tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52293773351633526672024-03-12T16:26:31.878-07:00Woodchip Gazette - News & NotesChipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comBlogger339125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-85669181944675559452022-05-25T11:35:00.001-07:002022-05-25T11:39:29.817-07:00Kissinger rebukes Liberal Democratic Crusade
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Although it is a dubious honour, Dr. Henry Kissinger has endorsed the <i>Woodchip Gazette's </i>analysis of the Ukrainian Crisis.... <br /><br />
In interviews given over the past two weeks, Henry Kissinger has all but rebuked Biden's warmongering policy. Kissinger has stated:<br /><br />
1. The new catastrophic destructiveness of non nuclear weapons is a technological change which necessitates a diplomatic and geopolitical rethinking. (Aka - don't sleep walk into Armageddon.)<br /><br />
2. We should not seek "regime change" in Russia (or China); nor should we frame the issue as Manichean confrontation between "democracy and authoritarianism." We can use that distinction in our analysis of situations but not as a strategic goal.<br /><br />
3. We should likewise recognize that Russia <i>IS</i> part of Europe, has been so for 400 years, and has interests in this region. (Aka Screw Zbigniew Brzezinski and his <i>Grand Roll Back</i> wet dream.)<br /><br />
4. We need to seek a negotiated solution to the crisis within the next two months, before things take on an irreversible momentum of their own, and which will return to the <i>status quo ante</i>. (Aka Donbas to Ukraine; Crimea to Russia.) Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself. <br /><br />
Last but not least: Dr. K cautioned against the "Enthusiasm of the moment" --- which is what a seasoned diplomat calls Lindsay Graham's spitting salivating snarling for war. <br /><br />
</div>Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-2829175816388478922022-05-23T17:09:00.004-07:002022-05-23T17:23:05.708-07:00The Witch and Dick<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Soooo.... it turns out in open court that Witch Hillary personally approved the leaking (aka planting) of fake information, falsely linking Donald Trump to a Russia bank. Gee...who'da thunk it? <br /> <br />
For some reason we were transported back to November 7th, 1960 when the final returns came in proving that John Fitzgerald Kennedy (aka the Golden One) had stolen the election. <br /> <br />
Kennedy as some readers might recall was a minority president, garnering less actual votes than Tricky Dick. What put Jack over the top were the returns from Cook County, at the time run like a well-oiled machine by Mayor Daley who famously urged Democrats to "vote early and vote often." <br /> <br />
Everyone knew it. It didn't have to be leaked. Cook County was as rotten as they came. And yet, at two minutes to midnight, Richard Nixon took to the podium, conceded the election and congratulated his rival, as his wife Pat choked back tears.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtyrgj4drFtMmsTnxjTwNpJe1Up7gwW0jy4cyttBkbDlN3EnJNp_qOctSAaI9V19bB2b35C6pJAYBCIJaCxvCmlCmEvg3LBp30qhqT13c3800v1JUzxeZ5BbktvhLam8M9O_mKja3FLJ6PnkPIFOqePbfPQMYN9EHufXnyfv1QwxI9OjKKL1_kBl1g6g/s533/nixons-concession.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="533" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtyrgj4drFtMmsTnxjTwNpJe1Up7gwW0jy4cyttBkbDlN3EnJNp_qOctSAaI9V19bB2b35C6pJAYBCIJaCxvCmlCmEvg3LBp30qhqT13c3800v1JUzxeZ5BbktvhLam8M9O_mKja3FLJ6PnkPIFOqePbfPQMYN9EHufXnyfv1QwxI9OjKKL1_kBl1g6g/s320/nixons-concession.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /> <br />God how it must have choked Nixon. It's a wonder he was able to speak at all. But yet he did. Why? <br /> <br />
Because just as we all know that Cook County is rotten, just as we all know that Amurkan democracy is a corrupt and vulgar farce, those who participate in the sordid spectacle cannot possibly admit it. To do so -- to delegitimize the election -- would be akin to heaping offal on one's self. Vile, slimey, faithfless and untrue as these scum might be, they at least don't heap shit on their own heads. <br /> <br />
Not Hillary. Her ego is so overweening that she preferred to delegitimize the "democracy" should would lead rather than admit the she was too arrogantly incompetent to win an election against a talk show buffoon. <br /> <br />
It takes doing to make Nixon look good... but on the vileness scale hands down, cunt beat dick. <br /> <br />
</div>Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-5182409933079337082022-05-09T15:02:00.000-07:002022-05-09T15:02:05.785-07:00An Imbecile speaks Faux Truth<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Robert Reich has revealed his true Gentrified Demorat colours. "We must fight Bullies, whether they be Putin, Trump or Tech Billionaires" he writes in the<i> FemWoke Guardian.</i><br /><br />
What brilliance from the comfort of his second home!<br /><br />
Lessee... Reich wants to fight Putin. As a man? Well why not...MAN to man. I'd love to see Reich and Putin in the slosh pit. Laurel and Hardy could not have done better.<br /><br />
Oh? no...? You mean, not Putin <i>qua </i>man, man but as head of state of a sovereign nation? Ah.... So how do you fight Putin-the-President without fighting the thing he is president of? So... you well paid, well connected ex-cabinet imbecile, you mean we should go to war with Russia? <br /><br />
You must be out of your dimwit mind. <br /><br />
Alright enough of that. We need to fight Trump-the-Bully. Again, Reich says "Trump must be held accountable!" For what? Reich doesn't say, except to add in the next sentence that politicians Christian nationalism must be condemned and voted out of office.<br /><br />
How about politicians who encourage Jewish Nationalism?<br /><br />
[pin drop]<br /><br />
Reich goes on to say:<br /><br />
<blockquote>
standing up against all forms of bullying and brutality – is essential to preserving a civil society.<br /><br />
Throughout history, the central struggle of civilization has been against brutality by the powerful<br /><br />
A civil society doesn’t allow the strong to brutalize the weak <br /><br />
When inequalities become too wide, they invite abuses. Such abuses invite further abuses until society degenerates into a Hobbesian survival of the most powerful<br /><br />
The struggle for social justice is the most basic struggle of all because it defines how far a civilization has come from a Hobbesian survival of the most powerful.<br /><br />
CEOs who treat their employees badly must be exposed and penalized. Billionaires who bribe lawmakers to cut their taxes or exempt them from regulations must be sanctioned, as should lawmakers who accept such bribes.<br /><br />
This is what civilization demands. <br /><br />
</blockquote>
This is not a poison pill. It is a <i>paradoxical effect pill</i>. <br /><br />
What is that? "Paradoxical effect is the effect of a medical drug, that is opposite to what would usually be expected. An example of a paradoxical reaction is pain caused by a pain relief medication." <br /><br />
What Reich has done is to bury a classic Marxist thesis under a pile of roughage and rubble, distracting from the true cause of things while purporting to talk about the true cause of things. This is precisely why American politics more than any other remains so impossibly infantilized.<br /><br />
"Social justice is the most basic struggle of all because it defines how far a civilization has come from" savage survival of the most ruthless," Reich says.<br /><br />
√. <br /><br />
But from that point which echoes Genesis, Jeremiah and Jesus...and yes Marx... Reich derails into talking about "bullying" and "brutalizing." <br /><br />
No... what it concerns is <i>CLASS WARFARE</i>. The rich against the poor. The haves against the have-nots. Those who have capital against those who sell their labour for less than its worth so that those who have capital can increase their capital.<br /><br />
Now... you can call capitalism a form of economic bullying. The problem with that, however, is that the word "bullying" implies a personal character defect and what we are really concerend with -- in economics -- are systemic effects. By characterizing the issue as one of "bullying" Reich derails from the principle and underlying point. <br /><br />
The derailing is underscored by statements such as "CEOs who treat their employees badly must be exposed ..." In casting the issue in those terms, Reich makes it appear that treating employees badly is a personal and incidental failing... AKIN TO .. treating women badly... or being nasty to transgender bi-spirits... <br /><div style="text-align: center;"><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgko82jBMRG0TC3srMTjPxs6lYtbQzIyKZdFPFNdgKMHqWapegYSUHPB6HTgE6aPGPdXfu_EMeRuuDQj5F2FJI9-Z7hZ2GHdo9wGMU1vEhaWky2ekAk0mpwLN6tZgLPsZylYffY28odfR-Ad4HJ7iPBTOVKsGEouPtyYd9O8xGTS80_8ebH4T5wuo2i2A/s750/Recreating+Caravaggio+Saint+Jerome+(Rory+Lewis+Los+Angeles_London+Portrait+Photographer+2019).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="562" data-original-width="750" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgko82jBMRG0TC3srMTjPxs6lYtbQzIyKZdFPFNdgKMHqWapegYSUHPB6HTgE6aPGPdXfu_EMeRuuDQj5F2FJI9-Z7hZ2GHdo9wGMU1vEhaWky2ekAk0mpwLN6tZgLPsZylYffY28odfR-Ad4HJ7iPBTOVKsGEouPtyYd9O8xGTS80_8ebH4T5wuo2i2A/s320/Recreating+Caravaggio+Saint+Jerome+(Rory+Lewis+Los+Angeles_London+Portrait+Photographer+2019).jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /></div>
St. Jerome (450 A.D.) was much more blunt and on point: "The rich man is either a thief or the son of a thief." Period. No bullshit about thieves who treat their victims badly as contrasted with those thieves who steal compassionately.<br /><br />
WHAT THE FUCK???<br /><br />
Reich makes the matter even more confused by writing that we must stand "against all forms" of "bullying." "These things are connected" he writes. <br /><br />
In so saying he makes clear that he is using the word "bully" as an equivocation point to switch from talking about the war of the classes to yapping about the war of the sexes. And of course, by defining "social justice" (the opposite of bullying) to include treating women and workers right, somehow the worker part, the economic part, gets subsumed and forgotten in the cultural issue part.<br /><br />
Pseudo leftists always do this. They will start out talking about means of production and control of social capital and then will add something like "...and abolish the oppressive institution of marriage..." Suddenly everyone gets in a dither about the institution of marriage and goes to war over that issue while the underlying question of political-economy gets lost in a pixie dust of "social reforms." <br /><br />
Then cometh Hillary to announce that "we are making progress..." <br /><br />
So... Reich makes (sort of) a correct point about the savage nature of capitalism which he then buries in a lot of blather and nonsense of <i>GOING TO WAR AGAINST TOXIC MALES, DEFENDING THE RIGHT TO FETUS FLUSH</i> or be to be an adolescent <i>ALT SHE MALE</i>.<br /><br />
"These things" are NOT "connected." The structural inequities of capitalism, and gender norms, roles and violence are two different issues. That's why we have categories like "political-economy" and "socio-cultural."<br /><br />
Fake leftists have been doing this blur, ever since Max Weber derailed Marxist analysis into the mushy world of socio-cultural issues. <br /><br />
Reich tops all this off with a call for politically correct censorship saying: "Celebrity pundits who fuel racism and xenophobia must be denounced and defunded."<br /><br />
Oh... just celebrities? Yeah well, I'm fine with that. Needless to say, Reich skips over the inconvenient fact that in order to track what "celebrities" are saying the public conversation has to be monitored in the first place. Wonderful. And if anyone thinks it will stop with celebrities, he or she can join the<i> Reichian Ranks of Imbeciles.</i><br /><br />
I am very dubious that capitalism can be reformed not to do what it was intended to do: exploit the worker. No wealth comes out of nowhere and ultimately somebody has to pay the piper. It may be some hottentot out of sight in another continent; it may be some deforested jungle... But the price has to be paid. <br /><br />
In the words of Lenin, social-democratic reforms only end up producing an "aristocracy of labour" in favoured countries. The German or American worker lives well; travels to some exotic place on his holiday and wonders at the poverty those poor people live under....<br /><br />
But OK... we ought not let theory be the enemy of practice. At the end of the day, I don't know if capitalism can be reformed or what will be the consequence if we try. I am willing to vote for Bernie. I'd have vote for FDR or Ferdinand Lasalle. Fuck... I'd even vote for Bismarck at this point. <br /><br />
But what I will NOT vote for is some confused Gentrified Liberal confusing issues and peddling the notion that if we control speech and put an end to pussy grabbing we will have taken a significant step in remedying the savages injustices of our economy.<br /><br />
C'mon Reich...you can do it: call for an end to for proft hospitals! Demand price (and rent) controls... including caps on doctor's salaries. Demand free college education, debt relief and a single payer pension funds. You actually do know where the nuts and bolts are... you are just hoping to pogey bait the rest of us to follow you down some stupid primrose reformist path. ... while drumming for war with a nukular power. <br /><br />
Asshole.<br /><br />
</div>Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-1212612822353033472022-05-02T12:35:00.005-07:002022-05-03T07:01:39.715-07:00Monday Madness - Stupid Remark causes Flight of Furies.
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Monday would not be Monday with a fresh batch of nonsense over which to get agitated. <br /><br />
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov was asked how it was possible for Russia to claim it was seeking to “de-Nazify” Ukraine when its president was Jewish. To this incredibly stupid question, Lavrov answered: "I could be wrong, but Hitler also had Jewish blood. [That Zelensky is Jewish] means absolutely nothing. Wise Jewish people say that the most ardent anti-Semites are usually Jews."<br /><br />
Quoth BBC: “The minister's statement was met with outrage across Israel's political spectrum.”<br /><br />
Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said: "Such lies are meant to blame the Jews themselves for the most terrible crimes in history and thus free the oppressors of the Jews from their responsibility” adding "No war today is the Holocaust or is like the Holocaust."<br /><br />
Israel's Foreign Minister weighed in: “Foreign Minister Lavrov’s remarks are both an unforgivable and outrageous statement as well as a terrible historical error. Jews did not murder themselves in the Holocaust. The lowest level of racism against Jews is to accuse Jews themselves of antisemitism.”<br /><br />
The BBC notes at the end of the article that “There have for decades been unproven claims that Hitler's unidentified paternal grandfather was Jewish, fuelled by an assertion by Hitler's lawyer Hans Frank. Frank said he uncovered evidence that Hitler's grandfather was indeed Jewish - though the claim, which has gained ground among conspiracy theorists, has been treated with scepticism by mainstream historians.”<br /><br />
<b><i>1. The Stupid Question</i></b>.<br /><br />
The fact that Zelinsky is Jewish has no bearing on whether there are neo nazis in the Ukraine any more than the fact that Obama was Black would mean that there was no racism in the United States. All nations are comprised of different types of peoples and political factions. Furthermore, a politician from one faction very often has to compromise and make deals with his opponents. Franklin Roosevelt was not a racist but he had to make deals with Dixiecrats to satisfy the latter's racist demands. That an accredited journalist on the diplomatic beat would ask such a primitive question is beyond belief.<br /><br />
<b><i>2. The Stupid Answer</i></b>.<br /><br />
Instead of giving the answer I just gave, Lavrov doubled down into the sandbox by bringing up Hitler. One might think a seasoned diplomat would spot a hornets nest hanging over the door. It was first of all stupid to say that “having Jewish blood means nothing.” It means a lot to Jews. He should not have let his intended meaning hang on an ellipsis. He could have at least said: “... it means nothing in the context of making deals in politics.” He might have found an appropriate quote from the first Baron of Rothschild to that effect....<br /><br />
But no. Lavrov went on to venture a questionable generalizaton that the most ardent anti-semites are “usually” Jews. That is nonsense. It is true, that some ardent anti-semites have been Jewish or of Jewish descent. The Spanish inquisitor, Torquemada, was of proximate Jewish ancestry. Saint Teresa of Avila was Jewish by birth and said very nasty things against Jews. Marx's essay <i>On the Jewish Question</i> has left leftists scrambling to “contextualize” some of the statements he made. Frederick Marr who coined the word “anti-semitism” to describe his own beliefs was married to a Jew. One could go on. But so what? The most ardent homophobes are often themselves homosexuals. The most ardent anything usually masks insecurities or phobias. <br /><br />
It is true that there is some evidence that would support the inference that Hitler had Jewish blood. The BBC is being misleading when it says that the claim is treated with “skepticism” by most historians. What the matter boils down to is that “Hitler's father, Alois, was registered as an illegitimate child with no father when born in 1837 and to this day Hitler's paternal grandfather is unknown. Alois’ mother, Maria Schicklgruber, is known to have worked in the home of a wealthy Jew, so there is some chance, however small, that a son in that household got Hitler's grandmother pregnant.” (Jewish Virtual Library.) Most historians say simply that the evidence is so circumstantial that no positive inference can be drawn. <br /><br />
There was no reason for Lavrov to broach any of this, particulary absent any indication that Zelinksy himself harbors an anti-Jewish animus. <br /><br />
<b><i>3. The Unhinged Reaction</i></b>.<br /><br />
But that the question and answer were undeniably stupid does not mean that the reaction was within the bounds of reason. <br /><br />
No one equated the war in Ukraine with the annihilation of Europe's Jews. No one “blamed the Jews” for Nazi genocide. No one claimed that Jews “murder[ed] themselves in the Holocaust.” The rhetorical hyperbole is based on the fallacy of generalization: to jump from “one” to “all.” <br /><br />
Let it be supposed, for the sake of argument, that Hitler was Jewish or at least believed he might be; and that, so believing, he suffered from intense feelings of self doubt and loathing which he then projected on to Jews in general by whose genocide he “purged” or “corrected” his own supposed Jewishness. All that is still the psychosis of one man; one supposedly Jewish man who ordered the murder of millions of others. That does not by any stretch of logic or even of imagination translated into “Jews murdering themselves.” It just doesn't.<br /><br />
What disturbs us about this unhinged and aggressive reaction is that it magnifies a stupid incident into a world-historical or even a cosmological event supposedly necessitating what is in actuality a completely exagerrated response. This flows from turning the genocide of European Jews into a taboo called “Holocaust.” It is the nature of a taboo that by making something “unquestionable,” “untouchable,” “unapproachable,” “incomparable” and “immeasureable” reason itself, which is always a question of measure, is derailed. <br /><br />
There is very little difference between today's reaction from Israel or Jewish organizations and the Muslim reaction to any disparagement of “the Prophet” or the medieval reaction to denying the Resurrection of Jesus. <br /><br />
This sort of over the top reaction actually disserves the memory of the victims of Nazi genocide. Eventually, people will simply tire of it and come to see it as a form of self-serving manipulation. Stated another way, outrage looses its impact when it becomes routine.<br /><br />
The mass murder of European Jews with the intent to eradicate that group as such (“genocide”) was an historical event that can be studied or remembered. Although historians can always find issues and subtopics to investigate, for general purposes, the history of the matter has been combed enough. For the rest of us, what is left is an act of remembrance which, at bottom, serves a social and political purpose. Some acts of remembrance are occasions for happiness and celebration; others are occasions for reflection and resolve. But remembrance too looses its force when overdone. <br /><br />
To pounce upon every stupid, ill-considered, or malicious remark with the vigilant vehemence and fury of a Torquemada will eventually cheapen the very thing safeguarded. <br /><br />
</div>
Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-80626335612277020962022-04-30T20:46:00.003-07:002022-04-30T21:08:21.635-07:00New York Times Launches Major Offensive against Free Speech<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
The New York <i>Slime</i> is up in arms against Tucker Carlson, whom they accuse of foisting a false "<i>us-them</i>" narrative. He's waging class war!!! OMG!!! That is just soooo <i>a priori</i> untrue... The upper class loves the lower like a brother! <br /> <br />
Segment 3 of Everything Wrong with Tucker (per the <i>Slime</i>): He says, <br /> <br />
they want to control you √<br /> <br />
they don't care what you think √<br /> <br />
they want to control your mind √<br /> <br />
they want you to kiss the ring √<br /> <br />
they're not sentimental √<br /> <br />
they want power √<br /> <br />
they hate you √<br /> <br />
they want you to know it √<br /> <br />
they want to disarm you √<br /> <br />
they call you a racist √<br /> <br />
Liz Chaney wants to use the awesome power of the national security state to seize your text messages √<br /> <br />
They deny biology because the point of the exercise is to humiliate you. X<br /> <br />
They legalize weed because they want a passive population X<br /> <br />
Now, no one get everything right all the time not even Carlson. He is wrong to say that <i>THEY</i> want to legalize weed in order to make you stupid. <i>THEY </i>have already done that through their 60 year debasement of public educational system. .... Plus allowing advertising on TV (which I might add, the French and the Germans used to not allow).<br /> <br />
But just about everything else Tucker says in this segment is correct. The country <i>is</i> divided between the halves and the have nots. The haves really don't give a shit about the have nots. The people in power <i>really</i> don't care about you or about anything else but themselves.<br /> <br />
They use the internet not to listen to you but to redirect you into a dead end and/or to tell you want to think and do.<br /> <br />
Think: when was the last time you reached a human voice at Comcast? When was the last time you talked to your Congressman? Do you really believe that the robo-letter you got back is anything but a spit in the eye?<br /> <br />
Listen to Erich Fromm (1964)<br /> <br />
<blockquote>
"Our society is becoming one of giant enterprises directed by a bureaucracy in which man becomes a small, well-oiled cog in the machinery.... The organization man may be well fed, well amused and well oiled yet he lacks a sense of identity becaues none of his feelings or his thoughts originate within himself; none is authentic. He has no convictions either in politics, religion, philosophy or in love. He lives <i>under the illusion that the. thoughts and feelings which he has acquired by listening to the media of mass communication are his own</i>."</blockquote><br />
Fromm wrote a half century ago. What he could not foresee is that our rulers would find ways to toss half of the cogs into the waste-bin of a global economy. That the social tools of the Fifties which were used to control *<i>a</i>* working class would now be used to control and debase a non-working class or a class of workers totally bereft of any sense of class identity, in place of which the ruling class perpetuate a wide spectrum of inane cultural and "identity" issues and causes.<br /> <br />
One can hear them say: "<i>We at the Times have long advocated the need to heal this country's racial divisions... As Matin Luther King said.... </i> blah blah blah. Where King himself moved from racial issues to the broader issue of political-economy and economic class; the <i>Slime</i> moves in exactly the opposite direction. When was the last time you heard the <i>Slime</i> advocate rent control, single payer health care, free college education, single payer pensions, anything other than some welfare sop that does nothing to redistribute obligations within society -- that is, that will give the ordinary man some of the freedom the elites enjoy precisely because of their wealth? <br /> <br />
The <i>Slime</i> is aghast that Carlson should allude to a class war. A class war most definitely exists. It is waged from the top down by the economic- political- and cultural- elites. It exists even among those in the upper ten percent who think they are not at war and who "personally" don't want to be at war... but who cannot but be at war due to their "investment" in the system of which they are but loyal vassals. The Fromm Paradigm applies to them and to all readers of the <i>Slime.</i> <br /> <br />
The problem with Tucker Carlson is not the primary social and political facts he cites, but the conclusions he draws from them. Instead of drawing correct socialist opinions, he draws just the opposite in favour of more private enterprise, more autonomy, less social obligation. It is <i>that</i> which IMO opinion make Carlson dangerous. <br /> <br />
What in the U.S. are called the liberal left ignore that there is an economic class war and then proceed to distract from that reality by championing a cornucopia of cultural and identity issues. What is called the radical or populist right admit that there is an economic class war and then divert energy onto their own cultural and identity solution. Both the Slime and Carlson peddle false consciousness, althought Carlson's speaks more of the truth in doing so. <br /> <br />
The <i>Slime</i> would have you deny the phenomenal reality in which you live. They want you to think that Obambi and Peelousy and Turtle Man, Bezos-the-Bald and Queen Elizabeth really care about you. Absolutely not. Think about it for a second: they do not actually know that <i>you</i> exist. "You" are simply part of a sea of faces they play to, tease, and (mis)lead. Does an actor really care about "his" audience? Of course not; only their adulation and the front door ticket sales.<br /> <br />
The <i>Slime's</i> glossy audio-graphic against Carlson is the opening salvo of what they claim is going to be fight against mis-information, extremism and hate on line. The <i>Slime</i> promises that it is going to show us how all these evils lurk and work. They will claim to be defending democracy and the "principles" of free speech on which democracy depends.<br /> <br />
Whenever anyone talks about "underlying principles" they are avoiding the thing itself. As Justice Black never tired of pointing out: The way to defend free speech is to abide no abrogation of free speech. Period.<br /> <br />
Bear in mind when you read these “analyses” that what you are really seeing is how and in what name the <i>Slime </i>proposes to “moderate” the First Amendment. Howsoever, sophisticated and elaborate this editorial exercise manages to be, in the end it all boils down to a very simple thing: any claim to “control the effects” of free speech (as James Madison put it) -- to combat un-truths, to prevent “extremism,” to ward off foreign interference, to protect the safety of a child or of the nation, to insulate against disturbances against public tranquility or against productive discourse -- any of these things is the age old, tiresome tyrant's attempt to control you and the effect you might have, small though it may, on the course of your society.<br /> <br />
</div>Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-53339731157451975832022-04-27T19:20:00.004-07:002022-05-01T07:19:16.619-07:00Poking the Bear - Follow Up<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
No sooner predicted than done,<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAzS87WyATYGuIQI4nb64-4GzDL6lvYrJU7coebq_sle_ZfUf027go9kCejICgZxaQAZvbwTX8b4RZBFn0jR24cOVReHqCWEMtmAxd64jdDxTlGtKO-6vzPK4RRDtgWHysibaX3j_1o6RvRqeNnHCHfUlmbogJIBbLwvV_lXHVYsxav36aAyzLTSiRcQ/s1346/220426%20%20More%20Military%20Supprtat%209.47.58%20AM.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="288" data-original-width="1346" height="85" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAzS87WyATYGuIQI4nb64-4GzDL6lvYrJU7coebq_sle_ZfUf027go9kCejICgZxaQAZvbwTX8b4RZBFn0jR24cOVReHqCWEMtmAxd64jdDxTlGtKO-6vzPK4RRDtgWHysibaX3j_1o6RvRqeNnHCHfUlmbogJIBbLwvV_lXHVYsxav36aAyzLTSiRcQ/w400-h85/220426%20%20More%20Military%20Supprtat%209.47.58%20AM.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"></div></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"> And not for a one-night stand, either<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHennwBAVWlIe9mONq8EhrHVxp4lJx-dVhK5JpBTC0kVb7hYzkovbeXdhi4utfCKONv0OCwNjdfWnDrJdaShFxjP_dTYMqPdTE4lFvbql3EQJIOagWyL2VasPz6rzH3ZLPv_dUYMS9IHjFNf0n726GDD-4508gFEfXVHWtysRotEPfxDGJIcAjAVg7Lg/s1329/220426-Long%20Term%20Military%20AId.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="237" data-original-width="1329" height="71" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHennwBAVWlIe9mONq8EhrHVxp4lJx-dVhK5JpBTC0kVb7hYzkovbeXdhi4utfCKONv0OCwNjdfWnDrJdaShFxjP_dTYMqPdTE4lFvbql3EQJIOagWyL2VasPz6rzH3ZLPv_dUYMS9IHjFNf0n726GDD-4508gFEfXVHWtysRotEPfxDGJIcAjAVg7Lg/w400-h71/220426-Long%20Term%20Military%20AId.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"></div></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">Which implies a long term war with growing "aims"</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAb4ab4ZkLPoPJWwI6Xvmo-Auk1MAYRDE3UfbP8vS_na5F4Ws1XXxpVZHBM5WfojsdNQfGuS78Sf7lSrWxHTWrynh8nDPa9S2wOikykdjJnxvKnTDsR523618-sPXhbRRgNDekey2VuhAEj2zJnqwP8xINMAPR5d7CHLV1m58bATwCiJaI0gJuJNO0Mg/s235/220427%20Aims%20Growing%20at%206.47.02%20PM.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="54" data-original-width="235" height="54" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAb4ab4ZkLPoPJWwI6Xvmo-Auk1MAYRDE3UfbP8vS_na5F4Ws1XXxpVZHBM5WfojsdNQfGuS78Sf7lSrWxHTWrynh8nDPa9S2wOikykdjJnxvKnTDsR523618-sPXhbRRgNDekey2VuhAEj2zJnqwP8xINMAPR5d7CHLV1m58bATwCiJaI0gJuJNO0Mg/s1600/220427%20Aims%20Growing%20at%206.47.02%20PM.png" width="235" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div>
And one that could spillover into Russia,</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDo5mrKE763VgW9UqiWE55uKd1KZ-onBIpzUczw00xTxG8REaogJ6HBESmyS3VJoxj_upsfxa_e89JS7Il0j3Z4IDaZTJCv0JY_KAtc19-Iaij_B6YgHdFIUmoPGMSMDsD3z5J8UHY60ekkIxC98p9JY3FrphSZa1rML20p2WaJr1CWA8Bklto-biXig/s284/220427-Spill%20Over%20War%20PM.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="211" data-original-width="284" height="149" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDo5mrKE763VgW9UqiWE55uKd1KZ-onBIpzUczw00xTxG8REaogJ6HBESmyS3VJoxj_upsfxa_e89JS7Il0j3Z4IDaZTJCv0JY_KAtc19-Iaij_B6YgHdFIUmoPGMSMDsD3z5J8UHY60ekkIxC98p9JY3FrphSZa1rML20p2WaJr1CWA8Bklto-biXig/w200-h149/220427-Spill%20Over%20War%20PM.png" width="200" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div>
As indeed,<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9tQmacwfz_N8658QT804vVS9gQag6ke5vKv6fDuMmF0Mg1zze66LTQ6vEZsm17qknl8Aj5DjOsTOMDfvTUsFhMPjAuUg6UJ8mW4l5SC5-448snwl5t4Njl6zaHJOeHBBIwFN5IW5KkR29H_uJxRYkOMGdqy9UhyD5afM8C-zZyWo11Q5rwOy0BgGQkw/s267/220427-Explosions%20in%20Russia%20.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="117" data-original-width="267" height="117" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9tQmacwfz_N8658QT804vVS9gQag6ke5vKv6fDuMmF0Mg1zze66LTQ6vEZsm17qknl8Aj5DjOsTOMDfvTUsFhMPjAuUg6UJ8mW4l5SC5-448snwl5t4Njl6zaHJOeHBBIwFN5IW5KkR29H_uJxRYkOMGdqy9UhyD5afM8C-zZyWo11Q5rwOy0BgGQkw/s1600/220427-Explosions%20in%20Russia%20.png" width="267" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Causing Putin to announce that,<br /><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiU7emTI6AB_xkD0h8iH-h9j_veiSAx5-Wa1IqPlwGwvHU0aiYpYGDbns-EoDPA0s3-W3MzGbUac6lgvHPvaJXoq566XwvOjxbP7LlV-mrI0-gWM-E8REmgnh5K2enS_kOXicEgd9JZuVFEA096MkwP_M0VdqYEtpE_cRjhevsqtQXjnt6ONOLuHJVe0A/s739/Putin%20Warns.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="170" data-original-width="739" height="93" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiU7emTI6AB_xkD0h8iH-h9j_veiSAx5-Wa1IqPlwGwvHU0aiYpYGDbns-EoDPA0s3-W3MzGbUac6lgvHPvaJXoq566XwvOjxbP7LlV-mrI0-gWM-E8REmgnh5K2enS_kOXicEgd9JZuVFEA096MkwP_M0VdqYEtpE_cRjhevsqtQXjnt6ONOLuHJVe0A/w400-h93/Putin%20Warns.png" width="400" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Meanwhile, in Brussels, after joining the sanctions against Russian gas, European capitals express their outrage -- positive outrage -- that Russia would announce gas delivery cut offs. "Bad on you for not giving us what we didn't want!!!!" <br /> <br />
Delirium Tremens.
<br />
<br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBySCayXduEETxmFZsiEP1xLszPDD6FtXZCQT6cZNYG5OOkJT5TZP4Uf7INNRPz-lPjamdHDRG3wJEQtDmnljeP3Ov2sbezGHypPTYikT2S6KoggdOWYrfj12wW4dekFLqo1yOwSEv-aR8IQtRrnKvAJ_w3sAvg_qSZrcjUpWK8WWWfju-UsdK4y-d3w/s1337/Screen%20Shot%202022-05-01%20at%206.59.43%20AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="234" data-original-width="1337" height="70" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBySCayXduEETxmFZsiEP1xLszPDD6FtXZCQT6cZNYG5OOkJT5TZP4Uf7INNRPz-lPjamdHDRG3wJEQtDmnljeP3Ov2sbezGHypPTYikT2S6KoggdOWYrfj12wW4dekFLqo1yOwSEv-aR8IQtRrnKvAJ_w3sAvg_qSZrcjUpWK8WWWfju-UsdK4y-d3w/w400-h70/Screen%20Shot%202022-05-01%20at%206.59.43%20AM.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">One has to wonder why the Speaker of the House, whose brief does not include the conduct of foreign policy, feels it incumbent on herself to go visit a war zone and indulge Churchillesque Blather. "Until Victory is Won" is demagogue for "Until the Shop is totally smashed up."</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div>Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-17540079763418320902022-04-24T16:22:00.002-07:002022-04-24T16:23:51.536-07:00Slime is Spam?<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
A Social Media giant has determined that the Elite Readership of the New York Slime is GUILTY of spamming HATE OR FAKE news in contravention of it autocratically imposed COMMUNITY STANDARDS<br /> <br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFYtC-hsJxCju3d_0i3ftGf9qYEnHukfdylbrSYBcJuqTZMaiQR1rWSBO2GYaBCkfAvKEtfdHYTnfGYkRfITLg4W9_HVrhyf5n9h24stDJNTRaAWvc66C6LmEZI_TvvaA2Yx26zdrusUMZnN2eL6_rbrttD9mVvolGRf1knlM6DQkaHVpXwBnqrKxHQg/s789/PostIsSpam.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="614" data-original-width="789" height="311" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFYtC-hsJxCju3d_0i3ftGf9qYEnHukfdylbrSYBcJuqTZMaiQR1rWSBO2GYaBCkfAvKEtfdHYTnfGYkRfITLg4W9_HVrhyf5n9h24stDJNTRaAWvc66C6LmEZI_TvvaA2Yx26zdrusUMZnN2eL6_rbrttD9mVvolGRf1knlM6DQkaHVpXwBnqrKxHQg/w400-h311/PostIsSpam.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> The post, which has been whited out in true Stalinist fashion, had exerpted comments from the New York Slime's moderated comment sections to an article by Nicholas Cohen whipping up the flames of uptown hysteria at the prospect (unlikely) of a Le Pen election. <br /> <br /><div style="text-align: center;"> <div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhF9eK0MWIfmceZ5gNoFB10v9W49l8tzcpvFCevDgHBuqVbCXUHZlhprIbI1IquwIyNr1jvONgZ9hf4NHZ2MZdAutVFOAhQFzORDbGqeleJKjktUZfLD0cWgvhWGrhtzGyB-5EtuBqxitVYp4y03sTcvHFIf2bahCSBDtFQE03wvRqiEz6A36nRLzOBxA/s2230/GPOST-2.png"><img border="0" data-original-height="2230" data-original-width="755" height="908" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhF9eK0MWIfmceZ5gNoFB10v9W49l8tzcpvFCevDgHBuqVbCXUHZlhprIbI1IquwIyNr1jvONgZ9hf4NHZ2MZdAutVFOAhQFzORDbGqeleJKjktUZfLD0cWgvhWGrhtzGyB-5EtuBqxitVYp4y03sTcvHFIf2bahCSBDtFQE03wvRqiEz6A36nRLzOBxA/w305-h908/GPOST-2.png" width="305" /></a></div><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> Of course the Slime itself saw nothing wrong with the comments (although they refused to publish mine).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
All of which goes to show that censorship always, without exception, leads to imbecity and absurdity. It also goes to show that unless your interests in life consists in gurgling babies and Cute Cats doing Adorable Things or "the Game" it is pointless to post anything on social media. If you are not censored your speech WILL be chilled. <br /> <br />
"Don't look around...." <br /> <br />
</div>Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-58155890674056027572022-04-06T22:51:00.000-07:002022-04-06T22:51:34.331-07:00Insanity Rules<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Two headlines today gave proof that insanity rules in western capitals.<br /> <br />
<b>US and allies to hit Russia with new sanctions as outrage over civilian killings grows
</b> <br /> <br />
<b>Yellen to Warn of ‘Enormous Economic Repercussions’ From Ukraine Invasion</b><br /> <br />
"<i>The Treasury secretary plans to highlight risks of rising food and energy prices at a congressional hearing on Wednesday.</i>"<br /> <br />
But why -- oh why -- are there “risks of rising food and energy prices”? Did the risk just happen, like a passing cloud perhaps? No. <i>The risk happened because of the sanctions.</i><br /> <br />
Meanwhile, after White House eunuchs walked back Biden's call for regime change, another Biden Mumble walked back the walking back saying that that guy has got to go. <br /> <br />
History is too important to be left to humans.<br /> <br />
That the Russians have been brutal in their prosecution of wars is undeniable. Whether their brutality is any worse than that of others or than the sanitized techno-brutality of U.S. drone warfare, I leave to another day. War by nature is an exercise in <i>tu quoque.</i> The fact is that Russians have been and are capable of committing atrocities and, therefore, it is more than just possible that they murdered civilians in Bucha. On the other hand, the neatly placed boxes of Russian military rations next to some of the bodies is... well... just a little too neat for my skeptical mind.<br /> <br />
As any lawyer can tell you, the <i>fact</i> of a dead body only begins the inquiry. It does not end it. The question remains as to <i>how</i> and <i>why</i> the body was killed. Was there a provocation? Was there a mistake? What was the intent? Was it an action <i>ordered</i> by superiors or was it a spontaneous rampage by enlisted men? In other words, was it a <i>state action</i> for which the state can be sanctioned or was it individual criminal behaviour for which the individuals in question should be punished.<br /> <br />
During the last world war, all armies (except Russia) had “war crimes bureaus” whose task it was to investigate alleged and reported war crimes. The complaint would be relayed through a neutral conduit to either the Royal Navy or the Wehrmacht which would then launch an inquiry to look into the matter and issue a report either confirming or denying the claim. The idea was that, after the war, there would be a clearing of claims and repartations would be paid as appropriate. The parties were actually fairly decent about it. Sorry ol' chap. Our bad. See you in Geneva!<br /> <br />
The point is that when an atrocity is alleged, the matter needs to be investigated, calmly and well. If a person wants to behave like a rational human being, he refrains from taking responsive action until the allegations are confirmed. Then, as a second step in rationality, he has to weigh the benefits and risks of the proposed retaliation. It is a fact of life that sometimes one cannot retaliate as one would like because the to do so would be too injurious to one's self or to another. In this situation, one is left biting one's lip. <br /> <br />
But none of this matters in our ruling capitals. The matter is investigated in the press, with predictable outcomes. It reminds me of the notorious <i>Kadaververwertungsanstalt</i>. See? Look at the picture of those bodies in front of the factory!!! It's OBVIOUS. The Germans are using their own dead soldiers to make soap! Don't deny the facts! The Fiends! As if roasting babies on the spits of their bayonets wasn't bad enough!<br /> <br />
Listen carefully to the way our leaders speak. They cry for sanctions and in the same breath refer to “mounting evidence” that “points to” and like phrases. Listen to NATO's Stoltenberg “<i>And we have to gather all the detail so this can be an actual – have a war crimes trial</i>.” In other words, they don't yet have “all the detail”... and without all the detail they can't possibly know if in fact a war crime was committed. They might have suspicions. The suspicions may be well founded. But -- where have we heard it before? -- “suspicion is not guilt.”<br /> <br />
I am not denying that an atrocity took place. I am not defending it if it did. I simply do not have all the facts and I am not willing to rely on a press that sensationalizes everything or on a Ukrainian government that is not an “unbiased” observer and that has an obvious interest in creating atrocity propaganda. Of course, Russia denies and attempts to sow doubt. But the fact that Russia sows it does not mean that doubt is not a good thing to start off with. Judiciousness begins with skepticism. <br /> <br />
All I am saying is that before our leaders run off half-cocked and impose yet further sanctions which will hurt ordinary working people around the world more than they hurt Putin, they ought at least be forced into cold showers in order to temper their inflamed minds.<br /> <br />
Is that too much to ask?<br /> <br /></div>
Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-78324144369399872422022-03-31T15:12:00.002-07:002022-03-31T15:12:29.675-07:00Russia Derangement Syndrome<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /> Let me see if I can get this straight: <br /> <br />
1. The West imposes unprecedented sanctions of Russia, freezing its dollar assets in the West, locking it out of SWIFT, prohibiting and effectively cancelling business deals.... <br /> <br />
2. Russia says, "OK, but then if you want to buy our gas, you'll have to pay for it in rubles. <br /> <br />
3. Germany shrieks "BLACKMAIL!!!!" <br /> <br />
So Germany gets to pay for gas in dollars which Russia can't access because of the sanctions? <br /> <br />
The West can deal with the present crisis in whatever way it wants, but it shouldn't loose its marbles in the process. <br /> <br />
</div>
Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-82143516663824423412022-03-27T20:43:00.003-07:002022-03-27T20:48:50.414-07:00Biden goes Bonkers
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Speaking in Europe on Saturday, Biden flew off the handle,
<br /> <br />
<blockquote>
<i>“A dictator bent on rebuilding an empire will never erase a people’s love for liberty,” Biden said. “Brutality will never grind down their will to be free. Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia, for free people refuse to live in a world of hopelessness and darkness.<br /> <br />
"They will have a different future a brighter future, rooted in democracy and principles, hope and light, of decency and dignity, of freedom of possibility. <b> For God's sake this man cannot remain in power.</b>"</i>
</blockquote>
It was like watching a machine spin faster and faster until it lost its bearing entirely. Needless to say, Biden's call for Putin to be deposed was walked backed furiously by the State Department.
<br /> <br />
Why do American presidents jerk themselves up into such frenzies? .<br /> <br />
Americans have tendency toward grandiloquent Manicheism, in which they cast everything into shadows of the lightest light and the darkest dark. There is no middle ground, which most people understand is the grey human condition.<br /> <br />
But oh no! Every bump in the geo-political world, every disagreement invokes and involves the Host of Heaven against the Legions of Hell!<br /> <br />
In swelling tones, the Flawless Obambi routinely inovked "that [shinning][seminal][epochal]
document" signed over 200 years ago, here in America which proclaimed for all the world to hear, that all human beings were created free and equal and endowed [omit 'by their Creator'] with certain ianunalienababble rights, AMONG WHICH are ... etc. etc. etc." A hair more and it would have been the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.<br /> <br />
This was the same document that my English History book's chapter on the <i>Loss of the American Colonies</i>, called a "propagandist appeal" in whose "magical words" the colonists found stirring justification for their rebellion.<br /> <br />
Well.... I suppose that if you are going to rebel you need to stir things up and I'm sure every nation has its Sacrosanct Mumbo Jumbo. But two hundred years after the event? Couldn't we let things settle down a little bit instead of whipping ourselves into a crusading frenzy at every juncture?<br /> <br />
The <i>Ukrainian Crisis</i> involves a geo-political conflict, which, in my view, is largely of our own making but which in all events needs to be settle by cooler heads and not inflamed by overheated ones.
<br /> <br />
And yet one could see Biden working himself up as he leaped from "<i>love of liberty</i>" to "<i>brutality</i>" to "<i>grinding down</i>" to "<i>the will to be free</i>" to <i>"hopelessness and darkness</i>" to "<i>hope and dignity</i>" and "<i>freedom</i> ..." until at last, literally on the verge of tears he called for Putin's removal. The only thing surprising is that he did not say, "For God's sake, for the Lillies of the Field, for the little Cherbim on Earth as in Heaven, for All the Saints, for all ye who Labour for Righteousness's sake, I call upon the Host of Heaven, hear me out: This man cannot remain in power."<br /> <br />
And, although he did not fly off that far, there can be no doubt that that was his frame of mind. <br /> <br />
Bismarck must be gagging in his grave.<br /> <br />
Geo-politics maybe fundamentally stupid and murderous but there is no need to make it worse by adding hysteria to the mix.<br /> <br />
FDR's spontaneous remark, demanding Germany's unconditional surrender took everyone by surprise. But the rhetoric was so uncompromising they all jumped on board and ended up prolonging the war by cutting the German resistance off at the knees and removing the chance of a negotiated peace.<br /> <br />
Now, it has to be said that Biden has done a decent job of containing the war-mongering hysterics in Congrease and the gaggle of neo cons that infests the nation's capital. So why did he then call for a outcome that all but ensured heightening and possibly enlarging the conflict? <br /> <br />
It is, I think, because deep in their historically uniformed hearts, Americans truly believe their exceptionalist, light versus dark bullshit. I would only remind them that it is possible to adhere to moral principles and be humbly restrained at the same time. <br /> <br />
</div>Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-88442483112104212062022-03-11T20:19:00.000-08:002022-03-11T20:19:41.875-08:00Snuffing out the Flame of Truth
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
The New York <i>Slime</i> went to war against truth today, blaring that "<i><b>the US is fighting against an incendiary disinformation campaign about bioweapons being pushed by Russia and China</b></i>." <br /> <br />
Lies spreading like wildfire! Jan Psaki to the rescue!<br /> <br />
Most of the article is devoted to yabbering about Russia and China are collaborating against us, and spreading lies in order to lay a cover for their own possible use of bio weapons... On the merits it reports that jen Psaki “called the accusations “preposterous,” and said the United States “does not develop or possess such weapons anywhere.”<br /> <br />
The State Department chimed in: "<i>The United States does not own or operate any chemical or biological laboratories in Ukraine,...</i>" <br /> <br />
Ah well. That settles that (at least on the Upper East and West sides)<br /> <br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhDzQht45l2FoMM-BYVoMWZBI6OpV89bjErjh9r5hHVB7sCsR6KRUhSBvV3ntgC6z893JYLV4yfmkZpoG_AZkKNuc3jQkyzlI9xbGuYRSrAs8BpVvt4-GCqgWUirV-qfsHGfJaHbO7X6gRcIDg6SeP4mR4TTgNnT_dWlC4aGXMzWSl-rb6PjoI0VPl1OQ=s768" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="384" data-original-width="768" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhDzQht45l2FoMM-BYVoMWZBI6OpV89bjErjh9r5hHVB7sCsR6KRUhSBvV3ntgC6z893JYLV4yfmkZpoG_AZkKNuc3jQkyzlI9xbGuYRSrAs8BpVvt4-GCqgWUirV-qfsHGfJaHbO7X6gRcIDg6SeP4mR4TTgNnT_dWlC4aGXMzWSl-rb6PjoI0VPl1OQ=s320" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br />
But what was it that Under-secretary of State Virginia ("Fuck Europe") Nuland said the other day before a committee of Congrease?<br /> <br />
<blockquote>
“Uh, Ukraine has, uh, biological research facilities. We are now in fact quite concerned that Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to, uh, gain control of [those labs], so we are working with the Ukrainiahhhns [sic] on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach” ”
</blockquote><br />
And so we just now got involved with these things that we don't own or operate? <br /> <br />
Well back in 2019, The U.S. Embassy in Ukraine <a a="" href="https://ua.usembassy.gov/embassy/kyiv/sections-offices/defense-threat-reduction-office/biological-threat-reduction-program/">publicly announced</a> its collaborative work with Ukraine “to consolidate and secure pathogens and toxins of security concern and to continue to ensure Ukraine can detect and report outbreaks caused by dangerous pathogens before they pose security or stability threats"<br /><br />
<blockquote>
"The U.S. Department of Defense’s Biological Threat Reduction Program collaborates with partner countries to counter the threat of outbreaks (deliberate, accidental, or natural) of the world’s most dangerous infectious diseases. The program accomplishes its bio-threat reduction mission through development of a bio-risk management culture; ...<br /> <br />
"BTRP has upgraded many laboratories for the Ministry of Health and the State Food Safety and Consumer Protection Service of Ukraine, reaching Biosafety Level 2. In 2019, BTRP constructed two laboratories for the latter, one in Kyiv and one in Odesa.<br /> <br />
BTRP supports many collaborative research projects through which Ukrainian and American scientists work together.
</blockquote><br />
So yes... we don't "own" the facility; we merely fund it. We don't "operate" we merely "collaborate.
<br /> <br />
But never mind. The Slime prattles on: <br /> <br />
<blockquote>
“I can’t think of another active propaganda campaign by Russia that has gotten this level of boost from China,” said Bret Schafer, who tracks disinformation from China, Russia and Iran as a senior fellow for the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a Washington nonprofit group. “<br /> <br />
</blockquote>
And who are these folks?<br /> <br />
"<b>Alliance for Securing Democracy"</b><br /> <br />
<blockquote>
Democracies around the world are under assault. Concerted efforts by malign actors to undermine democratic processes and erode democratic institutions pose a foundational threat to the United States and its democratic partners in Europe, Asia, and beyond. External threats from authoritarian governments have coincided with internal challenges from domestic actors to weaken democratic norms and institutions. The time to act is now. Citizens across the ideological spectrum must unite in upholding democracy’s foundational principles and countering autocratic efforts to exploit discord and undermine our institutions.<br /> <br />
The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), a nonpartisan initiative housed at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, develops comprehensive strategies to deter, defend against, and raise the costs on autocratic efforts to undermine and interfere in democratic institutions. ASD has staff in Washington, D.C., and Brussels, bringing together experts on disinformation, malign finance, emerging technologies, elections integrity, economic coercion, and cybersecurity, as well as Russia, China, and the Middle East, to collaborate across traditional stovepipes and develop cross-cutting frameworks.
<br /> <br />
We must not lose sight of the fundamental strength of our free and open societies. By shining a light on autocratic tactics, closing vulnerabilities in democratic systems, and imposing costs on those who seek to undermine our institutions, ASD is helping to support democratic values. <br /> <br />
Working with policymakers, the private sector, and civil society, we advance innovative thinking to better understand and counter threats to democracies worldwide, share lessons learned, and develop strategies that go beyond the standard policy toolbox. Doing so not only strengthens the resilience of our democracies but is a reaffirmation of the democratic experiment.
</blockquote><br />
Blah blah blah blah blah. The Burble of Military Industrial Imperialism. <br /> <br />
<b>Advisory Council</b> ("The bipartisan, transatlantic advisory council brings decades of experience in national security, intelligence, cybersecurity, Russia, Europe, and politics to inform the work of the initiative. ") <br /> <br />
<b>Mike Chertoff</b> was U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security from 2005 to 2009. ...<br /> <br />
<b>William Kristo</b>l is the editor at large of the influential political journal, THe Weekly Standard<br /> <br />
<b>Michael Morell</b> was acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency in 2011... <br /> <br />
<b>Rick Ledgett</b> has four decades of experience in intelligence, cybersecurity, and cyber operations, including 29 years with the National Security Agency...<br /> <br />
<b>John Podesta</b> served as Chair of Hillary for America.<br /> <br />
Who'da thunk it? <br /> <br />
It would be funny if our informed elite weren't such dumbfuck slime suckers.
<br /> <br /> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br />
Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-58376508479130593322019-04-16T06:59:00.000-07:002019-04-18T07:05:40.867-07:00Foulness Afoot -<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Since the season began, Chipsters have suspected that more than mere ambition was behind the serial hat tosses of Democratic Party candidates. One or two was normal; but when two became three and then four and then five, six, seven we suspected something foul was afoot. Today, the<i> New York Slime</i> gave the game away in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-party.html" target="_blank">article</a> reporting on Corporate Democrat angst at Bernie's steamrolling success.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
More than a confession of angst the NYT article actually disclosed the corporate Democrat strategy to defeat Bernie. <i><b>The aim of the DNC is to field as many candidates as possible so as to deny Bernie 50% on the first ballot.</b></i> At that point, the Superdelegates enter on stage to "put things right" and force a "sensible comprise" on a corporate centrist. <br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<b>Read this from the article: </b></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The matter of <i>What To Do About Bernie</i> ... hovered over a series of previously undisclosed Democratic dinners in New York and Washington organized by the longtime party financier Bernard Schwartz. The gatherings have included scores from the moderate or center-left wing of the party, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California; Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader; former Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia; <b>Mayor Pete Buttigieg</b> of South Bend, Ind., himself a presidential candidate; and the president of the Center for American Progress, Neera Tanden." </blockquote>
</div>
<br />
<b>#1 Who is Bernard Schwartz?</b><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Per wiki he is the "largest single contributor to the Democratic Party. He founded Priorities USA Action, the largest Democratic Party super PAC. Founded in 2011, it supported Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign. It was the primary super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. It focused mainly on high-dollar donors."</blockquote>
<br />
#2-- <b>Why was Pete Buttigieg there?</b> And just before he announced his candidacy?<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Mayor Pete" is not quite a fresh face from the Hoosier State. Mr. Aww shucks Rhodes scholar. He was put himself in the running for DNC chair in 2016. He has been hanging around with insiders for a while and that make him part of the centrist Democrat circle.</blockquote>
<b> #3-- Come to think of it, why are there so many candidates?</b><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Why, they just keep popping up! Look at the people tossing their hats in the ring: <b>Kamala Harris</b> (<i>the woman Obama!</i>), <b>Beto O'Rourke</b>, (<i>the white Obama!</i>), <b>Pete Buttigieg</b> (<i>the gay Obama!</i>) -- all <b>fake progressives </b>offering empty soundbites and assurances. And for good measure then come the regular, boring corporate centrists like Amy, Corey, and Gillibrand and every other office boy or office girl who ever hung around the DNC. </blockquote>
<b>QED: Flood the field with candidates so no one gets 50% then have the Superdelegates fix everything like they did in 2016.</b> <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Don't be fooled! As Franklin Roosevelt said: <i><b>there are no accidents in politics. </b></i>Bernard Schwartz and his Super Pac have the money and money is to politicians what strings are to puppets. Speaking on the Ellen Degeneres, Show Aww Shucks Pete, burbled that it was a good thing many people were jumping into the ring because that way we could have a full and open discussion of issues and approaches.... Bullshit. Back in 2016 did the DNC "prioritize" a full and open discussion of issues? Hell no! Bernie's run was a "betrayal" of a "party united" behind Hillary. We are to believe that this <i>same cabal of insiders</i> suddenly wants a free for all? </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Yes they do. But not for the pretty reason Aww Shucks Pete would have you believe. It's all just a form of divide and conquer. Do not be fooled by "HOPEY" "CHANGEY" "TRUTHY" "JUSTICE" "PATHWAY" talk. This is just political popcorn -- cheap calories -- to give the impression of being progressive. Banks, telecom companies, major corporations do not shovel money at candidates in exchange for promises of "hope" "better dawns" and sentimental drivel ? </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It's not hard to be specific. It's not politically dangerous to back specific policies which polls show most Americans are in favor of. If the centrist democrats and Obama 2.0's are not committing themsleves to specific progressive policies, they are either anti progressives or fake progressives. Pick your huckster but don't come crying to me when your progressive hopes get betrayed again. </blockquote>
</div>
© 2019 WCG<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-44847602035882272152016-12-14T08:58:00.000-08:002016-12-14T08:59:34.539-08:00The New York Times Scoops Again<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqiSbDvmpxLsF-cc8MGbil6m_H2uJIziQ8SXC3Qh7_2egD5ZCyf8cH8-OYSnIw01mamQN0Zo_8GDklKD9KyI9Ja10k12fcD1R7s3YhwQ_6_90eEf6tOWFc_DhJm94fUGGMYVFMRmBOCAG6/s1600/NYTimesGamma2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="286" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqiSbDvmpxLsF-cc8MGbil6m_H2uJIziQ8SXC3Qh7_2egD5ZCyf8cH8-OYSnIw01mamQN0Zo_8GDklKD9KyI9Ja10k12fcD1R7s3YhwQ_6_90eEf6tOWFc_DhJm94fUGGMYVFMRmBOCAG6/s400/NYTimesGamma2.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
©WCGChipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-33989877648310213122016-11-06T11:22:00.000-08:002016-11-07T11:30:03.442-08:00Pope Condemns Pharaonic Oppressions of NeoLiberal Capitalism<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuPhcK_IFrPkAt05uZrdXGqhl5Z1jtDYhwfyRuIT36YqiG4rJgORKIwl_TKQhhRwxoDHl0XOOf1E89wZsnyfI1WYr-9MqPbjyKw1tj4yRLv6jMGLUyag4_OKC6hCLtY8nMqkOCPOUOUIjO/s1600/papl.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuPhcK_IFrPkAt05uZrdXGqhl5Z1jtDYhwfyRuIT36YqiG4rJgORKIwl_TKQhhRwxoDHl0XOOf1E89wZsnyfI1WYr-9MqPbjyKw1tj4yRLv6jMGLUyag4_OKC6hCLtY8nMqkOCPOUOUIjO/s1600/papl.png" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Predictably, the neoliberal propaganda machine (aka “Hillary Press”)
has distorted the Pope's <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/es/speeches/2016/november/documents/papa-francesco_20161105_movimenti-popolari.html" target="_blank">recent remarks</a>, bending them to their own
nefarious and partisan purposes. Since the address is published in
Spanish and Italian only, this will set the record straight for
those with a waning interest in objectivity.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is true, the Pope
denounced walls built of fear and needless to say a U.S. audience would
interpret this as referring to the border with Mexico and hence as an
indirect attack on Trump. </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But what the Pope actually denounced was the “<i>divinization of money</i>” which
was an “existential whip” which, as in Ancient Egypt, enslaves and
exhausts without mercy (<i>un látigo existencial que, como en el Egipto
del Antiguo Testamento, esclaviza, roba la libertad, azota sin
misericordia</i>). You know, like usurious college loans perhaps? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So how does money rule? It rules with the lash of fear, economic
violence and military oppression. (<i>Con el látigo del miedo, de la
inequidad, de la violencia económica, social, cultural y militar que
engendra más y más violencia en una espiral descendente que parece no
acabar jamás</i>). It is from that primary violence, the Pope said, that religious and narco-
terrorism are derived. </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
All tyranny, he says, operates by exploiting fears. Those who,
despite massacres, plunder, injustice and oppression, still hold on to
some rights are tempted by the false security of walls; walls which
enclose some and exclude others.<br />
<br />
The Pope certainly denounced
xenophobia and indifference to the refugees fleeing the (US induced)
disaster in Syria, but his premise was the tyranny of Mammon and its
consequent “<i>globalization of indifference</i>” which did not put economy at
the service of the people, which did not promote peace and justice and
which did not defend Mother Earth. (As in continuous military incursions around the world, mass incarceration of petty offenders, sub-subsistence jobs, inadequate health care, penurious retirement, ecocide, fracking, coal tar extracting and palm
oil deforestation.)<br />
<br />
What is really choice is that at the outset, the Pope cited <a href="https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html" target="_blank">Quadressimo Anno</a> the 1933 encyclical in which then Pope Pius XI denounced the
economic dictatorship of international capital ("<i>dictadura económica
mundial que él llamó «imperialismo internacional del dinero»</i>. ) In fact
Pius XI was also very vigorous in his denunciation of the “idols of
Liberalism.” by which he meant exactly the economic policies pursued by
Hillary and Obama and all American administrations since Reagan. <br />
<br />
Of course the slop and slosh that passes for journalism in England and
the U.S. would attempt to trivialize the Pope’s statements, rendering
them harmless to the evil the corporate press supports (global
capitalism sub nom. “free trade”) while abusing the Pope's remarks as a
foil for their own enemies.<br />
<br />
The Church has always denounced liberal economics. It has always
insisted that people have a right economic security from the state as a
precondition to personal growth and freedom.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>Toda la doctrina social de la Iglesia y el magisterio de mis
antecesores se rebelan contra el ídolo-dinero que reina en lugar de
servir, tiraniza y aterroriza a la humanidad.</i>"</blockquote>
If anything, his remarks were directed against Hillary and the
arms-peddlers, money lenders, war-mongers and earth-destroyers she serves and supports<br />
<br />
©</div>
Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-9404846930738255482016-10-30T09:14:00.001-07:002016-10-30T09:17:09.268-07:00Reading between the Slime<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The <i>New York Slime</i> reported (10/30) on CETA, as follows</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
BRUSSELS — The European Union and Canada signed a far-reaching trade agreement on Sunday that commits them to opening their markets to greater <i>competition</i>, after overcoming a last-minute political obstacle that reflected the growing skepticism toward globalization in much of the developed world.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
On Friday, Wallonia, which has been hit hard by deindustrialization and feared greater agricultural competition, withdrew its veto after concessions were made by the Belgian government, including <i>promises to protect farmers</i>.<br />
<br />
<br />
[T]he Walloon intransigence has underlined the extent to which trade has become politically radioactive as citizens increasingly <i>blame </i>globalization for growing disparities in wealth and living standards. Across Europe and the United States, opposition to trade has become a rallying point for populist movements on the left and the right, threatening to upend the<i> established political order</i>.</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The key word here is “<i>competition</i>.” Repeatedly the established political order, of which the <i>New York Slime</i>, is a primary cloaca, tells us that these agreements are trade treaties which are a win-win proposition which will promote “good paying jobs at home.”<br />
<br />
The image evoked is that of two neighbours trading sugar for flour over the fence. What could be more innocent, friendly and <i>winwin</i> for both?<br />
<br />
But <i>competition</i> is “a contest or rivalry between two or more organisms, animals, individuals, economic groups or social groups, etc., for territory, a niche, for resources, goods, for mates, ...” (Wiki) Not so kumbaya after all.<br />
<br />
How does the <i>Slime </i>pull off telling a misleading truth?<br />
<br />
It does so because of the secondary meaning given to the word “competition” by capitalist propaganda. Over and over again ad nauseam, competition is spoken of as a healthy thing, like exercise, which brings innovation and better products to market, like getting stronger muscles. <br />
<br />
In this vein the <i>Slime</i> quotes GLOBCAP’s newest poster boy, thus<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Mr. Trudeau said he wanted to “make sure that everyone gets that this is a good thing for our economies but it’s also a good example to the world.” </blockquote>
<br />
In actuality, capitalist competition is simply Economic Darwinism. It engorges and destroys. Why else would this Friendly Trade Treaty require an addendum that “<i>promises to protect farmers</i>”? <br />
<br />
According to Turdeau, “trade is good for the middle class and those working hard to join it.” Not, however, if you’re a farmer in the target country. Just as NAFTA destroyed the Mexican farmer, CETA is not so good/good for the Walloon.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, having castrated the word “competition” of its true meaning so as to present a glowy picture of capitalist rapine, the <i>Slime</i> goes on to disparage those who might think otherwise.<br />
<br />
In saying that ordinary citizens <i>blame</i> GLOBCAP for inequity and austerity, the <i>Slime</i> insinuates that they are misinformed, childish naysayers. What the <i>Slime </i>cunningly omits to mention is that despite this “good thing for our economies,” inequity and austerity are ravaging societies across the globe. Neither in the United States, nor Spain, nor India and certainly not Africa, do the metrics come close to proving that these Competition Treaties benefit society as a whole. <br />
<br />
The <i>Slime</i> needn’t engage in a prolonged digression from “the story line.” All it needed to have written was that “citizens blame globalisation for [the] growing disparities in wealth and living standards <i>that afflict countries around the world.</i> A simply five word clause would suffice to give objective validity to a blame which is otherwise implicitly characterised as a subjective idiosyncrasy. <br />
<br />
When all this mind-mushing is over and done with the Slimes then turns around and slap the reader in the face by admitting it and the competition treaties it champions are the established political order and FUCK YOU.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
©Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-68434978917858395342016-10-24T11:20:00.000-07:002016-10-31T12:44:15.165-07:00American Pertinax (Synopsis)<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
[Synopsis of Longer Article in Journal]</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
[<i><a href="http://wcg-journal.blogspot.com/2016/10/american-pertinax.html" target="_blank">return to origina</a>l</i>]</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bernie’s candidacy triggered an astonishing surge of populist progressive sentiment in the country, which probably surprised no one more the Bernie whose candidacy was initially intended only to “put issues on the table.”<br />
<br />
The “issues” which were suddenly driven by the force of millions represented an existential threat to the <i>Entrenched Powers</i>. The political machinery of the economic oligarchy (including its apparatchiks in the press, academia and so-called policy institutes) successfully defeated the movement by fair means and mostly foul. <br />
<br />
Sanders declined to run on a third party ticket and instead urged his followers to unite behind a candidate who represented everything his movement fought against. Bernie’s betrayal of his enthusiastic and hopeful supporters flows from what was the underling deceit of his message.<br />
<br />
Upon being deprived of the nomination, the political revolution for which Bernie claimed to speak should have upped the ante and broken the back of the D.N.C. by handing it a punishing electoral defeat. A revolutionary movement does not consist in putting issues on the table but in commanding political power. A true revolutionary would have maintained that over-riding strategic objective, from which all other blessings flow. <br />
<br />
Instead Bernie sought to rally his supporters to join in the<i> Battle of the Nudge</i> by working “within the system” to nudge the beast to the left. He never explained how or why a beast that had done everything conceivable to moot, undercut and defeat him in the primary would now suddenly become amenable to nudging. Bernie was not defeated because he was Bernie but because the political and economic demands he was making were threatening and antithetical to the constituency Hillary represents.<br />
<br />
No issue more paradigmaticaly illustrates the futility of betrayal than the party’s position on the so-called “trade” treaties. <br />
<br />
The most important and urgent issue facing the world is the environmental and ecological destruction of the planet. Whatever other issues might be important to individuals or sub-groups, the health and maintenance of the ecosystem on which all life depends is of pre-conditional importance. To have even to argue the point is a sign of the depravity and degradation of the so-called “rational animal.”<br />
<br />
The next most pressing issue is the misnomered trade treaties. These treaties have nothing to do with trade. As Obama himself admitted in private to Bernie, they have nothing to do with creating jobs. The purpose of the treaties is to remove legal impediments to investors and corporations buying up countries and plundering resources wherever they want to.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
The treaties set up a supra-national unaccountable invisible military-corporate government, GLOBCORP and GLOBCOP, to rule the world according to no standard except corporate profit. The treaties destroy the power of national government to legislate and regulate for the common good. They destroy democracy and, indeed, civil society themselves. They are an end-stage political cancer.<br />
<br />
On this most important political-economic issue on which both greater and lesser issues depend, Mr. Nudge has nudged nothing. The Demorat Party platform did not commit to defeating the treaties but only provided a clause that any treaty would have to “provide” for environmental and labor standards, a provision Hillary’s own platform studiously omits altogether. Bernie has correctly denounced the “insanity” of the treaties but he is oblivious to the impotence of his nudging.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Bernie’s betrayal flows from the underlying deceit of his political philosophy. He was never a true socialist but only a revived New Dealer; that is to say, a pseudo social democrat. <br />
<br />
But Europe’s social-democrats and “socialists” are themselves pseudo-socialists. Lenin called them “<i>social chauvinists</i>.” What he meant was that in the end and when the chips are down they supported the national-capitalist class in each country in which they operated. <br />
<br />
They supported that class (and waged its wars) because the “benefits” they were seeking to obtain for the worker were obtained from a system which obtains wealth by means of exploitation. <br />
<br />
If redistributed wealth is not obtained from the workers to whom it is redistributed, it must be obtained elsewhere from some out-of-sight, ignored worker in a fourth world country or by means of some other form of wealth producing plunder. The success of the “European Model” or of the Fifties-Sixties “Prosperity” in the United States, depended on displacing costs. <br />
<br />
The deceit of social democracy is not that it is wrong to fight for life improving social benefits in the interim. The defect lies in the fact that benefits are obtained from an economic model which cannot sustainably support them. There is nothing wrong in bleeding a beast while you seek to kill it; but if you forget the killing and focus only on the bleeding, the beast will turn around and kill you.<br />
<br />
The Faustian Bargain of social democracy has a narrow edge. In theory social democracy could be revolutionary. In practice it never has been. It acquiesces in political and economic system that provides the benefits and in the end, as for all Quislings, Uncle Toms and Ghetto Elders, the “revolution” gets swallowed up. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
©</div>
Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-37188054533784313032016-10-21T04:38:00.000-07:002016-10-22T04:50:01.418-07:00The Grand Duchy of Fenwick Saves the World (Again)<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Grand Duchy of Fenwick and it’s regional sister the (erstwhile) Margrave of Wallonia have together blocked ratification of the Canadian-EuroUnion Trade Treaty (CETA), after Germany’s <i>Bundesverfassungsgericht</i> failed to do so. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW2DCanaUNTvi6VB8Mgzpfku-IWnE-M5ns8KAZvC82kSr11963Ks_ZaJw3-vJFHpRy9fKY1uwVuQlUhRe6LcsA7JkcTEGRC5OSeE9KLCe_gWmN7FbpmZVs2MLHcDxHXWG3QTGGyvEsTAzd/s1600/grand_fenwick__233358.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW2DCanaUNTvi6VB8Mgzpfku-IWnE-M5ns8KAZvC82kSr11963Ks_ZaJw3-vJFHpRy9fKY1uwVuQlUhRe6LcsA7JkcTEGRC5OSeE9KLCe_gWmN7FbpmZVs2MLHcDxHXWG3QTGGyvEsTAzd/s1600/grand_fenwick__233358.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Fenwickian Flag</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Canada’s trade negotiator, Chrystia Freeland, <i>visiblement très émue</i>, returned to Ottawa stating “I am very disappointed.... but it’s impossible.” <br />
<br />
According to the BBC “The deal aims to eliminate 98% of tariffs between Canada and EU... It includes new courts for investors, harmonised regulations, sustainable development clauses and access to public sector tenders.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
What BBC does not tell its readers is that the trade is not really between “Canada” and the EU and that the “new courts” will be stacked in favour of corporations enforcing pro-corporate regulations.<br />
<br />
Walloon Minister-President Paul Magnette, explained,<br />
<br />
“We have clearly indicated, for more than a year, that we have a real difficulty with the arbitration mechanism, which could be used by multinationals based in Canada, that are not really Canadian companies, and on this point we find the proposals insufficient,”</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEievnbWRcCc4g9xgl2MJFe1SKUiTTBnOMt3Iigu7m0bavd-tVd5Uy_RA7Qwf14yfNZJ6pXYpwkAEBAcu5DBmGlxw43xiW3w8Pnnp3sn0jNPgdYpWRI2qxhAV5sr6OHfp08hYlVCrMZ0DdqU/s1600/5800deffc36188cf358b45a9.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="177" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEievnbWRcCc4g9xgl2MJFe1SKUiTTBnOMt3Iigu7m0bavd-tVd5Uy_RA7Qwf14yfNZJ6pXYpwkAEBAcu5DBmGlxw43xiW3w8Pnnp3sn0jNPgdYpWRI2qxhAV5sr6OHfp08hYlVCrMZ0DdqU/s320/5800deffc36188cf358b45a9.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
That was Eurospeak for what we just said.<br />
<br />
Neither the BBC nor the corporate-run press elsewhere disclose what these arbitration clauses mean. However, what they mean is sufficiently proved by Trans-Canada’s $13 billion dollar legal suit against the U.S. government following Obama’s veto of the Keystone pipeline.<br />
<br />
In simple English, the arbitrarion or “special court” provisions <span style="color: #cc0000;"><i>allow a corporation to sue for damages when it is prevented from damaging a country’s environment</i></span>. If you need to read that again, you read it right the first time.<br />
<br />
One would never get the true scoop from pro-trade running dogs but what the “trade” treaties are about is establishing a supra-national, unaccountable corporate dictatorship.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoKHSA4CVYUzxx4HTujyAa0Z8QCtu_XY2aECNWbAOixGUAmk_NGwPtJjE6grilk-83BRkQ9nRsZBdY3VDKZaDfxFncI06g532C18YDvt49nQyGPOhs24XL63KpxUTkVEVzUwfo1JmycCpS/s1600/6297057e050623d026093fef5babbb40.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoKHSA4CVYUzxx4HTujyAa0Z8QCtu_XY2aECNWbAOixGUAmk_NGwPtJjE6grilk-83BRkQ9nRsZBdY3VDKZaDfxFncI06g532C18YDvt49nQyGPOhs24XL63KpxUTkVEVzUwfo1JmycCpS/s1600/6297057e050623d026093fef5babbb40.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Not Amused by <i>That</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The prostrated, depravity of the national governments is proved beyond doubt by the fact that none of them had any problem loosing their sovereign prerogatives to some anonymous corporation operating out of a domicile of convenience. <br />
<br />
However, under EU rules, all decisions must be unanimous and under Belgian Law no treaty can be ratified without the affirmative consent of its three, constituent erstwhile duchies, of which Wallonia is one.<br />
<br />
Needless to say enormous pressure will be brought to bear on Wallonia to blackmail it into changing its mind before the October 27 deadline. Needless to say, enormous inducements will be thrust at the Grand Duchy to bring it around and into submission. If anyone does not think that the Great Obambi is not leaning on Paul Magnette, standing bold and dauntless amidst the wash of servile niebelungen and snivelling quislings that pass for Europe’s ruling elite, he does not know what is at stake or what Obambi is about.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnEnIjNLRZ8wHGKwusAGG-r6lLWLBl7WQtLtj-5pIkgkJ4rZmmqyOJMr0jfw_uF94WchIr6qusek0wyqPW_ij6vs3EafpgaE3Q4RImZNKF1KQLbiDivzd6MSUACDHpX5oy3xzaPSQa8aFi/s1600/walloon-flag-std.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnEnIjNLRZ8wHGKwusAGG-r6lLWLBl7WQtLtj-5pIkgkJ4rZmmqyOJMr0jfw_uF94WchIr6qusek0wyqPW_ij6vs3EafpgaE3Q4RImZNKF1KQLbiDivzd6MSUACDHpX5oy3xzaPSQa8aFi/s320/walloon-flag-std.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Ave! Conste Wallonia! </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
© </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-17606212948535374472016-10-20T07:10:00.002-07:002016-10-20T10:59:11.077-07:00The Real Debate<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
While the US presidential candidates were engaging in their chronic gutter-sniping, Marine Le Pen, head of the French Front National was giving an interview to Stephen Sackur of BBC’s hard talk.<br />
<br />
<b>Sackur:</b><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
Let me ask you.. do you see yourself and your movement as part of world wide phenomenon?</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Le Pen: </b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Yes; there is something happening in the world. The people’s will is clearly emerging against either supranational political powers such as the EU or big financial powers and against a system which for too many years has been defending specific [special] interests and no longer defends the interests of people <br />
<br />
That is Brexit but also all these referenda in Europe which clearly show that the EU is being rejected — in Denmak, in the Netherlands and in Hungary some days ago, and soon enough probably in Italy.<br />
<br />
Something fundamental is happening which is the comback of nations, of sovereign states with people and frontiers. People want to be in charge of their destinies and for a long time they were prevented for doing so.</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>-o0o-</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
In so saying, Le Pen staked out a position diametrically opposed to the corporate globalism Hillary Clinton represents. While Hillary, ever the duplicitous dodger and dissembler, has pretended to have “come around” to being against the trade treaties, she has come nowhere.<br />
<br />
The position stated in both the Demorat Party platform and Hillary’s web page is nothing more than a bunch of weasel clauses in search of a stance. Any fool can see that Hillary remains committed to the “four freedoms” the bottom line of which is that the rich get to buy wherever they want while the rest get to scramble for work wherever they can find it, even if 1000 miles away. <br />
<br />
Hillary, no stranger to fanning outrage over politically incorrect transgressions, remained stunningly silent when Trans-Canada, availing itself of treaty-clauses, sued the U.S. government for $13 billion dollars in “damages” after Obama vetoed Keystone. <br />
<br />
While Sanders and Trump are also against the trade treaties, they failed to articulate the fundamentals. Their opposition was stated in mostly in terms of job losses with Trump adding immigration. <i>Neither</i> mentioned that NAFTA caused as much job-loss in Mexico as it did in the U.S., as a result of treaty mandated restriction's on Mexico's "right" to support its domestic agricultural sector. <i>Neither</i> spoke to the fundamental evil of the current trade treaties which is that they are a threat to national sovereignty in all spheres. It has been left to Le Pen to triumph the cause of nationalism as such front and forward. <br />
<br />
One of the inevitable concomitants of the mass consumer states is that it disables people from distinguishing what is fundamental from what is not. The overriding <i>habitus</i> of the consumer state is the satisfaction of impulsive and idiocyncratic desires, albeit carefully cultivated and manipulated. Social policy gets conceived of as a list of disconnected and often inconsistent wants. SUMMUM WANNA<br />
<br />
But some things are fundamental in that their existence or non existence determine all other ensuing issues. The environment is fundamental because without a life sustaining environment nothing else exists and one’s desire for gender-free access to bathrooms becomes moot.<br />
<br />
The nation state is fundamental because it acts as the environment for all subordinated political, economic and social decisions.<br />
<br />
At this point, a qualification must be made. The nation state is not an eternal constant. It was a specific historical phenomenon that began its formation in the 13th century with the Albigensian Crusade which was, at bottom, the suppression of local autonomy in favour of a centralized monarchy. In other words, the nation state was itself the emergence of a <i>supra-manorial </i>and <i>supra-municipal</i> power at a given point in history.<br />
<br />
Indeed, the progress of history can be viewed as the successive emergence over time of ever greater and more encompassing ambits of authority, although there are periodic retrograde retrenchments such as the so-called collapse of the Roman Empire, which in actuality represented a return of grass roots popular sovereignty. <i>Vive Asterix!</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
(We know that capitalist propaganda — aka the “enlightenment” — has obscured the true nature of feudalism so that all one can say at this point is that the reader will have to unenlighten himself as best she can.)<br />
<br />
But what is a constant is that, at any given historical stage, a given unitary formation of a people (what the Greeks called a “polis”) retains sovereign control of their own destiny.<br />
<br />
When nationalism usurped local freedoms what ensued over time was a reclamation of those freedoms in what are now known as the bourgeois revolutions of 1688 and 1789. When Marine Le Pen refers to the <i>French Republic</i> she refers to fundamental political concord and control among and by the people of France at a given stage of historical development.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2PicVAqF0foxU4zvkNIjkbspfXyDJ0yDs1tGZA6bptirw-G2gwPi_kzr8fr-R29ZfJAkZa7i7iKtfqP3Rc4Mu3SHRipnOadE6j9ODQlOyUbh94jxyzzmt-GOZTHBwUc1Lol8dO6nTbY9C/s1600/Asterix_-_Cast.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2PicVAqF0foxU4zvkNIjkbspfXyDJ0yDs1tGZA6bptirw-G2gwPi_kzr8fr-R29ZfJAkZa7i7iKtfqP3Rc4Mu3SHRipnOadE6j9ODQlOyUbh94jxyzzmt-GOZTHBwUc1Lol8dO6nTbY9C/s320/Asterix_-_Cast.png" width="320" /></a> </div>
<br />
The obvious counter-point to Le Pen would be to assert that the new supra-national, global corporate state represents the ongoing evolution of human sovereignty. The “next stage” as it were.<br />
<br />
There are, no doubt, some socialists who might welcome the emergence of a global corporate state on the assumption that once in place it could be taken over by a triumphant proletariat working in the interests of the people.<br />
<br />
The only difficulty with that long-term historical analysis is that by then no world will be left — or at least no world worth living on — because global corporate capitalism is not simply avaricious but fundamentally destructive. It will in fact turn the world into a holocaust on Moloch’s altar.<br />
<br />
The counterpoint between the national and the supra-national state boils down to the problem of size which, simply stated, is that you cannot have an infinitely large elephant. At some point the skeletal structure required to support a mega-elephant is so thick and big that what exists, if it exists at all, is not an “elephant.”<br />
<br />
The Roman Empire was a manifestation of the problem of size. The idea (or at least the propaganda) of Julius Caesar for a Pan-Mediterranean (“global”) super-state of peoples united in peace and prosperity under aegis of Rome was simply not attainable.<br />
<br />
Augustus rejected Caesar’s plan for a trans-national constituent assembly because, even if Roman jingoism could be overcome, the mechanics were all but impossible. Instead, Augustus espoused a policy of “incremental romanization”. As a result, <i>what is called the Roman Empire was simply a class structure</i> — a band of romanized provincial middle classes adjunct to and supportive of a one percent elite in the four principal urban centers (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria) ruling over millions of repressed and dispossessed people. <br />
<br />
According to <a href="http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume1/chap1.htm" target="_blank">Edward Gibbon</a> “<i>The frontiers of that extensive monarchy were guarded by ancient renown and disciplined valour. The gentle but powerful influence of laws and manners had gradually cemented the union of the provinces. Their peaceful inhabitants enjoyed and abused the advantages of wealth and luxury.</i>” But assuming <i>arguendo</i> a “happy period” from A.D. 98-180, more recent research has painted a far more brutal picture beneath the exceptionalist blarney. The empire was organized rapine — urban centres sucking the life blood out of their hapless surroundings — and that translated into the misery of many for the wealth and luxury of a few.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQNFt19DmWJ11QvfLPDVTRmB0Fx-yKb9xglHaBSS2beEHgvt0xDP_kecq-WGft67NjZ2pF5gp6P3Hp2Mi3kI2L_elIZLzfN4cnNaa4aX31Zt2y6ZyoZEm7P_GH6-AULNHq90rB0JFQexr3/s1600/Hillary+Caesar.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQNFt19DmWJ11QvfLPDVTRmB0Fx-yKb9xglHaBSS2beEHgvt0xDP_kecq-WGft67NjZ2pF5gp6P3Hp2Mi3kI2L_elIZLzfN4cnNaa4aX31Zt2y6ZyoZEm7P_GH6-AULNHq90rB0JFQexr3/s320/Hillary+Caesar.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The official Christianization of the Empire did not humanize this global, predator super-state; the urban episcopacy simply joined the one percent. The humanising impact of Christianity occurred at the local and feudal level under diocesan bishops guiding and giving voice to popular aspirations.<br />
<br />
By analogy, the notion that a humanising socialism could effect a proletarian coup d’etat over a once established global super-state is, in our opinion, an unfounded pipe dream. There are simply limits as to how big a “democracy” can get and still be a democracy. James Madison himself made this point in <i>Federalist Paper No. 10</i> wherein he discussed how the nature and constitutional structure of a republic depended on its size and extent.<br />
<br />
It is arguable, perhaps, that at 140 million spread out over a continent, the United States still preserved the features of a true representative democracy; or, at least a democracy that was possible except for the country’s deplorable <i>counter-democratic</i> electoral system. At 300 million, no form of democracy is possible; what exists is simply a degraded Roman farce.<br />
<br />
Extent is as critical as size. The dream of the 1812 Spanish Liberals for an ultra-marine constituent assembly compromising all inhabitants of Spain and the Americas was unachievable both logistically and in terms of the normal focus of each its constituent parts. People are naturally disposed to be concerned about things in their proximate environments. They don’t care about and are in any case not in a position to familiarize themselves with local problems a thousand leagues away. Thus, apart from the mechanics of communication, size impacts on what people are disposed and capable to communicate about. The Count of Aranda had prophetically made this point in 1788 when he proposed that the only way to save the Empire was to break it up into distinct (albeit allied) sovereign nations — united by ties of religion and commerce and “in all events to the exclusion of England.”<br />
<br />
Had his advice been followed there is a chance that an Empire of Sovereign Nations might have survived the Anglo-American onslaught. <br />
<br />
In all events, both Aranda and Madison were on to the same problem of size. The ideal size for a parliamentary nation state seems to lie somewhere between 40 and 80 million. A more accurate assessment would most likely be based on a correlation of population to GDP and other factors. However, what is evident, as a positivist fact, is that the current sizes of the major European states allow each of them to come to an articulable consensus derived from manageable differences. <br />
<br />
European nationalism would never prevent trade; it would rather base trade on priorities established by each of the trading counterparts. Since the claque that governs the United States cannot conceive of priorities other than the financial bottom line, globalists like Clinton can’t conceive of differing priorities. Doesn’t everyone believe that happiness is profit? Actually not. Profit like manure is necessary to fertilize productivity but right thinking people do not idolize dung.<br />
<br />
With these considerations in mind, it can be seen that Le Pen’s call for a devolution of powers and a return to nationalism is not as reactionary and counter-historical as socialists of the internationalist mode might make it out to be. In fact, in Latin America, liberationist and leftist thought currently rejects one-world globalism in favour of national and local political-economies based on and congenial to ethno-historical formations. <br />
<br />
The <i>Gazette</i> would prefer a Le Pen who was more to the left than she apparently is, although by troglodyte U.S. standards she out-lefts even Sanders. That said, Le Pen is about fundamentals and, on that level, the real debate last night was not between Trump and Clinton but between Le Pen d’Arc and the Whore of Globalism.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAwkHoNAo5eGM_cEaZZCIVqvmTH73SWe6P1TH0qsA2ecX05fOl80NC12JyLPrSiWO5uuX_4QM72utQf87LJ-euC6bz-jXTrT1GutVOO6u9XLXW2yO_j7CWL70heYlK1-etUl8-ZUW86wKQ/s1600/73082229.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAwkHoNAo5eGM_cEaZZCIVqvmTH73SWe6P1TH0qsA2ecX05fOl80NC12JyLPrSiWO5uuX_4QM72utQf87LJ-euC6bz-jXTrT1GutVOO6u9XLXW2yO_j7CWL70heYlK1-etUl8-ZUW86wKQ/s320/73082229.jpg" width="239" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
There can be no doubt where the <i>Gazette</i> stands.<br />
<br />
© <br />
<br /></div>
Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-57638441338686185792016-10-16T11:19:00.001-07:002016-10-16T12:02:05.207-07:00Oh What a Lovely Encore!<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/opinion/16Sun1.html" target="_blank">editorial</a> dated November 11 2008, the <i>NYSlime</i>, called on Obama to continue Bush’s wars by other means. Urging a withdrawal from Iraq, the editorial went on to endorse war in Afghanistan: </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“<i>The United States and its NATO allies must be able to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan AND keep pursuing Al Qaeda forces around the world.</i>” </blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
(Please to note “around the world”.) <br />
<br />
Written in <i>Slimeze</i>, the editorial was a <i>de facto </i>endorsement of neo-con full spectrum interventionism.<br />
<br />
Today the<i> Slime</i> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/world/africa/obama-somalia-secret-war.html" target="_blank">reports</a> on, and endorses <i>sub silentio</i>, a <b>New War in Africa</b>. </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
“<i>The Somalia campaign is a blueprint for warfare that President Obama has embraced and will pass along to his successor</i>.”</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
With inestimable aplomb, the<i> Slimes</i> states that the current strategy will not repeat the “mistakes” made in Afghanistan and called for in its editorial of 11/11/08.<br />
<br />
The <i>Slimes</i> quietly omits the Administration’s construction of a<a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/09/29/u-s-military-is-building-a-100-million-drone-base-in-africa/" target="_blank"> new drone base</a> in Niger to serve as a key regional hub for U.S. military operations.<br />
<br />
Once again, the P.N.A.C.’s 9/2000 white paper (<a href="http://wcg-journal.blogspot.com/2002/09/american-kampf.html" target="_blank"><i>Rebuilding America’s Defenses</i></a>) serves as the ongoing blue print for a fully continuous foreign policy that has remained in effect since 9/2001. The difference between Obama and Bush is simply a modulation as to which part of the spectrum will be active in any given place or time. It's ultimate effect and secret purpose is<a href="http://wcg-journal.blogspot.com/2011/06/mining-harvesting-and-civil-carcinogens.html" target="_blank"> <i>nation destruction</i></a>.<br />
<br />
In all events what the<i> Slime</i> has just told anyone who wants to have a brain worthy of being used, is that the Annointed One, will continue the policy of nation-destruction which she and her boss so ably executed in Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan — not to mention Yemen.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
One correction needs to be noted. The <i>New York Slime</i> speaks of this issue as a matter of United States foreign policy. That is anachronistic and misleading. There is no such thing as “American” foreign policy. There is simply a <i>global corporate policy</i> with economic, diplomatic and military aspects, carried out by a prime enforcer. <br />
<br />
Pity the elephants.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFjPXmwJ9KbOXSBTIxJ92YNAnixJU__bGpFsVePNe3PLYMsotOKmSV705WSmjjIdv59Cby-_UiCozC4JBk2HGDLna7Jo7o3c3Liga_tL-Wq9yL0S8iXMVb4goCmbGZRJRq_IqOlIn1Mxd2/s1600/redsquirrel%2528cameo%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFjPXmwJ9KbOXSBTIxJ92YNAnixJU__bGpFsVePNe3PLYMsotOKmSV705WSmjjIdv59Cby-_UiCozC4JBk2HGDLna7Jo7o3c3Liga_tL-Wq9yL0S8iXMVb4goCmbGZRJRq_IqOlIn1Mxd2/s1600/redsquirrel%2528cameo%2529.png" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
©</div>
Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-28214349571835717242016-10-13T11:42:00.001-07:002016-10-13T11:56:48.401-07:00Oprah-Determination<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bader Ginzburg has done it again. The echoes of her lambasting of Trump had hardly dissipated before she took it upon herself to mouth off on the momentous issue of whether Colin Kaepernich should or should not have stood for the national anthem. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Ginzburg is impervious to the fact, but her inappropriate comments discredit herself and the court.<br />
<br />
Let’s begin with the overused and abused term “<i>inappropriate</i>.” It is not a label to be slapped on whatever one does not like (usually with very pursed lips as if a lemon had been sucked upon). It means incompatible with the properties of something. <br />
<br />
The property in question is the status and role a supreme court justice. It is not appropriate for a supreme court judge to mouth off on whatever gets under their skin, much less to fog-horn on behalf or against a political candidate. <br />
<br />
They have an extremely privileged position and one of considerable power (reduced to factors of nine). When they speak, they speak through their <i>collective</i> judgement. Some systems do not allow dissents at all. The privilege allowed in our legal system is to mouth off in a dissent. That ought to be fucking it. <br />
<br />
The usual sophomoric contribution to anything concerning the Supreme Court is that it is *<i>really</i>* just a *<i>political</i>* institution (usually said with an advertised air of <i>cognoscentia</i>). Of course it is political but it is political in a<i> JUDICIAL</i> way, within the scope and nature of judicial judgements on legal matters. <br />
<br />
This is not a topic-based limitation. It is a limitation on <i>method</i>. The Legislature decides things <i>quantitatively</i> - that is, impulse, “objects of desire” (Brandeis) and number are what control. The judiciary is supposed to judge things<i> qualitatively</i> — the scope, constraints and fair meaning of words are ultimately what control. This is just another way of saying the judiciary’s job is to “listen to our ancestors.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Back in the 1930’s so-called “liberal” jurisprudence became “<i>outcome determinative</i>.” That is, judicial method became result-oriented. The technique here was not to listen to the fair import of the past but to dredge up whatever “rationales” (their word) might be served up on an opinion to bullshit the issue toward the desired target. <br />
<br />
Now, these are observations in gross. No legislature works on a purely numerical basis; studies, analyses, legal drafting are part of the process. All appellate courts factor in number in arriving at a unitary collective judgement. Legal formalism is never impervious the needs of the present and outcome determinism does not necessarily descend in all cases into outright legal cynicism.<br />
<br />
The fundamental problem with outcome determinism is that, in looking at a “desired outcome,” it necessarily “politicises” the issue in the wrong way — that is, in a way that is too close to what the legislature does. When that occurs, the country ends up with a supra-legislature of nine. <br />
<br />
From <i>that</i> habit, justices get to thinking that their opinions on this and that are notable and speakable, <i>ipse dixit</i> and <i>fiat verbum.</i> It is inappropriate.<br />
<br />
Of late (and as part of the degeneration of virtually everything in the United States), justices seem to think that they can mouth off in front of audiences outside the courtroom. No doubt, the lust for juicy speaking fees has something to do with it. Scalia was a notable offender. Were they to confine these talks to remarks and observations about jurisprudence and the legal system that might be acceptable. Even this is questionable because once they start talking to non-lawyers the palaver becomes unavoidably political, as was the case with Scalia, or, worse yet, “<b>Oprah-determinative</b>” which is what Gizburg’s latest remarks boiled down to.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
.©</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-38885548163036907112016-10-09T07:34:00.001-07:002016-10-09T11:47:30.716-07:00Reading Hillary's Entrails<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For the few who might be interested in what Hillary Clinton might actually try to do as President (as opposed to whatever committee-honed palaver she might serve up to targeted groups as expedience dictates), her May 2013 speech to Banco Itau (Italy) serves as an interesting omen. As release by wiki-leaks, Hillary said, </div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere." </div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, although the denizens of the United States might be oblivious to nuance, “open trade” (otherwise known as “free trade”) has been the banner of Liberal hemispheric hegemony since ... well since 1796, at least, when the United States (quietly backed by Britain) induced Spain into signing the Treat of San Lorenzo which granted the U.S. “free sailing” rights down the Mississippi River. This, of course, was the opening gambit of Manifest Imperialism, which ended up with free-hoofing rights to California and Oregon.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In 1796, Spain possessed the lion’s share of the hemisphere, and it was the Anglo-American ambition to seize those lands for themselves. Free-trade was their banner. To make the point and the objective clear, British Foreign Secretary, George Canning, proposed the announcement of a “doctrine” to President Monroe whereby the United States would declare that the meddling of any European country with the newly independent nations of the Americas would be regarded as a hostile act. Ipse dixit.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The year the doctrine was unilaterally announced, 1823, was no coincidence. Argentina had achieved independence in 1818, Venezuela-Bolivia-Chile in 1819 and Mexico, the jewel in the crown, in 1821. The fruit was ripe for the picking and the U.S. (backed by Britain) wanted it for themselves. <br />
<br />
What is called the “independence” of the Ibero-American nations was just a partisan slogan for the collapse of the Spanish Empire. Spain certainly did not recognize the independence of its colonies. The independence of Mexico was not recognised until 1836; of Chile, not until 1844 and of Argentina not until 1857. Striking the wedge, the United States and Britain recognised the independence of these countries in...well, as luck would have it, 1823.<br />
<br />
Odd how pieces fall together once one bothers to look for the pieces.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The dissolution of the Spanish Empire began in 1808 when Napoleon invaded Spain thereby triggering the War of (Spanish) Independence. </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUFRYqRUqWoV_JRaITPu9vmLKIjl38e_DiIaqJhZeKe81es-CM-Z6Y444Ijz3UG3bnYWwLSWn6N1LqcGT7ut0qXKalBId-R0QKglOTlrQaYuZoip9q-Y2XnF0mNslnzZamkj8Ds_azxwPh/s1600/thirdofmaycopy1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="242" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUFRYqRUqWoV_JRaITPu9vmLKIjl38e_DiIaqJhZeKe81es-CM-Z6Y444Ijz3UG3bnYWwLSWn6N1LqcGT7ut0qXKalBId-R0QKglOTlrQaYuZoip9q-Y2XnF0mNslnzZamkj8Ds_azxwPh/s320/thirdofmaycopy1.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Tres de Mayo, by Goya</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Borbon monarchs (Charles IV and pretender Ferdinand VII) fled (to France, oddly enough) and Napoleon installed his brother, Joseph, as king-in-place. <b>Spain was firmly divided in opposition!</b> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The country fell into two camps each as opposed to one another as they were to the French. On the one hand, there were the <i>ultras </i>who wanted to restore an absolutist Borbon monarchy; and on the other there were the Liberals who wanted to establish a constitutional monarchy reigning over an <i>ultramarine</i> assembly of all Spanish subjects, white and Indian, in Spain and in the Americas. In 1812, the Liberals promulgated the Constitution of Cadiz. Article 1 provided, "The Spanish nation is the collectivity of the Spaniards of both hemispheres. Articles 18-21 granted voting rights to Spanish nationals whose ancestry originated from Spain or the territories of the Spanish Empire (i.e. Indians).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2tl8ieBrJ48VW3sQcqkCO0BhMGOqzwfM9kQPVyjgL9evjlnmJnLLUR7pIZkdpQXWNX2Tj_a6TQJVdBxbuFOrcJ7KC8iyfnZadPk2tn-TIRtG4ptxpu5kV5JPWzXOXgHbVsd9_gP3X8j5V/s1600/Promulgacion+de+la+Constitucio%25CC%2581n+de+Ca%25CC%2581diz+19+marzo+1812-Salvador+Viniegra+1910-12-Museo+Cortes+de+Cadiz.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="177" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2tl8ieBrJ48VW3sQcqkCO0BhMGOqzwfM9kQPVyjgL9evjlnmJnLLUR7pIZkdpQXWNX2Tj_a6TQJVdBxbuFOrcJ7KC8iyfnZadPk2tn-TIRtG4ptxpu5kV5JPWzXOXgHbVsd9_gP3X8j5V/s320/Promulgacion+de+la+Constitucio%25CC%2581n+de+Ca%25CC%2581diz+19+marzo+1812-Salvador+Viniegra+1910-12-Museo+Cortes+de+Cadiz.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Both in Spain and in the Americas, the Constitution was the brainchild of the commercial and provincial classes. It was opposed by the Absolutists who were (in one guise or another) feudal nobility in favour of official privileges and centralized authority controlling absentee holdings. These represented the polarities of what would become an Ibero-American civil war between Liberals and Conservatives that would perdure throughout the 19th century on both sides of the Atlantic until ultimately coming to a head in the Spanish Civil War of 1936.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
In 1816, the absolutist Ferdinand VII was restored to power and he immediately abrogated the Constitution of 1812 (after promising to abide it). The <b>Stupid Revocation</b> (as history has not called it) set in motion those class wars in Mexico, Chile and Argentina that are misnomered as “<i>wars of independence</i>.”<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMj845CEikgBKOMBsWqi1MshYCuSGiQ1w0IIKrZQWIDKSDfZGJhn5hhHPJNT3RYQD8TnxmzSfDUa6vMPIRMPMKAbCX7GTQHhBXmzucLQOtMpZe6kXMjwbsUsy3mxyCxOkzw9T4hldMHQlf/s1600/Ferdinand_VII_of_Spain_%25281814%25292_by_Goya.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMj845CEikgBKOMBsWqi1MshYCuSGiQ1w0IIKrZQWIDKSDfZGJhn5hhHPJNT3RYQD8TnxmzSfDUa6vMPIRMPMKAbCX7GTQHhBXmzucLQOtMpZe6kXMjwbsUsy3mxyCxOkzw9T4hldMHQlf/s320/Ferdinand_VII_of_Spain_%25281814%25292_by_Goya.jpg" width="217" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ferdinand VII</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Ferdinand’s uncompromising absolutism led to an equally uncompromising repression which was so severe that even his troops revolted (Argentina) or the conservatives themselves got disgusted (Chile and Mexico). It was that momentary <i>unity-in-disgust</i> that produced the declarations of independence of 1818, 1819 and 1821. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
But the ideological and economic divisions between liberals and conservatives remained. Since Spain under Ferdinand wasn’t playing ball with anyone, the Liberals no longer had effective counterparts in the Peninsula. The life-line of official sinecures and privileges were cut off to the conservatives. In lieu of an absent Spain, the Conservatives looked inwards or vaguely toward France; the Liberals outward and toward the United States. They would be the darlings of the Monroe Doctrine.<br />
<br />
Trade had been the chief economic cause of factionalism. In the 1796-1821 period “Liberal” was virtually synonymous with “smuggler” and “pirate” — English, U.S., even Spanish. As smugglers tend to operate from lairs, Liberalism also became associated with “federalism” i.e. state and regional autonomy.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeqo-Pa38mSGGAVMrP6-MHiXeV_v6D_pycbhbFpi2hvdetxVc98OjoMPH_E9kQgyrNnpmAoQ7TThqw9RpXek-_aveb_UEwS7u9-x2EnztOEOkV_hVd7SAdpExCgZnU_T6m7LyrB1-7VNKe/s1600/Francisco_Xavier_Mina.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeqo-Pa38mSGGAVMrP6-MHiXeV_v6D_pycbhbFpi2hvdetxVc98OjoMPH_E9kQgyrNnpmAoQ7TThqw9RpXek-_aveb_UEwS7u9-x2EnztOEOkV_hVd7SAdpExCgZnU_T6m7LyrB1-7VNKe/s320/Francisco_Xavier_Mina.png" width="242" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Liberal Privateer, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mart%C3%ADn_Javier_Mina_y_Larrea" target="_blank">Xavier Mina</a> (financed by English Lords)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
In Hispanic, as in Anglo- America, the Crown had placed restrictions on the autonomous industrialization of the colonies. Thus, the question for the Latin American republics was from whom to buy finished goods and/or whether to develop the “internal” market. The United States itself was hardly “industrialized” and faced much the same problem. <br />
<br />
Following “independence”, conservatives took charge in Mexico, Argentina and Chile, replicating on a national level the centralization Spain had exercised on an imperial one. Trade is never abolished but in all three countries it was restricted so as to protect the interests of prominent landowners, miners, merchants. <br />
<br />
By mid century, the Liberals gained ascendancy. Chile opened itself to investors from England, Germany and the United States. Wheat exports to California and Australia were a key component of its economy at this juncture. Likewise in Argentina, the Liberals adopted an agro-export model highly dependent on trade with England which in turn developed and owned the railroads which transported the goods. In the 1920’s the U.S. replaced England as Argentina’s chief trading partner (ie. exporter of manufactured goods).<br />
<br />
Mexico’s situation was complicated by its proximity to the United States and what “trade” really meant, at first, was simply theft of land. The Mexican-American wars of 1836 and 1848 were the “infrastructural” foundation of U.S. capitalism.<br />
<br />
The subversion of Texas was the first “orange revolution” to be orchestrated by Washington and the “revolt” of Texas was raised under the banner of Liberalism in reaction to an alleged conservative "usurpation" in Mexico. The keys to California were all but handed over to the Americans by its Liberal governor. What is now called the “French invasion of Mexico” was the last stand of French supported conservatives against U.S. backed Liberals. The latter won and Mexico’s “Liberator” (Juarez) and his successor (Porfirio Diaz) proceeded to sell off the country to U.S. investors who by the end of the century owned the railroads, mining and 90% of the economy.<br />
<br />
The techniques of infiltration, seduction, subversion and armed intervention worked so well in Mexico that they were repeated<i> seriatim</i> throughout the rest of the hemisphere. Throughout the remainder of the century and into the next, the United States cultivated its surrogates, promoted discord, helped suppress truly popular revolts and extended its hegemony where Spain had once ruled. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxZLaP3QmxEAv6ZDaM-3gQj1aQ2-ek4z5gjc26zds0EshRfnSSB3dWWImuSo7gHIaN_EMlAFfV8GovNlSnuLCPgrHU318Flq4yYhf5sOXq1wIu5L-c5aQwAyBUi1XhCQ-iUgpuWFwVAdzo/s1600/TR+Big+Stick.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxZLaP3QmxEAv6ZDaM-3gQj1aQ2-ek4z5gjc26zds0EshRfnSSB3dWWImuSo7gHIaN_EMlAFfV8GovNlSnuLCPgrHU318Flq4yYhf5sOXq1wIu5L-c5aQwAyBUi1XhCQ-iUgpuWFwVAdzo/s320/TR+Big+Stick.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Constable Teddy & His Stick</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
After the Second World War, the United States refined its tactics. Instead of “sending in the Marines” the U.S. would train and cultivate “institutional relationships” with the Latin American military so that they could do the repressing. In tandem the U.S. would promote cultural and academic exchanges, the principle purpose of which was to re-indoctrinate the ruling classes with the splendorous virtues of free-market economies operating with open trade and open borders. (All Mexican presidents since 1980 have been processed through Harvard or Yale.)<br />
<br />
<i>Re</i>-indoctrination was required because, although U.S. domination of Central and Caribean America remained uninterrupted, in the mid-20th century, Mexico, Chile and Argentina had taken steps to regain control of their economies, nationalising infrastructure or key sectors and putting protectionist policies in place. In a word, the <i>Liberals</i> of the 19th century became "<i>Social Democrats</i>" of the 20th. In Latin America this meant not only regulating the economy for social purposes but nationalising it for the sake of national identity and independence. The U.S. wars against Germany and Japan allowed Latin America some breathing room but by 1970 “re-liberalization” (aka “privatization” aka resumed U.S. ownership) was back on the table. President Allende’s murder was the shot-across the nationalist bow.<br />
<br />
Most U.S. Americans are oblivious to what their country does in its “own back yard.” But what any Ibero-American would necessarily hear in Hillary’s honeyed words is an explicitly avowed continuation of U.S. capitalist expansion and hegemony.<br />
<br />
However, in using history to read the future, it is important not to get stuck in the past. It is true that, under Obama, the U.S. has continued to seek trade deals with Columbia and other countries; that is, to penetrate, privatize and control their economies through IMF dependency -- a policy which Hillary would presumably continue. But to speak of U.S. hegemony is something of an anachronism. As a cohesive nation, the U.S. ceased to exist in 1994, although most U.S. Americans don’t realise it. Stated simply, U.S. companies were so good at internationalizing themselves that they ceased to be “American” in any substantively national way. In tandem, the U.S. government ceased to reflect the interests of country of a recognisable people and became simply the “user interface” for and chief enforcer of global capitalism.<br />
<br />
Hillary’s “<i>open trade and open borders</i>” is simply a variant of what the Euro-Globalists now call “<b>The Four Freedoms</b>” — that is the free movement of “capital, goods, services and people.” <br />
<br />
These freedoms are decked out with all the flowery, floaty sentimentalism of which Kumabaya chanting is capable. But any idiot ought to be able to figure out that what the four freedoms mean is that trans-national banks, corporations, hedge funds and money men get to buy up whatever they want and people get to scramble from place to place looking for whatever job they can find.<br />
<br />
To spell it out: the four freedoms represent the triumph of a global capitalist class repressing over a vast lumpen labour pool. That is what Hillary means when she speaks of “powering growth and opportunity for every person.”<br />
<br />
Of course being the excalibur huckster she is, the key here depends on the pause. She wants her imbecile followers to hear “growth-and-opportunity for every person” (and most especially our children and their dreams for a better blah blah blah). What she means, however, is “powering growth for investors [pause] and trickle down chances for everyone else.”<br />
<br />
It is not for nothing that Pope Francis said that “capitalism is dung” and if that is the case, then the Vicar of Christ has just told us that Hillary is a dung pusher. As the <i>liberation-theologian</i> <a href="http://www.landreform.org/boff2.htm" target="_blank">Leonardo Boff</a> put it,<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Development and underdevelopment are two sides of the same coin. All the nations of the Western world were engaged in a vast process of development; however, it was interdependent and unequal, organized in such a way that the benefits flowed to the already developed countries of the "center" and the disadvantages were meted out to the historically backward and underdeveloped countries of the "periphery." The poverty of Third World countries was the price to be paid for the First World to be able to enjoy the fruits of overabundance." </blockquote>
This continues to be the case, although the evolution of global "free trade" now means that the poverty of the Third <i>Class</i> is the price paid for the prosperity of the First Percent.<br />
<br />
Fr. <b>Gustavo Gutierrez </b>went further, In <i>Una Teologia de Liberación</i> he criticised “development” as <i>itself</i> a form of impoverishment which despite its humanistic tissues actually served to sever the connection of people from their land, their culture, their histories and reduced them to efficient, spiritually impoverished units within an impersonalized, uniform mode of production. According to Gutierrez,<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
''Among more alert groups today, what we have called a new awareness of Latin American reality is making headway. They believe that there can be authentic development for Latin America only if there is liberation from the domination exercised by the great capitalist countries, especially by the most powerful, the United States of America.''</blockquote>
Gutierrez wrote that in 1975. But what then appeared to be an issue
peculiar to Latin America (or Africa) has now become an issue for the people of
France, Germany, Hungary, England, Italy and, if the gringo would
realise it, of the United States itself; for the "great capitalist countries" have themselves ceased to exist, except as agencies of an invisible amorphous power behind them. <br />
<br />
By <i>authentic</i> development, Gutierrez also meant more than <i>national</i> development. He was not just a liberal-turned-social democrat in clerical garb. He was in fact echoing the conservative theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar,<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Whenever the relationship between nature and grace is severed ... then the whole of worldly being falls under the dominion of 'knowledge', and the springs and forces of love immanent in the world are overpowered and finally suffocated by science, technology and cybernetics. The result is a ... world in which power and the profit-margin are the sole criteria, where the disinterested, the useless, the purposeless is despised, persecuted and in the end exterminated — a world in which art itself is forced to wear the mask and features of technique" </blockquote>
Ultimately, what these theologians call for is a liberation of the economy from the profit-margin and from the cultural reductionism that margin requires. That call is paradoxical only to capitalists. <br />
<br />
So there it is. One can fall for the honeyed bullshit of a woman who hires herself out to banks, investors and oil companies or you can take the word of “unrealistic” Catholic theologians.<br />
<br />
Hillary is not peddling anything approaching <i>authentic development</i> anywhere. She is pushing a world of power and profit-margins which promotes <i>neither</i> material development for the targeted countries nor authentic development anywhere. Anyone who thinks that Hillary has reversed her position on trade treaties must also think that she has given up on her long held dream. Dream on if you think so.<br />
<br />
<br />
©WCG<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-49705740385716265502016-08-10T22:36:00.002-07:002016-08-11T20:29:46.493-07:00Turnip threatens Hen!<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(and all the cabbages jeered.)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The organized hysteria continues. On Monday, Donald Trump sought to rally his supporters by invoking the <b>Supreme Court Issue</b>. This is standard fare for both heads of the hydra (aka “parties”), viz: “<i>if nothing else, the Supreme Court, hangs in the balance... yadda, yadda, yadda</i>.”<br />
<br />
True to mantra, Donald Trump noted that the <b>Right to Chose & Carry</b> would be repealed in Hillary got to appoint anti-gun activists to the Court. <br />
<br />
"<i>If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks</i>," Trump said at a rally. "<i>Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know..."</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Once again, the Ink Gates were opened.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i> </i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<i>New York Times:</i> <b>Trump Suggests Gun Owners Could Stop Clinton Agenda,</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<i>UK Guardian:</i> <b> Republican hints at assassination of Clinton</b><br />
<br />
<i>CBS:</i> <b>Trumps gun comment interpreted as violent threat against Clinton</b><br />
<br />
NBC: <b>Did Trump just make An Assassination Threat against Clinton?</b><br />
<br />
<b>FBI contacted as Trump could face Criminal Charges for Violent...</b><br />
<br />
<b>FBI set to investigage Trumps Assassination Threat.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The first thing that might be noticed is that almost all of the shrieks resorted to a passive inflection. They did not say that Trump made a threat but what he said was “seen” as a threat. In other words, the actual focus of the reports was less on the words Trump spoke than on a reaction by unnamed people as to what he said. The headlines might just as well have reported: “<b>News Media Reacting Hysterically</b>” — In fact that was what <i>Reuter’s</i> essentially reported ("Trump's remarks on gun rights, Clinton unleash torrent of criticism") Reuter’s being one of the few news sources that still adheres reportorial objectivity.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Chipsters are loathe to throw cold water on the flames, but douse we must. To begin at the beginning:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Threats</b> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<b>A threat is a statement of intent to inflict harm.</b> (<i>Webster's Unabridged Dictionary</i> (1913) [Threat, thret, n. Declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, loss, or pain on another.].)<br />
<br />
In many instances a threat takes the form of:<i> If x then y</i> where “y” is some harm, loss, pain, punishment. The antecedent need not be stated explicitly but can be implied from the circumstances; e.g. where a wife says “I’m leaving you” and husband replies “I’ll fuck you up.” In this situation, the if-part is “adopted” by implication in the husband’s response. <br />
<br />
Similarly, the meaning of the consequent can also be implied from the circumstances, including the overall relationship of the parties. Suppose husband had said, “I’ll fuck you real good.” Those words in themselves are ambiguous. Whether they threaten a bad result or a good time depends on the circumstances. This is why it is said that “all meaning is contextual.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Suppose the husband had replied “You’ll regret that.” Is that a threat or a statement of hypothesized future fact? If the tearful, quivering, wife comes into court and, through nose blowings and sobs states that she took it as a threat, does that end the matter?<br />
<br />
Of course not. The wife my have experienced actual subjective fear but in a sane and civilized society people are not deprived of liberty on account of another person's purely subjective reactions. Guilt and punishment are predicated on reasoned and objective factors.<br />
<br />
The question becomes whether the wife’s alleged fear was reasonable in the circumstances, and this depends on whether her interpretation of the words themselves was reasonable and whether the words and/or circumstances objectively imparted grounds for taking the “threat” seriously.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In one California case, a teacher accidentally hit a student with a swinging door. The student — probably a red head — immediately replied with “I’m going to fuck you up.” The court ruled that a threat had not been made because a reasonable person would have understood that the words were just an angry reaction. Nothing in the circumstances indicated an actual intent to instill fear in the teacher or a clear likelihood of the threat being carried out imminently.<br />
<br />
With these types of situations in mind, a criminal threat is usually defined as existing when:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>(1)</b> that the defendant “<i>willfully threaten[ed] to commit a crime</i>” which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, <b>(2)</b> that the defendant made the threat “<i>with the specific intent that the statement . . . is to be taken as a threat</i>, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,” <b>(3)</b> that the threat – which may be “made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device” – was “<i>on its face and under the circumstances in which it [was] made, . . . . so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat</i>,” <b>(4)</b> that the threat actually caused the person threatened “<i>to be in sustained fear </i>for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety,” and <b>(5)</b> that the threatened person’s fear was “<i>reasonable</i>” under the circumstances</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If one goes through the checklist of factors carefully, paying attention to the English meaning of the words, it is indisputable that Trump did not threaten Clinton. He was making a wise crack. Bad taste, perhaps. Threat? No.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
According to op-edist Lucia Graves of the <i>Guardian</i>, Trump was also guilty of inciting the overthrow of democracy: "I’ve no doubt that it’s an unequivocal call for the use of gun violence to upend democracy." Graves needs to take a Cool Down pill.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Incitement</b> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Under the English Common law speech could be outlawed if it had a “tendency to harm public welfare.” It ought to be evident to anyone that such a standard was entirely arbitrary. The standard ends up being a modulation between free roaming, hysterical fantasies regarding potential harm against a Precious, Noble, (Endangered) Cherished Good <i>au gout.</i><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Surprisingly, given the acknowledged intent and purpose of the First Amendment, the Common Law rule remained the law in the United States until 1969.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In <i>Patterson v. Colorado</i>, 205 U.S. 454 (1907) the Supreme Court applied the common law rule punish a journalist who had accused judges of acting on behalf of utility companies.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Patterson provoked alarm among judges concerned with constitutional liberties. One such judge was <b>Learned Hand</b> (that was his name) of the federal district court for the Southern District of New York and partisan of the <i>New Nationalism</i> (aka “Progressive”) movement. In <i>Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten </i>, 244 F. 535 (S.D.N.Y. 1917), Hand announced the “<b>imminent incitement</b>” rule. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGiJtzB-CJDC7kjwAYSP9wAZ_WCE3PSnc0QXxaoLYMsEMjpVs_Y6Rb4w3je_wa27PN2UL4V_tZdp7h3raWky30zCxG6PH-ADg-DGMi9GZmAIsJstfyrCLCZaNMEh3esdmRRIgpoLreSqWc/s1600/Masses_1914_John_Sloan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGiJtzB-CJDC7kjwAYSP9wAZ_WCE3PSnc0QXxaoLYMsEMjpVs_Y6Rb4w3je_wa27PN2UL4V_tZdp7h3raWky30zCxG6PH-ADg-DGMi9GZmAIsJstfyrCLCZaNMEh3esdmRRIgpoLreSqWc/s320/Masses_1914_John_Sloan.jpg" width="246" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Masses</i> was an ultra left magazine sympathetic to the Russian Revolution. The<i> Espionage Act of 1917</i> punished efforts to interfere with the armed forces and authorized certain forms of censorship, including the mailing of materials considered treasonous or seditious. When the Postmaster General embargoed the <i>Masses,</i> the magazine sued for an injunction, which Judge Hand issued. </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Hand refused to apply the “harmful tendency” rule. He acknowledged that the magazine’s content might well arouse unrest among the people, causing them to criticize the war effort and the draft, but he held that such causal tendency was insufficient to overcome First Amendment rights. Hand ruled that “agitation, legitimate as such” could not be equated “with <b>direct incitement</b> to violent resistance.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Hand’s injunction was overruled by the Circuit Court of Appeal and two circus trials ensued. The trials were emblematic of what the “harmful tendency” rule engenders. Despite Hand’s adjuration (“I do not have to remind you that every man has the right to have such economic, philosophic or religious opinions as seem to him best, whether they be socialist, anarchistic or atheistic”) the jury hung 11 to one for conviction. The hold out was a socialist and the jury tried to drag him out of court onto the street in order to lynch him. Hand declared a mistrial. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
At the second trial the prosecutor invoked the image of a dead soldier in France, stating, “<b><i>He lies dead, and he died for you and he died for me. He died for Max Eastman. He died for John Reed. He died for Merrill Rogers. His voice is but one of a thousand silent voices that demand that these men be punished.</i></b>” Again the jury hung. No further prosecutions ensued but the <i>Masses</i> had been effectively suppressed.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Hand’s decision in <i>Masses v. Patten</i> was a “behind the bench” attempt to influence the Supreme Court to abandon the “harmful tendency” rule. Unfortunately it did not succeed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In <i>Schenck v. Unites States</i> 249 U.S. 47 (1919) the Supreme Court upheld a conviction for handing out leaflets urging draft resistance, a crime. The leaflets condemned the war as unjust and the draft as a violation of the XIII Amendment. It urged draft age men to “assert” their rights and "not submit to intimidation"<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Writing for a unanimous Court, <b>Justice Holme</b>s ruled that Schenck’s leaflets had violated the law. He went on to state, “<i>The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to <b>create a clear and present danger</b> that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.”</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Despite his popular fame, Holmes was not a very careful jurist. California Chief Justice <b>Roger Traynor</b> once remarked that Holmes “<i>thought he could decide complex issues with a quip.</i>” For 40 years, it was debated whether or not Holmes had adopted Hand’s test. The reference to “proximity and degree” suggested that he had. But previous sentence, for which the case became famous, was simply a restatement of the “harmful tendency rule.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Whether Holmes knew what he was doing or not, the confusion arose from his use of the word <i>danger</i>. A danger is a “<i>potential harm”</i> not an actual one. A potential harm is indistinguishable from “<i>tendency to harm</i>” Had Holmes instead formulated a “<b>clear and present harm</b>” rule, then he would have adopted Hand’s test. A clear and present harm would be just another way of saying a direct and imminent violation of law. <br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It was not until 1969 that he Supreme Court announced a standard for protecting free speech that in effect recognized his Masses opinion as law In <i>Brandenburg v. Ohio</i> <span class="st">395 U.S. 444 </span>(1969), the court ruled that "<i>the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to<b> inciting or producing imminent lawless action.</b></i><br />
<br />
Justice Hand was posthumously vindicated.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Under the <i>Brandenburg Rule</i>, Trump’s remark was clearly not an imminent incitement. Trump did not advocate violence against Clinton. What he said was that maybe Second Amendment people (which can be taken to mean “gun carriers”) might “do something” about Clinton’s Supreme Court appointments, “I don’t know.” That was not advocating anything. Even if it had done, it was nothing direct and imminent.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court has sanctioned speech far more violent than Trump's. In <i>Watts v. United States</i>, <span class="st">394 U.S. 705 </span>(1969) the Supreme Court held that the statement “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.” was not a threat and was protected by the First Amendment. In <i>NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.</i>, (1982) An NAACP spokesman told an audience of Blacks “ that any ‘uncle toms’ who broke the boycott would ‘have their necks broken’ by their own people.” The Court acknowledged that this language “might have been understood as inviting an unlawful form of discipline or, at least, as intending to create a fear of violence." <i>Nevertheless</i> it held that the “emotionally charged rhetoric . . . did not transcend the bounds of protected speech set forth in <i>Brandenburg</i>…" In words particularly apropos, the Court stated,
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.</i>”</blockquote>
The key is imminence. When words act as an <i>effectual trigger</i> to violence their consequence is imminent. When the don’t they are covered by the First Amendment. Suppose a group of intoxicated, belligerent Dixie Dumbos are standing on a corner being rowdy. A Black man is seen walking on the other side of the street and one of the dumbos cries out: "A nigger! Let’s go get the nigger and teach him a lesson.” Those words imminently incite an illegal harm. Someone declaiming at a rally or writing in a blog that "mud people" should be run out of white neighbourhoods does not imminently incite anything. <br />
<br />
Over and over again those who are offended by a particular remark resort to the argument that the words they found offensive “inculcated” an “attitude” or a “culture” which “leads to” violence. Though decked out in a lot of impressive sounding sociological babble or uttered in the knowing tones of those who deem their truths to be self-evident, the law correctly rejects such rationalizations for limiting free speech. <br />
<br />
As James Madison said years ago.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"It could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency." (<i>Federalist Paper 10</i>.) </blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Any attempt to punish speech on the grounds that it might or even will engender "inapproprite" or anti-social "attitudes," "beliefs" or "ideologies" is simply an attempt to silence opposition. Invariably the power-grab is made in the name of public safety. </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the present case, the political and press establishments are a hydra united in an endeavour to destroy the Trump candidacy. That is their right, but the means they are choosing to do so are the means that have always been resorted to by witchunters and repressive regimes. While the politicians and the press can legitimately criticise Trump for appalling immaturity, to whip the flames of hysteria over a non existent threat or incitement is an imminent danger of its own. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieN-xRZQL8pz4qm0k6M-VMWw5-ZSXE4kGrQpUnid7-YAFU1XtPKI9tCJbpDUjkWBUB9gHmMZKxJ21WxPzTljnrnyTuvYcD2Kfgq4zK6jnoxmpLeearFwcBCULel42q7ow9eSiKLRE7duem/s1600/Oran-Rief-Hydra-Promo-Battle-for-Zendikar-MtG-Art.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="238" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieN-xRZQL8pz4qm0k6M-VMWw5-ZSXE4kGrQpUnid7-YAFU1XtPKI9tCJbpDUjkWBUB9gHmMZKxJ21WxPzTljnrnyTuvYcD2Kfgq4zK6jnoxmpLeearFwcBCULel42q7ow9eSiKLRE7duem/s320/Oran-Rief-Hydra-Promo-Battle-for-Zendikar-MtG-Art.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image of a Republic</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
©</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-41945923366864856892016-07-16T17:43:00.005-07:002016-07-18T07:54:14.204-07:00The only thing we have to fear...<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Is government itself. <br />
<br />
In the wake of the horrendous Nice killings, politicians on both sides of the Atlantic were quick to pounce on the event in order to further their police state agendas by instilling the populace with the fear of an ever present, undetectable “terrorist threat” — in short by peddling ghosts. <br />
<br />
In the immediate aftermath of the horror, there were virtually no details about the assailant. Before it was even known that he was a “French-Tunisian,” Obama declaimed, “I condemn in the strongest terms what appears to be a horrific terrorist attack in Nice,” <br />
<br />
On what basis did it “appear to be”? Given the U.S.’s experience with gun-toting lunatics, an American must certainly know that not every mass-killer is a “terrorist.” <br />
<br />
A tad more nuanced was Britain’s prime minister, Theresa May who said, “If, as we fear, this was a terrorist attack we must redouble our efforts [against] those who seek to destroy our way of life.” May added, that “a terrorist attack on the UK is highly likely.”<br />
<br />
A terrorist <i>attack</i> on the U.K. might be likely, but the present issue was whether the<i> incident</i> in Nice could be taken to be an indicator of that likelihood. May’s statement put two fruits on the table (voilá!) but failed to explain any connection between them. <br />
<br />
Similarly, France’s president, François Hollande spoke of the attack as having a “terrorist <i>character</i>” before going on to declaim against “terrorism” while extending the state of emergency that had been about to expire. In speaking this way, Hollande engaged in pure sophistry. His statement ought not to have fooled anyone but it certainly fooled the press whose <i>character</i> appears more and more to be that of <i>terrified</i> geese.<br />
<br />
In the days following the incident, press and politicians (who are now merely manifestations of the same underlying phenomenon), sought to make up the evidentiary deficit with almost vaudevillian tabloid slurs.<br />
<br />
The assailant was a “loner” with a “history of violence” who “allegedly beat his wife” and whose apartment contained fake weapons and “more documents.”<br />
<br />
"He is a terrorist, probably linked to radical Islam one way or another," Prime minister Valls told France 2 television. “Yes, it is a terrorist act and we shall see what links there are with terrorist organizations."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Did anyone think to ask how Vals could say it was a terrorist act without there being any known links to terrorist organizations?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Evidently not. Instead, the press decried the “failure” of the French Security Forces. The New York Daily News stating that “The fact he was not on the watch list will be of grave concern as an investigation into last year’s Paris attacks identified multiple failings by France’s intelligence agencies.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
A watch list for what? A watch list for spousal discord, relabeled “marital terrorism”?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Inspector Clouseau notwithstanding, <i>Securité</i> is not a bunch of incompetents. The fact that they didn’t detect any “links” even though he was known to police indicates not a failure of investigation but rather the absence of links. <br />
<br />
As of July 16th “authorities have not found links to terror groups or evidence of radicalisation.” That did not give any pause to Bernard Cazeneuve, France’s interior minister, who pronounced that the killer most certainly was « <i>radicalisé très rapidemen</i>t » </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<br />
Indeed! He was suddenly radicalized just moments before the attack. This sort of thing happens, you know.<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
What is truly choice is that Cazeneuve can’t cite any evidence that Bouhlel was in anyway interested in Islam or ISIS or Middle east politics. It cannot even be argued that “radical islamic propaganda” was festering and steaming in his brain until suddenly it reached a critical mass in his consciousness causing him to mow down bystanders in a instantaneous murderous “epiphany”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
What is known is that he was was a petty criminal who drank alcohol, ate pork, took drugs and never attended the small mosque near his block of flats. He was something of a cunt hound and was rumoured to have beat his wife. He got kicked out the house and fell into depression for which he was taken to a psychiatrist by his father. His actual criminal record consisted of petty theft and a road rage battery when he slammed another driver with an “improvised weapon” — i.e. one of the wooden pallets he has in the back of his truck.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
The simple facts are that modern society engenders a great deal of alienation and at the same time furnishes a wide spectrum of lethal instrumentalities for misuse. This incident had everything to do with societal dysfunction and nothing to do with terrorism.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Of course, ISIS is always there to rescue Western politicians from their hysterical inanity. According to the UK Guardian, “ In an online statement through news agency Amaq, it described the attackers [sic] as one of its “soldiers” carrying out the “operation in response to calls to target nationals of states that are part of the coalition fighting Islamic State”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
The only thing this statement proved is that ISIS is quick to seize any opportunity to puff up its strength and advance its agenda of fear.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
What is dismal is that Western politicians have the same agenda. ISIS wants to fan the flames of fear and Western governments want to use those flames to tighten their police grip on society. We’ve seen, before, the symbiotic relationship between subversives, anarchists, disaffected loners and the apparatus of the state.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Manuel Vals has been on our shit-list ever since he called for a "<a href="http://wcg-newsandnotes.blogspot.com/2016/01/our-present-future.html" target="_blank"><b>total war</b></a>" against terrorism in January of this year. Beware the Ides, when politicians start sounding like Goebbels<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Post Script (18 July 2016)</i><br />
<br />
French interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, admitted to day that links between the Nice killer and ISIS have "yet to be established." <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, attending a memorial ceremony in Nice, prime minister Manuel Vals was roundly and loudly booed for minutes on end. The gist of the disapproval was that Vals and his government were "incompetents." <br />
<br />
He got what he bargained for. Had he not been cynically pumping this incident up as an act of terrorism he would not have been booed, because no one would hold the government responsible for failing to detect the act of a lone, nutcase, who could hardly be expected to be on <i>Securité's </i>radar. <br />
<i> </i><br />
<i> </i><br />
<br />
© </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-86023135015746396362016-04-24T12:00:00.000-07:002016-04-26T17:55:33.373-07:00Monsanto's Niebelung<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Obama is in the United Kingdom pushing the idea that he is tickled pink by Little Prince George and that Britain’s exit from the European Common Market would be a disaster<br />
<br />
A disaster to what? Well... “it could be” — he says —five to ten years before Britain could negotiate its own trade deal apart from any trade deal with the Common Market.<br />
<br />
The trade deal Obama has in mind is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership" target="_blank">TTIP</a> the Atlantic version of the Trans Pacific Partnership.<br />
<br />
Obama’s tinsel tongue pushes both trade deals as a win win situation in which everyone trades even more furiously than they do now and everyone makes money, money, money. Good, good, good. Happy, happy, happy.<br />
<br />
Obama lies. There is already plenty of trade between the United States, Europe and Asia. When Obama says that the trade deals will open up “market access” what he means is that various regional or national laws concerning the environment, health, safety and labor conditions will be swept away making it easier for predatory corporations to sell their goods.<br />
<br />
To give a simple example. In order to protect the bee population and its own citizens from cancer, the E.U. passes a law forbidding the sale of products produced with Roundup. As a result, ecocidal <i>Monsanto-Wheat</i> cannot be sold in Europe. The TTIP “frees up” trade by trashing Europe’s health and environmental regulations.<br />
<br />
Not only does the TTIP do away with the regulation, to make sure Monsanto gets to peddle its poison, the treaty would also do away with citizen’s rights to challenge regulations in European courts. The treaty will restrict judicial and legislative action and transfer actual judicial and ministerial governance to secret, corporate-run “arbitration” boards which would be more aptly called Corporate Courts & Councils.<br />
<br />
It was recently <a href="http://www.salon.com/2016/03/16/robert_reich_trade_deals_are_gutting_the_middle_class_partner/" target="_blank">pointed out</a> by Robert Reich that neither of the trade treaties have anything to do with actual trade. As a point of detail, Reich is right. But he misses the overall picture. The trade deals are the ultimate <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> of liberalism.<br />
<br />
The word “<i>liberal</i>” was invoked by the bourgeois revolutionists of the 18th and 19th centuries because the essence of their advocated political-economy was to “<i>free up</i>” trade from so-called “feudal encumbrances.” Of course feudal encumbrances was just a popular whipping goat. What really irked the capitalist class was a wide range of customs, laws, policies that subordinated the act of acquisition and money making to “higher” civic, moral and national goals. Let trade proceed unrestrained governed only by the invisible hand of what the market will bear! So what if children haul coal for pence a day, exchange value is the <i>unum bonum</i>. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>No State shall...pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts</i></div>
<br />
By the end of the 19th century even the most politically conservative realized that this trumpeting of <b>moneyed egotism</b> was an anti-social dead end. Under various names and guises anti-liberal programmes of “regulating” the economy once again came into vogue.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>With regard to civil authority, Leo XIII (1891), boldly breaking through the confines imposed by Liberalism, fearlessly taught that government must not be thought a mere guardian of law and of good order, but rather must put forth every effort so that "through the entire scheme of laws and institutions . . . both public and individual well-being may develop spontaneously out of the very structure and administration of the State." Just freedom of action must, of course, be left both to individual citizens and to families, yet only on condition that the common good be preserved and wrong to any individual be abolished. The function of the rulers of the State, moreover, is to watch over the community and its parts; but in protecting private individuals in their rights, chief consideration ought to be given to the weak and the poor. "For the nation, as it were, of the rich is guarded by its own defenses and is in less need of governmental protection, whereas the suffering multitude, without the means to protect itself relies especially on the protection of the State. Wherefore, since wageworkers are numbered among the great mass of the needy, the State must include them under its special care and foresight." -- </i>Pope Pius XI<i>, <b>Quadressimo Anno</b> </i>(1931)</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
What was realized was that the “right of contract” did not enshrine arms-length equality but, on the contrary, enforced gradually increasing inequality. If in any given exchange one party got the benefit of the bargain, the other must necessarily bear its loss. On the second exchange those two parties are no longer negotiating from positions of equality but from legally enshrined positions of inequality, so that<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>To he who hath more shall be given; to he who hath not even that which he hath shall be taken away.</i></div>
<br />
What made the hand invisible was that the inequality inherent capitalist accumulation was often shifted, displaced, hidden or simply bullshitted away from particularized view. Many small exchanges are indeed barters where one useful item is traded for another. Even where money is used as a medium the completion of an exchange of useful items is merely deferred. But money does not grow on trees. Where the objective of the transaction is to make a profit, not simply to exchange things of particular use, the increased value acquired simply cannot come from an exchange of equal values. Some party has to bear a decreased return. <br />
<br />
The vicious canard of capitalism is that “freedom of contract” almost <i>eo instante</i> translates into “servitude of obligation.” The happy bonhomie at loan signing quickly turns into snarling shylockery when a payment is missed. This was in fact well understood which is why the cited constitutional provision and similar provisions in various civil codes are phrased not in terms of "freedom" but of "obligation."<br />
<br />
Neo-liberalism takes the game further. Contractual rights no longer mean the right to insist upon the payment of an obligation, but rather the right to exact an annualized or expected profit. This is what the law of patents and copyright have turned into. A supposedly civil society, inter pares, has been turned into a scrambling mass of debtors, renters, licensees, beholden to algorithms for their daily needs. This is what the CEO of Nestlé means when he says, “<i>there is no right to public water.</i>” <br />
<br />
Obama’s vaunted trade deals turn the <b>Rule of Nestlé </b>into global law. Free trade means your right to be obligated in perpetuity. The provisions of the trade treaties have been kept secret and their enactment has been fast tracked because what they actually do is establish global corporate <b>economic despotism.</b> Rule by the same “folks” (an Obambi-word) that have brought you fracking, deforestation, desertification, polluted waters, global warming, mass-extinction, animal torture and cruelty, dis-employment, sub-subsistence wages, guaranteed life-time debt-servitude, child labor, medical bankruptcy, and, in general, the dystopian hell that lies on the horizon.<br />
<br />
And like a pedo-predator sweet talking a little child, Obama has the cunning and gall to tell young folks to “be optimistic.”<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgKqE1mJduzIK4u4_F3g3HwS9226iXhMZM7y9_6XkbxYLi6tiCZ9nBv0uqBbicsL2yVexgX8P7aXPqMFMexKGb_6X45wEBHyKeY5PL1M2TFaTk7bt4qY5BNOZOwt6J8h6ByvAmSD98DAea/s1600/SquirrelJumping.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgKqE1mJduzIK4u4_F3g3HwS9226iXhMZM7y9_6XkbxYLi6tiCZ9nBv0uqBbicsL2yVexgX8P7aXPqMFMexKGb_6X45wEBHyKeY5PL1M2TFaTk7bt4qY5BNOZOwt6J8h6ByvAmSD98DAea/s1600/SquirrelJumping.png" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
©WCG, 2016<br />
<br /></div>
Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5229377335163352667.post-90636596809010912342016-04-10T09:24:00.001-07:002016-04-11T21:03:23.661-07:00Perimeters<br />
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/brussels-airport-bombings-bring-new-security-measures-in-us/2016/04/09/befaf098-fdb9-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html" target="_blank">WaPo:</a> <b>Brussel’s Bombings Bring New Security Measures! </b><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"Neffenger said local law enforcement officers also may conduct random checks of cars and taxis driving toward the airport, a practice already in place at the Los Angeles airport.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>“You have to get away from thinking about a perimeter,” he said. “I’m much more interested in thinking about the security environment that is essentially from the moment that you make a reservation to the moment you physically arrive at the airport.”</i> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
"[Is it time to set up checkpoints outside airports?]</blockquote>
<br />
Fifteen years ago, <b>one day</b> after 9/11, the Chipsters wrote: <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"In all events, this war against terrorism on which we embark today, like the war on drugs on which we embarked years ago, cannot be won. Today our politicians in all but chorus denounce the “heinous assault against civilization and freedom;” but just you wait, tomorrow they will palaver about the required “sacrifices” and “tools” needed to defend our homes and loved ones. What sacrifices? What tools? None other than the loss of the liberty supposedly defended.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"This war is nothing that can be won with a handful of battles. On the contrary, it presupposes a continuous engagement. And who is the enemy? All Arabs? No.... not all.... The American militias? Perhaps, but not always. The Irish? At times. The Basque? Could be. <span style="color: #cc0000;"><i>What the Government will have to presume is that everyone is at least a potential terrorist. In the most fundamental sense that is a presumption that is entirely antithetical to the concept of civil friendship, i.e., societas.</i></span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"In present day England they have already mounted cameras on every corner in the country in order, it is said, to defend against IRA terrorism. But what this entails is that every movement anyone makes in public is made under the all seeing eye of the Command and Control Center</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"Such things are but the visible manifestation of what is in actuality a policio-military apparatus of espionage and control that is gradually being erected over us. Bit by bit, the denizens of this country have been led to accept incremental police measures, soothingly reassured at each step that -- the police being husbands and fathers themselves -- these powers will not be abused. Bit by bit, fear has been insinuated between government and the governed and, ultimately, between citizens and neighbors themselves. And, as always, fear goes shadowed with intolerance and hatred of anything different or unusual.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"The most stupid thing about this new “war” is that the security it purports to achieve cannot be attained. The problem presented by so-called terrorism is not the criminality of the act but the criminal status of the actor. The difference between “lawful war” and “unlawful terrorism” is not that the former is in actual fact less terrorist, but that it occurs within a larger context of regularity and stability. The unofficial terrorist, on the other hand, is like the ordinary criminal who, precisely because he is a nobody, has nothing to loose and is nowhere to be found.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"To declare war against an unseen, amorphous, invisible enemy who is given no option other than implacable hate, is a gross stupidity which can only be explained by this country’s overweening arrogance and self-righteousness. For that pride the Devil will have to be paid."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
-o0o-</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Elsewhere at the time, the Chipsters pointed out that every wall has two sides. If people are kept <i>out</i>; others are kept <i>in</i>. Duh. Neffenger is wrong. The concept of "perimeter" still exists; it is what used to be known as the borders of a country. All else in between is what is known as a prison.</div>
<br />
Scurry little mice, scurry. The Devil demands his due.<br />
<br />
©WCG, 2016<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Chipsterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17236068118310501365noreply@blogger.com