WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney has failed, and continues to fail, to represent the average conservative Utah Republican voter.
WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney misrepresented himself as a Republican.
WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney has prioritized his personal and political vendetta against President Donald J. Trump ahead of the Constitution of the United States, the interest of We, the People, and the advancement of the Republican Platform.
WHEREAS; President Donald J. Trump received 58.13% in Utah’s 2020 General Election.
WHEREAS Senator Willard Mitt Romney embarrassed the State of Utah when he was the only U.S. Republican Senator in 2019 to join the Democrats partisan vote to convict President Donald J. Trump.
WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney voted against Senator Rand Paul’s motion regarding the unconstitutionality of impeaching a private citizen.
WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney voted to continue the Un-Constitutional Impeachment Trial of President Donald J.Trump to allow witnesses after House Managers had previously failed to call any witness prior to their rushed impeachment vote in the House, thus Denying President Donald J. Trump Due Process Rights under the Constitution.
WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney voted guilty in the 2021 Impeachment Trial of former President Donald J. Trump.
WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney saw fit to intentionally violate the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment Rights of President Donald J. Trump.
WHEREAS, Senator Willard Mitt Romney used and uses his senatorial power and influence to undermine Republican President Donald J. Trump.
WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney has condoned false and misleading statements that have led the 117th Congress of the United States to further conduct an illegal and unconstitutional 2nd Impeachment proceeding against President Donald J.Trump.
WHEREAS; Senator Willard Mitt Romney fails to ensure election integrity and continues to condemn those who do.
WHEREAS; the Utah Republican Party leadership has failed to issue a censure.
THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED THAT;
We, the undersigned voters, censure Senator Willard Mitt Romney.
Cindy L Shepherd
Susan Kay Anderson
Beth A. Hartung-Soria
Amy J Workman
Stephen N Millet
Arturo Morales LLan
William S Both (Bill)
Brent Keith Garner
Richard D Owens
ElRsy L Anderson
W. G. Fairclough, Jr.
C. Kirk Rogers
Todd J Thurgood
Mary L. Taylor
Richard B. Smith
Kim D. Johansen
Susan L. Shaw
Morgan Marie Brown
Jared J. Vanallen
Karena D Parkinson
Joyce Joan Fenton
Stephen L. Dean
Aspen M Westenskow
Lee Ann. Brockbank
Ann Rose Berglind
Marcelle B Cox
Barbara L Naylor
Donald H Harden
Daniel L Naylor
Paula J. Milby
George D Crawford
Stacey Anne Stacey
Helen S Naylor
Jorge Luis Lopez
James d olsen
Becky Romney Zackrison
Mark J Salcedo
Daniel Scott Naylor
Stadelmayer Edward J
Mary W. Burkett
Mary Ann Rudenborg
Anthony C Daniels
Elizabeth St Germain
Thomas Andrew Menard
Brian L Smart
Roald E. Peterson Jr
Brad J. Beus
Robert L Hugoe
Laura L Guthrie
Katherine Elaine Adamson
Leigh Ann Beckham
Richard R. Palmer
Debra L Gillett
Bonita L Saunders
Al Patron Cassidy
Mrs. Jessica Meyer
Linda Susan Weeks
Michael D Rose
Diane L Grieco
Phyllis A Monson
Craig A. Burbank
Robert B Shepherd
William F. Beach
Susan C. Hatch
Ryan Guy Palmer
Debra E. Provence
Jill K Ruggieri
Mark E. Peterson
Robert W Hair
Matthew W Bell
linda g beyer
Katherine L Cole
Emily Santa Cruz
Patricia Whitten Bell
Julie Long Gortler
Scott D Farnsworth
Philip L Bugher, SSG U.S. ARMY Retired
Doyle R. Griffith
Jamie L. Girardi
Moy M Chambers
yes i want mitt to go
Kelly R. Strebel
Lauri B Madsen
Jeremiah S. Barlow
Steven S. Boyer
Barbara Puakea Balatico
Marianne K Boren
Gena M Jepsen
Holly J Perry
Max J Nield
Randy L. Thompson
Paul M. Tom
Wanda K Anderson
Randall D McCleve
Anthony J Anderson
Brian R. Wilkin
Charles D Aiken
Jusy l blackner
Dennis t blackner
Trudy Teichert Lamb
Jerry R Anderson
Nicholas H Manning
Walt n jarvis
Rich Bowman Jr.
Mark H Robinson
Leland H Boardman
Michael Grover Coltharp II
Kathy A. Thompson
M Shane Leishman
Daniel M Gates
Jack L. Stickney
Berta Guerrero Hillison
Darwin N. Davis D.D.S.
Gary J Wilson
Mike Grover Coltharp
John Donald Turnp
Tanya LaBauve Hudkins
Dawn L Krisher
Tiffani D. Kurts
Mildred E Hatfield
Randall D Jones
Robert Bryce Larabee
Kay Whiting Harrison
Braxston T. Hughes
James R McAdams
Zachary j Beach
Carmella B Mifflin
leslie a crick
Diane Hardy Empey
Pamela A McIntosh
Jacob R Creason
Richard R McIntosh
Judith A Adams
Brent V Peterson
Nancy J. Inman
Janna Stout Morrell
Diana A Williams
jack l cleghorn
De Ann Moore
Debra lee rodriguez
Pierre duvall rodriguez
Joseph Scott Edwards
Katherine P Olson
Kelly J DeMello
Brandon Todd Sandstrom
Ronald Craig Bruin
Dani Ray Wharton
Toni Nicole Antonelli
April Elizabeth Hewitt
Kennith C Hall
Stephen Randall Oveson
Stephen C. Kelsey
Judy J Sceili
Sandra McKee- Smuin
William Tim Hansen
Del William Smith
Dustin Del Toro
vernon brent allphin
John L Smith
David T Walker
Dolores D Wiker
Todd D Glover
Theodore W. Schultz
Rebecca L. Campbell
Marilyn J Momeny
Steven D Wilcock
Patrick G. Whitt
Angela Alison Brown
Shanece Leausa Fuimaono
Leah C Henderson
Larry & Karin Stone
Robert r shan jr
Andrea Shirts Nelson
Marilyn P Danielson
Arthur R Barnard
Dorothy Anne Jepsen
Leo C Branz
Nancy Jane Olpin
Rickie T Taylor
Ruth Ann Milner
Rodney G. Hobbs
Laura J Ross
Susan Palmer Baker
Mrs. Sarah Anderson
Lorna Y Bitton
Janice Payne Hymas
Steven M Visser
Joseph A. Elder
Charles Russell Robinson
F Stewart Clawson
Kathleen C. Burns
John L Milliner
Troy w Bradley
Jodi Lynn Kaili
John w. Reynolds
D. Terry Noorda
Mary G Smith
Arthur O Davis II
Lora lee wise
Lyman Grant Johnson
Darrell J Priest
Dr. Chris Taylor
Charles F Beickel
Forrest B Allred
Alice Skidmore Allred
David J Rhees
David J Rhees
B. L. Goddard
Tylor John Young
Richard A Jensen
Nathan R. Davis
Darryl L. Williams
Robert John Primbs, Jr.
Joel V. Storland
John Elroy Christianson
C. B. Paddock
Paul S. Ensign
Bobbi Jo Trimming
Brent K Allred
Gregg W. Stucki
KIM C RADFORD
Russell G Hatch
Betty Ann Heck
John L. Honeycutt
David M Rogers
Pablo Sanchez Jr
Marc Galen Woolley
Patricia A Hughes
Anna M Starley
Vickie W. Patterson
Rodney D Patterson
Robert W Tate
Beau R Lund
Dale Gary Frodsham
Allen J. Bohne
Debra L Gillett
Karen L Long
Timothy Scott Smith
Robert J Rasmussen
Katherine B McAndrews
Shirley Ann Manning
Vincent R. Newmeyer
Karen B Turner
Edwin Odell Miner
Dorothy C. Miner
Matthew p hogan
Cheryl L Wall
Jodie Barton Hunsaker
Stacy S Hale
Veronica J Elliott
Harold Lan Ealey
David O. Morris
Angela and Val Meyer
Janice K Foster
Roger V. Taylor
Ryan K Bronson
John T. Gilden
Clint H Bean
G Tracy Lewis
James M. Popham
James P McGarvey
Dawn Van Nosdol
Hafin M Painter
Sarah Ann Naisbitt
Melissa A Taylor
Holly Sutton Goetz
Don Lee Sheffer
Robert A. Jorgensen
Marta T Hudson
tony Di Preta
Joyce Onorata Bonhag
Michael Eldon Leigh
Keven T Leigh
Justin San Souci
Heather T Hulse
Rodman A Flint
Richard A Smith
Janet L Seamons
Donald J. Levi
Clark r Ward
Jodie Barton Hunsaker
Carla M. Crews
Darren Paul Wood
R Craig Johnson
Cymony M. Tarin
Rebecca B. Barton
Dirk Allen Willden
James L Harper
Kathleen A Harris
He is dishonest and disgraceful
Jennifer B. Faddis
Sid and Linda Thatcher
Jon L. Hunt
Melissa Jane Cesaria Erickson
Jacquie L. Hunt
Loma Lee McKinnon
Mekeli P. Miller
Roxanne W. Averett
Susan K Russell
Patrick l larson
laura e larson
Sylvia O. Kralik
Lila Lee Christensen
Ricky L Lelli
John G. Kellogg
Eric Rocky Romero
Judy F Thompson
James D Rowell
Donna P. Chambers
Robert J. Chambers
Tonna Peterson Bowcutt
Renée Herrington, RN
James R Chambers
Deborah K Phillips
Anita s weaver
Nathan W Allred
Kurt Duane Beckstrom
David G Law
Janine W Law
Raymond Kirk Johnson
Kamile K Stoker
Casey Paul Mills
Kimberly F Hansen
Becky L Parry
Sherry W Rhodes
R. Bick Lesser Sr.
Michael James London
Jeanne L Judges
Joe Ann Watts
Harold H L Hodges
Lana S. Gardner
Shem Jessop Jr.
Dallas W Fullmer
Rick A Meryhew
James E Robertson
Ann Jacobsen Given
Quinn Ryan Hammond
Alma M Staker
David J Sindt
Geanie Michelle Struthers
Joel R Sanders
Brian K Gorum – Uintah County GOP Chairman
Judy E. Jolley
Charles Joseph Freshman
Richard N. Summers
Nathan G Joplin
Nathan G Joplin
Lorie L Dejoria Waldenberg
Franklin H. Frederick
Daniel E Beatty
Rose Marie Sforza
Dennis Thompson Jr
Calvin H Pearson
Lyman Ray Winger
Weston S. Millward
M Susan Gunn
Kristin L Johnson
Jerry R Johnson
STEVEN B JENSEN
Gregory Scot Rodman
Annette M. Winger
R Corder Farnsworth
Anthony C. Francis
GLEN R. PARSHALL
Carl John Anderson
Alan B Crane
SHERIFF Cameron M. Noel
Charles M. Drake
L Rand Jolley
[SEE: Cass Sunstein]
Conspiracies for good and for evil do exist now, as they have from time immemorial, Matthew Ehret writes. The only question is which intention do you want to devote your life towards?
If you are starting to feel like forces controlling the governments of the west are out to get you, then it is likely that you are either a paranoid nut job, or a stubborn realist.
Either way, it means that you have some major problems on your hands.
If you don’t happen to find yourself among the tinfoil hat-wearing strata of conspiracy theorists waiting in a bunker for aliens to either strike down or save society from the shape shifting lizard people, but are rather contemplating how, in the 1960s, a shadow government took control of society over the dead bodies of many assassinated patriots, then certain conclusions tend to arise.
Three Elementary Realizations for Thinking People
The first conclusion you would likely arrive at is that the United States government was just put through the first coup in over 58 years (yes, what happened in 1963 was a coup). Although it is becoming a bit prohibitive to speak such words aloud in polite society, Nancy Pelosi’s official biographer Molly Ball, recently penned a scandalous Time Magazine article entitled ‘The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign that Saved the 2020 Elections’ which admitted to this conspiracy saying:
“Even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream- a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.” (Lest you think that this was a subversion of democracy, Ball informs us that “they were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.”)
Another conclusion you might come to is that many of the political figures whom you believed were serving those who elected them into office, actually serve the interests of a clique of technocrats and billionaires lusting over the deconstruction of western civilization under something called “a Great Reset”. Where this was brushed off as an unfounded conspiracy theory not long ago, even Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister (and neo-Nazi supporting Rhodes Scholar) Chrystia Freeland decided to become a Trustee of the World Economic Forum just weeks ago. In this role, Freeland joins fellow Oxford technocrat Mark Carney in their mutual endeavor to be a part of the new movement to decarbonize civilization and make feudalism cool again.
Lastly, you might notice that your having arrived at these conclusions is itself increasingly becoming a form of thought-crime punishable in a variety of distasteful ways elaborated by a series of unprecedented new emergency regulations that propose extending the definition of “terrorism”. Those implicated under the new definition will be those broad swaths of citizens of western nations who don’t agree with the operating beliefs of the ruling oligarchy.
Already a 60 day review of the U.S. military is underway to purge the armed forces of all such “thought criminals” while McCarthyite legislation has been drafted to cleanse all government jobs of “conspiracy theorists”.
Another startling announcement from the National Terrorism Advisory Bulletin that domestic terrorists include: “ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority [and] perceived grievances fueled by false narratives.”
While not yet fully codified into law (though it will be if not nipped in the bud soon), you can be sure that things are certainly moving fast as, before our very eyes, the right to free speech is being torn to shreds by means of censorship across social media and the internet, cancelling all opinions deemed unacceptable to the ruling class.
The Conspiracy to Subvert Conspiracy Theorizing
This should not come as a surprise, as Biden’s new addition to the Department of Homeland Security is a bizarre figure named Cass Sunstein who famously described exactly what this was going to look like in his infamous 2008 report ‘Conspiracy Theories’ (co-authored with Harvard Law School’s Adrien Vermeule). In this under-appreciated study, the duo foresaw the greatest threat to the ruling elite took the form of “conspiracy theorizing” within the American population using as examples of this delusion: the idea that the government had anything to do with the murders of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr, or the planning and execution of 9-11.
Just to be clear, conspiracy literally means ‘two or more people acting together in accord with an agreed upon idea and intention’.
The fact that Vermeule has made a legal career arguing that laws should be interpreted not by the “intentions” of lawgivers, but rather according to cost-benefit analysis gives us a useful insight into the deranged mind of a technocrat and the delusional reasoning that denies the very thing which has shaped literally ALL of human history.
In their “scholarly” essay, the authors wrote “the existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be.” After establishing his case for the threat of conspiracies, Sunstein says that “the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups”.
Not one to simply draw criticisms, the pro-active Sunstein laid out five possible strategies which the social engineers managing the population could deploy to defuse this growing threat saying:
“(1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counter speech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counter speech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help”.
(I’ll let you think about which of these prescriptions were put into action over the ensuing 12 years.)
Cass Sunstein was particularly sensitive to this danger largely because: 1) he was a part of a very ugly conspiracy himself and 2) he is a world-renowned behaviorist.
The Problem of Reality for Behaviorists
As an economic behaviorist and lawyer arguing that all “human rights” should be extended to animals (blurring the line separating human dynamics from the law of the jungle as any fascist must), Sunstein has spent decades trying to model human behavior with computer simulations in an effort to “scientifically manage” such behavior.
As outlined in his book Nudge (co-authored with Nobel Prize winning behaviorist Richard Thaler), Sunstein “discovered” that people tend to organize their behavioral patterns around certain fundamental drives, such as the pursuit of pleasure, avoidance of pain, and certain Darwinian drives for sex, popularity, desire for conformity, desire for novelty, and greed.
One of the key principles of economic behaviorism which is seen repeated in such popular manuals as Freakonomics, Nudge, Predictably Irrational, The Wisdom of Crowds, and Animal Spirits, is that humans are both biologically determined due to their Darwinian impulses, but, unlike other animals, have the fatal flaw of being fundamentally irrational at their core. Since humans are fundamentally irrational, says the behaviorist, it is requisite that an enlightened elite impose “order” upon society while maintaining the illusion of freedom of choice from below. This is the underlying assumption of Karl Popper’s Open Society doctrine, which was fed to Popper’s protégé George Soros and which animates Soros’ General Theory of Reflexivity and his Oxford-based Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET).
This was at the heart of Obama’s science Czar John Holdren’s call for world government in his 1977 Ecoscience (co-written with his mentor Paul Ehrlich) where the young misanthrope envisioned a future utopic world governed by a scientifically managed master-class saying:
“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable”.
The caveat: If Darwinian impulses mixed with irrational “animal spirits” were truly all that animated those systems which behaviorists wish to map and manipulate (aka: “nudge” with rewards, punishments), then a scientific priesthood would indeed be a viable and perhaps necessary way to organize the world.
Fortunately, reality is a bit more elegant and dignified than behaviorists wish to admit.
Why Computer Modellers Hate Metaphysics
On a closer inspection of history, we find countless instances where people shape their individual and group behavior around sets of ideas that transcend controllable material impulses. When this happens, those individuals or groups tend to resist adapting to environments created for them. This incredible phenomenon is witnessed empirically in the form of the American Revolution, Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings, Civil Rights movements, and even some bold manifestations of anti-lockdown protests now underway around the world.
Among the most troublesome of those variables which upset computer models are: “Conscience”, “Truth”, “Intentions”, “Soul”, “Honor”, “God”, “Justice”, “Patriotism”, “Dignity”, and “Freedom”.
Whenever individuals shape their identities around these very real, though immaterial (aka: “metaphysical”) principles, they cannot be “nudged” towards pre-determined decisions that defy reason and morality. Adherence to these principles also tends to afford thinking people an important additional edge of creative insight necessary to cut through false explanatory narratives that attempt to hide lies behind the appearance of truth (aka: sophistry).
As witnessed on multiple occasions throughout history, such individuals who value the health of their souls over the intimidating (and extremely malleable) force of popular opinion, will often decide to sacrifice personal comfort and even their lives in order to defend those values which their minds and consciences deem important.
These rare, but invaluable outliers will often resist policies that threaten to undo their freedoms or undermine the basis of their society’s capacity to produce food, and energy for their children and grandchildren. What is worse, is that their example is often extremely contagious causing other members of the sheep class to believe that they too are human and endowed with unalienable rights which should be defended.
The Intentions Ordering World History
Perhaps, most “destructive” of all is that these outlier people tend to look for abstract things like “causes” in historical dynamics shaping the context of their present age, as well as their current geopolitical environment.
Whenever this type of thinking is done, carefully crafted narratives fed to the masses by an enlightened elite will often fail in their powers to persuade, since seekers after truth soon come to realize that IDEAS and intentions (aka: conspiracies) shape our past, present and future. When the dominating intentions shaping society’s trajectory is in conformity with Natural Law, humanity tends to improve, freedoms increase, culture matures and evil loses its hold. Inversely, when the intentions animating history are out of conformity with Natural Law, the opposite happens as societies lose their moral and material fitness to survive and slip ever more quickly into dark ages.
While sitting in a jail in Birmingham Alabama in 1963, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. described this reality eloquently when he said:
“A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust… One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”
From Plato’s organization of his Academy and efforts to shape a Philosopher King to beat the forces of the Persian Empire, to Cicero’s efforts to save the Roman Republic, to Augustine’s battles to save the soul of Christianity all the way to our present age, conspiracies for the good and counter-conspiracies for evil have shaped history. If one were to begin an investigation into history without an understanding that ideas and intentions caused the trajectory of history, as is the standard practice among history professors dominant in todays world, then one would become incapable of understanding anything essential about one’s own reality.
It is irrelevant that behaviorists and other fascists wish their victims to believe that history just happens simply because random short-sighted impulses kinetically drive events on a timeline- the truth of my claim exists for any serious truth seeker to discover it for themselves.
Back to our Present Sad State of Affairs
Now we all know that Sunstein spent the following years working as Obama’s Regulatory Czar alongside an army of fellow behaviorists who took control of all levers of policy making as outlined by Time Magazine’s April 13, 2009 article ‘How Obama is Using the Science of Change’. As the fabric of western civilization, and traditional values of family, gender, and even macro economic concepts like “development” were degraded during this period, the military industrial complex had a field day as Sunstein’s wife Samantha Power worked closely with Susan Rice in the promotion of “humanitarian bombings” of small nations under Soros’ Responsibility to Protect doctrine.
After the Great Reset Agenda was announced in June 2020, Sunstein was recruited to head the propaganda wing of the World Health Organization known as the WHO Technical Advisory Group where his skills in mass behavior modification was put to use in order to counteract the dangerous spread of conspiracy theories that persuaded large chunks of the world population that COVID-19 was part of a larger conspiracy to undermine national sovereignty and impose world government.
The head of WHO described Sunstein’s mandate in the following terms:
“In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries are using a range of tools to influence behavior: Information campaigns are one tool, but so are laws, regulations, guidelines and even fines…That’s why behavioral science is so important.”
Today, hundreds of Obama-era behaviorists have streamed back into influential positions of government under the new “scientifically managed”, evidence-based governance coming back to life under Biden promising to undo the dark days of President Trump.
Ideologues who have been on record calling for world government, the elimination of the sick and elderly (see Obamacare architect Ezekiel Emmanuel’s Why I Hope to Die At 75), and population control are streaming back into positions of influence. If you think that anything they have done to return to power is unlawful, or antithetical to the principles of the Constitution, then these technocrats want you to know that you are a delusional conspiracy theorist and as such, represent a potential threat to yourself and the society of which you are but a part.
If you question World Health Organization narratives on COVID-19, or doubt the use of vaccines produced by organizations like Astra Zeneca due to their ties to eugenics organizations then you are a delusional conspiracy theorist.
If you doubt that global warming is caused by carbon dioxide or that implementing the Paris Climate accords may cause more damage to humanity than climate change ever could, then you must be a conspiracy theorist.
If you believe that the U.S. government just went through a regime change coordinated by something called “the deep state”, then you run the risk of being labelled a delusional threat to “the general welfare” deserving of the sort of treatment dolled out to any typical terrorist.
It appears that the many comforts we have taken for granted over the past 50-year drunken stupor called “globalization” are quickly coming to an end, and thankfully not one but two opposing intentions for what the new operating system will be are actively vying for control. This clash was witnessed in stark terms during the January 2021 Davos Summit, where Xi Jinping and Putin’s call for a new system of win-win cooperation, multipolarity and long-term development offset the unipolar zero-sum ideologues of the west seeking to undo the foundations of industrial civilization.
Either way you look at it, conspiracies for good and for evil do exist now, as they have from time immemorial. The only question is which intention do you want to devote your life towards?
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Mask mandates and business closures to fight coronavirus, Black Lives Matters rallies, and President Trump’s false election fraud claims stoked the fury of extremist antigovernment groups last year, according to Southern Poverty Law Center President and CEO Margaret Huang. Those issues prompted them to protest by the hundreds at state capitols, including Ohio’s, and by the thousands at last month’s U.S. Capitol riot that resulted in the deaths of five people including a police officer.
Huang’s organization, which started out 50 years ago as an Alabama law office fighting the Ku Klux Klan, is now a nonprofit that monitors hate groups and extremists around the nation. It released a report this week that found Ohio has the second highest number of active antigovernment groups of any state: 31. Only California’s 51 antigovernment groups exceeded the number found in Ohio, which has less than a third of California’s population.
Huang says some of the nation’s best-known extremists hail from Ohio, such as Columbus-native Andrew Anglin, who founded the white supremacist Daily Stormer website, and James Alex Fields of Maumee, who was sentenced to life in prison for ramming his car into a a crowd of counter-protesters at a 2017 “Unite the Right Rally” in Virginia that was promoted by Anglin’s website. Fields’ attack killed one woman and injured dozens of other people.
In an interview with cleveland.com/The Plain Dealer, Huang said young people in Ohio and elsewhere in the country who feel frustrated, isolated and lacking in community support sometimes find that community in online antigovernment or hate groups where people like Anglin lead them to believe the government or groups of people they dislike, such as racial minorities, have caused their problems.
“It seems like an answer to why they’re feeling so isolated, so frustrated,” says Huang, adding that the groups’ recruitment techniques mirror those of foreign terrorist organizations. “Many of them find a community there. They find people who want them to join their activities and who invite them to be part of something larger. I think in many parts of the country, not just Ohio, because you can see that these groups are found in every state, but in many parts of the country where there are a lot of young people who are frustrated, who may be economically disadvantaged, who may not have great employment or educational opportunities, they are turning to these extremist groups as a way to find community with others.”
The Ohio groups the Southern Poverty Law Center labels as antigovernment extremists include the OHIO III% United Patriots, Heartland Defenders, American Patriots Three Percent, Irregulars of Ohio Reserve Militia, John Birch Society, Oath Keepers, The Last Militia, Ohio Defense Force Home Guard and Ohio Militiamen.
Northeast Ohio-based organizations that the SPLC classifies as antigovernment include the Frontiersmen militia group of Ravenna, which the SPLC says spreads disinformation about COVID-19, Democrats and Antifa, among other topics, and Cleveland’s Silver Shield Xchange, which the SPLC says spreads conspiracy theories and disinformation about COVID-19, former President Barack Obama, China, former President Donald Trump, the 2020 election, and the supposed imminent collapse of the dollar. They also sell survivalist merchandise, including guns, gold and silver, the SPLC says.
Two of the Ohioans charged with rioting at the U.S. Capitol – Champaign County’s Donovan Crowl and Jessica Watkins – are members of a militia associated with the Oath Keepers, a loosely organized right-wing group that believes the government is stripping away Americans’ rights and focuses its recruitment efforts on former military members, federal charging documents indicate.
Huang said her organization identifies antigovernment groups by monitoring their online recruiting and event organization platforms, and through flyers the groups distribute in their communities to recruit new members, express hate, or call for people to take up arms against the government. She said her organization get the flyers from police reports or people who forward them to her organization’s six offices around the country.
“These are groups that openly advocate violence, that openly advocate white supremacy, etc.,” says Huang.
Over the years organizations including the socially conservative Family Research Council have disputed the Southern Poverty Law Center’s decision to classify them as hate groups, calling it “a hard left activist organization” whose political agenda pervades construction of its lists. In 2018, SPLC paid a $3.4 million settlement and issued an apology to a British political activist named Maajid Nawaz, who sued it for labeling him an “anti-Muslim extremist.”
Huang says Family Research Council made its hate group list for demonizing LGBTQ people and advocating policies that would deny their rights. She said several groups that have made SPLC’s lists have sued over their inclusion but her organization typically wins those challenges “because we use a clear definition and criteria for determining who falls into each category.”
“The reason we have a trusted reputation is that we do monitor these groups and we have been accurate in calling out their activities and calling out their hateful ideology,” Huang says. “If it bothers them, they should reconsider what they are saying and doing.”
According to Huang, many of the antigovernment groups existed for decades, but their numbers escalated when hard right groups took exception to a Democrat-run government after Obama’s election. Under Trump, she says many antigovernment groups focused more of their attention on state legislatures to express their frustration with coronavirus-related mask mandates and school and business closures.
“They have used this as a rallying cry to encourage people to oppose the government’s orders as illegitimate,” says Huang.
In addition to holding armed protests in numerous state capitals including Columbus and playing a key role in the riot at the U.S. Capitol, members of antigovernment groups were charged in a plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer because of restrictions imposed to limit the spread of coronavirus. Documents filed in the case against the alleged kidnap conspirators say they met twice in Ohio to discuss their scheme.
Huang says investments in education, job training opportunities and jobs in all communities would help stop the spread of antigovernment groups.
“When people talk about why international terrorists become radicalized, it’s frequently because they don’t have jobs, they can’t go to school and so they turn to terrorism as something that makes them feel a part of the community,” Huang said. “So we need to do the same kinds of things that we’ve advocated for countering terrorism internationally. You have to provide economic opportunities, you have to provide educational opportunities and when people have those alternatives, they’re much less likely to embrace extremism.”
[It will prove to be both violent and impossible to disarm one-third of all American adults, especially the patriotic ones who absolutely believe in the quotations given below.]
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”–Declaration of Independence.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi‘s office fired back at House Republicans on Monday who demanded answers regarding security decisions leading up to and on the day of the Capitol riot last month, saying they are “clearly” trying to “deflect responsibility for the Capitol attack from Donald Trump.”
House Administration Committee Ranking Member Rodney Davis, R-Ill., House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, House Oversight Committee Ranking Member James Comer, R-Ky., and House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., sent a letter to Pelosi, D-Calif., on Monday, saying that “many important questions” about her “responsibility for the security” of the Capitol on Jan. 6 “remain unanswered.”
But Pelosi’s deputy chief of staff, Drew Hammill, told Fox News that the speaker “has and will continue to take action to ensure accountability and enhance the security of the Capitol.”
“Two of the four House Republican ranking members voted to overturn the results of a fair election, just hours after the Capitol was sacked by an insurrectionist, right-wing mob – a mob incited by Trump,” Hammill said. “A full 65% of House Republicans joined them in voting to undermine our democracy. All four ranking members also voted against holding Donald Trump accountable for inciting the mob.”
Hammill added: “Clearly, the security of our Capitol and democracy are not the priorities of these ranking members.”
The Republicans, in their letter to Pelosi Monday morning, questioned: “When then-Chief Sund made a request for National Guard support on Jan. 4, why was that request denied? Did Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving get permission or instruction from your staff on Jan. 4 prior to denying Chief Sund’s request for the National Guard?”
Davis, Jordan, Comer and Nunes pointed to claims made by former Capitol Police Chief Steve Sund, that he, on Jan. 4, approached the sergeant-at-arms to request the assistance of the National Guard. Sund, in a letter to Pelosi last month, said Irving replied that he was concerned about “the optics” and didn’t feel the “intelligence supported it.”
“As you are aware, the speaker of the House is not only the leader of the majority party, but also has enormous institutional responsibilities,” they wrote. “The speaker is responsible for all operational decisions made within the House.”
The House sergeant-at-arms and the Senate sergeant-at-arms, Michael Stenger, were removed from their positions and Chief Sund resigned after the riot.
“It is the job of the Capitol Police Board, on which these three individuals sat, to properly plan and prepare for security threats facing the U.S. Capitol,” Hammill said. “It has been reported that the House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving has said that he did not present to House leadership any request for the National Guard before Jan. 6.”
Hammill noted that the committees of jurisdiction were briefed “in advance of Jan. 6 about security preparedness.”
“During a briefing of the Appropriations Committee Majority on Jan. 5 by the House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving and U.S. Capitol Police Chief Sund both Chief Sund and Mr. Irving provided assurances that the Capitol Complex had comprehensive security and there was no intelligence that groups would become violent at the Capitol during the certification of electoral votes,” Hammill explained. “It is our understanding that ranking member Davis was also briefed, but took no action to address any security concerns that he might have had.”
Davis’ office, in response, told Fox News that “no one is alleging that Ranking Member Davis denied a request for the national guard ahead of January 6th because he would not have the authority to do so even if he had been made aware of the request, which he was not.”
“Following the insurrection, the speaker immediately tasked Gen. Honoré with leading an immediate security review of the U.S. Capitol Complex and has called for a 9/11-style Commission to investigate, with legislation creating such a panel to be introduced in the coming days,” Hammill said. “The USCP is also conducting an internal security review.”
Pelosi, last month, appointed retired Gen. Russel Honoré to lead a security review of the events at the Capitol amid calls from members on both sides of the aisle, in both chambers of Congress, to conduct a review.
Republicans took issue with Pelosi’s appointment, saying it was done “without consultation of the minority.”
But again, Hammill fired back, calling Republicans’ demands a “transparently partisan attempt to lay blame on the speaker, who was a target of assassination during the insurrection fueled by the lies of House Republicans,” and said that “the ranking members are trying to absolve former Police Chief Sund, former Sergeant-at-Arms Stenger and the leader who appointed him, Mitch McConnell, of any responsibility.”
“We look forward to these ranking members asking these same questions of former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell,” Hammill said.
Hammill also added that Pelosi “knows all too well the importance of security at the Capitol and is focused on getting to the bottom of all issues facing the Capitol Complex and the events that led up to the insurrection.”
He added: “Clearly, these Republican ranking members do not share this priority.”
Capitol Police have been under heightened scrutiny amid the siege of the Capitol on Jan. 6 during a joint session of Congress to certify the Electoral College results in favor of President Joe Biden.
But Pelosi last week said she would introduce a resolution to give the Congressional Gold Medal – the highest honor Congress can bestow – to the U.S. Capitol Police officers and other law enforcement personnel who protected the Capitol during the riot.
“They are martyrs for our democracy, those who lost their lives,” Pelosi said during her weekly press conference.
Five people died when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, including U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, 42. Two other officers died by suicide in the week after the siege.
“The service of the Capitol Police force that day brings honor to our democracy. Their accepting this reward brings luster to this medal,” the California Democrat said. “We must always remember their sacrifice and stay vigilant against what I said before, about what Abraham Lincoln said: the silent artillery of time. We will never forget.”
Former President Donald Trump was impeached by the House, for the second time, on Jan. 13 for inciting insurrection on Jan. 6.The former president was acquitted by the Senate over the weekend.
Meanwhile, Republicans also claimed that House officers were not providing necessary documents surrounding the Capitol riot.
“We might have some more clarity on the timeline of events if Speaker Pelosi would direct her House officers to comply with Ranking Member Davis’s preservation and production requests for information surrounding January 6,” a spokesperson for Davis told Fox News. “USCP has agreed, but the SAA and CAO, who are appointed by the Speaker, have denied our requests.”
The spokesperson added: “But either way, Speaker Pelosi needs to answer these questions truthfully: was anyone on her team aware of Mr. Sund’s request for the national guard before January 6, was the request denied because of optics, and why did it take the SAA over an hour to approve the request for the national guard in the middle of the riots?”
Instagram has permanently banned the account of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an infamous and prolific peddler of dangerous anti-vaccine and COVID-19 misinformation.
The move will likely be cheered by public health advocates who have struggled to combat such harmful bunkum online during the devastating pandemic. However, Kennedy’s account on Facebook—which owns Instagram—remained active Thursday and lists over 300,000 followers.
In an email to Ars, a Facebook spokesperson said Kennedy’s Instagram account was removed “for repeatedly sharing debunked claims about the coronavirus or vaccines.” The account had over 800,000 followers prior to its removal, according to The Wall Street Journal.
The Facebook spokesperson declined to respond to Ars’ question about whether Kennedy’s Facebook account would also be removed or otherwise penalized. The social-media behemoth told The New York Times, however, that it has no plans to remove Kennedy from Facebook “at this time.”
In the email to Ars, the spokesperson noted Facebook’s updated policies that involve “expanding our efforts to remove false claims on Facebook and Instagram about COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines, and vaccines in general during the pandemic.” Facebook says it has already removed “more than 12 million pieces of content on Facebook and Instagram” deemed harmful misinformation. The spokesperson also listed eight other accounts that Facebook had recently removed, including those with URLs /virusesarenotcontagious, /vaxxed2, and /nofacemasks.
Kennedy’s contentious relationship with Facebook began well before the pandemic, however. He and his anti-vaccine organizations—Children’s Health Defense and the World Mercury Project—were leading forces behind the misinformation campaigns fueling the resurgence of measles worldwide in recent years.
For instance, at the end of 2019, the government of Samoa was forced to shut down to deal with an explosive measles outbreak. The deadly surge of disease came after Kennedy’s organization spent months fear-mongering over vaccine safety and spreading falsehoods about an incident that led to the tragic deaths of two Samoan infants. An investigation determined that the babies were given lethal doses of muscle relaxant by negligent nurses who intended to immunize them. The nurses were each convicted and sentenced to five years in prison. Of course, none of that information was shared by Kennedy’s organizations.
Just a month before the outbreak exploded in Samoa, a study appearing in the journal Vaccine found that Kennedy’s World Mercury Project was the single largest source of anti-vaccine advertisements on Facebook.
Though Facebook has tried—many times—to crack down on anti-vaccine misinformation, Kennedy has fought restrictions and continued to spread falsehoods. In August of 2020, Kennedy’s Children’s Health Defense filed a lawsuit alleging that Facebook’s effort to fact-check vaccine misinformation was “censorship” that infringed on the organization’s First and Fifth Amendment rights.
On an HBO “Real Time” broadcast, Bill Maher stated, “Liberals can either write off half the country as irredeemable, or they can ask, what is it about a D next to a candidate’s name that makes it so toxic?” He continued, “Democrats, too often, don’t come across as having common sense to a huge swath of Americans.”
Maher is correct, but a more fundamental question is this: Why did the ruling class of America learn so little from 2016?
Ann Coulter, in a lecture at the University of Texas at Austin, said what Americans want is “Trumpism without Trump.” That Trump got almost half of all votes after five years of unrelenting negative press, constant innuendos, and negative selective reporting indicates that Coulter, who despises Trump, is also correct.
Those on the left who believe they are smarter than everyone are being blinded by their own hubris. That a man with the buffoonish demeanor of Donald Trump could gather such influence doesn’t tell us that people are stupid. It tells us they are desperate, and no one is listening to them.
In fact, a post-election poll found 73% of voters said that corruption in government was a problem, 62% of that group said it was a “major” problem.
Lincoln said at Gettysburg that the Civil War was being fought so that “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” What many Americans see now is an elite class, supported by the media and much of the left, that wants to abolish a nation with borders, eliminate the “under God” clause from the Pledge of Allegiance,” and create a government of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite, and any interest other than theirs be damned.
A poll of the people who voted in this election showed something that this column has been saying for decades. Liberals are a minority.
Voters who self-defined themselves as liberals constituted only 29% of the total; by contrast, conservatives, self-defined, were 37%.
This remains true even after the media, the education system, and the entertainment industry would have us believe that conservatives are some strange, small cult-like group, irredeemably racist, which resides out in the backward areas of fly-over country.
That cartoon caricature is simply not true.
America is not Europe. The left needs to get outside of their cultural bubble, or the next election will not be kind to them.
The majority of Americans did not vote for Joe Biden or his party, they voted for the anti-Trump. The majority of these voters consider the far left to be not only dangerous, but marginally insane. As Maher suggested, even associating with the far-left brands Democrats as having little common sense.
The overwhelming majority of Americans believe our current leaders are corrupt and unresponsive, and flirting with dictatorial powers.
Perhaps pessimism has always been with us, but at least in the past those corrupt leaders didn’t want to control every aspect of our lives.
[Yet she wages war against the opposing party, calling-out many Republicans as “enemies within”, because they refuse to accept the national narrative as defined by the Democrat leadership and the mainline liberal media. Pelosi refuses to acknowledge the prominent role played by the “Qanon” subversives and the known provocateurs like Mr. Jones. Having never listened to a Trump speech, or read any Q material, I have never understood the cult of Trump or Q, so I am at a loss to explain how normally sane Americans could fall for such nonsense. But the belief in election fraud is not a conspiracy theory, it is a never-ending problem…who can forget the Bush/Gore voting controversy. Gore probably would have won if there had been a national recount, by conceding early he may have handed the White House to W. The concerted national effort to whitewash 2020 fraud claims without apparent investigation, coupled with the move to brand election doubters as “traitors”, was certain to enrage 74 million conservative voters who already considered the national mainstream news to be slanted and non-factual.]
Trump has a point about the media–
The media’s partisan hostility to Trump led to the abandonment of objectivity and truth.
Q adherents come from an increasingly eclectic set of backgrounds: you’ll find NEETS, police officers, military veterans, service workers, computer programmers, successful business owners, unsuccessful business owners, stay-at-home moms, and regular working stiffs. QAnon-ers also hail from a number of identity groups, uniting straight cis white men with women and racial, ethnic, sexual, gender, and religious minorities. You’ll even find immigrants, visibly represented by the bright South Vietnamese flags seen flying at the rally. The movement boasts Zoomers, boomers, and everyone in between.
Even aesthetically, QAnon offers the dedicated paranoiac manifold subcultures and aesthetics from which to choose. Soldier of Fortune may have published its last issue in 2016, but Q provides a space for the militia-chic crowd to talk guns, ammo, and tactical gear with fellow enthusiasts. If you’re more of a yoga mom influencer, “Pastel Q” offers a decidedly feminine, New Age approach to the Ministry of MAGA, complete with crystals. There are at least a few military officers; Babbitt, ironically, was part of the Air National Guard’s “Capital Guardians,” which is charged with protecting Washington, DC.
Aside from what appears to be a conspicuous absence of middle-class professionals, Q has space for everyone. As Chapo Trap House’s Felix Biederman has remarked, “this is why Q is successful. You can have a guy in there who’s thing is, ‘I’m a black guy against affirmative action,’ or you can have a guy in there who’s fully antisemitic, or you can just have some drunk woman.” It’s a true Rainbow Coalition.
The movement’s idiosyncratic demographics reflect its idiosyncratic ideology. Babbitt, for example, boasted on Twitter about voting for and supporting Barack Obama throughout his presidency, saying he did “great things,” before declaring that in 2016 she just couldn’t vote for Hillary and thus had to support Trump. As Babbitt’s comments suggest, not only have a fair number of QAnon-ers radicalized relatively recently, but many don’t hail from the traditional Trump or conservative base. Some, like Babbitt, were formerly liberals. Some were even Bernie Sanders supporters.
Another exceptional feature that distinguishes the contemporary iteration of QAnon from the traditional right-wing base is a palpable antipathy toward the Republican Party. Their objections and grievances toward the GOP run the gamut. Some Qanon-ers believe all institutional politicians — including almost all Republicans — are in a pedophile cabal. Some Q rail against the party’s capitulations to “cultural Marxism,” which means something different to every single one of them. Some dust off that old antisemitic chestnut about the (((rootless cosmopolitans))) who run the government, media, and banks. Many Q even vehemently oppose Republican collaborations with Big Tech and/or the pharmaceutical industry. In fact, one pervasive and popular Q conspiracy is that Trump will forgive the medical debt of all Americans.
At a QAnon rally in April of 2018, for instance, Sommer interviewed one protester dying of cancer, who believed a cure had been discovered long ago, but that the “cabal” (meaning the satanic, pedophile politicians and moneymen) were hiding it from the people. He told Sommer not to worry about him, though; Trump would release it soon enough. Another woman at the same rally, upset that her young son wasn’t receiving the special education support he needed in school, insisted that Trump would deliver the similarly repressed cure for his Down Syndrome.
And here we see how Q became one of the most successful phenomena of the Trump era, despite the fact that its adherents don’t share economic interests, culture, or even a political program. Rather, many people joined Q because of their alienation and disconnection from a system they view as illegitimate. To provide their ever-more precarious lives with meaning and an explanation for American decline, Q adherents congealed under a series of bizarre Internet conspiracy theories that unite a right-wing, anti-elitist, but nevertheless authoritarian sensibility that is organized around narratives that link pedophilic cabals, racism, antisemitism, fears of “cultural Marxism,” Satanism, and, of course, absolute faith in the singular, salvific, and millenarian figure of President Donald J. Trump.
The sources of the illegitimacy that drive QAnon are vast and well known to readers of Jacobin: the financial collapse of 2008–9, the pointless imperialist wars, the ever-more grotesque inequality between the wealthy and everyone else, bad trade deals and globalization, and a feeling of impotence in a political system that was supposed to be a democracy. All of these anxieties, of course, have been recently compounded and exacerbated by a pandemic, lockdown, and an economic recession that predictably witnessed an explosion in QAnon proselytes.
Therefore, to combat the appeal of QAnon, you have to understand that you’re not dealing with a political movement, but with a cult. As members of an ecstatic and Evangelical movement — many of them, in fact, are literal Evangelicals — QAnon-ers embrace conspiracy theories because unlike the Republican or Democrat narratives, the stories they tell provide meaning in dislocated lives. In essence, QAnon tells people who believe in America that a cabal has stolen their country from them, and that faith in a charismatic leader is the only way to redeem it (and, ultimately, redeem themselves).
In this way, QAnon’ers share a view of America with many liberals. In Aaron Sorkin’s The Trial of the Chicago 7, Abbie Hoffman, played by Sacha Baron Cohen declares patriotically, “I think the institutions of our democracy are wonderful things, that right now are populated by some terrible people.” Or to make a comparison that QAnon-ers might find less appealing: like Hillary Clinton, they believe America is already great.
What Is Q Capable Of?
Many in the media, including writers in Jacobin, have identified the Capitol riots as a “coup.” This is wrong, and an accurate diagnosis is neither academic nor pedantic. Were this merely a coup from a very small number of committed reactionaries, then a hyper-militarist response might be a workable solution to QAnon. But throwing the rioters, whose sentiments embody the feelings of manifold Americans, in jail will not solve the fundamental problems of dislocation, alienation, and resentment that impelled them. Just ask Hitler, whose stint in prison failed to stave off the Nazis’ rise.
If we want to actually address the problem posed by QAnon, we have to understand what it actually is and what its members actually want. Otherwise, we risk empowering the security state while ignoring and exacerbating the conditions that enabled the Q conspiracy to take hold.
First, a “coup” refers to the overthrow of a government. Not only did QAnon-ers not come close to achieving this goal, this wasn’t even their goal. Instead, many, if not most adherents, insisted that they were the defenders of the democratic system, which they believe elected Trump legitimately. To paint QAnon as antidemocratic is beside the point, as it misunderstands their motivations and sense of mission.
Second, and more important, describing the events of January 6 as a coup winds up portraying a fundamentally religious movement as a fundamentally political one. As became clear once QAnon-ers entered the Capitol, they had no genuine strategy and no genuine program, instead relying on a millenarian faith that Trump would deliver them from the rule of elite pedophiles, heal the sick, comfort the poor, and establish a New Jerusalem.
Put simply, QAnon is not a properly political movement. Instead, the cultist collection of ideas in the Q eschatology are frenetic, adaptive, and have little connection to political strategy or even reality. Q-Kremlinology is therefore not only unnecessary — Q-Anon zealots pretty much post their every move in full view of the public — but practically pointless.
What the riot does reveal, however, is what QAnon-ers are, and are not, capable of.
Very clearly, they can’t overturn an election. Despite an alarming number of veterans and police officers, they have nowhere near the numbers to prevent security services from murdering them (at the very least, the elites who control American violence are not on board with Q).
Q also can’t — and does not aspire — to woo either the Republican Party or the deep state, neither of which want any competition, especially from a delusional mob that believes all non-Trump elites are satanic pedophiles. On the Republican side, Senator Ben Sasse has called QAnon-ers “nuts”; Representative Liz Cheney has referred to the conspiracy as “dangerous lunacy”; and Karl Rove has lambasted Q as a “group of nuts and kooks.”
And while the initial success of a few Q-associated political campaigns should be monitored, it’s unlikely that Q has the ability to act as a “ginger group” that pushes the Republican Party into a similarly paranoid and potentially dangerous fantasia from the inside, as the Tea Party supposedly did. The fact of the matter is that most dedicated Q members have no interest in working with either party, which they correctly identify as decayed, sclerotic, and hopelessly corrupt.
New congressional representative Lauren Boebert’s commitment to Q has been largely overstated, with the connection hinging mostly on a QAnon radio appearance and a lukewarm Q-curiosity expressed in remarks like, “Everything that I’ve heard of Q, I hope that this is real.” In fact, Boebert reeled back her tacit support for the group, having already been disciplined by a visit from Republican Party officials, the details of which are presently unknown. New representative Marjorie Taylor Greene is a more serious QAnon-er, though she has been with the group for years, having endorsed the conspiracies when the movement was still largely comprised of small business owners like herself. Put another way, Greene belongs to the traditional conservative base and has genuine class interests that she will work to achieve. Whatever bizarre things she might utter, or even believe, her loyalty to capital is not really in doubt.
Additionally, QAnon is incapable of “uniting the Right,” as so many have tried before. After Charlottesville, the tenuous coalitions that united the far right collapsed, resulting in numerous splits and splinter groups. In many ways, Q became the lint trap of these fractures, collecting the orphans of more genuinely political movements, along with culture warriors and the hopelessly online. At this point even Pizzagate godfather Alex Jones has disabused himself of QAnon, and Ariel Pink isn’t exactly a militiaman.
So, like any broad tent that benefits from ecumenism, QAnon thankfully also suffers from sectarianism.
While all follow the Prophet (in this case, Trump), there are profound disagreements about who is preaching his True Word. Some Q are obsessed with Russiagate, others obsess over Pizzagate, and still others form into subcults centered on charismatic leaders like Austin Steinbart. The only glue that holds this collection of malcontents together is a faith in and adoration for Trump: not ideology, not politics, and not even a shared understanding of reality.
Considering the large number of security service services that have likely infiltrated their ranks, one might assume it would be easy enough to sow suspicions among them and fracture the group. They are, after all, a group predicated on paranoia. However, it would appear that QAnon is less susceptible to COINTELPRO than one might hope. But, at least for the moment, they’re more Burning Man than burn-it-all down.
Furthermore, Q has neither the direction, means, nor ability to coordinate the networks required to overtake the American state, nor do they seem especially interested in governing. What they really want is the True King to remain in power. Were there a coup, the deep state wouldn’t trust such a bag of mixed nuts with any real responsibility.
And perhaps most important for those who hope to deprogram and rehabilitate a Q-pilled loved one, there are limits to their faith. At the level of the group, it appears few QAnon-ers are willing to make martyrs of themselves in dramatic moments of violent self-sacrifice.
What Q is capable of is nonetheless significant. As the Capitol assault reveals, they’re willing to attack, and even kill, police officers. They’re also clearly able to organize mass events with a myriad of disaffected people who are willing to put themselves at risk of arrest and imprisonment.
Given historical precedent, this is nonetheless concerning. The Silver Shirts were a mystical, New Age nationalist cult with which no “respectable” fascist group initially wanted to associate. However, over time, more coordinated far-right groups began to identify the Silver Shirts as potential useful idiots, a viable secret militia that they could encourage to use violence while keeping their own hands clean.
It’s possible that the trained among the Q could be used as a militia on behalf of the conservative right or as tools in a Business Plot–style power grab by capital.
But, judging by the combat-readiness of the Q ranks of January 6, this overestimates their present capabilities.
However, even if most QAnon-ers are not inclined toward radical violence, mass events like the one we witnessed on January 6 provide both camouflage and an excuse for exceptionally violent people to act on their twisted fantasies. Whether a protest or a parade, large, boisterous events provide convenient chaos for a dangerous person to hide in plain sight, though this is true regardless of the agenda of the larger crowd.
Liberals and conservatives alike are well aware of the potential violence and threat to the legitimacy of the general order posed by crowds and mass politics. In fact, since the middle of the twentieth century, it’s been liberals who often take the lead on anti-populist politics. Much of modern liberalism is premised on finding reasons to ensure ordinary people don’t really shape most important government decisions.
As such, instead of transforming the conditions that engendered the angry crowds, which is what the left position must be, liberals lambast the idea of the crowd itself, which was well evidenced in the media coverage of the events of January 6.
This brings us to the most significant, and unintended, potential consequence of QAnon’s agitation: the response from a bourgeois security state that for decades has been shoring up its capabilities and winning the hearts and minds of Americans terrified of communists/Islamists/China as well as political and social collapse.
Barbarians at the Gates
Even as the events of January 6 were unfolding, the liberal media’s coverage was subsumed by their horror. Instead of simply reporting on the riots, pundits like Anderson Cooper derided the protesters as “unpatriotic” “terrorists,” “insurrectionists,” and “anarchists” — terms, of course, often used to malign leftists. Cooper also played the “barbarians at the gates” number, highlighting the uncouth, unsophisticated, and tacky American consumption patterns of the QAnon-ers, the Vanderbilt heir sneering at their penchant for Olive Garden and habitation of low-rent hotels.
To Cooper, the real problem with QAnon-ers isn’t their reactionary politics, delusional worldview, or blind adherence to a charismatic leader, but their antiauthoritarianism, lack of respect for and obedience toward the American state and its ruling class, and general vulgarity.
Politicians haven’t been much help either. There is, of course, the (second) impeachment campaign, which does not prevent another Trump from emerging and which has the potential to legitimize a corrupt and dysfunctional political system. For a United States experiencing mass death and economic collapse, the spectacle of impeachment, while potentially symbolically powerful, will do little to address the actual concerns of a growing mass of desperate and suffering people.
Then there are the gestures of “liberal capital,” which appear designed to do little more than antagonize increasingly hostile Trump supporters. Twitter has finally responded to Kamala Harris’s call to suspend Trump’s account, but of course @Jack didn’t stop there, suspending and banning accounts of people tweeting even mildly in support of Trump or the demonstrations. Twitter even banned Ben Garrison, a libertarian political cartoonist that draws Trump as a bestriding Adonis with rippling muscles, a sharp jawline, and a never-ending desire to own the libs. More seriously, Twitter and other platforms have also begun to ban anti-Trump users for making fairly obvious parody accounts to mock Trump. It’s not fearmongering to worry that critical voices on the Left might soon be subject to similar measures.
Another dangerous potential effect of the protests is the re-legitimization and strengthening of the national security state. The inklings of what is likely to come are already evident in president-elect Joe Biden’s assertion that the rioters were “domestic terrorists,” a phrase that indicates the new Democratic administration will bring the strategies of the “war on terror” home by cracking down even more on civil liberties, increasing the militarization of domestic security forces, and surveilling masses of people without a warrant. Before the riots gave them cover for their plans, the incoming administration already promised as much.
In the wake of the riots, Congress members like Elissa Slotkin have begun the arguments that “the single greatest national security threat right now is our internal division. It’s the threat of domestic terrorism. It’s that polarization that threatens our democracy.” As the Intercept has noted, such calls are likely to encourage those who advocate the passage of a domestic terror statute that would provide the government with the capacities to go after domestic terrorist groups in a manner similar to how it attacks foreign terrorist groups. The problem with this, as the Intercept makes clear, is that such a law could establish “broad and vague powers that could be used to go after activists or religious minorities.” In fact, after the storming of the Capitol, Republican lawmakers in Florida, Mississippi, and Indiana introduced bills that essentially criminalize protest. Again it is worth remembering that despite their declared aims, the House Un-American Activities Committee was always more invested in prosecuting Communists than Nazis.
And herein lies the danger of misdiagnosing QAnon as the source of, rather than a symptom of, the chaos borne of economic immiseration and rapid American decline. Not only will the move to repress QAnon further justify the repression of left-wing dissent in both legal authority and public opinion; it will do nothing to deprogram the dedicated cultists or curb the reactionary resentments and conspiracies worming their ways through brains across America. In fact, it’s likely to make it worse. That’s how cults work.
The Nature of the Threat
What is to be done about the cult of Q?
There are already online communities comprised of recovering QAnon believers, which tend to operate as both sympathetic support groups and as spaces for sophisticated discussions about Q and its appeal. On these message boards, people tell their life stories, try to understand why they joined QAnon (and how they got out), and offer advice to people who have lost someone they love to Q.
Posters tend to be insightful about the factors that left them vulnerable to such a stark break with reality. In particular, they highlight the significance of economic instability and poverty, general feelings of powerlessness, a broad disillusionment with politics, mental illness and depression, and boredom and loneliness. The pandemic lockdowns are often pointed to as a major factor in the group’s explosion, with many former QAnon-ers stating they had never even heard of the group until COVID-19, when they had little to do with their days except sit at home, alone, on the Internet.
Much of the energy that these former QAnon-ers once dedicated to divining the meaning of cryptic Trump utterances and anonymous Q posts is now directed toward a different kind of search for answers, not only to questions of politics and the economy, but to questions of the psychological and sociological conditions under which we all live. The success of Q, in fact, underlines what the late Michael Brooks emphasized in his work: that people need not only arguments, but spiritual and social connection, to make meaning of their lives.
Most former QAnon-ers recognize the group as a cult, and as such often read and discuss books about the psychology and sociology of indoctrination, refer to James Prochaska and Carlo DiClemente’s Stages of Change, post videos of talks given by former Westboro Baptist Church member Megan Phelps-Roper, and host AMAs with people like Steven Hassan, author of Combating Cult Mind Control. Notably, none of the materials discussed seem to have been adopted with the same fevered conviction as the QAnon-ers’ former beliefs; the goal is not to replace one absolute truth with another, but rather to foster a healthy intellectual curiosity, provide compassion and insight that might help others leave or prevent their indoctrination in the first place, and make peace with the uncertainty of life under capitalism.
It’s of course not clear if the sort of ex-Q who posts about their journey was the same stripe of Q who would storm the Capitol, or even how many posters are authentic. For obvious reasons, contributors to these online groups are anonymous, and there is careful moderation to ensure the integrity of what is inevitably a vulnerable therapeutic and intellectual space. Still, a few ex-Q have graciously agreed to speak with or be profiled by journalists.
In late 2020, for instance, Jitarth Jadeja spoke candidly with Rolling Stone and the Washington Post about his indoctrination into Q and the devastating realization that he had believed a series of deranged and cruel lies:
“If I didn’t have family that loved me I probably would have committed suicide,” Jadeja remarked. “It was really a terrible feeling to know that you are this stupid and this wrong.”
And therein lies the rub: loss of faith is often very painful.
Q makes people feel good. We don’t mean merely that it makes them “feel good” by delivering the dopamine jolts that come from the embrace of a community, the thrill of discovery, the satisfaction of enlightenment, and the comfort of a worldview that brings hope, though QAnon does provide all of that. What we mean is that it makes them feel “Good,” as in righteous, heroic, noble, and benevolent. So why would a QAnon-er stop believing, especially given that a return to a pre-Q worldview likely invites back all the pre-Q fear, confusion, and feelings of powerlessness that engendered an individual’s turn to QAnon in the first place, only this time there’s the added pain of shame and the shattering of one’s self-image as a wise and virtuous person.
Friends and family members of the indoctrinated are often in the difficult position of trying to take away a belief system from someone who has finally found an intellectual framework that appears to make sense of the world and allows them to feel in control of what is likely to be an increasingly — and objectively — disenfranchised life.
There are different perspectives on how to break the spell of QAnon, but there are a few relatively consistent tips that sociologists, psychologists, and former cult members themselves recommend adopting at the interpersonal level.
First and foremost, it’s important to recognize that cult membership will not be solved by facts and logic. QAnon-ers, like members of all cults, have embraced a different ontology, a different view of reality, and attempting to “demystify” this new worldview is likely to be construed as naivete, hostility, or perhaps even collaboration with the evil cabal. Relatedly, berating, punishing, or shunning a cult member will probably do little but shore up their belief in the conspiracy theory and possibly direct their paranoia on you.
Instead, the best way to deal with someone who has embraced a conspiracy theory is to show your concern for them. An honest “I’m worried about you” or “This seems to take up a lot of your time and energy” reminds them that you are on their side. With time and luck, this can encourage QAnon-ers to open up about their beliefs. Questioning their claims and asking them to consider alternative explanations requires patience and actively listening to their concerns, getting to the root of the discontent that animates the byzantine collection of conspiracies to which they have subscribed. These are people trying to make sense of a frightening and precarious world, and if they believe the exit from Q requires them to again feel confused, powerless, and terrified, they are unlikely to leave the comfort of their delusions.
Presenting oneself as the sole authority of truth is generally counterproductive. One, you’re not, and two, an air of superiority ensures that a friend or relative will not confide in such a person should they begin to have doubts. The idea is to be patient and leave the door open for when cracks of skepticism emerge. No one likes feeling ashamed, and no one seeks a confidante who is likely to tell them, “I told you so.”
Finally, deriding QAnon-ers’ feelings of insecurity and outrage or writing them off as irrational or “privileged” does nothing. To reverse a quote by one of the United States’ dumbest minds, “feelings don’t care about your facts.” Indeed, be sure to make clear that you understand that their motives are “Good,” as in righteous, heroic, noble, and benevolent.
However, not only should one not overestimate their power to deprogram a QAnon-er; such a case-by-case approach swats at flies. Cults tend to recruit from the already lost and lonely, and both generate and exacerbate preexisting and pervasive antisocial insularity, isolating members from the people best equipped to help them. Moreover, individually deprogramming QAnon-ers does nothing to alleviate the conditions that produced the Q mindset, conditions that will only be addressed by transforming the world that allowed the conspiracy to take hold in the minds of so many.
QAnon-ers are correct about a lot of things. Recent revelations like those surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein scandal indicate that a lot of wealthy elites are, in fact, members of a pedophilic cabal. More broadly, though, you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to realize that much of the world has gotten worse for millions of people as a direct result of forces beyond their control.
Socialists have some big advantages over an anonymous 4chan account; not only do we have explanations and a political program that addresses QAnon-ers’ legitimate concerns, but we also have reality and the honesty and humility to admit that, while we don’t have all the answers, we aspire to build a system that is democratic and just, that is honest, and that cultivates the better angels of our nature, so that our world, and indeed humanity itself, can become Good.
AOC compared to Jussie Smollett after her ‘near-death’ riot experience revealed as hiding from POLICE in office OUTSIDE Capitol
The hashtags #AlexandriaOcasioSmollett, along with #AOCLied, trended on Wednesday, following a fact-check of AOC’s (D-New York) Instagram livestream two days prior by OAN journalist Jack Posobiec. During her emotional one-and-a-half-hour-long talk, Ocasio-Cortez admitted that she was not in the Capitol building during the riot to begin with, but continued to claim that she experienced a life-threatening situation.
When Ocasio-Cortez denounced it as a “manipulative take on the right,” Posobiec posted a map, with arrows pointing to the Capitol as well as two other office buildings across the road. One of them is where AOC’s own office is located, and where she claimed she “thought I was going to die” during the January 6 events. Another is where she ended up sheltering inside the office of Rep. Katie Porter (D-California) after leaving her office on the instructions of the Capitol Police.
“This isn’t a fact check at all,” Ocasio-Cortez responded to Posobiec’s post. “Your arrows aren’t accurate. They lie about where the mob stormed & place them further away than it was.”
She accused Posobiec of failing to show that demonstrators were trying to “storm” multiple areas, or showing “tunnels” between the Capitol and other office buildings – which to a lot of people sounded like moving the goalposts and not in line with her original description. Her post was quickly ratioed on Twitter, and the hashtag comparing her to Jussie Smollett began to trend.
The ratio here. How embarrassing for #AlexandriaOcasioSmollett
— Benny (@bennyjohnson) February 3, 2021
A crowd of supporters of President Donald Trump had gathered outside the main Capitol building on January 6, eventually breaking inside and disrupting the joint session of Congress meeting to certify 2020 presidential election results. During the Monday night Instagram live-stream, Ocasio-Cortez described how she hid in the bathroom of her office, located in the Cannon House Building, and thought she was “going to die.”
However, she then admitted that the man who rushed into the office and supposedly looked at her with “anger and hostility” turned out to be an officer with the Capitol Police – who are now treated by Congress as heroes who opposed the “insurrection” against “our democracy.”
The officer then instructed her and her staffer to go to the Longworth House Office Building – the one where Porter’s office is located, and the one that Ocasio-Cortez claims some protesters later tried to storm. There is no publicly available evidence that any of the rioters got anywhere close to Ocasio-Cortez’s whereabouts, and Congresswoman Nancy Mace (R-North Carolina), who has her office two doors down from that of AOC’s, has said that “insurrectionists never stormed our hallway.”
However, Ocasio-Cortez has already sought to fend off any backlash by comparing criticism to a “tactic of abusers,” as she revealed she’s also a “survivor of sexual assault.”
ALSO ON RT.COM‘Bravery’ or ‘manipulative’? AOC comes out as survivor of sexual assault while describing ‘trauma’ of Capitol riotThis appeared to be a reference to a letter by 13 House Republicans demanding an apology from her for accusing Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and others who challenged the 2020 election results as trying to have her “murdered” by supposedly “inciting” the rioters. Her January 28 tweet targeting Cruz said she was “happy to work w/ almost any other GOP that aren’t trying to get me killed.”
Smollett, who AOC scored comparisons to, shot to fame in February 2019, after accusing two Trump supporters of a racist and homophobic attack in Chicago. He quickly garnered sympathy from the media, activists and Democrats such as then-senator and current Vice President Kamala Harris. When the police located the men who allegedly doused him with bleach and put a noose around his neck, they turned out to be Nigerian immigrants who said the ‘Empire’ actor paid them to stage the “attack.”
Whatever the truth about AOC’s alleged sexual assault and near-death experience at the Capitol, some critics of the progressive social media star noted that she had successfully diverted attention from problems with the government and the small investor rebellion against hedge funds.
AOC successfully moved the conversation away from corruption on Wall Street & in our Government. Mission accomplished.
— The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 (@ColumbiaBugle) February 3, 2021
“How do you bring those people back into the mainstream of fact-based reporting and try to get us all back into the same consensus reality?”–CNN interview.
Concerns over the nexus of big tech, big media, and big government
The formation of a totalitarian state is just about complete in America as the most powerful public and private sector actors unify behind the idea that actions to stamp out dissent can be justified, according to several experts on modern totalitarian ideologies.
While many have warned about the rise of fascism or socialism in “the land of the free,” the ideas have largely been vague or fragmented, focusing on individual events or actors. Recent events, however, indicate that seemingly unconnected pieces of the oppression puzzle are fitting together to form a comprehensive system, according to Michael Rectenwald, a retired liberal arts professor at New York University.
But many Americans, it appears, have been caught off guard or aren’t even aware of the newly forming regime, as the idea of elected officials, government bureaucrats, large corporations, the establishment academia, think tanks and nonprofits, the legacy media, and even seemingly grassroots movements all working in concert toward some evil purpose seems preposterous. Is a large portion of the country in on a conspiracy?
The reality now emerges that no massive conspiracy was, in fact, needed—merely an ideological alignment and some informal coordination, Rectenwald argues.
Despite the lack of formal overarching organization, the American socialist regime is indeed totalitarian, as the root of its ideology requires politically motivated coercion, he told The Epoch Times. The power of the regime isn’t yet absolute, but it’s becoming increasingly effective as it erodes the values, checks, and balances against tyranny established by traditional beliefs and enshrined in the American founding.
The effects can be seen throughout society. Americans, regardless of their income, demographics, or social stature, are being fired from jobs, getting stripped of access to basic services such as banking and social media, or having their businesses crippled for voicing political opinions and belonging to a designated political underclass. Access to sources of information unsanctioned by the regime is becoming increasingly difficult. Some figures of power and influence are sketching the next step, labeling large segments of society as “extremists” and potential terrorists who need to be “deprogrammed.”
While the onset of the regime appears tied to events of recent years—the presidency of Donald Trump, the CCP virus pandemic, the Capitol intrusion of Jan. 6—its roots go back decades.
Is It Really Totalitarian?
Totalitarian regimes are commonly understood as constituting a government headed by a dictator that regiments the economy, censors the media, and quells dissent by force. That’s not the case in America, but it’s also a misunderstanding of how such regimes function, literature on totalitarianism indicates.
To claim power, the regimes don’t initially need to control every aspect of society through government.
Adolf Hitler, leader of the National Socialist Workers Party in Nazi Germany, used various means to control the economy, including gaining compliance of industry leaders voluntarily, through intimidation, or through replacing the executives with party loyalists.
Similarly, the regime rearing its head in America relies on corporate executives to implement its agenda voluntarily but also through intimidation by online brigades of activists and journalists who take initiative to launch negative public relations campaigns and boycotts to progress their preferred societal structure.
Also, Hitler initially didn’t control the spread of information via government censorship but rather through his brigades of street thugs, the “brown shirts,” who would intimidate and physically prevent his opponents from speaking publicly.
The tactic parallels the often successful efforts to “cancel” and “shut down” public speakers by activists and violent actors such as Antifa.
Dissenting media in America haven’t been silenced by the government directly as of yet, but they are stymied in other ways.
In the digital age, media largely rely on reaching and growing their audience through social media and web search engines, which are dominated by Facebook and Google. Both companies have in place mechanisms to crack down on dissenting media.
Google gives preference in its search results to sources it deems “authoritative.” Search results indicate the company tends to consider media ideologically close to it to be more authoritative. Such media can then produce hit pieces on their competitors, giving Google justification to slash the “authoritativeness” of the dissenters.
Facebook employs third-party fact-checkers who have the discretion to label content as “false” and thus reduce the audience on its platform. Virtually all the fact-checkers focused on American content are ideologically aligned with Facebook.
Attempts to set up alternative social media have run into yet more fundamental obstacles, as demonstrated by Parler, whose mobile app was terminated by Google and Apple, while the company was kicked off Amazon’s servers.
To the degree that a totalitarian regime requires a police state, there’s no U.S. law targeting dissenters explicitly. But there are troubling signs of selective, politically motivated enforcement. Signs go back to the IRS’s targeting of Tea Party groups or the difference in treatment received by former Trump adviser retired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe—both allegedly lying to investigators but only one getting prosecuted. The situation may get still worse as the restrictions tied to the CCP virus see broad swaths of ordinary human behavior being considered “illegal,” opening the door to nearly universal political targeting.
“I think the means by which a police state is being set up is the demonization of Trump supporters and the likely use of medical passports to institute the effective equivalent of social credit scores,” Rectenwald said.
While loyalty to the government and to a specific political party plays a major role, it’s the allegiance to the ideological root of totalitarianism that gives the system its foot soldiers, literature on the subject indicates.
The element “that holds totalitarianism together as a composite of intellectual elements” is the ambition of fundamentally reimagining society—“the intention to create a ‘New Man,’” said author Richard Shorten in “Modernism and Totalitarianism: Rethinking the Intellectual Sources of Nazism and Stalinism, 1945 to the Present.”
Various ideologies have framed the ambition differently, based on what they posited as the key to the transformation.
Karl Marx, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, viewed the control of the economy as primary, describing socialism as “socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature,” in his Das Kapital.
Meanwhile, Hitler viewed race as primary. People would become “socialized”—that is transformed and perfected—by removing Jews and other supposedly “lesser” races from society, he claimed.
The most dominant among the current ideologies stems from the so-called critical theories, by which the perfected society is defined by “equity,” meaning elimination of differences in outcomes for people in demographic categories deemed historically marginalized. The goal is to be achieved by eliminating the ever-present “white supremacy,” however the ideologues currently define it.
While such ideologies commonly prescribe collectivism, calling for national or even international unification behind their agenda, they are elitist and dictatorial in practice as they find mankind never “woke” enough to follow their agenda voluntarily.
In Marx’s prophecies, the revolution was supposed to occur spontaneously. Yet, it never did, leading Vladimir Lenin, the first head of the Soviet Union, to conclude that the revolution will need leadership after all.
“The idea is that you have some enlightened party … who understand the problem of the proletariat better than the proletariat does and is going to shepherd them through the revolution that they need to have for the greater good,” said James Lindsay, author of “Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody.”
Elements of this intellectual foundation can be found in ideologies of many current political forces, from neo-nazis and anarcho-communists, through to progressives, and to some extent even neoliberals and neoconservatives, Lindsay said.
“This is why you see so many people today saying that the only possible answers are a full return to classical liberalism or a complete rejection of liberalism entirely as fatally disposed to create progressivism, neoliberalism, etc.,” he said.
That’s not to say these ideologies are openly advocating totalitarianism, but rather that they inevitably lead to it.
The roadmap could be summarized as follows:
- There’s something fundamentally and intolerably wrong with current reality
- There’s a plan to fix it requiring a whole society buy-in
- People opposing the plan need to be educated about the plan so they accept it
- People who resist the persuasion need to be reeducated, even against their will
- People who won’t accept the plan, no matter what, need to be removed from society.
“I think that’s the general thrust,” Lindsay said. “We can make the world the way we want it to be if we all just get on the same page and same project. It’s a disaster, frankly.”
Points four and five now appear to be in progress.
Former Facebook executive Alex Stamos recently labeled the widespread questioning of the 2020 election results as “violent extremism,” which social media companies should eradicate the same way they countered online recruitment content from the ISIS terrorist group.
The “core issue,” he said, is that “we have given a lot of leeway, both in traditional media and on social media, to people to have a very broad range of political views,” and this has led to the emergence of “more and more radical” alternative media like OAN and Newsmax.
Stamos then mused about how to reform Americans who’ve tuned in to the dissenters.
“How do you bring those people back into the mainstream of fact-based reporting and try to get us all back into the same consensus reality?” he asked in a CNN interview.
“And can you? Is that possible?” CNN host Brian Stelter said.
The logic goes as follows: Trump claimed the election was stolen through fraud and other illegalities. That hasn’t been proven in court and is thus false. People who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and managed to break inside and disrupt the electoral vote counting did so because they believed the election was stolen. Therefore, anybody who questions the legitimacy of the election results is an extremist and potentially a terrorist.
With tens of thousands of troops assembled to guard the inauguration of President Joe Biden, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) recently told CNN that all guard members who voted for Trump belong to a “suspect group” that “might want to do something,” alluding to past leaders of other countries who were “killed by their own people.”
Former FBI Director James Comey recently said the Republican Party needs to be “burned down or changed.”
“They want a one-party state,” conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza said in a recent podcast. “That is not to say they don’t want an opposition. They want a token opposition. They want Republicans where they get to say what kind of Republican is OK.”
Just as Marx blamed the ills of the world on capitalists and Hitler on Jews, the current regime tends to blame various permutations of “white supremacy.”
“Expel the Republican members of Congress who incited the white supremacist attempted coup,” said Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) in a recent tweet, garnering some 300,000 likes. She was referring to the Republican lawmakers who raised objections on Jan. 6 to election results in Arizona and Pennsylvania. Their objections were voted down.
“Can U.S. Spy Agencies Stop White Terror?” Daily Beast’s Jeff Stein asked in a recent headline, concluding that a call for “secret police” to sniff out “extremist” Americans “may well get renewed attention.”
Under the regime, allegations of election fraud—de facto questioning the legitimacy of the leader—have become incitement of terrorism. YouTube (owned by Google), Facebook, and Twitter have either banned content that claims the election was rigged or are furnishing it with warning labels. Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey was recently recorded as saying that banning the president’s account was just the beginning.
The approach closely mirrors that of the Chinese communist regime, which commonly targets dissidents for “subverting” the state or “spreading rumors.”
What’s the Alternative?
If calls for radically reorganizing the world are inherently totalitarian, how is the world to avoid them? The question appears to be its own answer. If totalitarianism inherently requires allegiance to its ideology, it can’t exist in a society with a lack of such allegiance.
The United States was founded on the idea that individual rights are God-given and unalienable. The idea, rooted in traditional beliefs that human morality is of divine origin, stands a bulwark against any attempt to assail people’s rights even for their own good.
Rectenwald said: “If you’re not a believer in actual God, you can posit a God’s ideal on the matter. … We have to posit some arbiter who’s above and beyond our own prejudices and biases in order to ensure these kinds of rights. … Because otherwise, you have this infinitely malleable situation in which people with power and coercive potential can eliminate and rationalize the elimination of rights willy-nilly.”
No speculation is needed. Those who wield power are demanding it. The only question is how much opposition they will encounter.
National Guard Troops walk down the stairs towards the Capitol Visitors Center on Monday, Jan. 18, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
The last two weeks have ushered in a wave of new domestic police powers and rhetoric in the name of fighting “terrorism” that are carbon copies of many of the worst excesses of the first War on Terror that began nearly twenty years ago. This trend shows no sign of receding as we move farther from the January 6 Capitol riot. The opposite is true: it is intensifying.
We have witnessed an orgy of censorship from Silicon Valley monopolies with calls for far more aggressive speech policing, a visibly militarized Washington, D.C. featuring a non-ironically named “Green Zone,” vows from the incoming president and his key allies for a new anti-domestic terrorism bill, and frequent accusations of “sedition,” “treason,” and “terrorism” against members of Congress and citizens. This is all driven by a radical expansion of the meaning of “incitement to violence.” It is accompanied by viral-on-social-media pleas that one work with the FBI to turn in one’s fellow citizens (See Something, Say Something!) and demands for a new system of domestic surveillance.
Underlying all of this are immediate insinuations that anyone questioning any of this must, by virtue of these doubts, harbor sympathy for the Terrorists and their neo-Nazi, white supremacist ideology. Liberals have spent so many years now in a tight alliance with neocons and the CIA that they are making the 2002 version of John Ashcroft look like the President of the (old-school) ACLU.
The more honest proponents of this new domestic War on Terror are explicitly admitting that they want to model it on the first one. A New York Times reporter noted on Monday that a “former intelligence official on PBS NewsHour” said “that the US should think about a ‘9/11 Commission’ for domestic extremism and consider applying some of the lessons from the fight against Al Qaeda here at home.” More amazingly, Gen. Stanley McChrystal — for years head of Joint Special Operations Command in Iraq and the commander of the war in Afghanistan — explicitly compared that war to this new one, speaking to Yahoo News:
I did see a similar dynamic in the evolution of al-Qaida in Iraq, where a whole generation of angry Arab youth with very poor prospects followed a powerful leader who promised to take them back in time to a better place, and he led them to embrace an ideology that justified their violence. This is now happening in America….I think we’re much further along in this radicalization process, and facing a much deeper problem as a country, than most Americans realize.”
Anyone who, despite all this, still harbors lingering doubts that the Capitol riot is and will be the neoliberal 9/11, and that a new War on Terror is being implemented in its name, need only watch the two short video clips below, which will clear their doubts for good. It is like being catapulted by an unholy time machine back to Paul Wolfowitz’s 2002 messaging lab.
The first video, flagged by Tom Elliott, is from Monday morning’s Morning Joe program on MSNBC (the show that arguably did more to help Donald Trump become the GOP nominee than any other). It features Jeremy Bash — one of the seemingly countless employees of TV news networks who previously worked in Obama’s CIA and Pentagon — demanding that, in response to the Capitol riot, “we reset our entire intelligence approach,” including “look[ing] at greater surveillance of them,” adding: “the FBI is going to have to run confidential sources.” See if you detect any differences between what CIA operatives and neocons were saying in 2002 when demanding the Patriot Act and greater FBI and NSA surveillance and what this CIA-official-turned-NBC-News-analyst is saying here:
The second video features the amazing declaration from former Facebook security official Alex Stamos, talking to the very concerned CNN host Brian Stelter, about the need for social media companies to use the same tactics against U.S. citizens that they used to remove ISIS from the internet — “in collaboration with law enforcement” — and that those tactics should be directly aimed at what he calls extremist “conservative influencers.”
“Press freedoms are being abused by these actors,” the former Facebook executive proclaimed. Stamos noted how generous he and his comrades have been up until now: “We have given a lot of leeway — both in the traditional media and in social media — to people with a very broad range of views.” But no more. Now is the time to “get us all back in the same consensual reality.”
In a moment of unintended candor, Stamos noted the real problem: “there are people on YouTube, for example, that have a larger audience than people on daytime CNN” — and it’s time for CNN and other mainstream outlets to seize the monopoly on information dissemination to which they are divinely entitled by taking away the platforms of those whom people actually want to watch and listen to:
(If still not convinced, and if you can endure it, you can also watch MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski literally screaming that one needed remedy to the Capitol riot is that the Biden administration must “shutdown” Facebook. Shutdown Facebook).
Calls for a War on Terror sequel — a domestic version complete with surveillance and censorship — are not confined to ratings-deprived cable hosts and ghouls from the security state. The Wall Street Journal reports that “Mr. Biden has said he plans to make a priority of passing a law against domestic terrorism, and he has been urged to create a White House post overseeing the fight against ideologically inspired violent extremists and increasing funding to combat them.”
Meanwhile, Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) — not just one of the most dishonest members of Congress but also one of the most militaristic and authoritarian — has had a bill proposed since 2019 to simply amend the existing foreign anti-terrorism bill to allow the U.S. Government to invoke exactly the same powers at home against “domestic terrorists.”
Why would such new terrorism laws be needed in a country that already imprisons more of its citizens than any other country in the world as the result of a very aggressive set of criminal laws? What acts should be criminalized by new “domestic terrorism” laws that are not already deemed criminal? They never say, almost certainly because — just as was true of the first set of new War on Terror laws — their real aim is to criminalize that which should not be criminalized: speech, association, protests, opposition to the new ruling coalition.
The answer to this question — what needs to be criminalized that is not already a crime? — scarcely seems to matter. Media and political elites have placed as many Americans as they can — and it is a lot — into full-blown fear and panic mode, and when that happens, people are willing to acquiesce to anything claimed necessary to stop that threat, as the first War on Terror, still going strong twenty years later, decisively proved.
An entire book could — and probably should — be written on why all of this is so concerning. For the moment, two points are vital to emphasize.
First, much of the alarmism and fear-mongering is being driven by a deliberate distortion of what it means for speech to “incite violence.” The bastardizing of this phrase was the basis for President Trump’s rushed impeachment last week. It is also what is driving calls for dozens of members of Congress to be expelled and even prosecuted on “sedition” charges for having objected to the Electoral College certification, and is also at the heart of the spate of censorship actions already undertaken and further repressive measures being urged.
This phrase — “inciting violence” — was also what drove many of the worst War on Terror abuses. I spent years reporting on how numerous young American Muslims were prosecuted under new, draconian anti-terrorism laws for uploading anti-U.S.-foreign-policy YouTube videos or giving rousing anti-American speeches deemed to “incite violence” and thus provide “material support” to terrorist groups — the exact theory which Rep. Schiff is seeking to import into the new domestic War on Terror.
It is vital to ask what it means for speech to constitute “incitement to violence” to the point that it can be banned or criminalized. The expression of any political viewpoint, especially one passionately expressed, has the potential to “incite” someone else to get so riled up that they engage in violence.
If you rail against the threats to free speech posed by Silicon Valley monopolies, someone hearing you may get so filled with rage that they decide to bomb an Amazon warehouse or a Facebook office. If you write a blistering screed accusing pro-life activists of endangering the lives of women by forcing them back into unsafe back-alley abortions, or if you argue that abortion is murder, you may very well inspire someone to engage in violence against a pro-life group or an abortion clinic. If you start a protest movement to object to the injustice of Wall Street bailouts — whether you call it “Occupy Wall Street” or the Tea Party — you may cause someone to go hunt down Goldman Sachs or Citibank executives who they believe are destroying the economic future of millions of people.
If you claim that George W. Bush stole the 2000 and/or 2004 elections — as many Democrats, including members of Congress, did — you may inspire civic unrest or violence against Bush and his supporters. The same is true if you claim the 2016 or 2020 elections were fraudulent or illegitimate. If you rage against the racist brutality of the police, people may go burn down buildings in protest — or murder randomly selected police officers whom they have become convinced are agents of a racist genocidal state.
The Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer and hard-core Democratic partisan, James Hodgkinson, who went to a softball field in June, 2017 to murder Republican Congress members — and almost succeeded in fatally shooting Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) — had spent months listening to radical Sanders supporters and participating in Facebook groups with names like “Terminate the Republican Party” and “Trump is a Traitor.”
Hodgkinson had heard over and over that Republicans were not merely misguided but were “traitors” and grave threats to the Republic. As CNN reported, “his favorite television shows were listed as ‘Real Time with Bill Maher;’ ‘The Rachel Maddow Show;’ ‘Democracy Now!’ and other left-leaning programs.” All of the political rhetoric to which he was exposed — from the pro-Sanders Facebook groups, MSNBC and left-leaning shows — undoubtedly played a major role in triggering his violent assault and decision to murder pro-Trump Republican Congress members.
Despite the potential of all of those views to motivate others to commit violence in their name — potential that has sometimes been realized — none of the people expressing those views, no matter how passionately, can be validly characterized as “inciting violence” either legally or ethically. That is because all of that speech is protected, legitimate speech. None of it advocates violence. None of it urges others to commit violence in its name. The fact that it may “inspire” or “motivate” some mentally unwell person or a genuine fanatic to commit violence does not make the person espousing those views and engaging in that non-violent speech guilty of “inciting violence” in any meaningful sense.
To illustrate this point, I have often cited the crucial and brilliantly reasoned Supreme Court free speech ruling in Claiborne v. NAACP. In the 1960s and 1970s, the State of Mississippi tried to hold local NAACP leaders liable on the ground that their fiery speeches urging a boycott of white-owned stores “incited” their followers to burn down stores and violently attack patrons who did not honor the protest. The state’s argument was that the NAACP leaders knew that they were metaphorically pouring gasoline on a fire with their inflammatory rhetoric to rile up and angry crowds.
But the Supreme Court rejected that argument, explaining that free speech will die if people are held responsible not for their own violent acts but for those committed by others who heard them speak and were motivated to commit crimes in the name of that cause (emphasis added):
Civil liability may not be imposed merely because an individual belonged to a group, some members of which committed acts of violence. . . .
[A]ny such theory fails for the simple reason that there is no evidence — apart from the speeches themselves — that [the NAACP leader sued by the State] authorized, ratified, or directly threatened acts of violence. . . . . To impose liability without a finding that the NAACP authorized — either actually or apparently — or ratified unlawful conduct would impermissibly burden the rights of political association that are protected by the First Amendment. . . .
While the State legitimately may impose damages for the consequences of violent conduct, it may not award compensation for the consequences of nonviolent, protected activity. Only those losses proximately caused by unlawful conduct may be recovered.
The First Amendment similarly restricts the ability of the State to impose liability on an individual solely because of his association with another.
The Claiborne court relied upon the iconic First Amendment ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which overturned the criminal conviction of a KKK leader who had publicly advocated the possibility of violence against politicians. Even explicitly advocating the need or justifiability of violence for political ends is protected speech, ruled the court. They carved out a very narrow exception: “where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” — meaning someone is explicitly urging an already assembled mob to specific violence with the expectation that they will do so more or less immediately (such as standing outside someone’s home and telling the gathered mob: it’s time to burn it down).
It goes without saying that First Amendment jurisprudence on “incitement” governs what a state can do when punishing or restricting speech, not what a Congress can do in impeaching a president or expelling its own members, and certainly not social media companies seeking to ban people from their platforms.
But that does not make these principles of how to understand “incitement to violence” irrelevant when applied to other contexts. Indeed, the central reasoning of these cases is vital to preserve everywhere: that if speech is classified as “incitement to violence” despite not explicitly advocating violence, it will sweep up any political speech which those wielding this term wish it to encompass. No political speech will be safe from this term when interpreted and applied so broadly and carelessly.
And that is directly relevant to the second point. Continuing to process Washington debates of this sort primarily through the prism of “Democrat v. Republican” or even “left v. right” is a sure ticket to the destruction of core rights. There are times when powers of repression and censorship are aimed more at the left and times when they are aimed more at the right, but it is neither inherently a left-wing nor a right-wing tactic. It is a ruling class tactic, and it will be deployed against anyone perceived to be a dissident to ruling class interests and orthodoxies no matter where on the ideological spectrum they reside.
The last several months of politician-and-journalist-demanded Silicon Valley censorship has targeted the right, but prior to that and simultaneously it has often targeted those perceived as on the left. The government has frequently declared right-wing domestic groups “terrorists,” while in the 1960s and 1970s it was left-wing groups devoted to anti-war activism which bore that designation. In 2011, British police designated the London version of Occupy Wall Street a “terrorist” group. In the 1980s, the African National Congress was so designated. “Terrorism” is an amorphous term that was created, and will always be used, to outlaw formidable dissent no matter its source or ideology.
If you identify as a conservative and continue to believe that your prime enemies are ordinary leftists, or you identify as a leftist and believe your prime enemies are Republican citizens, you will fall perfectly into the trap set for you. Namely, you will ignore your real enemies, the ones who actually wield power at your expense: ruling class elites, who really do not care about “right v. left” and most definitely do not care about “Republican v. Democrat” — as evidenced by the fact that they fund both parties — but instead care only about one thing: stability, or preservation of the prevailing neoliberal order.
Unlike so many ordinary citizens addicted to trivial partisan warfare, these ruling class elites know who their real enemies are: anyone who steps outside the limits and rules of the game they have crafted and who seeks to disrupt the system that preserves their prerogatives and status. The one who put this best was probably Barack Obama when he was president, when he observed — correctly — that the perceived warfare between establishment Democratic and Republican elites was mostly theater, and on the question of what they actually believe, they’re both “fighting inside the 40 yard line” together:
A standard Goldman Sachs banker or Silicon Valley executive has far more in common, and is far more comfortable, with Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan than they do with the ordinary American citizen. Except when it means a mildly disruptive presence — like Trump — they barely care whether Democrats or Republicans rule various organs of government, or whether people who call themselves “liberals” or “conservatives” ascend to power. Some left-wing members of Congress, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) have said they oppose a new domestic terrorism law, but Democrats will have no trouble forming a majority by partnering with their neocon GOP allies like Liz Cheney to get it done, as they did earlier this year to stop the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and Germany.
Neoliberalism and imperialism do not care about the pseudo-fights between the two parties or the cable TV bickering of the day. They do not like the far left or the far right. They do not like extremism of any kind. They do not support Communism and they do not support neo-Nazism or some fascist revolution. They care only about one thing: disempowering and crushing anyone who dissents from and threatens their hegemony. They care about stopping dissidents. All the weapons they build and institutions they assemble — the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, the NSA, oligarchical power — exist for that sole and exclusive purpose, to fortify their power by rewarding those who accede to their pieties and crushing those who do not.
No matter your views on the threat posed by international Islamic radicalism, huge excesses were committed in the name of stopping it — or, more accurately, the fears it generated were exploited to empower and entrench existing financial and political elites. The Authorization to Use Military Force — responsible for twenty-years-and-counting of war — was approved by the House three days after the 9/11 attack with just one dissenting vote. The Patriot Act — which radically expanded government surveillance powers — was enacted a mere six weeks after that attack, based on the promise that it would be temporary and “sunset” in four years. Like the wars spawned by 9/11, it is still in full force, virtually never debated any longer and predictably expanded far beyond how it was originally depicted.
The first War on Terror ended up being wielded primarily on foreign soil but it has increasingly been imported onto domestic soil against Americans. This New War on Terror — one that is domestic in name from the start and carries the explicit purpose of fighting “extremists” and “domestic terrorists” among American citizens on U.S. soil — presents the whole slew of historically familiar dangers when governments, exploiting media-generated fear and dangers, arm themselves with the power to control information, debate, opinion, activism and protests.
That a new War on Terror is coming is not a question of speculation and it is not in doubt. Those who now wield power are saying it explicitly. The only thing that is in doubt is how much opposition they will encounter from those who value basic civic rights more than the fears of one another being deliberately cultivated within us.
[Despite predictions of more violence predicted for today and the next few days, it is important to point-out once again, that this is NOT A ONE-SIDED FIGHT, the left did as much as the right (if not more) to prepare the ground for something like a civil war. The post below does an excellent job of listing many of the Democrat actions which went into this fight. Follow the reference links to reports confirming the extreme claims made.]
What a difference a week makes. On Wednesday, we discovered that House Democrats actually support police. They are against mob violence. They believe in law and order. They believe in harsh punishment for rule breakers. They believe in accountability.
They care deeply about civility. They believe words matter. They abhor intemperate rhetoric. They are against coarse language. Fancy that.
They believe in a peaceful transition of power, at least this time, as opposed to 2016. They believe in the Electoral College. They believe in the legitimacy of the people’s vote.
They believe in walls, at least when it comes to protecting their own place of work. They even believe in bringing in the National Guard to quell civil unrest, at least when it comes to preserving their own peace.
They believe in guns, at least when their own safety is at risk.
They revere American history and institutional norms. They honor the Founding Fathers. Hah!
This is what we learned while watching the Democrats in the House impeach President Trump for the second pointless time in 13 months.
We learned that they, almost to a man and a woman, suffer from an acute case of hypocrite-itis.
Where have they been the past four years with these noble ideas that conservatives have been begging them to defend?
Perhaps if Democrats had not normalized and encouraged violence when organized BLM-Antifa mobs began rampaging through our cities, the tragic events of Jan. 6 at the Capitol would not have occurred.
As Republican Rep. Pat Fallon of Texas said Wednesday:
“Last summer the Antifa and BLM riots swept across our country. Businesses were destroyed, cities burned. It was not like the horrible hours we had on January 6. But rather, they went on for weeks and in some cases months.
“So if there’s any silver lining in this dark cloud, it’s that our friends across the aisle have come to realize that riots are bad. We conservatives have known this all along.”
Perhaps if Democrats had not weaponized the intelligence agencies to spy on Trump’s campaign, perhaps if they had not used the Steele dossier to undermine the legitimacy of his presidency and accuse him of colluding with Russia to rig the 2016 election, perhaps if they had not hobbled his administration with the three-year Mueller investigation, perhaps more Trump voters would have been willing to accept the legitimacy of a Biden presidency.
Perhaps if Dems had not already launched a spiteful partisan impeachment last year, their efforts to highlight the president’s shortcomings would have fallen on fewer deaf ears this time.
“And now with just one week left,” Jordan said Wednesday, “they’re still trying.”
Perhaps if Dems had reflected on their own culpability in the attempted assassination of Republican Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana by a Bernie Sanders supporter, their sanctimonious lectures Wednesday would be more credible.
“I’ve seen the evil of political violence firsthand and it needs to stop,” Scalise said Wednesday. “But all of us need to be unequivocal calling it out when we see it, not just when it comes from the other side of the aisle.”
Perhaps if Joe Biden had not spent two years muscling up to Trump, with threats like “I’d smack him in the mouth” and “I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him,” Biden’s pitch for civility might be more palatable.
Perhaps if Democrats had not spent the last four years calling Trump a dictator, authoritarian, Nazi, Hitler, white supremacist, anti-Semite, bigot, racist, hater, dangerous, demented and insane, then the hyperbole they used against him Wednesday might have been more effective.
The Aesop’s fable of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” comes to mind. Democrats and their media handmaidens have spent four years demonizing Trump, using the most outlandish hyperbole their fevered imaginations could dream up.
So when finally, at the bitter end, when he behaves in a way that angers even his most loyal supporters, there is nowhere left to go in the demonization department.
Hence the absurdity of Wednesday’s rhetoric in the House, as Democrats overreached yet again, traducing the president as a “white supremacist” — or “racist in chief,” as Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan called him.
Instead of impeaching the president, the House could have censured him and gathered a lot more Republican votes.
His refrain since November about having won in a “landslide” was reckless and deluded but it had nothing to do with racism, and his speech at the Ellipse in DC on Jan. 6 explicitly called for the crowd to “peacefully” protest.
How was he to know that the Capitol would not be adequately guarded, and the mob would so easily smash their way inside?
Capitol Police had been left like lambs to the slaughter in part because the cop-hating mayor of DC, Muriel Bowser, wrote to the Department of Justice the day before the protests specifically to reject federal reinforcements.
The flexible morality and selective outrage of the Democrats and their media boosters is so dishonest, it makes your head spin.
At a thunderous press conference Tuesday, acting US Attorney for DC Michael Sherwin said law enforcement officials are treating last week’s Capitol riot “like an international counterterrorism investigation. We’re looking at everything — money, travel records. No resource will be unchecked.”
It is reportedly one of the “most expansive criminal investigations in the history of the Justice Department,” with all 56 FBI field offices involved.
Great, but where was that kind of gravitas when BLM-Antifa rioters locked Seattle police in a building and tried to burn them alive?
Or when police were attacked with bricks and Molotov cocktails, whole blocks were looted and set ablaze at a cost of billions of dollars, and parts of some US cities were turned into lawless autonomous zones inside which people were murdered? For months.
There now are at least twice as many troops guarding the nation’s capital than the total number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.
Maybe it’s not overkill, but the optics also serve the purpose of further demonizing President Trump and his supporters to a worldwide audience.
That’s why Nancy Pelosi posed merrily for photos outside the Capitol in front of rows of uniforms yesterday. All class, and subtle as a sledgehammer.
- The Insurrection Act is a federal law that empowers the president to deploy the military and federalize National Guard troops to suppress certain situations including civil disorder, insurrection or rebellion.
- Martial law, by contrast, is a concept that doesn’t have a legal definition in the U.S. At its most extreme, it reflects the suspension of civil authority and military control of civilian functions such as the courts.
- Many social media posts pushing unproven claims about Trump invoking the Insurrection Act or declaring martial law contain information that’s misleading or inaccurate.
Social media users are spreading a variety of claims that President Donald Trump will either impose martial law or invoke the Insurrection Act to prevent Joe Biden from being inaugurated on Jan. 20.
The Insurrection Act is a federal law that empowers the president to deploy the military to suppress certain situations including civil disorder, insurrection or rebellion.
The act has been used to send the armed forces to quell civil disturbances a number of times during U.S. history, according to the Congressional Research Service. It was most recently invoked during the 1992 Los Angeles riots after four white police officers were acquitted in the roadside beating of a Black man, Rodney King, and during Hurricane Hugo in 1989, when widespread looting was reported in St. Croix, in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Martial law, by contrast, is a concept that doesn’t have a legal definition in the U.S. Many people pushing the theory that Trump will invoke martial law don’t specify what form they expect it to take. However, their descriptions seem to reflect martial law at its most extreme: the suspension of civil authority and military control of civilian functions such as the courts.
As of this writing, there’s no indication that Trump is planning to invoke the Insurrection Act or impose martial law. Moreover, most of these posts contain information that’s misleading or just plain wrong.
Some social media posts went so far as to claim that Trump just signed and invoked the act. But there’s no evidence that this is true.
The Congressional Research Service says that it is legal convention under the act for the president to first issue a proclamation to get the situation under control before using the powers in the federal law.
“If the President decides to respond to such a situation, generally upon the recommendation of the Attorney General and, if necessary, the request of the governor, he must first issue a proclamation ordering the insurgents to disperse within a limited time,” the CRS report says, citing Title 10 of the U.S. Code. “If the situation does not resolve itself, the President may issue an executive order to send in troops.”
Trump has not done this, and he signaled in a Jan. 7 speech that he will support the transition to a new administration.
In the videotaped speech, a day after a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol, Trump said that he’s focused on “ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power” and that “a new administration will be inaugurated on Jan. 20.” He also added in a subsequent tweet that he would not be attending the event.
Another theory holds that a 2018 executive order on election interference gives Trump the ability to impose martial law. It doesn’t.
Six scholars of constitutional law and presidential power told PolitiFact that the executive order gives the president the ability to impose economic sanctions on foreign entities who interfere in a U.S. election.
“How you get from there to imposing martial law, I don’t know. It doesn’t make any sense,” said Chris Edelson, an assistant professor of government at American University.
Any executive order that gave the president the authority to unilaterally invoke martial law would be unconstitutional, the scholars said.
Other variations of the rumor claim that martial law is “imminent” and that information on a laptop stolen from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office during the riot at the Capitol is the basis for Trump invoking the Insurrection Act.
A laptop was stolen from a conference room in the Capitol, but Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s spokesman, said that the laptop was only used for presentations.
Besides Trump alluding to invoking the Insurrection Act at the height of the protests surrounding the death of George Floyd, he has not made any indication that he’s considering invoking the Insurrection Act or any variation of martial law going forward. Some D.C. officials were worried that Trump could invoke the act to seize control of the city’s police department the day of the Capitol riot, but that didn’t happen.
Under Article II of the Constitution, the president has no inherent authority to declare martial law except under the extreme circumstances of a rebellion or foreign invasion, said Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School.
“Losing an election doesn’t count as a basis for invoking this power,” Feldman added.
In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled that martial law cannot be imposed where civil courts are open and functioning. As a result, one should think of martial law as a state of affairs arising from a total breakdown of civil order, said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas School of Law and expert in martial law.
Even if such conditions existed in a part of the U.S., the president would have to get congressional approval to use the military, said Joseph Nunn, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice and author of an exhaustive study on martial law in America.
Congressional Research Service, The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues, Nov. 5, 2012
USCode.house.gov, CHAPTER 13—INSURRECTION, Accessed Jan. 11, 2021
Justia, Ex parte Milligan
WASHINGTON — Democrats laid the groundwork on Friday for impeaching President Trump a second time, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California threatened to bring him up on formal charges if he did not resign “immediately” over his role in inciting a violent mob attack on the Capitol this week.
The threat was part of an all-out effort by furious Democrats, backed by a handful of Republicans, to pressure Mr. Trump to leave office in disgrace after the hourslong siege by his supporters on Wednesday on Capitol Hill. Although he has only 12 days left in the White House, they argued he was a direct danger to the nation.
Ms. Pelosi and other top Democratic leaders continued to press Vice President Mike Pence and the cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment to wrest power from Mr. Trump, though Mr. Pence was said to be against it. The speaker urged Republican lawmakers to pressure the president to resign immediately. And she took the unusual step of calling Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to discuss how to limit Mr. Trump’s access to the nation’s nuclear codes and then publicized it.
“If the president does not leave office imminently and willingly, the Congress will proceed with our action,” Ms. Pelosi wrote in a letter to colleagues.
At least one Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, followed Ms. Pelosi’s lead and told The Anchorage Daily News that she was considering leaving the Republican Party altogether because of Mr. Trump.
“I want him out,” she said. “He has caused enough damage.”
At the White House, Mr. Trump struck a defiant tone, insisting that he would remain a potent force in American politics as aides and allies abandoned him and his post-presidential prospects turned increasingly bleak. Behind closed doors, he made clear that he would not resign and expressed regret about releasing a video on Thursday committing to a peaceful transition of power and condemning the violence at the Capitol that he had egged on a day before.
He said on Twitter on Friday morning that he would not attend President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s inauguration, the first incumbent in 150 years to skip his successor’s swearing-in. Hours later, Twitter “permanently suspended” his beloved account, which had more than 88 million followers, “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”
Federal law enforcement officials announced charges against at least 13 people in connection with the storming of the Capitol, including Richard Barnett, 60, of Gravette, Ark., who had posted a picture of himself on social media sitting at Ms. Pelosi’s desk during the mayhem with his feet up on her desk, and a Republican state delegate from West Virginia.
Among enraged Democrats, an expedited impeachment appeared to be the most attractive option to remove Mr. Trump and register their outrage at his role in encouraging what became an insurrection. Roughly 170 of them in the House had signed onto a single article that Representatives David Cicilline of Rhode Island, Ted Lieu of California, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and others intended to introduce on Monday, charging the president with “willfully inciting violence against the government of the United States.”
Democratic senators weighed in with support, and some Republicans appeared newly open to the idea. Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska indicated he would be amenable to considering articles of impeachment at a trial. A spokesman for Senator Susan Collins of Maine said she was “outraged” by Mr. Trump’s role in the violence, but could not comment on an impeachment case given the possibility she could soon be sitting in the jury.
Even Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader and one of Mr. Trump’s most influential allies for the past four years, told confidants he was done with Donald Trump. Mr. McConnell did not directly weigh on a possible impeachment case, but he circulated a memo to senators making clear that under the Senate’s current rules, no trial could effectively be convened before Jan. 20, after Mr. Trump leaves office and Mr. Biden is sworn in, unless all 100 senators agreed to allow it sooner.
It was a fitting denouement for a president who, despite years of norm-shattering behavior, has acted largely without consequence throughout his presidency, showing no impulse to change his ways, despite being impeached in Congress, defeated at the ballot box and now belatedly shunned by some members of his own party.
By Friday evening, Ms. Pelosi had not made a final decision on whether to proceed with impeachment and was wary of rushing into such a momentous step. She issued a statement saying she had instructed the House Rules Committee to be ready to move ahead with either an impeachment resolution or legislation creating a nonpartisan panel of experts envisaged in the 25th Amendment to consult with Mr. Pence about the president’s fitness to serve.
Democrats agreed it was logistically possible to vote on articles of impeachment as soon as next week, but they were weighing how to justify bypassing the usual monthslong deliberative process of collecting documents, witnesses and the president’s defense. Others worried that Mr. Trump’s base would rally more forcefully around him if Democrats pushed forward with impeaching him again, undermining their goal of relegating the 45th president to the ash heap of history.
Republicans who only days before had led the charge to overturn Mr. Trump’s electoral defeat said impeaching him now would shatter the unity that was called for after the Capitol siege.
“Impeaching the president with just 12 days left in his term will only divide our country more,” said Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader, just a day after he voted twice to overturn Mr. Biden’s legitimate victory in key swing states.
Judd Deere, a White House spokesman, issued a nearly identical statement.
Democrats, too, were concerned about plunging Washington into a divisive, time-consuming and politically fraught drama that would overshadow and constrain Mr. Biden’s agenda and stomp on his attempt to unify the country.
During an appearance in Wilmington, Del., Mr. Biden declined to directly weigh in on plans to impeach Mr. Trump saying, “What the Congress decides to do is for them to decide.” But he made clear his energies were being spent elsewhere.
“If we were six months out, we should be moving everything to get him out of office — impeaching him again, trying to invoke the 25th Amendment, whatever it took to get him out of office,” Mr. Biden said. “But I am focused now on us taking control as president and vice president on the 20th and get our agenda moving as quickly as we can.”
Mr. Trump had told advisers in the days before the march that he wanted to join his supporters in going to the Capitol, but White House officials said no, according to people briefed on the discussions. The president had also expressed interest beforehand in calling in the National Guard to hold off anti-Trump counterprotesters who might show up, the people said, only to turn around and resist calls for bringing those troops in after the rioting by his loyalists broke out.
On Friday, Mr. Biden had harsh criticism for Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri and Ted Cruz of Texas, Republicans who had lodged objections to his Electoral College victory on Wednesday amid the mayhem at the Capitol. As some leading Senate Democrats called on them to resign, Mr. Biden said the pair had perpetuated the “big lie” that his election had been fraudulent, comparing it to the work of the Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.
The recriminations played out on a day when workers in the Capitol were literally repairing the damage that had been done two days before, when a mob of supporters, egged on by Mr. Trump, stormed the Capitol as lawmakers were formalizing Mr. Biden’s electoral victory. Lawmakers mourned the death of a Capitol Police officer who succumbed to injuries sustained while defending the building.
From the same office ransacked by the mob, Ms. Pelosi was working furiously on Friday to try to contain Mr. Trump. She urged Republicans to follow the model of Watergate, when members of their party prevailed upon President Richard M. Nixon to resign and avoid the ignominy of an impeachment.
She also said she had spoken with General Milley about “preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes.”
A spokesman for General Milley, Col. Dave Butler, confirmed that the two had spoken and said the general had “answered her questions regarding the process of nuclear command authority.” But some Defense Department officials have privately expressed anger that political leaders seemed to be trying to get the Pentagon to do the work of Congress and cabinet secretaries, who have legal options to remove a president.
While military officials can refuse to carry out orders they view as illegal, they cannot proactively remove the president from the chain of command. That would be a military coup, these officials said.
Ms. Pelosi elaborated on her thinking in a private call with House Democrats, indicating she was particularly concerned about Mr. Trump’s behavior while he remained commander in chief of the armed forces, with the authority to order nuclear strikes.
“He’s unhinged,” Ms. Pelosi, according to Democrats familiar with her remarks. “We aren’t talking about anything besides an unhinged person.”
She added: “We can’t move on. If we think we can move on then we are failing the American people.”
Democrats appeared to be largely united after the call, which lasted more than three hours, that the chamber needed to send a strong message to Americans and the world that Mr. Trump’s rhetoric and the violence that resulted from it would not go unanswered.
Ms. Pelosi had asked one of her most trusted deputies who prosecuted Democrats’ first impeachment case against Mr. Trump, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, to give a frank assessment of the potential drawbacks of impeachment during the session.
Mr. Schiff did so, but later issued a statement saying, “Congress should act to begin impeachment proceedings as the only instrument wholly within our power to remove a president who has so manifestly and repeatedly violated the Constitution and put our nation at grave risk.”
At least one Democrat, Representative Kurt Schrader, a centrist from Oregon, argued against impeachment, likening the move to an “old-fashioned lynching” of Mr. Trump, and arguing it would turn the president into a martyr. He later apologized for the analogy.
A bipartisan group of centrist senators, including several who helped draft a stimulus compromise last month, discussed the possibility of drafting a formal censure resolution against Mr. Trump. But it was unclear if a meaningful attempt to build support for censure would get off the ground, especially with Democrats pushing for a stiffer punishment.
After years of deference to the president, leading Republicans in Congress made no effort to defend him, and some offered stinging rebukes. At least a few appeared open to the possibility of impeachment, which if successful could also disqualify Mr. Trump from holding political office in the future.
Mr. Sasse said he would “definitely consider whatever articles they might move because I believe the president has disregarded his oath of office.”
“He swore an oath to the American people to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution — he acted against that,” Mr. Sasse said on CBS. “What he did was wicked.”
Senior Republican aides predicted other senators could adopt a similar posture, so deep was their fury at Mr. Trump. But they held back publicly, waiting to better understand a volatile and rapidly evolving situation.
If the House did impeach, and the Senate put Mr. Trump on trial, 17 Republicans or more would most likely have to join Democrats to win a conviction. That was a politically perilous and unlikely decision given his continued hold on millions of the party’s voters.
At the same time Republicans in Washington were chastising Mr. Trump, the Republican National Committee re-elected Ronna McDaniel, a Trump ally and his handpicked candidate, as its chairwoman for another term, and Tommy Hicks Jr., a close friend of Donald Trump Jr.’s, as the co-chairman.
Political risks for Republicans breaking ranks were also on vivid display on Friday at National Airport near Washington, where several dozen jeering supporters of Mr. Trump accosted Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, angrily denouncing the Republican as a “traitor” and a “liar” for voting to formalize Mr. Biden’s victory.
“It’s going to be like this forever, wherever you go, for the rest of your life,” one woman taunted to Mr. Graham, who had been one of Mr. Trump’s leading Senate allies and had initially humored his baseless claims of widespread election fraud.
Nicholas Fandos and Luke Broadwater reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York. Reporting was contributed by Peter Baker, Helene Cooper, Emily Cochrane and Catie Edmondson from Washington.
A U.S.-Backed Militia That Kills Children May Be America’s Exit Strategy From Its Longest War
THE BUZZ OF a drone at night was the first sign of trouble.
Next came the roar of a larger, low-flying aircraft, which alerted residents of the Afghan village of Omar Khail that soldiers were nearby. Men in camouflage moved through the streets speaking Pashto and English. It was December 2018, and the air was frigid. They made their way to the madrassa, or religious school, where more than two dozen boys between the ages of 9 and 18 slept on the floors of several dormitory rooms.
A neighbor watching from a window across the street saw a flash and heard a loud explosion as the front gate of the madrassa was blown open. Inside, the noise awakened 12-year-old Bilal, who was huddled in a room with nine other boys when an Afghan soldier burst through the door.
“Wake up!” the man yelled in Pashto, pointing at the boys one by one with the barrel of his rifle, which was mounted with a flashlight. A second soldier entered, chose the two tallest boys, and led them out the door. The first soldier turned to leave, but before he did, he issued a warning to the rest of the boys cowering before him: “If I find you in this madrassa again, we won’t leave a single child alive.” (Continue Reading)
The new 117th US Congress started with controversy, as Democrats have passed new rules for Congress removing all mention of gender-specific words like “man”, “woman”, “mother”, “father”, “son”, and “daughter” to promote inclusion and diversity, and as representative Emanuel Cleaver finished the opening session prayer by saying “Amen and awomen”.
Former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii criticized the House’s ban on gendered language, which was passed on Monday, stating it denies “the very biological existence of women”.
Commenting on this new code of conduct, designed as it proclaimed to help promote diversity and inclusivity, especially for women in Congress, Gabbard said that it does “the very opposite of that”, calling it hypocrisy on the part of lawmakers who claim to support women’s rights.
“It’s the height of hypocrisy for people who claim to be the champions of rights for women to deny the very biological existence of women,” Gabbard said in an interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
She also argued that the passing of that code shows just how out of touch lawmakers are with the needs of the American people.
The new rules forbid the use of gender-sensitive words like “mother”, “father”, “brother” and “sister” to “honor all gender identities by changing pronouns and familial relationships in the House rules to be gender-neutral”.
“Their first act as this new Congress could have been to make sure elderly Americans are able to get the COVID vaccine now alongside front-line health care workers,” Gabbard added. “Instead of doing something that could actually help save people’s lives, they are choosing instead to say ‘You can’t say mother or father.'”
The former House member said that the new ban passed by Congress “defies basic common sense” and “basic established science”.
Several Republican lawmakers also decried the code, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who took to Twitter to express his thoughts on the lawmakers’ decision.
This is stupid.
– A father, son, and brother https://t.co/bG9SlRAy6N
— Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) January 2, 2021
China, Russia and Iran are the top three existential “threats” to the U.S., according to the National Security Strategy. Three features distinguish the top three. They are all sovereign powers. They are under varying degrees of sanctions. And they are the top three nodes of the 21st century’s most important, evolving geopolitical process: Eurasia integration.
What do the three sovereigns see when they examine the dystopia that took over Exceptionalistan?
They see, once again, three – discombobulated – nodes in conflict: the post-historic Pacific and Atlantic coasts; the South – a sort of expanded Dixieland; and the Midwest – what would be the American heartland.
The hyper-modern Pacific-Atlantic nodes congregate high-tech and finance, profit from Pentagon techno-breakthroughs and benefit from the “America rules the waves” ethos that guarantees the global primacy of the U.S. dollar.
The rest of America is largely considered by the Pacific-Atlantic as just a collection of flyover states: the South – which regards itself as the real, authentic America; and the Midwest, largely disciplined and quite practical-minded, squeezed ideologically between the littoral powerhouses and the South.
Superstructure, tough, is key: no matter what happens, whatever the fractures, this remains an Empire, where only a tiny elite, a de facto plutocratic oligarchy, rules.
It would be too schematic, even though essentially correct, to assert that in the presidential election, invisible campaigner Joe Biden represented the Pacific-Atlantic nodes, and Trump represented the whole South. Assuming the election was not fraudulent – and that remains a big “if” – the Midwest eventually swung based on three issues.
- Trump, as much as he relied on a sanctions juggernaut, could not bring back manufacturing jobs home.
- He could not reduce the military footprint across the Greater Middle East.
- And, before Covid-19, he could not bring down immigration.
Everything that lies ahead points to the irreconcilable – pitting the absolute majority that voted Dem in the Atlantic-Pacific nodes versus the South and a deeply divided Midwest. As much as Biden-Harris is bound to isolate the South even more, their prospects of “pacifying” the Midwest are less than zero.
Whose ground control?
Beyond the raucous altercations on whether the presidential election was fraudulent, these are the key factual points.
- A series of rules in mostly swing states were changed, through courts, bypassing state legislatures, without transparence, before the election, paving the way to facilitate fraud schemes.
- Biden was de facto coronated by AP, Google and Twitter even before the final, official result, and weeks before the electoral college vote this past Monday.
- Every serious, professional audit to determine whether all received and tabulated votes were valid was de facto squashed.
In any Global South latitude where the empire did “interfere” in local elections, color revolution-style, this set of facts would be regarded by scores of imperial officials, in a relentless propaganda blitz, as evidence of a coup.
On the recent Supreme Court ruling, a Deep State intel source told me, “the Supreme Court did not like to see half the country rioting against them, and preferred the decision be made by each state in the House of Representatives. That is the only way to handle this without jeopardizing the union. Even prominent Democrats I know realize that the fix took place. The error was to steal too many votes. This grand theft indicts the whole system, that has always been corrupt.”
Dangers abound. On the propaganda front, for instance, far right nationalists are absolutely convinced that U.S. media can be brought to heel only by occupying the six main offices of the top conglomerates, plus Facebook, Google and Twitter: then you’d have full control of the U.S. propaganda mill.
Another Deep State source, now retired, adds that, “the U.S. Army does not want to intervene as their soldiers may not obey orders.
Many of these far right nationalists were officers in the armed forces. They know where the nuclear missiles and bombers are. There are many in sympathy with them as the U.S. falls apart in lockdowns.”
Meanwhile, Hunter Biden’s dodgy dealings simply will not be made to vanish from public scrutiny. He’s under four different federal investigations. The recent subpoena amounts to a very serious case pointing to a putative crime family. It’s been conveniently forgotten that Joe Biden bragged to the Council on Foreign Relations that he forced Ukraine’s chief prosecutor Viktor Shokin to be fired exactly when he was investigating corruption by Burisma’s founder.
Of course, a massive army of shills will always invoke another army of omniscient and oh so impartial “fact checkers” to hammer the same message: “This is Trump’s version. Courts have said clearly all the evidence is baseless.”
District Attorney William Barr is now out of the picture (see his letter of resignation). Barr is a notorious Daddy Bush asset since the old days – and that means classic Deep State. Barr knew about all federal investigations on Hunter Biden dating back to 2018, covering potential money laundering and bribery.
And still, as the Wall Street Journal delightfully put it, he “worked to avoid their public disclosure during the heated election campaign”.
A devastating report (Dems: a Republican attack report) has shown how the Biden family was connected to a vast financial network with multiple foreign ramifications.
Then there’s Barr not even daring to say there was enough reason for the Department of Justice to engage in a far-reaching investigation into voting fraud, finally putting to rest all “baseless” conspiracy theories.
Move on. Nothing to see here. Even if an evidence pile-up featured, among other instances, ballot stuffing, backdated ballots, statistical improbabilities, electronic machine tampering, software back doors, affidavits from poll workers, not to mention the by now legendary stopping the vote in the dead of night, with subsequent, huge batches of votes miraculously switching from Trump to Biden.
Once again an omniscient army of oh so impartial “fact checkers” will say everything is baseless.
A perverse blowback
A perverse form of blowback is already in effect as informed global citizens may now see, crystal clear, the astonishing depth and reach of Deep State power – the ultimate decider of what happens next in Dystopia Central.
Both options are dire.
- The election stands, even if considered fraudulent by nearly half of U.S. public opinion. To quote that peerless existentialist, The Dude, there’s no rug tying the room together anymore.
- Was the election to be somehow overturned before January 20, the Deep State would go Shock and Awe to finish the job.
In either case, The Deplorables will become The Ungovernables.
It gets worse. A possible implosion of the union – with internal convulsions leading to a paroxysm of violence – may even be coupled with an external explosion, as in a miscalculated imperial adventure.
For the Three Sovereigns – Russia, China and Iran – as well as the overwhelming majority of the Global South, the conclusion is inescapable: if the current, sorry spectacle is the best Western liberal “democracy” has to offer, it definitely does not need any enemies or “threats”.
By Sascha Segan
The FBI is investigating whether Anthony Quinn Warner, the presumed Nashville suicide bomber, targeted a nearby AT&T building because of paranoia over 5G-related government surveillance, according to several news reports.
If so, that brings the anti-5G conspiracy nonsense to a new, even more destructive level. For several months now, idiots have been targeting what they presume to be 5G towers (even when they aren’t) out of YouTube-soaked fears that 5G technology is harmful to their health. It’s even reached my New York City neighborhood; across the street from my apartment there’s graffiti that says “5G Kills Life.”
Let me be clear: 5G is not dangerous to your health, and it isn’t being used to surveil you in a way that’s any different from the 4G technology in your current smartphone. If you’ve spent any time watching a police procedural in the past decade, you know law enforcement can get warrants to track your phone-based location history or see who you’ve called or texted. The New York Times has shown how even anonymized location data can be used to track you using Wi-Fi, 3G, or 4G. There’s nothing new to see there with 5G.
Much of the anti-5G movement is a social-media-fueled, malicious grift. But Warner’s 5G-surveillance fears, if true, open up a new front that shows a true weakness of 5G technology, 5G debate, and 5G messaging in the US.
Let me get there through the health conspiracies, though.
The Lies About 5G and Your Health
Health-related 5G conspiracies are often based in the idea that 5G is an untested technology that requires new infrastructure and is related to dangerous technologies like military anti-personnel weapons. In my mind, they build on pseudoscientists trying to make a dollar or a career out of fear, and potentially on international bad actors trying to handicap rivals.
Those conspiracy theories aren’t true on a whole bunch of levels. But I think one reason why the wireless carriers are doing such a poor job counteracting these ideas is that they’re afraid to reveal how mundane their 5G systems really are.
If asked upfront they’ll be honest: “nationwide” 5G right now offers the same performance as 4G … because it’s still dependent on 4G, runs on the same frequencies, and uses many of the same technologies. But they’re not about to put that on billboards or promote it to investors. That wouldn’t sell the latest phones from Apple or Samsung or get carriers’ subscribers to upscale their service plans.
The fact that 5G right now, for most Americans, is almost exactly like 4G, is the most powerful argument against conspiracy theories. But companies can’t say that because it would pierce their marketing. They’d have to admit that when they said “5G just got real,” they jumped the gun.
On a political level, meanwhile, 5G has become an incoherent hot button, used as an incomprehensible buzzword by President Trump and thrown around Congress as a totem for an intangible technology race against China.
I believe in the promise of 5G as a technology. I’ve read the specs. If implemented properly, with broad ecosystem support, it can do everything it promises. But it isn’t doing any of it yet, billboards and presidential tweets notwithstanding. That then opens up the door, in a twisted mind, to the paranoia Warner may have believed.
It’s No Benefit, So It Must Be a Threat
Wireless carriers and tech companies are all saying 5G is a huge, world-changing technology that’s available now, but few Americans are seeing any value from it. Politicians are saying we must be in the lead in the “race to 5G,” but they never bring home concretely what winning that race means for improving Americans’ lives.
As we’ve shown in our tests, both Verizon’s and AT&T’s nationwide 5G often offer weaker performance than their 4G. T-Mobile’s mid-band 5G is faster than its 4G, but still well in the range of good 4G networks like the Bell and Telus networks in Canada.
The only type of 5G in the US that shows a truly new experience is millimeter-wave, most commonly known as Verizon’s “UWB.” Even after two years of network-building, only a single-digit percentage of Americans at most can get that, and most consumers haven’t seen any real-life millimeter-wave applications.
(Some of that, by the way, is ironically because of coronavirus. One of the few great, early potential mmWave applications lets thousands of people stream high-quality video from a crowded stadium or concert hall without their phones getting choked up … but when’s the last time you were in one of those?)
We’ve been hearing for years about how 5G will change education, industry, gaming … everything. None of that has come to pass. Not even a little bit! It may do so in the future, but the wireless carriers seriously jumped the gun on this marketing, leaving a huge gap between 5G promises and 5G reality.
And that’s where conspiracy theories can jump in. The carriers are spending a ton of money on this; politicians really seem to want it; it seems very important; it has so far brought you little or no advantage. So there must be a secret agenda, right? Who’s really behind this? Why is so much money being spent?
The dumb, dull, true answer is that Ajit Pai’s FCC screwed up its spectrum allocation plan, initially choosing a coward’s way out of not facing down the DoD or satellite companies to clear out the best frequencies for 5G, despite massive political pressures to show the US as a “leader” in any “race” against China.
The government and the carriers also wildly underestimated the logistical difficulty of building 28GHz networks, and new phones have become so boring that carriers need a buzzword to get you to upgrade during an overall very bad year for America in general.
But you’re not going to see any of that on a billboard.
The Grain of Truth in 5G Conspiracies
If the Nashville bomber saw 5G as a surveillance tool—and I’m not saying he did—yes, that’s just a 2020 version of “the FBI put radios in my teeth.” It’s classic paranoia.
The concept of “5G” has insinuated itself thoroughly into the internet’s surveillance-paranoia communities. For years now, people with paranoid delusions have shared and reinforced them with each other on websites dedicated to “targeted individuals.” One of those sites now shows a big 5G graphic, right at the top of the homepage.
But just as anti-FBI paranoia thrived during the post-J. Edgar Hoover era when it turned out the FBI was keeping files on a huge number of people, there’s a grain of sand in this twisted pearl, a reason why so many of these delusions have locked on to 5G specifically.
That grain isn’t that anything evil is being done with 5G. It’s that nothing much is being done with 5G that consumers can actually perceive, massively out of proportion to the marketing spend, political debate, and international hair-tearing it has incurred. And that shouldn’t be ignored. It should be a lesson—that the FCC, Congress, wireless carriers, and the wireless industry need to show some real 5G benefits for the average American, or shut up about it for a while.
Nashville bombing ‘person of interest’, 63, gave house raided by FBI to a California woman, 29, for FREE last month: Feds investigate mysterious property deal and continue search for motive in Christmas Day attack
Tax cuts for rich people breed inequality without providing much of a boon to anyone else, according to a study of the advanced world that could add to the case for the wealthy to bear more of the cost of the coronavirus pandemic.
The paper, by David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of King’s College London, found that such measures over the last 50 years only really benefited the individuals who were directly affected, and did little to promote jobs or growth.
“Policy makers shouldn’t worry that raising taxes on the rich to fund the financial costs of the pandemic will harm their economies,” Hope said in an interview.
That will be comforting news to U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak, whose hopes of repairing the country’s virus-battered public finances may rest on his ability to increase taxes, possibly on capital gains — a levy that might disproportionately impact higher-earning individuals.
It would also suggest the economy could weather a one-off 5% tax on wealth suggested for Britain last week by the Wealth Tax Commission, which would affect about 8 million residents.
The authors applied an analysis amalgamating a range of levies applied on income, capital and assets in 18 OECD countries, including the U.S. and U.K., over the past half century.
Their findings published Wednesday counter arguments, often made in the U.S., that policies which appear to disproportionately aid richer individuals eventually feed through to the rest of the economy. The timespan of the paper ends in 2015, but Hope says such an analysis would also apply to President Donald Trump’s tax cut enacted in 2017.
“Our research suggests such policies don’t deliver the sort of trickle-down effects that proponents have claimed,” Hope said.
By DAVID HARSANYI
Steve Coll, Dean of Columbia Journalism School and staff writer for The New Yorker appears at a news conference in New York, April 6, 2015. (Mike Segar/Reuters)
Mainstream journalists have used their access to a massive audience to mislead the public in many ways, but this isn’t a free-speech problem.
In an interview with MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt, The New Yorker’s Steve Coll contends that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s “profound” support of free speech — oh, how I wish that were true — is problematic because “free speech, a principle that we hold sacred, is being weaponized against the principles of journalism.”
The New Yorker’s @SteveCollNY suggests Mark Zuckerberg’s “profound” support of free speech is problematic: “Those of us in journalism have to come to terms with the fact that free speech, a principle that we hold sacred, is being weaponized against the principles of journalism.” pic.twitter.com/JK3c5tnLou
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) December 7, 2020
Journalism has turned on free speech, the one belief that had been somewhat impervious to the ideological tendencies of most editors and reporters. There’s absolutely nothing in Coll’s comments — nor in Hunt’s begging a question about the alleged corrosive effects of unfettered speech — which demonstrates that either are particularly concerned about the future of free expression, much less that either hold the principle as “sacred.”
The notion that Facebook’s reluctance to limit users is akin to neglecting efforts to “preserve democracy,” as Coll ludicrously suggests, is also another example of how the contemporary usage of “democracy” means little more than “fulfilling the wishes of liberals.”
If you believe Americans are too stupid to hear wrongthink, transgressive ideas, and, yes, fake news, you’re not a fan of the small-l liberal conception of free expression. That’s fine. Those ideas seem to be falling into disfavor with many. But the sanctity of free speech isn’t predicated on making sure people hear the right things, it’s predicated on letting everyone have their say. Because as always, the question becomes who decides what expression is acceptable. I’m not keen on having the fatuous media reporters at CNN or activist “fact-checkers” at the Washington Post adjudicating what is and isn’t permissible for mass consumption.
Facebook, of course, has no duty to provide us with a platform. It was Coll, however, who brought up free speech as “a principle.” And this obsession among journalists with pressuring platforms into limiting speech exposes their illiberal inclination. Speech is a neutral principle — universal, fundamental, and unassailable. A Facebook user no more “weaponizes” speech than a criminal weaponizes due process.
Then again, this kind of selective esteem for sacred ideals is becoming popular on the contemporary Left. Religious freedom is wonderful when the government protects Native Americans who want to smoke peyote, but it is “weaponized” when an order of nuns decides it’s not interested in chipping in for condoms or an Evangelical business owner decides he’d rather not participate in a gay marriage. Due-process rights are foundational to American life, unless they are being weaponized by college students accused of sexual assault.
Everything Coll praises in the clip encompasses some limitation on free expression, and everything he believes is a hindrance to society — capitalistic “structures” such as Facebook — are dangerous. From what I can tell, it’s become conventional wisdom among the Fourth Estate, no longer able to monopolize and curate the news we consume, that too much speech and too much equal time is bad for our institutions.
For one thing, I wish I could believe they cared. For four years, journalists acted as if Donald Trump was an existential threat to free expression because he berated and insulted reporters. Trump’s tone was certainly unpresidential, but it needs to be said that he did absolutely nothing to hinder anyone from criticizing him or reporting about him. Contra the self-canonized Jim Acosta, it was not a particularly dangerous time to tell the truth. Indeed, reporters were not only free to accuse the president of being a fascist, they could concoct entire fake scandals surrounding the Russians, and Trump was powerless to stop them.
(You might remember the panic over the Cambridge Analytica–Facebook whistleblower scandal. This was one of the stories that convinced Democrats that social-media giants were attacking our democratic institutions. At the time, Bloomberg breathlessly noted that “revelations of the apparent skulduggery that helped Donald Trump win the 2016 presidential election keep sending shock waves across the political landscape.” After a three-year investigation, the U.K.’s Information Commissioner’s Office uncovered no skullduggery from Facebook. Chances are, you didn’t hear about that.)
In any event, if journalists thought free expression was a “sacred principle,” they would also likely have been up in arms about the Obama administration spying on dozens of Associated Press reporters and using the Espionage Act to file criminal charges against then-Fox News reporter James Rosen. For the most part, they were not.
They would also be up in arms about Joe Biden’s appointment of Rick Stengel, a former editor of Time magazine, who takes to the pages of our most prestigious newspapers to advocate that the government ban offensive speech. They would be upset about Biden’s appointment of California attorney general Xavier Becerra, who brought 15 felony charges against a pro-life activist named David Daleiden for reporting on Planned Parenthood’s ethical abuses, using the same methods and functioning under the same standards journalists have employed for decades. There will be no anger, because abortion is “sacred” in a way that free expression is no longer.
Now, I happen to believe mainstream journalists have used their access to a massive audience to mislead the public into needless wars, into destructive presidencies, and into counterproductive economic decisions. They regularly spread unscientific, indecent, and misleading ideas about the world. It’s a price we pay for being free. But that’s not a free-speech problem, it’s a journalist problem.
DAVID HARSANYI is a senior writer for National Review and the author of First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History with the Gun. @davidharsanyi
Fararo – Today, Kayhan newspaper, in a note written by Sadollah Zarei, suggested that Iran attack the port of Haifa in the occupied territories in response to the martyrdom of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.
Kayhan wrote in the memo: “If the role of the Israeli regime in the assassination of the great martyr Fakhrizadeh is proven to the Supreme National Security Council of Iran, and of course all the evidence shows this, we must necessarily strike such a blow to this regime that the issue of attacking forces or “Iranian centers, wherever they are – from Absard to Caracas – will be off the agenda of any enemy forever.”
Sadullah Zarei continued his note in Kayhan: “We have stated several times in the face of Israel that we will strike Haifa if Israel makes a mistake. Now that we can prove the role of the Zionist regime in this great martyrdom, we can operationalize this threat, but not in the sense that we will be satisfied with an operation the size of a missile we had against the Ain al-Assad military base, and not in the sense of that operation, but in the sense that “In fact, we are attacking the important port city of Haifa in such a way that, in addition to destroying the facilities, it is accompanied by heavy human casualties, so that our deterrence reaches a” safe point “.”
According to the author of Kayhan, “Iran’s reactionary action, if implemented intelligently and accurately, will definitely lead to deterrence, because the United States and the Israeli regime and its agents are by no means ready to take part in a war and military confrontation, and this is literally a war case.” “And terrorism is coming to an end in our region.”
Young man: Do not run away from under the gutters for fear of rain
But along with the analysis of the universe and the demand for a sharp reaction to the martyrdom of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the young newspaper affiliated with the IRGC also believes in the reaction, but with a more moderate view. “The enemy’s calculations in the assassination are that Iran is not in a position to react, and ironically this is the best time for assassination,” Abdullah Ganji, the young managing director, wrote in a note in the newspaper, criticizing Hassan Rouhani’s analysis of Fakhrizadeh’s assassination. Unfortunately, we could not change this calculation of the enemy and we changed it ourselves. Our main analysis is that the Zionists are seeking to undermine the strategic honor of “fighting in Syria rather than fighting in Hamedan and Kermanshah,” seeking security for which we have fought abroad and pushed back their infantry in the form of “insecurity.” “They should bring them inside the country and make people aware that we fought in Syria and neglected the security of our country.”
However, he believes: “One should not make a decision with hasty feelings or social pressure. We should not go in a direction that took the repentants of Karbala to the same level and wasted without a military estimate.”
According to Ganji: “On the other hand, we should not be Sultan Hussein Safavid, who placed the crown on the head of a 26-year-old man and said,” My son, God has decreed this, and we do not oppose God’s command. ” If Sultan Hussein had fought outside the fortress of Isfahan and been torn to pieces, he would now be one of the heroes of Iran and Shiism, but the amnesty caused him to surrender the government and behead all the Safavid princes in one day, two years after the handover of Mahmud Afghan government. “The king was also watching.”
“In response to the Zionist action, we have a lot of capacity to use,” the young newspaper said. “Any analysis that silences us has broken the pride of the great and ancient nation of Iran. The pride of the Iranians is so much that it is sometimes called the ‘Empire Syndrome.’ This pride must not be broken. The condition for maintaining this pride is that “Do not run away under the gutters for fear of rain.”
A Scorched Earth Strategy on Iran–The assassination of a top nuclear scientist isn’t about stopping a bomb — it’s about preventing diplomacy.
The killers — who Iranian officials have insisted were sent by Israel — included a team of 50 giving “logistical support” to the dirty dozen who carried out the actual ambush Friday, sources told leading Iranian journalist Mohamad Ahwaze.
All involved had “entered special training courses, as well as security and intelligence services abroad,” Ahwaze tweeted, as translated by ELINT News.
“The team knew exactly the date and course of the movement of the Fakhrizadeh protection convoy in the smallest details,” Ahwaze’s sources told him, allowing them to cut the scientist off as he went to his private villa in Absard.
Shortly before Fakhrizadeh drove through their ambush site, the team “cut off the electricity completely from this area” to slow reports of their assassination and any calls for help, the reporter said.
Fakhrizadeh was traveling in the middle of three bulletproof cars, with the killers striking after the first car entered a roundabout, the report said.
A booby-trapped Nissan was then detonated to block the car behind Fakhrizadeh — as 12 gunmen pounced on him, arriving in a Hyundai Santa Fe and four motorbikes, Ahwaze tweeted.
“After the car bomb was detonated, 12 operatives opened fire towards Fakhrizadeh’s car and the first protection vehicle,” his thread said.
“According to Iranian leaks, the leader of the assassination team took Fakhrizadeh out of his car and shot him and made sure he was killed.”
None of the hit squad were wounded or arrested during the gunbattle with the Iranian’s bodyguards, Ahwaze said.
Friday’s hit has dramatically escalated tensions between Iran and Israel, which was quickly accused of ordering the hit.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed “definitive punishment of the perpetrators and those who ordered it.”
He called Fakhrizadeh “the country’s prominent and distinguished nuclear and defensive scientist,” and analysts have compared him to being on a par with Robert Oppenheimer, the scientist who led the U.S.′ Manhattan Project in World War II that created the atom bomb.
Benjamin Zeisloft | Pennsylvania Senior Campus Correspondent
An opinion writer for the University of Virginia student newspaper encouraged her readers to “stand up” against “racist family.”
She argues that “hateful rhetoric, conspiratorial thinking and virulent racism, xenophobia and sexism” endure in broader American society.
One student commented on the opinion article, stating that by playing along with the “policing of white progressives, we grant them a position of superiority and false sense of accomplishment.”
Emma Camp, who writes a regular opinion column for the Cavalier Daily, asserted that “white progressives must privilege their principles over personal comfort” in conversations with family during the holiday season. In order to fulfill this mandate, they “need to stand up to their racist loved ones.”
Though Trump, who Camp defines as a “proto-fascist,” who has “been defeated,” she argues that “the hateful rhetoric, conspiratorial thinking and virulent racism, xenophobia and sexism he espoused during his tenure remain deeply entrenched in American political discourse.”
“When we sit silent over our uncle’s QAnon rants or our high school friends’ xenophobic comments,” she continues, “it shows that we value our own comfort over what we know to be our ethical duty.”
She again admonishes readers to prove that their “moral principles” are more important than their “relationship with racists.”
“No matter the outcome, standing up for your principles disrupts the presumption of agreement so often assumed by bigots,” concludes Camp. “Hateful beliefs may continue — but at the very least you can make it clear that they are not welcome to at least one person at the dinner table.”
University of Virginia undergraduate Deven Upadhyay told Campus Reform that “calling white progressives to action at Thanksgiving turns social activism into a game, eliciting frivolous accusations and burning bridges with loved ones.”
“Today’s progressives have developed a savior complex that has become so sensitive, diluting the severity of real instances of xenophobia, sexism, and racism,” he added. “As this piece pins this task on white people, it seems that people of color need to be ‘saved’ by our white friends.”
Upadhyay, who is Indian-American, says that he does not “need to be saved or pandered to. By playing along with the policing of white progressives, we grant them a position of superiority and false sense of accomplishment.”
“If the purpose of activism is to make change, telling your uncle Steve he’s a white supremacist surely won’t win you a Nobel prize,” he added.
Campus Reform reached out to Camp for comment and will update this article accordingly.
By John Solomou
Nicosia [Cyprus], November 23 (ANI): The New York Times reported that on November 12, US President Donald Trump asked his senior advisers to examine options for airstrikes against Iran’s main nuclear facility at Natanz. Trump convened the meeting just one day after the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors reported a significant increase in Iran’s nuclear material.
Fortunately, Trump’s advisers persuaded him that the risks of military action against Iran are very high. Had a strike against Iran actually taken place, apart from the fact that would be a clear violation of international law, it would also have scuttled any new deal with Iran, President-elect Joe Biden is pondering.
The nuclear deal, known as Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in 2015 with the United States, Germany, France, Britain, China and Russia, allows Iran to keep a stockpile of 202.8 kilograms. Inspectors reported that the stockpile increased to 2,442 kilograms, while Iran continues to enrich uranium to a purity of up to 4.5 per cent, higher than the 3.67 per cent allowed under the deal. It should be noted that low enriched uranium between 3 and 5 per cent can be used for nuclear power, but for nuclear weapons 90 per cent purity is required.
According to New York Times, Trump had to be persuaded not to order the attack by Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley. They pointed out that a military strike would have no basis on international law, while the UN Security Council in all probability would not approve a military action against Iran.
Iranian Government Spokesman Ali Rabiei, responding to the NY Times’ report, said that any US attack on Iran would face a “crushing” response.
Meanwhile, the US Administration announced fresh sanctions on numerous Iranian individuals, including the Intelligence Chief and a charitable foundation linked to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Trump had withdrawn from JCPOA in May 2018 and imposed sanctions, which according to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo cut vital and lucrative Iranian exports by some 75 per cent, denying the regime of USD 70 billion in oil. Iran continued to comply with the provisions of JCPOA until July 2019, and then started violating parts of the deal, but last January following the assassination by the US of Major General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad, it ended all compliance with JCPOA.
As Trump was mulling over an attack on Iran, the Israelis carried out strikes in Syria on Iranian-backed militias. On 18 November, the Israeli Air Force hit targets of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force and the Syrian Army in the Golan Heights and Damascus International Airport, as retaliation for the planting of explosives near an Israeli military position in the Golan Heights.
Undoubtedly, if a military attack on Iran took place during Trump’s final days in office, it would have certainly derailed Joe Biden’s stated election promise to handle Iran “the smart way” and to give the Iranian regime “a credible path back to diplomacy”.
Karim Sadjapour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says that as both a Senator and a Vice President Biden’s views on Iran was always realistic. “He has no illusions about the nature of the Iranian regime and the challenges it poses to US interests, but he’s also been a consistent advocate of direct dialogue with Iran…. If Tehran shows a willingness to return to the status quo ante, no questions asked, it would strengthen the argument of those in Washington who favour an immediate return to the JCPOA. But if Tehran insists on being compensated for the sanctions imposed on Iran during the Trump era, or if Iranian leaders attempt to expand their nuclear program or carry out regional provocations in an attempt to expand their nuclear programme, or carry out regional provocations in an attempt to strengthen their bargaining position or signal that they are not weak, it will have the opposite effect.”
Paul Adams, BBC diplomatic correspondent points out that Iran, which “has weathered the Trump storm, has its own demands. Officials say the removal of sanctions won’t be enough. Iran expects to be compensated for two-and-a-half years of crippling economic damage….. The JCPOA was never a bilateral affair. Its other international sponsors – Russia, China, France, the UK and Germany, plus the European Union – are all, in one way or another, invested in its future. The European sponsors, in particular, are anxious to see Washington once more committed to the deal’s success. The UK, France and Germany (the “E3″) have tried to keep the deal alive during the Trump years and could now play a role in negotiating the terms of Washington’s return. But in London, Paris and Berlin, there’s a recognition that the world has moved on and that a simple return to the original deal is unlikely.”
A deal between Biden and the Tehran government is possible but could be much more difficult if Tehran insists on demanding compensation for US withdrawal from the deal, or if Biden raises the issues of the Iranian ballistic missiles or the Tehran supported militias in the region. (ANI)
Brand Name: Absorbine Jr., Analgesic Balm Greaseless, Arthricare Cream, BENGAY Ultra, Boroleum, Castiva Cooling, Eucalyptamint, Exocaine Plus, Flex-All 454 Maximum Strength, Gordogesic, Icy Hot, Mentholatum Deep Heating, Rhuli Gel, Salonpas Pain Patch, Satogesic, Thera-Gesic–DRUGS.COM
“NONE ARE PROVEN STRONGER OR MORE EFFECTIVE”
“Financial speculator and self-proclaimed philanthropist George Soros, during an April 15, 1993 broadcast by WNET / Thirteen TV, made a startling admission on the secret of his success. Asked by moderator Adam Smith how, in September 1992, he could have gone “eyeball to eyeball with the Bank of England,” making a fortune of $I-2 billion from the devaluation of the British pound and the Italian lira within two weeks, Soros responded: “It really started in 1944, when Hungary was occupied by the Germans, and me being Jewish, I was in danger of life …. When the Germans came in, he [Soros’s father, a prominent Budapest attorney] said, ‘This is a lawless occupation. The normal rules don’t apply. You have to forget how you behave in a normal society. This is an abnormal situation.’ And he arranged for all of us to have false papers, everybody had a different arrangement. I was adopted by an official of the ministry of agriculture, whose job was to take over Jewish properties, so I actually went with him, and we took possession of these large estates. That was my identity. So it’s a strange, very strange life.”
Moment Magazine, which was founded by Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, reprinted it.–SOURCE…Jews Against George Soros
THE CURRENCY CRISIS PAST AND PRESENT–Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia
In this exclusive clip from the new documentary “Soros,” the billionaire investor and philanthropist—and his son—address all the bizarre right-wing conspiracies involving him.
George Soros has, over the past two decades, emerged as perhaps the biggest boogeyman in not only right-wing conspiracy circles but also among the right-wing media and Republican politicians, who have increasingly mirrored their most fantasy-minded adherents. They frequently cast the 90-year-old billionaire investor and liberal philanthropist as a “puppet-master” (Glenn Beck’s actual words) sowing chaos behind the scenes
and credit him (without a shred of evidence, mind you) with bankrolling everything from antifa, the decentralized anti-fascist activist group, to Black Lives Matter protests.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) harbors a strange obsession with Soros, even falsely claiming in 2016 that he was backing John Kasich for president. In August of this year, soon-to-be-former President Trump called in to Fox & Friends and alleged that Soros was funding antifa. And just last week, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich went on Fox News to accuse Soros of somehow stealing the presidential election from Trump.
The new documentary Soros, directed by Jesse Dylan and available Nov. 20, examines the life of the Hungarian-born titan, from escaping the Nazis as a child to accumulating hedge fund riches and creating the grantmaking charity network Open Society Foundations. Soros also features a series of sit-down interviews with the man himself, and in one exchange—that you can see below—he finally breaks his silence on all the wacky conspiracies.
“The fact that I have become involved in so many different issues, and have taken controversial positions, is now actually working against me,” Soros says in the film.
After airing a series of Fox News clips demonizing Soros, the film then sees one of his sons, Robert Soros, chime in.
“He’s become demonized by one community because he’s synonymous with liberal causes,” offers Robert.
According to director Jesse Dylan (How High, son of Bob), these bad-faith depictions of Soros couldn’t be further from the truth.
“The work and people whom George supports strikes at the interests of authoritarians and others who unfairly control freedom and access—whether to employment, education, a way to make a living. These are the forces attacking him,” Dylan tells The Daily Beast.
He adds, “The George Soros I got to know is the calm at the center of the storm. He is modest, curious, deeply engaged with ideas and the world around him. He is always ahead of the curve, looking to tackle the big problems: whether mass incarceration or the perverse power of social media platforms. And he has a sense of humor, and a genuine optimism that individuals can make a difference even when the world looks grim.”
It was high noon in Hong Kong this weekend.
Like gunfighters on a dust-blown street, one of Asia’s most outspoken leaders, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia, faced off against one of the world’s most formidable currency speculators, George Soros. In their holsters were weapons of oratory, currency and clout.
At stake was nothing less than Malaysia’s national prestige, the future of Southeast Asian economies and, by some accounts, the very shape of the global financial system.
Even more, the standoff pitted two worlds against one another, an Asia of growing economic might and a West convinced that free-wheeling trade — in ideas, capital and goods — is the best recipe for development.
The forum was the usually somber gathering of finance ministers, bankers and economists at the annual meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. On successive evenings, Mr. Mahathir and Mr. Soros squared off, denouncing each other in vitriolic language seldom heard in such settings.
Yet Malaysia’s economy is in crisis, its currency has collapsed and blame had to be fixed.
Lashing out at currency traders like Mr. Soros as ”morons,” Mr. Mahathir castigated them on Saturday as ”a group of ultra-rich people.”
”For them wealth must come from impoverishing others,” Mr. Mahathir said, ”from taking what others have in order to enrich themselves. Their weapon is their wealth against the poverty of others.”
While not mentioning Mr. Soros by name — although in previous comments to newspapers in Malaysia, Mr. Mahathir specifically blamed Mr. Soros for orchestrating Malaysia’s economic crisis — he told the assembled bankers and economists that Mr. Soros’s ilk had to be stopped.
”I am saying that currency trading is unnecessary, unproductive and totally immoral,” Mr. Mahathir declared. ”It should be stopped. It should be made illegal. We don’t need currency trading.”
Then tonight, before a standing-room-only crowd, Mr. Soros fired back at the Malaysian leader.
”Dr. Mahathir’s suggestion yesterday to ban currency trading is so inappropriate that it does not deserve serious consideration,” Mr. Soros said.
”Interfering with the convertibility of capital at a moment like this is a recipe for disaster. Dr. Mahathir is a menace to his own country.”
Since July, in the churning wake of the collapse of Thailand’s currency and banking system, Malaysia has foundered. Its currency, the ringgit, has plunged 20 percent against the dollar. On the heels of the tumbling ringgit, the Malaysian stock market crashed and the country’s banking system began to creak. Foreign investors fled.
For Mr. Mahathir, who has seen his country’s annual per-capita output soar from $350 to $5,000 in four decades, the assault on the ringgit smacked of a conspiracy wrought by international currency traders.
For a man who has built the world’s tallest buildings and Southeast Asia’s largest airport and who harbors visions of a glittering new capital, a high-tech corridor intended to rival Silicon Valley and immense hydroelectric dams, the economic train wreck has been an affront, to him personally and to Asia.
”We like to think big,” Mr. Mahathir said. ”But we are not going to be allowed to do this, because you don’t like us to have big ideas. It is not proper. It is impudent for us to try, or even to say we are going to do it. If we even say that when we have the money we will carry on with our big projects, you will make sure we won’t have the money by forcing the devaluation of the currency.
”If the countries of Europe and of North America can be almost uniformly prosperous, we don’t see why we cannot be allowed to be a little prosperous.”
Then tonight, 24 hours after Mr. Mahathir’s broadside against Mr. Soros, currency traders and the international financial system, Mr. Soros stood behind the same lectern and declared that the problem with Malaysia was not the world, but Mr. Mahathir himself.
”He is using me as a scapegoat to cover up his own failure,” Mr. Soros said. ”He is playing to a domestic audience, and he couldn’t get away with it if he and his ideas were subject to the discipline of an independent media inside Malaysia.”
Later, at a news conference, Mr. Soros elaborated on his comments. ”I want to express my sympathy for poor Malaysians who were hurt” by the collapse of the country’s currency and stock market, ”but not for Dr. Mahathir, because he’s responsible.”
The war of words reverberated through the cavernous conference halls, startling government officials and private bankers used to more measured language.
An Indonesian Government economist, who spoke on condition of anonymity, was angered by Mr. Mahathir’s pronouncements.
”It’s very unfortunate that we are neighbors,” the economist said. ”I know we shouldn’t interfere in other countries’ policies. But all I can say is that it was very interesting. As an economist there are things that I disagree with. But because of our good neighbor policy, I can’t really comment on his speech.”
A Malaysian banker, who also insisted that he not be quoted by name, suggested that the Prime Minister was out of touch with reality.
”There are not two ways of doing these things,” the banker said. ”We have to get our own house in order. He really hasn’t thought these things out. He’s just spouting off.”
JERUSALEM/AMMAN — Israel launched air raids against what it called a wide range of Syrian and Iranian targets in Syria on Wednesday, sending a signal that it will pursue its policy of striking across the border despite U.S. President Donald Trump’s election defeat.
Israel said it was retaliating for what it called an Iranian-sponsored operation in which Syrians planted explosives near an Israeli military base in the occupied Golan Heights.
Israel has frequently attacked what it says are Iranian-linked targets in Syria in recent years, and stepped up such attacks over the past year in what Western intelligence sources describe as a shadow war to reduce Iran’s influence.
But Wednesday’s attacks struck a far wider range of targets than usual, and the Israeli military was more forthcoming about the details than it has been in the past, suggesting a clear intention to send a public message.
Trump, who lost his re-election bid on Nov. 3, has been a strong backer of Israeli military intervention against Iranian forces in Syria. President-elect Joe Biden has said he will try to revive a nuclear agreement with Iran that Trump abandoned.
The Syrian state news agency reported that three military personnel were killed and one wounded in “Israeli aggression”.
Lieutenant-Colonel Jonathan Conricus, an Israeli military spokesman, said eight targets were hit, belonging to the Syrian army or Iran’s Quds Force, in areas stretching from the Syrian-controlled side of the Golan Heights to the Damascus periphery.
They included an Iranian headquarters at Damascus international airport, a “secret military site” that hosted Iranian military delegations, and the 7th Division of the Syrian armed forces, he said. Syrian surface-to-air defenses were hit after firing at Israeli planes and missiles, Conricus said.
A former Syrian military commander told Reuters the attacks also targeted a base of the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shi’ite group Hezbollah in Syria close to the Lebanese border, alongside bases in the southern Damascus area and outposts in the Syrian-controlled Golan Heights where Hezbollah has a presence.
Conricus made no mention of Hezbollah targets.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a war monitor, said at least ten people were killed including five Iranians from the elite Quds Force, as well as at least two Shi’ite militiamen who may have been Lebanese or Iraqi. A commander in an alliance of regional forces backing Damascus denied there were Iranians or Lebanese among the casualties.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government has never publicly acknowledged that there are Iranian forces operating on his behalf in Syria’s civil war, saying Tehran only has military advisors on the ground.
Western intelligence sources say Israeli strikes this year have undermined Iran’s extensive military power in Syria without triggering a major increase in hostilities.
Comedians Tried to Warn You of Biden’s Stupidity – Get to Know The Puppet
Michele Flournoy, Biden Sec/Def Nominee–(SEE: The Looming US War on Russia )
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s new defense secretary signaled to the military in a late Friday message that he may be there to carry out one of the president’s early campaign promises, an overseas drawdown of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“This is the critical phase in which we transition our efforts from a leadership to supporting role,” acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller said in a memo obtained by McClatchy. “We are not a people of perpetual war — it is the antithesis of everything for which we stand and for which our ancestors fought. All wars must end.”
Trump in a tweet Monday had announced Miller as the replacement for fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper.
In the memo to the Defense Department workforce, Miller described at length the respect he has for the institution and the sacrifices made by thousands of men and women who have deployed to the Middle East since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He said,
“ending wars requires compromise and partnership. We met the challenge; we gave it our all. Now, it’s time to come home.”
It was the first indication of what direction the Pentagon may take in Trump’s final weeks in office, the uncertainty of which has raised concerns among career defense officials and the incoming Biden administration about what the changes mean — whether he is rewarding loyalists or trying to force through policies the department has resisted over the last four years.
Top Biden transition officials said that postelection upheaval at the Defense Department, Trump’s firing of Esper and the resignations of top defense policy and intelligence chiefs that followed, amount to a final push to politicize the military.
The firings and resignations come amid Trump’s refusal to acknowledge his electoral defeat and authorize the federal government to begin preparing for a transition of power to President-elect Joe Biden. The defense officials and Biden’s team said that gap could increase security risks for the country.
“In the 9-11 Commission report, one of the things they talked about was the impact of the delay of the transition period on our national security,” Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman for the Biden transition team, told reporters on a call Friday.
“Of course it’s of concern to see the upheaval. It should be of concern to anybody because there shouldn’t be a politicization of the military,” said Psaki, who previously served in the Obama administration.
The firing and quick replacement of Esper had worried longtime defense civilian staffers, who wondered if there are major policy changes — such as a rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan or new counterterrorism action in the Middle East or the Sahel, or even a potential use of military forces on U.S. soil to contest the election results — on the horizon before the president departs.
“I don’t know what the end game is,” said one current defense official who worked with policy staff members at the Office of the Secretary of Defense during Trump’s time in office. “For me that’s probably the most difficult thing to try and figure out. The instability and uncertainty complicates things.”
“They aren’t letting us talk about transition,” another current defense official said.
A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on the changes.
“It’s helpful to decapitate the senior civilian leadership at the Pentagon in preparation of some aggressive use of the military to bolster the president’s claims that he has won this election,” said one former defense official who has stayed close to the Pentagon’s current uniformed senior leadership. “That is probably the most worrisome, most extreme reason they could be making these decisions,” the official said.
“Then the other extreme — which is also possible, in fact some people think it’s the most likely, which is that this is just about score settling,” the official said.
“Once you got rid of Esper the decks were cleared to get rid of these other people that didn’t pass the loyalty test, and replace them with people that could use the experience over the next 70 days to pad their resume.”
In the last four years, the Pentagon has pushed back on decisions that senior military leaders hoped they could counsel the president to amend, such as the creation of the Space Force, withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria and the use of military force to quell protests.
Each pushback has come at a cost.
Now-retired Air Force Gen. David Goldfein’s public resistance to creating a Space Force, over cost and bureaucracy concerns, is widely believed to be one of the reasons Trump did not select him to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Former Defense Secretary James Mattis irked Trump by convincing him not to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in 2017, and ultimately resigned over Trump’s announcement that U.S. forces in Syria would depart in late 2018.
Esper fell out of favor with Trump when he pushed back on the use of active duty forces to counter nationwide protests following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody.
“I don’t see what the legal order would be for the military to get involved in something that had to do with the elections,” said retired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Arnold Punaro, who has assisted new administrations with Senate confirmations since the late 1990s.
Withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Afghanistan or Germany, where the U.S. military has thousands of troops based, is much more likely to be the reason for the recent changes, Punaro said.
“There are certain things the president can do without the Congress. One is to deploy troops, two he can bring troops home,” Punaro said. “Troop levels in various locations is the most logical thing he could change with most recent changes in personnel.”
Punaro, like the former defense official, also said it was more likely some of these last-minute replacements were about rewarding staff that have remained in Trump’s favor.
“It really depends on the billet or the person,” Punaro said. “Allowing people a chance to have a significant position, for example they are bringing in some people in the chief management officer’s office, a new deputy chief management officer.”
“There’s some other people coming in,” Punaro said. “These aren’t related to bring(ing) the troops home from Afghanistan or (to) settle scores. These are really positions that have been vacant where they are giving people opportunities to serve perhaps only 70 days.”
After Esper was replaced by Miller, the following changes were also made at the Defense Department:
James Anderson, acting under secretary of defense for policy, was replaced by Anthony Tata, who Trump previously sought for the position. Tata, at that time, was unable to get Senate confirmation due to inflammatory remarks he has made about Muslims and former President Barack Obama. Tata will serve as “performing the duties of” the under secretary role, which will result in some limits to his authorities.
Retired Navy Vice Adm. Joseph Kernan, under secretary of defense for intelligence and security, was replaced by Ezra Cohen-Watnick, an early administration hire by former national security adviser retired Air Force Gen. Michael Flynn, before Flynn was replaced by retired Army Gen. H.R. McMaster.
Esper’s chief of staff, Jen Stewart, was replaced with Kash Patel, who previously worked for Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., on the Senate Intelligence Committee and assisted the Republican efforts on the committee to question the credibility of FBI agents investigating Russian election interference.
This article is written by Tara Copp and Michael Wilner from Special to McClatchy Washington Bureau and was legally licensed via the Tribune Content Agency through the Industry Dive publisher network. Please direct all licensing questions to firstname.lastname@example.org.
President Trump, declassify everything, expose the swamp’s dual justice system and bureaucratic terrorists
60 million Americans have lost faith in their electoral process and their trust in government. The majority of Americans are disgusted by politicians, the government and the media telling them what to think while force-feeding them a steady diet of propaganda, lies, and excuses.
New York: The US Justice Department (DOJ) is responsible for ensuring the integrity of federal elections. Accordingly, A.G. Barr has launched a probe into “substantial allegations” of election fraud. Barr’s memorandum for US attorneys stated: “The DOJ must ensure federal elections are conducted in such a way that the American people can have full confidence in their electoral process and government.”
This memo lacks credibility, it is another paper tiger. 60 million Americans have lost faith in their electoral process and their trust in government. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The US government is rife with systemic fraud and corruption. The majority of Americans are disgusted by politicians, the government and the media telling them what to think while force-feeding them a steady diet of propaganda, lies, and excuses. Citizens need to believe in the integrity of America’s elections and equal application of the rule of law.
Many view Barr’s recent memo as another time-wasting, paper-shuffling “fake investigation” similar to the investigations into Crooked Hillary or the USA’s corrupt FBI. A FISA judge recently determined that FBI agents falsified and lied to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to obtain FISA warrants to illegally and “secretly spy” on the 2016 Trump campaign and American citizens. Additionally, recently declassified documents prove that Hillary Clinton funded the fraudulent “Steele dossier,” which was the FBI’s basis for obtaining the FISA warrants and would lead to the seditious Mueller investigation.
Mueller’s hoax was part of the FBI’s “insurance policy” to remove a democratically elected President and was one of many failed coup d’états to remove Trump initiated by the Democratic Party. The head of the FBI, James Comey, signed off on many of the FISA applications, attesting to their accuracy. Comey lied about the content in warrants and lied under oath, but Comey was never prosecuted. In 2016, Comey exonerated Hillary Clinton even though there was clear evidence proving that Clinton lied about illegally moving classified documents onto a non-secure unauthorized server in the basement of Clinton’s Chappaqua, NY home. Clinton’s above the law status illustrates to Americans that the dual justice system is real—one rule for Republicans and another for the political elites in the Democratic Party.
Inspector General Horowitz, of the United States Department of Justice, launched an investigation into the FISA abuses and the Russia probe. Horowitz’s 476-page report, which took years, determined that: “Malfeasance and misfeasance detailed in the Inspector General’s report reflects a clear abuse of the FISA process by FBI officials.” It was discovered that the FBI failed “to include exculpatory evidence in its four successful applications for surveillance warrants” and had relied heavily on 17 “significant inaccuracies and omissions.”
In other words, the FBI lied to get FISA warrants that “unlawfully authorized” the FBI to conduct “electronic surveillance and physical searches.” Horowitz’s report was a “slow-roll cover-up” that resulted in nothing except the eroding of the public’s trust in government.
For nearly two years, John Durham, the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, has been investigating the origin of the specious Russia collusion hoax that marred the Trump presidency and split the country apart. Laws were broken, but nothing was done and Durham just sat on his investigation into the investigators. Sorry, A.G. Barr, the Durham investigation is viewed by many Americans as yet another in a long series of paper shuffles by Washington’s swamp to protect the status quo and Obama’s legacy. Barack Obama, the most divisive President in US history, never departed Washington. Obama was the first US President to champion a “resistance movement” undermining a smooth transition of power to the Trump administration. It appears that Obama is the marionettist behind Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Obama campaigning in Georgia, on behalf of the Democratic Party Senate candidates, between now and the January runoff elections will further confirm Obama’s involvement to permanently change Americas norms and values.
During the 2020 elections, voting irregularities, software “glitches” or “mistakes” all benefited the Democratic Party enough so that the vote was likely shifted to ensure a Biden victory. All of these anomalies together are a statistical impossibility. The issues below need to be addressed before all the legal votes are counted and the results are codified:
1. As Joe Biden surrogates, the oligarchs of Silicon Valley spent billions of dollars on censorship and vote suppression campaigns that influenced the election’s outcome. Google, Facebook and Twitter censored the fact that Hunter Biden received millions from Moscow, Ukraine, and China and the fact that witnesses testified about influence peddling and that Joe Biden knew about Hunter’s activities. Big tech worked with the media to censor President Trump and to not report on systemic election fraud. Silicon Valley and the media continue to tyrannically censor evidence and facts that illustrate voter fraud or anyone that dares question the “rigged” electoral process. Big tech censorship is the greatest existential threat to free speech, liberty, and democratic principals in our lifetime. Silicon Valley amplified the voter suppression that played a critical role in the 2020 election results.
2. The pollsters and media suppressed the electoral vote, raised money for Democratic candidates and manipulated the outcome. The media ran 95% anti-Trump messaging, which seemed to justify that fraud was acceptable if it would remove “Orange Man Bad” from the White House.
3. Media hysteria over Covid-19 including Dr Fauci and the experts spewing “a science” mantra, massively boosted Biden’s election chances. It is now clear that the media used Covid-19 as a tool to instil fear in the masses. The case numbers were grossly overinflated, as were the projected number of deaths.
4. It is a fact that dead people not only registered to vote but also voted. The New York Times falsely declared in bold headline in all caps: ELECTION OFFICALS NATIONWIDE FIND NO FRAUD. Translation: Shut-up and obey! This lie illustrates why the media has lost the trust of the people.
5. Many votes were cast illegally—a fact the Democratic Georgia Secretary of State openly admitted after the election.
6. In Michigan, a “too close to call” swing state, a clerk found that software used in 47 counties moved 6,000 Republican votes to the Democrats. This software was used across the country and may have changed the election result.
7. Democratic political operatives in the Pennsylvania usurped the US Constitution by illegally changing election laws, to favour the Democratic Party, by fiat instead of by a legitimate, lawful and transparent legislative process.
8. Without due process or an investigation, a heavily biased media anointed Joe Biden President-elect. Joe Biden was trotted out, making spurious claims that American voters had “delivered us a clear victory, a convincing victory”. Biden’s “victory” was prematurely trumpeted by a shrill, corrupt and dishonest media when many questions need to be answered before any of the results are certified.
Election 2020 did not demonstrate free and fair elections. More than 70% of Republicans do not trust that US elections were free and fair, with 78% saying mail-in voting led to fraud. Mail-in ballot fraud, lack of voter identification, or signature matching are red flags that indicate malfeasance. This is how the NSA and CIA conducted electoral manipulation to install the USA’s leader of choice in “banana republics.”
While Joe Biden pretends the Democratic Party seeks unity, many of his party members, such as New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), begun “archiving” an extensive communist-style blacklist of “Trump sycophants” who shall be held responsible for their “complicity”. A “cancel culture” will hold you responsible! Executions? Cancelled from any employment and sent to re-education camps, modelled after China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, for having a differing view from AOC’s utopian democratic socialism? Indeed, “Owned by China” Joe Biden will turn a blind eye. Bill Clinton’s former Labour Secretary Robert Reich, who is now the chancellor of Public Policy Berkeley, stated: “When Trump nightmare is over, we need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.” Naming everyone “whose greed and cowardice enabled this catastrophe”. Reich and AOC’s incendiary rhetoric stands against every American norm, value, and the rule of law. These tyrannical ideas lay out precisely the agenda of the Democratic Party: re-write the US Constitution and rule for life, which will end in a very bloody civil war. Jack Dorsey’s Twitter proudly displays many threats to democratic principles like the examples above.
“The world should be horrified that Congress, Democratic Party members, and media have called for a blacklist and to purge polite society of all political opposition—this is fascism.’
To reiterate and conclude: A.G. Barr’s memo talks about the DOJ’s obligation to ensure that people can have full confidence in their government. That’s gone; that ship has sailed. The US electoral process has lost its integrity. The Obama and Clinton orchestrated “resistance” comparing Trump to Hitler, rogue intelligence operatives initiating smear campaigns on everything Trump and a concerted campaign of dirty tricks from Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer’s Democrats for over four years have polarized and irreparably damaged the country. The Democrats even failed to denounce the murders, looting, arson and shootings committed by the “defund-the-police” BLM and Antifa mob-rule thugs because they knew this chaos would instil fear in Americans and help influence the outcome of the election. Over 75 million Americans sharply rebuked the race, gender and sexual orientation-based identity politics branded by the far-left “Democratic Socialists”, who are Marxist revolutionary insurgents self-identifying as “progressives” wishing to turn the US into Wokistan.
President Trump has the legal authority to immediately declassify all the documents exposing the bureaucratic terrorists who have infested our government and institutions. Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” will no longer sit back and accept these lies. This week, massive boycotts have been threatened, and truck drivers across the nation will walk out. While Washington controls the swamp and the media live in a coastal echo chamber with Hollywood’s preachy shill actors, the country’s “basket of deplorables” has full control over its supply chains and logistics—food, toilet paper, etc.
This is how civil wars begin; we all should fear for the Republic—unfortunately, it may be lost.
Mitchell Feierstein is CEO Glacier Environmental Fund.
The majority of Americans believe in the US Constitution, family values, and the rule of law. Unfortunately, forty years of neoliberal politics and academic indoctrination have spawned a movement of entitled, spoiled, social justice warriors (SJWs) claiming to be diverse, tolerant, accepting and inclusive. Once someone disagrees with these SJWs’ ideological viewpoints, the SJWs become violent, intolerant fascists.
In the epic 2020 presidential election, expect the unexpected. Expect Herculean internet content manipulation by Google, Facebook and Twitter to censor and suppress information in order to shape a favourable opinion of a heavily compromised Joe Biden. The Democratic Party, the media, rogue intelligence operatives, Wall Street, Hollywood, Ivy League neoliberal academics and the Silicon Valley aristocracy all loathe Trump. They will stop at nothing to ensure a Biden victory.
MEDIA LIES AND MALPRACTICE: DEMOCRACY DIES IN DARKNESS
The US Senate has verified that the Biden corruption scandal is not Russian disinformation; it is real. Biden insider-turned-whistleblower, Tony Bobulinski, submitted thousands of pages into evidence that included direct testimony, financial records, text messages, emails, documents and audio recordings. The Senate has confirmed Bobulinski’s evidence as genuine. Bobulinski’s evidence makes it crystal clear that Joe Biden had direct knowledge of the Biden family’s ongoing, decades-long, worldwide influence-peddling scheme, which Biden lied to America about.
Washington Post columnist Thomas Rid published a heads-up for all media: “We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation—even if they probably aren’t.” Rid shows how the liberal media have irreparably breached public trust. The ongoing media cover-up of the Biden scandal and their failure to report evidence-based disclosures confirmed by the US Senate is unbelievable. Not a single liberal media outlet has covered the biggest political scandal during our lifetime. Journalistic objectivity has become politically motivated, biased and deceitful propaganda churned out by political activists.
Many of the documents and emails entered into evidence, with metadata, were written by Hunter and Jim Biden and prove how and where the Biden family was selling influence to many countries. Twitter, Facebook and Google have also censored the news pertaining to the Bidens. In recent testimony before Congress, Twitter boss Jack Dorsey supported news censorship by mob-rule. He stated, “We rely on people calling it out.” These companies are censoring news and lying to the American people to protect a compromised presidential candidate. Can the public ever trust the media or government agencies again? No.
These media “activists” are involved in the corruption rather than reporting on it or presenting facts that allow the people to draw their own conclusions. These political activists and social media companies are deciding what the people can see, what will be censored and finally, under the guidance of intelligence operatives, what they can think. Stanford communications professor emeritus Ted Glasser even advocates journalists embrace “social justice” activism over objectivity. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, et al, have become nothing more than “woke” censors and wholesale merchants in propaganda that perfectly replicate China’s social credit system.
PROGRESSIVE THOUGHT: SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS
The majority of Americans believe in the US Constitution, family values, and the rule of law. Unfortunately, forty years of neoliberal politics and academic indoctrination have spawned a movement of entitled, spoiled, social justice warriors (SJWs) claiming to be diverse, tolerant, accepting and inclusive.
Once someone disagrees with these SJWs’ ideological viewpoints, the SJWs become violent, intolerant fascists. These historically ignorant, entitled, indoctrinated children are demanding, by violence if necessary, a “regressive” and discriminatory new world order that prioritizes the characteristics of race, gender and class above a life history of achievement, merit and excellence.
Joe Biden-supporting, Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Anti-Fascists (ANTIFA) members have sparked a violent crime wave across America for the past eight months. These thugs murdered innocent people; looted and destroyed businesses; and burnt buildings, vehicles and police stations to the ground—anarchy that was hidden from the public view and covered up by a complicit media. As the CNN film rolled and buildings burned in the background, the CNN talking head described the ongoing murders, arson and looting as “peaceful protests”.
DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM AND NEW WORLD ORDER
For the first time in history, presidential candidates have refused to disclose the platform they are running to lead America.
Here are the main points of the Joe Biden/Kamala Harris platform:
- End the filibuster rule in the US Senate.
- Grant DC and Puerto Rico statehood in order to appoint four liberal US Senators.
- Abolish the Electoral College.
- Pack the Supreme Court and the federal courts with “radicals in robes”.
- Allow minors and illegal aliens the right to vote.
The five bullet points above will destroy the balance of power the US founders created within the US Constitution. The US Constitution was designed to limit government powers to protect the people from partisan politics when the government is controlled by one political party. As outlined in the US Constitution, the federal government has a mechanism of checks and balances that includes three branches of government: the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive.
The Democratic Party’s platform will destroy this balance and install a permanent oligarchy. The Democratic Party wants to delegitimize all existing systems, customs and norms. They believe that the US Constitution needs to be shredded because old white men wrote it. In the past year, well-funded movements, such as BLM, have sprung up to help realize this goal. BLM is run by Marxists demanding an end to the nuclear family and that the police be defunded or entirely abolished. Kamala Harris, Joe Biden and the radical Democrats continuously repeat the mantra that America’s police and law enforcement need to be “re-imagined”, but they refuse to elaborate on what this actually means.
Mob-rule demands acceptance, submission and obedience to BLM. If total compliance is not immediate, you are deemed a racist and preyed upon by the mob. Mob-rule, intimidation, violence and fear are tools Biden-supporting ANTIFA members deploy to pressure and coerce the public into submission.
RED VS BLUE: PARLOUR ROOM POLARIZATION
Amy Coney Barrett, one of the most qualified jurists for a seat on the Supreme Court in decades, was formally sworn in as the Supreme Court’s ninth justice this week after the Senate confirmed her appointment by a vote of 48-52. The Democratic Party was apoplectic over Justice Barrett’s appointment even though Justice Barrett’s extensive vetting by the US Senate was 100% compliant with the privileges and rights guaranteed a sitting US President under the US Constitution.
Although Barrett was qualified for the vacant seat, every Democratic Party member voted against Barrett. Why? The Democratic Party places politics and power over the interests of the people and democracy.
Democratic Senator Cory Booker decried the process as delegitimate and a sham. Booker is an example of the contempt the Democrats in the US Senate have for the US Constitution. The Democrats’ lies, propaganda and material misrepresentations are intended to build a foundation for delegitimizing the US Constitution should Biden be elected. Democratic Senator Ed Markey called the “judicial originalism” espoused by Barrett “racist, sexist, homophobic and a fancy word for discrimination”. In other words, Markey is inferring the US Constitution is racist. Markey should be censured and forced to apologise for his repugnant comments.
Markey, Booker, and the Democrats believe the courts should be a super-legislature that rubber stamp their “social justice” ideological framework into flexible laws. This is pure demagoguery. The Democratic Party wants to tear up the US Constitution, do away with any system of checks and balances, tear down all historical statues, end traditional family values and norms, and burn down the judicial system. If Biden and the Bolshevik left seize power, the protections provided under the US Constitution and the rule of law will fade away, and the Bolsheviks will rule “Biden’s banana republic”.
This ideological war has fomented a genuine and irreparable distrust of our government agencies’ ability to protect, serve and represent the people who elected them. Never has the western media colluded to perpetrate an endless series of lies on this magnitude to cover up rampant political corruption; it is the most significant political corruption scandal and cover-up ever. These are crimes against democracy.
If you are not frightened by all of this, you should be.
ELECTION 2020 PREDICTIONS
On election day, Trump will melt the snowflakes on his way to 270+ Electoral College votes; I predict that Trump wins enough of the following states: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, to provide him enough of a boost, 125 votes, to launch him above 270 votes and a victory. Bear in mind, a Washington DC coup d’état cabal has been conducting, with impunity, a seditious conspiracy to overthrow the United States government for the past four years. It’s a safe bet this same cabal will invent ballots, lie, cheat, steal and do “whatever it takes” to dispute or overturn a legitimate Trump victory.
Mitchell Feierstein is CEO Glacier Environmental Fund.
‘We were always playing shell games,’ says Amb. Jim Jeffrey, who also gives advice to President-elect Biden.
Four years after signing the now-infamous “Never Trump” letter condemning then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as a danger to America, retiring diplomat Jim Jeffrey is recommending that the incoming Biden administration stick with Trump’s foreign policy in the Middle East.
But even as he praises the president’s support of what he describes as a successful “realpolitik” approach to the region, he acknowledges that his team routinely misled senior leaders about troop levels in Syria.
“We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there,” Jeffrey said in an interview. The actual number of troops in northeast Syria is “a lot more than” the roughly two hundred troops Trump initially agreed to leave there in 2019.
Trump’s abruptly-announced withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria remains perhaps the single-most controversial foreign policy move during his first years in office, and for Jeffrey, “the most controversial thing in my fifty years in government.” The order, first handed down in December 2018, led to the resignation of former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. It catapulted Jeffrey, then Trump’s special envoy for Syria, into the role of special envoy in the counter-ISIS fight when it sparked the protest resignation of his predecessor, Brett McGurk.
For Jeffrey, the incident was far less cut-and-dry — but it is ultimately a success story that ended with U.S. troops still operating in Syria, denying Russian and Syrian territorial gains and preventing ISIS remnants from reconstituting.
In 2018 and again in October of 2019, when Trump repeated the withdrawal order, the president boasted that ISIS was “defeated.” But each time, the president was convinced to leave a residual force in Syria and the fight continued.
“What Syria withdrawal? There was never a Syria withdrawal,” Jeffrey said. “When the situation in northeast Syria had been fairly stable after we defeated ISIS, [Trump] was inclined to pull out. In each case, we then decided to come up with five better arguments for why we needed to stay. And we succeeded both times. That’s the story.”
Officially, Trump last year agreed to keep several hundred U.S. troops — somewhere between 200 and 400, according to varying reports at the time — stationed in northeast Syria to “secure” oil fields held by the United States’ Kurdish allies in the fight against ISIS. It is generally accepted that the actual number is now higher than that — anonymous officials put the number at about 900 today — but the precise figure is classified and remains unknown even, it appears, to members of Trump’s administration keen to end the so-called “forever wars.”
As he exits public service again, Jeffrey is hardly derisive of the divisive president.
The career ambassador’s 2018 decision to serve in the Trump administration despite his political opposition to the president — and to champion his policies on the way out the door — is on-brand for an official described by colleagues as the consummate apolitical public servant. Jeffrey offers no polemics on the president’s character, even as he says he stands by his decision to sign the 2016 open letter that said Trump was “erratic” and “acts impetuously.”
“I know what I did in 2016, I do not disagree with that,” said Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq. “I was following closely the situation with Iran, Iraq and Syria, and I was appalled that we didn’t have a more coherent policy. This wasn’t a political decision.”
Jeffrey now says that Trump’s “modest” and transactional approach to the Middle East has yielded a more stable region than either of his predecessors’ more transformational policies. President George W. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech heralding the seismic U.S. intervention into Iraq and President Barack Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo proclaiming a “new beginning” with the Muslim world represent an approach to the Middle East that “made things worse” and “weakened us,” Jeffrey said. Trump’s administration, he said, has looked at the Middle East through a geostrategic lens and kept its focus on Iran, Russia, and China, while keeping the metastatic “disease” of Islamist terror in check.
In much of Syria, the remaining U.S. troops maintain a fragile stability. Although U.S. diplomats are still painstakingly working to resettle thousands of ISIS families and relocate foreign fighters still held by the Kurdish-led SDF, Jeffrey said the humanitarian situation is slowly improving and he has no concerns that the remaining detained ISIS fighters will escape.
In Iraq, Jeffrey credits the Trump administration with maintaining relations with the central government and constraining Iranian influence in Baghdad.
“Stalemale and blocking advances and containing is not a bad thing,” Jeffrey said. “That’s what powerful countries — France, Britain, the United States — failed to do in the 1930s, and then they discovered they had to fight for their lives in really important places like Paris and the South China Sea and North Africa.”
“That’s the nature of realpolitik and great power foreign policy.”
Jeffrey’s is an unorthodox view of Trump’s foreign policy, to be sure. It comes at a moment when most mainstream national security professionals of both parties — including some former members of Trump’s own administration — are openly condemning the president’s handling of America’s military and diplomatic affairs. In particular, critics say the 45th president has damaged American alliances, perhaps irreversibly, with his combative Twitter account and occasionally punitive foreign policy. In one key example, Trump announced a troop withdrawal from Germany because Berlin wasn’t meeting defense spending benchmarks.
Jeffrey said there’s no question that Trump has demanded a lot of U.S. allies, both in Europe and the Middle East. But he rolls his eyes at the notion that U.S. alliances will crumble under the pressure from the United States to do things like pay more for their own national defense or do more to push back on Iran.
Far from undermining Middle East allies, Jeffrey said, Trump has sought “to build up our alliance system and basically stop nagging at them, show that Washington has their back including their domestic situations — they can do pretty much what they want, but they’re going to have to step up and do things.”
“Nobody really wants to see President Trump go, among all our allies [in the Middle East],” he said. “The truth is President Trump and his policies are quite popular among all of our popular states in the region. Name me one that’s not happy.”
In Iraq, he said, relations with Baghdad have remained healthy, even as he confirmed the State Department threat to shutter the embassy if Iraq didn’t do more to curtail Iranian militia activity.
“That’s an ongoing issue,” he said. “It was not a bogus threat, it’s very serious.”
The Syria withdrawal announcement was roundly condemned even by members of Trump’s own administration as an abandonment of the SDF, which did the bulk of the on-the-ground fighting against ISIS. It is often held up by critics as the ultimate object lesson of the chaos — and even cruelty — of the Trump administration.
Jeffrey disputes the charge that the United States “abandoned” its Kurdish allies to a Turkish onslaught. Although the United States gave the Kurds a military guarantee against Russian mercenaries operating in Syria, the Syrian government and ISIS, “nobody in Washington ever gave the Kurds a military guarantee against Turkey,” Jeffrey said. “I cannot put my finger on it, [but] every Kurdish leader I know thinks that he or she was given such a guarantee by people in the field, and that had an impact on how they behaved including how they behaved vis-a-vis the Turks. So it was a very complicated political mess.”
Jeffrey doesn’t dispute that there was some chaos to the decision-making process. But he compared it to troop level fluctuations in Iraq under Bush, or Obama’s surge into and simultaneous withdrawal deadline in Afghanistan.
“Look, there’s a surface chaos to every administration,” he said. “I’m not defending this gang, I’m just saying chaos is what I’ve experienced.”
If Jeffrey is complimentary of the Trump administration’s overall approach to the Middle East, he is equally sanguine about the incoming Biden administration.
“I can’t see him giving either the Bush speech or the Cairo speech. And that’s a good thing.”
Asked how he would advise the Biden administration when it takes over his portfolio, Jeffrey said he would urge the President-elect to stay the course laid out by Trump’s team. Some things the Biden team may want to undo — like the dismantling of the Iran nuclear deal — he suggests may now be impossible. But above all, don’t attempt “transformation.” Don’t try to “turn Syria into Denmark.” Stalemate is stability.
“I think the stalemate we’ve put together is a step forward and I would advocate it,” Jeffrey said.
“I’m just telling you the reality as I saw it. I’m not trying to do favors to anybody. Because it’s very important when the new team comes in, they don’t say, if it was made by Trump it has to be bad.”
[The following article from Spiked really nails this past election and its true meaning. It has not really been a contest between right and left, Dem. and Repub., or even Pro-Trump vs Anti-Trump…it has been a contest between America’s two classes, the hard-working lower classes (of all skin colors) against the ruling class elites and their fawning celebrity forces. If Trump had not come along when he did there would have been someone else to lead the anti-politically correct Americans. Hillary called us the “Deplorables”, members of a vast right-wing conspiracy, but that was just her snobbery speaking. The following article tears into the elitists and their technocracy, speaking with power of a reenergized movement of over 70 million anti-elitist voters, the second-highest vote total of any bloc in American history. The fact that at least 70 million of us still reject the non-stop brainwashing that has convinced many of our own friends and family that Trump was Hitler and we are the new Hitler’s army.
This is dead wrong. The Deplorables have risen-up from their own power to say NO to the cancel culture in their mob rule and their war against history otherwise known as political correctness.]
The 70million people who voted for Trump are revolting against the new elites.
So Joe Biden has won the highest popular vote in the history of the US. At the time of writing, more than 73million people have voted for him. He has beaten the record set by Barack Obama who was swept to power on that famous wave of ‘HOPE’ and 69.5million votes in 2008. But here’s the thing: so has Donald Trump. Trump might be trailing Biden in the popular vote of 2020, but he, too, has beaten Obama’s 2008 record. Trump, at the time of writing, has 69.7million votes. So he has won the second-highest popular vote in the history of the American republic. That is remarkable. Far more remarkable than Biden’s very impressive count.
Why? For one simple reason. Trump is the man we’re all meant to hate. He has been raged against ceaselessly by the cultural elites for the past four years. Hardly any of the American media backed him in 2020. Globalist institutions loathe him. Academia, the media elites, the social-media oligarchies, the celebrity set and other hugely influential sectors have branded him a 21st-century Hitler and insisted that only a ‘white supremacist’ could countenance voting for him. He’s the butt of every sniffy East Coast joke and the target of every fiery street protest. He’s the worst thing to happen to Western politics in decades, we’re told, by clever people, constantly.
And yet around 70million Americans voted for him. The second-highest electoral bloc in the history of the US put their cross next to the name of a man who over the past four years has been turned by the political clerisy into the embodiment of evil.
That is what makes the vote for Trump so striking, and so important. Because what it speaks to is the existence of vast numbers of people who are outside of the purview of the cultural elites. People who have developed some kind of immunity to the cultural supremacy of the ‘woke’ worldview so intensely mainstreamed by the political and media sets in recent years. People who are more than content to defy the diktats of the supposedly right-thinking elites and cast their ballots in a way that they think best tallies with their political, social and class interests. People who, no doubt to varying degrees, are at least sceptical towards the narratives of identitarianism, racial doom-mongering, climate-change hysteria and all the pronouns nonsense that have become dominant among political and cultural influencers, and which are essentially the new ideology of the ruling class.
Hillary Clinton infamously referred to many Trump supporters as ‘the deplorables’. But a far better word for them would be ‘the unconquerables’. These are minds and hearts uncolonised by the new orthodoxies. Seventy million people in a peaceful state of revolt against the new establishment and its eccentric, authoritarian ideologies. This is the most important story of the US election and it deserves serious attention.
The fury of the elites in the wake of the US election is palpable, and at times visceral. Even though their man is highly likely to have won, they are incandescent. Already there is rage against the innate racism and ‘white supremacy’ of the throng. Already there is neo-racist disgust with the Latinos and black people who, in larger numbers than 2016, voted for Trump. ‘We are surrounded by racists’, said New York Times columnist Charles M Blow, capturing the sense of siege felt by the woke clerisy. This rage of the elites against the masses, despite the victory of the elites’ preferred candidate, suggests they instinctively recognise their failure to bring significant sections of the masses to heel. They splutter out terms like ‘racist’ and ‘white supremacist’ as reprimands against the millions who refuse to take the knee to their politics of fear, politics of identity, and politics of cancellation and control.
The elites, despite probably getting their way with a Biden presidency, have been thrown by this election. First, because they called it so wrongly. Their predictions of a ‘blue wave’ did not materialise. Their polls and punditry insisting that Trumpism would be resoundingly defeated turned out to be catastrophically incorrect. The stories of a 10-point swing to Biden evaporated upon contact with reality. So far, Trump has increased his vote by seven million.
The elite’s wrongness about this election is itself a crushing confirmation of their failure to ideologically domesticate large numbers of Americans. Many Americans have clearly chosen not to communicate their beliefs to pollsters, a key part of the new political clerisy, because they are aware that the political elites hold them in contempt. As one election analyst said, because of the ‘degree of hate’ directed to Trump supporters ‘by nearly all the media’, we have a situation where ‘people didn’t necessarily want to admit to pollsters who they were supporting’. Not only do many Americans refuse to embrace the new orthodoxies of the uniformly anti-Trump cultural elites, but they also refuse to engage honestly with the cultural elites. They know it’s a waste of time. That is the size of the moral and political chasm that now exists between the guardians of correct-thought and millions of ordinary people.
The second reason this election has rattled the seeming victors – the pro-Biden establishment – is because of who voted for Trump. Exit polls suggest there were significant shifts of black and Latino voters to Trump. It is reported that 18 per cent of black men voted for Trump, up from the five per cent who voted for John McCain in 2008 and the 11 per cent who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. A shift of this kind towards a politician relentlessly described as a ‘white supremacist’ is very significant. According to the AP VoteCast, 35 per cent of Latinos seem to have voted for Trump. And a whopping 59 per cent of Native Hawaiians and 52 per cent of Native Americans and Alaska Natives opted for Trump. Seemingly these First Nation peoples didn’t get the NYT, SNL, DNC message that Trump is a racist who hates all non-white people.
As we should expect from the neo-racialists of the identitarian elites, there is already fierce denunciation of minority groups who voted for Trump. They have sold out to ‘white supremacy’, woke academics and columnists claim. Blow writes in the NYT that the Latino and black shift towards Trump is proof of the ‘power of the white patriarchy’ and the influence it has even over oppressed racial groups: ‘Some people who have been historically oppressed will stand with their oppressors.’ That’s a lot of words to say ‘Uncle Tom’. The anger with Latinos and blacks who voted for Trump is motivated by a view of these people as racial deviants, as traitors to their race. In the rigid worldview of the identitarian elites, people are not individuals or members of an economic class – they are mere manifestations of race and ethnicity and they must conform to that role. That many voters have clearly bristled at such racial fatalism is a very positive development. Identity politics was dealt a blow in this election, and the elites know it.
More striking still is the educational divide in terms of who voted for Biden and Trump. A majority of people whose educational level is high school or less voted for Trump, while a majority of college graduates voted for Biden. Among white voters, the educational divide is even more stark. Majorities of white men voted for Trump, but among white men who didn’t go to college 64 per cent voted for Trump, while among white men who did go to college it was only 52 per cent. Meanwhile, 60 per cent of white women who didn’t go to college voted for Trump, whereas 59 per cent of white women who did go to college voted for Biden.
The educational divide is telling. Naturally, some observers claim it is proof that clever people primarily vote for Biden while dumb people prefer Trump. In truth, this split is primarily reflective of the key role universities now play as communicators of the new orthodoxies. In recent years, universities in the Anglosphere have gone from being citadels of intellectual consideration and experimentation to being factories of woke indoctrination. From critical race theory to genderfluidity, from the view of American history as one crime after another to the myopic policing of speech – including conversational speech in the form of ‘microaggressions’ – universities have become important transmitters of the ideologies of the new elites. As a consequence, one of the great ironies of our time is that it is those who have not attended a university who seem better able to think independently and to resist the coercions of elite-decreed correct-thought.
The ideas that hold on a university campus – that men can become women, that offensive people must be ‘cancelled’, that complimenting a woman on her hair is a racial microaggression, that describing America as a ‘melting pot’ is a denial of people’s ‘racial essence’, as UCLA has claimed – hold no sway whatsoever in the factories, delivery centres, mess rooms or bars of vast swathes of America. That university-educated and non-university-educated people now think so differently is testament, not to uneducated people’s stupidity, but to the transformation of universities into machines for socialising young adults into the ways and creeds of the removed new elites.
Indeed, the split of Biden and Trump voters on issues is striking, too. Of the voters who think the economy and jobs is the most important issue, the vast majority are Trump supporters: 81 per cent compared with just 16 per cent of Biden supporters. Of the voters who think racism is the most important issue, 78 per cent were Biden supporters and just 19 per cent were Trump supporters. And of the voters who think climate change is the most important issue, 86 per cent were Biden supporters and just 11 per cent were Trump supporters. On Covid, 83 per cent of Biden supporters said it is ‘not under control at all’, while just 15 per cent of Trump voters said the same thing.
This is incredibly revealing. On issues that are central to the clerisy’s worldview – the idea that racism in America is as bad as ever, that the climate is heating uncontrollably, that Covid poses an existential challenge to the future of the nation – Trump voters deviate consistently from the elite narrative. That isn’t to say that they don’t think climate change or racism are problems we must address – I’m sure majorities of them do. But they clearly reject the fatalism and dominance of these issues in the body politic. They clearly balk at the ceaseless discussions of America’s inescapable racism and the idea that if Americans do not radically alter their lifestyles then they will fry in the heat-death of climate catastrophe. They push back, in their thoughts and their votes, against the identitarianism and apocalypticism of the new elites. And they do so even on issues for which you can be cancelled for disagreeing. Try going on to a campus and saying that racism and climate change are not major issues for the US. You would be finished. But not in other parts of America. There, free discussion, or at least free thought, appears still to reign.
One study, published in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology after the 2016 election, described the widespread support for Trump among working-class or less-educated communities in particular as a form of ‘cultural deviance’. The study used over-psychologised language to describe people’s voting behaviour, but it hit on an important point: the evidence suggests that Trump-voting for many people was a form of ‘cultural deviance… [from] the salience of restrictive communication norms’. In short, the Trump phenomenon represents a revolt against the cultural supremacy of political correctness and its cancellation of any views or beliefs that are judged to be problematic. Trump became a vehicle for those who don’t agree that America is broken or racist, or that climate change will kill us all, or that identitarian correctness is more important than the economy and jobs, or that Trump is Hitler – things it is increasingly difficult to say in a polite society so feverishly policed by the new elites.
Perhaps the most important act of ‘cultural deviance’ carried out by the millions who chose Trump over Biden is their attempt to re-elevate class over identity. This is why the shift of working-class blacks and Latinos towards Trump is so important. It is also why Trump voters’ overwhelming belief that the economy and jobs is the most important issue in the US right now – in contrast with very small numbers of Biden voters who think the same thing – is so relevant. What we have witnessed in the US is a reassertion of the importance of class over identity, of the shared social and economic interests of a significant section of society over the narrow cultural obsessions of the new elites and their supporters in the new knowledge industries. The emerging populist coalition of working-class blacks, Latinos and non-university whites is a quiet revolt against the stranglehold that the upper middle-class elites have over the political narrative, and against the elites’ self-conscious promotion of the neoliberal myopia of identity and their diminution of the importance of class.
This is another reason why the elites are so furious in the wake of their own predicted election victory. It’s the key reason, in fact. Because they instinctively recognise that the economic concerns, and, more importantly, the economic consciousness, of substantial sections of society pose a threat to their ideological dominance. Witness the sneer, the naked contempt, with which the phrase ‘economic populism’ has been uttered by Biden-backing observers in recent days. ‘Economic populism’ is a cover for racism, our moral superiors insist. They dread nothing more than the re-emergence of a more class-based politics because they know it would run entirely counter, politically, morally and economically, to the divide-and-rule identitarianism they have cultivated in recent decades.
Corporations, academia, the education system, the Democratic establishment, the media elites and the social-media oligarchies are heavily invested in the cult of identity because it is a means through which they can renew their economic dominance over society and exercise moral authority over the masses. Identitarianism has provided spiritual renewal for the capitalist elites, new means of rebuking and censuring the workforce in corporations, and a sense of purpose for a political class utterly adrift from the working masses it might once have sought to appeal to. And they are not about to let some uppity blacks and Latinos and uneducated whites disrupt this new ruling-class ideology with their vulgar concerns about the economy and jobs.
Trump has lost. But so has the anti-Trump establishment. In some ways, the establishment’s loss is far more significant. These elites see in the 70million people who disobediently, flagrantly voted for ‘evil’, and who question the doom and divisiveness and censure of the new elites, a genuine mass threat to their right to rule and their self-serving ideologies. And they are right to. For these unconquerables, these teeming millions who have not been captured by the new orthodoxies, are proof that populism will survive Trump’s fall and that the self-protecting narratives of the new elites are not accepted by huge numbers of ordinary people.
This is the real resistance. Not the upper-middle-class TikTok revolutionaries and antifa fantasists whose every view – on trans issues, Black Lives Matter, the wickedness of Trump – corresponds precisely with the outlook of Google and Nike and the New York Times. No, the resistance is these working people. These defiant Hispanics. Those black men who did what black men are not supposed to do. Those non-college whites who think college ideologies are crazy. These people are the ones who have the balls and the independence of mind to force a serious rethink and realignment of the political sphere in the 21st-century West. More power to them.
Pictures by: Getty.
–Source: Joe Biden-Kamala Harris transition team. —
President-elect Joe Biden on Monday named the members of a team of public health and science experts to develop a blueprint for fighting the coronavirus.
A look at the members:
Dr. David Kessler, co-chair. Professor of pediatrics and epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco, U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner from 1990 to 1997.
Dr. Vivek Murthy, co-chair. U.S. surgeon general from 2014-17, who commanded public health force that dealt with Ebola, Zika and Flint water crisis.
Dr. Marcella Nunez-Smith, co-chair. Associate professor of internal medicine, public health and management at Yale University and associate dean for health equity research at Yale’s medical school specializing in health care for marginalized populations.
Dr. Rick Bright. Immunologist, virologist. Ousted as head of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority after criticizing the federal government’s response to the coronavirus under President Donald Trump. Bright filed a whistleblower complaint alleging he was reassigned to a lesser job because he resisted political pressure to allow widespread use of hydroxychloroquine, a malaria drug Trump pushed as a COVID-19 treatment.
Dr. Luciana Borio. Vice president of technical staff at the In-Q-Tel strategic investment firm who until last year was a biodefense specialist on the National Security Council.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. Oncologist and chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania who since 1997 has served as chair of the Department of Bioethics at The Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Atul Gawande. Professor of surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and at Harvard Medical School who served as a senior adviser in the Department of Health and Human Services in the Clinton administration.
Dr. Celine Gounder. Clinical assistant professor at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine who served as assistant commissioner and director of the Bureau of Tuberculosis Control at New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
Dr. Julie Morita. Executive vice president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation who helped lead Chicago’s Department of Public Health for nearly 20 years.
Michael Osterholm. Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, former science envoy for health security for the State Department.
Ms. Loyce Pace. Executive director and president of the Global Health Council, who previously served in leadership positions at the American Cancer Society.
Dr. Robert Rodriguez. Professor of emergency medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.
Dr. Eric Goosby. Infectious disease expert and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine who during the Clinton administration was the founding director of the largest federally funded HIV/AIDS program.
[Both the Democrats and their subservient media set out to sabotage every Trump move since before his first day in office. Obama and Hillary dedicated a team of State Dept. lawyers to investigate the new president and begin impeachment proceedings against him before the Dems left office. The majority of Biden supporters DID NOT vote for him because of anything he proposed, they merely voted for Biden because he wasn’t Trump. They voted for Creepy Joe because he wasn’t Trump…period.]
In an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” Buttigieg admitted that the federal government has – “for better or for worse” – a system of checks and balances where Senate leadership could “disagree with a majority of the American people.” He said that if a Republican Senate used their power to place a check on a Democratic White House, they would be holding back what the people want.
“At the end of the day the thing we have going for us is the American people are with us,” Buttigieg said, claiming that the Senate would be run by “minority rule” if Republicans block Democrat initiatives such as tax hikes and a public health care option.” He said it’s up to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
“Mitch McConnell’s going to have a decision to make. Is his purpose in Washington to defy the American people who, along with the president and the House of Representatives, will believe in expanding and not taking away health care,” Buttigieg said, “whether he wants to help move this country forward and influence progress or whether he wants to stop progress.”
In terms of the immediate future, Buttigieg touted Biden’s desire to hit the ground running in tackling the coronavirus pandemic. Biden is expected to announce his task force on Monday. Whether or not Biden takes any additional action before Inauguration Day remains to be seen.
“Well, he’ll decide on the best course of action,” Buttigieg said. He added that Biden will also “have to make a decision” regarding whether or not to get involved in negotiations with Congress over coronavirus relief legislation that has stalled for months.
“I think we all hope that that logjam in Washington comes to an end,” Buttigieg said.
The former South Bend, Ind., mayor was ultimately optimistic about a Biden administration, claiming that despite political differences, Biden shares common goals with people on both sides of the aisle.
“What Joe Biden wants for the country is what most Americans believe is right for the country,” he said.
[Trump has just de-designated another Islamist terrorist group, the Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP). This is just the latest terror group to be white-washed by Washington before being enlisted to be used to commit terrorism for us. It seems that it isn’t a group’s violent attacks upon civilians that makes it a “terrorist organization”, but whether the attacks upon civilians are done for us or to us. You see, it was never really a “war against terrorism”, but a war to secretly use terrorism against America’s adversaries. Other former de-designated terrorist outfits, now serving the American Empire in political or non-violent ways, are the KLA (SEE: “KOSOVO LIBERATION ARMY” Freedom Fighters or… ) and the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq) . ]
Mike Pompeo has decided that after 18 years, the violent East Turkistan Islamic Movement should no longer be considered a terrorist group – a move calculated to bring trouble to China’s Xinjiang Autonomous Region.
Whilst the world is distracted by the ongoing drama of the US presidential election, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was at work on Thursday making a very subtle, yet significant move.
He quietly announced to the United States Federal Register that the US had de-designated the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) as a terrorist organization.
ETIM is a Uyghur jihadist group which advocates independence for China’s Xinjiang Autonomous Region. It was listed as a terrorist organization by the US for 18 years, as well as having been blacklisted by the United Nations Security Council for links to Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS).
And it has been linked with numerous terrorist attacks within Xinjiang itself, as well as providing members who participated alongside Islamists in the Syrian Civil War.
The move by Pompeo is subtle, but significant and inherently political. It follows a long-established pattern of US foreign policymakers defining what constitutes a ‘terrorist’ – and what does not – in accordance with geopolitical preferences. Now, as it looks like Pompeo might end up leaving office, he’s seeking to leave a legacy which makes life difficult for China. The long-term goal? To potentially transform Xinjiang into ‘China’s Afghanistan’ and purposefully incite unrest in the region.
Xinjiang has been an increasing focus of Pompeo and US foreign policy as of late. America has sought to push a broader narrative that China is imprisoning over one million Uyghurs, a Muslim minority group, in a re-education system that has been likened to concentration camps. It has accused China of severe human rights abuses and oppression.
While Beijing admits to the existence of these facilities, it argues their purpose is to facilitate counter-terrorism in the region and calls them ‘vocational training centers’, a claim which has drawn plenty of skepticism. Either way, it is quite obvious that the issue is being weaponized in order to manufacture consent for a US-led confrontation of China.
And herein lies the subjective debate as to what constitutes ‘terrorism’ and what does not. As the saying goes “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist,” and never has that been more true than with the US, which happily interchanges the label as it wishes to push its political agenda.
For example, the Mujahideen fighters the US pitted against the USSR in Afghanistan were called ‘freedom fighters’, until of course they turned against America itself and played an instrumental role in the horror of 9/11, at which point they became terrorists.
North Korea is listed as a “state sponsor of terrorism” despite the fact it has no involvement with terrorism at all. Sudan was listed too, until it agreed to recognize Israel and then suddenly it wasn’t.
Likewise, Pompeo goes around the world demanding groups funded by Iran, such as Hezbollah, be described as terrorist organizations. But ETIM is apparently now acceptable, despite its UN blacklisting and association with a number of other groups the US considers to be terrorists.
The change in terminology for geopolitical motivations could not be more obvious and will now clearly be used to China’s detriment. And the implications are as follows: the US will no longer place sanctions on the group, crack down on its members (who have previously been detained in Guantanamo Bay) or blacklist it from the financial system. This will allow ETIM to have an effective ‘safe haven’ in the US where its members can seek political refuge, pool resources and evade Beijing’s influence.
The US hopes the long-term strategic goal to potentially encourage unrest and insurrection in Xinjiang itself will ultimately promote opposition to the Chinese Communist Party, which Pompeo frames as a cause for freedom and liberation.
It’s a reversal of nearly two decades of American foreign policy and a perfect example of what constitutes ‘terrorism’ shifting for strategic ends. After all, this is a region that is a geographic cornerstone of China’s Belt and Road initiative and the country’s main route into greater Eurasia, connecting it to the south with the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor into the Indian Ocean and to the north with Russia and Kazakhstan.
Why would Pompeo stifle a group whose primary focus is China itself? As the clock ticks on his own term in office, he’s just made a decision that could have long-term and far-reaching consequences.
[Former KLA terrorist leader Thaci thrilling US Sec/State Albright to a state of ecstasy.–(SEE: Secretary of State’s Love Affair with Kosovo Liberation Army )]
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with former leader of the KLA and “Prime Minister” of Kosovo
US Vice-President Jo Biden looks deeply into former KLA terrorist leader Thaci’s eyes.
“The 1999 NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia had the dubious distinction of being the first time NATO aligned itself with a terrorist organization fighting an insurgency
against a sovereign state. Defying the UN Security Council, the United States and its allies bombed the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for 78 days, providing vital air support for the Kosovo Liberation Army. The result of this open for support for the KLA has helped to encourage ethnic Albanian separatists to use terrorism to start insurgencies in Serbia’s Presevo Valley and neighboring Macedonia. Furthermore, separatist terror groups in the Chechnya and Turkey have been emboldened to continue their respective campaigns as a result of Western support for Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence in February, 2008. To discourage the Kosovo precedent from continuing, it is crucial that NATO member states do not repeat the mistakes made in Kosovo and never again support terrorist insurgencies.”—NATO and the KLA: How the West Encouraged Terrorism
The Special Prosecution Office in the Hague have announced that a ten-count indictment has been filed against Kosovo President Hashim Thaci and PDK leader Kadri Veseli, accusing them of criminal responsibility for nearly 100 murders.
On Wednesday, the Special Prosecution Office, SPO, in the Hague announced its intention to indict Kosovo President Hashim Thaci and former Speaker of the Assembly, Kadri Veseli, alongside other unnamed individuals, with ten counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The SPO stated that it filed an indictment to be reviewed by the Pretrial Chamber of the Court on April 24, charging Thaci and Veseli with “crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder, enforced disappearance of persons, persecution, and torture.”
According to a press release issued by Kosovo Specialist Chambers, KCS, on Wednesday, the allegations contained in the indictment would hold Thaci and Veseli criminally responsible for nearly 100 murders. “The crimes alleged in the indictment involve hundreds of known victims of Kosovo Albanian, Serb, Roma, and other ethnicities and include political opponents,” it states.
While the charges are yet to be approved by the Pretrial Chamber, the Special Prosecutor “deemed it necessary” to publicise the suspects of the indictment as a result of “repeated efforts by Hashim Thaci and Kadri Veseli to obstruct and undermine the work of the KSC.”
According to the press release issued on Wednesday, the Court believes that the president and the former speaker have been involved in a “secret campaign” attempting to obstruct the work of the court to ensure that they do not face justice.
“By taking these actions, Mr Thaci and Mr Veseli have put their personal interests ahead of the victims of their crimes, the rule of law, and all people of Kosovo,” the press release states.
Is Social Media Leading Us to Civil War?
Civil war. That’s what one tech industry executive said he fears most, if we don’t curtail our social media habit. This was in the documentary “Social Dilemma” available on Netflix.
As of last year, 72% of U.S. adults used social media regularly. Facebook is the most popular, and 74% of its users log on daily. From civil war down to a lack of tolerance, the movie concludes social media has set us on a bad path.
The scariest part of the film “Social Dilemma” was the explanation of the algorithms designed to keep you coming back.
Essentially, the system can tell what posts you engage the most with…. reading or watching the longest. And it feeds you more of that and less of other things.
This is all done without human oversight.
What gets you amped up on social media? Often it’s something just a little more inflammatory, a little more over the top, than, say, a measured news article that lists pros and cons on both sides. You read those “more exciting” things and you get more of them fed to you.
Another good tidbit from the film was the answer to the question, “How do those people believe all that silly stuff?”
Whether about Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton or Pizza gate or the WhatsApp scandals that led to murders of innocent people, fake news comes to those who consume it, and crowds out anything less exciting, i.e. more reality-based.
Social media trails only our local newspaper, The Signal, as being cited as a source of information in professional surveys done locally. Can you imagine what happens in areas that do not have local news coverage? That is how “those people” believe “all that silly stuff.”
One-sided information is all the vast majority of people see. That is not good for our world.
Government action and overall progress requires cooperation from many different interest groups for anything to succeed.
Gov. Gavin Newsom recently announced his goal of ending the sale of fossil-fuel-powered cars in California by 2035. In the face of climate change, stretch goals like this are important.
However, to have a hope of success, goals need to have buy-in from other people. Within days of the announcement, a Latino group took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times saying the measure would adversely affect low-income and agricultural workers.
There’s talk of electrifying our home appliances, too. More costs for people barely making it. Our power grid and power supply seem to be right on the edge now, and curtailments like we saw in the last heat wave are expected to happen more often.
That, too, has to be fixed if we need to rely even more on electricity. These are discussion points that need to be resolved, yet the battles of social media leave out anything but black and white.
The question really isn’t “do you believe in climate change?”
The bigger question is, can we work together to fix things?
What is equally important is recognizing that China produces double the greenhouse gases that the United States does, and their air pollution even reaches the West Coast of the U.S. India is just behind the U.S.
On a per-capita basis, countries such as Kuwait, Belize, Australia, Libya and even Luxembourg produced more greenhouse gas than the United States as of 2013 (more updated accounting is supposed to start in 2024). I certainly hope sharing and funding efficiencies in other countries is on the table as well.
As much as we like to start at home, tackling the big problems on a worldwide scale is going to help us more than making a farm worker change out their natural gas clothes dryer. This is but one action item in a sea of many that our leaders need to tackle. The solutions are not binary nor are they simple.
Social media essentially makes us decide, with our attention, what is important and what is correct. It does this by feeding us biased information, all day long. This lessens our ability and our understanding of how complex problems are, making us intolerant and cranky when it seems nothing is improving.
In reality, many smart people are working every day to make things better. I’d like to hear more about that and less about fighting over every topic. The real world isn’t social media, but we seem to forget that a little too much lately, at our peril.
Maria Gutzeit is a chemical engineer, business owner, elected official, and mom living in Santa Clarita. “Democratic Voices” appears Tuesdays and rotates among local Democrats.
Philadelphia police discover van loaded with explosives amid unrest over fatal shooting of Black man
N’dea Yancey-Bragg, Anthony V. Coppola
PHILADELPHIA — Philadelphia remains on high alert after police reportedly found explosives inside a van following multiple nights of protest over the shooting death of a Black man with a history of mental health problems.
Police recovered propane tanks, torches and possible dynamite sticks from the van Wednesday and it is unclear if anyone has been arrested in connection with the vehicle, WPVI reported. The Philadelphia Police Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from USA TODAY.
The city fell mostly silent Wednesday after officials instituted a citywide curfew following several nights of unrest over the police killing of Walter Wallace Jr.
While scattered reports of looting were still popping up throughout the city Wednesday night, the protests and confrontations that marred Philadelphia since Monday had all but dissipated. Police showed a heavy presence in the neighborhood near where Wallace died Wednesday in anticipation of a third night of discord, but that never materialized.
By 7:30 p.m., just 15 people had gathered for a “Justice for Walter Wallace Jr” protest in Center City. The group slowly disbanded and went its separate ways not long after.
Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said at a news conference Wednesday she plans to release 911 tapes and police body camera footage of the shooting once the department shares it with Wallace’s family.
Mayor Jim Kenney said the Pennsylvania National Guard would also be deployed to help protect property and assist the police. The first troops were expected Friday and Saturday.
Wallace, a 27-year-old aspiring rapper and father of nine, was shot Monday as officers responded to a report of a person with a weapon, police spokesperson Tanya Little said. Officers ordered Wallace to drop the knife, but he instead “advanced towards” them. Both officers then fired “several times,” Little said.
Video of the shooting was taken by a bystander and shared on social media which sparked protests in Philadelphia, the Brooklyn borough of New York City and Portland.
Protesters have also gathered in Washington, D.C. multiple nights this week following the death of 20 year-old Karon Hylton-Brown. Police say he died after officers attempted to make a traffic stop and Hylton-Brown’s moped collided with a passenger vehicle, but Hylton-Brown’s family told local media police are responsible for the crash.
The scene in Philadelphia on Wednesday was a stark contrast from what unfolded the nights before during which more than 170 people have been arrested and more than 50 police officers injured in clashes with protesters and vandals. Police said more than 1,000 people were looting businesses in the Port Richmond section of the city, breaking windows and stealing merchandise Tuesday night.
A lawyer representing the family told reporters Tuesday that Wallace had mental illness and had been taking lithium. Police officers responded twice to the Wallace residence Monday before returning a third time. Wallace’s brother reportedly called 911 looking for an ambulance.
Outlaw said her department lacks a mental health unit or consistent way to coordinate police calls with specialists.
“We don’t have a behavioral health unit, which is sorely needed,” Outlaw said. “There’s clearly a disconnect on our end in terms of knowing what’s out there “ at the scene.
Both Kenney and Outlaw pledged to address the lack of coordinated mental health services.
“We have limited resources and we have a large number of people with problems,” Kenney said. “We need to do a better job.”
Police shootings amid mental health crisis:Police have shot people experiencing a mental health crisis. Who should you call instead?
Contributing: The Associated Press
“Azerbaijani servicemen pay tribute to Major General Hazi Aslanov,twice Hero of the Soviet Union, Major General of Tank Troops Hazi Aslanov in Beylagan district.”
[Ten miles from Kerch Straits, scene of last tanker explosion in Sea of Azov. Was the Russian ship attacked by Turkish forces? Or, should we ask whether the Russian ship, named after a famous Azeri general, was attacked by Armenians”]
MOSCOW — A Russian oil tanker experienced an explosion in the Sea of Azov and an operation to rescue three of its crew members was underway Saturday, officials said.
The Russian Emergencies Ministry said the explosion on the General Azi Aslanov took place as the tanker was traveling from the port of Kavkaz to the city of Rostov-on-Don. Authorities said 10 members of the tanker’s 13-person crew havebeen rescued, while the remaining three were believed to be in the water.
The tanker has tilted and efforts to stabilize the ship were underway.
Maritime officials said the tanker wasn’t loaded explosion may have been triggered by flammable vapors left behind from the vessel’s previous cargo.
Sudanese people have taken to the streets of the country’s capital to condemn the c junta’s decision to normalize relations with Israeli regime.
They rallied in Khartoum Friday evening, calling on Sudan’s Sovereign Council chief General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan to reject the normalization deal.
“No to negotiations, peace … and reconciliation with the [Israeli] regime,” they chanted. “We will neither surrender, nor will we relinquish … We are standing with Palestine,” they cried as they set the Israeli flag on fire.
Numerous Sudanese political parties also lined up to declare their outright rejection of the normalization agreement between their country and Israel, stressing they are going to form a front to oppose the move.
Sudanese Ba’ath Party, the Sudanese Communist Party, National Consensus Forces (NCF) – a coalition of political parties – the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC) alliance, the Popular Congress Party as well as Sudan Change Now political movement stated that they are fiercely against any relationship between Khartoum and Tel Aviv.
“A few days ago, we embarked on intense political contacts with distinguished artists as well as cultural and literary figures to form a front against normalization,” spokesman for the Sudanese Baath Party Muhammad Wadaa said.
“There are a number of parties within the FFC that have warned to withdraw support for the government upon normalization, and other parties have announced similar positions.”
Wadaa highlighted that there are consultations and meetings on how to stand against the normalization.
“Normalization with Israel is an unacceptable step… The government is not authorized to take such a measure with a usurping and racist regime, which practices religious discrimination,” he said.
Wadaa lashed out at the Sudanese government over making normalization with Israel a condition for resolving economic woes.
“The government must not have invoked to sell the country and Sudan’s history on the pretext of economic difficulties,” he said.
“The government must resign and cede power to the people if it is unable to overcome difficulties by itself.”
US President Donald Trump announced on Friday at the White House that Sudan and Israel had agreed to normalize relations.
Trump sealed the agreement in a phone call with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sudanese prime minister Abdalla Hamdok and Burhan, senior US officials said.
Sudan’s acting foreign minister Omar Gamareldin, however, said on Friday the accord will depend on approval from its yet-to-be formed legislative council. It is unclear when the assembly will be formed under a power-sharing deal between the country’s military officers and civilians.
For anyone who cares, my uncle Paul’s family in Naples, Florida became infected by Covid-19, the “Fake Virus” at a nearly deserted local bowling alley. After a week in intensive care on ventilators (still on ventilators), both my uncle and his wife were pronounced cured and released…their son stayed in the hospital until he passed away. He was a diabetic. He did NOT die from the flu!
The Guantanamo detainees were promised they were being sent to a Muslim country for rehabilitation that would help integrate them into society, opening the way to jobs, money, and marriage, according to their lawyers and families.
It was a lie [SEE: Yemen–al-Munasaha , Saudi Re-Education].
Instead, the detainees — 18 Yemenis and one Russian, swept up from Afghanistan and Pakistan after the Sept. 11 attacks — have languished in custody in the United Arab Emirates for as long as five years, their families and lawyers tell The Associated Press.
In short, sporadic phone calls from undisclosed locations in the UAE — including a notorious prison rife with torture — several whispered to their families that as bad as life in Guantanamo was, they wish they could return there.
When one complained of “pressures” three years ago, the call was cut off; he has not been heard from since. When the Russian staged a hunger strike, he was dumped in solitary confinement and roughed up.
Now there are plans to send them to Yemen, where their families fear their treatment will be even worse.
A senior Yemeni government official confirmed the plans, pending security arrangements; a State Department official indicated the U.S. government was aware that it was happening. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press. The UAE didn’t respond to AP questions.
United Nations rights experts described the men’s upcoming repatriation as a “forced return,” warning that it violates international laws.
Their destination is a poor Arab country wracked by a grinding civil war for the past six years. Torture and arbitrary detention are widespread in networks of secret and formal prisons run by various factions controlling different parts of the country.
“Here the legitimate government itself is not safe. Who will be in charge of them?” said Hussien, a brother of Bir, one of the detainees.
The family of a second detainee, Salem, said: “We fear they will be gunned down or rounded up as soon as they put a foot in Yemen.”
And if they survive, they may be prime recruits for terrorists in Yemen. Ibrahim al-Qosi, is a former Guantanamo detainee who was transferred to Sudan in 2012 before surfacing as an al-Qaida group leader in Yemen two years later.
The lingering confinement of these men violates promises made by U.S. officials when they were sent to the UAE in 2015-17. It underscores flaws in the transfer program and the failure of President Donald Trump’s administration to ensure their humane treatment.
President Barack Obama pressed to close the Guantanamo facility amid opposition from Congress. The plan was to prosecute some detainees and to continue to hold others without charges while their cases were evaluated by review boards Those no longer deemed dangerous were to be transferred to their homelands or third countries.
Trump had other plans. Before taking office, he declared on Twitter that there would be “no further releases from GITMO.” His administration dismantled an entire office tasked with closing the Guantanamo facility, overseeing transfers, and following up on the resettled detainees.
Terms of the agreements the U.S. struck with the UAE and dozens of other countries that received Guantanamo detainees weren’t made public. But Ian Moss, a former chief of staff for the State Department’s Guantanamo envoy, insisted that, “We wanted these individuals after they were released to have a fresh start in life. It wasn’t part of the deal that they be incarcerated. That was never part of the deal.”
Moss blamed the current administration for lack of engagement, saying that “the Emiratis knew that the Trump administration didn’t care about what they did with these people or how they treated them. This is disgraceful.”
Lee Wolosky was the special envoy for Guantanamo closure from 2015 to 2017, the period when the Yemenis were transferred to the UAE. “I can categorically deny that there was a plan to keep the men in detention following their transfer from U.S. custody,” he said in an email.
Under Trump, only one prisoner, a Saudi, was transferred to Saudi Arabia to serve the remainder of his sentence after he agreed to a plea bargain.
Under Obama, a total of 197 were transferred to other countries, while 500 were transferred by George W. Bush. The U.S. base now has 40 detainees; most are being held without charges and a third are Yemenis.
Katie Taylor is deputy director of the United Kingdom-based group Reprieve and coordinator of the group’s Life After Guantanamo project. She told the AP that after documenting the lives of nearly 60 former detainees in 25 countries, “I have to say that the situation facing the men resettled in the UAE is among the worst and most troubling.”
It is not clear whether there are now 17 or 18 detainees in UAE hands; unconfirmed reports suggest one Yemeni left prison because of medical complications.
One detainee is represented by lawyer Patricia Bronte. (His name and the full names of all the Yemeni detainees are being withheld for fear that they might face retribution.) She recalled that State Department officials had told her and the detainees that they would be held from six to 12 months in a rehabilitation facility, and then they would be allowed to reunite with their families in the UAE.
“From early on, the assurances I have been given weren’t lived up to,” she said.
She has had no contact with her client since his arrival in the UAE in 2016. Families of the detainees say their communication with their loved ones has been infrequent, and troubling:
—Abdo, 41, told his brother that he spent 70 days in solitary confinement — blindfolded, handcuffed, and with hands and feet chained to the ground — upon his arrival. There was no rehabilitation or “de-radicalization sessions,” his brother Ahmed told the AP. Abdo and other detainees moved to a “filthy and dark prison” for 16 months.
“It was just terrible there,” the brother quoted Abdo as saying. He was later moved to al-Razin prison, located nearly 200 kilometers (125 miles) from Dubai, where human rights groups have documented abuses and torture.
In the spring of 2019, Abdo was brought back to the “filthy” prison, where he remains.
The brother quoted Abdo as saying, “It’s not what I thought. I wish I return to Guantanamo … it’s 1,000 times worse here.” Then the phone call was cut off.
—Bir, a 41-year-old nurse, was identified by Guantanamo’s Periodic Review Board in 2015 as a “low-level Yemeni militant” who was arrested in Pakistani raids in Sept 2002 and transferred to Guantanamo.
His brother, Hussein, told the AP that despite earlier promises of a new life, his brother ended up in “mysterious conditions. We know nothing.”
“He continues to live behind bars with other Yemeni detainees, they are facing the most brutal injustice in the history,” Hussein said. In phone calls every 10 days, he said, “He says nothing except for, ‘How are you?’ He can’t speak. They are banned.”
—Ravil Mingazov, a former ballet dancer and an ex-member of the military, was the only Russian left in Guantanamo when he was sent to the UAE. He was accused of fighting with the Taliban. A Pentagon profile also alleged he had links to an Islamic group in Uzbekistan with ties to al-Qaida, and said he was captured in Pakistan at a safe house associated with Abu Zubaydah, a “facilitator” for the terrorist organization.
He has never physically met his 19-year-old son Yusuf, who lives in London. But they have talked: Yusuf said his father complained that he had been humiliated by his captors and had been deprived of food and medicine.
Mingazov’s mother, Zoria Valiullina, said her son wanted to return to Guantanamo. “It’s better there.”
—The family of Abdel-Rab, 44, said he disappeared three years ago after two phone calls during which he complained about conditions, and nervously said, “I am under pressure … Guantanamo was much better. One billion times.”
The call was cut off; he never called again. His family members said they have no clue if he is alive.
According to records, Abdel-Rab had told interrogators that he worked as a house painter in Yemen before he left for Afghanistan in 2000 to study and teach Quran. He was captured in a crackdown on those suspected of links to al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and landed in Guantanamo in 2002.
In June, a man pretending to be Abdel-Rab called the family. “It wasn’t his voice. He wasn’t the same,” said his brother.
Hamidullah, another detainee, lived to tell about the conditions of his imprisonment in the UAE, though only barely. He spent 3½ years in UAE prisons before he was returned to Afghanistan in December.
Hamidullah’s private counsel wrote that his client was a “model detainee” a “peaceful man” who had never been a member of the Taliban, and “in fact, he was imprisoned by the Taliban in late 1990s.”
Surviving a decade in Guantanamo, pictures in official documents showed a cheerful man with salt-and-pepper, curly hair.
He and the other Afghani detainees were sent to the UAE in 2015. His son Ahmed recalled in labored English the first time he visited his father there, how he was “brought with chains in hands and feet, covered eyes with black cloth, and was also tighten with chains in the seat.”
After his return to Afghanistan, Hamidullah shared more details of his imprisonment. Guards forced him to strip naked every time he went to the bathroom. They would harshly clutch his shoulders and put his head down while leading him out of the cell.
“It was mental torture,” he said.
Hamidullah died in May, having enjoyed just four months of freedom after nearly 20 years in detention. His family believes that the conditions he endured in UAE prisons contributed to his death.
La Nouvelle Republique newspaper was attacked on social media after it published a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed on its front page on Sunday, in an editorial response to last week’s brutal killing of teacher Samuel Paty.
Editorial director of La Nouvelle Republique, Christophe Herigault, told BFM TV on Wednesday that, despite the mostly positive response that their front page got on October 18, they received “four or five threats, notably on Facebook, which has led us to lodge a judicial complaint.”
Herigault defended the publication’s decision to publish the cartoon despite the threats, stating that “there was absolutely no desire to provoke” but it was done to express the paper’s anger over the teacher’s killing.
The police in France have not yet commented on the recent threats. However, French President Emmanuel Macron promised on Tuesday to take “concrete actions” against “the evil that is radical Islam” and announced that the Cheikh Yassine Collective, a Muslim group linked to Hamas that was “directly implicated” in the recent murder, would be broken up.
Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin also called for two Islamic NGOs to be dissolved, after they were accused of taking part in a social media campaign against Paty that led to his death.
Paty’s brutal killing has provoked deep emotions across France, which has a long history of combating violent acts of extremism, and sparked rallies to pay tribute to him and pledge support for free speech throughout the nation.
Less than a month before Paty’s murder, four people were wounded outside the old headquarters of Charlie Hebdo in retaliation for the magazine republishing a 2015 front page that featured a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed. The act was to mark the start of the trial of three men accused of aiding a terrorist attack carried out against Charlie Hebdo in January 2015. Twelve people were killed at the magazine’s office by gunmen angered by Charlie Hebdo’s publication of caricatures of the Islamic prophet.
[SEE: Karachi affair ]
Army Chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa has taken notice of and ordered an immediate inquiry into the “Karachi incident”, the military’s media wing said on Tuesday.
He has directed the Karachi Corps Commander to “immediately inquire into the circumstances to determine the facts and report back as soon as possible”, according to the statement issued by the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR).
While the ISPR did not specify which incident it was referring to, the statement came minutes after PPP Chairperson Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari called on Gen Bajwa and Director General Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt Gen Faiz Hameed to investigate the circumstances surrounding the arrest of PML-N leader retired Capt Mohammad Safdar in Karachi a day earlier.
In a tweet from its official account, the PPP said Gen Bajwa also called Bilawal “over the telephone to discuss the Karachi incident this evening”.
“The Chairman PPP expressed his appreciation to the COAS for taking prompt notice of the Karachi incident and his assurance of conducting a transparent inquiry on the incident,” it added.
Safdar and his wife, PML-N Vice President Maryam Nawaz, were in the city to attend a rally of the opposition’s Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) when he was arrested from their hotel early on Monday morning. He was subsequently released on bail.
Addressing a press conference in Karachi, Bilawal said all top officers of Sindh Police were wondering “who were the people who surrounded” the Sindh police chief’s house in the early hours of Monday and took him to an unspecified location before Safdar was arrested.
He also demanded to know the identities of “the two people who went inside the IG’s house” and where they allegedly took the police chief at around 4am.
“I demand of DG ISI Faiz Hameed and Chief of Army Staff Gen Bajwa to investigate your institution [and] how it is operating in this province,” the PPP leader said, adding that the provincial government will carry out its own inquiry.
He said the advice to carry out Safdar’s arrest in that manner was “wrong” and could damage the armed forces’ “institutional integrity”.
Following Safdar’s arrest, a purported voice message by PML-N leader and former Sindh governor Muhammad Zubair was shared by a journalist in which Zubair alleged that the inspector general of police was kidnapped and forced to register the first information report against Maryam, her husband Safdar and 200 others for violating the sanctity of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s mausoleum.
In the audio clip circulating on Twitter, Zubair purportedly said that Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah confirmed to him that police was pressured into making the arrest. “When they (police) refused to do that, Rangers kidnapped [the IGP],” Zubair said.
Maryam had also alleged that the Sindh police chief was forcibly “taken to the sector commander’s office and asked to sign on the arrest orders”. She claimed that when the IGP showed reluctance, he was told that the arrest would be carried out by the Rangers. “After his signatures were forcibly taken on the arrest orders, he was told police would carry out the arrest.”
The allegation was denied by Maritime Affairs Minister Ali Zaidi as “nonsense narrative”.
I am ashamed: Bilawal
Terming the manner in which Safdar was arrested as “shameful”, Bilawal said he could not condemn it enough.
“I am ashamed [and] unable to show my face over what has taken place in my province,” he added.
He said there was a furore over the political slogans raised by Safdar at the Quaid’s mausoleum, but asked why no action was taken when PTI workers “did similar sloganeering” during Imran Khan’s visit to the tomb and when “banned outfits” raised their own slogans there.
“Harassing them (Maryam and Safdar) early in the morning and arresting Safdar is an insult to the people of Sindh who had invited Maryam sahiba and the N-league delegation to attend the PDM jalsa,” the PPP leader said.
He said the numbers in which the people of Sindh had attended the rally was “an open referendum against Imran Khan and his facilitators”.
Vowing that the Sindh government will fully pursue the investigation into the episode involving Safdar’s arrest, Bilawal said a number of top Sindh Police officers were “resigning or going on leave” because the incident had become a “question of their honour”.
He said the Sindh government did not want any political interference in the police “but this does not mean we will tolerate interference from somewhere else”.
“How does it make sense that the IG is holding a meeting at 4am about some slogans that were raised at the Quaid’s mausoleum?” he said, adding that there were many other issues to discuss in meetings.
“The job of the offices of such an important institution in this province should be [regarding] national security [and] to maintain peace in the province.
“If there is no respect left for my police, how will they do their jobs? This is unacceptable,” Bilawal stressed.
He said “there should be some red lines which are not to be crossed” and, “I think many red lines were crossed in this incident which should not become a precedent.”
Bilawal was asked by a journalist whether it was through a strategy that Chief Minister Shah had not issued the hard-hitting statements that he (Bilawal) did during his press conference earlier in the day. According to the journalist, police officers were “disappointed” that Shah had “not once” taken the IG’s name during his presser.
In response, Bilawal said the police officers were going on leave because they were disrespected “not by the chief minister, but from somewhere else”. He said the entire PPP and Sindh government stood with the police department.
‘Pakistan has changed’
Maryam on Twitter lauded Sindh Police officers for stepping back from their duties over the incident. “I salute the Sindh Police!,” she wrote, including a quote by the Quaid-i-Azam advising public servants “not [to] fall victim to any pressure”.
She said it was “heartening to see civilians breaking shackles of fear, standing up for supremacy of constitution & reclaiming their long lost rights. The conspiracy & conspirators stand badly exposed.”
She also thanked Bilawal for his “support and clear stance”, saying “Pakistan has changed.”
Meanwhile, PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif said the events that unfolded in Karachi were “clear proof of our narrative that there is ‘a state above the state'”.
Without naming anyone, he said: “You made a mockery of the elected provincial government’s powers” and “brought a bad name to the Pakistan Army”.
Reacting to Bilawal’s statements, Minister Ali Zaidi said: “Sindh government and its inept governance are proving to be a cruel joke as IG & Additional IG go on long leave in the aftermath of Capt Safdar’s arrest.”
“Who is really in charge of this government which is being run worst than a zoo?” he asked.
Zaidi alleged that even “simple enforcement of the law in Sindh has become laughable due to the politicisation of police by PPP for 12+ years”.
“How can they even think of publicly claiming that the IG was kidnapped in the middle of the night! Who are they trying to fool?”
Now that burning down America has “suddenly” become unpopular in the secret in-house DNC polls, the Democratic candidates are no longer calling arson “peaceful protesting,” rioting “freedom of expression,” the sacking of department stores “mothers in search of bread for their hungry children,” and the beating of people wearing MAGA hats “public discussion.” Therefore the Democrats need to rebrand its cheered-on destruction of American cities. The solution is the usual one. Trump did it! And the media leash-dogs of the DNC instantly start barking out lead stories. “Trump burned down America’s cities!” “Trump did nothing to stop the carnage!” Of course, nothing is said of Trump’s endless offers to send in the National Guard only to be abusively rebuffed by Democratic mayors and governors, and then threatened with lawsuits.
But all of this is just the political theater of the socialist absurd, which is a cunningly dumb play written by the liberal media and funded by secret opinion puppet masters. The really strategic question is why the Democrats would allow their cities to be ruined in the first place.
Unfortunately the answer is simple and even obvious. The radical Democrats consider themselves to be in a state of war with Trump. As any general can tell you, you must waste some of your forces if you fight a war. That being the case, these radical Democrats are quite willing to “waste” hundreds of their cities’ buildings and businesses and cause numerous deaths to win Washington in November. And why not? If they win, they can write themselves a Washington check to rebuild what they themselves wrecked through their hatred of private property and the rule of law.
Some readers will express astonishment at this seemingly cynical assessment, and therefore doubt its credibility. But anyone who has studied communism knows that the ends always justify the means for such ruthless revolutionaries, and that “peace-loving” radicals will destroy anything to take control of everything. “You can’t make an omelet without cracking eggs!” is the old communist mantra, and it’s always repeated with a crass and nasty laughter.
Replace “eggs” with “heads” and you’ll get its meaning. Lenin, Stalin, and Mao had no problem with cracking eggs — millions of them — to move history “forward” into their rude and brutal hands. The same cynical disregard for individual lives and private property is now on display in America’s own DNC “liberation” cities. There’s only one small problem. You could be the next “sacrifice to progress” in the name of “the people’s freedom” in these tyrants’ bid for total and permanent power. And then they’ll laugh at the human omelet they’ve made of you and your family and your reputation and your property.
Stop this “Radical War On America”!
This week, social media giants Twitter and Facebook proved that their monopolistic malpractice is a big problem for politics and culture in America.
When the New York Post published a story about suspicious emails that had been allegedly discovered between Hunter Biden and officials at the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, where he was paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to serve on the board, the revelations were remarkable.
In one alleged missive from 2015, a Burisma adviser named Vadym Pozharskyi thanked the vice president’s son “for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent (sic) some time together. It’s realty (sic) an honor and pleasure.”
The Biden campaign has insisted that no such meeting was found to be on the official schedule, but they do not outright dispute the content of the emails or deny that an informal meeting could have occurred.
A year earlier, right after the younger Biden had been added to the company’s board, Pozharskyi asked him for “advice on how you could use your influence to convey a message/signal” to put a stop to an investigation into the company. Later, Vice President Biden bragged he had been able to get the prosecutor fired.
The trove of correspondence was passed on to the Post by Rudy Giuliani who has been loudly trying to draw connections of corruption between interests in Ukraine and Joe Biden via his son, Hunter.
According the the New York Post, the emails were recovered from a computer that was dropped off at a Delaware repair shop and never retrieved. It is not known who dropped the machine off.
What makes all this most newsworthy is that Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for president, has been denying that he’d ever taken part in his son’s business overseas or that he was even aware of what that business was.
These emails go directly to refuting that and suggest that Biden was used by his son for payment in exchange for influence.
Thus, the story ran and was distributed through social media until prominent, anti-Trump users demanded that it stop.
Kyle Griffin, an MSNBC producer with more than 900,000 followers tweeted, “No one should link to or share that NY Post ‘report’. You can discuss the obvious flaws and unanswerable questions in the report without amplifying what appears to be disinformation.”
Andy Stone, who works in the communications department at Facebook but has a long resume featuring jobs with various Democratic organizations was also containing the story. “While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post,” Stone tweeted, “I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebook’s third-party fact checking partners. In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform.”
By the afternoon, Twitter started blocking sharing of the article in any form, warning users away from the link, and locking prominent accounts that shared it, including that of the New York Post itself, Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany and the Trump campaign account @teamtrump.
In doing so, they turned a shady October surprise leak that would have been ignored by many in the mainstream into a major story that is reverberating through the country. What, many Americans wonder, do these massive tech companies want so badly to hide from them?
The selective censorship by social media monopolies threatens to divide our nation to a degree we have never seen before.
George Soros “has his tentacles all over the place and has enormous influence,” says the president of the American Zionist Organization
Hungarian-born American financier George Soros, founder of the Open Society Foundation, may be Jewish, but many prominent conservative Jews says that legitimate criticism of Soros is not anti-Semitic and completely warranted due to his power and progressive positions.
In fact, there is substantial opposition to Soros’s views that are by no means uncommon in centrist and right-wing Jewish circles, with the billionaire’s anti-Israel activities at the forefront, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA).
Prominent Israeli orthodox rabbi Pesach Lerner says that Soros is only “superficially Jewish” and works against the Jewish people.
“Yes, Soros is part of the Jewish nation, but ideologically he is not merely distant but openly hostile towards Israel and Jewish interests,” Lerner said last December, when when American conservative and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani stated he was more Jewish than Soros. “It is ridiculous to link an accurate critique of the use of Soros’ wealth to influence certain public officials to hateful, anti-Semitic lies about Jewish communal control over government at large.”
Famous right-wing pro-Israeli donor Adam Milstein voiced an even harsher criticism, saying Soros was funding the anti-fascist network Antifa, calling him a “self-hating Jew” and even questioning his Holocaust survival. In 2017, Milstein tweeted and then deleted a picture of Soros depicted as an octopus with his tentacles spreading across the globe.
The American Zionist Organization recently issued a press release calling Soros a “radical anti-Zionist.” The group’s president, Morton Klein also recently tweeted that “condemning anti-Israel extremist George Soros is not anti-Semitic just like condemning racist David Duke is not anti-White.”
Klein says he is not worried about fueling anti-Semitisim, saying that if he was an artist, he would also depict Soros as an octopus spread out across the globe because Soros “has his tentacles all over the place and has enormous influence.”
According to the JTA article, “Klein acknowledged that such an image could echo an anti-Semitic stereotype about Jews, money and power, but said that in Soros’ case it is warranted.”
Despite what Jewish conservatives may believe about Soros, criticism of the progressive billionaire is increasingly frowned upon and even outright censored in some instances in countries such as the US.
Just last week, Fox News hosts cut off prominent conservative Newt Gingrich when he brought up Soros and his funding of progressive District Attorneys in races across the United States, which Gingrich saying these DAs are against law and order and responsible for releasing violent criminals on the streets of the US. The video of the hosts essentially censoring Gingrich for bringing up Soros went viral across the web and led conservatives to question why Soros’s name cannot be mentioned even when pointing to specific policies and facts surrounding his progressive activities.
This is one of the weirdest exchanges I’ve ever seen on TV. @newtgingrich correctly points out that George Soros threw an unprecedented amount of money into DA races all over the country to elect radicals and Fox News basically told him to shut up. WTF? pic.twitter.com/IxwcLG2gOH
— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) September 16, 2020
Although the host issued an apology, saying they “don’t censor” on the show, Gingrich complained that criticism of Soros is illegitimately tied to claims of anti-Semitism.
Why are some in the left so afraid of our mentioning George Soros’ name that they scream anti-semitic? It IS his name. He IS funding pro-criminal,anti police district attorneys. Why is the left afraid of the facts?
— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) September 9, 2020
Former Fox News host and conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly also mentioned that it is increasingly difficult to mention Soros due to claims of anti-Semitism and that it is serving as a restriction on discussing Soros’s political activity.
Bill O’Reilly on Fox News’ Awkward George Soros Moment
“Soros is using his billions of dollars to undermine the justice system in the United States—and you can’t discuss that?” pic.twitter.com/yfGHfP2T6D
— No Spin News (@NoSpinNews) September 18, 2020
The issue of Soros has cause consternation in the Jewish conservative community, with the billionaire becoming the face of progressive movements around world through his massive spending through his Open Society Foundation.
“It cannot be the case that all criticism of something Jewish is necessarily anti-Semitic,” Pasek said, but added that “the decision that you want to make it about Soros, even if for you it isn’t about his Jewishness, will almost undoubtedly feed into anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.”
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency writes that much of the theories about Soros sprung up in reaction to the 2015 migrant crisis and that “conspiracy theories about Soros have been around for a long time, but they gained momentum during the 2015 refugee crisis in Europe. Soros’ charity network, the Open Society Foundations, donated to groups that helped migrants seeking entry into Europe, and anti-Semites accused Soros of trying to replace Europe’s white residents with Muslim refugees.”
At the time, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán directed criticism at Soros for his pro-migration stance, his support for pro-migration NGOs, and his comments on the crisis, including his belief that Europe should borrow billions of euros to pay for refugees.
Although left-wing news outlets like the Guardian and even Soros himself have tried to paint Orbán’s criticisms as anti-Semitic, the government has adamantly denied this claim, saying it is not anti-Semitic to point to Soros’s activities undermining democratically-elected governments. It also points to the Hungarian government’s steadfast support for Israel and Hungary’s Jewish community.
At the same time, comments from Soros such as, “[Europe] has to accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future” did lend real worries that Soros was participating in population experiments that would affect the demographic future of Europe.
Soros has become an increasingly popular target for the right within the US, especially due to his activities over the last years, including his recent decision to donate over $50 million to support presidential candidate Joe Biden, however, much of his activities began in Central European countries like Hungary, which underlines his global reach.
P.O. Box 6157 Leesburg, Virginia 20178
On the cover: George Soros; Cover design: Chris Jadatz; Photo: EIRNS/Stuart Lewis.
© June 2008 LLPPA-2008-006
Paid for by the Lyndon LaRouche PAC, P.O. Box 6157, Leesburg, VA 20178.
http://www.larouchepac.com and Not Authorized by Any Candidate or Candidate’s Committee
George Soros: Hit-man for the British Oligarchy 2
Does Soros Have a Drug Problem? 6
George Soros: The Forced-Open Society 9
The Case of Malaysia 13
George Soros Buys the Nomination,
Obama Borrows It 16
Lessons for Denver: FDR’s 1932 Victory
Over London’s Wall Street Fascists 18
The British financial Oligarchy is desperately committed
to completely annihilating all forms of sovereign
nation states from our planet, most importantly the United
States, and George Soros is their chosen hit-man to accomplish
the task. Directly, on behalf of the city of London,
George Soros, with the aid of his puppet, Democratic
National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, bankrolled
filthy operations against Hillary Clinton’s presidential primary
campaign, to guarantee that no policies which reflect
a revival of Franklin Roosevelt’s commitment to the
lower 80% of family income brackets take hold in the
White House after November 2008. Soros is no new comer
to the world of criminal activity. According to former
associates and published reports he was handed his startup
money by Baron Edmond de Rothschild’s right-hand
man, George Karlweiss, who also launched the career of
fugitive narcotics-trafficker Robert Vesco. Since then, Soros
has been involved in various vicious operations, under
the direction of the British Empire, such as financial speculative
warfare to destroy national currencies, pushing
murderous, “useless eater” euthanasia policies, and massively
financing international campaigns for the legalization
of drugs. But of course, the disgraceful character of
George Soros is not solely attributable to himself, but
rather, it was partially generated by his handlers during
his formative adolescent years: the Nazis.
The Golem is born
The pathetic creature known as George Soros made a
willful decision early in life to become the character that
he is now: a Golem. A teenager during the Nazi Occupation
of his homeland, Hungary, Soros began his genocidal
legacy by working for the killing machines that slaughtered
500,000 Hungarian Jews during the Holocaust.
Young Soros was given a job looting the properties of Jews
under the regime of SS Lt. Gen. Kurt Becher, head of the
Waffen SS section known euphemistically as The Economic
Department of the SS Command.
Back during Presidential campaign year 2004, my associates and I were calling attention
to an important book on the subject of The Confessions of an Economic Hit-
Man. That man had a conscience. In the following report, LPAC is featuring a much bigger
story, on the subject of George Soros as a political-economic hit-man. The George
Soros we present in this report, has no conscience about what he has done, or what he
does. This is a report written, in large part, by Soros’ own mouth.
George Soros is not a top-ranking financier, he is like the mafia thug, without a real
conscience, like a thug sent to kill a friend of yours, but only a hit-man for the really big
financial interests, hired out to rob your friends, and you, of about everything, including
their nation, and your personal freedom.
George Soros does not actually own Senator Barack Obama; some other people do;
but, Soros is a key controller, and seemingly the virtual owner of both Democratic Party
Chairman Howard “Scream” Dean, that Party, perhaps your political party, and, in fact,
your nation, which are both what political-economic hit-man George Soros is aiming to
—Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
June 16, 2008
George Soros: Hit-man for
The British Oligarchy
by Hector A. Rivas, Jr.
Soros credits his father for his own good fortune in
avoiding the gruesome scenes of the concentration camps.
In a broadcast on WNET/Thirteen TV on April 15, 1993
Soros recalled those experiences that formed his beastly
identity: “When the Germans came in, he [the father—ed]
said, ‘This is a lawless occupation. The normal rules don’t
apply. You have to forget how you behave in a normal society.
This is an abnormal situation.’ And he arranged for
all of us to have false papers, everybody had a different arrangement.
I was adopted by an official of the minister of
agriculture, whose job was to take over Jewish properties,
so I actually went with him and we took possession of
these large estates. That was my identity. So it’s a strange,
very strange life. I was 14 years old at the time.” His Father,
Tivadar Soros, professed further that, “as pseudo-
Christians, we had not quite reached that level of Christianity
where we were willing to return bread for stones.”
The Soros family indeed offered plenty of stones to the
many poor Hungarian Jews who were shipped off to Auschwitz
to meet their death.1
The Soros family was among the “elite” Hungarian
Jews, which afforded them the ability to make arrangements
to survive under the Nazi occupation. Prince Alexis
Scherbatoff, former member of the U.S. Army Counterintelligence
Corps before and after WWII, alleged that Soros
obtained his first small fortune by selling his share of the
loot seized with the Nazis. He reported that Soros’ first accomplice
was another Hungarian Jew, who sold rubies
and other Nazi plunder in Belgium after World War II.
Ben Hecht, author of the book Perfidy, documents the
activities of the Nazi Economic Department in Hungary,
and the atrocities committed by the employers of young
Soros. The Department was in charge of pillaging Jewish
properties and “removing the gold fillings from the millions
of teeth of the dead Jews; in cutting off the hair of
millions of Jewesses before killing them, and shipping
bales of hair to Germany’s mattress factories; in converting
the fat of dead Jews into bath soap, and in figuring out
effective methods of torture to induce the Jews awaiting
death to reveal where they had hidden their last possessions.”
George Soros was confronted with such images during
an interview with Steve Kroft on CBS’s 60 Minutes on December
Kroft: (Voiceover) These are pictures from 1944 of
what happened to George Soros’ friends and neighbors.
(Vintage footage of women and men with bags over their
shoulders walking; crowd by a train)
Kroft: (Voiceover) You’re a Hungarian Jew. . .
Mr. Soros: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.
Kroft: (Voiceover) . . .who escaped the Holocaust. . .
(Vintage footage of women walking by train)
Mr. Soros: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm. (Vintage footage of
people getting on train)
Kroft: (Voiceover) . . .by–by posing as a Christian.
Mr. Soros: (Voiceover) Right. (Vintage footage of women
helping each other get on train; train door closing with
people in boxcar)
Kroft: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get
shipped off to the death camps.
Mr. Soros: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say
that that’s when my character was made.
Kroft: In what way?
Mr. Soros: That one should think ahead. One should
understand and–and anticipate events and when–when
one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I
mean, it was a–a very personal experience of evil.
Kroft: My understanding is that you went out with this
protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted
Mr. Soros: Yes. Yes.
Kroft: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation
of property from the Jews.
Mr. Soros: Yes. That’s right. Yes.
Kroft: I mean, that’s–that sounds like an experience
1. Masquerade, Dancing Around Death in Nazi Occupied Hungary, Tivador
Soros, Arcade Publications, New York, 2001.
that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for
many, many years. Was it difficult?
Mr. Soros: Not–not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child
you don’t–you don’t see the connection. But it was–it created
no–no problem at all.
Kroft: No feeling of guilt?
Mr. Soros: No.
Kroft: For example that, ‘I’m Jewish and
here I am, watching these people go. I could
just as easily be there. I should be there.’
None of that?
Mr. Soros: Well, of course I c—I could be
on the other side or I could be the one from
whom the thing is being taken away. But
there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there,
because that was—well, actually, in a funny
way, it’s just like in markets—that if I weren’t
there—of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody
else would—would—would be taking it
away anyhow. And it was the—whether I was
there or not, I was only a spectator, the property
was being taken away. So the—I had no
role in taking away that property. So I had no
sense of guilt.
Crafted and Unleashed
Nazi collaborator George Soros, set off to
England in 1947 where he became the protégé
of radical positivist Sir Karl Popper, who
taught at the Fabian Society-initiated
London School of Economics in the
1950’s. This is the same Karl Popper
who blamed a large part of the crises
of developing countries on the “political
stupidity” of its leaders. Popper
himself states that, “We [the Empire—
ed] have liberated these states
too early and in too primitive a way.
These are no-law states yet. The same
would happen if you’d leave a kindergarten
to itself.” Soros’ mentor then
argued that the “civilized world” has
the right to launch wars against the
Third World for the sake of “peace.”
Soros bowed to his masters, and carried
out that war.
Soros used his Quantum Fund to
conduct financial warfare through
derivatives and currency speculation.
On the European front, in 1992 Soros
won a key battle against the European
Rate Mechanism (ERM), which
was Europe’s financial structure to
maintain stable exchange rates
among the currencies of Europe. Soros created a financial
crisis so that the system could be replaced by the Maastricht
Treaty, which established the Euro as the single European
currency, and put financial authority in the hands
of one central bank, controlled by the Anglo-Dutch Oligarchy.
This plot began when representatives of Soros met on
June 2, 1992, with top British and Anglo-Dutch financial
Acrhives of Mechanical Documentation, courtesy of USHMM Photo Archives
A member of the German SS supervises the boarding of Jews onto trains during a
deportation action in the Krakow ghetto.
Hungarian Jews on their way to the gas chambers. Auschwitz-Birkenau, Poland, May
predators, on Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s yacht Britannia.
Part of this operation can be understood by looking at
his attacks against the Italian lira in the early 1990’s, which
earned him 400 billion lira within a matter of days, while
the Bank of Italy was forced to spend $48 billion of its reserves
in a vain attempt to defend its currency. Within a
few years, Soros was under criminal investigation for
these sinister attacks. Members of the Movimento Internazionale
per Diritti Civili Solidarieta first submitted testimony
on Soros to the Milan court in 1995, and by the
next year, investigations were launched out of Rome and
Naples, which were reported on in the Dec. 24, 1996 issue
of Corriere della Sera: “The investigation has just started,
but the results could be explosive, and the name of the individual
being officially investigated gives an idea of how
delicate this investigation is: The name is George Soros. . .
The crime is stock-jobbing. . . It concerns the attack on the
Of course, not all of the money used in this operation
can be attributed to “Golem” Soros, but was only money
that was handed to him, by London. After all, a Golem
doesn’t make himself, he is created and, true to form, Soros’
natural instinct is only to do what he is told in order to
His father taught his boy how to follow his masters
very well under the Nazi occupation in Hungary: “The
most rational approach, in my view, was complete separation,
followed by a quiet effort to blend in with the general
population. That is the way animals do it: when they sense
danger, instead of presenting a clear target to their enemies,
their natural mode of self-preservation is to blend
with the scenery and simply disappear. Naturalists call
this phenomenon “mimicry.”3
Soros was raised to behave like a beast, and so he does.
Upon the destruction of the ERM, which set the stage for
Maastricht and, inevitably, the Lisbon Treaty, Soros had
only this to say: “I’m sure speculative actions have had
some negative consequences. But that does not enter my
thinking at all. It cannot. If I abstained from certain actions
because of moral doubts, then I would cease to be an
effective speculator. I have not even a shadow of remorse
for making a profit.” He continues, “I did it only to make
On Nov. 30, 1994 Soros spoke before an audience at the
Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, and announced
his new foundation, Project on Death in America, to shift
the training of hospitals, nurses and doctors away from
expensive life-saving treatment, to the proper care of the
dying. In pushing euthanasia legislation, Soros made the
Nazi “useless eater” policy legal in the U.S.
A Soros-sponsored assisted suicide (a.k.a. homicide)
program to offer patients lethal prescriptions was the OreProject
on Death in America website.
Official portrait taken at Buckingham Palace, by Terry O’Neill
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and His Royal Highness Prince
Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh
3. Masquerade, Dancing Around Death in Nazi Occupied Hungary, Tivador
Soros, Arcade Publications, New York, 2001
4. London Guardian Dec. 19, 1992.
2. This is the very same Queen Elizabeth which EIR discovered in the
1990’s was on the exclusive clients list of George Soros’ mega-million-dollar
offshore Quantum Fund in which he is once again currently active.
The Hustler on the
In 1985, in response to the chaos of
the British Empire’s dope trade, Lyndon
LaRouche called on nations to cooperate
in a “war on drugs”: “What we are fighting,
is not only the effects of the use of
these drugs on their victims. The international
drug traffic has become an evil and
powerful government in its own right. It
represents today a financial, political,
and military power greater than that of
entire nations within the Americas. It is a
government which is making war against
civilized nations, a government upon
which we must declare war, a war which
we must fight with the weapons of war,
and a war which we must win in the same
spirit the United States fought for the unconditional
defeat of Nazism between
1941 and 1945.”
Since then, the British Empire’s hustler
on the street corner, George Soros,
has continued pushing drug legalization
in the United States and has even strayed over to the other
side of the block and become a supporter of narco-terrorism
in South America and Asia. Soros’ immorality and
ruthless nature1 made him the perfect hit man for enforcing
the Empire’s drug operations. Provided with funding
through speculative activities, Soros launched his own
war against anyone opposing the looting policy of London.
Since the dope trade is the corner stone for the physical
and economic looting of nations by the British Empire,
Soros chose Lyndon LaRouche’s “war on drugs”2 as
gon Death with Dignity Act, which subsequently passed
in 1998: “As the first state in the United States to allow
physicians to help terminally ill patients end their lives,
Oregon’s experience will be closely watched by other
Through the Open Society, the Death in America project
and other organizations concerned with “end-of-life”
issues began collaboration on “transforming the culture
of dying.” Soros promoted on his website a one-day seminar
coordinated by Balfour Mount, M.D. of Royal Victoria
Hospital in the mid-1990’s entitled “Searching for the Soul
of Euthanasia.” Soros offered his personal thoughts on
the matter: “The use of technology to extend life when life
has no meaning, does not make any sense. . . It may be
more negative than positive, because it causes unnecessary
pain and suffering, not to mention the expense.” (emphasis
Does Soros Have a Drug
by Alexandra Perebikovsky
Foto ANCOL. Fernando Ruiz
President of the New York Stock Exchange, Richard Grasso, and negotiator for the FARC,
Raúl Reyes, during their 1999 meeting in the Colombian jungle.
1. See George Soros: Hit Man for the British Oligarchy by Hector Rivas, in
2. Dope, Inc.: Britain’s Opium War Against the US, by a US Labor Party
Investigating Team, The New Benjamin Franklin Publishing Company,
Inc., New York, New York, 1978
his battleground. In defense of his drug hustling operations,
Soros wrote that, “The war on drugs was doing
more harm than the drugs themselves. . ..Drugs kill a few
people, incapacitate many more, and give parents sleepless
nights. . .”3 but, as he summed up, that is nothing
compared to the harm of nations intervening on the free
Through his Open Society Foundation, Soros consistently
funneled money into his Drug Policy Foundation
(DPF) and Lindesmith Center to aggressively pursue drug
legalization in the United States. Soros claimed, “When I
decided to extend the operations of my Open Society
Foundation to the United States, I chose drug policy as
one of the first fields of engagement. I felt that drug policy
was the area in which the United States was in the greatest
danger of violating the principles of open society.”4
Soros used the DPF to fund the Marijuana Policy Project
(MPP), an organization committed to reviving the Woodstock
pot-smoking days of 1968. The MPP has given support
to states across the nation in the fight to legalize
marijuana and threw its support behind Barney Frank,
who lost no time in bending over backwards and lighting
up for the drug lobby by introducing HR 2618, a bill for
the “medical use” of marijuana. In 1996, Soros reached
deeper into the Queen’s underpants and funded ballot initiatives
to legalize “medical marijuana” in California and
Arizona through propositions 215 and 200, respectively.
These propositions made it legal even for children to whip
out the bong and receive doses of class one drugs. In 2000,
Soros took the legalization efforts even further and funded
a bill to set up the legal retail distribution of marijuana
in Nevada, thereby taking the first step towards more serious
Meanwhile, in South America, his activities were
much more disastrous. With his fist in the British Empire’s
laundered money bags, Soros threw his weight behind
narco-terrorism in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia. His
group Human Rights Watch/Americas is a major part of
the drug cartel’s drug production and terror apparatus,
deploying millions of dollars annually for dope propaganda.
In Colombia, he became the leading financier in
the fight to legalize cocaine and, through Human Rights
Watch, attacked government forces deployed against
drug cartel guerrillas, who were slaughtering people
across the region. On November 8, 1990, the Medellin
Coming from the mouth of Dick Cheney and his ilk, the
expression “War on Drugs” has been used to justify
launching unprovoked wars on sovereign nations, imposing
regime change on their governments, throwing
millions of penny-ante users and small-time dealers in
jail in the U.S., driving desperate peasants in drug producing
countries over the cliff into starvation, and coyly
backing one cartel of drug runners against another,
to keep the market under control—while religiously
taking a hands-off attitude towards the big bankers
who actually run Dope, Inc. from the very top.
For Lyndon LaRouche—who coined the expression
“War on Drugs” back in the 1970s—it has always meant
the exact opposite. On March 9, 1985, LaRouche presented
a 15-point war plan at a Mexico City conference
which centered on cooperation among sovereign nation
states, to identify, attack, and destroy the Britishcentered
[financial] interests who actually run the drug
trade. These interests act as a powerful governmentin-
fact, against which we must wage war. Treaties
should be agreed upon among nations, to conduct
joint military actions against the drug trade, “to the effect
that necessary forms of joint military and law enforcement
action do not subvert the national sovereignty
of any of the allied nations. . .” Intelligence and
technological aid “should be supplied with assistance
of the United States,” in order to eradicate all illegal
plantations, processing centers, and laboratories, and
all unlogged aircraft flying across borders, which fail
to land according to instructions, should be shot down.
And most significantly, “A system of total regulation of
financial institutions, to the effect of detecting deposits,
outbound transfers, and inbound transfers of
funds, which might be reasonably suspected of being
funds secured from drug-trafficking, must be established
and maintained. . . . Special attention should be
concentrated on those banks, insurance enterprises,
and other business institutions which are in fact elements
of an international financial cartel coordinating
the flow of hundreds of billions annually of revenues
from the international drug traffic.” Those involved
are guilty of “crimes against humanity,” based on the
Nuremberg standard. Confiscated drug funds, La-
Rouche added, should be allotted “to beneficial purposes
of economic development, in basic economic infrastructure,
agriculture, and goods-producing
That is the essence of LaRouche’s “War on Drugs”—
and that is why George Soros, and his British masters,
LaRouche’s War on Drugs
3. The Bubble of American Supremacy: Correcting the Misuse of American
Power, George Soros, pg. 27, Public Affairs, New York, 2004
4. Ibid. pg. 27
drug cartel, leading the violent murder and kidnapping
operations in Colombia, sent out a letter demanding that
the government publish a report by Soros’ Americas
Watch, which denounced the government’s anti-drug actions
as violations of human rights. One week later, Juan
Mendez, the leader of the Colombian Americas Watch
Report, called for “the most total disarmament possible”
of the Colombian military in order to allow “free trade”
of drugs to resume.
Using two groups in which he was a leading financier,
the Andean Council of Coca Leaf Producers and the Andean
Commission of Jurists, Soros then established an international
project called “Coca 95,” to support the dope
trade in Bolivia and Peru. At a conference on March 13-
14, 1996, the Andean Commission of Jurists sponsored
the “International Meeting on Current Scientific Studies
on the Effects of Coca Consumption on Humans,” in
which speakers attacked the anti-drug efforts of governments
as a threat to the environment! Calling for free trade
of all drugs, including cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and
synthetics, the Andean Council of Coca Leaf Producers organized
for an armed revolt in Bolivia. Soros even cut into
the heart of Peru, funding the presidential campaign of
Alejandro Toledo, thereby toppling the anti-drug government
of Alberto Fujimori and once again plunging the nation
Sound pretty bad? Well, it’s not new. The British Empire’s
drive for imperial control is what is truly behind
these attacks on nations. Soros’ promotion of narco-terrorism
is the equivalent of the “gunboats” employed by
the Empire in their launching of the 19th century Opium
Wars against China and India.
One of the leading drug traffickers
of the British Empire wrote that as
long as drug use continues to dominate
a country, “there is not the least reason
to fear that she will become a military
power of any importance, as the habit
saps the energies and vitality of the nation.”
5 For the last two centuries, the
British Empire, using this policy to
maintain its imperial control over the
world, has dominated the dope trade,
using it to prop up its horrific system of
slavery. The British East India Company
first opened up the opium trade with
China in 1715 but, it was not until Lord
Shelburne’s 1763-1783 melding of the
bankrupt East India Company and
near bankrupt British nation into a
global empire, that Britain had a monopoly
in the dope and slave trade.
Under the evil free trade doctrine of
Adam Smith, this British Empire used its might as a sea
power to construct a system of controlled trade and drug
trafficking to economically and culturally suppress nations.
The prime drug of choice was opium. With the deployment
of East India Company merchants into India, the West Indies,
and the United States, populations were forced to
grow opium and cotton on slave plantations. Banning any
kind of manufacturing in the colonies, cotton was exported,
loaded onto Royal British Ships, taken on a long trek all
the way to “the manufacturing house” of England, spun
into cloth, and dragged all the way back to India. Meanwhile,
Indian opium was exported to China, and the profits
were used to pay for the entire shipping and manufacturing
of the imported cloth! This system succeeded in enslaving
the populations of India, the Americas, and China, destroying
their land, and rendering the nations incapable of improving
their impoverished condition!
The Chinese emperor, sick at the sight of his destroyed
nation and attempting to resist this cultural enslavement
and bombardment of the population, “seized every particle
of opium; put under bond every European engaged in the
merchandise of it; and the papers of to-day (1839) inform
us that he has cut off the China trade, ‘root and branch.’ ”6
Furious, the British demanded that their “produce” (a.k.a.
Opium) be imported, or else. As one of the London Times
editors puts it, “We have everywhere obtained that our
goods shall be imported into all these countries. . .. To attain
An opium den in Manila, the Philippines.
5. Jack Beeching, The Chinese Opium Wars, pg. 258, New York: Harvest
6. George Thompson, Lectures on India in Lectures, Letters, Debates, Pamphlets,
and Related Correspondence of George Thompson, Manchester University,
John Rylands Library, 1834-1886.
those ends, we use all sorts of means, from courteous invitation
to bombardments. We prefer to employ mere eloquence,
because it is cheap and easy; but if talking fails we
follow it up by gunboats, and, in that convincing way, we
induce hesitating ‘barbarians’ not only to accept our two
unvarying conditions, but also to pay the cost of the expedition
by which their consent to these conditions was extorted
from them. China was so unwilling to listen to our advice,
so blind to the striking merits of our opium and our
consuls, that we were obliged, with great regret, to resort to
gentle force with her.”7 Any challenge to British imperial
policy was immediately met with gunboats and, in the case
of China, two opium wars between the years of 1839-1842
and 1858-1860 were waged in order to complete the process
of “opening up all of China”8 to British free trade. This
British imperial drive continued and, by the end of World
War I, the extent of British imperialism was felt everywhere.
Nations which had attempted to avert British imperial control
were destroyed economically and culturally and their
countries were flooded with drugs.
Revive the War on Drugs!
The British Empire still exists as an active threat to the
world today, though the name has since become taboo. If
you’ve bought in to the media-fed cover stories that history
occurs only as isolated local events and are thinking,
“I don’t believe in conspiracy theories,” then you don’t
know history. In reality the same financier and oligarchical
circles which were responsible for the launching of the
China Opium wars throughout the 18th-19th centuries,
typified by the ancient imperial models of Babylon, Persia,
and Venice, are responsible for creating the current
global financial and economic collapse.
George Soros is one of the main British instruments,
carefully chosen to be a front man of the Empire, covering
up for its disgusting looting policy, now known, euphemistically,
as globalization. Through organizations such
as Human Rights Watch and Open Society, Soros pushes
drugs and destroys nations. Soros says that now, “The
United States, like nineteenth-century Britain, also has an
interest in keeping international markets and global commons,
such as the oceans, open to all.”9 Just like the British
East India Company’s devastation of India and China
through two opium wars and decades of free trade, the
same Empire calls on Soros as the assassin in the destruction
of the United States. It is only through the obliteration
of British hack George Soros and the British Empire
which he represents, that we can hope to sober up the
United __________ States today.
7. As quoted in Henry Carey, Reply to the London Times, Letter V, pg. 2.
8. LaRouche in 2004 Special Report, To Stop Terrorism—Shut Down Dope,
Inc!, pg. 96, LaRouche in 2004, December 2001
The Forced-Open Society
By Leandra Bernstein
As the world financial system hobbles on its last legs,
the City of London has once again unleashed George
Soros to open the gates of hell at the present strategic
turning-point in world history. Soros has long been a
front-man chosen to subjugate nations by funneling offshore
money into corruption conduits coyly masked as
“philanthropic” and “human rights” organizations. His
purpose is to eliminate the U.S. system of national sovereignty,
as he states himself, “Democracy and open society
cannot be imposed from the outside because the principle
of sovereignty stands in the way of outside interference. . .
Admittedly it is difficult to interfere with the internal affairs
of sovereign countries, but it is important to face up
to the problem.”
Not Philanthropy. Misanthropy
During his first criminal investigation for stock manipulation
in 1979, George Soros started The Open Society
Fund. The Fund was used to create “open societies”
through philanthropic organizations now operating in
29 countries. Asserting that “states have interests but no
principles,” Soros explains that the ideal open society
would suppress particular national interests, while an
international political and financial structure takes responsibility
for the good of the so-called common good.1
1. In this respect, Soros’s gushing admiration for the UN (emphatically the
5 member Security Council), WTO, World Bank, and IFTI (international
financial and trade institutions) is notable, as well as his past and present
collaboration with these institutions and their ranking members.
9. George Soros on Globalization, George Soros, pg. 61, Public Affairs,
New York, 2002
To serve that common good, Soros arms his philanthropic
organizations with cash, buying up key sectors within
the population who are then let loose to overthrow a government
that tries to maintain a “closed society.”2 If a nation
wishes to control its own natural resources, it’s a
closed society. If a nation wants to develop its economy
and power of labor through tariffs and regulations, it’s a
closed society. Any nation that rejects globalization (i.e.
British Imperialism), is a closed society and subject to
attacks from Soros and his shadow government of nationals.
The Open Society Institute (OSI), Human Rights
Watch, the Soros Foundation, the Extractive Industries
Transparency Institute, are all British-style intelligence
outfits under the supervision of Soros. In 2002, Soros admitted
to personally spending over $2.1 billion in 5 years
on his philanthropic ventures. Of his organizations, he
writes, “They work with the government when they can
and independently of the government when they cannot;
sometimes they are in outright opposition. When foundations
can cooperate with the government, they can be
more effective; when they cannot, their work is more
needed and more appreciated because they offer an alternative
source of funding for civil society. As a general
rule, the worse the government, the better the foundation
because it enjoys the commitment and support of
That same year, George Soros and Liberal Imperialist
(limp) Tony Blair launched the Extractive Industries
Transparency Institute (EITI), to create an international
standard by which nations rich in
oil, natural gas, and strategic metals
would report government-to-company
revenues. The international
organization (EITI) lobbies the governments
to adopt a standard for
revenue reporting which allows
them to peer into government-company
revenues in strategic industries.
Whatever they view as “closed
society” behavior is brought before
the tribunal of the paid-for demos;
or, if the behavior seriously threatens
imperial interests, the UN,
World Bank, IMF, WTO, etc can be
mobilized to implement sanctions.
This process of subjecting a sovereign
nation to a fixed international
standard of behavior is called,
“transparency.” The fixed relationship
among those subject nations is
Blair explicitly stated his vision for such international
institutions in a speech before the UN World Summit in
September 2005: “For the first time at this Summit we are
agreed that states do not have the right to do what they
will within their own borders, but that we, in the name of
humanity, have a common duty to protect people where
their own governments will not.”3 Already the EITI has 23
countries lined up to be swallowed into the Commonwealth
and looted. These nations are primarily throughout
Africa, but include crucial states bordering Russia and
Yet, many well-meaning people inside the U.S. and
elsewhere have thrown their support behind Soros for his
“human rights advocacy,” rallying to the call of ending
“authoritarian regimes,” and increasing “transparency.”
The Fight for Eurasia
In his historic 1983 economic forecast, Lyndon La-
Rouche warned that if the Soviet Union were to reject his
Strategic Defense Initiative, adopted by President Reagan,
then “the strains on the Comecon economy would
lead to a collapse of that economic system in about five
years.” At his 1988 address at the Kempinski Hotel in Berlin,
LaRouche repeated that warning: “All of us who are
members of that stratum called world-class politicians,
know that the world has now entered what most agree is
the end of the postwar era. . . What governments do during
2. To better understand this process, see Euripides’ Greek tragedy, The
Bacchae, on the cult of Dionysus.
3. Earlier, in 1999, Blair demanded the NATO bombing of Serbia/Yugoslavia,
under the humanitarian guise of protecting Kosovo and Albania
against the Serbs. Blair’s rejection of the principles of the 1648 Treaty of
Westphalia have pioneered the modern era of pre-emptive war, and much
of the mess of our war-torn planet today.
the coming two years will decide the fate of all humanity
for a century or more to come. . .The time has come for a
bold decision on U.S. policy toward Central Europe.” At
that time, the LaRouche Movement was recruiting from
the influential circles throughout Eurasia around the
prospect of building the Productive Triangle and later the
Eurasian Land Bridge to transform the region into a prosperous
community of nation-states.
LaRouche was the first to identify and act on the coming
turning point in world history, but the British establishment,
also thinking in terms of long historical waves,
saw the crisis in Germany and the Soviet Union as an
opening for a drastic turn to their system.
Soros was their point-man, deployed into the fight to
build his foundations throughout the contested Eastern
European bloc. The Stefan Batory Foundation in Poland
was ground-zero for the European test-run of Jeffrey
Sachs’ “shock therapy” model, later used
throughout the region to implement free-market
looting, and monetary austerity. Soros wrote of the
Polish implementation, “The IMF approved and
the program went into effect on Jan. 1, 1990. It was
very tough on the population, but people were willing
to take a lot of pain in order to see real
change. . .Inflation has been reduced, but the outcome
still hangs in the balance because structural
adjustment is slow in coming. Production has fallen
30%, but employment has fallen by 3%. This
means the entrenched management of state enterprises
is using the respite it gained from wage
claims to improve its profit margins and keep the
workers employed. There is an unholy alliance between
management and labor that will be hard to
break.” In other words, Shachtian monetary austerity,
slave labor, and wrecking guarantees to state
This was the same model used to cripple Russia, where
Soros pushed the Shatalin Plan to shut down the Soviet
military-industrial economy and impose “budgetary discipline.”
Soros’ program was a disaster: the privatization
of state industry, rotten deals to sell off Soviet military industrial
stockpiles, smuggling raw materials, weapons,
and drugs. In only five years, the labor force had largely
shifted from production to criminal activity, and Russia
saw the largest expansion of drug trade and drug use in
that region. 4
In the years following the Soviet break-up, Soros set up
Foundations in 23 countries. On the launching of the 1991
Balkans War, Soros dumped millions into the region, earmarking
$15 million in funds for political subversion in
Croatia alone. In December 1996, Croatian president,
Franjo Tudjman, launched a useful attack, saying, “With
the help of Soros, [the organizations] have entirely infiltrated
society. . . They have involved in their project 290
different institutions, as well as hundreds of people. . .
[T]hrough financial support, they roped in members of all
ages and classes, from high school students to journalists,
university professors, and academicians, from all circles
of culture, economy, science, health, law, and literature. . .
They openly say: Their duty is to change the property and
government structures through donations. . . To create favorable
circumstances for the subversion of the present
authority and situation in Croatia, to gain control over all
spheres of life, they intend to focus their energies and influence
on the media and the world of culture.”
4. The spread of drug use coincided with an epidemic of HIV/AIDS largely
along the drug trade route into Afghanistan. Today, the Soros Foundation
prides itself in “treatment, advocacy, and harm reduction services” to deal
with HIV/AIDS and TB, the results of Soros’ free-market reforms.
Russian peasants. Ogonyok..
Soviet women show ration cards to buy food. Ogonyok 1991.
During the same time, Soros set up the International
Science Foundation, offering sizable grants to Russian
scientists. People were poor and looking for a living; Soros
stepped in with projects and money. Many confided that
they knew it was wrong, but they needed the money to
survive. Though he was able to pay the scientists, Soros’
R&D investments were not nearly enough to accomplish
breakthrough work. U.S. intelligence sources were convinced
that Soros was just picking their brains. The ISF
initially offered large grants, but as Soros steadily withdrew
funds, he drew young scientists out of the country,
taking from Russia its most vital natural resource.
In 2003, Soros announced that he was officially withdrawing
support to Russia in order to focus more on the
United States, after becoming “preoccupied with problems
of globalization” and, since September 11, “with the
role that the United States plays in the world.” On June 12
of this year, the OSI announced an initiative to spend
$800 million over the next 10 years “to advance democracy
and progressive reform in the United States.” Grantees
will be funded to study how institutions like the EU
and the UN can be used to “influence or constrain illiberal
behavior,” and how stability and order can be maintained
after an “authoritarian regime” has been collapsed.
The shock troop attacks from Soros’ hordes in the East
should be fair warning to those in the U.S. who continue
to be soft on Soros’ “democratic reforms” and “open society”
There Is No Transparency Off-Shore
Contrary to the romantic view of super-financier,
George Soros, he has never acted alone in any of his operations,
and his primary self-interest has been saving his
sorry neck from his sponsors.
A decade before launching The Open Society Fund, Soros
left his post at Arnhold and S. Blechroeder Inc.5 with
sponsorship to launch the off-shore Quantum Fund N.V.,
which was reportedly managing $11-14 billion in 2001.
Both the Quantum Fund and Soros Fund Management,
operate as crucial sources for the money going to the international
projects cited above. By setting up in the Netherlands
Antilles, a British Protectorate, and excluding
American citizens from investing in the fund or sitting on
the board of directors, Soros eludes U.S. law enforcement
scrutiny, U.S. taxes, and other regulations, while demanding
transparency from everyone else.
Soros has gone so far out of his way to avoid U.S. laws
that he is not even on the board of his own fund, but serves
as official “Investment Advisor” through the New York
based Soros Fund Management. Instead, the list of investors
and the board of the Quantum Fund is stacked with
British, Italian, and Swiss financiers, with Queen Elizabeth
II holding a special position on the list of exclusive
clients. Quantum board member Richard Katz is also on
the board of the London N.M. Rothschild & Sons merchant
bank, and is the head of Rothschild Italia S.p.A.;
Nils O. Taube, is the head of the London investment group,
St. James Palace, a major partner with Lord Rothschild;
and George Karlweiss, of Edmond de Rothschild’s Swiss
Banca Privata. According to interviews and published
sources, Karlweiss played a key role in giving Soros the
initial start-up capital for Quantum. The Rothschilds’
banking apparatus, with its international branches, has
been, and remains at the center of British sponsored dirty
money and financial warfare operations, from money
laundering, to raw materials grabs, drugs-for-weapons
deals, sponsorship of international crime networks, and
significant control over the gold trade—which is essential
for the global drug trade.
Quantum board member and top Swiss financier, Edgar
de Picciotto, was involved in launching attacks against
LaRouche’s European organization through the mid-late
1980’s when he pushed money through the Swiss thinktank,
Geo-Pol, to fund the corrupt Laurent Murawiec,
presently residing at the neo-con Hudson Institute.6 De
Picciotto is presently the chair of the Union Bancaire Privee,
the offspring of a shady merger with Edmund Safra’s
Trade Development Bank, notably involved in the Iran-
Contra affair. Safra, who became too dirty for even the
British to use, was famously murdered in 1999 when under
investigation by Swiss and US authorities for using his
Republic Bank of New York to transfer billions of Federal
Reserve notes to Mafia-controlled banks in Moscow in the
early 1990’s. He was also under investigation for laundering
money through the Turkish and Colombian drug
According to former U.S. State Department intelligence
officers, familiar with the Soros case, Soros’ Quantum
Fund amassed its billions from “silent investors,” like
Marc Rich—as well as Mossad agents Shaul Eisenberg
and Rafi Eytan. During Soviet break-up, Quantum Fund
investor, Marc Rich,7 was crucial in the raw materials
smuggling. He did the ground work of coercing desperate
and corrupt Russian and Soviet leaders to sell the nation’s
raw material wealth to the global markets. That money
5. Arnhold and S. Blechroeder Inc. represented Rothschild banking interests
in Germany during the period of Chancellor Bismarck. As of 1993 it
was the principal custodian of the Quantum fund, along with Citibank.
6. In his 2001 Strategic Memorandum: Look What Happened in Brazil, Lyndon
LaRouche describes Laurent Murawiec as “a real-life ‘Beetlebaum’
of the legendary mythical horse-race, and a hand-me-down political carcass,
currently in the possession of institutions of a peculiar odor.”
7. Before running $2.5 billion in “natural resources” trade with Russia,
Marc Rich got his start in the triangular trade of weapons, oil, and drugs,
around the Afghan and Iran-Iraq Wars. EIR Special Report, To Stop Terrorism—
Shut Down Dope Inc. (2001), and EIR Special Report, The True
Story of Soros the Golem (1997).
was then taken out of the country and invested in offshore
accounts. Rich, a U.S. fugitive since 1984, organized the
looting from his office in London, where he helped his
Russian contacts sell those materials normally used for
For 17 years, Rich was a fugitive in London from charges
of tax evasion, fraud, and trading with the enemy (Iran).
Rich hired Lewis Libby as his personal attorney. In 2001,
Al “stinking possum” Gore helped get a Presidential pardon
for Rich in the final hours of Bill Clinton’s term. Later,
in testimony before Congress, Libby admitted that he secured
the pardon for Rich by working through Gore’s former
chief of staff, Jack Quinn (as well as two former Mossad
agents employed by Rich).
A Piece of Advice:
The global economy is presently undergoing a hyperinflationary
blow-out. The international institutions and financier
networks outlined above, whose activities are illegal under
the United States Federal Constitution, have been positioning
themselves for decades to seize control now. It is now possible
for the government of the United States to immediately
shut down Soros’ filthy operations and launch the recovery
prescribed in LaRouche’s “Three Steps to Survival.”
It were wise for all those who are presently defending
George Soros by accepting his money to take pause: Whatever
happens otherwise, if the United Kingdom continues
its present course Britain’s imperial design (1763-2008) is
now soon doomed to a very early and ugly end. All that remains
in doubt on this account, is, whether or not the disintegration
of the British empire will carry the rest of European
civilization down with it, down into a prolonged,
planetary-wide dark age, down forever from the Britain of
Lord Shelburne which aspired to become a permanent
successor to the failed Roman Empire. Is the money really
The Case of Malaysia
by Alexandra Perebikovsky
8. Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., “That Doomed & Brutish Empire,” EIR Volume
35, Number 11, March 14, 2008.
Technically, Malaysia gained its independence from the
British Empire in 1957. Since then however, the British
intention has been to continue using the nation as its
very own playground for its free trade chaos and looting
operations. In 1997 Lyndon LaRouche stated, “free trade,
practiced against the nations of Southeast Asia, is simply
a new form of colonialism, whose fruit is mass murder. In
that sense, there is no difference, in effect on people, between
free trade and Nazism.”
Up until the mid 90’s currency crisis, Malaysia was a
staunch follower of globalization, albeit taking significant
steps toward development in the years following their independence.
Since the British deployment of George Soros
into Southeast Asia to loot the currencies of these nations,
Malaysia has changed its view. In the mid-1990’s,
Lyndon LaRouche forecast that the so-called “Tigers” of
Southeast Asia,1 after years of globalization, hot money
flows, and destructive speculative activity would suffer
the same fate as Mexico after 1995—utter collapse. Indeed,
in the months leading up to July 1997, Soros worked
tirelessly to carry out London’s currency warfare, with the
intent to collapse the Southeast Asian economies. The Tiger
economies had succumbed to the flood of hot money
in the 1990s, which created bubble economies based on
inflated stock values and financial services. The government
“guarantees” on foreign investments, imposed by
the western speculators, ultimately bankrupted the Southeast
Asian national economies.
Soros financed a large portion of this hot money. He
began his attack on the Thai and Malaysian currencies in
February of 1997 “with a zeal I haven’t seen since the successful
assault on several European currencies around
three years ago” according to one analyst. 2 Through speculation
in futures markets, Soros’ Quantum Fund leveraged
$1.2 trillion. He took short positions against the
Thai baht, the Philippine peso, the Indonesian rupiah,
and the Malaysian ringgit, sending these currencies falling
by 40-70%, collapsing stock markets, and wiping out
currency reserves. The breaking point was in July of 1997
when the Thai baht was forced to float, with greater than
20% devaluation, after the government had unsuccessfully
spent over $15 billion trying to defend the currency.
The IMF austerity conditions imposed on these nations
following the collapse drove their economies back 15-20
years in their potential for development and their standard
On September 20, 1997, Malaysian Prime Minister Dr.
Mahathir Bin Mohammed stood before the IMF and defi14
antly spoke out against the looting
policies of the British Empire:
“We in Malaysia laughed at
the suggestion that our country
would follow the fate of Mexico.
. . . But now we know better.
We know why it was suggested
that Malaysia would go the way
of Mexico. We know now that
even as Mexico’s economic crash
was manipulated and made to
crash, the economies of other
developing countries, too, can
be suddenly manipulated and
forced to bow to the great fund
managers who have now come
to be the people to decide who
should prosper and who
Prior to the attack on the
Southeast Asian markets, Mahathir
had been an outspoken
follower of globalization. However,
following the British Empire’s
organized takedown of
the Malaysian economy, the fantasy
of “free trade” was broken.
Reflecting the proposals of
economist Lyndon LaRouche,
Dr. Mahathir launched his own attack against speculator
George Soros, calling him a “moron.” EIR’s special report
“The true story of Soros the Golem; A profile of mega
speculator George Soros,” circulated widely in Malaysia’s
leading circles. London, surprised by Mahathir’s sudden
backlash, unleashed a string of slanders, including an article
published in the Asian Wall Street Journal on September
19, 1997, titled: “Malaysia’s Mahathir Finds
Strange Source for Soros Campaign; Asian Country’s Media
Tap U.S. Conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche, Jr.”
In an attempt to destroy any influence or connection Malaysia
had to LaRouche, London deployed Soros once
more to clean up the mess. Soros was given a chance to
defend himself against Prime Minister Mahathir’s accusations
and attempted to deny the charges—he was not
Ted Koppel: “You’re talking here about the Malaysian
George Soros: “That’s right.”’
Ted Koppel: “And he, I mean
his charge is that you, in effect,
systematically set out to destroy
George Soros: “And that is
absolute nonsense. Now, you
know, what more can I say? It’s
just absolutely no foundation at
Ted Koppel: “Because—I
mean put it in easily understandable
terms. I mean if you could
have profited by destroying Malaysia’s
currency, would you have
shrunk from that?”
George Soros: “Not necessarily,
because that would have
been an unintended consequence
of my action. And it’s not
my job as a participant to calculate
the consequences. This is
what a market is. That’s the nature
of a market. So I’m a participant
in the market.”
Ted Koppel: “Apolitical,
George Soros: “That’s exactly
In September 1998, Dr. Mahathir shocked the world by
declaring sovereign currency controls on the Malaysian
ringgit, pegging their currency to a fixed exchange rate
against the dollar, and thereby effectively ending the speculators
ability to loot the country through currency speculation.
Soros, and the entire western financial oligarchy,
went berserk, claiming that Dr. Mahathir’s actions against
IMF orthodoxy would bring damnation down upon his
country. In fact, as was later obvious to all, his defense of
the nation’s sovereignty saved the population from the
devastation suffered by every other nation that had been
subjected to Soros’ butcher knife.
Following Malaysia’s break with globalization, London
launched an even nastier operation to create an internal
crisis in Malaysia. Anwar Ibrahim was the deputy prime
minister and chosen heir to Mahathir; he became the target
to carry out the Empire’s brutal operation.
Anwar was later kicked out of his post as deputy prime
minister because he “lacked the moral standards required”
to lead the nation. Financed by Soros and his cronies
through the Open Society Foundation, Anwar pro-
Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Bin Mohammed
3. Pre-recorded interview with Ted Koppel, ABC News Nightline, Wednesday,
October 7, 1998
1. It turns out that the Southeast Asian Tigers were no better than those
tigers of infamous “magicians” Siegfried and Roy—all doped up.
2. As described by Dawai Institute of Research Director Peter Scheifelbein
days after the meeting of Myanmars SLORC (State Law and Order
ceeded to launch a campaign to bring down the
government of Malaysia. He portrayed himself as a
freedom fighter and champion of free market society,
denouncing the new government’s protectionist
economic policies and accused them of carrying
out a conspiracy to destroy him. Meanwhile, Soros’
Human Rights and Open Society organizations
played their part in labeling Mahathir as the “last of
the old-line Asian authoritarians” and showed Anwar
as the “reformer” trying to free the people of
Malaysia. The western media, including the Wall
Street Journal, continued to fuel the turmoil in Malaysia,
saying: “The sacking Wednesday night of
Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim
signaled the end of a battle for the soul of an important
nation. . . . At home and abroad, Mr. Anwar had
come to symbolize the democratic aspirations and
open-mindedness of a new generation, more at ease
in the world and less burdened with the pain of old
sleights and frustrations than the man he was expected
to succeed.” 4
Even Soros buddy, Al Gore, threw his weight behind
the speculators.5 On November 13, 1998, President
Clinton had been invited to speak at the Asia
Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, hosted by
Malaysia. Due to the severity of the Iraq crisis, Clinton
was forced to stay back and dispatched Al Gore
in his place. The resulting catastrophe occurred on
November 16 when Gore delivered a speech to the
APEC business advisory council where he called for
“short term” recovery by allowing “free markets to
work their magic” and, though not naming him, endorsed
Anwar Ibrahim over Mahathir to lead the nation. 6
Sprinkling salt in the wound, Gore echoed Anwar’s cries
for a new government: “People will accept sacrifice in a democracy,
not only because they have had a role in choosing
it, but because they rightly believe they are likely to benefit
from it. . . . The message this year from Indonesia is unmistakable:
People are willing to take responsibility for their
future—if they have the power to determine that future. . . .
Democracy confers a stamp of legitimacy that reforms
must have in order to be effective. And so, among nations
suffering economic crises, we continue to hear calls for democracy
and reform in many languages—‘people’s power,’
‘doi moi,’ ‘reformasi.’ We hear them today—right here,
right now—among the brave people of Malaysia.” With the
Malaysian government incensed and the Malaysian people
riled up, Gore promptly left the venue. A few days later,
then foreign minister Abdullah Badawi, sent the US a heated
letter of protest, warning that the United States would
be held accountable for inciting instability.
The escapades of Soros, Gore, and other London cronies
in Malaysia can only be seen in one light—the British
Empire’s continued aims at destabilization in Southeast
Asia. Today, Abdullah Badawi has taken over the post of
prime minister and Anwar, with one hand permanently
glued to Soros’ gluttonous money bags, is still running operations
aimed at destabilizing the government, including
his intended buy-off of parliamentarians in the opposition
party, the United Malays Political Organization. The fate
of Malaysia remains to be seen. However, in the context of
the current global financial collapse, its future lies in the
implementation of Lyndon H. LaRouche’s four powers
agreement7 and in the destruction of the British Empire
and its crony, George Soros.
World Economic Forum/swiss-image.ch
Al Gore at the Davos meeting in January 2008.
4. The Wall Street Journal, September 3, 1998 issue
5. In the intervening decade, with weight to spare, Al Gore threw it behind
his own speculative venture in the cap and trade carbon market.
6. At that time, Anwar had been under arrest and on trial for charges of
corruption and sodomy.
7. See Lyndon H. LaRouche’s, Three Steps to Survival
George Soros Buys the
Nomination, Obama Borrows It
By Ed Hamler
The ongoing 2008 Presidential election represents
Soros’ importation of the techniques he has utilized
for popular subversion in foreign lands to the U.S. political
process. MoveOn.Org, an organization hugely funded
by George Soros, played a central role in Barack Obama’s
capture of the Democratic nomination, despite Hillary
Clinton’s clear superiority in the popular vote. Although
positioned as a pro-Obama instrument long before, as of
February of 2008, MoveOn officially backed Obama’s campaign,
sending him an army of “volunteers” and an established
money machine and fundraising base. As Lyndon
LaRouche has repeatedly warned, Obama himself is a
throwaway in the financial oligarchy’s plan to capture the
Presidency of the United States under conditions of economic
collapse. He was promoted to destroy the Clinton
candidacy and its potential for a Rooseveltian solution to
the financial collapse.
MoveOn.org got its start in 1998, receiving major support
from the most fascist Democrats in the party, Joe
and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, to censure President
Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Faced in
1998 with a worldwide economic collapse, President Clinton
called for a “new financial architecture,” echoing Lyndon
LaRouche’s call for a New Bretton Woods financial system.
Soros, at the same time, engaged in currency warfare,
which intentionally collapsed the Thai baht, the ringgit of
Malaysia, and the lira in Italy. In short order after the President
called for a new financial architecture, the Lewinsky
scandal blew-up. The Newt Gingrich-led Congress, along
with Al Gore’s treasonous faction inside the Democratic
Party fed the ensuing media frenzy, effectively destroying
the Clinton Administration’s economic program in its remaining
years. In its drive to censure President Clinton,
MoveOn demonstrated a proclivity for political prostitution,
appreciated by Soros’ controllers. Soros moved to buy
up MoveOn. By 2004, MoveOn, the so-called “grassroots”
organization, was practically owned by George Soros.
According to a Michelle Goldberg article in Salon.com,1
this process began in 2003. Soros and his associates had
decided to pour tons of money into the MoveOn coffers.
The total contributed from 2003-04 was about $6.2 million
dollars, the largest “soft money” contribution ever.
During 2003-2004, Soros and MoveOn heavily backed
Wall Street suckling Howard “Scream” Dean for President.
They later mobilized to ensure him a comfortable
seat as Chairman of the Democratic Party to do what he
does best: lose! As chairman, Dean’s mission has been to
demoralize the lower 80% of income brackets (the true
base of the Democratic party) while recruiting white collar
and affluent professionals, myspace addicted youth,
and as many minorities and trade unionists who will sell
their souls as a new “Democratic majority.” Despite Dean’s
sabotage, the American population gave the Democrats a
resounding victory in the 2006 mid-term election, turning
out in record numbers to vote on the basis of ending the
war and fixing the economy. But by October of the next
year, Congress’ support from the population fell, from
80% to below that of President Bush, due to Dean and
Pelosi’s roles in blocking any initiative to reverse the damage
wreaked by Bush and Cheney. Mission accomplished.
MoveOn also played an active and significant role in
the pressure campaign to make sure Senator Clinton
dropped out of the race for President, thus acting as a
front organization for Soros and his masters. MoveOn.org
sent out a sophistry-ridden email petition, ironically attacking
Clinton for putting pressure on the superdelegates
for support. It called on the superdelegates to let the voters
decide who the Democratic nominee will be:
“Stand up for Democracy in the Democratic Party.
“A group of millionaire Democratic donors are threatening
to stop supporting Democrats in Congress because
Nancy Pelosi said that the people, not the superdelegates,
should decide the Presidential nomination.
“They’re Clinton supporters and they’re trying to use their
high-roller status to strong arm the Democratic leaders.
“So let’s tell Nancy Pelosi that if she keeps standing up
for regular Americans, thousands of us will have her back.
“A compiled petition with your individual comment
will be presented to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic
1. Michelle Goldberg, MoveOn Moves Up, Salon.com, Dec. 1, 2003.
“Full petition text:
“The Democratic nomination should be decided by the
voters—not by superdelegates or party high-rollers. We’ve
given money—and time—to progressive candidates and
causes, and we’ll support Speaker Pelosi and others who
stand up for Democracy in the Democratic Party.”
Of course, when Senator Clinton won the popular vote
and the real high-rollers of the world and the party establishment
united behind Obama, MoveOn stood fully exposed
as the expendable creation of these same forces.
Since Senator Clinton actually won the popular vote, will
MoveOn stand by its original statement?
Never one to miss an “opportunity” Soros also personally
profited from one of MoveOn’s biggest political campaigns.
In 2006, MoveOn and Center for American Progress
waged a campaign against Cheney’s Halliburton.
Halliburton’s stock dropped from $40 to $26 a share.
While MoveOn railed against Halliburton, Soros gradually
bought 1,999,450 shares. By December 2006, these
shares comprised more than 2% of his total portfolio,
making Halliburton the Soros Fund Management’s biggest
investment that year. Then, the attacks on Halliburton
stopped, and the stock value began climbing, climbing
all the way up to today’s $50/share.
One further maneuver in Soros’ effort to take over the
Democratic Party was his formation of the Democracy
Alliance. In 2005 George Soros and 70 millionaires and
billionaires got together to discuss further prospects for
buying up the Democratic Party. On July 27, 2006 the
Washington Post reported that there was a requirement
that every member of the Democratic Alliance give
$200,000 to the organization, but most members gave
more, and Soros was one of the top three contributors.
Democratic Alliance funds were thrown into organizations
like the Center for American Progress (CAP) and
the Association of Community Organizations for Reform
Now (ACORN). These organizations also played a role
in operations against Senator Clinton in the primary
For example, on May 13, the day of the West Virginia
primary, John Edwards publicly stated his neutral position
concerning which candidate he would back for President
until the nominating convention in August. A day later
he came out to endorse Obama, following Obama’s
defeat by Senator Clinton by huge margins in the West
Virginia primary. Edwards thus participated in a public
spectacle meant to take the sting away from the millions
of votes Clinton received from the poorest state in the nation.
Edwards had just launched an anti-poverty campaign
called “Half-In-Ten,” which proposes to cut poverty
in half in the next ten years. Edwards anti-poverty campaign
received significant funding from the Soros controlled
CAP and ACORN organizations. In addition to
threats and other pressure tactics known to have been utilized
against super-delegates, one wonders what might
have been brought against Edwards concerning the funding
of the programs dearest to him?
Obama himself has been blessed with Soros’ “soft money”
since he was an Illinois State Senator. Obama’s career in
national politics was catapulted by George Soros’ pool of
dough during his run for U.S. Senate in 2004. Throughout
that campaign year Soros kept tabs on Obama. On July 4,
2004, one month before the Democratic Nominating Convention
in Boston, Obama was the only candidate Soros personally
met with that year in Soros’ New York home. This
same year, Soros and his family raised $60,000 for Obama.
In 2006 Obama, as U.S. Senator for the state of Illinois,
had his sights set on bigger things. He met with Soros
again in his Manhattan office. That meeting lasted about
an hour. Immediately afterward Soros introduced Obama
to a dozen of the biggest money bags in politics, including
financier and hedge fund manager Orin Kramer and
Union Bank of Switzerland U.S. Chief Robert Wolf. A
week later Wolf had dinner with Obama in Washington
D.C. to craft his campaign strategy, one month before
Obama officially launched his Presidential bid.
Obama announced his candidacy for President in January
2007. In just four months, Soros and Wolf raised
$500,000 for Obama. From April until the closing months
Photo: John Pettitt / DeanForAmerica.com
Howard “Scream” Dean
of the primary campaign season, Soros and his associates
held a series of fundraisers and practically guaranteed a
steady flow of money into his campaign. In fact, Soros
played a major role in changing how political campaigns
are run in the United States, through his support for the
McCain-Feingold campaign reform legislation in 2002.
Soros’ Open Society claims that it provided the key logistical
support for the legislation by mobilizing itself and other
foundations to lobby for the legislation and to raise the
money needed to defend it against subsequent court challenges.
As a result of the McCain-Feingold act and subsequent
developments, PACs with wealthy sponsors, like
MoveOn, internet based “movements,” and wealthy bundler,
like those who predominate in Obama’s campaign,
have taken the place of constituency organizations, and
have thus become the central focus of all political activity.
So, after the vast sums of cash that were thrown around,
after key Clinton support was simply bought off, should
there be any mystery as to how Obama apparently got the
LESSONS FOR DENVER
FDR’s 1932 Victory Over
London’s Wall Street Fascists
by Jeffrey Steinberg
On July 1, 1932 , New York Gov. Franklin
Delano Roosevelt won the Democratic
Party Presidential nomination
by a landslide vote of 945-190, over his
nearest rival and avowed political enemy,
the former New York governor and
J.P. Morgan tool, Alfred E. Smith. On
Nov. 8, 1932 , Roosevelt won a second
landslide victory, this time over incumbent
Republican President Herbert
Hoover. Roosevelt won 57% of the popular
vote, and swept the Electoral College
by 472-59. It was the greatest mandate
for change in memory, and FDR
immediately set out to return the U.
S.A. to the tradition of the American
System of political-economy, and, in so
doing, brought the country out of the
depths of the Great Depression, and
prepared the nation for the great battles
to come, against Nazism and Fascism—
and an expected post-war battle
to end the scourge of Anglo-Dutch colonialism.
Most Americans, with even a slight
degree of historical literacy, know these
basic facts about the election of 1932 . Few, however, know
how close the nation came to a disaster at the Democratic
nominating convention in Chicago; how close FDR came
to being deprived of the Presidential nomination, despite
a groundswell of popular support; and how ruthlessly his
Wall Street and City of London enemies sought to overturn
the outcome of the 1932 election, through attempted
assassination and coup d’état.
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s nomination as the Democratic candidate for President was far from
assured when the 1932 convention met in Chicago; it took four ballots, and a knock-down
drag-out political fight against the London-Wall Street interests who backed FDR’s opponents.
He is shown here campaigning in Kansas in 1932.
It is that story, rarely told, that offers a vital lesson today
to the Democratic Party, and to the American people,
as the nation faces another monumental Presidential election—
an election, like 1932 , that once again may determine
whether the United States survives for another generation,
as the sovereign republic established by the
A Challenge to Wall Street
From the time that Franklin Roosevelt was reelected
governor of New York in November 1930, by a sweeping
majority, he emerged as the clear frontrunner for the
Democratic Party Presidential nomination in 1932 . He
had already staked out a new direction for the nation,
through his published writings and speeches, and some of
the emergency measures he had taken as governor, to deal
with the crushing impact of the 1929 Wall Street stock
market crash, and the ensuing collapse of the U.S. economy.
In 1931, he pushed legislation through the Republicanmajority
New York State Legislature, which created the
Temporary Emergency Relief Administration (TERA),
with Harry Hopkins as the executive director. The $20 million
program created jobs for the construction of hospitals,
schools, and other vital infrastructure in the state,
and provided other relief for the growing legions of unemployed.
But Roosevelt made it clear that his efforts in New
York were being countered, at every turn, by the Hoover
Administration in Washington, that was more committed
to bailing out the bankrupt financial institutions, than it
was to providing for the welfare of an increasingly desperate
In July 1928, FDR had penned an article for Foreign Affairs,
the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations,
which presented a “Democratic View” of “Our Foreign
Policy,” in which he boldly spelled out a radical overhaul
of American foreign policy, in the tradition of John Quincy
Adams and the Treaty of Westphalia. Before being striken
with polio in 1921, FDR had been Assistant Secretary
of the Navy under President Woodrow Wilson, and had
been the unsuccessful Democratic Party Vice Presidential
candidate in 1920.
FDR wrote in Foreign Affairs, “The time has come when
we must accept not only certain facts but many new principles
of a higher law, a newer and better standard in international
relations. We are exceedingly jealous of our
own sovereignty, and it is only right that we should respect
a similar feeling among other nations. The peoples of the
other Republics of this Western world are just as patriotic,
just as proud of their sovereignty. Many of these nations
are large, wealthy and highly civilized. The peace, the security,
the integrity, the independence of every one of the
American Republics is of interest to all the others, not to
the United States alone. . . . Single-handed intervention by
us in the internal affairs of other nations must end; with
the cooperation of others we shall have more order in this
hemisphere and less dislike. . . . The time is ripe to start another
chapter. On that new page there is much that should
be written in the spirit of our forebears. If the leadership
is right—or, more truly, if the spirit behind it is great—the
United States can regain the world’s trust and friendship
and become again of service. We can point the way once
more to the reducing of armaments; we can cooperate officially
and whole-heartedly with every agency that studies
and works to relieve the common ills of mankind; and
we can for all time renounce the practice of arbitrary intervention
in the home affairs of our neighbors.”
The policies and ideas presented by FDR were not only
anathema to his Republican rivals. They were at fundamental
odds with the London-allied Wall Street interests
that held a vise-grip control over the Democratic Party,
from the top down.
Following his 1928 defeat by Hoover, the Democratic
Party Presidential candidate, Alfred Smith, FDR’s earlier
sponsor, turned bitterly against Roosevelt. Smith was furious
that FDR had won the 1928 New York gubernatorial
election, while he had been overwhelmingly defeated in
New York State by Hoover. FDR had also refused to give
Smith hands-on control over his top Albany appointments.
Even more to the point, Smith had already been coopted
by the powerful J.P. Morgan banking interests, which
were among the City of London’s flagship assets inside
Wall Street. Smith was installed as a top executive of the
Morgan-financed Empire State Corp., which built the Empire
State Building, and became a witting tool of the Morgan
interests, who had other, equally powerful hooks into
the Democratic Party.
Following the disastrous 1928 Hoover victory over
Smith, the Democratic Party had fallen deep into debt.
The party owed an estimated $1,600,000—a considerable
sum of money in those days. To bail out the party, Morgan
asset John Jakob Raskob stepped in to loan the party over
$370,000. In return, Raskob, who had managed Smith’s
failed Presidential campaign, was named chairman of the
Democratic Party. He, in turn, appointed another Morgan
man, former Democratic Congressman Jouett Shouse, as
the party’s executive director. Just months before taking
over the party, Raskob had lamented that he was not able
to vote for his favorite politician, Calvin Coolidge, for
President in 1928. Raskob had been a life-long Republican
up until that point.
Born in 1879, Raskob went to work for Pierre du Pont
in 1900, and rose rapidly through the ranks of the Morgan-financed
chemical and arms combine. By 1914, Raskob
was treasurer of the DuPont Corporation. Four years
later, after DuPont took control of 43% of the stock in General
Motors, Raskob was named vice president for finance
of both GM and DuPont. By the early 1920s, Morgan had
bought a $35 million stake in GM, making it a joint Du-
Pont-Morgan venture. Raskob remained vice president of
GM until 1928, when he took over Al Smith’s Presidential
campaign, steering the New York Governor hard-right,
into the Morgan camp. Raskob remained at DuPont for
another decade, amassing a very large personal fortune.
Throughout the 1920s, Raskob was on Morgan’s list of
“preferred customers,” who were beneficiaries of insider
trading, and privileged stock purchases.
Fascism for All
During the 1920s, Morgan and allied London and Wall
Street banks had financed Italy’s Fascist leader Benito
Mussolini. In 1925, for example, Morgan partner Thomas
Lamont arranged a $100 million loan to the Mussolini
regime, at a point that the regime was in deep political
At the same time that Morgan was bailing out Mussolini,
the DuPont and Morgan interests were launching a
movement in the United States—ostensibly
in opposition to Prohibition, which had been enacted
with the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified
in January 1919. The Association Against the Prohibition
Amendment (AAPA) was headed by Capt. William
H. Stayton, but was run by a tightly knit group of Wall
Streeters, including Pierre du Pont, Irénée du Pont, Lammot
du Pont, John Raskob, and Charles Sabin. Sabin
was the chairman of the Morgan-owned New York Guaranty
Company. According to a Senate investigation into
the AAPA, by 1928, of the 28 directors of GM, 15 were
listed as members of the group, which promoted the repeal
of Prohibition, and the replacement of corporate
taxes with a tax on beer and liquor, based on the British
The 1932 Democratic Convention
On Jan. 22 , 1932 , Roosevelt announced his candidacy
for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination. The
convention was scheduled for late June in Chicago. From
the very outset, FDR was by far the favorite to win the
nomination and the Presidency. However, the top-down
Morgan interests that literally owned the Democratic Party,
through Raskob and Shouse, had other plans. They
launched a “Stop Roosevelt” operation, employing a number
of Morgan assets, and drawing upon party factions,
which had their own differences with FDR.
Morgan man Al Smith announced his candidacy on
Feb. 6, immediately creating a serious split in the New
York Democratic Party. A number of “favorite son” candidates
also entered the race, most with the understanding
that they would ultimately throw their support—at a
price—behind either FDR or some rival, in the event that
the convention was deadlocked. The Raskov-Shouse-Morgan
strategy was to deny Roosevelt the nomination on the
first series of ballots, and then draw support away from
the New York governor, and behind their chosen “compromise”
candidate, Newton D. Baker, Woodrow Wilson’s
Secretary of War (1916-1921), and later a lawyer for the
Morgan interests in Cleveland, Ohio.
Although FDR competed in the Democratic primary
elections, winning over half the delegates, he suffered
several setbacks, orchestrated by the Morgan crowd and
others. The biggest upset came in California, where Texan
John Nance Garner, the Speaker of the House, won
41% of the vote, to Roosevelt’s 32 % and Al Smith’s 26%.
Garner had campaigned against Roosevelt and Smith as
“Tammany Hall” politicians, and had the backing of William
Gibbs McAdoo, the California lawyer, who had been
Wilson’s Secretary of the Treasury (1913-1918), and a
two-time contender for the Democratic Presidential
nomination, in 1920 and 1924. McAdoo was the son-inlaw
of President Wilson, and, appropriately, had the
strong backing of the Ku Klux Klan in his 1924 bid for
the nomination (Wilson had shamelessly boosted the revival
of the KKK from the White House, through his promotion
of the Hollywood film, Birth of a Nation, which
lionized the racist organization). In 1924, McAdoo had
gotten into a pitched battle with Smith over the nomination,
deadlocking the convention for days, and leading,
ultimately, to the selection of a “compromise” candidate,
John W. Davis—yet, another lawyer for the Morgan interests.
McAdoo also had a very close relationship with the
country’s leading publisher, William Randolph Hearst,
who, at one time, had also sought the Democratic Presidential
Going into the Chicago convention, Roosevelt had
well-over half of the 1,154 delegate votes needed to clinch
the nomination. However, the rules of the party required
a two-thirds majority, which meant that 770 votes were
needed to win. As long as the Morgan forces could block
any large crossovers, FDR could be defeated, despite the
fact that he had won 11 of the 13 primaries in which he
competed, and had won 44.5% of the total votes cast.
Memories of the disastrous 1924 nominating convention,
which took 103 ballots to break the deadlock between
Smith and McAdoo, added to the political climate,
favoring a Morgan-led anti-FDR “compromise”
Adding to the political minefield facing FDR, was the
fact that Chicago’s Democratic mayor, Anton Cermak, was
allied with the “Stop Roosevelt” forces, and was a leading
proponent of the repeal of the 18th Amendment (he coveted
control over liquor licensing and taxation, which
would greatly enhance his financial and political power),
and he would control who would be allowed into the galleries
at the convention center, an important psychologi21
cal intimidation factor. Cermak had gone East on the eve
of the convention, to meet with Raskob and Shouse, ostensibly
to push an anti-Prohibition plank for the party
The Backdrop to the Convention
Cermak also hoped that the revenues generated by
hosting both the Democratic and Republican nominating
conventions would bail Chicago out of a desperate financial
crisis. 750,000 Chicagoans had lost their jobs since
the 1929 Crash; over 100,000 families were on some kind
of public welfare; half of the banks in Chicago had gone
under; city workers, including police and teachers, were
being paid in IOUs; and almost every luxury hotel in the
city’s famous downtown Loop was in bankruptcy receivership.
On the eve of the convention, 759 teachers had lost
their homes, because they had not been paid in five
months, according to the authoritative account of the
1932 convention, Happy Days Are Here Again, by Steve
Neal (HarperCollins, New York, 2004). And garbage collectors
had also gone on strike, after missing months of
pay, resulting in a pile-up of garbage everywhere.
Arriving delegates were greeted by “Hoovervilles” all
over the city. Writing for The New Republic, John Dos
Passos described the scene on Michigan Avenue: “Down
here the air, drenched with the exhaust from the grinding
motors of trucks, is full of dust and the roar of the
heavy traffic that hauls the city’s freight. They lie in rows
along the edges above the roadway, huddled in grimed
newspapers, men who have nothing left but their stiff,
hungry, grimy bodies, men who have lost the power to
Weeks before the convention opened, Samuel Insull,
the leading industrialist in Chicago, had lost his entire
$170 million personal fortune, when debts were called
in on his utility companies, which suffered huge losses
through the collapse of industry and the fall-off in electricity
consumption. The Morgan interests were widely
accused of being behind the pulling of the plug on Insull.
In June 1932 , thirty-nine small and medium-size
Chicago banks all went bankrupt, as part of the Insull
Days before the convention opened, the major Chicago
banks, including First National Bank of Chicago and First
Union Trust, were hit with a run on deposits, estimated at
over $50 million. Next, Charles G. Dawes, former head of
Hoover’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation, announced
he was about to shut down his Central Republic
Bank and Trust Company, which had lost half of its $240
million in assets. Had Dawes’ bank shut down, the chain
reaction would have wiped out all of the major Chicago
banks. As the convention was opening, the RFC stepped
in with a $100 million emergency bailout loan, thus averting
a full-blown financial meltdown.
Morgan Versus FDR
Even before the battle over the nomination commenced,
a number of other issues had to be addressed,
that would vitally effect the outcome of the convention.
The first involved the seating of the Louisiana delegation.
Three contending delegations all showed up in Chicago,
reflecting the larger splits in the party between the proand
anti-FDR factions. At the time of the convention, Sen.
Huey P. Long was backing Roosevelt, and his delegation
was being challenged by a former Louisiana governor, Jared
Sanders. After a rousing debate between Long and
Sanders, punctuated by loud anti-Long rants by Cermak’s
bleachers rabble, the Long delegation was seated, by a
convention vote of 638-514.
Next, the crucial vote on who would be the convention
chairman took place. Roosevelt had chosen Montana’s
Thomas J. Walsh, a 73-year-old, 20-year Senate veteran, as
Library of Congress
During the 1920s, J.P. Morgan (shown here), and allied London and
Wall Street banking interests financed Italy’s Fascist dictator
Mussolini. They intended to establish Fascism in the United States—
but they had to try to eliminate FDR in order to do it.
his candidate. Walsh had presided over the tumultuous
1924 convention, before Morgan man Davis had won the
nomination, but was widely respected for the way he handled
that chaotic affair. The candidate of party chairman
Raskob was his fellow Morgan man, Shouse, the party’s
By another close vote, 626-528, Walsh won the pivotal
chairmanship. The two narrow victories for the FDR forces
would prove decisive. FDR’s pointman in Chicago
(Roosevelt, in the tradition of nominating conventions,
stayed back in Hyde Park, New York, but had a special
speaker-phone hookup to his Chicago convention stadium
headquarters), James Farley, would write in his diaries:
“To me the most vital moment of the convention was the
seating of Huey Long’s delegation.”
Efforts by the Roosevelt team to change the party
rules, to end the two-thirds majority requirement, flopped
miserably, and almost cost FDR the support of some of
his Southern backers, who saw the rule as key to their
party influence. The Morgan faction, allied with many of
the urban political machines, from Cermak to Tammany
Hall, tried to push through an anti-Prohibition resolution,
with the aim of drawing Roosevelt into a divisive
side issue, that could split off some of his Southern backers,
who were among the leading proponents of the ban
on alcohol. Ultimately, the convention voted 934-213 in
favor of repeal of the 18th Amendment. Roosevelt had
successfully stayed on the sidelines, averting the Morgan
On June 30, Walsh convened the nominating session.
By the time the nominating speeches and seconding
speeches had been completed, it was 4:28 AM, on the
morning of July 1. All told, 11 names had been placed in
nomination. Among the key candidates hoping to win the
nomination in the wake of another disastrous 1924-type
stalemate, in the event the Morgan “Stop Roosevelt” operation
succeeded, were: Newton D. Baker, Speaker of the
House John Nance Garner, Maryland Gov. Albert Ritchie,
and Al Smith.
At the end of the first round of balloting, FDR had 666
votes, followed by Smith, with 201, Garner with 90, Ohio
governor and favorite son George White, with 52; and a
lineup of other favorite sons with a total of 143 votes
among them. On the second ballot, Roosevelt gained 11
votes, but the failure of any major holdout delegations to
break was a bad sign. Furthermore, Cermak was working
non-stop to break away Roosevelt delegates, as part of the
Morgan scheme to deadlock the convention for a half-dozen
ballots, thus forcing Roosevelt to throw in the towel.
While his efforts failed, the third ballot also was inconclusive.
At 9:15 a.m., the convention adjourned, to resume
again that evening.
From the opening gavel of the convention, FDR was
targeted for massive dirty tricks, including a vicious rumor
campaign that he was “too sick” to be President, another
that he was in bed with the KKK. One of the leaders
of the “Stop Roosevelt” operation was Walter Lippman,
who was circulating a petition among the convention delegates
to draft Newton Baker as the compromise candidate.
Lippman lied, “All through these various delegations
there is an astonishingly strong though quiet conviction
that the party can unite on a man who is stronger than any
of the leading contenders. That man is Newton Baker of
Ohio. My impression is that he is the first real choice of
more responsible Democrats than any other man, and
that he is an acceptable second choice to almost every
one.” Lippman’s petition was accompanied by a massive
telegram campaign, touting Baker as the savior of the party,
against FDR’s divisiveness.
FDR responded with his own telegram to all the delegates,
in which he promised, “I am in this fight to stay.
This is a battle for principle. A clear majority of the convention
understands that it is being waged to keep our
party as a whole from dictation by a small group representing
the interests in the nation which have no place in
our party.” FDR concluded, “My friends will not be misled
by organized propaganda by telegrams now being sent to
delegates. Stick to your guns. It is clear that the nation
must not and shall not be overridden. Now is the time to
make clear that we intend to stand fast and win.”
Roosevelt’s use of the term “the interests” was a direct
shot at the Morgan Wall Street and London crowd
that was behind the desperate drive to deny him the
There are varying accounts of what happened next.
What is clear is that during the hours of July 1, between
the adjourning of the convention, and its resumption in
the evening, a deal was reached between the FDR forces
and Garner. Clearly, McAdoo had a role in the effort, and
Neal’s account identified Joseph Kennedy as a mediator
with Hearst. What is clear is that, faced with a prospect of
either Newton Baker or Al Smith winning the nomination,
should FDR fail to win the showdown fourth balloting, the
Texas and California delegations, both pledged to Garner,
went over to FDR, with the understanding that Garner
would be Roosevelt’s choice as Vice Presidential runningmate.
But even in the Texas caucus, the vote to support
FDR was by the narrowest 54-51 majority. And in the California
caucus, McAdoo was so uncertain of the outcome,
that he never took a vote, choosing instead to inform his
delegation that Garner had released the votes, but taking
the unilateral decision to pay back his rival Al Smith, by
personally announcing both the California and Texas endorsements
But there was more here than a backroom deal. Roosevelt
had clearly touched a deep chord among progressive
Democrats, who understood the implications of another
Morgan hand-picked candidate leading the Democratic
By the time the convention reconvened, on the evening
of July 1, the Morgan-Raskob-Smith gang had been defeated,
albeit by a near-miracle of political perseverence.
Once Texas and California broke, Cermak delivered the
Midwest states to FDR, and triggered a stampede of all the
favorite son delegations.
Shouse, the Morgan man, bitterly wrote to Newton
Baker after the vote: “If McAdoo had not broken the pledges
he made, Roosevelt would not have been nominated.
On the fourth ballot there would have been serious defections
from his ranks with the result that some other nominee
would have been certain. That nominee would have
been either you or Ritchie.”
Understanding the divisive role of the Morgan gang
and the urgent need to heal the wounds of the convention
fight, FDR took the unprecedented step of flying out
to Chicago, to directly address the convention. The
whole country followed in rapt attention, as FDR flew,
through inclement weather, from Albany to Chicago. He
delivered a powerful speech, proclaiming his “New Deal”
Assassination and Coup d’Etat
In the wake of FDR’s landslide victory over Herbert
Hoover in the November 1932 general elections, the Morgan
and City of London financier faction quickly regrouped.
If they could not defeat FDR by the manipulation
of the ballot, they would use other means.
On Feb. 15, 1933 , less than a month before Roosevelt’s
March 4 inauguration as President, a “lone assassin” attempted
to kill him, during a rally at Bay Front Park in
Miami, Florida. An Italian immigrant unemployed laborer,
Giuseppe Zangara, fired at the podium, as Roosevelt,
ironically, was shaking hands with Mayor Cermak. Cermak
took the shot, and died several weeks later. While investigations
into the shooting never developed evidence of
a broader plot, interrogations of Zangara confirmed that
he intended to kill the President-elect, thus dispelling later
claims that he had been sent by Chicago mobster Frank
Nitti, to kill Cermak, who had cracked down on his Capone
The Morgan hand was all over another plot to oust
Roosevelt, in the early months of his Presidency. As reported
to the McCormack-Dickstein Committee of the
House of Representatives, by Maj. Gen. Smedley Darlington
Butler (USMC-ret.), a group of leading Morgan
and DuPont operatives, including the recently deposed
Democratic Party chairman John J. Raskob, and his executive
director, Jouett Shouse, conspired to organize a
miltary coup d’état against FDR, claiming that Roosevelt
was a “Jew Communist,” who would destroy the United
John J. Raskob photograph collection
John J. Raskob (right) went to work for the Morgan-linked Pierre du Pont (left), where he amassed a fortune, as one of Morgan’s “preferred
customers,” who benefitted insider trading and priviliged stock purchases. Raskob was the pointman for the Morgan-led opposition to FDR
within the Democratic Party.
Library of Congress
States through New Deal hyperinflation.
Members of the conspiracy first contacted Butler in
July 1933 , in an effort to recruit him to the plot; they asked
him to recruit an army of 500,000 World War I veterans, to
march on Washington and force Roosevelt’s resignation,
and the imposition of a regime, modeled on Mussolini
In September 1934, the plotters established the American
Liberty League, with Al Smith, Raskob, the Morgan
lawyer John W. Davis, joining the ranks of the Grayson
Mallet-Prevost Murphy, Pew, Pitcairn, Rockefeller, and
Lamont interests. To set the stage for the outright pro-Fascist
bankers putsch, Henry Luce’s Fortune magazine devoted
its entire July 1934 issue to praise of Mussolini. Anglophile
editor Laird Goldsborough penned a signed
editorial, which proclaimed, “Fascism is achieving in a
few years or decades such a conquest of the spirit of man
as Christianity achieved only in ten centuries. . . .”
The true nature of the plot was exposed by General
Butler, who had been repeatedly approached by one of the
Morgan operatives, Gerald MacGuire, who had spent seven
months in Europe, at the start of 1934, making contacts
with leading Synarchists in Italy, France, and Germany.
Hesitant to signal Butler that the Morgan gang was
plotting a Hitler-Mussolini-style takeover of America,
MacGuire told Butler that the new movement, to save
America from FDR, was modeled on the French secret
military organization, Croix de Feu (Fiery Cross), which,
he lied, was like America’s Veterans of Foreign Wars or
Aemrican Legion. In fact, the Croix de Feu was a hardcore
pro-Fascist, pro-Nazi apparatus that had failed in
coup plots in France, and ultimately became part of the
collaborationist Vichy regime.
Butler smelled the rat and took his story to the news
media and the Congress, resulting in a tremendous scandal—
in part due to the fact that Congress was afraid to
implicate the top Morgan bankers in such an obviously
treasonous scheme. Working with Philadelphia Record
journalist Paul Comley French, Butler substantiated every
detail of the scheme. In one meeting with French, at the
offices of Grayson M.P. Murphy and Company, MacGuire
openly declared, “We need a fascist government to save
the nation from the Communists.” He explicitly endorsed
Hitler’s forced labor camps as the “solution” to unemployment
When the American Liberty League formally announced
their founding, the press was called in to the office
of none other than Jouett Shouse, at the National
Press Building in Washington. Shouse, who had headed
Morgan’s Association Against the Prohibition Amendment,
had merely changed the masthead on the old AAPA.
At its heart, it was a London-allied bankers cabal, committed
to imposing corporatist fascism—over the political
corpse of FDR.
A closer approximation of what drove London bankers
and their Wall Street cronies wild was revealed by
FDR and Henry Morgenthau biographer John Morton
Blum. According to Blum, in the autumn of 1933 , Roosevelt
and his Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau,
launched a drive to push up the price of gold and
strengthen the value of the U.S. dollar. As Blum reported
in Roosevelt and Morgenthau (Houghton Mifflin Company,
Boston, 1970), “To take charge of the foreign exchange
operation Roosevelt called upon the Governor of
the New York Federal Reserve Bank, George Harrison,
an urbane, experienced, conservative financier, who was
conscious and jealous of the traditional powers of his
office. Harrison insisted on having full authority over
the technical aspects of his job, to which Roosevelt
agreed, but the President hesitated to accept the banker’s
suggestion that the United States talk with the
British and the French before beginning to trade in
gold abroad. ‘Every time we have taken the British into
our confidence,’ he remarked, ‘they have given us a
“After further thought persuaded him to let Harrison
go ahead, the President thoroughly enjoyed the shocking
surprise of the Europeans. The French, Harrison reported,
had nearly jumped out of their skins. Governor Montagu
Norman of the Bank of England, a die-hard Tory
whom Roosevelt called ‘old pink whiskers,’ heard Harrison’s
news about American plans with incredulity. ‘This is
the most horrible thing that has happened,’ Norman
wailed into the transatlantic telephone. ‘The whole world
will be put into bankruptcy.’ Harrison’s instinct was to reassure
Norman, but Roosevelt and Morgenthau, picturing
foreign bankers with every one of their hairs standing on
end in horror, caught each other’s eye and began to roar
with laughter. Within 24 hours, Roosevelt told Morgenthau,
he expected to ‘see the whites of the eyes of the enemies,’
and he expected Harrison to shoot.”
It was Roosevelt’s open contempt for the British system
of usury and colonialism that drove London’s Wall Street
allies, led by Morgan, to plot outright treason, when they
failed to defeat FDR in Chicago at the convention.
Today, the financial disintegration has gone far beyond
the collapse that FDR faced, and today, once again, London’s
fascist agents, like Felix Rohatyn and George Shultz,
stand in horror at the remotest prospect of the Democratic
Party returning to the spirit and substance of FDR.
They know that the voice of FDR in today’s Democratic
Party is that of Lyndon LaRouche, and, while they know
that LaRouche is not running for President, they fear his
impact on the next Presidency, as much as they feared
FDR’s election in November 1932.
John Ascher, Richard Freeman, and Lonnie Wolfe contributed
research to this article.
Fukushima Radioactive Ocean Impact Map – March 2012
Japan Wants To Release One Million Tons Of Contaminated Water From The Fukushima Disaster Into The Pacific
by Steve Hanley
CleanTechnica maintains a Google document that lists all the stories available for our team of writers to write about. One column in that document categorizes the available stories by subject matter — renewables, fossil fuels, plastics, EVs, etc. It’s hard to say precisely where this story fits, so I have decided to classify it as news from the Insanity Desk. After the destruction of the Fukushima nuclear generating station by a tsunami in 2011, more than 1 million tons of water contaminated by radiation were stored onsite, waiting for someone to figure out what to do with it.
Now the Japanese government says it has decided to release the water — which is currently stored in more than a thousand steel tanks — into the Pacific Ocean, a process it says could take decades to complete. Local fishermen are aghast at the idea. Their livelihood was decimated by the original incident at the Fukushima facility. Who wants to buy fish that have been swimming around in nuclear waste? Now nine years later, after struggling to find markets for their seafood again, the government wants to hammer them one more time. The government says, “Not to worry, fisher persons.” It says it will address concerns that consumers will once again shun seafood from the area, whatever that means. That and ¥1,000 will get you a latte.
Alternative solutions include evaporation or the construction of more storage tanks at other locations. That second idea would involve transporting the polluted water from one site to another. What could possibly go wrong in that scenario, huh?
South Korea has banned sales of seafood harvested near Fukushima and has expressed strong concerns about the plan to dump that contaminated water into the ocean. It calls the plan a “grave threat” to the marine environment. Environmental groups also oppose the move, according to a report by The Guardian.
Is There Really An Environmental Threat?
Tepco, the Japanese utility company that owns the Fukushima facility, has developed what it calls its Advanced Liquid Processing System, which removes highly radioactive substances from the stored water. But the system is unable to filter out tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that nuclear power plants routinely dilute and dump into the ocean. A panel of experts advising the government said earlier this year that releasing the water was among the most “realistic options.”
The members of the panel claim that tritium is only harmful to humans in very large doses, while the International Atomic Energy Agency says it is possible to dilute filtered waste water with seawater before it is released into the ocean. The water at the Fukushima facility will be diluted inside the plant before it is released so that it is 40 times less concentrated. That process that will take 30 years according to the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper.
Pressure to decide the water’s fate has been building as storage space on the nuclear plant site runs out. Tepco estimates all available tanks will be full by the summer of 2022. As of last month, 1.23 million tons of water were being stored in 1,044 tanks, with the amount of waste water increasing by 170 tons a day. The water becomes contaminated when it mixes with other water used to prevent the three damaged reactor cores from melting.
Hiroshi Kishi, president of a nationwide federation of fisheries cooperatives, voiced opposition to the move in a meeting with the chief cabinet secretary, Katsunobu Kato, this week. Kato told reporters after the meeting that a decision on the water “should be made quickly” to avoid further delays in decommissioning the plant — a costly and complex operation that is expected to take around 40 years.
It’s About More Than Fishermen
Of course local fishermen should be concerned. Imagine if cesspool pumping companies told farmers they were going to dump their waste products on farmers’ fields but don’t worry — first we are going to dilute them by 40 times with clean water. Do you think those farmers would embrace the idea?
The issue is that the thirst for energy clouds the minds of otherwise rational people. Nuclear power is safe because accidents almost never happen — until they do. Drilling for oil and gas is safe because how much harm can one well do in the grand scheme of things? How much harm can the emissions from one Toyota Aygo do? How much harm can the phosphates and nitrogen put on a corn field in Iowa do? How much effect will the emissions associated with constructing a concrete office building in Nairobi do? How can the pollutants going up the smokestack of a single steel mill in Europe threaten the entire environment?
Humans look out at the vastness of the oceans and the skies and convince themselves that Nature is just too vast to ever be affected by human behavior. And besides, who wants to live in a world with no cars, no lights to drive away the darkness, no internet, and no air conditioning? What will people do with themselves if they don’t have ready access to cheap, abundant energy?
Apologists for nuclear energy argue it is mostly a boon to humanity and that the Chernobyls and Fukushimas are few and far between. The risk is manageable, they say. Apologists for the oil and gas industry crow about how they power the world economy, leaving aside the Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez catastrophes as outliers. Same with leaking pipelines. They are just a cost of doing business, one that can be managed.
What about all those more than 100,000 abandoned wells that dot the American landscape? Joe Biden says that capping them will provide lots of jobs, which may be true, but why should taxpayers be stuck with the bill while the companies who drilled them declare bankruptcy and walk away Scot free? Does that make any sense?
What we need is a new consensus, one which recognizes that human action has global consequences. Our tiny blue lifeboat out at the far edge of the universe is not immune to human caused degradation. It needs to be protected from harm. Turning our eyes longingly to distant planets to rescue us from our own foolishness is short sighted in the extreme. Ours is not a throwaway planet, although we treat it as one. We desperately need a check up from the neck up — the old ways aren’t working any more and time to save ourselves from our own actions is rapidly running out.
“So a laptop with video of the candidate’s son smoking crack while having sex was left for repairs, but after that someone uploaded fake correspondence on the device?”—Matt Taibbi @mtaibbi
“I Wanted It Out Of My Shop” – Computer Repairman Shares Why He Gave Laptop With Hunter Biden’s Emails To The FBI
The Delaware computer repair shop owner who turned over the Apple Macbook Pro containing Hunter Biden’s emails, photos and (according to Rudy Giuliani) a sex tape featuring Hunter Biden and another woman has come out to the public in an interview with Fox News.
John Paul Mac Isaac told Fox News that he is legally blind, and therefore he “can’t be 100% sure” that the individual who dropped off the laptop was Hunter Biden. But when he was backing up the hard drive, he stumbled upon “disturbing” images, including “pornography”, that freaked him out. Apparently, although Isaac’s blindness prevented him from positively ID-ing Hunter Biden, it didn’t stop him from viewing the contents of the hard drive.
Although it was only April 2019 at this point, Joe Biden was already considered the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. Isaac quickly became frightened, and started to worry about shadowy figures “coming back” for the laptop. To be sure, Fox News reported that whether Hunter Biden was indeed the owner of the laptop “has yet to be substantiated”.
“I just don’t know what to say, or what I’m allowed to say,” Isaac said. “I know that I saw, I saw stuff. And I was concerned. I was concerned that somebody might want to come looking for this stuff eventually and I wanted it out of my shop.”
During the interview, Isaac rejected the notion that the laptop was an “attempt to set him up” (perhaps with hacked photos and emails implanted in the hard drive?).
The man whom Isaac believes to be Hunter Biden dropped off three laptops at his shop in April 2019, but only one was salvageable. Isaac said the customer never returned for the laptop, and, after being unable to get in touch with the customer, Isaac began looking through the contents of the hard drive. He searched the emails by keyword in June or July.
“If I’m somebody that has no journalistic ability, no detective ability or investigative ability and I was able to find stuff in a short period of time, somebody else should have been able to find something to show,” Isaac said.
Isaac contacted an “intermediary” about the laptop, and the intermediary then contacted the FBI. Isaac said the intermediary is somebody whom he has known “for decades”, and declined to identify him beyond saying he was an American citizen. According to Isaac, the FBI first made a forensic copy of the laptop, then returned a few weeks later with a subpoena and confiscated it. After he stopped hearing back from the FBI, Isaac said he contacted several members of Congress, who did not respond, at which point his intermediary reached out to Rudy Giuliani’s attorney, Robert Costello.
Interestingly, when Fox News contacted the US Attorney’s office in Delaware, a spokesperson said “My office can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation.” This was after the New York Post published photos of the Delaware federal subpoena detailing the request for the laptop’s seizure.
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the same committee that released a recent report on Hunter Biden’s international business dealings, has confirmed that it is investigating this new leak.
Biden’s campaign insisted that there was no record of a meeting between Joe Biden and a Burisma executive, as described in one of the email chains reported by the post. However, his campaign has left room for the possibility that the two may have met briefly in an informal capacity.
When asked by Fox about his motives for turning over the emails, Isaac said the impeachment of President Trump by Nancy Pelosi and the House, along with the contemporary political climate, had inspired him.
[Mr. Wells may have been a genius, but he was a diabolical genius…so devious, that he privately developed a “conspiracy of one”, as a seed to plant, which would grow rapidly, spreading like “kudzo“, until it covered the face of the earth. The seed/idea (“meme“) was designed to spread subtly through repetition and peer pressure, until the idea became known to most people, at which point the peer pressure would be amplified by the power of the mob, under the guise of “humanitarianism“, where it would eventually ignite the world revolution, which we see all around us today, until the mob could overwhelm the old order, and with it all authority derived from national identity, enabling the overrunning of all national borders by stampeding herds of deprived, hungry human refugees…the weaponizing of the poor (SEE: Camp of the Saints ).]
“The Open Conspiracy is not so much a socialism,” says Wells, “as a more comprehensive scheme that has eaten and assimilated whatever was digestible of its socialist forebears.” He even suggests that “young people” be incorporated into the Open Conspiracy through organizations like “the Italian fasci.”
No, Wells has one essential enemy that the Open Conpi-racy must destroy: that is, the sovereign nation-state. The goal of its destruction is his life’s work.
As Wells put it, “This is my religion …. This book states as plainly and clearly as possible the essential ideas of my life, the perspectives of my world. My other writings, with hardly an exception, explore, try over, illuminate, comment upon or flower out of the essential matter that I here attempt at last to strip bare to its foundations and state unmistakably. . . . Here are my directive aims and the criteria of all I do…. [It is] a scheme for all human requirements.”
End the nation-state forever, replacing it with a world government run by the “Atlantic” elite: “The Open Conspiracy rests upon a disrespect for nationality, and there is no reason why it should tolerate noxious or obstructive governments because they hold their own in this or that patch of human territory. It lies within the power of the Atlantic communities to impose peace upon the world and secure unimpeded movement and free speech from end to end of the earth.
“This is a fact on which the Open Conspiracy must insist.”
But, Wells cautions, the Open Conspiracy might have to make war in order to end war. He explains that the Open Conspiracy’s commitment to world peace and ending war does not mean an exclusion of soldiers, warriors, and military means. Rather, the question is to whom might these warriors be loyal. It may be necessary for the Open Conspiracy to use “enlightened” warriors: “From the outset, the Open Conspiracy will set its face against militarism . . . [but] the anticipatory repudiation of military service . . . need not necessarily involve a denial of the need of military action on behalf of the world commonweal, for the suppression of national brigandage, nor need it prevent the military training of members of the Open Conspiracy. . . . Our loyalty to our current government, we would intimate, is subject to its sane and adult behavior.”
• Control human population to a limit set by a “world directorate” created by this elite. The means to be used for this population control would be “science” (eugenics, sterilization, and birth control); and total economic control by the world “directorate” of all credit generation, and of all distribution of economic staples needed for human survival (food, water, and shelter).
The Open Conspiracy “turns to biology for. . . the regulation of quantity and a controlled distribution of human population of the world.” And without this degree of control, the human race is doomed. So instead of the General Welfare of the U.S. Constitution, Wells suggests a selective welfare where the world directorate eliminates population growth in order to perfect the race. This is not just a material necessity, explains Wells, but larger, for under the Open Conspiracy “[man] will not be left with his soul tangled, haunted by monstrous and irrational fears and a prey to malicious impulse. . . . He will feel better, will better, think better, see, taste, and hear better than men do now. All these things are plainly possible for him. They pass out of his tormented desire now, they elude and mock him, because chance, confusion, and squalor rule his life. All the gifts of destiny are overlaid and lost to him. He must still suspect and fear.”
• Eliminate forever the “illusion” that man is made in the image of God, and as such, has a capacity for the Good. Instead, Wells insists that man is an “imperfect animal”: jealous, rageful, easy to anger, and “not to be trusted in the dark.”
“Man is a malicious animal,” says Wells, with a “common disposition to be stupid, indolent, habitual and defensive.” In man, the creative impulses are weaker forces than “acute destructive ones.” Human nature is destructive, he insists, explaining: “To make is a long and wearisome business, with many arrests and disappointments, but to break gives an instant thrill. We all know something of the delight of the bang. Such impulses must be controlled by the world directorate.”
Wells, at one point, attempts to boil down his new religion to six “basic essential requirements”:
“1. The complete assertion, practical as well as theoretical, of the provisional nature of existing governments and of our acquiescence in them;
“2. The resolve to minimise by all available means the conflicts of these governments, their militant use of individuals and property and their interferences with the establishment of a world economic system;
“3. The determination to replace private local or national ownership of at least credit, transport, and staple production by a responsible world directorate serving the common ends of the race;
“4. The practical recognition of the necessity for world biological controls, for example, of population and disease;
“5. The support of a minimum standard of individual freedom and welfare in the world;
“6. The supreme duty of subordinating the personal life to the creation of a world directorate capable of these tasks and to the general advancement of human knowledge, capacity, and power.”
But the most telling of these “essentials” is the summation, in which Wells insists on an attack on the human soul, that quality that distinguishes human beings from beasts. He insists that all Open Conspirators embrace “the admission therewith that our immortality is conditional and lies in the race and not in our individual selves.”
Upon reading The Open Conspiracy, Bertrand Russell, the other leading British Round Table subversive, wrote to Wells, “I do not know of anything with which I agree more entirely.”
An Unbroken Continuity
The major target of Wells’ Open Conspiracy is “the United States and the States of Latin America,” where, Wells
explains, there is less of a “tangle of traditions and loyalties … of privileged classes and official patriots . . . than in the old European communities.”
Additionally, Wells is nothing if not a global thinker, and, in addition to the U.S., he sees Russia as a crucial target to be assimilated by the Open Conspiracy. At one point, he chuckles that, despite the Soviet Union’s formal commitment to the “proletariat,” the Open Conspiracy “may rule in Moscow before . . . New York.”
He sees America as uniquely important in the Open Conspiracy because of its growing economic strength. For Wells, the American System of economics, i.e., Hamiltonian economics, is the enemy of the Open Conspiracy, and the financier faction is its ally.
By 1928, Wells writes, “American industries no longer have any practical justification for protection, American finance would be happier without it,” but without the success of the Open Conspirators, this protectionism will simply go on and on.
There is no question that the institutions created by William Yandell Elliott and Robert Strausz-Hupe conform precisely to Wells’ “blueprints” for ending the American System that he found so offensive to his new religion. He instructed his current and future Co-Conspirators to further the “new religion.” He instructed:
“Through special ad hoc organizations, societies for the promotion of Research, for Research Defence, for World Indexing, for the translation of Scientific Papers, for the Diffusion of New Knowledge, the surplus energies of a great number of Open Conspirators can be directed to entirely creative ends and a new world organization” can be built up, superseding, but incorporating, “such dear old institutions as the Royal Society of London, the various European Academies of Science and the like, now overgrown and inadequate. . . .”
More broadly, in writing The Open Conspiracy, Wells set out to recruit a worldwide network of Open Conspirators, who would operate, within their national settings, on behalf of the global subversion of all nation-states, the “scientific” depopulation of the darker-skinned races of the planet, and the establishment of One World oligarchical domination, under Anglo-American leadership.
“The political work of the Open Conspiracy,” Wells writes, “must be conducted upon two levels and by entirely different methods. Its main political idea, its political strategy, is to weaken, efface, incorporate or supersede existing governments. . . . Because a country or a district is inconvenient as a division and destined to ultimate absorption in some more comprehensive and economical system of government, that is no reason why its administration should not be brought meanwhile into working co-operation with the development of the Open Conspiracy.”
But, Wells cautions, no one should be excluded from the Open Conspiracy, not for reasons of class, occupation, or nationality. Instead, “[T]he Open Conspiracy must be heterogeneous in origin. Young men and women may be collected into groups arranged upon lines not unlike those of the Bohemian Sokols or the Italian Fasci.. . .”
By the time the first edition of Wells’ Open Conspiracy bible had appeared, institutions like the Rhodes Trust, the Round Table, the British Fabian Society, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and its New York City adjunct, the Council on Foreign Relations, were already engaged in the process of recruiting successive generations of agents, agents-of-influence, and agents provocateurs, to the One World banner. Wells’ The Open Conspiracy gave focus to the effort, stating bluntly the long-term objectives, and highlighting the critical importance of selecting and recruiting the best and the brightest, albeit corrupted, minds—what Wells called the “serious minority.”
Three-quarters of a century later, Wells’ “Open Conspiracy” is still trying to prevail.
Lebanon’s former Prime Minister Saad Hariri on Thursday said he was a possible candidate to head a new government to stem the country’s economic collapse after a massive port explosion.
French President Emmanuel Macron last month extracted a pledge from all political sides in the former French protectorate to back speedy government formation as part of a road map out of the crisis, but efforts so far have failed. Macron has said a reform-minded cabinet was essential if aid were to flow in to rebuild the country.
“I am definitely a candidate” to head the next government, Hariri said during a live interview on the MTV television channel.
“I will not close the door on the only hope left for Lebanon to stem this collapse,” he said.
The country is mired in its worst economic crunch in decades, and still reeling from a devastating explosion in Beirut on August 4.
The explosion of a massive stockpile of ammonium nitrate at Beirut’s only port killed some 200 people, wounded thousands more and ravaged buildings in surrounding residential neighbourhoods, leaving at least 300,000 people homeless.
Former PM Saad Hariri says he is a candidate for prime minister after saying over the past 6 months that he was not.
Consultations to name a new PM are set for Oct. 15.
Hariri could be back 2 days before the anniversary of the uprising that led to his resignation last year. https://t.co/TL209gMuFm
— Timour Azhari (@timourazhari) October 8, 2020
President Michel Aoun is to hold parliamentary consultations on naming a new prime minister on Thursday next week.
Hariri said he was ready to start making phone calls during the coming week “if all political teams still agree on the programme” discussed with Macron.
The former prime minister stepped down under street pressure last year after mass protests erupted demanding the overhaul of a political class accused of being inept and corrupt.
The government that followed, headed by Hassan Diab, resigned in the wake of the Beirut blast.
The next prime minister-designate, Mustapha Adib, last month bowed out just weeks after being nominated, after his efforts to hammer out a cabinet were blocked by the country’s two main Shia political parties – Hezbollah and Amal – seeking to keep the finance ministry under their control.Forming a government can drag on for months in multi-confessional Lebanon, where a power-sharing agreement seeks to maintain a fragile balance between all sides.
But Hariri said all political sides had agreed with Macron, who visited Beirut twice in the wake of the blast, to set aside their differences for six months to save the country from further deterioration.
“Every political side can invent a problem to government formation,” Hariri said.
“But if the political parties really want to stem the collapse and rebuild Beirut, they must follow the French initiative,” he said.
Alifetime ago, on Sept. 14, Greg Vanlandeghem sat outside a café in Holly, Mich., and explained to me that he planned to vote for the President’s re-election because he saw the race as a contest between two bad options. “We’ve got a guy trying not to die,” he told me, “and we’ve got Trump.”
The candidate Vanlandeghem described as “trying not to die” was Joe Biden, the 77-year-old former Vice President, who’s been dogged by right-wing attacks on his mental acuity. But now, the “guy trying not to die” might well be the 74-year-old President, who was being treated with supplemental oxygen and a battery of drugs after contracting COVID-19, a lethal virus that can cause everything from pneumonia to strokes to neurological impairment. Vanlandeghem, a 37-year-old home builder, is a social and fiscal conservative, but he didn’t vote for Trump four years ago and considers the President a “buffoon.” If anyone’s mind was going to be changed by Trump’s diagnosis, I thought perhaps it might be him.
Vanlandeghem was unfazed. “I think it’s unfortunate,” he said, after I called him back to ask his opinion on the latest updates. “But it’s something that a vast majority of the population is going to come down with at one point or another.” He still isn’t considering voting for Biden.
I wasn’t surprised. Once again, history was unfolding in Washington; once again, voters seemed to be reacting with a collective shrug. If there is one constant in this extraordinary presidential election, it’s that every time the political class declares that a news event will permanently reshape the race, it usually seems to evaporate into the ether. The President could be impeached for abuse of power, publicly muster white supremacists, tear-gas peaceful protesters for a photo op, pay less than his employees in taxes, declare that he’d refuse to accept the results of the election, hold a possible superspreader event at the White House–and millions of Americans will ignore it. To half of us, all this is an outrage; to the other half, none of it matters.
How voters are processing Trump’s behavior at this fractured moment may be the most important question of the 2020 election. But it’s a tricky one to answer in the midst of a pandemic that has turned the campaign into one interminable Zoom call. It’s hard to get a read on a race that has limited travel for both candidates and reporters, a contest with countless polls but few insights, lots of speeches but few crowds, plenty of talking heads but few ordinary voices. So in September, after recovering from COVID-19 myself, I spent three weeks driving across the battleground states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, trying to get a fix on what’s happening between the ears of the people most likely to determine the winner on Nov. 3.
The more people I met, the more I detected something deep and unpredictable lurking beneath the surface, something that I wasn’t sure was reflected in the polling data, something that maybe couldn’t even be measured at all. My phone was filling with news: news about wildfires engulfing the West Coast; news about Trump reportedly calling fallen soldiers “losers” and “suckers”; news about the death toll from COVID-19 passing 200,000; news of Trump’s admitting to journalist Bob Woodward on tape that he had intentionally downplayed the virus, purportedly to avoid causing a panic. But almost nobody seemed to be talking about these headlines, and when I asked about them, people often didn’t believe them or didn’t care. I felt caught in the chasm between the election as it was being reported by my colleagues in the press and the election as it was being experienced by the voters.
Most Trump voters I met had clear, well-articulated reasons for supporting him: he had lowered their taxes, appointed antiabortion judges, presided over a soaring stock market. These voters wielded their rationality as a shield: their goals were sound, and the President was achieving them, so didn’t it make sense to ignore the tweets, the controversies and the media frenzy?
But there was a darker strain. For every two people who offered a rational and informed reason for why they were supporting Biden or Trump, there was another–almost always a Trump supporter–who offered an explanation divorced from reality. You could call this persistent style of untethered reasoning “unlogic.” Unlogic is not ignorance or stupidity; it is reason distorted by suspicion and misinformation, an Orwellian state of mind that arranges itself around convenient fictions rather than established facts.
At its most acute, unlogic manifested as a belief in dangerous falsehoods, from the cult of QAnon to the conviction that COVID-19 is a hoax. But the milder forms of unlogic were more pervasive: believing that most reports about the President were fabricated by lying reporters (they aren’t) or that Biden is a socialist (he isn’t) or that the coronavirus is no worse than the flu, as Trump keeps insisting (it’s far more deadly). Unlogic erupted on the left after Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis, with liberals online speculating that Trump is faking his illness (he isn’t).
With so many voters ignoring the headlines, it became increasingly hard to tell where most Americans fall on the continuum from reason to unlogic. In the absence of agreed-upon facts, the possibility of consensus itself seemed to be disappearing, and the effect was unsettling.
Most of the time, voters reacted to news events in ways that conformed to what they already believed. When I first met Eddie Kabacinski, a city-council member in Warren, Mich., in mid-September, he gestured to my mask and said, “So you’re saying the air that we breathe outside, there’s something wrong with that? That’s kind of like, you’re not all there.” I nodded and tugged my mask under my chin to appease him. “We need to get back to reality,” he added.
When I called Kabacinski back after Trump’s hospitalization, he was in the middle of a “MAGA drag,” a procession of cars waving Trump flags as they cruised down I-75 . “It does no good for our Commander in Chief to be showing cowardice and wearing a mask,” he told me. “He’s the President of the United States. Nobody has the right to question him.”
Democracy, at least in theory, relies on a rational electorate acting in response to credible information. Since the dawn of mass media, elections have been shaped by voters’ reactions to the news. But as I drove through the three states that decided the 2016 election by a little less than 80,000 votes, I sensed a glitch in the information loop, like a scratch on an old-fashioned record. People kept repeating things that were false, and dismissing things that were true.
Over the course of three weeks, I spoke to nearly 200 people of all political persuasions. There were Biden diehards and Trump Republicans, tepid Democrats, old-fashioned conservatives, even the elusive undecided voter. I spoke to Wisconsinites in the conservative suburbs of Milwaukee and the streets of Kenosha, where the windows downtown were boarded up and spray-painted with phrases like “Love is the Answer” after nights of racial-justice protests; Michiganders in the swingy counties surrounding Detroit and in red-to-blue districts near Flint; Pennsylvanians in the suburbs around Pittsburgh and bellwether Luzerne County. I approached voters on sidewalks and in grocery stores and as they waited in line for restaurant tables. I was kicked out of Target parking lots and shopping malls. My diet consisted mostly of egg breakfasts, granola bars and dirty looks. I learned to say, “Hi there!” with an extra chirp, smiling with my voice since nobody could see my mouth behind my mask.
Much of the time, I got back into my white Ford rental with a pit in my stomach. Conspiracy theories like QAnon–the perverse delusion that Trump is the final defense against a “deep state” cabal of Democrats and Hollywood elite who traffic and rape children–kept cropping up in my conversations. Two women in Cedarburg, Wis., told me the “cabal” was running tunnels under the U.S. to traffic children so elites could torture them and drink their blood. When I checked into an airport hotel in Kalamazoo, Mich., the night manager made small talk about politicians running a pedophile ring as he directed me to the elevator.
The day after Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, I asked two women carrying Trump face masks in Mt. Lebanon, Pa., what they thought of the late Supreme Court Justice. They would only give me their first names, Kelly and Karen, because they did not trust the media. “I think we’ve been lied to: she died last year,” Kelly said. “I’m furloughed, so I have a lot of time to research things.” Karen added that they both watch OANN, a pro-Trump news network, because “I’m fed up with being blasted every day, people telling me how I should think, how I should feel.” OANN, Kelly added, is “like dry toast. They just give you the facts.”
As he returned his shopping cart after a trip to a Walmart in Sterling Heights, Mich., Michael Thomas, a 41-year-old who works in automotive-paint delivery, listed all the reasons he planned to vote for Trump again: he’s a Christian who opposes abortion and backs the Second Amendment. But also: “I believe in Q [and] Pizzagate,” he said, referring to the conspiracy theory that Democrats trafficked children out of the basement of a D.C. pizza parlor. Where does he find this information? He shrugged as he pulled out his keys.”The Internet,” he said simply.
The fact that a growing segment of the electorate has gone off the deep end is as much of a concern to many Republicans as it is to Democrats. “The only constant for a lot of voters has been ‘choose your own reality,’” says Tyler Brown, a former digital director for the Republican National Committee who is now president of Hadron Strategies. “Broadly speaking, Republican voters are less likely to accept what they read in the mainstream media on face value,” he adds. “I can see how that worldview can start to make people feel like they’re existing within two different realities.”
Kaitlin Martin, a 30-year-old nanny in Macomb County, Michigan, a politically purple region north of Detroit, was one of the few people I met who professed to be truly undecided about how to vote this year. She dislikes Trump: “I don’t respect someone who can be so unkind to people,” she says. On the other hand, she’s seen some things online that give her pause about Biden. “I don’t know what’s real and what’s photoshopped,” she said. “Is it dementia? Or is it his stutter? In a year or two, is he going to deteriorate? Now everybody is out there saying he’s a pedophile.” She’s not sure that she believes any of it.
All of these suspicions are like swirling clouds in a monster hurricane, tearing through the possibility of consensus in American democracy, chewing up the guardrails, ripping out the precedents; a hurricane going nowhere, with nothing at its center. The chaos and confusion can feel overwhelming, says Rolando Morales, a stay-at-home dad who’s retired from the medical-software industry, pausing on his way out of a Jimmy John’s sandwich shop in Racine, Wis. “You’re so sick of everything, you don’t know what to trust anymore,” he said. Morales voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and his wife and father-in-law are pro-Biden. But the violence over the summer in Kenosha made him wonder if he should vote for Trump. He doesn’t even know what to think anymore.
“It feels like there’s a new America being created, and I don’t know who’s cut out to deal with it,” he said. “We’ve headed somewhere different right now. And I don’t know where.”
Distrust of the establishment has always existed in America; historian Richard Hofstadter famously called it “the paranoid style.” But now it’s amplified by social-media networks whose algorithms reward extremism, and championed by a misinformation warrior who happens to serve as the President of the United States. In a study of more than 38 million articles about the pandemic, researchers at Cornell University recently found that President Trump was the single biggest driver of false information about coronavirus. A major Harvard study released in October found that Trump had perfected the manipulation of mass media to spread false information about mail-in voting, and that the President was an even bigger source of disinformation than “Russian bots or Facebook clickbait artists.” No wonder, then, that so many Americans are caught in the confusion, unsure what to believe.
When I asked David Cracchiolo, a Michigan land developer, about a report in the Atlantic that Trump called American war dead “losers” and “suckers,” Cracchiolo explained it was “a complete lie”: “He didn’t say it.” Karen Martin, a registered nurse who works in Pittsburgh, said she was skeptical of all the “hype” around COVID-19. People die of the flu, too, she reminded me. “I think the media overblew a lot of it,” she said. Why else had her hospital been bracing for an influx of critically ill patients that never came?
When I called Martin back to ask about Trump’s health, she said the diagnosis changed nothing for her. “I don’t think you could really blame him,” she said. “I’m not sure what other precautions we could have been taking.”
“He’s clearly made some mistakes,” Tom Schettino said when I asked him about the President’s handling of the pandemic. Schettino and his wife Grace are senior citizens who have lost four friends to COVID-19, and they were wearing masks when I encountered them in a Wilkes-Barre, Pa., mall. “I don’t know if anyone could have done it better,” Schettino shrugged.
I called Schettino back recently to see if his thinking had changed. “It is what it is,” he said, inadvertently borrowing a phrase the President used to describe the pandemic’s death toll. “He’s probably not prudent doing all these rallies and stuff, but he’s gotta live with it, and hopefully it gets better.” He still plans to vote for Trump again in November because he opposes Democratic economic policies.
And then there is Greg Vanlandeghem. After Trump was inaugurated, “I prayed that he would say something unifying, be a leader, instead of being a spoiled brat,” he said. He was one of the rare people I spoke with who did, in fact, change his mind. When I called him back after the President’s diagnosis, he informed me that he no longer intended to vote for Trump–but not because of the frenzy around his COVID diagnosis. After watching his obnoxious antics at the first presidential debate, he had decided he probably wouldn’t bother voting at all. Still, he said, the President’s conduct “doesn’t really affect our lives as much as our government telling us to shut our business down for no reason or shelter in place.”
Biden’s campaign is built on the opposite premise: that a President’s character is as important as his politics. Since launching his bid for the White House, the Democratic nominee has positioned himself as the antidote to Trumpian chaos, the steady leader who can guide the nation back to sanity and stability. His pledge to “restore the soul of America” promises a return to a time when Republicans and Democrats could be civil, even friendly, as they vigorously debated matters of great importance. The apple-pie vision did little to excite progressives enthralled with candidates like Senators Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, who promised “revolution” and “big structural change.” But while his primary opponents raced to the left to argue over who could change America faster, Biden won over the many voters at the end of their ropes. “I wish everything could go back to normal,” sighed Gwen Bogan, a Biden supporter shopping in the hardware aisle of a Walmart in North Milwaukee.
The polls kept showing Biden with a sturdy lead, but you wouldn’t know it from driving through the neighborhoods that make up Biden’s path to victory. Out in the battleground states, Biden’s statistical advantage seems muted compared to the ostentatious displays of Trumpian devotion. After four years of mobilizing grassroots armies that helped elect Democratic governors in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, and flip six House seats in those states, I expected to see more visible enthusiasm for Biden. Instead, everywhere I looked I saw Trump memorabilia: flags strapped to boats bobbing in Racine Harbor, trucks in Michigan parking lots with massive signs reading “Trump: No More Bullsh-t.” At a pro-Trump gathering in Kenosha, a week after the shooting of Jacob Blake, I saw a young woman, barely a teenager, in a T-shirt that read “Trump 2020: Because F-ck You.” I saw more Biden signs in one afternoon in Mt. Lebanon, Pa., than in eight days of driving through Michigan.
That’s partly because the Biden campaign, in a nod to public health, had until the final stretch focused almost entirely on digital organizing and phone banking instead of traditional canvassing. At two Biden events, I saw pro-Trump protesters show up with flags, while Biden supporters were few and far between. The Biden campaign says all this is intentional: they are seeking to keep events small to curtail transmission of the coronavirus. Only in the past week or so has the Biden campaign embraced on-the-ground campaigning, with teams of canvassers knocking doors in key states and a socially distanced crowd greeting Biden on a recent train trip through Pennsylvania.
But the battle for the nation’s future isn’t just about public shows of force from the rival campaigns. It’s playing out in intimate conversations all over the country, as Americans struggle to preserve what feels like an increasingly fragile union.
Jackie Brown and Josh Scott had been engaged for less than a day when they explained their diverging political views to me outside a Pennsylvania mall. Brown, who is Black, thought Trump was racist, sexist and erratic on foreign policy. “I think that Biden is a candidate who can work across the aisle,” she said. Scott, who is white, voted for Trump in 2016 and was considering voting for him again, because “I’m not for the social programs Biden has laid out,” which he thinks would require more taxes. The couple had been dating a year and a half; he proposed that morning.
After Brown, an attorney, rattled off her indictment of the Trump Administration–from the politicization of the Supreme Court to violations of the Hatch Act–I asked how their political conversations usually go. “Poorly,” Scott said, “but we respect each other’s opinions.” Brown looked at him sideways and, twisting the new ring around her finger, said, “He’s trying to convince me less than I’m trying to convince him.”
–With reporting by Leslie Dickstein and Simmone Shah
This appears in the October 19, 2020 issue of TIME.