Monday, November 23, 2020

“Decency” and “normalcy”

Excellent detail here on how the psycho-killers intellectually justify/rationalize Wars For The Jews, especially WWIII:  "VIDEO: Top Biden advisors Flournoy and Blinken promise smarter, more secretive permanent war policy" (Cohen).  Blinken is, properly spelled, (((Blinken))).  I far prefer Trump's blunt gaffs - usually Clarifying - to Biden's “decency” and “normalcy.”

"The 4-year (neoliberal) radicalisation of US media & Bidenites’ ‘unradical radicalism’" (Mazaheri):

"For four years The New York Times editorial page has been unreadable because into every column – no matter the subject – an anti-Trump diatribe was inserted. For the world’s many billions who think there actually are issues other than the president of the United States, their obsession was incredibly tedious.

It reminded me of how the World Socialist Web Site ends every column with a reminder that the only solution – no matter the subject – is Trotskyist revolution. At least they keep that at the bottom, so you can avoid it if you want.

The difference between the two is that one is openly opposed to neoliberalism and neo-imperialism, while the other censors any discussion of these enormously crucial and socially-devastating concepts."

I've thought the same thing. I'm reading a piece about the end of human life when the asteroid hits the earth, and the last paragraph informs me that the only solution is full Trot. I kid, but it is close to that bad. Would it kill them to write articles and just exclude the boilerplate last paragraph?  Anyway, the WSWS contains lots of useful information.  The JYT is all lies.  Also:
". . . we should grasp that Bidenism is not just a “return to (the 2015) normal” but also includes a vindictive, ever-more flaming evangelical insistence that US-led Westernism (neoliberalism and neo-imperialism) is the one true religion, which Donald Trump was heretically and treasonously wrong to even partially call into question. 

Who are these unreadable new and old columnists of The New York Times? I can tell you what they are not: they are not journalists who openly denounce imperialism, the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the oppression of the Wall Street high finance class or the other key ideas which differentiate leftism from centrism and rightism.

No, the loudest Bidenites are people who are upset that Trump is now trying to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq; are upset that Trump did not bomb Syria; could not care less about the famine in Yemen; and who would not have expressed outrage at all for the assassination of Iranian anti-terror hero Qasem Soleimani if Barack Obama had killed him.

The idea that Biden’s foreign policy is going to be less belligerent than Trump’s is something based only on hope and not on the past four years (nor Biden’s 47 years in public service). Just look at how Bidenites are preparing to deal with Trumpers and ask yourself: is the neo-imperial hegemon really going to treat foreigners – especially Muslims in oil-rich areas – better than their very own neighbors?

Bidenites essentially want to criminalise working for Trumpism, censor Trumpist analyses, and make Trump the very first president to ever be prosecuted (what happened to the outrage of Trump’s calls to prosecute “crooked Hillary”?). These are all “radical” in the very worst sense of the word. The obstacle in implementing such radical policies is that Trumpism won at every level on November 3rd except the presidency, in a total concretisation and not repudiation of Trumpism, whether one likes that or not; the problem is that Bidenites at this time in 2016 were, incredibly, already talking publicly about impeaching the then-president-elect Trump, gutting their credibility.

These do not seem like the people who are going to herald a new era of tolerance for non-American ideas because they can’t even tolerate half of America’s ideas. Bidenism may turn out to be “Western universal values” on steroids because Bidenites realise there truly is a threat to the 2015 status quo, which they are obviously hell-bent on suppressing.

These do not seem like the people who are going to become more tolerant of those who do not accept America’s fake-leftist and divisive identity politics, which are entirely based around one thing: distracting from opposition to and the discussion of both neo-imperialism and neoliberalism."
I rarely mention anything good, but one thing is that the other two 'powers' are sane and rational:  "Return of Great Game in Post-Soviet Central Asia" (Bhadrakumar).

Greenwald is using his new post-Pierre career - now working full time for Putin! - to tear strips off 'journalism', particularly with respect to the Russiagate debacle.  "Glenn Greenwald Levels MSM Journo Who Claims He's 'Endangering' CIA-Mouthpiece Media" (Durden).  He's trying to shame them into something closer to competence, but is is a hopeless task.  'Journalism' is simply having the 'little hall monitor dweebs' present plutocrat views while ensuring nobody else has any kind of voice

Tweet (Eli Valley) (one thing about Biden, he has never held out even the tiniest hope that he would act any differently - he told the 'left', repeatedly, to fuck off, and fuck off they shall):
"The Biden team is now calling the Left—which saved his ass and gave him the Election—"terrorists" for requesting that he not govern as a Republican:
politico.com/newsletters/tr"
blog comments powered by Disqus