Sunday, October 17, 2021

Zuckerbucks

Probably the biggest story on the 2020 election:  "Zuckerbucks 101: How A Media Mogul Took Over The 2020 Election And Why GOP Leaders Must Never Let It Happen Again" (Zempel): 

"This trend of the majority of Zuckerbucks funding blue areas was consistent across the swing states. For instance, according to InfluenceWatch’s analysis in Pennsylvania, CTCL grants to counties Donald Trump carried averaged about 57 cents per capita as opposed to $3.11 per capita in the counties Joe Biden carried. In Texas, it was 55 cents per capita versus $3.22, respectively.

For Example…

One investigation by Wisconsin Spotlight exposed how Zuckerberg’s grant conditions corrupted local elections. Emails revealed that CTCL connected city election administrators to Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, a former Democrat operative and the head of the National Vote at Home Institute’s efforts in the Dairy State. Spitzer-Rubenstein became the “de facto elections chief,” according to Wisconsin Spotlight, especially in Green Bay.

Emails show Spitzer-Rubenstein asking city clerk Kris Teske if he could help “cure” ballots and enlisting pressure from the Democrat mayor when Teske declined over legal concerns. Multiple times, Teske brought these concerns to her superiors, saying the “grant mentors” weren’t familiar with state law and that their “help” was probably illegal.

“I don’t understand how people who don’t have knowledge of the process can tell us how to manage the election,” Teske wrote to the Green Bay finance director in late August. Frustrated, Teske took a leave of absence in October and by the end of the year had resigned.

With Teske out, however, that meant Spitzer-Rubenstein got outsized control. Emails revealed how the former Democratic operative helped make decisions about how to handle and transport ballots. Two days before the election, he had access to the convention center where votes were counted. Also days before the election, Spitzer-Rubenstein received four of the five keys to the room where ballots were being kept.

“The city of Green Bay literally gave the keys to the election to a Democratic Party operative from New York,” Wisconsin Spotlight described it.

Sandy Juno, the former clerk of Brown County where Green Bay is the county seat, said that in the months prior to the election, Green Bay had cut off communication with the county clerk’s office and “went rogue.” Furthermore, she said, the counting process at the convention center “was tainted by the influence of a person working for an outside organization affecting the election.” 
But Wait, There’s More

A closer look at Wisconsin reveals a host of other issues on top of Zuckerberg’s election takeover.

As Hemingway outlines in the book, “The state kept 234,000 invalid voter registrations on its voter rolls, even when ordered to remove them by a court. The clerks of the two biggest Democratic counties got tens of thousands of people to claim they were ‘indefinitely confined,’ enabling them to vote by mail without showing any identification. But one of the most important things Wisconsin Democrats did was disenfranchise the Green Party presidential ticket and otherwise work to keep third-party candidates off the ballot.”

In a particularly brazen act, the Wisconsin Elections Commission denied Kanye West a spot on the ballot because he was allegedly 14 seconds late in filing his paperwork. After arriving at the correct building before the 5 p.m. deadline to turn in the papers, struggling to gain entry to the locked facility, and then having the papers initially accepted as “not later than 5 p.m.,” West’s team was later denied and ultimately declared “late” because the commission said they had received them at 5:00:14 — seriously. (Hemingway lays out the whole incident in her chapter “Fourteen Seconds Too Late.”)"

Omnipresent, existential personal threat

"Israel, US Stop Jewish Families from Moving to Iran as Asylum Seekers".  "Ultra-Orthodox Cult Described as 'Jewish Taliban' Attempts to Flee to Iran for Asylum". Lev Tahor - you'd think the Israelis would welcome having them go to Iran due to all the problems they cause.  Quebec, Guatemala, Kurdistan, Iran, the wandering Jews.

"Nuclear Weapons And Europe" (Cloughley).  1) Russia is still the real target, and 2) the fucking Euro-trash are the farthest thing possible from representative government!

"Fear Itself" (Thielman) (BRIC = Boston Regional Intelligence Center, of the Boston Police Department; this is now Standard Police Protest to Riot Escalation Procedure) :

"On Thursday, August 29, 2019, the BRIC issued its final threat assessment before the Straight Pride Parade in Boston, an event sponsored by right-wing group Super Happy Fun America, a rebranded version of Resist Marxism, whose most famous member, Kyle Chapman, beat a demonstrator with a stick at a Berkeley rally. The event would feature a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos, whose fans shot a man outside one of his rallies two years prior. (“I’m going to the Milo event and if the snowflakes get out off hand [sic] I’m just going to wade through their ranks and start cracking skulls,” the shooter wrote on Facebook before that event.)

The Boston Police Department was concerned. Specifically, it was concerned about the safety of the Boston Police Department: “The BRIC assesses that it is highly likely that some individuals attending these events will attempt to engage in disruptive and / or criminal behavior targeting the opposing side and possibly law enforcement.”

The department responded by flooding its streets with police and arresting 36 counterprotesters. None were armed with urine, that I know of, and most were charged with resisting arrest, a beautifully surreal tactic beloved of municipal PDs around the country. None of the white supremacists were arrested, and no one interfered with their assembly, where various right-wing luminaries spewed hatred into a microphone outside City Hall until their permit expired. One neo-Nazi sold t-shirts. One of the events’ organizers would go on to participate in the Capitol insurrection.

“We think these offenders that are here, most of them outside the city of Boston, not residents here, came here as agitators, here for a specific reason, here to create havoc,” Larry Calderone, a spokesperson for the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association, told NBC of the arrestees. The judge presiding over the arrests refused to ease bail or drop charges for months, in defiance of the District Attorney. As far as the law enforcement machine was concerned, it had resisted Marxism.

I WAS THERE. The parade itself was sparsely attended, and mostly by people in silly costumes trying to get interviewed by each other, along with a bunch of fringe media guys in GoPro helmets who followed the marchers along the parade route, augmenting their numbers as was doubtless intended. The rallygoers had a big “TRUMP 2020” parade float, and several of them seemed to be uncomplicated Nazis. I talked to two of them about their tattoos. One told me the SS bolts on his arm signified his heritage. The other, who wore a knife in a sheath on his belt, had a sun cross and the face of a soldier in an SS helmet tattooed on his shoulder.

The counterprotesters also had a few folks in costume—one very tall person was dressed in a bright red wig and a purple cape and jumpsuit that made him look like Magneto in a guest appearance on Steven Universe—and some pointedly nondescript black bloc guys. But there were also elderly men and young women among the thousands screaming for the fascist marchers to go home. I didn’t see anyone with a weapon. The parade ended, the speeches wrapped up, and then the Boston police department and several neighboring PDs, working overtime at the expense of millions of taxpayer dollars, started a riot.

Dozens of cops on bikes wove in and out of the counterprotesters, skirting as close as they could to pedestrians. Finally they assembled in formation behind a crowd they had penned in between the barrier between the lanes of the street and barriers the cops had erected.

They began to advance toward the crowd, an absurd phalanx of neon yellow vests over bulging paunches, gray temples, clean-shaven, jutting white jaws, black bike and riot helmets, and wraparound shades. They started chanting a “move back, move back” call-and-response until they were close enough to start whacking people with the metal crossbars and handlebars on their bikes. Some carried huge wooden truncheons—not nightsticks, but huge, three-foot-long riot batons, like wooden swords. Buses, ready for the arrestees, idled nearby.

When the crush got too thick for people to move back, they began to shoot pepper spray onto the sidewalks and throw protesters, especially women, to the ground. One cop attacked a skinny girl in a tank top, whom he outweighed by probably a hundred pounds, and toppled her to the pavement, scraping the skin off her back. He bent her arm behind her and led her away as she shouted. When they hugely outnumbered the protesters who hadn’t been able to flee, the police held the stragglers down and beat them in front of the cameras.

The Nazis went home unscathed and satisfied. The threat to them had been accurately assessed, measured, and countered, and they were safe from terror. The police could relax, too: They were safe, though they were probably still afraid."

Cancel culture is preventing reasonable discussion of traditional left-wing issues:  "That One Side Would Like to Utterly Destroy the Other Side Seems Significant, To Me" (deBoer):

"The left-of-center is in a profoundly strange and deeply unhealthy place. In the span of a decade or less a bizarre form of linguistically-radical but substantively-conservative identity neoliberalism descended from decaying humanities departments in elite universities and infected social media like Tumblr and Twitter, through which it conquered the media and entertainment industries, the nonprofit industrial complex, and government entities as wide-ranging as the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights and the brass of the Pentagon. That movement now effectively controls the idea-and-story generating power of our society, outside of explicitly conservative media which exists in a large silo but a silo all the same. On any given day the most powerful institutions in the world go to great lengths to mollify the social justice movement, to demonstrate fealty, to avoid its wrath. It’s common now for liberals to deny the influence and power of social justice politics, for inscrutable reasons, but if the current level of control over how people talk publicly is insufficient, I can’t imagine what would placate them. Are most of these institutions false friends? Of course. But that, too, is not much of a defense.

This tendency to be promiscuous in enthralling elites and powerful institutions should be a clue to the fact that, despite its radical self-branding, the contemporary social justice movement fundamentally serves to empower the status quo. Effective left politics are about convincing various people who are unalike that they have a shared self-interest, that society can do best for them when we do best for others, too. That’s how you build a mass movement, by appealing to people’s sense of self-interest and showing them how they can help their neighbors while they help themselves. But because the social justice movement’s first dictate is to establish a hierarchy of suffering, and to tell those that are purported to suffer less that their problems aren’t problems, no such mass movement is coming. The social justice movement is not just incidentally antagonistic to organizing everyone and recognizing all kinds of people as worthy of our compassion and support. That antagonism is existential. When you ask many people within the movement, “what could we do to convert the white working class to our values?,” they will simply tell you that they don’t want to convert them, that they are not worthy of being a part of their movement. They would rather have targets than converts, to lose as an exclusive moral caste than win as a grubby populist coalition.

Core to understanding this moment is to realize that the vast majority of people who enforce these politics don’t actually believe in them. They don’t, that is, think that social justice politics as currently composed are healthy or just or likely to result in tangible positive change. There’s a core of true-believers who do, and there’s a group of those who profit directly from the hegemony of social justice politics in elite spaces. (The former two groups have some overlap, but it’s not a perfect circle.) There’s conservative critics, who are both the most natural targets of social justice ire and yet those the social justice movement seem least interested in targeting. There’s an island of misfit toys of left and leftish critics of social justice politics like me. And then there’s the great big mass of people who are just scared. I think Klein didn’t really connect the dots between Shor’s cancelation and the debate about how the Democrats should strategize and message because he’s afraid of facing the same tactics Shor faced. Why wade in those waters when the potential consequences are so severe, and when the upside is so limited? I’m not accusing Klein of lacking courage or integrity. I just think he’s operating within a professional culture that has established dozens of new unwritten rules in the past couple years, along with severe consequences for breaking them."

and:
". . . it’s the activist class, the Twitter-obsessed class, the collegiate class, the vengeful “progressive” NPCs that have poisoned the well by normalizing attempts to destroy people they disagree with. No one is saying you shouldn’t advocate for your values. You absolutely should be vocal and passionate, and you are free to invoke moral language, and you certainly don’t have to personally like the people you disagree with. But you don’t get to threaten people’s lives, which is very common in some social media spaces, and you don’t get to silence anyone, and you don’t get to dox anyone, and it’s profoundly fucked up to try and separate someone from their job in a world where you have to work to eat. That can never be an authentically progressive or left-wing action, I don’t care how righteous you think your movement is. There’s no excuse for that behavior, especially given that the people who are guilty of this are almost all perfectly empowered and socioeconomically secure. You can’t run a political party under these conditions, or a social movement, and we shouldn’t have to. Advocate for your values, do the work, build the coalition through persuasion, accept that people will always disagree with you and that this is a healthy condition, and stop pretending that you are the subaltern when you’re really a whole industry of A students who went to elite colleges and have never known what it’s like to not be listened to and taken seriously.

To put it simply, grow up. And stop trying to destroy people. Like you yourselves keep saying, canceling doesn’t reliably work, so why bother? Judging by the utter lack of meaningful change since last summer, neither have the protests or riots. That’s not a nice thing to say, but it’s reality, and if you are sincere about helping those you claim to speak for, your first duty is to efficacy. So maybe time to try something else."

The coffee police

"The US Has Placed Itself In Charge Over Which Nations Get To Eat" (Johnstone).

"Who Controls the Food Supply Controls the People" (Brewda).

"New Escalation: Israel Assassinated Syrian Official, Ex-lawmaker in Al-Quneitra" (South Front).  "Official: Syrian MP killing a cowardly act, assassination rooted in ‘Israeli nature’: Official".

"Texas Law to Require Schools to Teach “Opposing Perspective” on the Holocaust" (Dunderhoff).

"The problem with America’s semi-rich" (Stewart interview with Stewart):
"Why is there such a focus on the nanny? On child rearing?

Nannies cost a lot, you basically have to hire another full-time individual. And that is not something that most individuals can do. It’s creating a definition of success that will define most people out of the running even before they start.

[The 9.9 percent] all have internalized this idea that child rearing is meritocratic breeding, and the measure of your success is how well you optimize your child as a future member of the meritocracy.

That means that to the extent that you can’t yourself spend all of your time raising your child, you need to get somebody else to do it. And that person’s task is not child-rearing as it used to be understood, which was feeding them and preventing them from harming themselves. It’s about optimizing them, and there’s no limit to what you can do to optimize them. And so that’s why you’re going to go for a nanny who’s college-educated, preferably with a degree in child psychology, and who’s capable of organizing all sorts of enriching experiences for the child. The logic is pretty ironclad.

Generally, I don’t think it’s terrible for the kids. It’s just a model of parenting that a) is insane and b) cannot conceivably be emulated by most of the population.

What’s the role of the idea of meritocracy here?

I think that meritocracy mostly gets invented after the fact. You have significant inequality, and then you get people reimagining how the economy works. They first make the false assumption that individual merit or individual talent and effort is the main factor in production, and it isn’t. Most human economic activities depend far more importantly on the degree of cooperation that people are able to establish between themselves — cooperation within firms, cooperation between firms in a marketplace, and cooperation in a society at large in terms of having standards of trust, reasonable laws, and so on. All those things are far more important in determining economic output than mere merit or merely allocating rewards to merit.

People make this false assumption precisely because the inequality is already there, and they’re looking for a justification. Then, they make the further false assumption that the variation in human merit is tremendous — it’s astonishing that some people are literally a million times smarter than other people. You have to qualify a little bit because whenever you criticize meritocracy, someone will come back and say, “Well, people are unequal, some people are smarter.” I have no problem with that, there are differences among people, and those have to be recognized. But it’s completely false to think that those differences are great enough to explain the kind of variation that we see in the economy.
Nonetheless, all of this rhetoric around meritocracy tends to grow and becomes more convincing precisely as inequality grows. In this respect, I don’t think our meritocracy is all that different from previous aristocracy. The definition of aristocracy is just the rule of the best, and people who have merit are also by definition the best. It’s the same kind of rhetoric. Yes, aristocracy usually relied more on birth, but that’s just a mechanism for identifying the people who are going to be perceived to be the best."
The first indication that something was seriously wrong came about ten years ago when a lot of attention began to be paid to the strict regimen children were being put through in order to get them into the 'right' university.

"PETER HITCHENS: We're in the Age of the Curfew – and there's no escape".

Victoria's snipers

"Senior journalist identifies one of Beirut snipers as employee of US embassy". 

Saturday, October 16, 2021

Fewer

Operation Cold Snap:  "Was January 6 Part of the FBI’s ‘Operation Cold Snap’?" (Kelly).  

"Jeffrey Epstein Bragged Bill Barr was in Charge, Not Trump" (Cartwright) (my emphasis in red):

"According to Wolff—who reportedly tried to buy New York Magazine with Epstein and disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein—Barak asked Epstein the million-dollar question of who was in charge at the White House. “‘What I want to know from you all-knowing people is: Who is in charge, who is,’ [Barak] said, putting on an American accent over his own often impenetrable Israeli one, ‘calling the shots?’ This was a resumption of the reliable conversation around Epstein: the ludicrousness and vagaries of Donald Trump—once among Epstein’s closest friends. ‘Here is the question every government is asking. Trump is obviously not in charge because he is—’”

Wolff claims that Epstein interrupted the former politico and called Trump—his former playboy party pal—a “moron,” then confided, “At the moment, Bill Barr is in charge.” The pedophile financier continued: “It’s Donald’s pattern...he lets someone else be in charge, until other people realize that someone, other than him, is in charge. When that happens, you’re no longer in charge.”

Barak allegedly pressed, “But let me ask you, why do you think this Barr took this job, knowing all this?”

“The motivation was simple: money,” Epstein replied. “Barr believes he’ll get a big payday out of this ... If he keeps Donald in office, manages to hold the Justice Department together, and help the Republican Party survive Donald, he thinks this is worth big money to him. I speak from direct knowledge. Extremely direct. Trust me.”


The book also claims that Epstein and Barak, along with Epstein’s lawyer Reid Weingarten, called Steve Bannon—“a new friend [who] had been introduced in December 2017”—and talked over a PR strategy with him to rehabilitate Epstein’s image after the damaging expose by The Miami Herald dredged up allegations that Epstein had molested and raped dozens of underage girls at his properties in Palm Beach, New York, and on his private island in the Caribbean. (Bannon told The New York Times that he disputed Wolff’s account of the conversation and that he “never media-trained anyone.”)

Wolff claims that Bannon laughed to Epstein, “You were the only person I was afraid of during the campaign,” and that Epstein replied, “As well you should have been.”

The pair had “deeply bonded,” the book says, “partly out of a shared incredulity about Donald Trump ... Bannon was often astonished by what Epstein knew.”

Wolff paints Bannon as a man who was eager to advise Epstein on rehabbing his image, despite the many serious accusations against him that he’d serially preyed on very young and very vulnerable girls. “‘So where is the comms piece in this?’” the book quotes Bannon as asking. “‘Who is handling it? Who’s on point? Are these your people, Reid?’”

The book says Bannon pressed Weingarten, Epstein and Barak about why there was “no communications team” and asked “What was the response from Jeffrey’s side to the Florida story? Who engaged? ... He probably can’t be hated any more. We’ve flatlined on this. He can’t get deader. While the chances of reviving him are remote, what’s the alternative?”

Wolff says Weingarten then suggested trying to arrange an appearance on 60 Minutes or Gayle King—to which Bannon dryly pointed out how well that had worked for the singer R. Kelly. (King’s interview with Kelly was widely regarded as a disaster; Kelly later was convicted of sexual exploitation of children.)

Weingarten fumbled about, suggesting maybe an advocate or a surrogate could go on 60 Minutes to plead Epstein’s case. “Dude, come on,” Bannon allegedly replied in exasperation. “Well, Rachel Maddow, then,” Weingarten replied.

“You’re the Jeffrey surrogate sitting with Rachel Maddow and she’s going to say how many girls were there, were there ten, were there a hundred, a thousand,” Bannon continued, according to the book. “Now you’re on national television, what do you say? ‘I’m confident it’s less than a thousand.’ Was it?” he asked Epstein.

“Yes, less,” the multi-millionaire said.

The book then recounts a horrifying exchange between Bannon and Epstein:
‘Actually, here is the first question,’ said Bannon. ‘What’s the age of the youngest girl?’

‘That would be good,’ said Epstein, ‘because the answer to that question is that there was one girl who was fourteen years old and she told the police she lied about her age. She told everyone she was eighteen because she was afraid she would never be allowed into the house and never be invited back. That’s the only one.’

‘That’s the only one who is under the age of eighteen?’

‘No, the youngest one . . .’"

Is this yet another 'Biden', 'Scary Biden'?:

Trees are mammals

Parody Twitter: 

"Men ‘cleared’ for release from GITMO is a cruel, twisted joke" (Vlahos).

"Turkish Imperialism: When Will Turkey Annex Northern Syria?" (Baker).

"Supreme Court Hearings On Palestinian Man Anally Raped and Hung from Hooks By CIA Causes Biden Administration to Tremble" (Striker):
"In a moment that shocked Biden administration lawyers during a hearing last week, three Supreme Court justices asked if Zubaydah would be able to testify to his torment. The victim’s attorneys stated that their client was being held incommunicado in America’s prison camp in Cuba and was not allowed to. The lawyers representing the US government did not have a proper response for why Zubaydah could not testify and promised to have an answer at a later date."
"HBO’s Anti-Maduro Propaganda Is Cruder Than Venezuelan Oil" (Emersberger).

"Russia draws a red line for US in Central Asia" (Bhadrakumar):
"Moscow has categorically stated that it will not accept a US military presence in the Central Asian region. This reiteration has come at the level of Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, who told TASS that Afghanistan had been discussed at a meeting with Victoria Nuland, the visiting US Undersecretary of State, in Moscow on Tuesday.

Ryabkov added: “We emphasized the unacceptability of a US military presence in Central Asian countries in any form whatever.”

Prima facie, Ryabkov has squashed the disinformation media campaign by Washington that at the Russia-US summit in Geneva in June, President Vladimir Putin had offered to President Joe Biden that the Pentagon could use Russian bases in the Central Asian region for conducting future (“out-of-the-horizon”) operations in Afghanistan.

The Wall Street Journal had earlier referred to its sources that Russia and the US had allegedly discussed the possibility of the US military using Russian bases in Central Asia at the level of General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with General Valery Gerasimov, the Russian chief of General Staff, at a meeting in Helsinki on September 24 “at the request of President Biden’s National Security Council staff.”

Washington’s ploy appeared to have been to create misconceptions among the Central Asian states regarding Russia’s intentions. To be sure, just before the Helsinki meeting of the two generals, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken also took a meeting of the so-called C5+1 Ministerial on September 22 to discuss “coordination on Afghanistan” with his Central Asian counterparts. 
As a follow-up, US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman appeared in the steppes just 10 days later to meet with the leadership in Tashkent, presumably to fathom whether Uzbekistan might be open to the Pentagon having some basing facilities in that country. Apparently, she drew a blank."
"Every conspiracy theory you never heard of." (Auslander-Raus).

"Southwest Airlines Offering Free Flights To All Passengers Who Are Vaccinated And Can Fly A Plane" (The Babylon Bee).

The mind becomes the battlefield

"Bovard: When Barack Obama Got Away With Murder".

"The Chinese Outbreak Began in Spring 2019" and "The Earliest Infections" (eugyppius).

No change at CNN:
"Behind NATO’s ‘Cognitive Warfare’: ‘Battle for Your Brain’ Waged by Western Militaries" (Norton):
"Marie-Pierre Raymond, a retired Canadian lieutenant colonel who currently serves as a “defence scientist and innovation portfolio manager” for the Canadian Armed Forces’ Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security Program, also joined the October 5 panel.

“Long gone are the days when war was fought to acquire more land,” Raymond said. “Now the new objective is to change the adversaries’ ideologies, which makes the brain the center of gravity of the human. And it makes the human the contested domain, and the mind becomes the battlefield.”

“When we speak about hybrid threats, cognitive warfare is the most advanced form of manipulation seen to date,” she added, noting that it aims to influence individuals’ decision-making and “to influence a group of a group of individuals on their behavior, with the aim of gaining a tactical or strategic advantage.”

Raymond noted that cognitive warfare also heavily overlaps with artificial intelligence, big data, and social media, and reflects “the rapid evolution of neurosciences as a tool of war.”"
"NATO’s fantasy ‘cognitive warfare’ strategies expose its ongoing assault on the public mind" (Klarenberg).  The bright side is that these buffoons won't be any more competent at this than they are at conventional warfare.  It is just another in a series of boondoggles.

Can you imagine the good they could be doing if they were not traitors and were actually working for their own country?:  "Congress has introduced over 70 pieces of Israel-centric legislation so far in 2021" (Shihadah).

Tapper is horrible, but credit where credit is due:
I wonder if there is the slightest chance that a Sackler might do some time.

The Khazars find it hilarious to use airline passengers as human shields against preventing their missile attacks.  "Russia: Syria held back fire as Israel used civilian aircraft as cover in Homs raid".

"Colour Revolutions Fade Away" (Armstrong):
"To a degree, “colour revolutions” are waiting games and the incumbent, if he keeps his nerve, has certain advantages."
and (it is also wise to get rid of foreign social media):
"Former successes – in recent times, Ukraine twice, Georgia – are becoming failures: Hong Kong, Venezuela and Belarus. The targets have learned how to counter the attacks. The essential rules for defeating “colour revolutions” are:
  1. They come from outside. So cut out the outsiders and get rid of the foreign “Non-Government” Organisations. This is probably the most important preventative: the “colour revolution” operators were quite unhindered in, for example, Ukraine.
  2. Remember Alexander’s advice: don’t give up too soon. Maduro and Lukashenka are still there. To say nothing of Russia, China and Iran.
  3. Don’t be afraid that you’ll be blamed: you will be anyway. The Western propaganda machine is not interested in facts.
  4. Be tough. There’s a rhythm to these things; if you interrupt them, it’s hard for them to get back on track.
  5. Be patient, as we saw in Hong Kong, the outrage is mostly artificial and will run out of steam.
  6. Learn the techniques of how they’re done, watch for them and counter them.
  7. And finally: time is on your side. The West is not getting stronger. What the neocons call “the axis of revisionists” is."

Friday, October 15, 2021

Why isn't this bigger news?

A mess

"David Amess: tributes paid after Conservative MP dies in stabbing attack – latest updates" (Rawlinson).

Some mentally ill Muslim doing his thing, or the start of the push-back to the dystopia?  Other than being a Conservative (and a politician), he doesn't seem to have been a particularly vile piece of shit (he focused on animal welfare), but I guess you have to start somewhere.  I couldn't help but notice that Australia went from 1984 to an open utopia almost overnight, after it seemed that truckers' strikes were serious, so these crazies who 'lead' us may still cling slightly to reality.

Cuff links

You can tell Nudelman-Kagan is in town by the sound of the American-paid snipers firing into the crowd. Might it not be prudent to stop inviting her?

"Funny, No Mention of Him Founding NAMBLA" (Jozef_Tiso).  "Pederasty and Homosexuality" (Thorstad).  In the middle of a never-ending pandemic largely caused by their own political actions, with out-of-control inflation and coming food shortages, and a completely untenable housing crisis caused by soaring bubbles, the biggest in the world, the main concern of the Liberal Party of Canada is banning 'conversion therapy' (which it appears Thorstad would believe probably works, in at least some cases).

Nobody mentions this, but the timing makes it clear that Canada was waiting for the Meng Wanzhou kidnapping by Canada to be resolved before further pissing the Chinese off by treating Hong Kong as a 'refugee producing' area:  "Refugee family that helped hide Edward Snowden in Hong Kong arrives in Canada" (Blackwell).  One good thing to come out of this, assuming we don't all die of brain tumors, is that Canada will surely pick the far superior Huawei 5G technology, despite a massive PR campaign from the usual scum.  If not, the Canadian relationship with China, the single most important country in the world, will be permanently finished, and we'll be down to Australian levels of imperial lackey stupidity.

"Biden Admin Reinstates Andrew McCabe's Full Pension After 2018 Firing For Lying Under Oath" (Durden).  And the cuff links!

"John Durham & The Amazing Disappearing DNC Hack" (Parry):

"So, was there a hack of the DNC server? Don’t ask the FBI or the DOJ. They only know what Perkins Coie — which was representing a client that was heavily invested in spreading the Russian hack story — allowed them to know.

But thanks to the release of Shawn Henry’s testimony before the HPSCI, what we now know is that CrowdStrike never found any “direct,” “concrete,” or other evidence that proves the DNC emails “actually left” the DNC server."

If Durham actually still exists (other than the lemon-sucking picture, I've seen no proof of life), the trend of his work seems to be leading beyond the established fact that #Russiagate is nonsense cooked up by Killary, her minions and 'journalists', to the stronger claim that the Clinton campaign actually manufactured evidence for it (beyond Steele), which may include 'hacking' their own servers.  To start with, that might make the whole Seth Rich story a lot more complicated ('dream job', which may, if true, remove his bitter Bernie Bro motive for hurting Clinton).

"Konstantin Kilimnik, Russiagate's Last Fall Guy, Speaks Out" (Taibbi).  It appears 'journalists' avoided Kilimnik like the plague as they preferred the Russiagate mythology to the facts.

"Remember: There is No Actual “Biden Vax Mandate”" (Anglin).  A minor detail.

"After Corbyn, Israel lobby turns its guns on UK academia" (Cook):
"Signalling the likely direction in which the lobby intends to head next, the Jewish Chronicle published an editorial last week headlined “Miller’s sacking should be the beginning, not the end”. It concluded: “Miller is not some lone voice but representative of a school of thought embedded in almost every part of academia."
The Khazars are obviously full of themselves and their power at the moment, which will lead to a rough patch for everybody else, and, hopefully, for the Khazars themselves.

Sanction instrument

"CNBC Exclusive Transcript: Vladimir Putin, President, Russia" (Gamble; I've been talking about the massive unseen cost of Sanctions For The Jews - generally seen as a 'free' way to placate the Jewish billionaires while keeping the shekel bribes flowing and the videos of child rapes out of the public eye - for some time now; my emphasis in red):

"HG: I know that your central bank governor - in our conversation this summer she essentially said to me you are moving away from dollar-denominated assets when it comes to trying to diversify away from the US dollar. Is that so sanctions have less of a bite to the Russian economy?

VP: I believe the US makes a huge mistake in using dollar as the sanction instrument. And it does so because it impedes US transfers in US currency, or sanctions in production. So we can’t acquire money in dollars and what does it lead to? We are forced - we have no other choice but to move to transactions in other currencies. This is the first thing I wanted to say.

And second: other countries who have their reserve currencies or use dollars as a means of payment are also concerned by the situation. The dollar may be used against them. And so they do the same: they diminish the role of the dollar in the reserves and they move away from using it as a means of payment. This is the result. As a result even close partners and allies of the US move away from dollars as a means of payment. This is a fact.

And we also do the same. We diminish the role of the dollar in our reserves and means of payment and we try - we’re not always successful - but we try to move to making transactions in national currencies. In this regard we can say that the US bites the hand that feeds it. This dollar is a competitive advantage - it is a universal reserve currency and the United States today uses it to pursue political situation and pursue political goals, and they harm their economic and strategic interests as a result.

HG: Do you see the US dollar devolving into a currency that isn’t the world’s reserve currency? Do you think that can happen?

VP: It undermines its position as a world reserve currency. Both transactions and reserves in US dollars shrink. But we are not interested in moving completely away from transactions in dollars. And we are satisfied as of yet to pay in dollars for energy sources for oil first and foremost.

But if political policy of US continues then we have no choice and we will do nothing but the US will undermine the situation. The US national debt is growing. And once again the US Congress raised the limit for the national debt. It means issues. What does issues mean? A growth of inflation. And today the US faces record high inflation growth. So these are economic reasons that undermine trust towards the dollar.

Everyone has a question: “what’s next”?  What will they do with this colossal debt? Will they manipulate somehow the dollar? Will it diminish the value of the dollar? What will they do with the debt? These are fundamental questions – it has nothing to do with us. It’s about the Federal Reserve system and the policy of the US administration. The United States is the largest economy in the world - a very high-tech one. And the whole world economy depends on the health of the US economy. And we are interested in seeing no such shocks. But it doesn’t depend on us. And we closely follow the situation and analyze it to make necessary steps to ensure our long-term interest.

Exactly as you would expect (((CNBC))) - owned by (((Comcast))) - buries the lede in reporting on its own interview (identical to how the Chapelle controversy is depicted as protecting the poor trannies, while everybody knows it is really about 'Space Jews')!: "Russia’s Putin says crypto has ‘value’ — but maybe not for trading oil" (Browne).

Thursday, October 14, 2021

Too hard to follow

I thought this whole thing was getting a little too hard to follow:  "Afghanistan: Chinese Uyghur Responsible for Savage ISIS-K Suicide Bombing; Taliban and Turkey Accuse CIA of Creating Group" (Striker):

"According to a statement made by Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu last Saturday, his nation holds credible intelligence showing that the CIA and US military were covertly transporting members of ISIS out of Syria and unleashing them in Afghanistan. It is believed that thousands of Chinese Uyghur jihadists, who developed a close relationship with Washington under former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, fought with and besides ISIS in Syria.

ISIS-K has officially declared war on the Taliban, citing its diplomatic overtures towards China and Iran. Ahmad Yasir, a Taliban spokesman in Qatar, has also said that his government has evidence that ISIS-K is an American intelligence operation and will be releasing it in the future. The Taliban has held that the ISIS-K problem is manageable because the group has no local contacts or popular support in Afghanistan."

A special kind of bully

Ressa is uninformed or just lying about the lack of 'sifting through' by WikiLeaks, which makes her, at the very least, not much of a journalist, but a standard Nobel 'Peace' Prize winner:

"Netflix To Launch WikiLeaks Smear Job Three Days Before Assange Court Date" (Johnstone).  Netflix was on the cusp of going out of business before the pandemic hit, and suddenly people needed filler to watch while sitting at home.

Rogan won't let him change the subject!: 

"Toward a unified theory of Blob-dom" (Wright).  Stressing the horror show that is 'democracy-promotion'.

"Eric Zemmour; French Election 2022" (Aangirfan).  Also, 'Young Global Leaders', a way, like Rhodes Scholars, to pick, reward and cultivate the psychopathic 'leaders' of tomorrow who will show no qualms about doing the dirty work of the 0.1%.  Aangirfan is on Gab.

Wednesday, October 13, 2021

The lifeblood of totalitarianism is fear

"The Great New Normal Purge" (Hopkins) (my emphasis in red): 

". . . each new totalitarian system, at some point in its evolution, needs to launch a purge of those who refuse to conform to its official ideology. It needs to do this for two basic reasons: (1) to segregate or otherwise eliminate actual political opponents and dissidents who pose a threat to the new regime; and (2) and more importantly, to establish the ideological territory within which the masses must now confine themselves in order to avoid being segregated, or eliminated.

The purge must be conducted openly, brutally, so that the masses understand that the rules of society have changed, forever, that their former rights and freedoms are gone, and that from now on any type of resistance or deviation from official ideology will not be tolerated, and will be ruthlessly punished.

The purge is usually launched during a “state of emergency,” under imminent threat from some official “enemy” (e.g., “communist infiltrators,” “counter-revolutionaries,” or … you know, a “devastating pandemic”), such that the normal rules of society can be indefinitely suspended “for the sake of survival.” The more terrified the masses can be made, the more willing they will be to surrender their freedom and follow orders, no matter how insane.

The lifeblood of totalitarianism is fear … fear of both the system’s official enemy (which is constantly stoked with propaganda) and of the totalitarian system itself. That the brutality of the system is rationalized by the threat posed by the official enemy doesn’t make it any less brutal or terrifying. Under totalitarian systems (of any type or scale) fear is a constant and there is no escape from it.

The masses’ fear is then channeled into hatred … hatred of the official “Untermenschen,” whom the system encourages the masses to scapegoat. Thus, the purge is also a means of allowing the masses to purge themselves of their fear, to transform it into self-righteous hatred and unleash it on the “Untermenschen” instead of the totalitarian system, which, obviously, would be suicidal.

Every totalitarian system — both the individuals running it and the system, structurally — instinctively understands how all this works. New Normal totalitarianism is no exception.

Just reflect on what has happened over the last 18 months.

Day after day, month after month, the masses have been subjected to the most destructive psychological-terror campaign in the history of psychological terror. Sadly, many of them have been reduced to paranoid, anus-puckering invalids, afraid of the outdoors, of human contact, afraid of their own children, afraid of the air, morbidly obsessed with disease and death … and consumed with hatred of “the Unvaccinated.”

Their hatred, of course, is utterly irrational, the product of fear and propaganda, as hatred of “the Untermenschen” always is. It has absolutely nothing to do with a virus, which even the New Normal authorities admit. “The Unvaccinated” are no more of a threat to anyone than any other human being … except insofar as they threaten the New Normals’ belief in their delusional ideology.

No, we are way past rationality at this point. We are witnessing the birth of a new form of totalitarianism. Not “communism.” Not “fascism.” Global-capitalist totalitarianism. Pseudo-medical totalitarianism. Pathologized totalitarianism. A form of totalitarianism without a dictator, without a definable ideology. A totalitarianism based on “science,” on “fact,” on “reality,” which it creates itself.

I don’t know about you, but, so far, it has certainly made quite an impression on me. So much so that I have mostly set aside my satirical schtick to try to understand it … what it actually is, why it is happening, why it is happening now, where it is going, and how to oppose it, or at least disrupt it.

The way I see it, the next six months will determine how successful the initial stages of the roll-out of this new totalitarianism will be. By April of 2022, either we’ll all be showing our “papers” to the New Normal Gestapo to be able to earn a living, attend a school, dine at a restaurant, travel, and otherwise live our lives, or we will have thrown a monkey wrench into the machinery. I do not expect GloboCap to abandon the roll-out of the New Normal over the longer term — they are clearly committed to implementing it — but we have the power to ruin their opening act (which they’ve been planning and rehearsing for quite some time)."

It would seem that GloboCap's Achilles' heel are those precious 'supply chains'.  That's where the 'spanner in the works' goes.  Just saying.

Zunt

"Daily Stormer and Andrew Anglin Make the Facebook Hit List! Dangerous & Banned!" (Anglin):

"This list is so long that it is actually absolutely damning to not be on this list, and it effectively classifies you as being considered an asset by the state."

"Revealed: Facebook’s Secret Blacklist of “Dangerous Individuals and Organizations”" (Biddle):
"Facebook’s list represents an expansive definition of “dangerous” throughout. It includes the deceased 14-year-old Kashmiri child soldier Mudassir Rashid Parray, over 200 musical acts, television stations, a video game studio, airlines, the medical university working on Iran’s homegrown Covid-19 vaccine, and many long-deceased historical figures like Joseph Goebbels and Benito Mussolini."
Also, kinda Zionist:
"But Facebook’s ban against violent incitement is relative, expressly permitting, in the policy materials obtained by The Intercept, calls for violence against “locations no smaller than a village.” For example, cited as fair game in the rules is the statement “We should invade Libya.” The Facebook spokesperson, said, “The purpose of this provision is to allow debate about military strategy and war, which is a reality of the world we live in,” and acknowledged that it would allow for calls of violence against a country, city, or terrorist group, giving as an example of a permitted post under the last category a statement targeting an individual: “We should kill Osama bin Laden.”"
and (DIO is Dangerous Individuals and Organizations, which really should include Zuck himself):
"Enforcing the DIO rules leads to some surprising outcomes for a company that claims “free expression” as a core principle. In 2019, citing the DIO policy, Facebook blocked an online university symposium featuring Leila Khaled, who participated in two plane hijackings in the 1960s in which no passengers were hurt. Khaled, now 77, is still present in the version of Facebook’s terrorism list obtained by The Intercept. In February, Facebook’s internal Oversight Board moved to reverse a decision to delete a post questioning the imprisonment of leftist Kurdish revolutionary Abdullah Öcalan, a DIO listee whom the U.S. helped Turkish intelligence forces abduct in 1999.

In July, journalist Rania Khalek posted a photo to Instagram of a billboard outside Baghdad International Airport depicting Iranian general Qassim Suleimani and Iraqi military commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, both assassinated by the United States and both on the DIO list. Khalek’s Instagram upload was quickly deleted for violating what a notification called the “violence or dangerous organizations” policy. In an email, Khalek told The Intercept, “My intent when I posted the photo was to show my surroundings,” and “the fact that [the billboard is] so prominently displayed at the airport where they were murdered shows how they are perceived even by Iraqi officialdom.”

More recently, Facebook’s DIO policy collided with the Taliban’s toppling of the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan. After the Taliban assumed control of the country, Facebook announced the group was banned from having a presence on its apps. Facebook now finds itself in the position of not just censoring an entire country’s political leadership but placing serious constraints on the public’s ability to discuss or even merely depict it.

Other incidents indicate that the DIO list may be too blunt an instrument to be used effectively by Facebook moderators. In May, Facebook deleted a variety of posts by Palestinians attempting to document Israeli state violence at Al Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam, because company staff mistook it for an unrelated organization on the DIO list with “Al-Aqsa” in its name (of which there are several), judging from an internal memo obtained by BuzzFeed News. Last month, Facebook censored an Egyptian user who posted an Al Jazeera article about the Al-Qassam Brigades, a group active in neighboring Palestine, along with a caption that read simply “Ooh” in Arabic. Al-Qassam does not appear on the DIO list, and Facebook’s Oversight Board wrote that “Facebook was unable to explain why two human reviewers originally judged the content to violate this policy.”

While the past two decades have inured many the world over to secret ledgers and laws like watchlists and no-fly bans, Facebook’s privatized version indicates to York that “we’ve reached a point where Facebook isn’t just abiding by or replicating U.S. policies, but going well beyond them.” 
“We should never forget that nobody elected Mark Zuckerberg, a man who has never held a job other than CEO of Facebook.”"
The honor roll itself.

Given the timing of the 'leak', this is very likely another Zuck stunt, a Zunt.

'Terrorism'

"The binary imperialist world of terrorists and anti-terrorists" (Massad).  Note the link to an interview with easily one of the most despicable traitors in US history, with a shekeled throwaway line at the end:  "‘The attack would have been prevented’: co-author of 9/11 report reflects on missed opportunities" (Smith):

"Kean felt three-quarters of the documents that were classified should not have been. The families have long called for the release of the findings of an FBI investigation into possible complicity by Saudi Arabia in the attacks, including contacts between Saudi officials and two hijackers who lived in California in the months before September 11. 

Last week Joe Biden bowed to the pressure and announced a review and declassification of files from the FBI investigation. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens but the country denies any involvement in the plot and is contesting a legal action brought by the families in federal court in New York. 

The commission’s report found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded” al-Qaida. In an interview last week on the Guardian’s Politics Weekly Extra podcast, Kean said: “All the documents I read, including the ones the families now want made public, I did not find anything that would indicate any involvement by Saudi Arabian government officials.

“Now, whether or not there were citizens of Saudi Arabia involved at one point or other, I can’t say. I’m close to the families, I get on well with them but I tell you, I don’t think they’re going to get anything. I found more information of possible involvement by Iran than Saudi Arabia.”"

Back to Massad:
"The history of the term “terrorist” in Palestine since the 1930s is most illustrative in this regard. Early Palestinian resistance under British colonial rule mostly took the form of legal appeals to the British, organising and mobilising the population against land sales to Zionists, and appealing to international actors to help in obtaining national independence.

As this proved ineffective, by 1935 Palestinian peasant resistance erupted, becoming an all-out revolt, which lasted from 1936 to 1939. The revolt included strikes, demonstrations and guerrilla action taken against the British and the Jewish colonial settlers. The British characterised the guerrilla war of liberation as “terrorism” and suppressed it with massive military action, including the re-invasion of the country, killing close to 9,000 Palestinians and wounding about 30,000, exiling dozens and executing more than 100 Palestinian revolutionaries.

The British organised joint British-Zionist death squads (known as the Special Night Squads) that attacked Palestinian villages at night and shot and killed an untold number of Palestinians.

The Jewish colonists at the time began to use new methods to suppress Palestinian resistance, including blowing up cafes with grenades (in Jerusalem for example on 17 March 1937), and placing electrically timed mines in crowded market places, first used by the Zionists against Palestinians in Haifa on 6 July 1938. When, following the suppression of the Palestinian revolt, the British had to limit their support for the Zionist project, Zionist attacks turned against them.

The Zionist response included blowing up a ship in Haifa in November 1940, killing 242 Jewish refugees and a number of British police personnel; the assassination of British government officials; taking British citizens hostages; blowing up government offices killing employees and civilians; blowing up the British embassy in Rome (1946); flogging and killing captured British soldiers; and sending letter bombs and parcel bombs to British politicians in London, among others.

Menachem Begin, the future prime minister of Israel, was the mastermind behind a number of these attacks. Begin was unconvinced that the actions of his group and those of other Zionist colonists constituted “terrorism”. Following his group’s massacre of hundreds of Palestinians at the village of Deir Yassin in April 1948, his name had become synonymous with terrorism. Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt, among others, described Begin’s group as not only “a terrorist right-wing, chauvinist organisation”, but “closely akin to… the Nazi and fascist parties”.

In his 1951 autobiography, Begin dissociates his group from terrorism. He was astute enough to appreciate that “terrorism” is not an objective term agreed upon by all parties, but rather a rhetorical strategy used by unequal enemies for political ends: “The word ‘terror’ came to define the acts of revolutionaries or counter-revolutionaries, or fighters for freedom and oppressors. It all depends on who uses the term.” 
Begin here is speaking of Zionist terrorism against the British, not the Palestinians. Zionist violence against the Palestinians was seen more in the register of European Jewish civilisation fighting primitive, indigenous Palestinian barbarism. David Ben-Gurion was clear on this issue when he insisted that “we are not Arabs, and others measure us by a different standard… our instruments of war are different from those of the Arabs”."
and (my emphasis in red):
". . . to redeem Jews, Zionists not only introduced car bombs and market and cafe bombings to the Middle East, Israel would also introduce plane skyjackings as early as 1954. The Israeli air force would often seize civilian airliners in international skies and divert them to Israel, subject the passengers to inspection, interrogation as well as incarceration.

Moreover, Israel remains the only party in the Middle East that shot down a civilian airliner, as it did a Libyan plane in 1973, killing 106 passengers on board. In the early 1980s, it specialised in planting car bombs in Lebanon.

But as the Israelis and the Americans understand very well, the ongoing discourse on terrorism is not about the victims of “terrorism” but about the “perpetrators”. The fact that state armies more regularly target the very same victims that “terrorists” target, yet are not referred to as “terrorists”, clarifies that it is not the act of “terrorism” that defines the actor as “terrorist” but rather the opposite: it is the perpetrator’s conferred identity as “terrorist” that defines his/her actions as “terrorist” in nature."
It is quite simple: 'terrorists' are actually the victims of terrorism, and 'anti-terrorists', particularly Khazars and their stooges, are the real terrorists.

Unstoppable undercurrent of crisis

Fact checking the 'fact' checkers:  "Revolver Uncovers Buried Details on Just Who’s Funding Newsguard’s Fraudulent “Covid Fact-Checking” Scam".  It is pretty much a slaughter, summarized in the letter at the end. 

"The Fakest "Whistleblower" Ever" (Tracey)"

". . . Haugen has conceded that she doesn’t even have an inherent problem with the massive power wielded by Facebook, she just thinks that power ought to be wielded more judiciously — in accordance with her political and cultural priorities — with the help of government regulators. “As an algorithmic specialist... I’m actually against the breaking up of Facebook,” she said at the Senate hearing last week. What she wants instead is a government jobs program for revolving-door functionaries such as herself. “There needs to be a regulatory home where someone like me could do a tour of duty after working at a place like [Facebook], and have a place to work on things like regulation,” Haugen implored. Creating a new regulatory agency where amateur Philosopher Kings like Haugen can comfortably ponder how to define “the common good,” a phrase she constantly uses as though she’s one of history’s great ethicists? And contemplate what speech should and should not be allowed on the internet? Don’t worry, Haugen would like you to know that the creation of this new Federal body is not, in fact, a “political” recommendation.

Because like any effective campaigner seeking to achieve a political outcome, Haugen insists that she is stridently non-political. “I don’t view this as a political issue,” Haugen has insisted in regards to her “whistleblowing.” Of course, that’s also music to the ears of the powerful actors she’s ingratiating herself to, because if she had a straightforwardly partisan motive, she’d be much easier to criticize and wouldn’t attract such an outpouring of compulsory veneration."

The Google Fahrenheit 451 crowd are enthusiastic about their book burning/censoring.  They love it.  They get off on the power.  In particular, they want to shape all the major political issues by burying truth, and even open discussion of issues.  Zuck, on the other hand, hates it, as the expense of doing it cuts into his profits, and the result is he barely has two nickels to rub together.  Yet the First Amendment means that, at least legally, the censoring has to be kept in the private sector.  Haugen's job is to keep Facebook whole, and privately owned, while figuring out some way to slough off the hard and expensive work of reviewing content onto some government bureaucracy.

The West is in dire need of a cultural revolution.  The Chinese had exactly the same problem now faced by the West, and Mao fixed it.  It was painful, but necessary.  The woke - all the intelligentsia, university profs, stinktankers, politicians, bureaucrats, 'journalists', and assorted hangers-on/grifters - need to be sent out to the fields for a few decades or so of productive farm labor (the free labor would also help with food costs!).  I'm serious.  "The Triumph and Terror of Wang Huning" (Lyons) (my emphasis in red):

"Wang recorded his observations in a memoir that would become his most famous work: the 1991 book America Against America. In it, he marvels at homeless encampments in the streets of Washington DC, out-of-control drug crime in poor black neighborhoods in New York and San Francisco, and corporations that seemed to have fused themselves to and taken over responsibilities of government. Eventually, he concludes that America faces an “unstoppable undercurrent of crisis” produced by its societal contradictions, including between rich and poor, white and black, democratic and oligarchic power, egalitarianism and class privilege, individual rights and collective responsibilities, cultural traditions and the solvent of liquid modernity. 

But while Americans can, he says, perceive that they are faced with “intricate social and cultural problems,” they “tend to think of them as scientific and technological problems” to be solved separately. This gets them nowhere, he argues, because their problems are in fact all inextricably interlinked and have the same root cause: a radical, nihilistic individualism at the heart of modern American liberalism.  

“The real cell of society in the United States is the individual,” he finds. This is so because the cell most foundational (per Aristotle) to society, “the family, has disintegrated.” Meanwhile, in the American system, “everything has a dual nature, and the glamour of high commodification abounds. Human flesh, sex, knowledge, politics, power, and law can all become the target of commodification.” This “commodification, in many ways, corrupts society and leads to a number of serious social problems.” In the end, “the American economic system has created human loneliness” as its foremost product, along with spectacular inequality. As a result, “nihilism has become the American way, which is a fatal shock to cultural development and the American spirit.” 

Moreover, he says that the “American spirit is facing serious challenges” from new ideational competitors. Reflecting on the universities he visited and quoting approvingly from Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind, he notes a growing tension between Enlightenment liberal rationalism and a “younger generation [that] is ignorant of traditional Western values” and actively rejects its cultural inheritance. “If the value system collapses,” he wonders, “how can the social system be sustained?”  

Ultimately, he argues, when faced with critical social issues like drug addiction, America’s atomized, deracinated, and dispirited society has found itself with “an insurmountable problem” because it no longer has any coherent conceptual grounds from which to mount any resistance."

Tuesday, October 12, 2021

Glances

"Merrick Garland's America" (Giraldi). Bad vibes all around this guy.

"Who Will Step Up in Biden’s DOJ to Save Julian Assange?" (Lauria).  A potentially good person, Vanita Gupta, somehow slipped into the DOJ, and this is very clever work by Lauria - a consistently impressive writer - to manipulate some residual decency.  Anyone with half a brain would have to realize that in the long run, liberating Assange and what he stands for would put you in the history books as a hero for all time.  Hell, she'd eventually be on the currency as one of the greatest and most important patriots in American history.  Does she have the courage to stand up to the assholes and do the right thing?

"US, Iran exchanging glances" (Bhadrakumar).  "Saudi Arabia Taking Small Steps to Improve its Relations With Its Neighbours" (O'Neill).  I'm going to give (((Biden's teleprompter))) credit for scaring the Saudis enough to knock some sense into them.  Not too much credit - this represents the Rothschild views on the best way to keep Israel around, in contrast to the craziness of Sheldon - but still . . .

On the other hand, the (((really bad guys))) still have their hand in, looking, as always, for a War For The Jews:  "Why is There Now a Crisis in Relations Between Azerbaijan and Iran?" (Platov):

"It should also be borne in mind that Azerbaijan is a very important supplier of oil to Israel. According to a report by the US Energy Information Administration, 40% of Israel’s oil requirements are provided by Azerbaijan. According to the Israeli newspaper Hareetz, the Aliyev family has invested almost USD 600 million in Israel’s economy, in sectors ranging from healthcare to the stock exchange.

Azerbaijan’s Jewish population, numbering about 7 thousand and based largely in Baku, is particularly involved in promoting good relations between Azerbaijan and Israel. Nevertheless, despite the shared geopolitical and economic interests, Azerbaijan tries to avoid openly taking a pro-Israel stance – Baku is clearly afraid of an anti-Israeli reaction from the Muslim world as a whole. With this in mind, Baku has also supported pro-Palestinian projects and proposals in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and Israel has greeted these initiatives with understanding."

"The Zemmour Phenomenon" (Durocher).  Early life (i.e., a totally phony French nationalist, but Sephardic, so not totally Evil!).  The latest Rothschild gambit to let their stooge Macron slip through again, knocking out Le Pen.  France, miraculously, has first-past-the-post Presidential elections, requiring enormous efforts to circumvent the will of the people through vote splitting.  Zemmour looks like a serial killer.

"Muqtada the Conqueror Gains Ground in Iraqi Poll" (Escobar).  Job #1 is getting the Americans out.

"‘The Americans aren’t listening to us,’ Russia says as major Moscow talks between Biden’s envoy and Kremlin’s diplomats break down".  Sorry, but what would you fucking (((expect)))!  Russia should never have let (((her))) in.  Consistent (((poison))).

Humanitarian Intervention For The Jews:  "When humanitarian intervention leads to crimes against humanity" (Carpenter).  A shame that Biden is far gone:

"To his credit, Biden appeared to be one member of the Obama foreign policy team who strongly opposed the original intervention. Obama’s deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, confirms that point. Rhodes recalls that at a key meeting of the president and his foreign policy advisers, “Biden said that intervention was, essentially, madness — why should we get involved in another war in a Muslim-majority country?” His caution was thoroughly warranted."

"Pandora Papers: Who Is Targeted?" (Strategic Infographics).