PDA

View Full Version : Collapse



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5

Aragorn
10th August 2019, 10:07
Just filtering out this snippet for the sake of scientific accuracy. :p There are actually three sexes among humans (and other mammals), albeit that one of those three is relatively far less common and is considered a genetic anomaly, given that the members of that group are generally both infertile and sexually dysfunctional (in the biological sense).


XX chromosome pairs → female
XY chromosome pairs → male
XO chromosome pairs → androgynous (hermaphrodite, although for humans the term "intersexual" is used)

There also exist other chromosome pairs that equally lead to androgyny, but those truly are genetic defects, whereas in the case of specimens with XO chromosome pairs, they are considered genetically anomalous based upon the fact that they are statistically far less prevalent than XX and XY chromosome pairs. And this statistical exception is of course the result of the fact that XOs cannot naturally reproduce, which causes the genes responsible for this particular sex to vanish from the gene pool and to only reappear as a side-effect of yet another, undefined genetic anomaly. [...]

Well yes, the point being that androgyny is a genetic anomaly and in no way, shape or form a normal part of the sexual makeup of any mammalian species.

Well, yes and no. I mean, on the one hand, what is "normal", if it occurs naturally, as opposed to as the result of human intervention and genetic engineering? There are animals capable of reproducing asexually, through parthenogenesis. It hasn't been observed in mammals yet, but it has already been observed in animals as large as hammerhead sharks and monitor lizards.

And then there are many animals that are androgynous by nature. For instance, most (but not all) worms and snails are serial hermaphrodites, and some worms like the tapeworm are concurrent hermaphrodites ─ i.e. they can (and do) self-fertilize. There are also certain vertebrates that can change gender over time if the reproductive needs of the colony demand so ─ i.e. certain West-African frogs ─ and there are even certain fish that can change their gender at will, and multiple times even.

On the other hand, I will agree that generally speaking, sexual dimorphism would be the norm among humans because everything else appears to be down to some genetic defect.


I'm not sure about the prevalence of this genetic deviance, but it can't be more than 0.something percent of the whole population, therefore not statistically significant enough to make a fuss about.

Well, I would say that those people have more reason to make a fuss about it due to the fact that up until recently, androgynous children were automatically scheduled for surgical alteration of their gender appearance without their consent, whereby they would inevitably be made to appear (and raised as) girls, even though they did not all identify with girls.

I consider this practice to be equally inhumane to genital mutilation, and therefore I think these people have more right to a political outcry than a homosexual who cannot accept their natural-born gender and chooses to voluntarily have their body altered so as to appear of the opposite gender ─ the keyword here being "voluntarily". And yet, naturally-born androgynous people are actually far less inclined to make a fuss about the whole thing.


Most people who profess to be transgender do not actually fall into this category, they are genetically, distinctly and unmistakably male or female, just pretending otherwise and threatening those that don't want to go along with their sexual delusion with jail time.

Yes, I have to agree with that. They're making a bit too much of a riot out of the fact that they cannot make peace with their natural-born gender, and then that's the flipside of the coin: thought policing and the gratuitous application of the label "hate speech" when no hate speech was intended.


A woman in Britain has just gone to jail for this very reason. She objected on facebook that a Transgender activist took her 16-year old son to Thailand to be irreversibly castrated and called it child abuse, which it most certainly is. These days, just pointing out basic biological facts can get you jailed in the UK. I'm thoroughly disgusted with my former home. It's now actually worse than what Orwell foresaw.

Yep, we now even have a dedicated LGBT police squad here in Belgium ─ or at least, in the Brussels region, and if the city of Antwerp doesn't have one yet, then it's only a matter of time before they do ─ whose job it is to penalize so-called gay-bashing.

I'm all for respect and human rights, but I will concede that those LGBT activists and lobbyists are pushing things more than a couple of bridges too far, and so are the governments that give in to that lobbying and start propagandizing the matter. And the mainstream media are just as despicable by milking every last penny out of the controversy, because controversy ─ any kind of controversy ─ gets them more viewers, which makes them more attractive to advertising companies.

Emil El Zapato
10th August 2019, 12:50
:back to topic:

Interesting about the different color eyes...I had a professor that had that characteristic. He was single? I watched a Netflix series just awhile back in which the main character had such a feature and was the ultimate evil. It was a German based series about time travel anomalies along with serial murder, incest, etc. All the good stuff. :)


Just a bit of a subtle dig at Sanders followers, I actually like the guy. He probably would be president now if it wasn't for the lying, cheating, Clinton crime family. I knew they were scumbags ever since Christopher Hitchens started revealing their less salacious side.



I think he is specifically referring to the far Left, the insane wokesters and maoists that preach peace but practice violence. China had a very similar situation when they were taken over by Communism, I think we should definitely be concerned.quite

As far as I know, Kunstler quite likes Sanders, though he certainly isn't a fan of the far-Left ideologues and anarchists that claim to be his supporters.

When the commies took over China, they started mass murdering. Seriously though, that doesn't sound 'liberal' to me.

Why do we care that we can't point out that someone else's sexual 'freakiness' deserves a good ass kickin'

Aragorn
10th August 2019, 13:21
Why do we care that we can't point out that someone else's sexual 'freakiness' deserves a good ass kickin'

Just so we are clear on this, I don't think anybody deserves to have their ass kicked over having a different sexual orientation at all ─ at least, so long as we're not talking about pedophiles, flashers, people who sexually abuse animals, or something similarly disturbing ─ but you will have to agree with me that we're living in times where everyone and their dog can get upset over the slightest thing and then put pressure on the so-called liberals. And then this slightest thing, whatever it is, henceforth gets declared illegal, and then anyone wo trespasses on this new and umpteenth prohibition is subsequently met with punishment and public outcry.

That was my point, and I think it was Chris' point too, but I'll let him speak for himself.

Emil El Zapato
10th August 2019, 13:45
The U.S. is very different...we are still fighting the pretend 'free speech' thing.

Aragorn
19th August 2019, 15:56
With special thanks to Project Avalon moderator Cara...




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QugooaNRnsk

Chris
20th August 2019, 17:27
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2019/08/going-negative.html#more

Going Negative

The following article was first published three years ago. Since then the US Federal Reserve has raised interest rates above zero, only to start lowering them again. In the meantime, the total amount of negative-yielding debt in the world has reached $13 trillion (USD). This is more than the combined 2019 federal budgets of USA, China, Germany, France, the UK, Japan, Italy, Brazil and Canada (which, incidentally, are nine of the largest, most overdeveloped and most collapse-prone economies on the planet). It may seem surprising that investors are willing to lend money at a negative interest rate, but it's an offer they can't refuse: they would rather lose their money slowly over time than all at once. Some investors (and central banks) have decided that fiat currency reserves are a bad idea and are buying gold instead, but this won't change the overall economic picture. And overall picture is that global financial collapse has been on pause since 2008, but now somebody hit "play" again. In any case, this seems like an opportune moment to dust off this article and once again look at what negative interest rates are, and what they do.


Previously, I have written about the progression from positive interest rates to zero interest rates (since 2008) and finally to negative interest rates. And I asked my readers a simple question: How will negative interest rates blow up the financial system? And apparently none of you knew the answer. Now, I must confess that to start with I didn’t know the answer either, which is why I asked the question, and my first attempts at finding it were somewhat tentative. But now, having thought about it, I do seem to have found the answer, and it is that…

But first let us back up a bit and answer several preliminary questions:

1. Why did zero interest rates become necessary?
2. Why are negative interest rates now necessary? and,
3. Why are negative interest rates a really excellent idea?*

* if you ignore certain unintended consequences (which is what everyone does all the time, so let’s not worry about them just yet).

1. Interest rates went to zero because economic growth went to zero. If you are just now wondering why that happened, just google “Limits to Growth” by clicking this link. (A public notice about the scheduled end of growth has been on display at your global planning office for four decades now. It is not anyone else’s fault if people of this planet don’t take an interest in their global affairs. I mean, seriously…)

Interest rates and rates of growth are related: a positive interest rate is little more than a bet that the future is going to be bigger and more prosperous, enabling people to pay off the debts with interest. This is an obvious point: if your income increases, it becomes easier to repay your debts; if it stagnates, it becomes harder; if it shrinks, it eventually becomes impossible.

Yes, you can nitpick and split hairs, and claim that there was still some growth, but in the developed economies most of this growth has been in financial shenanigans, fueled by an explosion in debt, and most of the benefits of this last bit of growth accrued to the wealthiest 1%, and did next to nothing for anyone else. Did this growth help support a large, stable and prosperous middle class? No, it didn’t.

In fact, wages in the US, which was once the world’s largest economy, have been stagnant for generations. In response, the Federal Reserve has been continuously reducing interest rates, until they hit zero in 2008. And there they have stayed ever since. But now, it turns out, that’s not good enough. If the Federal Reserve wants to keep the party going, they have to do more, because…

2. Once you are faced with a continuously shrinking economy, just holding interest rates at zero is not sufficient to forestall financial collapse. The interest rates must go negative.

Here are just a couple of particularly striking examples.

Australia has amassed a huge pile of debt—over 120% of GDP—and most of it is mortgage debt on overvalued real estate. Now that Australia’s economy, which was driven by commodity exports to China, has tanked, a lot of this debt is being turned into interest-only loans, because Australians no longer have the money to repay any of the principal. But what if they can’t make the interest payments either? The obvious solution is to refinance their mortgages as interest-only at zero percent; problem solved! Of course, as conditions deteriorate further, the Australians will become unable to afford taxes and utilities. Negative interest rates to the rescue! Refinance them again at a negative rate of interest, and now the banks will pay them to live in their overpriced houses.

Another example: energy (oil and gas) companies in the US have accumulated a fantastic pile of debt. All of this money was sunk into developing marginal and very expensive resources such as shale oil and deep offshore. Since then, energy prices have fallen, making all of these investments unprofitable and dramatically reducing revenue. As a result, energy companies in the US are a few months away from having to spend their entire revenue on interest payments. The solution, of course, is to allow them to roll over their debt at zero percent, and if you want them to ever start drilling again (their production has been falling by around 10% annualized) then please make that interest rate negative.

3. Are you starting to see how this works? Whereas before you had to be careful about taking on debt, and had to have a plan for how you will repay it, with negative interest rates that is simply not a consideration. If your debt pays you, then more debt is always better than less debt. It no longer matters that the economy continuously shrinks because now you can get paid just for twiddling your thumbs!

But are there any unintended consequences of negative interest rates? Unintended consequences are hard to think about, and most people get a headache even trying. How can it be that clean, plentiful nuclear energy will eventually pollute the whole planet with long-lived radionuclides, resulting sky-high cancer rates? How can it be that wonderful genetically modified seeds will render us sickly and infertile in just a few generations? And how can it be that ingenious mobile computing technology has turned our children into zombies who are constantly twiddling their smartphones as they sleepwalk through life? It’s hard to think about any of this without taking some happy pills; and how can it be that taking those happy pills has… you get the idea.

The unintended consequence of negative interest rates is that they destroy money. This is true in an entirely trivial sense: if you deposit x dollars at -ρ% annual, then a year later you will only have x(1-ρ) dollars because xρ dollars has been destroyed. (In case you prefer to count on your fingers and toes, if you deposit $10 at -10% annual, then a year later you will only have $9 because $1 has been destroyed.) But what I mean is something slightly more profound: negative interest rates erode the very concept of money.

To get at the reason for this, we have to ask a slightly more profound question: What is money? I think that money is the cult of the god Mammon. Look at the following symbols:

€ $ ¥ £

Don’t they resemble religious symbols? In fact, that’s what they are: they are symbols of faith in money. They are also units—dimensionless units, of a peculiar kind. There are quite a few dimensionless units in math and science, such as π, e, %, ppm, but they are all ratios that relate physical quantities to other, identical, physical quantities. They are dimensionless because the units cancel out. For instance, π is the ratio between a circle’s circumference and diameter; length over length gives nothing. But monetary quantities do not directly relate to any physical quantity at all. It can be said that some number of monetary units (let's call them "yarbles") is equivalent to some number of turnips, but that, you see, is a matter of faith. Should the turnip farmer turn out to be an unbeliever, he would be within his rights to say, “I am not taking any of your damn yarbles!” or, if he were a polite turnip farmer, “Your money is no good here, Sir!”

Of course, if our turnip farmer were to do that, he’d land in quite a bit of trouble because, you see, the cult of Mammon is a state cult. You have no choice but to be a believer, because only by worshiping Mammon can you earn the money to pay your taxes, and if you don’t pay your taxes you get jailed. Nor can you produce money on your own, because that right is reserved for Mammon’s high priests, the bankers. Making your own money makes you a heretic, and gets you the modern equivalent of being burned at the stake, which is a $250,000 fine and a 20-year prison sentence.

But it goes beyond that, because the state insists that just about everything there is must be valued in units of its money. And the way everything must be valued is through a mystical legitimizing process that is central to the cult of money: Mammon’s “invisible hand” makes itself apparent within the “free market,” which is Mammon's virtual temple. The “invisible hand” sets the price of everything as a mystical revelation and, as with any revelation, it is beyond criticism. It is a redemptive ritual, in which people acting out of their basest, most antisocial instincts—greed and fear—manage, through Mammon's divine intervention, to serve the common good. The “free market” is also believed to have all sorts of miraculous properties, and as with all miracles it is all a matter of smoke and mirrors and suspension of disbelief. For example, the “free market” is said to be “efficient.” But it sets the price of turnips, and the result is that fully 40% of the food in the US ends up being wasted. That’s definitely not efficient.

This sort of inefficiency can be tolerated while resources are plentiful. Should throwing away 40% of the turnips cause a shortage of turnips develop, turnip producers can grow more turnips and sell them at prices that turnip consumers can still afford. But when resources are no longer plentiful, this trick stops working, and what you end up with is something called market failure. The current state of the global oil industry is a good example: either the price is so high that marginal consumers cannot afford it (as was the case until quite recently), or the price is so low that the marginal producers can’t break even (as is the case now).

And so a bout of supply destruction follows a bout of demand destruction, and then the pattern repeats. Everybody loses, plus this is terribly inefficient. It would be far more efficient to appoint some central planner to calculate the optimum price of oil once a month. Then all the marginal producers would jump out the window, all the marginal consumers would slit their wrists, and equilibrium conditions would prevail. As the oil supply dwindled (it is depleting at around 5% per year), some additional number of producers and consumers would need to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, and so on until the last barrel is produced and burned, leaving whatever producers and consumers still remained lying in pools of their own blood.

As natural resources dwindle, our faith in the cult of Mammon is being sorely tested. But what alternatives are there? Well, there is an even older, ancient cult that’s based on idolatry: the worship of precious metals. Gold has some industrial and aesthetic uses, but it is primarily useful for making a golden calf for you to worship (or, if you are former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich, a golden toilet). Economists tell us that gold is a “pet rock” or a “barbarous relic,” and they are right, but what is one to do when there is a Götterdämmerung (twilight of the gods) going on? Nature abhors a vacuum, and in a Götterdämmerung older pagan deities sometimes emerge and demand virgin sacrifices—such as poisoning entire river ecosystems by mining gold using mercury, or squandering prodigious amounts of fossil fuels in mining, crushing and sifting through millions of tons of hard rock to get at just 3 parts per million of gold.

Negative interest rates are Mammon’s Götterdämmerung. The money cult is bolstered by the idea that its huge and all-powerful deity will be even more huge and all-powerful tomorrow; if the opposite is demonstrably the case, then people’s faith in it begins to falter and fade. Negative interest rates are like an icy-cold bath for Mammon, causing its godhead to shrink a little more with every dip. People see that, and think, “I don’t want to worship his shrinking yarbles.” Then they go and spend their own yarbles on anything they can find—fallow land, vacant houses, golden calves, boxes of brass knobs... They don’t bother investing their yarbles in growing turnips, because what’s the use of turnips if all you can do with them is sell them for even more shrinking yarbles?

Negative interest rates are an excellent idea—and perhaps the only way to keep the financial game going a bit longer—but, given these unintended consequences, they are also a terrible idea. The bankers know that. They want to preserve their cult’s status, and constantly talk about raising interest rates. But they haven’t yet, because they also know that just a small increase will result in trillions of dollars of losses, triggering widespread business failures and ushering in the Greatest Great Depression Ever. This is not a problem for them to solve; this is a predicament. They will delay and pray, and make pronouncements loaded with keywords designed to please the high-frequency trading algorithms that are in charge of artificially levitating the “free market” with judiciously timed injections of “free money.” But in the end all they can do is act brave, wait for a distraction and then… run for the exits!

And your job is to make it to the exits before they do.

Chris
9th September 2019, 15:56
From 10:43, the reliably pessimistic Peter Hitchens discusses why he thinks Britain is a doomed society. I think his analysis is spot-on, though he perhaps misses the point that what he says about Britain applies to most Western Societies these days and even to supposedly dynamic societies, such as China. My own take away is that Brexit is but a symptom of a deeper malaise within British society, where the country itself is clearly headed for a Breakup and the end of its current constitutional, political and economic arrangements.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knd81qhbRiQ

Dreamtimer
13th September 2019, 14:34
Thanks, Chris. Very interesting.

This current weather event could lead to some collapse down under, hopefully they haven't undermined their abilities to respond in the manner that we are doing here in America.


Large swathes of New South Wales and southern Queensland will face catastrophic weather events over the next months. The reason is Antarctica's westerly winds which control the Australian Climate, are impacted by 'sudden stratospheric warming.' (https://phys.org/tags/stratospheric+warming/)

As a result, the direst prediction is a change in Australia's rainfall patterns. The likely outcome is drought, desertification, mass deaths of livestock, plants, fish and other wildlife, out of control fires and unbearable heat.



https://images.dailykos.com/images/675856/story_image/100118_What_happens_in_a_bushfire_01.jpg?155787381 1


As the sun shifts southward during spring, the polar region starts to warm (https://theconversation.com/the-air-above-antarctica-is-suddenly-getting-warmer-heres-what-it-means-for-australia-123080). This warming causes the stratospheric vortex and associated westerly winds to gradually weaken over the period of a few months.

However, in some years this breakdown can happen faster than usual. Waves of air from the lower atmosphere (from large weather systems or flow over mountains) warm the stratosphere above the South Pole, and weaken or “mix” the high-speed westerly winds.

Very rarely, if the waves are strong enough they can rapidly break down the polar vortex, actually reversing the direction of the winds so they become easterly. This is the technical definition of “sudden stratospheric warming.”


Apart from warming the Antarctic region (https://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/australia-on-brink-of-apocalyptic-weather/3827853/?fbclid=IwAR0flJJ_DTPmZh0RlIvIB-jCM4ANhKOiidVuyhEW4mjDixpohGMZNQ769t4), the most notable effect will be a shift of the Southern Ocean westerly winds towards the Equator.

For regions directly in the path of the strongest westerlies, which includes western Tasmania, New Zealand's South Island, and Patagonia in South America, this generally results in more storminess and rainfall, and colder temperatures.

But for subtropical Australia, which largely sits north of the main belt of westerlies, the shift results in reduced rainfall, clearer skies, and warmer temperatures.


We identified ecosystems across Australia that have recently experienced (https://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/07/23/ecosystems-across-australia-collapsing-climate-change/) catastrophic changes, including:

kelp forests shifting to seaweed turfs following a single marine heatwave in 2011;

the destruction of Gondwanan refugia by wildfire ignited by lightning storms in 2016;

dieback of floodplain forests along the Murray River following the millennial drought in 2001–2009;

large-scale conversion of alpine forest to shrubland due to repeated fires from 2003–2014;

community-level boom and bust in the arid zone following extreme rainfall in 2011–2012, and

mangrove dieback across a 1,000km stretch of the Gulf of Carpentaria after a weak monsoon in 2015-2016.


Of these six case studies, only the Murray River forest had previously experienced substantial human disturbance. The others have had negligible exposure to stressors, highlighting that undisturbed systems are not necessarily more resilient to climate change.

The case studies (https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41558-018-0187-9/MediaObjects/41558_2018_187_MOESM1_ESM.pdf) provide a range of examples of how presses and pulses can interact to push an ecosystem to a “tipping point”. In some cases, a single extreme event may be sufficient to cause an irreversible regime shift.

I don't know about frying an egg on the hood of a car, but apparently a steak left inside will cook.

https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1170329328187580416/04szooKs?format=jpg&name=600x314

:blink::unsure::frantic::flame:

Chris
13th September 2019, 14:53
Australia was always subject to multi-year droughts, they tend to come and go, but the overall warming / drying trend is unmistakeable. It is a pity because Australia is already the driest and hottest inhabited continent, that characteristic will just get more pronounced with climate change.

From what I hear from locals, most of Australia is unfit for human habitation and has more in common with the surface of Mars than the green lushness we're used to in Europe. The tiny sliver of temperate zone along the coasts is actually getting a bit crowded and marginal for human habitation. I think weather modification has great potential though, they only have to usher those pesky Southern Ocean clouds a few hundred miles to the North to make large swathes of the Southern deserts bloom.

There is a HAARP facility somewhere near Alice Springs (I think it's called Pine Gap) which is rumoured to already have rudimentary weather modification capabilities. Unfortunately, it's fully owned and run by the US military, but hopefully one day they'll actually start using it for something good.

Chris
15th September 2019, 08:38
The political collapse of the US is progressing nicely. I always thought the economy or the financial system would go first, and that would trigger an eventual political collapse, but apparently I forgot my history lesson about the collapse of the Soviet Union. Despite all the underlying economic problems, what really did it in was a coup.

We are now witnessing two slow-moving right-wing coups in the Western World, one in the UK and the other in the US, reinforcing and feeding off each other. The Breakup of the UK is now a near certainty, I would not rule it out in the case of the US either. We could even see some sort of low-level civil war in both countries. The proximate cause in both cases is really just the megalomania and sheer irrationality of the man in charge, the "Britain Trump" is at least sane, not something we could now say about the original. When ex-government officials start saying Orange Mugabe is clearly off his rockers, it's hard to disagree with them.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/15/donald-trump-nuts-impeachment-25th-amendment-2020-election

Trump is seriously, frighteningly, dangerously nuts – the world is in danger
Robert Reich

It is almost too late for impeachment. The 25th amendment is untested. The ballot box offers our only remaining hope

In retrospect, what’s most disturbing about “Sharpiegate” isn’t Trump’s clumsy effort to doctor a National Weather Service map or even his brazen move to get the same agency to lie on his behalf.

It’s how utterly petty his motive was. We’ve had presidents trying to cover up a sexual liaison with an intern and a botched burglary, but never have we had one who went to such lengths to cover up an inaccurate weather forecast. Alabama being hit by a hurricane? Friends, this is not rational behavior.

Trump also cancelled a meeting with the Taliban at Camp David. The meeting was to have been secret. It was scheduled for the week of the anniversary of 9/11. He cancelled it by tweet.

Does any of this strike you as even remotely rational?

Before that, Trump cancelled a state visit to Denmark because Denmark wouldn’t sell Greenland to the US. Hello? Greenland wasn’t for sale. The US no longer buys populated countries. The state visit had been planned for months.

He has repeatedly told senior officials to explore using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes hitting the US. He believes video games cause mass shootings. He thinks climate change is no big deal.

He says trade wars are “good and easy to win”. He insists it’s Chinese rather than US consumers who pay his tariffs. He “orders” American firms to stop doing business in China.

He calls the chairman of the Federal Reserve an “enemy”. He retweets a comedian’s sick suggestion that the Clintons were responsible for the suicide of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

I think we have to face the truth that no one seems to want to admit. This is no longer a case of excessive narcissism or grandiosity. We’re not simply dealing with an unusually large ego.

The president of the United States is seriously, frighteningly, dangerously nuts. And he’s getting nuttier by the day.

Such a person in the Oval Office can do serious damage.

What to do? We can vote him out of office in 14 months’ time. But he could end the world in seven and a half seconds.

There’s also the question of whether he’ll willingly leave.

Can you imagine the lengths he will go to win? Will he get Russia to do more dirty work? Instruct the justice department to arrest his opponent? Issue an executive order banning anyone not born in the US from voting? Start another war?

By the time the courts order him to cease whatever unconstitutional effort he’s making to remain in office, the election may be over. Or he’ll just ignore the courts.

It’s almost too late for an impeachment. Besides, no president has ever been sent packing. Nixon resigned because he saw it coming. Trump would sooner start a civil war.

Also, being coo-coo is not an impeachable offense.

Two Republicans who have announced primary challenges to him have suggested another possibility: the 25th amendment.

Former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld recently tweeted that Trump is “a clear and present danger” to the US, with the hashtag “#25thAmendment”. Former Illinois representative Joe Walsh says the amendment should be “looked at” because the president is “nuts”.

Last February, former deputy director and acting director of the FBI Andrew McCabe said officials in the Department of Justice had discussed using the 25th.

Ratified in 1967, it allows the vice-president to become “acting president” when “the vice-president and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or such other body as Congress may by law provide” declare a president incapacitated.

The only attribute Vice-President Mike Pence has displayed so far is sycophancy: most recent illustration, overnighting at Trump’s golf resort in Ireland. But with rumors flying that Trump might exchange him for another lapdog, who knows? Maybe Pence will discover some cojones.

Another problem: the amendment doesn’t define who “principal officers” are and the constitution never mentions the word “cabinet”. If Trump thought a revolt was brewing, he’d fire everyone instantly.

I wouldn’t completely rule out the 25th amendment, but the only thing that’s going to get Pence and a majority of Trump’s lieutenants to pull the plug before Trump pulls it on them may be so horrific that the damage done to America and the world would be way beyond anything we’ve experienced to date.

Which is to say, be careful what you wish for.

Pray that we make it through the next 14 months. Then do everything in your power to remove this man from office.

Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. He is also a columnist for Guardian US

Dreamtimer
15th September 2019, 10:56
The political collapse of the US is progressing nicely.

Such a sad phrase. (to me)

Chris
15th September 2019, 16:48
Such a sad phrase. (to me)

Hi DT, to be clear, I am not trying to be gloaty or unkind, I think the entire technosphere (Dmitry Orlov's phrase, originally by way of Vladimir Putin) or in other words, Industrial Civilisation in its current form is ripe for collapse. It's just that the US is the most obvious example of the perniciousness of technospheric insanity, with China following close behind. I believe that the current trade war between the US and China is actually a contest, the winner of which will collapse first. China may very well beat the US to it, but I think that's impossible to predict. The UK is also a pretty good candidate for collapse, firstly, because of its political situation, but also because its economy has been completely financialised and it produces very little of value these days. It may very well be the first to go, though Kunstler's money is on Japan. I think Europe is more resilient, because of its smaller scale, and particularly because it has agriculture and industry that is less energy-dependent and is operated on a smaller scale, with more human attention and input. I do think that our destructive Industrial Civilisation will be replaced by something a lot more appealing, gentle and modest, in time.

Emil El Zapato
15th September 2019, 17:40
In my estimation negative interest rates are the sensible way for banks to give back some of the money that they've stolen. Who cares if stupid people lose faith in money? This is where we need to go, anyway.

Emil El Zapato
15th September 2019, 17:47
Now Robert Reich says the world is in danger...I said that 4 years ago. And the folks at Topic of Topics banned me for it...They laughed and all had a good joke about how I was a troll, lonely, intellectually lacking and needing attention. I never had a chance to tell them not to give up their day jobs because they'd never make it as psychics. The one person that I would love to have a discussion with is someone that was named nava raja or some such impressive enlightened name. What a clueless ego. I'm a full believer in the old aphorism, "He who laughs last, laughs best!" And I'm yukking it about in a major way. Those elite intellectuals over there I hope have discovered something about themselves at the very least.

Chris
15th September 2019, 20:07
Now Robert Reich says the world is in danger...I said that 4 years ago. And the folks at Topic of Topics banned me for it...They laughed and all had a good joke about how I was a troll, lonely, intellectually lacking and needing attention. I never had a chance to tell them not to give up their day jobs because they'd never make it as psychics. The one person that I would love to have a discussion with is someone that was named nava raja or some such impressive enlightened name. What a clueless ego. I'm a full believer in the old aphorism, "He who laughs last, laughs best!" And I'm yukking it about in a major way. Those elite intellectuals over there I hope have discovered something about themselves at the very least.

We shall see if this blows over, but the Commander in Chief of the US armed forces is clearly off his rockers and certifiably insane, if we're being honest. That was also the case with Hitler and Stalin btw, so I'm not terribly optimistic. However, the situation in the US is different, in that it is still a semi-functioning democracy and there are checks and balances on the executive. He can't just do whatever he wants, he's not a dictator, yet, he just wants to be one. Whilst the danger is real and urgent, there is still hope that sanity will prevail and the world doesn't blow up in front of our eyes. Bolton's departure is perhaps a hopeful sign.

Fred Steeves
15th September 2019, 20:47
We shall see if this blows over, but the Commander in Chief of the US armed forces is clearly off his rockers and certifiably insane, if we're being honest. That was also the case with Hitler and Stalin btw, so I'm not terribly optimistic. However, the situation in the US is different, in that it is still a semi-functioning democracy and there are checks and balances on the executive. He can't just do whatever he wants, he's not a dictator, yet, he just wants to be one. Whilst the danger is real and urgent, there is still hope that sanity will prevail and the world doesn't blow up in front of our eyes. Bolton's departure is perhaps a hopeful sign.

Unfortunately, but not at all surprisingly, the "Manufactured Consent" as Chomsky puts it is in full press propaganda mode about removing Captain Chaos, that it will seem like the good old days again just to be back to the velvet glove, neo liberal, polite way of going about being empire and world dominator.

That's the problem you see. It's time to go back to being polite about it, rather than being an ass hole about it. People in "shit hole" countries supposedly don't mind being bombed and subverted by an American leader who is well spoken, polite, easy going and smiles a lot.

That's about what the establishment "opposition" here is all about. It's even seen here on this forum.

Just be there in velvet, yeah and give us a smile.

Emil El Zapato
15th September 2019, 21:30
You seem to know better, Fred. Which is why it is incumbent upon you and others like you to truly educate, not just complain.

Fred Steeves
15th September 2019, 22:06
Unfortunately, but not at all surprisingly, the "Manufactured Consent" as Chomsky puts it is in full press propaganda mode about removing Captain Chaos, that it will seem like the good old days again just to be back to the velvet glove, neo liberal, polite way of going about being empire and world dominator.

That's the problem you see. It's time to go back to being polite about it, rather than being an ass hole about it. People in "shit hole" countries supposedly don't mind being bombed and subverted by an American leader who is well spoken, polite, easy going and smiles a lot.

That's about what the establishment "opposition" here is all about. It's even seen here on this forum.

Just be there in velvet, yeah and give us a smile.


You seem to know better, Fred. Which is why it is incumbent upon you and others like you to truly educate, not just complain.

This is where you continually miss the proverbial bus Adam. I'm not complaining, I'm stating the obvious for anyone with eyes to see.

I don't have the answers, I'm just seeing the manufactured problem/reaction/solution more and more clearly as time moves along.

Emil El Zapato
15th September 2019, 22:09
:) Bad choice of words then...

Dreamtimer
16th September 2019, 12:14
Thanks, Chris. I don't think you're being gloaty. Nice word, btw.

It's sad to me because we're smart and have plenty of resources and don't have to be so foolish. The voice of the people has been quashed greatly. Our leaders don't even do their jobs. And they pour salt in the wound by crowing and strutting about how much they don't do their jobs.

Civil war won't get us anywhere but in an economic shithole. But we can use the ballot box and actually get out there and get into the system and make it work right.

Capitalism has done a good job getting peoples' eye off the real ball.

Chris
16th September 2019, 13:36
Thanks, Chris. I don't think you're being gloaty. Nice word, btw.

It's sad to me because we're smart and have plenty of resources and don't have to be so foolish. The voice of the people has been quashed greatly. Our leaders don't even do their jobs. And they pour salt in the wound by crowing and strutting about how much they don't do their jobs.

Civil war won't get us anywhere but in an economic shithole. But we can use the ballot box and actually get out there and get into the system and make it work right.

Capitalism has done a good job getting peoples' eye off the real ball.

Well, speculating here, but as an outsider, I see the US as hopelessly divided and getting more so with each passing month. It reminds me of pre-civil-war Spain in many ways. Who would bet against some sort of armed internal conflict if the president refuses to leave office for instance (which he said he wouldn't, more than once), or if knife-edge election results aren't accepted by one or both parties or if the president gets impeached and is forcefully removed from office, by, say the FBI or Army Intelligence? To me, it seems that the country could easily splinter along Red-Blue lines, with the East and West Coast going their separate ways. In such a situation, the likes of Vermont and Texas might very well want to secede, there is already a vocal secessionist movement in both states. It is unpredictable, but the warning signs are there.

Ditto for the UK (England and Wales vs Scotland, Northern Ireland and London) and let's not forget China, which gives the erstwhile Soviet Union a run for its money lately in terms of its Gulags and repression of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities.

Dreamtimer
16th September 2019, 13:48
I often wonder, how do Texans believe they can operate as a separate country? Realistically. The origin and structure of the state is enmeshed in being a part of the union. Their economics are tied into it. If folks don't even believe in or support the UN, how in the world do they expect to get international recognition as a nation? What currency will they use? What trade deals will they have? Especially when folks don't believe in trade deals. It makes no real sense.

It's not a realistic goal, imho.

Chris
16th September 2019, 14:19
I often wonder, how do Texans believe they can operate as a separate country? Realistically. The origin and structure of the state is enmeshed in being a part of the union. Their economics are tied into it. If folks don't even believe in or support the UN, how in the world do they expect to get international recognition as a nation? What currency will they use? What trade deals will they have? Especially when folks don't believe in trade deals. It makes no real sense.

It's not a realistic goal, imho.

The Breakup of the Soviet Union or India did not make much sense either, yet it still happened. Texas was an independent country, before it joined the Union, voluntarily. Under the terms of its accession, it is the only state that can legally secede, after a referendum.

I've been to the Texas Embassy in London btw, which is just off Trafalgar Square. Excellent Tex-Mex food :)

I imagine it will see diplomatic action sooner than anyone expects…

Texas is oil-rich and is a net contributor to the federal budget, it could easily stand on its own as an independent nation. The same is not really the case with Scotland and Northern Ireland btw, but I still think their secession from the UK is very near. Sometimes nationalism and emotional arguments override economic concerns.

Also, Tibet and Xinjiang (East Turkestan or Uighurstan to use the region's historic names) would be mad to secede from China, in economic terms, but they're still going to, once an opportunity presents itself. I expect that they will expel the Chinese plantation population in the process.

Dreamtimer
16th September 2019, 15:11
Interesting.

I still don't think it would work. Breaking up a family doesn't make it stronger. But then again, at the rate we're going, states around the world might see that as an avenue to weakening the influence of the USA.

Folks always crow about how we don't have war on our soil. I imagine that would change after secession. And I don't mean civil war.

Fred Steeves
16th September 2019, 21:40
To me, it seems that the country could easily splinter along Red-Blue lines, with the East and West Coast going their separate ways.

It would be more of an urban vs. rural kind of a thing. Urban areas lean heavily Blue, while rural areas lean heavily Red. Both IMO are pretty much unreasonable in their entrenched positions based on the Mockingbird Media they are all entranced by. Rural is entranced by FOX News and talk radio, urban entranced by MSNBC, CNN, and most of the msm.

Dreamtimer
4th October 2019, 13:35
Here's a synopsis of Andrew Yang's economic perspective re jobs:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6BfMLCwM74

I like Andrew and I'm glad he's getting noticed during his run for President. That will help his ideas to get out there more.

Chris
8th October 2019, 19:16
I am reposting a comment I made on the below Guardian article, because I think it is relevant to this thread:

I think no deal Brexit will now happen in three weeks' time and everyone is powerless to stop it. A delay would be completely pointless, given the current acrimony between the EU and the Conservative AND Unionist party. This may sound harsh, but as a European who used to live in both the UK and Ireland, I think the UK needs a bit of a time out from the European project in a no-deal Brexit. The consequences will be dire, but the British people as a whole need a reality check. They are in complete denial about their real place in the world and still think that Britain is some sort of global superpower that can boss other countries, not least Ireland, around. They are quickly going to discover that they can't even get their coveted US trade deal if they throw Ireland under the bus. In fact, it will become obvious that Westminster is quickly losing its grip over the regions, not least Scotland, which will most certainly take advantage of the current chaos to leave the UK. A border poll in Ireland might do the same to Belfast and who knows what will happen to Wales or Gibraltar as we watch the UK collapse before our eyes. This is all very sad and reminds me of the collapse of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. English nationalism is clearly to blame and the parallels with Serb and Russian nationalism and their self-defeating destructiveness are unmistakable.

More on the current Brexit situation:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/the-guardian-view-on-faltering-brexit-talks-a-no-deal-election-is-on-the-cards#comment-134102961

Chris
11th October 2019, 13:31
An excellent addendum to the previous post about how the UK is likely to break apart. This one is an infographic from NBC news and gives an excellent background to the various, conflicting forces that point towards a collapse of the UK in the next 5-10 years.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/how-brexit-might-break-britain-disunited-kingdom-n1062526

Gio
11th October 2019, 16:56
Weighing in ...

Having a very close relationship with a Welsh/Liverpudlian - I am a bit biased and sympathetic to this Brexit dilemma ... While noting it is a very complex (emotional) issue - And with no doubts the war between the Torres and Labour party's have torn the nation further apart (just as the Dem's and Trump repub's has in the US) ...

I agree (somewhat) that it is inevitable that the UK (government) will have to loosen its grip-up in regards to Gibraltar, Scotland and most importantly Northern Ireland to some extent ... Probably a new sovereign (imagined) drawn up economic zone (s) for these self governed entities to trade freely both within the EU and UK collectively ... But that (make no mistake) must come fast/quickly after whenever Brexit officially occurs ?

Though (I'm sensing) all this will not be pretty in the making ... Obviously the UK government does (and should) not want to return back to the past 'warring days' of its IRA/Northern Ireland conflict.

Yes, Greater Britain is fair less important (in the role of being a military power) - Still strategically/financially it is the capital of the Western world - And as long as the United States remains intact as a world power - the Island Kingdom (most likely) historically will still prevail.

Chris
11th October 2019, 17:54
The way I see it, is that both the US and the UK have lost enormous power and influence over the last few years and I don't see them clawing that back anytime soon. Both countries are a laughing stock and nobody really respects or takes them seriously any more, despite their nuclear weapons. I think that there is a whiff of Boris Yeltsin's Russia about them. Brexit and Trump were not the cause, but the symptom of a serious decline in both countries, which has been ongoing for decades but didn't really become apparent until quite recently. I don't know how either saga is going to end, though I would not be surprised if both countries were to collapse and break up in the foreseeable future. There are already clear signs of that happening.

Gio
11th October 2019, 18:37
Wow ... I'm not biting ...

Have a good weekend !

Chris
11th October 2019, 21:03
Wow ... I'm not biting ...

Have a good weekend !

Well, it isn't called the Collapse thread for nothing... It is a gathering place for Kollapsniks...

:angel:

Dreamtimer
12th October 2019, 11:05
Kollapsniks. Lol.

Your link didn't work for me but I think I found it (https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/disunited-kingdom-how-brexit-might-break-britain-n1063591).

Trump breaks things. He breaks them and makes money off it.

Is Boris Johnson like that?

When our economy goes into another recession, and it seems to be heading that way now, we'll have some troubles. We'll have to wait and see how bad they get.

I feel like we could redeem ourselves from Trump's buffoonery, but I don't know about dissing, and then turning our backs on allies. That will be hard to overcome.

We were able to form a coalition after nine eleven. Would we be able to again? Trump would bully folks into the alliance. But would he succeed?

Emil El Zapato
12th October 2019, 13:32
Well, there was this Russian psychic a number of years ago predicted that the breakup of the U.S. was only a matter of time.

Seems peepos have a penchant for emulating Samson in the temple...Bringing it all down around the shoulders, burying oneself in the rubble, and dying in satisfaction that one brought it down.

My ex-wife was like that, I once told a therapist that the only way to get compromise out of her would be to kill her and I wasn't willing to go that extreme but somebody else might. She found a guy that my daughter characterizes as a limp wrist. And to top of the disgusting nature of it, he's a diehard Red, she's a covert Red and is so blind she thinks she's a liberal. Gawd! The guy is a mechanical engineer and doesn't believe in global warning...tells Al Gore jokes....what a maroon... (I hope he doesn't read this)

Here's the thing, I don't think the Blues have the juevos to do that, the Reds are stiff enough to do it. In the endgame the Reds win. Yayy for everybody, we're all dead but the Reds died happy!

Chris
12th October 2019, 17:32
Kollapsniks. Lol.

Actually, that's Dmitry Orlov's term, so I can't take credit for. I still prefer it to collapsitarian though...


Your link didn't work for me but I think I found it (https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/disunited-kingdom-how-brexit-might-break-britain-n1063591).


Hmm, ok, maybe it depends on the country you're in, the original link still works for me.


Trump breaks things. He breaks them and makes money off it.

Is Boris Johnson like that?

No, I think the resemblance between the two is entirely superficial. Trump is a buffoon and frankly, an idiot. Boris on the other hand is fairly competent and fiercely smart. He can quote the classics in the original Greek and Latin. Trump can't even quote anything in English...

I'm actually surprised at how well the Brexit negotiations are currently going. I may have to eat my words on the whole collapse of the UK thing, but when four separate former Prime Ministers are warning about it, you know it is a real danger.

The truth is, everybody expected Boris to be unserious and ineffectual, but he has outmanoeuvred the EU at every turn and is actually hammering out a half-decent divorce agreement with the EU as we speak. It may all end up with the least amount of pain for all parties involved, but I still think that Scotland and Nothern Ireland will be tempted to leave the UK and rejoin the EU in some form. English nationalism has been let out of the bottle and it ain't going back.


When our economy goes into another recession, and it seems to be heading that way now, we'll have some troubles. We'll have to wait and see how bad they get.

I feel like we could redeem ourselves from Trump's buffoonery, but I don't know about dissing, and then turning our backs on allies. That will be hard to overcome.

We were able to form a coalition after nine eleven. Would we be able to again? Trump would bully folks into the alliance. But would he succeed?


Everybody's expecting a recession, which is a contrarian signal and tells me that it might not happen.

However, the US's reputation lies in tatters, I don't think it will be easily repaired. Britain might regain some of its composure if there is an orderly Brexit (which is still a big if, but more likely than two days ago, when it seemed next to impossible), but outside the EU it will have much less influence than it had inside it. Militarily, the UK barely registers any more, except for its nuclear weapons. It had hundreds of warships a few decades ago, now it has less than ten, in working order. I'm afraid it is no match for even Iran, let alone China or Russia.

Chris
14th October 2019, 14:23
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/wait-for-it/

Wait For It

An eerie silence cloaked the political landscape this lovely fall weekend as the soldiers in this (so far) administrative civil war scrambled for position in the next round of skirmishes. Rep. Adam Schiff fell back on the preposterous idea that he might not produce his “whistleblower” witness at all in the (so far) hypothetical impeachment proceeding. He put that one out after running a similarly absurd idea up the flagpole: that his “whistleblower” might just testify by answering written questions. I was waiting for him to offer up testimony by Morse code, carrier pigeon, or smoke signals.

Of course, the effort to “protect” the “whistleblower” has been a juke all along. For one thing, he-she-it is not a “whistleblower” at all; was only labeled that via legalistic legerdemain to avoid revealing the origin of this affair as a CIA cover-your-ass operation. Did Mr. Schiff actually think he could conceal this figure’s identity in a senate impeachment trial, when it came to that — for what else is impeachment aimed at? Anonymous sources are not admissible under American due process of law. Mr. Schiff must have missed that class in law school.

All of this hocus-pocus suggests to me that there is no “whistleblower,” that it is a phantom confabulation of gossip threads that unraveled the moment Mr. Trump released the transcript of his phone call to Ukraine’s president Zelensky, aborting Mr. Schiff’s game plan. The ensuing weeks of congressional Keystone Kops buffoonery since then appears to conceal a futile effort by Mr. Schiff and his confederates to find some fall guy willing to pretend that he-she-it is the “whistleblower.” He might as well ask for a volunteer to gargle with Gillette Blue Blades on NBC’s Meet the Press.

One marvels at Rep. Schiff’s tactical idiocy. But just imagine the panicked consternation it must be triggering among his Democratic colleagues. Notice that Mrs. Pelosi has been hiding out during this latest phase of the action. She may sense that there is nothing left to do but allow Mr. Schiff to twist slowly slowly in the wind, as he has hung himself out to dry. She should have known better since every previous declaration of conclusive evidence by Mr. Schiff over the past three years has proved to be false, knowingly and mendaciously so.

One also clearly senses that all the smoke-and-mirrors are a desperate attempt to divert attention from a soon-to-drop DOJ Inspector General’s report which, by the way, will only be an overture to much more damaging action likely to come from Mr. Barr’s proceeding. After all, IG Horowitz was not allowed under the rules to compel the testimony of persons outside the Department of Justice, which would now include Andrew McCabe, James Comey, and many others at the center of the RussiaGate prank.

That also includes the probable chief pranksters, former CIA head John Brennan and James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, the midwives of RussiaGate. The pair have been running around on cable news with both their hair and their pants on fire in recent weeks. Back in March, before the Mueller Report flopped, and when Mr. Barr was commissioned to look into all the RussiaGate shenanigans, Mr. Brennan comically claimed that he “received bad information and suspected there was more than there actually was.”

That lame admission will not avail to protect him or the CIA, an agency that is behind the administrative civil war. It has been a rogue agency for a long long time, but may have finally overplayed its hand, along with the newer adjunct agencies that have been stitched onto it since 9/11/01 — the dark network that goes by the name Intelligence Community. So many shoes are ready to drop on them that the din might drown out all the John Philip Sousa marches ever played in the lobby at Langley, let alone the thin trilling of a fake whistleblower.

Apart from these fateful developments the prize for the week’s most transparently disingenuous bit of media agitprop goes to Saturday’s New York Times puff piece on former FBI Director Jim Comey, which actually sets him up for federal indictment on something like sedition or treason. Get a load of this:

James Comey plans to spend the next 13 months working to drive President Trump from power.

Did you notice that the photo-caption states: James Comey plans to spend the next 13 months working to drive President Trump from power. Oh, really? By what means, exactly? Single-handedly or with whom? And how did the strategy he kicked off in 2016 work out? In case Mr. Barr is looking for some way to attribute motive to the actions that he’s investigating, he may need to seek no further. Also, consider that The New York Times and its editor-in-chief Dean Baquet, and publisher A.G. Sulzberger may be named as unindicted co-conspirators in the three-year campaign of sedition (freedom of the press, of course). Alert the shareholders.

Dreamtimer
14th October 2019, 15:03
Intersting opinions. He seems to ignore many facts with his characterizations. The Mueller report was a media flop for sure, but it had plenty of substance.

I'm not sure how we got to the point where we have the belief which I was raised with that no man is above the law, and yet a DOJ policy stops any criminal indictments. That's certainly not Constitutional. Barr jumped the gun by saying the report exonerated Trump which it did not.

Multiple indictments and convictions show that there is meat in that burger. Trump is individual 1 in two separate criminal cases.


It's against the law to solicit political help from foreign nations. Since the DOJ can't do it's job because it tied itself up, we have only two recourses. Impeachment and the vote.

The precedents we allow to stand will bite us in the butt for many many years. We're still suffering from the 'unitary executive' ideas of W's administration. Some folks really seem to want to thoroughly eff up the separation of powers and three coequal branches.

Not to mention our fourth estate. The media has never been perfect and never will be. And it's our point of access to our leaders. We don't get to make appointments personally.

Emil El Zapato
14th October 2019, 17:16
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/wait-for-it/
X
Wait For It

An eerie silence cloaked the political landscape this lovely fall weekend as the soldiers in this (so far) administrative civil war scrambled for position in the next round of skirmishes. Rep. Adam Schiff fell back on the preposterous idea that he might not produce his “whistleblower” witness at all in the (so far) hypothetical impeachment proceeding. He put that one out after running a similarly absurd idea up the flagpole: that his “whistleblower” might just testify by answering written questions. I was waiting for him to offer up testimony by Morse code, carrier pigeon, or smoke signals.

Of course, the effort to “protect” the “whistleblower” has been a juke all along. For one thing, he-she-it is not a “whistleblower” at all; was only labeled that via legalistic legerdemain to avoid revealing the origin of this affair as a CIA cover-your-ass operation. Did Mr. Schiff actually think he could conceal this figure’s identity in a senate impeachment trial, when it came to that — for what else is impeachment aimed at? Anonymous sources are not admissible under American due process of law. Mr. Schiff must have missed that class in law school.

All of this hocus-pocus suggests to me that there is no “whistleblower,” that it is a phantom confabulation of gossip threads that unraveled the moment Mr. Trump released the transcript of his phone call to Ukraine’s president Zelensky, aborting Mr. Schiff’s game plan. The ensuing weeks of congressional Keystone Kops buffoonery since then appears to conceal a futile effort by Mr. Schiff and his confederates to find some fall guy willing to pretend that he-she-it is the “whistleblower.” He might as well ask for a volunteer to gargle with Gillette Blue Blades on NBC’s Meet the Press.

One marvels at Rep. Schiff’s tactical idiocy. But just imagine the panicked consternation it must be triggering among his Democratic colleagues. Notice that Mrs. Pelosi has been hiding out during this latest phase of the action. She may sense that there is nothing left to do but allow Mr. Schiff to twist slowly slowly in the wind, as he has hung himself out to dry. She should have known better since every previous declaration of conclusive evidence by Mr. Schiff over the past three years has proved to be false, knowingly and mendaciously so.

One also clearly senses that all the smoke-and-mirrors are a desperate attempt to divert attention from a soon-to-drop DOJ Inspector General’s report which, by the way, will only be an overture to much more damaging action likely to come from Mr. Barr’s proceeding. After all, IG Horowitz was not allowed under the rules to compel the testimony of persons outside the Department of Justice, which would now include Andrew McCabe, James Comey, and many others at the center of the RussiaGate prank.

That also includes the probable chief pranksters, former CIA head John Brennan and James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, the midwives of RussiaGate. The pair have been running around on cable news with both their hair and their pants on fire in recent weeks. Back in March, before the Mueller Report flopped, and when Mr. Barr was commissioned to look into all the RussiaGate shenanigans, Mr. Brennan comically claimed that he “received bad information and suspected there was more than there actually was.”

That lame admission will not avail to protect him or the CIA, an agency that is behind the administrative civil war. It has been a rogue agency for a long long time, but may have finally overplayed its hand, along with the newer adjunct agencies that have been stitched onto it since 9/11/01 — the dark network that goes by the name Intelligence Community. So many shoes are ready to drop on them that the din might drown out all the John Philip Sousa marches ever played in the lobby at Langley, let alone the thin trilling of a fake whistleblower.

Apart from these fateful developments the prize for the week’s most transparently disingenuous bit of media agitprop goes to Saturday’s New York Times puff piece on former FBI Director Jim Comey, which actually sets him up for federal indictment on something like sedition or treason. Get a load of this:

James Comey plans to spend the next 13 months working to drive President Trump from power.

Did you notice that the photo-caption states: James Comey plans to spend the next 13 months working to drive President Trump from power. Oh, really? By what means, exactly? Single-handedly or with whom? And how did the strategy he kicked off in 2016 work out? In case Mr. Barr is looking for some way to attribute motive to the actions that he’s investigating, he may need to seek no further. Also, consider that The New York Times and its editor-in-chief Dean Baquet, and publisher A.G. Sulzberger may be named as unindicted co-conspirators in the three-year campaign of sedition (freedom of the press, of course). Alert the shareholders.

Oh I get it. This guy writes satire dark humor. I really don’t understand why people throw their credibility to the wind for very temporary not to mention ephemeral psychological advantage

Chris
14th October 2019, 20:49
Not many people have digested the ramifications of US withdrawal from the Middle East. In simple terms, the US and the UK are out, Russia, Iran and China are in. In an astonishing reversal of traditional Anglo-American hegemony, neither country can be relied upon by its allies in any meaningful sense. This will change the entire world and reshuffle the cards in a matter of months. I think 2019 will be remembered as the end of the Anglo-American empire and the re-emergence of a multipolar world. Not that I'm cheering it, simply reporting the facts as I see them.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/14/russian-shadow-falls-over-syria-as-kurds-open-door-for-assad

Russian shadow falls over Syria as Kurds open door for Assad

With the US gone, the implications of their departure is beginning to sink in across the Middle East

The moment that changed the Middle East arrived with a sudden silence. Just before 7pm on Sunday, the internet was cut across north-eastern Syria where, for half an hour, the Kurds of the region had been digesting a news flash. The Syrian government was returning to two towns, Manbij and Kobane. The implication quickly sunk in.

The regional capital, Qamishli, soon emptied; streets that had bustled with minibuses and shoppers became eerie and still. With the internet down phones were no help and nor were officials who had vanished along with the traffic. Air seemed to be suddenly vacuumed from the city, and the few people still around knew exactly what it meant: this was the moment power changed hands. It was a time to be scared.

“You must leave now,” one man said, avoiding eye contact. “There are regime checkpoints to the east and it isn’t safe to stay.” He, and other Kurds had lived all their lives, except for the past seven years, under the control of the government in Damascus, and the prospect of their return left him pale and worried.

The Syrian army had maintained a presence in central Qamishli ever since Bashar al-Assad gave the Kurds semi-autonomy in 2012. They had always been toothless next to a larger and better armed rival. But could they be emboldened now? Their base was only 200 metres away.

A black sky covered the road to the border, the sparkling white lights of Turkey to the left and the Syrian army somewhere in the darkness to the right. Usually diligent Kurdish checkpoint guards had left their posts, or were preoccupied. Lone speeding cars and belching lorries without headlamps rumbled through the night, perhaps the last to make the journey before the conquerors arrived.

A day later, the ramifications of the momentous week that preceded the Kurds allowing the Assad regime to retake the province is still sinking in, across Syria and far beyond in Riyadh, Baghdad, Cairo and the Gulf.

Something far bigger was at play here; the end of US influence in Syria and the plunge in its status elsewhere. The public handover on show was that between the Assad regime and the Kurds, but the real power shift was between Washington – whose fighting troops have all but left the region, 16 years after invading Iraq – and Moscow, whose reach and influence across the Middle East has now been cemented.

As if to celebrate the moment, Vladimir Putin arrived in Riyadh for a state visit on Monday, his first in 12 years, hosted by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, who three weeks earlier had similarly felt the humiliation of abandonment by US allies.

After Iran launched an attack against the kingdom’s oil production centres, the crown prince was expecting a US retaliation. None was forthcoming, and he felt abandoned by an ally that had sworn to protect Saudi interests. “Did you see what they [the US] did to us?” the crown prince asked Iraqi leaders in Riyadh a fortnight ago. “It was unbelievable.”

In northern Syria, the US decision to abandon the Kurds, who had helped lead the global fight against Isis, had bewildered locals and left them with very few options. “It’s better to go for compromise than genocide,” said Muzlum Abdi, commander in chief of the US-raised force, formerly known as the SDF.

Kurds, led by leaders of the Kurdistan Workers party (the PKK) had held talks with Russian officials in Qamishli in recent days about the terms of their pact with Damascus. Fighting Turkey to the north, and left without a protector after Donald Trump ordered the US military to leave, the Kurds held a very weak hand.

“The Russians have been accusing us of allowing the Americans into the region in the first place,” said Arshan Mizgin Ahmed. “We have paid a heavy political price for that.”

She added: “We will do whatever is in our best interests.”

As the US withdrew, what remained of its authority was increasingly tested. A jet buzzed a US base near Ain Issa – the US military won’t say who it was. Up the road, Turkish Arab proxies, who had executed a Kurdish politician on a highway a day earlier were setting up base.

As time ticked away on the last vestige of Kurdish rule, the Syrian military arrived – packed into cattle trucks – in the town of Tal Tamir, where Kurdish fighters had been bringing their wounded only hours earlier.

Their arrival would have likely heartened one of the country’s most recent refugees, Ahmad Mahmoud Hussein, who a day before had raged against Turkey’s proxies – Arabs from elsewhere in Syria, who had just forced him from his home in the town of Ras al-Ayn. “They are mercenaries, hired guns,” he claimed. “They are all ex-convicts and drug addicts and they have no honour or mercy. Those who fall for what Turkey are offering them will do anything for money. I don’t care if I’m sleeping on this school floor for one year, two years, or 10. I’m not going back while they’re still there.”

The dying days of the war in all its horror and contradictions played out on television screens across the Kurdish north, where normal transmissions had resumed after Sunday’s Big Brother-like shutdown. In the border town of Derik, drivers watched with looks of resignation as Kurdish families threw rice at the feet of Assad’s soldiers. “He’s acting,” said one of the men watching another Kurd on the television. “No he isn’t, he’s relieved,” said another.

Past scorched brown hills, along undulating roads to the border, the faces of the vanquished showed a similar mixture of resignation, and confusion. For the Kurds the dream of autonomy has ground to a halt, The new alliances taking shape on the ruins of their ambitions will be felt for generations in what remains of Syria.

“Iran and Russia are the dominant foreign powers now,” said Arshan. “They will dictate terms in this region. Things have really changed.”

Additional reporting by Mohammed Rasool

Emil El Zapato
14th October 2019, 21:16
I think a semblance of sane world order will return when trump is gone...soon.
I think former trump vote should be forced to take a full psychological battery of tests before being allowed to ever vote again

Chris
14th October 2019, 21:27
I think a semblance of sane world order will return when trump is gone...soon.
I think former trump vote should be forced to take a full psychological battery of tests before being allowed to ever vote again

I doubt that. The Post-American World narrative, for which Obama was so strongly criticised is now a permanent fixture of geopolitics. I suspect the US will concentrate on its own hemisphere as long as it is able to and will withdraw from most of the rest of the world. This is already happening. Such geopolitical shifts have their own momentum and they don't usually go into reverse or even substantially change course. BTW, I doubt that's a good thing overall and it may bring a considerable amount of bloodshed with it, as is already happening in Syria, nevertheless, it is a fact we will have to learn to live with and accept it without prejudice. Also, from a personal perspective, I speak a bit of Russian and quite a but of German, but I don't want to brush up on either of those languages. I'd much rather continue living in an Anglo-American dominated world, but alas, history and fate have other ideas.

Chris
14th October 2019, 21:48
As it happens, the Nation just published an article about the very Anglo-American decline, that has been the theme of this thread lately. It's as if they have been reading my mind...

https://www.thenation.com/article/donald-trump-america-brexit/

Welcome to the Early Stages of America’s Brexit
It’s not just Britain headed for the subbasement of imperial history.
By Tom Engelhardt

Donald Trump may prove to be the ultimate Brexiteer. Back in August 2016, in the midst of his presidential campaign, he proudly tweeted, “They will soon be calling me MR. BREXIT!” On the subject of the British leaving the European Union (EU) he’s neither faltered nor wavered. That June, he was already cheering on British voters, 51.9% of whom had just opted for Brexit in a nationwide referendum. They had, he insisted, taken “their country back” and he predicted that other countries, including you-know-where, would act similarly. As it happened, Mr. “America First” was proven anything but wrong in November 2016.

Ever since, he’s been remarkably eager to insert himself in Britain’s Brexit debate. Last July, for instance, he paid an official visit to that country and had tea with the queen (“an incredible lady… I feel I know her so well and she certainly knows me very well right now”). As Politico put it at the time, “In just a matter of a few hours, he snubbed the leader of the opposition — who wants a close relationship with the EU after Brexit and if he can’t get it, advocates a second referendum on the options — in favor of meeting with two avid Brexiteers and chatting with a third.” Oh, and that third person just happened to be the man who would become the present prime minister, Brexiteer-to-hell Boris Johnson.

Since then, of course, he’s praised Johnson’s stance — get out now, no deal — to the heavens, repeatedly promising to sign a “very big” trade agreement or “lots of fantastic mini-deals” with the Brits once they dump the European Union. (And if you believe there will be no strings attached to that generous offer, you haven’t been paying attention to the presidency of one Donald J. Trump.) In Britain itself, sentiment about Brexiting the EU remains deeply confused, or perhaps more accurately disturbed, and little wonder. It’s clear enough that, from the economy to medical supplies, cross-Channel traffic snarl-ups to the Irish border, a no-deal Brexit is likely to prove problematic in barely grasped ways, as well as a blow to living standards. Still, there can be little question that the leaving option has been disturbing at a level that goes far deeper than just fear of the immediate consequences.

Remember, we’re talking about the greatest power of the late eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries, the country that launched the industrial revolution, whose navy once ruled the waves, and that had more colonies and military garrisons in more places more permanently than any country in history. Now, it’s about to fall into what will someday be seen as the subbasement of imperial history. Think of Johnson’s version of Brexiting as a way of saying goodbye to all that with a genuine flourish. Brexit won’t just be an exit from the European Union but, for all intents and purposes, from history itself. It will mark the end of a century-long fall that will turn Britain back into a relatively inconsequential island kingdom.


EXITING THE AMERICAN CENTURY
By now, you might think that all of this is a lesson written in the clouds for anyone, including Donald Trump, to see. Not that he will. After all, though no one thinks of him this way, he really is our own American Brexiteer. In some inchoate and (if I can use such a word for such a man) groping fashion, he, too, wants us out; not, of course, from the European Union, though he’s no fan of either the EU or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), but from the whole global system of alliances and trade arrangements that Washington has forged since 1945 to ensure the success of the “American Century” — to cement, that is, its global position as the next Great Britain.

Not so long ago, when it came to Washington’s system of global power, the U.S. was the sun for orbiting allies in alliances like NATO, the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization, and the Organization of American States. Meanwhile, the U.S. military had scattered an unprecedented number of military garrisons across much of the planet. In the wake of the implosion of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States briefly seemed to be not just the next but potentially the last Great Britain. Its leaders came to believe that this country had been left in a position of unique dominance on Planet Earth at “the end of history” and perhaps until the end of time. In the years after the Soviet Union imploded in 1991, it came to be known as “the sole superpower” or, in the phrase of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, “the indispensable nation.” It briefly seemed to find itself in a position no country, not even the Roman or British empires, had ever been in.

Now, in his own half-baked, half-assed fashion, Donald Trump is promoting another kind of first: his unique version of “America First.” Two New York Times reporters, David Sanger and Maggie Haberman, evidently reminded him of that isolationist phrase from the pre-World War II era in an interview in March 2016 during his election run. They described the exchange this way: “He agreed with a suggestion [of ours] that his ideas might be summed up as ‘America First.’”

“Not isolationist, but I am America First,” he said. “I like the expression.” So much so that, from then on, he would use it endlessly in his presidential campaign.

Donald Trump has, of course, been something of a collector of, or perhaps sponge for, the useful past slogans of others (as well as the present ones of his right-wing followers in the Twittersphere). As any red baseball cap should remind us, the phrase that helped loft him to the presidency was, of course, “Make America Great Again,” or MAGA, a version of an old line from Ronald Reagan’s winning election campaign of 1980. He had the foresight to try to trademark it only days after Mitt Romney lost his bid for the presidency to Barack Obama in November 2012.

Both phrases would appeal deeply to what became known as his “base” — a significant crew in the heartland, particularly in rural America, who felt as if (in a country growing ever more economically unequal) the American dream was over. Their futures and those of their children no longer seemed to be heading up but down toward the subbasement of economic subservience. Their unions had been broken, their jobs shipped elsewhere, their hopes and those for their kids left in the gutter. In a country whose leadership class still had soaring dreams of global domination and wealth beyond compare, whose politicians (Republican and Democratic alike) felt obliged to speak of American greatness, they were — and Donald Trump sensed it — the first American declinists.

At the time, however, few focused on the key word in that slogan of his, the final one: again. As I wrote back in April 2016, with that single word, candidate Trump reached out to them, however intuitively, and crossed a line that would feel familiar today to someone like Boris Johnson in a British context. With it, he had, to put it bluntly, begun to exit the American century. He had become, as I commented then, “the first American leader or potential leader of recent times not to feel the need or obligation to insist that the United States, the ‘sole’ superpower of Planet Earth, is an ‘exceptional’ nation, an ‘indispensable’ country, or even in an unqualified sense a ‘great’ one.” He had, in short, become America’s first declinist presidential candidate, striking a new chord here, just as the Brexiteers would do in England.

As I also wrote then, “Donald Trump, in other words, is the first person to run openly and without apology on a platform of American decline.” This country, he made clear, was no longer “great.” In doing so (and in speaking out, after a fashion, against America’s forever wars of this century), he grasped, in his own strange way, the inheritance that the post-Cold War Washington establishment had left both him and the rest of the country.


After all, if Donald Trump hadn’t noticed that something was truly wrong, someone would have. As the planet’s sole superpower with a military budget that left every other nation (even bevies of them) in the shade, the U.S. had, since 2001, invaded two countries, repeatedly bombed many more, and fought conflicts that spread across much of the Greater Middle East and Africa. Those wars, when launched in 2001 (Afghanistan) and 2003 (Iraq), were visibly meant both to demonstrate and ensure American dominion over much of the planet. Fifteen years later, as Donald Trump alone seemed to grasp, they had done the very opposite.

MR. BREXIT!
By the time The Donald took to the campaign trail, the U.S. had not had a single true victory in this century. Not even in Afghanistan where it all began. In the years before he entered the Oval Office, the world’s only truly “exceptional” power had mainly proven exceptionally incapable (in ways that weren’t true in the Cold War years) of making its desires and will felt anywhere, except as a force for ultimate disruption and displacement.

Globally speaking, despite all its alliances, its unparalleled military power, and its loneliness at the top — Russia remained a nuclear-armed but fragile petro-state and China was visibly rising but not yet “super” — it looked distinctly like a great power in the early stages of decline. As not just Donald Trump’s but Bernie Sanders’s campaign suggested in 2016, there was clearly a kind of decline underway at home as well, a process of hollowing out that extended from the economy to the courts to the political system.

It was no mistake that, in January 2017, in a new age of plutocracy and degradation, a billionaire entered the White House — or that his first major domestic act (with a Republican Congress) would be a tax cut that only gave yet more to the already extraordinarily wealthy. Nor would it be strange that, for the first time, the 400 wealthiest Americans would actually have a lower tax rate than any other income group.

Though The Donald did insist that he would make this country great again, his presidency has proven a distinctly declinist one. However instinctively, however chaotically, however impulsively, he has, after all, been hard at work cracking open the American imperial system as it once existed and directing the country into a future ripe for candidates with yet redder hats and slogans.

If Boris Johnson is plugging for a Britain Last moment, Donald Trump, despite his bravado and braggadocio, has been treading a similar path for the greatest power on the planet. In his trade wars, he’s been intent on cracking open the American global economic system, whether in relation to the EU, China, or allies like Japan and South Korea. In his relations with such allies, he’s been hard at work undermining the alliances that once ensured American power and influence, even as he cozies up to autocrats and plutocrats the world over.

Of course, in October 2019, its forever wars and new trade wars notwithstanding, the United States remains the strongest military power on the planet, not to speak of the wealthiest one around. So no matter what President Trump may do, we’re not about to join Great Britain in that imperial subbasement any time soon. Still, as the Trump years should already have made clear, we are in at least the early stages of an American Brexit, globally and domestically.

When the Trumpian era ends, whether in 2020, 2024, or at some other unpredictable moment, count on this: the American global system will have been cracked open, the domestic political and judicial systems undermined further, and this country made even more unequal in a gilded age beyond compare, as well as split at least in two (“civil war”!) in terms of popular sentiment.

There is, however, a difference between a British and an American Brexit. While a British one could harm the European Union (and even perhaps the American economy), its effects (except on England itself) should be relatively modest. On our overheating orb, however, an American Brexit could take the planet down with it. We are, after all, on a world in decline.

Think of Donald Trump as the president of that decline or, if you prefer, as MR. BREXIT!

Emil El Zapato
15th October 2019, 00:13
I doubt that. The Post-American World narrative, for which Obama was so strongly criticised is now a permanent fixture of geopolitics. I suspect the US will concentrate on its own hemisphere as long as it is able to and will withdraw from most of the rest of the world. This is already happening. Such geopolitical shifts have their own momentum and they don't usually go into reverse or even substantially change course. BTW, I doubt that's a good thing overall and it may bring a considerable amount of bloodshed with it, as is already happening in Syria, nevertheless, it is a fact we will have to learn to live with and accept it without prejudice. Also, from a personal perspective, I speak a bit of Russian and quite a but of German, but I don't want to brush up on either of those languages. I'd much rather continue living in an Anglo-American dominated world, but alas, history and fate have other ideas.

That's the problem, Chris...politicians try to give the people what they want despite knowing the people are ignoramuses. Obama tried to walk that line and, of course, was criticized despite having a measured approach to world peace, world strife, and I believe having the heart of humanity at the center of his decisions. Obviously, Trump is one of the ignoramuses.

Chris
15th October 2019, 06:26
That's the problem, Chris...politicians try to give the people what they want despite knowing the people are ignoramuses. Obama tried to walk that line and, of course, was criticized despite having a measured approach to world peace, world strife, and I believe having the heart of humanity at the center of his decisions. Obviously, Trump is one of the ignoramuses.

I see him as a symptom of American decline and not the cause per se. Which is why I try to do as other world leaders do (including Aragorn :p ) and ignore him. US politics is becoming an irrelevance and thankfully we, as in the rest of the world, can do something more productive with our lives, rather than obsess about it. Personally, I have lost any interest in the outcome of your little civil war/coup, I no longer care whether the country is run by the Orange one or Pocahontas or Joe BuyThem. The only reason I still pay attention and keep updating this thread, is because this is a historic moment, in which power is shifting from one power to the next and the process of Imperial decline fascinates me.

Dreamtimer
15th October 2019, 13:31
I know what you mean, Chris. I keep seeing various headlines with the word Collapse.

Joe BuyThem.:ttr:

Emil El Zapato
15th October 2019, 14:37
Wow you’ve gone full cynic. Chris

But I won’t begrudge u a little cynicism. We all pass through that gate at some point. My resolution was drugs.

Dreamtimer
15th October 2019, 14:47
Aspirin and Benadryl?

Emil El Zapato
15th October 2019, 14:58
Lol....among others

Chris
17th October 2019, 12:33
Uh-Oh...

You know the jig is up when Robert Fisk, one of the last remaining genuine journalists in the mainstream media, compares the current situation with the US and the Middle East, to the fall of the Roman Empire.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-putin-middle-east-syria-turkey-empire-washington-rome-a9159756.html

Trump’s disgrace in the Middle East is the death of an Empire. Vladimir Putin is Caesar now

This presidency looks like the manic days that presaged the fall of Rome

In days gone by, I used to compare the Trump presidency with the Arab dictatorships. He took preposterous pleasure in the company of Egypt’s Sisi (60,000 political prisoners) and his inane ramblings had much in common with those of Muammar Ghaddafi, who also “authored” a book he never wrote but whom Trump never met (albeit that Tony Blair and Ghaddafi kissed each other on the cheek). But over the past week, I’ve begun to realise that the crackpot in the White House has much more in common with ancient Rome.

My former classics professor once told me – when I melodramatically called him on my mobile phone from the original Roman forum during the US occupation of Iraq under George W. Bush – that the Romans were a “manic” people, but that they would have been pretty unimpressed with the American handling of the Iraqi campaign.

He was right. But I am now convinced that there is something distinctly “manic” about the Trump presidency. The hatred, the threats, the fury, have much in common with both the Roman Republic (Rome’s version of popular “democracy”) and the Roman Empire, when quite a number of emperors showed themselves to be just as insane as Trump.

Cato the Censor, a dangerous man, would end each of his speeches in Rome with the words Carthago delenda est. “Carthage must be destroyed”. Is this not exactly the language of Trump? Did he not say that he could have Afghanistan “wiped off the face of the earth”, that he could “totally destroy” North Korea, that Iran “will be destroyed” if it attacks the US?

Cato got what he wanted. Carthage was indeed razed, its people sold into slavery, although its lands were not in fact sown with salt as English historians would later claim. So far, Trump has been more Cicero than Cato, Pompeo more Pliny than Pompey. So far.

But the American retreat from Syria, its army’s greatest disgrace only ghosted over by its new role as Saudi Arabia’s mercenaries – for the new US military arrival in the Kingdom is to be paid for by the regime which butchered Jamal Khashoggi – has dark echoes in antiquity.

Contrary to the Hollywood version of history, the Roman empire did not collapse in a couple of days. The Goths, Ostrogoths and Visigoths did not just gobble up Italy over a weekend. The fall of the empire came slowly, over years, in small incremental pieces: legions forgotten, tribal allies unpaid – and then betrayed.
One of Rome’s most troublesome provinces was Cilicia. It was always changing hands. Its people allied themselves to Rome – and were then abandoned when legions left or taxes ran out. Cilicia, by extraordinary mischance, lay almost exactly along the western border of what is today the Turkish-Syrian (Kurdish) frontier.

There are still a few Roman ruins in that ancient province to remind its present-day armies of what – they should have surely realised – would be their fate. I doubt if there is a single US soldier in Syria – who must, of course, negotiate their own way out of that equally ancient country – who knows of this. Institutional memory, let alone historical memory, has long ago been erased by the internet.

The Roman Empire fell in bits. The senators, living in the political wreckage of the old Roman Republic, knew that something was going wrong. The people understood their demise only in stages. The great Roman roads went unrepaired. The legions could not move so fast (even if they were still loyal to Rome). Then the imperial mail service from north Africa was impaired, even halted. The wheat for bread – often from what is today the Bekaa valley in eastern Lebanon – failed to arrive in Rome.


Amid popular unrest in Rome, where rival leaders could and did physically threaten each other, these matters often went unnoticed. Impeachment, alas, was not an option in the ancient world.

But the sword (or poison) could do its work. Political enemies would be accused of treachery. “Crucify them!” But is that not what Trump says of the American press, the Democrats or anyone who dares to confront him with his abominable lies and his assaults on American democracy?

No, I am not suggesting that the American Empire will leave us quite like this. But last week’s deplorable abandonment of the Kurds, Trump’s wickedness in allowing the Turks – and their wretched “Arab” allies – to slaughter their way into northern Syria, will have the same effect as it did in antiquity. If you can no longer trust Rome, to which other empire do you turn?

Well, Putin’s, of course. Tyrant he may be – but at least he’s sane. And his legions stayed out of the war in Syria and saved the Assad regime. They cleared the highways of Isis mines – they restored the roads, sometimes (incredibly) what were once Roman roads – and they learned Arabic. Perhaps, indeed, Putin now plays the role of the later Roman Empire of the East, the Christian one which survived in Constantinople/Byzantium/Istanbul for hundreds more years after the fall of Rome itself. All the Middle East is now his empire, every capital welcoming the emperor: Tehran, Cairo, Ankara, Damascus, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi.

More than 20 years ago, I was in Washington, seeking to find the missile-maker who manufactured the rocket which Israel fired into a civilian ambulance in southern Lebanon, killing all inside. And I was much struck at how Roman Washington looked. Its great palaces of state (save for the State Department itself, of course) were self-consciously modelled on Roman architecture.

Washington was not built as the capital of a physical empire – more a philosophical one, I suspect, in my kinder moments – but it looks (like Vienna, Berlin, Paris, London) as if the early Americans of the independence era realised it might one day be the capital of the most powerful nation on earth. Well, it was.

But Trump has changed all that. To the despair of his few friends (of the non-”manic” kind) and the delight of his enemies, he has laid America low. The Syrians, whose history goes back far longer than America’s have played their old political policy again: Wait. And wait. And wait. And then drive into Manbij the moment the Americans leave. That’s what Rome’s enemies did when the empire’s frontiers crumbled in Germania and then in Gaul and then in the Balkans – of all places – and then in Palmyra and in what is today Syria.

As for Washington’s noble architecture, it now takes its place alongside the old capital of the Austro-Hungarian empire, where the fine Viennese buildings of state seem shamed by their majesty. The powerful and historical walls to study today are those of the Kremlin.

Dreamtimer
17th October 2019, 13:02
I'm reading a book set during the times of the fall of the Roman Empire. The main character is just as disbelieving. The 250 year mark is telling.

Chris
18th October 2019, 13:35
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-art-of-betrayal.html#more

The Art of Betrayal

The recent history with the Syrian Kurds has shown that the United States can betray absolutely anyone, regardless of personal relationships or official promises and guarantees. It’s nothing personal, you know, strictly business…

For example, what do the Ukrainians have in common with the Syrian Kurds? At first glance, their people, geography and history are completely different. But then what about the panicked tweets from former Ukrainian foreign minister Pavel Klimkin, in which he wonders in forlorn trepidation whether the US can betray the Ukraine just as it has betrayed its key ally in Syria. But what about the endlessly promised eternal friendship?

It is easy to understand Klimkin’s quandry. The Ukraine’s bet on American support is today the last and only foundation stone of the Ukrainian failed state. Just a little while ago the previously monolithic Western block fell apart in a glaringly obvious and jarring fashion. Washington and Brussels are engaged in a sanctions war, and the EU now regards the perspective of continuing to support the American project in the Ukraine as burdensome. Europe has already wrung out of the hapless Ukrainians everything it could possibly want.

Thanks to the efforts of European, American and international banks, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank especially, the Ukrainians have been reduced to permanent indentured servitude. With a nominal GDP of just $124 billion for 40 million inhabitants and a huge budget deficit, the Ukrainian government’s external debt as of November 2018 has reached $74.32 billion, of which $13 billion is owed to international creditors, $21.19 billion to other owners of Ukrainian debt, and $7.29 billion to nominally private entities (such as the Ukrainian railroad company) but with government guarantees.

The list of the Ukraine’s creditors is long and varied. It includes both international financial institutions and foreign governments. It owes $500 million to Japan, $300 million to Canada, $260 million to Germany, $610 million to Russia, but just $10 million to its former best friend the United States. That is, even if the Ukraine is turned into a complete and utter Uk-ruin and disappears from the political map the US will suffer losses which, relative to the $60 billion a month spewed forth monthly by the printing presses at the Federal Reserve, will not be noticeable.

If the Americans’ interpretation of the word “friendship” seems exotic, so is the Ukrainians’. Watching the ease with which Trump abandoned the Syrian Kurds to be ground under by invading Turkish tanks, Ukrainian officials suddenly started stressing the inviolability of the former friendship, having conveniently forgotten that just thee years ago they were actively attempting to undermine Trump by conspiring with his enemies. Meanwhile, the story of Ukrainian political meddling in the democratic process in the US is growing more comic and grotesque every day. It started as an attempt to overthrow Trump by alleging him to be a usurper, installed through secret meddling by Russian special services, but while chasing after evidence to use against Trump his enemies managed to tip over a filing cabinet packed with highly embarrassing skeletons.

The efforts to unearth evidence of Russian meddling have all ended in failure, but it turns out that Ukrainian meddling did in fact take place. This has been known since 2017, although mass media in the US, which is openly, blatantly biased against Trump, has succeeded in keeping this fact out of the public eye, by hammering on the unproven nature of the allegations, by portraying it as part of the endless partisan bureaucratic battles within the US, and by other forms of misdirection.

They really wanted to find a role for the Russians in all this, and did their best to disregard all facts that did not further this goal. And it could have all been kept quiet, except for the Ukrainians’ propensity to step on the same rake again and again. During a radio appearance, the former Ukrainian chief prosecutor, Yuri Lutsenko stated directly that his country not only meddled in the most direct fashion possible in the US presidential elections in 2016, but that one the main participants in this process was none other than the current director of the National Anti-corruption Bureau of Ukraine Artëm Sytnik.

Sytnik didn’t violate any Ukrainian laws, so what’s the big deal, right? He just gave copies of the financial documents of the Ukrainian Party of Regions to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. He wasn’t planning to meddle. He just wanted to cut off American funding to his domestic political enemies—the Party of Regions. And its American political supporters turned out to be mostly Trump supporters. And the enemy of my enemy is… oops!

It was all a little too clever. This scheme allowed Hillary to charge Trump with colluding with Moscow. You see, the Party of Regions was seen as pro-Kremlin, and if Trump supporters were supporting it, then they were supporting the Kremlin, so what was Trump getting in return? It could be anything—money, secret information, operations to influence public opinion—and such allegations could be used to declare the election results to be invalid.

The Democrats would tuck into this sheaf of documents with knife and fork. There would be investigations. American funding for the Party of Regions would dry up. It would kill two birds with one stone: knock out the Party of Regions (which didn’t have enough fundraising channels of its own) and make the Democrats (who were predicted to win) very grateful. In turn, this gratitude would result in a flow of American funds in support of “Ukrainian democracy,” i.e., into the pockets of corrupt Ukrainian officials. A win-win!

Beyond the urge to line their nests with American cash, the Ukrainian officials also entertained certain megalomaniacal ambitions. War against Russia was one of the key leitmotivs of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. In this, it neatly coincided with the fratricidal tendencies of Ukrainian nationalists, causing them to dream of Americans supplying them with weapons, money, and maybe even showing up to battle the Russians. And then the Ukrainians would ride into Red Square atop an Abrams tank. And then they would carve up occupied Russian territories. All the best ones would be claimed by their masters from overseas, but even the Ukrainians could hope for a few crumbs from the master’s table.

If you feel that this line of thinking is utterly delusional, then you are right. The Ukrainians’ thinking is delusional through and through and, hilariously, the Ukrainians still can’t bring themselves to understand why such a promising scheme fell through. If they did, they would definitely keep quiet about it. But they simply can’t absorb the idea that although Russia and the United States may have some divergent interests, America under Trump is not at all the same thing as it would have been under Hillary Clinton.

Trump’s America has been able to recognize that Obama’s effort to pull Russia into a fratricidal war with the Ukraine has failed, rendering the Ukraine completely useless as far as US interests are concerned. Quite the opposite: the US is now far more interested in the Ukraine’s demise. This is not even a matter of revenge, although Trump is known to be compulsively vengeful and has quite an axe to grind with the Ukrainians. There are three factors that are even more important.

First, in its support for the Ukraine’s anti-Russian regime, the US has run out of maneuvering space. Anti-Russian sanctions have been shown to only make Russia stronger, while militarily all that is possible is to declare nuclear war on Russia, and this the US is decidedly against doing. But it can’t just fester in place without losing face in an important geopolitical contest.

More importantly, the US now sees Russia as a target that’s secondary to its far more important war of economic attrition with China. In this situation, a brilliantly executed tactical retreat appears to be the best option. Ideally, this would be done in a way that would void all previous American declarations, agreements and commitments, providing a blank slate on which to scribble some more empty promises.

Secondly, those Americans who stood to gain from hopeless Ukrainian indebtedness have already done so, and even its complete and utter ruin would not cause them any appreciable losses. Quite the opposite: it would mostly hurt those institutions which Trump has repeatedly promised to reform—specifically, the IMF and, even more importantly, the European Union.

The US didn’t sign the Minsk Agreements—the key international documents designed to compel the Ukrainian government to sue for peace with its separatist eastern regions, to reform itself into a federation (and, given the irreconcilable differences between its regions, to disband shortly thereafter). Therefore, Washington can now wash its hands of the Ukrainian mess, declaring it to be an internal European problem.

Third, by enlarging the Ukrainian scandal to the largest extent possible, Trump can now deliver a blow to the Democrats who are now up to their ears in it. With his reelection just a year away, this is by far the most important consideration for him. Enlarging the scope of this scandal in the run-up to the 2020 election has helped his chances and hurt those of the Democrats, not just because Joe Biden’s chances have been instantaneously zeroed out, leaving behind much weaker Elizabeth Warren, but also because of automatic damage to the reputation of anyone who would associate themselves with the Democratic party even if it were to find a more promising candidate.

The Mueller investigation has shown that Moscow did not aide Trump and this is now established as a fact. And now it turns out that Trump’s adversary did in fact avail herself of foreign meddling. To say that this is awkward and embarrassing for the Democrats would be quite an understatement! But the Ukraine brings back luck to anyone who engages with it, and it remains to be seen whether Trump will be the exception that proves the rule.

The Ukraine has brought particularly bad luck to the Ukrainians themselves. Their governing elite still hasn’t been able to absorb the meaning of multiple warnings they have been receiving from across the Atlantic, ever since Mike Pompeo’s visit to Sochi in May: that the Ukrainian project is being shut down. Some Ukrainian officials may still dream of stuffing their pockets some more on their way out, but the Ukrainian state has no future, not in any abstract sense but quite literally.

By freely and openly admitting to Ukrainian meddling in the last presidential election in the US, Ukrainian officialdom has signed its own death warrant. It managed to do the impossible: to unify revenge-seeking Trump and his opponents against it. They don’t wish to see their dirty laundry paraded before the public, and certainly don’t want to risk their own money, as has happened with the company of Nancy Pelosi’s own son.

Most amusingly, none of these interested parties have to do a thing in order to ease the Ukraine toward its timely demise. Washington doesn’t have to support the Ukraine militarily and can decline to influence the IMF, which has become reticent in granting the Ukraine any more tranches, seeing as its government has failed to show any progress in fighting corruption or in selling off agricultural land (a key IMF demand).

Meanwhile, all of the Ukraine’s neighbors want to compel it to implement the Minsk agreements: to deescalate militarily, to enter into negotiations with its separatist eastern provinces and to federalize. But this is politically impossible, because the Ukrainian ruling elite has no ideas beyond radial Ukrainian nationalism, which federalization would make null and void.

Even if the elite were to wake up and realize that it has no future in any case, there is still the problem of the Ukrainian nationalists themselves. There are no internal political forces that can control them, and although the number of protesters who came out against implementing the Minsk agreements was only around 10 thousand, their overall level of support within the population is no less than 3-4 million people, or 8-10% of the population, and they are not going to surrender without a fight.

Perhaps even more importantly, to one extent or another the entire Ukrainian political class and the Ukrainian oligarchy are opposed to peace, because if peace were achieved and law and order restored, they would be expected to take the blame for it all—the over 10 thousand dead, the half a million injured, the horrendous property damage, the economic ruin… all of it! But they all want to live, and they have nowhere to run.

They had one last hope: that their big daddy overseas would bail them out. That hope sprung eternal even after president Zelensky’s disastrous trip to Washington, during which Trump told him that the Europeans aren’t doing enough to help the Ukraine, and so the US won’t either and, most pointedly, that he should talk to Putin and resolve their differences. This residual hope mostly expressed itself in irrational, emotional outbursts, along the lines of “But how can they do that to us?”

Next came the abandonment of the Syrian Kurds, demonstrating that America, especially when its president’s political survival is at stake, can abandon absolutely anyone, ignoring all previous promises and commitments. And this is when cold sweat started to pour down Ukrainian faces; not so much from those who are in power there now (who still think that they can somehow maneuver out of this cul de sac of their own creation) as from their predecessors, such as the previous president Peter Poroshenko and his aforementioned foreign minister Pavel Klimkin. They now know that they have become expendable, and feel it in their anal sphincters that their hides are about to be offered in payment.

These Ukrainians thought that they were so clever, standing up to Moscow, siding with Washington, manipulating US elections. They felt beyond Byzantine in their cunning and deviousness. But now they will have to pay for their stupidity… just like the Syrian Kurds.

Source: Alexander Zapolskis

Emil El Zapato
18th October 2019, 17:34
Propaganda Chris and essentially untrue. The fabric is moth eaten

Chris
18th October 2019, 18:36
Propaganda Chris and essentially untrue. The fabric is moth eaten

Well, this one comes directly from Russia, so it is certainly not unbiased. Still, I think it provides an interesting perspective, particularly on the Ukraine.

Gio
18th October 2019, 18:43
Thanks Chris ...

https://regnum.ru/uploads/pictures/news/2019/10/11/regnum_picture_1570803374651959_big.jpg

Fred Steeves
18th October 2019, 21:37
Well, this one comes directly from Russia, so it is certainly not unbiased. Still, I think it provides an interesting perspective, particularly on the Ukraine.

It's always a good thing for genuinely curious Westerners to take a look at what non Western media is saying. I'm betting that said problem with this latest piece you have posted is that if it doesn't scream to the high heavens paying homage to current popular memes, it's of course either a conspiracy theory or propaganda.

Among the current flock is "Syria Bad Guy", Iran Bad Guy, "Russia Bad Guy", and of course "The Phone Call", always have to have the big bad boogie men lined up and ready for the limelight. You know the Russia Muh Pussia thing is getting so absurd here now that even one of our Presidential candidates, who is also active military and a sitting congresswoman, is more and more called a traitor and a Putin puppet because she dares call for the end of arming terrorist groups and regime change wars.

It's not far from being as absurd as posters like below from about a century ago.
2386

As an aside, I was waiting to hear the author at least mention the 2014 US sponsored coup in Ukraine and he didn't, I wonder why?

Emil El Zapato
18th October 2019, 23:53
lol, another trigger point. As a wise man once said, in this case, me earlier this week... "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"

Malisa
19th October 2019, 06:08
Well, this one comes directly from Russia, so it is certainly not unbiased. Still, I think it provides an interesting perspective, particularly on the Ukraine.

But who could/would be considered "non biased" in this planet? Is there really that a thing? Ever?

"My daddy is better than your daddy" :P

Chris
22nd October 2019, 09:20
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/enter-the-dragon/

Enter, the Dragon

You’d think Hillary Clinton might come up with a better zinger than “Russian asset” when she flew out of her volcano on leathery wings Friday and tried to jam her blunted beak through Tulsi Gabbard’s heart. Much speculation has been brewing in the Webiverse that the Flying Reptile of Chappaqua might seek an opening to join the Democratic Party 2020 free-for-all. Wasn’t “Russian asset” the big McGuffin in the Mueller Report — the tantalizing and elusive triggering device that added up to nothing — and aren’t most people over twelve years old onto that con by now?
It’s not like Tulsi G was leading the pack, with two cable news networks and the nation’s leading newspapers ignoring her existence. Tulsi must have been wearing her Kevlar flak vest because she easily fended off the aerial attack and fired back at the squawking beast with a blast of napalm:


“Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies….”

Ouch! The skirmish does raise the question, though: is the Democratic Party so sick and rotted that it would resort to entertaining Hillary Clinton as the 2020 nominee? Fer sure, I’d say. The party has been on suicide watch since the Mueller Report blew up in its face. At this point, it’s choking to death on its current leaders in the race. Apart from his incessant hapless blundering on the campaign trail, Joe Biden will never survive assisting his son Hunter’s grifting adventures in foreign lands. It’s just too cut-and-dried and in-your-face. The kid scammed millions out of Ukraine and China and it’s all documented. Mr. Biden will soon announce his retirement from the field — to spend more time with his family, or for vague health reasons.

Mrs. Warren has been on a roll since August — with Joe B foundering — but she has two big problems: 1. She seems incapable of telling the truth about her personal “story.” For decades she pretended to be a Cherokee Indian for the purpose of career advancement on various college faculties (including Harvard), and lately she told a whopper about being fired from a teaching job years ago on account of being pregnant, apparently unaware that a tape recording existed of her telling a totally different story — that she quit the job to do something else, even when they offered her a new contract. How many times would those bytes be replayed in 2020? And 2. She’s retailing a cargo of economic policy bullshit that would turn the USA into Venezuela with sprinkles on top, and she’s already hard-pressed to explain all the numbers that don’t add up in her Medicare-for-all package. Over the weekend, she demanded that transgender illegal border jumpers “must” be released into the United States. There’s a winning issue in the Rustbelt states!

And of course, there are questions a’plenty about the DNC itself and the peculiar mix of race hustlers, Wall Street catamites and war-hawks currently running the outfit. Sounds like a Hillary quorum to me. The DNC handed off the whole operation to the Hillary campaign in 2016 and fixed the nomination with super-delegate hugger-mugger. Is it possible that Hillary still controls the leadership? My guess is that a big chunk of the loot assembled into the Clinton Foundation over the years has enabled HRC to buy the tattered remnants of the DNC lock, stock, and barrel. All that funny money bought a whole lot more, too, including all the predicating bullshit that kicked off RussiaGate, UkraineGate, and now ImpeachGate.

The next gate to go through will be the wholesale prosecution of a whole lot of government officials, elected, appointed, and retired, for the malicious shenanigans that led to the current administrative civil war between the branches and agencies of the government itself. It may prove to be a gate too far for the existence of constitutional government as we’ve known it. All that rot leads to the heads of the big fish: Barack Obama and Hillary. When they are officially implicated, that will be the last roundup for the old donkey. Perhaps something new will organize around the stalwart Tulsi G. She is not alone out there.

Dreamtimer
22nd October 2019, 12:38
This guy's got some good vocabulary.

Emil El Zapato
22nd October 2019, 14:32
Isn’t this whole thing being misinterpreted. The way I understood it. Gab bard was favored by the Russians and Jill Stein was the groomee. It’s like a game of telephone messaging

Fred Steeves
22nd October 2019, 15:34
Isn’t this whole thing being misinterpreted. The way I understood it. Gab bard was favored by the Russians and Jill Stein was the groomee. It’s like a game of telephone messaging

This is getting old, hell I'd rather listen to the kids bicker back and forth than this continual drivel from you; it makes the whole forum look shallow and stupid...

Now, at least get the official story straight when spewing this shit. Whenever you get confused about what exactly it is you think about something, in this case the latest Russia Muh Pussia meme, it's very easy to find Hillary's original, evidence free cheap shot which is blowing up in her face even at CNN.

Or are you just trolling? I still can't decide.

Aragorn
22nd October 2019, 15:55
Heads up... I've just deleted four posts from this thread ─ only one post was really offensive, but the others were responses to that. Ad hominems are not allowed here, okay?

Emil El Zapato
22nd October 2019, 16:09
The closest thing I can find where clinton states gab bard is a Russian asset is nowhere. There is one ‘comment’. Paraphrasing clinton’S statement but it is presented in a split context implying Clinton stated Russian asset. I don’t think she did. What she did do was leave the implication up in the air. Thus my original comment on the forum a week ago about Clinton being bitchy. I’ve always believed Clinton should have been a republican and it is no wonder Those two so similar in nature would eventually be at each other’s throats. Once again let us see what history has to say about it. Yabba

Emil El Zapato
23rd October 2019, 00:13
Neither of them come out looking particularly good.

Vox - Understand the News

Hillary Clinton emerged from relative political obscurity last week to claim that Tulsi Gabbard, a Democratic presidential candidate and member of Congress from Hawaii, was “the favorite of the Russians” prepping for a third-party spoiler run during a podcast interview. She went so far as to imply that the representative was “a Russian asset.”

Gabbard fired back by calling Clinton “the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party.” In Gabbard’s telling, her party’s 2016 nominee was behind “a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation ... through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine.”

“It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me,” Gabbard, who is at 1.2 percent in the RealClearPolitics primary polling average, concluded. “Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.”

This is a bizarrely intense fight given that these two are members of the same party. Clinton suggesting Gabbard is the Kremlin’s chosen agent for destroying the Democrats in 2020? Gabbard accusing Clinton of being the puppet master behind a massive conspiracy against her? Are these people serious?

Unfortunately, the answer to that question is “yes” — in ways that reveal some troubling tendencies among American liberals and leftists today.

On Clinton’s part, the accusation reflects a remarkable overestimation of Russian influence on the part of certain Democratic Party loyalists — and a corresponding willingness to fling around baseless allegations of people they don’t like being aligned with the Kremlin agents. At bottom, it’s a conspiratorial way of viewing the world that disconnects Democrats from reality.

Gabbard’s bizarre counter-allegations of a Clinton conspiracy reflect the way in which her nominally anti-war politics are actually a kind of pro-authoritarian, conspiratorial worldview — particularly on Syria, an issue at the top of the political agenda right now. Her approach has a handful of fans on the party’s left flank but has really found its base on the pro-Trump right, real-life proof the horseshoe theory of the political spectrum has actual merit.

Fortunately, these tendencies do not seem to be afflicting any of the top contenders for the party’s nomination at the moment. Politicians closer to the center like former Vice President Joe Biden and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg don’t sound like Clinton; left-wing candidates like Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders don’t sound like Gabbard. But this ugly fight exposes real internal problems on the (broadly construed) left half of the American political spectrum, ones that liberals and leftists cannot and should not ignore.

What Hillary Clinton gets wrong about Tulsi Gabbard and why it matters

To be fair to Clinton, one can see why she would think it’s plausible that Gabbard is Russia’s favorite candidate in the 2020 primary.

Gabbard is a combat veteran and US Army reservist who has made issues of war and peace the central plank of her campaign platform. She has sold herself as a non-interventionist, a critic of “regime change” and “endless war.” In practice, though, Gabbard’s record doesn’t fully bear this stance out. She has long spoken favorably about American use of force when it’s not directed at toppling dictators, arguing that the US needs to refocus on fighting Islamist terrorists.

As far back as 2015, she has been advocating that the US work with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — and his chief ally, Russia — in fighting ISIS and extremist factions among the Syrian rebels. This view has led her to take a remarkably pro-Russia stance on the Syria conflict, even when it clashes with the policies of her own party’s president and standard-bearer.

@TulsiGabbard
Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 and must be defeated. Obama won’t bomb them in Syria. Putin did. #neverforget911

In January 2017, she traveled to Syria and met with Assad personally, catching the Democratic leadership in Congress off-guard. After returning to the US, she went on CNN and parroted the regime’s line that there was “no difference” between the mainstream anti-Assad rebels and ISIS. At last week’s Democratic debate, she described the Turkish invasion of northeastern Syria, which is controlled by America’s Kurdish allies, as “yet another negative consequence of the regime change war we’ve been waging in Syria” — a false description of what happened that seemed to let Trump’s troop withdrawal off the hook.

The Kremlin may be taking notice. One recent analysis from the Alliance for Securing Democracy (an electoral interference monitoring group) found that Russian state media has given Gabbard disproportionate coverage relative to her poll numbers. It also documented Twitter bots that appear to be of Russian origin being active on her behalf. That said, the extent to which Russian bots are working to promote Gabbard is contested, and it’s not clear that Clinton is justified in saying that Gabbard is Russia’s favorite.

But Clinton’s comment seems to go further than that. Take a look at the full context from an episode of Campaign HQ, former Obama aide David Plouffe’s podcast. It seems to suggest that Gabbard is not only Russia’s favorite but actually its agent in the Democratic Party:

PLOUFFE: [Trump is] going to try to drive people not to vote for him, but to say you can’t vote for them either...

CLINTON: They’re also going to do third party again. And I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody [Gabbard] who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians, they have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. And that’s assuming [Green Party 2016 candidate] Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she’s also a Russian asset.

Now Clinton is not saying that Russia is “grooming” Gabbard as an agent — which many media outlets initially reported. Rather, she’s saying that Trump and the GOP are grooming Gabbard to be a third-party candidate, while she’s simultaneously getting outside support from the Russians.

But the use of the word “also” in that last line about Jill Stein seems to heavily imply that Gabbard is a Russian agent. While it’s not clear if that’s what Clinton meant to say, her phrasing was at best sloppy and at worst making an inflammatory accusation against Gabbard (and Stein) without real evidence.

It’s hard to overstate how serious it is to accuse a politician you don’t like of being an actual agent of a hostile power, of working to undermine the United States from within. The fact that Russian mouthpieces seem to approve of Gabbard and Stein is hardly sufficient to level such a grave charge.

Yet Clinton’s comments are not a one-off: they reflect a tendency among Democratic loyalists, both in the elite and rank and file, to throw around charges of Russian influence without much grounding in fact.

The most extreme manifestations of this are Twitter personalities like Louise Mensch and Claude Taylor, self-appointed Russia experts who built up a following among hardcore #resistance types by constantly predicting the reveal of proof that Trump is in Putin’s thrall — evidence that never seems to materialize. This strain of pure fantasy never became influential in the party, but there is a more attenuated version that did: Democratic politicians and liberal media outlets have frequently overhyped Trump-Russia connections or Russian penetration of the American political system, assigning it a degree of influence over American politicians and the voters’ minds that has not been supported by evidence.

Clinton’s comments are emblematic of this more subtle version of Russian overhype. It’s a worldview that conveniently exonerates Clinton for her 2016 defeat, suggesting that the Russians rather than Clinton’s own missteps decided the election. It’s a kind of epistemic poison, leading Democrats astray in a similar-but-much-smaller-scale way that Fox News narratives mislead Republicans. When you develop a vision of American electoral politics that overstates Russian power, you end up missing what actually matters.

Somewhat ironically, it’s also one that helps the Russians. The Kremlin’s email hacking and bot-tweeting campaigns were first and foremost designed to stoke divisions and inflame partisanship in the United States, turning up the heat on American partisan disputes and limiting the US government’s ability to coherently counter Russia’s aggressive foreign policy. Calling your political enemies Russian agents certainly helps this goal along.

“Putin can rejoice in the actions of the latter-day witch-hunters who are forever spying Russian influence,” Mark Galeotti, a Russia expert at the Royal United Services Institute, writes in the Moscow Times. “By turning political debate into a hunt for traitors, it generates the very kind of toxic, suspicious political culture that undermines the bonds of solidarity and civility that underpin democratic societies.”

There are good reasons to be skeptical of Gabbard’s stances on foreign policy. But Clinton’s insinuations of dark connections between her and the Kremlin absent solid evidence help no one.

What Tulsi Gabbard gets wrong about Hillary Clinton and why it matters
Gabbard’s response to Clinton was, if anything, even worse than the original comments.

While Clinton never outright says that Gabbard is a Russian plant, merely heavily implying it, Gabbard accuses Clinton of masterminding a gigantic conspiracy against her without the slightest shred of evidence. She did so first in a series of tweets on Friday:

@TulsiGabbard
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a ...

@TulsiGabbard
· Oct 18, 2019
Replying to @TulsiGabbard
... concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and ...

@TulsiGabbard
... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.

It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.

She continued to hammer home this theme in the days after. In an official video released on Sunday, she accuses an unspecified “they” (presumably Democratic elites) of organizing to “destroy” and “discredit” anyone who dissents from their official line. On Monday, she tweeted out a video of a friendly interview she did with Fox News host Tucker Carlson in which she accuses “Hillary Clinton, her proxies, [and] the warmongering establishment” of “conducting this coordinated smear campaign.”

The idea that Clinton is masterminding some kind of coordinated smear campaign in the media, that all of Gabbard’s critics are Clinton “proxies,” is the textbook definition of a conspiracy theory. But it’s hardly the first time Gabbard has embraced outlandish ideas that happen to flatter her worldview.

When Bashar al-Assad’s forces used chemical weapons against Syrian civilians in April 2017, Gabbard said she was “skeptical” that Assad was responsible, aligning herself with conspiracy theorists against both US intelligence and the overwhelming majority of independent experts.

Gabbard’s penchant for strangely reasoned defenses of militant foreign strongmen — she’s an avowed fan of India’s anti-Muslim, illiberal Prime Minister Narendra Modi — has contributed to her marginalization not only from both the Clintonite Democratic center but the also the Warren-Sanders left. Only a few on the so-called “anti-imperialist” left support her, a group made up of relatively obscure Twitter pundits with about as much influence on the actually existing Democratic Party as Louise Mensch and Claude Taylor. Her lack of a meaningful factional support base is a big reason why her poll numbers have been low for the entire primary.

But her appearance on Carlson’s show reveals how she’s succeeded in building a different fanbase: pro-Trump conservatives.

Gabbard has progressive views on domestic policy, despite some past stances to the contrary. But centering her political appeal on her foreign policy, where she’s honestly not very far from Donald Trump, has made her some fans in MAGA-world. Ben Domenech, the publisher of the devotedly pro-Trump website The Federalist, donated $250 to Gabbard’s campaign. Steve Bannon has expressed admiration for her; so too have leading figures in the alt-right.

What this points to is a certain commonality, at the very extreme ends of the spectrum, between left-wing critique of “American empire” and right-wing isolationism — a foreign policy variant of the “horseshoe theory” of political ideology, which posits some factions on the extremes are closer to each other than those on the center-left and center-right.

The left-wing variant starts from the idea that America has evil intentions for the rest of the world — that it is, in fact, the largest threat to global stability on the planet. The right-wing version argues that the United States has no obligation to the rest of the world; that the US needs to put “America First,” even when it means ignoring suffering abroad.

These doctrines converge on the idea that the United States needs to stay out of foreign conflicts and even sometimes cross the line into outright apologia for bad actors abroad. This is how Assad and his Russian backers get painted as potential allies against jihadism rather than the human rights abusers they are, both by Gabbard and by Trumpists.

I don’t mean to draw equivalences here. While Gabbard only has a handful of fans on the left, Donald Trump is the president of the United States. But Gabbard’s embrace of anti-Clinton conspiracies and foreign autocrats shows how a strain of left-wing analysis, applied sophomorically, can lead to pretty ugly places. She’s a useful cautionary tale at a time when the left’s stock is rising on the Democratic side of the aisle.

Gabbard is actually losing favor in her home state of Hawaii, it doesn't look like she could win her 'whatever' seat she had...

Dreamtimer
23rd October 2019, 11:09
Gabbard couldn't handle having Ana present when she went on TYT to talk to Cenk.

It reminded me of Nikki Haley running away from reporters into an elevator.

"Help! Help! They might ask me a question I can't spin! Aargh!"

Most disappointing.

They're supposed to be tough.

Wind
23rd October 2019, 13:04
I think Fred is right when he said this about the Joe Rogan show.


Candidates like Joe Biden, Pete Buddigieg or Kamala Harris would fold like a cheap card table in such an extended and probing sit down. I won't be expecting them...

Bernie was there, Andrew Yang and Tulsi too so they have passed at least first part of "the test".

If you are a phony politician, you sure ain't gonna be on the Joe Rogan show. That's for sure.

Emil El Zapato
23rd October 2019, 13:16
That’s why warren is my favorite. The ‘Booty’ will eventually make waves

Wind
23rd October 2019, 13:28
That’s why warren is my favorite. The ‘Booty’ will eventually make waves

She hasn't been on Joe Rogan, which is a shame. Makes me question how genuine she is.

Even her fans on Reddit are saying that she shouldn't go to JRE because he is giving platform to "right-wingers" like Jordan Peterson. Lmao!

https://www.reddit.com/r/ElizabethWarren/comments/cskq69/should_warren_go_on_the_joe_rogan_podcast/

Emil El Zapato
23rd October 2019, 14:36
Well there is some truth to that. Politics is a game of public perception. Someone like Warren who has solid credentials and has been around for a good while doesn’t have to take the risks that others might. And she would not want to land in the world of alt-fighters that would shred her for any spark of decency she possessed and on general principles. Way secondarily to any alt-fighters she could be tripped up on any duplicity she possessed.

Uncivil emphasis on uncivil down and dirty fighting is not something a refined lady would relish.

Other types love it, need to take risks and in fact their true nature can lead them there.

But it is probably a legitimate criticism that her people would go to discouraging her.

Chris
25th October 2019, 15:21
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/the-sound-of-shoes-dropping-in-the-night/

The Sound of Shoes Dropping in the Night

It was interesting to watch the Cable News divas go incandescent under the glare of their own gaslight late yesterday when they received the unpleasant news that the Barr & Durham “review” of RussiaGate had been officially upgraded to a “criminal investigation.” Rachel Maddow’s trademark pouty-face got a workout as she strained to imagine “…what the thing is that Durham might be looking into.” Yes, that’s a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, all right… with a sputtering fuse sticking out of it. Welcome to the Wile E. Coyote Lookalike Club, Rache. You’ll have a lot of competition when the Sunday morning news-chat shows rev up.

Minutes later, the answer dawned on her: “It [the thing] follows the wildest conspiracy theories from Fox News!” You’d think that someone who invested two-plus years of her life in the Mueller report, which blew up in her pouty-face last spring, might have felt a twinge of journalistic curiosity as to the sum-and-substance of the thing. But no, she just hauled on-screen RussiaGate intriguer David Laufman, a former DOJ lawyer who ran the agency’s CounterIntel and Export Control desk during the RussiaGate years, and also helped oversee the botched Hillary Clinton private email server probe.

“They have this theory,” Rachel said, “that maybe Russia didn’t interfere in the election….”

“It’s preposterous,” said Mr. Laufman, all lawyered up and ready to draw a number and take a seat for his own grand jury testimony. (Note: Mr. Laufman was also deeply involved in the Brett Kavanaugh fiasco as lawyer to Christine Blasey Ford’s BFF, former FBI agent Monica McLean.)

Over in the locked ward of CNN, Andy Cooper and Jeff Toobin attempted to digest the criminal investigation news as if someone had ordered in a platter of shit sandwiches for the green room just before air-time. Toobin pretended to not know exactly who the mysterious Joseph Mifsud was, and struggled to even pronounce his name: “…Mifsood? Misfood…? You mean the Italian professor?” No Jeff, the guy employed by several “friendly” foreign intelligence agencies, and the CIA, to sandbag Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, and failed. I guess when you’re at the beating heart of TV news, you don’t have to actually follow any of the stories reported outside your range of thought and experience.

Next Andy hauled onscreen former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (now a paid CNN “contributor”) to finesse a distinction between the “overall investigation of the Russian interference” and “the counterintelligence investigation that was launched by the FBI.” Consider that Mr. Clapper was right in the middle between the CIA and the FBI. Since he is known to be a friend of Mr. Comey’s and a not-friend of Mr. Brennan’s one can easily see which way Mr. Clapper is tilting. One can also see the circular firing squad that this is a setup for. And, of course, Mr. Clapper himself will be a subject in Mr. Durham’s criminal case proceedings. I predict October will be the last month that Mr. Clapper draws a CNN paycheck — as he hunkers down with his attorneys awaiting the subpoena with his name on it.

The New York Times story on this turn of events Friday morning is a lame attempt to rescue former FBI Director Jim Comey by pinning the blame for RussiaGate on the CIA, shoving CIA John Brennan under the bus. The Times report says: “Mr. Durham has also asked whether C.I.A. officials might have somehow tricked the F.B.I. into opening the Russia investigation.” There’s the next narrative for you. Expect to hear this incessantly well into 2020: “We wuz tricked!”

I wonder if there is any way to hold the errand boys-and-girls in the news media accountable for their roles as handmaidens in what will be eventually known as a seditious coup to overthrow a president. We do enjoy freedom of the press in this land, but I can see how these birds merit charges as unindicted co-conspirators in the affair. One wonders if the various boards of directors of the newspaper and cable news outfits might seek to salvage their self-respect by firing the executives who allowed it happen. If anything might be salutary in the outcome of this hot mess, it would be a return to respectability of the news media.

As for impeachment, ringmaster Rep. Adam Schiff is surely steaming straight into his own historic Joe McCarthy moment when somebody of incontestable standing denounces him as a fraud and a scoundrel… and the mysterious workings of nonlinear behavior tips the political mob past a criticality threshold, shifting the weight of consensus out of darkness and madness. It has happened before in history. Two centuries before Joe McCarthy, the French national assembly suddenly turned on the Jacobins Robespierre and St. Just after their orgy of beheading 17,000 enemies. The two were quickly dispatched themselves to the awe of their beloved guillotine and the Jacobin faction was not heard of again —until recently in America, where it first infected the Universities and then sickened the polity at large almost unto death.

Emil El Zapato
26th October 2019, 00:19
Holy You Know What! Barr and his cohorts are being subjected to a criminal investigation BECAUSE of their fantasy investigation?!

Emil El Zapato
26th October 2019, 00:45
I'm confused...I was under the impression that the criminal investigation was 'external' to Barr's fake investigation...But now I"m reading that it might not be the case. This shall be interesting... Take a deep breath Chris... :) lol.

If anything comes of this, there goes my perfect record of prognostication.

Chris
26th October 2019, 08:58
I don't even pretend to understand what's going on with these investigations as they go back and forth, I'm only interested in them as a symptom of what ails America. I see a country that is hopelessly divided and is currently fighting a bloodless civil war. I have no stake in the outcome of the game, I am only interested in the big picture. It is fascinating to watch, how a country tears itself apart. I really can't wait to see how this plays out.

Emil El Zapato
26th October 2019, 10:53
Well your thoughts sure as hell makes what sense there is to be had. It is really interesting.

Dreamtimer
26th October 2019, 12:23
Well personally I think it sucks. Mostly because intelligent people I know have thrown their brains into the trash bin.

They think they're getting their judges or their tax breaks or their whatever. None of which they will keep under the current leadership. Trump will take away what he gives as easily as he fails to pay folks who work for him, or cities who host his rallies.

He has stiffed several cities now, while still self-dealing.

I really don't get how smart people can be so utterly stupid.

Emil El Zapato
26th October 2019, 12:43
I think what is catalyzing under Trump's reign is the underlying dichotomy that needs to be dealt with...White vs Non-White. As it turns out, it really is that simple. Perhaps more fundamentally, "My genes vs Your genes"

Dreamtimer
28th October 2019, 14:12
Racism is a complex and complicated issue. Whites can be racist against other whites. The Irish are a good example (of experiencing racism by other whites). But it could be something as simple as the label 'white trash'.

I personally think that the mixing of genetic diversity and cultural diversity in America is one of the things that gives it it's greatest strength. It was founded by culturally diverse folks, why shouldn't it continue that way? We didn't get weak over time, we got stronger.

White folks could have their DNA checked to see how much of what they have. It could help adjust perspective. But prejudices don't die with logic and information. That takes a lot of hard work.


Trump is an opportunist who plays into passions. That's where his gut is strongest. He's playing into something that obviously existed already. Some folks had their heads in the sand, believing we had got past racism.

Now they can see for real that's not the case. It's a good first step. Trump's current strength, playing into this dynamic, will weaken over time. He's not really recruiting new folks into the belief system, just exploiting what's there. It can't last over time.

Folks who were standing on the sidelines believing in their comfort have been rudely awakened. They gonna get active.

Chris
30th October 2019, 08:27
Dmitry Orlov's take on the current state of the world on the Keiser report, from 13:00.

As a side note, if I had listened to Max Keiser a decade ago and invested my savings in bitcoins, I'd be a millionaire by now... Who knew that of all the doommongers and kollapsniks, he would turn out to be the one with the soundest investment advice...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1539&v=gjyyxW9AHUg

Chris
30th October 2019, 11:29
Racism is a complex and complicated issue. Whites can be racist against other whites. The Irish are a good example (of experiencing racism by other whites). But it could be something as simple as the label 'white trash'.

I personally think that the mixing of genetic diversity and cultural diversity in America is one of the things that gives it it's greatest strength. It was founded by culturally diverse folks, why shouldn't it continue that way? We didn't get weak over time, we got stronger.

White folks could have their DNA checked to see how much of what they have. It could help adjust perspective. But prejudices don't die with logic and information. That takes a lot of hard work.


Trump is an opportunist who plays into passions. That's where his gut is strongest. He's playing into something that obviously existed already. Some folks had their heads in the sand, believing we had got past racism.

Now they can see for real that's not the case. It's a good first step. Trump's current strength, playing into this dynamic, will weaken over time. He's not really recruiting new folks into the belief system, just exploiting what's there. It can't last over time.

Folks who were standing on the sidelines believing in their comfort have been rudely awakened. They gonna get active.

DT, maybe it's just my old alt-right reflexes kicking in, but I really have to disagree with you on this one.

The US was not founded by culturally diverse folk. It was founded by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants and they remain the ruling class of that country. This has expanded with time, but up to 1968, when immigration reform was introduced, it was essentially a 90 percent white, 10 percent black, anglo-saxon, protestant nation. All its strengths and weaknesses stem from this fact. It may have become more diverse since, through a deliberate, forced policy of mass third-world migration, but I doubt that has benefited the country in any meaningful sense. If anything, I see it as the main reason that the country is falling apart and so riven by division and infighting. It is becoming ever more similar to other culturally and ethnically "diverse" paradises, such as India, Brazil, Indonesia or South Africa.

There is value in ethnic and religious homogeneity as any Japanese or Korean person could tell you. How come nobody's criticising them for keeping their ethnic makeup and culture intact? It is because we instinctively know that there is value in preserving your own unique culture and heritage. We lose something by allowing it to be diluted through mass, uncontrolled immigration.

Don't get me wrong, I have been an immigrant myself and I'm not against legal, controlled immigration that benefits the host society. However, that is not what we're seeing lately, instead we are witnessing a new great migration period, that puts those migrating (and relying on expensive and dangerous smuggling routes) in danger, lining the pockets of organised crime gangs and sticking the host countries with unaffordable costs. There are billions of people in third-world countries that would like to move to developed, Western countries. If we allowed all of them to move on a whim, with an open-border policy, it would simply collapse those countries and lead to mass riots and civil war.

This is why Trump and Brexit got so much support from the local populace in the US and the UK, because they feel that they have no voice and no say in this, they are being subjected to mass immigration and a dilution of their culture and ethnic makeup against their will. Both are the results of a popular grassroots revolt against this worldwide phenomenon which is unequivocally supported, encouraged and enforced by globalist forces, but particularly the international Left. The reaction to this is people seeking a saviour in the far-right. That is probably going to end badly, but it is an entirely understandable and predictable response to the Left's self-hating mass immigration policies.

Dreamtimer
30th October 2019, 12:52
Very good points, Chris.

Many Americans would say that Japan and Korea should become more western or more American, and that's likely because many Americans think we have the best and therefore the only way.

It's true that America was mostly white, but that wasn't necessarily a unifying feature. Whites were living in their ethnic communities and many whites discriminated against other whites. We're a mash-up of folks from a lot of countries and we don't have the long established cultural history that places like Japan have.

America has a lot of wealth. Most is in the hands of a few families which is not a good thing. But we can handle a lot of folks coming in. Many Americans will say 'til they're blue in the face that we have plenty of open space, usually in the context of trying to develop it.

Immigrants who have come here have been working, many in jobs Americans don't want to do.

We're not homogenous and we really never have been. I can see the difference when I go to Scandinavia.

Our legacy of division leftover from slavery and the Civil War is at the heart of our current divisions. We still have healing to do.

Emil El Zapato
30th October 2019, 13:10
Slaves helped a little bit and removing indigenous to re-education camps was highly beneficial. They didn’t ask for this but they got it nonetheless. Movement of populations is a primordial requirement for survival

I saw something interesting the other day. Orcas are apex predators and a defining characteristic of apex predators is ‘movement’ they can be found in most major bodies of water in the world. Humans are a parallel example. They inhabit most land areas in the world. The Japanese population is on a serious decline. Perhaps they haven’t reached a point where they have issues with a lack of genetic diversity but they will. My opinion is when that happens it will be manifested in decreasing brainpower.

This ‘cultural’ sacredness thing is a latecomer. I love my Hispanic culture and believe it is superior in some ways. But I was born in the good old USA and my everyday life is overwhelmingly American. Nothing has been lost. With the exception of a little racial purity. Does that make me want to kill my neighbor? Well sometimes but rarely

Emil El Zapato
2nd November 2019, 13:15
As it is obvious that I'm hopelessly outnumbered (as usual) :) I'll play for a little mental exercise. By-the-by, I'll add that the following article is written from a conservative principle and I hope that will be self evident. More specifically, I will point out the notion presented of left and right as not really real. I have proposed before my sense of whence this 'perception' arises but nevertheless, here she be.

From the 'Economist':

How conservatives—on the left and on the right—can defeat the populists
Oakeshott! thou shouldst be living at this hour: the world hath need of thee


Open Future by R.C.

MICHAEL OAKESHOTT is largely forgotten. Even at the peak of his powers, as a professor of political science at the London School of Economics from 1951 to 1969, he was overshadowed by more demonstrative talents of both right and left: Karl Popper, F.A. Hayek and Harold Laski (all more or less contemporaries at LSE). Yet Oakeshott has more to teach us about our turbulent, populist times than the others, let alone the more illustrious names in the Conservative canon.

Oakeshott’s focus was on the conduct of politics itself, with governance. Unconcerned with the minutiae of policy proposals or manifesto pledges, his work was to articulate a praxis of politics to serve a nation. He was writing at a time when –isms dominated politics. Keynesianism, socialism and central planning had captured the politics of the West, while varying degrees of collectivism and Communism prevailed behind the Iron Curtain. But Oakeshott’s was a rare voice rejecting the received wisdom of the day.

In his most famous essay, “Rationalism in Politics”, published in 1962, he attacked the intellectual conceit that underpins all these –isms, namely the misplaced faith in “rationalism” that stemmed from the 18th-century enlightenment. “To the Rationalist”, Oakeshott wrote, “nothing is of value merely because it exists (and certainly not because it has existed for many generations), familiarity has no worth, and nothing is to be left standing for want of scrutiny.”

By ignoring what he called “practical knowledge”—custom or tradition, as he meant it—the rationalist, armed merely with “technical knowledge”, created the illusion that bureaucrats and governments could solve all problems, whereas, of course, they cannot.

By contrast, Oakeshott enunciated what he called a “conservative disposition”, and this is what makes him especially relevant today. He did not articulate or argue for a particular set of policies to define Conservatism as a doctrine or creed; rather, in his impeccably stylish essay “On being conservative”, he argued that conservatism was much more a habit of mind, a practice of politics.

Many Conservative (big C) politicians, on both sides of the Atlantic, have practised this style of politics, as have many politicians from other parties—for the conservative disposition is not confined to one party. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of populist politics. And this is why Oakeshott’s thinking should be urgently re-read by both British Tories and American Republicans before they are irretrievably consumed by precisely those conceits that Oakeshott decried.

What is the conservative disposition?

For a start, Oakehsott was against chasing unicorns, or just throwing out the political playbook. For a politician of this disposition “will find small and slow changes more tolerable than large and sudden: and he will value highly every appearance of continuity.” Hence his famous dictum that the conservative will “prefer the familiar to the unknown…the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible.” Not for Oakeshott the leap in the dark that is a no-deal Brexit.

Oakeshott, like the Anglo-Irish writer and politician Edmund Burke before him, was not against change, but he was very aware that “innovation entails certain loss” and only “ possible gain”. So “the onus of proof, to show that the proposed change may be expected to be on the whole beneficial, rests with the would-be innovator.”

Furthermore, and even more relevant to the heightened and divisive political debates of this populist era, with pseudo-conservative politicians perpetually on the hunt to find “wedge issues” to slice up an electorate, an Oakeshottian politician requires “a quite different view of the activity of governing.”

Rather, the person of this disposition, he argues, “understands it to be the business of government not to inflame passion and give it new objects to feed on, but to inject into the activities of already too passionate men an ingredient of moderation; to restrain, to deflate, to pacify and to reconcile…And all this not because passion is vice and moderation is virtue, but because moderation is indispensable if passionate men are to escape being locked in an encounter of mutual frustration.”

Sadly, there could no better description of Britain’s Brexit crisis, and the divisions that it has occasioned – an “encounter of mutual frustration.” Governing is described by Oakeshott as a “specific and limited activity”, but one of those very specific activities is to mediate differences, not to widen them.

These virtues of government, as Oakeshott would have termed them, can also be described as the virtues of pragmatism, or indeed statecraft. When admirers of the British system of government and its parliamentary democracy, for instance, complain that the country has gone “mad” over Brexit, this is specifically what they mean, that they no longer discern these virtues in the conduct of British politics. Time is well overdue to rediscover them.

And if Conservatives do not, others certainly will. It bears repeating that the conservative disposition is not confined to a Conservative Party, or to any centre- right party. It can profitably be used by others, and has been in the past.

Clement Attlee, Britain’s post-war Labour prime minister is a perfect example. He is still scorned by the radical left for not touching (that is to say, “reforming”) any of Britain’s ancient institutions, thereby creating the classless nirvana. But this is exactly why he remains the left’s most successful “statesman”, because he understood the temper, as Burke put it, of the electorate. Only a leader who had a news agency ticker-machine installed outside the cabinet room—so that he could get the county cricket scores—could have overhauled as much as he did.

The National Health Service, Attlee’s major project, has endured not so much because it was a “technical” innovation, a grand innovation in the Oakeshottian sense, but because it was merely an extension of an existing, successful institution, the Great Western Railway medical fund service set up in Swindon in the 1890s. “There it was, a complete health service,” acknowledged Aneurin Bevan, darling of the left and ministerial architect of the NHS; “all we had to do was to expand it to embrace the whole country!” This was the conservative disposition at its best, in the employ of the Labour Party.

Oakeshott was the quintessential Englishman. He was born in the Garden of England, Kent, and retired to the dozy village of Langton Matravers on the Isle of Purbeck in Dorset, where he is buried. This is Hardy country, and it is tempting to speculate that his immersions in the shires of post-war rural England fuelled his natural distaste for innovation and thoughtless change, informing and shaping his mature political philosophy.

“We tolerate monomaniacs, but why should we be ruled by them?” asks Oakeshott. That is the question for conservatives, and indeed for anyone in democratic politics. “Is it not”, he continues, the “task for a government to protect its subjects against the nuisance of those who spend their energy and wealth in the service of some pet indignation.”

Me: You know I'm not going to give up my 'beliefs'/'perceptions'/'experiences' without a duel to the death.

I TRULY believe that the 'imaginational' polarization that we see today was born of the Reagan era with a full frontal assault on labor, otherness, middle class, and especially the poor. His policies started the process and with misinformation running rampant on talk radio with the likes of Rush Limbaugh then arguably worse the Demonic One (A. Jones) supporting the effort we were well on way to "Hello, today is November 2nd, 2019 and it seems we are politically polarized" (regardless if some want to question that reality or not). Propaganda is the true villain in the war, we can fight policies with counter policies, but we can't fight magic induced ephemera, which is what propaganda does, it transforms something that is not into something that is. And, in my humble opinion...lol...this is why we look at each other now and ask, "what tha' f*ck!" And as some have rightly conjectured not always choosing the right targets, diseases spread.

When I was a student I worked with an employee of the university I was attending. A middle-aged Hispanic dude with humble beginnings (much like my own) that had fallen in love with Limbaugh as had everyone else, I despised the professional liar from day one because I recognized his true 'nature'. In any case, I always received a thrill listening to my co-worker cite 'Ross Limbo' :)

Chris
2nd November 2019, 20:52
Both Left and Right employ insidious propaganda techniques. Arguably, the Left is more subtle about it, but their propaganda is more pervasive, because it dominates almost the entire spectrum of Media and especially Academia. Right-wing propaganda on the other hand is mostly consigned to talk radio, fox news and some websites and forums in the US. In the UK, the tabloids are extremely right-wing (Looking at you, Daily Hexpress), but Newspapers and TV are dominated by the left, with one exception being the Daily Telegraph, which is Boris Johnson's mouthpiece. But even the Telegraph is mainstream conservative, rather than far-right.

Where the mask of respectability slips down the mainstream media's face for me is where they are clearly pushing an agenda that has been coordinated behind the scenes (not least during the secretive Bilderberg meetings, by the Trilateral comission, etc...). You see this when all media outlets start pushing the same narrative from all corners. E.g. Russian is Evil, The refugee racket, the Transgender Agenda, Abortion rights, demonising nationalists as Nazis and evil, endless economic growth and government spending, etc... There is always only one side that is being pushed down mercilessly our throats and your are never, ever allowed to question the agenda, point out its shortcomings, or hear arguments from the other side. The double standards and hypocrisy are staggering.

Emil El Zapato
2nd November 2019, 22:30
I don't really see that as propaganda, I see it as obvious truth...the left trades in reality and apparently the right can't compete with that for reasons that are obvious to some. the only way for the right to justify their actions is to deny the reality...it is quite the conundrum.

It is more than a little possible that we are not referring to the same sources, of course.

Chris
3rd November 2019, 06:33
I don't really see that as propaganda, I see it as obvious truth...the left trades in reality and apparently the right can't compete with that for reasons that are obvious to some. the only way for the right to justify their actions is to deny the reality...it is quite the conundrum.

It is more than a little possible that we are not referring to the same sources, of course.

Well, I mostly read Left-Wing news sources, though I will occasionally check in with right-wing and even alt-right news sites to see what their take is on certain issues. Though as you can see on this thread, I prefer commentators who are outside the mainstream and aren't caught up in the Left-Right paradigm. I can't really speak to the American context with authority, as I only peruse their news output sparingly. To my eyes, fox news is in a constant state of Hysteria and Breitbart are close to being proto-Nazis with some of their commentary. On the other hand, when was the last time that you read or heard on CNN or the NYT about the low-level civil war currently ongoing in Western European cities between Muslim immigrants and the authorities? If you hear it mentioned at all, it is only to disparage the idea that it even exists.

Emil El Zapato
3rd November 2019, 13:57
Dashed hopes boost far-right in eastern Germany 30 years after fall of Berlin Wall

https://www.thelocal.de/userdata/images/article/ef411a0e74b33560b84eefda06085b4a9a9be54dddf9597d5c db49c2d51c6824.jpg

A giant Karl Marx statue towers in the east German city of Chemnitz but, 30 years after the Berlin Wall fell, another political wind is blowing here as the ex-communist city battles the image of a far-right hotbed.

Polls suggest that Sunday the region's voters will deliver strong gains for the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD), an ideological ally of nationalist parties now ruling ex-Soviet bloc countries Poland and Hungary.

That would rattle Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition government and force the other parties to team up to form majorities.

The AfD speaks to voters like Olaf Quinger, a 62-year-old butcher who voiced his fear and anger about the arrival of more than one million migrants in recent years.

"The main problem is that people who are launching a kind of invasion of our country are being treated the same way as Germans," he said, standing at an AfD campaign booth. "That's a huge injustice."

Many asylum-seekers have flashy smartphones, he said, and "very few of them are really refugees ... they are here to leech off the state".

READ ALSO: Chemnitz: Portrait of a city shaken by anti-foreigner riots

AfD co-leader Alexander Gauland, 78 - who has labelled the Nazi era "a speck of bird shit on German history" - last Saturday spoke in Chemnitz, Saxony state.

Outlining party policies, he demanded secure borders and immigration caps, railed against Brussels and mocked teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg.

He then complained that Saxony, whose people he said had bravely won their freedom, was now often characterized as "a right-wing extremist stronghold, a brown stain, a state trapped in the past, the embodiment of a dark Germany".

"If you believe our politicians and media," he told supporters, then Saxony - alongside with Poland and Hungary, which helped end the Soviet empire - are now "the hearts of darkness".

"The truth is that Poland and Hungary - and Saxony - are the beating hearts of freedom and resistance, then and now."

Strong in the east
The rise of the AfD has confronted Germany anew with the legacy of the peaceful revolution of 1989, which brought political freedom but also economic pain.
Many "Ossis", slang for east Germans, complain of a continued wealth gap and of western arrogance.
So-called "Wessis" meanwhile, often look down on the late-comers to liberal democracy and social diversity in the east where racist violence has flared repeatedly since the early 1990s.

Chemnitz earned infamy a year ago when thousands of neo-Nazis, football hooligans and enraged citizens rallied near the 40-tonne Marx bust to vent their anger at immigrants.

The spark that set off the days of unrest was the late-night fatal stabbing of a German man by a Syrian asylum seeker, who last week received a nine-and-a-half year jail term. An Iraqi suspect remains at large.
https://www.thelocal.de/userdata/images/1566891003_123561019.jpg
n the heated protests, AfD leaders marched with the radical Pegida and Pro Chemnitz movements. They were united in their anti-immigration stance and distrust of cosmopolitan elites and "establishment" institutions, parties and media, whom they regard as "traitors to the people".

"We are the people," is an old pro-democracy rallying cry that the AfD now levels against the "Merkel regime".

Gauland praised Saxons for what he described as their instinctive, patriotic resistance to dictatorship and for being "a stake in the flesh of the multicultural, multi-ethnic, mentally controlled old Germany".

Flags, Hitler salute

The 1989 revolution swept away East Germany's one-party state with its hated secret police. Reunification a year later brought a burst of infrastructure investment and led then-chancellor Helmut Kohl to promise "flowering landscapes" of prosperity.

But it also sparked the mass closure of ramshackle factories and state farms, massive job losses and a population flight.

Those who stayed behind often felt left behind, and their anger and envy can easily turn against newcomers.

"There is so much poverty among the pensioners," said Heide Haenig, 70, a retired chemical technician.

She gestured to a nearby park where immigrants sat and claimed: "They act like they own Germany. They don't even have to pay rent. They get 200 euros per child... and then they have seven children!"

Not everyone shares those views. Chemnitz mayor Barbara Ludwig, 57, Saturday took part in a civic discussion forum where people wrote goals like "tolerance" and "respect" on cardboard thought-bubbles.

Ludwig has voiced dismay that many now associate Chemnitz with "the Karl Marx head, German flags and a Hitler salute" - but insisted to AFP that "the city has a lot to offer, it is quite different from the image created a year ago".

People elsewhere in Saxony are also pushing back. On the day Gauland spoke to 400 people in Chemnitz, over 40,000 rallied in the state capital Dresden against racism and for cultural diversity.

It was the largest rally there since the Wall fell.

I apologize Chris but I have to make my point regarding this post. Not everyone in Germany agrees and buys in to perceptions of immigrants, one side does and unfortunately that is always the gist of my postings. It's a matter of what we want to adapt as our guiding principles and whether or not ultimately they conform to what is best for the survival and enrichment of humanity. Peace my brother.

Emil El Zapato
3rd November 2019, 14:47
Well, I mostly read Left-Wing news sources.

As usual I'm guilty of some miscommunication. What I did was conflate the notions of propaganda versus bias. CNN, has obvious bias, to use a term a righty might perceive, an egregious bias particular on their 'discussion/debate' shows, such as Cuomo. He has an annoying habit of holding his obvious bias while pretending a facade of male ingenue in the mold of the scumbag Mr. Bowtie.

Bias, born of personal principles and worldview, yes, I'll concede. Propaganda is magnitudes more sinister and at its heart is a desire to mislead by lies. The thought leaves a nasty taste in my brain.

Emil El Zapato
3rd November 2019, 15:39
ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE ON MASS MEDIA PROPAGANDA
John Jay Black Department of Communication Utah State University (Prepared for delivery before a Qualitative Division session on Philosophical Implications of the Mass Media at the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism, Madison, Wisconsin, August 21 - 24, 1977)

Books, articles, speeches and conferences about journalism, whether produced by journalists or 'outsiders', almost always contain evaluations of how the media face their responsibilities. Usually,the authors launch their observations from a general point of view -- either a positive or negative one. They either hold that the media have enormous powers or that they are merely small cogs in the machinery of democracy, capitalism, education, and the myriad concepts clustered around the term 'public opinion'. The typical criticism usually starts out with a set of general statements concerning what the mass media should be and do . From there, the authors create their links between the media and the sophistication or ignorance of the voter, the rationality or irrationality of the consumer, the social adjustment or maladjustment of the child, and the involvement or apathy of the citizen.

Why do the authors find it so easyy to make connections between the content of the media and the behavior of people? Probably because most authors, being humans themselves, hold implicit views about humanity and the types of forces and controls that make humanity what it 'is'. On the one hand, if one believes people are inherently rational and openminded, one's books and articles will reflect the 'fact' that the mass media are merely small cogs in the formation of public opinion. Such authors will 'find' that people utilize many media and outside sources of information before making purchases, voting, or entertaining and educating themselves.

From that it follows that even when people do use the media, they use them as tentative and incomplete rather than arbitrary and absolute guides for their economic, political, cultural, and educational decisions. On the other hand, the majority of authors who criticize the media tend to believe that people in general are not completely rational or mature, and that the average citizen needs a great deal of assistance from mediated sources as he goes about the business of being a consumer, a voter, a student, and a parent. Media irresponsibility is seen by these critics (whom we may call the non-apologists, in contrast with the apologists described in the preceding paragraph) as the primary cause of consumer confusion, voter ignorance and apathy, a lessening of reading, writing and cognitive skills, and everything from violence in the streets to obscenity in and debasement of our language. Since they consciously or unconsciously picture humanity as troubled masses seeking guidance, the non-apologists have a vast arena upon which they can play the game of media criticism . . . an arena of far broader scope than that available to the apologists.

Political, economic, and social conservatism or liberalism are not the only ideologies represented by journalism's critics . Even though the research of social scientists may be generally free from political, economic, or social bias, the research may nevertheless be tainted by the scientists' fundamental perceptions, especially their perceptions of how man fits into the grand scheme of things . Surely a behaviorist's media criticism will differ from a psychoanalyst's,just as criticism by an adherent of play theory (with his belief that people manipulate their media rather than vice versa) will differ from criticism by one who adheres to what has been called the "cultural norms" theory (with his belief that the media are powerful social forces, constantly manipulating and molding private thoughts and public behavior) . This is because most researchers, subjected as they are to the same cultural and cognitive forces that mold the layman, hold either explicit or implicit models of man -- man is basically good, or basically bad, or basically strong, or basically weak, etc. -- which might contaminate their studies of human nature.

In short, there's a little bias in all of us. Having said this, it becomes no easy matter to propose a framework to objectively analyze the performance of the mass media. The safest approach may be to pick and choose one's way through the 'standard' arguments, sets of expectations, codes of behavior, etc ., regarding what journalism and the mass media can be and do, and couple these arguments, theories and critical approaches with as much objective evidence as possible about actual media performance and effects . The task would be overwhelming. But if one manages to utilize common orientations and empirical evidence displayed by a variety of seemingly impartial observers, social scientists, and media practitioners, the task of media analysis becomes, at least, philosophically feasible. The problem, of course, rests with the validity of the approaches, theories, and evidence utilized to produce such a mode of analysis. For the sake of the present paper, evidence mustered by students of language and semantics, students of psychology and sociology and political science, and concerned lay critics will be considered. Commonalities in these approaches will be used, especially those most obviously value-free, to propose a means whereby a layman, a media practitioner, or a media researcher might undertake a systematic and impartial analysis of mass media performance in general and journalistic performance in particular.

PROPAGANDISTS AND PROPAGANDEES

Media standards of performance and codes of ethics, whether established by quasi-official or official agencies (censorship bureaus, courts, or legislative organs), by pressure groups, or by media organizations themselves, seem to have had one overriding principle during the twentieth century. Usually expressed in terms of 'social responsibility', it can be reduced to the argument that free, open, rational behavior on the part of highly aware citizens is necessary for preserving an open society that accepts and operates on the principles of democracy. Media practices that violate this basic premise are usually referred to as being progagandistic, biased, subjective, slanted, sensational or otherwise irresponsible . For the sake of parsimony, the entire body of irresponsible media behaviors will be referred to as propaganda henceforth in this paper.

Traditionally, propaganda has been considered as the manipulation of opinion toward political, religious, or military ends. The word 'propaganda' was first used in 1622 in reference to the spreading of the faith; since Catholicism was an accepted faith and therefore considered worth spreading, the word had positive connotations. However, the word got its 93 negative connotations during the early years of the present century when Americans were concerned that Axis powers were using propaganda and psychological warfare deviously. During both world wars, an important military and political role was played by propaganda. We feared that propaganda and brainwashing went hand in hand and therefore had no part to play in a democratic society unless that society was deeply engaged in a war for survival.

Since World War Two, as social scientists have come to realize that communication in and of itself does not have the absolute 'mind '--molding power once attributed to it, the fear of propaganda has lessened. But the word has taken on a broader meaning, as it has come to be associated with many areas of social and economic life in addition to the traditional political, religious and military areas. We often hear references to 'propaganda' about various products and ideas for sale. We often use the term rather loosely to cast aspersions on ideas put out by anyone whose motives we suspect. (It may be significant that the United States has a United States Information Agency; our ideological 'enemies' have propaganda agencies.) Most recently, the term propaganda has again surfaced in the literature of journalism vis-avis the kinds of media irresponsibilities discussed above.

What elements of the mass media lend themselves to being propagandistic? What characteristics of media-people (news reporters, public relations and advertising and film practitioners, etc.) result in some of these people sometimes behaving as propagandists? Finally, and perhaps of most importance, what characteristics of media consumers lend themselves most readily to being propagandized, and how can the inculcation of a propagandistic society be avoided? Concerns over media propaganda are based in part on the often stated assumption that one responsibility of a democratic media system is to keep the public open-minded -- that is, to keep people curious, questioning, unwilling to accept simple pat answers to complex situations, to operate as libertarians, etc. 'Mental freedom,' they assume, comes when people have the capacity, and exercise the capacity, to weigh numerous sides of controversies and to come to their own decisions, free of outside constraints . Social -psychologist Milton Rokeach, in his seminal work The Open and ClosedMind (1960), concluded empirically that the degree to which a person's belief system is open or closed is the extent to which the person can receive, evaluate, and act on relevant information received from the outside on its own intrinsic merits, unencumbered by irrelevant factors in the situation arising from within the person or from the outside. To him, the openminded individual would seek out mass media that challenged him to think for himself, rather than media that would offer the easy answers to complex problems. The open-minded media consumer seeks 'free' (i . e . , independent and pluralistic) media because he wants to remain free.

Emil El Zapato
3rd November 2019, 16:01
For generations media critics have pointed to factors in mass media that mitigate against openmindedness . Gilbert Seldes (The New Mass Media, 1957) expressed fear that the mass media in general and television in particular had begun to inculcate in the audience a weakened sense of discrimination, a heightening of stereotypical thinking patterns, a tendency toward conformity and dependence. In the long run, Seldes argued, the mass media may discourage people from forming independent judgments. He carried his argument to the point of saying that if the mass media are brakes on the 'mental' and 'emotional' development of their followers, they are helping to make our social structure rigid. "This may help to create a people who would accept a dictatorship," he concluded.

Seldes is not alone in this respect, although his view may be more extreme than most. Seldes was talking about the news and information aspects of the media, as was Harold Lasky, who a decade earlier had observed that: The real power of the press comes from the effect of its continous repetition of an attitude reflected in facts which its readers have no chance to check, or by its ability to surround these facts by an environment of suggestion which, often half-consciously, seeps its way into the mind of the reader and forms his premises for him without his even being aware that they are really prejudices to which he has scarcely given a moment of thought. (Lasky, American Democracy) Likewise Charles Wright (Mass Communications : A Socioloical Perspective) expressed concern over the potential cognitive damage created by the very function of news reporting and editing: When news is edited for him, the individual does not have to sift and sort, interpret and evaluate, information for himself . He is free to accept or reject prefabricated views about the world around him, as presented by the mass media.
But at some point, it can be argued, the consumer of predigested ideas, opinions, and views becomes an ineffectual citizen, less capable of functioning as a rational man. (There is, of course, an argument that people need these predigested views, since they can't experience all of life first-hand. By definition, media come between realities and media consumers, and we are not arguing for the elimination of those media.

But the logic of Jacques Ellul, in his seminal work Propaganda : The Formation of Men's Attitudes, seems compelling, as he argued that man in a technological society needs to be propagandized, to be 'integrated into society' by means of the mass media. Man with such a need gets carried along unconsciously on the surface of events, not thinking about them but rather 'feeling' them . Since man has a spontaneous defensive reaction against an excess of information and since man clings unconsciously to the unity of his own person whenever he is faced with inconsistencies in his news media, man's natural defense is to deny contradictions and therefore to deny his own continuity, obliterating yesterday's news and any contradiction in his own life . Modern man, Ellul concluded, therefore condemns himself to a life of successive moments, discontinuous and fragmented--and the news media are largely responsible. [Ellul may be implying that if there were no mass media to help man achieve this bifurcation, man would quickly find another means to achieve it.] The news becomes a form of propaganda, and no confrontation ever occurs between the event andthe truth; no relationship ever exists between the event and the person, according to Ellul. (The hapless victim of information overload, according to Ellul, seeks out propaganda as a means of ordering the chaos. Propaganda gives him explanations for all the news, so that it is classified into easily identifiable categories of good and bad, right and wrong, worth-worrying-about and not-worth-worrying--about, etc . The propagandee allows himself to be propagandized, to have his cognitive horizons narrowed, according to Ellul. Propaganda in the news media fits a panoramic pattern established by the media practitioners, who attempt to show propagandees that they travel in the direction of history and progress . Media propaganda thus must furnish an explanation for all happenings, a key to understand the whys and the reasons for economic and political developments. "The great force of propaganda lies in giving man all-embracing, simple explanations and massive, doctrinal causes, without which he could not live with the news, "Ellul argued, adding that man is doubly reassured by propaganda because it tells him the reasons behind developments and because it promises solution for all the problems which would otherwise seem insoluble. "Just as information is necessary for awareness, propaganda is necessary to prevent this awareness from being desperate, Ellul concluded.

Emil El Zapato
3rd November 2019, 17:03
The cognitive state of the media consumer, as depicted by Seldes, Lasky, Wright, Ellul, and others, is one in which the consumer has voluntarily exposed himself to the myriad facts, details, explanations, and exhortations about the busy worlds of economics, politics, geography, and so on to the point where, as described by Ellul, ""he finds himself in a kind of a kaleidoscope in which thousands of unconnected images follow each other rapidly." Erwin Edman was referring to newspapers in particular when he observed that they are the worst possible way of getting a coherent picture of life of our time. "It is a crazy quilt, a jazz symphony, a madness shouting in large type . " Edman suggested that the mind of the newspaper reader, if it could be photographed after ten minutes reading, would not be a map, but an explosion. (quoted in Peterson, Jenson and Rivers, The Mass Media and Modern Society) Given this model of man, it is little wonder some commentators see propaganda as an inevitability -- for if man's nature is to have a homeostatic mental set, the 'crazy quilt' patterns of information he receives from his mass media would certainly drive him to some superior authority of information or belief that would allow him to make sense of his world . At least, that is the theory that follows from all of the above sources.

Emil El Zapato
3rd November 2019, 17:16
Obviously, not all commentators share this perspective. There is at least one school of social science and philosophy that adheres to the belief that 'homo ludens' (man at play) takes an existentialistic delight in the 'crazy quilt' of pluralistic news, information, advertising, and persuasion. Basically apologists for media's inherent characteristics, they sense little of the desperation expressed by Seldes, Wright, Lasky, Ellul, and Edman. Homo ludens can either rise above the propaganda through his heightened self-awareness experiences when alone in a mass (a theory directly contradictory of Ellul's), or he doesn't take it seriously enough to be affected by it. Either way, propaganda is not much of a concern to these theorists . (A criticism of this approach is made by Gordon in Persuasion: The Theory and Practice of Manipulative Communication, 1971.) (This sounds a little suspicious to me - NAP)

Between the pessimism of the first group of observers, and what must be described as the optimism of the second group, lies a large group of analysts who remain uncertain about the ultimate effects ofthe media, but who continue their investigations with a 'wait and see' attitude . The latter are quite unready to suggest a cause-effect relationship between media characteristics and audience reactions. (This sounds like fantasy to me - NAP)

Unfortunately, their research findings to date, largely fragmented and lacking in comprehensiveness, do not yet lend themselves to a broad enough theoretical model of man the propagandist and man the propagandee to satisfy the needs of the present study. Obviously, each analyst's model of man -- whether he sees man as strong and rational or weak and manipulable - will determine whether he calls for more or less propaganda in the media. Those believers in democratic man, following the arguments of propaganda researchers such as Qualter (Propaganda and Psychological Warfare), would insist that the danger to libertarian man is a lack of conflicting propaganda. Those who follow analysts such as Ellul decry the present inevitability and apparently want a decrease in that propaganda -- though Ellul never advocated a major change in the status quo, but merely deplored it. Regardless of one's model of man, however, there may be a good deal of validity in the observation of Ellul that: . . . it is evident that a conflict exists between the principles of democracy -- particularly its concept of the individual -- and the processes of propaganda. The notion of rational man, capable of thinking and living according to reason, of controlling his passions and living according to scientific patterns, of choosing freely between good and evil -- all this seems opposed to the secret influences, the mobilizations of myths, the swift appeals to the irrational, so characteristic of propaganda.

Emil El Zapato
3rd November 2019, 18:09
PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES IN THE NEWSMEDIA

It is appropriate at this point to investigate whatever elements of propaganda that are said to exist in the news and information media. The treatment of propaganda in the entire mass media is less possible in these pages than is the treatment of news media propaganda, but it will be noted that a great many of the thoughts about news media propaganda can be expanded readily to include entertainment and persuasion media.

Such an investigation is surely no simple task. Many books and articles have pointed to this or that piece of 'propaganda' or 'propaganda campaigns' in the news media. Many studies of media bias are basically studies of media propaganda; most critics tend to assume an intentional propaganda or bias in the media, and some few have commented upon the possibility of unintentional bias in these media. The present investigation assumes a little of each, for the investigation focuses on the characteristics of the manifest content of those news media, and any such investigation must be careful about assuming cause (the intentional or unintentional bias of the reporters, editors, etc.) and effect (the possibility or lack of possibility of affecting opinion change or action).

The following short review is representative of positions taken by propaganda students, and is not intended to be comprehensive.

Qualter suggested that a student of propaganda should not limit himself to a review of the editorialor opinion pages of the newspaper (or, to project his argument, to the editorial functions of other media). At one time it was customary to distinguish the expression of opinion on the editorial pages of a paper from the straightforward presentation of facts on the news pages. With the growing appreciation of the extent to which opinion governs the selection and manner of presentation of news, it has been concluded that this division is unrealistic and it is now generally admitted that the news columns can also contain propaganda. This is especially true of news magazines such as Time and Newsweek where the selection and presentation of news items is an expression of editorial policy. Even Goebbels recognized this to be true. Doob quoted from Goebbels' diary that "the best form of newspaper propaganda was not 'propaganda' (i .e .,editorials and exhortation), but slanted news which appeared to be straight. (Principles of Propaganda, in Schramm, Process and Effects of Mass Communication)

This need not necessarily be the result of a conscientious effort on the part of the journalist, however, if one is to believe Hohenberg's statement that: The temptation is great, under the pressures of daily journalism, to leap to conclusions, to act as an advocate, to make assumptions based on previous experience, to approach a story with preconceived notions of what is likely to happen, To give way to such tendencies is to invite error, slanted copy, and libelous publications for which there is little or no defense. (Obviously, some are better than others when making the intuitive leap - NAP) An open mind is the mark of the journalist; the propagandist has made up his mind before. The Professional Journalist)

From Hohenberg's description, one might generalize that a journalist does not have to be consciously biasing his copy to earn the label of propagandist -- but it helps. And, some might add, the media consumer who shouts about propaganda in his media might have the same types of semantic and belief systems blockages that he is accusing the journalist of
possessing. Syndicated columnist Sydney Harris observed that journalistic accounts of events are sometimes distorted because of ignorance, sloppiness, incompleteness, or unconscious bias . But, more often, he added, when people disagree with the report of an event they have been close to, it is less a matter of the reporter's deficiency than of the people's own foreshortened perspective. "You can't see the picture when you are in the frame, " he concluded.

Emil El Zapato
3rd November 2019, 18:23
By and large, however, discussions of media propaganda insinuate that the journalist is aware that he is behaving in a way that will bring biases to his story, and result in his audience's having distorted views of the reality he is supposedly depicting. John Merrill has developed two different lists of ways in which this may take place. His first list dealt with biases in Time magazine; his second was a more general discussion of biases and propaganda techniques in the news media in general. In his 1965 Journalism Quarterly article "How Time Stereotyped Three U. S . Presidents," Merrill evaluated the newsmagazine on the basis of six different 'bias categories': attribution bias, adjective bias, adverbial bias, contextual bias, outright opinion, and photographic bias. His investigation was said to demonstrate clearly that Time operated with negative stereotypes of President Truman, positive stereotypes of President Eisenhower, and ambivalent stereotypes (or no stereotypes) of President Kennedy.

In his summary, Merrill listed twelve principal techniques used by Time in subjectivizing its reports: 1) deciding which incident, remarks, etc., to play up and which ones to omit or play down; 2) failing to tell the whole story; 3) weaving opinion into the story; 4) imputing wisdom and courage and other usually admired qualities by use of adjectives, adverbs, and general context or by quoting some friend of the person; 5) dragging into the story past incidents unnecessary to the present report; 6) using one's opinion to project opinion to this person's larger group -- the "one-man-cross-section device"; 7) imputing wide acceptance, such as "the nation believed" without presenting any evidence at all; 8) transferring disrepute to a person by linking him or his group to some unpopular person, group, cause, or idea; 9) playing up certain phrases or descriptions which tend to point out possible weaknesses, paint a derogatory picture or create a stereotype; 10) creating an overall impression of a person by words, an impression which is reinforced from issue to issue; 11) explaining motives for Presidential actions, and 12) telling the reader what "the people" think or what the nation or public thinks about almost anything. (j, Autumn)

In his more recent text, Merrill has offered a far broader compendium of propagandistic characteristics of journalists. He referred to journalists as propagandists when they 'propagate' or spread their own prejudices, biases and opinions -- trying to affect the attitudes of their audiences. Merrill's list at this point is thus of purposive, manipulatory propaganda techniques, consisting of 1) the use of stereotypes in simplifying reality; 2) the presentation of opinion disguised as fact; 3) the use of biased attribution; 4) the process of information selection or card stacking (a propaganda technique only when a pattern of selection becomes evident, according to Merrill); 5) the use of misleading headlines, based on the assumption that people come away from stories with the substance of the headline -- not the story -- in their 'minds' ; 6) biased photographs; 7) censorship or "exercising news prerogatives" through a) selective control of information to favor a particular viewpoint or editorial position, and b) deliberate doctoring of information in order to create a certain impression; 8) repetition of certain themes, persons, ideas, and slogans; 9) an emphasis on the negative, selecting targets in line with preexisting dispositions of the audience; 10) appeal to authorities, well-known and reputable sources; and 11) fictionalizing, creatively filling the gaps in a story, making up direct quotations, etc. Merrill generalized that the mass media and their functionaries generate propaganda and spread the propaganda of others to a far greater extent than most citizens believe . (Merrill and Lowenstein, Media, Messages, and Men)

Emil El Zapato
3rd November 2019, 18:59
One of the most often cited lists of propaganda techniques is that of seven devices proposed by the Harvard Institute for Propaganda Analysis before and during World War Two. While not all of these techniques are applicable to the news function of the mass media, several of them are, and others are applicable to the entertainment and persuasion media. The list included the name calling device, the glittering generalities device, the transfer device, the testimonial device, the plain folks device, the card stacking device, and band wagon device. (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, "How to Detect Propaganda, " Propaganda Analysis, I [Nov., 1937]) All of them, to one degree or another, take advantage of people's tendencies to confuse language and its referents.

Those most applicable to the news media may be name calling, when a reporter merely repeats the names one person or group calls another, or even resorts to creating names or labels in hopes of confusing people and distracting their attention from the reality; glittering generalities, when a reporter uses broad, sweeping statements to categorize people and events; and especially card stacking, in which the reporter either stacks the deck with information to create a certain impression, or he unconsciously passes along the stacked deck he picked up from his news sources. Reliance upon these seven techniques as a tool or weapon for the layman to use against propaganda may result in a cynical doubting Thomas, according to Hayakawa. The realization that man cannot always be rational and avoid emotionalism is bound to result in cynicism, since the layman does not tend to act 'scientifically' because he lacks the intellectual tools of the scientist and tends to automatically jump to conclusions about 'facts' when such conclusions are not warranted and would not be made by the scientist. ("General Semantics and Propaganda,"Public Opinion Quarterly [April, 1939)

Several other listings or discussions of propaganda are available and have direct application to the news media. J.A.C. Brown's list includes 1) the use of stereotypes; 2) the substitution of names ("The propagandist frequently tries to influence his audience by substituting favourable or unfavourable terms, with an emotional connotation, for neutral ones suitable to his purpose . . . "); 3) selection ("The propagandist, out of a mass of complex facts, selects only those that are suitable for his purpose... Censorship is one form of selection and therefore of propaganda. ") ; 4) downright lying; 5) repetition ("The propagandist is confident that, if he repeats a statement often enough, it will in time come to be accepted by his audience. A variation of this technique is the use of slogans and key words... "); 6) assertion ("The propagandist rarely argues but makes bold assertions in favour of his thesis... the essence of propaganda is the presentation of one side of the picture only, the deliberate limitation of free thought and questioning . "); 7) pinpointing the enemy (It is helpful if the propagandist can put forth a message which is not only for something, but also against some real or imagined enemy who is supposedly frustrating the will of his audience... ); 8) the appeal to authority. (Techniques of Persuasion, pp. 26-28) (I'm starting to feel like a propagandist - NAP)

Brown's list is quite similar to Merrill's, and the applications to the mass media should be apparent. A discussion limited exclusively to the media is found in Robert Cirino's Don't Blame the People, in which he offered a "catalog of hidden bias, " as his Chapter 13 is titled. Most of the examples in his thirty-six page chapter relate to biases in the news and information selection and handling; a few relate to editorial bias. His broad categories of bias in the news are: 1) bias in the source of news, including wire services and handouts; 2) bias through the selection of news stories to be printed or aired; 3) bias through the omission of news or parts of news stories available; 4) bias in the treatment and use of interviews, particularly in the selection of types of people to be interviewed, and especially on television news; 5) bias through the placement of stories on the front or back pages of the newspaper or as lead or tail stories on the air; 6) bias through 'coincidental' placement or juxtaposition of stories, headlines or pictures that subtly contrast the editors' loves and hates; 7) bias in the headlines, especially considering the tyrannies of space and vocabulary needed to summarize and attract attention to stories; 8) bias in words, however subtle, used to describe persons, thoughts, or situations; 9) bias in news images used to persuade audiences to hate, condemn, disapprove or laugh at persons representing a position contrary to the favored policies and special interests of the communicator; 10) bias in photograph selection; 11) bias in captions; 12) the use of editorials to distort facts, as covers in order to persuade the listeners to think and feel as the broadcaster wants them to; 13) the hidden editorial, found either in advertisements that appear to be news items or in the personalized opinion tacked onto otherwise 'objective' news stories . Cirino stated the great volume of news, the way it must be processed and the public's need to make some kind of order out of the chaos of news events, make bias inevitable.

Emil El Zapato
3rd November 2019, 19:18
Finally, to conclude this brief annotation of references about propaganda in the news media, one can see in a 1977 textbook for reporting students renewed emphasis on bias and distortion in the news . Ryan and Tankard conclude a chapter on that subject with advice to reporters on how they can help eliminate bias and distortion from news copy by categorizing information as reports, inferences or judgments, and by a) verifying the accuracy of a questionable report with a second source; b) avoiding the use of personal inferences and judgments in news stories; c) using inferences and judgments from qualified sources with extreme care; d) asking a source whether an inference or judgment made by a first source seems logical and proper; e) using an inference or judgment from an unqualified source only if the person is prominent or influential and the reporter considers it important to indicate to readers what that person's state of mind about a subject is, and f) reporting the evidence on which a source bases a judgment. (Basic News Reporting)

As noted in the introduction to this study, any attempt to offer a framework that purports to objectively analyze the performance of the mass media is fraught with dangers. The past several pages have demonstrated a broad variety of arguments, hypotheses and orientations about how the mass media supposedly operate as propagandistic agencies. Some of the arguments, etc., are contradictory. But there have been enough commonalities among them to integrate basic assumptions about propaganda into a broad-based and perhaps theoretically sound perspective, one couched in the lexicon of the social psychology of belief systems and semantic orientations.

BELIEF SYSTEMS AND SEMANTIC ORIENTATIONS

In an effort to understand the basic nature of how people perceive the world and how they communicate their perceptions, social psychologist Milton Rokeach spent years developing his theory of belief systems. Of significance to a student of journalism is Rokeach's basic breakdown of people into categories of relatively open- or closed-mindedness. Rokeach demonstrated empirically that the basic characteristics defining the closed-minded or dogmatic person are a) a very heavy reliance upon 'authority figures' to whom he turns for guidance in making decisions and solidifying perceptions; b) irrational forces, which bias his perceptions and communications; c) a narrow time perspective, in which he overemphasizes or fixates on the past or present or future without appreciating the continuity that exists among them; d) little cognitive discrimination between differing sets of information, beliefs, and consequent actions. On the other extreme, a non-dogmatist a) evaluates and acts on information independently on its own merits; b) is governed in his actions by internal selfactualizing forces and less by irrational forces; c) perceives the past, present and future as being intrinsically related; d) resists pressures exerted by external sources to evaluate and to act in accordance with their wishes; e) distinguishes between information received about the world and information received about the source during a communication or persuasion situation. (The Open and Closed Mind Rokeach's research has been validated in numerous studies (see especially the extensive review by Vacchiano et al .), and is of use here because it offers a relatively objective framework within which one can analyze the behavior of both media practitioners and consumers. (It is 'objective' in the sense that it is a generalized framework, unemcumbered by the socio-politico biases that pervaded earlier studies of prejudice and authoritarianism . Rokeach's 'map' of the human 'mind' resulted from a dozen years of wide-ranging experiments, freeing it from the singular bias that may exist in more limited studies.

Emil El Zapato
3rd November 2019, 19:43
Finally, an understanding of the fundamental belief systems of journalists should be a more valid means of understanding their biases and behavior than would an understanding of their socio-politico orientations. The same should be true of media consumers.) The growing body of research on perception and belief systems seems to be concluding that man constantly strives for cognitive balance as he views and communicates about the world, and that man will select and rely upon information consistent with his basic perceptions. This holds true for the journalist as well as the journalist's audience. To do otherwise runs contrary to an apparently basic human need, which helps explain why open-mindedness is an elusive objective for the journalist. A recent Journalism Quarterly study by Donohew and Palmgreen, for instance, showed that open-minded journalists underwent a great deal of stress when having to report information they weren't inclined to believe or agree with, because the open-minded journalists' self- concepts demanded that they fairly evaluate all issues. Closed-minded journalists, on the other hand, underwent much less stress because it was easy for them to make snap decisions consistent with their basic world views, especially since they were inclined to go along with whatever information was given to them by authority figures. (Winter, 1971, "An Investigation of 'Mechanisms' of Information Selection,") In short, it appears to be far more difficult and stressful for both journalists and media consumers to keep their pluralistic orientations. What Donohew and Palmgreen seem to be telling journalists is that if they are not undergoing any mental stress, it may be that they aren't opening their minds long enough to allow belief discrepant information to enter. And, one might imagine, the same holds true for audiences. If they don't undergo some 'mental' strain upon reading their daily papers or viewing their television news or listening to their radio news or reading their weekly newsmagazine, it may be that they are closing their 'minds'. This is not to say that stress and strain in and of themselves make for open-minded media behavior. They may just make for confusion, and result from confusion. But if journalists and news audiences never find themselves concerned over contradictory information, facts that don't add up, opinions that don't cause them to stop and think, then they are behaving as Hohenberg's and Seldes' closed-minded journalists and members of the public, and as purveyors and passive receivers of propaganda.

Most of the empirical findings of belief systems researchers are entirely consistent with the body of knowledge referred to as 'general semantics', as both study how people perceive the world and how they subsequently communicate their perceptions or misperceptions. Recent empirical studies of semantic behavior have begun to validate many of Alfred Korzybski's original statements (Science and Sanity, 1933) that unscientific or "Aristotelian" assumptions about language and reality result in semantically inadequate or inappropriate behavior. Studies of children and adults trained in general semantics principles have demonstrated that semantic awareness results in such diverse achievements as improved perceptual, speaking, reading, and writing skills (Berger, Glorfield, Haney, Livingston, Ralph, True, Weaver, Weiss, Westover), generalized intelligence (Haney, Steele), decreased prejudice (John Black), decreased dogmatism (J . J . Black, Goldberg), and decreased rigidity (J .J. Black). These studies offer substantive refutation to early criticisms of general semantics as an overly-generalized and pedantic system of gross assumptions about language behavior. From the studies emerges a series of semantic patterns typifying the semantically 'sane' or 'un-sane' individual, patterns reflective of Rokeach's typologies of the open-minded or closed-minded individual and of propaganda analysts' descriptions of the non-propagandistic or propagandistic individual.

Highlighting general semanticists' descriptions of 'sane' language behavior are such concepts as 1) awareness that our language is not our reality, but is an inevitably imperfect abstraction of that reality, and that tendencies to equate language and reality (through the use of the verb "to be" as an equal sign) are setting up false-to-fact relationships. This is seen in the "intensional 'is-of-identity', "and is to be replaced by "extensionalized" analysis and description of reality as we perceive it; 2) awareness that the use of "to be" to describe something usually tells more about the observer projecting his bias than it does about the object described. This is seen as the"intensional 'is-of-predication"' and is to be replaced by "extensionalized" awareness of our projections; 3) awareness that people and situations have unlimited characteristics, that the world is in a constant process of change, that our perceptions are limited and that our language cannot say all there is to be said about a person or situation. This is seen in attempts to replace a dogmatic "allness orientation" with a multi-valued orientation that recognizes the "etc.," or the fact that there is always more to be seen and observed and described than we are capable of seeing, observing, or describing; 4) awareness that a fact is not an inference and an inference is not a value judgment, and subsequent awareness that receivers of our communications need to be told the differences; 5) awareness that different people will perceive the world differently, and we should accept authority figures', sources', and witnesses' viewpoints as being the result of imperfect human perceptual processes, and not as absolute truth, and 6) awareness that persons and situations are rarely if ever two-valued; that propositions do not have to be either 'true' or 'false', specified ways of behaving do not have to be either 'right' or 'wrong', 'black' or 'white', that continuum-thinking or an infinite-valued orientation is a more valid way to perceive the world than an Aristotelian two-valued orientation. (I would append this with the notion that William James proffered - "The Truth is what the future proves it to be")

Emil El Zapato
3rd November 2019, 20:04
Numerous other semantic formulations exist, but this half-dozen can begin to offer a framework for semantic analysis. As noted above, awareness and application of these formulations have resulted in empirically improved levels of perception, reading, writing, speaking, generalized intelligence, and open-'mindedness'. And, as in the case of being open-'minded', it can be seen that being semantically 'sane' or sophisticated is not the easiest way to go through life, because it tends to result in a mass of often contradictory perceptions and la nguage behavior
that the semantically unsophisticated or 'un-sane' individual never has to worry about. But such is theresponsibility of the professional journalist, and the fate of the mature media consumer.

PROPAGANDA--A NEW DEFINITION
At this juncture, insights from propaganda analysts, journalistic critics, social psychologists and general semanticists can be amalgamated into a reasonably objective insight into journalistic performance... both the performance of journalists and media consumers. Taken in their extremes (and recognizing that people fall somewhere along the continuum at any given time, rather than resting at a pole), the pictures of propagandists/propagandees and non-propagandists/non-propagandees as uncovered by the preceding discussion show very definite patterns of behavior. On the one hand, the dogmatist (typical of both propagandist and propagandee) may be characterized as having a heavy reliance upon authority figures, a narrow time perspective, a tendency to make irrational evaluations, and display little sense of discrimination between differing sets of information. On the other, the non-dogmatist (typical of both nonpropagandist and non-propagandee) faces a constant struggle to remain open-'minded' as he evaluates and acts on information independently of its own merits, is governed by self-actualizing attitudes rather than irrational ones, doesn't get hung up on what is being said or by whom, recognizes contradictions, incomplete pictures of reality, and the interrelationship of past, present and future.

The above typologies help lead us to an original definition of propaganda, one that can be applied not only to mass media studies but to a broad range of communications behavior in everyday life. The definition is broad enough to apply to creators of messages, the messages themselves, the media in which the messages are carried, and the receivers of those messages. It goes as follows:

While it may or may not emanate from individuals or institutions with demonstrably closed belief systems, the manifest content of propaganda contains characteristics one associates with dogmatism; while it may or may not be intended as propaganda, this type of communication seems non-creative and seems to have as purpose the evaluative narrowing of its receivers. While creative communication displays expectations that its receivers should conduct further investigations of its observations, allegations, and conclusions, propaganda does not appear to do so. Rather, propaganda is characterized by at least the following : 1) a heavy or undue reliance on authority figures and spokesmen, rather than empirical validation, to establish its truths or conclusions; 2) the utilization of unverified and perhaps unverifiable abstract nouns, adjectives, and adverbs, rather than empirical validation, to establish its truths, conclusions, or impressions; 3) a finalistic and fixed view of people, institutions, and situations, divided into broad, all-inclusive categories of in-groups and out-groups (friends and enemies), situations to be accepted or rejected in whole; 4) a reduction of situations into readily identifiable cause-effect relationships, ignoring multiple causality; 5) a time-perspective characterized by an under- or over-emphasis on the past, present, or future as disconnected periods, rather than a demonstrated consciousness of time flow, and 6) a greater emphasis on conflict than on cooperation among people, institutions, and situations. This definition allows for an investigation of mass media behavior in its full range. News media in particular (plus, of course, advertising, public relations, photography, editorials, entertainment, etc.) can be investigated as falling somewhere along a propaganda--non-propaganda continuum. Since most people expect the advertisements, public relations programs, editorials and opinion columns to be biased and persuasive, they may tend to avoid analyzing these items for propagandistic content; but the arguments in the present paper hold that ads, public relations programs, editorials and opinion columns can meet their basic objectives without being propagandistic. Indeed, persuasive media that are propagandistic, as defined herein, would appear to be less likely to attract and convince open-'minded' media consumers than they would to reinforce the biases of the true believers.

CONCLUSIONS

We are not suggesting that the necessity for mediating reality inevitably results in propaganda. Far from it. But we might suggest that when there is a pattern of behavior on the part of media practitioners that repeatedly finds them jumping to conclusions, acting as advocates, making assumptions based on previous experience rather than the evidence at hand, and approaching their assignments with preconceived notions of what is happening and how the event should be depicted... when they have this pattern of behavior, we can say they are acting as propagandists. THEY MAY BE DOING IT UNCONSCIOUSLY. They may not be attempting to propagandize or ever be aware that their efforts can be seen as propagandistic. (In this sense our definition of propaganda differs from many standard ones.) It may well be that their view of the world is such that their work habitually follows propagandistic patterns. But this doesn't excuse them. Nor does it excuse the media audience member who readily accepts the distorted pictures of reality. Surely, if people want spokesmen and authority figures to run their lives, they'll swallow what they're told by 'our usually reliable sources'. If they wantto believe in simple explanations for complex issues, they can find them. If they want to believe in simple explanations for complex issues, they can find them. If they want to believe that everybody of one race or sex or religion behaves one way, that things never change, that everything is a conspiracy, that the newest and most heavily advertised products are indeed panaceas, they'll find enough evidence in their mass media to perpetuate their beliefs. If they want
to subscribe to only one type of newspaper, magazine, book club, or view only one type of television program or movie or listen to only one type of music, rejecting all others, they are probably acting as unwitting propagandees. More than one observer has noted that no society has ever had a media system much better or worse than the society deserved. That may be something to think about .

Chris
4th November 2019, 13:56
This is exactly what I mean when I talk about Left-Wing and mainstream media bias. Not one mention of the fact that Muslim gangs (or, according to the Guardian: Swedish Gangs) are waging a war inside Sweden, which has now spilled over into Denmark, with almost daily bombings, car burnings, grenade attacks and whatnot.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/04/sweden-bomb-attacks-reach-unprecedented-level-as-gangs-feud

Sweden bomb attacks reach unprecedented level as gangs feud

Police say lack of fatalities ‘incredibly lucky’ after 30 bomb squad call-outs in two months

Sweden’s national bomb squad has been called out to 30 blasts in the past two months and 100 so far this year, more than twice the number in the same period in 2018, as concern grows about rising levels of violence by criminal gangs.

Police arrested three people over the weekend following an explosion in an apartment block in the southern city of Malmö early on Friday that blew out the building’s main door, shattered windows and substantially damaged the entrance level.

The blast was the first of three in the space of 24 hours, local media reported, with others destroying cars and damaging property in Växjö, 127 miles (204km) north-east of Malmö, and Landvetter outside Gothenburg on the country’s west coast.

“There are 10 million people in Sweden and I have not found the equivalent of this level of explosions in any industrialised country,” Ylva Ehrlin, an analyst with the bomb squad, told the public broadcaster SVT.

The number of recent explosions was “unacceptably high” and “obviously undesirable”, she told the news agency TT. “It’s very serious, a social problem. We not only must find the explosives and tools, but uncover the cause.”

Most of the blasts have occurred in big cities, authorities said. Almost a third have taken place in Malmö, scene of a string of increasingly violent gun and bomb attacks that rightwing politicians have linked to the large flows of immigrants who arrived in in Sweden during the 2015 migration crisis.

Nineteen bombs have also exploded in the capital, Stockholm, so far this year, and another 13 in Gothenburg, compared with 39 nationwide in 2018. The squad have also defused 76 suspected bombs that were spotted before they could be detonated.

Ehrin said that although no one had died in the explosions so far, the risk of fatalities must be considered very high. “We’ve been incredibly lucky. You just don’t usually have that kind of luck,” she said.

The bombs, which mostly target empty buildings, offices and cars, are usually small and experts believe they are intended to intimidate rival gangs. Police have said, however, that some could have been deadly. One device in Linköping earlier this year contained about 40 times the usual explosive charge, seriously damaging two residential buildings and injuring 25 people.

The bomb-makers themselves “usually do not know how dangerous, how sensitive these substances are” and are risking their lives, Ehrin said, noting that an 18-year-old man who was seriously injured when a bomb exploded in Malmö last December was later charged with trying to detonate it.

But the greater danger was to innocent bystanders, such as the female student who suffered severe facial injuries in September when a device inside a shop exploded as she was walking past on her way home from a night in Lund. “With a gun, you control it until you press the trigger,” Ehren said.
“Also, you usually aim at the intended target, but you do not have the same control over an explosive charge, especially if you are a criminal without much education or experience in the field. You have no control over the target or the effect.”

Experts have said the growing use of mainly plastic explosives is part of a wider increase in reckless violence among Sweden’s gangs. Fatal shootings ascribed by police to criminal networks have surged from an annual average of about four 20 years ago to more than 40 in 2018, official figures show.

The government has announced a 34-point plan to combat the violence, including measures making it easier for police to search homes and read encrypted phone messages. Denmark, however, is alarmed enough to have reintroduced border controls following two blasts in Copenhagen linked to Swedish gangs. (My emphasis. WTF, honestly ??? Could this be any more misleading)

Despite the gang attacks, Sweden’s murder rate has fallen since the 1990s and remains among the world’s lowest, with killings linked to domestic violence, hate crime and “spontaneous fights” all significantly down.

Wind
4th November 2019, 14:12
Sweden is perhaps the most liberal country in the world and yet they have such a big problem with criminal gangs.

Emil El Zapato
4th November 2019, 14:41
I’m sure u have 1st hand knowledge but I have read that it is overstated in terms of immigrants but I can’t speak to the homegrown ones. This I do know downward pressure of any kind results in commensurate downward behaviors. Those pressures are often missed by those that don’t literally study and contemplate the myriad ways that things manifest

Emil El Zapato
4th November 2019, 14:46
So this is what I would. Chris. Search as many sources as possible. If it plays out that a preponderance of right wing sources are flooded and left is missing in action. We can assume it is likely misread mostly not true or complete fantasy

Chris
4th November 2019, 14:58
So this is what I would. Chris. Search as many sources as possible. If it plays out that a preponderance of right wing sources are flooded and left is missing in action. We can assume it is likely misread mostly not true or complete fantasy

Well, no. I just quoted a typical example of Left-wing media bias. This has been reported by right wing sources for close to a decade now. Crickets from Left-wing media sources. Even when they're forced to write about it as the problem can no longer be swept under the carpet, they lie, either outright or through omission. This is just one example, there are countless others. I can write about them in the safety of Hungary. I'd probably just keep my mouth shut if I still lived in the UK for instance, as I'd risk going to jail by pointing out the truth.

Emil El Zapato
4th November 2019, 16:31
I know it’s not funny to you, Chris. I’m going to look closely myself.

Chris
22nd November 2019, 14:34
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/the-storms-of-december/

The Storms of December

Finally, you’re left with that image of Adam Schiff sitting stock straight in the big chair with pursed lips and eyes bugged out, as in a very certain species of lunacy heretofore only seen in Canis latrans of Cartoon-land when, say, he has overrun the cliff’s edge clutching an anvil to his bosom. What was he thinking when he hatched this latest quixotic chapter in the ignominious crusade to reverse the 2016 election?

That he’d never get caught? On Wednesday he witlessly did gave away the game on nationwide TV, telling the witness, heroic Col. Vindman, to not state which intel agency (of 23 !) employed the one still-unnamed person he blabbed to about the epic Phone Call to Ukraine — because it would reveal the name of the “Whistleblower.” How could that be? Both Mr. Schiff and Col. Vindman claimed to not know the identity of the “WB?” If so, it would be logically impossible to reveal the “Whistleblower” by just naming an agency with thousands of little worker bees. Of course, he walked right into the trap set by minority member, Mr. Ratcliffe of Texas. Who doesn’t get that Col Vindman knows exactly who the “Whistleblower” is because he was the “Whistleblower’s” accomplice? And Mr. Schiff knows, too.

If the senate majority poohbahs were wise, they would warmly welcome a trail based on articles of impeachment, which would, of course, feature no artificial limits on the witness list, nor on questions that might be asked. The list might start with the UkraineGate “Whistleblower.” Among the many untruths uttered by Adam Schiff was the nonexistent law that gave that shadowy figure a right to anonymity. And besides, in any trial based on due process, the accused has an absolute right to face his accuser.

Oddly, a month ago Mr. Schiff was avid to stick his “Whistleblower” in the witness chair, and perhaps not with a black hood over his head. Then it was discovered that the “Whistleblower” had been consorting at least with Mr. Schiff’s staff members before blowing his fabled whistle, and that they had likely assisted in the assembly of his complaint, and in connecting him to the right lawyers in the Great Blue Okefenokee backwaters of DC lawyerdom, and, naturally, nobody from sea to shining sea over age nine who had paid attention to these antics believed that Mr. Schiff could not know who this “Whistleblower” was. Likewise, the brave Col. Vindman. Both of them deserve some time in a senate witness chair, and Mr. Schiff especially is due some sort of penalty for subjecting the country to his three years of dishonorable, seditious shenanigans — beginning with expulsion from the House and perhaps proceeding to a trial of his very own.

These UkraineGate hearings of the past two weeks raised some additional questions that have not otherwise been aired much in the public arena, chiefly, exactly how much does the US government seek to control the affairs of Ukraine? And how did we become the superintendent of this partially failed state? The parade of State Department diplomats in charge of this-and-that suggests that Ukraine is virtually an occupied territory. Do we realistically suppose that, in the natural course of things, we can shield Ukraine forever from the influence of its neighbor (and former sovereign), Russia?

It is also astounding to see media shills like Rachel Maddow still carrying on hysterically about Russia. She must have cried “Russia” twenty-seven times in the ten minutes of her act I caught on Thursday night. She’s far exceeded even the paranoid raptures of the John Birch Society a half century ago when they were screaming about communists in every broom closet of America. This incessant war-cry can’t be good for the country.

Now we’ve turned the corner into that enchanted season known as “the holidays” and a multi-dimensional showdown after three years of perfidious nonsense looms over the turkeys and silver bells and holy pageantry like a freak winter hurricane out in the dark ocean barreling landward. I am sincerely wondering how the public will process the storm of indictments coming down at the cabal of government employees who devised the RussiaGate persecution at the same time the Senate prepares to go to a trial that will humiliate and possibly annihilate the Democratic Party. No political faction in history has begged so persuasively to be put to death, or deserved it more.

Fred Steeves
22nd November 2019, 15:38
I am sincerely wondering how the public will process the storm of indictments coming down at the cabal of government employees who devised the RussiaGate persecution at the same time the Senate prepares to go to a trial that will humiliate and possibly annihilate the Democratic Party. No political faction in history has begged so persuasively to be put to death, or deserved it more.

I couldn't agree more with that final point. This is a sad, embarrassing time to be an American not consumed by Trump Derangement Syndrome and Russia Derangement syndrome, and I can only shake my head at how this insanity must look from the outside. Yet it's also a fascinating time to have that front row seat observing how hysteria sets in, and what it looks like. Just like George Carlin said:


When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America, you get a front row seat.

When I was studying how self consuming the McCarthy era became, the shear madness of it, I never dreamt I would at some point be watching a similar event unfolding in my own time. Part of me wonders if this is a sort of disease that just sets in and doesn't let go, but another part of me wonders if this is some modern day MKULTRA action at the root of it.

Our Intel agencies foster divisive mayhem all around the world. Why not here too?

Chris
22nd November 2019, 16:00
I couldn't agree more with that final point. This is a sad, embarrassing time to be an American not consumed by Trump Derangement Syndrome and Russia Derangement syndrome, and I can only shake my head at how this insanity must look from the outside. Yet it's also a fascinating time to have that front row seat observing how hysteria sets in, and what it looks like. Just like George Carlin said:



When I was studying how self consuming the McCarthy era became, the shear madness of it, I never dreamt I would at some point be watching a similar event unfolding in my own time. Part of me wonders if this is a sort of disease that just sets in and doesn't let go, but another part of me wonders if this is some modern day MKULTRA action at the root of it.

Our Intel agencies foster divisive mayhem all around the world. Why not here too?

It is certainly interesting to observe, much like with the Soviet collapse or the disintegration of Yugoslavia. The political undercurrents in both the US and the UK seem to be of a similar vein lately. The UK is almost certain to be coming to the end of its use-by date, I wonder if the US will last much longer as a political entity either. The faultlines and the general mood look pre-civil-war from where I'm standing.

Does it have anything to with some sort of Mk-Ultra type manipulation? I certainly wouldn't rule it out, but at the moment we seem to have a classical left-right dichotomy, where the two sides are getting further and further from each other. Whereas previously we had conservatives vs liberals, I think the extremes on both side have taken over and these days it is essentially maoists vs fascists. Who will win out in the end, I don't know, but it is entirely possible that the country itself will splinter.

Fred Steeves
22nd November 2019, 22:19
It is certainly interesting to observe, much like with the Soviet collapse or the disintegration of Yugoslavia.

Yeah, it's difficult to see the trajectory of these things when in the middle of them. Especially with all the moving parts like the introduction to "Game of Thrones".


Whereas previously we had conservatives vs liberals, I think the extremes on both side have taken over and these days it is essentially maoists vs fascists.

That's a tricky one. I think what a lot of social commentators are failing to see is that there is a large, and growing, populist vs. establishment sentiment strongly challenging that, and dare I say that's how we wound up with Captain Chaos. People were fed up with the status quo of both sides of the entrenched establishment, and rolled the dice on a wild card.

Of course he turned out to be a fake populist...

Chris
27th November 2019, 10:24
The heartbreaking story of a single Uyghur woman, told in a comic book format.

There are a million more in China currently being detained in concentration camps, undergoing physical and psychological torture on a daily basis, as well as forced sterilisation. We are witnessing the extermination of an entire people, that have inhabited East Turkestan or Uygurstan for thousands of years. Yet, we continue to act as if China were a normal country, when it clearly isn't.

https://wapipi.net/home/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/uy0830_en.pdf

Malisa
28th November 2019, 07:08
The heartbreaking story of a single Uyghur woman, told in a comic book format.

There are a million more in China currently being detained in concentration camps, undergoing physical and psychological torture on a daily basis, as well as forced sterilisation. We are witnessing the extermination of an entire people, that have inhabited East Turkestan or Uygurstan for thousands of years. Yet, we continue to act as if China were a normal country, when it clearly isn't.

https://wapipi.net/home/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/uy0830_en.pdf

The problem is how the modern world has already defined who's good and who's bad

As in "good for me, then i'll ignore all that 'bad stuff'" and "bad for me, then i'll immediately call all that them on all that 'bad stuff'", but always with the primary motivation being own, personal interests

Justice uses special rayban lenses, it filters out the ugly :P

Chris
28th November 2019, 13:05
The problem is how the modern world has already defined who's good and who's bad

As in "good for me, then i'll ignore all that 'bad stuff'" and "bad for me, then i'll immediately call all that them on all that 'bad stuff'", but always with the primary motivation being own, personal interests

Justice uses special rayban lenses, it filters out the ugly :P

Well, yes, it is interesting how Russia for instance is constantly demonised in the Western Media, on the other hand, China, Israel and Saudi Arabia are pretty much allowed to get away with murder, quite literally.

Chris
29th November 2019, 14:22
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/the-turnaround/

The Turnaround

At yesterday’s Thanksgiving table, fifteen adults present, there was not one word uttered about impeachment, Russia, Ukraine, and, most notably, a certain Golden Golem of Greatness, whose arrival at the center of American life three years ago kicked off a political hysteria not witnessed across this land since southern “fire eaters” lay siege to Fort Sumter.

I wonder if some great fatigue of the mind has set in among the class of people who follow the news and especially the tortured antics of Rep. Adam Schiff’s goat rodeo in the House intel Committee the past month. I wonder what the rest of congress is detecting among its constituents back home during this holiday hiatus. I suspect it is that same eerie absence of chatter I noticed, and what it may portend about the nation’s disposition toward reality.

The dead white man Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860) famously observed that “all truth passes through three stages: first, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident.” America has been stuck in stage two lo these thirty-six months since Mr. Trump shocked the system with his electoral victory over She-Whose-Turn-Was-Undoubted, inciting a paroxysm of rage, disbelief, and retribution that has made the Left side of the political transect ridiculous, and repeatedly, ignominiously so, as their fantasies about Russian “collusion” and sequential chimeras dissolve in official proceedings.

The astounding failure of Mr. Mueller’s report did nothing to dampen the violent derangement. There was no rethinking whatsoever about the terms-of-engagement in the Left’s war against the populist hobgoblin. The solidarity of delusion remained locked in place, leading to Mr. Schiff’s recent antics over his false “whistleblower” and the enfilade of diplomatic flak-catchers tasked to ward off any truthful inquiry into events in Ukraine.

But then, with the Thanksgiving shut-down, something began to turn. It was signaled especially in the Left’s chief disinformation organ, The New York Times, with a week-long salvo of lame stories aimed at defusing the Horowitz report, forthcoming on December 9. The Times stories were surely based on leaks from individuals cited in the IG’s report, who were given the opportunity to “review” the briefs against them prior to the coming release. The stories gave off an odor of panic and desperation that signaled a crumbling loss of conviction in the three-year narrative assault on the truth — namely, that the US Intel Community organized a coup to overthrow the improbable President Trump.

From this point forward, the facts of the actual story — many of them already in the public record, one way or another, and sedulously ignored by the news media — will be officially detailed by federal authorities outside the orbit of the coupsters, and finally beyond the coupsters’ control. The facts may include the uncomfortable truth that Mr. Mueller and his helpers were major players in the bad-faith exercises of the Intel Community against the occupant of the White House.

I’m not so sure that the Resistance can keep up the fight, since their enemy is reality as much as reality’s mere personification in Mr. Trump. The violent opposition Schopenhauer spoke of in his three-stage model was just procedural in this case, moving through the courts and committees and other organs of the state. I don’t think the Left can bring the fight to the streets. They don’t have it in them, not even the ANTIFA corps. The hard truths of perfidy and treachery in the upper ranks of government will rain down in the weeks ahead, and when they do, there’s an excellent chance that they will be greeted as self-evident. The Times, the WashPo and the cable news networks will have no choice but to report it all. My guess is that they will display a kind of breathlessly naïve wonder that such things are so. Most remarkably, they might just assert that they knew it all along — a final twitch of bad faith as the new paradigm locks into place.

I expect that we will see something else happen along with that: a loud repudiation of the Democratic Party itself, a recognition that it betrayed the mental health of the nation in its lawless and demented inquisitions. I expect that sentiment will extend to the party’s current crop of candidates for the White House, to the delusional proposals they push, and perhaps even to the larger ethos of the Wokester religion that has programmatically tried to destroy the common culture of this country — especially the idea that we have a duty to be on the side of truth.

Emil El Zapato
29th November 2019, 15:54
This is a nice story but it is based in alternative reality. Those such as myself recognized the depravity of 'The Golden One' upon 1st sight. It radiated from his persona even through such nebulous media as Twitter. It was not a 'leftist' paranoid psycho dysfunction that caused the growing outrage. It was the apparent psychic blindness of those that thought that he was a fitting President, less a fitting human being. And it continues. And there is fatigue, borne by disbelief that a sizable portion of humanity actually resonates with this diabolic synchrony. It took me awhile for the understanding to congeal into a articulate sense.

It isn't evil, the right is not evil but they are hopelessly deluded and in denial. But it is a forgivable sin in that any human that evolves a belief in their own desperation by egoistic requirement will envelop a bubble of denial. These desperate conditions create fertile ground for desperate acts and that is where we are notably in the United States but literally everywhere in the world. And it is the unenlightened masses that most easily fall prey to the vicissitudes of changing times. The masses fear that when their power base of whiteness falls away that they will be treated in kind by the 'others'. But that is a false fear that results from extreme psychological projection and not amenable to correct thinking and change. C'est la vie.

Chris
29th November 2019, 16:12
This is a nice story but it is based in alternative reality. Those such as myself recognized the depravity of 'The Golden One' upon 1st sight. It radiated from his persona even through such nebulous media as Twitter. It was not a 'leftist' paranoid psycho dysfunction that caused the growing outrage. It was the apparent psychic blindness of those that thought that he was a fitting President, less a fitting human being. And it continues. And there is fatigue, borne by disbelief that a sizable portion of humanity actually resonates with this diabolic synchrony. It took me awhile for the understanding to congeal into a articulate sense.

It isn't evil, the right is not evil but they are hopelessly deluded and in denial. But it is a forgivable sin in that any human that evolves a belief in their own desperation by egoistic requirement will envelop a bubble of denial. These desperate conditions create fertile ground for desperate acts and that is where we are notably in the United States but literally everywhere in the world. And it is the unenlightened masses that most easily fall prey to the vicissitudes of changing times. The masses fear that when their power base of whiteness falls away that they will be treated in kind by the 'others'. But that is a false fear that results from extreme psychological projection and not amenable to correct thinking and change. C'est la vie.

Both sides have their own bubble, I think you are failing to realise that you are also in one. Trump may be despicable, but he is the legitimate president and the backhanded, secret tactics detailed above, to try and remove him (however i may applaud that) are clearly illegal and a sign of the dysfunction of the American polity at large. These are the sort of Shenanigans you would expect from the Ukraine or Ecuador, not a supposedly serious country and leader of the free world. From my outside vantage point, both the Left and the Right in the US are in self-destruct mode and when the crumbling edifice of the two-party system comes crashing down, it will probably bring the United States with it. As I have maintained all along, the US is going the way of the SU and there is nothing we can do about it, other than prepare and observe. Your attachment to the US Left-Wing paradigm probably won't serve you well psychologically when the whole thing goes up in a puff of smoke. This thing is dead like a Dodo and rotting from the inside already.

Emil El Zapato
29th November 2019, 17:03
hmmm, a bubble of truth is permeable. If there was truly another way to view this reality, I would see it. I'm that confident that some truths transcend sides. It is really that simple. I won't mourn the death of lies no matter how shiny of a package they come in. I won't, there would be no point.

Chris
4th December 2019, 14:53
https://www.businessinsider.com/nato-summit-recap-trump-embarrassing-nobody-taking-seriously-2019-12

Trump was embarrassed on the first day of the NATO summit, and it shows no one is bothering to take him seriously anymore

- President Donald Trump is at the second day of the NATO leaders' summit in England.

- He entered the conference on Tuesday triumphant and claiming credit for the defense alliance's budget changes.

- But that success waned quickly as the day went on, as French President Emmanuel Macron openly questioned his claims, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appeared to mock him behind his back, and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson refused to be photographed with him.

- All of these leaders had been openly diplomatic and friendly with Trump in the past. Their behavior on Tuesday showed a world no longer bothering to take the US president seriously.

President Donald Trump entered the NATO summit triumphant, claiming credit for large structural changes in the alliance's defense spending.

But his first day turned out to encompass one embarrassment after another, with multiple world leaders openly sparring with him and appearing to mock him behind his back — suggesting that nobody is bothering to take him seriously anymore.
Shortly before meeting other Western leaders in London on Tuesday, Trump claimed credit for NATO reducing the US government's contributions to the group and increasing those from other allies.

Though this plan had been in place since 2014 — when Barack Obama was president — Trump took it as a personal victory because he had long railed against what he perceived as the US's outsize contribution to the defense alliance.

That feeling of triumph most likely waned quickly, though, as the day went on. Here's a rundown of Trump's numerous embarrassments on Tuesday:

- He was publicly fact-checked by French President Emmanuel Macron — with whom he has touted having a strong relationship — at their joint press conference. Macron said the Islamic State terrorist group had not yet been defeated, despite Trump's repeated insistence that it had.
Macron also challenged Trump's claim that ISIS fighters were "mostly from Europe."

- At a separate press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump openly questioned one of NATO's founding principles, Article 5, which requires members to protect one another if under attack — prompting concern and criticism among NATO officials.

- Retired US Army Gen. Wesley Clark, a former NATO commander, told Business Insider's David Choi that Trump's comments were "a very rough way to play" with the alliance's principles and that "it undercuts deterrence, encourages potential adversaries, and erodes NATO itself."

- Trump appeared to be roundly mocked by world leaders and royalty behind his back. Though he did not mention Trump by name, Trudeau was recorded on video poking fun at what seemed to be Trump's impromptu 40-minute press conference, prompting laughter from a group that included Macron, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, and Princess Anne.

- The British Conservative Party took great pains to distance Johnson from Trump while the two leaders were in the same vicinity, for fear that Trump would jeopardize its chances of winning the coming UK general election next week. (Trump did appear to honor this by saying on Tuesday morning that he had no comment on the election.)

- According to Politico's London Playbook, Johnson was "so keen not to be photographed with the US president that he did not even greet him at the door when he and wife Melania arrived" at 10 Downing Street on Tuesday night.

This all shows world leaders aren't bothering to take Trump seriously anymore.
Macron's publicly schooling Trump in front of dozens of reporters is a far cry from the two leaders' "bromance" two years ago.

Trudeau's apparent willingness to mock Trump in front of other world leaders contrasts heavily with the Canadian prime minister's pledge to himself in 2016 to criticize only the comments, rather than the character, of his American counterpart.

"There was a discipline that I imposed on myself early," Trudeau had told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation journalist Aaron Wherry, who wrote a book about the prime minister.

Johnson's refusal to be publicly seen with Trump also comes as a huge snub to the US president, who in October had endorsed him in the election.

George Conway, the husband of the senior White House counselor, Kellyanne Conway, tweeted in response to the video showing the world leaders on Tuesday, saying Trump was "the laughing stock of the planet."

"The world thinks you are an incompetent, ignorant, dumb, deranged buffoon — and they are right," Conway continued. "And you prove it to them every day."
Trump, on his end, has put on a veneer of success at the NATO summit on his social-media accounts. It remains unclear how long that will last.

Dreamtimer
7th January 2020, 09:21
The Democrats are not organized in the way that the Republicans are. The Republicans have had a kind of unity which has eluded the Democrats for most of my life.

Republicans walk much more in lock-step, which is part of why they so easily flip-flopped from calling Trump a buffoon to saying that they'll support him no matter what.

Democrats are an amalgam of all sorts of folks. In terms of its membership the Democratic party represents the population of America as it currently is. Republicans are much more white/anglo and likely older.

There's a very big demographic difference between the two.

That matters when it comes to issues of race, sexuality, culture, etc.

It's much easier for a homogenous group to walk in lock-step.

Saying that the two parties are the same is easy, but not very true.

Republicans play hard ball and are quite ruthless. The Democrats cannot unite to play the game with the same force, they are too diverse.

And then there is the issue of the largest voting block which is independent or just hasn't been voting. That always changes the dynamic. Voters obviously aren't legislators, but they are the ones who cause them to come and go.

Once folks get in Congress, it becomes about the hierarchy and seniority. Some of the newer members are bucking that convention.


Trump has now managed to unify Iran. The government protests stopped, the people now have common cause. I shudder to think what will come to bring Americans to a state of common cause. The last time was 9/11.

Aianawa
7th January 2020, 09:30
MW is a good solution, with vice Tulsi maybe

Dreamtimer
7th January 2020, 09:41
Female powerhouse. America is still having a hard time with the idea of a woman president.

Once it happens, though, it will quickly become the norm.

That is, if we survive...:unsure:

Chris
7th January 2020, 09:59
This may sound counterintuitive, but those that shout the loudest about racism and sexism are often the most racist and sexist. It's like all those Republican senators and evangelical preachers who condemn homosexuality and then are caught having illicit affairs. They always blame it on Satan or the "Devil", which is just code for their own carnal nature and true desires.

Similarly, I suspect that the obsession with Race, Sex and Sexual Orientation masks a deep-seated insecurity and hypocrisy.

Emil El Zapato
7th January 2020, 11:16
agreed Chris, deep seated insecurity turned outward by projection and inward through fetish.

Chris
7th January 2020, 11:54
Female powerhouse. America is still having a hard time with the idea of a woman president.

Once it happens, though, it will quickly become the norm.

That is, if we survive...:unsure:

Pakistan and India have both had female presidents. The British Empire (sorry, Commonwealth :p ) has been led by a woman for over half a century now. Just think about that for a moment. Kind of shows you how this constant obsession with the supposed racism and sexism of the rest of the world comes from a place of deep insecurity and actual racism and sexism within US society. The Hypocrisy rankles.

Dreamtimer
7th January 2020, 23:01
I don't claim that a woman will be better. We almost had Sarah Palin one step away from the Presidency and that would've been a nightmare.

The racism in America is connected to slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow laws, de-segregation, etc. It's just there, part of our makeup.

You are right about the 'methinks thou dost protest too much' dynamic. I just had a conversation with someone who regularly makes gross and inappropriate comments about black people and this person was so 'offended' that I could even think they would do such a thing, a thing they do regularly.

On the other hand:

During the height of the 'me too' movement, many men were discounting sexism and assault with comments like, "Can we just talk about something important?"

Many of those men turned out to be offenders. They were acting as if it was no big deal, and then they got caught.

Chris
9th January 2020, 19:56
The below Guardian (what else?) article is a typical example of why people loathe the liberal-leftist media.

The right-wing media has its own problems, but just observe the insidious language, the lies and misrepresentations, as well as the judicious use of "conspiracy theorist" and "anti-semite" whenever a national leader actually does what the people who voted him into office want him to do.

I honestly don't know anyone, who doesn't find this sort of quasi-communistic "journalism" (Pravda would be so proud) reprehensible, so I wonder, who actually believes and follows these self-aggrandising leftist journalists any more? I realise that the right-wing media has its own issues, especially in the quasi-fascistic Murdochsphere (Fox News, Daily Mail, etc...), but let us at least recognise what ails the left-wing media conglomerates, because as of now, they have more power and influence.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/09/hungary-for-brexit-orban-praises-johnson-and-trump

Hungary for Brexit: Orbán praises Johnson and Trump

Far-right leader, known as conspiracy theorist, backs PM as ex-No 10 aide predicts close ties

Hungary’s far-right prime minister, Viktor Orbán, has given a ringing endorsement to Boris Johnson and Brexit, offering a pointer as to which European capitals are likely to be friendliest to post-Brexit Britain.

Orbán said Johnson and Donald Trump were “the most courageous, the most dynamic and the most ready to effect change” of all the politicians in the world today. The admiration is mutual: it emerged this week that Tim Montgomerie, a former aide of Johnson, said he expected Britain and Hungary to forge a “special relationship” after Brexit, and praised Orbán’s thinking on the “limits of liberalism”.

Most European leaders have expressed their dismay at Brexit, but Orbán, who believes Europe is “under attack” from Muslim migrants and has claimed the Jewish Hungarian-American philanthropist and financier George Soros has a plot to destroy Europe, said he is a fan.

“They have opened this vast door of opportunities for themselves. I’m sure there is a success story that will be written there,” said Orbán, during his annual press conference in Budapest on Thursday. He implied that if Hungary had the same financial, diplomatic and military strength as Britain, it may also have considered leaving the bloc.

His comments came as Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, warned in a speech in Sweden that failure to seal a deal on trade over the next 11 months would damage the UK more than the 27 remaining member states.

“Yes, the UK represents 9% of all EU27 trade. But more significantly, the EU27 accounts for 43% of all UK exports and 50% of its imports,” Barnier said. “So, it is clear that if we fail to reach a deal, it will be more harmful for the UK than for the EU27.”

Also on Thursday, Croatia’s prime minister, Andrej Plenković, warned that negotiations over access to British waters for the EU fishing fleet had the potential to end in a repeat of the cod wars of the 1970s, when the UK was forced to deploy the Royal Navy to deal with outbreaks of violence on the seas.

Speaking as his country assumed the six-month presidency of the EU council , Plenković said he “never thought Brexit was a very bright idea”.

Orbán, however, criticised European leaders who thought Brussels held the cards in the negotiations and called on Europe to be “generous” during the next 11 months. “I think the EU misunderstands the situation, because they believe that a good relationship with UK is the Brits’ interest, but it is our interest too, the other members of the EU,” he said.

He paid a lengthy tribute to Johnson’s election victory last month. “The whole world was against him: the liberal leftist media, the global Soros network and all the tools of the pro-remain EU, but just because he and the British people believe in democracy, they’ve done it,” said Orbán.

The Hungarian prime minister has been in power since 2010, and in 2018 he won a third consecutive term. His government is in trouble with Brussels over corruption and rule of law issues, and has spent the past five years campaigning relentlessly on the supposed threat to “Christian Europe” from migration.

Orbán has promoted conspiracy theories, usually with antisemitic undertones, about the overarching influence of George Soros in Hungary and across Europe, and has also tapped into another far-right conspiracy theory, that of the “great replacement”.

He has built a fence along the country’s border with Serbia, and his government has been accused by human rights groups of starving migrants by denying them food in the transit zones where they must process asylum claims.

While all this has been criticised by rights groups and many European politicians, Montgomerie, a former journalist who was hired as a senior adviser to Johnson last September, praised the Hungarian government’s ideology, saying there was a lot for Britain to learn from Orbán, and promising close relations with the country after Brexit.

“Budapest and Hungary have been home, I think, for an awful lot of interesting early thinking on the limits of liberalism, and I think we are seeing that in the UK as well. So I hope there will be a special relationship with Hungary amongst other states,” said Montgomerie, in a speech to a thinktank in Budapest last month, comments that were posted online and first uncovered by Buzzfeed News earlier this week.

On Thursday No 10 described Montgomerie as a “former adviser” without giving a reason for his departure.

Emil El Zapato
10th January 2020, 00:37
cheap journalism...done to emphasize weaknesses...I don't know much about the Guardian but are they like MSNBC or FOX...not really cool...even if the basic philosophy is true and it is a statement against the fascist predisposition.

Dreamtimer
10th January 2020, 00:50
I think it was shown pretty clearly here (https://jandeane81.com/showthread.php/12604-Humour-thread?p=842017533&viewfull=1#post842017533).

(There was a lot of Fox news but also plenty of CNN and others)

Chris
15th January 2020, 20:18
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2020/01/new-decade-new-rules.html#more

New Decade, New Rules

Decadal boundaries are arbitrary things untethered to any physical phenomena other than the usual boring changing of the seasons. But just two weeks into the new decade the atmosphere seems different from the past decade, and it has been difficult for me just to keep up with the sweeping changes that are taking place, never mind analyze them. Yet write I must, because not only is the mass media completely useless at best and harmful at worst, but also even the more enlightened and independent-minded commentators seem mired in paradigms that are out of date and reliant on invalidated political and economic assumptions. This prompts me to step into the breach and try to set things straight.

Here is a quick list of what’s new so far this decade:

• If you want to blow up a US military base in the Middle East, or anywhere else for that matter, just go ahead. Nothing will happen to you. Just be sure to warn them first, so that they can evacuate or hide in bomb shelters. If you don’t have diplomatic channels to the US, just ask the Swiss for help. Don’t worry about US air defense systems—they don’t have any. But don’t get carried away, because the point of the exercise is to provide a teachable moment.

• As a corollary to this point, if you happen to be a US drone operator, your job is no longer as safe as playing a video game (in which you assassinate some folks). This realization has probably caused some US drone operators to soil their diapers and to then seek psychological counseling, in the course of which they may be told that mass murder is bad for their karma. Let the healing begin!

• If you are a sovereign nation and happen to have some US military bases on your territory that you want gone, that’s now doable. But you can’t just tell the Yankees to go home; you also have to pay them something, so be prepared for some heavy haggling. If this bargaining doesn’t go well for them, it may be followed by depression, which may or may not be followed by acceptance—because depression can be the permanent end-state of the grieving process.

• If you want to assassinate public officials who are traveling abroad on official business and under diplomatic immunity, that’s still totally illegal and a war crime—unless they happen to be US officials, in which case I guess it would be fine—since the US Attorney General William Barr (and former defense attorney to pedophile extraordinaire Jeffrey Epstein) said that it’s perfectly legal (though morally repugnant, I hasten to add).

• If you are the US military, don’t assume that you can fly missions from your foreign military bases, even if they are on the territory of a NATO ally—and especially if that ally is NATO’s number two Turkey. Specifically, don’t assume that you can run your political assassination missions from Turkey’s Incirlik airbase. The Turks are now armed with Russian air defense systems and will knock you out of the sky faster than you can say “no-fly zone.”

• If you are a US military contractor, you can breathe a sigh of relief because it no longer matters whether the weapons systems you build are any good, work at all, or are useful for any stated or unstated purpose. Their excellence is evaluated based on just one parameter: how expensive they are. The US military is the most expensive in the world, ergo, it is the best, no annoying questions allowed. The House of Representatives recently voted to forbid military action against Iran, which is like having bees vote against honey. But apparently the new rules are such that the legislators will get their campaign contribution kickbacks from the defense contractors even if the weapons don’t get used. Some of them will be sold to the hopeless Saudis (who last year beat their own record on beheadings) and buried in the sand; some to assorted NATO vassals. The new modus operandi for the US military is “Let’s not and say we did.”

• Boeings, 737 MAX’s especially, have been known to crash whenever somebody sneezes. More recently, Boeing executives have also been going sky-diving sans golden parachutes. And we now have two cases of Boeings crashing for political rather than mechanical reasons; Malaysian Airlines MH17 over Ukraine was one case; and now Ukraine International Airlines PS752 over Iran is another. My working theory is that this 737-800 was a zombie. It got hacked and flown by remote control: transponder was turned off, radio was turned off, then it executed an inexplicable banking turn to starboard and toward restricted airspace over Teheran. And then it was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile. Nothing else matches the facts so far, but I’ll wait for the results of the investigation. The new rule is: if you can’t win diplomatically and can’t compete militarily, then try to cause a minor humanitarian disaster and prepare to make hay politically. But please, people, don't get caught concocting your fake news narratives while the plane is still in the air!

• If your country has been in the grip of a civil war and you want to end it, you need to go straight to Moscow and talk to Putin. Be it Libya, or Syria, or Afghanistan, or Iraq, Moscow is where Western foreign policy errors get straightened out. You can still fly to New York (provided you can get a visa) but then you’ll be forced to sit through endless meetings at the UN and listen to Americans bloviating about “freedom and democracy” while nothing gets done. Geneva is still a fine destination in case you are shopping for a high-quality wristwatch. For everything else, there is Moscow. If you want quick results, leave the Americans completely out of the loop.

• If you are a former industrial power that has squandered its resources on solar panels and wind generators while shutting down your coal-fired power plants (to avoid a potential 4±15ºC global average temperature rise by 2100) as well as your nuclear power plants (because of Fukushima) you need to go to Moscow as well. To smooth out the ragged, intermittent power output from sun and wind you’ll need lots of cheap natural gas imports, and here Russia’s Gazprom is your friend. (The +4ºC is from the IPCC consensus estimate, and ±15ºC is the size of the error bars on that number based on standard error propagation analysis of errors on current climate measurements; so, yeah, it could be +19ºC, or it could be ‑11ºC, or anything in between—take your pick!—though ±19ºC doesn’t look physically possible while ‑11ºC would put us in the middle of the next hundred-thousand-year glaciation cycle.) Your other option is to wait for your “renewables” to get worn out, then reread printouts of this article by candlelight while gently weeping.

• Back on Planet Earth during the 2020s, the US is looking quite comparable to the Roman Empire in the 3rd century AD, during which the legionnaires were being paid in copper coin instead of silver and were being awarded farmland that had been overrun by barbarians while the populace subsisted on bread and circuses (in the case of the US, that’s beer, cannabis/opiates and television/internet porn). Living very far beyond its means, the US takes on 3.5 units of new debt for each unit of GDP it produces. Half of the US population spends more than it earns. This shall not last! Already, in what’s looking like a rerun of the Great Depression, hundreds of thousands are living on the streets; this looks like a major trend. Looking at the West more broadly, young people around the world are not particularly drawn to its combination of gay pride and Sharia law (here’s where we cross-dress and prance around waving the rainbow flag, and here’s where we gang-rape virgins and flog people for sodomy and adultery). This shall not last either.

I hope that you will find these thumbnail sketches of our new reality helpful. I’ll be doing my best to unfold them into more full-blown analyses in the coming weeks. Given the pace of change so far this decade, it’s going to be difficult to keep up, but I’ll try.

Emil El Zapato
16th January 2020, 00:38
Here is an interesting twist: Anytime in the past so many years whenever the U.S. 'threatens' to leave the Middle East the bad guys start lobbing bombs. They don't leave things alone and let American troops withdraw, they counter-intuitively do things to keep the U.S. engaged. I'll let you all riddle that one out...

Chris
9th March 2020, 14:49
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/things-take-a-turn/#more-11948'

Things Take a Turn

Around the same time that most Americans set their clocks ahead this weekend, something more momentous shoved the world into an epic phase-change, and the modern era, with all its mighty baggage, was finally swept away, along with that single lost hour of darkness. We’re in a new world, and one night later, out on the freeway of history, the engine of the global economy threw a rod. The chauffeur is still standing alongside the stricken vehicle in the breakdown lane, scratching his head while sour-smelling smoke wafts up from the hood.

You’d think that truly earthshaking events like that might change the so-called narrative, but The New York Times was at it again this morning with this front-page op-ed purporting to explain all the sorrows of our times:


"Transphobia is everywhere in Britain"

That’s how out-of-it the narrators are, even while a thuggish reality whapped them repeatedly upside the head with a two-by-four for weeks leading up to this. No, Dean Baquet (NYT ed-in-chief), transphobia does not explain the quandaries of our time, any more than sorcery or the wickedness of black cats explained the plagues of the 1300s that put a chapter of the human story to rest and started a new one. That elaborate machine of globalism just never figured on a situation when so many people in all corners of the world would have to hunker down in place to wait out one of Gaia’s super-weapons — though it is still not known if corona virus was actually created by Gaia’s wards, Homo sapiens, themselves, who are suddenly feeling the blowback.

Lots of things are blowing back on us now, especially from the patches, tweaks, and work-arounds we applied to the shuddering system while the “check engine” light was flashing the past twelve years. After the awesome skid of 2008, you’d think the world’s money managers might have learned something about the hazards of stepping on the gas when those lights were flashing. Sadly, the tens of thousands of PhD economists in the back seat couldn’t think of anything else to do. And history will regard them as no better than the hooded priests of the 1300s who swung their smoking censors in the dark streets while the stricken town folk bundled their dead.

The new disposition of things is upon us, and the sooner we get with the program, the better. Welcome to The Long Emergency and its aftermath, a world made by hand. Expect that a lot of things crashing, grinding to a halt, and falling to pieces will not get patched back together and restarted. When the dust settles from all that, we’ll discover one of the primary conditions of the new era: we’re poorer — a lot of what we took to be money, or things that represented money, were figments. “Money” itself, as manifested in currencies, may become a slippery concept, with low credibility. If that’s the case, people ought to ask themselves: how can I be useful or helpful to the others around me in a way that will raise my own social capital and accumulate, at least, the good will of these other people, and perhaps some of their help or service in return for mine? That is the beginning of building a local community — people bound together by mutual obligations, responsibilities, duties, and rewards.

We’re lucky for one thing: this crisis of advanced civilization is striking at the very start of the planting season. If you’re prudent, you can begin at once to organize serious gardening efforts, if you live in a part of the country where that is possible. I’d go heavy on the potatoes, cabbages, winter squashes, and beans, because they’re all keepers over winter. Baby chicks sell at the local ag stores for a few bucks each now and you’ll be very grateful for the eggs. Get a rooster — even though they can be a pain-in-the-ass — and you won’t have to buy anymore chicks.

If you live in a part of the country where the terrain is rugged and well-watered — as I do — start scoping out local hydro sites that might potentially generate electricity or drive machinery directly from water power. We will probably need more of that. Around here many of those sites are signified by the ruins of decommissioned factories and hydro-stations from not much more than a century ago. They were originally built with a lot less machine power than we would use today, and a lot more power of men working in groups. We’ve forgotten how effective men can be working together with pretty simple tools. We were too busy devaluing men in recent decades for the sake of a moral crusade to erase “gender” differences. Well, that will be bygone so fast your head will spin.

The big cities won’t do well if supply chains stay down for a month or longer. This ought to be self-evident. If you have friends or relatives in places where food can be grown, or in the small towns favorably located near productive land and running water, maybe this is a good time to start negotiating some new arrangements and making a move, if you can. Nobody knows yet just how deeply the effects of corona virus will cut through daily life in the weeks ahead. The potential for disorder isn’t tiny, looking at the current situation, at least in terms of broken business relationships and the flow of vital goods. We’ve apparently entered the hunkering-in-place stage of the crisis. Be prepared for plenty of action when the hunkering ends and the hungering begins.

Wind
30th March 2020, 23:00
http://youtu.be/nyvOPMljFFI

Dreamtimer
31st March 2020, 00:57
I've been listening to Carpo's recent vids. Hadn't caught this one yet. Thanks, Wind.

Wind
31st March 2020, 12:13
His real name is Josh and I think that he lives somewhere in the Washingon area in Portland. I've been listening to his thoughts for years.

ZShawn
31st March 2020, 16:14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QnU5TggVSc
Look what they doing, despicable, inhuman
And got the nerve to say that I'm 3/5ths of a human
Babylon is in ruins, inhabited by a beast
A bloodsucker, vampire to say the least
Look at the way that they're gnashing their teeth as they feast
Fighting to get a piece, something like Ancient Greece
Permanent Halloween, Trick or Treat
We're walking like zombies out in these streets
Shackled our hands and feet, what you see, what you see?

Babylon is a Devil inna blue dress, Satan in a suit and tie
Oppression is freedom, Heaven is Hell and the truth is a lie
They murder the youth, the police don't shoot in the sky
It's a warzone, you do what you gotta do to survive
You get suited and ride, life is hustle or starve
This is capitalism religion, money is god
America eats the young like cannibal breakfast
Wall Street is swarming with Hannibal Lecters
Crooked elections, politricks of the shitstem
Legal lynchings, modern day crucifixions
Slaves to the current conditions that we live in
More faith in the reverends than making our own heaven
It's foul, how the youth glued to the television
Ain't heard of Assata, but Twitter following Paris Hilton
It's only right we want to be more than poor and righteous but
Even the rich today can't ignore the crisis in Babylon..

And so, from that time to this time
The fall of Babylon has been prophesied
And just like heaven and earth will share
Before one of these words pass away
As we speak today, Babylon persists, to fall..

Dreamtimer
31st March 2020, 16:25
His real name is Josh and I think that he lives somewhere in the Washingon area in Portland. I've been listening to his thoughts for years.

That must be where I first saw him. He was familiar but I didn't recall who had mentioned him.

Wind
27th April 2020, 22:20
http://youtu.be/tPk9HSLagVg

Emil El Zapato
27th April 2020, 23:34
This guy is doing good...Clinton's overhaul of the welfare system...he calls that with the Rwandan genocide among his two biggest mistakes. if you tax the elite strongly enough they will start moving the economy

Chris
10th May 2020, 07:38
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/i-sent-them/

“I Sent Them”

“Our utter incompetence actually helps us,” declared Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI Peter Strzok to his confidante (10,000 text messages) and paramour, FBI attorney Lisa Page, when he discovered on January 4, 2017, that the agency had omitted to close the barren Crossfire Razor case against General Michael Flynn.

There you have a perfect summary of the fantastic hubris at work in the agency-gone-rogue under then-FBI Director Jim “I sent them” Comey days before the swearing-in of a president somehow mistakenly elected by bamboozled voters — or so the thinking apparently went at the highest level there. Or what passed for thinking.

General Flynn, you see, having been anathematized by Barack Obama, and black-spotted by the so-called Interagency (i.e. the giant hairball of competing spy shops set up after the 9/11 fiasco), was about to assume the pivotal job of White House National Security Advisor, and it was known that he was fixing to change things up with all that. He had been director of one such shop, the Defense Intelligence Agency, for a few years and he had a fair idea just how lawlessly debauched the Intel Community had grown under CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, not to mention Mr. Comey, and they all knew that. So, General Flynn had to go, and then get squeezed hard to somehow rat-out his boss, the incoming President Trump, against whom the Interagency had nothing but a dossier of already discredited oppo research baloney courtesy of the Clinton campaign.

The pretext was some conversations General Flynn had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak a few weeks before the inauguration. The FBI cooked up a “narrative” that it was criminal misbehavior for a duly appointed incoming NSA to confab with foreign diplomats *— a completely specious notion, of course. The Interagency’s errand boys in the press ran with that preposterous story, and the inconsolable cohort of Hillary voters herding up to form “the Resistance” went along with the gag out of sheer, crazed bitterness.

Attorney General William Barr neatly disposed of that yarn Thursday in his remarkable chat with Catherine Herridge of CBS News (transcript here), saying:


[H]e [General Flynn] was the designated national security adviser for President-Elect Trump, and was part of the transition, which is recognized by the government and funded by the government as an important function to bring in a new administration. And it is very typical, very common, for the national security team of the incoming president to communicate with foreign leaders.”

Could it be plainer? In dismissing the case, Mr. Barr gave such a concise, lucid, and comprehensive account of his action that the enraged cadres of the Resistance immediately set their hair on fire and lit up the cable news channels with thunderous objurgation. The most amusing instance featured the apoplectic homunculus Jerrold Nadler, who threatened to haul Mr. Barr before his House Judiciary Committee to do some ‘splainin’ in the matter. That’s a colloquy I’d pay to watch — the stolid AG laying it out again in calm, straight talk with Mr. Nadler in such a stammering fury that his bariatric surgery adhesions finally give out and the committee chamber gets splattered with bits of brisket, kugel, and Dr. Brown’s Cel-Ray tonic.

Another ripe one was the MSNBC session between Resistance errand-boy Chris Hayes and the redoubtably mendacious Congressman Adam Schiff, whose own overloaded garbage barge of seditious perfidy was blown out of the water with one well-aimed torpedo by new Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, who threatened to immediately release Mr. Schiff’s trove of long-hidden interview transcripts from the House Intelligence Committee 2017 hearings on RussiaGate if the congressman did not do it himself and at once. The transcripts, you see, completely refute Mr. Schiff’s own longstanding edifice of falsehood about having evidence of collusion between Mr. Trump and Russia. If the Democratic Party had any dignity, they’d take away his committee chairmanship, at least.

We await additional action from Mr. Grenell over Mr. Schiff’s still-concealed transcript of Intel Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson’s secret testimony in last year’s impeachment hearings. Congresspersons enjoy limited immunity against the fallacious and slanderous things they say on-the-job, but not from felony crimes, and Mr. Schiff may find himself liable for something like seditious conspiracy around his intrigues with so-called “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella, and others, in the UkraineGate sting operation.

A great deal of evidence of official criminal malfeasance has spilled into the public arena over the past three years, but recently it has turned into a flood, perhaps due to Mr. Grenell’s efforts, perhaps due to the posse of attorneys around Mr. Barr, including especially Jeffrey Jensen and John Durham. The official narratives of the RussiaGate conspirators are now openly overturned. Too many people know everything. The chronology of their misdeeds is now clearly established *— for instance, the fact that the highest officials in the FBI and the DOJ knew by January 2017 that their sole asseveration of Russian collusion, the Steele dossier, was an utter, concocted, crock-of-shit.

Which means, of course, that the Mueller Investigation *— begun months later — was also an adventure in bad faith, malicious falsehood, and official treachery. Everyone connected with it ought to be running scared now. Surely some will be indicted and tried, perhaps many. It will go hard on the whole Resistance, including the millions of rank-and-file Democrats who linked arms to cheerlead countless acts of legal depravity that have undermined American principles of justice and fairness. Accounting for all that in the courts will put extra strains on this society beset by the corona virus crisis and the harshest economic disaster in US history. It’s a hard passage, but it can’t be avoided.

The compliant and complicit news media has a lot to answer for, not only to the public but to their boards of directors — if those boards still have a vestige of decency. But for the moment they are still pretending that there’s nothing to see. Sooner or later, though, it will hit them, all those editors and cable news executives — that in their bubble of arrogant self-righteousness, they parlayed away their self-respect, their professional reputations, and their personal honor.

Dreamtimer
10th May 2020, 11:52
This is, in my opinion, a lot of BS but he does have a lot of style. He throws in so many insults that it's really difficult to take him seriously. I'm sure there is some substance in his analysis but it's a lot of red meat meant to push buttons more than provoke thought.

Emil El Zapato
10th May 2020, 13:53
Practiced liars are always calm and emotionless, it is part of the mental and physical composition of the pyschopath. It's a classic marker, but oh so difficult to detect.

Chris
10th May 2020, 15:41
This is, in my opinion, a lot of BS but he does have a lot of style. He throws in so many insults that it's really difficult to take him seriously. I'm sure there is some substance in his analysis but it's a lot of red meat meant to push buttons more than provoke thought.

I happen to agree with his analysis and I don't think I can be accused of political bias. BTW, Kunstler is a registered Democrat, though highly dissatisfied with his political "tribe" so to speak and what has happened to the thinking classes in the Western World.

I really agree that they have gone crazy and get fixated on wokester shit and various witch hunts they cook up in their wild imaginations. Clearly, the so-called Russiagate investigation never had any substance behind it, Kunstler said so from the very beginning and now he turned out to be right. If Trump wins again (though that is perhaps somewhat unlikely now in the midst of the Greater Depression) all these Obama people who acted in bad faith and conducted a witch-hunt based on spurious and made-up charges, will have to face justice and possibly even jail time. They demonstrably acted in bad faith, irrespective of what you think about mr T, this was some nasty work, trying to undermine the Democratic process. That's truly Ironic, since it was mostly Democrats who were behind it.

Emil El Zapato
10th May 2020, 23:04
Not to be difficult, Chris...but it will never happen.

Dreamtimer
11th May 2020, 01:01
I appreciate your perspective, Chris.

Aianawa
11th May 2020, 01:12
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOcIGt6cOgg

Wind
11th May 2020, 03:45
Chris Hedges on Noam Chomsky Favouring Biden Over Trump & Voting for Lesser of Two Evils


http://youtu.be/0cN6RhXbLQM

Emil El Zapato
11th May 2020, 12:25
Here is a facet of the problem:

It starts with illegal migration: But let's actually start at the start...colonialism of the Americas, then later active recruitment of cheap labor out of necessity one might argue during the 1st half of the 20th century which lead to a sense of the illegals that they belonged by right and justice to be in the United States. Then the complaints of the working class and the propaganda of the right is used to foment unrest based on half truths. At that point all hell has been breaking out for decades.

And then comes Clinton who has a double bind situation to deal with. Justice for the American working class and justice for the 'victims' of all of the prior history, namely the 'illegals'.

What to do, what to do...well, how about trying to do both? Open free trade, a concession to all sides, the oligarchs are ecstatic and, of course, twist the agreements to squeeze the life blood out of everything in sight, the American working class, the historical victims and the hell with the rest of humanity. The intent was to raise all boats, stimulate a working economy south of the border thereby lessening illegal immigration which actually worked for Mexico, stimulate a growing world economy and create a innovative culture in the United States which in turn creates upwardly mobile jobs for the middle guy.

The money power class Trumped all of this with their ability to for all intents and purpose do whatever they please...kind of like the "Boys" greatest superpower in the world, "He can do whatever the f*ck he wants" and what he wants to do is not beneficial to anyone but himself.

But what is even worse is that the working class as 'victims' of propaganda haven't seen any of the positives that are possible occur, the only thing they perceive is "Hey, I'm getting seriously screwed here" and, of course, that is the truth. From a limited perspective, they see the Democratic party as the source of their misery and end up supporting the very c*cksuckers that sold them out.

And the power right continue on with their trading wives, Cadillacs, and diamonds, not to mention smoking cigars and drinking champagne.

Chris
13th May 2020, 10:11
I have long thought that some sort of armed conflict between China and the USA was inevitable and would happen during the 2020s. Perhaps it won't come to that if the Communist regime collapses, like the Soviet Union did, but I personally see that as unlikely. There are two articles I would like to draw your attention to, both coming from a right-wing and pro-Trump viewpoint, but I believe they substantially match the US administrations current thinking and goals, so they make for important reading. I also happen to agree with quite a lot of the points in there, even if they go too far for my taste.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-05-12-trump-setting-stage-wartime-retaliation-communist-china-biological-weapons-coronavirus.html

https://vdare.com/articles/patrick-j-buchanan-coexistence-with-china-or-cold-war-ii

Wind
13th May 2020, 10:15
You tend to read quite a lot of alt right websites, Chris.

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

Chris
13th May 2020, 11:37
You tend to read quite a lot of alt right websites, Chris.

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

Not that much any more, but I check in often. I mostly read mainstream news (especially the Guardian and Independent), but I need to see both sides of an argument to get the full picture. If you only ever listen to one side, you are basically in an eco chamber and all you ever do is listen to people who confirm your pre-conceived notions and opinions.

I used to be quite heavily into conspiracy theories, or at least read and listened to them with interest, much like I would watch a Star Trek episode. I attended two David Icke talks and even managed to talk to the Guy briefly. This was about a decade ago, I have since moved on to other things.

I like reading Vdare from time to time, despite their White Nationalist leanings, because they are often the only ones honestly discussing issues (such as Race and Covid-19 susceptibility or the Immigration Racket) that mainstream sources studiously avoid in order not to appear racist. That being said, it is important to realise that vdare is absolutely obsessed with Race and that David Icke may be entertaining, but he does spread anti-semitism from time to time.

Wind
13th May 2020, 12:11
If you only ever listen to one side, you are basically in an eco chamber and all you ever do is listen to people who confirm your pre-conceived notions and opinions.


That is true indeed, that's why even I sometimes watch Fox News (albeit very rarely), mostly Cuck-er Carlson just due to the fact that I want to see what they're up to, albeit that it probably destroys my braincells, but a sacrifice must always be made in search for the truth.

I was wondering what do you think about George Soros? Hungary seems to be opposing him quite a lot for whatever reason.

Emil El Zapato
13th May 2020, 12:23
Pat Buchanan is one seriously ugly American, he and the ugly guy (another Irishman), have oft made the statement that the United States is doomed to fall because of immigration, chiefly from the south. He talks about the tipping point of percentages. His ethnicity still holds the record for the highest percentage of immigrants into the U.S. He conveniently always misses that point. Or maybe that is the point given that I'm a mix, a miscegenation in his twisted brain, of Irish and Mexican...just like Anthony Quinn... :) There's an old Mexican joke in there but I won't bore you with that.

Wind
13th May 2020, 13:00
Which would you rather have, Guinness or tequila? :p

Emil El Zapato
13th May 2020, 13:07
lol...well, part of that Irish is German...so let's consider that as well... :)

Chris
13th May 2020, 13:55
That is true indeed, that's why even I sometimes watch Fox News (albeit very rarely), mostly Cuck-er Carlson just due to the fact that I want to see what they're up to, albeit that it probably destroys my braincells, but a sacrifice must always be made in search for the truth.

I was wondering what do you think about George Soros? Hungary seems to be opposing him quite a lot for whatever reason.

Yes, George Soros is an interesting case.

I actually quite like him, along with his erstwhile business partner, co-founder of Quantum fund, Jim Rogers. They had a falling out and the latter gentleman now lives in Singapore, but I've read books from both.

In the case of Hungary and central Europe, Soros's role has been largely positive, especially since he played a role in the new Democracy movement in the late eighties and helped bring down the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union. The situation is different in other parts of the world. Is it a good thing that he forced the pound out of the ERM mechanism and thus the Eurozone? Brexit probably wouldn't have happened without it.

Same thing with the Asian financial crisis in 1997. He played a big role in attacking and devaluing Asian currencies. Tens of thousands died as a result of the economic crisis that followed. That is hardly a positive thing.

However, right-wing autocrats hate him, because he pumps billions into his pet Left-wing causes and he funds an entire network of progressive organisations that are often revolutionary in nature. He really did play a large role in formenting the colour revolutions and the Arab Spring. Was that a good thing?

I have no idea, but it can't be denied that he changed the world substantially while he was on this Earth, so many are going to criticise and attack him. He is clearly an enemy of the likes of Orbán, Putin, Netanyahu and Trump and they attack and criticise him as a result. I really think the Bond-villain image is a right-wing smear, but he's no saint either, he is a ruthless manipulator from the background. I suspect history will see him in a positive light eventually, due to his support of progressive causes and will gloss over his financial shenanigans, which were considerable...

Dreamtimer
13th May 2020, 14:15
Why do folks want war so badly? What kind of delusion leads them to think they will end up with more freedom if we go to war with China? How do they think it can be sustained economically? Why do we not learn our lessons?

The wars in the middle east didn't 'pay for themselves'.

Where is he gonna get all the soldiers? Is he going to reinstitute the draft?

China has been preparing for war with us for decades. We have not been doing the same. Is 'make America great' supposed to be about war with China? Trump was gushing over China's leader. Heaping him with praise. He's not prepared for war. He has no idea how to run a war. He can't even handle a pandemic.

War would indeed lead to collapse.

Wind
13th May 2020, 14:22
When nukes start to fly there truly will be no winners.

Dreamtimer
13th May 2020, 14:29
That would push us over the edge in terms of collapse. A system which has already been taxed to its limits cannot stand up to that level of war. Not to mention the folks who want Civil War so badly.

Chris
13th May 2020, 14:34
Why do folks want war so badly? What kind of delusion leads them to think they will end up with more freedom if we go to war with China? How do they think it can be sustained economically? Why do we not learn our lessons?

The wars in the middle east didn't 'pay for themselves'.

Where is he gonna get all the soldiers? Is he going to reinstitute the draft?

China has been preparing for war with us for decades. We have not been doing the same. Is 'make America great' supposed to be about war with China? Trump was gushing over China's leader. Heaping him with praise. He's not prepared for war. He has no idea how to run a war. He can't even handle a pandemic.

War would indeed lead to collapse.

Ideological opposition to communism is what primarily fuelled Hitler's armies on their march towards the gates of Moscow and it is why the US entered the Korean and Vietnam wars. The current drumming for war also seems to have similar underpinnings.

Often people do terrible things out of ideological conviction and such considerations can easily override reason and rationality. But, as Pat Buchanan rightly pointed out in the linked article above, China isn't the Soviet Union and the USA circa 2020 is not the USA of 1960. I don't think the US has any realistic chance of fighting an expeditionary war against China on its own home turf. This would essentially be a replay of the Korean war, except the USA is much weaker, China infinitely stronger than it was back then and I suspect the US would be roundly defeated in very short order. On the other hand, China cannot easily project power beyond its own borders. So, perhaps it won't evolve into a hot war and we will get a replay of the Cold War instead.

Dreamtimer
13th May 2020, 14:48
China has taken and used our ideas, creativity and science for decades. They use the fruits of our labor without having to have the freedom which we had in order to develop it in the first place.

They're kind of like the Borg.

Once they're strong enough and don't need us anymore...

Chris
13th May 2020, 15:46
China has taken and used our ideas, creativity and science for decades. They use the fruits of our labor without having to have the freedom which we had in order to develop it in the first place.

They're kind of like the Borg.

Once they're strong enough and don't need us anymore...

That is an apt comparison.

That is why a Chinese-led AI takeover is one of my big fears for the future. Once the technology exists to connect people to a VR internet in real time via brain implants, the push to borgify humanity will be immense and few people will be able to resist. Elon Musk thinks this is only a couple of years away.

Dreamtimer
13th May 2020, 15:52
And Elon gave his child a very code-like name. Embracing this future, he is?:yoda:

Wind
13th May 2020, 16:09
Orwellian CPC-dystopia, now that would be hell on Earth. I know what I would put in my head and it sure as hell wouldn't be a chip.

Dreamtimer
13th May 2020, 16:12
Mushrooms. Micro-dose or macro-dose. A very good way to fight the tech brain invasion, imo.

(I personally have not ingested such mushrooms since I was in my 20s. But the time may come again).

Wind
13th May 2020, 16:22
I have only tasted them truffles, not been really into mushrooms. I am interested though.

Chris
13th May 2020, 20:16
And Elon gave his child a very code-like name. Embracing this future, he is?:yoda:

Yes, apparently there's a reference to AI in there.


Mushrooms. Micro-dose or macro-dose. A very good way to fight the tech brain invasion, imo.

(I personally have not ingested such mushrooms since I was in my 20s. But the time may come again).

Not sure if altering brain chemistry would make that much a difference with a physical brain implant. Perhaps it is an idea worth exploring.

Dreamtimer
14th May 2020, 01:16
I would avoid a physical brain implant strongly.

I also never wanted a tracker in my phone. But since they're in all phones, I cannot avoid it. I can turn off location services, and deny them when sites ask for them. But I need it for navigation don't I? Mostly I don't let sites locate me.

Mushrooms quite often induce a strong sense of connection with nature. Perhaps this could help to resist AI influence. If you were already implanted and you tripped you might confuse the AI, or you might just train it. The outcome of that seems to me quite unpredictable.

Chris
14th May 2020, 07:15
I would avoid a physical brain implant strongly.

I also never wanted a tracker in my phone. But since they're in all phones, I cannot avoid it. I can turn off location services, and deny them when sites ask for them. But I need it for navigation don't I? Mostly I don't let sites locate me.

Mushrooms quite often induce a strong sense of connection with nature. Perhaps this could help to resist AI influence. If you were already implanted and you tripped you might confuse the AI, or you might just train it. The outcome of that seems to me quite unpredictable.

I don't think it is a big issue yet, but it could become one very rapidly, especially in places like China. Have you ever watched the dystopian Sci-Fi series Black Mirror by Charlie Brooker? It deals specifically with various versions of just such a near-future.

Wind
14th May 2020, 12:05
The state of affairs is indeed quite sad in the US:

Pulitzer winner Chris Hedges: These "are the good times — compared to what's coming next" (https://www.salon.com/2020/04/28/pulitzer-winner-chris-hedges-these-are-the-good-times--compared-to-whats-coming-next/)


Author of "America: The Farewell Tour": We're heading for a steep decline; Biden and the Democrats have no answers

In this conversation, Hedges warns that the tumult and pain of Trump's coronavirus crisis is but a preview of far worse things in America's future, as social inequality and political failure combine to create a full collapse of the country's already declining standard of living, as well as its ailing democracy.

Hedges also explains how the Democratic Party and its presumptive presidential nominee, Joe Biden, will likely not be able to respond to the Age of Trump and the economic and social destruction created by gangster capitalism, in combination with the coronavirus pandemic. Why? Because the Democrats are also part of the plutocratic establishment that has failed the American people.

What has the sudden shock of the coronavirus pandemic revealed about America? If you were to take a snapshot of this moment, what does it reveal about the country?

These days are the good times, as compared to what is coming next.

How does a society change so fast?

A society can change so quickly because the underlying structures are rotten. There is the patina or the veneer of a functioning system, but the foundations of it are so decayed that they can't take the stress. That was true in the Weimar Republic in Germany, before the Nazis took full control. That was true in Yugoslavia before the civil war and ethnic violence. It is true here in the United States too. This country cannot withstand the stress of the coronavirus pandemic. Beyond the obviousness of what the Republicans are doing, the Democratic Party's response to this crisis exemplifies the problems America is facing as a whole.

Twelve hundred dollars to individuals suffering during this crisis is not sufficient. The Democrats were only really trying to block the equivalent of a $500 billion slush fund that is going into Mnuchin's hands, a man who acts like a criminal. That $1,200 is going to get vacuumed right up by the credit card companies and the banks who hold the mortgages.

This is like a repeat of 2008, where Congress is dumping staggering sums of money into the hands of Wall Street thieves. What happened in 2008? The plutocrats and the corporations gave themselves massive stock bonuses and other income and returns. I do not see how the United States is going to avoid another Great Depression, which in turn will lead to a further consolidation of power by an authoritarian, oligarchic elite. Those elites are not really worried about the coronavirus pandemic because they will have their own ventilators and private medical staff and all the other things that they need to survive. The average person will be left to take care of themselves.

The president, his party, the corporate overlords and Trump's Christian nationalist cult are now telling the American people to go out and risk death from the novel coronavirus as an act of "patriotism" and "love" for the economy.

I would also add that huge numbers of people are going to die unnecessarily. Profit is always the most important thing for the oligarchs, and because of Fox News and other right-wing outlets a significant portion of the American public will downplay the severity and dangers of the coronavirus. Quite predictably, there is an accompanying spike in racist attacks against Chinese-Americans or any people of Asian descent.

I think the pandemic and the response to it could lead us into virtually uncharted territory within the United States because as things deteriorate, the violence against nonwhites and other groups who are demonized by Trump and the right wing will increase. The desire for an authoritarian solution will grow more pronounced. I remember speaking to Fritz Stern, the great scholar of fascism, who himself fled Nazi Germany as a teenager. He said that in Germany there was a yearning for fascism before the word "fascism" was invented. We already see that yearning in America. The coronavirus crisis will make that yearning even more pronounced.

What of public memory, especially in the short and the medium term? There are many voices who believe the coronavirus will spur positive social change in the United States. I worry that there will be a type of organized forgetting, where several months from now the coronavirus pandemic and what it exposed about the country's underlying rot will be forgotten — all of it thrown down the memory hole.

I don't think we're going to be able to go back to a time before the coronavirus pandemic. I believe that the coronavirus is going to trigger a decline unlike anything the country has seen since the Great Depression. That is why the business class and other ruling elites are panicking. It is why Trump, the corporate leaders, Republicans and others aligned with them are telling people to go back to work — but to wear masks — which may really not keep them 100% safe.

The pandemic was predictable. And yet, of course, especially under the Trump administration, we dismantled the mechanisms through which the United States could prepare. The needed infrastructure, such as hospital beds and ventilators and other needed equipment, was not there because, like with all decaying empires, the resources go to the defense industry and the military.

The other part of this decay and vulnerability was the assault against public education and the corruption of the media. The fact that Fox News is even considered a news organization is staggering — although I don't think CNN is much better. In total, that contributes to a yearning for a system or a figure that can promise to tame the demons that have been unleashed.

I am unsure if we have any mechanisms left in the United States by which we can effectively push back against the elites, the oligarchs and other anti-democratic forces. We don't have any ability to pit power against power. We can beg Pelosi or Mitch McConnell or some other politician all we want for help. We are not going to get it.

Watching Trump stand before the country and speak about the coronavirus pandemic while he is flanked by corporate CEOs — never mind how Trump has filled the government with people from some of the world's largest corporations — really speaks to how the country is a naked plutocracy. The elites do not even try to hide it anymore.

The oligarchs don't care about democracy. They don't care about truth. They are not interested in the consent of the governed. They could care less about social and income inequality. They are not going to rein in the surveillance state. In fact, as things deteriorate, the surveillance state going to expand. The oligarchs do not care about job losses because, as Marx said, unemployment creates greater pools of desperate surplus labor. The oligarchs do not care about the climate. It's all about the primacy of profit and corporate power — and those values and systems are extinguishing our democracy.

And of course, they are all thrilled that nobody can go out in the streets because of the coronavirus pandemic and social distancing. Mass mobilization and civil disobedience is what is needed to defeat the oligarchs and take those first steps necessary to win back an American democracy.

America's current political system is a corporate political duopoly. A person can either vote for nativists and racists and climate deniers and creationists on one end, or a person can vote for people who speak in the language of tolerance and are willing to put gay people or women or people of color into positions of power as long as they serve the system. Of course, that is the role that Barack Obama fulfilled at the expense of the American people.

American society is in crisis, and in decline. As you point out, the coronavirus, in combination with Trump's authoritarian, neofascist movement are just symptoms of a deep societal rot. Where do we go from here?

Let's take Biden. What does it mean to vote for Joe Biden? He has this kind of goofy persona which some people find charming. What is Biden's record? What is a person voting for if they back Biden on Election Day 2020?

The humiliation of courageous women like Anita Hill who confronted her abuser. You vote for the architects of endless war. You vote for the apartheid state in Israel. Biden supports those things. With Biden you are voting for wholesale surveillance by the government, including the abolition of due process and habeas corpus. You vote for austerity programs. You vote for the destruction of welfare. That was Biden. You vote for cuts to Social Security, which he has repeatedly called for cutting, along with Medicaid. You vote for NAFTA, you vote for "free trade" deals. If you vote for Biden, you are voting for a real decline in wages and the loss of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs.

With Biden you are also voting for the assault on public education and the transfer of federal funds to Christian "charter schools." With Biden you are voting for more than a doubling of the prison population. With Biden you are voting for the militarized police and against the Green New Deal.

You are also voting to limit a woman's right to abortion and reproductive rights. You are voting for a segregated public school system. With Biden you are voting for punitive levels of student debt and the inability of people to free themselves of that debt through bankruptcy. A vote for Biden is a vote for deregulating banking and finance. Biden also supports for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical corporations.

A vote for Biden is also a vote against the possibility of universal health care. You vote for Biden and you are supporting huge, wasteful and bloated defense budgets. Biden also supports unlimited oligarchic and corporate money to buy the elections.

That's what you're voting for.

A vote for Joe Biden is a vote for more of the same. The ruling elites would prefer Joe Biden, just like they preferred Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump is vulgar and an embarrassment. But the ruling elites also made it abundantly clear about their interests: Many of these people were quoted by name saying that if Bernie Sanders was the nominee — or even Elizabeth Warren — they would vote for Donald Trump.

One of the dominant narratives in the mainstream news media is that Trump is done. The coronavirus pandemic and his incompetence are dooming his re-election chances; the tide has finally turned.

My response has been that this is too hopeful and borders on the delusional. One, there is no guarantee that there will even be a presidential election in 2020. Trump and the Republican Party are experts at vote-rigging and other ways of cheating to steal elections and subvert democracy. After the coronavirus crisis recedes, I believe that Trump may very well be even more powerful because he leads a cult and will proclaim that he led the country to "victory" over the virus.

Liberal elites offer hope that is not grounded in an understanding of political reality. I do not believe that Joe Biden will necessarily be able to win against Trump. Biden is an extremely weak candidate because he represents the neoliberal gangster capitalist policies that the Democratic Party has embraced and that so many Americans are revolting against.

James Baldwin explained why black people don't have midlife crises. Why? Because they do not buy into the myths of America. Black people know that the system in America is rigged. Black people know this when they are children. By comparison, white people buy into these illusions of meritocracy and individualism and American exceptionalism and similar beliefs. That is why the highest rates of suicide right now are among middle-aged white men, because they are finally starting to realize that the system does not care about them.

Emil El Zapato
14th May 2020, 12:49
I would avoid a physical brain implant strongly.

I also never wanted a tracker in my phone. But since they're in all phones, I cannot avoid it. I can turn off location services, and deny them when sites ask for them. But I need it for navigation don't I? Mostly I don't let sites locate me.

Mushrooms quite often induce a strong sense of connection with nature. Perhaps this could help to resist AI influence. If you were already implanted and you tripped you might confuse the AI, or you might just train it. The outcome of that seems to me quite unpredictable.

you are referring to the magic variety and not the usual edibles?

Perhaps with luck the ultimate takeaway will be an awareness, "that we are all in this together" Just a thought I had this morning.

Dreamtimer
14th May 2020, 19:34
Yeah, thanks. I should have specified magic or just said psilocybin.

Yeah, that would be a nice takeaway.

Wind
21st May 2020, 19:50
http://youtu.be/Y4PPCfwbyFA

I agree with this assessment.


Considering current alt-right glee at Elon Musk (I’m not presuming his meaning) my view is: following the Matrix analogy, taking the red pill cannot mean going Right. Historically, the (religious) right *was* the Matrix (the establishment). In the 60s, to be Red-Pilled was to be left wing.

Today, it should only mean to be balanced.

‪Why I say this is becoming increasingly self-evident: to see through the establishment is to be red-pilled. ‬

‪Today’s financial establishment is Right-wing. ‬

‪Today’s cultural establishment is Left-Wing. ‬

‪See through both of them, or just go home & stop playing games. ‬

‪Ancient wisdom, whether of the yin & yang, or Zoroastrian notions of balancing good & evil, understood this.

In modern times we need to balance left & right, head & heart, brain & brawn, love & hate, opportunity & equality. It’s the hardest thing to do, but a sure way to succeed. ‬

~ Maajid Nawaz

Chris
25th May 2020, 14:42
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/the-unspooling-2/

The Unspooling

What “the Resistance” really fears more than anything is General Michael Flynn’s mouth. He’s been under a judicial gag order since his case went before Judge Emmet Sullivan’s federal district court. Understandably, Gen. Flynn wasn’t eager to complicate his unjust plight with a contempt citation. Judge Sullivan’s recent shenanigans have one object: to keep that gag order in force as long as possible. The moment Judge Sullivan confirms the DOJ’s move to dismiss the charges, as he is duty-bound to do, General Flynn will be free to offer his views to the public. That might be inconvenient in an election season.

I’m sure he has a lot to say. Gen. Flynn was head of the Defense Intelligence Agency for two years (2012 – 2014) under Barack Obama, and he knows a ton about every crooked operation Mr. Obama presided over, including the Benghazi fiasco, the Ukraine regime change op, and especially Mr. Obama’s hijacking of the NSA supercomputer surveillance database known as “the Hammer,” which was set up originally to track terrorists and then used by DNI James Clapper and CIA chief John Brennan to spy on Americans, most particularly Mr. Obama’s political adversaries. It’s rumored that Mr. Obama took the database with him when he left the White House, and it is said to contain great gouts of usefully damning information about just about everyone in government, including senators, congressmen, and Supreme Court justices.

Gen. Flynn became an antagonist to Obama & Co. when he objected to the nuclear deal they were cooking up with Iran and when he spoke out against the CIA’s 2013 Timber Sycamore op to arm and give money to Isis terrorists opposing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Mr. Obama canned Gen. Flynn in 2014. What really sealed Gen. Flynn’s fate was when he started publicly complaining about the politicization of John Brennan’s CIA. The New York Times quoted him saying “They’ve lost sight of who they actually work for. They work for the American people. They don’t work for the president of the United States. Frankly, it’s become a very political organization.”

And a few months later, he jumped on Donald Trump’s campaign bandwagon. When he led the cheer “Lock her up” at the Republican convention, you can imagine how that gave the heebie-jeebies to a whole lot of other Deep State denizens besides She-Whose-Turn-Was-Foiled. And then, Lord have mercy, he was appointed to sit at Mr. Trump’s very elbow in the West Wing as National Security Advisor! Well, you can imagine tremors that provoked. Gen. Flynn had declared his intention to completely reorganize, partially dismantle, and audit the intel community monster that had spread like a slime mold through the government. Mr. Brennan especially feared the audit part of the deal, since his agency regarded the billions of dollars that flowed in and out of it as just another one of its sacred secrets. Flynn had to be stopped.

So, John Brennan concocted the RussiaGate scam to put over the idea that General Flynn was an errand boy of Vladimir Putin *—lock him up! — and for good measure, Mr. Trump probably was, too. Once they embarked on that grand misadventure, and enlisted the foolish James Comey and his FBI zealots to assist, the gang found themselves involved in a dangerous game of sedition, poorly thought out and executed desperately. And finally, by all that’s holy, the improbable Mr. Trump actually won the election, ensuring that he would be privy to every dark secret moldering in the vaults of the US government.

For three years, the whole wicked scheme has been slowly but steadily unspooling. The hapless (and perhaps senile) Robert Mueller was brought in to cap what threatened to become a political nuclear meltdown. We must suppose that Mr. Mueller was just a figurehead, and yet the supposedly brightest gang of Lawfare attorneys he enlisted — Weissmann, Van Grack, Rhee, Zebling, et. Al. — absolutely blew it. They came up with zilch on Russian collusion, they muffed the attempt to nail Mr. Trump on an obstruction of justice rap (and watched helplessly as the inept Schiff & Nadler flopped fecklessly at impeachment), and now, having been exposed in the malicious prosecution of Gen. Flynn, they were forced to drop the case against him.

Finally, Judge Sullivan was recruited by The Resistance in a last-ditch effort to keep Gen. Flynn silent for a couple months more by ginning up an amicus circus that would invite a zillion bogus filings of briefs to be meticulously examined and argued, a pointless exercise in sound and fury. In doing so, he contradicted 25 of his own previous rulings against amicus filings by the defendant, and also moved in violation of a Supreme Court decision (Fokker Services, 2020), as well as federal court rules against the use of amicus filings in criminal proceedings.

Now he has a few days to answer a mandamus motion from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to cut the shit and do his bound duty in the case. I won’t rehearse the separation-of-powers argument, except to say that Judge Sullivan doesn’t have a leg to stand on, and will be lucky if he is not reprimanded by the higher court. He’s been played by the Lawfare gang and exposed as a useful idiot. They’ve tossed aside his personal honor like a banana skin. Gawd knows what else prompted him to lawyer-up.

The colossal melodrama of a sedition conspiracy is unspooling swiftly now. Before much longer, US Attorney John Durham will weigh in with something, whether it’s a mere report detailing gross abuses of power, or perhaps a string of hard indictments against the seditionists. With bales of evidence of their misdeeds now in the public domain, the various players must be turning on each other viciously now. There’s probably not enough room under the proverbial bus to throw anybody else. They’ll need a train.

Also, comically, FBI Director Christopher Wray opened an “internal investigation” last week to ascertain whether any current members of his agency engaged in any misconduct around the Flynn case. That’s cute. It only took him three years. Of course, most of the major perps have already been fired, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page. Why is Mr. Wray even still in that job, where his main occupation has been obstructing the release of court-ordered and congressionally subpoenaed documents?

You know what would be really a great move? Fire Chris Wray’s ass and replace him with outgoing Acting DNI Richard Grenell. Let Mr. Grenell just be Acting FBI Director for the statutory six months moving toward the election. Don’t even bother to nominate him and go through a senate confirmation. I bet a lot remaining information would get unstuck fast

Oh, and get ready for Gen. Michael Flynn to speak. He might have a few interesting things to say. Not all of the news media will ignore him, and then those who do will have a lot to answer for about their long-running complicity in the criminal conspiracy to overthrow a president.

Dreamtimer
26th May 2020, 20:31
This guy leaves me wondering who's paying him to write this. It's designed to elicit reaction, but it doesn't have the feel of substance. I could do a bit of research and refute several of his claims, but honestly, I don't personally have good reasons to spend my time doing that.

I wonder how many folks listen to him.

Chris
28th May 2020, 09:07
This guy leaves me wondering who's paying him to write this. It's designed to elicit reaction, but it doesn't have the feel of substance. I could do a bit of research and refute several of his claims, but honestly, I don't personally have good reasons to spend my time doing that.

I wonder how many folks listen to him.

Nobody, really.

I know him quite well, read most of his books and corresponded with him for a while. He is his own man with his own, controversial opinions and take on various issues. He is a liberal Jew from New York and a registered Democrat BTW. He used to be editor of Rolling Stone Magazine and wrote for the New York Times. He is also a Novelist and a Playwright.

I like his unique perspective, but it's not everybody's cup of tea. Knowing him quite well I can say with some confidence, that he has no hidden agenda or isn't paid by anyone to propagandise. His opinions are mostly from the perspective of a collapsing American polity and the need to reorganise daily life on the North American continent and indeed, worldwide. He sees the Democratic party and his own political tribe, New York liberals as hopelessly out of touch and losing credibility by the day. I happen to agree with his assessment, and I must add that a similar process happened in Hungary about 10-15 years ago, leading to the total annihilation and permanent unelectability of the Leftist Liberal establishment. This isn't a healthy process and should concern anyone that wants balance is society and politics.

Dreamtimer
28th May 2020, 11:16
I thought he went Libertarian. Didn't he disavow the Democrats some time ago?

You know more about him than I.

Emil El Zapato
28th May 2020, 12:07
What people fear is the truth...Michael Flynn's truth...He's a rogue...and if the right ever manages to let the spin and silencing of Flynn, "silence by pardon" get past them it will be obvious...The Truth is not only out there it is in here...ourselves. All we have to do is let it impact our internal antenna to see it...provided we are tuned to the right frequency to receive it.

Come on peoples, just let it flow, don't twist it into a pretzel.

Dreamtimer
28th May 2020, 12:55
It's easy to rag on the Democrats and point the finger at them. It's a sport here in the States. And all the while, with our eyes on them, the Republicans are screwing us over. Bailouts for the rich and corporations, undermining of our Fourth Estate, trickle down BS.

We're being screwed by the group who has actually been wilding the power, which has not been the Democrats. Not during my adult life. Gingrich and his house were running things during Clinton's terms.

Chris
28th May 2020, 13:30
I think people like me and Kunstler pick on the Democrats precisely because they would be our natural political tribe, but they have been so disappointing, concentrating on irrelevant bullshit at the expense of real issues. Obviously, no sane person would expect the Republicans to fix anything, such as healthcare, the social safety net or infrastructure, they're all about dismantling whatever is left. But, the Democrats aren't really doing anything noteworthy either, so one has to criticise them and perhaps point out that concentrating on gender identity and what pronouns to use isn't going to fix the massive, giant problems that ail America.

Perhaps I shouldn't care, because it isn't my country and there are plenty of problems right here in my neck of the woods. But, I do, because I know many Americans and I want them to be happy, prosperous and safe. I don't want Americans to live in poverty and suffer from poor healthcare and decaying infrastructure. It's not like there isn't the money to fix these things, it is just being wasted on various rackets and pork projects right now, like the trillion dollars flushed down the toilet for the failing F-35 programme. The only hope to fix these things is through the Democrats, and if you don't hold their feet to the fire and force them to concentrate on what matters, it just ain't gonna happen.

Emil El Zapato
28th May 2020, 13:38
Is it too early to jump on the Andrew Cuomo bandwagon...if only as a single human he could show America the way...the people are just too damn caught up in their social fetishes to think rationally. Stupidity really is just a symptom of the problem :) the real problem is the psychological dysfunction that our parenting passes down to us.

Dreamtimer
28th May 2020, 15:20
I'm glad you care, Chris. And I share many of your disappointments.

I just can't stand watching the Dems get pilloried while the Repubs screw things up. I keep hearing my brothers' words, "The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans get away with it." When I asked with what he said, "It doesn't matter, they don't get caught." (or held responsible, clearly).

Republicans are perfectly happy with their own version of a nanny state which forces pelvic exams on women, invades bedrooms to see who's having sex with whom, and denies folks the sacrament of marriage.

We're not going to have more freedom with the kinds of judges and justices being appointed. We will have less freedom as we have less recourse to hold businesses responsible for their ravages of society and economy.

My sister-in-law really likes Cuomo. My understanding is that he's loyal to New York and just doesn't have Presidential ambition.

Emil El Zapato
28th May 2020, 16:06
Cuomo is a heavyweight... :)

Fred Steeves
28th May 2020, 16:23
Perhaps one day the U.S. shall flourish again, if we can just get rid of the republicans and have one party rule under the democrats. Not lefties mind you, just staunch, DNC certified party line democrats.

And the best thing of all is that as we already see in our current presidential race, it wouldn’t even matter who, because any blue will do.

Emil El Zapato
28th May 2020, 17:03
Amen to that Freddy, my man...that would be an ideal situation...Anything that makes even a modicum of sense will do.

Aragorn
28th May 2020, 21:21
Perhaps one day the U.S. shall flourish again, if we can just get rid of the republicans and have one party rule under the democrats. Not lefties mind you, just staunch, DNC certified party line democrats.

And the best thing of all is that as we already see in our current presidential race, it wouldn’t even matter who, because any blue will do.

Amen to that Freddy, my man...that would be an ideal situation...Anything that makes even a modicum of sense will do.

You're completely missing Fred's point. He's being sarcastic, and with good reason too. ;)

Emil El Zapato
28th May 2020, 21:52
lol...I'm being more sarcastic than Fred is...I ainta gonna let him out sarcasm me...no way.

Chris
29th May 2020, 06:29
You're completely missing Fred's point. He's being sarcastic, and with good reason too. ;)

It may have been meant in jest, but Fred is actually unwittingly right.

If the US had a single-chamber parliamentary system, rather than the current 18-th century mess, it could get a lot more done. For one, there would be multiple parties to choose from. The Democrats would probably be in power, perhaps as part of a coalition government, for quite some time. Since there would be no senate or president to obstruct them, congress and the elected government (by majority vote and not by electoral college) could actually get shit done. I personally think it would be more democratic to have a system like that, but I guess that ain't gonna happen.

BTW, this isn't a one-party state, it is a multi-party parliamentary democracy, which is what most advanced countries have.

Catsquotl
29th May 2020, 07:38
Perhaps one day the U.S. shall flourish again, if we can just get rid of the republicans and have one party rule under the democrats. Not lefties mind you, just staunch, DNC certified party line democrats.

And the best thing of all is that as we already see in our current presidential race, it wouldn’t even matter who, because any blue will do.

Not gonna happen. We were the jerks in the 17th century. And it's our (dutch) time to rise again.

With Love
Eelco

Chris
29th May 2020, 10:04
Not gonna happen. We were the jerks in the 17th century. And it's our (dutch) time to rise again.

With Love
Eelco

Come on now, your country is the size of a Handkerchief!

If you stretch out too much in the morning, you'll end up with your hands in Belgium and your feet in the North Sea…

:lol:

Catsquotl
29th May 2020, 10:25
In this day and age. The handkerchiefs rule..

Dreamtimer
29th May 2020, 11:23
Perhaps one day the U.S. shall flourish again, if we can just get rid of the republicans and have one party rule under the democrats. Not lefties mind you, just staunch, DNC certified party line democrats.

And the best thing of all is that as we already see in our current presidential race, it wouldn’t even matter who, because any blue will do.

No, they won't. And I know you're being sarcastic. What we need is progressives. And many of then have simply begun openly calling themselves socialist because they understand the need for our tax dollars to be used for the people, not the corporations and the already rich.

The DNC machine needs massive change.

But even Tulsi had to run as a Democrat, didn't she?

Wind
29th May 2020, 18:50
It may have been meant in jest, but Fred is actually unwittingly right.

If the US had a single-chamber parliamentary system, rather than the current 18-th century mess, it could get a lot more done. For one, there would be multiple parties to choose from. The Democrats would probably be in power, perhaps as part of a coalition government, for quite some time. Since there would be no senate or president to obstruct them, congress and the elected government (by majority vote and not by electoral college) could actually get shit done. I personally think it would be more democratic to have a system like that, but I guess that ain't gonna happen.

BTW, this isn't a one-party state, it is a multi-party parliamentary democracy, which is what most advanced countries have.

The US needs more than the corrupt two party system and it needs to get the money out of politics!

Chris Hedges is going to run for the Green party, now ain't that something.

You know, for us Europeans the Democrats are still an ultra right wing party.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG99yoK47YU

Aragorn
30th May 2020, 01:15
What we need is progressives.

Maybe start with a conversion to the metric system then? :ttr:

Dreamtimer
30th May 2020, 11:07
OMG, I recall in elementary school we were going to change to metric. The term Centigrade was still in use. We did all these exercises and then suddenly the teachers announced we weren't going to do it.

I remember thinking that we should still learn it since the rest of the world was using it. But apparently that wasn't enough of a reason. I was too young to understand the politics. My parents said something about money and the cost of change.

Chris
31st May 2020, 17:51
So guys,

What the hell is going on in the United States?

I've read all sorts of conflicting news reports, but cannot for the life of me figure out what the hell is going on.

I've got it as far as some really bad cops unlawfully killed (basically, slowly strangled to death) an unarmed and apparently innocent black suspect. So people all over America got angry and started protesting police brutality in major cities. So far so good.

But now? Is there some sort of civil war going on? Why are people killing each other, attacking police stations and government offices, even the white house? What's all this looting and burning down entire neighbourhoods? Why are police being attacked with incendiary bombs after the suspect was arrested? Can somebody enlighten me please...

The best analysis I found so far is from Chris Martenson, but even that feels somewhat unsatisfactory...

https://www.peakprosperity.com/as-the-world-burns/

As The World Burns

Personal safety & security are quickly becoming more important in this era of growing social rage
by Chris Martenson
Friday, May 29, 2020, 6:35 PM

Decades of unfairness are now boiling over in the United States in the form of protests, riots, burning buildings and violence.

Minneapolis is on fire – literally – and the unrest has spread to numerous other major cities.

Last year (2019) The Yellow Vest protesters in France dealt with enormous amount of police violence and intimidation as they put life and limb on the line to try and wrest better economic and living conditions for themselves.

The people of Hong Kong are back out in force again now that the Coronavirus threat has abated, seeking greater autonomy and control over their own lives. Last year (2019) Chileans also protested, seeking better wages and living conditions.

While the specific demands of each of these movements are unique, they all share common causes.

Our analysis at Peak Prosperity is this: the days of constant exponential growth on a finite planet are drawing to a close. All of the systems that govern the sharing of resources among humans – political, economic and especially financial – are designed to concentrate, not share, wealth.

Taken together, we have an economic pie that is no longer growing but is subject to a set of laws and financial predation that guarantee the wealthy get more than their fair share of what remains.

This leads to increasingly visible, palpable unfairness.

Primates hate that:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg&feature=youtu.be

In today’s world, it’s grapes for the elites and cucumbers for the rest of us (if we’re even that lucky).

That’s been the model for a long time, but lately it’s been both accelerating and exposed for all to see.

Team Elite™ is busy gorging on grapes. It has granted itself $trillions of freshly printed dollars from the US Federal Reserve in order to prop up ‘their fair share of things’ like bonds, stocks, and derivatives.

That leads to these sorts of jarring headline juxtapositions:

http://media.peakprosperity.com/images/Billionaires-Richer.jpg

Without any question whatsoever, the Federal Reserve has been printing up money like crazy and stuffing it into every crevice of the US financial markets in a bid to…well, drive up financial asset prices.

They’ve been extremely tone deaf the entire way while pretending that their aim isn’t to make the rich richer, or deliver fatter profits to banks. Of course, both of those things are indeed happening as a direct result of the Fed’s policies and anybody with eyes can see that — yet the media refuses to acknowledge this.

Really, it’s extremely easy to identify. Here’s what ‘grapes for the wealthy!’ looks like — see that $3 trillion spike since April?

http://media.peakprosperity.com/images/7-trillion-Fed-Balance-Sheet.jpg

All of that printing leads to some stocks now being at their priciest ratio to earnings ever:

http://media.peakprosperity.com/images/small-crap-pe-expansion.jpg

That means that those holding them are being rewarded like never before. And don’t forget that the richest 10% of Americans own over 84% of all stocks

We also see the same price-goosing with bonds. Corporate bonds are now once again approaching historically low yields which means, in the see-saw language of bonds, they are almost as pricey as they’ve ever been. In history:

http://media.peakprosperity.com/images/Corp-Bonds-Bailed-out.jpg

Who received the benefits of that gigantic cluster of grapes that the Fed has lavished upon the bond markets?

Well, the owners of all those bonds of course, and the major corporations now able to borrow at rock bottom costs even as small and medium sized enterprises are being wiped out.

As I often say, the Fed doesn’t actually create wealth, it redistributes wealth. While doing that it is both directly and indirectly picking winners and losers.

The above chart of corporate bond yields says the Fed is picking large corporations and the wealthy elite over small companies and Main Street folks.

Of course, there are no grapes quite as sweet as the ‘special interest’ varietals that are served to only the wealthiest of real estate investors:

http://media.peakprosperity.com/images/Rich-Bonanza-Real-Estate.jpg

The only thing that could make this worse would be for some White House official to condescendingly insult all us regular people by referring to us in non-human terms.

Oops:

http://media.peakprosperity.com/images/Hassert-Human-Capital-Stock.jpg

I have dozens more such examples. But I trust you get the point: the vast unfairness of the US system is now exposed for all to see. And that inequity has become even more predatory in our hour of need during the Covid-19 pandemic. Which is why social frustration and angst are now in the process of boiling over.

The reason why is as old as civilization itself, showing up ever since the first group of humans organized themselves into a cultural pyramid:

http://media.peakprosperity.com/images/Plutarch-2017-07-28_7-24-10.jpg

People often ask me why I shake my angry monkey-fist at the Federal Reserve so often. It’s because of the above quote. I’m the sort that prefers to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. The Federal Reserve seems to be institutionally ignorant of the above fatal ailment.

What the Fed is doing is wholly unnecessary and manifestly unfair. It will lead to tears yet, regrettably, it is completely avoidable. Grapes for Wall Street, and cucumbers (or worse) for everyone else. It’s just how they’re wired. They literally cannot help themselves,. So things are certain to get worse before they get better.

It All Boils Over
The institutional failures of the Federal Reserve aside, there are also the obvious failures of management (I can’t bring myself to call them ‘leadership’ anymore) at our major health institutions, politicians who are far quicker to the rescue of major corporations than constituents, politicized and even falsified ‘science’ coming from formerly respected institutions, the list goes on and on.

Every one of these breaches of public trust undermines our collective safety and security. Beyond some incalculable level the foundation gives way.

The lowest level of management in this story are the police. For decades many police departments have been heavily militarized and trained often by Israelis who’ve done a remarkable job embedding the mindset of occupying forces into US policing.

Toss in some unresolved racial biases and animosity, civil asset forfeiture, no-knock raids for petty reasons that routinely result in innocent lives being violently taken, and you’ve got a tinder pile waiting for a spark.

George Floyd was that spark. A particularly callous officer with a long string of unpunished claims of excessive force and violence lodged against him, knelt on George’s neck until he was dead while 3 other officers stood by and casually watched. Against the backdrop outlined above, this was one flagrant abuse too many.

Editorially, the person now being vetted as a possible VP for the Biden campaign, Amy Klobuchar was the prosecutor in Minneapolis for many years who could have delivered justice to the lower classes. Let’s check her record:

http://media.peakprosperity.com/images/Klobuchar-No-Prosecutions.jpg

Sadly, this is a record that can be found in hundreds of other cities. It’s neither an uncommon nor a defensible record. As a reminder, in the aftermath of the Michael Brown killing and riots in Ferguson MO (2014) the justice department came in and discovered that in a city of 20,000 mostly poor people there were 16,000 outstanding arrest warrants. Think about that for a second.

Many for infractions like ‘impeding pedestrian flow’ (a.k.a. standing on the sidewalk). The humans were little more that ATM livestock for the police and court machinery to exploit.

And so, with the killing of George Floyd, Minneapolis exploded.

There’s More Unrest On The Way. Get Prepared.
Welcome everyone to these turbulent times.

We all want to live in a just, fair, and safe world. Some people are born into peaceful times. Others aren’t so lucky. History goes through its turnings.

Well, here we are, smack in the middle of a whopper of a fourth turning. So let’s make the most of it.

I take the safety and security of myself and the people around me very seriously. Because it’s my responsibility I train, and I plan, and I think things through.

My home is in a town I judge to be very safe, and I’m not the fearful sort, so I really have to push myself to prioritize the other steps. Which I am doing because it has to be done.

The calm days are over. There’s a new future coming, one that promises to be a lot more interesting as the old Chinese saying goes.

I wish I believed that the worst of the social unrest was behind us. I don’t. Given the actions of the Fed and Plutarch’s quote, and the total lack of any pushback from the media on these matters, I am anticipating grapes for the elites and worse-than-cucumbers for everyone else for many years to come.

Which means it’s time for you to more seriously consider your approach to personal security, especially if you live in or near a city. I certainly am.

As a true mark of the turning, a growing number of my friends who would never have considered owning a gun before are now thinking about doing so. All sorts of formerly ‘hard’ decisions suddenly become up for grabs when folks start feeling more physically vulnerable.

But personal security is far more than ‘owning a gun.’ It’s a mindset as well as a behavior set. And above all, it’s about avoiding trouble in the first place.

It includes taking sensible steps to protect your home from being an easy target for crime. It means having a plan and well-practiced skills in place to keep yourself and your loved ones safe from violence. It means aligning with neighbors to watch each others’ backs. It means practicing with whatever tools or systems you adopt so that they are second nature to you if you ever have to use them.

Emil El Zapato
31st May 2020, 18:12
It was the Senate with their superior numbers that precipitated business as usual...The Dems just didn't have the votes to mold the allotment into something beneficial for the middle guy...more of the money wins period paradigm.

Fred Steeves
31st May 2020, 19:44
It was the Senate with their superior numbers that precipitated business as usual...The Dems just didn't have the votes to mold the allotment into something beneficial for the middle guy...

Right. At a vote total of 96-0, that means the dems had exactly zero votes to do more for average people.

Emil El Zapato
31st May 2020, 19:59
I think it was a -1 Fred...

It's too bad that we can choose when a binary value can be twisted and when an interpretation can be twisted...The truth gets lost in the choice...even while it could be found.

Chris
1st June 2020, 17:45
I found the below analysis and prediction by Mike Adams, vis-a-vis the current civil unrest in the USA batshit crazy, but also highly entertaining. As crazy as it sounds, I think there's probably 5-10 percent truth in there. I won't post the text of the article here, because the only thing missing from his analysis is Lizard People and an upcoming alien invasion, but if you want to read about a Red-Dawn style apocalyptic scenario for the United States, this one's worth a read:

https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-05-31-trump-declares-antifa-a-terrorist-organization.html

After reading this article, I honestly, seriously wonder if the Chinese communists aren't at least partially behind the current unrest erupting in the United States. It would serve their interests well and they certainly have the capacity to forment unrest on the territory of their chief geopolitical rival. If you think that's mad, do you honestly think the US (and the UK) had nothing to do with the anti-communist uprising in Hong Kong? What goes around, comes around...

Emil El Zapato
1st June 2020, 17:52
Heck, let's go all out..."Red Scorpion", I think Trump could pull it off, or if all else failed maybe Alec Baldwin could hack it.

all those guys are off their nut...particular emphasis on Barr...he left his innards somewhere along the line.

Wind
1st June 2020, 17:57
Mike Adams is nuts, but of course it's true that China and Russia will benefit from the chaos in USA.

The more the hegemony of US weakens, the better it is for the rivals.

Chris
1st June 2020, 19:14
On the other hand, Kunstler's analysis I can fully agree with:

https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/that-change-you-requested/

That Change You Requested…?

https://kunstler.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Grafitti.jpg

All the previous incidents of white cops killing blacks were just too ambiguous to seal the deal. Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri (a murky business); Tamir Rice in Cleveland (waving the BB gun that looked like a .45 automatic); Trayvon Martin (his killer George Zimmerman was not a cop and was not “white”); Eric Garner, Staten Island (black policewoman sergeant on the scene didn’t stop it); Philandro Castile, Minneapolis, (the cop was Hispanic and the vic had a gun). Even the recent February killing of jogger Ahmaud Arbery in Brunswick, Georgia, had some sketchy elements (did Arbery try to seize the shotgun?) — YouTube has scrubbed the video (?) — and then it took months for the two white suspects (not cops) to be arrested.

The George Floyd killing had none of those weaknesses. Plus, the video presented a pretty much universal image of oppression: a man with his knee on another man’s neck. Didn’t that say it all? You didn’t need a Bob Dylan song to explain it. The Minneapolis police dithered for four days before charging policeman Derek Chauvin with Murder 3 (unpremeditated, but with reckless disregard for human life). The three other cops on the scene who stupidly stood by doing nothing have yet to be charged. Cut it, print it, and cue the mobs.

The nation was already reeling from the weird twelve-week Covid-19 lockdown of everyday life and the economic havoc it brought to careers, businesses, and incomes. In Minnesota, the stay-at-home order was just lifted on May 17, but bars and restaurants were still closed until June. Memorial Day, May 25, was one of the first really balmy days of mid-spring, 78 degrees. People were out-and-about, perhaps even feeling frisky after weeks of dreary seclusion. So, once the video of George Floyd’s death got out, the script was set: take it to the streets!

Few Americans were unsympathetic to the protest marches that followed. Remorse, censure, and tears flowed from every official portal, from the mouth and eyes of every political figure in the land. The tableau of Officer Chauvin’s knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck was readymade for statuary. Indeed, there are probably dozens of statues extant in the world of just such a scene expressing one people’s oppression over another. And yet the public sentiments early-on after the George Floyd killing had a stale, ceremonial flavor: The people demand change! End systemic racism! No justice, no peace! How many times have we seen this movie?

What is changing — and suddenly — is that now it’s not just black people who struggle to thrive in the USA, but everybody else of any ethnic group who is not a hedge fund veep, an employee of BlackRock Financial, or a K-Street lobbyist — and even those privileged characters may find themselves in reduced circumstances before long. The prospects of young adults look grimmest of all. They face an economy so disordered that hardly anyone can find something to do that pays enough to support the basics of life, on top of being swindled by the false promises of higher education and the money-lending racket that animates it.

So, it’s not surprising that, when night falls, the demons come out. Things get smashed up and burned down. And all that after being cooped up for weeks on end in the name of an illness that mostly kills people in nursing homes. Ugly as the ANTIFA movement is, it’s exactly what you get when young people realize their future has been stolen from them. Or, more literally, when they are idle and broke and see fabulous wealth all around them in the banks’ glass skyscrapers, and the car showrooms, and the pageants of celebrity fame and fortune on the boob tube. They are extras in a new movie called The Fourth Turning Meets the Long Emergency but they may not know it.

Hungry for change? You won’t have to wait long. This society may be unrecognizable in a few months. For one thing, there’s a good chance that the current violence in the streets won’t blow over as it has before. There hasn’t been such sudden, massive unemployment before, not even in the Great Depression — and we’re not even the same country that went through that rough episode. Just about every arrangement in contemporary life is on-the-rocks one way or another. Big business, small business, show business… it’s all cratering. The great big secret behind all that is not that capitalism failed; it’s that the capital in capitalism isn’t really there anymore, at least not in the amounts that mere appearances like stock valuations suggest. We squandered it, and now our institutions are straining mightily to pretend that “printing” money is the same as capital. (It’s just more debt.) Note, the stock markets are up this morning at the open! Go figure….

Change? We’re getting it good and hard, and not at a rate we were prepared for. It’s hugely disorienting. It produces friction, heat, and light, which easily becomes violence. There’s, for sure, plenty we can do to make new arrangements for American life without becoming communists or Nazis, but a lot of activities have to fail before we see how that could work. The overburden of obsolete complexity is crushing us, like Derek Chauvin’s knee on George Floyd’s neck. They were both, in their way, common men, caught in the maelstrom of metaphor. That proverbial long, hot summer we’ve heard about for so long…? It’s here.

Emil El Zapato
1st June 2020, 19:35
ok, Chris, I'll give you this one on the house...He's a little flippant about the meaning of 5,000 years of of societal dysfunction, though :)

Chris
1st June 2020, 19:42
ok, Chris, I'll give you this one on the house...He's a little flippant about the meaning of 5,000 years of of societal dysfunction, though :)

Hmm? Not sure where you got that one from? Where does he say that?

Emil El Zapato
1st June 2020, 19:50
He forgot to mention it, Chris... :)

Emil El Zapato
1st June 2020, 20:26
Dearest Chris, what I'm saying is that squandered wealth, which in my opinion has never actually been squandered, it was stolen and hoarded by the uber wealthy, is not commensurate with lives taken as sport or even as entertainment for public consumption. It misses the point of why people are in the streets united as a 'people', skin color notwithstanding. It is representative of social enlightenment that has for literally thousands of years tried to raise its saintly visage.

Dreamtimer
2nd June 2020, 01:40
I wish I could explain what's happening in a concise and cogent way. I cannot.

Here at home we have been communicating and connecting with family as much as possible and living each day as best we can. There is not much in the way of unrest nearby, even in the urban/suburban area a couple miles away.

Time will tell.

A lot of things are coming to a head now, and at the time when we most need a leader who can unite the people we have one who deliberately does the opposite. It's unprecedented and therefore very difficult to predict in terms of outcome.

Aragorn
2nd June 2020, 05:02
This is from Project Avalon moderator Ken...



https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/541826576946561035/717204368570712094/image0.png



And then there was this tweet (https://twitter.com/CyrusAParsa1/status/1267369946410921984) below, which turned out completely false.



https://i.imgur.com/lzyRHfh.jpg

Chris
2nd June 2020, 08:07
Well, I don't actually know what's going on either, one thing is for sure, there is some sinister agenda behind it and there are probably both state and non-state actors fuelling these riots. My suspicion would automatically fall on the USA's two chief geopolitical rivals, Russia and China. In fact Russia has already had to issue an official denial after an Obama-era state department official accused them of instigating the riots. Personally, I see China as the more likely candidate, given their history of Maoist infiltration and insurgencies in places like India and Nepal.

I do not see it as very likely that white nationalist elements are behind it, I think this is the Leftist mainstream clutching at straws, having lost control of their favoured Antifa thugs.

The way I see it, the Left is now reaping in what is has sown, formenting tension between various racial and ethnic groups for decades and supporting violent thugs with a revolutionary agenda.

Wind
2nd June 2020, 11:22
If only people could see the benefits of nonviolent resistance and protesting. That's the only proper way to go about it.

This has been coming a long time, there's a lot of rage. That doesn't justify hurting people and destroying things though.

Emil El Zapato
2nd June 2020, 12:31
But lynchings have occurred for centuries...yes, it is a long time in coming. The left doesn't promote violence...it just doesn't. One can't be a progressive and hold a philosophy of 'kill 'em all'.

My half-sister is hiding in California. I remember in the 60's, I had a close white friend that was in to guns..rifles, shotguns, he even made his own ammunition. In my small town, during the riots in the big cities, we were sequestered to protect ourselves in his house waiting for the rioters to show up. It was patently ridiculous but we were doing it. The thing was, I was going yeah, we'll get 'em and they'll be sorry and the rest of it. But, as I sat there, I was thinking to myself, what the hell is going on, this is ridiculous AND I'm half convinced that what the rioters were doing was righteous.

Wind
2nd June 2020, 12:44
I condemn Antifa's violent actions, but when Trump tries to label as them as terrorists he's just once again trying to divert the attention from the real problems. The problem in USA is the lack of proper leadership and systematic corruption. The media sure as hell hasn't been helping with the situation either.


http://youtu.be/hw8v9yIs7CY

Emil El Zapato
2nd June 2020, 13:03
But as Aragorn pointed out...Antifa or professional outside agitators?

Emil El Zapato
2nd June 2020, 13:42
In my opinion, the deepest undercurrent is being laid bare by Trump. Authoritarian vs Authoritative. Many people are unable to make the distinction. A parental figure (Trump = Ivan the Terrible) that isn't able to understand the devastation of one and the value of the other will inevitably perpetuate the legacy of dysfunction.

Trump is a walking, talking in the flesh caricature. He has reduced himself to scamming senile senior citizens, it is his last bastion amid the storming of the Bastille.

Chris
2nd June 2020, 13:45
But lynchings have occurred for centuries...yes, it is a long time in coming. The left doesn't promote violence...it just doesn't. One can't be a progressive and hold a philosophy of 'kill 'em all'.


You can't be serious…

The Left covers a vast spectrum from moderate to extreme. Historically, Leftists were responsible for just as much violence, if not more than right-wingers, that is just a historical fact.

Even progressives have been guilty of if not promoting, certainly turning a blind eye to violence committed by those on the extremes, if it was their tribe doing it.

Emil El Zapato
2nd June 2020, 14:11
We're conflating leftist with progressive/liberal...It is why I didn't use that term. Violent leftists are concealing a selfish agenda...they are in it for themselves. A completely different animal. Once could cite Che Guevara, of course, but I never really bought him either. He wasn't a true anything but really a violent anarchist. I suppose it is obvious by now that I'm into Purity... :)

Joe Biden is speaking on TV right now...I'm not going to listen to him either...He is not in a position to act as a spokesperson for the truth. It is just an act to be relevant and gain political points...Jesus, nooo.

Emil El Zapato
2nd June 2020, 14:17
Though he has a good heart he is a flippin' idiot of an orator.

Chris
2nd June 2020, 14:32
Che Guevara is a tame pussycat compared to the big hitters, like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

Or, I could just lead you to my basement and show you where Leftists tortured people before putting them to death. Some were dissolved in vats of acid whilst still alive.

This isn't about Left and Right but rather moderate and extremist, human vs inhuman.

Also, whilst there is no truly far-right government in power today, despite the hysterical rhetoric from the Leftist Mainstream Media (Except for Assad in Syria, who is an avowed National Socialist, but he is leading a failed state and doesn't really count), there are plenty of far-Left governments in power, chief of them the Communist Chinese who clearly have designs on world domination and spreading the Revolution.

Emil El Zapato
2nd June 2020, 15:10
ok, Chris...I really don't want to debate these points with you...it's not worth it to me to cause you anger and perhaps even hurt feelings. But people don 'labels' all the time to cover their true intentions. On your wavelength, I would say that the difference between extreme leftists and extreme rightists is essentially nothing. But one can be an authoritarian and be on the 'sane' measure of the spectrum, but certainly not the left.

Extremists should have there own measure. Call it the f*cked up in the head spectrum reserved for Alph-Draconians and the 'Dick' Cheney

Chris
2nd June 2020, 17:30
I'm not angry, just passionate about trying to educate people about the crimes of Communism, which many people on the Left conveniently forget.

It's not your fault that you rarely hear about it, the entire episode and the 100million + dead have conveniently been consigned to the memory hole. Almost every week, there's another Holocaust movie, documentary or TV episode that comes out, but when was the last time you heard about the Holodomor, Gulags or Mao's death camps, which btw, still exist today, unlike Nazi concentration camps, which closed almost a century ago?

Or, staying closer to home, my grandfather was at Katyn, one of the greatest massacres in WW2, which was instigated by the communists against the Polish army, after they overran Eastern Poland in an alliance with Hitler. How many people even know about it? There was exactly one movie that was made about it, and it is in Polish. I'm pretty sure nobody in the English-speaking world saw it or knows about it.

Emil El Zapato
2nd June 2020, 17:39
I'm aware, I always felt that Stalin and Hitler deserved each other...it went beyond poetic justice to cosmic justice...

I'm aware of what Mao did after the revolution...firing squad action non-stop...that's most assuredly on the insane spectrum.

Wind
2nd June 2020, 17:44
At least here in Finland we are acutely aware of the horrors of Soviet Union and I know about Katyn through the movie. Horrible stuff. Yet here we are a very socialist (democratic) country, which is indeed a great thing and it's not the same thing as communism at all, like some Americans would like to believe. Then again, I'm not sure if we have ever had true communism on planet Earth, just these systems which have become dictatorial. Ideologies often tend to become problematic.

Dreamtimer
2nd June 2020, 18:53
I feel the way you say, Wind. We have not seen true communism, which is only an ideal. The systems which have tried to use that name have just been systems which support those in power and use/abuse those outside of it. It's obvious that if so-called communists joined with Hitler then they were really no such thing as communist, and only another form of absolutism.


NAP, I find that the use of the word authoritative v. authoritarian is more useful. I was authoritative with my child, but never authoritarian. The latter is absolutist.

Chris
2nd June 2020, 19:29
At least here in Finland we are acutely aware of the horrors of Soviet Union and I know about Katyn through the movie. Horrible stuff. Yet here we are a very socialist (democratic) country, which is indeed a great thing and it's not the same thing as communism at all, like some Americans would like to believe. Then again, I'm not sure if we have ever had true communism on planet Earth, just these systems which have become dictatorial. Ideologies often tend to become problematic.

Yes, that is a good point. Like I often say, I'm not opposed to either Left or Right, both are needed in a healthy society, it is when one becomes dominant and moves to the extremes that serious issues arise. Yet, when somebody says only the other side is capable of that and my side would never do that, I have to remind them of numerous historical counterexamples.

Emil El Zapato
2nd June 2020, 19:59
Here is a picture of a guy that was arrested for attacking a police car and bumping a cop: I looked to see if I could determine 'where he was coming from'. I couldn't find much but what I did see was a picture of him posing with a confederate flag in the background...but it wasn't center image, and something like that could happen anyplace in Texas.

https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/12/25/37/19486682/5/920x920.jpg

Chris
3rd June 2020, 06:54
So,

I have been thinking a bit more about the current situation in the US and increasingly I am thinking that this is the gods' way of punishing the US empire for its past sins. It is pure Karma, coming back to haunt the US.

The legacy of racism, slavery, colonial conquest, constant war in faraway places, this is now no longer a distant concern, but the lived experience of ever more US Americans.

The militarisation of police, the paramilitary tactics used against protesters, the prevalence of guns and violence, the racial animosity, the slavery 2.0 in all but name prison-industrial complex, the record inequality, these chickens are all coming home to roost now.

I don't know how this will all end, maybe the US will come out of it stronger and changed for the better, but there is a fair chance this won't end well, for anyone involved.

modwiz
3rd June 2020, 08:15
So,

I have been thinking a bit more about the current situation in the US and increasingly I am thinking that this is the gods' way of punishing the US empire for its past sins. It is pure Karma, coming back to haunt the US.

The legacy of racism, slavery, colonial conquest, constant war in faraway places, this is now no longer a distant concern, but the lived experience of ever more US Americans.

The militarisation of police, the paramilitary tactics used against protesters, the prevalence of guns and violence, the racial animosity, the slavery 2.0 in all but name prison-industrial complex, the record inequality, these chickens are all coming home to roost now.

I don't know how this will all end, maybe the US will come out of it stronger and changed for the better, but there is a fair chance this won't end well, for anyone involved.

There are times when being in the world, but not of it, begins to show its Wisdom and these are such times.

I have no TV, all of my 'news' comes from the internet. I get the 'reports' and go bafefoot into my backyard (I'm always barefoot at home) and check my real day. Two different worlds sharing a planet/country.

The locale of my biology within Creation determines my stress level, or lack thereof.

I do not feel impotent in my setting either but, in support of this thread's concept of collapse, let me say an excellent job is being done in this thread.:thup:

Wind
3rd June 2020, 08:56
So,

I have been thinking a bit more about the current situation in the US and increasingly I am thinking that this is the gods' way of punishing the US empire for its past sins. It is pure Karma, coming back to haunt the US.

I thought about this too yesterday. Like every individual, every nation has it's own karma too. Unfortunately US has a lot of undealt baggage which is coming to the surface now. Healing only comes through purging.

Chris
3rd June 2020, 09:02
There are times when being in the world, but not of it, begins to show its Wisdom and these are such times.

I have no TV, all of my 'news' comes from the internet. I get the 'reports' and go bafefoot into my backyard (I'm always barefoot at home) and check my real day. Two different worlds sharing a planet/country.

The locale of my biology within Creation determines my stress level, or lack thereof.

I do not feel impotent in my setting either but, in support of this thread's concept of collapse, let me say an excellent job is being done in this thread.:thup:

Thanks Modwiz,

Appreciate your kind words.

I have been interested in collapse ever since the 2008 Financial crisis, that's when I came across authors like Dmitry Orlov, Jim Kunstler, John Michael Greer, Michael C Ruppert (sadly long gone), et al.

Your lifestyle choice is probably going to look very smart in the near future, there really seems to be a lot of trouble brewing in the big cities. I also left London for similar reasons, anticipating an event exactly like what is happening now, though I imagined it might come about for different reasons.

I think Hungary will be fine overall, but there seems to be much turmoil coming to large parts of the world and most aren't prepared for it.

Emil El Zapato
3rd June 2020, 11:29
What do we need the right for?

What's needed for balance is an overabundance of decent human beings

Emil El Zapato
3rd June 2020, 11:52
Those kids out on the streets know what is up...I'd wager that the majority of them agree with the concept that the two party system is outmoded and unjust. Which is in total resonance with what many here espouse...the left is just as bad as the right or that they are the same, hypocritical, corrupt, and exploitative. If so, why do we need either for balance? A balance, of corruption, deceit, hate, greed, hierarchical privilege? If it could be said that one is as 'good' as the other, then there might be motivation for preserving that system.

Not that it matters because they all represent the same truth, but I wonder how many righties are out on those streets supporting those that don't want to be killed by the values upheld by the in-place 'two-party' system? Thinking in such a fashion is what has for thousands of years kept mother Gaia wondering just where she went wrong and it has also left an opening for those that would be King to don a false mantle and proceed with mass execution.

Chris
3rd June 2020, 11:58
That's like saying what do we need men for. Which many on the Left actually say and I mean that quite literally.

You can't have left without right, just as you can't have light without darkness or man without woman. They are polar opposites that complement each other and must be brought into balance.

If you are interested in the Esoteric background behind it, it goes like this:

Right: Solar, Male, Patriarchal, Traditional Religion, Monotheism, Monogamy, Straight and Square, Cro-Magnon, Individualistic

Left: Lunar, Female, Matriarchal, Left-Hand Path (such as Witchcraft, Magick or Tantra), Polytheism, Polygamy or Hypergamy, Queer, Neanderthal, Collectivist

If you look at the Left-Right dichotomy in our world, I think you will start to see the faultlines and why each side is so wedded to their own world-view. I just wish you would see the other side's POV, even if you don't agree with it.

Emil El Zapato
3rd June 2020, 12:09
Many on the right say the same thing and actually mean it. The right acts on their 'feelings', witness Floyd. The leftist females say that and then get married to men. Is their a difference? Left and right are not synonymous with ancient archetypes.

I do see it, but I won't acknowledge it until I see a balance...not in you Chris, it's the input from the peanut gallery that really incenses me. Because what it really represents is a tacit approval of all the disgusting things that the 'male' represents and I mean that in the most balanced way possible...I am a male, after all.

modwiz
4th June 2020, 03:21
I think Hungary will be fine overall, but there seems to be much turmoil coming to large parts of the world and most aren't prepared for it.

I share your sentiments about Hungary. Call it a gut instinct.

I would not wish to be rude and opine overmuch about a country only known to me through the media.

So, even a positive comment about Hungary could be ignorant and I wish to defer from being ignorant. Gnosis don't play that.:love:

Dreamtimer
4th June 2020, 10:23
The left doesn't wield the power here. That's one of the main differences. As many here have already pointed out, the Dems aren't the left. They're the less right part of the right.

The leftys in America, the progressives and self-described socialists, have very little power. People love to rag on universities, but it's the businesses and churches who are wielding power, not the scholars and researchers.

Chris
4th June 2020, 18:27
So, the protests in the US seem to be dying down a bit, the police officers involved in the killing have all been arrested and charged after all. No doubt, the current justice and political system in the US is still grossly unjust and nothing has really changed, but a bit of red (or in this case, blue) meat thrown to baying mobs seems to have calmed the situation a bit. Maybe this will boil over, who knows.

One predictable result of all this civil unrest and mass protests will be a resurgence of Covid-19 in about 2-3 weeks time. Watch this space for reports of an upsurge and a second wave of the pandemic in the US.

I still don't fully understand what's going on in the good ol' US of A, but my best guess is some sort of Fourth Turning-type convulsion that is putting the old ways of doing things into the hospice. Even a revolution seems possible at this point. We'll see what will come of this in the long run.

I am amazed at how quiet and uneventful my little corner of the world is lately. Quite serene, really. Things are slowly reopening and returning to normal. We've had very few excess deaths in this region, the pandemic was largely a non-event, except for its economic effects, which were serious, but perhaps not quite as bad as in the US.

It is impossible to predict what convulsion will follow next, but I don't think the God of Chaos is done with us yet, or for the matter, the Gods of War, Famine and Pestilence. I expect we are experiencing a brief respite for now and the next crisis is just around the corner.

After record-breaking wildfires, historic swarms of locusts, once-in a century pandemics, killer wasps, insurrection in the US and the end of Hong Kong as we know it, I would not be surprised by anything at this point.

Emil El Zapato
4th June 2020, 19:28
Floyd's funeral is today...he will be returned to Houston to be buried.

Dreamtimer
5th June 2020, 10:55
One recurring pattern is that officers are charged and then once the spotlight is off the charges get dropped. We shall see what happens this time.

Aragorn
5th June 2020, 11:33
One recurring pattern is that officers are charged and then once the spotlight is off the charges get dropped. We shall see what happens this time.

Meanwhile, the alt-right has been busy putting things in perspective by pointing out ─ true or false ─ that Mr. Floyd was (or at any rate had been) a porn actor, that he was paying at a shop with a falsified $5 bill, and that he might possibly have been a little high when the sadistic Nazi police officer murdered apprehended him.

As we all know, those are all capital offenses, right? Only the president of the USA is allowed to fuck a porn star ─ and then pay her to keep her mouth shut about it ─ because after all, he is The Donald™, The Chosen One™, who is fighting The Deep State™ together with his Sooper Seekrit Military Insider™, QAnon. There is only one The Donald™, and Q ─ blessed be his name ─ is his Prophet!

Followup prediction: I expect an announcement from Q ─ blessed be his name ─ any day now that The Donald™ himself, through his feigned collusion with the Russian oligarchs as part of his 6D chess against The Deep State™, had discovered condemning evidence that Mr. Floyd was actually an Antifa member who had smuggled the SARS-CoV-2 virus from Jina™ into the USA via Jeffrey Epstein's Lolita Express, and that he was in the process of distributing it by way of a 5G antenna when the brave heroic officer intervened on behalf of that great nation's people, thereby risking his own life and that of his 16 patriotic children.

You'll see!!!


:facepalm: :frusty: :vom:

Emil El Zapato
5th June 2020, 11:36
yeah, as you point out, none of that has been substantiated... I'm going to find a wall so I can beat my head against it too... :)

Dreamtimer
5th June 2020, 11:53
Antifa is the latest whipping boy. There needs to be something to pin blame on and distract with so that all the neo-nazi/confederate flag wavers can continue their shite.

Aragorn
5th June 2020, 12:13
Meanwhile, the alt-right has been busy putting things in perspective by pointing out ─ true or false ─ that Mr. Floyd was (or at any rate had been) a porn actor, that he was paying at a shop with a falsified $5 bill, and that he might possibly have been a little high when the sadistic Nazi police officer murdered apprehended him.

As we all know, those are all capital offenses, right? Only the president of the USA is allowed to fuck a porn star ─ and then pay her to keep her mouth shut about it ─ because after all, he is The Donald™, The Chosen One™, who is fighting The Deep State™ together with his Sooper Seekrit Military Insider™, QAnon. There is only one The Donald™, and Q ─ blessed be his name ─ is his Prophet!

Followup prediction: I expect an announcement from Q ─ blessed be his name ─ any day now that The Donald™ himself, through his feigned collusion with the Russian oligarchs as part of his 6D chess against The Deep State™, had discovered condemning evidence that Mr. Floyd was actually an Antifa member who had smuggled the SARS-CoV-2 virus from Jina™ into the USA via Jeffrey Epstein's Lolita Express, and that he was in the process of distributing it by way of a 5G antenna when the brave heroic officer intervened on behalf of that great nation's people, thereby risking his own life and that of his 16 patriotic children.

You'll see!!!


:facepalm: :frusty: :vom:

I forgot to mention something, and this is not sarcasm. There is already at least one video going round at Project Avalon that George Floyd is actually still alive, but that his ("supposed") murder is misinformation spread by some militant group ─ I don't know which one, because I can't bring myself to watch such utter idiocy ─ like Antifa or Black Lives Matter.

:facepalm:

Dreamtimer
5th June 2020, 12:18
That's the whole thrust of the 'fake news' dynamic. Call everything into doubt and you can get away with anything. Like grabbing peoples' privates, claiming immunity for a potential shooting on fifth avenue, and culminating with trying to use the military to shoot citizens.

Get the people to focus on 'fake floyd' while the real crime continues.

Chris
5th June 2020, 13:20
Meanwhile, the alt-right has been busy putting things in perspective by pointing out ─ true or false ─ that Mr. Floyd was (or at any rate had been) a porn actor, that he was paying at a shop with a falsified $5 bill, and that he might possibly have been a little high when the sadistic Nazi police officer murdered apprehended him.

As we all know, those are all capital offenses, right? Only the president of the USA is allowed to fuck a porn star ─ and then pay her to keep her mouth shut about it ─ because after all, he is The Donald™, The Chosen One™, who is fighting The Deep State™ together with his Sooper Seekrit Military Insider™, QAnon. There is only one The Donald™, and Q ─ blessed be his name ─ is his Prophet!

Followup prediction: I expect an announcement from Q ─ blessed be his name ─ any day now that The Donald™ himself, through his feigned collusion with the Russian oligarchs as part of his 6D chess against The Deep State™, had discovered condemning evidence that Mr. Floyd was actually an Antifa member who had smuggled the SARS-CoV-2 virus from Jina™ into the USA via Jeffrey Epstein's Lolita Express, and that he was in the process of distributing it by way of a 5G antenna when the brave heroic officer intervened on behalf of that great nation's people, thereby risking his own life and that of his 16 patriotic children.

You'll see!!!


:facepalm: :frusty: :vom:

I'm very dissatisfied with your analysis.

You left out the most important part. The Lizards are behind it all and they mind controlled those poor, peaceful police officers to satanically sacrifice a black man in order to cause race riots. That's why they've been installing 5G towers everywhere, to control people via mind-control rays that Bill Gates personally supervises from his underground satanic lair.

Thankfully, a tinfoil hat or if you can't make one, Chobani Yoghurt, smeared all over the head will protect you from their evil influence.


I forgot to mention something, and this is not sarcasm. There is already at least one video going round at Project Avalon that George Floyd is actually still alive, but that his ("supposed") murder is misinformation spread by some militant group ─ I don't know which one, because I can't bring myself to watch such utter idiocy ─ like Antifa or Black Lives Matter.

:facepalm:

Mwahahaha

I stopped checking in a few weeks ago after I noticed all the 5G craziness and denialism taking over the forum, but I can only imagine how bad it's gotten since.

Aragorn
5th June 2020, 13:22
I'm very dissatisfied with your analysis.

You left out the most important part. The Lizards are behind it all and they mind controlled those poor, peaceful police officers to satanically sacrifice a black man in order to cause race riots. That's why they've been installing 5G towers everywhere, to control people via mind-control rays that Bill Gates personally supervises from his underground satanic lair.

Thankfully, a tinfoil hat or if you can't make one, Chobani Yoghurt, smeared all over the head will protect you from their evil influence.

I've got something much better against Bill Gates and his evil plans... ;)



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Tux.svg/1200px-Tux.svg.png

Wind
5th June 2020, 21:55
http://youtu.be/_F94MMb0w6o

Octopus Garden
7th June 2020, 21:43
OMG, I feel like I have come home. Have been trying like Hell to make some inroads into the alt right propaganda propagating on PA! Just took a cursory look at this last page of the thread and realize just how deeply you now differ from that forum. I am NOT going back. It's overrun. Some wonderful people there, some who are even level headed but not enough!:(

Emil El Zapato
7th June 2020, 22:01
just cool is all I got to say... :)

Wind
7th June 2020, 22:03
Welcome to our humble little Shire. :)

Octopus Garden
7th June 2020, 23:01
I'm not angry, just passionate about trying to educate people about the crimes of Communism, which many people on the Left conveniently forget.

It's not your fault that you rarely hear about it, the entire episode and the 100million + dead have conveniently been consigned to the memory hole. Almost every week, there's another Holocaust movie, documentary or TV episode that comes out, but when was the last time you heard about the Holodomor, Gulags or Mao's death camps, which btw, still exist today, unlike Nazi concentration camps, which closed almost a century ago?

Or, staying closer to home, my grandfather was at Katyn, one of the greatest massacres in WW2, which was instigated by the communists against the Polish army, after they overran Eastern Poland in an alliance with Hitler. How many people even know about it? There was exactly one movie that was made about it, and it is in Polish. I'm pretty sure nobody in the English-speaking world saw it or knows about it.

Hey Chris,
Yes, I know about Katyn! And don't worry, nobody could or should minimize the terrors of fascism or communism.

Scholar and Solider- as an officer in the Polish Army, He was captured by the Soviets in September 1939. In April 1940 he was brought to the vicinity of the Katyn Forest where the execution of Polish officers was taking place.

Before the war Stanislaw was researching the economies of totalitarian countries and his expert knowledge of German economy caught the interest of his Soviet captors. He was recalled from the Katyn Forest to Moscow where he was interrogated and sentenced to forced labour in the GULAG. His survival of death from starvation and exhaustion and subsequent escape from the claws of the NKVD makes for fascinating reading. After having regained his freedom in August 1942, he joined the Polish army under British command in the Middle East. After the war he returned to his scholarly work and taught at the universities in Enland, Indonesia, Canada and the USA[/I]

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1084842.In_the_Shadow_of_Katyn

I bought the book, In the Shadow of Katyn, from his son, Witold, an acquaintance of mine. I lived in an area that was heavily populated with older Germans, Poles, Dutch Indonesians etc...Anyway I learned a lot from his Dad's book and it helped shape my world view. It also made me realize that if China and the U.S. ever get into it, war wise, it puts Canadians in a horrible position. Already we are, like Poland, torn between having to obey Trump (Hitler proxy) and what is in our best economic interest, which would be to trade with both nations in a peaceful manner. Poles were persecuted by the Russians and the Nazis. The entire officer corp was wiped out in the Katyn forest with maybe one or two exceptions. Stanislaw Sweinewicz, being one.


Welcome to our humble little Shire. :)



Thank you, Wind. I have been a member, though absent for a time!

Octopus Garden
7th June 2020, 23:11
just cool is all I got to say... :)

Thanks Pretender,

I went back there because it was too quiet over here for a spell. I am really finding it impossible to stomach. A question for those on this forum, have you lost any real world friends due to this shit? I think what bugs me the most is the fact that they acknowledge and exaggerate all kinds of elite depravities involving pedophilia while turning a blind eye to the depravity of unnecessary war, that tends to scatter body parts of adults and children everywhere.

Aragorn
8th June 2020, 01:36
Thanks Pretender,

I went back there because it was too quiet over here for a spell. I am really finding it impossible to stomach. A question for those on this forum, have you lost any real world friends due to this shit? I think what bugs me the most is the fact that they acknowledge and exaggerate all kinds of elite depravities involving pedophilia while turning a blind eye to the depravity of unnecessary war, that tends to scatter body parts of adults and children everywhere.

It's the Dunning-Kruger effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect); they see the splinter in someone else's eye while completely missing the beam in their own.

modwiz
8th June 2020, 03:10
. A question for those on this forum, have you lost any real world friends due to this shit?

No real world friends or family lost because of the actual pathogen. Took some skill to not lose friends over the mind virus part of it. The more potent aspect, IMO.