last element to make
it feasible was leaving Trump entirely out of the loop. He still won't have a clue if he's
standing in the dock at the Hague years from now. Everything he will ever know about this
fiasco will be from light reading material they allow him in his cell.
The Deep State made the right bet when they decided late in the race to hack the election
in favor of the Donald rather than the Queen of Warmongers. Nobody would ever expect the
self-described peace candidate to escalate the ongoing hybrid wars to germ warfare. (Though
maybe the use of chemical weapons by America's proxies in Syria should have been a hint.) Now
the world knows, the Satanists in charge of Washington will stop at nothing.
@Mustapha Mond I 100% agree with you, Mustapha Mond. Much as I admire Ron for in so many
ways for his other topnotch contributions and running this site, one of the very best news
sites IMO, the evidence at hand does not suggest incompetence on the part of the US
government and the deep state behind it: it's definitely an Atlanticist plandemic. Godfree
Roberts showed that many steps the Trump administration took the past two years were meant to
pave the way for enabling the government to play the "we didn't see this coming" card, just
as with 9/11:
At the same time, the US Health Dept was running Crimson Contagion in the first half of
2019, simulating a deadly flu pandemic starting in China (as I recall). Even the US Naval War
College ran a pandemic simulation causing respiratory failure:
Everyone knows about Event 201 at this point, in October 2019, sponsored by the Gates
Foundation, Bloomberg via Johns Hopkins, and the World Economic Forum, simulating
specifically a coronavirus pandemic. What are the odds that the organizers of Event 201 were
just lucky in picking a coronavirus, knowing there are 150 other virus families, besides
coronaviruses (e.g. rhinoviruses, adenoviruses, etc.):
That's a 1/151 chance! Lucky bastards! Present at Event 201 were recycled players involved
in the 9/11 anthrax attack simulation 'Dark Winter', such as Thomas Inglesby, as documented
by Whitney Webb. Not to mention the 2011 movie 'Contagion', involving a flu-like pandemic
originating in China (Hong Kong),transmitted from bats to humans in an unsanitary
environment!!! Another financial reset was also long overdue, as Greg Mannarino and others
have pointed out: the coronavirus cover was too perfect of a tool for deflecting the guilt
from the Fed and the banksters; killing many birds with one stone, the virus is also a 2)
powerful psy-op hurting China's image in the world, 3) further delivering a strong blow to
its export-driven economy; 4) it sets the stage for the cashless society ("dirty bills not
accepted here!"), the advent of digital currencies and 5) top-down surveillance.
So either the China's leadership had suddenly gone insane, or they regarded this new
virus as an absolutely deadly national threat, one that needed to be controlled at any
possible cost.
Those are not the only choices, Ron.
Here is another one for you:
– CCP knew this virus had a low fatality rate;
– CCP were aware of recent (DoD iirc) readiness assessments noting that US had
specific vulnerability to a pandemic;
– CCP was aware that the captive Chinese people were alrady subject to 'herd
control' infrastructure whereas the US population still enjoyed human rights;
– CCP decided to sow confusion about the infection. ("We can do this, but their
society will fall apart Comrades!")
– The West initially chose to ignore this. Then the Corporate Press "International"
decided to put psyops pressure to force US and UK to do a 180 u-turn. This due to a single
lousy non-peer-reviewed paper at the Imperial College.
Some other considerations that can inform the above are (a) the attitude of CCP towards
'world government' institutions, and (b) their relationship with WHO, in particular.
So option 3, Mr. Unz:
CCP used the (controlled?) exposure of a virus ("17") to put into motion a psychological
operation to sow confusion and panic in US (based on our own published findings on readiness)
that seems to have other participants in the Globalist crowd institutions. The primary target
was USA, but NATO as well.
Btw, Mr. Unz, that ex-CIA psyops writer you host on your site (Giraldi) keeps censoring my
comments on his propaganda pieces. Why do allow them a platform and also permit them to
censor rebuttals? Hopefully you will prevent UNZ Review from becoming UNZ Pravda.
Ron, you need to rewrite this essay. If minor websites carry articles blaming China the
presumption is these articles are falsifications seeded by Trump, but if wildly
sensationalist Chinese propaganda pieces come from unknown sources like OldMicrobiologist or
Metallicman then they're reliable? Wow is all I can say.
Suggesting Lieber's creds set him above espionage and bio sabotage against the United
States is the best you can do? Your overwrought defense of this man is telling, given his
"assistants" are provably Chinese bio espionage agents and he secretly agreed to take a post
as director of the Wuhan lab.
In the same vein, did you know that the Johns Hopkins' inflammatory "dashboard" world map
seen and used everywhere was developed by a 30-year-old Chinese "student," Ensheng Dong,
working for Johns Hopkins? Using Edward Tufte's "Lie Factor" for evaluating the exaggeration
of a graphical representation relative to the underlying data puts the Johns Hopkins map so
far in the lie category as to warrant an FBI investigation of Johns Hopkins and its employees
for causing irreparable economic and societal harm to the United States. In an NPR puff piece
gushing over the map's creators, "all sitting around a table sipping lattes," Dong is quoted
as saying it's like showing blood everywhere. That's quite accurate from the proud creator
considering the irreparable harm that map has been in large part responsible for
creating.
One correction for the beginning of the article. The 1999 bombing campaign against Yugoslavia
wasn't directed against Bosnian Serbs. That was the 1995 campaign and had nothing to do with
the Chinese Embassy being hit. It seems that you simply got the 1995 NATO bombing of Bosnian
Serbs (entirely in Bosnia) and the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro –
when the Chinese (brand new) embassy was hit) mixed up.
Interesting thing – the Japanese current embassy is on the exact grounds where the
Chinese one used to be. I find some funny symbolism in that.
@Jim Jatras Yep. Unz lost me with that comment. And very sloppy by his high standards.
The NATO 1999 bombings were to support the Albanians in Kosovo – not the Bosnian
muslims. I suggest Ron does some homework on the whole Yugo Wars period. Maybe even back to
ottoman times.
@Anonymous I think that he obviously got the two NATO bombing campaigns mixed up.
NATO bombed Bosnian Serbs (entirely in Bosnia) in 1995 to protect its interests under the
guise of protecting Bosnian muslims. This is what Unz supports.
NATO bombed Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) in 1999 when the Chinese embassy was hit.
Let's not make the comments spiral off into the Serbia/NATO conflict details. The point of
the entire mention of the bombing is that there is sincere indication that the US hit the
Chinese embassy on purpose. That much was clear since day 1 as the embassy was a brand new
building and you couldn't mistake it for a previous occupant or anything of the sort. It was
a message to China.
@swamped While I don't agree that China would have done this on purpose as I am generally
doubtful of all similar theories, it would nonetheless also explain why China banned all
movement to the rest of China from Wuhan while not only allowing the Wuhan infected to
infiltrate the West but actually vociferously and ubiquitously complaining about Western
racists for thinking about not allowing them in.
I think it was Zero-hedge that said the professor lied about his Chinese funding, making
him in effect an agent of China.
You need to understand the system in place. The book Three Felonies a Day outlines
the how, but does't really cover the why, and there lies the devil in the details. When they
want you, all they have to do is pour over your life' details, and they will find
something nefarious as a tool to put you in stern and squeeze.
There is million different details and forms to fill out when securing foreign funds for a
university; most of the rules and the process is ad hoc, and more often a lot of it is
ignored, and of course – certain countries have certain rules. The good professor
didn't do anything that was completely out of the norm. It's nearly impossible in this
society to be crime free – by design.
Think of all the people near Trump during his Russian Collusion investigation that went to
jail or indicted – most if not all were dragged in on the many petty illegalities that
plague our legal system for a reason. Illegalities that on a normal day most people ignore
until it is politically expedient for the authorities to use them. This is how a Police State operates.
You don't have to believe me; just ask Tommy Chong, Martha Stewart, etc .
Et tu, Brute? You're worried more about the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and Bosnian Muslims
than the destruction of that great Christian Serbia by the Clintons & cabal shame!
According to Matthews the infamous massacre had likely never happened
In the mid 1990s, I worked with a man of Chinese ancestry in New York named Henry Sun.
Henry had been in Beijing at Tiananmen Square. He had been shot. What happened afterward was
that he was treated by doctors for the bullet wound, and they had coded the illness as some
sort of cancer, so that it would not be obvious that he was a dissident and so be
arrested.
Now, I cannot say that someone was killed. I can say that personal testament to me from a
credible witness indicates bullets were flying, and one struck him. Maybe that's not a
massacre, by whatever means that word is defined. But it wasn't a Chinese tea ceremony.
I am a retired attorney and I am heartened to see that some attorneys, namely David Helm in
Michigan and Lindy Urso in Connecticut ,are beginning to file lawsuits to revoke unlawful and
unconstitutional Executive"Coronavirus" Orders issued by the Governors of the States of
Michigan and Connecticut. I have long maintained that almost every Executive Order issued by
State Governors are revocable as they are based on a lie, promoted by the WHO and the CDC
,that there is a Coronavirus pandemic and an international public health emergency .
everything China have and everything USA has been lost was done with the complicity and
personal gain of 99% of the usa elite,political class,including CIA,etc and even the likes of
Michael Jordan.
Whoever decides to believe this embarrassingly transparent anti-China propaganda is
stupidly siding with Soros and his Global Deep State golems. This will be the latest IQ test
for those who struggled with all the previous ones (incubator babies, Iraqi WMDs, Quaddafi's
Viagra, Hillary's electability, Russiagate etc.).
@Jim Christian High IQ is just an entry level requirement. They have 300,000 folks with
160 IQ, so 140 is not that exceptional.
New recruits' first posting is 5 years in the poorest village in the country. They
'graduate' after they've raised everyone's incomes by 50%. Then the career path gets really
steep.
The people who are visible to us have been so thoroughly scrutinized that it's almost
painful to contemplate. Here's Zhao Bing Bing[1], a mid-level Liaoning[2] Province official
talking about her mid-level, provincial promotion to Daniel Bell:
[MORE]
I was promoted in 2004 through my department's internal competition (30 percent on
written exam results, 30 percent on interviews and public speaking, 30 percent on public
opinion of my work and 10 percent on education, seniority and my current position) and
became the youngest deputy division chief. In 2009, Liaoning Province (pop. 44 million),
announced in the national media an open selection of officials. Sixty candidates met the
qualifications, the top five of whom were invited for further interviews. Based on their
test scores (40 percent) and interview results (60 percent), the top three were then
appraised. The Liaoning Province Organizational Department sent four appraisers who spent a
whole day checking my previous records. Eighty of my colleagues were asked to
vote–more than thirty of whom were asked to talk with the appraisers about my merits
and shortcomings–and they submitted the appraisal result to the provincial Standing
Committee of the CCP for review.
In principle, the person who scored the highest and whose appraisals were not
problematic would be promoted. However, because my university major, work experience and
previous performance were the best fit for the position, I was finally appointed department
chief of the Liaoning Provincial Foreign Affairs Office even though my overall score was
second best [the government discriminates positively in promoting women–ed]. Before
the official appointment there was a seven-day public notice period during which anybody
could report to the organization department concerns about my promotion. I didn't spend any
money during my three promotions; all I did was study and work hard and do my best to be a
good person.
In 2013, thanks to an exchange program, I worked temporarily in the CCP International
Department. The system of temporary exchanges offers opportunities to learn about different
issues in different regions and areas like government sectors and SOEs. In a famous quote
Chairman Mao said, "Once the political lines have been clearly defined the decisive factor
will be the cadres [trained specialists]." So the CCP highly values organizational
construction and the selection and appointment of specialists. There is a special
department managing this work, The Organization Department, established in 1924 and Mao was
its first leader..The department is mainly responsible for the macro management of the
leaders and the staff (team building), including the management system, regulations and
laws, human resource system reforms -- planning, research and direction, as well as
proposing suggestions on the leadership change and the (re)appointment of cadres. In
addition, it has the responsibilities of training and supervising cadres. The cadre
selection criteria are: a person must have 'both ability and moral integrity and the latter
should be prioritized'. The evaluation of moral integrity focuses mostly on loyalty to the
Party, service to the people, self-discipline and integrity. Based on different levels and
positions, the emphases of evaluation are also different. For intermediate and senior
officials, emphasis is on their persistence in faith and ideals, political stance and
coordination with the central Party. High-level cadres are measured against great
politicians and, among them, experience in multiple positions is very important.
Fans follow the careers of one-thousand top politicians online[3] and they are impressive,
as President Donald Trump[4] observed, "Their leaders are much smarter than our leaders. It's
like taking the New England Patriots and Tom Brady and have them play your high school
football team. That's the difference between China's leaders and our leaders".
Today's leaders began their careers in the 1960s as manual laborers in dirt-poor villages
and won promotions by raising village incomes by fifty percent. As they rose, they spent
sabbaticals on the lake-studded campus of The Academy of Governance where they met the
world's leading thinkers, critiqued legislation and earned PhDs. They now run huge provinces,
Fortune 500 corporations, universities, space programs and, of course, government departments
and the Peoples Daily reords their progress under headlines like, "How Rural Poverty Criteria
Affects Mayoral Promotions."

[1] Daniel Bell and Zhao Bing Bing, The China Model.
[2] Liaoning (pop. 45 million) is a northeastern Chinese province bordering North Korea and
the Yellow Sea.
[3] The Committee https://macropolo.org/the-committee/
[4] Donald Trump says Tom Brady and the Patriots are just like China. Boston.com . By Steve Silva July 6, 2015
@anon There is on little problem with your hasbara. Those great strategic planners in
China of yours forgot about one little thing that the West has 100% dominance over China in
the soft power of creating global narratives with which it will turn China into a pariah
nation in the eyes of everybody, a nation that everybody hates.
I personally think this was either the result of the so-called "wet-markets" in China
– long known to be the primary source of the annual flu epidemics
I've been going to markets in Asia all my adult life and suddenly they are both the
source of flu epidemics and "wet".
Unless it is raining the second one makes everything seem so ridiculous.
(why the heck haven't they been shut down??)
Because people would starve?
Try throwing some blame(buying food makes you sick!) at your big box corporate food
monopolies and try to shut them down – take a guess at what might happen?
@Tor597 Except, it would be helpful if Ron placed somewhere prominantly on the home page
that he is a card-carrying member of the "Resistance" against Trump, which this article
finally reveals full blast.
Too much attention here on things which could have other explanations and too little
attention on the real puzzles and on those things which science can definitely settle.
(1) It is solvable, and it will be solved, where and when were the first cases of the
infection among the general public outside China. Almost everything else depends on that.
(2) It is almost inconceivable that American agencies who had been plotting this would run it
by Trump for approval first. It seems much more likely that the anonymously sourced report
that our agencies knew about this in November is some kind of ass-covering to shift blame to
Trump, whom these same agencies have been trying to take down for 4 years; which doesn't help
us discern whether they were also responsible for the pathogen in the first place, it's
consistent either way.
(3) The genome has been out there long enough, with no one pointing out inconsistencies that
have held up to scrutiny, that "wild", "escaped from a lab", and "was evolved in a lab" all
look much more likely than "was designed directly by RNA editing".
(4) China's behavior is much more consistent with accidental than with intentional release.
They've obviously lied about the death toll and didn't feel obliged to prevent their people
from traveling abroad, but ordinary Communist wickedness explains that.
(5) Travel between China and Iran and Italy explains the early prevalence there sufficiently,
presuming genomic data we don't yet have will confirm this.
Conclusion: Too early to get locked in to origin theories, the usual suspects are taking
advantage in the same way they would whether or not it was an intentional release. THIS WILL
ALL BE CLARIFIED BY TESTING OF OLD TISSUE SAMPLES so I'm going to wait and see what those
results say. The reports of early COVID outside China have not been confirmed, but come from
researchers WITH REAL NAMES, so it WILL get figured out one way or the other and I'm holding
my fire until then.
P.S. Lieber is clearly a weird loose end that needs to be tied up. Is anyone trying to
interview him?
Let's see. Here in the USA covid hit later, at a time when people have the lowest seasonal
vitamin D (a major immune system hormone, with the population being 90%+ deficient). A
fraction of the population being hit particularly hard has dark skin, further reducing the
vit. D levels. That same fraction is over-represented among those who have metabolic syndrome
(diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and the like), and that is related to all manners of immune
system degradation. Then we have a medical system which looks only for profitable magic
bullets, instead of trying a variety of cheap methods, each of which can increase the
recovery rate by tens of percent.
Finally we have lots and lots of nursing homes, unlike China. And a majority (more than
50%) of deaths comes from those places in Europe. Data from Italy suggests that privately run
nursing homes are correlated with increased mortality, although it could just be extreme air
pollution and/or other environmental factors. Data from Scandinavia suggest that nursing home
size matters too, the smaller the better.
Why should one be surprised that this thing is hitting harder in the West?
R.Unz:"By any reasonable measure, the response to this global health crisis by China and most
East Asian countries has been absolutely exemplary,"
Your transparent, never ending shilling for the murderous CCP is becoming more and more
obvious, at least to myself. I'm starting to believe that this site is nothing more than a
thinly disguised Chinese government propaganda outlet.
As in other recent threads, you fully endorse the CCP's criminal actions: lockdowns of
[reportedly] 700 million Chinese citizens; literal lockdowns with citizens locked, even
having their front doors welded shut by the "authorities",for weeks. The idiotic [unless
deliberate], Chinese "solution" has probably already killed 1000's, if not 10's or 100's of
thousands there via starvation alone, and the economic devastation caused in China will
likely kill millions more Chinese in the years to come.
But that is all "exemplary" in your opinion, right? "To make an omelette you have to break
a few eggs", right?
R.Unz:"Everyone knows that America's ruling elites are criminal, crazy, and also extremely
incompetent."
Of course! "Everyone knows" that! [I wish].
What you [and some of them] don't know [or won't admit to themselves] is that this is no
less true of the Chinese government, or of any other government, for that matter.
Reality fact: "Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft
[taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at
their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed"or "improved",simply
because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
Which means that believing/trusting official stories and figures doled out by competing
criminal power structures, about _anything_, let alone actually supporting/promoting their
idiotic and criminal acts [eg the Chinese, US and elsewhere lockdowns"], is a mugs game for
useful idiots, nothing more. And yet, that is what you continue to consistently indulge
yourself in here.
Thanks for the excellent wrapup, Ron Unz. Your cui bono approach works like a
super-chloroquine dose to zap the anti-China virus now spreading from U.S. legacy media. What
passes for news media here in Europe is no better. But apparently there are islands of sanity
outside the Western imperial heartland. If you read French, you may find it encouraging to
read some real journalism on the source of the carona plandemic here from darkest Africa:
The same mendacious MSM that for three years howled at the moon that Putin had stolen the
2016 election for Trump is now barking like a mad dog about Covid being some kind of 21st
Century version of the Black Death.
Never mind that to get to the current figure of around 42,000 deaths, the CDC has been
juicing the total number of dead by adding in those who died from a heart attack or stroke or
some other medical complication, there was fear to be spread and by G-d, they were doing to
scare the hell out of Americans, just like they did in the years after the Israeli
masterminded 9/11 false flag.
Like Mr. Atzmon has pointed out, the 2017-18 flu season was much deadlier, yet there was
no lock-downs, quarantines and a complete gutting of the US–and the
worlds–economy.
The following may sound like a description of the current Novel Coronavirus pandemic:
"The season began with an increase of illness in November; high activity occurred during
January and February, and then illness continued through the end of March." You guessed
right, this is not the description of the current global Corona pandemic but actually how
CNN described the outbreak of influenza in America in September 2018.
Does it take a genius to figure out that the American 2017-18 influenza outbreak was pretty
'similar' to the current Novel Coronavirus epidemic?
The first question that comes to mind is why didn't America lock itself down amidst
its catastrophic 2017-18 influenza as it has now? One may wonder why the CDC didn't
react to the 'severity' of the outbreak that was at least three times as lethal as the
current Novel Coronavirus health crisis?
The Deep State thugs who are actually in charge of the US have some devious plan in mind
with this Covid hysteria.
Maybe they wanted to see how quickly Americans would give up their Bill of Rights. Or maybe
they wanted to cover up the multi-trillion dollar bailout of those TBTF banks that we bailed
out in 2009?
Or maybe this the test run for their next batch of weaponized flu, the one that will get
many killed and have people lining up for Mr. Know-it-all Bill Gates RFID chipped flu
vaccine.
The actual reason for the bombing was meant to cover-up NATO war crimes that were taking
place almost daily, and the Chinese listening post located in the corner of the embassy
that was bombed were intercepting orders issued by NATO which clearly revealed those
crimes. The Chinese needed to be silenced and their operations ended, no matter the
fallout.
My immediate gut reaction upon seeing the cartoon character version of a Muslim terrorist,
Osama Bin Laden, was this is a fake designed to play on US xenophobia. He was obviously made
for TV audiences.
I assumed after Skripal and the endless Assad gas arracks, that our ruling elite have just
become lazy and couldn't even be bothered to create a plausible story to cover up their
crimes, because the public is so stupid. How long did it take to determine it was a fraud, a
weekend of casual reading?
Putting a mob style hit on Venezuala's President confirmed that they could care less what
the Hoi Poloi think of them.
If this is a US caper, it is the either the most ridicoulosly stupid one imaginable, or
the most well thought out one in a very long time.
I had not connected the intelligence reports (recently spilled out of the Deep State) with
the obvious. Thanks, Ron, for pointing out that it's hard to imagine how the
NSA/CIA/whoever-collecting-part-of-the-85bln-we-spend-on-intelligence could report on this in
November when the sources from which they would have derived that information (the Chinese
government itself) didn't know until December 31st, or shortly before that date when they
reported to the WHO.
Someone, in covering up for blowing the response to the virus, really dropped the
ball.
Scientists from the UK have a recent paper on the mutations of Corona-19.
Here is part of the abstract:
In a phylogenetic network analysis of 160 complete human severe acute respiratory
syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) genomes, we find three central variants distinguished
by amino acid changes, which we have named A, B, and C, with A being the ancestral type
according to the bat outgroup coronavirus. The A and C types are found in significant
proportions outside East Asia, that is, in Europeans and Americans. In contrast, the B type
is the most common type in East Asia, and its ancestral genome appears not to have spread
outside East Asia without first mutating into derived B types, pointing to founder effects
or immunological or environmental resistance against this type outside Asia.
I think these findings throw lots of water on any bioweapon claims. But others may differ
in their opinions.
It definitely does indicate that the virus did not come from a Wuhan lab or the Wuhan wet
market. It originated in Southern China where most people knowledgeable about bat viruses
expect bat viruses to originate.
you are mistakenly assuming and given for granted that this epidemic is much more lethat than
others,that the total closure is beneficial and not harmfull,that is the solution ,you are
deciding who to try to save regardless of the millions of victims of this economic
harakiri,and there are many epidemiologists who disagree with you.
One more thought: The US has over 25 bio-warfare labs that are located next door to Russia
and China that have been called out before for their sloppy or maybe deliberate release of
pathogens.
The WHO too only had high praises for China's transparency and efficiency.
Would that be the same WHO that said chinese disease was not communicable between humans
and that we should keep letting infected people into the country? That's who we should trust?
Or should we trust the communist government that shut down domestic travel to and from Wuhan,
because they were trying to protect the rest of THEIR country, while still allowing
international travel, because they wanted the rest of the planet infected?
This virus may or may not have been engineered, and may have come from the lab or the wet
market. These things are debatable. But what is absolutely not debatable is that once the
virus was loose, China choose to DELIBERATELY infect the rest of the world. These are people
whose numbers we should trust?
1918-1919 "Spanish" Flu Pandemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Hypotheses_about_the_source
Despite the name the most likely theory is that this pathogen, an H1N1 virus, originated in
China and mutated to become highly lethal in Europe or European-settled countries as a result
of WW I. S
Taking a scientific approach to American deep state biowarfare attack on China's Wuhan
district is telling in so far as Americans literally control tertiary education throughout
the entire world via funding in the trillions.
If the deep state wants to eliminate academics it can do so with merely a phone call to
Law Enforcement branches at a moments notice so that research & hard drives can be
confiscated and destroyed early on in investigations.
Once the media & journalistic propaganda arms of state get hold of the official
talking points to be disseminated the end game zero sum result is usually exactly what the
state arms of propaganda have wanted all along.
To be frank, I am an Intel thinker and am well aware of the details of the CIA led
biowarfare attack on China, but attaining the required data in empirical form via Requests
for Information from government is NOT going to ever yield synthesis required for scientific
peer-review research.
Bottom line is that the CIA had one CIA Agent/Operative deploy the nCov-19 in late October
as the USA Military contingent was departing Wuhan district. The operative deployed the
bioweapon via glass ampule smashed onto the ground to the entrance way for the Wuhan
restaurant district near to the Wuhan Wet Market. Moreover, his CIA handler gave him the
protocol & instruction on deployment of the bioweapon back in the United States of
America long before the actual deployment.
Lastly, Fort Detrick scientists developed the Chimera super-spreading viral pathogenicity
with a herd of pigs in the USA before hand in around 2012. Logistics of setting up the Wuhan
BSL-4 laboratory scientists for the false flag event of biowarfare were dependent upon
academic arrests before hand so that deflection & impression management for governance
would clearly be able to utilize plausible deniability where required.
In sum, as one acutely aware of the bioterrorism that the United States of America has
unleashed on the world covertly I, for one, can assure all that the US Deep State knowingly
unleashed nCov-19 to undermine China's meteoric rise in the financial world due to America's
incompetence writ large across the board since the Great Financial Crisis revealed that
America is swimming naked and their Emperor is wearing no clothes to reveal his
infinitesimally small Johnson in contradistinction to President Johnson's Johnson which was
historically infamous.
P.S. The USA Deep State can get in line to lick my balls in deference to my superior
intellect.
First, can researchers take a look at this virus and determine with certainty whether it was
artificially concocted in a lab or if it simply evolved out in the open? If so then that
would help focus the discussion. If not then things will remain opaque.
The Iranian government outbreak is strange but then people congregating with each other, like
at ski resorts, pass it to each other. If it was a US biowarfare attack then how did US
agents get access to them? They wouldn't have the cover of some delegation to an event such
as military games. But what was the effect on Iran? Zero. Some top leaders got sick and some
older members died. They have replacements and the government continues without missing a
beat. This idea that an ideal bioweapon would be highly contagious with a low lethal rate so
as to tie up resources and halt the economy sounds good but in practice it's hardly more than
harassment. It slowed up the Chinese economy but that's a temporary blip and they're back
now. The US and other countries are hardest hit economically. Many businesses will never
recover. This is self-inflicted. The lethality of this virus looks to be increasingly lower
and lower each time one looks despite all the Chicken Littles who were screaming that the sky
was about to fall. Was there a purpose for that?
The Wuhan outbreak coincided with the military games but things happen at random times as it
is. People were crowded in there. The various plagues and viruses have been going from East
to West for a very long time now. The problem is that currently there are many who have an
interest in lying and misdirecting things which further muddy the waters.
@Emslander What is crazy and funny is that supposed trump supporters thinks China would
shrink it's economy by 6.8% for the first quarter of 2020 to help Trump's opposition.
The same supposed supporters don't even realized that the best way for trump to win the
next election is to stamp out this damn virus asap. Denying is not going to work. Testing n
quarantine combo is what would work. It is why trump changed his tune.
Who's a track record of extreme malfeasance against China, since ww2 ?
1950 Korean war,
1959 Tibet,
1962 Indo./sino war,
1965 [[[CIA/MI5]]] INdon genocide on ethnic Chinese.
1989 TAM,
1998 Indon pogrom , mass rapes on ethnic Chinese
1999 BOmbing of Chinese embassy in ex Yugo,
2001 Hainan spy plane, Chinese pilot died.
2003 SARS1,
2008 Tibet riots,
2009 Xinjiang bloodbath,
2013 Bird flu H7N9 , Asia pivot
2014 Xinjiang, HK, Mh370, bubonic plague, Ebola, Dengue,
2018 bird flu, H7N9
2019 HK, Xinjiang, swine flu, army worms,
2020 SARS2, H5N1, locusts .
And there were also the proxy-war in Ukraine and the refugee crisis: the latter at
minimum a fallout of US-Israeli wars in the Middle East and the Zionist assault against
Libya; yet not unlikely itself a direct assault against Europe. And not only Willy Wimmer,
closest adviser to our old chancellor Helmut Kohl, strongly suspected as much already back
in 2015.
Thanks for that context. It is exactly what I am trying to call attention to the whole
time. Regardless, how much reality there is to Corona, my issue is the overall timing in the
geopolitical context, with Europe being torn apart between the Angloamericans and China /
Russia on the other side. That was the agenda anyway, so how is it possible that this threat
appears at this very moment?
It can be said that had Corona not happened, the powers to be would have needed to invent
it.
Else, in skimming the comments, I find that until now (with some 140 comments) there are
hardly any discussions, but everyone pushing their own narratives.
Mabe, it is possible to get away from the question, how and if Corona is deadly to the
context that is developing. I have to admit that I did not take Corona serious enough from
the start, not as an illness, but as a fundamental threat to our societies. In that sense, it
is indeed a war.
@hs4691506 There was also some evidence that Chinese researchers under his supervision
had smuggled samples of his work out of their labs and back to China. Chinese researchers,
working in the USA and Canada, have a history of smuggling viral and other lab samples back
ti China. It's part of a much larger pattern of Chinese espionage and intellectual theft.
A search on DuckDuckGo.Com using the
following search string, "chinese scientists smuggling viral samples", turns up a lot of
useful information on smuggling of viral and other biological samples. (I no longer trust
Google. DuckDuckGo is less censored and does not track its users)
Similar searches using the strings "chinese intellectual theft" and "chinese scientific
espionage" will provide a broader picture.
BTW, I believe that Israel and the USA have both been conducting research into potential
bio-weapons. I would not be surprised if the Chinese got a leg up on such research by
espionage targeting both countries. Of the three, the USA's research is probably the most
benign/least vicious. I suspect that the Israelis have been ruthlessly researching and
developing biological weapons, just as they did nuclear and chemical weapons. The Chinese
have probably been doing bio-weapons research just as ruthlessly. The biggest concern with
the Chinese is that, compared against Israel and the USA, their lab safety, security and
containment procedures are lax to an obscenely dangerous degree. One can only hope that after
the Wuhan outbreak, this attitude, if not the Chinese bio-weapons research, will change.
This is a model opening argument for an ICC bill of indictment against the CIA command
structure. The bird's-eye view is exactly right – all of CIA's gravest crimes have been
most evident not at the detailed technical level but at the organizational level. CIA can
shred all the MIPRs and RFPs and after-action reports they want, but the proof of all CIA
crime is public information about the actions of CIA focal points in government.
(Incidentally, one example you don't mention is official obstruction, including CDC, of Helen
Chu's coronavirus testing. That would have shown that COVID-19 was far too widespread for a
single introduction from Wuhan. Another example is the series of airport clusterfucks that
muddled US haplotypes when Chinese researchers noted that they point to US origins.)
The presumption of incompetence probably has its own CIA memo analogous to 1035-960. If
they can get you to tacitly assume that CIA works in the national interest, but ineptly, then
you misinterpret everything. CIA is a criminal enterprise with ongoing profit centers that
fund opportunistic crimes from asset-stripping to aggression.
When you're using a banned biological weapon, domestic casualties confer important
benefits:
First, damage to the US can help obfuscate attribution. Philip Giraldi articulates that
line in its clearest form, Why would the government shoot itself in the foot like that?
Second, US contagion offers a pretext for domestic repression: house arrest; overt contact
chaining illegally undertaken by NSA for decades; forcible derogation of your rights of
assembly and association.
Third, US economic devastation is used as a pretext for looting the fisc on an
unprecedented scale. Blackrock now performs central planning on behalf of the Fed, forcing
the state to guarantee a overwhelming volume of worthless and fraudulent securities.
Illegal warfare that is difficult to attribute has one intractable problem. It's a sneak
attack in breach of the Hague Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities. That
convention was the legal justification for the first use of nuclear weapons. So if Russia and
China nuke the beltway into a sinkhole of molten basalt, that's only fair.
If it is established that COVID-19 is a banned biological weapon, this is self-evidently
the gravest crime in world history. The attack manifestly constituted aggression with an
absolutely indiscriminate weapon. It defies considerations of proportionality with unknown
global effects. The Nazi regime was extirpated for much less.
The evidence is very close to probative, and mounting.
There is the question of natural vs artificial origin of the novel corona virus, and from my
layman's research and considerations it seems increasingly that an artificial origin is
extremely likely. The pertinent technology is now widely available, there has been a massive
ongoing effort in the field since the 2nd WW, and many researchers and knowledgeable people
are drawing the conclusion of likely artificial origin: So, for example, George Webb's work,
or the Czech scientist Dr.Sona Pekova, PhD, who near the end of the video linked to describes
the virus in such a way as to indicate a great likelihood of artificial creation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmL7okhbVzU&feature=youtu.be
There are many possible perpetrators. And a few likely suspects.
The ultimate health implications of the new virus are impossible to say with certainty at
this point: For example, Paul Craig Roberts' website's latest title is "Bad News From the
Virus if Correct", with the point being that there are now known to be a lot of different
strains with presumably different potential for harm, but there may be many more not
recognized.
There are additional contextual considerations that will have consequences which are
anyone's guess. So for example, last year saw many widespread agricultural catastrophes and
difficulties which were usually weather related. If the weather continues to be
uncooperative, in conjunction with food production and transportation problems related to the
virus, in conjunction with the African Swine Flu disaster, then human health and food
security, and thus health, on a large scale may be affected.
Another contextual consideration is the recent rapid and accelerating deployment of 5G
technology, which many are concerned can make life more vulnerable to health problems. It may
just be coincidental, but worth noting, that tiny San Marino, enclosed by Italy, boasted of
being the European leader in the rollout of 5G technology, and is now the world leader in
corona virus deaths per million, by a long shot (San Marino with 1179 deaths per million as
of today compared to second place Spain with 455 per million, and yes, Spain has been among
the most ambitious countries in rolling out 5G in many cities. And Wuhan was the very poster
'child' of 5G. Just saying.)
Shutting down the world economy seems rather dire. But it may just be the impetus for a
radical rethink of the basic structure and design of the global economic system.
The global paradigm which in economic terms might be described as globalism, or 'when
private corporations rule the world', or neo-liberalism, or plutocracy running amuck, or
grasping for 'global government', or the aftermath of the chimera of 'full spectrum
domination', or in the wreckage of Rockefeller's and Kissinger's et al wet dream, or
democracy spurned, is now inescapably obviously retarded, dysfunctional: a fundamental design
flaw if you want humanity and Earth to thrive. In short, the culture of deception.
Someone has suggested as symptomatic of our present predicament a cartoon featuring Fauci
with his bio-weapon declaring this as 'the age of the Ork', with crazed Bill Gates as Gollum
wielding a syringe and gleefully chortling 'my precious!'.
The local, one's back yard, the decentralized, the careful common sense community, the
regional, and the actually democratic national, with the public interest protected by the
public, and much honest discourse, as one basic design alternative.
Useful article by Unz which connects the dots well. One important dot which is missing,
though, in his analysis of the psywar promoting propaganda that the virus leaked out of a lab
in Wuhan, and is a Chinese biowarfare agent, is that this psywar originated with an israeli
military-intelligence operative. One dany shoham. This individual was also deeply involved in
the "iraq has wmds" psywar operation at the beginning of the century. More on that dot and
how it connects to the others, later.
A few days ago I wrote this about how the israeloamericans are framing their psywar
campaign against China:
The israeloamericans are working on a several level strategy which includes back-ups in my
opinion. The israeloamericans are trying to cover all the bases at once.
So they claim China created the virus in a lab, in case it gets out it was lab created,
meaning israel or the usa created it in a lab. The israeloamericans claim the virus leaked
out of the Wuhan lab in case evidence is found that israeloamerica deliberately planted the
virus in Wuhan or it spread from a source in the usa through some other vector. The
israeloamericans claim China mislead the world about the virus so people wont notice the
reality that China has successfully thwarted the virus, while trump & co. have continued
making it worse. The claptrap about China under reporting victims is a variation of the
latter tactic. And so on.
Is what is being reported in the following article "damage control"?
Neither 'lab' nor 'wet market'? Covid-19 outbreak started months EARLIER and NOT in Wuhan,
ongoing Cambridge study indicates
Another vector in the israeloamerican preemptive strategy? Now that research is showing
the virus may have been infecting people earlier and neither a market in Wuhan, or even Wuhan
itself, may be where it originated?
With regard to western response to the pandemic, especially american, the delay in
israel's trump colonial regime's containment response to the virus tells me they deliberately
wanted the virus to spread across the country and cause the ruckus it is now causing. The
question is why israel had them do this.*
* Compare the israeli response, IE: strong proactive containment strategy, to the weak
responses in most zionazi colonies. It is clear there is an actual strategy underlying this
difference. And it entails more than israel being sacrosanct.
Keep in mind that trump, and his corrupt regime, are israel's property. More specifically,
they tepresent the israeli likud freakshow (netanyahoo and related subhuman garbage). Most of
what trump says and the policies his regime follow, originate from tel aviv. Trump's cowardly
"blame China" campaign, duplicated by the zionazi western media (commonly misnamed the msm)
is israeli psywar.
@onebornfree See my post at 135 regarding three different variants: A, B and C. The most
prevalent in Asia is B and the most prevalent variants in Europe and the US are A and C. So
it could also be that A and C variants are more virulent than B.
"By any reasonable measure, the response to this global health crisis by China and most East
Asian countries has been absolutely exemplary, while that of many Western countries has been
equally disastrous. Maintaining reasonable public health has been a basic function of
governments since the days of the city-states of Sumeria, and the sheer and total
incompetence of America and most of its European vassals has been breathtaking. If the
Western media attempts to pretend otherwise, it will permanently forfeit whatever remaining
international credibility it still possesses."
So saying, Ron Unz forfeits whatever credibility he might have retained by now
acknowledging the data emerged from "the fog of war" he found himself pronouncing in a month
or more ago.
Like Unz, and after examining the relevant Chinese data, epidemiologists Knut Wittkowski(
almost a month ago) saluted the Asian approach to handling the novel virus threat.
Unlike Unz, Wittkowski revealed that what was salutary was the Chinese government's
allowing the populace to gain herd immunity before instituting any lockdown measures.
(rendering the lockdown measures a mystery from a scientific point of view).
So, and according to Wittkowski- a man with credentials relevant to this story, yet
completely ignored by Unz' investigative article- the incompetence of Western governments
cited by Unz is the clean reverse of what he claims: it is the incompetence of ignoring what
the competent Chinese did not ignore, namely, the sound scientific counsel to allow the virus
to spread, granting the herd immunity to the populace which protects the elderly and fragile
self-quarantining until that immunity is gained.
1) Virus is US bioweapon attack on China
2) Virus is China's own bioweapon accident
3) Virus happened in nature, and everybody is trying to profit off the crisis or
contain/direct the damage to their own interests.
That's 66% percent chance it's an accident.
Government in power were sane enough to avoid nuclear war as recently as 40 years ago. Why
would they be crazier today? Biowarfare is Mutually Assured Destruction, too. If people can
model this away, please provide a link.
@swamped You are cognitively blind to the obvious -- the ZUSA has become ZUSSR (minus
excellent Soviet educational system). Before lamenting "Chinese despots" and "their contempt
for civil liberties," think for a moment about the fate of Assange (why he is in a
high-security prison?) and about the Banksters on the march (the financialization of the US
economy).
What is the state of "liberties" in the US and the UK? -- Gay parades. Quantitative
Easings for eternity.
Why some 1000 American military bases encircle the globe? Why 25 American biofare
laboratories reside in Europe? You are cheerleading for Cheneys and Rubins (read General
Smedley Butler). https://fas.org/man/smedley.htm http://armswatch.com/the-pentagon-bio-weapons/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk_
Libya used to be a prosperous state with universal healthcare and excellent educational
opportunities. Enter the "non-totalitarian" and "non-despotic" deciders to bring in
"liberties." First, the US/NATO expropriated Libyan gold, and then a regular business of
"liberation" took place: since the "non-totalitarian" and "non-despotic" liberators entered
Libya, a civil war commenced, the healthcare and educational systems have collapsed and slave
markets sprang.
Or perhaps you are proud of freedom of information in the US?
This important story was immediately summarized in many of the world's other most
prestigious publications, but encountered an absolute wall of silence in our own
country.
How much trillions have been disappeared by the Pentagon? -- 21 (twenty-one). A lot
of money that could be used for initiating great national projects of all kinds.
Why the US industries have been relocated to China? -- Because this is what US corporations
demanded and got. What deciders want, they get. Read General Smedley Butler, again.
For many weeks President Trump and his political allies had regularly dismissed or
minimized this terrible health threat, and suddenly now faced with such a manifest
disaster, they have naturally begun seeking other culprits to blame.
I'm a little worried about The Unz Review. This pandemic is already being used to consolidate
the economy and The Powers That Be are likely to use it to settle scores and purge
dissident voices.
TruthDig is down and other media is likely to go down soon as ad revenue collapses. I
would have advised ad revenue from foreign sources like Aeroflot (and others outside the U.S.
Oligarchy), but airlines are collapsing and international travel is likely to be down for a
while.
Maybe just open a Patreon Account and put a link in the sidebar.
It may be a good time to be extra cautious and gird your loins as they say.
Whatever anyone may make of Unz's assessment, I think everyone not insane or evil or
mindlessly jingoistic should agree with this: "Everyone knows that America's ruling elites
are criminal, crazy, and also extremely incompetent."
By the way – I hope Unz has changed his mind about the bombing of Serbia. Anytime
Neocons assert the need to use violence to help Moslems, the reasonable man smells not a rat,
but a million putrid rats.
I would not be surprised if the Chinese got a leg up on such research by espionage
targeting both countries. [SIC]
Of the three, the USA's research is probably the most benign/least vicious [
SIC ]
ROFLAMO
How fucking old are you kid ?
Back to your Harry Potter forchrissake
This is an adult site.
Do you want me to inform your mom ?
@Tor597 Correct. The Elites of the Anglo-Zionist Empire will get richer from all this,
while the white American middle and working classes will get poorer.
Much the same will happen in the UK and France and other European nations.
This and many other analyses focus primarily on governments, USA government, Chinese
communistic government etc. and their past misadventures as proofs for their involvement or
not involvement in the current disaster. I would like to see at least one extensive analyse
of possible involvement of the nongovernment governments. Their interests and gains from this
situation. Regards!
@denk Not the "war crimes" bit again. Look, the whole operation was one big war crime,
and that according to the US Secretary of State. Same with Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq --
overthrow of another state for no compelling reason. So what? War is war, and China can
either participate or not. If it participate, it can expect to become part of the general
destruction.
Analogy -- if somebody is in your house and gets violent, that's a crime. You are legally
able to protect yourself. If the person starts to run, you can't shoot she/he/it because
she/he/it is no longer a threat. Sure, the other she/he/it started the crime, but that
doesn't mean you can commit a crime of your own (shooting somebody when she/he/it isn't an
immediate threat). Should she/he/it turn around and start returning fire, well, it just might
be that she/he/it is legally doing so.
So enough of this "you stepped on a crack and so you've transgressed the law in one
particular, so you are absolutely condemned" stuff. You want to play that game, people get
tired of it, and it has a bad endgame. Try playing it on COVID-19. COVID-19 might listen to
you and depart. Go, use your moral authority and save us all.
Since the Israeli masterminded 9/11 false flag, the MSM has told us a gazillion lies about
what DID NOT happen that day.
When those lies started losing luster, we were told Bin Laden was killed, but they offered no
proof, other than "Trust Us.'
Then we started getting lies about ISIS, DAESH, al Nusra etc, that they were even worse
than al CIA Duh, when in fact, they were started, funded, paid, protected and give air cover
by the US/Israel and the Kingdom of Head Choppers.
Now the same MSM is braying that Covid will be the end of the world, unless we give up our
freedoms?
Bull. We're being lied to again and the sad part is, many are falling for this latest line
of horse apples.
In Coronavirus We Trust: Medical Surveillance State For A Gov That's Experimented On
You 239 Times
When are people going to realize that the mandatory vaccine is ready NOW – Gates,
Fauci, Davos, the oligarchs, and the usual suspects just needed to lay the groundwork. It's
ready to go now. Doesn't take much of a gedanken experiment to see the end-game here.
@utu "Yes, what if the chief objective was not to hurt China by disrupting its society
and economy but to make the whole world angry with China."
If the planning was like 9/11, then both of these objectives would have been carefully
scrutinized and maximized.
Bear in mind something, please: who says these bastards are finished unleashing designer
bugs?
Would it not be wisest for these evil geniuses to keep the bugs coming, intensifying the
impact so that the continuously simmering anger of the increasingly desperate masses can be
directed to boil over at the Chinese menace when the 'elites' deem it necessary and proper.
And with exploding unemployment numbers, especially among the young, and no real short term
job or career prospects, these psychopathic 'elites' have a ready-made source for boots on
the ground, should that be mandated.
Of course, I hope all this turns out to not be the case. But if 9/11 was any indication,
these bastards will be brazen and shamelessly murderous.
@Max Powers When you said that Ron Unz lost you with his defense of NATO in the
unnecessary Serbian war, I hope that you read the rest of the article rather than stopping
there. I, too, smelled a Bill Clinton obfuscation at the time, as I always do when any US
president sends our troops to war. I'm a little surprised that Mr. Unz didn't.
However, I respect his honesty, and he more than redeemed himself in the rest of his
well-researched and well-written article. It did much to bolster my belief that the
CIA/Neocons are behind it. Although, discounting the unfairly derided Beltway outsider Mr.
Trump, I've never considered the likes of such people as West Point grad SOS Pompeo as being
incompetent. To paraphrase the former CIA head: "we lie, we cheat, we steal."
But America and several European countries avoiding adopting these same early measures
such as widespread testing, quarantine, and contact-tracing, and have paid a terrible price
for their insouciance.
For someone ordinarily quite careful in your use of terminology, you conflate the term
quarantine with lockdown. This is usually being done these days in the media to make a
lockdown seem less unreasonable to the insouciant public. Properly a quarantine is the
isolation of the sick to prevent the spread of contagion to the healthy public. What we have
are lockdowns, restricting the free movement of the healthy population. These have been
resorted to out of the desire "to do something," but unfortunately as you must know, there is
absolutely no empirical evidence that lockdowns do any good when all is said and done, and
they do considerable economic harm. Sweden used a relaxed social distancing approach without
a lockdown, and their mortality rate is currently less than that of most countries that
resorting to this authoritarian approach.
@Quintus "Another financial reset was also long overdue, as Greg Mannarino and others
have pointed out: the coronavirus cover was too perfect of a tool for deflecting the guilt
from the Fed and the banksters; killing many birds with one stone, the virus is also a 2)
powerful psy-op hurting China's image in the world, 3) further delivering a strong blow to
its export-driven economy; 4) it sets the stage for the cashless society ("dirty bills not
accepted here!"), the advent of digital currencies and 5) top-down surveillance."
Exactly!
This planned-demic is like a Timex watch for the PTB: the gift that keeps on giving.
You are spot-on when you say that digital currencies and top-down surveillance will be
enabled by this oh-so-convenient viral pandemic.
Like I said, it's a neoliberal zionist-neocon elitist's wet dream come true, maybe even
more than 9/11 was.
I guess we all get to watch, wait and see what happens next .
One thing I have been waiting for is confirmation that HIV is somehow involved in the virus,
making it a chimera and tipping the scale towards bioweapon.
@anon If Trump was in on it, he didn't do much of a job making himself a hero, several
missteps are noticeable in the view of 20/20 hindsight, even if he intentionally wanted to
crash the economy he would have scripted it better.
@MLK Unz.com seems to be less a blog than an online asylum; Ron and most of the
KrazyKommentariat have really flipped their tinfoil Trilbys this time. This site is worse
than Infowars is reputed to be–yet utterly without the entertainment value. You wonder
why Pat Buchanan, Steve Sailer and Bertie Woostershire continue to post on this site. And,
yes, why I bother to comment.
@Tor597 "Zerohedge used to be libertarian and antiestablishment but something changed and
they are now right wing neocons."
Their true colors are emerging for all to see.
I recognized early on what exactly Zerohedge was about: sayanim-directed, intelligently
controlled opposition. Very intelligently controlled, I should say.
Or as I call it, "Zio-hedge".
The trick is to give lots of good analysis and establish credibility, and then on the
absolutely critical issues, subtly reinforce the neocon narrative. Then, slowly over time,
not so subtly. Then, when the moment is ripe, openly and strongly support the neocon
narrative. Again, a very intelligent and effective technique.
Sadly, we are now at the point of "openly" reinforcing the neocon narrative ..
Ron,
Your article is very good! Thank you for shedding some light on this issue
I would like to summarize a rebuttal to some of the points expressed in this article
However, your chart depicting America and China economic trends is statistically
misleading
America started from a much higher bar than China, and it is harder for richer countries
to grow. Furthermore, an additional dollar in per capita GDP for America is a less % growth
than it would be for China.
Here is the GDP per capita growth from the World Bank for America vs China.
Hardly, what your graph shows at all. In fact, this shows America adding more in Per
capita GDP in real terms than China over the last thirty years.
It seems the issue is that you are thinking that China's exponential growth will continue
till the point where it strongly surpasses the USA, like the Coronavirus's growth, but
countries don't work like that. Unless you want to believe there was some policy reason for
why Japan went from 10% to 1% growth in ten years.
Second, with respect to the domestic impoverishment of America, I think you are mistaken
here. Most of those who are impoverished in America are immigrants and Black people, one
group because of their recent arrival and location in America's most expensive cities. The
other group because of their lack of time preference, so they don't save.
Additionally, How did China identify the virus so quickly? It is fairly hard to tell, even
from those who died. According your own article, China shut down when they had 11 deaths, and
sequenced the genome when they had even less. That has never happened before, and I feel that
is suspicious to me. The offical Chinese narrative is that the Wuhan Goverment dropped the
ball, so how did they catch the disease so early?
An article by Mr. Unz is always worth the wait and then the read, no matter if I agree a
100%, 60%, or even just 20% with what has been written.
A real delight, and a sort of Christmasy feeling. Which is a very important psychological
boost for the likes of me in such weird, weird times. Thanks!
The Winnipeg lab lead scientist, a Dr Plummer, dropped dead in Nigeria in early March.
He more than likely added the HIV 1 content to the Wu V to allow it to spread since he had
the MERS variant from 2014 on.
His lab then had Wuhan Scientists escorted out by RCMP last summer.
No info as to why was offered, and Plummer was buddies with the Harvard prof, and both were
recipients of Epstien the rapists financial support.
Ron always goes to the edge, but never ever steps off!!
Epstein should be brought up, he gave many millions to the Harvard and MIT people for virus
development!! Cui bono Ron, cui bono, by deception, make war!!!
Not sure what to make of Mr. Unz's piece here -- there's a lot of room for any number of
suspects to emerge as the guilty party here
One of the earliest questions I had was just how did this virus get into Iran -- which
naturally begs the question of who has the most visible and ongoing hatred of Iran -- other
than israel -- and their stooge, the United States.
The Newsweek article cited here about the class action lawsuits even mentions one of the
plaintiff attorneys: "But Klayman claimed he has "whistleblowers with firsthand knowledge" of
China's involvement in the viral outbreak who are currently residing in Israel and the United
States and who can help substantiate this charge." So just who is it among 'whistleblowers'
that reside in israel and in the United States (likely dual citizenship folks) -- other than
israeli nationals?
And, from this article: "But by late February Iran had become the second epicenter of the
global outbreak. Even more surprisingly, its political elites had been especially hard-hit,
with a full 10% of the entire Iranian parliament soon infected and at least a dozen of its
officials and politicians dying of the disease, including some who were quite senior.
" Across the entire world the only political elites that have yet suffered any significant
human losses have been those of Iran, and they died at a very early stage, before significant
outbreaks had even occurred almost anywhere else in the world outside China. Thus, we have
America assassinating Iran's top military commander on Jan. 2nd and then just a few weeks
later large portions of the Iranian ruling elites became infected by a mysterious and deadly
new virus, with many of them soon dying as a consequence. Could any rational individual
possibly regard this as a mere coincidence?"
Even allowing for Iran's involvement by the chinese in its BRI -- how can anyone explain
the virus so quickly targeting the elites in Iran's ruling class -- certainly they don't hang
around with the chinese in Iran or elsewhere, do they?
@Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist Your list is too small. I laugh at these comments
regarding China's lies and crimes. Americans are surely the most gullible people on the
planet. They know their corrupt government steals and lies to them daily yet they can still
be manipulated to jump on the bandwagon of blame and hate towards anyone at anytime with a
few inciteful articles from the media.
let me add to your list [MORE]
MLK
JFK
Ruby
USS Liberty
911
Venezuela
Honduras
Haiiti
Hiroshima
Vietnam
Syria
Palestine
Russia
Ukraine
Libya
Epstein
Afghanistan
32 Trillion dollars missing from the pentagone
All Presidential Elections
Hiding their own crimes against humanity, their government drug trade/sex trade/ chemical
and biowarfare against poor countries.
The US of Israel so exceptional.
@Mustapha Mond Agreed . Like 9/11 there is plenty of evidence in the predictive
programming/revelation of the method/social conditioning that the Coronavirus pandemic was
many years in the making see, for example : "WTF? Olympic Opening Ceremony 2012-NHS" YouTube
. Yes, the London 2012 Olympic Games opening ceremony revealed part of the plot of the
Coronavirus plandemic. I was expecting that something like this was going to happen ,but
figured the cabal/cult/globalists/freemasons wouldn't try to pull it off until Americans were
disarmed but , when you have total control of the media , it is easy to create hysteria and
brainwash the public into believing that the Coronavirus, which is probably no more than the
flu ,is the plague and will wipeout mankind unless everyone is locked-down . As another
commenter has noted ,they probably could not have pulled off the international Coronavirus
psyop 10 to 20 years ago because they did not have control and ownership of the worldwide
massmedia . septemberclues.info
has a good, short essay on "The central role of the news media on 9/11." Unless you stop
relying on news from NPR, MSNBC, New York Times , Washington Post, Fox News , CBS , NBC
,etc,etc you will remain brainwashed and unable to understand that we are living through a
planned-demic with a frightening agenda .
@anon "Please do not comment on things you clearly don't understand. It is estimated that
no more than a few percent of the American population has been exposed to Sars2 (Covid-19)."
The key word is "estimated". No one knows (not even you) the actual number of exposed
Americans to the Wuhan virus. There have been some small random samples done by
Dr.Bhattacharya that indicate that there is actually a large number of Americans that have
been infected but are asymptomatic and that the final mortality rate will be closer to the
annual flu or 0.1% to 0.2% instead of the guesstimate of 3%. The early studies are too small
to think they are representative of the nation but the results indicate that larger studies
are necessary in order to support nationwide policies, which are currently being made on
hunches not science. About 60,000 to 80,000 died of the flu during the 2017 season when
vaccines were available, so a large number of deaths during the flu season are not unusual
and never required closing down the economy.
[MORE]
Gov. Cuomo was screaming at the top of his lungs that he needed tens of thousands of
ventilators, thousands are now sitting in his warehouses unused. So much for estimates. Most
of the early estimates were wrong by exaggerating the death rate, which turned out to be only
a guess rather than based upon science.
The CDC has been derelict in its duties over the years and has been giving poor advice.
There are other experts in the field that have alternative views that are being ignored or
dismissed and should at least be considered.
@Ayatollah Smith I have been reading much about Covid-19, but am waiting for anyone, in
or out of government, trying to blame China and/or exonerate Uncle Sam to deal with a
particular point that anyone can easily appreciate using only a timeline:
The US needs to answer this question: HOW could US 'intelligence sources' possibly have
known in November – or even October – of a potential pandemic of COVID-19 that
would erupt – specifically in Wuhan – two months later? (Or that was already
erupting in Wuhan at the time, unbeknownst to the Chinese?). I believe the entire world
would demand the answer to this.
So far, nothing. No refutation, no rationalization, just silence. Like WTC-7, is this
Achilles' heel from which the Establishment can only limp away?
I don't know who, what, when, where, or why this infection(s) began. But I'm certain that
anyone dodging that particular question wants me not to.
In 2016, when I finally cancelled by NYT subscription, I was asked why I was doing so. I
explained that I didn't like having my intelligence systematically insulted.
Like, I think, most UR readers, I'm game for pretty much anything as a general
proposition.
But poor Ron couldn't make it more than 100 words into a droning 7,400 words with
discrediting himself.
When CIA whacked JFK, the whole world outside the US iron curtain knew, but too bad. When CIA
blew up OKC, the whole world knew, but hey, it's their business. When CIA knocked down the
WTC, on the second try, and blew up the Pentagon a bit to start a war, the whole world knew,
but Russia was tits-up, unable to do anything about it.
This is different. CIA's illegal germ warfare is a maleficium, in legal doctrine going
back to Grotius. CIA wronged the whole world, and the whole world has a joint obligation to
hold CIA responsible. Russia and China made a missile gap for real, so now they can do
it.
This is war. This is the very beginning of the world war that will end the CIA regime:
@Anon One problem with the chart that can be fixed to make it more representative is that
the two countries should start from the same base of comparison. If you use two different
bases, then you get the wrong comparison.
For instance, if you measured the US from China's base in 1980, the US added 40k in per
capita gdp in the 40 years, reflecting a 4000% increase from China base in contrast to the
1400% increase that China had.
If you use the same base, then America is what looks like a superior country.
@antitermite Unbelievable. A truly gifted researcher destroyed on the totally idiotic
charges:
Charles M. Lieber (born 1959) is an American chemist and pioneer in nanoscience and
nanotechnology. In 2011, Lieber was named by Thomson Reuters as the leading chemist in the
world for the decade 2000-2010 based on the impact of his scientific publications. He is
known for his contributions to the synthesis, assembly and characterization of nanoscale
materials and nanodevices, the application of nanoelectronic devices in biology, and as a
mentor to numerous leaders in nanoscience.
Awards:
Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology (2001)
MRS [Material Research Society] Medal (2002)
ACS Award in the Chemistry of Materials (2004)
NBIC Research Excellence Award in Nanotechnology, University of Pennsylvania (2007)
Inorganic Nanoscience Award, ACS Division of Inorganic Chemistry (2009)
Fred Kavli Distinguished Lectureship in Nanoscience, Materials Research Society (2010)
Wolf Prize in Chemistry (2012)
Nano Research Award, Tsinghua University Press/Springer (2013)
IEEE Nanotechnology Pioneer Award (2013)
Willard Gibbs Medal Award (2013)
MRS Von Hippel Award (2016)
Remsen Award (2016)
NIH Director's Pioneer Award (2017 and 2008)
John Gamble Kirkwood Award, Yale University (2018)
Welch Award in Chemistry (2019)
On January 28, 2020, Lieber was arrested on charges of making false statements to the
U.S. Department of Defense and to Harvard investigators regarding his participation in
China's Thousand Talents Program According to the Department of Justice's charging
document, there are two counts of alleged crime committed by Lieber. The DOJ
believes Lieber's statement was false
The only way "the US government did it" makes sense is if this was happening this coming
November after Trump has been reelected. If the Deep State did it without Trump's approval,
somebody will talk just like John Soloman claims FBI agents told him of the Russiagate
conspiracy at the FBI while it was getting underway. Somebody would have alerted somebody
loyal to Trump what was being planned. Remember Trump had to give the order to kill that
Iranian general. The Deep State (full of Israel's toadies) didn't even do that on their own.
Of course, there is an answer for everything. It even makes more sense for Trump to do it
now so he can fix it. The Deep State did it but Trump now has to cover for them or risk the
world finding out how incompetent he is.
Concerning "wet markets", I'd just like to add that 99% of those are normal "butcher's
markets" with lamb, beef, pork, chickens, and sea produce, and 1%, in specific parts of the
country, selling all the Cthulhu fhtagn stuff.
So China reopening some wet markets now is an argument neither for, nor against the
zootropic theory. Because I'm pretty sure they're reopening the "lamb and chicken" wet
markets, not the "H.R.Giger's nightmares" ones, such as the one in Wuhan that is one of the
three possible origins.
1) Wuhan wet market
2) Wuhan lab
3) Wuhan based foreign troops taking part in the military Olympics
Has to be one of those three. Maybe the third was even accidental, but
There's some interesting information in the article for sure, but it seems to me that if the
US were to perform clandestine bio weapons attacks on another country, the Middle East and
Russia would surely be the primary targets. We rely on China for a lot of things, such as
virtually all the goods sold at Walmart and China owns a great deal of our debt, so it would
seem to me a financially strong China is in our interest.
Moreover, plagues and epidemics, especially coronaviruses, have started in the far east as
long as can be remembered.
@Anonymous This is about the most common sense post I have read on this site. SPOT ON.
OUR current problems in regards to immigration, racial issues, Black criminality, and this
(((virus))) can all be traced to one group for the most part. Btw, I was in NYC about the
same time perion in '83-'87 and haven't been back since, but from what I understand, it is
far worse today. I actually didn't find it that bad back then even though crime and drugs
were out of control. Probably because I was a twenty-something and having fun.
Anyhow, as you said, WHY in the hell do ANY Americans, much less White Americans ALLOW
RACIST JEWISH SUPREMACIST organizations have so much power over them. It isn't as if the ADL
or $PLC try and hide their hatred for Whites. I would have no problem for any organization
whether it be Black, Jewish or Hispanic fighting against racism, but lets face it, these
organizations aren't fighting against racism, they main goal is to take away the rights of
Whites or demonize WHITES ONLY.
"Life isn't complicated." And this (((virus))) isn't either. This shit was MANUFACTURED
and we can only guess by whom and what their future intentions are down the road. As usual
the usual suspects have already pretty much revealed themselves to anyone out there really
watching. For the WILLFULLY ignorant ostriches and chinadidit people, well, they must like be
lorded over by a tiny group of people who don't give two shits about them or their
children.
the response of the West has been utterly atrocious either way.
What do you people wish happened -- Trump-issued national lockdown order back in January?
Why do the death counts need to be artificially inflated if this virus is as deadly as the
media says?
These injuries often seem like pneumonia, but they are not caused by an infectious
disease, and they do not improve with antibiotics. Respiratory symptoms reported include:
shortness of breath, chest pain, pain on breathing, and cough. Other symptoms reported by
many patients include: fever, chills, nausea, weight loss, vomiting, diarrhea, or abdominal
pain.
Whether plausible or not, such accusations carry the gravest international implications,
and there are growing demands that China financially compensate our country for its
trillions of dollars in economic losses.
Aren't you comdedians Trillions deep in debt by the Chinese?
Since you'd never pay back anyway, they are in the face saving position to grant you very
generous debt forgiveness.
@Mustapha Mond Not to mention, Mr. Brave New World (how appropriate your name is), it
fits in nicely with Bill Gates' plan for a massive reduction in world population. What
freedom-loving young proles will want to form families and bring children into such a
dystopia? Already, US whites are well below replacement rate and dropping. As of 2018 it was
1.73 babies per woman, 16% below replacement rate, the lowest rate ever recorded. Asian
Americans are even lower at 1.525 (per the World Atlas).
@Chet Roman there things that are kmown:the almost universal economic damage that
stopping the economy,as if it were a ball game,would bring,guaranteed
We all have one hand tied behind our back. There is nobody that I know of presenting
information from inside the border of China to compare with Ronald Unz and his collaborators
at unz.com . I have seen exactly one
document in the last two years. It was a post on medium.com which purportedly was written by a Chinese ex-pat
graduate student in British Columbia with google earth images analyzed to show the
proliferation of concentration camps in Xinjiang for the retention of young male uyghurs.
Every single time I saw this document referenced on the internet it was followed up within
an hour by a shower of posts from all over the place that it was CIA fake news.
Basically at most we know about 1/2 and it is tough to know what to do with that.
@36 ulster Because articles with stated evidence linked to articles/research/legislation
where it is taken from (unlike the MSM, that links nothing other than its own circle-jerk),
and some implicit acceptance that the reader should have the freedom to decide for themselves
– rather than being spoonfed 'truths' agreed upon somewhere 'up high' – offers
people enough respect to allow them to accept that the webzine is not an ideological
printout, but a spectrum of ideas, to be evaluated by the reader. This is a contract with
consideration.
We have no truths from our elected leaders, or their stenographers in the MSM though.
When Trump says 'blame China', most of us see a bankruptcy merchant peddling a lie to
weasel out and default on 1 trn $$ (Martyanov said it first methinks!) – cause that's
what he does, and that's what he knows.
Unz offers a fairly balanced approach to conspiracy theory – not conspiracy
hypothesis. Ain't seen any article on some dude claiming he got anal probed by little green
men without any even anecdotal evidence.
This place debates the smoke, often without the fire. But it's a good start to some
explanation for some fire. Much of the rest of the net doesn't look at the smoke, but instead
distracts its audience with some other eye candy.
But hey, is it fair to complain – some people enjoy WWE!
@utu There's nothing like attacking the person (Wittkowski himself) in place of his point
( herd immunity already gained by Asians before lockdown) to demonstrate your bona fides.
Thanks for your back-handed admittal that you can't rebut his conclusion.
I have been trying to get this across for an age. It's very simple. Anybody who says China
did it is suspect. Not only does the import of their message suggest that the China-did-its
are ruling-class-hired trolls, the trolly smartass tone suggests it, not to mention the
illiteracy.
@Other Side "The drastic changes in the Balkans in the 1990s and the disintegration of
Yugoslavia in particular have resulted in a large number of publications attempting to
explain the break-up of this country and the political developments in the Balkans. Some of
these publications deal partly with the local Muslims who were engaged in the Balkan
conflicts but, with some exceptions, they are focused mainly on recent developments, with
less attention paid to the historical contexts in which the Muslim nationalist movements were
shaped. Although religion played a more important role in the nation-building process of the
Bosnian Muslims than in that of the Albanians, there are very few studies that examine the
reasons for this and the impact of Islam on the Muslim nationalist movements in historical
perspective. The following article examines from a comparative perspective the role of Islam
in the Bosnian Muslim and Albanian national movements from the Ottoman period up to the end
of the Cold War. The Sunni Muslims of Bosnia and the Albanians, who are divided into three
religions and a variety of sects, present contrasting societal structures for the analysis of
different aspects of Islam."
Would you like to read the rest of this article
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233460310_The_Bosnian_Muslims_and_Albanians_Islam_and_nationalism
More reading
"Immediately after the fall of communism in Albania in 1991, Arab Islamic fundamentalists
infiltrated the mosques in the country, which is 70 percent Muslim. The interlopers
represented the Saudi Wahhabis and the Egyptian disciples of today's al Qaeda leader Ayman
Al-Zawahiri. In spring 1999, a dozen of Al-Zawahiri's acolytes, known as the "Albanian
Returnees," were deported from the eastern Adriatic republic to Egypt, tried, and sentenced
to death or extended prison terms for terrorism. The "Returnees" had been told by their
"sheikhs" to stay in Albania and avoid going to Kosovo, where NATO military forces were, by
that time, thick on the ground. But Albania booted them out with alacrity. Evidence in the
case of the "Albanian Returnees" proved extremely important in tracing the evolution of al
Qaeda's Egyptian predecessors."
A lot of famous people have made podcasts about how Sanders was sabotaged by the people he
hired to run his campaign.
Why did Sanders hire people from The Center for American Progress (aka Clinton Inc) to
run his campaign?
Why did he hire known backstabbers (Ro Khanna) and why did he attack his own people
during the campaign at the behest of a dishonest media mob? Why did he run a campaign based
on identity politics instead of how he ran his campaign last time?
Why did he spend his time attacking Trump instead of his opponents who were attacking
him?
Why did he allow himself to be branded by the media as a communist?
Why did he help deplatform Tulsi -- his ONLY ally?
Was it sabotage from the neocon-adjacent people he hired?
MCC is married to a VC multi-millionaire. To have hubby's business friends throw a couple
hundred grand at her is unsurprising. It's kind of like when your kid has to sell chocolate
bars so the marching band to go to the Thanksgiving Day parade. I doubt she'll get a thousand
votes. It's a lark and great fun to talk about over cocktails with the other Masters of the
Universe.
But then again Claire Booth Luce was a Congressperson but she had the good taste to run in
Connecticut not the Bronx.
"... "No matter what you do for the Do Nothing Democrats, no matter how GREAT a job you are doing, they will only respond to their Fake partners in the Lamestream Media in the negative, even in a time of crisis," ..."
"... "rude and nasty" ..."
"... "He gave them everything that they would have wanted to hear in terms of gaining ground on the CoronaVirus, but nothing that anyone could have said, including 'it's over,' could have made them happy," ..."
"... "They were RUDE and NASTY. This is their political playbook, and they will use it right up to the election on November 3rd," ..."
"... "America will not be fooled!!!" ..."
"... "never been so mad about a phone call" ..."
"... "the administration still doesn't have a plan to track daily testing capacity in every lab in the country, publicly release that data, and put forward a plan and timeline for identifying gaps." ..."
Donald Trump slammed Democrats for a "rude and nasty" phone call with the vice president
over the Covid-19 pandemic, and theorized nothing will satisfy them as they try to "fool"
America in November's election.
"No matter what you do for the Do Nothing Democrats, no matter how GREAT a job you are
doing, they will only respond to their Fake partners in the Lamestream Media in the negative,
even in a time of crisis," Trump tweeted on Saturday.
He added that his working relationship with Democrats during the Covid-19 pandemic has been
"even worse" than before and revealed senators held a "rude and nasty"
conference call with Vice President Mike Pence, who heads the White House Coronavirus Task
Force, on Friday where little progress was made.
"He gave them everything that they would have wanted to hear in terms of gaining ground
on the CoronaVirus, but nothing that anyone could have said, including 'it's over,' could have
made them happy," the president vented.
"They were RUDE and NASTY. This is their political playbook, and they will use it right
up to the election on November 3rd," he continued, adding that "America will not be
fooled!!!"
No matter what you do for the Do Nothing Democrats, no matter how GREAT a job you are
doing, they will only respond to their Fake partners in the Lamestream Media in the negative,
even in a time of crisis. I thought it would be different, but it's not. In fact, it's even
worse...
....them happy, or even a little bit satisfied. They were RUDE and NASTY. This is their
political playbook, and they will use it right up to the election on November 3rd. They will
not change because they feel that this is the only way they can win. America will not be
fooled!!!
Some lawmakers have expressed just as much animosity over the talk as the president. Maine
Sen. Angus King (I) said he has "never been so mad about a phone call" in his
life.
A point of contention appears to be Trump's desire to begin rolling back stay-at-home orders
and reopening the US economy next month, while many Democrats insist more Covid-19 testing must
be done first.
Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-New Hampshire) tweeted after the call that she is concerned "the
administration still doesn't have a plan to track daily testing capacity in every lab in the
country, publicly release that data, and put forward a plan and timeline for identifying
gaps."
Various governors, such as New York's Andrew Cuomo, continue to insist more thorough testing
and tracing of the virus is needed before they consider reopening their states and easing back
lockdown orders, while places like Texas, Minnesota, and Florida have already begun dropping
restrictions as more and more citizens take to demonstrating and protesting against the
measures.
This is a really good article that discusses how no matter which party is in control the war
party still wins. Right now Biden and Trump are having a D measuring contest to see who can be
harsher against China. Why? Because China's going to replace the current boogeyman 'the
terrorists' who replaced Russia as who we're supposed to be afraid of.
This article explains how every president has done what Wall Street and the military
industrial congressional complex tells them to do. It has some great quotes from Smedley
Butler, Eisenhower and JFK.
The Two Parties and the Media fail to serve our interests. Actually, work against them
most of the time. If this doesn't change, and real soon, they're going to take us over a
cliff. And real soon.
How true is this? So far Trump has kept us out of any new wars, but more regime change is on
the horizon with Venezuela and Nicaragua or an out and out war with Iran. But all 3 countries
have been in our crosshairs for decades and it's time to finish the job. Too bad that they
won't get us out of the current depression because we've offshored all our factories and mainly
to China. But wait there's more....China might be on the table too because they are threatening
our hegemony.
I'm thinking Venezuela will be the first one on the agenda unless the troops on the ships
being sent to the area come down with COVID.
Funny how in the middle of the new Great Depression there is still plenty of money to kill
innocent civilians just because they are living on the resources we want isn't impossible.
What's needed is that the general population of all status-quo rejectionists, regardless of
"wingedness," to hose down media, as with a water cannon.
I quote myself from an essay of 9 months ago:
Submitted by jim p on Fri, 07/06/2018 - 12:21am
The Two Parties and the Media fail to serve our interests. Actually, work against them
most of the time. If this doesn't change, and real soon, they're going to take us over a
cliff. And real soon.
That these "3 Birds" are corrupt, self-serving, and divorced from reality is an
assertion few "everyday people" would even try to refute. Not least because it can't be
done.
Here's what can be done: We can put aside our partisanship for a period of time and
flood Big Media with what we know. Along the lines of:
"We all know, even you know, that The Two Parties are corrupt and incompetent, and
they're killing this nation. Big Media itself is the propaganda outlet for the Psycho
Rich and War Mongers, and their job, in tandem with the Parties, is to keep us
distracted, misinformed, ignorant, and at each other's throat. You might not recognize
this, since courtiers and courtesans long before Versailles are flattered and blinded by
proximity to the 'Top Dogs.' Get real and grow up; too much is at stake."
With the object being to force out into the open the fact that 80% of Americans know
these parties are crooked and stupid. One might say "this won't work" and the right answer
to this is in two parts: 1) Bullshit. You can't possibly know that; 2) And the other option
you have that has even a slim chance of altering the scene would be...? You've got "whine
and despair" being the actual practice for all these worsening years.
up 9 users have voted. --
"I will be the best, the best, you know, you know the thing!" - Joe Biden
alex
in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit says: Show Comment April 18,
2020 at 4:58 am GMT 500 Words I will be very, very surprised if I receive one of these
fabled $1200 checks. The way things are done in the US, if you have money, you get more money,
and if you don't have money, you don't get money. Somehow in the US you can be too poor to get
healthcare for the poor, and since $1200 is quite a bit of money for me, basically a month's
gross pay, I'm sure it will never appear.
Also, it's easy to go on about being attached to the land if you're a member of the
land-owning class. In the US there's the land-owning class and the proletariat and while there
used to be social mobility upward as well as downward, it's only downward now. I really have no
roots anywhere. Hawaii, where I grew up? As a hated "haole", that's a big fat nope. California
where I have relatives? Said relatives are a mixture of dead, WASP, and wealthy and a wealthy
American will not give the heel off of a stale bread loaf to anyone not as wealthy as
themselves. If I become rich then I suppose they'll want to talk to me, but then there'd be
nothing to talk about.
I don't even have photos of my parents or siblings anymore, or old papers, or anything. When
you're a member of the proletariat in the US, you get moved and chased from place to place,
churned essentially, and you lose all of that stuff.
I love the idea of a homeland; of a place where they can't turn you away and they won't let
you starve or die of some easily preventable disease. Jews learned (as if they didn't know it
already) in WWII exactly how much anyone else cares about them, the way at least before the
world turned into a neoliberal hellhole, England cared about an Englishman or France about a
Frenchman etc. And they knew they'd have to *carve out* this homeland if need be, so they did.
I greatly admire this.
Think you're missing out if you're white? Look up "The American Redoubt" that that James
Wesley Rawles guy talks about. All you have to do is move there. Once it's fully set up, you
might have to give up your prettiest daughter to Rawle's harem, but there you go – it's a
homeland. Rawles thinks it will work because it's not easy land to live on, which should keep
lazy types out.
That's what seems to make for solid tribe-hood. Either you follow such a weird lifestyle
that the non-committed won't stick with it, like having to wear an onion on your belt and talk
about the year dickety-two, or you live on land that's so rigorous that "soft" people won't
dream of living there.
I don't even have photos of my parents or siblings anymore, or old papers, or anything.
When you're a member of the proletariat in the US, you get moved and chased from place to
place, churned essentially, and you lose all of that stuff.
How I wound up on house arrest in Russia. I can't even tell you where I was in this or that
year anymore – state, city, country, continent. I have stray memories that well up from
time to time – being on a bus, a train, walking on a road with a backpack, living on
someone's floor, sleeping in a stairwell; the reasons and the details escape me, and I'm
grateful for it. Somehow at eighteen I knew, intuitively, that it was going to be a very steep
downhill ride.
I learned only a few years ago not to hold on to anything, to accept life a la De Niro's
character in Heat . Be ready to jam at any moment: the system will not let you settle,
and if it did, it'd squeeze you mercilessly unto the grave. And here we are, the system forcing
everyone to settle because _______ (redacted to avoid censorship).
That's what seems to make for solid tribe-hood. Either you follow such a weird lifestyle
that the non-committed won't stick with it, like having to wear an onion on your belt and
talk about the year dickety-two, or you live on land that's so rigorous that "soft" people
won't dream of living there.
Yea, the most ethnocentric people are usually the most repugnant or tiresome. Greeks are
still fairly tribal, but as a "rugged individualist", do really you want that big Greek family
and all those obnoxious holidays and celebrations? Most westerners don't want or wouldn't
survive that, and that's a big part of why we're watching ourselves become obsolete. "Shelter
in place" is a rather suitable epitaph for atomized whiteskins; it's no wonder they've taken it
up with such gusto – 'tis the grave they've been leaning toward for a long while.
There is hope. The coronavirus crisis has exposed the relative merits of nations, so the
entire world can see, for example, how broken and corrupt the US is, with no leadership to
speak of. Dawdling, it failed to prevent needless deaths, then shut down much of the
country, bankrupting thousands of businesses and throwing millions out of work. As a fix,
it throws mere crumbs at desperate citizens, while bailing out the big banks, again.
As above, so below.
I wonder how one would go about valuing evil on one's balance sheet?
I used to think that the proper term to describe a group of Evils was : "A plethora of
evils." Now I know that the proper term of venery to describe a group of Evils is: "An
incorporation of evils."
On an honest history of 19th century populism: gotcha covered. The Populist Moment: A
Short History of the Agrarian Revolt , by Lawrence Goodwin. This is a condensed version
of his book Democratic Promise , which is sadly out of print.
"Breaking the Grip of White Grievance" [
The New Republic ]. "With Biden's success in the primaries, lines are drawn. The
presidential election will likely pit the Democratic herald of a younger, more tolerant,
multiracial America against a Republican tribune of white fear and grievance." • Or
would, if the Democrat Establishment hadn't thrown Latins and youth (by which is meant under
50 (!)), under the bus on policy. Just a thought, but if the Liberal Democrats had greeted
the decline of life expectancy in the heartland with anything other than malign neglect, they
might have an easier time on the "grievance" front. Too late for tears! In any case, there
will be plenty of money for the idpol grift, so look forward to a great wave of it.
"What Richard Hofstadter Got Wrong" [
The New Republic ]. "Hofstadter argued that the reformers of the late nineteenth and
early twentieth century -- Populist agitators, Progressive social planners, temperance and
suffrage advocates -- were engaged in a panicked bid to reclaim their diminishing status in
public life. As the Protestant guardians of small-town America saw the forces of capitalist
modernity overtake the world they knew, they lashed out, reasserting their waning power and
prestige as defenders of an embattled cultural order. Amid the present academic boomlet in
anti-populist jeremiads, Hofstadter's reading of the American Populist movement as a bigoted,
nativist, and anti-Semitic insurgency, steeped in "status anxiety," is arguably more
influential than ever, half a century after his death in 1970. But as is the case with many
intellectual legacies, a great deal has been lost in translation: Hofstadter envisioned
reform as a prolonged revolt against modernity -- not a particularly useful framework for
understanding today's demagogues, who, instead of trafficking in grievances about the world
they have lost, augur a bold new turn in plutocratic governance. Meanwhile, Hofstadter's
crudest simplifications have endured: His latter-day anti-populist apostles tend to fall back
on his caricatured accounts of the backward masses and their motivations, pointedly ignoring
the social-democratic cast of American Populism of the Gilded Age." • Waiting for Thomas
Frank's book on populism to emerge
Lambert, thank you for the link to the article about Richard Hofstadter and his views on
populists of the early 20th century. A current historian writing about this era and more is
Richard White of Stanford. I'm learning a lot from his recent essays and the YouTube videos
of his presentations, interviews, etc. Here's one worth your time: https://youtu.be/-YM7KE576K0
"The Republic for which It Stands" by Richard White is very good on the Gilded Age.
Lawrence Goodwyn's "The Populist Moment" really shows what a movement is like. It is one of
those history books that are so good that they illuminate vast swaths of history and of now
that would seem unconnected.
One interesting point he makes is that contrary to the conventional notion that the Populists
took over the (disgraced) Democratic Party in 1896, actually the faction of the Democrats
that was backed by the silver mining interests took over the Populists. They did this by
winning all the delegates from the states where the Populists were hopelessly weak. Sound
familiar? Adding silver money to the gold standard was the Public Option of the day. The M4A
of the day was close to modern monetary theory.
"All Amurikans (and the "West" in general) are fully complicit in the horrible crimes that
have been waged vs. the rest of the world. His glowing embellishment of the U$$A building
weapons of war for WW2 should wake you the fuck up to this assclown."
You make it sound like the average american is capable of exerting some kind of control
over anything the government does. We are not capable of such influence. Voting doesn't make
a difference, and protesting will be ignored, unless it is starting to change opinions, then
it will get you beaten, shot or imprisoned.
There is a majority of the population that loves war, and cheers for it. There is a large
part of the population that does not like it and opposes it. I am under no illusion that if
america ever gets the ass kicking it deserves that there will be any way to distinguish
between the two groups, as those that oppose war will suffer right along with the rest.
Are you not capable of making that distinction?
As I stated up-thread, I dont think it was a "glowing embellishment for more war", more a
comparison to say "look we used to be competent and capable of doing things, now not so
much." I wish he could have found a different example to make the same point.
Now Sanders definitely had problematic behavior in terms of being a member of Empire Inc.
(despite a few good takes) -- overall he was a clear part of the imperialist team. He didn't
show signs of any radical beliefs that would truly upset the ongoing death march of capitalism.
I believe he was a bit of an FDR in that he might have thrown enough bones to the working class
to have staved off unrest. The unmitigated greed necessary to not even allow that much change
will surely be looked upon as one of the pivotal moments in American history.
It of course begs the question -- what would have happened without FDR's New Deal? Misery
for sure (short-term) but would something radical have been propelled forward without it? What
would this time look like now if a more overt rebellion had ensued? I always thought it was a
given that these measures were good and kind, but now I know the whole system is pure trash and
always was -- it's seductive though, when you see people suffer through healthcare disparities
and debt, you want them to be helped because you're not a monster. Sanders was a siren song for
immediate relief, or at least the illusion of it. Certainly, it's a trap a lot of people with
empathy fall into.
It's terrifying to consider complete collapse when you know so many will suffer -- you don't
know what will emerge on the other side. It could be far worse. By the same token, backing
Sanders and other milquetoast types could be like pulling off a band aid for decades and then
generations -- the pain is always there, but you're able to continue functioning as a proper
member of the state, there for them to feed off of. I don't pretend to know the right way to
proceed, but sometimes I'm weak and want the suffering to be mitigated. That could perhaps be
at the expense of a truly needed systemic overhaul that might bring real change. I just don't
know, but that is basically why I supported Sanders. I'm just tossing around ideas, not
solutions or decrees.
The sheer lunacy of participating in something so completely and fully rigged isn't
compatible with self-esteem though, and a lot of Bernie supporters, who overall are good and
genuine people, merely wanted a better life for everyone. These supporters are feeling
humiliated and played. Because they were. And they didn't deserve it. All they wanted was a
fair vote and media that was at least somewhat unbiased. They received neither.
I really hoped the DNC wouldn't take the path of dodgy apps in Iowa and causing by whatever
means, the mismatches in exit polling extreme enough to indicate fraud. I was not surprised
that they did this, but even I was taken aback by their use of voters as hostages. Encouraging
in-person voting during a pandemic is an evil that I didn't consider they would utilize. What
else is in their bag of tricks? Kindergarten poisonings? Jesus DNC -- you're some sick fucks.
Tom Perez, what the hell are you? I'm sure that factored into Sanders dropping out when he did.
Continued in-person voting would surely increase, umm . plague issues. The slight traction he
could have continued to have in advancing things like universal healthcare during a pandemic
wasn't even allowed to continue. This is a system that has nothing left to offer but wasted
time and money from people who can't afford either.
One thing perplexing about the current situation is this: Does the DNC really even want to
win? Continued, generalized venom abounds in their treatment towards the left and even Sanders
exudes petulant bitchiness towards his own previous staffers and surrogates. I'm thinking in
particular of his statement in regard to Briahna Joy Gray when asked about her refusal to
endorse Biden. He snarkily said "She is my former press secretary -- not on the payroll."
One shouldn't be surprised though, because he did the same treatment to surrogate Zephyr
Teachout. She had an op-ed piece awhile back saying that Biden had a corruption problem. Bernie
apologized .to Biden. Bernie is very good at letting down his supporters. He would be the dad
you come home to and complain that a bully beat you up. He would listen with attention and
care, but then march you over to the bully's house to apologize for sinking to the bully's
level.
More along the lines of do they really want to win??? The Biden campaign had an unbelievable
sticker to pull in the vote, I guess .one that showed "plutocrat" and "socialist" crossed out
and replaced with "proud democrat". The inevitable conclusion is that they don't want the
Bernie supporters who identify with socialism and are fueling up to come off as distasteful to
the Independent voters who decide general elections.
I'm sure the plutocrats aren't concerned. They win no matter what. The conclusion I come
to is that they are ready to lose, in fact are fine with it, as their class will be protected.
Despite the obvious embarrassing optics of a Trump presidency, the meat of it is that these
types do well under his policies. It's seeming to be a lot like theater and being continuously
dismissive to the left, to the point of overt hostility will keep voters away from
Biden.
"... the Money Power, which is the collective term for the Central Bank and the "Princely Class" within the Outlaw US Empire. And their critique about Sanders, Biden and "Progressives" I agree with 100%. ..."
I see you're busy spreading BigLies. Please, jump out of your tree onto your head.
Thanks.
"Neofeudalism by design" is today's Keiser
Report Mantra --Max and Stacy present an excellent argument that tries to inform
people about what I call the Money Power, which is the collective term for the Central Bank and the "Princely Class" within the Outlaw US Empire. And their critique about Sanders, Biden
and "Progressives" I agree with 100%.
The word socialism is meaningless. A government, by nature is socialistic. Again, following
up on my sociopathy comment, it's on a spectrum. Some governments-- Sweden, Finland, Cuba--
do more, others-- Guatemala, Honduras, now Bolivia-- do less.
"Public sector" would be a more accurate term to describe what the particular government
in question is using public funds. Tennessee, for example, will not put out your house fire
if you have not paid your "fire tax". Most southeastern states have smaller public sectors
than northern states.
Another issue: be honest. Military is public sector. Police, prisons... public sector. you a
cop? your public sector. your money comes from the people. That's socialism. It makes no
sense for right wingers to be against "socialism" and work for the public sector.
Bernie never defined "socialism" accurately which allowed DNC scum and republicans to tar
him with that dirty word since we Americans are so addicted to Fox, CNN and MSNBC.
Bernie didn't want a revolution. He wanted the establishment to accept his candidacy. If
they didn't accept it then he was not going to fight. He wasted 3+ years of my time and
energy. Not to mention betraying Waffle House waitresses across the country, who repeatedly
donated money they needed to Bernie's campaign.
The US dodged a bullet with Bernie dropping out "my friend Joe" "Joe can beat Trump" &
not supporting Tulsi from being smeared & erased! Bernie has no balls - the guy endorsed
Hillary & now Biden - slapping Tulsi in the face for quitting, destroying her career for
him!
v> Aaron has made a career over all the false trump hoax's and exposing them. To bad
he's blinded in other ways and is can't be objective about Bernie and the dem establishment.
Unfortunately he part of the problem because at the end of the day he looks the other way.
And excuses those in media who lie cuz they have kids to feed. Never gonna be change with
that attitude...very Bernie like.
Sanders was never a serious candidate. For the second time in his 40ys of public service
he became sort of relevant. He was the joke of the senate all these years. A complete
fraud.
ss="comment-renderer-text-content expanded"> "The answer is there is no point," as
cogently analyzed by our ever-faithful Jimmy Dore. "The Young Turks" are not progressive and
neither is Bernie. In 2016, Cenk Uygar surrendered to the Hillary-Killary inevitability
faster than Bernie could say, "Just let me know when it's time to quit." Here is the master
conspiracy theory that resolves all of this. Bernie is paid by the DNC, Russia, and The
Clinton Foundation to excite real Progressives that "the revolution will be televised." Then
he caves. How effective is that plan? It channels and harnesses a critical mass of energy and
momentum in order to throw it over the cliff. In two consecutive presidential elections,
Bernie Sanders led the lemmings to the Pied Piper's house. How dumb are we? The establishment
has framed a political strategy whereby the hopes of the people are continually and
unrelentingly crushed by the smoke-and-mirrors deceptions of their elusive "leader."
Eventually, the poor deluded people simply stop believing in any of it, and the establishment
wins. Can anyone prove me wrong?
"You vote for the whoever is least worst and then you push them in the direction you
can." But you give up all of your leverage to move them as soon as you vote for
them...
Bernie Sanders was a plant, just there to mislead the working class that they have someone
truly fighting for they cause. While robbing us of our money and time.
Bernie was too old in 2016. He's way too old now. He didn't want it. He didn't have the
fight or the drive. He was just going through the motions. Probably for another book
deal.
Sadly it seems Bernie turned out to be representative of "not so obvious establishment."
Bernie has done this to us twice now. He has funneled sincere supporters who want real change
towards establishment. Earlier towards Hillary and this time towards Biden.Bernie with his
endorsement has lost my respect.
The desperation with which The Establishment fought to destroy Corbyn is best understood
in the context of the very mild, moderate policies that he was proposing. It wasn't socialism
that the media and the ruling class were fighting so hard but populism -- their fear was that
democracy might spread and that if it did it would spell the end for their capitalist system.
In a word what frightened the neo-liberals was not the party platform of renationalising
certain industries and resocialising the NHS but the reality that nobody supported Corbyn
except the people.
He came within 2700 votes of winning the 2017 Election- despite the fanatical opposition of
the entire Establishment, including the staff of the Labour Party who were doing everything
that they could to bring about their party's defeat- a fact ignored in most of the media
reports of a recently leaked internal enquiry.
That 'near miss' was unacceptable, in the 2019 Election nothing was left to chance, and the
result was that the Labour Party was returned into the hands of the Blairites. See Realist@8
above
So the War on Populism is finally over. Go ahead, take a wild guess who won.
I'll give you a hint. It wasn't the Russians, or the white supremacists, or the gilets
jaunes, or Jeremy Corbyn's Nazi Death Cult, or the misogynist Bernie Bros, or the MAGA-hat
terrorists, or any of the other real or fictional "populist" forces that global capitalism has
been waging war on for the last four years.
What? You weren't aware that global capitalism was fighting a War on Populism ? That's OK,
most other folks weren't. It wasn't officially announced or anything. It was launched in the
summer of 2016, just as the War on Terror was ending, as a sequel to the War on Terror, or a
variation on the War on Terror, or continuation of the War on Terror, or whatever, it doesn't
really matter anymore, because now we're fighting the War on Death , or the War on
Minor Cold-like Symptoms, depending on your age and general state of health.
That's right, folks, once again, global capitalism (a/k/a "the world") is under attack by an
evil enemy. GloboCap just can't catch a break. From the moment it defeated communism and became
a global ideological hegemon, it has been one evil enemy after another.
No sooner had it celebrated winning the Cold War and started ruthlessly restructuring and
privatizing everything than it was savagely attacked by "Islamic terrorists," and so was forced
to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and kill and torture a lot of people, and destabilize the
entire Middle East, and illegally surveil everybody, and well, you remember the War on
Terror.
Then, just as the War on Terror seemed to be finally winding down, and the only terrorists
left were the "self-radicalized" terrorists (many of whom weren't
even actual terrorists ), and it looked like GloboCap was finally going to be able to
finish privatizing and debt-enslaving everything and everyone in peace, wouldn't you know it,
we were attacked again, this time by the global conspiracy of Russian-backed, neo-fascist
"populists" that caused the Brexit and elected Trump, and tried to elect Corbyn and Bernie
Sanders, and loosed the gilets jaunes on France, and who've been threatening the "fabric of
Western democracy" with dissension-sowing Facebook memes.
Unfortunately, unlike the War on Terror, the War on Populism didn't go that well. After four
years of fighting, GloboCap (a/k/a the neoliberal Resistance) had OK, they had snuffed both
Corbyn and Sanders, but they had totally blown the Russiagate psyop, and so were looking at
four more years of Trump, and Lord knows how many of Johnson in the U.K. (which had actually
left the European Union), and the gilets jaunes weren't going away, and, basically, "populism"
was still on the rise (if not in reality, in hearts and minds).
And so, just as the War on Populism had replaced (or redefined) the War on Terror, the War
on Death has been officially launched to replace (or redefine) the War on Populism which means
(you guessed it), once again, it's time to roll out another "brave new normal."
The character of this brave new normal is, at this point, unmistakably clear so clear that
most people cannot see it, because their minds are not prepared to accept it, so they do not
recognize it, though they are looking right at it. Like Dolores in the Westworld series,
"it doesn't look like anything" to them. To the rest of us, it looks rather totalitarian.
Where I live (Alberta, Canada), there have been 44 deaths from supposed COVID19. Fully half
have been at two long-term care facilities in Calgary (people in their 80s and 90s and
suffering from other ailments). Yet the entire province has been shut down except for
'essential' services (grocery stores, pharmacies, liquor and cannabis stores?). Even though
Alberta isn't a hotbed of protest (unless you talk about PRO oil company and PRO pipelines
protests) our 'leaders' have been told to play ball and scare the populace. Now you have
private citizens ratting out their neighbors who are breaking quarantine rules. Thank you Mr.
Hopkins for an excellent article.
What? You weren't aware that global capitalism was fighting a War on Populism? That's
OK, most other folks weren't.
Those of us who are Populists were aware. Add that to -- The Multiculturalist war on
Christianity.
Hopefully everyone sees that the next DNC candidate (Biden, Cuomo, Hillary ) will put U.S.
boots on the ground to support Globalist self enrichment 'color' revolutions and the
Responsibility To Protect [R2P]. Ukraine 'Orange' Maidan will be the first invasion, but not
the last.
If you are a U.S. citizen, vote *against* the Globalist War Machine being driven by
NeoConDemocrats. You do not have to like Trump . the alternative is WW III. Plus options on
IV, V, and VI
Of course we should be search for intelligence assets under each bed. But Bernie in retrospect does look like a second rate
preacher who was controlled or whom campaign was infiltrated by intelligence agencies having completely different agenda and pushing
him to self-destruct. His approval of Russiagate tells you everything you need to knoww about him: a sheep dog on a mission.
Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi exposed Kamala as not only lacking scruples, but also as weak and easily flustered. The [Intelligence] Man right then and there understood that with Tulsi, the revolution might NOT be televised . ..."
"... Bernie and his campaign then inexplicably began to help The [Intelligence] Man by embracing the negative branding being pushed onto Bernie and his campaign. What about Cuba, huh Bernie? The [Intelligence] Man 's puppets asked. Nice guys! Said Bernie and his people. Well, what about Socialism, huh Bernie? Socialism is Awesome! Bernie and his people said. And with that, The [Intelligence] Man knew he had won. ..."
"... Was Bernie following the advice of people secretly working for The [Intelligence] Man ? It sure looked like that ..."
"... Bernie's campaign should have stuck to his working-class New Deal branding. Instead, many of his leading surrogates had their own social conditioning agendas. An example of that elitist liberal mindset is with Hillary Clinton's basket of deplorables comment. ..."
"... That mentality from a political surrogate is poison to a campaign. Voters dislike politicians who scold them. Which is why so many of those types of Bernie surrogates are also known for being liberal interventionists. They scolded people who were against invading and bombing countries "for their own good." They called people traitors for not supporting their demands for regime-change wars in the Middle East and elsewhere. ..."
Before the loss of momentum on Super Tuesday the mounting enthusiasm among Berniecrats was palpable. Was Gil Scott-Heron wrong,
was the revolution going to be televised?
Tulsicrats already knew the revolution would not be televised. Tulsi Gabbard took down The [Intelligence] Man 's #1 choice
to lead Amerika, and that was televised live to the world. Kamala Harris had the
full backing of the Clinton/neocon foreign policy establishment . Tulsi exposed Kamala as not only lacking scruples, but
also as weak and easily flustered. The [Intelligence] Man right then and there understood that with Tulsi, the revolution might NOT
be televised .
After seeing the revolution begin to be televised, The [Intelligence] Man went after Tulsi will all the ferocity
that The [Intelligence] Man 's media/political machine could muster by inundating America 24/7 with:
Tulsi Gabbard works for Putin, she's a nazi, a fascist, a monster and (gasp) a Republican!
The [Intelligence] Man even
got some "Berniecrats" to smear
Tulsi . To make sure the revolution will not be televised The [Intelligence] Man then deplatformed Tulsi from televised
town halls, televised debates, and televised news.
The [Intelligence] Man then saw Bernie Sanders gaining momentum over the crowded field of candidates. The [Intelligence]
Man knew from seeing Tulsi in the debates that the revolution could be televised , but, The [Intelligence] Man
also knew he couldn't deplatform a front runner like Bernie. The [Intelligence] Man 's choice moving forward was simple
and obvious to calculate. Americans needed to learn that Bernie's economic plan to help the working class -- was in reality a communist
plot.
The [Intelligence] Man 's media/political machine went into overdrive to tell Americans that Bernie Sanders is an incarnation
of Karl Marx, of Mao and Stalin, of Venezuelan poverty, of Cuban totalitarianism, of all things Un-American. Just because Tulsi had
shown that the revolution could be televised .
Bernie and his campaign then inexplicably began to help The [Intelligence] Man by embracing the negative branding
being pushed onto Bernie and his campaign. What about Cuba, huh Bernie? The [Intelligence] Man 's puppets asked. Nice guys!
Said Bernie and his people. Well, what about Socialism, huh Bernie? Socialism is Awesome! Bernie and his people said. And with that, The [Intelligence] Man knew he had won.
The revolution will not be televised . The Bernie Sanders campaign didn't know how to relate to the average middle class
American. Why did they embrace The [Intelligence] Man 's negative branding? Did they believe they could easily change the
average American's attitude towards communism and socialism because like The Blues Brothers, they're on a mission from God?
Was Bernie following the advice of people secretly working for The [Intelligence] Man ? It sure looked like that.
Couldn't he see that by embracing being branded as The Socialist Savior™ it would ensure their campaign was doomed? Wasn't it obvious
that The [Intelligence] Man 's media/political machine would work 24/7 to convince Americans that Bernie Sanders is a communist
if he accepted the socialist branding? The [Intelligence] Man 's plan was simple and obvious -- repeat to people over and
over every single day that socialism=communism. That socialism=taking your money away. That socialism=making America a failed state.
That socialism=totalitarianism. The tactic to brand Bernie as a communist, as an enemy of the freedom loving American people, was
obvious to everyone in politics. Except to the people running Bernie's campaign. It seems they had no qualms with socialist branding.
The Sanders campaign embraced the socialism™ brand instead of fighting it. They embraced woke branding as well. Didn't they know
that the African American community are to a great extent devout Christians? Their vote was needed to have any chance of winning
the primary. Using a lot of political energy on promoting Identity politics may be popular with college kids and liberal elites,
but that worldview typically runs counter to the Bible based morality believed in by so many in the African American community. Devout
people don't like to be told there is something wrong with them if they believe in scriptural authority. And woke politics is nothing
if not a subjective exercise in didactic moralizing. So the revolution will not be televised.
Bernie's campaign should have stuck to his working-class New Deal branding. Instead, many of his leading surrogates had their
own social conditioning agendas. An example of that
elitist liberal mindset is with Hillary Clinton's basket of deplorables comment. Did anyone ask why she felt confidant enough
in that liberal upper-class environment to say that? She was playing to a crowd she was intimate with. She knew they had the same
type of liberal elitist views as her own. Which are a woke version of the attitude of Professor Henry Higgins towards the Eliza Doolittles
of the working class -- as in this video:
That mentality from a political surrogate is poison to a campaign. Voters dislike politicians who scold them. Which is why so
many of those types of Bernie surrogates are also known for being liberal interventionists. They scolded people who were against
invading and bombing countries "for their own good." They called people traitors for not supporting their demands for regime-change
wars in the Middle East and elsewhere. So the revolution will not be televised.
That let-them-eat-cake liberal upper-class attitude gets people killed. And not only in interventionist regime-change wars.
You see almost all liberal elites in America supporting harsh economic sanctions against countries who voted for the wrong type of
leader. Those leaders who nationalize natural resources instead of letting American and European corporations control them, tend
to find themselves all of a sudden being labeled dictators and drug kingpins. They find themselves all of a sudden fighting for their
lives against an opposition armed to the teeth. They see the liberal elite in America going all in for sanctions against their countries
which leaves their economies in tatters. For example, Trump's sanctions and coups against numerous leftist governments in Latin America
are supported by
the liberal elites . So the revolution will not be televised.
Bernie's surrogates who push their own pet social agendas in order to "educate" Americans lead people to feel like they are trying
to convert them to a religious cause. What they want is to be offered political help from a politician. Instead they often feel like
they are being asked to support a cause. That mentality doomed Liz Warren and it doomed Bernie Sanders as well. Those surrogates
may well know how to appeal to their like-minded trust fund nepotistic media gentry pals and liberal elites from Brooklyn, D.C.,
and L.A. -- but they know how to appeal to average Americans about as much as they do to Martians. Is that why Bernie lost even with
so much good will going into the primary? I don't know what went on inside their decision making process, all I can offer is what
I saw as an average person outside the campaign who wanted Bernie to succeed.
It is funny not-funny how Tulsi Gabbard always came to the aid of Bernie when The [Intelligence] Man was smearing
him. Whether it was over sexism claims or Russiagating him or anything else -- Tulsi always had his back. But Bernie was reluctant
to have anything to do with Tulsi when she was being openly deplatformed. Was it his decision or the people running his campaign
who helped to deplatform and shut down the only other true progressive and only ally in the primary? Who can say if it was their
pet causes which guided them? Or maybe it was their not wanting to jeopardize jobs after the Sanders campaign in the liberal elite
neocon dominated media/political job market? Or maybe it was something more basic. Like love for liberal elite money. Or love for
TurkishSaudiQatariPakistani money? With all those influences on the people running his campaign and on his media surrogates, who
can say if Bernie was sabotaged by them (like they did to Tulsi) or not. The revolution will not be televised.
"American collusion with kleptocracy comes at a terrible
cost for the rest of the world. All of the stolen money, all of those evaded tax dollars sunk
into Central Park penthouses and Nevada shell companies, might otherwise fund health care and
infrastructure. (A report from the anti-poverty group One has argued that 3.6 million deaths
each year can be attributed to this sort of resource siphoning.)
Thievery tramples the possibilities of workable markets and credible democracy. It fuels
suspicions that the whole idea of liberal capitalism is a hypocritical sham: While the world is
plundered, self-righteous Americans get rich off their complicity with the crooks.
The Founders were concerned that venality would become standard procedure, and it has. Long
before suspicion mounted about the loyalties of Donald Trump, large swaths of the American
elite -- lawyers, lobbyists, real-estate brokers, politicians in state capitals who enabled the
creation of shell companies -- had already proved themselves to be reliable servants of a
rapacious global plutocracy.
"Richard Palmer was right: The looting elites of the former Soviet Union were far from rogue
profiteers. They augured a kleptocratic habit that would soon become widespread.
One bitter truth about the Russia scandal is that by the time Vladimir Putin attempted to
influence the shape of our country, it was already bending in the direction of his."
Only one thing matters to the oligarchs. It is not democracy. It is not truth. It is not the
consent of the governed. It is not income inequality. It is not the surveillance state. It is
not endless war. It is not jobs. It is not the climate. It is the primacy of corporate power --
which has extinguished our democracy and left most of the working class in misery -- and the
continued increase and consolidation of their wealth. It is impossible working within the
system to shatter the hegemony of oligarchic power or institute meaningful reform.
Change, real change, will only come by sustained acts of civil disobedience and mass
mobilization, as with the yellow vests movement in France and the British-based Extinction Rebellion .
The longer we are fooled by the electoral burlesque, the more disempowered we will
become.
"... Something is seriously sick about the DNC and it's collusion with the media. The pretence of democracy is crashing and the oligarchy exposed. ..."
Whether social democrat or socialist - I agree Sanders did progress the cause for needed
societal, financial and political change.
But why did he fold so weakly and meekly in both 2016 and again now?
Especially in the face of obvious vote rigging by the Hillary campaign (as proven in a
Florida civil court ruling - albeit with the judge's decision accepting the DNC Defense
argument that the DNC has the right to appoint their candidate and override the primaries -
sudden untimely death of two of the lawyers for the Bernie Sanders supporters who brought the
case as well).
This time the totally unexpected victory on "Super Thursday" as Sleepy Joe called it in 9
state primaries stinks to high heaven. Maybe he did win given the media support and enough
ignoramuses voted for a man who is blatantly suffering dementia as well as having been a
corrupt nepotist of the highest order and an alleged rapist and video documented serial
creepy fondler of women and young children.
Something is seriously sick about the DNC and it's collusion with the media. The
pretence of democracy is crashing and the oligarchy exposed.
Trump will win - because many will hope he is a renegade oligarch who has some moral
compass even if a broken one.
A social democrat will refuse to demand that General Motors make concessions to the
workers unless General Motors is making solid profits. Extend the concept to the entire
economy. Capitalism is in crisis. For a social democrat that means heavy demands are off the
table until the crisis is resolved and capitalism returns to profitability. How could Sanders
deliver on his promises even if he won? Better to just throw in the towel, at least from a
social democrat perspective.
"Something is seriously sick about the DNC and it's collusion with the media."
Indeed, but there is more to it. The mass media isn't so much colluding with the Dems as
the media has been largely taken over by a criminal gang ( Operation Mockingbird ),
and the same gang has taken over the Democrat party. Instructions to both the mass media and
the Dems are coming from the same folks, so it looks like collusion, but actual direct
connections between the two will not be so conspicuous.
Instead of fighting back against 'intelligence sources' fabricating smears of him as the
favored candidate of Russia, Sanders just went along with the larger Russiagate narrative and
the imperialist agenda of the govt. In this respect, he's as compliant as Biden, and even
worse since he was happy to sacrifice himself to preserve the false narratives to justify
aggression abroad.
"Looks like Ziofascist Trump regime is set to win again."
It doesn't have to be!
Sanders was great - he achieved far more than he intended or wanted - but he was always
compromised probably all the way back to 1980.
Sanders would have lost his political position long ago unless he had come to an
"understanding" with the Democratic Party. The deal was something along the lines of "you
support the Democratic Party and we won't primary you".
It is almost certain that Sanders was intended to be controlled opposition in 2016 but
something strange happened. People were looking for change and they heard it in Sanders and
they believed and Hillary lost the nomination (until' it was fixed) - this was not the plan.
It was not what Sanders intended but it meant something. 2020 has all been about destroying
Sanders message (which he didn't believe in anyway - at least not to the extent of actually
obtaining the nomination).
I have to confess that I am really shocked at the way he has treated his supporters in
2020 - in American terms, he really should refund every donor because he took their money
under false pretences. But...Sanders did achieve something - even though it was not what he
intended.
Forget about Sanders, he was always going to let you down - now is the time to look for an
alternative.
As far as Sanders is concerned, the next senate election for Vermont is in 2024 - I trust
Vermont voters will punish Sanders for his disingenuous behaviour.
Bernie Sanders - "He could have been a contender but he took a dive."
I had thought that I would not comment more on murkan politics - and with respect to those of
you who are trying to see silver linings in the capitulations of Sanders and Gabbard - but,
now I read that O'bomber has just endorsed the crook, aka Biden, to "restore the soul of the
nation." Wow. So I guess that means that the soul of the Dimmocrat Nation is bombing burning
looting... Syria Yemen Venezuela Nicaragua Ecuador North Korea Iran Iraq Afghanistan..
O'Bomber had his bloody hands in those places - Ukrainia - Democrat Country, right Yaz..?
Yes Noah Way - the empire in on suicide watch but the peeps seem to be too fat and too
delusional to do much. Me thinks the end will come not from any "popular uprising" but rather
from the eventual crash of the almightydollar.
"... Whatever steps Bernie may have made towards "revolution", he wiped them out with his normalizing of Democratic party election theft, by twice leading his followers into a political death trap, and worst of all, by endorsing and campaigning for pathological warmongers like Hillary Clinton and now the dementia-addled corporate tool Joe Biden. ..."
This is a filthy election cycle; and it is not the fault of Bernie Sanders. The petulant
children and aging children who are spitting up over this thread are the committed cynics, as
they point fingers and call Bernie a cynic. What a spectacle of immaturity and arrested
development! What a field day for lost souls and dilettantes. For the hasbara too; they
certainly had motive for driving a stake in the heart of the Sander's campaign.
Do these people have thoughts that go to any depth? They are more like a Lynch Mob who are
all tugging at the collar and waistband of the victim. They have turned around to stare
blankly into the camera so that their insipid faces can be memorialized, so that their fuming
contempt can be captured. They are asking something of posterity as they turn their backs on
the crime.
There would have been no campaign at all, no permission to participate in the primaries,
if Bernie had not agreed to support the ultimate nominee of the Party. The narrative about
betrayal supports the agendas of those who bear a great hatred against him.
None of those that went forward behind Bernie Sanders--especially those who were really a
part of the actual events--were lied to or betrayed, because his position of supporting the
Party's choice was made public at his rallies and campaign events.
Right after Bernie announced that he was suspending his campaign, words of admiration and
appreciation poured in from notable political scientists and journalists and other thoughtful
people: Noam Chomsky, Matt Taibbi, Naomi Klein, --all of them describing Bernie Sanders
contributions to this nation and his courage, and naming his achievements in this campaign.
Bernie a has struck a blow against the Neo-liberal order, has opened the national awareness
to a host of subjects never before openly discussed in a national campaign. And in a
dignified and genuinely passionate manner he has modeled what an admirable man can do in the
pursuit of justice.
= The problem people are having with Sanders is that they are mistaking a social democrat
for a socialist.
No. The problem is that Sander's was never a real candidate. A real candidate wouldn't be
so deferential to Hillary and the Democratic Party.
He misled us. His quixotic goal was to take over the Democratic Party. Independent
progressives warned that this was doomed to fail and pointed out his sheepdogging every step
of the way.
In response, the Democratic Party sent out dembot trolls to urge young people to trust in
Sanders.
= Sanders' campaign in the US has changed the game.
No. It has better revealed the game.
= Now is the time to make the distinction that socialism is a replacement for capitalism
...
Gruff points us to the next brick wall as he deflects blame from the Deep State-controlled
duopoly.
The first step is secure a real democracy.
= Socialized medicine was verboten, or worse, evil.
No. Obama promised to include a 'public option' in his healthcare reform. This was one of
the many promises that Obama broke as he betrayed his base. For this, he was practically
sainted by the Democratic Party. What a guy.
Even while President Obama was saying that he thought a public option was a good idea
and encouraging supporters to believe his healthcare plan would include one, he had
promised for-profit hospital lobbyists that there would be no public option in the final
bill.
Whatever steps Bernie may have made towards "revolution", he wiped them out with his
normalizing of Democratic party election theft, by twice leading his followers into a
political death trap, and worst of all, by endorsing and campaigning for pathological
warmongers like Hillary Clinton and now the dementia-addled corporate tool Joe Biden.
If you take his statement in 1989 about the need for an alternative third party to heart,
then he's been misleading progressives for 31 years into the Democratic party swamp.
The genuine Movements that we have today are Wikileaks/Assange and Gillets Jaunes.
Their steadfast determination for real change shows how much Sanders' falls short. And
reveals where Sanders' loyalty lies - with the pro-Empire, Zionist establishment.
Sanders supporting Biden just as his message had relevance suggests he was a "stalking horse"
from the very beginning. If the DNC replaces Biden with Governor Cuomo (New York) or Governor
Newsom (California) ... in spite of the primary elections ... it will prove beyond a doubt
that democracy in the USA is a sham. The evidence suggests that federal elections are decided
in back rooms and then posted on the Internet with storylines that fake elections.
No wonder neoliberals (a euphemism for globalists) hate Trump. He pulled a fast one on the
establishment. Hillary rolled up a few population centers ... but they forgot about the
Electoral College that abrogates "one man one vote" in Presidential elections by giving the
states in the Great Flyover more votes than the coasts. Trump "out scammed the scammers" ...
a cardinal sin in neoliberal politics. The neoliberals desperately want revenge to ensure
this never happens again.
Pindos | Apr 13 2020 18:51 utc | 5 "Sanders - a weak commie. His jew pals are embarrassed. 🤢"
You got it the wrong way round.
On the morning after Sanders withdrew from the race DMFI** president Mark
Mellman sent out an email to supporters expressing his pleasure over the result. He also took
some credit for the outcome "Bernie Sanders suspended his campaign for president. That's a
big victory -- one you helped bring about."
Mellman also reminded his associates that the victory was only a first step in making
sure that the Democratic Party platform continues to be pro-Israel, writing that "Extreme
groups aligned with Sanders, as well as some of his top surrogates -- including Congresswomen
Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar -- have publicly declared an effort to make the platform
anti-Israel. As a career political professional, I will tell you that if Democrats adopt an
anti-Israel platform this year, the vocabulary, views, and votes of politicians will shift
against us dramatically. We simply can't afford to lose this battle."
**Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) . The DMFI is a registered political action
committee (PAC) that lobbies on behalf of the Jewish state. It was organized in 2019 by
Democratic Party activists to counter what was perceived to be pro-Palestinian sentiment
within the party's progressive wing.
Basically they did a "Corbyn" on a candidate who was considered a "socialist" and too
pro-Palestinian.
The following quote has been attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson by Ronald Kessler, journalist
and historian.:
These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since
they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their
uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little
something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.
I'll have those n**gers voting Democratic for 200 years.
Looks like Johnson was right! All it took was the Civil Rights Act to get blacks to vote
against their best interests for 56 years. So there's 144 years left before blacks realize
they sold their soul to a blue devil that's no different from the red devil and until
progressives will finally have a real democracy. Oh how I despise herd mentality.
Look, I'm not going to trash Bernie Sanders, because I know his heart, and I now see the
majority of blacks will never be with him no matter what he tried to gain their confidence,
so he was doomed whichever way you look at it.
That said, Biden is out of the question and I'll be damned if Democrats are going to win
after what they pulled on Bernie again.
Looks like Ziofascist Trump regime is set to win again.
How almost everyone dropped out after the South Carolina primary looks staged. But Sanders,
the sheepdog candidate is also a part of the play, whether he is fully aware of it.
What reason would there be for voting for a corrupt neoliberal proponent of all illegal US
wars of aggression who played a key role for mass incarceration and whose career was
bankrolled by the credit card industry and other special interests? Close to none, certainly
for people who are remotely progressive. There had been little reason for supporting a
far-right warmonger like Biden a few years ago, and with obvious signs of mental decline,
there are hardly more reasons.
But with Bernie Sanders, a center-left candidate who, in contrast to Biden, has some
semblance of personal integrity, campaigning for the corrupt warmonger, there may be the hope
that some people who do not share Biden's far right views will still vote for him. But I
think Sanders' behavior does more for undermining his own credibility than for creating the
illusion that Biden has any credibility.
So there I was wreching - Bernie endorses the babbling crook Biden... and then - well full on
barfing! Michelle O'Bomber!!??? What exactly is her skill set? other than the fact that she
is married to the manchurian O'Bomber - who bombed at least one somebody - often without even
knowing the victims name/s - Every Single Day of his Miserable Regime. Just call him Mr.
Dyncorp. Really, as William Griff observed in another thread, murkans are
completely irreparably delusional.
Sad to see that whatever political legacy Bernie Sanders leaves behind, it will be tainted by
his behaviour and decisions he made during his Presidential election campaigns in 2016 and
2020. Particularly inexplicable is how he failed to challenge the Super Tuesday results back
in March. Surely of all people, given his career background, Sanders could have disputed the
results.
Makes me wonder if Bernie was an "asset" the whole time. Certain elements make more sense
that way. I am both horrified and amused at the way progressives seem to be on board
with the sellout. Ah well, looks like I'll actually have to vote for Trump this time. Didn't
see that coming but I'll be damned if I silently consent to Biden being President.
I'll have to start building guillotines for the spike in demand come next year.
Former longtime Bernie-booster Jimmy Dore has been ripping Sanders relentlessly (and
hilariously) on his YT channel for weeks, ever since Bernie rolled over and went dead during
debate w/Biden.
Sandersites here can protest all they want that they did not expect "this", it doesn't change
the fact that Sanders was nothing but the sheepdog that gets out at every election season.
Now that all those Sanders-supporting boobies have definitively destroyed any chance of doing
anything significant in the way of third parties, it's useless to protest that they "won't
vote Biden". The useless Hopium-addicted gulls already did the wrecking job, even though they
had been warned. Both times. Good job... liberals.
re Josh | Apr 14 2020 0:44 utc | 54 who claimed "When he decided to run as a Democrat you
have to sign a contract that you will endorse the person nominated" As you conceeded it
isn't the convention yet so sanders did not have to endorse right now. That and the way it
was done - not a quiet press release, he took part in creepy joe's campaign release to make
his fawning pronouncement. Nowhere does that get stated in any 'contract'.
It is plain that if sanders isn't some sort of dungeon visiting masochist who enjoys the
humiliation, he has to be a run of the mill greedhead prepared to do say anything that will
get a cash payoff. That was probably his plan from the beginning as everything he did from
the 1st caucus to the end was all about scraping and bowing to his 'betters' no mind what
cheating and robbery was inflicted on his campaign.
A liar, a sellout who has created another generation of cynics - well done 'bernie'.
Was Sanders a cynical tool of the establishment who set out to deceive the population into
supporting the establishment? Was Bernie Sanders modeled on William Jennings Bryan, aka "The
Cowardly Lion?"
Notable quotes:
"... The throne is occupied by a puppet. The puppet masters pull the strings from off stage. You can't get the job - or even be in the game - if you are not a willing puppet. This explains the establishment's reaction to Trump, who was (from their point of view) inexplicably elected. ..."
People expecting any president to change anything are sadly deluded.
Remember Hope and Change? How many bought into that only to end up with mandatory payoffs
to the health insurance cartels, huge subsidies to Wall St. after they crashed the economy,
military malfeasance across the globe, i.e. business as usual.
The throne is occupied by a puppet. The puppet masters pull the strings from off
stage. You can't get the job - or even be in the game - if you are not a willing puppet. This
explains the establishment's reaction to Trump, who was (from their point of view)
inexplicably elected.
We've come a long way from "Ask not what this country can do for you ...".
I had thought that I would not comment more on murkan politics - and with respect to those of
you who are trying to see silver linings in the capitulations of Sanders and Gabbard - but,
now I read that O'bomber has just endorsed the crook, aka Biden, to "restore the soul of the
nation." Wow. So I guess that means that the soul of the Dimmocrat Nation is bombing burning
looting... Syria Yemen Venezuela Nicaragua Ecuador North Korea Iran Iraq Afghanistan..
O'Bomber had his bloody hands in those places - Ukrainia - Democrat Country, right Yaz..?
Yes Noah Way - the empire in on suicide watch but the peeps seem to be too fat and too
delusional to do much. Me thinks the end will come not from any "popular uprising" but rather
from the eventual crash of the almightydollar.
For anyone running for office in modern
America, accusations of sexual assault are par for the course. But when it comes to weighing up these accusations, the US’
mainstream paper of record applies some very uneven standards.
Take Joe Biden, the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee. If doubts weren’t already raised by his fondness for
sniffing women,
the emergence last month of a sexual assault allegation against the former vice president could have caused a major headache for
his campaign.
Yet amid the coronavirus pandemic, and given the political leanings of most media outlets, the scandal barely registered.
The
Intercept ran a story in March on how Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer, claimed that in 1993 Biden pushed her against a
wall, groped her, and penetrated her with his fingers. Reade had spoken up about the alleged incident a year earlier, but was
met with accusations that she was doing Russia’s bidding. The US media was still doing ‘Russiagate’ back then, remember?
Truth, due process, evidence, rights of the accused: All are swept aside in pursuit of the
progressive agenda.
George Orwell's 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is no longer fiction. We are
living it right now.
Google techies planned to massage Internet searches to emphasize correct thinking. A member
of the so-called deep state, in an anonymous op-ed, brags that its "resistance" is undermining
an elected president. The FBI, CIA, DOJ, and NSC were all weaponized in 2016 to ensure that the
proper president would be elected -- the choice adjudicated by properly progressive ideology.
Wearing a wire is now redefined as simply flipping on an iPhone and recording your boss, boy-
or girlfriend, or co-workers.
But never has the reality that we are living in a surreal age been clearer than during the
strange cycles of Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh.
In Orwell's world of 1984 Oceania, there is no longer a sense of due process, free inquiry,
rules of evidence and cross examination, much less a presumption of innocence until proven
guilty. Instead, regimented ideology -- the supremacy of state power to control all aspects of
one's life to enforce a fossilized idea of mandated quality -- warps everything from the use of
language to private life.
Oceania's Rules
Senator Diane Feinstein and the other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee had long
sought to destroy the Brett Kavanaugh nomination. Much of their paradoxical furor over his
nomination arises from the boomeranging of their own past political blunders, such as when
Democrats ended the filibuster on judicial nominations, in 2013. They also canonized the
so-called 1992 Biden Rule, which holds that the Senate should not consider confirming the
Supreme Court nomination of a lame-duck president (e.g., George H. W. Bush) in an election
year.
Rejecting Kavanaugh proved a hard task given that he had a long record of judicial opinions
and writings -- and there was nothing much in them that would indicate anything but a sharp
mind, much less any ideological, racial, or sexual intolerance. His personal life was
impeccable, his family admirable.
Kavanaugh was no combative Robert Bork, but congenial, and he patiently answered all the
questions asked of him, despite constant demonstrations and pre-planned street-theater
interruptions from the Senate gallery and often obnoxious grandstanding by "I am Spartacus"
Democratic senators.
So Kavanaugh was going to be confirmed unless a bombshell revelation derailed the vote. And
so we got a bombshell.
Weeks earlier, Senator Diane Feinstein had received a written allegation against Kavanaugh
of sexual battery by an accuser who wished to remain anonymous. Feinstein sat on it for nearly
two months, probably because she thought the charges were either spurious or unprovable. Until
a few days ago, she mysteriously refused to release the
full text of the redacted complaint , and she has said she does not know whether the very
accusations that she purveyed are believable. Was she reluctant to memorialize the accusations
by formally submitting them to the Senate Judiciary Committee, because doing so makes Ford
subject to possible criminal liability if the charges prove demonstrably untrue?
The gambit was clearly to use the charges as a last-chance effort to stop the nomination --
but only if Kavanaugh survived the cross examinations during the confirmation hearing. Then, in
extremis , Feinstein finally referenced the charge, hoping to keep it anonymous, but, at the
same time, to hint of its serious nature and thereby to force a delay in the confirmation.
Think something McCarthesque, like "I have here in my hand the name . . ."
Delay would mean that the confirmation vote could be put off until after the midterm
election, and a few jeopardized Democratic senators in Trump states would not have to go on
record voting no on Kavanaugh. Or the insidious innuendos, rumor, and gossip about Kavanaugh
would help to bleed him to death by a thousand leaks and, by association, tank Republican
chances at retaining the House. (Republicans may or may not lose the House over the
confirmation circus, but they most surely will lose their base and, with it, the Congress if
they do not confirm Kavanaugh.)
Feinstein's anonymous trick did not work. So pressure mounted to reveal or leak Ford's
identity and thereby force an Anita-Hill–like inquest that might at least show old white
men Republican senators as insensitive to a vulnerable and victimized woman.
The problem, of course, was that, under traditional notions of jurisprudence, Ford's
allegations simply were not provable. But America soon discovered that civic and government
norms no longer follow the Western legal tradition. In Orwellian terms, Kavanaugh was now at
the mercy of the state. He was tagged with sexual battery at first by an anonymous accuser, and
then upon revelation of her identity, by a left-wing, political activist psychology professor
and her more left-wing, more politically active lawyer.
Newspeak and Doublethink
Statue of limitations? It does not exist. An incident 36 years ago apparently is as fresh
today as it was when Kavanaugh was 17 and Ford 15.
Presumption of Innocence? Not at all. Kavanaugh is accused and thereby guilty. The accuser
faces no doubt. In Orwellian America, the accused must first present his defense, even though
he does not quite know what he is being charged with. Then the accuser and her legal team pour
over his testimony to prepare her accusation.
Evidence? That too is a fossilized concept. Ford could name neither the location of the
alleged assault nor the date or time. She had no idea how she arrived or left the scene of the
alleged crime. There is no physical evidence of an attack. And such lacunae in her memory
mattered no longer at all.
Details? Again, such notions are counterrevolutionary. Ford said to her therapist 6 years
ago (30 years after the alleged incident) that there were four would-be attackers, at least as
recorded in the therapist's notes.
But now she has claimed that there were only two assaulters: Kavanaugh and a friend. In
truth, all four people -- now including a female -- named in her accusations as either
assaulters or witnesses have insisted that they have no knowledge of the event, much less of
wrongdoing wherever and whenever Ford claims the act took place. That they deny knowledge is at
times used as proof by Ford's lawyers that the event 36 years was traumatic.
An incident at 15 is so seared into her lifelong memory that at 52 Ford has no memory of any
of the events or details surrounding that unnamed day, except that she is positive that
17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh, along with four? three? two? others, was harassing her. She has no
idea where or when she was assaulted but still assures that Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge
were drunk, but that she and the others (?) merely had only the proverbial teenage "one beer."
Most people are more likely to know where they were at a party than the exact number of
alcoholic beverages they consumed -- but not so much about either after 36 years.
Testimony? No longer relevant. It doesn't matter that Kavanaugh and the other alleged
suspect both deny the allegations and have no memory of being in the same locale with Ford 36
years ago. In sum, all the supposed partiers, both male and female, now swear, under penalty of
felony, that they have no memory of any of the incidents that Ford claims occurred so long ago.
That Ford cannot produce a single witness to confirm her narrative or refute theirs is likewise
of no concern. So far, she has singularly not submitted a formal affidavit or given a
deposition that would be subject to legal exposure if untrue.
Again, the ideological trumps the empirical. "All women must be believed" is the testament,
and individuals bow to the collective. Except, as in Orwell's Animal Farm, there are
ideological exceptions -- such as Bill Clinton, Keith Ellison, Sherrod Brown, and Joe Biden.
The slogan of Ford's psychodrama is "All women must be believed, but some women are more
believable than others." That an assertion becomes fact due to the prevailing ideology and
gender of the accuser marks the destruction of our entire system of justice.
Rights of the accused? They too do not exist. In the American version of 1984 , the accuser,
a.k.a. the more ideologically correct party, dictates to authorities the circumstances under
which she will be investigated and cross-examined: She will demand all sorts of special
considerations of privacy and exemptions; Kavanaugh will be forced to return and face cameras
and the public to prove that he was not then, and has never been since, a sexual assaulter.
In our 1984 world, the accused is considered guilty if merely charged, and the accuser is a
victim who can ruin a life but must not under any circumstance be made uncomfortable in proving
her charges.
Doublespeak abounds. "Victim" solely refers to the accuser, not the accused, who one day was
Brett Kavanaugh, a brilliant jurist and model citizen, and the next morning woke up transformed
into some sort of Kafkaesque cockroach. The media and political operatives went in a nanosecond
from charging that she was groped and "assaulted" to the claim that she was "raped."
In our 1984, the phrase "must be believed" is doublespeak for "must never face
cross-examination."
Ford should be believed or not believed on the basis of evidence , not her position, gender,
or politics. I certainly did not believe Joe Biden, simply because he was a U.S. senator, when,
as Neal Kinnock's doppelganger, he claimed that he came from a long line of coal miners -- any
more than I believed that Senator Corey Booker really had a gang-banger Socratic confidant
named "T-Bone," or that would-be senator Richard Blumenthal was an anguished Vietnam combat vet
or that Senator Elizabeth Warren was a Native American. (Do we need a 25th Amendment for
unhinged senators?) Wanting to believe something from someone who is ideologically correct does
not translate into confirmation of truth.
Ford supposedly in her originally anonymous accusation had insisted that she had sought
"medical treatment" for her assault. The natural assumption is that such a term would mean
that, soon after the attack, the victim sought a doctor's or emergency room's help to address
either her physical or mental injuries -- records might therefore be a powerful refutation of
Kavanaugh's denials.
But "medical treatment" now means that 30 years after the alleged assault, Ford sought
counseling for some sort of "relationship" or "companion" therapy, or what might legitimately
be termed "marriage counseling." And in the course of her discussions with her therapist about
her marriage, she first spoke of her alleged assault three decades earlier. She did not then
name Kavanaugh to her therapist, whose notes are at odds with Ford's current
version.
Memory Holes
Then we come to Orwell's idea of "memory holes," or mechanisms to wipe clean inconvenient
facts that disrupt official ideological narratives.
Shortly after Ford was named, suddenly her prior well-publicized and self-referential
social-media revelations vanished, as if she'd never held her minor-league but confident
pro-Sanders, anti-Trump opinions . And much of her media and social-media accounts were erased
as well.
Similarly, one moment the New York Times -- just coming off an embarrassing lie in reporting
that U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley had ordered new $50,000 office drapes on the government dime
-- reported that Kavanaugh's alleged accomplice, Mark Judge, had confirmed Ford's allegation.
Indeed, in a sensational scoop, according to the Times , Judge told the Judiciary Committee
that he does remember the episode and has nothing more to say. In fact, Judge told the
committee the very opposite: that he does not remember the episode . Forty minutes later, the
Times embarrassing narrative vanished down the memory hole.
The online versions of some of the yearbooks of Ford's high school from the early 1980s
vanished as well. At times, they had seemed to take a perverse pride in the reputation of the
all-girls school for underage drinking, carousing, and, on rarer occasions, "passing out" at
parties. Such activities were supposed to be the monopoly and condemnatory landscape of the
"frat boy" and spoiled-white-kid Kavanaugh -- and certainly not the environment in which the
noble Ford navigated. Seventeen-year-old Kavanaugh was to play the role of a falling-down
drunk; Ford, with impressive powers of memory of an event 36 years past, assures us that as a
circumspect 15-year-old, she had only "one beer."
A former teenage friend of Ford's sent out a flurry of social-media postings, allegedly
confirming that Ford's ordeal was well known to her friends in 1982 and so her assault
narrative must therefore be confirmed. Then, when challenged on some of her incoherent details
(schools are not in session during summertime, and Ford is on record as not telling anyone of
the incident for 30 years), she mysteriously claimed that she no longer could stand by her
earlier assertions, which likewise soon vanished from her social-media account. Apparently, she
had assumed that in 2018 Oceania ideologically correct citizens merely needed to lodge an
accusation and it would be believed, without any obligation on her part to substantiate her
charges.
When a second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, followed Ford seven days later to allege another
sexual incident with the teenage Kavanaugh, at Yale 35 years ago, it was no surprise that she
followed the now normal Orwellian boilerplate : None of those whom she named as witnesses could
either confirm her charges or even remember the alleged event. She had altered her narrative
after consultations with lawyers and handlers. She too confesses to underage drinking during
the alleged event. She too is currently a social and progressive political activist. The only
difference from Ford's narrative is that Ramirez's accusation was deemed not credible enough to
be reported even by the New York Times , which recently retracted false stories about witness
Mark Judge in the Ford case, and which falsely reported that U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley had
charged the government for $50,000 office drapes.
As in 1984 , "truths" in these sorts of allegations do not exist unless they align with the
larger "Truth" of the progressive project. In our case, the overarching Truth mandates that, in
a supposedly misogynist society, women must always be believed in all their accusations and
should be exempt from all counter-examinations.
Little "truths" -- such as the right of the accused, the need to produce evidence,
insistence on cross-examination, and due process -- are counterrevolutionary constructs and the
refuge of reactionary hold-outs who are enemies of the people. Or in the words of Hawaii
senator Mazie Hirono:
Guess who's perpetuating all of these kinds of actions? It's the men in this country. And
I just want to say to the men in this country, "Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing,
for a change."
The View 's Joy Behar was more honest about the larger Truth: "These white men, old by the
way, are not protecting women," Behar exclaimed. "They're protecting a man who is probably
guilty." We thank Behar for the concession "probably."
According to some polls, about half the country believes that Brett Kavanaugh is now guilty
of a crime committed 36 years ago at the age of 17. And that reality reminds us that we are no
longer in America . We are already living well into the socialist totalitarian Hell that Orwell
warned us about long ago.
All Comments 30
NiggaPleeze , 10 seconds ago
National Review? Really? Does it get more evil than them?
Debt Slave , 16 seconds ago
According to some polls, about half the country believes that Brett Kavanaugh is now
guilty of a crime committed 36 years ago at the age of 17.
Well half the country are idiots but the important thing to remember in our democracy is
that the idiots have the right to vote. And here we are today.
No wonder the founders believed that democracy was a stupid idea. But we know better than
they did, right?
Jkweb007 , 37 seconds ago
It is hard for me to believe 50% when in America you are presumed innocent till proven
guilty. Is this the spanish inquizition or salem witch trials. If he floats he was innocent.
I am shocked that people in congress would make statements, she must be believed, I believe
he is guilty. These are people who represent and stand for the constitution that many died in
the defense of life liberty and the persuit of happiness. It may be time for that mlilitia
that our founding fathers endorsed. If Kavanaugh is rebuked for these accusation our freedom,
free speech may be next.
One more confirmation that the so called "social justice warriors" -like last night's
goons' who shamefully interrupted Senator Cruz's night out with his wife at a private
restaurant- are Orwell's projected fascists!
opport.knocks , 20 minutes ago
Bush 2 was in the big chair when he and his cabinet started the USA down the full
Orwellian path (Patriot Act, post 911). Kavanaugh and his wife were both members of that
government team.
If there is any reason to dismiss him, that would be it, not this post-pubescent sex
crap.
If I was a cynical person, I would say this whole exercise is to deflect attention away
from that part of his "swampy" past.
Aubiekong , 23 minutes ago
We lost the republic when we allowed the liberals to staff the ministry of
education...
CheapBastard , 15 minutes ago
My neighbor is a high school teacher. I asked her if she was giving students time off to
protest this and she looked at me and said, "Just the opposite. I have given them a 10 page
seminar paper to write on the meaning of Due Process."
So there IS hope.
my new username , 23 minutes ago
This is criminal contempt for the due lawful process of the Congress.
These are unlawful attempts and conspiracies to subvert justice.
So we need to start arresting, trying, convicting and punishing the criminals.
BlackChicken , 23 minutes ago
Truth, due process, evidence, rights of the accused: All are swept aside in pursuit of
the progressive agenda.
This needs to end, not later, NOW.
Be careful what you wish for leftists, I'll dedicate my remaining years to torture you
with it.
Jus7tme , 22 minutes ago
>>the socialist totalitarian Hell that Orwell warned us about long ago.
I think Orwell was in 1949 was warning about a fascist totalitarian hell, not a socialist
one, but nice try rewriting history.
Duc888 , 29 minutes ago
WTF ever happened to "innocent until PROVEN guilty"?
CheapBastard , 19 minutes ago
Schumer said before the confirmation hearings even began he would not let Kavanaugh become
SC justice no matter what.
Dems are so tolerant, open minded and respectful of due process, aren't they.
"... Two female reporters for Bloomberg interviewed 30 Wall Street executives and found that while it's true that women might be afraid to speak up for fear of losing their careers, men are also so afraid of being falsely accused that they won't even have dinner, or even one-to-one business meetings with a female colleague. They worry that a simple comment or gesture could be misinterpreted. "It's creating a sense of walking on eggshells," one Morgan Stanley executive said. ..."
"... Bloomberg dubbed the phenomenon the 'Pence Effect' after the US vice president who previously admitted that he would never dine alone with any woman other than his wife. ..."
"... All these extreme strategies being adopted by men to avoid falling victim to an unjust #MeToo scandal are creating a kind of "gender segregation" on Wall Street, the reporters say. ..."
"... hiring a woman on Wall Street has become an "unknown risk," according to one wealth advisor, who said there is always a concern that a woman might take something said to her in the wrong way. ..."
"... The unintended consequence of the #MeToo movement on Wall Street could be the stifling of women's progress and a sanitization of the workplace to the point of not even being able to have a private meeting with the door closed. ..."
"... Another irony is that while men may think they are avoiding one type of scandal, could find themselves facing another: Discrimination complaints. ..."
"... "A Wall Street rule for the #MeToo era: Avoid women at all cost." https://t.co/TCGk9UzT4R "Secular sharia" has arrived, as I predicted here: https://t.co/TTrWY6ML34 pic.twitter.com/YpEz78iamJ ..."
"... "If men avoid working or traveling with women alone, or stop mentoring women for fear of being accused of sexual harassment, those men are going to back out of a sexual harassment complaint and right into a sex discrimination complaint," Stephen Zweig, an employment attorney with FordHarrison told Bloomberg. ..."
Two female reporters for Bloomberg interviewed 30 Wall Street executives and found that while it's true that women might be
afraid to speak up for fear of losing their careers, men are also so afraid of being falsely accused that they won't even have dinner,
or even one-to-one business meetings with a female colleague. They worry that a simple comment or gesture could be misinterpreted.
"It's creating a sense of walking on eggshells," one Morgan Stanley executive said.
Bloomberg dubbed the phenomenon the 'Pence Effect' after the US vice president who previously admitted that he would never
dine alone with any woman other than his wife. British actor Taron Egerton recently also said he now
avoided being alone with women for fear
of finding himself in #MeToo's crosshairs.
I remember when a woman I was friendly/kind with perceived me as someone who wanted "more." She wrote me a message about how
she was uncomfortable. I'm gay. https://t.co/7z0X7Dwzkp
All these extreme strategies being adopted by men to avoid falling victim to an unjust #MeToo scandal are creating a kind
of "gender segregation" on Wall Street, the reporters say.
Hurting women's progress?
The most ironic outcome of a movement that was supposed to be about women's empowerment is that now, even hiring a woman on
Wall Street has become an "unknown risk," according to one wealth advisor, who said there is always a concern that a woman might
take something said to her in the wrong way.
With men occupying the most senior positions on Wall Street, women need male mentors who can teach them the ropes and help them
advance their careers, but what happens when men are afraid to play that role with their younger female colleagues? The unintended
consequence of the #MeToo movement on Wall Street could be the stifling of women's progress and a sanitization of the workplace to
the point of not even being able to have a private meeting with the door closed.
Another irony is that while men may think they are avoiding one type of scandal, could find themselves facing another: Discrimination
complaints.
"If men avoid working or traveling with women alone, or stop mentoring women for fear of being accused of sexual harassment,
those men are going to back out of a sexual harassment complaint and right into a sex discrimination complaint," Stephen Zweig, an
employment attorney with FordHarrison told Bloomberg.
Not all men are responding to the #MeToo movement by fearfully cutting themselves off from women, however. "Just try not to be
an asshole," one said, while another added: "It's really not that hard."
It might not be that simple, however. It seems there is no escape from the grip of the #MeToo movement. One of the movements most
recent victims of the viral hashtag movement is not a man, but a song -- the time-honored classic 'Baby It's Cold Outside' -- which
is being banished from American radio
stations because it has a "rapey" vibe.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
I am probably a case in point for this article. When Trump was elected, I got a "sharing
my grief" letter from Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR). This was my response to his letter, posted
November 18, 2016:
Thank you, Sen. Merkley, for the reassurance and encouragement.
Although I voted a straight Democratic ticket, I had no enthusiasm for Hillary
Clinton.
I was angry that the Democratic Party has allowed itself to fall into the neo-con,
neo-liberal, globalist approach/understanding of our most important issues and gave up the
nationalism and populism that was so important to the Progressive movement. This morphing
of the Party is something I've watched with considerable dismay for many years. The powers
and influences that have taken over the Party are bringing it to ruin, and are ultimately
responsible for this mind-boggling defeat.
We are all going to have to pay a lot more attention to politics in the coming years. We
no longer have the luxury of tending to our own families and affairs, trusting that our
government is in good hands, led by people who will do the right thing and not let anything
catastrophic happen. I did not have such confidence in Hillary Clinton, by the way. From
the outset I was in favor of a Biden/Warren ticket, and hoped that Elizabeth would be our
first female President, not Hillary. But then, I grew up in Oklahoma, and believe she's a
progressive, Oklahoma populist down deep.
The news coverage of the election by NPR was abysmal, in my view. This defeat was not a
revolt of the "losers," of the declining White middle class males, and the rise of
misogyny, racism and isolationism. (Those words were not used, of course, but that
understanding appeared to me to be embedded in the analysis.)
Isn't it possible that liberal, progressive, educated Americans might be unhappy with
the way American power, prestige, money and "soft" power has been squandered, and towards
what ends? Do you think educated
Americans are in favor of paring down the Constitution, beginning with the First and
Second Amendments? Do you believe that ordinary American citizens are to be feared, are the
enemy? Do you think they are all on board with spending trillions of dollars on Middle East
wars, creating destabilized states and the refugee crisis, and letting our own
infrastructure deteriorate and
Social Security go bankrupt? Will the SS funds borrowed to fund these and other wars,
and to balance budgets, ever be repaid? Do you think Americans are so dumbed down and
cynical that they would look to the Clintons as "wholesome" examples of what is best in
America and for uncorrupted leadership? Do you think no one either heard or remembered "We
came, we saw, he died! Ha, ha, ha"? Or have not heard Hillary's intent to establish a
no-fly zone in Syria, knowing full well that such an action could lead to war with Russia?
Do you think educated Americans really bought the "killing of Osama bin Laden" theater? Did
you? I admit that the tired "Osama" specter had to be laid to rest, but why not do it in an
upright and out front manner? Why all the deceit? It is this kind of deeply embedded
dishonesty and resulting corruption of justice, integrity and open political process that
has brought the Democratic Party into disrepute. Do you think people remain ignorant of the
Clinton Foundation's pay-for-play method of enriching themselves, or that the Foundation
transferred $1.8 billion to Doha? Where did all that loot come from? We are not talking
here of Bill Gates, or the CEO of Google. Where did the money come from?
I do not put you in the same camp. My first encounter with you was when you gave the
keynote speech at the first graduating class of the MET in Tigard. You have never tainted
yourself with lies and falseness. Maybe it is easier to retain your integrity being from
Oregon, since I have the same high regard for Rep. Earl Blumenauer and Peter DeFazio. You
are the exemplars of liberal, progressive values and grassroots democracy, not Hillary
Clinton.
As much as I have grown to dislike Hillary Clinton, listening to her concession speech,
I had a sense of tragedy. She seems such an intelligent, lovely woman.
It could and probably should have ended differently. Was it ambition that destroyed her,
or hubris and lack of humility? What happened to her respect for the intelligence and basic
decency of the American people? Where has simple honesty gone?
She appears to me to have taken the "left-hand path," and perhaps it is better that she
be personally ruined than allowed to take the country to ruin along with her, since that
path always ends in ruin.
I hope for the best. We will, I trust, survive a Donald Trump administration. There will
be damage, of course. Trump has to repay supporters who put their own political careers at
risk to back him. This is frightening all by itself–imagine a Sarah Palin in charge
of the Department of Energy! I fear the dismantling of all the federal regulatory agencies
that five generations of Americans have worked so hard to put in place–one of the
great achievements of the Progressive movement. Imagine BPA sold off to the highest bidder,
or our public lands bartered off to pay for the ruinous wars we have been visiting on the
Middle East!
By writing you in this frank way, I do not mean to be disrespectful. As I said, I hold
you, Rep. Blumenauer and Rep. DeFazio in high regard, and believe Oregon has the best
congressional delegation in the nation, bar none. More tThan ever, we all depend upon you
to be honest, vigilant and courageous, and prevent the worst possible outcomes from this
disaster from being realized.
Things have never looked worse for the Democratic Party, which just lost the last semblance
of mental competence as Bernie Sanders drops out of the race. With Joe Biden withering by the
day, will Gov. Andrew Cuomo get the call?
Being "connected" is a huge part of the cause of this mess, before internet propaganda was
limited to newspapers and magazines, it was much slower and manageable.
I do find it funny how wealthy folks spread the "don't worry WE will all be fine" garbage.
WE....no, tell that to someone who has lost their business and has dependents.
I hate the "We're going to be ok. We're all in this together" ads. All of them
celebrities, pro athletes, and actors. Not one has to worry about whether they'll be able to
buy food next week. Elites telling the little people everything's ok.
It's really sad when Tucker Carlson is the only person who ever admitted he was wrong on
Fox News. Hannity still claims he never called the virus a hoax even though he did it on
TV.
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: The emergence of a new and dangerous form of coronavirus
became known to the public outside China about three months ago. The first case in this country
appeared on January 21. Since the middle of March, much of America has been locked down in
response. We're three weeks into the largest and most disruptive response to a national
emergency in our lifetimes. Yet often you get the sense that our leaders are still feeling
their way along, making up details ad hoc as they plod forward. More precisely, they're waiting
to receive those details from the professionals they've gathered around them for directions.
Chief among the experts now crafting national policy is a 79-year-old physician from Brooklyn
called Anthony Fauci. Fauci certainly has the credentials for the job. He graduated first in
his class from Cornell medical school. He's spent more than half a century practicing medicine.
He's has been the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since
1984. Those of us who are 50, were freshman in high school when he started there. You can't say
he's not experienced. We've interviewed Dr. Fauci respectfully on this program, and we'd do it
again if he came back. We hope he will. He's an impressive person. But that doesn't mean he's
never wrong. On the question of this pandemic, he has been repeatedly. On January 21, Fauci
appeared on television to reassure the public that the Wuhan coronavirus was not worth worrying
about:
GREG KELLY: Bottom line. We don't have to worry about this one right?
FAUCI: Well obviously we have to take it seriously and follow the things the CDC an DHS
are doing but this is not a major threat to the people of the United States and this is not
something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about.
Two days later, Chinese security forces quarantined an entire city of 11 million people. In
some cases, they locked residents in their apartments from the outside. Chinese authorities
were clearly panicked. But Anthony Fauci wasn't. He assured Americans that, while they might
want to reconsider immediate travel plans to Wuhan, going to the Super Bowl was absolutely
fine. As it turned out, it wasn't fine. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis now says the Super Bowl
in Miami may have been a breeding ground for the spread of the virus. But Fauci kept going. On
February 17, when coronavirus cases were starting to appear all over the world, he once again
reassured the American public that the danger in this country was, quote, "just minuscule." He
said people ought to worry more about the quote, "real and present danger" of the annual
flu.
To be clear, we're not attacking Tony Fauci for getting it wrong on the Coronavirus. Most
people did, in and out of medicine. It isn't easy predicting which faraway problems will become
imminent crises at home. Even the experts make big mistake. They're human beings. They make
human mistakes. And that's exactly the point we ought to remember. Human beings frequently
underestimate risk. They also very often overreact to risk once they identify it. We may be
watching that now. Less than two months ago, Antony Fauci told us not to worry about this
epidemic. Now he's demanding that the federal government quarantine the entire country:
COOPER: Does it make sense to you that some states are still not issuing stay at home
orders? Whether there should be a federally mandated directive for that or not, I guess that's
more of a political question, but just scientifically, doesn't everybody have to be on the same
page with this stuff?
FAUCI: Yeah. I think so, Anderson. I don't understand why that's not happening. As you
said, the tension between federally mandates vs states rights is something I don't want to get
into but when you look at what's going on, I don't understand why we're not doing that. We
really should be.
How long should a shutdown like this last? Two days ago, Fauci suggested the country could
remain under quarantine until there are no more infections of deaths. He did not suggest when
that might be, if ever. Politicians followed his lead. Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has
shuttered his state until June 10. A source with knowledge reports that Andrew Cuomo has
privately discussed locking down New York until Fall. Meanwhile, various epidemiologists are
talking about putting the entire nation on a year of cycled shutdowns. Americans would be
allowed back to work, then ordered home again, then back to work. Over and over again.
These are extreme measures. We can only guess at the social and economic destruction they
might wreak, but it would be profound. With this much at stake, it's important to know more
about the science behind these proposed policies. What is it? It begins with sophisticated
computer models, that predict where and how quickly the virus will spread. The purpose of these
predictions is to quote, "flatten the curve" -- in other words, to slow the spread of the
pandemic over a longer period of time. If anyone gets sick at once, our healthcare system will
collapse, leaving Coronavirus patients and many other sick people without care. Obviously we
should work to prevent that. So how reliable have the predictions been so far? Many government
policy-makers have relied on a model created by the Institute for Health Metrics and
Evaluation, the IHME. By some measures, like death rates, that model has been fairly accurate.
Yesterday, for example, the model predicted 1,036 deaths nationwide. That was close. Today, it
predicts about 1,200. That should be roughly accurate too.
But on other, likely more important, numbers, the predictions have terrible at best. As of
yesterday, the IHME model predicted that the country would need 135,000 hospital beds, just to
treat coronavirus patients. New York alone, the model predicted, would need 56,000. That was
not even close. Yesterday, New York was at about 13,400 coronavirus hospitalizations. That's
not even a quarter of what the model predicted. And even that was closer that what it foresaw
in other states. The model predicted Oklahoma would need a thousand hospital beds. They're
using 38. Louisiana had a forecast of 5,800 required beds. The state has had about 1,600
hospitalizations. And so on. Nationwide, just three states had more hospitalizations than the
model predicted. In all three cases, they are small states with minuscule outbreaks so far.
Here's the problem with getting these numbers so horribly wrong: They've driven massively
disruptive government policy. Our entire national shutdown is based on the fear that
Coronavirus patients would overwhelm hospitals. That mostly hasn't happened. If the model had
been accurate, would we have quarantined the country? Good quesion. But it's too late now. More
than ten million Americans have already lost their jobs. Imagine another year of this. That
would be national suicide. Anthony Fauci doesn't want to hurt America. He seems like a decent
person. But Fauci is not an economist -- or for that matter, someone who fears being
unemployed. Like most of the people around him, he's got bulletproof job security. He has the
luxury of looking at the world through the narrow lens of his profession. He doesn't seem to
think much outside it. Watch this exchange, from NBC's morning show yesterday:
FAUCI: I know it's difficult. We're having a lot of suffering and a lot of death. This is
inconvenient from an economic and a personal standpoint, but we just have to do it.
Ten million Americans out of work and staring at poverty. That's not quote "inconvenient,"
as Dr. Fauci put it. It's horrifying. It's a far bigger disaster than the virus itself. Tony
Fauci can't see that, because he doesn't think it's his job to see it. But even a doctor should
be able to think beyond the models. Our response to coronavirus could turn this into a far
poorer country. Poor countries are unhealthy countries. People die of treatable diseases.
They're far more vulnerable to obscure viruses, like the one we are fighting now. Want to keep
Americans from dying before their time? Don't impoverish them. For all his credentials,
experience and apparent decency, Dr. Fauci doesn't seem to understand that. We should never let
someone like that run the country.
That is when I had enough Bernie, and realized he would just be more of the same. Thanks
for all the info on Crimea. I admittedly don't know very much about it. I did watch a
confusing documentary on netflix, but don't know if it was propaganda or not.
> Excellent video – please consider producing a weekly half hour lecture with a
listener(s) (friend) to ask questions. you can recruit a friend or strangerand just engage in
a conversation. You can experiment with interesting local locations – garden, coffee
shop patio, park Title something like regime change for dummies, Ukraine For Dummies, Crimea
for dummies, whatever subjects interest you and which you think the public is being
misinformed about . keep it casual – need better lighting :)
As people come to grips with the announcement today that Bernie Sanders has suspended, i.e.
dropped out of, his campaign, a myriad of collective feelings will have to run their inevitable
course.
My first reactions are that I feel profoundly let down. In the middle of Holy Week, for
God's sake! While the virus is peaking and people are losing things right and left, how does it
help that he does this now?
Bernie has always had terrible timing, a consequence of having bad advisors from the
beginning. He always seemed to be reluctant to agree to anything people were crying out for him
to say, especially to stop calling Biden a 'good and decent' man, his good friend, Joe Biden,
the party's only remaining nominee: an old man with a credible sexual assault allegation
recently come to light; a serial plagiarist, a promoter of the worst policies the centrists had
to offer.
Let me put this in clear terms: Joe Biden, the Democratic Party choice for President- a man
with diminished mental capacities, is going against one of the most ruthless contenders in
Presidential history, Donald J. Trump. On Bernie's watch, and with his participation by
concession, the Democratic Party will be utterly destroyed in November, and will have richly
deserved it.
Bernie would also not fight back against Warren and her outrageous sexism charge. He
wanted his kindly reputation to endure in a campaign that was not supposed to be about
him.
In the end, this campaign was all about Bernie. This may not sound very charitable. I could
not believe however, that there were no admissions of any missteps in his concession speech. No
mention that he could have done more to address the concerns of many people.
For instance, although he said he was inclusive, he did not pay any particular regard to
those not in the minority segments or youth age brackets that he was trying to romance. He
would not stray from the talking points hammered into our brains, trying to burn a legacy into
place, to make the case that he was the originator of these ideas, and, in my view, trying a
little too hard to rewrite history.
His last speech as a contender showed him once more taking credit for these ideas
becoming mainstream. Although he clearly was a defender, or at least a constant repeater of
these ideas, was he helping "build a movement" by stamping his brand all over them? The
progressive ideas that he embraced did not belong to him. Occupy was involved in income
inequality long before Bernie hitched his wagon to that star.
Bernie did not come up with a tax on speculation on Wall Street (an idea that I supported
in my run as an Independent from Maine for US Senate in 2008). It actually came from James
Tobin, an economist who won the Nobel Prize. Tobin originated the concept of the STT
(Securities Transaction Tax), which would be an optimal way to fight back against the tax
breaks and cuts that Congress has showered on the rich for several decades.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1981/press-release/]
The fight for minimum wage has been a progressive effort since I was young, hardly a new
idea. Not a Sanders idea, although to be fair, he has strongly endorsed the idea for a long
time. The same goes for single payer, or healthcare for all. Others, notably Physicians for a
National Health Plan (PNHP) have fought these fights on behalf of the progressive cause.
Bernie adopted those ideas into the progressive platform he ran on. The need was evident,
but the ideas are not new and are not his alone. Maybe he has fought for these things in the
Senate, and as an Independent from Vermont, which would be a reasonable thing to do to stay in
power, since they are among the most popular ideas for change in the country.
I am not impressed that Bernie could not summon the willpower to respond to the efforts of
those who wanted him to go to battle. I wrote many columns trying to appeal to him to suit up.
I attended ten of his campaign events in New Hampshire this time out and wrote and made videos
to support his efforts from the beginning of this second campaign. I have tried to reach the
campaign to no avail, to urge them to heighten their response and sharpen their attack on
substandard candidates' ideas.
Bernie was staggeringly passive; he let one opportunity after another go whizzing past with
weak responses, if any, in the face of a growing Democratic resurgence determined to destroy
him. His silences emboldened the corporate centrists, and confused supporters, who thought he
would take the huge advantage they gave him and surge forth, brandishing fury and
determination. Instead, he endlessly equivocated.
I have to own my part in this: I was stunned in 2016 when he said Hillary was right and
that nobody cares about her damn emails. From the beginning I saw him back down. Everything
since then has been consistent: he never went full tilt. He wanted to be loved more than being
right at all costs. He was able to be loved again, and forgiven again, and able to let us down
again. Yet I went along with it; I still worked on his behalf.
Despite his recent abdication (and, for some of us, his serial betrayal) Bernie Sanders will
be remembered fondly, and he will likely be forgiven by the majority of his followers. Jacobin
Magazine has written an article entitled "Thank You, Bernie," making the case that Sanders two
campaigns have made it possible to talk about socialism in America. It's now okay apparently
that he will be endorsing and campaigning for Joe Biden, who shamed Anita Hill and is now
shaming Tara Reade. I have lived to witness the day this has happened. It is not a joke.
After losing last time, Bernie did an amazing job of trying to convince his hardcore
supporters to stay in the Democratic Camp to support Clinton. Why would he not support Dr.
Stein in 2016, who endorsed his platform? If he wanted a Revolution, she and the Green Party
were the logical choice.
Why does he stay in the race now, collecting delegates which may still come his way this
time around? He hasn't succeeded in explaining this, which leads to the speculation that he is
doing this to keep all the possible votes and funding he can collect, to turn them over to the
Democrats for political gain, retain his Senatorial standing, and not be hated later like Ralph
Nader. That's why. He says it is to oppose Trump. We must keep following him on this,
apparently, even in his absence. I guess he will be out there making Joe's case for him, since
he cannot make a compelling case anymore.
This time, he has left the race early, in April, with half the States not having even voted
yet, with supporters that sent him money, who are now without a leader. Bernie can claim that
he did not stay and fight his 'good friends.'
In 2016 I was a Bernie candidate for State Rep., and a Bernie delegate and caucus captain
and helped to start and run a pop-up office in York County, Maine and taught area workers how
to fight in the caucus for him.
When he dropped out last time and supported Hillary, I protested at a rally and his rally
people had me arrested for waving a green scarf in support of Jill Stein. I was literally
dragged out by two policemen.
Bernie Sanders has caused me more effort and personal grief for the least amount of
satisfaction of anyone I have ever known. No one else has asked so much of me and done so
little, and not followed through on their promises.
He said he would stay in the fight. He wants people to support his platform and fight for
his delegates at the convention. He just will not do it himself.
He is a consummate politician. He has saved himself and bowed out while we are struggling
through a pandemic. Who told him this would be a good idea? He could have just said that he
would be there on the ballots so the Democratic Party had an alternative in the event that
Biden could not survive the allegations of rape and the demands of leading in a pandemic and
staying mentally capable. These are real liabilities.
Sanders dropped out at the last possible point for Joe to make some bizarre case that he
could credibly be the Democratic nominee; any longer and Joe would, and will, spectacularly
bomb out, leading to four more years of Trump.
... ... ... Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Laurie DobsonLAURIE DOBSON, a
new member of the ThisCantBeHappening! news collective, is a veteran political activist, and
current Democratic Convention 'Bernie' delegate for the Cranberry Isles, Maine, writes for
various blogs and is an EMT, USCG-certified captain, landscape design business owner, and
columnist. See her website: EndUSWars.org
.
I was there in the arena, watching him concede in 2016 – and shortly thereafter in the
media tent, where a bunch of Sanders delegates had walked out in protest. A colleague of mine
was outside the perimeter fence, covering the protest by tens of thousands of Democrats
outraged by the party establishment's conduct. When we interviewed them, a lot of these
people vowed never to vote Democrat again.
A few months earlier in Atlanta, I heard Sanders volunteers bluntly say they'd rather vote
for Trump than for Clinton. When WikiLeaks published those internal emails showing the party
was behind Hillary and actively sabotaging Bernie – which party chair Donna Brazile later
confirmed
as true – the DNC ran damage control by blaming Russia. But the voters remembered
– and Trump won.
Sanders tried again in 2020, but the script began repeating itself right from the start. In
Iowa, the party establishment and their media allies desperately propped up Pete Buttigieg
(anyone remember him?) and others. Biden, anointed as the front-runner for the purposes of
Ukrainegate, wasn't even on the map – until he won South Carolina, and everyone suddenly
fell into line behind him.
"... He's simply the "Filler" candidate. Gives you what you want and then folds. I watch the election go down and it was the last time I'd ever be a Democrat because of what they did to him and on the flip side you start to see how Bernie was part of that whole game and complicit. ..."
"... Finally, Jimmy understood what a fraud Bernie is. ..."
"... Bernie's capaign is the equivalent of a peaceful protest. All that ever happens is that the cops come arrest you, and nothing ever changes. ..."
He's simply the
"Filler" candidate. Gives you what you want and then folds. I watch the election go down and it was the last time I'd
ever be a Democrat because of what they did to him and on the flip side you start to see how Bernie was part of that
whole game and complicit.
As a non American one thing which pisses me off is this
praising of the Chinese system of government. This is the government which kept quite about this viral outbreak , the
government which forced doctors and scientists who warned about this to shut up and apologize . People in China don't
get to call their government names like Jimmy does regularly . That Jimmy Dore did not call this person out on that
point damaged his credibility. Does Jimmy Dore know how the workers in China are treated and what conditions they work
under ... to suggest that China has a better system of government than the USA is total bullshit ..
FU Bernie, I condemn the man most capable to have led the way to a dignified humanitarian
response, who instead chose to walk away in humanities hour of high promise, high need and
abysmal despair.
Bernie you put party before people in the time of their greatest need. Bernie you raised
their hope, you owed them your allegiance as they gave their allegiance to you.
Bernie as coward or as realist - bit of both I reckon. To repeat myself, today there is no
space in US politics for 'socialistic' (left of center as judged by European standards)
policies, stances, etc. Their mention is allowed, even welcomed in certain ways, in the
mainstream, as performance art to justify the myth of pluralistic opinions counting, a-hem,
in a "just and democratic society."
The Dems as I and many others have said since 2016 or even before prefer to loose to
Trump. Their 'staged' role as opponents to the Oligarchy (cruel corporate state with dodgy
pol. front-men, disaster capitalism, mafia rackets, 'war' economy, slave labor disguised,
etc.) which brings in bucks is hard to keep up, the pretense wears thin, diminishing by the
day, as they are part of that Oligarchy.
The Dem playing card, hold, grip, is identity politics, coupled with some class and tribal
divisions ("deplorables" vs "antifa", Dems vs. Reps, etc.), vague reformist proposals (ex.
Medicare for all)
The Dems still serve a purpose and won't be summarliy junked, sent to the dustbin of
history soon, as they fulfill an essential role.
Interesting is that all the parties seem to be carrying on 'as per usual' treating the COV
crisis as a temporary bump on the road. The two topics - Pres. elections - and handling COV
appear to be divorced, unrelated, though as usual superficial oppositions abound. (Everyone
is keeping cards up their sleeves.)
Bernie went on a $150 million joy ride with the donations of 5 million hardworkng Americans.
He never had a plan to win. He played his role as a safety valve for the far left to a tee.
As a revoluitonary, he couldn't lick Casto's boots.
I think both parties have been happy to use Bernie to draw out and crush any chances of
government by the people. After all, every remotely unbiased poll has shown a significant
majority of the US public, from both parties, support many of the "socialist" ideas that now
have been equated with Sanders a loser. The policies were strong, Sanders as a person has
shown himself repeatedly to be weak. The perfect embodiment to use to gin up support, get
people excited that finally something might be changing, and then crush them in the most
humiliating way possible. Think how many otherwise vibrant, radical activists had their guts
ripped out by Sanders' capitulation in '16, walking away from political activism in disgust.
And the extra tough nuts? Yeah, well Sanders the DNC (and RNC) just gutted them again, didn't
they? Yet another generation of potentially troublesome voters being taught their lesson:
pick a shade of crayon from the permitted crayon box, or just quit so long as you submit. Is
Sanders knowingly complicit? Does it matter? He's probably happy. He's the now almost
mythical "face of the little people" without having to ever be tarnished by trying to
implement any socialist ideas against the might of the machine.
After the warlord period of the 15th century, Japan was united by a few families then by a
shogun family. The period is called the Edo period. They disarmed civilians and established a
mild caste system.
The country was closed except for a few ports controlled by the central government, travel
restrictions were put in place and certain technological developments were prohibited.
The period also had an interesting feature called sankinkoutai .
It forced regional leaders to march across the country in formal costumes along with their
armies in order to alternate their residences between their home regions and the capital of the
feudal Japan, Edo. It also forced leaders' wives and family members to remain in Edo at all
time. It was an elaborate system to keep the hierarchical structure intact.
The reign lasted a few centuries with no conflicts within the land until the US forced to
open Japan in order to use its ports for whaling business. I've been suspecting that the aim of
some people among the ruling class circle is to establish such a closed hierarchical system
which can function in a "sustainable" manner. But of course it is not exactly a system of
equality and sharing as it would be advertised.
The notion of "sustainable" is also very much questionable as we see blatant lies hidden
behind carbon trade schemes, nuclear energy, "humanitarian" colonialism rampant in Africa and
other areas and so on.
I mentioned about the special feature, sankinkoutai , since I see an interesting
parallel between it and "representative democracy" within the capitalist West today. Of course,
we don't have such an obvious requirement among us, but similar dynamics occur within our
capitalist framework. Our thoughts and activities are always subservient to the moneyed
transactions guided by the economic networks.
Our economic restrictions can force us to make decisions to do away with our needs -- we
might abandon our skills, interests, friendships, life styles, philosophies, ideologies,
community obligations and so on.
In fact, some of us are forced to live on streets, die of treatable illness, suffer under
heavy debt and so on as we struggle. In a way, we surrender our basic needs as hostages to the
system just as the Japanese regional leaders had to leave their family members under the watch
of the Shogun family. Moreover, the more our thoughts differ from that of neoliberal capitalist
framework, the more we must put our efforts in adjusting to it. Some of us might be labeled as
"dissidents", and such a label can create obstacles in our social activities.
This functions similar to the fact that Japanese feudal regional leaders who were further
away from the capital geographically had to put more efforts in marching across the country,
requiring them to expend more resources. In a capitalist system, this occurs economically as
well -- those who are already oppressed by the economic strife must spend more resources to
conform to the draconian measures to survive.
Now, one might wonder why regional leaders had subjected themselves to such an inhumane
scheme. The march across the country was considered as a show of strength and authority -- it
was a proud moment to put on their costume to show off. The populations across the country were
forced to respect this process with reverence and awe. There were strict regulations regarding
how to treat such marches.
This situation can be compared to our political process -- Presidential election in
particular, in which our powers and interests are put in the corporate political framework to
be shaped, tweaked and distorted. Sanctioned by capitalist mandates and agendas, political
candidates march across the nation while people proudly cheer their favorite ones. The more
complacent to the capitalist framework the candidates are, the more lavish the marches. This
forces the contents of political discourse to remain within the capitalist framework while
excluding candidates and their supporters whose ideas are not subservient to it.
"Representative democracy" within a capitalist framework can be one of the most
strong ways to install values, beliefs and norms of the ruling class into minds of the people
whose interests can be significantly curtailed by those ideas. All this can be achieved in the
name of "democracy", "free election" and so on.
Since people's minds and their collective mode of operations are deeply indoctrinated to be
a part of the capitalist structure, any crisis would strengthen the fundamental integrity of
the structure. I heard a Trump supporter saying that "people should be shaking up a
little" . That's actually a very appropriate description. You shake their ground, people
try to hold onto whatever they think is a solid structure. Some of us might, however, try to
hold onto a Marxist perspective for example.
That, of course, provokes triggering reactions by those who go along with the capitalist
framework, because they are particularly threatened, sensing that their entire belief system
might fall. Examination of facts and contexts during the time of crisis can generate divisions
and opportunities to control and moderate opposing views.
Capitalist institutions are dominated by this mentality which might explain the extremely
quick mobilization of the draconian restrictions and the demand for more restrictions during
the time of "crisis". Economic incentives, as well as self-preservation within the system,
force people to engage actively in unquestioning manner.
For example, we have observed concerted efforts in mobilizing media, government agencies,
legal system and so on to "combat" "drug issues", "inner-city violence" and so on which has led
to mass incarceration, police killings and "gentrification" of primarily minority
communities.
Needless to say, 9/11 has created enormous momentum of colonial wars against middle eastern
countries. No major media outlets or politicians questioned blatant lies surrounding WMD claim
against Iraq for example. As a result, many countries were destroyed while one out of a hundred
people on the planet became refugees. Draconian regulations became normal, racism and
xenophobia among people intensified and the term "global surveillance" became a household
term.
This situation requires further examination since there are a few layers which must be
identified.
First, we must recognize that there is an industry that commodifies "dissenting voices". The
people who engage in this have no intention of examining the exploitive mechanism of capitalist
hierarchy. Some of them typically chose topics of government wrongdoings in contexts of fascist
ideologies (jews are taking over the world, for example), space aliens and so on. The angles
are calibrated to keep serious inquiries away but they nonetheless garner major followings.
When certain topics fall into their hands, discussing them can become tediously unproductive
as it prompts a label "conspiracy". It also contributes in herding dissidents toward fascist
ideology while keeping them away from understanding actual social structure.
The second point is related to the first, when the topic enters the realm of "conspiracy",
and when we lose means to confirm facts, many of us experience cognitive dissonance. The
unspoken fear of the system becomes bigger than any of the topics at hand, and some of us shut
down our thought process. As a result, we are left with hopelessness, cynicism and complacency.
This is a major tool of the system of extortion. It makes some of us say "if there is a
President who tries to overthrow capitalism, he or she will be assassinated".
Such a statement illustrates the fact that understanding of the violent system, fear and
complacency can firmly exist in people's minds without openly admitting to it.
Third, aside from the unspoken fear toward the destructive system, there is also unspoken
recognition that the system is inherently unsustainable to itself and to its environment. The
cultish faith in capitalist framework is upheld by myths of white supremacy, American
exceptionalism and most of all by our structural participation to it.
Any cult with an unsustainable trajectory eventually faces its doomsday phase. It desires a
demise of everything, which allows cultists to avoid facing the nature of the cult. It allows
them to fantasize a rebirth. This, in turn, allows the system to utilize a catastrophic crisis
as a springboard to shift its course while implementing draconian measures to prop itself up.
"The time of survival" normalizes the atrocity of structural violence in reinforcing the
hierarchical order, while those with relative social privilege secretly rejoice the arrival of
"the end".
Any of those three dynamics can be actively utilized by those who are determined to
manipulate and control the population.
Now, there is another interesting coincidence with the Japanese history. The title Shogun
had been a figurehead status given by the imperial family of Japan long before the Edo period.
Shogun is a short version of Seiitaishogun, which can be translated as Commander-in-Chief of
the Expeditionary Force Against the Barbarians. The title indicates the nature of the
trajectory more bluntly than the US presidency which is also Commander in Chief–which has
engaged in numerous colonial expeditions over the generations.
But as I mentioned above, the Edo period was not a time of fighting "barbarians", it was a
time of a closed feudal system and its hierarchy was strictly controlled by its customs and
regulations. The current trajectory of our time prompts one to suspect that the inevitable path
to be a similar one.
Our thoughts and ideas have been already controlled by capitalist framework for generations.
We knowingly and unknowingly participate in this hostage taking extortion structure. While
shaken by crisis after crisis, we have gone through waves of changes, which have implemented
rigid social restrictions against our ability to see through lies and rise above the feudal
order of money and violence.
I must say that I do understand that above discussion is very much generalized. One can
certainly argue against validity of the parallel based on historical facts and contexts. Some
might also argue that Edo period to be far more humane on some regards, in terms of how people
related to their natural surroundings, or the system being actually sustainable, for instance.
But I believe that my main points still stand as valid and worthy of serious
considerations.
Also, it is not my intention to label, demean and demonize policy makers of our time in
cynical manner. My intention is to put the matter as a topic of discussion among those who are
concerned in a constructive manner. The comparison was used as a device for us to step back
from our time and space in evaluating our species' path today.
Doctortrinate ,
there's no doubt -- the game has many strings to its bow, not helped by the peoples alacrity
of contribution -- notably, when called to Vote.
Generations through generation, used and abused, oppressed and distressed, and still they
returned to the spiders labyrinth to sustain the fabric of its future slaves to it's design,
expanding the web, sanctioning Its cause all the while, to a degeneration of theirs.
Example after example of the corruption, deviance, distortions and exploitation, and again
they return, depersonalized by repetition saturation, caught in a Stockholm syndrome victim
captor beguilement of slavery Is freedom -- and what of this latest attack, the warring virus
-- will the mass of unhinged automotons view it as another rescue -- condemning us "all" to a
big tech digitally enslaved end.
Or, will they finally, Wake Up and see the light ?
Charlotte Russe ,
"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate there's been over 30
million cases of influenza during America's flu season, which began in September 2019, with a
death toll exceeding 20,000." It must be noted, that in 2018 45 million were infected with
the flu in the US, and there were 80,000 deaths. As of this moment, the World-O-Meter cites
338,999 cases of Covid-19 in the US with 9,687 deaths. This mortality rate indicates the
deaths resulting from COVID-19 could be much "lower" than those resulting from the 2018 flu
where the touted vaccine did NOT work.
I think it's safe to say, we'll trully never know the source of Covid-19. We can only
speculate. It could have been transmitted from bats in a Wuhan wet market, or it could have
leaked out of a military lab. What can be definitely said, is that the panic associated with
the pandemic benefitted the rulers of ALL major capitalist dictatorships.
Fascist nation-states like China and Russia are grasping for a chance to make new friends
in high places as a way to replace the numero-uno superpower. And while China and Russia are
attempting to build new alliances the infighting persists within the EU. In the end, it makes
no difference which member of this sinister trio becomes the "big macher"– the
working-class, middle-class, and the working-poor will remain victims of exploitative
leeches.
Simply put, a landlord might sell his property to a new owner, but the occupying tenant
will still be required to pay rent, and might actually see an increase in their monthly fee.
It's like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
Worldwide every country is "infected" with a bunch of crumb-bum leaders. A crisis
intensifies their lechery. This is especially the case for those who have very little. We see
this constantly, every time there's an ecological disaster whether it's a flood, hurricane,
earthquake, typhoon, etc Disasters always wipeout the most vulnerable. These populations
possess fewer resources, hence fewer options. This has been the case for time and immemorial.
We're just more cognizant every time a disaster occurs because of surveillance technology and
globalization.
The real question which needs to be explored is why does the human species remain so
flawed. Human nature has not evolved in thousands of years. The same brutish sociopathic
tendencies which existed 10,000 years ago exist today. Perhaps Homo sapiens, are in an
evolutionary quagmire where only the "dung and malarkey" are allowed to rise to the top.
Whatever the case may be, billions are organized by various forms of "muck authority" who
yield significantly more power than 15th Century Edo feudal lords. In addition, if the entire
worldwide capitalist system collapsed 90 percent of the world's population would perish. The
sustenance of billions are too intertwined within the capitalist resource system.
Interestingly enough, primitive societies (if any are left) and survivalists might be the
small remainders of a civilization which became too big for its breaches.
So what are the options you might be thinking, since many of us never bothered to hone
those imperative life saving survival skills. The only answer is "reform." Groups with shared
interests need to organize and mobilize. Peaceful, but tenaciously protests could force
concessions without alienating the remaining population. This could be done. It happened in
the 1930's and the outcome of mass demonstrations lead to the New Deal. It's something to
think about, once the world stops self-isolating. The options are limited -- the path either
leads to neo-feudalism or barbarism. Unless of course, someone can figure out how to
eliminate the sociopathic gene within the human species.
Rhys Jaggar ,
I think I can answer this question: the fact is that when a leader rules by fear, power and
crushing dissent, only those displaying similar characteristics will thrive under them.
Back when the human condition was rather tenuous and being eaten by big predators a
significant possibility, the traits selected for were ruthless killing, hunting and, in the
case of males, winning the right to breed. There were no 11 pluses for selecting breeders,
rather punch ups, elimination of rivals and the like. The females were selected for
childbearing capabilities, since giving birth was one of the most hazardous activities a
female would undertake. They were not selected for religious evolution, nor for philosophical
insight.
As a result, the hierarchies of human society grew around those more primitive traits and,
by and large, remain there, albeit diluted down somewhat.
But thuggery, chicaneries, spying and lying are still the traits most valued in a
dog-eat-dog world. Insight can be stolen, bled dry and then dumped.
Who needs a brain when you can steal someone else's ey?
Charlotte Ruse ,
To put it simply, deviant ruthless behavior is baked into the cake.
Can he screw his supporters even more than he has? "Moved the debate" needs some unpacking: Bernie successfully covered
Obama's healthcare betrayal (Obama confessed: a public option would be "unAmerican") with an an even bigger electoral betrayal.
It is unclear why he run, other than again to betray his followers...
"Bernie Sanders is a gutless fraud and faux Socialist (he’s merely a Centre-Left Social Democrat yet he portrayed his movement
as some sort of “Revolution”, LOL), who sadly represents the best you would ever get in the White House, in the sense that at
least he wouldn’t have started any new wars, wouldn’t have given any tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy, and wouldn’t have
outsourced any more jobs in new free trade agreements (these are the reasons I would have held my nose and voted for him if he had
been nominated, despite my much more Leftist beliefs). "
"Bernie fulfilled his sheepdog role of keeping people who want change attached to the moribund, corrupt Democratic Party, so
he can now retire well loved by the political class. Anyone who thinks change can come from the Democrats is deluded. You'd have
better luck changing the Republicans as they seem more open to ideas... Building a real third party is more needed than ever."
"Well that's completely not unexpected. His job was to con the non-retarded democrats into thinking they have a choice. He
will laugh all they way to the bank, just like he did the last time."
Notable quotes:
"... Can't believe we're even still speculating or fretting over Bernie's dropping out. His supporters can be oh so sad that his ideas were the best, but the dastardly "establishment" just wouldn't go along! He lost me in 2016 with his sheepdogging; he lost me in 2019 for not attacking Biden's corruption and war-mongering, but the killer for me was Bernie embracing the moronic and dangerous Russiagate narrative. ..."
Bernie was the sheepdog of the DNC that kept people from organizing outside of the two party
hustle(system).
People were pointing this out to his supporters very early on in this cycle using last
cycle as evidence yet no one listened.
If there is a next cycle let's hope Bernie didn't ruin them for political action and they
finally figure out they need to go against the entire establishment machine instead of trying
to reform one half of the mafia from within.
>Those bashing Bernie should understand that there was no way in hell
> the establishment (party duopoly and corporate media complex) was
> going to let him win.
People here paying attention knew he wouldn't be allowed to win. So did Bernie also know
this, and went along with the charade, or did he not know, thus showing that he is a complete
fool and nincompoop?
Knowing he could not win, a real radical would've been building a movement, not an
electoral machine. He did earn lots of delegates but threw them all away instead of taking
them to the convention and cause a ruckus.
No one will be talking about Bernie's ideas by next month, but there will be plenty of US
peons desperate for food and shelter. Will Bernie's movement be there to organize them and
help them get the necessities of life?
The sad part is all the effort and resources wasted on Bernie the Bozo's campaign. That
campaign money could've bought a lot of groceries and tents.
Rob @ 48 said;"The coming general election will feature the two least qualified candidates in
U.S. history. Trump is a malignant narcissist and very stupid, while Biden is a corporatist
and a hawk in addition to being senile."
Agreed, and your comment is probably too kind to both..
Bernie is like much of the so-called left, they've forgotten how to fight, by surrounding
themselves with DNC hacks. Never the less, his ideas are credible, and shouldn't be
forgotten.
Don't see how DJT can lose in Nov., but stranger things have happened. Regardless, I'll
never vote Biden, and if DJT wins, the U$A gets what it deserves, whatever that is.
All Bernie can do is continue to collect delegates, and hope to move Biden leftward, to at
least support Medicare for all, which, given the state of healthcare in our present pandemic,
might gain some traction.
As I've said in this blog many times, my bet is the American working classes will choose
fascism. And I'll complement my thesis: the sandernistas will be the decisive factor.
Can't believe we're even still speculating or fretting over Bernie's dropping out. His
supporters can be oh so sad that his ideas were the best, but the dastardly "establishment"
just wouldn't go along! He lost me in 2016 with his sheepdogging; he lost me in 2019 for not
attacking Biden's corruption and war-mongering, but the killer for me was Bernie embracing
the moronic and dangerous Russiagate narrative. The sunlight is shining onto many areas,
as Caitlin Johnstone says, if we can wake up and see it and create a real movement for sane
actions and policies. Bernie's "movement" was designed to be a feel-good exercise in support
of empire.
As much as I despise Joe Biden (I plan on voting third party this November), and understand
the disappointment of those who just witnessed Bernie launch another failed campaign. I find
it quite disgusting how many posters here are blatantly shilling for Trump on this supposedly
Anti-War blog (I guess many here haven't grown out of the "Muh Trump fights the Deep state"
meme). I wonder how the supposedly Anti-War posters here will feel if their
"Anti-Establishment", "Populist", hero, launches a quick, little, war to overthrow Maduro in
Venezuela a couple months before the election to prove how "strong" he is opposed to Biden
(by falsely accusing Maduro of being a drug lord, they now have the sam e Casus belli they
had against Noriega in 1989)? Or how will it feel if the newly reelected ultra-Zionist Trump
decides to launch a "humanitarian" air campaign against Iran's government in order to support
some CIA/Mossad-backed, "Pro-Democracy", rebels that have been unleashed on the country due
to the destabilization inflicted by Trumps sanctions? ...
Finally, we all know that the Russians and Chinese love Trump because he reminds them of
the Low-class, hedonistic, degenerates, that
Sold-out and raped their country so they could enjoy "Muh dream" (something Trump literally
embodies)
Sanders was just a second rate preacher, not a leader. He is a coward.
Notable quotes:
"... As a non-American, I am not unsettled that Trump will serve a second term. Trump is doing more to dismantle the "American Century" - an idea more destructive to the rest of the world that anything I can presently think of - than any anti-war group ever could. Trump has exposed the US for what it is - a rogue state, self-involved, run by greed and corruption. ..."
"... Of course Trump is an idiot. A narcissist, a self-promoter, and a fella with a very tepid relationship with truth. He entirely lacks compassion or any sense of empathy whatsoever. However, he IS showing the world that the US cannot under any circumstances, be trusted - has it ever stuck to any of the treaties it entered into? ..."
"... a dementia-ridden Biden vying for the big chair. This is the best America has on offer?? At least Trump is honest in exposing America for what it is. A rogue, near-failed state. The sooner the population at large realize this, and start raising politicians who aren't chosen simply by how much money they have, the better. ..."
"... But I'm not holding my breath. Go Trump! ..."
"... Bernie was never a leader, but my sentiment is with Joe Rogan when he said "Biden is turning us all into morons" ..."
"... The oligarchy is happy with either outcome as it assures nothing changes. The only difference is things get worse more quickly or more slowly. Trump may be God's justice on Americans for permitting their government to become an empire which is murdering its way around the world. ..."
"... The reason Biden beat Bernie in the primaries is obvious: electronic vote flipping, just like Hillary's DNC did in 2016. The exit poll discrepancies prove this beyond doubt. And Bernie, coward or sheepdog that he is, refused to complain that millions of his supporters were cheated again. It seems that violent revolution is being made inevitable. ..."
Bernie Sanders is a coward. I'm embarrassed to have supported him for so long. If he constantly caves under pressure (like he
has this whole campaign), he doesn't deserve to be the nominee or the president.
As a non-American, I am not unsettled that Trump will serve a second term. Trump is doing more to dismantle the "American
Century" - an idea more destructive to the rest of the world that anything I can presently think of - than any anti-war group
ever could. Trump has exposed the US for what it is - a rogue state, self-involved, run by greed and corruption.
Of course Trump is an idiot. A narcissist, a self-promoter, and a fella with a very tepid relationship with truth. He entirely
lacks compassion or any sense of empathy whatsoever. However, he IS showing the world that the US cannot under any circumstances,
be trusted - has it ever stuck to any of the treaties it entered into?
All this is not a result of Trump alone. Every president since JFK has had but two priorities: to keep the powerful powerful,
and the rich rich. Capitalists doing what Capitalists do.
The Bushes, the Clintons, so-called Saint Obama, Trump, and a dementia-ridden Biden vying for the big chair. This is the
best America has on offer?? At least Trump is honest in exposing America for what it is. A rogue, near-failed state. The sooner
the population at large realize this, and start raising politicians who aren't chosen simply by how much money they have, the
better.
Election 2020-Dotard [Dem.] v. Retard [Rep.] The oligarchy is happy with either outcome as it assures nothing changes. The
only difference is things get worse more quickly or more slowly. Trump may be God's justice on Americans for permitting their
government to become an empire which is murdering its way around the world.
The reason Biden beat Bernie in the primaries is obvious: electronic vote flipping, just like Hillary's DNC did in 2016. The
exit poll discrepancies prove this beyond doubt. And Bernie, coward or sheepdog that he is, refused to complain that millions
of his supporters were cheated again. It seems that violent revolution is being made inevitable.
Update (1155ET) : It did not take President Trump long to chime in via Twitter .
"Bernie Sanders is OUT! Thank you to Elizabeth Warren. If not for her, Bernie would have
won almost every state on Super Tuesday! "
Then Trump went further:
"This ended just like the Democrats & the DNC wanted, same as the Crooked Hillary
fiasco."
Which led him to suggest:
"The Bernie people should come to the Republican Party, TRADE!"
Will they?
Bernie's departure from the race makes Biden the presumptive nominee, and will save a lot of
people the trouble of voting in the remaining primaries, potentially saving lives from
COVID-19.
... ... ...
All told, Bernie Sanders will still be remembered as an anti-establishment legend who almost
single-handedly revived the passion for socialism among white guilt-ridden middle class college
students and recent grads across the country. He went from long-shot outsider whose quiet
campaign announcement in the summer of 2015 garnered little attention at the time, before a
groundswell of public support helped make him a serious threat to Clinton.
by what Jimmy Dore has been saying, but what are all those people who supported Bernie
both financially and by working on his campaign supposed to do now? Seriously, are they going
to swallow everything that made them support Bernie and suddenly flip over to supporting Joe
Biden because Bernie says so? Is Bernie going to sheepdog them into voting for Joe Biden who
stands for everything that Bernie supposedly does not? Is Bernie going to tell his following
that they must give up the dream of Medicare for All and vote for Joe Biden who still says he
would veto it if he were President?
Jimmy Dore was and is right. So how far is a bridge too far before people actually decide
they have had enough of the kabuki that passes for politics in this country? I was not a
Bernie supporter this time around. I supported Tulsi instead, but was prepared to vote from
Bernie if he got the nomination. But I refuse to be sheepdogged into voting for a man who
cannot articulate a complete sentence and who represents for everything I abhor.
This
might get me banned here, but dammit enough is enough! Below is my response to Bernie's tweet
today.
Let us go forward together. The struggle continues.
NO! The only way left to go forward is to take the system down, NOT work within it. We
need a nationwide general strike NOW. Corporations & the richest oligarchs got
$trillions from the CARE Act & the rest of us got a measly $1,200 which does not cover
rent for most.
-- Nancy D Pomeranian Behind A Mask (@gulfgal98) April 8,
2020
And No, Andrew Cuomo or any other neolib is not acceptable either. I am done!
That the Green candidate is worthwhile this time around, honestly.
I'll still vote--for other races and ballot initiatives and such. Maybe I'll write in
Tulsi for president, but maybe I just won't cast a vote for that race.
I'll be just as sad whether Trump or Biden gets in. It's not even whether one is slightly
better than the other. Trump is withdrawing people from a lot of our war zones--does anyone
really think Biden would do that? I sure as hell don't.
Biden might (and I mean *might*) be better than Trump domestically, but I'd almost rather
see Trump destroy the entire place. As an independent, I don't owe my vote to *anyone*.
Candidates have to *earn* my vote. So far, nobody has.
You want to win, field a candidate who doesn't suck shit so I can vote for them!
What I want:
--End war on drugs, legalization of some drugs
--End foreign wars and 80% reduction in US bases in other countries
--End police militarization
--End prison/industrial complex
--Huge action on climate change
--Bring manufacturing back to country and reverse the off-shoring of jobs
--Bring heavy regulation back to the banking and money sectors
--Health care for all
Give me a candidate with at least 3 of those and I'll consider voting for them. Over half
of them and I definitely will. Biden supports zero of those. So, eff him. I don't want what
he's selling.
Split the votes between her and Bernie.
Make up the 'you said a woman can't win the presidency' that weakened his campaign.
Again refused to endorse him even though she initially ran on many of the exact same issues
that he did.
Then got basically endorsed Biden before Bernie dropped out.
There are a lot of responses to her tweet that are pretty brutal. But then I feel she
deserves everyone of them for selling herself out once she got into congress. She is a shell
of the person she was when she took Joe and Hills to task for their policies.
I will never believe that the votes were counted fairly starting with Pete winning Iowa
after they changed how they would count them at the last minute with an App that he helped
fund.
Super Tuesday results were also inaccurate imo because the media called the race for Joe
the day before people even voted and they called states for Joe immediately while waiting
weeks to declare Bernie won the ones he did.
I just read this comment in response to someone saying that we need to vote blue no how
despicable it would be for us to do so.
There are those indie types that jump on to Bernie because he is anti-establishment, and
tend to be low information voters.
Low info voters? Guess that means me. But what they don't understand is many Bernie
supporters are independents that would never vote for a democrat. And for gawd's sake when
did it become acceptable to shame people for who they vote for? Just because Rogan said he'd
rather vote for Bernie than Biden and Trump over Biden doesn't give people the right
to throw rotten eggs at Bernie for his endorsement. When AOC endorsed Bernie Kos said that
endorsements aren't all that anymore. But then John Lewis, the civil rights icon endorsed
Biden and the others that came before him they threw a party for them. As always it's the
f'cking hypocrisy that I cannot stand.
@snoopydawg in
this entire fiasco that the Democratic party pretended were the primaries is directed toward
Warren. Nearly every other candidate was reasonably true to their stated policies, but Liz
kept lying and changing it as she went along. She should never be trusted by any voter at any
level from now on.
Split the votes between her and Bernie.
Make up the 'you said a woman can't win the presidency' that weakened his campaign.
Again refused to endorse him even though she initially ran on many of the exact same
issues that he did.
Then got basically endorsed Biden before Bernie dropped out.
There are a lot of responses to her tweet that are pretty brutal. But then I feel she
deserves everyone of them for selling herself out once she got into congress. She is a
shell of the person she was when she took Joe and Hills to task for their policies.
I will never believe that the votes were counted fairly starting with Pete winning
Iowa after they changed how they would count them at the last minute with an App that he
helped fund.
Super Tuesday results were also inaccurate imo because the media called the race for
Joe the day before people even voted and they called states for Joe immediately while
waiting weeks to declare Bernie won the ones he did.
I just read this comment in response to someone saying that we need to vote blue no
how despicable it would be for us to do so.
There are those indie types that jump on to Bernie because he is anti-establishment,
and tend to be low information voters.
Low info voters? Guess that means me. But what they don't understand is many Bernie
supporters are independents that would never vote for a democrat. And for gawd's sake
when did it become acceptable to shame people for who they vote for? Just because Rogan
said he'd rather vote for Bernie than Biden and Trump over Biden doesn't give
people the right to throw rotten eggs at Bernie for his endorsement. When AOC endorsed
Bernie Kos said that endorsements aren't all that anymore. But then John Lewis, the civil
rights icon endorsed Biden and the others that came before him they threw a party for
them. As always it's the f'cking hypocrisy that I cannot stand.
a republican and Warren was one forever until the democrats moved right enough to fit in
with her values.
She got into politics because of the heinous bankruptcy bill that Biden crafted for his
friends at MBNA, but now she says that he is exactly what we need now to beat Trump.
Every damn democrat knows that Biden has mental issues and they are having the media cover
that up. But hey folks this time you get to not only vote for teh lesser evil, but you also
get to vote for which rapist you think is better than the other one. This is not going away.
Trump is brash enough to call Biden out on that. You know he is.
"- What do you call a progressive who only backs establishment Democrats?"
After SC, the Dem party honchos made it quite clear there was no way in hell Bernie was
ever going to be allowed the nomination. So instead, we've been treated to one sham election
after another with phony polls, rampant voter suppression, and blatantly manipulated
results.
As if that's not bad enough, the Dems even stoop so low as to schedule Corona virus
primaries that force voters to risk their health to participate in this scam. For a guy like
Biden that's all good because Joe doesn't actually give a shit about the electorate and
because the outcome is predetermined. But for a guy like Bernie, who does care, the party's
threat to the health of his supporters was yet another criminal tactic to pressure him into
quitting.
drop out -- to save people from exposing themselves to coronavirus and possibly dying to
support his campaign.
but not upset.
After SC, the Dem party honchos made it quite clear there was no way in hell Bernie
was ever going to be allowed the nomination. So instead, we've been treated to one sham
election after another with phony polls, rampant voter suppression, and blatantly
manipulated results.
As if that's not bad enough, the Dems even stoop so low as to schedule Corona virus
primaries that force voters to risk their health to participate in this scam. For a guy
like Biden that's all good because Joe doesn't actually give a shit about the electorate
and because the outcome is predetermined. But for a guy like Bernie, who does care, the
party's threat to the health of his supporters was yet another criminal tactic to
pressure him into quitting.
This announcement from Bernie has been written on the wall for at least the past month.
I'm actually surprised it took this long to happen. Asking or expecting people to 'get out
the vote" when it means risking your life and the lives of others to do so, especially given
that Bernie winning now would have been an extreme long shot in any case, dropping out was
really the only reasonable path he could take at this point.
Now comes the part where he tells us to vote for Biden, to defeat Trump. I imagine the
response to that will be pretty much the same as when he told us to vote for Hillary to
defeat Trump. Many will go along, and a lot of us will not. I fully expect Trump will remain
president.
that Trump might never have become president and it's so important to get him out if the
DNC, Hillary and Debbie Washerwhat'her face hadn't rigged the 2016. Polls showed that Bernie
had a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary did.
I know I am not the only one that thinks Pelosi and her fellow republicans in the D party
would be upset if Trump wins again. The only bill that they didn't help republicans pass was
the tax bill and that was only because their votes weren't needed. But boy have they been
busy helping them fix the mistakes that took too much away from the rich.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday once again voiced his support for slashing the payroll
tax -- the primary funding mechanism for Social Security and Medicare -- and said he would
be calling for such a cut even if the U.S. were not currently in the midst of a nationwide
public health and economic emergency.
"I would love to see a payroll tax cut," Trump, who has repeatedly vowed to "save"
Social Security, said at the end of the Coronavirus Task Force briefing Tuesday evening. "I
think on behalf of the people it would be quick... There are many people who would like to
see it as a permanent tax cut."
Trump himself has also backed the idea of permanently cutting the payroll tax in talks
with Republican lawmakers.
"The payroll tax cut would be a great thing for this country," Trump added after
claiming that congressional Democrats are standing in the way. "I would like to have it
regardless of [the coronavirus crisis]."
This announcement from Bernie has been written on the wall for at least the past
month. I'm actually surprised it took this long to happen. Asking or expecting people to
'get out the vote" when it means risking your life and the lives of others to do so,
especially given that Bernie winning now would have been an extreme long shot in any
case, dropping out was really the only reasonable path he could take at this point.
Now comes the part where he tells us to vote for Biden, to defeat Trump. I imagine the
response to that will be pretty much the same as when he told us to vote for Hillary to
defeat Trump. Many will go along, and a lot of us will not. I fully expect Trump will
remain president.
that Trump might never have become president and it's so important to get him out if
the DNC, Hillary and Debbie Washerwhat'her face hadn't rigged the 2016. Polls showed that
Bernie had a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary did.
I know I am not the only one that thinks Pelosi and her fellow republicans in the D
party would be upset if Trump wins again. The only bill that they didn't help republicans
pass was the tax bill and that was only because their votes weren't needed. But boy have
they been busy helping them fix the mistakes that took too much away from the rich.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday once again voiced his support for slashing the
payroll tax -- the primary funding mechanism for Social Security and Medicare -- and
said he would be calling for such a cut even if the U.S. were not currently in the
midst of a nationwide public health and economic emergency.
"I would love to see a payroll tax cut," Trump, who has repeatedly vowed to "save"
Social Security, said at the end of the Coronavirus Task Force briefing Tuesday
evening. "I think on behalf of the people it would be quick... There are many people
who would like to see it as a permanent tax cut."
Trump himself has also backed the idea of permanently cutting the payroll tax in
talks with Republican lawmakers.
"The payroll tax cut would be a great thing for this country," Trump added after
claiming that congressional Democrats are standing in the way. "I would like to have it
regardless of [the coronavirus crisis]."
It sounded to me like he could no longer split his attention between the senate and the
campaign trail. He is mortal and has to "decide what to do with the time that is given
him".
I really hope he doesn't try to hold rallies though. Last time he did that in Seattle for
HRC he got booed at the Moore Theatre instead of being cheered at Seattle Center. He may not
have had the killer instinct that was needed in this political moment but he did far more
than most of us.
but not upset.
After SC, the Dem party honchos made it quite clear there was no way in hell Bernie
was ever going to be allowed the nomination. So instead, we've been treated to one sham
election after another with phony polls, rampant voter suppression, and blatantly
manipulated results.
As if that's not bad enough, the Dems even stoop so low as to schedule Corona virus
primaries that force voters to risk their health to participate in this scam. For a guy
like Biden that's all good because Joe doesn't actually give a shit about the electorate
and because the outcome is predetermined. But for a guy like Bernie, who does care, the
party's threat to the health of his supporters was yet another criminal tactic to
pressure him into quitting.
Been lurking here off and on since the "Ides of March", and finally registered to post an
analogy that I haven't seen mentioned before.
Super Tuesday was the DNC's "shock-and-awe" moment. I was certainly experiencing both in
large quantities following Super Tuesday, and was amazed at what the powers-that-be were able
to accomplish in so short of a time, getting all the candidates to immediately align against
Bernie, and flipping his controlling lead into a hopeless sham almost literally overnight. I
found myself in kind of a stupor in the week or two following that, wondering what the hell
happened, and not really wanting to engage in any political discussion.
My eyes were opened in 2009 following Obama's handling of the banksters and the public
option. I knew then that we needed drastic change, and the corporate Dems weren't going to
get us there. Now I will always remember Super Tuesday 2020 as the moment my eyes were opened
completely to the futility of accomplishing anything worthwhile under our current political
system, no matter who may be leading the charge. It just doesn't matter; they will be
stopped, one way or another. And we'll all be left out here in the cold.
@VirtualMaestro
is the refusal of ANYONE to call out the DNC on their cheating. And old smug ass Biden will
take the nomination, even though he knows it was rigged against his "good friend".
Been lurking here off and on since the "Ides of March", and finally registered to post
an analogy that I haven't seen mentioned before.
Super Tuesday was the DNC's "shock-and-awe" moment. I was certainly experiencing both
in large quantities following Super Tuesday, and was amazed at what the powers-that-be
were able to accomplish in so short of a time, getting all the candidates to immediately
align against Bernie, and flipping his controlling lead into a hopeless sham almost
literally overnight. I found myself in kind of a stupor in the week or two following
that, wondering what the hell happened, and not really wanting to engage in any political
discussion.
My eyes were opened in 2009 following Obama's handling of the banksters and the public
option. I knew then that we needed drastic change, and the corporate Dems weren't going
to get us there. Now I will always remember Super Tuesday 2020 as the moment my eyes were
opened completely to the futility of accomplishing anything worthwhile under our current
political system, no matter who may be leading the charge. It just doesn't matter; they
will be stopped, one way or another. And we'll all be left out here in the cold.
I never mentioned or voiced any support for Trump or Pelosi, and speaking of straw, you
probably don't even realize that your response is a textbook example of a straw man argument
which involves refuting an argument that was not actually presented. Well done.
I live in Hawaii and know what my neighbors think. I'm glad Gabbard is back here and
making a difference instead of wasting more time on the pointless theatre of the DNC. I don't
like the Biden support but name one serious candidate who fought the MIC these primaries or
got 5% of the MSM hostility that Gabbard took. That would be no one. Your disappointment is
of no concern to the people of Hawaii.
Like I've said before. I'll wait to hear about the Biden issue from the candidate herself
before breaking out the tar and feathers. Right now she's got more important things to do
that satisfying random bloggers.
I am fine with Tulsi bailing out for her community and that is precisely the most sincere
thing to do. I applaud that move.
Endorsing Biden at any time? NO WAY> that man is a republican in drag, a scumbag in a
suit, a thief in in a cassock,a creep in the vestry, a carpetbagger backing fascist Ukraine
and stealing from their people. He and his decrepit son stole the USA and IMF loans and left
the Ukrainian people to pay them off. She endorsed that shit.
Silence would have been the appropriate action and tactically correct until after the
Convention if she was politically intent to await the process between the B and the B.
Sanders unwillingness to confront the establishment is rather convenient for the
establishment, isn't it? How can anyone talk of Sanders at this point and not mention
"sheepdog"?
Not only elections are rigged, the top politicians are involved in the rigging.
Sanders gave up against Clinton in 2016 and he gave up against Biden (?!?!) in 2020. The
pandemic gave Sanders a third opportunity; opportunities are rare and you rarely get one,
let alone three, but Sanders is throwing it all away (again). Sanders forgets that he is
not where he is because of the Democratic Party, he is there because American people want
real change. What is Sanders trying to do? Destroy his message, his reputation and the hope
people placed in Sanders? Spend the rest of his life as a derided figure?
Jackrabbit #72
Jimmy Dore is kicking Sanders arse around the stage over the last few days for caving in
on everything.
The King of Vermont has no clothes left.
Neither does the Queen of Hawaii for that matter. Silent on the Joe groper issue from what I
see.
In
August and
November I wrote about the strangeness of United States House of Representatives member and
then 2020 Democratic presidential nomination candidate Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) regularly playing
up her 16-plus years and counting employment in the United States military, and other
Americans' service in the US military as well, as a virtue while she at the same time makes
opposing major actions of that military, including the carrying out of certain wars, a focus of
her congressional work and campaign.
Jimmy Dore, who has similar concerns about Gabbard's rhetoric promoting the virtue of
service in the US military, asked Gabbard about this in an interview with Gabbard at his The
Jimmy Dore Show in March. In the interview focused largely on Gabbard's announcing , upon her
dropping out of the Democratic presidential nomination race, that she is supporting Joe Biden
for president, Dore asked several tough questions in an effort to induce Gabbard to address the
matter directly. Here is the initial exchange between Dore and Gabbard on the topic, with Dore
twice attempting to elicit a clear explanation from Gabbard:
DORE: So, I just wanted to talk with you a little bit more about antiwar veterans. So, a lot
of veterans and antiwar veterans watch this show, and I meet them when we do events and
everything. And they wanted me to ask you this. They say a lot of antiwar veterans say they
are not proud to have served, that they are sorry to have taken part, and they offer apology
to the countries that they occupied and the people that are living there, and that
participating in these wars is only a service to weapons manufacturers and war profiteers.
So, what do you say to that?
GABBARD: I respect every veteran -- those who make those statements and those who express
their pride in serving our country. I am personally I am proud to wear this country's
uniform. I am grateful for the privilege of being able to serve. And it is those experiences
that I have had throughout my service that have motivated me to dedicate all of my energy
towards bringing about the political change in our leadership that actually honors the great
sacrifice, selflessness, and courage that our men and women in uniform and that our veterans
lay on the line. I think that it's important to draw that line of distinction between those
who serve and wear the uniform and who salute the flag versus the politicians who are
dishonoring that service through the policies that they are advocating for.
DORE: So, I mean it seems to me that soldiers are not fighting for the safety and security
of this country when they go over to places like Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan. They're
actually achieving the opposite. even in fighting the War on Terror, where it's observed that
for every civilian killed we create two more jihadis. And so, I mean, it just seems, given
your piercing criticisms of these corporate interventions, can you square that circle for me
-- how you can be proud to serve in things that you call out for being wrong?
GABBARD: I'm proud to serve our country. I am angered by the politicians who needlessly
send our troops into harms way to fight in wars that don't make us any safer. There are
missions that our troops are sent on to go and defeat ISIS and al-Qaeda that are focused on
making the American people safe, and those are missions that should continue to defeat that
threat that is posed to our national security and foreign policy. But, you're right, there
are a lot of missions in whether it's continued deployments in Afghanistan without any clear
objective or any clear goal that actually serves our country's security interests or, you
know, regime change wars like we've in Iraq and Syria and Libya and other countries that
actually undermine our national security interests. So, there is a difference and a
distinction, especially when you know, when you understand that it's the politicians who are
making these decisions and it's why I'm focusing my efforts on bringing about that change
there to truly honor them and their service.
Later in the interview, Dore returned to the topic, again seeking to obtain from
Gabbard a coherent explanation while presenting his concern that Gabbard's promotion of the
virtue of being in the US military can encourage other people to choose employment in the US
government's war machine:
DORE: So, I just have one more question. So, a couple months ago there's these kids who live
across the street from me. I don't know how, they're like 16 through 19, and they're out
washing their car, and then three recruiters jumped out of their car and started recruiting
them to go fight in these bogus wars. And, so, Stef and I went out, and we started talking to
the kids, and we said: "You don't have to listen to these guys; tell these guys to get lost."
And, so, it made me think, you know, everything that you touch you make it a little more
attractive, so, are you worried that people are joining these bogus wars because you made
joining a little more attractive?
GABBARD: No. I'm not. There's great honor in serving our country, and, whether you're a
kid who's graduating high school or you're someone of any age and you make that decision to
go and serve our country, no matter the political circumstances, that is a very rare and
special thing. I also respect those who say, 'No, I won't join the military because I don't
want to be in that position to have to go and fight in a war that a politician sends me to go
and fight." And I respect people's decisions on both ends of the spectrum. But, there is no
honor lost in those who make that decision, raising their right hand to say "I'm willing to
lay my life down for my country and the safety and well-being of the American people." And
that's a decision that's motivated by love.
Watch these exchanges between Dore and Gabbard, and the complete interview, here:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Jka28F9ldBg
Good for Dore for trying three times in the interview to elicit from Gabbard a clear,
logical answer about this important apparent contradiction at the heart of one of her major
areas of focus in politics. All he received back was more of the same nonsense rhetoric Gabbard
has been putting out for so long, the same rhetoric the logic of which Dore was
challenging.
Luckily for Gabbard, few other people will broach the subject Dore broached. The social
convention that everyone should thank people in the military for their service and shut up
about any criticisms they may have about such service is so strong that few interviewers have
the guts to question Gabbard about this elephant in the room.
"... And now you are hoping the Bushites team up with Democrats. Let me tell you something. THEY ALREADY ARE AND HAVE BEEN. Most of the Bush family and their admins voted for Clinton. ..."
"... One of my far left Bernie buddies said something interesting ..."
"... . "The Democrats have embraced hypocrisy. They hated Nixon and loved Obama. Both did the exact same thing. One got busted. Democrats hated the Bush family, but love the Clintons and the Democrat establishment. THEY ARE THE SAME DAMN PEOPLE. There are 3 groups of people in the US. Trump supporters, Bernie supporters and the domestic enemy establishment." ..."
You just Freudianly said something interesting. As a former Democrat, I am proud of NEVER have
voted for anyone named "Bush". The entire family is as crooked as it gets. The entire
anti-Trump, never Trumping RINOs are led by the Bushes and their crooked apologists, like Bill
"I love me some Bush Oil Wars" Kristol.
How much did the Bush family throw at Jebby, in hopes he get the nomination in 2016? I think
it was $150m in Iowa alone?
And now you are hoping the Bushites team up with Democrats. Let me tell you something.
THEY ALREADY ARE AND HAVE BEEN. Most of the Bush family and their admins voted for
Clinton.
There is ZERO DIFFERENCE between the ENTIRE Democratic party and RUNOS - because they are
the same crooked, corrupt and terrible people. Same scam artists. Same criminals.
Thanks for pointing it out. One of my far left Bernie buddies said something
interesting. "The Democrats have embraced hypocrisy. They hated Nixon and loved
Obama. Both did the exact same thing. One got busted. Democrats hated the Bush family, but love
the Clintons and the Democrat establishment. THEY ARE THE SAME DAMN PEOPLE. There are 3 groups
of people in the US. Trump supporters, Bernie supporters and the domestic enemy
establishment."
US Politicians never forget that for the past seventy years russophobia and sinophobic
racism- both of which have deep roots in the culture- formed the bases of the ideology of
anti-communism.
The Democrats, totally discredited by the 2016 Election campaign and decades of
Clinton/Obama swings towards the right and away from the old New Deal constituencies, began
by accusing Trump of colluding with the Russians- who most of the DNC deliberately suggested,
and probably genuinely thought, were Communists.
Trump's response is now to revive the anti-Peoples Republic witch-hunts of the past to use
against the Democrats.
We have two discredited old parties, incapable of dealing with the crises facing them,
attempting to revive the only ideas that have ever galvanised the US public in their
lifetimes: opposition to communism and the racism which underlay just about every US military
adventure since 1945 - the all purpose anti-gook racism that saw them through the wars
against Japan, Korea, IndoChina and the People's Republic.
It is going to make the spectacle of two monkeys throwing shit at each other seem
positively restrained - the Democrats howling about Russia and the Republicans, reverting to
type, starting up lynch mobs against China.
The US government was caught without pants. No supply of masks. Can you imagine that for a country with trillion military budget.
Notable quotes:
"... Take a look around: Unemployment may reach 30%. The poor are starting to protest–actually strike! GM, Amazon, Chicago Teacher's
Union, GE, Instacart ..."
"... As jobs were outsourced to slave labor camps in China and elsewhere, the rich and privileged smiled as their portfolios grew,
as CEO raked in the cash and then buried it in off-shore accounts. ..."
"... When the working class complained about jobs being lost, factories being closed, it was told to get a better education, to
make itself valuable to the bosses. What a joke! ..."
"... The DNC always plays footsie with the rich as does the GOP–equal plunderers. Universal Health Care is just too expensive! Their
all monsters, crafty grifters. ..."
"... The mass media, now firmly serve the DNC and the GOP, studiously ignore this rot. A rotten building will fall. Times up. Game
is Over. ..."
The Covid-19 pandemic is the physical manifestation of a deeper disease plaguing the West: Class Warfare. The veil has been lifted.
Social distancing, a legitimate response to Covid-19, predominately affects the working class.
Fortunately, Covid-19 is an equal opportunity plague: As the rich and powerful congratulated each other, as they moved among the
rightfully adoring crowds oops, I think I caught something! Just hazards of the games they play. Certainly, it was never contracted
on the factory floor.
Suddenly the rich and privileged claim they are in the same boat. Really? Mega-yachts are handy get-aways, as are well-protected
island boltholes.
And who is supposed to do the nasty work, who has little opportunity to run and hide, who must do the the work that makes actual
existence possible? Not the rich.
Who can work from home and not lose his or her job?
Rich and powerful women now have to cut their own nails! Oh, the shame of it. They have to dye their own hair–coif themselves!
What no colorist?
The rich and powerful want the poor to go back to work. Who else will make them money? Who else will save the Stock Market? Meanwhile,
the poor are losing their jobs; they do not have fall-back pensions or able to take advantage of Capital Gains. How will they pay
their rent? Their bills? Their healthcare? Their debts?
Take a look around: Unemployment may reach 30%. The poor are starting to protest–actually strike! GM, Amazon, Chicago Teacher's
Union, GE, Instacart
As jobs were outsourced to slave labor camps in China and elsewhere, the rich and privileged smiled as their portfolios grew,
as CEO raked in the cash and then buried it in off-shore accounts.
When the working class complained about jobs being lost, factories being closed, it was told to get a better education, to
make itself valuable to the bosses. What a joke!
When many tried to get an education, they were faced with absurd college costs, incredible debt, and thanks to those in control
an inability to declare bankruptcy! Thanks, Joe.
And now, ever thoughtful Nancy Pelosi wants to reward the rich and privileged with ta ta!.., a lifting of the Salt Cap.
The DNC always plays footsie with the rich as does the GOP–equal plunderers. Universal Health Care is just too expensive!
Their all monsters, crafty grifters.
Meanwhile, economists sang the praises of Free Trade. The GOP loved it; the DNC loved it. Neo-liberalism: the goose that always
lays the golden eggs.
The mass media, now firmly serve the DNC and the GOP, studiously ignore this rot. A rotten building will fall. Times up. Game
is Over.
likbez , March 31, 2020 9:27 pm
Thank you Stormy,
A very good analysis. A lot of emotions too ;-)
When the working class complained about jobs being lost, factories being closed, it was told to get a better education,
to make itself valuable to the bosses. What a joke!
Neoliberalism is an ideology make on a set of myths. In other words this is a secular religion.
The DNC always plays footsie with the rich as does the GOP–equal plunderers. Universal Health Care is just too expensive!
Their all monsters, crafty grifters.
No question they are. That's by design. The key role of DNC is to squash political forces to the left of Clinton faction, and
to neutralize/coopt politicians which do not support the neoliberal/neocon consensus.
Meanwhile, economists sang the praises of Free Trade. The GOP loved it; the DNC loved it. Neo-liberalism: the goose that
always lays the golden eggs.
Neoliberal revolution which culminated in the election of Reagan (which started under Carter) was a coup d'état by financial
oligarchy. It signified that the New Deal consensus was broken and countervailing forces were weakened enough to ensure the success
of the coup.
One thing with which I respectfully disagree:
The mass media, now firmly serve the DNC and the GOP, studiously ignore this rot. A rotten building will fall. Times up.
Game is Over.
Not sure the game is over. I do not see powerful enough social forces that can oppose financial oligarchy. The anger does built
up, but it is powerless. And their control of the state is absolute (which also means the control of intelligence agencies).
The population is brainwashed and disunited via identity politics.
In modern USA society that means that any attempt to build such a coalition with be squashed by the national security state.
The worst parts of these briefings are when Trump, or Pompeo, speak about the US
"leadership" as if the entire planet was desperately expecting the US to help.
It seems to me, that you really do not have a good understanding of the American political
system and its leadership. In short, it breaks down into this:
– the message is mostly for your supporters, who will support you regardless of what
you do;
– your opponents will never agree with you, so fuck them;
– keep messaging the undecided or soft vote on how great the country, and by extension
you personally, are, hoping they buy in.
"... Because Biden is the ultimate "anti-Gabbard", she should have endorsed either Bernie, or even Trump, but instead she endorsed a morally corrupt warmonger, a total pawn for the MIC. ..."
"... What, exactly, did Tulsi owe to Bernie? I don’t recall him defending her from the Russiagate bots – even Yang did far more of that than Bernie. ..."
"... Bernie had instead been too busy sucking up to the young careerist SJWs in his movement and to the Russiagate freaks, rather appropriate that he was Russiagated out of the nomination, LOL. ..."
"... Very sad to see. I just figure they got to her in some way through blackmail, threatening her family, etc. Seems rather out of character otherwise. The description of Biden is apt, real scum he is. ..."
"... The virus, whatever it’s origin, has provided the opportunity to revoke whatever is left of the rights of the populace, the best since 9-11. ..."
"... Biden was main actor in starting two wars. War in Libya and war in Syria . On top of it Biden did have a fishy deals in Ukraine and China. ..."
"... She could have waited until the bitter end to endorse the Democratic candidate, if she wanted to keep her word. Or she could have not done so, in the same way that a soldier need not follow an illegal order, or anyone with a conscience would avoid endorsing a committed and repeated warmonger. ..."
"... It is academic for me to argue which party is the dumbest, since I believe both are part of the Deep State. But currently the dems have it over the repubs in stupidity. Gabbard was the best in a horrible lineup. She was a one trick pony…antiwar…but a great trick. I know about the promise to endorse the nominee…but Biden is brain dead. ..."
It was pretty clear to most observers that Tulsi Gabbard, being the only real "peace
candidate" would never be allowed to get the nomination, nevermind make it into the White
House. It was also clear that Tulsi, for all her very real qualities, simply did not have what
it takes to take on "The Swamp". Still, in spite of this all, her candidacy and campaign were
like a huge pitcher of cool water in the middle of an immense and dry desert. Her uniqueness
amongst all the candidate is what make her betrayal even more painful for those who respected
or even supported her. Once it became clear that she would never get the nomination, not only
did she not run as an independent (something which Hillary seems to fear a lot), she endorsed
Uncle Joe, the clearly senile, totally corrupt and generally repugnant frontman for the Clinton
gang. This endorsement of Biden is something which she did not have to do, but she did it.
When the DNC stole the nomination from Sanders, he did not lead a protest or run as an
independent, he endorsed Hillary. I always considered him a fraud for this (and many other)
reasons. Now Tulsi Gabbard is doing the same thing, which probably is a good indicator that the
Democratic Party is evil and corrupt to the core, which is hardly big news, but which is
dramatically confirmed by Gabbard's profoundly immoral decision. Why do I say that?
Because Biden is the ultimate "anti-Gabbard", she should have endorsed either Bernie, or
even Trump, but instead she endorsed a morally corrupt warmonger, a total pawn for the
MIC.
At the end of the day, she mostly betrayed herself, and that is the saddest aspect of this
debacle.
What, exactly, did Tulsi owe to Bernie? I don’t recall him defending her from the
Russiagate bots – even Yang did far more of that than Bernie.
Bernie had instead been too busy sucking up to the young careerist SJWs in his movement
and to the Russiagate freaks, rather appropriate that he was Russiagated out of the
nomination, LOL.
All the candidates, including Tulsi, had committed to supporting the winner and
Bernie’s odds by the time Tulsi endorsed Biden were very close to zero. It is ironic,
as noted by Michael Tracey, that it is generally Tulsi’s most eager supporters who were
most inclined to dismiss her own words.
Very sad to see. I just figure they got to her in some way through blackmail, threatening
her family, etc. Seems rather out of character otherwise. The description of Biden is apt,
real scum he is.
The virus, whatever it’s origin, has provided the opportunity to revoke whatever is
left of the rights of the populace, the best since 9-11.
Turkey lacks either the will, or the capability
At this point they probably have way lower capability than their numbers suggest.
They’ve had enough to deal with just Kurd guerillas. Their approach is NATO style
throwing a lot of ordinance at targets. Don’t count on them for anything.
Trump will wipe the floor with Biden. Biden was main actor in starting two wars. War in Libya
and war in Syria . On top of it Biden did have a fishy deals in Ukraine and China.
Biden is a dead duck with slow wit. He has no chance.
She could have waited until the bitter end to endorse the Democratic
candidate, if she wanted to keep her word.
Or she could have not done so, in the same way that a soldier need not follow an illegal
order, or anyone with a conscience would avoid endorsing a committed and repeated
warmonger.
This is my comment from a year ago, if Saker censor read it, he wouldn’t be surprised.
It just means his “analysis” is worth shit.
How can anyone who is a CFR member or serves two rounds in Iraq based on Colin Powell be
anyone good? How the fuck?
All his writing (description of the facts (after the facts) of what everyone can see) brings
nothing and any forecasts are wrong (love for Tulsi, fall of Ukraine, nuclear war threatening
as an excuse for Russia’s submission to the Empire).
Saker was over when he began to censor those who disagree with him and who, as you can see,
are right. Pride walks before falling. Fuck him and his great Tulsi love!
It is academic for me to argue which party is the dumbest, since I
believe both are part of the Deep State. But currently the dems have it over the repubs in
stupidity. Gabbard was the best in a horrible lineup. She was a one trick
pony…antiwar…but a great trick. I know about the promise to endorse the
nominee…but Biden is brain dead.
If I had known that she had promised to endorse the Democratic nominee I would never have had
thoughts about her candidacy. since she was my choice based on her anti regime change stance
I knew she didn’t have a chance. She had watched Bernie get deprived of the nomination
in 2016. It was worrisome that she was a former CFR member. It didn’t bother me that
she didn’t get into 9/11 as that is death for anyone who wants the system to take them
seriously. It did bother me that she didn’t confront the Israeli – whatever you
want to call it. Especially as the media ignored her and the party worked against her. She
was an attractive candidate and seemed sincere but the Dem voters never considered her. so
fooled again. then again we here all know that the President only has so much power against
the national security evolving police state and MIC and global deep state. If they use it
then they only have to watch the Zapruder film for their near future or their loved ones.
Tulsi’s problem is that she thinks GIs SHOULD NOT REFUSE TO DEPLOY OUTSIDE OF THE
COUNTRY LIKE WE DID 53 YEARS AGO. She thinks THEY HAVE A DUTY TO GO!!! She probably
doesn’t even know who Smedley Butler is. She wants to end the Regime Change Wars but
has no idea how to do it!!! So now she is supporting a Warmonger who just had a #Me To charge
and his accuser has been labeled a RUSSIAN AGENT AND WAS DOXXED.
“At the end of the day, she mostly betrayed herself, and that is the saddest aspect of
this debacle.”
It would be sad in everyday life, but national politics and everyday life have almost nothing
in common.
And that is all the truer when discussing the national politics of the United States, which
may fairly be characterized as ruthless and totally corrupt.
Tulsi Gabbard is a young, intelligent, appealing woman who wants a political career ahead of
her.
Her prospects would instantly drop to zero if she did not endorse the party’s
candidate.
I find it disappointing that she did so, but I find the entire American political scene
disappointing.
I am not even clear why a person like Tulsi would want to run in the United States.
Perhaps it indicates an underlying level of naivete?
Still some lingering belief in the high school civics class vision of American politics?
Stuff about guys in frock coats pledging their sacred honor?
Bringing good intentions to Washington is bit like Jesus’s statement about throwing
pearls before swine.
I am not even sure what Tulsi was doing because her ability to change anything important is
also about zero – even in the imaginary world of becoming president.
The game is fixed. The stakes are so immense with just the military/security arm of the
establishment burning through a trillion dollars a year.
It virtually all exists to serve plutocrats and empire.
None of those powerful people want a “change” candidate.
The last president who actually thought he could challenge the American establishment left
half his head on a street in Dallas.
@AKAHorace Not a chance. Joe Biden represents the old Neo-liberal wing of the Democratic
party. Tulsi is an anti-war progressive.
The other thing you have to consider is Joe is old and senile. It is not certain he would
finish out his 4-year term if elected. The DNC will make sure they pick someone they are
willing to see in power in case Joe bows out. There were paranoid rumors that it would be HRC
but I don’t think this will fly with the public. Most likely a moderate woman. Kamala
Harris (in a cynical bid to get the Black vote). Amy Klobuchar.
Whether Tulsi ‘had what it takes’ to ‘drain the swamp’ will never be
known. The DNC made sure to take away her voice from the debates after she wiped the floor
with Kamala Harris in an early debate. She got next to no publicity from the msm, but she was
certainly better than any of the alternatives.
Like you, I was very disappointed when she supported Biden the war monger and fraud artist.
Regarding Tulsi Gabbard, from the begining, I was (possibly) the only person who thought she
was completely Fake . She is full of American B ** S “Patriotism” a.k.a.
Fascism. I mean, if she is quitting politics, she should have endorsed Sanders and starves
the self-promoted Zionist, warmongering, corrupt Biden of crucial votes in several
progressive counties in the US.
Medicare for All is not a popular issue with democrats.
Nevada culinary union lays into Sanders supporters after health care backlash
The powerful group said the candidate’s backers attacked it for criticizing
Sanders’ “Medicare for All” proposal.
I sent some money to Gabbard and have no regrets. The American people betrayed her not the
other way around. Why shouldn’t she endorse Biden, an endorsement* is a meaningless
gesture, political survival is the most important thing for her. Thanks for trying Tulsi.
* In the US an endorsement only has meaning if the endorser has some sort of political
machine to get a candidate elected or at least raise money. Gabbard had none except maybe
veterans.
When the DNC stole the nomination from Sanders, he did not lead a protest or run as an
independent, he endorsed Hillary. I always considered him a fraud for this (and many other)
reasons.
We should cut both Bernie and Tulsi some slack; when you go up against a machine whose
principle actors have a documented triple-digit body-count, you either kiss the ring or sleep
with the fishes.
Tulsi Gabbard was a “faux” anti-war candidate , when it became known that she was
a member of the Council on Foreign Relations they scrubbed her name from the site.
I recently receive an email from her where she came out in support of warmonger Joe Biden
and blamed Al Qaeda for the 9/11 false flag attacks
It’s all Kabuki theater and the democratic and republican parties operate like crime
families and have proven once again that they are “two wings of the same bird of prey
“. The US is a pathocracy, kakistocracy, cryptocracy, plutocracy all rolled into
one.
Now Tulsi Gabbard is doing the same thing, which probably is a good indicator that the
Democratic Party is evil and corrupt to the core
The Tulsitards will get mad at you but she exposed herself as a fraud. Biden’s been
a big warmonger on the left and she endorsed him. Biden is one of the biggest assholes in the
swamp and attacks and insults voters who asks him fair questions and she calls him a
unifier.
If Bernie was for real then he’d run as an independent instead of cucking and
endorsing Biden.
"... Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence . ..."
"... The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism." [Emphasis mine] ..."
"The historical unity of the ruling classes is realized in the State." – Antonio
Gramsci
Its somewhat bemusing that we discuss American politics ad nauseam, when it's been amply
demonstrated that voters in the USA cannot make changes to government policy through their
electoral process.
In fact, I would contend that American democracy has been non-existant since the JFK
assassination (57 years after the event with no charges having been laid) which was
essentially a coup d'état
Don't believe me? Read it and weep
A 2014 study from Princeton University spells bad news for American democracy –
namely, that it no longer exists:
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average
Citizens – Martin Gilens & Benjamin I. Page
"Each of 4 theoretical traditions in the study of American politics -- which can be
characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and
2 types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism -- offers
different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy:
average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or
business-oriented.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of
actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical
predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to
do so, using a unique data set which includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy
issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing
business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while
average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent
influence .
The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite
Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian
Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism." [Emphasis mine]
@PTG Mann This is my attempt to shed some light on the "democracy" reality show. In grade
11 I had a subject called Marxism. Yes, I did study Marxism for 1 year only – in high
school. One of the benefits of living in a "communist" country, I guess.
My Marxism professor, when he talked about capitalism, always used USA as an example. Not
because he was impressed with them, but because he believed that it was a common knowledge
that US was running the most austere form of capitalism possible. It's still like that today,
they are just using multiculturalism as a smoke screen to cover up the fact that their
capitalism is the most severe that they could get away with. And the stupid Europeans copy
them, believing that multiculturalism is what makes a country truly liberal. Sure.
Another interesting thing that I remember from my high school Marxism classes is that they
taught us that US has 2 types of elites. 1.Regular elites 2. Political elites. The regular
elites are the real elites, the economic ones, the real movers and shakers. The political
elites are just domestic help, a hired nobodies who do the rich men's bidding. The lines
between these 2 are almost never crossed. As many perks as there are to becoming political
elite, the benefits that you can milk from this new-found bonanza can never amount to the
point of making you qualified to join the real – economic elites. And it goes vice
versa as well. Economic elites usually don't have the interest (unless you are senile old guy
like Bloomberg) to waste time on personally participating in politics – it just doesn't
pay well enough by their standards. Of course, there are always exceptions – Donald
Trump. That's why the real elites hate him so much. Because he wants to sit on 2 chairs, to
belong to both the real elites and the political ones as well. The idea behind the political
elites is to pay them so you can influence them and tell them what to do. How do you
influence someone who doesn't really qualify as a hired help, who is one of you? It makes it
more difficult to boss around. I am not saying that Trump is unbossable, the problem is that
the real elites can't stomach the fact that Trump wants to boss THEM. Unforgivable.
The "democracy" has always been a pipe-dream, designed to prevent the rich f ** ks getting
at each other throats, more than anything else. That's why voting and elections are just a
mirage, political elites are not elected by voters, they are elected by the real (economic)
elites. That's why they throw millions of dollars on campaigns and lobbies and so on. So they
can have the final say about how things should be done, and not leave it to the political
"elites" initiatives.
Trump proved that the move from the economic elites into political elites is feasible,
even though it can be very unpopular with the economic elites, but the move from political
elites into real elites is almost impossible – despite occasional valiant efforts
– like Joe Biden and his son. The political elites simply lack any real cashable skills
that are required in order to make tons of money and qualify for the prestigious club of real
(economic) elites.
Sure the political elites can make a lot of money, but only from the perspective of the
poor. The money that the political elites make compared to the economic ones – is
pocket change. This is actually one of the positives of the American system, people who are
interested in making really big money, don't usually go into politics, because there are much
more and better ways to make more money. This is actually a feature of most of the developing
countries – where there is almost no distinction between real elites and political
elites and the only way to make money is to go into politics, and use corruption as a driving
force for becoming rich.
Sure the political elites can accomplish relative financial successes as well, and
sometimes this can get to their heads, making them delusional, like when Hillary –
white trash herself– called her own people – deplorables. The "democracy" pipe
dream serves another purpose – to create the illusion that the real elites (the rich)
and the poor are in the same predicament together – suffering under the unscrupulous
political elites. Yeah, right.
The other thing that people talk a lot about is communist propaganda. Sure there was some
of it. Having experienced living in both systems – capitalism and "communism" – I
can say that there is a big difference between capitalist and communist propaganda. Communist
propaganda was more of the wishful thinking type, trying to cover up reality because they
wished things could be better. Capitalist propaganda is much more sinister. The sole purpose
of existence of capitalist propaganda is not because they want things to be different and
better, but because they want things to stay the same as long as possible. The purpose of the
capitalist propaganda is to impede progress. Communists at least felt bad that their system
wasn't good enough to satisfy all the needs of the people. Capitalists have no such qualms.
The message that they convey through their "democracy" is that this is as good as it's going
to get, so you better get used to it. No regrets, no attempts to make things better.
It's funny that they bothered to teach us about different kinds of American elites way
back in high school, like that was going to have any practical application in our lives. It's
also unusual that I remember it, because I wasn't a particularly good student in any subject,
including Marxism. Maybe the reason why I remember it, is because after all these years it
still rings true.
Most discussions about and references to the US two-party system presidential elections
remain oblivious to the fact that for all practical purposes the US has only one political
party.
The US has the exact same political system that Mexico had for decades under the PRI: the
party elite decided on who was going to be the next president and then organized elections.
The US is essentially a none-party state (just read or reread Michael Parenti's Democracy
for the Few ).
The fact that the American voter can choose between a psychopath like Mrs. Clinton and a
guy like Trump, or between Trump and a senile moron like Biden (as may be the case this
year), merely serves to prove that the real political decisions are not made by the president
and that he is just a figurehead.
How can it be that a country with 330 million people cannot select even moderately
intelligent, decent, capable candidates for the highest office?
It is a good sign that most Americans understand this and don't bother to vote. Democracy
is a fake anyway, because if our votes would really count, we wouldn't have the right to
vote.
Recall that last election wherein Tulsi stepped down from a vaunted position within the D
Party Establishment to, IIRC, support Bernie. Any case, whatever it was, it was a choice
which indicated a different and principled politician - in the person of Tulsi - or at least
she appeared to be an individual with a few principles.
Now this Biden endorsement is decidedly unprincipled, because Biden is, without question,
a warhawk, a self-proclaimed proud Zionist, and a persistent enabler of the one percent - be
it "accidental" or be it brazen with forethought and full intent. Biden has a colorful
history of being a key figure in the dismantlement of the middle class and the further
impoverishment of the working poor.
I am disappointed in Tulsi Gabbard.
Though she'd have been torn to bits with the exposure of her association with the unusual
religious cult. Makes one curious as to how she has gotten as far as she has in mainstream
politics.
Tulsi on mask shortage-"It's hard to imagine how this could be
happening in America." Really? You're surprised the corrupt two-party that you insist we choose between got us here?
Andrew Yang just
admitted that he endorsed Biden cause he got offered a position in his cabinet should Biden become president. Tulsi of
course would never do that XD .
I wonder how
strong the Progressive movement would've been if careerists like Gabbard and Warren stayed away and the front was
unified from the beginning.
When Jimmy started his live video the day she announced
supporting Biden, I said to myself "I bet anything he blames Bernie for her dropping out and supporting Biden." Low
and behold, he did.
6:56
"which is something I always said I would do btw,
that I would support the eventual democratic nominee" Am I living in a parallel dimension? The primary is not
finished yet, you can still endorse Biden when it will be over if he wins the primary but endorse Bernie for the
moment. Is it that hard? Ho right, I forgot, the primary is rigged and we all know that Biden the senile kid diddler
and liar will be the nominee one way or another. Fucked up, but she's not helping. She probably knows she'll be
kicked out of politics if she does not endorse biden and cares more about her career than doing the right thing.
War is ingrained into US society, "Thankyou for your
service" says it all. Heroes in America are obviously those who go to war at the behest of the zionists and the
corporations.
"The scope of
the effects of this are difficult to comprehend at this time..." This is truly amazing that someone in the government
has the audacity to blame a virus for people's inability to "make rent" when it was them that created the current
hysteria and panic. There is a pandemic. I agree. But so far counting all of the cases that we know about, it is no
where even close to the season flue that we see every year! And the government is shutting down businesses! It is a
shame that they are using the current situation to further the idea that people are dependent on the government to
survive! How far we as a nation and a people have fallen from the ideals that created this nation in the first place! I
am disgusted!
Like Bernie,
Tulsi is just another TWO FACED Globalist Presstitute. Tulsi says her platform is to stop regime change and bring are
troops home! Why does she then endorse Biden who supports regime change and keeping troops in the middle east? Tulsi
says she does this to defeat Trump but Trump campaigned to stop regime change and bring are troops home!
Tulsi betrayed her supporters by endorsing Biden. She essentially unconditionally capitulated tot he neocon wing of the Dems. In
this sense she proved to a be a turncoat. To me, she's a sell-out. her campaign filled with military-based patriotism, flag-waving,
and pledge-of-allegiance rah rah USA cheerleading. It gave me the creeps, quite frankly.
Is happening during a time when Trump has the bullhorn everyday during a financial crisis and a terrifying pandemic while Joe has
abdicated his role as the presumptive Democratic nominee to counter the Presidents narrative and reassure the American people . The
optics are bizarre and politically unsustainable. Into to this growing narrative, the principled Tulsi ends her campaign and endorses
who? The missing Joe. The timing of her endorsement is peculiar indeed.
Also was she threatened or coerced in any way? Because earlier in the vid she certainly implies there was no way she could fight
the DNC's version of City Hall.
The first time I saw Tulsi Gabbard in action was during a 2018 House Veteran' Affairs Health subcommitee hearing on Capitol Hill.
She she was going up one side of a bland-faced Veterans Affairs (VA) representative and down the other for stalling on burn pits
help for sick veterans. My head jerked up as I was banging out notes on my laptop. Up until then it had been the usual staid affair
-- VA bureaucrats mewling the same old pablum about tasks forces and blue ribbon studies -- meanwhile an untold number of vets had
been exposed to toxins from the burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, and had been warning of irrevocable health effects, even dying,
since 2007. Then the air in the packed hearing room started to crackle. We don't want to hear about your studies, the Democratic
Congresswoman from Hawaii said, her voice piercing the room. We want action.
I scrambled to Google her. This young, capable congresswoman cutting straight through the bullshit was an Iraq War veteran! No
wonder. As a journalist covering the swamp since 1999 it was easy to fall into jaded complacency about partisan politicians grandstanding
on their hobby horses with no longterm interest in fixing anything. But recent veterans who had become members of Congress seemed
to address their new roles like they would a tactical mission. In her case, it was veterans' health, and there was nothing inauthentic
in how she was approaching the witnesses in front of her, or the issue at hand.
In the intervening years she became known as a non-interventionist and independent thinker who was skeptical of her own party's
embrace of the national security status quo and the military industrial complex. By the time she launched her campaign for the Democratic
presidential nomination and started talking about ending endless "regime change wars" on the debate stage, the Washington skeptics
and non-interventionists on the Right, particularly at this magazine, had already taken notice. TAC writers like
Scott Ritter and
Daniel Larison became
a vanguard here against the establishment's spiteful and petty fusillade over her diplomatic visit to Bashar Assad, her deviation
from the party's talking points on Russia, and even Trump.
Yet when she delivered the K.O. against Kamala Harris
in the second Democratic debate, cooly pointing out the California Senator's hypocrisy on criminal justice, it was the most satisfying
moment up until then or since. If forced to watch every single moment of every single debate this season it would be worth every
second just to see Gabbard make Harris twist in the wind and eventually deflate her candidacy with that one brilliant stroke. Ditto
for her later
take-down of Pete Buttigieg, a candidate using his veteran status in a completely different way, as TAC's Gil Barndollar (also
a recent vet)
points
out . This was the steely focus and yes, righteousness, that I saw in that House hearing room in 2018, and served her well on
the stage among her political adversaries, who didn't care that she checked all the boxes (a woman of color, the first Samoan-American
and Hindu to run for president). She was "not of the body" when it came to the party line. She would never belong.
It served her well when she
called out Madame Hillary, though that likely brought the death knell to her hopes for the Democratic nod. If she hadn't drawn
the full force of the bee hive before, attacking the Queen Bee proved fatal.
She left the race officially today having performed well off-the-radar in the early and recent primaries. But unlike many of
the puppets who called themselves candidates in this dreary Democratic display, Gabbard leaves with her pride, her integrity, and
her independence intact. Some may balk at her endorsement of Biden, a man who voted for the war that she despises, who serves as
a symbol of the partisan corruption she had pledged to overcome. She has her reasons. We just hope she won't fade away, as she won't
be running for re-election in the fall.
What has she left us? Proof that there are politicians who make "transpartisan" seem real and worthy, and not just another faddish
concept to be abused for political gain. She leaves us with the sense that not all pols are in it for the power, but for weightier
goals, like veterans' health, and bringing an end to an entrenched, hubristic foreign policy that sends young men and women like
Gabbard into wars we cannot win. She was the only one to bring a personal and unyielding take on that to the debate stage and into
our living rooms, and for that, we should be grateful.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, executive editor, has been writing for TAC for the last decade, focusing on national security, foreign
policy, civil liberties and domestic politics. She served for 15 years as a Washington bureau reporter for FoxNews.com, and at WTOP
News in Washington from 2013-2017 as a writer, digital editor and social media strategist. She has also worked as a beat reporter
at Bridge News financial wire (now part of Reuters) and Homeland Security Today, and as a regular contributor at Antiwar.com. A native
Nutmegger, she got her start in Connecticut newspapers, but now resides with her family in Arlington, Va.
Her statement endorsing Biden proves all this about propaganda about her being "trans partisan" whatever that means, and not out
for personal power are false. Gabbard clearly still wants a future career connected to the Democratic establishment.
Tulsi destroyed Kamala Harris' campaign and gave the antiwar movement a voice in the Democratic primary. She never had a chance
in hell of being the nominee, but she played a weak hand with wits, courage and a strong heart. In a better party--country--she'd
be one of the top tier candidates.
Instead she'll have to settle for being a hero to folks like me.
The Daily Kos crowd hated her guts ("Fake social liberal! Dictator lover! Trump appeaser!") and aggressively raised funds for
her primary opponent, so I'm not sure her House seat was all that safe for her anymore.
Reagan's criticism of Carter's Panama Canal Treaty got him a rebuke from the Duke himself. John Wayne wrote a letter to Reagan
calling him a liar over his criticism of the treaty. Not sure how the spat became public, but that was one of the first things
that started warming my heart towards Wayne.
She probably should have dropped out after New Hampshire and endorsed Sanders. Frankly, Sanders should have been working behind
the scenes to get a joint Yang/Gabbard endorsement before or after Nevada. Not that she is well known outside of academic or feminist
circles, but rolling up their endorsement with that of black feminist Barbara Smith before South Carolina might have blunted the
Pete/Amy/Beto bit of political theater for Biden a little bit, if not the Clyburn endorsement.
1) Tulsi started going off the rails halfway through primary and her position on gay rights was going to be a problem for liberal
attacks along with her continued defending Assad in general. (We should stay out of Syria years ago but Assad is terrible.)
2) I suspect it helped Reagan in 1980 with criticism of Carter's Panama Canal Treaty with most voters. Yea he took some flack
for it but it helped Reagan criticizing Carter's foreign policy weakness.
3) I see Sanders problem closer to Matt Yglesias view that Sanders had 30 - 35% of the Party voters and needed to do more to
win the other 65%. He was over estimated his WWC support from 2016 (as opposed to anti-HRC vote when Primary was practically over)
and Sanders was going to have problems with candidate winnowing.
And Sanders really failed to gain support from Southern African-American voters who led Biden's comeback.
Assad MAY be terrible to ISIS sympathizers, but he also doesn't support the genocide of Syria's Christian,Shia,Ismaili,Druze and
Alawite minorities. The genocidal al-Qaeda/ISIS affiliates have ravaged Syria's minority populations while getting support from
Israel. Whenever AQ/ISIS are getting overrun by the Christian-led Syrian Arab Army, Israel is always there to provide air support
to Al Qaeda and ISIS. Tulsi, of course is a big supporter of Israel and does not address Israel's role in the war against Syria's
minority populations. She is comfortable with her hypocritical stance.
I don't remember Gabbard ever "defending" Assad politically or personally. At most, I thought she expressed support for his government
in its military conflict with ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front.
Don't disagree with you about Sanders. I do believe he was the strongest general election candidate, but the majority of the
Democratic electorate has clearly moved back to the center and a desire for continuity with the Clinton/Obama/Biden past, which
is utter foolishness and stupidity on their part.
I don't need to know anything more than she endorsed establishment Joe over the Hill Biden, the warmonger's warmonger. None of
their professional pols are ever going to do anything but cave to the swamp of the status quo. Oligarchy Uber Alles. She just
nailed the lid shut on her supposed integrity. Hey, Bernie's next.
And coronavirus is of no matter, except to use as an excuse to get Donald Trump, who really did call out and try to stop some
wars, to no avail. History is full of lying politicians who got elected by promising to keep us out of wars, then started them
as soon as the votes were counted.
Gabbard is the most exciting politician in a generation imo. She is consistently highly strategic in her moves, and kept her antiwar
platform in the public eye on a tiny budget as far as was feasible while the caucus season still had life and attention. It is
clear the corporate Dems are firmly in control and have cleverly manouvered Biden to be the face of the DNC. With that scenario
and likely no convention or media for the next few months it was smart, as the only life long Democrat in the field, to 'support'
Biden (confounding the brainwashed Russia/Syria/India conspiracy theorists) as the candidate, just as she vowed to do at the start
of her campaign.
The battle is over. the corporate Dems won, but will likely lose the war to Trump in November. It's possible the entire aged field
of political operatives that control the 'beehive' will be history by this time next year, and as the DNC begins to reform, root
out venal corruption and reconstitute Gabbard's star may well rise again.
The other distinct possibility is that the oligarch Bloomberg will replace Mrs Clinton as the majordomo of the DNC and with his
Hawkfish Cambridge Analytica style machine will steamroller some sort of quasi fascist party into power post Covid19 low key (I
hope) martial law. Bloomberg was clever to inject 44 million - pocket lint in his 55 billion - just before super Tuesday to destroy
Sanders the strawman social democrat while standing down other corporate puppet candidates.
I hope Gabbard doesn't become a TV bobblehead like Yang. That would be dispiriting.
Peace.
nice article but the title is misleading. What she actually did was give a voice to the voiceless, and changed the dialogue
in America regarding foreign policy and interventionalist wars. The way our leaders think about "regime change" wars has shifted
greatly in part because of the efforts of Tulsi Gabbard. Her continuing to highlight the extremely crucial areas of corruption
and misgovernance that are ruining our country is what she has, is, and will continue to do for us.
This puff piece won't do. Tulsi has chosen to stay with a gang that has no use for her. "She has her reasons" for endorsing
Biden. Folks have their reasons for doing a lot of things. Tulsi could have dispensed with this nonsense of a Presidential run
and been the leader of a movement that would have posed a challenge to these failing and merging political parties. She may
be inspiring on a personal level but, in the immortal words of The Four Tops, "It's the same old song, just a different feeling
since you been gone."
I was sad to see so many hit pieces this past year portraying Tulsi as some sort of Trump appeaser or traitor who would meet with
Assad etc. As a peacemaker, she stood very little chance in the 2020 race. As a female Hindu surfer war veteran peacenik who could
sing John Lennon songs with her partner, she was so strikingly unique that people didn't have a box to put her in. With veteran
health being one of her primary concerns, she would have been ideal for the age of Corona virus. I can't imagine her disbanding
the pandemic response team two years before the worst pandemic in 500 years! Thank you Kelly Vlahos for paying tribute to this
remarkable leader. Let's hope Tulsi is far from finished. 2020 is going to be a year when America is taken out to the woodshed
and taught a humbling lesson about mortality, the frailty of life and the need to respect the whole planet. Tulsi might be just
the person to lead the country as it rises up from the ashes.
Sounds quite innocuous, even virtuous, right? Except, you do not mention she is also a supporter of Hindoo Fascism/Nationalism,
as a supporter of the fascist Indian organisation called RSS. Just recently she tried to whitewash the muslim genocide (even if
small level this time) in New Delhi, with her dissembling about some self-perceived "Hinduphobia."
I suppose, as long as it does not affect whites and christians and westerners, her hindoo fascism is of little consequence
to you? Let them "moozlims" worry about such things, yeah?
Those disbursements to wage earners are vital for the social cohesion to remain in place.
I thought Tulsi Gabbard championing that minimum basic income strategy was essential as
well.
I empathies totally with USians that are trapped in the vulgar exploitative nightmare
of the usury in that country . Debt Jubilee for all under $100,000 income would be a
start. But that might create a vulgar backlash as well.
The naked ferocity of capitalism in the USA is truly a fearsome thing.
"... "Congress/staff who dumped stocks after private briefings on impending coronavirus epidemic should be investigated and prosecuted for insider trading," ..."
"... "Members of Congress should not be allowed to own stocks." ..."
"... "stomach churning," ..."
"... "For a public servant it's pretty hard to imagine many things more immoral than doing this," ..."
"... "Richard Burr had critical information that might have helped the people he is sworn to protect. But he hid that information and helped only himself." ..."
"... "If you find out about a nation-threatening pandemic and your first move is to adjust your stock portfolio you should probably not be in a job that serves the public interest," ..."
"... "calling for immediate investigations" ..."
"... "for possible violations of the STOCK Act and insider trading laws." ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
In a rare moment of bipartisanship, commenters from all sides have demanded swift punishment for US
senators who dumped stock after classified Covid-19 briefings. Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has called
for criminal prosecution.
As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) has received daily
briefings on the threat posed by Covid-19 since January. Burr insisted to the public that America was
ready to handle the virus, but sold up to $1.5 million in stocks on February 13, less than a week
before the stock market nosedived, according to Senate
filings
. Immediately before the sale, Burr wrote an
op-ed
assuring Americans that their government is
"better prepared than ever
" to handle
the virus.
After the sale, NPR
reported
that he told a closed-door meeting of North Carolina business leaders that the virus
actually posed a threat
"akin to the 1918 pandemic."
Burr does not dispute the NPR report.
In a tweet on Saturday, former 2020 presidential candidate and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard called for
criminal investigations.
"Congress/staff who dumped stocks after private briefings on impending
coronavirus epidemic should be investigated and prosecuted for insider trading,"
she wrote.
"Members of Congress should not be allowed to own stocks."
Congress/staff who dumped stocks after private briefings on impending
coronavirus epidemic should be investigated & prosecuted for insider trading (the STOCK Act). It
is illegal & abuse of power. Members of Congress should not be allowed to own stocks.
https://t.co/rbVfJxrk3r
Burr was not the only lawmaker on Capitol Hill to take precautions, it was reported. Fellow
Intelligence Committee member Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and her husband sold off more than a
million dollars of shares in a biotech company five days later, while Oklahoma's Jim Inhofe (R) made a
smaller sale around the same time. Both say their sales were routine.
Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Georgia) attended a Senate Health Committee briefing on the outbreak on
January 24. The very same day, she began offloading stock, dropping between $1.2 and $3.1 million in
shares over the following weeks. The companies whose stock she sold included airlines, retail outlets,
and Chinese tech firm Tencent.
She did, however, invest in cloud technology company Oracle, and Citrix, a teleworking company
whose value has increased by nearly a third last week, as social distancing measures forced more and
more Americans to work from home. All of Loeffler's transactions were made with her husband, Jeff
Sprecher, CEO of the New York Stock Exchange.
Meanwhile, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York) and Ilhan Omar (Minnesota) have joined the clamor of
voices demanding punishment. Ocasio-Cortez
described
the sales as
"stomach churning,"
while Omar reached across the aisle to side
with Fox News' Tucker Carlson in calling for Burr's resignation.
"For a public servant it's pretty hard to imagine many things more immoral than doing this,"
Carlson said during a Friday night monolog.
"Richard Burr had critical information that might have
helped the people he is sworn to protect. But he hid that information and helped only himself."
As of Saturday, there are nearly 25,000 cases of Covid-19 in the US, with the death toll heading
towards 300. Now both sides of the political aisle seem united in disgust at the apparent profiteering
of Burr, Loeffler, and Feinstein.
Right-wing news outlet Breitbart
savaged
Burr for voting against the STOCK Act in 2012, a piece of legislation that would have
barred members of Congress from using non-public information to profit on the stock market. At the
same time, a host of Democratic figures - including former presidential candidates
Andrew Yang
and
Kirsten Gillibrand
- weighed in with their own criticism too.
"If you find out about a nation-threatening pandemic and your first move is to adjust your
stock portfolio you should probably not be in a job that serves the public interest,"
Yang
tweeted on Friday.
If you find out about a nation-threatening pandemic and your first move
is to adjust your stock portfolio you should probably not be in a job that serves the public
interest.
Watchdog group Common Cause has filed complaints with the Justice Department, the Securities and
Exchange Commission and the Senate Ethics Committee
"calling for immediate investigations"
of
Burr, Loeffler, Feinstein and Inhofe
"for possible violations of the STOCK Act and insider trading
laws."
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Gabbard is angling for the VP position as Biden mentioned he's looking for a woman as a
running mate. She better hope Biden remember what he said. I wonder what Biden's criteria for
his candidates?
Hmm...
who make profits as well. I cannot remember exactly when insider trading for
them became legal but it should be no surprise to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention
that they're ALL doing it. That is one reason, at least in my semi-educated opinion, they did
not go after Trump for emoluments during Shampeachment, because THEY ALL DO IT.
That goes all the way to the White House, no doubt.
From comments "so that is who Tulsi endorses after talking about how bad they are? Jesus on a
cracker give me and effing break, Tulsi. Hondorus, Syria and Ukraine and endorsing the regime
change in Egypt. "
"[Looks like] ... blowing off her tiny support base in favor of whatever she has gotten was
worth the price to her. Will have to check the next library book sale (postponed at the moment)
for a cheap copy of Marlowe's Dr. Faustus or Goethe's Faust and send it to her. (She's not worth
buying a new copy for.)
@Jen
(have no interest in viewing her video because I have an autonomic gag reflex to liars)
The comments there make me feel a bit better. Looks as if Tulsi has lost all of her
supporters, funders, and voters, and they aren't coming back.
A sample:
Christopher Brunner:
Imagine basing your whole campaign on ending regime change wars and then ending it by
endorsing the man who voted for the Iraq War instead of standing on her principles and
endorsing the person who voted AGAINST regome change wars
Dash
Tulsi: "I will do everything I can to stop these shameful regime change wars."
Tulsi: "I now completely support one of the principle architects of America's shameful
regime change wars."
Tulsi: "Why don't you all love me anymore?"
Okay, a few are saying that Sanders is weak on regime change wars, etc. True enough but he
has a long track record of voting no on them when the chips are down.
I think it is near impossible that Biden would pick her as VP, despite this strange
endorsement. The Democrat establishment and the borg fiercely oppose her, and with Biden as
President and the coronavirus around, there is a real chance this time that a VP pick will
have to take over power from a dead or otherwise incapacitated President.
The move does not make much sense to me except as an "I surrender, at least for this
election cycle" message, I don't see Tulsi gaining any material benefit from this over
endorsing Sanders. The establishment will not suddenly start to like her again because of
this.
I also seriously doubt this assessment of Tulsi about Biden:
"I know that he has a good heart and is motivated by his love for our country and the
American people."
But, unless something has changed of which I am not aware, Warren closed down her campaign
without endorsing anyone. Why not Gabbard? Not impressed by this move.
Maybe she thinks this is, as eenginneer proposed above, playing the long game. I don't see
how that works, unless abject surrender on essentials (such as the willingness to contest the
war/regime change ploy amply on display with Biden & ilk) makes an impression on The Blob
that she can be relied upon to do likewise if she ever is entrusted with executive powers.
But infliction of such horrors as those brought about by the dismemberment of Libya are
scarcely indications of Biden having a good heart (or even a foresightful nature concerning
consequences).
What the US needs is an end to these abjectly stupid actions, not a new lease on life for
them. So, the more I think on this, and in consideration of her previously professing a
principled stand in this issue, this is a deal-breaker for me, fully as bad as Sanders'
actively working for the Hildabeast's election in 2016, making me question her sincerity in
general.
It is past time to put the kibosh on the imperial fantasy; stand up and be counted or
slink away.
Mystifying and dispiriting. Maybe "they" finally got something on her. Alternatively, did
she get any sort of contentment out of Joe in return? If she did will he be able to/want
to remember it come November 4? There's no chance the "organs" sector of the deep state would
take Tulsi-as-Veep lying down. Or any significant foreign policy or national security
position for that matter. She may think by endorsing Biden She'd at least partway move back
into the good graces of the Democratic Party establishment, but that's a false hope. They'll
never trust her again. If she'd kept her endorsement powder dry, even though she'd get no MSM
coverage going forward (not the vanishingly small amount she got as a candidate), more than a
few of the non-MSM platforms, video and otherwise, that have in some cases millions of
readers and viewers, would have been happy to have her on frequently. She'll still get some
of that exposure but not much. She may get some MSM stops in the next few days, but that will
be it.
Biden says: "Tulsi Gabbard has put her life on the line in service of this country and
continues to serve with honor today. I'm grateful to have her support and look forward to
working with her to restore honor and decency to the White House."
Tulsi would bring in some republicans but Biden won't choose because he's a puppet of the
borg and they thrive on the chaos created by our military interventions. The LSMFT community
doesn't like Tulsi for the unforgivable sin of speaking out against gay marriage as a
teen--she wasn't born with the progressive purity of heart. Then there's Assad. The media
ignored her visit with the orthodox priest in Aleppo who after its recapture by the SAA
praised Assad for saving them from the jahadis. The feminists resent Tulsi for being pretty.
All these groups prefer Lady Macbeth be the one to catch Joe when he falls.
I suspect the DNC and associated party grandees looked at the COVID situation and leant
heavily on candidates to back the front runner, so avoiding having their supporters
congregate at rallies or a brokered convention. That the front runner happened to be who they
wanted to see as their candidate surely helped.
I saw that yesterday. I don't know who Kai Gabbard was responding to and he has since
removed that Facebook comment. He also admitted he doesn't know the exact nature of his
sister's relationship with Sanders. Here's his original comment.
"Thank you for your kind words sir," the comment reads. "Bernie has treated my sister like
sh*t all the way through this. She has tried to endorse him again and he has refused her
support. Whoever he's getting his advice from has done a terrible job."
"You go ahead keep talking about however you want, but know this. She is just going to
continue being independent and keep fighting for us. Bernie isn't the man me and Tulsi once
supported 100 percent. I don't know what happened to him. He's refused to take the fight to
the establishment like Tulsi continues to do. Aloha to you and yours."
Who knows what happened between Bernie and Tulsi. Like I said, I was surprised she
endorsed old Joe over old Bernie. She's pragmatic and independent. She has demonstrated an
ability to work in a bipartisan manner without demonizing anyone. We need a lot more like
her.
I'm also partial to the aloha spirit. I thoroughly enjoyed my three and a half years in
Hawaii. For two of those years I spent a long weekend every month with C Company, 1/299th
Infantry on Maui. I spent another year working fairly closely with the local pig hunters and
pakalolo growers in the mountains surrounding my RECONDO school in the Kahuku Mountains. I
experienced aloha and ohana rather than anti-haoli discrimination. If Tulsi can bring that
spirit to the rest of the US, I'm all for it.
Gabbard endorsement doesn't surprise me. Her claim to fame is that she speaks truthfully
about our mideast adventures...and? Her domestic politics mirror the growing dingbat
coalition. I would say that she is a poor man's Ron Paul but that wouldn't be fair to
Ron.
He had the integrity not to endorse the detestable Pierre Delecto.
'Hairy-Legs' Joe: I'm excited to present my running mate, Tally Gourd- What? No- Gabby Ward-
I mean the next Vice Governor of the United States, Wally Gizzard!
Interestingly, the CFR membership rolls contain a one Gabbard, Tulsi; no Obiden Bama,
however.
Tulsi was under no obligation to endorse right away even if she signed a contract agreeing to
support the Nominee, besides, there is no nominee yet. Warren did not endorsed anybody yet, and
Bernie is still in the race.
tulsi is pro aipac, anti BDS, signed a legally binding document to be blue no matter who, and
just endorsed a neoliberal war monger who launched 6 of the 8 regime change wars we are
currently waging to be our next president.
THIS IS WHAT CONTROLLED OPPOSITION GATE KEEPING SHILLS DO. SHES NIKKI HALEY IN A
PROGRESSIVE CLOWNSUIT.
Sander wasn't in the 2016 and 2020 races to change things, only to give the appearance
of seeking radical change, what a grassroots revolution alone could possibly achieve.
Lots of people are behaving as if they hadn't heard which "Party" Gabbard and Sanders were
running for. They are working for the Single Party; which wing of it is irrelevant, just as
irrelevant as any nuances among its different people. I just don't get why the word "any"
should be unclear -- to anyone.
"In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which
are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies...Noam Chomsky
By supporting a warhawk, she is literally a traitor. ALL this talk of being against the wars and "my brothers and sisters"
all total bs because she was offered a golden ticket. Efffffff her.
How is it possible to morph from a Tulsi, to a Tulsigieg so fast?? How can she lie with that straight face, and say Biden has
a " good heart "??? I will never, ever trust her again. Democratic Party uses corrupt people without a backbone, and rigged electronic
vote machines.
So, she is another Warren. She didn't really believe what she was saying, she just saw an opportunity to become known/gain
power by surfing the progressive wave with a plan to leverage that notoriety/support.
Christo Aivalis 20.3K subscribers Earlier
today, Tulsi Gabbard announced she was dropping out of the presidential primary and endorsing Joe Biden for President. Many Tulsi
supporters felt betrayed by this move, but it fits the ideological similarities between Tulsi and Biden. It also shows that like
with Andrew Yang, Gabbard's anti-establishment image was only superficial, and it shows that Bernie Sanders is the only one meaningfully
challenging the political, social, and economic status quo It also shows that those neoliberal democrats who attacked Tulsi as a
Russian Asset seem fine with her now, as long as she falls in line. I wonder how Jimmy Dore is feeling?
I thought she was anti-war, yet she supports Biden, what a shame, I can't believe it, she was so fake all along, it's like
a bad movie twist... is there even one decent politician in USA, besides Bernie?
It's a bummer. She really had so much potential especially after she endorsed Bernie the first time. Now Idk. Williamson is
the only one who genuinely went to the most progressive candidate without hesitating.
#DemocracyDiesInDarkness
Miss Gabbard
shame on you, you spoke with human empathy, love and decent understanding towards human experience, you disappointed a
lot of your fellow human beings by endorsing a coward you are now apart of the evil axis of evil elite class.
S
hame on
you,, may the bird of paradise look down upon you, shame on you,, you lie , ,now join the elite and eat sponge cake and
drink champagne walk the halls of injustice,
Hawaii
congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has dropped out of the 2020 presidential race to endorse her
ideological opposite, establishment darling Joe Biden. It's political suicide – for her,
and for the idea of a progressive Democrat. Gabbard's decision to bow out on Thursday may have
made sense from an electoral perspective – with just two delegates from her native
American Samoa, she wasn't exactly a serious challenger to the much-more-popular Biden or even
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, whom she supported in the 2016 race.
Shut out of the primary debates by a Democratic Party establishment afraid she might do to
the frontrunner what she had done to California Senator Kamala Harris, whose juggernaut
campaign began taking on water after Gabbard exposed her heinous record live on stage, Gabbard
had little hope of an eleventh-hour electoral rally.
But while swearing fealty to the presumed nominee may have scored her some points among her
establishment critics, most had a clear ulterior motive, using her exit as further leverage to
pressure Sanders to drop out.
Even Tulsi Gabbard has the dignity to drop out and endorse Biden. Your move, @BernieSanders
.
At the same time, Gabbard's erstwhile supporters feel betrayed, and justifiably so. A
candidate who built her campaign on opposition to the business-as-usual Democratic policies of
cloaking foreign military intervention in humanitarian jargon, Gabbard instead called for
taking the trillions spent on the slaughter and plunder of hopelessly-outmatched Middle Eastern
nations and using that money to rebuild the crumbling American homeland. It was a message that
resonated across the partisan divide, even attracting some disillusioned 2016 Trump supporters
who had voted for the president based on his promise to end the endless wars in Syria and
Afghanistan, then watched in horror as he stepped up the bombing and tried to open another
front in Iran.
For the young Hawaiian to throw her support behind Biden – a man with nearly a 50-year
track record of supporting Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, Big Pharma and the
rest of the ruling establishment " because he has a good heart " is spitting in the face
of the hundreds of thousands of supporters who have contributed to her campaign, made phone
calls on her behalf, packed town halls, and otherwise poured their precious time and money into
supporting a long-shot candidate.
So Tulsi Gabbard endorses Biden? I have lost all respect for her.P.S. Don't drop out
Bernie. #NeverBiden
It's no surprise they aren't taking it well. How are voters supposed to trust any future "
progressive " candidates after such turncoat maneuvers from not only Gabbard but
Sanders, who in 2016 turned on a dime to stump for establishment pick Hillary Clinton after a
coterie of unelected superdelegates declared her the winner following a primary process which
leaked emails revealed beyond a shadow of a doubt to be rigged? Gabbard's political seppuku
should force progressive Democrats to come to terms with the fact that there is no room for
reform within their party.
On the bright side, those same pundits who screamed themselves hoarse warning that Gabbard
was working for Vladimir Putin to sow discord among the American electorate and swing the
nation to Trump now have to quietly revise their apocalyptic visions. Will they admit the
congresswoman is not the Russian wrecking ball they claimed she was, or will they carry the
fantasy to the finish line and say Gabbard has infected Biden's campaign with Russian 'malign
influence'?
@FB I, too, have been disappointed in Tucker Carlson's China bashing. I have thought that
he was the best on FOX News, but now he is getting to be as bad as Sean Hannity.
We may never know the origin of the coronavirus. It is foolish to try and assign blame at
this point.
Well, I think there's a certain amount of circumstantial evidence suggesting that the
Coronavirus outbreak may have been an American bioweapon attack against China (and Iran).
But if so, I'm *extremely* skeptical that the perpetrators ever intended or imagined that
it would leak back into the US and inflict the horrific economic and social damage that now
seems unavoidable. How to explain this lack lack of foresight?
The most obvious answer is that they were stupid and incompetent, but here's another
point to consider
In late 2002 there was the outbreak of SARS in China, a related virus but that was far
more deadly and somewhat different in other characteristics. The virus killed hundreds of
Chinese and spread into a few other countries before it was controlled and stamped out. The
impact on the US and Europe was negligible, with just a small scattering of cases and only
a death or two.
So if American biowarfare analysts were considering a Coronavirus attack against China,
isn't it quite possible they would have said to themselves that since SARS never
significantly leaked back into the US or Europe, we'd similarly remain insulated from the
Coronavirus?
Obviously, such an analysis was foolish and mistaken, but would it have seemed so
implausible at the time?
Well, I have only recently heard of a guy named Francis Boyle,a law professor out of the
Univ. Of Illinois. He is apparently an expert on bio-warfare treaties. He claims covid-19 is
manmade,period.
That is a very scary notion,from which most people will flee.
As I have accepted that 9/11 was "the usual suspects," I guess it is definitely possible.
@Ron Unz Maybe, but my take is an engineered market crash. This looks to me like a Nathan
Rothschild sort of trick (according to legend) – propagating fake news about Napoleon's
victory at Waterloo, crashing the markets, then snapping up the whole LSE for a penny to the
pound. If so, you have to admire it, the sheer genius, the psychopathic beauty of it all.
As a bonus, the Reichstag Fire also is an extremely efficient delivery system for the
eugenics payload – a very virulent strain that almost exclusively targets the social
burden (pensioners and already ill) while leaving alone the tax-farm base! Never in the
history of tax-farming have the sheeple been stampeded and fleeced so thoroughly! Bravo!
The US is the customer, with the enormous trade deficit. Trump has been hugely effective
with his tariff's policy in rehoming manufacturing to the US – a process that will
vastly accelerate thanks to the Corona virus outbreak.
I agree that 9-11 stink to high heaven and that PNAC are unmitigated bastards, but this
capitulation to China is balls.
@Ron Unz Stupidity is certainly an American Military essential behavior for promotion and
success in the current US Armed Forces.
But you can't have someone clever enough to create a Recombinant Designer Pathogen and be
in the US Military.
However, the psyops fucks would likely be ready to game the system should a natural
outbreak occur which would be called a Pandemic even when its not and make everyone of our
low quality leaders $hit their pants and go totally crazy. A mild fart with the claim its
poison gas would make the Stock Markets Collapse.
But if so, I'm *extremely* skeptical that the perpetrators ever intended or imagined
that it would leak back into the US and inflict the horrific economic and social damage
that now seems unavoidable. How to explain this lack lack of foresight?
This is the same issue with cyberwar viruses. One can infect computers in Iran, but with
the internet they may be passed onto the entire world, just like rap music.
But if so, I'm *extremely* skeptical that the perpetrators ever intended or imagined
that it would leak back into the US and inflict the horrific economic and social damage
that now seems unavoidable. How to explain this lack lack of foresight?
One word: Trump. Because he could very well lose his reelection bid if the pandemic causes
an economic recession which now seems highly likely given the stock market collapse.
Cui Bono ? The people OPPOSED to Trump, variously referred to as the "Deep State"
or the "National Security State" as described by Gore Vidal in his book which by the way
Julian Assange was holding while being hauled away from the Ecuadorian Embassy.
After Russiagate and Ukrainegate, THEY finally hit the bullseye with Coronagate.
This is a pretty good article. I'll probably link to it.
Some people think this is coming from City of London types. The US pursued a "strategy of
tension" with China that may have allowed third party actors to intervene and get them
fighting each other.
There has been some Bad Blood between British elites and China for awhile now. It's
not clear why.
In this scheme, the US is the patsy, the Oswald to take the blame.
The real gem in the whole article are the observations made by Yang himself:
YANG: That's what freaks me out about the whole thing. What we're doing is saying things
like, "Keep your social distance," and trying to stop the spread that way, which is fine.
But we have shit for data. Like, we don't know what the infection rate is. And so,
there's no reason we would ever be able to give the 'all-clear.' If you don't have any
data, this whole thing is a nightmare that doesn't end. When you close schools, what gives
you the all-clear to say, "OK, open them again"? Nothing. There's no data to compare it to.
This whole thing is a fear-based approach with no end in sight. There's no catalyst to ever
sound the all-clear. This whole thing is so fucked up.
YANG: I think the nature of that guidance has to be different, personally. I think they
need to be transparent about what kind of data we're relying on, to give people a sense of
the timeline. Right now, our sense of the future is so cloudy. And you get the sense the
president went from not taking this seriously to suddenly realizing its seriousness, and now
we're reacting in various ways to slow the spread of the virus. But then what? I would be
clearer as to what the timeline looks like, what data we're going to rely upon, how we're
going to get that data, what steps we're taking to increase testing capacity and just give
people a sense of the future.
We need to know now what the future can look like under different scenarios and then be
presented with what scenario we're in when that time comes. We've been on lockdown
for half a week. Right now, the American people don't have any visibility into whether it's
going to be four more weeks or four more months, and we don't know how those judgments are
going to determined. As president, I would say, "Look, here's the information, here's the
dashboard, here's what we're lining up, here's what we're hoping for, here's how
circumstances could change, and thank you for doing your part -- if you proceed with like
the rest of the country in flattening the curve and keeping things under this level, then
we can look forward to this. " You know, so we could actually have a sense of
accomplishment and purpose.
So here we have it, replicated throughout the whole of the Western world. An open-ended
clamp-down based on fear, with no timeline or road map, and no conditions set on when (or IF)
things will get back to normal.
For now, smells really fishy. Even if DS (Deep State) did not intentionally engineer this
circumstance, they are decisively and very swiftly exploiting it to exert extreme control
over everything .
@antibeast On the contrary, for the deep state Trump is the ideal puppet. Those
who are against Trump belong to the surface state , i.e. Democrats, Leftists in
general and the equally Leftist main stream media. Real policy in the US is only made by the
deep state .
Update (2030ET) : Surprise! AP is reporting that Joe Biden has won the Illinois Democratic
Primary ... just as WCIA reported... yesterday
* * *
An Illinois news station accidentally aired election day results on Monday showing former
Vice President Joe Biden winning Tuesday 's primary election .
Station WCIA aired the results during a Monday showing of The Price Is Right , indicating
Biden defeating Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) by over 93,000 votes.
"While watching The Price is Right our station accidentally runs tomorrow's election results
its [sic] Monday our election in Illinois is tomorrow," said Sherry Daughtery, who posted a
video of the incident. Station Bureau Chief Mark Maxwell said that it was nothing more than a
"routine test" rehearsal, and that airing the dry run was an error, according to
Breitbart News .
We do routine test rehearsals before every election to make sure the graphics work
properly and to give directors some practice. The error was in putting the dry run on air.
That shouldn't have happened and we're looking into it. Obviously, we never intended to give
the wrong information or wrong impression . None of those numbers were based on any real
polling returns. Since your post is being widely shared, I'd appreciate it if you would
consider updating the original post so people don't get the wrong idea. -Mark Maxwell via
Sherry Daughtery
Why does this seem to happen just about every election?
Half Of Young American Democrats Believe Billionaires Do More Harm Than Good by
Tyler Durden Sun,
03/15/2020 - 21:25 With income inequality the political hot potato du-jour and wealth
concentration at its most extreme since the roaring twenties, is it any wonder that even
Americans' view of what used to be called 'success' is now tainted with the ugly taste of
partisan 'not-fair'-ism.
Income inequality is roaring...
Wealth concentration is extreme to say the least...
But still,
according to Pew Research's latest survey , when asked about the impact of billionaires on
the country, nearly four-in-ten adults under age 30 (39%) say the fact that some have fortunes
of a billion dollars or more is a bad thing...
...with 50% of young Democrats.
"The recent reigning conventional wisdom over the last several decades of what I call the
'Age of Capital' is that [billionaires] are 'up there' because they are smarter than us," said
Anand Giridharadas, author of "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World."
But the Pew data, he says, suggest that young Americans are concluding that billionaires
have amassed their wealth "through their rigging of the tax code, through legal political
bribery, through their tax avoidance in shelters like the Cayman Islands, and through
lobbying for public policy that benefits them privately. "
"Bernie Sanders taught a lot of people [about wealth inequality], including people who did
not vote for him," Giridharadas said.
"The billionaire class is 'up there' because they are standing on our backs pinning us
down."
The good news - for the rest of America's "capitalists" - is that a majority (58%) say the
impact of billionaires on America is neither bad nor good.
Finally, one quick question - where were all these under-30s when Bernie needed them the
most in the Primaries? Was it all just virtue-signaling pro-socialist bullshit after all?
SharonM @ 50 said;"The American people will do whatever the hell the TV tells them to do."
With one caveat added; Or, whatever their I-phones tell them to do.
The American public, at this moment in time, are the shallowest, most self-absorbed and
willfully ignorant group in my lifetime, and, getting worse by the day.
By decade after decade re-electing corrupt warmongering incumbent corporate tools with 90-95%
vote tallies, American voters have nobody else to blame but their own dumba$$ selves.
Wish I could leave this disgusting country, but it's too late for that for me, and I've
got no more time for political circus shows.
As an european and for the first time interested in the primaries,I wonder why there's only
Bernie,and nobody else is ever mentionned as being his faithful second,or faithful lieutenant
capable and willing to continue Bernies movement for social justice and more equality in
society and of course universal health care.
Is he the kind of guy that can't stand someone challenging him? Has he deliberately
created a vacuum around himself to avoid that to happen?
In France we have someone like him, Melenchon, who creates diversion in the left when it
is needed to the oligarchie and faking to reunite the left, but shrieking back from victory.
But coming with a bag full of words and leftist phrases that I generally can approve of. But
never attacking any french government on the maintaining of thousands of troops abroad.
I think those are just actors, playing the part that was written for them in the beginning
of their career. Do you know that Daniel Cohn-Bendit from the '68 Paris movement is regarded
by many,as being a CIA stooge from the beginning,in the same way as Guaido,Wong,Navalny,that
would make May'68 a couloured revolution avant la lettre.
Yes,I think A User gives a good description of the phenomenon.So how come there's only
Bernie,and nobody to take the torch from him?
It's very new and interesting to me what you said here:
"Do you know that Daniel Cohn-Bendit from the '68 Paris movement is regarded by many, as
being a CIA stooge from the beginning, in the same way as Guaido, Wong, Navalny, that would
make May'68 a couloured revolution avant la lettre."
I did not know that! Thank you:)
Bernie had Tulsi Gabbard inspired by him, supporting him, and only needing him to
recognize her in any way. But he's about as trustworthy as a CIA agent. He just ignored her,
didn't support her, then let the State media and his party erase her. It's a grotesque
election.
There have been so many times I've heard and read people say, "If the American people found
out about 9/11 they'd go crazy", or, "If the American people found out about the amount of
fraud/rigging in our elections, they wouldn't stand for it", etc., etc. Bullshit. The
American people will do whatever the hell the TV tells them to do.
Bernie Sanders is not a political candidate. He is an evangelical Socialist ideologue.
He has no personality to battle opponents. He makes proclamations of his ideology.
He has never "fought back".
He has no instinct for debating. He believes, therefore, in his mind, he is correct. He
expects others to follow his lead.
He has never been a real candidate. He was a distraction, a Pied Piper, for dopey students
and young people who latched onto his notions.
When you offer free rewards and your turnout goes down, you are over as a "candidate".
Biden is brain damaged. He is a very dangerous stalking horse for the return of the Magic
Negro, Obama, and the sociopathic Hillary Clinton.
If Biden wins in November, expect more war and a very long recession. Social chaos will
look racial, but it will be a battle for the Second Amendment, Free Speech, and Traditional
Values versus the Soulless Liberalism intended to establish Feudalism 'round the globe.
Everything in the Dem Primary and Convention is rigged. Bernie never had a chance. He
could care less. He never expected to be President. He just wanted big crowds to listen to
his Polemics.
The guy is 78, what makes you think he cares about Vermont ... trying for the first
100-year-old Senator? He's never been able to do anything in Congress anyway. His big shot
was spoiled by the Wicked Witch of the East. He would be President now, if not for her.
Bernie has fought long and hard. Look at his record, he has fought and succeeded in
accomplishing more for the people than any other politician.
What everyone is assuming is that if Bern becomes an ugly asshole just like all the others
before him TPTB would allow him to be the candidate or god forbid the POTUS. NEVER gunna
happen!
There is only one way We The People can get the representation we need and want it to come
out and state in the clearest possible way that Dems and Repubs are serving the same masters
with the same basic agenda and represent one party. We must then form a new party and put
everything we have behind it. It has to be a radical revolution and Bernie has made it clear
that he will fight for all of us. Which by the way is exactly what all the top Dems are
saying we don't need. Him getting elected under existing conditions would change NOTHING and
he knows it. Forcing him to go
People who put all of the responsibility for achieving this on Bernies shoulders are
ignorant chicken shits that don't deserve anything better than Biden, Cliton, Trump.
#6 Bernie has a long standing deal with the Democrats to play nice or they will do
all they can to ruin him. What else explains his reluctance to go after Biden like he should
have earlier in the campaign? Either way, we will see what happens, maybe he will go after
him, maybe not. I think he won't. I hope he does.
If Bernie is real; ie. not sheep-dogging for Hillary again, he can prove it by dropping out
immediately and throwing his delegates to Tulsi. This is the only shot to thwart the
convention designs of the Dame Named Clinton.
Hey Bernie! Throw a Hail Tulsi Pass now!
Bernie absolutely will not fight. For the record, at Democrat Party platform meetings
in July 2016 he wouldn't put up the slightest fight against TPP . His position against
TPP had gained him many followers. Union heads who had been anti-TPP until then showed up and
were stongly pro-TPP as were Hillary and Obama:
"Bernie Sanders failed to get strong language opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership
inserted in the draft Democratic platform at a party meeting here Saturday....It was clear as
a string of trade union presidents lined up at the microphone to oppose the Sanders
amendments that his forces were outmatched.... (parag. 11)
The Obama administration supports it [TPP], and the desire to avoid embarrassing the
president carried the day, with the labor unions acting as a political shield for the White
House. Delegates twice Saturday morning voted down stronger opposition language as Sanders
supporters booed and chanted "sellout." Some eventually walked out of the meeting
entirely."...
The only topic on the 2020 election agenda should be that the US must be broken into
parts. The weapons dictatorship that runs the US won't be stopped any other way.
Bernie allowed Biden to co-opt his "message" on every point.
Even on his signature healthcare initiative, sheepdog Bernie rolled over. Bernie
should've/could've asked why we should trust that Biden would get a 'public option' when
Obama failed to do so (an Obama-Biden campaign promise).
Bernie also showed that he's got no interest in winning by failing to attack Biden on
character issues ( just as he wouldn't attack Hillary on character issues in 2016).
Any real candidate would've brought up Hunter Biden's dealings in Ukraine and China.
Bernie also pulled many punches, like:
No mention of the $50+ trillion dollars of off-shore money;
Biden's loyalty to Obama: a President who failed to deliver "Change You Can Believe
In";
Biden's connections to the MIC "swamp" - supporting a militaristic and belligerence
foreign policy that makes us less safe;
Democratic Party's failure to protect workers and the middle-class (Bernie often
talks about "the billionaires" but never talks about how they got to be so powerful in
America)
Democratic Party's failure to be representative: no people of color in the last few
debates!
Bernie's quixotic insurgency isn't anti-establishment. He's leading people into a dead end.
And hoping you won't notice.
!!
/div>
Bernie is not there to be president, never was. his tribal mission is to dog herd the
progressives into voting for the lesser evil Judeo-Zionist DNC´s pick. the day is not far
when the name Sanders will have an entry in the common dictionary of the American language
defined as "mass deception".
Posted by: nietzsche1510 , Mar 16 2020 8:45 utc |
76
Bernie is not there to be president, never was. his tribal mission is to dog herd the
progressives into voting for the lesser evil Judeo-Zionist DNC´s pick. the day is not
far when the name Sanders will have an entry in the common dictionary of the American
language defined as "mass deception".
Posted by: nietzsche1510 | Mar 16 2020 8:45 utc |
76
Willie @48 / 84
There's no need for Sanders to designate a Dauphin: at every election the Owners of the
Country trot out a shepherd dog, to bark the disgruntled people back to the fold, keeping
them from burning down the Democrat abomination down. And yes, the sheeple are just as stupid
as we think they are. Wallace, Mc Govern, Jackson, Kucinich, Sanders... the Owners always
have a sheepdog ready. No matter if heshehe is a well-meaning, sincere populist like Kucinich
or a warmongering imperialist buzztard like Sanders, or even worse, the sheepdog is the wolf
in person, like Obama, the stupid sheep keep obeying the dog and voting for more of the
same.
Because, see, their Hopium addiction has addled their brains. You just don't go to war
relying on heroin addicts; it's just as bad with those who need their daily dose of Hope
(when there is none.) They can't follow logic.
/div>
#13 You are right, absolutely Tulsi would make mincemeat of Biden and the establishment
and Trump. They know it. But Bernie has surrounded himself with people who see reality through
an establishment lens, which means they look forward to a career in the establishment political
job market. They have convinced Bernie to ignore Tulsi because of a variety of reasons 1. Some
are neocons 2. Some are Hinduphobes 3. Some are both 4. The rest know
the establishment is dead set against Tulsi because she is a revolutionary. So even though
she would win easily if Bernie gave his support to Tulsi, I can't see him doing that. Let us
pray he does because at this point
we need a miracle to save us from either Trump, Biden, or some other establishment
lackey.
#13 You are right, absolutely Tulsi would make mincemeat of Biden and the establishment
and Trump. They know it. But Bernie has surrounded himself with people who see reality
through an establishment lens, which means they look forward to a career in the establishment
political job market. They have convinced Bernie to ignore Tulsi because of a variety of
reasons 1. Some are neocons 2. Some are Hinduphobes 3. Some are both 4. The rest know
the establishment is dead set against Tulsi because she is a revolutionary. So even
though she would win easily if Bernie gave his support to Tulsi, I can't see him doing that.
Let us pray he does because at this point
we need a miracle to save us from either Trump, Biden, or some other establishment
lackey.
Well that's it Bernie is done and he made sure to s*** on his own movement as he stumbled off
the stage back to his 3 mansions. He had already lost with super Tuesday, but he had a chance
to save his legacy with a strong debate performance if he managed to squeeze some public
commitments out of Biden for his followers. Instead he meekly assented to Biden's coronation,
what was the point of the debate for Bernie's movement? they got nothing out of Biden, heck,
Biden even made a point of trashing Medical Care for all and demanding that all of Bernie's
people embrace him as their rightful king. Bernie's people got NOTHING from Biden and the
DNC, the will continue to get NOTHING from them until they show the DNC that they will
boycott the next election and make the DNC lose elections they would otherwise win. sure the
Democrats will blame them for Trump 2020, but the Democrats lost the moderates in 2000 but
they still came back to pander to them, time to make them pander to Bernie's people!
>Bernie Sanders has only ever been a clever tool to mobilize
> the young voters. Never designed to actually have a chance. Just whip up dreams
> Posted by: Jezabeel | Mar 16 2020 9:03 utc | 79
... and then crush the dreams so the dreamers drift away in disgust.
1. No one is talking about last night's debate because of the Coronavirus. It doesn't show
up on my 'Bing' homepage and there isn't even mention of it on the few liberal websites that
I visit except for Counterpunch and there was only one there.
Sanders never had a chance because he represents the majority on almost every issue. That is
not acceptable to a democratic party joined at the hip to the republican party, both
completely subservient to monied interests.
Exits polls in SC, CA, and MA showed large discrepancies in Biden's favor, well out of the
margin of error. If the vote count reflected the exit polls Sanders would be well ahead in
delegates. The US uses exit polls as a test of validity of foreign elections, but for some
reason does not apply that methodology here. Duh.
Nothing new here. In 2006 Clinton Curtis testified in congress about election hacking in
Ohio in 2004 where exits polls were wildly different than the final count. The Iowa caucus
app debacle was a more visible demonstration of the hacking. No need for superdelegates now,
Sleepy Joe has been selected to assure another 4 years of Trump or Trump-like policies.
"... I actually watched the debate. Bernie is done. He's just too nice to be president. He had numerous chances to call joe out on his lies and passed on almost all of them. ..."
"... The disappointment isn't as big a shock. I don't like him losing. But I am absolutely disgusted that he won't call out the cheating, lying, and election fraud. ..."
And boy did he.
I actually watched the debate. Bernie is done. He's just too nice to be president.
He had numerous chances to call joe out on his lies and passed on almost all of them.
I'm very happy I didn't donate to his campaign this year. He is a sheepdog who will make
every attempt to coerce his followers to vote blech no matter who.
of Bernie over the past week. The disappointment isn't as big a shock. I don't like him
losing. But I am absolutely disgusted that he won't call out the cheating, lying, and
election fraud.
And there is nothing that could get me to vote for Biden.
@janis
b@janis
b
I think it's the worst discussions of a couple's divorce arguments in front of their
attorneys in court.
Joe Biden is talking way too much. Sanders is amazingly restrained in his verbal
responses.
1. Shut this president down now.
2. Joe Biden talk less and lie less. For me you are unacceptable.
3. Bernie is not toast and just needs to fight on.
4. The media will not help us, despite the best efforts. I am glad though that I can watch
the live stream of the debate.
Do not worry about how much it costs. If you can't stand listening anymore, stop
listening.
... ... ...
I was shocked when I seen women literally FIGHTING over a 12 pk of Toilet Tissue. 1
instance of WHY the public is not told things as they truly are...you are freaking out over
TISSUE..
Bernie has the strength and wits to hang out with Anderson Cooper and talk policy after
the debate. Biden is probably in the hospital hooked up to an I V .
Don't ever talk about how much it costs when it comes to medicare for all when it comes to
the lives and wellbeing of Americans. But the federal government can find $1.5T laying around
to donate to wall street. Give me a break Biden!!! That is a republican talking point. Biden
is and have always been a closet republican.
I've paid very close attention to CNN and I've noticed that there is barely ANYTHING that
highlights the lies and contradictions of Biden. Corporate media is part of why the DNC will
lose if they push Biden vs Trump. Trump will absolutely DESTROY JOE HIS RECORD IS THE SAME AS
HILLARY AND THAT COST YOU LAST TIME
I am a Sanders supporter and I am aware he will likely not get the nomination. I was
hoping Biden would try and win me over, but he barely tried. He only solidified that Bernie
is the real deal and Biden is just a bum.
"> I hope they postpone the primaries, CDC has recommended against gatherings of over
50 people. All voting stations are going to have over 50 people. Move the primaries back,
let's focus on the crisis at hand first. In the meantime let's have more of these long
debates where we can handle the issues.. 1 on 1 let America decide who they want after. I
have a feeling the longer they talk, the more people will understand Bernie has the record
and the plan that will transform this great nation as well as the Energy and Enthusiasm to
beat Trump. P.S for the people saying I'm just trying to buy Bernie time, you are right,
however you also have to remember older people are way more secepptible to the Corona Virus..
and old people vote for Biden. Do all these senior citizens want to stand in line for hours
with the virus going around? Imagine old the old people waiting to vote for Biden in Florida,
the retirement capital of America. Bernie's young people are going to come out anyway.. this
race still might have 1 more twist
Thank You, Anderson. It is heroic of you to give BERNIE quality air time! WE THE PEOPLE
have an important choice to make: we must vote for the most honest, creatively intelligent,
compassionate and prepared candidate to see us through what is ahead.
"... This is a transformational moment in history that will allow American politics to socialize and turn away resolutely from the anti-government stupidity represented by Trump and all the anti-New Deal elements among the elite predators that have dominated politically since Reagan. It is a mistake to chose Biden, chief author of the Patriot Act, business-as-usual candidate, corporate lackey, weasel. ..."
This is a transformational moment in history that will allow American politics to socialize
and turn away resolutely from the anti-government stupidity represented by Trump and all the
anti-New Deal elements among the elite predators that have dominated politically since
Reagan. It is a mistake to chose Biden, chief author of the Patriot Act, business-as-usual
candidate, corporate lackey, weasel.
Bernie is the only rational choice, but the American
people are not rational, and do not yet understand the urgency of a radical left turn. Much
suffering will be the result and a radical right turn could occur, although disenchantment
with the blithering idiocy of Donald Trump has already deprived him of any chance of
re-election. The virus is going to take him down before profound political embarrassment.
He's a dead man walking.This may be true of Bernie & Biden as well, but I say this
without prejudice.
The Chinese clearly knew the character of this virus before it became apparent to the
world. They did not react so swiftly or dramatically to earlier outbreaks like SARS, swine
flu, avian flu and etc. They had prior knowledge of the potential of nCov2019. The US did
not.
Why do we have a National Security Council or a Department of Homeland Security if they
cannot read the writing on the wall? It was an accidental release of a weaponized virus. The
US should have taken a cue and reacted with similar conviction shown by the CCP. But we have
no leadership worth a shit.
Our representative republic has suffered an embarrassment in this failure to protect the
people while a so-called national enemy, a communist dictatorship, has demonstrated more
effective leadership and greater capability to protect its people. This is more than an
embarrassment. It is an indictment of our political system.
It is time to turn sharply left to social democracy.
"Every aspect of modern life is being hit as sweeping measures are rolled out in an effort
to stem the coronavirus pandemic. President Trump declared a national emergency Friday "to
unleash the full power of the federal government."
"No resource will be spared, nothing whatsoever," the president said as stocks rose sharply,
regaining some of their recent losses.
Hours later, the House overwhelmingly approved legislation to give direct relief to Americans
impacted by the spreading virus. Central to the aid package are free testing and sick pay
guarantee for Americans affected.
People who are sick with the virus and have to be treated or quarantined would qualify for the
sick pay benefit, which requires employers to offer 14 days of sick leave at "not less" than
two-thirds of an employee's normal pay. Others who would qualify for paid sick leave are those
who need to be home to care for a child whose school or childcare center has closed, and those
who need to leave their jobs to take care of a family member infected with the virus.
The legislation offers three months of paid family and medical leave. And small and mid-sized
employers would be reimbursed through tax credits." CBSNEWS
And don't forget the amped up Fed repo purchasing, the fed had been trying to pull back on
these since late last year, but this means max power QE2 through 2020, for better and for
worse:
"... Tomasky points out that Sanders, even if he were elected, would be unable to implement many of the programs that are part of his platform, that the best he'd get in terms of healthcare, for example, would be "a Bidenesque public option," meaning, I presume, and option such as Biden is advocating for now ..."
"... New York Review of Books ..."
"... The Daily Beast, ..."
"... The American Prospect, ..."
"... New York Review of Books ..."
"... New York Review of Books ..."
"... Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism ..."
"... The Corporate Coup d'Etat ..."
"... M.G. Piety teaches philosophy at Drexel University. She is the editor and translator of Soren Kierkegaard's Repetition and Philosophical Crumbs . Her latest book is: Ways of Knowing: Kierkegaard's Pluralist Epistemology . She can be reached at: [email protected] ..."
Just when I am starting to think that the New York Review of Books is not
irredeemably idiotic on political issues, they publish an article that is so conspicuously
incoherent and outrageously out of touch with the political climate in the U.S. that it is
destined to be anthologized in perpetuity in collections with "Clueless" in the title. The
article, " The Party Cannot
Hold ," by Michael Tomasky is about the current state of the Democratic party.
The current divide in the Democratic party, writes Tomasky, "is about capitalism -- whether
it can be reformed and remade to create the kind of broad prosperity the country once knew, but
without the sexism and racism of the postwar period, as liberals hope; or whether corporate
power is now so great that we are simply beyond that, as the younger socialists would argue,
and more radical surgery is called for."
Hmm, he's right, of course, that there is a faction of the Democratic party that wants to
reform capitalism, to remake it to create the kind of broad prosperity the country once knew.
The thing is, that faction is the "younger" one. The older, "liberal," Democrats have
concentrated almost all their efforts on getting rid of sexism and racism, laudable goals to be
sure, but oddly disconnected in the "liberal" imagination from economic issues.
Tomasky is also correct, of course, that a growing number of people in this country think
Capitalism in any form is simply morally bankrupt and that we need a new socioeconomic system
entirely. Few of these people, however, are registered Democrats. Most of them aren't even
Social Democrats since the overthrow of capitalism hasn't been a part of the Social Democratic
platform since the middle of the last century, at least according to Encyclopedia Britannica .
Indeed, Wikipedia defines " Social democracy " as "a political, social
and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social
justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist- oriented
economy" (emphasis added). That Social Democrats are planning the overthrow of capitalism would
be disturbing news to the many capitalists countries in Europe where they are an important
political force.
Tomasky points out that Sanders, even if he were elected, would be unable to implement
many of the programs that are part of his platform, that the best he'd get in terms of
healthcare, for example, would be "a Bidenesque public option," meaning, I presume, and option
such as Biden is advocating for now , because as Americans know too well, politicians
almost never deliver on campaign promises. The electorate is nearly always forced to accept
some watered-down version of what they've been promised, if indeed, they get any version of it
at all. That's clearly part of the reason so many people support Sanders.
Few of Sanders supporters are so politically naïve that they think once he was in
office we'd have universal healthcare. They assume they'd get something less than that. They
also assume, however, and history suggests, correctly, that if Biden were elected, they'd get
something less than he is promising, which means they'd get -- nothing at all! It's either
disingenuous or idiotic of Tomasky to suggest that there's essentially no difference between
Sanders' and Biden's healthcare plans, since even a child will tell you that something is
clearly better than nothing.
Tomasky assumes that only if someone other than Sanders gets the nomination would the left
"try to increase its leverage by, for example, running left-wing candidates against a large
number of mainstream Democratic House incumbents." I kid you not, he actually said that. See,
that's what happens when you don't pay sufficient attention to what is going on around you. Or
perhaps Tomasky is simply being disingenuous again and hoping that the average reader of the
New York Review of Books hasn't been following the Sanders campaign and the calls of
both Sanders and his supporters for bringing about sweeping political change by running
left-wing candidates against a large number of mainstream Democratic House incumbents.
"If Sanders wins the nomination," writes Tomasky, "it becomes absolutely incumbent upon
Democratic establishment figures to get behind him, because a second Trump term is unthinkable.
But the reality is," he continues, "that a number of them won't."
Hmm. Why is it that a number of "Democratic establishment figures" would rather have a
second term of Trump than even one term of Sanders? That's not my charge, I feel compelled to
remind readers here. It's Tomasky who came right out and admitted that! Yes, the Democratic
establishment, despite it protestations to the contrary, would rather have a second term of
Trump than even one term of Sanders according to Michael Tomasky, editor-in-chief of
Democracy, a special correspondent for Newsweek and The Daily Beast,
and a contributing editor for The American Prospect, as well as a contributor to the
New York Review of Books .
Why is that? Well, because as Tomasky observes himself earlier in the article, "Democrats
have, since the 1990s, gotten themselves far too indebted to certain donor groups, notably Wall
Street and the tech industry." Yes, this is the same Tomasky who began the article in question
by characterizing these very same Democrats, now in the pocket of Wall Street and the tech
industry, as wanting to reform capitalism, to remake it to create the kind of broad prosperity
the country once knew.
Biden is apparently not the only prominent Democrat who appears to be suffering from some
kind of dementia.
That's not the only dotty thing Tomasky says in the article. "In a parliamentary system," he
says, "Biden would be in the main center-left party." Okay, yeah, maybe, if we suddenly had a
parliamentary system in the U.S. In any other country that presently has a parliamentary system
Biden would be in the center-right party, if not actually the far-right party.
The view that Sanders supporters are mostly young socialists is delusional. The very same
issue of the New York Review of Books includes an excellent article about our current
health-care crisis entitled " Left
Behind " by Helen Epstein. Epstein explains that substantial numbers of the working poor
support Sanders and that "117,000 Pennsylvanians who voted for Sanders in the [2016] primary
cast their general election ballots for Trump." Hmm, it seems unlikely that those 117,000
Pennsylvanians were all young socialists.
Tomasky's world doesn't even cohere with the world as represented by other contributors to
the publication in which his article appears, let alone to the real, concrete world. It exists
only in his fevered imagination and the similarly fevered imaginations of other Democrats who
delude themselves that they are "centrists" rather than right-wing neoliberals. There are bits
and pieces of the truth in Tomasky's vision of the disunity in the Democratic party but he puts
those bits together like a child forcing pieces of a puzzle where they don't belong.
What Tomasky fails to appreciate is just how mad, in the sense of angry, the average
American voter is. Epstein writes that "[i]f you include those who have left the workforce
altogether, the U.S. employment rate is almost as high as it was in 1931." She cites Anne Case
and Angus Deaton as observing in Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism that "[t]he amount American spend
unnecessarily on health care weighs more heavily on our economy than the Versailles Treaty
reparations did on Germans in the 1920s."
Oh yeah, people are angry. Few people are blaming capitalism as such, but nearly everyone
who's suffering economically appears to be blaming the political establishment, and blaming the
Democrats just as much as the Republicans. This is clear from the people interviewed in the
2019 documentary The Corporate Coup
d'Etat. These are people who voted for Sanders in the 2016 primary, but who
then voted for Trump in the general election. They're not socialists. They're just angry.
Really angry, and they're angry at both sides of the political establishment.
Tomasky is worried about the Democratic party, with its two fictional factions, breaking
apart because he concludes "our [political] system militates against a schism." No third party,
he thinks, could be a significant political force.
Trump does not have a party with the program that at least pretends to pursue "socialism for a given ethnic group". He is
more far right nationalist then national socialist. But to the extent neoliberalism can be viewed as neofascism Trump is
neo-fascist, he definitly can be called a "national neoliberal."
Notable quotes:
"... I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as Sanders -- to head its ticket. ..."
"... Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again" slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false state of mythical past national glory ..."
"... The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have before in this column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the term. ..."
"... Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. ..."
"... An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups. ..."
"... Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth, however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles. ..."
"... Neoliberalism , by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of trade unions. ..."
"... Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age . ..."
Now that the Michigan Democratic primary is over and Joe Biden has been
declared the
winner , it's time to read the handwriting on the political wall: Biden will be the
Democratic nominee for president, and Bernie Sanders will be the runner-up once again come the
party's convention in July. Sanders might influence the party's platform, but platforms are
never binding for the nominee. Sanders has lost, and so have his many progressive supporters,
myself included.
I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic
candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL
quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party
establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as
Sanders -- to head its ticket.
Funded by wealthy donors, run by Beltway insiders and aided and abetted by a corporate media
dedicated to promoting the notion that Sanders was "
unelectable ," the Democratic Party never welcomed Sanders as a legitimate contender. Not
in 2016 and not in 2020. In several instances, it even resorted to some good old-fashioned
red-baiting
to frighten voters; the party is, after all, a capitalist institution. Working and middle-class
families support the Democrats largely because they have no other place to go on Election Day
besides the completely corrupt and craven GOP.
Now we are left with Donald Trump and Biden to duke it out in the fall. Yes, it has come to
that.
In terms of campaign rhetoric and party policies, the general election campaign will be a
battle for America's past far more than it will be a contest for its future. The battle will be
fueled on both sides by narratives and visions that are illusory, regressive and, in important
respects, downright dangerous.
Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again"
slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try
to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false
state of mythical past national glory that ignores our deeply entrenched history of patriarchal
white supremacy and brutal class domination.
The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have
before in this
column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the
term.
As the celebrated Marxist playwright Bertolt Brecht wrote in 1935 , fascism
"is a historic phase of capitalism the nakedest, most shameless, most oppressive and most
treacherous form of capitalism." Trumpism, along with its international analogs in Brazil,
India and Western Europe, neatly accords with Brecht's theory.
Trumpism similarly meets the definition of fascism offered by Robert Paxton in his classic
2004 study, "
The Anatomy of Fascism ":
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation
with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy,
and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy
but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues
with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing
and external expansion.
Trump and Trumpism similarly embody the 14 common factors of fascism identified by the great
writer Umberto Eco in his 1995 essay, Ur Fascism :
A cult of traditionalism.
The rejection of modernism.
A cult of action for its own sake and a distrust of intellectualism.
The view that disagreement or opposition is treasonous.
A fear of difference. Fascism is racist by definition.
An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of
humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups.
An obsession with the plots and machinations of the movement's identified enemies.
A requirement that the movement's enemies be simultaneously seen as omnipotent and weak,
conniving and cowardly.
A rejection of pacifism.
Contempt for weakness.
A cult of heroism.
Hypermasculinity and homophobia.
A selective populism, relying on chauvinist definitions of "the people" that the movement
claims to represent.
Heavy usage of "newspeak" and an impoverished discourse of elementary syntax and
resistance to complex and critical reasoning.
Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with
fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug
mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's
Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth,
however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles.
To grasp what neoliberalism means, it's necessary to understand that it does not refer to a
revival of the liberalism of the New Deal and New Society programs of the 1930s and 1960s. That
brand of liberalism advocated the active intervention of the federal government in the economy
to mitigate the harshest effects of private enterprise through such programs as Social
Security, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Medicare, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. That brand of liberalism imposed high taxes on the wealthy and
significantly mitigated income inequality in America.
Neoliberalism
, by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for
deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade
agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of
trade unions.
Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had
embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender
than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies
based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the
Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age .
As transformational a politician as Barack Obama was in terms of race, he too pursued a
predominantly neoliberal agenda. The Affordable Care Act, Obama's singular domestic legislative
achievement, is a perfect example of neoliberal private-public collaboration that left intact a
health industry dominated by for-profit drug manufacturers and rapacious insurance companies,
rather than setting the stage for Medicare for All, as championed by Sanders.
Biden never tires of reminding any audience willing to put up with his gaffes, verbal ticks
and miscues that he served as Obama's vice president. Those ties are likely to remain the
centerpiece of his campaign, as he promises a return to the civility of the Obama era and a
restoration of America's standing in the world.
History, however, only moves forward. As charming and comforting as Biden's imagery of the
past may be, it is, like Trump's darker outlook, a mirage. If Trump has taught us anything
worthwhile, it is that the past cannot be replicated, no matter how much we might wish
otherwise.
. @DanaPerino I'm not quite sure why
you're telling FOX viewers that Elizabeth Warren is the last female candidate in the Dem
primary. Is it because you believe a fake indigenous woman of color is "real" and the real
indigenous woman of color in this race is fake? pic.twitter.com/VKCxy2JzFe
For those who opposed the USA foreign wars, the loss of Sanders is not that a great loss. Only Tulsi was a real anti-war
candidates.
Notable quotes:
"... although he seemed reluctant to endorse Clinton’s earlier 1995 decision to bomb Serb positions in Bosnia, he did nothing to oppose that step either. ..."
"... When the administration led a full-scale NATO air war against Serbia to force Belgrade to withdraw from its restless, predominantly Albanian province of Kosovo, Sanders was on board. He voted for a Senate Concurrent Resolution (sponsored by Senator Joe Biden) that authorized the president to conduct air operations and missile strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). Sanders’ vote on that measure was especially telling. There was substantial opposition to the resolution in both houses of Congress. Indeed, the authorization failed on a tie vote in the House—with Sanders voting for war. It was apparent that there were numerous legislators who were more dovish than Bernie Sanders regarding the Kosovo intervention. ..."
"... He also signed on to the so-called war on terror during George W. Bush’s administration, voting for the dangerously vague authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) in 2001 ..."
"... His opposition to military interventions certainly became more tepid again once Barack Obama entered the Oval Office. Contrary to Hillary Clinton’s jibe during a 2016 presidential primary debate that Sanders had endorsed the U.S.-led military campaign against Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, he only sponsored and voted for a resolution condemning Qaddafi and calling on the UN to pressure him to leave office. ..."
"... Sanders did not speak out against the war once it began, even though Obama ostentatiously declined even to seek congressional approval. ..."
"... A similar murkiness characterized his stance on the civil war in Syria. He supported Obama’s decision to send 250 U.S. troops to that country, ostensibly to train and assist “moderate” Syrian rebels trying to overthrow Bashar al-Assad’s regime. When Obama asked for congressional approval in 2013 for air strikes in response to Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons, though, Sanders had adopted a noncommittal stance, stating that he would keep an open mind but had several concerns and reservations. ..."
"... Once Donald Trump took office, Sanders became more consistently vocal in his opposition to U.S. military involvement in Syria. He condemned the Trump administration’s missile strikes on Syria for another alleged chemical weapons incident as “illegal and unauthorized”—a much stronger stance than he took when Obama proposed such retaliation in 2013. ..."
Although he
resists announcing the end of his candidacy, Bernie Sanders has almost no
chance of becoming the Democratic Party nominee for president following his weak
performances on both Super Tuesday and the six primaries the subsequent week. The
impending demise of his presidential bid may come as a disappointment to some Americans
who held out hope that a Sanders presidency would usher-in a more peaceful U.S. foreign
policy. Sanders himself fosters the image that he is a staunch advocate of peace,
asserting at one point
that "I apologize to no one" for opposing the Iraq war and other conflicts.
Despite his claims, there were several unsettling aspects to his foreign policy track record. He has been more anti-war
in his public statements and writings than in his actual voting record. His opposition to dubious U.S. military
interventions has been noticeably more persistent and intense when Republican presidents initiated such missions than when
Democratic presidents did so. Sanders has been disturbingly susceptible to arguments that so-called humanitarian wars are
justified to protect suffering civilian populations from the abuses of brutal dictators. He is vocal that presidents need
to seek explicit approval from Congress before launching armed interventions, but even on that issue his record is
inconsistent. Sanders failed to condemn Bill Clinton or Barack Obama for brazenly bypassing Congress and waging major
presidential wars in Kosovo and Libya, respectively, much less moving to generate congressional action to stop their
usurpation of the war power. Apparently, White House invocations of the humanitarian war justification encouraged him to
maintain silence in those cases.
Indeed, although he seemed reluctant to endorse Clinton’s earlier 1995 decision to bomb Serb positions in Bosnia, he did
nothing to oppose that step either. Indeed, Sanders became noticeably more hawkish regarding the Balkan conflicts as the
decade wore on. When the administration led a full-scale NATO air war against Serbia to force Belgrade to withdraw from
its restless, predominantly Albanian province of Kosovo, Sanders was on board. He
voted for a Senate
Concurrent Resolution (sponsored by Senator Joe Biden) that
authorized the president to conduct air operations and missile strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro). Sanders’ vote on that measure was especially telling. There was substantial opposition to the
resolution in both houses of Congress. Indeed, the authorization failed on a tie vote in the House—with Sanders voting for
war. It was apparent that there were numerous legislators who were more dovish than Bernie Sanders regarding the Kosovo
intervention.
He also signed on to the so-called war on terror during George W. Bush’s administration, voting for the dangerously
vague authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) in 2001, as did virtually every other member of Congress. Sanders
was warier, though, of Bush’s propaganda offensive for a war to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Congressional Democrats
were badly split on that issue. In contrast to party heavyweights such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and John Kerry,
Sanders remained firmly in the faction that resisted military action and favored continued inspections and diplomacy with
respect to Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. He voted against the October 2002
joint resolution authorizing Bush to use force, if necessary. Sanders would
later boast “I not only voted against that war; I helped lead the effort against that war.” How much his stance
reflected sincere, prescient aversion to a regime-change war with uncertain and potentially destabilizing ramifications,
and how much reflected partisan hostility to the actions of a Republican president, though, is nearly impossible to
determine.
His opposition to military interventions certainly became more tepid again once Barack Obama entered the Oval
Office. Contrary to Hillary Clinton’s jibe during a 2016 presidential primary debate that Sanders had endorsed the U.S.-led
military campaign against Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, he only sponsored and voted for a resolution condemning Qaddafi and
calling on the UN to pressure him to leave office. However, even though he attacked Clinton for pushing the Libya
intervention as Obama’s secretary of state, (making the
snarky comment “I’m not quite the fan of regime change that she is),” Sanders did not speak out against the war once it
began, even though Obama ostentatiously declined even to seek congressional approval.
A similar murkiness characterized his stance on the civil war in Syria. He
supported Obama’s decision to send 250 U.S. troops to that country, ostensibly to train and assist “moderate” Syrian
rebels trying to overthrow Bashar al-Assad’s regime. When Obama asked for congressional approval in 2013 for air strikes in
response to Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons, though, Sanders had adopted a noncommittal stance,
stating that he would keep an open mind but had several concerns and reservations.
Once Donald Trump took office, Sanders became more consistently vocal in his opposition to U.S. military involvement in
Syria. He
condemned the Trump administration’s missile strikes on Syria for another alleged chemical weapons incident as “illegal
and unauthorized”—a much stronger stance than he took when Obama proposed such retaliation in 2013.
A similar hardening pattern occurred with his attitude toward Washington’s support of the Saudi-Arabian-United Arab
Emirates war in Yemen. Sanders said little about that offensive when it began in 2015 and continued in 2016. When Trump
continued Washington’s support, though, Sanders became steadily more negative. He voted for a December 2018
Senate resolution to end the U.S. assistance to the Saudi war effort. The following month, he co-sponsored a bipartisan
joint resolution mandating the removal of all U.S. forces from Yemen not authorized by Congress. Both the Senate and House
passed that measure, but supporters were unable to override President Trump’s subsequent veto.
The overall recent trend of his views does suggest a more serious commitment to opposing dubious military ventures and
insisting on the restoration of the congressional war power. Some observers saw a dramatic change bordering on a
revolutionary one in his foreign policy perspective. That may be true with respect to policy in the Muslim world. In
March 2019, he signed
a pledge along with Senator Elizabeth Warren and other progressives, calling on the United States to end its wars in
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Yet, when Trump announced a partial withdrawal of U.S. troops from northern Syria in late
2019, Sanders joined in the Democratic-led hawkish chorus
condemning the move as a betrayal of Washington’s Kurdish allies in Syria.
It is even less certain whether Sanders’ alleged advocacy of restraint applies to U.S. policy in other regions. He has
loyally supported the Democratic Party’s promotion of a confrontational policy toward Russia, including backing U.S.
military aid to Ukraine. Sanders also at times has embraced the rhetorical neo-McCarthyism epitomized by the Left’s
repeated innuendos about Trump allegedly doing Vladimir’s bidding—even though the president’s Russia policy actually has
been more hardline
than the policy Obama pursued.
Responding to media revelations in February 2020 that he had received a briefing from U.S. intelligence agencies that
the Kremlin was trying to assist his presidential bid, Sanders lashed out and
stressed his opposition to Moscow’s supposed policies. “Unlike Donald Trump, I do not consider Vladimir Putin a good
friend. He is an autocratic thug who is attempting to destroy democracy and crush dissent in Russia," Sanders said. "Let’s
be clear, the Russians want to undermine American democracy by dividing us up and, unlike the current president, I stand
firmly against their efforts.”
Sanders exhibits few dovish sentiments when it comes to policy toward Russia, and that stance is troubling. Russia is
the one power in the world that has the strategic weaponry to end American civilization in an armed conflict. Caution and
restraint is more essential regarding Washington’s relations with that country than any other.
A widespread impression exists that Bernie Sanders is the ideological successor to such antiwar Democratic Party
stalwarts as Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. But Sanders’ performance regarding issues of war and peace is more murky
and complex. At best, he has been an inconsistent, ambivalent, advocate of a more peaceful U.S. foreign policy. Granted,
his policy views seem less hawkish and meddlesome than those of Joe Biden. And arguably they are better than those of
Donald Trump, who has talked the talk but rarely walked the walk when it comes to curtailing Washington’s foolish overseas
interventions. Nevertheless, a Sanders presidency would likely have been a major disappointment to Americans who want a
more restrained and sensible foreign policy.
Ted Galen Carpenter,
a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at the National Interest, is
the author of 12 books and more than 850 articles on international affairs. His most recent books are Gullible
Superpower: U.S. Support for Bogus Foreign Democratic Movements (2019) and NATO: The Dangerous Dinosaur
(2019).
Looks like DNC run a pretty sophisticated smear campaign against Sanders ...
Notable quotes:
"... It really isn't about who the candidates are – hurtful as that may sound to some in our identity-saturated times. It is about what the candidate might try to do once in office. In truth, the very fact that nowadays we are allowed to focus on identity to our heart's content should be warning enough that the establishment is only too keen for us to exhaust our energies in promoting divisions based on those identities ..."
"... The Republican and Democratic leaderships are there to ensure that, before a candidate gets selected to compete in the parties' name, he or she has proven they are power-friendly. Two candidates, each vetted for obedience to power. ..."
The Democratic presidential nomination race is a fascinating case study in how power works
– not least, because the Democratic party leaders are visibly contriving to impose one
candidate, Joe Biden, as the party's nominee, even as it becomes clear that he is no longer
mentally equipped to run a local table tennis club let alone the world's most powerful
nation.
Biden's campaign is a reminder that power is indivisible. Donald Trump or Joe Biden for
president – it doesn't matter to the power-establishment. An egomaniacal man-child
(Trump), representing the billionaires, or an elder suffering rapid neurological degeneration
(Biden), representing the billionaires, are equally useful to power. A woman will do too, or a
person of colour. The establishment is no longer worried about who stands on stage
– so long as that person is not a Bernie Sanders in the US, or a Jeremy Corbyn in the
UK.
It really isn't about who the candidates are – hurtful as that may sound to some in
our identity-saturated times. It is about what the candidate might try to do once in office. In
truth, the very fact that nowadays we are allowed to focus on identity to our heart's content
should be warning enough that the establishment is only too keen for us to exhaust our energies
in promoting divisions based on those identities. What concerns it far more is that we might
overcome those divisions and unify against it, withdrawing our consent from an establishment
committed to endless asset-stripping of our societies and the planet.
Neither Biden nor Trump will obstruct the establishment, because they are at its very heart.
The Republican and Democratic leaderships are there to ensure that, before a candidate gets
selected to compete in the parties' name, he or she has proven they are power-friendly. Two
candidates, each vetted for obedience to power.
Although a pretty face or a way with words are desirable, incapacity and incompetence are no
barrier to qualifying, as the two white men groomed by their respective parties demonstrate.
Both have proved they will favour the establishment, both will pursue near-enough the
same policies , both are committed to the status quo, both have demonstrated their
indifference to the future of life on Earth. What separates the candidates is not real
substance, but presentation styles – the creation of the appearance of difference, of
choice.
Policing the debate
The subtle dynamics of how the Democratic nomination race is being rigged are interesting.
Especially revealing are the ways the Democratic leadership protects establishment power by
policing the terms of debate: what can be said, and what can be thought; who gets to speak and
whose voices are misrepresented or demonised. Manipulation of language is key.
As I pointed out in my previous post , the
establishment's power derives from its invisibility. Scrutiny is kryptonite to
power.
The only way we can interrogate power is through language, and the only way we can
communicate our conclusions to others is through words – as I am doing right now. And
therefore our strength – our ability to awaken ourselves from the trance of power –
must be subverted by the establishment, transformed into our Achilles' heel, a weakness.
The treatment of Bernie Sanders and his supporters by the Democratic establishment –
and those who eagerly repeat its talking points – neatly illustrates how this can be done
in manifold ways.
Remember this all started back in 2016, when Sanders committed the unforgivable sin of
challenging the Democratic leadership's right simply to anoint Hillary Clinton as the party's
presidential candidate. In those days, the fault line was obvious and neat: Bernie was a man,
Clinton a woman. She would be the first woman president. The only party members who might wish
to deny her that historic moment, and back Sanders instead, had to be misogynist men. They were
supposedly venting their anti-women grudge against Clinton, who in turn was presented to women
as a symbol of their oppression by men.
And so was born a meme: the "Bernie Bros". It rapidly became shorthand for suggesting
– contrary to all evidence
– that Sanders' candidacy appealed chiefly to angry, entitled white men. In fact, as
Sanders' 2020 run has amply demonstrated, support for him has been more diverse than for the
many other Democratic candidates who sought the nomination.
So important what @ewarren is saying to @maddow about the
dangerous, threatening, ugly faction among the Bernie supporters. Sanders either cannot or
will not control them. pic.twitter.com/LYDXlLJ7bi
How contrived the 2016 identity-fuelled contest was should have been clear, had anyone been
allowed to point that fact out. This wasn't really about the Democratic leadership respecting
Clinton's identity as a woman. It was about them paying lip service to her identity as a
woman, while actually promoting her because she was a reliable warmonger
and
Wall Street functionary . She was useful to power.
If the debate had really been driven by identity politics, Sanders had a winning card too:
he is Jewish. That meant he could be the United States' first Jewish president. In a fair
identity fight, it would have been a draw between the two. The decision about who should
represent the Democratic party would then have had to be decided based on policies, not
identity. But party leaders did not want Clinton's actual policies, or her political history,
being put under the microscope for very obvious reasons.
Weaponisation of identity
The weaponisation of identity politics is even more transparent in 2020. Sanders is still
Jewish, but his main opponent, Joe Biden, really is simply a privileged white man. Were the
Clinton format to be followed again by Democratic officials, Sanders would enjoy an identity
politics trump card. And yet Sanders is still being presented as just another white male
candidate , no different from Biden.
(We could take this argument even further and note that the other candidate who no one,
least of all the Democratic leadership, ever mentions as still in the race is Tulsi
Gabbard, a woman of colour. The Democratic party has worked hard to make her as
invisible as possible in the primaries because, of all the candidates, she is the most
vocal and articulate opponent of foreign wars. That has deprived her of the chance to raise
funds and win delegates.)
. @DanaPerino I'm not quite sure why
you're telling FOX viewers that Elizabeth Warren is the last female candidate in the Dem
primary. Is it because you believe a fake indigenous woman of color is "real" and the real
indigenous woman of color in this race is fake? pic.twitter.com/VKCxy2JzFe
Sanders' Jewish identity isn't celebrated because he isn't useful to the
power-establishment. What's far more important to them – and should be to us too –
are his policies, which might limit their power to wage war, exploit workers and trash the
planet.
But it is not just that Democratic Party leaders are ignoring Sanders' Jewish identity. They
are also again actively using identity politics against him, and in many different
ways.
The 'black' establishment?
Bernie Sanders' supporters have been complaining for some time – based on mounting
evidence – that the Democratic leadership is far from neutral between Sanders and Biden.
Because it has a vested interest in the outcome, and because it is the part of the
power-establishment, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is exercising its influence in
favour of Biden. And because power prefers darkness, the DNC is doing its best to exercise that
power behind the scenes, out of sight – at least, unseen by those who still rely on the
"mainstream" corporate media, which is also part of the power-establishment. As should be clear
to anyone watching, the nomination proceedings are being controlled to give Biden every
advantage and to obstruct Sanders.
But the Democratic leadership is not only dismissing out of hand these very justified
complaints from Bernie Sanders' supporters but also turning these complaints against them, as
further evidence of their – and his – illegitimacy. A new way of doing this emerged
in the immediate wake of Biden winning South Carolina on the back of strong support from older
black voters – Biden's first state win and a launchpad for his Super Tuesday bid a few
days later.
It was given perfect expression from Symone Sanders, who despite her surname is actually a
senior adviser to Biden's campaign. She is also black. This is what she wrote: "People who keep
referring to Black voters as 'the establishment' are tone deaf and have obviously learned
nothing."
People who keep referring to Black voters as "the establishment" are tone deaf and have
obviously learned nothing.
-- Symone D. Sanders (@SymoneDSanders) March 3,
2020
Her reference to generic "people" was understood precisely by both sides of the debate as
code for those "Bernie Bros". Now, it seems, Bernie Sanders' supporters are not simply
misogynists, they are potential recruits to the Ku Klux Klan.
The tweet went viral, even though in the fiercely contested back-and-forth below her tweet
no one could produce a single example of anyone actually saying anything like the sentiment
ascribed by Symone Sanders to "Bernie Bros". But then, tackling bigotry was not her real goal.
This wasn't meant to be a reflection on a real-world talking-point by Bernie supporters. It was
high-level gaslighting by a senior Democratic party official of the party's own voters.
Survival of the fittest smear
What Symone Sanders was really trying to do was conceal power – the fact that the DNC
is seeking to impose its chosen candidate on party members. As occurred during the confected
women-men, Clinton vs "Bernie Bros" confrontation, Symone Sanders was field-testing a similar
narrative management tool as part of the establishment's efforts to hone it for improved
effect. The establishment has learnt – through a kind of survival of the fittest smear
– that divide-and-rule identity politics is the perfect way to shield its influence as it
favours a status-quo candidate (Biden or Clinton) over a candidate seen as a threat to its
power (Sanders).
In her tweet, Symone Sanders showed exactly how the power elite seeks to obscure its toxic
role in our societies. She neatly conflated "the establishment" – of which she is a very
small, but well-paid component – with ordinary "black voters". Her message is this:
should you try to criticise the establishment (which has inordinate power to damage lives and
destroy the planet) we will demonise you, making it seem that you are really attacking black
people (who in the vast majority of cases – though Symone Sanders is a notable exception
– wield no power at all).
Symone Sanders has recruited her own blackness and South Carolina's "black voters" as a ring
of steel to protect the establishment. Cynically, she has turned poor black people, as well as
the tens of thousands of people (presumably black and white) who liked her tweet, into human
shields for the establishment.
It sounds a lot uglier put like that. But it has rapidly become a Biden talking-point, as we
can see here:
NEW: @JoeBiden responds to @berniesanders
saying the "establishment" is trying to defeat him.
"The establishment are all those hardworking, middle class people, those African Americans
they are the establishment!" @CBSNews pic.twitter.com/43Q2Nci5sS
The DNC's wider strategy is to confer on Biden exclusive rights to speak for black voters
(despite his
inglorious record on
civil rights issues) and, further, to strip Sanders and his senior black advisers of any
right to do so. When Sanders protests about this, or about racist behaviour from the Biden
camp, Biden's supporters come out in force and often abusively, though of course no one is
upbraiding them for their ugly, violent language. Here is the famous former tennis player
Martina Navratilova showing that maybe we should be talking about "Biden Bros":
Sanders is starting to really piss me off. Just shut this kind of crap down and debate the
issues. This is not it.
This kind of special pleading by the establishment for the establishment –
using those sections of it, such as Symone Sanders, that can tap into the identity politics
zeitgeist – is far more common than you might imagine. The approach is being
constantly refined, often using social media as the ultimate focus group. Symone Sanders'
successful conflation of the establishment with "black voters" follows earlier, clumsier
efforts by the establishment to protect its interests against Sanders that proved far less
effective.
Remember how last autumn the billionaire-owned corporate media tried to tell us that it was
unkind to
criticise billionaires – that they had feelings too and that speaking harshly about
them was "dehumanising". Again it was aimed at Sanders, who had just commented that in a
properly ordered world billionaires simply wouldn't exist. It was an obvious point: allowing a
handful of people to control almost all the planet's wealth was not only depriving the rest of
us of that wealth (and harming the planet) but it gave those few billionaires way too much
power. They could buy all the media, our channels of communication, and most of the politicians
to ringfence their financial interests, gradually eroding even the most minimal democratic
protections.
That campaign died a quick death because few of us are actually brainwashed enough to accept
the idea that a handful of billionaires share an identity that needs protecting – from
us! Most of us are still connected enough to the real world to understand that billionaires are
more than capable of looking out for their own interests, without our helping them by imposing
on ourselves a vow of silence.
But one cannot fault the power-establishment for being constantly inventive in the search
for new ways to stifle our criticisms of the way it unilaterally exercises its power. The
Democratic nomination race is testing such ingenuity to the limits. Here's a new rule against
"hateful conduct" on Twitter, where Biden's neurological deficit is being subjected to much
critical scrutiny through the sharing of dozens of
videos of embarrassing Biden "senior moments".
Twitter expanding its hateful conduct rules "to include language that dehumanizes on the
basis of age, disability or disease." https://t.co/KmWGaNAG9Z
Yes, disability and age are identities too. And so, on the pretext of protecting and
respecting those identities, social media can now be scrubbed of anything and anyone trying to
highlight the mental deficiencies of an old man who might soon be given the nuclear codes and
would be responsible for waging wars in the name of Americans. Twitter is full of comments
denouncing as "ableist" anyone who tries to highlight how the Democratic leadership is foisting
a cognitively challenged Biden on to the party.
Maybe the Dem insiders are all wrong, but it's true that they are saying it. Some are
saying it out loud, including Castro at the debate and Booker here: https://t.co/0lbi7RFRqG
None of this is to overlook the fact that another variation of identity politics has been
weaponised against Sanders: that of failing to be an "American" patriot. Again illustrating how
closely the Democratic and Republican leaderships' interests align, the question of who is a
patriot – and who is really working for the "Russians" – has been at the heart of
both parties' campaigns, though for different reasons.
Trump has been subjected to endless, evidence-free claims that he is a secret "Russian
agent" in a concerted effort to control his original isolationist foreign policy impulses that
might have stripped the establishment – and its military-industrial wing – of the
right to wage wars of aggression, and revive the Cold War, wherever it believes a profit can be
made under cover of "humanitarian intervention". Trump partly inoculated himself against these
criticisms, at least among supporters, with his "Make America Great Again" slogan, and partly
by learning – painfully for such an egotist – that his presidential role was to
rubber-stamp decisions made elsewhere about waging wars and projecting US power.
I'm just amazed by this tweet, which has been tweeted plenty. Did @_nalexander and all the people
liking this not know that Mueller laid out in the indictments of a number of Russians and in
his report their help on social media to Sanders and Trump. Help Sanders has acknowledged
https://t.co/vuc0lmvvKP
Bernie Sanders has faced similar smear
efforts by the establishment, including by the DNC's last failed presidential candidate
Hillary Clinton – in his case, painting him as a "Russian asset". ("Asset" is a way to
suggest collusion with the Kremlin based on even more flimsy evidence than is needed to accuse
someone of being an agent.) In fact, in a world where identity politics wasn't simply a tool to
be weaponised by the establishment, there would be real trepidation about engaging in this kind
of invective against a Jewish socialist.
One of the far-right's favourite antisemitic tropes – promoted ever since the
publication of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion more than 100 years ago – is that
Jewish "Bolsheviks" are involved in an
international conspiracy to subvert the countries they live in. We have reached the point
now that the corporate media are happy to recycle evidence-free claims,
cited by the Washington Post, from anonymous "US officials" and US intelligence agencies
reinventing a US version of the Protocols against Sanders. And these smears have elicited not a
word of criticism from the Democratic leadership nor from the usual antisemitism watchdogs that
are so ready to let rip over the slightest signs of what they claim to be antisemitism on the
left.
But the urgency of dealing with Sanders may be the reason normal conventions have been
discarded. Sanders isn't a loud-mouth egotist like Trump. A vote for Trump is a vote for the
establishment, if for one of its number who pretends to be against the establishment. Trump has
been largely tamed in time for a second term. By contrast, Sanders, like Corbyn in the UK, is
more dangerous because he may resist the efforts to domesticate him, and because if he is
allowed any significant measure of political success – such as becoming a candidate for
president – it may inspire others to follow in his footsteps. The system might start to
throw up more anomalies, more AOCs and more Ilhan Omars.
So Sanders is now being cast, like Trump, as a puppet of the Kremlin, not a true American.
And because he made the serious mistake of indulging the "Russiagate" smears when they were
used against Trump, Sanders now has little defence against their redeployment against him. And
given that, by the impoverished standards of US political culture, he is considered an extreme
leftist, it has been easy to conflate his democratic socialism with Communism, and then
conflate his supposed Communism with acting on behalf of the Kremlin (which, of course, ignores
the fact that Russia long ago abandoned Communism).
Sen. Bernie Sanders: "Let me tell this to Putin -- the American people, whether
Republicans, Democrats, independents are sick and tired of seeing Russia and other countries
interfering in our elections." pic.twitter.com/ejcP7YVFlt
There is a final use of weaponised identity politics that the Democratic establishment would
dearly love to use against Sanders, if they need to and can get away with it. It is the most
toxic brand – and therefore the most effective – of the identity-based smears, and
it has been extensively field-tested in the
UK against Jeremy Corbyn to great success. The DNC would like to denounce Sanders as an
antisemite.
In fact, only one thing has held them back till now: the fact that Sanders is Jewish. That
may not prove an insuperable obstacle, but it does make it much harder to make the accusation
look credible. The other identity-based smears had been a second-best, a make-do until a way
could be found to unleash the antisemitism smear.
The establishment has been
testing the waters with implied accusations of antisemitism against Sanders for a while,
but their chances were given a fillip recently when Sanders refused to participate in the
annual jamboree of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a prominent lobby group
whose primary mission is to ringfence Israel from criticism in the US. Both the Republican and
Democratic establishments turn out in force to the AIPAC conference, and in the past the event
has attracted keynote speeches from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
But Sanders has refused to attend for decades and maintained that stance this month, even
though he is a candidate for the Democratic nomination. In the last primaries debate, Sanders
justified his decision by rightly
calling Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu a "racist" and by describing AIPAC as
providing a platform "for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights".
Trump's Vice-President, Mike Pence,
responded that Sanders supported "Israel's enemies" and, if elected, would be the "most
anti-Israel president in the history of this nation" – all coded suggestions that Sanders
is antisemitic.
But that's Mike Pence. More useful criticism came from billionaire Mike Bloomberg, who is
himself Jewish and was until last week posing as a Democrat to try to win the party's
nomination. Bloomberg accused Sanders of using dehumanising language against a bunch of
inclusive identities that, he improbably suggested, AIPAC represents. He
claimed :
"This is a gathering of 20,000 Israel supporters of every religious denomination,
ethnicity, faith, color, sexual identity and political party. Calling it a racist platform is
an attempt to discredit those voices, intimidate people from coming here, and weaken the
US-Israel relationship."
Where might this head? At the AIPAC conference last week we were given a foretaste. Ephraim
Mirvis, the chief rabbi of the UK and a friend to
Conservative government leader Boris Johnson, was warmly greeted by delegates, including
leading members of the Democratic establishment. He boasted that he and other Jewish leaders in
the UK had managed to damage Jeremy Corbyn's electoral chances by suggesting that he was an
antisemite over his support, like Sanders, for Palestinian rights.
His own treatment of Corbyn, he argued, offered a model for US Jewish organisations to
replicate against any leadership contender who might pose similar trouble for Israel, leaving
it for his audience to pick up the not-so-subtle hint about who needed to be subjected to
character assassination.
WATCH: "Today I issue a call to the Jews of America, please take a leaf out of our book
and please speak with one voice."
The Chief Rabbi speaking to the 18,000 delegates gathered at the @AIPAC General Session at their Policy
Conference in Washington DC pic.twitter.com/BOkan9RA2O
For anyone who isn't wilfully blind, the last few months have exposed the establishment
playbook: it will use identity politics to divide those who might otherwise find a united voice
and a common cause.
There is nothing wrong with celebrating one's identity, especially if it is under threat,
maligned or marginalised. But having an attachment to an identity is no excuse for allowing it
to be coopted by billionaires, by the powerful, by nuclear-armed states oppressing other
people, by political parties or by the corporate media, so that they can weaponise it to
prevent the weak, the poor, the marginalised from being represented.
It is time for us to wake up to the tricks, the deceptions, the manipulations of the strong
that exploit our weaknesses – and make us yet weaker still. It's time to stop being a
patsy for the establishment. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Jonathan Cook
"... Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. ..."
Now that the Michigan Democratic primary is over and Joe Biden has been
declared the
winner , it's time to read the handwriting on the political wall: Biden will be the
Democratic nominee for president, and Bernie Sanders will be the runner-up once again come the
party's convention in July. Sanders might influence the party's platform, but platforms are
never binding for the nominee. Sanders has lost, and so have his many progressive supporters,
myself included.
I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic
candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL
quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party
establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as
Sanders -- to head its ticket.
Funded by wealthy donors, run by Beltway insiders and aided and abetted by a corporate media
dedicated to promoting the notion that Sanders was "
unelectable ," the Democratic Party never welcomed Sanders as a legitimate contender. Not
in 2016 and not in 2020. In several instances, it even resorted to some good old-fashioned
red-baiting
to frighten voters; the party is, after all, a capitalist institution. Working and middle-class
families support the Democrats largely because they have no other place to go on Election Day
besides the completely corrupt and craven GOP.
Now we are left with Donald Trump and Biden to duke it out in the fall. Yes, it has come to
that.
In terms of campaign rhetoric and party policies, the general election campaign will be a
battle for America's past far more than it will be a contest for its future. The battle will be
fueled on both sides by narratives and visions that are illusory, regressive and, in important
respects, downright dangerous.
Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again"
slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try
to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false
state of mythical past national glory that ignores our deeply entrenched history of patriarchal
white supremacy and brutal class domination.
The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have
before in this
column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the
term.
As the celebrated Marxist playwright Bertolt Brecht wrote in 1935 , fascism
"is a historic phase of capitalism the nakedest, most shameless, most oppressive and most
treacherous form of capitalism." Trumpism, along with its international analogs in Brazil,
India and Western Europe, neatly accords with Brecht's theory.
Trumpism similarly meets the definition of fascism offered by Robert Paxton in his classic
2004 study, "
The Anatomy of Fascism ":
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation
with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy,
and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy
but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues
with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing
and external expansion.
Trump and Trumpism similarly embody the 14 common factors of fascism identified by the great
writer Umberto Eco in his 1995 essay, Ur Fascism :
A cult of traditionalism.
The rejection of modernism.
A cult of action for its own sake and a distrust of intellectualism.
The view that disagreement or opposition is treasonous.
A fear of difference. Fascism is racist by definition.
An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of
humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups.
An obsession with the plots and machinations of the movement's identified enemies.
A requirement that the movement's enemies be simultaneously seen as omnipotent and weak,
conniving and cowardly.
A rejection of pacifism.
Contempt for weakness.
A cult of heroism.
Hypermasculinity and homophobia.
A selective populism, relying on chauvinist definitions of "the people" that the movement
claims to represent.
Heavy usage of "newspeak" and an impoverished discourse of elementary syntax and
resistance to complex and critical reasoning.
Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with
fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug
mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's
Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth,
however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles.
To grasp what neoliberalism means, it's necessary to understand that it does not refer to a
revival of the liberalism of the New Deal and New Society programs of the 1930s and 1960s. That
brand of liberalism advocated the active intervention of the federal government in the economy
to mitigate the harshest effects of private enterprise through such programs as Social
Security, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Medicare, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. That brand of liberalism imposed high taxes on the wealthy and
significantly mitigated income inequality in America.
Neoliberalism
, by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for
deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade
agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of
trade unions.
Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had
embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender
than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies
based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the
Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age .
As transformational a politician as Barack Obama was in terms of race, he too pursued a
predominantly neoliberal agenda. The Affordable Care Act, Obama's singular domestic legislative
achievement, is a perfect example of neoliberal private-public collaboration that left intact a
health industry dominated by for-profit drug manufacturers and rapacious insurance companies,
rather than setting the stage for Medicare for All, as championed by Sanders.
Biden never tires of reminding any audience willing to put up with his gaffes, verbal ticks
and miscues that he served as Obama's vice president. Those ties are likely to remain the
centerpiece of his campaign, as he promises a return to the civility of the Obama era and a
restoration of America's standing in the world.
History, however, only moves forward. As charming and comforting as Biden's imagery of the
past may be, it is, like Trump's darker outlook, a mirage. If Trump has taught us anything
worthwhile, it is that the past cannot be replicated, no matter how much we might wish
otherwise.
"... One almost feels sorry for Bernie Sanders, who, even at this late stage, still seems to believe that he can drag Joe Biden to the 'left' and secure something/anything? for all those millions of ordinary Americans who supported Bernie's dream of a more just and equal America. ..."
"... Poor Bernie and poor ordinary Americans. It ain't gonna work. Bernie knows that the Demorcratic party has chosen Biden, not him and his political dream is over, once again. ..."
"... With Joe having these " miraculous " wins in the primaries yet bringing nothing new to the table I can only conclude we are set for another 4 yrs of Trumpelstiltskin and his money grubbing ways. ..."
"... Tulsi is inspirational. I'm not talking 'politics' but regarding her willingness to speak truth to corruption. ..."
"... The self-evident externalities of 40 years of unfettered neoliberalism (war, lies, injustice, extreme wealth inequality, etc) now seem to be approaching some sort of explosive end-point. ..."
"... These problems are too entrenched for real politicians to sort out, so what we have instead is a form theatre, albeit a third-rate form of theatre with abysmal actors taking on roles that are far too difficult for them: Trump vs Biden would be the apotheosis this morass. ..."
"... As it turned out, the security state's narrative was easy to pull off because Sander is weak, lacks courage, and was never in it to win it. He never fought back against the DNC. ..."
"... He never called out the cheating in Iowa. There were thousands of volunteers that would be willing to protest on his behalf. Timid Bernie just let it go. ..."
"... Instead Bernie, kept saying "Biden is my good friend" or "Biden can beat Trump." WTF, if Biden can beat Trump then why are you running? Are you campaigning for Biden? ..."
"... The final nail was Tulsi's tweet asking for Biden and Bernie's support for her to right to participate in the next debate. Yang and Marianne Williamson tweeted yes of course, but Bernie was silent. On subsequent mainstream media news appearances Bernie totally ignored Tulsi's candidacy. That was it – Bernie is a lackey – completely intimidated by the DNC. ..."
"... "Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg is a top contender to head up the World Bank. Bloomberg endorsed Biden immediately after dropping out of the 2020 race. ..."
"... Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts as Treasury secretary. Warren dropped out of the race last week after disappointing losses on Super Tuesday but hasn't yet made an endorsement. Axios reported that Warren's name had been floated as part of an effort to unite the fractured Democratic Party around Biden. Some of Biden's advisers have also suggested Warren as a vice-presidential candidate for that reason. ..."
"... Seems Bernie has reprised his role as sheep dog. Probably the reason the Orwellian DNC unpersoned Tulsi is that she probably refused to play. ..."
"... Hundreds of thousands of ballots in California and Texas were discarded. Warren purposely stayed in the race to screw Bernie in Minnesota and Massachusetts, while Klobuchar and Buttigeg dropped out to prop-up Biden. ..."
"... And as I mentioned, Bernie is his own worst enemy, or as I also speculated he was never in it to win it. ..."
"... Blackmail ? The Clinton campaign exercising leverage over Sanders during the election – Podesta/wikileaks emails. 'This isn't in keeping w the agreement. Since we clearly have some leverage, would be good to flag this for him'. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47397 ..."
"... Unfortunately. Trump may end up botching the corona crisis and lose, but whoever wins it's going to be four more years of everything getting worse. ..."
"... Some research on 'possible' fraudulent hidden computer counting from first super Tuesday. http://tdmsresearch.com/ ..."
The handful of American citizens who have by some miracle escaped the wave of death caused
by the coronavirus will be braving the toilet-paper maddened crowds to vote in the latest round
of Democratic primaries today.
There's several more rounds of voting before the convention in July, but this is the last
before the next debate on March 15th.
The process is kinda moot at this point.
The weight of the establishment has thrown itself – for some reason – behind Joe
Biden.
Since his "miraculous"
wins on Super Tuesday we've been treated to dozens of stories praising his "decency", happy
that "angry politics" lost, and calling for the party to "unite
behind" Biden . And that's just The Guardian .
Jonathan Freedland, in his special brand of smug establishment boot-licking, suggested that
Biden being a long-term establishment democrat is his strength in these times of crisis.
You have to wonder if that crisis wasn't awful convenient for Joe, in that instance.
None of the mainstream media have questioned the validity of results or the fairness of the
electoral process, although given the DNC's history you'd be forgiven for doing so.
After Biden's win, Trump immediately went on the offensive (so to speak), questioning
Biden's
mental acuity . This is likely just a taste of things to come.
Given this, you have to wonder what the point of the exercise is. Biden will likely be
mauled by Trump, so are the Democrats even trying to win? Is the plan for Biden to have "health
problems" before the convention, forcing the DNC to pick its own candidate? Or is the plan to
have him run, win and then get Ned Starked by his vice-president whoever he or (more likely)
she may be?
Whatever the plan turns out to be, progressives and leftists all over America will likely be
disappointed in Bernie. If last time is anything to go by, no matter how obviously he (and more
importantly his voters) get screwed over, Sanders will just let it happen.
It seems like Bernie is a serial offender here. Setting up hope only to fold faster than
Superman on laundry day when the pressure is on. You wonder if he's being used as a tool to
engage the youth vote, or just a puppet designed to funnel all real leftist thinkers into a
political cul-de-sac.
The other Great White Hope of American leftists – or should that be "Great Native
American hope"? – Elizabeth Warren, dropped out last week but is yet to endorse her
fellow "progressive", Bernie Sanders. This could mean she's spiteful, or it could mean she's
angling to be Biden's VP nominee. Either way, no real surprise and no real loss. Warren always
talked a better game than she played and she didn't talk all that well.
Oh, and the DNC changed their debate eligibility rules to exclude
Tulsi Gabbard . Something both the other candidates and the vast majority of the mainstream
media have been quiet about.
Questions arise
Are the democrats really rallying behind Joe Biden? why?! Are they
planning to throw the race? Is Joe Biden going senile? Who will each candidate pick as a
running mate? Will the DNC ever acknowledge Tulsi Gabbard exists?
NOBTS ,
If Bernie is real; ie. not sheep-dogging for Hillary again, he can prove it by dropping out
immediately and throwing his delegates to Tulsi so she can debate Joe Biden on Sunday; then
watch the fur fly. .last chance for the left.
Seriously, the only positive play left for Bernie, (if positive change is his intent )would
be to immediately drop out and throw a "Hail Tulsi Pass" downfield ahead of the Sunday
debate.
michaelk ,
One would imagine that Tulsi Gabbard would tick all the liberal/left boxes and virtues the
Guardian pretends to adore and aspire to. She seems almost too perfect in my eyes another
story perhaps? Anyway, one wonders what all those politically correct and so obvioulsy woke
feminist ladies at the Guardian have against Tulsi? The Guardian seems to have decided that
its future lies overseas, in America, which is very odd for a newspaper/platform based in the
UK? Consequently, they are increasingly obsessed with moving closer and closer to the
Democrat party in the US.
This is like the BBC that keeps talking to Americans about absolutely everything of
importance that happens in the world and seeking their insights and opinions to a truly
remarkably degree, considering how little they know and understand about the rest of the
world and how poor they are at foreign languages and historical knowledge. Christ they know
next to nothing about their own history, let alone the rest of the world! The idea that all
these Americans are authorities on the world is ridiculous.
Harry Stotle ,
The ghosting of Gabbard illustrates how the MSM act in concert, and how they look after their
own, i.e. backing those understand their role as puppets for corporate backers.
It also illustrates how the likes of the Guardian turn identity politics off and on like a
tap, but more importantly how even shibboleths like identity politics are still secondary to
an economic model that has placed us on the road to armegeddon.
Maxine ,
Well, Tulsi is FAR from "too perfect" .She voluntarily took part in the Bush/Cheny invasion
of Iraq .How could anybody with a working mind have believed the lies of these nortorious
criminals? .And what sort of judgement did this show? .Just as bad, she is a big fan of
India's monstrous Right-Wing leader, Modi .Nevertheless, the DNC's throwing her out of the
debate is another hideous sign of its corruption .Like her or not, she should have her
opinions heard by the public.
Maxine ,
Don't get me wrong, I find the Gaurdian as despicable as CNN, MSNBC, FOX, the NYT and the
rest of the American MSM .OffG is a god-send.
Admin2 ,
Thanks Maxine!
michaelk ,
One almost feels sorry for Bernie Sanders, who, even at this late stage, still seems to
believe that he can drag Joe Biden to the 'left' and secure something/anything? for all those
millions of ordinary Americans who supported Bernie's dream of a more just and equal America.
Poor Bernie and poor ordinary Americans. It ain't gonna work. Bernie knows that the
Demorcratic party has chosen Biden, not him and his political dream is over, once again.
Now it's all about stopping the 'monster' Trump first and foremost. The coming election
won't actually be about anything of real substance, nothing like Bernie's political ideas
about healthcare and education; but it'll be a crass referendum about Trump's personality.
Biden, of course, doesn't really have a personality anymore, that's going fast, along with
his mental capacity.
Trump will smash him to pieces and be re-elected again. Four more years,
at least.
Maxine ,
I would have voted for Bernie in 2016 if the DNC hadn't rigged the primary on behalf of
Hillary .But I was overwhelmingly disappointed that he in the end supported her .Sadly, I am
appalled that once again he announced he would support Biden if the latter won the primary
this time. How could he?. Hillary and Biden are diametrically opposed to every one of
Sander's professed principles!
Andy ,
With Joe having these " miraculous " wins in the primaries yet bringing nothing new to the
table I can only conclude we are set for another 4 yrs of Trumpelstiltskin and his money
grubbing ways.
As for Michelle Obama coming into the fight , I can only laugh and carry on
with my life. I fail to see what she has to offer, other than being Barry's wife. Not really
awe – inspiring stuff. Young Hilary must be turning in her coffin at the thought of
being pipped to the post, as the first female President by another ex presidents wife.
We
truly are living in bizarro times. The men behind the curtain must be laughing their
collective arses off at the results of this circus they have created.
Tulsi is inspirational.
I'm not talking 'politics' but regarding her willingness to speak truth to corruption.
harry stotle ,
America dispensed with the idea of democracy some time ago.
The self-evident externalities of 40 years of unfettered neoliberalism (war, lies,
injustice, extreme wealth inequality, etc) now seem to be approaching some sort of explosive
end-point.
There may be a full blown international conflict, rather than asymmetrical power used to
intimidate weaker states (led by the USA, and backed to the hilt by Britain, Israel, and
KSA).
These problems are too entrenched for real politicians to sort out, so what we have
instead is a form theatre, albeit a third-rate form of theatre with abysmal actors taking on
roles that are far too difficult for them: Trump vs Biden would be the apotheosis this
morass.
Pity more citizens in America fail to understand what has been done to them, or what this
corrupt regime has inflicted on rest of the world.
Britain is no better – to expose what is happening we need a functioning MSM but what
we have instead is the Guardian and BBC: platforms that are now infamous for churning out low
calibre, or fake news.
Is the plan for Biden to have "health problems" before the convention, forcing the DNC
to pick its own candidate?
That's my theory. I think they're going to suddenly 'discover' that Joltin' Joe has
'health problems' and then roll out their real candidate on the second ballot at the
convention this summer–probably Michelle Obama.
Will the DNC ever acknowledge Tulsi Gabbard exists?
I think our only hope now is that the Corona Virus kills all other politicians in the US,
leaving only Tulsi alive. Of course, the DNC would probably still find some way to deny her
the nomination somehow
michaelk ,
The DNC's election tactics were superb. Corrupt, rotten, foul and manipulative as well, but
they worked. The swathe of candidates at the start gave the impression of a democratic and
fair race, whilst deflecting people away from the stark choice of supporting Biden or Sanders
from the beginning.
Whilst Trump succeeded by first capturing the Republican party and then going on to win
the presidential election; Sanders chose not to follow that strategy, apparently believing,
though it's an extraordinary thing to believe, that the leadership of the party was going to
allow him to win the nomination 'fairly.'
Biden against Trump is going to be the worst, most grotesque, election contest, ever seen
in the United States. Two totally unworthy candidates battling it out over the rotting corpse
of a dying democracy. Probably the best result would be if most people just stayed at home on
election day and boycotted the entire ghastly event.
wardropper ,
Yes. People should just stay home. But of course there is a regular percentage of observers
who are incensed by the idea that people will realize how little effect their vote truly
has.
"It's treason not to vote", they rage, quite oblivious to the really treasonous system
which manipulates votes according to something quite different from the interests of
democracy.
wardropper ,
It would be interesting to see, (although it's not going to happen) how the media, faced with
an absolute zero voting turnout, would still manage to yap on about a "neck and neck race",
with the most corrupt party emerging the clear winner after all
Gary Weglarz ,
The Democratic Party candidate selection process continues to roll along providing all the
tension and suspense of an impending colonoscopy – sans anesthetic. It has been clear
since 25 (yes 25) Democratic Party challengers have already "dropped out" of the race –
that divide and conquer would be the order of the day. Spread the electorate out among a
ridiculous number of mainstream centrist candidates and then throw all that support to one
candidate – Joe Biden. Why would the party establishment choose Biden? Perhaps the
following recent quote from Joe might shed some light. In trying to reference the Declaration
of Independence Biden had the following to say to a crowd at a campaign rally:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men and women created by -- you know, you
know . . . the thing."
Since we all know "the thing" is said to "work in mysterious ways" – one can deduce
that the Democratic Party elites are perhaps depending upon "the thing" to work some sort of
a miracle for them. At any rate it is all rather "mysterious" indeed.
Since Tulsi Gabbard has had the temerity to not join the 25 brain-dead placeholders and to
"drop out" herself, and since she has further shown the very bad form of continuing to speak
to anyone who will listen about America's illegal amoral regime-change wars – she has
sadly had to be simply – "disappeared." Yes, I know, this term is usually associated
with the death-squad democracies my government supports endlessly and shamelessly in Latin
America, but if nothing else our American MSM have shown that you don't need death squads
when they are on the job. They are quite capable of completely and entirely "disappearing"
anyone sharing a message that has not been – "oligarchy approved." Trying to find
reference to Tulsi in MSM is like trying to get through a day without being brutally reminded
of Joe Biden's blinding dementia problem – pretty much impossible.
As the author suggests the Democratic Party establishment surely must have some plan other
than simply sabotaging Sanders and then throwing a demented Biden to the Orange One to act as
a pinata during the presidential debates. We American's do love "reality TV," but this I fear
would be about as crass and horrific a spectacle as watching someone drown puppies on live
television. Surely we must assume that the DNC and party oligarchy plan to use Biden as yet
another "place-holder" to be replaced between now and fall presidential debates. The name
"Hillary 'the rot' Clinton comes to mind – and suddenly one is reminded that there are
worse things in life than a colonoscopy.
Of course the actual credibility of all of this spectacle to date depends upon one
actually believing that both the polling numbers, and the voting processes, are honest and
ethical and accurate, which seems to me to be about as likely as "you know, you know . . .
the thing," performing some sort of a "miracle" on behalf of the Democratic Party so that it
can valiantly vanquish the Orange One – using of all things – a dementia
sufferer.
From my limited vantage point here in southern California it would appear that America is
very much like a runaway train speeding toward a very very thick brick wall while gaining
speed minute by minute. This train of course has no "driver" – save the inexorable laws
of history as they pertain to crumbling "empires."
With that in mind I think I'll go shopping again so I can pretend none of this is
happening – while joining with my neighbors in "hoarding" as much toilet paper as I
possibly can! Actually, truth be told, the local toilet paper supply is now long gone and
people are now hoarding paper towels – (I kid you not) – which of course portends
a lot of very very sore bottoms by the time this is all over.
Seamus Padraig ,
You can have a dogshit sandwich or a catshit sandwich, just so long as its kosher.
So true! +1000
Charlotte Russe ,
Unfortunately, for all of Bernie's enthusiastic supporter 2020 was a redux of 2016. Amnesia,
initially sets in caused by the initial excitement. Bernie's campaign overwhelms those
yearning for change. Sanders is cognizant of how young voters and the marginalized are
economically suffering. He knows exactly what to say to arouse an audience of thousands.
Devoted crowds eagerly rally around Bernie anticipating the upcoming primaries, believing
he'll win everyone of them. After all, how could anyone be against a message promoting social
justice.
And lo and behold, right out of the box the security state shenanigans begin. A "Shadow
app" surfaces in Iowa, followed by a narrow win in New Hampshire. And although Bernie won the
popular vote in the first two primaries he still comes out the loser to CIA Pete. However,
not to be deterred Bernie won the Nevada caucus in a landslide. That was the moment when
security state needed to make its move. It was now or never. These ghouls could not let
Bernie pick up any more momentum. If they did, it would be too late to stop
him–Milwaukee could turn into a bloodbath. It was time for the intelligence agencies to
take a stand.
Clyburn a sellout bourgeois conservative black was called upon to do his duty. You don't
get to be a "misleader" of the poor and the dejected if you won't convince them to smile
while jumping off a cliff.
Slick Clyburn, gathered all the other crooked black politicians and they united in force
behind brain dead Biden. When misleader Clyburn speaks his downtrodden constituency listens.
South Carolina was a wipeout–Biden overwhelmingly won. And that's all the security
state needed. Using the state-run mainstream media news propaganda machine in 72 hours
Biden's campaign was raised like Lazarus from the dead.
Drooling Joe, received a slew of slick endorsements from all the longtime party hacks. A
narrative was easily generated– Sanders was a loser and only Biden could beat Trump. At
the end of day, don't you dumbasses want to beat Trump. So let's unite behind alzheimer
Joe–he's our best chance.
As it turned out, the security state's narrative was easy to pull off because Sander is
weak, lacks courage, and was never in it to win it. He never fought back against the DNC.
He
never called out the cheating in Iowa. There were thousands of volunteers that would be
willing to protest on his behalf. Timid Bernie just let it go. There were other things
showing Bernie's lack of interest in winning. He stupidly embraced the Russiagate concocted
narrative and then was victimized by it himself. He refused to tear into Biden describing in
detail how every piece of reactionary legislation Joe passed was based on payoffs he'd
received for either his son or his brother. In South Carolina, Bernie never used the millions
donated to play video clips proving Biden is a warmongering racist.
Instead Bernie, kept saying "Biden is my good friend" or "Biden can beat Trump." WTF, if
Biden can beat Trump then why are you running? Are you campaigning for Biden?
The final nail was Tulsi's tweet asking for Biden and Bernie's support for her to right to
participate in the next debate. Yang and Marianne Williamson tweeted yes of course, but
Bernie was silent. On subsequent mainstream media news appearances Bernie totally ignored
Tulsi's candidacy. That was it – Bernie is a lackey – completely intimidated by the
DNC.
Naturally the DNC didn't want Tulsi near the debate stage–she's the bravest of the
lot. Tulsi would have proved Biden was a crook and a war criminal. Tulsi presence would be a
boom for bernie, but Bernie didn't want that since he was in cahoots with the DNC.
And in the end, that's what it was always all about NOTHING. Bernie is the Tammy and Jim
Baker of politics a prophet of false hope. He gathers up all the guiless and guillibe and
then tosses them into the lion's den.
In Biden's case it's easy to know why the slithering DC establishment gang embraced him
with open arms -- they all wanted to come back home
Here are some of the people Biden is considering for senior positions, per Axios:
"Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg is a top contender to head up the World Bank.
Bloomberg endorsed Biden immediately after dropping out of the 2020 race.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts as Treasury secretary. Warren dropped out of the
race last week after disappointing losses on Super Tuesday but hasn't yet made an
endorsement. Axios reported that Warren's name had been floated as part of an effort to unite
the fractured Democratic Party around Biden. Some of Biden's advisers have also suggested
Warren as a vice-presidential candidate for that reason.
Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, as the US ambassador to the
United Nations or the US trade representative. Buttigieg also endorsed Biden shortly after
dropping out.
Some Biden advisers see Sen. Kamala Harris of California as a contender for attorney
general if she's not on the ticket.
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Bank of America Vice Chairman Anne Finucane have both
been floated for positions at the Treasury Department.
The Biden campaign is also considering a slew of veterans from the Obama administration
for key positions. Among those being considered:
Former Secretary of State John Kerry may reprise his role or take on a Cabinet position
focused on combating climate change.
The former national security adviser Susan Rice may be nominated for a State Department
role.
Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates is a contender for attorney general."
Every loathsome contemptible neoliberal military interventionist is waiting in the wings
to continue where Obama left off ..
Super Tuesday was so obviously rigged. The vote in California deviated from exit polling by
over 15% and don't get me started on that Shadow app used for the Iowa caucus. The only
difference wasn't as blatantly obvious as the last Primary.
Seems Bernie has reprised his role as sheep dog. Probably the reason the Orwellian DNC
unpersoned Tulsi is that she probably refused to play.
Charlotte Ruse ,
Hundreds of thousands of ballots in California and Texas were discarded. Warren purposely
stayed in the race to screw Bernie in Minnesota and Massachusetts, while Klobuchar and
Buttigeg dropped out to prop-up Biden.
In avid Bernie locations polling centers were closed. And when all else failed voting
machines are hacked. No one should underate the power of state-run mainstream media
propaganda they hammered Sanders and launded the creep Biden.
And as I mentioned, Bernie is his own worst enemy, or as I also speculated he was never in
it to win it.
The elections are more democratic in Afghanistan. When I previously commented on several
posts the Democratic Party Primaries need to be monitored by a UN Raconteur many found it
amusing.
Maxine ,
Why did Bernie become a candidate if he were not in it to win? .I can't figure that one out.
Eric McCoo ,
Blackmail ?
The Clinton campaign exercising leverage over Sanders during the election –
Podesta/wikileaks emails. 'This isn't in keeping w the agreement. Since we clearly have some leverage, would be good
to flag this for him'. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47397
RealPeter ,
There is a lot in what Charlotte says. Unfortunately. Trump may end up botching the corona
crisis and lose, but whoever wins it's going to be four more years of everything getting
worse.
Andy ,
Some research on 'possible' fraudulent hidden computer counting from first super Tuesday.
http://tdmsresearch.com/
Ken ,
The fix is in for the status quo, and it's quite likely another 4 years of the orange
asshole.
Everybody knows (listen to Leonard Cohen) Tulsi Gabbard does not exist, just like everybody
knows Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction, Assad, that Putin Nazi, spread some kind of Bad
Gas in Douma, repeatededly over several years since 2014, which the Intrepid White Helmets
made better–just watch their Hollywood, Oscar winning movie. Of course Joe Biden is
senile, else why would he challenge our carrot-topped Fearless leader, and everybody knows
that Putin-Nazi Boris and Natasha tried to rig the 2016 election but were thwarted by
Moose-Squirel, and other CIA assets.
"... The weight of the establishment has thrown itself – for some reason – behind Joe Biden. Since his "miraculous" wins on Super Tuesday we've been treated to dozens of stories praising his "decency", happy that "angry politics" lost, and calling for the party to "unite behind" Biden . And that's just The Guardian . ..."
"... Jonathan Freedland, in his special brand of smug establishment boot-licking, suggested that Biden being a long-term establishment democrat is his strength in these times of crisis. You have to wonder if that crisis wasn't awful convenient for Joe, in that instance. ..."
The toilet-paper maddened crowds will be braving coronavirus to vote in the latest round of
Democratic primaries today.
There's several more rounds of voting before the convention in July, but this is the last
before the next debate on March 15th.
The process is kinda moot at this point.
The weight of the establishment has thrown itself – for some reason – behind Joe
Biden. Since his "miraculous"
wins on Super Tuesday we've been treated to dozens of stories praising his "decency", happy
that "angry politics" lost, and calling for the party to "unite
behind" Biden . And that's just The Guardian .
Jonathan Freedland, in his special brand of smug establishment boot-licking, suggested that
Biden being a long-term establishment democrat is his strength in these times of crisis.
You have to wonder if that crisis wasn't awful convenient for Joe, in that instance.
... ... ...
Whatever the plan turns out to be, progressives and leftists all over America will likely be
disappointed in Bernie. If last time is anything to go by, no matter how obviously he (and more
importantly his voters) get screwed over, Sanders will just let it happen.
The other Great White Hope of American leftists – or should that be "Great Native
American hope"? – Elizabeth Warren, dropped out last week but is yet to endorse her
fellow "progressive", Bernie Sanders. This could mean she's spiteful, or it could mean she's
angling to be Biden's VP nominee. Either way, no real surprise and no real loss. Warren always
talked a better game than she played and she didn't talk all that well.
Oh, and the DNC changed their debate eligibility rules to exclude
Tulsi Gabbard . Something both the other candidates and the vast majority of the mainstream
media have been quiet about.
Questions arise Are the democrats really rallying behind Joe
Biden? why?! Are they planning to throw the race? Is Joe Biden going senile? Who will each
candidate pick as a running mate? Will the DNC ever acknowledge Tulsi Gabbard exists?
"... Last time around in 2016 you talked about 2016, you remember before the very first vote was cast in Iowa, Hillary Clinton had 500 superdelegates set aside. 500 superdelegates. I thought that that was totally outrageous and absurd and undemocratic. ..."
"... We fought very hard in the Democratic rules process to get rid of all superdelegates. That is my preference. I think it should be the decision of the people, not Washington insiders. We lost, but what we did get is not getting rid of all superdelegates at convention voting but on the first ballot there will be no superdelegates. ..."
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: If at the end of the day it turns out that Vice President Biden is
going to have more delegates than you do heading into the convention, will you drop out?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Of course I'm going to drop out. He
will win. We'll run through -- I suspect we will run through the process letting people have
a right to vote, but if Biden walks into the convention or at the end of the process has more
votes than me, he's the winner.
MADDOW: And that's true whether or not he has a majority or just a plurality?
SANDERS: Absolutely. That's what I've said. Here's the story, and there's some confusion
about this. Last time around in 2016 you talked about 2016, you remember before the very
first vote was cast in Iowa, Hillary Clinton had 500 superdelegates set aside. 500
superdelegates. I thought that that was totally outrageous and absurd and undemocratic.
We fought very hard in the Democratic rules process to get rid of all superdelegates. That
is my preference. I think it should be the decision of the people, not Washington insiders.
We lost, but what we did get is not getting rid of all superdelegates at convention voting
but on the first ballot there will be no superdelegates.
In other words, we go into the first ballot, it is representatives, delegates who are
represented by the people, and I think that that's right. And what I have said is I think it
would be a real, real disaster for the Democratic party if, you know, I'm running against you
and you have more votes than me and I say, well, wait a second, I don't want Rachel. I want
somebody else who didn't get as many votes as she did, let's count the superdelegates' vote
on the second ballot, you know what that would do to the Democratic electorate? People would
say the person who got the most votes didn't get selected.
MADDOW: Most delegates.
SANDERS: Most delegates, I'm sorry, most delegates.
Election results from the computerized vote counts of the 2020 California Democratic Party
presidential primary differed significantly from the results projected by the exit poll
conducted by Edison Research and published by CNN at poll's closing.
According to the exit poll Sanders won big in CA (by 15%). The unobservable computer
counts cut his lead by half (to 7.3%).
In the total delegate count to date, substituting the estimated California and Texas exit
poll delegate apportionments for the apportionments derived from the computer counts, results
in candidate Sanders currently leading candidate Biden by 42 delegates instead of trailing by
45.
The possibility exists that massive voter suppression is currently occurring during the
extended unfinished count of California ballots.
"In light of clear irregularities in voting results in the 2020 Democratic presidential
primary and structural barriers to voter participation, The Grayzone and CODEPINK call on the
Organization of American States (OAS) to provide emergency international election monitors in
the primary contest."
"The OAS must send an emergency election monitoring team to the United States to ensure
independent scrutiny of a presidential primary that has been marred by clear irregularities
and the systematic and highly discriminatory obstruction of citizens' right to vote,"
Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal stated. "
ben @22 has already informed us that he's busy trying to get election monitors:
"The Grayzone and CODEPINK call on the Organization of American States (OAS) to provide
emergency international election monitors ..." Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal stated."
There is nothing subtle about paring down the number of polling stations in populous areas,
or having malfunctioning voting machines, or the surprise of buggered up voter lists,
scrambled with typos, that keep people from getting hold of a ballot.
As much as I'm sure election interference is a factor, I think the biggest story of the
primary is the credulity and submissiveness of the average Democratic voter. Republican
voters gave the middle finger to their establishment and hoisted Trump into the presidency.
Democrats were stampeded into the arms of a demented old segregationist by a pork-fattened
Uncle Tom (Clyburn) and the pansies at MSNBC and the Washington Post. It's a true sight to
behold---Super Tuesday may have been a self inflicted deathblow for the old jackasses; I will
watch the party die with glee.
Strategy is a plan -- a proposed course of action. Strategy demands the analysis of current
conditions and statements of desired goals. But, the primary focus of strategy is "how." How do
we work the transition between what is and what ought to be?
An effective strategy proposes how existing consciousness, resources, and capacities can
achieve a range of political ends. Strategy tries to answer the hardest questions of all: what
to do next and how to do it?
While strategic thinking often relies on one political theory or other it is not the same
exact thing as theory -- its nothing as orderly or elegant as that.
Inside/Outside Strategy
(IOS) is an approach to organizing and movement building that emphasizes learning from and
coordination with resistance movements that have political positions you do not completely
agree with.
IOS is an inclusive rather than an exclusive approach. A "both/and" attitude can help us
resolve the static binaries and false choices that divide us and waste our energies. IOS is an
alternative to the endless arguments and fragmentation that characterize the conventional
left-wing pursuit of the "correct line." IOS is particularly useful in organizing mass
movements, coalitions, big-tent political parties, and revolutions.
Effective organizations regularly use a strategic planning process. While there are
variations all include an assessment of the various forces in play; yourself, allies and
adversaries; a shortlist of goals; the selection of tactics and demands; and most crucially --
matching the tactics and tasks to the organizational resources already in hand.
In the spirit of experimentation, the results must be evaluated, criticized and the plan
revised. But always, we start from where we are -- not where we'd like to be or hope to be.
Strategy is permanently
provisional . Strategy is a work in progress, an unending discussion open to revision based
on practice and the constantly shifting political context. Strategy does not provide certainty
but is a guide to action. But the sad fact remains that much activism is simply reactive or
willfully avoids strategic work.
The IOS Remains A Coherent Strategic Framework For An Incoherent World
In 2014, when I started writing about IOS, I was hard-pressed to find good sources and
examples -- the discussion was just getting underway. A lot has changed since then. IOS has
become a topic of discussion among strategy-minded activists.
IOS reaches its greatest potential as an overall strategy for social transformation. It can
be applied to a wide variety of situations and movements. Still, most discussions of IOS focus
narrowly on the relationships between social movements or organizing on the one hand and
electoral work on the other.
IOS emphasizes experimentation in practice rather than doctrinal rigor or ideological
clarity as a way of rebalancing a movement drunk on polemics and the hangover of analysis
paralysis. IOS gives priority to engagement with the millions rather than debates between or
within organizations.
Personal experience is the best teacher by far and that is why job #1 is to encourage people
to take action. Real change becomes possible when millions act on the stage of history and not
before. And when the millions move they will burst every comfortable category the "left" prizes
so dearly. Change will not be orderly.
The mixed reaction of the US and French left to the Yellow Vests is just one example of our
inability to deal with the contradictions unfolding before us. It reminds me of Lenin's
observations of the 1916 Irish Revolution .
"To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the
colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie
with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and
semi-proletarian masses against oppression against national oppression, etc.-to imagine all
this is to repudiate social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says, "We are
for socialism", and another, somewhere else and says, "We are for imperialism", and that will
he a social revolution!
Lenin continues:
Whoever expects a "pure" social revolution will never live to see it. Such a person pays
lip-service to revolution without understanding what revolution is.
The socialist revolution cannot be anything other than an outburst of mass struggle on the
part of all and sundry oppressed and discontented elements. Inevitably, sections of the petty
bourgeoisie and of the backward workers will participate in it -- without such participation,
mass struggle is impossible, without it no revolution is possible ."
Let's start working on the world as we find it not as we wish it to be.[1] That in no way
means we accept the world the way it is. But, it does mean we are working toward a strategy
that is far more effective than moral outrage or ideological precision.
It's not that raising consciousness is a waste of time -- it is vitally important. We need
to bring the empire into view first and foremost because that is where the crisis cooks the
hottest. Yes, we need the ideological struggle but tempered and trained by the complicated
political context we find ourselves in. And, there is nothing more full of contradictions than
revolution -- nothing.
Deal with that or we deal ourselves a losing hand.
Notes.
1. While the concept of "working with the world the way we find it," is most often
associated with Saul Alinsky it is a really just a practical application of the most useful
insight Marx and Engles ever offered: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as
they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances
existing already, given and transmitted from the past."
I guess another mixed positive is that it shows you don't need Bernie Sanders to crash the
stock markets. The thing is quite unstable on its own thank you very much.
Numerous so-called "front groups" operate in the United States. A front group is very simply
an organization that pretends to have a certain program while at the same time using that
identity as cover to promote a hidden agenda that is something quite different, often opposed
to what is being said publicly. The Global Climate Coalition is, for example, an organization
funded by fossil fuel providers that works to deny climate change and other related issues. The
Groundwater Protection Council does not protect water resources at all and instead receives its
money from the fracking industry, which resists any regulation of water pollution it causes.
The Partnership for a New American Economy has nothing to do with protecting the U.S. economy
and instead seeks to replace American workers with H1B immigrant laborers. Even the benign
sounding National Sleep Foundation, is in reality a Big Pharma creation intended to convince
Americans that they need to regularly use sleep inducing drugs.
Front groups in a political context can be particularly dangerous as they deceive the voter
into supporting candidates or promoting policies that have a hidden agenda. The
Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, is, for example, uninterested in
preserving democracies unless that democracy is Israel, which many observers would prefer to
describe as an apartheid state. It is funded by Zionists billionaires and its leadership meets
regularly with Israeli officials. The American Enterprise Institute is likewise a neocon
mouthpiece for economic imperialism and regime change disguising itself as a free market
advocate and the Brookings Institution is its liberal interventionist counterpart.
Front groups are sometimes largely fictional, on occasion creations of an intelligence
agency to give the impression that there exists in a country a formidable opposition to
policies pursued by the governing regime. Recent developments in Venezuela and Bolivia rather
suggest the CIA creation of front groups in both countries while the Ukrainian regime change
that took place in 2014 also benefited greatly from a U.S. created and supported opposition to
the legitimate Viktor Yanukovych government.
Didn't take long for Sanders to make
COVID-19 a POTUS campaign issue . "After former Vice President Joe Biden on Monday
morning declined to address or answer questions about the coronavirus during an event in
Grand Rapids, Michigan, Sen. Bernie Sanders urged the public to tune in to a COVID-19
roundtable discussion the senator is hosting Monday afternoon in Detroit alongside nurses,
physicians, and other medical professionals:
"'This crisis is another clear example of why we must guarantee healthcare as a right for
every single man, woman, and child in this country,' Sanders wrote. 'This crisis is another
example of why we need universal paid family leave in this country, so people who are sick
can stay home, recover, and prevent the virus from spreading. This crisis is another example
of why we must take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry.'
"'Health experts agree that the spread of the coronavirus will likely get worse before it
gets better,' Sanders added. 'Donald Trump must stop spreading lies and fear, and leave the
science to scientists and health professionals, not politicians. We must make certain that we
are prepared for a pandemic.'"
What a comparable example. Sanders is on top of the issue and acting on it while Biden is
doing the same as Trump by showing his ignorance and inability to act rapidly on a major
problem. A video of the discussion is available at the link.
"... ...Trump is mainly interested in deflecting blame and propping up the stock market, and the DNC is mainly interested in saving their jobs and gravy train by kneecapping sanders; neither gives a crap about dealing effectively with the virus ..."
"... One problem is that we need massive government intervention to spread out the incidence of new cases to lessen the load on hospitals. The other is that we need massive government intervention to keep the economy running, and by providing funds to people who work for a living. ..."
"... Trump does not get this and he will fail miserably between now and November. ..."
"... Biden is toast. He's senile and unable to respond effectively. I hope Bernie survives. He's old and has a heart condition, both make him more likely than others to succumb to the disease. ..."
...Trump is mainly interested in deflecting blame and propping up the stock market, and the DNC is mainly interested in saving their jobs and gravy train by kneecapping sanders; neither
gives a crap about dealing effectively with the virus.
Trump's gov probably has its eyes mainly on that (apart from the stocks of course) more than
anything else, and how they will turn it to their own advantage when it happens in the US
LINK Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, the Telegraph, UK. in the UK,
The Express reported the system is stressed and cancer care will be
affected as in deciding who gets treatment basis good prognosis. Now just in; anyone with the common cold must self-isolate
Trump Admin attacked on COVID-19 response. well, $$$$trillions allocated for the war machine and $0.02 for healthcare.
Sanders is pummelled by the monied-elites due his promoting medicare-for-all. Priorities misplaced.
COVID-19 brings the chickens home as the looming credit crunch will be worst than the
virus:
business travel for all meetings are cancelled. Stay and work from home, Tourism whacked; we
are told to avoid cruise ships; there is that multiplier effect which includes .gov
revenues.
Should big corporations get another bailout then, at the very least, credit cards' debt
jubilee will be demanded for joe and john mainstreet.
Trump is toast. He can't even comprehend the magnitude of the problems with COVID-19. One problem is that we need massive
government intervention to spread out the incidence of new cases to lessen the load on hospitals. The other is that we need
massive government intervention to keep the economy running, and by providing funds to people who work for a living.
Trump does not get this and he will fail miserably between now and November. If we're lucky, he'll be removed from
office by any means necessary. Too bad Schiff and Pelosi blew their credibility on the phony impeachment issue. We need to
remove Trump for incapacity to do the job.
Biden is toast. He's senile and unable to respond effectively. I hope Bernie survives. He's old and has a heart condition, both make him more likely than
others to succumb to the disease.
If Bernie survives, he's a shoo-in. Bernie is a socialist and the only way to handle the
novel disease is through socialism. Market forces are too slow to react.
If Bernie survives and gets elected, national single payer insurance is probably going to
happen and in a way that benefits the patients rather then the insurance companies.
With regard to our host's paragraph beginning "The U.S. must take measures..."
None of this will occur. Mike Pence would rather die and witness his countrymen die than
countenance any of this. The overwhelming majority of the nations elite feel the same way. We
are going to find out what course the disease takes left to its own devices. Rational conduct
is not a factor.
Looks like Trump is already lame duck President. And this will not change with the
elections
Notable quotes:
"... I'm not suggesting that President Trump deserves a second term. He didn't deserve a first one. He's a terrible person and an awful president. What I'm saying is that it is more likely than not that he has already done most of the damage that he can do. ..."
"... An achievement-filled second term would be a major reversal of recent historical precedent. Things may get worse under four more years of this idiot, but not much worse as the Democratic doomsday cult warns. ..."
"... I hope Obama enjoyed all those trips to Martha's Vineyard because that's pretty much all he has to show for term number two. ..."
"... George W. Bush screwed up one thing after another during his second four years in office, which was bookended by his hapless non-response to the destruction of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina and his role in the ineffective and wasteful bailout of Wall Street megabanks during the subprime mortgage financial crisis. What began as an illegal war of aggression against Iraq became, after reelection, a catastrophic quagmire that destroyed America's international reputation. ..."
"... Reagan was both senile and bogged down in Iran Contra. ..."
"... "If Trump wins a second term this November," James Pethokoukis writes in The Week, Trump "might propose more tax cuts, but they are more likely to be payroll tax cuts geared toward middle-class workers instead of income tax cuts for rich people and corporations. ..."
You've heard it so often that you may well believe it's true: Trump's second term would be a
disaster. For the Democratic Party. For the United States. For democracy itself. "The
reelection of Donald Trump," warns Nancy Pelosi, "would do irreparable damage to the United
States."
But would it really?
Exceptions are a normal part of history but the record suggests that Trump would not be one
of the few presidents who get much done during their second terms. There are three reasons for
the sophomore slump:
By definition, political honeymoons expire (well) before the end of a president's first
term. Elections have consequences in the form of policy changes that make good on campaign
promises. But turning a pledge into reality comes at a cost. Capital gets spent, promises are
broken, alliances shatter. Oftentimes, those changes prove disappointing. Recent example:
Obamacare. Voters often express their displeasure by punishing the party that controls the
White House with losses in Congress in midterm elections.
The permanent campaign fed by the 24-7 news cycle makes lame ducks gimpier than ever. Before
a president gets to take his or her second oath of office, news media and future hopefuls are
already looking four years ahead.
Scandals come usually home to roost during second terms. It's tough to push laws through a
Congress that is dragging your top officials through one investigation after another.
I'm not suggesting that President Trump deserves a second term. He didn't deserve a
first one. He's a terrible person and an awful president. What I'm saying is that it is more
likely than not that he has already done most of the damage that he can do.
Pundits and Democratic politicians have been pushing a self-serving narrative that implies
that everything Trump has done so far was merely a warm-up for the main event, that he would
want and be able to go even further if given the chance if November 2020 goes his way.
That doesn't make sense. Who in their right mind thinks Trump has been holding anything
back? Which president has failed to go big within a year or two?
An achievement-filled second term would be a major reversal of recent historical
precedent. Things may get worse under four more years of this idiot, but not much worse as the
Democratic doomsday cult warns.
President Obama didn't get much done during his second term, which began with the bungled
rollout of the federal and state "health exchanges." He signed the Paris climate accord,
renewed diplomatic relations with Cuba and negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran. But the ease
with which his successor canceled those achievements showcased both the ephemerality of
policies pushed through without thorough public propaganda and a general sense that second-term
laws and treaties are easy to annul. I hope Obama enjoyed all those trips to Martha's
Vineyard because that's pretty much all he has to show for term number two.
George W. Bush screwed up one thing after another during his second four years in
office, which was bookended by his hapless non-response to the destruction of New Orleans by
Hurricane Katrina and his role in the ineffective and wasteful bailout of Wall Street megabanks
during the subprime mortgage financial crisis. What began as an illegal war of aggression
against Iraq became, after reelection, a catastrophic quagmire that destroyed America's
international reputation.
Whatever the merits of Bill Clinton's legislative and policy agenda -- welfare reform, NAFTA
and bombing Kosovo would all have happened under a Republican president -- having anything
substantial or positive to point to was well in the rearview mirror by his second term, when he
found himself embroiled in the Monica Lewinsky affair and impeachment.
Reagan was both senile and bogged down in Iran Contra.
Even the most productive and prolific president of the 20th century had little to show for
his second term. FDR's legacy would be nearly as impressive today if he'd only served four
years.
Anything could happen. Donald Trump may use his second term to push dramatic changes. If
there were another terrorist attack, for example, he would probably try to exploit national
shock and fear to the political advantage of the right. Another Supreme Court justice could
pass away. On the other hand, Trump is old, clinically obese and out of shape. He might die.
It's doubtful that Mike Pence, a veep chosen for his lack of charisma, would be able to carry
on the Trump tradition as more than the head of a caretaker government.
Analysts differ on what Trump 2.0 might look like. Regardless of their perspective, however,
no one expects anything big.
"If Trump wins a second term this November," James Pethokoukis writes in The Week, Trump
"might propose more tax cuts, but they are more likely to be payroll tax cuts geared toward
middle-class workers instead of income tax cuts for rich people and corporations. He'll
look for a new Federal Reserve chair less worried about inflation than current boss Jerome
Powell, who deserves at least partial credit for the surging stock market and continuing
expansion. Trump will let the national debt soar rather than trimming projected Medicare and
Social Security benefits. And there will be more protectionism, although it may be called
'industrial policy.'"
"The early outlines of the [second-term] agenda are starting to emerge," Andrew Restuccia
reports in The Wall Street Journal. "Among the issues under consideration: continuing the
administration's efforts to lower prescription drug prices, pushing for a broad infrastructure
bill and taking another crack at reforming the country's immigration system, [White House]
officials said." They also want to reduce the deficit.
Under Trump, immigration reform is never a good thing. But it's hard to imagine anything
major happening without Democratic cooperation.
Internationally, many observers expect Trump to continue to nurture his isolationist
tendencies. But President Bernie Sanders would probably have similar impulses to focus on
America First.
By all means, vote against Trump. But don't freak out at the thought of a second term.
Mourn what happened under the first one instead -- and work to reverse it.
"... The consolidation of the Democratic Party behind Biden is a damning exposure, not merely of the politically reactionary character of this organization, but of the contemptible falsification on which the Sanders campaign has been based: that it is possible to transform the Democratic Party, the oldest American capitalist party, into the spearhead of a "political revolution" that will bring about fundamental social change. ..."
"... It is evident that the Democratic Party leadership in Congress, as well as the Biden campaign and the Democratic National Committee, aims to run the 2020 campaign on the exact model of Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016: portraying Trump as personally unqualified to be president and as a Russian stooge, while opposing any significant social reform and delivering constant reassurances to the ruling financial aristocracy that a restored Democratic administration will follow in the footsteps of Obama, showering trillions on Wall Street and doing the bidding of the military-intelligence apparatus. ..."
"... One could ask of the nine ex-candidates who have now endorsed Biden, why they were candidates in the first place? Why did they bother to run against the former vice president, clearly the preferred candidate of the party establishment? None of them voices any significant political differences with Biden. All of them hail the right-wing political record of the Obama-Biden administration, even though that administration produced the social and economic devastation that made possible the election of Donald Trump. ..."
"... African American Democratic Party leaders, including Representative James Clyburn in South Carolina and hundreds of others, represent one of the most right-wing and politically corrupt sections of the party. ..."
"... The thinking of this layer was summed up in a column Saturday in the Washington Post ..."
"... What the Washington Post ..."
"... the entire black Democratic Party establishment has lined up behind Biden -- including, most recently, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot and Senator Kamala Harris. ..."
"... Sanders seeks to counter this all-out Democratic Party campaign for Biden by seeking to woo sections of the trade union bureaucracy with appeals to economic nationalism. ..."
"... More than 13 million people, mainly workers and youth, voted for Sanders in 2016 in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. Millions more continue to support him this year, with the same result. Sanders will wrap up his campaign by embracing the right-wing nominee of the Democratic Party and telling his supporters that this is the only alternative to the election, and now re-election of Trump. ..."
The campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is making a last-ditch stand in the
Michigan primary Tuesday, amid mounting indications that the Democratic Party as a whole has
moved decisively into the camp of his main rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. Sanders
cancelled rallies in Mississippi, Missouri and Illinois -- all states where he trails Biden
in the polls -- in order to concentrate all his efforts in Michigan, where he won an upset
victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016.
On Sunday, Senator Kamala Harris endorsed Biden, the latest of nine former presidential
contenders to announce their support for their one-time rival, joining Pete Buttigieg, Amy
Klobuchar, Michael Bloomberg, Beto O'Rourke, John Delaney, Seth Moulton, Tim Ryan, and Deval
Patrick. Harris is to join Biden for a campaign rally in Detroit Monday.
The consolidation of the Democratic Party behind Biden is a damning exposure, not
merely of the politically reactionary character of this organization, but of the contemptible
falsification on which the Sanders campaign has been based: that it is possible to transform
the Democratic Party, the oldest American capitalist party, into the spearhead of a
"political revolution" that will bring about fundamental social change.
Former Vice President Biden is the personification of the decrepit and right-wing
character of the Democratic Party. In the past 10 days alone, Biden has declared himself a
candidate for the US Senate, rather than president, confused his wife and his sister as they
stood on either side of him, called himself an "Obiden Bama Democrat," and declared that 150
million Americans died in gun violence over the past decade. This is not just a matter of
Biden's declining mental state: it is the Democratic Party, not just its presidential
frontrunner, that is verging on political senility.
It is evident that the Democratic Party leadership in Congress, as well as the Biden
campaign and the Democratic National Committee, aims to run the 2020 campaign on the exact
model of Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016: portraying Trump as personally unqualified to be
president and as a Russian stooge, while opposing any significant social reform and
delivering constant reassurances to the ruling financial aristocracy that a restored
Democratic administration will follow in the footsteps of Obama, showering trillions on Wall
Street and doing the bidding of the military-intelligence apparatus.
One could ask of the nine ex-candidates who have now endorsed Biden, why they were
candidates in the first place? Why did they bother to run against the former vice president,
clearly the preferred candidate of the party establishment? None of them voices any
significant political differences with Biden. All of them hail the right-wing political
record of the Obama-Biden administration, even though that administration produced the social
and economic devastation that made possible the election of Donald Trump.
Even more revolting, if that is possible, is the embrace of Biden by the black Democratic
politicians. The former senator from Delaware is identified with some of the most repugnant
episodes in the history of race relations in America: the abusive treatment of Anita Hill,
when she testified against the nomination of Clarence Thomas, before Biden's Judiciary
Committee; an alliance with segregationist James Eastland on school integration in the early
1970s, highlighted at a debate by Kamala Harris, eight months before she endorsed Biden; and
the passage of a series of "law-and-order" bills that disproportionately jailed hundreds of
thousands of African Americans, all of them pushed through the Senate by Biden.
How did a politician who boasted of his close relationships with Eastland and Strom
Thurmond become the beneficiary of a virtual racial bloc vote by African Americans in the
Southern states? Because African American Democratic Party leaders, including
Representative James Clyburn in South Carolina and hundreds of others, represent one of the
most right-wing and politically corrupt sections of the party.
The thinking of this layer was summed up in a column Saturday in the
Washington Post by Colbert King, a former State Department official and local
banker, a prominent member of the African American elite in the nation's capital, who wrote
in outrage, "America's black billionaires have no place in a Bernie Sanders
world."
King denounced the suggestion that black CEOs and billionaires are "greedy, corrupt
threats to America's working families or the cause of economic disparities and human misery."
Voicing the fears of his class, he continued, "I know there are those out there who buy the
notion that America consists of a small class of privileged, rapacious super-rich lording
over throngs of oppressed, capitalist-exploited workers. You can see it in poll numbers
showing the share of Americans who prefer socialism to capitalism inching upward."
What the Washington Post columnist reveals is what Bernie Sanders has done
his best to cover up: the Democratic Party is a party of the capitalist class. It can no more
be converted to socialism than the CIA can become an instrument of the struggle against
American imperialism.
True, Sanders can dredge up Jesse Jackson for a last-minute endorsement, proof that
demagogues engaged in diverting mass left-wing sentiment into the graveyard of the Democratic
Party recognize and embrace each other across the decades. But with that exception, the
entire black Democratic Party establishment has lined up behind Biden -- including, most
recently, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot and Senator Kamala Harris.
Harris's statement is worth quoting. "I have decided that I am with great enthusiasm going
to endorse Joe Biden for president of the United States," she said. "I believe in Joe. I
really believe in him, and I have known him for a long time." The senator was no doubt
responding to the incentives dangled in front of her by Biden after she left the race last
December, when he gushed, "She is solid. She can be president someday herself. She can be the
vice president. She can go on to be a Supreme Court justice. She can be an attorney
general."
Sanders seeks to counter this all-out Democratic Party campaign for Biden by seeking
to woo sections of the trade union bureaucracy with appeals to economic nationalism. New
Sanders television ads in Michigan feature a United Auto Workers member declaring that his
state "has been decimated by trade deals," while Sanders declares that Biden backed NAFTA,
drawing the conclusion, "With a record like that, we can't trust him to protect American jobs
or defeat Donald Trump." The Vermont senator will find that very few auto workers follow the
political lead of the corrupt gangsters who head the UAW.
More than 13 million people, mainly workers and youth, voted for Sanders in 2016 in
the Democratic primaries and caucuses. Millions more continue to support him this year, with
the same result. Sanders will wrap up his campaign by embracing the right-wing nominee of the
Democratic Party and telling his supporters that this is the only alternative to the
election, and now re-election of Trump.
Indeed, in appearances on several Sunday television interview programs, Sanders went out
of his way to repeat, as he said on Fox News, "Joe Biden is a friend of mine. Joe Biden is a
decent guy. What Joe has said is if I win the nomination, he'll be there for me, and I have
said if he wins the nomination, I'll be there for him "
Sanders is not a panacea. He is a sheep dog. But neoliberal oligarchs and the Deep State are
afraid of sheep dog too. They need puppets.
Bernie Sanders is actually trying to save the Democratic Party from irrelevance. But
irrelevance does not bother party bureaucracy and Clintons who still rule the party that much:
all they want is money and plush positions.
Notable quotes:
"... Only one thing matters to the oligarchs. It is not democracy. It is not truth. It is not the consent of the governed. It is not income inequality. It is not the surveillance state. It is not endless war. It is not jobs. It is not the climate. It is the primacy of corporate power -- which has extinguished our democracy and left most of the working class in misery -- and the continued increase and consolidation of their wealth. ..."
"... Sanders was a dutiful sheepdog, attempting to herd his disgruntled supporters into the embrace of the Clinton campaign. At his moment of apostasy, when he introduced a motion to nominate Clinton, his delegates had left hundreds of convention seats empty. ..."
"... Sanders refused to support the lawsuit brought against the Democratic National Committee for rigging the primaries against him. ..."
"... Sanders misread the Democratic Party leadership, swamp creatures of the corporate state. He misread the Democratic Party, which is a corporate mirage. Its base can, at best, select preapproved candidates and act as props at rallies and in choreographed party conventions. The Democratic Party voters have zero influence on party politics or party policies. Sanders' naivete, and perhaps his lack of political courage, drove away his most committed young supporters. These followers have not forgiven him for his betrayal. They chose not to turn out to vote in the numbers he needs in the primaries. They are right. He is wrong. We need to overthrow the system, not placate it. ..."
"... Trump and Biden are repugnant figures, doddering into old age with cognitive lapses and no moral cores. Is Trump more dangerous than Biden? Yes. Is Trump more inept and more dishonest? Yes. Is Trump more of a threat to the open society? Yes. Is Biden the solution? No. ..."
"... Biden represents the old neoliberal order . He personifies the betrayal by the Democratic Party of working men and women that sparked the deep hatred of the ruling elites across the political spectrum. He is a gift to a demagogue and con artist like Trump, who at least understands that these elites are detested. Biden cannot plausibly offer change. He can only offer more of the same. And most Americans do not want more of the same. The country's largest voting-age bloc, the 100 million-plus citizens who out of apathy or disgust do not vote, will once again stay home. This demoralization of the electorate is by design. It will, I expect, give Trump another term in office. ..."
There is only one choice in this election. The consolidation of oligarchic power under
Donald Trump or the consolidation of oligarchic power under Joe Biden. The oligarchs, with
Trump or Biden, will win again. We will lose. The oligarchs made it abundantly clear, should
Bernie Sanders miraculously become the Democratic Party nominee, they would join forces with
the Republicans to crush him. Trump would, if Sanders was the nominee, instantly be shorn by
the Democratic Party elites of his demons and his propensity for tyranny. Sanders would be
red-baited -- as he was viciously Friday in The New York Times' " As Bernie
Sanders Pushed for Closer Ties, Soviet Union Spotted Opportunity " -- and turned into a
figure of derision and ridicule.
The oligarchs preach the sermon of the least-worst to us when they attempt to ram a Hillary
Clinton or a Biden down our throats but ignore it for themselves. They prefer Biden over Trump,
but they can live with either.
Only one thing matters to the oligarchs. It is not democracy. It is not truth. It is not the
consent of the governed. It is not income inequality. It is not the surveillance state. It is
not endless war. It is not jobs. It is not the climate. It is the primacy of corporate power --
which has extinguished our democracy and left most of the working class in misery -- and the
continued increase and consolidation of their wealth. It is impossible working within the
system to shatter the hegemony of oligarchic power or institute meaningful reform. Change, real
change, will only come by sustained acts of civil disobedience and mass mobilization, as with
the yellow vests movement in France and the British-based Extinction Rebellion . The longer we are
fooled by the electoral burlesque, the more disempowered we will become.
I was on the streets with protesters in Philadelphia outside the appropriately named Wells
Fargo Center during the 2016 Democratic Convention when hundreds of
Sanders delegates walked out of the hall. "Show me what democracy looks like!" they
chanted, holding Bernie signs above their heads as they poured out of the exits. "This is what
democracy looks like!"
Sanders' greatest tactical mistake was not joining them. He bowed before the mighty altar of
the corporate state. He had desperately tried to stave off a revolt by his supporters and
delegates on the eve of the convention by sending out repeated messages in his name -- most of
them authored by members of the Clinton campaign -- to be respectful, not disrupt the
nominating process and support Clinton. Sanders was a dutiful sheepdog, attempting to herd his
disgruntled supporters into the embrace of the Clinton campaign. At his moment of apostasy,
when he introduced a motion to nominate Clinton, his delegates had left hundreds of convention
seats empty.
After the 2016 convention, Sanders held rallies -- the crowds pitifully small compared to
what he had drawn when he ran as an insurgent -- on Clinton's behalf. He returned to the Senate
to loyally line up behind Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, whose power comes from his
ability to funnel tens of millions of dollars in corporate and Wall Street money to anointed
Democratic candidates. Sanders refused to support the lawsuit brought against the Democratic
National Committee for rigging the primaries against him. He endorsed Democratic candidates who
espoused the neoliberal economic and political positions he claims to oppose. Sanders, who
calls himself an independent, caucused as a Democrat. The Democratic Party determined his
assignments in the Senate. Schumer offered to make Sanders the head of the Senate Budget
Committee if the Democrats won control of the Senate. Sanders became a party apparatchik.
Sanders apparently believed that if he was obsequious enough to the Democratic Party elite,
they would give him
a chance in 2020 , a chance they denied him in 2016. Politics, I suspect he would argue, is
about compromise and the practical. This is true. But playing politics in a system that is not
democratic is about being complicit in the charade. Sanders misread the Democratic Party
leadership, swamp creatures of the corporate state. He misread the Democratic Party, which is a
corporate mirage. Its base can, at best, select preapproved candidates and act as props at
rallies and in choreographed party conventions. The Democratic Party voters have zero influence
on party politics or party policies. Sanders' naivete, and perhaps his lack of political
courage, drove away his most committed young supporters. These followers have not forgiven him
for his betrayal. They chose not to turn out to vote in the numbers he needs in the primaries.
They are right. He is wrong. We need to overthrow the system, not placate it.
Sanders is wounded. The oligarchs will go in for the kill. They will subject him to the same
character assassination, aided by the courtiers in the corporate press, that was directed at
Henry Wallace in 1948 and George McGovern in 1972, the only two progressive presidential
candidates who managed to seriously threaten the ruling elites since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
The feckless liberal class, easily frightened, is already abandoning Sanders, castigating his
supporters with their nauseating self-righteousness and championing Biden as a political
savior.
Trump and Biden are repugnant figures, doddering into old age with cognitive lapses and no
moral cores. Is Trump more dangerous than Biden? Yes. Is Trump more inept and more dishonest?
Yes. Is Trump more of a threat to the open society? Yes. Is Biden the solution? No.
Biden represents the
old neoliberal order . He personifies the betrayal by the Democratic Party of working men
and women that sparked the deep hatred of the ruling elites across the political spectrum. He
is a gift to a demagogue and con artist like Trump, who at least understands that these elites
are detested. Biden cannot plausibly offer change. He can only offer more of the same. And most
Americans do not want more of the same. The country's largest voting-age bloc, the 100
million-plus citizens who out of apathy or disgust do not vote, will once again stay home. This
demoralization of the electorate is by design. It will, I expect, give Trump another term in
office.
By voting
for Biden , you endorse the humiliation of courageous women such as Anita Hill who
confronted their abusers. You vote for the architects of the endless wars in the Middle East.
You vote for the apartheid state in Israel. You vote for wholesale surveillance of the public
by government intelligence agencies and the abolition of due process and habeas corpus. You
vote for austerity programs, including the destruction of welfare and cuts to Social
Security . You vote for NAFTA, free trade deals, de-industrialization, a decline in wages,
the loss of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs and the offshoring of jobs to underpaid
workers who toil in sweatshops in China or Vietnam. You vote for the assault on public
education and the transfer of federal funds to for-profit and Christian charter schools. You
vote for the doubling of our prison population, the tripling and quadrupling of sentences and
huge expansion of crimes meriting the death penalty. You vote for militarized police who gun
down poor people of color with impunity. You vote against the Green New Deal and immigration
reform. You vote for limiting a woman's right to
abortion and reproductive rights. You vote for a segregated public-school system in which
the wealthy receive educational opportunities and poor people of color are denied a chance. You
vote for punitive levels of student debt and the inability to free yourself of debt obligations
through bankruptcy . You
vote for deregulating the banking industry and the abolition of Glass-Steagall. You vote for
the for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical corporations and against universal health care. You
vote for bloated defense budgets. You vote for the use of unlimited oligarchic and corporate
money to buy our elections. You vote for a politician who during his time in the Senate
abjectly served the interests of
MBNA , the largest independent credit card company headquartered in Delaware, which also
employed Biden's son Hunter.
There are no substantial political differences between the Democrats and Republicans. We
have only the illusion of participatory democracy. The Democrats and their liberal apologists
adopt tolerant positions on issues regarding race, religion, immigration, women's rights and
sexual identity and pretend this is politics. The right wing uses those on the margins of
society as scapegoats. The culture wars mask the reality. Both parties are full partners in the
reconfiguration of American society into a form of neofeudalism. It only depends on how you
want it dressed up.
"By fostering an illusion among the powerless classes" that it can make their interests a
priority, the Democratic Party "pacifies and thereby defines the style of an opposition party
in an inverted totalitarian system," political philosopher Sheldon Wolin writes.
The Democrats will once again offer up a least-worst alternative while, in fact, doing
little or nothing to thwart the march toward corporate totalitarianism. What the public wants
and deserves will again be ignored for what the corporate lobbyists demand. If we do not
respond soon to the social and economic catastrophe that has been visited on most of the
population, we will be unable to thwart the rise of corporate tyranny and a
Christian fascism.
We need to reintegrate those who have been pushed aside back into the society, to heal the
ruptured social bonds, to give workers dignity, empowerment and protection. We need a universal
health care system, especially as we barrel toward a global pandemic. We need programs that
provide employment with sustainable wages, job protection and pensions. We need quality public
education for all Americans. We need to rebuild our infrastructure and end the squandering of
our resources on war. We need to halt corporate pillage and regulate Wall Street and
corporations. We need to respond with radical and immediate measures to curb carbon emissions
and save ourselves from ecocide and extinction. We don't need a "Punch and Judy" show between
Trump and Biden. But that, along with corporate tyranny, is what we seem fated to get, unless
we take to the streets and tear the house down.
> Listen to Cornel West for a real understanding of what has happened and what are our options.
There are no options left for neoliberal Dems. This is a typical political Zugzwang. The only hope is Coronavirus (as an act
of God). Otherwise it looks like they already surrendered elections to Trump.
Biden is a dead end into which neoliberal Dems drove themselves.
See, for example
A possibility remains, therefore, that the Democrats will conduct a 'brokered convention'. Secondary candidates like Buttigieg
and Warren had lately put themselves in the anti-popular posture of endorsing such a proceeding (though there's been nothing
like it since the 1950s): at a brokered convention, a candidate with a solid plurality can be denied the nomination on the
first ballot and defeated later by a coalition.
If Biden now runs far ahead of Sanders, he may sew it up in advance.
On the other hand, his verbal gaffes (announcing himself a candidate for the Senate rather than the presidency; saying 'I
was a Democratic caucus') and his fabricated or false memories (a non-existent arrest in South Africa for demonstrating against
the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela) have exposed a cognitive fragility that some people fear could make him ridiculous by November.
A Biden-Trump contest in 2020 would resemble Clinton-Trump in at least one respect. It would be a case, yet again, of the
right wing of the Democratic Party making the conventional choice against the party's own insurgent energy.
The Democrats and their media outworks are treating Latinos, African Americans and whites as separate nations. Women are
a nation, too – parsed (where useful) as Latino, African American or white.
So the answer to Trump's divide and conquer comes in the form of these college-certified categories that self-divide and
surrender.
The only other weapon of note has been an attempted revival of the Cold War. On 23 February, the New York Times led with
two anti-Sanders hatchet jobs, targeting him as both a destroyer of the Democratic Party and a possible Russian agent
But the mainstream media and their captive party, the party and its captive media, show no sign of letting up the pressure.
A recent leak from a misinterpreted fragment of a report by the Director of National Intelligence became a two-day Red Scare
The truth is that the corporate-liberal media are comfortable with the Trump presidency. They have prospered wonderfully
from his entertainment value, even as they staked out a high ground in the anti-Trump 'resistance'. It will be hard to deny
the plausibility of the charge likely to issue soon from the Sanders campaign, namely that 'the fix is in'; and that, once
more, the people are being denied their proper voice – at first through an organised propaganda campaign that was fed into
debates as well as news coverage, and at last through public co-ordination by the party establishment to guide Democrats into
the one acceptable box.
DNC installing a man with obvious cognitive impairment is a staggering display of arrogance.
While Bush and Obama were empty suits this is completly another level.
In way I think Stupor Tuesday was a huge win for Trump.
The oldest organized political party on the planet is advancing a senile globalist meatpuppet
(with a son known to be a philandering crackhead) to handle nuclear launch codes.
Choosing Biden hands the election to Trump and that's a deal that has already been made. The
DNC don't like Sanders because they are adraid he might win, not because they are afraid he
might loose.
I agree with you that it is not going to be a slam dunk for Trump. Just like Trump wasn't
damaged by the Access Hollywood tapes, Biden's not going to be damaged by his senility,
gaffes and his prior plagiarism, Wall St cronyism and corruption. The vote for the "lesser
evil" mindset will consolidate along traditional lines. The Obama machine will run Biden's
campaign and consolidate the Democrat support. The election will hinge on a few states in
particular Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
There
was this moment during the State of the Union Address that I can't stop thinking about.
When President Trump spoke to army wife Amy Wiliams during his speech and told her he'd
arranged her husband's return home from Afghanistan as a "special surprise," it was difficult
to watch.
Sgt. Townsend Williams then descended the stairs to reunite with his family after seven
months of deployment. Congress cheered. A military family's reunion -- with its complicated
feelings that are typically handled in private or on a base -- was used for an applause
line.
That gimmick was the only glimpse many Americans will get of the human reality of our wars
overseas. There is no such window into the lives or suffering of people in Yemen, Somalia,
Afghanistan, or beyond.
That's unacceptable. And so is the myth that Trump is actually ending the wars.
The U.S. has reached a deal with the Taliban to remove 3,400 of the 12,000 U.S. troops
currently in Afghanistan, with the pledge to withdraw more if certain conditions are met.
That's a long overdue first step, as U.S. officials are finally recognizing the war is a
disaster and are negotiating an exit.
But taking a step back reveals a bigger picture in which, from West Africa to Central Asia,
Trump is expanding and deepening the War on Terror -- and making it deadlier.
Far from ending the wars, U.S. airstrikes in Somalia and Syria have skyrocketed under Trump,
leading to more
civilian casualties in both countries. In Somalia, the forces U.S. operations are
supposedly targeting have not been defeated after 18 years of war. It received little coverage
in the U.S., but the first week of this year saw a truck bombing in Mogadishu that killed more
than 80 people.
Everywhere, ordinary people, people just like us except they happen to live in other
countries, pay the price of these wars. Last year saw over 10,000 Afghan civilian casualties --
the sixth year in a row to reach those grim heights.
And don't forget, 2020 opened with Trump bringing the U.S. to the brink of a potentially
catastrophic war with Iran. And he continues to escalate punishing sanctions on the country,
devastating women, children, the elderly, and other vulnerable people.
Trump is not ending wars, but preparing for more war. Over the past year, he has deployed
14,000 more
troops in the Middle East -- beyond the tens of thousands already there.
If this seems surprising, it's in part because the problem has been bipartisan. Indeed, many
congressional Democrats have actually supported these escalations.
In December, 188 House Democrats
joined Republicans in passing a nearly $740 billion military budget that continues the
wars. They passed the budget after abandoning anti-war measures put forward by California
Representative Barbara Lee and the precious few others trying to rein in the wars.
It's worth remembering that State of the Union visual, of Congress rising in unison and
joining the president in applause for his stunt with the Williams family. Because there has
been nearly that level of consensus year after year in funding, and expanding, the wars.
Ending them will not be easy. Too many powerful interests -- from weapons manufacturers to
politicians -- are too invested. But ending the wars begins with rejecting the idea that real
opposition will come from inside the White House.
As with so many other issues -- like when Trump first enacted the Muslim Ban and people
flocked to airports nationwide in protest, or the outpouring against caging children at the
border -- those of us who oppose the wars need to raise our voices, and make the leaders
follow. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Khury Petersen-Smith
"... Faced with Zionism at its most aggressive, most US presidents tend to mellow, discovering long-standing friendships among those who most infuriate them. But Sanders has talked of Palestinian suffering and dignity on numerous occasions – which neither Biden nor Warren have yet chosen to do on the campaign – and his contention that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) promotes "bigotry" aroused perhaps too much fury from the pro-Israeli lobby group ..."
"... Its boss, Howard Kohr, is well aware that neither Sanders nor Warren – nor, apparently, Biden, though we'll see about this -- had any interest in attending this year's AIPAC conference. His latest remarks, clearly directed at the man who could be America's first Jewish president, are worthy of serious examin ..."
"... Robert Fisk writes for the Independent , where this column originally appeared. ..."
And many American voters – save for pro-Israeli lobbyists, liberal Jewish groups and
disparate Muslim organisations – don't care a hill of beans about the fears of Israel and the Arabs. But both
Muslims and Jews in the region have been carefully studying what the three remaining Democrat
contenders have said about two-state solutions, Israeli colonies in the West Bank and the US
embassy, currently in Jerusalem courtesy of Donald Trump. It's time we did the same.
First of all, despair all ye who think the Democrats are going to reverse Trump's disastrous
transfer of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Those who believe that a Democrat
president will simply roll back on Trump's disastrous policies – not just over the
embassy but anywhere else in the Middle East – had better shake off their illusions.
History doesn't go backwards. None of the Democratic candidates would commit to reversing
Trump's embassy decision when asked; only Sanders spoke vaguely of returning it to Tel Aviv.
The rest chickened out by suggesting, rather outrageously, that the existence of the embassy in
Jerusalem would become part of future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations – something which
was never part of the original Oslo negotiations nor any UN resolution.
Elizabeth Warren announced in the South Carolina debate last month that the decision should
be left up to "Israel and Palestine" – presumably suggesting that the 'capital' of a
two-state solution was up to them, even though Bibi Netanyahu believes it's all wrapped up
– Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, full stop. And "Palestine", Warren should have been
aware, doesn't as a state actually exist.
"But it's not up to us to determine what the terms of a two-state solution are," quoth she.
" The best way to do that is to encourage the parties to get to the negotiating table
themselves." Repeatedly asked if she would move the embassy back to Tel Aviv, Warren equally
repeatedly said that "we should let the parties determine the capital." Later she rather eerily
referred to "capitals" – without explaining if she was thinking of a Palestinian
"capital" in the village of Abu Dis, the grim little solution that Madeleine Albright
half-heartedly supported two decades ago.
Sanders, of course, captured the imagination and fury of Arabs and Israelis (and Israel's
supposed friends in America) by his characterisation of Netanyahu as a "reactionary racist"
– a description he may now choose to soften. Faced with Zionism at its most
aggressive, most US presidents tend to mellow, discovering long-standing friendships among
those who most infuriate them. But Sanders has talked of Palestinian suffering and dignity on
numerous occasions – which neither Biden nor Warren have yet chosen to do on the campaign
– and his contention that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) promotes
"bigotry" aroused perhaps too much fury from the pro-Israeli lobby group .
Its boss, Howard Kohr, is well aware that neither Sanders nor Warren – nor,
apparently, Biden, though we'll see about this -- had any interest in attending this year's
AIPAC conference. His latest remarks, clearly directed at the man who could be America's first
Jewish president, are worthy of serious examin ation. "A growing and highly vocal and
energised part of the electorate fundamentally rejects the value of the US-Israeli alliance,"
he said. " The leaders of this movement say they support Israel's right to defend herself. But
every time Israel exercises that right, they condemn Israel."
Kohr wasn't referring here to BDS, the boycott, divest and sanctions movement which does
frighten Israeli leaders, but the increasingly worried men and women in America – young
Jewish liberals prominent among them – who are disgusted by the suffering faced by the
Palestinians in Gaza. Unafraid of Sanders' unwise use of the word "socialism" – which
used to be quite acceptable in Israel many years ago – they are searching, I suspect, for
a morality in international politics which the US regularly suspends when confronted by
Israel's colonial project in the West Bank.
"Israel cannot afford false friends," Kohr continued in a very clear assault on Sanders'
condemnation of the Israeli government and its now yet-again elected prime minister, an attack
he described as "demonising Israel". Last spring, Kohr spoke of the "intense hatred" of Israel
which, he contended, was moving from the margins to the centre of US politics. " Israel has
been able to count on its friendship with the United States," he now says.
But George W Bush and Obama "each understood that America's commitment to Israel's safety
must be consistent, it must be unequivocal [sic], and it must be dependable." In reality
– a quality often lost in any discussion of US-Israeli relations in Washington –
Obama was angered by Netanyahu's constant interference in US politics, his lone appeals to
Congress over the president's head and his absolute refusal to postpone or close down or
abandon the steady theft of Palestinian Arab land for Jewish colonies between Jerusalem and the
Jordan river. Kohr's reference to the necessity of America's "unequivocal" support is not quite
what he meant.
The correct word – had he dared to say it – would have been "uncritical". And
Sanders is not uncritical. In the strait-jacket, fearful debates which pass for serious
television discussion in the United States, condemnation of Israel and its grotesque occupation
of another people's land – if not splashed with accusations of antisemitism – is
regarded as off-limits, unacceptable, even immoral.
Sanders has broken this silly convention. And thus he must be dismissed as a "socialist'
(this is partly his fault, of course) and a "radical", a word which my elderly Dad would
probably have interpreted as a 'Bolshie'. Sanders is not a Bolshevik – though he
sometimes looks like one when he's on the stump – and his real threat to Israel is that
in the eyes of his supporters, he is honest, and seen to be honest. The fact that Sanders is
Jewish and represents the bravest of America's liberal Jewish community is all the more
frightening to Israel's right-wing supporters.
And so we come to Joe Biden, a man whom Netanyahu used to run rings around when Biden was
Obama's vice president. In 2010, the Netanyahu government blithely announced 1,600 new
settlement houses on occupied Palestinian land shortly after Biden's arrival on an official
visit to Israel. Huffily arriving 90 minutes late for dinner with Netanyahu, Biden condemned
the decision – and said no more. Four years later, addressing the Saban Forum, part of
the right-wing Brookings Institute, Biden spent much time condemning Iran, praising Obama's $17
billion financial support for Israel's military – which he calculated at $8.5 million a
day – and referring obliquely to the grave reservations which the Obama administration
had about Israel as "tactical disagreements", "tactical divides", "normal disagreements" and
"different perspectives".
Only at the very end of his 2014 peroration did Biden mildly condemn "expanding settlement
activity and construction and the demolition of homes of attackers [sic]" as
"counterproductive". He referred to "terrorist" attacks by Palestinians and "vigilante attacks"
by Jewish settlers. And that's pretty much what we can expect of a Biden presidency.
He might, conceivably, try to roll back Trump's destruction of the Iranian nuclear agreement
into which Obama put so much energy – but just as he will not commit himself to reversing
Trump's decision on the US embassy transfer to Jerusalem, he's likely to search for another
nuclear agreement to take the place of the Obama one – which, in his perverse and
hopeless way, is what Trump has been suggesting.
The trouble is that while former Democrat candidates are now ganging up to destroy Sanders'
chances of nomination – along with a significant portion of the US "liberal" press
– Trump, barring a virus-induced economic collapse, is unlikely to spend much time
worrying about a Biden candidacy.
Just as they prefer a "safe pair of hands" to protect the party, so the Democrat elite and
the "old" liberals fear the moral crusade upon which Sanders might embark – about health
and human rights just as much as the Middle East. Better to avoid conflict with Israel, too.
And that was Hilary Clinton's policy, wasn't it? And that's how Sanders went off the rails in
the last presidential election, finally asking his supporters to give their vote to Hillary, as
they shouted: "No! No! No!" Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Robert Fisk
Robert Fisk writes for the Independent , where this column originally
appeared.
Sanders is facing the fight of his life. This will show whether or not he has the "killer
instinct" needed to prevail in the rough and tumble of American politics. If Sanders doesn't
take the gloves off and attack Biden with everything available, and that is a lot of stuff,
then he probably would lose to Trump in November. In my biased opinion, Sanders could beat
Trump if he framed the contest as True Class Warfare. Trump talks a good "populist" game, but
when we look at his actual policy moves, he comes across as a 'bog standard' Republican
politico.
If it is Biden against Trump in November, the narrative control so far shown by the DNC will
avail nothing against all the attacks possible against Biden.
As I said before, with Biden as the Democrat Party nominee, all Trump has to do to win is to
somehow manage to not blow the world up.
This actually started with Clintons, who also can be viewed as CIA democrats. (especially Hillary)
In no way Sanders supporters will vote for Biden. They will stay home or vote for the third party candidate. This is kind
of mini-civil war withing the Dem Party and while Clinton wing won, this is a Pyrrhic victory.
Notable quotes:
"... There are the CIA Democrats who were elected in the last mid-terms. There was the obscene, degrading veneration of first James Comey and then Robert Mueller. ..."
"... There is Adam Schiff and the endless Russiagate black hole of mental resources, money, time and political capital. ..."
"... What they all have in common is the Democrats pressuring Trump for being insufficiently imperialist and warmongering. ..."
This is what I was thinking. It was obvious from 2015 that one of Trump's most effective messages was his criticism of the
Iraq War, of Nato, Syria and the endless occupation of Afghanistan. We can also set aside the fact that he has largely failed
to do much of what he implied in his campaign. The point is that he campaigned to the left of the Democrats on these issues and
did it knowingly -- and that this was a message that resonated with, as you say, voters connected in some way to the military.
Also significant in this context is that since his election, the mainstream Washington Dems have focused (besides their interminable
obsession with 'civility') on cultivating ever greater ties with the military and intelligence services.
There are the CIA Democrats who were elected in the last mid-terms. There was the obscene, degrading veneration of first
James Comey and then Robert Mueller.
There is Adam Schiff and the endless Russiagate black hole of mental resources, money, time and political capital.
What they all have in common is the Democrats pressuring Trump for being insufficiently imperialist and warmongering.
In this context, too, it is significant that the Dem mandarins have chosen Joe Biden, probably the most right wing of all the
remaining opponents facing off against Bernie -- definitely worse than Obama (remember that when he chose Biden as VP it was viewed
rightly as throwing a bone to the Blue Dogs and other Dem reactionaries!) and almost certainly worse even than HRC herself.
But it doesn't have to be that way. As you suggest, an anti-war message can reach voters in special ways and unite, for example,
groups that would otherwise view themselves as miles apart -- e.g. radicalised young people and rural working class families with
military connections. That is exactly the type of solidarity we need. And therefore almost as exactly the sort of thing that Democrats
minus Bernie will do all they can to prevent coming to pass!
Yes, I didn’t mean to suggest that direct exposure to the often tragic consequences of serving the American Empire inevitably
leads those affected to critical insights into how it operates or sustains itself – there is a difference between experience and
insight, feeling and knowing. But I believe it does mean there is a very fertile ground for anti-war sentiments in precisely those
groups most frequently dismissed by mainstream Democrats or the media as irredeemably…ahem…deplorable.
Not sure I agree that internationally minded socialism died in the trenches of WWI. It was quite literally murdered in that
war’s aftermath through the brutal suppression of working class struggles like the Spartacist uprising and political assassinations
of figures like Rosa Luxermburg and Karl Liebknecht. And it was ideologically murdered by the capital-assisted rise of fascism
and national chauvinism at precisely the moment when global capitalism was entering a period of potentially terminal crisis. In
that broad sweep of events I would go so far as to include the ascension to power of Stalin in the Soviet Union and his socialism-in-one-country,
which effectively ended the internationalism unleashed by the 1917 Revolution.
After WWII, the capitalist West of course responded to these crises by ceding more ground to workers than they had ever done
before. Socialised healthcare in Europe, the welfare state, access to education, state-led investment. They rightly feared the
consequences of a resurgent international socialism and opted to head things off at the pass (I hate that cliche, to quote Hedley
Lamarr!). But no less influential was the Stalinist Soviet Union’s cynical manipulation of liberation struggles and the various
Communist Parties they funded across the West and Latin America. Their sabotage of the Spanish Republican struggle was here the
template, as they evolved various “popular front” tactics to lead various working-class movements down strategically (for them)
useful blind alleys.
In fact, the list of betrayals committed by the Soviet Union with regard to their international ‘comrades’ bears comparison
with the Democratic Party’s own patented ability to bury social movements in the US – leading bravely and courageously…from behind.
As for Bernie/AOC, their plan to ‘deal with domestic problems first’ is exactly what I take issue with. In the first place,
I see no evidence that the ruling class will allow even their modest policies to be enacted. This is not the Depression Era. Unions
are weak, corrupt or worse. Political consciousness may be growing but remains relatively low compared to the 20th century. There
is no broad mass movement beyond Washington DC which political leaders can use as leverage in the struggles that would inevitably
need to be fought over policies like Medicare for All. Maybe they will emerge once the struggles gain momentum, but for now the
disposition of social forces and political power is very different from the context in which the New Deal was (partially) executed
or the Civil Rights Era in the 60s.
More importantly, though, and what I’ve been trying to get at is the idea that you can effectively decouple domestic from foreign
issues is a mirage. Particularly in a period of unparalleled interconnection where global capital and finance have themselves
eroded the integrity of nation states or their sovereignty. And besides that, Trump’s election has brought into the open the enormous
political power that has been amassed by the military and intelligence services – and which will without doubt be brought to bear
on any Bernie or AOC attempting to bring about domestic reforms opposed by the oligarchy.
I just don’t think it is possible to confront one set of issues without confronting the other – their interrelationship requires
them to be faced at the same time. And that is of course before we talk about the moral imperative to do so.
One last thing – a lesson learned painfully from Labour under Corbyn. His constant capitulations over mainly foreign issues
– Israel, Trident, the Skripal case, Syria, Julian Assange – didn’t free up space or energy to fight for domestic reform. It didn’t
satisfy his opponents in the media or on the right wing of his own party. It signalled his weakness and encouraged them to press
on with ever more insistent demands. And, crucially, it demotivated and demobilised the very popular support on which his insurgent
movement relied. It disillusioned, confused and depressed the energies of those who had powered him to the leadership. And, finally,
it exposed him as weak or vacillating to voters he needed to convince or galvanise.
Now Bernie is a much, much more skilled political operator than Jeremy Corbyn, but on the other hand the Democratic Party is
far more corrupt and corporatist, far more detached from and unaccountable to its base of support. The Labour Party, at least,
is a mass membership party with continued trade union links. The Dems are a mafia cartel/protection racket based around no more
than perpetuating the privileges of those they call their own (elected officials, consultants, media cheerleaders etc). As I said
in my first post, I acknowledge he is fighting a very particular fight for the nomination/presidency – and he is kept constantly
busy fending off dishonest attacks from all sides – but if not him, then others, like AOC, need in my view to stop putting off
confrontation over foreign issues for another day – the struggle needs to combine domestic and international otherwise it will
end up sacrificing both.
I don’t think Bernie is a much more skilled political operator than Jeremy Corbyn–I think he’s about as bad, so bad that he’s
about to get defeated by a Joe Biden, a pudding brained old man with a terrible record.
But Bernie is going to do a great service (I hope) by losing and that’s to turn the nascent left away from electoralism and
more toward the street, organizing the masses in the manner that the right wing has: by emphasizing propaganda to radicalize the
normies (radio/podcasts/youtube), by siloing cadres into a parallel culture, and by growing tendencies toward revolutionary action
by encouraging socialization with specific political content (in the right wing world these are gun/religious groups).
Out of these social formations, electoral success organically follows. The left ought to build the secular equivalent of evangelical
churches (a Socialist Meeting Hall in every town!) and gun groups (left wing boy scouts and also…left wing gun groups?). Get the
people out of their homes to meet one another in a specific political context. When someone identifies as “Socialist,” it should
be a shorthand for a kind of “social” existence that is notably separate from the “normal” (as it is right now for the Right Wing–a
strong reason, in my view, for the successful rightward political seduction of such a large portion of the masses, who ought to
be easy pickings for the left).
> The overextension of empire is always going to provide its weakest points.
Exhibit A at least in terms of visibility: The supply chain.
It would surely be possible to frame, and possibly even to conceptualize, the combination of gutting manufacturing in this
country and moving it to China as a bad case of Imperial overstretch….
"... How is it that Warren pulling out of the race is a victory for patriarchy and sexism, but Amy Klobuchar pulling out of the race is not causing grief and angst? We Midwesterners just don't get enough respect–and melodrama. ..."
"... She and her dead-end supporters are giving a good run at being the most pathetic story in a primary that includes Zombie Joe Biden ..."
"Why Elizabeth Warren lost" [Ryan Cooper, The Week].
In a press conference discussing her campaign's end, Warren said that she had not
decided yet whether to endorse anyone. "I need some space around this," she said.
Astonishing and amazing that Warren, claiming to be a "progressive", did not immediately
endorse Sanders, especially when the alternative is the hapless "Senator from MBNA", Joe
Biden. Warren also repeatedly refused to endorse Bernie in 2016, a time when the early and
enthusiastic support of a prominent woman with progressive credentials would have really
helped and perhaps been decisive in the race against Hillary Clinton.
Sanders is the best shot at a progressive US president we have seen in a century, yet
Warren apparently needs time to cogitate on the matter for some reason. I hope whatever she
ultimately gets for herself is worth it.
Bernie held out on endorsing Hillary until she signed on to his free college plan. What
concession will Warren demand? Something for the people or something for herself? Force
Bernie to make his taxes more regressive? She's a joke.
Let's suppose that the one unchangeable goal of the Democratic Party establishment is that
Bernie Sanders must not be the party's 2020 nominee. Any other realistic candidate will do,
but it must not be Bernie. Let's also suppose that by the time of the party's convention Vice
President Bden's weaknesses and unfitness have become so evident that the party simply can't
put him forward as its nominee.
Suppose that Senator Warren sees that and thinks of herself as a realistic choice for the
party to replace Biden. A veneer of leftishness, but no real threat to Wall Street. I suspect
that her entertaining that hope may explain why since suspending her campaign Senator Warren
has criticized the idea of Vice President Biden being the party's nominee, but has had
nothing favorable to say about Senator Sanders.
"You cried yesterday because you can't be POTUS then went on CNN and trashed Bernie AGAIN
(when has he ever trashed you?) by way of his supporters. BOO-HOO. You should have focused
your attention on the factory floor (working women) not the glass ceiling.
Politics is a nasty game which you have proven to be expert at. You have earned every
criticism in whatever form it comes, frankly. But because you can't be POTUS this time, you
will take your ball and go home, so there! with the emotional maturity of a 5 year old.
How is it that Warren pulling out of the race is a victory for patriarchy and sexism,
but Amy Klobuchar pulling out of the race is not causing grief and angst? We Midwesterners
just don't get enough respect–and melodrama.
Do we truly have to hear that Warren scared people because she is too competent?
(Shades of Most Qualified Hillary.) Lying about being a Native American has a whiff of
incompetence, but I'm just persnickety.
And should we collectively be pointing out that Political Sainthood, once reserved for
John McCain, now has been bestowed on Elizabeth Warren, who is starting to be inebriated with
her own scent of sanctity? In short: McCain, Warren, all maverick-y all the time.
On a positive note, is it possible that focusing on what white upper-middle-class
people want, which is the status quo, kale salads, and more brunches, is somehow not a viable
path to the presidency? As mentioned above, Warren started to slide when she announced Plans
that involved means-testing health care and means-testing day care. At least she refrained
from issuing leaf-blowers to all of us.
She and her dead-end supporters are giving a good run at being the most pathetic story in
a primary that includes Zombie Joe Biden.
Just mind-bogglingly entitled upper and upper
middle class trash. I regret ever thinking of voting for her, I regret ever hearing her name,
and I look forward to the day she endorses someone so I never have to think about her
again.
The person who read her Twitter mentions for her was on Twitter begging for Venmo
donations for, I guess, her emotional trauma. Christ I hate these people.
"... As interesting as it might be to have Tulsi there, the time has come for a two-man debate, mano a mano , between Mr. Neoliberal and Mr. Democratic Socialist. Our time has come. ..."
New Qualifications for Next Debate Likely Rule Out Gabbard
The Democratic National Committee has ratcheted up the threshold to qualify for its next
presidential debate, requiring candidates to have picked up at least 20% of convention
delegates allocated in state primary contests.
As interesting as it might be to have Tulsi there, the time has come for a two-man debate,
mano a mano , between Mr. Neoliberal and Mr. Democratic Socialist. Our time has
come.
Biden and Sanders are both campaigning actively and meeting voters in many different states.
Plenty of hugs/handshakes. I am wondering what precautions they have taken against the
coronavirus. Note they are both in their late 70's.
"... How is it that Biden won so many states based on endorsements alone? No field offices, no real money, he barely visited some states, if at all and yet he won. ..."
"... Hillary had tons of endorsements everywhere, a field office in every state and major city, lots of cash, and she didn't win as many. This does not compute. ..."
"... The only difference is Biden is personally more appealing and approachable than Hillary. But still. Something fishy here. I'm wondering how many of those states had audit trails like hand-marked paper ballots and how many did not? ..."
"... The wide discrepancy between exit poll numbers and vote total percentages in some states seems a little fishy, too. Electronic voting machines: progress! (removing my foil bonnet now) ..."
How is it that Biden won so many states based on endorsements alone? No field offices, no
real money, he barely visited some states, if at all and yet he won.
Hillary had tons of
endorsements everywhere, a field office in every state and major city, lots of cash, and she
didn't win as many. This does not compute.
The only difference is Biden is personally more
appealing and approachable than Hillary. But still. Something fishy here. I'm wondering how
many of those states had audit trails like hand-marked paper ballots and how many did
not?
The wide discrepancy between exit poll numbers and vote total percentages in some states
seems a little fishy, too. Electronic voting machines: progress! (removing my foil bonnet
now)
I'll put the foil bonnet on Flora. DCG, the fishy smell is election fraud courtesy of the
DNC. Unless we have paper ballots hand counted in public, I don't buy the miraculous Biden
resurgence narrative from his supposed silent majority. Give me a family blogging break.
I absolutely fail to understand why anyone would consider this idea tin foil. Who do we
think we're dealing with here? These folks are playing to win and they will do anything and
everything in their power to do so. The system is set up perfectly to support psychopaths
Me neither. That fact that the Democrat party has never even tried to address the problems
with election integrity, even when they've had the presidency stolen from them, speaks
volumes.
They allow a phony riot to stop the count in FL, then hardly make a peep when the Supremes
anoint Bush in 2000 in a decision not meant to set precedent, and their response is
the Help America Vote Act which foisted these easily hackable machines on us as a solution?
The only reason you do that is if you want to be able to rig elections yourself.
After the debacle of the Iowa caucus this year and the unheard of swing to Biden this
week, it sure looks like the fix is in.
Please educate me–no seriously!–as to how hand marked paper ballots are so
very different from machine marked paper ballots. If you assume that machine marked
ballots–marked with the candidate's name (written in human readable English) and
securely stored for a potential hand recount–are crooked then aren't you assuming that
the entire election machinery is crooked and not just a vote tabulating machine? After all
long before computers were invented there was that thing called ballot box
stuffing.
Machine marked ballots have a middleman. Said machines 'phone home' to a central server,
which may well be running a program that fractionally 'shifts' votes as needed to edge out a
win for the estab preferred candidate (of either party). The 'red shift' in vote results
after electronic voting has been noted by statisticians.
One interesting coincidence here is that I was going to link to some statisticians' work I
know of, work that was easily available online as late as early January this year. When I
search for the links now they are either gone or the links are warned off as 'suspect'.
Info easily found online. Here's one very recent story's take away:
"Some of the most popular ballot-marking machines, made by industry leaders Election
Systems & Software and Dominion Voting Systems, register votes in bar codes that the
human eye cannot decipher. That's a problem, researchers say: Voters could end up with
printouts that accurately spell out the names of the candidates they picked, but, because of
a hack, the bar codes do not reflect those choices. Because the bar codes are what's
tabulated, voters would never know that their ballots benefited another candidate.
"Even on machines that do not use bar codes, voters may not notice if a hack or
programming error mangled their choices. A University of Michigan study determined that only
7 percent of participants in a mock election notified poll workers when the names on their
printed receipts did not match the candidates they voted for."
In the just past election are there any reports of ballots being printed out that had a
different name than the one the voter selected to be printed? And if that did happen would it
be anything other than accidentally pressing the wrong button? Surely if this "voters didn't
look at the ballot" (which personally I greatly doubt) idea was really the cheating scheme
then it would be highly likely to be exposed.
Re-read the part about the 'computer reads and tabulates the barcode information, not the
english text printout'. A hack or middleman could fiddle the barcode printout/information
(unrecognized by the human eye) , not the text printout.
Also consider that the fiddle works best if it's only a few percentage points different
than expected, one way or the other. People then say of unexpected results, 'oh, it was
really close, but that's how it goes, elections can be unpredictable', and accept the
election results as 'the will of the people.' It's called "electronic fractional vote
shifting". Really. It's called that. Fractional vote shifting.
Right–without a doubt. But the reason it prints that piece of paper is for a later
human audit by eye should a recount be demanded. In that case the barcode would become
irrelevant. There is a paper trail.
That said, I would agree there could be secret ballot concerns about the way I voted. You
feed the ballot into the counter right side up and unfolded with an election "helper"
standing nearby.
One reason both parties prefer 'close elections'. A few points either way won't raise
eyebrows. Won't raise a demand for a recount. (And, like compound interest, a 'few points'
one way or the other in various elections, over time, can add up to large effects in
political direction. imo.)
The problem is getting to the recount. My state does not allow recounts unless the machine
tally is extremely close. So if you want to rig an election, just make sure your candidate
wins by enough and there will never be a recount of those machine counted paper ballots.
I asked city officials for a few years to do recounts just to audit the machines, and was
told it was not allowed under state law unless there was a close enough race – I
believe the threshhold is in the low single digits. My wife later ran for office and lost by
about 1% and I was finally able to get a recount. We counted all the ballots by hand and
while the final outcome didn't change, what we found was that the hand recount tallied about
1-2% more votes than the machines had.
flora is right about the close elections. I find it very odd that in my younger days we
had landslides fairly often and now every presidential election goes right down to the
wire.
OK. This is my experience as a counter in a UK General Election, where hand-marked
ballot-papers are counted in public.
Each voting station has a sealed tin box. Arriving to vote your name is checked against
the electoral role and you are handed a ballot paper. You go into a curtained booth with a
stand-up desk and a pencil in a string and put a X in a box opposite the candidate you vote
for. Outside the booth you fold your ballot paper and post it into the box through a narrow
slot. When the election closes the box is delivered to – in our case – the
town-hall – where the counters sit at tables three to a side with a team-leader at the
head. One of the boxes is brought to each table, unsealed and the contents dumped into the
middle of it. Each counter then snags a pile of marked votes and sorts them into piles as
voted. Any uncertainties – where the vote isn't obvious – is passed up to the
team leader for assessment. When all the votes are tallied – including the
uncertainties – the total is compared with the note from the polling station stating
the number of votes cast there, and if they don't agree the count for that box is done
again.
All this is done under the eyes of representatives of the candidates who are free to move
around the tables at will, and who in particular can watch over the team-leaders dealing with
the uncertain ballot papers, but who are free to challenge any counter's tally.
Ballot boxes could be 'switched' between the voting station and the count, but that would
only work if you knew how many papers were in the box per the count or could also substitute
the tally signed off by the polling-station superintendent. Ballot-box stuffing wouldn't work
as again the votes cast and counted for that box/station would not align.
Could it be gamed? I suppose, but it would take a massive effort and conspiracy –
mostly at the polling-station/transit stage, tho' again the candidates can have observers
there. The whole system is run by the local authority and most of those involved in the
polling-station/count are local authority workers with their own political preferences so
finding enough to suborn to fix the count would be a difficult, and politically dangerous
operation. Even if one polling-station's box was corrupted in some way it would have little
effect on the overall result, and if it stood out as atypical could invite investigation.
So no, it's not perfect, but I can't think of a better way of doing it.
Ps. Each voting paper is numbered and taken from a book leaving a stub with the same
number. So to 'stuff' or otherwise tamper with the voting papers in the box you'd also need
to swap the actual voting paper book with a substitute bearing the same number system and I
think, tho' don't quote me on this, books of ballot papers for the various polling stations
are only issued on election day and at random.
IIRC, in a nut-shell, some of the systems used have a bar code printed on the ballot at
the time they are scanned into the system.
That bar code ' marks ', the ballot, and supposedly communicates the voter's
intentions to the tabulating software that counts the votes.
The rest of the ballot looks proper to the voter, but the voter has no way of telling what
the bar code means.
And from any IT professional's point of view, who cares what the ballot looks like, if the
mark on your ballot, (the one that is counted) was not made by your hand (say, a bar code
printed by a scanner), and/or, if there is a computer used to count the votes, that system is
intended to allow falsification of election results.
Due to the lack of legal action on the part of either of our political parties, to refute
the results of elections stolen by wholesale electronic election fraud, I can only conclude
that election fraud is a wholly acceptable tool in their bi-partisan toolbox?
And yes, you're right, they've always stuffed the ballot box, think of electronic vote
tabulation as the newest twist on an old trick.
The invention of electronic voting was intended to insure that voters can never vote their
way to freedom.
So your argument is that we must have hand counted ballots because the machine marked
version won't work because the recounters would have to hand count the ballots. Just to
repeat, yet again, when I voted a ballot shaped piece of plain paper was printed with my
candidate choice clearly printed along with a bar code, not qr. This then becomes the vote
itself and it can be read by a scanner or by a human. If done by a human then it is utterly
no different than if I had checked a box on a pre printed ballot.
And for all the objections cited by those above there are valid reasons for states to want
such a system. Obviously an all manual system is very labor intensive and also subject to
human error unless double checked by still more labor. You'd also have to print lots of
ballots before every election while not knowing exactly how many will be needed.
If there are suspicions of vote machine companies–and there should be–a more
logical approach might be to insist that all software is open source and that no machines are
connected directly to the internet or have usb ports. Signs in the precincts should advise
voters to check their paper ballot to make sure the correct choice is printed.
Furthermore, the most highly rated show on Fox, Tucker Carlson is vehemently
anti-imperialist and consistently hurls insults at gay assholes such as Lindsey Graham
What you are hearing is the last vestiges of neocon and neolibs grasping at straws and
trying to drag China through the mud. No one is listening, just as no one really cares about
CNN or MSNBC (ironic, though, that Foxnews is now indeed the most "fair and balanced" of the
major networks) or any political trifles.
Creating employment insecurity was the entire point of neoliberal reforms such as
outsourcing, de-skilling and contingent employment. Neoliberal theory had it that desperate
workers work both longer and harder. And they die younger.
We can view "Creepy Joe" and Trump as representatives of "neoliberal plague" The slogan
should be " No Pasaran "
( Dolores Ibárruri's famous battlecry appeal for the defense of the Second Spanish
Republic)
Notable quotes:
"... For those who aren't familiar with Albert Camus' The Plague , disparate lives are brought together during a plague that sweeps through an Algerian city. ..."
"... Through the virus, a new light is being shone on four decades of neoliberal reorganization of political economy. The combination of widespread economic marginalization and a lack of paid time off means that sick and highly contagious workers will have little economic choice but to spread the virus. And the insurance company pricing mechanism intended to dissuade people from overusing health care ('skin in the game') means that only very sick people will 'buy' health care they can't afford. ..."
"... If this last part reads like (Ayn) Randian social theory as interpreted by a budding sociopath in the basement of his dead parent's crumbling tract home, it is basic neoliberal ideology applied to circumstances that we can see playing out in real time. ..."
"... While the American response to the Coronavirus threat seems to be less than robust, there was a near instantaneous response from the Federal Reserve to a 10% decline in stock prices. ..."
"... If priorities seem misplaced, you haven't been paying attention. The statistics on suicides, divorces, drug addiction and self-destructive behavior that result from the loss of employment were understood and widely published by the early 1990s, at the peak of that era's round of mass layoffs. Creating employment insecurity was the entire point of neoliberal reforms such as outsourcing, de-skilling and contingent employment. Neoliberal theory had it that desperate workers work both longer and harder. And they die younger. ..."
"... But how likely is it that people will 'demand' too much healthcare? The starting position of Obamacare was that the American healthcare system provided half the benefit at twice the price of comparable systems. ..."
"... Milton Friedman, one of the founders of neoliberalism through the Mont Pelerin Society, produced a long career's worth of half-baked garbage economics. On the rare occasions when he wasn't helping Chilean fascists toss students out of airplanes in flight, he was pawning his infantile theories off on future Chamber of Commerce and ALEC predators. His positivism was already known to be a farce when he took it up. Here is a primer that explains why it is, and always will be, a farce. ..."
For those who aren't familiar with Albert Camus' The Plague ,
disparate lives are brought together during a plague that sweeps through an Algerian city.
Today, by way of the emergence of a lethal and highly communicable virus (Coronavirus), we --
the people of the West, have an opportunity to reconsider what we mean to one another. The
existential lesson is that through dread and angst we can choose to live, with the
responsibilities that the choice entails, or just fade away.
Through the virus, a new light is being shone on four decades of neoliberal
reorganization of political economy. The combination of widespread economic marginalization and
a lack of paid time off means that sick and highly contagious workers will have little economic
choice but to spread the virus. And the insurance company pricing mechanism intended to
dissuade people from overusing health care ('skin in the game') means that only very sick
people will 'buy' health care they can't afford.
Market provision of virus test kits, vaccines and basic sanitary aids will, in the absence
of government coercion, follow the monopolist's model of under-provision at prices that are
unaffordable for most people. The most fiscally responsible route, in the sense of assuring
that the rich don't pay taxes, is to let those who can't afford health care die. If this means
that tens of millions of people die unnecessarily, markets are a harsh taskmaster. (
3.4% mortality rate @
2X – 3X the contagion rate of the Spanish Flu @ 4 X 1918 population).
If this last part reads like (Ayn) Randian social theory as interpreted by a budding
sociopath in the basement of his dead parent's crumbling tract home, it is basic neoliberal
ideology applied to circumstances that we can see playing out in real time. According to
Ryan Grim of The Intercept, Bill Clinton eliminated the ' reasonable
pricing ' requirement for drugs made by companies that receive government funding. This has
bearing on both commercially developed Coronavirus test kits and vaccines.
Leaving aside technical difficulties that either will or won't be resolved, how would any
substantial portion of the 80% of the population that lives hand-to-mouth be effectively
quarantined when losing an income creates a cascade effect of evictions, foreclosures,
starvation, repossessions, shut-off utilities, etc.? The current system conceived and organized
to make desperate and near desperate workers labor with the minimum of pay and benefits is a
public health disaster by design.
While the American response to the Coronavirus threat seems to be less than robust,
there was a near instantaneous response from the Federal Reserve to a 10% decline in stock
prices. The same Federal Reserve that has been engineering a non-stop rise in stock prices
since Wall Street was bailed out in 2009 knows perfectly well how narrowly stock ownership is
concentrated amongst the rich -- it publishes the data. It quickly lowered the cost of
financial speculation as the cost of Coronavirus tests and a vaccine -- and the question of who
will bear them, remain indeterminate.
If priorities seem misplaced, you haven't been paying attention. The statistics on
suicides, divorces, drug addiction and self-destructive behavior that result from the loss of
employment were understood and widely published by the early 1990s, at the peak of that era's
round of mass layoffs. Creating employment insecurity was the entire point of neoliberal
reforms such as outsourcing, de-skilling and contingent employment. Neoliberal theory had it
that desperate workers work both longer and harder. And they die younger.
The brutality of the logic used by the Obama administration in constructing the ACA,
Obamacare, is worthy of exploration. The premise behind the 'skin in the game' idea is
neoliberalism 101, developed by a founder of neoliberalism, economist Milton Friedman, to
ration health care. The basic idea is that without a price attached to it, people will 'demand'
more health care than they need. That from a public health perspective, oversupplying health
care is better than undersupplying it, is ignored under the premise that public health concerns
are communistic. (Read Friedman).
But how likely is it that people will 'demand' too much healthcare? The starting
position of Obamacare was that the American healthcare system provided half the benefit at
twice the price of comparable systems. Through the 'market' pricing mechanism that
existed, the incentive was for people to avoid purchasing healthcare because it was / is wildly
overpriced. Not considered was that through geographical and specialist 'natural monopolies,'
health care providers had an incentive to undersupply health care by providing high-margin
services to the rich.
Furthermore, why would a healthcare system be considered from the perspective of
individual users? In contrast to the temporal sleight-of-hand where Obamacare 'customers' are
expected to anticipate their illnesses and buy insurance plans that cover them, the entire
premise of health insurance is that illnesses are unpredictable. Isn't the Coronavirus evidence
of this unpredictable nature? And through the nature of pandemics, it is known that some people
will get sick and other people won't. Not known is precisely who will get sick and who
won't.
While there are public health emergency provisions in Obamacare that may or may not be
invoked, why does it make sense in any case to require that people anticipate future illnesses?
Such a program isn't health care and it isn't even health insurance. It is gambling. Guess
right and you live. Guess wrong and you die. Why should we be guessing at all? Prior to
Obamacare, health insurance companies gamed the system with life and death decisions. In true
neoliberal fashion, Obamacare randomized the process as health insurers continue to game the
system.
As I understand it, the public health emergency provision in Obamacare might cover virus
testing and the cost of a vaccine if one is ever found. Great. What about care? How many
readers chose a plan that covers Coronavirus? How many days can you go without a paycheck if
you get sick or are quarantined? Who will take care of your children and for how long? How will
you pay your rent or mortgage? Who will deliver groceries to your house and how will you pay
for them? How will you make the car payment before they repossess it and how will you get to
work without it if you recover?
The rank idiocy -- and the political content, of the frame of individual 'consumers'
overusing health care quickly devolves to the fact that some large portion of the American
people can't afford to go to the doctor when they need to. Even if they can afford the direct
costs, they can't afford the indirect costs. When Obamacare was passed, the U.S. had the worst
health care outcomes among rich countries. Ten years later, the U.S. has the
worst healthcare outcomes among rich countries . And medical bankruptcies are virtually
unchanged since Obamacare was passed.
The reason for focusing on Obamacare is it is the system through which we encounter the
Coronavirus. In the narrow political sense of getting a health care bill passed, Obamacare may
or may not have been 'pragmatic.' In a public health care sense, it is a disaster decades in
the making. The problem wasn't / isn't Mr. Obama per se. It is the radical ideology behind it
that was posed as pragmatism. Mr. Obama's success was to get a bill passed -- a political
accomplishment. It wasn't to create a functioning healthcare system.
The otherworldly nature of neoliberal theory has led to a most brutal of social
philosophies. Mr. Obama later put his energy into lengthening drug company
patents to give drug companies an economic advantage provided by the government. Economist
Dean Baker has made a career out of hammering this general point home. Michael Bloomberg
benefited from government support for both technology and finance. His fortune of $16 billion
in 2009 followed stock prices higher to land him at $64.2 billion in 2020.
Donald Trump inherited a large fortune that likewise followed stock and Manhattan real
estate prices higher. Both he and Mr. Bloomberg could have put their early fortunes into
passive portfolios and received the returns that they claim to be the product of superior
intelligence and hard work. Analytically, if the variability of these fortunes tracks systemic,
rather than personal, factors, then systemic factors explain them. The same is true of most of
the great fortunes of the epoch of finance capitalism that began around 1978.
The point of merging these issues is that they represent flip sides of the neoliberal coin.
In a broad sense, neoliberalism is premised on economic Darwinism, the quasi-religious (it
isn't Darwin) idea that people land where they deserve to land in the social order. This same
idea, that systemic differences in economic outcomes are evidence of systemic causes, applies
here. However, differences in intelligence, initiative and talent don't map to systemic outcomes , meaning that
concentrated wealth isn't a reward for these.
The ignorant brutality of this system appears to be on its way to getting a reality check
through a tiny virus. Unless the Federal government figures this out really fast, most of the
bodies will be carried out of poor and working class neighborhoods like mine. Few here have
health insurance and most health care providers in the area don't take the insurance they do
have. More than a day away from work and many of my neighbors will no longer have jobs.
Evictions are a regular state of affairs in good times. There are no resources to facilitate a
larger-picture response.
Liberalism, of which neoliberalism is a cranky cousin, lives through a patina of pragmatism
until the nukes start flying or a virus hits. Getting healthcare 'consumers' to consider their
market choices follows a narrow logic up to the point where none of the choices are relevant to
a public health emergency. One I plus another I plus another I doesn't equal us. The
fundamental premise of neoliberalism, the Robinsonade I, has
always been a cynical dodge to let rich people keep their loot.
The mortality rate and contagion factor recently reported for Coronavirus (links at top)
place it above the modern benchmark of the Spanish Flu of 1918 in terms of potential lethality.
What should make people angry is how the reconfiguration of political economy intended to make
a few people really rich has put the rest of us at increased risk. These are real people's
lives and they matter.
Finally, for students of neoliberalism: there is no conflation of neoliberalism with
neoclassical economics here. Milton Friedman, one of the founders of neoliberalism through
the Mont Pelerin Society, produced a long career's worth of half-baked garbage economics. On
the rare occasions when he wasn't helping Chilean fascists toss students out of airplanes in
flight, he was pawning his infantile theories off on future Chamber of Commerce and ALEC
predators. His positivism was already known to be a farce when he took it up. Here is a primer that
explains why it is, and always will be, a farce.
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is
published by CounterPunch Books.
In 1995, Gloria Steinem, spoke of making @BernieSanders an "honorary woman" because his
advocacy for women was so strong then, and has continued strong over the decades.
exactly. Look at the prime examples of how Biden treats women in the public sphere:
treating Anita Hill like crap and nuzzling random women. And N.O.W. wants Warren to endorse
Biden? Sheesh.
And Warren wonders why she didn't get the votes. Does Warren think being a women per se
means only she is capable of going something for women. How childish.
Because when Sanders jawboned Amazon into raising wages, none of the workers who got the
raised were women.
That's because to the PMC feminists of NOW -- another NGO to euthanize given how poorly
they have performed as measured by their stated goals -- only PMC women are truly
women. The working class is an undifferentiated mass without individual identities. That is,
in fact, what the Bernie Bro " meme conveys. No female supporter of Sanders can
possibly be a real woman, and even more revealing, Sanders supporters are coded male by
default, a patriarchal semiotic that would drive NOW and its ilk, er, bananas in any other
context.
So sellout by Clinton of the Democratic Party to Wall Street proved to be durable and
sustainable...
Bernie again behaves like a sheep dog with no intention to win... "Let's be friends" is not a
viable strategy...
Notable quotes:
"... the same character traits that make him an honorable politician also make him fundamentally unsuited for the difficult task of waging a successful outsider campaign for the nomination of a major political party. ..."
"... Why hasn't Sara Nelson, head of the Flight Attendants' Union, endorsed Bernie? (Personally I have always thought she'd be a good VP.) ..."
"... Robinson is dreaming if he thinks Non-Profit Industrial Complex entities like EMILY's List and Planned Parenthood will lift a finger to help Sanders, or busines unionists like Randi Weingarten. To his credit, though, Ady Barkan switched immediately. External support, though is correct: IIRC, there are plenty of union locals to be had; the Culinary Workers should be only the first. ..."
"... "Corporate Lobbyists Control the Rules at the DNC" [ ReadSludge ]. "Among the 447 total voting DNC members, who make up the majority of 771 superdelegates, there are scores of corporate lobbyists and consultants -- including many of the 75 at-large DNC members, who were not individually elected . ..."
"... The 32-member DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee contains the following 20 individuals: a health insurance board member co-chair, three surrogates for presidential campaigns (two for Bloomberg, one for Biden), four current corporate lobbyists, two former corporate lobbyists, six corporate consultants, and four corporate lawyers." ..."
"... "Joe Biden is a friend of mine" is the 2020-updated version of "enough about the damn e-mails, already". No amount of ground-level organizing can make up for a candidate willing to publicly overlook what should be high-office-disqualifying fundamental character traits in his opponents out of "niceness". ..."
"... It's easy to do a post Super Tuesday defeat analysis of Sanders but remember, everything seems to work before SC where I think the Democrats fixed the election and the same holds for Super Tuesday. ..."
Sanders (D)(1): "Bernie Sanders needs to find the killer instinct" [Matthew Walther,
The Week ].
I've heard Useful Idiots, Dead Pundits, and the inimitable Jimmy Dore all make the same point,
but Walther's prose makes the point most forcefully (as prose often does). The situation:
There is no greater contrast imaginable than the one between the popular (and frequently
exaggerated) image of so-called "Bernie bros" and the almost painfully conciliatory instincts
of the man they support.
This was fully in evidence on Wednesday afternoon when Sanders responded to arguably the
worst defeat of his political career by chatting with journalists about how " disgusted "
he is at unspecified online comments directed at Elizabeth Warren and her supporters and what
a " decent
guy " Joe Biden is.
He did this despite the fact that Warren, with the connivance of debate moderators,
recently called him a sexist in front of an audience of millions, effectively announcing that
she had no interest in making even a tacit alliance with the only other progressive candidate
in the race and, one imagines, despite thinking that the former vice president's record on
virtually everything -- finance, health care, race relations, the environment, foreign policy
-- should render him ineligible for office.
It should go without saying that offering these pleasantries will do Sanders few if any
favors.
Lambert here: This is a Presidential primary, not the Senate floor. There is no comity.
Walther then gives a list of possible scorched earth tactics to use against Biden; we could all
make such a list. But then:
Sanders's benevolent disposition does him credit. But the same character traits that
make him an honorable politician also make him fundamentally unsuited for the difficult task
of waging a successful outsider campaign for the nomination of a major political
party.
Corbyn had the same problem...
Sanders really must not let Biden and the Democrat Establishment off the hook. He seems to
have poor judgment about his friends. Warren was no "friend." And neither is Joe Biden.
He should forget those false friends, go into the next debate, and slice Joe Biden off at
the knees. Trump would. And will, if Sander loses.
His canvassers and more importantly his millions of small donors deserve no less. The race
and the debate is now between two people, and only one can emerge the winner. Sanders needs to
decide if he wants to be that person, and then do
what it takes . (If the outcome of the Sanders campaign is a left that is a permanently
institutionalized force, distinct from liberal Democrats, I would regard that as a net
positive. If that is Sanders' ultimate goal, then fine. He's not going to achieve that goal by
being nice to Joe Biden. Quite the reverse.)
UPDATE Sanders (D)(2): "Time To Fight Harder Than We've Ever Fought Before" [Nathan J.
Robinson, Current
Affairs ].
"Biden now has some formidable advantages going forward: Democrats who no longer see him as
a failed or risky bet will finally endorse and campaign for him. He will find it easier to
raise money. He will have "momentum." Bloomberg's exit will bring him new voters.
Sanders may find upcoming states even harder to win than the Super Tuesday contests. But the
one thing that would guarantee a Sanders loss is giving up and going home, which is exactly
what Joe Biden hopes we will now do."
Here follows a laundry list of tactics. Then: "The real thing Bernie needs in order to win,
though, is external support. Labor unions, activists, lawmakers, anyone with a public platform:
We need to be pressuring them to endorse Bernie.
Why hasn't Sara Nelson, head of the Flight Attendants' Union, endorsed Bernie?
(Personally I have always thought she'd be a good VP.)
Now that Elizabeth Warren is clearly not going to win, will organizations like the Working
Families Party and EMILY's List and people like AFT president Randi Weingarten and Medicare For
All advocate Ady Barkan switch and endorse Sanders?
Where is the Sierra Club, SEIU (Bernie, after all, was one of the first national figures to
push Fight for $15), the UAW, Planned Parenthood? Many progressive organizations have been
sitting out the race because Warren was in it."
Good ideas in general, but Robinson is dreaming if he thinks Non-Profit Industrial
Complex entities like EMILY's List and Planned Parenthood will lift a finger to help Sanders,
or busines unionists like Randi Weingarten. To his credit, though, Ady Barkan switched
immediately. External support, though is correct: IIRC, there are plenty of union locals to be
had; the Culinary Workers should be only the first.
Warren (D)(1): "Why Elizabeth Warren lost" [Ryan Cooper, The Week ]. "Starting in
November, however, she started a long decline that continued through January, when she started
losing primaries . So what happened in November?
It is hard to pin down exactly what is happening in such a chaotic race, but Warren's
campaign certainly made a number of strategic errors. One important factor was surely that
Warren started backing away from Medicare-for-all, selling instead a bizarre two-step plan.
The idea supposedly was to pass universal Medicare with two different bills, one in her
first year as president and one in the third year. Given how difficult it is to pass anything
through Congress, and that there could easily be fewer Democrats in 2023 than in 2021, it was a
baffling decision. Worse, Warren then released a plan for financing Medicare-for-all that was
simply terrible.
Rather than levying a new progressive tax, she would turn existing employer contributions to
private health insurance plans into a tax on employers, which would gradually converge to an
average for all businesses but the smallest. The clear objective here was to claim that she
would pay for it without levying any new taxes on the middle or working classes. But because
those employer payments are still part of labor compensation, it is ultimately workers who pay
them -- making Warren's plan a horribly regressive head tax (that is, an equal dollar tax on
almost all workers regardless of income).
All that infuriated the left, and struck directly at Warren's branding as the candidate of
technical competence. It suggested her commitment to universal Medicare was not as strong as
she claimed, and that she would push classic centrist-style Rube Goldberg policies rather than
clean, fair ones. (Her child care plan, with its complicated means-testing system, had a
similar defect).
Claiming her plan was the only one not to raise taxes on the middle class was simply
dishonest. In sum, this was a classic failed straddle that alienated the left but gained no
support among anti-universal health care voters. More speculatively, this kind of hesitation
and backtracking may have turned off many voters." • On #MedicareForAll, called it here on
"pay for" ; and here on "transition." Warren's plans should not have been well-received,
and they were not. I'm only amazed that these really technical arguments penetrated the media
(let along the voters).
Warren (D)(2): "Warren Urged by National Organization for Women Not to Endorse Sanders: He
Has 'Done Next to Nothing for Women'" [
Newsweek ]. • Establishment really pulling out all the stops.
* * *
"Why Southern Democrats Saved Biden" [Mara Gay, New York
Times ]. (Gay was the lone member of the Times Editorial Board to endorse Sanders
.) "Through Southern eyes, this election is not about policy or personality. It's about
something much darker. Not long ago, these Americans lived under violent, anti-democratic
governments. Now, many there say they see in President Trump and his supporters the same
hostility and zeal for authoritarianism that marked life under Jim Crow .
They were deeply skeptical that a democratic socialist like Mr. Sanders could unseat Mr.
Trump. They liked Ms. Warren, but, burned by Hillary Clinton's loss, were worried that too many
of their fellow Americans wouldn't vote for a woman."
Well worth a read. At the same time, it's not clear why the Democrat Establishment hands
control over the nomination to the political establishment in states they will never win in the
general; the "firewall" in 2016 didn't work out all that well, after all. As for Jim Crow, we
might do well to remember that Obama destroyed a generation of Black wealth his miserably
inadequate response to the foreclosure crisis, and his pathetic stimulus package kept Black
unemployment high for years longer than it should have been. And sowed the dragon's teeth of
authoritarian reaction as well.
"Corporate Lobbyists Control the Rules at the DNC" [ ReadSludge
]. "Among the 447 total voting DNC members, who make up the majority of 771 superdelegates,
there are scores of corporate lobbyists and consultants -- including many of the 75 at-large
DNC members, who were not individually elected .
The 32-member DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee contains the following 20 individuals: a
health insurance board member co-chair, three surrogates for presidential campaigns (two for
Bloomberg, one for Biden), four current corporate lobbyists, two former corporate lobbyists,
six corporate consultants, and four corporate lawyers."
"Joe Biden is a friend of mine" is the 2020-updated version of "enough about the damn
e-mails, already". No amount of ground-level organizing can make up for a candidate willing to
publicly overlook what should be high-office-disqualifying fundamental character traits in his
opponents out of "niceness".
That's fine, but if his organization is then put at the disposal of Joe Biden, I don't see
how the organization survives. (That's why the DNC cheating meme* is important; it provides the
moral cover to get out of that loyalty oath (which the Sanders campaign certainly should have
had its lawyers take a look at)).
NOTE * Iowa, Texas, and California have all had major voting screw-ups, all of which
impacted Sanders voters disproportionately. The campaign should sue. They have the money.)
I once met an union organizer and he said he could go back to any site he had worked and be
on friendly terms with everyone. Bernie is thinking like an organizer. I think that making this
about Social Security is his best bet. It demolishes Biden in a way that makes the election
about the American people.
he needs to go after biden on the issues in a much more forceful manner than he typically
does, with lots and lots of specifics. did i mention lots of specifics? and lots of pointed
references to biden's past positions, and a focus on pinning him down on his position now. he
needs to ask questions biden will not be prepared for with easy scripted responses.
Perhaps if Sanders can keep successfully baiting Biden with hooks baited with Biden's own
past statements over and over and over again, that Sanders can then go on to practice some very
well disguised passive-aggressive pointing/not-pointing to Biden's mental condition by asking
Biden at every opportunity: " don't you remember that, Joe? You remember saying that, don't you
Joe? Don't you remember when you said that, Joe?"
Except 70% of Women according to Stanford finding these kind of confrontations distressing
to very distressing. Tricky. One changes emotions by using emotions so the trick here is
"allowing" Biden to act deranged and expressing sorrow over it. For 70% of guys they won't get
the emotional content, but will understand the logic of the questions and lack of answers. It
can be done, Bill Clinton and Obama were very good at this. Look you want to be president you
got to play the game at the highest level. Good practice for dealing with trump.
Timing was right for both Obama and Clinton. After the GFC voters would have gone for any
Democrat because Republicans were toxic. Similarly, it was fortuitous for Clinton because Perot
was running and he quit the race a couple of months before the election.
Obama got loads and loads of money from Wall Street. Neither of these guys would stand a
chance in an election year when the economy was doing well.
It's easy to do a post Super Tuesday defeat analysis of Sanders but remember, everything
seems to work before SC where I think the Democrats fixed the election and the same holds for
Super Tuesday.
I didn't see anyone pointing out that Bernie had to be confrontational when he seems to be
winning.
Wait. How many days ago was the field of candidates wide open?
If Bernard does not roast Biden on Social Security I will be disappointed. If Smokin' Joe
doesn't lash out with his typical aplomb, I'll be disappointed. I'm saving myself up
for bigger disappointments.
I'll be happy with the Vermont interpretation of Huey Long. I'm glad that people are finally
noticing we have one Socialist Senator.
Idea for an 'own the slur' bumper sticker: "I'm tickled pink by Bernie" -- Although I don't
know how the post-dial-up-modem crowd might misinterpret that?
I support Bernie because Bernie supports the polices I think we need to save the country:
M4A, GND,$15/hr min, free college, etc. To me, being an FDR Dem like Bernie is the moderate
position, we've done it before, we know it works. Biden's support of neoliberal polices that
have wrecked America is the extreme position.
But the DNC does not support FDR's Democracy. They have ended up to the right of Ronald
Reagan. Pelosi could have pushed a M4A bill but did not. Pelosi could have pushed any number of
polices to show how Trump is failing the working and middle class, but she did not.
So if Bernie is not picked for the general, I no longer have a reason to support the Dems,
and will stay home. Actually, I will probably not stay home, I will work to get Dems out of
office, and in general, work to burn the party to the ground. Why? Because it is in the way,
and does not support the working class or the middle class.
The Dem party has to decide – do they really support the working and middle class or
not. Because only Bernie supports those polices, and the rest of the Dems running for President
do not.
"Joe Biden is a friend of mine" is the 2020-updated version of "enough about the damn
e-mails, already". No amount of ground-level organizing can make up for a candidate willing
to publicly overlook what should be high-office-disqualifying fundamental character traits in
his opponents out of "niceness".
I'm going to take my chance while I have it and before having to say "I hate to be that
old Marxist but "
I am 36 years old and therefore the same age as most of those speaking for millenials in
the DSA, writing for Jacobin, and organising for Bernie or those of his satellites on their
respective fool's errands in opposition to the entrenched Democratic Party panjandrums.
Half American and half British, I have also experienced some similar issues with the
Corbyn/Momentum movement and its recent car crash with ruling class reality.
Just as an intro because of course I am going to say, "I hate to say this but "
The DSA and the semi-organised American left are selling their increasingly, justifiably
radical followers a pig in a poke. In a sense, I except Bernie from that condemnation –
running for President, it is what it is. But those who are supposed to be to his left are
performing an invidious game by preventing further political education or raising
consciousness in favour of peddling the myth of reforming the Democratic Party from within
that have been tried, and have failed, so many times in the last 120 years.
The fact that these same groups are doing the same thing when it comes to labour
struggles, endlessly shepherding wildcat momentum behind union leadership and justifying
sell-out deals instead of fostering a realistic preparation for the struggles ahead, suggests
that this is not an accident.
The cognitive dissonance is almost as horrible as that on offer when technocrats like
Obama and Clinton accept the facts of climate change while endlessly sandbagging real
responses to it. Which shouldn't be surprising, since the American and British new left is
engaged in an infernal slow dance with their liberal or corporate beefcakes.
If I sound flippant, I apologise – I don't mean to. I also don't necessarily
disbelieve in the potential for at least some change within existing conditions – but
historically such changes have been won because there was a more radical
extra-electoral/parliamentary movement of workers leveraging their strength, not because it
was all within one cosy political bubble.
And that only happens when workers and students are educated about the struggles involved
in forcing changes in the teeth of ruling class interests, institutions and political heft.
Peddling illusions about the all-encompassing power of the electoral process, or
complaining endlessly about the the latest example of back-stabbing from whichever corporate
liberal stooge last wielded the shank, is increasingly not just useless but something worse
– an expected part of the system itself as it reproduces its frozen dialectics of power
and exploitation.
This is not (at least not entirely) a call for revolution. But I am increasingly certain
that change is impossible without first preparing a broad swathe of people to fight, fight,
fight instead of entrusting the struggle to this or that figurehead (Bernie, AOC), let alone
their clarion-callers in an increasingly cosy upper middle class den of pseudo-leftists.
You might read that Politico article on the DSA. I found it rather encouraging but you
might differ. If so, I'd like to know your opinion of the concrete details.
> peddling the myth of reforming the Democratic Party from within
If the ultimate outcome were to split the Democrats, would you change your mind?
Reading the Politico article now. You're right – it is encouraging, at least in the
sense that it features articulate, radicalised individuals and their early attempts to
organise. It chronicles absolutely necessary early steps in the process. I am very encouraged
with the justified, even pragmatic, way they look beyond presidential politics in a
dialectical way – both the wider context and the more local, direct implications.
So far, so good.
But there are problems. The sudden, total collapse of the International Socialist
Organization is an example of what can happen to a seemingly lively left(ish) group when it
grows on shaky ground. You have chronicled some of the contortions of the DSA in their
regional elections and controversies. Growing pains – or something more
fundamental?
What I'm trying to say is what are they about and how do they reconcile disparate forces
and interests without tearing themselves apart? The DSA has its own particular history in the
wider context of the American left and its sudden expansion doesn't make that go away.
Without adequate theory your praxis will tend to fall apart when it collides with
reality.
To give a concrete example that is suggested in the Politico piece, I'm not sure how they
are discussing and understanding the identity politics education of the (upper)middle class
students drawn to the movement with the different perspectives of the labour movement or,
beyond that, the exciting, potentially revolutionary hinterland of the actual working
class(!!!)
Lenin didn't know what identity politics was but he described it in a different context:
haggling for privileges. I don't want to make this a diatribe on one subject or to suggest
that I'm not sensitive to the discrete forms of oppression facing different groups but
– and I know you write about this brilliantly – without some kind of radical
reckoning with these issues, groups like the DSA are liable to sectarian disasters of exactly
the kind envisioned (I suspect) by those who have most insidiously articulated identity over
class as the most significant feature of our social relations.
I would say similar things about Extinction Rebellion. I have friends who are deeply
involved in it and they are brilliantly committed to its cause. But they struggle when it
comes to connecting the realities they rightly identify with the material pathologies that
produce them. They are not interested in why, for example, the ER leaders ban socialist
sub-groups as "political" while welcoming those for bosses or landlords(?!)
These are, to me, fundamental problems. If you cannot identify your enemy you cannot plan
your campaign. And I worry that the DSA, or ER, dine out on identifying symptoms while
studiously avoiding an uncomfortable meeting with their cause. And that doesn't mean, either,
a schematic link of every social ill with capitalism, nor a demand that everyone be schooled
in the dialectic. Just a plan to educate, to find other forms of solidarity, and gird
ourselves for the struggle to come.
But that's probably more than enough! In answer to your last question -- - I think a
serious split with the Democratic Party is an absolute necessity for anything that follows.
It will come one way or another – even if Bernie wins the nomination, then the
presidency, I fully expect he will be sandbagged by Democrats at every turn. At some point,
it will be necessary to realise that the Democratic Party is not called the graveyard of
social movements for nothing – and that American duopoly is the greatest impediment to
democracy, no different really from the Congress of All-Russian Soviets in its day.
Forget splitting the Democrats. I like the idea I first saw here, of turning to and
leveraging the Republicans as the party of progressive change. Let the Democrat donors hold
their bag of defeated candidates while harnessing progressive populists, like Tucker Carlson,
or Josh Hawley, as an example, to change the country for the better. My vote in November is
for Bernie if he's on the ballot. If not, Tulsi.
The Democrat Establishment may not split (though as I think Taibbi pointed out,
Sanders might have been able to peel off some opportunists with a Texas win).
However, the Democrat base may split. Taking "Bernie Bro" and "He's not a real
Democrat" as a proxies, the Democrat gerontocracy (to use the term for the Breshnev era) is
systematically and openly alienating the Latin vote, youth generally, young blacks, and
younger women. As for the working class, they are not even a mental category for liberals.
That reduces their base to older Blacks and the PMC, especially PMC women. As 2016 showed,
and as the (PMC women) Warren campaign showed, that's barely enough to win an election, and
its certainly not enough to rule.
At some point, the contradictions have to break out into the open, as it becomes obvious
the Democrats have failed to represent -- indeed, have disenfranchised -- too many people. As
Lincoln
wrote to Lyman Trumbull in 1860..
Stand firm. The tug has to come, & better now, than any time hereafter.
The Iron Law of Institutions is looking better every day.
Look, no one knows the future and everyone is always flying by the seat of their pants.
This is always true, only more apparent now. I would speculate that at least half of the
newly motivated DSA membership couldn't really articulate a vision of socialism if you asked
them to. In the future that might be a problem but it is certainly not a problem now. I am
much more skeptical of those people now claiming to have "fundamental" answers.
Most of us have a clear if general sense of the enemy (capitalists) and their henchmen
(politicians, "policy advocates," etc.). On the other hand, as Stoller points out, we are
really bereft of people who actually understand production. I would argue that is our biggest
problem, not lack of ideological clarity. Because once we gain power we need to know how to
wield it.
Fair enough but I'm not really talking about ideological clarity or sectarian strife. I
think we agree – I also mean a thorough understanding of how the world works. But that
also means rigorous critique of where things might go wrong – and, for example when it
concerns identity politics (a phrase I hate and apologise for using!) I think we have a good
example. That doesn't mean class above all, by the way – just not ceding intellectual
ground to liberal formulations of who we are and why we are that way!
(I didn't really mean to harp on about identity stuff but I think of it when I think of,
for example, the DSA, and some of the divisive disputes that have bedevilled them)
I attended one DSA meeting. The order of business was something like this:
Each person declared how they chose to be identified.
The group overruled those who didn't want to do anything until some minorities could be
recruited.
Some movers and shakers volunteer to draw up the chapter charter. As they were all men, they
would recuse themselves from further action so the chapter wouldn't be dominated by men. The
group was about 90% men.
The Patriarchy was soundly denounced.
Yes. I don't see this as malevolent; the impulses are good-hearted (which is exactly what
makes "intersectionality" so dangerous). Kimberle Crenshaw endorsed Warren, by the way. OTOH,
one of the Combahee River Collective founders endorsed Sanders. Of course, Crenshaw's a
lawyer. PMC class solidarity is an impressive thing .
> Lenin didn't know what identity politics was but he described it in a different
context: haggling for privileges . I don't want to make this a diatribe on one
subject or to suggest that I'm not sensitive to the discrete forms of oppression facing
different groups but – and I know you write about this brilliantly – without some
kind of radical reckoning with these issues, groups like the DSA are liable to sectarian
disasters of exactly the kind envisioned (I suspect) by those who have most insidiously
articulated identity over class as the most significant feature of our social relations.
"Brilliant" [lambert blushes modestly]. Back at ya for "haggling for privileges."
> At some point, it will be necessary to realise that the Democratic Party is not
called the graveyard of social movements for nothing
History is a hard teacher. And where its lesson has been sadly confined to a small group
of cadres, as it were, this lesson is now going to be taught to millions by the Democrat
Establishment, and with whacks to the knuckles and expulsions, too. That's why I put up that
link to Mike Duncan on the Russian Revolution of 1905 the other day .
And when you answer that, can you make clear which context you are steeped in? I don't
know which side of the pond you live on, but our hallowed Constitution, in hindsight, pretty
much leads us here. It just ratchets everything rightward.
The claim is – and I am not sophisticated enough to either support or deny it, but
others I respect have made it – that our political structure via said Constitution will
only support more than two parties for only an election cycle or two. Lincoln introduced
himself as a Whig, but had to run as a Republican.
Yes, it goes that far back. Given today's sophisticated hold on the media levers by our
Elites, I think an effective third party is less likely than ever. Sure there's things called
the Working Families Party and stuff here and there, but their job is basically wrenching Dem
primaries.
PS: I actually am registered Green. It's my attempt to signal where my vote is. Little
good that seems to have done me.
In America at least, it's easy to be leftist when your personal well-being is not at stake
-- the left in the US has always had an upper-class tint and co-opted by the
professional-managerial class. BUT their well being does not depend on the outcome like it
does for the working classes. The UK and other countries have stronger social safety nets and
that does make a difference in people's politics.
As an older worker ( I could be your father) I know how these fights go -- it takes
decades of sheer intransigence to get anywhere. In a zillion little ways, every day, for
years. I don't know if Millenials understand this, its not a dress rehearsal. It's real. I do
believe the movement needs solid organizers and figureheads though -- most likely AOC will be
next, I hope. There needs to be a clear method of succession, among people who do *not*
compromise. A single stated set of goals, for a decade. And those who get out and volunteer
and vote.
I agree with some of what you write but I have yet to see any really adequate figureheads
of the sort you suggest as necessary. AOC, after her praise for John McCain is not one of
them.
I know this makes me sound intransigent and sectarian but it is and has always been a
problem in the left to fight beyond just nation-based working class interests. I'm not saying
AOC does that but she, like so many before her, have definitely sacrificed critique of
imperialism for a certain amount of mainstream coverage as far as her social democratic
advocacy goes.
AOC praised John McCain, Bernie has played up to Russiagate and the enduring myths about
Castro's Cuba despite making an obvious, uncontroversial point in the first place. This is
how it goes. And that's what I mean – it is a standard thing for Western politicians to
throw foreign affairs over the side when they are pressed – especially because the Borg
is most concerned with matters of Empire and therefore will attack on that above all else
(knowing, too, that the voting public cares much less about such issues than, say, Medicare
for All). Corbyn did the same thing when it came to Trident renewal, then Iraq, and finally
Israel.
(By the way, such capitulation got him nowhere – he was still slandered as an
anti-semite and I just finished an awful book about Oleg Gordievsky in which it is suggested
he was a useful idiot for the Czech intelligence services, along with Michael Foot!)
Socialism does not exist without a critique of imperialist/capitalist wars is what I
mean.
But I'm sorry, I know this isn't what you were talking about. The reason I brought it up,
however, is to illustrate the insidious ways in which freshly elected, occasionally 'radical'
politicians are institutionalised. It doesn't happen with bread and butter domestic issues
but rather foreign affairs, those distant concerns of experts and spooks.
And yet bringing this up gives a kind of window of opportunity and hope. There is no group
with better understanding of the real-world consequences of Empire than the urban and rural
working class. They are the ones providing sons and daughters for endless wars. The
overextension of empire is always going to provide its weakest points.
Sorry, I've rambled – these are just some thoughts as I try and get to grips with
what is to be done!
Well, no, actually its a good thing that you rambled -- I completely agree but from a
different angle perhaps.
The fact that socialism is even in contention in the US I think is a referendum on
imperialism and capitalism.
And the US way has certainly opened itself to criticism.
Frankly it amazes me that it is even happening at all, being that the Overton window has
been dragged so far to the Right in my lifetime.
I remember watching Nixon on TV, stating that he was not a crook. Today, he would be
considered to be an unelectable liberal, too far left.
I am not completely happy with the way that AOC and Sanders have had to toe the line with
the Establishment regarding foreign policy and etc. (and I don't think McCain was any kind of
saint). But I do believe that AOC and Sanders are trying to please multiple Masters. If they
don't do the whole "red-baiting" routine then they lose credibility with the system they are
part of -- and thereby lose influence. The voters are a different issue -- foreign affairs
are just not on the radar at all for most of the working class. The sole exception is those
who have family in the armed services. And yet without those voters, they wouldn't have any
influence to lose.
So basically, its a chess game. Washington DC has never ran on the truth. I'm pretty sure
AOC was just mouthing the words so she can accomplish some of her own left-wing goals. And
maybe Sanders is too --
If I might inject my two cents into this very interesting discussion, I believe
tempestteacup's ultimate point still stands: the Blob/industrialists/parties will suffer no
contest to their claims on power. Sure, they allow the occasional voice in the wilderness
– to do otherwise would lead to more radical activity I imagine – but the power
structures themselves seem quite robust to disturbances from the likes of Sanders and AOC.
While I agree that they are likely mouthing the words (Sanders once discussed abolishing the
CIA and one does not simply reconsider that view once one has reached that point
ideologically), I question whether it even matters It seems to me that a realistic vision of
socialism must be brought about independently of the existing state. After all, the social
groups that dominate the state also control the media, the military, the educational
institutions, and just about every other organ of power. In this framework, hijacking the
state as it exists is a tall order and actually reforming it within the rules of the game is
even more difficult. Isn't it worth considering the idea that left energy is better devoted
to forming alternative institutions and power structures?
The circle of wagons we are seeing around Biden's husk shows that they will fight tooth
and nail to keep from implementing even the most benign and basic social democratic reforms.
I can only see someone like Bernie or AOC winning real power in the face of a massive
economic meltdown and even then, they can win the social democratic reforms (which are
desirable) but why couldn't that same opportunity + working class radicalism be channeled
into actual systemic change; ie destroying the state as it currently exists and replacing it
with a people's democracy? (not the Chinese type please). This would require decades of hard
work, but so would replacing the democratic party with our version of Labour (and look where
they are).
Isn't it worth considering the idea that left energy is better devoted to forming
alternative institutions and power structures?
Very much agree -- I don't think I'm disagreeing with tempestteacup so much as looking
from a different angle.
For any of it to work, I think we will have to establish parallel institutions on a far
greater scale than Sander's campaign. One favorite of mine is worker co-ops, particularly in
the Rust Belt and Midwest.
I dream of being able to unite and organize existing co-ops and strengthen them to the
point that they could replace the old Sears Roebuck. Effectively workers would have to work
two jobs and participate in two different economies, to the extent that they were able -- but
having a fallback via co-op would certainly give them far more autonomy and power than any
existing structure.
The only reason the existing structures have any power at all, is due to their death grip
on the economy, and directly on peoples lives via economic means. Breaking that grip will
also require economic means I think.
After a community transmitted case of coronavirus was reported in California,
Dr. Drew Pinsky talks about the coronavirus:
PINSKY: I don't know what they're talking about. We used to point at the way Indiana
responded to the opiate and the HIV epidemic as the model for the country. I don't know what
they're talking about. The only reason I felt comfortable with Pence as Vice President was I
was aware of his track record in Indiana in handling these serious problems, and they handled
them better than most states did, almost any other state. So, I don't know what the hell
people are talking about. That is fake news...
We have in the United States 24 million cases of flu-like illness, 180,000
hospitalizations, 16,000 dead from influenza. We have zero deaths from coronavirus. We have
almost no cases. There are people walking around out there with the virus that don't even
know they have it, it's so mild.
So it's going to be much more widespread than we knew. It's
going to be much milder than we knew. The 1.7% fatality rate is going to fall. Where was the
press during the Mediterranean Corona outbreak, where the fatality rate was 41%? Why didn't
they get crazed about MERS or SARS?
This is an overblown press-created hysteria. This thing
is well in hand. President Trump is absolutely correct.
. In the spirit of charity, we should give credit where it's due: Warren really did become
the "
unity candidate " that she always proclaimed herself to be. She displayed an astounding
capacity to bring together a polarized country around their shared distaste for her
candidacy.
Compiling a complete discography of Warren's detractors would be an impossible feat, but for
the sake of partisan schadenfreude, we should briefly revisit the greatest hits. These include
the Native American tribal leaders who weren't particularly fond of a wealthy white Harvard
professor claiming their ethnicity for personal gain (even co-authoring a cooking guide titled
The Pow Wow Chow Native American Cookbook ), the Bernie Sanders supporters infuriated
by Warren's cynical attempts to paint their candidate as a woman-hating misogynist,
police unions offended by Warren's
open dishonesty about violence in law enforcement, religious conservatives who found her
contemptuous dismissal of anyone with traditionalist views of sexual morality to be in
profoundly bad taste, and pro-lifers (who still comprise
34 percent of the Democratic electorate ) for whom Warren's
radically pro-abortion policy objectives were unconscionable.
It's worth noting, of course, that this is just a small slice of the groups that found
Warren enormously unlikeable. The senator's casual-at-best relationship with the truth (
listing herself as as "woman of color" in Harvard's faculty listing,
claiming that she was fired from a teaching position for being pregnant,
refusing to admit that her various spending plans would require raising taxes on the middle
class, and so on) probably didn't help. And shockingly, her painfully contrived attempts at
catering to the woke activist base (vocal
support for reparations,
pledging to let a transgender child pick her secretary of education,
endorsing affirmative action for non-binary people) paired with her technocratically
manicured professorial wonkiness -- she's got a plan for that! -- never caught fire in the
blue-collar neighborhoods in the Midwest and South.
... ... ...
Senator Warren, we hardly knew ye.
Nate Hochman is an undergraduate student at Colorado College and a Young Voices
contributor. You can follow him at Twitter
@njhochman .
by Helen
Buyniski , RT A notorious hedge-funder who's left a trail of broken companies (and
countries) in his wake has set his sights on ousting Twitter's Jack Dorsey. Users complaining
about new features should know the platform may never be the same. Elliott Management,
euphemistically called an "activist investor" by timid media who fear its legendary
founder Paul Singer, has reportedly snapped up a four percent ($1 billion) stake in Twitter,
nominating four directors to its board as the start of a bid to oust Dorsey. The hedge fund
supposedly resents the CEO dividing his attentions between Twitter, Square, and a six-month
move to Africa, believing Twitter is capable of churning out bigger profits. Like any good
hedge fund – so the narrative goes – they just want the value of the company to
increase (stock jumped seven percent on the news).
What this coverage leaves out – and what makes Twitter's plight more than the usual
business scrap – is Singer's history. A major Republican donor and huge booster for
Israel, he's also a notoriously ruthless businessman who embodies "vulture capitalism,"
leaving a trail of asset-stripped companies and even a few economically-ruined countries in his
wake over his insanely profitable career. Media coverage of Singer's interest in Twitter has
gone to great lengths to present his interest in the platform as "
strictly business-related ," however, and some conservatives have even gotten excited
by the thought that the neocon Singer will end the ideologically-motivated censorship they
claim to experience on the platform – but nothing could be further from
reality.
Here come the vultures
Fox News' Tucker Carlson profiled Elliott Management's strategy in December thus: "Buy a
distressed company, outsource the jobs, liquidate the valuable assets, fire middle management,
and once the smoke has cleared, dump what remains to the highest bidder, often in Asia."
Amid the financial crash of 2008, Elliott, with other hedge funds, acquired distressed US auto
parts supplier Delphi, took billions in bailout money from the Obama government (a transaction
the president's "auto-czar" compared to "extortion" ), then offloaded so many
jobs overseas that 25 factories were forced to close, putting tens of thousands of union and
white-collar workers out on the street, as well as slashing pensions. Elliott Management made
over $1 billion from the deal
.
When Singer's fund sinks its teeth into its prey, it does not let go, and most victims have
learned to give up and hope for a quick death. When Elliott bought an 11 percent stake in
outdoors retailer Cabela's, it began pushing for a sale of what was then a profitable company.
The management so feared Singer that it sold within a year, sending stock prices through the
roof but putting almost 2,000 people out of their jobs, setting off a downward spiral that,
Carlson says, "destroyed" Cabela's hometown of Sidney, Nebraska, whose residents feared
to even speak about the hedge funder on camera four years later. AT&T similarly ran for its
life when Singer's fund bit off a $3.2 billion stake of the company in September, acquiescing
to several demands within a month (and there's still time for the rest).
Those who don't acquiesce are guaranteed to suffer. After Elliott Management bought up a
chunk of its debt, the country of Argentina defaulted, holding out for 15 years on Singer's
attempts to collect. A 13-year legal battle ensued, during which Singer's fund seized an
Argentine naval ship to prove they were serious about getting paid. Then-president Cristina
Fernandez denounced the "Vulture Lord," but her replacement, Mauricio Macri, finally
agreed in 2016 to pay up – just in time for the threat of another
debt default .
Peru and Congo have similarly felt the sting of Elliott Management's tactics, having their
distressed debt snapped up and then weaponized against them in court. And even when Singer
doesn't win, his opponents lose. Korean electronics giant Samsung was able to fight off his
takeover efforts when he tried to block a move by the Lee family to consolidate their holdings,
but the bitter battle ended in a five-year prison sentence for company head Jay Y. Lee on
bribery
charges and the impeachment of South Korean president Park Geun-hye.
the
ideologically-motivated vultures, that is
Singer's corporate interests overseas don't stop at outsourcing to cut costs, however. He
founded an organization called Start-Up Nation Central to facilitate the transfer of huge
chunks of the US tech industry to Israel. The initiative seeks to counter the Boycott,
Divestment and Sanctions movement by making Israel essentially boycott-proof, and Singer has
accordingly used his billions to
push American tech firms into Israel – Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple
all have research and development centers there as of 2016. If he gets control of Twitter, the
company's US employees may be surprised to find their replacements speaking Hebrew, not
Chinese.
As for the conservatives who think Singer will defend them from Twitter censorship? Singer
was a hardcore anti-Trumper in 2015, backing Florida Senator Marco Rubio and funding the
prototype of the notorious Steele dossier. Former Trump campaign strategist Steve Bannon "
declared
war " on the billionaire in 2017 upon learning of his involvement. While Singer
financially backs Trump now, journalist Philip Weiss and others have suggested the hedge funder
"cut a deal with Trump on Israel," offering his support in exchange for Trump going
all-in on "protecting" the Jewish State.
Singer is the second-largest donor to the bloodthirsty think tank Foundation for Defense of
Democracies and also supports JINSA and the American Enterprise Institute – all
dyed-in-the-wool neocon groups cheerleading for war with Iran as they did in Iraq. If Trump's
"America-first" base thinks Singer is going to fight for their free speech on Twitter,
they're about to get a rude awakening. Anti-war voices on both sides of the spectrum will
likely find the censorship intensified to the point where they long for the days of mere shadow
banning.
Battle of the billionaires
Dorsey is prepared to stand and fight – for now. He announced on Thursday he'd put his
plans to live in Africa for six months on hold, supposedly due to the coronavirus epidemic.
Meanwhile, Dorsey's fellow tech tycoon Elon Musk has
pledged to help him fight the takeover, tweeting his support on Monday, and Twitter
employees pledged their support with the #webackjack hashtag.
Twitter users complaining about the "Snapchatization" of their beloved platform
should realize they're looking at something quite a bit more serious than the rollout of an
unpopular feature. Twitter, despite its numerous flaws, remains a vital communication channel
for many. Whatever lies ahead for the platform – a stripped-down MySpace-esque husk, a
megaphone for the never-Trump wing of the GOP, another addition to Israel's Silicon Wadi
– only one thing can be certain: it will be profitable for Elliott Management.
Subscribe to RT newsletter to
get stories the mainstream media won't tell you.
Without any proof, The New York Times and Washington Post run "Russia
helping Sanders" stories, and Sanders responds by bashing Russia, writes Joe Lauria.
W ith Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders spooking the Democratic establishment, The
Washington Post Friday reported damaging information from intelligence sources against
Sanders by saying that Russia is trying to help his campaign.
If the story is true and if intelligence agencies are truly committed to protecting U.S.
citizens, the Sanders campaign would have been quietly informed and shown evidence to back up
the claims.
Instead the story wound up on the front page of the Post , "according to people
familiar with the matter." Zero evidence was produced to back up the intelligence agencies'
assertion.
"It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken," the Post reported.
That would tell any traditional news editor that there was no story until it is known.
Instead major U.S. media are again playing the role of laundering totally unverified
"information" just because it comes from an intelligence source. Reporting such assertions
without proof amounts to an abdication of journalistic responsibility. It shows total trust in
U.S. intelligence despite decades of deception and skullduggery from these agencies.
Centrist Democratic Party leaders have expressed extreme unease with Sanders leading the
Democratic pack. Politicoreported
Friday that former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's entry into the race is explicitly to stop
Sanders from winning on the first ballot at the party convention.
A day after The New York Times
reported , also without evidence, that Russia is again trying to help Donald Trump win in
November, the Post reports Moscow is trying to help Sanders too, again without
substance. Both candidates whom the establishment loathes were smeared on successive days.
In a Tough Spot
The Times followed the Post report Friday by making it appear that Sanders
himself had chosen to make public the intelligence assessment about "Russian interference" in
his campaign.
But Sanders had known for a month about this assessment and only issued a statement after
the Post asked him for comment before publishing its uncorroborated story based on
anonymous sources.
Sanders was put in a difficult spot. If he said, "Show me the proof that Russia is trying to
help me," he ran the risk of being attacked for disbelieving (even disloyalty to) U.S.
intelligence, and, by default, defending the Kremlin.
So politician that he is, and one who is trying to win the White House, Sanders told the
Post :
"I don't care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president. My message to Putin is clear:
Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do. In 2016,
Russia used Internet propaganda to sow division in our country, and my understanding is that
they are doing it again in 2020."
The Times quoted Sanders as calling Russian President Vladimir Putin an "autocratic
thug." The paper reported Sanders saying in a statement: "Let's be clear, the Russians want to
undermine American democracy by dividing us up and, unlike the current president, I stand
firmly against their efforts and any other foreign power that wants to interfere in our
election."
Responding to a cacophony of criticism that Sanders' supporters are especially vicious
online, as opposed to the millions of other vicious people online, Sanders attempted to use
Russia as a scapegoat, the way the Clinton campaign did in 2016. He said: "Some of the ugly
stuff on the Internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real
supporters."
But no matter how strong Sander's denunciations of Russia, his opponents will now target him
as being a tool of the Kremlin.
Mission accomplished.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent
forThe Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe,Sunday Timesof London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at[email protected]and
followed on Twitter @unjoe .
Let`s face it,even though Bernie is a moderate Social Democrat,at best.He`s the only one
capable of beating "the Orange"version of Hitler.But he sounds as if the DNC,big wigs,decide
to deny him the nomination;he`d go along with it.Just like before;when he even campaigned for
the"Crooked One(Hillary).I guess we`ll see.
Kim Dixon , February 24, 2020 at 04:31
The most-important element missed in this piece is this: Sanders is helping the DNC and
the MIC gin up fear of, and hatred for, the only other nuclear superpower on earth.
If you were around during the McCarthy years, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the '73
Arab/Israeli war, and all the other almost-Armageddon crises of Cold War One, you know that
nothing could be stupider and more-dangerous than that. The missiles still sit in their
silos, waiting for the next early-warning misunderstanding or proxy-war miscalculation to
send them flying.
Sanders lived through it all. He's supposed to be the furthest-Left pol in Congress. So
how can he possibly advocate for anything but detente and disarmament?
SteveK9 , February 24, 2020 at 20:18
I would really like to support Bernie, but statements like this make me shake my head.
It's more a reflection of America today I guess. Politicians believe to a man (or woman) that
they must put the hate on Putin and Russia or they have no chance. It doesn't matter that the
Russia garbage is 100% false. And, I don't mean they 'interfered' only a little there was
nothing, nothing at all. Even Trump has to go along with this propaganda. I don't know how
anyone can believe this idiotic (and incredibly dangerous, as you point out) rubbish at this
point. But you can't call your friends blanking morons.
J Gray , February 25, 2020 at 02:55
I think he successfully dodged a bullet but set himself up to offer comprehensive election
reform if he pulls out a victory .
or it is an early sign that he, the DNC & MIC are coming to terms. It doesn't have
that ring to it to me, like when Trump called for regime-change war in Venezuela &
defunding schools to build a space army. That was a clear on-the-record sell-out & got
him off the Impeachment hook the next day. Similar to when the Clinton signed the Telecom Act
to get off his.
They are still coming after Sanders too hard w/their McCarthiast attacks to feel like he
is siding with them. I think he has to do this because they are bundling his movement,
Venezuela and Russia into the new Red Scare.
"#JoeLauria's piece in #ConsortiumNews is excellent. He calmly sets out #Sanders'
political dilemma. The latest line from US intelligence agency stenographer media like
#NYTimes is that #Russians are helping both #Trump and Sanders because they simply want to
sow discord and cynicism about US democracy , they do not care who wins. #CaitlinJohnstone
neatly satirises this by writing a spoof article claiming that US intelligence agencies have
discovered #Bloomberg is being helped by Russians because he has two Russian
grandfathers.
It has reached the point , as Lauria shows, where any criticism of such US MSM nonsense
leaves the speaker open to the allegation that he is soft on/ naive about/complicit in
Russian election meddling. Without being a Trump supporter, one can understand Trump's rage
and contempt for what is going on .
Justin Glyn. Consortium News. Joe Lauria. Tony Kevin"
Tony Kevin , February 23, 2020 at 21:32
Sanders and Trump will survive this Deep State manipulation and attempted blackmail . They
will see off the Clintonistas and Deep State moles, and will go on to fight a tough but fair
election. Americans are sick of Russophobia.
jack , February 24, 2020 at 15:25
agreed – the Russiagate psyop is past its shelf life – BUT Deep State will
carry on – it's a global entity and they're into literally everything – no idea
how any known, normal governing structure can deal with it
Enough with the "Russia" BS already! It is clear to me the wealthy corporate Dems and the
MSM are behind all of the smear tactics against Bernie and anyone else who serves the
people
Enough with the "Russia" BS already! It is clear to me the wealthy corporate Dems and the
MSM are behind all of the smear tactics against Bernie and anyone else who serves the
people
Dfnslblty , February 23, 2020 at 09:07
Front page drama plus zero evidence began long ago with 'anonymous sources said "!
Complete lack of accountability on the part of the sources and on the part of the
reporters.
Thus we receive a "reality teevee " potus , and we are pleased to be hypnotised and
titillated.
A true revolution would demand CN-quality reportage and reject msm pablum.
JohnDoe , February 23, 2020 at 03:43
It's enough to look at the news on mainstream media to understand who's, as usual,
meddling in the elections. In the latest period for the first time I saw a lot of
enthusiastic comments and articles about Bernie Sanders. It's clear they are pushing him. But
why those who isolated him in during the primaries against Clinton are now supporting him?
It's obvious, that they want to get rid of Elizabeth Warren, first push ahead the weaker
candidates, then they'll switch their support towards another candidate, probably
Bloomberg.
delia ruhe , February 23, 2020 at 00:14
Well, thank you Joe Lauria! I am in trouble in several comment threads for suggesting that
the intel community is at it again, trying to ruin two campaigns by identifying the
candidates with Putin and the Kremlin. Now I can quote you. Excellent piece, as usual.
Deniz , February 22, 2020 at 22:44
Imagine Sanders and Trump, putting their differences aside and declaring war on the deep
state during a debate. They have the same enemies.
The same people who planted Steele's dirty dosier are going to try to steal Sanders
election from him. It wont be Trump and the Republicans who rigs the election against
Sanders.
SteveK9 , February 24, 2020 at 20:21
Trump actually seemed to want to help Bernie a bit (well, he keeps calling him 'Crazy
Bernie as well). He put out some tweet calling this latest rubbish, Hoax #7. But Bernie would
rather say something stupid, like 'I'm not a friend of Putin he is' talk about 5-year
olds.
Deniz , February 25, 2020 at 00:49
Its disappointing. Sanders heart seems to be in the right place, but when it comes time to
face the sinister forces that run the country for their own benefit, he will be absolutely
crushed.
This will never end.
No president will ever change anything.
The deep state tentacles will eventually kill us all.
I am going to go and enjoy what's left.
Marko , February 22, 2020 at 20:24
" But Sanders had known for a month about this assessment and only issued a statement
after the Post asked him for comment before publishing its uncorroborated story based on
anonymous sources Sanders was put in a difficult spot. If he said, "Show me the proof that
Russia is trying to help me," he ran the risk of being attacked for disbelieving (even
disloyalty to) U.S. intelligence, and, by default, defending the Kremlin. "
I suspect that Sanders was given a classified briefing a month ago , which he couldn't
disclose to the public. If so , and given that he didn't make this clear immediately after
being accused of withholding this information , he has only himself to blame for the
resulting "bad look".
JWalters , February 22, 2020 at 19:06
The corporate media has revealed itself to be a monopoly behind the scenes, working in
unison to trash Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Even though Gabbard is only at a few
percent in the polls, her message is potentially devastating to the war profiteers who own
America's Vichy MSM.
"Congressman Oscar Callaway lost his Congressional election for opposing US entry into WW
1. Before he left office, he demanded investigation into JP Morgan & Co for purchasing
control over America's leading 25 newspapers in order to propagandize US public opinion in
favor of his corporate and banking interests, including profits from US participation in the
war."
war * profiteerstory. * blogspot. * com/p/war-profiteers-and-israels-bank.html
Thankfully, there is still a free American press, of which Consortium News is a stellar
example.
elmerfudzie , February 22, 2020 at 13:25
The CIA and DIA (it has about a dozen agencies under it and is much larger than any other
Intel agency) are supposed to monitor threats to our national security, that originate
abroad. Aside from a few closed door sessions with a select group of congresspersons, our
Intel agencies have practically no real democratic oversight and remain, for all intents and
purposes, a parallel government(s) well hidden from public view. In particular how they are
financed and what their actual annual budgets really are. How these agencies every managed to
seep into any electioneering process what so ever, is beyond me, since they are all
intentionally very surreptitious- by design. We ask questions and these Intel agencies are
quick to tout the usual phrase; that subject area is secret and needs to be addressed in
closed session, blah, blah, blah. Of course "secrecy" translates into, we do what we want
when we want and use information any way we want because our parallel governments represent
the best example(s) of a perpetual motion machine that does not require outside monitoring.
The origins of these "parallel entities" can be traced to the Rockefeller brothers and their
associated international corporations. There's the rub folks. Our citizens at large will
never overtake for the purposes of real monitoring, this empire and elephant in the room,
directly. However we do have one avenue left and it requires a rank and file demand from the
people to their state representatives demanding two long standing issues, they remain
unresolved and until a solution is found, will permit dark powers to side step every level of
democratic governments-anywhere.
The first is true campaign finance reform and the second is assigning, or rather, removing
the status of person-hood to corporate entities. The Rockefeller's used their corporate power
and wealth to influence legislative, judicial and executive bodies. They cannot help but do
as the puppet master commands! Be it some form of, corporatism, fascism, feudalism, monarchy,
oligarchy, even bankster-ism or any other "ism We as citizens at large must make every effort
to again, obtain true campaign finance reform and remove the lobbying presence inside the
beltway. Today, the corporate entity has risen to a level that completely overtakes and
smothers any authentic democratic representation, of and by the people. Originally (circa the
early1800's) American corporations were permitted to exist and papers were drawn based on the
specific duties they were about to perform, this for the benefit of the local community for
example, building a bridge. Once the job was completed, the incorporation was either
liquidated or remanded over to the relevant governing body for the purposes of reevaluating
the necessity of re-certifying the original incorporation papers. Old man Rockefeller changed
the governance and oversight privilege by forcing and promulgating legislation(s) such as
limited liability clauses, strategies to oppose competition, tax evasion schemes and
(eventually) assigning person-hood to corporate entities, thus creating a parallel government
within the government. It all began in Delaware and until we clear our heads and assign names
to the actual problems, as I've itemized here, our citizenry will never experience the
freedom to fashion our destiny. Please visit TUC radio's two part expose' by Richard
Grossman. It will help CONSORTIUMNEWS readers to understand just what a monumental task is
ahead for all of us. Work for a fair and equitable future in America, demand campaign finance
reform and kick the hustling lobbyists out of our government. Voters being choked to death
with senseless debates and useless candidates.
Jeff Harrison , February 22, 2020 at 12:36
The real threats to our democracy are our unaccountable surveillance state and the craven
politicians in Washington, DC. And, no, Ben, we can't keep our republic because we don't have
a sufficient mass of critical thinkers to run it. If we did, this kind of BS, having been
shot full of holes once, wouldn't get any air.
Alan Ross , February 22, 2020 at 10:37
Sanders may win the nomination and the election but he cannot get a break from some
purists on the left. His reaction may have been quite astute. When Sanders says that we
should station troops on the borders of Russia or arm the Ukrainians, then you can say he
really is anti-Russian. I have not heard all that he has said, but what I have heard sounds
so much like hot air put out by a left politician trying to deal with the ages-old
establishment and right wing smear that he is a pawn of the commies, a fellow traveler, a
pinko, and now an agent of a foreign power, a Russian asset and so on. There is real
criticism of Sanders, but his statements about Putin and Russia do not add up to much.
Skip Scott , February 22, 2020 at 09:51
Anyone who is still under the influence of the MSM hypnosis of RussiaGate, led by Rachel
Madcow, needs to think long and hard about this latest propaganda campaign. The real message
here is unless you support corporate sponsored warmonger from column A or B, you are a tool
of the "evil Rooskies". And the funny thing is, Sanders is "weak tea" when it comes to issues
of war and peace, and the feeding of the war machine at the government trough with no
limits.
The purpose of this BIG LIE of the "Intelligence" agencies is to make it impossible for
someone to be against the Forever War without being tarred as a "Foreign Agent", or at least
a "useful idiot", of the "EVIL ROOSKIES". To simply want peaceful coexistence on its own
merits is impossible.
Imagine if Sanders dared to mention that Putin enjoys substantial majority support inside
Russia, and seeks peaceful coexistence in a multi-polar world, instead of calling him an
"autocratic thug". Often for politicians, speaking the truth is a "bridge too far". I wonder
if Sanders (like Hillary) finds it necessary to hold "private" positions that differ from his
"public" positions? Or does he really believe his own BS?
I had not seen Mr Joe Lauria's article when I commented on Mr Ben Norton's story, but my
reply could fit here as well.
The idiot American public dismays me. To them, the "MSM news" and "celebrity gossip reports"
are equal and both to be wholeheartedly believed.
There is no point in trying to educate a resistant public in the differences between data and
gossip -- public doesn't care.
I weep for what we have lost -- a Constitution, a nation of free thinkers. My heart breaks
for the world's people, and what my country tries to do to them, with only a few resistant
other countries confronting and challenging America.
It is so difficult to know the truth of a situation and yet to know that almost no one
(statistically speaking) believes you.
Jim Hartz , February 23, 2020 at 12:04
A better distinction might be, concerning the intelligence of the American public, the one
Chomsky has used, rooted in Ancient Greek culture, that between KNOWLEDGE and OPINION.
Americans, of course, have OPINIONS about everything, but little KNOWLEDGE about much of
anything. And it seems their idea of FREEDOM is related to, bound up with, their having
OPINIONS about virtually EVERYTHING.
So much for our being a HIGHER life form.
We're in the process of destroying EVERYTHING, not just HIGHER LIFE FORMS [us], but all
flora and fauna, water and air on the planet–as I said, EVERYTHING. To paraphrase from
memory a citation by Perry Anderson from the work of heterodox Italian Marxist, Sebastiano
Timpanaro, "What we are witnessing is not the triumph of man over history, but the victory of
nature over man."
Tony , February 22, 2020 at 07:40
The Trump administration has pulled out of the INF missile treaty citing totally unproven
claims of Russian violations.
It also looks like allowing the START treaty on strategic nuclear missiles to lapse if we do
not stop it.
And so, in what sense would Putin want Trump to get re-elected?
Van Jones of CNN once described the original allegations of Russian meddling in US
elections as a 'great big nothing burger'.
Sounds right to me.
Sam F , February 22, 2020 at 07:24
When the secret agencies and mass media stop manipulating public opinion, despite their
oligarchy masters' ability to control election results anyway, we will know that they no
longer need deception to control the People. Simple force will do the job, with a few
marketing claims to assist in hiring goons to suppress any popular movement. Democracy is
completely lost, and the pretense of democracy will soon follow.
michael , February 22, 2020 at 07:03
Another foray into domestic politics by the CIA, with anonymous sources and no evidence
shown (as no evidence exists). Perhaps the CIA (which probably works for Putin, or Bloomberg,
or anyone who pays them best, but they are loyal to the US dollar only; and maybe heroin?) is
even now making up another Chris Steele/ Fusion GPS/ CrowdStrike dossier, getting that
Russian caterer to the Kremlin to pump out clickbait and sink both Trump and Sanders. Because
RUSSIANS!!! are "genetically driven" to interfere in American democracy. Next we'll have the
DNC (CIA) pushing Superpredator tropes such as "this enormous cohort of black and Latino
males" who "don't know how to behave in the workplace" and "don't have any prospects." With
this Clintonian (and Biden and Bloomberg) mindset, America will be increasing incarceration
once again. That $500,000 bribe the Clintons took from Putin in 2010 when Hillary was
Secretary of State probably plays a role.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Mark Esper have surprisingly noted that China,
not Russia, is America's #1 concern: "America's concerns about Beijing's commercial and
military expansion should be your concerns as well." Since Bill Clinton's Chinagate fiasco in
1996, Communist China, for a measly $million or so in illegal campaign donations, gained
permanent trade status, took millions of American jobs, and suddenly were allowed access to
advanced, even military technologies. This was the impetus for China's rise to be the
strongest nation in the world. There are no doubt statues of the Clintons all over China, and
soon to Hunter Biden, if his Chinese backed hedge funds do well. There are some rumors that
Bloomberg has transacted business with China, although doubtful he tried to build a hotel in
Beijing or Moscow, or the CIA would be all over it (for a cut)!
Realist , February 24, 2020 at 00:22
Esper is a dangerously deranged man who seems, at least to me, to be telegraphing his
intent, and certainly his desire, to get into a kinetic war with both Russia and China
(Washington already has most of the hybrid war tactics already fully operational), unless
English usage has changed so drastically that insults, overt threats and unrestrained bombast
are now part of calm, rational cordial diplomacy. I would not be surprised if neocon
mouthpieces like Esper are not secretly honing their rhetorical style to emulate the
exaggerated volume and enunciation of der ursprüngliche Führer.
Ma Laoshi , February 22, 2020 at 06:04
"So politician that he is" -- isn't this already on the slippery slope towards double
standards, that is, would say Hillary get a similar pass for making McCarthyite statements
like this? Isn't a dispassionate reading of the situation that Bernie is an inveterate
liar , and moreover specializing in the particular brand of lies that could get us all
into nuclear war? Whether it's character or merely age, haven't we seen enough to conclude
that Mr. Sanders would be much weaker still vis-a-vis the Deep State than Donald Trump turned
out to be?
For those without a dog in this fight, shouldn't it cause great merriment if the various
RussiaGaters devour each other? Mr. Sanders has seen for years that the "muh Putin" hoax will
be turned against him whenever needed. If he nonetheless persists, doesn't that show his
resignation that his role in this election circus is a very temporary one, like in '16? How
was that definition of insanity again?
If you want to fix America, then the Empire and Zionism are your enemies; so is the Dem
party that is inextricably wedded to these forces. Play along with them and–well what
can you expect.
aNanyMouse , February 22, 2020 at 13:29
Yeah, and Bernie sucked up to the Dem brass on the impeachment crap, even tho Tulsi had
the stones to at least abstain. How sad.
GMCasey , February 21, 2020 at 22:33
Dear DNC:
KNOCK IT OFF! The only person I am voting for President is the only one who is capable -- and
that is Bernie Sanders.
And really, with NATO breaking the agreement where they agreed to NOT go up to Russia's
border : it is getting very sad and embarrassing to be an American because the elected ones
make agreements and yet break so many. What with Turkey and Israel and Saudi Arabia trying to
disrupt the area, I am sure that Russia is too busy to bother disrupting America . Lately
America seems to disrupt itself for many ridiculous reasons. I am sorry that the gossip rags,
which used to be important newspapers have failed in supporting their First Amendment right
of Free speech . I just finished reading "ALL the Presidents Men. " What has happened to you,
Washington Post, because as a newspaper, you really used to be somebody. Please review your
past and become what you once were, a real genuine news source.
Sam F , February 23, 2020 at 09:18
Wikipedia: "In October 2013, the paper's longtime controlling family, the Graham family,
sold the newspaper to Nash Holdings, a holding company established by Jeff Bezos, for $250
million in cash."
Jim Hartz , February 23, 2020 at 12:37
One of the craziest ongoing media phenomena, prevalent in the Impeachment Hearings, is the
repeated claim that RUSSIA IS AT WAR WITH UKRAINE.
What kind of "Higher Life Form" enthusiastically EATS IT'S OWN SHIT?
Sam F , February 21, 2020 at 22:10
Mass media denouncing politicians based upon "information" from secret agencies are
propaganda operations, and should be sued for proof of their claims. But of course the
judiciary are tools of oligarchy as much as the mass media. No one has constitutional rights
in the US under our utterly corrupt judiciary, only paid party privileges.
Eddie S , February 21, 2020 at 21:55
Hmmm.. so those oh-so-clever Russkies (I mean they MUST-BE if they were able to outwit ALL
the US politicos -- who are immersed in the US political culture 24/7 as well as having
grown-up in this country and having billions of $ to spend -- in 2016 with a mere $100k of
Facebook ads) messed-up this time! They're supporting OPPOSING candidates, effectively
canceling-out their efforts ? Kinda strange, unless that whole 'Russia meddling' thing was a
vastly exaggerated distraction by a losing hawkish candidate and her party, further inflated
by a sensationalistic media and a predictably antagonistic military & intelligence
community??
There is NO "intel"; plenty of un-intel, shameless mendacity from these info=dictators
zionazi NYT and Wapoop drivel; hopefully the insouciant public is starting to see what a sham
these rats are. Hearst outdistanced.
Daniel , February 22, 2020 at 10:45
"Kinda strange, unless that whole 'Russia meddling' thing was a vastly exaggerated
distraction by a losing hawkish candidate and her party, further inflated by a
sensationalistic media and a predictably antagonistic military & intelligence
community??"
Exactly. Shame on Hillary Clinton and all who view the electorate with such disdain as to
have pushed this propaganda on us for the last three years, and continue to do so, obviously.
If either Hillary Clinton or the "sensationalistic media and a predictably antagonistic
military & intelligence community" had any integrity at all, they would have beaten Trump
handily in 2016, just as they condescendingly told us they would. They did not, though, and
have been outraged to have been exposed as the frauds they are ever since.
When your political party is nothing more than a marketing scheme designed to fool the
population, that population will turn on you. Imagine that. And no amount of Russia-gating
will save you. Shame on all who would continue this charade.
John Drake , February 21, 2020 at 21:33
Gosh I wish those so called intel people could make up their mind about whom the big bad
Ruskies are trying to help. One week its Trump, the next it is Sanders. Frankly on the face,
it sounds like bad intel to me.
But fortunately I am a regular reader of this site and Ray McGovern; and know it's all, to
put it politely , disinformation; or less politely a pile of diarrhea invented by Hillarybots
after a really really bad election day three years ago.
The only thing that disturbs me is the way Bernie buys into this Russiagate thing himself.
Maybe you all could send him a trove of articles debunking the whole mess, especially Ray and
Bill's forensics.
Fred Dean , February 23, 2020 at 03:52
When Durham starts indicting people and the story of the Deep State coup against the
President becomes common knowledge, Bernie's statements on Russiagate will be a liability.
Trump's people are digging up whatever videos they can of Bernie talking smack about
Trump/Russia. It is a crack in Bernie's armor and we can expect Trump to exploit. Bernie has
been such a toadie to the DNC. He cowers to the Democratic establishment because he fears
they will pull his credentials to run as a Democrat.
OlyaPola , February 23, 2020 at 08:08
"Gosh I wish those so called intel people could make up their mind about whom the big bad
Ruskies are trying to help."
Output is a function of framing and consequently the intelligence community/opponents are
helping others including the Russians who encourage such help by doing nothing.
KiwiAntz , February 21, 2020 at 21:26
What a shambolic mess of a Nation that America is! Nothing more than a Billionaire's
Banana Republic? A International laughingstock ruled by a Oligarchy, masquerading as a
Democracy? And if all else fails to get rid of Bernie Saunders by vote rigging or
gerrymandering or other nefarious acts of sabotage with Superdelegates stealing the
nominations then resurrect the bogus Russiagate Conspiracy, a ridiculous failed & faked
experiment to gaslight, spook & confuse the population again? Wouldn't it be delicious if
Russiagate was actually TRUE, it would be payback for the USA, a Nation that meddles in the
affairs & politics of every other Country on Earth, overthrowing & regime changing
everyone who doesn't "bend the knee" to America, the most corrupt & evil Nation on Earth
since Nazi Germany! I've never seen a more propagandised or mindf**ked People on Earth than
the American people! It must be soul destroying to live in this Country & have to put up
with this nonsense, day in, day out?
Ian , February 22, 2020 at 02:47
Yes, it is. Living with the infuriating unreality and militaristic worldview that is so
cultivated here takes a personal emotional and intellectual toll. No place is perfect, but
when I travel to Europe I feel a weight lifted.
Broompilot , February 22, 2020 at 03:50
Kiwi you may have a point.
ML , February 22, 2020 at 09:19
Yep. But for those of us with our critical thinking skills intact, we won't let it be soul
destroying, Kiwi. Still, the daily crapload of bs we are fed in the "legacy" press is
aggravating beyond the beyonds. Cheers, fellow Earthling.
Daniel , February 22, 2020 at 11:09
I hear you, KiwiAntz. It IS soul destroying to withstand this onslaught of disinformation
each and every day. There is a rhythm to it that is undeniable, too. One can almost predict
when the next propaganda hit will come, as here – after their latest would-be savior,
Mike Bloomberg, imploded on live TV, and with Bernie looking more and more inevitable.
Our reality in the US today is that we have to fight against our own media to approach
anything resembling a reasonable discussion about what is important to vast majorities (mean
tweets and fake memes aren't it) or to champion candidates who display even the slightest
integrity. But, of course, it is not 'our' media. It is 'theirs.' And they will continue to
abuse us with it until we reject it completely.
robert e williamson jr , February 23, 2020 at 20:31
I see things pretty clearly for what they are and the billionaire democrats are heading
for a train wreck and I hate to admit I cannot look away.
Trump is just another self serving U.S. president leaving a stain in America's underwear
adding to the humongous pile of America's dirty laundry.
When the demographics finally dictate it change will come and likely not before. On that
note I wold like to reach out here. Justin King, who goes as Beau on the net runs a site
called the Fifth Column News and does a ton of informative and educational videos on many
various topics. .
If you go to youtube, search and watch each of the videos I'm about to list here you stand
to learn quite a lot about how Americans got screwed by the two party system without really
realizing it. Plenty of blame to go around , no doubt though. You will also learn of the
changing demographics in American politics. Many of the poor, minorities and youth of the
country are coming into politics for they stand to lose everything if they don't change the
status quo.
Feb 11 2020 runs 6:21 minutes and seconds- Search terms, Beau Lets talk about the parties
switching and the party of trump
Feb 15 2020 runs 4:11 Search terms, Beau Lets talk about dancing left and dancing
right
Feb 20 2020 runs 10:44 Search terms, Beau Lets talk about misunderstanding Bernie's
supporters
This last video is a long video by Justin's standards. Most of his videos are under 7
minutes.
Much thanks to CN this site and the Fifth Column New site give me strength and bolster my
courage by allowing me to know that there are those of us who know what gong on and know
things must change.
NY Times is citing "people familiar with the situation." How the mighty have fallen. What
about Shadow, and the Iowa caucuses, and Buttigieg? That was real. This is absolute
horseshit.
> Apparent US Intel Meddling in US Election With 'Report' Russia is Aiding Sanders
It looks like the CIA is short of ideas on how to meddle in the elections. Trump had a
very similar briefing on January 6, 2017 -- with Brennan, Clapper, Rogers, and Comey -- on
Russia allegedly aiding his campaign. As well without any evidence.
Charlene Richards , February 22, 2020 at 14:47
Russia couldn't possibly do the damage to Sanders that the DNC and Democrat Establishment
elites are doing out in the open every day with the MSM as their prime propagandists.
As they say in wrestling, it's all "a work".
richard baker , February 22, 2020 at 10:55
Bart Hansen , February 22, 2020 at 18:27
Looking at the comments at the Post and Times, I'd say you are on target. Oh, for the Kool
Aid contract at those organs of misinformation and omission.
The real threats to our democracy are our unaccountable surveillance state and the craven
politicians in Washington, DC.
And, no, Ben, we can't keep our republic because we don't have a sufficient mass of
critical thinkers to run it. If we did, this kind of BS, having been shot full of holes once,
wouldn't get any air.
Ground Owl Eats Fox , February 22, 2020 at 21:49
I don't think the Democrats have been very coordinated, and they (the establishment in
general) is growing more desperate. They're acting less and less rationally.
My hunch is that Sanders is going to be assassinated. Even if a low chance per industry
(5% for MIC; 5% for Wall Street; 5% for Hillary Clinton, etc ) the sheer number of powerful
enemies and tens of trillions of dollars (and power) potentially at stake IMO makes it likely
that this'll happen, whether coordinated or not. I'm guessing before the convention, if his
lead is looking formidable.
He needs to pick a safety VP to make killing him less attractive, and also needs to wear a
vest, ride around in a Popemobile-style vehicle, and have trustworthy chemists and doctors to
check his food and umbrellas and everything else. And lots of documenters with cameras so if
they do kill him in a violent hit maybe they won't get away with it.
how on earth could any entity, foreign or domestic, create any outcome in our burlesque
electoral process that's worse than any other? the parties are two arguing heads on the
same rapacious beast. or in the case of the primaries, a multi-headed beast.
the political circus can be likened to condi rice's concept of "constructive chaos" in the
middle east. instead of nonfunctional endless war to render malleable a target for
exploitation, we have endless functionless nitpicking blather to render popular leadership
impossible.
@Wally by not
dropping out and endorsing him b/f ST, after poor showing in the first 3 contests made it
clear she had no substantial and broad enough base.
My sense this morning is that Bernie might need her to get the nomination, and Biden might
need her as VP to win the election.
Yes, the results from American Samoa are in, first to report 100% on
Super Tuesday, and Tulsi is on the board, with over 20% of the vote, in second place behind
(surprise) Michael Bloomberg, who also earns his first delegates tonight. Biden, Sanders and
Warren didn't hit the 15% viability threshold and are shut out.
Now, if the DNC sticks to the same criteria for the upcoming debate as they had for the last
three, one delegate should be sufficient for Tulsi to return to the debate stage. Of course,
they've been known to change the rules in the middle of the game before, but this time it looks
like they won't have the excuse of too many candidates, particularly if Liz drops out if she
can't win her home state.
like many of the Pacific islands, the vast majority of the population is Christian, and like
many Pacific Islands the population revere their Chiefs and religious leaders. The American
Samoan Chief endorsed Bloomberg. Why he did is a partly explained in the following article from
The Hill ... Climate change is a very immediate and tangible experience for pacific
Islanders.
"I believe in Mike's message of change for the people of American Samoa -- he has the
experience and the vision to bring about the change we need -- including staving off climate
change, which will be devastating to our home. He has my family's vote, and my village," the
chief said, according to a campaign release.
I haven't seen Bloomberg's ads there, but I can imagine he promised to help them in that
regard.
She needed and more than deserved at least a delegate for her self-sacrificing, steadfast
courage and honesty throughout this crooked campaign season. From the preponderance of
Bloomberg votes, it looks like American Samoans haven't been paying close attention, but
thankfully some of them could see past sophisticated advertisements to recognize one who is
truly their own.
"... If you are holding out hope that Bernie can slay the dragon of the existing system at its belladonna roots, then be my guest. I see too many people spending their hope on Elizabeth Warren, which will only serve to suck power away from Bernie, who is the ONLY Democratic candidate movie that has the potential to actually INSPIRE voters, just as Trump does. Bernie deserves credit too for actually CHANGING the nature of the campaign conversation and who just MIGHT even begin to change it at the national level, assuming that time, tide and tyranny allow him four years safe passage to reach his pending retirement. ..."
"... In any case, after a year of endless media barrage, it is rather late now for the gods to intervene. All I would hope is that a few more of us can open our eyes to see past the silly "lesser of two evils" and "#votebluenomatterwho" memes, to the reality of how every one of these candidates serve as puppets to SOME specific mix of master control forces and thus make our choice in THAT more realistic light, rather than thinking that any of them offer "real" independent solutions or that any of their "heroic" feet are NOT already embedded knee, waist or neck-deep in the Big Muddy river of our dissolute illusions of Democracy. ..."
As people march off to the polls today to pick their
favorite political actor of the year, I hear precious few voices openly asking what seem to me
to be obvious questions, like WHO produced the movie that is their candidacy? Who directed it?
Who wrote the script? Who are the investors that will be expecting to see returns on their
investment, if their movie and their best actor should somehow win? And how far do the networks
of wealth, influence and control extend beyond those public faces inside the campaign? None of
these questions strike me as tangential; rather they are all essential.
Let's imagine for a moment that one of these actors can somehow out-thespian Trump once on
stage which is HIGHLY unlikely – even for folksy Bernie – UNLESS he can somehow win
himself 100% DNC buy-in and 24/7 mainstream "BLUE" media support. But assuming that he (or some
"brokered" candidate) wins, it will still be their production teams (along with their extended
networks) who will be making their presence felt on Day One of any new presidency. These are
the people who will be calling in the favors and calling the shots.
I recall how moved I was by Obama's 2008 election. I was buoyed with hope, because I did not
understand then what I understand now – that NO candidate can exist as an independent
entity, disconnected from the apparatus and networks that support and produce the narratives
that advance them and their agendas. I also recall the day that Obama entered the White House
and instantly handed the keys to the economy (and the recovery) back to Geithner, Summers and
Rubin – the same trio that had helped destroy it just a year earlier. And he did this at
the same moment he was filling his cabinet with the very people "suggested" in that famous
leaked letter from the CEO of Citibank. My hope departed in genie smoke at that moment, to be
followed by eight years of spineless smooth talk and wobbly action, except where the agendas of
Wall Street and pompous Empire were concerned.
Do you see how this works? The game is essentially rigged from the start by virtue of who is
allowed to enter the race, what can and what can't be said by them and by who the media is told
to shine their light on, and who to avoid. Candidates can, of course, say pretty much anything
they want (short of "Building 7, WTF!!" of course) in hopes it will spark a reaction that the
media can seize upon.
But just based on words, we know that NONE of these happy belief clowns will forcefully
oppose existing "Regime Change" plans for Venezuela, Bolivia and Syria. We know that NONE of
them will stand up to Israel – or to a Congress that is, almost to a person, in the
pocket of Israel. We know too that NONE of them will bring more than an angry flyswatter to the
battle with Wall Street or the corporations. We further know that NONE of them will do more
than make modest cuts to military spending or god forbid, call out the secret state's fiscally
unaccountable black budget operations, which by now reach into at least the 30 trillions.
Personally, I'm not FOR any candidate simply because I cannot UNSEE what it has taken me 12
years to get into focus; namely, how everyone of them are compromised by a SYSTEM that talks a
lot about FIXING what's broken, but which is simply INCAPABLE of delivering anything other than
what has been pre-ordained and decreed by the global order of oligarchs, which exists as the
"ghost in the machine" that ultimately controls every part of the political "STATE" – at
high, middle, low and especially at DEEP levels.
I will say in defense of Bernie that his production team early-on made the very unique
decision to crowd-source the campaign's costs. That was a PROFOUND decision, which has paid off
for him and which may well buy him a certain level of lubricated control over what is to come,
even though the significance of that decision is not well appreciated because the DNC and the
MSM simply refuse to discuss it in any depth.
Warren was TRYING to play the populist "people's campaign" game too, until last week when
she must have been startled awake by the "Ghost of Reagan's Past" and decided to take the money
and run as a Hillary proxy which (big surprise) was what she was all along anyway.
Let me just say this about Joe Biden. From his initial announcement, I never felt he was in
his right mind. He seems rather to be teetering on the edge of senility and fast on his way
into dementia. Also, the man has openly sold his soul so many times in his career that we
shouldn't at this point expect any unbought (or even lucid) thought to ever again escape his
remarkably loose lips. Joe might have run with the old skool Dems when he was a big deal on the
Delaware streets, but now, like Bloomberg and Romney, he's just another Republican in a pricey
blue suit.
I understand how people are feeling stressed, obsessed and desperate to get rid of Donald
Trump. It's just that until we take a collective step back and see things at the level from
which they actually operate and NOT at the level from which we are TOLD they operate, then we
will never be successful in turning our public discourse around or in beginning to identify and
eliminate the fascist and anti-human agendas that we associate with Trump, but which actually
lie behind the subservient to power policies and preferences of BOTH parties.
If you are holding out hope that Bernie can slay the dragon of the existing system at
its belladonna roots, then be my guest. I see too many people spending their hope on Elizabeth
Warren, which will only serve to suck power away from Bernie, who is the ONLY Democratic
candidate movie that has the potential to actually INSPIRE voters, just as Trump does. Bernie
deserves credit too for actually CHANGING the nature of the campaign conversation and who just
MIGHT even begin to change it at the national level, assuming that time, tide and tyranny allow
him four years safe passage to reach his pending retirement.
In any case, after a year of endless media barrage, it is rather late now for the gods
to intervene. All I would hope is that a few more of us can open our eyes to see past the silly
"lesser of two evils" and "#votebluenomatterwho" memes, to the reality of how every one of
these candidates serve as puppets to SOME specific mix of master control forces and thus make
our choice in THAT more realistic light, rather than thinking that any of them offer "real"
independent solutions or that any of their "heroic" feet are NOT already embedded knee, waist
or neck-deep in the Big Muddy river of our dissolute illusions of Democracy.
– Yet Another Useful Idiot.
Mark Petrakis is a long-time theater, event and media producer based in San Francisco. He first
broke molds with his Cobra Lounge vaudeville shows of the 90's, hosted by his alter-ego,
Spoonman. Concurrently, he took to tech when the scent was still utopian, building the first
official websites for Burning Man, the Residents and multiple other local arts groups of the
era. He worked as a consultant to a variety of corps and orgs, including 10 years with the
Institute for the Future. He is co-founder of both long-running Anon Salon monthly gatherings
and Sea of Dream NYE spectacles. Read other articles by Mark .
"... I tried to sorta warm people on other sites that while they were looking for Russians at the front door, the gop was coming in the bad door for some rather nasty election interference. ..."
"... Of course what we are seeing now is democrats cheating other democrats. But that reality will never be acknowledged because, hey, it never happened before. Just unintentional mistakes like in Iowa (farm folk cheating -- no way) or Brooklyn. ..."
What you describe is probably why Russiagate spread so easily to so many people. Nothing
happened in previous elections? Everything you describe never happened as you point out. The
American electoral system was and is pristine and virginal.
Until the Russians came and destroyed American democracy through social media themes,
memes, and retweets.
The American electoral system was never brutally corrupted by rigged votes, voter
suppression on the scale of hundreds of thousands, deliberately miscounted votes, voter
fraud, etc. Americans never did to each other anything as bad as what the Russians did to
Americans.
Of course, for me never worked as I worked in primaries of a democratic machine dominated
city. I tried to sorta warm people on other sites that while they were looking for
Russians at the front door, the gop was coming in the bad door for some rather nasty election
interference.
Of course what we are seeing now is democrats cheating other democrats. But that
reality will never be acknowledged because, hey, it never happened before. Just unintentional
mistakes like in Iowa (farm folk cheating -- no way) or Brooklyn.
Former DNC chairman who gave Hillary Clinton debate questions in advance during the 2016
election, exclaimed on Fox News that Biden's victory was "the most impressive 72 hours
I've ever seen in U.S. politics," and told another analyst to "
go to hell " for suggesting that the Democratic establishment was once again working to
manipulate a nominee into frontrunner status.
The Democrats are in chaos and melting down on live TV.
Donna Brazile just told the @GOPChairwoman to "go to hell"
when asked about the chaos.
... Although it cannot be assumed that all her voters would have gravitated to Sanders,
certainly some would have, and with an extra ten points Bernie would have won some states he
lost. If she departs after coming in third in her home state, that will help Sanders going
forward.
Sanders performed well below the polling. Polls had him competitive in Virginia, where he
was crushed by Biden. Polls showed him winning Texas, whereas that turned into a close
race.
"I will note this, she's from Hawaii," King said of Gabbard.
"She's a congresswoman from Hawaii; American Samoa votes on Super Tuesday. The rules as
they now stand, if you get a delegate, you're back in the debates. As of now. Correct? "
"Yeah, they haven't, I mean, that's been the rule for every single debate," Thompson
replied.
"And the DNC has not released their official guidance for the March 15 debate in Phoenix,
but it would be very obvious that they are trying to cancel Tulsi, who they're scared of a
third party run, if they then change the rules to prevent her to rejoin the debate
stage."
And indeed, as the smoke clears from the Super Tuesday frenzy, this is precisely what
appears to have transpired.
"The Gabbard campaign said it was informed that it would net two delegates from the
caucuses in American Samoa, which will allocate a total of six pledged delegates," The Hill
reports today. "However, a report from CNN said that the candidate will receive only one
delegate from the territory on Tuesday evening."
"Tulsi Gabbard may have just qualified for the next Democratic debate thanks to American
Samoa," reads a fresh Business Insider
headline. "Under the most recent rules, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii may have qualified for
the next televised debate by snagging a delegate in American Samoa's primary."
"If Tulsi Gabbard gets a delegate out of American Samoa, as it appears she has done, she
will likely qualify for the next Democratic debate," tweeted Washington Post
's Dave Weigel. "We don't have new debate rules yet, but party has been inviting any
candidate who gets a delegate."
Rank-and-file supporters of the Hawaii congresswoman enjoyed a brief celebration on social
media, before having their hopes dashed minutes later by an announcement from the DNC's
Communications Director Xochitl Hinojosa that "the threshold will go up".
"We have two more debates -- of course the threshold will go up," tweeted Hinojosa
literally minutes after Gabbard was awarded the delegate. "By the time we have the March
debate, almost 2,000 delegates will be allocated. The threshold will reflect where we are in
the race, as it always has."
We have two more debates-- of course the threshold will go up. By the time we have the
March debate, almost 2,000 delegates will be allocated. The threshold will reflect where we
are in the race, as it always has.
-- Xochitl Hinojosa (@XochitlHinojosa) March 4,
2020
"DNC wastes no time in announcing they will rig the next debates to exclude Tulsi,"
journalist Michael Tracey tweeted in response.
This outcome surprised nobody, least of all Gabbard supporters. The blackout on the Tulsi
2020 campaign has reached such extreme heights this year that you now routinely see pundits
saying things like there are no more people of
color in the race, or that Elizabeth Warren is the only
woman remaining in the primary. They're not just ignoring her, they're actually erasing
her. They're weaving a whole alternative reality out of narrative in which she is literally,
officially, no longer in the race.
After Gabbard announced her presidential candidacy in January of last year I
wrote an article explaining that I was excited about her campaign because she would
severely disrupt establishment narratives, and, for the remainder of 2019, that's exactly what
she did. She spoke unauthorized truths about Syria, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, she drew
attention to the plight of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden and said she'd drop all charges
against both men if elected, she destroyed the hawkish, jingoistic positions of fellow
candidates on the debate stage and arguably single-handedly destroyed Kamala Harris' run.
The narrative managers had their hands full with her. The Russia smears were relentless, the
fact that she met with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad was brought up at every possible
opportunity in every debate and interview, and she was scoffed at and derided at every
turn.
Now, in 2020, none of that is happening. There's a near-total media blackout on the Gabbard
campaign, such that I now routinely encounter rank-and-file liberals on social media who tell
me they honestly had no idea she's still running. She's been completely redacted out of the
narrative matrix.
All candidates of color are out. An openly gay married candidate is out. 2 women left. The
rest? 70+ old white men fighting for the future of America in 2020. Because of course.
So it's unsurprising that the DNC felt comfortable striding forward and openly announcing a
change in the debate threshold literally the very moment Gabbard crossed it. These people
understand narrative control, and they know full well that they have secured enough of it on
the Tulsi Problem that they'll be able to brazenly rig her right off the stage without
suffering any meaningful consequences.
The establishment narrative warfare against Gabbard's campaign dwarfs anything we've seen
against Sanders, and the loathing and dismissal they've been able to generate have severely
hamstrung her run. It turns out that a presidential candidate can get away with talking about
economic justice and plutocracy when it comes to domestic policy, and some light dissent on
matters of foreign policy will be tolerated, but aggressively attacking the heart of the actual
bipartisan foreign policy consensus will get you shut down, smeared and shunned like nothing
else. This is partly because US presidents have a lot more authority over foreign affairs than
domestic, and it's also because endless war is the glue which holds the empire together.
And now they're working to
install a corrupt, right-wing warmongering dementia patient as the party's nominee. And
from the looks of the numbers I've seen from Super Tuesday so far, it looks entirely likely
that those manipulations will prove successful.
All this means is that the machine is exposing its mechanics to the view of the mainstream
public. Both the Gabbard campaign and the Sanders campaign have been useful primarily in this
way; not because the establishment would ever let them actually become president, but because
they force the unelected manipulators who really run things in the most powerful government on
earth to show the public their box of dirty tricks.
This guy does not understand (or do not what to understand) what neoliberalism is. Do not buy
this book. It is junk. Look at the idiotic quite beloe. Tha guy is unable to think coherently.
When Hillary called her opponents "deplorable" she clearly means thos who oppose neoliberalism
and neoliberal globalization and who suffered from outsourcing and financialization craziness,
that destroyed the USA manufacturing. She means those who do not belong to the neoliberal elite,
independent of their IQ.
Notable quotes:
"... The tragic flaw of elites is that they fail to see the hypocrisy in their own cries for tolerance and equality. ..."
"... It was the "deplorables" moment that opened my eyes to the current trajectory of America. I fear that intellectual elites, of which I am admittedly one, have not learned from this unfortunate blunder. And time is running out for us. Perhaps all we elites need to start toting Reader's Digest crosses. ..."
The populist revolution succeeded tonight for the same reason it did nearly two centuries
ago. The main reason Trump won wasn't economic anxiety. It wasn't sexism. It wasn't racism. It
was that he was anti-elitist. Hillary Clinton represented Wall Street, academics, policy
papers, Davos, international treaties, and peo- ple who think they're better than you. People
like me. Trump represented something far more appealing, which is beating up people like me. A
poll taken a month before the 2016 election showed that only 24 percent of voters disagreed
with the statement "The real struggle for America is not between Democrats and Republicans but
between mainstream America and the ruling political elites."
People are foolish to get rid of us. Elites are people who think; populists are people who
believe. Elites de- fer to experts; populists listen to their own guts. Elites value
cooperation; populists are tribal. Elites arc masters at delayed gratification, long-range
planning, and
controlling our emotions...
...We can t afford that. Populists believe our complex society is so secure that disaster is
near impossible no matter who is in charge. Elites know it's not. Most of our work is
calculating risk and planning for contingencies. We invented reinsurance, and if you give us a
few years, we'll come up with rereinsurance. The myth that the elite are selfishly rigging the
system while do- ing nothing useful conveniently ignores the fact that the system we've built
is great. If this were a book about any other group of people besides the elite, this would be
the part where I list all the amazing contributions we've made throughout history. I do not
need to do that because elites created everything that ever existed...
At this first stop on his tour of populist and elite hotspots of America, Stein elucidates a
no-brainer: nobody is always right all the time about everybody else. That includes we
elites.
What is my takeaway from this marvelous book, besides the fact that Stein is completely
hilarious? That elites need a crash course in tolerance. Populists could use a big dose of it
too, but at least when they do not demonstrate this virtue, they don't pretend to possess it.
The tragic flaw of elites is that they fail to see the hypocrisy in their own cries for
tolerance and equality.
It was the "deplorables" moment that opened my eyes to the current trajectory of
America. I fear that intellectual elites, of which I am admittedly one, have not learned from
this unfortunate blunder. And time is running out for us. Perhaps all we elites need to start
toting Reader's Digest crosses.
Joel Stein's new book is both engaging and enlightening. He begins by immersing himself in
the small town culture of rural Miami, Texas, where he mingles with the locals and tries to
understand their customs. He enjoys their hospitality but examines their values with a critical
eye. The rest of the book is mostly a comparison of "elitism" with the ethos of Miami. He
distinguishes between two kinds of elitism: "boat elitism" which worships money and power, and
"intellectual elitism" which elevates reason and intelligence. Stein obviously champions
intellectual elitism which he feels is imperative for a successful democracy: "Democracy is a
government of the nerds, by the nerds and for the nerds. And the Boat Elite do not respect
nerds." Ultimately, Stein concludes, "The elite, with our pesky qualifiers and annoying
exceptions, are the thin line between democracy and tyranny." The great charm of this excellent
book is that these very valid truths are presented with so much humor and insight that the
reader cannot help but agree with Joel Stein's illuminating conclusions.
Chele
Hipp , Reviewed in the United States on November 10, 2019
If this book was evaluated like an elite high school debate held on the Stanford campus each
year, Mr. Stein would be winning the debate handily in each round and scoring exceedingly high
speaker points. But, in the end, while he would still get the Top Speaker Award, he would not
win the tournament trophy because he gave up his argument in his closing statement. This book
is written five parts, four of which are hilarious and compelling arguments for finding
connection with every type of elite and populist one can come across. Those four parts make
equally compelling arguments for why having experts and intellectual elites run the world does
the greatest good for society as a whole. Mr. Stein is winning the debate with compassion, good
humor, and style. I'm rooting for him to win the debate! My debate judge objectivity has flown
out the window. And then part five happens. His closing argument. Oh no! Mr. Stein decides to
withdraw from the battle for expert and intellectual elite leadership. He says it's not our
time. It's time to wait out the populists. That we can do that. That we must do that. And then
he says that the need for human connection is greater than anything - that humility is the job
elites need to pursue. Wait. What? You just contradicted your entire case. You surrendered your
position. Your conclusion is the opposite of your thesis! That's it. You lose on technical
failure. Victory awarded to your opponent. If this book were a research project using the
scientific method, it would be entirely possible to have a conclusion that did not match the
hypothesis. But the title of the book, "In Defense of Elitism" is suggestive of a debate or an
argument. And, in such case, the conclusion must necessarily match the opening statement. If I
were to recommend this book to a friend, which I still may very likely do, I would recommend
that my friend read only parts one through four. Or, maybe read all five parts with very low
expectations for intellectual follow-through on part five. Mr. Stein still has my utmost
respect and admiration for both his efforts and his humor. I almost wonder if his editor
insisted on a soft landing for the book and the conclusion was a negotiated settlement.
Flying
Scot , Reviewed in the United States on November 10, 2019
In self-deprecating, often hilarious language, Joel Stein gives us a study of the gulf
between the bicoastal United States and the heartland. The socially and politically
conservative, religious citizens of Miami, Texas, vastly different from the author in values,
religion, and background, are profiled with humor and affection. By establishing common ground
with these citizens and shedding light on their beliefs, Stein lets us understand them despite
the different, even foreign ideas compared to those of us who are "elites." By "elites" the
author means reasonably educated, anti-racist, not-very-religious-if-at-all folks who tend to
vote for progressive candidates. The middle of the book puts us back in California, where Stein
lives, and his gimlet eye skewers the elites that surround him, again with humor and insight. I
am somewhat surprised that this impressive work, which has so much to say about the present
divisions and polarization in our country, has not been better promoted by the publisher. A
search in the New York Times fails to find a review or even mention of it, and a full web
search renders scant results. Highly recommended.
Being anti-elite can make sense if you're against the elite due to wealth gained by taking
advantage of people (Stein refers to as the "boat elite"), but being against elite by
intelligence doesn't make sense (the "intellectual elite"). Stein talks with anit-elite Scott
Adams (Dilbert creator) who talks about a medical issue for which he had to go to the most
elite doctor there was to be cured, and Scott somehow concludes that this is why doctors are
useless and he knows better than them. Stein points out Sarah Palin bragging that she will
never claim to know more than anyone else, instead of trying to study and learn more. You read
about people striving to make a difference, and somehow Republican America rejecting
intelligent elite and embracing wealthy elite (which is the opposite of what a democratic
government should do, it should reign in those that gain all the power through wealth). The
jokes make this serious and passionate subject fun to read.
Reviewer
Dr. Beth , Reviewed in the United States on December 30, 2019
How can one be both self-deprecating and aggrandizing at the same time? Somehow author Joel
Stein manages this. A long-time humorist writer for TIME (who was eventually fired, as he
points out), Stein offers a book that is as insightful as it is funny. Stein's humor ranges
from cheap to clever, and yet is unfailingly smart and on the mark. The premise of this book
has already been thoroughly covered. Stein seeks to explain the backlash against so-called
elites which led to the election of Trump. He starts by visiting the county in the US which had
the highest percentage of Trump voters in the 2016 election. He finds many things that he
expected to find (religion, guns) and many things he did not. Does he leave Miami, Texas
thinking that the Trump voters were right? No. But he leaves with a better appreciation of
people different from him and less of an us versus them mindset. After spending time with the
populists, Stein visits with his own group, the elites, providing a short and somewhat mocking
look at our country's most privileged...living in ivory towers, maybe, but also doing great
work. Next come the populist elites, a group which includes Stein's "boat elites," or people
like Trump. The section on elite populists is the shortest in the book; obviously elites
generally aren't wining any popularity contests. Finally, in "Saving the Elite," Stein attempts
to figure out how elites can re-emerge on top, where they belong. Solutions include fighting
back, which many liberals seem to be doing to little or no avail; taking the high road, which
appeals to the self-satisfied nature of elitists but which tends to be ultimately frustrating;
and moving towards change, perhaps through greater humility, kindness, and--dare we say
it?--love. Stein himself admits both that he is smug...and also that his smugness is his
downfall. We cannot dismiss those with whom we do not agree. Stein makes this point in a way
that is intelligent, compelling, moving...and also very, very funny.
Ryan
Mease , Reviewed in the United States on December 19, 2019
This is a sometimes-humorous, sometimes-serious review of different populist voices in the
Trump era. Klein scored a number of perfect interviews with figureheads in / critics of the
populist movement -- Tucker Carlson, the Dilbert guy and Bill Kristol. It's a shame he couldn't
get Steve Bannon. He's very effective at interviewing opponents. I actually walked away from
the Tucker chapter feeling less confused about Tucker's position on race and immigration. I can
see his journey and his current rhetorical postures seem wrong, but reasonable. He has a point
of view that's well-reasoned. The Dilbert guy is another story. I'm not even sure if he belongs
in this book; he's just a sophist like Ann Coulter or Milo. I'm trying to use that term
precisely, in the elitist Plato's dialogue sense of the term. If you read the book or listen to
an interview with him, you'll understand what I mean. He's a bad faith relativist who enjoys
attention. There's a lot more to this book! I didn't even mention the long opening section
where the author travels to Texas to interview Trump supporters while living with them for an
extended period. There are moments in the book where we're allowed to see how we might heal our
national wounds. The major flaw here is the lack of depth concerning left-wing populism. The
author points to Bernie Sanders and the populist left without really interviewing anyone or
considering those voices too carefully. That's a shame, because they would have made an
excellent companion chapter to the content on Tucker. The author ends up luring elite readers
to a place where they feel comfortable receiving criticism. It would have been nice to hear
that critique from each side. This was a fun read. Definitely recommended.
plubius
tullius , Reviewed in the United States on February 22, 2020
I listened to this as an audiobook, read by Joel Stein himself. Even as read by the author,
I can't tell if this book is a joke or supposed to be taken seriously. An honest discussion of
experts vs non-experts would be useful. This is not it. Stein picks points that back his views
up, which extend well beyond expertise, and into entitlement, connection, and general
condescension to the "great unwashed." For example, he interviews cartoonist Scott Adams... why
not Nassim Nicholas Taleb - on the fallacy of expertise. Of course, lots and lots of name
dropping in this book. Figures - thats how those insecure in their elitist claims attempt to
establish their membership.
I knew Elizabeth Warren when I was a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. She was a
right-wing Reaganite. And the University of Pennsylvania had the most progressive law
school curriculum in the country. And this is Elizabeth Warren.
And I taught a first year class called income security. Elizabeth Warren said "there is
no more ridiculous idea than national healthcare". That's the Elizabeth Warren I knew. She
was in her 30s at this time.
She was the henchwoman of the right-wing takeover to destroy the left-wing curriculum. I
taught Worker's Rights, I taught the National Labor Rights Act, which doesn't exist
anymore, for the most part, it's not taught in any law school in the United States, I
taught Income Security, and I taught Jurisprudence. Elizabeth was against all those things.
I don't really know Elizabeth Warren personally, I just know her as a right-wing
Republican. And somehow or another, God came out of the heavens and turned her into a
Democrat, probably at the very moment that Derrick Bell stepped down from Harvard because
he would not work anymore until they hired an African-American woman.
Now she couldn't pretend she was Black, so she pretended she was African. She was Native
American. That's not what we call people who are Native Americans, because they're First
Nations people. Apaches and Cherokees were nations. There's no such thing as a Native
American. Elizabeth checked that box just as Derrick Bell was stepping down. She goes to
Massachusetts and she becomes a Democrat.
There is no more [of a] relentless, ruthless, nihilist that I have ever met in my entire
life. Not Elizabeth Warren. She's right up there with Donald Trump. So I can't really
support her. She did succeed in destroying that progressive curriculum. And that
progressive curriculum is, you know, it's one of those life things that you hold onto,
right? So I don't trust Elizabeth Warren as far as I can throw her.
She has no policy, she doesn't understand imperialism, and she has said she's a
capitalist. What she really is is a technocrat who clawed her way to Harvard. I mean,
that's where you want to end up, right? If you're a law professor, you want to be at
Harvard. Ok, she did that. She succeeded.
But as President of the United States I wouldn't even dream of supporting her. Because
Bernie Sanders, whatever you think of him, like me, was chaining himself to schools to
[de]segregate them. Was protesting against the Vietnam war. There are people who have held
onto values for a lifetime, and those, Slavoj, are the people I trust.
Presumably Sanders always has known about Warren's record (it's never been obscure for
anyone who took a few minutes to look; years ago when I focused on Wall Street and
participated at the econoblogs I always knew she was a fraud), yet he's always helped
propagate the fraud that she's some kind of "progressive". Same as he's always lied about
Russiagate (he certainly knows it's a lie).
So according to the party line, Sanders wanted Warren to run in 2016 and only ran himself
after she demurred. This can only mean he preferred for her to act as the sheepdog for
Hillary, since he certainly knew she was no "progressive".
The Democrat establishment came together and crushed Bernie Sanders, AGAIN! Even the fact
that Elizabeth Warren stayed in the race was devastating to Bernie and allowed Sleepy Joe to
unthinkably win Massachusetts. It was a perfect storm, with many good states remaining for
Joe!
20 minutes later, Trump tweeted that it was " So selfish for Elizabeth Warren to stay in the
race ," as she has "Zero chance of even coming close to winning, but hurts Bernie badly."
"So much for their wonderful liberal friendship. Will he ever speak to her again? She cost him
Massachusetts (and came in third), he shouldn't!"
So selfish for Elizabeth Warren to stay in the race. She has Zero chance of even coming
close to winning, but hurts Bernie badly. So much for their wonderful liberal friendship. Will
he ever speak to her again? She cost him Massachusetts (and came in third), he shouldn't!
Three hours later, Trump tweeted: " Wow! If Elizabeth Warren wasn't in the race, Bernie
Sanders would have EASILY won Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas , not to mention various other
states. Our modern day Pocahontas won't go down in history as a winner, but she may very well go
down as the all time great SPOILER! "
Wow! If Elizabeth Warren wasn't in the race, Bernie Sanders would have EASILY won
Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas, not to mention various other states. Our modern day
Pocahontas won't go down in history as a winner, but she may very well go down as the all time
great SPOILER!
Warren is a Reagan Republican. She was a Republican until she was 47 years old, which
means she lived through the Reagan years thinking 'this is fine'. She only switched in the
middle of the 1990s when the GOP had gone so far off the deep end that Clinton's center-right
New Democrats better represented her Reaganite views. She claims it was because of abuse by
banks, which doesn't make sense, since by that point it was the Democrats leading the charge
on bank deregulation.
She isn't a leftist, by any definition.
She built a reputation because of the very narrow range of finance issues she's
actually good on (the CFPB is the cornerstone of her entire progressive reputation). And in
this election she hasn't been a candidate of the left. She's run on the veneer that she is,
but like a snake she's been shedding that pretense over time, backing away from any and every
progressive policy position. Her base is white suburbanite professionals, especially women
who want to see one of their own be president.
The Warren-Sanders divide perfectly illustrates everything Marx ever wrote about the
dangers of Liberals. They aren't the Left's friend. When the revolution comes, they'll be the
first to be shot.
Benjamin: Ronald Reagan famously used to be a Democrat, lots of people forget that. He went
Republican in 1962.
Lots of people also don't know or realize how extremely likeable Reagan was as a person
when he was young, much more so for most people than Kennedy ever was or could ever be (the
Kennedy family was/is as nasty as any).
I got this link a few US election ago, Reagan was still a Democrat at this point in time:
"What's My Line -
Ronald Reagan (1953)" , it's only three and a half minutes long.
Elizabeth Warren really hurt Sanders tonight and she's getting no delegates cause her
percentages are under 15% (except in her own state that she's losing IN 3RD PLACE)! If she
had gotten out of the race Bernie would be sweeping everything for Progressives!
It's like Warren took a sledgehammer to the Progressive Movement and said: If I can't lead
it to the White House, then neither will YOU Bernie Sanders!
That's how selfish she was this week.
Thank goodness Sanders might still be able to get a majority, because BIDEN IS THE
TITANIC. Biden cannot be the Nominee, he's a walking disaster and Trump will crush him!
Thats a good one. The anunaki wouldn't even shit on Warren. The ancient south American
Indians would have found a fitting sacrifice for her type of lying, sleaze.
I have seen that
video and watch most of his posts as he has a sharp enquiring mind. Most importantly he is
comfortable to be challenged.
I discovered Robert Temple and the science of geopolymers
through one of his references.
I just can't be sympathetic with Bernie and his voters tonight. Remember how Bernie came out
to support Tulsi Gabbard when she was having such a hard time with the establishment? Neither
do I. Remember how Bernie's supporters made sure Bernie would speak the truth about
russiagate, or they weren't going to support him? Neither do I. Remember how Bernie made it
clear in every debate and every interview that the choice is endless war or medicare for all?
He didn't. Watching someone with a few leftist atoms in him being defeated in State after
State by a warmongering sociopath who belongs in a hospice with bars on the windows, is like
watching what he deserves.
People who casually tell you that Bernie is for the Empire--and not for the repair of
society-- are people trafficking in lies.
I encourage everyone to look at Bernie with a critical eye and decide for yourself.
Bernie has a history of deference to the Democratic Party and Democratic Party leaders.
All of whom are 100% pro-Empire.
'Nice guy' Bernie doesn't do anything that threatens the establishment. HE promises
revolutionary change - but that has NEVER come just from establishment Parties via the
ballot box. It has come from independent Movements.
When Bernie talks about Empire matters, he generally obfuscates or reinforces
pro-Empire narratives (like Russiagate's McCarthyism).
Anyone in political life for any length of time (like Bernie) must know that USA
is EMPIRE-FIRST. Empire priorities (military and intelligence focus; 'weaponized' liberalism;
neoliberal graft; dollar hegemony; Jihadis as a proxy army; etc.) dictate the limits of
domestic politics.
Bernie's quixotic insurgency was doomed to fail unless Bernie attacked the Democratic
Party's connection to Empire and use of identity politics to divide and conquer. Oh, and
Bernie would have to threaten to leave the Democratic Party -- but then would become the
independent Movement that Bernie and the Democratic Party have tried so hard to prevent!
The idea of Biden becoming the next President is as big a joke as the idea of Trump 's
second term. The guy voted for Iraq war.
All the Democratic candidates proved to be exceedingly weak, the second rate politicians.
Probably with the exception of Tulsi.
And none of them can win unless the "anybody but Trump" vote is large enough.
Trump in 2020 put himself in the position similar to Hillary in 2016, the position of
hated militarist, staunch neoliberal, and the obedient Empire servant. And he knows that
(that's why his efforts to get a peace with Taliban.)
The strength of the "Anybody but Trump" vote is the only hope for Dems now.
likbez , March 4, 2020 10:42 am
Biden is on top and will probably be the Democratic Party nominee. Looks like a done deal.
He even won Massachusetts.
Bernie underperformed relative to his performance in 2016 in most states. He probably
moved too far left for most voters to support him, but still Biden win is a big, big
surprise.
538 (fivethirtyeight)/Nate Silver – lost again. He had Sanders leading in 9 of the
14 states. Oops.
As Biden voted for the Iran war, now the only hope for progressives is Coronarovirus
"... US national politics is gang warfare. The Crips vs. the Bloods. Two criminal enterprises with roughly the same aims and tactics, fighting for turf. With minor differences of style. Trump upsets the leadership of the Bloods in 2016, but it turns out that, outrageous as he is, he is good for business, so all the Bloods but the wimps with a weak stomach fall in behind him. ..."
"... But let's just suppose that the old Crips are not quite as pathetic as they look. Let's imagine that they actually learned something in 2016. It was supposed to be easy for them in 2016, and they were surprised. So they have had four years to hone their election-stealing skills. And most of the traditional election stealing organizations in this country seem largely to hate Trump. ..."
"... So let's posit that the FBI & CIA, or whoever it is manages to prop up Biden, and succeed in stealing the election for him. Who would object to that? ..."
"... Not two gangs but one Deep State political mafia with two families running a protection racket (MIC), prostitution (media propaganda, psyops), drugs (industry incentives), and gambling (overseas adventurism) ..."
The setup: US national politics is gang warfare. The Crips vs. the Bloods. Two criminal
enterprises with roughly the same aims and tactics, fighting for turf. With minor differences
of style. Trump upsets the leadership of the Bloods in 2016, but it turns out that,
outrageous as he is, he is good for business, so all the Bloods but the wimps with a weak
stomach fall in behind him.
The Crips are bloated and in decline. A bunch of naïve, starry eyed nobodies mount a
campaign to take the Crips legit. The old Crips are irritated that they have to take time out
from grifting so as to squash the upstart pests.
That is where I see us today. But let's just suppose that the old Crips are not quite as
pathetic as they look. Let's imagine that they actually learned something in 2016. It was
supposed to be easy for them in 2016, and they were surprised. So they have had four years to
hone their election-stealing skills. And most of the traditional election stealing
organizations in this country seem largely to hate Trump.
So let's posit that the FBI & CIA, or whoever it is manages to prop up Biden, and
succeed in stealing the election for him. Who would object to that?
Yes, exactly – all the Trump die-hards, and 'tribal' gang bangers would object. It
could get really nasty.
And so far, I have not seen any evidence that any of the characters that would be willing
to play such a gambit have any inclination to give a shit for the consequences for us little
people.
Not two gangs but one Deep State political mafia with two families running a protection
racket (MIC), prostitution (media propaganda, psyops), drugs (industry incentives), and
gambling (overseas adventurism)...
The Tammany Society emerged as the center for Democratic-Republican Party politics in
the city in the early 19th century. After 1854, the Society expanded its political control
even further by earning the loyalty of the city's rapidly expanding immigrant community,
which functioned as its base of political capital. The business community appreciated its
readiness, at moderate cost, to cut through red tape and legislative mazes to facilitate
rapid economic growth... Tammany Hall also served as an engine for graft and political
corruption, perhaps most infamously under William M. "Boss" Tweed in the mid-19th
century....
[Tweed's biographer wrote:]
It's hard not to admire the skill behind Tweed's system ... The Tweed ring at its
height was an engineering marvel, strong and solid, strategically deployed to control key
power points: the courts, the legislature, the treasury and the ballot box. Its frauds
had a grandeur of scale and an elegance of structure: money-laundering, profit sharing
and organization.
trailertrash @6 --- Americans have been railroaded into endless squabbling about voting and
democracy instead of demanding good governance. How does choosing between two similarly
corrupt parties deliver good governance?
Voting in the lesser evil is still choosing evil.
What does it profit a nation to have voting every 4 years when excrement covers her
sidewalks? and vets suicide themselves daily? and soldiers get raped daily by fellow
soldiers?
All the talk today is of the tensions between globalism and populism, the latter often
nationalistic. The globalists have generally been too optimistic in their rhetoric, wishfully
thinking that the time of nations and states is simply over. In fact, the nation-state remains
an irreducible reality in politics everywhere, even as this entity is undeniably in
decline.
The "national" is in decline in two distinct ways. Firstly, Western nations are
disintegrating everywhere, their respective core ethnies losing ground to rapidly-expanding
Hispanic, Asian, African, and Islamic settlements, notably in the large cities and, in the
United States, across all the southernmost states from west to east.
Many of the major cities are simply lost. London can no longer be said to be part of the
English nation in any meaningful sense. Indeed, London's government under Sadiq Khan has been
at pains to emphasize this fact, arguing that, I quote, "London is anyone, London is everyone." In
the same way, Paris is no longer really part of the French nation, nor can Los Angeles and New
York City be said to be part of the same nation as the American Midwest.
Secondly, Western elites are more and more apatride – nationless –
psychologically. The residents of these same "global cities" simply no longer identify with the
core of their historic nations and, indeed, are possessed by various degrees of fear and
loathing for the rural folk who have the audacity to vote for the (more-or-less insipid)
right-wing parties and not be in tune with the metropolitan classes' latest ideological
fashions. Thus, these elites feel no need to defend the economic, cultural, and demographic
interests of their own citizens – which is at best considered selfish and at worst
"racism," the gravest of sins. Today, many left-wing parties show open contempt for the very
idea of borders and nationhood, let alone national solidarity.
The phenomenon of an apatride elite is part of the reason why many have come to believe the
"statal" part of "nation-state" is also in decline today. But this is quite inaccurate. The
state shows no signs of decline and indeed has become all-encompassing and outright obese. If
the state does not take action today in the face of the winds of globalization – on
immigration, on economics – it is not because it no longer has the means, but simply
because the elites have lost the desire to defend their constituents.
There is no point getting worked into an impotent rage regarding these trends. Rather, we
should reflect on why the nation-state arose and why it is declining.
I think we need to consider the basic facts of human life, namely our psychology, which is
more or less fixed, at least in broad makeup, and our technology, which has enabled spectacular
changes in day-to-day human life over the past thousands of years.
Psychologically, the key issue seems to me to be that of identification. Ethnic
identification appears to be a hard-wired human impulse, much akin to children's aptitude for
adopting languages. This is evident in the fact that even
infants instinctively identify different races and accents , and show a preference for the
race and accent of their parents. If we look at modern history, we find that again and again
societies fail to consolidate into a common ethno-national identity because of the lack of a
common language (Austria-Hungary, Canada, Belgium, the Soviet Union . . .) and/or race (United
States of America, Brazil, South Africa, Malaysia . . .). Of course, additional cultural and
religious factors can further subdivide people into further ethnies but, as a rule, it seems
shared language and continental ancestry are the two basic ingredients for forming an
ethnicity.
Identification seems to stem in large part from socialization. An infant, assuming he or she
is of the same continental race as their parents, will come to identify ethnically with them
through constant contact, seeing their features, and hearing their voices. By contrast,
transracial adoptees – a black child raised by white parents or vice versa – is
likely to develop highly conflicted feelings and not feel wholly part of his adoptive
ethnicity. This can even be the case for multiracial children, such as one Barack Obama , who
despite being exactly half-white and half-black, felt no affinity for Europe. As he explained
in his memoirs: "And by the end of the first week or so [in Europe], I realized that I'd made a
mistake. It wasn't that Europe wasn't beautiful; everything was just as I'd imagined it. It
just wasn't mine."
The family – especially if the two parents are of the same ethnicity – seems to
be a powerful driver of ethnic identity creation. All across Europe, the society may speak one
language, the state may prescribe another, but if enough families speak another language at
home, then we have an autonomous ethnic group and resulting ethnic tensions. See: Catalonia,
Flanders, and indeed most of the Balkans.
Family is obviously one of the chief ways people socialize. But there are others: the
street, school, the workplace, church, as well as through mediating technologies, namely books,
newspapers, radio, television, and the Internet.
It seems to me that the expression and potency of ethnic and religious identity has
fluctuated throughout human history through the emergence of these technologies.
In very ancient times, people seemed to have chiefly identified with their tribe, each one
having their own gods, prescribing loyalty only to their own blood.
With the invention of writing, it became possible to create long-lasting and homogeneous
imperial and religious bureaucracies that went beyond the individual tribe. Hence, in time the
purely particularistic identification of the Greeks and other ancient nations came to be
replaced by the "dual citizenship" of the Roman Empire. Cicero is emblematic in expressing both
the local patriotism of his hometown and imperial Roman patriotism.
Empires and religions (and languages, for that matter) spread much more easily than did
peoples, who tend to be very "viscous" as soon as there is any significant population density.
Great emperors like Constantine and Ashoka appear to have seized upon Christianity and
Buddhism, in part, as means of giving a common identity to their otherwise very diverse
subjects. Throughout the Middle Ages, people had various local identities and a common
Christian identity. Publications were chiefly in Latin rather than the local language, also
encouraging a Christian identity among intellectuals.
Conditions have dramatically changed since the Middle Ages, notably in Europe, with the
steady spread of literacy and of local vernaculars, suddenly promoted to national languages.
National identity is evident among the intellectuals as early as the Renaissance (if not
earlier in some cases, as in the eleventh-century
Song of Roland ). Machiavelli's notorious The Prince concludes with a rousing call to unite
Italy and expel the (French and Spanish) barbarians; Luther exhorted the German nobility in
German to free themselves from the yoke of a decadent Papacy; and Montaigne in his cheeky
Essays is already speaking in stereotyped terms of Frenchmen's Gaulish ancestors.
Thus, from the fifteenth to the twentieth centuries, we observe the steady rise of national
identity as more and more people were socialized in linguistically-discrete memetic networks:
the printing press, mass literacy, newspapers, national schooling . . . The nation marks the
entry of the masses into society and we are not surprised if war, by 1914, reaches a hysterical
nationalistic pitch.
The nation had become everything by then. One's family, one's society, one's state, one's
newspaper, one's books, one's school, one's territory . . . everything was dominated by the
national fact, working in harmony and reinforcing one another, dominating every facet of one's
existence. Thus, when a Frenchman crossed the border to Italy or landed in England, he could
feel to be entering a really different world with wholly different rules. This is certainly no
longer the case today.
The nation was an existential fact within which one lived and died, and potentially
flourished and . . . transcended one's individuality. Thus we cannot be surprised if so many
great men invested their participation and sacrifice for their nation in existential terms.
Hence, Charles de Gaulle felt France was "like a princess in the fairy tales or the madonna of
the frescoes, fated for an eminent and exceptional destiny" while the Romanian Petre
Țuțea – with the same exhilarating and empowering pathos – explained that
"the Balkans are the ass of Europe." Solzhenitsyn, Hitler, etc, etc.
Only religion and business escaped this rule. Yet religion often wrapped itself in the
national flag and business had to adapt to local conditions.
Sociologically, the peak of the nation-state really was achieved in the postwar era: 1950s
America, 1960s France. This was the moment in which our educational and other bureaucracies
became ends in themselves, excuses for wasting time and distributing money. It was the time of
television. This era saw the inception of globalism, which was adopted by elites, thus there
was a French globalism, an American globalism, etc. There was as of yet no unified globalist
class as such.
Today, people spend a greater and greater part of their daily life in front of screens.
Notwithstanding the restrictions of copyright and national ecosystems (Iran, China, Russia), in
the West Internet use is basically deterritorialized. I could be writing these lines from
Paris, Dubai, or Timbuktu. An American in Paris can work in an English-speaking company, inform
himself through American media, and basically live in an Anglo expat bubble. An Arabic
immigrant can similarly live in his own Arabo-Islamic online sphere, wherever he happens to
live, besides frequenting the local Saudi-funding Wahhabite mosque.
These screens enable deterritorialized work – and thus big companies, research
institutes, prestigious – are increasingly detaching from their nations.
The proposed Spencerian Ethnostate, a kind of Transatlantic Roman Empire, seems outlandish
today. However, once the Germans become as functionally Anglophone as the Dutch and the Nordics
– which is perhaps a matter of only 20 years – there will certainly be no
linguistic barriers to Occidental unity.
Why should "champagne" – quality bubbly wine – only be produced in the
geographical region of Champagne? By what law would it be impossible to make good ramen outside
of the territory of Japan?
Thus, we will inevitably see a steady denationalization of our societies, both from below
through Third-World immigration, and from above through "Anglo-globalization." The small,
rootless international clique has given rise to a rather large and growing
Expat Class . The chief problem is our effeminate lifestyle. People spend their entire
amidst the omnipresent fakery of the "education" system, office make-work, and screens. It also
means a pure and simple biological weakening – witness the decline in testosterone levels
– as our comfortable lives make us less and less capable of bearing pain, discomfort, or
sustained effort. This makes us unable to recognize painful truths – and lord knows how
many truths are painful – let alone affirm them and live by them.
To deny these trends, which are in large part technologically determined, is simply wishful
thinking.
No matter who comes away with the nomination, it has to be asked "was any of this process
legitimate?". We know from a plethora of examples that US elections are not fair. They border
on meaningless most of the time. The DNC's doubly so, having argued in court they have no duty
to be fair.
Any result, then, you could safely assume was contrived, for one reason or another.
If the Buttigieg-Klobuchar-Biden gambit works, we end up with Trump vs. Biden. And,
realistically, that means a second Trump term.
Biden is possibly senile and definitely creepy . Watching him shuffle and stutter
through a Presidential campaign would be almost cruel.
Politically, he has all of Hillary's weaknesses, being a big-time establishment type with a
pro-war record, without even the "I have a vagina" card to play.
He'll get massacred.
Is that the plan?
There's more than enough signs that Trump has abandoned all the policies that made him any
kind of threat to the political establishment. Four years on: no wars ended, no walls built, no
swamp drained. Just more of the same. He's an idiot who talked big and got co-opted. It
happens.
The Senate and other institutions might talk about Trump being a criminal or an idiot or a
"Nazi", but the reality is he's barely perceptibly different from any other POTUS this side of
JFK.
#TheResistance was a puppet show. A weak game played for toy money. When it really counts,
they're all in it together. Biden getting on the ticket would be a public admittance of that.
It would mean the DNC is effectively throwing the fight. Trump is a son of a bitch, but he's
their son of a bitch. And that's much better than even the idea of President
Bernie.
Does it really matter?
Empire of kaos will never move one inch to change the status quo.
The quaisi fascist state that most western /antlantacist nations have become it will make no
difference
Gianbattista Vico"Their will always be an elite class" Punto e basta.
Name me one politico that made any difference to we the sheeple in the modern era.
If someone were to mention FDR I will scream.
Aldo Moro got murdered by the deep state for only suggesting to make a pact with Berlinguer
the head of Il Partito Communista Italiano.
"... Clinton also lied to the country about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq and voted for that obviously illegal war. This after 8 years of her husband's genocidal sanctions killed a minimum of 500,000 innocent Iraqi children . ..."
"... What Bernie Sanders suffered and endured in 2016 was outrageous. Yet, he persisted and to this day attempts to help common Americans as much as he can. He does what he believes to be the right thing. His integrity and his record of fighting for working Americans are not the points of contention in this race. ..."
"... Today, however, Senator Bernie Sanders is the only Democrat who beats Trump in poll after poll . The only one. This is no small matter. Trump needs to be beaten in the tangled Electoral College, where a simple numerical victory isn't enough. ..."
"... Bernie is the best choice, but it is interesting that you brought up the genocidal sanctions on Iraq. Bernie supported those sanctions. He also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which reaffirmed US support for the sanctions even after 500,000 children had been killed. ..."
"... Well, the BBC is bigging up Joe Biden right now, yet another of its ridiculous pieces of propaganda utterly devoid of its duty to serve its license payors, who are the British people, not the neoconservative banking elite. ..."
"... How interesting, it's Obama who gave the "cue" for Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Beto, Rice, and the entire slippery gang to circle the wagons in support of the most reactionary warmongering candidate running. The same Obama who released drones every Tuesday morning killing brown and blacks throughout the Middle East and Africa– the majority of slaughtered were innocent women and children. ..."
"... The desperation of the national security state is reflected by The DNC's Shenanigans. The security state would rather promote a crooked, warmongering, lying, racist who barely can put together two logical thoughts then accept a candidate who represents a hopeful future for the next generation. ..."
"... The DNC's message is very clear– they're a "private party" and the working-class are NOT invited. ..."
"... But this by far is the most frightening thought, Biden, does not have all his marbles–it's obvious–we can only guess it's some type of dementia. So if Biden, slides through deploying a multitude of underhanded machinations and becomes the nominee, Trump, will make mincemeat of him during the debates. ..."
"... I'm not in the Orange Baboon's Fan Club, but I find it sad and a little bit pathetic the way people still invest their hopes and put their faith in figures like Bernie, Tulsi or Jezza. Bernie got shafted in 2016 and just saluted smartly and fell into line behind Crooked Hillary. When she lost, he started singing from the approved hymn sheet. The evil Putin stole the election for Kremlin Agent Trump. He has been parroting the same nonsense for the past 4 years. ..."
"... Jeez people get a clue. How many times do you need to fall for the "this candidate is so much better and will solve everything" ruse? Remember Obama? The exact same bullshit was going around back then. ..."
"... We have hope😁 . We have change😁 . We have hope and change you can believe in😁 . Well, yeah, we all know what happened during Obombers 8 years. The entire thing is nothing but Kabuki theatre. For all those still believing the United States is a democracy. ..."
"... 'In the democratic system, the necessary illusions cannot be imposed by force. Rather, they must be instilled in the public mind by more subtle means. A totalitarian state can be satisfied with lesser degrees of allegiance to required truths. It is sufficient that people obey; what they think is a secondary concern. But in a democratic political order, there is always the danger that independent thought might be translated into political action, so it is important to eliminate the threat at its root. ..."
"... Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Controversy may rage as long as it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of elites, and it should furthermore be encouraged within these bounds, thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition of thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom reigns ..."
"... Every opportunity to push back Neo liberalism should be taken. ..."
"... Once again, Mark Twain sums up my feeling: "If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it." ..."
"... Where's yours? That's impertinent. Our voting process was programmed, close to 100% by two guys, at one point not many years ago, with the same last name, the brothers Urosevich. The machine owners claim that, as it is their proprietary software, the public is excluded from the vote-counting. ..."
In 2016, Hillary Clinton deserved to lose, and she did. Her deception, her
cheating in
the primary elections , was well-documented, despicable, dishonest, untrustworthy. Her
money-laundering scheme
at DNC should have been prosecuted under campaign finance laws.
Her record of warmongering and gleefully gloating over death and destruction was also well established. On national TV she
bragged about the mutilation of Moammar Qaddafi: "We came, we saw, he died!"
Clinton also lied to the country about "Weapons of Mass Destruction"
in Iraq and voted for that obviously illegal war. This after 8 years of her husband's genocidal sanctions killed a minimum of
500,000 innocent Iraqi children .
This person was undeserving of anyone's support.
What Bernie Sanders suffered and endured in 2016 was outrageous. Yet, he persisted and to this day attempts to help common
Americans as much as he can. He does what he believes to be the right thing. His integrity and his record of fighting for working
Americans are not the points of contention in this race.
His opponents have instead opted for every nonsensical conspiracy theory and McCarthyite smear they can concoct, including the
most ridiculous of all: the
Putin theory , without a single shred of evidence to support it.
Today, however, Senator Bernie Sanders is the only Democrat who beats Trump in
poll after
poll . The
only one. This is no small matter. Trump needs to be beaten in the tangled Electoral College, where a simple numerical victory isn't
enough.
Bernie wins, and he has the best overall shot of changing the course of history, steering America away from plutocracy and fascism.
That crucial race is happening right now in the primaries . If Bernie Sanders doesn't secure 50% of all delegates, then DNC insiders
have already signaled that they will steal the nomination and give it to someone else -- who will lose to Trump. The real election
for the future of America is on Super Tuesday.
It's either Trump or Bernie. That's your choice. Your only choice.
Bernie is the best choice, but it is interesting that you brought up the genocidal sanctions on Iraq. Bernie supported those
sanctions. He also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which reaffirmed US support for the sanctions even after 500,000
children had been killed.
Bernie also voted for Clinton's 1999 bombing campaign on Kosovo.
All that said, yes, Bernie is the best option.
Rhys Jaggar ,
Well, the BBC is bigging up Joe Biden right now, yet another of its ridiculous pieces of propaganda utterly devoid of its duty
to serve its license payors, who are the British people, not the neoconservative banking elite.
When they spout bullshit that 20% of UK workers could miss work 'due to coronavirus', when we have had precisely 36 deaths
in a population of 65 million plus, you know that like climate change, they spout the 1% probability as the mainstream narrative
.
It just shows what folks are up against when media is so cravenly serving those who do not pay them.
Charlotte Russe ,
"If Bernie Sanders doesn't secure 50% of all delegates, then DNC insiders have already signaled that they will steal the
nomination and give it to someone else -- who will lose to Trump. The real election for the future of America is on Super Tuesday."
While Bernie spent more than three decades advocating for economic social justice Biden spent those same three decades
promoting social repression."
"The 1990s saw Biden take aim at civil liberties, authoring anti-terror bills that, among other things, "gutted the federal
writ of habeas corpus," as one legal scholar later reflected. It was this earlier legislation that led Biden to brag to anyone
listening that he was effectively the author of the Bush-era PATRIOT ACT, which, in his view, didn't go far enough. He inserted
a provision into the bill that allowed for the militarization of local law enforcement and again suggested deploying the military
within US borders."
How interesting, it's Obama who gave the "cue" for Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Beto, Rice, and the entire slippery gang to circle
the wagons in support of the most reactionary warmongering candidate running. The same Obama who released drones every Tuesday
morning killing brown and blacks throughout the Middle East and Africa– the majority of slaughtered were innocent women and children.
The desperation of the national security state is reflected by The DNC's Shenanigans. The security state would rather promote
a crooked, warmongering, lying, racist who barely can put together two logical thoughts then accept a candidate who represents
a hopeful future for the next generation.
The DNC's message is very clear– they're a "private party" and the working-class are NOT invited. In fact, they're
saying more than that–if uninvited workers and the marginalized dare to enter they'll be tossed out on their arse
In plain sight the mainstream media news is telling millions that NO one can stop the military/security/surveillance/corporate
state from their stranglehold over the corrupt political duopoly.
I say fight and don't give-up! Be prepared–organize a million people march and head to Milwaukee– the future of the next generation
is on the line.
But this by far is the most frightening thought, Biden, does not have all his marbles–it's obvious–we can only guess it's
some type of dementia. So if Biden, slides through deploying a multitude of underhanded machinations and becomes the nominee,
Trump, will make mincemeat of him during the debates.
But if Biden, makes it to the Oval Office he'll be "less" than a figurehead. Biden, will be as mentally acute as the early
bird diner in a Florida assisted living facility after a recent stroke. The national security state will seize control– handing
the "taxidermied Biden" a pen to idiotically sign off on their highly insidious agenda ..
Ken Kenn ,
Pretty straightforward for me ( I don't know about Bernie? ) but if the Super delegates and the DNC hierarchy decide to hand the
nomination over to Biden then Bernie should stand as an independent.
At least even in defeat a left marker would be placed on the US political table away from the Corporate owners and the shills
that hack for them in the media and elsewhere. At least ordinary US people would know that someone is on their side.
Corbyn in the UK was described as a ' Marxist' by the Tories and the unquestioning media. Despite all that ' Marxist ' Labour got 33% of the vote. People will vote for a ' socialist '
Charlotte Ruse ,
Unfortunately, Bernie won't abandon the Democratic Party. However, there's a ton of Bernie supporters who will vote Third Party
if Bernie doesn't get the nomination.
paul ,
I'm not in the Orange Baboon's Fan Club, but I find it sad and a little bit pathetic the way people still invest their hopes and
put their faith in figures like Bernie, Tulsi or Jezza. Bernie got shafted in 2016 and just saluted smartly and fell into line behind Crooked Hillary. When she lost, he started singing from the approved hymn sheet. The evil Putin stole the election for Kremlin Agent Trump.
He has been parroting the same nonsense for the past 4 years.
That's when he hasn't been shilling for regime change wars in Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and elsewhere against "communist
dictators."
Bernie will get shafted again shortly and fall into line behind Epstein's and Weinstein's best mate Bloomberg or Creepy Joe,
or Pocahontas, or whoever.
If by some miracle they can't quite rig it this time and Bernie gets the nomination, the DNC will just fail to support him,
and allow Trump to win. They would rather see Trump than Bernie in the White House.
Just like Starmer, Thornberry, Phillips and all the Blairite Backstabber Friends of Israel were more terrified of seeing Jezza
in Number Ten than any Tory.
Dr. Johnson said that getting remarried represented the triumph of hope over experience.
The same applies to people expecting any positive change from people like Bernie, Tulsi, or Jezza.
The system just doesn't allow it.
pete ,
Jeez people get a clue. How many times do you need to fall for the "this candidate is so much better and will solve everything"
ruse? Remember Obama? The exact same bullshit was going around back then.
We have hope😁 . We have change😁 . We have hope and change you can believe in😁 . Well, yeah, we all know what happened during
Obombers 8 years. The entire thing is nothing but Kabuki theatre. For all those still believing the United States is a democracy.
clickkid ,
"The real election for the future of America is on Super Tuesday."
Sorry Joe, but where have you been for the last 50 years" Elections are irrelevant. Events change the world – not elections. The only important aspect of an election is the turnout. If you vote in an election, then at some level you still believe in
the system.
Willem ,
Sometimes Chomsky can be useful
'In the democratic system, the necessary illusions cannot be imposed by force. Rather, they must be instilled in the public
mind by more subtle means. A totalitarian state can be satisfied with lesser degrees of allegiance to required truths. It is sufficient
that people obey; what they think is a secondary concern. But in a democratic political order, there is always the danger that
independent thought might be translated into political action, so it is important to eliminate the threat at its root.
Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing
character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Controversy may rage as long as
it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of elites, and it should furthermore be encouraged within these bounds,
thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition of thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom
reigns.'
If true, the question is, what are we not allowed to say? Or is Chomsky wrong, and are we allowed to say anything we like since TPTB know that words cannot, ever, change political action
as for that you need power and brutal force, which we do not have and which, btw Chomsky advocates to its readers not to try to
use against the nation state?
So maybe Chomsky is not so useful after all, or only useful for the status quo.
Chomsky's latest book, sold in book stores and at airports, where, apparantly, opinions of dissident writers whose opinions
go beyond the bounds of the consensus of elites, are sold in large amounts to marginalize those opinions out of society, is called
'Optimism over despair', a title stolen from Gramsci who said: 'pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.'
But every time I follow Chomsky's reasoning, I end in dead end roads of which it is quite hard to find your way out. So perhaps
I should change that title into 'nihilism over despair'. If you follow Chomsky's reasoning
clickkid ,
Your Chomsky Quote:
"'In the democratic system, the necessary illusions cannot be imposed by force. .. " Tell that to the Yellow Vests.
ajbsm ,
Despite the deep state stranglehold .on the whole world there seems to be a 'wind' blowing (ref Lenin) of more and more people
turning backs on the secret service candidates – not just in America. Power, money and bullying will carry on succeeding eventually
the edifice is blown away – this will probably happen, it will be ugly and what emerges might not even be better(!) But the current
controllers seem to have a sell by date.
Ken Kenn ,
I'm not convinced of the theory that the more poor/whipped/ spat upon people become the more likely they are to revolt.
A revolution can only come about when the Bourgeoisie can no longer continue to govern in the old way. In other words it becomes more than a want – more of a necessity of change to the ordinary person.
We have to remember that in general ( it's a bit of a guess but just to illustrate a point ) that a small majority of people
in any western nation are reasonably content – to an extent. They are not going to rock the boat that Kennedy tried to make the tide rise for or that Thatcher and her mates copied with
home owner ship and the right to get into serious debt. This depends on whether you had/have a boat in the first place. If not you've always been drowning in the slowly rising tide.
Sanders as I've said before is not Castro. He has many faults but in a highly parameterised p Neo liberal economic loving political and media world he is the best hope. Not great stuff on offer but a significant move away from the 1% and the 3% who work for them ( including Presidents and Prime
Misister ) so even that slight shift is plus for the most powerful country on planet earth.
I have in the past worked alongside various religious groups as an atheist as long as they were on the right( or should that
be left?) side on an issue.
Now is not the time for the American left to play the Prolier than though card.
Every opportunity to push back Neo liberalism should be taken.
wardropper ,
I'm not convinced of the theory that the more poor/whipped/ spat upon people become the more likely they are to revolt.
But didn't the Storming of the Bastille happen for that very reason?
I think people are waiting for just one spark to ignite their simmering fury – just one more straw to break the patient camel's
back. Understandably, the "elite" (which used to mean exalted above the general level) are in some trepidation about this, but,
like all bullies their addiction to the rush of power goes all the way to the bitter end – the bitter end being the point at which
their target stands up and gives them a black eye. It's almost comical how the bully then becomes the wailing victim himself,
and we have all seen often enough the successfully-resisted dictatorial figure of authority resorting to the claim that he is
now being bullied himself. But this is a situation of his own making, and our sympathy for him is limited by our memory of that
fact.
Ken Kenn ,
Where's the simmering fury in the West.
U.S. turnout is pathetically low. Even in the UK the turnout in the most important election since the First World War was 67%. I see the result of the " simmering fury " giving rise to the right not the left. Just that one phrase or paragraph of provocative words will spark the revolution?
... ... ...
wardropper ,
My point, which I thought I made clearly enough, was that the fury is simmering , and waiting for a catalyst. I also think
an important reason for turnout being low is simply that people don't respond well to being treated like idiots by an utterly
corrupt establishment. They just don't want to participate in the farce.
Once again, Mark Twain sums up my feeling: "If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it."
I'm not trying to be argumentative, and, like you, I am quite happy to back Sanders as by far the best of a pretty rotten bunch.
Perhaps China is indeed leading in many respects right now, but becoming Chinese doesn't seem like a real option for most of us
at the moment . . . Incidentally I have been to China and I found the people there as interesting as people anywhere else, although
I particularly enjoyed the many things which are completely different from our western cultural roots.
Rhisiart Gwilym ,
Speaking of the Clintons' death toll, didn't Sanders too back all USAmerica's mass-murdering, armed-robbery aggressions against
helpless small countries in recent times? And anyway, why are we wasting time discussing the minutiae of the shadow-boxing in
this ridiculous circus of a pretend-democratic 'election'? Watching a coffin warp would be a more useful occupation.
I go with Dmitry Orlov's reckoning of the matter: It doesn't matter who becomes president of the US, since the rule of the
deep state continues unbroken, enacting its own policies, which ignore the wishes of the common citizens, and only follow the
requirements of the mostly hyper-rich gics (gangsters-in-charge) in the controlling positions of this spavined, failing empire.
(My paraphrase of Dmitry.)
USPresidents do what their deep-state handlers want; or they get impeached, or assassinated like the Kennedy brothers. And
they all know this. Bill Hick's famous joke about men in a smoke-filled room showing the newly-'elected' POTUS that piece of film
of Kennedy driving by the grassy knoll in Dealy Plaza, Dallas, is almost literally true. All POTUSes understand that perfectly
well before they even take office.
Voting for the policies you prefer, in a genuinely democratic republic, and actually getting them realised, will only happen
for USAmericans when they've risen up and taken genuine popular control of their state-machine; at last!
Meanwhile, of what interest is this ridiculous charade to us in Britain (on another continent entirely; we never see this degree
of attention given to Russian politics, though it has a much greater bearing on our future)? Our business here is to get Britain
out of it's current shameful status, as one of the most grovelling of all the Anglozionist empire's provinces. We have a traitorous-comprador
class of our own to turn out of power. Waste no time on the continuous three-ring distraction-circus in the US – where we in Britain
don't even have a vote.
wardropper ,
The upvotes here would seem to show what thinking people appreciate most.
Seeing through the advertising bezazz, the cheerleaders and the ownership of the media is obviously a top priority, and I suspect
a large percentage of people who don't even know about the OffG would agree.
John Ervin ,
Where's yours? That's impertinent. Our voting process was programmed, close to 100% by two guys, at one point not many years ago,
with the same last name, the brothers Urosevich. The machine owners claim that, as it is their proprietary software, the public is excluded from the vote-counting. And that
much still holds true. Game. Set. Match. Any questions?
Antonym ,
What Bernie Sanders suffered and endured in 2016 was outrageous.
US deep state ate him for breakfast in 2016: they would love him to become string puppet POTUS in 2020. Trump is more difficult to control so they hate him.
John Ervin ,
Just one more Conspiracy Realist, eh! When will we ever learn?
"The deep state ate him for breakfast in 2016 ." That gives some sense of the ease with which they pull strings, nicely put.
One variation on the theme of your metaphor: "They savored him as one might consume a cocktail olive at an exclusive or entitled
soirée."
It is painfully clear by any real connection of dots that he is simply one of their stalking horses for other game. And that Homeland game (still) doesn't know whether a horse has four, or six, legs.
*****
"Puppet Masters, or master puppets?"
Antonym ,
It is painfully clear that US Deep state hates Trump simply by looking at the Russiagate they cooked him up.
Fair dinkum ,
The US voters have surrounded themselves with a sewer, now they have to swim in it.
This is simply pretty dirty and pretty effective propaganda trick. And it make intelligence agencies the third political party
participating in the USA elections. With the right of veto.
Based on the tone of Tuesday's Democratic debate, you would think the Kremlin has already
determined the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Former Vice President Joe Biden said
Russians are "engaged now, as I speak, in interfering in our election." Billionaire Tom Steyer
said there is "an attack by a hostile foreign power on our democracy right now." Former New
York Mayor Mike Bloomberg charged that
Russia was backing Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vt., to ensure a Trump victory in November.
But the Russian interference narrative has become entrenched. When intelligence community
election expert Shelby Pierson speculated to the House Intelligence Committee in a closed-door
meeting that Russia was trying to help President Trump get reelected, it quickly leaked, became
a front-page story in The New York Times and precipitated the usual outrage. It took a few days
for the less dramatic truth to catch up -- that there was
no evidence for the "misleading" supposition that the Kremlin is pro-Trump; at best Russia
may have a "preference" for a "deal-maker."
An alternative view that has been circulating for several years suggests that it was not a
hack at all, that it was a deliberate whistleblower-style
leak of information carried out by an as yet unknown party, possibly Rich, that may have
been provided to WikiLeaks for possible political reasons, i.e. to express disgust with the DNC
manipulation of the nominating process to damage Bernie Sanders and favor Hillary Clinton.
There are, of course, still other equally non-mainstream explanations for how the bundle of
information got from point A to point B, including that the intrusion into the DNC server was
carried out by the CIA which then made it look like it had been the Russians as
perpetrators. And then there is the hybrid point of view, which is essentially that the
Russians or a surrogate did indeed intrude into the DNC computers but it was all part of normal
intelligence agency probing and did not lead to anything. Meanwhile and independently, someone
else who had access to the server was downloading the information, which in some fashion made
its way from there to WikiLeaks.
Both the hack vs. leak viewpoints have marshaled considerable technical analysis in the
media to bolster their arguments, but the analysis suffers from the decidedly strange fact that
the FBI never even examined the DNC servers that may have been involved. The hack school of
thought has stressed that Russia had both the ability and motive to interfere in the election
by exposing the stolen material while the leakers have recently asserted that the sheer volume of
material downloaded indicates that something like a higher speed thumb drive was used,
meaning that it had to be done by someone with actual physical direct access to the DNC system.
Someone like Seth Rich.
... ... ...
Given all of that back story, it would be odd to find Trump making an offer that focuses
only on one issue and does not actually refute the broader claims of Russian interference,
which are based on a number of pieces of admittedly often dubious evidence, not just the
Clinton and Podesta emails.
Which brings the tale back to Seth Rich. If Rich was indeed responsible for the theft of the
information and was possibly killed for his treachery, it most materially impacts on the
Democratic Party as it reminds everyone of what the Clintons and their allies are capable
of.
It will also serve as a warning of what might be coming at the Democratic National
Convention in Milwaukee in July as the party establishment uses fair means or foul to stop
Bernie Sanders. How this will all play out is anyone's guess, but many of those who pause to
observe the process will be thinking of Seth Rich.
I don't ascribe to the idea that the intel agencies kill American citizens without a great
deal of thought, but in Rich's case, they probably felt like they had no choice. Think about
it: The DNC had already rigged the primary against Bernie, the Podesta emails had already
been sent to Wikileaks, and if Rich's cover was blown, then he would publicly identify
himself as the culprit (which would undermine the Russiagate narrative) which would split the
Democratic party in two leaving Hillary with no chance to win the election.
I can imagine Hillary and her intel connections looking for an alternative to whacking
Rich but eventually realizing that there was no other way to deflect responsibility for the
emails while paving the way for an election victory.
If Seth Rich went public, then Hillary would certainly lose.
I imagine this is what they were thinking when they decided there was really only one
option.
"I have watched incredulous as the CIA's blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story
– blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is
no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption." https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/
@plantman It's more than Hillary losing. It would have been easy to connect the dots of
the entire plot to get Trump. Furthermore, it would have linked Obama and his cohorts in ways
that the country might have exploded. This was the beginning of a Coup De'tat that would have
shown the American political process is a complete joke.
To understand why the DNC mobsters and the Deep State hate him, watch this great 2016
interview where Assange calmly explains the massive corruption that patriotic FBI agents
refer to as the "Clinton Crime Family." This gang is so powerful that it ordered federal
agents to spy on the Trump political campaign, and indicted and imprisoned some participants
in an attempt to pressure President Trump to step down. It seems Trump still fears this gang,
otherwise he would order his attorney general to drop this bogus charge against Assange, then
pardon him forever and invite him to speak at White House press conferences.
Well, here was my own take on the controversy a couple of years ago, and I really haven't
seen anything to change my mind:
Well, DC is still a pretty dangerous city, but how many middle-class whites were
randomly murdered there that year while innocently walking the streets? I wouldn't be
surprised if Seth Rich was just about the only one.
Julian Assange has strongly implied that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails that
cost Hillary Clinton the presidency. So if Seth Rich died in a totally random street
killing not long afterward, isn't that just the most astonishing coincidence in all of
American history?
Consider that the leaks effectively nullified the investment of the $2 billion or so
that her donors had provided, and foreclosed the flood of good jobs and appointments to her
camp-followers, not to mention the oceans of future graft. Seems to me that's a pretty good
motive for murder.
Here's my own plausible speculation from a couple of months ago:
Incidentally, I'd guess that DC is a very easy place to arrange a killing, given that
until the heavy gentrification of the last dozen years or so, it was one of America's
street-murder capitals. It seems perfectly plausible that some junior DNC staffer was at
dinner somewhere, endlessly cursing Seth Rich for having betrayed his party and
endangered Hillary's election, when one of his friends said he knew somebody who'd be
willing to "take care of the problem" for a thousand bucks
Let's say a couple of hundred thousand middle-class whites lived in DC around then, and
Seth Rich was about the only one that year who died in a random street-killing, occurring not
long after the leak.
Wouldn't that seem like a pretty unlikely coincidence?
"If Rich was indeed responsible for the theft of the information and was possibly killed for
his treachery ."
Heroism is the proper term for what Seth Rich did. He saw the real treachery, against
Bernie Sanders and the democratic faithful who expect at least a modicum of integrity from
their Party leaders (even if that expectation is utterly fanciful, wishful thinking), and he
decided to act. He paid for it with his life. A young, noble life.
In every picture I've seen of him, he looks like a nice guy, a guy who cared. And now he's
dead. And the assholes at the DNC simply gave him a small plaque over a bike rack, as I
understand it.
Seth Rich: American Hero. A Truth-Teller who paid the ultimate price.
Great reporting, Phil. Another home run.
(And thanks to Ron for chiming in. Couldn't agree more. As a Truth-Teller extraordinaire,
please watch your back, Bro. And Phil, too. You both know what these murderous scum are
capable of.)
Because the {real} killers of JFK, MLK and RFK were never detained and jailed/hanged, why
would one expect a lesser known, more ordinary individual's murder [Seth] to be solved?
Seymour Hersh, in a taped phone conversation, claimed to have access to an FBI report on the
murder. According to Hersh, the report indicated tha FBI Cyber Unit examined Rich's computer
and found he had contacted Wikileaks with the intention of selling the emails.
Another reason Assange may not want to reveal it, if Seth Rich was a source for Wikileaks,
could be that Seth Rich didn't act alone, and revealing Seth's involvement would compromise
the other(s).
Or it could simply be that Wikileaks has promised to never reveal a source, even after
that source's death, as a promise to future potential sources, who may never want their
identities revealed, to avoid the thought of embarrassment or repercussions to their
associates or families.
Incidentally, they only started really going after Assange after the Vault 7 leaks of the
CIA's active bag of software tricks. I think, for Assange's sake, they should instead have
held on to that, and made it the payload of a dead man's switch.
I'm not sure how credible the source is but Ellen Ratner, the sister of Assange's former
lawyer and a journalist, told Ed Butowsky that Assange told her that it was Seth Rich. She
asked Butowsky to contact Rich's parents. She confirms the Assange meeting in an interview,
link below. Butowsky does not seem to be a credible source but Ratner does. If it was Seth
Rich then I have no doubt that his brother knows the details and the family does not want to
lose another son.
"According to Assange's lawyers, Rohrabacher offered a pardon from President Trump if Assange
were to provide information that would attribute the theft or hack of the Democratic National
Committee emails to someone other than the Russians."
Not to quibble on semantics but Rohrabacher met with Assange to ask if he would be willing
to reveal the source of the emails then Rohrabacher would contact Trump and try to make deal
for Assange's freedom. Rohrabacher clarified that he never talked to Trump or that he was
authorized by Trump to make any offer.
The MSM has been using the "amnesty if you say it was not the Russians" narrative to hint
at a coverup by Russian agent Trump. Normal for the biased MSM.
Giraldi's link "Assange did not take the offer" has nothing to do with Rohrabacher's
contact. It's just a general piece on Assange acting as a journalist should act.
I'm of the opinion Ron Unz seems to share, that Rich was not a particularly "big hitter" in
the DNC hierarchy and that his murder was more likely the result of a very nasty inter-party
squabble. I seem to recall a LOT of very nasty talk between the Jewish neocons in the Bush
era and the decent, traditional "small-government" style Republicans who greatly resented the
neocons' hijacking of the GOP for their demonic zionist agenda.
Common sense would suggest that the zionist types who have (obviously) hijacked the DNC
are at least as nasty and ruthless as the neocons who destroyed any decency or fair-play
within the GOP. It's not exactly hard to believe that these Murder, Inc. types (also lefties
of their era) wouldn't hesitate to whack someone like Rich for merely uttering a criticism of
Israel, for example.
Hell, Meyer Lansky ordered the hit-job on Bugsy Seigel for forgetting to bring bagels to a
sit-down ! There was a great web-site by a mobster of that era, long since taken down, who
described the story in detail. I forget the names .. but I'll see if I can't find a copy of
some of the pieces posted at least a decade ago .
It's not exactly hard to imagine some very nasty words being exchanged between the Rahm
Emmanuel types and decent Chicago citizens, for example, who genuinely cared for their city
and weren't afraid of The Big Jew and his mobster cronies . to their detriment I'm sure.
We're talking about organized crime, here, folks. The zionists make the so-called (mostly
fictitious) Sicilian Mafia look like newborn puppies. They wouldn't hesitate to whack a guy
like Rich for taking their favorite space in the bicycle rack.
My only trouble with the Seth Rich thing is, it seems a bit extreme, they seem quite callous
in murdering foreigners but US citizens in the US who are their staffers? If they really were
prepared to go out and kill in this way, they're be a lot more suspicious deaths.
What makes the case most compelling is the very quick investigation by police that looks
like they were told by somebody concerned about how the whole thing looked to close up the
case nice and quickly. That and the fact that he was shot in the back, which doesn't make
sense for an attempted robbery turned murder.
However, it may also be that as in so many cities in the US, murder clearance rates for
street shootings (Little forensic evidence, can only go by witness accounts or through poor
alibis from usual suspects and their associates. In this case there is also no connection
between Rich and any possible shooter with no witnesses.) are just so very low that DC police
don't bother and Seth Rich's death just happened to be one such case that attracted some
scrutiny.
But then maybe for the reasons above a place like DC is perfect to just murder somebody on
the street and that's why they were so brazen about it.
Seth Rich's death just happened to be one such case that attracted some scrutiny.
Well, upthread someone posted a recording of a Seymour Hersh phone call that confirmed
Seth Rich was the fellow who leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks, thereby possibly swinging
the presidential election to Trump and overcoming $2 billion of Democratic campaign
advertising.
Shortly afterwards, he probably became about the only middle-class white in DC who died in
a "random street killing" that year. If you doubt this, see if you can find any other such
cases that year.
I think it is *extraordinarily* unlikely that these two elements are unconnected and
merely happened together by chance.
Is there any other nation state that has 50 separate official elections, mostly run and paid
for by the public, just so a private club masquerading as a political party can select its
leader? To the rest of the world, this must look completely insane, but few people anywhere
even seem to notice how ridiculous it all looks.
However, we do need to raise questions about election anomalies. Journalists should be
focused on the DNC is cheating Bernie and, by extension, the American people. It must be
recorded. It should be investigated. The first 4 primary contests account for only 4% of all
allocated delegates, yet have a hugely disproportionate influence on the race. Of those 4 states,
only NV is roughly in synch with the national demographic profile.
The whole primary system needs a major overhaul. It takes too long and costs too much (e.g.,
all the wasted $$ Steyer and Tulsi spent in SC). It's an embarrassing wasteful spectacle which
only enriches the MSM and hired political consultant hacks. Most voters don't bother to tune in
until 10-12 months into the marathon campaign. I would blow it all up and start over from
scratch.
"They're fearful because Bernie Sanders, his political revolution, morally based, ethically
based, is a fundamental challenge to their interest and their status." -- Dr. Cornel West
For everyone puzzling over Warren's actions and intentions, this should help -- a lot.
Woke Wonk Elizabeth Warren's Foreign Policy Team is Stacked With Pro-War Swamp
Creatures
Alexander Rubinstein and Max Blumenthal – 2-26-20
"With her new list of foreign policy advisors, Warren unveiled a cast of pro-war think
tankers, Cold Warriors and corporate careerists united in support of the Beltway consensus.
So much for 'big, structural change'."
In a remarkable statement that has gone virtually unreported in the American media,
Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination,
publicly denounced US intelligence agencies for interfering in the presidential contest and
attempting to sabotage the campaign of Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders.
In an opinion column published February 27 by the Hill , Gabbard attacked the
article published by the Washington Post on February 21, the eve of the Nevada
caucuses, which claimed that Russia was intervening in the US election to support Sanders. She
also criticized the decision of billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York
City, to repeat the anti-Russia slander against Sanders during the February 25 Democratic
presidential debate in South Carolina.
Gabbard is a military officer in a National Guard medical unit who has been deployed to Iraq
and Kuwait and has continuing and close contact with the Pentagon. She is obviously familiar
with the machinations of the US military-intelligence apparatus and knows whereof she speaks.
Her harsh and uncompromising language is that much more significant.
She wrote:
Enough is enough. I am calling on all presidential candidates to stop playing these
dangerous political games and immediately condemn any interference in our elections by
out-of-control intelligence agencies. A "news article" published last week in the
Washington Post, which set off yet another manufactured media firestorm, alleges
that the goal of Russia is to trick people into criticizing establishment Democrats. This is
a laughably obvious ploy to stifle legitimate criticism and cast aspersions on Americans who
are rightly skeptical of the powerful forces exerting control over the primary election
process.
We are told the aim of Russia is to "sow division," but the aim of corporate media and
self-serving politicians pushing this narrative is clearly to sow division of their own -- by
generating baseless suspicion against the Sanders campaign. It's extremely disingenuous for
"journalists" and rival candidates to publicize a news article that merely asserts, without
presenting any evidence, that Russia is "helping" Bernie Sanders -- but provides no
information as to what that "help" allegedly consists of.
Gabbard continued:
If the CIA, FBI or any other intelligence agency is going to tell voters that "Russians"
are interfering in this election to help certain candidates -- or simply "sow discord" --
then it needs to immediately provide us with the details of what exactly it's alleging.
After pointing out that the Democratic Party establishment and the corporate media have had
little interest in measures to actually improve election security, such as requiring paper
ballots or some other form of permanent record of how people vote, Gabbard demanded:
The FBI, CIA or any other intelligence agency should immediately stop smearing
presidential candidates with innuendo and vague, evidence-free assertions. That is
antithetical to the role those agencies play in a free democracy. The American people cannot
have faith in our intelligence agencies if they are pushing an agenda to harm candidates they
dislike.
As socialists, we do not share Gabbard's belief that the intelligence agencies have a
positive role to play or that the American people need to have faith in them. As her military
career demonstrates, she is a supporter of American imperialism and of the capitalist state.
However, her opposition to the "dirty tricks" campaign against Sanders is entirely legitimate
and puts the spotlight on a deeply anti-democratic operation by the military-intelligence
apparatus.
Gabbard denounces this "new McCarthyism" and calls on her fellow candidate to rebuff the CIA
smears and "defend the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution." Not a single one of the
remaining candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination -- including Sanders himself --
has responded to her appeal.
Her statement concludes that the goal of the "mainstream corporate media and the
warmongering political establishment" was either to block Sanders from winning the nomination,
or, if he does become the nominee, to "force him to engage in inflammatory anti-Russia rhetoric
and perpetuate the new Cold War and nuclear arms race, which are existential threats to our
country and the world."
Despite Gabbard's appeal for the Democratic candidates not to be "manipulated and forced
into a corner by overreaching intelligence agencies," the Democratic Party establishment has
been working in lockstep with the intelligence agencies in the anti-Russia campaign against
Trump, which began even before election day in 2016, metastasized into the Mueller
investigation and then the effort to impeach Trump over his delay in the dispatch of military
aid to Ukraine for its war with Russian-backed separatist forces.
Her comments are a complete vindication of what the World Socialist Web Site has
written about the anti-Russia campaign and impeachment: these were efforts by the Democratic
Party, acting as the representative of the military-intelligence apparatus, to block the
emergence of genuine left-wing popular opposition to Trump, and to channel popular hostility to
this administration in a right-wing and pro-imperialist direction.
Gabbard herself was the only House Democrat to abstain on impeachment, although she did not
voice any principled grounds for her vote, such as opposition to the intelligence agencies. She
has based her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination largely on an appeal to
antiwar sentiment, particularly opposing US intervention in Syria. She has also said that if
elected, she would drop all charges against Julian Assange and pardon Edward Snowden.
These views led to a vicious attack by Hillary Clinton, the defeated Democratic presidential
candidate in 2016, who last October called Gabbard "a Russian asset," claiming that she was
being groomed by Russia to serve as a third-party candidate in 2020 who would take votes away
from the Democratic nominee and help re-elect President Trump. "She's the favorite of the
Russians," Clinton claimed.
Since Clinton's attack, the Democratic National Committee has excluded Gabbard from its
monthly debates, manipulating the eligibility requirements so that billionaire Michael
Bloomberg would qualify even for debates held in states where he was not on the ballot but
Gabbard was, such as Nevada and South Carolina.
"... Biden and Warren are both enthusiastic supporters of neocon foreign policy which is in line with their phony support for the working class. What happened to Warren's glittering M4A plan? It turned back into a pumpkin didn't it? It was all smoke and mirrors. No surprise if you know her history. ..."
"... Imperial Borg Assimilation ..."
"... The Foreign Policy Establishment ..."
"... Warren is an establishment social climber. She took off the mask and her true colors shone through when she viciously attacked Bernie Sanders as a misogynist. Yet still many people surrounding the Sander's campaign support Warren. Why is that? Big money on the left supports her, that's why. That big money also pays a lot of salaries in the liberal political job market. Have you heard of the The Democracy Alliance ? ..."
"... Why do so many liberals or even progressives dislike Tulsi and are so eager to see her gone? Propaganda from the media. The media for a year has relentlessly promoted Red Baiting towards Tulsi because Tulsi challenges the "Washington Consensus" (unfettered elite rule over America and the world with an iron fist). ..."
"... Everyone in the pro-Israel lobby (myself included) is already talking about how to make sure that Tulsi Gabbard's campaign is over before it even gets off the ground -- If you're going to bet on a Dem candidate, look elsewhere. ..."
"... There are many reasons behind that. The main reason though is Tulsi trying to stop war. The Neocons and Saudis have been pushing American politicians, celebrities, media owners, think tanks, foundations and so on for years -- to destroy Syria. Supposedly because Syria is close allies with Iran. ..."
As I was checking the news earlier today
I noticed that the coronavirus had killed another top government official in Iran, bringing the total to 3. Or at
least the 3 they have released info on. There's a chance it's worse among the Iranian leadership but they don't
want to cause a panic. I checked the Twitterverse after that for my daily dose of madness and surprisingly kept
seeing people ask rhetorically:
Why is Tulsi Gabbard still in the
primary race?
Turns out that Amy "She Hulk" Klobuchar
had dropped out of the primary race apparently to suck up to Joe Biden for a VP slot. And so had Pete "Honestly
I'm Not Annoying" Buttigigieididisjjd. This of course should surprise no one since the threat of Bernie Sanders to
the financial criminal syndicates greasing the palms of practically all politicians and media to do their bidding
have seen the writing on the wall. They realize they need candidates to drop out in order to coalesce centrist
votes around one or two to stop what they perceive to be a huge problem for them in Bernie Sanders.
... ... ...
Biden and Warren are both enthusiastic
supporters of neocon foreign policy which is in line with their phony support for the working class. What happened
to Warren's glittering M4A plan? It turned back into a pumpkin didn't it? It was all smoke and mirrors. No
surprise if you know her history.
Did you see her on Pod Save America regaling us with how much she believes in
crippling countries by sanctions if they dare to resist the racist
Imperial Borg Assimilation
Machine
aka
The Foreign Policy Establishment
?
That doesn't sound woke to me Miss Thang
.
Warren is an establishment social
climber. She took off the mask and her true colors shone through when she viciously attacked Bernie Sanders as a
misogynist. Yet still many people surrounding the Sander's campaign support Warren. Why is that? Big money on the
left supports her, that's why. That big money also pays a lot of salaries in the liberal political job market.
Have you heard of the
The Democracy Alliance
?
The Democracy Alliance is a
semi-anonymous donor network funded primarily by none other than Democratic mega-donor George Soros. Since its
inception in 2005, it is estimated the Alliance has injected over $500 million to Democratic causes. While it
isn't typical that they would endorse a candidate outright, they focus more on formulating a catalog of
organizations and PACs that they recommend the network of about 100 or so millionaires and billionaires invest
in. Democracy Alliance almost literally have their hands in every major left-leaning institution you have (and
haven't) heard of -- John Podesta and Neera Tanden's Center for American Progress, David Brock's Media Matters,
Center for Popular Democracy, Demos (we'll come back to this one), and the Working Families Party. All of these
organizations are listed on the Alliance's website as recommended investments for it's members; and invest they
do. Here's the rub: Democracy Alliance's membership isn't made entirely public -- but we know enough that alot
of the people that have sat in the highest levels of that organization have an affinity for Elizabeth Warren.
... ... ...
Why do so many liberals or even
progressives dislike Tulsi and are so eager to see her gone? Propaganda from the media. The media for a year has
relentlessly promoted Red Baiting towards Tulsi because Tulsi challenges the "Washington Consensus" (unfettered
elite rule over America and the world with an iron fist).
That is why we got this from Jacob Wohl
after Tulsi declared her candidacy last year:
Everyone in the pro-Israel lobby
(myself included) is already talking about how to make sure that Tulsi Gabbard's campaign is over before it
even gets off the ground -- If you're going to bet on a Dem candidate, look elsewhere.
There are many reasons behind that. The
main reason though is Tulsi trying to stop war. The Neocons and Saudis have been pushing American politicians,
celebrities, media owners, think tanks, foundations and so on for years -- to destroy Syria. Supposedly because
Syria is close allies with Iran.
But they are not the only ones who want
Syria destroyed. Other reasons may have to do with massive profits at stake. A natural gas survey team from Norway
some years ago discovered that Syria has the largest
untapped deposits of natural gas in the world
. After that secret discovery became known by various powerful
people
plans were drawn up to split
up the profits after the destruction of the Syrian government. But after Syria
asked Russia for help that changed their plans.
She is not having our country
become a plaything for rich a-holes who use the lives and limbs of service members for their greedy
scams. Because of that the idle rich sociopaths ruling America with their political and media henchmen
went after Tulsi with a full barrage of lies
, media blackouts, and massive amounts of propaganda --
all to stop her message from getting out so they can create a false image of her in people's minds.
Everything and anything they can throw at her, they do.
There are two politicians whom
they fear. Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Which is why Bernie Sanders has unsurprisingly been trying
to stay out of the foreign policy debate, or he even goes along with the establishment for the most part.
He saw what they unleashed against Tulsi. He knows from long experience that propaganda works on a lot of
people. The financial elites are not naive though, they probably believe he is going along with their
ridiculous foreign policy as a political strategy -- until he gains more power. They fear that if he gains
that power he will, like Tulsi, not go along with their imperial stormtrooper agenda.
DB notes that "No one" is likely to win the majority of pledged delegates unless Sanders
wins something close to 50% of the delegates , and nobody comes close enough that the
Democratic party would rally behind him out of fear of "alienating and disenfranchising just
under half the primary voters."
It is hard to project how exactly a brokered convention would unfold this far out and what
the party and candidate machinations would be. It will come down to how the rest of the
primary process unfolds, but one could see a world where Sanders has 30% of the vote and
Biden or one more moderate candidate has just less than that and their voters decide to
coalesce and try to say the party in aggregate wanted a more moderate candidate .
Alternatively there is a scenario where Sanders ends up in the high 40s% and there is no
close second place challenger and the party comes behind him for fear of alienating and
disenfranchising just under half of the primary voters. -Deutsche Bank
If Sanders doesn ' t score a decisive win today, moderate Democrats will continue to rally
behind this guy:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident.. all men and women are created by... go... you
know, the thing!"
This is the candidate that the Democratic Establishment is currently rallying behind. pic.twitter.com/GlKpblT3En
I will be very interested to see what happens in the states with closed or semi-closed
primaries. That should be a true test of Bernie enthusiasm compared to 2016.
Enjoy.
Alabama: Open primary , with 52 pledged delegates being awarded on a proportional
basis.
Hillary 2016-- 309,928
Bernie 2016-- 76,399
American Samoa: Open caucus, with the territory awarding six delegates on the basis of the
results of the caucuses.
Arkansas: Open primary , with 31 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
Hillary 2016-- 144,580
Bernie 2016-- 64,868
California: Semi-closed primary -only Democrats and unaffiliated voters can cast a ballot-
with the 415 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
Hillary 2016-- 2,745,302
Bernie 2016-- 2,381,722
Colorado: Semi-closed primary –only Democrats and unaffiliated voters can cast a
ballot- with 67 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
Hillary 2016-- 49,314
Bernie 2016-- 72,115
Democrats Abroad: Open primary in which any U.S. citizen living abroad who is a member of
Democrats Abroad can participate, with the 13 delegates being awarded on a proportional
basis.
Maine: Closed primary –only Democrats can cast a ballot- 24 delegates being awarded on
a proportional basis.
Hillary 2016--Maine held a caucus in 2016 and awarded most of its delegates to Hillary.
Bernie 2016--
Massachusetts: Semi-closed primary –only Democrats and unaffiliated voters can cast a
ballot- 91 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
Hillary 2016-- 603,784
Bernie 2016-- 586,716
Minnesota: Open primary , 75 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
Hillary 2016-- 73,510
Bernie 2016-- 118,135
North Carolina: Semi-closed primary –only Democrats and unaffiliated voters can cast a
ballot- 110 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
Hillary 2016-- 616,346
Bernie 2016-- 460,316
Oklahoma: Semi-closed primary –only Democrats and unaffiliated voters can cast a
ballot- 37 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
Hillary 2016-- 139,338
Bernie 2016-- 174,054
Tennessee: Open primary , 64 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
Hillary 2016-- 245,304
Bernie 2016-- 120,333
Texas: Open primary , 228 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
Hillary 2016-- 935,080
Bernie 2016-- 475,561
Utah: Open primary , 29 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
Hillary 2016-- 15,666
Bernie 2016-- 61,333
Vermont: Open primary , 16 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
Hillary 2016-- 18,335
Bernie 2016-- 115,863
Virginia: Open primary , 99 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
Super Tuesday is a Catfood Democrat conspiracy. The Catfood Democrat Party themSELVES
engineered Super Tuesday in order to prevent a McGovern figure from winning the most
delegates ever again ever.
What's the mystery? Lock Assange in solitary for months and gee golly, suddenly no one to
expose how SCarolina was fixed for Joe Biden. Just like Debbie Wasserman screwed Bernie in
2016. Media "explains" it was the "black vote." You bet. Sure Joe got 51pc. I guess so.
I just voted in California, lots of "new tech", with touchscreens. Quite buggy. Be sure to
wash your hands too. /sarc
Took about an hour and a half starting at 10:00 AM to get in, about 10-15 to get through
the voting process. Bazillions of people standing in line, half the voting booths empty. The
big rollout. I predict a big mess tonight, lots of mistakes, lots of voters who give up and
no "verified" results any time soon ...
And all those touchscreens will be junk in five years. $$$
The thing to watch today will be the vote stealing by the Democrat oligarchy. They are the
world champions at every sort of electoral malfeasance. Remember in 2016 how Bernie almost
won New York until Brooklyn, his hometown, was counted and more than 20,000 voters
disappeared? Then there was California where millions of votes went uncounted and Hillary was
called the winner.
The Democrats are not really a political party in the sense that europeans understand the
term, more like an agglomeration of electoral machines, controlled by politicians owned by
vested interests, making up the rules as they go along.
With both Biden and Warren desperate for anything that can be portrayed as momentum expect
the unexpected: repeats of the sort of nonsense we saw in Iowa and local precincts in which
110% of the electorate give unanimous support to the candidate most likely to take away their
social security and wave 'bye-bye' as they die untreated of diseases. Or malnutrition.
A
nd the cherry on top of the electoral sundae in today's primaries will be the near unanimity
with which the most glaring irregularities are ignored by the media, and anyone suggesting
that 2+2= anything as predictable as 4 will be called a conspiracy theorist, working for
Putin and the KGB.
Sadly I reckon Bernie Saunders will be ousted by the powers that don't want him to be
successful in the bordello that is the Washington politik.
I find it amusing he's labeled as a Socialist. He's a champagne socialist at best.
I fall about laughing when he claims he's going to tell Putin anything at all.
Should the miracle of U.S. democracy pass and he's elected POTUS, meeting Vladimir
Vladimirovich will be a rather large culture shock methinks.
Thanks for the laughs, those passed and if elected, those to come, Bernie.
Very smart establishment tactic. A combo of long predicted Biden win in South Carolina with
resignation of Klob and Butti and endorsement may give Biden plurality in some states.
Strategy of picking a senile champion with "stellar" Obama credentials and a mine of paydirt
for Republican to excavate is dubious. But the youngsters, starting from Beto and ending with
Klob/Butti pair of mixed twins proved to be so-so campaigners at their best. BTW, Steyer
dropped after spending 200 M+ with nary a comment. The same may happen to Little Mike. Direct
reign of billionaires in USA seems to be a failing experiment (assuming that Little Mike is
correct when he says that Donald "I will not show tax return to anyone" Trump is a fake
billionaire), or a work still in progress.
What is there to comment on? The majority right in the DNC will be pushing Biden, the left of
right under Sanders will be cheated out of the nomination and Trump will rule another 4
years.
That there is a "left" in the Democrat Party is an illusion, what counts for the left there
would be the equivalent of the CDU in Germany under Merkel.
Back in January, well before the Democratic primary race had taken on its current
composition, independent journalist
Ruth Ann Oskolkoff reported that a source had heard from high-level Democratic Party
insiders that they were planning to install Joe Biden as the party's nominee, and to smear
Bernie Sanders as a Russian asset.
"On January 20, 2020 at 8:20 p.m. PDT I received a communication from a reliable source,"
Oskolkoff wrote.
"This person had interactions earlier that evening with high level party members and
associates of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) who said that they have now selected
Biden as the Democratic Party nominee, with Warren as the VP. They also said the plan is to
smear Bernie as a Russian asset."
Now, immediately before Super Tuesday, we are seeing establishment candidates
Pete Buttigieg and
Amy Klobuchar drop out of the race, both of whom, along with
former candidate Beto O'Rourke , are now suddenly endorsing Biden. Elizabeth Warren, the
only top-level candidate besides Sanders who could be labeled vaguely "left" by any stretch of
the imagination, has meanwhile
outraged progressives by remaining in the race, to the Vermont senator's detriment.
Prior to the South Carolina primary, Russian state media were touting Bernie Sanders as
the most likely Democratic nominee, and it won't be surprising if they do the same after
Super Tuesday https://t.co/mH98PVmcjr
This latter development is becoming a conspicuously common line of attack against Sanders
and, while we're on the subject, also tracks with a prediction made by journalist Max Blumenthal back in
July of 2017. Blumenthal told Fox's Tucker Carlson that "this Russia hysteria will be
re-purposed by the political establishment to attack the left and anyone on the left -- a
Bernie Sanders-like politician who steps out of line on the issues of permanent war or
corporate free trade, things like that -- will be painted as Russia puppets. So this is very
dangerous, and people who are progressive who are falling into it need to know what the
long-term consequences of this cynical narrative are."
So we're seeing things unfold exactly as some have predicted. We're seeing the clear
frontrunner smeared as a tool of Vladimir Putin, accompanied by a deluge of op-eds and think
pieces from all the usual
warmongering mass media narrative managers calling on so-called "moderates" to rally around
the former Vice President on Super Tuesday.
"Whatever the case for either Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren...neither is going to be
the nominee. And...it's not going to be Mike Bloomberg either. So it's Bernie Sanders or Joe
Biden." Tomorrow, if you live in one of 14 states, you can choose Biden. https://t.co/btuPbGtWxG
And the prediction markets have seen a massive surge for Biden and plunge for Bernie...
With Biden now surging into the lead
The only problem? Biden's brain is turning into sauerkraut.
There are two new clips of video footage making the rounds today, one featuring Biden at a
rally telling his supporters that tomorrow is "Super Thursday" ,
and another featuring the former VP saying (and this is a direct quote ),
"We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created -- by the -- you know, you
know the thing."
And yeah, it's unpleasant to have to keep pointing this out. I'm not loving it myself. I
resent Biden's handlers and the Democratic Party establishment for making it necessary to
continually point out an old man's obvious symptoms of cognitive decline. But it does need to
be pointed to, and it's creepy and weird that they're continuing to prop up this crumbling husk
of a man while pretending that everything's fine.
Not that Biden would be an acceptable leader of the most powerful government on earth even
with a working brain; he's a horrible war hawk
with an
inexcusable track record of advancing right-wing policies. But even rank-and-file Americans
who don't pay attention to that stuff would plainly see a man on the debate stage opposite
Trump who shouldn't be permitted near heavy machinery, much less the nuclear codes. And Trump
will happily point that out.
It's been obvious since 2016 that the Dems were going to once again sabotage the only
candidate with a chance of beating Trump in favor of a scandalously inappropriate candidate,
but wheeling out an actual, literal dementia patient for the role is something not even I would
have imagined.
It's about the numbers and superdelegates. The "reforms" in the DNC system following 2016
include a new rule that superdelegates, all 93 of them, cannot take part in the first round
of voting. If there is no outright plurality, these 93 delegates, all of whom have stated no
intention to give their votes to Bernie, will rule the day. The only candidate that might
help Bernie is Warren if/if the math shows that whatever number of delegates she gets would
give Bernie his plurality in the first round. Those superdelegates tell us a lot about our
two-party system.
At least one wealthy delegate is a major donor to Republican candidates.
They largely represent the same corporate interests that ensure that neither party does
anything dramatic to harm Wall Street or big industries. A look at the actual voting records
of Democratic senators and house members reveals a lot that public posturing does not.
Democratic leaders have said that they would rather lose the election to Trump than to
have the party taken over by progressives. The mainstream corporate Democrats may well get
their way, but what happens to the party afterwards is the question.
[Mar 03, 2020] Vampire Squid interests in 2020 elections by the Democratic Party elites, should he miraculously become the party's nominee, the game of least worst will radically change. All the terrifying demons that inhabit Trump will be instantly exorcised. But unlike in the biblical story of Jesus driving the demons into a herd of swine, they will be driven into the senator from Vermont. Trump will become the establishment's reluctant least worse option. Sanders will become a leper. The Democratic and Republican party elites, joining forces as they did in the 1972 presidential election, will do to Sanders what they did to George McGovern, who lost in 49 of the 50 states. "If Dems go on to nominate Sanders, the Russians will have to reconsider who to work for to best screw up the US. Sanders is just as polarizing as Trump AND he'll ruin our economy and doesn't care about our military," former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein (net worth $1.1 billion) tweeted. "If I'm Russian, I go with Sanders this time around." "If Dems go on to nominate Sanders, the Russians will have to reconsider who to work for to best screw up the US. Sanders is just as polarizing as Trump AND he'll ruin our economy and doesn't care about our military," former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein (net worth $1.1 billion) tweeted. "If I'm Russian, I go with Sanders this time around."
Blankfein, who calls for cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and who headed Goldman Sachs
when it
paid Hillary Clinton $675,000
for three speaking engagements in 2013, laid out the stance of the
billionaire class that controls the Democratic Party. The
New York Times
reported
that Mike Novogratz, "a Goldman Sachs alumnus who runs the merchant bank Galaxy Digital,
said Mr. Sanders's oppositional nature had prompted 'too many friends' to say they would vote against him
in November. 'And they hate Trump,' he said."
"Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician.
It's all just baloney, and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it," Hillary Clinton says of Sanders
in a forthcoming
television documentary
.
The courtiers in the press, pathetically attempting to spin Sanders' New Hampshire win into a victory
for the corporate-endorsed alternatives, are part of the firing squad. "Running Sanders Against Trump
Would Be an Act of Insanity" read the headline in a
piece by Jonathan Chait
in New York magazine. "No party nomination, with the possible exception of
Barry Goldwater in 1964, has put forth a presidential nominee with the level of downside risk exposure as
a Sanders-led ticket would bring. To nominate Sanders would be insane," he wrote.
David Frum
-- now a darling of the Democratic elites, like
many other Republicans who morphed from George W. Bush supporters into critics of Trump --
announced in The Atlantic
that Bernie can't win. "Sanders is a Marxist of the old school of
dialectical materialism, from the land that time forgot," Frum wrote. "Class relations are foundational;
everything else is epiphenomenal."
Jennifer Rubin
declared in The
Washington Post that a Sanders nomination would be a "disaster for the Democrats." "Sanders's campaign,
like all primary campaigns, is a preview of the general-election race and, if elected, the administration
he would lead,"
Rubin wrote
. "A nominee who insists on personally attacking all doubters and the media might be a
model for the Republican Party, but Democrats are not going to win with their own Donald Trump,
especially one who has burned bridges and stirred resentment in his own party."
Thomas Friedman,
in
a column
supporting Bloomberg, the newest savior in the protean Democratic firmament, wrote of
Sanders: "On which planet in the Milky Way galaxy is an avowed 'socialist' -- who wants to take away the
private health care coverage of some 150 million Americans and replace it with a gigantic, untested
Medicare-for-All program, which he'd also extend to illegal immigrants -- going to defeat the Trump
machine this year? It will cast Sanders as Che Guevara -- and it won't even be that hard."
MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews, descending to the Red baiting employed by Blankfein,
said
that "if Castro and the Reds had won the Cold War there would have been executions in Central
Park and I might have been one of the ones getting executed. And certain other people would be there
cheering, okay?"
Despite the hyperventilating by corporate shills such as Matthews and Friedman, Sanders' democratic
socialism is essentially that of a
New
Deal
Democrat. His political views would be part of the mainstream in France or Germany, where
democratic socialism
is an accepted part
of the political landscape and is routinely challenged as too accommodationist by communists and radical
socialists. Sanders calls for an end to our foreign wars, a reduction of the military budget, for
"Medicare for All," abolishing the death penalty, eliminating mandatory minimum sentences and private
prisons, a return of
Glass-Steagall
, raising taxes on the wealthy, increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour, canceling
student debt, eliminating the Electoral College, banning
fracking
and breaking up agribusinesses. This does not qualify as a revolutionary agenda.
Sanders, unlike many more radical socialists, does not propose nationalizing the banks and the fossil
fuel and arms industries. He does not call for the criminal prosecution of the financial elites who
trashed the global economy or the politicians and generals who lied to launch preemptive wars, defined
under international law as criminal wars of aggression, which have devastated much of the Middle East,
resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead and millions of refugees and displaced people, and cost the
nation between $5 trillion and $7 trillion. He does not call for worker ownership of factories and
businesses. He does not promise to halt the government's wholesale surveillance of the public. He does
not intend to punish corporations that have moved manufacturing overseas. Most importantly, he believes,
as I do not, that the political system, including the Democratic Party, can be reformed from within. He
does not support sustained mass civil disobedience to bring the system down, the only hope we have of
halting the climate emergency that threatens to doom the human race. On the political spectrum, he is, at
best, an enlightened moderate. The vicious attacks against him by the elites are an indication of how
anemic and withered our politics have become.
The Democrats have, once again, offered us their preselected corporate candidates. We can vote for a
candidate who serves oligarchic power, albeit with more decorum than Trump, or we can see Trump shoved
down our throats. That is the choice. It exposes the least worst option as a con, a mechanism used
repeatedly to buttress corporate power. The elites know they would be safe in the hands of a Hillary
Clinton, a Barack Obama or a John Kerry, but not a Bernie Sanders -- which is a credit to Sanders.
The surrender to the "least worst" mantra in presidential election after presidential election has
neutered the demands of labor, along with those organizations and groups fighting poverty, mass
incarceration and police violence. The civil rights, women's rights, environment justice and consumer
rights movements, forced to back Democrats whose rhetoric is palatable but whose actions are inimical to
their causes, get tossed overboard. Political leverage, in election after election, is surrendered
without a fight. We are all made to kneel before the altar of the least worst. We get nothing in return.
The least worst option has proved to be a recipe for steady decay.
The Democrats, especially after Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential run, have erected numerous obstacles
to block progressives inside and outside the party. They make ballot access difficult or impossible for
people of color. They lock third-party candidates and often progressives in the Democratic Party, such as
Dennis Kucinich
, out of the
presidential campaign debates. They turn campaigns into two-year-long spectacles that cost billions of
dollars. They use
superdelegates
to fix
the nominating process. They employ scare tactics to co-op those who should be the natural allies of
third parties and progressive political movements.
The repeated cowardice of the liberal class, which backs a Democratic Party that in Europe would be
considered a far-right party, saw it squander its credibility. Its rhetoric proved empty. Its moral
posturing was a farce. It fought for nothing. In assault after assault on the working class it was
complicit. If liberals -- supposedly backers of parties and institutions that defend the interests of the
working class -- had abandoned the Democratic Party after President Bill Clinton pushed through the 1994
North American Free Trade Agreement, Trump would not be in the White House. Why didn't liberals walk out
of the Democratic Party when Clinton and the Democratic Party leadership, including Biden, passed NAFTA?
Why didn't they walk out when the Clinton administration gutted welfare? Why didn't they walk out when
Clinton pushed through the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, which abolished the 1933
Glass-Steagall Act, designed to prevent the kind of banking crisis that trashed the global economy in
2008? Why didn't they walk out when year after year the Democratic Party funded and expanded our endless
wars? Why didn't they walk out when the Democrats agreed to undercut due process and habeas corpus? Why
didn't they walk out when the Democrats helped approve the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of
American citizens? Why didn't the liberals walk out when the party leadership refused to impose sanctions
on Israel for its war crimes, enact serious environmental and health care reform or regulate Wall Street?
At what point will liberals say "Enough"? At what point will they fight back?
By surrendering every election cycle to the least worst, liberals proved they have no breaking point.
There never has been a line in the sand. They have stood for nothing.
Bernie Sanders arose in 2016 as a political force because he, like Trump, acknowledged the bleak
reality imposed on working men and women by the billionaire class. This reality, a reality ignored by the
ruling elites, was spoken out loud. The elites were held accountable. The Democratic elites scrambled,
successfully, to deny Sanders the 2016 nomination. The Republican elites squabbled among themselves and
failed to prevent Trump from becoming the party nominee.
The 2016 chessboard has reappeared, but this time in the Democratic Party primary. The Democratic
hierarchy, as horrified by Sanders as the established Republican elites were by Trump, is flailing about
trying to find a political savior to defeat the Red menace. Their ineptitude, Sanders' primary asset, was
displayed when they mangled the Iowa primary. They, like the Republican elites in 2016, are woefully
disconnected from their constituency, attempting to persuade a public they betrayed and no longer
understand.
Joe Biden, long a stooge of corporate America, for example, is frantically attempting to paint himself
as a champion of poor people of color after his defeats in the largely white states of Iowa and New
Hampshire. The onetime vice president, however, was one of the driving forces behind the strategy to take
back the "law and order" issue from the Republicans. He and Bill Clinton orchestrated the doubling of the
prison population, the militarization of the police, and mandatory minimum sentences along with juvenile
boot camps, drug courts, policing in schools and the acceleration of the deportation of "criminal
aliens." During Biden's leadership in the Senate -- where he served from 1973 until 2009, when he became
Obama's vice president -- the Congress approved 92 death-eligible crimes in an almost identical period.
These Democratic "law and order" policies landed like hammer blows on poor communities of color,
inflicting untold misery and egregious acts of injustice. And now Biden, who pounded the nails into those
he crucified, is desperately trying to present himself to his victims as their savior. It is a sad
metaphor for the bankruptcy of the Democratic Party.
Biden, however, is no longer the Democratic ruling elite's flavor of the month. This mantle has been
passed to Bloomberg, once the Republican mayor of New York and a Rudy Giuliani ally whose indiscriminate
stop-and-frisk harassment of, mainly, African Americans and Latinos was ruled unconstitutional.
Bloomberg, whose net worth is estimated at $61.8 billion, said he is ready to spend $1 billion of his own
money on his campaign, what The New York Times has called "a waterfall of cash." He has
bought the loyalty
of much of the ruling Democratic establishment. He spent, for example, $110
million in 2018 alone to support 24 candidates now in Congress. He is saturating the airwaves with
commercials. He is lavishing
high salaries and
perks
on his huge campaign staff. Sanders, or anyone else defying the billionaire class, cannot
compete financially. The last desperate gasp of the Democratic Party establishment is to buy the
election. Bloomberg is ready to oblige. After all, Bloomberg's money worked miracles
in amassing allies
to overturn New
York City term limits so he could serve a third term as mayor.
But will it work? Will the Democratic elites and Bloomberg be able to smother the Democratic primaries
with so much money that Sanders is shut out?
"As with Republicans in 2016, the defining characteristic of the 2020 Democratic race has been the
unwieldy size of the field," Matt Taibbi writes. "The same identity crisis lurking under the Republican
clown car afflicted this year's Democratic contest: Because neither donors nor party leaders nor pundits
could figure out what they should be pretending to stand for, they couldn't coalesce around any one
candidate. These constant mercurial shifts in 'momentum' -- it's Pete! It's Amy! Paging Mike Bloomberg! --
have eroded the kingmaking power of the Democratic leadership. They are eating the party from within, and
seem poised to continue doing so."
If Sanders gets the nomination it will be due to the Keystone Cops ineptitude of the Democratic
leadership, one that as Taibbi points out replicates the ineptitude of the Republican elites in 2016. But
this time there will be a crucial difference. The ruling elites, once divided between Trump and Hillary
Clinton, with most of the elites preferring Clinton, will be united against Sanders. They will back Trump
as the least worst. The corporate media will turn its venom, now directed at Trump, toward Sanders. The
Democratic Party's mask will come off. It will be open warfare between them and us.
Chris Hedges
is a Truthdig
columnist, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, a New York Times best-selling author, a professor in
the college degree program offered to New Jersey state prisoners by Rutgers
Bloomberg spoke at Aipac and did nothing but trash Bernie in his speech of wrongly judging
Aipac and not being loyal to Israel.
If I were Bernie I would wear Bloomberg's attacks as a BADGE OF HONOR.
Bernie Sanders is definitely going to take on Israel for its oppression of Palestinans
in a way that no other previous President has done.
Interesting article in The Intercept on this subject.
ON MONDAY, the only Jewish candidate in the Democratic presidential race stood in front
of an audience of Jews in Washington, D.C., and suggested cutting U.S. aid to Israel.
And they applauded him.
"I would use the leverage, $3.8 billion is a lot of money, and we cannot give it carte
blanche to the Israeli government or for that matter to any government at all," Sen.
Bernie Sanders said at the annual convention of J Street, a liberal pro-Israel advocacy
group.
It isn't the first time Sanders has discussed deploying foreign aid as "leverage" over
the Jewish state. Back in the fall of 2017, in an interview with me for The Intercept,
the Vermont senator described the United States as "complicit" in the illegal occupation
of the West Bank and Gaza and said he would consider voting to reduce U.S. aid to
Israel.
At J Street, however, he went much further. "What is going on in Gaza right now is
absolutely inhumane, it is unacceptable, it is unsustainable," the Democratic
presidential candidate told his interviewers, Pod Save the World hosts -- and former
Obama aides -- Tommy Vietor and Ben Rhodes. "My solution is to say to Israel: You get
$3.8 billion every year. If you want military aid, you're going to have to fundamentally
change your relationship to the people of Gaza."
Then came the kicker: "In fact, I think it is fair to say that some of that should go
right now into humanitarian aid in Gaza."
"I can't think of any presidential contender from either party who's said anything
comparable," said Khaled Elgindy, a senior fellow in the Center for Middle East Policy at
Brookings Institution and the author of the recently published book "Blind Spot: America
and the Palestinians, From Balfour to Trump." Diverting money away from the Israeli
military and toward hungry Gazans may not sound radical as a policy, Elgindy told me, but
"from a political standpoint it's an earthquake."
I asked the independent senator to respond to these attacks on him, and on the people
of Gaza, from the right. "Gaza is experiencing a humanitarian and environmental crisis,"
Sanders told me. "Conflating an effort to address that crisis with 'support for Hamas' is
part of an effort to dehumanize Palestinians and continue the conflict."
Bernie Sanders will also restore the JCPOA, and have a 180-degree different relationship
with Iran. He is determined to invest heavily on domestic issues, therefore NOT on war,
regime change machinations and will reduce troop level presence overseas and reduce
military spending to help fund domestic issues, and instead focus and rely on increasing
diplomacy to solve disagreements instead of sanctions and military escalation.
What a refreshing change all this will be. The Palestinians are referring to him as
their Moses and Bernie has Palestinian advisors in his campaign adminisration and hired a
young Palestinian author and political rising star to intern in his office in Congress.
Bernie Sanders will be the 46th President-TG! The world is desperate for this
transformation. Bernie Sanders will eclipse Obama's popularity on the world stage!
However, we do need to raise questions about election anomalies. Journalists should be
focused on the DNC is cheating Bernie and, by extension, the American people. It must be
recorded. It should be investigated. The first 4 primary contests account for only 4% of all
allocated delegates, yet have a hugely disproportionate influence on the race. Of those 4 states,
only NV is roughly in synch with the national demographic profile.
The whole primary system needs a major overhaul. It takes too long and costs too much (e.g.,
all the wasted $$ Steyer and Tulsi spent in SC). It's an embarrassing wasteful spectacle which
only enriches the MSM and hired political consultant hacks. Most voters don't bother to tune in
until 10-12 months into the marathon campaign. I would blow it all up and start over from
scratch.
In a couple of crucial ways Sanders has indicated his radical break with the current foreign
policies of both corporate Democrats and Republicans.
On Israel he has indicated that he will reverse the decision, symbolic of a major change in
US policy, to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. He has also said very clearly that he
supports a two state solution including Palestinian sovereignty.
Both are direct challenges to the Israeli Establishment and led to massive anti-Sanders
spending in the Primaries. They undoubtedly played a part in the decision to run Bloomberg
and the DNC decision to allow him to buy his way into the debates.
Sanders also indicated that he would not attend the AIPAC convention and reafformed his
support for KStreet.
It might be objected that these are all old, moderate zionist and shelfworn policies. And so
they are likely to prove in implementation. But that is unimportant: they represent a direct
confrontation with the current (fascist) Israeli political consensus and in terms of the
Democratic party and US public opinion constitute a radical and courageous challenge to a
party leadership that takes all its cues from Netanyahu.
But most important is the implied challenge of Sanders' domestic policy priorities: he has
said, though it really hardly needs saying, that in order to carry out his signature policies
it will be necessary, firstly to control expenditure on arms and interventions abroad. And
secondly to reform the tax system and shift the burden of taxation from poor to rich. This
would introduce penalties for the insane jingoism that has characterised the past
twenty/seventy years- which has never been a problem for the oligarchs and their intellectual
pretorian guard, because wars have always been a source of profit for them, with the
sacrifices of blood and treasure being left to the working class to come up with.
There is much missing in Sanders's Foreign Policy statements; there is much that most of his
supporters would be pleased to see but they understand that the battles between now and
November-all of which must be waged against MIC fans from the current Primary candidates on-
must be about the domestic issues that matter most urgently to American families- free
tuition as an alternative to debt peonage and a fear of education; Medicare for All;
repealing the anti-union laws that have reduced the poor to political impotence, insecurity
and poverty; defending Social Security from Biden Bloomberg, Trump et al; taming Big Pharma;
addressing the real and urgent issues of climate change; and redressing the signature
policies of the DNC which have led to the incarceration of a higher proportion of the
population than in any other country and the criminalisation of significant proportions of
the population.
You'll get your pony, but first you must break up the domination of politics by the Cold
War-anti-socialist consensus.
Bernie ridicules the
billionaires here in a brief 3 minute from the Rational National who is measured and calm
and very straight.
Glad to hear of buttergig being flushed down the toilet. Way to go cheatin Pete. Now we
watch Warren on her single minded obstruction of Bernie Sanders and set up a contested
convention.
On Biden, I speculate he is throwing the race by constantly pantomiming dumb gaffes so we
think he is sincere but alzheimer affected. That way he will be able to defend against his
millions carpetbagged from Ukraine. His performance is pathetic and I suspect well rehearsed
as he sets up his escape route. See Consortium news four part expose.
Bernie did a little better than 2016 in South Carolina, but still not a major change: 96,498
in 2016 vs. 105,197 in 2020. He gets actually 1 less delegate in 2020 than 2016: 33 vs 34,
but HRC got 39 vs. Biden 35.
In 2016, there were 5 unpledged delegates but apparently there are 9 in 2020 - which are
likely to not go to Bernie (7 DNCC and 2 Congress members - house of representatives).
The question then is: who will Steyer and Buttigieg endorse?
Ben - the US economy is nazi socialist for the rich and free market for the poor.
Bernie is making this point very effectively, imho, to the people who are most negatively
affected by nazi socialism.
My own arguments with the moderates I meet who automatically buy into the Bernie as
Castro-Chavez socialist use examples of nazi socialism, as opposed to the "mixed vegetables"
labelling:
1. Huge farm subsidies, huge energy subsidies....provided for the corporately wealthy.
2. Huge financial subisidies for the corporately wealth: Trump/GOP tax cuts and the
ongoing federal reserve monetary supply side tricks propping up the wealth accumulations of
the already obscenely corporately wealthy .
This is the nazi socialism that both parties have perfected since Reagan.
.. GOP strategist and avid Never Trumper Rick Wilson said ... Obama needs to throw his
full weight behind Biden before Super Tuesday in a way that will shake up the race ... Obama
can transform this race in a hot second. ... It's now or never ... Biden beat Sanders like a
rented mule. The exit polls told the tale; it was a crushing defeat across almost every
demographic group ...
Gotta love these Republicans who have our best interests at heart.
Last week in Nevada it was Sanders who beat Biden like a rented mule, inflicting a crushing
defeat across almost every demographic group. But that was then, this is now, and a Republican
stratigist says "It's now or never" to defeat Sanders Trump.
Super Tuesday is ... Tuesday. Biden, as I noted yesterday, hasn't visited any Super Tuesday
state in a month, has almost no money, is not on the air, has little or no ground game. Early
voting is already in progress in several states. What can be done in one day to turn
things around?
Realistically, nothing. Yes, a big endorsement by Obama could have an impact, but how many
voters would even hear about it before voting? Biden will definitely get a bounce from his win
in SC, but how big will it be? How much did Sanders' win in Nevada help him in SC?
Team Biden believes having Klobuchar in the race through Super Tuesday is incredibly
helpful to them.
Why? It blocks Bernie Sanders in the Minnesota primary on Tuesday.
"If Amy gets out, that gives Minnesota to Bernie,"
...
Four years ago, Sanders crushed Hillary Clinton in Minnesota, winning 62% to 38% ...
The Biden campaign wants Warren to be in the race through Super Tuesday, when Massachusetts
voters weigh in.
Not to win. Not to hoard delegates for a convention fight. But just taking every opportunity
to slow Bernie down.
Finally, and I only saw one tweet about this and can't find any confirmation, that Bloomberg
hasn't made any ad buys beyond Super Tuesday. Anyone know anything about this?
Steyer has spent $200 million, got nothing for it, and has dropped out. I'm hoping that's
what we see for Bloomberg as well. Is Bloomberg trying to win? Or just to stop Bernie? Super
Tuesday will tell the tale.
@WoodsDweller -- Biden, Bloomberg, Warren, Klobuchar -- is stepping in to do his or
her part for the overall goal of stopping Bernie. They are 100% loyal to the Dem
establishment which is 100% loyal to the neocon, neoliberal, oligarchic, globalist Deep
State. They know the Dem establishment will reward them -- and you can practically smell the
certainty of that knowledge on Liz. She'll do and say whatever they ask of her.
with anything but a full on assault by the DNC, the media, and their respective
surrogates. What I didn't expect, especially from dubious "progressives" like Warren, was to
hear non-viable candidates openly talking about blunting Bernie's momentum with their only
goal being to collect delegates into the convention. Yes, most of us anticipated this was
going to turn into a contested convention by design, but I don't know how many of us believed
they'd tip their hand so blatantly and so soon into the process. Now that they have, it gives
Bernie time to prepare his own strategy for meeting their threat at the convention. Maybe
someone could refresh his memory on how effective the bus loads of people that GWB arranged
were in shaping the media narrative of "civil disruption vs. accurate counting" in Florida?
Taking a page out of that playbook, Bernie's people really need to start thinking about
organizing an army of supporters in strength that rivals his numbers at his rallys, and
descend onto Wisconsin. And maybe as an added bonus, conjure up the image of the 1968
convention Buttigieg seems to believe Bernie is so nostalgic about resurrecting. If the
Establishment is going to twart the will of the people, let the will of the people be
heard.
First, a wild methodological error. Bernie actually received more votes yesterday than in
2016. Perhaps only people who voted in 2016 were polled.
Second, everyone knows that Bernie is the person most likely to defeat Trump and Biden is
the worst possible candidate. Perhaps thousands of Trump supporters came out pretending to be
Democrats to vote for Biden. This has supposedly happened before.
Third, the quisling Democrats have given up all pretense of being honest and are blatantly
stealing the nomination from Bernie. This is the most likely.
.
In many ways, this race is now the same exact contest that was fought back in 2016. It has
come down to Joe Biden -- The Establishment choice -- despite his obvious Ukraine corruption,
family payoffs, obstruction of justice and abuse of office, etc. -- and despite Biden being
100% wrong on every issue from the Iraq War to NAFTA to the TPP to Syria (more Regime
Change) to Libya to saying China is not an economic threat , etc. -- and despite him
being a bumbling buffoon and gaffe machine who doesn't even know what State he is in, and
constantly mangles sentences, and arrogantly yells at or insults prospective voters -- and
despite him on multiple occasions caught sniffing the hair and fondling young girls in
public.
How is this different from Hillary Clinton .. just without the Cackle ?
Bernie Sanders, as in 2016, is the only other option now that has a multi-state Campaign
support structure. While Mike Bloomberg can buy million dollar Ads and saturate them
everywhere across TV and the Internet .. he has no real voter base, a phony message, and no
charisma.
So it is Sanders .vs. Biden , which is essentially a rematch between Sanders and
Clinton -- or -- essentially a rematch between Sanders and the DNC Establishment (who also
control the rules of the game).
My question is, who in earth would ever want to vote for the doddering and incoherent Joe
Biden under any circumstance? Clearly, Biden just represents the anti-Sanders vote here, and
The Establishment, with Bloomberg, Buttiburger, and Klobachar all failing, has closed ranks
to consolidate around the one dog-faced, pony soldier left standing in the race: Quid Pro
Joe.
Come on man! Get down and do some pushups Jack. I don't want your vote.
Polls and Votes and super delegates and Media narratives will all now be fixed around
Biden from this point on (if they weren't already). So expect a whole lot of Malarkey
upcoming, and this means that Sanders will have to win by big margins, and win a whole lot
more States than he did in 2016, in order to survive.
Dems don't actually know how to run a clean election. They've spent all these decades holding
sham contests where the outcomes were predetermined, that accurately tallying votes in a timely
manner and reporting the results honestly is completely beyond their institutional
capabilities.
Denying Sanders Dem ticket using super delegates as a ram is a possibility, but unless the
candidate is Warren (which can be viewed as Sanders-light) it might have several possible
negative effects:
1. Re-election of Trump due to obvious and glaring weakness of all centrists candidates
(Biden-Butti-Bloomberg-Klobustar ) and the real possibility that Sanders voters abandon Dems.
Moreover they are really the second rate politicians.
2. Further de-legitimization of Dems leadership which raises the question of the party
chances in 2022.
Hers is one interesting comment from the discussion at Off-Guardian
Sanders was shafted in 2016 by the corrupt DNC machine, and he is being shafted again.He
will probably be sidelined in favour of some third rate hack like Buttplug, or some other
synthetic, manufactured nonentity.
If he isn't, and by some miracle does secure the nomination, they will fail to support
him and just allow him to be defeated by Trump. It doesn't matter.
There are millions of decent people who have long been persuaded to play the game of
Lesser Evils. They will be as disenchanted as was Trump's Base by a transparently corrupt,
rigged system, and finally withdraw their support. This has to be seen as a positive
development. They can no longer paper over the cracks.
and other from
https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2020/03/democrat-morning-sickness-in-south-carolina-by-larry-c-johnson.html#comments
Sanders' constituency is disproportionately 45 and under, many of whom voted in the 2016
primary. The memory of the last primary theft by the DNC, added onto another convention coup
will have transformative consequences for the party.
Will the party insiders allow a Sander's nomination, or will they follow the instructions
of the deep-pocketed financial backers who view Sandes as a threat to their incomes. Nancy
Pelosi recently remarked that she would be okay with a Sander's nomination. Was she
expressing a party platform, or was that the wine talking? If Sanders shows up at the
convention as the leading delegate winner, but is denied the nomination, does that spawn a
third party?
As with any candidate, we can only know the truth about them AFTER they're elected.
DJT IMO, has been a complete failure in fulfilling his uttered promises on the campaign
trail, as most of our recent POTUSes have been also.
We'll only know the truth of Bernie Sanders, IF he's "elected". Which, IMO, is looking
unlikely, because, you must win the nomination first, and THAT, is looking doubtful, as
the
DNC and their minions are lining up against him.
Sanders was shafted in 2016 by the corrupt DNC machine, and he is being shafted again.He will
probably be sidelined in favour of some third rate hack like Buttplug, or some other
synthetic, manufactured nonentity.
If he isn't, and by some miracle does secure the nomination, they will fail to support him
and just allow him to be defeated by Trump. It doesn't matter.
There are millions of decent people who have long been persuaded to play the game of
Lesser Evils. They will be as disenchanted as was Trump's Base by a transparently corrupt,
rigged system, and finally withdraw their support. This has to be seen as a positive
development.
"... not only did Warren botch the rollout, her plans were bad, and were seen as bad. ..."
"... "Elizabeth Warren cries and tries to regain ground with voters" [Joan Vennochi, Boston Globe ]. The deck: "Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders, her ideological soulmate, rolls along, tears-free." Ouch. ..."
"... IMO it was her later waffling, insincerity, and backtracking on M4A that caused progressives to realize not only that she was not committed to solving the most important issue identified by Dem voters, but that she may not have a fire in her belly to address the nation's other urgent crises and would likely accommodate to powerful interests in Obama-esque fashion. ..."
"... Trump as the not-Democrat has such an edge among the disaffected who are still angry enough to vote ..."
"... I think that I can answer that. Jimmy Dore put out a 5-minute video showing her in action. A protestor heckled her in front of a meeting and she went into deer-in-spotlight mode and shut down. In the end she had to be rescued by Ayanna Pressley and I was thinking – "She really wants to debate Trump? Will she shut down then too?". (Some language) ..."
Warren (D)(1): "What is happening with Elizabeth Warren?" [Chris Cilizza,
CNN ].
"Less than two months ago, it looked as though Elizabeth Warren might just run away with the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination
. Then that Warren wave hit a wall. Starting right around mid-October, Warren's numbers not only stopped moving upward but also
began trending down
Add it all up and there's plenty of reason to believe that Warren's full-fledged support for Medicare for All -- coupled with
her less-than-successful attempts to defend that position in the last two debates -- led to her current reduced status in the
race."
If this were true, Sanders should drop as well. I think Cilizza should give consideration to the idea that not only did Warren
botch the rollout, her plans were bad, and were seen as bad.
"Elizabeth Warren cries and tries to regain ground with voters" [Joan Vennochi,
Boston Globe ]. The deck: "Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders, her ideological soulmate, rolls along, tears-free." Ouch.
More: "According to the Des Moines Register, "after a long pause and with tears in her eyes, the senator from Massachusetts said
'yeah,' before telling the story of the divorce from her first husband," and how painful it was to tell her mother that her marriage
was over.
To showcase the significance of the encounter, Warren tweeted out a clip."
Dead Lord. You don't tweet out your own tears to show sincerity. Have somebody else do it! Isn't anybody on her staff protecting
her?
I think Cilizza should give consideration to the idea that not only did Warren botch the rollout, her plans were bad,
and were seen as bad.
The establishment is trying mightily to salvage something useful from Warren's surprisingly rapid decline in the polls, constantly
pushing the refrain that M4A was somehow the kiss of death for her.
In fact, she rose to prominence by riding on Sanders policies like Medicare for All, canceling student debt, and free
college. "I'm with Bernie" was her frequent reply on several policy issues, and she co-sponsored Sanders' Medicare for All Senate
bill to great effect on her own "progressive" cred.
IMO it was her later waffling, insincerity, and backtracking on M4A that caused progressives to realize not only that she
was not committed to solving the most important issue identified by Dem voters, but that she may not have a fire in her belly
to address the nation's other urgent crises and would likely accommodate to powerful interests in Obama-esque fashion.
Six years wait for the ACA to piss almost everyone off.
Trump as the not-Democrat has such an edge among the disaffected who are still angry enough to vote. Especially since
the whole and only DNC message will be 'you can't possibly vote for Trump!!!'
I think that I can answer that. Jimmy Dore put out a 5-minute video showing her in action. A protestor heckled her in front
of a meeting and she went into deer-in-spotlight mode and shut down. In the end she had to be rescued by Ayanna Pressley and I
was thinking – "She really wants to debate Trump? Will she shut down then too?". (Some language)
"... It is especially galling to see how the Hollywood Community has embraced the era of red-baiting Joseph McCarthy as the new standard for what is acceptable. There was a time that a few brave souls in Hollywood (I am thinking Lucille Ball, Kirk Douglas and Gregory Peck), spoke out against the blacklisting of actors, writers and directors for their past political ties to the Soviet Union. ..."
"... This was an ugly, awful and evil time in America. It was a period of time fed by fear and ignorance. While it is true that there were Americans who identified as Communists and embraced the politics of the Soviet Union, we scared ourselves into believing that communist subversion was everywhere and that America was teetering on the brink of being submerged in a red tide. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not a deviation from the norm. Clinton exemplifies the terrifying norm of the political and cultural elite in this country. Accusing political opponents of being controlled by foreign enemies, real or imagined, is an old political tactic. Makes me wonder what Edward R. Murrow or Dalton Trumbo would say if we could bring them back from the dead. ..."
"... "Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not a deviation from the norm." ..."
"... Ms. President is the closest facsimile to Lady Macbeth that American politics has been able to produce. She'd have murdered her own husband if she had thought succession would have fallen to her. As it was, the only thing that kept him alive was that she needed him for the run she had in mind for herself. The debris that this woman has left in her wake boggles the mind. That she came within a whisker of the job where she would perhaps have left the country in that debris field is a sobering thought to think about what American presidential politics has become in the 21st c. Alas, what passes for her failure and the Country's good fortune, her loved ones in the Arts are still not over. And so they are left commiserating and caterwauling over the Donald this, and the Donald that, while all this good material and their celebrity goes down the tube. Good riddance to them both. ..."
"... Trump campaigned on Drain the Swamp in 2016. The Swamp attempted to take him down with the Russia Collusion hoax that included Spygate and the Mueller special counsel investigation. ..."
In the wake of the latest Hollywood buffoonery displayed at the Oscars, I think it is time for the American public to denounce
in the strongest possible terms the rampant hypocrisy of sanctimonious cretins who make their living pretending to be someone other
than themselves. Brad Pitt, Joaquin Phoenix and Barbara Streisand pop to mind as representative examples. All three are eager to
lecture the American public on the need for equality and non-discrimination. Yet, not one of the recipients of the
Oscar
gift bags worth $225,000 spoke out against that extraordinary excess nor demanded that the money spent purchasing these "gifts"
be used to benefit the poor and the homeless. Nope, take the money and run.
It is especially galling to see how the Hollywood Community has embraced the era of red-baiting Joseph McCarthy as the new
standard for what is acceptable. There was a time that a few brave souls in Hollywood (I am thinking Lucille Ball, Kirk Douglas and
Gregory Peck), spoke out against the blacklisting of actors, writers and directors for their past political ties to the Soviet Union.
Now I have lived long enough to see the so-called liberals in Hollywood rail against Donald Trump and his supporters as "agents
of Russia." Many in Hollywood, who weep crocodile tears over the abuses of the Hollywood Blacklist, are now doing the same damn thing
without a hint of irony.
If you are a film buff (and I consider myself one) you should be familiar with these great movies that remind the viewer of the
horrors visited upon actors, writers and directors during the Hollywood Blacklist:
The Front -- a 1976 comedy-drama film set against the Hollywood blacklist in the 1950s. It was written by Walter Bernstein,
directed by Martin Ritt, and stars Woody Allen and Zero Mostel.
Good Night, and Good Luck -- a 2005 historical drama film directed by George Clooney, tells the story of Edward R.
Murrow fighting back against the hysterical red-baiting of Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Trumbo -- a 2015 American biographical drama film directed by Jay Roach that follows the life of Hollywood screenwriter
Dalton Trumbo, who was blacklisted but continued to write award winning movies in alias (e.g. Spartacus).
This was an ugly, awful and evil time in America. It was a period of time fed by fear and ignorance. While it is true that
there were Americans who identified as Communists and embraced the politics of the Soviet Union, we scared ourselves into believing
that communist subversion was everywhere and that America was teetering on the brink of being submerged in a red tide.
Thirty years ago I reflected on this era and wondered how such mass hysteria could happen. Now I know. We have lived with the
same kind of madness since Donald Trump was tagged as a Russian agent in the summer of 2016. And the irony is extraordinary. The
very same Hollywood elite that heaped opprobrium on Director Elia Kazan for naming names in Hollywood in front of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee, are now leading the charge in labeling anyone who dares speak out against the failed coup as "stooges" of the
Kremlin or Putin.
Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not a
deviation from the norm. Clinton exemplifies the terrifying norm of the political and cultural elite in this country. Accusing political
opponents of being controlled by foreign enemies, real or imagined, is an old political tactic. Makes me wonder what Edward R. Murrow
or Dalton Trumbo would say if we could bring them back from the dead.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is a vast understatement. You never could have convinced me 4 years ago that virtually all of my liberal
friends would have completely lost touch with reality due to their visceral hatred of one man.
It no longer matters if you agree with people on social policy, entitlements, student loans, homelessness, drug addiction or
even wealth distribution.
If you do not share their irrational hatred of Trump, you're going to be lambasted, shunned and treated like a pariah.
Hillary Clinton has become the poster child for the corruption that has captured and paralyzed our political parties and government
institutions. Why is she above prosecution? Is the corruption complete? Can we look to any individual or group to restore our
Republic? Wake me when the prosecutions begin.
"Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not
a deviation from the norm."
Ms. President is the closest facsimile to Lady Macbeth that American politics has been able to produce. She'd have murdered
her own husband if she had thought succession would have fallen to her. As it was, the only thing that kept him alive was that
she needed him for the run she had in mind for herself. The debris that this woman has left in her wake boggles the mind. That
she came within a whisker of the job where she would perhaps have left the country in that debris field is a sobering thought
to think about what American presidential politics has become in the 21st c. Alas, what passes for her failure and the Country's
good fortune, her loved ones in the Arts are still not over. And so they are left commiserating and caterwauling over the Donald
this, and the Donald that, while all this good material and their celebrity goes down the tube. Good riddance to them both.
I agree that HUAC's conduct was excessive but you really ought to show the other side of the coin as well.
Communism was genuinely awful. To this day we don't know how many people died, murdered by their own governments, in Soviet
Russia and Communist China.
The U. S. government was infiltrated at the very pinnacle of government (as in presidential advisors) by Soviet agents.
We know this from Kremlin documents.
We now know (based on Kremlin documents) that the American Communist Party was run by knowing Soviet agents and was funded
by the Soviet Union.
The motion picture industry had been heavily infiltrated by Communists including some actual Soviet agents (while Reagan
was head of SAG he rooted them out).
We resolved those issues the wrong way but they desperately needed to be resolved.
This is self-righteous baby boomer nonsense. It was a brief and slightly uncomfortable time for a handful of people in Hollywood,
after which the subversion of American culture and institutions chugged along merrily along to the present day.
But this episode has been re-purposed and often reduced to caricature as part of a long ideological project aimed at convincing
generations of otherwise intelligent white people that their past is a shameful parade of villains.
Kirk Douglas bravely defied the blacklist by giving Dalton Trumbo credit on Spartacus under his real name, effectively breaking
the blacklist.
I saw part of the Academy Awards and all I heard over and over again were the words race and gender, no female directors nominated.
On a side note, this being Black History month, teevee is usually filled with the appropriate programing. But because it is
the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Aushwitz the Jews are stealing the Blacks thunder by hogging the programming. When the
oppressed collide.
Just how big is the carbon footprint on a $225,000 swag bag? So nice to see Hollywood integrity in action. I wonder what the Bernie
Tax will be on them in 2021?
Chills run down my spine that you start your list with 'The Front'.
Woody Allen's 'The Front', a 'film noir' about the beast and about courage in trying to slay it, is an absolute masterpiece,
its end is unmeasurably spectacular and encouraging, and... somehow the movie never got the acclaim it deserves, and lives as
one of those quiet orphans.
But it is highly actual, and that is why you must have come to place it first.
Trump campaigned on Drain the Swamp in 2016. The Swamp attempted to take him down with the Russia Collusion hoax that included
Spygate and the Mueller special counsel investigation.
Rep. Devin Nunes uncovered many of the shenanigans while he investigated the claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
He implored Trump to use his prerogative as POTUS to declassify many documents and communications. Trump instead took the advice
of Rod Rosenstein acting as AG who initiated the Mueller investigation and did not declassify. He then passed the buck to AG Barr,
who has yet to declassify.
The question that needs to be asked in light of this: Is Trump a conman who has duped the electorate with Drain the Swamp as
he has not used his exclusive powers of classification to present to the voter all the documents and communications about the
actions of law enforcement and intelligence agencies relating to claims about Russian influence operations during the 2016 election?
Blue Peacock, the question that needs to be asked is do you blow your wad all at once on one play. Or do you drip, drip, drip
it out strategically. I suggest the latter in this endless game of gotcha politics. Yes, Trump is a con man. That is how he made
his billions - selling sizzle. One quality that does translate well into the political arena. No one is surprised - his life has
been on the front pages for decades.
The only newly revealed quality that I find remarkable is his remarkable staying power - the most welcome quality of all. It
takes ego maniacs to play this game. Surprised anyone still thinks politics is an avocation for normal people. It isn't. And we
the people are the ones that demand this to be the case.
I left the american sh*thole a long time ago and my choice never felt better. I look forward to seeing 50% of americans trying
to slaughter the other 50% over socialism. Here we're doing just fine with socialist medecine, and social programs for just about
everyting. The Commons are still viable where common sense resides... Oligarchs love cartels, socialism and piratization: it's
all about privatizing the gains and socializing the losses to the hoi polloi.
I wonder if Hollywood knows how small some of the audiences in actual movie theaters are now. It's always surprising to me that
I am sitting in almost empty theaters now when I decide I want actual movie theater popcorn and so will pay to watch a movie that
I have read about and heard about from friends who have already seen the movie. I don't attend unless I've heard good things from
my friends about the movie.
I am constantly surprised that some people even consider watching the Oscars now. I feel the same about professional sports.
You would be surprised at how good high school plays are and how good high school bands, orchestras, choirs are. The tickets
are cheap, and a person actually gets to greet the performers.
I feel the same about my local university (my Alma Mater). It's Performing Arts departments are excellent. As a student long
ago, my student pass allowed me to attend wonderful performances.
The Glory Days of Hollywood are no more. The actors and directors need to be humbled by having to go to towns across the country
to see how sparse the audience in a movie theater is now. It's not at all as I remember as a child when there were long lines
at the ticket window.
"... Buttigieg and Bloomberg have similar voting blocks to Biden. Buttigieg is the clean cut presidential type with PR trained words, a Biden 2020 model with less baggage. Older whites love him which is why he does well in Iowa and NH. ..."
"... If Biden/Buttigieg/Bloomberg join forces behind one of them, they won't add any new voters; they'll simply stop stealing votes from each other. Less self-destructive, of course, but hardly enough to beat Sanders. ..."
The Democratic establishment worries that if the "moderates" in the race do not start falling on their swords, dropping out,
and joining behind a single candidate -- Biden, Buttigieg or Bloomberg -- to challenge Sanders, they will lose the nomination
to Sanders and the election to Trump.
Strange and deeply delusional people. Let us imagine they fell on those proverbial swords and joined the forces behind someone.
Why should it work with Democratic voters any better than in did with Republicans in 2016?
Biden's voters are those who believe that he will become Obama's third term; a doubtful assertion, but the number of such believers
is rather stable and won't go either up or down. Warren's voters are more likely to defect to Sanders rather than to anyone else.
Buttigieg's and Bloomberg's voters... Wait. Who exactly those "Buttigieg's and Bloomberg's voters" as a voting bloc even are?
Anyways, the RNC tried a similar trick against Trump in 2016. Everyone knows how well it worked.
Buttigieg and Bloomberg have similar voting blocks to Biden. Buttigieg is the clean cut presidential type with PR trained
words, a Biden 2020 model with less baggage. Older whites love him which is why he does well in Iowa and NH.
Bloomberg is liberal Trump. Big business man that can "get things done". Has an ugly past but who cares. He was getting the
same votes as Biden (both white and non white so long as they are middle agreed and older, all moderates). So basically a Biden
3.0 now with Minority Power and a dash of Trump
Note that was before the Nevada debate.
Note that Warren was supposed to be a Sanders 2.0 with less baggage. The race has always been Biden-like vs Sanders-like. But
Warren couldn't go full Sanders while Biden ended up with that Romney effect where flashy new people would show up look nice then
fade away because they couldn't just stick with the original.
It would be a very different race if it was Biden vs Sanders and that's that. But Sanders side figured it out first.
That's right. If Biden/Buttigieg/Bloomberg join forces behind one of them, they won't add any new voters; they'll simply stop
stealing votes from each other. Less self-destructive, of course, but hardly enough to beat Sanders.
Though I'd disagree that Warren is Sanders 2.0 - as you noted, she cannot go full Sanders. She is Sanders 0.5 at best, if not
Sanders beta.
On the second matter the idea was for her to be Sanders 2.0. But Sanders always goes full Sanders to the point of flat out telling
you that he WILL raise taxes. Warren couldn't go full Sanders and actually tried so sneak into the Biden camp. "Sanders v.5 now
with more Biden" didn't sell well.
(Suddenly imagining a video of Sanders telling Warren to "follow me" then start parkour up a building while Warren watches
helplessly)
On the first I just listened to Mondays episode of political rewind that noted something in Nevada: Sanders only got about
30% of the initial vote which is the closest to a normal primary. His bump to over 45% came as voters of dead candidates had to
move to their second pick.
If this really was a moderate vs radical then Warren votes would go to Bernie and everyone else to Biden or buttigieg. Instead
they mostly went to Sanders. Which means voters went "I would rather have this person but if I can't I'll vote Bernie." Jeeesh
even TAC is doing it with Tulsi compete with hard social conservative folks seemingly to find a reason to vote for Sanders. Jeesh
I did that with Warren.
It's one caucus but it's an interesting idea. What if it's not Anyone but Bernie and more "Bernie is ok but I really like this
person." A mass consolidation may end up pushing them all to their second pick. It also explains why the field is so spread. It's
not confused voters deciding on a moderate. It's fans of a particular candidate that are willing to substitute for Bernie once
they're love drops out.
A consolidated field might not stop Bernie. It might give him the gold.
By the way, Tulsi as a veep candidate would significantly imporove Sanders's chances against Trump during the election itself.
Though picking her will be equal to saying "we're through" to the Democratic establishment. So I'll withhold my opinion as to
whether Bernie will dare to do it until he's nominated - at this point I expect that he will be nominated, unless the DNC
resorts to some highly unconventional (which is, outright fraudulent) measures.
I don't know if Sanders has the courage to nominate someone like Tulsi, but he should, and not just to win the election. If he
nominates some moderate, he'll have to watch his back constantly in fear that he might be given an untimely "heart attack."
Agreed, the idea that Sanders has a significantly lower ceiling than the others fell apart when the second alignment results from
NV came in. There were plenty of people who picked Sanders when they could no longer go with their 1st option.
""Medicare for All." Abolition of private health insurance. War on Wall Street. The Green New Deal. Free college tuition. Forgiveness
of all student debt. Open borders. Supreme Court justices committed to Roe v. Wade. Welfare for undocumented migrants. A doubling
of the minimum wage to $15 an hour."
With the exception of "open borders", which Sanders has repeatedly stated he is against, which of these issues do you think
hurts Sanders with the majority?
Abolition of private health insurance will hurt him with some union members, as well as people who have good health benefits currently.
My parents are public employees, and their insurance costs little and they get access to the best doctors in the area. A MFA system
would increase the demand to see those elite doctors, and they might get squeezed out. And Trump/GOP can simply say "They couldn't
even build a functioning website for Obamacare, do you really trust them to completely overhaul our healthcare system?" People
with no/bad health insurance might take that chance, but people with solid/good health insurance will probably be risk averse.
Do you think people are going to fall for "If you like your doctor, you can keep them" a second time?
The Green New Deal will hurt in TX and PA, since there are a lot of oil industry workers there. And if you look at polling,
Climate Change is nowhere near most voters, especially moderates, top concern.
Welfare to illegal immigrants is extremely unpopular to everyone outside of the hard left.
I definitely hear those concerns but MFA will absolutely help more people than it hurts. Arguing against it for the sake of preserving
jobs is to me like arguing for the carriage industry during the advent of the automobile. With regards to doctors, the problem
with Obamacare was that it left the insurance industry intact, which is why people couldn't always keep their doctors. It's not
a choice if your insurance won't cover the doctor you want. MFA would allow you to see literally any doctor you wanted, no concerns
about "networks".
With regards to the GND, again you're arguing for the carriage makers while Model-T's are rolling off the line. Green energy
is already edging out coal as it becomes cheaper and easier to produce, the oil workers are living on borrowed time. And any GND
will have provisions for re-training displaced workers so they can land on their feet. My brother just became trained as a wind-turbine
mechanic, he's working on job sites literally across the country (so far he's been to Texas, Iowa and Minnesota). The jobs for
the displaced workers are there, and the GND will make sure they're properly prepared for them.
Also you're incorrect on American's concerns about climate change. Pew Research center says 67% of Americans believe the federal
government should be doing more to stop it from getting worse. And while of course you see some demographic divisions in the data
the trend is that number is growing, in fact they say 65% of moderate Republicans feel that way.
First of all, to all my original point, I'm arguing about how those policies hurt Bernie Sanders politically, not on their merits.
Bernie continually votes to fund the F-35 even though it's a trillion dollar piece of junk, because some of its parts are built
in VT.
On comparing MFA and the GND to the advent of the automobile, that's a terrible analogy since the government didn't shove the
automobile down our throats. The automobile became affordable and convenient, and people voluntarily purchased it.
For MFA, there is no evidence that there will be any cost control measures that would make it economically viable. Congress
has been kicking the can down the road on cost controls for Medicare and Obamacare for years, so why would we expect MFA to be
different?
For the GND, if renewables are so awesome and cost effective, why do we need a new multi-trillion dollar government initiative
to make people adopt them?
And as to climate change, where is that on people's list of concerns when polled? Yes, people may say we should do something
about it, but 1.) typically they don't want to have to sacrifice anything for it and 2.) If you look at polls that rank peoples
concerns in the world, climate change consistently ranks quite low. Heck, they couldn't even get WA state to adopt a modest carbon
tax when it was voted on, so what makes you think that it will catch on nationally?
There was quite a lot of corporate chicanery, aided and abetted by government, that helped promote the automobile, from auto and
rubber companies butying up trolley systems to auto companies paying off movie producers to make newsreels promoting buses over
trolleys. There are documentaries, books and even comic books on the subject.
Sanders is for increasing the carried interest tax rate for private equity firms. He wants to turn the U.S. into Venezuela. Socialism
... sooooooocialism.
Bernie's Wall Street tax proposals are nonsensical. They are supposedly going to raise a ton of revenue without substantially
disrupting the financial sector. One, or potentially both, of those things are likely to be false.
For every Venezeula there is a Denmark, a Germany, a Finland, a Japan. It's easy to point to (I know it's not PC to say) a corrupt
3rd world country and crow about how "socialism failed". And yet if you glance over towards Europe you see dozens of nations with
one form of socialist safety net or another, and they're spending *less* per capita on healthcare *and* getting *better* results
than we are.
I flipped on this issue specifically because of the numbers, not ideological reasons. I happily voted for Johnson in 16, and
in a perfect world I'd prefer government to stay small. But you can't deny that the healthcare system we're currently in is MUCH
worse than just about everyone else's in the developed world (I mean it's the internet, you can deny all you want but the facts
are what they are). I flipped because if we're spending more and getting less, it's literally *more* fiscally conservative and
efficient to switch to a MFA system. I'd love a completely free-market system, but there's fewer examples that I'm aware of of
that sort of system working well, and honestly I don't think it could be pulled off.
We in essence have a free market health care system. At least outside of Medicare and the VA. For a market to function efficiently,
it requires 2 key ingredients: the ability to compare prices and the ability to compare quality. Due to the disparity in medical
training between the medical community and your average Joe on the street, having those 2 key ingredients is impossible. So we
just have a very inefficient health care market, as any economics book would predict. Less corrupt nations understand how this
works and mitigate the problem with different solutions: full government control (England), government single-payer (Canada),
non-profit insurance system (Germany) and many others.
So the person who saves Syria from occupation by IGIL is a terrorist ? Just a few years ago, CNN praised #Iran 's Qassem #Soleimani for defeating
ISIS.
Just a few years ago, CNN was praising Qassem
#Soleimani for being
the driving force behind the defeat of ISIS. Today they call him a "terrorist" and expect
you to believe them.
So she was fooled into thinking Iraq had something to do withe 9/11?
Guess she couldn't figure out buildings never fall at free fall speed unless they have
demolition charges set in them.
Hello Prairiedog,
Do you know why my comments are not accepted or shown here?
I replied to your comment with my comment that is not being accepted here.
I see you have a high ratting so i thought you may have an idea about accepted comments. what
am I doing wrong?!
The risk is limited - this kills the old and infirm.
MOA was accurate in all the panic - China controlled its initial outbreak (although a
re-entry is not unlikely imo). That the rest of the world didn't react fast enough, is
expected though, but saying that before it was a thing would have been unnecessarily
scare-mongering I'd say.
Hi B,
looks like the guys at New England Biolabs have a very rapid assay for COVID-19 --- Rapid
Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Virus RNA Using Colorimetric LAMP
Yinhua Zhang, Nelson Odiwuor, Jin Xiong, Luo Sun, Raphael Ohuru Nyaruaba, Hongping Wei,
Nathan A Tanner
Its a preprint -- but this is the way to go an isothermal loop mediated amplification
(LAMP) assay. You ought to be able to get a result in about 30 minutes -- faster once they
really automate it. Should cost virtually nothing a few cents.
Other versions of it might be adapted so you can use them in the field so a general
practitioner or even a soldier will be able to make the diagnosis at the bed side-- its a
simple color change in a tube. All you need is a pipette the assay tube a hot block and a
timer. True positive rate 99.99% false positive about 1% or less. This what the CDC needs.
Problem is that they have to mass produce the assay tubes -- we need 100 million like
yesterday. The other thing is that we might need martial law to quarantine people and we need
to train people to use the kits and fast.
All of a sudden, "freedom isn't free" axiom acquires a really macabre meaning. The inevitable
devastation in countries with laissez-faire approach to this emergency will eventually prove
"totalitarian" Chinese measures as being vastly superior.
The US will undoubtedly - if grudgingly - adopt Beijing MO, but only after hundreds of
thousands of people die needlessly, and America's healthcare system falls apart under the
pressure of millions of patients unable to pay exorbitant bills.
The American mind does not know what "public health" is.
"Public health" is not a thinkable thought. b's paragraph beginning with "Tests must be
freely available..." is a sequence of events that cannot exist even in fiction in America.
Only someone who has never lived here could write that paragraph. None of b's suggestions are
happening. And because these simple measures cannot happen, a price will be paid.
The overreaction to this will cause much, much more damage than the virus would have if it
were responded to in a conventional, sensible way. Those in positions of responsibility are
terrified of underreacting, and it's easy to rationalize that it's better to be safe than
sorry.
If measures taken cause unnecessary disruption, if they increase the level of stress, the
levels of disease and the amount of death will rise rather than fall. There is more to
disease than just microbes.
This is not to say that we should be laissez-faire. Our response to the yearly outbreak of
the flu is, in my opinion, insufficient. Schools are an unprecedented institution of
prolonged propinquity. Children go to school, are with their classmates in enclosed rooms all
day, and bring the disease home. Children survive, but grandma and grandpa might not. Schools
can be shuttered during outbreaks, and the technology exists, at least for the relatively
fortunate, to continue the instruction online. People should also be encouraged to avoid
stressful prolonged propinquity situations such as travel on planes, trains, and interstate
buses.
It's occurred to me that the death rate statistics might be misleading. Since China closed
their schools, one can assume that the disease rate among children fell substantially.
However, elderly people who live in care facilities, which is a high density living
situation, would not enjoy the falling infection rate, and they are exactly the population
most susceptible to a fatal outcome. This alone, perhaps, might make the death rate higher
for COVID19 than for the flu.
The US healthcare system, the privatized system of exploitation of the sick for greater
investor profits, is not capable of dealing with a pandemic. Trump and his gang of thieves,
charlatans, and unapologetically incompetent followers of Ayn Rand and graduates of the Koch
Brothers University, will prevent the socialization of medicine if they possibly can. Will a
future cover of Time Magazine show them all hanging from lamp posts?
Whether this pandemic provokes the rapture of Pence & his 144,000 elect and the much
anticipated End Times, or whether it fizzles out, I do heartily wish for one outcome: the
disenfranchisement of Donald J Trump, his heirs & assigns, and all those who seem unable
to smell the stink of his bullshit.
CDC estimates 30 million flu cases each year with 30,000 deaths and 500,000
hospitalizations. I think we are a long way from any real concern. The US is nowhere near as
polluted or densely populated as China. Also, I don't think we know how the disease spreads
among non Asians. They are keeping that under wraps. Aside from those captives on the cruise
ship there really has not been much spread from those who returned from China (visitors or
citizens).
Agreed that the US leadership is clueless and their thrashing around in order to protect
corporate capitalism is xenophobic and dangerous to the world. Came across this research on a
plant bioflavonoid that you might find useful in the treatment of SARS COV-1 (aka
COVID-19).
It's always Groundhog Day in the USA.
It's always late August 2005.
It's always New Orleans.
It's always Hurricane Katrina [or something else] on the horizon.
It's always a Republican Administration in power.
Who needs external enemies when we have such internal incompetents available to do the work
of sabotage? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film)
Neither Reps nor Dems are psychologically capable even of conceiving the kinds of measures
the post calls for. Trump's stooge already proclaimed that profit is the one and only goal of
any response ("the market must decide"), while the Dem leadership as well can speak and think
only in terms of making care "affordable", IOW the main purpose of the whole process still
has to be corporate control and profit, even if a few stray Dems do want government to
subsidize some victims. The purpose still is money changing hands, profit, commerce. Until
the Big One levels the karma of this place that will never change.
It seems almost like fate is teeing up one practice play each time, just to show the US
how hollowed out it is, before the real play begins. First was the Iranian reprisal strike
which could have been so much more devastating. And now, although it's too early to tell how
severe this pest ultimately will be, it looks so far like it won't completely cleanse the
place. But if so that won't be for the lack of the US economic and cultural system giving it
every opportunity it can use.
I have no doubt the US learns zero from either test case. By now the US is too berserk and
stupid to deduce anything from its very survival than confirmation of the excellence of its
policy and encouragement to further escalate and accelerate.
The idea that Uncle Sam will do something useful and timely is simply laughable. I have been
mostly housebound due to severe illness for the past five years. Imagine a five year
quarantine! In all that time I have had zero social support besides receiving a disability
pension. I hire a personal shopper every two weeks to bring groceries; everything else comes
via UPS or FedEx. I frequently go two weeks at a time and never see anyone except maybe a
delivery driver.
There is no system to take care of housebound people. For me there is no medical personal
to make housecalls, no social support, no personal care workers, nothing. And this at a time
when nationwide there are only small numbers of people like myself. Multiply this non-system
by 100 or 1000 and people will die at home and no one will even notice.
Uncle Sam's Day of Reckoning may be fast approaching. And we will have well-earned every
bit of suffering headed our way.
Funny thing, b was right - China (and online deliveries as well really) managed to snuff the
spread out well, and it seems that the rest of the world and their 'representative
bureaucracies' will show all how limited they are when a fast acting 'unknown unknown'
(Rummy, how you made sense here!) does its thing.
I think everybody should listen the initial 47 minutes
Notable quotes:
"... Wanted to add that the malaise that is gripping the U.S. institutions is completely visible, it is not the opaque and obsequies portrait drawn by the punditry, news organizations, and elites. Seems most obvious to those of us outside the beltway that can clearly delineate between the failure of DC and the projections and marketing to the population that passes as wonky prose. Stupidity lacks the clarity, but brings the temerity making the facade not so subtle. ..."
"... Literally the only endorsement I've heard of Tulsi Gabbard - and a strikingly convincing one ..."
"... Isn't it just a question of the profits in the military business? ..."
In the United States and other democracies, political and economic systems still work in
theory, but not in practice. Meanwhile, the American-led takedown of the post-World War II
international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior. The combination
of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly disadvantageous to the
United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job, there is a need for
America's universities to provide the information and analysis of international best practices
that the political system does not.
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. is a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute
for International and Public Affairs, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense, ambassador
to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm), acting Assistant Secretary
of State for African Affairs, and Chargé d'affaires at both Bangkok and Beijing. He
began his diplomatic career in India but specialized in Chinese affairs. (He was the principal
American interpreter during President Nixon's visit to Beijing in 1972.)
Ambassador Freeman is a much sought-after public speaker (see
http://chasfreeman.net ) and the author of several well-received books on statecraft and
diplomacy. His most recent book, America's Continuing Misadventures in the Middle East was
published in May 2016. Interesting Times: China, America, and the Shifting Balance of Prestige,
appeared in March 2013. America's Misadventures in the Middle East came out in 2010, as did the
most recent revision of The Diplomat's Dictionary, the companion volume to Arts of Power:
Statecraft and Diplomacy. He was the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on
"diplomacy."
Chas Freeman studied at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and in
Taiwan, and earned an AB magna cum laude from Yale University as well as a JD from the Harvard
Law School. He chairs Projects International, Inc., a Washington-based firm that for more than
three decades has helped its American and foreign clients create ventures across borders,
facilitating their establishment of new businesses through the design, negotiation,
capitalization, and implementation of greenfield investments, mergers and acquisitions, joint
ventures, franchises, one-off transactions, sales and agencies in other countries.
Well worth the watch and hope more see it, especially the presentation in the initial 47
minutes. We Americans take our deficits and the $ as the reserve currency far too
lightly.
Wanted to add that the malaise that is gripping the U.S. institutions is completely
visible, it is not the opaque and obsequies portrait drawn by the punditry, news
organizations, and elites. Seems most obvious to those of us outside the beltway that can
clearly delineate between the failure of DC and the projections and marketing to the
population that passes as wonky prose. Stupidity lacks the clarity, but brings the temerity
making the facade not so subtle.
No, not mercenaries, this is a protection racket. The U.N. address in late 2018 by the
President (the laughter spoke volumes) was about as insightful as a "goodfellas" scene where
the shakedown of the little guy is highlighted. It was the speeches by other countries at the
meeting that was most informative.
A definitive pullback from U.S. hegemony was palpable, real, and un-moderated. Large and
small countries all expressed an unwillingness to be held under the thumb of the global
bully. This is the result of having an over abundance of a particle within D.C.; not the
electron, photon, or neutron...but the moron.
I think everybody should listen the initial 47 minutes
Notable quotes:
"... Wanted to add that the malaise that is gripping the U.S. institutions is completely visible, it is not the opaque and obsequies portrait drawn by the punditry, news organizations, and elites. Seems most obvious to those of us outside the beltway that can clearly delineate between the failure of DC and the projections and marketing to the population that passes as wonky prose. Stupidity lacks the clarity, but brings the temerity making the facade not so subtle. ..."
"... Literally the only endorsement I've heard of Tulsi Gabbard - and a strikingly convincing one ..."
"... Isn't it just a question of the profits in the military business? ..."
In the United States and other democracies, political and economic systems still work in
theory, but not in practice. Meanwhile, the American-led takedown of the post-World War II
international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior. The combination
of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly disadvantageous to the
United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job, there is a need for
America's universities to provide the information and analysis of international best practices
that the political system does not.
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. is a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute
for International and Public Affairs, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense, ambassador
to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm), acting Assistant Secretary
of State for African Affairs, and Chargé d'affaires at both Bangkok and Beijing. He
began his diplomatic career in India but specialized in Chinese affairs. (He was the principal
American interpreter during President Nixon's visit to Beijing in 1972.)
Ambassador Freeman is a much sought-after public speaker (see
http://chasfreeman.net ) and the author of several well-received books on statecraft and
diplomacy. His most recent book, America's Continuing Misadventures in the Middle East was
published in May 2016. Interesting Times: China, America, and the Shifting Balance of Prestige,
appeared in March 2013. America's Misadventures in the Middle East came out in 2010, as did the
most recent revision of The Diplomat's Dictionary, the companion volume to Arts of Power:
Statecraft and Diplomacy. He was the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on
"diplomacy."
Chas Freeman studied at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and in
Taiwan, and earned an AB magna cum laude from Yale University as well as a JD from the Harvard
Law School. He chairs Projects International, Inc., a Washington-based firm that for more than
three decades has helped its American and foreign clients create ventures across borders,
facilitating their establishment of new businesses through the design, negotiation,
capitalization, and implementation of greenfield investments, mergers and acquisitions, joint
ventures, franchises, one-off transactions, sales and agencies in other countries.
Well worth the watch and hope more see it, especially the presentation in the initial 47
minutes. We Americans take our deficits and the $ as the reserve currency far too
lightly.
Wanted to add that the malaise that is gripping the U.S. institutions is completely
visible, it is not the opaque and obsequies portrait drawn by the punditry, news
organizations, and elites. Seems most obvious to those of us outside the beltway that can
clearly delineate between the failure of DC and the projections and marketing to the
population that passes as wonky prose. Stupidity lacks the clarity, but brings the temerity
making the facade not so subtle.
No, not mercenaries, this is a protection racket. The U.N. address in late 2018 by the
President (the laughter spoke volumes) was about as insightful as a "goodfellas" scene where
the shakedown of the little guy is highlighted. It was the speeches by other countries at the
meeting that was most informative.
A definitive pullback from U.S. hegemony was palpable, real, and un-moderated. Large and
small countries all expressed an unwillingness to be held under the thumb of the global
bully. This is the result of having an over abundance of a particle within D.C.; not the
electron, photon, or neutron...but the moron.
"... I would suggest amending this to: Official D policy: "no candidate who intends to govern in the interest of the entirety of the citizenry should seek the nomination of this Party" ..."
I would suggest amending this to: Official D policy: "no candidate who intends to govern
in the interest of the entirety of the citizenry should seek the nomination of this
Party"
Servants to the Professional Managerial Class (PMC), Janitors, Secretaries, Food Services
Workers – Now is your chance for paid sick leave. Come to work with the Coronavirus,
cough on everyone. You can't afford to stay home. Paid Sick Leave Now.
I don't disagree, however, the bottom rungs of society, the working poor are going to do
this anyway, they CAN'T afford to stay home. How many pay checks can you miss at the bottom
– none. The PMC have told the rest of us to work or die, poor people understand this
and will work, even if they spread an infectious disease. The working poor are going to skip
getting tested if it interfers with getting paid, they will work until they collapse on your
desk.
This is going to happen, which is why it's not a call for revolution. It's just a
fact.
I did work at a company that switched from sick time to PTO, were sick time and vacation
counts the same.
Flu meant no summer on the beach. I went to work with flu. If the boss or coworkers got sick
it was of no economic consequence to me. The loss of my holiday on the other hand .
Perhaps this anecdote makes me a bad person, but I didn't change the rules, just played by
them.
Corona Virus is the same but worse since it can kill, however the symptoms are such that
if I were scraping along I would cross my fingers and not get tested. Ignorance is plausible
deniability, especially if I can't afford a test that tells me I can't work.
Well sure it makes you a bad person. Because when others get sick because of you coming
in, they MIGHT use their vacation time for sickness that you refused to. So you are just
FOBing it off on the next guy and making them lose their vacation instead of you. And some of
them may not even have paid time off (are they contract workers, what about the janitor
etc.?) But you've got yours.
I would give up summer on the beach in a New York nanosecond to be able to stay home sick.
Not even "for the good of society and infecting others", but for far more selfish reasons:
the pleasure of the vacation ISN'T WORTH the suffering it entails to work while feeling
aweful. When I have worked without any time off it made me long with all my being for time
off for things like sickness and doctors visits. My priorities got real real, real fast, and
it wasn't about vacation, but it was about seeing the doctor, what if I got sick, etc.. I
mean look if I lived in a country that believed in vacation then it would be one thing, but
we have to deal with actual reality here.
Agreed, I selfishly chose what was best for me. I did not optimize for the greater good.
Please note, the company made the same choice first.
I did make sure to tell my managers in advance of the consequences of the change to
PTO.
It's an interesting example of "economic man", I only followed my own interests, when I
had sick time, I took it and everyone was better off because of it.
I felt it was worth suffering at work to spend time off with family.
"... I would suggest amending this to: Official D policy: "no candidate who intends to govern in the interest of the entirety of the citizenry should seek the nomination of this Party" ..."
I would suggest amending this to: Official D policy: "no candidate who intends to govern
in the interest of the entirety of the citizenry should seek the nomination of this
Party"
"... I just went to his rally here in Winston-Salem. Incredible energy and it built as the rally went on; with students loving the local Black Panther party founder's comment "Trump and Bloomberg are two cheeks on the same ass" ..."
"... It only took the Establishment one single decapitation strike to defuse and diffuse and defeat the MLK anti-poverty movement. ..."
"... Superdelegates admit that if it comes to a contested convention, they would vote to award the nomination to somebody other than Sanders even if he got the most delegates ..."
"... The Democrats are basically playing the part of the aristocracy on the eve of the French Revolution at this point, and they might well even suffer the same fate if they are this determined to go down this path. ..."
"... Well, given that superdelegates exist to perform that function -- there could, otherwise, simply be a rule giving the nomination to the person who has the plurality -- it's not that surprising. One has to admire their brazenness in stating so plainly their willingness to sink the ship if they can't remain in first class. ..."
"... FTA:"Mr. Sanders expressed frustration that Mrs. Clinton had won superdelegates even in states where he won the primary. In Washington State, where he won almost 73 percent of the vote, Mrs. Clinton has 10 superdelegates while he has none. In Colorado, Mr. Sanders won 59 percent of the vote, but again Mrs. Clinton has 10 superdelegates from that state and he has none. Sanders aides handed out a list showing similar situations in states like New Hampshire, Kansas and Maine where he won more votes but has fewer superdelegates than his rival." ..."
"... Warren is such a brazen liar in that clip. I would never consider her as my second choice, nor would I consider anyone but Bernie. And should we manage to defeat the establishment at the convention, Warren should have no part in his administration. Snakes should always be kept at an arm's length. Besides, let her prove her alleged legislative prowess by fighting to pass Bernie's agenda there ;) ..."
"... My perception is that Warren's claims to be more effective than Sanders are premised on her belief (or, perhaps, hope) that Sanders would get nothing done because the political realities in DC would not change (Sanders wouldn't be able to mobilize effective public pressure on Congress) while Warren's approach would be gradual enough that the political elites would not feel so threatened that they would completely obstruct her. ..."
"... I understand the anger at Warren, but the right play is to make sure she realizes she is not going to be the annointed one, and make a deal for her delegates by any means necessary. Seriously, this is politics, and Bernie needs to play to win. IMHO he should be calling on her to drop out at this point, as frontrunners generally do, without anyone thinking it's odd. ..."
"... It's hardly a secret. Thomas Frank said in 2016 that the Democratic Party hates economic populism more than it hates Trump. And since then Bloomburg bought even more of them. ..."
"... He managed to annoy the hell out of me on a regular basis here in NYC. And I can think of a few areas where his decisions and actions hurt the city. ..."
"... As a NYC public school teacher and union rep during those dark years for public education under Bloomberg, let me assure you he is one vicious bastard, and that those working under him were either willfully clueless or themselves pretty monstrous. ..."
"... And the "efficient businessman" label is a canard: the incompetence at his Department of Education was a constant, except when it came to closing public schools and promoting charters. ..."
"... A brokered convention that nominated someone else would see a mass walkout of the Sanders people. None of the others would have come close to earning it and would get the nomination only through a thoroughly corrupt and rigged process. The superdelegates already are strategizing how to get anyone but Sanders. This will make Chicago 1968 look like a love fest. ..."
"... I'm from Massachusetts. Warren is as phony as they come. She needs to go back to Harvard where blowhards/filpfloppers belong. When cafeteria workers were striking at Harvard for a living wage and health care, even though warren said she "supported" workers she did not join them on the picket line. ..."
I just went to his rally here in Winston-Salem. Incredible energy and it built as the
rally went on; with students loving the local Black Panther party founder's comment "Trump
and Bloomberg are two cheeks on the same ass" as well as minimum wage and marijuana. As a
student at a relatively politically inactive college, it is great to be a part of other
schools and students fighting to give themselves a future we can confide in and he and Nina
Turner are great at providing incentive to vote. I hope he begins to tie Medicare for all to COVID for it is the only sensible way to combat it and would leave everyone in the dust on
the issue.
One hopes the SanderBackers organize themselves into the sort of deeply informed and
envisionated movement-community which can do things even with another Big Leader to fill the
Big Shoes.
It only took the Establishment one single decapitation strike to defuse and diffuse and
defeat the MLK anti-poverty movement.
Whereas if the current movement can become a self-cohering bunch of smart people . . . .
ten million pairs of little feet filling ten million pairs of little shoes, then a
decapitation strike will reveal the nature of the Establishment without weakening and
disorganizing the Movement.
So, what we suspected is true has come straight from the horse's mouth. Superdelegates
admit that if it comes to a contested convention, they would vote to award the nomination to
somebody other than Sanders even if he got the most delegates.
They would apparently do this
even if it possibly means the destruction of the Democratic Party. Whatever empty rhetoric
that the Democratic Party has put forth about resisting Trump is a red herring as it has been
confirmed that they would rather let him win than risk losing their corporate donors and
consulting jobs under a Sanders presidency.
Here it is, courtesy of the Rising today with Saagar Enjeti and Krystal Ball
Since they are willing to put the existence of their own party on the line in order to
stop Sanders, I wonder if Tom Perez and pals are also planning to change the rules
mid-election to stop Sanders by allowing superdelegates to vote again on the first ballot or
even use the "nuclear option" in the event that he gets a majority of delegate votes.
The Democrats are basically playing the part of the aristocracy on the eve of the French
Revolution at this point, and they might well even suffer the same fate if they are this
determined to go down this path.
I wonder if Tom Perez and pals are also planning to change the rules mid-election to
stop Sanders by allowing superdelegates to vote again on the first ballot
Yes, a trial balloon went up on this several weeks ago. Wouldn't put it past them for a
second. Maybe I'm getting too hopeful about Sanders (as I did with Obama) but he looks to be
an existential threat to the way of the life of the super-rich and their political servants
at the likes of the DNC.
They will retain enough big donors to keep the party shell and machinery alive as a
velcro-decoy hologram-of-a- party to be a roach motel decoy for millions of cult-members.
Is this news? I thought I saw something a couple of months ago to the effect that numerous
big-time Democrat donors said they would support Trump before Sanders. I assume the thing
that matters most to the superdelegates, based on their behavior, is their jobs and their
money.
Superdelegates admit that if it comes to a contested convention, they would vote to
award the nomination to somebody other than Sanders even if he got the most delegates.
Well, given that superdelegates exist to perform that function -- there could,
otherwise, simply be a rule giving the nomination to the person who has the plurality -- it's
not that surprising. One has to admire their brazenness in stating so plainly their
willingness to sink the ship if they can't remain in first class.
FTA:"From California to the Carolinas, and North Dakota to Ohio, the party leaders say
they worry that Mr. Sanders, a democratic socialist with passionate but limited support so
far, will lose to President Trump, and drag down moderate House and Senate candidates in
swing states with his left-wing agenda of "Medicare for all" and free four-year public
college.
Mr. Sanders and his advisers insist that the opposite is true -- that his ideas will
generate huge excitement among young and working-class voters, and lead to record turnout.
Such hopes have yet to be borne out in nominating contests so far."
I assume there's a poll or something down that rabbithole of links within links, but i
didn't bother.
at the very, very least as in "well, at least there's still gravity.." we'll have a demparty
naked and shit smeared in it's corruption and perfidy.
whether that makes a damned bit of difference, long term, is sadly frighteningly up for
grabs.
after all, I've been pretty much waiting for the Dem Base to notice that it's not the
Democratic Party any more since around 1993.
if this doesn't do it, what will?
FTA:"Mr. Sanders expressed frustration that Mrs. Clinton had won superdelegates even in
states where he won the primary. In Washington State, where he won almost 73 percent of the
vote, Mrs. Clinton has 10 superdelegates while he has none. In Colorado, Mr. Sanders won 59
percent of the vote, but again Mrs. Clinton has 10 superdelegates from that state and he has
none. Sanders aides handed out a list showing similar situations in states like New
Hampshire, Kansas and Maine where he won more votes but has fewer superdelegates than his
rival."
gish galloping all over the place, with the thin shroud of "umm yeah that makes sense
"
it's infuriating.
back when, when i first noticed the Right doing this sort of thing misremembering history,
even when there was video evidence, I'd sometimes feel compelled to undertake to link bomb
whomever was putting it on FB.
but it never worked.
it never worked in 2016, either, with the Hill Trolls.
"after all, I've been pretty much waiting for the Dem Base to notice that it's not the
Democratic Party any more since around 1993.
if this doesn't do it, what will?" Maybe they can change the name to the Fox Party
(watching the henhouse, eh?)
I will be interested in seeing how this conversation changes if House Democrats opposed to
Medicare for All start losing to challengers who support Medicare for All. If opponents to
Medicare for All start losing their primaries the conversation about a brokered convention
will shift. This ain't about Bernie, it is about Medicare for All, the Green New Deal and the
rest of the program.
Warren is such a brazen liar in that clip. I would never consider her as my second choice,
nor would I consider anyone but Bernie. And should we manage to defeat the establishment at
the convention, Warren should have no part in his administration. Snakes should always be
kept at an arm's length. Besides, let her prove her alleged legislative prowess by fighting
to pass Bernie's agenda there ;)
I'll take the opposite stand. Since she can "do things" that Bernie can't put her in
charge of the Treasury Department and tell her to get her Wealth Tax done, make sure to get
the stock market transaction fee enacted and clean up Wall Street. That would allow him to
focus on M4A
You assume she is serious about her own platform. I've become too jaded to believe even
that much, and that's the direct result of her own actions since New Year's. I wish I didn't
feel this way, but right now I would check my watch if she were to wish me "good
morning."
which, I think, would mean driving the neoliberal majorities out of (or subjugating them
in) both houses of Congress through a massive bully pulpit campaign and test votes in
Congress to smoke out the opponents. I suspect that we would see Sanders "in his element" in
such conflict.
But since the opponents are likely to be in the leadership of both houses of Congress, my
guess is that there will be a low-intensity conflict over procedure (the leaders will not
want the test votes to take place) that will start on the first day of the legislative
session and continue uninterrupted for as long as Sanders continues in office.
Why do you think Warren can "do things" that Sanders can't? Do you really think the oligarchs will play nice with Warren because Warren? Everything will be a massive fight. There is no middle.
My perception is that Warren's claims to be more effective than Sanders are premised on
her belief (or, perhaps, hope) that Sanders would get nothing done because the political
realities in DC would not change (Sanders wouldn't be able to mobilize effective public
pressure on Congress) while Warren's approach would be gradual enough that the political
elites would not feel so threatened that they would completely obstruct her.
The "progressive change" that she claims to regard herself to be the only hope of
achieving would in practice be partial and sluggish, and IMO quite possibly, "never".
Better to leave her in the Senate, IMO. With progressive pressure coming from below in
response to Sanders' bully pulpit campaign, she would get with the program and quite possibly
be highly helpful.
I understand the anger at Warren, but the right play is to make sure she realizes she is
not going to be the annointed one, and make a deal for her delegates by any means necessary.
Seriously, this is politics, and Bernie needs to play to win. IMHO he should be calling on
her to drop out at this point, as frontrunners generally do, without anyone thinking it's
odd.
At the convention, the superdelegates may think they can deny Bernie the nomination, but
let's be clear about how strong Bernie's hand will be even if he doesn't make it past 50% on
the first ballot. On each subsequent ballot, whoever is annointed must still get 50%.
From "270 to Win" (
https://www.270towin.com/content/superdelegate-rule-changes-for-the-2020-democratic-nomination
): "All delegates become unpledged, with an estimated 771 superdelegate votes coming into
play if the convention is contested (i.e., more than one ballot is needed to select a
nominee). For those subsequent ballots, a majority of all 4,750 delegates (2,375.5) will be
needed to secure the nomination."
So if Bernie gets, say, 40%, he first needs to hold them. He would have 1,900 and would
need another 476. The supers could only throw the election to an individual candidate if they
stay unanimous and if their chosen candidate has 1,605. That's around 33%. Those are big
"ifs." If Bernie's at 40 and Warren has 10% of pledged delegates, Bernie could cut a deal
with her to get them and win. She can't cut a deal to win, and the supers don't want her
anyway, for the reasons Krystal outlined, so that would be the best deal she could get.
By the way, Bernie could cut deals with anyone else in the same way, including the
"centrists": he would be in the driver's seat. He just needs to be a little bit Machiavellian
about it. Bottom line is that the plurality candidate has a better chance of navigating even
a wired up convention than "party leaders" who only control 771 delegates. IMHO.
"IMHO he should be calling on her to drop out at this point, as frontrunners generally do,
without anyone thinking it's odd. "
but they would think it odd scandalous, even.
"see, he's a misogynist!"
" and he hates democracy!!"
" he wants to be a dictator! just like Stalin!"
and millions of people like my mom who don't get their news from anywhere but msnbc and kos
will believe it.
+ infinity. What would be perfectly normal for an establishment candidate, is borderline
criminal if Sanders did it. I just had a lengthy argument on faceborg with a liberal friend
who has bought everything emanating from the DNC and their propaganda outlet hook, line and
sinker. He is hopeless, all he could do is talk "electability" (me: see the polls from swing
states), extremists proposals re M4A ("ah, of course people want to incur debt to be seen by
a doctor" and "yes, indeed we don't have money for healthcare. Say, stopping the endless wars
would pay for it and would have enough left for other things, won't we?"), and that perennial
hit, "Russia Russia Russia." I had the small satisfaction of telling him to surf the rising
tide rather than to seek false comfort in the learned helplessness instilled in him by MSDNC.
People like him are cowards, that's what has become crystal clear to me.
yes, but criminal or not, Bernie has to have a convention strategy. For my part, I don't
care if he has to offer Biden the Vice Presidency (again), as long as he locks up all the
delegates he needs. The MSM kvetching is just a distraction from what he needs to do here. He
has to make better offers than what the existing clown car can get from the DNC.
Strategically, the DNC completely blew it, by the way, by signaling to the NY Times that
nobody who will have actual delegates will be the annointed one. These guys are all playing
for president or VP, and the main prize just came off the table, in favor of who? Sherrod
Brown? Michelle Obama? So what deal can the DNC offer any of them, in exchange for delegates,
that Bernie cannot beat? Bernie only needs to get to 50%, and that means, in all likelihood,
offering a suitable position to only one of his rivals, who will know that the deal is not
contingent on anyone else playing ball. No complex "unite all five moderates plus Warren by
making five sets of promises, none of which involve the top slot" deal. (VP can only be
offered once, obviously). It doesn't take LBJ to figure out how to play Bernie's hand. The
DNC, in control of the stage or not, still has a harder hand to play.
I thought the same thing about Biden, once you get over your initial revulsion it has some
logic to it. MSM, Crooked camp, Mellifluous Melanoderm camp would struggle to complain about
it. Imagine if those forces plus Bloomberg/Steyer money got behind it.
I know Bernie wants a real movement but appointing Nina Turner et alia has so much risk to
it. Just keep Biden on the same meds he was on the other night and he'll do fine in a Pence
debate
I would bet my bottom dollar that the Sanders campaign has gamed this scenario out every
possible way (and probably has since day one) -- and it's very familiar with the DNC
from its dealings with it in 2016. Sanders is not a novice player here. That doesn't mean he
will actually get the nomination in the absence of having a majority of the delegates
-- it just means Sanders will be going into this situation, if it arises, with the best
possible hand he can play.
It's hardly a secret. Thomas Frank said in 2016 that the Democratic Party hates economic
populism more than it hates Trump. And since then Bloomburg bought even more of them.
"After a Solano County resident tested positive for COVID-19, federal officials told the
Fairfield-Suisun School Unified School District to prepare school sites for a potential
outbreak of the pneumonia-like coronavirus." San Francisco Chronicle
Right next to Travis Air Force Base to which the virus sufferers were brought.
Great job of containing it, no?
Now is the time to point out why Bernie Sander's health plan, had it been implemented
after he took office in 2017, would have helped prevent a pandemic. Hindsight is 2020
The heroin epidemic could be characterized in racial terms (very convenient!). Not this
baby. Anyone who sat in an airliner in the last couple of months is a candidate.
Media ignored as expected but i thought some folks here might find this interesting, Mrs
Sanders came to Alcatraz to see the native 50th occupation exhibit from native PoV. she was
very down to earth, very engaged in the dialogue. she and the Sanders people were good with
native security, can't imagine any of the other dem candidates doing that.
More solid analysis at CBS This Morning, from yesterday's post debate confab. This is
"Democrat Strategist" Joel Payne's final comments.
" outside of the debate, Bernie Sanders is making buys in Massachusetts, Minnesota he's
not in party unification mode . He's still very aggressive trying to attack, trying to take
out Elizabeth Warren. Trying to take out Amy Klobuchar. So he has not decided to bring the
Party together yet . He still deciding, I want to go after people and I want to be on the
attack.
I would suggest amending this to: Official D policy: "no candidate who intends to govern
in the interest of the entirety of the citizenry should seek the nomination of this
Party"
Party unification mode comes after achieving a winning position. I saw a few Warren and
Pete supporters (not many) opining that not campaigning in an opponent's home state is an
ancient and inviolable Democratic Party norm. Forgetting that literally everybody was
campaigning in California while Harris was still a candidate. In 08 this would have required
Obama to stay out of New York and Clinton out of Illinois.
Clearly nobody is, or can afford to be, in unification mode right now. Duh.
He posed for pictures with David Koch at Memorial Sloan Kettering? Note I agree with the OP assertion that Bloomerberg is effective and competent at what
he does . Too bad his commercials don't highlight that. /s
He ran NYC for 12 years, and fought real hard for good public health policies. Much of his
philanthropy, particularly with Johns Hopkins, has focused on the same subject. If he's
concerned about his legacy, one would think he would want to be remembered for that, as not
as a damn billionaire who has set himself to buying the presidency and the Democratic
Party
Bloomberg has an ideology. He's lying as much as he can, but he's a guy who wants to live
in a proper oligarchy where the rich make all the rules and have little to any control over
them but have major control over the little people reaching down to the size of soda. This is
the connection to guns. Like the Republicans who think they will fight off the government
with guns, Bloomberg is worried the little people will use guns to take from him. Remember
he's from Medford, Mass, its reasonable to assume he is aware the rabble in the colony of
Massachusetts controlled the royal governors through a combination of controlling the salary
and fear of being tarred and feathered.
Like all villains, he's the hero of his own story. I doubt he can make those promises as
it would be too much of a stretch.
Bloomberg opposes M4A. Our corrupt and collapsing health system is the biggest impediment
to an effective coronavirus response. Bloomberg is more worried about the health of Wall
Street than the health of millions of people.
If you look at all the dough he's blowing in his campaign on stupid s&#t, it gives the
lie to his supposed competence.
There's a reason why most of us in Buffalo/Niagara can't stand anything east of Syracuse.
Bubble dwellers indeed! It might as well be a completely different country. Much in the same
way that Chicago is the tail that wags the dog known as "Illinois".
I think Bloomberg wasn't as competent as mayor as everyone thinks. I remember reading in
the Daily News in 2015, I think, about how over budget and rife with fraud and waste NYC's
911 system update was during his administration. I think it was about a billion over budget
and many years behind schedule. No one ever brings it up. I think everything about him is
bull puckey.
This reminds me of the famous two-axis (intelligence, diligence) typology of military
officers (I think Lambert posted this some time in the last year or two)
One wants an intelligent but lazy commander in chief, who will delegate his
responsibilities to intelligent and diligent staff officers. The stupid and lazy elements of
the officer corps (which is the vast majority) can be assigned routine tasks, but the stupid
and diligent ones must at all costs be kept away from anything important.
Perhaps one could posit a similar two-axis typology for political leaders, with the two
axes being "public spiritedness" and "diligence"
It doesn't map perfectly to the hilarious military typology; Sanders is highly diligent
and I think would make a good chief executive; I do suspect that he would make a greater
effort in terms of ongoing political mobilization rather than absorption in policy minutia.
Perhaps the typology needs to be expanded into a 3rd axis.
To your point, neither DJT nor MB is public-spirited, but MB would be a much more diligent
chief executive than DJT has been, and might do much more long-term damage. He must at all
costs be kept away from every lever of power that is not already under his control.
--
I earnestly hope that Saturday, Sanders is able finish first or a not-deep second. I have
no confidence in the stability of the convention rules and I think that every possible
indication that Sanders is the preference of the voters is needed to frighten the Party
powers into acceding to the public's wishes.
Mini Mike "effective and competent"? I wonder. His clientele was on the receiving end of
$29 *trillion* (GAO figure) of bailout funds. Selling into that tsunami of money, especially
while exorting your salespeople to "give bl*wjobs to close the deal" does not necessarily
require a high level of competency IMO.
As a NYC public school teacher and union rep during those dark years for public education
under Bloomberg, let me assure you he is one vicious bastard, and that those working under
him were either willfully clueless or themselves pretty monstrous.
And the "efficient businessman" label is a canard: the incompetence at his Department of
Education was a constant, except when it came to closing public schools and promoting
charters.
-a disaffected electorate; people need to care about voting by early October to deal with GOP
shenanigans and just other problems such as moving. Without enthusiasm or volunteers, this
sneaks up on people
-Trump is already President. Republican voters, who may have viewed HRC favorably due to
certainty of Trump keeping the MIC funding going, are probably not going to be reliable Team
Blue votes going forward.
-nostalgia and token voting. HRC and Obama ate up a great deal of this, and Warren and
Klobuchar despite their efforts don't have the same reach as Hillary. Pete's sexuality isn't
remotely the same as being black in America. Not enough people care to make it a chance to
tell the grandkids you voted for this person.
Ultimately, the goal is to get to get 270. Warren pre-December or so maybe could have put
together a coalition to win, but none of the others can credibly put together a coalition.
Biden and Pete are segregationists, hawks, and largely disasters on most domestic policies.
Klobuchar with her "no we can't" routine isn't going to reach the disaffected, and Bloomberg
is running in the wrong primary. How are any of these characters going to win Ohio? PA?
Michigan? And so forth.
Which isn't to say Sanders will win (he probably would), but he's the only one offering up
a path to victory which is still winning the electoral college.
Thoughtful, but I don't think the the community @NC is typical of the 50% + 1 vote of
citizens going to vote in this election. In Michigan we want our issues dealt with, actual
action. Trump's never going to do anything except make things worse. Many may not like this,
but Sanders, Biden or Bloomberg will all win over trump. It's not even going to be close. In
2016 trump's support didn't show up in the polls because who'd want to admit to it. The same
is going on in reverse. And the same thing is going on with Sanders. No one wants to say
"stuff' out loud.
This isn't about NCers. This is about actual voters. Republicans are loyal. They will come
home, and Democrats have done nothing to earn loyalty or be rewarded. HRC ran up the score in
safe states, but in competitive states, she did worse than Kerry in a bunch, not Obama,
Kerry.
Things like wealth inequality are real problems. Unless it hits the GOP turnout, there are
no swing voters out there. There is no equilibrium between elections. Bloomberg is a
Republican and a monster. At the end of the day, the disaffected aren't coming over, and
neither are the moderate, suburban Republicans because they don't need to jump ship to
guarantee success. They are already incumbents.
The idea Trump will make things worse is going to fix electoral fortunes is naïve.
This was the prediction made about McConnell all these years and the "party of no."
A brokered convention that nominated someone else would see a mass walkout of the Sanders
people. None of the others would have come close to earning it and would get the nomination
only through a thoroughly corrupt and rigged process. The superdelegates already are
strategizing how to get anyone but Sanders. This will make Chicago 1968 look like a love
fest.
This will tear the party apart. I think the Democrats could go the way of the Whigs,
although legal and institutional inertia could keep the shell going for a while. These
Hillary-Obama Dems are so horrified at the prospect of Bernie, they would slit their own
throats if they have to.
Any of these other Democrats carry such liabilities, Trump will have a field day. A bunch
of people won't turn out for Pete. He doesn't give anyone a reason to vote for him, except
for those taken in by his rhetoric, which doesn't soar to Obama's heights, but rather glides
at about 5,000 feet. Warren says things that aren't true, but isn't an epic liar like Trump,
who has perfected the big lie. Warren tells fibs that are easily attacked. Biden can't
remember what office he's running for. Amy has the same problem as Pete. Can anyone name a
single proposal of hers? And she's bizarrely mean and abusive, as well as reflexively
reactionary, which ties back into the question of why she's running except for personal
ambition.
Any of these candidates would emerge from a brokered convention almost fatally wounded and
would have few resources on which to draw to recover. Only Bernie leads a movement. And
people instinctively trust him.
I'll make a wish for your birthday: I hope and pray that Sanders can get out the Latino
vote in Texas enough to flip the state Blue. You can sit back the next morning with the
beverage of your choice and watch the heads explode.
That's an amazing flower, sort like a Mandlebrot set of living matter.
Visited some elderly friends earlier today to help recover an AOL password that stopped
working. Very strange; the password had previously worked (after a long period of disuse and
a recent change because the prior pwd was no longer working). Has anyone seen this before?
The recent login history has been inconsistent; does AOL mail get spooked if a password is
changed after a long period of not logging in?
I made some lowish-key suggestions for preparations as if they were expecting a major
storm. The gentleman told me that the local home improvement store is completely sold out of
respirators. I suppose that the unusually mild weather might have led to more construction
activity than the head office was stocking the shelves for, but my intuition is that that is
not the explanation.
The Sanders campaign needs to come out with a missive that states in no uncertain terms
that they've been consistent in their desire that the popular vote winner should be selected.
The media is having a field day with this and the Sanders campaign hasn't effectively
explained why they took the position they did in 2016 and why they're taking the one they are
now.
As was pointed out on Rising with Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti this morning, the Sanders
campaign would ultimately like to do away with Superdelegates entirely.
The campaign needs to clearly explain this so it doesn't look like they are two-faced.
It's about the popular vote and it always has been.
A bunch of new polls came out in some key states, swinging the projection against Bernie.
South Carolina is now projected to go to Biden with a wide margin, there was a swing in Texas
as well, which is now projected to narrowly go to Biden.
That's the problem with models, they don't differentiate the quality of input. We'll see
how realistic the new projection is on Saturday. Anything but a Biden landslide would swing
the projection back to Bernie.
And of course having Biden at the top of that poll this close to the vote is a huge
advantage because people like to vote for the winner.
But these last minute polls have raised my level of anxiety to new heights. Something is
rotten in Denmark.
Assuming there has been a shift and it's not just a polling error, I have to think about
two things:
1) the debate was horrible all the way around; and
2) Bernie made a huge blunder when he announced how he would pay for his plans (just like EW
did four weeks ago or so), and people are afraid of taxes.
Say what you will about the RNC, at least they weren't corrupt.
There isn't any actual evidence of a huge swing against Bernie. That simply isn't true. He
is doing well in many super Tuesday polls. Two outliers came out in South Carolina that are
highly problematic in regards to their methodology. They are done to make you anxious and to
try to build momentum for Biden. The Monmouth poll massively oversampled older voters, as did
the Clemson poll (look it up), the Monmouth poll has a margin of error of 9%, and they have
inflated Biden's support by 10% in Iowa and NH. And how did him coming up with a "way to pay
for his plans" (I know the MMT implications of that phrase) hurt him? Everyone knew taxes
would go up, he said as much. He has said that out of pocket expenditures would more than
offset that. Warren went down for a number of reasons, the biggest of which was that her
single payer plan wasn't serious and she was clearly backing away from it.
I have to say, it is really frustrating when I go to a site that poster after poster looks
at methodology in polling and can critically analyze problems, but then forget to look into
the methodology of these polls. Some of these polls are trying to capture the objective
reality, some have other motives.
Why would creating anxiety change my vote? If anything, it only strengthens my resolve to
shove Sanders across the finish line, over the DNC's dead body if need be.
Anxious may not be the best word. Bernie has momentum, he does have the best path forward,
and they want someone else to get momentum. And I find the actual evidence of a huge swing to
be a bit suspicious. There are two joke outlier polls and a tight race in Texas. I personally
think Bernie has a good shot to do really well in Texas and there is a huge enthusiasm gap
with Biden. And people in Texas started voting days ago and turnout was really high. Outside
of Florida, Bernie is doing well, and these are largely right wing states. If people are
actually supporting Bernie, maybe remain logical and don't feed into propaganda. Biden may
win SC, but it isn't impossible for Bernie, and if Bernie wins, he is in even better
shape.
"South Carolina is now projected to go to Biden with a wide margin"
Not based on what I have seen. Two outliers came out, both massively oversampling older
voters with huge margin of errors. Monmouth has had Biden doing far better in Iowa and NH
than he actually did, I think the margin was 10%. Colorado and Virginia came out with Bernie
far ahead. California looks good and Bernie is right there in Texas, with a large Latino
population. Bernie is right there in NC and Georgia too. There are some states where Bernie
might not do great (Florida), but he looks to pick up delegates in most every state. Not sure
that is the case with anyone else. And he is doing well in Midwest states too. Biden has
underwhelmed to this point and there is an enthusiasm gap. We'll see I guess.
But, I don't trust the judgement of Democrats one bit.
Which should cause a logical person to question that. Two days ago there was a bunch of
articles on Bernie closing the gap in SC, all polls showing a close race. Everyone
acknowledges that if he wins in SC it is close to over. Then, two joke polls come out within
hours showing a 20 point gap, huge outliers, and the media then ignores the other polls and
goes with a poll from Monmouth that massively oversamples older voters, has a 9% margin of
error and from a source that gave Biden 10% more in Iowa and NH than he actually got. The
Clemson poll was an outright joke. Bernie is well situated in every super Tuesday state,
other than Florida, and early voting started in TX and California days ago. We know how
propaganda works, right? I think Biden may win in SC, I would be shocked if it wasn't
decently close. Find me a poll with good methodology that has Biden running away with it.
Let's also not pretend that Silver himself is objective. He is the Neera Tanden of people
that analyze data.
>South Carolina is now projected to go to Biden with a wide margin, there was a swing
in Texas as well, which is now projected to narrowly go to Biden.
What has changed to make either of these factoids become true?
Biden doesn't know where he is, or what office he's running™ for, for dog's
sake.
Norhing. Most polls show a tight race in SC. Two ridiculous polls came out and the media,
and Bill, are focusing on them. In the case of the media, for obvious reasons. Don't know
what Bill's motivation is.
Not to argue, but good system models do in fact assign a series of class attributes to
inputs. 'Quality', in this context is kinda meaningless. Any good sociologist or physicist,
or medical evidence based analysis, knows how to analyze and assign 'value' to inputs. I
think all these poli-science polling models are next to worthless. Clearly there is at any
given time an actual reality of what citizen voters both believe and may act on. All polling
should reach the same conclusions if any kind of science was being employed. There are
several ways to analyze the earth's shape but them come to the same conclusion- round (pear
shaped actually). Zeitgeist is nice but it isn't science.
"..Stealing the nomination from Bernie for anyone will risk that radical rupture the party
must try to avoid; stealing it for Bloomberg would guarantee that rupture. Bernie Sanders
himself might withhold even pro forma support from Michael Bloomberg, and he certainly would
not campaign for him as he did for Hillary. Bernie's supporters would just leave the party,
for good.
A large chunk of his voters will stay home, as Trump plays Mini-Mike's racist, sexist,
austerity tapes on a loop and wins by a landslide. The Democratic Party will be reduced to
Pelosi, Schiff, and Schumer fishing around for Russiagate 4.0.
There must be a third candidate to whom the party can give the nomination, and it must be
someone whom Bernie Sanders himself and a large chunk of his supporters might be persuaded to
stay in the party and support.
There is only one such candidate: Elizabeth Warren.."
I'm from Massachusetts. Warren is as phony as they come. She needs to go back to Harvard
where blowhards/filpfloppers belong. When cafeteria workers were striking at Harvard for a
living wage and health care, even though warren said she "supported" workers she did not join
them on the picket line.
Naive me I was shocked and remember that vividly. Opened my eyes to
how bought off the democrat party has become. I also work with a candidate against her on the
campaign trail in the primary for Senate. I never did get to shake Warren's hand on the
campaign trail. Too many young guards around her prevented me from getting close enough to
shake her hand. Bernie is so much more genuine in caring about people (especially the 99%)
than Warren. I hope Bernie wins in Massachusetts on Tuesday.
I don't read Kos anymore, but I can guess that the argument is basically that
"for a candidate's claimed commitment to "real" change to be credible, that candidate's
plan has to be achievable within the constraints imposed by present political realities, and
assuming no significant change in the ideological composition of the Party delegations to the
legislature or the partisan breakdown within the legislature, and assuming no consequential
changes in the political engagement of the public"
This seems to basically be Biden's theory, too, of why he is the only "real
Progressive" running, because he's the only guy willing to compromise enough with the R
Senate to "get things done".
The idea that the ideological composition of the legislature (dominated by neoliberalism
at the moment) is not an unchangeable fact of nature eludes many people, and such people
probably find Sanders to be beyond their comprehension.
-- -
I confess that when I hear EW earnestly proclaim that "Progressives have just one
chance to implement change" (with the implication that her candidacy is that one hope for
progressive change), what I intuit she really means is "this is my one chance at
becoming President".
I'm not with her.
Here's the deal: let JB and EW argue over who is the real progressive or the only hope for
change. Meanwhile, Sanders will go on mobilizing voters and volunteer campaign workers.
I found this to be a pretty convincing article that refutes the myth that centrist
candidates are the most electable. Once you stop thinking about political alignment in
one-dimensional terms and replace it instead with a two-dimensional framework (political
compass), it's very intuitive to see why Bernie will defeat Trump. Thoughts? https://thefutureiskeynesian.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-myth-of-centrist-electability.html
If it is Trump vs Bloomberg I will vote for Trump.
Trump vs Biden I will vote for Trump.
Trump vs Klobuchar I will vote for Trump.
Trump vs Warren I'll hold my nose and vote for Warren.
Trump vs Sanders I will vote for Sanders.
Trump vs. Mayor Pete will never happen. If a crazy thing happens I will vote for Trump.
Trump vs Steyer I will hold my nose and vote for Steyer.
I will vote for Sanders (and hope the vote gets accurately counted), or I won't mcVote.
Team Dem are fine with a vote for Trump!; and indeed, may prefer it.
Either give me actual progressive change, or I'm content with the more inept evil
continuing in power. I won't actively vote for Trump, but I'll happily not vote for a
Republican-lite against him.
Dems are not entitled to me vote. I do, in fact, 'have somewhere else to go'. Maybe they
need to lose to the clown a second time for that point to be pounded into their skulls.
If one is going to vote DJT as a protest, at least vote "D" down-ballot (unless there is a
clearly superior "R" on offer) so that the Party gets a sense of how many votes it lost to
ticket-splitters.
One can also simply not vote the top of the ticket to send the same message.
I hope to not have to make such decisions, but it is worth thinking about it ahead of
time.
And maybe DNC lurkers are reading these threads. I hope they are dismayed by what they see
here.
Party doesn't care about losing votes, explaining no 50 state strategy or fighting rep
vote suppression.
Job 1 is to simply keep the progressive from power. Trump is good for donors, so what's not
to like?
Granted, they have to pretend they want to win, and individual candidates very much want to
win, but winning is not at all important to the dem elites.
Buffett of course said he'd pick Bloomberg over sanders. But the more interesting answer is
whether he would vote for sanders over trump not that I'd trust his answer. Sometimes it's
just more prudent to lie.
I think that caucuses are harder to rig because there is no "ballot secrecy". You can see
how many people align with each candidate in each vote. And each campaign is doing it's own
counting and verifying that the published totals match what it counted.
I hope that Sanders has good tech consultants looking at the specific models of voting
machines in the upcoming secret-ballot primaries, and good mathematicians evaluating the
output numbers for traces of non-random features that could suggest tampering.
Dick Van Dyke
Ariana Grande
Public Enemy
the lion's share of Latinos, nurses, people under 35, people under 30k/yr
this poor rural California white person who should demographically be a Trump voter
Bernie is supported by this 64 yr old white male retired opera singer living not
uncomfortably (at least for now knock on wood) who shouldn't care about m4all because, well,
I'll get mine soon enough, but who cares a lot anyway, and understands that only Sanders is
prepared to redirect $$ to expanded social services for the people from the way $$ is
currently directed for anything military and corporate and wasteful (everything else is just
noise) and who gets the urgency of climate change without offering profit oriented solutions,
as I observe the splendid wreck that was once my future and gleefully imagine Bernie saying,
in that untranscribable accent:
"Ya know what Mr. Trump? You're a liar and a criminal. The voters are gonna make sure you
get a one way ticket outta the White House. And by the way after you're gone?.. we're gonna
come after you with handcuffs."
Of course one shouldn't presume what Bernie might say except that it'll be better and
classier than the above and it will be direct!
"... The Russiagate investigation, which had formerly focused against the current US President, has reversed direction and now targets the prior President. ..."
"... In order to appreciate the seriousness of that misconduct and its implications, it is useful to understand certain procedural and substantive requirements that apply to the government's conduct of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA ), codified as amended at 50 USC. 1801-1813, governs such electronic surveillance. It requires the government to apply for and receive an order from the FISC approving a proposed electronic surveillance. When deciding whether to grant such an application, a FISC judge must determine among other things, whether it provides probable cause to believe that the proposed surveillance target is a "foreign power" or an agent a foreign power. ..."
"... The government has a heightened duty of candor to the FISC in ex parte proceedings, that is, ones in which the government does not face an adverse party, such as proceedings on electronic surveillance applications. The FISC expects the government to comply with its heightened duty of candor in ex parte proceedings at all times. Candor is fundamental to this Court's effective operation. ..."
"... On December 9, 2019, the government filed, with the FISC, public and classified versions of the OIG Report. It documents troubling instances in which FBI personnel provided information to NSD ..."
"... which was unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession. It also describes several instances in which FBI personnel withheld from NSD information in their possession which was detrimental to their case for believing that Mr. ..."
"... Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power. ..."
"... MACCALLUM: Were you surprised that he ..."
"... seemed to give himself such a distance from the entire operation? ..."
"... "JAMES COMEY: As the director sitting on top of an organization of 38,000 people you can't run an investigation that's seven layers below you. You have to leave it to the career professionals to do." ..."
"... MACCALLUM: Do you believe that? ..."
"... BARR: No, I think that the -- one of the problems with what happened was precisely that they pulled the investigation up to the executive floors, and it was run and bird dogged by a very small group of very high level officials. And the idea that this was seven layers below him is simply not true. ..."
"... Allegedly, George Papadopoulos said that "Halper insinuated to him that Russia was helping the Trump campaign" , and Papadopoulos was shocked at Halper's saying this. Probably because so much money at the Pentagon is untraceable, some of the crucial documentation on this investigation might never be found. For example, the Defense Department's Inspector General's 2 July 2019 report to the US Senate said "ONA personnel could not provide us any evidence that Professor Halper visited any of these locations, established an advisory group, or met with any of the specific people listed in the statement of work." ..."
"... very profitable business ..."
"... Schultz and other members of the DNC staff had exercised bias against Bernie Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Democratic primaries -- which favoritism had been the reason why Obama had appointed Shultz to that post to begin with. She was just doing her job for the person who had chosen her to lead the DNC. Likewise for Comey. In other words: Comey was Obama's pick to protect Clinton, and to oppose Trump (who had attacked both Clinton and Obama). ..."
"... Nowadays, Obama is telling the Party's billionaires that Elizabeth Warren would be good for them , but not that Sanders would -- he never liked Sanders. ..."
"... and, so, Trump now will be gunning against Obama ..."
"... Whatever the outcome will be, it will be historic, and unprecedented. (If Sanders becomes the nominee, it will be even more so; and, if he then wins on November 3rd, it will be a second American Revolution; but, this time, a peaceful one -- if that's even possible, in today's hyper-partisan, deeply split, USA.) ..."
"... There is no way that the outcome from this will be status-quo. Either it will be greatly increased further schism in the United States, or it will be a fundamental political realignment, more comparable to 1860 than to anything since. ..."
"... Reform is no longer an available option, given America's realities. A far bigger leap than that will be required in order for this country to avoid falling into an utter abyss, which could be led by either Party, because both Parties have brought the nation to its present precipice, the dark and lightless chasm that it now faces, and which must now become leapt, in order to avoid a free-fall into oblivion. ..."
"... The problem in America isn't either Obama or Trump; it's neither merely the Democratic Party, nor merely the Republican Party; it is instead both; it is the Deep State . ..."
Former US President
Barack Obama is now in severe legal jeopardy, because the Russiagate investigation has turned
180 degrees; and he, instead of the current President, Donald Trump, is in its cross-hairs.
The biggest crime that a US President can commit is to try to defeat American democracy (the
Constitutional functioning of the US Government) itself, either by working with foreign powers
to take it over, or else by working internally within America to sabotage democracy for his or
her own personal reasons. Either way, it's treason (crime that is intended to, and does,
endanger the continued functioning of the Constitution itself*), and Mr. Obama is now being
actively investigated, as possibly having done this.
The Russiagate investigation, which had
formerly focused against the current US President, has reversed direction and now targets the
prior President. Although he, of course, cannot be removed from office (since he is no longer
in office), he is liable under criminal laws, the same as any other American would be, if he
committed any crime while he was in office.
A
December 17th order by the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Court severely
condemned the performance by the FBI under Obama, for having obtained, on 19 October 2016 (even prior to the US Presidential
election), from that Court, under false pretenses, an authorization for the FBI to commence
investigating Donald Trump's Presidential campaign, as being possibly in collusion with
Russia's Government. The Court's ruling said:
In order to appreciate the seriousness of that misconduct and its implications, it is
useful to understand certain procedural and substantive requirements that apply to the
government's conduct of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. Title I of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA ), codified as amended at 50 USC. 1801-1813,
governs such electronic surveillance. It requires the government to apply for and receive an
order from the FISC approving a proposed electronic surveillance. When deciding whether to
grant such an application, a FISC judge must determine among other things, whether it
provides probable cause to believe that the proposed surveillance target is a "foreign power"
or an agent a foreign power.
The government has a heightened duty of candor to the FISC in ex parte proceedings, that
is, ones in which the government does not face an adverse party, such as proceedings on
electronic surveillance applications. The FISC expects the government to comply with its
heightened duty of candor in ex parte proceedings at all times. Candor is fundamental to this
Court's effective operation.
On December 9, 2019, the government filed, with the FISC, public and classified versions
of the OIG Report. It documents troubling instances in which FBI personnel provided information
to NSD [National Security Division of the Department of Justice] which was unsupported
or contradicted by information in their possession. It also describes several instances in
which FBI personnel withheld from NSD information in their possession which was detrimental to
their case for believing that Mr. [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign
power.
On December 18th, Martha McCallum, of Fox News,
interviewed US Attorney General Bill Barr , and asked him (at 7:00 in the video
) how high up in the FBI the blame for this (possible treason) goes:
MACCALLUM: Were you surprised that he [Obama's FBI Director James Comey]
seemed to give himself such a distance from the entire operation?
"JAMES COMEY: As the director sitting on top of an organization of 38,000 people you
can't run an investigation that's seven layers below you. You have to leave it to the career
professionals to do."
MACCALLUM: Do you believe that?
BARR: No, I think that the -- one of the problems with what happened was precisely
that they pulled the investigation up to the executive floors, and it was run and bird dogged
by a very small group of very high level officials. And the idea that this was seven layers
below him is simply not true.
The current (Trump) A.G. there called the former (Obama) FBI Director a liar on that.
If Comey gets heat for this possibly lie-based FBI investigation of the US Presidential
nominee from the opposite Party of the sitting US President (Comey's own boss, Obama), then
protecting himself could become Comey's top motivation; and, in that condition, protecting his
former boss might become only a secondary concern for him.
Though Halper actually did no such studies for the Pentagon,
he instead functioned as a paid FBI informant (and it's not yet clear whether that money came
from the Pentagon, which spends
trillions of dollars that are off-the-books and untraceable ), and at some point Trump's
campaign became a target of Halper's investigation. This investigation was nominally to examine
"The Russia-China Relationship: The impact on US Security interests."
It seems that the Pentagon-contracted work was a cover-story, like
pizza parlors have been for some Mafia operations. But, anyway, this is how America's
'democracy' actually functions .
And, of course, America's
Deep State works not only through governmental agencies but also through
underworld organizations . That's just reality, not at all speculative. It's been this way
for decades, at least since the time of Truman's Presidency (as is documented at that
link).
Furthermore, inasmuch as this operation certainly involved Obama's CIA Director John Brennan
and others, and not only top officials at the FBI, there is no chance that Comey would have
been the only high official who was involved in it. And if Comey was
involved, then he would have been acting in his own interest, and not only in his boss's -- and
here's why: Comey would be expected to have been highly motivated to oppose Mr. Trump,
because Trump publicly questioned whether NATO (the main international selling-arm for
America's 'defense'-contractors) should continue to exist, and also because Comey's entire
career had been in the service of America's Military-Industrial Complex, which is the reason
why Comey's main
lifetime income has been the tens of millions of dollars he has received via the revolving door
between his serving the federal Government and his serving firms such as Lockheed Martin .
For these people, restoring, and intensifying, and keeping up, the Cold War , is a very profitable business . It's called
by some "the Military-Industrial Complex," and by others "the Deep State," but by any name it
is simply agents of the billionaires who own and control US-based international corporations,
such as General Dynamics and Chevron. As a governmental official, making decisions that are in
the long-term interests of those investors is the likeliest way to become wealthy.
Consequently, Comey would have been benefitting himself, and other high officials of the
Obama Administration, by sabotaging Trump's campaign, and by weakening Trump's Presidency in
the event that he would become elected. Plus, of course, Comey would have been benefitting
Obama himself. Not only was Trump constantly condemning Obama, but Obama had appointed to lead
the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 Presidential primaries, Debbie Wasserman Schultz ,
who as early as
20 February 2007 had endorsed Hillary Clinton for President in the Democratic Party
primaries, so that Shultz was one of the earliest supporters of Clinton against even Obama
himself. In other words, Obama had appointed Shultz in order to
increase the odds that Clinton -- not Sanders -- would become the nominee in 2016 to
continue on and protect his own Presidential legacy. Furthermore, on 28 July 2016, Schultz
became forced to resign from her leadership of the DNC after WikiLeaks released emails
indicating that Schultz and other members of the DNC staff had exercised bias against Bernie
Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Democratic primaries -- which
favoritism had been the reason why Obama had appointed Shultz to that post to begin with. She
was just doing her job for the person who had chosen her to lead the DNC. Likewise for Comey.
In other words: Comey was Obama's pick to protect Clinton, and to oppose
Trump (who had attacked both Clinton and Obama).
Nowadays, Obama is telling the Party's billionaires that Elizabeth Warren would be good for
them , but not that Sanders would -- he never liked Sanders. He wants Warren to get the
voters who otherwise would go for Sanders, and he wants the Party's billionaires to help her
achieve this (be the Party's allegedly 'progressive' option), so that Sanders won't be able to
become a ballot option in the general election to be held on 3 November 2020.
He is telling
them whom not to help win the Party's nomination. In fact, on November 26th,
Huffington Post headlined
"Obama Said He Would Speak Up To Stop Bernie Sanders Nomination: Report" and indicated that
though he won't actually say this in public (but only to the Party's billionaires), Obama is
determined to do all he can to prevent Sanders from becoming the nominee. In 2016, his
choice was Hillary Clinton; but, today, it's anyone other than Sanders; and, so, in a sense, it
remains what it was four years ago -- anyone but Sanders.
Comey's virtually exclusive concern, at the present stage, would be to protect himself, so
that he won't be imprisoned. This means that he might testify against Obama. At this stage,
he's free of any personal obligation to Obama -- Comey is now on his own, up against Trump, who
clearly is his enemy. Some type of back-room plea-bargain is therefore virtually inevitable --
and not only with Comey, but with other top Obama-appointees, ultimately. Obama is thus clearly
in the cross-hairs, from now on. Congressional Democrats have opted to gun against Trump (by
impeaching him); and, so, Trump now will be gunning against Obama -- and against the
entire Democratic Party (unless Sanders becomes its nominee, in which case, Sanders will
already have defeated that Democratic Party, and its adherents will then have to choose between
him versus Trump; and, so, too, will independent voters).
But, regardless of what happens, Obama now is in the cross-hairs. That's not just political
cross-hairs (such as an impeachment process); it is, above all, legal cross-hairs (an
actual criminal investigation). Whereas Trump is up against a doomed effort by the Democratic
Party to replace him by Vice President Mike Pence, Obama will be up against virtually
inevitable criminal charges, by the incumbent Trump Administration. Obama played hardball
against Trump, with "Russiagate," and then with "Ukrainegate"; Trump will now play hardball
against Obama, with whatever his Administration and the Republican Party manage to muster
against Obama; and the stakes this time will be considerably bigger than just whether to
replace Trump by Pence.
Whatever the outcome will be, it will be historic, and unprecedented. (If Sanders becomes
the nominee, it will be even more so; and, if he then wins on November 3rd, it will be a second
American Revolution; but, this time, a peaceful one -- if that's even possible, in today's
hyper-partisan, deeply split, USA.)
There is no way that the outcome from this will be status-quo. Either it will be greatly
increased further schism in the United States, or it will be a fundamental political
realignment, more comparable to 1860 than to anything since.
The US already has a
higher percentage of its people in prison than does any other nation on this planet.
Americans who choose a 'status-quo' option will produce less stability, more violence, not more
stability and a more peaceful nation in a less war-ravaged world. The 2020 election-outcome for
the United States will be a turning-point; there is no way that it will produce reform.
Americans who vote for reform will be only increasing the likelihood of hell-on-Earth. Reform
is no longer an available option, given America's realities. A far bigger leap than that will
be required in order for this country to avoid falling into an utter abyss, which could be led
by either Party, because both Parties have brought the nation to its present precipice, the
dark and lightless chasm that it now faces, and which must now become leapt, in order to avoid
a free-fall into oblivion.
The problem in America isn't either Obama or Trump; it's neither merely the Democratic
Party, nor merely the Republican Party; it is instead both; it is the
Deep State .
That's the reality; and the process that got us here started on 26 July 1945 and secretly continued on the American side even after
the Soviet Union ended and Russia promptly ended its side of the Cold War. The US regime's
ceaseless thrust, since 26 July 1945, to rule the entire world, will climax either in a Third
World War, or in a US revolution to overthrow and remove the Deep State and end its
dictatorship-grip over America. Both Parties have been controlled by that
Deep State , and the final stage or climax of this grip is now drawing near. America thus
has been having a string of the worst
Presidents -- and worst Congresses -- in US history. This is today's reality.
Unfortunately, a lot of American voters think that this extremely destabilizing reality, this
longstanding trend toward war, is okay, and ought to be continued, not ended now and replaced
by a new direction for this country -- the path toward world peace, which FDR had accurately
envisioned but which was aborted on 26 July 1945. No matter how many Americans might vote for
mere reform, they are wrong. Sometimes, only a minority are right. Being correct is not a
majority or minority matter; it is a true or false matter. A misinformed public can willingly
participate in its own -- or even the world's -- destruction. That could happen.
Democracy is a
prerequisite to peace, but it can't exist if the public are being systematically misinformed.
Lies and democracy don't mix together any more effectively than do oil and water.
You are right about it being a class war. It is this class war that the neoliberal
establishment does not want us to see, hence creating other divisions such as racial,
gender/trans, religious, etc. so we fight one another instead of uniting and fighting
them.
When the many shades of surveillance are added in to your establishment existential
threat, the Matrix feels really close at hand.
My guess is that your understanding stems from years of paying attention. Do you have any
recommendations for sites that have helped?
I take it that your support of Bernie, with his imperfections, is due to you seeing him as
a possible shift in the neoliberal order. My concern is that his imperfections are also
baggage that is keeping people from supporting him - the woke agenda, panicky human-caused
climate change agenda, supporting most of the MIC agenda. The first two are areas in which
debate has been/is being shut down, which is a real red flag.
Thank you for any reply, or none. I always appreciate the big picture.
I'm a historian by training focusing on the Outlaw US Empire and everything related, which
is a very wide field of inquiry. Yes, I started out paying attention as an adolescent during
the 1960s with 1968 being a very important year for me. I'd read the Warren Commission Report
a year earlier and thus began my real education. I passed out flyers for RFK in 1968 prior to
the California Primary and watched again as the cities burned earlier that Spring. I pursued
a career and tried to find love, but after 20 years I returned to college. Aside from college
libraries, various alt-websites have served well over the years--Z-net, CommonDreams, The Oil
Drum, MoA--along with a mixture of news sites that are nowadays all based in Russia or China.
The one person I've learned more from online is Dr. Michael Hudson, whose Super
Imperialism I bought and read after it was published during my senior high school year.
And Noam Chomsky, not so much from his prose but from all the sources he consulted. Yes, I'm
an end note and bibliography junkie. Solitude and time to study were also important assets.
Knowing I was being lied to by Media and politicos was also helpful and thus made me seek out
an objective historical narrative whereby I discovered I wasn't alone in my quest. Currently,
Hudson's historical big picture is the one in which I believe the most merit lies--4,000+
years of Class War between creditors and debtors frames the West's existence, including its
religions, which are its longest lasting institutions. And I highly value genuine discourse
with associates.
I suspect his open-borders advocacy and Russia-bashing too are lies; these are lines of
defence against internal forces. It makes sense for him to take those positions while he
seeks the nomination. If he gets it, he can betray those positions. A serious politician has
to demonstrate a large capacity for betrayal. At the end of the day, he is a hardened
politician like the rest.
I suspect his open-borders advocacy and Russia-bashing too are lies; these are lines of
defence against internal forces. It makes sense for him to take those positions while he
seeks the nomination. If he gets it, he can betray those positions. A serious politician has
to demonstrate a large capacity for betrayal. At the end of the day, he is a hardened
politician like the rest.
It's easy: Nothing says more about the "party of the people" like $1,750 to $3,200
tickets.
Asked about the crowd's behavior in an interview following the
debate, Sanders said "to get a ticket to the debate, you had to be fairly wealthy."
The Bloomberg campaign denied that it stacked the
audience with paid supporters amid rampant social media speculation that the billionaire "
purchased " a portion of the
crowd to create the appearance of a strong performance following his poor showing in Las Vegas
last week.
Victory_Rossi , 2 minutes ago
Fairly wealthy? I refuse to believe that anyone would pay a couple of grand to go to a
******* debate.
Musum , 4 minutes ago
In America, $1750-$3200 per seat is democracy.
And oligarchs on Wall St. and industry is capitalism.
You don't have to go far to figure out why Sanders is popular. And voting doesn't
matter.
XXX , 15 minutes ago
If it was serious, there wouldn't be a "studio audience", ala Jerry Springer, just
reasoned arguments, courtesy and professionalism, all kept under tight control by an unbiased
moderator. But it's not serious. It's just political carnival time, clowns only.
XXX , 1
minute ago
Yes. True. It's a shitshow for sure.
XXX, 16
minutes ago
Disgusting hypocrisy. Most of the U.S. citizenry Rep&Dem don't even have that kind of
$ available for an emergency let alone some worthless, useless, meaningless debate for an
election that will never be happen regardless of whether 100% of the information is presented
that it did happen.
Democracy (and the 'mass vote' republic) is founded upon some sort of curious reasoning that
all people should have a vote in the governing of society. This effectually means that mass
man the mediocre will govern, because the mediocre is statistically overabundantly present.
By some sort of reason, mass man the mediocre then becomes some sort of holy cow to which all
should pay tribute to.
At any rate, naturally those who are more intelligent, those who think and act bigger, and
those who are more active and creative than mediocre man will again assume leadership
implicitly in the long run. And why not, should they suppress their qualities and competences
to declare mass man the holy cow fit to govern for all times? Nature distributes intellect
and energy quite different than the curious construct of democracy allows to use, and it
distributes it very unevenly And nature cannot be suppressed in the end by man made
constructs like democracy or a republic with a popular voting system.
Mass man's rule exists only temporary legitimately in order to give rise to new forms by
destruction of old forms, mass man basically can only destroy. So democracy in the long run
will naturally hit the dust, as elites, regardless of whether they are good or bad will take
over, which is required anyway to bring about constructive progress (instead of destructive).
Nature also demands evolution, which is only what elites (oligarchy or aristocracy) can bring
about, Nature doesn't like mass man's conservatism, and small and incoherent thinking to rule
for all times.
In the time of emergence of a new elite, or a reformation of elites, they will pay lip
service to democracy as long as it lasts. And in the last decades we are seeing that the
emerged elites are more and more mainly paying lip service, while acting otherwise, they
denounce all kinds of things
which have come about through democratic means more and more, or they try to make these
things look suspicious or problematic (while overall still paying lip service to
democracy).
So that the phase right now appears to be a competition among elites in order to determine
who will take over explicitly. Aside of waiting for opportunities to increase control (never
waste a good crisis).
Democracy cannot turn the tide, mass man is by now not really a suitable vital candidate ,
while he has enough 'bread and play' he has at large too little to complain about to risk his
life and he enjoys a relatively comfortable situation, while disposing of an elite asks for
great sacrifices, sometimes even his life. A coup by the army perhaps in collaboration with
the police force might do the trick, but there might be too many trans-genders and women
among these forces, just kidding here, or not.
Another issue is that mass man the consumerist is no longer the main milking cow. Gigantic
amounts of money have been earned from this by now somewhat decadent creature globally during
the twentieth century, and from this money science has moved on, and technology has
developed, and enormously influential power houses are formed (called: corporations). Their
money flows unhindered and untaxed through the world through gigantic pipes at high speed, in
quantities historically unprecedented, all made by investments in mass man, investments in a
population historically unprecedented in size. While mass man was investing in what?
So the amassing of more money and power by elites is now more and more a matter of
investments in big futurist technology (intelligence) and futurist tech infrastructure. They
have already made the minds of mass man relatively used to this through creation of tech
cults and a whole materialist tech-futurist ideology, through their propaganda channels, of
which mass man is a subscriber, the silly holy cow is even massively paying for the
propaganda he gets fed They are shooting more and more grid satellites into the air as we
speak, ultimately paid from mass man's consumerism. Some are there to role out even more
advanced tech for mass man the entertainment consumerist. Others are big techs big
investments, destined for other purposes..
So, they, the elites, think big and smarter, and they have been and are investing in
intelligence, and what has mass man done with all the riches science and tech afforded him?
Buying smartphones and wide-screen tv's, cars and porn, kitchen equipment, gaming tech and
whatever consumerist tech, some investment in intelligence is that
So, elites, they think bigger, and they are way more active, in fact, their mouths are
dripping from the prospect of power, luxury and wealth for them and their posterity which no
king and emperor has enjoyed in any (known) historical time. No mass man doing a bit of
boo-boo and complaining as a holy cow with holy rights will prevent their advancement.
But don't worry, they have more high-tech 'bread and play' in development, the holy cow's
tin can on wheels is probably going to become a lot more expensive to drive around in the
whole day, some austerity there upon ya, but as to make up for that y'all are going to stay
at home more, attached to screens more and more, to awesome images which they serve
structurally for you. Which is little else than an advanced continuation of your last seventy
years.
Nothing will ever wake up the majority of Americans to the reality of their political system.
If they get a billionaire as a candidate who clearly bought the election things will still go
on as usual. Nothing is not allowed to the ruling elite. This is the post truth America.
Where it previously hid behind higher values now it's blatantly doing everything it used to
accuse others of doing. The elite does not need to hide – they simply just need to use
some buzz words and "repent" for their past. Simply that is enough. And it's gonna be
candidate XYZ who gets the nomination.
Hoping for most americans to awake in the face of clear evidence after so many years is
borderline insane.
So, while I see Bernie heading for an electoral win quite possibly large enough to
prevent the DNC from cheating him out of the Democratic nomination, should he win the
Presidency, preventing him from dying of "a heart attack" before his inauguration may well
be a challenge. Paranoid? Maybe, but who can say? President Sanders may need an
extraordinary level of protection just to stay alive.
That's exactly one of the several reasons he should pick Tulsi Gabbard as his VP. The
voters might finally get a little suspicious if she *also* keels over from a "heart attack"
age 38. And the "Deep State" hate her so much more than Sanders, they'd hire an extra
food-taster for him.
Since today's Democrats are so big on race/gender issues plus "military service,"
nominating America's first non-white woman as a VP and a war veteran would check all the
boxes.
@TG I suspect that
the current Bernie on open borders is just a phase before the nomination. A salute to Demo
idiocy.
Bernie's close associate Gabbard has been quietly talking sense on the border issue for
quite some time.
This is an issue on which Trump has himself waffled a lot and delivered very little. It
would be looking a gift horse in the mouth if Bernie were not to run with the border issue
against Trump.
Bernie's close associate Gabbard has been quietly talking sense on the border issue for
quite some time.
What has Gabbard said in particular that is so sensible? The best I've heard from her is
that, well, we have to have some sort of control of our borders. But she is for another mass
amnesty. I can see how that can seem "pragmatic," but it is just an invitation for more large
scale illegal immigration.
Who is a closer associate of Sanders, Gabbard or AOC? Obviously the former can't campaign
for Sanders while she herself is running, and Sanders can't boost Gabbard the way he has
boosted AOC, but for the moment anyway Sanders looks closer to AOC than to Gabbard.
@Ron Unz
Bernie/Tulsi is the only ticket I would vote for over Trump.
I sent Trump to DC to burn the place down. Three years later the results are in: the Swamp
drained him. That said, he started the revolution. Now comes 2020, and the next chapter.
I still like Trump. He made some progress: destroyed Hillary. And I choose to believe he
was sincere in his stated policy goals, but faced unprecedented obstruction -- "Six ways from
Sunday". So I don't blame him entirely for not achieving those goals.
But for me, the top priority was ending the wars.
So now, as Bernie takes up the revolutionary cause from the left, I'm waiting to see who
gets my vote.
It never occurred to me, but yes, the idea of Tulsi as an insurance policy is another very
good reason to pick her.
Will that happen? Will the Sanders team see that? Chuck Rocha and Nina Turner are the only
Sanders team members I've seen in action, and they're some wicked smart people. Or will they
wuss out and pick a centrist? (Personally, I think Bernie is sufficiently revolutionary not
to wuss out, and yet )
Then too, it's still eight months till the election. If challenged, Trump could yet
execute any of several winning plays: withdraw from Syria, Iraq and Afghan; pardon Julian
Assange; declare his intent to replace Pompeo with Tulsi as Secretary of State. The list is
long, and Trump wants to win.
Democratic megadonor Bernard Schwartz has started reaching out to party leaders to
encourage them to coalesce around a candidate for president in order to stop the surge of
Sen. Bernie Sanders.
and then we call iran a regime?
Bloodstock , 2 hours ago
Yep he admitted that he bought 'em,,,now trying to cover it up. With the billions that
he's got, I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg.
PrideOfMammon , 2 hours ago
And you thought the *** takeover of the USA was still ahead.
IT is done~
commiebastid , 2 hours ago
final nails in coffin were hammered in with Citizens united
Lack of hospital beds for those infected with the virus will be blamed on Trump. He will be
accused of funding a trillion dollar military handout and neglecting the health of the
American people. Trump will look so bad that Sanders can easily beat him. If the virus comes
on big, Sanders will be our next president.
This is a fake wrestling match. The script has been written, trump for 4 more. The Dems are
not seriously contesting the script. If they were they would have found a viable candidate
and would have fired DNC leadership and distanced itself from Russia gate and impeachment.
None of these candidates are electable.
Like Trump they submit to the elites and Israel wishes. And Bernies as socialist as China,
fake socialism, both captured by neoliberalism. On economic and foreign policy and military
matters, they are no different than Trump. Different look thats all, like Coke and Pepsi,just
2 different flavors
Which one actually wins the nomination is irrelevant.
The party is dysfunctional, or at least doing its best to appear to be. Perhaps just for
entertainment purposes. I mean, nobody could be as detached from reality as they pretend to
be.
So don't waste your time with this. Better off watching reruns of classics where you
already know the ending. The acting and scripts were far better than this reality cluster
bomb, even if the picture quality is not as good.
I wonder what our elites will resort to to stop Bernie this time?
If conventional slanted media coverage/mega donations/and the usual dirty tricks like
charging $3,200 dollars to attend the debate, ensuring the audience was filled with wealthy
establishment cheerers and booers dont work, what then? It be kinda touchy to outsource the
dirty work to the Mossad wouldnt it? Another heart attack perhaps? Bernie have secret service
protection yet?
The Bloomberg commercials on endless youtube videos, news broadcasts, and television get
to be too much in my opinion. Its like "Hey Im Mike Bloomberg and I was a Republican Mayor
but now Im a Democrat, and intend to be in every commercial break you see until you give up
and vote for me".
Quandry? "If there is no solution, there is no problem!"
The big deal with Bernie, I think, is his donor-driven post-2015 change on mass
immigration. Even Ann Coulter says she'd vote for 2015 Bernie, but the present Bernie, who
wants to wipe out border enforcement – which means wiping out the border – which
means ending the country as a country – would invite at least hundreds of millions of
third world refugees into the nation, and giving them all free medical care will bankrupt us
very very quickly.
Indeed the elites are screwing the average person, and most of that is today condemned as
'socialism' is about where Richard Nixon was in the political spectrum (how soon we forget).
But Bernie 2015 was right: open borders is a Koch Brothers plan and it will wipe out all
other good aspects of his proposed programs. Because corporate propaganda aside, no nation
without an open frontier has either achieved or maintained a high standard of living in the
face of massive population growth.
If it's 2020 Bernie vs. Trump, then I, as an FDR-style progressive, have no choice but to
vote for Trump. And that's sad.
I scrolled through the NC debate comments to about two-thirds down, to find a clear
positive on Bernie's remarks:
nippersmom: "Great comment from Bernie on US overthrowing governments around the
world."
23 comments later, this:
"Bill Carson
February 25, 2020 at 9:42 pm
Finally -- -Bernie just knocked it out of the park with his answer on Israel.
Reply ↓
nippersmom
February 25, 2020 at 9:43 pm
Thank you, Bernie, for not backing down on your criticism of Israel.
Reply ↓
CarlH
February 25, 2020 at 9:44 pm
Bernie drops truth bomb never heard in a debate before about Israel/Palestine. Finally some
truth on this issue!
Reply ↓
Darius
February 25, 2020 at 9:46 pm
Also mentioned overthrowing Mossadegh in Iran and Allende in Chile. Wow."
Pretty important stuff, which we have discussed on this forum at length - I would say
foreign policy issues being the most important to posters here. Yet even on a pro Bernie
forum like Naked Capitalism, the negativity thrown at the Sanders campaign is almost
insurmountable.
Some actual physical repression occurred at the l968 Democratic Convention. Young people
were attacked in the hall and on the street. I'm not one of those who say 'pass the popcorn.'
But perhaps instead of outrage against the inevitable, there ought to be counter moves being
considered. One came up, one comment among many at the above quoted discussion - somebody
asked if Bernie is not the candidate of the Democrats, can there be an alternative legitimate
avenue for him to be on the ballot?
I know he has said he will support whomever. That 'noble' intention is the unsurmountable
problem. Bernie is no Malcolm X. He has devotees, but that is not a movement. If it can't
happen, in the face of this negativity attracting all the energy at such sites as quoted, I
cannot imagine his candidacy from within will succeed. Nor that US foreign policy, so
important to us here, will change.
All the same, bravo to him as far as he has gone. We have a way to go yet, and perhaps we
are seeing the beginning of a real movement now. It didn't happen right away in Russia. But
they got there in the end.
On the last thread , I proved all candidates aside from Sanders are Pro-Establishment and
Anti-99%. I've also written that Sanders is imperfect and that we'll never find a perfect
candidate given the fact of human imperfection. So as far as I'm concerned, the debate over
which candidate to support has ended with Sanders being the clear choice. I've also shown how
Sanders can wrap his campaign proposals in the language of the Constitution and the designs
of The Founders which would make it dangerous for any of his opponents to argue against them,
which is why we're beginning to see personal assaults and smears against his character.
In 2016, the clear enemy was Hillary Clinton and her DNC/DLC rackets. In 2020, those
enemies remain but are obfuscated by the current Pro-Establishment candidates. IMO, what must
happen next is for the People's Party Movement Sanders initiated to become autonomous--to
grow beyond Bernie Sanders and truly embody all the people already in and soon to join. The
reason ought to be clear: No one individual can beat back the Establishment and their Death
Squads (If you don't think they exist, you're very naïve); they can only be defeated by
a very broad coalition of US citizens, most of whom still need to be educated as to who their
enemies are.
The shouting matches here and elsewhere only serve the Establishment and must cease. Some
may not care to support Sanders, but to work against him is to work against yourself. It's
also very key for Sanders to have likeminded people elected to Congress and to statehouses
nationally. The most important election during the Depression was 1936, and one of FDR's most
important speeches was the 1937 Inaugural, which I've also cited and linked. Most
importantly, political change won't occur unless we all get off our butts and work for it
regardless of where you're living as ousting Neoliberalism and reestablishing national
sovereignty is a global task for all citizens to accomplish. Yes, a repetition of the last
financial crisis is on the horizon. The real data I've shown proves the real economy has yet
to recover from the Dot.Com crash of the late 1990s while a vast army 100 million strong want
full employment at a living wage, all of whom ought to be within the Movement. I'm reminded
that we've been pushed and pulled in so many directions over the years that we're now like
the befuddled star of Quadrophrenia who in a moment of lucidity sings:
"My karma tells me
You've been screwed again.
If you let them do it to you
You've got yourself to blame.
It's you who feels the pain
It's you that feels ashamed."
And that the only remedy is to fight back--to Rage Against the Machine and convert the
Mods.
Hey, remember yesterday evening I was here bitchin' that the debate audience must have been
paid by Bloomberg or the DNC cause they were so hostile to Bernie. I was right to suspect
something!
This is how sharp Papa Bernie is! (Click on interview with MSNBC and vol. Right
bottom.)
After 2016 you need to be suspicious... Nothing that candidate say or propose can be taken at
face value anymore. Only actual legislative record has some predictive value. Those candidates
who does not have it can do Obama (or Trump) "change we can belave in" dirty trick with ease.
They can promise to voters anything and do completely opposite things.
Legislative record does give some confidence that not everything in this particular candidate
is fake.
Because Bernie's response to the undermining of his campaign/ insurgency is weak
because he's tied his hands by making 'Party unity' paramount. And we are further informed by
Obama's faux populist hucksterism and Bernie's 2016 sheep-dogging.
If you really wanted to help Bernie you would spend your time at places frequented by
women, LGBT, minority voters, and elderly voters. The Democratic Party strategy is to use
identity politics to attract voters away from Bernie. But you're at moa instead, a small
international affairs site.
This remains a false accusation as far as I'm concerned. We (wife and I) were Sanders
followers/supporters when in 2014 or 2015 he solicited the comments from those on his mailing
list why he was considering running. I felt he was serious about his core message then, and
still do. Had he done other than he had at the end of the '16 campaign, his political life
would have been over, but instead here he is, stronger and more organized and still with the
same message. I'm guessing that of the probably many who supported him but ended up casting a
ballot for HRC would have done so without the herding of a sheep dog. That's what my wife
did, but I did not. My wife, like Bernie, couldn't stomach the thought of Trump in the WH; do
you suggest that my wife's vote was not honest or that Sanders desire not to see Trump
elected wasn't real? It was a foregone conclusion here in Ohio and the count proved that out,
so my vote for Stein was of no consequence.
And I understand the argument that voting matters little. Gillens and Page (sp,s?)
assembled statistical proof, in the best traditional style, of the disenfranchisement of the
non-wealthy and the non-powerful from any influence on governance. Yet, if this is so, there
are many powerful forces at work trying to derail Sanders and the stirrings inspired by his
stump. Sanders core message goes to the heart of how we are disenfranchised - money in
government, systemic corruption. Perhaps very many always took this politics as a given, but
believed it was either petty corruption and/or of no consequence in their lives. But this is
2020 and the ownership society has become greedier; freed from regulatory restraints by the
captured political class it has become predatory in all aspects of our lives. This is not a
difficult reality to prove. Health care is a raging example of this, a fact that most of us
commoners have thoroughly absorbed by now.
Only meant to refute the sheep herding accusation. I digressed.
This article correctly describes how the neoliberal globalists and bankers are engaging in a
massive ripoff of the "99%" (although I think the ratio is more like 80-20% rather than
99-1%). But I don't think Bernie has the solution.
Frankly, the Democratic Party had the solution -- the New Deal, which actually
did create economic security for the white working class.
But they threw it out the window, and sided with the neoliberal oligarchy to finance their
hedonistic post-1960s lifestyle of porn, drugs, miscegenation, integration, and recreational
sex.
They've completely destroyed the culture. I don't think there is any solution at this
point.
It's interesting: Hudson calls Democrat's "the servants' entrance to the Republican Party"
and refers to the republican party's agenda in favor of the one percent.
Meanwhile, also on unz.com this very day,
Boyd Cathey has a column "The Russians are Coming" wherein he calls Republicans "a sordid and
disreputable second cousin of the advancing leftist juggernaut."
Perhaps they are both correct, and each of their own party's ruling apparatus is no better
than the "other" party's ruling apparatus at all.
The motto of both Democrats and Republican Neocons and Republican Country Clubbers: Don't
Think; Don't Ask; Pay Taxes; Vote for Us; Never Doubt 'Our' Filthy Rich; Blame 'Them' for
Everything 'We' Call Bad.
American Democracy, WASP created democracy, is a whore's game. It is con artistry.
@Anon 123 No, there
still is enough money even now to take care of the vast unemployed and underemployed class of
people, WITHOUT further taxing those of us still working full-time and increasingly
struggling.
1. Place natural resources -- oil, gas, and minerals -- under public ownership. Distribute
the proceeds from their extraction and sale as an equal dividend to every US Citizen. (As
part of the grand bargain, make it MUCH harder to gain US Citizenship, e.g. no birthright
citizenship and no chain migration aka "family reunification.") This is a more thorough, more
equitable national version of Alaska's resource-funded permanent fund.
How much do executives and shareholders of energy corporations profit each year off of our
God-given natural resources? That becomes revenue available for all US Citizens as a
universal basic income. (To minimize price/rent inflation, we can start the UBI very low and
phase it in gradually over a period of, say, 8 years.)
2. Stop the us government's constant aggressive wars and occupations far from our borders,
and close the majority of our bases abroad. Bring the troops home from Europe, Japan, and
South Korea -- they can guard our southern border instead, and the new bases will provide a
sustained boost to the hundreds of towns around the new bases here at home.
What if we reduced direct war, occupation, and foreign-base spending by $400 billion per
year. Seems like a conservative figure. Here is a website that still has 2018 fed gov
spending stats -- and seems to undercount military spending -- but a place to start:
Of course, since we are borrowing a large chunk of the fed gov's current spending, we
should not simply re-spend all of the military savings. Allocate part to other spending, but
simply don't spend the rest (thereby borrowing less each year).
3. The current federal "Alternative Minimum (Income) Tax" kicks in at far too low an
income level. Conversely, the AMT rate is far too low for extremely high incomes. What a
coincidence. Apply the AMT only to household annual income above $2 million, amply adjusted
for inflation, but tax the starch out of the oligarchs and billionaires. Yes, they can be
forcibly prevented from moving their assets and themselves out of the country. Bloomberg,
Zuckerberg, Buffet, Trump, the Sacklers, et al., can be confined and their property
confiscated as needed to pay the AMT on their income and a wealth tax.
Even now, the money is there to directly help the American people with no increase in
taxes on 99.5% of us, and with less fed gov borrowing than now.
"... Once Sanders wins Super Tuesday, then we'll have to hear about the mismatch, Trump vs Sanders for the rest of the year. Sanders will easily defeat Trump. Trump has done nothing for Americans, or anyone else besides Israel and Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... Sanders has weaknesses too. It seems that his movement can intimidate Democratic establishment in the case of brokered convention, there is no distinct personality to oppose him, a person selected against him would be doomed against Trump, leading to a backlash in the ranks if Democrats, a major headache to the establishment. One can worry about the intellectual caliber of people around him. They are not THAT BAD, but... ..."
"... The thing is, Sanders won't do his RussiaGate poop very much against Trump. Remember, Trump is so easy to beat that even Hillary beat him in the popular. Sanders came from the left, and moved right, so he has many many ways to criticize Trump. ..."
"... Sanders will just point out that billionaires suck, the rich/poor system sucks, and debt relief for Americans with bills coming in every month is good--it's language that Americans understand a lot more now than a couple decades ago. ..."
"... You people who are contemplating voting for any of these clowns are just delusional. Even Gabbard is likely to turn into another "Change You Can Believe In" BS artist, not that she has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination or being selected as a running mate by any of the other clowns. ..."
"... Much of the establishment handwringing over Sanders reflects unease that his reformist concepts are part of the debate at all. ..."
"... Calling out Netanyahoo as a racist on network television? Fantastic and necessary. It's less about the messenger than the message. Popular movements can be sparked and gain momentum by emperor has no clothes moments. Sanders has a tough streak and the establishment has pissed him off enough that he is as unpredictable in stated opinion as Trump was four years ago. That's a plus for all Americans. ..."
"... Stop the stupidity to make Moscow and Peking to unite and collude as never before in History. ..."
"... Until the US - meaning we the people - get money out of politics - think Citizens United as one big example - whomever is elected President is beholden to donors in every major sector of our economy. Follow the money. This includes Bernie. See this at-a-glance link regarding Bernie's voting record on foreign policy up through 2016. It is not a pretty picture. https://www.stpete4peace.org/bernie-hillary ..."
This discussion is frankly irrelevant. Trump is assured of re-selection because he's appeased
the only two constituencies that matter: the military industrial complex and the zionist
lobby. The theatrics over Burnie et al is just so the Daymockratic Party gang can have
something to hold together over until a suitably servile Daymockrat is selected in 2024.
Once Sanders wins Super Tuesday, then we'll have to hear about the mismatch, Trump vs Sanders
for the rest of the year. Sanders will easily defeat Trump. Trump has done nothing for
Americans, or anyone else besides Israel and Saudi Arabia.
For me, shows like Jimmy Dore's and The Hill's Rising, are becoming unwatchable with
constantly pointing out what's being said on TV. We already know what they'll say on TV, so
nothing is surprising. Sadness, banality and boredom sets in. Two imperialists running
against each other for the power of Executive Order on foreign policy and veto power in the
U.N., is depressing to actual leftists
Once Sanders wins Super Tuesday, then we'll have to hear about the mismatch, Trump vs Sanders
for the rest of the year. Sanders will easily defeat Trump. SharonM | Feb 26 2020 15:39 utc
Sanders has weaknesses too. It seems that his movement can intimidate Democratic
establishment in the case of brokered convention, there is no distinct personality to oppose
him, a person selected against him would be doomed against Trump, leading to a backlash in
the ranks if Democrats, a major headache to the establishment. One can worry about the
intellectual caliber of people around him. They are not THAT BAD, but...
I was a bit disappointed by reading that Sanders surrendered his pro-gun record. That can
cost him several states in the Fall elections. Even so, Trump has weaknesses that can be
exploited if you are not mentally deranged by the Russian angle.
The thing is, Sanders won't do his RussiaGate poop very much against Trump. Remember,
Trump is so easy to beat that even Hillary beat him in the popular. Sanders came from the
left, and moved right, so he has many many ways to criticize Trump.
The other Dems--Hillary,
Biden, Buttigeig, etc., only know how to criticize Trump from the right. Sanders will just
point out that billionaires suck, the rich/poor system sucks, and debt relief for Americans
with bills coming in every month is good--it's language that Americans understand a lot more
now than a couple decades ago.
And there's this myth that Trump destroys people with his
tweets, press conferences, and debates. He makes fun of people who are well-known to be
pathetic anyway. His supporters will hang onto the "Bernie is a commie" meme, while awaiting
Trump to make that meme more popular. And they'll just keep waiting because it's
transparently silly to anyone but a far right winger. And there's just not enough votes in
that, in my view;)
As an Australian (born and raised), and as my nation has been (at least since the soft coup
of 1975. Thank you USA/UK..sarc.) effectively states 51 through 58 respectively, I feel that
I have the right to weigh-in with my ill-informed opinion...
For what it is worth, I'd forgive Bernie Sanders his shortcomings and vote for him. If he
wins (and I truly hope he does) I think it will be the biggest shake-up in US politics this
side of WWII. The USA needs that as a nation, regardless of how well it actually pans
out.
He is no savior, but is a necessary catalyst to try and disrupt the steady flow of the
nation down the proverbial shit-chute. He is a stepping-stone to a better outcome than the
current scam, so good on him and good luck.
If all else fails, he can always renounce his citizenship, become an Australian citizen,
and run for office here. We are in a dire need of some new leadership in the antipodes
too.
You people who are contemplating voting for any of these clowns are just delusional. Even
Gabbard is likely to turn into another "Change You Can Believe In" BS artist, not that she
has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination or being selected as a running mate
by any of the other clowns.
Sanders? Seriously? How did "Change You Can Believe In" Obama work out for you? He ruined
four more countries than Bush did (Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Yemen.) Go over to Colonel Lang's
blog and read his list of things that Sanders is alleged to have said as policy statements.
Lang thinks Sanders is a delusional lunatic, and while I may actually agree with some of
Sanders' policy statements listed, the odds of *any* of that actually happening is zero and
probably would be a disaster in execution if it did happen.
As so many others have prognosticated, the United States is over. Done. Put a fork in it.
The only question is how much damage will it do as it falls and whether it will go out with a
bang - as in WWIII - or a whimper as in economic collapse and/or a civil war.
Voting for *anyone* ain't gonna change any of that.
Much of the establishment handwringing over Sanders reflects unease that his reformist
concepts are part of the debate at all.
Calling out Netanyahoo as a racist on network television? Fantastic and necessary. It's
less about the messenger than the message. Popular movements can be sparked and gain momentum
by emperor has no clothes moments. Sanders has a tough streak and the establishment has
pissed him off enough that he is as unpredictable in stated opinion as Trump was four years
ago. That's a plus for all Americans.
Success for you, Bernie! Fuck off the neolibs and privatizers of all corners.
Return entire Guantanamo to the legitimate owners, cubans, without preconditions. Only
condition: sittin. Buil again at a negotiating table.
Create the american NHS health service (ask for Canadians's advice),
build new road and save the crumbling bridges coast to coast.
Sit down with the chinese and
negotiate a program to import from AFrica: cotton, manioc and soy in huge quantities: this
alone will ramp up their growth and trim down immigration as never before!(EU will follow
suit otherwise their purchasing prices will skyrocket).
Stop the stupidity to make Moscow and
Peking to unite and collude as never before in History.
Until the US - meaning we the people - get money out of politics - think Citizens United as
one big example - whomever is elected President is beholden to donors in every major sector
of our economy. Follow the money. This includes Bernie. See this at-a-glance link regarding
Bernie's voting record on foreign policy up through 2016. It is not a pretty picture.
https://www.stpete4peace.org/bernie-hillary
Both parties are corrupted.
I understand how Americans want to believe that a president can solve our many ills. We
want to believe that the government is for the people, by the people. And the deck is very
stacked against people coming to understand the real truth of the US government, be it
corporate media, education, entertainment, etc. Government narrative managers are their
overseers. It is legal now to propagandize Americans.
So bless Bernie supporters hearts, for wanting a democracy, a republic, a constitutionally
sound country. I do too. Yet unless we the people come together - really unite - and uniting
is also something narrative controllers do their best to prevent - it is not going to change
and is only getting worse.
In the South Carolina debate last night, Bloomberg attacked Sanders by saying the Russians
wanted him to win the nomination because Trump would beat him easily. What a two-fer! How
many more years will we be blessed with fables about those dastardly Russians and their
omnipotent control of US elections?
I have spent 16 years (since 2004) trying to figure out how deal with the spoiler effect --
or put much more relevantly, 'elite fronted party lock-in'. Understand that you may have a
government comprised of 100 parties, but there will nonetheless be no democracy at all if
they are all 'elite fronted' and ultimately controlled, no matter what policies they
superficially promote. This is the nature of the lock-in effect.
Right now, thousands of intellectually sophisticated fools are trying to promote totally
lock-in prone election systems such as ranked choice voting (RCV/IRV). These system will
leave the voters just as party locked-in as they are with the choose-one system they have
now. This is largely due to their requirement for extreme tabulationary opacity, and also
extremely high information traffic.
Presently, the best cure for this is 'simple positional voting', which I promote as
'ranked simple voting' (which sophisticated fools often confuse with the quite similar, yet
far more unobviously complicated 'Borda method'). It uses precisely the same ballot design as
RCV, so voters can simply check-off a box to indicate by which method they prefer their
ballot to be tabulated.
The ranked ballots reflect the pattern: =/ 10 > 9 > 8 > ... 1 > 0 /=. There
are ten ranked 'places', and voters can assign one candidate to each place, and each
candidate assigned to a 'place' will be granted a corresponding number of 'points' (and they
can also leave places blank if they prefer). Putting it very simplistically, the candidate
with the largest total of points wins. And it turns out that it is quite easy to fairly
combine the results of this ranked simple voting (RSV) with those of ranked choice voting.
Eventually all the voters will abandon RCV and all its unobvious complexity.
This is what people need to support!
As for poor Circe and dear Bernie, the poor chap has no chance. The best way to support
Bernie is to buy one of those billion dollar lottery tickets at the corner market, and
contribute the proceeds to the Bernie campaign. I am totally serious. This morning I received
my third expensive, super-glossy mailing from the Michael Bloomberg campaign (Money raised:
$200.4 million -- from himself!). Very sorry to bear such grim tidings! But you could still
direct your support to ranked simple voting. If we had that, somebody even better than Bernie
would run, and win. Think about it.
Technically, what you're proposing appears to be a form of positional voting -- with the
ballots marked from the top score down rather than from the lowest-numbered
(highest-preference) rank up, and with the option of not filling in all possible scores.
If it were possible for someone with two top favorites in your example field of ten to
give both of them a 10, or do the like at the bottom of the ranking range (or anywhere in the
middle), then you'd be closer to score voting (a/k/a range
voting).
In the US non-political world, you're pretty much talking about a sports poll. But some
places have adopted positional voting for their government elections, too.
(Of course, no voting system -- ordinal or cardinal -- can meet all desirable criteria.
It's up to each voting population to decide what it cares most about.)
Posted by: jalp | F
@ jalp | Feb 26 2020 20:11 utc | 47
=/ Technically, what you're proposing appears to be a form of positional voting... /= --
above
Yeah but I already stated that didn't I? And where does this "Technically" come from? That
is so often just an opening phrase for intellectually sophisticated fools. Forget the CIA
owned and operated 'Wikipedia'. Of course I know all about that 'score/range' voting. And
also about all the alchemy of election methods 'criteria', and the irrelevant 'Condorcet'
criterion, etc. It all means nothing in the real world.
There is one and only one criterion that makes any real difference: Does the system
provide escape from elite fronted party lock-in? That, truly, is all that matters. All the
rest of it is just intellectual masturbation of the most sordid kind.
Just allow ranked simple voting, and the psychopathy of elite fronted party lock-in will
fade away.
As Aristotle noted already in the 4th century BC, oligarchies turn themselves into
hereditary aristocracies
Sounds like a reading of the thesis of Piketty, yet hereditary aristocracies must be
endogamous and–if they are to keep wealth in the family–consanguineous, which
does not have much appeal for modern elite, for sound genetic reasons .
Also Water Scheidel show in his Escape from Rome: The Failure of Empire and the Road to
Prosperity, the failure brought about competitive fragmentation and selection. Political,
economic, scientific, and technological breakthroughs followed and allowed Europe to take off
"It wasn't until Europe "escaped" from Rome that it launched an economic transformation that
changed the continent and ultimately the world. What has the Roman Empire ever done for us?
Fall and go away".
Piketty himself was clear in his first book that the two world wars brought about a huge
leveling of wealth. But cities were levelled too. Piketty went on to assert–in his
second and even weightier tome–that a struggle for equality has been the great driver
of human progress. Yet from doorstopper of Walter Scheidel
the Neolithic long before the Bronze Age conquests, the "natural" human condition seems to
have been inequality, while actual change to that condition often came in the aftermath of
war (or plague and famine). Reduction of inequality by ideologically driven political change
was often violent and ultimately at the cost of widespread pauperisation.
Studies of social status within ethnically homogenous groups show that genetics plays a
substantial role in outcomes. Thus if elites and underclasses are drawn from parent
populations by selective recruitment, they will differ genetically from the general
population. It will take many generations for those differences to dissolve. This is not an
"ugly" fact. It is not a "beautiful" fact. It is just a fact. This fact helps explain why
it is so hard for societies using the levers of social policy to eliminate group
disparities in outcomes. It is a fact that we should be aware of in thinking about
inequalities of income and wealth.Studies of social status within ethnically homogenous
groups show that genetics plays a substantial role in outcomes. Thus if elites and
underclasses are drawn from parent populations by selective recruitment, they will differ
genetically from the general population. It will take many generations for those
differences to dissolve. This is not an "ugly" fact. It is not a "beautiful" fact. It is
just a fact. This fact helps explain why it is so hard for societies using the levers of
social policy to eliminate group disparities in outcomes. It is a fact that we should be
aware of in thinking about inequalities of income and wealth.
There is no quandary. The US democracy has long become "one dollar – one vote". Those
who still believe that Dems represent working people should not take IQ test to avoid being
deeply disappointed.
In a struggle between oligarchy and democracy, something must give
America hasn't been a democracy for decades there is no contest oligarchy (Deep State) won
a long time ago. The only struggle is to continue the facade/charade that we are a
democracy/democratic republic.
The Deep State doesn't care about the unimportant internecine squabbles of the 'two
parties' as long as their important issues are maintained. As a matter of fact it strengthens
the false perception that there is a choice when voting.
The Deep State consists of the very wealthy who are greedy for more wealth and power.
There are 607 billionaires in the US. There is no reason for the Deep State members to
formally collude they all know what needs to be done and how to do it. They use a relatively
small amount of their money to place their minions in positions of power heads of the movie
industry, the media, the federal government, academia. From then on if the lessers in these
groups want to keep their jobs/lives they will toe the line. It becomes self sustaining from
tax money and the Deep State glories in more wealth and power. Here is an excellent example
of the Deep State in action: The SCOTUS has passed down egregious decisions that abridge the
First Amendment and show contempt for the concept of a representative democracy. Buckley v.
Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing stupid SCOTUS decisions First National
Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v.
Federal Election Commission.
These decisions have codified that money is free speech thereby giving entities of wealth and
power almost total influence in elections. By gaining control of the SCOTUS the Deep State is
able to further their goals.
There is no quandary. The US democracy has long become "one dollar – one vote". Those
who still believe that Dems represent working people should not take IQ test to avoid being
deeply disappointed.
Bernie is threatening to expose the delusions of the deep state in regards to
multiculturalism.
Prior to Bernie, the deep state's not so deep thinkers believed that the phony socialism
that they invented works on 2 levels. It portrays US as a liberal country and on the second
level it scares those who have no clue about socialism even more away from wanting to have
anything to do with socialism.
The party slogan of the deep state – fake socialism is better than the real one
– was never true, and with Bernie threatening to bring some of the real features of
socialism to US, it will bring into turmoil the "brilliantly" constructed deception by the
deep state.
If US are going to get some real socialist policies, the question will emerge – do
they still need the fake socialism that's destroying them and the rest of the western
world.
"... Unfortunately Bernie's platform is incoherent. He supports identity politics, which is the creation of the Oligarchs to divide and rule the peons. So he is working for the Oligarchy. His 'diversity' is nothing more than a distraction from class and financial exploitation. ..."
"... The Financial Oligarchs' Quandary would be more accurate. The Financial Oligarchs controls US media, finance, and both political parties does the Financial Oligarchs feel secure enough to install one of their own, -- major Bllomberg -- into the White Hooch to replace their useful idiot crypto-jew, Trumpstein? ..."
"... Engineer a stock market douche along with even a mild recession, and you can say hello to President Bernie ..."
"... Hell, let some of that Ft. Detrick corona virus boomerang back into the US and watch the public go nuts with fear and anger. Bernie will be right there promising to cure the face mask shortage and provide free vaccines for everyone as part of his medicare for all plan. Bloomie would be even easier to install as he was a R most his life, just as Trumpstein was a D, and has actual experience running a large organization. ..."
Unfortunately Bernie's platform is incoherent.
He supports identity politics, which is the creation of the Oligarchs to divide and rule the
peons.
So he is working for the Oligarchy.
His 'diversity' is nothing more than a distraction from class and financial exploitation.
These phony liberals work in the null space of the rich's exploitation machine. They NEVER
threaten the rich.
In common parlance such people are called neoliberals.
Bernie and his open border welfare state proves he is either a liar or an idiot. Of course, the whole discussion is pointless since congress has the power and they are all
bought off long ago from every conceivable direction.
The Financial Oligarchs' Quandary would be more accurate. The Financial Oligarchs controls US
media, finance, and both political parties does the Financial Oligarchs feel secure enough to
install one of their own, -- major Bllomberg -- into the White Hooch to replace their useful
idiot crypto-jew, Trumpstein?
Bolshy Bernie and Billions Bloomie are not electable, you say. Oh, really?
Engineer a stock market douche along with even a mild recession, and you can say hello to President Bernie and 300
lb First Lady Jane.
Hell, let some of that Ft. Detrick corona virus boomerang back into the US and watch the
public go nuts with fear and anger. Bernie will be right there promising to cure the face
mask shortage and provide free vaccines for everyone as part of his medicare for all plan.
Bloomie would be even easier to install as he was a R most his life, just as Trumpstein was a
D, and has actual experience running a large organization.
@Mr. Hack Cutting
the MIC sector down to size in order to provide the wherewithal to fund weapons that work in
order to defend the 50 states instead of rule-the-world is both the acid test and the third
rail for a genuine populist. That policy, combined with allowing major financial predators to
dissolve upon the failure of their business model, would fund what it takes to bring the US
in line with life expectancy and health outcomes similar to what is being achieved in other
developed countries.
It's barely thinkable. We are unlikely to hear it from any mainstream candidate. The US
decline will continue until morale improves.
It's easy: Nothing says more about the "party of the people" like $1,750 to $3,200
tickets.
Asked about the crowd's behavior in an interview following the
debate, Sanders said "to get a ticket to the debate, you had to be fairly wealthy."
The Bloomberg campaign denied that it stacked the
audience with paid supporters amid rampant social media speculation that the billionaire "
purchased " a portion of the
crowd to create the appearance of a strong performance following his poor showing in Las Vegas
last week.
Victory_Rossi , 2 minutes ago
Fairly wealthy? I refuse to believe that anyone would pay a couple of grand to go to a
******* debate.
Musum , 4 minutes ago
In America, $1750-$3200 per seat is democracy.
And oligarchs on Wall St. and industry is capitalism.
You don't have to go far to figure out why Sanders is popular. And voting doesn't
matter.
XXX , 15 minutes ago
If it was serious, there wouldn't be a "studio audience", ala Jerry Springer, just
reasoned arguments, courtesy and professionalism, all kept under tight control by an unbiased
moderator. But it's not serious. It's just political carnival time, clowns only.
XXX , 1
minute ago
Yes. True. It's a shitshow for sure.
XXX, 16
minutes ago
Disgusting hypocrisy. Most of the U.S. citizenry Rep&Dem don't even have that kind of
$ available for an emergency let alone some worthless, useless, meaningless debate for an
election that will never be happen regardless of whether 100% of the information is presented
that it did happen.
One of the most important aspects of Bernie Sanders' appearance Sunday night on the CBS
program "60 Minutes" was a section of the interview that the network chose not to broadcast,
but which was nonetheless available on its website and widely cited in the media
afterwards.
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders speaks to supporters in
Des Moines, Iowa, February 3, 2020 [Credit: AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais]
This was a discussion between Sanders and interviewer Anderson Cooper over the question of
US war-making, in which the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination gave his
views on the circumstances in which he would order military action.
"We have the best military in the world," was Sanders' first response when Cooper raised the
question of his past posture of opposing overseas American military interventions. Asked to
spell out the circumstances in which he, as president, would send US forces into combat,
Sanders replied: "Threats against the American people, to be sure. Threats against our allies.
I believe in NATO. I believe that the United States, everything being equal, should be working
with other countries in alliance, not doing it alone."
When Cooper asked whether he would order military action if China attacked Taiwan -- an
island which the United States officially recognizes as Chinese territory -- Sanders replied,
"Yeah. I mean, I think we have got to make it clear to countries around the world that we will
not sit by and allow invasions to take place, absolutely."
Given that nearly all of the American wars of aggression of the past 30 years were waged
under such pretexts, Sanders' response should raise the alarm among working people and young
people who have rallied to his campaign thinking that he was a genuine opponent of war.
The administration of George H. W. Bush launched the 1991 Persian Gulf war on the pretext of
opposing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. The administration of Bill
Clinton bombed Serbian targets in Bosnia and later bombed Serbia itself, citing acts of
aggression by Serbian forces against Bosnian Muslims and Kosovars as a pretext.
The administration of George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan claiming this was a necessary
response to the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. It employed the same
pretext, on an even more threadbare and dishonest basis, to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.
The Obama administration waged war for all its eight years in office -- in Afghanistan,
Iraq, and through the use of drones and proxy forces in Syria, Yemen and many other countries.
It should be recalled that during his first run for the presidency, when Sanders was asked
whether he would use drones and special forces in the "war on terror," he responded, "All that
and more."
As for "threats against our allies," such a criterion could be used to justify US military
intervention against Russia in the event of further border clashes with Ukraine or conflict
between Moscow and the ferociously anti-Russian right-wing regimes in the Baltic states.
Further clashes between Turkish and Syrian government forces could involve Russian forces,
bringing them into a military conflict with Turkey, a NATO member.
In the event of naval conflicts between China and Japan or South Korea over disputed islets,
or with any number of southeast Asian countries that contest Chinese claims to parts of the
South China Sea, the US could go to war with yet another nuclear-armed rival on the basis of
Sanders' criteria.
Revealingly, in the "60 Minutes" interview Sanders did not make a single criticism of the
Trump administration's bellicose threats against Iran, Venezuela or other countries targeted
for imperialist bullying by Washington. He criticized Trump's friendly overtures towards North
Korea, although he said he would not rule out meeting with the country's dictator Kim
Jong-un.
These comments follow a response by the Sanders campaign to a New York Times survey
of the Democratic candidates, in which Sanders said he would consider preemptive use of
military force against an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test.
Sanders sought to combine his generally "mainstream" approach to imperialist foreign policy
with a bit of left posturing in relation to Cuba. He told Cooper, in response to a question
about his past sympathy for the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, and opposition to US sanctions
against Cuba: "We're very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba, but you know, it's
unfair to simply say everything is bad. You know? When Fidel Castro came into office, you know
what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing? Even though Fidel Castro
did it?"
Anticipating the red-baiting response of the Republicans and Cuban exile groups in south
Florida, Sanders staged his own pre-emptive red-baiting against Trump, suggesting that the
president had no right to criticize him as soft on Castro given his own "love letters" to Kim
Jong-un.
There is another incident that raises questions about Sanders' claims to be a candidate
opposed to the "endless wars" of American imperialism. When asked by reporters about the
Washington Post 's report Friday that he had been notified by US intelligence agencies
about supposed Russian efforts to interfere in the US elections in his support, he said he had
received a briefing "about a month ago."
When asked why he had not disclosed the briefing or its subject, Sanders answered, "Because
I go to many intelligence briefings which I don't reveal to the public."
"... By Michael Hudson, a research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is "and forgive them their debts": Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year ..."
"... Until Nevada, all the presidential candidates except for Bernie Sanders were playing for a brokered convention. The party's candidates seemed likely to be chosen by the Donor Class, the One Percent and its proxies, not the voting class (the 99 Percent). If, as Mayor Bloomberg has assumed, the DNC will sell the presidency to the highest bidder, this poses the great question: Can the myth that the Democrats represent the working/middle class survive? Or, will the Donor Class trump the voting class? ..."
"... This could be thought of as "election interference" – not from Russia but from the DNC on behalf of its Donor Class. That scenario would make the Democrats' slogan for 2020 "No Hope or Change." That is, no from today's economic trends that are sweeping wealth up to the One Percent. ..."
"... But in the wake of Sanders' landslide victory in Nevada, a brokered convention would mean the end of the Democrat Party pretense to represent the 99 Percent. The American voting system would be seen to be as oligarchic as that of Rome on the eve of the infighting that ended with Augustus becoming Emperor in 27 BC. ..."
"... Today's pro-One Percent media – CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times ..."
"... History of Rome ..."
"... History of Rome ..."
"... Some on Resistance Twitter claim that if Sanders is the nominee, Trump will win a 48 sweep. Possible, but very unlikely. But if it did happen, the MSM would once again dismiss his program as being completely unacceptable to the voting class, and Sanders would trudge back to Vermont never to be heard from again. ..."
"... So if his program requires a decade long follow through, what are the least bad outcomes? If the D's deprive him of the nomination at the convention, even though he has far and away more pledged delegates, the MSM cannot dismiss his program as it would in the two previous scenarios, and his program would live to fight another day. ..."
"... Trump may or may not win. But if he does, the best he can hope for is a skin-of-his-teeth victory. Seriously, he lost the popular vote by a ton to Hillary freaking Clinton. ..."
"... And stuff is beginning to crumble around him on the Right. The Dow drops. Oops Richie Rich gets uneasy. ..."
"... I was more than a little honked when Sanders appeared to roll over and support HRC in 2016 in spite of the obvious fraud perpetrated on him and his supporters, not to mention the subsequent treatment they received at the hands of the DNC and Tom Perez. ..."
"... I find myself wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea for Sanders and his supporters to make it absolutely clear their attempts to work within 'the system' are finished if they are robbed again; maybe even starting work immediately on establishing a party not controlled by Wall Street lickspittle or knuckle-dragging no-nothings? ..."
To hear the candidates debate, you would think that their fight was over who could best beat
Trump. But when Trump's billionaire twin Mike Bloomberg throws a quarter-billion dollars into
an ad campaign to bypass the candidates actually running for votes in Iowa, New Hampshire and
Nevada, it's obvious that what really is at issue is the future of the Democrat Party.
Bloomberg is banking on a brokered convention held by the Democratic National Committee (DNC)
in which money votes. (If "corporations are people," so is money in today's political
world.)
Until Nevada, all the presidential candidates except for Bernie Sanders were playing for
a brokered convention. The party's candidates seemed likely to be chosen by the Donor Class,
the One Percent and its proxies, not the voting class (the 99 Percent). If, as Mayor Bloomberg
has assumed, the DNC will sell the presidency to the highest bidder, this poses the great
question: Can the myth that the Democrats represent the working/middle class survive? Or, will
the Donor Class trump the voting class?
This could be thought of as "election interference" – not from Russia but from the
DNC on behalf of its Donor Class. That scenario would make the Democrats' slogan for 2020 "No
Hope or Change." That is, no from today's economic trends that are sweeping wealth up to the
One Percent.
All this sounds like Rome at the end of the Republic in the 1st century BC.
The way Rome's constitution was set up, candidates for the position of consul had to pay their
way through a series of offices. The process started by going deeply into debt to get elected
to the position of aedile, in charge of staging public games and entertainments. Rome's
neoliberal fiscal policy did not tax or spend, and there was little public administrative
bureaucracy, so all such spending had to be made out of the pockets of the oligarchy. That was
a way of keeping decisions about how to spend out of the hands of democratic politics. Julius
Caesar and others borrowed from the richest Bloomberg of their day, Crassus, to pay for staging
games that would demonstrate their public spirit to voters (and also demonstrate their
financial liability to their backers among Rome's One Percent). Keeping election financing
private enabled the leading oligarchs to select who would be able to run as viable candidates.
That was Rome's version of Citizens United.
But in the wake of Sanders' landslide victory in Nevada, a brokered convention
would mean the end of the Democrat Party pretense to represent the 99 Percent. The American
voting system would be seen to be as oligarchic as that of Rome on the eve of the infighting
that ended with Augustus becoming Emperor in 27 BC.
Today's pro-One Percent media – CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times
have been busy spreading their venom against Sanders. On Sunday, February 23, CNN ran a slot,
"Bloomberg needs to take down Sanders, immediately."[1]Given Sanders' heavy national lead, CNN
warned, the race suddenly is almost beyond the vote-fixers' ability to fiddle with the election
returns. That means that challengers to Sanders should focus their attack on him; they will
have a chance to deal with Bloomberg later (by which CNN means, when it is too late to stop
him).
The party's Clinton-Obama recipients of Donor Class largesse pretend to believe that Sanders
is not electable against Donald Trump. This tactic seeks to attack him at his strongest point.
Recent polls show that he is the only candidate who actually would defeat Trump – as they
showed that he would have done in 2016.
The DNC knew that, but preferred to lose to Trump than to win with Bernie. Will history
repeat itself? Or to put it another way, will this year's July convention become a replay of
Chicago in 1968?
A quandary, not a problem . Last year I was asked to write a scenario for what might happen
with a renewed DNC theft of the election's nomination process. To be technical, I realize, it's
not called theft when it's legal. In the aftermath of suits over the 2016 power grab, the
courts ruled that the Democrat Party is indeed controlled by the DNC members, not by the
voters. When it comes to party machinations and decision-making, voters are subsidiary to the
superdelegates in their proverbial smoke-filled room (now replaced by dollar-filled foundation
contracts).
I could not come up with a solution that does not involve dismantling and restructuring the
existing party system. We have passed beyond the point of having a solvable "problem" with the
Democratic National Committee (DNC). That is what a quandary is. A problem has a solution
– by definition. A quandary does not have a solution. There is no way out. The conflict
of interest between the Donor Class and the Voting Class has become too large to contain within
a single party. It must split.
A second-ballot super-delegate scenario would mean that we are once again in for a second
Trump term. That option was supported by five of the six presidential contenders on stage in
Nevada on Wednesday, February 20. When Chuck Todd asked whether Michael Bloomberg, Elizabeth
Warren, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar would support the candidate who received
the most votes in the primaries (now obviously Bernie Sanders), or throw the nomination to the
super-delegates held over from the Obama-Clinton neoliberals (75 of whom already are said to
have pledged their support to Bloomberg), each advocated "letting the process play out." That
was a euphemism for leaving the choice to the Tony-Blair style leadership that have made the
Democrats the servants' entrance to the Republican Party. Like the British Labour Party behind
Blair and Gordon Brown, its role is to block any left-wing alternative to the Republican
program on behalf of the One Percent.
This problem would not exist if the United States had a European-style parliamentary system
that would enable a third party to obtain space on the ballots in all 50 states. If this were
Europe, the new party of Bernie Sanders, AOC et al. would exceed 50 percent of the
votes, leaving the Wall Street democrats with about the same 8 percent share that similar
neoliberal democratic parties have in Europe ( e.g ., Germany's hapless neoliberalized
Social Democrats), that is, Klobocop territory as voters moved to the left. The "voting
Democrats," the 99 Percent, would win a majority leaving the Old Neoliberal Democrats in the
dust.
The DNC's role is to prevent any such challenge. The United States has an effective
political duopoly, as both parties have created such burdensome third-party access to the
ballot box in state after state that Bernie Sanders decided long ago that he had little
alternative but to run as a Democrat.
The problem is that the Democrat Party does not seem to be reformable. That means that
voters still may simply abandon it – but that will simply re-elect the Democrats' de
facto 2020 candidate, Donald Trump. The only hope would be to shrink the party into a shell,
enabling the old guard to go way so that the party could be rebuilt from the ground up.
But the two parties have created a legal duopoly reinforced with so many technical barriers
that a repeat of Ross Perot's third party (not to mention the old Socialist Party, or the Whigs
in 1854) would take more than one election cycle to put in place. For the time being, we may
expect another few months of dirty political tricks to rival those of 2016 as Obama appointee
Tom Perez is simply the most recent version of Florida fixer Debbie Schultz-Wasserman (who gave
a new meaning to the Wasserman Test).
So we are in for another four years of Donald Trump. But by 2024, how tightly will the U.S.
economy find itself tied in knots?
The Democrats' Vocabulary of Deception
How I would explain Bernie's program. Every economy is a mixed economy. But to hear Michael
Bloomberg and his fellow rivals to Bernie Sanders explain the coming presidential election, one
would think that an economy must be either capitalist or, as Bloomberg put it, Communist. There
is no middle ground, no recognition that capitalist economies have a government sector, which
typically is called the "socialist" sector – Social Security, Medicare, public schooling,
roads, anti-monopoly regulation, and public infrastructure as an alternative to privatized
monopolies extracting economic rent.
What Mr. Bloomberg means by insisting that it's either capitalism or communism is an absence
of government social spending and regulation. In practice this means oligarchic financial
control, because every economy is planned by some sector. The key is, who will do the planning?
If government refrains from taking the lead in shaping markets, then Wall Street takes over
– or the City in London, Frankfurt in Germany, and the Bourse in France.
Most of all, the aim of the One Percent is to distract attention from the fact that the
economy is polarizing – and is doing so at an accelerating rate. National income
statistics are rigged to show that "the economy" is expanding. The pretense is that everyone is
getting richer and living better, not more strapped. But the reality is that all the growth in
GDP has accrued to the wealthiest 5 Percent since the Obama Recession began in 2008. Obama
bailed out the banks instead of the 10 million victimized junk-mortgage holders. The 95
Percent's share of GDP has shrunk.
The GDP statistics do not show is that "capital gains" – the market price of stocks,
bonds and real estate owned mainly by the One to Five Percent – has soared, thanks to
Obama's $4.6 trillion Quantitative Easing pumped into the financial markets instead of into the
"real" economy in which wage-earners produce goods and services.
How does one "stay the course" in an economy that is polarizing? Staying the course means
continuing the existing trends that are concentrating more and more wealth in the hands of the
One Percent, that is, the Donor Class – while loading down the 99 Percent with more debt,
paid to the One Percent (euphemized as the economy's "savers"). All "saving" is at the top of
the pyramid. The 99 Percent can't afford to save much after paying their monthly "nut" to the
One Percent.
If this economic polarization is impoverishing most of the population while sucking wealth
and income and political power up to the One Percent, then to be a centrist is to be the
candidate of oligarchy. It means not challenging the economy's structure.
Language is being crafted to confuse voters into imagining that their interest is the same
as that of the Donor Class of rentiers , creditors and financialized corporate
businesses and rent-extracting monopolies. The aim is to divert attention from voters' their
own economic interest as wage-earners, debtors and consumers. It is to confuse voters not to
recognize that without structural reform, today's "business as usual" leaves the One Percent in
control.
So to call oneself a "centrist" is simply a euphemism for acting as a lobbyist for siphoning
up income and wealth to the One Percent. In an economy that is polarizing, the choice is either
to favor them instead of the 99 Percent.
That certainly is not the same thing as stability. Centrism sustains the polarizing dynamic
of financialization, private equity, and the Biden-sponsored bankruptcy "reform" written by his
backers of the credit-card companies and other financial entities incorporated in his state of
Delaware. He was the senator for the that state's Credit Card industry, much as former
Democratic VP candidate Joe Lieberman was the senator from Connecticut's Insurance
Industry.
A related centrist demand is that of Buttigieg's and Biden's aim to balance the federal
budget. This turns out to be a euphemism for cutting back Social Security, Medicare and relate
social spending ("socialism") to pay for America's increasing militarization, subsidies and tax
cuts for the One Percent. Sanders rightly calls this "socialism for the rich." The usual word
for this is oligarchy . That seems to be a missing word in today's mainstream
vocabulary.
The alternative to democracy is oligarchy. As Aristotle noted already in the 4 th
Confusion over the word "socialism" may be cleared up by recognizing that every economy
is mixed, and every economy is planned – by someone. If not the government in the public
interest, then by Wall Street and other financial centers in their interest. They
fought against an expanding government sector in every economy today, calling it socialism
– without acknowledging that the alternative, as Rosa Luxemburg put it, is
barbarism.
I think that Sanders is using the red-letter word "socialism" and calling himself a
"democratic socialist" to throw down the ideological gauntlet and plug himself into the long
and powerful tradition of socialist politics. Paul Krugman would like him to call himself a
social democrat. But the European parties of this name have discredited this label as being
centrist and neoliberal. Sanders wants to emphasize that a quantum leap, a phase change is in
order.
If he can be criticized for waving a needlessly red flag, it is his repeated statement
that his program is designed for the "working class." What he means are wage-earners and this
includes the middle class. Even those who make over $100,000 a year are still wage earners, and
typically are being squeezed by a predatory financial sector, a predatory medical insurance
sector, drug companies and other monopolies.
The danger in this terminology is that most workers like to think of themselves as
middle class, because that is what they would like to rise into. That is especially he case for
workers who own their own home (even if mortgage represents most of the value, so that most of
the home's rental value is paid to banks, not to themselves as part of the "landlord class"),
and have an education (even if most of their added income is paid out as student debt service),
and their own car to get to work (involving automobile debt).
The fact is that even $100,000 executives have difficulty living within the limits of
their paycheck, after paying their monthly nut of home mortgage or rent, medical care, student
loan debt, credit-card debt and automobile debt, not to mention 15% FICA paycheck withholding
and state and local tax withholding.
Of course, Sanders' terminology is much more readily accepted by wage-earners as the
voters whom Hillary called "Deplorables" and Obama called "the mob with pitchforks," from whom
he was protecting his Wall Street donors whom he invited to the White House in 2009. But I
think there is a much more appropriate term: the 99 Percent, made popular by Occupy Wall
Street. That is Bernie's natural constituency. It serves to throw down the gauntlet between
democracy and oligarchy, and between socialism and barbarism, by juxtaposing the 99 Percent to
the One Percent.
The Democratic presidential debate on February 25 will set the stage for Super
Tuesday's "beauty contest" to gauge what voters want. The degree of Sanders' win will help
determine whether the byzantine Democrat party apparatus that actually will be able to decide
on the Party's candidate. The expected strong Sanders win is will make the choice stark: either
to accept who the voters choose – namely, Bernie Sanders – or to pick a candidate
whom voters already have rejected, and is certain to lose to Donald Trump in
November.
If that occurs, the Democrat Party will evaporate as its old Clinton-Obama guard is no
longer able to protect its donor class on Wall Street and corporate America. Too many Sanders
voters would stay home or vote for the Greens. That would enable the Republicans to maintain
control of the Senate and perhaps even grab back the House of Representatives.
But it would be dangerous to assume that the DNC will be reasonable. Once again, Roman
history provides a "business as usual" scenario. The liberal German politician Theodor Mommsen
published his History of Rome in 1854-56, warning against letting an aristocracy block
reform by controlling the upper house of government (Rome's Senate, or Britain House of Lords).
The leading families who overthrew the last king in 509 BC created a Senate chronically prone
to being stifled by its leaders' "narrowness of mind and short-sightedness that are the proper
and inalienable privileges of all genuine patricianism."[2]
These qualities also are the distinguishing features of the DNC. Sanders had better win
big!
I wonder how much of the rot at the top of the Dem party is simple dementia. By
the age of 70, half of people have some level of dementia. Consider Joe Biden – is
anyone in the public sphere going to state the obvious – that he has dementia and as
such is unfit for office?
First, my priors. I voted for Sanders in 2016, will vote for him in 2020, and
expect him to be elected president. Further I believe that where we find ourselves today is
the result of at least 40 years of intentional bi-partisan policies. Both parties are
responsible.
If Sanders, upon being elected, were able to snap his fingers and call into
existence his entire program, it would immediately face a bi-partisan opposition that would
be funded by billions of dollars, which would be willing to take as long as necessary, even
decades, to roll it back.
Just electing Sanders is only the first step. There must be a committed,
determined follow through that must be willing to last decades as well for his program to
stick. And there will be defeats along the way.
Several observations. If Hillary had beaten Trump, Sanders would have trudged
back to Vermont and would never have been heard from again. The MSM would have dismissed his
program as being completely unacceptable to the voting class. But she didn't, so here we are,
which is fantastic.
Some on Resistance Twitter claim that if Sanders is the nominee, Trump will
win a 48 sweep. Possible, but very unlikely. But if it did happen, the MSM would once again
dismiss his program as being completely unacceptable to the voting class, and Sanders would
trudge back to Vermont never to be heard from again.
So if his program requires a decade long follow through, what are the least
bad outcomes? If the D's deprive him of the nomination at the convention, even though he has
far and away more pledged delegates, the MSM cannot dismiss his program as it would in the
two previous scenarios, and his program would live to fight another
day.
If he loses to Trump, but closely, which can mean a lot of different things,
his program would live to fight another day. Moreover, if the D's are seen to actively
collude with Trump, this less bad outcome would be even better.
I am an old geezer and don't expect to live long enough to see how all of this
plays out. But I am very optimistic about his program's long term prospects. There is only
one bad outcome, a Trump 48 state sweep, which I consider very unlikely. But most
importantly, the best outcome, his election, and the two least bad outcomes, the D's stealing
the nomination from him or his losing a close general election, all still will require a
decades long commitment to make his program permanent.
Where do people get this? Take a deep breath. Trump may or may not win. But if
he does, the best he can hope for is a skin-of-his-teeth victory. Seriously, he lost the
popular vote by a ton to Hillary freaking Clinton.
And stuff is beginning to crumble around him on the Right. The Dow drops. Oops
Richie Rich gets uneasy.
Hammered by a 5 star general. The Deplorables kids were raised to look up to
generals, not New Yawk dandys. How does this affect them? And it's still
February.
Just an FYI: The five-volume Mommsen "History of Rome" referenced in the text
is available in English on Project Gutenberg, free and legal to download. Probably everyone
here knows this, but just in case
How about Bernie call himself "Roosevelt Democrat" instead of "Democratic
Socialist". It would give all those in the senior demographic a better understanding of what
Sander's policies mean to them as opposed to the scary prospect of the "Socialist"
label.
The Democrats should have been slowly disarming the word "socialist" for at
least the last decade. In principle, it's not difficult – as Michael Hudson says
– "Every economy is a mixed economy" – and in a very real sense everyone's a
socialist (even if only unconsciously). I'm not saying that bit of rhetorical jujitsu would
magically turn conservative voters progressive but you'll never get to the point where you
can defend socialist programs on the merits if you always dodge that fight. It's just a shame
that Bernie Sanders has to do it all in a single election cycle and I don't think choosing a
different label now would help him much.
He could even compare himself to the earlier Roosevelt: Teddy
Roosevelt.
By 1900 the old bourbon Dem party was deeply split between its old, big
business and banking wing – the bourbons – and the rising progressive/populist
wing. It was GOP pres Roosevelt who first pushed through progressive programs like breaking
up railroad and commodity monopolies, investigating and regulating meat packing and
fraudulent patent medicines, etc. Imagine that.
I just finished Stoller's book Goliath and according to him, Teddy
wasn't quite as progressive as we are often led to believe. He wasn't so much opposed to
those with enormous wealth – he just wanted them to answer to him. He did do the things
you mentioned, but after sending the message to the oligarchs, he then became friendly with
them once he felt he'd brought them to heel. He developed quite the soft spot for JP Morgan,
according to Stoller.
TR wanted to be the Boss, the center of attention with everyone looking up to
him. As one of his relatives said, he wanted to be the baby at every christening and the
corpse at every funeral.
I have a sense that changing his party affiliation label at any point in time
since Sanders began running for president in 2016 would be a godsend to his enemies in both
hands of the Duopoly. They'd tar him loudly as a hypocrite without an ounce of integrity,
using personal politics to distract from the issues.
Meanwhile, we can expect to see the Socialist (and Communist, and
Russia-Russia-Russia) nonsense reiterated as long as Sanders has strong visibility. He's
extremely dangerous to both parties and their owners. I don't' believe the DNC will let him
take the convention, but if he does, I'll bet the Dems give him minimal support and hope he
fails–better the devil you know, etc.
It's time to put your money in reality futures by putting all that you can into
supporting Bernie, AOC, etc. and all your local candidates that support at least democratic
socialism and ourrevolution the DSA Justice Dems or other groups that have people but need
money. I was having a conversation with a friend who was complaining that he was getting too
many emails from Bernie asking for money after he had given the campaign a "modest amount".
My suggestion was in honor of his children and grandchildren he should instead GIVE 'TIL IT
FEELS GOOD. My spouse and I, I told him, gave the max to Bernie and now we don't give upset
when he asks for more. There will likely never be a moment like this in history and there may
not be much of a history if things go the wrong way now. He agreed.
Exactly right. I gave Bernie the max in 2019 and will keep giving throughout
2020. This campaign is about not just me, but all of us. It's now. We must fight for this
change as has always been the historical precedent.
I was more than a little honked when Sanders appeared to roll over and
support HRC in 2016 in spite of the obvious fraud perpetrated on him and his supporters, not
to mention the subsequent treatment they received at the hands of the DNC and Tom
Perez.
I am coming to understand that might have been necessary within the context of
one last desperate attempt to work with the Democratic party. But now I find myself
wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea for Sanders and his supporters to make it absolutely
clear their attempts to work within 'the system' are finished if they are robbed again; maybe
even starting work immediately on establishing a party not controlled by Wall Street
lickspittle or knuckle-dragging no-nothings?
Little as it has been the answer has a lot to do with my willingness to pour
more money into repetitively self-defeating behavior.
I am a somewhat old geezer, too, who caucused for Bernie in 2016 and 2020. This
article is very good and helps me understand why I feel the way I do. I was disappointed in
Obama, who didn't follow through on the things I cared about, and I was devastated when
Clinton was crowned the Democratic nominee well before the Convention, all the while holding
onto a smidgen of hope that somehow Bernie would pull through as the
nominee.
I was ecstatic when Bernie announced his candidacy for 2020. He is our only
hope, and now we have a second chance. But now I am spending half my time screaming at people
on tv and online who can't even hear me, and even if they could, they don't give a s–t
what I think. It's Clinton 2.0–same thing all over again, four years later. Just who do
these people (DNC, MSM, and others with a voice) think they are, to decide for the Democratic
voters which candidate will be the nominee, who won't be the nominee, without regard to what
the voters want? They are a bunch of pompous as–s who have some other motive that I am
not savvy enough to understand. Is it about money in their pockets or what?
It should be as simple as this–Bernie is leading in the polls, if they
are to be believed, and good people of all demographics want him to be our next President. He
is a serious contender for the nomination. Show the man some much-earned respect and put
people on MSM and publish articles by writers who help us understand what the anti-Bernie
panic is about and why we shouldn't panic. Help us to explain his plans if he hasn't
explained it thoroughly enough instead of calling him crazy. But to dismiss him as if he has
the plague is not furthering the truth, and it is a serious injustice to the voting public.
Naked Capitalism can't do it alone.
There is a lot of good analysis out there, mainly on Youtube. I particularly
like The Hill's Rising. A young progressive Democrat and a young progressive Republican (who
even knew there was such a thing!) 'splain a lot of the antipathy. Another good source is
Nomiki Konst, who is working on reforming the Dem party from within. Here she talks to RJ
Eskow about how the DNC is structured and how she hopes to provide tools for rank-and-file
Dems to wrest the levers of power from the establishment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ7wm6DCPV4
Private sector cannot operate without same. Harrold
The problem is that the population, including FDR in his time, have been duped
into believing that the private sector REQUIRES government privileges for private depository
institutions, aka "the banks."
So currently we have no truly private sector to speak of but businesses and
industry using the public's credit but for private gain.
Last night's Democracy Now was interesting. Amy seems to be less of a commie
hater than she recently was with her participation in the Russia-Russia-Russia smears against
Trump. She held court last night with Paul Krugman and Richard Wolff discussing just exactly
what "socialism" means. It was a great performance.
Krug seemed a little shellshocked about the whole discussion and he said we
shouldn't even use the term "socialism" at all because all the things Bernie wants are just
as capitalist – that capitalism encompasses socialism. But he stuttered when he
discussed "single-payer" which he claimed he supported – his single payer is like Pete
Buttigieg's single-payer-eventually. He tried to change the subject and Amy brought him
straight back.
Then Wolff, who was in excellent form, informed the table that "socialism" is a
moveable feast because it can be and has been many things for the advancement of societies,
etc. But the term always means the advancement of society. Then Krug dropped a real bomb
– he actually said (this is almost a quote) that recently he had been informed by
Powell that debt isn't really all that important.
Really, Krug said that. And he tried to exetend that thought to the argument
that anybody can provide social benefits – it doesn't require a self-proclaimed
"socialist".
Richard Wolff confronted that slide with pointing out that it hasn't happened
yet – and he left Krug with no excuses. It was quite the showdown. Nice Richard Wolff
is so firmly in Bernie's camp.
Krug looked evasive – and I kept wishing they had invited Steve Keen to
participate.
"... The key promise of neoliberalism, which came to power in the USA in 1980 with the election of Reagan (aka "the Quiet Coup")
was that "the rising tide lifts all boats." -- the redistribution of the wealth up somehow will lift the standard of living of lower
strata of the population too. This was a false promise from the very beginning (like everything about neoliberalism, which is based
on lies and fake economics in any case). So anger accumulated and now became the key factor in elections. This anger is directed against
the neoliberal establishment. ..."
"... The anger toward immigrants is, in fact, a displaced and projected anger against the elimination of meaningful and well-paid
jobs and replacing them with McJobs, the process that was the key factor in lowering the standard of living of the bottom 80% of the
population. ..."
"... The other part of this anger is directed toward the USA financial oligarchy (personified by such passionately hated figures
as Lloyd "we are doing God's" Blankfein, private equity sharks, and figures like Wexner/Epstein) and "political establishment" the key
figures of which many people would like to see hanging from street lamp posts (remember "Lock her up" movement in 2016). ..."
"... That's why the neoliberal establishment was forced to use to dirty tricks like Russiagate to patch the cracks in the neoliberal
façade. ..."
"... In Marxist terms, the USA entered the period called the "revolutionary situation" when the ruling neoliberal elite couldn't
govern "as usual" and "the deplorable" do not want to live "as usual". The situation when according to Hegel, "quantity turns into quality,"
or as Marx said "ideas become a material force when they grip the mind of the masses." ..."
I am old enough to remember when many very serious people ascribed the rise of Donald Trump to economic anxiety. The hypthesis
never fit the facts (his supporters had higher incomes on average than Clinton's) but it has become absurd. The level of self reported
economic anxiety is extraordinarily low
Yet now the Democratic party has an insurgent candidate candidate in the lead. I hasten to stress that I am not saying Sanders
supporters have much in common with Trump supporters (young vs old, strong hispanic support vs they hate Trump etc etc etc). But
both appeal to anger and advocate a radical break with business as usual. Both reject party establishments. Also Warren if a little
bit less so.
Trump's 2016 angry supporters still support him *and* they are still angry. He remains unpopular in spite of an economy performing
very well (and perceived to be performing very well).
Whatever is going on in 2020, it sure isn't economic anxiety.
Yet there is clearly anger and desire for radical change.
I don't pretend to understand it, but I think it probably has a lot to do with relative economic performance and increased
inequality. I can't understand why the reaction of so many Americans to this would be to hate immigrants and vote for Trump,
but, then I don't watch Fox News.
Trump's 2016 angry supporters still support him *and* they are still angry.
Many Trump "angry supporters" in 2016 used to belong to "anybody but Hillary" class (and they included a noticeable percentage
of Bernie supporters, who felt betrayed by DNC) .
They are lost for Trump as he now in many aspects represents the "new Hillary" and the slogan "anybody but Trump" is growing
in popularity. Even among Republicans: Trump definitely already lost a large part of anti-war Republicans and independents. As
well as. most probably, a part of working class as he did very little for them outside of effects of military Keynesianism.
I suspect he also lost a part of military voters, those who supported Tulsi. They will never vote for Trump.
He also lost a part of "technocratic" voters resentful of the rule of financial oligarchy (anti-swampers), as his incompetence
is now an undisputable fact.
He also lost Ron Paul's libertarians, who voted for him in 2016.
How "Coronavirus recession", if any, might affect 2020 elections is difficult to say, but in any case this is an unfavorable
for Trump event.
EMichael , February 25, 2020 10:39 am
"I can't understand why the reaction of so many Americans to this would be to hate immigrants and vote for Trump, but, then
I don't watch Fox News."
Coming to you since 1965. It's just that immigrants are now added to blacks. Trump took 50 years of the Southern Strategy,
took the dogwhistles completely out of the closet and wore his racism right on his chest. Helped that he had over 50 years of
experience as a racist, it came naturally to him.
And he attracted a new rw base, those who were not satisfied with dog whistles and/or did not hear them.
likbez , February 25, 2020 12:19 pm
I don't pretend to understand it, but I think it probably has a lot to do with relative economic performance and increased
inequality.
It is actually very easy to understand: the middle class fared very poorly since 1991. See
https://www.cnbc.com/id/44962589 . Now "the chickens come home
to roost," so to speak.
The key promise of neoliberalism, which came to power in the USA in 1980 with the election of Reagan (aka "the Quiet Coup")
was that "the rising tide lifts all boats." -- the redistribution of the wealth up somehow will lift the standard of living of
lower strata of the population too. This was a false promise from the very beginning (like everything about neoliberalism, which
is based on lies and fake economics in any case). So anger accumulated and now became the key factor in elections. This anger
is directed against the neoliberal establishment.
The anger toward immigrants is, in fact, a displaced and projected anger against the elimination of meaningful and well-paid
jobs and replacing them with McJobs, the process that was the key factor in lowering the standard of living of the bottom 80%
of the population.
The other part of this anger is directed toward the USA financial oligarchy (personified by such passionately hated figures
as Lloyd "we are doing God's" Blankfein, private equity sharks, and figures like Wexner/Epstein) and "political establishment"
the key figures of which many people would like to see hanging from street lamp posts (remember "Lock her up" movement in 2016).
Resentment against spending huge amounts of money for wars for sustaining and enlarging the global USA-centered neoliberal
empire is another factor. In this sense, impoverishment and shrinking of the middle class in the USA is similar to the same impoverishment
during the last days of the British colonial empire.
That's why the neoliberal establishment was forced to use to dirty tricks like Russiagate to patch the cracks in the neoliberal
façade.
In Marxist terms, the USA entered the period called the "revolutionary situation" when the ruling neoliberal elite couldn't
govern "as usual" and "the deplorable" do not want to live "as usual". The situation when according to Hegel, "quantity turns
into quality," or as Marx said "ideas become a material force when they grip the mind of the masses."
In 2016 that resulted in the election of Trump.
Add to this the fact that the neoliberal establishment (represented by both parties) now is clearly anti-social (the fact
that a private equity shark Romney was a presidential candidate and then was elected as senator tells a lot about the level of
degradation) and is unwilling to solve burning problems with medical insurance, minimal wage and other "the New Deal" elements
of social infrastructure.
Democratic Party platform now is to the right of Eisenhower republicans.
That dooms the party candidates like CIA-democrat Major Pete, or "the senator from the credit card companies" Biden,
and create an opening for political figures like Sanders (which are passionately hated by DNC)
SharonM @4 [Bernie] ... will suck the life out of a possible leftist movement in this
country.
Just like Obama, the faux-populist huckster.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
IMO Bernie will not be the nominee. The Democratic Party will throw sheepdog Bernie
and his supporters a few bones (like VP pick), then Bernie will declare victory and support
whomever is the nominee (as he's always said he would).
But Bernie is not that much of a threat to the establishment. His whole thing is updating
domestic policy, while he continues U.S. hegemony around the world. The most powerful force
in the U.S. is the MIC, and Bernie is all in. In my view, of course;)
Every time I allow some optimism to grip me concerning Bernie's campaign, he throws
another sucker punch promoting the dangerous and dumbass Russia narrative. I'll vote Tulsi in
March if she's still in the race; making that tiny statement is more important to me than the
also tiny vote rewarding someone for being so wrong about a most important issue.
I went back to a Caitlin Johnstone piece from exactly a year ago talking about this. She
predicted accurately that the smears would then be used against him also:
"I find myself unable to join in the jubilations over Bernie's candidacy because of what
I've learned and seen since the last election. Sanders not only refused to provide any
pushback whatsoever against the DNC's blatant subversion of the will of the people, but he
actively fanned the flames of the establishment Russia hysteria which the Democratic Party
used to completely kill the narrative about primary rigging.
Contrary to the belief of some Bernie supporters I've spoken to, Sanders didn't just
pay lip service to some Russian interference once or twice and then change the subject back
to healthcare and income inequality: he has gone full Rachel Maddow promoting the Russian
collusion narrative many, many times. As we discussed recently, this baseless Russia
hysteria that he has sold to American progressives will be used to attack him throughout
the primary, and it will be partly his fault for promoting that narrative."
"While Bernie might not start any new hot wars or engage in the kind of obscene regime
change interventionism we're seeing from Trump in Venezuela, under a President Sanders we
can expect to see a continued escalation of the world-threatening cold war against Russia,
continued starvation sanctions against nations which fail to comply with the demands of the
US empire, continued military expansionism around the world, and very little pushback
against the depraved agendas of military and intelligence agencies.
We can expect to see him play right along with the establishment narrative if the
political/media class decides that Assad is gassing civilians and needs a dose of Tomahawk
missiles, and we can probably expect him to facilitate the persecution of Julian Assange as
well."
For the left, it's easy to be skeptical of Bernie Sanders. He has and does act as a sheepdog
for Democrats to swoop centrist progressives into the Democrats' debauched Money-Power tent.
We all know the monopoly two-party systems in the States is one of two-sides of the same
coin; controlled opposition.
But if folks believe what they say about a variety of existential problems facing life on
this planet, and that time is of the essence, then the idea of waiting for 'revolution' or
conducting leftist purity tests for candidates to prove their Peace, Love and Understanding,
is to cut off the nose to spite the face.
The Green Party, to which I belong, polls about 1% and has no traction whatsoever in the
political landscape of the country in 2020. If one thinks our problems are existential and
time-sensitive, then what alternative is there but to place one's hope in a lifelong mensch
who has held true to his beliefs while the Democrats, under Clinton/Schumer/Pelosi/Obama
leadership has relegated the Party to a vassal of greed, and are nothing short of
co-conspirators in great crimes against humanity.
I get all the purity arguments, and sheep-herding skepticism. But in the United States of
America, awash in devious propaganda, jingoist extremism, and a population of the dazed and
confused, Bernie Sanders is a cry in the wilderness for some sense of decency and he deserves
support. All war is class war, and the working class is on its way to annihilation. It's
Sanders or Bust.
IMO Bernie will not be the nominee. Jack Rabbit at 7.
Right on. If he finally is hoisted to that position, contrary to all expectations,
resisting all the kill-him Dem moves (which are costing the Dems. bigly) it will be because
the fix is in, giving Trump a second term.
But Bernie is not that much of a threat to the establishment Sharon M at 11.
Here's Bernie's
reaction to his briefing by U.S. intelligence officials about Russian attempts to
interfere in the 2020 elections:
"The ugly thing that they are doing, and I've seen some of their tweets and stuff, is they
try to divide us up. That's what they did in 2016."
Sanders described Russian President Vladimir Putin as a "thug" in a statement on Friday,
emphasizing that he stands "firmly against" Russian interference efforts.
"Unlike Donald Trump, I do not consider Vladimir Putin a good friend. He is an autocratic
thug who is attempting to destroy democracy and crush dissent in Russia," Sanders said.
"Let's be clear, the Russians want to undermine American democracy by dividing us up and,
unlike the current president, I stand firmly against their efforts, and any other foreign
power that wants to interfere in our election."
If he gets elected, Bernie will get along great with the Deep State, he's already spouting
their propaganda.
Two decades ago I knew people in my state's Green Party and Dummycrat Party. The funny thing
was, it was the same people in both parties! In my view, the hapless Greens were organized to
be sheepdogs, but they have been replaced by Bernie.
Comments like this are disingenuous, Democracy Works! bullcrap that supports the
establishment while pretending to be against it.
<> <> <> <> <>
Still no answer to my question:
Why can't we have independent Movements AND support Bernie?
The best way around the two-party lock on politics is to support strong independent,
long-lasting Movements.
We are allowed to have Movements for women, minorities, the environment, etc. but not for
economic justice and democracy. The media and political parties discourage it. We know they
work for the power elite, not for the people.
Perhaps if Bernie was not the fake servant of the MIC that he is (rather than a socialist)
he would have drawn attention to the USA's meddling in Russia's elections. Because...it seems
that, besides being a lie, the whole 'Russia did it' narrative may well have been a case of
'the pot calling the kettle black', for a new report out of Russia exhaustively lists the
ways in which the American state and oligarch and CIA funded NGO's have attempted to
interfere in Russian elections...
As many others have pointed out, the outlaw US empire has been sanctioning, regime
changing, overthrowing, assassinating, and "bombing back to the stone age" any country that
elects a leader who initiates socialist policies that inhibits "American interests" which
means the ability to benefit in some way. Socialism is another way of saying a government
"for the people" when all America stands for is government "for the rich".
If we have gone to so much trouble, as Bill Blum called it in his book "Killing Hope" over
the last 75+ years to 50+ countries, why would we let it happen here?
gottlieb @ 15 said in part;"We all know the monopoly two-party systems in the States is one
of two-sides of the same coin; controlled opposition."
"But if folks believe what they say about a variety of existential problems facing life on
this planet, and that time is of the essence, then the idea of waiting for 'revolution' or
conducting leftist purity tests for candidates to prove their Peace, Love and Understanding,
is to cut off the nose to spite the face."
Absolutely right on point!
Perhaps the folks here daily who consistently trash Bernie, can enlighten us misguided
fools as to what "movement" or candidate we should prefer.
Americans have ended up without honor, without ethics or even common human decency.. They can
not be helped.. And it seems they are already in control.
How can you help people who are already lost and beyond redemption? They need to care for
themselves and then others. Dont even know what they care about.. Kind of like the zoo where
the monkeys are running amock. And this is what capitalism brings you when there are no
restrictions or over sight to keep people safe from predators.
"... The Democrats are in a bind. The only candidate that generates any enthusiasm among their candidates is Bernie. Yet a Bernie win would lead to the possibility that the Clinton-Obama machine that has dominated the DNC power structures may be on the out. They'll resist with everything they've got. They can't afford the loss of money and power. ..."
"... Lloyd Blankfein has stated that he would vote for Trump than Bernie. He must echo Wall St sentiment. They too can't afford giving up the gravy train of the past 40 years that financialization of the economy has given them. ..."
"... As Eric Newhill points out the Democrats are damned if they go Bernie and damned if they don't. ..."
"... The democratic establishment had every intention of rigging the primary by means of "super delegates" at a brokered convention, but it looks like Bernie is going to win an outright majority. People want change. Bernie is the only guy who can bring the US troops home from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan - so I hope he wins. ..."
The Democrats are in a bind. The only candidate that generates any enthusiasm among their
candidates is Bernie. Yet a Bernie win would lead to the possibility that the Clinton-Obama
machine that has dominated the DNC power structures may be on the out. They'll resist with
everything they've got. They can't afford the loss of money and power.
Lloyd Blankfein has stated that he would vote for Trump than Bernie. He must echo Wall St
sentiment. They too can't afford giving up the gravy train of the past 40 years that
financialization of the economy has given them.
As Eric Newhill points out the Democrats are damned if they go Bernie and damned if they
don't.
If the Nevada results are indication of the Latino vote in the Southwest, then it will be
interesting how they vote in Texas and Arizona. They voted overwhelmingly (70+%) for Bernie
in Nevada. Super Tuesday will probably provide clues if Bernie will lead the delegate count
by a significant margin. The question is will the DNC bigwigs force everyone out to coalesce
around Bloomberg or will their plan be to use the second ballot at the convention to deny
Bernie. The latter will likely fracture the party as the Bernie Bros will not take this
second time of super delegates putting their thumbs on the scale well and that could mean the
loss of the House. A perfect scenario for Trump.
I'm curious why Trump is trolling on behalf of Bernie over Mike. Does he believe Mike
would be a more formidable opponent?
What is interesting is that there has been no reflection by the establishment of both
parties and the big corporate media why the voters are more enthusiastic for Trump and
Bernie. Clearly the status quo over the past 40 years have only created deep frustration
among significant sections of the electorate.
IMO, an underestimated threat is the coronavirus. If it turns out to be a real pandemic
and large parts of China and S. Korea remain shut for an extended period it would have
significant implications as the extent of dependence on the Chinese supply chain will become
apparent. That is one consequence of the policies of both parties over the past several
decades. Another is if the coronavirus spreads in the US. I'm skeptical that we are prepared
to handle it. We may experience another Katrina moment. That would play to Bernie's
message.
At this point in time, Trump must be feeling very good about his re-election
prospects.
The democratic establishment had every intention of rigging the primary by means of "super
delegates" at a brokered convention, but it looks like Bernie is going to win an outright
majority. People want change. Bernie is the only guy who can bring the US troops home from
Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan - so I hope he wins.
Colonel, you ponder the monetary value of a delegate's vote. I wonder what the monetary value
of Bernie having a 'heart attack' and being unable to continue for health reasons is
increasing to?
Probably vastly more than last times lakeside house.
No need for the inuendo. Bernie's on the campaign trail shaking hands daily. Corona-Chan,
or just the old fashioned flu and hospitalization is more likely, not to mention a stress
induced heart attack when Trump debates him.
I was really surprised to see Sanders do so well. It will say a lot about the state of our
country if we end up with two candidates who won as the result of protest votes in November.
The Clinton's old friend James Carville is sounding the alarm against going too far left.
He makes some good points:
"We have candidates on the debate stage talking about open borders and decriminalizing
illegal immigration. They're talking about doing away with nuclear energy and fracking.
You've got Bernie Sanders talking about letting criminals and terrorists vote from jail
cells. It doesn't matter what you think about any of that, or if there are good arguments --
talking about that is not how you win a national election. It's not how you become a
majoritarian party.
For f***'s sake, we've got Trump at Davos talking about cutting Medicare and no one in the
party has the sense to plaster a picture of him up there sucking up to the global elites,
talking about cutting taxes for them while he's talking about cutting Medicare back home.
Jesus, this is so obvious and so easy and I don't see any of the candidates taking advantage
of it."
I myself have gone back and forth about who I'll vote for in the primary. I don't agree
with or feel uncertain about much of what Sanders says but then how much of what he advocates
has a chance of being voted for by Congress anyway? Part of me wants to be a protestor too,
like I was in 2016 when I voted for Sanders and then Trump.
I am very worried about the future of our nation and the world, too. Both parties are very
wrong about some things.
oh. 'em pesky reds!! they are at it again.. they just can't keep their hands off America..
they have been at it ever since Columbus beat them to it!! and what is Russia going to do, if
their man loses the house? would the red movement take over Mockba again!!! what a convoluted
soup.. and where is FDR to save them capitalist from themselves!!! again! This sounds like of
one of Carol B's skids, "As the stomach turns".
On the less funnier side, what if Bernie picks Tulsi as VP? That would add an interesting
dimension. The real economy is not any where like what is advertised, or even perceived by
the top 10-15% income earners. As much money as the FED has been pumping to REPO market since
Sep, all is needed a 2008 surprise, before the election.
Trump promised to clear the swamp and stop the never ending wars.. he didn't carry except
some brouhaha!! the swamp got him swamped. Can Bernie clear the swamp? His political savvy
MAY be better than Trumps street/business fighting. Ultimately, it is the swamp/deep state
and their corp media, that needs some serious re-arrangements. Ofcourse, any successful
democracy, also needs an informed public.
Democrat establishment should not be surprised - they are reaping what they have sown over
the past few decades. It is their own teacher union-driven K-12 harvest that preached hate
America and created everyone is a victim grievance industry. Those are the Bernie Babies.
Many, many, many of them are also anchor babies, coming into full voting maturity after
having left the back door open for over 21 years too. ( Since 1999 and voila, you have a
Bernie voter)
This your spawn, Democrats. Your hands rocked this cradle and now they want to rule the
world. Plus now you demand universal child care and mandatory Pre-K? Stop acting so
surprised.
Don't forget, in 1982 SCOTUS mandated free K-12 for all illegals. We have been turning out
Berniecrats like sausages ever since.
A cold fusion energy cycle - open borders feed K-12 teachers unions - K-12 teachers unions
feed Democrat candidates - Democrat candidates feed more open borders - the full cycle is now
in perpetual motion.
This weekend is the S. Carolina primary. The polls have Biden in the lead but Bernie
coming on strong. With a significant black vote in the Democratic primary it will be pivotal
moment for the non-Bernie candidates. Super Tuesday 3 days later is gonna be huge with states
with nearly 40% of the population voting. Over 1,300 delegates at stake. Huge states like
California and Texas as well as Tennessee, Virginia, Colorado, N.Carolina and Massachusetts.
Enough of a cross-section of states to dent Bernie. If he runs away with a big delegate lead,
the Democrats party establishment will be faced with a big decision.
A first for corporate media. In the aftermath of the Nevada caucus results.
This is a wake-up moment for the American power establishment.
Many in this elite are behaving like aristocrats in a dying regime -- including in
media.
It's time for many to step up, rethink, and understand the dawn of what may be a new era
in America.
Remember 2016 when Tyler kept saying that the polls were baloney - and was proven right?
The polls back then said Trump had no chance, and they are equally rigged against Bernie this
time.
Carville is living to see the destruction of the Clinton lock on the Democratic Party.
Almost as enjoyable as hearing people like him complain that Trump is "sucking up" to the
global elite is their complaining about low population states having 2 Senators - but they
never mention VT or NH or Delaware.
I revel in my mastery of 5th grade maths when I calculate that what Bloomberg has spent,
relative to his wealth, is approx. the same as a wage earner making $150k per annum
donating
$1000 to the party of his choice.
Bloomberg's assets have not yet felt 'the bern'.
"... And what is funny it is an Obama-style fake: a lot of nice words, but no real actions are planned (in case of the Nobel Peace Price laureate, his action were quite opposite to promises and expectations ) . ..."
"... I see no reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, no unconditional right of workers to unionize, no obligatory role of trade unions in negotiation with management, or any other the New Deal principles/regulations destroyed starting with Carter (but mostly by Clinton administration.) ..."
"... In this sense, I respect Warren's program, which contains some concrete steps and actions against financial oligarchy, not just good wishes. ..."
>And the platform this year will be further left than the most liberal platform
ever.
While I belong to "Anybody but Trump" camp, I do resent the "Clintonzed" Democratic
Party and, especially, its leadership.
The problem is that the distance between the platform and the actions of Democratic
Party leaders is in miles. They completely ignore it. In no way, the elected President will
be bound by the program. Or the Senators and Representatives.
The party is now the second war party which also is in the pocket of Wall Street.
And Clinton wing of the party ("soft-neoliberals") still dominates and wants to continue that
way, despite some areas of resistance that emerged recently.
I do not see the program as anything close to Eisenhower Administration, which
actively supported and enforced the New Deal.
And when people like Schumer (the senator from Wall Street) and Menendez (the
corrupt senator from MIC) are called Democrats, the democratic platform does not even worth
electrons used to project it on the screen. It's all fake.
And what is funny it is an Obama-style fake: a lot of nice words, but no real
actions are planned (in case of the Nobel Peace Price laureate, his action were quite
opposite to promises and expectations ) .
I see no reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, no unconditional right of workers to
unionize, no obligatory role of trade unions in negotiation with management, or any other the
New Deal principles/regulations destroyed starting with Carter (but mostly by Clinton
administration.)
Look at the completely toothless "Reining in Wall Street and Fixing our Financial
System" section. All they propose is the re-enactment of Dodd-Frank and call it a
day:
We will also vigorously implement, enforce, and build on President Obama's
landmark Dodd-Frank financial reform law, and we will stop dead in its tracks every
Republican effort to weaken it. We will stop Republican efforts to hamstring our regulators
through budget cuts, and we will ensure they have the resources and independence to fully
enforce the law and hold both individuals and corporations accountable when they break the
rules. We will also continue to protect consumers and defend the CFPB from Republican
attacks.
In this sense, I respect Warren's program, which contains some concrete steps and
actions against financial oligarchy, not just good wishes.
What we see in this program is the full support of neoliberal globalization, the
full support of the "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine, and foreign wars. What is the
difference with Republicans in those areas is not very clear. How about calling this
arrangement a Uniparty, a more sophisticated variety of the system that existed in the
USSR.
We support a smart, predictable defense budget that meets the strategic
challenges we face, not the arbitrary cuts that the Republican Congress enacted as part of
sequestration. We must prioritize military readiness by making sure our Active,
Reserve, and National Guard components remain the best trained and equipped in the
world. We will seek a more agile and flexible force and rid the military of outdated
Cold War-era systems.
The program promotes and institutionalizes a very aggressive, jingoistic stance
toward Russia, essentially the position of pro-Hillary and CIA-democrats wings, risking the
nuclear confrontation (BTW Putin will be gone soon, so the next Russian leadership probably
will be of Trump variety -- of "national neoliberalism" variety -- and that increases the
danger of WWIII ) :
Russia is engaging in destabilizing actions along its borders, violating Ukraine's
sovereignty, and attempting to recreate spheres of influence that undermine American
interests. It is also propping up the Assad regime in Syria, which is brutally attacking
its own citizens. Donald Trump would overturn more than 50 years of American foreign policy
by abandoning NATO partners -- countries who help us fight terrorism every day -- and
embracing Russian President Vladimir Putin instead. We believe in strong alliances and will
deter Russian aggression, build European resilience, and protect our NATO allies. We will
make it clear to Putin that we are prepared to cooperate with him when it is in our
interest -- as we did on reducing nuclear stockpiles, ensuring Iran could not obtain a
nuclear weapon, sanctioning North Korea, and resupplying our troops in Afghanistan -- but
we will not hesitate to stand up to Russian aggression. We will also continue to stand by
the Russian people and push the government to respect the fundamental rights of its
citizens.
Which means that they fully embraced Russiagate and are in the pocket of
intelligence agencies and MIC. I especially like calling the reaction on the USA sponsored
coup d'état of far-right nationalists against the legitimate government "violating
Ukraine's sovereignty"
"... Admiral Bill McRaven is proving himself to be an ignorant buffoon. Yes, I'm calling a so-called military hero a clown. He is out today with a despicable op-ed attacking President Trump for removing ACTING DNI Joe Maguire. Here is a sampling of McRaven's stupidity: ..."
"... Maguire's role as DNI was a temporary appointment. It was not permanent and was not submitted to the Senate as part of a confirmation process. He was a mere place holder. Yet McRaven and others in the anti-Trump crowd display their profound ignorance and insist, wrongly, that Trump fired Maguire. ..."
"... Guess what? Maguire's resignation coincides with the 210 day limit. ..."
"... Donald Trump is now on the offensive against a corrupt, dishonest intelligence and law enforcement community as well as their enablers in the festering establishment--the whole crowd is panicked. ..."
"... If there really was intelligence that Russia had embarked on a new, more expansive round of meddling then that intelligence should have been briefed to the President as part of Presidential Daily Briefing. But that has not taken place. Trump's National Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien says pointedly that he has seen no intelligence to substantiate The NY Times report. NONE : ..."
"... "I haven't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President Trump reelected," Robert O'Brien, who was appointed by Trump to the post in September, said in an ABC News interview to be broadcast on Sunday. ..."
"... "Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called "The Resistance," and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the Executive Branch and his Administration. Now, "resistance" is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes -- It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous -- and indeed incendiary -- notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the "loyal opposition," as opposing parties have done in this country for over 200 years, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government." ..."
"... Now don't go troubling yourself, Admiral, over finding a reason why people outside your beltway circle don't give a rat's ass about you and your pals getting disrespected. It's been a long time coming, a very long time, but ya'll have earned in spades the right to be ignored. Get used to it. Fool us for a year, for two years, three... but for eighteen years??? Sorry Admiral. Stop whining. ..."
"... Caity Johnstone has written a parody piece in which the intelligence community labels every candidate other than Buttigieg to be a Secret Russian Agent. ..."
The Russia Interference Hoax--Deja Vu All Over Again by Larry C Johnson
Admiral Bill McRaven is proving himself to be an ignorant buffoon. Yes, I'm calling a so-called military hero a clown. He
is out today with a despicable op-ed attacking President Trump for removing ACTING DNI Joe Maguire. Here is a sampling of McRaven's
stupidity:
Edmund Burke, the Irish statesman and philosopher,
once said
: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Over the course of the past three years, I have
watched good men and women, friends of mine, come and go in the Trump administration -- all trying to do something -- all trying
to do their best. Jim Mattis, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster, Sue Gordon, Dan Coats and, now, Joe Maguire, who until this week was the
acting director of national intelligence. . . .
But, of course, in this administration, good men and women don't last long. Joe was dismissed for doing his job: overseeing the
dissemination of intelligence to elected officials who needed that information to do their jobs. As Americans, we should be frightened
-- deeply afraid for the future of the nation. When good men and women can't speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity
and character no longer matter, when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than national security -- then there
is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil.
Bill, you are wrong as you can be. Are you too damn lazy to do some simple reading and research?
Maguire's role as DNI was a temporary appointment. It was not permanent and was not submitted to the Senate as part of a confirmation
process. He was a mere place holder. Yet McRaven and others in the anti-Trump crowd display their profound ignorance and insist,
wrongly, that Trump fired Maguire.
Here is the dishonest NY Times spin:
On Wednesday, the president announced that he was replacing Mr. Maguire with Richard Grenell, the ambassador to Germany and an
aggressively vocal Trump supporter. And though some current and former officials speculated that the briefing might have played a
role in that move, two administration officials said the timing was coincidental. Mr. Grenell had been in discussions with the administration
about taking on new roles, they said, and Mr. Trump had never felt a kinship with Mr. Maguire.
Once a vacancy occurs, the position is eligible to be filled by an acting officer for 210 days from the date of the vacancy, as
well as any time when a nomination is pending before the Senate.
Guess what? Maguire's resignation coincides with the 210 day limit.
Facts do not matter to the anti-Trumpers. Remember all of the hysteria surround Attorney General Barr's legitimate and proper
submission of a RECOMMENDATION for reduced sentencing in the case of Roger Stone. The media and punditry reacted as if Barr was calling
for the mass extermination of physically handicapped children. Hardly any took time to note that Barr's "RECOMMENDATION" was just
that--a recommendation. Nothing Barr said or wrote could compel or coerce Judge Berman to act according to Barr's wishes. And guess
what? Judge Berman decided that Barr was right. The key point being that, SHE DECIDED. Not Barr.
Donald Trump is now on the offensive against a corrupt, dishonest intelligence and law enforcement community as well as their
enablers in the festering establishment--the whole crowd is panicked.
The faux outrage over Trump replacing Maguire is just one indicator of this fear. Another is the fact that we are once again being
bombarded with the recycled propaganda that Russia meddled in our 2016 election and is poised to do the same in 2020. What next?
Resurrect Jussie Smollet and hire a group of pretend rednecks to stage another faux attack on him during the night on the wintry
streets of Chicago?
Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President
Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter said, a disclosure to Congress that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that
Democrats would use it against him.
The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, the president berated Joseph Maguire, the outgoing acting director of national
intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump was particularly irritated that Representative
Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the leader of the impeachment proceedings, was at the briefing.
During the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump's allies challenged the conclusions, arguing that he had been
tough on Russia and that he had strengthened European security.
Just another scurrilous lie. Pure propaganda being spun for the sole purpose of smearing Trump and tainting his election. The
real truth is that Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is doing less "meddling" in our elections than did his predecessors. We meddled
in their elections and domestic politics going back to the end of World War II. Meddling is a natural consequence of having professional
intelligence services like the CIA, the FSB, the GRU, the DIA, etc. Another uncomfortable fact is that social media makes it more
difficult for the traditional intelligence actors to interfere in politics. Michael Bloomberg's spending in the 2020 Democrat primary
dwarfs all efforts to control the social media message. Yet, there are limits to the effectiveness of such "meddling."
If there really was intelligence that Russia had embarked on a new, more expansive round of meddling then that intelligence
should have been briefed to the President as part of Presidential Daily Briefing. But that has not taken place. Trump's National
Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien says pointedly that he has seen no intelligence to substantiate The NY Times report.
NONE :
"I haven't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President Trump reelected," Robert O'Brien,
who was appointed by Trump to the post in September, said in an ABC News interview to be broadcast on Sunday.
"I have not seen that, and I get pretty good access," he said, according to excerpts released on Saturday.
Another meme in the latest propaganda push by deranged Democrats and discredited media is to portray Maguire's temporary replacement,
Ambassador Richard Grenell, as some sort of ignorant, unqualified political hack.
"The President has selected an individual without any intelligence experience to serve as the leader of the nation's intelligence
community in an acting capacity. This is the second acting director the President has named to the role since the resignation of
Dan Coats, apparently in an effort to sidestep the Senate's constitutional authority to advise and consent on such critical national
security positions, and flouting the clear intent of Congress when it established the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
in 2004.
"The intelligence community deserves stability and an experienced individual to lead them in a time of massive national and global
security challenges. And at a time when the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice has been called into grave question,
now more than ever our country needs a Senate-confirmed intelligence director who will provide the best intelligence and analysis,
regardless of whether or not it's expedient for the President who has appointed him.
Warner conveniently forgets that Trump named Dan Coats as DNI and the Senate, along with Warner's vote, approved him. Coats had
trouble spelling CIA and DNI. He was completely unqualified for the position, yet the Senate rolled over for him with barely a whimper.
How about the first DNI? Ambassador John Negroponte was
not an intelligence professional. He was career Foreign Service.
Ambassador Grenell has experience comparable to Negroponte's. Grenell has dealt with all elements of the intelligence community
during his tenure working within the realm of the U.S. foreign service. The good news is that Grenell is now on the job as DNI and
is starting to clean house. This should have been done four years ago. The DNI, like many other parts of the bureaucracy, is infested
with anti-Trump haters doing their best to sabotage his Presidency.
Robert O'Brien has cleaned out the NSC. There are a lot of empty desks there now. And persons through out the National Security
bureacracy, including DOD and CIA, are being emptied. This is a prelude. When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments
expect the screaming to intensify.
"When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments....."
Larry, it looks like you have a lot of confidence in Durham. What gives you this confidence? The actions of the DOJ to date
should make people skeptical that they'll prosecute their own leadership.
If Barr and Durham were going to play ball with the Deep Staters and the anti-Trumpers they would not be attacked as is happening.
The hysterical over wrought accusations leveled at Barr last week are merely a symptom of the fear seizing these seditionists.
Americans still retain their keen sense of fair play. Nothing wrong with wanting to be surrounded by those loyal to the elected
President.
It is the President's duty to the office itself to demand those appointed also be competent and act with integrity. The President
pays the price if they do not.
- on an English blog in order to underline some parallels between the parliamentary crisis in England last year and the very
similar constitutional crisis in the US. But there's a lot more to the lecture than that -
"Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called "The Resistance," and they rallied
around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the Executive Branch and his Administration.
Now, "resistance" is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously
connotes -- It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous -- and indeed incendiary --
notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the "loyal
opposition," as opposing parties have done in this country for over 200 years, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a
war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government."
That, together with some penetrating remarks about the difference between Progressive and Conservative - and making it amply
clear how destructive Progressivism was - was perhaps more than William Barr merely setting out his stall. It was a declaration
of intent and if it's held to then we may expect some dramatic results.
So I'm not surprised the Democrats are attacking him. The wonder is that they're not tearing him limb from limb.
Chris Murphy - the dolt from CT - on TV whining about Grenell being unqualified and a Trump loyalist. This is the same stooge
who just met with the Iranian Foreign Minister (and a head of hair looking for a brain John Kerrey) in Munich.
Admiral McRaven and his gumba Pentagon bureaucrats should be doing a little belly button gazing to determine how after 2 decades
they've managed with considerable sturm und drang to win nothing but have succeeded magnificently in piloting the
country into Cold War II with a real adversary.
Well done, Admiral!
Now don't go troubling yourself, Admiral, over finding a reason why people outside your beltway circle don't give a rat's
ass about you and your pals getting disrespected. It's been a long time coming, a very long time, but ya'll have earned in spades
the right to be ignored. Get used to it. Fool us for a year, for two years, three... but for eighteen years??? Sorry Admiral.
Stop whining.
You mean all those VERY important people - dressed like doormen -who haven't won a war since WWII? BTW, Gulf Storm
doesn't count - you'd probably get more fight back from the NY State Troopers.
These politicians in uniform know all about "diversity", pissing away LOTS of money, transgenders, sucking up and especially
landing Beltway bandit contracts. Fighting, not so much.
Note, I'm referring to the General Officer ranks, not actual troops.
I assess with 100% certainty that this fake scandal was contrived to coincide with the end of this Maguire's "service". Indeed,
all of this time he has been acting as an agent of the Borg, only chucking this stinkbomb as his last, spiteful act. Contemptible.
Caity Johnstone has written a parody piece in which the intelligence community labels every candidate other than Buttigieg
to be a Secret Russian Agent.
Unless someone in the DNC or numerous affiliates can come up with an actual Russian, this kind of hoax will begin to be be seen
as dated.
However, with the Weinstein conviction, the MeToo movement will get new life and a wave of similar high profile pursuits
will begin.
Undoubtedly this will include one DJT, featuring accusers going back to the 1960's in a orchestrated 24/7 chorus of unproven
horror that they hope will succeed where Mueller and Schiff et al have failed.
Who knows, perhaps one accuser (two for corroboration) will even allege some vague Russian presence.
So a democratic megadoner is convicted of multiple accounts of sexual assault and surprise! Others in the moral cesspool that
is Hollywood won't be brought to "justice", social or otherwise but we'll see Stormy Daniels 2.0. Except her lawyer's already
in jail. The left better come up with something better than that.
How about Epstein and his pals? That would be a good start. However nothing will happen on that since too many powerful people
would likely be ensnared like Billy Clinton and a British prince.
"... Although corporations are legally a person (see history below), they are in fact an entity. The sole goal of that entity is
profit. There is no corporate conscience. ..."
"... Perhaps it would be useful to look at the nature of our global expansion. The global expanse of US military bases is well-known,
but its actual territorial empire is largely hidden. The true map of America is not taught in our schools. Abby Martin interviews history
Professor Daniel Immerwahr about his new book, ' How To Hide An Empire ,' where he documents the story of our "Greater United States."
This is worth the 40 minute watch...I learned several new things. One more long clip. However this one is fine to just listen to as
you do things. This is a wonderful interview with Noam Chomsky. The man exudes wisdom. ..."
"... The oligarchy has been with us since perhaps the tribal origins of our species, but the corporation is a newer phenomenon.
A faceless, soulless profit machine. Ironically it is the 14th amendment which is used to justify corporate person-hood. ..."
"... Corporations aren't specifically mentioned in the 14th Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution. But going back to the
earliest years of the republic, when the Bank of the United States brought the first corporate rights case before the Supreme Court,
U.S. corporations have sought many of the same rights guaranteed to individuals, including the rights to own property, enter into contracts,
and to sue and be sued just like individuals. ..."
"... But it wasn't until the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the Court appeared to grant a corporation
the same rights as an individual under the 14th Amendment ..."
"... The United States is home to five of the world's 10 largest defense contractors, and American companies account for 57 percent
of total arms sales by the world's 100 largest defense contractors, based on SIPRI data. Maryland-based Lockheed Martin, the largest
defense contractor in the world, is estimated to have had $44.9 billion in arms sales in 2017 through deals with governments all over
the world. The company drew public scrutiny after a bomb it sold to Saudi Arabia was dropped on a school bus in Yemen, killing 40 boys
and 11 adults. Lockheed's revenue from the U.S. government alone is well more than the total annual budgets of the IRS and the Environmental
Protection Agency, combined. ..."
"... http://news.nidokidos.org/military-spending-20-companies-profiting-the-m... For a list of the 20 companies profiting most off
war... https://themindunleashed.com/2019/03/20-companies-profiting-war.html ..."
"... Capitalism, militarism and imperialism are disastrously intertwined ..."
"... Corporations are Religions Yes they are. They have ethics, goals, and priests. They have a god who determines everything "The
Invisible Hand". They believe themselves to be superior to the state. They have cult garb, or are we not going to pretend that there's
corporate dress codes, right down to the things you can wear on special days of the week. They determine what you can eat, drink and
read. If you say something wrong, they feel within their rights to punish you because they OWN the medium that you used to spread ideas.
OF course they don't own your thoughts... those belong to the OTHER god. ..."
Chris Hedges often says "The corporate coup is complete". Sadly I think he is correct. So this week I thought it might be interesting
to explore the techniques which are used here at home and abroad. The oligarchs' corporate control is global, but different strategies
are employed in various scenarios. Just thinking about the recent regime changes promoted by the US in this hemisphere...
The current attempts at the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, Cuban, and Iranian coups are primarily conducted
using economic sanctions
.
The US doesn't even lie about past coups. They recently
released a report about the 1953
CIA led coup against Iran detailing the strategies. Here at home it is a compliant media and a new array of corporate laws designed
to protect and further enrich that spell the corporate capture of our culture and society. So let's begin by looking at the nature
of corporations...
The following 2.5 hour documentary from 2004 features commentary from Chris, Noam, Naomi, and many others you know. It has some
great old footage. It is best watched on a television so you have a bigger screen. (This clip is on the encore+ youtube channel and
does have commercials which you can skip after 5 seconds) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQYsk-8dWg
Based on Joel Bakan's bestseller The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power , this 26-award-winning
documentary explores a corporation's inner workings, curious history, controversial impacts and possible futures.
One hundred
and fifty years ago, a corporation was a relatively insignificant entity. Today, it is a vivid, dramatic, and pervasive presence
in all our lives. Like the Church, the Monarchy and the Communist Party in other times and places, a corporation is today's dominant
institution.
Charting the rise of such an institution aimed at achieving specific economic goals, the documentary also recounts
victories against this apparently invincible force.
Although corporations are legally a person (see history below), they are in fact an entity. The sole goal of that entity is
profit. There is no corporate conscience. Some of the CEO's in the film discuss how all the people in the corporations are against
pollution and so on, but by law stockholder profit must be the objective. Now these entities are global operations with no loyalty
to their country of origin.
Perhaps it would be useful to look at the nature of our global expansion. The global expanse of US military bases is well-known,
but its actual territorial empire is largely hidden. The true map of America is not taught in our schools. Abby Martin interviews
history Professor Daniel Immerwahr about his new book, ' How To Hide An Empire ,' where he documents the story of our
"Greater United States." This is worth the 40 minute watch...I learned several new things. One more long clip. However this one is
fine to just listen to as you do things. This is a wonderful interview with Noam Chomsky. The man exudes wisdom.
So much of this conversation touches on today's topic of our corporate capture. Amy interviewed Ed Snowden this week... (video or text)
This is a system, the first system in history, that bore witness to everything. Every border you crossed, every purchase you
make, every call you dial, every cell phone tower you pass, friends you keep, article you write, site you visit and subject line
you type was now in the hands of a system whose reach is unlimited but whose safeguards were not. And I felt, despite what the
law said, that this was something that the public ought to know.
The oligarchy has been with us since perhaps the tribal origins of our species, but the corporation is a newer phenomenon.
A faceless, soulless profit machine. Ironically it is the 14th amendment which is used to justify corporate person-hood.
Corporations aren't specifically mentioned in the 14th Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution. But going back
to the earliest years of the republic, when the Bank of the United States brought the first corporate rights case before the Supreme
Court, U.S. corporations have sought many of the same rights guaranteed to individuals, including the rights to own property,
enter into contracts, and to sue and be sued just like individuals.
But it wasn't until the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the Court appeared to grant a corporation
the same rights as an individual under the 14th Amendment
More recently in 2010 (Citizens United v. FEC): In the run up to the 2008 election, the Federal Elections Commission blocked the
conservative nonprofit Citizens United from airing a film about Hillary Clinton based on a law barring companies from using their
funds for "electioneering communications" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The organization sued, arguing
that, because people's campaign donations are a protected form of speech (see Buckley v. Valeo) and corporations and people enjoy
the same legal rights, the government can't limit a corporation's independent political donations. The Supreme Court agreed. The
Citizens United ruling may be the most sweeping expansion of corporate personhood to date.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/how-supreme-court-turned-co...
Do they really believe this is how we think?
More than just using the courts, corporations are knee deep in creating favorable laws, not just by lobbying, but by actually
writing legislation to feed the politicians that they own and control, especially at the state level.
Through ALEC, Global Corporations Are Scheming to Rewrite YOUR Rights and Boost THEIR Revenue. Through the corporate-funded
American Legislative Exchange Council, global corporations and state politicians vote behind closed doors to try to rewrite state
laws that govern your rights. These so-called "model bills" reach into almost every area of American life and often directly benefit
huge corporations.
In ALEC's own words, corporations have "a VOICE and a VOTE" on specific changes to the law that are then proposed in your state.
DO YOU? Numerous resources to help us expose ALEC are provided below. We have also created links to detailed discussions of key
issues...
There is very little effort to hide the blatant corruption. People seem to accept this behavior as business as usual, after all
it is.
Part of the current ALEC legislative agenda involves stifling protests.
I think it started in Texas...
A bill making its way through the Texas legislature would make protesting pipelines a third-degree felony, the same as attempted
murder.
H.B. 3557, which is under consideration in the state Senate after passing the state House earlier this month, ups penalties for
interfering in energy infrastructure construction by making the protests a felony. Sentences would range from two to 10 years.
Lawmakers in Wisconsin introduced a bill on September 5 designed to chill protests around oil and gas pipelines and other energy
infrastructure in the state by imposing harsh criminal penalties for trespassing on or damaging the property of a broad range
of "energy providers."
Senate Bill 386 echoes similar "critical infrastructure protection" model bills pushed out by the American Legislative Exchange
Council (ALEC) and the Council of State Governments over the last two years to prevent future protests like the one against the
Dakota Access Pipeline.
And Chris was on the evening RT news this week discussing how the US empire is striking back against leaders who help their own
people rather than our global corporations.
Financially, the cost of these wars is immense: more than $6 trillion dollars. The cost of these wars is just one element of
the $1.2 trillion the US government spends annually on wars and war making. Half of each dollar paid in federal income tax
goes towards some form or consequence of war . While the results of such spending are not hard to foresee or understand:
a cyclical and dependent relationship between the Pentagon, weapons industry and Congress, the creation of a whole new class of
worker and wealth distribution is not so understood or noticed, but exists and is especially malignant.
This is a ghastly redistribution of wealth, perhaps unlike any known in modern human history, certainly not in American history.
As taxpayers send trillions to Washington. DC, that money flows to the men and women that remotely oversee, manage and staff the
wars that kill and destroy millions of lives overseas and at home. Hundreds of thousands of federal employees and civilian contractors
servicing the wars take home six figure annual salaries allowing them second homes, luxury cars and plastic surgery, while veterans
put guns in their mouths, refugees die in capsized boats and as many as four million nameless souls scream silently in death.
These AUMFs (Authorization for Use of Military Force) and the wars have provided tens of thousands of recruits to international
terror groups; mass profits to the weapons industry and those that service it; promotions to generals and admirals, with
corporate board seats upon retirement ; and a perpetual and endless supply of bloody shirts for politicians to wave via
an unquestioning and obsequious corporate media to stoke compliant anger and malleable fear. What is hard to imagine, impossible
even, is anyone else who has benefited from these wars.
The United States is home to five of the world's 10 largest defense contractors, and American companies account for 57 percent
of total arms sales by the world's 100 largest defense contractors, based on SIPRI data. Maryland-based Lockheed Martin, the largest
defense contractor in the world, is estimated to have had $44.9 billion in arms sales in 2017 through deals with governments all
over the world. The company drew public scrutiny after a bomb it sold to Saudi Arabia was dropped on a school bus in Yemen, killing
40 boys and 11 adults. Lockheed's revenue from the U.S. government alone is well more than the total annual budgets of the IRS and
the Environmental Protection Agency, combined.
The obvious industry which was not included nor considered is the fossil fuel industry. Here's another example of mutual corporate
interests.
"Capitalism, militarism and imperialism are disastrously intertwined with the fossil fuel economy .A globalized economy
predicated on growth at any social or environmental costs, carbon dependent international trade, the limitless extraction of natural
resources, and a view of citizens as nothing more than consumers cannot be the basis for tackling climate change .Little wonder
then that the elites have nothing to offer beyond continued militarisation and trust in techno-fixes."
The US military is one of the largest consumers and emitters of carbon-dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in history, according to an
independent analysis of global fuel-buying practices of a "virtually unresearched" government agency.
If the US military were its own country, it would rank 47th between Peru and Portugal in terms of annual fuel purchases, totaling
almost 270,000 barrels of oil bought every day in 2017. In particular, the Air Force is the largest emitter of greenhouse gas
emissions and bought $4.9 billion of fuel in 2017 – nearly double that of the Navy ($2.8 billion).
The fossil fuel giants even try to control the climate talks...
Oil and gas groups were accused Saturday of seeking to influence climate talks in Madrid by paying millions in sponsorship
and sending dozens of lobbyists to delay what scientists say is a necessary and rapid cut in fossil fuel use.
The corporations are so entwined that it is difficult to tell where they begin and end. There's the unity of private prisons and
the war machine. And it's a global scheme...this example from the UK.
One thing is clear: the prison industrial complex and the global war machine are intimately connected. This summer's prison
strike that began in the United States and spread to other countries was the largest in history. It shows more than ever that
prisoners are resisting this penal regime, often at great risk to themselves. The battle to end prison slavery continues.
The 2017 tax bill cut taxes for most Americans, including the middle class, but it heavily benefits the wealthy and corporations
. It slashed the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, and its treatment of "pass-through" entities -- companies organized
as sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, or S corporations -- will translate to an estimated $17 billion in tax savings for
millionaires this year. American corporations are showering their shareholders with stock buybacks, thanks in part to their tax
savings.
Even Robert Jackson Jr., commissioner at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Appointed to the SEC in 2017 by President Donald
Trump. Confirmed in January 2018 sees the corporate cuts as absurd.
"We have been to the movie of tax cuts and buybacks before, in the Republican administration during the George W. Bush era.
We enacted a quite substantial tax cut during that period. And studies after that showed very clearly that most corporations use
the funds from that tax cut for buybacks. And here's the kicker. That particular tax cut actually required that companies deploy
the capital for capital expenditures, wage increases and investments in their people. Yet studies showed that, in fact, the companies
use them for buybacks. So we've been to this movie before. And what you're describing to me, that corporations turned around and
took the Trump tax cut and didn't use it in investing in their people or in infrastructure, but instead for other purposes, shouldn't
surprise anybody at all."
So the corporations grow larger, wealthier, more powerful, buying evermore legislative influence along the way. They have crept
into almost every aspect of our lives. Some doctors are beginning to see the influence of big pharma and other corporate interests
are effecting the current practice of medicine.
Gary Fettke is a doctor from Tasmania who has been targeted for promoting a high fat low carb diet...threatened with losing
his medical qualifications. He doesn't pull punches in this presentation discussing the corporate control of big ag/food and big
pharma on medical practice and education. (27 min)
Corporations are Religions
Yes they are. They have ethics, goals, and priests. They have a god who determines everything "The Invisible Hand". They believe
themselves to be superior to the state. They have cult garb, or are we not going to pretend that there's corporate dress codes,
right down to the things you can wear on special days of the week. They determine what you can eat, drink and read. If you say
something wrong, they feel within their rights to punish you because they OWN the medium that you used to spread ideas. OF course
they don't own your thoughts... those belong to the OTHER god.
At least the crazy made up gods that I listen to don't usually
fuck over other human beings for a goddamn percentage. ON the other hand, if a corporation can make a profit, it's REQUIRED to
fuck you over. To do otherwise would be against it's morals. Which it does have, trust us... OH, and corporations get to make
fun of your beliefs, but you CANNOT make fun of theirs. Because that would be heresy against logic and reason.
In a local newspaper showed a couple coming out of a Wal-Mart with their carts piled high with big boxed foreign junk, then
shown cramming their SUV full of said junk. The headline read "Crazy Busy". It pretty much summed up what is wrong with the American
consumer culture. The next day's big headline spotlighted our senator's picture affixed to a LARGE headline boasting "$22 Billion
Submarine Contract Awarded". A good example of of what is wrong with the american war economy.
Thank you for your compilation Lookout! If we can get beyond the headlines, working at grass root and local solutions, maybe
even underground revolution, there may be hope for us. Barter for a better future.
My buddies always say about their mayor..."There's no way we will trade down after this election...but then we do." Perhaps
it is true for more than just their town.
The line running in my head is..."What if they gave a war and nobody came". I want to expand it to..."What if they made cheap
junk no one really wanted and nobody bought it". Or substitute junk food for cheap junk, or...
My point in today's conclusion is much as I try to walk away from corporate culture/control, I really can't totally escape...but
at least I spend most of my time in the open, breathing clean air, surrounded by forest. We do what we can.
Consumerism in our society is a plague, a disease perpetrated upon us by our corporate lords. It has taken over everything
about being an American.
I think the youth are catching on, as they are thrifting more, but they don't understand about food, and that's the rub. Our
youth will be more unhealthy until they understand what corporations are doing to us through food addictions.
We're expecting rain today for most of the day and actually it's just started. The person who will drill our well came by yesterday
and figured out some details. We are behind two other wells, so it will probably be the holiday week when it happens - we'll see.
I can wait til January and hope we do.
Ideas is that new deal of FDR's day had corporate opponents far different than those of today. Sanders does not seem to understand
that the corporations of yesterday, and what worked against them, will not work against the corporations of today. In the early part of the 20th century, corporations were still primarily domestic and local often with charters from the state
where they conducted their primary business, many times all of their business.
Regulation and unions were reasonable anti-dotes to the abuses of these local and domestic corporations. The state still had
some semblance of control over them.
But today corporations are global. They have no allegiance to, or concern for the domestic economy or local people. They do not fear of any anti-dotes that worked for years against domestic or local corporations. Global corporations just leave
and go elsewhere if they don't like the domestic or local situation if they have not managed to completely take over the government.
There is only one reason to incorporate in the first place. That is for the owner(s) of the business to avoid personal liability
or responsibility. The majority of people never understand this idea. Corporate owners are the people who are the genuine personal
responsibility avoiders. Not the poor. The only antidote to corporations these days is the total demise of the corporation and
its similar business entities that dodge personal responsibility. And the state must refuse to allow any such entities to do business.
It is the only way forward. Otherwise nation states will give way to corporate states. Corporate governance is the new feudalism
from which the old feudalism morphed.
Sanders isn't going to advocate doing away with corporate entities or other similar business entities. Nor will any of the
Democratic contenders. They all require corporations to rail against as the basis for their political policy.
...and I've always wondered just how Bernie would dismantle them. However like the impotence of the impeachment, is the impotence
of the primary process.
When the DNC was sued after 2016, they were
exonerated based on the ruling they were a private entity entitled to make rules as the wanted. The primary is so obviously
rigged I can almost guarantee Bernie will not be allowed the nomination, so the question to how he would change corporate control
is really moot.
@Lookout I probably
could get on board with a Sanders campaign if he would run as an Independent. But it is really hard to get on board with him as
a Democrat. If he loses the nomination, he will probably not run as an Independent once again. Once he bailed on an Independent
run last time, I and many others bailed on him. I would support his Independent candidacy just to screw with the Electoral College.
I thought last time an independent candidacy might have thrown the election to the House of Representatives. I could see a Democratically
controlled House voting for him over Trump in a three way EC split if the Democratic candidate took low EC numbers.
But he is so afraid of being tarred with the Nader moniker.
What I said many times on websites last election is that an EC vote is very similar to a Parliamentary Election. And that would
be an interesting change for sure. It would also be a means of having the popular vote winner restored if there is a big enough
margin in the House. And what would be equally cool is that the Senate picks the VP. So you could have President and VP from different
parties.
if Bernie got the nomination, I would vote for him, especially in this imaginary world, if Tulsi was his running mate. Then there
the question about your vote being counted? We'll just have to see what we see and make judgements based on outcomes, IMO.
#4.1 I probably could get on board with
a Sanders campaign if he would run as an Independent. But it is really hard to get on board with him as a Democrat. If he loses
the nomination, he will probably not run as an Independent once again. Once he bailed on an Independent run last time, I and
many others bailed on him. I would support his Independent candidacy just to screw with the Electoral College. I thought last
time an independent candidacy might have thrown the election to the House of Representatives. I could see a Democratically
controlled House voting for him over Trump in a three way EC split if the Democratic candidate took low EC numbers.
But he is so afraid of being tarred with the Nader moniker.
What I said many times on websites last election is that an EC vote is very similar to a Parliamentary Election. And that
would be an interesting change for sure. It would also be a means of having the popular vote winner restored if there is a
big enough margin in the House. And what would be equally cool is that the Senate picks the VP. So you could have President
and VP from different parties.
@Lookout The only
way the Democrats might beat Trump is to have Sanders run as an Independent and prevent Trump from reaching 270. That is a far
better way to beat Trump than impeachment. Would the house vote for the Democrat or an Independent? I guess it would depend on
how Sanders did in the popular vote and EC against his Democratic rival.
#4.1.1 if Bernie got the nomination, I would vote for him, especially in this imaginary world, if Tulsi was his running mate. Then
there the question about your vote being counted? We'll just have to see what we see and make judgements based on outcomes,
IMO.
If it was Hillary "Dewey Cheatem & Howe" Clinton, all bets are off.
#4.1.1.1 The only way the Democrats
might beat Trump is to have Sanders run as an Independent and prevent Trump from reaching 270. That is a far better way to
beat Trump than impeachment. Would the house vote for the Democrat or an Independent? I guess it would depend on how Sanders
did in the popular vote and EC against his Democratic rival.
Good lord.that she did that is unbelievable. Great point. Boycott Fox News, but go on Stern's show. It's going to be fun to
watch how much lower she falls.
MSNBC invited on two former Hillary Clinton aides to criticize Bernie Sanders for taking a "long time to get out of the
race" and that he didn't do "enough" campaigning for her in 2016. pic.twitter.com/6Vsqo0DKZI
@TheOtherMaven They
have to choose from actual EC vote getters. So if she is not the candidate she could not win.
Having Sanders run as an Independent and Warren or Biden run as a Democrat would be a much better strategy to ensure a Trump
loss in the House. Of course it might take some coordination as in asking the voters to vote for the candidate who has the best
chance of beating Trump in certain states. But voters could probably figure that out.
Or a candidate could just withdraw from a state in which the other candidate had a better chance of beating Trump.
Lookout as usual you have done an excellent job of giving me a lot of articles to read and think about this next week.
Of course I need to be loading my car and shutting this place down as I head to the Texas hill country. Will look for an article
about Kinder Morgan and small communities that are fighting the pipeline through their towns. The read was a little hopeful.
Watching the weather and it looks like sunshine and clear skies as I travel. Thanks for all your work in putting this together.
I like to travel on the old roads
I like the way it makes me feel
No destination just the old roads
Somehow it helps the heart to heal.
I hope your road trip is a good one. The less busy tracks are almost meditative....soaking in scenery as the world passes by.
Have fun and be careful.
Lookout as usual you have done an excellent job of giving me a lot of articles to read and think about this next week.
Of course I need to be loading my car and shutting this place down as I head to the Texas hill country. Will look for an
article about Kinder Morgan and small communities that are fighting the pipeline through their towns. The read was a little
hopeful.
Watching the weather and it looks like sunshine and clear skies as I travel. Thanks for all your work in putting this together.
Here are a couple of links to how free markets
help in the corporate takeover. Amazon a corp that has only made a profit by
never paying taxes and accounting fraud. It
became a trillion dollar corp through the use
of monopoly money(stock) it's nothing but the
perfect example of todays "unicorn" corp, i.e.
worth what it is w/out ever making a penny
Corporations can live far beyond a persons lifespan. Corporations can commit homicide and escape execution and justice. Unfortunately,
unions are just as likely to be on the corporations side to get jobs and wages, and bust heads if anything interferes with that.
If we protest we've seen the police ready to use deadly force at the drop of a hat, and get away with it. We get to vote on
candidates that some political club chose for us, and have little incentive to work for the 99%. The gov. has amassed so much
information on us we can't even fathom its depth. We have nowhere left, no unexplored lands out of reach of the government. We
think we own things, but if you think you own a home, see how long it is before the gov. confiscates it if you don't pay your
property taxes.
If I were younger, or a young person asked what to do, I would say.... learn some skill that would make you attractive for
emigrating to another country, because the US looks like it's over. It's people are only here to be exploited. And if Bernie were
to become president I hope he gets a food taster.
run to. No where to hide. As in the U.K., corporations are seeking to to dismantle the NHS and turn it into a for-profit system
like ours. Even as the gilllet-jaune protesters risk life and limb, Macron seeks to install true neoliberalism in France. And
the beat goes on.
Corporations can live far beyond a persons lifespan. Corporations can commit homicide and escape execution and justice.
Look at what chevron did to people in Borapol. I'm sure I spelled this wrong but hopefully people will know what I'm talking
about. They killed lots of people and poisoned their land for decades and the fight over it is still going on. How many decades
more will chevron get to skirt justice? Banks continue to commit fraud and they only get little fines that don't do jack to keep
them from doing it again. Even cities are screwing people. Owe a few dollars on your property taxes and they will take your home
and sell it for pennies on the dollar. How in hell can it be legal to charge people over 600% interest? What happened to usury
rules if that's the correct term.
The International Court of Justice at The Hague ruled last week that a prior ruling by an Ecuadorean court that fined Chevron
$9.5 billion in 2011 should be upheld, according to teleSUR, a Latin American news agency. Texaco, which is currently a part of
Chevron, is responsible for what is considered one of the world's largest environmental disasters while it drilled for oil in
the Ecuadorian rainforest from 1964 to 1990.
https://www.ecowatch.com/will-chevron-and-exxon-ever-be-held-responsible...
The legal battle has been tied up in the courts for years. Ecuador's highest court finally upheld the ruling in January
2014, but Chevron refused to pay.
This is another thing that corporations get away with. Contaminating land and then just walking away from it. How many superfund
sites have we had to pay for instead of the ones who created the mess. Just declared bankruptcy and walked away. Corporations
are people? Fine then they should be held as accountable as the people in the lower classes. Fat chance though right?
Weren't people killed by a gas cloud released from the plant? I read something recently that said the case is still going
through the courts. How much money have they spent trying not to spend more?
Byedone just needs to pack it in and drop out already. Today he was defending the republican party after someone said something
about them needing to go away. Joe said that we need another party so one does not get more power than the other. Yeah right,
Joe. It's not like the Pubs are already weilding power they don't have and them dems cowering and supporting them.
Newsweek reporter quit after being censored on the OPCW story.
I have collected evidence of how they suppressed the story in addition to evidence from another case where info inconvenient
to US govt was removed, though it was factually correct.
First frustrate us with gridlock. Then pass bills benefiting the corporate overlords. Then leading up
to elections pass bills like the one against animal cruelty (who doesn't love kitties and puppies?), or propose a bill to consider
regulating cosmetics. This second bipartisan effort is glaringly cynical since no one apparently knows what is in beauty products.
Sanders must have politicians worried for them to attempt something which has managed to go unregulated for so long.
All this bipartisanship is not even up to the level of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's more like wiping at
them with a dirty rag while the ship of state continues to sink. While animal cruelty and cosmetic safety are important issues,
they pale in comparison to the systemic ills America suffers. Our fearless leaders will continue to scratch the surface while
corruption and business as usual continue to fester. These bipartisan laws may look good on a politician's resume, but they won't
really help the 99%.
@snoopydawg
the propaganda to give NATO a raison d'être for a pivot to China. This will be doomed to complete failure just as the Russian
pivot has.
But Putin and Xi Jinping are both much too skilled and intelligent to defeat. American WWE trash talkers are completely outclassed
by an 8th dan in judo paired with a Sun Tzu scholar.
Tomoe nage - use your opponent's weight and aggression against him.
"If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent
is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he
is unprepared, appear where you are not expected ."
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
@Lookout
What they want is
a controlled collapse. If they can get the US to continue to overspend on war mongering rather than programs of social uplift
the country will rot from the inside.
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching
spiritual death." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
So much more to say really. Had to stop somewhere but as you know the corruption runs deep and is intermixed with the CIA/FBI/MIC
corporate government under which we live.
On we go as best we can!
There is great dignity in the objective truth. Perhaps because it never flows through the contaminated minds of the unworthy.
Corporate charters were initially meant to be for the public good if i'm not mistaken in recall, it was a trade-off for their
privilege to exist. Maybe a movement political leader could highlight this and move the pendulum back to accountability.
Had a conversation with good friend today, a 3M rep, and he was griping about his competitor's shady marketing product practices
apparently lying to manufacturers about the grades and contents of their competing products.
The Russia Interference Hoax--Deja Vu All Over Again by Larry C Johnson
Admiral Bill McRaven is proving himself to be an ignorant buffoon. Yes, I'm calling a
so-called military hero a clown. He is out today with a despicable op-ed attacking President
Trump for removing ACTING DNI Joe Maguire. Here is a sampling of McRaven's stupidity:
Edmund Burke, the Irish statesman and philosopher, once
said : "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Over the course of the past three years, I have watched good men and women, friends of mine,
come and go in the Trump administration -- all trying to do something -- all trying to do their
best. Jim Mattis, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster, Sue Gordon, Dan Coats and, now, Joe Maguire, who
until this week was the acting director of national intelligence. . . .
But, of course, in
this administration, good men and women don't last long. Joe was dismissed for doing his job:
overseeing the
dissemination of intelligence to elected officials who needed that information to do their
jobs. As Americans, we should be frightened -- deeply afraid for the future of the nation. When
good men and women can't speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and
character no longer matter, when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than
national security -- then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil.
Bill, you are wrong as you can be. Are you too damn lazy to do some simple reading and
research?
Maguire's role as DNI was a temporary appointment. It was not permanent and was
not submitted to the Senate as part of a confirmation process. He was a mere place holder. Yet
McRaven and others in the anti-Trump crowd display their profound ignorance and insist,
wrongly, that Trump fired Maguire.
Here is the dishonest NY Times spin:
On Wednesday, the president announced that he was replacing Mr. Maguire with Richard
Grenell, the ambassador to Germany and an aggressively vocal Trump supporter. And though some
current and former officials speculated that the briefing might have played a role in that
move, two administration officials said the timing was coincidental. Mr. Grenell had been in
discussions with the administration about taking on new roles, they said, and Mr. Trump had
never felt a kinship with Mr. Maguire.
Once a vacancy occurs, the position is eligible to be filled by an acting officer for 210
days from the date of the vacancy, as well as any time when a nomination is pending before the
Senate.
Guess what? Maguire's resignation coincides with the 210 day limit.
Facts do not matter to the anti-Trumpers. Remember all of the hysteria surround Attorney
General Barr's legitimate and proper submission of a RECOMMENDATION for reduced sentencing in
the case of Roger Stone. The media and punditry reacted as if Barr was calling for the mass
extermination of physically handicapped children. Hardly any took time to note that Barr's
"RECOMMENDATION" was just that--a recommendation. Nothing Barr said or wrote could compel or
coerce Judge Berman to act according to Barr's wishes. And guess what? Judge Berman decided
that Barr was right. The key point being that, SHE DECIDED. Not Barr.
Donald Trump is now on the offensive against a corrupt, dishonest intelligence and law
enforcement community as well as their enablers in the festering establishment--the whole crowd
is panicked.
The faux outrage over Trump replacing Maguire is just one indicator of this fear. Another is
the fact that we are once again being bombarded with the recycled propaganda that Russia
meddled in our 2016 election and is poised to do the same in 2020. What next? Resurrect Jussie
Smollet and hire a group of pretend rednecks to stage another faux attack on him during the
night on the wintry streets of Chicago?
Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the
2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter
said, a disclosure to Congress that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that Democrats would use
it against him.
The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, the president berated Joseph Maguire, the
outgoing acting director of national intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people
familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump was particularly irritated that Representative Adam
B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the leader of the impeachment proceedings, was at the
briefing.
During the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump's allies challenged the
conclusions, arguing that he had been tough on Russia and that he had strengthened European
security.
Just another scurrilous lie. Pure propaganda being spun for the sole purpose of smearing
Trump and tainting his election. The real truth is that Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is doing
less "meddling" in our elections than did his predecessors. We meddled in their elections and
domestic politics going back to the end of World War II. Meddling is a natural consequence of
having professional intelligence services like the CIA, the FSB, the GRU, the DIA, etc. Another
uncomfortable fact is that social media makes it more difficult for the traditional
intelligence actors to interfere in politics. Michael Bloomberg's spending in the 2020 Democrat
primary dwarfs all efforts to control the social media message. Yet, there are limits to the
effectiveness of such "meddling."
If there really was intelligence that Russia had embarked on a new, more expansive round of
meddling then that intelligence should have been briefed to the President as part of
Presidential Daily Briefing. But that has not taken place. Trump's National Security Advisor,
Robert O'Brien says pointedly that he has seen no intelligence to substantiate The NY Times
report.
NONE :
"I haven't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President
Trump reelected," Robert O'Brien, who was appointed by Trump to the post in September, said in
an ABC News interview to be broadcast on Sunday.
"I have not seen that, and I get pretty
good access," he said, according to excerpts released on Saturday.
Another meme in the latest propaganda push by deranged Democrats and discredited media is to
portray Maguire's temporary replacement, Ambassador Richard Grenell, as some sort of ignorant,
unqualified political hack.
"The President has selected an individual without any intelligence experience to serve as
the leader of the nation's intelligence community in an acting capacity. This is the second
acting director the President has named to the role since the resignation of Dan Coats,
apparently in an effort to sidestep the Senate's constitutional authority to advise and consent
on such critical national security positions, and flouting the clear intent of Congress when it
established the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in 2004.
"The intelligence community deserves stability and an experienced individual to lead them in
a time of massive national and global security challenges. And at a time when the integrity and
independence of the Department of Justice has been called into grave question, now more than
ever our country needs a Senate-confirmed intelligence director who will provide the best
intelligence and analysis, regardless of whether or not it's expedient for the President who
has appointed him.
Warner conveniently forgets that Trump named Dan Coats as DNI and the Senate, along with
Warner's vote, approved him. Coats had trouble spelling CIA and DNI. He was completely
unqualified for the position, yet the Senate rolled over for him with barely a whimper. How
about the first DNI? Ambassador John Negroponte was not an intelligence
professional. He was career Foreign Service.
Ambassador Grenell has experience comparable to Negroponte's. Grenell has dealt with all
elements of the intelligence community during his tenure working within the realm of the U.S.
foreign service. The good news is that Grenell is now on the job as DNI and is starting to
clean house. This should have been done four years ago. The DNI, like many other parts of the
bureaucracy, is infested with anti-Trump haters doing their best to sabotage his
Presidency.
Robert O'Brien has cleaned out the NSC. There are a lot of empty desks there now. And
persons through out the National Security bureacracy, including DOD and CIA, are being emptied.
This is a prelude. When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments expect the screaming
to intensify.
"When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments....."
Larry, it looks like you have a lot of confidence in Durham. What gives you this
confidence? The actions of the DOJ to date should make people skeptical that they'll
prosecute their own leadership.
If Barr and Durham were going to play ball with the Deep Staters and the anti-Trumpers they
would not be attacked as is happening. The hysterical over wrought accusations leveled at
Barr last week are merely a symptom of the fear seizing these seditionists.
Americans still retain their keen sense of fair play. Nothing wrong with wanting to be
surrounded by those loyal to the elected President.
It is the President's duty to the office itself to demand those appointed also be
competent and act with integrity. The President pays the price if they do not.
- on an English blog in order to underline some parallels between the parliamentary crisis
in England last year and the very similar constitutional crisis in the US. But there's a lot
more to the lecture than that -
"Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called
"The Resistance," and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and
maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the Executive Branch and his Administration. Now,
"resistance" is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying
military power. It obviously connotes -- It obviously connotes that the government is not
legitimate. This is a very dangerous -- and indeed incendiary -- notion to import into the
politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as
the "loyal opposition," as opposing parties have done in this country for over 200 years,
they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a
duly elected government."
That, together with some penetrating remarks about the difference between Progressive and
Conservative - and making it amply clear how destructive Progressivism was - was perhaps more
than William Barr merely setting out his stall. It was a declaration of intent and if it's
held to then we may expect some dramatic results.
So I'm not surprised the Democrats are attacking him. The wonder is that they're not
tearing him limb from limb.
Chris Murphy - the dolt from CT - on TV whining about Grenell being unqualified and a Trump
loyalist.
This is the same stooge who just met with the Iranian Foreign Minister (and a head of hair
looking for a brain John Kerrey) in Munich.
Admiral McRaven and his gumba Pentagon bureaucrats should be doing a little belly button
gazing to determine how after 2 decades they've managed with considerable sturm und drang to
win nothing but have succeeded magnificently in piloting the country into Cold War II with a
real adversary.
Well done, Admiral!
Now don't go troubling yourself, Admiral, over finding a reason why people outside your
beltway circle don't give a rat's ass about you and your pals getting disrespected. It's been
a long time coming, a very long time, but ya'll have earned in spades the right to be
ignored. Get used to it. Fool us for a year, for two years, three... but for eighteen
years??? Sorry Admiral. Stop whining.
You mean all those VERY important people - dressed like doormen -who haven't won a war since
WWII?
BTW, Gulf Storm doesn't count - you'd probably get more fight back from the NY State
Troopers.
These politicians in uniform know all about "diversity", pissing away LOTS of money,
transgenders, sucking up and especially landing Beltway bandit contracts.
Fighting, not so much.
Note, I'm referring to the General Officer ranks, not actual troops.
I assess with 100% certainty that this fake scandal was contrived to coincide with the end of
this Maguire's "service". Indeed, all of this time he has been acting as an agent of the
Borg, only chucking this stinkbomb as his last, spiteful act. Contemptible.
Caity Johnstone has written a parody piece in which the intelligence community labels every
candidate other than Buttigieg to be a Secret Russian Agent.
Unless someone in the DNC or numerous affiliates can come up with an actual Russian, this
kind of hoax will begin to be be seen as dated.
However, with the Weinstein conviction, the MeToo movement will get new life and a wave of
similar high profile pursuits will begin.
Undoubtedly this will include one DJT, featuring
accusers going back to the 1960's in a orchestrated 24/7 chorus of unproven horror that they
hope will succeed where Mueller and Schiff et al have failed.
Who knows, perhaps one accuser (two for corroboration) will even allege some vague Russian
presence.
So a democratic megadoner is convicted of multiple accounts of sexual assault and
surprise! Others in the moral cesspool that is Hollywood won't be brought to "justice",
social or otherwise but we'll see Stormy Daniels 2.0. Except her lawyer's already in jail.
The left better come up with something better than that.
How about Epstein and his pals? That would be a good start. However nothing will happen on
that since too many powerful people would likely be ensnared like Billy Clinton and a British
prince.
"... Adam Schiff physically resembles a typical prosperity theology preacher -- a classic modern American snake oil salesman. And with his baseless accusations and the fear to touch real issues , he is even worse than that -- he looks outright silly even for the most brainwashed part of the USA electorate ;-) ..."
"... Realistically Schiff should be viewed as yet another intelligence agency stooge, a neocon who is funded by military contractors such as Northrop Grumman, which sells missiles to Ukraine. ..."
"... The claim that the withdrawal of military aid from Ukraine somehow influences the balance of power in the region was a State department concocted scam from the very beginning. How sniper rifles and anti-tank missiles change the balance of power on the border with the major nuclear power, who has probably second or third military in the world.? They do not. ..."
"... No where does Schiff compare to the evils and long lasting impact by that of Trump, Nunes, and Mcconnell. Comment over. ..."
"... Does not matter. Schiff is just a marionette performing prescribed function. He is adamantly inept is this function, but that happens with marionettes. Nothing to talk about or to compare with the major "evildoers" of Trump administration (although he, like Pompeo, is a neocon, so he belongs to the same crime family ;-) ..."
"... Actually, as a side effect, they might well sink Warren (which is not such a good thing), as she was stupid enough to jump into impeachment bandwagon early on with great enthusiasm. Proving another time that she is an incompetent politician. ..."
"... Trump is a narcissistic megalomaniac. It matters that he is escaping impeachment. Of all the presidents impeached before him as #4, he is the most deserving. History will judge his actions and crimes. ..."
While I agree that the removal of Trump might be slightly beneficial (Pence-Pompeo duo initially will run scared), this Kabuki
theater with Schiff in a major role is outright silly.
Adam Schiff physically resembles a typical prosperity theology preacher -- a classic modern American snake oil salesman.
And with his baseless accusations and the fear to touch real issues , he is even worse than that -- he looks outright silly even
for the most brainwashed part of the USA electorate ;-)
As he supported the Iraq war, he has no right to occupy any elected office. He probably should be prosecuted as a war criminal.
Realistically Schiff should be viewed as yet another intelligence agency stooge, a neocon who is funded by military contractors
such as Northrop Grumman, which sells missiles to Ukraine.
The claim that Trump is influenced by Russia is a lie. His actions indicate that he is an agent of influence for Israel, not
so much for Russia. Several of his actions were more reckless and more hostile to Russia than the actions of the Obama administration.
Anyway, his policies toward Russia are not that different from Hillary's policies. Actually, Pompeo, in many ways, continues Hillary's
policies.
The claim that the withdrawal of military aid from Ukraine somehow influences the balance of power in the region was a
State department concocted scam from the very beginning. How sniper rifles and anti-tank missiles change the balance of power
on the border with the major nuclear power, who has probably second or third military in the world.? They do not.
They (especially sniper rifles) will definitely increase casualties of Ukrainian separatists (and will provoke Russian reaction
to compensate for this change of balance and thus increase casualties of the Ukrainian army provoking the escalation spiral ),
but that's about it. So more people will die in the conflict while Northrop Grumman rakes the profits.
They also increase the danger of the larger-scale conflict in the region, which is what the USA neocons badly wants to impose
really crushing sanctions on Russia. The danger of WWIII and the cost of support of the crumbling neoliberal empire with its outsize
military expenditures (which now is more difficult to compensate with loot) somehow escapes the US neocon calculations. But they
are completely detached from reality in any case.
I think Russia can cut Ukraine into Western and Eastern parts anytime with relative ease and not much resistance. Putin has
an opportunity to do this in 2014 (risking larger sanctions) as he could establish government in exile out of Yanukovich officials
and based on this restore the legitimate government in Eastern and southern region with the capital in Kharkiv, leaving Ukrainian
Taliban to rot in their own brand of far-right nationalism where the Ukraine identity is defined negatively via rabid Russophobia.
His calculation probably was that sanctions would slow down the Russia recovery from Western plunder during Yeltsin years and,
as such, it is not worth showing Western Ukrainian nationalists what level of support in Southern and Eastern regions that actually
enjoy.
My impression is that they are passionately hated by over 50% of the population of this region. And viewed as an occupying
force, which is trying to colonize the space (which is a completely true assessment). They are viewed as American stooges, who
they are (the country is controlled from the USA embassy in any case).
And Putin's assessment might be wrong, as sanctions were imposed anyways, and now Ukraine does represent a threat to Russia
and, as such, is a huge source of instability in the region, which was the key idea of "Nulandgate" as the main task was weakening
Russia. In this sense, Euromaidan coup d'état was the major success of the Obama administration, which was a neocon controlled
administration from top to bottom.
Also unclear what Dems are trying to achieve. If Pelosi gambit, cynically speaking, was about rehashing Mueller witch hunt
success in the 2018 election, that is typical wishful thinking. Mobilization of the base works both ways.
So what is the game plan for DemoRats (aka "neoliberal democrats" or "corporate democrats" -- the dominant Clinton faction
of the Democratic Party) is completely unclear.
I doubt that they will gain anything from impeachment Kabuki theater, where both sides are afraid to discuss the real issues
like Douma false flag and other real Trump crimes.
Most Democratic candidates such as Warren, Biden, and Klobuchar will lose from this impeachment theater. Candidates who can
gain, such as Major Pete and Bloomberg does not matter that much.
run75441 , January 25, 2020 4:48 pm
likbez:
Let me help you along with the rant . . . "so you are in trump's camp." That was not a question. Given anything the Dems may
have, the Repubs have done it bigger. No where does Schiff compare to the evils and long lasting impact by that of Trump,
Nunes, and Mcconnell. Comment over.
likbez , January 25, 2020 7:47 pm
> No where does Schiff compare to the evils and long lasting impact by abd of trump
Does not matter. Schiff is just a marionette performing prescribed function. He is adamantly inept is this function, but
that happens with marionettes. Nothing to talk about or to compare with the major "evildoers" of Trump administration (although
he, like Pompeo, is a neocon, so he belongs to the same crime family ;-)
Opening impeachment was worse then a crime, it was a blunder on the part of neoliberal Dems. Essentially they bet
that it can serve as the "Muller investigation II" helping the neoliberal Dems to win 2020 like it helped them to win 2018 without
reforming the Party. They forgot about their own crimes committed in the process (Ukraine, Stzrokgate, etc), which now come to
light
Pelosi somehow opted for this "Hail Mary pass" and allowed Schiff to destroy the last remnants of the credibility of neoliberal
Dems: none of House Republicans voted for impeachment, which dooms the idea converting it into the vote of non-confidence of the
majority party. Creating the situation in which Dems, paradoxically, can lose some House seats they gained in 2018. Which would
be a bad thing. Also due to backlash they now can well lose 2020 election while each of Dems candidates (with the possible exception
of semi-senile neoliberal Biden) is a better option for the country than Trump.
Actually, as a side effect, they might well sink Warren (which is not such a good thing), as she was stupid enough to jump
into impeachment bandwagon early on with great enthusiasm. Proving another time that she is an incompetent politician.
"Whom the gods would destroy..." (misattributed to Euripides)
run75441 , January 25, 2020 8:17 pm
likbez:
No it does not. He is inept at a function and does not follow the constitutional precepts put in place by the Founding Fathers.
Schiff and all of us are on unchartered territory where a president deems he can do as he pleases, is above the law, and can not
be reigned in by the law or the two legislative bodies of the nation. He is aided and abetted by illegal Congressional actions
with the support of renegade Senators. No where in history has anything of this magnitude occurred. He has to be ousted.
I told you once before, knock that neoliberal shit off. You are just using this as a filter to avoid what most people see,
Trump is a narcissistic megalomaniac. It matters that he is escaping impeachment. Of all the presidents impeached before him as
#4, he is the most deserving. History will judge his actions and crimes.
This is not "the reputation for hyperbole". This is attempt to defend the interests of MIC, including the
interests of intelligence agencies themselves in view of deteriorating financial position of the USA. And first of all the level
of the current funding. Like was the case in 2016 elections, the intelligence
agencies and first of all CIA should now be considered as the third party participating in the
2020 election which attempts to be the kingmaker. They are interested in continuing and intensifying the Cold War 2, as it secured
funding for them and MIC (of this they are essential part)
Notable quotes:
"... The official, Shelby Pierson, "appears to have overstated the intelligence community's formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month," according to CNN . ..."
"... " The intelligence doesn't say that ," one senior national security official told CNN. "A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference, it's a step short of that. It's more that they understand the President is someone they can work with, he's a dealmaker." - CNN ..."
"... To recap - Pierson told the House Intelligence Committee a lie , which was promptly leaked to the press - ostensibly by Democrats on the committee, and it's just now getting walked back with far less attention than the original 'bombshell' headline received. ..."
"... No biggie... the media just ran with hysteria for 3 years as gospel accusing people of treason ..."
"... Well guess what? It turns out the media and the DNC were the ones working for Russia, executing their long standing goal to create chaos better than Russia could have ever dreamed of. https://t.co/PhrJiES9ui ..."
The US intelligence community's top election security official who appears to have
overstated Russian interference in the 2020 election has a history of hyperbole - described
by the
Wall Street Journal as "a reputation for being injudicious with her words."
The official, Shelby Pierson, "appears to have overstated the intelligence community's
formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance
during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month," according to
CNN .
The official, Shelby Pierson, told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee that
Russia is interfering in the 2020 election with the goal of helping President Donald Trump
get reelected .
The US intelligence community has assessed that Russia is interfering in the 2020
election and has separately assessed that Russia views Trump as a leader they can work
with. But the US does not have evidence that Russia's interference this cycle is aimed at
reelecting Trump , the officials said.
" The intelligence doesn't say that ," one senior national security official told CNN.
"A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference,
it's a step short of that. It's more that they understand the President is someone they can
work with, he's a dealmaker." -
CNN
Pierson was reportedly peppered with questions from the House Intelligence Committee,
which 'caused her to overstep and assert that Russia has a preference for Trump to be
reelected,' according to the report. CNN notes that one intelligence official said that her
characterization was "misleading," while a national security official said she failed to
provide the "nuance" required to put the US intelligence conclusions in proper context.
To recap - Pierson told the House Intelligence Committee a lie , which was promptly leaked
to the press - ostensibly by Democrats on the committee, and it's just now getting walked
back with far less attention than the original 'bombshell' headline received.
Sound familiar?
No biggie... the media just ran with hysteria for 3 years as gospel accusing people of
treason
Well guess what? It turns out the media and the DNC were the ones working for Russia,
executing their long standing goal to create chaos better than Russia could have ever
dreamed of. https://t.co/PhrJiES9ui
Surprising lack on intelligence in intelligence community. But after Brennan and "ruptured"
Pompeo as CIA chiefs who would be surprised?" Or more correctly utter despise of ordinary
Americans: 'nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people' ~ H L
Mencken.
But seriously, if Putin does now have the power to decide US elections, he simply makes his
preferred choice one day before the election. There is no reason to open cards right now. You
could not make this up. What we have now is Government by Gossip and Innuendo with intelligence
crooks on the frontline of spreading the disinformation.
Notable quotes:
"... The PUTIN's aim is to sow distrust among the US population. The USA, a peaceful civilized society with apparently no internal conflicts maintains a similar peaceful empire for the benefit of all humanity. ..."
"... The impersonate evil of the PUTIN has of course every intention to destroy the present state of tranquility and therefore aims to destruct the undisputed peaceful leader of this empire by sowing internal conflict. ..."
"... The concept of democracy was invented by the Kremlin, to sow discord ..."
"... The concept of democracy was invented by the Kremlin, to sow discord ..."
Rather than impersonating Americans as they did in 2016, Russian operatives are working
to get Americans to repeat disinformation , the officials said. That strategy gets around
social media companies' rules that prohibit "inauthentic speech."
It is Bloomberg, working as a Russian operative, who pays the trolls that repeat
disinformation.
The temporary employees recruited by Bloomberg's camp are given the title "deputy field
organizer" and make $2,500 a month to promote his White House bid among their followers .
The employees can choose to use campaign-approved language in their posts.
Twitter said the practice violated its "Platform Manipulation and Spam Policy," which
was established in 2019 to respond to Russia's expansive troll network that was tapped in
2016 to meddle in the U.S. elections.
In that closed hearing for the House Intelligence Committee, lawmakers were also told
that Sanders had been informed about Russia's interference. The prospect of two rival
campaigns both receiving help from Moscow appears to reflect what intelligence
officials have previously described as Russia's broader interest in sowing division in
the United States and uncertainty about the validity of American elections.
Here are Bloomberg's behind the scene machinations which are sowing division and
uncertainty about the validity of American elections. This is exactly what Russia
wants.
Mike Bloomberg is privately lobbying Democratic Party officials and donors allied with
his moderate opponents to flip their allegiance to him -- and block Bernie Sanders --
in the event of a brokered national convention.
...
It's a presumptuous play for a candidate who hasn't yet won a delegate or even appeared
on a ballot. And it could also bring havoc to the convention , raising the prospect of
party insiders delivering the nomination to a billionaire over a progressive populist.
The PUTIN's aim is to sow distrust among the US population. The USA, a peaceful
civilized society with apparently no internal conflicts maintains a similar peaceful
empire for the benefit of all humanity.
The impersonate evil of the PUTIN has of course every intention to destroy the present
state of tranquility and therefore aims to destruct the undisputed peaceful leader of
this empire by sowing internal conflict.
This is why from Sanders to Warren to Gabbard to Bloomberg to Trump everyone is on the
PUTIN payroll or subconsciously exposed to some mind controlling rays he sends via
satellite to the USA.
The PUTIN is the invention by the Russian Federation after their successful evil
attempt to evade the good intentions of the EMPIRE to embrace Russia in its sphere of
peaceful tranquility.
"The prospect of two rival campaigns both receiving help from Moscow appears to
reflect what intelligence officials have previously described as Russia's broader interest
in sowing division in the United States and uncertainty about the validity of American
elections" WaPo, 2/21/20.
This level if clinical delusion is reminiscent of the Führer's last days in the
bunker.
I know, I know, it's a waste of time trying to ridicule the media when they're already
doing that to themselves. Satire is definitely dead when the Washington Post reports about
"two rival campaigns both receiving help from Moscow". WaPo's attempts to explain that the
purpose of this bizarre behavior is "sowing division" makes it look even more incredible.
/div> The concept of democracy was invented by the Kremlin, to sow
discord .
In the language of the American Oligarchy and it's tame and owned presstitutes on the MSM,
any country targeted for destabilisation, destruction and rape – either because it
doesn't do what America tells it do (Russia), because it has rich natural resources or has a
'socialist' state (Venezuela) or because lunatic neo-cons and even more lunatic Christian
Evangelicals (hoping to provoke The End Times ) want it to happen (Syria and Iran) – is
first labelled as a 'regime'.
That's because the word 'regime' is associated with dictatorships and human rights abuses
and establishing a non-compliant country as a 'regime' is the US government's and MSM's first
step at manufacturing public consent for that country's destruction.
Unfortunately if you sit back and talk a cool-headed, factual look at actions and attitudes
that we're told constitute a regime then you have to conclude that America itself is 'a
regime'.
So, here's why America is a regime:
Regimes disobey international law. Like America's habit of blowing up wedding parties
with drones or the illegal presence of its troops in Syria, Iraq and God knows where
else.
Regimes carry out illegal assassination programs – I need say no more here than
Qasem Soleimani.
Regimes use their economic power to bully and impose their will – sanctioning
countries even when they know those sanctions will, for example, be responsible for the death
of 500,000 Iraqi children (the 'price worth paying', remember?).
Regimes renege on international treaties – like Iran nuclear treaty, for
example.
Regimes imprison and hound whistle-blowers – like Chelsea manning and Julian
Assange.
Regimes imprison people. America is the world leader in incarceration. It has 2.2 million
people in its prisons (more than China which has 5 times the US's population), that's 25% of
the world's prison population for 5% of the world's population, Why does America need so many
prisoners? Because it has a massive, prison-based, slave labour business that is hugely
profitable for the oligarchy.
Regimes censor free speech. Just recently, we've seen numerous non-narrative following
journalists and organisations kicked off numerous social media platforms. I didn't see lots
of US senators standing up and saying 'I disagree completely with what you say but I will
fight to the death to preserve your right to say it'. Did you?
Regimes are ruled by cliques. I don't need to tell you that America is kakistocratic
Oligarchy ruled by a tiny group of evil, rich, Old Men, do I?
Regimes keep bad company. Their allies are other 'regimes', and they're often lumped
together by using another favourite presstitute term – 'axis of evil'. America has its
own little axis of evil. It's two main allies are Saudi Arabia – a homophobic, women
hating, head chopping, terrorist financing state currently engaged in a war of genocide
(assisted by the US) in Yemen – and the racist, genocidal undeclared nuclear power
state of Israel.
Regimes commit human rights abuses. Here we could talk about ooh let's think. Last year's
treatment of child refugees from Latin America, the execution of African Americans for
'walking whilst black' by America's militarized, criminal police force or the millions of
dollars in cash and property seized from entirely innocent Americans by that same police
force under 'civil forfeiture' laws or maybe we could mention huge American corporations
getting tax refunds whilst ordinary Americans can't afford decent, effective healthcare.
Regimes finance terrorism. Mmmm .just like America financed terrorists to help destroy
Syria and Libya and invested $5 billion dollars to install another regime – the one of
anti-Semites and Nazis in Ukraine
Yup – America passes the 'sniff test' for Regime status.
If you're sick of being ruled by lying, psychopathic wankers then imagine a world,
much like this one but subtly different where, instead of always getting away with it all
the time, our psychopathic rulers occasionally got what they really, really deserved.
4
hours ago
America's Military is Killing – Americans!
In 2018, Republicans (AND Democrats) voted to cut $23 billion dollars from the budget
for food stamps (42 million Americans currently receive them).
Fats forward to 21 December 2019 and Donald Trump signed off on a US defense budget of a
mind boggling $738 billion dollars.
To put that in context -- the annual US government Education budget is
sround $68 billion dollars.
Did you get that -- $738 billion on defense, $68 billion on education?
That means the government spends more than ten times on preparations to kill people than
it does on preparing children for life in the adult world.
Wow!
How ******* psychotic and death-affirming is that? It gets even worse when you consider
that that $716 billion dollars is only the headline figure – it doesn't include
whatever the Deep State siphons away into black-ops and kick backs. And .America's military
isn't even very good – it's hasn't 'won' a conflict since the second world war, it's
proud (and horrifically expensive) aircraft carriers have been rendered obsolete by Chinese
and Russian hypersonic missiles and its 'cutting edge' weapons are so good (not) that
everyone wants to buy the cheaper and better Russian versions: classic example – the
F-35 jet program will screw $1.5 TRILLION (yes, TRILLION) dollars out of US taxpayers but
but it's a piece of **** plane that doesn't work properly which the Russians laughingly
refer to as 'a flying piano'.
In contrast to America's free money for the military industrial complex defense budget,
China spends $165 billion and Russia spends $61 billion on defense and I don't see anyone
attacking them (well, except America, that is be it only by proxy for now).
Or, put things another way. The United Kingdom spent £110 billion on it's National
Health Service in 2017. That means, if you get sick in England, you can see a doctor for
free. If you need drugs you pay a prescription charge of around $11.50(nothing, if
unemployed, a child or elderly), whatever the market price of the drugs. If you need to see
a consultant or medical specialist, you'll see one for free. If you need an operation,
you'll get one for free. If you need on-going care for a chronic illness, you'll get it for
free.
Fully socialised, free at the point of access, healthcare for all. How good is that?
US citizens could have that, too.
Allowing for the US's larger population, the UK National Health Service transplanted to
America could cost about $650 billion a year. That would still leave $66 billion dollars
left over from the proposed defense budget of $716 billion to finance weapons of death and
destruction -- more than those 'evil Ruskies' spend.
The US has now been at war, somewhere in the world (i.e in someone elses' country where
the US doesn't have any business being) continuously for 28 years. Those 28 years have
coincided with (for the 'ordinary people', anyway) declining living standards, declining
real wages, increased police violence, more repression and surveillance, declining
lifespans, declining educational and health outcomes, more every day misery in other words,
America's military is killing Americans. Oh, and millions of people in far away countries
(although, obviously, those deaths are in far away countries and they are of
brown-skinned people so they don't really count, do they?).
From comments (Is the USA government now a "regime"): In 2018, Republicans (AND Democrats) voted to cut $23 billion dollars from
the budget for food stamps (42 million Americans currently receive them). Regimes disobey international law. Like America's habit of
blowing up wedding parties with drones or the illegal presence of its troops in Syria, Iraq and God knows where else. Regimes carry
out illegal assassination programs – I need say no more here than Qasem Soleimani. Regimes use their economic power to bully and
impose their will – sanctioning countries even when they know those sanctions will, for example, be responsible for the death of
500,000 Iraqi children (the 'price worth paying', remember?). Regimes renege on international treaties – like Iran nuclear treaty,
for example. Regimes imprison and hound whistle-blowers – like Chelsea manning and Julian Assange. Regimes imprison people. America
is the world leader in incarceration. It has 2.2 million people in its prisons (more than China which has 5 times the US's
population), that's 25% of the world's prison population for 5% of the world's population, Why does America need so many prisoners?
Because it has a massive, prison-based, slave labour business that is hugely profitable for the oligarchy.
Regimes censor free speech. Just recently, we've seen numerous non-narrative following journalists and organisations kicked off
numerous social media platforms. I didn't see lots of US senators standing up and saying 'I disagree completely with what you say
but I will fight to the death to preserve your right to say it'. Did you?
Regimes are ruled by cliques. I don't need to tell you that America is kakistocratic Oligarchy ruled by a tiny group of evil,
rich, Old Men, do I?
Regimes keep bad company. Their allies are other 'regimes', and they're often lumped together by using another favourite presstitute
term – 'axis of evil'. America has its own little axis of evil. It's two main allies are Saudi Arabia – a homophobic, women hating,
head chopping, terrorist financing state currently engaged in a war of genocide (assisted by the US) in Yemen – and the racist,
genocidal undeclared nuclear power state of Israel.
Regimes commit human rights abuses. Here we could talk about…ooh…let's think. Last year's treatment of child refugees from Latin
America, the execution of African Americans for 'walking whilst black' by America's militarized, criminal police force or the
millions of dollars in cash and property seized from entirely innocent Americans by that same police force under 'civil forfeiture'
laws or maybe we could mention huge American corporations getting tax refunds whilst ordinary Americans can't afford decent,
effective healthcare.
Regimes finance terrorism. Mmmm….just like America financed terrorists to help destroy Syria and Libya and invested $5 billion
dollars to install another regime – the one of anti-Semites and Nazis in Ukraine…
Highly recommended!
Some comments edited for clarity...
Notable quotes:
"... But after retirement, Smedley Butler changed his tune. ..."
"... "I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service... And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers." ..."
"... Smedley Butler's Marine Corps and the military of his day was, in certain ways, a different sort of organization than today's highly professionalized armed forces. History rarely repeats itself, not in a literal sense anyway. Still, there are some disturbing similarities between the careers of Butler and today's generation of forever-war fighters. All of them served repeated tours of duty in (mostly) unsanctioned wars around the world. Butler's conflicts may have stretched west from Haiti across the oceans to China, whereas today's generals mostly lead missions from West Africa east to Central Asia, but both sets of conflicts seemed perpetual in their day and were motivated by barely concealed economic and imperial interests. ..."
"... When Smedley Butler retired in 1931, he was one of three Marine Corps major generals holding a rank just below that of only the Marine commandant and the Army chief of staff. Today, with about 900 generals and admirals currently serving on active duty, including 24 major generals in the Marine Corps alone, and with scores of flag officers retiring annually, not a single one has offered genuine public opposition to almost 19 years worth of ill-advised, remarkably unsuccessful American wars . As for the most senior officers, the 40 four-star generals and admirals whose vocal antimilitarism might make the biggest splash, there are more of them today than there were even at the height of the Vietnam War, although the active military is now about half the size it was then. Adulated as many of them may be, however, not one qualifies as a public critic of today's failing wars. ..."
"... The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff, retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson ; Vietnam veteran and onetime West Point history instructor, retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich ; and Iraq veteran and Afghan War whistleblower , retired Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis . All three have proven to be genuine public servants, poignant voices, and -- on some level -- cherished personal mentors. For better or worse, however, none carry the potential clout of a retired senior theater commander or prominent four-star general offering the same critiques. ..."
"... Consider it an irony of sorts that this system first received criticism in our era of forever wars when General David Petraeus, then commanding the highly publicized " surge " in Iraq, had to leave that theater of war in 2007 to serve as the chair of that selection committee. The reason: he wanted to ensure that a twice passed-over colonel, a protégé of his -- future Trump National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster -- earned his star. ..."
"... At the roots of this system lay the obsession of the American officer corps with " professionalization " after the Vietnam War debacle. This first manifested itself in a decision to ditch the citizen-soldier tradition, end the draft, and create an "all-volunteer force." The elimination of conscription, as predicted by critics at the time, created an ever-growing civil-military divide, even as it increased public apathy regarding America's wars by erasing whatever " skin in the game " most citizens had. ..."
"... One group of generals, however, reportedly now does have it out for President Trump -- but not because they're opposed to endless war. Rather, they reportedly think that The Donald doesn't "listen enough to military advice" on, you know, how to wage war forever and a day. ..."
"... That beast, first identified by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is now on steroids as American commanders in retirement regularly move directly from the military onto the boards of the giant defense contractors, a reality which only contributes to the dearth of Butlers in the military retiree community. For all the corruption of his time, the Pentagon didn't yet exist and the path from the military to, say, United Fruit Company, Standard Oil, or other typical corporate giants of that moment had yet to be normalized for retiring generals and admirals. Imagine what Butler would have had to say about the modern phenomenon of the " revolving door " in Washington. ..."
"... Today, generals don't seem to have a thought of their own even in retirement. And more's the pity... ..."
"... Am I the only one to notice that Hollywood and it's film distributors have gone full bore on "war" productions, glorifying these historical events while using poetic license to rewrite history. Prepping the numbheads. ..."
"... Forget rank. As Mr Sjursen implies, dissidents are no longer allowed in the higher ranks. "They" made sure to fix this as Mr Butler had too much of a mind of his own (US education system also programmed against creative, charismatic thinkers, btw). ..."
"... Today, the "Masters of the Permawars" refer to the international extortion, MIC, racket as "Defending American Interests"! .....With never any explanation to the public/American taxpayer just what "American Interests" the incredible expenditures of American lives, blood, and treasure are being defended! ..."
"... "The Americans follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." - Jospeh Goebbels ..."
"... The greatest anti-imperialist of our times is Michael Parenti: ..."
"... The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power. ..."
"... If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort. ..."
There once lived an odd little man - five feet nine inches tall and barely 140 pounds
sopping wet - who rocked the lecture circuit and the nation itself. For all but a few activist
insiders and scholars, U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Darlington Butler is now lost to
history. Yet more than a century ago, this strange contradiction
of a man would become a national war hero, celebrated in pulp adventure novels, and then, 30
years later, as one of this country's most prominent antiwar and anti-imperialist
dissidents.
Raised in West Chester, Pennsylvania, and educated in Quaker (pacifist) schools, the son of
an influential congressman, he would end up serving in nearly all of America's " Banana Wars " from 1898 to
1931. Wounded in combat and a rare recipient of two Congressional Medals of Honor, he would
retire as the youngest, most decorated major general in the Marines.
A teenage officer and a certified hero during an international intervention in the Chinese
Boxer Rebellion
of 1900, he would later become a constabulary leader of the Haitian gendarme, the police chief
of Philadelphia (while on an approved absence from the military), and a proponent of Marine
Corps football. In more standard fashion, he would serve in battle as well as in what might
today be labeled peacekeeping , counterinsurgency , and
advise-and-assist missions in Cuba, China, the Philippines, Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico,
Haiti, France, and China (again). While he showed early signs of skepticism about some of those
imperial campaigns or, as they were sardonically called by critics at the time, " Dollar Diplomacy "
operations -- that is, military campaigns waged on behalf of U.S. corporate business interests
-- until he retired he remained the prototypical loyal Marine.
But after retirement, Smedley Butler changed his tune. He began to blast the
imperialist foreign policy and interventionist bullying in which he'd only recently played such
a prominent part. Eventually, in 1935 during the Great Depression, in what became a classic
passage in his memoir, which he
titled "War Is a Racket," he wrote:
"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service... And during
that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall
Street, and for the Bankers."
Seemingly overnight, the famous war hero transformed himself into an equally acclaimed
antiwar speaker and activist in a politically turbulent era. Those were, admittedly, uncommonly
anti-interventionist years, in which veterans and politicians alike promoted what (for America,
at least) had been fringe ideas. This was, after all, the height of what later pro-war
interventionists would pejoratively label American " isolationism ."
Nonetheless, Butler was unique (for that moment and certainly for our own) in his
unapologetic amenability to left-wing domestic politics and materialist critiques of American
militarism. In the last years of his life, he would face increasing criticism from his former
admirer, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the military establishment, and the interventionist
press. This was particularly true after Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany invaded Poland and later
France. Given the severity of the Nazi threat to mankind, hindsight undoubtedly proved Butler's
virulent opposition to U.S. intervention in World War II wrong.
Nevertheless, the long-term erasure of his decade of antiwar and anti-imperialist activism
and the assumption that all his assertions were irrelevant has proven historically deeply
misguided. In the wake of America's brief but bloody entry into the First World War, the
skepticism of Butler (and a significant part of an entire generation of veterans) about
intervention in a new European bloodbath should have been understandable. Above all, however,
his critique of American militarism of an earlier imperial era in the Pacific and in Latin
America remains prescient and all too timely today, especially coming as it did from one of the
most decorated and high-ranking general officers of his time. (In the era of the never-ending
war on terror, such a phenomenon is quite literally inconceivable.)
Smedley Butler's Marine Corps and the military of his day was, in certain ways, a different
sort of organization than today's highly professionalized armed forces. History rarely repeats
itself, not in a literal sense anyway. Still, there are some disturbing similarities between
the careers of Butler and today's generation of
forever-war fighters. All of them served repeated tours of duty in (mostly) unsanctioned
wars around the world. Butler's conflicts may have stretched west from Haiti across the oceans
to China, whereas today's generals mostly lead missions from West Africa east to Central Asia,
but both sets of conflicts seemed perpetual in their day and were motivated by barely concealed
economic and imperial interests.
Nonetheless, whereas this country's imperial campaigns of the first third of the twentieth
century generated a Smedley Butler, the hyper-interventionism of the first decades of this
century hasn't produced a single even faintly comparable figure. Not one. Zero. Zilch. Why that
is matters and illustrates much about the U.S. military establishment and contemporary national
culture, none of it particularly encouraging.
Why No Antiwar Generals
When Smedley Butler retired in 1931, he was one of three Marine Corps major generals holding
a rank just below that of only the Marine commandant and the Army chief of staff. Today, with
about 900 generals and admirals currently serving on active duty, including 24 major
generals in the Marine Corps alone, and with scores of flag officers retiring annually, not a
single one has offered genuine public opposition to almost 19 years worth of ill-advised,
remarkably unsuccessful American wars . As for the most senior officers, the 40 four-star
generals and admirals whose vocal antimilitarism might make the biggest splash, there are
more of them today than
there were even at the height of the Vietnam War, although the active military is now about
half the size it was then. Adulated as many of them may be, however, not one qualifies as a
public critic of today's failing wars.
Instead, the principal patriotic dissent against those terror wars has come from retired
colonels, lieutenant colonels, and occasionally more junior officers (like me), as well as
enlisted service members. Not that there are many of us to speak of either. I consider it
disturbing (and so should you) that I personally know just about every one of the retired
military figures who has spoken out against America's forever wars.
The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff, retired Colonel
Lawrence Wilkerson ;
Vietnam veteran and onetime West Point history instructor, retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich ; and Iraq veteran and
Afghan War
whistleblower , retired Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis . All three have
proven to be genuine public servants, poignant voices, and -- on some level -- cherished
personal mentors. For better or worse, however, none carry the potential clout of a retired
senior theater commander or prominent four-star general offering the same critiques.
Something must account for veteran dissenters topping out at the level of colonel.
Obviously, there are personal reasons why individual officers chose early retirement or didn't
make general or admiral. Still, the system for selecting flag officers should raise at least a
few questions when it comes to the lack of antiwar voices among retired commanders. In fact, a
selection committee of top generals and admirals is appointed each year to choose the next
colonels to earn their first star. And perhaps you won't be surprised to learn that, according
to numerous reports , "the
members of this board are inclined, if not explicitly motivated, to seek candidates in their
own image -- officers whose careers look like theirs." At a minimal level, such a system is
hardly built to foster free thinkers, no less breed potential dissidents.
Consider it an irony of sorts that this system first received
criticism in our era of forever wars when General David Petraeus, then commanding the
highly publicized " surge " in Iraq, had to leave that
theater of war in 2007 to serve as the chair of that selection committee. The reason: he wanted
to ensure that a twice passed-over colonel, a protégé of his -- future Trump
National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster -- earned his star.
Mainstream national security analysts reported on this affair at the time as if it were a
major scandal, since most of them were convinced that Petraeus and his vaunted
counterinsurgency or " COINdinista "
protégés and their " new " war-fighting doctrine had the
magic touch that would turn around the failing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, Petraeus
tried to apply those very tactics twice -- once in each country -- as did acolytes of his
later, and you know the results
of that.
But here's the point: it took an eleventh-hour intervention by America's most acclaimed
general of that moment to get new stars handed out to prominent colonels who had, until then,
been stonewalled by Cold War-bred flag officers because they were promoting different (but also
strangely familiar) tactics in this country's wars. Imagine, then, how likely it would be for
such a leadership system to produce genuine dissenters with stars of any serious sort, no less
a crew of future Smedley Butlers.
At the roots of this system lay the obsession of the American officer corps with "
professionalization
" after the Vietnam War debacle. This first manifested itself in a decision to ditch the
citizen-soldier tradition, end the draft,
and create an "all-volunteer force." The elimination of conscription, as predicted
by critics at the time,
created an ever-growing civil-military divide, even as it increased public apathy regarding
America's wars by erasing whatever " skin in the game " most
citizens had.
More than just helping to squelch civilian antiwar activism, though, the professionalization
of the military, and of the officer corps in particular, ensured that any future Smedley
Butlers would be left in the dust (or in retirement at the level of lieutenant colonel or
colonel) by a system geared to producing faux warrior-monks. Typical of such figures is current
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army General Mark Milley. He may speak
gruffly and look like a man with a head of his own, but typically he's turned out to be
just another yes-man
for another
war-power -hungry president.
One group of generals, however,
reportedly now does have it out for President Trump -- but not because they're opposed to
endless war. Rather, they reportedly think that The Donald doesn't "listen enough to military
advice" on, you know, how to wage war forever and a day.
What Would Smedley Butler Think
Today?
In his years of retirement, Smedley Butler regularly focused on the economic component of
America's imperial war policies. He saw clearly that the conflicts he had fought in, the
elections he had helped rig, the coups he had supported, and the constabularies he had formed
and empowered in faraway lands had all served the interests of U.S. corporate investors. Though
less overtly the case today, this still remains a reality in America's post-9/11 conflicts,
even on occasion embarrassingly so (as when the Iraqi ministry of oil was essentially the
only public building protected by American troops as looters tore apart the Iraqi capital,
Baghdad, in the post-invasion chaos of April 2003). Mostly, however, such influence plays out
far more
subtly than that, both
abroad and here at home where those wars help maintain the record profits of the top
weapons makers of the military-industrial complex.
That beast, first identified by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is now on
steroids as American commanders in retirement regularly
move directly from the military onto the boards of the giant defense contractors, a reality
which only contributes to the dearth of Butlers in the military retiree community. For all the
corruption of his time, the Pentagon didn't yet exist and the path from the military to, say,
United Fruit Company, Standard Oil, or other typical corporate giants of that moment had yet to
be normalized for retiring generals and admirals. Imagine what Butler would have had to say
about the modern phenomenon of the "
revolving door " in Washington.
Of course, he served in a very different moment, one in which military funding and troop
levels were still contested in Congress. As a longtime critic of capitalist excesses who wrote
for leftist publications and supported
the Socialist Party candidate in the 1936 presidential elections, Butler would have found
today's
nearly trillion-dollar annual defense budgets beyond belief. What the grizzled former
Marine long ago identified as a treacherous
nexus between warfare and capital "in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses
in lives" seems to have reached its natural end point in the twenty-first century. Case in
point: the record (and still
rising ) "defense" spending of the present moment, including -- to please a president --
the creation of a whole new military service aimed at the full-scale militarization of
space .
Sadly enough, in the age of Trump, as numerous
polls demonstrate, the U.S. military is the only public institution Americans still truly
trust. Under the circumstances, how useful it would be to have a high-ranking, highly
decorated, charismatic retired general in the Butler mold galvanize an apathetic public around
those forever wars of ours. Unfortunately, the likelihood of that is practically nil, given the
military system of our moment.
Of course, Butler didn't exactly end his life triumphantly. In late May 1940, having lost 25
pounds due to illness and exhaustion -- and demonized as a leftist, isolationist crank but
still maintaining a whirlwind speaking schedule -- he checked himself into the Philadelphia
Navy Yard Hospital for a "rest." He died there, probably of some sort of cancer, four weeks
later. Working himself to death in his 10-year retirement and second career as a born-again
antiwar activist, however, might just have constituted the very best service that the two-time
Medal of Honor winner could have given the nation he loved to the very end.
Someone of his credibility, character, and candor is needed more than ever today.
Unfortunately, this military generation is unlikely to produce such a figure. In retirement,
Butler himself boldly
confessed that, "like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of
my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I
obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical..."
Today, generals don't seem to have a thought of their own even in retirement. And more's
the pity...
2 minutes ago
Am I the only one to notice that Hollywood and it's film
distributors have gone full bore on "war" productions, glorifying these historical events while
using poetic license to rewrite history. Prepping the numbheads.
14 minutes ago
TULSI GABBARD.
Forget rank. As Mr Sjursen implies, dissidents are no longer allowed in the higher ranks.
"They" made sure to fix this as Mr Butler had too much of a mind of his own (US education
system also programmed against creative, charismatic thinkers, btw).
The US Space Force has been created as part of a plan to disclose the deep state's Secret
Space Program (SSP), which has been active for decades, and which has utilized, and repressed,
advanced technologies that would provide free, unlimited renewable energy, and thus eliminate
hunger and poverty on a planetary scale.
14 minutes ago
What imperialism?
We are spreading freedumb and dumbocracy.
We are saving the world from socialism and communism.
We are energy independent, with innate exceptionalism and #MAGA# will usher in a new era
of American prosperity.
Any and all accusations of USSA imperialism, are made by the "woke" and those jealous of
the greatest Capitalist system in the world.
The swamp is being drained as I speak, and therefore will continue with unwavering
support for my 5x draft dodging, Zionist supporting, multiple times bankrupt, keeper of
broken promises POTUS.
Smedley Butler's book is not worthy of reading once you have the seminal work known as
"The Art Of The Deal"
Sadly enough, in the age of Trump, as numerous
polls demonstrate, the U.S. military is the only public institution
Americans still truly trust. Under the circumstances, how useful it would be
to have a high-ranking, highly decorated, charismatic retired general in the
Butler mold galvanize an apathetic public around those forever wars of ours.
Unfortunately, the likelihood of that is practically nil, given the military
system of our moment.
This is why I feel an oath keeping constitutionally oriented American
general is what we need in power, clear out all 545 criminals in office now,
review their finances (and most of them will roll over on the others) and
punish accordingly, then the lobbyist, how many of them worked against the
country? You know what we do with those.
And then, finally, Hollywood, oh yes I long to see that **** hole burn with
everyone in it.
30 minutes ago
Republicrat: the two faces of the moar war whore.
32 minutes ago
Given the severity of the Nazi threat to mankind
Do tell, from what I've read the Nazis were really only a threat to a few
groups, the rest of us didn't need to worry.
35 minutes ago
Today, the "Masters
of the Permawars" refer to the international extortion, MIC, racket as
"Defending American Interests"! .....With never any explanation to the
public/American taxpayer just what "American Interests" the incredible
expenditures of American lives, blood, and treasure are being defended!
Why are we sending our children out into the hellholes of the world to be
maimed and killed in the fauxjew banksters' quest for world domination.
How stupid can we be!
41 minutes ago
(Edited) "Smedley Butler"... The last
time the UCMJ was actually used before being permanently turned into a "door
stop"!
49 minutes ago
He was correct about our staying out of WWII. Which, BTW,
would have never happened if we had stayed out of WWI.
22 minutes ago
(Edited)
Both wars were about the international fauxjew imposition of debt-money central
bankstering.
Both wars were promulgated by the Financial oligarchyof New York. The communist Red Army
of Russia was funded and supplied by the Financial oligarchyof New York. It was American Financial oligarchythat built the Russian Red Army that vexed the world and created the Cold War.
How many hundreds of millions of goyim were sacrificed to create both the
Russian and the Chinese Satanic behemoths.......and the communist horror that
is now embedded in American academia, publishing, American politics, so-called
news, entertainment, The worldwide Catholic religion, the Pentagon, and the
American deep state.......and more!
How stupid can we be. Every generation has the be dragged, kicking and
screaming, out of the eternal maw of historical ignorance to avoid falling back
into the myriad dark hellholes of history. As we all should know, people who
forget their own history are doomed to repeat it.
53 minutes ago
Today's
General is a robot with with a DNA.
54 minutes ago
All the General Staff is a
bunch of #asskissinglittlechickenshits
57 minutes ago
want to stop senseless
Empire wars>>well do this
War = jobs and profit..we get work "THEY" get the profit.. If we taxed all
war related profit at 99% how many wars would our rulers start? 1 hour ago
Here
is a simple straightforward trading maxim that might apply here: if it works or
is working keep doing it, but if it doesn't work or stops working, then STOP
doing it. There are plenty of people, now poorer, for not adhering to that
simple principle. Where is the Taxpayer's return on investment from the Combat
taking place on their behalf around the globe? 'Nuff said - it isn't working.
It is making a microscopic few richer & all others poorer so STOP doing it.
36 seconds ago We don't have to look far to figure out who they are that are
getting rich off the fauxjew permawars.
How can we be so stupid???
1 hour ago
See also:
TULSI GABBARD
1 hour ago
The main reason you don't see the generals
criticizing is that the current crop have not been in actual long term direct
combat with the enemy and have mostly been bureaucratic paper pushers.
Take the
Marine Major General who is the current commander of CENTCOM. By the time he
got into the Iraq/Afghanistan war he was already a Lieutenant Colonel and far
removed from direct action.
He was only there on and off for a few years. Here
are some of his other career highlights aft as they appear on his official
bio:
2006-07: he served as the Military Secretary to the 33rd and 34th
Commandants of the Marine Corps
2008: he was selected by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be the
Director of the Chairman's New Administration Transition Team (CNATT)
2009: he reported to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in
Kabul, Afghanistan to serve as the Deputy to the Deputy Chief of Staff (DCOS)
for Stability. ..... Deputy to the Deputy for Stability ???? WTF is that?
2010: he was assigned as the Director, Strategy, Plans, and Policy (J-5) for
the U.S. Central Command
2012: he reported to Headquarters Marine Corps to serve as the Marine Corps
Representative to the Quadrennial Defense Review
In short, these top guys aren't warriors they're bureaucrats so why would we
expect them to be honest brokers of the truth?
51 minutes ago
are U saying
Chesty Puller he's NOT? 1 hour ago
(Edited) The purpose of war is to ensure
that the
Federal Reserve Note remains the world reserve paper currency of choice by
keeping it relevant and in demand across the globe by forcing pesky energy
producing nations to trade with it exclusively.
It is a 49 year old policy created by the private owners of quasi public
institutions called
central banks to ensure they remain the Wizards of Oz
doing gods work conjuring magic paper into existence with a secret
spell known as issuing credit.
How else is a technologically advanced society of billions of people
supposed to function w/out this
divinely inspired paper?
1 hour ago
Goebbels in "Churchill's Lie Factory"
where he said: "The Americans follow the principle that when one lies, one
should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of
looking ridiculous." - Jospeh Goebbels, "Aus Churchills Lügenfabrik,"
12. january 1941, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel
1 hour ago
The greatest
anti-imperialist of our times is Michael Parenti:
Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world history over the last
four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while oppressing indigenous
peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is seldom accorded any
serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and political leaders.
When not ignored outright, the subject of imperialism has been sanitized, so
that empires become "commonwealths," and colonies become "territories" or
"dominions" (or, as in the case of Puerto Rico, "commonwealths" too).
Imperialist military interventions become matters of "national defense,"
"national security," and maintaining "stability" in one or another region. In
this book I want to look at imperialism for what it really is.
"Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world
history over the last four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while
oppressing indigenous peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is
seldom accorded any serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and
political leaders."
Why would it when they who control academia, media and most of our
politicians are our enemies.
1 hour ago
"The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of
staff, retired Colonel
Lawrence
Wilkerson ; ..."
Yep, Wilkerson, who leaked Valerie Plame's name, not that it was a leak, to
Novak, and then stood by to watch the grand jury fry Scooter Libby. Wilkerson,
that paragon of moral rectitude. Wilkerson the silent, that *******.
sheesh,
1 hour ago
(Edited)
" A standing military force, with an overgrown
Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence
against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.
Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was
apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of
defending, have enslaved the people."
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a
standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the
rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia,
in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of
Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [I Annals
of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789])
A particularly pernicious example of intra-European
imperialism was the Nazi aggression during World War II, which gave the German
business cartels and the Nazi state an opportunity to plunder the resources and
exploit the labor of occupied Europe, including the slave labor of
concentration camps. - M. PARENTI, Against empire
See Alexander Parvus
1 hour ago
Collapse is the cure. It's
too far gone.
1 hour ago
Russia Wants to 'Jam' F-22 and F-35s in the Middle
East: Report
ZH retards think that the American mic is bad and all other mics are
good or don't exist. That's the power of brainwashing. Humans understand that
war in general is bad, but humans are becoming increasingly rare in this world.
1 hour ago
The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and
in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as
these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people
who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not
those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its
finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in
the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian
way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to
poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never
how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to
deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more
power.
If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and
power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million
fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if
we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money
and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are
enthusiastically supporting the war effort.
The swamp is bigger than the military alone. Substitute Bureaucrat,
Statesman, or Beltway Bandit for General and Colonel in your writing above and
you've got a whole new article to post that is just as true.
2 hours ago
(Edited) War = jobs and profit..we get work "THEY" get the profit..If we taxed
all war related profit at 99% how many wars would our rulers start?
2 hours ago [edited for clarity]
War is a racket. And nobody loves a
racket more than Financial oligarchy. Americans come close though, that's why Financial oligarchy use them to
project their own rackets and provide protection reprisals.
Surprising lack on intelligence in intelligence community. But after Brennan and "ruptured"
Pompeo as CIA chiefs who would be surprised?" Or more correctly utter despise of ordinary
Americans: 'nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people' ~ H L
Mencken.
But seriously, if Putin does now have the power to decide US elections, he simply makes his
preferred choice one day before the election. There is no reason to open cards right now. You
could not make this up. What we have now is Government by Gossip and Innuendo with intelligence
crooks on the frontline of spreading the disinformation.
Notable quotes:
"... The PUTIN's aim is to sow distrust among the US population. The USA, a peaceful civilized society with apparently no internal conflicts maintains a similar peaceful empire for the benefit of all humanity. ..."
"... The impersonate evil of the PUTIN has of course every intention to destroy the present state of tranquility and therefore aims to destruct the undisputed peaceful leader of this empire by sowing internal conflict. ..."
"... The concept of democracy was invented by the Kremlin, to sow discord ..."
"... The concept of democracy was invented by the Kremlin, to sow discord ..."
Rather than impersonating Americans as they did in 2016, Russian operatives are working
to get Americans to repeat disinformation , the officials said. That strategy gets around
social media companies' rules that prohibit "inauthentic speech."
It is Bloomberg, working as a Russian operative, who pays the trolls that repeat
disinformation.
The temporary employees recruited by Bloomberg's camp are given the title "deputy field
organizer" and make $2,500 a month to promote his White House bid among their followers .
The employees can choose to use campaign-approved language in their posts.
Twitter said the practice violated its "Platform Manipulation and Spam Policy," which
was established in 2019 to respond to Russia's expansive troll network that was tapped in
2016 to meddle in the U.S. elections.
In that closed hearing for the House Intelligence Committee, lawmakers were also told
that Sanders had been informed about Russia's interference. The prospect of two rival
campaigns both receiving help from Moscow appears to reflect what intelligence
officials have previously described as Russia's broader interest in sowing division in
the United States and uncertainty about the validity of American elections.
Here are Bloomberg's behind the scene machinations which are sowing division and
uncertainty about the validity of American elections. This is exactly what Russia
wants.
Mike Bloomberg is privately lobbying Democratic Party officials and donors allied with
his moderate opponents to flip their allegiance to him -- and block Bernie Sanders --
in the event of a brokered national convention.
...
It's a presumptuous play for a candidate who hasn't yet won a delegate or even appeared
on a ballot. And it could also bring havoc to the convention , raising the prospect of
party insiders delivering the nomination to a billionaire over a progressive populist.
The PUTIN's aim is to sow distrust among the US population. The USA, a peaceful
civilized society with apparently no internal conflicts maintains a similar peaceful
empire for the benefit of all humanity.
The impersonate evil of the PUTIN has of course every intention to destroy the present
state of tranquility and therefore aims to destruct the undisputed peaceful leader of
this empire by sowing internal conflict.
This is why from Sanders to Warren to Gabbard to Bloomberg to Trump everyone is on the
PUTIN payroll or subconsciously exposed to some mind controlling rays he sends via
satellite to the USA.
The PUTIN is the invention by the Russian Federation after their successful evil
attempt to evade the good intentions of the EMPIRE to embrace Russia in its sphere of
peaceful tranquility.
"The prospect of two rival campaigns both receiving help from Moscow appears to
reflect what intelligence officials have previously described as Russia's broader interest
in sowing division in the United States and uncertainty about the validity of American
elections" WaPo, 2/21/20.
This level if clinical delusion is reminiscent of the Führer's last days in the
bunker.
I know, I know, it's a waste of time trying to ridicule the media when they're already
doing that to themselves. Satire is definitely dead when the Washington Post reports about
"two rival campaigns both receiving help from Moscow". WaPo's attempts to explain that the
purpose of this bizarre behavior is "sowing division" makes it look even more incredible.
/div> The concept of democracy was invented by the Kremlin, to sow
discord .
"... A combat veteran and major in the U.S. National Guard, Gabbard has made ending America's policy of "regime change wars" the core of her campaign platform. "She puts peace over war profiteering," said Carl Holland, introducing the candidate to unanimous applause. But on this occasion, foreign policy was not the focus of her stump speech. ..."
"... After her first debate, I watched CNN coverage of that debate on YouTube and noted the amount of coverage devoted to her. I was struck by how little was said about her. The story included her in a clip of candidates deriding Trump but gave her NO coverage of her other views, in spite of the fact that she did well in the debate and made some sound-byte worthy statements. In contrast, the mainstream candidates got lots of coverage. ..."
"... She completely botched the Assad - poison gas issue. She swallowed the propaganda whole cloth, and when it was proven she was just wrong she huffed off in denial. ..."
"... Actually, it appears that Americans and Western media bought the propaganda on alleged Assad use of poison gas (vice the al-Qaeda linked "rebels"): https://thegrayzone.com/202... ..."
"... Undoubtedly the finest candidate for president in the race. And by far the most presidential. Her campaign deserves more. ..."
"... HER core issue -- anti-foreign intervention, ending forever wars -- remain resoundingly popular. However, her relative low-profile as a Hawaiian congresswoman (compare her favorable support vis-a-vis Julian Castro, for instance), the constant mainstream media attacks (compare her to the Mayor Pete love-fest), and most importantly, her unwillingness to be reflexively anti-Trump, is costing her the support of a feverish, vengeful Democratic primary base. ..."
"... Hi, the main reason the major media went out to try to stop Tulsi's campaign: From the Dem leadership like Pelosi and Schumer, to the folks at CNN, MSNBC and all the network 'news' shows, they worked to stop her because: They are neocons! And she's talking ending wars over there and there! ..."
"... That goes against hardliners like AIPAC, and in mentioning CNN, for example, Blitzer is a neocon guy and he is foremost an Israeli supporter and so on. What, are we just gonna keep kidding ourselves? ..."
Is there a better time for a presidential townhall than
on President's Day? And is there a better place than the Old Town Hall in the heart of Fairfax,
Virginia? Built in 1900, this small, neoclassical-styled building, with wood pillars sprouting
from floor to ceiling in the middle of its main room, brings to mind the same communal
assemblies that the Old Dominion was founded on 400 years ago.
It was here that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii spoke Monday to over 200 supporters
gathered ahead of the March 3 Democratic primary.
And gather they did. An hour before she was supposed to speak, a line was already forming
down the sidewalk. A man near the front door held a "Tulsi 2020" sign out towards the road.
When asked if he was on her staff, he responded that he wasn't even a volunteer for the event;
he had brought the sign from home. The other attendees were similarly clad in Tulsi gear,
holding signs, wearing shirts, and sporting "Veterans for Gabbard" hats. These were not
undecided voters on a curiosity trip, but the enthusiastic base of a candidate most of the
people driving past wouldn't even recognize.
A combat veteran and major in the U.S. National Guard, Gabbard has made ending America's
policy of "regime change wars" the core of her campaign platform. "She puts peace over war
profiteering," said Carl Holland, introducing the candidate to unanimous applause. But on this
occasion, foreign policy was not the focus of her stump speech.
"What is it that makes people hate politics?" she asked the crowd after her customary
"aloha" greeting. She believes it's the same reasons that she finds it off-putting: "I hate the
pay-to-play politics that rules the day in Washington." She hates the hyper-partisanship, the
politicians "who love to talk a lot but refuse to actually listen," and the leaders who
carelessly "send our nation's sons and daughters off to fight in wars that have nothing to do
with our country's national security."
Taking advantage of the holiday, she spoke about being inspired by Abraham Lincoln and his
1858 "House Divided" speech. She described a country still divided today, on matters of
politics, race, gender, and even "what cable news channel you watch."
Briefly contrasting what she hates with what she loves, Gabbard said unreservedly, "I love
our country. I love the people of this country." Multiple times she used the phrase "Country
First" to describe her policies and her movement. The difference in intentions between her
slogan and Donald Trump's "America First" would be hard to parse.
Gabbard's example of putting Country First was the First Step Act, a criminal justice bill
passed by large bipartisan majorities in December 2018. The law enacted new dignity provisions
for prisoners and resulted in the release of 7,000 people. Gabbard described members of her
party who "did not want to give Trump a win, who stood in the way of this legislation passing."
To those legislators who "put politics ahead of people, shame on you," she said.
For Gabbard, the corruption in the system doesn't stop with her fellow elected officials or
the "high-powered lobbyists [who] stack the odds against the people." It includes those in "the
corporate media trying to silence our voices because we dare speak the truth" about regime
change wars. Like clockwork, when a woman in the audience asked about the
OPCW whistleblower who has challenged the United Nations' conclusions about the alleged
Douma chemical attack in Syria, members of the print media darted their heads up and scurried
closer to the stage to try to get a potentially scandalous soundbite .
Gabbard responded by saying she has sent multiple letters to the OPCW inquiring about the
whistleblower situation, but had not yet received satisfactory answers. She promised to keep
trying.
The candidate closed her speech by telling the crowd, "You have my personal commitment that
as your president, my sole mission every single day will be serving you and only
you ." Her strategy for winning the White House would be "not taking people for granted,
reaching out, and treating every American with respect."
After answering questions about health care, small business, and climate change, Gabbard
stepped away from the podium and her fans lined up for pictures and a handshake. Meanwhile, her
husband Abraham walked the room, chatting with people and recording the event on his phone.
In the unscientific poll of raised hands, the attendees were one third Democrat, one third
Republican, and one third "independent, Libertarian, or Green." They were overwhelmingly from
Northern Virginia or Maryland, with very few from Washington, D.C. Multiple families attended,
some of whose kids presented Tulsi with homemade drawings. One family, with their two
adolescent children present and husky dog tied up outside, drove all the way from West
Virginia.
When everyone had dispersed, The American Conservative was given an opportunity to
ask a question. Gabbard has been explicit in her condemnations of "radical Islam," and she's
referred to the war
on terror as an ideological war as much as a military one. When asked to specify whether she
believes the terrorism against the West is the result of religious extremism or if it's a
consequence of foreign military interventions and their subsequent blowback, she appeared to
lean more to the latter.
"It's a combination of the radical, Wahhabi-Salafist ideology that serves as the fuel and
the recruiting ground for terrorist organizations like ISIS and al-Qaeda, that motivates them
in their terror actions." Gabbard told TAC , "But it's also when you see how our regime
change wars have had a direct impact. Not in going in and defeating terrorist groups like ISIS
and al-Qaeda, but actually serving to only strengthen them."
A Monmouth poll released
the day after her townhall listed Gabbard's support in Virginia at 1 percent. This is similar
to the national
polls where she places last among the eight candidates still running for the Democratic
nomination. Gabbard has previously announced that she's declining to run for reelection to the
House (after four terms) and that she's taking her presidential campaign all the way to the
Democratic convention in June. Where this will put the 38-year-old come January 2021 is
anyone's guess. But whether in the White House or retired from politics, Tulsi Gabbard plans to
continue putting Country First.
Hunter DeRensis is a reporter with The National Interest and a regular contributor to
The American Conservative. Follow him on Twitter @HunterDeRensis .
You are raising a valid question about why she is not doing better in the polls. While I
have not done a statistical analysis of her press coverage, it appeared to me that the
networks have largely shut her out.
After her first debate, I watched CNN coverage of that debate on YouTube and noted the
amount of coverage devoted to her. I was struck by how little was said about her. The story
included her in a clip of candidates deriding Trump but gave her NO coverage of her other
views, in spite of the fact that she did well in the debate and made some sound-byte worthy
statements. In contrast, the mainstream candidates got lots of coverage.
It is my impression that this trend has continued throughout the primaries.
It is reminiscent of the ways the networks treat other strong opponents of war. 1,
Dennis Kucinich, NBC had a rule that to be on one of their debates-in 2004 if I remember
correctly--a candidate had to finish in the top three in a primary. Kucinich finished third
in Nevada. NBC changed the rules on him. He took them to court. The court ruled that NBC
was a private business and could set their own rules. 2. Bernie Sanders in 2016. The CNN
website largely ignored his candidacy until he started winning primaries. When they
couldn't ignore him anymore, they ran unflattering photos of him with his mouth open--how
else could he talk?-but did not do so for Clinton.
I think the lack of press coverage is part of it. She is also demonized by most liberals
and even some leftists. I say “ demonized” because I think at least some of the
criticisms are false, but I am not sure about the others.
And I think you seriously underestimate the share of antiwar voters nationwide and
overestimate the importance of those whom you, inexplicably from the Marxist point of view,
call "left". Tulsi now holds a wild card.
She's still under forty, which is almost a senior
teenager by modern standards, and already on her way to becoming a kingmaker through being
able to guarantee either party's candidates the support of a serious share of voters from
both and of independents for years to come.
I do think she would appeal to just the type of person the Dems want to peel away from
Trump.
I would agree only, from what I have seen thus far, her appeal to a possibly significant
number of previous Trump voters is seen as a negative in the eyes of Dem activists,
pundits, other candidates, etc. The Dems don't seem to have any interest in winning over
previous Trump voters, no matter what the reason was for their 2016 Trump vote.
I think a more accurate phrasing of the sentence above would be, "I do think she would
appeal to just the type of person the Dems should want to peel away from
Trump."
The only bridges she burned were those with the Democratic establishment, which is out of
touch with reality and is doomed to soon repeat its Republican counterpart's inglorious
end. Thus the fact that she burned those bridges actually shows that she, unlike so many
other politicians, is capable of, at least, midterm planning. Not to mention that, as I've
already said, she, given her strong cross-partisan appeal, can easily become a Republican
now.
1) Did Sanders meet UN-recognized leaders of countries, against whom the neocon/neolib
clique was waging illegal wars?
2) And that campaigning for Clinton cost Democrats the defection of many Sanders's voters
to Trump's camp. Long-term planning, right.
3) 55% under a system which has recently shown how the votes are counted in all of its
glory? Impressive.
I applaud Tulsi's anti-war comments and have observed that the establishment media shut her
out of meaningful coverage. But there is no reason to think that she can influence any
large block of voters and influence them enough to be a kingmaker. Not even close.
Andrew Yang, by contrast, could have some influence, though probably more in pushing the
universal basic income idea than in inducing a particularly large number of voters to vote
for this candidate or that. But he has achieved more influence than Tulsi for sure.
Can you imagine the look on the face of AOC, Bernie's ambitious surrogate, if Bernie chose
Tulsi for VP? IMO, Bernie has hitched his wagon to AOC's rock-star magnetism and Our
Revolution's multicultural foot soldiers. No room for Tulsi, who favors closed borders and
open discussions in contrast to open borders and PC lectures.
She completely botched the Assad - poison gas issue. She swallowed the propaganda whole
cloth, and when it was proven she was just wrong she huffed off in denial.
Actually, it appears that Americans and Western media bought the propaganda on alleged
Assad use of poison gas (vice the al-Qaeda linked "rebels"):
https://thegrayzone.com/202...
Neoconservatives' wars for their own ideologies have exhausted most Americans.
They want to stop wars, regardless. In coming economic depression, this view will
rampant Eventually, appeasement will happen again.
Neconservatives and their supporters (regardless reasons) deserve this result but how
about other Americans?
If, still a large if, Sanders gets the nomination Gabbard makes a lot of sense as running
mate. She appeals to the very votes needed to defeat Trump. Antiwar, libertarian oriented
moderates. Any VP candidate with ties to the DNC will work against Sanders.
????? Gabbard is getting 2 -3% polls in the Democratic Primary and is sort of a candidate
who is winning with Democrats that don't like the Party. Frankly I was Gabbard suspect
early 2020 but I also realistic enough to know below 40 year candidate with little name
recognition tend not to win Primaries their first try. And for a young Gabbard her true
goal should have building her name in the current Primary that 20 other candidates. (And
given that often incumbents win the Presidency, 2024 could have been a competitive
Primary.)
1) Originally I thought her biggest problem was past positions on gay rights and she was
definitely behind curve on that one. And getting this weakness out of the way in 'trial
test Primary' isn't the worst goal for young House member.
2) Sanders has much more anti-war candidate in 2020 than he was in 2016 so Gabbard message
was not a lone voice here.
3) The dumbest thing Gabbard has done is give up her House seat in the completely D safe
district in Hawaii. So why would the Sunday shows book an ex-House member in 2021? And the
liberal punditry network is not as nearly as strong (or well paying) as the conservative
pundits.
I am a former Democrat, grew up lower middle class, and a legal immigrant. While I don't
agree with all of her policy positions, I find Tulsi Gabbard's single-minded focus on the
costs of foreign intervention THE most resonant/substantive topic for the United States,
especially in a political system where Congress/Courts pass domestic legislation, and
presidents only have absolute control of foreign policy.
What sets Tulsi a rare breed apart from other progressive Democrats is that she's
unwilling to do 180s on core convictions as a reactionary take on Trump. The "whatever
Trump is for, I'm against" transformation of Democratic lawmakers and media wonks has led
them to support prolonging wars (Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq); red-baiting nuclear stand-offs
with Russia; sudden embrace of corporatist "free trade" like TPP; silcening any criticism
of anti-women Islamic customs; and even libertarian wet dreams of effectively open borders.
Even Bernie is wavering in his long-held convictions.
In response to why Tulsi's campaign hasn't resonated to higher polls, it's important to
remember that HER core issue -- anti-foreign intervention, ending forever wars -- remain
resoundingly popular. However, her relative low-profile as a Hawaiian congresswoman
(compare her favorable support vis-a-vis Julian Castro, for instance), the constant
mainstream media attacks (compare her to the Mayor Pete love-fest), and most importantly,
her unwillingness to be reflexively anti-Trump, is costing her the support of a feverish,
vengeful Democratic primary base.
She's a fool for giving up her Congressional seat. She would do better to win re-election
to the House, make a national name for herself as the anti-war anti-military-profiteering
voice in the Dem Party, and then run for the US Senate when one of the current white-hating
establishment scum in the Hawaii Senate delegation finally retires.
Hirono and Schatz took their Senate seats only in 2012 and 2013 and aren't old,
unfortunately, but Tulsi is younger at only 38. She can become a fairly senior member of
Congress and run to succeed Hirono in say, 2030. Tulsi will then still be only 48.
Hi, the main reason the major media went out to try to stop Tulsi's campaign: From the Dem leadership like Pelosi and
Schumer, to the folks at CNN, MSNBC and all the
network 'news' shows, they worked to stop her because:
They are neocons! And she's talking ending wars over there and there!
That goes against hardliners like AIPAC, and in mentioning
CNN, for example, Blitzer is a
neocon guy and he
is foremost an Israeli supporter and so on. What, are we just gonna keep kidding
ourselves?
(he came from the Jerusalem Post, was a member of AIPAC.)
What, something's wrong with pointing out facts? Shouldn't be.
And "social media" to socialize in, like you say, that is also a sound usage.
Posted by: Bemildred | Feb 22 2020 13:41 utc | 20
Practically, it means that there is a small entry cost to create communication medium,
although platforms like Facebook and Twitter can impose barriers and censorship.
Additionally, in the sea of social media, sharks try to crowd out voices like b, reports from
Syria aggregated by GeromanAt etc. Nevertheless, low entry cost or even zero cost is a huge
headache for the powers that were used to issue commands by threat or friendly chat to few
agencies and conglomerates.
That is partly funny. There is a whole cottage industry of hustlers who get government
grants, consulting contracts and "philanthropic donations" to tackle the problem. The most
consistent message is that the governments of the free world do not appreciate the "problem"
enough and they should get more money.
The PUTIN's aim is to sow distrust among the US population. The USA, a peaceful civilized
society with apparently no internal conflicts maintains a similar peaceful empire for the
benefit of all humanity.
The impersonate evil of the PUTIN has of course every intention to destroy the present state
of tranquility and therefore aims to destruct the undisputed peaceful leader of this empire
by sowing internal conflict.
This is why from Sanders to Warren to Gabbard to Bloomberg to Trump everyone is on the PUTIN
payroll or subconsciously exposed to some mind controlling rays he sends via satellite to the
USA.
The PUTIN is the invention by the Russian Federation after their successful evil attempt to
evade the good intentions of the EMPIRE to embrace Russia in its sphere of peaceful
tranquility.
I suppose when Jeff Bozo's Blog discovers that Putin is playing three-dimensional chess with
himself using Bernie Sanders as the White Side and Mike Bloomberg as the Black Side, it will
finally declare that to save the US from Russian meddling, the very notion and institution of
regular elections, and the massive organisation, funding systems and networks, and marketing
campaigns and promotions associated with the 4-year election cycle must finally be declared
harmful to American interests and done away with. WaPo will finally advocate for a one-man
police state. Democracy truly dies in the darkness of delirium and derangement. Thank you,
WaPo.
This is hilarious, 'nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American
people' H L Mencken. But seriously, Putin does now have the power to decide US elections, he
simply makes his preferred choice [now the obvious loser]one day before the election. You
could not make this up.
"The prospect of two rival campaigns both receiving help from Moscow appears to
reflect what intelligence officials have previously described as Russia's broader interest in
sowing division in the United States and uncertainty about the validity of American
elections" WaPo, 2/21/20.
This level if clinical delusion is reminiscent of the Führer's last days in the
bunker.
I know, I know, it's a waste of time trying to ridicule the media when they're already doing
that to themselves. Satire is definitely dead when the Washington Post reports about "two
rival campaigns both receiving help from Moscow". WaPo's attempts to explain that the purpose
of this bizarre behavior is "sowing division" makes it look even more incredible.
For years I have stressed the need for our leaders to make decisions based on
thoughtfulness and foresight -- not just emotion, or what may "feel good" in a given
moment. This is especially important in the area of foreign policy, as politicians' desire
to "do something" too often overrides careful consideration of the unintended consequences
of the actions they take. Time and time again, their poor judgment has led to worse
outcomes in the countries where we recklessly intervene, and for our own country's national
security.
An egregious lack of foresight also led to this counterproductive impeachment of
Trump.
Those who wish to lead our country should have had the foresight to know that this
result was inevitable. They need to understand that their decisions should not be dictated
by what makes them temporarily feel good or look good, but rather by what will be good for
the American people. Emotional gratification or political advantage should never determine
one's votes or actions.
Of course the 'sky is falling' Russia revelation/leak/false flag is part of the CIA's ongoing
(failed) coup against Trump. But most importantly these revelations are meant to destroy the
Bernie Sanders campaign as he gains an insurmountable lead and momentum. The desperate,
debauched CIA stooge Democratic Party launches another salvo in its ongoing coup against
Sanders. This is nothing to do with Russian interference of US elections, but the
interference by Intelligence, working for the Money Power, to preserve the status quo of
greed, and murder hope for change in its cradle.
IMO the "Russia meddling" trope is just cover for the real meddlers (ReMs) in our elections.
The ReMs don't bother with click bait ads, they use the most effective tool out there to
influence voters, candidates, and deep state operatives: the US$. The ReMs give cash to
candidates who prefer their policies, and if the candidate does toe the line on their
policies, they give the money to their opponent. This is the real meddling, but we don't hear
about it because any mention of it results in major shaming as "anti-*******" from the ReMs.
The ReMs (even though they are supporting a foreign country) do not have to register as
foreign agents in the US (very special treatment) due to specific legislation passed in
previous years. The ReMs have bragged about their "support of" (really, buying of) state and
federal level legislatures to the point of denying basic Constitutional rights and have been
vehemently protected by those bought off people.
This is the most effective fifth column, the principal criminal, not the Russkies.
Let's be honest with ourselves. We all know that American minds are extremely weak and
fragile and Americans cannot be exposed to any informations which they are far too helpless
to process correctly.
We absolutely need to be protected from any ideas that might derail our defenceless little
minds.
Thank heaven that the kindly US Government is defending us from wrongful ideas that we
cannot possibly handle ourselves.
I hate to break circe's bubble, but here's Saunders responding to a WaPoo trash article:
"I don't care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president. My message to Putin is clear:
Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do. In 2016,
Russia used Internet propaganda to sow division in our country, and my understanding is that
they are doing it again in 2020."
Sorry dear. Russia did not use internet propaganda to sow division in 2016.... the Dims
did it all by themselves. So Saunders is a.) delusional or b.) just another lying politician
or c.) hoping the J. Bozo drops a check in the mail?
Question: the WaPoo seems to have become the new National Inquirer, yes? Does J. Bozo
really need the money?
The "social" is "social media" is in contrast to "professional" or "business" or
"commercial" media, i.e. the MSM and other commercial media.
I understand "social media" literally in the Orwellian sense, it is "social" media just like
war is peace. The true meaning is "asocial media" which prevents real interaction, and under
complete control by big brother, you can become a non-person at any moment.
The American "D"emocracy is a theater of the absurd - not sure if it is a tragedy or a comedy
or a tragicomedy. But one thing I am absolutely sure about is the high level of intelligence
of the Sheeple.
Yesterday, Pepe Escobar made a similar entry on his Facebook page to which I replied as
follows:
"Why would Russia do that when Trump's doing such a good job of further ruining the USA
and Bloomberg would do an even better job of it, whereas Sanders would actually improve the
nation and make it a stronger competitor. 100% illogical and spastic!"
One of his entries today deals with the Iranian election which saw the "Conservatives"
gain ground, which in the circumstances was a likely result. And if you haven't yet, check
out Pepe's
article at Strategic Culture .
"... Russia's broader interest in sowing division in the United States and uncertainty about
the validity of American elections..."
hell, I think there's been sizeable skepticism about the validity of US elections since
the Supreme Court pulled off a coup d'etat against Gore in 2000, and then went ahead again to
load the dice in Citizens United to give it all away to the oligarchs and Ruling Class with
their truck loads of money and dirty laundrying
no 'russian assets' need to add anything to that pathetic track record of American
'democracy'.... and that's just from the past short 20 years
I always thought the thing about 'sowing division in the US' was one of the Elites most
hilarious and laughable memes - what we need is a satirist as great as Moliere
To quote: "Russia's broader interest in sowing division in the United States and uncertainty
about the validity of American elections."
A democracy without division, really dissent, is not a democracy. "Hey hey we must not
have division over Wall Street or police abuse.....let's have harmony. No no no say no more
or you create division."
Want to get a prespective on American democracy? Ask African Americans and other minority
groups (such as Hispanics and the wrong sort of European immigrants) what has been done to
their right to vote and dissent both now (see Georgia) or in the past (see Jim Crow).
I said this back in 2016 when Russiagate started that it was a poisoned well that the
Democrats and the Deep State/National Security establishment would never stop returning to.
And here we are, within the space 72 hours the Democrats have accused Russia of "meddling" in
the 2020 election by supporting Trump AND Sanders, so I take it that from now on whenever any
candidate appears that might upset the establishment even a little bit, they will be accused
of being Russian puppets.
This gives the Democrat Party leadership yet another potential weapon to use against
Bernie Sanders in the event of a brokered convention, they'll just bleat out "we can't
nominate Bernie, the Russians tainted the process to support him". Trump at least can call
the Democrats out on their B.S. and call them liars right to their faces, but poor Bernie
wont have the courage to do that (at least from what I've seen so far). His own words about
Russian "meddling" in 2016 will haunt him, he'll say that the Russians shouldn't have meddled
but it won't have impacted his support, but they'll counter that the nomination process was
tainted and the DNC has no choice but to discuss how to proceed with the nomination process.
That's how they'll try to kill Bernie's candidacy, the "discussion" will just be a bunch of
declarations, ultimatums and public commitments they will extract from Bernie to try and
break Bernie from his base and either halt his movement's momentum or kill it outright.
I don't know if it will work but the DNC has a history of doubling down against the
people's favorite. If the DNC pursue this stratagem I imagine we'll see some talking heads
show up in March pushing for a discussion among the candidates on how to respond to Russian
meddling, maybe even some debate questions. Either way, Sander needs to come out swinging
against whatever the DNC suggests (ideally he should put forth his own suggestion and steer
the conversation down a path he choses). Rest assured whatever the DNC puts forth, the goal
won't be to protect the electoral process it will be to bog down the nomination process with
a dead horse debate in order to blunt Sander's momentum so that a brokered convention to pick
someone else won't be such an obvious democratic betrayal.
If the DNC succeeds in screwing Bernie (and more importantly Bernie's supporters) out of a
presidential nomination for an election they could have won, It will be a paradigm shift in
US internal politics, a second 9/11 that will radically alter how all elections within the US
are perceived by the public forever. in the same way 9/11 normalized the concept of the
Forever War within the US (also called "Generational War" for those who wish to obscure
truth), a "Milwaukee Screw job 2020" will normalize the concept of a moribund political
establishment within the DNC that will strangle even mild political reform movement conducted
within the system itself. While this will preserve the political establishment for a time,
the economic and political crises that created these movements will remain unresolved and
having de-facto declared maintaining these crises official party policy by blocking reform
efforts within the existing political system, these movements will become radicalized and
we'll see return of radical movements similar to those of the 1970s (or 1900s). Eventually
either the political system will be reformed or it will collapse, but this will take time (a
generation perhaps more). At the very least, this period time and all of the people who lived
during it will be robbed of their full political agency, a massive lose to US society and
political sophistication. In the worst case, it will result in a political collapse of the
US, which will entail a massive cost to the US's human, economic, political and international
capital comparable to Russian in 1917
The prospect of two rival campaigns both receiving help from Moscow appears to reflect what
intelligence officials have previously described as Russia's broader interest in sowing
division in the United States and uncertainty about the validity of American elections.
(In Rachel Maddow's voice.) Sounds crazy, but what if that's the whole point? What
if Russia is making all these nonsensical moves on purpose, knowing full well they'll be
detected by the U.S. intelligence and reported in the press, thus hurting the credibility of
the U.S. intelligence, as no sane individual will believe these allegations?
IMO, all the preceding are being blinded by obsolete beliefs holding over from
the 1950s. First consider that the purpose of government is to ensure the welfare of its
citizens – & that's not protection against just foreign threats but also
against domestic threats (like for-real life, liberty & happiness).
"... Schiff insisted that Trump must be removed now to "assure the integrity" of the 2020 election. He elaborated somewhat ambiguously that "The president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." Schiff also unleashed one of the most time honored but completely lame excuses for going to war, claiming that military assistance to Ukraine that had been delayed by Trump was essential for U.S. national security. He said "As one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don't have to fight Russia here." ..."
"... Schiff, a lawyer who has never had to put his life on the line for anything and whose son sports a MOSSAD t-shirt, is one of those sunshine soldiers who finds it quite acceptable if someone else does the dying. Journalist Max Blumenthal observed that "Liberals used to mock Bush supporters when they used this jingoistic line during the war on Iraq. Now they deploy it to justify an imperialist proxy war against a nuclear power." Aaron Mate at The Nation added that "For all the talk about Russia undermining faith in U.S. elections, how about Russiagaters like Schiff fear-mongering w/ hysterics like this? Let's assume Ukraine did what Trump wanted: announce a probe of Burisma. Would that delegitimize a 2020 U.S. election? This is a joke." ..."
"... On Wednesday, Schiff maintained that "Russia is not a threat to Eastern Europe alone. Ukraine has become the de facto proving ground for just the types of hybrid warfare that the twenty-first century will become defined by: cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, efforts to undermine the legitimacy of state institutions, whether that is voting systems or financial markets. The Kremlin showed boldly in 2016 that with the malign skills it honed in Ukraine, they would not stay in Ukraine. Instead, Russia employed them here to attack our institutions, and they will do so again." Not surprisingly, if one substitutes the "United States" for "Russia" and "Kremlin" and changes "Ukraine" to Iran or Venezuela, the Schiff comment actually becomes much more credible. ..."
"... Donald Trump's erratic rule has certainly dismayed many of his former supporters, but the Democratic Party is offering nothing but another helping of George W. Bush/Barack Obama establishment war against the world. We Americans have had enough of that for the past nineteen years. Trump may indeed deserve to be removed based on his actions, but the argument that it is essential to do so because of Russia lurking is complete nonsense. Pretty scary that the apparent chief promoter of that point of view is someone who actually has power in the government, one Adam Schiff, head of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee. ..."
"... It is scary, but what else can Schiff say? They have no credible arguments against Trump, or for their own party. They are a bunch of lying scumbags that will kill, cheat, steal, mislead, carpet-bag and anything else unethical to achieve their sleazy goals. ..."
"... Since the US Sociopaths In Charge have totally Effed up the nation, and a significant portion of the world, they have to have SOMEBODY to blame. They certainly won't take the blame they deserve themselves. ..."
"... What the ZOG wants the ZOG gets ..."
"... It is appropriate to recall the words of Joseph Goebbels: "Give me the media, and I will make a herd of pigs from any nation," and pigs are easy to drive to the slaughterhouse. Only Russia can really resist such a situation in the world. Therefore, she is the enemy. ..."
"... The Centrist Democrats and Republicans want to paint the old school God and Country Conservatives Equality and Justice for the USA (Nationalist) into being Russian ..."
One of the more interesting aspects of the nauseating impeachment trial in the Senate was
the repeated vilification of Russia and its President Vladimir Putin.
To hate Russia has become dogma on both sides of the political aisle, in part because no
politician has really wanted to confront the lesson of the 2016 election, which was that most
Americans think that the federal government is basically incompetent and staffed by career
politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell who should return back home and get real jobs
.
Worse still, it is useless, and much like the one trick pony the only thing it can do is
steal money from the taxpayers and waste it on various types of self-gratification that only
politicians can appreciate. That means that the United States is engaged is fighting multiple
wars against make-believe enemies while the country's infrastructure rots and a host of
officially certified grievance groups control the public space.
It sure doesn't look like Kansas anymore.
The fact that opinion polls in Europe suggest that many Europeans would rather have Vladimir
Putin than their own hopelessly corrupt leaders is suggestive. One can buy a whole range of
favorable t-shirts featuring Vladimir Putin on Ebay , also suggesting that most Americans find
the official Russophobia narrative both mysterious and faintly amusing. They may not really be
into the expressed desire of the huddled masses in D.C. to go to war to bring true U.S. style
democracy to the un-enlightened.
One also must wonder if the Democrats are reading the tea leaves correctly. If they think
that a slogan like "Honest Joe Biden will keep us safe from Moscow" will be a winner in 2020
they might again be missing the bigger picture. Since the focus on Trump's decidedly erratic
behavior will inevitably die down after the impeachment trial is completed, the Democrats will
have to come up with something compelling if they really want to win the presidency and it sure
won't be the largely fictionalized Russian threat.
Nevertheless, someone should tell Congressman Adam Schiff, who chairs the House Intelligence
Committee, to shut up as he is becoming an international embarrassment. His "closing arguments"
speeches last week were respectively two-and-a-half hours and ninety minutes long and were
inevitably praised by the mainstream media as "magisterial," "powerful," and "impressive." The
Washington Post 's resident Zionist extremist Jennifer Rubin
labeled it "a grand slam" while legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin
called it "dazzling." Gail Collins of the New York Times dubbed it "a
great job" and added that Schiff is now "a rock star." Daily Beast enthused that
the remarks "will go down in history " and progressive activist Ryan Knight called it "a
closing statement for the ages." Hollywood was also on board with actress Debra Messing
tweeting "I am in tears. Thank you Chairman Schiff for fighting for our country."
Actually, a better adjective would have been "scary" and not merely due to its elaboration
of the alleged high crimes and misdemeanors committed by President Trump, much of which was
undeniably true even if not necessarily impeachable. It was scary because it was a warmongers speech, full of allusions to Russia, to Moscow's
"interference" in 2016, and to the
ridiculous proposition that if Trump were to be defeated in 2020 he might not concede and
Russia could even intervene militarily in the United States in support of its puppet.
Schiff insisted that Trump must be removed now to "assure the integrity" of the 2020
election. He elaborated somewhat ambiguously that "The president's misconduct cannot be decided
at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." Schiff also unleashed one of the most time honored but completely lame excuses for
going to war, claiming that military assistance to Ukraine that had been delayed by Trump was
essential for U.S. national security. He said "As one witness put it during our impeachment
inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there,
and we don't have to fight Russia here."
Schiff, a lawyer who has never had to put his life on the line for anything and whose son
sports a MOSSAD t-shirt, is one of those sunshine soldiers who finds it quite acceptable if
someone else does the dying. Journalist Max Blumenthal observed that "Liberals used
to mock Bush supporters when they used this jingoistic line during the war on Iraq. Now they
deploy it to justify an imperialist proxy war against a nuclear power." Aaron Mate at The
Nation added that "For all the talk about
Russia undermining faith in U.S. elections, how about Russiagaters like Schiff fear-mongering
w/ hysterics like this? Let's assume Ukraine did what Trump wanted: announce a probe of
Burisma. Would that delegitimize a 2020 U.S. election? This is a joke."
Over
at Antiwar Daniel Lazare explains how the Wednesday speech was "a fear-mongering,
sword-rattling harangue that will not only raise tensions with Russia for no good reason, but
sends a chilling message to [Democratic Party] dissidents at home that if they deviate from
Russiagate orthodoxy by one iota, they'll be driven from the fold."
The orthodoxy that Lazare was writing about includes the established Nancy Pelosi/Chuck
Schumer narrative that Russia invaded "poor innocent Ukraine" in 2014, that it interfered in
the 2016 election to defeat Hillary Clinton, and that it is currently trying to smear Joe
Biden. One might add to that the growing consensus that Russia can and will interfere again in
2020 to help Trump. Absent from the narrative is the part how the U.S. intervened in Ukraine
first to remove its government and the fact that there is something very unsavory about Joe
Biden's son taking a high-paying sinecure board position from a notably corrupt Ukrainian
oligarch while his father was Vice President and allegedly directing U.S. assistance to a
Ukrainian anti-corruption effort.
On Wednesday,
Schiff maintained that "Russia is not a threat to Eastern Europe alone. Ukraine has become
the de facto proving ground for just the types of hybrid warfare that the twenty-first century
will become defined by: cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, efforts to undermine the
legitimacy of state institutions, whether that is voting systems or financial markets. The
Kremlin showed boldly in 2016 that with the malign skills it honed in Ukraine, they would not
stay in Ukraine. Instead, Russia employed them here to attack our institutions, and they will
do so again." Not surprisingly, if one substitutes the "United States" for "Russia" and
"Kremlin" and changes "Ukraine" to Iran or Venezuela, the Schiff comment actually becomes much
more credible.
The compulsion on the part of the Democrats to bring down Trump to avoid having to deal with
their own failings has brought about a shift in their established foreign policy, placing the
neocons and their friends back in charge. For Schiff, who has enthusiastically supported every
failed American military effort since 9/11, today's Russia is the Soviet Union reborn, and
don't you forget it pardner! Newsweek is meanwhile reporting that the U.S. military is reading
the tea leaves and
is gearing up to fight the Russians. Per Schiff, Trump must be stopped as he is part of a
grand Russian conspiracy to overthrow everything the United States stands for. If the Kremlin
is not stopped now, it's first major step, per Schiff, will be to "remake the map of Europe by
dint of military force."
Donald Trump's erratic rule has certainly dismayed many of his former supporters, but the Democratic Party is offering
nothing but another helping of George W. Bush/Barack Obama establishment war against the world. We Americans have had enough of
that for the past nineteen years. Trump may indeed deserve to be removed based on his actions, but the argument that it is
essential to do so because of Russia lurking is complete nonsense. Pretty scary that the apparent chief promoter of that point
of view is someone who actually has power in the government, one Adam Schiff, head of the House of Representatives Intelligence
Committee.
If the USA doesn't have a bogey man to be afraid of, the USA might worry more and to
insist on fixing the problems within the Nation.
So many of our politicians are guilty of allowing un constitutional on going act like the
removal of Due Process of law for some people and the on going bailout of Global Markets with
the US Dollar. The Patriot act and FISA Courts should have been gone.
Agreed. He seems as about as close as a leader can get to genuinely liking his country and
people. It seems the ones here only give a **** about carbon, Central and South Americans,
and cutting off my kids genitalia.
It is scary, but what else can Schiff say? They have no credible arguments against Trump,
or for their own party. They are a bunch of lying scumbags that will kill, cheat, steal,
mislead, carpet-bag and anything else unethical to achieve their sleazy goals. When Trump
wins in a landslide in 2020, they will claim it's because the Russians 'fixed' the election,
and the Democratic party will break into pieces arguing about how they failed and what they
did wrong. See www.splittingpennies.com
Since the US Sociopaths In Charge have totally Effed up the nation, and a significant
portion of the world, they have to have SOMEBODY to blame. They certainly won't take the
blame they deserve themselves.
lots of words and no answer to the title question. Giraldi does not see the deep
ideological problems: Russia is not trying to diversify into a PoC country, they do not
worship gays and may be the only white people nation with sustaining birth rate. The US will
go to war there is no way to let this continue.
The smart ppl are doing a lousy job of informing the dumb ones about accepted policy like
"America Always Needs An Enemy". Smart ones understand that, and see the bigger game because
of it.
We fight the dumb ones who believe Russian boogeyman crap, instead of helping them
understand they are being misled on who the enemy really is. The dumb ones then fight back
and further entrench that brainwashing.
It is appropriate to recall the words of Joseph Goebbels: "Give me the media, and I will
make a herd of pigs from any nation," and pigs are easy to drive to the slaughterhouse. Only
Russia can really resist such a situation in the world. Therefore, she is the enemy.
The Centrist Democrats and Republicans want to paint the old school God and Country
Conservatives Equality and Justice for the USA (Nationalist) into being Russian. How dare we
expect enforcement of the Laws on the books against them. They want to be deemed Royalty with
all the Elitist Rights.
The old rally call about Russia was always Communist Russia but, they don't do that
anymore? Why ? They love their Communist China wage slaves. The Centrist love Communist labor
in the name of profits . Human rights be damned it's all about the Global Elitist to them
now.
Doesn't this describe our current President pretty well? Maybe this is the new normal for
our elected officials....Thank God television did not exist in 1786!
Don't think America is going to Vote in Someone who Defrauded Others with Claims of being
Part Native American.
Maybe Bloomberg may have been Out of Line a few times. A "Horse Faced Lesbian" - what if
it were an accurate description? A "Fat Drunkard" - to someone who is correctly described -
is it really that offensive?
If it were said in an inappropriate context - say for job interviews - we can see the
error; but reading about Warren calling an Male Actor as "Eye Candy" puts her brand of Sexist
Comments in the same Boat.
What was Fauxahontas' Native American Name, anyway?
"Doesn't like Horses"?
Bernie would prove to be such a disappointment. The other parrots on the perch not so much as
they have brought nothing and will offer the same.
Tulsi was not invited. She has been denied oxygen in the press, denied a platform in the
debates and generally airbrushed out of the picture. No surprise there. By speaking out
against the forever-wars and against the prison gulag she committed the cardinal sin in US
politics: You don't rock the boat, especially when pretending to do so! But how refreshing
has her presence been in an otherwise dreary, dreary and predictable, landscape.
Thanks for your comment and question. Within US History, there are several such changes of
direction, the first coming with the elections that ratified the 1787 Constitution. Second
would be the 1800 election that elected Jefferson and ended what's known as the Federalist
Era; it's extremely unlikely the Federalists would have made the Louisiana Purchase because
of their enmity toward France. In 1828, General Jackson gained the White House amidst the
Battle of the Bank, the importance of which is touched on in most survey US History classes
but never examined as deeply as it demands. 1844 brought in Polk dedicated to expanding
slavery who showed Congress couldn't stop the executive thus showing the vast--and
foreseen--problems of an unregulated president as he provoked Mexico and stole 1/2 its
territory; Polk was clearly the model for GW Bush. The 4-way election of 1860 showcased the
break-up of the National Democratic Party into two factions; brought Lincoln, and the nascent
Republican Party, who goaded the South's Fire Eaters to commence the Civil War. The 13-15th
amendments greatly altered the national social fabric. In 1896, D-Party candidate WJ Bryan's
"Cross of Gold" speech elaborated the concept of Trickle-down Economics and firmly placed the
D-Party as the party of the working-classes, which further compounded the D-Party's internal
strife between its Northern urban political machines and Southern Segregationist politicos.
1912 again saw a 4-way race as T Roosevelt's split of the R-Party allowed Wilson to win and
transfer the management of the government's financial affairs from the Treasury where they
belonged to the privately controlled misnamed Federal Reserve Board, the woes of which we
feel daily. 1920 saw the reversion from Wilsonian Internationalism to "Normalcy" as
traditional US unilateralism regained ascendency with the rejection of the League of Nations.
Although not perceived during the 1932 campaign since FDR didn't really know what he was
going to do, a return to the social democratic republic commenced with the New Deal Era. 1944
didn't see an immediate change in policy course, but by June 1945 it was clear Truman was no
FDR or Wallace; and by October, the Outlaw US Empire was born when the UN Charter came into
force which was already being violated by Truman's government--we most certainly wouldn't
have the CIA as a result of the 1947 National Security Act if Wallace had continued FDR's
term, nor would there have been a Cold War. The only other change in direction (if it can be
called that) was the adoption of Neoliberalism by Carter in 1978 and its rapid acceleration
by Reagan/Bush which resulted in the Outlaw US Empire being even more aggressive than it was
previously, a pace kept alive by the ascension of the Neocons in 2000.
Some of the directional changes occurred due to economic or social strife, but not all,
nor arguably were they most important, IMO--1800, 1828, 1860, 1912, 1944. In 1932, if Hoover
had regained his office, he would have had to get experimental just like FDR, and the
evidence shows he was trying to get things to improve; it's been acknowledged by historians
that neither had the intellectual tools required to fix the Depression. Here's a basic
listing of the POTUS and there years in office. I should add 1876 as that election marked
the end of Reconstruction and the beginning of big money corruption of the federal
government. The loss by Bryan and the fused D- and Peoples Party in 1896 informed
Conservatives like T Roosevelt and Taft that they had to listen to the people's demands for
at least basic regulation of American Capitalism--remember, the first Progressives were
Republicans, not Democrats.
Given more time to meditate on the question, I could probably cite further diversions in
policy from one administration to the next. But the above provides a good overview. I should
highlight Fedrick Jackson Turner's 1893 elucidation of his Frontier Thesis--
"The Significance of the Frontier in American History" --before the American Historical
Association at Chicago's Colombian Exhibition since it made a huge impression on that era's
elite and certainly prompted policy changes. A week's usually spent in grad seminar's
discussing Turner's thesis.
"Bernie Sanders belonged on that stage with the other pro-war imperialists. With him,
we get affordable healthcare, while millions of people around the world will suffer through
coups, invasions, bombings, mass murder, and mass displacement. There is absolutely
NOTHING (nothing) for an anti-war advocate to get excited about with a Sanders
Presidency."
Exactly! I'm surprise even Tulsi Gabbard not invited to the debate many here still wanna
her for VP. I an't voting for anyone but Tulsi Gabbard, I hates the Democratic more than
Trump and will vote for Trump if necessary.
Frankly some people here seem to be living in la-la-land where impossible dreams come true.
How about some realpolitik as practiced by both halves of the amerikan empire party
when the VP decision time comes around. Does anyone imagine Kennedy wanted Johnson as VP or
Bush I, Dan Quayle or Oblamblam the crookedest man in the senate, Joe Biden?
Of course not they were told to take these hacks as a way for 'the party' to keep the
hairy eyeball on 'their' Prez.
Let's just pretend for a moment that Sanders came to conference with sufficient delegates
that the hope of the DNC to override Sanders with superdelegates was simply too much for the
dem party to achieve without alienating a sizable chunk of potential dem voters for life (the
odds of that occurring are slimmer than a 2 year old Yemeni, but let's pretend).
Even if Sanders had sufficient delegates to obviate a brokered conference, it wouldn't
matter, the DNC would still insist on a 'sit down' with the Sanders crew and insist he took a
particular person as his VP. Sanders could refuse, in which case he could expect zero $$$'s
for his campaign from the dems and worse the DNC would tell him that the party money, in many
cases donated to the DNC by naifs who 'wanted to give Bernie a hand', was going to be spent
'down ticket' assisting all the dem pols up for re-election who were committed to opposing
Bernie's favourite policies such as single payer healthcare.
Bernie would be screwed as even if he beat orange moron as he wouldn't stand a shitshow in
hell of getting any of these "radical pinko policies" through, which would be justified by
the rightist dem senators & congress-creeps saying "Democrat voters, voted for a
democratic president not a Marxist president" over and over until the idiots among the public
had been sufficiently indoctrinated to believe that tosh. There is no way Gabbard will be
permitted as Sanders' running-mate unless she has totally sold out already.
Maybe Sanders should open the bidding with Gabbard, after which the DNC might offer up
'Pete the cheat' to ensure Bernie is defeated, or some other less power-hungry, more
malleable dem lick-spittle.
If Sanders is smart enough to play this game, he will already have worded up one or two
slightly conservative DC hacks on the qt, then make out he's making a huge compromise by
selecting her/him.
He could conceivably get away with that as long as the DNC mobsters are blindsided -
remember most of those DC lowlifes will leap at the chance of the veep's gig since it puts
you in the inside running to be the prez after yer running 'mate'. And offering it quietly
early on would give Sanders the right to insist on blind loyalty - which he prolly wouldn't
get totally, but he would have something close to that
Trouble is I don't reckon Sanders has the smarts to pull a rort like that off - we shall
see. Whatever he does do the odds are high of him being stymied every time if he does make
it
"Actually this is not technically correct
and then you quoted Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution.
You ignored the process
I wrote on the process in which jim and jane mainstreet vote [the 2nd part of the process]
to select the State electors to the Electoral College: from Link (Archives.gov) provided @ 24
and fully detailed below:
November 3, 2020 -- Election Day
During the general election your vote helps determine your State's electors. When you
vote for a Presidential candidate, you aren't actually voting for President. You are
telling your State which candidate you want your State to vote for at the meeting of the
electors. The States use these general election results (also known as the popular vote) to
appoint their electors. The winning candidate's State political party selects the
individuals who will be the electors.[.]
Who selects the electors?
Choosing each State's electors is a two-part process. First, the political parties in
each State choose slates of potential electors sometime before the general election.
Second, during the general election, the voters in each State select their State's electors
by casting their ballots.
The first part of the process is controlled by the political parties in each State and
varies from State to State. Generally, the parties either nominate slates of potential
electors at their State party conventions or they chose them by a vote of the party's
central committee. This happens in each State for each party by whatever rules the State
party and (sometimes) the national party have for the process. This first part of the
process results in each Presidential candidate having their own unique slate of potential
electors.
Political parties often choose individuals for the slate to recognize their service and
dedication to that political party. They may be State elected officials, State party
leaders, or people in the State who have a personal or political affiliation with their
party's Presidential candidate. (For specific information about how slates of potential
electors are chosen, contact the political parties in each State.)
The second part of the process happens during the general election. When the voters
in each State cast votes for the Presidential candidate of their choice they are voting to
select their State's electors. The potential electors' names may or may not appear on
the ballot below the name of the Presidential candidates, depending on election procedures
and ballot formats in each State.
The winning Presidential candidate's slate of potential electors are appointed as the
State's electors -- except in Nebraska and Maine, which have proportional distribution of
the electors. In Nebraska and Maine, the State winner receives two electors and the winner
of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different
candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors
to more than one candidate.[.]
Rob @ 99 - I don't think evidence of this form has been archived anywhere on the Internet. I
would be particularly interested in seeing how much of a favorite Clinton was in 2016. I
doubt she would have been more than 2/3, and the result not as shocking an upset were Trump
actually 1/1. In any event, if the favorite an hour before the books closed always won, who
then would ever consider the price on an underdog as an overlay? I'm not addressing any
prediction of a winner; I'm observing the changes in public opinion as expressed through
those who are willing to take a money position along the way. There would be no other
prominent reason for Sanders to reclaim over Bloomberg in less than a week, the Democratic
candidate top spot in betting odds, than his strong showing Wednesday night.
All of the legal gambling outlets will tend to keep fairly close in sync with changes in
odds offered. Any one of them getting significantly out of sync is taking a position,
attracting layoff action from one of the others. When someone makes an investment in this
type of futures, it's with an eye toward spotting an overlay. That means a current line which
is offering too strong a return on the investment. The books have several ways of adjusting.
They can change the odds offered, lay off action with each other to balance their money
position, or offer early resolution to certain ticket holders. For example, Trump opened at
5/2 and toward the end of 2018 had been bet down to 3/2. He is currently 8/13 which
represents an extreme overlay if someone is holding a ticket with 3/2 odds. When this kind of
situation occurs, all of the books are likely to sustain a loss. So, they will offer early
resolution. A $2000 ticket on Trump at 3/2 will return $5000, however anyone holding this
ticket may be offered $2750 today for early resolution. That's an immediate $750 profit for
giving back their position.
Now to illustrate just how drastic
changes in the futures betting can be, a few hours ago Sanders was 7/2, he's now 10/3.
Bloomberg continues to slide, from 4/1 last week to 11/2 a few hours ago to now 7/1. Perhaps
Bloomberg will be attractive enough to become an overlay at 10/1? I would consider that price
might be worth taking a position on, if one thinks convention shenanigans will place him as
the candidate. At that point (if correct) he'll drop to say 8/5 and will return a good profit
from early resolution.
The changes in the betting lines appear more discernible to me, than a shift of a few
percentage point amongst pollsters. Notice Pence is back on the board, so obviously some
people think there's greater than a 300/1 chance Trump is deceased during this term.
Aren't you being somewhat disingenuous by selectively nitpicking a few sentences out of
Bernie's speech that merely express an opinion, not a declaration of political meddling,
intervention or war, while leaving out the positive 90%, like his criticism of Bolsanaro,
Netanyahu and Israel's racist unjust policies and his concern for the dire situation in Gaza?
He rails against Saudi Arabia and MBS and the war on Yemen. He's critical of Sheldon
Adelson's influence, the Koch brothers and Mercer and the corruption of goverment and the
greed they represent. He's critical of the massive amounts of funding spent on the military.
That's great, no?
He's sympathetic to the unjust imprisonment of Lula da Silva and talks about the necessity
of addressing climate change and poverty and much more. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT??? There's a
Ziofascist in the White House right now who just brought on board Richard Grenell for DNI,
(ironically mentioned in Bernie's speech last October... prophetic? Yes.), yet another
Iranophobe! So you can guess what direction we're headed in?
Out of all the good that Bernie spoke you gripe about that small paragraph and use it to
distort as still too aggressive his entire foreign policy vision and pov on issues few
in Congress have the spine to address?
You think I'm just going to let slide this perversion of his message?
Just see how so many comments reek with that same type of distortion parotting YOUR CUE.
Do you not feel any responsibilty to the truth and to the power your word may have to
influence others to misjudge Bernie Sanders unfairly through your distorted lens?
I am sickened reading the comments that emanated from your small paragraph and bet you NO
ONE BOTHERED TO READ THE ENTIRE SPEECH IN THE LINK AND RELIED INSTEAD ON THAT DROP FROM
POISON PEN TO FORM A TOTALLY IGNORANT, BIASED OPINION.
I'm glad you at least gave him credit for defending well his positions in the midst of
multiple attacks in the debate.
If Bernie can withstand the onslaught of unfair, disproportionate establishment and media
attacks (your's included) and win the Nomination, it won't be thanks to the majority of you,
but you will all in some way benefit from an improvement in foreign policy under a Sanders
administration. OR DO YOU ACTUALLY PREFER TO DISCUSS WAR AND ATROCITY AND CONSPIRACY
MACHINATIONS HERE ALL DAY, EVERY DAY IN PERPETUITY? Maybe that's the problem, maybe with
Bernie as President you'll be less involved as armchair generals and have to settle for
criticizing boring diplomacy for a change!
I don't know about you, but I really welcome most of what Bernie talked about and his
vision for the future on this planet much more than discussing war with Iran, famine and
climate disaster.
Bernie will make it in spite of haters, never Sanders, maligners, and distorters of the
truth.
Oh, and he'll DESTROY Trump in November.
▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪
Jared suggests Bloomberg/Gabbard.
Gobbledygook!
I guess you don't really know what Bloomberg's about. And you especially don't get
Gabbard! She wouldn't be caught dead working for that Neocon warmonger!
SharonM and Jackrabbit
Get a room you professional koo-koo spinbots...preferrably in another Solar System where
you can't damage impressionable minds. Ugh.
I feel bad for the Bernie Bros.
He's gonna sell them out again.
Dude has zero pull with his "party", and is facing a steamroller in Trump.
I would be happy to have a small dinner with Circe and friends after the convention.
We can commiserate over a few wodkas and goulash.
"SharonM and Jackrabbit
Get a room you professional koo-koo spinbots...preferrably in another Solar System where you
can't damage impressionable minds. Ugh."
I'm against war. You're obviously just another loser imperialist.
Since medical care figures so prominently in the election, might be a good idea to know why
it costs so much now:
The Oligarch Takeover of US Pharma and Healthcare by Jon Hellevig
"The Awara study shows https://www.awaragroup.com/blog/us-healthcare-system-in-crisis/
that in addition to the original sin of corporate greed, the exorbitant costs of the US
healthcare system stem from layers upon layers of distortions with which the system is
infested. Each part of the healthcare industry contributes to what is a giant monopoly scam:
the pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment manufacturers, drug wholesalers, drug stores,
group purchasing organizations, health insurance companies, doctors, clinics and hospitals,
and even what should be impartial university research. And on top of that, there's the
government as a giant enabler of monopolized corporations running roughshod over the American
consumer and patient.
"But it is worse than that. All the monopolists (in official parlance, oligopolies) are in
turn owned by the same set of investors in what is called horizontal shareholding. The same
some 15-20. investors have the controlling stake in all the leading companies of the entire
pharma and healthcare industry.
"That's not all. Two of the investors, BlackRock and Vanguard, are the biggest owners in
almost every single one of the leading companies.
"Furthermore, BlackRock is owned by Vanguard, BlackRock's biggest owner being a mystical
PNC Services, whose biggest owner in turn is Vanguard. Vanguard itself is recorded directly
as BlackRock's second biggest owner. Moreover, BlackRock and Vanguard are the two biggest
owners of almost all the other 15-20 biggest investors, which most are cross-owned and
together own the entire US pharma and healthcare sector. Ultimately, then we might have the
situation that the whole healthcare sector and Big Pharma are controlled by one giant
oligarch clan (and the very real people who stand behind them), one single interest group of
oligarch investors." -- http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52658.htm
Yesterday some dirty dog, Bloomberg or weasel Buttigieg, brought up the fact that Bernie has
2 million, and 3 homes, one in Washington, a house in Vermont his wife inherited from her
parents and a cabin by a lake! OMG! QUICK! Call the Socialist police! He's 78, has a career
in politics, wrote some bestsellers and he has to live like a monk otherwise, he's a
hypocrite???
The hypocrites are the ones criticizing him and not Warren who appeared in Forbes cause
she has two expensive homes, and 12 MILLION. But, at the debate she was coy and uncommonly
silent when they attacked Bernie for what is perfectly normal given his career, success as an
author and his age!
But Lizabeth, she cares so much about poor mothers and babies, and shares Bernie's
platform, and yet is too chicken to call herself a democratic socialist. Yeah, with 12 Mil in
the bank and different investments she's got a big stake in Capitalism! And someone
mentionned that during the commercial break she was getting quite friendly yacking it up with
Bloomberg, AFTER she put on the Non-disclosure artifice (watch out for hidden mics,
Mike!). And she's not big on democracy either, since she would rather go to a brokered
convention, than give Bernie the nomination when he gets the majority of pledged delegates.
Screw her!
Oh Lizzie, you showed all your true colors!
DONE, put a fork in it!
▪▪▪▪▪
SharonM
Against war and for Trump? 🤣🤣🤣
Trust me, Bernie's not starting any war at his age, and he's from a bucolic state. If you
think Bernie's for war and I'm an imperialist, then must be a real bad judge of
character.
You fool no one. You hate Bernie for some other stupid reason.
Really, the Oligarch party composed of the Republican and Democrat branches will not make any
significant changes to the status quo, even if Sanders is voted in to the presidency.
Sanders' foreign policy is the Oligarch policy; Sanders domestic policy would never get past
the Oligarch house without significant watering down to be totally irrelevant. Sanders only
"threat" to the Oligarchs is that the presidency would give him a 4-year platform to continue
to put forth his semi-socialist domestic views, seeding the brains of the ignorant masses
with dangerous thoughts.
Voting for either branch of the Oligarch party is to vote for the status quo. All that is
guaranteed are a few cosmetic changes of zero significance. Vote, but vote anyone but the
Oligarch Party!
A positive assessment of the chances of Sanders to win the nomination:
"Former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg's presidential campaign called on former
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to drop out of the Democratic presidential primary race
in a memo released on Thursday, warning that Bloomberg's presence in the race would propel
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to the Democratic nomination. "
Pete could be more incisive by pointing that unlike his much more financially successful
colleague from the race of nomination, he has no track record on making unwanted passes on
women, or jokes that cannot be revealed to the publics. More seriously, American
establishment is so vast that it is internally divided into various groups or cliques that
detest each other. Pete is a darling of CIA circles, Bloomberg is so rich that he nearly
makes an influence group by himself., but he may be popular among Wall Street denizens who
donate to Metropolitan Opera and snicker at Trump who could not tell Verdi from Barbie doll.
On political positions, I wonder if there is an ounce of difference.
There is a lot of criticism in these comments about Sanders not going all out against the
Democratic Party and playing too nice, but a counterpoint to consider is that we have a
perfect example to contrast his behavior with: Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi was vice chair of the DNC
and considered one of their "rising stars" in part because of the elites' insipid love of
identity politics, and she is demonstrating the country what happens when you go nuclear
against the establishment. She burned her political capital to back Bernie in 2016 and went
on the attack during the debates she was able to get into. Would Sanders really get better
results doing what Tulsi is doing, and if so, why would he going that course be different?
@95 sharon.. thanks.. that sounds reasonable.. however at present either one of the war
parties is going to win.. i suppose some will think bernie i war party lite or something, but
regardless if he gets the nod - which i highly doubt - the war party is still in control..
something bigger has to happen for this to change.. collapse is a popular fantasy for some..
i am not sure if or when that could happen too.. it is hard being reasonable in this
atmosphere.. i am inclined to more radical thinking as the answer at this point..
"It's time to give the elites a bigger say in electing the President"
Under Trump Bezos lost highly profitable interests, and under a second Trump term he would
likely lose still more. If any of the elites' choices get the Dem nomination, Trump is
certain to win. Perhaps Bezos' reasoning was to try to provoke Dem supporters to reject the
elites because that is the only chance of getting back the business interests he lost.
Bezos is a nasty piece of work indeed, but to his credit, maybe he at least sees the need
of a more acceptable candidate.
"They" have thrown down everything against Sanders yet he continues to rise. His support base
is HUGE. Competition can't touch him. His victories will put him up so much that the DNC is
rendered powerless.
Of all the candidates, Tulsi Gabbard is far away the closest in ideology to Sanders. She
entered the race with Bernie's approval, before Bernie announced. Bernie knows that Tulsi is
the only one (other than Nina Turner) that would totally have his back. I actually believe
that Gabbard is the best candidate that the US has had in a LONG time. If she were selected
as VP she would get a lot more exposure; the more exposure the more support she gets. I don't
believe that Bernie needs to pick a VP in order to garner more votes; that is, it's not as
strategically necessary as other candidates have required: I repeat: Bernie's base is HUGE.
Tulsi is a BIG insurance policy. VP isn't a do-nothing position: it can cast a tie-breaking
vote in the senate; it can act as collaborator with POTUS. In a more correct positioning of
talents it would be Gabbard as POTUS and Sanders as VP. I'd be happy to see Nina Turner as VP
but am worried that the pairing with Sanders would create too stark of a picture, one open to
really ugly attacks: it's hard to attack Tulsi given her military experience (I hate that
this needs to be played, but it's the reality we face). AND there's the VP debates: Tulsi vs
Pence would be one for the history books.
Turkey closed its airspace to russian airplanes flying to Syria and slowed down the so called
Syrian Express. The straights would be closed in case of declared war but the flow can be
slowed down by other means. Hard to think that war will be officially declared with all the
joint projects in energy, but logistics would be a real problem for Russia if things get
uglier. http://www.ng.ru/politics/2020-02-20/1_7800_bosphorus.html
The second question of the 20 series to Putin is about Ukraine, as usual he comes across as
well informed and with ease of verve. https://putin.tass.ru/ru/ob-ukraine/
I guess you don't really know what Bloomberg's about. And you especially don't get
Gabbard! She wouldn't be caught dead working for that Neocon warmonger!
Please advise - What is Bloomberg about.
In my experience he is a conservative moderate.
Do we just describe everyone we dont like as zionist?
- The american writer Thomas Frank has put this way: The Democrats had every opportuniy to
win the presidential election of 2016 by focussing on the people in "fly-over land", on the
people who felt "left bhind" but instead they focussed on the "creative class" (laywers, the
"professional class", hollywood and people from the tech sector (GOOGLE, Facebook, etc.).
- It was the presidential campaign of Trump who saw the chance to win over the people from
"fly-over country".
- Yes, Bloomberg is a moderate republican but he is also an establishment figure/person.
So, he won't be the one that will bring about MAJOR changes that are going to hurt that same
establishment. Including the "zionists" (with or without quotation marks).
- The people who are commenting on this topic should take into account one thing. Over the
years the Republican party has purged the party of "moderate Republicans". As a result of
that Republican party shifted more and more to the right side of the political spectrum.
If you were running a giant organized crime group with cash flow in the hundreds of
$billions, with tentacles deeply penetrating all of the mass media, with connections at the
top of all major western multinational corporations, and you wanted to "manage" the
political system of the country that finances the military that you occasionally need, how
would you do that?
Run you own candidates, of course!
So it is 2015. You've already gotten one of your candidates elected twice, and you are
confident that mass media cultivated "identity politics" played a big part in getting
him into the White House. Because of this you are now running another "identity
politics" compliant candidate, but you have some tricks up your sleeve to guarantee she
wins. Most importantly you have an utter heel running against her who cannot possibly
win.
So you [big mafia don] are confident that you have the 2016 and 2020 elections sewn up,
but even though it is only 2015, now is the time to be thinking about 2024. You've already
used up the woman and Black man identity issues, so what next? The gay man "identity
politics" angle, of course! So now you need to introduce to the public a gay candidate
that is under your control so the public can start to get used to him and he can become
widely known by the time campaigning starts in 2023.
Remind me now when it was that Butt-gig "came out" as gay? Oh, yeah, that's right!
It was 2015. He then "married" in 2018.
"But Butt-gig is so young!"
Sure. Realize that he wasn't supposed to be running until 2024, when he would be in his
forties. 2016 and 2020 were supposed to be Clinton's turn in the White House, but things went
all sideways for some reason. Now you have to move up the timetable.
- Bernie Sanders has promised FREE education/college and FREE Healthcare. Although I have
SERIOUS doubts how he is going to pay for all that FREE stuff, the large support he enjoys
shows very well how Joe Sixpack is thinking about his own economic situation.
- There were A LOT OF voters who voted first for Sanders in the primaries. When it became
clear that Sanders wasn't going to be the Democratic candidate these voters votes for Trump
in november 2016.
Blue Dotterel is not satisfied: >>Sanders only "threat" to the Oligarchs is that the
presidency would give him a 4-year platform to continue to put forth his semi-socialist
domestic views, seeding the brains of the ignorant masses with dangerous thoughts.
Voting for either branch of the Oligarch party is to vote for the status quo. All that is
guaranteed are a few cosmetic changes of zero significance. Vote, but vote anyone but the
Oligarch Party! Sanders only "threat" to the Oligarchs is that the presidency would give him
a 4-year platform to continue to put forth his semi-socialist domestic views, seeding the
brains of the ignorant masses with dangerous thoughts.<<
But the oligarchy and sectors close to oligarchy are already worried exactly about that.
For example, certain David Brook is almost morose. A nightmare that is at least 170 years old
reappeared:
>>Bernie Sanders is also telling a successful myth: The corporate and Wall Street
elites are rapacious monsters who hoard the nation's wealth and oppress working families.
This is not an original myth, either. It's been around since the class-conflict agitators of
1848. It is also a very compelling us vs. them worldview that resonates with a lot of
people.
When you're inside the Sanders myth, you see the world through the Bernie lens.
-----
This brings memories... agitators of 1848, revolution spread around Europe, Hapsburgs
quelling a revolution in Vienna only to watch Hungary, nearly half of the empire, raising in
rebelion that lasted until Czar send help a year later, stimulating dense Romantic poetry
that till today children in Central Europe are forced to learn. Final stanza translated into
English (it has a very compelilng rhytm in the original)
[the funeral of an agitator of 1848 turns into a march of specters that disturb
comfortable city dwellers]
And we shall drag on the funeral procession, saddening sleeping cities
Banging upon gates with urns, whistling into the notches of hatchets
Until the walls of Jericho fall like logs
Fainting hearts shall be revived; nations shall clear their musty eyes
William Gruff:
So, do you basically imply that the next run, after Black, Woman and Gay, would be Latino? In
which case they actually planned well ahead and AOC could be their card for 2032? Or would
that be too far-fetched? (she seems to go a bit too far into leftism for that after all)
"SharonM
Against war and for Trump? 🤣🤣🤣
Trust me, Bernie's not starting any war at his age, and he's from a bucolic state. If you
think Bernie's for war and I'm an imperialist, then must be a real bad judge of character.
You fool no one. You hate Bernie for some other stupid reason."
Here are some relevant questions with Bernie's answers:
*Question: Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean
nuclear or missile test?
Sanders: Yes.
*Question: Would you consider military force for a humanitarian intervention?
Sanders: Yes.
*Question: If Russia continues on its current course in Ukraine and other former Soviet
states, should the United States regard it as an adversary, or even an enemy?
Sanders: Yes.
*Question: Should Russia be required to return Crimea to Ukraine before it is allowed back
into the G-7?
Don't care about your dumb opinion, Circe. But I don't want anyone else here to think I'm
some supporter of the U.S. regimes two war parties. Bernie is just like Trump, Obama, the
Bush and Clinton families--warmongering assholes all of them.
@113 James
I agree. An actual revolution here would probably require masses of people on the verge of
starvation. But perhaps there's a trigger event that we can't foresee?
Bernie Sanders has promised FREE education/college and FREE Healthcare. Although I have
SERIOUS doubts how he is going to pay for all that FREE stuff,...
he's not.
and there's the rub, or the common denominator between domestic policy and foreign
policy...i.e. lucre (and hellfire missiles are so much sexier , right?).
if a candidate is not clamoring loudly that the defense budget must be cut by at
least 50%, he or she is being disingenuous, if not downright deceptive, about enacting
any kind of national healthcare, education, or whatnot.
If you were an anti-war candidate running for President of a militarized security state
that is so easily brainwashed by half a billion dollars in ads run by a war-mongering
Ziofascist and one of the highest-circulated Zionist-run propaganda rags asked trap questions
to test their definition of patriotism on you, you too would go through the motions and give
them what they wanna hear so they would leave you the fock alone for the rest of the
campaign.
Now, if you're looking to blow in 15 minutes your years in the making efforts to win the
Presidency and use your power to change that security state mentality, then you would
stupidly answer what you're suggesting.
You're a Trumpbot. AND I COULD GIVE A SHET WHAT YOU THINK.
Bernie wants to restore the Iran deal, and do diplomacy with Iran, and substantially
reduce military spending. Bernie is as anti-war a politicisn as I've seen in my lifetime.
I'll bank on his wisdom over your intellectual dishonesty ANY DAY, ANY TIME, ANY WHERE.
Unlike you, a lousy judge of character, or just plain demonizing Trumpbot on a fool's
mission, I am an excellent judge of character who had Ziofascist Trump pegged from day one
and took two years of flak for it! Today, I've been vindicated in every way. Ziofascist Trump
is the agent provocateur in the Middle East unilaterally, repeatedly resorting to multiple
acts of war against the Palestinians, Syria, Iraq and Iran. If he didn't trigger war yet,
it's not for lack of trying! Everyone is wisely on hold prevailing on their cool-headedness
hoping Americans elect a SANE, and more humane President, and that President will be Bernie
Sanders.
When Bernie shuts the door on that lunatic's orange-cake face the entire planet will
breathe A COLLECTIVE SIGH.
Now go bark your fake purist bullshet at someone stupid enough to fall for it. I'm a
firewall for the truth and you're barking up the wrong tree and messing with someone berning
for justice.
If Sanders actually got into the Presidency and threatened established interests, then he
would be given a non-refusable invitation to vist Dallas and drive past the Texas Shoolbook
Depositary.
Oh sure, Bernie is just playing 4d chess, right? We've been hearing that for years about
Trump as he bombs countries, assassinates people, and overthrows governments. We'll have to
relive it all hearing about Bernie's grand scheme to undermine the MIC by doing exactly what
the MIC wants. You're just another fake following a warmonger.
"But the oligarchy and sectors close to oligarchy are already worried exactly about that.
For example, certain David Brook is almost morose. A nightmare that is at least 170 years old
reappeared"
Well if Sanders does manages to get the Dem. nomination, then go ahead and vote for him.
Just, do not expect anything to change during his administration.
Otherwise, if someone else gets it, Sanders will be put out to pasture, and no one will
hear from him again. He was pretty quiet the past three years. For Sanders, and his domestic
ideas to blossom, he needs to be able to win the presidency, not just run for it. This is why
the Oligarchy will probably tank him. Right now, very few people in the US are politically
active. It is only the primaries after all. They are mostly ignored by the vast majority of
the electorate despite CNN's propaganda polls (which read only 52% interest anyway). In fact,
US elections for pres are regularly ignored by almost half the population, anyway.
If anyone else gets the dem nomination, there is no point voting for the Oligarch
Party.
Do you realize the damage you're doing to your credibility and reputation tooting
Bloomberg's horn here?
Bloomberg is a rabid Zionist who defied a flight ban making a cruel, pompous spectacle of
himself flying into Tel Aviv during Israel's massive criminal assault on Gaza while
vociferously supporting Israel's shelling of children, schools and hospitals.
Bloomberg is a Ziofascist Israel shill Neocon BUSH jr REPUBLICAN. Complete Presidential
disqualification in one sentence.
Now run along with your leaky can of Bloomberg whitewash.
If the State legislature chooses to ignore the vote then your argument is not
valid.
Please see the US Constitution that I linked...
And you continue to ignore Process. Well, in Constitutional Law courses that very scenario
is addressed. In Law, Process matters.
if the State legislature choses to ignore the vote.."[..]
if not members of the Parties elected to the Legislature, pray tell how is the Legislature
comprised?
You do know when (ahead of the general election) the Republicans and Democratic Parties
appoint their respective representative slate of electors they take into account Party
Loyalists who are pledged to vote the presidential ticket?
On pledges of the electors: 29 states have laws forbidding the electors to violate their
pledges.
In recent history: December 2016, Trump had the required electoral votes and the Hillary
Mob attempted a full-throated campaign to have some of the Republican electors switch their
votes at the Electoral College!!
How did that work out?
There were 7 "Faithless electors" who ignored their pledges. Oeps of the 7: five defected
Democratic-loser Clinton and two the Republican president- elect. [Cases are on appeal before
the Supreme Court; to be heard in 2019-2020 term]
When the Electors' switchero campaign did not succeed, Russiagate was the lever to
frustrate Trump's presidency. Russiagate will continue as long as the orangeman occupies the
White House.
WP > "...After a senior U.S. intelligence official told lawmakers last week that Russia
wants to see President Trump reelected..."
UNZ> "...Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Vice President Biden are being
told that if they do not get out of the race and clear the lane for the mayor, they will get
a socialist as their nominee, and the party will deserve the fate November will bring -- a
second term for Trump..."
Now then, when will the intel dudes claim Buttboi and Buyiden and Klob are commie agents?
Why already Wally suspects Putin's on the secret Badenov Shoe-phone with his vast army of
verraters... I mean, there must be Some Truth, right?
And if (mirabele dictu) Burner get's 'lected and avoids Dallas... if that, then how will
they change the story and tell us Burner is a Putin controlled Putin versteher?
("We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public
believes is false." (CIA Director Casey)
Karlofi mooted Beard's "Republic"... A proud attempt by Beard, but, alas (!) it reads like
a sad comic... Painful.
Perhaps one interesting point there though > Lincoln's first inaugural.
I'll leave that for K-Man to discuss, if he likes.
I'm all for disrupting the Democratic Party by voting for Sanders in the Primary.
But anyone that thinks that Sanders will be allowed to actually win the Primary is smoking
something. And anyone that thinks that Sanders isn't working with the Democratic
establishment to accomplish their goals is snorting something.
Sanders is there as window-dressing and to lure young voters into the Democratic Party
fold as a "Democracy Works!" ploy (a form of 'stay in school' PSA) .
The Democratic Party won't actually nominate him because Americans would vote for Bernie's
anti-oligarch program in droves. Anyone with any sense knows that the oligarchs have too much
money and too much power and that government services monied interests instead of the
people.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
We are now in a new Cold War. And we are on the brink of ANOTHER major war in the Middle
East. It's long-past time to see through the bullshit propaganda, fakery, and scheming.
Copy/paste Jackrabbit who hasn't hatched an original thought in quite some time tries to
project his professional troll gig on me. Dembot? Is that all you could come up with?
As with Bernie, I might be more like, hmmm... how would I describe myself?
"...This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever
they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional
right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it..."
Wally is a bit shocked...here's Lincoln saying the Revolution is a Right... And he wuz
smokin...what?
But yes, context matters...read the entire document>
First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861
Fellow-Citizens of the United States: (avalon / yale / edu an' all of that)
All the slander being heaped upon Bernie is not going to drain one jot of energy from the
momentum of his campaign. The trolls desire above all for a tide of chaos to wash over the
country. The energy in this movement is going play out on the convention floor and beyond;
and the spirit of the people is not about to be diminished or crushed.
It is best not to give up on the struggle, especially when the stakes have been made so
clear as Bloomberg plants the flag of oligharchy in this election. Only Sanders and Warren
had the decency to react with moral vigor to this outrage.
This is far from over. This is just getting interesting.
Correct, as I see it that would be too far-fetched. I cannot see AOC being managed
opposition, even if her behavior doesn't seem very leftish sometimes. The establishment's
biggest concern with their management of the political process is to make sure that some of
the things that AOC discusses remain outside the scope of acceptable political discourse. See
Willy2 above with his "Free stuff!" narrative for how the establishment wants people
to react... the establishment wants to prevent the public from even considering reallocating
resources away from the military and corporate subsidies to so-called "Free stuff!"
While AOC's ideology and support for Pelosi and such might leave some leftists unimpressed,
the fact that she even discusses free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare and education as well as
living wages strongly suggests that she is not part of the establishment's operation.
I honestly do not think the establishment has any plans for pandering very much to Latin
American identity... there is far too much revolution in that identity. My guess is that the
plans post-Butt-gig are to mix things up... say a Black lesbian or Black transsexual, for
instance. Keep in mind this would be planned for 2028 (previously 2030) so whoever they have
in mind would only be starting to get publicly groomed for the job now. The potential
individuals may not have even had their debutante unveiling to the public yet.
The trolls desire above all for a tide of chaos to wash over the country.
Well, true, but we don't need much help. The Sanders campaign has been a gift to
socialists who can piggy-back off of his demolition of decades of John Birch Society
indoctrination against socialism. But as far as I'm concerned, that's the only good thing
he's done. Him losing will be better for socialists - who can benefit from his supporters
flocking to our organizations - rather than him winning and forcing us to take him in as "our
guy" or us being tarred with any failures of his presidency.
"[Sanders] losing will be better for socialists..." --fnord @143
Not good strategy. People are not ready to go for real revolution yet. They need to try
half measures first and see those half measures fail or be attacked and defeated by the
oligarchs. Sanders losing will cause many people to either drop out of the movement or switch
to the far right. Sanders victory is needed just to show the masses that victory is possible.
People pursue socialist revolution out of a sense of optimism and open possibilities, not
desperation. Desperation leads to fascism.
Many of Sanders supporters on Twitter will tell you that his foreign policy utterances are
what "he has to do" so that the media doesn't increase their attacks on him. They say it is a
con. A lot of others like the people at WSWS disagree completely. I don't know for sure, but
it does make sense to play along with the establishment while you don't have power. And Tulsi
is part of the Sanders Institute. As for Tulsi being VP, there would be unanimous outrage
like you have never seen from so many liberals because Hinduphobia is rampant among so many
of them. This explains how they have have been conned by a smear psy-op against Tulsi
Gabbard:
Anatomy of A Smear: How Liberals Have Become Willing Dupes of Foreign Political Psy-Ops
The most extreme thing is that Sanders would consider military force to prevent even just
a missile test.
He also says he would "consider" "humanitarian interventions" without saying anything
about those "humanitarian interventions" based on lies that led to deterioration of the
humanitarian situation.
Under normal situations, I would think that Sanders' foreign policy positions should
disqualify him. But we are talking here about the United States of America, a country with
extreme disregard for international law, and it is probably correct that all other candidates
who have a chance of being elected would be even worse (compared to the extremists Biden,
Bloomberg, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg, Sanders' hawkishness and aggressive rhetoric against
Russia seems relatively harmless). Compared to Trump, Sanders is probably the lesser
evil.
But I doubt he will be inclined to go against the neocons who dominate the foreign policy
establishment and the secret services.
I used to think that if Sanders is president, Gabbard could be Secretary of State or vice
president. But now, I think this is unlikely. First because of many jingoistic statements by
Sanders, but second also because polls show that Tulsi Gabbard seems to be quite unpopular
among the US population. It seems that, while in Sanders' case the smears in the media don't
work well because people already know Sanders well enough, in Gabbard's case, the smears seem
to have worked. Sanders probably will not want to burden his administration with someone who
is so hated by a large part of the Democratic electorate.
I think Tulsi Gabbard will be needed for something else if Sanders is elected, for
pressuring Sanders from outside the government.
The question is not if Sanders should choose Gabbard as V.P., the question is why he
wouldn't, and that my friends will tell you all you need to know about Sanders and his
genuine interest in leading this country.
If Gabbard is left off his ticket he will lose. If he chooses her, it will excite the left
like nobody's business and he will cruise to victory utilizing the antiwar vote that got
Trump into office.
But...you do have the establishment left who may not want anything to do with the antiwar
and populist conjoinment of Sanders/Gabbard. It may be too world-shaking for them and they
may throw their lot in with Trump.
Either way, I think we are in good shape, barring a full Neocon push to colonize Trump's
presidency.
It is very curious that there seems to me something approaching unanimity-among the
commenters- that Sanders is the candidate who is least trustworthy.
I note that Jackrabbit even wheels out his old "Bernie the sheepdog" routine despite the fact
that the rest of the Democrats continue to do all that they can to sabotage his campaign,
ensuring that his supporters, when cheated in Convention, are going to walk out. Which, for
those unacquainted with the logistics of pastoral agriculture, is not what sheepdogs-employed
to gather the flocks together and deliver them to be clipped or butchered-do.
Of course the issue is imperialism. But imperialism is not an ideological but a material
matter: among the material bases of the Empire is the superstition that the United States is
under constant military threat and that, unless Americans voluntarily impoverish themselves,
by giving vast sums to the MIC, they will lose everything. And the world will disintegrate.
To undermine imperialism in the United States it is necessary to empower the only forces that
can defeat the MIC-the masses, taxpayers working hours a week for the trillion dollar defense
budget and workers afraid to stop making the rich ever richer and themselves poorer, less
secure and more vulnerable.
Sanders challenges this view. And he does so from a very old-fashioned position. He is
arguing that social and economic security should be the first priorities of government and
that, in order to defend the constantly threatened benefits that exist and to extend them to
such popular areas as healthcare and free tuition, it is necessary to restore the freedom to
organise that existed before Taft Hartley.
The DNC and the anti Sanders forces are the current iteration of the coalition of Republican
reactionaries and the Tammany/Jim Crow bosses that brought about Taft Hartley and the Cold
War, the twin foundations of imperialist politics in the United States for more than seventy
years.
As to Israel Sanders' position is one that is utter anathema to the Zionists- a clue being
the enormous resources they are mobilising against him. A call for 'peace' and an end to the
'conflict' being the one policy that not only appeals to public opinion but cannot be
countenanced by any of the Israeli parties all of which have committed their all to
eradicating all traces of Palestine and dominating the middle east.
In the Nevada debate I noticed how the candidates other than Bernie at many times were
talking into the cameras and over the heads of the people in the audience while garbling out
their resumes about how they are the best candidate to beat Trump as if that was the debate
question put to them. In doing so, I think they are really out boot-licking for super
delegates.
Sanders does not seem a pro-war imperialist, and he has SOME positive statements on
foreign policy now, and according to my observations in 2016, we is not interested in foreign
policy and he wants to fight on one front. He also detests the leadership of Israel, but
given his roots etc. he did not want to say anything on that, just some isolated statement
when confronted in meetings with voters.
Now that he expected to be a front runner he hired the most progressive chaps from the
mainline Democratic think tanks, and clearly, you can take them from CAP etc. but you cannot
totally remove CAP etc. out of them. Coming from environment where "muscular liberals" keep
taunting "so do you love dictators", after few years you prepare "appropriate defenses".
"Yes" on "Would you consider military action if Iran or North Korea did X" was a typical
weaseling. "Not considering war under ANY circumstances" is still a third rail in American
policies. So one "Yes" was placed in the questionaire. But he also had a long paragraph about
diplomacy first, last resort, requesting advise and approval from Congress, so it was formal
"considering", not "willingness". Your can interpreted differently, and that was the whole
purpose.
I would ask something about economic warfare, sanctions etc., like how he would weight
"applying pressure on regimes" versus "welfare of the population", how much of deprivation is
too much. And selection criteria for the list of "regimes". Do absolute monarchies get
exemption, perhaps on the account of reigning by the grace of G..d? When do we "worry" about
events during vote counting (no worry on Honduras, grave concern on Bolivia). And so on.
Well, it's very curious that Sanders accepts the party line on Russiagate/Russian
meddling.
And it's very curious that Sanders attacks Maduro as a Dictator that must be removed.
And it's very curious that Sanders' bill to prevent US support for the war on Yemen had
big loopholes.
And Sanders' 2016 campaigning was also very curious for his amazing deference to
Hillary.
Also curious: how Sanders' candidacy is used as Democracy Works! propaganda to
shore-up a corrupt. EMPIRE-FIRST political system.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
If WE can all see that the Democratic Party is scheming to have a brokered convention, WHY
CAN'T BERNIE SEE IT? Well, of course he sees it. But he doesn't do anything about it. He
plays into it by stressing his support for 'party unity'.
Jackrabbit, are you quoting someone or yourself, you use quotation paragraphs without
attributing to anyone.
Concerning tactical advise, I do not think that you tested it on "focus groups" or in any
other way. Identity politics is a third rail in the territory to the left and center of the
political centrum. Some aspects are OK, like changing attitude to work place sexual
harassment or even demeaning. Shaming homosexual is medieaval (going back to a ancient Greek
attitudes could be a step to far).
But there is a need to avoid alienating working class people who do not ascribe to
political correctness. But what would you like to give up as an issue? The right to terminate
pregnancy? Sanders made a choice that I fully approve: prying guns from the hands of the
working people is a futile, alienating, and he did not win so many elections in a rural state
full of hunters by trying that. He is correctly accused of never advocating gun control. But
you cannot run in Democratic party AGAINST gun control, not because of DNC and other sinister
powers (although they love the issue) but there is a wide constituency for it. As a hiker, I
appreciate extensive state forests and game reserves created because of the wide support from
the hunters, and the fact that the hunting in my state is forbidden on Sunday. "And on the
seventh day thou shall hike".
Once I thought about a compromise good for running in the South, namely, why not agree to
hand some commandments in public building, say, 5 out of 10? One could make a referendum
choosing the "top 5".
Even if sanders gets the nomination (a very very big if), don 't expect him to go all
anti-systemic at all, more the opposite I would say. So Tulsi for VC is like a red herring,
he would probably choose a "moderate" for VC.
The following article is a very interesting one, showing the type of socialist sanders is.
His ideas about socialism are closer to the european socialdemocratic system after the 90s ,
and we all know what a trainwreck that is.
Tulsi won't be getting the hypothetical VP nod. Conservative voters may like her, but
true-blue Democrats absolutely despise her. (You can thank the Clinton faction for both.) If
Sanders picked her, the noisiest elements of the media would scream RUSSIA until their
throats bled.
Sanders won't move very far rightward on the policy front as the general election
approaches, which means he needs to appease the Sensible Liberals through other means.
Bellicose rhetoric w/r/t Russia serves that purpose, and allows him to push back against
insinuations that he benefited from or abetted Russia's Great Election Heist of 2016. Today's
rhetoric may not become tomorrow's policy, though I won't be holding my breath.
The Jackrabbits who think Sanders doesn't stand a chance of being nominated are
underestimating the ineptitude and unpopularity of the Democratic Party, the depth of which
may somehow overcome even the most strenuous attempts at fixing the race's outcome. Sheepdog
though he may be, I'm hoping to see Sanders herding politicians instead of voters come next
February.
I'll forever argue that the United States of America's government was designed to be a
social democratic republic. Proof of this deliberate design is found within the rationale for
the federal government as stated in the Constitution's Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I'll argue that establishing Justice and insuring domestic Tranquility means not to
promote policies that result in economic divisiveness and massive disparities of wealth--what
that hell's tranquil or justified about Bloomberg owning as much wealth as @160 million
people: almost 1/2 of the populous?!?! How is it possible to secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity in the face of such unjust, immoral disparities?! And I could
go on and rant a lot more, but I think my point's made. Clearly, the best political weapon
and campaign asset Sanders could deploy is the Preamble and argue that the Oligarchs and
their Establishment are UnAmerican at best and Traitors at worst.
As I wrote the other day echoing Solomon and Sanders, it's a Class War, and we need
everyone to come to the barricades and the polling stations!! And the naysayers better
get the hell out-of-the-way or be trampled underneath the masses clamoring for a huge change
in direction, which we might call back to fundamentals.
The longer this Democrat dog and pony show continues the more I have a sense that it is a
false flag operation whereby the most unelectable (Feel the Bern) is being raised while the
most competitive (Tulsi Gabbard) has been shunted aside leaving no trace.
Was privileged to attend a Tulsi Town Hall last evening in Colorado Springs.
Very impressive from start to finish. Estimate 300 attended, many young military, and many
there identified as Republicans including a former CO State Senator.
Try to catch this wonderful candidate in person. Her positions are available in
considerable detail on Wikipedia.
She may be shunted aside by the MSM, but she's leaving way more than a trace for sure -- a
redemptive force for a troubled and divided nation.
With exception of Sanders I can't imagine any candidate on the stage last night offering
Gabbards a position in their administration.
If Bernie Sanders were President of say any South American country every other Democrat on
stage last night would be delighted as president themselves to covertly and overtly destroy
him and his nation. Think Honduras, Paraguay, Venezuela and Bolivia for the most recent
examples.
This country is getting a very clear lesson in the fact not only is not a democracy, it's
anti-democratic to its core. I hope at long last it finally sinks in among the half of
eligible voters who still legitimize it with their vote.
The US of A should do as EVERY other advanced economy did - and implement single payer
healthcare and eject the profiteers from the medical system, which is a public good. Germany
has had universal medical care since Otto von Bismarck implemented in the 1870's to unify the
country - most other countries implemented it in the 20th century (UK just after WW2; Canada
in 1963' and so on). This will liberate US Americans from the advanced world's most expensive
and inefficient health insurance system, with administrative costs of over 20% compared to
Canada's 2-3% depending on province. And Bernie Sanders is the only Dem candidate who
unequivocally stands for Medicare for all - the rest are to some degree or other captured by
health industry cartel payoffs, much as the Dem party is.
Bernie or bust! He's not a commie; he's a democratic socialist, in the model of FDR's New
Deal. Yes he's bad on foreign policy - do you-all really approve of what Trump has been doing
on behalf of "client states" who really run the foreign policy show in their domains? I'm not
sure if this will ever change - no president wants to end up like JFK. But what is important
is to improve the lot of all of us poor citizens who get to pay for all these shitshow
foreign SNAFU's - will they ever end? Not while the likes of Pompeus Maximus is in
charge....
Here is Bernie Sanders Foreign Policy platform. In my opinion the details will prove better
than interviews and not aggressively campaigning yet on foreign policy issues. This is
because he has been in this game a very long time and can not swallow a fire hose worth of
condemnation at one time.
The U.S. must lead the world in improving international cooperation in the fight
against climate change, militarism, authoritarianism, and global inequality. When we are in
the White House, we will:
Implement a foreign policy which focuses on democracy, human rights, diplomacy and
peace, and economic fairness.
Allow Congress to reassert its Constitutional role in warmaking, so that no president
can wage unauthorized and unconstitutional interventions overseas.
Follow the American people, who do not want endless war. American troops have been in
Afghanistan for nearly 18 years, the longest war in American history. Our troops have been
in Iraq since 2003, and in Syria since 2015, and many other places. It is long past time
for Congress to reassert its Constitutional authority over the use of force to responsibly
end these interventions and bring our troops home.
End U.S. support for the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen, which has created the world's
worst humanitarian catastrophe.
Rejoin the Iran nuclear agreement and talk to Iran on a range of other issues.
Work with pro-democracy forces around the world to build societies that work for and
protect all people. In the United States, Europe, and elsewhere, democracy is under threat
by forces of intolerance, corruption, and authoritarianism.
The fact is, Bernie doesn't need a great foreign policy platform to win. Americans would
vote for Bernie's domestic platform in overwhelming numbers.
That's why the establishment will do everything possible to defeat Bernie.
But is Bernie doing everything possible to win? And/or cause his Democratic Party
insurgency to prevail?
He won't criticize the Party and he has stated many times that he'll support whomever the
Party nominates (even if he is cheated).
<> <> <> <> <> <>
With that said, Bernie's record on foreign policy is not as good as his aspirational
policy positions and his preference for Israel is clear (despite his concerns about
how the Palestinians are treated). This has been discussed in detail at moa in recent
weeks.
And that claim is shot down in the linked article. Here:
"Sanders' support for protecting Israel was not just in terms of words, but by votes to
provide billions in military hardware and aid to the Apartheid state in 1997, 1999, 2004.
When Hamas won the Palestinian elections in 2006, Sanders voted in favor of imposing
sanctions in order to remove them from power. He has also voted for resolutions in favor of
Israeli military actions against Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2014. At a town hall meeting on
Gaza, Sanders was heckled for defending the Israeli actions, telling the audience to "shut
up.""
Bernie Sanders belonged on that stage with the other pro-war imperialists. With him, we
get affordable healthcare, while millions of people around the world will suffer through
coups, invasions, bombings, mass murder, and mass displacement. There is absolutely nothing
for an anti-war advocate to get excited about with a Sanders Presidency.
"Unless something remarkable occurs with the Dems, they lost the election last night. A
Minor League lineup."
I watched a few moments at a time of that childish squabble, during the first hour. After
that I couldn't stand any more.
//
@ dbrize | Feb 20 2020 17:26 utc | 8 "The dog and pony show conducted by corporate news has adult political aspirants panting
like sixth graders for teachers attention. Demeaning to all involved. Sanders needs stronger
vetting on foreign policy. It should be remembered that he twice voted for Clinton's wars and
the AUMF which gave presidents the power to conduct never ending wars of choice."
He also apparently has, like Hillary before him, his public positions and his private
positions, depending upon whom he's talking to. He told the NY Times (he seemingly is unaware
that the Times is read by the general public) that he would willingly launch a military
assault on North Korea, would willingly launch a military assault on Iran, and would be
willing to continue the absurd policy of treating Russia and China as enemies of the US. And
let's not forget that he once referred to Hugo Chavez as "a dead communist dictator," and
also recommended that Saudi Arabia be put in charge of the war against Syria.
I do believe, though, that his absurd foreign policy positions are based on ignorance, and
not on imperial impetus.
Sanders plus Tulsi Gabbard, the ultimate ticket indeed b, but as for anti Putin statements
one has to bear in mind the new cold war thrust America's elite have foisted on the masses
and it's significant degree of success as illustrated in polls taken over the past the past
few years following the Russia Russia Russia campaign asking what country is a threat to
America. As the new McCarthyism got into full swing, Americans were once again reminded of
the cold war rhetoric that had been so deeply ingrained in them by the American led
Propaganda Divisions, and like the sheep folks so often are, followed along with a pip pip
hooray!
But all that doesn't mean Putin isn't an authoritarian. America elects authoritarians
because they are presented with a choice of 2 people it's Oligarchs offer. Both are fronts
for the Authoritarian Oligarchy system. A system rife with corruption that not only allows
authoritarianism, it offers no alternative.
Which brings me back to Putin's Russia. Not disputing his value to his country which to me
seems obvious, but opposing voices and movements aren't exactly welcome. Sadly, said
movements often have roots in the ZioAmerAnglo hierarchy / multiple NGO's, that aren't really
non governmental but have very deep tax payer funded pockets and partners like Soro's Open
Society. But I digress.
I think free discussion of Putin's Russia should be given equal accommodation to that of
scrutiny of America's ongoing Imperial Regimes, for the sake of balance.
ie Putin's Russia can build a pipeline wherever they want, whenever they want. I hope
brighter minds can catch my drift.
The best argument against Democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.
Winston Churchill
Democracy is the worst of forms of Government, except for all the rest.
Also said by the Winnie. But the Winnie was always a man for Aristocracy first, even
though his Pa another leading member of the Gov't and Servant of Empire had contracted
syphilis while 'serving' the Empire in India and became an embarrassment to his family and
the Party he served with his rambling speeches in Parliament as the disease he contracted
overseas ate out his brain.
Personally I believe Donald Trump has contracted syphilis of the brain as a result of
delusions of grandeur while in service of the Kosher Nostra and needs to be put out to
pasture forthwith.
Bernie and Tulsi may, and I reiterate may, be able to restorith a Soul to America. A
gargantuan task that may be, the alternative is spreading your legs and liking it.
Some folks here call me Bubblehead, sort of like a dreamer I suppose. I would say unto
them, nothing of value comes easy, and the Oligarchs intent is to make you compete with the
power of the 1.4 billion Chinese and other slave wage/ no social cost jurisdictions they so
whole heartedly embraced to build their own fortunes and power over joe the plumber, the dirt
farmer which I was one of in past life, and even the resistors in far away lands like Syria,
where the majority of Assad's military are Sunni's.
The most important, and most illusive issue is E M P I R E . But we won't hear much
about that in US Presidential elections.
New Cold War with Russia
Participating in war / acts of war against: Syria, Venezuela, Iran, Yemen
Long-term occupation of Afghanistan
Weaponized trade
Militarizing space
War economy
Militarized police
War on whistle-blowers and civil rights (e.g. privacy)
Etc.
EVERY candidate for US President is a Zionist NWO Empire-builder (yes, Bernie
too).
If they were all secretly billionaires or secret members of a racist club there would
be OUTRAGE. But that they are all Zionist NWO Empire-builder ... silence.
Only a genuine independent Movement for Democracy will change anything. Instead, we
are sleep-walking into WWIII and dystopia.
To win outright(so there's no brokered convention) :
Bernie should be confronting the Party and lapdog media that uses identity politics to
pit people against each other. Instead, he plays the game: simply stating and restating
his policy positions.
It's clear by now to any savvy political observer that the Party hopes to use
identity politics to divide the votes and thus deny Bernie an outright win. This
results in a brokered convention where an establishment candidate will prevail.
Sheepdog Bernie will then be thrown a bone so that he can say that his "democratic
socialist' insurgency made a difference. Then Bernie and all the demobots will implore
everyone to defeat the "greater evil" of Trump.
To prepare for the convention :
Bernie must abandon his pledge to support the Democratic Party candidate in the general
election. To prevail in a brokered convention, Bernie must be able to bring to bear the
full extent of the power of his Movement.
Bu..Bu..But what evidence is there that Bernie is not sincere?
Bernie's 2020 run is shaping up to be essentially a re-run of his 'sheepdogging' in
2016. In 2016 Bernie wouldn't do what it took to win and thus allowed Hillary to win -
then he supported her in the General Election.
Bernie wouldn't attack Hillary on 'character issues' ("Enough with your damn
emails") , pulled punches (neglecting to say how Hillary HAD changed her vote
for money) , and was largely silent about media bias.
Why might Bernie NOT be doing what he needs to?
Because at heart he's a Zionist (like every other candidate for the Presidency), who
supports the Zionist US political establishment and is good friends with Empire power
brokers like Hillary and Schumer.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
Zionism, neoliberalism, and neo-conservativism are fundamentally anti-Democratic but
these are the ideologies of the Empire's ruling class. Only a genuine independent
Movement (like the Yellow Vests in France) will change this.
"But his [Sanders] foreign policies are still too aggressive"
Aye, too aggressive by far to make him any kind of improvement over any other Admin.
Remember, Obama, the worst warmaker of the last imperial dynasties, started as a
self-declared upholder of international law, a Nobel prize-winning one at that.
Now to my point: if foreign policy is imperial, all other improvement is irrelevant.
Health care, better pensions, affordable mortgage, a free hamburger every week, etc. for
the population of the Empire that murders, plunders and generally threatens the health of the
whole world seems like something one should avoid, not cheer for.
I don't think we should be delving on Sanders' foreign policy too much.
Obama was elected on a "hope and change" platform - mentioning removing troops from Iraq,
Afghanistan, closing Guantanamo etc. and then, boom, Libya, drones, private contractors and
Syria happened.
Also, we have the Deep State, which is the true dictator of American foreign policy. This
is the team of "experts" and "advisers" who will "educate" whoever is newly elected to the
WH. So it doesn't really matter what the candidates state about foreign policy at this
point.
It really doesn't matter what Sanders says on the FP front.
And Sanders' 2016 campaigning was also very curious for his amazing deference to
Hillary .
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 20 2020 20:05 utc | 36
I will not defend Sanders from basing his foreign policy on the progressive outliers of
reactionary CAP. There is a distinct danger that he would be malleable on foreign policy, but
also a hope... The hope is that he collected a lot of supporters who are less deferential to
DC consensus than himself.
The deference to Hillary was a good tactical choice in my humble opinion. He leads the
insurgents who do not favor the current DNC and party apparatus. To win a national elections
he does need cooperation across party spectrum. PUMA is a real danger against that (search
PUMA 2008 election). So he can (a) challenge and shame possible repeaters of PUMA (b) give
good example (c) rely on his feared supporters who are guaranteed to be suspicious and
grumpy.
Bloomberg as the champion of moderate democrats reminds me the candidate for Polish
presidency that Nationalists put forth in 1922. He was the top aristocrat, with vast
holdings. Nationalists had hopes of attracting the larger and very moderate peasant party,
but moderate as they were, they just could not vote for Aristocrat Number One. A lot of
Democrats prefer Sanders over Bloomberg, even the moderate ones. If Sanders becomes top in
delegate count and Bloomberg second, brokering the convention against Sanders will be
hard.
I started out to say that Sanders can't compete in the American Political sham reality if he
goes ball to the wall against Israel's aggression's and totally illegal behaviour which is
supported by Democrats and Republican's alike because of the monetary power the Zionist fifth
column in America wields with their "Benjamins"
Hat tip to that tiny girl born in Somalia for calling a spade a spade. Courage should be
rewarded, not attacked by those who disrespect truth and decency.
On Sanders' foreign policy: we shouldn't forget that democracies are belligerent, that the
link between war and high citizen participation in decision-making was the hallmark of
classical antiquity. More recently, the icing on FDR's New Deal was ww2. It doesn't surprise
me that a shift to social democracy does not imply a decrease in external belligerence. In
fact moderate right-wing libertarians tend on the whole to be the least fond of war, unless
it's about protecting their interests. But when the interests at stake are understood by the
deliberative citizen body (e.g. SPQR or ὁ δῆμος) to be
those of the collective citizen body, then war is endemic. I am reminded too that one of the
most left-wing institutions (in spirit at least) in the US is the Marine Corps: the
polis is a warrior-guild (Max Weber)
Even if sanders gets the nomination (a very very big if), don 't expect him to go all
anti-systemic at all, more the opposite I would say. So Tulsi for VC is like a red herring,
he would probably choose a "moderate" for VC.
The following article is a very interesting one, showing the type of socialist sanders is.
His ideas about socialism are closer to the european socialdemocratic system after the 90s ,
and we all know what a trainwreck that is.
Whether he realizes it or not, karlof1 is exposing a version of the establishment-friendly
"best of all worlds" (BOAW) political theory
BOAW was popular when Obama the deceiver was President. It fits well with his neoliberal
hucksterism aka "social choice theory".
BOAW says that if something is wrong or can be improved, it will get attention and be
addressed because people will get behind the change necessary to make it happen.
But the Empire and great wealth disparity has distorted democratic processes into
something garish - like fun house mirrors. BOAW is now recognized as simply hopium propaganda
and is hardly ever even mentioned anymore.
Bloomberg is revealed as having said in public that all the disposable income of the poor
should be taxed away so that they will not have funds with which to do mischief like buying
fast food or sugary drinks.
Bloomberg described Sanders as a Communist who cannot be elected. In this he was
correct.
Bloomberg was described by Warren as a cold-hearted and insulting man who openly scorns
women, gays and minorities.
Mayor Pete mocked Klobuchar for her inability to remember the name of the president of
Mexico. She asked if he was calling her "stupid."
These six dwarves will probably persist in their quest for the brass ring all the way to the
convention. In the mayhem there, the "winner" will probably have to choose one of the "losers"
to be his VP running mate.
The media is cheering wildly for Warren and saying that she won the debate, but I found her
to be utterly repugnant. She comes across, to me, as even more shrill, harsh, angry and
unlikeable than Clinton did at her worst.
President in the USA is just a puppet of more powerful forces. Attempt to change foreign policy will result in the color
revolution against him as happened with Trump (who actually folded three month into his presidency).
Bernie in this sense is a sheepdog, nothing more nothing else. But this show is very entertaining as in "Bread and
circuses' for the plebs.
Notable quotes:
"... Sanders economic and domestic policies seem generally okay to me. But his foreign policies are still too aggressive: ..."
"... In Hungary, far-right authoritarian-nationalist leader Victor Orban models himself after Putin in Russia, saying in a January interview that, "Putin has made his country great again." Like Putin, Orban has risen to power by exploiting paranoia and intolerance of minorities, including outrageous anti-Semitic attacks on George Soros, but at the same time has managed to enrich his political allies and himself. ..."
"... Where please is Putin "authoritarian"? When has Putin "exploited paranoia and intolerance of minorities"? When he opened the Grand Mosque in Moscow? And to put the dully elected Duterte of the Philippines and North Korea's Kim Jong Un into one "authoritarian leaders" pot, as Sanders does in other parts of that speech, makes little sense to me. ..."
"... Still - Sanders foreign policy is probably the least aggressive in the field with the exception of probably Gabbard's. Sanders should select her for the vice president position. As a women of color she would also tick off two now necessary categories. ..."
"... Trump will spend most of the campaign working for Senate candidates. He must hold the majority to prevent his second impeachment and removal. All the strategy for re-election is based on the Senate now. ..."
"... Unless something remarkable occurs with the Dems, they lost the election last night. A Minor League lineup. ..."
"... Remember, Obama, the worst warmaker of the last imperial dynasties, started as a self-declared upholder of international law, a Nobel prize-winning one at that. ..."
"... Now to my point: if foreign policy is imperial, all other improvement is irrelevant. ..."
"... Health care, better pensions, affordable mortgage, a free hamburger every week, etc. for the population of the Empire that murders, plunders and generally threatens the health of the whole world seems like something one should avoid, not cheer for. ..."
"... A good assessment and I would add that Gabbard won by not being there. The dog and pony show conducted by corporate news has adult political aspirants panting like sixth graders for teachers attention. Demeaning to all involved. ..."
"... If the DNC and its bosses screw Bernie, which they obviously want to do, they'll certainly re-elect Trump. They prefer Trump to Bernie anyway. But they'll also rip apart the Dem Party ..."
Bernie Sanders is debating like a frontrunner, confidently advancing his agenda and
fending off attacks.
Everyone else is frantically trying to make some kind of game-changer happen, throwing
up one-liners and cutthroat attacks like Hail Marys with the clock winding down.
The Democrats will likely have a brokered convention. If there is no candidate who gets
a majority in the first round, hand selected 'superdelegates' will also vote. They will
select the candidate the party's paymasters want. They may even try to rerun Hillary
Clinton through this backdoor.
Op-eds that argue for such sham democratic processes already get
published . Even under the slogan "Democracy Dies in Darkness":
(The Washington Post changed the above headline after it had caused an outrage
on social media.)
All candidates but Bernie Sanders seen to be fine with such anti-democratic schemes.
When the moderators asked if the candidate with the most delegates should automatically
become the party nominee the answers were :
- Bloomberg: No
- Warren: No
- Biden: No
- Buttigieg: No
- Klobuchar: No
- Sanders: Yes, the inclusion of superdelegates is not indicative of a democratic
process.
Sanders economic and domestic policies seem generally okay to me. But
his foreign policies are still too aggressive:
In Hungary, far-right authoritarian-nationalist leader Victor Orban models himself
after Putin in Russia, saying in a January interview that, "Putin has made his country
great again." Like Putin, Orban has risen to power by exploiting paranoia and
intolerance of minorities, including outrageous anti-Semitic attacks on George Soros,
but at the same time has managed to enrich his political allies and himself.
Where please is Putin "authoritarian"? When has Putin "exploited paranoia and
intolerance of minorities"? When he opened the Grand
Mosque in Moscow? And to put the dully elected Duterte of the Philippines and North
Korea's Kim Jong Un into one "authoritarian leaders" pot, as Sanders does in other parts
of that speech, makes little sense to me.
Sanders current foreign policy advisor is an aggressive known-nothing:
"It should come as no surprise, therefore, that those who understand Putin's
kleptocratic system – such the leader of the Russian opposition, Alexei Navalny
– are now rooting for Sanders."
Navalny is a xenophobe and racist nutter. He compared Muslims to cockroaches who
should be killed. He does not lead anything and certainly not the Russian opposition.
Polls in Russia have him at 1%.
Still - Sanders foreign policy is probably the least aggressive in the field with the
exception of probably Gabbard's. Sanders should select her for the vice president
position. As a women of color she would also tick off two now necessary categories.
But first he will have to win the big fight to become the nominee. The powers that be
will do their best to prevent that.
Posted by b on February 20, 2020 at 16:50 UTC | Permalink
Good analysis of the debate. Pithy remarks was all it was worth. Trump won 'yuge' last
night. Bloomberg showed that Trump would crush him in the debates. The key to the 2020 election is now the Senate race. Can the Republicans hold their
majority?
Trump will spend most of the campaign working for Senate candidates. He must hold
the majority to prevent his second impeachment and removal. All the strategy for re-election is based on the Senate now.
Unless something remarkable occurs with the Dems, they lost the election last night.
A Minor League lineup.
In reading of conservative websites, a number of commenters are saying they will vote
for Bernie in the Primaries, hoping he will get the nomination. Their reasoning is that
if it is a race between Trump and Bernie, they will be resigned if Trump loses, but
ONLY if he loses to Bernie. Most are against Gabbard as she is seen as anti-2ed
amendment.
"But his [Sanders] foreign policies are still too aggressive"
Aye, too aggressive by far to make him any kind of improvement over any other Admin.
Remember, Obama, the worst warmaker of the last imperial dynasties, started as a
self-declared upholder of international law, a Nobel prize-winning one at that.
Now to my point: if foreign policy is imperial, all other improvement is
irrelevant.
Health care, better pensions, affordable mortgage, a free hamburger every week, etc.
for the population of the Empire that murders, plunders and generally threatens the
health of the whole world seems like something one should avoid, not cheer for.
A good assessment and I would add that Gabbard won by not being there. The dog and pony
show conducted by corporate news has adult political aspirants panting like sixth
graders for teachers attention. Demeaning to all involved.
Sanders needs stronger
vetting on foreign policy. It should be remembered that he twice voted for Clinton's
wars and the AUMF which gave presidents the power to conduct never ending wars of
choice.
Gabbard is clear on her position and Sanders is not.
If the DNC and its bosses screw Bernie, which they obviously want to do, they'll
certainly re-elect Trump. They prefer Trump to Bernie anyway. But they'll also rip
apart the Dem Party. I anticipate violence if they do.
If Bernie is elected, we'll find
out how much of his foreign policy he believes in and how much he has said to get along
with the neocon Dem establishment. His base certainly is to his left on foreign policy.
They call them super delegates and I call them Dem-Ayatollahs or politburo members who
decide who people can vote for.
I am completely with b on Sanders's stand on foreign policy. The good thing I can
say about this is that he has been slowly but continuously moving in the right
direction. He is still not where I want him to be. But I could persuade myself to vote
for him IF the Dem-Ayatollahs and the politburo members allow him to run AND if he
chooses Tulsi as his VP.
div> Many of Sanders supporters on Twitter will tell you that his
foreign policy utterances are what "he has to do" so that the media doesn't increase
their attacks on him. They say it is a con. A lot of others like the people at WSWS
disagree completely. I don't know for sure, but it does make sense to play along with the
establishment while you don't have power. And Tulsi is part of the Sanders Institute. As
for Tulsi being VP, there would be unanimous outrage like you have never seen from so
many liberals because Hinduphobia is rampant among so many of them. This explains how
they have have been conned by a smear psy-op against Tulsi Gabbard:
Anatomy of A Smear: How Liberals Have Become Willing Dupes of Foreign Political
Psy-Ops
Many of Sanders supporters on Twitter will tell you that his foreign policy utterances
are what "he has to do" so that the media doesn't increase their attacks on him. They
say it is a con. A lot of others like the people at WSWS disagree completely. I don't
know for sure, but it does make sense to play along with the establishment while you
don't have power. And Tulsi is part of the Sanders Institute. As for Tulsi being VP,
there would be unanimous outrage like you have never seen from so many liberals because
Hinduphobia is rampant among so many of them. This explains how they have have been
conned by a smear psy-op against Tulsi Gabbard:
Anatomy of A Smear: How Liberals Have Become Willing Dupes of Foreign Political
Psy-Ops
That headline is interesting:
It's time to give elites a bigger say in selecting president.
Could someone actually be so absorbed in own perspective as to not realize how
provocative that is - pretty much poking finger in someones chest? I don't think so. It
was meant to provoke. Perhaps Bezos is threatened by other rich people.
The most extreme thing is that Sanders would consider military force to prevent even
just a missile test.
He also says he would "consider" "humanitarian interventions" without saying
anything about those "humanitarian interventions" based on lies that led to
deterioration of the humanitarian situation.
Under normal situations, I would think that Sanders' foreign policy positions should
disqualify him. But we are talking here about the United States of America, a country
with extreme disregard for international law, and it is probably correct that all other
candidates who have a chance of being elected would be even worse (compared to the
extremists Biden, Bloomberg, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg, Sanders' hawkishness and
aggressive rhetoric against Russia seems relatively harmless). Compared to Trump,
Sanders is probably the lesser evil.
But I doubt he will be inclined to go against the neocons who dominate the foreign
policy establishment and the secret services.
I used to think that if Sanders is president, Gabbard could be Secretary of State or
vice president. But now, I think this is unlikely. First because of many jingoistic
statements by Sanders, but second also because polls show that Tulsi Gabbard seems to
be quite unpopular among the US population. It seems that, while in Sanders' case the
smears in the media don't work well because people already know Sanders well enough, in
Gabbard's case, the smears seem to have worked. Sanders probably will not want to
burden his administration with someone who is so hated by a large part of the
Democratic electorate.
I think Tulsi Gabbard will be needed for something else if Sanders is elected, for
pressuring Sanders from outside the government.
"'Mike Bloomberg owns more wealth than the bottom 125 million Americans,' said
Sanders. 'That's wrong. That's immoral. That should not be the case when we got half a
million people sleeping out on the street. When we have kids who cannot afford to go to
college. When we have 45 million people dealing with student debt.'"
But the amount of disparity Sanders announced was likely overstated--reality is
actually worse:
"In the Federal Reserve's latest Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) data, Bruenig
noted, ' the bottom 38 percent of American households have a collective net worth of
$11.4 billion, meaning that Michael Bloomberg owns nearly 6 times as much wealth as
they do .'
"'The definition of wealth used in the official SCF publications includes cars as
wealth,' wrote Bruenig. 'But academics that study wealth inequality, like Edward Wolff,
often do not count cars as wealth because they are rapidly-depreciating consumer
durables that most people can't really sell for the practical reason that they need a
car to get around and live. When you exclude cars from the definition of wealth, what
you find is that the bottom 48 percent of households have less combined wealth than
Michael Bloomberg does. This is 60.4 million households or 158.9 million people
.'
"'Regardless of which measure you use,' Bruenig concluded, 'the upshot is clear: the
United States is simultaneously home to some of the wealthiest people on Earth and to a
large propertyless underclass that have scarcely a penny to their names.'" [My
Emphasis]
The description of Bloomberg as an Oligarch is correct. That he's also a kleptocrat
is also likely true. What's certain is he didn't "work hard" to attain his loot; he's a
Rentier just like Trump.
In a related development, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden has proposed to change the tax
codes to
"Treat Wealth Like Wages" , something strongly advocated by economists like Hudson,
Keen, and Wolff and would start to slowly change the disparity.
George Will wrote a column about it yesterday . And although he's mistaken about
that wealth being turned into productive (entrepreneurial) Capitalism as proven by
Hudson, Keen, Wolff, and others, he does agree that something must be done about the
problem.
The most important, and most illusive issue is E M P I R E . But we won't hear
much about that in US Presidential elections.
New Cold War with Russia
Participating in war / acts of war against: Syria, Venezuela, Iran, Yemen
Long-term occupation of Afghanistan
Weaponized trade
Militarizing space
War economy
Militarized police
War on whistle-blowers and civil rights (e.g. privacy)
Etc.
EMPIRE touches every part of our lives and pollutes domestic politics. The Empire
mafia's protection racket costs us a bundle, erodes our civil and human rights, and
makes us less safe. But the mafia that runs the Empire don't want any scrutiny. And
the controlled media is happy to oblige.
EVERY candidate for US President is a Zionist NWO Empire-builder (yes, Bernie
too).
If they were all secretly billionaires or secret members of a racist club there
would be OUTRAGE. But that they are all Zionist NWO Empire-builder ... silence.
Only a genuine independent Movement for Democracy will change anything. Instead,
we are sleep-walking into WWIII and dystopia.
I don't think we should be delving on Sanders' foreign policy too much.
Obama was elected on a "hope and change" platform - mentioning removing troops from
Iraq, Afghanistan, closing Guantanamo etc. and then, boom, Libya, drones, private
contractors and Syria happened.
Also, we have the Deep State, which is the true dictator of American foreign policy.
This is the team of "experts" and "advisers" who will "educate" whoever is newly
elected to the WH. So it doesn't really matter what the candidates state about foreign
policy at this point.
It really doesn't matter what Sanders says on the FP front.
the first headline by the WA Post opinion piece is better and truer in that it is more
indicative and exact of what the Elites think, want, and believe in - more Elite
control
hell they already have substantial backroom control via the hack Media - see exclusion
of Gabbard critique of aggressive US foreign policy aka imperialism for further proof;
not to mention of course the overwhelming role of money in this election, in all
elections (Citizens United consolidated this), and in the very fabric, functioning and
meaning of the 'society' at large.
the Elites are afraid of the insurgent wing of their party for a variety of reasons,
and are once again trying to rig the system against any chance of Sanders getting the
nomination
If Hilary jumps in and steals the nomination Trump will relish the opportunity to beat
her up again.
If Bernie gets the nod (miraculously) the Democratic right will ensure he loses the
general. Hilary would rather McGovern him and lose the House, lose ten Senate seats,
than tolerate an usurper.
Anybody else gets the nomination Trump needn't bother to pretend he has an
opponent.
To win outright(so there's no brokered convention) :
Bernie should be confronting the Party and lapdog media that uses identity
politics to pit people against each other. Instead, he plays the game: simply
stating and restating his policy positions.
It's clear by now to any savvy political observer that the Party hopes to use
identity politics to divide the votes and thus deny Bernie an outright win. This
results in a brokered convention where an establishment candidate will
prevail.
Sheepdog Bernie will then be thrown a bone so that he can say that his
"democratic socialist' insurgency made a difference. Then Bernie and all the
demobots will implore everyone to defeat the "greater evil" of Trump.
To prepare for the convention :
Bernie must abandon his pledge to support the Democratic Party candidate in the
general election. To prevail in a brokered convention, Bernie must be able to
bring to bear the full extent of the power of his Movement.
Bu..Bu..But what evidence is there that Bernie is not sincere?
Bernie's 2020 run is shaping up to be essentially a re-run of his 'sheepdogging'
in 2016. In 2016 Bernie wouldn't do what it took to win and thus allowed Hillary
to win - then he supported her in the General Election.
Bernie wouldn't attack Hillary on 'character issues' ("Enough with your
damn emails") , pulled punches (neglecting to say how Hillary HAD changed
her vote for money) , and was largely silent about media bias.
Why might Bernie NOT be doing what he needs to?
Because at heart he's a Zionist (like every other candidate for the Presidency),
who supports the Zionist US political establishment and is good friends with
Empire power brokers like Hillary and Schumer.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
Zionism, neoliberalism, and neo-conservativism are fundamentally anti-Democratic
but these are the ideologies of the Empire's ruling class. Only a genuine
independent Movement (like the Yellow Vests in France) will change this.
Its all about show.. the electoral college selects the president.
Posted by: snake | Feb 20 2020 17:22 utc | 6
the process -
first - it's the main street voters who, on November 3rd, Election day will select the
State electors to the electoral college. The State electors will vote
for the president on December 14, 2020. On January 6, 2021 the Senate counts the
electoral votes and declares who has been elected President and Vice President. That's
how it works.
So, these guys and gals running for the office of president need to garner the votes
of the main street voters...jim and jane.
Here is Bernie Sanders Foreign Policy platform. In my opinion the details will prove
better than interviews and not aggressively campaigning yet on foreign policy issues.
This is because he has been in this game a very long time and can not swallow a fire
hose worth of condemnation at one time.
The U.S. must lead the world in improving international cooperation in the fight
against climate change, militarism, authoritarianism, and global inequality. When we
are in the White House, we will:
Implement a foreign policy which focuses on democracy, human rights, diplomacy and
peace, and economic fairness.
Allow Congress to reassert its Constitutional role in warmaking, so that no
president can wage unauthorized and unconstitutional interventions overseas.
Follow the American people, who do not want endless war. American troops have been
in Afghanistan for nearly 18 years, the longest war in American history. Our troops
have been in Iraq since 2003, and in Syria since 2015, and many other places. It is
long past time for Congress to reassert its Constitutional authority over the use of
force to responsibly end these interventions and bring our troops home.
End U.S. support for the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen, which has created the
world's worst humanitarian catastrophe.
Rejoin the Iran nuclear agreement and talk to Iran on a range of other issues.
Work with pro-democracy forces around the world to build societies that work for and
protect all people. In the United States, Europe, and elsewhere, democracy is under
threat by forces of intolerance, corruption, and authoritarianism.
"Unless something remarkable occurs with the Dems, they lost the election last
night. A Minor League lineup."
I watched a few moments at a time of that childish squabble, during the first hour.
After that I couldn't stand any more.
//
@ dbrize | Feb 20 2020 17:26 utc | 8 "The dog and pony show conducted by corporate news has adult political aspirants
panting like sixth graders for teachers attention. Demeaning to all involved. Sanders
needs stronger vetting on foreign policy. It should be remembered that he twice voted
for Clinton's wars and the AUMF which gave presidents the power to conduct never ending
wars of choice."
He also apparently has, like Hillary before him, his public positions and his
private positions, depending upon whom he's talking to. He told the NY Times (he
seemingly is unaware that the Times is read by the general public) that he would
willingly launch a military assault on North Korea, would willingly launch a military
assault on Iran, and would be willing to continue the absurd policy of treating Russia
and China as enemies of the US. And let's not forget that he once referred to Hugo
Chavez as "a dead communist dictator," and also recommended that Saudi Arabia be put in
charge of the war against Syria.
I do believe, though, that his absurd foreign policy positions are based on
ignorance, and not on imperial impetus.
Sanders's economic and domestic policies are economically illiterate and anti free
market - so are Trump's generally. The only possible, slight positive about Bernie
Sanders is that he's...sometimes less hawkish than others. The same is true for Tulsi.
Sanders would never want Tulsi in his cabinet. And vice President is a total do-nothing
position. Secretary of State, or Secretary of Defense, even Ambassador to the United
Nations is much more significant than Vice President. Sanders is a pro-war imperialist,
clearly.
"I'd like to talk about who we're running against: a billionaire who calls women fat
broads and horse-faced lesbians. And no, I'm not talking about Donald Trump. I'm
talking about Mayor Bloomberg," Warren said to gasps from the audience.
"In my foundation, the person that runs it is a woman, 70% of the people are women,"
he said. "In my company, lots and lots of women have big responsibilities."
Warren allowed to add one liner: "I hope you heard what his defense was: 'I've been
nice to some women,' "
Bloomberg clobbered some more "we have very few nondisclosure agreements. None of
them accused me of doing anything – except, maybe they didn't like a joke I
told," [boo!]
Bloomberg countering Sanders: "You don't start out by saying I've got 160 million
people I'm going to take away the insurance plan they love," Bloomberg argued." That
was his high points. All members of the audience who love their insurance stood in
applause. Or perhaps one person stood up, looked around and sat back.
Sharon M @28
"Sanders would never want Tulsi in his cabinet. And vice President is a total
do-nothing position."
All that changed when Dick Cheney became VP. The list of his "accomplishments"
(including Wars, promoting torture, promoting support of Al Qaida (and ISIS) in Iraq
and Syria, plus so many more that we don't know of).
Hardly a "do-nothing" position.
The fact is, Bernie doesn't need a great foreign policy platform to win. Americans
would vote for Bernie's domestic platform in overwhelming numbers.
That's why the establishment will do everything possible to defeat Bernie.
But is Bernie doing everything possible to win? And/or cause his Democratic Party
insurgency to prevail?
He won't criticize the Party and he has stated many times that he'll support
whomever the Party nominates (even if he is cheated).
<> <> <> <> <> <>
With that said, Bernie's record on foreign policy is not as good as his aspirational
policy positions and his preference for Israel is clear (despite his concerns
about how the Palestinians are treated). This has been discussed in detail at moa in
recent weeks.
The question is not if Sanders should choose Gabbard as V.P., the question is why he
wouldn't, and that my friends will tell you all you need to know about Sanders and his
genuine interest in leading this country.
If Gabbard is left off his ticket he will lose. If he chooses her, it will excite
the left like nobody's business and he will cruise to victory utilizing the antiwar
vote that got Trump into office.
But...you do have the establishment left who may not want anything to do with the
antiwar and populist conjoinment of Sanders/Gabbard. It may be too world-shaking for
them and they may throw their lot in with Trump.
Either way, I think we are in good shape, barring a full Neocon push to colonize
Trump's presidency.
It is very curious that there seems to me something approaching unanimity-among the
commenters- that Sanders is the candidate who is least trustworthy.
I note that Jackrabbit even wheels out his old "Bernie the sheepdog" routine despite
the fact that the rest of the Democrats continue to do all that they can to sabotage
his campaign, ensuring that his supporters, when cheated in Convention, are going to
walk out. Which, for those unacquainted with the logistics of pastoral agriculture, is
not what sheepdogs-employed to gather the flocks together and deliver them to be
clipped or butchered-do.
Of course the issue is imperialism. But imperialism is not an ideological but a
material matter: among the material bases of the Empire is the superstition that the
United States is under constant military threat and that, unless Americans voluntarily
impoverish themselves, by giving vast sums to the MIC, they will lose everything. And
the world will disintegrate. To undermine imperialism in the United States it is
necessary to empower the only forces that can defeat the MIC-the masses, taxpayers
working hours a week for the trillion dollar defense budget and workers afraid to stop
making the rich ever richer and themselves poorer, less secure and more vulnerable.
Sanders challenges this view. And he does so from a very old-fashioned position. He
is arguing that social and economic security should be the first priorities of
government and that, in order to defend the constantly threatened benefits that exist
and to extend them to such popular areas as healthcare and free tuition, it is
necessary to restore the freedom to organise that existed before Taft Hartley.
The DNC and the anti Sanders forces are the current iteration of the coalition of
Republican reactionaries and the Tammany/Jim Crow bosses that brought about Taft
Hartley and the Cold War, the twin foundations of imperialist politics in the United
States for more than seventy years.
As to Israel Sanders' position is one that is utter anathema to the Zionists- a clue
being the enormous resources they are mobilising against him. A call for 'peace' and an
end to the 'conflict' being the one policy that not only appeals to public opinion but
cannot be countenanced by any of the Israeli parties all of which have committed their
all to eradicating all traces of Palestine and dominating the middle east.
In the Nevada debate I noticed how the candidates other than Bernie at many times were
talking into the cameras and over the heads of the people in the audience while
garbling out their resumes about how they are the best candidate to beat Trump as if
that was the debate question put to them. In doing so, I think they are really out
boot-licking for super delegates.
Sanders does not seem a pro-war imperialist, and he has SOME positive statements on
foreign policy now, and according to my observations in 2016, we is not interested in
foreign policy and he wants to fight on one front. He also detests the leadership of
Israel, but given his roots etc. he did not want to say anything on that, just some
isolated statement when confronted in meetings with voters.
Now that he expected to be a front runner he hired the most progressive chaps from
the mainline Democratic think tanks, and clearly, you can take them from CAP etc. but
you cannot totally remove CAP etc. out of them. Coming from environment where "muscular
liberals" keep taunting "so do you love dictators", after few years you prepare
"appropriate defenses".
"Yes" on "Would you consider military action if Iran or North Korea did X" was a
typical weaseling. "Not considering war under ANY circumstances" is still a third rail
in American policies. So one "Yes" was placed in the questionaire. But he also had a
long paragraph about diplomacy first, last resort, requesting advise and approval from
Congress, so it was formal "considering", not "willingness". Your can interpreted
differently, and that was the whole purpose.
I would ask something about economic warfare, sanctions etc., like how he would
weight "applying pressure on regimes" versus "welfare of the population", how much of
deprivation is too much. And selection criteria for the list of "regimes". Do absolute
monarchies get exemption, perhaps on the account of reigning by the grace of G..d? When
do we "worry" about events during vote counting (no worry on Honduras, grave concern on
Bolivia). And so on.
Well, it's very curious that Sanders accepts the party line on
Russiagate/Russian meddling.
And it's very curious that Sanders attacks Maduro as a Dictator that must be
removed.
And it's very curious that Sanders' bill to prevent US support for the war on Yemen
had big loopholes.
And Sanders' 2016 campaigning was also very curious for his amazing deference
to Hillary.
Also curious: how Sanders' candidacy is used as Democracy Works! propaganda
to shore-up a corrupt. EMPIRE-FIRST political system.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
If WE can all see that the Democratic Party is scheming to have a brokered
convention, WHY CAN'T BERNIE SEE IT? Well, of course he sees it. But he doesn't do
anything about it. He plays into it by stressing his support for 'party unity'.
Jackrabbit, are you quoting someone or yourself, you use quotation paragraphs without
attributing to anyone.
Concerning tactical advise, I do not think that you tested it on "focus groups" or
in any other way. Identity politics is a third rail in the territory to the left and
center of the political centrum. Some aspects are OK, like changing attitude to work
place sexual harassment or even demeaning. Shaming homosexual is medieaval (going back
to a ancient Greek attitudes could be a step to far).
But there is a need to avoid alienating working class people who do not ascribe to
political correctness. But what would you like to give up as an issue? The right to
terminate pregnancy? Sanders made a choice that I fully approve: prying guns from the
hands of the working people is a futile, alienating, and he did not win so many
elections in a rural state full of hunters by trying that. He is correctly accused of
never advocating gun control. But you cannot run in Democratic party AGAINST gun
control, not because of DNC and other sinister powers (although they love the issue)
but there is a wide constituency for it. As a hiker, I appreciate extensive state
forests and game reserves created because of the wide support from the hunters, and the
fact that the hunting in my state is forbidden on Sunday. "And on the seventh day thou
shall hike".
Once I thought about a compromise good for running in the South, namely, why not
agree to hand some commandments in public building, say, 5 out of 10? One could make a
referendum choosing the "top 5".
Finnian Cunningham weighs in with an excellent article about Bloomberg as symbolic of
the demise of the Outlaw US Empire's nationwide electoral political system,
"With Bloomberg Entering Race, U.S. Oligarchy Takes Stage" . A portion of the juicy
meat:
"In a nutshell, the political party is bought. It has become a vehicle that is
patently the political property of an oligarch. And not just this one oligarch, but the
entire oligarchic system of super-wealth in the United States. Hillary Clinton, the
Democrat candidate in 2016, was despised by voters because of her solicitous
connections to Wall Street and Big Business. That corruption has now only become
starkly manifest in the form an oligarch-in-person taking the political stage instead
of a politician-surrogate. The same can be said for the other side of the oligarch
coin, the Republicans.
"It is rather fitting too that Bloomberg stood as a Republican when he was elected
Mayor of Gotham (er, New York City) between 2001-2013. Since leaving that office be
flipped to the Democrats, no doubt sensing a more expedient route for buying his way to
the White House. That again demonstrates how hollow the party names are of any
substantive meaning regarding policy.
"In the 2018 mid-term elections, Bloomberg donated $100 million to the DNC to
promote 16 new female lawmakers to Congress. Enamored by that superficial progressive
benevolence, the party bosses are in his pocket."
Cunningham concludes with an observation that many of us arrived at long ago:
"The only 'superhero' that can save Gotham (er, the U.S.) from the oligarchs is the
American people themselves finding the strength and independence to rise up against the
endemic two-party corruption, and voting for real change.
" That, however, requires mass organization, mobilization and a class
consciousness about the predatory capitalist, oligarch-ridden system that the U.S. has
descended into ." [My Emphasis]
The bolded sentence above provides us with our task and goal, that is if
we--non-Americans included--wish to save the nation and the world from Oligarchical
Ruin. Our only chance is to provide Sanders with 1991+ delegates so he can gain the
nomination outright on the first ballot before the corrupt delegates can enter the
fray. Yes, he has issues with his foreign policy record; but it's his domestic record
most voters will want to know about since so many are struggling. And it's on that part
of his record that I intend to focus upon, while I'm certain the naysayers like the
rabbit will focus exclusively elsewhere.
And that claim is shot down in the linked article. Here:
"Sanders' support for protecting Israel was not just in terms of words, but by votes
to provide billions in military hardware and aid to the Apartheid state in 1997, 1999,
2004. When Hamas won the Palestinian elections in 2006, Sanders voted in favor of
imposing sanctions in order to remove them from power. He has also voted for
resolutions in favor of Israeli military actions against Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in
2014. At a town hall meeting on Gaza, Sanders was heckled for defending the Israeli
actions, telling the audience to "shut up.""
Bernie Sanders belonged on that stage with the other pro-war imperialists. With him,
we get affordable healthcare, while millions of people around the world will suffer
through coups, invasions, bombings, mass murder, and mass displacement. There is
absolutely nothing for an anti-war advocate to get excited about with a Sanders
Presidency.
I'll forever argue that the United States of America's government was designed to be
a social democratic republic. Proof of this deliberate design is found within the
rationale for the federal government as stated in the Constitution's Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote
the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
America."
I'll argue that establishing Justice and insuring domestic Tranquility means not to
promote policies that result in economic divisiveness and massive disparities of
wealth--what that hell's tranquil or justified about Bloomberg owning as much wealth as
@160 million people: almost 1/2 of the populous?!?! How is it possible to secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity in the face of such unjust, immoral
disparities?! And I could go on and rant a lot more, but I think my point's made.
Clearly, the best political weapon and campaign asset Sanders could deploy is the
Preamble and argue that the Oligarchs and their Establishment are UnAmerican at best
and Traitors at worst. As I wrote the other day echoing Solomon and Sanders, it's a
Class War, and we need everyone to come to the barricades and the polling
stations!! And the naysayers better get the hell out-of-the-way or be trampled
underneath the masses clamoring for a huge change in direction, which we might call
back to fundamentals.
And Sanders' 2016 campaigning was also very curious for his amazing deference to
Hillary.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 20 2020 20:05 utc | 36
I will not defend Sanders from basing his foreign policy on the progressive outliers
of reactionary CAP. There is a distinct danger that he would be malleable on foreign
policy, but also a hope... The hope is that he collected a lot of supporters who are
less deferential to DC consensus than himself.
The deference to Hillary was a good tactical choice in my humble opinion. He leads
the insurgents who do not favor the current DNC and party apparatus. To win a national
elections he does need cooperation across party spectrum. PUMA is a real danger against
that (search PUMA 2008 election). So he can (a) challenge and shame possible repeaters
of PUMA (b) give good example (c) rely on his feared supporters who are guaranteed to
be suspicious and grumpy.
Bloomberg as the champion of moderate democrats reminds me the candidate for Polish
presidency that Nationalists put forth in 1922. He was the top aristocrat, with vast
holdings. Nationalists had hopes of attracting the larger and very moderate peasant
party, but moderate as they were, they just could not vote for Aristocrat Number One. A
lot of Democrats prefer Sanders over Bloomberg, even the moderate ones. If Sanders
becomes top in delegate count and Bloomberg second, brokering the convention against
Sanders will be hard.
"As I wrote the other day echoing Solomon and Sanders, it's a Class War, and we need
everyone to come to the barricades and the polling stations"
Karlof1, I admire your knowledge. That being said, can you tell me of any instance in
the history of mankind, wherein a national government has changed its behavior due to
the results of an election? As far as I can see, governments have only changed their
ways after catastrophic war, economic or foundational collapse or a peasant revolt.
@ 42 sharon... who are you able to vote for presently that isn't on side with usa
foreign policy? i am curious.. do they have a chance in hell of winning?
Sanders plus Tulsi Gabbard, the ultimate ticket indeed b, but as for anti Putin
statements one has to bear in mind the new cold war thrust America's elite have foisted
on the masses and it's significant degree of success as illustrated in polls taken over
the past the past few years following the Russia Russia Russia campaign asking what
country is a threat to America. As the new McCarthyism got into full swing, Americans
were once again reminded of the cold war rhetoric that had been so deeply ingrained in
them by the American led Propaganda Divisions, and like the sheep folks so often are,
followed along with a pip pip hooray!
But all that doesn't mean Putin isn't an authoritarian. America elects
authoritarians because they are presented with a choice of 2 people it's Oligarchs
offer. Both are fronts for the Authoritarian Oligarchy system. A system rife with
corruption that not only allows authoritarianism, it offers no alternative.
Which brings me back to Putin's Russia. Not disputing his value to his country which
to me seems obvious, but opposing voices and movements aren't exactly welcome. Sadly,
said movements often have roots in the ZioAmerAnglo hierarchy / multiple NGO's, that
aren't really non governmental but have very deep tax payer funded pockets and partners
like Soro's Open Society. But I digress.
I think free discussion of Putin's Russia should be given equal accommodation to
that of scrutiny of America's ongoing Imperial Regimes, for the sake of balance.
ie Putin's Russia can build a pipeline wherever they want, whenever they want. I
hope brighter minds can catch my drift.
The best argument against Democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average
voter.
Winston Churchill
Democracy is the worst of forms of Government, except for all the rest.
Also said by the Winnie. But the Winnie was always a man for Aristocracy first, even
though his Pa another leading member of the Gov't and Servant of Empire had contracted
syphilis while 'serving' the Empire in India and became an embarrassment to his family
and the Party he served with his rambling speeches in Parliament as the disease he
contracted overseas ate out his brain.
Personally I believe Donald Trump has contracted syphilis of the brain as a result of
delusions of grandeur while in service of the Kosher Nostra and needs to be put out to
pasture forthwith.
Bernie and Tulsi may, and I reiterate may, be able to restorith a Soul to America. A
gargantuan task that may be, the alternative is spreading your legs and liking it.
Some folks here call me Bubblehead, sort of like a dreamer I suppose. I would say
unto them, nothing of value comes easy, and the Oligarchs intent is to make you compete
with the power of the 1.4 billion Chinese and other slave wage/ no social cost
jurisdictions they so whole heartedly embraced to build their own fortunes and power
over joe the plumber, the dirt farmer which I was one of in past life, and even the
resistors in far away lands like Syria, where the majority of Assad's military are
Sunni's.
I started out to say that Sanders can't compete in the American Political sham reality
if he goes ball to the wall against Israel's aggression's and totally illegal behaviour
which is supported by Democrats and Republican's alike because of the monetary power
the Zionist fifth column in America wields with their "Benjamins"
Hat tip to that tiny girl born in Somalia for calling a spade a spade. Courage
should be rewarded, not attacked by those who disrespect truth and decency.
But all that doesn't mean Putin isn't an authoritarian. Bubbles | Feb 20 2020 21:21 utc
But it does not mean that he is an authoritarian. His main strength is to choose
popular policies and execute them competently. When he sees a need for unpopular
reforms like increasing retirement age and introducing highway tolls, he defers to
public opinion and proceeds very gradually (Macron could learn something). One can
accuse him of cultivating friendly media, but I do not see outright repression of
opposing media, one can read at websites of anti-Putin news outlets etc. In that he
differs from Chinese and Turkish policies of muzzling and censoring. Cultivation of
friendly media and legal system that is harsh on dissidents can be observed in
countries like UK or USA.
Sanders/Gabbard is my "make a wish" ticket, but alas, it'll never happen. The
forces(big organised $) arrayed against that happening are just too strong. I'd be
happier if Sanders
would utter the phrase "mixed economy" to explain his Democratic Socialist roots. After
all, the American voting public, for the most part, equates Democratic Socialism with
Communism. And, virtually all the countries we're taught are Socialist, are, in reality
Mixed Economies. Even Venezuela, who's demonized daily as an evil Socialist country, is
a Mixed Economy.
This week I drove to South Carolina and did the knock on doors for Bernie. The
neighborhood was in a downtown area that was fairly run down. The community was mixed
race and multi cultural. Here are my take aways. 1) the Sanders campaign is extremely
organized. After I signed up for a slot I received a phone call in about 10 minutes
with details. 2) the volunteers were given a run through and some very nice collateral
that was given out or left on porches. 3) there were GPS phone maps identifying the
houses to be canvassed as these folks were registered to vote.
In a 3 hour period 2 people canvassed 96 houses. Of course since it was during the day
probably 1/2 were not home. The people that were home were overwhelming either leaning
towards Bernie or were a definite for Bernie. There were 2 voters for Biden who became
more open to Sanders after hearing and seeing his platform. There were 2 Trumpers. Both
of them were obviously religious as they thought Trump had Christian interests (!!)
There were no Pete, Warren nor Buttigieg interests.
I plan to do another town next week before their Primary.
I suspect that none of them will pull out before the convention in order to divide the
vote and keep the Sanders delegate count as low as possible. That way they can pool
their votes and keep Sanders out.
Sanders is targeted by AIPAC and there are two AIPAC darlings up against him as well
as a young Anglo American Empire trained Rhodes scholar. I bet that the three of them
combine to keep Sanders out.
That leaves one former VP and a gentile fake native American. Hillary will fit in
perfectly at the convention to this disaster.
"... We are imperially overstretched and The Blob refuses to see it. Will the next president? ..."
"... The cost of Washington's endless wars fall most heavily on those who suffer under American bombs and drones. Yet the plight of foreigners is rarely mentioned. When asked about a half million Iraqi babies killed by American economic sanctions, then-UN ambassador Madeleine Albright famously replied: "We think the price is worth it." ..."
"... That was characteristic of Washington's overwhelming hubris. Members of "the Blob," as America's foreign policy elite has been called, believe they are uniquely qualified to run the world. Only they can predict the future, assess humanity's needs, develop solutions. And anyone who resists their dictates deserves his or her terrible fate. ..."
"... The Iraq Body Count has documented between 184,868 and 207,759 deaths in Iraq, but many killings in such a conflict go unreported. IBC suggested doubling its estimate to get a more accurate figure. Even that may be too few. A couple respected though contested surveys figure civilian deaths could top a million. The University of Michigan's Juan Cole defended the methodology: "I believe very large numbers of Iraqi families quietly bury their dead without telling the government of all people anything about it. Another large number of those killed is dumped in the Tigris river by their killers. Not to mention that for substantial periods of time since 2003 it has been dangerous in about half the country just to move around, much less to move around with dead bodies." ..."
"... Nor do casualties stop there. On top of those killed directly, noted the Watson Institute, "War deaths from malnutrition, and a damaged health system and environment likely far outnumber deaths from combat." For instance, in Yemen, the number of civilian dead due to famine, 85,000 by one count, vastly exceeds the number killed in the conflict, perhaps 12,000. A million people are thought to have suffered from cholera, resulting from the destruction of the country's commercial, health, social, and transportation infrastructure. Most of the damage has come from airstrikes by the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, which are backed by U.S. intelligence, munitions, and formerly refueling. ..."
We are imperially overstretched and The Blob refuses to see it. Will the next president?
The cost of Washington's endless wars fall most heavily on those who suffer under American
bombs and drones. Yet the plight of foreigners is rarely mentioned. When asked about a half
million Iraqi babies killed by American economic sanctions, then-UN ambassador Madeleine
Albright famously replied: "We think the price is worth it."
That was characteristic of Washington's overwhelming hubris. Members of "the Blob," as
America's foreign policy elite has been called, believe they are uniquely qualified to run the
world. Only they can predict the future, assess humanity's needs, develop solutions. And anyone
who resists their dictates deserves his or her terrible fate.
No doubt, foreign policy sometimes presents difficult choices. For instance, in World War
II, the U.S. backed tyrannical Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union against monstrous Adolf Hitler's
Nazi Germany. During the Cold War, Washington allied with a variety of authoritarian
regimes.
There was a logic to such decisions. However, those choices also left many policymakers with
moral qualms. Such self-doubt seems to be almost completely absent from the Blob today. Who
among advocates of the Iraq War have acknowledged the horrors they loosed upon the people of
Iraq and its surrounding nations? Most resist taking any responsibility.
First, they simply deny that America is at war. President Barack Obama tried to avoid
invoking the War Powers Act in Libya by arguing that the conflict did not qualify since
Americans weren't doing the shooting. However, Defense Secretary Bob Gates admitted that the
Libyans being targeted probably thought Washington was at war. And the consequences of that
conflict were significant: violent chaos that continues to this day. Moreover, the precedent of
taking out a leader who voluntarily surrendered his missile and nuclear programs could
discourage future dictators from disarming.
Today some war enthusiasts deny that Americans are really fighting in the multiple conflicts
in which they are engaged. Marc Thiessen, a speechwriter for President George W. Bush and
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whose tenures were defined by the disastrous Iraq War,
denounced the very concept of endless wars as a "canard." Yet casualties, though lower than
before, continue with regularity in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.
More importantly, the risks of much larger conflict are real. American troops in Iraq have
to confront Iranian-backed militias, and a recent round of mutual retaliation risked a
full-blown conflict. The Pentagon has maintained forces in Syria for potential use against --
depending on who claims to be directing U.S. policy -- the Islamic State, and, without legal
authority, the Damascus government, Iran, Turkey, and even Moscow. American and Russian troops
recently confronted each other over Syrian oilfields that President Donald Trump ordered seized
-- illegally. The potential for a much broader conflict remains serious.
Second, Washington's permanent War Party dismisses the harm their wars have caused. After
the Obama administration headed to Libya and joined Saudi Arabia's war on Yemen, Samantha
Power, perhaps the most visible advocate of supposedly humanitarian war-making, complained that
Americans were discouraged by the Iraqi imbroglio: "I think there is too much of, 'Oh, look,
this is what intervention has wrought' one has to be careful about overdrawing lessons."
The last two decades of war have had catastrophic consequences. The official costs are high
enough, with the Pentagon having spent $1.55 trillion in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to the
Congressional Research Service. A few billion dollars have gone into the anti-ISIS campaign in
Iraq and Syria. Over $113 billion more has been spent on reconstruction in Afghanistan alone,
though with little success, according to multiple reports from the Special Inspector General
for Afghanistan Reconstruction.
And these figures dramatically underestimate the total financial cost. Noted Brown
University's Watson Institute: "Through Fiscal Year 2020, the United States federal government
has spent or obligated $6.4 trillion dollars on the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
This figure includes: direct Congressional war appropriations; war-related increases to the
Pentagon base budget; veterans care and disability; increases in the homeland security budget;
interest payments on direct war borrowing; foreign assistance spending; and estimated future
obligations for veterans' care." Not included are macroeconomic costs due to the massive
misallocation of valuable resources.
More important has been the human cost. CRS reported about 7,000 dead and 53,000 wounded
among U.S. service personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq. The split by conflict was 38 percent/62
percent, respectively. Nearly 400 American military members have died elsewhere since 9/11. A
million or more -- the latest available figures are years out of date -- disability claims have
been filed by U.S. personnel. Suicide rates among the 2.7 million who have served in either
Afghanistan or Iran are higher than among the civilian population.
Also significant are casualties among U.S. contractors: 3,400 dead and 39,000 wounded.
However, the Pentagon's figures may be incomplete: the Watson Institute, with its Cost of War
Project, figures the number of contractor deaths to be more than 8,000, higher than the number
of dead uniformed personnel. Reliance on contractors may be controversial, but they essentially
represent the U.S. government. The death of a contractor in Iraq triggered Washington's strike
on an Iranian-backed militia, which almost sparked war between Tehran and Washington. Several
hundred allied military personnel also have died, along with an estimated 110,000 local
military and police.
Worse has been the civilian toll in those nations that Washington purports to be saving.
American policymakers rarely speak of this cost. After all, they believe "the price is worth
it," to quote Albright. As of November, figured the Watson Institute, 335,000 civilians in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, and Yemen had died in conflicts featuring U.S. military
operations. Unfortunately, these numbers are low, perhaps dramatically so.
The Iraq Body Count has documented between 184,868 and 207,759 deaths in Iraq, but many
killings in such a conflict go unreported. IBC suggested doubling its estimate to get a more
accurate figure. Even that may be too few. A couple respected though contested surveys figure
civilian deaths could top a million. The University of Michigan's Juan Cole defended the
methodology: "I believe very large numbers of Iraqi families quietly bury their dead without
telling the government of all people anything about it. Another large number of those killed is
dumped in the Tigris river by their killers. Not to mention that for substantial periods of
time since 2003 it has been dangerous in about half the country just to move around, much less
to move around with dead bodies."
Nor do casualties stop there. On top of those killed directly, noted the Watson Institute,
"War deaths from malnutrition, and a damaged health system and environment likely far outnumber
deaths from combat." For instance, in Yemen, the number of civilian dead due to famine, 85,000
by one count, vastly exceeds the number killed in the conflict, perhaps 12,000. A million
people are thought to have suffered from cholera, resulting from the destruction of the
country's commercial, health, social, and transportation infrastructure. Most of the damage has
come from airstrikes by the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, which are backed by U.S.
intelligence, munitions, and formerly refueling.
Explained the Watson Institute: "People living in the war zones have been killed in their
homes, in markets, and on roadways. They have been killed by bombs, bullets, fire, improvised
explosive devices (IEDs), and drones. Civilians die at checkpoints, as they are run off the
road by military vehicles, when they step on a mine or cluster bomb, as they collect wood or
tend to their fields, and when they are kidnapped and executed for purposes of revenge or
intimidation. They are killed by the United States, by its allies, and by insurgents and
sectarians in the civil wars spawned by the invasions."
War is not always avoidable. But since the end of the Cold War, every conflict started by
the U.S. has been one of choice. America only ever had a serious interest at stake in
Afghanistan -- to destroy al-Qaeda after 9/11 and punish the Taliban government. In that case,
however, the U.S. mission should have ended by early 2002, not carried on for nearly two
decades.
American policymakers should stop treating war as a first resort, a panacea for
international conflict and tragedy. Washington is filled with ivory tower warriors. Their
supposedly best intentions have spread chaos and death around the globe. What think this year's
presidential candidates?
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and former special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire
. He is currently scholar-in-residence with the Centre for Independent Studies in
Sydney.
"... The question on my mind is which of these clowns has the highest probability of doing something stupid that ends in a major war, if not an apocalyptic one. IMO Biden, Buttigieg, and Sacagawea have sadistic/psychotic tendencies that make them the most dangerous candidates. ..."
"... The Monopoly Man possibly views warfare as something beneath the station of a financial aristocrat such as himself, which if nothing else might give him some immunity from feeling the need to prove how "tough" he i ..."
The question on my mind is which of these clowns has the highest probability of doing
something stupid that ends in a major war, if not an apocalyptic one. IMO Biden, Buttigieg,
and Sacagawea have sadistic/psychotic tendencies that make them the most dangerous
candidates.
Sanders and Klobuchar strike me as the least violent.
The Monopoly Man possibly
views warfare as something beneath the station of a financial aristocrat such as himself,
which if nothing else might give him some immunity from feeling the need to prove how "tough"
he is. I put Trump somewhere in the middle.
Bloomberg is revealed as having said in public that all the disposable income of the poor
should be taxed away so that they will not have funds with which to do mischief like buying
fast food or sugary drinks.
Bloomberg described Sanders as a Communist who cannot be elected. In this he was
correct.
Bloomberg was described by Warren as a cold-hearted and insulting man who openly scorns
women, gays and minorities.
Mayor Pete mocked Klobuchar for her inability to remember the name of the president of
Mexico. She asked if he was calling her "stupid."
These six dwarves will probably persist in their quest for the brass ring all the way to the
convention. In the mayhem there, the "winner" will probably have to choose one of the "losers"
to be his VP running mate.
This was an outright declaration of "class war" against working-class voters by a
"university-credentialed overclass" -- "managerial elite" which changed sides and allied with
financial oligrchy. See "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite" by
Michael Lind
Notable quotes:
"... By canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War II, the neoliberal elite saws the seed of the current populist backlash. The "soft neoliberal" backbone of the Democratic Party (Clinton wing) were incapable of coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat -- the rejection of the establishment candidate by the US population and first of all by the working class. The result has been the neo-McCarthyism campaign and the attempt to derail Trump via color revolution spearheaded by Brennan-Obama factions in CIA and FBI. ..."
It looks like Bloomberg is finished. He just committed political suicide with his comments
about farmers and metal workers.
BTW Bloomberg's plan is highly hypocritical -- like is Bloomberg himself.
During the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" was
staged in the USA by "managerial elite" which like Soviet nomenklatura (which also staged a
neoliberal coup d'état) changed sides and betrayed the working class.
So those neoliberal scoundrels reversed the class compromise embodied in the New Deal.
The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the neoliberal managerial class and financial
oligarchy who got to power via the "Quiet Coup" was the global labor arbitrage in which
production is outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations.
So all those "improving education" plans are, to a large extent, the smoke screen over the
fact that the US workers now need to compete against highly qualified and lower cost
immigrants and outsourced workforce.
The fact is that it is very difficult to find for US graduates in STEM disciplines a
decent job, and this is by design.
Also, after the "Reagan neoliberal revolution" ( actually a coup d'état ), profits
were maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of the
immigrant workforce (the collapse of the USSR helped greatly ). They push down wages and
compete for jobs with their domestic counterparts, including the recent graduates. So the
situation since 1991 was never too bright for STEM graduates.
By canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War
II, the neoliberal elite saws the seed of the current populist backlash. The "soft
neoliberal" backbone of the Democratic Party (Clinton wing) were incapable of coming to terms
with Hillary Clinton's defeat -- the rejection of the establishment candidate by the US
population and first of all by the working class. The result has been the neo-McCarthyism
campaign and the attempt to derail Trump via color revolution spearheaded by Brennan-Obama
factions in CIA and FBI.
See also recently published "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial
Elite" by Michael Lind.
One of his quotes:
The American oligarchy spares no pains in promoting the belief that it does not exist,
but the success of its disappearing act depends on equally strenuous efforts on the part of
an American public anxious to believe in egalitarian fictions and unwilling to see what is
hidden in plain sight.
1. Bernie Sanders is a Marxist who is not afraid to stand up in public for himself. His
honeymoon in the USSR is not likely to be forgotten. He is a communist fellow traveler who has
become a member of the rentier class. He wants to abolish private health insurance.
Really! De Blasio and AOC, two more open Marxists are on his team? Really?
2. IMO Elizabeth Warren is an obvious serial liar who reminds me of a second grade teacher
with enthusiasms for projects that the little children had better get on board for, or else!
Another millionaire in socialist clothing.
3. And, there is Mayor Pete, the darling of the Wall Street population and all the world's
bankers. Somehow the creatures of the coastal cities don't understand that the American
electorate is not ready to elect a cute, openly homosexual man who will live in the White House
with his husband and child. It is not going to happen this time around.
4. Amy Klobuchar - An obscure Mid-Western senator who shows signs of an idealism that might
be a problem for the professional pols. She might do something not in their script.
5. Mikey Bloomberg - The People's Party is going to put forward a guy worth over $60
billion? Really? If that were not bad enough, the man has a long history of total ineptitude in
human relations involving blacks and women? Really? Watch him try to mix with ordinary people
in crowds. Sad.
6. Hillary? Old Deplorable herself? Trump beat her once already in the Electoral College,
where the fraud in California's popular vote did not matter. A lot of people loath her.
7. Tulsi Gabbard. God bless her. I would vote for her but the Gays and the Zionists are both
against her. This is not going to happen.
8. Tom Steyr - Ho hum. A taller version of Bloomberg, he made his money by investing in coal
mines and now is a fanatic "climate change" guy.
9. Joe Biden. He was asked by Jorge Ramos "why did you and Obama lock up so many illegal
kids on the border?" He replied "we were taking care of them." IMO he is and has always been a
crooked, not too smart politician from a very small state. Hell! In Delaware you can know most
of the electorate personally. He is done.
All of these folks are addicted to private jets that they hire if they do not actually own
one or two. Naughty! Naughty!
-------------
And! On the other side we have the orange man. He will be quite happy to run against these
guys. BTW I doubt that he has a billion in cash. That is probably why he doesn't want to
release his tax returns. He came into office with little understanding of the differences
between government and business and still knows little about that. He wants to believe that
everyone in the Executive Branch is his personal employee. He is wrong about that.
**********
BTW. McCabe IS NOT "off the hook." The particular charge DoJ is not going to try him for is
the least of his problems.
"BTW. McCabe IS NOT "off the hook." The particular charge DoJ is not going to try him for is
the least of his problems."
So true...and he knows it. You'll notice they haven't yet indicted the FBI lawyer who made a
material misrepresentation on the Page FISC affidavit either. Comey, McCabe, Clapper, Brennan
are being investigated for their roles in having blown up the Presidential electoral process
in the United States. The DoJ is not about to make itself up front look petty, vindictive,
and stupid by indicting McCabe for spitting on the sidewalk. The Democrats would love to take
advantage of that opportunity.
For those paying attention, this provides a welcome contrast to the way the political
jihadists under Mueller conducted themselves - Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Papanobody. Ditto the
Schiff impeachment debacle. Pure chickenshit made into red meat by an obliging institutional
media.
It's heartening to see some evidence of judgement has returned to the Department.
Sir - if Bernie Sanders is a Marxist so was FDR. They are both New Deal Democrats,
representing the working people against the rapacious oligarchs.
Further, Medicare for All is a bare minimum of what is required to uplift the citizens of
this nation. It seems increasingly that we cannot stop the warmongers in their desire to
dominate or destroy so the best policy is to improve the lot of the citizens. That's what
Bernie is about.
Incidentally, a proposed Bloomberg/Clinton ticket epitomises the corruption and stupidity
and incompetence of the Dem elite. Contemptible scum.
Oh, BS! FDR was nothing like Bernie. What, he created Social Security and that made him a
commie? Medicare for all would beggar us unless we ration care like they do in places like
Canada.
The optics of the non-prosecution of McCabe is not looking good when the DOJ have
prosecuted Stone and Flynn for the same thing. There's no doubt we have a 2-tier justice
system with a very corrupt prosecutorial system and a judiciary in lock step with them. The
FISA court exemplifies this.
As far as the Orangeman is concerned he seems not much different than all the others. At
the end of the day he hired Rosenstein, Wray, Sessions, Barr, Bolton, Kelly and Mattis. While
he's got the prerogative to declassify he shirked each time and passed the buck. His shtick
of being the representative of the Deplorables is just that. He only cares about his own
skin.
He's completely in thrall of the Saudi bonesaw and Bibi's maximalist visions.
The bottom line in my opinion is we have a broken political, media and governmental system
as the people the voters encourage to run it are as corrupt as in any tinpot banana
republic.
Personally I'd like to see Trump vs Bernie as it would implode the Democrats and show
clearly how polarized the electorate really is and how venal the media have become. What will
they do when they hate both candidates?
rationed care is better than no care at all or care that bankrupts the family. I
think most Canadian's prefer their system than ours. Having said that I don't agree with
Medicare for all but I do think that individuals and families who cannot afford medical
insurance should have affordable options available to them.
To help clarify Sander's world view, I'll present to this this snippet from a recent
interview where he brings up modern-day China:
"It wasn't so many decades ago that there was mass starvation in China. All right? There
is not mass starvation today and people have got -- the government has got to take credit for
the fact that there is now a middle class in China. No one denies that more people in China
have a higher standard of living than use to be the case. All right? That's the reality.
On the other hand, China is a dictatorship. It does not tolerate democracy, i.e., what
they're doing in Hong Kong. They do not tolerate independent trade unions and the Communist
Party rules with a pretty iron fist. So, and by the way, in recent years, Xi has made the
situation even worse. So, I mean, I'll give, you give people credit where it is due. But you
have to maintain values of democracy and human rights and certainly that does not exist in
China."
One bonfire that refuses to die and flamed up again today - Crowdstrike and the media's total
refusal to even mention its name, which was the really critical part of the Ukrainian phone
call. Not their phony quid pro quo.
All Democrat candidates need to questioned about Crowdstrike, since it led to two failed
major Democrat-led actions against President Trump - The Mueller investigation and the
Democrat impeachment.
Following article underscores what Larry Johnson has been reporting for years:
Sander is a no 'Marxist' at all.
I agree with this quote
from Krugman (a Clinton guy):
The thing is, Bernie Sanders isn't actually a socialist in any normal sense of the term. He
doesn't want to nationalize our major industries and replace markets with central planning;
he has expressed admiration, not for Venezuela, but for Denmark. He's basically what
Europeans would call a social democrat -- and social democracies like Denmark are, in fact,
quite nice places to live, with societies that are, if anything, freer than our own.
The social democrat have always hated and fought against the communists who are the real
Marxists.
FDR strongly warned not to unionize government employees.
Sanders demands all workers shall be unionized, which is the backbone of the Green New
Deal - mandatory union membership, creating vast slush funds of union dues going directly to
the Democrat party.
What happened to the speculation that breaking the whole " Trump coup" conspiracy would take
down all government agencies, including the Gang of 8?
Consequently, more than the Democrats are interested in burying any loose threads that
could cause something much larger to unravel? Wolfe gets off. McCabe gets off. Page/Strozk
leer smugly over glasses of wine. Clapper-Bernnan-Comey free as birds.
The reality should not be so much about the personalities, as the processes driving them. We
have this ideal of a nation of laws, not men, but the principle doesn't run that deep.
The medical situation, for instance, is rife with fraud and abuse. While some waste is
necessary, the whole trial and error thing, our country's medical system is more about
siphoning value out of the community, than effectively understanding the necessities of
healthcare and trying to adequately provide for them, to the extent possible.
Which is not so much a healthcare issue, as it is a financial system issue. Here is a very
insightful essay from Naked Capitalism, that could be applied across many fields;
Good luck getting rid of the private insurance companies, lobbies, lawyers, accountants, and
other third party beneficiaries of the private insurance market. United Healthcare has
revenues of nearly a quarter trillion dollars just by itself. It's better to focus on what is
possible instead of what is noble.
It is the same reason we won't be able to end all the wars, and simplify the tax code in a
meaningful way. Intuit (the maker of TurboTax) is one of the largest supporters of
complicating the forms and processes by which to file taxes.
The bottom line is that these are massive, structural changes that they would take
constitutional amendments to fix since every 4-8 years some carpetbagger shows up seeking to
undo what the other carpetbaggers did, and the only thing they do is create another cottage
industry regulated by an equally large bureaucracy.
If you want to champion anything, start with campaign finance reform since everything else
is just noise.
Our current system already beggars most of us. Expensive yet insecure coverage that
potentially bankrupts us all from surprise billing. Incredible time-suck to protect yourself
from such predatory practices. (Though it appears Medicare recipients are protected from such
price gouging.).
Employer-based coverage constrains job changes, and leaves people without coverage when
they get laid off because of illness. I see Medicare for All as enhancing liberty. Tying
health care to your employer is kind of feudal. Take away the tax breaks at least so the
market is fair. I wouldn't mind paying premiums and copays, with monthly maximum, but
wouldn't mind paying through taxes either.
I am sorry, but my comment to this summary of the Democratic contenders is totally facetious.
(Perhaps that is because if find all but Tulsi people who have been put forward by an
obviously facetious group of people running the Democratic Party now.
Does anyone else suspect that Elizabeth Warren is making money on the side doing the voice
for Pinocchio in the GEICO ads?
Whoa! Quite a few responses - will try to answer in order:
@turcopolier - well I have direct experience of the Canadian system and based on many
experiences, the Canadian universal single-payer system is not "rationed" in any way wrt
urgent care. Yes if you have elective surgery like an arthroscopic knee repair of which I've
had two and my choice was wait 3-5 months in Canada or pay $5,000 stateside and get it done
next week. I paid. The choice of paying for service should never go away IMHO and this is a
flaw among many which I note with Bernie's plan. Nonetheless he is articulating a bargaining
position to attain something I think essential to re-organize the US health insurance system.
WHy as a society are we paying twice as a percentage of gdp than Canada? It's profiteering.
ANd Inefficiency. Probably in reverse order of importance, but they each feed the other.
@NancyK - some mix of a universal medicaire-style system with extra insurance available
for those who want to pay for it (private room, immediate service, that kind of upgrade)
might work, don't you think?
@fred - well, since you ask, and tho I'm no expert in the history of Bernie I do know this
- he was mayor of Burlington VT for quite a while and you should take a walk around and see
how some of his intitiatives have made Burlington more livable. ALso he garnered between 20
and 40 % of the Republican vote in his long run as Congressman from VT. As Representative and
Senator he is well known for his successful amendements to the benefit of ALL
rather than for the benefit of the few, or, himself. He is only recently a millionaire, I
understand, as he wrote a very successful book which made him a couple of million. Other than
that, he owns real estate - who of his vintage who bought real estate has not made money?
I find I agree completely with all your points, except (respectfully) the intensity of
your Bernie blast. If medicare for all is such a bad idea, then I await Trump to propose
revoking ALL the communistic gov't medical care programs (including the free one congress
gets).
Spark!!! spark!!! spark!!! Third rail.
Also, I note that Tulsi's has many more enemies. I continue supporting her (she is doing
better than Steyer and Yang) in the hope that Bernie has had her as VP in mind all along or
else that she will spend the next four years building a support base for 2024.
Barring the economy cracking or a new ME mess (perhaps by an Iranian proxy in revenge), I
agree that the Dems will get trounced outside their coastal enclaves, particularly if the
Dems continue to cheat the process. Nothings says stay home like having your vote stolen.
In the economic regards, the Corona Virus is a potentially massive black swan event - the
Fed already has been printing 100 billion per month to stave off economic collapse for five
months now (socialism for the banks!!!! Get a pitchfork) and no intention to slowdown for the
foreseeable future, so it's not clear they have the bullets to deal with a, at a minimum,
Corona shutdown of US supply chains. With a up to 24 day before symptoms appear, and false
negatives of up to 80% in the very few who are tested, efforts to date by the US are just
security theater.
Even if Bernie were a communist rather than a moderate social democrat, we have checks and
balances, and the Fifth Amendment protecting property rights.
b (old adversary) You may not like to admits that I know a lot about various forms of leftism
but I (like many other former USI officers know a lot about you) I personally recruited quite
a few "Social Democrats" who were really agents of the USSR until they switched sides. They
were tested a lot. I admit that Bernie evidently never voted for the Communist Party
candidate for president as John Brennan did, but his honeymoon on an Intourist visa in the
USSR speaks volumes. As I recall you were quite pro-Warsaw Pact and anti-NATO during the Cold
War.
Denmark retains its Lutheran sensibilities, if not their daily practice. It is very strict
about immigration - very few are allowed in, closed borders, must speak Danish, turn over
assets to the government, and no complaints about pork being on the menus.
Hygge celebrates thrift, simplicity and austerity. If you want Danish social democracy,
you have to participate in the whole package. (Being of Danish heritage myself, I see nothin
wrong with this but don't see many others living up to their unique lifestyle standards -
(NB: re-read Garrison Kielor's Lake Woebegon for further insights into Scandinavian
heritage in the US - particuarly his footnoted treatise on 100 drawbacks being raised
Scandinavian - US Scandinavians will laugh in self-recognition and also sadly nod in full
agreement)
Danes laugh at our US welfare state and recognize it has nothing to do with their version
of social welfare. Danish "socialism" provides workers with buy-in medical plans for more
efficient delivery systems. It is by no means free government run health care or social
welfare for all.
Norwegians are closer to this idealized model of "free stuff", but with even stricter
about immigration controls and their system floats on massive amounts of fossil fuel
extraction cash. Sweden, Finland, Iceland -- all have uniqiness in their social welfare
systems that cannot translate to the US polyglot, poly-cultural model.
Danes also have suffered from high rates of depression and suicide. So Bernie, be sure to
sign up for the whole package, and stop glossing over the missing details of your proposal
for "Danish socialism".
Their system does work for the Danes and has a lot to like about it - but you have to plug
in all the variables, so start by undoing the US welfare state plantation first and expect
everyone to be a maker; not a taker.
Then give everyone a bike to replace their cars, and only then can you start handing out
free health care - Danish style because their far more active lifestyle will define new
models for health care needs.
"... United Healthcare has revenues of nearly a quarter trillion dollars just by itself. It's better to focus on what is possible instead of what is noble ..."
Good luck getting rid of the private insurance companies, lobbies, lawyers, accountants, and other third party beneficiaries
of the private insurance market. United Healthcare has revenues of nearly a quarter trillion dollars just by itself. It's
better to focus on what is possible instead of what is noble .
It is the same reason we won't be able to end all the wars, and simplify the tax code in a meaningful way. Intuit (the maker
of TurboTax) is one of the largest supporters of complicating the forms and processes by which to file taxes.
The bottom line is that these are massive, structural changes that they would take constitutional amendments to fix since every
4-8 years some carpetbagger shows up seeking to undo what the other carpetbaggers did, and the only thing they do is create another
cottage industry regulated by an equally large bureaucracy.
If you want to champion anything, start with campaign finance reform since everything else is just noise.
Our current system already beggars most of us. Expensive yet insecure coverage that potentially bankrupts us all from surprise
billing. Incredible time-suck to protect yourself from such predatory practices. (Though it appears Medicare recipients are protected
from such price gouging.).
Employer-based coverage constrains job changes, and leaves people without coverage when they get laid off because of illness.
I see Medicare for All as enhancing liberty. Tying health care to your employer is kind of feudal. Take away the tax breaks at
least so the market is fair. I wouldn't mind paying premiums and copays, with monthly maximum, but wouldn't mind paying through
taxes either.
This was an outright declaration of "class war" against working-class voters by a
"university-credentialed overclass" -- "managerial elite" which changed sides and allied with
financial oligrchy. See "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite" by
Michael Lind
It looks like Bloomberg is finished. He just committed political suicide with his comments
about farmers and metal workers.
BTW Bloomberg's plan is highly hypocritical -- like is Bloomberg himself.
During the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" was
staged in the USA by "managerial elite" which like Soviet nomenklatura (which also staged a
neoliberal coup d'état) changed sides and betrayed the working class.
So those neoliberal scoundrels reversed the class compromise embodied in the New Deal.
The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the neoliberal managerial class and financial
oligarchy who got to power via the "Quiet Coup" was the global labor arbitrage in which
production is outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations.
So all those "improving education" plans are, to a large extent, the smoke screen over the
fact that the US workers now need to compete against highly qualified and lower cost
immigrant and outsourced workforce.
The fact is that it is very difficult to find for US graduates in STEM disciplines a
decent job, and this is by design.
Also, after the "Reagan neoliberal revolution" ( actually a coup d'état ), profits
were maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of the
immigrant workforce (the collapse of the USSR helped greatly ). They push down wages and
compete for jobs s with their domestic counterparts, including the recent graduates. So the
situation since 1991 was never too bright for STEM graduates.
By canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War
II, the neoliberal elite saws the seed of the current populist backlash. Many of the "soft
neoliberal" backbone of the Democratic Party (Clinton wing) were incapable of coming to terms
with Hillary Clinton's defeat -- the rejection of the establishment candidate by the US
population and first of all by the working class. The result has been the neo-McCarthyism
campaign and the attempt to derail Trump via color revolution spearheaded by Brennan-Obama
factions in CIA and FBI.
See also recently published "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial
Elite" by Michael Lind.
One of his quotes:
The American oligarchy spares no pains in promoting the belief that it does not exist,
but the success of its disappearing act depends on equally strenuous efforts on the part of
an American public anxious to believe in egalitarian fictions and unwilling to see what is
hidden in plain sight.
I refuse to show any interest in the so-called US presidential election.
If I have learned anything in 50 years of following politics, it is that it doesn't
matter.
It is purely an emotional sink for political energy and a very effective one.
Amarka ,
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying
that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities,
which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . .
and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." – Karl Rove
"Krugman's column, under the headline, "Bernie Sanders Isn't a Socialist," makes the correct
observation that "Bernie Sanders isn't actually a socialist in any normal sense of the term.
He doesn't want to nationalize our major industries and replace markets with central
planning," and suggests that Sanders would be better described as a European-style social
democrat."
That's a very telling comment, especially since $68 billion dollar Bloomberg entered the
race. Krugman is actually saying the US is an oligarchy run by plutocrats and Sanders has the
audacity to want to transform it into a socially democratic society.
To the ruling class democratically run elections are considered revolutionary.
For decades the super-wealthy have controlled the electoral process by: enacting
legislation like Citizens United; gerrymandering every state; tactically suppressing
minorities and the marginalized from voting; deploying lobbyists and representatives from
think tanks to inundate mainstream media news casting opinions without identifying whose
actually paying them, etc . Multinational corporations and the uber-wealthy are having a
grand time and it shows–three people in the US now own more wealth than the bottom 50%
of the entire population. In other words, three people possess more wealth than a 160
million.
For more than three years, centrist Democrats expressed outraged over "Putin the oligarch"
interfering in the 2016 election. Let's define oligarch–an oligarch is a very rich
business leader with a great deal of political influence (Bloomberg). And now let's define
oligarchy– a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or
institution. Well if that's the case, there's very little difference between the US and other
plutocratic nation-states. Isn't the Electoral College a striking example of this–a
politician can win the popular vote by millions and still lose the election.
Simply put, the will of the people does NOT matter. Seventy-five percent of the population
wants Medicare-for-All, but it's the billion dollar health insurance companies deciding this
issue. Ninety percent of the population wants to end the endless wars and spend tax dollars
on rebuilding the US infrastructure, ending homelessness, improving public schools, and
transforming the US into a 21st Century nation -- but that doesn't mean a thing if the arms
industry and all the ancillary war profiteers are making trillions.
An electoral democracy is the revolution the ruling class fears.
They know Sanders is not going to confiscate their property or nationalize every industry.
What they oppose is paying their fair share of taxes, regulations safeguarding the lives of
workers, a living wage for employees, ensuring excellent healthcare for everyone, ending
subsidies to industries destroying the planet, and taking money out of politics.
The goal is to create a civilized society where everyone can live a life of dignity. How
revolutionary is that!
So the big question is –can you convert a plutocracy into a democracy via the ballot
box. Many say no–the system is just too corrupt. However, Sanders supporters, more
diverse than the media wants you to think, are saying they want to give it one last shot
before our Titanic sinks .
Richard Le Sarc ,
You cannot have a 'democracy' in any meaningful sense, in a capitalist pathocracy. The USA is
the prime example. That generation after generation buy into this ludicrous exercise in
self-delusion is proof of the power of life-long brainwashing, and the smothering of any
meaningful dissent. The Obama debacle should have been the last straw, but it wasn't. Black
voters trooped out to support Clinton, their enemy for decades. Working class UK voters chose
five more years of brutal Tory class hatred and austerity.
Charlotte Russe ,
It may take a failed attempt by Sanders to obtain the nomination, or if it's miraculously
attained relentless thwarted attempts to achieve progress before hopefuls eventually see the
ballot box offers few solutions when the military/security/surveillance corporate state
reigns supreme. What other options besides taking to the streets does the younger generation
possess for metamorphosing the world out of its current mess?
Rhisiart Gwilym ,
If Trump truly believes that the US military is the very best, and invincible, then he's
really not in this world at all. The actual reality suggests unmistakably that it's a giant,
muscle-bound paper tiger, on its last legs; not even able to dare to strike back against Iran
when the Iranians missiled the main US military base in Iraq, with Pentagoon-terrifying
accuracy, and with still-undisclosed US military casualties of some kind.
The Iranians announced this as the first stroke in a campaign to drive the Anglozionist
empire out of the ME altogether, in revenge for the Soleimani murder; and the Az imperial
gics daren't escalate and hit back again, because they already know the devastation that Iran
can unleash on their ring of bases in the Gulf, against which attacks the US has no effective
defence. Equally ill-defended, by 'Iron Sieve', is the zio-cancer in Palestine. And the goons
won't even think about exposing their white-elephant carriers to the new missiles, which have
now brought the whole disastrously-costly and ultimately futile carrier battle group strategy
to complete obsolescence.
Nightmare on to the final collapse, Donald! Couldn't happen to a more deserving set of
schmucks than the gics who run the Az empire!
The US military is also, by many degrees, the biggest cause of pollution in the world.
Dear Greta, though, will never mention this.
You have stolen my future. I hate you for this
What was that old movie..? Village of the Damned .
michaelk ,
The United States has been involved in the Middle East for a very long time indeed. Close to
a century and its' involvement has only grown deeper and deeper over that period, especially
since WW2; when oil became so incredibly important strategically modern armies run on oil.
Almost seventy years ago the oil wealth of the Middle East was recognised as the single
biggest source of wealth on the planet by the Americans. Why then; as the US had/has vast oil
and gas reserves of its own and only got a tiny fraction of its energy surplies from the
Middle East, even today it gets far more from Venezuela than the entire Middle East, was it
so involved in the Middle East; today they even have huge armies sitting on the top the
reserves is the US so obssessed with the oil in the Middle East?
Because controling the oil and most importantly access to it, gives them enormous power
over the nations who are heavily reliant on Middle East oil, like India, China, Japan and
Western Europe. Control of the oil, to a lesser or greater degree, basically gives the US a
strong hand on the rest of the industrialised world and is great way to dicipline the
world.
Antonym ,
Trump and the US MIC are on parallel tracks for one big issue : US stock prices have
to go up no matter what, intertwined with the US dollar as the world's exclusive financial
vehicle. Both have become virtual commodities , the former by self buy backs and the
latter by QE xx.
Trump believes high stock prizes will get him reelected and the MIC want to make even more
money – the endless greed problem. The Wuhan virus could be enough to tip over the
global virtual finance card board set.
Oil and gas fields are their main physical assets , not just the American ones or
the(b) locked Canadian, but Venezuela's and Arab ones too.
The Russian and Iranian ones are out of reach, the Iraki ones are becoming hot potatoes.
Do US military fight abroad without paychecks? Robots do, but GIs won't.
At the end of this essay, you may find a song which reasonably applies to Donald Trump
directed to Democrats.
How does one say Adam Schiff without laughing? It's hard to continue typing while
contemplating the Burbank Buffoon. Yet AS is making obscene flatus-like noises about
impeachment 2.0. He and Nervous Nancy will conspire with chief strategist Gerald Nadler about
extending the charges of 1.0 to 2.0.
Second verse
Same as the first
Obstructing leaking by firing leakers. That's one of the pending charges. Leutnant Oberst
Vindman will be help up as the innocent victim of political retaliation. As I understand the
military code of conduct, it says that the underling, Herr Oberst Vindman, went outside the
chain of command and released classified information. In the military this is called
insubordination, perhaps gross insubordination in view of the classified nature of the
information.
Another charge to be filed on behalf of former Ambassador Yovanovich, is that her God-given
Female rights were brutally violated as retaliation of advising Ukrainian officials to
disregard Commander Cheeto.
There is no telling what additional non-crimes may be thrown at the feet at El Trumpo. All
too horrible to contemplate--like someone throwing feces-contaminated dope needles onto Nervous
Nancy's front lawn in Pacific Heights.
If this Shampeachment 2.0 (S2) occurs before November's election, Democrats will become as
rare as dodo birds. If such proponents of S2 persist after the general election, they better
have secure transportation to an extradition-free country.
If it gets bad enough, considering the Clinton Mafia's body count, would it be unreasonable
to expect some untimely heart attacks and suicides with red scarves? On Clintonites? Soros et
al.?
When the first shot and you don't kill the king, flee. But the DNC is going to attempt shot
number 2. Trump WILL NEVER ALLOW A SECOND IMPEACHMENT TO OCCUR, no matter how patently
worthless? Will the most powerful narcissist in the world allow the DNC / coup perpetrators to
escaping Trumpian retribution?
Those doubting the Wrath of Q be prepared to be disabused of the impression that Q is pure
fantasy. Fantasy--like GPS targeting a single small sniper drone to shoot someone from 3000
feet.
Sorry folks. I live in a swamp. I've stepped in shit with my eyes open. Many of you have
too. Some of the excrement was of my own making.
Think about the singularly most effective and complex plot the world has ever seen, called
9/11. Think of the thousands of lives purposefully snuffed in then name of power and money.
Call yourselves serfs--that's a euphemism. You--including me-- are nothing but ants. Goddam
little ants that only Janes respect. There are no ascetic Janes in the penthouses of the
elites.
But I digressed to the mysterious existence of morality in politics as a whole. Today's
topic is more confined to the Democratic nomination.
Statement of Bias: Go Tulsi. Bravo Andy. The rest of you to the elsewhere--yeah, BS too.
The Dems are determined to grasp Defeat from the jaws of Defeat. Quite a trick. Like trying
to borrow money from the Judge during a Bankruptcy trial.
I talked today with a freshman college student majoring in political science about her
thought about the Shampeachment. She hadn't been paying attention. Not that I blame her. Her
college freshman friend watched C-Span; wasn't impressed. We political aficionados know all
about this political debauchery. If AS and NN attempt S2, expect many defections from the
supporting vote.
Democrat respect has dwindled in the Independent sector. This is not to say the Repugnants
are thereby more popular. They aren't. Trump is. Trump need that NH clown to challenge him in
the Repugnant primary to prove exactly how powerful he is. Anybody notice who were in the
audience, sitting nearby during Trump's post acquittal speech. Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham.
The lamb and the lion laying together. They are both on the Trump Train. Even Richard Burr
voted Trump in the impeachment. Mittens feared both his cojones would be excised if he voted
against Trump on both counts. What a chickenheart.
But where are the Dems? Why, they are Here. Yes. Yes. And they are There. Yes. Yes. And they
are Near. Yes. Yes. But....they are Far. Whither thou goest?
I refrain from pointed comments about AOC in further comments. The Squad is the iceberg
floating away from the glacier which spawned it. Unsuitable to warm weather produced by
political combat, the Squad faction will woke themselves up to dubious futures.
Establishment versus Bernie:
Not a contest. Spineless Bernie pretzelizes during first heated combat (which the Dem Debate
Debacles were not). Won't take a second punch--the first during night 3 of the '16 DNC
convention. Fist-shy now. Open Borders? WTF? Are you so nuts? If one offered a person the
choice personal safety in their own homes and streets and free medical care for all--including
the criminal aliens that A New Path Forward proposes--what do you think 85% of the public would
choose?
Pandering.
The Left is also pushing strenuous avoidance of discussing issues in a platitude-depleted
fashion. Yeah, Bernie's giving the same speech, with suitable modification, over 40 years.
Consistency is a good thing, yeh? How about persistently beating your head with a hammer (while
you still can)? Sounds like something Sun Tzu might not recommend.
Now, speaking of Las Vegas and the Nevada Primary. The culinary workers union will not
endorse Bernie due to well-deserved or ill-deserved claims that M4A will abolish hard won union
health benefits. And don't worry, the Shadow will be there, although Buttjiggle has now
disavowed any further connection, along with David Plouffe.
Keeping the Bern off the campaign trail is going to infuriate the Woke Generation / Antifa.
When--not if--the DNC cheats Bernie out of the nomination, if such proves necessary* will
literally result in blood on the streets along with broken windows and flaming tires. Associate
with that lot, eh? Given the choice of going into a biker bar, where brawls are always on the
menu, or a discreet wine bar, which would one rather choose? Sorry, those are your only
choices.
Nancy Pelosi, impressed by Arnold Schwarzenegger's former physical prowess, tears up her
copy of the state of the union address. How decorous. How courteous. How polite. Seen around
the world. Nigel Farage must be laughing his butt off, thinking about the shallow anti-Brexit
campaigns against his were compared to our Coup. Nigel won. Trump . is. winning. Getting tired
of winning yet?
I could go on for pages more of Dem stupidity, but why bother? Stupidity surrounds us.
Betting odds: DNC 1,999,999 to Bernie 1.
Place your bets.
For all the good it will do and I am sincere about this, I will vote Tulsi in the Dem
primary.
Here is the song Dems need to heed. This is Donald Trump telling' y'all I'M NOT YOUR MAN
Much noise has been made about Trump being elected due to anti-establishment sentiment. While
certainly true, Trump's election is just one in a long line of seemingly anti-establishment
candidates elected, after which it's more or less "business as usual".
Clearly the establishment has long since caught on to the fact that "the masses" dislike
it, hence why they concentrate on the appearance of being anti-establishment.
Sadly, "the masses" get fooled time and time again. One can only marvel at how it keeps
happening.
At the end of this essay, you may find a song which reasonably applies to Donald Trump
directed to Democrats.
How does one say Adam Schiff without laughing? It's hard to continue typing while
contemplating the Burbank Buffoon. Yet AS is making obscene flatus-like noises about
impeachment 2.0. He and Nervous Nancy will conspire with chief strategist Gerald Nadler about
extending the charges of 1.0 to 2.0.
Second verse
Same as the first
Obstructing leaking by firing leakers. That's one of the pending charges. Leutnant Oberst
Vindman will be help up as the innocent victim of political retaliation. As I understand the
military code of conduct, it says that the underling, Herr Oberst Vindman, went outside the
chain of command and released classified information. In the military this is called
insubordination, perhaps gross insubordination in view of the classified nature of the
information.
Another charge to be filed on behalf of former Ambassador Yovanovich, is that her God-given
Female rights were brutally violated as retaliation of advising Ukrainian officials to
disregard Commander Cheeto.
There is no telling what additional non-crimes may be thrown at the feet at El Trumpo. All
too horrible to contemplate--like someone throwing feces-contaminated dope needles onto Nervous
Nancy's front lawn in Pacific Heights.
If this Shampeachment 2.0 (S2) occurs before November's election, Democrats will become as
rare as dodo birds. If such proponents of S2 persist after the general election, they better
have secure transportation to an extradition-free country.
If it gets bad enough, considering the Clinton Mafia's body count, would it be unreasonable
to expect some untimely heart attacks and suicides with red scarves? On Clintonites? Soros et
al.?
When the first shot and you don't kill the king, flee. But the DNC is going to attempt shot
number 2. Trump WILL NEVER ALLOW A SECOND IMPEACHMENT TO OCCUR, no matter how patently
worthless? Will the most powerful narcissist in the world allow the DNC / coup perpetrators to
escaping Trumpian retribution?
Those doubting the Wrath of Q be prepared to be disabused of the impression that Q is pure
fantasy. Fantasy--like GPS targeting a single small sniper drone to shoot someone from 3000
feet.
Sorry folks. I live in a swamp. I've stepped in shit with my eyes open. Many of you have
too. Some of the excrement was of my own making.
Think about the singularly most effective and complex plot the world has ever seen, called
9/11. Think of the thousands of lives purposefully snuffed in then name of power and money.
Call yourselves serfs--that's a euphemism. You--including me-- are nothing but ants. Goddam
little ants that only Janes respect. There are no ascetic Janes in the penthouses of the
elites.
But I digressed to the mysterious existence of morality in politics as a whole. Today's
topic is more confined to the Democratic nomination.
Statement of Bias: Go Tulsi. Bravo Andy. The rest of you to the elsewhere--yeah, BS too.
The Dems are determined to grasp Defeat from the jaws of Defeat. Quite a trick. Like trying
to borrow money from the Judge during a Bankruptcy trial.
I talked today with a freshman college student majoring in political science about her
thought about the Shampeachment. She hadn't been paying attention. Not that I blame her. Her
college freshman friend watched C-Span; wasn't impressed. We political aficionados know all
about this political debauchery. If AS and NN attempt S2, expect many defections from the
supporting vote.
Democrat respect has dwindled in the Independent sector. This is not to say the Repugnants
are thereby more popular. They aren't. Trump is. Trump need that NH clown to challenge him in
the Repugnant primary to prove exactly how powerful he is. Anybody notice who were in the
audience, sitting nearby during Trump's post acquittal speech. Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham.
The lamb and the lion laying together. They are both on the Trump Train. Even Richard Burr
voted Trump in the impeachment. Mittens feared both his cojones would be excised if he voted
against Trump on both counts. What a chickenheart.
But where are the Dems? Why, they are Here. Yes. Yes. And they are There. Yes. Yes. And they
are Near. Yes. Yes. But....they are Far. Whither thou goest?
I refrain from pointed comments about AOC in further comments. The Squad is the iceberg
floating away from the glacier which spawned it. Unsuitable to warm weather produced by
political combat, the Squad faction will woke themselves up to dubious futures.
Establishment versus Bernie:
Not a contest. Spineless Bernie pretzelizes during first heated combat (which the Dem Debate
Debacles were not). Won't take a second punch--the first during night 3 of the '16 DNC
convention. Fist-shy now. Open Borders? WTF? Are you so nuts? If one offered a person the
choice personal safety in their own homes and streets and free medical care for all--including
the criminal aliens that A New Path Forward proposes--what do you think 85% of the public would
choose?
Pandering.
The Left is also pushing strenuous avoidance of discussing issues in a platitude-depleted
fashion. Yeah, Bernie's giving the same speech, with suitable modification, over 40 years.
Consistency is a good thing, yeh? How about persistently beating your head with a hammer (while
you still can)? Sounds like something Sun Tzu might not recommend.
Now, speaking of Las Vegas and the Nevada Primary. The culinary workers union will not
endorse Bernie due to well-deserved or ill-deserved claims that M4A will abolish hard won union
health benefits. And don't worry, the Shadow will be there, although Buttjiggle has now
disavowed any further connection, along with David Plouffe.
Keeping the Bern off the campaign trail is going to infuriate the Woke Generation / Antifa.
When--not if--the DNC cheats Bernie out of the nomination, if such proves necessary* will
literally result in blood on the streets along with broken windows and flaming tires. Associate
with that lot, eh? Given the choice of going into a biker bar, where brawls are always on the
menu, or a discreet wine bar, which would one rather choose? Sorry, those are your only
choices.
Nancy Pelosi, impressed by Arnold Schwarzenegger's former physical prowess, tears up her
copy of the state of the union address. How decorous. How courteous. How polite. Seen around
the world. Nigel Farage must be laughing his butt off, thinking about the shallow anti-Brexit
campaigns against his were compared to our Coup. Nigel won. Trump . is. winning. Getting tired
of winning yet?
I could go on for pages more of Dem stupidity, but why bother? Stupidity surrounds us.
Betting odds: DNC 1,999,999 to Bernie 1.
Place your bets.
For all the good it will do and I am sincere about this, I will vote Tulsi in the Dem
primary.
Here is the song Dems need to heed. This is Donald Trump telling' y'all I'M NOT YOUR MAN
Here's another view: Zionist Bloomberg and Zionist Biden and Zionist Buttigieg and Zionist
Klubachar and Zionist Warren and Zionist Sanders competing to race against Zionist Trump. I
think I know who the winners and losers are already.
The surge of popular support for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, now the clear front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination,
has touched off frantic retaliation by the Democratic Party establishment and the corporate media.
While Sanders himself is a known quantity in capitalist politics, with a 30-year career as a loyal supporter of the Democratic
Party and American imperialism, there is consternation in the ruling class over the shift to the left among workers and young people
that underlies the strength of his campaign.
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders arrives to speak to supporters at a primary night election rally in Manchester,
N.H., Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2020 [Credit: AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais]
Sanders won the most votes in both the February 3 Iowa caucuses and the February 11 New Hampshire primary. He has taken a wide
lead in polls of prospective Democratic primary voters both nationally and in many of the states scheduled to vote over the next
month, which will select two-thirds of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
A Morning Consult poll published Thursday found Sanders with a double-digit lead among likely Democratic voters nationwide. Sanders
was at 29 percent, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden at 19 percent and the billionaire former mayor of New York City, Michael
Bloomberg, at 18 percent. Former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who finished second in both Iowa and New Hampshire, was
in fourth place nationally at 11 percent. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts was at 10 percent, while Senator Amy Klobuchar
of Minnesota was at 5 percent.
The support for Sanders reflects shifts to the left in the working class and among young people. Exit polls in New Hampshire showed
Sanders leading by a wide margin among working-class voters, both those with incomes below $50,000 a year, and those without a college
education. He had 51 percent support among young people under 30, compared to 4 percent each for Klobuchar and Biden.
Nationally, half of US college students support Sanders, according to a poll from Chegg/College Pulse, which surveyed 1,500 full
and part-time students attending both four-year and two-year colleges. The students named climate change and income inequality as
their top issues. Warren came far back in second at 18 percent.
The widening support for Sanders, along with the apparent demise of Biden's campaign, after a fourth-place finish in Iowa and
fifth place in New Hampshire, has provoked angry denunciations of the Vermont senator from the Democratic Party establishment and
the corporate media.
The Biden campaign led the way, with its campaign co-chairman, Representative Cedric Richmond of Louisiana, telling a conference
call with reporters that there would be "down-ballot carnage" for the Democrats if Sanders won the nomination. "If Bernie Sanders
were atop of the ticket, we would be in jeopardy of losing the House, we would not win the Senate back," he said.
Two right-wing Democrats in the Senate openly denounced Sanders for his claim to be a democratic socialist. Senator Doug Jones
of Alabama said, "I don't agree with the socialism label." Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia said, "If Bernie ends up being one
of these frontrunners, he'll have to moderate. I'm not going socialist. Never been a socialist."
Campaign consultant James Carville, a fixture in Democratic politics for three decades, was more vituperative, making repeated
television appearances this week to denounce Sanders as an easy target for the Republican right, and at one point directly echoing
Trump in calling Sanders a "communist."
The corporate media was filled with anti-Sanders commentary, ranging from laments (Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times
), to cynical sneers (Paul Krugman in the Times ) to outright denunciations (Chuck Todd on MSNBC).
Krugman's column, under the headline, "Bernie Sanders Isn't a Socialist," makes the correct observation that "Bernie Sanders isn't
actually a socialist in any normal sense of the term. He doesn't want to nationalize our major industries and replace markets with
central planning," and suggests that Sanders would be better described as a European-style social democrat.
The column goes on to echo the warnings of the Democratic establishment that if Sanders is nominated, Trump would win an easy
victory, concluding "I do wish that Sanders weren't so determined to make himself an easy target for right-wing smears." Krugman
says nothing about the fact that the "right-wing smears" have already begun from the Democrats.
As for Todd, during MSNBC's coverage of the New Hampshire primary Tuesday, he quoted from a diatribe against Sanders by Jonathan
Last of Bulwark , who wrote: "No other candidate has anything like this digital brownshirt brigade. I mean, except for Donald
Trump. The question no one is asking is this, what if you can't win the presidency without an online mob?"
This comparison of supporters of Sanders -- who is Jewish -- with the fascist thugs of Hitler and Mussolini is typical of the
smear tactics by the corporate media against anyone who criticizes the super-rich. Todd's commentary was reposted by the Sanders
campaign, where it was viewed nearly a million times, no doubt adding to Sanders' support.
The consternation over Sanders' rise in the polls has already led to calls for the consolidation of the "moderate" (i.e., openly
right-wing) forces in the Democratic Party against him. A focal point of these appeals is billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who entered
the race for the nomination in November and will be on the ballot for the first time in the March 3 Super Tuesday states.
Bloomberg has poured $100 million into advertising just in those 14 states, a major part of the $300 million he has already invested
in winning the Democratic nomination. His campaign has rolled out endorsements from congressmen and local government officials, particularly
mayors of cities where Bloomberg has long used his gargantuan fortune to buy influence.
Rather than risk a four-way split among Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Klobuchar, to Sanders' advantage, there have been multiple
suggestions in the media of various combinations -- a Bloomberg-Klobuchar tie-up, for example.
More likely than an open alliance is a splintering of the delegates among five or six candidates, that would preclude any one
candidate gaining an absolute majority, leading to a brokered convention in which the various right-wing candidates would combine
to block a Sanders' nomination.
Sanders directly addressed this possibility in an appearance on MSNBC. "The convention would have to explain to the American people,
'Hey, candidate X got the most votes and won the most delegates at the primary process, but we're not going to give him or her the
nomination,'" he told host Chris Hayes. "I think that would be a divisive moment for the Democratic Party."
While his opponents are implacably determined to prevent his nomination, Sanders himself has repeatedly reiterated his determination
to support whoever the convention chooses and oppose at all costs any break by his supporters from the Democratic Party.
At his campaign rallies, Sanders makes a rhetorical appeal to opposition to social inequality and war. However, he is also making
a case to the political establishment that he can be trusted to defend the interests of the ruling class.
In a recent interview with the New
York Times , Sanders said that he would consider using military force in a preemptive war against Iran or North Korea. He also
fully endorsed the anti-Russia campaign of the Democratic Party, agreeing that it should be considered "an adversary, or even an
enemy" if it continues on its current course in Ukraine.
With both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary behind us, one thing is abundantly clear: the establishment still
cannot stomach a Bernie Sanders nomination. Writing in Rolling Stone,
Matt Taibbi points out
how corporate media fell all over itself on Wednesday to undercut the Vermont senator's win in New Hampshire,
just as it fabricated Pete Buttigieg's victory in Iowa
just a week ago.
Establishment Democrats are throwing everything -- and everyone–they've got into the primary race to stop
or at least slow the Vermont senator's ascendance. Ironically, it is precisely this eagerness to nominate
anybody but Sanders that is leading Democrats into the same trap Republicans fell into in 2016. From
Taibbi's latest column:
Four years ago, after New Hampshire, it was crystal clear that Donald Trump was not only going to
win his party's nomination, but that his path was being actively cleared by the Republican Party
establishment and the national news media, whose half-baked efforts to stop him were working in
reverse. I wrote this
in
February 2016
:
The [Republicans] sent forth to take on Trump have been so incompetent, they can't even lose
properly. One GOP strategist put it this way: "Maybe 34 [percent] is Trump's ceiling. But 34 in a
five-person race wins " The numbers simply don't work, unless the field unexpectedly narrows before
March.
Early mixed results guaranteed that Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio would not drop
out soon enough to give any of the others a chance. As a result, the following was obvious at this
time four years ago: "Trump will probably enjoy at least a five-horse race through Super Tuesday."
In hindsight, those Republican challengers were so villainously terrible that none would have
beaten Trump in a two-person race. Still, Bush's backers knew their man was roadkill by New Hampshire,
yet didn't pull the plug. Kasich, who in a rare moment of self-awareness was ready to bail after Iowa
("If we get smoked up there, I'm going back to Ohio," he fumed in New Hampshire), let himself be
fooled by one surprise second-place finish.
All pledged to be committed to stopping Trump but accelerated his victory by staying in too long.
Popular disgust was also enhanced by delusional news-media hype surrounding a succession of would-be
"real" candidates.
All of this is happening all over again, only this time it's Democrats who are committing
ritualistic self-abuse, seemingly in a conspiracy with one another and the news media to push as many
votes as possible to a hated outsider.
The journalist goes on to list the many ways Republicans paved the path for Donald Trump to become the
Republican nominee four years ago, comparing how the media gushed over Pete Buttigieg to the rapturous
reporting of Marco Rubio's short-lived "Marcomentum" after Iowa. These outlets are even regurgitating the
same awful puns. ("Petementum"? "
Klomentum"?
Who comes up with these?)
"These constant mercurial shifts in 'momentum' -- it's Pete! It's Amy! Paging Mike Bloomberg!," writes
Taibbi, "have eroded the kingmaking power of the Democratic leadership. They are eating the party from
within, and seem poised to continue doing so."
Taibbi admits that "no one could have predicted that even the idiosyncratic particulars of the 2016
and 2020 races would be so alike." But unlike the electoral nightmare of 2016, this particular horse race
won't end with the "horrifying" nomination of a neo-nazi sympathizer. And if Sanders becomes the
Democratic nominee and bests Trump --
as
most polls predict he will
-- the U.S. will have elected a democratic socialist who can deliver "a
future to believe in," as Sanders' campaign slogan goes.
As for the Berniecrats, Taibbi advises them to simply keep asking themselves, "Are you bought off, or
not?" and hang tight while their man crosses the finish line, much to the dismay of an increasingly inept
establishment.
Bernie didn't win in '16. Rigging certainly but he had no nationwide general electoral
opportunity to enter the WH. Instead, the Berniecrat progressive fire has continued burning
slowly and steadily. Progressivism, in its various flavors, is now THE ascendant movement of
the Left. It grew slowly, steadily. This is the comparison which is relevant to Tulsi's
candidacy. Barring a miracle, Tulsi will not be the Dem nominee in November facing off El
Trumpo. But she has lit a fire under hundreds of thousands which will continue to spread due to
the gentle breezes of her campaign speeches. Perhaps 2024 is her year. If not, 2028 could
realistically be the date she becomes POTUS.
My previous essay, It's the
economy, was negative. Negative if one believes there is even a remote chance Saint Bernie
gets to run against Trump. Yes, he, like the rest of the D's is running against Trump but what
are the plans? Open Borders? Medicare for Illegal aliens? Bernie's got other proposals,
meritorious ones deserving of support. But too much baggage. He is collecting baggage as
adroitly as Liz Warren. Look what that's done to her campaign.
Kind-hearted Bernie is taking up survivors from the Warren life rafts, many of whom are
armed with rubber penetrating pins.
Tulsi does not genuflect.
The same type of integrity-diminishing stances Liawatha has adopted, are now afflicting
Saint Bernie. Pandering on open borders. Retreating before Culinary Union attacks without
personally facing it down NOW--NOW when it counts.
The last man standing will be a woman. The rest are craven characatures of sincere humans,
so phony that even a blind monkey could detect.
Who did Warren Harding defeat for President? Don't look it up--people don't remember losers.
In 20 years, H. Rodent Clinton will be merely a bad dream, to be recalled in memory only by
those interested in calamity.
Bernie started a movement. But, like Moses, he will never enter
the Promised Land. His name will be remembered by even his opponents as someone who began
steering the ship of state into better waters. But his portrait will not hang in the WH.
She is not running for re-election. At the time of the next presidential election, she
will be a private citizen.
She will have less leverage for endorsement of her colleagues than she does now.
For all we know, in 2 or 3 years, she may be out of the political realm completely.
I concede she is the type of person, or the sort of person that would take us forward, but
she has little in the way of base right now, and will have an unknown base in a few
years.
Bernie, no matter how I despise his foreign policy, is the poll leader, is a half-assed
socialist, might actually improve/save lives of the working class and poor, and he is the
start of a left swing we need now. Tulsi or some young leftie can knock it out of the park if
we can just show people that social programs work, and work extremely well.
"The 2022 Hawaii gubernatorial election will take place on November 8, 2022, to elect the
Governor of Hawaii. Incumbent Democratic Governor David Ige is term-limited and cannot seek
re-election to a third term."
But why would she give up her seat in congress for being governor? She sees things in
Hawaii she wants to fix or being governor is a better shot at being president? I admit that I
don't know much about her congressional record. I just don't understand why people feel so
strongly against her. Once upon a time they wanted the wars to stop. Now they are hung ho for
warring with Russia through Ukraine.
"The 2022 Hawaii gubernatorial election will take place on November 8, 2022, to elect
the Governor of Hawaii. Incumbent Democratic Governor David Ige is term-limited and
cannot seek re-election to a third term."
Don't get me wrong, there is much I like about Tulsi, but establishment democrats hate
her, more than they hate Bernie. She openly defied them and quit the DNC on Bernie's behalf,
and help bring down Debbie what-her-name as chairperson for the DNC.
Hill.TV host Krystal
Ball said Sen. Elizabeth Warren 's (D-Mass.) "campaign was
lost long before this election cycle."
Ball pointed to Warren's "decision not to run in 2016 - she sat out the most critical
election of our lifetime even though she knew better than I did the flaws of Hillary Clinton " Ball then slammed
Warren's decision to not endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in 2016 noting "when her
supposed friend and ally Bernie Sanders, who allegedly shares her politics and was fighting for
the same values she had staked her career on got into the race and started sky-rocketing in the
polls challenging Hillary for the lead, rather than making the movement choice and backing the
progressive, she sat it out."
Ball claims Warren's "attempts to co-opt revolutionary rhetoric in service of an
establishment campaign, like Disney doing socialism, satisfied no one and left her unable to
win more than 1 county and Iowa and an embarrassing distant fourth behind Klobuchar in New
Hampshire."
Click on the video above to catch Ball's full remarks.
Writing in Tulsi would probably be more a politically correct statement. She is a talented
politician, a rare American gem. She speaks truth unlike the coward and lifelong conman
Bonespurs
Tulsi is the new JFK. But seems America is not ready for decent honest politian with ideals
and aspirations. She think America is capable of greatness. I doubt it. But I will write
her name in if thats what it takes. For what its worth.
"... Bloomberg is not going to get people to vote in large enough numbers to be a contender, he had zero write-in votes in NH. So he is about running to gain support just enough to force a second vote in order to for superdelegates to over turn the will of the people for Bernie at the convention. ..."
Bloomberg is not going to get people to vote in large enough numbers to be a contender, he
had zero write-in votes in NH. So he is about running to gain support just enough to force
a second vote in order to for superdelegates to over turn the will of the people for Bernie
at the convention.
Some people want Tulsi to drop out and endorse Bernie, like Kyle Kulinski, but those
people are not thinking right because they act as if Bernie is not a VERY OLD man who has had
health issues recently. If Tulsi drops out and endorses Bernie and then Bernie a few months
from now has health issues which force him out---THEN WHAT KYLE? You want Warren who is a
proven con artist and neocon?
"... Your Sanders is as much of a warmonger as Bush, Clinton, the Clinton harpy, ... He is a Zionist, continues to be a Zionist, only not the same party as Netanyahoo. He is not running to win anything but the badge of true and faithful servant of the Imperial owners ... ..."
The link at 27 is really something. Talking to the NYT, Sanders doesn't even pretend to be
anything but a hard-core imperialist war-monger indistinguishable from Biden or Hillary
herself. How does he think he benefits from that? Stupid as Corbyn.
was hoping that circe might have something to say about the WSWS article referenced above.
Personally, I'm not much interested in the internal workings of the Dummycrat Wurlitzer
Dazzlemachine. Like the incessant use of Shakycam in TV and movies, it just gives me a
headache and a queasy feeling.
Someone asked, "What is to be done?"
Posters keep saying, "Build an independent movement."
But that is hard uncertain work with no predetermined outline to follow, so that idea is not
very attractive.
Trailer Trash should consider the context, in particular the only longer answer in the
questionary of NYT:
Bernie's first priority is to protect the American people. Military force is sometimes
necessary, but always -- always -- as the last resort. And blustery threats of force can
often signal weakness as much as strength, diminishing U.S. deterrence, credibility and
security in the process. When Bernie is president, we will ensure that the United States
pursues diplomacy over militarism to bring about peaceful, negotiated resolutions to
conflicts around the world. If military force is necessary, Bernie will make sure he acts
with appropriate congressional authorization, and only when he has determined that the
benefits of military action outweigh the risks and costs.Trailer
"Yes" for "considering military response to planned missile/nuclear test" does not mean
much with a very deliberate process described in the first answer. Practically, such
responses/preemeptions were considered before and rejected.
Piero Colombo | Feb 15 2020 23:59 utc | 89
Circe @59
Your Sanders is as much of a warmonger as Bush, Clinton, the Clinton harpy, ...
He is a Zionist, continues to be a Zionist, only not the same party as Netanyahoo. He is not running to win anything but the badge of true and faithful servant of the
Imperial owners ...
All this is a matter of uncontroversial record of facts and you are part of the propaganda
operation. If willingly or not is irrelevant.
Bernie Sanders has won the popular vote in both the New Hampshire and Iowa presidential
primary contests in considerable part by presenting himself as an opponent of war. Following
the criminal assassination of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani last month, Sanders was the most
vocal of the Democratic presidential aspirants in criticizing Trump's action. His poll numbers
have risen in tandem with his stepped-up anti-war rhetoric.
He has repeatedly stressed his vote against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, reminding voters in
the Iowa presidential debate last month, "I not only voted against that war, I helped lead the
effort against that war."
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders speaks to
supporters in Des Moines, Iowa, February 3, 2020 [Credit: AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais]
However, when speaking to the foremost newspaper of the American ruling class, the New
York Times , the Sanders campaign adopts a very different tone than that employed by the
candidate when addressing the public in campaign stump speeches or TV interviews.
The answers
provided by Sanders' campaign to a foreign policy survey of the Democratic presidential
candidates published this month by the Times provides a very different picture of the
attitude of the self-styled "democratic socialist" to American imperialism and war. In the
course of the survey, the Sanders campaign is at pains to reassure the military/intelligence
establishment and the financial elite of the senator's loyalty to US imperialism and his
readiness to deploy its military machine.
Perhaps most significant and chilling is the response to the third question in the
Times ' survey.
Question: Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear
or missile test?
Answer: Yes.
A Sanders White House, according to his campaign, would be open to launching a military
strike against Iran or nuclear-armed North Korea to prevent (not respond to) not even a
threatened missile or nuclear strike against the United States, but a mere weapons test. This
is a breathtakingly reckless position no less incendiary than those advanced by the Trump
administration.
Sanders would risk a war that could easily involve the major powers and lead to a nuclear
Armageddon in order to block a weapons test by countries that have been subjected to
devastating US sanctions and diplomatic, economic and military provocations for decades.
Moreover, as Sanders' response to the Times makes clear, the so-called progressive,
anti-war candidate fully subscribes to the doctrine of "preemptive war" declared to be official
US policy in 2002 by the administration of George W. Bush. An illegal assertion of aggressive
war as an instrument of foreign policy, this doctrine violates the principles laid down at the
Nuremberg Trials of Nazi officials after World War II, the United Nations charter and other
international laws and conventions on war. Sanders' embrace of the doctrine, following in the
footsteps of the Obama administration, shows that his opposition to the Iraq war was purely a
question of tactics, not a principled opposition to imperialist war.
The above question is preceded by another that evokes a response fully in line with the war
policies of the Obama administration, the first two-term administration in US history to
preside over uninterrupted war.
Question: Would you consider military force for a humanitarian intervention?
Answer: Yes.
Among the criminal wars carried out by the United States in the name of defending "human
rights" are the war in Bosnia and the bombing of Serbia in the 1990s, the 2011 air war against
Libya that ended with the lynching of deposed ruler Muammar Gaddafi, and the civil war in Syria
that was fomented by Washington and conducted by its Al Qaeda-linked proxy militias.
The fraudulent humanitarian pretexts for US aggression were no more legitimate than the lie
of "weapons of mass destruction" used in the neo-colonial invasion of Iraq. The result of these
war crimes has been the destruction of entire societies, the death of millions and dislocation
of tens of millions more, along with the transformation of the Middle East into a cauldron of
great power intervention and intrigue that threatens to erupt into a new world war.
Sanders fully subscribes to this doctrine of "humanitarian war" that has been particularly
associated with Democratic administrations.
In response to a question from the Times on the assassination of Suleimani, the
Sanders campaign calls Trump's action illegal, but refuses to take a principled stand against
targeted assassinations in general and associates itself with the attacks on Suleimani as a
terrorist.
The reply states:
Clearly there is evidence that Suleimani was involved in acts of terror. He also supported
attacks on US troops in Iraq. But the right question isn't 'was this a bad guy,' but rather
'does assassinating him make Americans safer?' The answer is clearly no.
In other words, the extra-judicial killing of people by the US government is justified if it
makes Americans "safer." This is a tacit endorsement of the policy of drone assassinations that
was vastly expanded under the Obama administration -- a policy that included the murder of US
citizens.
At another point, the Times asks:
Would you agree to begin withdrawing American troops from the Korean peninsula?
The reply is:
No, not immediately. We would work closely with our South Korean partners to move toward
peace on the Korean peninsula, which is the only way we will ultimately deal with the North
Korean nuclear issue.
Sanders thus supports the continued presence of tens of thousands of US troops on the Korean
peninsula, just as he supports the deployment of US forces more generally to assert the global
interests of the American ruling class.
On Israel, Sanders calls for a continuation of the current level of US military and civilian
aid and opposes the immediate return of the US embassy from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv.
On Russia, he entirely supports the Democratic Party's McCarthyite anti-Russia campaign and
lines up behind the right-wing basis of the Democrats' failed impeachment drive against
Trump:
Question: If Russia continues on its current course in Ukraine and other former Soviet
states, should the United States regard it as an adversary, or even an enemy?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Should Russia be required to return Crimea to Ukraine before it is allowed back
into the G-7?
Answer: Yes.
Finally, the Times asks the Sanders campaign its position on the National Security
Strategy announced by the Trump administration at the beginning of 2018. The new doctrine
declares that the focus of American foreign and military strategy has shifted from the "war on
terror" to the preparation for war against its major rivals, naming in particular Russia and
China.
In the following exchange, Sanders tacitly accepts the great power conflict framework of the
National Security Strategy, attacking Trump from the right for failing to aggressively
prosecute the conflict with Russia and China:
Question: President Trump's national security strategy calls for shifting the focus of
American foreign policy away from the Middle East and Afghanistan, and back to what it refers
to as the 'revisionist' superpowers, Russia and China. Do you agree? Why or why not?
Answer: Despite its stated strategy, the Trump administration has never followed a
coherent national security strategy. In fact, Trump has escalated tensions in the Middle East
and put us on the brink of war with Iran, refused to hold Russia accountable for its
interference in our elections and human rights abuses, has done nothing to address our unfair
trade agreement with China that only benefits wealthy corporations, and has ignored China's
mass internment of Uighurs and its brutal repression of protesters in Hong Kong. Clearly,
Trump is not a president we should be taking notes from. [Emphasis added].
In a recent interview Ro Khanna, a Democratic congressman and national co-chair of the
Sanders campaign, assured Atlantic writer Uri Friedman that Sanders would continue
provocative "freedom of the seas" navigation operations in the Persian Gulf and the South China
Sea, while committing a Sanders administration to "maintain some [troop] presence" on the
multitude of bases dotting "allied" countries from Japan to Germany.
Millions of workers, students and young people are presently attracted to Sanders because
they have come to despise and oppose the vast social inequality, brutality and militarism of
American society and correctly associate these evils with capitalism. However, they will soon
learn through bitter experience that Sanders's opposition to the "billionaire class" is no more
real than his supposed opposition to war. His foreign policy is imperialist through and
through, in line with the aggressive and militaristic policy of the Democratic Party and the
Obama administration.
The Democrats' differences with Trump on foreign policy, though bitter, are tactical. Both
parties share the strategic orientation of asserting US global hegemony above all through force
of arms.
No matter how much Sanders blusters about inequality, it is impossible to oppose the
depredations of the ruling class at home while supporting its plunder and oppression
abroad.
Sanders is no more an apostle of peace than he is a representative of the working class.
Both in foreign and domestic policy, he is an instrument of the ruling class for channeling the
growing movement of the working class and opposition to capitalism back behind the Democratic
Party and the two-party system of capitalist rule in America.
Hillary was asked specifically about the movement of arms from Libya to Syria during
congressional inquiry and she claimed to know nothing of such activities. Lied to congress,
yet still walking around free.
Swallwell is a liar just like the rest of em. He says they don't wake up in the morning
wanting to Impeach him, BS they have wanted to Impeach him since before he was
president....
Here's another view: Zionist Bloomberg and Zionist Biden and Zionist Buttigieg and Zionist
Klubachar and Zionist Warren and Zionist Sanders competing to race against Zionist Trump. I
think I know who the winners and losers are already.
You would not ever have seen this on Fox at the last election. Best high voltage spit by
Jimmy Dore I have seen.
Tucker shows a great smirk especially when Jimmy dumps on Guaido.
> five minutes of mirth
>Posted by: uncle tungsten | Feb 13 2020 4:10 utc | 114
Definitely worth five minutes to watch Jimmy Dore on FOX plainly stating the US is a
one-party system. ON FOX NEWS TV! Never thought to see the day when I had anything good to
say about FOX.
The 2020 presidential race was always going to be an uphill battle for Elizabeth
Warren.
Almost from the get-go, political pundits fretted about Warren's electability, setting in
motion a self-fulfilling prophecy now reflected in the
New Hampshire primary results . Warren's disappointing showing on Tuesday comes on the
heels of a stirring debate performance and a strong third place finish in the Iowa caucuses
-- two wins largely ignored by mainstream media commentators, who focused almost entirely on
Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg, with a spare thought for Amy Klobuchar's rise and Joe
Biden's descent.
Defeating Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election is priority number one for the
Democratic establishment, and a moderate candidate with the potential to sway swing voters
and Republican defectors has long been billed as the wisest course. But by constructing a
dichotomy between the self-described revolutionary leader Sanders and the aggressively
non-threatening trifecta of moderate candidates (not to mention Bloomberg, who is suddenly
the darling of cable news), the networks and pundits with the greatest persuasive power have
ignored and undercut Warren's unique potential to unite the progressive left and hesitant
center.
Warren seems to have unfairly inherited some of the hallmarks of Hillary Clinton's
reputation. Clinton's devastating 2016 upset sparked practical questions as to whether a
woman could win the presidency at all. And Warren's false claim to Native American heritage
sealed a reputation for untrustworthiness that has stuck long after that conversation faded
away. If Clinton, with all of her name recognition and experience, couldn't win against
Trump, what hope could there be for the woman widely considered her successor?
Warren's progressive policies and folksy demeanor also framed her for many as a sort of
second-tier Sanders, not far enough left for the progressives and too far left for gun-shy
moderates. But it is precisely this position that makes her the most electable
candidate.
Warren and Sanders are mostly aligned on their signature issues, but how they present
these issues is entirely different, as are their proposed paths to achieve them. Sanders does
not shy away from the word "socialist." He declares outright that his Medicare-for-All plan
will raise taxes. He says billionaires should not exist. These declarations and convictions
are brave and they are admirable. But they also inspire commentators like
Chris Matthews to worry on-air that a Sanders administration will begin executing the
wealthy in Central Park, French revolution style.
Warren takes a more measured approach in selling her policies, focusing on how she'll
achieve them rather than the eventual outcome. She doesn't say billionaires should not exist,
she proposes a wealth tax. Warren doesn't say "socialist," choosing instead to present the
economic and social advantages to her plans without the label. The other key difference
between Sanders and Warren is that, while Sanders has identified as far left for his entire
political career,
Warren was a committed Republican long before she became a progressive Democrat. As other
commentators have noted , this
history might not earn her many points with committed leftists, but it does put her in a
unique position to appeal to the moderates and Republicans that candidates like Buttigieg and
Klobuchar are trying to court. After all, she used to be one of them. And perhaps most
importantly,
polls continue to show Warren performing just as well as those candidates, if not better,
in hypothetical general election matchups against Trump.
Yet the mainstream media seems determined to undermine her viability.
Sanders and Buttigieg finished neck and neck in the Iowa Caucuses (whose dubious import is
a conversation for another day), with Warren close behind in third. As the dust around the
disastrous vote-counting began to settle, the media centered the conversation on Sanders,
Buttigieg, and Biden. For example, this headline from The Washington Post reads: "Buttigieg and Sanders take lead, Biden fades in
partial results from marred Iowa caucuses," ignoring Warren's close third place finish
entirely in favor of Biden's fourth.
During Friday's Democratic debate, many critics noted the
relatively short speaking time given to Warren in comparison with her white male
competitors. Afterwards, coverage again focused on Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Biden, and Sanders,
despite Warren having the highlight of the night, when she responded to
Buttigieg's embarrassing stumble on a question about race.
He's just a stupid old man with an entitlement arrogance, so just like Clinton but male,
Pelosi and so many others being the exact same and this is on both sides of the coin.
Militarism is destroying the USA economy and well-being of the population.
Notable quotes:
"... Candidate Trump said he was for a restoration of Glass-Steagal banking laws and he'd be wise to move on that before a 2008 style collapse hits again. ..."
"... Hillary is the single most prominent example of a class of Democratic apparatchiks who make an excellent living (mis)representing the interests of working Americans and shaking down corporate America using their political clout. It is a matter of shame for America that in her and her husbands careers in "public service" they have amassed a $150mn fortune. ..."
2. The young people who favor policies like "Medicare for all" are ignorant of economics and do not grasp the fact that they would
end by paying a great deal of taxes for that policy.
... ... ...
3. Democratic Party policy toward Trump is designed to prevent him governing.
4. The Democrats are seeking a new issue (anything will do) over which to impeach Trump again.
... ... ...
6. Trump's foreign policy in the ME is ignorant of anything but Zionist desires and ambitions.
7. In any deal with the Taliban the present Afghan government will inevitably be defeated and destroyed in the aftermath.
8. US ground forces are too large. We should adopt a foreign policy that will permit the maintenance of smaller ground forces.
9. Hillary has been behind much of the political devilment in the last three years and is scheming and hoping for a deadlocked
convention in which she will be nominated by acclamation.
10. Trump will wisely offer Tulsi Gabbard a job in his next administration. pl div
All good except #6 precludes #10, unless it was a bad faith offer.
I don't think the ZioCons will tolerate Trump offering Gabbard anything, even if he could ever get over her accurately describing
him as the Saudis' bitch.
Trump is very astute. He gets it. Bloomberg is going to buy the nomination with the full backing of the Deep State/Wall St
wing.
Mini Mike is a 5'4" mass of dead energy who does not want to be on the debate stage with these professional politicians. No
boxes please. He hates Crazy Bernie and will, with enough money, possibly stop him. Bernie's people will go nuts!
6-8 You are so correct. The question is: how will this affect our national interest over the next 5-10 years? Will it matter to
us?
I don't know and can't visualize the consequences very well. I assume the Muslim world will be arrayed against us for the foreseeable
future. How dangerous is that to our own safety?
With the fed now pumping upwards to 120 billion a day in the repo overnight loans market to keep the biggest banks solvent, I
wouldn't be so confident about the health of the economy.
Candidate Trump said he was for a restoration of Glass-Steagal banking laws and he'd be wise to move on that before a 2008
style collapse hits again.
Trumps emphasis on a blue collar boom and an NASA moon landing will be how the US economy remains strong not bailing out too
big to fail Wall Street bank.
Re point 2. We are already paying for health insurance. At least I am. It costs me $26k per year to health insure my family.
All other countries with socialize healthcare systems spend a lower proportion of their GDP on healthcare and almost all have
better health outcomes for their populations. The proportion less can be as much as half the percentage of GDP the US spends on
healthcare.
Taxes may well go up. Healthcare costs will go down for most people. And for those whose healthcare is paid by their employers,
the costs to the employers would go down too, meaning that wages could go up to offset (or more than offset) the additional taxes.
Sir;
I have been advocating point #9 for a year now. Few understand the monstrous ambition contained by HRH HRC. (Her Royal Highness
Hillary Rodham Clinton.)
The Clinton foundation basically took over the Democrat National Committee, (an avowedly private organization,) in 2016.
One does not generally purchase a new toy without wanting to play with it. Clinton's 'toy' is the DNC. What is the primary
purpose of the DNC? To run a political party. The primary functions of a political party, at least today's versions of political
parties, are to secure power for the leadership of the party and 'compensation' for the efforts of the nomenklaturas.
The economy is bad for most of the young and some of the old. This can be inferred by the rise in 2nd and 3rd jobs among the workforce.
2 I have already addressed.
I think points 3 and 4 are obviously true. Im not sure if it is the Dems leading the charge or the neocons. But a group is
attempting to block Trumps efforts to govern.
I am a Sanders supporter. I believe that 5 is partially correct. Sanders wishes to remove the free market operating in certain
key areas - most obviously Healthcare. I do not think you are right about Warren. I think she is seeking progressive votes, but
has no intention of delivering.
I think 6 is obviously true, although I also think Trumps instinct lead him to wish to withdraw troops. He is no match for
the "Borg".
7 is also clearly true.
8 is also clearly true.
9. I would modify this. Hillary is the single most prominent example of a class of Democratic apparatchiks who make an
excellent living (mis)representing the interests of working Americans and shaking down corporate America using their political
clout. It is a matter of shame for America that in her and her husbands careers in "public service" they have amassed a $150mn
fortune.
While I once read Michael Scheuer's blog for his wisdom on his areas of specialty (some examples of that wisdom concerning Afghanistan,
excerpted from his books, are collected at:
"Afghanistan: Michael
Scheuer's View" )
I was turned off by what seemed to be his appeals in his blog for violence against those whom he sees as America's internal
enemies. However, reading Col. Lang's point 7 above, which echoes what Scheuer said in his 2004 book Imperial Hubris (e.g.,
this ), prompted me to check out what he is currently saying. One quote
from his current blog I think will interest both Col. Lang and the CIA veteran Larry Johnson. Scheuer wrote:
The current CIA Director [ Gina Haspel ] is one of the officers I worked with, and she, almost single-handedly, helped
CIA's bin Laden unit destroy an al-Qaeda organization in Eurasia . I have always admired her greatly for her brains, personal
courage, and for never, in my experience, flinching from truth and duty.
I have no idea of the veracity of that, but I certainly do respect MS for his knowledge of the CIA, the Muslims, and Afghanistan.
Surely MS knows of what he speaks in this instance. I think his recommendation is worth noting.
You seem to be saying that "Medicare for all" is pie in the sky and can't work economically. But how do you explain the fact that
all the EU democracies, the UK, Canada etc can provide full health care, but the richest country in the world can't?
Government-funded health care would put more cash in the average guy's pocket which he would spend on consumption which would
strengthen the economy. It's a "win win" solution. When I was in business, I never minded paying for health care, but monthly
payments have ballooned to the point that it's out of reach for many people. I hope you agree with me that health care has gone
from being a vital service to an extortion racket.
Sometimes government can do some good. They could start by creating a system that's either affordable or puts the screws to
the health care Mafia.
All good, except pp.1 since the actual industrial output contracts (4 consecutive annual contractions) and manufacturing is even
worse--6 consecutive annual contractions.
Most "jobs" created are mostly part-time retail jobs due to season. Boeing situation devastated a contractor and supply chain
with massive layoffs (e.g. Spirit Wichita laid-off the third of its labor force)--and those are REAL jobs. The rest--subscribe
completely. Albeit, something has to be done with healthcare. What? I don't know.
2. My wife and I, in the US private sector now, pay $12,000 a year out of pocket before we get any "coverage" at all from the
Denial of Care industry. I'm 57, young people get even less for their money and will continue to vote for change until something
gets better for them. Medicare and the VA already provide over one third of US actual medical care and do it for a fraction of
what the Denial of Care industry does it for. It would be hilarious if Trump took up M4A and ran on it: he could probably implement
it, which he was in favor of back when he was a private business man because the rent extractions of the Denial of Care industry
make US labor uncompetitive against the rest of the world. The MED IC is in the tank for the Dem party and doing all it can to
stop M4A.
4. Which would make sense if the Dems were interested in governing, but if Obama proved anything it is that all the Dems want
to do is say, "those mean, evil Republicans won't let us do anything." Which is to say the current configuration of politics and
economy are working just fine for the Dem apparatchiks who's main function is to fleece guys like Bloomberg.
5. There are a world of economic models between our NeoLiberal (see Slobodian's "The Globalists") hyper extractive capitalism
and a Leninist command economy, it's straw-manning to call AOC, Sanders and even Warren Leninists when they are all somewhere
to the right of Eisenhower and Nixon.
6. Yes!
7. Seems likely.
8. Yes and they shouldn't be deployed to create chaotic ground conditions to facilitate looting by Globalist Multinationals.
jsn "when they are all somewhere to the right of Eisenhower and Nixon." Hey! I remember Eisenhower and Nixon and you are completely
full of it about them. Both of them were centrists.
Trump is a member of the Deep State which is what I have been saying for almost three years.
The Deep State consists of the very wealthy who are greedy for more wealth and power.
There are 607 billionaires in the US. There is no reason for the Deep State members to
formally collude they all know what needs to be done and how to do it. They use a relatively
small amount of their money to place their minions in positions of power heads of the movie
industry, the media, the federal government, academia. From then on if the lessers in these
groups want to keep their jobs/lives they will toe the line. It becomes self sustaining from
tax money and the Deep State glories in more wealth and power. Here is an excellent example
of the Deep State in action: The SCOTUS has passed down egregious decisions that abridge the
First Amendment and show contempt for the concept of a representative democracy. Buckley v.
Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing stupid SCOTUS decisions First National
Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v.
Federal Election Commission.
These decisions have codified that money is free speech thereby giving entities of wealth and
power almost total influence in elections. By gaining control of the SCOTUS the Deep State is
able to further their goals.
Let's simplify things a little. We wouldn't all be having to puzzle over who's the most
likely liar in the sandbox if we, uhhhh weren't there in the first place. Looking at you,
Ronnie Ray-gun. And you, Bush the Elder. And you, Crimewave Clinton. And you, Gee-Dumbya. And
you, O-Bomber. And you, Big Orange Tweet-Clown.
Regardless of nominal "party," every nose is docked permanently to the Israeli fundamental
aperture.
After a fourth-place finish in the Iowa caucuses and a fifth-place finish in New Hampshire,
things aren't looking great for the former Vice President, whose popularity has taken a
nosedive in recent weeks while Sanders, Bloomberg and Buttigieg's have all risen.
With the wind currently knocked out of his sails, Biden is looking to make up ground with
minority voters in Nevada and South Carolina, where he will stage what could be his last stand
in the race.
At this point, all Biden may get out of the 2020 election is a reputation as an
out-of-touch, mentally unfit, quick to anger politician whose documented history of molesting
women and children - and his family's suspect international dealings, will be his legacy.
...At the end of the day, the Democrats my be headed for a contested convention in which
nobody arrives in Milwaukee with the required 1,990 delegates needed to secure the nomination,
according to The Hill .
1 hour ago (Edited) Silly American Sheeple. The key takeaways are
election s are rigged & corrupt. Stupefying ignorance. Smdh 1 hour ago who cares. whoever
comes in first will come in 2nd to....
DONALD J. TRUMP
#democrats5yearsdead
1 hour ago The dems have a candidate who could actually win and they don't even know it.
Tulsi Gabbard could probably beat Trump IF the democratic party would quit stabbing her in the
back.
Don't be deceived by Sanders' demeanour. He's a little rumpled, a little reserved, a little
too old, a little curmudgeonly making him evermore authentic and quite endearing. However,
believe it or not, behind this long-suffering activist for social justice, painfully
consistent servant of public interest, patiently, unassumingly waiting in the wings to
inspire a significant movement at a transformational moment in time, lies an astute,
battle-ready, hardened yet tender warrior who could not have picked a better time or waited a
moment longer to make a final stand when America's democracy is crumbling and nothing has
worked to avert certain disaster.
Could it be that all it will take to shut out the cacophony of white noise deception, hype
and blanket corruption is what began as a quiet crescendo of humanity and will end in a
blowout that stuns the world?
I feel like there is a shunned amorophous beast headed in the direction of Trumpian
fascism and the complicit Ministry of Media Deception.
I invite you to read the excerpt of an article in GQ a long but important excerpt of which
I copied below, followed by the link.
Why Does Mainstream Media Keep Attacking Bernie Sanders as He Wins?
Bernie Sanders keeps surprising cynical pundits in his second presidential run.
Poor Chuck Todd.
After a week of Todd using his MSNBC evening show Meet the Press Daily to assail the
senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders has won -- clearly -- in New Hampshire. It's not if
Todd hadn't tried.
On Monday, Todd quoted conservative outlet the Bulwark, characterizing Sanders's online
following as "digital brown shirts," essentially likening a Jewish politician's supporters
to Nazis. The Friday prior, Todd led a panel in hand-wringing over class warfare against
billionaires. He has long had his crosshairs on Sanders. In May, he told the senator "the
right will hammer and sickle you to death." In 2015 after a shooting, he called Sanders,
who has a D minus rating from the NRA, "pro-NRA." And in December, he balked at the idea of
refraining from the unjournalistic phrase "Bernie Bros," asking, "What do we call them,
Bernie siblings? Bernie people?" His guest suggested the obvious: "Bernie supporters."
Of course, Todd is one among many in an anti-Bernie chorus. After the New Hampshire
debate last week, his colleague Hardball host Chris Matthews went on a socialism rant,
warning of "executions in Central Park" and exclaiming that "I might have been one of the
ones getting executed" -- perhaps revealing elite pundit anxiety that a growing
consciousness about wealth inequality and its enforcers might turn on them. Matthews
continued: "I don't know who Bernie supports over these years, I don't know what he means
by socialism. One week it's Denmark...Well, what does he think of Castro? That's a great
question." On Morning Joe, James Carville, the old Clinton strategist, warned: "That's it.
If we go the way of the British Labour Party, if we nominate Jeremy Corbyn, it's going to
be the end of days." Nevermind that Corbyn is deeply unpopular in the UK, with a net
favorability rating of -40 percent according to YouGov polling, while Sanders is America's
most popular politician.
And all of that was just MSNBC.
After the New Hampshire results came in, political reporters and pundits put facts into
linguistic pretzels, instead of just stating what the numbers did: That Sanders had won,
taking the popular vote for two straight contests in a crowded field. Not all of it was
pure ideological offense. New York Times politics reporter Jeremy Peters, tweeted: "Pete,
after winning Iowa, is almost beating Bernie in a state Bernie won four years ago by 22
points. Under any normal standard of assessing the Democratic race, Pete would be called a
frontrunner." Likewise, Trip Gabriel also of the New York Times, also asserted an
upside-down analysis tweeting, that the number one story of the night was Amy Klobuchar
(who came in third) and the number two story of the night was Pete Buttigieg (who came in
second) coming closer to Sanders than expected.
Sanders has been a punching bag for the media establishment for some time. In
explaining its decision to pass over Sanders to endorse, strangely, both Warren and
Klobuchar, the New York Times editorial board wrote "we see little advantage to exchanging
one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another." Their competitors have been
little different. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank and Jennifer Rubin have made
Trump-Sanders comparisons a writerly tick. Last April, Milbank said both Sanders has
emerged as "the Donald Trump of the left," citing their "flair for demagoguery" and
speeches with "Trumpian flourishes." Rubin for her part has been banging that drum as daily
practice, accusing Sanders in January of "playing Trumpian politics." As if a politician
advocating for healthcare and against student debt somehow equaled Trump's authoritarian
and racist radicalism.
In 2016, the media watch group FAIR found that the Washington Post ran a stunning 16
negative stories on Sanders in just 16 hours. The Sanders campaign collated a string of
"misinterpreted" polls, in which Sanders as leader was not the headline story, like the New
York Times reporting that Sanders had been "eclipsed by Warren and Buttigieg" in a story
about an Iowa poll that had him in first, and five CNN articles about a poll also showing
Sanders in the lead which went unmentioned in the headline. Back in November, the Onion
parodied the liberal network's bias: "MSNBC Poll Finds Support For Bernie Sanders Has
Plummeted 2 Points Up." But it might as well have been said about any major outlet.
Pundits like to point out that Sanders carried New Hampshire by 60 percent in 2016 when
his only opponents were Hillary Clinton (38 percent) and Martin O'Malley (under 1 percent).
But Obama, who only won Iowa with 37.4 percent of the vote, lost New Hampshire by 2.6
percentage points in 2008. Heading into more diverse states of Nevada and South Carolina,
with something of a tie and a win at his back in a crowded field, Sanders seems only to be
growing stronger. After criticism about his white-dominated base, he now leads all
candidates in support from voters of color, gaining 10 points from black voters.
What is still impressive is, during our Citizens United era, Sanders's massive
grassroots fundraising donor base, surpassed 5 million donors with an average donation of
$18.53, hauling in $34.5 million in the last quarter of 2019, [plus 25 million in
January alone!] and more than any other campaign. His biggest challenge may not be
whether he's a democratic socialist pushing universal healthcare, but whether a daily
barrage of negative media attacks, even when the news is objectively good, can chip
away his potential support on the margins in a few vital states.
And if Sanders does manage to win without corporate PAC money or the $2 billion in
earned media showered on Trump, well, that would certainly be a story.
Below is a recent Reuters quote
"
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Goldman Sachs head Lloyd Blankfein and U.S. Treasury Secretary
Steven Mnuchin both said that Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders would destroy
the U.S. economy if he wins.
"
Blankfein is the guy who reported himself and his private finance buddies as ".....doing
God's work"
"The business of wall street is fraud" Bernie Sanders 2020
Sure it looks that the trap is set but what are you proposing? Sit on your hands? pull
your punch? If the crash is engineered on Trump's re-election do you think Trump will look
out for the dispossessed?
I am tired of this mega path web of reasons to fail Sanders and the movement. If/when wall
street starts its rick/roll of the USA, I would want a leader who knows and says who the
culprit is, can identify the real enemy and then at least there is a chance of setting things
straight. Trump or the yapping dogs of the oligarchs such as Cheatin Pete Buttigieg would
throw all else overboard.
12 February 2020The Numbers Spell Trouble for the Democrats by Larry C
Johnson
Let us be quantitative and empirical. I do not care who you like or dislike for the
Presidency. I simply want to focus on some data points and what they mean for the November 2020
election if we continue to see a similar pattern.
I will start with the debacle in Iowa. An old, dear friend who lives in Clarion, Iowa (about
an hour north of Des Moines) attended the local caucus two weeks ago and voted for Trump. More
than 150 Trump supporters showed up for a non-contested caucus. Meanwhile, in the same building
the Democrats also assembled. The media wanted you to believe that Democrat enthusiasm was at a
boiling point. A blue Tidal forming that would swamp Donald Trump. Well, only 34 Democrat
supporters showed up in Clarion. Republicans in a non-contested race outnumbered the Dems by a
4 to 1 ratio.
The total voters for the Democrat 2020 caucus in Iowa for the final tally
was 172,669 . This is almost the same number of voters who turned out in 2016 when Hillary
and Bernie were battling it out--171,109. That is about 70,000 less than the enthused crowds
that turned out in 2008 for the Hillary versus Obama showdown. Not much enthusiasm in Iowa.
So we turn to New Hamshire. At least here we had a vote. But the dynamics for 2020 are quite
different from 2016 and 2008. The Democrats had a contested primary and turned out about the
same number of voters that showed up for the Obama/Clinton contest in 2008. However, the number
is not as good as it appears. The Republican contest, once again, was uncontested. Under New
Hampshire rules Republicans keen on meddling in the Democrat primary can crossover and vote for
a Democrat. Many did. More than 296,000 Democrat votes were cast in New Hampshire. This
exceeded the 287,542 that voted for Obama and Hillary in 2008. However, there are more eligible
voters today than in 2008. 29% of the electorate voted in the Democrat primary in 2008 while
only 26% voted this go round. In addition, there is no precise figure for the number of
Republicans and Independents who crossed over to "play" in the Democratic primary. While the
total numbers were up, the enthusiasm on the Democrat side was still less that 2008.
It also is worth noting that Trump set a new record for the number of votes received by an
uncontested incumbent. He doubled the results of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
The bottomline is this--the weak Democrat field is not generating much enthusiasm. Will this
continue to be the case?
I've just been looking over the numbers in Iowa and the turnout was clearly a disaster for
Democrats.
The WA Post says: "About 170,000 people participated in the 2016 Iowa Democratic caucuses,
far short of the unprecedented 240,000 voters who turned out in 2008 and launched Barack
Obama"....and much less than the 300,000 predicted.
It seems the Democrats and the media have been sipping their own Koolaid. There is zero
enthusiasm for this wastrel group of professional politicos. Sure, I'll probably vote for
Bernie because Trump wants to cut Social Security and keeps antagonizing Iran, but, what a
sad sack bunch of losers. There's not one among them that I admire at all.
It's very depressing. I want to say we're better than this, but maybe we're not.
The Democrats are deeply divided. There's the Bernie/AOC wing and the Establishment/Deep
State/Wall St wing. The latter would prefer Trump over Bernie. They're banding around Pete,
Amy and Mike, with the likely strategy of garnering enough delegates collectively to be able
to throw their delegates to Mike who is buying the convention. Of course Bernie Bros will be
disappointed once again but the Establishment is betting that Bernie will not make much of a
fuss. The net of it is that many Bernie supporters will again sit out the election.
What I'm most interested in is how Super Tuesday plays out. Are we gonna get a replay of
NH or a different dynamic?
Assuming Trump gets re-elected what will his second term look like? More Swampsters
running the roost like his first term or a cleaning of the stables? We've had a decade long
bull market since the GFC with central banks underpinning financial assets. Can that continue
for another 5 years through Trump's second term? How would public sentiment change if asset
markets take it on the chin despite central bank largesse?
One can't complain about Trump "increasing the national debt" and also demand Social Security
(and Medicare and Medicaid) do not get "cut", since all three entitlements are the chief
cause of our rising debt; no matter who is President.
Start thinking all three entitlements drastically need to be reformed if they are to
survive at all; and not simply "cut". Increased efficiencies; decreased redunancies, program
audits and proven effectiveness are reforms, even though they might look on the surface like
"cuts".
Worry more the howls about "cuts" come from those feasting off these programs at our
expense; not the actual intended beneficiaries.
This is what happens when you live in an elite bubble and think social media, and the loud
cry babies on it, represent the real world outside your bubble - and you pay stupid
consultants that think the same.
IMO the major split in the Democratic Party is between those who genuinely agree with
left-wing economic policies and those for whom liberalism is a status symbol that elevates
them above the deplorable untermenschen. The policies of the former would be much more
electorally successful, but the traditional leftists don't have the same financial pull as
the wealthy corporate leaders and lobbyist groups. Thus we are stuck with a "liberal" party
that gives liberal platitudes but is ultimately hostile to the working class. Among other
things, the lopsided trade deals, unfettered illegal immigration, and Obamacare (which
literally forced the poor and dispossessed to hand over what little money they had to the
insurance companies in exchange for fake health plans that they couldn't actually use) have
only been harmful to traditional Democratic voting groups, who have responded by leaving the
party. We see the party trying to appeal to new demographics through identity politics, but I
don't think they will be very successful.
Under New Hampshire rules Republicans keen on meddling in the Democrat primary can
crossover and vote for a Democrat. Many did.
That's not accurate. (I live in NH, and have been politically active here for the past 25
years.)
The rules for Primary voting in NH are that a partisan primary is open to any voters
registered to that party and unaffiliated voters ("independents".) GOP registered voters
cannot vote in the Dem Primary, and Dems can't vote in the GOP primary. Unaffiliated voters
can choose any party primary.
The only exception is for a New Major Political Party, participating in its first NH
primary since qualifying for Major Party Status. In that rare case, any registered voter can
take that New party's primary ballot, but only during that first Primary after achieving
Major Party Status.
The ONLY way for GOP voters to vote in the Dem Primary would have been for them to
de-register as GOP voters and re-register as unaffiliated, and that has to be done by a
deadline that is several months before the Primary takes place.
I don't think this materially alters your conclusions. There is likely a large contingent
of Anti-Trump unaffiliated voters who choose a Dem ballot this time around, where they could
have more influence, rather than staying home or making protest vote for Weld or some other
obscure opponent to Trump in the essentially uncontested GOP Primary.
Our politics have become more and more dysfunctional over the past 40 years and DC is the
epitome of pervasive corruption. The rot has now infected every aspect of our government
including the legislature and the judiciary.
Recall how there was so much rhetoric about the deficits during Reagan's term when the
federal debt tripled. Then there was all the noise about balanced budgets during Clinton's
term. Now Trump is adding a trillion dollars to the national debt annually in the "greatest
economy evah" while the Fed is furiously monetizing the debt and no one even cares including
the so-called fiscally conservative Republicans.
According to the Brown University study we've spent so far over $8 trillion in our Middle
East and Afghan military and regime change adventures while our national infrastructure
crumbles. What have these expenditures which have added to our national debt accomplished for
our national interest? These expenditures and the trail of destruction it has caused have
been supported by the majority of both parties.
After Wall St speculated and lost and created the GFC, the middle class were on the hook
for trillions so that Paulson, Rubin, Summers, and others wouldn't lose any of their
wealth.
The establishment of both parties have been using the jackboot of government to enrich the
top 0.01% for decades. We have more market concentration across many many market sectors than
ever. Wealth and income inequality is even worse now than in the gilded age of the 1920s.
More of our Deplorables continue to die of suicide and opioid addiction.
Yet, Bernie is the one deemed a communist!
You are spot on that the Democratic leadership backed by the billionaire class would much
prefer Trump than Bernie and will insure that he's not the nominee. Consequently, unless we
have a stock market meltdown it looks like Trump will be re-elected. Nothing will change. The
Deep State and Wall St will continue to run their rackets and our national debt will continue
to explode as will the frustrations of the working classes.
As Jefferson noted we need a revolution but the vast majority of the American people
anesthetized with drugs & circuses on social media have no capacity to revolt. They would
much rather cling to "hope & change" of the next "knight in shining armor".
Former Memphis City Schools Board President Tomeka Hart revealed Wednesday that she was the
foreperson of the jury that convicted former Trump adviser Roger Stone on obstruction
charges last year -- and soon afterward, her history of Democratic activism and a
string of her anti-Trump, left-wing social media posts came to light.
...
@ blue peacock... that is such an excellent comment by you!
it would be great if PAT HIGHLIGHTED your post for further comment from others... your
post is really worth discussing and highlighting.. i fully agree with your commentary..
"Is that a revolution building up in your pocket or are you just excited to watch a futile
election?"
As a writer I've done all I can for going on eleven years now. Dedicated my life to it. As
for your fake election, I suppose I'm as excited by that as by other symptoms of accelerating
futility, chaos and collapse among your system's institutions. While I have little hope that
Berniebots are educable, perhaps the 2020 debacle will convince more abstentionists to not
just abstain from the fake-electoral system but to start organizing against it.
"So do you have a party one can vote for?"
Sorry, I'm not part of your electoral fundamentalist religion. If and when people like me
ever could build a mass cultural movement against the system to the point we could extrude an
uncorrupted political party, it will be a party against your fake-electoral system, against
your Democrat Party etc.
That is, if enough of us ever were to exist, which looks unlikely. Which is why I no
longer think in terms of mass movements but instead in terms of early communities built to
weather the hurricane and make it through the flames once everything explodes.
Nevertheless I still sometimes point out that if people really wanted to reform the system
there are historically proven ways to do it, and the fact that people refuse to do the
necessary movement-building work, refuse to commit their lives to this work, is proof that
they're just play-acting. Like everything else in America, electoral "politics" is a pure
fake for the purely complacent and lazy sandheaders.
It's clear that the goal of the economic civilization is ecocide for the sake of ecocide,
destruction for the sake of destruction. Modern economic governments are designed first and
foremost to organize and maximize this destruction. Here's just one typical example of how
the destruction imperative transcends even capitalist goals, let alone how such productionism
is allegedly for human benefit.
(My emphasis, on how the whole system is driven not by capitalist "demand", let alone
human need or even want, but maximal production/destruction for the sake of
production/destruction.)
"RY is blaming environmentalists for what they claim is an insufficient supply of
timber from National Forests. But two recent articles reveal that the basic economic
principles of over-supply and over-production in the timber industry are the real
problems.
As Julia Altemus, logging lobbyist and director of the Montana Wood Products
Association, told the Missoulian's Rob Chaney: "There's been a lot of over-production across
the board. We have too much wood in the system and people weren't building. That will make it
tougher for us. What would help is if we could find new markets."
When Stoltze Land and Lumber Co. cut back its mill production cycle from 80 to 50 hours
weekly, manager Paul McKenzie told the Hungry Horse News: "It's purely market driven
demand for lumber across the country is down supply has actually been good. "
In fact, the "supply" from national forests is more than just good. Last year the
Forest Service received no bids on 17.5% of the timber if offered, up from 15.6% that
received no bids in 2018. That's 615 million board feet that weren't cut in 2019 because the
timber industry did not bid on it. The truth is that Region One of the Forest Service, which
includes Montana, has increased the amount of timber offered by 141% in the last 10 years and
the cost to taxpayers continues to climb to staggering heights.
A report by the Center for a Sustainable Economy found "taxpayer losses of nearly $2
billion a year associated with the federal logging program carried out on National Forest and
Bureau of Land Management lands. Despite these losses, the [US government] plans to
significantly increase logging on these lands in the years ahead, a move that would plunge
taxpayers into even greater debt."
The whole thing's good. I'll quote just the part about US fake-politics.
Sanders has made his platform clear. By this point it's not changing. He's a two-stater
who dislikes conservative Israeli politicians and frets about the government's excesses. He
won't affirm the right of return. He won't consider a one-state solution. He opposes BDS, but
also opposes its criminalization. For all his talk of conditioning aid to Israel on its
behavior (something George H.W. Bush also proposed), it will require more political capital
then he's willing to use. (An overlooked feature of this pledge is that Sanders also
threatens to withhold aid from Palestinians.) Palestine will fall by the wayside. Sanders'
most vocal supporters will accept that result as the cost of doing business.
They'll talk about holding him accountable, of course, but nobody should take it
seriously...Electoralism doesn't allow for the kind of responsiveness its advocates imagine.
Anybody who tries to hold Sanders to account will be shouted down. (Electoral common sense
always leads to liberal orthodoxy.) Accountability to the people is the most anti-human myth
of this entire spectacle.
Attempts to prioritize the Global South simply can't compete with fetishes of
enfranchisement in the imperial core. (The Global South, uncoincidentally, manifests the
world's greatest revolutionary potential.)...What the system lacks in substance it replaces
with myth. Electoralism is a heatsink of revolutionary politics. We select representatives
actually seated by the elite. Everything that sounds nice about electoralism in fact
reinforces the false promises of settler colonization.
Aren't Sanders' boosters setting themselves up for disappointment? Not really, because
the logic of electoralism provides for delirious hope in the incredible. It also renders
Palestine's freedom (at best) a secondary concern...
Sanders says "respect and dignity." His fans hear "liberation." They're not listening
closely enough. (We're incentivized to mishear by so many promises of minor celebrity.)
Nothing in Sanders' record as a politician suggests that he'll fight for anything but the
tired "international consensus." And nothing in decades of US brokerage indicates that the
"peace process" will result in anything but continued suffering for Palestinians.
Bernie is not there to be president. his "community" job is to dog herd the progressive
crowds to vote, as a lesser evil, for the Judeo-Zionist corporate candidate, the donors'
choice, as he did servilely in 2016. ask him any question about foreign policy and you will
note, on the spot, where he stands: he approved, as a Senator, the last 3 out of 4 major wars
of the US empire. 95% of his domestic promises are undeliverable. we did love Obama,
didn´t we? we will adore Bernie! for sure.
"Bernie is not there to be president. his "community" job is to dog herd the progressive
crowds to vote, as a lesser evil, for the Judeo-Zionist corporate candidate, the donors'
choice, as he did servilely in 2016..." nietzsche1510@40
The problem with this argument is that it lacks any grounding in reason and political
logic. As 2016 figures showed and as current polling of Bernie supporters indicates far from
herding together voters who would not have voted Democrat without his guidance (which is what
a sheepdog candidate would do) he is actually working very hard to alienate voters who, in
the past, have always ended up supporting the Democrats' (corporate shill of) choice, from
their automatic, 'lesser evil' resignation to the Clinton, Kerry, Gore or Obama on offer.
What is quite obvious is that Sanders is breaking up the corporate vice on the traditional
Democratic vote and urging voters to choose options in line with their actual social and
economic interests. And it is working.
It is all very well for nietszche1510 to assert that Sanders is working hand in glove with
the corporate democrats but all the evidence is that the DNC spends its energies not
assisting its 'sheepdog' but attempting to cripple him before he is even started on his
work.
Now for your information a real sheepdog candidate-and we have seen plenty of them- after
making lots of noise about radical policies and enthusing lots of dumb and naive people goes
into a Convention, armed with hundreds of delegates and buys himself his reward. Knowing that
he is coming the corporate leadership is ready to make a show of reconciliation, says that it
has taken the views and aspirations of his supporters into account, puts a couple of token,
watered down compromises into the platform and finds him and his friends prestigious but
empty jobs.
That is what those who called Bernie a 'sheepdog' in 2016 were expecting would happen. But
it didn't-Sanders kept his promise to ask his supporters to support the Convention choice but
then, essentially, he disappeared from the election. As to his supporters, most went home
angry at Hillary, many refused to vote for her in November (it shows on the election numbers)
and quite a few supported Trump as the lesser evil.
As to Foreign Policy matters- US foreign policy is hardwired into the current system of
government. This has been the case since 1948, at latest. The only way that Foreign Policy
can be changed is by people consciously disassociating themselves from the scam that the US
is constantly in danger of invasion-that unless trillions of dollars are poured into arms
production, proxy armies around the globe and the prostitution of both media and the academy-
people will lose their jobs, the standard of living will fall and the USA will be invaded by
envious, rapacious outsiders.
What Sanders is doing is outlining to the electorate what they could get if they directed
their taxes and their incomes towards obtaining it. This includes such simple and easy to
understand reforms as free tuition, a moratorium of student debt and medicare for all. If the
voters signify that they support such policies then the question of how to divide up the
national 'cake'will, logically, arise. And some will argue that assisting Israel's massacres
of Palestinians is a higher priority than lowering the infant mortality rate to slightly
better than Third World standards. Others will beg to differ.
Some will argue-as Bernie's Primary opponents are doing- that having wasted trillions in
Afghanistan over 20 years the US should go for the record and try for a new 30 year War or
maybe even a 100 years, as did the English in France. Others will think that ending the war
and diverting the resources there wasted into almost any other uses would be preferable.
All Bernie says is the people must take the decisions and that they should do so in the
light of the reality that the only threat to the American people comes from the billionaires
who feed off them like vampire bats.
And he has been saying these things since about 1960. That may not earn anyone's respect
but it ought to make those who consider him corrupt to ask themselves why he has waited so
long to sell out. And what he has ever got for doing so. Had he really been corrupt in the
traditional American politician's manner he would be a lot richer. And he would be a lot less
feared by the people who are all our enemies-the billionaires and their agents working every
day to cheat him and defeat him.
Bernie is the best hope to end Endless Wars if he can bring about national healthcare,
similar to other nations. Such nations can barely afford wars - as with Canada and the EU.
Britain may end up with an army smaller than the NYC Police force.
While this sounds indirect, it may be the only way to stop crazy warmongering by the US.
Anyone who openly opposes such insanity ends up condemned by the mainstream media ( like
Tulsi). On this issue, Buttigieg is breathtakingly dishonest. If you like war, vote for the
Deep State candidate.
@60-61
The problem for Bernie is that he's not going to have a friendly congress. Even the proudly
neoliberal Barack Obama couldn't corral his Democratic supermajority into giving the American
people a healthcare system that doesn't require throwing people into debtors prisons or kill
tens of thousands a year out of sheer social negligence. If Obama couldn't get the likes of
Mary Landrieu to vote for even a public option (out of her fear that it would kill her
political career in Louisiana - ironic since her eventual vote for the ACA was indeed used
against her anyway and did indeed contribute to her unseating by a Republican Senator), if
the likes of Joe Liebermann could throw a monkeywrench into a system that could
conceivably be transformed over time into a single-payer national health insurance system,
it's a wonder how he'd get the likes of Manchin or even "moderate" (moderate like the rebels
in Syria) Republican congressmen and senators on his side.
Sandernistas argue that he'll rally the masses into getting it done. I'm not so
optimistic. American workers are in a precarious position and this unfortunately does not
push them toward revolutionary consciousness. It pushes them rather to a more conservative
position, trying to defend what little they have rather than fight for more. That's not to
say it's impossible, there are good reasons to want single-payer, including the ability of
the government to leverage its monopsony to finally nip the pharmaceutical industry's
rent-seeking in the bud, but that will depend on congress having the balls to stand up to
major donors and gore their ox.
The questions that those of us to the left of Sanders need to be asking are how to
credibly assert our independence from Sanders while still, potentially, fighting alongside
the Sandernistas for basic reforms; how to raise class consciousness (inoculating people
against the conspiracy theory virus); and how to begin winning power for ourselves.
Excellent point. Add to this Political fanboyism("Bernie's trying! Don't rock the boat!")
And nothing would get done. Bernie would also restore a veneer of respectability to the U.S
empire, so it almost baffles me why the democrats fight him so hard(None so blind as those
who do not see, as the Moody Blues would say.)
As you have said Sanders is a warmonger which is very bad as the President's main power is
starting wars. Furthermore, none of the candidates of either party understand foreign
affairs. Even Gabbard stupidly claims that Iran was responsible for killing some 600 US
troops in Iraq.
Given that Medicare and the SNAP program are in deep trouble, a Sanders presidency would
have to cut the foreign aid to Israel, the security state and the "war" department to save
these programs or stab the American people in the back.
Too bad the billionaires are running America as a neo-feudal state that will result in the
collapse of the economy.
"... Qanon suggests that the NSA and military include patriots who are trying to finesse a nonviolent transition away from the criminal pathology that has led the US to become an international vast organized crime organization, and purveyor of boundless atrocities. ..."
Does anyone have any thoughts ideas on the QANON phenomenon. I have swayed between
outright scepticism and then hope that it might be true - that some former high-ranking US
military personnel have hatched a plan and co-opted Trump, to drain the swamp, truth about
9-11 and prosecute all those involved, deal with Israel, End the Fed and restore proper money
etc.
Is it true? Or is it absolute bullshit and if so why?
QAnon=hope porn for Trump supporters. There's a video from a little over a year ago by a
couple of guys who make some good points about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e_e5WI_mjg
Regardless of what one might think of the presenters, they have done their homework.
Is it true? Or is it absolute bullshit and if so why?
Posted by: James McCumiskey | Feb 12 2020 13:59 utc | 1
James, from my perspective Qanon's impact is far greater and more beneficial than
indicated by the disparaging remarks that followed your question.
To be clear, I haven't paid a lot of attention to it, but have paid enough attention to
understand that many tens of thousands of people have 'entered' and benefited from the QAnon
'school'.
Now this is not to pretend to know what the actual results will be or even what the actual
intentions of Qanon are.
People who might be more or less in the process of waking up to, say, that we live in a
kind of upside down world, have been given very many clues and crumbs to follow, to research.
The process of waking up is a lifetime process, but it helps to begin at some point, to no
longer just doze away through life.
Qanon begins with the observation that whereas pathological criminality on high gained
power, became dominant over the vast majority of people, most people are more or less salt of
the earth decent folks in their intentions.
But to 'unbrainwash' the brainwashed previously asleep requires a process of education.
The Qanon process is somewhat reminiscent of a Socratic dialogue, whereby cryptic questions
are posed, hints are given, but in the end, the spur is to 'go down the rabbit holes' and
discover what's really going on.
Qanon suggests that the NSA and military include patriots who are trying to finesse a
nonviolent transition away from the criminal pathology that has led the US to become an
international vast organized crime organization, and purveyor of boundless
atrocities.
Trump then is to be understood as a flawed but handy and workable temporary leadership
means by which the system of tyranny can be decisively undermined.
Again, I'm not writing this as a fan of either Trump or Qanon, but am trying to answer
your question beyond a reflexive jeer that appears common currency among the
'enlightened'.
h/t: jtrue.com - I have an eclectic range on what I read... some I agree with ... some I
don't... but things are getting so weird I 'don't throw the baby out with the
bathwater'...
Does anyone have any thoughts ideas on the QANON phenomenon
Newly senile baby boomers and ideological conservatives psy-oping themselves. One of the
myriad of mental gymnastics routines used by the conservative crowd to justify the
continuation of the Obama presidency under Trump, which itself continued the Bush presidency,
which continued the Clinton presidency... and on and on. A replacement for scientific social
analysis by the equivalent of numerology and astrology, for people who don't know what
science is and are probably distrustful of it to begin with. A good example: a friend of
mine's dad is really hardcore into it. He's also a chiropractor. Not a coincidence. There's a
certain type of cognitive style that will latch onto this kind of absurd shit and it's the
duty of the scientifically minded to inoculate people against it.
Qanon is certainly a psyop. The question is whether it's a wishful thinking deep-state
conspiracy theorist sitting in abasement with Cheetos and Dr. Pepper, or a disaffected rogue
insider spreading crumbs of critical thinking to the dazed and confused mass of "Americans"
who are victims of the greatest psyop in the history of the known universe; propagandized for
90 some years into the cult Baseball, Mom and Apple Pie.
Whatever Qanon is it has allowed white nationalist fascists to believe they are freedom
fighters on a grand quest to cleanse a swamp of corruption that is the true treason of the
"American Dream."
The United States is two-party political monopoly, the two sides serving the same coin of
'the money power.' There is no more useful idiot than the raging stable genius who believes
belligerence is wisdom, and money is love.
The United States is coming to a three-pronged fork in the road:
1. Collapse
2. Totalitarianism
3. Revolution
The billionaires are preparing for collapse and turning to off-world escape. Bill Gates
just ordered a ½ billion dollar hydrogen powered mega-yacht to ride it out in
Waterworld.
QANON is a fraud. See Sessions, now Barr, Bolton, McCain. Frauds. So Q was needed right from
thr beginning to divert people fom seing the Trump family business as usless.
The Trump WONT go after the greatest breaches of USA national security - Hillary and the
unsecured email at her home cupboard or the Awan family spy/blackmail racket in the Dem
congress members. QANON is cover for Trump family inaction.
QANON is useless for most but is a reference for those bloggers and YouTube commentators
to fool people into thinkingthey are 'in the know', have deep information when all they have
is tripe and hot air. So QANON is useful to fool fools, dupe dopes, and elevate the liar in
chief.
How can it be that after three years as president Trump had Vinman and Ciaramela STILL on
the NSC staff advising the White House? Then Bolton appointed was extreme blunder and then he
betrayed Trump. QANON blows smoke over Trump family lightweights while they pick pocket the
audience.
Bernie is not there to be president. his "community" job is to dog herd the progressive
crowds to vote, as a lesser evil, for the Judeo-Zionist corporate candidate, the donors'
choice, as he did servilely in 2016. ask him any question about foreign policy and you will
note, on the spot, where he stands: he approved, as a Senator, the last 3 out of 4 major wars
of the US empire. 95% of his domestic promises are undeliverable. we did love Obama,
didn´t we? we will adore Bernie! for sure.
Qanon is such garbage. Just look at what nietzshe1510 said about Bernie Sanders... The
same crap is being pulled on people that follow Qanon. Its up to you to be the best person
that you can be and make a difference in your family, one small group of people at a time,
all over the planet. Like a tidal wave of good intentions. Never mind Bernie Sanders, Tulsi
Gabbard or the media that support them. It is just a fu*kin gimmick.
@1 "QUANON"
Sounds like a fantasy from a Robert Heinlein novel; try "The Puppet Masters", or "Revolt in
2100". He also was a military officer, until he got invalided out.
The discussion about Qanon was enlightening. I voted for Trump but gave up on him after
Seymour Hersh's article about the first Syria strikes was published in Germany(because,
apparently, no U.S publisher wanted to touch it) I find myself drifting slowly back to the
leftism of my youth since then. As for Bernie, his former comrade Michael Parenti implied in
2015 that Bernie is afraid of the National Security State crowd, and I think that makes
sense. Bernie won't fight the Empire, which makes his domestic promises basically useless,
regardless of his motives. Honestly, I think he mostly is in this for the campaign
contributions, but who knows? He's a lot less relevant than a lot of people are willing to
admit. The empire seems to be running out of steam on its own as far as I can see, as
de-dollarization continues to gain momentum, particularly in Asia. Events in Iraq and places
like the Philippines should be more interesting watch than this boring election
I looked into several of the more detailed predictions and comments - they were uniformly
wrong, albeit loosely based on 1st level internet search results.
Fiction, not fact.
Psyops? Anything is possible, but I personally don't see it. Trump does just fine handling
Twitter himself.
My bet is that Qanon is simply Steve Bannon. Both have/had the same fake discourse and the
same targets.
The revealing clue was for me when I saw his video clip "The great awakening".
Who has ever peddled the Pizzagate without being himself a nuts? I only know Qanon and
Bannon (by means of Cambridge Analytica)
You would not ever have seen this on Fox at the last election. Best high voltage spit by
Jimmy Dore I have seen.
Tucker shows a great smirk especially when Jimmy dumps on Guaido.
> five minutes of mirth
>Posted by: uncle tungsten | Feb 13 2020 4:10 utc | 114
Definitely worth five minutes to watch Jimmy Dore on FOX plainly stating the US is a
one-party system. ON FOX NEWS TV! Never thought to see the day when I had anything good to
say about FOX.
"... "[Bill and Hillary Clinton] set up a machine that was really a juggernaut with all this corporate money they brought in through the Democratic Leadership Committee," says Blumenthal. ..."
"... he's done just great journalism. I really loved his book, "Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel," which came out in 2013, because it was based on just good, solid journalism of interviewing people and trying to figure out what's going on. ..."
"... And the interesting thing is that Israel's interference in the election, and Netanyahu, has been rewarded over and over -- the embassy got shifted, the settlers got more validation, now there's a big peace plan that gives the hawks in Israel everything they want. So why don't we begin with that, and your own writing about U.S.-Israel relations. It's kind of odd that there's -- or maybe not odd, maybe it's just because it is the third rail -- that there's been so little discussion about Donald Trump's relation to Israel and his payoff to Netanyahu. ..."
"... With Israel, you have a situation where you have, not maybe a plurality, but maybe a majority of secular Jewish Americans, progressive Jews, who have completely turned their back on the whole Zionist project. And it has a lot to do with Netanyahu. Netanyahu is someone who came out of the American -- out of American life. He went to high school in suburban Philadelphia, he went to MIT, he was at Boston Consulting with Mitt Romney. His father ended his life in upstate New York as Jabotinsky's press secretary, the press secretary for the revisionist wing of the Zionist movement that inspired the Likud party. So Netanyahu is really kind of an American figure, number one; number two, he's a Republican figure. He's like a card-carrying neoconservative Republican. ..."
The botched
Iowa caucuses have raised many legitimate questions about the Democratic establishment, but
to understand the point we're at now, it's necessary to think back several years. According to
Grayzone journalist and editor
Max Blumenthal ,
Truthdig Editor in Chief Robert Scheer's guest on the latest installment of "Scheer
Intelligence," part of the backlash Bernie Sanders is currently experiencing as he attempts to
transform the Democratic Party dates back to Bill Clinton's presidency.
"[Bill and Hillary Clinton] set up a machine that was really a juggernaut with all this
corporate money they brought in through the Democratic Leadership Committee," says
Blumenthal.
"It was a very different structure than we'd seen with previous Democratic candidates who
relied heavily on unions and the civil rights coalition.
"And that machine never went away," the journalist goes on.
"It kept growing, kind of like this amoeba that began to engulf the party and politics
itself. So that when Bill Clinton was out of power, the machine was passed to Hillary
Clinton, and the machine followed her into the Senate. And the machine grew into the Clinton
Global Initiative."
... ... ...
... Blumenthal's
most recent book, " The Management
of Savagery : How America's National Security State Fueled the Rise of Al Qaeda, Isis, and
Donald Trump."
"It seems to me [there is] a real contradiction [in] the Democratic Party, which you know
quite a bit about," when it comes to Israel, says Scheer.
"There's this great loathsome feeling about Donald Trump. And many of these people don't
really like [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu. You know, the polling data shows
that Jews are, you know, just about as open to the concern for the Palestinians as any other
group. And Bernie Sanders, the one Jewish candidate, is the one who dared to bring up the
Palestinians -- that they have rights also, that they're human beings. He's being attacked
for it as, like you, a self-hating Jew ."
Blumenthal, whose 2013 book, " Goliath: Life and
Loathing in Greater Israel ," touches upon many questions absent in the American
conversation about Israel, points out how the Vermont senator's own position on Palestine has
shifted over time.
"Bernie Sanders [is] better than most of the other [Democratic] candidates on this issue,"
says the Grayzone reporter. "After we put a lot of pressure on him in the left-wing grassroots
-- I mean, I personally protested him at a 2016 event for his position on Palestinians, and we
shamed him until he took at least a slightly better position, where you acknowledge the
humanity of Palestinians."
The two journalists discuss what some of the main reasons are that Sanders is facing so much
resistance within the Democratic Party, in addition to his views on Palestine. Blumenthal
believes there will be a repeat of what happened in 1972 when George McGovern ran for
president.
"I think that if Bernie Sanders gets the nomination, there will be an effort to 'McGovern'
him," he posits. The Democratic Party will "hope that Bernie Sanders gets destroyed by Donald
Trump, and then wag their fingers at the left for the next 20 years until they get another Bill
Clinton.
"I think that they don't know how to stop him at this point, but they're willing to let
him be the nominee and go down to Donald Trump, because Bernie Sanders threatens their
interests, and the movement behind him particularly, more than Donald Trump does."
Listen to the full discussion between Blumenthal and Scheer, which took place aptly on the
eve of the Iowa caucuses that, at the time, Blumenthal assumed would be a landslide win for
Sanders. You can also read a transcript of the interview below the media player and find past
episodes of "Scheer Intelligence" here .
ROBERT SCHEER: Hi, this is Robert Scheer with another edition of "Scheer Intelligence,"
where the intelligence comes from my guests. In this case Max Blumenthal, who I must say is one
of the gutsiest journalists we have in the United States, and have had for the last five years
or so. He's, in addition to having considerable courage and [going] out on these third-rail
issues -- like Israel, being one of the more prominent ones -- and challenging some of the
major conceits of even liberal politics in the United States about our virtue, our constant
virtue, he's done just great journalism. I really loved his book, "Goliath: Life and Loathing
in Greater Israel," which came out in 2013, because it was based on just good, solid journalism
of interviewing people and trying to figure out what's going on.
I'd done something a half century earlier, or not quite that long ago, during the Six-Day
War in Israel, where I went over when I was the editor of Ramparts. And I know how difficult it
is to deal with that issue, because I put Ramparts into bankruptcy over the controversy about
it. [Laughter] So maybe that's a good place to begin. You know, you dared touch this issue of
Israel, and it didn't help that you are Jewish. I guess you are Jewish, right? Do you have a
background, did you practice any aspect of Judaism? Literature, culture, religion?
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I'm a Jew who had a bar mitzvah, and I even had a bris.
RS: Oh. [Laughs]
MB: And you know, I've continued to pop in in synagogues here and there on High Holy Days. I
guess you could say, you know, when the rabbi asked, you know, asked me to join the army of
God, I tell him I'm in the Secret Service. But I'm definitely Jewish, you know, and it's a big
part of who I am and why I do what I do.
RS: Well, and I thought your writing on that, and your journalism, was informed by that.
Because after all, a very important part of the whole experience of Jewish people as victims,
as people forced into refugee status, living in the diaspora, was to develop a sense of
universal values, and of decency and obligation to the other. And I think your reporting
reflected that. However, my goodness, you got a lot of heat over it. And it's the heat I want
to talk about. I want to talk about the difficulty, in this post-Cold War world, of actually
writing about the U.S. imperial presence, or writing critically about what our government does,
and some of its allies.
And I think Israel is a really good case in point, because we have one narrative that said
in the last election we had foreign interference, mostly coming from Russia. And we talk about
Russia as if it's the old communist Soviet Union, with a top-down, big, organized party --
forgetting that [Vladimir] Putin actually defeated the Communist Party, and even though he had
been in the KGB, and most Russians had been in some kind of official connection with society or
another. Nonetheless, Russia really has gotten very little out of whatever interference it did.
Israel, that is very rarely talked about, interfered in the election in a very open, blatant
way in the presence of Netanyahu, who denounced Barack Obama's major foreign policy
achievement, the deal with Iran, and has focused U.S. policy mostly against the enemy being
Iran, and ignoring Saudi Arabia and everything else.
And the interesting thing is that Israel's interference in the election, and Netanyahu, has
been rewarded over and over -- the embassy got shifted, the settlers got more validation, now
there's a big peace plan that gives the hawks in Israel everything they want. So why don't we
begin with that, and your own writing about U.S.-Israel relations. It's kind of odd that
there's -- or maybe not odd, maybe it's just because it is the third rail -- that there's been
so little discussion about Donald Trump's relation to Israel and his payoff to Netanyahu.
MB: Yeah, I mean, there's a lot to chew on there. I would first start with just an
observation, because you mentioned that we're in a post-Cold War world -- well, we're not in a
post-Cold War world anymore, we're in a new Cold War. And for all the attacks I got over
Israel, which were absolutely vicious, personalized, you know, framed through emotional
blackmail, attacking my identity as a Jew, calling me a Jewish anti-Semite -- the Simon
Wiesenthal Center, which is this right-wing racket over there in L.A., made me the No. 4
anti-Semite of 2015. You know, I was right behind Ayatollah Khomeini. But you know, the worst
attacks, the most vicious attacks I've received have actually been from centrists and liberal
elements over my criticism of the Russiagate narrative that they foisted on the American public
starting in 2016, and also on the dirty war that the U.S. has been waging on Syria, and how we
at the site that I edit, the Grayzone, started unpacking a lot of the deceptions and lies that
were used to try to stimulate support among middle-class liberals in the west for this proxy
war on Syria, for regime change in Syria. This was absolutely forbidden, and that attack
actually turned out to be more vicious and is ongoing.
With Israel, you have a situation where you have, not maybe a plurality, but maybe a
majority of secular Jewish Americans, progressive Jews, who have completely turned their back
on the whole Zionist project. And it has a lot to do with Netanyahu. Netanyahu is someone who
came out of the American -- out of American life. He went to high school in suburban
Philadelphia, he went to MIT, he was at Boston Consulting with Mitt Romney. His father ended
his life in upstate New York as Jabotinsky's press secretary, the press secretary for the
revisionist wing of the Zionist movement that inspired the Likud party. So Netanyahu is really
kind of an American figure, number one; number two, he's a Republican figure. He's like a
card-carrying neoconservative Republican.
So a lot of Jews who've historically aligned themselves with the Democratic Party, who see
being a Democrat as almost synonymous with being Jewish in American life, just absolutely
revile Netanyahu. And here he is, basically the longest-serving prime minister in Israel; he's
completely redefined the face of Israel and what it is. And he's provoked -- I wouldn't say
provoked, but he's accelerated the civil war in American Jewish life over Zionism. And what I
did was come in at a time when it wasn't entirely popular, to not just challenge Israel as a
kind of occupying entity, but to actually challenge it at its core, to challenge the entire
philosophy of Zionism, and to analyze the Israeli occupation as the byproduct of a system of
apartheid which has been in place from the beginning, since 1948, which was a product of a
settler colonial movement.
That really upset a lot of people who kind of reflect the same elements that I'm getting,
who are attacking me on Syria or Russia. People like Eric Alterman at The Nation. He wrote 11
very personal attack pieces on me when my book "Goliath" came out in 2013. Truthdig, you, Chris
Hedges, it was a great source of support. And you, you know, you opened up the debate at
Truthdig, you allowed people to come in and criticize the book, but kind of in a principled,
constructive way. Whereas Eric Alterman was demanding that The Nation censor me, blacklist me,
ban me for life, and was comparing me to a neo-Nazi by the end, and claiming I was secretly in
league with David Duke. And that was because he had simply no response to my reporting and my
analysis of the kind of, the inner contradictions of Zionism.
And so to me, it was really a sign of the success of the book, that someone like Alterman
was sort of dispatched, or took it upon himself to wage this really self-destructive attack.
And in the end, he really had nothing to show for himself; he wasn't arguing on the merits. And
that's just what I find time and again with my reporting is, you know, you get these personal
attacks and people try to dissuade you from going and touching these third-rail issues, but
ultimately there's no substance to the attacks. I mean, if they really wanted to nail me and
take me down, they would address the facts, and they really haven't been able to do that.
RS: Right. But Max, if I can, let's focus on the power of your analysis in that book, which
is that it is a settler colonialism. And Netanyahu actually is -- we can talk about the old
labor Zionists, you know, and what was meant by progressive Zionism and so forth. Even at the
time of the Six-Day War when I interviewed people like Moshe Dayan and Ya'alon and these
people, they all were against a full occupation of the West Bank. They didn't act on that,
unfortunately. But they were aware of the dangers of a colonial model. But right now you have a
figure in Israel in Netanyahu, who is, very clearly embodies a racialized view, a jingoistic
view of the other, which is really, you know, very troubling. And he's embraced by this
troubling American figure.
And so what your book really predicted is that the settler colonialism was a rot at the
center of the Israeli enterprise -- and historically, one could justify that enterprise. I
don't know if you would agree. But even the old Soviet Union, I think, was the second, if not
the first country to recognize Israel. There was vast worldwide support for some sort of refuge
for the Jewish people after such horrible, you know, genocidal policies visited upon them. But
what we're really talking about now is something very different. And that is whether political
leadership, and interference and so forth comes mainly for Democrats, very often; obviously,
for republicans and Bible-belters and all that, who seem to like this image of the end of time
coming in Israel. But really what's happening -- and it's not discussed in this election,
except to attack Bernie Sanders, who dared make some criticisms of Israel in some of these
debates -- you have a very weird notion of the Jewish experience, as identified with a very
hardline, as you say, sort of South African settler colonialist mentality.
And so I want to ask you the question as someone–and we'll get to it later -- you grew
up sort of within the Democratic liberal establishment in Washington. Your parents both worked
for the Clinton administration, were close to it. How do you explain this blind eye toward
Trump's relationship to Netanyahu? And ironically, for all the Russia-bashing, Netanyahu and
Putin seem to get along splendidly, you know. And that doesn't bother people as far as
criticizing Netanyahu. So why don't we visit that a little bit, and forget about Eric Alterman
for a while.
MB: [Laughs] Well, he's already forgotten, so we don't have much work to do there. But
there's a lot, again, a lot to chew on, a lot of questions packed into that. You know, just
starting with your mention of Moshe Dayan -- who is a seminal figure in the Nakba, the initial
ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population in 1948 to establish Israel -- he was the
southern commander of the Israeli military. And he later kind of became a kind of schizophrenic
figure in Israeli politics; he would sometimes offer some kind of left-wing opinions, and then
be extremely militaristic. But you know, when it came down to it, Moshe Dayan -- like every
other member of the Israeli Labor Party -- was absolutely opposed to a viable Palestinian
state. He even said that we cannot have a Palestinian state because it will connect
psychologically, in the minds of the Palestinian public who are citizens of Israel -- that 20%
of Israel who are indigenous Palestinians -- it will connect them to Nablus in the West Bank,
and it will provide them with a basis for rebelling against the Israeli state to expand the
Palestinian state.
The other labor leaders spoke in terms of the kind of, with the racist language of the
demographic time bomb that, you know, we need to give Palestinians a state, otherwise we will
be overwhelmed demographically. And so the state that they were proposed was what Yitzhak
Rabin, in his final address before the Israeli Knesset, the Israeli parliament, called "less
than a state." He promised Israel that at Oslo, he would deliver the Palestinians less than a
state. And if you look at the actual plan that the Palestinians were handed at Oslo -- which
Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian Authority chairman, didn't even review before signing -- the map
was not that different from the map that Donald Trump has offered with the "ultimate deal." And
they'd say, oh, you get 97% of what was, you know, offered in U.N. Resolution 242 in 1967. But
it really just isn't the case when you get down to the details. What the strategy has been with
the Labor Party, and with successive Israeli administrations -- and with Netanyahu until he got
Trump in -- was to kind of kick the can down the road with the so-called peace process, so that
Israel could keep putting more facts on the ground.
So it was actually Ehud Barak of the Labor Party, Yitzhak Rabin's successor, who moved more
settlers into the West Bank, by a landslide, than Netanyahu did. Ehud Barak actually campaigned
on his connection to the settlers. And then Netanyahu capitalizes on the strength of the
settlement movement to build this kind of Titanic rock of a right-wing coalition that's kept
him in power for so long. And if you look at who the leading figures are in Israeli life --
Naftali Bennett, who was from the Jewish Home Party, he comes out of the Likud party and he's
someone who was an assistant to Netanyahu. Avigdor Lieberman, who was for a long time the
leader of the Russian Party. Yisrael Beiteinu, this is someone who came out of the Likud Party,
who helped Netanyahu rustle up Russian votes. It's a Likud one-party state -- but then you
have, culturally, a dynamic where starting with 1967, the public just becomes more infused with
religious Messianism.
The West Bank is the site of the real, emotionally potent Jewish historical sites,
particularly in a city like Hebron. And the public becomes attached to it and attains its
dynamism through this expansionist project, and the public changes. A lot of people from the
kind of liberal labor wing became religious Messianists, started wearing kippot, wearing
yarmulkes, the kind of cloth yarmulkes that the modern orthodox settlers where.
RS: OK, but --
MB: Today you not only have that, you have a new movement called the temple movement, which
aims to actually replace Jewish prayer at the Western Wall with animal sacrifice, as Jews
supposedly practiced thousands of years ago, and to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque, and practice
Jewish prayer there. This is not just a messianic movement, but an apocalyptic movement that is
actually gaining strength in the Likud party. So when you mentioned Donald Trump's "ultimate
deal," there's one detail that everyone seems to have missed there, which is prayer for all at
the Dome of the Rock, at Al-Aqsa. That means there will be Jewish prayer there, officially,
that Palestinians must be forced to accept that and destroy the status quo, which has prevailed
since 1967.
RS: I know, but Max, before I lose this whole interview here -- because I think that's all
really interesting; people should read your book, "Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater
Israel." That's not the focus of this discussion I want to have with you.
MB: OK.
RS: And I want to discuss, in this aspect, the whole idea of Israel as a third-rail issue
for American politics.
MB: Yeah.
RS: American politics. And the reason I want to do that is there's obviously a contradiction
in the Jewish experience, because Jews -- as much or more so than any other group of people in
the world -- understand what settler colonialism does. They understand what oppression does,
they've been under the thumb of oppressors. And so I would argue the major part of the Jewish
experience was one of revolt against oppression, and recognition of the danger of unbridled
power. And that represents a very important force in liberal politics in the United States: a
fear of coercive power, a desire for tolerance, and so forth. And we know that Jews have, in
the United States and elsewhere in the world, been a source of concern for the other, and
tolerance, and criticism of power.
And the reason I'm bringing that up is it seems to me it's a real contradiction for the
Democratic Party, which you know quite a bit about. And in this Democratic Party, there's this
great loathsome feeling about Donald Trump. And many of these people don't really like
Netanyahu. You know, the polling data shows that Jews are, you know, just about as open to the
concern for the Palestinians as any other group. And Bernie Sanders, the one Jewish candidate,
is the one who dared to bring up the Palestinians -- that they have rights also, that they're
human beings. He's being attacked for it as, like you, a self-hating Jew. And so I want to get
at that contradiction. And, you know, full confession, as a Jewish person I believe it's an
honorable tradition of dissent, and concern for the others, and respect for individual freedom.
And I think it's sullied by the identification of the Jewish experience with a colonialist
experience. It is a reality that we have to deal with, but that's not the whole tradition. And
I daresay your own family, whatever your contradiction -- and I should mention here your father
and mother both were quite active in the Clinton administration, right.
And your father, a well-known journalist, Sidney Blumenthal, and your mother, Jacqueline
Blumenthal, was I think a White House fellow or something in the Clinton administration? I
forget what her job was, but has been active. And they certainly come out of a more liberal
Jewish experience, as do most well-known Jewish writers and journalists in the United States.
That's the contradiction that I don't see being dealt with here. Because after all, it's easy
to blast Putin and his interference, but as I say, Netanyahu interfered very openly, but in a
really unseemly way, in the American election by attacking a sitting American president in an
appearance before the Congress, and attacking his major foreign-policy initiative. And there's
hardly a word ever said about it. It doesn't come up in the democratic debates. You know, and
the -- as I say, there was this incredible moment where Netanyahu, after coming over here and
praising Trump for his peace deal, as did his opponent, then he goes off and meets with Putin.
And so suddenly it's OK, and yet the Democrats who want to blast Putin don't mention Netanyahu,
and they don't mention his relation to Trump.
MB: Well, yeah, I was trying to illustrate kind of the reality of Israel, which just, it's
gotten so extreme that it repels people who even come out of the kind of Democratic Party
mainstream. And the Democratic Party was the original bastion in the U.S. for supporting
Israel. So my father actually held a book party for my book, "Goliath," back in 2013. It's the
kind of thing that, you know, a parent who had been a journalist would do for a son or daughter
who's a journalist. And he was harshly attacked when word got out that he had held that party
in a neoconservative publication called the Free Beacon, which is kind of part of Netanyahu's
PR operation in D.C. You know, it was like my father had supported, provided material support
for terrorism by having a book party for his son.
But the interesting part about that party was who showed up. I didn't actually know what it
was going to be like, and it was absolutely packed. I mean, they live in a pretty small
townhouse in D.C, and there just was nowhere to walk, there was nowhere to move. And I found
myself in the corner of their dining room shouting through the house to kind of explain what my
book was about and answer questions. And a lot of the people there were people who were in or
around Hillary's State Department, people who worked for kind of Democratic Party-linked
organizations -- just a lot of mainstream Democrat people. And they were giving me a wink and a
nod, shaking my hand, giving me a pat on the back, and saying thank you, thank God you did
this. Because they cannot stand the Israel lobby, they despise Netanyahu, and they're disgusted
with what Israel's become.
And we had reached a point by 2013 where it was pretty obvious there was not going to be a
two-state solution, and that whole project, the liberal Zionist project, wasn't going to work
out. You know, and the fact that they just could give me a wink and a nod shows also how
cowardly a lot of people are in Washington. They weren't even stepping up to the level my
father had, where when his emails with Hillary Clinton were exposed, it became clear that he
was sending her my work. And he was actually trying to move people within the State Department
toward a more, maybe you could say a more humanistic view, but also a more realistic view of
Israel, Palestine and the Netanyahu operation in Washington. Working through [Sheldon] Adelson,
using this fraud hack of a rabbi, Shmuley Boteach, has kind of their front man. They ran like a
full-page ad in the New York Times painting me and my father as Hillary Clinton's secret Middle
East advisers.
And then one day in the middle of the campaign, Elie Wiesel died. You know, someone who is
supposed to be this patron saint of Judaism and the kind of secular theology of Auschwitz, who
had spent the last years of his life as part of Sheldon Adelson's political network. Basically,
he had lost all his money to Bernie Madoff, and so he was getting paid off by Adelson. He got
half a million dollars from this Christian Zionist, apocalyptic, rapture-ready fanatic, Pastor
John Hagee. He was going around with Ted Cruz giving talks. And so when he died, I went on
Twitter and tweeted a few photos of Elie Wiesel with these extremist characters.
And I said, you know, here are photos of Elie Wiesel palling around with fascists. And the
kind of Netanyahu-Adelson network activated to attack me. And ultimately it led -- I actually,
within a matter of a few days, it led to Hillary Clinton's campaign officially denouncing me
and demanding that I cease and desist. And so, you know, I looked at the debate on Twitter, and
a lot of people were actually supporting me. And it was clear Elie Wiesel, this person who was
supposed to be a saint, was actually no longer seen as stainless, that the whole debate had
been opened up by 2016.
And now when we look at the Democratic Party and we look at the Democratic field, you know,
Bernie Sanders -- he's better than most of the other candidates, or the other candidates, on
this issue. After we put a lot of pressure on him in the left wing-grassroots -- I mean, I
personally protested him at a 2016 event for his position on Palestinians, and we shamed him
until he took at least a slightly better position, where you acknowledge the humanity of
Palestinians. But what we're hearing, even from Bernie Sanders, doesn't even reflect where the
grassroots of the Democratic Party -- particularly all those young people who are coming out
and delivering him a landslide victory tonight in Iowa -- are. The Democratic Party is not
democratic on Israel, but it's no longer a third-rail issue. You can talk about it, and the
only way that you can be stopped is through legislation, like the legislation we see in
statehouses to actually outlaw people who support the Palestinian boycott of Israel. So we're
just in an amazing time where all of the contradictions are completely out in the open.
RS: OK, let me just take a quick break so public radio stations like KCRW that make this
available can stick in some advertisements for themselves, which is a good cause. And we'll be
right back with Max Blumenthal. Back with Max Blumenthal, who has written -- I mean, I only
mentioned one of his books. He wrote a very important book on the right wing in America that
was a bestseller; he has been honored in many ways, and yet is a source of great controversy.
And I must say, I respect your ability to create this controversy, because it's controversy
about issues people don't want to deal with. You know, they want to deal with them in sort of
feel-good slogans, and it doesn't work, because people get hurt. And including Jewish people,
in the case of Israel. If you develop a settler, colonialist society, and that stands for the
Jewish position, and you're oppressing large numbers of people, be they Palestinian or others,
that's hardly an advertisement for what has been really great about the Jewish experience,
which I will argue until my death.
It was represented by people like my mother, who were in the Jewish socialist bund, and two
of her sisters were killed by the Czar's police in Russia. And they believed in Universalist
values, an idea of being Jewish as standing for the values of the oppressed, and concern for
the oppressed. And most of their experience in the shtetls, and out there in the diaspora, had
been being oppressed.
And so I don't want to lose that there. But I wanted to get now to the last part of this, to
what I think is the hypocrisy of the liberal wing of American politics, or so-called. And now
they call themselves more progressive. And it really kind of centers around Hillary Clinton.
And whatever you want to say about Bernie Sanders -- you know, Hillary Clinton's recent attack
on Bernie Sanders, that no one likes him and he stands for nothing and he gets nothing done.
And I think this is a, you know, a person that I thought, you know, at one point -- despite her
starting out as a Goldwater girl and being quite conservative -- I thought was, you know,
somewhat decent.
And I'm going to make this personal now. I was brought to a more favorable view of Bill and
Hillary Clinton, in considerable measure, by your father, as a journalist at the Washington
Post, and then working in the administration. And I respect your father and mother, you know,
and Sidney Blumenthal and Jacqueline Blumenthal, I think are intelligent people. And I once,
you know, went through a White House dinner; I think I only got in because your father put me
on the list, and Hillary Clinton said I was her favorite columnist in America -- no, the whole
world -- and it was very flattering. But I look back on it now -- Hillary Clinton has really
represented a kind of loathsome, interventionist, aggressive, America-first politics that in
some ways is even more offensive than Trump. When Trump said he's going to make America great
again, Hillary Clinton said, America's always been great. What?
MB: Yeah.
RS: What? Slavery, segregation, killing the Native Americans -- always been great? You grew
up with these people, right? You were in that world. What -- so yes, they can come up to you at
a book party and say, yes, it's about time somebody said that. But what are they really about?
That they -- you know, you mentioned Syria. You know, their great achievement, they created a
mess of that society. And she's the one who went to, said about Libya, oh, we came, we saw, and
he's dead. You know, sodomized to death. So take me into the heart of the so-called liberal
experience.
MB: Well, first of all, since you invoke Sidney Blumenthal so frequently, he has a -- I
think his fourth book in a five-part series on Abraham Lincoln out. And you know, these books
address Lincoln almost as if he were a contemporary politician. It's a completely new
contribution to the history of Lincoln, and if you invite him on, be sure --
RS: I'm familiar with it, and I'll endorse it --
MB: If you invite him on, you can ask him, I would love to hear that debate --
RS: I certainly would, and I have -- as I said, I have a lot of respect for your father and
mother. I'm asking a different question. Why do good people look the other way? Or how does it
work? Just, you know, to the degree you can, take me inside that Washington culture. And where
there's a certain arrogance in it, that they are always, even when they do the wrong things,
they're just always accidents. They're always mistakes. You know, it never comes out of their
ideology, their aggression. So I want to know more about that.
MB: I mean, I saw all these -- so many different sides of Washington. And so -- and I was
always supported by my parents, no matter what view I took. So I don't feel like I have to live
in my father's shadow or something like that. They remain really supportive of me. I have a new
book out -- it's not really new, it came out last April. It's called "The Management of
Savagery," and it deals substantially with my view of the bipartisan foreign policy
establishment, but particularly the Hillary State Department, the Obama foreign policy team,
and the destruction they wrought in Libya and Syria. So, you know, I put everything I knew
about Washington and foreign policy into that book. And so I really would recommend that as
well.
But, you know, how does it work with the Clintons? They were -- they set up a machine that
was really a juggernaut with all this corporate money they brought in through the DLC, the
Democratic Leadership Committee. It was a very different structure than we'd seen with previous
Democratic candidates who built -- who relied heavily on unions and, you know, the civil rights
coalition. And that machine never went away. It kept growing like this -- kind of like this
amoeba that began to engulf the party and politics itself. So that when Bill Clinton was out of
power, the machine was passed to Hillary Clinton, and the machine followed her into the Senate.
And the machine grew into the Clinton Global Initiative, which was this giant
influence-peddling scam that just cashed in on disasters in Haiti, brought in tons of money,
tens of millions of dollars from Gulf monarchies, and big oil and the arms industry --
everything that funds all the repulsive think tanks on K Street through the Clinton
Foundation.
And everyone who was trying to get close to the Clinton Foundation, whether they were in
Clinton's inner circle or not, was just trying to gather influence. That's why you saw at
Chelsea Clinton's wedding, behind her, Ghislaine Maxwell, who was basically Jeffrey Epstein's
personal child sex trafficker, just trying to cultivate influence with people who have this
gigantic political machine.
So that's why so many people, I think, have stayed loyal to this odious project, and have
looked the other way as entire countries were destroyed under the direct watch of Hillary
Clinton. Libya today -- where Hillary Clinton took personal credit for destroying this country,
which was at the time before its destruction, I think the wealthiest African nation with the
highest quality of life -- is now in, still in civil war. We've seen footage of open-air slave
auctions taking place, and large parts of the country for years were occupied by affiliates of
Al Qaeda or ISIS, including Muammar Gaddafi's hometown of Sirte. It was immediately transformed
into a haven for the Islamic State.
This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton. There would have been no Benghazi scandal if she
hadn't gone into Libya to come, see, and kill, as she bragged that she did. And in Syria, she
attempted the same thing; fortunately failed, thanks to assistance from Iran and Russia. But
this was, it consisted of a billion dollars, multibillion-dollar operation to arm and equip
some of the most dangerous, psychotic fanatics on the face of the planet in Al Qaeda and 31
flavors of Salafi jihadi. Hillary Clinton said we can't be negotiating with the Syrian
government; the hard men with guns will solve this problem. She said that in an interview, and
that's her legacy.
Beyond that, you know, I in Washington grew up in a very complex situation. I don't know
what view people have of me, but I grew up in what was – D.C. when D.C. was known as
C.C., or Chocolate City. It was a mostly black city, run by a local black power structure with
a strong black middle class, and I grew up in a black neighborhood. And I kind of saw apartheid
firsthand, where I saw how a small white minority actually controlled the city from behind the
scenes. And then, you know, and I saw that reality, and then I went to school across town in
the one white ward to a private school, and I got to know some of the children of the kind of
mostly Democratic Party elite. And so I saw both sides of the city. And it was through that
other side, and also my parents' connection to the Clintons, that I -- I mean, I barely
interacted with the Clintons. I've had very minimal interaction with them ever.
But I did get to meet Chelsea Clinton once. And you know, for all my reservations about the
Clintons or what they were, I thought you know, she was kind of an admirable figure at that
time. She was a -- she was a kid, she was an adolescent who was being mocked on "Saturday Night
Live" because she was going through an awkward phase. She went to school down the street at
Sidwell Friends, and I met her at a White House Christmas party; she was really friendly and
personable. And you know, since then, I've watched her grow into adulthood and become a
complete kind of replication of the monstrous political apparatus that her family has set up,
without really charting her own path. She just basically inherited the reign of the Clinton
Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative. She does paid talks for Israel. Her husband Marc
Mezvinsky, he gambled on Greece's debt along with Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs.
You know, the squid fish. I mean, there's just -- I mean, as a young person, seeing someone of
my generation grow up and follow that path, do nothing to carve out her own space -- it just
absolutely disgusts me.
And now Hillary Clinton is still there! She won't go away! She's not only helped fuel this
Russiagate hysteria that's plunged us into a new Cold War, but she's trying to destroy the
hopes and dreams of millions of young people who are saddled with endless debt by destroying
Bernie Sanders. And it's because she sees her own legacy being smashed to pieces, not by any
right-wing, vast conspiracy, but by the electorate, the new electorate of the Democratic Party.
And I absolutely welcome that. I think, you know, tonight in Iowa, a landslide Bernie victory,
one of the takeaways is this will be the end of Clintonism. It's time to move on and hand
things over to a new generation. They had their chance, and they not only failed, they caused
disasters across the world.
RS: So this is -- we're going to wind this up, but I think we've hit a really important
subject. And I want to take a little bit more time on it. And I thought you expressed it quite
powerfully. But the error, if you'll permit me, is to center it on the personality, or the
family. And I don't think Clintonism is going to go away. Because what it represents -- and I
know you --
MB: It could be become Bloombergism, you know?
RS: Well, that's where I'm going. I think what Clintonism represents is this triangulation,
this new Democrat. And I interviewed him when he was governor, just when he was campaigning.
And I did a lot of writing on the Financial Services Modernization Act and on welfare reform,
and all of these ingredients of this policy. And what it really represents -- no wonder they're
rewarded by the super wealthy. But the Democratic Party lost its organizational base with the
destruction of the labor movement and weakening of other sources of progressive class-based
politics, concern about working people and ordinary people.
And what Clinton did is he came along, and he had a sort of variation of Nixon's Southern
Strategy, how he got the Republicans to be so important in the South. And it was this new
politics, this redefinition. And it's not going away, because it's the cover for Wall Street.
It's the cover for exploitation. And the main thing that happened from when you were young --
or born, actually; you're 42 years -- it's 42 years of, since Clinton really, and you can blame
Reagan, you can blame the first President Bush, you can blame other people, and certainly blame
the whole bloody Republican Party. I'm not going to give them a pass.
But the fact is, what the Clinton revolution did was it made class warfare for the rich
fashionable, in a way that no one else was able to do it, no other movement. And it said these
thieves on Wall Street, these people who are going to rip you off 20 different ways to Sunday
-- they're good people, and they support good causes. And you mentioned Lloyd Blankfein, you
know; "government" Goldman Sachs, you know. Robert Rubin came from Goldman Sachs; he was
Clinton's treasury secretary. And the whole thing of unleashing Wall Street and getting,
destroying the New Deal -- that was a serious program to basically betray the average American
and betray their interest. And that's why we've had this growing income inequality since that
time. That's the Clinton legacy in this world, really, is the billionaire coup, the billionaire
culture.
MB: Yep, the oligarchy was put on fast-forward by the new politics of the Clintons. What
they promised wasn't, you know, a break from Reaganism, although there was certainly a cultural
difference. They promised continuity, and that's what we saw through the Obama administration.
Obama presided over the biggest decline in black home ownership in the United States since, I
think, prior to World War II. You mentioned Glass-Steagall; this set the stage for the
financial crisis; NAFTA, destroyed the unions, shipped American jobs first to Mexico and then
to China, and destabilized northern Mexico along with the drug war that Clinton put on
overdrive, creating the immigration crisis that helped fuel the rise of Donald Trump.
Welfare reform -- all of these policies were just, were odious to me and so many people at
the time, but there was just this desire to just beat the Republicans and out-triangulate them.
Now that we've seen the effects on them and so many people have felt the effects, you have an
entire generation that sees no future, that realizes they're living in an oligarchy, realizes
that the alternative to Bernie Sanders is a literal oligarch, this miniature Scrooge McDuck in
Mike Bloomberg, and they're just not having it.
I don't know if Hillary Clinton understands this history; I don't think she sees it in
context. She just blames Russian boogeyman and fake news for everything. But the rest of us
who've lived through it really do, and it's the continuity that is so dangerous, especially on
foreign policy. I mean, the Libya proxy war and the Syria proxy war, the stage was set in
Yugoslavia with NATO's war that destroyed a socialist country and unleashed hell on a large
part of its population. And we still don't debate that war. The stage for the Iraq invasion was
set in 1998 with Bill Clinton passing the Iraqi Liberation Act, which sent $90 million into the
pocket of the con-man Ahmed Chalabi and made regime change the official policy of the United
States.
It's tragic that Bernie Sanders voted for that. But we have to see the cause and the effect
to understand why so many people are in open revolt against that legacy. And you're right, it
goes well beyond the Clintons. It's a program that markets right-wing economics and a
right-wing foreign policy in a sort of progressive bottle. Now what they're trying to do with
the label on that progressive bottle, the way they're trying to preserve it -- we see it a lot
through the [Elizabeth] Warren campaign -- is through a kind of neoliberal identity politics
that divorces class from race and gender, and attempts to basically distract people with
needless arguments about Bernie Sanders saying a woman couldn't have gotten elected in a
private conversation that only Elizabeth Warren was party to.
So I'm really encouraged, I guess, by the results that we're seeing. We're talking tonight
on the eve of the Iowa caucus. I'm encouraged by those results, just because I see them as a
repudiation of the politics that have just dominated my life as a 42-year-old, and just been so
absolutely cynical and destructive at their core. But I would just remind anyone who is
supporting Bernie Sanders and listening to this -- he's not just running for president. He's
running for the next target of a deep state coup, and the deep state exists, and will respond
with more force and viciousness than it did to Donald Trump, who actually has much more in
common with them than Bernie Sanders.
RS: I didn't quite get the grammar of that last paragraph, not any fault of yours. You said
he's not just running -- can you --
MB: He's running for the next target of a deep state coup, the forces of Wall Street. You
know, the --
RS: Oh, you mean he will be the target.
MB: He will be the target.
RS: Yeah, you know, it's -- you just said something really -- OK, I know we have to wrap
this up, but it's actually just getting interesting for me. [Laughs]
MB: Sorry about that.
RS: No, no, no, come on, come on. [Laughter] What I mean is, I do these things because I
learn, and I think, and you know, my selfish interests. And really the question right now, I
did a wonderful interview with Chomsky on this podcast, and he took me to school for not
appreciating the importance of the lesser evil. And I've lost sleep over it since. You know,
well -- and we always fall for that, you know. On the other hand, some of the things you've
been talking about, you know -- and this is going to get me in big trouble -- but you know,
Trump is so blatant. He's so out there in favor of greed and corruption.
He's so obnoxious. And actually, in terms of his policy impact -- not his rhetoric, but his
policy impact -- is he really that much worse? Well, for instance, you mentioned NAFTA. The
rewrite of NAFTA, even before, you know, some progressives got involved in it, it was a
substantially better trade agreement than the first NAFTA. You know, he hasn't gotten us into
Syria-type, Iraq-type wars.
He actually -- so I'm not -- you know, yes, I consider him a neofascist; rhetoric can be
very dangerous. He's obviously spread very evil, poisonous ideas about immigrants and what have
you, you know, I can go down the list. But the people that you've been talking about,
that–you know, and I voted for all of them, and I've supported them -- are they really
the lesser evil? You know, or are they a more effective form of evil?
MB: I mean, to understand Trump, we just have to see him as the apotheosis of an oligarchy.
In its most unsheathed, unvarnished form, he's just lifted the mask off the corruption, the
legal corruption that's prevailed, and been completely unabashed about it. Donald Trump was
targeted with this kind of Russiagate campaign, which was partly run by Clintonite dead-enders
who wanted to blame Russia for her loss, and to attack Donald Trump with this kind of
McCarthyite rhetoric. But it was also being influenced by the intelligence services -- figures
like John Brennan and James Comey, and neoconservative hardliners who could easily jump back
into the Democratic Party. And they were just seeking a new Cold War, to justify the budgets of
the intelligence services, and the defense budget and so on.
But at his core, Donald Trump, what he's actually done, especially domestically, I think
outside of the immigration stuff, is he's been kind of a traditional Republican. And he won a
lot of consent from Republicans in Congress when he passed a trillion-dollar tax cut. He's
given corporate America everything he wanted after kind of campaigning with this populist,
Bannonite tone. So in a lot of ways, Donald Trump does share more in common with the Democratic
Party elite -- with a lot of the figures who've been nominated to serve on the DNC platform
committee, who are just from the Beltway blob and the Beltway bandits -- than they do with
Bernie Sanders.
And I think that if Bernie Sanders gets the nomination, there will be an effort to McGovern
him. To just kind of turn him -- turn this whole process into McGovern '72, hope that Bernie
Sanders gets destroyed by Donald Trump, and then wag their fingers at the left for the next 20
years until they get another Bill Clinton. I think that they don't know how to stop him at this
point, but they're willing to let him be the nominee and go down to Donald Trump, because
Bernie Sanders threatens their interests, and the movement behind him particularly, more than
Donald Trump does.
RS: You know, they will stop Bernie Sanders, and they will do it by the argument of lesser
evilism. And you see the line developing --
MB: But who is the lesser evil, Bob? I mean, Joe Biden is like this doddering wreck. There
is no other candidate who seems even remotely viable against Trump.
RS: No, no, no -- I understand that. I'm telling you what -- well, it seems to me there's --
you know, you want to talk about fake news, the, misreporting of Bernie Sanders -- in fact, the
misreporting of what democratic socialism is. I mean, he's now branded in the mainstream media
as some hopeless fanatic because he dared to defend democratic socialism. Democratic socialism
has been the norm for the most successful economies in the world, even to a degree when we've
been successful. That was the legacy of Roosevelt, after all, is to try to save capitalism from
itself. That's why you had some enlightened government programs, you know, right down the list,
and that's what saved Germany after the war, and that's what France and England and so forth,
that's why they have health care systems.
But the mainstream media has actually taken a very moderate figure, Bernie Sanders, and
demonized him as some kind of hopeless ideologue, right? And as you point out, Bernie Sanders
is hardly a radical thinker on issues -- particularly, as you mentioned, about the Mideast and
so forth. What he is, is somebody who actually is honoring the best side of Franklin Delano
Roosevelt: you can't let these greed merchants control everything, you have to worry about some
compensation for ordinary people. That's what Bernie Sanders is all about. And it should be an
argument that has great appeal to people of power, otherwise they're going to come after you
with the pitchforks. Instead the mainstream media, in its hysteria, you know, has taken this
word "democratic socialist" and used it to vilify him.
But the point that I want -- and we will end on this, but I'd like to get your reaction --
that came up in my discussion with Chomsky, who I have great admiration for. But it is this
lesser evilism. And I think while, yes, people in their vote can think about that, they can
vote that way -- I've done it much of my life; I've voted for all sorts of evil people because
they were lesser. But as a journalist -- and I want to end about your journalism -- as a
journalist, I think we have to get that idea out of our head. And it means being able to be
objective about a Donald Trump when he comes up with his NAFTA rewrite, and say hey, there are
some good things in it, including the fact that you have to pay $16 an hour to people in Mexico
who are working on cars that are going to be sold in the United States, OK. And what the
liberal community has been able to do in the mainstream media, MSNBC, is Trumpwash
everything.
Which brings us back to your critique. They've been able to say -- they've made warmongering
liberal and fashionable. They've taken the -- they've made the CIA now a wonderful institution,
the FBI a wonderful institution, [John] Bolton a wonderful hero. And I want to take my hat off
to your journalism, because you have -- and I do recommend that people go to your website, the
Grayzone. Because you have had the courage to say, wait a minute, what's called a lesser evil
can't be given a pass. Because in fact, maybe in some ways, or in many ways, it's a more
effective evil. We know what Trump is; he stands exposed every hour of every day.
But you know, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton -- and I'm not trying to pick on them, but you
know, they represented this embrace of the Wall Street center -- they were much more effective
in redistributing income to the rich. You know, you can talk about Trump's tax break, but the
real redistribution came with letting Wall Street do its collateralized debt obligations and
credit default swaps that caused the destruction of 70% of black wealth in America, 60% of
brown wealth in America, according to the Federal Reserve. So really, in this election, people
have to think -- you know, yes, I'll hold my nose and I'll vote for the lesser evil. But what's
that going to get us? Does it get us a more effective evil, a better-packaged evil? Last word
from you?
MB: Well, I mean, one of the things that we do at the Grayzone.com, our mission is to oppose
this policy of regime change that the U.S. imposes across the world against any state that
seeks some independence from the U.S. sphere of influence that wants to craft its own economic
policies in a socialist way, like Venezuela, Nicaragua. We, you know, we exposed a lot of the
deceptions that were trying to stimulate public support for regime change in Syria, that would
have been absolutely disastrous. And in all of these situations, we don't stand alone, but we
stand among a really, really small group of alternative outlets who don't play the lesser-evil
game on regime change.
Where we say, well, this leader or that leader are horrible, and they are evil dictators,
but we should also be kind of suspicious of the, you know, of the war that the U.S. might wage.
Or we should be critical of these brutal economic sanctions that have killed tens of thousands
of Venezuelans through excess deaths. We say -- we actually look at the alternative to the
current government and show that there actually isn't the lesser evil, that the alternative is
far worse. In Syria it was Al Qaeda and the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood; in Venezuela it's Juan
Guaidó's right-wing, white collar mafia, which is a front for Exxon Mobil. Same thing in
Nicaragua.
And you know, as much as I respect and I've learned from Noam Chomsky, he plays that
lesser-evil game on regime change. He's trashed all of the, all of these governments. He
celebrated the collapse of the Soviet Union, and we saw what happened to Russia after that. So
it's important to look at lesser evilism through a historical context, and then we can apply it
to the United States as well. Look at who's been sold to us as the lesser evil that we had to
support. Well, we've been talking about them, Bob, for the last half hour, and they've
subjected Americans to the same evil the Republican Party has, for the most part. Maybe they've
limited it to some degree. But now there's actually an option for something that I'd say is
moderate in the United States.
You're right -- Bernie Sanders does nothing, and proposes nothing, outside the framework of
the New Deal and LBJ's Great Society. I don't even think he's a democratic socialist. I don't
know what that term really means. He's a social democrat. And he is someone who at least offers
a change from the consensus where the government actually starts to intervene to prevent people
from dying excess deaths across the country, from the opioid crisis, from poverty, from
homelessness. Eighty percent of new homes that have been built in the U.S. in the past two
years are luxury housing. And you know who else is supporting Bernie Sanders besides all these
debt-saddled youth? Active duty U.S. military veterans who are sick of permanent war. $160,000
in campaign contributions have been given to Bernie by active duty vets. That's something like
eight times more than have gone to Joe Biden, who is involved at the forefront of almost every
American war since Gulf War I.
And we're really capitalizing on that at the Grayzone. We understand the American public and
the western public are sick of being lied into war, and they're sick of being pushed into
lesser evilism, whether it's abroad in countries that are targeted by the U.S., or at home. And
so we're just there providing balance and exposing whatever the lie is of the day.
RS: Let me, as an older person, end with a little editorial about what -- and I agree with
the thrust of what you've been saying -- but why I think this word "democratic socialism" is
important, not just social democrat. Because it acknowledges the vast harm that has been done
by the left in human history. It's not just the right, it's not just the corporate elite, and
it's not just the oligarchs. That people got hold of a message of concern for the ordinary
person. It happened in religion too, after all, you know; structures were developed, people who
claimed they were following the message of Christ, and they ended up building edifices to the
exploitation of ordinary people.
I think what Bernie Sanders represents -- and I'll ask your response, but what I think he
represents, the reason he's so authentic -- he actually believes in the grassroots. He actually
believes that an ordinary person in Vermont can make intelligent decisions about the human
condition, and about justice and freedom. And I think the reason Bernie Sanders can survive the
rhetorical assaults on his leftism or his socialism, is that what people of power in the
capitalist world have managed to do is identify this cause of social justice, a notion of
democratic socialism with totalitarianism, with elitism. And Bernie Sanders -- and this is a
good night to celebrate Bernie Sanders, if it's true; I hadn't caught up with the news, but if
he's really doing that well in Iowa. Because I thought he would get 1% of the vote four years
ago when he started; I never thought this would happen.
I think what makes Bernie Sanders authentic is his respect for the ordinary person. He is
the opposite of that leftist elitist–and you have them as well as rightist elitists --
who thinks they have to distort history to protect the average person from reality. And Bernie
Sanders is -- he speaks truth about what's going on. And at a time when people on the right and
the left have nothing but contempt for most of the politicians, and journalistic leaders and
everything else, for having betrayed them. So I think Bernie Sanders is a ray of hope. I wish
he would be around a lot longer, but then again, I wish I'd be around a lot longer. But it's
nice to run into Max Blumenthal, who's half my age and has all of that spirit that I'd like to
see in journalism. So thanks, Max, for doing this.
MB: Thank you, Bob. It's a real honor.
RS: And by the way, I ignored that last book of yours. Could you give the title again and
how people get it?
MB: It's called "The Management of Savagery." And let me pull it off the shelf so I can
actually read the subheader. You can edit this. It's called "The Management of Savagery: How
America's National Security State Fueled the Rise of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Donald Trump." And
it's really kind of my look at the, sort of how the politics of my lifetime and my generation
has been shaped by foreign policy disasters that an unelected foreign-policy establishment has
subjected us to.
RS: Full disclosure, I actually have not read it, and I will get it as soon as I can.
MB: I'll send you a copy --
RS: No, no, no, you got -- it's hard enough to make a living as a writer. I don't think you
should give these things away for nothing. I'll get myself a copy. And I want to thank you
again. I've been talking to Max Blumenthal, check out his work, check out the Grayzone. These
podcasts are done basically for KCRW, the public radio station in Santa Monica, where
Christopher Ho is the engineer who gets it up on the air.
At Truthdig, Natasha Hakimi Zapata writes the brilliant intros and overview of these things
and posts them up there. Here at USC, Sebastian Grubaugh, the Annenberg School for
Communication and Journalism, really gets the whole thing going and hooks up everyone, thanks
to him. And finally, there'd be no "Scheer Intelligence" without the main Scheer, Joshua
Scheer, who's the show's producer. And we'll see you next week with another edition of "Scheer
Intelligence."
Later in the show, Jacquie and Sean are joined by political cartoonist Ted Rall to talk
about the catastrophic caucuses in Iowa, why billionaire-funded Buttigieg can get away with
smearing the Sanders campaign as being funded by "dark money" in the current political
climate.
How Joe Biden's campaign managed to fail so spectacularly and the new ways it may continue
to do so, why billionaire Mike Bloomberg is getting more attention than the former Vice
President despite having virtually no popular support
How the "Shadow" app encapsulates the seemingly-endless conflicts of interest plaguing the
Democratic establishment, why the United States seems to be approaching a tipping point like so
many other countries have in the past year
Why the Democratic party seemingly continues to misunderstand the political consequences
of impeachment and now may be coming back for seconds, and how the Democrats' actions are
bolstering the ranks of Trump's most diehard supporters
"... Of course, some may argue that one's class is based largely on her own experience and perspective, but this confuses psychological feelings with concrete social and economic realities. As C. Wright Mills pointed out in his classic study, "White Collar: The American Middle Classes," just because people "are not 'class conscious' at all times and in all places does not mean 'there are no classes' or that 'in America everybody is middle class.' " Although subjective feelings are no doubt important, to accept that everyone who identifies as middle class must be middle class is to disregard objective economic realities. ..."
"... The new middle class flourished until the capitalist class decided to revolt against the legacy of the New Deal toward the end of the 20th century. In the contemporary era, many who would have been middle-class in the postwar years have effectively been proletarianized once again, and economic inequality has returned pre-Great Depression heights. Proletarianization, Mills explained, "refers to shifts of middle-class occupations toward wage-workers in terms of: income, property, skill, prestige or power, irrespective of whether or not the people involved are aware of these changes. Or, the meaning may be in terms of changes in consciousness, outlook, or organized activity." ..."
In America, the term "middle class" has long been used to describe the
majority of wage and salary earners, from those receiving a median annual income of around
$50,000 to those who earn three or four times that amount. Whether Democrat or Republican,
politicians from across the political aisle claim to represent the middle class -- that
vast-yet-amorphous segment of the population where the managers and the managed all seem to fit
together.
The term has always been somewhat problematic when it comes to politics. As Joan C. Williams
observes in her 2017 book, "White Working Class: Overcoming Class Cluelessness in America," a
"central way we make class disappear is to describe virtually everyone as 'middle class.' " The
majority of Americans see themselves as middle class, including those in the top 10% earning
several times the average income. According to Williams, a close friend of hers who
"undoubtedly belonged to the top 1%" once referred to herself as middle class, a perspective
that the author describes as "class cluelessness."
This cluelessness was also evident in a New York Times article last summer
titled "What Middle Class Families Want Politicians to Know," which included interviews with a
number of purportedly middle class families with household incomes of up to $400,000 (only one
of the interviewees earned less than $100,000, with the average around $200,000).
The fact that people who earn a quarter-million dollars annually place themselves in the
same category as those earning $70,000 tells us just how politically useless the term "middle
class" has become in contemporary America. Even when we take into account geographic factors
and fluctuations in the cost of living, there is little rational justification for categorizing
a $60,000-a-year blue-collar worker with a lawyer or doctor earning in excess of $200,000.
Of course, some may argue that one's class is based largely on her own experience and
perspective, but this confuses psychological feelings with concrete social and economic
realities. As C. Wright Mills pointed out in his classic study, "White Collar: The American
Middle Classes," just because people "are not 'class conscious' at all times and in all places
does not mean 'there are no classes' or that 'in America everybody is middle class.' " Although
subjective feelings are no doubt important, to accept that everyone who identifies as middle
class must be middle class is to disregard objective economic realities.
One's class consciousness (or lack thereof) has important implications for one's political
attitudes, and in America class consciousness has always been somewhat lacking compared to
other countries. The United States has never had a true aristocratic class or feudal property
relations like those in Europe, and in the 19th century, the "middle class" essentially
stood for small capitalists and propertied farmers. Between the mid-19th century and mid-20th
century, the country was transformed, in Mills' analysis, from a "nation of small capitalists
into a nation of hired employees" -- a trend that sociologists call "proletarianization."
In the post-World War II era, thanks to the struggle of labor and the policies of the New
Deal, which aimed to reduce inequality and mediate class tensions, many in the working class
became comfortably middle class. In other words, the proletariat turned into a kind of "petty
bourgeois," adopting the same values and attitudes as their employers, while accepting the
status quo after a few adjustments. Ironically, this ended up undercutting more radical labor
movements while preserving the economic system, which eventually came back to bite working
people and their children.
The new middle class flourished until the capitalist class decided to revolt against the
legacy of the New Deal toward the end of the 20th century. In the contemporary era, many who
would have been middle-class in the postwar years have effectively been proletarianized once
again, and economic inequality has returned pre-Great Depression heights. Proletarianization,
Mills explained, "refers to shifts of middle-class occupations toward wage-workers in terms of:
income, property, skill, prestige or power, irrespective of whether or not the people involved
are aware of these changes. Or, the meaning may be in terms of changes in consciousness,
outlook, or organized activity."
The proletarianization of the middle class over the past 50 years has had an enormously
detrimental effect on communities across the country, but it has taken quite a while for many
working people in America to recognize their new situation in terms of consciousness and
outlook. The enduring popularity of the term "middle class" reflects this state of affairs.
In the Democratic primaries, only one candidate has deliberately chosen to use "working
class" over "middle class." Not surprisingly, that candidate is Sen. Bernie Sanders. "I am a
candidate of the working class," Sanders recently declared on Facebook. "I come from the
working class. That is my background, that's who I am. I fought for the working class as a
mayor, a Congressman and a Senator. And that is the kind of president that I will be." Sanders,
whose campaign is 100% grassroots-funded, wrote
in a column last week for the Des Moines Register, " our campaign is focused on making sure
the government stops representing billionaires and start representing us -- the working class
of this country."
Though it may seem like a somewhat trivial distinction, when we look at the rest of the
Democratic field, it's clear that Sanders has indeed distinguished himself from the other top
candidates. For example, Sanders' opponent Joe Biden frequently speaks of the middle class but
rarely the working class. "This country wasn't built by Wall Street bankers and CEOs and hedge
fund managers. It was built by the American middle class," Biden declares on his campaign
website, where he says that the middle class "isn't a number," but a "set of values." (In a way
this is correct, but not in the sense that Biden seems to think.)
On the more progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren's website, where she lists her numerous plans,
one searches in vain for any references to the working class, though there are plenty to the
middle class.
How much this actually matters is, of course, debatable, but the term "working class"
undoubtedly has far more implications and political significance than "middle class," which,
like many overused words in the political lexicon, has lost all meaning. By using "working
class" instead, Sanders appears to be trying to increase class consciousness in America, where
those in the ruling class have often demonstrated the highest level of class consciousness
(never failing to use their abundant resources to protect and advance their own interests).
The more young and working-class people come to recognize their own situation and place in
the 21st century American economy, the more they seem to embrace "socialist" policies that are
rejected by "middle class" sensibilities.
In the Democratic primaries, only one candidate has made raising levels of class
consciousness part of his campaign strategy, and in an election that could very well be
determined by working-class voters, this may be the strategy to defeat Trump.
I've heard and read about a claim that Trump actually called PM Abdul Mahdi and demanded that
Iraq hand over 50 percent of their proceeds from selling their oil to the USA, and then
threatened Mahdi that he would unleash false flag attacks against the Iraqi government and
its people if he did not submit to this act of Mafia-like criminal extortion. Mahdi told
Trump to kiss his buttocks and that he wasn't going to turn over half of the profits from oil
sales.
This makes Trump sound exactly like a criminal mob boss, especially in light of the fact
that the USA is now the world's #1 exporter of oil – a fact that the arrogant Orange
Man has even boasted about in recent months. Can anyone confirm that this claim is accurate?
If so, then the more I learn about Trump the more sleazy and gangster like he becomes.
I mean, think about it. Bush and Cheney and mostly jewish neocons LIED us into Iraq based
on bald faced lies, fabricated evidence, and exaggerated threats that they KNEW did not
exist. We destroyed that country, captured and killed it's leader – who used to be a
big buddy of the USA when we had a use for him – and Bush's crime gang killed close to
2 million innocent Iraqis and wrecked their economy and destroyed their infrastructure. And,
now, after all that death, destruction and carnage – which Trump claimed in 2016 he did
not approve of – but, now that Trump is sitting on the throne in the Oval office
– he has the audacity and the gall to demand that Iraq owes the USA 50 percent of their
oil profits? And, that he won't honor and respect their demand to pull our troops out of
their sovereign nation unless they PAY US back for the gigantic waste of tax payers money
that was spent building permanent bases inside their country?
Not one Iraqi politician voted for the appropriations bill that financed the construction
of those military bases; that was our mistake, the mistake of our US congress whichever POTUS
signed off on it.
...Trump learned the power of the purse on the streets of NYC, he survived by playing ball
with the Jewish and Italian Mafia. Now he has become the ultimate Godfather, and the world
must listen to his commands. Watch and listen as the powerful and mighty crumble under US
Hegemony.
Right TG, traditionally, as you said up there first, and legally too, under the supreme law
of the land. Economic sanctions are subject to the same UNSC supervision as forcible
coercion.
UN Charter Article 41: "The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the
use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon
the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or
partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio,
and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."
US "sanctions" require UNSC authorization. Unilateral sanctions are nothing but illegal
coercive intervention, as the non-intervention principle is customary international law,
which is US federal common law.
The G-192, that is, the entire world, has affirmed this law. That's why the US is trying
to defund UNCTAD as redundant with the WTO (UNCTAD is the G-192's primary forum.) In any
case, now that the SCO is in a position to enforce this law at gunpoint with its
overwhelmingly superior missile technology, the US is going to get stomped and tased until it
complies and stops resisting.
In 2018 total US petroleum production was under 18 million barrels per day, total
consumption north of 20 mmb/d. What does it matter if the US exports a bunch of super light
fracked product the US itself can't refine if it turns around and imports it all back in
again and then some.
The myths we tell ourselves, like a roaring economy that nevertheless generates a $1
trillion annual deficit, will someday come back to bite us. Denying reality is not a winning
game plan for the long run.
I long tought that US foreign policies were mainly zionist agenda – driven, but the
Venezuelan affair and the statements of Trump himself about the syrian oil (ta be "kept"
(stolen)) make you think twice.
Oil seems to be at least very important even if it's not the main cause of middle east
problems
So maybe it's the cause of illegal and cruel sanctions against Iran : Get rid of
competitor to sell shale oil everywhere ?( think also of Norstream 2 here)
Watch out US of A. in the end there is something sometimes referred to as the oil's
curse . some poor black Nigerians call oil "the shit of the devil", because it's such a
problem – related asset Have you heard of it ? You get your revenues from oil easily,
so you don't have to make effort by yourself. And in the end you don't keep pace with China
on 5G ? Education fails ? Hmm
Becommig a primary sector extraction nation sad destiny indeed, like africans growing cafe,
bananas and cacao for others. Not to mention environmental problems
What has happened to the superb Nation that send the first man on the moon and invented
modern computers ?
Disapointment
Money for space or money for war following the Zio. Choose Uncle Sam !
Difficult to have both
Everyone seems to forget how we avoided war with Syria all those years ago It was when John
Kerry of all people gaffed, and said "if Assad gives up all his chemical weapons." That was
in response to a reporter who asked "is there anything that can stop the war?" A intrepid
Russian ambassador chimed in loud enough for the press core to hear his "OK" and history was
averted. Thinking restricting the power of the President will stop brown children from dying
at the hands of insane US foreign policy is a cope. "Bi-partisanship" voted to keep troops in
Syria, that was only a few months ago, have you already forgotten? Dubya started the drone
program, and the magical African everyone fawns over, literally doubled the remote controlled
death. We are way past pretending any elected official from either side is actually against
more ME war, or even that one side is worse than the other.
The problem with the supporters Trump has left is they so desperately want to believe in
something bigger than themselves. They have been fed propaganda for their whole lives, and as
a result can only see the world in either "this is good" or "this is bad." The problem with
the opposition is that they are insane. and will say or do anything regardless of the truth.
Trump could be impeached for assassinating Sulimani, yet they keep proceeding with fake and
retarded nonsense. Just like keeping troops in Syria, even the most insane rabid leftoids are
just fine with US imperialism, so long as it's promoting Starbucks, Marvel and homosex, just
like we see with support for HK. That is foreign meddling no matter how you try to justify
it, and it's not even any different messaging than the hoax "bring
democracyhumanrightsfreedom TM to the poor Arabs" justification that was used in Iraq. They
don't even have to come up with a new play to run, it's really quite incredible.
@OverCommenter
A lot of right-wingers also see military action in the Middle East as a way for America to
flex its muscles and bomb some Arabs. It also serves to justify the insane defence budget
that could be used to build a wall and increase funding to ICE.
US politics has become incredibly bi-partisan, criticising Trump will get you branded a
'Leftist' in many circles. This extreme bipartisanship started with the Obama birth
certificate nonsense which was being peddled by Jews like Orly Taitz, Philip J. Berg, Robert
L. Shulz, Larry Klayman and Breitbart news – most likely because Obama was pursuing the
JCPOA and not going hard enough on Iran – and continued with the Trump Russian agent
angle.
Now many Americans cannot really think critically, they stick to their side like a fan
sticks to their sports team.
The first person I ever heard say sanctions are acts of war was Ron Paul. The repulsive
Madeleine Albright infamously said the deaths of 500,000 Iranian children due to US sanctions
was worth it. She ought to be tried as a war criminal. Ron Paul ought to be Secretary of
State.
"... AS : You've talked about technocratic progressives, and alluded to what might be called technocratic libertarians. Is there such a thing as technocratic populism, which genuinely responds to populist complaints through market-based, technical solutions? Or is technocratic populism a contradiction in terms? ..."
"... AS : It's ironic, isn't it, that some of the changes that hollowed out the parties were initially justified on the grounds that they weren't representative enough. Would it be fair to say that these kinds of populist reforms backfired and produced democratic deficits? ..."
"... AS : Two proposals that have been voiced by those policy wonks in recent years are universal basic income and trust-busting. In the book you reject both of these proposals. Why? ..."
"... AS : Five times zero is still zero. ..."
"... AS : Many of the power-sharing proposals you favor work by creating veto points that let workers say no and force a compromise. Do you worry that this might make us less competitive in the international arena? China doesn't have many democratic constraints on the market, after all, because it's not a democracy. Is it possible to create veto points without sacrificing efficiency, and with it our competitive edge? ..."
"... AS : In closing, I want to ask a couple big-picture questions. Patrick Deneen, the author of Why Liberalism Failed , recently tweeted that The New Class War is "THE essential book of the decade." Do you agree that liberalism has failed? And if not, why do you think that a lot of post-liberals have been raving about your book? ..."
"... AS : You don't seem to have much faith in either political party right now. Do you think the power-sharing you envision can plausibly arise without any help from established politicians, or are things going to get a lot worse before they get better? ..."
"... AS : Do you think competition with China could potentially catalyze a class truce? ..."
"... AS : Last question: Your theory of the case is very much a systemic one. It's a story about structures and institutions and systems, how they've changed and how they've changed for the worse. What, if anything, can individuals do to promote the kind of systemic change you want to see in the United States? ..."
Michael Lind on Reviving DemocracyTo fix things, we
must acknowledge the nature of the problem. T he Cold War may have ended, but the class war
rages on -- or so Michael Lind argues in The New
Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite . TAI assistant editor Aaron
Sibarium recently sat down with Lind to discuss this argument, and what it means for democracy
in our populist era. This is a lightly edited transcript of the conversation.
Michael Lind : It's the conflict that has broken out between the
college-credentialed, university-educated managerial and professional class, which dominates
Western democracies on both sides of the Atlantic, and the high school-educated working class
of all races and national origins, which is about two-thirds of the population. I argue that
there was a kind of class peace treaty, or what political scientists call a "settlement,"
between capitalists, managers, and the working class for a couple of decades following 1945
that broke down in the late 20 th century, largely as a result of the atrophy of the
institutions that had amplified the power of less educated working-class people. The most
important of these were trade unions, churches, and other religious organizations, as well as
local mass membership parties -- parties of political machines at the local level.
As a result of that breakdown, there's just been a shift of power and influence in all three
realms: the economy, the culture, and government. And I argue the frustration this has created
on behalf of much of the population has ultimately led to a lot of the populist rebellions
we're seeing: the election of Trump, the Brexit vote in Europe, the Yellow Vest revolts in
France.
AS : Part of the story here is the rise of a "managerial elite," as you call it,
which differs in important ways from the elite it displaced. What are the distinct features of
this managerial class?
ML : I don't claim any particular originality here. I follow James Burnham, a
one-time influential American Trotskyist who became one of the founders of postwar American
conservatism. In his book The
Managerial Revolution written during World War II, he argued that the Marxists were
wrong. The two major classes in the Western world in the 1940s were not workers and
capitalists, but workers and managers. Because at that point, thanks to the rise of large
corporations, there was what Berle and Means in their classic study of
the corporation described as separation of ownership and control. And you had this bureaucratic
corporate executive class who were not necessarily the biggest shareholders. Particularly
nowadays when shared ownership is widely dispersed and fluctuating, it's kind of a legal
fiction to say that the shareholders are the owners of the corporation, and that the managers
are merely passive agents.
So that was the argument. Burnham argued -- and I follow him -- that the managerial elite
includes far more than corporate executives. It includes professionals, experts of all kinds,
civil servants, and also the military, which he argued would become increasingly influential in
societies. Meanwhile, only one-third of the working class was ever industrial workers -- the
rest were service and clerical workers. But at present, as a result of automation and
productivity growth, most new working class jobs are in hospitality and leisure, healthcare and
retail. And those tend to be very poorly paid and very non-union jobs. So the migration of
employment from the unionized manufacturing sector to these sectors has contributed to
inequality.
AS : A common libertarian argument holds that if you look at the data, working-class
living standards have improved, so everything's more or less fine. To the extent there is a
crisis, it's one more of perception than fact. How do you respond to this argument?
ML : Well, it's true: As a result of technological progress poor people have access
to all kinds of technology that rich people did not have a century ago. The problem with
libertarians is they're like Marxists, and even some progressives: They think money is
everything. The problem with libertarians is they're like Marxists, and even some progressives:
They think money is everything. They ignore power. They ignore dignity. So the basic premise
is, "well, you've lost your unions, which amplified your influence if you only had a high
school diploma, but in return you make $500 more a year, so it's a wash."
I find it very odd because the whole basis of American republicanism, small-r republicanism,
is the idea that ordinary people should have power and that there should be checks and
balances. The idea is not that you can have a dictatorship or an autocracy or an aristocracy as
long as it pays compensation to everyone else.
AS : Here at the magazine, we're very interested in reviving what we call the
political center. In the book you note that the center of elite opinion is very different from
the center of working-class opinion -- even as your emphasis on class compromise sounds, well,
kind of centrist. Do you identify as a centrist? And what do you think are the biggest mistakes
that self-styled centrists have made?
ML : Marx said, "I'm not a Marxist," so I like saying that I, Michael Lind, am not a
Lindist. I'm less interested in sticking out a position on the political spectrum -- either the
elite spectrum or the working-class spectrum, which are your two different political spectrums
-- than I am in nation-building. And how do you rebuild a functioning democratic nation-state
in which politics is not all about 51 percent trying to annihilate 49 percent? I think we have
to be as inclusive as possible. In the book, I call this "democratic pluralism," the idea being
that you have to have a government based on compromise.
But before you can have compromise, you have to acknowledge the reality of conflict. You
have to admit that the conflicts are legitimate. Because if one side is simply wrong or one
side is simply evil, then there's no point in compromise. So democratic pluralism is a very
realistic view of politics. It's arguably the case that employers and employees have clashing
interests on things like trade and immigration. There is no one objective policy, so you have
to negotiate and make trade-offs. Different religious groups and secular people have equally
legitimate values. They have to coexist in the same society.
And when it comes to matters of class, the vast majority of working-class people simply are
going to be outweighed in politics and in the media by the minority of very well-educated and
very well-financed people. So they have to have their own organizations to exercise what the
economist John Kenneth Galbraith called
"countervailing power." But my vision is one of compromise and negotiation. It's not that a
group of experts gets together and decides what the ideal policy is and then the government
just imposes this. I don't know in advance what the ideal policy is for Uber and Lyft drivers.
I think that the drivers should have some kind of collective representation and should be able
to negotiate with their employers. But if they can come up with a solution that's acceptable to
both, that's fine with me.
AS : You say that under democratic pluralism, the state serves as a kind of brokering
agent between labor and capital. Could you elaborate on the role of the state in this
negotiating structure?
ML : The libertarian or classical liberal view of government is that it's an umpire.
It doesn't have any commitment to one side or another, or even to one country or another,
according to libertarianism; it just enforces the rules. Whoever wins, wins. But the democratic
pluralist tradition sees the democratic nation-state as the coach of a team. And the team
includes the national managerial elite and investors and workers, who are all competing with
other nations. So democratic pluralism involves some degree of economic nationalism.
It's not necessarily leading to war or anything like that. It's just that all the different
countries are trying to make their own people more prosperous. And so as a result of that, the
government can step in and keep the different groups in society from ripping each other apart.
But at the same time it should not just try to dictate things from above. So that's why I think
the coach metaphor is better than the umpire metaphor.
AS : Would you say that this more thoroughgoing concept of democratic representation
is just a means to class compromise, or is it a normative end in itself?
ML : I think it's a means to an end. The normative end is national unity. And that's
why, even though some of this sounds vaguely Marxist, the premise is not that the working class
is going to destroy and replace the managerial class. Every society, including communist
societies, have had managerial elites in the modern world. And you have to have them. You have
to have experts. You have to have managers. And in practice, they will probably pass on their
advantages to their children to some degree. You even see this in communist industrial
countries. So the goal is to give the working-class majority the weapons to enforce a
compromise, to draw some concessions from the managerial elite.
If the working class were too strong and were threatening to cripple the managerial elite, I
would be for strengthening the managers against an overly powerful working class. But the goal
is national unity. It's what
Henry Carey , the Whig economist in the 19 th century who was an advisor to
Abraham Lincoln, called "the harmony of interests." And there's this older Hamiltonian
tradition that rejected the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian idea that there's a battle to the death
between capital and labor in favor of the idea that they're partners in a common project of
national development and national construction. But the government is not simply a passive
figure. It's actively bringing them together and regulating their partnership.
AS : You write that under democratic pluralism, "legislatures can cede large areas of
policymaking to those with higher stakes and expertise." That framing sounds a bit like some
defenses of the administrative state, of which you are a partial critic. What role, if any, do
administrative agencies have in brokering class compromise?
ML : There have been two kinds of administrative agencies that are somewhat
independent of direct presidential political control since the progressive era. One kind is the
very technocratic agency where you get the experts who are insulated, they're altruistic,
they're wise, they have degrees from Ivy League universities. And whatever they want is
supposedly good for the public. I'm very suspicious of this for obvious reasons. The other kind
is associated with a lot of the New Deal agencies that were created. And we have to remember
the New Deal was a farmer-labor alliance. It was an alliance of the working class and the
family farmers who had been excluded from the first stage of industrialization in the United
States. They realized that Congress cannot possibly make detailed regulations for everything in
an industrial economy, but at the same time they did not want to turn over vast discretionary
power to a bunch of "pointy heads," as George Wallace would say, from the Ivy League
universities.
So their compromise was to create sector-specific organizations: the FCC, the Agriculture
Department, and various independent agencies where interest groups were represented and could
influence policy, even if only informally. Now, libertarians hate this because they see it as
corruption for the interest groups to influence policy. A certain kind of technocratic
progressive hates it because the people who make policy are not supposed to actually be from
that field -- that's their definition of corruption. But to my mind it makes sense, because if
you're going to make policy for family farmers, you should probably talk to family farmers. If
you're going to make policy for taxi drivers, then represent the taxi drivers and consult with
them.
By the same token, I think we have a very unrealistic view of the omnicompetent legislator.
We have this idea that if you're a Senator, today you're going to make policy for farming and
tomorrow you're going to make it for pilots, and the day after that you're going to make it for
religious liberty. Having worked in state legislatures, I can tell you that doesn't happen.
What happens is that one or two members of the legislature are known as experts in a particular
field. Usually they have some connection with that field, and their fellow legislators -- often
across party lines -- defer to their expertise. So one of the things I argue is that we should
not be afraid to delegate some policymaking authority to administrative agencies, on the
condition that they represent interest groups, particularly working-class interest groups,
whose views might be ignored otherwise.
AS : How much of the current working-class ferment is due to a feeling of
powerlessness, and how much of it is due to the people in power making bad decisions? Put
another way, if elites had taken better care of the working class without actually giving them
much substantive representation, would the working class still be in revolt? To what extent is
this about powerlessness qua powerlessness versus not getting some preferred policy
outcome?
ML : I think you can make that distinction in theory. But in practice, you really
can't, because unless there are institutions that represent the policy preferences of
working-class people, those people are going to be ignored.
So in theory, yes, you could have had a bipartisan consensus that did not push
elite-friendly globalization policies, that did not push elite-friendly immigration policies,
that did not push elite-friendly environmental policies such as in France. But there's a reason
why the elite-friendly policies always prevailed: the absence of actual checks and balances. So
I simply don't believe in the possibility of a benevolent elite unless members of the working
class have something beyond the vote. I simply don't believe in the possibility of a benevolent
elite unless members of the working class have something beyond the vote. The vote is
important, but casting a vote every couple of years for one of two candidates -- particularly
when both have been chosen by donors and elite activists -- does not give you very much
influence on the system. That's why, I think, you have to have free elections, but they have to
be supplemented by policymaking bodies where you have additional checks and balances.
AS : You write that "even in so-called capitalist countries," partly as a result of
this lack of checks and balances, property rights have been "diluted and redefined beyond
recognition." How has this happened, and what are the implications for the struggle you're
describing?
ML : This gets into why I don't like the term "middle class." For the majority of
people in the United States, I use the term "working class." The classic word for that is
"proletarian," which sounds kind of Marxist, but it comes from ancient Rome. It meant a
propertyless wage worker, who has to earn a living by working for wages. Today we talk about
the home-owning majority, the property-owning majority, and so on. But in practice, unless you
have paid off your house mortgage loan completely, you're renting it from the bank. And the
same is true of your car -- you're renting that until it's completely paid off, if it ever is.
So the property-owning majority is kind of an illusion.
And I'm not criticizing the system. It's a successful system. But let's not trick ourselves
into thinking that most Americans are therefore property-owners in a significant sense, or
certainly that they're capitalists. The vast majority of Americans in retirement depend almost
entirely on Social Security. Only the top half of the population has any kind of investments in
401(k)s or IRAs. And even that, if you look at the average 401K or IRA, is really a negligible
amount of money. It doesn't last very long. So we really have a majority of people who could
not live for more than a few weeks without a wage, without turning to the state for
unemployment insurance. They would be destitute in old age without Social Security. And this is
one of the reasons that there's a class division in attitudes toward entitlement policy. It
seems insane, if you think about it, that after the economy crashed in 2008, the priority in
Britain was austerity, cutting back government spending in the middle of a global depression.
And in the United States, we had the bipartisan effort to cut the deficit, with President Obama
offering the Republicans a cut to Social Security. That would not have happened in a truly
democratic system in which ordinary people had the same clout as very well-to-do people.
AS : Implicit here is a critique of a certain kind of left-producerism, which folks
like Elizabeth Warren and Matt Stoller have been pushing. That tradition imagines a world where
all Americans are self-reliant property-owners, and hearkens back to the free labor movement of
the 19 th century. You seem to be saying this is a pipe dream.
ML : My previous book, which I co-authored with the economist Robert D. Atkinson, was
Big Is
Beautiful: Debunking the Myth of Small Business . And we criticize this anachronistic,
19 th -century Jeffersonian idea of the small producer. It's just completely
anachronistic. A slight majority of Americans today work for firms with 500 people or more. I
love that statistic. It just shocks people.
Small businesses create most new jobs. They also destroy most new jobs because almost all
small businesses fail. Small businesses create most new jobs. They also destroy most new jobs
because almost all small businesses fail. So the only net job creation is by successful
businesses, which if they are successful, become medium-size or large businesses. They level
off at some point, of course. But that being the case, this Jeffersonian ideal is a hundred
years out of date. It was clear in the early 20 th century that you could do four
things to respond to the rise of large corporations. One is to break them up into little
teeny-weeny firms again, mom and pop firms. That's the anti-trust agenda. That was considered
anachronistic even in World War I -- Woodrow Wilson said, "this is absurd." So did Theodore
Roosevelt. Roosevelt has this reputation as a trust buster, but if you actually read what he
wrote, he thought consolidation was inevitable.
So we have these large corporations, and they should be regulated. But if you reject
breaking them up into little pieces, what are the remaining three options? Well, there's
nationalization. That's what the socialists wanted. Eugene Debs and the socialists thought
trusts were great, because it's easier to nationalize a big firm than a small firm.
Then there's regulation, and then there's countervailing power, to use the term again from
John Kenneth Galbraith. The labor movement under Samuel Gompers in the early 20 th
century said, "well, we don't want socialism. We're not socialists. We want dynamic firms. We
want to share their profits as workers. We don't want our own little tiny mom and pop firms. We
like working for steel companies and car companies, as long as we're paid decently. We don't
want the government to regulate our wages and benefits because we think that the rich lobbyists
will always have more clout in Congress than representatives of working people."
So their solution, which I argue for, was countervailing power. You pool the labor power of
workers, but then you negotiate with the big firms.
Now there's technically a fifth option, which is even more absurd than the anti-trust
option. That's the libertarian one, where you just allow oligopolies and monopolies to grow,
and they grow simply because they're dynamic and efficient. But if they abuse their power you
just turn a blind eye to it. And you have to be an ideological libertarian to believe that a
janitor, an individual janitor, has bargaining power in a company with 500 people. That's just
pure nonsense and it's been recognized as such. Even J.S. Mill, who is cited as a classical
liberal thinker, was for unions, because he saw that there was no way one individual could
realistically negotiate a contract of employment with a large firm.
AS : You claim that immigration has made this kind of negotiation more difficult by
creating a split labor market that ends up hurting low-wage workers. Yet several studies have
suggested that it was cultural anxiety, not economic distress, that best predicted support
for Trump. Would it be fair to say that immigration is primarily a cultural battleground in
this new class war? Or do you think the materialist story is underrated?
ML : That's a misleading question. Most of the social science on Trump and Brexit is
worthless because political scientists look for a single factor. Was it deindustrialization,
was it racial views, was it age or whatever? And since you're dealing with a society that's
quite stratified by class and divided by race, people have multiple characteristics that you
can't catch if you're doing a regression analysis with one polling question. So I dismiss a lot
of that stuff.
What I do in the book is build on Edna Bonacich's idea of the split labor market . That's when you have two
populations competing for the same job. Sometimes they're of different ethnicities, they can be
from different regions of the country or from different classes, but each has distinct,
identifiable characteristics. Employers prefer the population that is willing to work for lower
wages, whatever its defining characteristic is. For example, in the 19 th century
industrial capitalists in the North brought in not just African-Americans, but also poor whites
from the South to undercut unionization by mostly European immigrants in Northern industrial
cities -- often Irish-Americans, German-, Polish-, Italian-Americans. That's a split labor
market. Another example is employers bringing Chinese indentured servants to California to
undercut unionization attempts by white labor activists. When that happens, there's inevitably
racial resentment as well as economic resentment. The Irish-American labor organizers in San
Francisco will denounce the Chinese for their cultural characteristics, and, at the same time,
they'll denounce the capitalists for bringing in the Chinese to undercut their wages.
So you have to think about it as a three-way conflict among employers and two different
groups of workers. It's not simply a racist, anti-racist paradigm. On the other hand, it's not
pure economics, because there's often ethnic resentment between these different groups.
AS : Immigration is part of a larger story you tell about global labor arbitrage. Can
you expand on that?
ML : Arbitrage is making a profit by exploiting jurisdictional differences in the
value of the same good -- in this case, labor. It has nothing to do with productivity growth,
and this is something that is confused in talks about globalization. If you shut down a factory
in the Midwest and open up a new factory employing cheaper labor in South China or Mexico,
using exactly the same technology, the profit of your firm goes up because the wage share of
the profit has gone down. You're no more productive than you were, and you don't produce any
more output because productivity is output-per-worker. The Chinese workers or the Mexican
workers are producing cars and iPhones at the same rate as the American workers -- they're just
paid much less. So that's labor arbitrage.
You also get labor arbitrage with immigration. When employers bring in a group from abroad
to work the same jobs that natives or naturalized immigrants have been doing, but for lower
wages, the new workers are not more productive, or more skilled, or more efficient. They're
just cheaper.
AS : You hold up the post-World War II settlement as a model of democratic pluralism
-- not just in economics but also culture. That settlement arguably rested on a shared moral
consensus -- in particular a shared Christian consensus -- that's since broken down. The
working class has become more diverse, not just ethnically but religiously, philosophically,
morally. How do we have cultural power-sharing agreements when there's no shared culture, even
among the working class?
ML : Well, I disagree with that characterization of the postwar period. Up until then
you had a mainline Protestant establishment in the United States that was very anti-Catholic
and anti-Jewish. And so Jewish kids and Catholic kids had to recite Protestant prayers in
schools and sing Protestant hymns. Americanization was stripping them of being Jewish and
Catholic. And evangelical Protestants suffered as well because these were mainline Protestants
who didn't like evangelical Protestants.
But after World War II, the United States created what the sociologist Will Herberg called
"the triple establishment." He wrote a book called Protestant --
Catholic -- Jew . And I'm old enough to remember that at every high school
commencement, you had a priest, a minister, and a rabbi. So it was pluralistic. Now the term
"Judeo-Christian" was invented around that time, to pretend these religions are all part of the
same thing, which their theologians will dispute. I'm not saying we should return to that and
ignore secular people, particularly with secularization increasing in the U.S. as in
Europe.
But I think we've moved back toward a secularized Protestant mainline establishment. And if
you look at a lot of the "wokeness" we see today, it's kind of a secularized version of New
England puritanism I think we've moved back toward a secularized Protestant mainline
establishment. And if you look at a lot of the "wokeness" we see today, it's kind of a
secularized version of New England puritanism , at least in the United States. They go after
exactly the same people that the old Northeastern mainline did: Southern evangelicals,
Catholics, and traditional, non-liberal Jews. Muslims as well, although they treat Muslim as a
racial category to be favored rather than a religious conservative category, although most
Muslims are religiously conservative.
So I argue that we don't want a French-style anticlerical state, which wants to ban all
displays of religion and be aggressively secular. That's not the American tradition. It's not
the Anglo-American tradition. You also don't want the elite's religion -- which in the old days
was mainline Protestantism, nowadays you'd call it mainline secularism -- to simply dominate
the media and education. So I think we have to go back to some kind of institutionalized
representation. Maybe it will be the priest, the minister, the rabbi, the druid, and the
atheist. But I think that's a much healthier approach in a society where you have deep
permanent value pluralism , as the
philosopher John Gray has argued. You have to have what he calls a modus vivendi , an
agreement to live and let live and co-exist.
AS : In your book, you note that there used to be religious and cultural bodies that
were informally charged with oversight of education in the media. Organizations to which films
were submitted for approval.
ML : Yeah, the Legion of Decency, which was originally a Catholic organization. It
got to the point where Hollywood would just submit the films to them. There's this wonderful
movie by the Coen brothers, Hail, Caesar , about making a biblical epic
in the 1950s. There's a great scene where they have a Catholic
priest, a Protestant minister, an Orthodox Christian priest, and a rabbi, and the poor studio
guys are trying to make sure their film doesn't offend anybody.
Now, if you're a free speech zealot of the romantic libertarian bent, then the more shocking
to public sensibilities, the better. And I don't want to go back to the old days where they
were censoring Catcher in the Rye in the libraries. But on the other hand, come on. If
you have a society that is half wiccans and half Nordic Asatru Thor worshippers, what is the
goal of your policy in education and so on? Is it to constantly insult and humiliate the two
groups that are the biggest groups in your society?
And what about parents? If you have compulsory public education, then the views of the
parents ought to be respected by educators, right? Now again, this is not anticlerical France
where the public school is a way to de-program Catholic school children and turn them into
French Jacobin Republican citizens. I'm very supportive of mandatory viewpoint diversity in
K-12 and higher education, and also in the media because let's face it, the mass media are a
de facto public utility. It's how people communicate, it's what shapes perceptions. And
to say that it's a purely private thing, so if you don't like it, go found your own radio
network or your own TV network or your own social media platform . . . I don't think that's
realistic.
AS : You note that in the past, Catholics played a role out of proportion to their
numbers when it came to policing the culture. What sort of minority group, if any, do you think
would fill that role today? Is there a particular subgroup that's well-positioned to revive
these religious or cultural bodies?
ML : There is a kind of a revival of Catholic social thought on the right wing of the
Republican Party, with people like Marco Rubio saying good things about unions. You see
flickers there of this older Catholic influence, both in working-class economic areas but also
in the culture. Like Protestants, Catholics are declining as a percentage of the population.
Southern evangelicals, because of their dispensationalist ideology -- thinking the end of the
world is near -- did not for obvious reasons put a whole lot of effort into thinking about the
details of public policy.
We'll see what happens with American Muslims. What you saw with Catholic immigrants and
Jewish immigrants was that even as they became less ethnic diasporas, they remained religious
believers. There were new Jewish-American and Catholic-American establishments. I think we may
see that with both Sunni and Shi'a Muslims. And to the extent that they don't accept the idea
that we're just going to go along with whatever the Ivy League schools say, to the extent they
reject the woke secular liberal attitude, they may play a role.
AS : You also have a very interesting passage where you say that terms like
transphobia, homophobia, and Islamophobia medicalize politics, and treat different viewpoints
as evidence of psychological disorder. Why has this become one of the go-to methods for
invalidating dissent in the United States?
ML : Well, it has very deep roots, nearly a century old. If you go back to the 1920s
and 30s, many of the intellectuals in the Western world were just completely entranced with
Freudianism, and with other kinds of modern psychology. They thought that this was a science
and it explained human behavior. And so the whole project of redefining morality in terms of
psychology and therapy goes back to Freudianism, and then you get these increasingly dumbed
down versions of it where one moral dispute after another -- over gay rights, over trans
rights, over immigration -- gets medicalized so that instead of this being a dispute based on
thousand-year-old religious texts, the people who hold a certain view are simply emotionally
disturbed. And the cure for that is therapy.
You see this with diversity training. The premise is that if you don't agree with whatever
the accepted positions are, then you need to be reprogrammed. To become a productive, normal
person, you need therapy. And I think this is just very sinister and totalitarian. Obviously
there are emotionally disturbed people who hate homosexuals, and there are deranged individuals
with a completely insane hatred of people of another race. But as I say in the book, an
Orthodox Jewish rabbi who disapproves of homosexuality, but also of abortion and divorce and
adultery, is just following the teachings of Judaism, right? The rabbi is a perfectly normal,
well-adjusted person. That's just the theology. If you want to fight the theology, denounce the
theology.
But when you have the elites in charge of education and the media essentially adopting as
their working hypothesis that anyone who disagrees with them needs therapy -- this is very
sinister.
AS : It seems like this medicalization of politics has coincided with the rise of
outlets like Vox, which you criticize more than once in The New Class War . Is that just
an accident, or have both trends been driven by the same technocratic impulse?
ML : Yes, Vox very much represents what I call technocratic progressivism -- the idea
that there is one "correct" answer which is also the moral answer. And so if anyone disagrees
with the Vox policy, either they're ignorant or emotionally disturbed. It's very
patronizing.
Having said that, the right has its own version of this, where anyone who disagrees with the
right's policies is a traitor or an instrument of Satan or morally evil or stupid. So you find
it on both sides.
But the medicalization tends to be associated with the overclass center-left, not the
radical left. The Marxists don't do this because they believe in class conflict. I think their
theory of class and class conflict is wrong, but they're actually closer to reality than the
technocratic progressives who think that if everyone were sane and smart, there would never be
any conflicts at all.
AS : You've talked about technocratic progressives, and alluded to what might be
called technocratic libertarians. Is there such a thing as technocratic populism, which
genuinely responds to populist complaints through market-based, technical solutions? Or is
technocratic populism a contradiction in terms?
ML : I think it's a contradiction in terms, because if you believe as I do that the
root of populism is a power deficit, then it's not a matter of getting the right policies. You
actually have to redistribute power, and redistributing power to working class people means
they have the power to be wrong and support dumb things. And their representatives have the
power to make bad decisions.
So I don't think you can come up with a kinder and gentler version of technocratic
progressivism where you just do better polling or you're just more benevolent and more
sensitive to working-class people. You have to talk to them. I spent two decades in the NGO
world. Apart from receptionists and janitors, you never encounter working-class people. I spent
two decades in the NGO world. Apart from receptionists and janitors, you never encounter
working-class people. The idea that you would actually go out there and ask them what their
problems are, that almost never happens.
To be clear, there are some good things that come out of the technocratic approach. You
don't expect working-class people to tell you statistically what the best health insurance
option is. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about basic preferences. The politicians do
go out and supposedly hear from people at the diner when they're trying to get elected. But the
experts in a think tank or university who are coming up with the plans that the politicians
then sell to the people at the diner -- those experts don't have much contact with the working
class.
Fifty years ago in this country it worked differently. The parties were federations of state
and local parties, so word could go forth from Washington to persuade people that yes, this is
the way to do it. And often that worked because the people involved in the local Democratic or
Republican machine trusted the county precinct chairman. But the people in DC also heard from
the grassroots. County people would talk to the state people, state people would send the
message that things are going on out here. Now that the parties are just shells bought by
billionaires, you don't get that.
As for unions -- they did bad things as well as good things, all human organizations have
trade-offs -- but it meant that there was some kind of mechanism for working-class revolts to
get somebody's ear up above. And in the absence of unions you get polls. "There's a poll that
shows the working class believes X, there's a poll that shows the working class believes Y." In
the old days you asked the shop steward or the foreman what the working class thought; you
didn't have a telephone poll. That shows the extent to which all these connecting levels of
organization have vanished, if the only way to find out what people are thinking is by calling
them randomly and asking their opinion.
AS : It's ironic, isn't it, that some of the changes that hollowed out the parties
were initially justified on the grounds that they weren't representative enough. Would it be
fair to say that these kinds of populist reforms backfired and produced democratic
deficits?
ML : Yeah, I think that's right. Now, sure, there were corrupt smoke-filled-room
politicians. There were sleazy union officials who were embezzling from the union, there was
sexual harassment among religious figures. These are human institutions.
But in ancient Rome, there were the tribunes, whose role was to represent the ordinary
people against the senatorial class. And the moment it was reduced to one tribune -- who
happened to be Caesar -- that was the end of that system. So you have to have lots of little
petty tribunes, lots of petty power brokers, whom the metropolitan liberals never liked. The
elite conservatives never liked them. Everybody looked down their noses at them, and at the
church ladies, and at the corrupt local union boss, but they're all gone now. They're all
extinct, just like the dinosaurs. So there's this huge void in between. Nothing's perfect, but
I think we do have to rebuild this group of intermediate brokers so that you don't simply have
a political system that consists of donors, advertising experts, and policy wonks who live in
New York and Washington and maybe San Francisco.
AS : Two proposals that have been voiced by those policy wonks in recent years are
universal basic income and trust-busting. In the book you reject both of these proposals.
Why?
ML : Well, universal basic income has always been rejected by pro-labor people and by
social democrats on the theory that if the working class has power through collective
bargaining and other means to force employers to pay a living wage, then you don't need a
universal basic income. If you work 40 hours a week -- and there's dignity to work -- then it's
profoundly humiliating to say that a few rich CEOs are the only productive people in society,
and everyone else is some kind of parasite. But to bribe them into silence, we'll just pay them
off -- this is utterly abhorrent to the idea of the dignity of labor. It's abhorrent to the
idea of a democratic Republic. Instead, you have an aristocracy passing out charity to
people.
So that's the moral and political reason for rejecting it. The practical reason is, does
anyone think that these billionaires who are hiding all of their income in the Cayman Islands
are going to consent to be taxed to give everyone $12,000 a year? I don't believe that for a
moment. Right now you can't even raise taxes on people making $100,000 or $200,000 a year. If
the middle class is defined as anyone making less than $200,000 a year, we're not going to
raise taxes on them. So where's this money coming from for the UBI?
And I've already touched briefly on the fact that trust-busting is anachronistic. What's
particularly absurd is they're trying to argue that inequality has gone up, not for the real
reason, which is that unions have been crushed and labor markets have been flooded by low-wage
immigrants, but because of the monopsony power of big corporations. Okay. So let's say you
break Facebook into five giant firms. Do we really believe that the janitor is going to have
five times the bargaining power in these baby Facebooks? That's ridiculous. It's not going to
happen.
AS : Five times zero is still zero.
ML : Yeah. But what you see with the Democrats is they're rapidly being taken over by
formerly Republican libertarians and moderates. So as the Bush Republicans and a lot of
libertarians, even the Koch brothers, are distancing themselves from the Republican Party, are
moving away from the GOP because it's becoming more blue-collar -- well, when Bush country club
Republicans decide, "Oh, I hate Donald Trump, I'm going to switch to the Democrats," they don't
necessarily change their views about taxes or immigration or unions.
I'll give you an example I use in the book. The overwhelming majority of congressional
districts in the 2016 elections that went for Clinton are among the wealthiest districts in the
United States. And Trump got among the poorest districts in the United States, so the idea that
the Republicans are the country club managerial capitalist party and the Democrats are the
AFL-CIO steelworkers is like 20, 30 years out of date. It's all in flux.
AS : Many of the power-sharing proposals you favor work by creating veto points that
let workers say no and force a compromise. Do you worry that this might make us less
competitive in the international arena? China doesn't have many democratic constraints on the
market, after all, because it's not a democracy. Is it possible to create veto points without
sacrificing efficiency, and with it our competitive edge?
ML : Germany has had strong unions and co-determination, and its manufacturing
industries are in many ways more advanced and successful than in the United States, where
companies just want to crush unions and go for the cheapest possible labor. Japan is very
paternalistic, but they have good labor relations as part of this kind of welfare capitalist
system. So if you look at export competitiveness, the anti-labor countries like the U.S. and
the UK don't do that well compared to the ones that have some kind of harmonization among their
workforces and employers in manufacturing.
What dictatorships like China can do is mainly through credit, not cheap labor. They can
dump products below cost on the rest of the world. And the classic dumping strategy, whether
it's from a firm or a nation, is that you deliberately sell below cost long enough to drive
your rivals out of business. And then at that point you have a monopoly in the market, which
means you can jack up the price to recoup the losses you incurred during the dumping phase. So
if you have government-owned enterprises, or nominally private enterprises that in practice
have an unlimited credit line from the government or from banks the government pressures,
there's no way any private enterprise can compete with a state-backed corporation.
So if you believe in industrial capitalism as I do -- I think it's the most dynamic system
for increasing wealth and innovation in history -- then you have to block entry into your
market by state-capitalists, otherwise they will wipe out your firms. This should not even be
debated.
AS : In closing, I want to ask a couple big-picture questions. Patrick Deneen, the
author of Why Liberalism
Failed , recently tweeted that The New Class War is "THE essential book of the
decade." Do you agree that liberalism has failed? And if not, why do you think that a lot of
post-liberals have been raving about your book?
ML : Well I think there's agreement among people with very different views of history
that what we call "liberalism" now -- which I would call libertarianism or neoliberalism -- has
moved toward hyper-individualism in the culture and deregulation of the economy, and that this
is a bad thing. It's bad for community. It's bad for the nation-state. It's bad in the long run
for the capitalist economy because it undermines its foundations.
Where you get debate is on the question of when this started. To my mind, the neoliberal era
started in the '70s and really got underway after the Cold War. For some of the critics of
liberalism, like Deneen, it starts with the Protestant Reformation or with the Enlightenment.
That's an interesting debate to have, but it's a philosophical debate. And I think that
whatever your theory of the case, you can agree that the neoliberal moment is hopefully over,
and that it's time to create a new system, which I for one hope will incorporate the good
things about neoliberalism: emancipation of sexual minorities, a lot of the gains in civil
rights and civil liberties. So you want the pendulum to swing back, but not necessarily all the
way to where it was before neoliberalism. You just correct the excesses in the next stage of
history.
AS : You don't seem to have much faith in either political party right now. Do you
think the power-sharing you envision can plausibly arise without any help from established
politicians, or are things going to get a lot worse before they get better?
ML : In the book, I argue that ruling elites generally share power only when they're
forced to. And they are forced to either by fear of insurrection from below or by a fear of
competition with other countries. I argue that ruling elites generally share power only when
they're forced to. And they are forced to either by fear of insurrection from below or by a
fear of competition with other countries. In most cases it's very difficult for weak,
disorganized working-class people, or in the old days peasants, to overthrow the regime. So the
elite doesn't have a whole lot to worry about from below. If you look at the creation of the
mid-century class compromise I document in The New Class War , it was done largely
during World War II in the United States and in Britain and in Germany. The left doesn't like
to admit this. They want to pretend it was just a spontaneous upwelling from below. But in fact
union membership shot up radically during World War II, because the Roosevelt Administration
ordered firms to switch to war production, to make a deal with unions in the interest of
defeating the Axis powers.
So at this point, I'm actually very pessimistic. I think that absent some kind of sustained
international rivalry, where a section of the managerial elite comes to understand that
constant labor and cultural warfare undermines us in international competition, so that they
will have to broker a truce to save themselves -- I think absent that, you get a situation like
a lot of South American countries. Brazil and Mexico, Central America, arguably they suffer
because they never had a major war, and thus never had any incentive to extend power to
ordinary people. So they're very oligarchical to this day.
AS : Do you think competition with China could potentially catalyze a class
truce?
ML : It could, but I'm a realist in my foreign policy views. So I tend to see
international politics as a series of either low-level or very intense competitions among
different great powers. So if it's China now, it may be a rising India 50 years from now, and
it may be somebody else in a hundred years. I think it just makes sense as a matter of prudence
for a nation-state that's also a great power, like the United States, to have a kind of
permanent low-level mobilization, which we didn't do after the Cold War.
I think future historians will be puzzled by the idea that the bipartisan establishment had
that there would be no more great power conflicts -- that we could move much of our
manufacturing and R&D to China, our most likely competitor, and have nothing to worry
about. Sure, it lowers consumer prices. But if you think that today's trading partner may be
tomorrow's military rival, it doesn't mean you're not going to engage in trade and immigration,
but it does mean you're going to have some limits on those things for national security
reasons. And again, for national security reasons you do not want class conflicts, racial
rivalries, religious disputes to spiral out of control. It undermines the strength and harmony
of your country in a dangerous world.
AS : Last question: Your theory of the case is very much a systemic one. It's a story
about structures and institutions and systems, how they've changed and how they've changed for
the worse. What, if anything, can individuals do to promote the kind of systemic change you
want to see in the United States?
ML : Well, I think the first thing they can do is get off Twitter, and stop following
national news obsessively, which is largely something the educated upper-middle class does.
Working-class people are working, they don't have time, but if you're just re-tweeting angry
memes about national politics, that's not politics. I don't know what it is. It's a kind of
entertainment or something.
So start with your neighborhood, start with your city. It's not going to be enough --
obviously you have to have the top-down element too -- but real politics is getting the
dangerous intersection fixed. It's taking part in a group. If the only thing you do is you vote
and then retweet cartoons about the other party, you're not really engaged in politics,
right?
So you have to be part of some kind of group. It can be a community group, it can be a
religious group, it can be a party group. You've got local Democrats, local Republicans. But I
think the best way to break the tendency toward increasing nationalization of everything starts
with the individual. It starts locally. When I teach I'm kind of amused, if not shocked, by the
tendency of young people to think that if there's any problem, Washington should fix it. If you
need a bike path in your city, then Congress should allocate money for the bike path. Well,
okay, but why don't you try raising money door-to-door for the bike path? And if that doesn't
work, why not go to the city council? And if that doesn't work, there's the state legislature.
We really are drifting toward this system where it's assumed that if you elect the right
President, then all problems, state and Federal and local, social and economic, will be solved
because the President has the right policies.
The Democratic primary has just seemed unreal to me for this very reason because now each
candidate has his or her own party platform. They're basically one-person parties, and they're
expected to have a platform for every single thing. Up until recently, the President was just
the head of the party in Congress, and the party had different wings. There were the farmers
and labor and African-Americans, there were consumer groups. The party platform reflected the
relative power of those groups, and the President vowed to help carry out the party
platform.
I think we're moving toward a nationalized plebiscitary presidential system, where the
president is freely elected, but it's a kind of elective dictatorship: an all-powerful
Caesarist or Bonapartist presidency will just solve all of our problems, and then if anything
goes wrong in the country it's the President's fault, even though the President didn't have all
that much power in reality. Real politics starts locally and consists of having groups of
people working together on common projects beginning at home. Published on: January 29, 2020
Michael Lind is co-founder of New America and the author of The New Class War:
Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite . Aaron Sibarium is assistant editor at
The American Interest .
Former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg seemed perfect, a man who defended the
principle of wine-based fundraisers with military effrontery. New York magazine made his case
in a cover story the magazine's Twitter account summarized as:
"Perhaps all the Democrats need to win the presidency is a Rust Belt millennial who's gay
and speaks Norwegian."
(The "Here's something random the Democrats need to beat Trump" story became an important
literary genre in 2019-2020, the high point being Politico's "Can the "F-bomb save Beto?").
Buttigieg had momentum. The flameout of Biden was expected to help the ex-McKinsey
consultant with "moderates." Reporters dug Pete; he's been willing to be photographed holding a
beer and wearing a bomber jacket, and in Iowa demonstrated what pundits call a "killer
instinct," i.e. a willingness to do anything to win.
Days before the caucus, a Buttigieg supporter claimed Pete's name had not been read out in a
Des Moines Register poll, leading to the pulling of what NBC called the "gold standard" survey.
The irony of such a relatively minor potential error holding up a headline would soon be laid
bare.
However, Pete's numbers with black voters (he polls at zero in many states) led to multiple
news stories in the last weekend before the caucus about "concern" that Buttigieg would not be
able to win.
Who, then? Elizabeth Warren was cratering in polls and seemed to be shifting strategy on a
daily basis. In Iowa, she attacked "billionaires" in one stop, emphasized "unity" in the next,
and stressed identity at other times (she came onstage variously that weekend to Dolly Parton's
"9 to 5" or to chants of "It's time for a woman in the White House"). Was she an outsider or an
insider? A screwer, or a screwee? Whose side was she on?
A late controversy involving a story that Sanders had told Warren a woman couldn't win
didn't help. Jaimee Warbasse planned to caucus with Warren, but the Warren/Sanders "hot mic"
story of the two candidates arguing after a January debate was a bridge too far. She spoke of
being frustrated, along with friends, at the inability to find anyone she could to trust to
take on Trump.
"It's like we all have PTSD from 2016," she said. "There has to be somebody."
... ... ...
What happened over the five days after the caucus was a mind-boggling display of
fecklessness and ineptitude. Delay after inexplicable delay halted the process, to the point
where it began to feel like the caucus had not really taken place. Results were released in
chunks, turning what should have been a single news story into many, often with Buttigieg "in
the lead."
The delays and errors cut in many directions, not just against Sanders. Buttigieg,
objectively, performed above poll expectations, and might have gotten more momentum even with a
close, clear loss, but because of the fiasco he ended up hashtagged as #MayorCheat and lumped
in headlines tied to what the Daily Beast called a "Clusterfuck."
Though Sanders won the popular vote by a fair margin, both in terms of initial preference
(6,000 votes) and final preference (2,000), Mayor Pete's lead for most of the week with "state
delegate equivalents" -- the number used to calculate how many national delegates are sent to
the Democratic convention -- made him the technical winner in the eyes of most. By the end of
the week, however, Sanders had regained so much ground, to within 1.5 state delegate
equivalents, that news organizations like the AP were despairing at calling a winner.
This wasn't necessarily incorrect. The awarding of delegates in a state like Iowa is
inherently somewhat random. If there's a tie in votes in a district awarding five delegates, a
preposterous system of coin flips is used to break the odd number. The geographical calculation
for state delegate equivalents is also uneven, weighted toward the rural. A wide popular-vote
winner can surely lose.
But the storylines of caucus week sure looked terrible for the people who ran the vote. The
results released early favored Buttigieg, while Sanders-heavy districts came out later. There
were massive, obvious errors. Over 2,000 votes that should have gone to Sanders and Warren went
to Deval Patrick and Tom Steyer in one case the Iowa Democrats termed a "minor error." In
multiple other districts (Des Moines 14 for example), the "delegate equivalents" appeared to be
calculated incorrectly, in ways that punished all the candidates, not just Sanders. By the end
of the week, even the New York Times was saying the caucus was plagued with "inconsistencies
and errors."
Emily Connor, a Sanders precinct captain in Boone County, spent much of the week checking
results, waiting for her Bernie-heavy district to be recorded. It took a while. By the end of
the week, she was fatalistic.
"If you're a millennial, you basically grew up in an era where popular votes are stolen,"
she said.
"The system is riddled with loopholes."
Others felt the party was in denial about how bad the caucus night looked.
"They're kind of brainwashed," said Joe Grabinski, who caucused in West Des Moines.
"They think they're on the side of the right they'll do anything to save their
careers.
An example of how screwed up the process was from the start involved a new twist on the
process, the so-called "Presidential Preference Cards."
In 2020, caucus-goers were handed index cards that seemed simple enough. On side one, marked
with a big "1," caucus-goers were asked to write in their initial preference. Side 2, with a
"2," was meant to be where you wrote in who you ended up supporting, if your first choice was
not viable.
The "PPCs" were supposedly there to "ensure a recount is possible," as the Polk County
Democrats put it. But caucus-goers didn't understand the cards.
Morgan Baethke, who volunteered at Indianola 4, watched as older caucus-goers struggled.
Some began filling out both sides as soon as they were given them.
Therefore, Baethke says, if they do a recount, "the first preference should be accurate."
However, "the second preference will be impossible to recreate with any certainty."
This is a problem, because by the end of the week, DNC chair Tom Perez -- a triple-talking
neurotic who is fast becoming the poster child for everything progressives hate about modern
Dems -- called for an "immediate recanvass." He changed his mind after ten hours and said he
only wanted "surgical" reanalysis of problematic districts.
No matter what result emerges, it's likely many individual voters will not trust it. Between
comical videos of apparently gamed coin-flips and the pooh-poohing reaction of party officials
and pundits (a common theme was that "toxic conspiracy theories" about Iowa were the work of
the Trumpian right and/or Russian bots), the overall impression was a clown show performance by
a political establishment too bored to worry about the appearance of impartiality.
"Is it incompetence or corruption? That's the big question," asked Storey.
"... " Don't tell the Democrats, but they are ignoring their best candidate for president. That candidate is Tulsi Gabbard. She is the congresswoman from Hawaii who would have the best chance of picking up the votes of independents and even some Republicans in November. But at the moment she is being ostracized by party leaders." Mulshine ..."
"... Agreed. But she's anti-war, so no chance of being supported by "party leaders" ( those "leaders" is a bit of a misnomer) ..."
"... Tulsi bet all her chips on New Hampshire just like Mayor Pete did in Iowa. I was up in the Conway region last August and saw billboards for Tulsi all over the place. There was nothing for other candidates. She held well over a hundred town halls in the state. I'm hoping this strategy works for her. ..."
" Don't tell the Democrats, but they are ignoring their best candidate for president.
That candidate is Tulsi Gabbard. She is the congresswoman from Hawaii who would have the best
chance of picking up the votes of independents and even some Republicans in November. But at
the moment she is being ostracized by party leaders." Mulshine
Tulsi bet all her chips on New Hampshire just like
Mayor Pete did in Iowa. I was up in the Conway region last August and saw billboards for
Tulsi all over the place. There was nothing for other candidates. She held well over a
hundred town halls in the state. I'm hoping this strategy works for her. I like EVERYTHING
about her including her antiwar foreign policy stance and her genuinely progressive domestic
policy.
I just received this message from her campaign:
"Tulsi is on the rise in New Hampshire and we need to be doing all we can right now to
keep this upward momentum going!"
"First: Local paper The Caledonian Record yesterday released an online poll showing a
whopping 67.3% of voters chose Tulsi as the candidate they would "like to see win the
Primary.""
"Then: CNN/UNH polling released today shows Tulsi moving into 5th, within striking distance
of Elizabeth Warren, with HALF of voters still uncommitted and up for grabs."
"It's the height of irony that CNN's OWN most recent polling shows Tulsi ahead of Amy
Klobuchar, Andrew Yang, Tom Steyer and Deval Patrick -- all of whom were given nationally
televised CNN town halls worth millions just this week, while the establishment network
refused to let Tulsi speak. This blatant censorship denied New Hampshire voters (half
undecided) the opportunity to hear from all the candidates, and then make an informed opinion
about who to support."
I hope she does well in New Hampshire. It will be much harder for for the press to ignore
her if she does.
If there is one thing that is clear as we end this truly insane week it is that it was a
good one for President Donald Trump.
Between his acquittal in the Senate over an impeachment that is the apotheosis of three
years of patent nonsense and the fiasco that were the Iowa caucuses, Trump comes out of this
first week of February in better shape than he's been since he won the election back in
2016.
The Democrats have made a complete mockery of their candidate selection process. At least
back in 2016 when Trump knocked people off one by one the GOP didn't openly try to rig
primaries against him.
Of course, Trump isn't as much of an outsider as he portrays himself, so his real threat to
the entrenched political establishment in The Swamp was never as great as someone like, say,
Ron Paul's was in 2012.
But the depths the DNC are willing to dig deep to in order to stop Bernie Sanders from being
their nominee are truly breathtaking. In 2016, the Clinton machine had declared her the
candidate. Bernie was getting in the way of her coronation as the first woman president.
In 2020, however, no one actually running for the Democratic nomination, except maybe Bernie
Sanders in a perfect world, can actually beat Donald Trump. So, the whole process is really
academic at this point.
Honestly, after this week the only person who can beat Trump nationally is Trump himself.
So, that leaves me with 65/35 odds he'll be re-elected.
But with impeachment behind him, an agenda of retribution against his accusers ahead of him
and a Democratic party deep in the preparations for committing ritualistic suicide Trump should
have no problem carrying at least as many states as he did in 2016.
Caitlyn Johnstone believes that the DNC's ineptitude is a ruse, a clever ploy to look
stupid and corrupt but doing so to ensure their preferred outcome, which is a brokered
convention and the return of Hillary Clinton from the grave,
as I said recently , "like some zombie whose head we forgot to cut off."
While I love Ms. Johnstone's thesis, I think she's missing the much more salient point. As
the Democrats flop from one fiasco to the next, they are doing two very important things.
First, they invalidate the idea they operate as a functional organization. This excludes
them as people who can solve the country's problems to voters who are pretty content with
President Trump.
Second, it sets the stage for an irrevocable split of the party itself as the Bernie Bros
become more convinced the party doesn't represent them. I'm convinced that the end game for
the DNC is to drive Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard from the party through these shenanigans.
This is why no matter who is eventually declared the winner in Iowa, the winner there is
Donald Trump.
And, guess what? There's only 49 more states like this to go!
I'm really regretting swearing off popcorn.
The good news is that, for now, the markets recognize that the biggest threat to U.S.
political stability has been averted. Stocks bolted to new all-time highs after Trump's
acquittal, but couldn't follow through to end the week.
It only gets better from here if the DNC is set on sowing distrust, chaos beneath a veneer
of practiced stupidity.
So, while there are a number of sincere challenges to global growth both right in front of
us (the coronavirus) and far ahead of us (the growing insolvency of the European financial
system now that Brexit is finished) equity markets are more than capable of rallying for the
next few sessions.
But expect volatility to increase from here. The dollar is strengthening. While the euro
narrowly avoided a catastrophic January close last Friday, the dominant bear trend reasserted
itself with a vengeance this week, breaking below the all-important $1.10 level.
And that should finally see eurobond prices begin to collapse. The rally we've seen over the
past two weeks has been nothing short of ridiculous. A classic 'false move.'
Oil is now in a bear market after 2018's reaction high above $86 per barrel Brent and the
terrible results and guidance from industry leaders this week like Exxon-Mobil (XOM) and Royal
Dutch Shell (RDS.A) only reinforce that view. If not for some noises from
OPEC+ and the hopes that Russia will go along with extending current production cuts kept
Brent from collapsing further this week as shorts piled on early.
But everything comes down to King Dollar and whether real fear which lurks just behind the
headlines grips the plumbing of global markets, which had an outstanding week.
This surge in the dollar confirms the December low as significant which sets up a difficult
few months. Given everything else we're experiencing from the shutdown of major Chinese cities,
travel, etc. there's every reason to be cautious here even if the equity markets keep grinding
higher, though I'd
expect a whole lotta grinding sideways from both equities and gold while this goes on.
Expect a lot of this schizophrenic behavior as capital sloshes from stem to stern trying
to figure out where it should best be deployed in this age of central bank heroin
.
The central banks are still desperate to keep a lid on volatility to extend the lie that
they have things under control, but if that's the case then why is the Fed still having to
deal with repo market
interventions being oversubscribed and the rate creeping back up toward its target Fed
Funds rate and IOER (Interest on Excess Reserves)?
They've lost control over the short end of the yield curve.
And that's where things get interesting for this election cycle.
For Trump, the primary season should work out well as the Democrats continue imploding. And
I have no doubt he will now go on the warpath to take down those who he rightly feels wronged
him and the country. And he'll be merciless on Twitter using it to goad the Democrats into even
more lunacy, more mistakes.
This is what he truly excels at and it will all but guarantee him surviving any crises that
appear on the horizon between now and November.
For now, New Hampshire is next. Bernie should win the most votes it in a walk. But the real
winner, regardless of anything else will be Trump.
DNC is trying to drive Bernie and Tulsi out of the party. What they don't realize is that
doing so will irrevocably drive more than their supporters out as well, as the party faithful
realize their faith is unfounded.
The GOP Old Guard screwed over the Libertarian wing also for years. Exhibit A: Ron
Paul.
It boils down to this:
It does not matter if you are Democrat leaning or Republican leaning. As soon as you
attempt to do any real and fundamental change, banksters bring out their big
guns and fund whatever candidate or party to maintain the status quo. US elections are about
tinkering around the edges, never about fundamental improvements that would be to the
detriment of the banksters.
If you have an IQ >100, more than one testicle and the mental clarity, then you know
that the true enemy is and always has been: International Banksters. Without them there could
be no MIC, no Wars, no welfare for the rich and no excess of socialism for the poor. Without
them, perpetual deficit financing would be impossible. They alone are the financial drug
dealers who keep everyone addicted.
Nothing will change until you bring out the proverbial pitchforks, rope and
guillotines.
"But with impeachment behind him, an agenda of retribution against his accusers ahead
of him ..."
An "agenda of retribution" is exactly what Dems want us to think this is. But when these
cases reach court, we'll find out that they are just normal criminal prosecutions, for real
crimes, with real evidence, that would have been brought to the arrest phase a long time ago
except that Trump has taken all the time necessary to gather evidence on the one hand, and to
let the Dems exhaust their quiver of anti-Trump arrows on the other. Think back to July 5th,
2016 when James Comey went in front of the cameras and rattled off a long list of serious
crimes by Hillary and then said she wasn't going to be prosecuted. Trump could have brought
charges on January 20th, 2017 but he didn't. These last three years have been the largest,
most thorough criminal investigation, of the largest number of people, in human history.
Brace yourself for the next phase. And BTW, the sealed indictments are up to 144,844 nationwide.
If were not for Bernie Sanders single-handily, we would not have 'democratic socialism'
whatever that means...no one in the democratic party pushes socialism like he does...somehow
Warren got 'tied up in the moment' and went with Medicare for All, then backed off. Let him
win the nomination, he will be crushed, like Jeremy Corbyn, and the the USA 'socialist
movement' will end...there are NO young Bernie Sanders out there...so another 4 years of
Trump, but the democrats can remake themselves more center focused. If the Republicans win
President, Senate and House, good chance for rebound as usually the ruling party takes the
hit and dems get their chance again 2024...their is always hope. New leadership (Schumer,
Pelosi and Perez) will also be needed required for a new era.
The Democrats are not imploding, the scam that turned the Democrat Party, the workers
party, into another Republican party another bosses party, is failing. The democrats were
more corrupt than the Republicans because the Clinton's sold the Democrats to the
Corporations, pretended to be the workers party, whilst kicking all the workers out.
The scam is ending. Now the scam where the Republican party was stolen from conservative
libertarians to the Corporations, also needs to be tackled.
The USA is a very long way from being a democracy.
I disagree that Sanders can't beat Trump. It's 4 more years later, with another 4 years
extra of youth able to vote for this guy. It's been stated before, the new generations have
been brought up suckling on the socialist tit of the American school system and media for
over 20+ years and they are as indoctrinated as any 20th Century socialist enthusiast. Only a
matter of time before the chickens come home to roost. With Trump the battle may have been
won, but the war will likely be lost unless something drastically changes. - My $.02
In another ZH article, Steve Banning pointed out that both Sanders and Trump have
identified fundamental/similar problems in the country, but that they differ on how to solve
them. Not sure about that being true of reality.
I'd argue that both parties are destroying the US with Crony Capitalism and Bifurcated
Socialism.
Crony capitalism is letting the rich (1%) get richer.
Bifurcated Socialism is where the TBTF and the MIC get obscene amounts of fiat money on
one extreme, and the very poor get just enough welfare to keep them from starting a French
Revolution.
Everyone else in the middle (the 20-99%) has to deal with Darwinian Capitalism - survival
of the fittest.
The only true winners are the banks and (((those))) closest to the source of money
creation, because both militarism and socialism keep increasing the debt burden . Alas, 99.9%
off the population and 95% of ZH bloggers fail to see this, and will opt to attack one side
or the other - in this Banksters game of Divide and Conquer.
Central Banking is antithesis to Free Markets. The cost of interest is price fixed by a
monopoly bank. Not only can the FED create money, but with that money they create artificial
demand. The wealth gap will never close so long as the Federal Reserve exist.
Bill Maher interviewed Pete Buttigieg a few days ago on January 31, 2019. Bill Maher said,
"You are the only military veteran in this."
Buttigieg nodded along and said, "Yeah."
It was a critical test of character for Mayor Pete, and Buttigieg showed his true colors.
Instead of acknowledging Major Tulsi Gabbard -- the first female combat veteran to ever run for
the presidency, who volunteered to deploy twice to the warzones of the Middle East at the
height of the war, who has served in the Army National Guard for 17 years and is still serving
today -- Buttigieg chose to allow the audience to believe the falsehood that he was the only
military veteran running for president because it benefits him politically.
Furthermore, when Buttigeig's campaign posted the interview on social media, they chose to
cut out the first part of Maher's statement (i.e.
"You are the only military veteran in this.") C'est un arriviste : mon opinion
Before I dive into Shortest Way Home's account of the life and career of Peter Buttigieg,
let me be up front about my bias. I don't trust former McKinsey consultants. I don't trust
military intelligence officers. And I don't trust the type of people likely to appear on "40
under 40" lists, the valedictorian-to-Harvard-to-Rhodes-Scholarship types who populate the
American elite. I don't trust people who get flattering reams of newspaper profiles and are
pitched as the Next Big Thing That You Must Pay Attention To, and I don't trust wunderkinds who
become successful too early. Why? Because I am somewhat cynical about the United States
meritocracy. Few people amass these kind of résumés if they are the type to
openly challenge authority. Noam Chomsky says that the factors predicting success in our
"meritocracy" are a "combination of greed, cynicism, obsequiousness and subordination, lack of
curiosity and independence of mind, [and] self-serving disregard for others." So when
journalists see "Harvard" and think "impressive," I see it and think "uh-oh."
Posted by: The Beaver |
07 February 2020 at 02:03 PM DNC and Media have black balled Gabbard.
Thrashing Kamala and Hillary is an unforgivable sin for the current DNC.
Democratic party is poorly served by DNC corruption and incompetence.
The top of their ticket reminds me of the decrepit party hacks the politburo put forward in the
early 80s.
Moral and intellectual bankrupt.
Noting that McCain and Romney were the previous GOP nominees does not inspire confidence
either
Posted by: sbin |
07 February 2020 at 02:23 PM I'm not normally into conspiracy theories, but I am suspicious
of his direct commission into Naval intelligence. His educational background and a few other
things makes me think he might be a CIA stooge.
And yes, pretty dishonest and arrogant to not mention Tulsi.
Posted by: Eric Newhill |
07 February 2020 at 02:36 PM I had heard Mayor Pete had been an engineer in the military
but in a The Atlantic interview he says he was Naval Intelligence. He also spent time as a
consultant for McKinsey in the Afghanistan but in neither case was he in much danger--unlike
Tulsi.
In his own words: "Four years later, Buttigieg would return to Afghanistan as a Naval
intelligence officer. He stayed on bases for the most part, venturing out only as an armed
escort on an occasional trip. On the McKinsey work, they were outside the wire more, but "there
was no moment of great adventure or danger for me, other than just the fact of we drove from
Kabul to Jalalabad. That was a little risky. But in Iraq we were on base, or at least in the
Green Zone, almost all the time."
How does a mayor of a small mid-west town wake up one day and decide he is qualified to run
for the highest political office in the land and believe he can win. He's either insane or has
friends inm high places. After the fudging of the numbers in Iowa in his favor, I'd say the
latter.
Posted by: optimax |
07 February 2020 at 02:41 PM I have a low opinion of his personal integrity. But then I
have a lot opinion of the President's personal integrity. Its probably time saving to say who
does appear to have integrity rather than doesnt. At the moment I am prepared to believe
Steyer, Gabbard, Sanders and Yang have some decency. But I could easily be wrong about any of
them.
Posted by: Harry |
07 February 2020 at 02:51 PM Gabbard should run as an
independent if she doesn't get the nomination. I believe Gabbard said she won't but I hope she
change her mind.
Posted by: Ian |
07 February 2020 at 03:01 PM Since my background is
strictly civilian, I cannot state . . . anything. But perhaps I can ask, could we refer to this
as " foam-rubber valor"? Or "cardboard-replica valor"?
And it confirms a new emerging nickname I am seeing here and there for Mayor Pete . . . Pete
the Cheat, Cheater Peter, Cheatin' Pete.. .
The very same night Elizabeth Warren's big message is "I don't take billionaires' money!"
Liz has the political instincts of Hilary Clinton. Trump will crush her. pic.twitter.com/cM85kcPYUn
The very same night Elizabeth Warren's big message is "I don't take billionaires'
money!" Liz has the political instincts of Hilary Clinton. Trump will crush her. pic.twitter.com/cM85kcPYUn
"The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said 'This is mine", and found people
naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many
crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved
mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware
of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth
belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.
-- Rousseau 1754"
------------
I gave up my Friday Night trivial enjoyments to watch the Democratic Party debate in New
Hampshire. I did it for you, pilgrims, for you and because SWMBO forced me to do it.
As you can see, I support TG for president, whatever the odds, but she was not allowed on
the stage. This morning she was on the TeeVee with one or another of the babbling anchors and
when pressed over Trump's expulsion from his household of Sunderland, the EU ambassador and the
execrable Vindmans from the NSC staff said reluctantly (and correctly) that the president has a
right to whomever he wants as his subordinates in the Executive Branch. BTW, something
generally ignored is that the two Vindmans are still US Army officers. What they have lost are
their current assignments.
But, to return to the subject of last night's debate - it was evident that all of them (even
Joe) are running on the basis of Rousseau's bald assertion that mankind has fallen from a
"state of nature" in which humans existed in a classless economic equality and that said humans
are hopelessly corrupted by the chains created by the notion of private property. To one extent
or another all the Democrats in the debate say they want "social justice," meaning a basic
re-distribution of goods, (well, maybe not their own goods) as well as a way of life (for most
people) in which Mother Earth is not despoiled of her treasures. In such a world bison and
bears would presumably roam Central Park in The Big Apple where they could be played with by
shaggy men and women in costumes made from grass and other Vegan materials. In that world there
would a somewhat higher incidence of infectious diseases but there would be balance in the
universe.
It is no wonder that the absent Bloomberg (the littlest one) thinks he can win the
nomination. pl
"... Speaking of Trump's donors, we wrote Trump a blank check in the 2016 election to deliver on the MAGA agenda that he had sold us. We voted for big ideas like "nationalism" and "populism." The reasons why I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 were immigration, trade, foreign policy, political correctness and campaign finance and furthering these big ideas of "nationalism" and "populism." He has been a disappointment on all fronts. ..."
"... Orthodox Jews hit the jackpot with the King of Israel and Zionists have been on an unprecedented winning streak. In just the last three months, Trump has issued an executive order to ban anti-Semitism on college campuses, assassinated Qasem Soleimani and has given Bibi Netanyahu the green light to annex large swathes of the West Bank. Trump is even considering allowing Jonathan Pollard to return to Israel. Is it any wonder then that a recent Gallup poll found that Israelis support his "America First" foreign policy over Americans by a whopping 18-point margin? ..."
"... Trump's Chumps have demonstrated in the last two election cycles how easy they are to manipulate. They can be relied on to vote and shill for the GOP no matter what it does. Donald Trump isn't under any pressure from these people to change. He knows his mark better than they know themselves. They are so desperate for acceptance and to participate in elections and to feel like they are "winning" that they will delude themselves like the rest of his cult into believing almost anything. Give a drowning man enough rope and he will hang himself. ..."
I spent months making the case for Trump on
this website. I will be the first to admit that I was wrong and that those who were skeptical of Trump in our
community were right in 2016. In that election, I drank the koolaid and was one of Trump's Chumps. Unlike
AmNats, I have tried to learn something from that experience.
I hate getting fooled by Republicans.
In 2020, we have a far better sense of
Donald Trump. The Trump administration has a record now. Donald Trump's first term is mostly history. We can
now look back with the benefit of hindsight and evaluate our standing after the last three years without being
drunk on Trump koolaid. No one drank the Trump koolaid in our community more deeply than the AmNats. Some of
them remained drunk on the Trump koolaid even after the 2018 midterms. A handful of his most faithful
cheerleaders have never given up faith in their GOD EMPEROR and succumbed to reality.
What is the reality of the Trump presidency?
1.) Those who feared that the Trump
administration would lull the conservative base into a false sense of complacency and put all the normies back
to sleep were right.
Donald Trump has told his base that they are "winning." They wear Q shirts and
"Trust The Plan" at his rallies. They are Making America Great Again simply by having a Republican in the White
House. They are content to go on believing that
even as illegal immigration DOUBLED in FY 2019
and became a far worse problem than it ever was under the
Obama administration. As we saw after the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, they are also ready to swallow
Trump's war propaganda against Iran and believe anything their dear leader tells them. It was Julian Assange
and Roger Stone who went to prison under Trump, not Hillary Clinton. Normies are content to have conservatism
in power and
are less willing
to give us an audience with a Republican in the White House.
2.) Those who feared that the Trump
administration would suck all of the energy out of the Alt-Right were right . In the final two years of
the Obama administration (2015 and 2016), the Alt-Right was thriving on social media and was brimming with
energy. Four years later, the country has only gotten worse, but the brand has been destroyed and all the
energy it had back then as an online subculture has been sucked out of the room by Trump and channeled into
pushing the standard conservative policy agenda. The movement has been in disarray and has been divided and
demoralized ever since Trump won the 2016 election. The last few years have been terrible. As soon as Trump won
the 2016 election, conservatives shifted their attention back to policing their right flank. They are far more
successful at policing their right flank when they are in power.
3.) Those who rationalized voting
for Donald Trump on the basis of immigration and changing demographics were proven wrong about that too.
He has refurbished the George W. Bush era fence. Since he has been president, Donald Trump
has built all of three new miles of fence
, which is actually less than W. and Obama. He didn't do anything
about sanctuary cities or pass E-Verify. He has
actually increased
guest worker programs
. There has been no cuts to legal immigration. Instead, Jared Kushner's legal
immigration plan
only proposes to reconfigure the composition of it for big business
so that more high skilled workers and
fewer peons are imported from the Third World. Illegal immigration has remained steady and has surged past the
worst highs of the Obama years. It has recently
fallen back to 2015 levels after peaking in FY 2019
. Trump has vowed to pass an amnesty to save DACA. The
Muslim ban
became an ineffective travel ban
. The only area where he has had any real success is refugee resettlement,
but overall the bottom line is that after four years of Trump there are millions of more illegal aliens and
legal immigrants here. Donald Trump hasn't even
deported as many illegal aliens as Obama
.
AmNats have been purged from Turning Point
USA, banned from its events and reduced to haranguing Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk from the sidewalk. They have
been banned from even attending CPAC. Those who thought that they could work within the system to reform
conservatism were grossly mistaken. Steve King was
condemned by Congress, stripped of his committee assignments and has been treated as a pariah within the
Republican Party
. Michelle Malkin
was deplatformed by Mar-a-Lago
and excommunicated from the synagogue of mainstream conservatism. Ann
Coulter was marginalized in the Trump administration. Jeff Sessions and Steve Bannon were both fired. Donald
Trump hired conservatives and staffed his administration with his enemies. While I won't name any names, I will
just point to all the people who actually worked within the conservative movement who have all been purged and
fired in the Trump era by Conservatism, Inc. as proof that working within the system doesn't work and is a bad
idea and those people would have had more job security doing almost anything else.
5.) What about Antifa and Big Tech
censorship? Aren't those good reasons to vote for Donald Trump in 2020? Neither of these issues were on our
radar screen BEFORE Donald Trump won the 2016 election.
Both of those problems became dramatically
worse
as a result of electing the boogeyman as president
. Far from being a victory for the Dissident
Right, we became identified with Donald Trump and were caught in the backlash while he delivered Jeb Bush's
agenda (the boogeyman wasn't real). Before Trump was elected president, Antifa was a tiny nuisance that
protested Amren conferences and there was still a great deal of free speech on the internet. We could also hold
rallies all over the South without serial harassment from these people. Now, everything from harassment and
doxxing by "journalists" to chronic Antifa violence to police stand down orders to deplatforming to FBI
counterextremism witch hunts has became part of the scenery of life under the Trump administration which is
only interested in these new grievances insofar as they can be milked and exploited to elect more Republicans.
In hindsight, it would have been better NOT to have identified ourselves with the boogeyman in 2016.
6.) Isn't having Donald Trump in
the White House a huge victory for "identitarianism" and big ideas like "nationalism" and "populism." President
Donald Trump's signature policy victories have been passing a huge corporate tax cut, criminal justice reform
and renegotiating and rebranding NAFTA.
Trump is a "populist" in the sense that he has DEEPENED
neoliberalism. When you look at his policies, he has continued and further extended the status quo of the last
forty years which has been tax cuts, deregulation, entitlement cuts, free trade agreements and huge increases
in military spending. Trump's economic agenda has been no different from the last three Republican presidents.
He has been all bark and no bite.
Donald Trump is pointedly NOT a
nationalist, populist or identitarian. He carefully avoids ever mentioning the word "White." Instead, he talks
incessantly about the black, Hispanic, Asian-American, LGBTQ and female unemployment rate. He holds events at
the White House for blacks and Hispanics. He delivers policies for blacks and Hispanics too like criminal
justice reform. The "forgotten man" couldn't be further from Donald Trump's mind when he is schmoozing with the
likes of Steve Schwarzman and boasting about the stock market. Trump is a demagogue who recognized that
nationalist and populist sentiments were growing in the American electorate and he has harnessed and
manipulated and exploited those forces for his donors.
7.) Speaking of Trump's donors, we
wrote Trump a blank check in the 2016 election to deliver on the MAGA agenda that he had sold us.
We
voted for big ideas like "nationalism" and "populism." The reasons why I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 were
immigration, trade, foreign policy, political correctness and campaign finance and furthering these big ideas
of "nationalism" and "populism." He has been a disappointment on all fronts.
Those of us who were duped into believing
that Donald Trump had a team of Jews who were going to craft all of these policies which were going to
stabilize America's demographics should reflect on what has actually happened during the Trump presidency.
Orthodox Jews hit the jackpot with the King of Israel and Zionists have been on an unprecedented winning
streak. In just the last three months, Trump has issued an executive order to ban anti-Semitism on college
campuses, assassinated Qasem Soleimani and has given Bibi Netanyahu the green light to annex large swathes of
the West Bank. Trump is even considering allowing Jonathan Pollard to return to Israel. Is it any wonder then
that a recent Gallup poll found that Israelis support his "America First" foreign policy over Americans by a
whopping 18-point margin?
Trump's Chumps haven't been deterred by any
of this. They want us to write Donald Trump a second political blank check in 2020, which his Jewish donors
intend to cash at the White House,
only this time he won't be restrained by fear of losing his reelection
.
In light of everything he has delivered for them so far, what is Donald Trump going to do in his second term
for his Jewish donors who fund the GOP? Do we trust Trump not to start a war with Iran?
8.) In the last two elections,
Donald Trump has pulled a bait-and-switch and Trump's Chumps are gullible enough to fall for it a third time.
While I was wrong about the 2016 election, I was one of the first voices in our community to wise up to what
was going on. By the 2018 midterms, I saw the bait-and-switch coming and warned our readers about it.
As you might recall, the 2018 midterms were
about tax cuts and the roaring economy, deregulation and putting Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. It
was also full of dire warnings about scary Antifa groups, Big Tech censorship and caravans from Central America
to stir up the base. Trump vowed to issue an executive order to end birthright citizenship. The GOP knows what
its base cares about and shamelessly manipulates its base during election season.
After the 2018 election was over, you
might recall how Trump banned bump stocks and passed criminal justice reform for Van Jones and the Koch
Brothers during the lame duck session of Congress. As we entered 2019, the Republican agenda changed to
overthrowing the government of Venezuela to install Juan Guaidó in power and passing anti-BDS legislation. The
GOP spent the whole year accusing the Democrats of anti-Semitism and promoting Jexodus. Virtually nothing else
was talked about for a whole year in Congress but anti-Semitism until Trump issued his executive order on
anti-Semitism on college campuses after the House and Senate had failed to reach agreement on anti-BDS
legislation. The White House
held its Social Media Summit in July and nothing came out of it
. Antifa disappeared from the agenda and was
replaced by a government crackdown on White Nationalists after El Paso. Ending birthright citizenship was
forgotten about. Illegal immigration soared to its highest level in over a decade last May.
Don't forget how Trump's Chumps told us how
"Chad" it was in 2018 to elect more Republicans to stop Antifa, the caravans and Big Tech censorship and how
those same Republicans once elected to office preferred to fight anti-Semitism for AIPAC.
10.) Trump's Chumps have
demonstrated in the last two election cycles how easy they are to manipulate. They can be relied on to vote and
shill for the GOP no matter what it does.
Donald Trump isn't under any pressure from these people to
change. He knows his mark better than they know themselves. They are so desperate for acceptance and to
participate in elections and to feel like they are "winning" that they will delude themselves like the rest of
his cult into believing almost anything. Give a drowning man enough rope and he will hang himself.
Four years later, Trump's Chumps are still
sitting by the phone waiting for the Donald to call back while he huddles with Steve Schwarzman and Bibi
Netanyahu. They can't see what is front of their own eyes. By going ALL IN for Trump, they wrecked, divided and
demoralized their own movement in order to advance the standard conservative policy agenda. They have been
pushed off the internet and in some cases even to the dark web. In virtually every way, they are worse off than
they were four years ago and have nothing to show for it. Insofar as they are getting more web traffic, it is
because America has only continued to deteriorate under Trump, which would have happened anyway regardless who
won in 2016.
It's not too late for Trump's Chumps to
reclaim one thing that they have lost over the past four years. They can still reclaim their self respect. They
don't have to participate in this charade a second time and mislead people who are less informed because they
now know full well that Sheldon Adelson has bought Donald Trump and the lickspittle GOP Congress.
Note:
Imagine thinking a
New York City billionaire is a "populist." LMAO what were we thinking? He told us what we wanted to hear and we
believed it.
My understanding is that net foreign immigration has gone down in the last few years. Hardly a triumph, I
agree.
There are quite literally hordes of foreigners living here. Even a president who was a combination of
Jesus and Superman would find it excrutiatingly difficult to eliminate immigration under these circumstances.
All this seemed painfully obvious to me in 2016. We all know who Trump had been the first 70 years of his life
– a braggart, a reprobate and a real estate developer who loved celebrities and organized crime figures. He is
married to a high class escort from Slovenia who speaks English worse than a Mexican immigrant. This man is
going to be the savior of Western Civilization? He has always been a fraud.
@MattinLA
Trump has not even made a sincere effort. Where is the effort to stop birth right citizenship? To punish
employers who hire illegals? He doesn't try to build a coalition to stop immigration, he is clearly using it as
political issue to keep his low info base revved up, but Trump doesn't actually want it resolved. It is the
same with abortion, where both Parties are perfectly happy with the status quo because it allows each to fund
raise by pointing at the threat coming from the other side. And at the end of the day it is all about find
raising.
Pretty much an accurate article, but what Democratic Presidential Contender would have been a better choice?
The answer is none. The modern day Democratic Party, and most everyone who identifies with it, is as morally
disgusting and filthy of a political party as has ever existed on this planet. Whatever grievances you have
with DT, wait until the next Democrat gets elected President. The trifecta of Diversity (aka hate and blame
Whitey for everything), LGBTQ insanity, and Climate Change hysteria will be shoved down the throats of this
country like never before. The Obama years were just a warm-up for the cultural destruction that will happen to
this country when the next Dem gets elected.
Actually, just bring the Civil War on. Whites will either get some self-respect and stand up for themselves
before it is too late, or surrender to living in a ghetto trash culture and being ruled over by Jews and their
white hating 'POC' puppets. It's an easy choice in my book.
I started college in 1982 with nothing but high hopes for the future, by 1990 I knew something was terribly
going wrong with this country, and now I know the destruction of this country is virtually guaranteed. No good
choices, indeed, as stated above. WTF happened?
I voted for this executive. I am not ashamed of my vote. However, as someone who voted on agendas and policies,
I disappointed with the results. I knew going in there wasn't much in store for me personally by supporting the
candidate. it was a diversion at the time from the standard fare. The problem with the standard fare is that
they offered more of what were the problems. candidate Trump, actually responded to the issues echoing the same
concerns, even if in a less than civil tenor. He gave as good as he got or better. I would that had been more
substantive, but it was what it was.
There are some things that need to be cleared up in your article, most prominant of which is the fairly
loose use of straw men positions. Just a few:
–the president did not run as a conservative despite comments he made about some conservative aspects of his
own views.
–he never ever abandoned his position on same sex relations and marriage -- both of which are neither
conservative or something he campaigned on, so it was clear from the get go, he had no intention of changing
that game. What he did contend is that religious people have the same protections and they should not be cowed
–the overton window that would permit any president to openly support a condition in which skin color is the
primary or a primary point of view would violate the principles and foundation of the country. but regardless
most of the country sees that as an anathema to the what they want to country to be -- even far right
conservatives are not arguing a white nationalist perspective -- trying to weigh him down with an overton window
position that was never in play, at least not as you suggest it. The president started with a definitive lean
in that direction of sorts, but it probably did not take him, long to figure out -- he was surrounded by whites
in control of the country -- whites are not being pushed around by non-whites, inspite of having elected a
non-white executive. But still he has knee jerk responses to dismantle the nonwhites policies. He remains as
prowhite as any candidate in office. his references to how he claims to have aided nonwhites as pushback
against accusations of being "racist" makes perfect sense. That does not make him "anti-white".
–your bait and switch assail is a tad convoluted. Antifa big tech and tax cuts . . . big tech and antifa
initially responded with the same shock and vitriol as all his opposition when he was elected -- but as time has
worn big tech has moved on seeing the current exec as a nonthreat -- tax cuts proceed unimpeded. The president's
position on Jews and Israel were clear from the start and remain as they were -- one can contend he is
overboard, but there was no bait and switch. The president did not say I was not for Israel and pro limiting
immigration, he made clear he opposed illegal immigration and was proIsrael they are not competing issues . He
has simply abided by one and dragged his feet on the other, if not abandoned it all together.
There are some other issues that need addressing, not the least of which is that many of us who supported
the current executive before and now, have done so calling him out on issues where he has failed or is failing
and have done so from the start -- -
@Priss Factor
the scary part about that is blumpf and the (((deep state))) would do that to you or me too
it was sickening
to see that he seemed to have regained his self confidence from the assassination of Soleimani and was
blathering on at the SOTU as though everything was just fine, better than ever
One good thing Trump did was save us from that shrieking Valkyrie warmongering Hildabeast. If she had been
elected she would have taken it as a mandate to start a war with Russia and/or Iran. Personally I was never
voting for Trump but against Hillary.
Now that the demoncrats no longer have someone like Hillary running it would be pretty safe to vote a third
party which I plan to do this election. Screw King Cyr-ass and his Zionist claque of losers.
@MattinLA
The US economy alone (not to mention the suckiness of the culture and people) has been bad enough going back to
a year or so before the crash that net immigration, I believe, has been outward. Stupid Orange Man yelling at
people "Get outta here! You're fired!" means less when they calmly retort, "I was leaving anyway".
Happened to be in the Emerald city on Wednesday and wandered through the Seattle Convention Center .there were
so many hindoos milling about thought it was some kind of curry cooking convention.
But no .it was something
called Microsoft Ready which is Microsoft's internal marketing, technical, and sales event bringing together
over 21,000 Microsoft staff.
Had to be at least 75% dotheads with a sprinkling of turbanized Sikhs, and maybe
25% whites and asians. Asked one of the dotheads if Paul Allen would be attending this year, but just drew a
quizzical stare.
Noted in the Mr. Softie handouts that these legions of imported cut rate code scribblers are
referred to as "scientists". Trumpstein actually did something about the H1B visa program .he increased it
claiming we need more of these half priced "brainiacs". Can't find enough discount American code scribblers,
you know.
Trump first got my attention when he made those initial comments against the illegal invasion. But later, when
he said that Mexico was going to pay for the wall and talked about putting a "big beautiful door" in it, I
figured he was probably full of it. When he attended AIPAC, I was done.
Congress has actually condemned White Nationalism at least two or three times since Donald Trump has been
president. Far more White Nationalists have gone to prison under Donald Trump than Barack Obama. Trump has
appointed "conservative judges" like Thomas Cullen who put RAM in prison.
After the last 3 years of seditious behavior of lying politicians like Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi and the
traitorous schemes of deep state actors like Weismann, Vindman, Sondland and Yovanovitch I would still vote for
Trump in the hopes that some of these traitors and others in the DOJ/FBI/CIA/NSA would be prosecuted.
Hopefully, Durham will do his job before the election and we will see some of the coup plotters going to jail.
Even if that doesn't happen, a final payback to the treacherous Democrats and their propagandists in the MSM
will be another conservative judge on the Supreme Court; a change that will impact the next 30+ years. That
alone will be enough for me.
I agree with much of the analysis I've read here, but let me offer a somewhat different perspective. The author
notes that, "Donald Trump is pointedly NOT a nationalist, populist or identitarian." This is probably true, but
it's also not necessarily a bad thing at this point if you're a contrarian of this sort.
My read of the
situation is that Donald Trump is almost certainly going to lose the general election, despite the confident
predictions of an incoming Trumpslide by deluded supporters. In his defeat, he'll take the last vestiges of
Reagan conservatism down with him. Even if he doesn't, Trump will almost certainly be the last republican
president due to demographic change, so it doesn't matter either way. It would make sense in that light to let
Mr. Trump run and lose on a platform of standard fare conservatism than have him be closely associated with
populism and discredit that ideology on his way out.
People forget that Donald Trump was only made possible by Mitt Romney's failure in 2012. Romney ran a
standard conservative, milquetoast campaign and lost; he was nevertheless called all manner of vile names by
the left but responded like a gentlemen. His defeat came as quite a shock to many rank and file GOPers. Fox
News had convinced them leading up to election day that they were going to win. How could they not? Romney said
all the same things Ronald Regan did and he won; he talked up the military, he repeated economic platitudes and
denounced socialism, he self-immolated over racial issues and claimed democrats were the real racists. So,
obviously, Mitt Romney should – by all rights – win just as Reagan did. Lost on them was the demographic
situation, among other things. 2012 America was not 1980 America. When Reagan won California in 1980, Los
Angeles was majority white; California had two million more white Caucasians than it does now (Trump and Reagan
received almost exactly the same number of white votes in California but with different results); the economy
for blue collar voters was better, so there was less opposition to Reaganomics.
When Romney ran as a traditional, non-offensive republican and lost, he discredited that ideology and made a
louder, more combative alternative possible. That was Donald Trump. In the minds of many republicans,
conservatism could no longer win elections, so why not go all in with a contrarian radical? I expect that
mentality to return sometime after Trump loses this November. Radical sentiment has been quieted as of late
only because normies sheepishly think they are winning. That's probably why the establishment is freaking out:
they know that won't last. You occasionally see moderate democrats asking for peace and quiet, perhaps
realizing this, but it's unfortunately not a message well-received by the fringe left who control social media
and these divisive late night network shows.
My prediction: on election night 2020, there will be a lot of shell-shocked republican normies. Either the
despised socialist is elected or a man who stokes racial animus for personal gain – Pete Buttigieg – will
become president-elect. In the minds of conservative Boomers, that wasn't supposed to happen; it's as if
someone said they could see inside the event horizon of a black hole – total violation of established physical
reality.
Impossible
or so they thought. Republican operatives are already trying to help Bernie
Sanders in both Iowa and South Carolina. They foolishly think Sanders can't win, but that's not true. I've seen
the polls. On election night, Donald Trump will have to deliver a heart-wrenching speech to his deluded
followers conceding defeat to someone they thought couldn't win.
But the Trumpslide. Qanon said to trust the plan*. We're winning. The wall. MAGA.
All exposed as lies. The sort of lies a defeated people tell themselves. Cerebral comfort food for the
weak-minded.
In the process, Donald Trump will discredit Conservatism Inc. just like Mitt Romney did in 2012. Contrarians
will escape the judgment of history and live to fight another day. Most likely, there are yet more dissident
stars on the right to be made. Some older ones may also return in the aftermath.
Considering circumstances, the best path forward (speaking as devil's advocate) is to critique the man
without vocally supporting his defeat. Let him go down fair and square. Starting in November, there will many
republicans in Trump's former base looking for an alternative. They will seek out dissidents they heard about
but dismissed as blackpillers; MAGA supporters will be sidelined. Third Way Alternatives should consider laying
out a well-reasoned, practical and achievable alternative in the present with the anticipation they will be
called upon in the near future.
However, I wouldn't count on that considering the lack of organization and drive I see on the dissident
right. Mr. Griffith's essay, for example, is filled with a strange defeated tone. It sounds as if he just wants
to go back to business as usual before Trump: do his contrarian thing without being harassed. Certainly, life
would be easier. But you would be no closer to any kind of victory, either. As the author notes, dissidents
were tolerated before Trump. But why? I think laying the full blame on Trump is not warranted. Yes, he failed
to protect his followers – that's one big reason why dissent is now being crushed. There is another reason,
however: you were winning. You were only tolerated before because you were on the wrong side of history. The
establishment didn't fear you because you couldn't challenge them. With Trump's surprise victory, the situation
changed. With that in mind, what's the point of going back to business as usual while being on a certain path
to defeat? unless you want to lose (or don't care), unless you simply want the freedom to be a contrarian
without accomplishing anything. Sounds like a grift to me, pardon the rudeness.
If you want to ineffectually complain about the ruling class on Twitter while being free of harassment, then
supporting the democrat is probably your best bet. They'll tolerate you because you don't threaten them. I
think that's what a lot of guys on the right really want, which is why they went so heavily into Yang's UBI. It
was a sort of early retirement option for them, regardless of how they justified it – get free money and cash
out, let the world burn.
*Well, that and to drink bleach to ward off the wuhan coronavirus. Do NOT trust that plan.
Disclaimer: I'm speaking as a neutral third party who was never involved in any of this stuff.
Idiotic article. Yeah, Trump is a Trojan horse who is making. Israel great again. Yeah, he's a fragile,
narcissistic buffoon. The only unabashed positive I can really offer is that he is in 2020, as he was in 2016,
the least bad option.
The author doesn't seem to quite get numbers. God, as they say, tends to favor the side with the biggest
battalions. Perhaps he should take a look at a demographic plot of the map of the United States circa 2020. The
truth is that, if a hyper-competent, charismatic candidate had formed a consensus around Trump's 2016 platform
in maybe 1975, the demographic trajectory of the country could have been changed. It's way, way too late for
that.
If you were stupid enough to think in 2016 that demographic realities were going to be unwound, or even that
there could consensus to address the issue in a serious unapologetic way, I really don't know what to tell you.
You're probably too stupid to be operating heavy machinery, much less posting articles on Unz. Trump's election
is Prop 187, circa 1980's. Far too little, far too late. But still the least bad option.
All there really is at this point is a rearguard action, and maybe win a skirmish here and there. In terms
of the Long War, we don't have the numbers or the consensus. Grow the fuck up.
I'm often asked by people in the US who learn I've lived outside the US the better part of three decades when I
might return to the US, to which I lightly reply, "When the Republic is restored. I guess that means never."
At the end of the day, who better than Trump can you get behind? I guess it is game over. The only problem is
that the rest of the developed world is going in the same problemmatic direction, and places like Uruguay still
have their occasionally lurches into insanity.
2.) Those who feared that the Trump administration would suck all of the energy out of the Alt-Right were
right.
This is very typical. In the waning days of G.W. Bush there was a very strong hard left anti-war movement in
place, and doing well on the internet, and also had a home on some cable stations. Once Obama was elected it
faded into obscurity with-in hours, and never resurrected even as Obama become more hawkish than Bush – both
expanding the War on Terror, and codifying the Bush Doctrine.
1. Trump was a con man as a businessman. How did anyone imagine he wouldn't be a con man as
president?
2. Trump knows which side his bread is buttered. How long do you imagine he would've lasted if he actually
did the things he promised, especially ending the Amerikastani Empire, before ending like Kennedy? Six weeks?
3. Whether the author of this article, with whom I sympathise, changes any minds with it is irrelevant.
Trump is the Wall Street/military industrial complex/zionist candidate for re election, and his return to power
is being arranged even as I write this. The shambolic Daymockratic Party impeachment circus and the bad jokes
posing as candidates in their primaries have one purpose alone: to ensure a second term for Donald Trump. What
any normal person votes for is irrelevant.
A common trope on the right is that the left gets what it wants. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just
witness the shenanigans the DNC is pulling in the current primaries. When Pelosi theatrically ripped up Trump's
speech in the SOTU, she shortly thereafter voted to support the efforts to destabilise Venezuela and support
the CIA-handpicked Juan Guaido.
Pro-Israel PACs have flooded the primaries attacking Bernie. CIA puppet Pete Buttigieg is against medicare
for all. Democrats do not get what they want. The only thing they get is woke rhetoric but the neoliberal
economic system and the imperialist foreign policy remains the same.
Jimmy Dore's reference to the "uniparty" is apt here. So while Mr Griffin's catalogue of Trump's various
betrayals is useful, keep in mind that the disease is bipartisan. The US is in many ways a sham democracy where
the actors perform kabuki theater. You will never get an honest say on the core principles of the system.
Regardless if you're coming from the right or the left. And the media is in on the charade.
He is so duplicitous it's mind boggling. Nancy Pelosi is right when she calls him a liar,
although she's no angel herself.
The Jewish Power structure is in total control. Trump WILL BE the final nail in USA coffin, because he is
dictating for Israel, now. Israel will make even bigger moves after he is re-elected, for sure. No doubt to
further the Yinon plan along.
I voted for him too; but will not be voting at all this year. I refuse to play into their twisted game.
They purposely caused all this Chaos to keep people distracted while Big Tech companies consolidate their
power over the internet and the Military Industrial Complex plans the next false flag to kick off the next
invasion (Iran & Syria).
My guess is that Jewish Democrats like Schiff, Nader, and proxy Nancy have all been part of this horrible
PsyOp that has been going down the last 3 years.
It doesn't matter which "side" you are on anymore because there is really only ONE SIDE.
I wouldn't feel bad about being a "Trump Chump" – there are millions of you, after all.
As someone who would
be in the Bernie/Tulsi camp if I lived in the USA (but would also be furiously opposed to being swamped by
Somalis), here's a little advice, free of charge:
You will never get anywhere being attached to a Party of Capital. They will always want to bring cheap
labour into your country, and they don't care what those immigrants do to your family. Money rules. Forget the
GOP, and start your own party.
Imagine thinking a New York City billionaire is a "populist." LMAO what were we thinking? He told us what
we wanted to hear and we believed it.
Not just a NY billionaire, but one who profited from (a) mega-banks, and (b) the ZioNazi media.
His first two reality TV stunts were WWE, and then The Apprentice. The third is his crown achievement.
You call them Trump's Chumps, I've called them TrumpTARDs, because they are fucking useless, mindlessly
idiotic fools/rednecks/inbred losers.
Fact is the country doesn't stand a chance, the "resistance" is more pathetic than the globlalists. If the
last three years has taught the world anything, it's not just how mindlessly stupid TrumpTARDs are, but how
uncivil, rude, aggressive, and downright despicable.
Nobody has harmed the conservative cause more than the Orange Satan.
All, of course, by design. What still gets me is that conservatives are to utterly stupid to fall for it. At
least the Liberals caught on that Obama was a fake early on – the TrumpTARDs just can't get enough of sucking
that Orange ZioNazi's dick.
this who thing looks related to me.. .. the Cornoavirus, the pipeline, the bombings in Syria, the libya-turkey
GNA thing, the recent airliner crash in Turkey, I feel something is surfacing
Trump proved that the nation state system is disastrous for those humans governed by it. The nation state
system is great for those few who are the puppet governors of the few that rule the world.
The problem Mr. Griffin is that the article does not recognize that USA citizens who not part of the
electoral college cannot vote for either the President or the Vice President. Amendment 12 read it.
We should Trumpet Trump because if we don't we might be next..
There are quite literally hordes of foreigners living here.
Fact is none of the fake conservatives, from the Orange Satan to the Governor of Texas, is against illegal
immigration. It would be easy enough to prosecute employers who hire illegals, but neither the Orange Satan,
nor any State, be it Wyoming or Texas, so-called "Red" (Communist) states, does anything about it.
But yet the idiot TrumpTARDs wail on and on about how the Orange Satan is their savior and how Republicans
are better than Democrats.
It's amazing how unbelievably, astoundingly stupid Americans are.
You are either stupid or lying, I believe lying. I say this because in each of your substantive attacks, you
blatantly misstate facts, even obvious ones.
Personally I am honestly and eyes open clinging to the hope that
Trump is sincerely doing his best for us, because the alternative is civil war, and if it comes to that, it
will come to that. Trump is the last possible peaceful salvation for America.
Here are your lies, which tell me you are not genuine:
> He has refurbished the George W. Bush era fence. Since he has been president, Donald Trump has built all of
three new miles of fence,
A blatant and obvious lie to anyone who is tracking the wall progress – "refurbished" means replaced
completely ineffective fence, including vehicle barriers which you can literally walk around, with 18-30ft high
steel fence. You may jerk off to the technicality that it isn't "new", but we all see through you. Over 100
miles so far with 350 more planned, and he has done it with congress kicking and screaming. He even diverted
defense spending for this purpose, against all of Washington's whining and complaining. These are the actions
of someone who is sincere.
>there have been no cuts to legal immigration
Bull shit. Blatant lie. 2017 saw a 10% decrease in net migration from 1046 million to 930 million. 2018 down
another 25% to 700 million, and 2019 15% to 600 million. That's God damn good work for a man with an entire
bureaucracy and 2 parties fighting him. He didn't even get a law to sign and he still cut legal immigration by
almost HALF. I can hardly believe it myself it's too good to be true. Why lie?
>Donald Trump hasn't even deported as many illegal aliens as Obama.
You know as well as I do that Obama changed the reporting of deportations to include 'voluntary returns'.
Obama deported virtually no one from the interior. Regardless, more importantly, we both know how aggressively
both parties and the bureaucracy have fought to prevent Trump from taking action, and yet against all odds he
secured agreements with Honduras El Salvador and Guatemala to deport "Asylum seekers" there, making an end run
around the legal labyrinth that was keeping them here. That is HUGE and you completely omit it.
You also omitted –
Starting a trade war with China
Supporting the break up of the EU
Demanding funds from allies under our umbrella
Not starting a war in Syria or Iran, both of which they desperately tried to force him into
But most of all, you ignored the fact that the entire intelligence apparatus, the entire media, the entire
establishment has sacrificed their credibility in the attack on Trump.
That is the main reason I still have hope. Your lies bald face lies are why I do not believe you are
sincere.
I love it that the jew and the fag won in Iowa. Of course, I don't love that Trump will probably win in Nov.
but the options to him are dismal to say the least. No matter what, once he's out of office the days of this
"republic"/empire are surely numbered.
I disagree that voting for Mr Trump was a mistake. American elections are always a choice of evils, but in this
case it was more a choice between rapid extinction of our species and run-of-the-mill evil, killing only the
odd million people now and then.
I personally take this cartoon very seriously indeed:
If Hillary Clinton had become President, I believe she would have found a way to start a war with Russia.
And that would have resulted in the death of all human beings, plus many other species.
Mr Trump is execrable, it is true. But he has one enormous virtue: for whatever reason, he is extremely open
and candid. Whereas US presidents going back to the 19th century did frightful things while smiling genially
and pretending to be kind, Mr Trump openly admits how frightful he and his deeds are.
That is hastening the demise of the US empire, which is in the interests of all human beings.
@MattinLA
There are certainly no easy choices. As a foreigner I am hardly in a position to criticize, let alone to
encourage US citizens. But perhaps I could remind you of an early President during whose 8 years in power not a
single American or foreigner was killed by the US government?
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years
without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be
discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such
misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. What country before ever
existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are
not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The
remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or
two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its
natural manure".
– Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Stephens Smith (13 November 1787), quoted in Padover's Jefferson On
Democracy
@MattinLA
IOW, you're going to vote again? For Mr. Trump?
"In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will
hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our
ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking complex.
Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for
liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing
Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be
blamed on bipartisan politics."
Linh Dinh, "Orlando Shooting Means Trump for President," June 12, 2016, @ The Unz Review.
All the system needs is for you to pick Red or Blue, accepting the results until the next Most Important
Election Ever.
As a first time voter in 2016, Trump's relative inaction on all that he promised has made me more aware than
ever of the rot that has set in our political system. I was skeptical that political change could be
accomplished prior to 2016 but optimistic. Now I cannot be anymore pessimistic about the future.
@Chet Roman
" another conservative judge on the Supreme Court; a change that will impact the next 30+ years. That alone
will be enough for me."
Yeah, Right.
Like the impact of all the Republican appointees who issued the ruling in Roe v Wade?
Like the impact of Mr. Kennedy, a Republican choice who helped rewrite the legal definition of marriage?
Like the impact of Mr. Roberts, a Republican choice who nailed down Big Sickness for the pharmaceutical and
insurance industries?
What impact do you honestly expect from Mr. Kavanaugh, Mr. Trump's choice who earned his first robe by
helping President Cheney with the Patriot Act?
Like the "federal" elections held every November in even-numbered years and the 5-4 decrees of the Court,
the partisan judicial nominations and nailbiting confirmation hearings are another part of the RedBlue puppet
show that keeps people like Chet Roman voting in the next Most Important Election Ever.
Your disappointment is the inverse of your expectations. Perhaps you should curb your enthusiasm? So what's
next? Join the Communists? Boycott the system? That will teach them! Trump is the best looking horse in the
glue factory. Do you see a candidate you like better?
The effort to remove Trump from office began before he was even sworn in. In terms of intensity the effort has
been unlike anything any of us have ever seen. And that effort has come relentlessly, from all sides. The
media, the late night comics, the intelligence services, the kritarchy, the bureaucracy they have been united
in thwarting Trump's every move, united in flogging an entirely bogus Russian collusion investigation from his
first day in office. And they IMPEACHED the man over nonsense, for crying out loud.
The most powerful elements in this country have thrown, and continue to throw, everything they've got at
him. They have brought this country to the brink of a cataclysm for their hatred of Donald Trump and their
overriding desire to see him removed from power and his voters punished. Their hatred alone is reason enough to
continue to support Trump.
It was a miracle Donald Trump won the presidency. It is a miracle he is still in office. And a miracle is
the only thing that can save us.
Do you not remember how utterly hopeless things seemed in 2015? How completely we'd been beaten? There was
zero chance the immigration tide could be stopped, for one thing. Do you not realize that it is a miracle that
things are slightly less hopeless now? A miracle that, in 2020, we aren't beaten quite so completely? That, by
some miracle, the chance of achieving an immigration time-out within the next four years is now greater than
zero?
Any Trump supporter who turns on Trump because he disapproves of the job Trump has done as president just
shows his own fractiousness, because, in truth, Trump has not yet had a chance to be president. And
politically, turning on Trump is particularly boneheaded given there is absolutely no alternative and we are
out of miracles.
@Divine Right
The GOP donors would never allow a fully-fledged White populist candidate to slip through the net, Trump was
never such a thing which is why he managed to win the primaries.
By the time the boomers die off, it will be too late and even a White Rights candidate would never won as
the demographics will have shifted so much, and this is assuming Whites start skewing towards GOP on the same
way Blacks skew towards Democrats. In reality the younger Whites still have the virus of individuality in their
minds, thinking that politics is about high-minded ideas instead of group interests.
Poor Brad. I spent all that same time trying desperately to show you how far off you were in the support of an
obvious jew water carrier. Twitter (until they dumped me) and then even signing up for your blog.
I left
comment after comment with valuable information, obvious and thorough.
You ignored it all, even in the face of its blatant OBVIOUSNESS. You were a Drumpfter and with Trump saying
just the right thing, you could probably go back.
It is why I left your site and won't go back. You spent years being totally WRONG.
Reading this is like reading the words of a guilty man who was too stupid to see what was truly right in
front of your face. Or one that knew all along but had a different agenda.
Either way, you have zero credibility or discernment when it comes to politics, so why don't you just keep
it to yourself.
Me, a dumb ole redneck, called it in Aug 2015 and didn't stop trying to warn the world of this OBVIOUSNESS.
You know it and I know it.
Some strong points here, not all of them, but a number.
"He has been a disappointment on all fronts."
No statement could be more accurate.
Trump is a failure, but one with a very loud mouth and a rather twisted psychology that magically converts
all failures into successes. Nothing factual ever fazes him.
And the ability to just keep going is a great asset in politics, even if it means you keep going to do
destructive things. You actions communicate strength and purpose and determination to ordinary people.
After all, much of the ordinary public literally has no idea what is going on, abroad or at home, so poorly
informed are they by the mainline press and the political establishment.
He does a daily war dance of self-praise, finding new phrases to whoop and chant, describing his almost
complete failure in the opposite terms.
But because he is doing overall the power establishment's work – against China, against Iran, against
Russia, for Israel, and in Latin America – they not only do not oppose him, they support him.
He does his work rudely and utterly without grace.
He is a man who wears his ignorance as though it were a finely-tailored suit.
But the power establishment is okay with the grotesque style, so long as they get the results they want. And
they do.
The desired results are mainly negative, not positive, achievements.
But that is the essence of imperial America today, to do harm to others in order to improve its own relative
standing. It does almost nothing positive anymore anywhere. It threatens friends and foes alike. It destroys
international organizations and order. It supports the creation of chaos, as in Syria or Libya or Yemen.
The contrast of America's now-constant threats and hostilities with China's great Belt and Rail Initiative
couldn't be starker. Or with Putin's pragmatic "live and let live" philosophy. We see destruction versus
creation. Coercion versus cooperation. Ignorance versus information. Darkness versus light.
So, Trump, with all of grotesqueries and lies, provides almost the perfect President.
Sorry, America, but that is a very great, if ugly, truth.
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and
the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two
parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election
without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy .Then it should be possible to replace it, every
four years if necessary, by the other party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new
vigor, approximately the same basic policies." Carroll Quigley
And so it goes ..at least until enough people
start to understand/believe that the government is their enemy, never their friend , and that a completely
unlimited government [i.e. what we currently endure], regardless of who is president, will continue to take
more of their money and freedom away on a daily basis because:
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting
[central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams
which cannot be "reformed"or "improved",simply because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
Sadly, it doesn't matter who we vote for as the jewing will continue unabated.
Proof of this is to always
ask, "Who benefits?"
And the answer is ALWAYS the jews, and the answer is NEVER white people.
Once you understand what the jews want, what their interests are, and you see that everything that happens
seems to be good for the jews, you realize that this awful system is anti-white to the core and it's been
engineered by the nose for the nose. There is no other way to explain the fact that the interests of white
people are NEVER honored. In fact, the interests of white people are not even given a passing thought.
I knew it was going south in a hurry when he moved into the white house and turned it into something resembling
a synagogue.
As an outsider, watching media reporting on American politics, I find myself wondering if I'm
not actually viewing Israeli political news. How do Americans not notice this?
Trump's supposed conflict with congress to get funding for the border wall is just a kosher psyop designed to
give off the illusion that he is fighting to uphold his campaign promises, when in reality he's just carrying
out the jews white genocidal program. He's no different than Obama. Black or white, they take orders from the
same political class: the Jews who control the money, the policies, and the media.
But what's most sickening
about all this is that the same congress that unanimously votes to give untold billions to Israel in foreign
military aid is now telling the American people that there is just not enough money to fund a border wall !
Israel first, America last, that's how congress works.
Why don't the Jews want a strong US border wall built ? Because the JEWS want to genocide White Christian
Americans through mass illegal immigration. Why ? Because non-white third world people have lower-iq's and are
easier for the Jews to control and make slaves out of.
( Destabilizing society for political gains- Offering stupid people free everything will always get votes, and
they know this. )
Funding for the US border wall could be solved overnight by removing Jewish control over the monetary system
and cancelling all foreign aid to Israel, but don't except that to happen anytime soon. Nothing has changed
since Trump has become president and nothing will. Illegal immigration, poverty, unemployment and wars will
accelerate under Trump because those are the natural consequences of following the orders of America hating
Jews. Trump isn't playing some 4d chess strategy and all those who still say this are blind, deaf and dumb. The
Jews are still in full control of the Federal Reserve and by extension the media, government, courts, law
enforcement, education etc. Stop living in a fantasy land and face the facts.
As it was with Bush,Clinton and Obama, the United States is still a vassal state of Israel and controlled by
the Jews. We cannot vote ourselves out of this situation. Democracy means Jewish control that breaks down to
which political candidate gets the most jewish money and jewish media coverage. The Jews pick our presidents,
it doesn't matter if a republican or democrat gets elected, each party is only concerned with advancing the
Jewish world government agenda.
@Priss Factor
Regarding Gen. Soleimani, a true martyr, you should have seen how insultingly the moronic ABC World News anchor
David Muir brought up the name of Gen. Soleimani at last night's DNC debate. And none of the candidates
bothered to correct Muir.
@Gleimhart Mantooso
Keep wallowing in hate and ignorance. Muslims are the only people outside of Christians who revere Jesus,
albeit not as god jr. but as as a mighty prophet.
For sure, Trump has been less than impressive on all fronts. At least he hasn't committed the US to an all-out
war with Iran, but I strongly suspect he will do so after he is re-elected.
As far as
actual
unemployment, January 2020 remains at a stable 21% and all the bs about 3.5% is the usual smoke-and-mirrors:
I think the establishment is once again giving the American voter no real alternatives (but isn't that the
point?). Do you want Trump or a Jewish communist, Trump or Indiana's little Peewee Buttfudge? Whatever. The
final result will always be "X" is president in a White House filled with zionists. Everything American
crumbles while the Israelis continue the dance they started on 9/11.
Machiavelli wrote that the best people to take power are not the best people to run the government. The
implication is precisely that: use the chumps and then discard them.
Despite all the technology, some things
haven't changed.
@Divine Right
" My read of the situation is that Donald Trump is almost certainly going to lose the general election, despite
the confident predictions of an incoming Trumpslide by deluded supporters. In his defeat, he'll take the last
vestiges of Reagan conservatism down with him "
Your comment is very interesting. While I didn't like it
emotionally. Intellectually it was excellent.
I have all of the same complaints as Brad Griffin. I have to admit my perfidy as I have at times believed in
Q and other times I haven't. Right now I'm at the, we'll see, stage as I have no idea what is going to happen
and if he so wished Trump could fall on the deep State like a bear trap. If he is going to do this then the
delay til he can get in a more honest set of judges and push out some the worst of the actors makes sense. Even
his wishy washy staffing the place to the gills with Jews and inconsistent policies. He has several times
stated positions and done things that have put his enemies in very awkward positions that are difficult to
weasel out of. He could still take down portions of the deep State. We'll have to see but I admit it doesn't
look good.
Former CIA head William Casey once said, and it is verified, something like that when no one knows what the
truth is the CIA had done it's job. I think we are at that stage now.
If Trump does not reign in the deep State, meaning the Jews for all practical purposes, or even if he loses
the election I suspect strongly that a vast tsunami of Whites will instantly lose faith in government. I think
it likely that if Trump loses it will be a psychic shock.
If Trump has no plan to take on the deep State and Q is just a deep State actor to delay the day of
reckoning I hope Trump does lose.
There's a path, a very scary one, that may be what Q is all about if he is a deep State actor. Computer
power has continued to increase combined with neural nets computing. The time line for a $1,000 computer chip
with the computing power of a human is 2025. It may be off by a little but it will happen. If when this happens
and the Jews are still in control they could, combined with 5G, build what ever robot army they wished for
around 10 or 20 thousand dollars a piece and murder us all. Elon Musk global network in space would also allow
them global dominance. I've always been suspicious of Elon being a Jew while supporting what he is doing as
being good for the country. When he immigrated to Canada from South Africa he first had a job at a bank
supposedly with one of this relatives. He also has been extremely capable in raising vast sums of capital. Jews
are much more able to do this due to nepotism. He denies being a Jew.
Trump is very much a chump and a liar, as pretty much every president has been from the beginning. This will
include supposed great presidents like Lincoln, Wilson, Teddy and FD Roosevelt, Reagan, Obama, and yes, even
the vaunted JFK.
The problem is and always has been "Murkans" find themselves a political party and basically sign up for
life. They never seem to learn no matter who is put into office, the slow slide to a full blown Marxist type
Oligarchy marches on. I cannot fathom why people go to political rallies and wave and cheer for known liars and
charlatans, hanging on their every promise as if it came from God himself.
Nothing is ever going to change in this country until the corporate money is eliminated from politics, until
lobbying for political favors is made illegal, until BOTH corrupt political parties currently running America
are shown the ash heap of history, AND until people realize there is more politics than marking a ballot.
This country will only be made well when the citizens start attending city, county, and state government
meetings and demand the constitution be upheld. Without our involvement at every level of government, it is
easy for the shysters and crooks to grow fat through graft and corruption.
The choice is ours and ours alone, but if history is any indicator of what will be, I say we be in deep
shit.
Bull shit. Blatant lie. 2017 saw a 10% decrease in net migration from 1046 million to 930 million. 2018
down another 25% to 700 million, and 2019 15% to 600 million. That's God damn good work for a man with an
entire bureaucracy and 2 parties fighting him
Where's the link for this claim? At the 2019 SOTU Trump bragged that immigrants would be coming to the USA
in "the largest numbers ever" under his administration.
Candidate Trump vowed to end H1B visas but president Trump now supports expanding the program. Candidate
Trump vowed to deport Dreamers and all other illegal aliens. Candidate Trump says he'll work with Congress to
allow Dreamers to stay in the U.S. and avoid deportation.
But most of all, you ignored the fact that the entire intelligence apparatus, the entire media, the
entire establishment has sacrificed their credibility in the attack on Trump.
Outside of a few of exceptions like Comey, Strzok and McCabe there's been almost no consequences for any
crazy leftists or deep state operatives for attacking Trump. At most, some (((MSM))) talking heads have
suffered decreased viewership, but that hasn't slowed them down one iota while the FBI has viciously retaliated
against high profile Trump supporters like Mike Flynn and Roger Stone.
I thought Trump was going to go after Hillary if elected and "lock her up?" That was just one of his many
lies and dog whistles.
Yes, Trump is an idiot I know well. I spent a day with him.
The real problem has been, when we have a
candidate that would be good for America, the Jews and the Jewish controlled media destroy him, and the people
do not react appropriately.
Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader all offered their talents for the job. See what happened?
Trump is not the problem. He's the symptom.
Go after the root.
Gerhard Menuhin understood this well enough he named his book accordingly.
Because life is relatively short, the people adapt a "go along to get along" mentality. They fear losing
their rice bowl (job) so they act like coolies (slaves).
People need to change the essential failing thinking only of themselves.
Better to be a martyr once than a slave 10,000 times.
Since both parties are hopelessly corrupt enemies of the people, I vote third party if I can, so I didn't vote
for Trump but I was glad he beat Hillary, because Hillary was a known evil, and Trump? I liked his campaign
promises, to make friends with Russia, to get out of NATO, to stop the "stupid" Mideast wars, to echo Lindbergh
by his motto "America First", which promised a kind of paleo-conservative "isolationism", i.e., stay home, mind
our own business, stop policing the world with regime-change wars. I wrote off his Border Fence as unworkable.
And he started off well. He called most TV news Fake News. He said Media was "the enemy of the people". Wow!
What other politician told such a truth? He met with Putin in Helsinki and believed Putin's word over his own
"Intelligence", and Wow!, again. But it didn't last. His enemies were after him (Russia! Russia! Russia!) from
Day One, and after the Putin meeting FBI and CIA and Media all called him a TRAITOR! Media bad-mouthed him 24/7
for months, and I believe Trump finally caved, joined our enemies in the Swamp he had promised to drain,
because he didn't have the balls to stand up to the constant, unrelenting pressure on him. His first choices
for Secty of State,of Defense, were okay, but then he hired the awful Bolton and then the noxious Pompeo, he
surrounded himself with the loyal-to-Israel Neocons, and now Netanyahu is our President, not Trump.
So he has
become just another enemy of the people. If Bernie is screwed out of the Dem nomination, as he was last time, I
hope he starts a Third Party, with Ron Paul as his Vice, and Tulsi Gabbard as Secty of State.
@Gizmo880
Add to that, who would champion any of these changes in either chamber of Congress? This article perfectly
reflects the adolescent whining that permeates the unz site that everything is not going exactly as I want.
You deserve to be drunk on the junk offered by the Drumpf a narcissistic hedonist from Manhattan in real
estate business (where 9 out of 10 largest real estate enterprises are owned by Jews), who was desperate at
times to hold on to that thing which is most dear to him, the title of unmitigated billionaire, and which could
not be hold on to without the blessings of the Central Park "rabbis" and one who had married non-native white
women of dubious origin (possibly Jewish), at least 2 out of 3 times and a man who wasn't known for his
christian (assuming he is one) piety or charity was suddenly the savior of the White nationalists.
You're
right about one thing: give a drowning (White nationalist) man enough rope and he will hang himself!
@nsa
Trumpstein actually did something about the H1B visa program .he increased it claiming we need more of
these half priced "brainiacs". Can't find enough discount American code scribblers, you know.
Bingo.
BTW, back in the mid 00s when I had certifications in C# programming and SQL, my phone was literally ringing
off the hook with job offers and I never went more than 1 week without a contract job. In the following years
working for a large company in the industry, I gained even more experience in other things in IT that
interested me such as machine learning, parallel programming and cloud computing.
When that company went south in 2016 I lost my job. Furiously searching for a job, it took NINE months
before I landed another. When I talked with all the local head-hunting contractor firms and IT placement
companies, they all told me the same story: all the local companies are pretty much only hiring H1B's now in
their IT departments.
Absolutely disgusting.
That along with many other things that I've seen since 2016 have convinced me that my children have no
future here in this shithole country.
In the final two years of the Obama administration (2015 and 2016), the Alt-Right was thriving on social
media and was brimming with energy.
Yes, in service to Hillary and the Democrats. Not all who called themselves alt-right, but beyond question
it was a "movement" that was and still is wholly compromised. I know it's hard for you to hear, and despite
whatever else he peddled, Freud was on to something when it came to Projection.
It doesn't surprise me that this author has memory-holed his movement's high water mark -- Hillary's
alt-right speech. Throughout the 2016 campaign, while little went Hillary's way, she consistently drew royal
straight flushes, with David Duke, Richard Spencer and various other agents-provocateur, going on CNN and MSNBC
declaring their support for Trump.
Here's your buddy Richard Spencer days after Trump won the election:
A word to the wise, anyone who didn't know to whom this character belongs, and long before this moment,
should assiduously avoid the word 'chump.'
I won't paint with a broad brush. To the extent that anyone cares, it was and remains rather easy to figure
out which in the so-called alt-right can't be trusted. Whether because the FBI or someone else has them by the
short-hairs, or they're Leninist/Stalinist filth doing their part for the cause.
That includes those writing articles like this, lamenting that Trump betrayed you after you voted for him by
being a great president for African Americans too.
Timing is rarely coincidental. Thus this jibber jabber comes just after Trump defeated the latest coup
attempt and even Democrat allied-media is finally forced to begin to concede that he'll win reelection.
Trump will do so with historic support from blacks and Hispanics (for a Republican). Which is why Democrats
and their allied-media are again feverishly pushing their "white nationalist" button again.
Any day now the "GOD EMPEROR (!!!)" is going to "UNLEASH THE STORM!!!"
Oh, yeah, sure some Jews get beat up in midtown Manhattan and Trump swings into action quicker than whale
shit thru an ice floe passing EOs that end up practically paving the way to make it illegal to criticize Jews
Um, OK he sure was quick and decisive for them.
But surely he will get around to doing something for the goys too!!!
The reasons why I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 were immigration, trade, foreign policy, political
correctness and campaign finance and furthering these big ideas of "nationalism" and "populism."
Well then you
are
a chump. The only tactical reason to have voted for Trump was
to deny Hillary
Clinton executive power
. That was the sole reason any conservative or rightist had to participate in Our
National Sham. To believe that he was going to reintroduce "nigger" to the national lexicon by 2018 was
head-in-the-clouds foolishness.
Thwarting Soros/Hillary remains his major contribution* to American politics: under Trump, the masks on the
other side have all come off. There is no longer any subterfuge about the Unholy Trinity of the Far Left,
meaning the Democratic Party, the mainstream media and the hostage institutions such as academia and
local/state government. The rabid doubling-down of the anti-white Deep State – unthinkable with a nabob like
McConnell or Romney in the Oval Office – is another plus to the Trump Administration: what the talking heads
all nervously refer to as the "deep divisions" in our country is one of the few signs of mental health and
vitality America has experienced in a half-century's worth of decline.
Nobody was going to reverse that half-century in three or four years – it was a physical impossibility; just
as no one was going to pry off Team Shmuel's death-grip without at least pretending not to. Ten
years
would be insufficient for such tasks. But it doesn't mean you petulantly vow to starve yourself because half a
loaf is an insult.
*= it's rarely brought up but his quietly appointing centrist/conservative judges to the bench, boring as it
may seem to tiki-torch revolutionaries, still represents an important step in the right direction and is
probably his
second
major contribution to the struggle,
Trump is the reincarnation of the Roman emperor Caligula and the present government of the ZUS is a
reincarnation of the later days of the Roman empire, in every way!
@MattinLA
America has faced problem like this in the past It will solve the problem in similar or identical terms . Thats
what it does It provides a ruse . Now the ruse is not covering the corners of the lying lips even before next
set of problems emerge straight from the solution.
Trump isn't a god and there's so much to criticize about his track record, all true. But at minimum, Trump did
delay the socialist takeover of the federal judiciary. As disgusting as his kowtowing has been of the neocons
that control the Deep State, the invasion of Iran has still yet to materialize. How would a Hillary presidency
have fared with Scalia's replacement and a no-fly zone over Syria? Good bye First and Second Amendment. The
alternative to Trump is grim.
@Tom Welsh
As bad as Trumpstein is, and make no mistake, the cuckold for Coco-Zionists is bad, Clinton and company would
have been even worse. In 2020 we have anti-White demsheviks like Butt-Plug, the first openly homosexual
candidate for Prez, Warren, Biden and flat out commie Jew, Sanders, and Jew Bloomberg. I guess the Jew is ready
to come out of the shadows and openly run for Prez just like homosexual Butt-Plug. Of course it could be said
that we have a Jew as POTUS right now, President Baby Nut&Yahoo and his VP Jared Kushner.
The biggest thing
Trumpstein has done as Prez is expose how fake the Jew media is, but lets not kid ourselves, with the exception
of Tucker Carlson ( even Tucker doesn't tell the total truth and he won't touch the JQ) even the neocons at FOX
and OAN don't tell the complete truth, and sometimes they do more harm by telling 90% truth and 10% lies than
commie anti-White networks like CNN, MSNBC and all the rest.
Trumpstein is a native New Yorker, what did you really expect?? The guy has been around criminal Jews all
his life, he has Jew lawyers, his daughter has converted to Judaism and she married an orthodox Jew. As bad as
our past Presidents were, some claim LBJ, FDR, and even Eisenhower might have been Jews or had Jewish blood
flowing through their shabbos goy veins, Trump might be the biggest cuckold yet when it comes to the biggest
shabbos goy Prez of all time.
Until a UNITED STATES PRESIDENT OR OFFICIAL GOES AFTER GEORGE SOROS AND THE LIKE AND SERIOUSLY SEEKS TO
IMPRISON HIM AND OTHERS FOR FLOODING OUR COUNTRY WITH ILLEGAL INVADERS, WE DON'T HAVE A LEGIT PRESIDENT.
Do you think Hitler would have stood by and allowed non-Germans or traitorous Germans to flood Germany with
Turks or Pakis and then went out and told throngs of people how he is keeping Germany first? Come on, man.
Trump is better than the alternative, BUT the new boss isn't much different than the old boss. Just another
cuckold influenced by his Jewish masters and Jewish money.
@Priss Factor
It's amusing to read the rabid Trump haters on the right. They have a better option?
Some of the Trump haters
say we should just let the whole thing burn down and that Trump is controlled opposition delaying the
inevitable and preferred civil war. These are people that won't give up their Netflix, won't give up whatever
outlet Game of Thrones is on and won't even put down their IPhone. It's absurd.
Trump is a fat-assed, baby boomer politician whore for the evil and immoral globalizer treasonites in the
JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire.
Trump has been screaming like a three dollar whore politician
about flooding the USA with mass legal immigration "in the largest numbers ever."
Trump has refused to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.
Trump has kept the American Empire garrisons and bases forward deployed and stuck in muck hole regions of
the globe.
Trump has put the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the American Empire.
Trump is a bought and paid for three dollar whore politician for Jew billionaires Shelly Adelson and Paul
Singer and Bernie Marcus and other billionaire bastards.
Trump has kept his fat mouth shut about the Fed-created and monetary policy induced asset bubbles in stocks,
bonds and real estate. In 2016, fat ass baby boomer bastard Trumpy was calling these same damn asset bubbles
nothing but "fat, ugly bubbles." In 2016 Trump said "we are in a big, fat, ugly bubble" and the asset bubbles
in stocks, bonds and real estate are only bigger and uglier and fatter now.
I hereby challenge baby boomer fat ass Trumpy -- and Teddy Cruz, Marco Rubio, Dan Crenshaw, Tom Cotton and
any other GOP puke who wants to show up -- to a debate on mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration,
tax policy, trade policy, foreign policy, monetary policy, American national identity, multicultural mayhem,
White Genocide and any other damn thing.
Vote for CHARLES PEWITT as a Write-In candidate for president in New Hampshire and Nevada and South Carolina
and every other state presidential primary.
Charles Pewitt Immigration Pledge:
IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW!
DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIEN INVADERS NOW!
REMOVE THE FOREIGNERS NOW!
REMOVE ALL WHITES OR OTHERS THAT ARE HOSTILE TO THE EUROPEAN CHRISTIAN ANCESTRAL CORE OF THE USA
Ban The Bat Soup Fever People Now!
The Charles Pewitt write-in campaign for president of the USA has called for the immediate implementation of
a BAT SOUP FEVER BAN which will quarantine the rest of the world, including Canada and Mexico. All foreigners
currently occupying US territory will be immediately removed and they will be put on barges with baloney
sandwiches for sustenance on their long voyage back to wherever the Hell they came from. Those who have
deliberately shredded their identification -- like Pelosi shredding Trumpy's speech -- shall be put in a baloney
sandwich camp in sub-Saharan Africa and kept there indefinitely.
The Charles Pewitt write-in campaign for president has stated numerous times that open borders mass legal
immigration and open borders mass illegal immigration brings infectious diseases to the USA and this new
fangled BAT SOUP FEVER is just EBOLA with more sniffles and the walking pneumonia and the boogie woogie bat
soup fever blues.
The Charles Pewitt ban on the Bat Soup Fever People, plus all the other foreigners for good measure, will
bring massive benefits to the American people.
The Charles Pewitt ban on all foreigners in combination with a massive removal of all foreigners in the USA
will boost wages, lower housing costs, reduce income inequality, lower class sizes, protect the environment,
restore cultural cohesion, give US workers more bargaining power, reduce belly fat, reduce commuting times,
provide relief for overwhelmed hospitals and be good for regular Americans and bad for globalizer banker
money-grubbing nasty people.
The Charles Pewitt presidency will extinguish all student loan debt and pay back all student loan debt ever
paid plus 6 percent interest accrued yearly.
The Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion will grant each American citizen with all blood ancestors born in colonial
America or in the USA before 1924 the sum of ten thousand dollars a month -- tax free.
The Pewitt Tax Pledge will abolish the payroll tax and reduce federal income taxes substantially for all
Americans making below 300, 000 dollars a year. Billionaires will be declared illegal and they will be
financially liquidated and the federal corporate tax rate shall be 80 percent and 100 percent for all
corporations that have gone offshore.
God Bless America And Ban The Bat Soup Fever People Now!
Write In CHARLES PEWITT For President On Your Ballot -- God Bless The USA!
@Divine Right
If the Democrats have Pete steal the nominatin, then you can be sure they want to give Trump the election. I
dont think they control Bliombverg, more likely, he controls them so I would call him a wild card. Sanders
would win the election, but as you can see in Iowa, the criminals running the DNC, aka Hillary, are a much
bigger threat to him then Trump.
@Charles Pewitt
And you actually think that guy has a legit shot at winning? And you actually think he will be able to keep all
of his promises? The more I learn about what Hitler had to overcome to become Chancellor of Germany, you
realize that men like Hitler are rare and only come along once every couple hundreds of years. And Germany
wasn't mixed with every kind of brown and yellow race under the Sun either, America is a different animal
altogether. I am not sure if even a man like Hitler could turn America around in 2020. It will take A LOT OF
WORK TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, odds are unless we do a 180% turn, America is going out with a whimper and
sooner rather than later.
@alex in San Jose AKA Digital
Detroit
Net immigration has definitely NOT been outward. Both legal and illegal migration into the USA are still
massive, larger than the outflow from all appearances. The net result, and this is without reference to the
race or color or religion of the wave of immigrants:
a more crowded, more polluted, more expensive, less
trusting society where tens of millions of people cannot communicate effectively with each other in English and
US citizens whose families have been here for generations or even a couple centuries have a harder and harder
time finding full-time jobs with decent pay, benefits, and HAHA a pension.
@Chet Roman
After the last 3 years of seditious behavior of lying politicians like
Schiff
,
Nadler
and
Pelosi and the traitorous schemes of deep state actors like
Weismann, Vindman, Sondland
and
Yovanovitch
While I agree with your main point, what are you going to do? Vote for lil' Mike Bloomberg? Mayor Pete? LOL.
These clowns are completely controlled. Yes this system has boxed us in but Trump at least gives the illusion
of revolt, and he still isn't 100% controlled, only 99%.(Grin) Others will have to pick up the mantle of revolt
against the 'Deep State' when he is gone.
For the time being thankfully Tucker Carlson, Rand Paul and other America First types will be pushing Trump to
follow his campaign promises, however little he actually does. Because the alternative, Biden, Bloomberg, the
mayor Pete & company, is considerably worse.
The main strikes against Trump are 1. His even more fawning than
anticipated towards the Zionist beast. But most of that was predictable however regrettable. 2. His
acquiescence to the Republi'tard tax cuts which has only benefited the rich. The Republicans lost big in the
mid terms because of those cuts but 'lo and behold' Trump was still there. 3. All the other shit-lib policies
that Trump ignored or even supported, like increases in 'legal' immigration. That's the fault of his dopey
daughter and her weird Zionist/Orthodox Jew husband. With the son-in-law's one sided
'Deal of the Century'
falling flat on its face, hopefully this will hasten the moving of said weird son-in-law and dopey daughter
back to NYC 'one'. Then hopefully Trump will turn to advice from the likes of Carlson and Paul who will appeal
to his inner America First soul.
@Ragno
Thwarting Soros/Hillary remains his major contribution* to American politics: under Trump, the masks on the
other side have all ""
How has he exactly ?
Soros and Hillary occupy certain positions . Now they are gone but taken over by some other guys and gals .
It's a job . New employees still haven't been awarded the best employee award yet . That will come at the
retirement for the next set of people to carry on with the same anonymity.
We all know PNAC. How many will bother to know what the new letter head organizations the same crazy bunch
are heading now with new faces ?
Whether it is the openly anti-White demshevik candidate who wins or Trump, it is a win-win for the Jew. And our
demshevik buddies have already hinted at locking up any White who might have the temerity to whine about his or
her countries being flooded with browns, yellows and other hues of hostile third world biological weapons of
mass destruction or God any White who blasphemes the self avowed "masters of the universe" who control
America's media, much of our judicial system, and apparently own all of our serious candidates for POTUS should
face imprisonment according to some of these certifiable cuckold nutjobs. As I commented earlier, Hitler wasn't
some mentally disturbed madman who munched on carpet when enraged, he was a brilliant and brave man, but even
Hitler didn't have to overcome the odds that anyone elected as the American President has to overcome. The
Jewish dream of making America a polyglot of every kind of race under the sun with more colors than a rainbow
has become true. Hitler only had the Jew to worry about for the most part, while the American President has to
tackle not only Jewish power and influence, he has a country full of Chinese, Arabs, East Indians, Africans,
Hispanics of all sorts, just your common everyday African American with a chip on his shoulder the size of a
boulder, and all other assorted groups of malcontents demanding handouts while at the same time cursing our
nation and thinking Whitey owes them something for nothing.
Jan 20, 2017 Here's how much debt the US government added under President Obama
Based on quarterly data released by the US Treasury, the debt at the end of 2008 – just before Obama took
office – stood at roughly $10,699,805,000,000. As of the third quarter of 2016, the most recent data available,
the debt as Obama is set to leave office stood at $19,573,445,000,000.
@Trinity
The USA will thrive like never before after doing two simple things:
3 measly little hikes to the federal
funds rate and remove all the foreigners and the spawn of the foreigners.
The Pewitt presidential administration shall order the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank to raise
the federal funds rate from the current level below 2 percent to 6 percent and then to 10 percent and then to
20 percent. This whole series of asset bubbles the last 40 years can be traced back to 1981 when the federal
funds rate was 20 percent. Deliberate asset bubble implosions now!
Implode the asset bubbles and financially liquidate the greedy White nation wreckers born before 1965.
Young White Core Americans must be free of the DEBT BOMB MILLSTONE destroying their future and their
country.
The Pewitt presidential administration shall order the Fed to begin contracting the Fed's balance sheet and
there will be a complete halt to dollar swaps and liquidity injections and all the other monetary extremism
crud that keeps the asset bubbles in stocks and bonds and real estate inflated.
The Pewitt presidential administration shall order the immediate implementation of an immigration moratorium
and will begin the immediate deportation of all 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA. All foreigners
and their spawn shall be immediately removed from the USA and the members of the Deportation Force that puts
this policy into action will get 1 million dollars a year for their patriotic efforts.
Politics in the USA Distilled For My Fellow Americans:
DEBT and DEMOGRAPHY
Monetary Policy
Immigration Policy
The USA must get back to a population of 220 million like it was in 1978.
After Iowa, i'm unclear why anyone still thinks the DNC is interested in making any sort of meaningful change
to our system towards socialism; rest assured they are not. They blatantly committed election fraud to support
the mayor from the CIA, Pete. If he fails, they will put their full support behind Bloomberg, the very
definition of a right wing candidate. The threat to our ruling class is not Trump, its Sanders.
Trump
supports Israel, billionaires, Big Corporations, wars for Oil, Wall Street and so will the DNC candidates Pete
and Bloomberg. The rest are just wedge issues to give the masses the illusion of choice.
Let's
not beat around the bush. The game is rigged. The fix is in.
I'm not just talking about the neofascistic Donald Trump, the Republican Party, the
Republican-controlled United States Senate and the fake-impeachment trial that body just
concluded. I'm talking about their neoliberal enablers, the Democrats too.
Certain Depressing Things Explained
The deeply conservative corporate and imperialist Democratic Party politics and media
complex is determined to deny the progressive neo-New Deal Democrat Bernie Sanders the
presidential nomination.
So what if Sanders is the Democratic presidential candidate most likely to organize the
working- and lower-class the corporate Democrats – the nation's Inauthentic Opposition
Party of Fake Resistance (IOPFR)– have been betraying demobilizing for decades?
So what if this makes Sanders the most electable candidate against an incumbent president
and a party that pose existential fascistic and ecocidal threats to what's left of democracy,
the republic, and life itself?
So what if Sanders' key policy proposals, including Single Payer health insurance (health
care as a human right) and a Green New Deal (to put millions to work trying to roll back the
soulless capitalist destruction of livable ecology) are urgently required for the common good
and human survival?
So what if Sanders' proposals are conservative in relation to the savage scale of the
inequality and environmental destruction neoliberal class rule has been inflicting for several
decades on Americans and livable ecology?
So what if nearly half (47%) of Sanders supporters will not commit to voting for the
Democratic presidential candidate in November if it isn't Bernie, making it likely that any
other candidate is likely to usher in the tragedy of a second Trump term?
The Democratic establishment is determined to stop Sanders at all costs. As I've been saying
for years, the corporate Democrats prefer to lose to the ever more viciously right-wing
Republicans and the demented fascist oligarch Trump than to the moderately left wing of their
own party.
This is why the establishment Democrats and their many media allies (at the New York
Times , the Washington Post , Politico , The Hill , CNN, CBS, ABC,
MSNBC, and elsewhere) have issued repeated dire warnings over the supposed "radical Leftism"
and "extremism" of the mildly social-democratic Sanders.
It's why Democratic Party-affiliated funders and media opened the campaign season by touting
the clownish center-right dementia victim Joe Biden as their "front-runner."
It's why those funders and media shifted to the slimy Wall Street plaything Pete Butiggieg
after Biden re-exposed himself and pseudo-liberal Kamala Harris proved unable to stand strong
in the "pragmatic" center-right Clinton-Obama-Tony Blair-Emanuel Macron lane.
It's why the establishment "liberal" media harps constantly on Sanders' supposed
un-electability even as polls show him solidly beating Trump.
It's why former Barack Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, former global derivatives trader
and right-wing MSDNC (I mean MSNBC) host Stephanie (class-) Ruhle, and the noxious
neoconservative pundit Bill Kristol recently joined forces on MSNBC to viciously denounce
Sanders as "the worst candidate" to run against Trump.
It's why the Democratic National Committee is working to reinstate the authoritarian veto
power of unelected establishment "superdelegates" on the first ballot of the Democratic
National Convention – a move clearly driven by establishment fears that Sanders could
accumulate enough delegates to sweep to a first ballot victory under current rules.
It's the reason for the Elizabeth Warren-CNN hit job in the last Iowa Democratic
presidential debate – the one where Warren and the cable network conspired to falsely
smear Sanders as a sexist.
It's why MSDNC and CNN went into overdrive trying to portray Sanders' campaign as "divisive"
after Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib responded to Hillary Clinton's malicious personal attacks on
Sanders with an ill-timed reaction MSDNC blew up into "the boo heard around the world."
It's why MSDNC and CNN have played along with Hillary Clinton's despicable and false claim
thar Sanders didn't work hard to help Mrs. Clinton's (horrific and depressing) campaign during
the 2016 general election.
It's why the Democratic Party has changed its presidential debate qualification rules so
that mega-billionaire and center-right Republocrat Mike Bloomberg can ascend to the top
candidate stage on a magic carpet of money after skipping the campaign process in the early
caucus and primary states.
It's why the insufferable MSDNC bully Chris Matthews (the Ted Baxter of cable news) lost
what little composure he has when Sanders' campaign co-chair Nina Turner accurately called
Bloomberg "an oligarch" (more on this amusing and revealing episode below).
It's why the New York Times has been running deceptive commentaries warning falsely
about the supposed "radical extremism," "fiscal irresponsibility," "rudeness" and
"nonviability" of Sanders and his backers.
It's why the California Democratic Party's centrist managers are
doing their best to make it difficult for independents to vote for Sanders, the state's
leading presidential candidate.
It's probably why the Des Moines Register Star (which endorsed Elizabeth "Capitalist
in my Bones" Warren) strangely decided not to release its usual "gold standard" Iowa poll of
the state's first-in-the-national caucus-goers prior to the big (and shockingly wrecked) event
last Monday.
It's why the Times, CNN, and MSNBC (the last outfit is broadcast media's ground-zero
for fake-progressive Wall Street centrism ) tout Butiggieg as the winner of Iowa's spoiled
caucus even though Sanders won the same number of state delegates and triumphed decisively in
the popular vote (please see and disseminate Fairness and Accuracy in Media's
reflection on "How Corporate Media Makes Pete Look Like He's Winning").
It's why CNN anchors smirkingly opine that Sanders "under-performed" and "failed to meet
expectations" even after he won the Caucus.
Iowa Black-Apped
And it's likely why the Iowa Caucus got app-f*#^ed, with the contest's results rendered
unavailable to the public for days. The deadly Shadow app's "failure" and the mind-boggling
dysfunction and confusion of
the error-ridden count that followed (so extreme that we'll probably never know the real
numbers) robbed Sanders of a momentum-building election night victory speech – and gave
Trump another reason to gloat about the pathetic nature of the Democratic Party.
It turns out that the Shadow app that crashed the Iowa Caucus and threw Sanders' Iowa
victory down the media memory hole was less than politically neutral. Hardly known for leftist
conspiracy theorizing, USA Today offered some chilling reflections the morning
after:
'What's this about Shadow and where did the app come from? The app was created by a
company called Shadow Inc., and issued by Jimmy Hickey of Shadow Inc., metadata of the
program that
the Des Moines Register analyzed Tuesday shows . A LinkedIn profile for James Hickey lists him as
COO of Shadow and an engineering manager for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign.
Two other former Clinton campaign workers, former Gerard Niemira and Krista Davis, co-founded
ShadowThe New York Times has reported that ACRONYM – a Democratic nonprofit
founded in 2017 "to educate, inspire, register, and mobilize voters," according to its
website – supported Shadow .
Its founder and CEO is Tara McGowan, a former journalist and digital producer with
President Obama's 2012 presidential campaign ,
The Los Angeles Times reported . Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Troy Price, who also
worked as Clinton's 2016 Iowa political director, did not immediately respond to requests for
comment Tuesday about the relationship between the party and Shadow, which it paid $63,184
for website development and travel expenses '
It gets worse. According to the Los Angeles Times , in an article titled "Tech Firm
Started by Clinton Campaign Veterans Linked to Iowa Caucus Debacle": " Among Shadow's
clients is Pete Buttegieg's presidential campaign, which paid $42,500 to the firm in July
2019 for 'software rights and subscriptions,' according to disclosures to the FEC."
So, Shadow, Inc. got money from Wall Street Pete (from the financial sector via Butiggieg,
that is), a former consultant with the infamously dark and globalist McKinsey Company and a
onetime U.S. Navy Intelligence Officer.
Further feeding the sense of the Iowa Caucus Debacle as a CIA/military intelligence Black
Op, Butiggieg proclaimed himself the Iowa victor with zero precincts reporting last Monday
night! How Juan Guaido was that?
It worked. The fact that Sanders won Iowa was turned into a public non-fact. The confusion
bought Mayor Pete a couple of days to take some undeserved victory laps across the "liberal"
media, boosting him in New Hampshire.
The Democrats Did "More to Undermine Faith in Our Elections than Russia Ever Could"
No talking head has captured the evil of it all more effectively and bitingly than The
Hill 's
Krystal Ball yesterday morning. Her comments merit transcription and lengthy quotation:
"Let [this sink in]: Twitter is doing a better, more accurate job of tabulating the
results than the Democratic Party. What else might be wrong through incompetence, malice, or
a combination of both, God only knows. But as if that's not enough, after Pete claimed a fake
victory thanks to the complicity of the Iowa Democratic Party and the media, it turns out
that, surprise, surprise, they saved the best precincts for Bernie Sanders to be counted
and included last, because of course they did. I'm sure it was all just a coincidence ,
though, guys. And meanwhile, a new tracking poll shows that Pete's fake win in Iowa has given
him a big boost in New Hampshire, lifting him 9 points in 3 days."
"What is truly criminal to me, though, is this: the people who gave Bernie Sanders
this hard-fought and well-deserved win are people like this: immigrant workers at a
pork-processing plant, who had to fight to even be able to cast their ballots in a caucus
that conflicted with their work schedule. They were the very first to vote and among the last
to be counted. For four days, their voice and their vote were completely erased, as were the
Latinos who participated in satellite caucuses and went overwhelmingly for Bernie Sanders. It
is absolutely outrageous ."
" Do you remember the endless, three-year rant at RussiaGate and over how a foreign
power spending a million or two over a month on lousy, ungrammatical Facebook ads inside a
billion dollar election was the biggest threat to our constitutional republic and was
material to Hillary's loss in 2016? Let's be completely clear here . TheDemocratic Party in Iowa has done more to undermine faith in our elections than Russia
ever could . Period. But don't expect a Democratic House to hold months-long hearings
into the Iowa Caucus debacle. Don't expect any degree of self-reflection on the part of the
party bosses and consultant grifters who deserve to be fired en masse . Instead, the
same folks who think they should be able to take the nomination from Bernie with their
Superdelegates, the same folks who tweak the process so it suits them, the same folks who are
now leaking out partial wrong results in a mockery of manipulation masquerading as
transparency these people will continue to run the Democratic Party in Iowa and elsewhere
until and unless an anti-establishment candidate like Bernie throws them all out. ."
" Single moms arranged babysitters to participate in this caucus. Nurses gave up shifts,
lost 12 hours of pay to participate in this caucus. People rolled in with their wheelchairs.
They weren't with their kids or doing their college homework Volunteers donated hundreds of
thousands of hours of time. Banging on doors, hosting house parties, managing selfie lines,
and all for what? So that all that time, all that energy could be turned into a giant joke
that makes everyone who participated in the process feel like a fool ."
"People that we invite into this process are made a sacred promise that this activity s
meaningful and necessary. And then to watch such manifest incompetence, cronyism,
obfuscation, and selective disclosure in what is supposed to be the most critical election of
our lifetimemakes a joke out of democracy and spread cynicism like the
Coranavirus of the civic soul This whole democracy looks like a Potemkin Village farce
where the GOP and Democratic Party insiders seem to almost laugh at the rubes who take this
whole thing as serious and sacred ."
I've never had the same degree of faith n U.S. electoral politics that Ms. Ball (who would
likely and wrongly consider me a victim and purveyor of cynicism) seems to have had in the
past, but that is an extremely powerful denunciation of what happened to Sanders and his
backers – and the democratic ideal – in Iowa this week.
(At least we know for certain that voters are ready to pull the rusty chain on Joe Pool
Chain Biden. Too bad for the companies who were gearing up to mass produce record players for
the poor in response to Joe "Record Players for the Poor" Biden's promise of Vinyl New
Deal.)
This is Who the Democrats Are
Butiggieg knows he's never going to be president. "Alfred E. Neuman's" role is to muddle
public perceptions, screwing Warren and Sanders in the early states to help set up "Mini-Mike"
Bloomberg (I am borrowing Trump's frankly clever nicknames for these right-wing candidate), who
is Wall Street's next Great Stop Sanders Hope in the wake of "Sleepy Joe's" predictable (and
widely predicted) collapse.
MSDNC is cable news central for the IOPFR's Campaign to Stop Sanders and Re-Elect the
Neofascist Trump with Yet Another Centrist Neoliberal Creep. Two days ago, the network's
"Morning Joe" hosts used the very Iowa fiasco that their on-the-ground ideological comrades
created to promote Bloomberg and Super Tuesday as the alternatives to "radical" Bernie and the
early caucus and primaries. The "progressive" Kissingerian network (I've heard MSNBC hosts
praise the blood-drenched war criminal Henry Kissinger on numerous occasions) didn't try hide
its corporatist agenda to any serious degree.
"Democrats," a popular Internet meme featuring pictures of Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi
runs, "are afraid that American voters are going to interfere in the 2020 election."
Thank you. Exactly right.
Surprised? You shouldn't be. The Democratic Party isn't about social justice, democracy,
and/or environmental sanity. It isn't even primarily about winning elections. "History's second
most enthusiastic capitalist party" (as former Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips once accurately
described the Democrats) is about serving "elite" corporate and financial sponsors above all,
and those sponsors prefer a second fascistic Trump term to a mildly progressive first Sanders
one.
Oligarchs "Take Advantage of a Broken and Dysfunctional System"
In an amusing and telling episode on MSNBC prior to the Caucus, Nina Turner told Chris
Matthews that voters worry about "the oligarchs" who buy American elections. "Do you think Mike
Bloomberg is an oligarch?!" an outraged Matthews asked. "He is," Turner retorted. "He skipped
Iowa. Iowans should be insulted. Buying his way into this race, period. The DNC changed the
rules. They didn't change it for Senator Harris. They didn't change it for Senator Booker. They
didn't change it for Secretary Castro."
Thank you. Exactly right.
Matthews then incredulously asked Turner is she really believed Bloomberg purchased his way
into the presidential debates – as ifthere is the slightest hint of a
scintilla of an iota of a sliver of a wisp of a rumor of a scent of doubt about.
After Matthews finished idiotically interrogating Turner, MSDNC anchor Brian Williams turned
to MSDNC pundit Jason Johnson. Johnson also disapproved of Ms. Turner's description of the
oligarch Bloomberg as an oligarch.
"Oligarchy, in our particular terminology," Johnson intoned, "makes you think of a rich
person who got their money off of oil in Russia, who is taking advantage of a broken and
dysfunctional system."
You can't make shit like that up! No, Jason Johnson: imperialist, Russophobic, and American
Exceptionalist doctrine and bad reporting make you think that way.
Merriam-Webster defines "oligarchy" as: "government by the few; a government in which a
small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes." There's an
abundance of solid academic research showing that the United States today fits the definition
very well. Here are four for Johnson to start with: Benjamin Page and Martin Gilens,
Democracy in America? What Has Gone Wrong and What we Can Do About It (University of
Chicago, 2018), Ron Formisano, American Oligarchy: The Permanent Political Class
(University of Illinois, 2017); Jeffrey Winters, Oligarchy (Cambridge University Press,
2011, with the United States as a leading case study); Paul Street, They Rule: They 1% v.
Democracy (Routledge, 2014).
Concerned about rich people "taking advantage of a broken and dysfunctional system"? Look no
further than the world's self-proclaimed "greatest democracy"! No other "democracy" in the
so-called developed world remotely matches the United States of Dark Money when it comes to
giving big donors unregulated power in their national electoral processes. Along with other and
related characteristics of its election and party system -- winner-take-all contests with no
proportional representation, rampant partisan gerrymandering of election districts, voter
registration problems, corporate media bias and the "federalist" decentralization and partisan
control of U.S. election process -- this plutocratic campaign finance free-for-all is why the
Electoral Integrity Project (a research undertaking funded by the Australian Research Council
with a team of researchers based at the University of Sydney and Harvard University) ranks the
democratic election integrity of U.S. elections below that of all 19 North and Western
European democracies and also below that of 10 other nations in the Americas (Costa Rica,
Uruguay, Canada, Chile, Brazil, Jamaica, Grenada, Argentina, Barbados and Peru), 10 nations in
Central and Eastern Europe, 9 Asian-Pacific countries, 2 countries in the Middle East (Israel
and Tunisia) and 6 African nations. The U.S. ranks dead last among "Western democracies."
Don't take it from a radical eco-Marxist like me. As the distinguished liberal political
scientists Page (Northwestern) and Gilens (Princeton) showed in their expertly researched 2017
book mentioned above:
"the best evidence indicates that the wishes of ordinary Americans actually have had
little or no impact on the making of federal government policy. Wealthy individuals and
organized interest groups – especially business corporations – have had much more
political clout. When they are taken into account, it becomes apparent that the general
public has been virtually powerless Majorities of Americans favor programs to help
provide jobs, increase wages, help the unemployed, provide universal medical insurance,
ensure decent retirement pensions, and pay for such programs with progressive taxes. Most
Americans also want to cut 'corporate welfare.' Yet the wealthy, business groups, and
structural gridlock have mostly blocked such new policies [and programs] (emphasis
added)."
The Table is Tilted: Beyond the Cynical Brilliance of George Carlin
It was nice of the professors to quantify and document what working-class Americans have
always known: money talks, bullshit walks. My old Finish socialist Aunt Mary (a high school
graduate who worked for decades as a department store clerk in downtown Elgin, Illinois)
understood Page and Gilens' point very well. In the famous words of George Carlin:
"There's a reason education sucks and it's the same reason that it will never, ever, ever
be fixed. It's never going to get any better, don't look for it, be happy with what you've
got. Because the owners of this country don't want that. I'm talking about the REAL owners,
now. The real owners, the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the
important decisions -- forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the
idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They
own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the
corporations; they've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the State
houses, the City Halls; they've got the judges in their back pockets, and they own all the
big media companies so they control just about all the news and information you get to
hear."
"They gotcha by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying -- lobbying
to get what they want. Well, we know what they want -- they want more for themselves and less
for everybody else. But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of
citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people
capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that, that doesn't help them. That's
against their interests. That's right. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit
around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting f***ed by the system that
threw them overboard 30 f***ing years ago. They don't want that."
"You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers. People who are
just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork, and just dumb enough to passively
accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced
benefits, the end of overtime, and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to
collect it. All day long, beating you over the in their media telling you what to believe --
what to think -- and what to buy. The table is tilted, folks. The game is rigged. And
nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care."
" They don't give a fuck about you, they don't They don't care about you – at all.
At all, At all. At all. At all. And nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care that's what
the owners count on, the fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the
big red, white and blue d**k that's being jammed up their assholes every day. Because the
owners of this country know the truth -- it's called the American Dream 'cuz you have to be
asleep to believe it."
The problem with Carlin's brilliant rant is of course it's extreme, well, cynicism. Millions
upon millions of Americans do notice and do care . They aren't asleep .
They are capable of critical thinking. They very much want to un-rig the game, level the
table, and change the system – make a people's democratic revolution and save humanity. I
run into and talk to and try to energize and learn and get energy from these people regularly.
They haven't surrendered to the American
authoritarian-sexist-racist-nativist-nationalist-fascist nightmare yet.
I share with many of these people a basic underlying spiritual sense that giving up and
letting the owners – our financial and political owners, yes – win is irrational
and indeed morally corrupt. Let's say the chances of collapsing the nation's un-elected and
interrelated dictatorships of money, empire, white-supremacism, and patriarchy are just 3 or 2
or even 1 in 10 (I think the real odds may be much higher). Why bring them down to zero by
giving in to fatalism – to "it's never going to change?" It makes no sense to give up:
you lose nothing by believing in the possibility of democratic transformation and revolutionary
change; you lose everything by not believing. Try some radical existentialism!
Tactical Support
Should people caucus and vote for Bernie in the rigged Democratic Party nomination process?
Sure, for three reasons. First, there's a(n admittedly slim) chance Sanders could prevail and
lead the enactment of changes that would make a very positive difference in peoples' lives and
capacity to fight back against American Oligarchy, which is now taking significant steps
towards openly authoritarian rule.
Second, doing some work with the Sanders campaign puts you in contact with masses of people
who are changing all the time (like all phenomena), people-in-process who are capable of
engaging on the critical topics of how and why we must move beyond the rigged games and systems
that capture and depress our energies and how and why we must begin to organize for a real
revolution.
Third, even if he doesn't win, it's good to make the screwing over of Sanders as transparent
and instructive as possible. This could help motivate millions of Americans to break in
revolutionary fashion from a "broken and dysfunctional [American] system" of class rule. It
could help spark millions to join a people's movement that works beneath and beyond the rigged
elections cycle and system to heroically reclaim the commons and save humanity.
There's a lot of good and potentially radical energy out there. It needs to go somewhere
positive once the "coffin of class consciousness" (in the words of the radical historian
Alan Dawley
) that is the American ballot box fails to deliver yes yet once again. The capitalists
hardly restrict their political pressure to the electoral process – just wait to see
what happens if Sanders (somewhat miraculously) makes it into the White House. We must and can
develop an anti-capitalist (and now anti-fascist) politics that fights back in ways that
transcend those savagely time-staggered moments when our owners permit us to make marks next to
the names of politicians who can generally be trusted to put their own interests above ours and
those of the common good.
"Except for the rare few," Howard Zinn once wrote, "our representatives are politicians, and
will surrender their integrity, claiming to be 'realistic.' We are not politicians, but
citizens. We have no office to hold on to, only our consciences, which insist on telling the
truth." Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Paul StreetPaul Street's latest
book is They Rule: The 1% v.
Democracy (Paradigm, 2014)
"... Sanders and Warren have set themselves apart from the field in having the most credible foreign policy visions and the strongest commitments to bringing our many unnecessary wars to an end. Biden remains wedded to too many outdated and unworkable policies, and just on foreign policy alone Bloomberg is running in the wrong party's primary. Buttigieg is the least formally qualified top presidential candidate on the Democratic side, and his inability or unwillingness to answer most of these questions shows that. If the moderators bother to ask them about foreign policy, the candidates will have another opportunity to address these issues in the debate tonight, and Buttigieg won't be able to get away with saying nothing. ..."
Most of the candidates' responses were predictable. Biden's North Korea policy would be
every bit as unrealistic as Trump's, but he shows even less willingness to negotiate.
Bloomberg's positions were unsurprisingly the most hawkish of the bunch. If there was an option
for using force, he was for it. All of the candidates were unfortunately in agreement with
defining Russia as an enemy.
One of the weirder questions asked the candidates whether they would consider using force to
"preempt" a nuclear or missile test by either Iran or North Korea. Only Yang and Warren said
no. It isn't clear how many of them were serious and how many were just making fun of the
absurdity of the question, but it is disturbing that most of the candidates asked about this
would entertain taking military action against another country because of a test. Maybe it
doesn't need to be said because it is so obvious, but using force to stop a nuclear or missile
test is not "preemption" in any sense of the term. A test is not an attack to be preempted, and
taking military action to prevent a test would be nothing less than an unprovoked, illegal act
of aggression. To her credit, Warren recognizes
how dangerous such an attack would be:
No. Using force against a nuclear power or high-risk adversary carries immense risk for
broader conflict. Using force when not necessary can be dangerously counterproductive. Again,
I will only use force if there is a vital national security interest at risk, a strategy with
clear and achievable objectives, and an understanding and acceptance of the long-term
costs.
In general, Warren's answers were the most substantive and careful. She not only answered
the questions that were put to her, but she gave some explanation of why she took that position
and why it was the appropriate thing to do. She correctly rejected Trump's regime change policy
in Venezuela, and acknowledged that "Trump's reckless actions have only further worsened the
suffering of the Venezuelan people." On North Korea, she remained open to continuing direct
talks with Kim Jong-un, but qualified that by saying, "I would be willing to meet with Kim if
it advances substantive negotiations, but not as a vanity project." Her negotiating position
was similarly reasonable: "A pragmatic approach to diplomacy requires give and take on both
sides, not demands that one side unilaterally disarm first." Both Warren and Sanders correctly
criticized Trump for the illegal assassination of Soleimani, and they recognized that the
president's escalation had put Americans at greater risk. When asked about taking military
action against Iran, Warren rejected the idea of a war with Iran and said the following:
I want to end America's wars in the Middle East, not start a new one with Iran. The litmus
test I will use for any military action against Iran is the same that I will use as I
consider any military action anywhere in the world. I will not send our troops into harm's
way unless there is a vital national security interest at risk, a strategy with clear and
achievable objectives, and an understanding and acceptance of the long-term costs. We will
hold ourselves to this by recommitting to a simple idea: the constitutional requirement that
Congress play a primary role in deciding to engage militarily.
The most revealing set of responses came from Pete Buttigieg in that he gave very few
responses and had remarkably little to say about his plans. He failed
to answer most of the questions he was asked. Of the 36 individual questions included in
the 11 sections, he answered only 17 by my count, and many of those were recycled clips from
previous speeches, interviews, and debate statements. Despite leaning heavily on his military
service in Afghanistan in his campaigning, he failed to answer all of the questions asked about
Afghanistan and the U.S. war there. Buttigieg's failure to respond to most of these questions
underscores the former mayor's lack of foreign policy experience and knowledge, and it shows
that after almost a year his campaign still doesn't have their foreign policy worked out.
Sanders and Warren have set themselves apart from the field in having the most credible
foreign policy visions and the strongest commitments to bringing our many unnecessary wars to
an end. Biden remains wedded to too many outdated and unworkable policies, and just on foreign
policy alone Bloomberg is running in the wrong party's primary. Buttigieg is the least formally
qualified top presidential candidate on the Democratic side, and his inability or unwillingness
to answer most of these questions shows that. If the moderators bother to ask them about
foreign policy, the candidates will have another opportunity to address these issues in the
debate tonight, and Buttigieg won't be able to get away with saying nothing.
I don't trust Warren on this, her flimsiness and pandering and propensity to outright lie
remind me too much of Romney (who speak of the devil got a backbone for once this week!).
Bernie is definitely the best bet for a softer foreign policy.
Warren is one of the most honest politicians. Check her Politifact file, she does far
better than even Bernie. Of course neither compares to Trump, his Politifact file is a
Pants on Fire dumpster fire.
The one thing, and it's only one thing, that causes you to say this is the controversy
over her ancestry. But I don't believe she lied, she was raised with the family lore that
she had native ancestry and she believed that family lore.
If I had a dollar for every white midwesterner who told me that they had Native ancenstry,
I wouldn't be typing comments on disqus, that's for sure. My personal internet comment
typer would be doing the typing for me as I dictated from my throne of mammon.
Im not even really disagreeing. Even if she was wrong, I find it wild that these attacks on
her are playing well in Trumpville, since white midwesterners (my people) falsely claiming
Native heritage is a most common genre.
My guess is that after South Carolina it will be Sanders vs. Bloomberg vs. one of the other
more mainstream Dems, either Mayor Pete, Warren (she's been tacking to the mainstream,
right on economics and "left" on wokeness) or Biden, in that order. A fall-off in funding
will knock everyone else out of the race (or a failure to move the voting needle if Steyer
is self-funding).
... Biden's fundraising has fallen off, and it is unlikely major donors are going to send
cash to a candidate who just ran fourth in Iowa and could run fourth or fifth in New
Hampshire.
...Klobuchar is now in the second tier in New Hampshire, behind Sanders and Buttigieg, but
right alongside Biden and Warren. A third-, fourth- or fifth-place finish would be near-fatal
for them all.
...As for Warren, in her battle with Sanders to emerge as the champion of the progressive
wing of the party, her third-place finish in Iowa, and her expected third-place finish in New
Hampshire, at best, would seem to settle that issue for this election.
Uncle Joe's presidential road show may be a bore and a bust, but the upcoming expose of Biden
& Son International, Inc. should provide a dumpster-load of drama and comedy all summer
long. I wonder how many special guest appearances there will be by the Kerrys, the Clintons,
the Obamas and other nice folks Joe knows from DC.
@anon
IMHO, Bloomberg is ... just one year younger than Bernie, so this is his final rodeo too.
...After the Iowa deep state operation, (it was NOT incompetence), it is clear that the
PTB will do anything, and I mean ANYTHING, to ensure that Socialist Sanders is not the
nominee. Remember, he already has a heart condition. Just sayin'.
The very part-time mayor of South Bend will soon be yesterday's news after South Carolina.
Unlike suburban whites, blacks have too much common sense to vote for a homosexual.
@follyofwar
If it ends up Bloomberg vs Trump what we've got in this country will have transmogrified
further from an oligarchy to a full blown aristocracy–certainly a
plutocracy–where only billionaires can afford to play king. That race won't be Dems vs
GOPers, as both gentlemen have posed as one before switching to the other for simple
expedience. Who will be the veep candidates? A Rockefeller and a Rothschild?
Bootyjudge is just a short, gay and white version of Obama. But he typifies a government
bureaucrat in that he's politically left wing, sexually deviant and hates normal, everyday
Americans especially if their skin is white.
The DNC knows that if Biden were to win the nomination he'll commit so many gaffes, like
burbling about corn pop, his hairy legs and enjoying kids sitting on his lap, among other
things, that Trump would have a field day on Twitter and easily win a second term.
So it's shaping up to be a contest between orange Jebulus vs. anal Pete. By the time the
presidential debates arrive both candidates will be vowing to crush white nationalism and
improve the lives of black and brown people. White people need not apply.
Nevertheless, Trump's cult like almost all white base will cheer madly for a man who
claims to represent them in words only, but almost never in deeds.
"... I am as old as Biden and the other old men running including Trump. I am convinced that the age of these men is a serious problem. Cognitive deterioration comes slowly at first and then ravishes one's brain. Trump et al without question all show diminished cognitive abilities. ..."
"... Of the whole lot Bernie seems the sharpest but he had a heart attack for God's sake. ..."
I am as old as Biden and the other old men running including Trump. I am convinced that
the age of these men is a serious problem. Cognitive deterioration comes slowly at first and
then ravishes one's brain. Trump et al without question all show diminished cognitive
abilities.
This is not debatable, it is a fact.
Of the whole lot Bernie seems the sharpest but he
had a heart attack for God's sake.
If an old white guy gets the Presidency will will
debate endlessly the 25th amd. We really are going to be voting for the Vice President. But
Biden is the better choice than Trump. The country needs to retire Trump as soon as
possible..
Many independents will abandon Trump in 2020. Trump lost all anti-war independents faction,
for sure. His openly pro-isreal position will cost him some nationalists.
I think Sanders can knockout Trump by appointing Tulsi as the VP.
Sanders understands (as does Trump), that the 2020 battle is *not* for the 35-40% whose
minds are basically made up at each end. Trying to win those over in any numbers (especially
by shrieking invective at them) is a pathetic waste of time and effort.
The winning message must move the 20-30% of voters who either:
(a) voted Obama (hope, for something more than soothing patter) and then Trump (a giant
stubby middle finger to the establishment).
(b) voted Obama in 2008 but have stayed at home since (what's the point? they're all lying
scum)
Sanders simply doesn't bring socialism to America, because he doesn't have a New Deal
(i.e. SocDem) party. That kind of movement will take time (and the upcoming global
climatolo-economic crisis) to build up, under savage attack from the propertied unterests and
continuously subverted by credentialed PMC weasels and Idpol misleadership grifters.
This last is vitally important, but must also be approached prudently lest the entire
movement lose focus, overextend and fall prey to the next Trump .
IMHO, it must focus ruthlessly on delivering:
(a) single payer health care, to starve (if not incinerate) the bloated ticks gorging on
the US health/elder 'care' . cesspool, I can't bring myself to call it a 'system'. This above
all: without it, Americans simply can't compete in any world, walls and tariffs or not.
(b) *real* infrastructure, for the 80%. That's water and sewerage, cross-class public
housing, and busways and light rail to coax Americans out of their cars and suburbs. It's not
5G, vanity EVs and high speed Acelas. And sorry Keynesians, shovel ready is a side benefit,
not the primary purpose. There's a lot to do.
(c) an overhaul of American higher education (still rooted in 17th century divinity
schools). Teaching (and medicine) must again become honored occupations in the country;
administrators must give way to front line practitioners.
. Only then can Bernie move on to the more deeply embedded and multinational targets:
(a) big finance,
(b) extractive industries
(c) the MIC
These behemoths can really only be attacked during a time of crisis. Or they will simply
crush their opponents like insects, or buy them off.
In the case of the MIC, Berniecrats will likely need to be content with strong reassertion
of Federal oversight (more stick, less carrot), and disengagement from doing our 'allies'
dirty work (Trump is already on that road, with one huge Ixception .)
Total dismantlement sounds very nice, but consider: whatever's left of US industrial power
is concentrated in the MIC. America doesn't need to 'buy prosperity down at the armoury', but
like FDR, Bernie and (Tulsi) will also need to have the keels laid down against whatever
whirlwind we have reaped. Baring our breast and saying 'we deserve destruction for our sins'
is a fatuous open invitation to fascism. FDR knew better.
"... By Paul Adler, Professor of Management and Organization, Sociology and Environmental Studies, University of Southern California. Originally published at The Conversation ..."
Yves here. I wish Sanders would use even more pointed
messaging, like "socialism for the rich". But for those who complain about Sanders not going
after important targets, this slap back at Dimon, who criticized Sanders and socialism at
Davos, shows that the Vermont Senator is landing punches, but choosing his fights carefully.
And banks are much bigger welfare queens than the public realizes. They get all sorts of
subsidies, from underpriced deposit insurance to Federal guaranteed for most home mortgages to
the Fed operating and backstopping the essential Fedwire system. These subsidies are so great
that banks should not be considered to be private sector entities, yet we let them privatize
their profits and socialize their train wrecks.
As we wrote in 2010 :
More support comes from Andrew Haldane of the Bank of England, who in a March 2010 paper compared the banking
industry to the auto industry, in that they both produced pollutants: for cars, exhaust
fumes; for bank, systemic risk. While economists were claiming that the losses to the US
government on various rescues would be $100 billion (ahem, must have left out Freddie and
Fannie in that tally), it ignores the broader costs (unemployment, business failures, reduced
government services, particularly at the state and municipal level). His calculation of the
world wide costs:
.these losses are multiples of the static costs, lying anywhere between one and five
times annual GDP. Put in money terms, that is an output loss equivalent to between $60
trillion and $200 trillion for the world economy and between £1.8 trillion and
£7.4 trillion for the UK. As Nobel-prize winning physicist Richard Feynman observed,
to call these numbers "astronomical" would be to do astronomy a disservice: there are only
hundreds of billions of stars in the galaxy. "Economical" might be a better
description.
It is clear that banks would not have deep enough pockets to foot this bill. Assuming
that a crisis occurs every 20 years, the systemic levy needed to recoup these crisis costs
would be in excess of $1.5 trillion per year. The total market capitalisation of the
largest global banks is currently only around $1.2 trillion. Fully internalising the output
costs of financial crises would risk putting banks on the same trajectory as the dinosaurs,
with the levy playing the role of the meteorite.
Yves here. So a banking industry that creates global crises is negative value added from a
societal standpoint. It is purely extractive . Even though we have described its
activities as looting (as in paying themselves so much that they bankrupt the business), the
wider consequences are vastly worse than in textbook looting.
Back to the current post. As to JP Morgan's socialism versus the old USSR's planned economy,
one recent study which I cannot readily find due to the sorry state of Google offered an
important correction to conventional wisdom.
Recall that Soviet Russia initially did perform extremely well, freaking out the capitalist
world by industrializing in a generation. There was ample hand-wringing as to whether a less
disciplined free enterprise system could compete with a command and control economy. Economists
got a seat at the policy table out of the concern that capitalist economies needed expert
guidance to assure that they could produce both guns and butter.
The study concluded that central planning had worked well in Soviet Russia initially, until
the lower-level apparatchiks started gaming the system by feeding bad information so as to make
their performance look better (for instance, setting way too forgiving production targets, or
demanding more resources than they needed). The paper contended that the increasingly poor
information about what was actually happening on the ground considerably undermined the central
planning process. That is not to say there weren't also likely problems with motivation and
overly rigid bureaucracies. But the evolution of modern corporations, of devaluing and ignoring
worker input and treating them like machines that are scored against narrow metrics, looks as
demotivating as the stereotypical Soviet factory.
Finally, this post conflates socialism, which includes New Deal-ish European style social
democracy, with capitalist systems alongside strong social safety nets, which the public
ownership and provision of goods and services. It should be noted that public ownership has
regularly provided services like utilities very effectively.
By Paul Adler, Professor of Management and Organization, Sociology and Environmental
Studies, University of Southern California. Originally published at
The Conversation
With his Dimon ad, Sanders is referring specifically to the bailouts JPMorgan
and other banks took from the government during the 2008 financial crisis. But accepting
government bailouts and corporate welfare is not the only way I believe American companies
behave like closet socialists despite their professed love of free markets.
In reality, most big U.S.
companies operate internally in ways Karl Marx would applaud as remarkably close to
socialist-style central planning. Not only that, corporate America has arguably become a
laboratory of innovation in socialist governance, as I show in
my own research .
Closet Socialists
In public, CEOs like
Dimon attack socialist planning while defending free markets.
But inside JPMorgan and most other big corporations, market competition is subordinated to
planning. These big companies often contain dozens of business units and sometimes thousands.
Instead of letting these units compete among themselves, CEOs typically direct a strategic
planning process to ensure they cooperate to achieve the best outcomes for the corporation
as
a whole .
This is just how a socialist economy is intended to operate. The government would conduct
economy-wide planning and set goals for each industry and enterprise, aiming to achieve the
best outcome for society as a whole.
And just as companies rely internally on planned cooperation to meet goals and overcome
challenges, the U.S. economy could use this harmony to overcome the existential crisis of our
age – climate change. It's a challenge so massive and urgent that it will require
every part of the economy to work together with government in order to address it.
Overcoming Socialism's Past Problems
But, of course, socialism doesn't have a good track record.
One of the reasons socialist planning failed in the old Soviet Union, for example, was that
it was so top-down
that it lacked the kind of popular legitimacy that democracy grants a government. As a result,
bureaucrats overseeing the planning process could not get reliable information about the real
opportunities and challenges experienced by enterprises or citizens.
Moreover, enterprises had little incentive to strive to meet their assigned objectives,
especially when they had so little involvement in formulating them.
A second reason the USSR didn't survive was that its authoritarian system
failed to motivate either workers or entrepreneurs. As a result, even though the government
funded basic science generously, Soviet industry was a laggard in
innovation .
Ironically, corporations – those singular products of capitalism – are showing
how these and other problems of socialist planning can be surmounted.
Take the problem of democratic legitimacy. Some companies, such as
General Electric , Kaiser Permanente
and General Motors ,
have developed innovative ways to avoid the dysfunctions of autocratic planning by using
techniques that enable
lower-level personnel to participate actively in the strategy process.
Although profit pressures often force top managers to short-circuit the promised
participation, when successfully integrated it not only provides top management with more
reliable bottom-up
input for strategic planning but also makes all employees more reliable partners in carrying it out.
So here we have centralization – not in the more familiar, autocratic model, but
rather in a form I call "participative centralization." In a socialist system, this approach
could be adopted, adapted and scaled up to support economy-wide planning, ensuring that it was
both democratic and effective.
As for motivating innovation, America's big businesses face a challenge similar to that of
socialism. They need employees to be collectivist, so they willingly comply with policies and
procedures. But they need them to be simultaneously individualistic, to fuel divergent thinking
and creativity.
One common solution in much of corporate America, as in the old Soviet Union, is to
specialize those roles ,
with most people relegated to routine tasks while the privileged few work on innovation tasks.
That approach, however, overlooks the creative capacities of the vast majority and leads
to widespread employee disengagement and sub-par business performance.
Smarter businesses have found ways to overcome this dilemma by creating cultures and reward
systems that support a synthesis of individualism and collectivism that I call "interdependent
individualism." In my research, I have found this kind of motivation in settings as diverse as
Kaiser Permanent
physicians , assembly-line workers at Toyota's NUMMI
plant and software
developers at Computer Sciences Corp . These companies do this, in part, by rewarding both
individual contributions to the organization's goals as well as collaboration in achieving
them.
While socialists have often recoiled
against the idea individual performance-based rewards, these more sophisticated policies could
be scaled up to the entire economy to help meet socialism's innovation and motivation
challenge.
Big Problems Require Big Government
The idea of such a socialist transformation in the U.S. may seem remote today.
But this can change, particularly as more Americans, especially young ones,
embrace socialism . One reason they are doing so is because the current capitalist system
has so manifestly failed to deal with climate change.
Looking inside these companies suggests a better way forward – and hope for society's
ability to avert catastrophe.
Just to add, as a former bank and buy side lobbyist, the industry is not always opposed to
regulation. It's a barrier to entry.
This post is on the money. Banksters and their clients love corporate welfare and
socialism for the rich, especially when so much of, for example, UK QE "leaked" into asset
bubbles in emerging markets, commodities and real estate.
You are right to say that Sanders should use more pointed language. Like Nina Turner, he
should call out oligarchs. That term is used for Russians and Ukrainians, but never for the
likes of Zuckerberg, Musk, Dimon, Blankfein, Schmidt, Branson, Dyson, Arnault et al. The term
regime should also be used. If it's good enough to delegitimise certain governments, it's
good enough to describe the Trump and Johnson administrations. After all, William Hague in
talks with the US government called the British government the Brown regime.
Feynman and Haldane are mentioned above. It emerged this week that Dominic Cummings,
Johnson's main adviser, is an admirer of both, regarding them as free thinkers and
technicians of substance, and championed Haldane's candidacy to be Bank of England governor.
Johnson sided with Chancellor Sajid Javid.
Sanders should use more pointed language or may be not for the moment. May be after the
Super Tuesday. He is being careful and that is good IMO. He doesn't want to give excuses for
easy attacks. I would say, instead of "socialism for the rich", "socialism for the 1%" or the
0,1% even better. Sounds more neutral. A comment yesterday linked an article comparing
Sanders with Gandhi and others and I think it was well pointed. The quiet and careful
revolution!
Sanders understands (as does Trump), that the 2020 battle is *not* for the 35-40% whose
minds are basically made up at each end. Trying to win those over in any numbers (especially
by shrieking invective at them) is a pathetic waste of time and effort.
The winning message must move the 20-30% of voters who either:
(a) voted Obama (hope, for something more than soothing patter) and then Trump (a giant
stubby middle finger to the establishment).
(b) voted Obama in 2008 but have stayed at home since (what's the point? they're all lying
scum)
Sanders simply doesn't bring socialism to America, because he doesn't have a New Deal
(i.e. SocDem) party. That kind of movement will take time (and the upcoming global
climatolo-economic crisis) to build up, under savage attack from the propertied unterests and
continuously subverted by credentialed PMC weasels and Idpol misleadership grifters.
This last is vitally important, but must also be approached prudently lest the entire
movement lose focus, overextend and fall prey to the next Trump .
IMHO, it must focus ruthlessly on delivering:
(a) single payer health care, to starve (if not incinerate) the bloated ticks gorging on
the US health/elder 'care' . cesspool, I can't bring myself to call it a 'system'. This above
all: without it, Americans simply can't compete in any world, walls and tariffs or not.
(b) *real* infrastructure, for the 80%. That's water and sewerage, cross-class public
housing, and busways and light rail to coax Americans out of their cars and suburbs. It's not
5G, vanity EVs and high speed Acelas. And sorry Keynesians, shovel ready is a side benefit,
not the primary purpose. There's a lot to do.
(c) an overhaul of American higher education (still rooted in 17th century divinity
schools). Teaching (and medicine) must again become honored occupations in the country;
administrators must give way to front line practitioners.
. Only then can Bernie move on to the more deeply embedded and multinational targets:
(a) big finance,
(b) extractive industries
(c) the MIC
These behemoths can really only be attacked during a time of crisis. Or they will simply
crush their opponents like insects, or buy them off.
In the case of the MIC, Berniecrats will likely need to be content with strong reassertion
of Federal oversight (more stick, less carrot), and disengagement from doing our 'allies'
dirty work (Trump is already on that road, with one huge Ixception .)
Total dismantlement sounds very nice, but consider: whatever's left of US industrial power
is concentrated in the MIC. America doesn't need to 'buy prosperity down at the armoury', but
like FDR, Bernie and (Tulsi) will also need to have the keels laid down against whatever
whirlwind we have reaped. Baring our breast and saying 'we deserve destruction for our sins'
is a fatuous open invitation to fascism. FDR knew better.
Paul Adler's post here reminds me of John Kenneth Galbraith's New Industrial State, except
Professor Adler was referring to the financial (i.e. parasitical) sector of the economy. Am I
off the mark in thinking this?
You're right on. Galbraith showed that planning comes naturally from very large projects.
Soviets went to planning because they couldn't bet the entire national economy on some gut
feeling -- they needed to know what would happen. Ditto the gigantic industries in what JKG
called the Planning Sector in the west. Projects spending millions or billions of dollars
over many years couldn't be left to chance. Eliminating chance meant imposing control, which
the gigantic industries could try to do, helped by their access to gigantic capital, and
which the Soviets had done with State power.
IMHO the modern FIRE sector arose from the old Planning Sector. They eliminated the
uncertainties that complicated their planning; they cut their ties with physical processes
that brought those uncertainties; they dumped physical industries onto throwaway economies
overseas (that could be abandoned if they failed); they finally became pure businesses that
dealt only with nice, clean contracts. No muss, no fuss, no bother.
So planning is a tool of any organization, yet is required more the larger it becomes?
While planning may make sense for a company with a single product such as automobiles, does
it make sense for a conglomerate? I mean I think the purpose of a conglomerate is to contain
many diverse product sectors to reduce risk of the conglomerate as a whole to any one sector.
In that way each sector does its own planning, but the conglomerate as a whole does not,
apart from choosing which companies to buy and sell, which can be considered a different type
of planning? In that way are the goals of society planning are different from the goals of
conglomerate planning or that of smaller single product sector companies? Yet in spite of
these differences the techniques of planning are the same? Is that the main point of Alder's
article? Can someone explain please.
If you surf around a bit you can find links to Bernie's views and support of worker
co-ops. There is nothing on his website. In light the burgeoning Socialist smear tsunami, it
is probably not something he wants to emphasize right now. Imagine someone getting up at a
CNN Town Hall and asking him about his attitude towards worker cooperatives. (corporate heads
explode on golf-courses all over America)
Modern theses about leadership, expertise and management underline agile learning and self
leadership to everyone himself and within team and then within larger entities. While I'm
somewhat pessimistic about these corporate trends they still look like they would work much
better with worker co-ops than in traditional top down owned corporations. Basically they are
asking higher dedication from workers, but this only works really well if the profits are
shared with workers in somewhat equitable manner in my opinion.
Also it seems common nowadays that many coding/programming companies, especially the
highly productive ones seem to act more akin to co-ops than monolithically led traditional
companies. The programmers are often engaged more to the company by giving or selling them
shares, and if this happens in large scale the company ownership structure can skew more
towards worker owned 'co-op'-like entity than more hierarchical traditional company, where
owners and workers are usually clearly separated.
Be nice if one could have posted the Forbes 400 but, listed next to each entry, is the
amount of money that they receive from the Federal government both directly and
indirectly.
Yves here. So a banking industry that creates global crises is negative value added
from a societal standpoint. It is purely extractive. [bold in the original]
Which leads to this obvious question: Why should banks be privileged, explicitly or
implicitly, in any way then?
E.g. why should we have only a SINGLE payment system (besides grubby physical fiat, paper
bills and coins) that recklessly combines what should be inherently risk-free deposits with
the inherently at-risk deposits the banks themselves create? I.e. why should a government
privileged usury cartel hold the entire economy hostage?
If you mean "why" in the moral sense, which I believe you do, there is no answer.
If you mean why in the technical sense, examine this sentence:
>why should a government privileged usury cartel
It's not "government privileged", it owns the government. Anything the government is
allowed to do outside of making Jamie Dimon et al richer are considered the actual privileges
by this group, and can, will and have been retracted at will.
If the banks cognitively "own" the government, it's because almost everyone believes TINA
to government privileges for them.
This is disgracefully true of the big names of MMT, who should be working on HOW to
abolish those privileges, not ignore or, in the case of Warren Mosler at least, INCREASE*
them.
*e.g. unlimited, unsecured loans from the Central Bank to banks at ZERO percent.
That neither extreme, capitalism or socialism, works, and that what is best for human
society is some middle ground between the two is a very important message. So I'm very glad
for this post. I realize that a black and white way of perceiving the world is an easy one.
Yet as Alder points out, humans are both individuals and social beings. If people in this
world could get back to thinking more like Ancient Greece in its appreciation for the golden
mean, we would have a much better chance of surviving. Dispensing with all these useless
socialism vs capitalism discussions would be a great time saver. I realize most people
believe in some middle ground, yet making it explicit would simplify things quite a bit. As
for the rest of the article, I need to think about it more. The corporate socialism idea does
tie in with the link yesterday about limited liability.
>That neither extreme, capitalism or socialism, works,
Exactly! Because: There. Is. No. Economic. Equilibrium. Never was, never will be, anywhere
and everywhere. Heck for billions of years, before humans existed let alone learned to talk,
the world changed. Things developed, other things went extinct (although not in the
heart-wrenching way of the Anthropocene, I personally am happy never to have met a T. Rex in
truth), the way the world works even without us is continual change.
So adjust as necessary. Our healthcare system sucks, bring full bore socialism on it. Our
corporate overlords suck, bring full bore free markets (kill patents to start) on them.
You might want to re-think the "kill patents" idea. Our Founders liked them. I just had a
patent "killed" by an examiner who "killed" 42 of 43 patents he examined. It was for a device
which could be saving Corona/Flu victims Right Now. I am going to try to Donate the idea to
Society, but preventing people from profiting from valid Novel ideas is not the solution. I
realize Corporations abuse the Patent System, like every other thing they touch. But I am a
low level individual who is trying to "innovate" and reduce illness. My main motivation was
not monetary but it is always a factor.
I believe you have the wrong target on this issue.
My first rejection on a related patent was just received 2.5 years after initial filing. It
took this long because the Govt. takes money from USPTO (which runs a surplus) and sends it
to the General Fund. USA innovation friendly? Not the way I see it.
"But for those who complain about Sanders not going after important targets "
Consider the wisdom of Susan Webber:
"Wisdom of the CEO is comprimised work. These CEOs "know" that too much candor,
either individually or institutionally, is not a pro-survival strategy."
I think the comparison of banks to welfare queens is quite unfair.
To welfare queens, that is.
Assuming they exist outside of the sweaty PR fantasies of those of a certain political
stripe, presumably even a welfare queen is not living 100% off of the munificence of the
state, whereas the implied value of the "Too Big To Fail" guaranty subsidy was determined to
be very nearly in the same amount as the annual profits of the recipient banks. In other
words, they're complete wards of the state. Doesn't get much more socialistic than that.
Thank you, Yves for this post. Alder has very logical and accessible ideas.
"Interdependent Individualism" is a good way to begin. When he says "socialists recoil
against individual performance-based rewards" I can't help but think the rewards should be
gifted from the workers to the bosses. Because that would be very change-promoting. Top down
has a tendency to stagnate motivation – even offensively – like tossing them a
few crumbs to keep them quiet. imo. This also really does sound Japanese. I'm not sure I can
relate to the way they cooperate; from them there is not so much as a polite argument;
certainly no sarcastic barbs. Americans are the exact opposite – we cooperate
competitively in a sense. But Climate Change will dictate our direction regardless of
decorum. My own sense of our dilemma is that "free market" corporations make their profits by
extracting from labor and the exploitation of the environment, and by externalizing costs to
society. Big disconnect. Huge, in fact. This is why "capitalism" has failed to address
climate change. Anybody else notice that China has forbidden short selling as we speak? Just
like the Fed did in 2009 with QE, etc. That's probably because if the economy crashes
(regardless of how illogical it has become) it will take way too long to put back together.
And there's work to be done. I remember Randy Wray dryly responding to Jacobin's criticism
(of MMT) that the ideological socialists would rather see a bloody Marxist uprising than a
peaceful evolution. I do think Wray is right on ideological blinders on both sides. One
quibble I have with this very wise post is that it assumes (I think) that we cannot change
our ways fast enough to mobilize adequately to address climate change. I think we've been
doing it pretty aggressively since 2009. Literally a world war to control oil and maintain
financial supremacy; serious consideration of our options by the political class (turning to
MMT, etc.); slamming the breaks on trade and manufacturing; subsidizing essential industries.
I'm sure there are other things going on under the radar. So I wouldn't discount our ability
to mobilize – just our inability to admit it. Clearly we want to do things
selectively.
>the Vermont Senator is landing punches, but choosing his fights carefully.
Yes, as Objective Function laid out nicely (funny word for this mess, but whatever) above
– this isn't gonna be easy. If you hope to beat Mike Tyson in his prime, you don't
start by trading heavy blows. Defeat him with small but continuous cuts from multiple
directions.
" senior leaders of three of the largest and most elite U.S. banks were serial criminals
whose frauds are (we pray) without equal." -- William K. Black
Wallstreet on parade website does great job laying out JPM's crime spree. They (JPM) just
came off parole(?) in January on some Felony charges. Someone (Eliz. Warren?) might start a
movement to prohibit public pensions / State and local Govts. from conducting business with
any banks convicted of felonies or entering plea agreements more than, let's say, ten per
year.
A convicted felon can not get a job at a bank run by a 22 times loser- Jamie Dimon, a fellow
felon who should have some empathy.
Wallstreet on parade is one of few sites who discuss Citi's crimes, and the fact that the
Federal Reserve tried to cover up (and succeeded until about 2012) the secret 2.5 TRILLIION
in revolving loans provided to a bankrupt Citibank around 2009. This in addition to the
hundreds of billions we did know about.
I do tend to harp on this because the felon Robert Rubin cost me about 500K in expired Put
options on shittybank because of his blatant, felonious (per FCIC) lies right before the
implosion. His referral for prosecution by the Financial Crises Inquiry Commission
mysteriously withered away
I mentioned a while ago that the 2020 election will make the surrealism, and indeed idiocy,
of the counter-Trump forces in 2016 look tame. It looks like the Democrats have decided to
start right here and right now with the Iowa shambles and Nancy's tantrum, and it can only get
better (worse). I suggest the circus has enough clowns on duty to ensure it goes on for much
longer than a couple of days.
Will their attempts to clean up their appearances be based on trying to resolve their tribal
differences, or to just paper over the cracks ? I think the latter, with one outcome being they
may well go crawling to Tulsi at the last minute begging her to save them from themselves.
She might refuse, after all she has plenty of time to watch the dinosaurs die in their own tar
pit.
"... The U.S. must lead the world in improving international cooperation in the fight against climate change, militarism, authoritarianism, and global inequality... ..."
"... So how is the fight against "militarism" and "authoritarianism" not simply code words for regime change, proxy war and sanctions (economic warfare)? ..."
"The U.S. must lead the world in improving international cooperation in the fight against
climate change, militarism, authoritarianism, and global inequality. When we are in the White
House, we will:
•Implement a foreign policy which focuses on democracy, human rights, diplomacy and
peace, and economic fairness.
•Allow Congress to reassert its Constitutional role in warmaking, so that no
president can wage unauthorized and unconstitutional interventions overseas.
•Follow the American people, who do not want endless war. American troops have been
in Afghanistan for nearly 18 years, the longest war in American history. Our troops have been
in Iraq since 2003, and in Syria since 2015, and many other places. It is long past time for
Congress to reassert its Constitutional authority over the use of force to responsibly end
these interventions and bring our troops home.
•End U.S. support for the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen, which has created the
world's worst humanitarian catastrophe.
•Rejoin the Iran nuclear agreement and talk to Iran on a range of other issues.
•Work with pro-democracy forces around the world to build societies that work for and
protect all people. In the United States, Europe, and elsewhere, democracy is under threat by
forces of intolerance, corruption, and authoritarianism."
What follows is Bernie's Mantra, and the Billionaire Class includes the DNC:
" This is your movement . [Emphasis Original]
"No one candidate, not even the greatest candidate you could imagine, is capable of taking
on Donald Trump and the billionaire class alone. There is only one way we win -- and that
is together . [My Emphasis]
The first step to halting a runaway train is to get an engineer to pull back the
throttle and apply the brakes before the train can be reorganized and moved to a different
set of tracks. Nothing can get accomplished until that basic effort is won. No, it won't be
easy as we must reach the train and its engines before the attempt to halt it can be made. If
you insist on being cynical, please be my guest, but get the hell out of the way of those
trying to stop the damned thing!!!!!!! Yes, there's some verbiage I don't care for--the
democracy promotion being #1. But Gabbard's plank on Ending the Forever Wars is there. And do
note in his last point that Sanders recognizes and articulates the truth that the USA also
faces the threat of Authoritarianism.
" The U.S. must lead the world in improving international cooperation in the fight
against climate change, militarism, authoritarianism, and global inequality... "
So how is the fight against "militarism" and "authoritarianism" not simply code words
for regime change, proxy war and sanctions (economic warfare)?
@karlof1 #55
Bernie's foreign policy platform, as you posted, is admirable.
I have significant doubts over whether he and/or his movement can enact even a title of
it.
I have zero doubt that the platform guarantees the enmity of the entire political
establishment, on both sides of the aisle.
Imagine a liberal equivalent of Trump, but without the big biz or MIC assistance.
Could well wind up as one of the least effective administrations evah!
Sanders in his pronouncements about evil Russia, the Ukraine, and VZ has basically
messaged to the neocon deep state they can have their policies if they leave him alone on
domestic issues. The neocons could care less about Medicare for All, college tuition, etc so
long as they control the Pentagon, State department, and their budgets.
If any democrat becomes president, including Sanders, it will ratchet up the odds for a
nuclear war with Russia. Any democrat who dares to even talk to Putin will be called a
traitor. Any democratic president will have to prove they are tough on Russia, and I am
afraid sanctions won't do it. Expect some military action.
But Sanders waffles & hedges and talks about too many things without offering
straightforward understandable solutions -
Posted by: A User | Feb 6 2020 22:33 utc | 82
And the Grande Orange, America's Evangelicals Newest Messiah said he was going to drain the
swamp, make mexico pay for the wall, bring jobs back from china to Make America Great Again,
make those factories and Coal Mines hum again!!
Your point was?
ben , Feb 7 2020 1:22 utc |
109krollchem , Feb 7 2020 1:23 utc |
110
Vato@83
Thanks for the post of the Jimmy Dore show. It pointed that Sanders is another Fascist
when it comes to US foreign policy which is the one thing that the President can control as
discussed by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, historian and Middle East
expert, Stephen Kinzer in New Hampshire (time stamp 12:30). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wrf4meoydI
As we all know, Tulsi Gabbard is misinformed when she states Assad is a dictator and was
foolish to volunteer in the Gulf War. At least she calls for an end of regime change wars
unlike any current Republican or Democrat in Congress and is willing to talk to any
leader.
It is a shame when Gabbard is the only choice for those opposed to fascism. Fascism
appears to be the main characteristic of the American way along with the desire for comfort
and conformity.
p.s. Unlike Gabbard I didn't volunteer, but was drafted as Conscious Objector medic,
medical lab specialist and clinical specialist and was born in the Kingdom of Hawaii.
Trump became the president in 2016 because of 1)the Electoral College nonsense 2)billions of
free publicity 3)a sharp drop in black turnout. None of these factors is going away, plus
monetary support from other rich is skyrocketing even from the levels seen at the end of the
2016 campaign. Yes, Trump has a good chance of losing the popular vote but becoming president
yet again. The usual dirtbags who hate humanity can whine about how it's the letter of the
law, just as rich men's lawyers always do.
The alleged plan is so moronic the first impulse is to try to claim it's actually
disguised self-sabotage. The conspiracy mongers who believe in the all powerful conspiracy
that just happens to be exposed because of a miraculous fluke of one-off incompetence and/or
eleven dimensional modified limited hangout duplicity are not only stupid, but in this case,
addicted to Trumpery.
But even an honest conspiracy monger should have the common sense to ask who benefits from
using any excuse to pull the results. The answer of course, is Biden. The notion that a loss
in Iowa would harm Sanders forgets why Iowa is important in the first place: As a real test
of the sales value of the candidates. And losing in Iowa is first of about losing big donor
money. Sanders is the least dependent on big donor money, which is why it wasn't useful to
stop him here. Sanders is supposed to get stopped Super Tuesday when campaigning supposedly
has to be done by TV and Sanders can be outspent. (Unless anti-Semitic black votes stop him
in South Carolina, which is not impossible, as Obama led blacks to the right as hard as he
could.) No, the hold was to help Biden. And the conspiracy mongering is to help Biden by
targeting the gay guy. Naturally, the mad dog reactionaries have fallen for it.
If you suppose by some miracle these crazed, hate-mongering theories are correct, then
1)the Democratic Party is so incompetent it's doomed, or 2)it is all really about supporting
Trump. Even if you pretend not to worship Trump's farts, #1 alternative should still be good
news.
Buttigieg was Navy, and military rivalry with the CIA means he's not likely to be CIA.
Also, McKinsey is a political influence peddling outfit, which is not CIA. Working at NGOs,
maybe. Buttigieg is affiliated with the Truman Project...but the Truman Project centers on
the open admission that the Iraq war was an insanely stupid strategic and tactical mistake,
and imperialism needs to be done smarter. It is not, not, not yet a principle of the CIA that
the Iraq war was a signal failure on their part. Further, the CIA finds gays pretty much as
distasteful as the average barfly, even if they feel they should be discrete. The closest
thing to a reason to believe Buttigieg is CIA is that his further was an avowed leftist who
taught the works of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramscie, associated with the journal
Rethinking Marxism. That is an ideal bio for a fake leftist fighting Leninist Communism. The
thing there, of course, is that the CIA is not a hereditary institution!
Buttigieg believes in capitalism, just like Warren. Thus he is no good, period. The rest
is largely homophobes losing their minds. I think Buttigieg is the honest version of Warren,
saying what she would actually do, whatever she's pretending right now. I think it is always
an offense to common sense and common decency to abuse politicians when they tell the truth.
It should be the opposite. Loving them for their lies is Trumpery.
Both the Republican and Democratic Parties back e-voting no matter how many times the
systems are shown to be manipulated, even by those with $50 and an 8th grade education.
The
Iowa caucus scandal has continued to get more egregious by the hour, with new revelations
routinely pouring in about extremely suspicious manipulations taking place which all just so
happen to disadvantage the campaign of Bernie Sanders in the first Democratic electoral contest
of 2020. By the time you read this article, there will likely have been more.
Uhhhhhhhh the IDP is now reporting vote totals from Black Hawk County that are at odds
with what Black Hawk County themselves have reported pic.twitter.com/nbLa6mSuvO
It's probable that this only happened as a result of one Black Hawk County supervisor taking
to social media to report the vote tallies for this one particular county . What about all the
Iowa locations where this did not happen and local Democratic Party officials didn't report
their numbers on social media? Does anyone actually believe that the one instance where the IDP
got caught is the one instance in which such vote tampering occurred?
That would be a very silly belief to hold, in my opinion. It would be like a store clerk
discovering that a can of beans is completely rotten, then going ahead and putting the rest of
the pallet on the shelf under the assumption that the other cans are fine.
Another of the countless revelations hemorrhaging from this fustercluck is a report from
CNN and
The New York Post that the DNC, not the IDP, is "running the show" in managing the Iowa
caucus scandal. This means that this Democratic presidential primary scandal is being managed
by the same committee which
orchestrated the last Democratic presidential primary scandal , and that the campaign being
victimized by this scandal, that of Bernie Sanders, is the same in both cases.
This would be the same DNC whose chairperson, Tom Perez, recently stacked its nominating
committee with dozens of odious alt-centrist establishment insiders who are ideologically
opposed to Sanders in every meaningful way.
"Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez has nominated dozens of lobbyists,
corporate consultants, think tank board members, and former officials linked to the
presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton to serve on the
Democratic National Convention (DNC) nominating committee this July," Kevin Gosztola
reported for Grayzone last month. "Many of Perez's nominees are vocal opponents
of Senator Bernie Sanders and spoke out against his campaign when he challenged Hillary
Clinton for the nomination in 2016."
THERE YOU HAVE IT.... @cnn just reported the @DNC is "running the show" on the
release and handling of the #IowaCaucus
results.
It now makes perfect sense why results have been released this way...which just so
happened to make @PeteButtigieg look like the
winner for 2 days https://t.co/wbU3MoGQbu
As these scandalous revelations continue to emerge I don't see anyone online expressing
surprise that the Democratic establishment is once again stacking the deck against Sanders, but
I do see some people expressing surprise that they are being so brazen about it. Which is
perfectly understandable; if this party wants to screw over progressive voters, you'd expect
that they'd at least try to hide it a little bit so they don't alienate their progressive base
before November.
The flaw in this expectation is its premise that Democratic Party elites care if their party
wins in November. They do not.
Put yourself in the shoes of one of the leading movers and shakers within the Democratic
Party for a minute. Pretend you're getting a nice paycheck, pretend you're getting great
healthcare benefits, pretend you get plenty of prestige and exclusive access and invitations to
classy parties. And pretend you're the type of person who's willing to manipulate and deceive
and kiss up and kick down and do whatever it takes to get to the top of such a structure.
Now ask yourself, if you were such a person in such a situation, would you care if voters
pick Donald Trump or Pete Buttigeig in November? Would it affect your cushy lifestyle in any
way whatsoever? Would you lose your job, your prestige or your influence? No party elites lost
those things in 2016. Why would you expect this time to be any different?
But you might be at risk of losing your cushy lifestyle if a forcefully anti-elitist
progressive movement gets off the ground and takes control of your party. So you'd stand
everything to gain by doing everything you can to prevent that from happening, and, because you
don't care if Trump gets re-elected, you'd stand absolutely nothing to lose.
These people do not care if Trump gets re-elected, because they lose nothing if he does. The
only people who stand anything to lose are the ordinary citizens who are suffering under a
corrupt status quo of soul-crushing neoliberalism and increasing authoritarianism, many of whom
currently support Sanders. Democratic Party elites are perfectly happy to keep shrieking about
Russia for another four years while making sure that the status quo which rewards their
manipulative behavior remains intact, and ensuring that they never wind up like those poor
suckers out there who are suffering from poverty and lack of healthcare.
And everything I just said is equally true of the media class who are currently working in
conjunction with the DNC's shenanigans to spin Pete
Buttigeig as the clear winner of the party's first presidential electoral contest. They
enjoy all the same perks, and move in many of the same circles, as Democratic Party elites, and
it's all
conditioned on their protection of the status quo .
I keep seeing the word "incompetence" thrown around. "Gosh these Democratic Party leaders
are so incompetent!", they say. "How can anyone be so bad at their job?"
Well, they are not bad at their job. They are very, very good at their job. It's just that
their job isn't what most people assume it is.
Their job is not to win elections and garner public support, their job is to ensure the
perpetuation of the status quo which rewards them so handsomely for their malignant behavior.
Toward this end they are not incompetent at all. They know exactly what they're doing, and
they're doing it well.
They are extremely competent. Depraved, certainly. Sociopathic, possibly. But not
incompetent.
They're happy to make their nefariousness look like incompetence though, whenever they can
get away with it. Any manipulator worth their salt always will be. If they can make their
planned, deliberate acts of sabotage look like innocent little oopsies, they'll gladly do so.
But you learn in life that whenever you see someone making a lot of "mistakes" which just so
happen to benefit them every time, you're dealing with manipulation, not incompetence.
What do the bad guys say in the movies when they order someone's murder? They say "Make it
look like an accident." If it's an accident you've got no trouble. You won't be seen for what
you are.
But of course it's no accident, and anyone with clear eyes and good intentions sees this. If
you see someone working hard to make you believe that it's incompetence, you are dealing with
someone who is invested in maintaining the status quo in some way. You are being
manipulated.
The system isn't broken. It's working exactly the way it's intended to work. It ain't a bug,
it's a feature. And that feature will remain in operation until the entire sick system is torn
down and replaced with something healthy.
Makes sense. Just like the Epstein prison staff was incompetent, cops can't get leads on
Seth Rich, criminal referrals of Comey etc don't get followed up....otherwise called
corruption.
The democratic party must be thee only political party in all world history that actively
suppresses people who want to vote for them.
Looks like the democrats are set to lose the same way they did in 2016. Basically as Matt
Bruenig wrote in his article "The Boring Story
of the 2016 Election
Donald Trump did not win because of a surge of white support. Indeed he got less white
support than Romney got in 2012. Nor did Trump win because he got a surge from other
race+gender groups. The exit polls show him doing slightly better with black men, black
women, and latino women than Romney did, but basically he just hovered around Romney's
numbers with every race+gender group, doing slightly worse than Romney overall.
However, support for Hillary was way below Obama's 2012 levels, with defectors turning
to a third party. Clinton did worse with every single race+gender combo except white women,
where she improved Obama's outcome by a single point. Clinton did not lose all this
support to Donald. She lost it into the abyss. Voters didn't like her but they weren't
wooed by Trump .
The Third Wave neocons pointed out an interesting fact. Clinton won bigly CA, NY, and MA
which gave her something like 7 million votes. However, Trump won the remaining 47 states by
four million.
@MaxBlumenthal
"Silicon Valley billionaire Reid Hoffman not only funded the creation of ACRONYM, the group
that sabotaged Iowa caucus vote results, he bankrolled a notorious online "false flag
operation" in Alabama's 2017 senate campaign."
Bezos held a party in DC recently at his place attended by top officials from the Trump
Administration. Jared Kushner was there before. They hang out together.
How odd that Bezos is somehow portrayed as some anti-Trump owner of WaPo. Bezos serves his
role in Beltway...
As has always been said, Centrist Dems - The Right Wing Democrats dominating the
Democratic Party... prefer Trump to Sanders.
It will always be that way. They figure they can stick out four more years of Trump just
like they did with Bush and have their victory in 2024.
They are living in the past.
2020, with continued corruption by Centrist Dems? Will result in massive gains for
Republicans and massive losses for Centrist Dems. The top party leadership of Centrist Dems
are fine with that as long as their own seats are protected from Republican challenge. Deals
will be made.
If you look at Trump term? Not much has really changed other than the rabble (Right,
Center, and Left) being at each other's throats more than usual. That's they way the elites
like it. Rabble like that, so easily divided?
The system isn't broken. It's working exactly the way it's intended to work. It ain't a
bug, it's a feature. And that feature will remain in operation until the entire sick system
is torn down and replaced with something healthy.
* * *
Correct, the entire system and most likely that's a long time from now.
Unfortunately.
"... How can they change? The owners are the warmongering monopoly capitalist ruling class. Are you imagining that any decision can ever be made by the lowly peons, the rank and file? ..."
Unless They Change The Democrats Deserve To LoseTrisha , Feb 6 2020 16:12 utc
|
6
The Democratic Party seems to intend to lose the 2020 elections.
The idiotic impeachment attempt against Trump ended just
as we predicted at its beginning:
After two years of falsely accusing Trump of having colluded with Russia [the Democrats]
now allege that he colludes with Ukraine. That will make it much more difficult for the
Democrats to hide the dirty hands they had in creating Russiagate. Their currently
preferred candidate Joe Biden will get damaged.
...
Trump should be impeached for his crimes against Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.
But the Democrats will surely not touch on those issues. They are committing themselves
to political theater that will end without any result. Instead of attacking Trump's
policies and proposing better legislation they will pollute the airwaves with noise about
'crimes' that do not exist.
There is no case for impeachment. Even if the House would vote for one the Senate would
never act on it. No one wants to see a President Pence.
The Democrats are giving Trump the best campaign aid he could have wished for. Trump
will again present himself as the victim of a witch hunt. He will again argue that he is
the only one on the side of the people. That he alone stands with them against the bad
politicians in Washington DC. Millions will believe him and support him on this. It will
motivate them to vote for him.
The Senate acquitted Trump of all the nonsense the Democrats have thrown against him.
The state party is now being forced to walk back their error of giving @BernieSanders
delegates to @DevalPatrick who received zero votes in Black Hawk County. Press can dm
me.
We have known for over 24 hours as verified by our county party that @BernieSanders won
the #iacaucuses in Black Hawk County with 2,149 votes, 155 County Delegates. #NotMeUs
#IowaCaucuses
The whole manipulation was intended to enable Buttigieg to claim that he led in Iowa even
though it is clear that Bernie Sanders won the race. It worked:
If a progressive is about to win #IowaCaucuses:
- remove final polls
- use mysterious app created by former Clinton staffers
- Funnel results thru untested app
- Claim app fails
- Hold results
- Reveal only 62% to give false impression of who won
- Refuse to reveal final results
But the cost of such open manipulations is the
loss of trust in the Democratic Party and in elections in general:
In sum: We are 24 hours into the 2020 campaign, and Democrats have already humiliated their
party on national television, alienated their least reliable progressive supporters,
demoralized their most earnest activists, and handed Trump's campaign a variety of potent
lines of attack.
The other leading candidates are not much better. Sanders might have a progressive agenda
in domestic policies, but his foreign policies are fully in line with his party. Matt Duss,
Sanders' foreign policy advisor, is the son of a lifelong key front man for CIA
proxy organizations. He spills out mainstream imperial blabber:
The only thing that Trump's Venezuela regime change policy achieved is giving Russia an
opportunity to screw with the US in our own hemisphere. That's what they were
applauding.
Giving a standing ovation to Trump's SOTU remarks on Venezuela were of course the
Democratic "resistance" and Nancy Pelosi . That was before she theatrically ripped up her
copy of Trump's speech, the show act of a 5 year old and one which
she had trained for . She should be fired.
Impeachment, the Iowa disaster and petty show acts will not win an election against Donald
Trump. While they do not drive away core Democratic voters, they do make it difficult to get
the additional votes that are needed to win. Many on the left and the right who dislike Trump
will rather abstain or vote for a third party than for a party which is indistinguishable
from the currently ruling one.
Either the Democrats change their whole course of action or they will lose in November to
an extend that will be breathtaking. It would be well deserved.
Posted by b on February 6, 2020 at 15:57 UTC |
Permalink The donor class owners of the "Democratic" party have every incentive to
support Trump, who has cut their taxes, hugely inflated the value of their assets, and
mis-directed attention away from substantial issues that might degrade either their assets or
their power, by focusing on identity politics.
It's obvious to me that the two war parties function as one. The Democrats have been winning
since Trump took office--they get their money and they get their wars. If Trump wins, the
Democrats win as billionaires flood more money into the DNC. If Trump loses, the Republicans
win for the same reasons.
The behavior of a five year old is an appropriate reference point for most of the people
working in DC, albeit engaged parents expect more of their children. This vaudeville routine
is giving satisfaction to Republicans, Trump supporters, and those who have been looking for
a clearer opportunity to say "I told you so" to diehard Democratic believers (who will
continue to refuse to listen).
For an American, even one who has always been somewhat cynical regarding cultural notions of
democracy and the "American Way," the show has become patently and abusively vulgar and
revulsive. It does not appear to be anywhere near "hitting bottom." There can be no recovery
without emotional maturity, and the leaders in Washington exhibit nothing of the kind. The
level of maturity and wisdom of the individuals involved is determinative of the political
result, not the alleged quality of the politics they purport to sell. Right now we don't have
that.
"Unless They Change The Democrats Deserve To Lose"
Aren't there 2 levels of "change"?
1. How can they change? The owners are the warmongering monopoly capitalist ruling
class. Are you imagining that any decision can ever be made by the lowly peons, the rank and
file? If you thought anything like that, you should try to find one single instance, in
all history, of this "party" ever having done anything at all out of line with the express
policy of the owners of the country (the high level of people-friendly noise, intended for
the voting peons, never translates into any action of that sort.)
2. If you mean change the electoral policy to win this election, how could they
conceivably manage to change this late? Like a supertanker launched at full speed trying to
make a sharp turn a few seconds before hitting the shore, you mean?
Anyway, in both cases forget what it "deserves", it should be destroyed and buried under,
not only lose.
It would take extreme mental contortions to take U.S. "democracy" seriously at this
point.
I would like to believe that it makes some difference who is elected, but increasingly
doubtful.
How different would it really have been had Hillary been elected (much as it pains me to
consider such a scenario)?
Trump was elected (aside from interference from AIPAC) partly because he was republican
candidate and for some that's all it takes but aside from that because;
- end pointless wars
- improve healthcare
- control immigration
- jobs for coal miners
- somehow address corruption and non-performance of government
- improve US competitiveness, bring back jobs, promote business, improve economy
He claims having improved the economy but more likely is done juice from the FED.
So really, what grade does he deserve?
And yet people are rallying to his side.
Personally I think that the entrenched interests have moulded Trump to meet their
requirements and now it is inconvenient to have to start work on a new president, unless it
would be one of their approved choices.
I voted for Trump because of Hillary.
Now I would not vote for Trump given a decent choice. Fortunately there is an excellent
alternative.
All who count have known for a long time that Trump will have a second term. Baked in. (1)
The Dems agitate and raucously screech and try to impeach to distract or whatever to show
da base that they hate Trump and hope to slaughter! him! a rapist! mysoginist! racist!
liar ! He is horrors! in touch with the malignant criminal authoritarian ex-KGB Putin! Russia
Russia Russia - and remember Stormy Daniels! ( :) ! )
The top corp. Dems prefer to lose to Trump, I have said this for years, as have many
others. In rivalry of the Mafia type, it is often better to submit to have a share of the
pie. Keep the plebs on board with BS etc. Victim status, underdog pretense, becomes ever more
popular.
1. Trump might fall ill / dead / take Melania's advice and wishes into account, or just
quit.
People still talk like democracy really exists in USA.
They channel their anger toward Party and personality.
If only the democrats would ... If only Sanders would ... If only people would see that
...
A few understand the way things really are, but most are still hoping that
somehow that the bed-time stories and entertaining kayfabe are a sort of
democracy that they can live with.
But the is just normalcy bias. A Kool-Aid hang-over. This is not democracy. It is a soft
tyranny encouraged by Empire stooges, lackeys, and enabled by ignorance.
The lies are as pervasive as they are subtle: half-truths; misdirection; omitting facts
like candidate/party affiliations with the Zionist/Empire Death Cult.
The REAL divide among people in the West is who benefits from an EMPIRE/ZIONIST FIRST
orientation that has polluted our politics and our culture and the rest of us.
Wake up. War is on the horizon. And Central Banks can't print money forever.
After watching Pelosi it reminded me that during the Geo. W. Bush era the Democrats were
always claiming to be the adults in the room. It's odd that Mayo Pete's 'husband' is never
seen or heard from. I wonder why? Biden's toast and Epstein didn't kill himself. AND Seth
Rich leaked Hillary's emails to Wikileaks.
-- --
The Clinton-Obama administration had scores of corrupt officials and associates (the
Podestas, for instance). It was necessary to create a firewall once Trump won the nomination.
As so, they attacked his campaign manager, his national security adviser, his family,
himself, using all the means of FISA, wire tapping done by NSA and CIA and Mi6 and probably
Mossad.
Red Ryder | Feb 6 2020 16:56 utc | 14
-- --
Trump is an installment of The Mossad via blackmail and media manipulation, check "Black
Cube Intelligence", a Mossad front operating from City of London. It would make sense the
establishment in the US would eavesdrop on him. Mossad on the other hand would wiretap the
wiretapers and give feedback on Trump. The Podesta you mentioned once threatened the factions
with "disclosure" possibly to keep the runaway black projects crazies in check not that I
wish to play advocate of these people.
-- --
After they lose again in November, they will unleash their street thugs, Antifa, to terrorize
the winners. Meanwhile for the purists of the Liberal Cult there will be many real suicides.
So, bloodshed and death will become reality.
Red Ryder | Feb 6 2020 16:56 utc | 14
-- --
Yes, what we need is just a nazi party in the US to keep communism in check, right? We are
half way there with Trump already aren't we? "Black Sun" technologies (which a part off I
described above) already there, leaking to anyone interested enough that would aid in the
great outsourcing for the Yinon project, so why not? "Go Trump 2020"! (sarcasm)
For whatever reason the only thing the Dems seem to find more terrible than a loss to Trump
is a win with Bernie. I'm no fan of Bernie but it's clear they're out to sabotage the one guy
that would actually beat Trump in an election
While I have no illusions that a Sanders administration will have good foreign policy
objectives, is there not something to be said for shifting money away from the
military-industrial complex in the US? In general Sanders gives me the impression that he
wants to reduce US intervention in foreign affairs in favor of spending more money on
domestic issues. Even a slight reduction in pressure is helpful for giving other countries
the ability to expand their spheres of influence and becoming more legitimate powers in
opposition to the US and EU. Based on this I still see voting for Sanders as helpful even if
he won't bring about any meaningful change in the US's foreign policy.
it's not an actual Stalin quote, but often used as such
he did say something in the same vein, though.
it IS absolutely spot on here:
"It's not who vote that counts, it's who counts the votes"
congratulations, DNC, you're on a par with Joseph Stalin; the most ruthless chairman the
Sovyets have ever had.
so here is your real Russia Gate.
oh, come and smell the Irony. In fake wrestling the producers determine the winner in advance
and the wrestlers ate given their script to follow. The Dems have no intention to win this,
look at the clowns they have running the show not to mention the flawed candidates . The
script calls for the king of fake wrestling, Trump himself, to win yet again. Only a
concerted effort by the Dems and Deep State media, along with some tech help from Bibis crew
can engineer this result, but they are all on board. Dems willing to wait for 2024 when the
producers will write them in for a big Win over somebody not named Trump. The world will be
ready for a Green change by then, and Soros/Gates boys will have their chance to step up to
the plate again.
Enjoy the show if you wish, I'm changing the channel.
It has been a bad few days for the establishment, really bad.
In a 51-49 vote, the Senate refused to call witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald
Trump and agreed to end the trial Wednesday, with a near-certain majority vote to acquit the
president of all charges.
As weekend polls show socialist Bernie Sanders surging into the lead for the nomination in
the states of Iowa, New Hampshire and California, the sense of panic among Democratic Party
elites is palpable.
Former Secretary of State and Joe Biden surrogate John Kerry was overheard Sunday at a Des
Moines hotel talking of the "possibility of Bernie Sanders taking down the Democratic Party --
down whole."
Tuesday, Trump takes his nationally televised victory lap in the U.S. Capitol with his State
of the Union address, as triumphant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and a humiliated Speaker
Nancy Pelosi sit silently side-by-side behind him.
Democrats may declare the Trump impeachment a victory for righteousness, but the anger and
outrage, the moans and groans now coming off the editorial and op-ed pages and cable TV suggest
the media know otherwise.
History, we are told, will vindicate what Pelosi and the Democrats did and stain forever the
Republican Party for voting to acquit.
Perhaps, but only if some future Howard Zinn is writing the history.
Reality: The impeachment of Trump was an attempted -- and failed -- coup that not a single
Republican supported, only Democrats in the House and their Senate caucus. The impeachment of
Trump was an exercise in pure partisanship and itself an abuse of power.
What was the heart of the Democrats' case to remove Trump?
Trump failed to invite Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to the White House, and held
up military aid to Kyiv for several months, to get Zelenskiy to hold a press conference to
announce that Kyiv was looking into how Hunter Biden got on the board of a corrupt energy
company at a retainer of $83,000 a month while his father was the chief international monitor
of corruption in Ukraine.
The specific indictment: Trump's suspension of military aid imperiled "our national
security" by denying arms to an "ally" who was fighting the Russians over there, so we don't
have to fight them over here.
And what was the outcome of it all?
Zelenskiy got his meeting with the president. He got the military aid in September. He did
not hold the press conference requested. He did not announce an investigation of the
Bidens.
No harm, no foul.
How did President Obama handle Ukraine?
After Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea and intervened to protect pro-Russian secessionists in
the Donbass, Obama's White House restricted U.S. lethal military aid to Kyiv and provided
blankets and meals ready to eat.
What punishment did House and Senate Democrats and anti-Trump media demand for the pause in
sending weapons for Ukraine?
Capital punishment, a political death penalty.
Democrats demanded that a Republican Senate overturn the election of 2016, make Trump the
first president ever impeached and removed, and then ensure that the American people could
never vote for him again.
Nancy Pelosi's House and the Democratic minority in the Senate were demanding that a
Republican Senate do their dirty work and keep Trump off the ballot in 2020, lest he win a
second term.
For four years, elements of the liberal establishment -- in the media, "deep state" and
major institutions -- have sought to destroy Trump. First, they aimed to smear him and prevent
his election, and then to overturn it as having been orchestrated by the Kremlin, and then to
impeach and remove him, and then to block him from running again.
The damage they have inflicted upon our country's institutions is serious.
U.S. intelligence agencies are being investigated by U.S. Attorney John Durham for their
role in instigating an investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign. The FBI has been
discredited by exposure of a conspiracy of top-level agents to spy on Trump's campaign.
The media, by endlessly echoing unproven claims that Trump was a stooge of the Kremlin,
discredited themselves to a degree unknown since the "Yellow Press" prostituted itself to get
us into war with Spain. Media claims to be unbiased pursuers of truth have suffered, not only
from Trump's attacks, but from their own biased and bigoted coverage and commentary.
Always at least a dribble of Beltway, uniparty propaganda that Russia is "our" enemy ruled by
a dictator, etc: "After Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea .." Can this columnist not acknowledge
that the people of Crimea voted to secede from Ukraine after Uncle Sam helped stage a coup
and handpicked its new figurehead? He is still on record espousing the claim that Russia
"hacked" the 2016 U.S. election.
Anyone who believes that people above the level of sacrificial flunky "being investigated
by U.S. Attorney John Durham for their role in instigating an investigation of a U.S.
presidential campaign" will be charged with a felony is dreaming.
Mr. Buchanan's jobs as Stagehand Right in the Washington puppet show are to whitewash the
imperialism and to lead enough Red sheep to vote in the next Most Important Election
Ever.
Ooh, lookie lookie, Trump is being impeached! Cheer the noble Democrats striking a blow
for freedom and virtue! Or boo the corrupt Democrats for putting on this farce! Take your
pick.
But whatever you do, don't pay any attention to the ongoing third-world invasion on our
southern border, or the trillions we are wasting on pointless winless foreign wars, or the
tens of trillions (that's not a mis-print) we are wasting bailing out and subsidizing Wall
Street and financial engineering, don't pay any attention to the fact that most of our drugs
are now made in Communist China with very little quality control, and yet prices for these
same drugs in the US are skyrocketing. And don't get me started on the growing industry of
"Surprise Medical Billing." I could go on but you get the idea.
Yes, impeachment was a bad joke. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Mr. Buchanan continues in his refusal to mention that the Maidan Revolution in the Ukraine
was a color revolution backed by the Obama-era State Department, the CIA and various
Soros-affiliated NGOs. But he dutifully invokes the Russian annexation of Crimea while never
mentioning the fact that it followed a referendum on the issue which was supported by the
vast majority in Crimea.
"Reality: The impeachment of Trump was an attempted -- and failed -- coup that not a single
Republican supported, only Democrats in the House and their Senate caucus. The impeachment of
Trump was an exercise in pure partisanship and itself an abuse of power."
Reality–Mr. Buchanan is still smarting from his boss Nixon getting busted, and will
stoop to new lows to exonerate him and others on the same trajectory. Of course, impeachment
is not a coup, and the Democrats made a strong case. It is other than surprising in an
election year where Trump threatened to burn any Republican Senator to the ground that they
are "united".
It is laughable that there was this "perfect call", yet he stonewalled any and all efforts
to enable witnesses to come forward. Why not have the Bidens, Guiliani, Parnas, Mulvaney, and
everyone associated to this scandal be allowed to speak their minds in the Senate? What is
the GOP so afraid of?
Several questions remain:
Why did Trump task Giuliani, in a personal capacity, to press Ukraine on the Bidens rather
than Trump asking the Department of Justice to investigate? Why were several key
administration officials "in the dark" about the activities of Giuliani?
Why did one Trump lawyer say to Senators that the House never authorized a resolution
(when it did) for subpoenas of Trump officials, when that same lawyer stated in 2019 that
resolution was unnecessary since they would testify on their own behalf?
White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney admitted to a quid pro quo and then walked it
back. Could he testify as to explain why? Why not allow other Trump officials to testify as
witnesses to exonerate Trump?
Trump stated he is concerned about adult children benefiting from their father's name? Why
did he give his children a place in his administration?
Trump's lawyers argued that in order to convict him, the Senate must find him guilty
"beyond a reasonable doubt". Except that has never been the standard ever used in past
impeachment trial. Why would they make this claim?
Time for a senate investigation into Joe Biden's blatant corruption and abuse of power in the
Burisma matter. There has already been a shitload of evidence gathered by Ukraine prosecutors
and a French journalist and it all points to Joe actually being guilty of everything the Dems
charged Trump with. Subpoena all of it plus sworn testimony from Joe and Hunter themselves
(though they will both have to take the Fifth to avoid self-incrimination).
@Truth3
You'd think at 82 and presumably secure financially Pat would let 'er rip once in a while,
but he had bigger stones three decades ago when he had a mainstream career in middle age to
protect. I met him a couple of times in the '80s, and the pugnacious brawler image he liked
to project -- back then, at least -- is not what comes across in person. He was a little
reserved and diffident (maybe it was the company). Nothing wrong with that, of course, but
you didn't sense a zest for engaging and confronting.
All the coup members should be arrested and tried for treason. Including those working at the
corporate news networks who cheered this on.
Also, the Democratic party will cease to be a viable national party by 2030. (ok, it
really should be 2032, because that will be the first presidential election they will not be
viable, but I'll stick with 2030).
Why? Simple: a political party based on a coalition solely devoted to hating the other
side won't work. Political parties, unlike wartime militaries, need a constructive agenda to
unite behind. Meaning the party must want to do certain things when in power that everyone in
the party agrees on, not merely to trample on their political opponents
Ironically, that's why Bernie's going so well: he's got a constructive agenda. Yes,
socialism is evil, but all the other candidates merely say the same flavor of "defeating
Trump is paramount." Socialism is at least something to implement beyond recriminations
against whitey.
@Corvinus
lmao. Our personal paid media-matters troll, Corvinus, is desperately trying to spin his
conspiracy theory hoax again. Go, Corvinus, go, earn Mr. Soros's paycheck you maginificent
lying bastard!
@Anonymous
"Subpoena all of it plus sworn testimony from Joe and Hunter themselves (though they will
both have to take the Fifth to avoid self-incrimination)."
Then charge them with Obstruction Of Congress. Isn't that what you're supposed to do when
someone exercises their rights?
@gsjackson
Remember this is the guy that was attacked on stage by Jewish thug-wannabees the day he
announced his Presidential Campaign and he bounced them off the stage solo.
He knows the Elephant with the hooked nose well enough is he still afraid of Mossad?
It makes me wonder. Even though Jews are over-represented in elite institutions, the great
majority of Deep State is still made up of goyim. Then, why are they all so servile to Jewish
agendas and Jewish wishes? Do goyim lack a mind of their own? If Jews say 'gay marriage',
deep state goyim run to fetch the stick. When Jews 'more Wars for Israel', deep state goyim
roll over. If Jews say, 'bail out Wall Street', deep state goyim just go along. If Jews say,
"fuc* the first and second amendments", deep state goyim nod along. Look at cuck goyim in
Virginia grabbing guns to serve their Jewish masters. If Jews say 'let's get Trump', deep
state goyim bark and bite.
It could be that deep state goyim just happen to share the same ideas and values as the
Jews. Or it could be their minds were molded by Jewish-run media and academia. Or they're
just afraid of Jewish power that, via media, blackmail, and bought off politicians, can
destroy anyone. Indeed, the sheer chutzpah of all those Jews coming out of the woodwork to
unseat an elected president.
Jewish attitude is "Powers Is Ours. All you goyim are just guests at the table."
Jews are captains of the ship. Deep State goyim must man the engines with no sense of
direction or destiny of their own.
@Corvinus
Trump is scump, and yes, he was sniffing at Hunter for political reasons. But there is no
smoking gun that he violated any law. It's all speculation.
Still, Trump did something that was unethical even though he was probing into corruption.
He did it for political reasons. After all, if Trump is concerned about corruption, he should
begin with US defense budgets.
But Dems are also full of shit. They began with the agenda, "Let's impeach Trump" and
grasped for ANYTHING to carry it out. It didn't begin with the possible violation on Trump's
part but with the desire to get Trump somehow someway. Impeach Trump was the apriori agenda
from the day he was elected.
Besides, if Trump should really be removed, it's for the murder of hero Soleimani. And
Obama should have been impeached for his war crimes. But nope. It's some fantasy about Russia
Collusion or some triviality about Hunter, another scumbag. Jewish Power pushes American
Politicians to do evil things around the world and expresses OUTRAGE only when Jews don't get
what they want.
You pretend to be a proggy, but you're just Hasbara. It's so obvious. Give it up.
@Priss
Factor Henry Ford was the last WASP to resist jew banking and finance. 100 years ago, Ole
Henry bought a newspaper dedicated to attacking the jew, and he disseminated the Elders of
Zio through all his dealerships. He also tried to prevent the jew's favorite project at the
time ..WW1. The jew stomped Ole Henry double plus good and got their war. The WASP
establishment took careful note of Ford's humiliation, and took in the jew as a junior
partner in running and looting the country. 100 years later, the jew is running government,
media, and finance ..with the WASP as a very junior partner, mostly playing the role of
useful idiot providing the cannon fodder and taxes for jew wars.
@Truth3
You and other "blame da jooz" lurkers at Unz clearly haven't spent much time around
non-Jewish White leftists as Pat obviously has. There is no great conspiracy he is trying to
avoid.
I went to a college where every single professor was doing their best to indoctrinate the
students and 90% of them were Anglo or Nordic.
For every Jewish leftist lawyer you can point at in DC there are a thousand non-Jewish
White lawyers behind the scenes.
Liberalism is a sickness that would still exist even if you got rid of the Jews. Have a
look at Deutschland if you doubt this.
Here is the kicker: The non-Jewish leftists know they are lying. It isn't some brainwash
job by the Jewz. Liberal professors and media commentators know they are lying. They think it
is all justified. In their minds we are the problem and lies or gulags are just fine if the
end is the same.
The worst leftist of all time was not Jewish and in fact sent a lot of Jews packing. His
name was Stalin, maybe you have heard of him.
@Truth3
But that get-out is a bit easy. It's like ghetto denizens complaining about "the man".
Yes, philosophical high ground, media high ground, rent-a-mob management ground and
self-unaware ability to act decisively and shamelessly has been taken. Now what? Order up a
box of Red Bull?
The sad fact is that there are REAL reasons for getting Trump's ass dragged off into the
sunset, but they involve wars and hits for you-know-who, so nobody is ever going to mention
those.
Pat Buchanan describes all the steps of a corrupt political system to remove a sitting US
President from office with bogus charges, and their handlers in the media played the
loudspeakers and an inaffable role. This gang bears the responsibility that all the major
institutions are untrustworthy. CNN leads the lying press crowd. I was not surprised hearing
that the Iowa caucus did produce any results yet. As it seems, the "right" person didn't come
out first; Joe Biden. The corrupt Democratic Party starts already at the beginning of the
primaries by rigging the election. The Dems are still suffering from the defeat of the Queen
of Darkness, Hillary Clinton, and their corrupt entourage. The Democratic Parts seems
incapable to clean out this Augean stable. The last telling example has been the charade of
impeachment. As long no Heads will roll, the Democratic Party will remain in the political
quagmire, and corruption will prevail.
What Sanders is doing is revolutionary, in the sense that he is raising enough money to run a
national campaign, and winning, without taking corporate money.
American politics is controlled by a two-party cartel, and candidates have to join the
cartel and take the corporate money to get elected, resulting in policies like high
immigration that make sense to the Chamber of Commerce but not to many voters. Sure, you can
pander to voters and then do the bidding of the Chamber, but a candidate that does more than
pander is a stronger candidate.
You could have a real populist right if you had a candidate who could generate campaign
funding solely from grass roots contributions and refused to take corporate money. Granted
this is not the culture of the GOP, but the reality is that the program of the American
cartels is deeply unpopular with huge swaths of the American people, and the future belongs
to the group that can effectively carry out a hostile take-over of the organization and then,
not having to obey the corporate donors, puts in place a political program that actually
accomplishes the agenda: something like mandatory everify rather than say stupid symbolic
fights about a "wall" that never gets built, or maybe conduct a foreign policy that does not
have to have pre-approval from Sheldon Adelson.
It makes me wonder. Even though Jews are over-represented in elite institutions, the
great majority of Deep State is still made up of goyim. Then, why are they all so servile
to Jewish agendas and Jewish wishes?
Jews have lots of wealth and control the narrative. Plus the average Jew is smarter than
the average goyim.
Do goyim lack a mind of their own?
In many cases yes.
It could be that deep state goyim just happen to share the same ideas and values as the
Jews. Or it could be their minds were molded by Jewish-run media and academia.
The latter is the case.
Jews are captains of the ship. Deep State goyim must man the engines with no sense of
direction or destiny of their own.
This has happened many times in history the out come not so good for Jews.
Henry Ford was the last WASP to resist jew banking and finance.
And Henry Ford actually produced something of value. As opposed to most rich Jews who
produce financial products , which are detrimental to most goyim, but very lucrative
to Jews.
@John
Johnson"The worst leftist of all time was not Jewish and in fact sent a lot of Jews
packing. His name was Stalin, maybe you have heard of him."
No the worst leftist of all time was the creator of it all, Karl Marx, who absolutely was
Jewish. Jews like to use goy cat's paws like Stalin, Roosevelt and Bush to do their dirty
work but never forget who's behind it all.
@Johnny
SmogginsNo the worst leftist of all time was the creator of it all, Karl Marx, who
absolutely was Jewish. Jews like to use goy cat's paws like Stalin, Roosevelt and Bush to do
their dirty work but never forget who's behind it all.
Marx was half-Jewish and White egalitarian marauding predates Marxism. Napoleon and
Lincoln both believed in war for equality.
Did the Jews force Stalin to send millions to the Gulag? Was pol pot also forced by the
Jews to kill his own people? Pretty amazing that Jews were able to manipulate even Asian
leftists when there were zero Jews in those countries.
The corollary of blaming Jews for everything is that non-Jewish leftists are never
responsible for their own actions. This is amusing since behind closed doors leftist leaders
will admit certain politically incorrect truths which shows they are not Goy-drones. But
according to the Unz Blamin' Jews club they are just victims of manipulation. Poor wittle
victims that are consciously lying and would send us all to gulags if they could.
Can this columnist not acknowledge that the people of Crimea voted to secede from
Ukraine
Whose Side Is God on Now?
April 4, 2014 by Patrick J. Buchanan
In his Kremlin defense of Russia's annexation of Crimea, Vladimir Putin, even before he began
listing the battles where Russian blood had been shed on Crimean soil, spoke of an older
deeper bond.
Crimea, said Putin, "is the location of ancient Khersones, where Prince Vladimir was
baptized. His spiritual feat of adopting Orthodoxy predetermined the overall basis of the
culture, civilization and human values that unite the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and
Belarus."
Indicting the "Bolsheviks" who gave away Crimea to Ukraine, Putin declared, "May God
judge them."
Putin is entering a claim that Moscow is the Godly City of today and command post of
the counter-reformation against the new paganism.
Putin is plugging into some of the modern world's most powerful currents.
Not only in his defiance of what much of the world sees as America's arrogant drive for
global hegemony. Not only in his tribal defense of lost Russians left behind when the USSR
disintegrated.
He is also tapping into the worldwide revulsion of and resistance to the sewage of a
hedonistic secular and social revolution coming out of the West.
It seems to me, that in a sense, Buchanan is declaring that Putin is 'planting Russia's
flag' as the new moral center of the dying ((murdered)) Western world, with Moscow as the "
the Third Rome".
As the West descends into the moral 'sewer', Putin's Russia is returning to the ideals of
Christian virtues and traditional values.
"But the war to be waged with the West is not with rockets. It is a cultural, social,
moral war where Russia's role, in Putin's words, is to "prevent movement backward and
downward, into chaotic darkness and a return to a primitive state."
Would that be the "chaotic darkness" and "primitive state" of mankind, before the Light
came into the world?"
In other words, Patrick Buchanan knows very well indeed who the villains are vis-a-vis
Crimea, and Russia, vs. the ((Globohomo)). And he's willing to say so, eloquently, when it
suits him to do so.
But even so, there was that vomit reflex moment when I read "writes WCF's Allan
Carlson, "Russia is defending Judeo-Christian values . "
So Pat does pepper his articles with paeans to the Globohomo vernacular of the day, I
suppose for reasons of appealing to the masses, such as they are. But if you've been reading
Pat for as long as I have, you know he's well aware of the subtle nuances behind claims of
'annexing Crimea', but this column is all about the obvious corruption on display with the
impeachment farce, and how the Democrats all gush when Obama does something corrupt, but howl
and screech when it's 'done' by Trump.
So in that context, he's simply using Crimea as an example of Democrat hypocrisy. Like
trying to impeach Trump for endeavoring to uncover the rat-hole of uber-corruption between
Obama/Hillary/Biden/Nuland – and the former regime in Ukraine.
IOW, what Trump did, (what he was actually impeached for) was the "off the reservation"
attempt to expose their uber-corruption. That he trusted the current ((regime)) in Ukraine,
and in his own deepstate, was his monumental error.
Then, there's this:
The NSC and State Department have been exposed as employing individuals with an
exaggerated view of their role in the origination and the execution of foreign policy.
Disloyalty and animosity toward the chief executive appear to permeate the upper echelons
of the "deep state."
The arrogance on display from all those diplomats, with sanctimonious outrage, at a
president that actually thinks *he's* in charge of foreign policy! 'Who does he think he
is?!, to decide when Ukraine gets their belligerent weapons to use on Putin's/Hitler's
aggressive Russia?! These decisions are all made wayyyy above that asshole's pay grade, and
we need to put him in his place!'
Not in our lifetime have the institutions of government and the establishment been held
in lower regard.
Almost all now concede we have become an us vs. them nation.
Liberal Jews, who hate Trump's guts with the searing heat of a thousand exploding suns,
vs. war mongering neocon Jews, who also hate Trump, but see in him a very pliant and useful
idiot.
@ Priss
Or they're just afraid of Jewish power that, via media, blackmail, and bought off
politicians, can destroy anyone.
Bingo
If you're a goyim in the administration, and you mumble something about how much the wars
are costing, either in untold trillions or in political capital, the dagger-eyed glowering
would be immediate from every Jew in the room. 'So, we have a little wannabe Himmler here.
He'll soon fine out what happens to Adolf wannabes, when he gets his arse handed to him, and
he's out on the streets'. Make him the first on your list.'
Everyone with two synapses to rub together, knows that all these wars are Jewish
supremacist wars of conquest. Duh. Even the war on Yemen, is a proxy war against Iran. So the
moment anyone tries to rein in the belligerence, he's going to have Hymie to pay. And that is
what this really is all about. Trump's holding back weapons from Ukraine, is seen as counter
productive to the ((greater agenda)), and so they pile on. And if the president of the United
States, can be keelhauled for a year, and impeached, for daring to obstruct the Eternal Wars
for Israel*, then how well will some lesser veck fare if he too thinks the wars are not the
greatest thing since sliced bread?
The Jews are uniform and connected on certain subjects. The Eternal Wars are one of them.
I know some liberal Jews. To this day, they seem to worship Obama, and loath Trump with
obvious distain, (clear hatred), but when it comes to the wars, they're kosher.
That's why there's perfect conformity from both isles in DC, on the need to continue the
wars. That's why both Fox news and ABCNNBCBS.. et al, are all perfectly aligned on that
particular issue. Which is why Tulsi has been 'Ron Pauled'. When it's something all Jews are
all aligned on ** , then it's unwritten, and woe be to any wrong-minded goyim, who's brave
enough to step over that particular line.
*Obama got a pass on a lot of things, because the liberal Jews gushed when he walked into
the room. Trump gets no such leeway.
** .. in reality, since first entering Congress in 1991, Sanders has compiled a lengthy
record of support for war and defense of the predatory interests of American
imperialism."
Sanders' record demonstrates what he considers "necessary wars." It also includes the NATO
air war against Serbia in 1999, launched on the pretext of stopping the imminent ethnic
cleansing of Kosovars.
In 2001, Sanders joined in a near-unanimous vote in favor of the invasion of Afghanistan.
Today -- now that the nearly twenty-year-long war is widely unpopular -- Sanders conveniently
declares that his earlier vote was a "mistake." But he has continued to endorse US wars in
the Middle East, including the US proxy war in Syria.
Sanders has also supported Israel's repeated assaults on Gaza, imperialist war crimes made
possible with the support of the United States. In a 2014 town hall meeting, Sanders shouted
down an antiwar protester who challenged his support for Israel even as it was committing
egregious crimes against the Palestinian population.
Moreover, Sanders has publicly voiced support for the use of assassinations and
"extraordinary rendition" in the so-called "war on terror." In 2015, when asked whether
anti-terrorism policies under a Sanders administration would include drones and special
forces, Sanders replied that he supported "all that and more."
I'm amazed Pat even posts here when half of you guys couldn't analyze the contents of a
turkey sandwich without some screed about Jews.
Jews are depicted as some monolithic bloc and yet Israel would undoubtedly take Trump over
Sanders.
So the first Jewish president would be rejected by the world wide Jewish conspiracy? Some
conspiracy.
As a reminder the presidential candidate that actually wanted government troops to kick in
doors and take guns was an Irish Texan. But I'm sure that's somehow the fault of Jews even
though the Jewish candidate has been a moderate on guns.
In the fifth paragraph, Pat writes: "Tuesday, Trump takes his nationally televised victory
lap in the US Capitol with his SOTU address, as Mitch McConnell and a humiliated Speaker
Nancy Pelosi sit silently side-by-side behind him."
I'll forgive Pat the senior moment, as he surely knows that VP Pence, not Mitch McConnell,
will be sitting next to our senile Speaker.
@Rurik
"In other words, Patrick Buchanan knows very well indeed who the villains are vis-a-vis
Crimea, and Russia, vs. the ((Globohomo)). And he's willing to say so, eloquently, when it
suits him to do so.
[I]f you've been reading Pat for as long as I have, you know he's well aware of the subtle
nuances behind claims of 'annexing Crimea', "
Please. Just run "Crimea" in the search engine against Mr. Buchanan's columns. -- >
11/22/2019: " .. 2014, when Vladimir Putin's Russia seized Crimea .." What's subtle or
nuanced about "seized"? Do I need to show you some of his other Beltway bits, like his
standing assertion that Russia "hacked" the 2016 US election?
I repeat: Mr. Buchanan's jobs as Stagehand Right in the Washington puppet show are to
whitewash the imperialism and to lead enough Red sheep (like you?) to vote in the next Most
Important Election Ever.
Refute it, or admit it. Neither should require another 1,300 words.
Jews are depicted as some monolithic bloc and yet Israel would undoubtedly take Trump
over Sanders.
in the comment right above this one, I just wrote
"Liberal Jews, who hate Trump's guts with the searing heat of a thousand exploding
suns, vs. war mongering neocon Jews, who also hate Trump, but see in him a very pliant and
useful idiot."
Jews don't control everything. But when it comes to N. America's foreign policy, you'd
have to be a huge knucklehead not to know of AIPAC, CFR, and PNAC, and all the other Jewish
supremacist institutions herding our congress-critters like so many sheep, to their Eternal
Wars for Israel.
Or ,
..you can explain how its in the American people's interest to spend seven+ trillion, (all
of it borrowed at interest) to slaughter, main and displace millions of innocent people, who
just happen to be inconvenient to Israel's imperial ambitions. While simultaneously getting
tens of thousands of young American soldiers dead, maimed or so soul-shattered they're
committing suicide at some 20 a day?
Or, would you really have us all believe, that Saddam did 9/11, and that he and Gadhafi
had WMD, because they "hate our freedom", and so we have to "fight them over there, so we
don't have to fight them over here"
?
@John
Johnson But for the Jews who controlled the Communist party in the Soviet Union grooming
and promoting him, Stalin would've been a minor tyrant terrorizing the peasantry in the
Georgian countryside. Unfortunately for them, their pet got out of control and started to
bite the hand that fed him. The corollary to this is Jews in the US promoting "civil rights"
and then having some of their negro pets (like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton) turn on them.
Remind us friend, where the idea for Marxism came to Asians from? The answer of course is
from the Jew Marx with financing provided by Jacob Schiff and other wealthy Jews. Perhaps Pol
Pot may have found some other outlet for his murderous instincts but as has been the case in
so many instances around the world, it was Jewish Marxism that not only lit the fuse, but set
it up to begin with.
Don't get me wrong, do gooder Christian types are nearly as much to blame for the mess
we're in as the Jews. The difference is that while Christians are naive, gullible and stupid,
their motivations are essentially good even if the outcome is bad. With Jews, the motivation
behind what they do is pure malice.
You seem new here. Welcome. Do some more reading and exploring and then comment more.
You're not the first newbie to wander in from Breitbart ready to defend Israel and the Jews
without first having educated himself, and you won't be the last.
Do I need to show you some of his other Beltway bits, like his standing assertion that
Russia "hacked" the 2016 US election?
from my little screed
"So Pat does pepper his articles with paeans to the Globohomo vernacular of the day, I
suppose for reasons of appealing to the masses, such as they are."
Mr. Buchanan's jobs as Stagehand Right in the Washington puppet show are to whitewash
the imperialism and to lead enough Red sheep (like you?) to vote in the next Most Important
Election Ever.
Refute it, or admit it.
I admit it!
HAHAHAAAAHAAA!!!
I'm actually a Trump supporter because, that's right! I'm a racist!!!
HAHAHAAAHAAAA!
That's why we're all pretending that the Dems are actuyally way worse than Trump when it
comes to the Eternal Wars, because we all secretly love Trump, because he called Mexicans
'bad hombres!! And he said Obama wasn't born here, and we all love that kind of
RACISM!
HAHAHAAAAA!!!!
When ever he mocks Maxine Waters, we all laugh at how racist we all are, and that's why
Pat and the Deplorables and all of us closet racists are going to pull the lever for
Trump!
Because we're racists!! And we don't even worship Obama!! the One!!!
HAHAHAAAHAAAA!!!!
White supremacy, baby!!!
HAHAAAHAAAAAAA!!!!
You're going to get four more years of Orange clown racism! He grabs fulsomely offered
gold-digger's pussies like crazy, and we don't even care!!!
We even like, that he likes women, and isn't even gay!!
HAHAHAAAA
I was just talking to a buddy of mine, and we were lamenting some of Trump's more
egregious disappointments, (assassinating world leaders, tossing Bibi's salad, etc..). But
there was one thing about which we could agree, as bad as Trump is, (and he's a disaster), we
are very much going to enjoy the show, as Hillary and Madow and Maxine and all the other
white-male-castrating hags and losers and SJW POS, will be soul-raped on election day.
That, might go a long way towards mollifying Trump's disastrous presidency.
Sometimes I watch those videos of the reaction to the 2016 election, and the tears, and
howls of existential angst, from Hillary supporters, and boy oh boy are those memories
great.
@RurikJews don't control everything. But when it comes to N. America's foreign policy, you'd
have to be a huge knucklehead not to know of AIPAC, CFR, and PNAC
Zomg Jewish lobbies. You can actually be against aid to Israel while not taking the view
that Jews control every single war and leftist action. Not everything has to be about the
Jews.
Or, would you really have us all believe, that Saddam did 9/11, and that he and Gadhafi
had WMD, because they "hate our freedom", and so we have to "fight them over there, so we
don't have to fight them over here"
What would make you think that I believe Saddam did 9/11? I have said nothing of the
sort.
It's actually possible to be against foreign wars and also against blaming the Jews for
everything. Anglo leaders have started foreign wars without the influence of Jews. If that
angry Austrian didn't start a needless war with Poland we wouldn't be in the mess we are in
today. Then he went and made his great dunderheaded move of attacking Russia before defeating
Britain. Did the Jews make him do it while they were in boxcars? The Romans started all kinds
of needless foreign wars without Jewish influence. But if a US president does it then MUST BE
the Jews. Nevermind that GWB talked about wanting to get even with Saddam or that Cheney had
all sorts of war industry connections. Just blame Jews, it's the Unz way. Thank you Mr.
Jewish Unz for providing this forum.
Disagree w/ Buchanan's key premise: the coup leaders, as Rick Wiles identified them, the Jew
Coup, got everything they wanted and still have tethers in place to force more from Trump, in
the fullness of time.
-- Give us Golan or we'll unleash "six ways til Sunday"
-- Give us Jewish capital in Jerusalem or we will unleash "six ways til Sunday"
-- Convey gas rights in Golan to Cheney, other Jewish and American interests or we'll
unleash "six ways til Sunday"
-- Kill Soleimani or we'll unleash "six ways til Sunday"
-- Give us full sovereignty and political cover to take all of ersatz Israel, Palestinians
be damned, or we'll unleash "six ways til Sunday"
-- Ensure that Syria remains fragmented and without financing to rebuild or we'll unleash
"six ways til Sunday"
--
By the way: those of you familiar with gematria or Kabbalah -- remember Schiff's "parody" of
the Trump phone call? Among its other weird references that, I suspect, were not without
esoteric meaning, Schiff repeated the number seven. Does that mean anything?
IMHO, the outcome -- 'acquittal' in the Senate -- is just as pre-ordained by Schiff-Nadler
– Engel – Schumer, as was the No vote on witnesses: Dems are just as dirty as
GOP; they'd have been pissing in their Guccis if Republicans had voted to call more witnesses
who might have implicated Democrats in corruption.
AGREE that Pelosi has been humiliated: nothing Jew Coupers like better than using, then
humiliating a Catholic; that she is Italian (Roman) is cream cheese on the bagels.
@Johnny
SmogginsBut for the Jews who controlled the Communist party in the Soviet Union
grooming and promoting him, Stalin would've been a minor tyrant terrorizing the peasantry in
the Georgian countryside.
Where does Lenin fall into this revisionist history? He had nothing to do with the rise of
Stalin? Why didn't the Jews rally around Trotsky, an actual Jew?
Anyways the Jews dominated the NKVD, not the central party. They executed anyone including
Jews. Their top leaders were eventually executed by Stalin to cover up his crimes. Their
hegemony in the NKVD was eventually broken but the "Jewish USSR" myth remained for
decades.
Remind us friend, where the idea for Marxism came to Asians from? The answer of course
is from the Jew Marx with financing provided by Jacob Schiff and other wealthy Jews.
This is exactly the irrational thinking that I am talking about. If some Asian dictator
kills a million people you actually blame a half-Jew's Communist book even though said book
never called for killing a million people. Total removal of responsibility. You are giving a
free pass to any blood thirsty leftist.
Don't get me wrong, do gooder Christian types are nearly as much to blame for the mess
we're in as the Jews. The difference is that while Christians are naive, gullible and stupid,
their motivations are essentially good even if the outcome is bad.
This shows you don't even understand leftiest leadership in the US or EU. They are mostly
secular, not Christian. They are not manipulated children. They know exactly what they are
doing and fully intend to
transform the US into Brazil.
Whites like Edwards and Beto are not the pawns of some Jewish indoctrination project. They
know full well that they are lying to the public. Nothing on this website would surprise
them. You could tell them all about Jewish lobbies or Jews in the NKVD and they wouldn't
care. Leftists have an egalitarian vision and don't care about what you have to say.
@John
Johnson Can we agree that a person needn't actually be a believer himself to carry the
ideals that the religion espoused?
Marx may have never worn a yarmulke or even believed in God but that doesn't mean that his
actions, perhaps unconsciously, weren't rooted in Jewish ideals. And every single SJW, even
the most stridently atheist, is animated by Christian ideals about making the world a better
place.
Bottom line – Whites are in the sorry state we're in because of both Jews and
Christians but Jews were, and are, motivated by a poisonous hatred of Whites. We'll have to
deal with dumb Christians and SJWs on our own, we don't need Jews with all their money, power
and hate helping them.
You're right though; Before we can tackle the Jewish problem we have to clean our own
house first.
Actually the Establishment is doing fine: the government employs more people, spends more
money, and exerts more influence than ever, while big tech censors legitimate
opposition/dissent.
It's the American people who are screwed by being chained to this freak show by the
coercive tax system, especially when it's obvious voting makes no difference.
"Already, the odds of a modern 30-50-year-old dying from suicide, alcohol, or drugs in
America are 10 times as high as the odds an 18-35-year-old in 1960 had of dying in
Vietnam." https://t.co/RrudZ1cvwX
@Corvinus
Maybe you should contact Gordon Duff over at VT. He'd probably hire you in a New York minute.
It seems that you don't even have the decency to admit that the Impeachment was nothing but a
Deep State orchestrated circus or more accurately farce actually unbelievably promoting the
NeoNazi State of Ukraine as our "ally" who were fighting the evil Rooskies on our behalf.
Number one. Why would it be in the interest of the American people to get involved in a
proxy war with Russia? A nation that happens to have more nukes and a more effective and
deadlier method of delivering them than we do. According to military analysts we are at least
two decades behind them.
Next even if Russia was a valid target. They are not attacking Russia they are attacking
Dombass, dumb ass which happens to be a breakaway region of Ukraine.
Two. Talk about being low life sniffling scum they embrace John Bolton the epitome of
Neocon subversion as an "ally". Just shows how low the establishment demoncrats have sank
proving that they have no moral compass whatsoever and like the CIA the ends justify the
means.
What you and the DemonCrats have shown is that you aren't any better than Trumpenstein but
probably in many ways far worse.
@Corvinus
Hey Corvinus,
The Democrats swung and missed. It was a Hail Mary effort that was bound to fail but their
blind hatred of Trump would not allow them to see the inevitable outcome. The Democrats
simply can't accept that their annotated one (Hillary) was just not Presidential timber, but
many voting Americans could see it. You lost in 2016 and you will lose the Presidency in
2020, almost certainly. If you lose the house too that will simply be the icing on the cake.
Democrats will then be relegated to the sidelines and will be able to do nothing but squall
impotently from the dark spaces they all inhabit. I await your lamenting and gnashing of
teeth after Nov.
The Democratic party may be done for a decade because of this. Their continued actions
have damaged themselves and strengthened Trump but their denial does not allow them to see
it.
Democrats are like the tranny males they claim to espouse. When they look in the mirror
the reflection they see is that of a beautiful girl. But in reality all they are is just a
bunch of dicks.
@Johnny
SmogginsAnd every single SJW, even the most stridently atheist, is animated by
Christian ideals about making the world a better place.
Bottom line – Whites are in the sorry state we're in because of both Jews and
Christians but Jews were, and are, motivated by a poisonous hatred of Whites. We'll have to
deal with dumb Christians and SJWs on our own, we don't need Jews with all their money, power
and hate helping them.
I don't actually believe this is the case and I'm not trying to be argumentative.
If Christianity is the underlying problem then European countries with greater declines in
Christianity should see less support for liberalism. Children raised in secular households
should be less like to be liberal.
This hasn't happened and in fact the opposite is true. Sweden is very secular and very
leftist. Children raised in secular homes are far more likely to be liberal. The data is
clear on this.
We aren't dealing with Christianity or some pseudo form. We are dealing with a new
egalitarian religion called liberalism. The leaders are secular are fully conscious of what
they are doing. If anything Christianity in the right form can provide a layer of
inoculation.
So no I don't think blaming Jews or Christians is valid or helpful.
@Corvinus
Hey. Some Democrat candidates got what they wanted. Old Joe Biden barely survived Iowa, which
was not unintended collateral damage, but rather very intended and targeted. I can imagine
Elizabeth Warren's fingerprints all over this one.
We will see in November exactly who was too clever by half.
@John
Johnson "This hasn't happened and in fact the opposite is true. Sweden is very secular
and very leftist" Sweden is not as 'leftist' as often portrayed. In the last election the
Social Democrats fell to their lowest vote share in over 100 years. They were reduced to only
100 seats in the Riksdag (less than a 1/3)& formed a minority coalition govt. with the
Greens & Commies comprising only 144 seats. The centrist Alliance coalition picked up 143
seats & the rising stars – the right-wing Sweden Democrats, rose to 62 seats. The
coalition was slightly revamped after an early vote of no-confidence but the Social Democrats
are waning & the centrist & right-wing Parties are gaining. The most recent polls in
the country show the Sweden Democrats actually running ahead of the Social Democrats now,
making it the most popular Party in the country at this time. Most of those "Johnson's"
aren't very leftist anymore. But this still doesn't detract from the fact that Christianity
is NOT the problem. After all, our greatest living pundit, Pat Buchanan, is Christian &
he's no raving, leftist loony.
Like a coup really matters when Trump has turned into either Jeb Bush or Lindsey Grahamnesty
without the lisp and the drawl. Trump has become orange Jebulus. He's not the Donald Trump I
voted for in 2016. The Potomoc fever bug finally bit him.
At Trump's State of the Zionist Union speech (SOTZU) he received raucous applause and
shouts of "four more years" from the Republican side of the chamber. Most of these people
used to oppose him but now that Trump has sold out to the deep state (if he ever really
opposed it in the first place), especially on foreign policy, they love him and have accepted
him as one of their own.
@SolontoCroesus
Not to worry, Pelosi got her revenge last night when she churlishly tore up her copy of
Trump's SOTU address right after he was done speaking. What a classless little tramp that
woman is.
Is it not true, though, that the three biggest Jewish plotters in Congress (Schiff,
Nadler, and Schumer) have been equally humiliated?
Hillary Clinton, Nany Pelosi and her likes have poisoned deaply the democratic party without
any chance of cure soon.
Revenge for their humiliation has been the engine behind the Muller trial and the impeachment
circus.
They failed dramatically and now the DNC is not only more humiliated but it has lost the
little credibility it still had.
Only an old fashioned democrat leader can bring back confidence in the democratic ideology
that has been lost by Hillary and Cie. It seems too late for this to happen and Trump will be
back . As it is expected that the economy in the US may enter into a recession in the second
term, why taking away from him the humiliation he will face?
@swampedSweden Democrats actually running ahead of the Social Democrats now, making it the most
popular Party in the country at this time. Most of those "Johnson's" aren't very leftist
anymore. But this still doesn't detract from the fact that Christianity is NOT the
problem.
They have around 20% of the vote which is significant but the majority still buys into
mainstream leftist BS.
After all, our greatest living pundit, Pat Buchanan, is Christian & he's no raving,
leftist loony.
Good point and quite ironic that we have someone here blaming Christians when PB is a
stalworth against the left. Some of the strongest anti-left parties in Europe are in Eastern
Europe where support for the church is strong. The belief that secularism undermines
liberalism simply doesn't match the data. If anything it seems that secular Whites double
down on liberalism because they don't have a religion.
It is Feb 5th and teh US Senate has absolve the President, thus ending 4yrs of endless
Conspiracies, coups and impeachments. Trump has emerge victorious and single handedly destroy
the DEMs party , this in spite of the Fake news establishment, the deepstate and people
within his own innercircle. Trump with the support of the American Deplorables have defeated
the DEM/LEFT/Antifa continues attacks. BUT it seems that the GOP does NOT understand, realize
the golden historical unprecendentes opportunity to REnake the party, rolled back the Great
BLUE wave that never was. The GOP is poised to recover the House, turn the Blue states RED
again. IF the GOP does NOT keep this momentum going, if they break their inner discipline, or
the GOP makes the ILL mistake to sabotage Trump the GOP will go back to playing second fiddle
to the DEMs and will probably lose their best chance to REmake, REimagine, REorganize,
REdefine REunite the GOP and the Conervative movement in America Trumpism is on the March..
@Crazy
Horse "It seems that you don't even have the decency to admit that the Impeachment was
nothing but a Deep State orchestrated circus or more accurately farce actually unbelievably
promoting the NeoNazi State of Ukraine as our "ally" who were fighting the evil Rooskies on
our behalf."
Why are you spreading Fake News?
"Why would it be in the interest of the American people to get involved in a proxy war
with Russia?"
I never directly nor indirectly made any comment about this situation. Pray tell, are you
a Russian troll?
"Talk about being low life sniffling scum they embrace John Bolton the epitome of Neocon
subversion as an "ally"."
Why not let him, the Bidens, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Guiliani, and Parnas have the opportunity
to speak before the Senate if it was the "perfect call"? What does Trump have to hide?
Furthermore, do you support any president digging up dirt on a political rival while in
office by way of a proxy?
Actually, democracy swung and missed. But there are over two dozen investigations taking
place relating to Trump and his associates, and more information will be coming about the
Ukraine fiasco.
"The Democrats simply can't accept that their annotated one (Hillary) was just not
Presidential timber, but many voting Americans could see it."
Actually, she won the popular vote. But I do agree that she was, along with Trump, not
"presidential timber".
"You lost in 2016 and you will lose the Presidency in 2020 "
I didn't run. Moreover, I'm an educated white married man who makes his own decisions
about politics, race, and culture. You?
What this impeachment hoax so rawly exposes is that the politicians who brought on the
impeachment and voted in favor of it (and that includes Romney) think very little, in fact,
nothing about what Joe Biden and his son did. They think it was perfectly OK. What that
should tell everyone is that they too would do (if they haven't already) the same thing given
the opportunity as Congressmen, Senators, a Vice President, or President. They would fill
their pockets and the pockets of their families given the same opportunity. People should
reflect on that next time these people run for office.
@Corvinus
Russian troll? My question is are you a moron? You don't have to answer because the question
is rhetorical.
Seems anyone who disagrees with dipshits like you must be "agents of Putin Inc". McCarthy
would be sooo proud of brain dead assholes like you and to answer your question. NO!
@Virgile
They lost whatever credibility they had by rigging the primary and accusing anyone that
disagreed with the Queen of the Damned that they must be a Russian Troll or Agent. Corvinus
perfectly epitomizes this idiocy.
@Corvinus
"Won" the popular vote is a consolation prize in a presidential election. Besides that's
questionable due to the fact she "won" 1) in states that used Soros owned Smartmatic Voting
Machines 2) reported votes that far exceeded the number eligible voters registered. For
instance LA County reported that 145% of eligible voters "voted" in the last general
election.
"includes Romney) think very little, in fact, nothing about what Joe Biden and his
son did."
Anastasia, it's not disputed that Romney has a least one close associate who worked with
Hunter, but actually in the Ukraine, at Burisma; but I don't believe that's Romney's angle
here.
I think Romney is setting up to run 3rd party for President. Of course the objective will
not be to become the next president: it will be to take out Trump, and make possible a
Bloomberg victory. I would guess Romney will hold off announcement as long as possible to
ensure maximum chaos. Doesn't even need to make all the state ballots to achieve
"victory".
It should be clear on what the fight is really about in the US. It's about stopping the rise
of socialism. Regardless of party affiliation, the elites know what the populace wants and
are desperately trying to stop it. I refuse to accept that the Democrats have no idea what
they're doing.
I honestly can't see Sanders getting the nomination with all the corruption openly being
displayed. I would be pleasantly surprised if Sanders did manage to get it, but he still have
to deal with the ELECTORAL COLLEGE (EC). The Electors have the final say. Yes, one can point
out that some States have laws forcing Electors to vote what the populace wants, but that is
being challenged in court. The debate on whether such laws are unconstitutional or not,
remains to be seen. It's too late now to deal with the EC for this election, but people need
to be more active in politics at the State level as that's where Electors are (s)elected.
IF Sanders is genuine then he should prepare to run as an independent just to get the EC
attention.
RR @ 14;
Everything in the U$A today, is driven by the unofficial Party of $, and it's reach
transcends both Dems & repubs. It's cadre is the majority of the D.C. "rule makers", so
we get what they want, not what "we the people" want or need.
They own the banks, MSM media, and even our voting systems.
IMO, to assume one party is to blame for conditions in the U$A is a bit naive.
Question is, can anything the masses do, change the system? Or is rank and file America
just along for the ride?
I'm assuming us peons will get what the party of $ wants this November also.
P.S. If any blame is given, it needs to go to the American public, because " you get the
kind of Gov. you deserve" through your inactions...
It's a lot like living, death is certain, but until that occurs, I'll move forward trying
to mitigate current paradigms.
Posted by: Jane |
02 February 2020 at 03:10 PM Trump's mistake was taking ownership of the economy when it
was starting to soar, then pumping cheap money into it and inflating bubbles. As a result, when
it crashes as it surely will, the Democrats will tie it around his neck.
Posted by: Ken |
02 February 2020 at 03:54 PM i thought printing endless amounts of money backed by the
biggest military was a good definition of socialism... isn't boeing in need of another handout?
the banks will need to get bailed again like they did in 2008.. that's the cliff we're all
approaching.. usa political theatre pales in comparison..
Posted by: james |
02 February 2020 at 05:36 PM Sir;
I guess I'll have to be the one to stand up and "take one" for Sanders.
We are in agreement that the present iteration of the Democrat Party is a freak show.
However, the Democrat Party once ruled America with a semi-socialist program. This was after
FDR saved unfettered capitalism from itself. Remember the Bonus March and all the outright
violent strikes? On each wing were such luminaries as Father Coughlin and Huey Long. The New
Deal and then WW-2 saved America from ruin.
That said, I'll state that Sanders is no Trotskyite. He does not call for the destruction of
the government. Indeed, he seems to want to return the American governing system to that which
ran America under such "Commies" as Eisenhower and Truman.
Bill Clinton and later Barak Obama sold the American working classes a bill of goods. Most
policies that these two enacted mainly benefited the upper classes, not the formerly
traditional Democrat base, the working classes. Despite the paper improvements to the American
economy, most "average" people are seeing their standards of living fall. The anger at that,
and the dawning realization of having been sold out by the Democrat Party can be credited with
helping Trump win in 2016, that and the abysmal campaign run by the Clinton organization.
I'll end by mentioning a saying from antiquity: "Moderation in all things."
Yes. The older conservatives who comment here don't get the appeal of Bernie Sanders. I
mean, that he went to the Soviet Union back in the bronze age is the best criticism they can
come up with? The Soviet Union was dissolved almost thirty years ago, for pete's sake.
(Something the current corporatist Dems seem to have forgotten in their faked up
Russia-Russia-Russia hysteria, but I digress). In a nation that is eating its young in so many
ways, not least subjecting them to perpetual debt servitude (thx Joe Biden), Sanders' message
of tangible benefits for ALL CITIZENS, especially wresting control of the medical system, a
public good, out of the hands of the filthiest profiteers in the world to benefit everybody has
a universal appeal.
Just wait - if the Democraps don't succeed in cheating Bernie out of the nomination like
they did last time, he will be hard for Trump to beat. If they do cheat him in favor of
Bloomberg or Klobuchar, Trump will get the largest majority ever.
I also want the Democratic Party to return to the days when it was the party of the working
man.
I support some of what they want to do but the identity politics is a big turnoff for many
people who would otherwise support them, as is their movement towards a virtual open borders
policy.
What Sanders and Warren want will cost too much and never get through Congress yet its
idealism is appealing. The more moderate candidates have their appeal but aren't doing so well;
maybe they will do better as the race goes on. Trump has many faults and I criticize him every
day yet I just might end up voting for him over immigration.
Both parties are far apart on some big issues. Obama and Trump were both stymied by their
inability to get legislation passed and used executive orders too much. I expect a repeat of
that in the next four years whoever gets elected.
allow me to add a few snippets from patrick martin's ' On eve of Iowa caucuses Corporate
media and Democratic establishment target Sanders ' 3 February 2020 ,
wsws.org
'With polls showing Sanders holding a narrow lead over former Vice President Joe Biden
and a half dozen other rivals in Iowa, and tied with Biden nationally, the media barrage
has become, in all but name, a stop-Sanders campaign.
No less than five separate commentaries, including op-eds and articles purporting to be
news reports, appeared in the New York Times and Washington Post alone over the weekend,
all of them proclaiming that the nomination of a self-described "democratic socialist"
would be a disaster for the Democrats and guarantee the reelection of President Donald
Trump.
At the same time, defeated 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton stepped up her attack
on Sanders, while other leading Democratic Party insiders joined the effort. The Democratic
National Committee (DNC) announced Friday a rule change in determining eligibility for the
debates that would open the door to billionaire Michael Bloomberg, and some DNC members
were openly discussing proposed rules changes at the Democratic nominating convention to
block Sanders.
The actual outcome of the Iowa caucuses remains highly uncertain, but Sanders continues
to draw by far the largest crowds -- more than 3,000 for a rally Saturday night in Cedar
Rapids -- and registers the widest support among youth and working people. One poll showed
that among voters under the age of 50, Sanders led with 44 percent. Senator Elizabeth
Warren followed with 10 percent, and no other candidate, including Biden, reached double
digits.
Perhaps the most open display of media hostility to Sanders came in the Sunday edition
of the Washington Post -- owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos, owner of Amazon and a frequent
target of Sanders' criticism. The front page of the newspaper carried the unsubtle
headline, "Sanders and the specter of socialism" The central thrust of the article was that
Trump would make mincemeat of Sanders in the general election by means of red-baiting
vilification of "radical socialist Democrats."
A lengthy commentary inside the newspaper, written by Dartmouth Professor Brendan Nyhan,
bemoaned the fact that the Democratic rivals of Sanders weren't "going negative" on him in
the way that Trump inevitably would. Summing up the red-baiting that he claimed the Vermont
senator deserved, Nyhan asked:
How many Americans know that Sanders is not just an avowed democratic socialist but a
former supporter of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, which wanted to abolish the
federal defense budget and supported "solidarity" with revolutionary regimes like Iran's
and Cuba's? Do people know that he spoke positively about Fidel Castro and the Cuban
revolution ("a very profound and very deep revolution") and even praised the Soviet Union
and criticized the United States during a honeymoon trip to the USSR?
Op-ed columnists in the New York Times were equally McCarthyite. Timothy Egan argued,
under the headline "Bernie Sanders Can't Win," that what he called "class loathing" of the
billionaires was not a viable electoral appeal. Echoing Nyhan, Egan wrote:
The next month presents the last chance for serious scrutiny of Sanders, who is
leading in both Iowa and New Hampshire. After that, Republicans will rip the bark off
him. When they're done, you will not recognize the aging, mouth-frothing,
business-destroying commie from Ben and Jerry's dystopian dairy. Demagogy is what
Republicans do best. And Sanders is ripe for caricature.
[Get a load of this hilarity (ya couldn't make this shit up if ya tried!!!!]
There was even a report by NBC News that former Secretary of State John Kerry , the
defeated Democratic presidential candidate in 2004 against George W. Bush, was overheard
Sunday on the phone at a Des Moines hotel discussing entering the presidential race himself
because of "the possibility of Bernie Sanders taking down the Democratic Party -- down
whole."
Kerry reportedly expressed regret that he would have to resign from the board of Bank of
America and give up lucrative paid speeches, but could expect wealthy donors to provide
backing because they "now have the reality of Bernie."
..................................................
At a Sanders rally Friday night, Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan responded to
Clinton's attack by booing the mention of her name. By the next day, Tlaib had been
compelled to issue a statement of regret and she was left off the speakers list at the next
Sanders rally.
The candidate himself, as one report described it, "went out of his way to be
deferential to his opponents," and reiterated that he would support whoever won the
Democratic nomination contest.
......................................................
There was a report in Politico that members of the DNC have begun privately discussing a
change in the convention rules to allow so-called super-delegates -- elected officials and
members of the DNC -- to vote on the first ballot of the presidential nomination . Under
current rules, they have no vote on the first ballot, which is reserved to delegates chosen
in primaries and caucuses, and can vote only if no candidate has an initial majority and
the contest goes to a second ballot. Such a change would be transparently aimed at blocking
a first-ballot win by Sanders.'
Furthermore, first generation immigrants don't want to replicate their culture, they want
the American dream. Their grandchildren might want to "identify" as hispanic, etc., but not
their parents or grandparents. Identity politics only plays in the white middle classes.
"... Yes, Gabbard is polling low but if you look at poll numbers versus money spent and/or raised to this point, she's clearly got cache and the ability to build a real following. And as the field shrinks those distractions become irrelevant. Her poll numbers are rising the more the field winnows. ..."
"... Bernie is surging in the early states and panic is setting in with the DNC. And they must have a plan to stop him from running away with the nomination otherwise we could have two outsiders headlining this fall's reality show. ..."
"... Of the people running for President as Democrats the only person less acceptable to Wall St. than Elizabeth Warren is Bernie Sanders. Warren's entire campaign has been designed to push Bernie farther left by out-lefting him at every turn. Bernie says 70% top marginal tax rate, Warren says 77%. Bernie wants debt restructuring? Warren says forgive all student loan debt. ..."
"... Her job is to make Bernie as unacceptable to mainstream U.S. voters as possible. Unfortunately, that makes Bernie more and more acceptable to a lot of people voting in the Democratic primaries. And this Catch-22 is beginning to show up in the polls for Iowa and New Hampshire. ..."
"... there's the serious money behind Pete Buttigieg trying to create slightly gayer version of Barack Obama ..."
"... Gabbard is not running for re-election in Hawaii. She says she's committed to running for President. I don't think she's getting the nomination and, frankly, I don't think she is either. ..."
"... Gabbard denies any kind of third party run, getting the Ron Paul treatment from the media. But, she's a very acceptable person to a lot of disaffected Trump voters like myself. She speaks to them and can help carry Bernie as his running mate if he somehow makes it through the convention to be the Democratic nominee. ..."
"... So, yes, Gabbard isn't running for re-election because she's running as Sanders' Vice-Presidential candidate. ..."
"... Gabbard has burned all the bridges within the DNC she can, almost gleefully. That makes her a person of integrity, of authenticity, in a U.S. political wasteland of charlatans, reality show hucksters and outright thieves. ..."
Recent
events have me more convinced than ever that she will be returning, like some zombie whose head we
forgot to cut off, to haunt voters one more time this fall.
After the beginning of an obvious (and planned) PR campaign last week with the release of a big
campaign ad
documentary on Netflix and a big splash
in the Hollywood Reporter Hillary finally stopped being coy. And she announced this week that
she now 'has the urge' to run again against Donald Trump.
Save us, please, from Hillary's urges . Shudder.
And she did so making sure that everyone knew what she thought of the real front-runner for the
nomination, Bernie Sanders.
As various anointed ones have dropped out of the race – Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Robert O'Rourke
– others have faltered despite huge ad spends while the media and pollsters do their level best to
convince us all that Joe Biden's a serious candidate to take on Donald Trump this fall.
In fact, the only reason Biden is still in the race is to make the impeachment theater going on
right now seem relevant and cogent. But, like Biden himself, it is neither.
Then again neither is Hillary, but never underestimate this woman's narcissistic solipsism.
If you look back on the race to date it's clear that most of the people running are there to try
and distract voters away from the two candidates that resonate most with voters, Bernie Sanders and
Tulsi Gabbard.
Yes, Gabbard is polling low but if you look at poll numbers versus money spent and/or raised to
this point, she's clearly got cache and the ability to build a real following. And as the field
shrinks those distractions become irrelevant. Her poll numbers are rising the more the field winnows.
Neither of them is acceptable in any way to the DNC. They are outsiders within their party. I'm no
fan of Bernie Sanders. In fact, I think he's a terrible candidate -- because, you know, commie! -- but
that's not the point of this article.
Bernie is surging in the early states and panic is setting in with the DNC. And they must have a
plan to stop him from running away with the nomination otherwise we could have two outsiders
headlining this fall's reality show.
And that plan starts with the impeachment and potential removal of Donald Trump.
The impeachment is a distraction for Trump but it is a real problem for the Senators running for
the Democratic nomination. They have to spend all day listening to Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler lie
while they could be out campaigning and raising money.
This hurts Bernie the most because Bernie is the one who will get zero help from the DNC's big
donors. None of them are behind him and with good reason. He's hostile to most of them (and most of us
as well, but that's a different article).
Of the people running for President as Democrats the only person less acceptable to Wall St. than
Elizabeth Warren is Bernie Sanders. Warren's entire campaign has been designed to push Bernie farther
left by out-lefting him at every turn. Bernie says 70% top marginal tax rate, Warren says 77%. Bernie
wants debt restructuring? Warren says forgive all student loan debt.
Her job is to make Bernie as unacceptable to mainstream U.S. voters as possible. Unfortunately,
that makes Bernie more and more acceptable to a lot of people voting in the Democratic primaries. And
this Catch-22 is beginning to show up in the polls for Iowa and New Hampshire.
Then there's the serious money behind Pete Buttigieg trying to create slightly gayer version of
Barack Obama. Again, he's just another distraction to suck support away from Sanders and keep the
field relatively close and the odds of an uncommitted primary season high.
Because the goal is to get to a brokered convention this summer. So, the impeachment was slowed
down to hurt Sanders, Warren and Amy Klobuchar and help give Biden the bump he needs to get some
momentum coming into Iowa.
It's not working.
But I also don't think it's going to matter. If you keep watching the headlines the attack dogs are
out in full to discredit and hurt Sanders. They know he's a real force to be reckoned with. And worse,
his attack dog, Gabbard, has been muzzled by keeping her off the debate stage so she can't take anyone
else out, like she roasted that pig Kamala Harris last summer.
But I truly feel the DNC is looking to steal the nomination again from Sanders. And the impeachment
of Trump continues to somehow, against all odds, get worse for him, even though his party is supposed
to be in charge of the proceedings.
I told everyone back in September
when Nancy Pelosi announced she was going through with the
impeachment process that this was all about getting rid of Trump. But it was in October when Hillary
went after Tulsi Gabbard that Gabbard's response was beyond epic and I wrote about it then.
Great! Thank you
@HillaryClinton
. You, the
queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the
Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I
announced my candidacy, there has been a
Gabbard throws down the gauntlet here outing Hillary as the mastermind behind the DNC strategy of
allowing the current crop of future losers to fall all over themselves to alienate as many centrist
voters as possible.
This paves the way for Hillary to swoop in on her broom, pointed hat in hand, and declare herself
the savior of the Democratic Party's chances to defeat Donald Trump next November.
So, Hillary's running, the DNC is trying to stop Bernie and Tulsi Gabbard is still an also-ran in
New Hampshire and Iowa, polling between 5% and 7%. So what?
Well, I feel at this point it's been game-planned by Gabbard and Sanders that they know what's
coming. I felt the endorsement from Joe Rogan of Sanders was timed to distract from Hillary's attack
on Bernie in that Hollywood Reporter piece.
Rogan is far more influential than the dead tree media Hillary's publicist works with. And her
attack dogs were out in full to attack Rogan and smear Sanders with their typical guilt-by-association
nonsense.
I don't tweet much folks, but this one gets to the truth of what's going on in the murk and slime
of Democratic Party politics.
If you ever wanted proof that hyper-sensitive identity politics was nothing
more than a cheap political tool of the worst kind. I give you Joe Rogan is a Nazi.
Sanders and Gabbard know the DNC is out to destroy him. And the question then becomes what's next?
What do they do to combat this? Gabbard is not running for re-election in Hawaii. She says she's
committed to running for President. I don't think she's getting the nomination and, frankly, I don't
think she is either.
She just filed a defamation of character lawsuit against Hillary for the smears Hillary threw
around I linked to above. She puts financial pressure on Hillary knowing that the Clintons couldn't
drum up support and dollars last year during their expensive speaking tour no one went to.
Gabbard denies any kind of third party run, getting the Ron Paul treatment from the media. But,
she's a very acceptable person to a lot of disaffected Trump voters like myself. She speaks to them
and can help carry Bernie as his running mate if he somehow makes it through the convention to be the
Democratic nominee.
So, yes, Gabbard isn't running for re-election because she's running as Sanders' Vice-Presidential
candidate.
And it may not be for the Democratic party in the end. That's the part you have to factor in here.
Game-planning this out, these two are running a real insurgency within the DNC to either get the
nomination or split off and run as Independents. This is Bernie's last kick at the can. He's already
gotten the gold watch from the DNC in 2016, living the high life only a high member of the Politburo
can.
Gabbard has burned all the bridges within the DNC she can, almost gleefully. That makes her a
person of integrity, of authenticity, in a U.S. political wasteland of charlatans, reality show
hucksters and outright thieves.
The quicker she climbs out of the basement in Pelosi's House, the better off she'll be.
... ... ...
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture
Foundation.
"No other 2020 candidate for president, including Donald Trump, can come close to matching
Bernie Sanders' level of support among members of the U.S. military, to go by the most recent
campaign finance data from the Federal Election Commission.
Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines have donated a total of $185,625 to Sen. Sanders'
2020 campaign. By comparison, they have given $113,012 to Trump, $80,250 to Pete Buttigieg,
$64,604 to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and a relatively paltry $33,045 to former Vice President Joe
Biden, according to Doug Weber, a senior researcher at the Center for Responsive Politics."
In 2016, the Iowa results were Clinton 49.8 and Sanders
49.6⁉️⁉️⁉️⁉️
Bernie was leading Biden in Iowa by 4 to 5 points last week and today's poll has each of
them leading the rest with a 25% to 25% TIE, when Bernie had the clear MOMENTUM. Is the
establishment manipulating the polls to justify another razor thin win against Bernie???
One poll didn't even get published because the press pollster claims they forgot to
include Buttigieg. BULL.
The DNC is using a multi-pronged strategy to sabotage and derail the Sanders campaign because
not only does he have the majority of the Left behind him and is surging in the polls as a
result, but he also has the best chance of defeating Trump, because he has an energized
movement behind him, he is generating all the excitement and like Trump, yes, you bet, he
has a badass army of mthrfckers ready to defend him!
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) announced Friday afternoon that the criteria for
making the debate stage will no longer include a requirement about individual donors --
allowing Bloomberg, whose campaign is largely self-funded, to join the candidates if his
polling numbers reach the new threshold.
Comedian and writer Jack Allison took a wry look at
the changes and what they mean about the party. "Remember when they wouldn't even think of
changing them for like Cory Booker," Allison tweeted . "This is what we
mean when we talk about the DNC cheating, obviously and out in the open."
"Thankfully seeing Bloomberg speak can only hurt his standing," Allison added,
"but still."
But it was outspoken filmmaker Michael Moore that really went off on the DNC's decision.
Speaking Friday night at a Sanders rally in Clive, Iowa, Moore went on an expletive-filled rant
against the party.
Gosh Bernie, haven't you read about yourself in Profiles of Corruption . If you can
be corrupt why can't the DNC be corrupt? It's only fair. How do you expect the people running
the DNC to become millionaires like you? Shouldn't they be able to pocket a little of Mike
Bloomberg's $325,000? Don't be a poor loser. Maintain dignity.
As the Democratic primaries near, the usual chorus of Democratic-establishment pundits have
emerged to remind Americans that their party needs to remain "moderate" and appeal to "the
center" if it wants to win the presidency. The calls for moderation are pervasive in commentary
from the New York
Times ,
the Hill , and the Wall
Street Journal , among others.
Most recent is a January New York Times op-ed
from Ezra Klein, entitled "Why Democrats Still Have to Appeal to the Center, but Republicans
Don't."
Klein is the sort of pundit who likes to drape his political prescriptions in empirical
social science data, thereby adding the appearance of legitimacy to what are neoliberal
Democratic talking points. He warns primary voters that "Democrats can't win running the kinds
of campaigns and deploying the kinds of tactics that succeed for Republicans. They can move to
the left but they can't abandon the center or, given the geography of American politics, the
center-right, and still hold power."
Klein draws on statistics describing the demographic foundations of Democratic and
Republican Party support, claiming that Democrats must appeal to Americans of many different
backgrounds. Democrats are "more diverse," drawing support from "a coalition of liberal whites,
African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and mixed-race voters," in addition to "liberal and
nonwhite Christians, Jews, Muslims, New Agers, agnostics, Buddhists, and so on winning the
Democratic primary means winning liberal whites in New Hampshire and traditionalist blacks in
South Carolina. It means talking to Irish Catholics in Boston and atheists in San Francisco."
In contrast, Klein points out that the Republican Party is primarily comprised of white voters,
with "three-quarters of Republicans identify[ing] as conservative, while only half of Democrats
call themselves liberals."
Klein believes that "to win power, Democrats don't just need to appeal to the voter in the
middle. They need to appeal to voters to the right of the middle." Republicans, to the
contrary, rely on undemocratic entities like the Electoral College and the suppression of
minority voters to win elections, while relying disproportionately on white conservative
supporters who vote in high numbers, despite the party's steadily "shrinking constituency."
But Klein's narrative is largely a regurgitation of an old establishment Democratic trope
that's been crammed down Americans' throats for the last three decades. The notion that
moderate pro-business Democrats are the party's only chance to win office traces back to the
rise of Bill Clinton's "New Democrat" "third way" coalition, which is defined by center-left
social politics and conservative, pro-business economic policies in favor of deregulation, free
trade, corporate tax cuts, and attacks on the welfare state. I'm intimately the narrative of
the "electable" neoliberal Democrat in my own line of work as a professor. Most social
scientists, after all, are milquetoast liberals, so claims that only establishment Democrats
can win abound in the halls of higher education.
Things Change
The claim that only neoliberal Democrats are viable candidates has been exposed in the era
of Donald Trump. Trump's election demonstrates that candidates don't need to appeal to the
"center" to win. Reactionary media and political leaders have been pulling Republican voters to
the right for decades. Given this shift, the vast majority of Republican voters are willing to
vote for most any right-wing candidate running in the general election, so long as they aren't
a Democrat. Claims were commonly made in
2016 that Trump would spell doom for the Republican Party, since his brazenly xenophobic,
racist, sexist, and authoritarian rhetoric would never appeal to moderate Republican voters.
Clearly, this wasn't the case; an overwhelming 88
percent of Republican voters turned out in favor of Trump.
Klein recognizes that Republicans no longer need to rely on moderation to win because of the
rightward movement of the party. But he and other Democrats have no insight into what is
politically possible, were the Democratic Party to commit to building a durable popular base in
pursuit of progressive change. And establishment Democrats have no vision for how to make their
party relevant at a time when nearly half of Americans don't bother to vote, and when the vast
majority of Americans express
little to no trust in government. As a neoliberal entity, the party is fundamentally incapable
of operating as a democratic medium for raising support among disadvantaged
groups.
Sanders' Appeal
Bernie Sanders' rise in the 2016 Democratic primary provides more evidence to challenge
traditional neoliberal notions of "electability." As I've
documented , the mainstreaming of Sanders' progressive agenda was revealed in polling at
the time, which found that one quarter of Democrats in 2016 believed Sanders' identification as
a "democratic socialist" made him more electable, while less than one in ten felt it made him
less so, and with two-thirds who thought it made "no difference." In other words, 90 percent of
Democrats felt the "socialism" stigma was irrelevant to their political calculations. Such
sentiment undermines the notion that only neoliberal Democrats can appeal to voters.
Looking at the 2016 election, we see the poverty behind the claim that Americans thirst for
a neoliberal Democrat. Hillary Clinton, the quintessential corporate-friendly politician,
failed to defeat one of the most unpopular presidential candidates in modern history. And her
party stumbled badly when it came to cultivating support from economically vulnerable
Americans.
As documented at the time, Donald Trump did not gain disaffected voters who were harmed by
manufacturing outsourcing, so much as pro-free trade Democrats lost them. The Democratic Party
lost
3.5 times as many votes from those living in rustbelt areas hardest hit by corporate free trade
than Republicans gained, when comparing Republican and Democratic presidential vote tallies
from 2012 and 2016.
The story of the modern Democratic Party is one of demobilizing working-class Americans.
This is hardly a radical claim, or one lacking historical foundation. The party shamelessly
embraced center-right pro-business policies for the last 25 years, and as a result has failed
to build a stable coalition that can consistently win and hold political
power.
Neoliberalism in Freefall
Looking at the 2020 Democratic primaries, we again see the limits of Democratic centrism.
Polling data in the run-up to the primaries demonstrates that those depicted as the most
"electable" Democratic candidates benefit from little to no support from disadvantaged
socio-economic groups. Pete Buttigieg, a neoliberal Democrat if there ever was one, receives
virtually
no support from people of color and from the less educated. Joe Biden's campaign has done
little to nothing to inspire support from younger and poorer Americans. An overwhelming 73
percent of his
supporters are 50 and older, while just 7 percent are 18-29, and only 19 percent are 30-49,
for a total of just 26 percent who are under 50. Elizabeth Warren
polls well among whites, liberals, and those with a college education, but not so well with
everyone else. She benefits from little enthusiasm from people of color, who
make up just 4 percent of her supporters.
By comparison, Bernie Sanders
does better among disadvantaged groups. Looking at generational cohorts, Sanders' largest
group of supporters are 18-29-year olds, followed by 30 to 49-year olds. He receives six times
more support from the 18-29 age group than he does from those 65 and over. He is more likely to
be
supported by liberals, and he receives a range of support from different educational
groups, including high school graduates, and those with two and four-year college degrees.
Sanders also
polls well among black, white, and LatinX voters, in contrast to Buttigieg and Warren.
Finally, Sanders' support is significantly
higher among middle and lower income Americans. He is more than two times as likely to
receive support from Americans with moderate to low incomes (households earning less than
$75,000 a year), compared to those with higher incomes (over $75,000). By comparison, Warren
receives twice as much support from higher income Americans than from those with lower
incomes. Buttigieg
polls equally among higher and lower income groups, while Biden
performs better with higher income over lower income Americans by a ratio of
1.3:1.
Sanders' Problem
Sanders' main challenge moving forward is that he isn't really a Democrat, but a progressive
independent running in the Democratic primaries. And this clearly hurt him in the 2016
election. As I've
documented , Sanders was more likely to receive support from Americans who self-identified
as political independents, not as Democrats. Most Democratic primary voters in 2016 preferred
an establishment candidate of the Clinton variety. This challenge remains moving into the 2020
primaries. Biden is clearly the central establishment figure in the party, and he retains
significant support from the party's sizable centrist, corporate-friendly base, which will be
well represented in primary races across the country.
Nine months out, it's impossible to know how the 2020 general election will turn out. But
based on available evidence, it's clear that the "more of the same" approach to propping up
Democratic neoliberal politics will continue to fail in cultivating sustained mass support. As
an electoral strategy, it's failed to produce consistent Democratic victories, despite the
promises of its adherents over the last few decades. The 2016 election was the most extreme
case of the party's failure, as witnessed by the mass demobilization of formerly Democratic
voters who felt betrayed by the party's pro-business politics. Biden, should he win the
Democratic nomination, will do little to inspire traditionally disadvantaged demographic groups
to vote. Based on pre-election polling data, it's clear that Warren, Buttigieg, and Biden are
incapable of building a progressive electoral coalition that will unite white liberals, the
poor, younger Americans, and people of color.
As a professional politician, Sanders hasn't been central to progressive movement building.
But he has declared support for these movements, via his alliances with Fight for $15, the
Madison protests, and Occupy Wall Street. Contrary to the other Democratic primary candidates,
he recognizes the importance and centrality of such movements to driving progressive political
change. Furthermore, the public is increasingly attuned to the bankruptcy of
Democratic-establishment politics, regardless of what the party's pundits say. Their efforts to
prop-up Bill Clinton's "new Democrat" coalition represent a last desperate gasp of air for a
party that has struggled for years to remain relevant in an era of mass discontent with
government. Sanders' rising popularity in recent primary polling suggests that much of the
party's base hungers for a serious left alternative to the Democrats' pro-business
politics.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) announced Friday afternoon that the criteria for
making the debate stage will no longer include a requirement about individual donors --
allowing Bloomberg, whose campaign is largely self-funded, to join the candidates if his
polling numbers reach the new threshold.
Comedian and writer Jack Allison took a wry look at
the changes and what they mean about the party. "Remember when they wouldn't even think of
changing them for like Cory Booker," Allison tweeted . "This is what we
mean when we talk about the DNC cheating, obviously and out in the open."
"Thankfully seeing Bloomberg speak can only hurt his standing," Allison added,
"but still."
But it was outspoken filmmaker Michael Moore that really went off on the DNC's decision.
Speaking Friday night at a Sanders rally in Clive, Iowa, Moore went on an expletive-filled rant
against the party.
Gosh Bernie, haven't you read about yourself in Profiles of Corruption . If you can
be corrupt why can't the DNC be corrupt? It's only fair. How do you expect the people running
the DNC to become millionaires like you? Shouldn't they be able to pocket a little of Mike
Bloomberg's $325,000? Don't be a poor loser. Maintain dignity.
When/where did he ever talk about reducing the Federal government to its original
constitutional functions? Never.
When/where did he ever talk about re-enforcing the Bill of Rights on the Feds? Never.
When/where did he ever talk about getting rid of the income tax and the IRS? Never.
When/where did he ever talk about getting rid of the FBI, the CIA, the Federal Reserve,
the NSA, the FDA, the CDC, the EPA [all unconstitutional] etc.etc. etc. ad infinitum? Never,
that's when.
He's just another in a long line of big-mouthed, self-important scam artists –
always, was, and always will be.
I feel sorry for the naive individuals who were fooled, and those who continue to be
fooled. Maybe at least some of them have now learned a valuable lesson.
@TG I said over a
year ago, around the time this Orange Cuck Master gave that SOTU speech and reversed almost
every policy promise he made to his 63 million supporters on his #1 most important issue,
i.e., the border wall, deporting illegals, ending DACA on day one, drastically reducing legal
immigration – which is even more destructive to the future of the GOP to win any more
elections than is illegal immigration, the whole package that got people off their sofas and
down to the polls to vote for him – that it was obvious to me that the globalist deep
state had finally gotten their hands on some kind of leverage over him and had finally put
their dog collar around his Orange lying neck.
Was it related to Jeffrey Epstein? Who knows. I'm sure it is possible, with the way
degenerate behavior seems to now run amok within the super rich and elitist circles. Heck,
the morals of the entire country have pretty much descended into the sewer these days.
I think we are in the last days of this empire's history. I see no White knight waiting in
the wings who will ride to the rescue, and if one did emerge – only half of the country
would support them and the other half of totalitarian, sexual and moral degenerates would
want to kill him.
What we need is a collapse and breakup of America.
In what is happening right now around the Bernie Sanders camp and the Elizabeth Warren camp,
there is an opportunity for these supposed ResistanceTM-people to step up their game
significantly.
After all, in this moment, the anti-Berners are certainly stepping up their own game. The
problem is that there is a large asymmetry here: it is a lot easier to take someone like Bernie
down than it is to build him up, in part because the former can rely on every aspect of the
system, from call-out culture and Title IX-type methods to the most nefarious elements of the
Deep State, while the latter has to actually confront these elements for a change.
... ... ... 1. What's going on right now with Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton is the
beginning of sticking the knife back into Bernie's back. These two played a major role in doing
that in 2016, and now they're getting the band back together again. Okay, that's no
mystery.
The real question is, What are Bernie supporters and those who (one way or another) support
the Democrats, going to do about it? When and if Warren and Clinton succeed in taking Bernie
down–and of course Biden and the Obamas are onboard for this, as well–will
Democrats (and Dem-supporting "leftists," etc.) be so blinded by TDS that they'll just say, "Oh
well, we still have to vote for " Warren, Biden, etc.?
I think this runs parallel to what some have said about "letting the CIA help with the
impeachment"–it's truly delusional, reactionary stuff. Likewise, people getting in a huff
because "Bernie called her a liar on national television." No problem, apparently, that Warren
first called Bernie a liar. Even more, no problem that Warren's whole life and career is based
on a lie–a lie that, even now, she justifies with bullshit about how she "just loves her
family so much." (Of course, with only a very few exceptions, I find the Democratic
Party–and the Republican Party–completely unacceptable anyway. They are both
steering media for capitalist power and money. However, unlike my leftist friends who presently
justify supporting the Democrats, in impeachment and in re-taking the White House, "because
they are the lesser evil," I argue that the Democrats are the greater evil, the "best
representatives" of the current form of capitalism, that the Republicans are in at least some
cases the lesser evil, and that Trump is something different from either one.)
2. Accordingly, I think a Trump/Sanders election would be a very good thing. You may know
that I have been writing a long series of articles I have two basic reasons for hoping Sanders
can get the nomination and that there could be a Trump/Sanders election: i. For Sanders to get
the nomination there will have to be a very strong, dedicated, and focused movement, which will
essentially have to defeat the powers-that-be in the Democratic Party and in whatever one wants
to call the agglomeration of power mechanisms that form the establishment and the State.
Sanders will have to do what Trump did with the Republican Party in 2016, except with Sanders
and the power structures he will be up against (and with which he is more compromised than
Trump ever was), this will be much, much harder. I really don't think it can happen -- and
we're seeing major moves in this effort toward eliminating Bernie just in the week that has
passed since I started writing this. However, this does mean that, if Bernie can build (much
further) and lead the movement to seriously address these power structures,
ii. Despite what you and many others say and (I feel) are a bit too desperate to think,
Sanders does have some things in common with Trump, at least thematically -- and a lot of my
arguments in my articles have to do with the importance of these themes being out there, in a
way that they never would have been with any other Republican, Hillary Clinton or any of the
other current frontrunners besides Sanders, and any of the other media with the very important
exceptions of Tucker Carlson, Steve Hilton, and perhaps a couple others on Fox News (perhaps
Laura Ingram) -- and this is not only something that the anti-Trumpers absolutely hate, they
hate it so much that they can't even think about it.
That is, Trump and Sanders have in
common that they 1) profess that they want to do things that improve the lives of ordinary
working people, and 2) profess that they want to draw back militarism.
What I emphasize is that these terms would not even be on the table if it weren't for Trump
-- and yes, to some extent if it weren't for Bernie, but there is a way in which Bernie can
only be out there at all because Trump has put these things on the table.
Rhys Jaggar ,
The thing you are failing to see here is that Trump did nothing particularly special last
time: the Deplorables had simply had enough shit over enough years that their bullshitometers
were fully sensitised.
So they listened to all the Deep State crap and said: 'Screw You! We're all gonna vote
Trump and piss on your friggin' parade!'
They did not think all that deeply, they just were absolutely adamant about what they DID
NOT WANT.
And Trump just said: 'I understand!'
The words 'I understand' are dynamite in politics. They are even more dynamite if it is
said in a roundabout way, but the meaning is crystal clear to the target audience.
If Sanders wants to win, he has to prove to Main Street America that 'HE UNDERSTANDS!'
He will not win speaking down to them, telling them he knows what is best for them.
They have had two generations of that and are absolutely sick and tired of it.
The way to victory for any US Presidential candidate in 2020 is showing that they
understand, they care enough to DO SOMETHING TO HELP and they have the savvy NOT TO GET PUT
ON A SPIKE BY THE DEEP STATE!
Seamus Padraig ,
Sanders will have to do what Trump did with the Republican Party in 2016, except with
Sanders and the power structures he will be up against (and with which he is more
compromised than Trump ever was), this will be much, much harder. I really don't think it
can happen
I agree. For one thing, Bernie is no Trump; he's just not a fighter. Bernie is weak. They
already defrauded him once back in 2016, and he didn't care. He went ahead and endorsed the
woman who cheated him, and he even spent months criss-crossing the country stumping for her!
Have we seen the merest scrap of evidence this year that Bernie finally plans to take the
gloves off? No, we haven't. He's a lot like Jeremy Corbyn in that regard, and just like
Jeremy Corbyn, I predict he will be defeated–not so much by the voters as by 'his own'
party.
but does anyone think there is a shortage of obnoxious jerks around Warren and
Biden?
Just one little word should suffice: Hunter!
I think you'll find that this work is not going to be nearly so easy as what has passed
for "resistance" among the anti-Trump crowd thus far.
What has passed for "resistance" since 2016 is this:
1.) Working for the government for a while to sabotage Trump.
2.) Then, when you get found out and fired by him, getting a multi-million dollar contract
to write some 'tell-all' book about how evil/stupid (take your pick) your ex-boss was.
3.) Then getting invited onto The View to promote it and prattle on about how you
answer to some "higher calling" so that your serial violations of the law don't
matter–as opposed to, say, Trump's serial violations of decorum, which obviously merit
impeachment.
That's exactly what "resistance" means to these wankers, and that's one reason I am proud
to say that I am not a part of it.
lundiel ,
America's most dangerous president was, imo, Obama. Trump has nothing on him, apart from his
delusions over Israel, Trump has tried, and failed, to exercise control over the security
state. Obama worked with the state while he mesmerised us with stunning speeches about
equality and democracy as he signied off on regime change and assassinations.
Should she ever run, Michelle would be at least as dangerous. The Obamas can make people
believe that they are 'on their side'.
Antonym ,
Bernie is a nice guy – too nice: no match for the shark pools from Fairfax county,
Lower Manhattan or the Clinton clan . The 2016 DNC candidate selection revelations proved
this.
The only untainted strong Democratic candidate is Tulsi Gabbard, but she has all
Establishments against her.
wardropper ,
I'd go further and say that the Americans can't win, whoever is leading them.
The pool from which they make their selections was poisoned long ago.
And it makes me very sad to say that.
Our godless society is overflowing with people who long for moral leadership, but who can't
find it in today's Washminster.
Personal pursuit of a decent inner life is always an option, but Washington and Westminster
are addicted to the other kind – the moneyed surface of life.
The way things are right now, it's extremely hard to say how a bridge from one kind to the
other could possibly be built, but I keep looking
paul ,
Sanders is just another irrelevant mediocrity.
Fair dinkum ,
Since Reagan's Presidency, all US elections have been about rearranging the deck chairs on
the Titanic.
The ship may be sinking slowly, but the outcome will be the same.
I'd say it was long before Ronnie got elected to office. Remember it was Carter and Zyb who
got involved in the imperial quick sand of Afghanistan (mixing metaphors here) that is after
being run out of 'Nam by a bunch of angry natives who had gotten tired of America "being a
force for good" by reining "freedom and democracy" on them from the bomb bays of B 52s which
I think is going to a be similar situation to what will soon happen in Iraq if we dawdle too
long.
Elections have in reality become all pomp with no circumstance. Flip a coin and it always
comes up heads. It's a stacked deck that public are asked to play every two years thinking
the odds are in their favor when it never really is. Might as well head to Vegas following
the dusty trail of Hunter S Thompson.
Charlotte Ruse ,
The day FDR dumped Henry Wallace in favor of Harry Truman the US was f–ked.
Seamus Padraig ,
That phase is over. Now that the Titanic's going down, it's no longer about rearranging any
deck chairs, but about fighting over the life boats!
Charlotte Russe ,
It's not all that complicated Obama laid the groundwork ensuring Bernie's defeat when he
interfered in deciding who would Chair the DNC. Tom Perez was Obama's pick. Bernie wanted
Keith Ellison. Perez guaranteed neoliberal centrist Dems would maintain control. Tom Perez
didn't disappoint– his nominations for the 2020 Democratic Convention standing
committees are a like a who's who of centrism. Most of the folks on this "A list" would fit
quite nicely in the Republican Party.
milosevic ,
threaten to abandon the Dems to start a Workers Third Party
actually doing so, would accomplish vastly more than just "threatening", unless anybody is
really hoping for a remake of Hope and Change, which would change nothing except the specific
flavour of Identity Politics secret sauce disguising the foul taste of neoliberal
fascism.
Gall Here's the
point you've missed here Bill and that Bernie had a mass appeal to the Independents that is
until he sold out to the "Democratic" establishment which out of the two parties has to be the
least democratic since it adopted the elitist and plutocratic Super Delegate system that can
ride roughshod over the actual democratic will of the voters.
Of course a cosmetic change has been made that these delegates aren't allowed to vote until
the Convention but as I said it is "cosmetic" since that was originally the way this
undemocratic system was set up in the "Democratic" party until Hillary Clinton used it as a
psychological weapon during that sham called a "primary" to convince the hoi polo that her
nomination or more accurately coronation was already a foregone conclusion.
There is also another factor that most voters are not aware of and that is the so called
"Democratic" party has come up with a dictatorial "by law" that can nullify the result of the
primary if the candidate isn't considered "democratic" enough by the Chairman of the DNC which
in Bernie's case is very possible since technically he is an Independent running as a
"Democrat". This is what Lee Camp the "Nuclear Option".
Personally I gave up on Bernie after he sold out and shilled for that warmongering harpy
Hillary who if elected would accept it as a mandate to launch WW III while ironically trying to
convince us all that the "noninterventionist", "antiwar" candidate was actually the greater of
the two evils.
Yeah right.
Anyway no longer have any faith in the two party system. As far as I'm concerned they can
both go to hell. I've already made my choice:
He probably needs to adjust his message more to appeal to those of us who tend to be more
Libertarian and is not exactly a Russell Means but with a little help from the American Indian
Movement and others can probably "triangulate" his appeal to cover a broader political
spectrum. Instead of what has been traditionally known as the "left". 1 0 Reply Jan 30, 2020
8:56 PM
Paul Spencer ,
See Joe Rogan endorsement. Also, check out the articles from the Ron Paul Insitute for Peace
and Prosperity. The perspective of their main editor, Daniel McAdams, is at least true to the
old Libertarian code of 'leave folks alone'. In today's terms that means quit bombing and
otherwise causing trouble.
Exactly. This should be the type of Foreign Policy America should have, that the public in
general keep demanding but really hasn't existed if one looks at actual history:
After Obama, the golden liar and mass-murderer and now Tubby the Grifter, another liar and
mass-murderer, I have no desire to vote in 2020, unless Tulsi is on the ticket.
If Sanders is smart and survives another back-alley mugging by the DNC and the Wicked
Witch of the East, and gets the nod, he'll take on Tulsi–Mommy–as his VP.
If he does that, then Trump, Jared the Snake and Princess Bimbo will have to find another
racket in 2021.
Yeah Trumpenstein is a far cry from the Silver Tongued Devil O-Bomb-em. Even so both of them
sold us a bill of goods that neither of them delivered on.
But hey that's politics in America at least since Neoliberal prototype Wilson which is lie
your ass off until you get elected at least.
Willem ,
Much magical thinking here.
If we act now and support Sanders things will change for the better?
I surely hope so, but hope and change is soo 2008.
And if the Hildebeast enters the race, life on earth will end?
Don't think so.
Perhaps we should do this different this time. Get away from the identity politics, look
what is really needed, and demand for that, not caring about 'leadership'. You know, French
yellow vests style. Actually if you look a little bit outside of the MSM bubble, you see
demonstrations and people demanding better treatment from the government and corporations
everywhere.
The US 2020 elections, will be a nothing burger I predict. Like all elections are nothing
burgers and if they are not they will fake it, or call it 'populism' that needs to be stopped
(and will be stopped).
I would have voted Sanders though, if I could vote for Sanders, Similar as I would have
voted for Corbyn if I could have voted for Corbyn. Voting is a tic, a habit, an addiction
that is difficult to get rid of, but deadly in the end since we have nothing to vote for,
except to vote for more for them at the cost of everyone else, no matter what politicians
say
It's liberating to lose some of your illusions and silly reflexes, although a bit painful
in the beginning as is with all addictions. The story used to 'feel' so good.
Much magical thinking here. If we act now and support Sanders things will change for the
better? I surely hope so, but hope and change is soo 2008. And if the Hildebeast enters the
race, life on earth will end? Don't think so.
Perhaps we should do this different this time. Get away from the identity politics, look
what is really needed, and demand for that, not caring about 'leadership'. You know, French
yellow vests style. Actually if you look a little bit outside of the MSM bubble, you see
demonstrations and people demanding better treatment from the government and corporations
everywhere.
The US 2020 elections, will be a nothing burger I predict. Like all elections are nothing
burgers and if they are not they will fake it, or call it 'populism' that needs to be stopped
(and will be stopped).
I would have voted Sanders though, if I could vote for Sanders, Similar as I would have
voted for Corbyn if I could have voted for Corbyn. Voting is a tic, a habit, an addiction
that is difficult to get rid of, but deadly in the end since we have nothing to vote for,
except to vote for more for them at the cost of everyone else, no matter what politicians
say
It's liberating to lose some of your illusions and silly reflexes, although a bit painful
in the beginning as is with all addictions. The story used to 'feel' so good.
1. What's going on right now with Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton is the beginning of
sticking the knife back into Bernie's back. These two played a major role in doing that in
2016, and now they're getting the band back together again. Okay, that's no mystery.
The real question is, What are Bernie supporters and those who (one way or another) support
the Democrats, going to do about it? When and if Warren and Clinton succeed in taking Bernie
down–and of course Biden and the Obamas are onboard for this, as well–will
Democrats (and Dem-supporting "leftists," etc.) be so blinded by TDS that they'll just
say,
"Oh well, we still have to vote for " Warren, Biden, etc.?
I think this runs parallel to what some have said about "letting the CIA help with the
impeachment"–it's truly delusional, reactionary stuff. Likewise, people getting in a huff
because "Bernie called her a liar on national television." No problem, apparently, that Warren
first called Bernie a liar. Even more, no problem that Warren's whole life and career is based
on a lie–a lie that, even now, she justifies with bullshit about how she "just loves her
family so much." Indeed, Hillary's intervention in the following days was very likely intended
to take attention away from Warren's attack on Sanders, as well as, of course, to once again
put HRC out there as the potential savior at the convention.
It seems to me that the lesson here is that, if Bernie doesn't get the nomination, no other
candidate (from among the frontrunners) is acceptable, especially because of the role they will
have played in taking down Bernie and his movement.
I have two basic reasons for hoping Sanders can get the nomination and that there could be a
Trump/Sanders election:
i. For Sanders to get the nomination there will have to be a very
strong, dedicated, and focused movement, which will essentially have to defeat the
powers-that-be in the Democratic Party and in whatever one wants to call the agglomeration of
power mechanisms that form the establishment and the State. Sanders will have to do what Trump
did with the Republican Party in 2016, except with Sanders and the power structures he will be
up against (and with which he is more compromised than Trump ever was), this will be much, much
harder. I really don't think it can happen -- and we're seeing major moves in this effort
toward eliminating Bernie just in the week that has passed since I started writing this.
However, this does mean that, if Bernie can build (much further) and lead the movement to
seriously address these power structures, and even beat them in some significant ways, then
something tremendous will have been accomplished -- "the harder they come, the harder they
fall," or at least I hope so. ii. Despite what you and many others say and (I feel) are a bit
too desperate to think, Sanders does have some things in common with Trump, at least
thematically -- and a lot of my arguments in my articles have to do with the importance of
these themes being out there, in a way that they never would have been with any other
Republican, Hillary Clinton or any of the other current frontrunners besides Sanders, and any
of the other media with the very important exceptions of Tucker Carlson, Steve Hilton, and
perhaps a couple others on Fox News (perhaps Laura Ingram) -- and this is not only something
that the anti-Trumpers absolutely hate, they hate it so much that they can't even think about
it.
That is, Trump and Sanders have in common that they 1) profess that they want to do things
that improve the lives of ordinary working people, and 2) profess that they want to draw back
militarism.
What I emphasize is that these terms would not even be on the table if it weren't for Trump
-- and yes, to some extent if it weren't for Bernie, but there is a way in which Bernie can
only be out there at all because Trump has put these things on the table.
A lot of blowback against my articles has been against my argument that getting these terms
and the discourse around them on the table is very important, a real breakthrough, and a
breakthrough that both clarifies the larger terms of things and disrupts the "smooth
functioning" (I take this from Marcuse) of the neoliberal-neoconservative compact around
economics and military intervention.
Okay, maybe I'm right about this importance, maybe I'm not -- that's an argument I've dealt
with extensively in my articles and that I'll try to deal with definitively in further writing
-- but certainly a very important part of not letting Sanders be taken down by the other
frontrunners (and HRC, and other nefarious forces, with Warren playing a special "feminist" and
Identity Politics role here -- a role that does nothing to help, and indeed does much to hurt,
ordinary working people of all colors, genders, etc.) will be to further sharpen the general
understanding of the importance of these themes.
Significantly, there is a third theme which has emerged since the unexpected election of
Donald Trump -- unexpected at least by the establishment and the nefarious powers (though they
were thinking of an "insurance policy"); on this theme, I don't know that Sanders can do much
-- working with the Democratic Party, he is too implicated in this issue, and he does not have
whatever "protection" Trump has here.
What I am referring to are those nefarious powers behind the establishment and the ruling
class, and that have taken on a life of their own -- I don't mind calling this the Deep State,
but one can just think about the "intelligence community" and especially the CIA.
Whatever -- the point is that Trump has had to call them out and expose them in ways that
they obviously do not like, and also his agenda of a world where the U.S. gets along
well-enough with China and Russia at least not to risk WWIII, or, perhaps more realistically,
not to tip the balance of things such that Russia goes completely over to a full alliance with
China, a "Eurasian Union," which both Putin and Xi have spoken about, is not to their
liking.
Whether Sanders would call out these nefarious factors if he were in a position to do so, I
don't know -- I don't have great confidence that he would -- but it is also the case that he is
not in a position to do so, these powers can easily dispose of Sanders in ways that they
haven't been able to, so far, with Trump.
If one does think these themes are important, especially the first two (with further
discussion reserved regarding the powers-behind-the-powers), then I wish that Trump-haters
would open their minds for a moment and think about what it apparently takes in our social
system to even begin to get these themes on the table.
In any case, regarding Sanders, the movement he is building will have to go even further
with the first two themes if Sanders is nominated, and at least go some distance in taking on
the third theme. This applies even more if Sanders were to be elected. (This is where you might
take a look at the 1988 mini-series, A Very British Coup -- except that how things go down in
the U.S. will not be so "British.") Here again, though, if Sanders is to build a movement that
can openly address these questions, this will be tremendous, a great thing.
So this is it in a nutshell: If Sanders were to be nominated, then there is the possibility,
which everyone ought to work to make a reality, that we could have an election based around the
questions, What can be done to improve the lives of ordinary working people?, and, What can be
done to curb militarism and end the endless interventions and wars?
Antonym ,
Bernie is a nice guy – too nice: no match for the shark pools from Fairfax county,
Lower Manhattan or the Clinton clan . The 2016 DNC candidate selection revelations proved
this.
The only untainted strong Democratic candidate is Tulsi Gabbard, but she has all
Establishments against her.
Fair dinkum ,
Since Reagan's Presidency, all US elections have been about rearranging the deck chairs on
the Titanic.
The ship may be sinking slowly, but the outcome will be the same.
I'd say it was long before Ronnie got elected to office. Remember it was Carter and Zyb who
got involved in the imperial quick sand of Afghanistan (mixing metaphors here) that is after
being run out of 'Nam by a bunch of angry natives who had gotten tired of America "being a
force for good" by reining "freedom and democracy" on them from the bomb bays of B 52s which
I think is going to a be similar situation to what will soon happen in Iraq if we dawdle too
long.
Elections have in reality become all pomp with no circumstance. Flip a coin and it always
comes up heads. It's a stacked deck that public are asked to play every two years thinking
the odds are in their favor when it never really is. Might as well head to Vegas following
the dusty trail of Hunter S Thompson.
Charlotte Russe ,
It's not all that complicated Obama laid the groundwork ensuring Bernie's defeat when he
interfered in deciding who would Chair the DNC. Tom Perez was Obama's pick. Bernie wanted
Keith Ellison. Perez guaranteed neoliberal centrist Dems would maintain control. Tom Perez
didn't disappoint– his nominations for the 2020 Democratic Convention standing
committees are a like a who's who of centrism. Most of the folks on this "A list" would fit
quite nicely in the Republican Party.
Bernie a FDR Democrat, is considered too radical by the wealthy who enjoy their Trumpian
tax cuts and phony baloney stock market profits. If Trump, was just a bit less crude and not
so overtly racist he'd be perfectly acceptable. Bernie, who thinks the working-poor are
entitled to a living wage, healthcare, a college education, and clean drinking water is
anathema to the affluent liberals who like everything just the way it is. They long for the
Obama days when two wars were quietly expanded to seven, when the Wall Street crooks got a
pass, and when health insurance lobbyists had their way with the federal government–the
CIA was absolutely ecstatic with Obama. Trump was a bit of a speed bump for the security
state, but nothing really threatening as he stuffed the pockets of the arms industry and the
surveillance state with billions of working-class tax dollars. The Orangeman is having a few
internecine battles with the intelligence agencies, but in the end they thoroughly had their
way with the buffoon.
Bernie on the other hand, is a bit more complex. He can't be as easily attacked. Of
course, the mainstream media news has all the usual Corbyn tricks in their bag, and Bernie
could fall to the wayside like Corbyn if he's incapable of unapologetically fighting back.
Bernie's working-class supporters want to see him give his attackers the one-two-punch and
knock them out before the DNC Convention.
If Bernie manages to win numerous primaries the threat won't come from Warren or Hillary
that's so 2016. The new insidious "Bernie enemy" is billionaire Bloomberg. Who is waiting in
the wings If Biden takes a deep dive, Daddy Warbucks will make a play to cause a brokered
convention. And that's when Perez and his Republican/Dems will takedown Bernie. Bernie's
followers MUST come out swinging and not capitulate like they did last time. They have to
force the issue, create a stir and threaten to abandon the Dems to start a Workers Third
Party. Young progressives have this one big shot at making a difference, and they can't allow
themselves to be sheepdogged into voting for another neoliberal who's
intent on maintaining the status quo. Remember, if you don't move forward you're actually
moving backward into planetary ecocide.
Here's one from Whitney implying that they needn't worry because plans are in the works to
install King Cyrus II as the permanent ruler with the help of his Zionist friends in the
Department of Hebrew Security:
Even so it looks like Trump has decided to get rid of us noninterventionist and antiwar
naysayers by fully bringing in the Dispensationalist Armageddon rapture embracing nut jobs
who stand with the Talmudic genocidal racists in Israel who believe that Jesus Christ is
boiling for an eternity in excrement and that his mother Mary was a whore:
we have witnessed in the UK the defamation of Corbyn the ' Left Disrupter ' as he wanted
to throw back the normal state of political play.
He and the well meaning Labour Party was headed off at the pass.
We have to remember that the Ruling Class have to have fall back positions and that Biden
is better than Bernie as is Warren and so on.
It appears to me that the DNC also has its fallback positions too and Bernie will be
chopped by the Super Delegates once again on the altar of ' electabilty ' ( read any form of
Socialism – American or British is not acceptatble to the PTB ) and that is how it may
end.
The battle at the moment in the UK Labour Party is which leader will back up and support
extra Parliamentary action in resistance to this very right wing Tory government?
In the US the thing is the same if Bernie doesn't get the nomination.
Personally I would think that he would be a plus ( despite his foreign policy views ) but
remember that Trump was a maverick Republican yet I'm not sure that Sanders would veer over
to that position.
If he did then the " action " part of the steep learning curve would have to kick in to
defend him and more to the point his genuinely progressive policies.
In the UK now Corbyn as the personification of ' Socialist ' threat is no longer
doorstepped by the British media.
Instead the installation of a Leftish Centrist by the media ( i.e. a person that is -no
threat to the existing order ) is a requirement.
This is all under the guise of a " Strong Opposition " to the right wing government.
Warren – not Biden seems to be that kind of favourite for the Ruling Class should
Trump fall.
We had Neil Kinnock and Tony Blair – you in the US will get Warren.
I wish Bernie and his backers weel but I don't see it happening.
Maybe Tulsi Gabbard in another 4 years?
She and AOC are very good But this is not their time.
Not yet.
Richard Le Sarc ,
When I think of how Corbyn refused to fight back against ENTIRELY mendacious and filthy
vilification as an 'antisemite', I think it might be possible that the MOSSAD told him that
if he resisted he might end up, dead in his bath, like John Smith.
bevin ,
Where the world weary gather to tell us how they have been let down.
Bill nails it here:
" i. For Sanders to get the nomination there will have to be a very strong, dedicated, and
focused movement, which will essentially have to defeat the powers-that-be in the Democratic
Party and in whatever one wants to call the agglomeration of power mechanisms that form the
establishment and the State. Sanders will have to do what Trump did with the Republican Party
in 2016, except with Sanders and the power structures he will be up against (and with which
he is more compromised than Trump ever was), this will be much, much harder ."
Anyone who believes that elections, as such, lead to great changes needs a keeper. And one
who can read the US Constitution aloud for preference.
But this is not to say that at a time like this-and there have been very few of them in US
history- when there is the possibility of a major candidate challenging some of the bases of
the ruling ideology-albeit by doing little more than running on a platform of refurbished
Progressivism- there is really no excuse for not insisting that the challenge be made and the
election played out.
Sanders is not just challenging the verities of neo-liberalism but, implicitly undermining
the political consensus that has supported the Warfare State since 1948.
The thing about Bernie is that he is authenticated by the enemies that he has enrolled
against him and the dramatic measures that they are taking against him. Among those enemies
are the Black Misleadership Class, and the various other faux progressives who are revealing
themselves to be last ditch defenders of the MIC, Israel- AIPAC is now 'all in' in Iowa and
New Hampshire- and the Insurance industry. It is an indication of the simplicity of Bernie's
political task that no section of Congress gives more support to the Healthcare scammers than
the representatives of the community most deprived by the current system. If he manages to
get through to the people and persuade them that he will fight for Free Healthcare for all
and other basic and long overdue social and economic reforms he can break the hold that the
political parties have over a system everyone understands is designed to make the rich-who
own both parties- richer and the great majority poorer. That has been the way that things
have been going in the USA for at least 45 years.
Here's the point you've missed here Bill and that Bernie had a mass appeal to the
Independents that is until he sold out to the "Democratic" establishment which out of the two
parties has to be the least democratic since it adopted the elitist and plutocratic Super
Delegate system that can ride roughshod over the actual democratic will of the voters.
Of course a cosmetic change has been made that these delegates aren't allowed to vote
until the Convention but as I said it is "cosmetic" since that was originally the way this
undemocratic system was set up in the "Democratic" party until Hillary Clinton used it as a
psychological weapon during that sham called a "primary" to convince the hoi polo that her
nomination or more accurately coronation was already a foregone conclusion.
There is also another factor that most voters are not aware of and that is the so called
"Democratic" party has come up with a dictatorial "by law" that can nullify the result of the
primary if the candidate isn't considered "democratic" enough by the Chairman of the DNC
which in Bernie's case is very possible since technically he is an Independent running as a
"Democrat". This is what Lee Camp the "Nuclear Option".
Personally I gave up on Bernie after he sold out and shilled for that warmongering harpy
Hillary who if elected would accept it as a mandate to launch WW III while ironically trying
to convince us all that the "noninterventionist", "antiwar" candidate was actually the
greater of the two evils.
Yeah right.
Anyway no longer have any faith in the two party system. As far as I'm concerned they can
both go to hell. I've already made my choice:
He probably needs to adjust his message more to appeal to those of us who tend to be more
Libertarian and is not exactly a Russell Means but with a little help from the American
Indian Movement and others can probably "triangulate" his appeal to cover a broader political
spectrum. Instead of what has been traditionally known as the "left".
Greg Bacon ,
After Obama, the golden liar and mass-murderer and now Tubby the Grifter, another liar and
mass-murderer, I have no desire to vote in 2020, unless Tulsi is on the ticket.
If Sanders is smart and survives another back-alley mugging by the DNC and the Wicked
Witch of the East, and gets the nod, he'll take on Tulsi–Mommy–as his VP.
If he does that, then Trump, Jared the Snake and Princess Bimbo will have to find another
racket in 2021.
Yeah Trumpenstein is a far cry from the Silver Tongued Devil O-Bomb-em. Even so both of them
sold us a bill of goods that neither of them delivered on.
But hey that's politics in America at least since Neoliberal prototype Wilson which is lie
your ass off until you get elected at least.
Willem ,
Much magical thinking here.
If we act now and support Sanders things will change for the better?
I surely hope so, but hope and change is soo 2008.
And if the Hildebeast enters the race, life on earth will end?
Don't think so.
Perhaps we should do this different this time. Get away from the identity politics, look
what is really needed, and demand for that, not caring about 'leadership'. You know, French
yellow vests style. Actually if you look a little bit outside of the MSM bubble, you see
demonstrations and people demanding better treatment from the government and corporations
everywhere.
The US 2020 elections, will be a nothing burger I predict. Like all elections are nothing
burgers and if they are not they will fake it, or call it 'populism' that needs to be stopped
(and will be stopped).
I would have voted Sanders though, if I could vote for Sanders, Similar as I would have
voted for Corbyn if I could have voted for Corbyn. Voting is a tic, a habit, an addiction
that is difficult to get rid of, but deadly in the end since we have nothing to vote for,
except to vote for more for them at the cost of everyone else, no matter what politicians
say
It's liberating to lose some of your illusions and silly reflexes, although a bit painful
in the beginning as is with all addictions. The story used to 'feel' so good.
Bolton is a war mongering narcissist that wanted his war, didn't get it, & is now
acting like a spoilt child that didn't get his way & is laying on the floor kicking &
screaming!
@TG The swamp only
sorta fears Tulsi Gabbard. Bernie is an annoying blowhard to them. Plus Bernie doesn't want
to win, just fill the coffers of his PAC. Maybe get another house. Understandable since his
wife's source of easy money went belly up.
@Dutch Boy Agreed,
and I took the trouble to read his immigration position paper. It's truly frightening. This
man, who used to stand for protecting working people's wages, now believes the organizing
principle of U.S. immigration policy is to eliminate global inequality . The mind
races with all of the possible stratagems Bernie's conjured up for how to do that, but job
one is to provide free Medicare for anyone who shows up at the border. Oh and he's going to
tear down whatever parts of the wall Trump built, just because walls are evil. The guy's gone
absolutely whacko. The 2007 Bernie could win, this guy, never.
@Bragadocious If
the US government ever really wanted to "eliminate global inequality", a fine place to start
would be the inequality between countries which attack other countries and kill millions of
their citizens, and countries which do not.
@TG All true,
except he hasn't started a war with Iran (yet). Judging from the hysteria, Iran is the last
domino before the Israelis can begin their long awaited territorial expansion, which will be
framed as a defensive operation to regional destabilization that they themselves created.
If Trump started the war as intended, the impeachment would have been shelved permanently and
the media would have taken a break from attacking him. But if he continues to resist, he
better beef up his personal security, because his "good friends" aren't going to let a little
thing like American democracy stand in the way of their ambitious plans.
@TG The swamp only
sorta fears Tulsi Gabbard. Bernie is an annoying blowhard to them. Plus Bernie doesn't want
to win, just fill the coffers of his PAC. Maybe get another house. Understandable since his
wife's source of easy money went belly up.
Biden will flame out. It's all those Videos and his dementia. Throw in Obama's
critiques.
Bernie, whether he is sheep-dogging or not and regardless of downplaying his recent heart
attack, age, I see the Thomas Eggleton health factor is in
play....
IMHO, The Dems convention will be brokered.
Billionaire vs Billionaire
Whatever the outcome, we are doomed. Pull up your Calendar to 2022.
@EliteCommInc. If
Trump wins in 2020, then the fight will be on. In 2016, a large amount of people were aware
of the swamp, but a lot still weren't. Today, with what has been going on with Russiagate,
Ukrainegate, even people who weren't paying attention before are now catching a glimpse of
the swamp in action. It is in their faces.
It would have been impossible to take them on in 2016. Anyways, they got out in front of
Trump with Russiagate/Mueller investigation and they haven't let up since then. Will be
interesting to see how it plays out.
This is just a part of the "Swamp" President Trump has talked about. Funneling money to
family members of elected officials is so prevalent that they don't even see a problem, it's
just business as usual.
"My instincts tell me the Democrats don't want to get rid of Plugs (Biden) on the
corruption angle because then they're all exposed to it." - Rush Limbaugh
Colonel Sanders : " Joe Biden is a very decent man" !!! Comming from the mouth of the
Communist who wants to put YOU in Goulags...It makes perfect sense !
Joe Biden is a friend of mine and he's a really nice guy ... I love my husband or wife
he/she's a really nice person as the ER staff bandages their wounds ... hmm got it
Bolton is a war mongering narcissist that wanted his war, didn't get it, & is now
acting like a spoilt child that didn't get his way & is laying on the floor kicking &
screaming!
"... It was no accident that Davos, the promoter of globalization, is so strongly behind the Climate Change agenda. Davos WEF has a board of appointed trustees. Among them is the early backer of Greta Thunberg, climate multi-millionaire, Al Gore, chairman of the Climate Reality Project. WEF Trustees also include former IMF head, now European Central Bank head Christine Lagarde whose first words as ECB chief were that central banks had to make climate change a priority. Another Davos trustee is outgoing Bank of England head Mark Carney, who was just named Boris Johnson's climate change advisor and who warns that pension funds that ignore climate change risk bankruptcy (sic). ..."
"... Of note: Mark Carney upon leaving his position of Governor Bank of England will serve as global warming adviser to Boris Johnson. Who knew Carney was a scientist? ..."
'Greta, bonnie Prince Charles and the pirate billionaires and trillionaires'- In another
post I queried how did Greta go to Davos? Silly me; Greta was invited the keynote speaker.
"Stop Climate change" was this year's theme: the Vision - 'stop the natural cycle of the
universe' -
Now she intends to Trademark 'How Dare You' and set up a Foundation Indeed, Greta found
her sugar daddies. Adults who encourage truancy.
my grandpa was a wise bloke and admonished "when politicians and do gooders are in the
same room, keep an eye on your money."
It was no accident that Davos, the promoter of globalization, is so strongly behind the
Climate Change agenda. Davos WEF has a board of appointed trustees. Among them is the early
backer of Greta Thunberg, climate multi-millionaire, Al Gore, chairman of the Climate
Reality Project. WEF Trustees also include former IMF head, now European Central Bank head
Christine Lagarde whose first words as ECB chief were that central banks had to make
climate change a priority. Another Davos trustee is outgoing Bank of England head Mark
Carney, who was just named Boris Johnson's climate change advisor and who warns that
pension funds that ignore climate change risk bankruptcy (sic).
The board also includes the influential founder of Carlyle Group, David M. Rubenstein.
It includes Feike Sybesma of the agribusiness giant, Unilever, who is also Chair of the
High Level Leadership Forum on Competitiveness and Carbon Pricing of the World Bank Group.
And perhaps the most interesting in terms of pushing the new green agenda is Larry Fink,
founder and CEO of the investment group BlackRock.[.]
TCFD and SASB Look Closely
As part of his claim to virtue on the new green investing, Fink states that BlackRock
was a founding member of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). He
claims, "For evaluating and reporting climate-related risks, as well as the related
governance issues that are essential to managing them, the TCFD provides a valuable
framework."[.]
TCFD was created in 2015 by the Bank for International Settlements, chaired by fellow
Davos board member and Bank of England head Mark Carney. In 2016 the TCFD along with the
City of London Corporation and the UK Government created the Green Finance Initiative,
aiming to channel trillions of dollars to "green" investments. The central bankers of the
FSB nominated 31 people to form the TCFD. Chaired by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, it
includes in addition to BlackRock, JP MorganChase; Barclays Bank; HSBC; Swiss Re, the
world's second largest reinsurance; China's ICBC bank; Tata Steel, ENI oil, Dow Chemical,
mining giant BHP and David Blood of Al Gore's Generation Investment LLC. Note the crucial
role of the central banks here.[.]
Of note: Mark Carney upon leaving his position of Governor Bank of England will serve as
global warming adviser to Boris Johnson. Who knew Carney was a scientist?
Pre-alert:
Tax on Excessive garbage output is coming to your town. You will be restricted to xxxKGs/LBS
annually. Your garbage will be weighed and at December 31st any excess above the permissible
will attract additional tax.
Anyone see the unintended consequences?
"... A chorus of neocons rushed to second his praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's "decisive action." It was Carlson who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with Iran for decades," Carlson said . "They still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it." ..."
"... Neoconservatism as a foreign policy ideology has been badly discredited over the last two decades, thanks to the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the national conversation. It now appears that Trump intends to make Soleimani's killing -- which has nearly drawn the U.S. into yet another conflict in the Middle East and, in typical neoconservative fashion, ended up backfiring and undercutting American goals in the region -- a central part of his 2020 reelection bid . ..."
"... The neocons are starting to realize that Trump's presidency, at least when it comes to foreign policy, is no less vulnerable to hijacking than those of previous Republican presidents, including the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The leading hawks inside and outside the administration shaping its approach to Iran include Robert O'Brien, Bolton's disciple and successor as national security adviser; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook; Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; David Wurmser, a former adviser to Bolton; and Senators Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton. Perhaps no one better exemplifies the neocon ethos better than Cotton, a Kristol protégé who soaked up the teachings of the political philosopher Leo Strauss while studying at Harvard. Others who have been baying for conflict with Iran include Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who is now Trump's personal lawyer and partner in Ukrainian crime. In June 2018, Giuliani went to Paris to address the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose parent organization is the Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MeK. Giuliani, who has been on the payroll of the MeK for years, demanded -- what else? -- regime change. ..."
"... The fresh charge into battle of what Sidney Blumenthal once aptly referred to as an ideological light brigade brings to mind Hobbes's observation in Leviathan : "All men that are ambitious of military command are inclined to continue the causes of war; and to stir up trouble and sedition; for there is no honor military but by war; nor any such hope to mend an ill game, as by causing a new shuffle." The neocons, it appears, have caused a new shuffle. ..."
"... the killing of Soleimani revealed that the neocon military-intellectual complex is very much still intact, with the ability to spring back to life from a state of suspended animation in an instant. Its hawkish tendencies remain widely prevalent not only in the Republican Party but also in the media, the think-tank universe, and in the liberal-hawk precincts of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the influence and reach of the anti-war right remains nascent; even if this contingent has popular support, it doesn't enjoy much backing in Washington beyond the mood swings of the mercurial occupant of the Oval Office. ..."
"... The neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies that might once have seemed outré. ..."
"... But it was the neoconservatives, not the paleocons, who amassed influence in the 1990s and took over the GOP's foreign policy wing. Veteran neocons like Michael Ledeen were joined by a younger generation of journalists and policymakers that included Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol (who founded The Weekly Standard in 1994), Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas J. Feith. The neocons consistently pushed for a hard line against Iraq and Iran. In his 1996 book, Freedom Betrayed, for example, Ledeen, an expert on Italian fascism, declared that the right, rather than the left, should adhere to the revolutionary tradition of toppling dictatorships. In his 2002 book, The War Against the Terror Masters, Ledeen stated , "Creative destruction is our middle name. We tear down the old order every day." ..."
"... Still, a number of neocons, including David Frum, Max Boot, Anne Applebaum, Jennifer Rubin, and Kristol himself, have continued to condemn Trump vociferously for his thuggish instincts at home and abroad. They are not seeking high-profile government careers in the Trump administration and so have been able to reinvent themselves as domestic regime-change advocates, something they have done quite skillfully. In fact, their writings are more pungent now that they have been liberated from the costive confines of the movement. ..."
"... And so, urged on by Mike Pompeo, a staunch evangelical Christian, and Iraq War–era figures like David Wurmser , Trump is apparently prepared to target Iran for destruction. In a tweet, he dismissed his national security adviser, the Bolton protégé Robert O'Brien, for declaring that the strike against Soleimani would force Iran to negotiate: "Actually, I couldn't care less if they negotiate," he said . "Will be totally up to them but, no nuclear weapons and 'don't kill your protesters.'" Neocons have been quick to recognize the new, more belligerent Trump -- and the potential maneuvering room he's now created for their movement. Jonathan S. Tobin, a former editor at Commentary and a contributor to National Review , rejoiced in Haaretz that "the neo-isolationist wing of the GOP, for which Carlson is a spokesperson, is losing the struggle for control of Trump's foreign policy." Tobin, however, added an important caveat: "When it comes to Iran, Trump needs no prodding from the likes of Bolton to act like a neoconservative. Just as important, the entire notion of anyone -- be it Carlson, former White House senior advisor Steve Bannon, or any cabinet official like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- being able to control Trump is a myth." ..."
"... One reason is institutional. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Hudson Institute, and AEI have all been sounding the tocsin about Iran for decades. Once upon a time, the neocons were outliers. Now they're the new establishment, exerting a kind of gravitational pull on debate, pulling politicians and a variety of news organizations into their orbit. The Hudson Institute, for example, recently held an event with former Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who exhorted Iran's Revolutionary Guard to "peel away" from the mullahs and endorsed the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Wolfowitz, also writing in the Times , has popped up to warn Trump against trying to leave Syria: "To paraphrase Trotsky's aphorism about war, you may not be interested in the Middle East, but the Middle East is interested in you." With the "both-sides" ethos that prevails in the mainstream media, neocon ideas are just as good as any others for National Public Radio or The Washington Post, whose editorial page, incidentally, championed the Iraq War and has been imbued with a neocon, or at least liberal-hawk, tinge ever since Fred Hiatt took it over in 2000. ..."
"... Above all, Trump hired Michael Flynn as his first national security adviser. Flynn was the co-author with Ledeen of a creepy tract called Field of Fight, in which they demanded a crusade against the Muslim world ..."
"... At a minimum, the traditional Republican hard-line foreign policy approach has now fused with neoconservatism so that the two are virtually indistinguishable. At a maximum, neoconservatism shapes the dominant foreign policy worldview in Washington, which is why Democrats were falling over themselves to assure voters that Soleimani -- a "bad guy" -- had it coming. Any objections that his killing might boomerang back on the U.S. are met with cries from the right that Democrats are siding with the enemy. This truly is a policy of "maximum pressure" at home and abroad. ..."
There was a time not so long ago, before President Donald Trump's surprise decision early this year to liquidate the Iranian commander
Qassem Soleimani, when it appeared that America's neoconservatives were floundering. The president was itching to withdraw U.S. forces
from Afghanistan. He was staging exuberant photo-ops with a beaming Kim Jong Un. He was reportedly willing to hold talks with the
president of Iran, while clearly preferring trade wars to hot ones.
Indeed, this past summer, Trump's anti-interventionist supporters in the conservative media were riding high. When he refrained
from attacking Iran in June after it shot down an American drone, Fox News host Tucker Carlson
declared , "Donald Trump was elected president precisely to keep us out of disaster like war with Iran." Carlson went on to condemn
the hawks in Trump's Cabinet and their allies, who he claimed were egging the president on -- familiar names to anyone who has followed
the decades-long neoconservative project of aggressively using military force to topple unfriendly regimes and project American power
over the globe. "So how did we get so close to starting [a war]?"
he asked. "One of [the hawks'] key allies is the national security adviser of the United States. John Bolton is an old friend
of Bill Kristol's. Together they helped plan the Iraq War."
By the time Trump met with Kim in late June, becoming the first sitting president to set foot on North Korean soil, Bolton was
on the outs. Carlson was on the president's North Korean junket, while Trump's national security adviser was in Mongolia. "John Bolton
is absolutely a hawk,"
Trump
told NBC in June. "If it was up to him, he'd take on the whole world at one time, OK?" In September, Bolton was fired.
The standard-bearer of the Republican Party had made clear his distaste for the neocons' belligerent approach to global affairs,
much to the neocons' own entitled chagrin. As recently as December, Bolton, now outside the tent pissing in, was hammering Trump
for "bluffing" through an announcement that the administration wanted North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. "The
idea that we are somehow exerting maximum pressure on North Korea is just unfortunately not true,"
Bolton told Axios . Then Trump ordered the drone
strike on Soleimani, drastically escalating a simmering conflict between Iran and the United States. All of a sudden the roles were
reversed, with Bolton praising the president and asserting that Soleimani's death was "
the first step to regime change in Tehran ." A chorus of neocons rushed to second his praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former
CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's
"decisive action." It was Carlson
who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with Iran for decades,"
Carlson said . "They
still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it."
Neoconservatism as a foreign policy ideology has been badly discredited over the last two decades, thanks to the debacles
in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the
national conversation. It now appears that Trump intends to make Soleimani's killing -- which has nearly drawn the U.S. into yet
another conflict in the Middle East and, in typical neoconservative fashion, ended up backfiring and undercutting American goals
in the region -- a central part of his
2020 reelection bid
.
The anti-interventionist right is freaking out. Writing in American Greatness, Matthew Boose
declared , "[T]he Trump movement, which was generated out of opposition to the foreign policy blob and its endless wars, was
revealed this week to have been co-opted to a great extent by neoconservatives seeking regime change." James Antle, the editor of
The American Conservative, a publication founded in 2002 to oppose the Iraq War,
asked , "Did
Trump betray the anti-war right?"
In the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the national conversation.
Their concerns are not unmerited. The neocons are starting to realize that Trump's presidency, at least when it comes to foreign
policy, is no less vulnerable to hijacking than those of previous Republican presidents, including the administrations of Ronald
Reagan and George W. Bush. The leading hawks inside and outside the administration shaping its approach to Iran include Robert O'Brien,
Bolton's disciple and successor as national security adviser; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Special Representative for Iran Brian
Hook; Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; David Wurmser, a former adviser to Bolton; and Senators
Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton. Perhaps no one better exemplifies the neocon ethos better than Cotton, a Kristol protégé who soaked
up the teachings of the political philosopher Leo Strauss while studying at Harvard. Others who have been baying for conflict with
Iran include Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who is now Trump's personal lawyer and partner in Ukrainian crime. In
June 2018, Giuliani went to Paris to address the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose parent organization is the Iranian
opposition group Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MeK. Giuliani, who has been on the payroll of the MeK for years, demanded -- what else? --
regime change.
The fresh charge into battle of what Sidney Blumenthal once aptly referred to as an ideological light brigade brings to mind
Hobbes's observation in Leviathan : "All men that are ambitious of military command are inclined to continue the causes of
war; and to stir up trouble and sedition; for there is no honor military but by war; nor any such hope to mend an ill game, as by
causing a new shuffle." The neocons, it appears, have caused a new shuffle.
Donald Trump has not dragged us into war with Iran (yet). But the killing of Soleimani revealed that the neocon military-intellectual
complex is very much still intact, with the ability to spring back to life from a state of suspended animation in an instant. Its
hawkish tendencies remain widely prevalent not only in the Republican Party but also in the media, the think-tank universe, and in
the liberal-hawk precincts of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the influence and reach of the anti-war right remains nascent; even
if this contingent has popular support, it doesn't enjoy much backing in Washington beyond the mood swings of the mercurial occupant
of the Oval Office.
But there was a time when the neoconservative coalition was not so entrenched -- and what has turned out to be its provisional
state of exile lends some critical insight into how it managed to hang around respectable policymaking circles in recent years, and
how it may continue to shape American foreign policy for the foreseeable future. When the neoconservatives came on the scene in the
late 1960s, the Republican old guard viewed them as interlopers. The neocons, former Trotskyists turned liberals who broke with the
Democratic Party over its perceived weakness on the Cold War, stormed the citadel of Republican ideology by emphasizing the relationship
between ideas and political reality. Irving Kristol, one of the original neoconservatives,
mused in 1985 that " what communists call the theoretical organs always end up through a filtering process influencing a lot
of people who don't even know they're being influenced. In the end, ideas rule the world because even interests are defined by ideas."
At pivotal moments in modern American foreign policy, the neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies
that might once have seemed outré. Jeane Kirkpatrick's seminal 1979 essay in Commentary, "Dictatorships and Double Standards,"
essentially set forth the lineaments of the Reagan doctrine. She assailed Jimmy Carter for attacking friendly authoritarian leaders
such as the shah of Iran and Nicaragua's Anastasio Somoza. She contended that authoritarian regimes might molt into democracies,
while totalitarian regimes would remain impregnable to outside influence, American or otherwise. Ronald Reagan read the essay and
liked it. He named Kirkpatrick his ambassador to the United Nations, where she became the most influential neocon of the era for
her denunciations of Arab regimes and defenses of Israel. Her tenure was also defined by the notion that it was perfectly acceptable
for America to cozy up to noxious regimes, from apartheid South Africa to the shah's Iran, as part of the greater mission to oppose
the red menace.
The neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies that might once have seemed outré.
There was always tension between Reagan's affinity for authoritarian regimes and his hard-line opposition to Communist ones. His
sunny persona never quite gelled with Kirkpatrick's more gelid view that communism was an immutable force, and in 1982, in a major
speech to the British Parliament at Westminster emphasizing the power of democracy and free speech, he declared his intent to end
the Cold War on American terms. As Reagan's second term progressed and democracy and free speech actually took hold in the waning
days of the Soviet Union, many hawks declared that it was all a sham. Indeed, not a few neocons were livid, claiming that Reagan
was appeasing the Soviet Union. But after the USSR collapsed, they retroactively blessed him as the anti-Communist warrior par excellence
and the model for the future. The right was now a font of happy talk about the dawn of a new age of liberty based on free-market
economics and American firepower.
The fall of communism, in other words, set the stage for a new neoconservative paradigm. Francis Fukuyama's The End of History
appeared a decade after Kirkpatrick's essay in Commentary and just before the Berlin Wall was breached on November 9,
1989. Here was a sharp break with the saturnine, realpolitik approach that Kirkpatrick had championed. Irving Kristol regarded it
as hopelessly utopian -- "I don't believe a word of it," he wrote in a response to Fukuyama. But a younger generation of neocons,
led by Irving's son, Bill Kristol, and Robert Kagan, embraced it. Fukuyama argued that Western, liberal democracy, far from being
menaced, was now the destination point of the train of world history. With communism vanquished, the neocons, bearing the good word
from Fukuyama, formulated a new goal: democracy promotion, by force if necessary, as a way to hasten history and secure the global
order with the U.S. at its head. The first Gulf War in 1991, precipitated by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, tested the neocons'
resolve and led to a break in the GOP -- one that would presage the rise of Donald Trump. For decades, Patrick Buchanan had been
regularly inveighing against what he came to call the neocon "
amen corner" in and around the
Washington centers of power, including A.M. Rosenthal and Charles Krauthammer, both of whom endorsed the '91 Gulf War. The neocons
were frustrated by the measured approach taken by George H.W. Bush. He refused to crow about the fall of the Berlin Wall and kicked
the Iraqis out of Kuwait but declined to invade Iraq and "finish the job," as his hawkish critics would later put it. Buchanan then
ran for the presidency in 1992 on an America First platform, reviving a paleoconservative tradition that would partly inform Trump's
dark horse run in 2016.
But it was the neoconservatives, not the paleocons, who amassed influence in the 1990s and took over the GOP's foreign policy
wing. Veteran neocons like Michael Ledeen were joined by a younger generation of journalists and policymakers that included Robert
Kagan, Bill Kristol (who founded The Weekly Standard in 1994), Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas J. Feith. The neocons consistently
pushed for a hard line against Iraq and Iran. In his 1996 book, Freedom Betrayed, for example, Ledeen, an expert on Italian
fascism, declared that the right, rather than the left, should adhere to the revolutionary tradition of toppling dictatorships. In
his 2002 book, The War Against the Terror Masters, Ledeen
stated , "Creative destruction
is our middle name. We tear down the old order every day."
We all know the painful consequences of the neocons' obsession with creative destruction. In his second inaugural address, three
and a half years after 9/11, George W. Bush cemented
neoconservative ideology into presidential doctrine: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of
democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." The neocons'
hubris had already turned into nemesis in Iraq, paving the way for an anti-war candidate in Barack Obama.
But it was Trump -- by virtue of running as a Republican -- who appeared to sound neoconservatism's death knell. He announced
his Buchananesque policy of "America First" in a speech at Washington's Mayflower Hotel in 2016, signaling that he would not adhere
to the long-standing Reaganite principles that had animated the party establishment.
The pooh-bahs of the GOP openly declared their disdain and revulsion for Trump, leading directly to the rise of the Never Trump
movement, which was dominated by neocons. The Never Trumpers ended up functioning as an informal blacklist for Trump once he became
president. Elliott Abrams, for example, who was being touted for deputy secretary of state in February 2017, was rejected when Steve
Bannon alerted Trump to his earlier heresies (though he later reemerged, in January 2019, as Trump's special envoy to Venezuela,
where he has pushed for regime change). Not a few other members of the Republican foreign policy establishment suffered similar fates.
Kristol's The Weekly Standard, which had held the neoconservative line through the Bush years and beyond , folded
in 2018. Even the office building that used to house the American Enterprise Institute and the Standard, on the corner of
17th and M streets in Washington, has been torn down, leaving an empty, boarded-up site whose symbolism speaks for itself.
Still, a number of neocons, including David Frum, Max Boot, Anne Applebaum, Jennifer Rubin, and Kristol himself, have continued
to condemn Trump vociferously for his thuggish instincts at home and abroad. They are not seeking high-profile government careers
in the Trump administration and so have been able to reinvent themselves as domestic regime-change advocates, something they have
done quite skillfully. In fact, their writings are more pungent now that they have been liberated from the costive confines of the
movement.
It was Trump -- by virtue of running as a Republican -- who appeared to sound neoconservatism's death knell.
But other neocons -- the ones who want to wield positions of influence and might -- have, more often than not, been able to hold
their noses. Stephen Wertheim, writing in The New York Review of Books, has perceptively dubbed this faction the anti-globalist
neocons. Led by John Bolton, they believe Trump performed a godsend by elevating the term globalism "from a marginal slur
to the central foil of American foreign policy and Republican politics,"
Wertheim argued . The U.S. need not
bother with pesky multilateral institutions or international agreements or the entire postwar order, for that matter -- it's now
America's way or the highway.
And so, urged on by Mike Pompeo, a staunch evangelical Christian,
and Iraq War–era figures like
David Wurmser , Trump is apparently prepared to target Iran for destruction. In a tweet, he dismissed his national security adviser,
the Bolton protégé Robert O'Brien, for declaring that the strike against Soleimani would force Iran to negotiate: "Actually, I couldn't
care less if they negotiate,"
he said . "Will be totally up to them but, no nuclear weapons and 'don't kill your protesters.'" Neocons have been quick to recognize
the new, more belligerent Trump -- and the potential maneuvering room he's now created for their movement. Jonathan S. Tobin, a former
editor at Commentary and a contributor to National Review ,
rejoiced in Haaretz that "the neo-isolationist wing of the GOP, for which Carlson is a spokesperson, is losing the struggle
for control of Trump's foreign policy." Tobin, however, added an important caveat: "When it comes to Iran, Trump needs no prodding
from the likes of Bolton to act like a neoconservative. Just as important, the entire notion of anyone -- be it Carlson, former White
House senior advisor Steve Bannon, or any cabinet official like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- being able to control Trump is
a myth."
In other words, whether the neocons themselves are occupying top positions in the Trump administration is almost irrelevant. The
ideology itself has reemerged to a degree that even Trump himself seems hard pressed to resist it -- if he even wants to.
How were the neocons able to influence another Republican presidency, one that was ostensibly dedicated to curbing their sway?
One reason is institutional. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Hudson Institute, and AEI have all been sounding the
tocsin about Iran for decades. Once upon a time, the neocons were outliers. Now they're the new establishment, exerting a kind of
gravitational pull on debate, pulling politicians and a variety of news organizations into their orbit. The Hudson Institute, for
example, recently held an event with former Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who exhorted Iran's Revolutionary Guard to "peel away"
from the mullahs and endorsed the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign. The event was hosted by Michael Doran, a
former senior director on George W. Bush's National Security Council and a senior fellow at the institute, who
wrote in
The New York Times on January 3, "The United States has no choice, if it seeks to stay in the Middle East, but to check
Iran's military power on the ground." Then there's Jamie M. Fly, a former staffer to Senator Marco Rubio who was appointed this past
August to head Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; he previously co-authored an essay in Foreign Affairs contending that it isn't enough to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities: "If the United States seriously considers military action,
it would be better to plan an operation that not only strikes the nuclear program but aims to destabilize the regime, potentially
resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis once and for all."
Meanwhile, Wolfowitz, also writing in the Times , has
popped up to warn Trump against
trying to leave Syria: "To paraphrase Trotsky's aphorism about war, you may not be interested in the Middle East, but the Middle
East is interested in you." With the "both-sides" ethos that prevails in the mainstream media, neocon ideas are just as good as any
others for National Public Radio or The Washington Post, whose editorial page, incidentally, championed the Iraq War
and has been imbued with a neocon, or at least liberal-hawk, tinge ever since Fred Hiatt took it over in 2000.
But there are plenty of institutions in Washington, and neoconservatism's seemingly inescapable influence cannot be chalked up
to the swamp alone. Some etiolated form of what might be called Ledeenism lingered on before taking on new life at the outset of
the Trump administration. Trump's overt animus toward Muslims, for example, meant that figures such as Frank Gaffney, who opposed
arms-control treaties with Moscow as a member of the Reagan administration and resigned in protest of the 1987 Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces Treaty, achieved a new prominence. During the Obama administration, Gaffney, the head of the Center for Security Policy,
claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated the White House and National Security Agency.
Above all, Trump hired Michael Flynn as his first national security adviser. Flynn was the co-author with Ledeen of a
creepy tract called Field of Fight, in which they demanded a crusade against the Muslim world: "We're in a world
war against a messianic mass movement of evil people." It was one of many signs that Trump was susceptible to ideas of a civilizational
battle against
"Islamo-fascism,"
which Norman Podhoretz and other neocons argued, in the wake of 9/11, would lead to World War III. In their millenarian ardor
and inflexible support for Israel, the neocons find themselves in a position precisely cognate to evangelical Christians -- both
groups of true believers trying to enact their vision through an apostate. But perhaps the neoconservatives' greatest strength lies
in the realm of ideas that Irving Kristol identified more than three decades ago. The neocons remain the winners of that battle,
not because their policies have made the world or the U.S. more secure, but by default -- because there are so few genuinely alternative
ideas that are championed with equal zeal. The foreign policy discussion surrounding Soleimani's killing -- which accelerated Iran's
nuclear weapons program, diminished America's influence in the Middle East, and entrenched Iran's theocratic regime -- has largely
occurred on a spectrum of the neocons' making. It is a discussion that accepts premises of the beneficence of American military might
and hegemony -- Hobbes's "ill game" -- and naturally bends the universe toward more war.
At a minimum, the traditional Republican hard-line foreign policy approach has now fused with neoconservatism so that the
two are virtually indistinguishable. At a maximum, neoconservatism shapes the dominant foreign policy worldview in Washington, which
is why Democrats were falling over themselves to assure voters that Soleimani -- a "bad guy" -- had it coming. Any objections that
his killing might boomerang back on the U.S. are met with cries from the right that Democrats are siding with the enemy. This truly
is a policy of "maximum pressure" at home and abroad.
As Trump takes an extreme hard line against Iran, the neoconservatives may ultimately get their long-held wish of a war with the
ayatollahs. When it ends in a fresh disaster, they can always argue that it only failed because it wasn't prosecuted vigorously enough
-- and the shuffle will begin again.
Jacob Heilbrunn is the editor of The National Interest and the author of They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons.
@ JacobHeilbrunn
One assumes that Sanders does not envision this kind of revolution; Sanders supporters will
point out that he always refers to a " political revolution." A political revolution is
defined as 'an upheaval in which the government is replaced, or the form of government altered,
but in which property relations are predominantly left intact,' in contrast to social
revolutions, in which property relations are also changed. In short, adding the political
prefix hardly helps to clarify what Sanders has in mind. Furthermore, the transformation he is
looking for surely includes changing property rights, which suggests that he is actually
talking about a social revolution. This is not an academic quibble about definitions; it is a
question about what the meaning of the key theme of Sanders's campaign, about the way we are
going to get all the wonders he promises to deliver.
Sanders has stated that the political revolution he seeks "is not utopian. This is what we
can accomplish and which already exists in a number of other countries." It would help if he
named these countries, but they cannot be found in his stump speech, the transcript of his
90-minute-long interview with the New York Times editorial board, or his webpage. A
Trump supporter will say that the answer can be found in Sanders's praise for the leftist,
authoritarian regimes in Venezuela, Bolivia, China, Nicaragua, and Cuba. Indeed, Sander's often
points out that China has done more to address extreme poverty "than any country in the history
of civilization." He has praised Cuba for "making enormous progress in improving the lives of
poor and working people." Sanders stated that "Vermont could set an example to the rest of the
nation similar to the type of example Nicaragua is setting for the rest of Latin America" and
"It's funny, sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is, that people are
lining up for food. That is a good thing! In other countries people don't line up for food: the
rich get the food and the poor starve to death."
However, no serious observer will claim that Sanders is calling for such a regime for the
U.S. While Sanders has heaped praise of these countries, he often adds a hedge. For example, in
his December interview with the Times editorial board, he said:
It wasn't so many decades ago that there was mass starvation in China. All right? There is
not mass starvation today and people have got -- the government has got to take credit for
the fact that there is now a middle class in China. No one denies that more people in China
have a higher standard of living than use to be the case. All right? That's the reality.
On the other hand, China is a dictatorship. It does not tolerate democracy, i.e., what
they're doing in Hong Kong. They do not tolerate independent trade unions and the Communist
Party rules with a pretty iron fist. So, and by the way, in recent years, Xi has made the
situation even worse. So, I mean, I'll give, you give people credit where it is due. But you
have to maintain values of democracy and human rights and certainly that does not exist in
China.
In the same interview, he commented that ousted Bolivian President Evo Morales had "a pretty
good record," noting his success in fighting extreme poverty and giving voice to indigenous
people. He qualified his compliments by saying, "Should he have run for another term although
they made it legal? Probably not".
One may suggest that Sanders has in mind the social democracies of Scandinavia. However,
these regimes were forged not through revolutions, but through the kinds of reforms centrist
Democrats favor. In short, it is quite easy to figure out what Sanders could not possibly mean
when he keeps calling for a revolution; it is much more difficult to figure out what he does
mean.
Sanders keeps calling on people to "stand up and fight." "There will never be any real
change in this country unless there is a political revolution. That means that millions of
people have got to stand up and fight." "We need millions of people[,] working class people
whose lives have been decimated for the last 45 years[,] to stand up to Wall Street, to stand
up to insurance companies and the drug companies." Again, one is at a loss as to what he
means.
Revolutions are forged in the streets, on the barricades, over forceful control of the
centers of power and media. There is no hint that Sanders calls on his followers to fight in
that way; he mainly ask them to send checks often and for vote him--- which is what all the
other candidates also call for. It seems that Sanders's fighting words have no fighting in them
.
Finally, one notes that even if Sanders gains power, the old fashioned way, by gaining a
majority of the votes in the electoral college, and somehow also gets the Democrats to gain
majority in the Senate and maintain their majority in the House, he still will be unable to
pass he radical agenda any more than Obama was able to pass much more moderate policies-- when
he had such majorities. The Democratic Senators from red stats will not support radical
changes.
The good news is that Sanders -- despite his revolutionary rhetoric-- actually does not mean
to overthrow the government, but, rather, to work within the democratic system. The sad news is
that he is confusing millions with his revolutionary rhetoric and leading them up a garden
patch with an agenda that is at best utopian.
Amitai Etzioni is a
University Professor and professor of international affairs at The George Washington
University. Click
here to watch a recent, four-minute video called "Political and Social Life after Trump."
His latest book, Reclaiming Patriotism, was published by University of Virginia Press in 2019
and is available for
download without charge.
"... It was no accident that Davos, the promoter of globalization, is so strongly behind the Climate Change agenda. Davos WEF has a board of appointed trustees. Among them is the early backer of Greta Thunberg, climate multi-millionaire, Al Gore, chairman of the Climate Reality Project. WEF Trustees also include former IMF head, now European Central Bank head Christine Lagarde whose first words as ECB chief were that central banks had to make climate change a priority. Another Davos trustee is outgoing Bank of England head Mark Carney, who was just named Boris Johnson's climate change advisor and who warns that pension funds that ignore climate change risk bankruptcy (sic). ..."
"... Of note: Mark Carney upon leaving his position of Governor Bank of England will serve as global warming adviser to Boris Johnson. Who knew Carney was a scientist? ..."
'Greta, bonnie Prince Charles and the pirate billionaires and trillionaires'- In another
post I queried how did Greta go to Davos? Silly me; Greta was invited the keynote speaker.
"Stop Climate change" was this year's theme: the Vision - 'stop the natural cycle of the
universe' -
Now she intends to Trademark 'How Dare You' and set up a Foundation Indeed, Greta found
her sugar daddies. Adults who encourage truancy.
my grandpa was a wise bloke and admonished "when politicians and do gooders are in the
same room, keep an eye on your money."
It was no accident that Davos, the promoter of globalization, is so strongly behind the
Climate Change agenda. Davos WEF has a board of appointed trustees. Among them is the early
backer of Greta Thunberg, climate multi-millionaire, Al Gore, chairman of the Climate
Reality Project. WEF Trustees also include former IMF head, now European Central Bank head
Christine Lagarde whose first words as ECB chief were that central banks had to make
climate change a priority. Another Davos trustee is outgoing Bank of England head Mark
Carney, who was just named Boris Johnson's climate change advisor and who warns that
pension funds that ignore climate change risk bankruptcy (sic).
The board also includes the influential founder of Carlyle Group, David M. Rubenstein.
It includes Feike Sybesma of the agribusiness giant, Unilever, who is also Chair of the
High Level Leadership Forum on Competitiveness and Carbon Pricing of the World Bank Group.
And perhaps the most interesting in terms of pushing the new green agenda is Larry Fink,
founder and CEO of the investment group BlackRock.[.]
TCFD and SASB Look Closely
As part of his claim to virtue on the new green investing, Fink states that BlackRock
was a founding member of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). He
claims, "For evaluating and reporting climate-related risks, as well as the related
governance issues that are essential to managing them, the TCFD provides a valuable
framework."[.]
TCFD was created in 2015 by the Bank for International Settlements, chaired by fellow
Davos board member and Bank of England head Mark Carney. In 2016 the TCFD along with the
City of London Corporation and the UK Government created the Green Finance Initiative,
aiming to channel trillions of dollars to "green" investments. The central bankers of the
FSB nominated 31 people to form the TCFD. Chaired by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, it
includes in addition to BlackRock, JP MorganChase; Barclays Bank; HSBC; Swiss Re, the
world's second largest reinsurance; China's ICBC bank; Tata Steel, ENI oil, Dow Chemical,
mining giant BHP and David Blood of Al Gore's Generation Investment LLC. Note the crucial
role of the central banks here.[.]
Of note: Mark Carney upon leaving his position of Governor Bank of England will serve as
global warming adviser to Boris Johnson. Who knew Carney was a scientist?
Pre-alert:
Tax on Excessive garbage output is coming to your town. You will be restricted to xxxKGs/LBS
annually. Your garbage will be weighed and at December 31st any excess above the permissible
will attract additional tax.
Anyone see the unintended consequences?
The faces of the old guard who were behind the doomed campaign of HRC in her defeat to
long-shot Trump. Also UANI and the successful campaign to defeat the Iran deal, by second
try, in 2018.
Oui | Jan 30 2020 14:09 utc | 16 (zionish buckies)
They say that Truman beat Dewey in '48 because the nazis, er "zionist agent" ponyed up 2
million 1948 dollars. Lotta money in those days...
............
steven t johnson | Jan 30 2020 14:13 utc | 17
We are surrounded in our small riverain community by nuttychristers who believe precisely
as you describe. They also, many, expect to beam up in some magical way..."rapture". The Old
Army Game on their soft pliable grey matters...a gang of dangerous rubes.
zionism, nazi-ism, and Judaism are not compatible, but if any preacher or Rabbi were to
say this from a local pulpit there'd be a change in his status before sunset. (actually there
are zero Rabbis here, but a few within 100 km.
I am pretty sure the guy who tried 30 years ago to teach me Hebrew, a Rabbi (long retired
now) sees this for what it is, and for what it's leading to, if he's still alive.
The misconduct for which Donald Trump has been impeached centers on an attempt to drag a
foreign government into a U.S. election campaign. That caper has increased public attention
to the problem of foreign interference in U.S. politics, but the problem is more extensive
than discourse about the impeachment process would suggest.
lizabeth Warren wrote an
article
outlining in general terms how she would bring America's current foreign wars to an end. Perhaps the most significant part of the
article is her commitment to respect Congress' constitutional role in matters of war:
We will hold ourselves to this by recommitting to a simple idea: the constitutional requirement that Congress play a primary
role in deciding to engage militarily. The United States should not fight and cannot win wars without deep public support.
Successive administrations and Congresses have taken the easy way out by choosing military action without proper authorizations
or transparency with the American people. The failure to debate these military missions in public is one of the reasons
they have been allowed to continue without real prospect of success [bold mine-DL].
On my watch, that will end. I am committed to seeking congressional authorization if the use of force is required. Seeking
constrained authorizations with limited time frames will force the executive branch to be open with the American people and
Congress about our objectives, how the operation is progressing, how much it is costing, and whether it should continue.
Warren's commitment on this point is welcome, and it is what Americans should expect and demand from their presidential
candidates. It should be the bare minimum requirement for anyone seeking to be president, and any candidate who won't commit to
respecting the Constitution should never be allowed to have the powers of that office. The president is not permitted to launch
attacks and start wars alone, but Congress and the public have allowed several presidents to do just that without any consequences.
It is time to put a stop to illegal presidential wars, and it is also time to put a stop to open-ended authorizations of military
force. Warren's point about asking for "constrained authorizations with limited time frames" is important, and it is something that
we should insist on in any future debate over the use of force. The 2001 and 2002 AUMFs are still on the books and have been abused
and stretched beyond recognition to apply to groups that didn't exist when they were passed so that the U.S. can fight wars in
countries that don't threaten our security. Those need to be repealed as soon as possible to eliminate the opening that they have
provided the executive to make war at will.
Michael Brendan Dougherty is
unimpressed with Warren's rhetoric:
But what has Warren offered to do differently, or better? She's made no notable break with the class of experts who run our
failing foreign policy. Unlike Bernie Sanders, and like Trump or Obama, she hasn't hired a foreign-policy staff committed to a
different vision. And so her promise to turn war powers back to Congress should be considered as empty as Obama's promise to do
the same. Her promise to bring troops home would turn out to be as meaningless as a Trump tweet saying the same.
We shouldn't discount Warren's statements so easily. When a candidate makes specific commitments about ending U.S. wars during a
campaign, that is different from making vague statements about having a "humble" foreign policy. Bush ran on a conventional hawkish
foreign policy platform, and there were also no ongoing wars for him to campaign against, so we can't say that he ever ran as a
"dove." Obama campaigned against the Iraq war and ran on ending the U.S. military presence there, and before his first term was
finished almost all U.S. troops were out of Iraq. It is important to remember that he did not campaign against the war in
Afghanistan, and instead argued in support of it. His subsequent decision to commit many more troops there was a mistake, but it was
entirely consistent with what he campaigned on. In other words, he withdrew from the country he promised to withdraw from, and
escalated in the country where he said the U.S. should be fighting. Trump didn't actually campaign on ending any wars, but he did
talk about "bombing the hell" out of ISIS, and after he was elected he escalated the war on ISIS. His anti-Iranian obsession was out
in the open from the start if anyone cared to pay attention to it. In short, what candidates commit to doing during a campaign does
matter and it usually gives you a good idea of what a candidate will do once elected.
If Warren and some of the other Democratic candidates are committing to ending U.S. wars, we shouldn't assume that they won't
follow through on those commitments because previous presidents proved to be the hawks that they admitted to being all along.
Presidential candidates often tell us exactly what they mean to do, but we have to be paying attention to everything they say and
not just one catchphrase that they said a few times. If voters want a more peaceful foreign policy, they should vote for candidates
that actually campaign against ongoing wars instead of rewarding the ones that promise and then deliver escalation. But just voting
for the candidates that promise an end to wars is not enough if Americans want Congress to start doing its job by reining in the
executive. If we don't want presidents to run amok on war powers, there have to be political consequences for the ones that have
done that and there needs to be steady pressure on Congress to take back their role in matters of war. Voters should select
genuinely antiwar candidates, but then they also have to hold those candidates accountable once they're in office.
"... the West's equivalent to the former Soviet Union's systematic, and equally pervasive, truth-suppression, to fool the public into thinking that the Government represents them, no matter how much it does not. ..."
"... (The chief trick in this regard is to fool them into thinking that since there is more than one political party, one of them will be "good," even though the fact may actually be that each of the parties represents simply a different faction of a psychopathically evil aristocracy. After all: each party lied and supported invading Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, and Syria constantly; and no party acknowledges that the 2014 regime-change in Ukraine was a U.S. coup instead of a domestic Ukrainian democratic revolution. On such important matters, they all lie, and in basically the same ways. These lies are bipartisan, even though most of the other political lies are heavily partisan.) ..."
"... The great then-independent investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald headlined about that interview, at Salon on 18 April 2012, "Attacks on RT and Assange reveal much about the critics: Those who pretend to engage in adversarial journalism will invariably hate those who actually do it." How true that was, and unfortunately still is! And Assange himself is the best example of it. ..."
"... Let's examine the unstated premises at work here. There is apparently a rule that says it's perfectly OK for a journalist to work for a media outlet owned and controlled by a weapons manufacturer (GE/NBC/MSNBC), or by the U.S. and British governments (BBC/Stars & Stripes/Voice of America), or by Rupert Murdoch and Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal (Wall St. Journal/Fox News), or by a banking corporation with long-standing ties to right-wing governments (Politico), or by for-profit corporations whose profits depend upon staying in the good graces of the U.S. government ( Kaplan/The Washington Post ), or by loyalists to one of the two major political parties (National Review/TPM/countless others), but it's an intrinsic violation of journalistic integrity to work for a media outlet owned by the Russian government. Where did that rule come from? ..."
"... This is the American gospel, and it is called "capitalism." Oddly, after Russia switched to capitalism in 1991, the American gospel switched instead to pure global conquest -- über -imperialism -- and the American public didn't even blink. So: nowadays, capitalism has come to mean über-imperialism. That's today's American gospel. Adolf Hitler would be smiling, upon today's Amerika. ..."
All of the lies are still being propounded by the U.S. regime and remain fully enforced by suppression of the truth about these
matters.
That's being done in all news-media except a few of the non -mainstream ones.
So: this is about an actual Western samizdat - the West's equivalent to the former Soviet Union's systematic, and equally pervasive,
truth-suppression, to fool the public into thinking that the Government represents them, no matter how much it does not.
(The chief trick in this regard is to fool them into thinking that since there is more than one political party, one of them will
be "good," even though the fact may actually be that each of the parties represents simply a different faction of a psychopathically
evil aristocracy. After all: each party lied and supported invading Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, and Syria constantly; and no party
acknowledges that the 2014 regime-change in Ukraine was a U.S. coup instead of a domestic Ukrainian democratic revolution. On such
important matters, they all lie, and in basically the same ways. These lies are bipartisan, even though most of the other political
lies are heavily partisan.)
The U.S.-and-allied regimes' billionaires-owned-and-controlled 'news'-media
condemned Assange for this interview, because it enabled whomever still had an open mind, amongst the Western public, to hear from
one of those billionares' destruction-targets (Nasrallah), and for Assange's doing this on the TV-news network of the main country
that America's billionaires are especially trying to conquer, which is (and since
26 July 1945 has consistently been ) Russia.
The great
then-independent investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald headlined about that interview, at Salon on 18 April 2012,
"Attacks on RT
and Assange reveal much about the critics: Those who pretend to engage in adversarial journalism will invariably hate those who
actually do it." How true that was, and unfortunately still is! And Assange himself is the best example of it. Greenwald wrote:
Let's examine the unstated premises at work here. There is apparently a rule that says it's perfectly OK for a journalist to
work for a media outlet owned and controlled by a weapons manufacturer (GE/NBC/MSNBC), or by the U.S. and British governments
(BBC/Stars & Stripes/Voice of America), or by Rupert Murdoch
and Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal (Wall St. Journal/Fox News), or by a banking corporation with
long-standing ties to right-wing governments
(Politico), or by for-profit corporations whose profits depend upon staying in the good graces of the U.S. government (
Kaplan/The Washington Post ), or by loyalists to
one of the two major political parties (National Review/TPM/countless others), but it's an intrinsic violation of journalistic
integrity to work for a media outlet owned by the Russian government. Where did that rule come from?
But from 'temporary' house-arrest there, Assange was allowed asylum by Ecuador's progressive President Rafael Correa on
20 June 2012 , to stay in London's Ecuadoran Embassy, so as not to be seized
by the UK regime to be sent to prison and probable death-without-trial in the U.S. To Correa's shock, it turned out that Correa's
successor, Vice President Lenin Moreno, was actually a U.S. agent, who promptly forced Assange out of the Embassy, into Belmarsh
prison, to die there or else become extradited to die in a U.S. prison, also without trial.
And, for what, then, is Assange being imprisoned, and perhaps murdered? He divulged government secrets that should never even
have been secrets! He raised the blanket of lies, which covers over these actually dictatorial clandestine international operations.
He exposed these evil imperialistic operations, which are hidden behind (and under) that blanket of imperialists' lies. For this,
he is being martyred -- a martyr for democracy, where there is no actual democracy (but only those lies).
Here is an example:
On December 29th, I headlined
"Further Proof: U.S.,
UK, & France Committed War-Crime on 14 April 2018" and reported highlights of the latest Wikileaks document-dumps regarding a
U.S.-UK-French operation to cover-up (via their control over the OPCW) their having committed an international war-crime when they
had fired 105 missiles against Syria on 14 April 2018, which was done allegedly to punish Syria for having perpetrated a gas-attack
in Douma seven days before -- except that there hadn't been any such gas-attack, but the OPCW simply lied and said that there might
have been one, and that the Syrian Government might have done it! That's playing the public for suckers.
Back on 3 November 2019, Fox News bannered
"Fox News Poll: Bipartisan majorities want some U.S. troops to stay in Syria" and reported that when citing ISIS as America's
enemy that must be defeated, 69% of U.S. respondents wanted U.S. troops to stay in Syria. But when did ISIS ever constitute a threat
to U.S. national security? And under what international law is any U.S. soldier, who is inside Syria, anything other than an invader
there? The answer, to both of these questions, is obviously "never" and "none." But if you are an investor in Lockheed Martin, don't
you want Americans to be suckers about both ? And, so, they are . People such as Julian Assange don't want the public anywhere to
be lied-to. Anyone who is in the propaganda-business -- serving companies such as Lockheed Martin -- wants the public to be suckers.
This is the way the free market actually works. It works by lying, and in such a country the Government serves the people who
have the money, and not the people who don't. The people who don't have the money are supposed to be lied-to. And, so, they are.
But this is not democracy.
Democracy, in fact, is impossible if the public are predominantly deceived.
If the public are predominantly deceived, then the people who do the deceiving will be the dictators there. And if a country has
dictators, then it's no democracy. In a totally free market, only the people with the most money will have any freedom at all; everyone
else will be merely their suckers, who are fooled by the professionals at doing that -- lying.
The super-rich enforce their smears, and their other lies, by hiring people to do this.
When Barack Obama said that "The United States is and
remains the one indispensable nation" - so that each other nation is "dispensable" - he was merely exemplifying the view that
only the most powerful is indispensable, and that therefore everyone else is dispensable. Of course, this is the way that he, and
Donald Trump, both have governed in the U.S. And
Americans overwhelmingly endorse
this viewpoint . They're fooled by both parties, because both parties serve only their respective billionaires -- and billionaires
are above the law; they are the law, in America and its allied regimes. That's the way it is.
This is the American gospel, and it is called "capitalism." Oddly, after Russia switched to capitalism in 1991, the American gospel
switched instead to pure global conquest -- über -imperialism -- and the American public didn't even blink. So: nowadays, capitalism
has come to mean über-imperialism. That's today's American gospel. Adolf Hitler would be smiling, upon today's Amerika.
And as far as whistleblowers -- such as Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning, and other champions of honesty
and of democracy -- are concerned: Americans agree with the billionaires, who detest and destroy such whistleblowers. Champions of
democracy are shunned here, where PR reigns and real journalism is almost non-existent.
"... In any event, no matter who they nominate, they have no chance of winning in November. How could they, given the total stranglehold the Russians now have on American democracy? ..."
Resistance Non-Lethal Option No. 1 is winning the 2020 election, which isn't looking very promising. The Democratic Party is in
shambles. According to the polls, their current front-runner is a senile, hair-sniffing, finger-sucking freak
who never met a
credit card company or a healthcare lobbyist he didn't like , and who rivals even Donald Trump when it comes to incoherent babbling.
Yes, that's right, folks, it's "Smilin' Joe" Biden, vanquisher of the razor-wielding, swimming-pool-gangster
"Corn Pop " to the rescue!
As far as I've been able to gather, the plan is for Joe to out-"crazy" Trump (and thus win back the "bull goose loony" demographic)
by going completely off his medication and having a series of
scary-looking petit mal seizures on national
television.
Sanders, it seems, has gone totally "native." He's out there, in the heart of the American darkness, like a geriatric Colonel
Kurz, operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct.
According to the latest reconnaissance, he is building another "revolutionary" army of fanatical, doped-up, hacky-sacking "socialists"
that he will lead into the convention in July and deliver to Biden, or Elizabeth Warren, or whichever soulless corporate puppet the
party honchos eventually nominate, and then obsequiously stump for them for the next five months. (Or, who knows, maybe Michael Bloomberg
will put the Democrats out of their misery and just buy the party and nominate himself.)
The "Crush Bernie" movement is just getting started, but you can tell the Resistance isn't screwing around. Hillary Clinton just
officially launched her national "
Nobody
Likes Bernie " campaign at the star-studded
2020 Sundance Film Festival .
MSNBC anchor
Joy Reid brought on a professional "
body language expert " to phrenologize Sanders "live" on the air and, as I said, they're just getting started.
In any event, no matter who they nominate, they have no chance of winning in November. How could they, given the total stranglehold
the Russians now have on American democracy?
As Adam Schiff just reminded everyone , unless Donald Trump is removed from office, "
we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won ," because at any moment Putin could order Trump to pressure the Ukrainian
president into investigating Biden's son's corruption by refusing to fund the Ukrainian military's resistance to Putin's secret plot
to occupy the entire Ukraine and use it as a covert base from which to launch an all-out thermonuclear war against the United States
(which Putin already controls through his puppet, Trump, and his network of nefarious Facebook bots, which,
according to this expert on NPR , are
already brainwashing gullible Black people into voting for Bernie Sanders this time, or at least refusing to vote for Biden, like
they refused to vote for Hillary last time which, OK, I know, that sounds kind of racist, but we're talking NPR here, folks. These
people aren't racists. They're liberals!)
OK, I got a little lost there the point is, if the election goes ahead, and Trump doesn't have an embolism or something, odds
are, we're looking at four more years of Putin-Nazi occupation. Which brings us to
Non-Lethal Option No. 2
Resistance Non-Lethal Option No. 2 is, of course, the current impeachment circus. I don't even know where to start with this one.
After three and a half years of corporate-media-manufactured mass hysteria and Intelligence Community propaganda designed to convince
the American public that Donald Trump is a "Russian asset" (and possibly
Putin's homosexual lover
) and also literally the Resurrection of Hitler, the Democrats are trying to impeach the man for something that most Americans
either (a) believe is common practice among members of the political class, (b) don't entirely understand, or (c) do, but don't give
a shit about.
Seriously, it's like they held a contest to see if anyone could think of something that would out-anticlimax the Mueller report,
and this is what the winner came up with an over-acted, sanctimonious snooze-fest, the stakes of which could not possibly be lower.
Sure, the corporate media are doing their best to cover every twist and turn of the "drama" as if the fate of democracy were hanging
in the balance, but
everybody
knows it's a joke or, all right, almost
everybody .
It would appear the
Democratic Party elites are in full panic mode
as despite all
their (and their liberal media mates) efforts to bad-mouth Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Senator is
soaring in the polls, overtaking 'sleepy' Joe both in surveys and at the bookies.
Today,
The Hill
reports
that a new poll finds Sen. Bernie
Sanders (I-Vt.) leading the field of Democratic
contenders in California
, where about 40 percent of all the convention delegates will be
allocated on Super Tuesday.
Sanders also leads in Iowa
...
And
Sanders lead in New Hampshire...
And on the national level, is rapidly catching Biden...
And finally, where it really matters - putting your money where your mouth is - Bernie is exploding
higher, surging past Biden to lead the Democratic Party nomination odds...
Source: Bloomberg
And it is not likely to slow down anytime soon, as the Sanders campaign announced Tuesday it would
launch its first ads in Super Tuesday states, spending $2.5 million between California and
Texas.
All of which is probably why - after failing with accusations of sexism and verbal attacks from
Hilary and Obama - The DNC has stepped up to the plate (again) to disavow Democratic voters in America
that they believe in any sort of democracy.
'Bernie Bros' are venting frustration at DNC Chairman Tom Perez over his initial appointments to
the committees that will oversee the rules and party platform at the nominating convention in
Milwaukee later this year.
Specifically,
as The Hill reports,
Sanders' allies are incensed by two names in particular
:
Former Rep.
Barney Frank
(D-Mass.), who will co-chair the rules
committee, and
Hillary Clinton's former campaign chairman
John Podesta
, who will have
a seat on that committee.
The Sanders campaign unsuccessfully sought to have Frank removed from the rules committee
in 2016
, describing him as an
"aggressive attack surrogate for the Clinton
campaign."
And,
as The Hill details,
Podesta, a longtime Washington political consultant and Clinton confidant, is
viewed with contempt
by some on the left. One of Podesta's hacked emails from 2016
showed him
asking a Democratic strategist where to "stick the knife in" Sanders,
who
lost the nomination to Clinton that year after a divisive primary contest.
"The appointments also include individuals that are outright hostile to Bernie Sanders
and his supporters,"
Yasmine Taeb, a DNC member from Virginia, exclaimed.
"It's not the message the DNC should be sending to the grassroots right now when we're all
working aggressively to defeat the racist in the White House."
"If the DNC believes it's going to get away in 2020 with what it did in 2016, it has
another thing coming,"
Sanders' campaign co-chair Nina Turner blasted.
Even the neocons are panicking...
"For the socialist left...Bernie is too big to fail.
The question is whether the Democratic Party, the only political force standing between Donald
Trump and his authoritarian ambitions, will risk failing with him."
https://t.co/RncDSEzrIL
How will the military-industrial-complex survive under a socialist president?
As The Hill concludes,
Perez and his team had nothing to do with the party's disastrous 2016
convention, which took place under the cloud of WikiLeaks releasing hacked DNC emails that showed
political bias in favor of Clinton over Sanders.
But Clinton's recent return to the spotlight to bash Sanders and relitigate both her 2016
primary victory and general election loss has reignited tensions between establishment Democrats and
grassroots liberals.
With Sanders rising in the polls, there are new fears among his supporters that the national party
will stack the deck against him, particularly if there is a contested convention.
There is a huge difference between extremely bright students and medicate ones. Bright students are the future of the society and
need to be nurtures and helped in any way possible for the range of specialties that are important (STEM is one example)
There is difference between the degree in computer science and the degree in some obscure nationality studies (let's say Eastern
European studies; few people that are needed can be paid by intelligence agencies ;-) Obscure areas should be generally available only
to well to do students, who can pay for their education.
Like is the case with alcoholism, some student debt is the result of bad personal choices.
Notable quotes:
"... Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times, ..."
"... "My daughter's getting out of school, I saved all my money, so she doesn't have any student debt. Am I going to get my money back?" ..."
"... So, we end up paying for people who didn't save any money, then those who did the right thing get screwed, ..."
"... "We did the right thing and we get screwed," ..."
"... "Look, we build a future going forward by making it better. By that same logic what would we have done? Not started Social Security because we didn't start it last week for you or last month for you," ..."
"... "We don't build an America by saddling our kids with debt. We build an America by saying we're going to open up those opportunities for kids to be able to get an education without getting crushed by student loan debt." ..."
"... Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) campaigns in Des Moines, Iowa on Jan. 19, 2020. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images) ..."
"... "I'll direct the Secretary of Education to use their authority to begin to compromise and modify federal student loans consistent with my plan to cancel up to $50,000 in debt for 95% of student loan borrowers (about 42 million people)," ..."
"... A scholarship system awarding free tuition to the top 5% of college applicants (NOT biased by race, gender, etc) who apply to the U.S.'s best STEM programs, hell yes! Free tuition for future Democrat voters, f^%k that! ..."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) defended her plan to pay off college loans after being confronted by a father in Iowa in an exchange
that went viral.
Senator Elizabeth Warren is confronted by a father who worked double shifts to pay for his daughters education and wants to
know if he will get his money back. pic.twitter.com/t2GGbAnG08
The father approached Warren, a leading Democratic presidential contender, after a campaign event in Grimes.
"My daughter's getting out of school, I saved all my money, so she doesn't have any student debt. Am I going to get my
money back?" the man asked Warren.
"Of course not," Warren replied.
" So, we end up paying for people who didn't save any money, then those who did the right thing get screwed, " the
father told her.
He then described a friend who makes more money but didn't save up while he worked double shifts to save up to pay for his daughter's
college.
The father became upset, accusing Warren of laughing.
"We did the right thing and we get screwed," he added before walking off.
In an appearance on "CBS This Morning" on Friday, Warren was asked about the exchange.
Last night, a father who saved for his daughter's college education approached
@SenWarren and challenged her proposed student
loan forgiveness plan. @TonyDokoupil asks the
senator for her response: pic.twitter.com/jLUXPqChC6
"Look, we build a future going forward by making it better. By that same logic what would we have done? Not started Social
Security because we didn't start it last week for you or last month for you," Warren said.
Pressed on whether she was saying "tough luck" to people like the father, she said "No." She then recounted how she got to go
to college despite coming from a poor family.
"There was a $50 a semester option for me. I was able to go to college and become a public school teacher because America had
invested in a $50 a semester option for me. Today that's not available," she said.
"We don't build an America by saddling our kids with debt. We build an America by saying we're going to open up those opportunities
for kids to be able to get an education without getting crushed by student loan debt."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) campaigns in Des Moines, Iowa on Jan. 19, 2020. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
One of Warren's plans is to cancel student loans. According to
her website , on her first day as president
she would cancel student loan debt as well as give free tuition to public colleges and technical schools and ban for-profit colleges
from getting aid from the federal government.
"I'll direct the Secretary of Education to use their authority to begin to compromise and modify federal student loans
consistent with my plan to cancel up to $50,000 in debt for 95% of student loan borrowers (about 42 million people)," Warren
wrote.
"I'll also direct the Secretary of Education to use every existing authority available to rein in the for-profit college industry,
crack down on predatory student lending, and combat the racial disparities in our higher education system."
Sounds an awful lot like the dad above is right those that did the "right thing" are gonna get "screwed."
Warren you bitch, I paid back my student loans responsibly by working my *** off (140k) and now you want to give others a free
ride? I sure hope that I get a refund for all that money I paid back.
Obama did this kinds thing with housing. I got outbid by 100k on a house. The other bidder who got it didn't make his house
payments so Obama restructured his loan knocking off 100k from his loan and giving him a 1% interest rate on it. He again didn't
make his payments and got it restructured again but I didn't hear the terms of that one.
If student loan debt is such a crisis, force every university to use their precious endowment funds to underwrite those loans
AND let those loans get discharged in bankruptcy. Maybe then those schools would start to question whether having a dozen
"Diversity Deans" each being paid $100k+ salaries is really worth the expense (among other things).
A scholarship system awarding free tuition to the top 5% of college applicants (NOT biased by race, gender, etc) who apply
to the U.S.'s best STEM programs, hell yes! Free tuition for future Democrat voters, f^%k that!
The pissed off dad in this story has only one person to be pissed off at: himself, for being stupid. Understand something about
college degrees: 90% of them, including majors like accounting, are not worth the paper they are printed on. Anyone who works
double shifts to pay for anyone's college degree, even their own, is stupid. Look at why college costs so much: go to any state,
and you'll see that 70% or more of the highest paid state employees are employed by public colleges and universities. You need
to play these sons of bitches at their game, use their funny money to pay for the degree, and walk away. If you play the way these
sons of bitches tell you to play, you get what you deserve.
I used their funny money to get a degree that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on and walked away. I don't give a ****
if the sons of bitches grab my tax refund. Why? Because I have my withholdings set up so they get next to nothing in April. It
costs the sons of bitches more to print up the garnishment letter and send it to me than what they're stealing from me. Guess
what I use for an address? P.O. Box (can't serve a summons to a ghost).
If you're going to do what stupid, pissed off dad did, and work double shifts, you need to be trading out of all that funny
money you're being paid for those double shifts, and trading into personal economic leverage (gold first, then silver). Instead
of having bedrock to build multi-generational wealth, he has a daughter with a degree in pouring coffee, and nothing else to show
for it. He only has himself to blame for drinking the Kool Aid. I can grab overtime every Saturday at my job if I want it, and
every last penny of that OT is traded out of funny money and into gold ASAP.
Understand the US real estate market: the only reason it did not die five years ago was because we welcomed rich foreigners
to come in and buy real estate to protect their wealth. We've stopped doing that, we have an over-abundance of domestic sellers
and a severe shortage of domestic buyers. It's also where history says you need to be if you want to build multi-generational
wealth. Warren actually needs to go further than what she's proposing. Not only does she need to discharge 100% of those balances
by EO, she also needs to refund all those tax refunds stolen under false pretenses. Anything less, and we are guaranteed, for
the next 40 years, to have a real estate market and economy which resembles Japan since 1989.
Why do I buy gold? So I can play people like Warren at their game. I'll take whatever loan discharge she gives me, and have
lots of leverage in reserve to take advantage of what will be a once in a lifetime real estate fire sale.
Make those who want to be bailed out have to pay the bailout back by working every non-holiday Saturday (at the minimum wage
rate) for the government and citizens (e.g who need work done around the house, take care of the elderly - in the bathroom) until
the debt is paid back. AND let those who have not taken the debt relief supervise them - getting paid by the government at the
same rate, minimum wage. 🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞
For a decent college it's between 35-70k a year.... Why? 300k a year library professors, if it weren't for tenure the problem
would largely he self correcting as rntrillments drop...
My how times have changed. My son was a college grad circa 1996. He did the JUCO thing for 1 1/2 years , worked a part time
job for the duration, and picked up an A S while making the President's list. I aid, out of pocket all educational expenses while
he lived at home and provided for a nice lifestyle while he was in school. As promised, he finished his education, out of state,
which I paid for all along the way. 2 more years, he graduated, on the Pres list, and picked up his B S. No student debt, in his
words, was one of the the greatest gifts. Today he is debt free, (so am I ), and he is a very happy , financially secure ( until
the world goes upside down) mature adult. Hey Lizzie, send me a check.
They are all ignoring the real problem...the Federal mandated system of the guaranteed student loan program. Anyone with a
pulse can get a guaranteed student loan, thus creating a massive rise in college admissions. The colleges are guaranteed the money
for these loans, while the lender (the US gov't) is not guaranteed to be paid back by the students receiving these loans,. this
created a fool proof, risk free ability for colleges and universities across the country to jack up their tuition costs at over
a 5:1 ratio of income growth over the last 25 years. The problem is the program itself, students need to earn their ability to
enroll in college through hard work and good grades. Currently, any moron with a high school diploma can go to college on a guaranteed
student loan program and the colleges are more than willing to take on any idiot that wants to go to school despite their aspirations,
work ethics, intelligence, achievements, etc. The universities have been given a blank check to expand their campuses, drastically
inflate the salaries and pensions of professors and administrators of these schools all at the expense of this guaranteed "free"
money from the government that only achieved an immense amount of the population going to overpriced schools in order to get a
diploma in useless pursuits like african american studies, philosophy, creative writing, music, criminal justice, arts, basket
weaving, etc.. The skyrocketing costs of colleges and student debt is the direct result of this miserably failed system of the
guaranteed student loan. The majority of which have no business going to higher education because they don't have the aptitude,
work ethic and intelligence necessary to actually receive a degree in anything that benefits the economy and themselves going
forward. 30 years ago the average state college admission was roughly $4k a year for a good state school, today it is roughly
$20k or far more. Meanwhile, the average income has gone up a meaningless amount. Get rid of the guaranteed student loan program
and make the colleges responsible for accepting the responsibility of the loans for their students. I guarantee enrollment will
decrease and costs will decline making it much more affordable for the truly responsible and aspiring student to achieve their
dreams of a degree without a $250k loan needed for completion nor the lifelong strain of debt on their future incomes. The colleges
are raping the system the same as all these shoestring companies take advantage of the medicaid system and give hovarounds and
walking canes, and hearing aids for free because the gov't reimburses them at wildly inflated prices under some federally passed
mandate. The system is the problem, eliminating the debt will only exacerbate it and cost taxpayers trillions more each and every
year as "free" college will now entice every moron with a heartbeat the ability to go to outrageously priced schools with no skin
in the game on the taxpayer's dime. Elizabeth Warren is an idiot....someone needs to have a sit down with her and discuss this
rationale in her luxurious, state of the art TeePee.
While you are correct corrupting academics with huge payoffs is how you secure their votes and the votes of most of the 'students'
for decades to come.
Any group or industry can be paid off and you might think of the system as a set of interlocking payoffs until you get out
to the margins and the fringes where the cash and benefits are a lot thinner.
Everyone who continues to pay taxes to these neo-Bolsheviks is going to get screwed. The only alternative is to stop funding
these criminals completely.
What a sorry presidential canditate! She flat out LIED about being native american to get FREE college. And now this. Where
has America gone????????? Socialism sems to be what most want nowadays. It has NEVER EVER worked anywhere in the world at any
time! If yoou think therwise, just name ONE countryn it has worked in ! What a lying bunch the democrats are..........................
So all if us have to pay for it. Why did I have to pay for University and College in the 1970's if I wanted to further my education
and now that I am older I have to foot the bill for the young people of today? Pay DOUBLE? (just to buy votes for traitors?)
I think NOT! Take your theft from the people, to buy votes of everyone from young people to illegal criminals to outright criminals
in prison to dead people and resign before we decide to arrest you.
Democrats, HANG IT UP! We are NOT paying for YOUR illegitimate votes.
Notice too how all their "we're going to wipe out your debt!" promises never seem to include the big "endowments" of these
fascist colleges that jacked up tuition 1000% over what it used to cost.
No, those creepy commie profs and their freaky administrators get to keep their big TAX FREE endowments AND their big salaries.
Big Gov by Sanders/Warren don't seem to think that's obscene.
You are absolutely correct. 45 years ago you could almost work part time and actually PAY your way through college. Today you
almost need a physicians salary to pay for these OVERPRICED sewers filled with leftist propaganda.
It's obvious that Warren doesn't teach economics or even math. They weren't smart enough when they took out the loans and they
are not good with paying their bills so move the goal posts to bail them out. Has anyone given the thought that maybe they shouldn't
have gone to college at all. Sounds like they will all work for the government anyways.
This blabbing about authoritarian Russia and China greatly diminishes the value of this
article. The author is Warren foreign policy advisor. Probably she should find a better
advisor.
Compare this blabbing with Putin stance about strengthening of the role of the UN.
Notable quotes:
"... Fourth, the new progressive foreign policy is highly skeptical of military interventions, and opposed to democracy promotion by force. This does not mean that progressives are unwilling or would be unable to use force when it is necessary. But after 17 years of war in the Middle East, they do not share the aggressive posture that has characterized the post-Cold War era. Some are skeptical because they think interventions cannot succeed. Others emphasize the potential for backlash and making the situation worse. Still others hold that stable, sustainable democracy cannot be imposed from abroad but must emerge organically. ..."
"... Fifth, the new progressive foreign policy seeks to reshape the military budget by both cutting the budget overall and reallocating military spending. This should not be surprising. The skepticism of intervention suggests military budgets do not need to be as big as they have been in an era when the goal was to be able to fight two regional wars simultaneously. The centrality of economics to a progressive foreign policy further explains this position; military spending should partly be reallocated to cyber and other technologies that are deeply integrated with the economy and likely to be crucial in future conflicts. ..."
end of history " and
America's " unipolar moment ." And
both camps have undergone a serious reckoning after the Afghanistan, Iraq, and forever wars, as
well as the global financial crisis calling into question neoliberal
economic policies -- namely, deregulation, liberalization, privatization, and austerity.
Prominent foreign policy advocates have quite publicly engaged in
soul-searching as they confronted these changes, and debates about the future of foreign
policy abound.
The emergence of a distinctively progressive approach to foreign policy is perhaps the most
interesting -- and most misunderstood -- development in these debates. In speeches and
articles, politicians like Sen.
Elizabeth Warren and Sen.
Bernie Sanders have outlined an approach to foreign policy that does not fall along the
traditional fault-lines of realist versus idealist or neoconservative versus liberal
internationalist (disclosure: I have been a longtime advisor to Sen. Warren). Their speeches
come alongside an
increasing number of
articles exploring the
contours of a
progressive foreign policy. Even those who might not consider themselves
progressive are
sounding similar themes .
From this body of work, it is now possible to sketch out the framework of a distinctively
progressive approach to foreign policy. While its advocates, like those in other foreign policy
camps, discuss a wide range of issues -- from climate change to reforming international
institutions -- at the moment, five themes mark this emerging approach as a specific framework
for foreign policy.
First, progressive foreign policy breaks the
silos between domestic and foreign policy and between international economic policy and
foreign policy. It places far greater emphasis on how foreign policy impacts the United States
at home -- and particularly on how foreign policy (including international economic policy) has
impacted the domestic economy. To be sure, there have always been analysts and commentators who
recognized these interrelationships. But progressive foreign policy places this at the center
of its analysis rather than seeing it as peripheral. The new progressive foreign policy takes
the substance of both domestic and international economic policies seriously, and its adherents
will not support economic policies on foreign policy grounds if they exacerbate economic
inequality at home. For example, the argument that trade deals must be ratified on national
security grounds even though they have problematic distributional consequences does not carry
much weight for progressives who believe that an equitable domestic economy is the foundation
of national power.
Second, progressive foreign policy holds that one of the important threats to American
democracy at home is nationalist
oligarchy (or, alternatively, authoritarian
capitalism ) abroad. Countries like Russia and China are not simply authoritarian
governments, and neither can their resurgence and assertion of power be interpreted as merely
great power competition. The reason is that their economic systems integrate economic and
political power. Crony/state capitalism is not a bug, it is the central feature. In a global
society, economic interrelationships
weaponize economic power into political power .
China, for example, already uses its economic power as leverage in political disputes with
other Asian countries. Its growing share of global GDP is one of the most consequential facts
of the 21st century. As a result of these dynamics, progressives are also highly skeptical of a
foreign policy based on the premise that the countries of the world will all become neoliberal
democracies. Instead, they take seriously the risks that come from economic integration with
nationalist oligarchies.
Third, the new progressive foreign policy values America's alliances and international
agreements, but not because it thinks that such alliances and rules can convert nationalist
oligarchies into liberal democracies. Rather, alliances should be based on
common values or common goals, and, going forward, they will be critical to balancing and
countering the challenges from nationalist oligarchies. Progressives are thus far more
skeptical of alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia and far more interested in reinforcing
and deepening ties with allies like Japan -- and are concerned about the erosion of alliances
like NATO from within.
CNN no longer attempts to hide its efforts to sway the elections (while
doubling down on the "Russian interference" psy-ops BS). Their latest move was to not allow
Tulsi Gabbard to participate in CNN's "Town Halls" series from New Hampshire Feb. 5-6.
Tulsi
polls higher than three of the invitees. Deval Patrick(!!!) was invited of course.
...Show your support! Spread his message online, take action in whichever way you can,
because if he doesn't make it in this election we will be at the mercy of lunatic Trump and
Ziofascism will take hold for a GENERATION to come, and the oligarchy that rules Washington
are already causing irreversible damage on MULTIPLE LEVELS, especially to our freedom and
power.
Michael Moore gave an excellent speech at Sanders rally last night, even better than
AOC's. Basically he said this election is about FREEDOM and you can't be free if you don't
have the power to make this world better for everyone!
We are losing all our power to the will of the billionaire/oligarch rulers who want to
lord over the world at our expense. We are losing the fight to stop their military
escalation; millions of people suffer daily because of U.S. policy and we can only witness
with our hands tied! We are losing to climate change wreaking havoc in more places every
year. We will ALL suffer if we don't stop all this soon.
Sanders is about restoring power to average people. Everyone who feels powerless, dragged
towards escalating hostility with Iran, and suffering increasing hardship and so much
uncertainty and anxiety in regards to the ever-advancing effects of global warming; everyone,
stands to benefit in some way from a Sanders presidency. The world will breathe a collective
sigh of relief when Bernie kicks Trump out of the White House! It has to happen! It must
happen! Bernie has all the energy on his side and now has momentum that must continue. An
opportunity like this to stop the madness may NEVER come again in our lifetime.
Please share Sanders' message wherever you can. He must win this election for all of
us!
I see no way Bernie is going to beat Trump nor is he going to break the back of the
collective power centers arrayed against the average person trying to exist. Bernie talks a
great game but like Trump he will not deliver other than maybe appointing some judges.
A nearly 90-minute audio recording of a private dinner that took place with numerous
individuals and President Donald Trump in 2018 was made public Saturday evening by the legal
team of Lev Parnas, a close associate of the president's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, in
which the president can be heard saying "take her out" in reference to former U.S. Ambassador
to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch -- a key witness in the impeachment trial now in the U.S.
Senate.
Trump also says in the recording that he was relieved that he didn't have to face off
against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the 2016 election. "Had she picked Bernie Sanders it
would have been tougher. He was the only one I didn't want her to pick," Trump is heard
saying.
Trump on secret recording:
"If Bernie would have been VP it would have been tougher...I got 20% of Bernie vote
because of trade. He's a big trade guy...
was made by another Giuliani associate, Igor Fruman, and shared with Parnas shortly after
the dinner, according to Bondy. Fruman's attorney declined to comment.
Only the first three minutes of the tape include visuals, and Trump can be seen briefly
when he approaches the rectangular dining table set with red bouquets of flowers. The
remaining portion of the recording is only audio.
The conversation involving Ukraine begins about 40 minutes into the 1-hour-and-24-minute
recording. During that discussion, Trump asks a person who appears to be Parnas how long
Ukraine would "last in fight against Russia." Parnas says "without us, not very long," and
another person chimes in, "about 30 minutes." Months later, Trump would try to cut off
military aid to Ukraine.
In its reporting, VICE
notes the "five wildest things" Trump had to say during the conversation -- a discussion at
one point he can clearly be heard saying is "off the record."
Among the items deemed the wildest was a comment Trump made about current 2020 Democratic
candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). In the recording, Trump said he was glad former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn't pick Sanders as her 2020 running mate -- citing his
tough stance on U.S. trade policy.
"Because [Sanders'] a big trade guy," said Trump. "You know he basically says we're getting
screwed on trade. And he's right."
"Had she picked Bernie Sanders it would've been tougher. He's the only one I didn't want her
to pick," Trump told the people in the room.
* * *
The full audio recording as released by VICE (Trump begins speaking at approximately
2:28):
Yup. Candidate Trump knew all those Democrat judges would block his fake attempts at
scrutinizing travel from terrorist-sponsoring nations and stopping illegal migration. /s
Any way you slice it, Donald J. Trump is a Real Genius.
It'd be nice to get an age limit on the presidency and other high positions.
At the very least, I'd like to see weekly blood and urine tests of the President,
Vice-President, and Speaker of the House. All the drugs these old people must be on probably
contributes to their insanity.
Politician's running on a platforms to tax me more to give free **** away needs to end. I
dont want to pay a ******* penny for anyone else. If I feel charitble Ill doate otherwise get
the **** out of my wallet.
Lol sanders is a lunatic.. I mean the guy looks like a slob.. he doesn't brush his hair,
he slouches, he's too old and prone to heart failures. I mean the dude is a *******
nutter..
He has all this momentum but you are right, so sloppily planned out with his speeches,
aside from his half untucked shirt, like he couldn't organize a better delivery of his
message. It's so vague anyways.
Dear editor - please spare us the pictures and videos of Hillary Clinton. She is a
has-been who cannot contribute anything to today and tomorrow. The past is the past and we
need to move forward, not backwards.
Can't Hillary knit little jumpers for her grandchildren?
Bernie isn't a threat to anyone but the country, hes a crazy commie bastard and the
undecided/unaffilliated voters(who decide elections) will see right thru his ********...
That was then and this is now, 2020 has advantages for Trump.
Trump has been able to show that he can get **** done.
Bernie has allowed more audio of him that is detrimental to the moderate dems.
Bernie is an open border guy, plain and simple. He has AOC in his ear.
Bernie will fill the swamp with straight up communists, half if not all who will be
working for HRC behind the scenes.
Bernie is old, the debates will show how weak he is. That is, the debate against
Trump.
It is a stark difference still. The only difference is that Bernie has the grass roots
energy on the left, where as Hillary everyone hates and still hates, and her energy only
existed on TV.
Biden will be given the nomination, and will pick Bernie strictly because of the voters he
could pick up.
Mentally unstable Steve is back, getting fake pleasure because his life is so empty and he
is such a failure he has to come here to get fake pleasure. Get help for your TDS before it
is to late Steve. I really hate seeing the mentally ill hurting themselves..
Most don't get it, not even Trump, it is written GOD makes kings and takes them out. Trump
could have sat on his *** at home doing nothing and he still would have won...
AOC and Bernie literally called for open borders yesterday, as you just ******* walk in
with whatever guns or nukes or poison or drugs or child sex slaves you want. ANYTHING.
Absolutely right. Bernie could win every primary and the DNC would find a way to run
someone else. You don't have to like Bernie to see how fucked up that is.
Hillary doesnt have many friends in case anyone cared to notice.. She has people she
CONTROLS... and Bernies problem was that he couldnt convince Hillary he knew how to spend her
money better than she did..
Softball questions are almost over. It's time for the real deal. Watching Trump destroy
Biden would actually be one of the great TV moments. Biden might actually collapse physically
from being exposed on live tv. I guarantee there are secrets to be revealed at the right
time, which will be when everyone is watching, 30 or so days before the ballots are cast.
Trump is pretending that he is powerless for the moment, so they all arrogantly overplay
their hands and fall right into his trap. Everything they say and do is being documented for
the upcoming military tribunals.
Serious attempts to destroy democracy and overthrow the government must be taken
seriously.
For those of you who think this is too Biden's approach, no he actually is weak.
Pretending to be powerless and pretending to be retarded are two different things.
Western elites and their lackeys in the media despise Russian president Vladimir Putin and
they make no bones about it. The reasons for this should be fairly obvious. Putin has rolled
back US ambitions in Syria and Ukraine, aligned himself with Washington's biggest strategic
rival in Asia, China, and is currently strengthening his economic ties with Europe which poses
a long-term threat to US dominance in Central Asia. Putin has also updated his nuclear arsenal
which makes it impossible for Washington to use the same bullyboy tactics it's used on other,
more vulnerable countries. So it's understandable that the media would want to demonize Putin
and disparage him as cold-blooded "KGB thug". That, of course, is not true, but it fits with
the bogus narrative that Putin is maniacally conducting a clandestine war against the United
States for purely evil purposes. In any event, the media's deep-seated Russophobia has grown so
extreme that they're unable to cover even simple events without veering wildly into
fantasy-land. Take, for example, the New York Times coverage of Putin's recent Address to the
Federal Assembly, which took place on January 15. The Times screwball analysis shows that their
journalists have no interest in conveying what Putin actually said, but would rather use every
means available to persuade their readers that Putin is a calculating tyrant driven by his
insatiable lust for power. Check out this excerpt from the article in the Times:
"Nobody knows what's going on inside the Kremlin right now. And perhaps that's precisely
the point. President Vladimir V. Putin announced constitutional changes last week that could
create new avenues for him to rule Russia for the rest of his life .(wrong)
The fine print of the legislation showed that the prime minister's powers would not be
expanded as much as first advertised, while members of the State Council would still appear
to serve at the pleasure of the president. So maybe Mr. Putin's plan is to stay president,
after all? .(wrong again)
A journalist, Yury Saprykin, offered a similar sentiment on Facebook, but in verse:
We'll be debating over how he won't leave, We'll be guessing, will he leave or won't he. And then -- lo! -- he won't be leaving. That is, before the elections he won't leave, And after that, he definitely won't leave." (wrong, a third time)
This is really terrible analysis. Yes, "Putin announced constitutional changes last week",
but they have absolutely nothing to do with some sinister plan to stay in power, and anyone who
read the speech would know that. Unfortunately, most of the other 100-or-so "cookie cutter"
articles on the topic, draw the same absurd conclusion as the Times , that is, that the
changes Putin announced in his speech merely conceal his real intention which is to extend his
time in office for as long as possible. Once again, there's nothing in the speech itself to
support these claims, it's just another attempt to smear Putin.
So what did Putin actually say in his annual Address to the Federal Assembly?
Well, that's where it gets interesting. He announced changes to the social safety net, more
financial assistance for young families, improvements to the health care system, higher wages
for teachers, more money for education, hospitals, schools, libraries. He promised to launch a
system of "social contracts" that commit the state to reducing poverty and raising standards of
living. He pledged to provide healthier meals to schoolchildren, lower interest rates for
first-time home buyers, greater economic support for working families, higher payouts to
pensioners, raises to the minimum wage, additional funding for a "network of extracurricular
technology and engineering centers". Putin also added this gem:
"It is very important that children who are in preschool and primary school adopt the true
values of a large family – that family is love, happiness, the joy of
motherhood and fatherhood, that family is a strong bond of several generations, united by
respect for the elderly and care for children, giving everyone a sense of confidence,
security, and reliability. If the younger generations accept this situation as natural, as a
moral and an integral part and reliable background support for their adult life, then we will
be able to meet the historical challenge of guaranteeing Russia's development as a large and
successful country."
Naturally, heartfelt statements like this never appear on the pages of the Times or any of
the other western media for that matter. Instead, Americans are deluged with more of the same
relentless Putin-psychobabble that's become a staple of cable news. The torrent of lies, libels
and fabrications about Putin are so constant and so overwhelming, that the only thing of which
one can be absolutely certain, is that nothing that is written about Putin in the MSM can be
trusted. Of that, there is no doubt.
That said, Putin is a politician which means he might not deliver on his promises at all.
That is a very real possibility. But if that's the case, then why did his former-Prime
Minister, Dmitry Medvedev, resign immediately after the speech? Medvedev and his entire cabinet
resigned because they realized that Putin has abandoned the western model of capitalism and is
moving in a different direction altogether. Putin is now focused on strengthening welfare state
programs that lift people out of poverty, raise living standards, and narrow the widening
inequality gap. And he wants a new team to help him implement his vision, which is why Medvedev
and crew got their walking papers. Here's how The Saker summed it up in a recent article at the
Unz Review :
"The new government clearly indicates that, especially with the nominations of Prime
Minister Mishustin and his First Deputy Prime Minister Andrey Belousov: these are both on
record as very much proponents of what is called "state capitalism" in Russia: meaning an
economic philosophy in which the states does not stifle private entrepreneurship, but one in
which the state is directly and heavily involved in creating the correct economic conditions
for the government and private sector to grow. Most crucially, "state capitalism" also
subordinates the sole goal of the corporate world (making profits) to the interests of the
state and, therefore, to the interests of the people. In other words, goodbye
turbo-capitalism à la Atlantic Integrationists!" ( "The New Russian Government" ,
The Saker)
This is precisely what is taking place in Russia right now. Putin is breaking away from
Washington's parasitic model of capitalism and replacing it with a more benign version that
better addresses the needs of the people. This new version of 'managed capitalism' places
elected officials at the head of the system to protect the public from the savagery of market
forces and from perennial-grinding austerity. It's a system aimed at helping ordinary people
not Wall Street or the global bank Mafia.
But while the changes to Russia's economic model are significant, it's Putin's political
changes that have drawn the most attention. Here's what he said:
(The) "requirements of international law and treaties as well as decisions of
international bodies can be valid on the Russian territory only to the point that they do not
restrict the rights and freedoms of our people and citizens and do not contradict our
Constitution ."
What does this mean? Does it mean that Putin will not respect international law or the
treaties it has signed with its neighbors? No, it doesn't, in fact, Putin has been an
enthusiastic proponent of international law and the UN Security Council. He strongly believes
that these institutions play a crucial role in maintaining global security, an issue that is
very close to his heart. What the Russian president appears to be saying is that the rights of
the Russian people and of the sovereign Russian government take precedent over foreign
corporations, treaties or free trade agreements. Russia will not allow the powerful and
insidious globalist multinationals to take control of the political and economic levers of
state power as they've done in countries around the world. Putin further clarified this point
saying:
"Russia can remain Russia only as a sovereign state. Our nation's sovereignty must be
unconditional. We have done a great deal to achieve this. We restored our state's unity and
overcome the situation when certain powers in the government were essentially usurped by
oligarch clans. We created powerful reserves, which increases our country's stability and
capability to protect (us) from any attempts of foreign pressure."
For Putin sovereignty, which is the supreme power of a state to govern itself, is the
bedrock principle which legitimizes the state provided the state faithfully represents the will
of the people. He elaborates on this point later in his speech saying:
"The opinion of people, our citizens as the bearers of sovereignty and the main source of
power must be decisive. In the final analysis everything is decided by the people, both today
and in the future."
So while there may be significant differences between Russian and US democracy, the basic
principle remains the same, the primary responsibility of the government is to carry out the
"will of the people". In this respect, Putin's political philosophy is not much different from
that of the framers of the US Constitution. What is different, however, is Putin's approach to
free trade. Unlike the US, Putin does not believe that free trade deals should diminish the
authority of the state. Most Americans don't realize that trade agreements like NAFTA often
include provisions that prevent the government from acting in the best interests of their
people. Globalist trade laws prevent governments from providing incentives to companies to slow
the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, they undermine environmental regulations and food safety
laws. Some of these agreements even shield sweatshop owners and other human rights abusers from
penalty or prosecution.
Is it any wonder why Putin does not want to participate in this unethical swindle? Is it any
wonder why he feels the need to clearly state that Russia will only comply with those laws and
treaties that "do not restrict the rights and freedoms of our people and citizens and do not
contradict our Constitution"? Here's Putin again:
"Please, do not forget what happened to our country after 1991. After the collapse of the
Soviet Union, .there were also threats, dangers of a magnitude no one could have imagined
ever before. .Therefore We must create a solid, reliable and invulnerable system that will be
absolutely stable in terms of the external contour and will securely guarantee Russia's
independence and sovereignty."
So what happened following the dissolution of the Soviet Union?
The United States dispatched a cabal of cutthroat economists to Moscow to assist in the
"shock therapy" campaign that collapsed the social safety net, savaged pensions, increased
unemployment, homelessness, poverty, and alcoholism by many orders of magnitude, accelerated
the slide to privatization that fueled a generation of voracious oligarchs, and sent the real
economy plunging into an excruciating long-term depression.
Economist Joseph Stiglitz followed events closely in Russia at the time and summed it up
like this:
"In Russia, the people were told that capitalism was going to bring new, unprecedented
prosperity. In fact, it brought unprecedented poverty, indicated not only by a fall in living
standards, not only by falling GDP, but by decreasing life spans and enormous other social
indicators showing a deterioration in the quality of life ..
The number of people in poverty in Russia, for instance, increased from 2 percent to
somewhere between 40 and 50 percent, with more than one out of two children living in
families below poverty. The market economy was a worse enemy for most of these people than
the Communists had said it would be. In some (parts) of the former Soviet Union, the GDP, the
national income, fell by over 70 percent. And with that smaller pie it was more and more
unequally divided, so a few people got bigger and bigger slices, and the majority of people
wound up with less and less and less . (PBS interview with Joseph Stiglitz, Commanding
Heights)
At the same time Washington's agents were busy looting Moscow, NATO was moving its troops,
armored divisions and missile sites closer to Russia's border in clear violation of promises
that were made to Mikhail Gorbachev not to move its military "one inch east". At present, there
are more combat troops and weaponry on Russia's western flank than at any time since the German
buildup for operation Barbarossa in June 1941. Naturally, Russia feels threatened by this
flagrantly hostile force on its border. (BTW, this week, "The US is carrying out its biggest
and most provocative deployment to Europe since the Cold War-era. According to the US Military
in Europe Website: "Exercise DEFENDER-Europe 20 is the deployment of a division-size
combat-credible force from the United States to Europe .The Pentagon and its NATO allies are
recklessly simulating a full-blown war with Russia to prevent Moscow from strengthening its
economic ties with Europe.) Here's more from Putin:
"I am convinced that it is high time for a serious and direct discussion about the basic
principles of a stable world order and the most acute problems that humanity is facing. It is
necessary to show political will, wisdom and courage. The time demands an awareness of our
shared responsibility and real actions."
This is a theme that Putin has reiterated many times since his groundbreaking speech at
Munich in 2007 where he said:
"We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international
law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one
state's legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has
overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political,
cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is
happy about this? ." ("Wars not diminishing': Putin's iconic 2007 Munich speech, you
tube)
What Putin objects to is the US acting unilaterally whenever it chooses. It's Washington's
capricious disregard for international law that has destabilized vast regions across the Middle
East and Central Asia and has put world leaders on edge never knowing where the next crisis
will pop up or how many millions of people will be impacted. As Putin said in Munich, "No one
feels safe." No one feels like they can count on the protection of international law or UN
Security Council resolutions.
Putin:
"Just look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa Instead of bringing
about reforms, aggressive intervention destroyed government institutions and the local way of
life. Instead of democracy and progress, there is now violence, poverty, social disasters and
total disregard for human rights, including even the right to life
The power vacuum in some countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa obviously
resulted in the emergence of areas of anarchy, which were quickly filled with extremists and
terrorists. The so-called Islamic State has tens of thousands of militants fighting for it,
including former Iraqi soldiers who were left on the street after the 2003 invasion. Many
recruits come from Libya whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of UN
Security Council Resolution 1973 ."
Is Putin overstating Washington's role in decimating Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan or
is this a fair assessment of America's pernicious and destabilizing role in the region? Entire
civilizations have been laid to waste, millions have been killed or scattered across the region
to achieve some nebulous strategic advantage or to help Israel eliminate its perceived enemies.
And all this military adventurism can be traced back to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and
the triumphalist response from US powerbrokers who saw Russia's collapse as a green light for
their New World Order.
Washington reveled in its victory and embraced its ability to dominate global
decision-making and intervene unilaterally wherever it saw fit. The indispensable nation no
longer had to bother with formalities like the UN Security Council or international law. Even
sovereignty was dismissed as an archaic notion that had no place in the new borderless
corporate empire. What really mattered was spreading western-style capitalism to the four
corners of the earth particularly those areas that contained vital resources (ME) or explosive
growth potential. (Eurasia) Those regions were the real prize.
But then something unexpected happened. Washington's wars dragged on ad infinitum while
newer centers of power gradually emerged. Suddenly, the globalist utopia was no longer within
reach, the American Century had ended before it had even begun. Meanwhile Russia and China were
growing more powerful all the time. They demanded an end to unilateralism and a return to
international law, but their demands were flatly rejected. The wars and interventions dragged
on even though the prospects for victory grew more and more remote. Here's Putin again:
"We have no doubt that sovereignty is the central notion of the entire system of
international relations. Respect for it and its consolidation will help underwrite peace and
stability both at the national and international levels First of all, there must be equal and
indivisible security for all states." (Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, "
The Future in Progress: Shaping the World of Tomorrow, From the Office of the President of
Russia)
Indeed, sovereignty is the foundational principle upon which global security rests, and yet,
it is sovereignty that western elites are so eager to extinguish. Powerhouse multinationals
want to erase existing borders to facilitate the unfettered, tariff-free flow of goods and
people in one giant, interconnected free trade zone that spans the entire planet. And while
their plan has been derailed by Putin in Syria and Ukraine, they have made gains in Africa,
South America and Southeast Asia. The virus cannot be contained, it can only be eradicated.
Here's Putin:
"Essentially, the entire globalisation project is in crisis today and in Europe, as we
know well, we hear voices now saying that multiculturalism has failed. I think this situation
is in many respects the result of mistaken, hasty and to some extent over-confident choices
made by some countries' elites a quarter-of-a-century ago. Back then, in the late 1980s-early
1990s, there was a chance not just to accelerate the globalization process but also to give
it a different quality and make it more harmonious and sustainable in nature.
But some countries that saw themselves as victors in the Cold War, not just saw themselves
this way but said it openly, took the course of simply reshaping the global political and
economic order to fit their own interests.
In their euphoria, they essentially abandoned substantive and equal dialogue with other
actors in international life, chose not to improve or create universal institutions, and
attempted instead to bring the entire world under the spread of their own organizations,
norms and rules. They chose the road of globalization and security for their own beloved
selves, for the select few, and not for all." (Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion
Club)
As Putin says, there was an opportunity to "make globalization more harmonious and
sustainable", (perhaps, China's Belt and Road initiative will do just that.) but Washington
elites rejected that idea choosing instead to impose its own self-aggrandizing vision on the
world. As a result, demonstrations and riots have cropped up across Europe, right-wing populist
parties are on the rise, and a majority of the population no longer have confidence in basic
democratic institutions. The west's version of globalization has been roundly repudiated as a
scam that showers wealth on scheming billionaires while hanging ordinary working people out to
dry. Here's Putin again:
"It seems as if the elites do not see the deepening stratification in society and the
erosion of the middle class (but the situation) creates a climate of uncertainty that has a
direct impact on the public mood.
Sociological studies conducted around the world show that people in different countries
and on different continents tend to see the future as murky and bleak. This is sad. The
future does not entice them, but frightens them. At the same time, people see no real
opportunities or means for changing anything, influencing events and shaping policy."
(Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club)
True, life is harder now and it looks to get harder still, but what is Putin's remedy or
does he have one? Is he going to stem the tide and reverse the effects of globalization? Is he
going to sabotage Washington's plan to control vital resources in the Middle East, become the
the main player in Central Asia, and tighten its grip on global power?
No, Putin is not nearly that ambitious. As he indicates in his speech, his immediate goal is
to reform the economy so that poverty is eliminated and wealth is more equally distributed.
These are practical remedies that help to soften capitalism and decrease the probability of
social unrest. He also wants to fend off potential threats to the state by shoring up Russian
sovereignty. That's why he is adding amendments to the Constitution. The objective is to
protect Russia from pernicious foreign agents or fifth columnists operating within the state.
Bottom line: Putin sees what's going on in the world and has charted a course that best serves
the interests of the Russian people. Americans would be lucky to have a leader who did the
same.
He is now granted $40 billion in tax breaks to the biggest fossil fuel
oligarchs–Rosneft and Gazprom. These are privatised companies that were formerly
state companies in the former USSR. Instead of reversing the trend Putin has escalated
privatization.
It seems you were misinformed. Rosneft and Gazprom are still state-owned, the latter
mostly and the former entirely. So if indeed Putin did grant them these tax breaks, it's just
one branch of the government transferring money to another branch of government–sort of
like when the Social Security Administration here in the US buy bonds from the Treasury
Department. It's just an accounting gimmick, not gift to 'oligarchs'. (BTW, why is it that
the media never refer to Soros, Bezos or the Rockefellers as 'oligarchs'? Why only
Russians?)
For Putin sovereignty, which is the supreme power of a state to govern itself, is the
bedrock principle which legitimizes the state provided the state faithfully represents the
will of the people. He elaborates on this point later in his speech saying:
"The opinion of people, our citizens as the bearers of sovereignty and the main source
of power must be decisive. In the final analysis everything is decided by the people,
both today and in the future."
This is what has been missing from so called US Democracy for a while now.
The present day US is a hegemony of Special Interests busy looting the place under cover
their propaganda department (US MSM).
Great article, Mike Whitney. So far it's the only one I've seen that reveals a coherent hard
core in what Putin seeks to achieve with a seemingly bureaucratic rejiggering of the
constitution and ruling echelon. Maybe he's finally ending the humiliating indecision that
has stymied Russia the past three decades: Will the country keep trying to be yet another
pale copy of the financialized U.S. economic sphere, powered by dollar hegemony? Or, will it
free itself from predatory corporate domination in order to duplicate the obvious success of
sovereign next-door China? If your analysis is on the mark, Putin may have now found the
answer to Russia's debilitating post-Soviet identity crisis.
Trump's unexpected election and the parallel rise of nationalism in docile Europe suggests
that much the same crisis has now emerged within the Western empire. Will it be borderless
neofeudal corporatism for the benefit of those at the top of the social pyramid or will
working people regain a voice in their own government? Reading those troubled tea leaves,
Putin may have picked the right moment to launch Russia on the more promising path.
Is Putin overstating Washington's role in decimating Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan
or is this a fair assessment of America's pernicious and destabilizing role in the region?
Entire civilizations have been laid to waste, millions have been killed or scattered across
the region to achieve some nebulous strategic advantage or to help Israel eliminate
its perceived enemies.
No need to qualify the cause of this nefarious plan by referencing some nebulous
objective. There was nothing nebulous about it. The plan to Remake the Middle East was
clearly articulated by Richard Perle, well before the GWOT was launched, in A Clean Break,
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm .
Sooner or later, every Bully will push the wrong opponent and wind up getting his ass
stomped in the dirt.
Sad, but true. I think everyone hopes that the US pulls off some sort of last minute
transformation and repentance, because the takedown would be very ugly for everyone
@geokat62 Don't forget to mention the Oded Yinon Plan, the plan to shatter all Israel's
neighbors into small, dysfunctional, quarrelling statelets. See, Global Research : "Greater
Israel" : The Zionist Plan for the Middle East.
God bless Putin and Russia for saving Syria from the terrorists created by the ZUS and Israel
and ZBritain and ZNATO , these terrorists AL CIADA aka ISIS and all offshoots thereof were
created and armed and funded to destroy the middle east for the zionist greater Israel
project and all of this was brought on by the joint Israeli and ZUS attack on the WTC on 911
and blamed on the arabs.
Who is the greater terrorist, the terrorists or the ones who created them.
@Sean Russia will do very well they are moving in the right direction, they are putting
regulations on those that need it, and better programs for the people.
I once read that you can start out with a strong generation and from that strong
generation ever generation after will become weaker and weaker, until you end up with a
generation like the U.S. has that's like clay in the hands of a master, they can't think nor
even act they just follow the dictates of the master.!!!
@Old and grumpy In regards to sanctions Russia for the last 3 years has been the greatest
producer and exporter of grain, and since food is the most important thing, the ZUS is
pissing into the wind with sanctions on Russia.
"This is sad. The future does not entice them, but frightens them. At the same time, people
see no real opportunities or means for changing anything, influencing events and shaping
policy." (Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club)"
Jeez ain't that the truth. I live in Virginia and it seems that no matter how I vote it
just never changes anything. We just had big demonstrations against the stupid new gun laws
our despotic governor wants to enact and from where I'm sitting it didn't make one iota of
difference. The rank and file have zero to say in how they are governed But we sure get to
finance it with our taxes.
@Anonymous You are delusional and have obviously spent no time in Russia. When the Pussy
Riot grrrls desecrated the altar at St. Savior, Russians went ballistic, from the Patriarchs
down to the blue collar diesel mechanics.
Your so-called "faith" in the US and Europe has already sold out to Globohomo completely.
Most priests are gay and have been buggering the altar boys for decades. Protestant sects
have lesbian bishops. Your "faithful" have not only totally surrendered to the Globohomo
takeover, they now EMBRACE it proudly. "All are welcome." There is now no difference between
Vatican II Catholicism and Unitarian Universalism. Western Europe is so far gone, so
anti-life, there's hardly a white child left. Muslims are sharpening their machetes.
So you think there's no substance behind Orthodoxy. You are mistaken. (I'm Latin Mass
Catholic, BTW)
It's only consistent with his past behavior of reining in post-Soviet Russian
Oligarchs.
And there is the real reason why the "west" hates him. Because who controls the west? Who
owns all of the media, owns the politicians, and controls the narrative? Our very own
Oligarchs, indistinguishable from the Russian version and in fact interchangeable (borders
mean nothing to them). So of course they are pissed if Putin is rolling them back over in
Russia. How dare he.
Also, have you ever noticed that the word "Oligarch" is only every applied in the same
sentence as "Russian?"
Fascism is the most extreme form of counterrevolution. Counterrevolution itself only
emerges as a response to revolution. Nazism, for example, didn't arrive because the
German people all of a sudden lost their bearings from an overdose of Wagner's operas and
Nietzsche's aphorisms. It arrived at a time when massive worker's parties threatened
bourgeois rule during a period of terrible economic hardship. Big capital backed Hitler
as a last resort. The Nazis represented reactionary politics gone berserk. Not only could
Nazism attack worker's parties, it could also attack powerful institutions of the ruling
class, including its churches, media, intellectuals, parties and individual families and
individuals. Fascism is not a scalpel. It is a very explosive, uncontrollable weapon that
can also inflict some harm on its wielder.
Fascism emerges in the period following the great post-World War I revolutionary
upsurge in Europe. The Bolsheviks triumphed in Russia, but communists mounted challenges
to capitalism in Hungary, Germany and elsewhere. These revolutions receded but but their
embers burned. The world-wide depression of 1929 added new fuel to the glowing embers of
proletarian revolution. Socialism grew powerful everywhere because of the powerful
example of the USSR and the suffering capitalist unemployment brought.
Proletarian revolutions do not break out every year or so, like new car models. They
appear infrequently since working-people prefer to accomodate themselves to capitalism if
at all possible. They tend to be last-ditch defensive reactions to the mounting violence
and insecurity brought on by capitalist war and depression.
The proletarian revolution first emerges within the context of the bourgeois
revolutions of 1848. Even though the revolutions in Germany, France and Italy on the
surface appeared to be a continuation of the revolutions of the 1780's and 90's, they
contain within them anticapitalist dynamics. The working-class at this point in its
history has neither the numbers, nor the organization, nor the self- consciousness to
take power in its own name. Its own cause tends to get blurred with the cause of of other
classes in the struggle against feudal vestiges.
Marx was able to distinguish the contradictory class aspects of the 1848 revolutionary
upsurge with tremendous alacrity, however. Some of his most important contributions to
historical materialism emerge out of this period and again in 1871 when the proletariat
rises up in its own name during the Paris Commune. The 18th Brumaire was written in the
aftermath of the failure of the revolution in France in 1848 to consolidate its gains.
Louis Bonaparte emerges as a counterrevolutionary dictator who seems to suppress all
classes, including the bourgeoisie. Marx is able to show that Bonapartism, like Fascism,
is not a dictatorship that stands above all classes. The Bonapartist regime, whose social
base may be middle-class, acts in the interest of the big bourgeoisie.
Robert Tucker's notes in his preface to the 18th Brumaire that, "Since Louis
Bonaparte's rise and rule have been seen as a forerunner of the phenomenon that was to
become known in the twentieth century as fascim, Marx's interpretation of it is of
interest, among other ways, as a sort of a prologue to later Marxist thought on the
nature and meaning of fascism."
The 18th Brumaire was written by Marx in late 1851 and early 1852, and appeared first
in a NY magazine called "Die Revolution". This was a time of great difficulty for Marx.
He was in financial difficulty and poor health. The triumph of the counterrevolution in
France deepened his misery. In a letter to his friend Weydemeyer, Marx confides, "For
years nothing has pulled me down as much as this cursed hemorrhoidal trouble, not even
the worst French failure."
In section one of the 18th Brumaire, Marx draws a clear distinction between the
bourgeois and proletarian revolution.
"Bourgeois revolutions like those of the eighteenth century storm more swiftly from
success to success, their dramatic effects outdo each other, men and things seem set in
sparkling diamonds, ecstasy is the order of the day- but they are short-lived, soon they
have reached their zenith, and a long Katzenjammer [crapulence] takes hold of society
before it learns to assimilate the results of its storm-and-stress period soberly. On the
other hand, proletarian revolutions like those of the nineteenth century constantly
criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their own course, return to the
apparently accomplished, in order to begin anew; they deride with cruel thoroughness the
half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first attempts, seem to throw down
their opponents only so the latter may draw new strength from the earth and rise before
them again more gigantic than ever, recoil constantly from the indefinite colossalness of
their own goals -- until a situation is created which makes all turning back impossible,
and the conditions themselves call out: Hic Rhodus, hic salta! "
Proletarian revolutions, Marx correctly points out, emerge from a position of weakness
and uncertainty. The bourgeoisie emerges over hundreds of years within the framework of
feudalism. At the time it is ready to seize power, it has already conquered major
institutions in civil society. The bourgeoisie is not an exploited class and therefore is
able to rule society long before its political revolution is effected. When it delivers
the coup de grace to the monarchy, it does so from a position of overwhelming
strength.
The workers are in a completely different position, however. They lack an independent
economic base and suffer economic and cultural exploitation. Prior to its revolution, the
working-class remains backward and therefore, unlike the bourgeoisie, is unable to
prepare itself in advance for ruling all of society. It often comes to power in coalition
with other classes, such as the peasantry.
Since it is in a position of weakness, it is often beaten back by the bourgeoise. But
the bourgeoisie itself is small in numbers. It also has its own class interests which set
it apart from the rest of society. Therefore, it must strike back against the workers by
utilizing the social power of intermediate classes such as the peasantry or the
middle-classes in general. It will also draw from strata beneath the working-class, from
the so-called "lumpen proletariat". Louis Bonaparte drew from these social layers in
order to strike back against the workers, so did Hitler.
Bonaparte appears as a dictator whose rule constrains all of society. In section seven
of the Eighteenth Brumaire, Marx characterized Bonapartist rule in the following
manner:
"The French bourgeoisie balked at the domination of the working proletariat; it has
brought the lumpen proletariat to domination, with the Chief of the Society of December
10 at the head. The bourgeoisie kept France in breathless fear of the future terrors of
red anarchy- Bonaparte discounted this future for it when, on December 4, he had the
eminent bourgeois of the Boulevard Montmartre and the Boulevard des Italiens shot down at
their windows by the drunken army of law and order. The bourgeoisie apotheosized the
sword; the sword rules it. It destroyed the revolutionary press; its own press is
destroyed. It placed popular meetings under police surveillance; its salons are placed
under police supervision. It disbanded the democratic National Guard, its own National
Guard is disbanded. It imposed a state of siege; a state of siege is imposed upon it. It
supplanted the juries by military commissions; its juries are supplanted by military
commissions. It subjected public education to the sway of the priests; the priests
subject it to their own education. It jailed people without trial, it is being jailed
without trial. It suppressed every stirring in society by means of state power; every
stirring in its society is suppressed by means of state power. Out of enthusiasm for its
moneybags it rebelled against its own politicians and literary men; its politicians and
literary men are swept aside, but its moneybag is being plundered now that its mouth has
been gagged and its pen broken. The bourgeoisie never tired of crying out to the
revolution what St. Arsenius cried out to the Christians: 'Fuge, tace, quiesce!' ['Flee,
be silent, keep still!'] Bonaparte cries to the bourgeoisie: 'Fuge, tace, quiesce!'"
At first blush, Bonaparte seems to be oppressing worker and capitalist alike.
Supported by the bourgeoisie at first, he drowns the Parisian working-class in its own
blood in the early stages of the counterrevolution. He then turns his attention to the
bourgeoisie itself and "jails", "gags" and imposes a "state of siege" upon it. By all
appearances, the dictatorship of Bonaparte is a personal dictatorship and all social
classes suffer. The Hitler and Mussolini regimes gave the same appearance. This led many
to conclude that fascism is simply a totalitarian system in which every citizen is
subordinated to the industrial-military-state machinery. There is the fascism of Hitler
and there is the fascism of Stalin. A class analysis of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia
would produce different political conclusions, however. Hitler's rule rested on
capitalist property relations and Stalin's on collectivized property relations.
Bonaparte's rule, while seeming to stand above all social classes, really served to
protect capitalist property relations. Bonaparte represents the executive branch of
government and liquidates the parliamentary branch. The parliament contains parties from
every social class, so a superficial view of Bonapartist rule would conclude that all
classes have been curtailed. In actuality, the bourgeoisie maintains power behind the
scenes.
In order to maintain rule, Bonapartism must give concessions to the lower-classes. It
can not manifest itself openly as an instrument of the ruling-classes. It is constantly
on the attack against both exploiter and exploited. It acts against exploited because it
is ultimately interested in the preservation of the status quo. It acts against the
exploiters, because it must maintain the appearance of "neutrality" above all
classes.
Marx describes this contradictory situtation as follows:
"Driven by the contradictory demands of his situation, and being at the same time,
like a juggler, under the necessity of keeping the public gaze on himself, as Napoleon's
successor, by springing constant surprises -- that is to say, under the necessity of
arranging a coup d'etat in miniature every day -- Bonaparte throws the whole bourgeois
economy into confusion, violates everything that seemed inviolable to the Revolution of
1848, makes some tolerant of revolution and makes others lust for it, and produces
anarchy in the name of order, while at the same time stripping the entire state machinery
of its halo, profaning it and making it at once loathsome and ridiculous. The cult of the
Holy Tunic of Trier, he duplicates in Paris in the cult of the Napoleonic imperial
mantle. But when the imperial mantle finally falls on the shoulders of Louis Bonaparte,
the bronze statue of Napoleon will come crashing down from the top of the Vendome
Column."
Bonaparte throws the bourgeois economy into a confusion, violates it, produces anarchy
in the name of order. This is exactly the way fascism in power operates. Fascism in power
is a variant of Bonapartism. It eventually stabilizes into a more normal dictatorship of
capital, but in its early stages has the same careening, out-of-control behavior.
Bonapartism does not rest on the power of an individual dictator. It is not Louis
Napoleon's or Adolph Hitler's power of oratory that explains their mastery over a whole
society. They have a social base which they manipulate to remain in power. Even though a
Bonapartist figure is ultimately loyal to the most powerful industrialists and
financiers, he relies on a mass movement of the middle-class to gain power.
Louis Bonaparte drew from the peasantry. The peasantry was in conflict with the big
bourgeoisie but was tricked into lending support to someone who appeared to act in its
own behalf. The peasantry was unable to articulate its own social and political interests
since the mode of production it relied on was an isolating one. Marx commented:
"The small-holding peasants form an enormous mass whose members live in similar
conditions but without entering into manifold relations with each other. Their mode of
production isolates them from one another instead of bringing them into mutual
intercourse. The isolation is furthered by France's poor means of communication and the
poverty of the peasants. Their field of production, the small holding, permits no
division of labor in its cultivation, no application of science, and therefore no
multifariousness of development, no diversity of talent, no wealth of social
relationships. Each individual peasant family is almost self-sufficient, directly
produces most of its consumer needs, and thus acquires its means of life more through an
exchange with nature than in intercourse with society. A small holding, the peasant and
his family; beside it another small holding, another peasant and another family. A few
score of these constitute a village, and a few score villages constitute a department.
Thus the great mass of the French nation is formed by the simple addition of homonymous
magnitudes, much as potatoes in a sack form a sack of potatoes. Insofar as millions of
families live under conditions of existence that separate their mode of life, their
interests, and their culture from those of the other classes, and put them in hostile
opposition to the latter, they form a class. Insofar as there is merely a local
interconnection among these small-holding peasants, and the identity of their interests
forms no community, no national bond, and no political organization among them, they do
not constitute a class. They are therefore incapable of asserting their class interest in
their own name, whether through a parliament or a convention. They cannot represent
themselves, they must be represented. Their representative must at the same time appear
as their master, as an authority over them, an unlimited governmental power which
protects them from the other classes and sends them rain and sunshine from above. The
political influence of the small-holding peasants, therefore, finds its final expression
in the executive power which subordinates society to itself. "
Intermediate layers such as the peasantry are susceptible to Bonapartist and Fascist
politicians. They resent both big capital and the working- class. They resent the banks
who own their mortgage. They also resent the teamsters and railroad workers whose strikes
disrupts their own private economic interests. They turn to politicians whose rhetoric
seems to be both anti-capitalist and anti-working class. Such politicians are often
masters of demagoguery such as Hitler and Mussolini who often employ the stock phrases of
socialism.
The peasantry backed Bonaparte. It was also an important pillar of Hitler's regime. In
the final analysis, the peasants suffered under both because the banks remained powerful
and exploitative. The populism of Bonaparte and the "socialism" of Hitler were simply
deceptive mechanisms by which the executive was able to rule on behalf of big
capital.
Bonapartism, populism and fascism overlap to a striking degree. We see elements of
fascism, populism and Bonapartism in the politics of Pat Buchanan. Buchanan rails against
African-Americans and immigrants, both documented and undocumented. He also rails against
Wall St. which is "selling out" the working man. Is he a fascist, however? Ross Perot
employs a number of the same themes. Is he?
The problem in trying to answer these questions solely on the basis of someone's
speeches or writings is that it ignores historical and class dynamics. Bonaparte and
Hitler emerged as a response to powerful proletrian revolutionary attacks on capital.
What are the objective conditions in American society today? Hitler based their power on
large-scale social movements that could put tens of thousands of people into the streets
at a moment's notice. These movements were not creatures of capitalist cabals. They had
their own logic and their own warped integrity. Many were drawn to Hitler in the deluded
hope that he would bring some kind of "all-German" socialism into existence. These
followers were not Marxists, but they certainly hated the capitalist class. Are the
people who attend Buchanan, Perot and Farrakhan rallies also in such a frenzied,
revolutionary state of mind?
At what point are we in American society today?
I would argue that rather than being in a prerevolutionary situation, that rather we
are in a period which has typified capitalism for the better part of a hundred and fifty
years.We are in a period of capitalist "normalcy". Capitalism is a system which is prone
to economic crisis and war. The unemployment and "downsizing" going on today are typical
of capitalism in its normal functioning. We have to stop thinking as if the period of
prosperity following WWII as normal. It is not. It is an anomaly in the history of
capitalism. When industrial workers found themselves in a position to buy houses, send
children through college, etc., this was only because of a number of exceptional
circumstances which will almost certainly never arise again.
We are in a period more like the late 1800's or the early 1900's. It is a period of
both expansion and retrenchment. It is a period of terrible reaction which can give birth
to the Ku Klux Klan and the skinheads and other neo-Nazis. It is also a period which can
give birth to something like Eugene V. Debs socialist party.
But if we don't recognize at which point we stand, we will never be able to build a
socialist party. We will also not be in a position to resist fascism when it makes its
appearance.
In my next report, I will take a look at the American Populist movement led by Tom
Watson at the turn of the century. It is a highly contradictory social movement. In some
respects it is fascist-like, in other respects it is highly progressive. If we understand
American Populism, we will in a much better position to understand the populism of
today.
These are the types of questions that we should be considering in the weeks to
come:
1) Why did fascism emerge when it did? Could there have been fascism in the
1890's?
2) Is fascism limited to imperialist nations? Could there be fascism in third-world
countries? Did Pinochet represent fascism in Chile?
3) What is the class base of the Nation of Islam? Can there be fascism emerging out of
oppressed nationalities? Can a Turkish or Algerian fascism develop as a response to
neo-fascism in Europe today?
4) The Italian government includes a "fascist" party that openly celebrates Mussolini.
What should we make of this?
5) What is the difference between fascism and ultrarightism? Ultrarightism is a
permanent feature of US and world politics. Was George Wallace a fascist? What would a
European equivalent be?
6) Is fascism emerging in the former Soviet Union? Does Zherinovsky represent fascism?
Is the cause of the civil war in former Yugoslavia Serbian or Croatian fascism?
7) Can there be a fascism which does not incorporate powerful anticapitalist themes
and demagoguery? Joe McCarthy was regarded as a fascist-like figure, but had no use for
radical left-wing verbiage or actions. What should we make of him?
8) If fascism emerged as a reaction to the powerful proletarian revolutionary
movements of the 1920's and 30's, what types of conditions can we see in the foreseeable
future that would provoke new fascist movements? If socialism is no longer objectively
possible because of the ability of capitalism to "deliver the goods", what would the need
for fascism be? Why would the capitalist class support a new Hitler when the
working-class is so quiescient? Should we be thinking about a new definition of
fascism?
9) Fascism has a deeply expansionist and bellicose dynamics. In the age of nuclear
weaponry, can we expect imperialism to opt for a fascist solution? Would the Rockefellers
et al allow a trigger-happy figure like "Mark from Michigan" in control of our nuclear
weapons?
10) What tools are necessary to analyze fascism? Should we be looking at the speeches
of Farrakhan or Mark from Michigan? Was this Marx's approach to Bonapartism?
2. TROTSKY ON BONAPARTISM AND FASCISM
Trotsky, like Lenin, was a revolutionary politician and not an economist or political
scientist. Every article or book the two wrote was tied to solving specific political
problems. When Lenin wrote "Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism", he was trying
to define the theoretical basis for the Zimmerwald opposition to W.W.I. Similarly, when
Trotsky wrote about German fascism, his purpose was to confront and defeat it.
Trotsky's understanding of how fascism came to power is very much grounded in the
definition of "Bonapartism" contained in Marx's "18th Brumaire", a classic study of
dictatorship in the 19th century. Marx was trying to explain how dictatorships of "men on
horseback" such as Louis Bonaparte, Napoleon's nephew, can appear to stand suspended
above all classes and to act as impartial arbitrator between opposing classes, even
though they carry out the wishes of the capitalist ruling class. The capitalist class is
small in number and periods of revolutionary crisis depend on these types of seemingly
neutral strong men.
A true Bonapartist figure is somebody who emerges out of the military or state
apparatus. In order to properly bamboozle the masses, he should have charismatic
qualities. War heroes tend to move to the front of the pack when a Bonapartist solution
is required. Charles DeGaulle is the quintessential Bonapartist figure of the modern age.
If the US labor movement and the left had been much more powerful than it had been during
the Korean war and had mounted a serious resistance to the war and to capitalist rule, it
is not hard to imagine a figure such as General Douglas MacCarthur striving to impose a
Bonapartist dictatorship. Since there was no such left-wing, it was possible for US
capitalism to rule democratically. Democracy is a less expensive and more stable
system.
Germany started out after W.W.I as a bourgeois democracy-- the Weimar Republic. The
republic was besieged by a whole number of insurmountable problems: unemployment,
hyperinflation, and resentment over territory lost to the allies.
The workers had attempted to make a socialist revolution immediately after W.W.I, but
their leadership made a number of mistakes that resulted in defeat. The defeat was not so
profound as to crush all future revolutionary possibilities. As the desperate 20's wore
on, the working- class movement did regain its confidence and went on the offensive
again. The two major parties of the working class, the CP and the SP, both grew.
In the late 1920's, Stalin had embarked on an ultraleft course in the USSR and CP's
tended to reflect this ultraleftism in their own strategy and tactics. In Germany, this
meant attacking the Socialist Party as "social fascist". The Socialist Party was not
revolutionary, but it was not fascist. A united SP and CP could have defeated fascism and
prevented WWII and the slaughter of millions. It was Stalin's inability to size up
fascism correctly that lead to this horrible outcome.
Hitler's seizure of power was preceded by a series of rightward drifting governments,
all of which paved the way for him. The SP found reasons to back each and every one of
these governments in the name of the "lesser evil". (This is an argument we have heard
from some leftists in the United States: "Clinton is not as bad as Bush"; "Johnson is not
as bad as Goldwater, etc." The problem with this strategy is that allows the ruling class
to limit the options available to the oppressed. The lesser evil is still evil.)
The last "lesser evil" candidate the German Social Democracy urged support for was
Paul Von Hindenburg, a top general in W.W.I.. The results were disastrous. Hindenburg
took office on April 10 of 1932 and basically paved the way for Adolph Hitler. Hindenburg
allowed the Nazi street thugs to rule the streets, but enforced the letter of the law
against the working-class parties. Elections may have been taking place according to the
Weimar constitution, but real politics was being shaped in the streets through the
demonstrations and riots of Nazi storm-troopers.
As these Nazi street actions grew more violent and massive, Hindenburg reacted on May
31 by making Franz Von Papen chancellor and instructed him to pick a cabinet "above the
parties", a clear Bonapartist move. Such a cabinet wouldn't placate the Nazis. All they
wanted to do was smash bourgeois democracy. As the civil war in the streets continued,
Papen dissolved the Reichstag and called for new elections on July 31, 1932.
On July 17, the Nazis held a march through Altona, a working class neighborhood, under
police protection. The provocation resulted in fighting that left 19 dead and 285
wounded. The SP and CP were not able to mount a significant counteroffensive and the
right-wing forces gathered self-confidence and support from "centrist" voters. When
elections were finally held on July 31, the Nazi party received the most votes and took
power.
In his article "German Bonapartism", Trotsky tries to explain the underlying
connections between the Bonapartist Hindenburg government and the gathering Nazi
storm:
"Present-day German Bonapartism has a very complex and, so to speak, combined
character. The government of Papen would have been impossible without fascism. But
fascism is not in power. And the government of Papen is not fascism. On the other hand,
the government of Papen, at any rate in the present form, would have been impossible
without Hindenburg who, in spite of the final prostration of Germany in the war, stands
for the great victories of Germany and symbolizes the army in the memory of the popular
masses. The second election of Hindenburg had all the characteristics of a plebiscite.
Many millions of workers, petty bourgeois, and peasants (Social Democracy and Center)
voted for Hindenburg. They did not see in him any one political program. They did not see
in him any one political program. They wanted first of all to avoid civil war, and raised
Hindenburg on their shoulders as a superarbiter, as an arbitration judge of the nation.
But precisely this is the most important function of Bonapartism: raising itself over the
two struggling camps in order to preserve property and order."
The victory of Hitler represents a break with Bonapartism, since it represents the
naked rule of finance capital and heavy industry. Fascism in Germany breaks the tension
between classes by imposing a reign of terror on the working class. Once in power,
however, fascism breaks its ties with the petty-bourgeois mass movement that ensured its
victory and assumes a more traditional Bonapartist character. Hitler in office becomes
much more like the Bonapartist figures who preceded him and seeks to act as a
"superarbiter". In order to make this work, he launches an ambitious publics works
program, invests in military spending and tries to coopt the proletariat. Those in the
working-class who resist him are jailed or murdered.
In "Bonapartism and Fascism", written on July 15, 1934, a year after Hitler's rise to
power, Trotsky clarifies the relationship between the two tendencies:
"What has been said sufficiently demonstrates how important it is to distinguish the
Bonapartist form of power from the fascist form. Yet, it would be unpardonable to fall
into the opposite extreme, that is, to convert Bonapartism and fascism into two logically
incompatible categories. Just as Bonapartism begins by combining the parliamentary regime
with fascism, so triumphant fascism finds itself forced not only to enter a bloc with the
Bonapartists, but what is more, to draw closer internally to the Bonapartist system. The
prolonged domination of finance capital by means of reactionary social demagogy and
petty- bourgeois terror is impossible. Having arrived in power, the fascist chiefs are
forced to muzzle the masses who follow them by means of the state apparatus. By the same
token, they lose the support of broad masses of the petty bourgeoisie."
3. MICHAEL MANN ON FASCISM
Michael Mann believes that 20th century Marxism has made a mistake by describing
fascism as a petty-bourgeois mass movement. He does not argue that the leaders were not
bourgeois, or that the bourgeoisie behind the scenes was financing the fascists. He
develops these points at some length in an article "Source of Variation in Working-Class
Movements in Twentieth-Century Movement" which appeared in the New Left Review of
July/August 1995.
If he is correct, then there is something basically wrong with the Marxist approach,
isn't there? If the Nazis attracted the working-class, then wouldn't we have to
reevaluate the revolutionary role of the working-class? Perhaps it would be necessary to
find some other class to lead the struggle for socialism, if this struggle has any basis
in reality to begin with.
Mann relies heavily on statistical data, especially that which can be found in M.
Kater's "The Nazi Party" and D. Muhlberger "Hitler's Followers". The data, Mann reports,
shows that "Combined, the party and paramilitaries had relatively as many workers as in
the general population, almost as many worker militants as the socialists and many more
than the communists".
Pretty scary stuff, if it's true. It is true, but, as it turns out, there are workers
and there are workers. More specifically, Mann acknowledges that "Most fascist
workers...came not from the main manufacturing industries but from agriculture, the
service and public sectors and from handicrafts and small workshops." Let's consider the
political implications of the class composition of this fascist strata." He adds that,
"The proletarian macro-community was resisting fascism, but not the entire
working-class." Translating this infelicitous expression into ordinary language, Mann is
saying that as a whole the workers were opposed to fascism, but there were
exceptions.
Let's consider who these fascist workers were. Agricultural workers in Germany: were
they like the followers of Caesar Chavez, one has to wonder? Germany did not have
large-scale agribusiness in the early 1920's. Most farms produced for the internal market
and were either family farms or employed a relatively small number of workers. Generally,
workers on smaller farms tend to have a more filial relationship to the patron than they
do on massive enterprises. The politics of the patron will be followed more closely by
his workers. This is the culture of small, private agriculture. It was no secret that
many of the contra foot-soldiers in Nicaragua came from this milieu.
Turning to "service" workers, this means that many fascists were white-collar workers
in banking and insurance. This layer has been going through profound changes throughout
the twentieth century, so a closer examination is needed. In the chapter "Clerical
Workers" in Harry Braverman's "Labor and Monopoly Capital", he notes that clerical work
in its earlier stages was like a craft. The clerk was a highly skilled employee who kept
current the records of the financial and operating condition of the enterprise, as well
as its relations with the external world. The whole history of this job category in the
twentieth century, however, has been one of de-skilling. All sorts of machines, including
the modern-day, computer have taken over many of the decision-making responsibilities of
the clerk. Furthermore, "Taylorism" has been introduced into the office, forcing clerks
to function more like assembly-line workers than elite professionals.
We must assume, however, that the white-collar worker in Germany in the 1920's was
still relatively high up in the class hierarchy since his or her work had not been
mechanized or routinized to the extent it is today. Therefore, a clerk in an insurance
company or bank would tend to identify more with management than with workers in a
steel-mill. Even under today's changed economic conditions, this tends to be true. A bank
teller in NY probably resents a striking transit worker, despite the fact that they have
much in common in class terms. This must have been an even more pronounced tendency in
the 1920's when white-collar workers occupied an even more elite position in society.
Mann includes workers in the "public sector". This should come as no surprise at all.
Socialist revolutions were defeated throughout Europe in the early 1920's and right-wing
governments came to power everywhere. These right-wing governments kept shifting to the
right as the mass working-class movements of the early 1920's recovered and began to
reassert themselves. Government workers, who are hired to work in offices run by
right-wingers, will tend to be right-wing themselves. There was no civil-service and no
unions in this sector in the 1920's. Today, this sector is one of the major supporters of
progressive politics internationally. They, in fact, spearheaded the recent strikes in
France. In the United States, where their composition tends to be heavily Black or
Latino, also back progressive politics. But in Germany in the 1920's, it should come as
no major surprise that some public sector workers joined Hitler or Mussolini's cause.
When Trotsky or E.J. Hobsbawm refer to the working-class resistance to Hitler or
Mussolini, they have something specific in mind. They are referring to the traditional
bastions of the industrial working-class: steel, auto, transportation, mining, etc. Mann
concurs that these blue- collar workers backed the SP or CP.
There is a good reason why this was no accident. In Daniel Guerin's "Fascism and Big
Business", he makes the point that the capitalists from heavy industry were the main
backers of Hitler. The reason they backed Hitler was that they had huge investments in
fixed capital (machines, plants, etc.) that were financed through huge debt. When
capitalism collapsed after the stock-market crash, the owners of heavy industry were more
pressed than those of light industry. The costs involved in making a steel or chemical
plant profitable during a depression are much heavier. Steel has to be sold in dwindling
markets to pay for the cost of leased machinery or machinery that is financed by bank
loans When the price of steel has dropped on a world scale, it is all the more necessary
to enforce strict labor discipline..
Strikes are met by violence. When the boss calls for speed-up because of increased
competition, goons within a plant will attack workers who defend decent working
conditions. This explains blue-collar support for socialism. It has a class basis.
These are the sorts of issues that Marxists should be exploring. Michael Mann is a
"neo-Weberian" supposedly who also finds Marx useful. Max Weber tried to explain the
growth of capitalism as a consequence of the "Protestant ethic". Now Mann tries to
explain the growth of fascism as a consequence of working-class support for "national
identity". That is to say, the workers backed Hitler because Hitler backed a strong
Germany. This is anti-Marxist. Being determines consciousness, not the other way around.
When you try to blend Marx with anti-Marxists like Weber or Lyotard or A.J. Ayer, it is
very easy to get in trouble. I prefer my Marx straight, with no chaser.
4. NICOS POULANTZAS ON FASCISM
Nicos Poulantzas tried to carve out a political space for revolutionaries outside of
the framework of the CP, especially the French Communist Party. Poulantzas wrote "Fascism
and Dictatorship, The Third International and the Problem of Fascism" in 1968 when he was
in the grips of a rather severe case of Maoism.
This put him in an obviously antagonistic position vis a vis Trotsky. Trotsky was the
author of a number of books that tried to explain the victory of Hitler, Mussolini and
Franco in terms of the failure of the Comintern to provide revolutionary leadership.
Poulantzas's Maoism put him at odds with this analysis. His Maoist "revolutionary
heritage" goes back through Dmitrov to Stalin and Lenin. In this line of pedigrees,
Trotsky remains the mutt.
Poulantzas could not accept the idea that the Comintern was the gravedigger of
revolutions, since the current he identified with put this very same Comintern on a
pedestal. Yet the evidence of Comintern failure in the age of fascism is just too
egregious for him to ignore. He explains this failure not in terms of bureaucratic
misleadership, but rather in terms of "economism". This Althusserian critique targets the
Comintern not only of the 1930s when Hitler was marching toward power, but to the
Comintern of the early 1920s, before Stalin had consolidated his power. All the
Bolsheviks to one extent or another suffered from this ideological deviation: Stalin and
Trotsky had a bad case of it, so did Bukharin, Zinoviev and Kamenev.
What form did this "economism" take? Poulantzas argues that the Third International
suffered in its infancy from "economic catastrophism", a particularly virulent form of
this ideological deviation. What happened, you see, is that the Communists relied too
heavily on Lenin's "Imperialism, the Latest Stage of Capitalism". Lenin's pamphlet
portrayed capitalism as being on its last legs, a moribund, exhausted economic system
that was hanging on the ropes like a beaten prize-fighter. All the proletariat had to do
was give the capitalist system one last sharp punch in the nose and it would fall to the
canvas.
If capitalism was in its death-agony, then fascism was the expression of the weakness
of the system in its terminal stages. Poulantzas observes:
"The blindness of both the PCI and KPD leaders in this respect is staggering. Fascism,
according to them, would only be a 'passing episode' in the revolutionary process.
Umberto Terracini wrote in Inprekorr, just after the march on Rome, that fascism was at
most a passing 'ministerial crisis'. Amadeo Bordiga, introducing the resolution on
fascism at the Fifth Congress, declared that all hat had happened in Italy was 'a change
in the governmental team of the bourgeoisie'. The presidium of the Comintern executive
committee noted, just after Hitler's accession to power: 'Hitler's Germany is heading for
ever more inevitable economic catastrophe...The momentary calm after the victory of
fascism is only a passing phenomenon. The wave of revolution will rise inescapably
Germany despite the fascist terror..."
Now Poulantzas is correct to point out this aspect of the Comintern's inability to
challenge and defeat fascism. Yes, it is "economic catastrophism" that clouded its
vision. We must ask is this all there is to the problem? If Lenin's pamphlet had not
swept the Communists off their feet, could they have gotten a better handle on the
situation?
Unfortunately, the failure of the Comintern to provide an adequate explanation of
fascism and a strategy to defeat it goes much deeper than this. The problem is that
Stalin was rapidly in the process of rooting out Marxism from the Communist Party in the
*very early* stages of the Comintern. Stalin's supporters were already intimidating and
silencing Marxists in 1924, the year of the Fifth Congress of the Comintern.
>From around that time forward, the debate in the Comintern was not between a wide
range of Marxist opinion. The debate only included the rightist followers of Bukharin and
Stalin, the cagey spokesman for the emerging bureaucracy. The Soviet secret police and
Stalin's goons were suppressing the Left Opposition. Shortly, Stalin would jail or kill
its members. So when Poulantzas refers to the "Comintern", he is referring to a rump
formation that bore faint resemblance to the Communist International of the heroic, early
days of the Russian Revolution.
When Stalin took power, the Comintern became an instrument of Soviet foreign policy
and Communist Parties tried to emulate the internal shifts of the Soviet party. The
ultraleft, third period of the German Communist Party mirrored the extreme turn taken by
Stalin against Bukharin and the right Communists in the late 1920s. Bukharin was for
appeasement of the kulaks and, by the same token, class-collaborationist alliances with
the national bourgeoisie of various countries. Stalin had embraced this policy when it
was convenient.
When Stalin broke with Bukharin, he turned sharply to the ultraleft and dumped the
rightist leadership of the Comintern. He replaced it with his lackeys who were all to
happy to march in lock-step to the lunatic left. The German CP went to the head of the
pack during this period by attacking the social democrats as being "social fascists".
Poulantzas maintains that the Kremlin did not have a master-puppet relationship to the
Communist Parties internationally. Since the evidence to the contrary is rather
mountainous, his explanations take on a labored academic cast that are in sharp
contradistinction to his usually lucid prose. It also brings out the worst of his Maoist
mumbo- jumbo:
"To sum up: the general line which was progressively dominant in the USSR and in the
Comintern can allow us to make a relatively clear [!] periodization of the Comintern, a
periodization which can also be very useful for the history of the USSR. But this is
insufficient. For example, we have seen how the Comintern's Sixth (1928) and Seventh
(1935) Congresses cannot be interpreted on the model of a pendulum (left
opportunism/right opportunism), but that there is no simple continuity between them
either. That corroborates the view that the turn in Soviet policy in relationship to the
peasantry as a whole was not a simple, internal, 'ultra-left' turn. But it will be
impossible to make a deeper analysis of this problem in relation to the Comintern until
we have exactly established what was the real process involving the Soviet bourgeoisie
[Don't forget, gang, this is 1968] during the period of the class struggle in the USSR --
which was considerably more than a simple struggle of the proletariat and poor peasants
against the kulaks."
As Marxists, we should always avoid the temptation to resort to "deterministic" types
of analysis. Poulantzas, the Althusserian, would never yield to such temptation. That is
why refuses to make a connection between the ultraleft attack on the peasantry within the
Soviet Union and the ultraleft turn internationally. I am afraid, however, that no other
analysis makes any sense. Sometimes, a cigar is simply a cigar. Stalin, the
quintessential bureaucrat seems only capable of lurching either to the extreme left or
extreme right. His errors reflect an inability to project working-class, i.e., Marxist,
solutions to political problems. By concentrating such enormous power in his hands, he
guaranteed that every shift he took, the Communist Parties internationally would
follow.
Ideology plays much too much of a role in the Poulantzas scheme of things. The
Comintern messed up because it put Lenin on a pedestal. He also says that the bourgeoisie
supported fascism because it too was in a deep ideological crisis. What does Poulantzas
have to say about the German working-class? What does he say about the parties of the
working-class? Could ideological confusion explain their weakness in face of the Nazi
threat? You bet.
Poulantzas alleges that the rise of fascism in Germany corresponds to an ideological
crisis of the revolutionary organizations, which in turn coincided with an ideological
crisis within the working class. He says:
"Marxist-Leninist ideology was profoundly shaken within the working class: not only
did it fail to conquer the broad masses, but it was also forced back where it managed to
root itself. It is clear enough what happens when revolutionary organizations fail in
their ideological role of giving leadership on a mass line: particular forms of bourgeois
and petty-bourgeois ideology invade the void left by the retreat of Marxist- Leninist
ideology.
The influence of bourgeois ideology over the working class, in this situation of
ideological crisis, took the classic form of trade unionism and reformism. It can be
recognized not only in the survival, but also in the extending influence of social
democracy over the working class, through both the party and trade unions, all through
the rise of fascism. The advancing influence of social-democratic ideology was felt even
in those sections of the working class supporting the communist party."
Comrades, this is not what Lenin said! Lenin said that socialist consciousness has to
be brought into the working-class from the outside, from intellectuals who have mastered
Marxism. Not is it only what Lenin said, it is happily what makes sense. Workers *never*
rise above simple trade union consciousness.
When Poulantzas says that bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology "invades" the
working-class, he is mixing things up hopelessly. This type of ideology has no need to
invade, it is *always* there. It is socialist ideas that are the anomaly, the
exception.
Workers have no privileged status in class society. The ruling ideas of any society
are the ideas of the ruling class. When Jon the railroad worker reports to this l*st
about the numbers of his co-workers who are for Perot, he is conveying the same truth
that is found in What is to be Done. The ideas that he supports are being "imported" into
the rail yards. That's the way it goes.
This also explains the murderous fanaticism of the Shining Path. When they witness the
"bourgeois" ideas of ordinary Peruvian workers, it is very tempting for them to put a
bullet in the brain of any of them who stand in their way. If Maoism posits ideology as
the enemy, no wonder they conceive of the class struggle as a struggle against impure
thoughts. The answer to impure thoughts, of course, is patient explanation. This is the
method of Marxism, the political philosophy of the working-class. Marxists try to resolve
contradictions by reaching a higher level of understanding. Sometimes, it can be
frustrating to put up with and work through these contradictions, but the alternative
only leads down the blind alley to sectarianism and fanaticism.
5. DELEUZE/GUATTARI ON FASCISM
In the translator's foreword to "A Thousand Plateaus", Brian Massumi tells us that the
philosopher Gilles Deleuze was prompted by the French worker-student revolt of 1968 to
question the role of the intellectual in society. Felix Guattari, his writing partner,
was a psychoanalyst who identified with R.D. Laing's antipsychiatry movement of the
1960's. Laing created group homes where schizophrenics were treated identically to the
sane, sort of like the Marxism list. Guattari also embraced the protests of 1968 and
discovered an intellectual kinship with Deleuze. Their first collaboration was the 1972
"Anti-Oedipus". Massumi interprets this work as a polemic against "State-happy or
pro-party versions of Marxism". "A Thousand Plateaus", written in 1987, is basically part
two of the earlier work. Deleuze and Guattari state that the two books make up a grand
opus they call "Capitalism and Schizophrenia".
I read the chapter "1933" in "A Thousand Plateaus" with as much concentration as I can
muster. Stylistically, it has a lot in common with philosophers inspired by Nietzsche. I
am reminded of some of the reading I did in Wyndham Lewis and Oswald Spengler in a
previous lifetime. These sorts of authors pride themselves in being able to weave
together strands from many different disciplines and hate being categorized. Within a few
pages you will see references to Kafka, American movies, Andre Gorz's theory of work and
Clausewitz's military writings.
Their approach to fascism is totally at odds with the approach we have been developing
in our cyberseminar. Thinkers such as Marx and Trotsky focus on the class dynamics of
bourgeois society. Bonapartism is rooted in the attempt of the French bourgeoisie in 1848
to stave off proletarian revolution. Trotsky explains fascism as a totalitarian last-
ditch measure to preserve private property when bourgeois democracy or the Bonapartist
state are failing.
Deleuze and Guattari see fascism as a permanent feature of social life. Class is not
so important to them. They are concerned with what they call "microfascism", the fascism
that lurks in heart of each and every one of us. When they talk about societies that were
swept by fascism, such as Germany, they totally ignore the objective social and economic
framework: depression, hyperinflation, loss of territory, etc.
This is wrong. Fascism is a product of objective historical factors, not shortcomings
in the human psyche or imperfections in the way society is structured. The way to prevent
fascism is not to have unfascist attitudes or live in unfascist communities, like the
hippies did in the 1960's. It is to confront the capitalist class during periods of
mounting crisis and win a socialist victory.
In a key description of the problem, they say, "The concept of the totalitarian State
applies only at the macropolitical level, to a rigid segmentarity and a particular mode
of totalization and centralization. But fascism is inseparable from a proliferation of
molecular focuses in interaction, which skip from point to point, before beginning to
resonate together in the National Socialist State. Rural fascism and city or neighborhood
fascism, youth fascism and war veteran's fascism, fascism of the Left and fascism of the
Right, fascism of the couple, family, school, and office: every fascism is defined by a
micro-black hole that stands on its own and communicates with the others, before
resonating in a great, generalized central black hole."
This is a totally superficial understanding of how fascism came about. What is Left
fascism? It is true that the Communist Party employed thuggish behavior on occasion
during the ultraleft "Third Period". They broke up meetings of small Trotskyist groups
while the Nazis were breaking up the meetings of trade unions or Communists. Does this
behavior equal left Fascism? Fascism is a class term. It describes a mass movement of the
petty-bourgeoisie that seeks to destroy all vestiges of the working-class movement. This
at least is the Marxist definition.
Fascism is not intolerance, bad attitudes, meanness or insensitivity. It is a violent,
procapitalist mass movement of the middle-class that employs socialist
phrase-mongering.
I want to conclude with a few words about Felix Guattari and Toni Negri's "Communists
like Us". Unlike Deleuze/Guattari's collaborations, this is a perfectly straightforward
political manifesto that puts forward a basic challenge to Marxism. It is deeply inspired
by a reading of the 1968 struggle in France as a mass movement for personal liberation.
Students and other peripheral sectors move into the foreground while workers become
secondary. It is as dated as Herbert Marcuse's "One Dimensional Man".
The pamphlet was written in 1985 but has the redolence of tie-dyed paisley, patchouli
oil and granny glasses. Get a whiff of this:
"Since the 1960's, new collective subjectivities have been affirmed in the dramas of
social transformation. We have noted what they owe to modifications in the organization
of work and to developments in socialization; we have tried to establish that the
antagonisms which they contain are no longer recuperable within the traditional horizon
of the political. But it remains to be demonstrated that the innovations of the '60s
should above all be understood within the universe of consciousnesses, of desires, and of
modes of behaviour."
I have some trouble understanding why Deleuze and Guattari are such big favorites with
some of my younger friends. My friend Catherine who works in the Dean of Studies office
at Barnard was wild about Derrida when I first met her four years ago. She started
showing more of an interest in Marxism after Derrida did. But she is not reading the 18th
Brumaire. She is reading Bataille, Deleuze/Guattari and Simone Weil. My guess is that a
lot of people from her milieu feel a certain nostalgia for the counterculture of the
1960's and in a funny sort of way, Deleuza/Guattari take that nostalgia and cater to it
but in an ultrasophisticated manner. They wouldn't bother with Paul Goodman and Charles
Reich, this crowd. But French and Italian theorists who write in a highly allusive and
self-referential manner: Like wow, man!
6. TOM WATSON
Tom Watson was born in Thompson, Georgia on September 5, 1856. His father owned 45
slaves and 1,372 acres of land on which he grew cotton. These assets put the Watson
family in the top third of the Georgian land-owning class, but not at the very top of the
slaveocracy.
The slave-owning class hated the Northern industrial class which had won the civil
war. The northerners brought an end to the old agrarian ways at the point of the bayonet
during reconstruction. The Yankee industrial capitalist sought free land and free labor.
This would allow him to commercially exploit the south and break up the older semi-
feudal relations.
Young Tom Watson hated what was happening to the south and joined the Democratic Party
soon after graduating college and starting a law profession. The Democrats in the south
formed the political resistance to the northern based Republicans. The "white man's
party" and the Democratic Party were terms used interchangeably.
Some of the southern capitalists aligned with the Democratic Party realized that the
future belonged to the northern capitalist class and joined forces with them. They became
avid partners in the commercial development of agriculture and the expansion of the
railroads throughout the south. Most of these southerners were connected with a newly
emerging finance capital, especially in the more forward- looking cities like Atlanta,
Georgia. Atlanta has always seen itself as representative of a "new south". It was to be
the first to end Jim Crow and it was the first to develop an intensive financial and
services-based infrastructure after WWII.
The intensive commercialization of the south impoverished many of the small and
mid-sized farmers who found themselves caught between the hammer and anvil of railroad,
retail store and bank. The banks charged exorbitant mortgages for land while the
railroads exacted steep fees for transporting grain and cotton. It often cost a farmer a
bushel of wheat just to bring a bushel of wheat to market. The retail stores charged high
prices for manufactured goods and were often owned behind the scenes by bank or
railroad.
Tom Watson identified with the exploited farmers who had begun to organize themselves
into a group called the Farmer's Alliance, which started in Texas but soon spread
throughout the south in the 1880's. The Alliance was determined to defend the interests
of small farmers against the juggernaut of bank, railroad and retail entrepreneur. The
Alliance evolved into the People's Party, the original version of the populists, a term
that is much overused today.
In this emerging class conflict, what side would a Marxist support? After all, didn't
Marx support the Yankees in the Civil War? Didn't the north represent industrialization,
progress and modernization? Wasn't the Alliance simply a continuation of the old
agricultural system?
When Tom Watson joined the Alliance cause, his words would not give a modernizer much
encouragement. He said, "Let there come once more to Southern heart and Southern brain
the Resolve--waste places built up. In the rude shock of civil war that dream perished.
Like victims of some horrid nightmare, we have moved ever since--
powerless--oppressed--shackled--".
The Alliance, like the Democratic Party in the south, was for white people only. The
leader of the Alliance in Texas, Charles Macune, was an outspoken racist.
A preliminary Marxist judgment on the Populists would be negative, wouldn't it, since
their nostalgia for the old south is reactionary. Their roots in the Democratic Party,
the "white man's party" would also make them suspect. Finally, why would Marxists support
the antiquated agrarian life-style of small farmers against the northern capitalist class
and their "new south" allies?
This snap judgment would fail to take into account the brutal transformations that
were turning class relations upside down in the south. As farmers became pauperized by
the commercial interests, many became share-croppers who had everything in common with
the impoverished Okies depicted by John Steinbeck in the "Grapes of Wrath". Others became
wage laborers on plantations, while others entered the industrial proletariat itself in
the towns and cities of the "new south". The class interests of these current and former
petty- bourgeois layers were arrayed against the big bourgeoisie of the south and
north.
This impoverished white farmers found itself joined in dire economic circumstances
with black farmers who had recently been freed from slavery, but who remained
share-croppers for the most part. Those with a pessimistic view of human nature might
assume that white and black farmer remained divided and weak. After all, doesn't racial
solidarity supersede class interest again and again in American history?
The Populists defied expectations, however. They united black and white farmers and
fought valiantly against Wall St. and their southern partners throughout the 1890's and
nearly succeeded in becoming a permanent third party.
At their founding convention, the delegates to the People's Party adopted a program
which included the following demands:
"The conditions which surround us best justify our cooperation; we meet in the midst
of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin. Corruption
dominates the ballot-box, the legislature, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of
the bench. The people are demoralized...
We have witnessed for more than a quarter of a century the struggles of the two great
political parties for power and plunder, while grievous wrongs have been inflicted upon
the suffering people...
The land, including all the natural sources of wealth, is the heritage of the people,
and should not be monopolized for speculative purposes, and alien ownership of land
should be prohibited.
All land now held by railroads and other corporations in excess of their actual needs,
and all lands owned by aliens [i.e., absentee landlords] should be reclaimed by the
government and held for actual settlers only."
This program galvanized millions of farmers into action. They joined the People's
Party and elected local, state and federal politicians including Tom Watson himself who
went to Congress and spoke forcefully for the interests of small farmers.
Watson also was one of the Populist leaders who saw most clearly the need for
black-white unity. Watson framed his appeal this way:
"Now the People's Party says to these two men, 'You are kept apart that you may be
separately fleeced of your earnings. You are made to hate each other because upon that
hatred is rested the keystone of the arch of financial despotism which enslaves you both.
You are deceived and blinded that you may not see how this race antagonism perpetuates a
monetary system which beggars both.'"
Watson spoke out forcefully against lynching, nominated a black man to his state
executive committee and often spoke from the same platform with black populists to mixed
audiences.
The Populists were a real threat to the capitalist system. While they did not advocate
socialist solutions, they objectively defended the interests of both poor farmer and
working-class. In many states in the west and north, populist farmers began to form ties
with the newly emerging Knights of Labor. Both populist farmer and northern worker saw
Wall St. as the enemy.
How and why did the populists disappear?
Watson became the Vice Presidential running-mate of the Democratic nominee William
Jennings Bryan in 1896. Bryan had the reputation of being some kind of populist radical,
but nothing could be further from the truth. He was the first in a long line of
Democratic Party "progressives" who fooled the mass movement into thinking that the party
could accommodate their needs.
Bryan did support the adoption of the silver standard (this was favored by farmers who
sought more plentiful currency in expectation that this would bring down prices), but was
cool to the rest of the populist demands. He had no use especially for any anti-corporate
measures.
The populists were fooled into supporting Bryan, but the Democrats knew who their
class-enemy was. Throughout the south, armed thugs destroyed populist party headquarters
and terrorized party members. The combination of Bryan's co-optation and violence at the
street level took the momentum out of this movement.
In a few short years, other factors served to dampen farmer radicalism. There was a
European crop failure and American farmers were able to sell their goods at a higher
price. Also, the United States started to develop as an imperial power through its
conquest of the Philippines, Cuba, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The material and psychological
benefits of these new colonies tended to mute class-consciousness among worker and farmer
alike.
The populists dissolved slowly as the twentieth century approached. Some activists
became members of the Progressive Party, while others joined Deb's Socialist Party. The
working-class began to emerge as more of a self-aware, insurgent force in its own right,
especially in its drive to form unions.
What lessons can be drawn about the People's Party? At the very least, it should teach
us that politics can often be unpredictable. Who would imagine that the son of a
slave-owner would end up as a defender of black rights nearly a century before the civil
rights movement?
As we move forward in our study of fascism, and especially as we come close to the
period when Black Nationalism and the militias show up, let us take care to look at a
movement's class dynamics rather than the words of one or another leader. Marxism is
suited to analysis of social forces in formation and development. It is ideally suited to
understanding the types of rapid changes that are beginning to appear on the American
political landscape.
7. PAT BUCHANAN AND AMERICAN FASCISM
The United States in the 1930s became a battleground between industrial workers and
the capitalist class over whether workers would be able to form industrial unions. There
had been craft unions for decades, but only industrial unions could fight for all of the
workers in a given plant or industry. This fight had powerful revolutionary implications
since the captains of heavy industry required a poorly paid, docile work-force in order
to maximize profits in the shattered capitalist economy. There were demonstrations,
sit-down strikes and even gun-fights led by the Communist Party and other left groups to
establish this basic democratic right.
Within this political context, fascist groups began to emerge. They drew their
inspiration from Mussolini's fascists or Hitler's brown- shirts. In a time of severe
social crisis, groups of petty-bourgeois and lumpen elements begin to coalesce around
demagogic leaders. They employ "radical" sounding rhetoric but in practice seek out
working- class organizations to intimidate and destroy. One such fascist group was the
Silver Shirts of Minneapolis, Minnesota.
In chapter eleven of "Teamster Politics", SWP leader Farrell Dobbs recounts "How the
Silver Shirts Lost Their Shrine in Minneapolis". It is the story of how Local 544 of the
Teamsters union, led by Trotskyists, defended itself successfully from a fascist
expedition into the city. Elements of the Twin Cities ruling-class, alarmed over the
growth of industrial unionism in the city, called in Silver Shirt organizer Roy Zachary.
Zachary hosted two closed door meetings on July 29 and August 2 of 1938. Teamster "moles"
discovered that Zachary intended to launch a vigilante attack against Local 544
headquarters. They also discovered that Zachary planned to work with one F.L. Taylor to
set up an "Associated Council of Independent Unions", a union-busting operation. Taylor
had ties to a vigilante outfit called the "Minnesota Minute Men".
Local 544 took serious measures to defend itself. It formed a union defense guard in
August 1938 open to any active union member. Many of the people who joined had military
experience, including Ray Rainbolt the elected commander of the guard. Rank-and-filers
were former sharpshooters, machine gunners and tank operators in the US Army. The guard
also included one former German officer with WWI experience. While the guard itself did
not purchase arms except for target practice, nearly every member had hunting rifles at
home that they could use in the circumstance of a Silver Shirt attack.
Events reached a climax when Pelley came to speak at a rally in the wealthy section of
Minneapolis.
Ray Rainbolt organized a large contingent of defense guard members to pay a visit to
Calhoun Hall where Pelley was to make his appearance. The powerful sight of disciplined
but determined unionists persuaded the audience to go home and Pelley to cancel his
speech.
This was the type of conflict taking place in 1938. A capitalist class bent on taming
workers; fascist groups with a documented violent, anti-labor record; industrial workers
in motion: these were the primary actors in that period. It was characteristic of the
type of class conflict that characterized the entire 1930s. It is useful to keep this in
mind when we speak about McCarthyism.
WWII abolished a number of major contradictions in global capital while introducing
others. The United States emerged as the world's leading capitalist power and took
control economically and politically of many of the former colonies of the exhausted
European powers. Inter-imperialist rivalries and contradictions seemed to be a thing of
the past. England was the U.S.'s junior partner. The defeated Axis powers, Germany and
Japan, were under Washington's thumb. France retained some independence. (To this day
France continues to act as if it were an equal partner of the US, detonating nuclear
weapons in the Pacific or talking back to NATO over policies in Bosnia.)
Meanwhile the USSR survived the war bloodied but unbowed. In a series of negotiations
with the US and its allies, Stalin won the right to create "buffer" states to his West. A
whole number of socialist countries then came into being. China and Yugoslavia had
deep-going proletarian revolutions that, joined with the buffer states, would soon
account for more than 1/4 of the world's population.
World imperialism took an aggressive stance toward the socialist bloc before the smoke
had cleared from the WWII battlegrounds. Churchill made his "cold war" speech and
contradictions between the socialist states and world capitalism grew very sharp.
Imperialism began using the same type of rhetoric and propaganda against the USSR that it
had used against the Nazis. Newreels of the early fifties would depict a spreading red
blot across the European continent. This time the symbol superimposed on the blot was a
hammer-and-sickle instead of a swastika. The idea was the same: to line up the American
people against the enemy overseas that was trying to gobble up the "free world".
A witch-hunt in the United States, sometimes called McCarthyism, emerged in the United
States from nearly the very moment the cold war started. The witch-hunt would serve to
eradicate domestic opposition to the anti-Communist crusade overseas. The witch-hunters
wanted to root up and eradicate all sympathy to the USSR. President Harry Truman, a
Democrat and New Dealer, started the anticommunist crusade. He introduced the first
witch-hunt legislation, a bill that prevented federal employees from belonging to
"subversive" organizations. When Republican Dwight Eisenhower took office, he simply kept
the witch-hunt going. The McCarthy movement per se emerges out of a reactionary climate
created by successive White House administrations, Democrat and Republican alike.
I will argue that a similar dynamic has existed in US politics over the past twenty
years. Instead of having a "cold war" against the socialist countries, we have had a
"cold war" on the working-class and its allies. James Carter, a Democrat, set into motion
the attack on working people and minorities, while successive Republican and Democratic
administrations have continued to stoke the fire. Reaganism is Carterism raised to a
higher level. All Buchanan represents is the emergence of a particularly reactionary
tendency within this overall tendency toward the right.
Attacks on the working-class and minorities have nothing to do with "bad faith" on the
part of people like William Clinton. We are dealing with a global restructuring of
capital that will be as deep-going in its impact on class relations internationally as
the cold war was in its time. The cold war facilitated the removal of the Soviet Union as
a rival. Analogously, the class war on working people in the advanced capitalist
countries that began in the Carter years facilitates capital's next new expansion.
Capitalism is a dynamic system. This dynamism includes not only war and "downsizing", it
also includes fabulous growth in places like the East Coast of China. To not see this is
to not understand capitalism.
"The United States, the most powerful capitalist country in history, is a component
part of the world capitalist system and is subject to the same general laws. It suffers
from the same incurable diseases and is destined to share the same fate. The overwhelming
preponderance of American imperialism does not exempt it from the decay of world
capitalism, but, on the contrary, acts to involve it even more deeply, inextricably and
hopelessly. US capitalism can no more escape from the revolutionary consequences of world
capitalist decay than the older European capitalist powers. The blind alley in which
world capitalism has arrived, and the US with it, excludes a new organic era of
capitalist stabilization. The dominant world position of American imperialism now
accentuates and aggravates the death agony of capitalism as a whole."
This appears in an article in the April 5, 1954 Militant titled "First Principles in
the Struggle Against Fascism". It is of course based on a totally inaccurate
misunderstanding of the state of global capital. Capitalism was not in a "blind alley" in
1954. The truth is that from approximately 1946 on capitalism went through the most
sustained expansion in its entire history. To have spoken about the "death agony" of
capitalism in 1954 was utter nonsense. This "catastrophism" could only serve to misorient
the left since it did not put McCarthyism in proper context.
One of the great contributions made by Nicos Poulantzas in his "Fascism and the Third
International" was his diagnosis of the problem of "catastrophism". According to
Poulantzas, the belief that capitalism has reached a "blind alley" first appeared in the
Comintern of the early 1920's. He blames this on a dogmatic approach to Lenin's
"Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism" that existed in a communist movement that
was all too eager to deify the dead revolutionist.
Lenin's theory of imperialism owed much to Hilferding and Bukharin who believed that
capitalism was moribund and incapable of generating new technical and industrial growth.
Moreover, this capitalist system was in a perpetual crisis and wars were inevitable. The
Comintern latched onto this interpretation and adapted it to the phenomenon of fascism.
Fascism, in addition to war, was also a permanent feature of the decaying capitalist
system. A system that had reached such an impasse was a system that was in a permanent
catastrophic mode. The Comintern said that it was five minutes to midnight.
The SWP's version of catastrophism did not allow it to see McCarthy's true mission.
This mission was not to destroy the unions and turn the United States into a totalitarian
state. It was rather a mission to eliminate radical dissent against the stepped-up attack
on the USSR, its allies and revolutionary movements in the third world. The witch- hunt
targeted radicals in the unions, the schools, the State Department, the media and
elsewhere. After the witch-hunt had eradicated all traces of radical opinion, the US
military could fight its imperialist wars without interference from the left. This is
exactly what took place during the Korean War. There were no visible signs of dissent
except in the socialist press and in some liberal publications like I.F. Stone's
Newsletter. This clamp-down on dissent lasted until the Vietnam war when a newly
developing radicalization turned the witch-hunt back for good.
In the view of the SWP, nothing basically had changed since the 1930's. The target of
McCarthyite "fascism" was the working-class and its unions. The Militant stated on
January 18, 1954:
"If the workers' organizations don't have the answer, the fascists will utilize the
rising discontent of the middle class, its disgust with the blundering labor leadership,
and its frenzy at being ruined economically, to build a mass fascist movement with armed
detachments and hurl them at the unions. While spouting a lot of radical-sounding
demagogy they will deflect the anti-capitalist wrath of the middle class and deploy it
against labor, and establish the iron- heel dictatorship of Big Capital on the smoking
ruins of union halls."
One wonders if the party leadership in 1954 actually knew any middle- class people,
since party life consisted of a "faux proletarian" subculture with tenuous ties to
American society. Certainly they could have found out about the middle-class on the newly
emerging TV situation comedies like "Father Knows Best" or "Leave it to Beaver". Rather
than expressing "rising discontent" or "frenzy", the middle- class was taking advantage
of dramatic increases in personal wealth. Rather than plotting attacks on union halls
like the Silver Shirts did in 1938, they were moving to suburbia, buying televisions and
station wagons, and taking vacations in Miami Beach or Europe. This was not only
objectively possible for the average middle-class family, it was also becoming possible
for the worker in basic industry. For the very same reason the working-class was not
gravitating toward socialism, the middle-class was not gravitating toward fascism. This
reason, of course, is that prosperity had become general.
The other day Ryan Daum posted news of the death of Pablo, a leader of the Trotskyist
movement in the 1950s. European Trotskyism is generally much less dogmatic than its
American and English cousins. While the party leadership in the United States hated Pablo
with a passion, rank and filers often found themselves being persuaded by some ideas put
forward by the Europeans.
One of these differences revolved around how to assess McCarthy. The party leadership
viewed McCarthy as a fascist while a minority grouping led by Dennis Vern and Samuel Ryan
based in Los Angeles challenged this view. Unfortunately I was not able to locate
articles in which the minority defends its view. What I will try to do is reconstruct
this view through remarks directed against them by Joseph Hansen, a party leader. This is
a risky method, but the only one available to me.
Vern and Ryan criticize the Militant's narrow focus on the McCarthyite threat. They
say, "The net effect of this campaign is not to hurt McCarthy, or the bourgeois state,
but to excuse the bourgeois state for the indisputable evidences of its bourgeois
character, and thus hinder the proletariat in its understanding that the bourgeois-
democratic state is an 'executive committee' of the capitalist class, and that only a
workers state can offer an appropriate objective for the class struggle."
I tend to discount statements like "only a workers state" since they function more as
a mantra than anything else ("only socialism can end racism"; "only socialism can end
sexism"-- you get the picture.) However, there is something interesting being said here.
By singling out McCarthy, didn't the SWP "personalize" the problems the left was facing?
A Democratic president initiated the witch-hunt, not a fascist minded politician. Both
capitalist parties created the reactionary movement out of which McCarthy emerges. By the
same token, doesn't the narrow focus on Buchanan today tend to lift some of the pressure
on William Clinton. After all, if our problem is Buchanan, then perhaps it makes sense to
throw all of our weight behind Clinton.
Vern and Ryan also offer the interesting observation that McCarthy has been less
anti-union than many bourgeois politicians to his left. The liberal politicians railed
against McCarthy's assault on civil liberties, but meanwhile endorsed all sorts of
measures that would have weakened the power of the American trade union movement.
This was an interesting perception that has some implications I will attempt to
elucidate. McCarthy did not target the labor movement as such because the post WWII
social contract between labor and big business was essentially class-collaborationist.
The union movement would keep its mouth shut about foreign interventions in exchange for
higher wages, job security, etc. Social peace at home accompanied and eased the way of US
capitalist expansionism overseas. The only obstacle to this social contract was the
ideological left, those members of the union movement, the media, etc. They were all
possible supporters of the Vietminh and other liberation movements. McCarthy wanted to
purge the union movement of these elements, but not destroy the union movement itself.
Turning our clock forward to 1996, does anybody think that Buchanan intends to break the
power of the US working-class? Does big business need Buchanan when the Arkansas
labor-hater is doing such a great job?
The SWP has had a tremendous attraction toward "catastrophism". Turning the clock
forward from 1954 to 1988, we discover resident genius Jack Barnes telling a gathering of
the faithful that capitalism finally is in the eleventh hour. In a speech on "What the
1987 Stock Market Crash Foretold", he says:
"Neither past sources of rapid capital accumulation nor other options can enable the
imperialist ruling classes to restore the long-term accelerating accumulation of world
capitalism and avert an international depression and general social crisis....
"The period in the history of capitalist development that we are living through today
is heading toward intensified class battles on a national and international scale,
including wars and revolutionary situations. In order to squeeze out more wealth from the
labor of exploited producers....
"Before the exploiters can unleash a victorious reign of reaction [i.e., fascism],
however, the workers will have the first chance. The mightiest class battles of human
history will provide the workers and exploited farmers in the United States and many
other countries the opportunity to place revolutionary situations on the order of the
day."
Someone should have thrown a glass of cold water in the face of this guru before he
made this speech. He predicted depression, but the financial markets ignored him. The
stock market recovered from the 1987 crash and has now shot up to over 5000 points. His
statement that nothing could have averted an international depression shows that he much
better qualified at plotting purges than plotting out the development of capital
accumulation.
His statement that the "period in the history of capitalist development that we are
living through" is heading toward wars and revolution takes the word "period" and strips
it of all meaning. Nine years have passed and there is neither depression nor general
social crisis. Is a decade sufficient to define a period? I think all of us can benefit
from Jack Barnes' catastrophism if we simply redefine what a period is. Let us define it
as a hundred years, then predictions of our Nostradamus might begin to make sense.
Unfortunately, the art of politics consists of knowing what to do next and predictions of
such a sweeping nature are worthless.
Sally Ryan posted an article from the Militant newspaper the other day. It states that
Buchanan is a fascist:
"Buchanan is not primarily out to win votes, nor was he four years ago. He has set out
to build a cadre of those committed to his program and willing to act in the streets to
carry it out. He dubs his supporters the 'Buchanan Brigades'....
"Commenting on the tone of a recent speech Buchanan gave to the New Hampshire
legislature, Republican state representative Julie Brown, said, 'It's just mean - like a
little Mussolini.'....
"While he is not about to get the Republican nomination, Buchanan is serious in his
campaign. The week before his Louisiana win, he came in first in a straw poll of Alaska
Republicans and placed third in polls in New Hampshire, where the first primary election
will be held. He is building a base regardless of how the vote totals continue to fall.
And he poses the only real alternative that can be put forward within the capitalist
system to the like-sounding Clinton and Dole - a fascist alternative."
These quotations tend to speak for a rather wide-spread analysis of Buchanan that a
majority of the left supports, including my comrades on this list.
I want to offer a counter-analysis:
1) We are in a period of quiescence, not class confrontation.
Comrades, this is the good news and the bad news. It is good news because there is no
threat of a fascist movement coming to power. It is bad news because it reflects how
depoliticized the US working-class remains.
There is no fascist movement in the United States of any size or significance. It is
time to stop talking about the militias of Montana. Let us speak instead of New York, Los
Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, etc. Has there been any growth of fascism? Of course
not. In New York, my home town, there is no equivalent of the German- American bund, the
fascists of the 1930s who had a base on New York's upper east side, my neighborhood.
There are no attacks on socialist or trade union meetings. There are not even attacks
on movements of allies of the working-class. The women's movement, the black movement,
the Central American movement organize peacefully and without interference for the simple
reason that there are no violent gangs to subdue them.
The reason there are no violent gangs of fascists is the same as it was in the 1950s.
We are not in a period of general social crisis. There are no frenzied elements of the
petty-bourgeoisie or the lumpen proletariat being drawn into motion by demagogic and
charismatic leaders like Mussolini or Hitler. There are no Silver Shirts that the labor
or socialist movement needs protection from.
There is another key difference from the 1930s that we must consider. Capital and
labor battled over the rights of labor within the prevailing factory system. Capitalism
has transformed that factory system. Workers who remain in basic industry are not
fighting for union representation. They simply want to keep their jobs. Those who remain
employed will not tend to enter into confrontations with capital as long as wages and
benefits retain a modicum of acceptability. That is the main reason industrial workers
tend to be quiescent and will remain so for some time to come.
In the 1930s, workers occupied huge factories and battled the bosses over the right to
a union. The bosses wanted to keep these factories open and strikes tended to take on a
militant character in these showdowns. Strike actions tended to draw the working-class
together and make it easier for socialists to get a hearing. This was because strikes
were much more like mass actions and gave workers a sense of their power. The logical
next step, according to the socialists, was trade union activity on a political level
and, ultimately, rule by the workers themselves.
The brunt of the attack today has been downsizing and runaway capital. This means that
working people have a fear of being unemployed more than anything else. This fear grips
the nation. When a worker loses a job today, he or she tends to look for personal
solutions: a move to another city, signing up for computer programming classes, etc.
Michael Moore's "Roger and Me" vividly illustrated this type of personal approach Every
unemployed auto worker in this film was trying to figure out a way to solve their
problems on their own.
In the face of the atomization of the US working class, it is no surprise that many
workers seem to vote for Buchanan. He offers them a variant on the personal solution. A
worker may say to himself or herself, "Ah, this Buchanan's a racist bigot, but he's the
only one who seems to care about what's happening to me. I'll take a gamble and give him
my vote." Voting is not politics. It is the opposite of politics. It is the capitalist
system's mechanism for preventing political action.
2) Buchanan is a bourgeois politician.
Pat Buchanan represents the thinking of an element of the US ruling class, and views
the problems of the United States from within that perspective. Buchanan's nationalism
relates very closely to the nationalism of Ross Perot, another ruling class
politician.
A consensus exists among the ruling class that US capital must take a global route.
The capitalist state must eliminate trade barriers and capital must flow to where there
is greatest possibility for profit. Buchanan articulates the resentments of a section of
the bourgeoisie that wants to resist this consensus. It would be an interesting project
to discover where Buchanan gets his money. This would be a more useful of one's time than
comparing his speeches to Father Coughlin or Benito Mussolini's.
There are no parties in the United States in the European sense. In Europe, where
there is a parliamentary system, people speak for clearly defined programs and are
responsible to clearly defined constituencies. In the United States, politics revolves
around "winner take all" campaigns. This tends to put a spotlight on presidential
elections and magnify the statements of candidates all out of proportion.
Today we have minute textual analysis of what Buchanan is saying. His words take on a
heightened, almost ultra-real quality. Since he is in a horse race, the press tends to
worry over each and every inflammatory statement he makes. This tends to give his
campaign a more threatening quality than is supported by the current state of class
relations in the United States.
3) The way to fight Buchanan is by developing a class alternative.
The left needs a candidate who is as effective as Buchanan in drawing class lines.
The left has not been able to present an alternative to Buchanan. It has been making
the same kinds of mistakes that hampered the German left in the 1920s: ultraleft
sectarianism and opportunism. Our "Marxist-Leninist" groups, all 119 of them, offer
themselves individually as the answer to Pat Buchanan. Meanwhile, social democrats and
left-liberals at the Nation magazine and elsewhere are preparing all the reasons one can
think of to vote for the "lesser evil".
What the left needs to do is coalesce around a class-based, militant program. The left
has not yet written this program, despite many assurances to the contrary we can hear on
this list every day. It will have to be in the language of the American people, not in
Marxist- Leninist jargon. Some people know how speak effectively to working people. I
include Michael Moore the film-maker. I also include people like our own Doug Henwood,
and Alex Cockburn and his co-editor Ken Silverstein who put out a newsletter called
"Counterpunch".
Most of all, the model we need is like Eugene V. Debs and the Socialist Party of the
turn of the century, minus the right-wing. Study the speeches of Debs and you get an idea
of the kind of language we need to speak. Our mission today remains the same as it was in
turn of the century Russia: to build a socialist party where none exists.
So what happened following the dissolution of the Soviet Union?
The United States dispatched a cabal of cutthroat economists to Moscow to assist in the
"shock therapy" campaign that collapsed the social safety net, savaged pensions, increased
unemployment, homelessness, poverty, and alcoholism by many orders of magnitude,
accelerated the slide to privatization that fueled a generation of voracious oligarchs, and
sent the real economy plunging into an excruciating long-term depression.
Basically the NWO mafia saw that there was an opportunity to loot the place and they did
it – gaining ownership – and stripping everything of value out of the place.
If the US public had the sense to realize it, it's the same as is currently happening to
them.
At the same time Washington's agents were busy looting Moscow, NATO was moving its
troops, armored divisions and missile sites closer to Russia's border in clear violation of
promises that were made to Mikhail Gorbachev not to move its military "one inch east".
Yeah, yeah . . . This reminds me of that line from Animal House: "Face it Kent, you fucked
up. You trusted us."
This was small beer in term's of betrayals the Russians have endured. What I've always
liked about them is that they aren't bellyachers, like the Iranians are at the moment.
Ignore Western Media on Putin. He remains The Indispensable Man for Russia so he isn't
going anywhere for the moment. I'm sure he'd love to become the Russian version of Deng but
that's going to take a lot of preparatory work for him to get there.
@Huxley Very true and this idea that man sets himself at the top of the creation is
exactly the philosophy of "Human Rights", the Masonic model imposed through the UN to the
whole world.
This ideology was launched by Freemasonry during the "Enlightenment", in the 18th century. It
produced the Masonic French Revolution, the Masonic US republic and later the concept of
"democracy".
Published in 1899 by Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany: Liberalism is a sin. This is from a Catholic
priest, but we all share the same enemy. http://www.liberalismisasin.com/
@9/11 Inside job What cult of personality? There isn't one. People mostly like the
decisions he makes, not because he makes them, but because they agree with them.
As to Chabad Lubavitch, Putin is a politician – he mingles with Christians, Jews and
Muslims. As evil as Chabad Lubavitch is, Putin also mingles with the Saudi Barbarians. It's
hardly proof they control him.
Go find something real, you are making a fool of yourself spreading baseless propaganda.
Next you will tell us about the $583 trillion he has stashed away, so he can use it,
secretly, after he retires from his life-long dictatorship.
This is a very valuable article, probably the best written in 2019 on the topic, that discusses several important aspects of neoliberalism
better then its predecessors...
Notable quotes:
"... For some, and especially for those in the millennial generation, the Great Recession and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started a process of reflection on what the neoliberal era had delivered. ..."
"... neoliberal policies had already wreaked havoc around the world ..."
"... "excessively rapid financial and capital market liberalization was probably the single most important cause of the crisis"; he also notes that after the crisis, the International Monetary Fund's policies "exacerbated the downturns." ..."
"... In study after study, political scientists have shown that the U.S. government is highly responsive to the policy preferences of the wealthiest people, corporations, and trade associations -- and that it is largely unresponsive to the views of ordinary people. The wealthiest people, corporations, and their interest groups participate more in politics, spend more on politics, and lobby governments more. Leading political scientists have declared that the U.S. is no longer best characterized as a democracy or a republic but as an oligarchy -- a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. ..."
"... Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and marketization of everything, indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism. ..."
"... neoliberalism's radical individualism has increasingly raised two interlocking problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into identity groups can be used to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic identity. ..."
"... Demagogues rely on this fracturing to inflame racial, nationalist, and religious antagonism, which only further fuels the divisions within society. Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and marketization of everything, thus indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism that further undermines the preconditions for a free and democratic society. ..."
"... The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies. As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy. ..."
"... They thought globalization was inevitable and that ever-expanding trade liberalization was desirable even if the political system never corrected for trade's winners and losers. They were wrong. These aren't minor mistakes. ..."
"... In spite of these failures, most policymakers did not have a new ideology or different worldview through which to comprehend the problems of this time. So, by and large, the collective response was not to abandon neoliberalism. After the Great Crash of 2008, neoliberals chafed at attempts to push forward aggressive Keynesian spending programs to spark demand. President Barack Obama's advisers shrank the size of the post-crash stimulus package for fear it would seem too large to the neoliberal consensus of the era -- and on top of that, they compromised on its content. ..."
"... When it came to affirmative, forward-looking policy, the neoliberal framework also remained dominant. ..."
"... It is worth emphasizing that Obamacare's central feature is a private marketplace in which people can buy their own health care, with subsidies for individuals who are near the poverty line ..."
"... Fearful of losing their seats, centrists extracted these concessions from progressives. Little good it did them. The president's party almost always loses seats in midterm elections, and this time was no different. For their caution, centrists both lost their seats and gave Americans fewer and worse health care choices. ..."
"... The Republican Party platform in 2012, for example, called for weaker Wall Street, environmental, and worker safety regulations; lower taxes for corporations and wealthy individuals; and further liberalization of trade. It called for abolishing federal student loans, in addition to privatizing rail, western lands, airport security, and the post office. Republicans also continued their support for cutting health care and retirement security. After 40 years moving in this direction -- and with it failing at every turn -- you might think they would change their views. But Republicans didn't, and many still haven't. ..."
"... Although neoliberalism had little to offer, in the absence of a new ideological framework, it hung over the Obama presidency -- but now in a new form. Many on the center-left adopted what we might call the "technocratic ideology," a rebranded version of the policy minimalism of the 1990s that replaced minimalism's tactical and pragmatic foundations with scientific ones. The term itself is somewhat oxymoronic, as technocrats seem like the opposite of ideologues. ..."
"... The technocratic ideology preserves the status quo with a variety of tactics. We might call the first the "complexity canard." ..."
"... The most frequent uses of this tactic are in sectors that economists have come to dominate -- international trade, antitrust, and financial regulation, for example. The result of this mind-set is that bold, structural reforms are pushed aside and highly technical changes adopted instead. Financial regulation provides a particularly good case, given the 2008 crash and the Great Recession. When it came time to establish a new regulatory regime for the financial sector, there wasn't a massive restructuring, despite the biggest crash in 70 years. ..."
"... Instead, for the most part, the Dodd-Frank Act was classically technocratic. It kept the sector basically the same, with a few tweaks here and there. There was no attempt to restructure the financial sector completely. ..."
"... The Volcker Rule, for example, sought to ban banks from proprietary trading. But instead of doing that through a simple, clean breakup rule (like the one enacted under the old Glass-Steagall regime), the Volcker Rule was subject to a multitude of exceptions and carve-outs -- measures that federal regulators were then required to explain and implement with hundreds of pages of technical regulations ..."
"... Dodd-Frank also illustrates a second tenet of the technocratic ideology: The failures of technocracy can be solved by more technocracy. ..."
"... Dodd-Frank created the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a government body tasked with what is called macroprudential regulation. What this means is that government regulators are supposed to monitor the entire economy and turn the dials of regulation up and down a little bit to keep the economy from another crash. But ask yourself this: Why would we ever believe they could do such a thing? We know those very same regulators failed to identify, warn about, or act on the 2008 crisis. ..."
"... In the first stage, neoliberalism gained traction in response to the crises of the 1970s. It is easy to think of Thatcherism and Reaganism as emerging fully formed, springing from Zeus's head like the goddess Athena. ..."
"... Early leaders were not as ideologically bold as later mythmakers think. In the second stage, neoliberalism became normalized. It persisted beyond the founding personalities -- and, partly because of its longevity in power, grew so dominant that the other side adopted it. ..."
"... Eventually, however, the neoliberal ideology extended its tentacles into every area of policy and even social life, and in its third stage, overextended. The result in economic policy was the Great Crash of 2008, economic stagnation, and inequality at century-high levels. In foreign policy, it was the disastrous Iraq War and ongoing chaos and uncertainty in the Middle East. ..."
"... The fourth and final stage is collapse, irrelevance, and a wandering search for the future. With the world in crisis, neoliberalism no longer has even plausible solutions to today's problems. ..."
"... The solutions of the neoliberal era offer no serious ideas for how to restitch the fraying social fabric, in which people are increasingly tribal, divided, and disconnected from civic community ..."
Welcome
to theDecade From Hell,
our look back at an arbitrary 10-year period that began with a great outpouring of hope and
ended in a cavalcade of despair.The long-dominant ideology brought us forever
wars, the Great Recession, and extreme inequality. Good riddance.
With the 2008 financial crash and the Great Recession, the ideology of neoliberalism lost
its force. The approach to politics, global trade, and social philosophy that defined an era
led not to never-ending prosperity but utter disaster. "Laissez-faire is finished," declared
French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan admitted in testimony
before Congress that his ideology was flawed. In an extraordinary statement, Australian Prime
Minister Kevin Rudd declared that the crash "called into question the prevailing neoliberal
economic orthodoxy of the past 30 years -- the orthodoxy that has underpinned the national and
global regulatory frameworks that have so spectacularly failed to prevent the economic mayhem
which has been visited upon us."
"... Yet it took until 1860 for the UK to fully embrace free trade, and even then the unpalatable historical record is that during this 'golden age', the British: Destroyed the Indian textile industry to benefit their own cloth manufacturers; Started the Opium Wars to balance UK-China trade by selling China addictive drugs; Ignored the Irish Potato Famine and continued to allow Irish wheat exports; Forced Siam (Thailand) to open up its economy to trade with gunboats (as the US did with Japan); and Colonized much of Africa and Asia. ..."
"... Regardless, the first flowering of free trade collapsed back into nationalism and protectionism - bloodily so in 1914. Free trade was tried again from 1919 - but burned-out even more bloodily in the 1930s and 1940s. After WW2, most developed countries had moderately free trade - but most developing countries did not. We only started to re-embrace global free trade from the 1990s onwards when the Cold War ended – and here it is under stress again. In short, only around 100 years in a total of 5,000 years of civilization has seen real global free trade, it has failed twice already, and it is once again coming under pressure. ..."
"... Of course, this doesn't mean liked-minded groups of countries with similar-enough or sympathetic-enough economies and politics should avoid free trade: clearly for some states it can work out nicely - even if within the EU one could argue there are also underlying strains. However, it is a huge stretch to assume a one-size-fits-all free trade policy will always work best for all countries, as some would have it. That is a fairy tale. History shows it wasn't the case; national security concerns show it can never always be the case; and Ricardo argues this logically won't be the case. ..."
"When I used to read fairy tales, I fancied that kind of thing never happened, and now here I am in the middle of one!" (Alice
in Wonderland, Chapter 4, The Rabbit Sends in a Little Bill)
Submitted by Michael Every of Rabobank
2020 starts with markets feeling optimistic due to a US-China trade deal and a reworked NAFTA in the form of the USMCA. However,
the tide towards protectionism may still be coming in, not going out.
The intellectual appeal of the basis for free trade, Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage, where Portugal specializes in
wine, and the UK in cloth, is still clearly there. Moreover, trade has always been a beneficial and enriching part of human culture.
Yet the fact is that for the majority of the last 5,000 years global trade has been highly-politicized and heavily-regulated . Indeed,
global free-trade only began following the abolition of the UK Corn Laws in 1846, which reduced British agricultural tariffs, brought
in European wheat and corn, and allowed the UK to maximize its comparative advantage in industry.
Yet it took until 1860 for the UK to fully embrace free trade, and even then the unpalatable historical record is that during
this 'golden age', the British:
Destroyed the Indian textile industry to benefit their own cloth manufacturers;
Started the Opium Wars to balance UK-China trade by selling China addictive drugs;
Ignored the Irish Potato Famine and continued to allow Irish wheat exports;
Forced Siam (Thailand) to open up its economy to trade with gunboats (as the US did with Japan); and
Colonized much of Africa and Asia.
As we showed back in '
Currency
and Wars ', after an initial embrace of free trade, the major European powers and Japan saw that their relative comparative advantage
meant they remained at the bottom of the development ladder as agricultural producers, an area where prices were also being depressed
by huge US output; meanwhile, the UK sold industrial goods, ran a huge trade surplus, and ruled the waves militarily. This was politically
unsustainable even though the UK vigorously backed the intellectual concept of free trade given it was such a winner from it.
Regardless, the first flowering of free trade collapsed back into nationalism and protectionism - bloodily so in 1914. Free
trade was tried again from 1919 - but burned-out even more bloodily in the 1930s and 1940s. After WW2, most developed countries had
moderately free trade - but most developing countries did not. We only started to re-embrace global free trade from the 1990s onwards
when the Cold War ended – and here it is under stress again. In short, only around 100 years in a total of 5,000 years of civilization
has seen real global free trade, it has failed twice already, and it is once again coming under pressure.
What are we getting wrong? Perhaps that Ricardo's theory has major flaws that don't get included in our textbooks, as summarized
in this overlooked quote
"It would undoubtedly be advantageous to the capitalists of England [that] the wine and cloth should both be made in Portugal
[and that] the capital and labour of England employed in making cloth should be removed to Portugal for that purpose." Which is pretty
much what happens today! However, Ricardo adds that this won't happen because "Most men of property [will be] satisfied with a low
rate of profits in their own country, rather than seek a more advantageous employment for their wealth in foreign nations," which
is simply not true at all! In other words, his premise is flawed in that:
It is atemporal in assuming countries move to their comparative advantage painlessly and instantly;
It assumes full employment when if there is unemployment a country is better off producing at home to reduce it, regardless
of higher cost;
It assumes capital between countries is immobile , i.e., investors don't shift money and technology abroad. (Which Adam Smith's
'Wealth of Nations', Book IV, Chapter II also assumes doesn't happen, as an "invisible hand" keeps money invested in one's home
country's industry and not abroad: we don't read him correctly either.);
It assumes trade balances under free trade - but since when has this been true? Rather we see large deficits and inverse capital
flows, and so debts steadily increasing in deficit countries;
It assumes all goods are equal as in Ricardo's example, cloth produced in the UK and wine produced in Portugal are equivalent.
Yet some sectors provide well-paid and others badly-paid employment: why only produce the latter?
As Ricardo's theory requires key conditions that are not met in reality most of the time, why are we surprised that most of reality
fails to produce idealised free trade most of the time? Several past US presidents before Donald Trump made exactly that point. Munroe
(1817-25) argued: " The conditions necessary for Free Trade's success - reciprocity and international peace - have never occurred
and cannot be expected ". Grant (1869-77) noted "Within 200 years, when America has gotten out of protection all that it can offer,
it too will adopt free trade".
Yet arguably we are better, not worse, off regardless of these sentiments – so hooray! How so? Well, did you know that Adam Smith,
who we equate with free markets, and who created the term "mercantile system" to describe the national-protectionist policies opposed
to it, argued the US should remain an agricultural producer and buy its industrial goods from the UK? It was Founding Father Alexander
Hamilton who rejected this approach, and his "infant industry" policy of industrialization and infrastructure spending saw the US
emerge as the world's leading economy instead. That was the same development model that, with tweaks, was then adopted by pre-WW1
Japan, France, and Germany to successfully rival the UK; and then post-WW2 by Japan (again) and South Korea; and then more recently
by China, that key global growth driver. Would we really be better off if the US was still mainly growing cotton and wheat, China
rice and apples, and the UK was making most of the world's consumer goods? Thank the lack of free trade if you think otherwise!
Yet look at the examples above and there is a further argument for more protectionism ahead. Ricardo assumes a benign global political
environment for free trade . Yet what if the UK and Portugal are rivals or enemies? What if the choice is between steel and wine?
You can't invade neighbours armed with wine as you can with steel! A large part of the trade tension between China and the US, just
as between pre-WW1 Germany and the UK, is not about trade per se: for both sides, it is about who produces key inputs with national
security implications - and hence is about relative power . This is why we hear US hawks underlining that they don't want to export
their highest technology to China, or to specialize only in agricultural exports to it as China moves up the value-chain. It also
helps underline why for most of the past 5,000 years trade has not been free. Indeed, this argument also holds true for the other
claimed benefit of free trade: the cross-flow of ideas and technology. That is great for friends, but not for those less trusted.
Of course, this doesn't mean liked-minded groups of countries with similar-enough or sympathetic-enough economies and politics
should avoid free trade: clearly for some states it can work out nicely - even if within the EU one could argue there are also underlying
strains. However, it is a huge stretch to assume a one-size-fits-all free trade policy will always work best for all countries, as
some would have it. That is a fairy tale. History shows it wasn't the case; national security concerns show it can never always be
the case; and Ricardo argues this logically won't be the case.
Yet we need not despair. The track record also shows that global growth can continue even despite protectionism, and in some cases
can benefit from it. That being said, should the US resort to more Hamiltonian policies versus everyone, not just China, then we
are in for real financial market turbulence ahead given the role the US Dollar plays today compared to the role gold played for Smith
and Ricardo! But that is a whole different fairy tale...
While I agree that the removal of Trump might be slightly beneficial (Pence-Pompeo duo initially will run scared), this Kabuki
theater with Schiff in a major role is outright silly.
Adam Schiff physically resembles a typical prosperity theology preacher -- a classic modern American snake oil salesman. And
with his baseless accusations and the fear to touch real issues , he is even worse than that -- he looks outright silly even for
the most brainwashed part of the USA electorate ;-)
As he supported the Iraq war, he has no right to occupy any elected office. He probably should be prosecuted as a war criminal.
Realistically Schiff should be viewed as yet another intelligence agency stooge, a neocon who is funded by military contractors
such as Northrop Grumman, which sells missiles to Ukraine.
The claim that Trump is influenced by Russia is a lie. His actions indicate that he is an agent of influence for Israel, not
so much for Russia. Several of his actions were more reckless and more hostile to Russia than the actions of the Obama administration.
Anyway, his policies toward Russia are not that different from Hillary's policies. Actually, Pompeo, in many ways, continues Hillary's
policies.
The claim that the withdrawal of military aid from Ukraine somehow influences the balance of power in the region was a State
department concocted scam from the very beginning. How sniper rifles and anti-tank missiles change the balance of power on the
border with the major nuclear power, who has probably second or third military in the world.? They do not.
They (especially sniper rifles) will definitely increase casualties of Ukrainian separatists (and will provoke Russian reaction
to compensate for this change of balance and thus increase casualties of the Ukrainian army provoking the escalation spiral ),
but that's about it. So more people will die in the conflict while Northrop Grumman rakes the profits.
They also increase the danger of the larger-scale conflict in the region, which is what the USA neocons badly wants to impose
really crushing sanctions on Russia. The danger of WWIII and the cost of support of the crumbling neoliberal empire with its outsize
military expenditures (which now is more difficult to compensate with loot) somehow escapes the US neocon calculations. But they
are completely detached from reality in any case.
I think Russia can cut Ukraine into Western and Eastern parts anytime with relative ease and not much resistance. Putin has
an opportunity to do this in 2014 (risking larger sanctions) as he could establish government in exile out of Yanukovich officials
and based on this restore the legitimate government in Eastern and southern region with the capital in Kharkiv, leaving Ukrainian
Taliban to rot in their own brand of far-right nationalism where the Ukraine identity is defined negatively via rabid Russophobia.
His calculation probably was that sanctions would slow down the Russia recovery from Western plunder during Yeltsin years and,
as such, it is not worth showing Western Ukrainian nationalists what level of support in Southern and Eastern regions that they
actually enjoy.
My impression is that they are passionately hated by over 50% of the population of this region. And viewed as an occupying
force, which is trying to colonize the space (which is a completely true assessment). They are viewed as American stooges, who
they are (the country is controlled from the USA embassy in any case).
And Putin's assessment might be wrong, as sanctions were imposed anyways, and now Ukraine does represent a threat to Russia
and, as such, is a huge source of instability in the region, which was the key idea of "Nulandgate" as the main task was weakening
Russia. In this sense, Euromaidan coup d'état was the major success of the Obama administration, which was a neocon controlled
administration from top to bottom.
Also unclear what Dems are trying to achieve. If Pelosi gambit, cynically speaking, was about repeating Mueller witch hunt
success in the 2018 election, that is typical wishful thinking. Mobilization of the base works both ways.
So what is the game plan for DemoRats (aka "neoliberal democrats" or "corporate democrats" -- the dominant Clinton faction
of the Democratic Party) is completely unclear.
I doubt that they will gain anything from impeachment Kabuki theater, where both sides are afraid to discuss real issues like
Douma false flag and other real Trump crimes.
Most Democratic candidates such as Warren, Biden, and Klobuchar will lose from this impeachment theater. Candidates who can
gain, such as Major Pete and Bloomberg does not matter that much.
A week to go until the Iowa caucuses, and a new Times-Siena poll published Saturaday shows
Bernie Sanders opening up a sizeable lead, with Biden dropping to third under Buttigieg .
Sanders is now 7-points ahead of the closest Democrat contender in Iowa, which marks an
impressive 6-point jump since the last Times-Siena College survey of likely caucusgoers done in
October.
Breaking News: Bernie Sanders has opened up a lead in Iowa in the race for the Democratic
presidential nomination, a New York Times/Siena College poll of likely caucusgoers found
https://t.co/lxA4W5KCUb
The exchange highlighted
a profound split within the Democratic Party as it prepares to nominate a presidential candidate. All the candidates
generally agree that Donald Trump has gutted traditional American foreign policy, undermining the country's principles,
alliances, and global leadership. Where they diverge is in how to respond to that destruction. One camp aims to
painstakingly restore the United States' position in the world to what it was before the aberrant Trump era -- or as Pete
Buttigieg said, "send Trumpism into the dustbin of history" -- while the other believes that the turmoil of the era only
underscores the need to fully renovate America's role in international affairs.
During the debate, Biden spoke for the "restorationists" in making it his mission to "restore America's soul," to
reestablish America's alliances and "standing" in the Middle East following Trump's confrontation with Iran, and to
return to familiar U.S. positions such as not meeting unconditionally with adversarial leaders such as North Korea's Kim
Jong Un. Buttigieg came across as a more youthful emissary of restoration, sprucing up old ideas with proposals such as
making any U.S. military deployments authorized by Congress expire after three years to avert endless wars.
Bernie Sanders, who along with Warren represents the "renovators,"
stressed
his anti-war credentials and articulated a vision in which the United States projects power overseas by
shifting its investments from the military to the State Department and the United Nations.
Hours before the debate, at a
conference
organized by the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C., to design a progressive
national-security agenda for the next Democratic president's first 100 days in office, these divisions between
restorationists and renovators were already evident. In opening remarks, the former Obama-administration official Kelly
Magsamen
sought
to bridge the gap. She noted the daunting "task to fix all that Trump has broken," while also stating that
"today is not really about Trump, and it's not about returning to the status quo ante." She urged attendees to develop
an "affirmative agenda" for America's role in the world and to "revisit some of our assumptions."
When Denis McDonough, Susan Rice, and Michèle Flournoy, all top national-security officials under Barack Obama,
assembled for the first panel, however, the thrust of the discussion was much more about restoration than renovation.
Rice, who served as Obama's national security adviser, said the next Democratic administration would have to find ways
to stage "a renewal of our vows" to NATO and provide "extraordinary reassurance" to all U.S. allies, which over the
course of Trump's presidency have come to question America's commitment to their security and interests. ("You go back
to the altar and apologize for your transgressions," Rice counseled.)
A key challenge for this
camp is that restoring the status quo ante will be far more difficult than simply embarking on a global "we're back and
we're not Trump" tour. Will countries believe that the United States they used to know is really coming back in the form
they used to know it, for example, or that any agreements they enter into with a new president will be honored by future
administrations? As Samantha Power, Obama's ambassador to the United Nations, noted at the conference, returning to
nuclear negotiations with Iran following Trump's withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal will be difficult because the
Iranians will say, "Won't this [agreement], too, be replaced the next time someone who doesn't like the deal takes
office?"
For the renovator camp, acknowledging that Trump accurately diagnosed the need for the U.S. to revamp its role in the
world, even if it thinks he got the prescription wrong, is a big challenge. So is describing what exactly a progressive
foreign policy will look like if it doesn't look like the American foreign policy of the past, and how the camp will
actually achieve the new objectives it's setting for U.S. statecraft.
What unites all the Democratic presidential candidates is that, so far, they are defining their vision for how the
United States will interact with the rest of the world in a more negative than affirmative sense: Whatever it will be,
it won't be Trumpism.
"... But even I was flabbergasted by what Trump did. Absolutely gobsmacked. Killing Qassem Soleimani, Iranian general, leader of the Quds forces, and the most respected military leader in the Middle East? And ..."
"... The first thing, the thing that is so sad and so infuriating and so centrally symptomatic of everything wrong with American political culture, is that, with painfully few exceptions, Americans have no idea of what their government has done. They have no idea who Qassem Soleimani was, what he has accomplished, the web of relationships, action, and respect he has built, what his assassination means and will bring. The last person who has any clue about this, of course, is Donald Trump, who called Soleimani " a total monster ." His act of killing Soleimani is the apotheosis of the abysmal, arrogant ignorance of U.S. political culture. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Whatever their elected governments say, we'll will keep our army in Syria to "take the oil," and in Iraq to well, to do whatever the hell we want. ..."
"... Sure, we make the rules and you follow our orders. ..."
I've been writing and speaking for months about the looming danger of war with Iran, often to
considerable skepticism.
In June, in an essay entitled "
Eve of
Destruction: Iran Strikes Back ," after the U.S. initiated its "maximum pressure" blockade of
Iranian oil exports, I pointed out that "Iran considers that it is already at war," and that the
downing of the U.S. drone was a sign that "Iran is calling the U.S. bluff on escalation
dominance."
In an October
essay , I pointed out that Trump's last-minute calling off of the U.S. attack on Iran in
June, his demurral again after the Houthi attack on Saudi oil facilities, and his announced
withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria were seen as "catastrophic" and "a big win for Iran" by the
Iran hawks in Israel and America whose efforts New York Times (NYT) detailed in an
important article, " The Secret History
of the Push to Strike Iran ." I said, with emphasis, " It always goes to Iran ," and
underlined that Trump's restraint was particularly galling to hard-line zionist Republican
Senators, and might have opened a path to impeachment. I cited the reported
statement
of a "veteran political consultant" that "The price of [Lindsey] Graham's support would be an
eventual military strike on Iran."
And in the middle of December, I went way out on a limb, in
an essay suggesting
a possible relation between preparations for war in Iran and the impeachment process. I pointed
out that the strategic balance of forces between Israel and Iran had reached the point where
Israel thinks it's "necessary to take Iran down now ," in "the next six months," before
the Iranian-supported Axis of Resistance accrues even more power. I speculated that the need to
have a more reliable and internationally-respected U.S. President fronting a conflict with Iran
might be the unseen reason -- behind the flimsy Articles of Impeachment -- that explains why
Pelosi and Schumer "find it so urgent to replace Trump before the election and why they
think they can succeed in doing that."
So, I was the guy chicken-littling about impending war with Iran.
But even I was flabbergasted by what Trump did. Absolutely gobsmacked. Killing Qassem
Soleimani, Iranian general, leader of the Quds forces, and the most respected military leader in
the Middle East? And Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, Iraqi commander of the Popular Mobilization
Forces (PMF) unit, Kataib Hezbollah? Did not see that coming. Rage. Fear. Sadness.
Anxiety. A few days just to register that it really happened. To see the millions of people
bearing witness to it. Yes, that happened.
Then there was the anxious anticipation about the Iranian response, which came surprisingly
quickly, and with admirable military and political precision, avoiding a large-scale war in the
region, for the moment.
That was the week that was.
But, as the man said: "It ain't over 'til it's over." And it ain't over. Recognizing the
radical uncertainty of the world we now live in, and recognizing that its future will be
determined by actors and actions far away from the American leftist commentariat, here's what I
need to say about the war we are now in.
The first thing, the thing that is so sad and so infuriating and so centrally symptomatic
of everything wrong with American political culture, is that, with painfully few exceptions,
Americans have no idea of what their government has done. They have no idea who Qassem Soleimani
was, what he has accomplished, the web of relationships, action, and respect he has built, what
his assassination means and will bring. The last person who has any clue about this, of course,
is Donald Trump, who called Soleimani "
a total monster ." His act of killing Soleimani is the apotheosis of the abysmal, arrogant
ignorance of U.S. political culture.
It's virtually impossible to explain to Americans because there is no one of comparable
stature in the U.S. or in the West today. As Iran cleric Shahab Mohadi
said , when talking about what a "proportional response" might be: "[W]ho should we consider
to take out in the context of America? 'Think about it. Are we supposed to take out Spider-Man
and SpongeBob? 'All of their heroes are cartoon characters -- they're all fictional." Trump?
Lebanese Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah said what many throughout the world familiar with both of
them would agree with: "the shoe of Qassem Soleimani is worth the head of Trump and all American
leaders."
To understand the respect Soleimani has earned, not only in Iran (where his popularity was
around
80% ) but throughout the region and across political and sectarian lines, you have to know
how he led and organized the forces that helped save
Christians ,
Kurds , Yazidis and others from being
slaughtered by ISIS, while Barack Obama and John Kerry were still "
watching " ISIS advance and using it as a tool
to "manage" their war against Assad.
In an informative
interview
with Aaron Maté, Former Marine Intelligence Officer and weapons inspector, Scott Ritter,
explains how Soleimani is honored in Iraq for organizing the resistance that saved Baghdad from
being overrun by ISIS -- and the same could be said of Syria, Damascus, or Ebril:
He's a legend in Iran, in Iraq, and in Syria. And anywhere where, frankly speaking, he's
operated, the people he's worked with view him as one of the greatest leaders, thinkers, most
humane men of all time. I know in America we demonize him as a terrorist but the fact is he
wasn't, and neither is Mr. Mohandes.
When ISIS [was] driving down on the city of Baghdad, the U.S. armed and trained Iraqi Army had
literally thrown down their weapons and ran away, and there was nothing standing between ISIS and
Baghdad
[Soleimani] came in from Iran and led the creation of the PMF [Popular Mobilization Forces] as
a viable fighting force and then motivated them to confront Isis in ferocious hand-to-hand combat
in villages and towns outside of Baghdad, driving Isis back and stabilizing the situation that
allowed the United States to come in and get involved in the Isis fight. But if it weren't for
Qassem Soleimani and Mohandes and Kataib Hezbollah, Baghdad might have had the black flag of ISIS
flying over it. So the Iraqi people haven't forgotten who stood up and defended Baghdad from the
scourge of ISIS.
So, to understand Soleimani in Western terms, you'd have to evoke someone like World War II
Eisenhower (or Marshall Zhukov, but that gets another blank stare from Americans.) Think I'm
exaggerating? Take it from the family of the Shah
:
Beyond his leadership of the fight against ISIS, you also have to understand Soleimani's
strategic acumen in building the Axis of Resistance -- the network of armed local groups like
Hezbollah in Lebanon as well as the PMF in Iraq, that Soleimani helped organize and provide with
growing military capability. Soleimani meant standing up; he helped people throughout the region
stand up to the shit the Americans, Israelis, and Saudis were constantly dumping on them
More apt than Eisenhower and De Gaulle, in world-historical terms, try something like Saladin
meets Che. What a tragedy, and travesty, it is that legend-in-his-own-mind Donald Trump killed
this man.
Dressed to Kill
But it is not just Trump, and not just the assassination of Soleimani, that we should focus
on. These are actors and events within an ongoing conflict with Iran, which was ratcheted up when
the U.S. renounced the nuclear deal (JCPOA – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) and
instituted a "maximum pressure" campaign of economic and financial sanctions on Iran and
third countries, designed to drive Iran's oil exports to zero.
The purpose of this blockade is to create enough social misery to force Iran into compliance,
or provoke Iran into military action that would elicit a "justifiable" full-scale,
regime-change -- actually state-destroying -- military attack on the country.
From its inception, Iran has correctly understood this blockade as an act of war, and has
rightfully expressed its determination to fight back. Though it does not want a wider war, and
has so far carefully calibrated its actions to avoid making it necessary, Iran will
fight back however it deems necessary.
The powers-that-be in Iran and the U.S. know they are at war, and that the Soleimani
assassination ratcheted that state of war up another significant notch; only Panglossian American
pundits think the "w" state is yet to be avoided. Sorry, but the United States drone-bombed an
Iranian state official accompanied by an Iraqi state official, in Iraq at the invitation of the
Iraqi Prime Minister, on a conflict-resolution mission requested by Donald Trump himself. In
anybody's book, that is an act of war -- and extraordinary treachery, even in wartime, the
equivalent of shooting someone who came to parley under a white flag.
Indeed, we now know that the assassination of Soleimani was only one of two known
assassination attempts against senior Iranian officers that day. There was also an unsuccessful
strike targeting Abdul Reza Shahlai, another key commander in Iran's Quds Force who has been
active in Yemen. According to the
Washington Post , this marked a "departure for the Pentagon's mission in Yemen,
which has sought to avoid direct involvement" or make "any publicly acknowledged attacks on
Houthi or Iranian leaders in Yemen."
Of course, because it's known as "the world's worst humanitarian crisis," the Pentagon wants
to avoid "publicly" bloodying its hands in the Saudi war in Yemen. Through two presidential
administrations, it has been trying to minimize attention to its indispensable support of, and
presence in, Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen with
drone strikes ,
special
forces operations , refueling of aircraft, and intelligence and targeting. It's such a nasty
business that even the U.S. Congress
passed a bipartisan
resolution to end U.S. military involvement in that war, which was vetoed by Trump.
According to the ethic and logic of American exceptionalism, Iran is forbidden from helping
the Houthis, but the U.S. is allowed to assassinate their advisors and help the Saudis bomb the
crap out of them.
So, the Trump administration is clearly engaged in an organized campaign to take out senior
Iranian leaders, part of what it considers a war against Iran. In this war, the Trump
administration no longer pretends to give a damn about any fig leaf of law or ethics. Nobody
takes seriously the phony "imminence" excuse for killing Soleimani, which even
Trump say s "doesn't matter," or the "bloody hands" justification, which could apply to any
military commander. And let's not forget: Soleimani was "
talking about bad stuff ."
The U.S. is demonstrating outright contempt for any framework of respectful international
relations, let alone international law. National sovereignty? Democracy? Whatever their
elected governments say, we'll will keep our army in Syria to "take the oil," and in Iraq to
well, to do whatever the hell we want. "Rules-based international order"? Sure, we make
the rules and you follow our orders.
The U.S.'s determination to stay in Iraq, in defiance of the
explicit, unequivocal
demand of the friendly democratic government that the U.S. itself supposedly invaded the
country to install, is particularly significant. It draws the circle nicely. It demonstrates that
the Iraq war isn't over. Because it, and the wars in Libya and Syria, and the war that's
ratcheting up against Iran are all the same war that the U.S. has been waging in the
Middle East since 2003. In the end is the beginning, and all that.
We're now in the endgame of the serial offensive that
Wesley Clark described in
2007, starting with Iraq and "finishing off" with Iran. Since the U.S. has attacked, weakened,
divided, or destroyed every other un-coopted polity in the region (Iraq, Syria, Libya) that could
pose any serious resistance to the predations of U.S. imperialism and Israel colonialism, it has
fallen to Iran to be the last and best source of material and military support which allows that
resistance to persist.
And Iran has taken up the task, through the work of the Quds Force under leaders like
Soleimani and Shahlai, the work of building a new Axis of Resistance with the capacity to resist
the dictates of Israel and the U.S. throughout the region. It's work that is part of a
war and will result in casualties among U.S. and U.S.-allied forces and damage to their
"interests."
What the U.S. (and its wards, Israel and Saudi Arabia) fears most is precisely the kind of
material, technical, and combat support and training that allows the Houthis to beat back the
Saudis and Americans in Yemen, and retaliate with stunningly accurate blows on crucial oil
facilities in Saudi Arabia itself. The same kind of help that Soleimani gave to the armed forces
of Syria and the PMF in Iraq to prevent those countries from being overrun and torn apart by the
U.S. army and its sponsored jihadis, and to Hezbollah in Lebanon to deter Israel from demolishing
and dividing that country at will.
It's that one big "endless" war that's been waged by every president since 2003, which
American politicians and pundits have been scratching their heads and squeezing their brains to
figure out how to explain, justify (if it's their party's President in charge), denounce (if it's
the other party's POTUS), or just bemoan as "senseless." But to the neocons who are driving it
and their victims -- it makes perfect sense and is understood to have been largely a
success. Only the befuddled U.S. media and the deliberately-deceived U.S. public think it's
"senseless," and remain enmired in the
cock-up theory
of U.S. foreign policy, which is a blindfold we had better shed before being led to the next very
big slaughter.
The one big war makes perfect sense when one understands that the United States has thoroughly
internalized Israel's interests as its own. That this conflation has been successfully driven by
a particular neocon faction, and that it is excessive, unnecessary and perhaps disruptive to
other effective U.S. imperial possibilities, is demonstrated precisely by the constant plaint
from non-neocon, including imperialist, quarters that it's all so "senseless."
The result is that the primary object of U.S. policy (its internalized zionist
imperative) in this war is to enforce that Israel must be able, without any threat of serious
retaliation, to carry out any military attack on any country in the region at any time, to seize
any territory and resources (especially water) it needs, and, of course, to impose any level of
colonial violence against Palestinians -- from home demolitions, to siege and sniper killings
(Gaza), to de jure as well as de facto apartheid and eventual further mass
expulsions, if deems necessary.
That has required, above all, removing -- by co-option, regime change, or chaotogenic
sectarian warfare and state destruction -- any strong central governments that have provided
political, diplomatic, financial, material, and military support for the Palestinian resistance
to Israeli colonialism. Iran is the last of those, has been growing in strength and influence,
and is therefore the next mandatory target.
For all the talk of "Iranian proxies," I'd say, if anything, that the U.S., with its
internalized zionist imperative, is effectively acting as Israel's proxy.
It's also important, I think, to clarify the role of Saudi Arabia (KSA) in this policy. KSA is
absolutely a very important player in this project, which has been consistent with its interests.
But its (and its oil's) influence on the U.S. is subsidiary to Israel's, and depends entirely on
KSA's complicity with the Israeli agenda. The U.S. political establishment is not overwhelmingly
committed to Saudi/Wahhabi policy imperatives -- as a matter, they think, of virtue -- as they
are to Israeli/Zionist ones. It is inconceivable that a U.S. Vice-President would
declare "I am a
Wahhabi," or a U.S. President
say
"I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die" for Saudi Arabia -- with
nobody even noticing . The U.S. will turn on a dime against KSA if Israel wants it; the
reverse would never happen. We have to confront the primary driver of this policy if we are to
defeat it, and too many otherwise superb analysts, like Craig Murray, are mistaken and
diversionary, I think, in saying things like the assassination of Soleimani and the drive for war
on Iran represent the U.S. "
doubling
down on its Saudi allegiance ." So, sure, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Batman
and Robin.
Iran has quite clearly seen and understood what's unfolding, and has prepared itself for the
finale that is coming its way.
The final offensive against Iran was supposed to follow the definitive destruction of the
Syrian Baathist state, but that project was interrupted (though not yet abandoned) by the
intervention of Syria's allies, Russia and Iran -- the latter precisely via the work of Soleimani
and the Quds Force.
Current radical actions like the two assassination strikes against Iranian Quds Force
commanders signal the Trump administration jumping right to the endgame, as that neocon hawks
have been " agitating for
." The idea -- borrowed, perhaps from Israel's campaign of
assassinating Iranian scientists -- is that killing off the key leaders who have supplied and
trained the Iranian-allied networks of resistance throughout the region will hobble any strike
from those networks if/when the direct attack on Iran comes.
Per Patrick
Lawrence , the Soleimani assassination "was neither defensive nor retaliatory: It reflected
the planning of the administration's Iran hawks, who were merely awaiting the right occasion to
take their next, most daring step toward dragging the U.S. into war with Iran." It means that war
is on and it will get worse fast.
It is crucial to understand that Iran is not going to passively submit to any such bullying.
It will not be scared off by some "bloody nose" strike, followed by chest-thumping from Trump,
Netanyahu, or Hillary about how they will "
obliterate " Iran. Iran knows all that. It also knows, as I've said
before , how little damage -- especially in terms of casualties -- Israel and the U.S. can
take. It will strike back. In ways that will be calibrated as much as possible to avoid a larger
war, but it will strike back.
Iran's strike on Ain al-Asad base in Iraq was a case in point. It was preceded by a warning
through Iraq that did not specify the target but allowed U.S. personnel in the country to hunker
down. It also demonstrated deadly precision and determination, hitting specific buildings where
U.S. troops work, and, we now know, causing at least eleven acknowledged casualties.
Those casualties were minor, but you can bet they would have been the excuse for a large-scale
attack, if the U.S. had been entirely unafraid of the response. In fact, Trump did
launch that attack over the downing of a single unmanned drone -- and Pompeo and the neocon crew,
including Republican Senators, were "
stunned " that he
called it off in literally the last
ten minutes . It's
to the eternal shame of what's called the "left" in this country that we may have
Tucker
Carlson to thank for Trump's bouts of restraint.
There Will Be Blood
But this is going to get worse, Pompeo is now
threatening Iran's leaders that "any attacks by them, or their proxies of any identity, that
harm Americans, our allies, or our interests will be answered with a decisive U.S. response."
Since Iran has ties of some kind with most armed groups in the region and the U.S. decides what
"proxy" and "interests" means, that means that any act of resistance to the U.S., Israel, or
other "ally" by anybody -- including, for example, the Iraqi PMF forces who are likely to
retaliate against the U.S. for killing their leader -- will be an excuse for attacking Iran.
Any anything. Call it an omnibus threat.
The groundwork for a final aggressive push against Iran began back in June, 2017, when, under
then-Director Pompeo, the CIA set up a stand-alone
Iran
Mission Center . That Center
replaced
a group of "Iran specialists who had no special focus on regime change in Iran," because "Trump's
people wanted a much more focused and belligerent group." The purpose of this -- as of any --
Mission Center was to "elevate" the country as a target and "bring to bear the range of the
agency's capabilities, including covert action" against Iran. This one is especially concerned
with Iran's "increased capacity to deliver missile systems" to Hezbollah or the Houthis that
could be used against Israel or Saudi Arabia, and Iran's increased strength among the Shia
militia forces in Iraq. The Mission Center is headed by Michael D'Andrea, who is perceived as
having an "aggressive stance toward Iran." D'Andrea, known as "the undertaker" and "
Ayatollah Mike ," is himself a
convert to Islam, and
notorious for his "central role in the agency's torture and targeted killing programs."
This was followed in December, 2017, by the signing of a
pact with Israel "to
take on Iran," which took place, according to Israeli television, at a "secret" meeting at the
White House. This pact was designed to coordinate "steps on the ground" against "Tehran and its
proxies." The biggest threats: "Iran's ballistic missile program and its efforts to build
accurate missile systems in Syria and Lebanon," and its activity in Syria and support for
Hezbollah. The Israelis considered that these secret "dramatic understandings" would have "far
greater impact" on Israel than Trump's more public and notorious recognition of Jerusalem as
Israeli's capital.
The Iran Mission Center is a war room. The pact with Israel is a war pact.
The U.S. and Israeli governments are out to "take on" Iran. Their major concerns, repeated
everywhere, are Iran's growing military power, which underlies its growing political influence --
specifically its precision ballistic missile and drone capabilities, which it is sharing with its
allies throughout the region, and its organization of those armed resistance allies, which is
labelled "Iranian aggression."
These developments must be stopped because they provide Iran and other actors the ability to
inflict serious damage on Israel. They create the unacceptable situation where Israel cannot
attack anything it wants without fear of retaliation. For some time, Israel has been reluctant to
take on Hezbollah in Lebanon, having already been driven back by them once because the Israelis
couldn't take the casualties in the field. Now Israel has to worry about an even more
battle-hardened Hezbollah, other well-trained and supplied armed groups, and those damn
precision missiles . One cannot overstress how important those are, and how adamant the U.S.
and Israel are that Iran get rid of them. As another Revolutionary Guard commander
says :
"Iran has encircled Israel from all four sides if only one missile hits the occupied lands,
Israeli airports will be filled with people trying to run away from the country."
This campaign is overseen in the U.S. by the likes of "
praying
for war with Iran " Christian Zionists Mike Pompeo and Mike Pence, who together "
urged " Trump to approve the killing of Soleimani. Pence, whom the Democrats are trying to
make President, is associated with Christians United For Israel (CUFI), which paid for his and
his wife's pilgrimage to Israel in 2014, and is run by lunatic televangelist John Hagee, whom
even John
McCain couldn't stomach. Pompeo,
characterized
as the "brainchild" of the assassination, thinks Trump was sent by God to save
Israel from Iran. (Patrick Lawrence
argues
the not-implausible case that Pompeo and Defense Secretary Esper ordered the assassination and
stuck Trump with it.) No Zionists are more fanatical than Christian Zionists. These guys are not
going to stop.
And Iran is not going to surrender. Iran is no longer afraid of the escalation dominance game.
Do not be fooled by peace-loving illusions -- propagated mainly now by mealy-mouthed European and
Democratic politicians -- that Iran will return to what's described as "unconditional"
negotiations, which really means negotiating under the absolutely unacceptable condition of
economic blockade, until the U.S. gets what it wants. Not gonna happen. Iran's absolutely correct
condition for any negotiation with the U.S. is that the U.S. return to the JCPOA and lift all
sanctions.
Also not gonna happen, though any real peace-loving Democratic candidate would specifically
and unequivocally commit to doing just that if elected. The phony peace-loving poodles of
Britain, France, and Germany (the EU3) have already
cast their lot with the aggressive American policy, triggering a dispute mechanism that will
almost certainly result in a " snapback " of full UN
sanctions on Iran within 65 days, and destroy the JCPOA once and for all. Because, they, too,
know Iran's nuclear weapons program is a fake issue and have "always searched for ways to put
more
restrictions on Iran, especially on its ballistic missile program." Israel can have all the
nuclear weapons it wants, but Iran must give up those conventional ballistic missiles. Cannot
overstate their importance.
Iran is not going to submit to any of this. The only way Iran is going to part with its
ballistic missiles is by using them. The EU3 maneuver will not only end the JCPOA, it may
drive
Iran out of the Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). As Moon of Alabama says, the
EU3 gambit is "not designed to reach an agreement but to lead to a deeper conflict" and ratchet
the war up yet another notch. The Trump administration and its European allies are -- as FDR did
to Japan -- imposing a complete economic blockade that Iran will have to find a way to break out
of. It's deliberately provocative, and makes the outbreak of a regional/world war more likely.
Which is its purpose.
This certainly marks the Trump administration as having crossed a war threshold the Obama
administration avoided. Credit due to Obama for forging ahead with the JCPOA in the face of
fierce resistance from Netanyahu and his Republican and Democratic acolytes, like Chuck Schumer.
But that deal itself was built upon false premises and extraordinary conditions and procedures
that -- as the current actions of the EU3 demonstrate -- made it a trap for Iran.
With his Iran policy, as with Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, what Trump is doing -- and can
easily demonstrate -- is taking to its logical and deadly conclusion the entire
imperialist-zionist conception of the Middle East, which all major U.S. politicians and media
have embraced and promulgated over decades, and cannot abandon.
With the Soleimani assassination, Trump both allayed some of the fears of Iran war hawks in
Israel and the
U.S. about his "reluctance to flex U.S. military muscle" and re-stoked all their fears
about his impulsiveness, unreliability, ignorance, and crassness. As the the
Christian Science Monitor reports, Israel leaders are both "quick to praise" his
action and "having a crisis of confidence" over Trump's ability to "manage" a conflict
with Iran -- an ambivalence echoed in every U.S. politician's "Soleimani was a terrorist, but "
statement.
Trump does exactly what the narrative they all promote demands, but he makes it look and sound
all thuggish and scary. They want someone whose rhetorical finesse will talk us into war on Iran
as a humanitarian and liberating project. But we should be scared and repelled by it.
The problem isn't the discrepancy in Trump between actions and attitudes, but the duplicity in
the fundamental imperialist-zionist narrative. There is no "good" -- non-thuggish, non-repellent
way -- way to do the catastrophic violence it demands. Too many people discover that only after
it's done.
Trump, in other words, has just started a war that the U.S. political elite constantly brought
us to the brink of, and some now seem desperate to avoid, under Trump's leadership . But
not a one will abandon the zionist and American-exceptionalist premises that make it inevitable
-- about, you know, dictating what weapons which countries can "never" have. Hoisted on their own
petard. As are we all.
To be clear: Iran will try its best to avoid all-out war. The U.S. will not. This is the war
that, as the NYTreports ,
"Hawks in Israel and America have spent more than a decade agitating for." It will start, upon
some pretext, with a full-scale U.S. air attack on Iran, followed by Iranian and allied attacks
on U.S. forces and allies in the region, including Israel, and then an Israeli nuclear attack on
Iran -- which they think will end it. It is an incomprehensible disaster. And it's becoming
almost impossible to avoid.
The best prospect for stopping it would be for Iran and Russia to enter into a mutual defense
treaty right now. But that's not going to happen. Neither Russia nor China is going to fight for
Iran. Why would they? They will sit back and watch the war destroy Iran, Israel, and the United
States.
While baseless House claims definitely can be shred, the fact that Trump abused his office
remains.
Notable quotes:
"... Dems do not want Schiff and the whistleblower. So while they publicly say they want witnesses, privately they do not. But they do want to hang the blame on the republicans when Trump is acquitted, noting that this whole process was unfair to the dems (forget the President, he doesn't deserve fairness anyway). As victims, they should recapture some of their losses at the 2020 polls. ..."
Update (0130ET) : The word of the day is "Shredded" - as in, several Republicans
have described the White House counsel's presentation as having shredded House Democrats'
impeachment arguments.
"In two hours, the White House counsel entirely shredded the case by the House managers,"
said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) in a statement to reporters. "What we saw today was factually
relevant ... and (we) saw there were a lot of half-truths from the House managers and, frankly,
pushed by the media."
Rep. Elise Stafanik (R-NY) offered similar comments - saying "It took less than two hours to
completely shred and eviscerate Adam Schiff's failed case for impeachment," adding "There is no
case for impeachable offenses here. And it took less than two hours to do so. I think the
American people understand that."
While Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) said "3 days of Democrat arguments were just shredded 2
hours."
Rep. Adam Schiff, meanwhile, says the White House counsel is trying to "deflect" away from
Democrats' claims that President Trump abused his office, according to The Hill .
"After listening to the President's lawyers opening arguments, I have three observations:
They don't contest the facts of Trump's scheme. They're trying to deflect, distract from, and
distort the truth. And they are continuing to cover it up by blocking documents and witnesses,"
Schiff tweeted on Saturday.
After listening to the President's lawyers opening arguments, I have three
observations:
They don't contest the facts of Trump's scheme.
They're trying to deflect, distract from, and distort the truth.
And they are continuing to cover it up by blocking documents and witnesses.
Update (1130ET) : Trump's lawyers began their opening arguments Saturday by
slamming Democrats for having "no evidence" to support their argument that Trump's conduct with
Ukraine warrants impeachment and removal.
"They're asking you not only to overturn the results of the last election but, as I've said
before, they're asking you to remove President Trump from the ballot in an election that's
occurring in approximately nine months," said White House counsel Pat Cipolline, adding "I
don't think they spent one minute of their 24 hours talking to you about the consequences of
that for our country."
Cipollone began on Saturday by reading directly from the transcript of the July 25 phone
call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky - claiming Democrats
misrepresented it. In particular, the White House counsel played a clip of House Intelligence
Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) reading a 'parody' of the call .
The use of the clip is likely to satisfy Trump. The president spent the days after Schiff
made the comments calling for the congressman's resignation and suggesting he committed
treason. Even months after the September hearing, Trump continues to bring up Schiff's
comments in interviews when railing against the impeachment proceedings.
Trump in his call with Zelensky asked the foreign leader to investigate a debunked theory
about 2016 election interference and to probe Joe Biden and his son Hunter's dealings in
Ukraine. The call triggered a rare intelligence community whistleblower complaint claiming
that Trump solicited foreign interference in a U.S. election, with the complaint being a key
piece of evidence in the Democrats' impeachment case. -
The Hill
Following Saturday arguments, Trump's lawyers will pick up again on Monday.
***
After three days of "why" , here comes the "why not" ...
Beginning at 10am ET, White House lawyers began their defense of the President on Day 5 of
the Senate Impeachment Trial.
The Trump lawyers are expected to speak for upwards of three hours after Democrats wrapped
up their opening arguments on Friday night.
A member of the legal team, Jay Sekulow, referred to Saturday's session as "a trailer" of
"coming attractions" for next week's sessions.
Like how debunked used to mean something that had been thoroughly investigated and proven
to be false, while now it means something never looked into... that democrats don't want
looked into.
I don't have a partisan dog in this fight... I just hope America wins. That said, I do
agree that the WH attorneys shredded the flimsy, highly tendentious Dumocratic Party case...
testimony was focused and entirely relevant...this whole farce must be put to bed immediately
by the Senate... and MAYBE the Congress might try to address unfolding crises on many fronts
(though I doubt they have the smarts or integrity to do so)
I started watching at 42:00 and it was all over for Schiff by 2:38:00. Less than 2 hours
to completely gut 3 days and 21 hours of bullSchiff Every American who has critical thinking
ability and isn't completely deranged should watch this.
It's so great the way every democrat has said "We need witnesses!".
Bolton, Mulvaney--and they will raise executive privilege, which will have to be newly
litigated in the impeachment context.
For how long? Now that the House has rushed the process and left this mess for the Senate,
they don't care how long it takes, expecially if it leads to a continuing impeachment during
the 2020 election.
Do they really want witnesses? Because Trump really wants Biden, Schiff, and the
whistleblower. On the first day of counsel's argument, did you hear white house counsel say
"Schiff is a fact witness" and say how even Schiff started by saying "We have to hear from
the whistleblower" before it was revealed that he was all tied up with the whistleblower.
Dems do not want Schiff and the whistleblower. So while they publicly say they want
witnesses, privately they do not. But they do want to hang the blame on the republicans when
Trump is acquitted, noting that this whole process was unfair to the dems (forget the
President, he doesn't deserve fairness anyway). As victims, they should recapture some of
their losses at the 2020 polls.
"... Not sure why Twitter gets so much excitement. The percentage of the US population who actually use their account at least once in a month is about 9%. ..."
Sanders' campaign tweeted a
clip from Rogan's show saying that he would vote for Bernie in the presidential election if
Sanders secures the nomination.
"I think I'll probably vote for Bernie... He's been insanely consistent his entire life.
He's basically been saying the same thing, been for the same thing his whole life. And that in
and of itself is a very powerful structure to operate from." -Joe Rogan pic.twitter.com/fuQP0KwGGI
"I think I'll probably vote for Bernie He's been insanely consistent his entire life. He's
basically been saying the same thing, been for the same thing his whole life. And that in and
of itself is a very powerful structure to operate from," said Rogan.
What a backwards *** country..... Liberal, minimum wage advocating, Joe Rogan being bashed
by Democraps for wanting to vote for Socialist Bernie.
Rogan is completely ignorant when it
comes to economics.
(He had Peter Schiff on the podcast twice) Rogan is dangerous because he
has such a large audience that is probably as ignorant as he is when it comes to free markets.
Looks like we may be getting that Bernie socialism if the markets and economy start tanking
into this next election. Prepare accordingly!
Not sure why Twitter gets so much excitement. The percentage of the US population who
actually use their account at least once in a month is about 9%.
I'm guessing about 50% of that
number is liberal, 50% is conservative. And an even lesser percent trends, influences, etc. So
why does anyone with a brain give a rat **** what any dipshit on Twitter says?
Behind the façade of the impeachment spectacle – Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz
are now on Trump's legal team – is a ruling class consensus that trumps partisan
differences. As political economist Rob Urie perceptively observed
:
The American obsession with electoral politics is odd in that 'the people' have so little
say in electoral outcomes and that the outcomes only dance around the edges of most people's
lives. It isn't so much that the actions of elected leaders are inconsequential as that other
factors -- economic, historical, structural and institutional, do more to determine
'politics.'
In the highly contested 2016 presidential contest, nearly half the eligible US voters opted out, not
finding enough difference among the contenders to leave home. 2020 may be an opportunity; an
opening for an alternative to neoliberal austerity at home and imperial wars abroad lurching to
an increasingly oppressive national security state. The campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Tulsi
Gabbord and before them Occupy point to a popular insurgency. Mass protests of the dispossessed
are rocking
France , India ,
Colombia
, Chile , and
perhaps here soon.
A Thursday article by Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone discusses Dennis Kucinich's work in
politics, from Kucinich's eight terms in the United Sates House of Representatives to his two
presidential campaigns to his activities since leaving political office. Taibbi, in the article
focused much on Kucinich's long-term devotion to advancing the case for peace, describes
Kucinich as "antiwar to his core."
The deep state clearly is running the show (with some people unexpected imput -- see Trump
;-)
Elections now serve mainly for the legitimizing of the deep state rule; election of a
particular individual can change little, although there is some space of change due to the power
of executive branch. If the individual stray too much form the elite "forign policy consensus" he
ether will be JFKed or Russiagated (with the Special Prosecutor as the fist act and impeachment
as the second act of the same Russiagate drama)
But a talented (or reckless) individual can speed up some process that are already under way.
For example, Trump managed to speed up the process of destruction of the USA-centered neoliberal
empire considerably. Especially by launching the trade war with China. He also managed to
discredit the USA foreign policy as no other president before him. Even Bush II.
>This is the most critical U.S. election in our lifetime
> Posted by: Circe | Jan 23 2020 17:46 utc | 36
Hmmm, I've been hearing the same siren song every four years for the past fifty. How is it
that people still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of
murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?
Bureaucracies are reactionary and conservative by nature, so any new and more repressive
policy Trumpy wants is readily adapted, as shown by the continuing barbarity of ICE and the
growth of prisons and refugee concentration camps. Policies that go against the grain are
easily shrugged off and ignored using time-tested passive-aggressive tactics.
One of Trump's insurmountable problems is that he has no loyal organization behind him
whose members he can appoint throughout the massive Federal bureaucracy. Any Dummycrat whose
name is not "Biden" has the same problem. Without a real mass-movement political party to
pressure reluctant bureaucrats, no politician of any name or stripe will ever substantially
change the direction of US policy.
But the last thing Dummycrats want is a real mass movement, because they might not be able
to control it. Instead Uncle Sam will keep heading towards the cliff, which may be coming
into view...
The amount of TINA worshipers and status quo guerillas is starting to depress me.
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE to believe A politician will/can change anything and give your consent to
war criminals and traitors?
NO person(s) WILL EVER get to the top in imperial/vassal state politics without being on the
rentier class side, the cognitive dissonans in voting for known liars, war criminals and
traitors would kill me or fry my brain. TINA is a lie and "she" is a real bitch that deserves
to be thrown on the dump off history, YOUR vote is YOUR consent to murder, theft and
treason.
DONT be a rentier class enabler STOP voting and start making your local communities better
and independent instead.
The amount of TINA worshipers and status quo guerillas is starting to depress me. <-
Norway
Of course, There Is Another Way, for example, kvetching. We can boldly show that we are
upset, and pessimistic. One upset pessimists reach critical mass we will think about some
actions.
But being upset and pessimistic does fully justify inactivity. In particular, given the
nature of social interaction networks, with spokes and hubs, dominating the network requires
the control of relatively few nodes. The nature of democracy always allows for leverage
takeover, starting from dominating within small to the entire nation in few steps. As it was
nicely explained by Prof. Overton, there is a window of positions that the vast majority
regards as reasonable, non-radical etc. One reason that powers to be invest so much energy
vilifying dissenters, Russian assets of late, is to keep them outside the Overton window.
Having a candidate elected that the curators of Overton window hate definitely shakes the
situation with the potential of shifting the window. There were some positive symptoms after
Trump was elected, but negatives prevail. "Why not we just kill him" idea entered the window,
together with "we took their oil because we have guts and common sense".
From that point of view, visibility of Tulsi and election of Sanders will solve some
problems but most of all, it will make big changes in Overton window.
Elections now serve mainly the legitimizing of the deep state rule function; election of a
partuclar induvudual can change little, althouth there is some space of change due to the power
of executive branch.
For example, Trump managed to speed up the process od destruction of the USA-centered
neoliberal empire considerably. Especially by lauching the trade war with China. He also
managed to discredit the USA foreign policy as no other president before him. Even Bush
II.
>This is the most critical U.S. election in our lifetime
> Posted by: Circe | Jan 23 2020 17:46 utc | 36
Hmmm, I've been hearing the same siren song every four years for the past fifty. How is it
that people still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of
murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?
Bureaucracies are reactionary and conservative by nature, so any new and more repressive
policy Trumpy wants is readily adapted, as shown by the continuing barbarity of ICE and the
growth of prisons and refugee concentration camps. Policies that go against the grain are
easily shrugged off and ignored using time-tested passive-aggressive tactics.
One of Trump's insurmountable problems is that he has no loyal organization behind him
whose members he can appoint throughout the massive Federal bureaucracy. Any Dummycrat whose
name is not "Biden" has the same problem. Without a real mass-movement political party to
pressure reluctant bureaucrats, no politician of any name or stripe will ever substantially
change the direction of US policy.
But the last thing Dummycrats want is a real mass movement, because they might not be able
to control it. Instead Uncle Sam will keep heading towards the cliff, which may be coming
into view...
Sanders needs to choose a running mate who is less congenial to the powers that be than he
is. JFK's mistake was choosing LBJ as running mate, so he lacked that insurance against
assassination.
Who could Sanders choose that would fill this role and not hurt his election chances
better than Gabbard? I can't think of anyone. She is half-Samoan, female, a veteran,
good-looking, articulate, and courageous. I think that as running-mate she would help
Sanders's election chances immensely.
Bernie's stances on fp are stronger today than they were in 2016, so I have hope that he
is teachable. He's not perfect, but its the best serious alternative to date.
The media is going to try to get revenge on Tulsi for upsetting their plan to bring Bernie
down, expect a massive negative reaction to Tulsi going after Hillary yesterday ( Gaslighting
Tulsi ).
T here is a lot of people who see Bernie Sanders as lacking what it takes to take on
the neocons and MIC. That may be so, but maybe he is following the advice in Sun Tzu's Art of
War which prizes deception as the most effective tactic to win a war. Which is why the
establishment doesn't care if Bernie Sanders acts like he is one their side, they don't
believe him, they believe he is deceptive and would be like Tulsi if he gains power.
It is interesting how the media was ramping up a massive anti-Bernie campaign with
Warren attacking him and Hillary attacking and then Tulsi Gabbard does what she can to
counter their attacks (
The Ballad of Tulsi and Hillary ).
It is interesting how the media was ramping up a massive anti-Bernie campaign with Warren
attacking him and Hillary attacking and then Tulsi Gabbard does what she can to counter their
attacks
Corporate Dems would rather have Trump than Sanders.
Many Burlington residents have resisted the Sanders-endorsed project, which would bring an
Air National Guard base to the city's airport and bring several of Lockheed Martin's F-35
Lightning II fighter jets along with it.
The jets are expected to significantly increase noise heard in Burlington, Winooski and
other nearby communities that are located under flight paths.
According to an estimate by the Federal Aviation Association, at least 2,640 homes will
experience increased noise through 2023, something that local governments are expecting to
decrease the value of both quality of living and homes.
Burlington residents have already endured extreme noise from F-16s for the past 30 years.
The F-16s are being retired, only to be replaced with new jets that are four times
louder. That's progress for ya!
Ole Bernie the sort-of-but-not-really socialist won't lift a finger to protect his own
neighbors but he will save us from Uncle Sam's War on the World. I don't think so.
Yes, many here want Gabbard but she is not viable in the race since she has not gained any
traction. <- Circe
I contributed to her campaign, but realistically, because we need a visible, telegenic,
articulate person to champion sane foreign policy, end of wars, sanctions etc. For Sanders,
these issues are quite a bit afterthought. After Hillary, with her uncanny sense of politics,
said "nobody likes him [Sanders]", Tulsi twitted #I_like_Sanders. For an official position,
one has to consider that she has a lot of common sense, but education and managerial
experience is not that impressive. Ambassador to UN would be perfect, low on management and
large in communication. Given visibility of the position, it would be a powerful signal that
USA changes the policy.
Anyway, to truly feel deplorable one has to contribute to Tulsi.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only sane candidate to show up to date. That makes her unelectable, even
more so than her non-Anglo, non-African heritage and religion. Plus she is still an active
Reserve soldier, which will scare the willies out of the Pentagram. I wonder how many current
US generals have actual front-line, battle experience (and not just directing the action from
behind the lines or 1000s of miles away). We know virtually none in Congress have any actual
combat experience.
The US Congress, bureaucracy and top generals... Chickenhawks R US.
Don't get me wrong, I like Gabbard for VP, she's a fighter, she would be great, but I'm just
worried that she's the establishment Dems whipping child, and has been branded a Russiabot.
She's very misunderstood. Sanders should secure the Presidency before bringing her on. Not
sure. Nina's a safer bet, and would assure 90% of the black vote, but I'd like to see someone
with AOC's charisma and spirit, however, she lacks experience.
Bernie said it won't be an old white guy. He wants someone young, so Warren might not make
the short list, especially after what she pulled before the debate.
First he has to win in the primaries. SANDERS MUST WIN.
A Carson.. Sorry, Palin was not sane when she ran, not sane now. Gabbard has her head screwed
on straight, and no amount of screeching about her time on the NSC or that she's going to
"grab our guns" changes that.
@ Circe: Not experienced? And Obomber was? Try another excuse not to vote for the best POTUS
candidate. And I'd take Gabbard's experience IN A WAR ZONE over some paper-pusher lawyer.
Sander's job in the last election was to sheep-herd the anti-Clinton Dems, to keep them
from jumping to the Rep side. He also got screwed by the Clinton camp, but only after he
looked like he might win the nomination.
Otherwise he is no different in any meaningful way from all the other old white guys or
puppets-in-waiting.
"... Editor's Note: Bernie Sanders, at best a weak-spined FDR Democrat, is now carving his own political grave through his usual method, a cowardly implosion. And while many people, probably out of desperation, continue cut him a lot of slack arguing that he may be somewhat naive about what he's dealing with, a rather naive assumption in itself, I refuse to see him in that light. I think Sanders is too smart to be that foolish, and that includes his presumed innocence about the true nature of US foreign policy, the Russiagate hoax, and the system that controls the USA. Maybe he simply likes to be in the spotlight. But whatever makes him tick, good will, ethical principles, thirst for publicity, whatever it may be, if this is the Great Electoral Hope on which so many progressives pin their future, the rotten system they would like to destroy has absolutely nothing to worry about. -- PG ..."
well if bernie does win, he can appoint her. he needs a good vp, too -- not somebody like
lieberman, or some other shill. the ptb much prefer character assassination to the real
thing, imo. it's easy to arrange hits in prison, and maybe the odd senator in a small plane.
presidents and sos are another matter imo, and people are wiser to them, now. the mighty
wurlitzer is their weapon of choice, and people are increasingly skeptical of that, too.
Agree that Bernie winning and appointing Tulsi would be a good thing, considering all
alternatives are really bad. Here's Patrice Greanville's take on Bernie: (from the excellent
greanvillepost.com)
Editor's Note: Bernie Sanders, at best a weak-spined FDR Democrat, is now carving his
own political grave through his usual method, a cowardly implosion. And while many people,
probably out of desperation, continue cut him a lot of slack arguing that he may be somewhat
naive about what he's dealing with, a rather naive assumption in itself, I refuse to see him
in that light. I think Sanders is too smart to be that foolish, and that includes his
presumed innocence about the true nature of US foreign policy, the Russiagate hoax, and the
system that controls the USA. Maybe he simply likes to be in the spotlight. But whatever
makes him tick, good will, ethical principles, thirst for publicity, whatever it may be, if
this is the Great Electoral Hope on which so many progressives pin their future, the rotten
system they would like to destroy has absolutely nothing to worry about. -- PG
A commentary about Sanders in The Week, showing the Overton Window in action:
Democratic presidential candidates have been weighing in on Trump's decision, with Sanders
describing the strike as an "assassination" and a "dangerous escalation" that "brings us
closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and
trillions more dollars."
Though all of the 2020 Democrats were critical of Trump's decision, BuzzFeed notes that
"Sanders took a different tone, one drawn from a wing of the party that has opposed American
wars since Vietnam," while most other leading contenders "took more cautious" stands, being
sure to begin their statements by condemning Soleimani.
....
Sanders was initially the only one of the Democratic candidates to describe the killing as
an assassination, though Warren later on Friday did so as well.
-----
Implicit in the commentary is that Gabbard was "outside Overton Window", but she is right at
the window frame, and Sanders seem to pay more attention to atrocities abroad than few years
ago.
Right wing commentary (Washington Examiner)
OPINION
If it's Sanders versus Trump, Vladimir Putin will be a Bernie KGB bro
If Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee, Russian
President Vladimir Putin will go all in for him and against President Trump. Trump can expect
cyberattacks, information warfare, and covert/semi-covert Russian efforts to support Sanders'
organization.
-----------------------
Privately, I expect a lot of cyber attacts, information warfare and galore of stunts in this
scenario, directed at Sanders. In addition to a cool billion or two dollars spend on attack
adds. BTW, Sanders did not refrain from using "Putin" as a boogieman, the opinion is in many
ways a baseless smear, but it shows that mere scenario of Sanders as a candidate of a major
party disrupts the cosy consensus.
Sanders had a chance to build a Movement but refused to do so. No one that seeks to build a
Movement would have stayed silent about Hillary's many issues or the collusion against him.
Sanders didn't even make an issue of these things AFTER the 2016 Presidential election. As a
Party 'sheepdog' with all the right connections , he's a 'good boy'.
He ran an election. And now he's running another. But electioneering is NOT Movement
building.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
In any case, I very much doubt that Sanders will be chosen as the 2020 Democratic Party
Presidential candidate.
That would be counter to the establishment's interests.
1) The Jewish establishment doesn't want a Jewish President whose every pro-Israel move
would be attract loads of criticism;
2) The USA establishment doesn't want Americans to have a socialist option - too many
might vote for it!
Posted by: pretzelattack | Jan 23 2020 16:14 utc | 11
"i don't think he's a sheepdog, but then i'm left with the alternative that he is still
naive and gullible about some aspects of the u.s. neither is really palatable."
Is it possible for a career politician to be that naive and gullible?
But let's look at it this way. Suppose a popular candidate did want to be a sheepdog. How
could he improve upon Sanders' performance in 2016? The same performance he's already
promised he'll repeat in 2020.
"well if bernie does win, he can appoint her. he needs a good vp, too--not somebody like
lieberman, or some other shill. "
I wasn't surprised that none of the Bernie fans answered my question from yesterday:
If he's for real, he must have a full cadre ready to go, a government-in-waiting, fully
loyal to Sanders, in full agreement with his agenda, ready to become executive appointees and
hit the ground running from day one aggressively pushing this Sanders program, at least in
the executive branch.
After all, it's impossible to assemble such a cadre as an afterthought. If you're a real
insurgent who would have to overawe and where necessary break the existing executive
bureaucratic cadres and structures, you need to be ready to go on the offensive from day one.
Most of all you can't expect to find allies or good intentions or conscientious advice
waiting for you there.
We've seen what happened with Trump, if he ever did have even the slightest desire to
drain any swamps: He brought almost no one with him, and the few he did bring he quickly
purged, at the insistence of the establishment. Of course the most likely explanation is that
he never had any swamp-draining intentions in the first place.
So: Who are the people comprising the Sanders insurgent-government-in-waiting?
"Bernie doesn't want to take on the CIA, deep state, etc. until after he wins the
election. He will be in a much stronger position then to go after them."
I'm sure Sanders is a fraud, as are all his fanbots. Except perhaps for the terminally stupid
ones. <-- Russ
Words cannot express my gratitude to Russ as he allows that I may be a real human, if
rather feebleminded. On the other hand, i have some doubt what is his native planet (but
blessing to this unknown world for giving birth to such a generous and talented individual).
Take this sage advise that may well be practical where he comes from:
"If he's for real, he must have a full cadre ready to go, a government-in-waiting, fully
loyal to Sanders, in full agreement with his agenda, ready to become executive appointees and
hit the ground running from day one aggressively pushing this Sanders program, at least in
the executive branch.
After all, it's impossible to assemble such a cadre as an afterthought"
Is this cadre bred for the occasion? Cloned? Trained in carefully organized camps -- with
a bit of brainwashing to assure full loyalty? Not feasible on Earth, I am sorry to say.
The standard method in USA is to defer to few organizations for the bulk of the cadre, say,
ask Goldman-Sachs to fill economic positions, Brookings to do it with the rest of domestic
policy, and brainstorm with few confidantes what to do with foreign, military, and
intelligence. If you are more of an insurgent, you should have at least one person working
with you with an expert background for every key policy area, and let him/her sort through
applications, of which there will be many.
I made a spot check on foreign policy. I observed that four years ago Sanders did not have
much to say on those issues, staying "on message" that was fully domestic. But now he shows
more opinions, and mostly good at that. Hear, hear! Sanders actually has a foreign policy
adviser, Matt Duss, with Ph. D. in relevant area: on al-Sadr movement in Iraq, learned Arabic
in the process, and his influence seems to be quite extensive according to observers. Matt
was active as a journalist etc. and definitely has some network. Frankly, I am more of
Gabbard man so it is only now that I did some checking. (I am not sure about her experts, but
she has heart in the right place. And in best shape among the candidates.)
@krollchem #121
It seems to me that if what you say is true, nothing needs to be done in order to have the
fracking revolution reverse itself. So what's the worry?
As for malinvestment vs. overinvestment: let's compare the actual return of energy vs. $
invested for fracked natural gas or oil vs. say, solar or wind. The comparisons are very
unflattering.
I do find it interesting that the absolute success of fracking in producing low cost
energy is considered bad...normally being able to drop prices and reduce energy costs across
the entire nation, as well as net electricity production pollution levels, would be
considered good. I guess some people would complain if you hanged them with a golden
rope...
Sure, I actually agree on the ecological aspects to some degree - mostly because fracked
oil and/or natural gas provides sooooo much more energy that the environmental impact has to
be greater.
But as to reserves vs. investment: I don't remember the source offhand, but I did see a
chart which showed the amount of money invested in fracking has produced 3x proven reserves
in dollar values, even at existing low prices.
Ultimately, the desire to not pollute is admirable, but meaningless unless there is a
clear willingness to also suffer reduced standards of living. Every time I see people say
"there's a better way" - this bit is never mentioned. And most importantly, 51% of the
population has to agree and vote for it.
They don't and they haven't. Until this vote passes, its all just hot air and sour
grapes.
uncle t.... if saunders was really up for it, i think it would have been wise to pull the
plug on the dem machine back when he was steamrolled in the previous election... but he
wanted to stay united to the sick reality... that to me reflects poorly on saunders and of
course even more poorly on the dem party... either way, the usa has one choice only - the war
party... no other choices are available as i see it.. now, this doesn't mean i wouldn't vote
for bernie if i was in the usa, but the whole system is deeply in need of change.. going
along with the status quo - what bernie did last time - just doesn't add up to a strong
leadership trait or the type of person that is needed at this time as i see it.. but, i am a
canuck so take it fwiw..
The USA two party system is cleverly designed to destroy emerging political movements/parties
by co-opting them within the framework of two faction of the neoliberal UniParty. DemoRats do it
for movement to the left and Repugs for movement to the right.
There can be a party which the social base of trade unions now, as DemoRats clearly betrayed
trade unions.
The important thing about Sanders is the movement/organization that is being built around his
candidacy.
So far as I can see the power of the US President to do anything that offends the bulk of
the Congress and their Masters, the Capitalist class, is extremely limited.
Without Congress Medicare for All is impossible. And Bernie knows this- the point of his
campaign is to put Congress in the position of rejecting popular, electorally endorsed
policies or not. And to do so in the face of a live, continuing public campaign from the
grassroots.
It is difficult to have any illusions about Sanders but the reality is that the platform
he is constructing is not only the only one anyone with reform pretensions can get elected on
but a surefire winner in the election.
Bernie may not be a real socialist but he wants to win the race and his policies are the
sort that he must campaign on, the only ones that would allow him to tap the real prize in
the race: the 50% of the population who never vote. Never mind the independents and the soft
Republicans, the vote a strong popular campaign, at grassroots level-door to door canvassing
for example- will turn out will overwhelm Trump.
And that, I suspect is going to be the lesson of the Primaries: absent the kind of
criminality that Tammany Hill and the DNC got up to in 2016 (for example losing 20,000 votes
in Brooklyn) he will crush Biden and the rest of the centrists.
There is much wrong with him, his foreign policy positions, carefully crafted to keep
moderate Zionists and those who can't shake the idea that America is Good out of their heads
calm, are very mild but that doesn't matter.
What matters is to beat the Oligarchy, from the Deep State to the Wall Street Journal to
the DNC to the media to the Academy/Brothel in the Primaries and the General Election and
then watch to see whether his supporters will rally to him, after the election, when he will
need all the help he can get.
As to LBJ, Lysias old friend, a Devil's Advocate might argue that he is just the sort of
VP a Bernie in the White House would need, a hard nosed Congressional assassin to twist arms
and implement laws. I, of course disagree.
The place to begin is before the beginning of the 20th Century during the great reaction
to Southern and Eastern European immigrants as they were accused of importing anarchism and
other un-American ideas like unions and such, the assassination of President Garfield being a
good bookend to mark the beginning, although he wasn't any sort of reactionary. The next main
event was the First Red Scare and associated Palmer Raids. A short Wiki citation tells
much:
"At the end of the 19th century and prior to the rise of the Galleanist anarchist
movement, the Haymarket affair of 1886 had already heightened the American public's fear of
foreign anarchist and radical socialist elements within the budding American workers'
movement."
No, it wasn't the Haymarket event; rather, it was the reporting and propaganda
related to it and other actions that promoted the "public's fear." Gotta look at the Big
Picture to get a grasp. It was also at this time that the attempts to stop the drive by
classical political-economists to destroy the Rentier Class were greatly escalated as
Hudson's detailed. The War against worker organization was also in the process of escalating.
Much can be learned from Labor History of that period, particularly 1877: Year of Violence , which
details the great railroad strike that took place then and is probably a better bookend.
But as is becoming clearer, the moneyed elite have always lived in fear of the masses
rising and upending their ill-gained positions, a constant throughout Western History. The
Anti-Communist Crusade is a description I got from Parenti's Anti-Communist Impulse ,
which is an excellent work but lacks an e-version.
Sorry for a rather scattered reply. My main point is that the public was deliberately
scared into being anti-socialist, which was going to be difficult due to its being very
Christian and keen on fellowship and sharing burdens. Yet another angle to pursue is that of
the rising of the Populists from a sectional to a national prominence--it's most instructive
to learn how their movement was derailed. The best work on that is Goodwyn's Democratic
Promise: The Populist Moment in America ; Introduction to abridged version
provides excellent info. Then as I linked to yesterday in my reply to Bubbles, there's
Operation
Unthinkable and Operation Sunrise people
need to know about. One person we must know as much as possible about is Allen Dulles,
younger brother of John Foster Dulles--both Hitlerian criminals IMO-- The Devil's
Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government being a
recently published must read "If you look at the definition of the term, you'll find out
"democratic socialist" was how the right-wing of the British Labour Party called themselves."
vk
That is certainly true: it was. I think they got it from Harrington. In Gaitskell's day
when preserving NATO was their main aim. But it hasn't been true for a long time: Labour's
leaders since Michael Foot (on his last legs) have tended not to call themselves socialists
of any kind. After 40 years of neo-liberal orthodoxy and the best part of a century of Cold
War (not to mention the many now forgotten but vicious attacks on socialism preceding WWI)
what was once the sign of a mealy mouthed rightwinger has come to signify something else.
Quite what else it is difficult to say now that so many 'Leninists' have tiptoed into the
Democratic Socialist parties and carried most of their vanguardist tactics with them.
Meanwhile I've periodically visited the Sanders website ever since latter November 2016,
specifically to see if there's any evidence of movement-building, as opposed to the
equivalent of, "we'll start improvising the status quo campaign in 2019".
Needless to say, I've never seen a shred of commitment to anything real.
I see solid and substantial evidence of Sanders building a movement for change and his
election campaign. For these two runs he has created a wide and sustainable changemaking
network and raised people's hope and commitment to make a better government for the USA.
This is the success model for all changemakers throughout history: build the base,
establish a cohesive and committed network with resilience to continue even in the loss of a
leader. I am sure as many others here That Bernie is really sticking his neck out in the
assassination land of the USA. Just read the People's History of the United States by Zinn or
the cover notes for many songs like Joe Hill etc.
Russ you are a negativist in the face of a great movement for change and that is not a
contribution to change, rather a blockade. Sure Bernie may not be the magi to implement all
aspirants needs, but he is mighty good navigation beacon to set sail for. I can only trust
the millions of USians are on that journey for the next few decades.
Ron Paul pointed out that one has to reform the two parties from the ground up starting at
the local level which Sanders has not done. Those who have never attended a party caucus
have no idea how corrupt the process is.
Reform from the ground up is usually renered impossible by thuggish machines.You can work
your arse off at a branch level and maybe build a sufficient majority to get your team in
control. Then come ballot time an extra fifteen people turn up fully credentialled and
financial courtesy of 'head office' and you lose again. Or you get control of one or two
branches in a state and then voila! like magic more branches spring up and they are all
establishment cronies.
Ron Paul is BS. He is simply a diversion - a neutraliser - a red herring nonsense.
The Bernie machine has not fallen for that BS and is building BOTH internally and
throughout the other partyless party the independent voters and the non voters and good luck
to them. Read Rules for Radicals.
To the extent you can trust polls, that's an interesting development. biden is losing grip on
electorate due to impeachment noise., which hurts him directly.
Despite the establishment and media shenanigans designed to hurt Sanders, despite Hillary and
Warren's attempts to turn women against Sanders:
Bernie has just DOUBLED his lead on Biden in New Hampshire 29 to 14 and is now only 3
points behind Biden nationally in choice for President and leads Trump by 2 points in the
general. That figure will rise.
Bernie has the wind at his back. This is the most critical U.S. election in our lifetime
to stop Trump's escalation on Iran, to stop Trump from turning the judiciary irreversibly to
the far right and making it his fascist tool, to make climate change the burning priority
that it is and to take power away from the oligarchs and empower people.
Bernie must make it. He is the only candidate who is genuine and can be trusted and is
VIABLE. Yes, many here want Gabbard but she is not viable in the race since she has not
gained any traction. The only hope I see for Gabbard's political career is if Sanders offers
her a cabinet position later, but not V-P because Gabbard's unpopularity right now will
certainly drag him down. Many want her primaried and then she may not win back her seat in
Congress. If he offers her an important cabinet position, she will regain in stature and
prove that she is presidential material. I see her as UN Ambassador and maybe at DoD. But
right now the V-P choice must be wisely assigned.
Sanders now has momentum and everyone must do their part to help him sustain it. This
opportunity must not be squandered! His defeat of the CORRUPT establishment is FUNDAMENTAL.
The entire planet needs a Sanders presidency to stop military escalation and address the
urgency of climate change. He must be supported all the way and Trump must fall to someone of
Sanders' authentic calibre.
This is the last opportunity we all have to stop the madness and corrupt oligarch control,
and make a global correction towards peace. I believe in this guy; I fear the irreversible
changes happening. I HAVE BEEN RIGHT ON MANY THINGS AND I'M CONVINCED OF THIS: EITHER WE ALL,
EVERYWHERE ON THIS PLANET, SUPPORT THIS MAN OR WE WILL BE POWERLESS
AND ARE DOOMED TO WHAT'S ALREADY UNFOLDING.
Another unforced error. What a politically naive (or evil) twat, this Elithabeth Warren
is
"I can't think of more devastating news if you're running one of these campaigns for
president than the news that your candidate is going to be bound to a desk in Washington, day
after day, in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses." ~Obama's former campaign manager David
Axelrod
Sanders and Warren have the most to lose from a Senate impeachment trial. Iowa is Feb 3 and
New Hampshire is Feb 11. As McConnell told reporters "A number of Democratic senators are running
for president. I'm sure they're gonna be excited to be here in their chairs not being able to say
anything during the pndency of this trial. So hopefully we'll work our way through it and finish
it in not too lengthy a process,"
Clinton trial ran from Jan. 7 until Feb. 12, approximately five weeks. So if McConnell is
shrewd, he will ensure that Sanders and Warren were absent from both Iowa is Feb 3 and Feb
11.
This, however, is an outright lie. If Democrats truly valued America over their own partisan
interests, they wouldn't have forced a hoax impeachment through government, despite the
overwhelming opposition against it. Moreover, if "country over party" mattered to Democrats,
then they wouldn't have commenced talks about impeachment since before the inception of Trump's
presidency.
A new year and new decade may be upon us, but this doesn't mean that Democrats are any less
terrified of seeing their impeachment sham die in the Senate.
As a matter of fact, 2020 Democrat and Sen. Elizabeth Warren spent New Year's Eve raging
against her Republican colleagues and making baseless accusations against Trump, per reports
from Washington Examiner.
Reviewing Warren's Tirade Against Senate Republicans The 2020 socialist's remarks about
Republican members of the Senate came during her New Year's Eve address in Boston,
Massachusetts. Warren lamented over the reality that Democrats will not be able to bully or
intimidate Republicans into voting for a partisan-driven, unfounded sham. This blows Warren's
far-left, unwell mind, so she opted to blast GOP senators as " fawning, spineless defenders" of
President Trump's supposed "crimes."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren speaks in Boston: "[President Trump] has tried to squeeze foreign
governments to advance his own political fortunes. Meanwhile, the Republicans in Congress
have turned into fawning spineless defenders of his crimes." pic.twitter.com/sGyLqsA8C7
Shortly thereafter, Warren followed up with the lie that ramming the weakest and thinnest
impeachment through government "brought no joy" to House Democrats. This, of course, just isn't
accurate; House Rep. Rashida Tlaib posted a gleeful livestream prior to the "impeachment" where
she bragged about being "on [her] way to the United States House floor" in order to "impeach
President Trump."
Finally, Warren declared that conservative senators need to "choose truth over politics" or
else President Trump will attempt to "cheat his way" via the 2020 election.
Misplaced Outrage As per usual with Democrats, the outrage is misplaced and misguided. If
Warren is so eager for a trial, then she should be directed this animosity towards House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi who continues to hoard the impeachment articles.
f left-wing Congress members truly believed they had a solid case against the president,
they'd be more than eager for the Senate to receive the articles and begin conducting a trial;
instead, however, raging at President Trump and Senate Republicans is easier than acknowledge
the true reality here.
Democrats forced the weakest, thinnest, and fastest impeachment through the House. The
president did absolutely nothing wrong and will be acquitted either when the Senate holds a
trial or by default if Pelosi keeps hoarding the articles.
There are lots of things to criticize about Tulsi Gabbard's "present" vote in the impeachment charade.
Her invocation of Alexander Hamilton in her "House Divided"
statement
was
ridiculous. Why this constant need to invoke a statesman who died more than two centuries ago? Do
British politicians invoke Edmund Burke or William Pitt at every turn?
The same goes for her
statement that impeachment is "a partisan process fueled by tribal animosities." What's causing the
great American meltdown is not partisanship so much as a 232-year-old Constitution that everyone
claims to adore – especially during impeachment time – but which grows more rigid, dysfunctional, and
undemocratic with every passing year. The more farcical the cult of the Constitution grows, the more
ridiculous are the politics that flow out of it.
Finally, her plea to Americans "to make a stand for the center" in order to "bridge our
differences" is too little too late. Centrism is dead because "moderate" politicians like Hillary
Clinton, Barack Obama, and Tony Blair killed it by unleashing havoc on the Middle East and generating
a refugee crisis whose reverberations are still being felt. It's dead and gone, and there's no point
trying to revive it.
So it wasn't Tulsi's finest moment. But what a relief from the crazed warmongering of Adam Schiff,
the Hollywood neocon in charge of impeachment who has been working nonstop with the intelligence
agencies to throw Trump out of office – for all the wrong reasons, one might add.
His thirteen-minute
harangue
during the impeachment debate was typical. It began with the obligatory nod to Hamilton before moving
on to a parade of half-truths and distortions.
"Over the course of the last three months," he said, "we have found incontrovertible evidence that
President Trump abused his power by pressuring the newly elected president of Ukraine to announce an
investigation into President Trump's political rival Joe Biden with the hopes of defeating Mr. Biden
in the 2020 presidential election and enhancing his own prospects for re-election."
This was nonsense. Sure, Trump wants to enhance his re-election prospects – what first-term
president doesn't? But even though he has a political interest in taking down Biden, the American
public has an equal interest in investigating a man who allowed his son to rake in hundreds of
thousands of dollars from a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch at a time when he was supposedly rooting out
Ukrainian corruption. Biden was part of the problem he was supposed to solve, yet Schiff seems to
think he deserves a free pass merely because he's running for president.
Schiff then assailed Trump for undermining "a nation at war with our adversary Vladimir Putin's
Russia" by withholding $391 million in military aid. In fact, withholding aid from the neo-Nazis of
the Ukraine's Azov Battalion was one of the few good things Trump has done since taking office. Rather
than undermining national security, he was doing the opposite by keeping the US out of another
pointless conflict.
Besides, how do we know Russia is "our adversary" – because Schiff says so? Has Congress taken a
formal vote on the topic? Did it declare war and then forget to inform the rest of us?
Finally, there was the Russiagate baloney that is the
specialité de la maison:
"As a candidate in 2016," Schiff said, "Donald Trump invited Russian interference in his
presidential campaign, saying at a campaign rally, 'Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to
find the 30,000 emails that are missing,' a clear invitation to hack Hillary Clinton's emails. Just
five hours later, Russian government hackers tried to do exactly that. What followed was an immense
Russian hacking and dumping operation and a social media disinformation campaign designed to help
elect Donald Trump. But not only did candidate Trump welcome that effort, he made full use of it,
building it into his campaign plan [and] his messaging strategy . This Russian effort to interfere in
our elections didn't deter Donald Trump. It empowered him."
It's as if Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller had never issued his verdict of no collusion. Trump's
statement about finding Clinton's mails – delivered at a July 27, 2016,
press conference
,
by the way, not a campaign rally – was clearly a joke. It had nothing to do with Russia's hack of the
Democratic National Committee, which in turn had nothing to do with WikiLeaks's massive email dump.
("We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton," Julian Assange announced six weeks earlier,
three days
before
hearing from alleged Russian conduit Guccifer 2.0. So how could Russian
intelligence supply WikiLeaks with emails that it already had?) With just $45,000 worth of Facebook
ads prior to Election Day, the social media operation mounted by a private Russian firm known as the
Internet Research Associates was also the opposite of what Schiff says it was – puny rather than
massive. Moreover, Mueller made no effort in his February 2018
indictment
of the IRA to connect its efforts with the Russian government, no doubt because he knew he could never
prove any such connection in a court of law.
So there's no evidence that Russia supplied WikiLeaks, that the IRA social media campaign was
anything more than minor background noise, that the Kremlin did anything to spur its efforts on, or
that Trump colluded, directly or indirectly. Schiff made it all up. But truth means nothing to such
people. All he knows is that his campaign war chest has more than
tripled
from $2.1 to $6.8 million since he emerged as point man on Russiagate and that he'll never
have to worry about re-election again as long as he continues playing the Russia card. If "all that
matters to this president is what affects him personally," as Schiff said of Trump, then what is there
to say about the congressman from Northrop Grumman – that all he cares about advancing his own
political interests as well?
So congratulations to Gabbard for refusing to take part in an impeachment sham that is nothing more
than an imperialist war drive in disguise. It's a shame that her follow-up statement was so weak since
she missed a golden opportunity to slam the warmongers who have caused one disaster after another for
the last twenty years and are seemingly intent on causing more. But least she took a stand, which is
more than one can say about hundreds of other Democrats on Capitol Hill.
Daniel Lazare
December 22, 2019 |
Featured Story
One and a Half Cheers for Tulsi Gabbard
There are lots of things to criticize about Tulsi Gabbard's "present" vote in the impeachment
charade. Her invocation of Alexander Hamilton in her "House Divided"
statement
was ridiculous. Why this constant need to invoke a statesman who died more than two centuries
ago? Do British politicians invoke Edmund Burke or William Pitt at every turn?
The same goes
for her statement that impeachment is "a partisan process fueled by tribal animosities." What's
causing the great American meltdown is not partisanship so much as a 232-year-old Constitution
that everyone claims to adore – especially during impeachment time – but which grows more rigid,
dysfunctional, and undemocratic with every passing year. The more farcical the cult of the
Constitution grows, the more ridiculous are the politics that flow out of it.
Finally, her plea to Americans "to make a stand for the center" in order to "bridge our
differences" is too little too late. Centrism is dead because "moderate" politicians like
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Tony Blair killed it by unleashing havoc on the Middle East
and generating a refugee crisis whose reverberations are still being felt. It's dead and gone,
and there's no point trying to revive it.
So it wasn't Tulsi's finest moment. But what a relief from the crazed warmongering of Adam
Schiff, the Hollywood neocon in charge of impeachment who has been working nonstop with the
intelligence agencies to throw Trump out of office – for all the wrong reasons, one might add.
His thirteen-minute
harangue
during the impeachment debate was typical. It began with the obligatory nod to Hamilton before
moving on to a parade of half-truths and distortions.
"Over the course of the last three months," he said, "we have found incontrovertible evidence
that President Trump abused his power by pressuring the newly elected president of Ukraine to
announce an investigation into President Trump's political rival Joe Biden with the hopes of
defeating Mr. Biden in the 2020 presidential election and enhancing his own prospects for
re-election."
This was nonsense. Sure, Trump wants to enhance his re-election prospects – what first-term
president doesn't? But even though he has a political interest in taking down Biden, the
American public has an equal interest in investigating a man who allowed his son to rake in
hundreds of thousands of dollars from a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch at a time when he was
supposedly rooting out Ukrainian corruption. Biden was part of the problem he was supposed to
solve, yet Schiff seems to think he deserves a free pass merely because he's running for
president.
Schiff then assailed Trump for undermining "a nation at war with our adversary Vladimir
Putin's Russia" by withholding $391 million in military aid. In fact, withholding aid from the
neo-Nazis of the Ukraine's Azov Battalion was one of the few good things Trump has done since
taking office. Rather than undermining national security, he was doing the opposite by keeping
the US out of another pointless conflict.
Besides, how do we know Russia is "our adversary" – because Schiff says so? Has Congress
taken a formal vote on the topic? Did it declare war and then forget to inform the rest of us?
Finally, there was the Russiagate baloney that is the
specialité de la maison:
"As a candidate in 2016," Schiff said, "Donald Trump invited Russian interference in his
presidential campaign, saying at a campaign rally, 'Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're
able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,' a clear invitation to hack Hillary Clinton's
emails. Just five hours later, Russian government hackers tried to do exactly that. What
followed was an immense Russian hacking and dumping operation and a social media disinformation
campaign designed to help elect Donald Trump. But not only did candidate Trump welcome that
effort, he made full use of it, building it into his campaign plan [and] his messaging
strategy . This Russian effort to interfere in our elections didn't deter Donald Trump. It
empowered him."
It's as if Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller had never issued his verdict of no collusion.
Trump's statement about finding Clinton's mails – delivered at a July 27, 2016,
press
conference
, by the way, not a campaign rally – was clearly a joke. It had nothing to do with
Russia's hack of the Democratic National Committee, which in turn had nothing to do with
WikiLeaks's massive email dump. ("We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton," Julian
Assange announced six weeks earlier, three days
before
hearing from alleged Russian
conduit Guccifer 2.0. So how could Russian intelligence supply WikiLeaks with emails that it
already had?) With just $45,000 worth of Facebook ads prior to Election Day, the social media
operation mounted by a private Russian firm known as the Internet Research Associates was also
the opposite of what Schiff says it was – puny rather than massive. Moreover, Mueller made no
effort in his February 2018
indictment
of the IRA to connect its efforts with the Russian government, no doubt because
he knew he could never prove any such connection in a court of law.
So there's no evidence that Russia supplied WikiLeaks, that the IRA social media campaign was
anything more than minor background noise, that the Kremlin did anything to spur its efforts on,
or that Trump colluded, directly or indirectly. Schiff made it all up. But truth means nothing
to such people. All he knows is that his campaign war chest has more than
tripled
from $2.1 to $6.8 million since he emerged as point man on Russiagate and that he'll
never have to worry about re-election again as long as he continues playing the Russia card. If
"all that matters to this president is what affects him personally," as Schiff said of Trump,
then what is there to say about the congressman from Northrop Grumman – that all he cares about
advancing his own political interests as well?
So congratulations to Gabbard for refusing to take part in an impeachment sham that is
nothing more than an imperialist war drive in disguise. It's a shame that her follow-up
statement was so weak since she missed a golden opportunity to slam the warmongers who have
caused one disaster after another for the last twenty years and are seemingly intent on causing
more. But least she took a stand, which is more than one can say about hundreds of other
Democrats on Capitol Hill.
The same goes for her
statement that impeachment is "a partisan process fueled by tribal animosities." What's causing the
great American meltdown is not partisanship so much as a 232-year-old Constitution that everyone
claims to adore – especially during impeachment time – but which grows more rigid, dysfunctional, and
undemocratic with every passing year. The more farcical the cult of the Constitution grows, the more
ridiculous are the politics that flow out of it.
Finally, her plea to Americans "to make a stand for the center" in order to "bridge our
differences" is too little too late. Centrism is dead because "moderate" politicians like Hillary
Clinton, Barack Obama, and Tony Blair killed it by unleashing havoc on the Middle East and generating
a refugee crisis whose reverberations are still being felt. It's dead and gone, and there's no point
trying to revive it.
So it wasn't Tulsi's finest moment. But what a relief from the crazed warmongering of Adam Schiff,
the Hollywood neocon in charge of impeachment who has been working nonstop with the intelligence
agencies to throw Trump out of office – for all the wrong reasons, one might add.
His thirteen-minute
harangue
during the impeachment debate was typical. It began with the obligatory nod to Hamilton before moving
on to a parade of half-truths and distortions.
"Over the course of the last three months," he said, "we have found incontrovertible evidence that
President Trump abused his power by pressuring the newly elected president of Ukraine to announce an
investigation into President Trump's political rival Joe Biden with the hopes of defeating Mr. Biden
in the 2020 presidential election and enhancing his own prospects for re-election."
This was nonsense. Sure, Trump wants to enhance his re-election prospects – what first-term
president doesn't? But even though he has a political interest in taking down Biden, the American
public has an equal interest in investigating a man who allowed his son to rake in hundreds of
thousands of dollars from a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch at a time when he was supposedly rooting out
Ukrainian corruption. Biden was part of the problem he was supposed to solve, yet Schiff seems to
think he deserves a free pass merely because he's running for president.
Schiff then assailed Trump for undermining "a nation at war with our adversary Vladimir Putin's
Russia" by withholding $391 million in military aid. In fact, withholding aid from the neo-Nazis of
the Ukraine's Azov Battalion was one of the few good things Trump has done since taking office. Rather
than undermining national security, he was doing the opposite by keeping the US out of another
pointless conflict.
Besides, how do we know Russia is "our adversary" – because Schiff says so? Has Congress taken a
formal vote on the topic? Did it declare war and then forget to inform the rest of us?
Finally, there was the Russiagate baloney that is the
specialité de la maison:
"As a candidate in 2016," Schiff said, "Donald Trump invited Russian interference in his
presidential campaign, saying at a campaign rally, 'Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to
find the 30,000 emails that are missing,' a clear invitation to hack Hillary Clinton's emails. Just
five hours later, Russian government hackers tried to do exactly that. What followed was an immense
Russian hacking and dumping operation and a social media disinformation campaign designed to help
elect Donald Trump. But not only did candidate Trump welcome that effort, he made full use of it,
building it into his campaign plan [and] his messaging strategy . This Russian effort to interfere in
our elections didn't deter Donald Trump. It empowered him."
It's as if Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller had never issued his verdict of no collusion. Trump's
statement about finding Clinton's mails – delivered at a July 27, 2016,
press conference
,
by the way, not a campaign rally – was clearly a joke. It had nothing to do with Russia's hack of the
Democratic National Committee, which in turn had nothing to do with WikiLeaks's massive email dump.
("We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton," Julian Assange announced six weeks earlier,
three days
before
hearing from alleged Russian conduit Guccifer 2.0. So how could Russian
intelligence supply WikiLeaks with emails that it already had?) With just $45,000 worth of Facebook
ads prior to Election Day, the social media operation mounted by a private Russian firm known as the
Internet Research Associates was also the opposite of what Schiff says it was – puny rather than
massive. Moreover, Mueller made no effort in his February 2018
indictment
of the IRA to connect its efforts with the Russian government, no doubt because he knew he could never
prove any such connection in a court of law.
So there's no evidence that Russia supplied WikiLeaks, that the IRA social media campaign was
anything more than minor background noise, that the Kremlin did anything to spur its efforts on, or
that Trump colluded, directly or indirectly. Schiff made it all up. But truth means nothing to such
people. All he knows is that his campaign war chest has more than
tripled
from $2.1 to $6.8 million since he emerged as point man on Russiagate and that he'll never
have to worry about re-election again as long as he continues playing the Russia card. If "all that
matters to this president is what affects him personally," as Schiff said of Trump, then what is there
to say about the congressman from Northrop Grumman – that all he cares about advancing his own
political interests as well?
The first is that the U.S. is the ultimate law-based society, one whose structure derives
entirely from a single four-thousand-word document created in 1787. The second is that while
Americans think of the Constitution as the greatest plan of government known to man, it's
actually the opposite: a grotesque pre-modern relic that grows more unrepresentative and
unresponsive with each passing year. A pro-rural Electoral College that has overridden the
popular vote in two of the last five presidential elections; a lopsided Senate that allows the
majority in ten urban states to be outvoted four-to-one by the minority in the other forty;
lifetime Supreme Court justices who can veto any law at variance with an ancient constitution
that only they understand – it's a broken-down old rattletrap in need of a top-to-bottom
overhaul. Yet it's so thoroughly frozen that structural reform is all but unthinkable.
The third thing to keep in mind is that as the constitutional system grows more and more
undemocratic, the two-party system that grew out of it in the nineteenth century grows more
undemocratic as well. The result is a bipartisan race to the right. Sometimes, the Republicans
seem to be in the lead as Trump imprisons thousands of immigrants fleeing murderous conditions
in Central America that the U.S. war on drugs helped create. Other times it's the Democrats as
they beat the drums for imperialist war against Russia.
Take all these factors – xenophobia, mindless obeisance to ancient law, a president
imposed against the popular will, etc. – mix thoroughly, place in a super-hot oven due to
a growing imperial crisis, and impeachment is what pops out. The process itself is very old, a
by-product of fourteenth-century Anglo-Norman law. (Impeachment derives from the Old French
empeechier, meaning to ensnare or entrap.) The British abandoned it in the late
eighteenth century when Edmund Burke wasted seven years impeaching an Indian colonial governor
named Warren Hastings on grounds of corruption. (The House of Lords finally acquitted him in
1795). But then the Americans took it up and now, two centuries later, are immersed in the same
brainless exercise.
The results were all too evident in mid-December when one Democrat after another took to the
House floor to denounced Donald Trump for violating the ancient constitution by withholding
lethal military aid from the neo-Nazis of the Ukraine's Azov Battalion.
"We used to stand up to Putin and Russia – I know the party of Ronald Reagan used to,"
declared Adam Schiff, the Democratic point man on impeachment, his voice quivering with
emotion. The fight to defend the Ukraine is "about more than Ukraine. It's about us. It's about
our national security. Their fight is our fight. Their defense is our defense . And when the
President sacrifices our interests, our national security for his election, he is sacrificing
our country for his personal gain."
This was the Democratic line in a nutshell. In order to safeguard the ancient republic at
home, the U.S. must pay foreign satraps to defend its imperial interests abroad. Since no
patriotic American could possibly disagree, any and all problems must stem from meddling by the
evil dictator Vladimir Putin and his traitorous puppet in the Oval Office. Americans must
therefore fulfill the ancient law by impeaching him just as the "founding fathers" would have
wanted. Only then will peace and freedom return to the land of the free and the home of the
brave.
It's all quite ridiculous, but what's even more bonkers is that millions of Americans think
it's true. Trump is meanwhile in his element. Now that Democrats have voted to impeach him in
the House, he'd like nothing more than a lengthy trial in the Senate because (a) acquittal in
the upper house is a certainty and (b) it will allow the Republican majority to put the
torturers to the rack by subpoenaing everyone from Joe and Hunter Biden to Adam Schiff himself
and declaring them in contempt of Congress if they refuse to testify. Senator Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell has described an all-out Senate war as "mutual assured destruction," and he's
right since, once unleashed, the ancient constitutional machinery will grind everything to dust
in its path.
American politics will grow only more farcical. If Putin looms larger and larger on the
world stage; if "the moment has come," as the Times Literary Supplement recently announced , "for
even the most hardened skeptics to admit that he is one of the most successful world leaders of
our era"; if the U.S. at the same time staggers from one imperial disaster to another even
while descending into civil war – then it's not because the Russian leader is
particularly clever, but because the U.S. is locked in an ancient mindset that is increasingly
divorced from reality. It's lost in a constitutional labyrinth of its own making, and
impeachment is leading it deeper and deeper into the maze.
She is now trapped and has no space for maneuvering. She now needs to share the path to the
cliff with Pelosi gang to the very end. Not a good position to be in.
Analysis: The Massachusetts senator's forceful call to begin the process of removing Trump
set her apart from the crowded primary field.
While most fellow 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls ducked and dived to find safe ground
-- and party elders solemnly warned against over-reach -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren stepped boldly
out into the open late Friday and called on the House to begin an impeachment process against
President Donald Trump based on special counsel Robert Mueller's report.
The Massachusetts senator and 2020 Democratic presidential contender slammed Trump for
having "welcomed" the help of a "hostile" foreign government and having obstructed the probe
into an attack on an American election.
"To ignore a President's repeated efforts to obstruct an investigation into his own disloyal
behavior would inflict great and lasting damage on this country," Warren tweeted. "The severity
of this misconduct demands that elected officials in both parties set aside political
considerations and do their constitutional duty. That means the House should initiate
impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States."
It was a rare moment in a crowded and unsettled primary: A seized opportunity for a
candidate to cut through the campaign trail cacophony and define the terms of a debate that
will rage throughout the contest.
CNN and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Democrat from Massachusetts, with powerful establishment
support, combined to stage a provocation this week aimed at slowing down or derailing the
campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders for the Democratic Party presidential
nomination.
Through CNN, the Massachusetts senator's camp first alleged that Sanders told her in
December 2018 a woman could not win a presidential election, an allegation Sanders strenuously
refuted. At the Democratic debate on Tuesday night, CNN's moderator acted as though the claim
was an indisputable reality, leading to a post-debate encounter between Warren and Sanders,
which the network just happened to record and circulate widely.
This is a political stink bomb, borrowed from the #MeToo playbook, typical of American
politics in its putrefaction. Unsubstantiated allegations are turned into "facts," these
"facts" become the basis for blackening reputations and damaging careers and shifting politics
continuously to the right. Anyone who denies the allegations is a "sexist" who refuses "to
believe women."
The Democratic establishment is fearful of Sanders, not so much for his
nationalist-reformist program and populist demagogy, but for what his confused but growing
support portends: the movement to the left by wide layers of the American population. The US
ruling elite seems convinced, like some wretched, self-deluded potentate of old, that if it can
simply stamp out the unpleasant "noise," the rising tide of disaffection will dissipate.
CNN's operation began Monday when it posted a "bombshell" article by M.J. Lee with the
headline, "Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren in private 2018 meeting that a woman can't win,
sources say."
The article animatedly begins, "The stakes were high when Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth
Warren met at Warren's apartment in Washington, DC, one evening in December 2018." Among other
things, the CNN piece reported, the pair "discussed how to best take on President Donald Trump,
and Warren laid out two main reasons she believed she would be a strong candidate: She could
make a robust argument about the economy and earn broad support from female voters. Sanders
responded that he did not believe a woman could win."
Lee continues, "The description of that meeting is based on the accounts of four people: two
people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the
meeting." In reality, the story is based on the account of one individual with a
considerable interest in cutting into Sanders' support, i.e., Elizabeth Warren. As the New
York Times primly noted, "Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders were the only people in the
room."
The absurd CNN article goes on, "After publication of this story, Warren herself backed up
this account of the meeting, saying in part in a statement Monday, 'I thought a woman could
win; he disagreed.'" In other words, Warren "backed up" what could only have been her own
account insofar as she was the only person there besides Sanders!
After a pro forma insertion of Sanders' categorical denial that he ever made such a
statement, in which he reasonably observed, "Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course!
After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016," Lee plowed right
ahead as though his comments were not worth responding to. She carries on, "The conversation
also illustrates the skepticism among not only American voters but also senior Democratic
officials that the country is ready to elect a woman as president" and, further, "The
revelation that Sanders expressed skepticism that Warren could win the presidency because she
is a woman is particularly noteworthy now, given that Warren is the lone female candidate at
the top of the Democratic field."
This is one of the ways in which the sexual misconduct witch-hunt has poisoned American
politics, although by no means the only one. Warren's claims about a private encounter simply
"must be believed."
During the Democratic candidates' debate itself Tuesday night, moderator Abby Phillips
addressed Sanders in the following manner: "Let's now turn to an issue that's come up in the
last 48 hours [because Warren and CNN generated it]. Sen. Sanders, CNN reported yesterday that
-- and Sen. Sanders, Sen. Warren confirmed in a statement, that in 2018 you told her that you
did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that? " (emphasis
added). Sanders denied once again that he had said any such thing. Phillips persisted, "Sen.
Sanders, I do want to be clear here, you're saying that you never told Sen. Warren that a woman
could not win the election?" Sanders confirmed that. Insultingly, Phillips immediately turned
to Warren and continued, "Sen. Warren, what did you think when Sen. Sanders told you a woman
could not win the election?" This was all clearly prepared ahead of time, a deliberate effort
to embarrass Sanders and portray him as a liar and a male chauvinist.
Following the debate, Warren had the audacity to confront the Vermont senator, refuse to
shake his hand and assert, "I think you called me a liar on national TV." When Sanders seemed
startled by her remark, she repeated it. CNN managed to capture the sound and preserve it for
widespread distribution.
The WSWS gives no support to Sanders, a phony "socialist" whose efforts are aimed at
channeling working-class anger at social inequality, poverty and war back into the big business
Democratic Party. He is only the latest in a long line of figures in American political history
devoted to maintaining the Democrats' stranglehold over popular opposition and blocking the
development of a broad-based socialist movement.
Nonetheless, the CNN-Warren "dirty tricks" operation is an obvious hatchet job and an attack
from the right. Accordingly, the New York Times and other major outlets have been
gloating and attempting to make something out of it since Tuesday night. The obvious purpose is
to "raise serious questions" about Sanders and dampen support for him, among women especially.
It should be recalled that in 2016 Sanders led Hillary Clinton among young women by 30
percentage points.
Michelle Cottle, a member of the Times editorial board (in "Why Questions on Women
Candidates Strike a Nerve," January 15), asserted that the issue raised by the Warren-Sanders
clash was "not about Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren. Not really. And Ms. Warren was right to try to
shift the focus to the bigger picture -- even if some critics will sneer that she's playing
'the gender card.'"
Cottle's "bigger picture," it turned out, primarily involved smearing Sanders. The present
controversy, she went on, "has resurfaced some of Mr. Sanders's past women troubles. His 2016
campaign faced multiple accusations of sexual harassment, pay inequities and other gender-based
mistreatment. Asked early last year if he knew about the complaints, Mr. Sanders's reaction was
both defensive and dismissive: 'I was a little bit busy running around the country'."
After Cottle attempted to convince her readers, on the basis of dubious numbers, that
Americans were perhaps too backward to elect a female president, she continued, again, taking
as good coin Warren's allegations, "This less-than-inspiring data -- along with from-the-trail
anecdotes about the gender-based voter anxiety that Ms. Warren and Ms. [Amy] Klobuchar have
been facing -- help explain why Mr. Sanders's alleged remarks struck such a nerve. Women
candidates and their supporters aren't simply outraged that he could be so wrong. They're
worried that he might be right." The remarks he denies making have nonetheless "outraged"
Cottle and others.
The Times more and more openly expresses fears about a possible Sanders'
nomination. Op-ed columnist David Leonhardt headlined his January 14 piece, "President Bernie
Sanders," and commented, "Sanders has a real shot of winning the Democratic nomination. Only a
couple of months after he suffered a mild heart attack, that counts as a surprise." Leonhardt
downplays Sanders' socialist credentials, observing that "while he [Sanders] would probably
fail to accomplish his grandest goals (again, like Medicare for all), he would also move the
country in a positive direction. He might even move it to closer to a center-left ideal than a
more moderate candidate like Biden would."
On Thursday, right-wing Times columnist David Brooks argued pathetically against
the existence of "class war" in "The Bernie Sanders Fallacy." He ridiculed what he described as
"Bernie Sanders's class-war Theyism: The billionaires have rigged the economy to benefit
themselves and impoverish everyone else." According to Brooks, Sanders is a Bolshevik who
believes that "Capitalism is a system of exploitation in which capitalist power completely
dominates worker power." Accusing Sanders of embracing such an ABC socialist proposition is all
nonsense, but it reveals something about what keeps pundits like Brooks up at night.
The Times is determined, as the WSWS has noted more than once, to exclude anything
from the 2020 election campaign that might arouse or encourage the outrage of workers and young
people. The past year of global mass protest has only deepened and strengthened that
determination.
The Times , CNN and other elements of the media and political establishment, and
behind them powerful financial-corporate interests, don't want Sanders and they don't
necessarily want Warren either, who engaged in certain loose talk about taxing the
billionaires, before retreating in fright. They want a campaign dominated by race, gender and
sexual orientation -- not class and not social inequality. The #MeToo-style attack on Sanders
reflects both the "style" and the right-wing concerns of these social layers.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) has filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, accusing the former
Secretary of State of defamation for remarks characterizing the Democratic presidential
candidate as
a Russian asset .
Filed on Wednesday in the US District Court for the Southern District
of New York, Gabbard's attorneys allege that Clinton "smeared" Gabbard's "political and
personal reputation," according to
The Hill .
Tulsi Gabbard is suing Hillary Clinton and the first page of the filing is WILD AF
pic.twitter.com/DXHLPfy016
"Tulsi Gabbard is a loyal American civil servant who has also dedicated her life to
protecting the safety of all Americans," said Gabbard's attorney Brian Dunne in a
statement.
"Rep. Gabbard's presidential campaign continues to gain momentum, but she has seen her
political and personal reputation smeared and her candidacy intentionally damaged by Clinton's
malicious and demonstrably false remarks."
In a podcast released in October, Clinton said she thought Republicans were "grooming" a
Democratic presidential candidate for a third-party bid. She also described the candidate as
a favorite of the Russians.
Clinton did not name the candidate but it was clear she was speaking about Gabbard.
"They're also going to do third party. I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've
got their eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to
be the third-party candidate ," Clinton said.
" She's the favorite of the Russians, they have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways
of supporting her so far , and that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might
not, because she's also a Russian asset. Yeah, she's a Russian asset, I mean totally. They
know they can't win without a third party candidate," Clinton said. -
The Hill
One of two things is wrong with America: Either the entire system is broken or is on the
verge of breaking, and we need someone to bring about radical, structural change, or -- we
don't need that at all! Which is it? Who can say? Certainly not me, and that is why I am
telling you now which candidate to vote for.
"... they promote the nauseating center-right candidacies of the bewildered racist and corporatist Joe Biden, the sinister neoliberal corporate-militarist Pete Butiggieg and even the marginal Wall Street "moderates" Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris? ..."
"... "Follow the money" is the longstanding mantra in campaign finance research and criminal prosecution. ..."
"... At the same time, both U.S. corporate media managers and the advertisers who supply revenue for their salaries are hesitant to produce content that might alienate affluent folks – the people who hire pricey investment advisors, go to Caribbean resorts and buy Jaguars and Mercedes Benzes and count for an ever-rising share of U.S. consumer purchases. It is those with the most purchasing power who are naturally most targeted by advertisers. ..."
Is it any wonder that the nation's "liberal" cable news stations CNN and MSNBC can barely
contain their disdain for Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign and even (to a lesser degree)
for that of Elizabeth Warren while they promote the nauseating center-right candidacies of the
bewildered racist and corporatist Joe Biden, the sinister neoliberal corporate-militarist Pete Butiggieg and even the marginal Wall Street "moderates" Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris?
Next
time you click on these stations, keep a pen and paper handy to write down the names of the
corporations that pay for their broadcast content with big money commercial purchases.
I did that at various times of day on three separate occasions last week. Here are the
companies I found buying ads at CNN and MSDNC:
American Advisors Group (AAG), the top lender the American reverse mortgage industry (with
Tom Selleck telling seniors to trust him that reverse mortgages are not a rip off)
United Health Care, for-profit "managed health care company" with 300,000 employers and an
annual revenue of $226 billion, ranked sixth on the 2019 Fortune 500.
Menards, the nation's third largest home improvement chain, with revenue over $10 billion in
2017.
CHANITX, a drug to get off cigarettes ("slow Turkey") sold by the pharmaceutical firm
Pfizer, 65th on the Fortune 500.
Tom Steyer (billionaire for president)
Lincoln Financial, 187 th on the Fortune 500, an American holding company that
controls multiple insurance and investment management businesses.
Liberty Mutual, an insurance company with more than 50,000 employees in more than 900
locations and ranked 68 th on the Fortune 500 two years ago.
Allstate Insurance: 79 th on the Fortune 500, with more than 45,000
employees.
INFINITI Suburban Utility Vehicle (new price ranging from 37K to 60K), produced by Nissan,
the sixth largest auto-making corporation in the world.
RCN (annual revenue of $636 million) WiFi for business
Jaguar Elite luxury autos.
Porsche luxury autos, selling new models priced at $115,000, $145,000, and $163,00, and
$294,000.
Mercedes Benz luxury auto, including an SRL-Class model that starts at $498,000
Capital Group, one of the world's oldest and biggest investment management firms, with $1.87
trillion in assets under its control.
Otezla, a plaque psoriasis drug, developed by the New Jersey drug company Celgene and owned
by Amgene, a leading California-based biotechnology firm with total assets of $78 billion.
Trelegy, a CPD drug produced by the British company GSK, the world's seventh leading
pharmaceutical corporation, with the fourth largest capitalization of any company on the London
Stock Exchange.
HunterDouglass – elite windows made by a Dutch multinational corporation with more
than 23,000 employees and locations in more than 70 countries.
Humira – drug for Crohn's disease and other ailments, manufactured by Abbvie, with
28,000 global employees and total assets of $59 billion.
Primateme Mist – for breathing, produced by Amphastar Pharmaceuticals.
Glucerna – drug for diabetes, produced by Abbot Laboratories, an American medical
company with more than 100,00 employees and total assets of $67 billion.
Prevagen – a controversial drug for brain health produced by Quincy Bioscience
DISCOVER Credit Card, the third largest credit card brand in the U.S., with total assets of
$92 billion.
Fidelity Investments, an American multinational financial services corporation with more
than 50,000 employees and an operating income of $5.3 billion.
Cadillac XT-6 high-end SUV, starting at $53K, made by General Motors (no. 10 on the Fortune
500 for total revenue), which makes automobiles in 37 countries, employees 173,000 persons, and
has total assets $227 billion.
Comfort Inn, owned by Choice Hotels, one of the largest hotel chains in the world,
franchising 7,005 properties in 41 countries and territories.
Audible/Amazon – books on tape from the world's biggest mega-corporation Amazon,
ranked fifth on the Fortune 500, with 647,000 employees and total assets of $163 billion.
Ring Home Security, owned by Amazon
Coventry Health Insurance, no. 168 on the Fortune 500
SANDALS Resorts International, with 16 elite resort properties in the Caribbean.
Cigna Medicare Advantage, owned by the national health insurer Cigna, no. 229 on the Fortune
500
SoFi Finance, an online personal finance company that provides student loan refinancing,
mortgages and personal loans.
Ameriprise Finance, an investment services firm, no. 240 on F500.
It's not for nothing that bit Fortune 500 firms are represented in my anecdotal sponsor list
above. Last summer, SQAD MediaCosts reported that a 30-second commercial during CNN's
prime-time lineup (Anderson Cooper, Chris Cuomo, and Don Lemon), cost between $7,000 and
$12,000. The price has certainly gone up significantly now that Trumpeachment is bringing in
new eyeballs.
The three most prominent and recurrent advertising streams appear (anecdotally) to come from
Big Pharma (the leading drug companies), insurance (health insurance above all), and finance
(investment services/wealth management). These giant concentrated corporate and industry
sectors are naturally opposed to the financial regulation and anti-trust policy that Senator
Warren says she wants to advance. Amazon can hardly be expected to back the big-tech break-up
that Warren advocates.
Big corporate lenders certainly have no interest in making college tuition free, a Sanders
promise that would slash a major profit source for finance capital.
The big health insurance firms are naturally opposed both to the Single Payer national
health insurance plan that Sanders puts at the top of his platform and to the milder version of
Medicare for All that Warren says she backs. Warren and especially Sanders pledge to remove the
parasitic, highly expensive profit motive from health insurance and to make publicly funded
quality and affordable health care a human right in the U.S. The corporate insurance mafia is
existentially opposed to such human decency.
Both of the "progressive Democratic candidates" (a description that fits Sanders far better
than it does Warren) loudly promise to slash drug costs, something Pfizer, Abbvie, Amgene,
Amphastar, and Abbot Labs can hardly be expected to relish.
None of the big companies buying advertising time on CNN and MSNBC have any interest in the
progressive taxation and restored union organizing and collective bargaining rights that
Sanders advocates.
The big financial services firms paying for media content on "liberal" cable news stations
primarily serve affluent clients, many if not most of whom are likely to oppose increased taxes
on the well off.
The resort, tourism, luxury car, and business travel firms that buy commercials on these
networks are hardly about to back policies leading to the real or potential reduction of
discretionary income enjoyed by upper middle class and rich people.
So, gosh, who do these corporate and financial interests favor in the 2020 presidential
election? Neoliberal Corporatists like Joe Biden, Pete Butiggieg, Kamala Harris, and Amy
Klobuchar, of course. Dutifully obedient to the preferences and commands of the nation's
unelected dictatorship of money, these insipid corporate Democrats loyally claim that Sanders
and Warren want to viciously "tax the middle class" to pay for supposedly unaffordable excesses
like Medicare for All and the existentially necessary Green New Deal.
In reality, Single Payer and giant green jobs programs and more that We the People need and
want are eminently affordable if the United States follows Sanders' counsel by adequately and
progressively taxing its absurdly wealthy over-class (the top tenth of the upper 1% than owns
more than 90% of U.S. wealth) and its giant, surplus-saturated corporations and financial
institutions. At the same time, as Warren keeps trying to explain, the cost savings for
ordinary Americans will be enormous with the profits system taken out of health insurance.
Sanders reminds voters that there's no way to calculate the cost savings of keeping livable
ecology alive for future generations. The climate catastrophe is a grave existential threat to
the whole species.
These are basic arguments of elementary social, environmental, and democratic decency that
the investors and managers behind and atop big corporations buying commercials on CNN and MSNBC
don't want heard. As a result, CNN and MSDNC "debate" moderators and talking heads persist in
purveying the, well, fake news, that Sanders doesn't know how to pay Single Payer, free public
college, and a Green New Deal.
It's not for nothing that CNN and MSNBC have promoted the hapless Biden over and above
Sanders and Warren – this notwithstanding the former Vice President's ever more obvious
and embarrassing inadequacy as a candidate.
It's not for nothing that MSNBC and CNN have habitually warned against the supposed
"socialist" menace posed by the highly popular Sanders (a New Deal progressive at leftmost)
while refusing to properly describe Trump's White House and his dedicated base as pro-fascists.
MSDNC has even get a weekly segment to the silver-spooned multi-millionaire advertising
executive Donny Deutsch after he said the following on the network last winter:
"I find Donald Trump reprehensible as a human being, but a socialist candidate is more
dangerous to this company, country, as far as the strength and well-being of the country,
than Donald Trump. I would vote for Donald Trump, a despicable human being I will be so
distraught to the point that that could even come out of my mouth, if we have a socialist
[Democratic presidential candidate or president] because that will take our country so down,
and we are not Denmark. I love Denmark, but that's not who we are. And if you love who we are
and all the great things that still have to have binders put on the side. Please step away
from the socialism."
It's not for nothing that the liberal cable networks go out of their way to deny Sanders
remotely appropriate broadcast time. Or that they habitually and absurdly frame Single Payer
health insurance not as the great civilizing social and human rights victory it would be (the
long-overdue cost-slashing de-commodification of health care coverage combined with the
provision of health care for all regardless of social status and class) but rather as a
dangerous and authoritarian assault on Americans' existing (and unmentionably inadequate and
over-expensive) health insurance.
Dare we mention that the lords of capital who pay for cable news salaries and content are
heavily invested in the fossil fuels and in the relentless economic growth that are pushing the
planet rapidly towards environmental tipping points that gravely endanger prospects for a
decent and organized human existence in coming decades?
It's not for nothing that the progressive measures advanced by Sanders and supported by most
Americans are regularly treated as "unrealistic," "irresponsible," "too radical," "too
idealistic," "impractical," and "too expensive."
It's for nothing that Sanders is commonly left out of the liberal cable networks' campaign
coverage and "horse race" discussions even as he enjoys the highest approval rating among all
the candidates in the running.
With their preferred centrist candidate Joe Biden having performed in a predictably poor and
buffoonish fashion (Biden was a terrible, gaffe-prone politician well before his brains started
coming out of his ears) falling back into something like a three-way tie with the liberal
Warren and the populist progressive Sanders, the liberal cable talking heads and debate
moderators have naturally tried to boost "moderate" neoliberal-corporatist "second" and "third
tier" Democratic presidential candidates like Butiggieg, Klobuchar and the surprisingly weak
Kamala Harris. It's not for nothing that these and other marginal corporate candidates (e.g.
Beto O'Rourke) get outsized attention on "liberal" cable stations regardless of their tiny
support bases. Even if they can't win, these small-time contenders take constant neoliberal
jabs at Sanders and even at the more clearly corporate-co-optable Warren (who proudly describes
herself as "capitalist in my bones").
Thanks to Harris's curiously weak showing, Biden's dotard-like absurdity, and the likely
non-viability of Butiggieg (the U.S. is not yet primed for two men and a baby in the White
House), the not-so liberal cable channels are now joining the New Yok Times and
Washington Post in gently floating the possibility of a dark-horse neoliberal Democratic
Party newcomer (Michael Bloomberg, John Kerry, Michelle Obama, Sherrod Brown, and maybe even
Hillary Clinton herself) to fill Joke Biden's Goldman-and Citigroup-approved shoes in the
coming primary and Caucus battles with "radical socialist" Bernie and (not-so) "left"
Warren.
So what if running an establishment Obama-Clinton-Citigroup-Council on Foreign Relations
Democrat in 2020 will de-mobilize much of the nation's progressive electoral base, helping the
malignant white nationalist monster Donald Trump get a second term?
As the old working-class slogan says, "money talks and bullshit walks."
"Follow the money" is the longstanding mantra in campaign finance research and criminal
prosecution. It should also apply to our understanding of the dominant media's political news
content. U.S. media managers are employed by giant corporations (MSNBC is a division of Comcast
NBC Universal, no. 71 on the Fortune 500 and CNN is owned by Turner Broadcasting, no, 68 on the
Fortune 500) that are naturally reluctant to publish or broadcast material that might offend
the wealthy capitalist interests that pay for broadcasting by purchasing advertisements. As
Noam Chomsky has noted, large corporations are not only the major producers of the United
States' mass commercial media. They are also that media's top market, something that deepens
the captivity of nation's supposedly democratic and independent media to big capital:
"The reliance of a journal on advertisers shapes and controls and substantially determines
what is presented to the public the very idea of advertiser reliance radically distorts the
concept of free media. If you think about what the commercial media are, no matter what, they
are businesses. And a business produces something for a market. The producers in this case,
almost without exception, are major corporations. The market is other businesses –
advertisers. The product that is presented to the market is readers (or viewers), so these
are basically major corporations providing audiences to other businesses, and that
significantly shapes the nature of the institution."
At the same time, both U.S. corporate media managers and the advertisers who supply revenue
for their salaries are hesitant to produce content that might alienate affluent folks –
the people who hire pricey investment advisors, go to Caribbean resorts and buy Jaguars and
Mercedes Benzes and count for an ever-rising share of U.S. consumer purchases. It is those with
the most purchasing power who are naturally most targeted by advertisers.
Money talks, bullshit talks on "liberal" cable news, as in the legal and party and elections
systems and indeed across all of society.
Watch the wannabe fascist strongman Trump walk to a second term with no small help from a
"liberal" corporate media whose primary goal is serving corporate sponsors and its own bottom
line, not serving social justice, environmental sanity, and democracy – or even helping
Democrats win elections.
One of two things is wrong with America: Either the entire system is broken or is on the
verge of breaking, and we need someone to bring about radical, structural change, or -- we
don't need that at all! Which is it? Who can say? Certainly not me, and that is why I am
telling you now which candidate to vote for.
"... I have no confidence in Elizabeth Warren "doing the right thing"; she might be susceptible to the pressure and to the ignominy attached to doing the disastrously wrong thing. ..."
"... *Donald Trump, for his part, is reportedly " privately obsessed " with Sanders, not, it seems, with Biden. ..."
"... From a recent episode of the Jimmy Dore Show, it's the cringe-worthy Warren "Selfie" Gimmick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5JWIiVMj6g If this doesn't scream "political novice," I don't know what will. ..."
" if she does anything less than help elect the last and only progressive with a chance,
she damages them both to Biden's benefit "
If Elizabeth Warren's candidacy becomes unviable, the pressure on her to combine her
delegates with those of Sanders -- from those supporting Bernie Sanders and those
legitimately concerned with Joe Biden's chances against Trump* -- will be enormous .
And, if , instead, Warren helps nominate Biden and Biden then goes on to lose to
Donald Trump -- as I'm all but certain he will -- it will be all too clear just who
played a pivotal role in helping to make that match-up even possible.
I have no confidence in Elizabeth Warren "doing the right thing"; she might be
susceptible to the pressure and to the ignominy attached to doing the disastrously wrong
thing.
*Donald Trump, for his part, is reportedly "
privately obsessed " with Sanders, not, it seems, with Biden.
In Sanders' case, his surge in the polls coincided with his emergence as the chief
apologist for the Iranian regime. We needed to point out that he would be dangerous as
president since he made clear he would appease terrorists and terror-sponsoring
nations.
If this is really representative of a line of attack that the Trump campaign plans to use
on him, that would be great. I can't imagine anything that would resonate less with voters.
But I was a bit surprised to see this in a Bernie fundraising mail:
The wise course would have been to stick with that nuclear agreement, enforce its
provisions, and use that diplomatic channel with Iran to address our other concerns with
Iran, including their support of terrorism.
What groups are they referring to when they say this? Hezbollah, which is part of
Parliament in Lebanon? Iraqi PMF that are loosely integrated with the Iraqi army?
Yep, Warren is a political novice, and she's extremely naive. That Massachusetts senate
seat was practically handed to her on a silver platter. She has no idea that she was played
in '16 and she's being played now.
From a recent episode of the Jimmy Dore Show, it's the cringe-worthy Warren "Selfie"
Gimmick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5JWIiVMj6g
If this doesn't scream "political novice," I don't know what will.
She endorced Hillary in 2016. That tells a lot about her... Now she backstabbed Bernie. What's next?
Notable quotes:
"... Warren has a track record of lying: lied about her dad being a janitor, hers kids going to public school, getting fired for being pregnant, and obviously the Native American heritage. ..."
"... My gut is she is going to endorse Joe Biden and prob got a tease of VP or some other role and all she had to do was kamikaze into Bernie with this. It's backfiring but at this rate and given she's too deep into it now when she drops out she'll prob back Biden as she hasn't shown the integrity to back a guy like Berni. ..."
"... She's toxic now. No one will want her has VP. Sanders supporters despise her, she comes from a small, Democratic state and she's loaded with baggage. She brings nothing to a ticket. She torpedoed any hopes or plans she might have had in that regard. ..."
"... Bernie is labeled as a socialist. Actually he is a real Roosevelt democrat. ..."
"... The most impressive thing I have witnessed about Bernie is that he can extemporaneously recall and explain exactly why he voted as he did on every piece of legislation that he has cast a vote on. in. his. life. It is a remarkable talent. ..."
"... The outcome of the upcoming Iowa Caucus is too hard to predict. All the candidates are very close. Sanders needs to turnout young and working class voters to win. ..."
"... My impression is her supporters are mostly older, mostly female, and mostly centrist. Many want to elect a female pres before they die. Prior to the she said event her supporters second choice were split fairly evenly between Bernie and Biden but the latest fracas is driving her most progressive supporters to Bernie. ..."
Warren has a track record of lying: lied about her dad being a janitor, hers kids going to
public school, getting fired for being pregnant, and obviously the Native American
heritage.
As pointed here on NC she's great at grandstanding when bank CEOs are in front of her and
doing nothing following that.
My gut is she is going to endorse Joe Biden and prob got a tease of VP or some other role
and all she had to do was kamikaze into Bernie with this. It's backfiring but at this rate
and given she's too deep into it now when she drops out she'll prob back Biden as she hasn't
shown the integrity to back a guy like Berni.
I don't see how she is anyone's VP. She is too old. You want someone under 60, better 50,
particularly for an old presidential candidate. Treasury Secretary is a more powerful
position. The big appeal of being VP is maybe it positions you later to be President but that
last worked out for Bush the Senior.
She's toxic now. No one will want her has VP. Sanders supporters despise her, she comes
from a small, Democratic state and she's loaded with baggage. She brings nothing to a ticket.
She torpedoed any hopes or plans she might have had in that regard.
I've watched Bernie for years. Even long before he decided to run for president. He is the
same today as he was then. Bernie isn't afraid to advocate for something , even though he
will get a lot of backlash. I also believe he is sincere in his convictions. If he says
something he believes in it.Something you can't say for the other candidates. Bernie is by
far my first choice.
After that it would be Warren. Bernie is labeled as a socialist.
Actually he is a real Roosevelt democrat. As a life long democrat, I can't support or vote
for a Wall Street candidate. Unlike one of the other commenters, I will never vote for Trump
but instead wold vote for a third party candidate. Unfortunate the DNC will do anything to
prevent Bernie from being candidate. Progressive democrats need to get out and support a
progressive or the nomination will again be stolen by a what I call a light republican.
What is great about Bernie is that he is so sure-footed. It was visible in the hot-mic
trap Warren set for him where she got nothing, it actually hurt her.
The most impressive thing I have witnessed about Bernie is that he can extemporaneously
recall and explain exactly why he voted as he did on every piece of legislation that he has
cast a vote on. in. his. life. It is a remarkable talent.
The outcome of the upcoming Iowa Caucus is too hard to predict. All the candidates are
very close. Sanders needs to turnout young and working class voters to win. By many reports,
Warren has an excellent ground game in IA and The NY Times endorsement has given a path for
her to pick up Klobuchar voters after round one of the caucus.
Biden is a mystery to me. How
the heck is he even running. Obama pleaded with him not to. That being said, it wouldn't
surprise me if he finishes in the top two. Buttigieg is the wild card. I think the
"electability" argument will hurt him as he can't win after NH.
According to a recent poll, Elizabeth Warren is one of the most unpopular senators with
voters in her own state as measured against approval rates of all other senators in their
states. I find this very surprising for someone with a national profile. What do voters in
Massachusetts not like about her?
As for me, I find it more and more difficult to trust Warren because she takes the bait
and yields to pressure during a primary when the pressure to back down, moderate, and abandon
once championed policy positions and principles is a great deal less than it is during the
general election. Warren has gone from Medicare4All to a public option to, in the recent
debate, tweaks to the ACA. Despite her roll-out of an ambitious $10 trillion Green New Deal
plan, Warren is now to the right of Chuck "Wall Street" Schumer as evidenced by her support
of NAFTA 2.0 which utterly fails to address climate change. WTF! Where will she be during a
general election?
And her political instincts are awful as recently demonstrated by her woke, badly executed
girl power attack against a candidate who has been a committed feminist for his entire
political career.
She also has horrible constituent service. I had an issue with a federal student loan a
few years ago (I believe it was the servicer depositing money but not crediting my account
and charging me interest and late fees). After getting nowhere with the company, I tried
calling her office, figuring that as this was one of her core issues, I would get some
response, either help or at least someone who would want to record what happened to her
actual constituent. I didn't hear back for about a month, by which time I had resolved the
issue – no fees or additional interest through multiple phone calls and emails.
In other words, Elizabeth Warren's constituent service is worse than Sallie Mae's.
The stupid Ponds cold cream lie is the worst. Unless she teed up the "how do you look so
young!" question , the corrected answer is to point out the nonsense of talking about a
candidates looks and addressing actual sexism.
Instead she has a goofball answer about only using Ponds cold cream which lead to Derm
pointing out her alleged method was not good advice and also pointing out that she appears to
have used botex and fillers, which I don't think people were talking about before then, in
public.
The most generous explanation is she was caught flat-footed and, once again, showed she
has terrible instincts.
If Bernie Sanders can get it through the thick noggin of the nation that he stands for and
will implement the principles, policies, and values of the New Deal–the attitude that
got us through the Great Depression and Wotld War II–he has every chance of being
elected the next President of the United States.
Trust me. By the time it comes around you won't care who gets sworn in as you will just be
glad that all the vicious, wretched skullduggery of this year's elections will finally be
over.
And hoping you get one day of rest before the vicious, wretched skullduggery of
undermining the desires of the American people gets started. Obviously Sanders will make the
Trump years look a cake walk. Anyone else (Democrat or Trump) we will see lots of 'working
for' and 'resistance' type memes while largely doing nothing of the sort, but a whole lot of
'bipartisan' passage of terrible things.
It sounds like Sanders, in the famous 2018 conversation, may have been trying to politely
encourage EW to not run in 2020. Her moment was 2016 and she declined to run then when a
Progressive candidate was needed. Her run in 2020 to some extent divides the Progressive
vote. EW interpreted, perhaps intentionally, Sanders' words to imply that he thinks "no woman
can win in 2020", and then weaponized them against him.
The very fact that she is running at all suggests to me that she is not at heart a
Progressive and in fact does not want a Progressive candidate to win. If she had run in 2016,
Sanders would not have run in order to not divide the Progressive vote. EW knew that Sanders
would run in 2020 and planned to run anyway. It is hard for me to not interpret this to be an
intentional bid for some of the Progressive vote, in order to hold Sanders down.
I agree. She decides to do things based on her own self-interest, and uses progressives as
pawns to work her way up in DC. My guess is that Warren chickened out in 2016 and didn't run
because maybe she didn't think she had a chance against the Clintons. When Warren saw how
well Sanders did against Clinton, how close he was at winning, I think only then she decided
that 2020 was a good chance for a progressive, or someone running as a progressive candidate,
to win the nomination.
She saw how Sanders had fired up loyal progressive support in the Democratic Party. She
chickened out back then when she could have endorsed Bernie in '16, but chose not to,
probably hoping not to burn bridges with Clinton in order to get a plum role in her
administration. Her non-endorsement in '16 worries me because it shows once again that Warren
makes decisions largely based on what is good for her career, not what she thinks is better
for the country (if she really is the progressive she claims to be).
Knowing that there was now a strong progressive base ready to vote for a candidate left of
Democratic candidates like Biden and Clinton, Warren saw her entry into having a good chance
at winning the presidency. Rather than thinking about the implications for Bernie and the
possibility of dividing left-wing voters, her desire to become president was more important.
Remember, this is exactly what Bernie did not do in 2016 when he urged Warren to run, and was
willing to step aside, if she had agreed to do so.
If I had been in Sanders position, I probably would have sat down and talked to Warren
about the serious implications of the both of them running in 2020. How he had hoped to build
on the momentum from his last campaign and the sexism that was used against Clinton in 2016.
Hey, if I had been Sanders, I probably would have told Warren not to run. Not because she's a
woman, but because it would have been obvious to Bernie that with Warren running alongside
him, they would both end up splitting the progressive vote.
What is happening now between the two of them should have been no surprise to either
Bernie or Warren. They are both popular among Democrats who identify as progressive or
left-of-center. Democrats will always find a way to shoot themselves in the foot. And I agree
that when it becomes evident that one of them cannot win, either Bernie or Warren must step
aside for the good of the country and fully back the other. There is no other option if
either of them truly wants the other to win the nomination rather than Biden. I'm hoping that
Warren will do so since it is becoming more clear that Sanders is the stronger progressive
and the stronger candidate who has a better chance at beating both Biden and Trump.
If sheepdog St. Bernard Sanders begins to look like the presumptive nominee, look for a
new candidate to throw her hat into the ring. Her name: Michelle Obama.
I'm so sick of that sheepdog meme (originated by, much as a respect BAR, by a GP activist
bitter, I would say, over many years of GP ineffectuality). The elites seem to be pretty
nervous about a sheepdog.
And now we have Sanders apologizing for an op-ed in the Guardian by Zephyr Teachout
accusing Biden of corruption.
The op-ed simply says what Sanders has said all along, the system is corrupted by big
donors. Then she explicitly states the obvious, which Sanders won't at this point say but
that Trump certainly will: Biden is a prime example of serving his donors' interests to the
detriment of most of the rest of us. Sanders subsequently apologizes for Teachout's baldly
true assertion, stating that he doesn't believe that Biden is corrupt.
I guess we're meant to draw a clear distinction between legalized and illegal corruption.
I don't know. They both look like ducks to me.
I have read that Sanders is the #2 choice of many Iowans who favor JB; it makes a lot of
sense for him to not "go negative" on JB in the run-up to the caucuses.
There will be time for plainer speaking. Sanders has been clear about his views on the
corrupting influence of corporate money in politics. JB is exhibit #1 within the D primary
field and there will be plenty of opportunity to note that.
I suspect that there is a great deal of "method" in what may look to us like "madness" in
the Senator's civility.
To put it another way, I doubt very much that Sanders believes that JB's legislative
agendas were not significantly influenced by the sources of his campaign funds. And I'm sure
that attention will be drawn to this at the right time.
One can charitably affirm that one believes that JB is not a consciously corrupt ,
pay-for-play, kind of person, while also affirming that of course he has been
influenced by the powerful interests that have funded his career, and that this has not
served the interests of the American people. All in due course.
The thing is Warren would make the right argument here: that it's the system that is
corrupted, and make it well. Too bad she has shown so completely that can't be trusted as a
person, because she often looks good on paper
I think Warren misses the key point that the reason why the system is corrupted is because
the players in it are corrupted. They can be bought and sold. That is why they have no
shame.
> The thing is Warren would make the right argument here: that it's the system that is
corrupted
That's not the right answer at all. The climate crisis, for example, is not caused by a
lack of transparency in the oil industry. It is caused by capital allocation decisions by the
billionaire class and their servicers in subaltern classes.
"The real game changer around here, though, might be Iowa State University's decision,
after years of pressure, to issue new student IDs, enabling 35,000 students to vote, even
under Iowa's restrictive new voter-ID law. That's a progressive victory, and in a different
media universe, it would be a story even juicier than a handshake." Iowa is not the
Twittersphere – Laura Flanders
Thanks for giving this the attention it needs, analysis of the primary has been too light
on estimation of delegate numbers and strategy.
Prior to Warren's apparent turn to some new direction, the setup for a 3way DNC with a
progressive "coalition" was not only conceivable, but actually expected from the polls.
We are on pace for Sanders+Warren's combined delegate total to exceed Biden by a healthy
amount (say 4:3) with all others falling below 15% state by state and getting few or no
delegates. Obviously subject to snowballing in either direction, but that's the polls now and
for most of the past year.
Warren's attack on Sanders, and NYT endorsement, say the national party doesn't expect any
such coalition. Therefore Warren has made her choice. That's that.
The path to winning the Dem primary is a little narrower for Sanders, and also for Biden,
since he seems to lack the confidence of his the top strata. The DNC screws a lot up but they
know how to read polls. I'm pretty sure that running Warren in the General is not their plan
A.
Voters in Iowa and the early states (incl. TX and CA) look like they will be deciding it
all this year. The tremendous enthusiasm of Sanders followers gives him, IMO, the best ground
game of the three. Will be an interesting 6 weeks.
I do not even trust Warren to hand any delegates she gets to Sanders at this point.
Because her campaign staff is so full of Clintonites and neoliberals, she might give them to
Biden instead.
She seems to have gone full establishment at this point.
> I do not even trust Warren to hand any delegates she gets to Sanders at this point.
Because her campaign staff is so full of Clintonites and neoliberals, she might give them to
Biden instead.
The youngish rehab therapist, a woman, said this morning that of the women running, she
likes Klobuchar. "If only her voice wasn't so screechy. And I'm saying this as a woman." She
was seriously disturbed by Clinton's attack on Sanders.
Several neighbors are leaning towards Yang.
My impression is her supporters are mostly older, mostly female, and mostly centrist. Many
want to elect a female pres before they die. Prior to the she said event her supporters
second choice were split fairly evenly between Bernie and Biden but the latest fracas is
driving her most progressive supporters to Bernie.
This means most of those remaining will probably migrate to Biden if when she drops out
even if she recommends Bernie. (If 1/3 of her supporters that had Bernie as their second
choice switch to Bernie, then 60% of her remaining supporters have Biden as their second
choice.)
2016 was different, Clinton already had the older females. But there was a period where
just a little support might have tipped the scale in what was a very tight race.
Anyway, I see going forward she will be mostly holding supporters whose second choice is
Biden even as she maybe doesn't reach the 15% barrier
and same with Amy. So I hope they both stay in at least until super tue.
And While I previously thought she was a reasonable choice for veep, I now realize she'd
be an awful choice. Maybe treasury if she does endorse which she will do if Bernie looks a
winner.
How can anyone be surprised at the lack of trustworthiness from a politician who chose to
endorse Clinton in 2016 rather than Bernie? Warren has been playing the DNC game for a long
time now, which ideologically is in line with her lifelong Republican stance before changing
to the more demographically favorable party when she was 47. She's not progressive now, and
never has been or will be.
Both campaigns are backing away from greater public conflict. Whether that holds true in the
long run is anyone's guess, but my guess is that it will. Still, the following is clear:
Warren has been damaged, perhaps permanently, in the eyes of many Sanders supporters who have
considered her a good, and perhaps equivalent, second choice. Her favorability has gone way
down in their eyes and may never recover.
Warren's charge of sexism has inflamed the existing anger of many Democratic and
liberal-leaning women and relit the fire that coursed through the Sanders-Clinton primary and
beyond.
>
Rightly or wrongly, Warren's polling numbers among voters have fallen, while Sanders' polling
has held steady or improved. It's yet to be seen if the incident alters long-term
fund-raising for either candidate, but it might. For his part, Sanders has seen a post-debate
surge in funding .
So far, in other words, most of the damage has been borne by Warren as a result of the
incident. She may recover, but this could also end her candidacy by accelerating a decline
that started with public reaction to her recent stand on Medicare For All. None of this is
certain to continue, but these are the trends.
... ... ...
But if Warren's candidacy becomes unviable, as it seems it might -- and if the goal of
both camps is truly to defeat Joe Biden -- it's incumbent on Warren to drop out and
endorse her "friend and ally" Bernie Sanders as soon as it's clear she can no longer win .
(The same is true if Sanders becomes unviable, though that seems much less likely.)
Ms. Warren can do whatever she wants, certainly. But if she does anything less than help
elect the last and only progressive with a chance, she damages them both to Biden's benefit,
and frankly, helps nominate Biden. She has the right to do that, but not to claim at the same
time that she's working to further the progressive movement.
Bottom line: the corporate press has gone all-in on Warren. She simply MUST be a whore, like Obama, or Hilary/Bill
Clinton. If Warren were a real progressive, the big money would never go for her like this.
I will vote for Bernie Sanders. But I will vote for Trump over Warren. Better the moron
and agent of chaos that you know, than the calculating vicious backstabber that you
don't.
She's got the Clinton's and now Obama folks behind her.
I doubt they are thrilled with her, but probably view as someone they can work with and
the other options are worse or too low in the poll numbers. I assume Buttigieg is fine with
them, but his numbers are stuck.
Personally I cannot consider voting for a drone murderer like Trump, who cozies up to the
Saudis and has tried to cut SS and Medicare. He's shown what he is, just as Warren has. We'll
never get M4A from either one of them.
If it's not Bernie I'm voting Green. I live in a blue state that almost went for Trump
last time – my vote potentially matters and will serve as a signal. Voting for the
lesser murderous corporatist scum is what got us into this mess. I'm over it. I will not vote
for evil.
In 2016 I might just have voted for Trump, as a middle finger to the Dem establishment
that crowned HRH HRC, since at that time he had not committed any war crimes. But now, no
way. One of my unshakeable principles is that I will not vote for a war criminal. Green ,
write-in, or leave the Pres slot blank. But I hope and pray (and I'm an atheist!) that it
doesn't come to this. We really don't have another 4 years to waste on this, the earth can't
wait.
It's very unfortunate that it has come to this, but I've always been uneasy about Warren.
This incident and her accusations against Bernie solidified my suspicions about her. Her
being a Republican until her late 40s, her lies about sending her child to public school, her
lies about her father being a janitor, her plagiarized cookbook recipes, and claiming to be
Native American. It's all so bizarre to me and for a while I had believed her to have a
personality disorder that caused compulsive lying. I wanted to feel good about my vote for
Warren, but now? If she wins the nomination I'll hold my nose and vote for her, but I don't
trust her to not sell out to the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party. I also don't trust
her to endorse Bernie if she drops out before the convention. She didn't endorse him in '16,
so what makes progressives think she'll do so this time. It would not surprise me in the
least if she endorsed Biden or agrees to be his running mate.
Warren is not agreement-capable. Much as it pains me to say this, the Obama administration
was correct to hold her at arm's length.
Adding, that doesn't mean that Sanders can't negotiate with her, if that must be done (to
defeat Trump). But any such negotiations cannot proceed on a basis of trust.
The most generous interpretation i can come up with is that i's possible she told the
story to several of her clintonite staffers in confidence. Those staffers went to CNN and
forced her to stand by her story, even if she didn't want to go public, because she was
threatened with staffers calling her a liar.
She might have been mad at Bernie for not bailing her out.
This version, which i don't believe, but consider it possible (not plausible) would be
arguably as bad because her staffers got the upper hand and pushed her around.
The problem is the country has become so irrational and susceptible to soundbites and
twitter shame and etc. that you can't even say "electing a women president would be
difficult" which might be true, or it becomes like Hillary's deplorable remark, we all know
it's true some Trump supporters fit the description, but it gets taken way out of context and
exaggerated beyond all recognition.
She didn't even have to deny it. Should could have just been "That was a private
conversation, I will not go into what was said in private. Bernie is a good friend of mine,
who has supported women candidates on many occasions".
"... Tulsi is spot on about the "debates," which are nothing of the sort. Indeed, they are a form of televised bread and circuses -- bread because most Americans receive some kind of support from the government, and a circus because all circuses are comical, theatrical, and well-scripted. ..."
"... Elizabeth Warren will be unable to break the corporate stranglehold on America. It is pure insanity to believe otherwise. The Democrat and Republican parties -- one party disguised as two -- will not savage corporations with taxation and redoubled punitive regulation, not if they wish to remain in Congress and receive money to run obscenely expensive campaigns. ..."
"... It will take more than a "debate" boycott to send the message. It will take a revolution to finally drain Trump's swamp, end the endless wars, and force transnational corporations and foreign governments (most egregiously Israel) out of the bed they have shared for so long with our "representatives," who are largely nothing more than self-seeking sociopaths on short leashes ..."
"... Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard , who has at best minimal support by Democrats (around one percent), and
zero from the corporate DNC, posted the following video earlier today.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/dPcGFjyGxI4
There are so many of you who I've met in Iowa and New Hampshire who have expressed to me
how frustrated you are that the DNC and corporate media are essentially trying to usurp your
role as voters in choosing who our Democratic nominee will be.
This, of course, is nothing new, but thanks to Tulsi for reminding us of how "elections" are
conducted. In fact, the state long ago corrupted the process and has selected candidates for
long as anybody can remember.
How is it possible a cognitively challenged and corrupt hack like Joe Biden is number one in
the running -- or was until Elizabeth Warren took that spot away from him? It's possible
because Biden is a trusted asset eager to do whatever he is told, same as Obama, Bush the
lesser, Clinton (a "brother by another mother"), Bush the elder, Reagan on and on, down the
line. Like Hillary Clinton, the Democrat establishment believes it is Biden's "turn" to read
the teleprompter. All the others, well, they're spoilers.
They are attempting to replace the roles of voters in the early states, using polling and
other arbitrary methods which are not transparent or democratic, and holding so-called
debates which are not debates at all but rather commercialized reality television meant to
entertain, not inform or enlighten.
That replacement happened decades ago. Trump won the election because our rulers left the
election process intact, arrogantly confident their handpicked candidates will win because only
those who have come up through the system are permitted to run. It's left intact as a public
relations gimmick designed to fool the proles who are, regrettably, all too easy to control --
or were until Trump appeared on the scene.
Tulsi is spot on about the "debates," which are nothing of the sort. Indeed, they are a form
of televised bread and circuses -- bread because most Americans receive some kind of support
from the government, and a circus because all circuses are comical, theatrical, and
well-scripted.
As for being informed, that's the last thing the ruling elite want. They have us believe in
fantasies so absurd they may as well be props in a Luis Buñuel film -- for instance,
killing people in foreign lands is humanitarian and the economy is doing great (never mind the
unemployed, the homeless, and record debt, both governmental and personal).
In order to bring attention to this serious threat to our democracy, and ensure your voice
is heard, I am giving serious consideration to boycotting the next debate on October 15th. I
will announce my decision within the next few days. With my deepest aloha, thank you all
again for your support.
This is commendable, although, sadly, an almost transparent blip on the political radar
screen. Big corporate media will certainly not take notice, and if they perchance do it will be
with snide commentary.
The soft totalitarian machine rejects the socialist palliatives of Elizabeth Warren. She
appears to be anti-corporatist, and that is inexcusable. Many of our political and social
problems are related to the domination of corporations, most of the crony variety.
Elizabeth Warren will be unable to break the corporate stranglehold on America. It is pure
insanity to believe otherwise. The Democrat and Republican parties -- one party disguised as
two -- will not savage corporations with taxation and redoubled punitive regulation, not if
they wish to remain in Congress and receive money to run obscenely expensive campaigns.
Warren will be overshadowed by the Hildabeast, Hillary Clinton , who is determined to be
president. She will enter the race sometime next year, overturning the apple cart of other
hopefuls, all spouting the same wealth distribution nonsense because, after all, a well-trained
and ceaselessly indoctrinated public, most on a modern version of the Roman Cura Annona grain
dole, love free stuff (stolen from others).
No way will the DNC accept Elizabeth Warren as the nominee. She will be subverted, the same
way Bernie Sanders was.
Most Americans don't trust or like Hillary, but that hardly matters.
The days of Trump may soon be over. If he's not impeached on spurious grounds, he will enter
the race under a toxic cloud of accusation and unproven high crimes and misdemeanors greatly
amplified by a propaganda media. Polls consistently show he is losing traction, and the MAGA
crowd is increasingly disillusioned, unable to realize its populist agenda.
I'm sorry, Tulsi. Your effort to unmask the subversion of the election system will largely
fall on deaf ears. As of this morning, the above video garnered a mere 800 views.
It will take more than a "debate" boycott to send the message. It will take a revolution to
finally drain Trump's swamp, end the endless wars, and force transnational corporations and
foreign governments (most egregiously Israel) out of the bed they have shared for so long with
our "representatives," who are largely nothing more than self-seeking sociopaths on short
leashes.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this article was
originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
"... he just got betrayed by someone he probably considered a friend, he's getting smeared 24/7 by the dnc, which is in the process of trying to sabotage his candidacy again, he is recovering from a heart attack at 79–this on top of the normal crazy pressures of running a highly competitive presidential campaign. it could be a lot of things getting him down. ..."
"... He's stuck in D.C. at McConnell's and Pelosi's mercy (both of whom are threatened by him) right before the Iowa caucuses -- along with Warren and Klobuchar. Reason enough for him to look miserable. ..."
"... Warren has defined herself as a compromise candidate between the corporate and progressive wings, constantly making rhetorical overtures to each. She is not a neoliberal, but neither is she a committed progressive; ..."
"... She has been vetted as okay by Harry Reid, Barack Obama and the NYT (which attests to her "willingness to compromise", unlike Sanders). If, as seems likely, nobody comes to the convention with an overwhelming position, she will trade her voice and votes for a position with the stronger faction -- probably, unfortunately, the corporate wing. (I'm not at all sure that would be headed by Biden. Bloomberg? Clinton?!!) ..."
The Warren attack backfired. Gave him a bump, hurt her. All sorts of people, even ones who
don't support him, said it wasn't credible that he said what she claimed he said.
Sander is #1 in CA and leads among Hispanics and is #2 with black voters, #1 with young
black voters.
Sanders is also #1 in fundraising and way #1 in # of donors.
Sanders supporters also poll as far more committed to him than other voters are to their
pick.
He's doing way better than anyone would have forecast despite the media (until just
recently) totally ignoring him. And his base is sufficiently committed that it is very
effective in whacking back falsehoods on Twitter ..which journos follow. They aren't used to
being dissed this way.
well, he just got betrayed by someone he probably considered a friend, he's getting
smeared 24/7 by the dnc, which is in the process of trying to sabotage his candidacy again,
he is recovering from a heart attack at 79–this on top of the normal crazy pressures of
running a highly competitive presidential campaign. it could be a lot of things getting him
down.
He's stuck in D.C. at McConnell's and Pelosi's mercy (both of whom are threatened by him)
right before the Iowa caucuses -- along with Warren and Klobuchar. Reason enough for him to
look miserable.
Since at least 2016 (with her neutrality in the Sanders-Clinton race) Warren has defined
herself as a compromise candidate between the corporate and progressive wings, constantly
making rhetorical overtures to each. She is not a neoliberal, but neither is she a committed
progressive; to the extent that she has firm convictions (and I am not convinced of that),
she is more of a technocratic anti-corruption reformer.
She has been vetted as okay by Harry
Reid, Barack Obama and the NYT (which attests to her "willingness to compromise", unlike
Sanders). If, as seems likely, nobody comes to the convention with an overwhelming position,
she will trade her voice and votes for a position with the stronger faction -- probably,
unfortunately, the corporate wing. (I'm not at all sure that would be headed by Biden.
Bloomberg? Clinton?!!)
"... Hey Bernie -- now is the time to punch Biden in the mouth ..."
"... Biden on cutting SS, Medicare, and veterans' benefits. From 1995. When they tell you who they are twitter.com ..."
"... "It looks like "Middle Class" Joe has perfected the art of taking big contributions, then representing his corporate donors at the cost of middle- and working-class Americans. Converting campaign contributions into legislative favors and policy positions isn't being "moderate". It is the kind of transactional politics Americans have come to loathe. ..."
Now Bernie is apologizing to Biden for someone else pointing out Biden's corruption
problem.
What the heck is going on over there?? Hey Bernie -- now is the time to punch Biden in the
mouth, HARD! It's what Trump is going to do to you if you get the nomination. If we don't
test these Democratic candidates in the primary, then we're going to be in for some ugly
surprises, just like Hillary was after she won the nomination after a soft primary. We've got
to air the dirty laundry now! TODAY!
Iowa voters like nice. As does the large, conflict-averse portion of the Democrat Party
that mainlines West Wing reruns. "Why can't we all get along?" is very powerful for such
voters; and their model of politics is "good people having smart thoughts." Good, smart
people like they are.
I'm honestly terrified of Iowa dems and their very questionable decision-making. Yes, they did a good job in '08 in picking a winner in Obama (yes, Obama chose to govern
terribly, but his campaign seemed very promising). This bunch picked John Kerry in 2004. They seriously plucked Kerry's failing campaign out
of the doldrums and vaulted him to victory.
I'm really worried they might just opt for Klobuchar, or even Biden, at the last
minute.
Yes. But it doesn't have to be Bernie that does it. There are plenty of supporters that
can do that while Bernie is the nice guy above the fray,
I trust Bernie's political instincts.
"It looks like "Middle Class" Joe has perfected the art of taking big contributions, then
representing his corporate donors at the cost of middle- and working-class Americans.
Converting campaign contributions into legislative favors and policy positions isn't being
"moderate". It is the kind of transactional politics Americans have come to loathe.
I haven't read Lambert's analysis of the NYT endorsement, but here's what the
Establishment is trying to do: prop up Warren so she gets at least 15% in Iowa, thereby
splitting the progressive votes and making sure Sanders doesn't get many delegates.
This is the DNC's entire strategy: bolster the number of candidates, change the rules in
states like Colorado so Bernie can't get a majority of delegates in any state -- NO SURPRISES
LIKE HIM WINNING COLORADO AND MICHIGAN LAST YEAR -- -and we'll go into the convention with
Biden or another candidate having 51% of delegates OR, as Plan B, a brokered convention --
-Super Delegates chose an Establishment candidate.
"... they promote the nauseating center-right candidacies of the bewildered racist and corporatist Joe Biden, the sinister neoliberal corporate-militarist Pete Butiggieg and even the marginal Wall Street "moderates" Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris? ..."
"... "Follow the money" is the longstanding mantra in campaign finance research and criminal prosecution. ..."
"... At the same time, both U.S. corporate media managers and the advertisers who supply revenue for their salaries are hesitant to produce content that might alienate affluent folks – the people who hire pricey investment advisors, go to Caribbean resorts and buy Jaguars and Mercedes Benzes and count for an ever-rising share of U.S. consumer purchases. It is those with the most purchasing power who are naturally most targeted by advertisers. ..."
Is it any wonder that the nation's "liberal" cable news stations CNN and MSNBC can barely
contain their disdain for Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign and even (to a lesser degree)
for that of Elizabeth Warren while they promote the nauseating center-right candidacies of the
bewildered racist and corporatist Joe Biden, the sinister neoliberal corporate-militarist Pete Butiggieg and even the marginal Wall Street "moderates" Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris?
Next
time you click on these stations, keep a pen and paper handy to write down the names of the
corporations that pay for their broadcast content with big money commercial purchases.
I did that at various times of day on three separate occasions last week. Here are the
companies I found buying ads at CNN and MSDNC:
American Advisors Group (AAG), the top lender the American reverse mortgage industry (with
Tom Selleck telling seniors to trust him that reverse mortgages are not a rip off)
United Health Care, for-profit "managed health care company" with 300,000 employers and an
annual revenue of $226 billion, ranked sixth on the 2019 Fortune 500.
Menards, the nation's third largest home improvement chain, with revenue over $10 billion in
2017.
CHANITX, a drug to get off cigarettes ("slow Turkey") sold by the pharmaceutical firm
Pfizer, 65th on the Fortune 500.
Tom Steyer (billionaire for president)
Lincoln Financial, 187 th on the Fortune 500, an American holding company that
controls multiple insurance and investment management businesses.
Liberty Mutual, an insurance company with more than 50,000 employees in more than 900
locations and ranked 68 th on the Fortune 500 two years ago.
Allstate Insurance: 79 th on the Fortune 500, with more than 45,000
employees.
INFINITI Suburban Utility Vehicle (new price ranging from 37K to 60K), produced by Nissan,
the sixth largest auto-making corporation in the world.
RCN (annual revenue of $636 million) WiFi for business
Jaguar Elite luxury autos.
Porsche luxury autos, selling new models priced at $115,000, $145,000, and $163,00, and
$294,000.
Mercedes Benz luxury auto, including an SRL-Class model that starts at $498,000
Capital Group, one of the world's oldest and biggest investment management firms, with $1.87
trillion in assets under its control.
Otezla, a plaque psoriasis drug, developed by the New Jersey drug company Celgene and owned
by Amgene, a leading California-based biotechnology firm with total assets of $78 billion.
Trelegy, a CPD drug produced by the British company GSK, the world's seventh leading
pharmaceutical corporation, with the fourth largest capitalization of any company on the London
Stock Exchange.
HunterDouglass – elite windows made by a Dutch multinational corporation with more
than 23,000 employees and locations in more than 70 countries.
Humira – drug for Crohn's disease and other ailments, manufactured by Abbvie, with
28,000 global employees and total assets of $59 billion.
Primateme Mist – for breathing, produced by Amphastar Pharmaceuticals.
Glucerna – drug for diabetes, produced by Abbot Laboratories, an American medical
company with more than 100,00 employees and total assets of $67 billion.
Prevagen – a controversial drug for brain health produced by Quincy Bioscience
DISCOVER Credit Card, the third largest credit card brand in the U.S., with total assets of
$92 billion.
Fidelity Investments, an American multinational financial services corporation with more
than 50,000 employees and an operating income of $5.3 billion.
Cadillac XT-6 high-end SUV, starting at $53K, made by General Motors (no. 10 on the Fortune
500 for total revenue), which makes automobiles in 37 countries, employees 173,000 persons, and
has total assets $227 billion.
Comfort Inn, owned by Choice Hotels, one of the largest hotel chains in the world,
franchising 7,005 properties in 41 countries and territories.
Audible/Amazon – books on tape from the world's biggest mega-corporation Amazon,
ranked fifth on the Fortune 500, with 647,000 employees and total assets of $163 billion.
Ring Home Security, owned by Amazon
Coventry Health Insurance, no. 168 on the Fortune 500
SANDALS Resorts International, with 16 elite resort properties in the Caribbean.
Cigna Medicare Advantage, owned by the national health insurer Cigna, no. 229 on the Fortune
500
SoFi Finance, an online personal finance company that provides student loan refinancing,
mortgages and personal loans.
Ameriprise Finance, an investment services firm, no. 240 on F500.
It's not for nothing that bit Fortune 500 firms are represented in my anecdotal sponsor list
above. Last summer, SQAD MediaCosts reported that a 30-second commercial during CNN's
prime-time lineup (Anderson Cooper, Chris Cuomo, and Don Lemon), cost between $7,000 and
$12,000. The price has certainly gone up significantly now that Trumpeachment is bringing in
new eyeballs.
The three most prominent and recurrent advertising streams appear (anecdotally) to come from
Big Pharma (the leading drug companies), insurance (health insurance above all), and finance
(investment services/wealth management). These giant concentrated corporate and industry
sectors are naturally opposed to the financial regulation and anti-trust policy that Senator
Warren says she wants to advance. Amazon can hardly be expected to back the big-tech break-up
that Warren advocates.
Big corporate lenders certainly have no interest in making college tuition free, a Sanders
promise that would slash a major profit source for finance capital.
The big health insurance firms are naturally opposed both to the Single Payer national
health insurance plan that Sanders puts at the top of his platform and to the milder version of
Medicare for All that Warren says she backs. Warren and especially Sanders pledge to remove the
parasitic, highly expensive profit motive from health insurance and to make publicly funded
quality and affordable health care a human right in the U.S. The corporate insurance mafia is
existentially opposed to such human decency.
Both of the "progressive Democratic candidates" (a description that fits Sanders far better
than it does Warren) loudly promise to slash drug costs, something Pfizer, Abbvie, Amgene,
Amphastar, and Abbot Labs can hardly be expected to relish.
None of the big companies buying advertising time on CNN and MSNBC have any interest in the
progressive taxation and restored union organizing and collective bargaining rights that
Sanders advocates.
The big financial services firms paying for media content on "liberal" cable news stations
primarily serve affluent clients, many if not most of whom are likely to oppose increased taxes
on the well off.
The resort, tourism, luxury car, and business travel firms that buy commercials on these
networks are hardly about to back policies leading to the real or potential reduction of
discretionary income enjoyed by upper middle class and rich people.
So, gosh, who do these corporate and financial interests favor in the 2020 presidential
election? Neoliberal Corporatists like Joe Biden, Pete Butiggieg, Kamala Harris, and Amy
Klobuchar, of course. Dutifully obedient to the preferences and commands of the nation's
unelected dictatorship of money, these insipid corporate Democrats loyally claim that Sanders
and Warren want to viciously "tax the middle class" to pay for supposedly unaffordable excesses
like Medicare for All and the existentially necessary Green New Deal.
In reality, Single Payer and giant green jobs programs and more that We the People need and
want are eminently affordable if the United States follows Sanders' counsel by adequately and
progressively taxing its absurdly wealthy over-class (the top tenth of the upper 1% than owns
more than 90% of U.S. wealth) and its giant, surplus-saturated corporations and financial
institutions. At the same time, as Warren keeps trying to explain, the cost savings for
ordinary Americans will be enormous with the profits system taken out of health insurance.
Sanders reminds voters that there's no way to calculate the cost savings of keeping livable
ecology alive for future generations. The climate catastrophe is a grave existential threat to
the whole species.
These are basic arguments of elementary social, environmental, and democratic decency that
the investors and managers behind and atop big corporations buying commercials on CNN and MSNBC
don't want heard. As a result, CNN and MSDNC "debate" moderators and talking heads persist in
purveying the, well, fake news, that Sanders doesn't know how to pay Single Payer, free public
college, and a Green New Deal.
It's not for nothing that CNN and MSNBC have promoted the hapless Biden over and above
Sanders and Warren – this notwithstanding the former Vice President's ever more obvious
and embarrassing inadequacy as a candidate.
It's not for nothing that MSNBC and CNN have habitually warned against the supposed
"socialist" menace posed by the highly popular Sanders (a New Deal progressive at leftmost)
while refusing to properly describe Trump's White House and his dedicated base as pro-fascists.
MSDNC has even get a weekly segment to the silver-spooned multi-millionaire advertising
executive Donny Deutsch after he said the following on the network last winter:
"I find Donald Trump reprehensible as a human being, but a socialist candidate is more
dangerous to this company, country, as far as the strength and well-being of the country,
than Donald Trump. I would vote for Donald Trump, a despicable human being I will be so
distraught to the point that that could even come out of my mouth, if we have a socialist
[Democratic presidential candidate or president] because that will take our country so down,
and we are not Denmark. I love Denmark, but that's not who we are. And if you love who we are
and all the great things that still have to have binders put on the side. Please step away
from the socialism."
It's not for nothing that the liberal cable networks go out of their way to deny Sanders
remotely appropriate broadcast time. Or that they habitually and absurdly frame Single Payer
health insurance not as the great civilizing social and human rights victory it would be (the
long-overdue cost-slashing de-commodification of health care coverage combined with the
provision of health care for all regardless of social status and class) but rather as a
dangerous and authoritarian assault on Americans' existing (and unmentionably inadequate and
over-expensive) health insurance.
Dare we mention that the lords of capital who pay for cable news salaries and content are
heavily invested in the fossil fuels and in the relentless economic growth that are pushing the
planet rapidly towards environmental tipping points that gravely endanger prospects for a
decent and organized human existence in coming decades?
It's not for nothing that the progressive measures advanced by Sanders and supported by most
Americans are regularly treated as "unrealistic," "irresponsible," "too radical," "too
idealistic," "impractical," and "too expensive."
It's for nothing that Sanders is commonly left out of the liberal cable networks' campaign
coverage and "horse race" discussions even as he enjoys the highest approval rating among all
the candidates in the running.
With their preferred centrist candidate Joe Biden having performed in a predictably poor and
buffoonish fashion (Biden was a terrible, gaffe-prone politician well before his brains started
coming out of his ears) falling back into something like a three-way tie with the liberal
Warren and the populist progressive Sanders, the liberal cable talking heads and debate
moderators have naturally tried to boost "moderate" neoliberal-corporatist "second" and "third
tier" Democratic presidential candidates like Butiggieg, Klobuchar and the surprisingly weak
Kamala Harris. It's not for nothing that these and other marginal corporate candidates (e.g.
Beto O'Rourke) get outsized attention on "liberal" cable stations regardless of their tiny
support bases. Even if they can't win, these small-time contenders take constant neoliberal
jabs at Sanders and even at the more clearly corporate-co-optable Warren (who proudly describes
herself as "capitalist in my bones").
Thanks to Harris's curiously weak showing, Biden's dotard-like absurdity, and the likely
non-viability of Butiggieg (the U.S. is not yet primed for two men and a baby in the White
House), the not-so liberal cable channels are now joining the New Yok Times and
Washington Post in gently floating the possibility of a dark-horse neoliberal Democratic
Party newcomer (Michael Bloomberg, John Kerry, Michelle Obama, Sherrod Brown, and maybe even
Hillary Clinton herself) to fill Joke Biden's Goldman-and Citigroup-approved shoes in the
coming primary and Caucus battles with "radical socialist" Bernie and (not-so) "left"
Warren.
So what if running an establishment Obama-Clinton-Citigroup-Council on Foreign Relations
Democrat in 2020 will de-mobilize much of the nation's progressive electoral base, helping the
malignant white nationalist monster Donald Trump get a second term?
As the old working-class slogan says, "money talks and bullshit walks."
"Follow the money" is the longstanding mantra in campaign finance research and criminal
prosecution. It should also apply to our understanding of the dominant media's political news
content. U.S. media managers are employed by giant corporations (MSNBC is a division of Comcast
NBC Universal, no. 71 on the Fortune 500 and CNN is owned by Turner Broadcasting, no, 68 on the
Fortune 500) that are naturally reluctant to publish or broadcast material that might offend
the wealthy capitalist interests that pay for broadcasting by purchasing advertisements. As
Noam Chomsky has noted, large corporations are not only the major producers of the United
States' mass commercial media. They are also that media's top market, something that deepens
the captivity of nation's supposedly democratic and independent media to big capital:
"The reliance of a journal on advertisers shapes and controls and substantially determines
what is presented to the public the very idea of advertiser reliance radically distorts the
concept of free media. If you think about what the commercial media are, no matter what, they
are businesses. And a business produces something for a market. The producers in this case,
almost without exception, are major corporations. The market is other businesses –
advertisers. The product that is presented to the market is readers (or viewers), so these
are basically major corporations providing audiences to other businesses, and that
significantly shapes the nature of the institution."
At the same time, both U.S. corporate media managers and the advertisers who supply revenue
for their salaries are hesitant to produce content that might alienate affluent folks –
the people who hire pricey investment advisors, go to Caribbean resorts and buy Jaguars and
Mercedes Benzes and count for an ever-rising share of U.S. consumer purchases. It is those with
the most purchasing power who are naturally most targeted by advertisers.
Money talks, bullshit talks on "liberal" cable news, as in the legal and party and elections
systems and indeed across all of society.
Watch the wannabe fascist strongman Trump walk to a second term with no small help from a
"liberal" corporate media whose primary goal is serving corporate sponsors and its own bottom
line, not serving social justice, environmental sanity, and democracy – or even helping
Democrats win elections.
The president base is clarly more narrow then in 2016: he used anti-war repiblicansand
independents aswell as "Anybody but Hillary" voters (large part of Sanders votrs). Part of
military is now Tulsi supported and probalywill not vote at all, at least they will not vote
for Trump.
Fox News 's Tucker Carlson on Monday warned Republicans not to get complacent, and
that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) could wind up taking "many thousands " of votes from President
Trump if he is able to secure the Democratic nomination, according to The Hill 's Joe Concha.
"A year from today, we'll be hosting this show from the National Mall as the next president
of the United States takes the oath of office," said Carlson, adding "Will that president be
Donald Trump? As of tonight, Republicans in Washington feel confident it will be."
"The official economic
numbers are strong. The Democratic primaries are a freak show -- elderly socialists accusing
each other of thoughtcrimes. Republicans are starting to think victory is assured. That's a
mistake ," said Carlson. "America remains as divided as it was three years ago. No matter what
happens, nobody's going to win this election in a national landslide. Those don't happen
anymore. Trump could lose. Will he? That depends on what he runs on. "
Carlson then showed numbers for Trump on the economy that show while the main indicators
are strong, there are some other numbers that should concern the president. He pointed to a
Pew Research study that shows just 31 percent of Americans say the economy is helping them
and their families, and just 32 percent say they believe the current economy helps the middle
class.
Carlson then pivoted to Sanders's potential appeal to certain voter groups and said
Republicans need a plan to battle that appeal.
" Bernie Sanders may get the Democratic nomination ," Carlson said. " If he does, every
Republican in Washington will spend the next 10 months reminding you that socialism doesn't
work , and never has. They'll be right, obviously," Carlson explained. - The Hill
So what's Bernie's appeal?
Recall that a not-insignificant Sanders supporters voted for Trump out of disgust following
revelations that Hillary Clinton and the DNC conspirted to rig the 2016 primary against
him.
According to Carlson, however, "if Sanders pledges to forgive student loans, he'll still win
many thousands of voters who went for Donald Trump last time. Debt is crushing an entire
generation of Americans. Republicans need a plan to make it better, or they'll be left
behind."
"They're conservative in the most basic sense: They love their families above all," the host
concluded. "They distrust radical theories of anything because they know that when the world
turns upside down, ordinary people get hurt. They don't want to burn it down. They just want
things to get better. The candidate who promises to make them better -- incrementally, but
tangibly -- will be inaugurated president a year from today."
According to a RealClearPolitics average of seven (oh so reliable) polls, Sanders would take
Trump if he gets the nomination. Tags Politics
Carlson is right. The overwhelming majority of Americans live paycheck to paycheck with
many working two jobs to make ends meet. The economy sucks for the working and middle class.
Facts are stubborn things.
She made a blunder. That's for sure. but still Warren is a better candidate then Trump.
The shell game between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders has transmogrified. The brutal,
post-debate exchange between the duo has the progressive left fearing repeat business from '04:
it happened at just the wrong time, only weeks ahead of the first primaries.
sounds very much like it, in a kind of
ham-fisted, virtue-signaling way -- "Sometimes I fear the American people are still too bigoted
to vote for a woman," or something like that. Yet every Clinton staffer was muttering the same
thing under her breath at 3 a.m. on November 9, 2016.
What's more, Mrs. Warren never denied that Mr. Sanders only ran in the last election cycle
because she declined to do so. Nor can anyone forget how vigorously he campaigned for Mrs.
Clinton, even after she and the DNC rigged the primary against him. If Mrs. Warren and her
surrogates at CNN are claiming that Bernie meant that a person with two X chromosomes is
biologically incapable of serving as president, they're lying through their teeth.
This is how Liz treats her "friend" Bernie -- and when he denies that absurd smear, she
refuses to shake his hand and accuses him of calling her a liar on national television. Then,
of course, the #MeToo brigades line up to castigate him for having the temerity to defend
himself -- further evidence, of course, of his sexism. I mean, like, Bernie is, like,
literally Weinstein.
Then there's the "Latinx" thing, which is the absolute summit of progressive elites'
disconnect with ordinary Americans. In case you didn't know, Mrs. Warren has been roundly
panned for referring to Hispanics by this weird neologism, which was invented by her comrades
in the ivory tower as a gender-neutral alternative to Latino or Latina . The
thing is, Spanish is a gendered language. What's more, a poll by the left-wing market research
group Think Now found that just 2 percent of Hispanics call themselves "Latinx." (In fact, most
prefer the conventional "Hispanic," which is now verboten on the Left because it hearkens back
to Christopher Columbus's discovery of La Española .)
So here comes Professor Warren -- white as Wonder Bread, the mattress in her Cambridge
townhouse stuffed with 12 million big ones -- trying to rewrite the Spanish language because
she thinks it's sexist. How she's made it this far in the primary is absolutely mind-boggling.
She doesn't care about Hispanics, much less their culture. Like every employee of the modern
education system, she's only interested in processing American citizens into gluten-free offal
tubes of political correctness.
Of course, if one of her primary opponents or a cable news "Democratic strategist" (whatever
that is) dared to say as much, they'd be hung, drawn, and quartered. Partisan Democrats have
trained themselves not to think in such terms. That might not matter much if Mrs. Warren was
facing Mitt Romney or John McCain in the general. But she's not. If she wins the primary,
she'll be up against Donald Trump. And if you don't think he'll say all of this -- and a
whole lot more -- you should apply for a job at CNN.
... running against Mrs. Warren would be a walk in the park
Your imaginary Trump anti-Warren schtick might have worked in 2016, but boy does it come
off as unfunny and stale in 2020. He's done too much damage. Not funny anymore. I voted for
Trump. After all his betrayals, Warren could rip him to pieces just by standing next to him
without saying a word. Her WASP reserve and Okie roots might even seem refreshing after our
four-year long cesspool shower with this New York City creep.
Didn't vote for Trump, or Clinton for that matter, cast a protest Libertarian vote. In my
red state it hardly matters, but the electoral college is another story. But observed long
ago that indeed Warren is just what the author says, a too politically correct north east
liberal who would be demolished in the presidential election against Trump. Only Biden or
Klobuchar has a chance to unseat the orange man, or maybe better yet a Biden - Klobuchar
ticket.
I've sometimes voted red and sometimes blue, but a Trump Vs Biden contest might well make
me bored and disappointed enough to join you going libertarian.
If the Dems want to lose, Biden and Klobuchar would be a quick ticket to doing so. Warren
would get the job done not much slower, unless she pivoted away from social issues.
To quote Phyllis Schlafly's advice to conservatives and the GOP, what the Dems need is
"A choice, not an echo." Sanders is the closest the Dems have of offering the voters a real
choice, and is the best option to defeat Trump. The D establishment will still pull out all
the stops to try to block him, of course, because even they and their big donors would
prefer a second Trump term over a New Deal liberal with a socialist gloss, but they may not
succeed this time.
Bernie and Tulsi are the most honest and interesting of the Democratic field, even though
their politics generally aren't mine. Nonetheless, I wish them well, because they appear to
say what they actually think, as opposed to whatever their operatives have focus-group
tested.
Biden's corruption will come out in the general. We could write up articles of impeachment
now. After all, Biden, did actually bribe the Ukraine. He said so himself. On video.
I think Trump's unfortunately stronger now than he was in 2016. Clinton's attacks on him
were painting him as an apocalyptic candidate who would bring America crashing down. By
serving as president for 4 years with a mostly booming economy, Trump's proven them wrong.
The corporate media will continue their hysterical attacks on him though, and that will
boost his support. I think Hillary Clinton was more dislikeable back then than Warren is
now, but Warren is probably even more out of touch. The others might also lose, but she
really as a terrible candidate.
What damage has Trump done, as opposed to the damage the media/Dems/deepstate's RESPONSE to
Trump has done?
Trump has reduced illegal immigration with the expected subsequent increases in employment
and wages, saved taxpayer 1 TRILLION dollars by withdrawing from the Paris accord, killed 2
leading terrorists (finally showing Iran that we aren't their bakshi boys), cut taxes,
stood up for gun rights, reduced harmful governmental regulation, and appointed judges that
will follow the law instead of feelings and popular culture.
He is also exposing the deep underbelly of the corrupt government in Washington, especially
the coup organized between Obama, Hillary, the DNC, Brennan, Comey, Clapper and the
hyperpartisan acts of the FBI, CIA, DOJ, IRS and now the GAO (unless you believe that the
"non-partisan" GAO released their report which claimed Trump violated the law by holding up
Ukranian funds for a few months within the same fiscal year on the same day Nancy
forwarded the articles of impeachment by some amazing coincidence).
The problem isn't Trump. The problem is the liars opposing the existential threat Trump
poses to the elitists who despise America.
"For all my reservations about Mr. Trump -- his lagging commitment to
protectionism, his shafting of Amy Coney Barrett, his deportation of
Iraqi Christians, his burgeoning hawkishness, his total lack of
decorum -- he's infinitely preferable to anyone the Democrats could
nominate."
You gloss over a few dozen other failures, most of them bigger than anything you mention
here (immigration, infrastructure, more mass surveillance and privacy violations by govt
and corporations than even Obama).
You realize that the progress Trump has made on immigration is why unemployment is down and
wages are up, right?
Most Americans think that's a good thing.
Democrats, not so much.
I think I disliked the last thing I saw by Davis. Whatever. This one is better. Not perfect
-- some of it is out of touch -- but he makes a case. And, sad to say,
I concur with his prediction for the election, with or without Warren.
I'm starting to like her. I thought she handled herself well at the last debate.
"Presidential". It's been quite a while since we had a real president. Too long.
Forgive me, but Democratic voters put way too much store in presidents being Presidential.
And they spent way too much time talking about Bush's verbal gaffes and Trump's disgusting
personality to get Gore, Kerry or H. Clinton elected.
As the author wrote, it was invented by academics. One problem with the Democrat Party is
that it is teeming with Professor Kingsfield types who are as much connected with the rest
of the population as I am with aborigines.
Finally someone said what most people think. Love the imagined Trump comments to
Warren..."Relax. Put on a nice sweater, have a cup of tea, grade some papers." As i read
those I heard Trump's unique way of speech and was laughing out loud. BTW...Tulsi Gabbard
is such an attractive candidate...heard her interviewed on Tucker Carlson and I think could
present a real challenge to Trump if she ever rose up to face him in a debate. It's curious
someone like Warren shoots to the top, while she remains in the back of the line.
The media deliberately shut her down, just like they are shutting down Bernie. The DNC also
doesn't like her (possibly because she resigned as cochair and is critical of Hillary) and
seems to have chosen their debate criteria -which surveys they accept-in order to shut her
out. I liked her up until she objected to taking out Soleimani-a known terrorist in the
middle of a war zone planning attacks on US assets.
Sorry, Trump was spot on in this attack. Tulsi was completely wrong. However, she is
honest, experienced, knowledgeable and not psychotic, a refreshing change from the other
Dem Presidential candidates. If you haven't figured out yet that CNN is basically the media
arm of Warren's campaign, you haven't been paying attention. That is how Warren continues
to poll reasonably well.
These arguments amaze me. "Since your candidate is too school marmy, or elitist, or (insert
usual democrat insult here), you're giving the electorate no choice but to vote for the
most corrupt, openly racist, sexist, psychologically lying, dangerously mentally deranged
imbecile in the country".
Because rather than an educated person who maybe comes off as an elitist, we'd rather
have a disgusting deplorable who no sane parent would allow in the same room with their
daughter.
Lol, and yet writers like this don't even realize the insanity of what they're saying,
which is basically "that bagel is 2 days old, so I have choice but to eat this steaming
pile of dog crap instead".
"Because rather than an educated person who maybe comes off as an elitist, we'd rather have
a disgusting deplorable who no sane parent would allow in the same room with their
daughter."
No need for the ad hominem, you are overstating your case. Remember, Trump is "educated"
too. And a card-carrying member of the elite. Leave us not kid ourselves, they're all
"elites" of one stripe or another. It only matters which stripe we prefer, meaning of
course whether they are saying what we want to hear. Of all of the candidates, the only one
who does not come off as an "elite" is Tulsi Gabbard, an intelligent woman who is arguably
the most interesting of all the candidates--in part because of her active military service.
I'd even throw in Andrew Yang, a friendly, engaging person who didn't seem to have an ax to
grind. It matters not. Yang is out of the picture and Gabbard has as much of a crack at the
Democratic nomination in 2020 as Rand Paul had at the Republican nomination in
2016--essentially zero.
Lol trump is educated too? You've lose all credibility with such comical false
equivalencies.
Trump is an absolute imbecile who has failed up his entire life thanks to daddy's
endless fortune. If he we born Donald Smith he'd be pumping gas in Jersey, or in jail as a
low life con man.
While I find myself shocked to be found defending anything Trumpean, in all fairness, he is
a college grad-u-ate (shades of Lily Tomlin). The value, depth, or scope of his degree may
be in question, but he does possess a sheep-skin, and hence must be considered "educated".
If one wants to demean his "education" because of his personality, one must also demean a
rather broad segment of college grad-u-ates as well.
He graduated from Penn's Wharton School of Business, ergo he is educated. Because a person
doesn't hold the same political beliefs as another doesn't mean they can't be "educated."
Liz Warren may not hold the same political beliefs as I, but I cannot argue that she isn't
educated.
Lol wow, well I'd say it's hilarious that anyone can be so naive to actually think a
compete imbecile like trump, who so clearly has never read a book in his life, actually
earned his way into college; let alone actually studied and earned a degree.....but then I
remember this country is obviously filled with people this remarkable gullible and stupid,
as this walking SNL sketch is actually President.
I actually think you are spot on in your assessment of what Trump would have become if he
wasn't born to money, but you really are behaving like exactly that kind of Democratic
voter who gets more exorcised by Trump's personal faults than by his policy ones, the kind
of Democrats who couldn't get Al Gore, John Kerry and Hilary Clinton elected.
Really. You think someone that managed to become President of the United States with no
political or military experience would have failed at life if he hadn't had a wealthy
father. You really believe that. You don't think any of Trump's success and accomplishments
are due to his ambition, drive, energy, determination, executive skills, ruthlessness or
media savvy. It was all due to his having a rich father.
Fascinating.
Trump has had no success. He's failed at everything he's ever done. You obviously just know
nothing about his actual life, and believe the made up reality TV bullshit.
The only thing he's good at is playing a rich successful man on TV to really, really,
stupid, unread, unworldly, naive people....well that and giving racists white nationalists,
the billionaire owner class, sexists, bigots, and deplorables, a political home.
I think Trump is and would have been, sans his father's wealth, one hell of a con man. And
I hope to God that he would have ended up in jail for it rather than running a private
equity fund, but the latter would have been just as likely.
However, I should have made that distinction in my original comment. No, I do not think
that Trump would have ended up a gas station attendant.
It's very hard for me to understand how anyone could be so, shall we say sheltered, that
they couldn't see him coming a mile away and laugh their ass off.
He's so bad, so transparent with his obvious lies and self aggrandizing, so clearly
ignorant and unread and trying to fake it, he's literally like a cartoon's funny over the
top version of an idiot con man. I'll never understand how anyone could ever be fooled by
it.
In fact sometimes I think 90% of his base isn't fooled, they know he's a joke, but they
just don't care. He gives them the white nationalist hate and rhetoric they want, makes
"liberals cry", and that all they care about.
It's a lot easier for me to believe THAT then so many people can actually be so stupid
and gullible.
Say what? What policies? The trillion dollar hand out to the richest corporations in the
world, double the deficit? His mind blowing disastrous foreign policy decisions that have
done nothing but empowered Russia, Iran and North Korea while destabilizing western
alliances? The trade wars that have cost fairness and others billions (forcing taxpayers to
bail them out with tens of millions of dollars)? The xenophobia, separating and caging
children? Stoking violence and hate and anger among his white nationalist base? His attacks
on women reproductive rights? His attacks on all of our democratic institutions, from our
free press to our intelligence agencies and congressional oversights?
A pathologically lying racist sexist self serving criminal is enough to disqualify this
miscreant from being dog catcher, let alone president. But his policies are even worse.
You don't seem to know that the University of Pennsylvania is an Ivy League school, or what
the Wharton School of Business actually is. Imbeciles do not graduate from the Wharton
School.
Lol, trump is an imbecile, that's not even debatable. What amazes the rest of the entire
civilized world outside of the batshit fringe 20% of Americans who make up the Republican
voting base is how anyone could possible be conned by such a cartoonish idiot wanna be con
man.
It's truly something sane people can't even begin to wrap their heads around.
The Dowager Countess (Downton Abbey, for the un-initiated) nailed her type. In referring to
her do-gooder cousin Mrs. Isobel Crawley, she said: "Some people run on greed, lust, even
love. She runs on indignation." That sums up Warren perfectly.
I'll take it one step further. I bought one of her books, on the 'two-income trap' and how
middle-class families go to the wall to get into good school districts for their children.
She and her co-author make some valid points, but the book is replete with cliches about
men abandoning their families and similar leftist tropes. If that's the best Harvard Law
Warren has to offer, she's not as sharp as she thinks she is, and a bully like Trump will
school her fast.
Evidently Mr Davis dislikes Warren because of her personal style - but all of Trump's
substantive (or even, substance...) issues are acceptable. How shallow of him.
I can't say the two of us exactly line up on everything. But, like Wow: "gluten-free offal
tubes of political correctness." Now that's funny! Wish I'd thought of it.
I liked Warren until this attempt to stab Bernie in the back plus that childish refusal to
shake his hand on national TV. I still don't dislike her, but that was embarrassing. She
definitely has character flaws.
But this piece goes over the top. It's Trumpian. Warren certainly has flaws but if you
are going to judge a politician by their character, in what universe would Trump come out
on top?
Better than Warren.
The problem with affirmative action is when you abuse it, as Warren did, you actually rob a
genuine minority from a genuine disadvantaged background of their chance.
Warren deliberately misrepresented herself as a Native American, solely for career
advancement, and then abandoned her fake identity once she got tenure at Harvard. There was
another woman who was an actual minority that had a teaching appointment at Harvard, but
Warren beat her out, using her false claims of minority heritage to overcome her
competition's actual minority status.
Trump competes on his own.
There what's funny about these arguments. They're basically saying, "your candidate has
some flaws, she's very school marmy, and thinks she knows everything."
"Therefore, OBVIOUSLY people have no choice but to instead vote for the raging imbecile,
the pathologically lying, corrupt to his core, racist, morally bankrupt, sexist imbecile
with the literal temperament of of an emotionally troubled 10 year old."
What unpleasant memories Mister Davis has elicited - - - i once had a schoolmarm like that.
(Shudder)
It is, however, disturbing that Davis has almost captured the style of Trumptweets. The
give-away is a shade more literacy and better grammar in Davis' offerings.
But what of the possibility, as suggested above, that Trump loses to Biden or (Generic
Democratic candidate)?
As I tell my liberal friends, the country survived eight years of Priapic Bill, eight
years of Dubya and Dubyaer, eight years of BHO, and after four years of Trump is yet
standing, however drunkenly.
I think, contra many alarmists, the Republic is much stronger than the average pundit or
combox warrior gives it credit.
And, who knows? Maybe the outrage pornography we get from Tweeting birdies will grow
stale and passe, and people will yearn for more civil discourse? (Not likely, but one never
knows.)
I refuse to use "Bay Stater" for the same reason I dislike being called "Mike": nicknames
are irritating, unless they're outlandish, like "Beanie" or "Boko" or "Buttigieg."
Massachusetts is a beautiful name -- slow and smooth, like the Merrimack.
"Massachusettsian" adds a little skip at the end, as the river crashes into the Atlantic at
Newburyport. It's the perfect demonym.
Speaking of, I was born and spent the first 18 years of my life in Massachusetts --
about 10 minutes outside Newburyport, where my great-great-something grandparents lived
when the Revolution broke out. I don't know how much further back the family tree goes in
Mass., but probably further than yours.
Good luck with that utter nonsense word, then. Bay Stater is not a nickname - it's the
longstanding term (and, for some reason, the Massachusetts General Court also blessed it
legislatively), from long before my folk lived in New England since the mid-19th century
(Connecticut and Massachusetts - hence my reference to Nutmeggers, as my parents made quite
clear to us that there were no such things as Connecticutters or Massachusetters or the
like and not to go around sounding like fools using the like.)
Of course, I'd like to recover the old usage of the Eastern States to refer to New
England. Right now, its sole prominent residue is the Big E in Springfield....
"... In the larger global picture, if the U.S. is to find its own balance in the contemporary world, Friedman argues that the seemingly-endless instability in the Middle East is the first and foremost problem that must be solved. Iran is a major problem here, but so is Israel, and Friedman argues that the US must find the path toward "quietly distanc[ing] itself from Israel" (p.6). ..."
"... This course of action regarding Iran and Israel (and other actors in the Muslim world, including Pakistan and Turkey) is, in Friedman's geopolitical perspective, not so much a matter of supporting U.S. global hegemony as it is recognizing the larger course that the U.S. will be compelled to take. ..."
"... So, it's back to Plan A for the Democrats and the "Left" that would be laughably absurd if it wasn't so reactionary, to get the neoliberal/ neoconservative endless-war agenda back on track, so that the march toward Iran can continue sooner rather than later. For now, the more spectacular the failure of this impeachment nonsense, the better! ..."
Let's be clear, there is a difference between substituting geopolitical power calculations
for a universal perspective on the good of humanity, and, on the other hand, recognizing that
the existing layout of the world has to be taken into account in attempts to open up a true
politics. (My larger perspective on the problem of "opening" is presented in the long essay,
"The Fourth Hypothesis," at counterpunch.org.)
Personally, I find the geopolitical analyses of George Friedman very much worthwhile to
consider, especially when he is looking at things long-range, as in his books The Next 100
Years and The Next Decade. The latter was published at the beginning of 2012, and so we are
coming to the close of the ten-year period that Friedman discusses.
One of the major arguments that Friedman makes in The Next Decade is that the
United States will have to reach some sort of accommodation with Iran and its regional
ambitions. The key to this, Friedman argues, is to bring about some kind of balance of power
again, such as existed before Iraq was torn apart.
This is the key in general to continued U.S. hegemony in the world, in Friedman's view --
regional balances that keep regional powers tied up and unable to rise on the world stage. (An
especially interesting example here is that Friedman says that Poland will be built up as a
bulwark between Russia and Germany.)
In the larger global picture, if the U.S. is to find its own balance in the contemporary
world, Friedman argues that the seemingly-endless instability in the Middle East is the first
and foremost problem that must be solved. Iran is a major problem here, but so is Israel, and
Friedman argues that the US must find the path toward "quietly distanc[ing] itself from
Israel" (p.6).
This course of action regarding Iran and Israel (and other actors in the Muslim world,
including Pakistan and Turkey) is, in Friedman's geopolitical perspective, not so much a matter
of supporting U.S. global hegemony as it is recognizing the larger course that the U.S. will be
compelled to take.
(As the founder, CEO, and "Chief Intelligence Officer" of Stratfor, Friedman aimed to
provide "non-ideological" strategic intelligence. My understanding of "non-ideological" is that
the analysis was not formulated to suit the agendas of the two mainstream political parties in
the U.S. However, my sense is that Friedman does believe that U.S. global hegemony is on the
whole good for the world.)
In his book that came out before The Next Decade (2011), The Next 100
Years (2009), Friedman makes the case that the U.S. will not be seriously challenged
globally for decades to come -- in fact, all the way until about 2080!
Just to give a different spin to something I said earlier, and that I've tried to emphasize
in my articles since March 2016: questions of mere power are not questions of politics.
Geopolitics is not politics, either -- in my terminology, it is "anti-politics."
For my part, I am not interested in supporting U.S. hegemony, not in the present and not in
the future, and for the most part not in the past, either.
For the moment, let us simply say that the historical periods of the U.S. that are more
supportable -- because they make some contribution, however flawed, to the greater, universal,
human project -- are either from before the U.S. entered the road of seeking to compete with
other "great powers" on the world stage, or quite apart from this road.
In my view, the end of U.S. global hegemony and, for that matter, the end of any "great
nation-state" global hegemony, is a condition sine qua non of a human future that is just and
sustainable. So, again, the brilliance that George Friedman often brings to geopolitical
analysis is to be understood in terms of a coldly-realistic perspective, not a warmly-normative
one.)
Of course, this continued U.S. hegemony depends on certain "wise" courses of action being
taken by U.S. leaders (Friedman doesn't really get into the question of what might be behind
these leaders), including a "subtle" approach to the aforementioned questions of Israel and
Iran.
Obviously, anything associated with Donald Trump is not going to be overly subtle! On the
other hand, here we are almost at the end of Friedman's decade, so perhaps the time for
subtlety has passed, and the U.S. is compelled to be a bit heavy-handed if there is to be any
chance of extricating itself from the endless quagmire.
However, there's a certain fly, a rather large one, in the ointment that seems to have
eluded Friedman's calculations: "the rise of China."
It isn't that Friedman avoids the China question, not at all; Friedman argues, however, that
by 2020 China will not only not be contending with the United States to have the largest
economy in the world, but instead that China will fragment, perhaps even devolve into civil
war, because of deep inequalities between the relatively prosperous coastal urban areas, and
the rural interior.
Certainly I know from study, and many conversations with people in China, this was a real
concern going into the 2010s and in the first half of the decade.
The chapter dealing with all this in The Next 100 Years (Ch. 5) is titled, "China
2020: Paper Tiger," the latter term being one that Chairman Mao used regarding U.S.
imperialism. Friedman writes of another "figure like Mao emerg[ing] to close the country
off from the outside, [to] equalize the wealth -- or poverty " (p.7).
Being an anti-necessitarian in philosophy, I certainly believe anything can happen in social
matters, but it seems as though President Xi Jinping and the current leadership of the
Communist Party of China have, at least for the time being, managed to head off fragmentation
at the pass, so to speak.
Friedman argued that the "pass" that China especially had to deal with is unsustainable
growth rates; but it appears that China has accomplished this, by purposely slowing its economy
down.
One of the things that Friedman is especially helpful with, in his larger geopolitical
analysis, is understanding the role that naval power plays in sustaining U.S. hegemony. (In
global terms, such power is what keeps the neoliberal "free market" running, and this power is
far from free.)
*
... ... ...
Two of the best supporters of Trump's stated agenda are Tucker Carlson and Steve Hilton.
Neither of them pull any punches on this issue when it comes to Republicans, and both of them
go some distance beyond Trump in stating an explicitly anti-war agenda.
They perhaps do not entirely fit the mold of leftist anti-imperialism as it existed from the
1890s through the Sixties (as in the political decade, perhaps 1964-1974 or so) and 1970s, but
they do in fact fit this mold vastly better than almost any major figure of the Democratic
Party, with the possible exceptions of Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Andrew Yang. (But
none of them has gone as far as Trump on this question!)
Certainly Elizabeth Warren is no exception, and at the moment of this writing she has made
the crucial turn toward sticking the knife back into Bernie's back. That is her job, in my
view, and part of it is to seem close to Bernie's positions (whatever their defects, which I'll
discuss elsewhere), at least the ones that are more directly "economic," while winking at the
ruling class.
There are a few things Carlson and Hilton say on the Iran situation and the Middle East in
general that I don't agree with. But in the main I think both are right on where these issues
are concerned.
As I've quoted Carlson a number of times previously, and as I also want to put forward
Hilton as an important voice for a politics subservient to neither the liberal nor the
conservative establishments, here let me quote what Hilton said in the midst of the Iran
crisis, on January 5, 2020:
The best thing America can do to put the Middle East on a path
that leads to more democracy, less terrorism, human rights and economic growth is to get the
hell out of there while showing an absolute crystal clear determination to defend American
interests with force whenever they are threatened.
That doesn't mean not doing anything, it means intervening only in ways that help
America.
It means responding only to attacks on Americans disproportionately as a deterrent, just as
we saw this week and it means finally accepting that it's not our job to fix the Middle East
from afar.
The only part of this I take exception to is the "intervening only in ways that help
America"-bit -- that opens the door to exactly the kinds of problems that Hilton wants the U.S.
to avoid, besides the (to me, more important) fact that it is just morally wrong to think it is
acceptable to intervene if it is in one's "interests."
My guess is that Hilton thinks that there is some built-in utilitarian or pragmatic calculus
that means the morally-problematic interventions will not occur. I do not see where this has
ever worked, but more importantly, this is where philosophy is important, theoretical work and
abstract thinking are important.
It used to be that the Left was pretty good at this sort of thing, and there were some
thoughtful conservatives who weren't bad, either. (A decent number of the latter,
significantly, come from the Catholic intellectual tradition.) Now there are still a few of the
latter, and there are ordinary people who are "thoughtful conservatives" in their "unschooled
way" -- which is often better! -- but the Left has sold its intellectual soul along with its
political soul.
That's a story for elsewhere (I have told parts of it in previous articles in this series);
the point here is that the utilitarianism and "pragmatism" of merely calculating interests is
not nearly going to cut it. (I have partly gone into this here because Hilton also advocates
"pragmatism" in his very worthwhile book, Positive Populism -- it is the "affirmative" other
side to Tucker Carlson's critical, "negative" expose, Ship of Fools.)
The wonderful philosophical pragmatism of William James is another matter; this is important
because James, along with his friend Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain), were leading figures of the
Anti-Imperialist League back in the 1890s, when the U.S. establishment was beating the drums
loudly to get into the race with Europeans for colonies.
They were for never getting "in" -- and of course they were not successful, which is why
"get the hell out" is as important as anything people can say today.
What an insane world when the U.S. president says this and the political establishment
opposes him, and "progressives" and "the Left" join in with the denunciations!
It has often been argued that the major utilitarian philosophers, from Bentham and Mill to
Peter Singer, have implicit principles that go beyond the utilitarian calculus; I agree with
this, and I think this is true of Steve Hilton as well.
In this light, allow me to quote a little more from the important statement he made on his
Fox News Channel program, "The Next Revolution," on January 5; all of this is stuff I entirely
agree with, and that expresses some very good principles:
The West's involvement in the
Middle East has been a disaster from the start and finally, with President Trump, America is in
a position to bring it to an end. We don't need their oil and we don't need their problems.
Finally, we have a U.S. president who gets that and wants to get out. There are no prospects
for Middle East peace as long as we are there.
We're never going to defeat the ideology of Islamist terror as long as these countries are
basket cases and one of the reasons they are basket cases is that our preposterous foreign
policy establishment with monumental arrogance have treated the middle east like some chess
game played out in the board rooms in Washington and London.
– [foxnews.com, transcribed by Yael Halon]
So then there is the usual tittering about this and that regarding Carlson and Hilton from
liberal and progressive Democrats and leftists who support the Democrats, and it seems to me
that there is one major reason why there is this foolish tittering: It is because these
liberals and leftists really don't care about, for example, the destruction of Libya, or the
murder of Berta Caceres.
Or, maybe they do care, but they have convinced themselves that these things have to swept
under the rug in the name of defeating the pure evil of Trump. What this amounts to, in the
"nationalist" discourse, is that Trump is some kind of nationalist (as he has said numerous
times), perhaps of an "isolationist" sort, while the Democrats are in fact what can be called
"nationalists of the neoliberal/neoconservative compact."
My liberal and leftist friends (some of them Maoists and post-Maoists and Trotskyists or
some other kinds of Marxists or purported radicals -- feminists or antifa or whatever) just
cannot see, it simply appears to be completely beyond the realm of their imaginations, that the
latter kind of nationalism is much worse and qualitatively worse than what Trump represents,
and it completely lacks the substantial good elements of Trump's agenda.
But hey, don't worry my liberal and leftist friends, it is hard to imagine that Joe Biden's
"return to normalcy" won't happen at some point -- it will take not only an immense movement to
even have a chance of things working out otherwise, but a movement that likes of which is
beyond everyone's imagination at this point -- a movement of a revolutionary politics that
remains to be invented, as all real politics are, by the masses.
Liberals and leftists have little to worry about here, they're okay with a Deep State
society with a bullshit-democratic veneer and a neoliberal world order; this set-up doesn't
really affect them all that much, not negatively at any rate, and the deplorables can just go
to hell.
*
The Left I grew up with was the Sixties Left, and they used to be a great source of
historical memory, and of anti-imperialism, civil rights, and ordinary working-people
empowerment.
The current Left, and whatever array of Democratic-Party supporters, have received their
marching orders, finally, from commander Pelosi (in reality, something more like a lieutenant),
so the two weeks or so of "immense concern" about Iran has given way again to the
extraordinarily-important and solemn work of impeachment.
But then, impeachment is about derailing the three main aspects of Trump's agenda, so you
see how that works. Indeed, perhaps the way this is working is that Trump did in fact head off,
whatever one thinks of the methods, a war with Iran (at this time! – and I do think this
is but a temporary respite), or more accurately, a war between Iran and Israel that the U.S.
would almost certainly be sucked into immediately.
So, it's back to Plan A for the Democrats and the "Left" that would be laughably absurd if
it wasn't so reactionary, to get the neoliberal/ neoconservative endless-war agenda back on
track, so that the march toward Iran can continue sooner rather than later. For now, the more
spectacular the failure of this impeachment nonsense, the better!
Bill Martin is a
philosopher and musician, retired from DePaul University. He is completing a book with the
title, "The Trump Clarification: Disruption at the Edge of the System (toward a theory)." His
most recent albums are "Raga Chaturanga" (Bill Martin + Zugzwang; Avant-Bass 3) and "Emptiness,
Garden: String Quartets nos. 1 and 2 (Ryokucha Bass Guitar Quartet; Avant-Bass 4). He lives in
Salina, Kansas, and plays bass guitar with The Radicles.
Dungroanin ,
I have read through finally. And comments too.
My opinion is Bill Martin is on the ball except for one personage- Hilton. If he is
Camerons Hilton and architect of the Brexit referendum – for which he is rewarded with
a 'seat at the table' of the crumbling Empire. The Strafor man too is just as complicit in
the Empires wickedness.
But I'll let Bill off with that because he mentioned the Anti-Imperialist Mark Twain
– always a joy to be reminded of Americas Dickens.
On Trump – he didn't use the Nuclear codes 10 minutes after getting them as warned
by EVERYONE. Nor start a war with RocketMan, or Russia in Syria, or in Ukraine or with the
Chinese using the proxy Uighars, or push through with attempted Bay of Pigs in Venezuela or
just now Hong Kong. The Wall is not built and the ineffectual ripoff Obamacare version of a
NHS is still there.
Judge by deeds not words.
Soleimani aside – He may have stopped the drive for war. Trumps direct contact with
fellow world leaders HAS largely bypassed the war mongering State Department and also the
Trillion dollar tax free Foundations set up last century to deliver the world Empire, that
has so abused the American peoples and environment. He probably wasn't able to stop
Bolivia.
The appointments of various players were not necessarily in his hands as Assad identified-
the modern potus is merely a CEO/Chair of a board of directors who are put into place by the
special interests who pour billions, 10's of billions into getting their politicians elected.
They determine 'National Interests'. All he can do is accept their appointment and give them
enough rope to hang themselves – which most have done!
These are that fight clubs rules.
On the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation – after 20 full years of working towards
cohesion- they have succeeded. Iran is due to become a full member – once it is free of
UN sanctions, which is why Trump was forced into pulling the treaty with them, so that
technicality could stop that membership. China is not having it nor is Russia – Putins
clear statement re the 'international rules' not being mandatory for them dovetails with the
US position of Exceptionality. Checkmate.
As for the Old Robber Baron Banker Pirates idea that they should be allowed a Maritime
Empire as consolation- ha ha ha, pull the other one.
The ancient sea trading routes from Africa to China were active for thousands of years
before the Europeans turned up and used unequal power to disrupt and pillage at their hearts
content.
What made that possible was of course explained in the brilliant Guns, Germs and
Steel.
These ancients have ALL these and are equal or advanced in all else including Space, Comms
and AI. A navy is not so vital when even nuclear subs are visible from low orbit satellites
except in the deepest trenches – not a safe place to hide for months and also pretty
crowded with all the other subs trying to hide there. As for Aircraft carrier groups –
just build an island! Diego Garcia has a rival.
Double Checkmate.
The Empire is Dead. Long live the Empire.
Dungroanin ,
And this is hilarious about potus turning the tables on the brass who tried to drag him into
the 'tank'.
'Grab the damn fainting couch. Trump told the assembled military leaders who had presided
over a military stalemate in Afghanistan and the rise of ISIS as "losers." Not a one of them
had the balls to stand up, tell him to his face he was wrong and offer their resignation.
Nope. They preferred to endure such abuse in order to keep their jobs. Pathetic.
This excerpt in the Washington Post tells the reader more about the corruption of the Deep
State and their mindset than it does about Trump's so-called mental state. Trump acted no
differently in front of these senior officers and diplomats than he did on the campaign
trail. He was honest. That is something the liars in Washington cannot stomach. '
Rhys Jaggar ,
I am not an expert on US Constitutional Law, but is there any legal mechanism for a US
President to hold a Referendum in the way that the UK held a 'Brexit Referendum' and Scotland
held an 'Independence Referendum'?
How would a US Referendum in 'Getting the hell out of the Middle East, bringing our boys
and girls home before the year is out' play out, I wonder?
That takes the argument away from arch hawks like Bolton et al and puts it firmly in the
ambit of Joe Schmo of Main Street, Oshkosh
wardropper ,
Great idea.
Main problem is that most Americans are brought up to think their government is separate from
themselves, and should not be seriously criticized.
By "criticized", I mean, taken to task in a way which actually puts them on a playing field
where they are confronted by real people.
Shouting insults at the government from the rooftops is simply greeted with indulgent smiles
from the guilty elite.
Richard Le Sarc ,
George Friedman is a bog standard Zionist, therefore, out of fear, a virulent Sinophobe,
because the Zionists will never control China as they do the Western slave regimes. China
surpassed the USA as the world' s largest economy in 2014, on the PPP calculus that the
CIA,IMF and just about everyone uses. It' s growing three times as fast as the USA, too. The
chance of China fragmenting by 2020 is minuscule, certainly far less than that of the USA.
The Chinese have almost totally eliminated poverty, and will raise the living standard of all
to a ' middle income' by 2049. It is, however, the genocidal policy of the USA, on which it
expend billions EVERY year, to do its diabolical worst to attempt to foment and foster such a
hideous fate inside China, by supporting vermin like the Hong Kong fascist thugs, the Uighur
salafist terrorist butchers, the medieval theocrats of the Dalai clique and separatist
movements in Inner Mongolia, ' Manchuria', Taiwan, even Guandong and Guangxi. It takes a real
Western thug to look forward to the ghastly suffering that these villainous ambitions would
unleash.
Antonym ,
In RlS's nut shell: China can annex area but Israel: no way!
Dungroanin ,
Which area is China looking to annex?
Richard Le Sarc ,
Ant is a pathological Zionist liar, but you can see his loyalty to ' Eretz Yisrael' , '
..from the Nile to the Euphrates', and ' cleansed' of non-Jews, can' t you.
alsdkjf ,
I'm surprised that this author can even remember the counter culture of the 60s given his
Trump love.
Yet more Trumpism from Off Guardian. One doesn't have to buy into the politics of post DLC
corporate owned DNC to know Trump for what he is. A fascist.
It's just amazing this Trump "left". Pathetic.
Antonym ,
Trump .. better than HRC but the guy is totally hypnotized by the level of the New York stock
exchanges: even his foreign policy is improvised around that. He simply thinks higher is
a proof of better forgetting that 90% of Americans don't own serious quantity of stock
and that levels are manipulated by big players and the FED. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/economy/stocks-economy.html
Look at his dealing with China: tough as much as the US stock market stays benign in the
short term. Same for Iran etc.
Sure, he is crippled by Pelosi & the FBI / CIA, but he is also by his own stock
dependent mind. Might be the reason he is still alive ???
alsdkjf ,
Trump crippled by the CIA? Trump?
I mean the fascist jerk appointed ex CIA torture loving Pompeo to replace swamp creature
oil tycoon as Secretary of State, no?
He appointed torture queen within the CIA to become CIA Director, no?
He went to the CIA headquarters on day one of his Administration to lavish praise, no?
He took on ex CIA Director Woolsey as advisor on foreign policy during his campaign,
no?
I tell ya that Trump is a real adversary of the CIA!
Roger that. Trump appoints a dominatrix as DCI. Only a masochist or a sadist would Dream of
Gina..you know the head of the torture squad under Bush. Otherwise nice girl. PompAss is a
total clown but a dangerous one who even makes John Bolton look sane. Now that's scary!
This guy is Hilary Clinton in drag. The only thing missing is the evil triumphalist cackle
after whacking Soleimani. Maybe it wasn't recorded.
So much for "draining the swamp". The Whitehouse has become an even bigger swamp.
my take from this article:
There are, among the murderers and assassins in Washington, a couple of characters who appear
to have 2% of human DNA.
They author may confirm.
two ,
"israel is right in the cen "
sorry, the muderous regime israel has repeatedly proven, it's never never right . please
avoid this usage.
three ,
There are 53 or 54 'I's in the article, including his partner's Is. The author may confirm.
Dungroanin ,
Phew!
That is a lot of words mate. Fingers must be sore. I won't comment more until trying to
re-read again except quote this:
"Being an anti-necessitarian in philosophy,.."
I must say i had a wtf moment at that point see ya later.
paul ,
The idea that Trump's recent actions in the Middle East were part of some incredibly cunning
plan to avoid war with Iran, strikes me as somewhat implausible, to put it (very) charitably.
Even Hitler didn't want war. He wanted to achieve his objectives without fighting. When
that didn't work, war was Plan B. Trump probably has very little actual control over foreign
policy. He is surrounded by people who have been plotting and scheming against him from long
before he was elected. He heads a chaotic and dysfunctional administration of billionaires,
chancers, grifters, conmen, superannuated generals, religious nut jobs, swamp creatures,
halfwits and outright criminals, lurching from one crisis and one fiasco to the next. Some of
these people like Bolton were foisted upon him by Adelson and various other backers and wire
pullers, but that is not to absolve Trump of personal responsibility.
Competing agencies which are a law unto themselves have been free to pursue their own turf
wars at the expense of anything remotely resembling a rational and coherent strategy. So have
quite low level bureaucrats, formulating and implementing their own policies with little
regard for the White House. In Syria, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the State Department went
their own way, each supporting competing and mutually antagonistic factions and terrorist
groups. Agreements that were reached with Russia over Syria, for example, were deliberately
sabotaged by Ashton Carter in 24 hours. Likewise, Bolton did everything he could to wreck
Trump's delicate negotiations with N. Korea.
paul ,
Seen in this light, US policy (or the absence of any coherent policy) is more understandable.
What passes for US leadership is the worst in its history, even given a very low bar.
Arrogant, venal, corrupt, delusional, irredeemably ignorant, and ideologically driven. The
only positive thing that can be said is that the alternative (Clinton) would probably have
been even worse, if that is possible.
That may also be the key to understanding the current situation. For all his pandering to
Israel, Trump is more of a self serving unprincipled opportunist than a true Neocon/ Zionist
believer in the mould of Pence, Bolton and Pompeo. For that reason he is not trusted by the
Zionist Power Elite. He is too much of a loose cannon. They will take all his Gives, like
Jerusalem and the JCPOA, but without any gratitude.
It has taken them a century of plotting, scheming and manoeuvring to achieve their
political, financial, and media stranglehold over the US. but America is a wasting asset and
they are under time pressure. It is visibly declining and losing its influence. And the
parasite will find it difficult to find a similar host. Who else is going to give Israel
billions a year in tribute, unlimited free weaponry and diplomatic cover? Russia? Are Chinese
troops "happy to die for Israel" asUS ones are (according to their general)?
paul ,
And they are way behind schedule. Assad was supposed to be dead by now, and Syria another
defenceless failed state, broken up into feuding little cantons, with Israel expanding into
the south of the country. The main event, the war with Iran, should have started lond ago.
That is the reason for the impeachment circus. This is not intended to be resolved one way
or the other. It is intended to drag on indefinitely, for months and years, to distract and
weaken Trump and make it possible to extract what they want. One of the reasons Trump agreed
to the murder of Soleimani and his Iraqi opposite number was to appease some Republican
senators like Graham whose support is essential to survive impeachment. They were the ones
who wanted it, along with Bolton and Netanyahu.
paul ,
It is instructive that all the main players in the impeachment circus are Jews, under
Sanhedrin Chief Priests Schiff and Nadler, apart from a few token goys thrown in to make up
the numbers. That even goes for those defending Trump.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Don' t forget that Lebanon up to the Litani is the patrimony of the Jewish tribes of Asher
and Naphtali, and, as Smotrich, Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, said on Israeli TV a few years
ago, ' Damascus belongs to the Jews'.
bevin ,
" China will fragment, perhaps even devolve into civil war, because of deep inequalities
between the relatively prosperous coastal urban areas, and the rural interior."
This is not Bill, but Bill's mate the Stratcor geopolitical theorist for hire.
What is happening in the world is that the only empire the globe, as a whole, has ever
seen- the pirate kingdom that the Dutch, then the British and finally the US, leveraged out
of the plunder and conquest of America -the maritime empire, of sea routes and navies is
under challenge by a revival of the Eurasian proto-empires that preceded it and drove its
merchants and princes on the Atlantic coast, to sea.
We know who the neo-liberals are the current iteration of the gloomy philosophies of the
Scots Enlightenment, (Cobbett's 'Scotch Feelosophy') utilitarianism in its crudest form and
the principles of necessary inequalities, from the Austrian School back to the various crude
racisms which became characteristic of the C19th.
The neo-cons are the latest expression of the maritime powers' fear of Eurasia and its
interior lines of communication. Besides which the importance of navies and of maritime
agility crumble.
Bill mentions that China has not got much of a navy. I'm not so sure about that, but isn't it
becoming clear that navies-except to shipyards, prostitutes and arms contractors- are no
longer of sovereign importance? There must be missile commanders in China drooling over the
prospect of catching a US Fleet in all its glory within 500 miles of the mainland. Not to
mention on the east coast of the Persian Gulf.
The neo-cons are the last in a long line of strategists, ideologists and, for the most part,
mercenary publicists defying the logic of Halford Mackinder's geo-strategy for a lot more
than a penny a line. And what they urge, is all that they can without crossing the line from
deceitfulness to complete dishonesty: chaos and destabilisation within Eurasia, surrounding
Russia, subverting Sinkiang and Tibet, employing sectarian guerrillas, fabricating
nationalists and nationalisms.. recreate the land piracy, the raiding and the ethnic
explosions that drove trade from the land to the sea and crippled the Qing empire.
The clash is between war, necessary to the Maritime Empire and Peace, vital to the
consolidation and flowering of Eurasia.
As to Israel, and perhaps we can go into this later: it looms much larger in the US
imagination (and the imaginations the 'west' borrows from the US) than anywhere else. It is a
tiny sliver of a country. Far from being an elephant in any room, it is simply a highly
perfumed lapdog which also serves as its master's ventriloquist's dummy. Its danger lies in
the fact that after decades of neglect by its idiotic self indulgent masters, it has become
an openly fascist regime, which was definitely not meant to happen, and, misled by its own
exotic theories of race, has come to believe that it can do what it wants. It can't-and this
is one reason why Bill misjudges the reasoning behind the Soleimani killing- but it likes to
act, or rather threaten to act, as if it could.
(By the way-note to morons across the web-Bill's partner quotes Adorno and writes about
him too: cue rants about Cultural Marxism.)
Hugh O'Neill ,
Thanks, Bevin. The article was so long, I had quite forgotten that he laid too much emphasis
on the Stratcor Unspeakable. Clever he may be, but not much use without a moral compass.
Talking of geo-strategists, you will doubtless be aware of the work of A.T. Mahan whose
blueprint for acquisition of inspired Teddy Roosevelt and leaders throughout Europe, Russia,
Japan.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Friedman is a snake oil peddler. He tells the ruling psychopaths what they want to hear, like
' China crumbling', their favourite wet-dream.
bevin ,
I agree about Mahan's importance. He understood what lay behind the Empire on which the sun
never set but he had enough brains to have been able to realise that current conditions make
those fleets obsolete. In fact the Germans in the last War realised that too- their strategy
was Eurasian, it broke down over the small matter of devouring the USSR. The expiry date on
the tin of Empire has been obvious for a long time- there is simply too much money to be made
by ignoring it.
Russia has always been the problem, either real (very occasionally) or latent for the
Dutch/British/US Empire because it is just so clear that the quickest and most efficient
communications between Shanghai and Lisbon do not go through the Straits of Malacca, the Suez
Canal, or round the cape . Russia never had to do a thing to earn the enmity of the Empire,
simply existing was a challenge. And that remains the case- for centuries the Empire
denounced the Russians because of the Autocracy, then it was the anarchism of the Bolsheviks,
then it was the autocracy again, this time featuring Stalin, then it was the chaos of the
oligarchs and now we are back with the Tsar/Stalin Putin.
Hugh O'Neill ,
Phenomenal diagnosis, Bevin. However, one suspects that there is still too much profit to be
made by the MIC in pursuing useless strategies. I imagine Mahan turning in his grave in his
final geo-strategic twist.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Yes-Zionist hubris will get Israel into a whole world of sorrow.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
More USA Deep State conspiracy theorizing which makes the author American paternalism posing
as authorship that is revenue neutral when it ain't.
Any article with mention of mother-'Tucker' Carlson is one that is pure propagandistic
tripe in the extreme. Off-G is a UK blog yet this Americanism & worn out aged propaganda
still prevails in the minds of US centric myopics writ large across all states in the
disunity equally divided from cities to rural towns all.
MOU
johny conspiranoid ,
"More USA Deep State conspiracy theorizing which makes the author American paternalism posing
as authorship that is revenue neutral when it ain'"
Is this even a sentence?
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
It was a sentence when I was smoking marijuana yesterday, Johnny C. Today it is still a
sentence IMHO, but you transcribed it incorrectly, and forgot the end of the sentence.
NOTE: When I smoke marijuana I am allowed to write uncoordinated sentences. These are the
rules in CANADA. If you don't like it write to your local politician and complain
bitterly.
MOU
Charlotte Russe ,
Bush, Obama, and Clinton are despicable. In fact, they're particularly disgusting, inasmuch,
as they were much more "cognizant" than Trump of how their actions would lead to very
specific insidious consequences. In addition, they were more able to cleverly conceal their
malevolent deeds from the public. And that's why Trump is now sitting in the Oval
Office–he won because of public disgust for lying politicians.
However, Trump is "dangerous" because he's a "misinformed idiot," and as such is extremely
malleable. Of course, ignorance is no excuse when the future of humanity is on the line
In any event, Trump is often not aware of the outcome of his actions. And when you're
surrounded and misinformed by warmongering neoconservative nutcases, especially ones who
donated to your campaign chances are you'll do stupid things. And that's what they're
counting on.
alsdkfj ,
Trump is some virtuous example of a truth teller? Trump?
The biggest liar to every occupy the White House and that is saying a lot.
Swamp Monster fascist Trump. So much to love, right?
He could murder one of your friends and you'd still apologize for him, is my guess.
Hugh O'Neill ,
It was a long read, but I got there. In essence, I agreed with 99%, but I hesitate to share
too much praise for Trump's qualities as a Human Being – though he may be marginally
more Human than the entire US body politic. I was walking our new puppy yesterday when he did
his usual attempt to leap all over other walkers. I pleaded their forgiveness and explained
that his big heart was in inverse proportion to his small brain. It occurred to me later that
the opposite would be pure evil i.e. a small heart but big brain. Capitalism as is now
infects the Human Experiment, has reduced both brains and hearts: propagandists believe their
own lies, and too few trust their own instincts and innate compassion, ground down by the
relentless distractions of lies and 'entertainment' (at least the Romas gave you free
bread!).
I get the impression that Trump's world view hasn't altered much since he was about 11 years
old. I do not intend to insult all eleven-year-olds, but his naivety is not a redeeming
feature of his spoilt brat bully personality. He has swallowed hook, line and sinker every
John Wayne cowboy movie and thinks the world can be divided into good guys and bad guys
depending on what colour hat they wear. In the days of Black & White TV, it was either
black or white. The world seemed so much simpler aged 11 .(1966).
Dungroanin ,
Yet I have yet to see one photo of Trump with a gun or in uniform.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
The Duck learned to dress appropriately for business, I'll give him that. As a New York Real
Estate scion you will never see him dress otherwise. Protocol in business is a contemporary
business suit. No other manner of dress is allowed for the executive class in North America
or UK.
But the article was flimsy even by Russiagate standards, and so certain questions inevitably
arise. What was it really about? Who's behind it? Who's the real target?
Here's a quick answer. It was about boosting Joe Biden, and its real target was his chief
rival, Bernie Sanders. And poor, inept Bernie walked straight into the trap.
The article was flimsy because rather than saying straight out that Russian intelligence
hacked Burisma, the company notorious for hiring Biden's son, Hunter, for $50,000 a month job,
reporters Nicole Perlroth and Matthew Rosenberg had to rely on unnamed "security experts" to
say it for them. While suggesting that the hackers were looking for dirt, they didn't quite say
that as well. Instead, they admitted that "it is not yet clear what the hackers found, or
precisely what they were searching for."
So we have no idea what they were up to, if anything at all. But the Times then quoted
"experts" to the effect that "the timing and scale of the attacks suggest that the Russians
could be searching for potentially embarrassing material on the Bidens – the same kind of
information that Mr. Trump wanted from Ukraine when he pressed for an investigation of the
Bidens and Burisma, setting off a chain of events that led to his impeachment." Since Trump and
the Russians are seeking the same information, they must be in cahoots, which is what Democrats
have been saying from the moment Trump took office. Given the lack of evidence, this was
meaningless as well.
But then came the kicker: two full paragraphs in which a Biden campaign spokesman was
permitted to expound on the notion that the Russians hacked Burisma because Biden is the
candidate that they and Trump fear the most.
"Donald Trump tried to coerce Ukraine into lying about Joe Biden and a major bipartisan,
international anti-corruption victory because he recognized that he can't beat the vice
president," the spokesman, Andrew Bates, said. "Now we know that Vladimir Putin also sees Joe
Biden as a threat. Any American president who had not repeatedly encouraged foreign
interventions of this kind would immediately condemn this attack on the sovereignty of our
elections."
If Biden is the number-one threat, then Sanders is not, presumably because the Times sees
him as soft on Moscow. If so, it means that he could be in for the same neo-McCarthyism that
antiwar candidate Tulsi Gabbard encountered last October when Hillary Clinton blasted her as
"the favorite of the Russians." Gabbard had the good sense to
blast her right back.
"Thank you @Hillary Clinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and
personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally
come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a
concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know
– it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and
war machine ."
If only Sanders did the same. But instead he put out a statement filled with the usual
anti-Russian clichés:
"The 2020 election is likely to be the most consequential election in modern American
history, and I am alarmed by new reports that Russia recently hacked into the Ukrainian gas
company at the center of the impeachment trial, as well as Russia's plans to once again meddle
in our elections and in our democracy. After our intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that
Russia interfered in the 2016 election, including with thousands of paid ads on Facebook, the
New York Times now reports that Russia likely represents the biggest threat of election meddle
in 2020, including through disinformation campaigns, promoting hatred, hacking into voting
systems, and by exploiting the political divisions sewn [sic] by Donald Trump ."
And so on for another 250 words. Not only did the statement put him in bed with the
intelligence agencies, but it makes him party to the big lie that the Kremlin was responsible
for putting Trump over the top in 2016.
Let's get one thing straight. Yes, Russian intelligence may have hacked the Democratic
National Committee. But cybersecurity was so lax that others may have been rummaging about as
well. (CrowdStrike, the company called in to investigate the hack, says it found not one but
two cyber-intruders.) Notwithstanding the Mueller report, all the available evidence
indicates
that Russia did not then pass along thousands of DNC emails that Wikileaks published in July
2016. (Julian Assange's statement six months later that "our source
is not the Russian government and it is not a state party" remains uncontroverted.) Similarly,
there's no evidence that the Kremlin had anything to do with the $45,000 worth of Facebook ads
purchased by a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency – Robert
Mueller's 2018 indictment of the IRA was completely silent
on the subject of a Kremlin connection – and no evidence that the ads, which were
politically all over the map, had a remotely significant impact on the 2016 election.
All the rest is a classic CIA disinformation campaign aimed at drumming up anti-Russian
hysteria and delegitimizing anyone who fails to go along. And now Bernie Sanders is trying to
cover his derrière by hopping on board.
It won't work. Sanders will find himself having to take one loyalty oath after another as
the anti-Russia campaign flares anew. But it will never be enough, and he'll only wind up
looking tired and weak. Voters will opt for the supposedly more formidable Biden, who will end
up as a bug splat on the windshield of Donald Trump's speeding election campaign. With
impeachment no longer an issue, he'll be free to behave as dictatorially as he wishes as he
settles into his second term.
After inveighing against billionaire's wars, he'll find himself ensnared by the same
billionaire war machine. The trouble with Sanders is that he thinks he can win by playing by
the rules. But he can't because the rules are stacked against him. He'd know that if his
outlook was more radical. His problem is not that he's too much of a socialist. Rather, it's
that he's not enough.
Its chosen candidates are: Elizabeth Warren, the Republican-turned-progressive who for years posed as a Native American to game
America's system of affirmative action - and Amy Klobuchar, the midwestern senator from the great state of Minneapolis with a reputation
for being an unhinged dragon-lady boss.
That the NYT selected the two remaining women among the top tier of contenders is hardly a surprise: This is, after all, the same
newspaper that kicked off #MeToo by dropping the first expose about Harvey Weinstein's history of abusing, harassing and assaulting
women just days before the New Yorker followed up with the first piece from Ronan Farrow.
...After all, if the editors went ahead with their true No. 1 choice, Klobuchar, a candidate who has very little chance of actually
capturing the nomination, they would look foolish.
Warren is a much better candidate than Biden is in my view.
Warren seems to get into trouble sometimes for all kinds of reasons like most people do, but the problems are usually trivial,
more silly than dangerous. There is tendency in her to stick to her guns even when she does not know what she is doing.
When i run into something unexpected or something that seems to be something i don't understand, i usually backtrack and look
at the problem from some distance to see what happened and why before trying to correct or fix the problem, rather than just doing
something.
Its not a perfect plan, but it seems to work most of the time.
NYT remains a joke. Their endorsement is straight up virtue-signalling.
Here's some reality: Warren's latest antics have cemented her image as dishonest and high-strung. Knoblocker has no charisma
and remains practically unknown.
I've personally sat down and talked with Klobuchar. Not a lot of depth of intelligence in her, that's for sure, easily manipulated
by lobbyists. Warren, at least, knows what the problem is, although she might have swallowed the proverbial Democratic party "kool
aid".
Warren is the deep state establishment pick. If you must vote Dem, pick someone that isn't, or one the establishment seems
to work against. Better yet, vote Trump, safe bet on gun rights, freedoms.
Is Warren Warren the Jussie Smollet of politics. I wonder if she claims Bernie attacked her
while wearing a red hat and screaming, "A woman can't win! This is MAGA country!"
Being one of Liz' constituents and familiar with her career and her base (consisting of
people like me,) I think she faces so little consequence for her "embellishments" at least in
part because "we" (her base) inhabit an environment in which, with ease, we adjust facts and
perceptions to conform to whatever our self-serving narrative of the moment may be.
We know that Liz will say anything she imagines will be to her advantage and it's okay
with "us" that she does. In a way, she's our ideal candidate and media darling because she
reflects and affirms our plastic values.
"... Furthermore, if you don't agree with Sen. Warren's version of events, or if you mention her history of "embellishing," you are a sexist and a misogynist just like Sanders. So fall in line with the establishment narrative, quick. ..."
"... In a statement to CNN, Sanders said before the debate that's not what happened at all. ..."
"... "It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," said Sanders, chalking up the story to "staff who weren't in the room lying about what happened." ..."
"... Warren's staff knows she is prone to "embellish" things ..."
"... No wonder Sanders was complaining about liberals' obsession with identity politics . As an elderly, Jewish socialist, he might be an endangered species, but he's one minority group that intersectional politics has no use for. ..."
The media cannot forgive Bernie Sanders for refusing to "bend the knee" to Elizabeth Warren
regarding her recounting of a now infamous December 2018 meeting between the two, in which the
Vermont senator allegedly said a woman could not be elected president.
Furthermore, if you don't agree with Sen. Warren's version of events, or if you
mention her history of "embellishing," you are a sexist and a misogynist just like Sanders. So
fall in line with the establishment narrative, quick.
That is the clear takeaway after the media took off its fig leaf of journalistic
impartiality at the seventh Democrat presidential debate in Iowa Tuesday.
During the debate, CNN moderator Abby Phillips had this exchange:
Phillips: You're saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman couldn't win
the election?
Bernie: Correct.
Phillips: Senator Warren, what did you think when Sanders said a woman couldn't win the
election?
Warren: I disagreed. Bernie is my friend, and I am not here to try to fight with
Bernie.
This is "when did you stop beating your wife" level debate questioning from CNN. The
question is premised around an
anonymously-sourced story CNN reported Monday describing a meeting between Sanders and
Warren in December 2018, where the two agreed to a non-aggression pact of sorts. For the sake
of the progressive movement, they reportedly agreed they would not attack each other during the
campaign:
They also discussed how to best take on President Donald Trump, and Warren laid out two
main reasons she believed she would be a strong candidate: She could make a robust argument
about the economy and earn broad support from female voters. Sanders responded that he did
not believe a woman could win.
In a statement to CNN, Sanders said before the debate that's not what happened at
all.
"It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she
was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," said Sanders,
chalking up the story to "staff who weren't in the room lying about what happened."
"I thought a woman could win; he disagreed," said Warren in a statement.
Cue CNN's gladiatorial presidential debates.
Eager to strike all the right girl-power notes for the night, Phillips followed up by asking
Sen. Amy Klobuchar the substantive policy question, "what do you say to people who say that a
woman can't win this election?" and Warren earned cheers for a line about women successfully
winning elections.
"Look at the men on this stage," Warren said. "Collectively, they have lost 10 elections.
The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they've been in are the
women: Amy (Klobuchar) and me."
After the debate, media commentators roundly declared Warren the winner, and pundits
attacked the very idea of questioning the veracity of Warren's account.
Here's CNN, just after the debate:
Chris Cillizza, CNN politics reporter: Sanders, look, a lot of it is personal
preference. I didn't think his answer vis-a-vis Elizabeth Warren and what was said in that
conversation was particularly good. He was largely dismissive. "Well, I didn't say it.
Everyone knows I didn't say it, we don't need to talk about it."
Jess McIntosh, CNN political commentator: And I think what Bernie forgot was that this
isn't a he-said-she-said story. This is a reported-out story that CNN was part of breaking.
So to have him just flat out say "no," I think, wasn't nearly enough to address that for the
women watching.
Joe Lockhart, CNN political commentator: And I can't imagine any woman watching last
night and saying, I believe Bernie. I think people believe Elizabeth.
Van Jones, CNN political commentator: This was Elizabeth Warren's night. She needed to
do something and there was a banana peel sitting out there for Bernie to step on when it came
to his comments about women. I think Bernie stepped on it and slid around. She knocked that
moment out of the park.
But isn't this story the literal definition of a he-said, she-said story?
The accusation may have appeared in a "reported-out story," but these are its sources:
"The description of that meeting [between Sanders and Warren in December 2018] is based
on the accounts of four people: two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the
encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting."
Is it sexist to question why this story would come out on the eve of the debate -- after
months of the two candidates getting along as they had promised to do, when
Sanders pulls ahead of Warren in polling ?
In addition to Warren's tenuous relationship with the truth, there also happens to be video
from the 1980s where Sanders says a woman could be president:
1988, @BernieSanders , backing
Jackson:"The real issue is not whether you're black or white, whether you're a woman or a man
*in my view, a woman could be elected POTUS* The real issue is are you on the side of workers
& poor ppl, or are you on the side of big money &corporations?" pic.twitter.com/VHmfzvyJdy
-- Every nimble plane is a policy failure. (@KindAndUnblind) January
13, 2020
Yet, you wouldn't know any of that, listening to the coverage of the debate, where
commentators waxed poetic about Warren's "win" and how any attacks on her predilection for
lying were misogyny itself.
Over on Sirius XM POTUS channel Tuesday, an executive producer on Chris Cuomo's show (Chris
Cillizza filling in) said that the suggestion from Sanders surrogates that Warren's staff
knows she is prone to "embellish" things
is "a misogynistic thing to put out there like, 'oh well, look at the quaint housewife, she is
prone to embellishment.'"
The New York Times also embraced the questionable sexism premise, writing that in"a
conflict heavily focused on which candidate is telling the truth, Ms. Warren faces a real risk:
Several studies have
shown that voters punish women more harshly than men for real or perceived dishonesty If
voters conclude that Ms. Warren is lying, it is most likely to hurt her more than it will hurt
Mr. Sanders if voters conclude that he is lying."
Over at Vox:
The over-the-top language -- likening criticism of an opponent to aknife in the back-- was familiar. When powerful men have been accused of
sexual misconduct in recent years, they and othershave
often complainedthat they've been "killed" or that their "lives are over" The
situation between Warren and Sanders is very different from those that have arisen as part of
the Me Too movement. But the exaggerated language around a woman's decision to speak out is
strikingly similar.
This sort of language is an insult to all women who have had to deal with sexism and
misogyny, both in the workplace and in society, and this need to glom on to any aggrieved
group, no matter how ill-fitting, is getting really stale.
Meanwhile, former Hillary Clinton and Obama Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri
tweeted, "I just rewatched the footage from last night and found it odd that Sanders never says
'a woman could beat Trump.' His formulation is he believes a 'woman could be president.' It's
only when he speaks about his own abilities that he talks about what it takes to 'beat
Trump.'"
This is the old sexist standby: "I'd vote for a woman, just not that woman."
What is it that these people want, for Sanders to endorse his opponent, simply because she
is female? Isn't that the very definition of sexism? By virtue of the fact that Sanders is
still in this race, he obviously thinks he can do a better job as president than Warren. There
isn't going to be another presidential race against Trump, but Palmieri still essentially wants
Sanders to say, in a five-way race three weeks before the Iowa caucus, "Warren can beat Trump
in November."
The question here should be whether this is a person that we can trust, not whether the
candidate is male or female. Does this person have a history of being honest, or do they have a
history of lying?
No wonder Sanders was complaining about
liberals' obsession with identity politics . As an elderly, Jewish socialist, he might be
an endangered species, but he's one minority group that intersectional politics has no use
for.
What are you talking about? If you want to know what Sanders says on this issue, rad his
interview with the NYT which was conducted before this cynical hit job occurred. He says
many voters are misogynistic, but not that a woman can't win.
I think both were telling the truth in that Warren probably took it to mean a woman
can't win, but her campaign cynically released thi story over a year later because she was
slipping in tge pollls behind Bernie.
That's ridiculously generous of you, at least towards Warren. She knows perfectly well his
position on the possibility of a woman president, and women running for office generally.
she knows he campaigned vigorously for HRC after the nomination, and she knows that Sanders
knows that HRC took the popular vote by over 3 million votes, so he obviously knows that it
is highly possible for a woman to win the presidency. This is simply a bald-faced lie on
Warren's part, but she has gained nothing electorally for this desperate smear. Sanders not
only had a record fundraising day after this surfaced, but at least one poll has him up 2
points in Iowa, where he was already in the lead, with Warren stuck at 12%.
Six corporations own something like 90% of the media now.
And CNN is part of the corporate-media-complex.
So not too much of a surprise that they are going after Sanders.
The billionaires are worried he might win, so in a way, this is a good
sign.
The 24 hour news channels depend on Trump to bring in the outrage required to keep up their
viewing figures. So it makes sense that they should help give him a democrat opponent he
can't lose against, like Elizabeth Warren.
While it should be fairly obvious to most that Bernie Sanders political rivals are trying
everything they can to get ahead of him, it's also true that the DNC and the Main Stream
Media, are also trying to trash Bernie in an attempt to take him out as a candidate. The
DNC and the MSM did the same thing the last time he attempted to win the nomination, and it
appears they are doing so now.
The corporate MSM machine should be careful. Another candidate they trashed during the
last election cycle, and ever since, became the President. It seems some voters have tied
the corporate MSM together with the D.C. establishment, and voters that want an outsider to
lead them may just see the MSM's attempts to denigrate a candidate as a ringing endorsement
for the outsider.
As a side note, I find it humorous that the MSM attempts to diminish Bernie's supporters
as zealots and too extreme to be taken seriously... I thought that political candidates
actually worked to gain the support of enthusiastic and motivated supporters? Or, is that
just for the candidates that are acceptable to the Main Stream Media and the political
Parties?
Voted for Trump in great part because Hillary Clinton was such a liar. Now he turned out to
be an even bigger liar than she was. It sure would be nice to have a candidate who didn't
lie so much, but now I don't know whether that would be Sanders or Warren.
Strictly speaking, socialism was an abject failure which ended with the fall of the Iron
Curtain, There is an unfortunate tendency to conflate "socialism" with what is called the
"welfare state." The United States is a welfare state but can hardly be mistaken for a
socialist state.
I think I see it mostly the same way you do, but with semantic differences. I would argue
that communism - the totalitarian version of socialism - was the abject failure. Any first
world modern state is a blend of market-based economies and socialism. The question is
always which exchanges are best left to market forces and which are best managed from
above. And then, how much management to provide. I caution against seeing socialism vs
capitalism as some binary switch to flip.
And the fact is that many of these welfare states were implemented by self-declared
socialists, including many parties that were members of the Socialist, or Second,
International.
Unfortunately, many of these socialist and labor parties hopped on the neo-liberal train
in the 1980's, and are today deathly afraid of their own Bernie Sanders (see Corbyn,
Jeremy), and even more afraid of scaring off international finance and the German Central
Bank.
Point taken. Perhaps "radical socialism" would have been more accurate. Your description of
the modern state as a "blend" is spot-on. An economics professor I once had called ours a
"mixed economy", which was a phrase that has always stuck in my mind.
Social democratic and labor parties around the world turned neo-liberal in the 1980's,
including the Scandinavian ones. They've been helping to rip up the "social contract"
between Capital and Labor, and the social welfare state, ever since, as well as reversing
previous nationalizations and launching privatization. This phenomenon has included
Scandinavia, which is why the parties there are so sensitive to all this talk in the U.S.
about them being models of "socialism."
Fact is, all non-Marxist "socialist" countries are market based, and are in fact capitalist
at the economic base. When did any Scandinavian "socialist" country ever expropriate any
major corporations?
You might actually want to do a bit of research on that point. Going back 60, 70 or 80
years, there might be some nationalizations of railroads, utilities, energy companies and
other major industries not involved in the actual manufacturing of goods in Scandinavia.
Great Britain certainly saw such nationalizations, although revolutionary leftists
sometimes dismissed them as "lemon socialism" because the capitalist class was fobbing off
money-losing or capital-intensive sectors of the economy on the government, in order to
concentrate on more profitable enterprises.
"... The "movement conservatives" leader was Barry Goldwater who Trump's dad was a big supporter of, and Trump was raised in and among AND represents that faction of elite power. ..."
"... The LIEO or Rules Based Order is based on being closely allied with European elites against Russia to contain the Middle East and Central Asia (Iran and Afghanistan) based on Zbigniew Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard theory. ..."
"... The 1950's triangle of power was superseded by the oligarch's counter revolution that led to supranational trade institutions. Democracies were relegated to a secondary status and run by technocrats for the benefit of oligarchs until Donald Trump. He is a nationalist plutocrat; admittedly a lower level one, a NY casino owner who went bankrupt. Mike Bloomberg represents the other side, a globalist billionaire. Elizabeth Warren is a top level technocrat but no politician. ..."
"... The endless wars are fought to make a profit for the plutocracy and destabilize nations to make foreign corporate exploitation possible. That was why Hunter Biden was in Ukraine. The conflicts are not meant to be won. ..."
"... He makes stupid mistakes. Through the barrage of propaganda, reports of shell shocked troops, destroyed buildings and 11 concussion causalities from Iran's missile attack made it into the news. The military must be pissed. The aura of invincibility is gone. ..."
"... Donald Trump should be removed by the 25th amendment before he mistakenly triggers the Apocalypse. Except the 1% politician VP, Mike Pence, believes that the End of Time is God's Will and necessary for his Ascension. ..."
"... The power triangle theory is less in line with the facts than a simple duality: Wall Street & the MIC, you have to advance interests of both or you're out. ..."
"... Second, the 'meeting in the Tank' sounds like complete b.s. designed to sell books ..."
"... And the 'rules-based international order' rings very false as something that would be said with a straight face by real MIC insiders, which those generals are. ..."
"... Not only sick of wars, his mobster approach to foreign policy and allies is an embarrassment to RINO and Independents. ..."
"... Humanity is in a civilization war about public/private finance being fought by proxies and character actors like Trump. Maybe after this war is over, and if we survive, we can all communicate about the social contract directly instead of through proxy fronts. Do you want to live in a sharing/caring world or a selfish/competitive one?....socialism or barbarism? ..."
That Power Elite theory which was written in the 50s by C.W. Mills is incomplete for today
because in the 60s there was a split among the power elite between the new "movement
conservatives" and the old eastern bank establishment. The conservatives were more focused on
the pacific region and containing China, and the liberal establishment were more focused on
Europe and containing Russia.
The "movement conservatives" leader was Barry Goldwater who Trump's dad was a big supporter
of, and Trump was raised in and among AND represents that faction of elite power. In fact he
is the 1st president from that faction of the elites to hold the oval office, many people
thought Reagan was, but he was brought under the control of George Bush and the liberal
elites after taking office after he was injured by a Bush related person. The different
agendas of the the two factions are out in the open today with one being focused on
anti-Russia and the other being focused on anti-China. It has been like that since the
1960s.
The anti-China conservative faction which Trump represents (and which unleashed the VietNam
War) is screwing up the "rules based order" aka "Liberal International
Economic Order" aka Pax Americana which was set up after WWII at Bretton Woods and then
altered in the 1970s with the creation of the petrodollar and petrodollar recycling into
Treasury Bonds, by destroying the monetary scam they set up to control the world
It needed
the cooperation of the elites of Europe and elsewhere, which Trump and his faction doesn't
care about -- they only care about short term profits on Wall St.
The LIEO or Rules Based Order is based on being closely allied with European elites
against Russia to contain the Middle East and Central Asia (Iran and Afghanistan) based on
Zbigniew Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard theory. China trade is important for them, Russia is
their main enemy. ( War of the Worlds:
The New Class ). Trump and his movement conservative faction is ruining their world order
for their own short term gain on Wall St.
The 1950's triangle of power was superseded by the oligarch's counter revolution that led
to supranational trade institutions. Democracies were relegated to a secondary status and run
by technocrats for the benefit of oligarchs until Donald Trump. He is a nationalist
plutocrat; admittedly a lower level one, a NY casino owner who went bankrupt. Mike Bloomberg
represents the other side, a globalist billionaire. Elizabeth Warren is a top level
technocrat but no politician.
The endless wars are fought to make a profit for the plutocracy and destabilize nations to
make foreign corporate exploitation possible. That was why Hunter Biden was in Ukraine. The
conflicts are not meant to be won.
Donald Trump is way for over his head and getting old. His competent staff are in jail or
fired. Apparently no one told him about the thousands of ballistic missiles that can destroy
the Gulf States' oil facilities at will and make the buildup for the invasion of Iran
impossible. He makes stupid mistakes. Through the barrage of propaganda, reports of shell
shocked troops, destroyed buildings and 11 concussion causalities from Iran's missile attack
made it into the news. The military must be pissed. The aura of invincibility is gone.
Donald Trump should be removed by the 25th amendment before he mistakenly triggers the
Apocalypse. Except the 1% politician VP, Mike Pence, believes that the End of Time is God's
Will and necessary for his Ascension.
The power triangle theory is less in line with the facts than a simple duality: Wall Street
& the MIC, you have to advance interests of both or you're out.
Second, the 'meeting in the Tank' sounds like complete b.s. designed to sell books, with
an obvious sales strategy, as b said, of pleasuring both the pro/anti Trump sides of the
book-buying bourgeoisie.
And the 'rules-based international order' rings very false as
something that would be said with a straight face by real MIC insiders, which those generals
are.
Finally, whether Trump ridiculed the generals or not, that's a sideshow to entertain the
rubes. Trump's always been on side with the big picture Neocon approach essential to the MIC.
Their global dominance or chaos approach is essential to keeping military budgets gigantic
until 'forever'. True that Trump whined about endless wars as a 2016 campaign strategy, but
he was either b.s.-ing or at the time didn't get that they are part of the overall Neocon
approach he backs.
Not a very good analysis by b because this does not explain why 90 % of US corporate media
is hostile to Trump. This does not happen without significant elite support.
That Trump is backed by the military faction is something i have been saying often. But
there are forces within the government faction that dislike him, for example the CIA.
As for the corporate faction, it is not true that free money made them supportive of
Trump. Rather the faction is divided - between the globalist corporate faction, relying on
globalisation, including most tech companies, and US nationalist faction, such as local US
businesses, big oil, shale gas, etc.
Another point - jews have large influence within the US, and 80 % voted against Trump
regardless of his Israeli support. They again voted 80 % Dem in 2018. Having 80 % of US jews
against you means encountering significant resistance.
Demographically speaking, most women, jews, muslims, latinos, asians, afroamericans, lgbt
people, young people, etc. are strongly against him so i think that he will lose. Unless for
some reason they do not vote.
Even if he somehow wins again, this will lead to civil war like situation and extreme
polarisation in the US.
The US military, the various factions within the Deep State, political and corporate
cabals has the attitude of a spoiled 3-year-old: If I can't have it, I'll break it so it is
of little use to others.
Unfortunately, breaking other countries is just fine for the MIC... arms sales all around
and chaos to impede non-military commerce with other major power centers like Russia or
China.
Trump is the product of a dysfunctional family, a "greed is good" trust-fund social circle
and a sociopathic US bully/gun culture.
The fact "bone spurs" Trump weaseled out of the draft will also not play well with the
generals, let alone the grunts who suffer most from endless POTUS idiocy (not limited to
Trump, see Prince Bush/Bandar the 2nd)
All the more proof that most Western "democracies" would be better served with a lottery
to choose their Congressional and POTUS chair-warmers. Joe Sixpack could do a better job. A
200-lb sack of flour would do better than any POTUS since Kennedy.
your: "Trump can't start a war without ruling class backing any more than he can end the
wars if the rulers veto it."
May be, I think is, true in one sense. But Trump is far from the sole agent capable of
starting a war. War, as opposed to simple murder, involve 2 or more parties. Whatever the
intentions, the recent murders by drone in Baghdad hav,e it seems, brought Iran to consider
war exists now...and they have a nifty MAGA policy. On Press TV today they hosted an expert
who called for the execution of several exceptional American leaders...sounds like war to
me.
(Make America Go Away)
The system is so screwy and peopled by such uneducated and delusional people that it's
quite simple that they would do some stupid that that caused a war. Looks like war to me. I
await the horrors.
Decaying empires usually start wars that bring about their rapid ruin. Does it matter how
they do this?
............
The thesis of the triangle of elite factions is fascinating.
Walter recalls that JFK got the reports from Vietnam that said we were winning, while at
the same time Johnson got the true story. And also what happened then with the "correction"
of 1963 (their words) and the immediate change of war policy. Can't help an old guy from
remembering old folly. And noting that history repeats as farce.
The Iran affair is liable to coordinate with NATO. Lavrov spoke to the NATO preparations
today @ TASS...
Some say Trumpie screwed up the schedule, which goes hot in April as a showdown with the
Roooskies. I take that with a grain of salt. But I think the sources I've seen might be
right. They say that if Barbarossa had not been delayed, the nazis woulda won in Russia.
Screwups can be very important.
I can't see any way the US won't use atomic bangers. But maybe...
I agree with wagelaborer in comment #3 and worth a repeat of most of it
"Trump can't start a war without ruling class backing any more than he can end the wars if
the rulers veto it.
US foreign policy is not run by White House puppets.
The US trash-talked Saddam Hussein and starved Iraqis for 14 years, but didn't actually
invade until he started trading oil in Euros.
The US trash-talked Ghaddafi for decades, and even launched missiles which killed his
child in the 80s, but didn't destroy Libya until Ghaddafi decided to sell oil in dinars.
The US has trash-talked and sanctioned Iran for decades, but it was the threat of Iran and
Saudi Arabia making peace that pushed them to assassinate General Soleimani, as he arrived at
the airport on that diplomatic mission.
If Iran and Saudi Arabia make peace, and the Saudis drop the petro-dollar, the US Empire
crumbles.
It doesn't matter at all who is in the White House at the time, the Empire will never allow
that."
Humanity is in a civilization war about public/private finance being fought by proxies and
character actors like Trump. Maybe after this war is over, and if we survive, we can all
communicate about the social contract directly instead of through proxy fronts. Do you want
to live in a sharing/caring world or a selfish/competitive one?....socialism or
barbarism?
I agree with everyone that doesn't believe the political farce/headfake/psyop.
The fact is, it's impossible to elect a real "populist outsider" as US President.
The system is set up to ensure that NEVER happens.
I used to get very frustrated by b's failure to understand US politics but it's now clear
to me that anti-USA/anti-Empire folks LOVE to talk up Trump because they think they can
exploit a rift in USA power elite - a rift that doesn't really exist .
The standard push-back response to someone like me saying that Trump was selected as
President is: bu..but Trump is not a puppet! LOL. That's right! He's a faux populistteam player . Just like Obama.
Triangle of power ... corporate, executive government, and military
factions
This is naive. It's an outdated theory. Anyone that knows American society knows that
power has become concentrated since this theory was first proposed. And that concentration
has put EMPIRE FIRST warmongers/neocons at the top of heap.
Furthermore, Russia's willingness to confront USA in 2013 and 2014 had a profound effect
on the pampered Empire-builders that thought that they and their progeny would rule the
world. The Trump psy-op is their answer to the challenge from Russia and China.
= Afghanistan and Trump's "lecture" to the Generals
Well, Trump is STILL THERE (in Afghanistan), isn't he?
And I'd be very skeptical of anything WaPo had to say about Trump.
IMO Trump isn't looking to withdraw from Afghanistan, or NATO, or North Korea, or
Syria, or anywhere else. He's looking for Generals that have a will to fight. And that's a
very scary prospect.
= the military faction did not concur with his 'America first' isolationist
tendencies.
Sorry, virtually everybody that matters in USA ("the 1%") is EMPIRE FIRST. Trump's
'America First' is just a bullshit slogan to fool the masses. Just as much as Obama's
"Change You Can Believe In" was.
Trump is NOT an isolationist. Why does this false narrative still persist? Trump's many
acts of war attest to his belligerent interventionist nature:
> seizing Venezuelan government assets;
> seizing Syrian oil fields;
> the assassination of an Iranian General;
> reneging on peace terms with North Korean (IMO reneging on a peace deal with a
country that you're still technically at war with is an act of war);
> Pulling out of Cold War I arms treaties with Russia and militarizing space;
> taking sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - going against UN resolutions
to do so;
> recognizing Golan Heights as Israeli - going against UN resolutions to do
so;
> support for the Saudi war against Yemen - which includes arms sales, training,
and even targeting.
These countries haven't declared war only because it's impractical to do so.
Why can't people see what charlatans Obama and Trump are? What has Trump done to
demonstrate that he will be true to his campaign rhetoric? Nothing! Trump:
- didn't prosecute Hillary;
- didn't "end Obamacare on day one";
- didn't exit from NATO;
- didn't exit from the Middle-east;
- hasn't ended the threat from North Korea;
- hasn't brought jobs back (we just have more low-end jobs);
- hasn't "drained the swamp".
= Most of the 'dopes and babies' who were in that room have since been fired or
retired.
b's oversight highlights how the focus on TRUMP!! obscures what the Deep State has really
been up to. And how even smart people like b are drawn into false narratives.
= ... Trump seems to have a good chance to win the next election.
Many moa commenters have been saying much the same. But the reasoning that three power
centers are lined up for Trump is a red-herring.
Plus, whether Trump wins the next election or not, USA is on a path to war.
Democrats Ignore the Immigration Elephant in the Room
The most important issue of Trump's ascent has drawn silence from the Democratic Party, now
the party of the elites.
(Jim Larkin/Shutterstock )
January 17, 2020
|
12:01 am
Robert
W. Merry At Tuesday's Democratic debate sponsored by CNN and the Des Moines Register ,
nobody seemed to notice the elephant in the room -- or perhaps the candidates and moderators
just didn't want to acknowledge its presence. Whether it was out of blindness or stubbornness,
it tells us a great deal about the state of the Democratic Party in our time -- and also about
the state of American politics.
That elephant is immigration, and the issue it represents is the defining one of our time.
It is the most intractable, the most emotional, and the most irrepressible of all matters
facing Western societies. And yet it was almost totally ignored in the most crucial debate so
far in the Democratic quest for a presidential nominee. Two passing references was all the
issue got over two hours of polemical fireworks.
President Trump certainly came in for his share of opprobrium from the top six Democratic
candidates, yet nobody seemed to have the slightest awareness that the single most important
issue driving Trump's political rise four years ago was immigration. A Pew Research Center
survey revealed after the 2016 election that 66 percent of Trump supporters considered
immigration to be a "very big" problem, the highest percentage for any issue. For Hillary
Clinton supporters, the corresponding percentage was just 17. Also, fully 79 percent of Trump
voters favored building the border wall he advocated, compared to just 10 percent for Clinton
supporters.
During the 2016 campaign, the Washington Examiner called immigration "the mother of
all issues" -- touching on jobs, national security and terrorism, the public fisc, and the
cultural definition of America. That latter factor, said the paper, was a "nearly existential
question" involving the ultimate definition of a nation without borders.
Elsewhere in the West, we see the same political percolation. By most analyses, immigration
was the driving force behind Britain's 2016 vote for Brexit. The Atlantic ran a piece
in June of that year headlined: "The Immigration Battle at the Heart of Brexit." After the
vote, Slate rushed out to interview former British prime minister Tony Blair -- who, as the
website noted, "presided over the opening of Britain's borders." That had unleashed "a wave of
immigration unprecedented in [Britain's] history." Within a few years, noted Slate, "roughly
twice as many immigrants arrived in the United Kingdom as had arrived in the previous
half-century." The Brexit vote was in large measure a rebuke to that Blair project, pushed
avidly and relentlessly by the British ruling class.
Elsewhere in Europe -- Hungary, Poland, France, Germany, Italy, even Sweden, among other
nations -- mass immigration has emerged as the dominant issue, roiling the waters of national
politics and pushing to the fore various types of conservative populism. New parties have
emerged to join the issue, and old parties have gained new sway.
Many commentators and political analysts in recent years have posited the idea that a new
political fault line has emerged throughout the West, between the globalist elites and ordinary
citizens who are more nationalist in their political sensibilities and more culturally
protective. This is true. And while there are many issues that have come into play here, such
as trade, military adventurism, identity politics, and political correctness, immigration is
the key driver.
Generally, the open-border elites have been on the defensive since Donald Trump seized the
issue in 2015 and tied it to the emotional matters of terrorism and crime. Trump was probably
correct in the first Republican debate of the 2016 election cycle when he said that, were it
not for him, immigration probably wouldn't have been a major topic of discussion. It certainly
seemed as if the other candidates preferred to keep it out of the campaign debate so it could
be handled after the election in the more controlled environments of Congress and the courts.
By bringing it up, even in his crude and disturbing manner, Trump galvanized a large body of
voters who had concluded that the elites of both parties didn't really care about controlling
the borders.
Indeed, in their 2018 book, The Great Revolt , Salena Zito and Brad Todd posit that
Trump got an extra boost from working class Americans put off by the attacks on him from
prominent politicians of both parties who called his immigration concerns "unhinged,"
"reprehensible," "xenophobic," "racist," and "fascist." Zito and Todd write that many Trump
voters "saw one candidate, who shared their anxiety about immigration's potential connections
to domestic terrorism, being attacked by an entire political and media establishment that blew
off that concern as bigotry."
In this great political divide, the Democratic candidates at the debate represent the elite
preference for policies that embrace or nearly embrace open borders. An NPR study of candidate
positions indicated that, on the question of whether illegal crossings should be
decriminalized, four of those on the debate stage say yes, while the positions of the other two
remain "unclear." On whether immigration numbers should be increased, four say yes, while two
are unclear. On whether federal funding for border enforcement should be increased or
decreased, five have no clear position, while one says it should be decreased. A separate
Washington Post study on the candidates' views as to whether illegal immigrants should
be covered under a government-run health plan found that five say yes while one has no clear
position.
The Democratic Party has become the party of the country's elites -- globalist,
internationalist, anti-nationalist, free-trade, and open borders. Those views are so thoroughly
at variance with those of Trump voters that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we
have here a powerful issue of our time, perhaps the most powerful issue. Yet the journalistic
moderators at Tuesday's event didn't see fit to ask about it. And the candidates weren't
inclined to bring it up in any serious way.
Perhaps they thought that if they just ignored that elephant, eventually it would go away.
It won't.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is
the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century (Simon &
Schuster).
A million Eastern Europeans (Poles) move to the UK, and this precipitates Brexit. A million
Ukrainians move to Poland, and it is hardly noticed there. There is a difference here which
the author did not notice, or care to notice, and I feel no obligation to explain;
Also, in 2016 some truly nasty things were said about the Mexican people, and they were
not said by the people on the left. Again, this post fails to mention any of that;
These two things suggest a myopia of American conservatism.
Mark, you really are a voice of reason. I enjoy engaging with you.
Agree with you entirely here. I think you'll notice that ethnocentrism I was talking
about in the previous conversation we had in Rod's post about BenOp for the humanities. The
ethnocentrism is in full display on that thread.
It's weird to call the democrats the party of the elites when about half, it not more of
the working class vote democratic. The Washington post just put out a poll on black
Americans and their hatred of Trump is almost universal. Most blacks are working clsss. The
vast majority of Hispanics are also working class and they sure aren't Trump voters
either.
Trump and the GOP: had a mandate for populist reform, passed a tax-cut-for-billionaires,
almost start a neocon war with Iran
Obama and the Dems: had a mandate and passed ACA, which BigMediPharma is totally fine
with, gave Wall Street a big bailout and no punishment for the derivatives crash
Both of the parties are owned by the elites with a few exceptions here and there, such
as Sanders and Gabbard. And of course those two are attacked quite a bit by the elites.
Both parties want to increase immigration, because they drive down wages and increase
profits. Both parties are funded by the same crew of the shareholding class.
Trump is an outlier in that he is willing to talk about the unmentionable, which got him
elected. Unfortunately, by calling Mexican immigrants rapists, drug dealers and murderers,
he associated the immigration issue with racism instead of wage issues. While that played
to an ugly subset of his supporters, it took the discussion of immigration off the board
for Democrats because they don't want the association.
Bernie Sanders has fought against open borders in the past because of the effect on
wages. But he can't discuss it now.
In this sense only Sanders, Warren and Tulsi are authentic democrats... Major Pete is
definitely a wolf in sheep clothing.
Notable quotes:
"... Today's Democrats want to destroy those social programs you cite. They have wanted to destroy those social programs ever since President Clinton wanted to conspire with "Prime Minister" Gingrich to privatize Social Security. Luckily Monica Lewinsky saved us from that fate. ..."
"... A nominee Sanders would run on keeping Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid in existence. And he would mean it. A nominee Biden might pretend to say it. But he would conspire with the Republicans to destroy them all. ..."
Today's Democrats want to destroy those social programs you cite. They have wanted to
destroy those social programs ever since President Clinton wanted to conspire with "Prime
Minister" Gingrich to privatize Social Security. Luckily Monica Lewinsky saved us from that
fate.
A nominee Sanders would run on keeping Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid in
existence. And he would mean it. A nominee Biden might pretend to say it. But he would
conspire with the Republicans to destroy them all.
The ClintoBama Pelosicrats have no standing on which to pretend to support some very
popular social programs and hope to be believed any longer. Maybe that is why they feel there
is no point in even pretending any more.
Bearing in mind the fact that the DemParty would prefer a Trump re-election over a Sanders
election, I don't think anyone will be giving Trump any heave ho. The only potential nominee to
even have a chance to defeat Trump would be Sanders. And if Sanders doesn't win on ballot
number one, Sanders will not be permitted the nomination by an evil Trumpogenic DemParty
elite.
Even if Sanders wins the nomination, the evil Trumpogenic Demparty leadership and the
millions of Jonestown Clintobamas in the field will conspire against Sanders every way they
feel they can get away with. The Clintobamas would prefer Trump Term Two over Sanders Term One.
They know it, and the rest of us need to admit it.
If Sanders is nominated, he will begin the election campaign with a permanent deficit of
10-30 million Clintobama voters who will Never! Ever! vote for Sanders. Sanders will have to
attract enough New Voters to drown out and wash away the 10-30 million Never Bernie
clintobamas.
"'This landmark campaign finance legislation bans corporations like Amazon and Bank of
America from infiltrating the city's electoral process.'"
The article explains how Seattle was able to accomplish what will hopefully be a major
string of similar laws enacted across the land. The premise is quite simple. Too bad American
citizens can't take further control of their lives and how their tax dollars are wasted.
Gen Wesley Clark on US going to war in 7 countries in 5 yrs. This is an interesting YouTube
video. It's not if we go to war with Iraq...but when. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTbg11pCwOc
Trump is such a douchebag. He claims there were no lives lost due to their "early warning system" -- no mention that the "early
warning system" was a phone call!
Now he's once again justifying assassination, etc.
there was no "better choice" between trump and clinton. i still think clinton represented a greater danger than trump of getting
into a war with russia, but they are both warmongers first class. for our next election, we may have a choice between ebola and
flesh eating bacteria, or brain cancer and leprosy. if the game is rigged there's no winning it playing by the game's "rules".
Trump is such a douchebag. He claims there were no lives lost due to their "early warning system" -- no mention that the "early
warning system" was a phone call!
Now he's once again justifying assassination, etc.
there was no "better choice" between trump and clinton. i still think clinton represented a greater danger than trump of getting
into a war with russia, but they are both warmongers first class. for our next election, we may have a choice between ebola and
flesh eating bacteria, or brain cancer and leprosy. if the game is rigged there's no winning it playing by the game's "rules".
Little u.s. has been preaching human rights while mounting wars and lying. Albright
thought the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children were worth it. !!! it was worth killings and
maiming.
Over $7 trillion spent while homelessness is rampant. Healthcare is unaffordable for
the 99% of the population.
The u.s. will leave Iraq and Syria aka Saigon 1975 or horizontal. It's over.
Searching for friends. Now, after Russiagate here is little pompous: "we want to be
friends with Russia." Sanctions much excepting we need RD180 engines, seizure of diplomatic
properties. Who are you kidding?
If the concerns of ordinary people were not overlooked, if their interests were not
neglected and their desires not betrayed, there would be no opportunity for anyone to come
along and finally give them the acknowledgement and representation that they deserve since
they would already be satisfied.
But their voice is ignored, there trust constantly abused and their hopes ultimately
forsaken.
If the public was cared for at all, what reason would there be for them to feel
indignation or disappointment? How could there be anything to appeal to at all? How could
there be any unspoken sentiment to tap into and arouse? Those who pledge to pull the rug out
from under the feet of the establishment criminals that call themselves politicians are
smeared and threatened. There cannot be a restoration of positive values and policies, and
the public most definitely cannot have their needs not just insincerely addressed, but
positively fulfilled. In what kind of world is someone who sympathizes with popular opinion
fervently attacked? What does it say about a society that condemns a truly popular leader who
is confided in and adored? A leader that vows to give the people their pride and dignity
back? To reinstate a semblance of order? To persecute the traitors that have sacrificed their
future on the alter of usury and greed? No. The clique must not be held to account for their
crimes, and the concept of justice must remain theoretical. The term populist is perceived
negatively. But why? I will tell you why. Because the charlatans that call themselves leaders
today fear their milk and honey being wrested from their grimy little paws.
"... We know from various Congressional folks that briefers of Congress have failed to produce any evidence of "imminent" plans to kill Americans Soleimani was involved with that would have made this a legal killing rather than an illegal assassination. ..."
"... As Sergey Lavrov and President Putin have stated for a long time (and long before President Trump came along), the USA is 'agreement incapable'. However, now you have to wonder if any country really trusts any agreement they will make with the USA. Without trust on any level, cooperation/trade treaties and so on on are impossible or eminently disposable, i.e., not worth the paper upon which they are written. ..."
"... 603 Americans killed in Iraq, he says Trump supporters claim, but we had millions of Iraqi's, Syrians, Libyans and others killed or their lives uprooted by Bush and Obama and company – yet they were not assassinated. ..."
"... NO. Shockingly bad decision; you can just manage to glimpse around the edges of the war propaganda the embarrassment and backpedaling for having willingly stepped into such a gigantic steaming pile of excrement. The parade of smooth-faced liars on the MSM asserting that the US is now safer (the "war is peace" crowd) is sickening. Some even have the gall to assert that the enormous crowds in Iran are forced to attend by the repressive regime. Of course, there's no evidence of a provocation and they'll never produce any. ..."
"... I find it interesting that Pompeo was "disappointed" – what did he think would happen? For a Secretary of State, he's obviously extremely out of touch with the rest of the world if he didn't have some realistic idea of how this would go down. ..."
"... One other glaring omission from the article – the only reason there was a US military contractor in Iraq available to be killed in the first place is due to the illegal war based on false premises launched almost two decades ago by the US, which continues to occupy the country to this day. ..."
"... Pretty clear who the terrorists are on this case. ..."
"... Fascinating developments on this issue today. Pompeo admits that nothing was "imminent." Given the very specific definitions of Imminence that draw red lines between what is or is not legal in international law, this could get big very quickly. ..."
"... War hawks dressed in red or blue can become mercenaries and create Go Fund Me drives to protect their investments and any particular country which they have a personal affinity or citizenship. ..."
"... Lest we forget: "War is a racket." ..."
"... How does this meet the internationally recognized legal requirement of "imminent" danger to human life required to kill a political or military leader outside of a declared war? All public statements by the U.S. political and military leadership point to a retaliatory killing, at best, with a vague overlay of preemptive action. ..."
"... If you agree that the "Bethlehem Doctrine" has never been recognized by the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, or the legislatures of the three rogue states who have adopted it, the assassination of Suleimani appears to have been a murder. ..."
"... "I cross-checked a Pentagon casualty database with obituaries and not 1 of the 9 American servicemen killed fighting in Iraq since 2011 died at the hands of militias backed by Suleimani. His assassination was about revenge and provocation, not self-defense." ..."
"... The unsuccessful operation may indicate that the Trump administration's killing of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani last week was part of a broader operation than previously explained, raising questions about whether the mission was designed to cripple the leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or solely to prevent an imminent attack on Americans as originally stated. ..."
"... For some "exceptional" reason we don't recognize international law! We are the terrorists not them. ..."
Can The US Assassination Of Qassem Soleimani Be Justified? Posted on
January 10, 2020 by Yves Smith Yves here. Even though the
angst over "what next" with the US/Iran confrontation has fallen a bit, there is still a
depressingly significant amount of mis- and dis-information about the Soleimani assassination.
This post is a nice high level treatment that might be a good candidate for circulating among
friends and colleagues who've gotten a hefty dose of MSM oversimplifications and social media
sloganeering.
Update 6:50 AM: Due to the hour, I neglected to add a quibble, and readers jumped on the
issue in comments. First, it has not been established who launched the attack that killed a the
US contractor. The US quickly asserted it was Kat'ib Hezbollah, but there were plenty of groups
in the area that had arguably better motives, plus Kat'ib Hezbollah has denied it made the
strike. Second, Kat'ib Hezbollah is an Iraqi military unit.
By Barkley Rosser, Professor of Economics at James Madison University in Harrisonburg,
Virginia. Originally published at EconoSpeak
We know from various Congressional folks that briefers of Congress have failed to produce
any evidence of "imminent" plans to kill Americans Soleimani was involved with that would have
made this a legal killing rather than an illegal assassination. The public statements by
administration figures have cited such things as the 1979 hostage crisis, the already dead
contractor, and, oh, the need to "reestablish deterrence" after Trump did not follow through on
previous threats he made. None of this looks remotely like "imminent plans," not to mention
that the Iraqi PM Abdul-Mahdi has reported that Soleimani was on the way to see him with a
reply to a Saudi peace proposal. What a threatening imminent plan!
As it is, despite the apparent lack of "imminent plans" to kill Americans, much of the
supporting rhetoric for this assassination coming out of Trump supporters (with bragging about
it having reportedly been put up on Trump's reelection funding website) involves charges that
Soleimani was "the world's Number One terrorist" and was personally responsible for killing 603
Americans in Iraq. Even as many commentators have noted the lack of any "imminent plans,"
pretty much all American ones have prefaced these questions with assertions that Soleimani was
unquestionable "evil" and "bad" and a generally no good guy who deserved to be offed, if not
right at this time and in this way. He was the central mastermind and boss of a massive
international terror network that obeyed his orders and key to Iran's reputed position as "the
Number One state supporter of terrorism," with Soleimani the key to all of that.
Of course, in Iran it turns out that Soleimani was highly respected, even as many oppose the
hawkish policies he was part of. He was viewed as crucial to the victory over ISIS/ISIL/Daesh
in Iraq, much feared by Iranians. Shia take martyrdom seriously, and he is viewed as a martyr.
It appears that even Trump took notice of the massive outpouring of mourning and praise for
Soleimani there up to the point of people dying in a stampede in a mourning crowd in his
hometown. But, hey, obviously these people simply do not understand that he was The World's
Number One Terrorist! Heck, I saw one commenter on Marginal Revolution claiming Soleimani was
responsible killing "hundreds of thousands." Yes, this sort of claim is floating around out
there.
A basic problem here is that while indeed Soleimani commanded the IGRC al Quds force that
supported and supplied various Shia militias in several Middle Eastern nations, these all were
(and are) ultimately independent. Soleimani may have advised them, but he was never in a
position to order any of them to do anything. Al Quds itself has never carried out any of the
various attacks outside of Iran that Soleimani is supposedly personally responsible for.
Let us consider the specific case that gets pushed most emphatically, the 603 Americans dead
in Iraq, without doubt a hot button item here in the US. First of all, even if Soleimani really
was personally responsible for their deaths, there is the technical matter that their deaths
cannot be labeled "terrorism." That is about killing non-combatant civilians, not military
personnel involved in combat. I do not support the killing of those American soldiers, most of
whom were done in by IEDs, which also horribly injured many more. But indeed this awful stuff
happened. But in fact this was all done by Iraqi -based Shia militias. Yes, they were supported
by Soleimani, but while some have charged al Quds suppplied the IEDs, this turns out not to be
the case. These were apparently made in Iraq by these local militias. Soleimani's al Quds are
not totally innocent in all this, reportedly providing some training and some inputs. But the
IEDs were made by the militias themselves and planted by them.
It is also the case that when the militias and Americans were working together against
ISIS/IISIL/Daesh, none of this happened, and indeed that was still the case up until this most
recent set of events, with the death setting off all this an American civilian contractor
caught on a base where several Iraqis were killed by a rocket from the Kat'b Hezbollah Iraqi
group. Of course with Trump having Soleimani assassinated, this cooperation has ceased, with
the US military no longer either fighting ISIS/ISIL/Daesh nor training the Iraqi military.
Indeed, the Iraqi parliament has demanded that US troops leave entirely, although Trump
threatened Iraq with economic sanctions if that is followed through on.
As it is, the US datinrg back to the Obama administration has been supplying Saudi Arabia
with both arms and intelligence that has been used to kill thousands of Yemeni civilians.
Frankly, US leaders look more like terrorists than Soleimani.
I shall close by noting the major changes in opinion in both Iran and Iraq regarding the US
as a result of this assassination. In Iran as many have noted there were major demonstrations
against the regime going on, protesting bad economic conditions, even as those substantially
were the result of the illegal US economic sanctions imposed after the US withdrew from the
JCPOA nuclear deal, to which Iran was adhering. Now those demonstrations have stopped and been
replaced by the mass demonstrations against the US over Soleimani's assassination. And we also
have Iran further withdrawing from that deal and moving to more highly enrich uranium.
In Iraq, there had been major anti-Iran demonstrations going on, with these supported to
some degree by the highest religious authority in the nation, Ayatollah Ali Sistani. However,
when Soleimani's body was being transferred to Iran, Sistani's son accompanied his body. It
really is hard to see anything that justifies this assassination.
I guess I should note for the record that I am not a fan of the Iranian regime, much less
the IGRC and its former and new commander. It is theocratic and repressive, with many political
prisoners and a record of killing protestors. However, frankly, it is not clearly all that much
worse than quite a few of its neighboring regimes. While Supreme Jurisprudent Khamenei was not
popularly elected, its president, Rouhani, was, who obeyed popular opinion in negotiating the
JCPOA that led to the relaxation of economic sanctions, with his power reduced when Trump
withdrew from the agreement. Its rival Saudi Arabia has no democracy at all, and is also a
religiously reactionary and repressive regime that uses bone saws on opponents and is
slaughtering civilians in a neighboring nation.
with the death setting off all this an American civilian contractor caught on a base
where several Iraqis were killed by a rocket from the Kat'b Hezbollah Iraqi group.
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding this, but it appears to be presented here as a fact.
Kat'b Hezbollah have denied responsibility for that rocket attack. To the best of my
knowledge, no proof whatsoever has been presented that it was not an attack by jihadis in the
area, whom Khat'b Hezbollah were fighting, or by others with an interest in stirring the
pot.
They are having a hard time coming up with public evidence to support any justification,
aren't they?
The latest was Pence's "keeping it secret to protect sources and methods" meme. Purely
speculating here, but I immediately thought, "Oh, Israeli intelligence." Gotta protect allies
in the region.
Debka, run by supposedly-former Israeli military intelligence, was enthusing about
upcoming joint operations against Iran and its allies a month or two ago. In contrast,
they've been uncharacteristically quiet, though supportive of the US, regarding recent
developments.
Secretary of State Pompeo claimed that Soleimani was responsible for hundreds of thousands
of deaths in Syria. Basically blaming Iran for all deaths in the Syrian war.
People more commonly do this with Assad. A complicated war with multiple factions fighting
each other, armed by outside sources including the US, most with horrific human rights
records, but almost every pundit and politician in the US talks as though Assad killed
everyone personally.
Once in a while you get a little bit of honesty seeping in, but it never changes the
narrative. Caitlin Johnstone said something about that, not specifically about Syria. The
idea was that you can sometimes find facts reported in the mainstream press that contradict
the narrative put out by pundits and politicians and for that matter most news stories, but
these contradictory facts never seem to change the prevailing narrative.
That sounds suspiciously like sour grapes and another possible motive for the killing
– revenge.
Soleimani led a number of militias that were successful in defeating the Saudi (and CIA)
sponsored Sunni jihadis who failed to implement the empire's "regime change" playbook in
Syria.
No doubt a lot of guys like Pompeo wanted him dead for that reason alone.
The simple answer NO, killing a sitting army general of a sovereign state on a diplomatic
mission resides in the realm of the truly absurd. Twisting the meaning of the word "imminent"
far beyond its ordinary use to justify the murder is even more absurd. And the floating
subtext to all this talk about lost American lives is that the US can invade and occupy
foreign lands, engage in the sanctimonious slaughter of locals and whoever else gets in the
way of feeding the bloodlust of Pompeo and his ilk (to say nothing of feeding the outsized
ego of a lunatic like Trump), and yet expect to suffer no combat casualties from those
defending their lands. It's the most warped form of "exceptional" thinking.
As an aside, I wonder if the msm faithfully pushing the talk about Iran downing that
Ukrainian commercial jet is designed to take the heat off a beleaguered Boeing. The
investigation hasn't even begun but already we have the smoking gun, Iran did it.
Even the question is wrong. The killing was cowardly, outside all international norms
(this from a country that dares to invoke "international order" whenever it is suitable), a
colossal mistake, a strategic blunder, and plain destructive.
The more one learns about QS' activities, the more it seems that he was "disposed of"
precisely because of his unique talent and abilities to bring together the various local
factions (particularly, in Iraq), so that then – unified – they could fight
against the common enemy (guess who?). He was not guilty of killing amrikans – nor was
he planning to – his "sin" was to try and unite locals to push the us out of ME. It was
always going to be an uphill battle, but in death he may – in time – achieve his
wish.
I'm in this camp too. But with a twist. Pure speculation here – and I'm sure it
would never be exposed, but is there even any proof we did it? Was it an apache helicopter or
a drone; whom have we supplied with these things? Who is this bold? Since our military has
been dead-set-against assassinating Soleimani or any other leader it seems highly unlikely
they proposed this to Trump. Mattis flatly refused to even consider such a thing. So I keep
wondering if the usual suspect might be the right one – the Israelis. They have the
proper expertise. And the confusion that followed? If we had done it we'd have had our PSAs
ready to print. Instead we proffered an unsigned letter and other "rough drafts" of the
incident and then retracted them like idiots. As if we were frantic to step in and prevent
the Rapture. We could have taken the blame just to prevent a greater war. Really, that's what
it looks like to me.
Surely the whole point of the strike is that it was illegal: that is to say that it was a
message to the Iraqis that they are NOT allowed to help Iran evade sanctions, NOT allowed to
do oil-for-infrastructure deals with China and NOT allowed to invite senior Iranians around
for talks: i.e. Iraq is not yet sovereign and it is the US that makes the rules around there;
any disobedience will summarily be punished by the de facto rulers even if that violates
agreements and laws applicable in Iraq.
If you disagree, then what should the US do if Iraq does not toe the Western line?
" The killing was cowardly, outside all international norms (this from a country that
dares to invoke "international order" whenever it is suitable), a colossal mistake, a
strategic blunder, and plain destructive "
I think the immediate impact which has long terms implications for how other countries
view USA foreign policy is simply that any high ranking individual from any other country on
earth has got to be aware that essentially no international norms now exist. It's one thing
to 'whack' a bin Laden or dispose of a Gaddafi but another whole kettle of fish to
assassinate a high ranking official going about their business who's no immediate security
threat to the USA and when no state of war exists.
For example, might a EU general now acquiesce to demands about NATO? Not saying this is
going to happen by a long shot, but still a niggling thought might linger. Surely the
individual will be resentful at the very least. I'm also reminded of a story about John
Bolton allegedly telling a negotiator (UN or European?) that Bolton knew where the
negotiator's family resided. These things add up.
As Sergey Lavrov and President Putin have stated for a long time (and long before
President Trump came along), the USA is 'agreement incapable'. However, now you have to
wonder if any country really trusts any agreement they will make with the USA. Without trust
on any level, cooperation/trade treaties and so on on are impossible or eminently disposable,
i.e., not worth the paper upon which they are written.
This is where the middle term ramifications start to kick-in. We know that Russia and
China are making some tentative steps towards superficial integration in limited areas beyond
just cooperation. Will they find more common ground? Will European countries (and by
extension the EU) really start to deliver on an alternative financial clearing system? How
will India and Japan react? Does nationalism of the imperial variety re-emerge as a world
force – for good or bad?
Will regional powers such as Russia, China, India, France or Iran quietly find more common
ground also? But alliances are problematic and sometimes impose limitations that are
exploitable. So, might a different form of cooperation emerge?
Long term its all about advantage and trust. Trust is a busted flush now. (My 2 cents, and
properly priced.)
As Thuto above says, the simple answer is "No". IF S was guilty of all those things
ascribed to him, he'd have been judged and sentenced (yes, I do realise Iran would never
extradite him etc. etc. – but there would have been a process and after the process,
well, some things would be more justifiable). But we have the process because it's important
to have a process – otherwise, anyone can find themselves on a hit list for any reason
whatsoever.
If the US doesn't want to follow and process, then it can't be suprised if others won't.
Ignoring the process works for the strongest, while they are the strongest. And then it
doesn't.
603 Americans killed in Iraq, he says Trump supporters claim, but we had millions of
Iraqi's, Syrians, Libyans and others killed or their lives uprooted by Bush and Obama and
company – yet they were not assassinated.
I think – just a guess – the reason Soleimani was killed can be summed up in
one word:
Netanyahu.
That, and on a broader, bird's eye view level in broad strokes – Michael Hudson's
recent article outlining U.S. policy of preserving USD hegemony at all costs, that has
existed since at least the 1950's, which depicts Soleimani's assassination as not a Trump
qwerk but a logical application of that policy.
You might say the swamp drainers came to drain the swamp and ended filling it up
instead.
The mostest terriblest guy in the history of this or any other universe, but the average
Joe never heard of until they announced they killed him. His epochal terribleness really flew
under the radar.
The swamp drainers are so busy guzzling as much as they can quaff, without drowning;
writhing each others' dead-eyed, bloated feeding frenzy; that obscene media distractions need
to escalate in sadistic, off-hand terror. But, it's so ingrained into our governance, we just
call it democracy?
Hudson's take on USD hegemony is reasonable, but I don't think we'd assassinate Soleimani
in anticipation of losing it. We have dealt with all the sects in the middle east for a long
time and we have come to terms with them, until now. In a time that requires the shutting
down of oil and gas production. I think (Carney, Keen, Murphy, etc.) oil is the basis for our
economy, for productivity, for the world, that's a no brainer. But my second thoughts go more
along the lines that oil and natural gas will be government monopolies directly – no
need to use those resources to make the dollar or other currencies monopolies. Sovereign
currency will still be a sovereign monopoly regardless of the oil industry. That also
explains why we want hands-on control of this resource. And with that in mind, it would seem
Soleimani might have been more of an asset for us.
I hate to tell you but as much as we are fans of Hudson, he's all wet on this one. The
dollar is the reserve currency because the US is willing to run sustained trade deficits,
which is tantamount to exporting jobs. Perhaps more important, my connected economists say
they know of no one who has the ear of the military-intel state who believes this either.
This may indeed have been a line of thought 50 years ago but it isn't now.
much of the supporting rhetoric for this assassination coming out of Trump supporters
(with bragging about it having reportedly been put up on Trump's reelection funding
website)
I thought I had a pretty strong stomach for this stuff, but it's been really nauseating
for me to see the displays of joy and flag waving over the assassination of someone the
overwhelming majority of people were wholly unaware of prior to his death. My guess is that
it's mostly just a sort of schadenfreude at the squirming of Democrats as they (with few
exceptions) fail to articulate any coherent response.
The response should be clear without any caveats, "Trump is a coward who would never
gamble with his life, but will happily gamble with the lives of your kids in uniform." This
should resonate with most people, I don't believe that neocons really have any grassroots
support.
NO. Shockingly bad decision; you can just manage to glimpse around the edges of the war
propaganda the embarrassment and backpedaling for having willingly stepped into such a
gigantic steaming pile of excrement. The parade of smooth-faced liars on the MSM asserting
that the US is now safer (the "war is peace" crowd) is sickening. Some even have the gall to
assert that the enormous crowds in Iran are forced to attend by the repressive regime. Of
course, there's no evidence of a provocation and they'll never produce any.
Politico Europe is
reporting that behind Europes seemingly supine response, officials and politicians are
'seething' over the attack. Its clearly seen around the world as not just illegal, but an
appalling precedent.
So far, American efforts to convince Europeans of the bright side of Soleimani's
killing have been met with dropped jaws .
The silence from other countries on this event has been deafening. And that should tell
Trump and Pompeo something, but I doubt if they are smart enough to figure it out.
I find it interesting that Pompeo was "disappointed" – what did he think would
happen? For a Secretary of State, he's obviously extremely out of touch with the rest of the
world if he didn't have some realistic idea of how this would go down.
On one hand, the life of each and every victim of head-separation and droning is as
precious as that of one Soleimani.
On the other, the general's is more precious and thus, the behind the scene seething by
Europe's politicians and officials. (They and many others are all potential targets now,
versus previously droning wedding guests – time to seethe).
The more I think about it, the more it seemed like the Administration and its allies were
probing to see how far they could go. They bombed PMUs and appeared to get away with it. So
then they upped the ante when the Iraqis complained and finally got some moderate push-back.
Not taking American lives in the missile strike seems to prove they Iranians didn't want to
escalate. Still, I dont know about the Pentagon, but I was impressed with the accuracy.
Yes. From the picture at Vineyard of the Saker, they hit specific buildings. There were
comments after the drone attack on Abqaiq and Khurais oil fields in KSA that they showed
surprising accuracy, but perhaps this time surprised the intelligence agencies. Perhaps that
was why Trump declared victory instead of further escalating. This is speculation, of
course.
There is also a good article giving more detail of these attacks and underlining the fact
that not a single solitary missile was intercepted. What percentage did the Syrians/Russians
manage to intercept of the US/UK/French missiles attack back in 2018? Wasn't it about seventy
percent?
The Iranians are not done retaliating. They have a history of disproportionate
retaliation, but when the right opportunity presents itself, and that routinely takes years.
The limited strike was out of character and appears to have been the result of the amount of
upset internally over the killing.
I have more a lot more respect for the strategic acumen of the Iranian regime than I do
for that of the American regime. Now it's led by a collection of fragile male egos and
superstitious rapture ready religious fanatics. Before them the regime was led by cowardly
corporate suck ups. They all take their cues from the same military intelligence complex.
One other glaring omission from the article – the only reason there was a US
military contractor in Iraq available to be killed in the first place is due to the illegal
war based on false premises launched almost two decades ago by the US, which continues to
occupy the country to this day.
Aye! This!
assume a ladder on a windy day, with a hammer irresponsibly left perched on the edge of the
top rung.
if i blithely walk under that ladder just as the wind gusts and get bonked in the head by the
falling hammer whose fault is it?
we shouldn't be there in the first damned place.
and as soon as the enabling lies were exposed, we should have left, post haste .leaving all
kinds of money and apologies in our wake.
to still be hanging around, unwanted by the locals, all these years later is arrogant and
stupid.
during the Bush Darkness, i was accused to my face(even strangled, once!) of being an
american-hating traitor for being against the war, the Bush Cabal, and the very idea of
American Empire.
almost 20 years later, I'm still absolutely opposed to those things not least out of a care
for the Troops(tm) .and a fervent wish that for once in my 50 years i could be proud to be an
American.
what a gigantic misallocation of resources, in service of rapine and hegemony, while my
fellow americans suffer and wither and scratch around for crumbs.
Another of many questions that remain involve the warped interpretation of "imminent" of
the Bethlehem Doctrine. What institution will put a full stop to that doctrine of terror?
It is a global hazard to continue to let that be adopted as any kind of standard.
Under the Bethlehem Doctrine the entire political class in the USA, and possibly a few
other countries, could be assassinated. What is legal or justified for one is justified for
all.
Rosser is an economist rather than a philosopher or. jurist, and so he doesn't appear to
realize that "justification" in the abstract is meaningless. An act can only be justified or
not according to some ethical or legal principle, and you need to say what that principle is
at the beginning before you start your argument. He doesn't do that, so his argument has no
more validity than that of someone you get into a discussion with in a bar or over coffee at
work.
Legally, of course, there is no justification, because there was no state of armed conflict
between the US and Iran, so the act was an act of state murder. It doesn't matter who the
person was or what we was alleged to have done or be going to do. There's been a dangerous
tendency developing in recent years to claim some kind of right to pre-emptive attacks. There
is no such legal doctrine, and the ultimate source of the misrepresentation – Art 51 of
the UN Charter – simply recognizes that nothing in the Charter stops a state resisting
aggression until help arrives. That's it.
Oh, and of course if this act were "justified" then any similar act in a similar situation
would be justified as well, which might not work out necessarily to America's advantage.
General Jonathan Shaw, former commander of UK forces in Iraq, put it well: Iran's
objectives are political, not military. Their aim is not to destroy any American air base,
but to drive a wedge between the US and its Arab allies -- and the Soleimani assassination
has achieved more to this end than anything that could have been cooked up in Tehran. The
Sunnis are standing down and the US and Israel now once again face being without real
friends in the region. When push came to shove, all Kushner's efforts amounted to nothing.
How elated the Iranians must be, even in the midst of such a setback.
Which if true means that instead of divide and conquer Trump and Pompeo may instead be
practicing unite and be conquered when it comes to US meddling in the Middle East.
I think that I see a danger for Israel here with a very tight pucker factor. I had assumed
that if there was a war between Israel and Hezbollah, that Hezbollah would let loose their
older rockets first to use up the Israeli anti-missile ordinance that they have. After that
would come their modern accurate missiles.
But part of that Iranian attack on those US bases was the use of older missiles that had been
retro-fitted with gear for accurate targeting which obviously worked out spectacularly.
Israel could assume that Iran would have given Hezbollah the same technology and the
implication here is that any first wave of older Hezbollah missiles would just be as accurate
as the following barrages of newer missiles.
I wonder if it is remotely possible that all countries, say at the UN, could design
acceptable language to make oil and natural gas a universal resource with a mandated
conservation – agreed to by all. Those countries which have had oil economies and have
become rich might agree to it because the use of oil and gas will be so restricted in future
that they will not have those profits. But it would at least provide them with some steady
income. It would prevent the oil wars we will otherwise have in our rush to monopolize the
industry for profit; it would conserve the use of oil/gas and extend it farther out into the
future so we can build a sustainable worldwide civilization and mitigate much of the damage
we have done to the planet, etc. How can we all come together and make energy, oil and natgas
access a universal human right (for the correct use)?
Actually Soleimani was guilty of the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Tens of
thousands of ISIS fighters that is. Do they count? The Saudis, Gulf States and the CIA may
shed a tear for them but nobody else will. When Soleimani arrived in Baghdad, he was
traveling in a diplomatic capacity to help try to ease off tensions between the Saudis and
the Iranians. And this was the imminent danger that Trump was talking about. Not an imminent
danger to US troops but a danger that the Saudis and Iranians might negotiate an
accommodation. Michael Hudson has said similar in a recent article.
I think that what became apparent from that attack last year on the Saudi oil
installations was that they were now a hostage. In other words, if the US attacks Iran, then
Iran will take out the entirety of Saudi oil production and perhaps the Saudi Royal family
themselves. There is no scenario in an Iran-US war where the Kingdom come out intact. So it
seems that they have been putting out feelers with the Iranians about coming to an
accommodation. This would explain why when Soleimani was murdered, there was radio silence on
behalf of the Saudis.
Maybe Trump has worked out that all of the Saudi oil facilities becoming toast would be
bad for America too but, more importantly, to himself personally. After all, what is the
point of having the Saudis only sell their oil in US dollars if there is no oil to sell? What
would such a development do to the standing of the US dollar internationally? The financial
crisis would sink his chances for a win this November and that is something that he will
never allow. And I bet that he did not Tucker Carlson to tell him that.
Fascinating developments on this issue today. Pompeo admits that nothing was "imminent."
Given the very specific definitions of Imminence that draw red lines between what is or is
not legal in international law, this could get big very quickly.
What percent of the presumed Trump base, and imperial Big Business and Banksters, not to
mention the sloshing mass of other parts of the electorate subject to "spinning" in the
Bernays Tilt-a-Whirl, would give a rat's aff about "war crimes" charges? Drone murders to
date, the whole stupid of profitable (to a few, externalities ignored) GWOT, all the sh!t the
CIA and CENTCOM and Very Special Ops have done with impunity against brown people and even
people here at home, not anything more than squeaks from a small fraction of us.
And Trump is the Decider, yes, who signed off (as far as we know) on killing Soleimani
that was lined up by the Borg, but really, how personalized to him would any repentance and
disgust or even scapegoat targeting by the Blob really be, in the kayfabe that passes for
"democracy in America?"
I always though de Tocqueville titled his oeuvre on the political economy he limned way
back when as a neat bit of Gallic irony
I don't know. Might Trump benefit from charges of war crimes, spinning them as further
proof that the United Nations, International Criminal Court, etc. are controlled by commies
and muslims out to get the USA?
As for the imminence of the hypothetical attacks, "There is no doubt that there were a
series of imminent attacks being plotted by Qassem Soleimani," Pompeo told the Fox News host.
"We don't know precisely when and we don't know precisely where, but it was real."
Remember that imminent=possible at some time in the near or distant future, and Vice President Dick Cheney articulated shortly after 9/11: in Mr. Suskind's words, "if
there was even a 1 percent chance of terrorists getting a weapon of mass destruction -- and
there has been a small probability of such an occurrence for some time -- the United States
must now act as if it were a certainty." That doctrine didn't prevent Bush's
re-election. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/books/20kaku.html
Declare victory and bring them all home. Leave behind W's Mission Accomplished banner and
pallets of newly printed $100s with Obama's picture.
Along the lines of Bismarck, not worth the life of a single Pomeranian grenadier. Not my
20 year old, not anybody else's in my name, either, especially since this began before they
were born.
And to whom will they sell their oil and natural gas? Who cares – its a fungible
commodity of perhaps only of concern to our "allies" in Western Europe. Not my problem and
great plan to mitigate carbon emissions!
War hawks dressed in red or blue can become mercenaries and create Go Fund Me drives to
protect their investments and any particular country which they have a personal affinity or
citizenship.
The whole episode reminds me of a Martin Scorsese plot line. A disagreement among "Made
Men". The unfortunate symbolism and 'disrespect' of the embassy protest demanded a response,
especially after all the fuss Trump made about Benghazi. Some things cannot be allowed. The
Iranians, Russians and Americans probably decided between themselves what would be sufficient
symbolism to prevent a war, and so Soleimani was sacrificed to die as a hero/martyr. A small
price to prevent things spiraling out of control. The Iranian response seems to add weight to
this hypothesis.
Forgive me for taking this a little more in the direction of theory, but can the rest of
the world justify the assassination of CIA/Pentagon/CENTCOM officials in a similar manner
given the opportunity? Are these organizations not an analog to Quds? That seems to be more
in line with the type of questions we need to be asking ourselves as US citizens in a
multi-polar world. This article, despite its best intentions, still hints at an American
exceptionalism that no longer exists in the international mind. The US could barely get away
with its BS in the 90s, it definitely can't in 2020.
The US no longer has the monopoly on the narrative ("Big Lie") rationalizing its actions,
not to say the other countries have the correct narrative, just that, there are a whole bunch
of narratives ("Lies") out there being told to the world by various powers that are not the
US, and the US is having a difficult time holding on to the mic. The sensible route would be
to figure out how to assert cultural and political values/power in this world without the
mafiosi methods. Maybe some old fashioned (if not icky, cynical) diplomacy. It is better than
spilled blood, or nuclear war.
The US military/intelligence wonks overplayed their hand with Soleimani. I think the
Neo-Cons gave Trump a death warrant for Soleimani, and Trump was too self-involved (stupid)
to know or care who he was offing. His reaction to the blow back betrays that.
Now he is f*****, along with the chicken-hawks, and they all know it. They just have to
sit back and watch Iran bomb US bases because the alternative is a potential big war,
possibly involving China and Russia, that can't be fought by our Islamist foreign legions.
It'll demand the involvement of US troops on the ground and the US electorate won't tolerate
it.
Anyone who has worked in the counter-terrorism field knows that when a credible and
imminent threat is received the first act is to devise a response to counter the threat. It
may involve raising security measures at an airline security checkpoint, it may involve
arrests, if possible, of the would-be terrorist(s). It may involve evacuating a building and
conducting a search for a bomb. It may involve changing a scheduled appearance or route of
travel of a VIP.
The point is to stop the operators behind the threat from completing their terrorist act.
What it certainly does NOT involve is assassinating someone who may have given the order but
is definitely not involved in carrying out the act. Such an assassination would not only be
ineffective in countering the threat but would likely be seen as increasing the motivation
behind the attack. Such was the assassination of Soleimani, even if one believes in the
alleged imminent threat. This was simply a revenge killing due to Soleimani's success at
organizing the opposition to US occupation.
We don't know precisely when and we don't know precisely where, but it was real.
How does this meet the internationally recognized legal requirement of "imminent" danger
to human life required to kill a political or military leader outside of a declared war? All
public statements by the U.S. political and military leadership point to a retaliatory
killing, at best, with a vague overlay of preemptive action.
If you agree that the "Bethlehem Doctrine" has never been recognized by the United
Nations, the International Criminal Court, or the legislatures of the three rogue states who
have adopted it, the assassination of Suleimani appears to have been a murder.
This is absolutely chilling. These "End Times/Armageddon" lunatics want to destroy the
world. Who would Jesus have murdered? They stand the lessons of his state-sanctioned murder
on their heads
My two-pennyworth? The US press and the circles surrounding Trump are already crowing that
he 'won' the exchange. If, as speculated, he went against military advice in ordering this
assassination, his 'victory' will only confirm his illusions that he is a military genius,
which makes him even more dangerous. There are some rather nasty parallels with the rise of
Hitler appearing here.
The claim that Soleimani had killed hundreds of Americans was repeated, word for word, in
many articles in the papers of record (e.g., New York Times, 1/7/20; Washington Post, 1/3/20,
1/3/20) as well as across the media (e.g., Boston Globe, 1/3/20; Fox News, 1/6/20; The Hill,
1/7/20).
These "hundreds of Americans" were US forces killed by improvised explosive devices (IEDs)
during the Iraq War, supposedly made in Iran and planted by Iranian-backed Shia militias. As
professor Stephen Zunes pointed out in the Progressive (1/7/20), the Pentagon provided no
evidence that Iran made the IEDs, other than the far-fetched claim that they were too
sophisticated to be made in Iraq -- even though the US invasion had been justified by claims
that Iraq had an incredibly threatening WMD program. The made-in-Iran claim, in turn, was the
main basis for pinning responsibility for IED attacks on Shia militias -- which were, in any
case, sanctioned by the Iraqi government, making Baghdad more answerable for their actions
than anyone in Tehran. Last year, Gareth Porter reported in Truthout, (7/9/19) that the claim
that Iran was behind the deaths of US troops was part of Vice President Dick Cheney's plan to
build a case for yet another war.
IIRC the "sophistication claim" was made years ago. Apparently the basic technology is
applied in oilfields to pierce oil well lining tubes at the oil layer. So the Iraqis knew all
about the basic technique, only needed some more information.
About those "603 American deaths" that Soleimani is posthumously being charged with .
"I cross-checked a Pentagon casualty database with obituaries and not 1 of the 9 American
servicemen killed fighting in Iraq since 2011 died at the hands of militias backed by
Suleimani. His assassination was about revenge and provocation, not self-defense."
"The U.S. Government and almost all of the media continue to declare that Iran is the
biggest sponsor of terrorism. That is not true. That is a lie. I realize that calling this
assertion a lie opens me to accusations of being an apologist for Iran. But simply look at
the facts."
"The Trump Administration needs to stop with its infantile ranting and railing about Iran and
terrorism. The actual issues surrounding Iran's growing influence in the region have little
to do with terrorism. Our policies and actions towards Iran are accelerating their
cooperation with China and Russia, not diminishing it. I do not think that serves the
longterm interests of the United States or our allies in the Middle East"
The strike targeting Abdul Reza Shahlai, a financier and key commander of Iran's elite
Quds Force who has been active in Yemen, did not result in his death, according to four U.S.
officials familiar with the matter.
The unsuccessful operation may indicate that the Trump administration's killing of Maj. Gen.
Qasem Soleimani last week was part of a broader operation than previously explained, raising
questions about whether the mission was designed to cripple the leadership of the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps or solely to prevent an imminent attack on Americans as originally
stated.
"Justification"?????
You're kidding right?
"They", those who we firstly "embrace" for our own interests are "for us" until we decide we
are "against them"!
What a farce our foreign policies are!
For some "exceptional" reason we don't recognize international law!
We are the terrorists not them.
Prediction for this stupidest of all worlds: Iraq really does boot us out, T-bone siezes
on this for its obvious popularity among his base, and uses "He Kept Us Out Of War" for
re-election.
Where is my peace dividend after fall of Berlin Wall and Soviet Union?
Poppy and MIC wouldn't have it, hence April Galaspie's "no instructions" response to
Saddam's initial inquiry over the Iraq / Kuwait surveying and mineral rights dispute on
Kuwait's drilling at the border 30 years ago.
"... These anecdotal stories about Invitation Homes being quick to evict tenants may prove to be the trend rather than the exception, given Blackstone's underlying business model. Securitizing rental payments creates an intense pressure on the company to ensure that the monthly checks keep flowing. For renters, that may mean you either pay on the first of the month every month, or you're out. ..."
Tucker could have done a number on Trump friend Schwarzman too.Mark my words you're gonna have another melt down now that all the people who
lost their home and ended up in rentals stop paying their rent that is now 2 1/2 times what
their mortgage was.
This is another fake bubble being securitized and sold off. Just like putting people into
houses with ARMs who couldnt afford them when the rates went up, Scharzman will fill up his
rentals to 99% occupancy with special deals to sell them to investors, when the special deal
period runs out and the rent goes up people will move out looking for cheaper housing and the
securities wont be worth shit.
Blackstone Group , CEO Stephen A. Schwarzman Buys Houses in Bulk to Profit from Mortgage
Crisis
You can hardly turn on the television or open a newspaper without hearing about the nation's
impressive, much celebrated housing recovery. Home prices are rising! New construction has
started! The crisis is over! Yet beneath the fanfare, a whole new get-rich-quick scheme is
brewing.
Over the last year and a half, Wall Street hedge funds and private equity firms have quietly
amassed an unprecedented rental empire, snapping up Queen Anne Victorians in Atlanta,
brick-faced bungalows in Chicago, Spanish revivals in Phoenix. In total, these deep-pocketed
investors have bought more than 200,000 cheap, mostly foreclosed houses in cities hardest hit
by the economic meltdown.
Wall Street's foreclosure crisis, which began in late 2007 and forced more than 10 million
people from their homes, has created a paradoxical problem. Millions of evicted Americans
need a safe place to live, even as millions of vacant, bank-owned houses are blighting
neighborhoods and spurring a rise in crime. Lucky for us, Wall Street has devised a solution:
It's going to rent these foreclosed houses back to us. In the process, it's devised a new
form of securitization that could cause this whole plan to blow up -- again.
Since the buying frenzy began, no company has picked up more houses than the Blackstone
Group, a major private equity firm. Using a subsidiary company, Invitation Homes, Blackstone
has grabbed houses at foreclosure auctions, through local brokers, and in bulk purchases
directly from banks the same way a regular person might stock up on toilet paper from
Costco.
In one move, it bought 1,400 houses in Atlanta in a single day. As of November, Blackstone
had spent $7.5 billion to buy 40,000 mostly foreclosed houses across the country. That's a
spending rate of $100 million a week since October 2012. It recently announced plans to take
the business international, beginning in foreclosure-ravaged Spain.
Few outside the finance industry have heard of Blackstone. Yet today, it's the largest
owner of single-family rental homes in the nation -- and of a whole lot of other things, too.
It owns part or all of the Hilton Hotel chain, Southern Cross Healthcare, Houghton Mifflin
publishing house, the Weather Channel, Sea World, the arts and crafts chain Michael's,
Orangina, and dozens of other companies.
Blackstone manages more than $210 billion in assets, according to its 2012 Securities and
Exchange Commission annual filing. It's also a public company with a list of institutional
owners that reads like a who's who of companies recently implicated in lawsuits over the
mortgage crisis, including Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, UBS, Bank of America,
Goldman Sachs, and of course JP Morgan Chase, which just settled a lawsuit with the
Department of Justice over its risky and often illegal mortgage practices, agreeing to pay an
unprecedented $13 billion fine.
In other words, if Blackstone makes money by capitalizing on the housing crisis, all these
other Wall Street banks -- generally regarded as the main culprits in creating the conditions
that led to the foreclosure crisis in the first place -- make money too.
An All-Cash Goliath
In neighborhoods across the country, many residents didn't have to know what Blackstone
was to realize that things were going seriously wrong.
Last year, Mark Alston, a real estate broker in Los Angeles, began noticing something
strange happening. Home prices were rising. And they were rising fast -- up 20 percent
between October 2012 and the same month this year. In a normal market, rising home prices
would mean increased demand from homebuyers. But here was the unnerving thing: the
homeownership rate was dropping, the first sign for Alston that the market was somehow out of
whack.
The second sign was the buyers themselves.
"I went two years without selling to a black family, and that wasn't for lack of trying,"
says Alston, whose business is concentrated in inner-city neighborhoods where the majority of
residents are African American and Hispanic. Instead, all his buyers -- every last one of
them -- were besuited businessmen. And weirder yet, they were all paying in cash.
Between 2005 and 2009, the mortgage crisis, fueled by racially discriminatory lending
practices, destroyed 53 percent of African American wealth and 66 percent of Hispanic wealth,
figures that stagger the imagination. As a result, it's safe to say that few blacks or
Hispanics today are buying homes outright, in cash. Blackstone, on the other hand, doesn't
have a problem fronting the money, given its $3.6 billion credit line arranged by Deutsche
Bank. This money has allowed it to outbid families who have to secure traditional financing.
It's also paved the way for the company to purchase a lot of homes very quickly, shocking
local markets and driving prices up in a way that pushes even more families out of the
game.
"You can't compete with a company that's betting on speculative future value when they're
playing with cash," says Alston. "It's almost like they planned this."
In hindsight, it's clear that the Great Recession fueled a terrific wealth and asset
transfer away from ordinary Americans and to financial institutions. During that crisis,
Americans lost trillions of dollars of household wealth when housing prices crashed, while
banks seized about five million homes. But what's just beginning to emerge is how, as in the
recession years, the recovery itself continues to drive the process of transferring wealth
and power from the bottom to the top.
From 2009-2012, the top 1 percent of Americans captured 95 percent of income gains. Now,
as the housing market rebounds, billions of dollars in recovered housing wealth are flowing
straight to Wall Street instead of to families and communities. Since spring 2012, just at
the time when Blackstone began buying foreclosed homes in bulk, an estimated $88 billion of
housing wealth accumulation has gone straight to banks or institutional investors as a result
of their residential property holdings, according to an analysis by TomDispatch. And it's a
number that's likely to just keep growing.
"Institutional investors are siphoning the wealth and the ability for wealth accumulation
out of underserved communities," says Henry Wade, founder of the Arizona Association of Real
Estate Brokers.
But buying homes cheap and then waiting for them to appreciate in value isn't the only way
Blackstone is making money on this deal. It wants your rental payment, too.
Securitizing Rentals
Wall Street's rental empire is entirely new. The single-family rental industry used to be
the bailiwick of small-time mom-and-pop operations. But what makes this moment unprecedented
is the financial alchemy that Blackstone added. In November, after many months of hype,
Blackstone released history's first rated bond backed by securitized rental payments. And
once investors tripped over themselves in a rush to get it, Blackstone's competitors
announced that they, too, would develop similar securities as soon as possible.
Depending on whom you ask, the idea of bundling rental payments and selling them off to
investors is either a natural evolution of the finance industry or a fire-breathing
chimera.
"This is a new frontier," comments Ted Weinstein, a consultant in the real-estate-owned
homes industry for 30 years. "It's something I never really would have dreamt of."
However, to anyone who went through the 2008 mortgage-backed-security crisis, this new
territory will sound strangely familiar.
"It's just like a residential mortgage-backed security," said one hedge-fund investor
whose company does business with Blackstone. When asked why the public should expect these
securities to be safe, given the fact that risky mortgage-backed securities caused the 2008
collapse, he responded, "Trust me."
For Blackstone, at least, the logic is simple. The company wants money upfront to purchase
more cheap, foreclosed homes before prices rise. So it's joined forces with JP Morgan, Credit
Suisse, and Deutsche Bank to bundle the rental payments of 3,207 single-family houses and
sell this bond to investors with mortgages on the underlying houses offered as collateral.
This is, of course, just a test case for what could become a whole new industry of
rental-backed securities.
Many major Wall Street banks are involved in the deal, according to a copy of the private
pitch documents Blackstone sent to potential investors on October 31st, which was reviewed by
TomDispatch. Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan, and Credit Suisse are helping market the bond. Wells
Fargo is the certificate administrator. Midland Loan Services, a subsidiary of PNC Bank, is
the loan servicer. (By the way, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and PNC Bank are
all members of another clique: the list of banks foreclosing on the most families in
2013.)
According to interviews with economists, industry insiders, and housing activists, people
are more or less holding their collective breath, hoping that what looks like a duck, swims
like a duck, and quacks like a duck won't crash the economy the same way the last flock of
ducks did.
"You kind of just hope they know what they're doing," says Dean Baker, an economist with
the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "That they have provisions for turnover and
vacancies. But have they done that? Have they taken the appropriate care? I certainly
wouldn't count on it." The cash flow analysis in the documents sent to investors assumes that
95 percent of these homes will be rented at all times, at an average monthly rent of $1,312.
It's an occupancy rate that real estate professionals describe as ambitious.
There's one significant way, however, in which this kind of security differs from its
mortgage-backed counterpart. When banks repossess mortgaged homes as collateral, there is at
least the assumption (often incorrect due to botched or falsified paperwork from the banks)
that the homeowner has, indeed, defaulted on her mortgage. In this case, however, if a single
home-rental bond blows up, thousands of families could be evicted, whether or not they ever
missed a single rental payment.
"We could well end up in that situation where you get a lot of people getting evicted not
because the tenants have fallen behind but because the landlords have fallen behind," says
Baker.
Bugs in Blackstone's Housing Dreams
Whether these new securities are safe may boil down to the simple question of whether
Blackstone proves to be a good property manager. Decent management practices will ensure high
occupancy rates, predictable turnover, and increased investor confidence. Bad management will
create complaints, investigations, and vacancies, all of which will increase the likelihood
that Blackstone won't have the cash flow to pay investors back.
If you ask CaDonna Porter, a tenant in one of Blackstone's Invitation Homes properties in
a suburb outside Atlanta, property management is exactly the skill that Blackstone lacks. "If
I could shorten my lease -- I signed a two-year lease -- I definitely would," says
Porter.
The cockroaches and fat water bugs were the first problem in the Invitation Homes rental
that she and her children moved into in September. Porter repeatedly filed online maintenance
requests that were canceled without anyone coming to investigate the infestation. She called
the company's repairs hotline. No one answered.
The second problem arrived in an email with the subject line marked "URGENT." Invitation
Homes had failed to withdraw part of Porter's November payment from her bank account,
prompting the company to demand that she deliver the remaining payment in person, via
certified funds, by five p.m. the following day or incur "the additional legal fee of $200
and dispossessory," according to email correspondences reviewed by TomDispatch.
Porter took off from work to deliver the money order in person, only to receive an email
saying that the payment had been rejected because it didn't include the $200 late fee and an
additional $75 insufficient funds fee. What followed were a maddening string of emails that
recall the fraught and often fraudulent interactions between homeowners and
mortgage-servicing companies. Invitation Homes repeatedly threatened to file for eviction
unless Porter paid various penalty fees. She repeatedly asked the company to simply accept
her month's payment and leave her alone.
"I felt really harassed. I felt it was very unjust," says Porter. She ultimately wrote
that she would seek legal counsel, which caused Invitation Homes to immediately agree to
accept the payment as "a one-time courtesy."
Porter is still frustrated by the experience -- and by the continued presence of the
cockroaches. ("I put in another request today about the bugs, which will probably be canceled
again.")
A recent Huffington Post investigation and dozens of online reviews written by Invitation
Homes tenants echo Porter's frustrations. Many said maintenance requests went unanswered,
while others complained that their spiffed-up houses actually had underlying structural
issues.
There's also at least one documented case of Blackstone moving into murkier legal
territory. This fall, the Orlando, Florida, branch of Invitation Homes appeared to mail
forged eviction notices to a homeowner named Francisco Molina, according to the Orlando
Sentinel. Delivered in letter-sized manila envelopes, the fake notices claimed that an
eviction had been filed against Molina in court, although the city confirmed otherwise. The
kicker is that Invitation Homes didn't even have the right to evict Molina, legally or
otherwise. Blackstone's purchase of the house had been reversed months earlier, but the
company had lost track of that information.
The Great Recession of 2016?
These anecdotal stories about Invitation Homes being quick to evict tenants may prove to
be the trend rather than the exception, given Blackstone's underlying business model.
Securitizing rental payments creates an intense pressure on the company to ensure that the
monthly checks keep flowing. For renters, that may mean you either pay on the first of the
month every month, or you're out.
Although Blackstone has issued only one rental-payment security so far, it already seems
to be putting this strict protocol into place. In Charlotte, North Carolina, for example, the
company has filed eviction proceedings against a full 10 percent of its renters, according to
a report by the Charlotte Observer.
About 9 percent of Blackstone's properties, approximately 3,600 houses, are located in the
Phoenix metro area. Most are in low- to middle-income neighborhoods.
Forty thousand homes add up to only a small percentage of the total national housing
stock. Yet in the cities Blackstone has targeted most aggressively, the concentration of its
properties is staggering. In Phoenix, Arizona, some neighborhoods have at least one, if not
two or three, Blackstone-owned homes on just about every block.
This inundation has some concerned that the private equity giant, perhaps in conjunction
with other institutional investors, will exercise undue influence over regional markets,
pushing up rental prices because of a lack of competition. The biggest concern among many
ordinary Americans, however, should be that, not too many years from now, this whole rental
empire and its hot new class of securities might fail, sending the economy into an
all-too-familiar tailspin.
"You're allowing Wall Street to control a significant sector of single-family housing,"
said Michael Donley, a resident of Chicago who has been investigating Blackstone's rapidly
expanding presence in his neighborhood. "But is it sustainable?" he wondered. "It could all
collapse in 2016, and you'll be worse off than in 2008."
This is not surprising that this has happened. All of the de-regulation on Wall Street,
lobbied for by Wall Street has allowed this to transpire.
Congress does not even read the bills that they sign into law, let alone write them!
Many are written by ALEC American Legislative Exchange Council, the Chamber of Commerce,
the Realtor's assosiation, the Medical Industrial Complex, public employee unions, and
various other special interest groups!
Why is it a pressing issue to actively promote homosexuality? What is the point? That is
really strange! There is a difference between not actively discriminating and actively
promoting!
Are they trying to worsen the AIDS epidemic or lower the birth rate? It does not make
sense to be actively promoting and encouraging homosexuality.
@Colin
Wright There are many venture capitalist that are not Jewish.. Venture Capitalist don't
always advertise their wealth. Not everybody in Wall Street or the City of London is
Jewish.
I think it is important to separate the Jews from the Zionist , many in that
small group (Zionist) are Jewish and Christian but most Jews and most Christians are
neither Venture Capitalist nor Zionist. Time after time I have asked my Jewish friends are
you are Zionist, and most say they do not really know what Zionism is? Zionism hosts many
races among its members; in the states, Christian Zionism is big, maybe bigger even than
Jewish Zionism.. see Christian Zionism : The Tragedy and the Turning: the cause of our
Conflicts (on DVD) by http://www.Whit.org. .
Zionism is an economic system. Zionism is a winner take all system of Economics .
Zionism is like an adult version of the game called King of the Mountain. In such a game,
no one is allowed to play unless they first have sufficient resources to be counted, and
are then willing to and believe they are personally capable of defeating the then residing
well armed king (Oligarch). IMO, all Jews everywhere, would be well advised to avoid being
labelled a Zionist<=hence the reason ?
Zionism is not the same as Judaism, its not a race, its not a religion, its not even
a culture, it is an economic system with virus like attributes.
@Lot
You are quibbling. You are prevaricating. You are obfuscating.
Joyce has assembled a powerful case against a known cast of financial parasites. This
phenomena is hardly new. It brings to mind another financial scandal of a generation ago
that was chronicled in James B. Stewart's book 'Den of Thieves'.
The mega-wealthy swindlers of that era were also all Jews: Boesky, Siegel, Levine,
Milken, among others. Some twenty years later, another Wall Street Jew, Bernie Madoff,
succeeds in pulling off the biggest fraud in US history. There's a pattern here.
Yet all you can do, Lot, is deflect, denigrate, and deny.
Joyce is giving us more actual names. These are the actual perps as well as institutions
they hide behind. These ruthless predators collude with one another as they exploit the
labor of millions of gentiles worldwide, then shower Jewish causes and philanthropies with
their loot. Their tribal avarice is revolting. And insatiable.
Do you deny this phenomena?
Is it all just another 'anti-Semitic canard'?
You even claim [Joyce] is
"retarded and highly uninformed".
Retarded?
He's brilliant and persuasive.
Uninformed?
He's erudite and scholarly.
You, Lot, are demonstrating again devious tribal dishonesty. It's glaring, it's
shameful, and it's obvious. This is a trait I've observed in virtually all of your
writings. You invariably deflect and deny. But Jewish criminality is real.
Joyce aptly concludes:
[T]he prosperity and influence of Zionist globalism rests to an overwhelming degree on
the predations of the most successful and ruthless Jewish financial parasites.
This is a Jewish conspiracy to make Jews look terrible. Congress should slam the breaks
here. The de-regulation of the powerful combined with the over-regulation of the powerless
is criminally wreckless. Kind of like the friends don't let friends drive drunk approach.
Congress slam the breaks, yeah right, that'll happen! Lol!
@Colin
Wright Andrew Carnegie left behind institutions like Carnegie Hall, Carnegie-Mellon
University, and over 2500 Free Libraries from coast to coast, in a time when very little
was done to help what we now call the "underprivileged".
In fact, he gave away 90% of his massive fortune–about $75 Billion in current
dollars. Funding, in the process, many charities, hospitals, museums, foundations and
institutions of learning. He was a major benefactor of negro education.
He was a staunch anti-imperialist who believed America should concentrate its energies
on peaceful endeavors rather than conquering and subduing far-off lands.
Although they are even more keen to put their names on things, today's robber barons
leave behind mainly wreckage.
Jews are destroying the world. Everywhere they go, they leave behind nations in ruins. Look
at Europe, Africa and the Americas, Jews have left their ugly footprints. Corruption,
prostitution, drugs and human trafficking are their trade.
@anon
A combination of both I would say, although some would like to make it out that
Anglo-Saxons were the epitome of honour, they too resorted to morallly abject tricks and
swindles to acquire their wealth.
WASPs allowed Jews into their lands and both of them struck a sort of implicit contract
to work together to loot the world, when the word had been sucked dry, the conflict between
Jews and WASPs began and Hitler and the National Socialists were a last gasp attempt to
save the WASP side from being beaten, in the end higher Jewish verbal IQ gave them the
upper edge in the ability to trick people.
It is hard to feel sorry for WASPs, they struck a deal with the Jews centuries ago to
work together and were backstabbed, what is happening to these Third World countries will
now happen to WASP countries, it is poetic justice. Luckily the torch of civilisation will
continue by way of East Asia and Eastern Europe, who were true conservatives in that all
they wished was prosperity for their people in their own lands without any aggressive
foreign policy moves.
Basically, WASPs thought that they could win in the end, but they were out Jew'd and now
they are crying.
The one difference you will notice is that certain subsections of WASPs, notable the
British, actually did build infrastructure in the countries they looted, this to me was
borne out of a sense of guilt, so to be fair, WASPs were not as parasitic and ruthless as
Jews.
But in the end, the more ruthless wins. To quote the Joker
@Lot
Kyle Bass's fund is called 'Hayman', maybe because the MSM loathe the Bass family that
fellow Texican Bass is not related to. They are not the only ones aware of the drawbacks of
a name. Elliot is Singer's middle one.
The article bounces back and forth between two completely different fields: private
equity and distressed debt funds
If someone owes you money and you cannot collect, you factor the account, (sell it on)
and then people who are going to be a lot less pleasant about it will pay them a visit and
have a 'talk' with them. While it is good to have a domestic bankruptcy regime in which
innovation and entrepreneurship is encouraged– to the extent that people are not
routinely gaming the system–I don't see why Argentina should benefit. Singer became
notorious for what he did to Argentina after he bought their debt, and he is pretty upfront
about not caring who objects. Puerto Rico is neither foreign or protected by Chapter 9 of
the U.S. Bankruptcy Code so it is a borderline case, which is probably why the people
collecting that debt tried to hide who they were.
The way he took down Jonathan Bush and others led to Bloomberg dubbing Singer 'The
World's Most Feared Investor'. Singer buys into companies where he sees the management as
as failing to deliver maximum value to the shareholders, then applies pressure to raise the
share price (in Bush's case extremely personal pressure) that often leads to the departure
of the CEO and sale of the company. That immediate extra value for the shareholder Singer
creates puts lots of working people out a job. Because of Singer and his imitators, CEO's
are outsourcing and importing replacements for indigenous workers in those services that
cannot be outsourced. All the while loath to foster innovation that could bring about long
term growth, because that would interfere with squeezing out more and more shareholder
value.
Singer is less like a vulture than a rogue elephant that is killing the breeding pair
white rhinos on a game reserve, and they are going extinct. Well it's a good thing! Thanks
to Singer et al (including Warren Buffett) Trump got elected. According to someone in jail
with Epstein, he had an anecdote about Trump being asked by a French girl what 'white
trash' was, and Trump replied 'It's me without the money'.
Trump is now essentially funded by three Jews -- Singer, Bernard Marcus, and
Sheldon Adelson, together accounting for over $250 million in pro-Trump political money.
In return, they want war with Iran.
All to the good. Iran won't leave Saudi Arabia (serious money) alone so Iran is going to
have to be crushed as a threat to the Saud family like Saddam before it anyway. If the Jews
think they are causing it, let 'em think so.
https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/trump-creates-a-new-nation/
When the Israelis occupy nearly all of the West Bank with Donald Trump's approval and
start "relocating" the existing population, who will be around to speak up? No one, as by
that time saying nay to Israel will be a full-fledged hate crime and you can go to jail
for doing so
Loudspeaker goes off " All Anti–Zionist Jews to Times Square ".
@Colin
Wright No judeophile, but it's 90% demagogic horsehit.
God forbid anybody should ever have to pay back money they borrow! Why, that's utterly
Jewish!
These so-called "vulture" funds didn't originate the debt. They simply purchased already
existing debt at deeply discounted prices either because the debt was already in default or
was at imminent risk of defaulting, which is why the debt sells at a heavy discount, since
existing debt holders are often happy to sell cheap and get something rather than hold on
and risk getting nothing.
What Joyce zeroes in on is these vulture funds' willingness to use all legal avenues to
force debtors to make good on their debts, including seizing the collateral the debtors
pledged when they borrowed the money. Joyce chooses to characterize this practice as
"Jewish," implying that gentile creditors would instead be overcome with compassion and let
the debtors off the hook and wear the loss themselves.
What Joyce regards as a defect of "vulture" funds, others might regard as an benefit.
The size of these funds, their legal expertise, and their political connections mean that
borrowers can more successfully be held to account. If I owned, say, Puerto Rican debt in
my retirement account, the chances that I could make Puerto Rico honor its obligations are
much slimmer.
None of this is to suggest that finance, as we today know it, is perfect and that it
couldn't be reformed in any way to make its operation more conducive to nationalistic
social values, only that anti-cap ideologues like Joyce weave lurid tales of malfeasance
out of completely humdrum market economics (which is precisely the same market economics
that Tucker Carlson learned about too, btw).
Mr. Joyce
Your obsession with us will prove to be your downfall.
Jewish people have always stood against tyranny against the working class, the poor and
other people of color.
The phrases and catch words that you used to vilify Jews are in many cases pulled from the
age old tropes used to demonize Jews for centuries and are anti-Semitic through and
through. They can't be overlooked nor hidden by claims of legitimate political
disagreements.
We know that it is not only the Jewish community that is at risk from unchecked
antisemitism, but also other communities that white nationalists target.
I find it very offensive that people like you continue to demonize us for no reason.
I dare you to hold a debate with me on this so called "Jewish Influence".
I am not even hiding my name here.
Neoliberal Dems is the second War Party. That's for sure.
Actually Obama "liberated" more brown people using drone strikes then Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... In 2008, back when then-Senator Clinton wanted to be president the first time, she made it clear that, if she won, any Iranian attacks on Israel meant war with the U.S ..."
"... To be fair to Mrs. Clinton, she was talking about Iran attacking Israel, not the United States. So, perhaps she wouldn't have cared as much had the lives lost been American. She certainly didn't balk as secretary of state when Obama allowed Iranian aggression to go unpunished. And while we're on the subject of short memories, how about that love for Israel back in '08? ..."
... Let's focus on the Cult of
Clinton and their claims that Madam President would have done better. Short memories: All the
greats have them. In 2008, back when then-Senator Clinton wanted to be president the first
time, she made it clear that, if she won, any Iranian attacks on Israel meant war with the U.S .
"We didn't want Trump to attack Iran, so we voted for this psychopath instead" pic.twitter.com/lk4wcUbD0a
To be fair to Mrs. Clinton, she was talking about Iran attacking Israel, not the United
States. So, perhaps she wouldn't have cared as much had the lives lost been American. She
certainly didn't balk as secretary of state when Obama allowed Iranian aggression to go
unpunished. And while we're on the subject of short memories, how about that love for Israel
back in '08?
... ... ...
Intellectual Dishonesty And Dredging Up The Past
... ... ...
It's the delusional Democrats who are being intellectually dishonest this time – or
just suffering from the short memories of the greats – when they tweet #IVotedForHillary. War with Iran would have been
just as likely with President Clinton in 2016 as it is now that we have President Trump – and it would have likely happened even
sooner had we elected President Clinton in 2008.
Maybe the Russians would be willing to drop a handful of anti-left, baitclick ads on Facebook -- you know? Those weird ads that magically swayed our entire
nation into electing Donald Trump for President. I bet Robert Mueller still has their phone
number. The Dems could mention a quid pro quo and offer to lift some of our
sanctions.
We're told that getting ahead at work and reorienting our lives around our jobs will make us
happy. So why hasn't it? Many of those who work in the corporate world are constantly peppered
with questions about their " career progression ." The Internet is
saturated with
articles providing tips and tricks on how to develop a never-fail game plan for
professional development. Millions of Americans are engaged in a never-ending cycle of
résumé-padding that mimics the accumulation of Boy Scout merit badges or A's on
report cards except we never seem to get our Eagle Scout certificates or academic diplomas.
We're told to just keep going until we run out of gas or reach retirement, at which point we
fade into the peripheral oblivion of retirement communities, morning tee-times, and long
midweek lunches at beach restaurants.
The idealistic Chris McCandless in Jon Krakauer's bestselling book Into the Wild
defiantly declares, "I think careers are a 20th century invention and I don't want one." Anyone
who has spent enough time in the career hamster wheel can relate to this sentiment. Is
21st-century careerism -- with its promotion cycles, yearly feedback, and little wooden plaques
commemorating our accomplishments -- really the summit of human existence, the paramount
paradigm of human flourishing?
Michael J. Noughton, director of the Center for Catholic Studies at the University of St.
Thomas, Minnesota, and board chair for Reel Precision Manufacturing, doesn't think so. In his
Getting Work Right: Labor and Leisure in a Fragmented World , Noughton provides a
sobering statistic: approximately two thirds of employees in the United States are "either
indifferent or hostile to their work." That's not just an indicator of professional
dissatisfaction; it's economically disastrous. The same survey estimates that employee
disengagement is costing the U.S. economy "somewhere between 450-550 billion dollars
annually."
The origin of this problem, says Naughton, is an error in how Americans conceive of work and
leisure. We seem to err in one of two ways. One is to label our work as strictly a job, a
nine-to-five that pays the bills. In this paradigm, leisure is an amusement, an escape from the
drudgery of boring, purposeless labor. The other way is that we label our work as a career that
provides the essential fulfillment in our lives. Through this lens, leisure is a utility,
simply another means to serve our work. Outside of work, we exercise to maintain our health in
order to work harder and longer. We read books that help maximize our utility at work and get
ahead of our competitors. We "continue our education" largely to further our careers.
Whichever error we fall into, we inevitably end up dissatisfied. The more we view work as a
painful, boring chore, the less effective we are at it, and the more complacent and
discouraged. Our leisure activities, in turn, no matter how distracting, only compound our
sadness, because no amount of games can ever satisfy our souls. Or, if we see our meaning in
our work and leisure as only another means of increasing productivity, we inevitably burn out,
wondering, perhaps too late in life, what exactly we were working for . As Augustine
of Hippo noted, our hearts are restless for God. More recently, C.S. Lewis noted that we yearn
to be fulfilled by something that nothing in this world can satisfy. We need both our work and
our leisure to be oriented to the transcendent in order to give our lives meaning and
purpose.
The problem is further compounded by the fact that much of the labor Americans perform
isn't actually good . There are "bad goods" that are detrimental to society and human
flourishing. Naughton suggests some examples: violent video games, pornography, adultery dating
sites, cigarettes, high-octane alcohol, abortifacients, gambling, usury, certain types of
weapons, cheat sheet websites, "gentlemen's clubs," and so on. Though not as clear-cut as the
above, one might also add working for the kinds of businesses that contribute to the
impoverishment or destruction of our communities,
as Tucker Carlson has recently argued .
Why does this matter for professional satisfaction? Because if our work doesn't offer goods
and services that contribute to our communities and the common good -- and especially if we are
unable to perceive how our labor plays into that common good -- then it will fundamentally
undermine our happiness. We will perceive our work primarily in a utilitarian sense, shrugging
our shoulders and saying, "it's just a paycheck," ignoring or disregarding the fact that as
rational animals we need to feel like our efforts matter.
Economic liberalism -- at least in its purest free-market expression -- is based on a
paradigm with nominalist and utilitarian origins that promote "freedom of indifference." In
rudimentary terms, this means that we need not be interested in the moral quality of our
economic output. If we produce goods that satisfy people's wants, increasing their "utils," as
my Econ 101 professor used to say, then we are achieving business success. In this paradigm, we
desire an economy that maximizes access to free choice regardless of the content of that
choice, because the more choices we have, the more we can maximize our utils, or sensory
satisfaction.
The freedom of indifference paradigm is in contrast to a more ancient understanding of
economic and civic engagement: a freedom for excellence. In this worldview, "we are made
for something," and participation in public acts of virtue is essential both to our
own well-being and that of our society. By creating goods and services that objectively benefit
others and contributing to an order beyond the maximization of profit, we bless both ourselves
and the polis . Alternatively, goods that increase "utils" but undermine the common
good are rejected.
Returning to Naughton's distinction between work and leisure, we need to perceive the latter
not as an escape from work or a means of enhancing our work, but as a true time of rest. This
means uniting ourselves with the transcendent reality from which we originate and to which we
will return, through prayer, meditation, and worship. By practicing this kind of true leisure,
well
treated in a book by Josef Pieper , we find ourselves refreshed, and discover renewed
motivation and inspiration to contribute to the common good.
Americans are increasingly aware of the problems with Wall Street conservatism and globalist
economics. We perceive that our post-Cold War policies are hurting our nation. Naughton's
treatise on work and leisure offers the beginnings of a game plan for what might replace
them.
Casey Chalk covers religion and other issues for The American Conservative and is a
senior writer for Crisis Magazine. He has degrees in history and teaching from the University
of Virginia, and a masters in theology from Christendom College.
When people thought in 2016 that they are winning against the National Security state, they
were deceived by the candidate who sounded rational during election campaign, but then became
Hillary II in three months after inauguration and brought Bush II neocons into his
Administration.
So voters were deceived with Clinton, deceived with Bush II, deceived with Obama, deceived
with Trump. You now see the tendency...
With all that is happening in the U.S right now I can't help but think that it's past time
for the people to reassert their power over the National security state, as unrealistic as
that might sound.
The Anti war movement is ideologically divided between progressives and
libertarian/paleoconservatives, so a political party would not likely be the answer.
Instead perhaps we should consider a grassroots movement to amend the constitution to
guarantee U.S neutrality in world affairs (banning both the arming or financing of foreign
belligerents) and to ban the Federal government from having a standing military force except
in times of actual war. I don't know what chance either would have of actually being passed,
but it might at least force a debate on these issues in a way that might resonate better with
the average American. Just thought I'd throw that out there. Peace and Solidarity
Maybe the Russians would be willing to drop a handful of anti-left, baitclick ads on Facebook -- you know? Those weird ads that magically swayed our entire
nation into electing Donald Trump for President. I bet Robert Mueller still has their phone
number. The Dems could mention a quid pro quo and offer to lift some of our
sanctions.
According
to Politico , top House Democrats are considering abandoning entirely the attempt to
constrain Trump's ability to wage war on Iran following the Iranian missile strikes.
"Moderate Democrats had their own reservations about the whole exercise, and are unwilling
to draft a resolution that would hamstring the military in its response to future attacks,"
Politico reported. "They're also hesitant to support any language that would directly
repudiate Trump for the Soleimani killing."
Put it up for a vote Nancy so we can see which democrats are willing to go to war with Iran
you useless roadblock for everything progressive!. If the centrists democrats can't see through
her shtick by now then they are willing turn a blind eye to it. --
America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity
of her own people.
- strife delivery - strife delivery
I hope they all will thrown out of their positions. It looks like the US needs a
revolution. I remember people who said that often here. when that seemed to be outlandish and
much like hot air rhetoric. But today it sounds like reasonable.
Why?
According
to Politico , top House Democrats are considering abandoning entirely the attempt
to constrain Trump's ability to wage war on Iran following the Iranian missile
strikes.
"Moderate Democrats had their own reservations about the whole exercise, and are
unwilling to draft a resolution that would hamstring the military in its response to
future attacks," Politico reported. "They're also hesitant to support any language that
would directly repudiate Trump for the Soleimani killing."
Put it up for a vote Nancy so we can see which democrats are willing to go to war with
Iran you useless roadblock for everything progressive!. If the centrists democrats can't
see through her shtick by now then they are willing turn a blind eye to it.
Pelosi is a Republican mole; she sabotages any efforts to reform our corrupt corporate
dominated political system. Examples: pay to go, dissing the Green New Deal and Medicare
for All, delayed impeachment efforts, minimized impeachment charges, delaying voting to
restrict Trump's ability to start a war with Iran.
If she was honest-definitely not-she would switch parties.
If you can't move ahead Nancy, get out of the way.
She is a stellar example of the need for Congressional term limits and reform of the
Congressional leadership system. The inordinate power and capriciousness of these
individuals is exemplified by her and Mitch McConnell who stymie the will of majority
rule.
If your candidate right now is saying anything other than "the US cannot go to war with
Iran and should de-escalate immediately," they shouldn't be your candidate https://t.co/ds4RqGbBSI
"Biden would like you to believe that he has seen the light when it comes to the folly of
imperialist adventures abroad, that he has found redemption post-Iraq. But his response to
the assassination of Soleimani suggests that the old Biden is alive and well." -- Meagan
Day, Jacobin magazine
@snoopydawg@snoopydawg
I know Iraq war veterans who would spit on his prayers. The times for jokes are over. And the
politicians can push their snark (if they are capable of verbalize such) into their own asses
too.
Man, I am so done.
If your candidate right now is saying anything other than "the US cannot go to war
with Iran and should de-escalate immediately," they shouldn't be your candidate
https://t.co/ds4RqGbBSI
"Biden would like you to believe that he has seen the light when it comes to the
folly of imperialist adventures abroad, that he has found redemption post-Iraq. But his
response to the assassination of Soleimani suggests that the old Biden is alive and
well." -- Meagan Day, Jacobin magazine
On Sunday's broadcast of CNN's "State of the Union," 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) questioned
if President Donald Trump's reasons for the Qasem Soleimani assassination was to distract from impeachment.
Warren said, "I think that the question that we ought to focus on is why now? Why not a month ago, and why not a month from now?
And the answer from the administration seems to be that they can't keep their story straight on this. They pointed in all different
directions. And you know, the last time that we watched them do this was the summer over Ukraine. As soon as people started asking
about the conversations between Donald Trump and the president of Ukraine and why aid had been held up to Ukraine, the administration
did the same thing. They pointed in all directions of what was going on. And of course, what emerged then is that this is Donald
Trump just trying to advance Donald Trump's own political agenda. Not the agenda of the United States of America. So what happens
right now? Next week, the president of the United States could be facing an impeachment trial in the Senate. We know that he is deeply
upset about that. I think that people are reasonably asking why this moment? Why does he pick now to take this highly inflammatory,
highly dangerous action that moves us closer to war? We have been at war for 20 years in the Middle East, and we need to stop the
war this the Middle East and not expand it."
Tapper asked, "Are you suggesting that President Trump pulled the trigger and had Qasem Soleimani killed as a distraction from
impeachment?"
Warren said, "Look, I think that people are reasonably asking about the timing and why it is that the administration seems to
have all kinds of different answers. In the first 48 hours after this attack, what did we hear? Well, we heard it was for an imminent
attack, and then we heard, no, no, it is to prevent any future attack, and then we heard that it is from the vice president himself
and no, it is related to 9/11, and then we heard from president reports of people in the intelligence community saying that the whole,
that the threat was overblown. You know, when the administration doesn't seem to have a coherent answer for taking a step like this.
They have taken a step that moves us closer to war, a step that puts everyone at risk, and step that puts the military at risk and
puts the diplomats in the region at risk. And we have already paid a huge price for this war. Thousands of American lives lost, and
a cost that we have paid domestically and around the world. At the same time, look at what it has done in the Middle East, millions
of people who have been killed, who have been injured, who have been displaced. So this is not a moment when the president should
be escalating tensions and moving us to war. The job of the president is to keep us safe, and that means move back from the edge."
Tapper pressed, "Do you believe that President Trump pulled the trigger on this operation as a way to distract from impeachment?
Is that what you think?"
Warren said, "I think it is a reasonable question to ask, particularly when the administration immediately after having taken
this decision offers a bunch of contradictory explanations for what is going on."
She continued, "I think it is the right question to ask. We will get more information as we go forward but look at the timing
on this. Look at what Donald Trump has said afterward and his administration. They have pointed in multiple directions. There is
a reason that he chose this moment, not a month ago and not a month from now, not a less aggressive and less dangerous response.
He had a whole range of responses that were presented to him. He didn't pick one of the other ones. He picked the most aggressive
and the one that moves us closer to war. So what does everybody talk about today? Are we going to war? Are we going to have another
five years, tens, ten years of war in the Middle East, and dragged in once again. Are we bringing another generation of young people
into war? That is every bit of the conversation right now. Donald Trump has taken an extraordinarily reckless step, and we have seen
it before, he is using foreign policy and uses whatever he can to advance the interests of Donald Trump."
"... "I think the more people who are prepared to stand up and say it [the assassination] is completely, not only inappropriate, not only illegal, not only unjust, but an act of war to do something like this, the better," said Nicole Rousseau with the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, which has been planning anti-war protests in D.C. since 2002. ..."
"... This is the moment, as Donald Trump embraces the neoconservative dream of war with Iran, that the Republican base must stand on their hind legs, lock arms with their progressive allies, and say no . ..."
Now is the time for Republicans of conviction to stand together.
t speaks to the state of American politics when for three years the continued defense of
Donald Trump's record has been: "well, he hasn't started any new wars." Last week,
however, that may have finally changed.
In the most flagrant tit-for-tat since the United States initiated its economic war against
Iran in the spring of 2018, the Trump administration assassinated Major General Qasem
Soleimani, who for more than 20 years has led the Iranian Quds Force. The strategic mind behind
Iran's operations in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the rest of the Middle East, Soleimani's death
via drone strike outside of Baghdad's airport is nothing short of a declaration of open warfare
between American and Iranian-allied forces in Iraq.
While the world waits for the Islamic Republic's inevitable response, the reaction on the
home front was organized in less than 36 hours. Saturday afternoon, almost 400 people gathered
on the muddy grass outside the White House in Washington, D.C., joined in solidarity by
simultaneous rallies in over 70 other U.S. cities.
The D.C. attendees and their co-demonstrators were expectedly progressive, but the
organizers made clear they were happy to work across political barriers for the cause of
peace.
"I think the more people who are prepared to stand up and say it [the assassination] is
completely, not only inappropriate, not only illegal, not only unjust, but an act of war to do
something like this, the better," said Nicole Rousseau with the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, which
has been planning anti-war protests in D.C. since 2002.
Code Pink's Leonardo Flores, when asked what politicians he believed were on the side of the
peace movement, named Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders and Republican Senator Rand Paul. "I
don't think peace should be a left and right issue," he said. "I think it's an issue we can all
rally around. It's very clear too much of our money is going to foreign wars that don't benefit
the American people and we could be using that money in many different ways, giving it back to
the American people, whether it's investing in social spending or giving direct tax cuts."
This is the moment, as Donald Trump embraces the neoconservative dream of war with Iran,
that the Republican base must stand on their hind legs, lock arms with their progressive
allies, and say no .
It's happened before. In 2013, when the Obama administration was ready for regime change in
Syria, Americans, both left and right, made clear they didn't want to see their sons and
daughters, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters die so the American government could
install the likes of Abu Mohammed al-Julani in Damascus.
Of course, it was much easier for Republicans to stand up to a Democratic president going to
war. "It's been really unfortunate that so much of politics now is driven on a partisan basis,"
opined Eric Garris, director and co-founder of Antiwar.com, in an interview with TAC .
"Whether you're for or against war and how strongly you might be against war is driven by
partisan points of view."
When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, the movement that saw millions march against George
W. Bush's war in Iraq disappeared overnight (excluding a handful of stalwart organizations like
Code Pink). Non-interventionist Republicans can't repeat that mistake. They have to show that
if an American president wants to start an unconstitutional, immoral war, it's the principle
that matters, not the R or D next to their names.
Garris said the reason Antiwar.com was founded in 1995 was to bridge this partisan divide by
putting people like Daniel Ellsberg and Pat Buchanan side by side for the same cause. "These
coalitions are only effective if you try to bring in a broad coalition of people," he said. "I
want to see rallies of thousands of people in Omaha, Nebraska, and things like that, where
they're reaching out to middle America and to the people that are actually going to reach the
unconverted."
The right is in the best position it's been in decades to accomplish this. "I don't know if
you saw Tucker Carlson Tonight , but it was quite amazing to watch that kind of
antiwar sentiment on Fox News," Garris said. "You would not have seen [that] in recent history.
And certainly the emergence of The American Conservative magazine has been a really
strong signal and leader in terms of bringing about the values of the Old Right like
non-interventionism to a conservative audience."
It's the anti-war right, in the Republican tradition of La Follette, Taft, Paul, and
Buchanan, that has the power to stop middle America from following Trump into a conflict with
Iran. But it's both sides, working together as Americans, that can finally end the endless
wars.
Hunter DeRensis is a reporter with The National Interest and a regular contributor to
The American Conservative. Follow him on Twitter @HunterDeRensis .
Tucker Carlson is livid with anger and frustration at Trump's actions .
Death to America is a rallying point for Iran to emphasize the same aspect of American
status .
They talk in future . Carlson is reminding that we are already there .
If people woke up with anger at Iran., they would find that the dead horse isn't able to
do much but only can attract a lot of attention from far .
The reason Taliban didn't inform Mulla Omar's death was to let the rank and file continues
to remain engaged without getting into internal feuding fight .
A trues state of US won't be televised until the horse starts rotting but then that would be
quite late .
I don't recall any dissent until this assassination . Now 70 cities are witnessing
protests and a few in Media are not happy at all .
There is a big unknown if and when Iran would strike back and at who. Persian is not like
khasaogi murderer or Harri kidnapper .
Most probably Pompeo was cheating and deceived Trump to get the approval of this asssasination. now with his head on the block he
is trying to avoid the responsibility.
Notable quotes:
"... Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said public assurances from the Trump administration that such a threat was "imminent" were simply not enough. ..."
"... Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said on CNN's "State of the Union" that until the administration provides answers on "how this decision was reached ... then this move is questionable , to say the least." ..."
"... "I still worry about whether this president really understands that this is not a show, this is not a game," he said. "Lives are at stake right now." ..."
"... the administration has yet to make public its evidence that Soleimani was acting out of step in comparison with his years of similar planning as a leader in Iran's proxy wars and other covert operations, which have led to U.S. deaths . ..."
Democrats on Sunday demanded answers about the
killing of top Iranian
Gen.
Qassem Soleimani as tensions mounted with Iran and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted that the United States had faced an
imminent threat.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on ABC's "This Week" that he worried that President Donald Trump's decision
"will get us into what he calls
another
endless war in the Middle East ." He called for Congress to "assert" its authority and prevent Trump from "either bumbling or
impulsively getting us into a major war."
Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said public assurances from the Trump administration that such
a threat was "imminent" were simply not enough.
"I think we learned the hard way ... in the Iraq War that administrations sometimes
manipulate
and cherry-pick intelligence to further their political goals," he said.
"That's what got us into the Iraq War. There was no WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he said. "I'm saying that they have
an obligation to present the evidence."
Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said on CNN's "State of the Union" that until the administration provides
answers on "how this decision was reached ... then
this move is questionable
, to say the least."
"I still worry about whether this president really understands that this is not a show, this is not a game," he said. "Lives
are at stake right now."
The fraught relationship with Iran has significantly deteriorated in the days since Soleimani's death, which came days after rioters
sought to storm the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad and a U.S. contractor was killed in a rocket attack on an Iraqi military base
in Kirkuk.
The Defense Department said Soleimani, the high-profile commander of Iran's secretive Quds Force, who was accused of controlling
Iranian-linked proxy militias across the Middle East, orchestrated the attacks on bases in Iraq of the U.S.-led coalition fighting
the Islamic State militant group, including the strike that killed the U.S. contractor. In addition, the Defense Department said
Soleimani approved attacks on the embassy compound in Baghdad.
"
We
took action last night to stop a war ," Trump said Friday in a televised address, referring to the airstrike that killed Soleimani.
"We did not take action to start a war."
But the administration has yet to make public its evidence that Soleimani was acting out of step in comparison with his years
of similar planning as a leader in Iran's proxy wars and other covert operations,
which have led to U.S. deaths .
Iran and its allies vowed to retaliate for the general's death, and Trump has since escalated his language in response.
Download the NBC News app for breaking news and politics
"... Bruce E. Levine , a practicing clinical psychologist often at odds with the mainstream of his profession, writes and speaks about how society, culture, politics and psychology intersect. His most recent book is Resisting Illegitimate Authority: A Thinking Person's Guide to Being an Anti-Authoritarian―Strategies, Tools, and Models (AK Press, September, 2018). His Web site is brucelevine.net ..."
Getting rid of Trump means taking seriously "shit-life syndrome" -- and its resulting
misery, which includes suicide, drug overdose death, and trauma for surviving communities.
My state of Ohio is home to many shit-life syndrome sufferers. In the 2016 presidential election ,
Hillary Clinton lost Ohio's 18 electoral votes to Trump. She got clobbered by over 400,000
votes (more than 8%). She lost 80 of Ohio's 88 counties. Trump won rural poorer counties,
several by whopping margins. Trump got the shit-life syndrome vote.
Will Hutton in his 2018 Guardian piece, "
The Bad News is We're Dying Early in Britain – and It's All Down to 'Shit-Life
Syndrome '" describes shit-life syndrome in both Britain and the United States: "Poor
working-age Americans of all races are locked in a cycle of poverty and neglect, amid wider
affluence. They are ill educated and ill trained. The jobs available are drudge work paying the
minimum wage, with minimal or no job security."
The Brookings Institution, in November 2019,
reported : "53 million Americans between the ages of 18 to 64 -- accounting for 44% of all
workers -- qualify as 'low-wage.' Their median hourly wages are $10.22, and median annual
earnings are about $18,000."
For most of these low-wage workers, Hutton notes: "Finding meaning in life is close to
impossible; the struggle to survive commands all intellectual and emotional resources. Yet turn
on the TV or visit a middle-class shopping mall and a very different and unattainable world
presents itself. Knowing that you are valueless, you resort to drugs, antidepressants and
booze. You eat junk food and watch your ill-treated body balloon. It is not just poverty, but
growing relative poverty in an era of rising inequality, with all its psychological
side-effects, that is the killer."
Shit-life syndrome is not another fictitious illness conjured up by the
psychiatric-pharmaceutical industrial complex to sell psychotropic drugs. It is a reality
created by corporatist rulers and their lackey politicians -- pretending to care about their
minimum-wage-slave constituents, who are trying to survive on 99¢ boxed macaroni and
cheese prepared in carcinogenic water, courtesy of DuPont or some other such low-life
leviathan.
The Cincinnati Enquirer , in November 2019, ran the story: "
Suicide Rate Up 45% in Ohio in Last 11 Years, With a Sharper Spike among the Young ." In
Ohio between 2007 and 2018, the rate of suicide among people 10 to 24 has risen by 56%. The
Ohio Department of Health
reported that suicide is the leading cause of death among Ohioans ages 10‐14 and the
second leading cause of death among Ohioans ages 15‐34, with the suicide rate higher in
poorer, rural counties.
Overall in the United States, "Suicides have increased most sharply in rural communities,
where loss of farming and manufacturing jobs has led to economic declines over the past quarter
century," reports the American Psychological
Association. The U.S. suicide rate has risen 33% from 1999 through 2017 (from 10.5 to 14
suicides per 100,000 people).
In addition to an increasing rate of suicide, drug overdose
deaths rose in the United States from 16,849 in 1999 to 70,237 in 2017, more sharply
increasing in recent years . The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently
reported
that opioids -- mainly synthetic opioids -- were involved in 47,600 overdose deaths in 2017
(67.8% of all drug overdose deaths).
Among all states in 2017, Ohio had the second highest rate of drug overdose death (46.3 per
100,000). West Virginia had the highest rate (57.8 per 100,000).
The NPR story was about a study published in JAMA Network Open titled " Association of Chronic
Opioid Use With Presidential Voting Patterns in US Counties in 2016 ," lead authored by
physician James Goodwin. In counties with high rates of opioid use, Trump received 60% of the
vote; but Trump received only 39% of the vote in counties with low opioid use. Opioid use is
prevalent in poor rural counties, as Goodwin reports in his study: "Approximately two-thirds of
the association between opioid rates and presidential voting was explained by socioeconomic
variables."
Goodwin told NPR: "It very well may be that if you're in a county that is dissolving because
of opioids, you're looking around and you're seeing ruin. That can lead to a sense of despair .
. . . You want something different. You want radical change."
Shit-life syndrome sufferers are looking for immediate change, and are receptive to
unconventional politicians.
In 2016, Trump understood that being unconventional, including unconventional obnoxiousness,
can help ratings. So he began his campaign with unconventional serial humiliations of his
fellow Republican candidates to get the nomination; and since then, his unconventionality has
been limited only by his lack of creativity -- relying mostly on the Roy Cohn modeled "Punch
them harder than they punch you" for anyone who disagrees with him.
I talked to Trump voters in 2016, and many of them felt that Trump was not a nice person,
even a jerk, but their fantasy was that he was one of those rich guys with a big ego who needed
to be a hero. Progressives who merely mock this way of thinking rather than create a strategy
to deal with it are going to get four more years of Trump.
The Dems' problem in getting the shit-life syndrome vote in 2020 is that none of their
potential nominees for president are unconventional. In 2016, Bernie Sanders achieved some
degree of unconventionality. His young Sandernistas loved the idea of a curmudgeon
grandfather/eccentric uncle who boldly proclaimed in Brooklynese that he was a "socialist," and
his fans marveled that he was no loser, having in fact charmed Vermonters into electing him to
the U.S. Senate. Moreover, during the 2016 primaries, there were folks here in Ohio who
ultimately voted for Trump but who told me that they liked Bernie -- both Sanders and Trump
appeared unconventional to them.
While Bernie still has fans in 2020, he has done major damage to his "unconventionality
brand." By backing Hillary Clinton in 2016, he resembled every other cowardly politician. I
felt sorry for his Sandernistas, heartbroken after their hero Bernie -- who for most of his
political life had self-identified as an "independent" and a "socialist" -- became a compliant
team player for the corporatist Blue Team that he had spent a career claiming independence
from. If Bernie was terrified in 2016 of risking Ralph Nader's fate of ostracism for defying
the corporatist Blue Team, would he really risk assassination for defying the rich bastards who
own the United States?
So in 2020, this leaves realistic Dems with one strategy. While the Dems cannot provide a
candidate who can viscerally connect with shit-life syndrome sufferers, the Dems can show these
victims that they have been used and betrayed by Trump.
Here in Ohio in counties dominated by shit-life syndrome, the Dems would be wise
not to focus on their candidate but instead pour money into negative advertising,
shaming Trump for making promises that he knew he wouldn't deliver on: Hillary has not been
prosecuted; Mexico has paid for no wall; great manufacturing jobs are not going
to Ohioans ; and most importantly, in their communities, there are now even more suicides,
drug overdose deaths, and grieving families.
You would think a Hollywood Dem could viscerally communicate in 30 seconds: "You fantasized
that this braggart would be your hero, but you discovered he's just another rich asshole
politician out for himself." This strategy will not necessarily get Dems the shit-life syndrome
vote, but will increase the likelihood that these folks stay home on Election Day and not vote
for Trump.
The question is just how clueless are the Dems? Will they convince themselves that shit-life
syndrome sufferers give a shit about Trump's impeachment? Will they convince themselves that
Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg or Warren are so wonderful that shit-life syndrome sufferers will
take them and their campaign promises seriously? Then Trump probably wins again, thanks to both
shit-life syndrome and shit-Dems syndrome. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Bruce E. Levine
Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had
it coming and Iran should be nuked.
Glass parking lot is the desired end.
This sentiment is bottom to top in America. Measured response? No way can Iran 'measure' a
response.
More generally the sentiment is that a little war in Iran, a few nukes, is not even a big
thing. Football scores more important.
"Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had
it coming and Iran should be nuked.
Glass parking lot is the desired end."
That's pretty much the picture i get from reading responses in UK MSM, not only from
English, but many giving American addresses. They are all pretty much thoroughly brainwashed,
believing as gospel the lies they've told, and still think that they are the "White hatted,
good guys, who do good things for the places they bomb and invade".
it seems they will be supportive of an attack on Iran, and if their maniac "leaders", the
basement crazies who got out of the basement, realise this, it increases substantially the
chances of a "hot" war. In that case, should it escalate out of control, your Chicago coffee
deadheads will get the Glass parking lot they want. It just wont be in the ME. Or Russia.
They can have their very own, in their own back yard.
Yes I also noticed this, what I believe is most depressing is how dumb people are.
Trump/White house tell alot of lies which then become the truth for alot of his supporters
and he also manage to get MSM where he wants, because MSM do not seems to care either, they
are on-board when it comes to war.
And yes additional to that, a clear psychological operation going on to get the propaganda
out.
I try to counter it on social media, I hope everyone here also do the same.
Its about conditioning people that its the new normal. Anything goes, "do as thou wilt".
So long as it serves the interests of our masters. With no fear that MSM or alt media can or
will provide sustained or effective criticism, and the corruption of religious or secular
morals among the population thanks to hollywoods cultural marxism/propaganda and corruption
of christianity , they can get support among the people for just about anything. People can
be made to believe anything. The past 100 years has proven that beyond all doubt. With all
doubt now removed they can show their true colors and this will be accepted as the new
normal.
The problem with the US is most everyone in the US military, US citizenry, and US government
believe their own Exceptionalism propaganda and act accordingly. Attacking the PMU units of
the Iraqi army was certainly an unwise decision, but killing Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi
Al-Muhandis is an act of complete moronic insanity!
The United States launched a war of aggression, the supreme crime, upon Iraq in 2003, based
on blatant lies, and are still there. Prior to that, they helped foment the war between Iraq
and Iran, then attacked Iraq in 1991, and on top of the overt warfare there was the economic
sanctions warfare. The death and maiming and poisoning of millions of Iraqis has been the
American contribution to Iraq, over the last several decades. What for? How has this helped
the United States? Or Europe? The main advocates for this supreme criminality has been the
Israel lobby, Israel, and the supporters of Israel.
The American Apache helicopters are still buzzing around over Baghdad, dealing out terror
and intimidation and death. The murder by the United States of yet more Iraqi soldiers and
officials recently has been largely absent from the propaganda narratives. But could those be
'the final straw'?
As far as Trump's 52 target threat, this comes after the apparent please don't escalate
and we'll make a deal - good cop-bad cop routine.
The 52 number was used to remind mind-controlled Americans that the evil Iranians
outrageously took 52 Americans hostage. American's don't just take people hostage; they give
them orange suits and torture them, unless they kill them. Apart from murdering and maiming
by the millions, they even stage fictional killings, like Osama bin laden, to entertain the
zombies, and stick out their chests, hand out medals and the like.
DNC strategists and pollsters make the same error that almost every single top-down managed
company makes in their own sales-team policies. They wrongly imagine that no matter the product
they are selling, what makes a product sell is a direct consequence of the advertising dollars
and deals with media. They believe that creating energy around a product is entirely a
hyper-reality based simulacrum with little-to-no basis in the real world.
To the contrary, for most products it's the word-of-mouth enthusiasm of consumers and
potentials, along with the enthusiasm of the sales team that actually pushes sales. If the
enthusiasm isn't genuine, then it isn't there. If there's no buzz, there can be no victory.
So when it comes to a combination of union and NGO staffers, who have to mobilize dues
paying members and volunteers to get out the vote, people cannot fake enthusiasm.
... ... ...
And so strangely, in 2020 we might expect Democrats to win even bigger on the
popular vote, simply because Hillary is not going to be candidate, and given how populous
states like New York and California are, but lose harder on the Electoral College.
The any given Sunday rule still applies to elections, and so taken all together, the only
chance Democrats do have to win is some combination of Sanders, Yang, and Gabbard.
The Impeachment is Galvanizing Trump's base and Independents didn't appreciate Pelosi's
moves
This is something like the opposite of the Democrat's lack of an exciting candidate, and
really explains why no candidate but Gabbard (who played the right card with her 'present' vote
on impeachment'), can come out of this unscathed. Many polls seem to indicate that Trump's
numbers across numerous key matrixes improved surrounding the impeachment gambit.
In reality, this election will rest on a) independents who are in b) swing states.
Independents are prone to the galvanizing excitement of partisans. Since Trump's people are
galvanized, and Democrats are not exciting their base, independents will go for Trump. That was
also reflected in polling over impeachment itself.
Independents are not some 5 or 10% of the voting base that might just 'push one candidate or
other' over a notch to victory. Independents make up a whole
38% of the electorate.
Looking at Pelosi's statements and methods, it would appear that the process left Democrats
looking extremely partisan to the detriment of getting the business of the country done. That
business included the USMCA, the Mexico-Canada Agreement that redefines a host of matters
previously mishandled by Bill Clinton's tremendously unpopular NAFTA. Why this seems to be the
case – Trump was in the process of getting his USMCA through congress, and with high
support from organized labor. As we consistently explain, Democrats rely on organized labor not
only for votes, but more critically for their entire ground campaigns, especially making phone
calls to other voters, and precinct walking during the campaign and on Election Day. That labor
always opposed NAFTA and generally supports the USMCA is critical. The key line in Pelosi's
post impeachment charade statement, regarding why they were not actually going to send the
articles to the Senate and therefore complete the process of impeaching the president, was that
she said specifically that they needed instead to prioritize passing the USMCA.
Looking at Pelosi's statements and methods, it would appear that the process left Democrats
looking extremely partisan to the detriment of getting the business of the country done. That
business included the USMCA, the Mexico-Canada Agreement that redefines a host of matters
previously mishandled by Bill Clinton's tremendously unpopular NAFTA. Why this seems to be the
case – Trump was in the process of getting his USMCA through congress, and with high
support from organized labor. As we consistently explain, Democrats rely on organized labor not
only for votes, but more critically for their entire ground campaigns, especially making phone
calls to other voters, and precinct walking during the campaign and on Election Day. That labor
always opposed NAFTA and generally supports the USMCA is critical. The key line in Pelosi's
post impeachment charade statement, regarding why they were not actually going to send the
articles to the Senate and therefore complete the process of impeaching the president, was that
she said specifically that they needed instead to prioritize passing the USMCA.
Imagine that for a moment. Because of the relationship between labor and the Democrat Party,
it was necessary for Democrats to appear as its champion, even that it was their idea in the
first place. This means that Democrats had the practical wisdom to understand that their
impeachment charade did not appeal to blue collar Democrat voters, but in fact would work
against them. What they needed in part in the impeachment, apart from implementing their
strategy of a thousand cuts, was to energize college educated upper middle-class boomers, which
form the bulk of the Rachel Maddow, and Democrat leaning mainstream media consumer demographic.
While these people control work-place politics and effectively police water-cooler talk, this
back-fires. Voting in the US is secret ballot – and so with this class in control of
people's ability to remain employed, unenthusiastic, rehearsed, regurgitated, manufactured
'orange man bad' utterances are more commonly heard than they are truly believed. People say
one thing at work to keep their job, and then vote another way on Election Day.
But the USMCA fiasco surrounding the impeachment tells us a lot. Eight years of Bill Clinton
and decades of his NAFTA has been symptomatic of the Democrat's anti-labor politics. Democrats
from that time onward invested their political capital into developing socialism. However, they
didn't develop this in the US, but in China – while in the US a crony class grew up and
lined their own pockets from it all. This is something which is perhaps, in a strange turn of
events, quite good for China and many other developing parts of the world including Africa. But
that has come at the expense not of America's wealthy 'bourgeoisie', but rather its own
'working class'. Bill Clinton was supposed to work to reverse 12 years of Reagan-Bush, whose
anti-labor policies amounted to one of the single greatest austerity campaigns in US history.
And yet this was only to be outdone by Clinton's outsourcing and off-shoring of jobs, and
deregulation of the financial sector.
What has shown to matter least of all, and especially where Trump is concerned, are polls.
And even here too, polls – when read correctly – point to a Trump victory.
There are also reasons why left-wing Democrats like documentary film maker Michael Moore
also understand that Trump is likely to win. Needless to say, his fixation therefore on an
impeachment succeeding, and his blanket support for Nancy Pelosi's absurd and failing strategy,
is also why even progressive Democrats like Sanders fail to understand why Trump is unbeatable.
Their placing hopes in impeachment isn't so much that impeachment is viable or likely, but from
a sober and scientific approach, it's only more likely than an electoral defeat of Trump at the
polls given that the party stubbornly insists on promoting Biden and Buttigieg.
"It's the economy, stupid"
Sure, it will always be argued that the improved economy under Trump was in fact either
related to impersonal forces of the global economy unrelated to Trump; sun spots, the invisible
hand, or Obama policies whose fruits we are now only reaping. But voters never go for this
reasoning. Partisans do, but voters don't.
Democrats at best are going to point out that while employment numbers have improved, 'never
before have so many earned so little'. And while that's true, we are dealing with a badly
bruised and insecure American working class. Things right now appear to be going in the right
direction, and so being able to find work even if it's a lower salary than they had before
their several-year unemployed stint, they are literally thanking the heavens, the stars, and
even Trump, that today they have any job at all. And even here, Trump's tax cuts put a few
thousand dollars back in the pockets of households where the average combined income is about
$70k. His even larger, but targeted, tax cuts for the rich in certain areas, due to the
economic growth these cuts in part inspired, resulted in more tax revenues overall.
And yes, we get it –
old black people like Biden . At least mainstream media reports on certain polls, whose
methodologies we can't see, report as much. What did that question actually look like? We think
the push-poll went something like: "In the coming election, would you support Obama's good
friend and Vice President , a gay mayor, a neurotic Jew, a Hindu veteran who may have
PTSD, Pocahontas, or a Chinaman good at math? Obama's VP was Biden. Will you vote for Biden?
Y/N".
But still this figure is misleading, and doesn't relate to Biden's electability, but is
supposed to get past this trope that he's a racist – a meme trending surrounding the
first few debates. Older black voters won't turn swing-states, and older black voters aren't
part of an energized or energizing electorate for new voters. This means that the media's
reportage cycle on this 'factoid' is about virtue signaling to the above mentioned Rachel
Maddow demographic that Biden is ' progressive since black people like him '. Oh,
you don't like Biden? Well black people like Biden. Don't you like black people?
And our jokingly hypothetical poll question aside, the reality isn't far off. This targeted
poll of black voters relates almost entirely back to labor union activism. The DNC controls
organized labor, and Biden is the DNC's choice. Black workers are extraordinarily
over-represented in the public sector, and the public sector is extraordinarily
over-represented in union membership. Older people are more likely to be involved in activism
in their labor union, and as a consequence, older black people trend towards Biden more than
other candidates. This factoid may trend well right now in media, but will have nothing to do
with the outcome of the election except that it will guarantee Trump's victory if Biden is the
Democrat nominee.
And so we have it, our three primary reasons Trump will win: the lack of enthusiasm for the
DNC's picks, the increasing enthusiasm among Trump supporters which will be contagious (again),
and the economic growth which, while favoring the rich, in fact did in this case 'trickle
down'.
The Democrat-controlled media establishment from the NYT, MSNBC to CNN, is abusing their
push-poll powers to promote boring and centrist candidates. But it's the genuine energy and
enthusiasm of precinct walkers and phone bankers that matters more than most numbers.
Enthusiasm is contagious, and a lack of enthusiasm creates a vicious cycle.
DNC strategists
and pollsters make the same error that almost every single top-down managed company makes in
their own sales-team policies. They wrongly imagine that no matter the product they are
selling, what makes a product sell is a direct consequence of the advertising dollars and deals
with media. They believe that creating energy around a product is entirely a hyper-reality
based simulacrum with little-to-no basis in the real world.
To the contrary, for most products it's the word-of-mouth enthusiasm of consumers and
potentials, along with the enthusiasm of the sales team that actually pushes sales. If the
enthusiasm isn't genuine, then it isn't there. If there's no buzz, there can be no victory.
A central premise of conventional media wisdom has collapsed. On Thursday, both the
New York Times
and
Politico
published
major articles reporting that Bernie Sanders really could win the Democratic presidential nomination. Such acknowledgments
will add to the momentum of the Bernie 2020 campaign as the new year begins -- but they foreshadow a massive escalation of
anti-Sanders misinformation and invective.
Throughout 2019, corporate media routinely asserted that the Sanders campaign had
little chance of winning the nomination. As is so often the case, journalists were echoing each other more than paying
attention to grassroots realities. But now, polling numbers and other
indicators
on
the ground are finally sparking very different headlines from the media establishment.
Those stories, and others likely to follow in copycat news outlets, will heighten the energies of Sanders supporters and
draw in many wavering voters. But the shift in media narratives about the Bernie campaign's chances will surely boost the
decibels of alarm bells in elite circles where dousing the fires of progressive populism is a top priority.
For corporate Democrats and their profuse media allies, the approach of
disparaging
and
minimizing Bernie Sanders in 2019 didn't work. In 2020, the next step will be to trash him with a vast array of full-bore
attacks.
Along the way, the corporate media will occasionally give voice to some Sanders defenders and supporters. A few
establishment Democrats will decide to make nice with him early in the year. But the overwhelming bulk of Sanders media
coverage -- synced up with the likes of such prominent corporate flunkies as Rahm Emanuel and Neera Tanden as well as Wall Street
Democrats accustomed to ruling the roost in the party -- will range from condescending to savage.
When the Bernie campaign wasn't being
ignored
by
corporate media during 2019, innuendos and mud often flew in his direction. But we ain't seen nothing yet.
With so much at stake -- including the presidency and the top leadership of the Democratic Party -- no holds will be barred. For
the forces of corporate greed and the military-industrial complex, it'll be all-out propaganda war on the Bernie campaign.
While reasons for pessimism are abundant, so are ample reasons to understand that
a
Sanders presidency is a real possibility
. The last places we should look for political realism are corporate media outlets
that distort options and encourage passivity.
Bernie is fond of quoting a statement from Nelson Mandela: "It always seems impossible until it is done."
From the grassroots, as 2020 gets underway, the solution should be clear: All left hands on deck.
Elections aren't real. Democrats will nominate Joe Biden to lose the election. Trump will remain as fascist
strongman and the dems will continue to blame his neoconservative policies on his white trash constituency.
Bernie serves a few important functions.
1. he keeps the radicals from leaving the plantation and going 3rd party.
2. his promotion of progressive policies will make Biden less popular and help him lose to Trump
3. Bernie and his "socialism" can then be blamed for losing the election to Trump
Unfortunately this comment will be buried in this monstrosity of a thread- now at over 300 comments
with only about a third of them having a much relevance.
You might consider re-posting in reply
to one of the foremost comments. Your simple realism will certainly not be well received during the
campaign hallucinations.
I've often wondered how it is people could believe the elections could have any positive and
lasting impact on their lives if they have been through a couple of cycles. Do they not also wonder
how it is that these election (marketing) campaigns now stretch out for well over a year nowadays
demanding everyone's political attention, energy and resources. To say it is a colossal waste does
not quite capture the enormity of the mind job being to people.
Your simple realism will certainly not be well received during the campaign hallucinations.
Yeah, yeah, sure, sure. You "realists" who are true believers that you have the Truth and have a calling to
preach the Truth absolutely must stand against the unwashed masses who claim that your "reality" isn't even
intersubjectively verifiable, much less dialectical & material [eta
& historical
].
I quite enjoyed what SteelPirate/LaborSolidarity had to say about you attempting to gain a vanguard
following by trolling lib-prog sites.
Never pay attention to anyone who claims what's "real" and what isn't. Politics certainly doesn't
exist in the realm of an objective, concrete, physical, naturalistic, materialistic reality which is
shared by a consensus of rational observers. At best, politics deals with intersubjectively verifiable
social phenomena. Thus, politics is mostly idealistic in the belief that each mind generates its own
reality.
This realization is the topic of intersubjective verifiability, as recounted, for example, by Max Born
(1949, 1965)
Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance
, who points out that all knowledge, including
natural or social science, is also subjective. p. 162: "Thus it dawned upon me that fundamentally
everything is subjective, everything without exception. That was a shock."
Noam Chomsky on Bernie Sanders's Chances of Success- "...the chances he can be elected are pretty small."
(Waiting with bated breath for copious downvotes by those who hate the truth and hate reality).
Most of who support Sanders know that his presidency will involve an uphill battle. Chomsky is
being realistic.
But there really is no better option for meaningful change working within the
political system than supporting Sanders. it is also important to note that "Our Revolution" has
energized many young activists, encouraging them to continue the fight. This goes beyond politics
to social and economic issues. If Sanders leaves us with a movement, this may turn out to be more
important than the presidency in the long run.
Keep working for effective moral and economic justice and democracy!
Well, I have said this several times, it's not the microscopic left that you need to convince, it's
the majority of self-identifying Democrats not supporting Sanders that you need to convince. I am
repelled by the Democratic Party, but there are millions who identify as Democrats and many are
proud of it. You need to convince them, not us.
Yes, although I don't think that those who support a Leftist agenda--whether you actually call them
Leftists or not--are quite so microscopic a group as you imply. But you don't need to convince me
or most others here (probably) that Sanders isn't perfect, or that it will be difficult for him to
be elected president. We already know; we simply consider him the best option within this context
of voting.
Have you ever thought of turning your approach to systemic commentary (which is valid
and interesting, BTW, I'm not discounting it) around and saying what candidates you support-- in
this context being discussed of voting-- instead of which ones you don't? And then explaining why
such support would be effective?
I would say that what is wrong with the world is more a fault of the economic and political
system than of Sanders alone--who not only plays small part in causing what is wrong, but a
significant part in trying to correct it. Yes, he works within the system. That is a given. It may
be, as Chris Hedges thinks, that there is no hope working within the system. But Noam Chomsky's
approach also bears serious consideration that even Hedges doesn't discount. Voting will only be a
small part of what brings about change, but it may make some slight difference--if you can stomach
it. And it only takes a small amount of time.
"In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."
I don't see much of an argument that Sanders will be no better as president than Trump (and if
you think so, I'd like to hear you argue it). I suspect you find the compromise unpalatable. I can
understand that. I, too, draw the line at a certain point. I couldn't vote for HRC.
Yes, Sanders isn't perfect. Chomsky also said another important thing: "We're all compromised."
Everyone who is a citizen of the US is compromised, and bears some measure of responsibility for
the military interventions undertaken by our government. Perhaps we should renounce our
citizenship, refuse to pay taxes, etc. But most of us don't -- not even those of us committed to
activist work in other ways -- significant ways -- to make things better.
But you don't need to convince me or most others here (probably) that Sanders isn't perfect
-for me it isn' that he's not perfect, it's that I think he sucks
"In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."
-funny, that's a favorite line of Democrats
I get that, but it doesn't negate that Sanders's chances are next to nil.
Your suggestion of me signaling whom I support would fall on deaf ears around here. I have said
this many times- I will probably for the Green Party candidate or the Socialist Equality Party
candidate. If only a Democrat and Republican appear on the ballot then I would refuse to vote even
if I had to pay a fine. I am not in the habit of telling anyone whom to vote for unless asked.
Before a 3rd can succeed, the fantasy that the fix can come through the Democrats needs to be
destroyed. Not to worry, in due time it will be obvious.
My guess/bet is that
V4V
believes that the truth "We're all compromised" doesn't apply to him.
He sees himself as a truth-knower and a truth-teller.
He won't commit to logical argumentation.
He'll preach the truth to you.
I saw this video long ago--and agreed with it. But though Sanders' chances are small, they're still
vastly larger than the NONEXISTENT chances of success of the purist, "Born to Lose" left. Why not just
admit that you've totally given up and simply like to spent your time bitching and criticizing those of
us with some (albeit small) hope?
simply like to spent your time bitching and criticizing those of us with some (albeit small) hope?
-straw man
That isn't what I do because I couldn't care less whom Democrats support and vote for. Typically, I post
some unpleasant truth about Sanders, like his lackluster polling numbers or his support for neoliberal
warmongers and sit back and watch the ad hominems and downvotes roll in. I am not normally on the attack, I am
usually on the receiving end.
I admit that I see this forum as a form of entertainment. I admit I have zero expectation that someone to my
liking will be elected president and that the system is going to change anytime soon. Do I believe it possible?
Yes, I believe it is possible, I just don't believe it possible using the corrupt, Democratic Party as a
vehicle and that's where we differ.
And that the crux of our issue- you believe the Democratic Party can be used a vehicle to convert the
CIA/Wall Street/War Inc. Democrats into the peoples' party, and I do not. If the needed changes are ever to
arrive, it will be in spite of the Democrats not because of them. I hope you stick around because in due time
I'll be telling you, "Told ya so."
The problem with your position is that, unlike Sanders, you don't seem to understand that a third
candidate party candidate hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of being president unless if s/he
somehow gets more electoral votes that
both
the major parties combined. If not, it goes to
the house, and in the current partisan atmosphere, would be decided for the candidate of the House
majority.
The major parties have a death-grip on the presidency while the electoral college exists.
You don't seem to understand that Sanders has a snowball's chance in hell of being the Democratic
Party candidate for many reasons including the DNC arguing in court it is a private corporation and
can legally rig primary and the trusty superdelegates for Biden.
What I propose is a movement
outside the Democratic Party in inside it. I believe any attempt to reform the Democratic Party is
doomed to fail. All this whistling in the dark over Sanders is a distraction and a kicking the can
down the road to the time you Democrats
finally
realize it isn't going to work. You
obviously didn't learn it in 2016, and I would be surprised if you learn it once Sanders tanks and
begins campaigning for Biden just like he did Clinton. I will promise this, I'll say, "I told ya
so" in a matter of months. That's okay, play it again, Sam.
People believe they need others to tell them what to do and give them the illusion somebody cares about
them and has their best interests at heart. That's an archetype in the brain that goes back to our
baby/childhood when we were dependent on our caregivers for sustenance, comfort and life itself.That's
where the original concept of needing "leaders" comes from. But, what happens is psyco/sociopaths see
this weakness in humanity and force their way to the top, to herd and exploit the gullible sheeple for
their own agendas and selfish interests. No matter who rises to the top, she/he got their through the
same system that's been going on since tribes had their chief; chief's lieutenant and witch
doctor/shaman. Those three keep the tribe in line with their own desires. Chief through brute force, his
lieutenant through information and witch doctor through religion and "spiritual" services; and all three
require tribute and fees from the rest of the tribe. So, you will see, regardless of who the next POTUS
will be, that same structure, although more complex today, will repeat itself. New boss/old boss, same
ol' same ol'. All power has to be returned to the people at the local level before Wash. starts WWIII.
But, if that happens, at least we won't have to worry about global warming with a nuclear winter after
the bombs drop.
"If this succeeds, we'll be well on the path to dictatorship." This seems predicated on
the idea that 'whites' will only be able to hold onto power by Dictatorship. Population
trends suggest whites will still be the largest group [just under half] in 2055. A
considerable group given their, to borrow the phrase, 'privilege'. Add conservative Asian and
even Catholic Latino voters, is it that difficult to envisage a scenario where Republicans
sometimes achieve power without Dictatorship? They are already benefiting from the radical
left helping drive traditional working class white voters to the right [helped by
Republican/Fox etc hyperbole].
Radical left is either idiots, or stooges of intelligence agencies and always has been.
IMHO the idea that " whites" are or will be the force behind the move to the dictatorship is
completely naïve. Dictatorship is needed for financial oligarchy and it is the most
plausible path of development due to another factor -- the collapse of neoliberal ideology and
complete discrediting of neoliberal elite. At least in the USA.
Russiagate should be viewed as an attempt to stage a color revolution and remove the
President by the USA intelligence agencies (in close cooperation with the "Five eyes") -- a
prolog to the establishing of the dictatorship by financial oligarchy
I would view Russiagate is a kind of Beer Hall Putsch with intelligence agencies instead of
national-socialist party. A couple of conspirators might be jailed after Durham investigation
is finished (Hitler was jailed after the putsch), but the danger that CIA will seize the
political power remains. After all KGB was in this role in the USSR for along time. Is the USA
that different? I don't think so. There is no countervailing force: the number of people with
security clearance in the USA exceed five million. Those five million and not "whites" like
some completely naïve people propose is the critical mass needed for the dictatorship. https://news.yahoo.com/durham-surprises-even-allies-statement-202907008.html
The potential explosiveness of Durham's mission was further underscored by the disclosure
that he was examining the role of John O. Brennan, the former CIA director, in how the
intelligence community assessed Russia's 2016 election interference.
BTW "whites" are not a homogeneous group. There is especially abhorrent and dangerous
neoliberal strata of "whites" including members of financial oligarchy, the "professional
class" and "academia" (economics department are completely infected.) as well as MIC
prostitutes in MSM.
A central premise of conventional media wisdom has collapsed. On Thursday, both the
New York Times
and
Politico
published
major articles reporting that Bernie Sanders really could win the Democratic presidential nomination. Such acknowledgments
will add to the momentum of the Bernie 2020 campaign as the new year begins -- but they foreshadow a massive escalation of
anti-Sanders misinformation and invective.
Throughout 2019, corporate media routinely asserted that the Sanders campaign had
little chance of winning the nomination. As is so often the case, journalists were echoing each other more than paying
attention to grassroots realities. But now, polling numbers and other
indicators
on
the ground are finally sparking very different headlines from the media establishment.
Those stories, and others likely to follow in copycat news outlets, will heighten the energies of Sanders supporters and
draw in many wavering voters. But the shift in media narratives about the Bernie campaign's chances will surely boost the
decibels of alarm bells in elite circles where dousing the fires of progressive populism is a top priority.
For corporate Democrats and their profuse media allies, the approach of
disparaging
and
minimizing Bernie Sanders in 2019 didn't work. In 2020, the next step will be to trash him with a vast array of full-bore
attacks.
Along the way, the corporate media will occasionally give voice to some Sanders defenders and supporters. A few
establishment Democrats will decide to make nice with him early in the year. But the overwhelming bulk of Sanders media
coverage -- synced up with the likes of such prominent corporate flunkies as Rahm Emanuel and Neera Tanden as well as Wall Street
Democrats accustomed to ruling the roost in the party -- will range from condescending to savage.
When the Bernie campaign wasn't being
ignored
by
corporate media during 2019, innuendos and mud often flew in his direction. But we ain't seen nothing yet.
With so much at stake -- including the presidency and the top leadership of the Democratic Party -- no holds will be barred. For
the forces of corporate greed and the military-industrial complex, it'll be all-out propaganda war on the Bernie campaign.
While reasons for pessimism are abundant, so are ample reasons to understand that
a
Sanders presidency is a real possibility
. The last places we should look for political realism are corporate media outlets
that distort options and encourage passivity.
Bernie is fond of quoting a statement from Nelson Mandela: "It always seems impossible until it is done."
From the grassroots, as 2020 gets underway, the solution should be clear: All left hands on deck.
Elections aren't real. Democrats will nominate Joe Biden to lose the election. Trump will remain as fascist
strongman and the dems will continue to blame his neoconservative policies on his white trash constituency.
Bernie serves a few important functions.
1. he keeps the radicals from leaving the plantation and going 3rd party.
2. his promotion of progressive policies will make Biden less popular and help him lose to Trump
3. Bernie and his "socialism" can then be blamed for losing the election to Trump
Unfortunately this comment will be buried in this monstrosity of a thread- now at over 300 comments
with only about a third of them having a much relevance.
You might consider re-posting in reply
to one of the foremost comments. Your simple realism will certainly not be well received during the
campaign hallucinations.
I've often wondered how it is people could believe the elections could have any positive and
lasting impact on their lives if they have been through a couple of cycles. Do they not also wonder
how it is that these election (marketing) campaigns now stretch out for well over a year nowadays
demanding everyone's political attention, energy and resources. To say it is a colossal waste does
not quite capture the enormity of the mind job being to people.
Your simple realism will certainly not be well received during the campaign hallucinations.
Yeah, yeah, sure, sure. You "realists" who are true believers that you have the Truth and have a calling to
preach the Truth absolutely must stand against the unwashed masses who claim that your "reality" isn't even
intersubjectively verifiable, much less dialectical & material [eta
& historical
].
I quite enjoyed what SteelPirate/LaborSolidarity had to say about you attempting to gain a vanguard
following by trolling lib-prog sites.
Never pay attention to anyone who claims what's "real" and what isn't. Politics certainly doesn't
exist in the realm of an objective, concrete, physical, naturalistic, materialistic reality which is
shared by a consensus of rational observers. At best, politics deals with intersubjectively verifiable
social phenomena. Thus, politics is mostly idealistic in the belief that each mind generates its own
reality.
This realization is the topic of intersubjective verifiability, as recounted, for example, by Max Born
(1949, 1965)
Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance
, who points out that all knowledge, including
natural or social science, is also subjective. p. 162: "Thus it dawned upon me that fundamentally
everything is subjective, everything without exception. That was a shock."
Noam Chomsky on Bernie Sanders's Chances of Success- "...the chances he can be elected are pretty small."
(Waiting with bated breath for copious downvotes by those who hate the truth and hate reality).
Most of who support Sanders know that his presidency will involve an uphill battle. Chomsky is
being realistic.
But there really is no better option for meaningful change working within the
political system than supporting Sanders. it is also important to note that "Our Revolution" has
energized many young activists, encouraging them to continue the fight. This goes beyond politics
to social and economic issues. If Sanders leaves us with a movement, this may turn out to be more
important than the presidency in the long run.
Keep working for effective moral and economic justice and democracy!
Well, I have said this several times, it's not the microscopic left that you need to convince, it's
the majority of self-identifying Democrats not supporting Sanders that you need to convince. I am
repelled by the Democratic Party, but there are millions who identify as Democrats and many are
proud of it. You need to convince them, not us.
Yes, although I don't think that those who support a Leftist agenda--whether you actually call them
Leftists or not--are quite so microscopic a group as you imply. But you don't need to convince me
or most others here (probably) that Sanders isn't perfect, or that it will be difficult for him to
be elected president. We already know; we simply consider him the best option within this context
of voting.
Have you ever thought of turning your approach to systemic commentary (which is valid
and interesting, BTW, I'm not discounting it) around and saying what candidates you support-- in
this context being discussed of voting-- instead of which ones you don't? And then explaining why
such support would be effective?
I would say that what is wrong with the world is more a fault of the economic and political
system than of Sanders alone--who not only plays small part in causing what is wrong, but a
significant part in trying to correct it. Yes, he works within the system. That is a given. It may
be, as Chris Hedges thinks, that there is no hope working within the system. But Noam Chomsky's
approach also bears serious consideration that even Hedges doesn't discount. Voting will only be a
small part of what brings about change, but it may make some slight difference--if you can stomach
it. And it only takes a small amount of time.
"In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."
I don't see much of an argument that Sanders will be no better as president than Trump (and if
you think so, I'd like to hear you argue it). I suspect you find the compromise unpalatable. I can
understand that. I, too, draw the line at a certain point. I couldn't vote for HRC.
Yes, Sanders isn't perfect. Chomsky also said another important thing: "We're all compromised."
Everyone who is a citizen of the US is compromised, and bears some measure of responsibility for
the military interventions undertaken by our government. Perhaps we should renounce our
citizenship, refuse to pay taxes, etc. But most of us don't -- not even those of us committed to
activist work in other ways -- significant ways -- to make things better.
But you don't need to convince me or most others here (probably) that Sanders isn't perfect
-for me it isn' that he's not perfect, it's that I think he sucks
"In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."
-funny, that's a favorite line of Democrats
I get that, but it doesn't negate that Sanders's chances are next to nil.
Your suggestion of me signaling whom I support would fall on deaf ears around here. I have said
this many times- I will probably for the Green Party candidate or the Socialist Equality Party
candidate. If only a Democrat and Republican appear on the ballot then I would refuse to vote even
if I had to pay a fine. I am not in the habit of telling anyone whom to vote for unless asked.
Before a 3rd can succeed, the fantasy that the fix can come through the Democrats needs to be
destroyed. Not to worry, in due time it will be obvious.
My guess/bet is that
V4V
believes that the truth "We're all compromised" doesn't apply to him.
He sees himself as a truth-knower and a truth-teller.
He won't commit to logical argumentation.
He'll preach the truth to you.
I saw this video long ago--and agreed with it. But though Sanders' chances are small, they're still
vastly larger than the NONEXISTENT chances of success of the purist, "Born to Lose" left. Why not just
admit that you've totally given up and simply like to spent your time bitching and criticizing those of
us with some (albeit small) hope?
simply like to spent your time bitching and criticizing those of us with some (albeit small) hope?
-straw man
That isn't what I do because I couldn't care less whom Democrats support and vote for. Typically, I post
some unpleasant truth about Sanders, like his lackluster polling numbers or his support for neoliberal
warmongers and sit back and watch the ad hominems and downvotes roll in. I am not normally on the attack, I am
usually on the receiving end.
I admit that I see this forum as a form of entertainment. I admit I have zero expectation that someone to my
liking will be elected president and that the system is going to change anytime soon. Do I believe it possible?
Yes, I believe it is possible, I just don't believe it possible using the corrupt, Democratic Party as a
vehicle and that's where we differ.
And that the crux of our issue- you believe the Democratic Party can be used a vehicle to convert the
CIA/Wall Street/War Inc. Democrats into the peoples' party, and I do not. If the needed changes are ever to
arrive, it will be in spite of the Democrats not because of them. I hope you stick around because in due time
I'll be telling you, "Told ya so."
The problem with your position is that, unlike Sanders, you don't seem to understand that a third
candidate party candidate hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of being president unless if s/he
somehow gets more electoral votes that
both
the major parties combined. If not, it goes to
the house, and in the current partisan atmosphere, would be decided for the candidate of the House
majority.
The major parties have a death-grip on the presidency while the electoral college exists.
You don't seem to understand that Sanders has a snowball's chance in hell of being the Democratic
Party candidate for many reasons including the DNC arguing in court it is a private corporation and
can legally rig primary and the trusty superdelegates for Biden.
What I propose is a movement
outside the Democratic Party in inside it. I believe any attempt to reform the Democratic Party is
doomed to fail. All this whistling in the dark over Sanders is a distraction and a kicking the can
down the road to the time you Democrats
finally
realize it isn't going to work. You
obviously didn't learn it in 2016, and I would be surprised if you learn it once Sanders tanks and
begins campaigning for Biden just like he did Clinton. I will promise this, I'll say, "I told ya
so" in a matter of months. That's okay, play it again, Sam.
People believe they need others to tell them what to do and give them the illusion somebody cares about
them and has their best interests at heart. That's an archetype in the brain that goes back to our
baby/childhood when we were dependent on our caregivers for sustenance, comfort and life itself.That's
where the original concept of needing "leaders" comes from. But, what happens is psyco/sociopaths see
this weakness in humanity and force their way to the top, to herd and exploit the gullible sheeple for
their own agendas and selfish interests. No matter who rises to the top, she/he got their through the
same system that's been going on since tribes had their chief; chief's lieutenant and witch
doctor/shaman. Those three keep the tribe in line with their own desires. Chief through brute force, his
lieutenant through information and witch doctor through religion and "spiritual" services; and all three
require tribute and fees from the rest of the tribe. So, you will see, regardless of who the next POTUS
will be, that same structure, although more complex today, will repeat itself. New boss/old boss, same
ol' same ol'. All power has to be returned to the people at the local level before Wash. starts WWIII.
But, if that happens, at least we won't have to worry about global warming with a nuclear winter after
the bombs drop.
As usual, I find your analysis and commentary honest and accurate. However, I do take exception to your pulling out
these canards:
"Trump's contempt of Congress and attempt to get Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, to open an
investigation of Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in exchange for almost $400 million in U.S. military aid and allowing
Zelensky to visit the White House are impeachable offenses"
Trump has certain executive privileges and him being
guilty of contempt of Congress should be up to the Supreme Court to decide. Jonathan Turley in his testimony made
that quite clear. Military aid was never mentioned in the phone call. Zelensky was unaware aid would be withheld. So
if Trump were using the money as a means to induce Zelensky to do those favors, it was a totally botched one. To
quote Dr. Strangelove, "The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost...if you keep it a secret!"
New avenues for accountability and oversight became possible in Washington, D.C., in 2019, following the
election of a new Democratic Party majority in the House (and the most diverse Congress ever) in the 2018
midterms. As a result, Democrats took hold of the subpoena power that rests in the House of Representatives,
along with the power to set the agenda across congressional committees. As a result, 2019 has been full of
important moments for congressional oversight of both the Trump administration and private business. Here
are five of the most important moments in congressional oversight in 2019.
1. Betsy DeVos, Are You "Too Corrupt" or "Too Incompetent"? ...
2. Big Bank CEOs Are Stumped by Simple Budgets ...
3. Wells Fargo Announces Plan to Divest From Private Prisons in Congressional Testimony ...
4. Rep. Ilhan Omar vs. Elliott Abrams ...
5. Voting to Impeach the President ...
The only people who lie and obfuscate facts as much as Trump and his GOP cult are neo progressive demagogues
and propaganda buffs like Chris 'regime-change-in-America' Hedges.
Absolutely bush should have been impeached, convicted, removed and executed for war crimes and mass murder.
But because he wasn't doesn't mean that our orange Fuhrer shouldn't be.
He is the most dangerous authoritarian propagandist and threat to this country since Hitler.
NObama was a horrible POTUS for the 99% and is THE reason why we have trump, but he didn't poison every aspect
of the government and everything else like your orange Fuhrer is doing, which is the exact same tactic that
Hitler used to create Nazi Germany.
The generic Left is ignoring this aspect of the Trump impeachment circus . The whole farce IS political. Now
Senator Lisa Murkowski wants her Republican Party to rise above politics ( and do the wrong thing ? ). In the
past three years when did the Democrat Party ever rise above politics ? Politics USA is always CLASS politics,
always IMPERIALIST , MILITARIST politics . All the " liberal " Democrats have been slobbering over the
UN-ELECTED shadow government of the United States , the National Security Police State , slobbering over FBI,
CIA bureaucrats , uniformed officials of the Pentagon War Crimes Machine . Join them ?
This Senator Lisa
Murkowski -no surprise - is in good standing with the Israel Lobby collectively determined to nullify the 2016
presidential election . NEWS clip :
[ "There are about 6 million Jewish people living in America, so as a percentage it's quite small, but in
terms of influence its quite big," Farage said. Farage seemed to question why Israel was not facing
election-meddling accusations, saying Israeli groups "have a voice within American politics" but "I don't think
anybody is suggesting that the Israeli government tried to affect the result of the American elections."]
Did not the Kafkaesque Trump impeachment hearings look and sound like Old Yiddish Theater soap opera ? How
many working class Christian Americans have heartfelt moral and cultural ties to the Ukraine of all places, now
celebrating its first Jewish friend of Zionist Apartheid Israel president ? Who in the USA authorized this
character to wage a proxy war against post-communist Russia ? WE THE PEOPLE ?
Guess WHO is promoting the HATE RUSSIA, New McCarthyism ?
$748 billion in 2020 for the military death machine equals $23 MILLION A SECOND.
How many schools or
hospitals could have been built, how many roads or bridges repaired, how many students educated with the money
the MIC has squandered in the few seconds it has taken me to write this?
We are destroying our people from the inside out. This is treason.
"The unreasonable campaign against Trump will hurt the Democrats in the 2020 elections. Unless something unforeseeable happens Trump will be reelected."
"The unreasonable campaign against Trump will hurt the Democrats in the 2020 elections.
Unless something unforeseeable happens Trump will be reelected."
The Democrats are not helping themselves by pushing Russia-gate, or now Ukraine-gate.
However, the US economy is NOT good for 90 percent of workers, and this is what elected
Trump 2016. Outside of his extremist fascistic+racist base, Trump is NOT widely popular. Now
one way the Democrats could ease his re-election would be nominating Biden, Warren, or
Buttigieg.
Here I remind you b how wrong you were about the Republicans retaining control of the
House of Representatives in the 2018 elections.
You may be right, but I just can't see either one of your three choices beating Trump. Biden has huge vulnerabilities, quite apart from being sleazier (plus there are more
videos of him doing it) than Trump in Groping 101.
Warren does not appeal.
Buttigieg does not appeal.
The only Dem with a chance is Sanders. If they nominate a Sanders-Warren ticket that could
well beat Trump.
Based on a hunch, I'll go out on a limb and say Warren will be the Dem nominee. Her
fake-"progressiveness" is enough to satisfy most Sanders fans while being demonstrably fake
enough to reassure enough Dem Party funders. And the Party could have a do-over on the whole
"time for a woman president, any woman no matter what her record" thing.
From there I agree with b, Trump will win "unless something unforeseeable happens." I
expect Trump handily to beat any opponent but Sanders, but the Dems will certainly do all
they can to prevent his candidacy.
A Trump-Sanders contest would be interesting, though, if only to see how the media, the
political class, the well-heeled cultural elites of both parties, the Democrat Party as a
whole handle their extreme conflict: Who do they hate more, Trump or Sanders?
2020 looks like the year for the neocons at the helm to do whatever they must to get the hot
war going with Iran, hell or high water. They're truly deranged psychopaths, they have a weak
befuddled president who at least for the most part agrees with them, the balance of power in
the Mideast can only get worse for the US and the Zionists, the KSA could collapse or be
overthrown any time, the financial markets and dollar as well can't keep running in mid-air
forever nor continue much longer to command global hegemony, the American people are
narcoticized, neither China nor Russia seems ready to do anything significant about it (short
of Russia's warning about nukes), Europe is still compliant or at least not resistant.
They're as dead set on war as Hitler was by 1939, and they have the same sense that time
is running out and the situation is not going to get better with age.
"The life of the individual is a constant struggle, and not merely a metaphorical one,
against want or boredom, but also an actual struggle against other people. He discovers
adversaries everywhere, lives in continual conflict and dies with sword in hand."
Arthur Schopenhauer, On the Suffering of the World
Although Nietzsche seems to be the philosopher of choice for many on the Dissident Right,
I've always had a soft spot for Arthur Schopenhauer. His cantankerous philosophical pessimism
has always struck a chord with my own temperament, and for many years I've found his
quasi-Buddhist and highly compassionate conceptualisation of suffering to be strangely
comforting. That life is a struggle involving endless adversaries and competitors also forms an
aspect of Schopenhauer's philosophy, and this continues to be significant in shaping my
political and philosophical outlook. Certainly, it goes without saying that adversaries have
never been in short supply for members of the Dissident Right. They are arrayed before us now,
emerging from all points of the political spectrum, and often even from within our own ranks.
Dissident right political philosophies, more than any other, appear destined to be mired in
continual conflict, and I often find it difficult to shake the dark impression that one day I
will die, metaphorical sword in hand, with every battle raging but far from won. For this
reason, I sometimes permit myself the relief of optimism (a form of cowardice to both
Schopenhauer and Spengler), and part of this is the attempt to find allies where formerly one
may have seen only foes. This brings me to the subject matter of this essay -- recent
developments on the Left which appear to suggest the emergence of an anti-globalist,
anti-immigration, and anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic politics.
Swedish Communists Wake Up
Just days ago, Sputnik
reported on the fact that almost half of the members of the Communist Party in Malmö,
Sweden, are resigning. They plan to establish a new workers' party that no longer features
multiculturalism, LGBT interests, and climate change as key policy goals. Nils Littorin, one of
the defectors,
told a local newspaper that today's Left has become part of the elite and has come to
"dismiss the views of the working class as alien and problematic." Littorin suggested that the
Left "is going through a prolonged identity crisis" and that his group, instead, intends to
stick to the original values, such as class politics. Littorin adds "[The Left] don't
understand why so many workers don't think that multiculturalism, the LGBT movement and Greta
Thunberg are something fantastic, but instead believe we are in the 1930s' Germany and that
workers who vote [right-wing] Sweden Democrats have been infected by some Nazi sickness." In a
piece of simple insight previously rare on the Left, he argues that the rise in right-wing
votes for people like Donald Trump and Boris Johnson are in fact due to "widespread
dissatisfaction with liberal economic migration that leads to low-wage competition and the
ghettoisation of communities, a development that only benefits major companies." Rather than
being beneficial to working class Whites, Littorin condemns a "chaotic" immigration policy that
has led to "cultural clashes, segregation and exclusion due to an uncontrolled influx from
parts of the world characterised by honour culture and clan mentalities."
Littorin continues to talk sense when it comes to the LGBT agenda. He explains that LGBT
issues and the climate movement are merely "state ideologies" that are "rammed down people's
throats". Littorin adds that phenomena like these happen at the expense of real issues, such as
poverty, homelessness, and income equality: "Pride, for instance, has been reduced to dealing
with sexual orientation. We believe that human dignity is primarily about having a job and
having pension insurance that means that you are not forced to live on crumbs when you are
old."
As well as prioritising jobs and pensions over the flamboyant celebration of buggery,
Littorin and his colleagues have pledged to abandon the name and ethos of Communism, describing
it as a
word drawn to the dirt, a nasty word today, and not entirely undeservedly. In communist
parties, there is this risk of elitism, self-indulgence, and a belief that a certain
avant-garde should lead a working class that does not know its own best interests, instead of
asking people what they want. 20th-century Communism died with the Soviet Union, it has never
been successfully updated for the 21st century but has been stuck in 100-year-old books.
Curiously, events in Malmö have been mirrored somewhat in broader Swedish Left
politics, with Markus Allard, the leader of the left-wing Örebro Party, expressing
similar
thoughts in an op-ed titled "Socialists don't belong to the left," accusing the mainstream
left of completely abandoning
its base , switching from the working class to "parasitic grant-grabbing layers within the
middle class."
British Socialists Reinvent Themselves
Almost simultaneously, an identical process is occurring in Britain with George Galloway 's announcement of a
new Workers
Party of Britain . At the time of its launch Galloway described the party as "hard Brexit
and hard labour," and added: "If you're a liberal who thinks it's Left if you're still pining
for the EU, if you think shouting "racist," "homophobic," "transphobic" at everybody who
doesn't agree with you is the way forward, we're probably not for you." Galloway's pro-Brexit
stance is rooted in his
belief that the modern British Left "have no vision for an alternative to rampant
neoliberalism and a deindustrialised, finance-led, low wage economy, they calculate the best
way to make this work is within the EU." He argues that the cosmopolitan leadership of the
Labour Party in particular "think we are some kind of uncivilised tribe, painting our faces
blue, and only able to vote in a right-wing government," a view he finds "not only deeply
insulting, but also self-defeating and overly optimistic about the EU." On immigration,
Galloway argues that there is "nothing left-wing about unlimited mass immigration. It
decapitates the countries from which the immigrants leave, and drives down wages in those where
they arrive. The wealthy benefit from it, as they can afford cheap labor for their companies,
or cheap au-pairs, cheap baristas, cheap plumbers. But the working class suffers."
Galloway has also stressed that his new party will strongly pursue anti-Israel politics, and
is fully committed to opposing the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
Galloway and the Workers Party of Britain have also taken a stand against the more extreme
forms of LGBT indoctrination, particularly the mass promotion of transgenderism. Galloway, who
has previously been attacked by a
self-styled "trans anarchist" while giving a speech, is here following the lead of the
pro-Brexit Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) which recently published
Identity Politics and the Transgender Trend: Where is LGBT ideology taking us and Why does
it matter? In this text, and other articles on the party's website, including this
very interesting speech denouncing transgender ideology as anti-materialist and
anti-scientific, the argument is made that
Biological differentiation between male and female is a real thing . It doesn't
just exist in humanity, it exists in many species throughout the natural world. Sexual
reproduction is a natural biological process that has persisted in nature due to the
diversity it engenders; it is a phenomenon encountered in the natural world. And let's not
forget how this debate impinged upon us. We've been following this ideological trend, and
encountering identity politics (idpol) among supporters and candidates for membership of our
party, and amongst people we've been working with for at least four or five years. Because
idpol has become a fashion in that period. And it is a fashion; it is a trend. And it
suddenly -- from being very marginal to certain academic institutions in the 1970s -- became
mainstream globally worldwide; it was actively promoted. Not promoted by communists, not by
socialists, but picked up on and accepted by many of them, because they are led by, and they
blindly followed, bourgeoise society down this dead-end. There is a group of self-proclaimed
'socialists' who are not actually any longer fighting against our oppression, they're
fighting against reality!
The Left in Crisis?
None of these developments are entirely surprising and, in fact, the argument could be made
that they are the inevitable side effect of what Nils Littorin termed the Left's prolonged
"identity crisis." The endorsement and promotion of multiculturalism and its sex-politics
corollaries never did make much sense within the framework of rational critiques of capitalism,
and the tension between the nominal desire for working class solidarity and divisive
pseudo-Marxian doctrines (e.g. Whiteness Studies) designed to mobilise imported ethnic factions
against the largest section of the working class (blue-collar Whites) was always destined to
bring about significant stress fractures when Leftist fortunes began to decline.
And decline they have. Of course, we have to set aside rampant ideological and cultural
success. Figures and cliques operating under the banner of social equality and eternal progress
continue to hold the reins of power in government, academia, and the mass media. But the Left
is without question currently subject to a period of political decline. It's losing votes, and
more important, it's fast losing hearts and minds. I should also add that they aren't losing
them to right-wing ideas, but to the hollow shells of right-wing ideas (Free Enterprise! Build
the Wall!) and to the charismatic globalist play-actors who promote-these ideas like salesmen
selling used cars or aftershave. White working-class people are voting for free enterprise
without hesitation while Jewish
vulture capitalism operates with impunity under that very banner, destroying their towns,
exporting their jobs, and repossessing their homes. The same people vote for a wall they'll
never get -- and would never really solve the problems resulting from capitalism or ensure a
majority White future. And they do it not because of concern about identity or racial destiny,
but in the same way one might decide to install CCTV in a grocery store -- the ever-elusive
Wall will never be built so long as it represents nothing more than the aspiration to protect
mere inventory. The hollow men of the pseudo-Right-wing offer flimsy placebos, and yet the
political Left, supposedly the historical repository of hard materialism, can't seem to
compete.
There's been a scramble to blame the situation on
a lack of charismatic leaders , disunity, a lack of attractive policies, and even the idea
that the European Left made the
fatal mistake of trying to meet the Right on its own turf by "flirting with closed-border
nationalism or neoliberalism." But the real reason is surely the fact the Left has consistently
alienated and browbeat working class Whites, while slowly revealing itself to be an elite-run
clique of cosmopolitans, who are living the high life while waxing lyrical about oppressions
that are rarely real and often imaginary, and in any case never affect them personally. Added
to this is the fact Leftist ideology has become so convoluted and contorted, with the
square-peg doctrine of Marx endlessly forced into new and increasingly abstract circular and
triangular holes, resulting in Marxist interpretations of such ephemera as graffiti, pop music,
and drag queens, all of which strike the average blue-collar worker as a steaming pile of
effeminate middle-class navel-gazing. All this plays out as young yet dithering social justice
warriors, jobless and senseless, search for oppression like an old lady with dementia searches
for a purse she hasn't owned in 20 years. As the pundits split hairs, I look on, and it occurs
to me rather simply that right now the pseudo-Left-wing liars aren't quite as good as the
pseudo-Right-wing liars.
Are These Rebels Potential Allies?
When I was around 11 years old, my mother made a new friend, a Scottish woman in her 30s,
who always struck me as very strange. It was her eyes. I didn't know at first what
schizophrenia was, though I would soon find out. One day she arrived at our house and,
recognising her, I opened the door and welcomed her in. I called to my mother, who was
upstairs, and made small talk with the Scottish woman, who, standing still and staring right at
me, seemed perfectly cheerful and articulate. She asked about how I was doing at school, and we
talked a little bit about science, which she seemed to know a lot about. It was only after a
few minutes that I noticed the smell and deduced that the woman had fouled herself. By the time
my mother arrived, the Scottish woman had descended into a stream-of-consciousness gibberish
that culminated in her attempting unsuccessfully to retrieve a knife from the kitchen before
running from the property. She'd simply stopped taking her medication. We later discovered she
was found by police that night, dancing and weeping with bare, bloody feet in a nearby
graveyard, wearing nothing but a nightgown and proclaiming to the dead that she was God,
distraught at the death of the crucified son.
The episode has remained with me now for over two decades, shaping my perceptions of
reality, relationships, and trust. Here it suffices only to remark that the insane talk sense
at times, even as their psyche shatters. And if we dig deeply enough into the statements of
these moderately "awakened" Leftists, do we yet see signs of madness? A look again at the
statement from the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist), along with some reading
between the lines, suggests something decidedly off . Yes, "biological differentiation
between male and female is a real thing." Of course it is. But so is biological differentiation
between races, and yet here our erstwhile British hardcore materialists, currently led by a
full-blooded ethnic Indian named Harpal Brar , decide to fight against reality.
On that note, we should add that Brar's daughter, Joti Brar, has been announced as George
Galloway's deputy leader at the "hard Brexit and hard labour" Worker's Party of Britain.
Galloway, it's worth adding, has been married four times, with three marriages to non-Whites
(Palestinian Amineh Abu-Zayyad in 1994, Lebanese Rima Husseini in 2007, and ethnic Indonesian
Putri Gayatri Pertiwi in 2012). So for all his protestations of being against mass migration,
one gets the distinct impression that Galloway is a committed multiculturalist and that his
party will be internationalist in every meaningful sense of the term.
If there is any hope for some sanity in this camp of frustrated Leftists it is for the
simple reason that these small new pockets of reason are for the most part free of Jewish
influence and all the intellectual distortions such influence entails. In a 2018 essay titled "
On
"Leftist Anti-Semitism": Past and Present ," I considered the gradual shift of Jews away
from the hard Left due to growing anti-Zionism, and their growing confinement in centrist
neoliberalism:
Jewish blindness to their privileges, genuine or feigned, is of course one major cause for
the undeniable friction between Jews and the modern Left. It was perhaps inevitable that
foolish but earnest egalitarians on the Left would come to the slow realization that their
'comrades of the Jewish faith' were in fact not only elitists, but an elite of a very special
sort. The simultaneous preaching of open borders/common property and 'the land of the Jewish
people' was always going to strike a discordant note among the wearers of sweaty Che Guevara
t-shirts, especially when accompanied so very often by the cacophony of Israeli gunfire and
the screams of bloodied Palestinian children. Mass migration, that well-crafted toxin
coursing through the highways and rail lines of Europe, has proven just as difficult to
manage. Great waves of human detritus wash upon Western shores, bringing raw and passionate
grievances even from the frontiers of Israel. These are people whose eyes have seen behind
the veil, and who sit only with great discomfort alongside the kin of the IDF in league with
the Western political Left -- the only common ground being a shared desire to dispossess the
hated White man. For these reasons, the Left could well become a cold house for Jews without
becoming authentically, systematically, or traditionally anti-Semitic. One might therefore
expect Jews to regroup away from the radical left, occupying a political space best described
as staunchly centrist -- a centrism that leans left only to pursue multiculturalism and other
destructive 'egalitarian' social policies, and leans right only in order to obtain elite
protections and privileges [domestically for the Jewish community, internationally for
Israel]. A centrism based, in that old familiar formula, on 'what is best for Jews.'
As seen in the recent clash between Jews and the UK's Labour Party, the political relocation
of Jews to a kind of amorphous and opportunistic centrism will bring them into direct conflict
with those on the hard Left who not only pursue anti-Zionist politics but also object to
manifestations of raw Jewish power like the mass adoption of the IHRA definition of
anti-Semitism and the economic abuses of politically ambiguous (neither Left nor Right, but
Jewish) oligarchs like Paul Singer. As such, and together with their natural aversion to being
part of the Right, Jews will increasingly find it difficult to define themselves politically as
anything other than Jews, leading to the increased visibility of their activities and interests
-- something witnessed in the unprecedented step of Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis openly calling
for British Jews to move against Jeremy Corbyn. This increased visibility can only be a good
thing for those concerned with Jewish influence, and who have been frustrated in previous
periods by Jewish influence masquerading in various political guises.
A potential opportunity, imperfect but perhaps feasible, may therefore be arising whereby
White interests could be subliminally or even publicly defended through savvy, nominally
hard-Left activism against mass migration (on economic rather than racial grounds), against
Israel and international Zionist influence, against some aspects of PC culture, and against the
capitalist excesses of the Jewish vulture funds. It goes without saying that Leftist activists
don't receive anywhere near the same level of social, professional, or legal punishment for
their activism as those on the Right, especially the dissident Right. I don't think I'm too
wide of the mark in suggesting that an anti-immigration agitator with "Workers Party of
Britain" plastered over his social media is less likely to lose his job than someone with
public National Front affiliations. It may therefore be worth serious consideration by young
activists as to whether they might want to cultivate a kind of "Leftist" mask to defend White
interests in much the same way as Jews in the past have adopted various convenient political
masks while concealing deeper ethnic interests. I am suggesting a combination of infiltration
and masquerade. What matters most is the private motivation and the potential benefits of the
ultimate goal -- White interests and objectives serving them.
There are, of course, also dangers in supporting such movements. I am not suggesting the
investment of serious time and money in these groups, since the risk is great that the majority
of their members are committed to a politics that is ultimately antagonistic and destructive to
our own ultimate goals. There is also huge potential for betrayal on many of the issues where
we might have common ground -- immigration, LGBT madness, PC culture -- and I find it difficult
to shake off the impression that these developments bear the mark of a temporary despair and
are designed to dupe blue-collar Whites into voting Left once more.
Still, 2020 may open up a new front in the war, and as the New Year approaches, I'll silence
my inner Schopenhauer and toast to that.
Boris Johnson seems to be a step in this direction, many of the policies he has openly stated
would have been almost unthinkable for a Conservative PM previously, things like amnesty for
illegal immigrants, vast amounts of public spending, he has even stated an intention to
nationalise things like train operators.
Boris is seen as very much right wing by most people in the UK, but if you look at his
policies he could easily be described as a sort of left wing nationalist, especially in terms
of his social policies. In terms of actual policy there is increasingly little difference
between the Conservatives and Labour, the differentiation has become about abstract things
like self-proclaimed patriotism and the level of pandering to Zionism.
WN-types such as the author of this article tend to focus so heavily on immigration as an
issue. So here's a link to a long piece I published a couple of years ago proposing a
solution to the American version of the problem, though I'm not sure how applicable it would
be to Britain:
@Ron Unz I think, Mr. Unz, you highlight peaceful coexistence, at the same time many
still pine for a separate nation of exclusively white Christians. While it's a lost cause at
this point, it doesn't stop the WN types – a set that is difficult to exclude myself
from – from imagining a different reality and the National policies that would
accompany that. Is a grand bargain possible? It gives me pause.
It's extremely surprising to me that Andrew Joyce, in his analysis of left/right potential
cooperation for the benefit of the nation and its legacy population, would fail to mention or
bring up the French Equality and Reconciliation movement of Alain Soral. Here is a movement
with meaty ideas, and more importantly, results. For what ideas drive the Yellow Vest
protests if not the very concepts that Joyce points out in this article, expressed so well by
Soral and so many of the white French protesters? Soral, originally a Marxist who
subsequently joined the National Front (now the National Rally), has a number of useful and
accurate slogans. He is a brilliant analyst and an articulate commentator; unfortunately, his
videos and activism is limited to the French language. "The Left for the worker, The Right
for morality." Isn't this similar to Joyce's argument that the Left is losing members who are
rejecting the identity politics, gender bender, climate change distraction issue driven
narrative that is driving the Left today? Of course in France Soral is labeled a Rightist
Antisemite, as he is not shy about calling out the stranglehold that CRIF holds over French
politics and how this has warped foreign policy in the interests of apartheid Israel. When I
watch some of his videos and commentary, I wonder why we don't have a similar figure and
movement in the US.
Only a few months ago, the Democrats' drive to the White House began with the loftiest of ideals, albeit a hodgepodge from trans
toilet "rights" to a 100 percent makeover of the health care system. It is now all about vengeance, clumsy and grossly partisan at
that, gussied up as "saving democracy." Our media is dominated by angry Hillary refighting 2016 and "joking" about running again,
with Adam Schiff now the face of the party for 2020. The war of noble intentions has devolved into Pelosi's March to the Sea. Any
chance for a Democratic candidate to reach into the dark waters and pull America to where she can draw breath again and heal has
been lost.
Okay, deep breath myself. A couple of times a week, I walk past the
café where Allen Ginsberg, the Beat poet, often wrote.
His most famous poem, Howl , begins, "I saw the best minds of my generation
destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked." The walk is a good leveler, a reminder that madness (Trump Derangement in modern
terminology) is not new in politics.
But Ginsberg wrote in a time when one could joke about coded messages -- before the Internet came into being to push tailored
ticklers straight into people's brains. I'll take my relief in knowing that almost everything Trump and others write, on Twitter
and in the Times , is designed simply to get attention and getting our attention today requires ever louder and crazier stuff.
What will get us to look up anymore? Is that worth playing with fire over?
It is easy to lose one's sense of humor over all this. It is easy to end up like Ginsberg at the end of his poem, muttering
to strangers at what a mess this had all become: "Real holy laughter in the river! They saw it all! the wild eyes! the holy yells!
They bade farewell! They jumped off the roof! To solitude!" But me, I don't think it's funny at all.
I believe that the full and proper name of the psychiatric disorder in question is
Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome [PTDS].
Symptoms include:
Eager and uncritical ingestion and social-media regurgitation of even the most patently
absurd MSM propaganda. For example, the meme that releasing factual information about actual
election-meddling (as Wikileaks did about the Dem-establishment's rigging of its own
nomination process in 2016) is a grave threat to American Democracy™;
Recent-onset veneration of the intelligence agencies, whose stock in trade is spying on
and lying to the American people, spreading disinformation, election rigging, torture and
assassination and its agents, such as liar and perjurer Clapper and torturer Brennan;
Rehabilitation of horrid unindicted GOP war criminals like G.W. Bush as alleged examples
of "norms-respecting Republican patriots";
Smearing of anyone who dares question the MSM-stoked hysteria as an America-hating
Russian stooge.
Miss Gabbard just served two tours in the ME, one as enlisted in the HI National Guard.
Brave Mr. Bolton kept the dirty communists from endangering the US supply of Chesapeake
crab while serving in the Maryland Guard. Rumor also has it that he helped Tompall Glaser
write the song Streets of Baltimore. Some say they saw Mr. Bolton single handily defending
Memorial Stadium from a combined VC/NVA attack during an Orioles game. The Cubans would have
conquered the Pimlico Race Course if not for the combat skill of PFC Bolton.
As George Carlin observed, it's a big club and you aren't in it. Hiring Elliott Abrams makes Trump a variation on theme of Bush II: the more things change that more they
stay the same. BTW Bush also campaigned on withdrew troops and no national building .
Notable quotes:
"... When did he hire Hillary? ..."
"... There is not much difference between Hillary and Pompeo. Pompeo is basically Hillary with a **** and a religious twist ..."
"... Who knew that in electing Trump we were electing the ultimate politician? His "art of the deal" is nothing but politics 101: Blame both sides, apologize for your side, and immediately surrender your stronger points while praising the weak points of your opponent. And when you have a chance, give up; sacrifice your friends and appoint their enemies, and, last but not least, look everybody in the eye and say, "I didn't steal the money, "mistakes were made." ..."
Trump is a psychopath and he loves to hire even bigger psychopaths. Your whole admin is a swamp of sociopaths, psychopaths
and other sick deranged people.
There is not much difference between Hillary and Pompeo. Pompeo is basically Hillary with
a **** and a religious twist
bshirley1968, 2 hours ago
Thinking? Well that's a stretch of the imagination, but let me suggest this......
The opposition hates me. I can do no right.
The Trumptards blindly support me. I can do no wrong.
There are not enough independent thinkers to make a difference as the two main sides bitterly fight eachother over
every minute, meaningless issue.
I can pretty much do as I please without consequence.....like pay off all my buddies and pander to the jews/globalist/elites.
That could be what he is thinking. But I can bet you anything that there isn't a Trumptard out there that can comment
here and give us a rational reason for this appointment. Oh, they can down vote because they don't like being called
Trumptards. .....but they don't mind being one.
NAV, 2 hours ago
Who knew that in electing Trump we were electing the ultimate politician? His "art of the deal" is nothing but
politics 101: Blame both sides, apologize for your side, and immediately surrender your stronger points while praising the
weak points of your opponent. And when you have a chance, give up; sacrifice your friends and appoint their enemies, and,
last but not least, look everybody in the eye and say, "I didn't steal the money, "mistakes were made."
The quote below is from Tucker book... Tucker Carlson for President ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... What was written as an allegory is starting to feel like a documentary, as generations of misrule threaten to send our country beneath the waves. ..."
"... Facts threaten their fantasies. And so they continue as if what they're doing is working, making mistakes and reaping consequences that were predictable even to Greek philosophers thousands of years before the Internet. ..."
"... They're fools. The rest of us are their passengers. ..."
Most terrifying of all, the crew has become incompetent. They have no idea how to sail. They're spinning the ship's wheel like
they're playing roulette and cackling like mental patients.
The boat is listing, taking on water, about to sink. They're totally
unaware that any of this is happening. As waves wash over the deck, they're awarding themselves majestic new titles and raising
their own salaries. You look on in horror, helpless and desperate. You have nowhere to go. You're trapped on a ship of fools.
Plato imagined this scene in The Republic. He never mentions what happened to the ship. It would be nice to know. What
was written as an allegory is starting to feel like a documentary, as generations of misrule threaten to send our country beneath
the waves.
The people who did it don't seem aware of what they've done. They don't want to know, and they don't want you to tell them.
Facts threaten their fantasies. And so they continue as if what they're doing is working, making mistakes and reaping consequences
that were predictable even to Greek philosophers thousands of years before the Internet.
They're fools. The rest of us are their passengers.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Olde_Brooklyn_Lantern [email protected] • 42 minutes ago • edited
Tweets stated on November 3, 2020 in a tweet "Only sign outside Bucks County voting place. Democrats shown, republicans blurred out. More scamming in Pennsylvania!"
By Jon Greenberg • November 3, 2020
© REUTERS / CARLOS BARRIA Trump Says Georgia Vote Recount Should Stop as Matching Signatures Not Shown Trump has repeatedly accused the Dominion Voting Systems Corporation of being responsible for its vote-tallying machine software erroneously "flipping" votes to Democrats.
teutonicate 3 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Schrödinger's cat ThisReallySucks • a day ago • edited
Deplorable Texan Schrödinger's cat • a day ago
jedbutler Deplorable Texan • a day ago
jpatriot18 James Madison • a day ago
Chalo_lozano jedbutler • a day ago
GMBurns jedbutler • a day ago
John F. Deplorable Texan • a day ago
tom mutantbeast • a day ago
Fiodora Fyodora Schrödinger's cat • a day ago
liberal detestor Schrödinger's cat • a day ago
Aicha Wallaby Schrödinger's cat • a day ago
Judith Kuhlman Schrödinger's cat • 15 hours ago
Balder The Brave Schrödinger's cat • a day ago
Squarepeg Roundhole Schrödinger's cat • a day ago
yak_disqus Squarepeg Roundhole • a day ago
Will Hunt yak_disqus • a day ago
Theo Cage yak_disqus • a day ago
taxpayer Squarepeg Roundhole • a day ago • edited
nikondvr taxpayer • a day ago
ib4x4n Squarepeg Roundhole • a day ago
Cheryl Danver Squarepeg Roundhole • a day ago
Posted: 11/10/2020 1:43:19 AM EST Originally Posted By IronBalaclava:
Short URL | Email Article | Comment | Contact | Print | A A
Joe "Bought in China" Biden BleakOutlook • 15 hours ago
coolercoleman • 11 hours ago
ShawnNJ ✓Swamp Drainer obamediawatcher • 7 hours ago
RobinthebruceII ShawnNJ ✓Swamp Drainer • 7 hours ago
Floyd-19 RobinthebruceII • 4 hours ago
Deplorable Spartan RobinthebruceII • 7 hours ago
Pantheon12 obamediawatcher • 7 hours ago
Mayflower Society-DAR member. obamediawatcher • 7 hours ago
2EdgedSword Tim • 7 hours ago
Occam's Razor Pantheon12 • 7 hours ago
Secret Squirrel • 16 hours ago
J.Moore citizenfreepress.com D L • 16 hours ago
distant voices • 7 hours ago
caddothegreat . distant voices • 7 hours ago • edited
63
6 Look at these fricks in Milwaukee. Trump "lost" by 20,000 votes when there was a 100,000+ only Biden vote dump at 4 in the morning.
This post was edited on 11/6 at 9:01 pm
Bullet2354 Avery Bierce • 20 hours ago
Wayne Dupree: Why I, as a black man, am voting for Trump, along with a large number of people who consider themselves Democrats
An election worker is shown at the Clark County Election Center in North Las Vegas, Nevada, US November 6, 2020. © REUTERS/Steve Marcus 28 Follow RT on
Lawyers for the Trump campaign say an election worker in Clark County, Nevada was instructed to process ballots he suspected were invalid, describing his sworn affidavit as evidence of criminal conduct.
Michael McCaffrey
Trump was a symptom of American decline that Biden is unlikely to reverse
Trump's reign has proved the US president is merely a figurehead. Does it really matter who wins the vote?
FILE PHOTOS. © Sputnik / Alexander Wilf ; REUTERS / Kevin Lamarque 26 Follow RT on
Jeffrey St. Clair is editor of CounterPunch. His most recent books are Bernie and the Sandernistas: Field Notes From a Failed Revolution and The Big Heat: Earth on the Brink (with Joshua Frank) He can be reached at: [email protected] or on Twitter @ JSCCounterPunch .
November 4, 2020 © Photo: REUTERS/Mike Segar
What if neither Democrats nor Republicans want to win in 2020? No one wants the task of changing the full diaper of US Empire
,
Helen Buyniski
Sign-printing companies are going to collapse if Biden wins © Reuters / Jeenah Moon 1 Follow RT on
Biden distances himself from 'far-left' voters, rejects 'crucial' Green New Deal & defund the police movement
Project Veritas @Project_Veritas BREAKING: @Google Program Manager Confirms Election Interference In Favor of @JoeBiden Google search "skewed by owners and drivers of the algorithm" "Plain and simple trying to play god"
Damian Wilson is a UK journalist, ex-Fleet Street editor, financial industry consultant and political communications special advisor in the UK and EU. 14 Oct, 2020 15:48 Get short URL
© Getty Images / Ivan Romano; © Getty Images / Jeff J Mitchell 30 Follow RT on
Thanks, Europeans. Your overwhelming support for Biden means Trump's now more likely to win. You just don't understand us at all
'Islam is in crisis all over the world,' Macron says, vowing to step up fight against religious radicalism in France
70,877
Ian MacDonald Independent Conservative, Free Thinker, America First Proponent.
" Presidential Memorandum: Organization of the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council ", by Donald Trump, Voltaire Network , 28 January 2017. And " Donald Trump winds up "the" organization of US imperialism ", by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network , 31 January 2017.
© Portland Police Bureau Several hundred people smashed up storefronts, torched American flags and harassed motorists in Portland, Oregon, following a brief lull in nearly nightly riots due to wildfires tearing through the state.
#Murder #Terrorism https:// thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/black- lives-matter-activist-wearing-justice-beonna-taylor-shirt-walked-louisville-bar-murdered-three-people/ 10:29 AM · Sep 20, 2020 18 21 people are Tweeting about this
Micah Curtis
FILE PHOTO. © Getty Images / Maya Ohev Ami/EyeEm 13 Follow RT on
There's a big push for mail-in voting in the US presidential election, but it will lead to chaos, allegations of fraud and worse
Robert Bridge
Video
Video
Conversation (6,702)
California South L.A. is largely untouched by unrest. That is by design Black Lives Matter organizers wanted to bring the rage over the George Floyd case and so many others to L.A.'s elites, in their own neighborhoods. June 3, 2020 More Coverage 'A good army': L.A. protesters from diverse backgrounds converge on streets Prosecutors charge 3 more officers in George Floyd's death
Video
Gabbard should run as an
independent if she doesn't get the nomination. I believe Gabbard said she won't but I hope she
change her mind.
Since my background is
strictly civilian, I cannot state . . . anything. But perhaps I can ask, could we refer to this
as " foam-rubber valor"? Or "cardboard-replica valor"?
Daniel Lazare
December 22, 2019 |
Featured Story
One and a Half Cheers for Tulsi Gabbard
There are lots of things to criticize about Tulsi Gabbard's "present" vote in the impeachment
charade. Her invocation of Alexander Hamilton in her "House Divided"
Print this article
See also
November 10, 2019
Bernie Sanders Walks Straight Into the Russiagate Trap
To the top
Northern Star 