Kissinger rebukes Liberal Democratic Crusade

Although it is a dubious honour, Dr. Henry Kissinger has endorsed the Woodchip Gazette's analysis of the Ukrainian Crisis....

In interviews given over the past two weeks, Henry Kissinger has all but rebuked Biden's warmongering policy. Kissinger has stated:

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.)

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.

3. We should likewise recognize that Russia IS part of Europe, has been so for 400 years, and has interests in this region. (Aka Screw Zbigniew Brzezinski and his Grand Roll Back wet dream.)

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 status quo ante. (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.

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.

The Witch and Dick

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?

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.

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."

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.

 
God how it must have choked Nixon. It's a wonder he was able to speak at all. But yet he did. Why?

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.

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.

It takes doing to make Nixon look good... but on the vileness scale hands down, cunt beat dick.

An Imbecile speaks Faux Truth

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 FemWoke Guardian.

What brilliance from the comfort of his second home!

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.

Oh? no...? You mean, not Putin qua 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?

You must be out of your dimwit mind.

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.

How about politicians who encourage Jewish Nationalism?

[pin drop]

Reich goes on to say:

standing up against all forms of bullying and brutality – is essential to preserving a civil society.

Throughout history, the central struggle of civilization has been against brutality by the powerful

A civil society doesn’t allow the strong to brutalize the weak

When inequalities become too wide, they invite abuses. Such abuses invite further abuses until society degenerates into a Hobbesian survival of the most powerful

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.

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.

This is what civilization demands.

This is not a poison pill. It is a paradoxical effect pill.

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."

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.

"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.

√.

But from that point which echoes Genesis, Jeremiah and Jesus...and yes Marx... Reich derails into talking about "bullying" and "brutalizing."

No... what it concerns is CLASS WARFARE. 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.

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.

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...

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.

WHAT THE FUCK???

Reich makes the matter even more confused by writing that we must stand "against all forms" of "bullying." "These things are connected" he writes.

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.

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."

Then cometh Hillary to announce that "we are making progress..."

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 GOING TO WAR AGAINST TOXIC MALES, DEFENDING THE RIGHT TO FETUS FLUSH or be to be an adolescent ALT SHE MALE.

"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."

Fake leftists have been doing this blur, ever since Max Weber derailed Marxist analysis into the mushy world of socio-cultural issues.

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."

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 Reichian Ranks of Imbeciles.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

Asshole.

Monday Madness - Stupid Remark causes Flight of Furies.

Monday would not be Monday with a fresh batch of nonsense over which to get agitated.

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."

Quoth BBC: “The minister's statement was met with outrage across Israel's political spectrum.”

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."

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.”

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.”

1. The Stupid Question.

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.

2. The Stupid Answer.

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....

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 On the Jewish Question 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.

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.

There was no reason for Lavrov to broach any of this, particulary absent any indication that Zelinksy himself harbors an anti-Jewish animus.

3. The Unhinged Reaction.

But that the question and answer were undeniably stupid does not mean that the reaction was within the bounds of reason.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

New York Times Launches Major Offensive against Free Speech

The New York Slime is up in arms against Tucker Carlson, whom they accuse of foisting a false "us-them" narrative. He's waging class war!!! OMG!!! That is just soooo a priori untrue... The upper class loves the lower like a brother!

Segment 3 of Everything Wrong with Tucker (per the Slime): He says,

they want to control you √

they don't care what you think √

they want to control your mind √

they want you to kiss the ring √

they're not sentimental √

they want power √

they hate you √

they want you to know it √

they want to disarm you √

they call you a racist √

Liz Chaney wants to use the awesome power of the national security state to seize your text messages √

They deny biology because the point of the exercise is to humiliate you. X

They legalize weed because they want a passive population X

Now, no one get everything right all the time not even Carlson. He is wrong to say that THEY want to legalize weed in order to make you stupid. THEY 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).

But just about everything else Tucker says in this segment is correct. The country is divided between the halves and the have nots. The haves really don't give a shit about the have nots. The people in power really don't care about you or about anything else but themselves.

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.

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?

Listen to Erich Fromm (1964)

"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 under the illusion that the. thoughts and feelings which he has acquired by listening to the media of mass communication are his own."

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 *a* 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.

One can hear them say: "We at the Times have long advocated the need to heal this country's racial divisions... As Matin Luther King said.... blah blah blah. Where King himself moved from racial issues to the broader issue of political-economy and economic class; the Slime moves in exactly the opposite direction. When was the last time you heard the Slime 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?

The Slime 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 Slime.

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 that which IMO opinion make Carlson dangerous.

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.

The Slime 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 you 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.

The Slime's 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 Slime 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.

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.

Bear in mind when you read these “analyses” that what you are really seeing is how and in what name the Slime 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.

Poking the Bear - Follow Up

No sooner predicted than done,

 And not for a one-night stand, either

Which implies a long term war with growing "aims"

And one that could spillover into Russia,

As indeed,

Causing Putin to announce that,

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!!!!"

Delirium Tremens.

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."

Slime is Spam?

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

 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.

 

 Of course the Slime itself saw nothing wrong with the comments (although they refused to publish mine).

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.

"Don't look around...."