Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 24, 2018

The MoA Week In Review - Open Thread 2018-31

[Please excuse the lack of posts this week. I am with my larger family and the kids keep me busy.]

Last week's posts on Moon of Alabama:

The U.S. embassy in Jordan let the "rebels" in southwest Syria know that they are on their own: ".. you should not base your decision on the assumption or expectation of military intervention by us." Several towns in the area have already decalred their will to reconcile with the Syrian government. More will follow. The Russian air force started to support the Syrian operations around Daraa with heavy bombing. The U.S. or Israel are now unlikely to intervene with anything but the usual propaganda. Get ready for new "last hospital", "barrel bombs", "chemical attack" and other nonsense headlines. Eva Bartlett is on the ground and reports from Hader, A Village Under Siege by al-Qaeda and Israeli Forces Alike.

Use as open thread ...

Posted by b on June 24, 2018 at 9:02 UTC | Permalink

« previous page | next page »


I have no intention to promote populism/nationalism. I am simply stating that when one strips a population of its sovereignty and democracy, as the 'Globalist' project does, eventually it leads to a revolt.

At this point the revolt is being led by the 'populists/nationalists'. As the devastation that is being caused by the 'Globalist' project continues there will be fewer and fewer people who to drink the 'Globalism' kool-aid.

Posted by: dh-mtl | Jun 26 2018 1:50 utc | 101

@100 I get your point and I'm not looking for an argument. There is a delicate balance especially in Europe where there seems to be some confusion about sovereignty and nationalism is equated in many minds with fascism. Europeans seem too sedated to actually revolt.

In the US it has taken the form of Making America Great Again whatever that means. Perhaps nationalism should be reserved for sporting events.

Posted by: dh | Jun 26 2018 2:05 utc | 102


"There is a delicate balance especially in Europe where there seems to be some confusion about sovereignty and nationalism is equated in many minds with fascism."

I would argue that a corporatist led dictatorship, as practiced by the 'Globalists' is a lot closer to the definition of 'fascism' than anything that the populists and nationalists are up to.

With the exception of Ukraine where the group of Western Ukranian nationalists, that are running the country, appear to be real fascists. But this group of fascists was brought to power by the 'Globalists'.

Posted by: dh-mtl | Jun 26 2018 2:48 utc | 103

Jen @89. Thanks for linking that film on the DPR. Rather than theoretical speculation, there are a people actually creating a functioning state… and under dire conditions no less.

It’s great to see Russel “Tex” Bentley again. I followed his youtube for some time, but new postings became rare, especially after “Motorola” was assassinated. And I haven’t looked for him in a while.

I’m about half way through the film, and will finish it, but wanted to thank you and encourage others to scroll up and watch it.

Posted by: Daniel | Jun 26 2018 2:57 utc | 104

Wow! Fell offa my chair this morning noting the NYTimes "re-visiting" the alleged Douma attacks. The hospital "gas" attacks have been substantially debunked (the work of "western financed" White Helmet types), but one never knows what remains in the minds of those thoroughly propagandized here in the States. So, the Focus from the same "propagandists" (it seems) on this one focuses on an the alleged chlorine gas attack on an apt complex about which there was some reporting along with the original "alleged" gas attack on the below ground hospital earlier. It appears -- given the problems the Americans have had with their Kurdish AND Arab proxies lately and official statements indicating "you're on you're own," etc. -- that putting up a losing fight for literally "nothing" in South Syria was shit-canned. Very likely then, instead of using "guns," those "Elites" who feed the Mainstream corporate media the stories they need to print supplied a dose of anti-Assad "propaganda" to keep the cauldron boiling . . .

Posted by: Richard Gabrio | Jun 26 2018 3:01 utc | 105

@102 You are probably right but I don't fully understand the 'Globalist' agenda. It does seem like power will inevitably end up in a few hands unless multilateralism prevails. We already have a kind of smiley face fascism and not many people seem to care.

@89 & 103. Just been watching that video about DPR and the amazing people in Donbass. Looks like they have a healthy form of nationalism. Something needs to change in Kiev.

Posted by: dh | Jun 26 2018 3:15 utc | 106

Posted by: dh-mtl | Jun 25, 2018 10:48:12 PM | 102

It is getting pretty close to fascism. German commentators have started to talk of "fighting refugees" without noticing the dehumanization. Never mind the discussion on "centers" or the cooperation with Libyan militias known for torture and rape. German AFD have a "return to inherited citizenship" in their programme.

Fascists have always existed to some degree. What is new is that Trump (and funding by interested oligarchs) makes some careerists feel they are on a winning trend.

There is a new type of people who spend most or all of their lives within fifty miles but are suddenly connected to the world via social media. And are easily targeted for manipulation.

Of course there is also a reaction to borders and identities losing meaning and value. Including cultural distinction. See "the Carters' apeshit" in the Louvre. So it is an elite thing, too. At least in Europe.

So either we get used to the idea that people are equal or we go down the route to barbarity.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 26 2018 3:29 utc | 107

add to
Posted by: dh-mtl | Jun 25, 2018 10:48:12 PM | 102

The term "Globalists" is funny. Is that synonymous with countries whose exports surpass their imports or countries whose imports surpass their exports? Or industries, like the financial industry, who invest world wide, or the car industry that has factories world wide, or ....

And would the opponents of "globalists" stop all this?

Do you think soy farmers in the US who live off exports to China are globalists? Can you name any industry that does not live off imports and exports?

Posted by: somebody | Jun 26 2018 3:38 utc | 108

Piotr Berman @98

Good points. Yet, while politicians have always lied and adjusted positions, until recently they have generally been ... politicians. Obama and Trump are portrayed as outsiders. Extraordinary outsiders that are genuinely interested in the concerns of ordinary people.

Bill Clinton was the first to attempt to be a populist. His famous line was: "I feel your pain." But he had spent his career in politics. Until Obama and Trump, we had Presidents that had long careers in politics and government service. Their pitch was, essentially: I know how government works, and I'll make it work for YOU!

So two populists in a row is extraordinary. And they both follow a similar model - right down to apologists touting the hero's ability to play 11-dimensional chess! And they both faced Hillary, darling of the establishment - whose husband pioneered a more populist, "accessible" Presidency.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 26 2018 5:06 utc | 109

somebody @102 writes:
'The term "Globalists" is funny. Is that synonymous with countries whose exports surpass their imports or countries whose imports surpass their exports? Or industries, like the financial industry, who invest world wide, or the car industry that has factories world wide'

I use the term 'Globalist' to refer to a group of International Oligarchic Elites who use their personal wealth and power to usurp political power around the world, with the apparent agenda of transferring governance from the 'Nation-States' of the world to Global Institutions under their control. From my readings at Moon of Alabama and other blogs, I find that this definition is consistent with the general use of the term 'Globalist' on these sites.

The problem with the 'Globalist' agenda is that it is essentially anti-democratic. There is no mechanism for democracy at a level above the nation-state level. Therefore the 'Globalist' project is essentially one of a global dictatorship.

The problem with dictatorships is that a dictatorship cannot effectively manage a large modern society. To understand why, one must understand the notions of complexity theory and its application to political-economic systems. And such a discussion goes beyond what can be done in a blog comment. Suffice it to say that high performing societies require highly complex political-economic systems, and that the governance systems required for complexity are aligned with democratic institutions, not dictatorships.

The 'Globalists' have captured power in both the U.S., by purchasing the political system, and Europe, at the European Union level, through the device of the Euro. In both cases the result has been the stripping of democracy from these countries and a drastic reduction in societal health, in both the U.S. and much of Europe. They are also behind almost all international conflicts of the past 20 years or so, which have been launched in order to spread their control over rest of the world.

So no the term 'Globalist' does not refer to countries that export, nor industries that are global in nature. It refers rather to a specific group of international oligarchic elites that is trying to strip nations of their sovereignty and their democracy, and in doing so are creating nothing but poverty and destruction.

Posted by: dh-mtl | Jun 26 2018 5:11 utc | 110

Correction to 109. Should have referred to Somebody@107

Posted by: dh-mtl | Jun 26 2018 5:13 utc | 111

Posted by: Daniel | Jun 25, 2018 12:05:56 AM | 50


Sorry about the slow response but local issues have been a bit time greedy this week. That and phone spam. This morning at around sparrow fart (I.E. any time before I have woken risen and ingested at least one cup of coffee) my old-school analog phone rang, waking me up, my youngest girl is in Europe for the first time & communication has been a little fraught making ignoring the ring impossible. It wasn't her when I picked up tho. There was the usual skype pregnant pause before a bloke with an indian accent came on and said "Who am I speaking too" Natch I said "F*F*Sake" n hung up. Hop back in to my beckoningly warm pit & get back to sleep until my mobile hoots I pick that up see the number isn't hidden - it purports to be somewhere in Auckland, but a number I don't recognise - immediately a machine starts yapping at me in Mandarin! WTF!

So after a prickly start I got a bit done even while I mused upon the best ways which we as individuals can force the phone spammers into a modicum of decent behaviour as well as considering what Daniel posted at #50.

I pretty much agree with you on Saunders being the best hope of a corrupt political structure, but I don't believe that even with a strong wind behind him Bernie stood a chance of winning the primaries let alone prez 2016 - altho in reality the primary was much tougher than the election.

Next time Bernie could conceivably win. He has been meeting & greeting with amerika's power brokers showing sufficient obeisance to garner the support of many of the arseholes. There we run smack dab into catch 22, If he is going to keep any/many of the deals he's done with the arseholes, he is absolutely no use to we ordinary humans, amerikans or others.

As for what you write about some of the articles St Clair and others published about Saunders during and after the primary, I was sceptical about Bernie, and like most others thought he was the best of a particularly bad bunch.

I'm afraid I didn't pay much attention to the negativity though as I have always held these critical attacks on a leftie who sticks his or her head above the parapet are a symptom of 'lefty disease'.

There is a substantial core of people who advocate humanist stances which turns on anyone who isn't themself, whenever an alleged member of the left manages to gather any fame or notoriety.
Nader copped it in spades even Michael Moore found the criticism from so-called fellow travelers to be the most trenchant.
It is crazy, I say take the good bits of what they advocatete and then points about failings in someone's plan are more likely to be listened to by that person.

Speaking of Mr Assange, the elite has used this weakness in the left as their major weapon to isolate this hero from a big chunk of what would/should be his support.

I have some pretty strong views about why so many fall into the 'he/she is not sufficiently left' bear-trap but in the interests of brevity (forlorn) and out of a wish not to alienate too many I won't get into that right now.

We do need to acknowledge this groundless resentment to be a major factor in how humanists regard potential solutions though.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Jun 26 2018 5:43 utc | 112

ps I reckon Jeremy Corbyn has replaced George Galloway as the most hated human being on the englander 'true' left - for exactly the reason I outlined above.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Jun 26 2018 5:47 utc | 113


It seems that you are distracted by the word "globalist". But "globalist" is really just an extension of "industrialist". Instead of exploiting and manipulating a country, they exploit and manipulate multiple countries. And "globalist" includes leaders of modern industries like information tech and finance.

Globalisation has been used to drive down wages and helped to form a political wedge that make "the radical center" a political fixture. Cui bono?

<> <> <> <> <>

I also think you reveal a blind spot when you assert that people are equal. To illustrate: as a left-leaning person, you are no doubt pro-choice. So why can't Western populations have the "choice" of who and how many people are offered immigration/asylum? Don't they have to live with that choice in the same way that a women has to live with the choice to have a baby?

If immigrants are fleeing wars and poverty that have been caused by the West, should Westerners be angry with the immigrants or with the elites that exploit and manipulate across countries and cultures?

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 26 2018 5:47 utc | 114

I'd say around these parts "globalization" is a reference to the increasing power of international financial institutions practicing crony capitalism and undermining the sovereignty of the nation-state and democracy. When people oppose globalization it is the subversion of local government by powers beyond the control of democratic institutions that people are against, not trade, imports, exports, what-have-you.

Posted by: Jason | Jun 26 2018 6:50 utc | 115

It's time for Syrian leadership to question Russia's role when it comes to it's close relationsship with Israel on Syria.

‘2 Israeli missiles’ strike near Damascus airport – Syrian state media

Posted by: Zanon | Jun 26 2018 7:30 utc | 116

Posted by: dh-mtl | Jun 26, 2018 1:11:49 AM | 109

Group of International Oligarchic Elites who use their personal wealth and power to usurp political power around the world, with the apparent agenda of transferring governance from the 'Nation-States' of the world to Global Institutions under their control.

This does not make sense either as capitalism has been international right from the start. It is the very essence of capitalism to be global.

You consider it realistic to go back to agriculture? You have to go back a long, long time before the global elite of the Chinese, Roman and Greek empires, probably the stone age and they travelled extensively then.

There was no "nation state" before the 18th century, when an authority was needed after monarchy. You think 2 centuries of wars are enough to declare it a successful model?

Or do you refer to the fact that trade necessitates agreements on standards and tariffs?

Or in the case of the US empire regret the fact that the US is no longer able to impose rules to the world but has to negotiate?

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 26, 2018 1:47:29 AM | 113

I also think you reveal a blind spot when you assert that people are equal. To illustrate: as a left-leaning person, you are no doubt pro-choice. So why can't Western populations have the "choice" of who and how many people are offered immigration/asylum?

Yes, it is amazing that never before it was considered a democratic right to decide on who is allowed to live in your neighbourhood. Quite the contrary, it used to be a democratic right to be able to live in any neighbourhood.

What you suggest is a closed shop defined by (fragile, questionable, see Catalonia, Chechnya, Ukraine ...) nationhood. In the case of Europe, women de facto decided this - pro choice. Demographics force immigration. The idea of nationhood depends on women. Go figure.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 26 2018 7:55 utc | 117


Globalism is really the situation society in the western world is in today, a growing number of people do not want to live like this, I think its very easy. Theres alot of troubles of today that is directly related to this thing called globalism. In principle globalism is a elite project, benefit the elite. If you yourself belong this group, ok then globalism is fine, but for many people, like on the very lower group of society - it is often considered very negatively and bad.
If you think people that are against globalism is nazis or fascists, you have completely misunderstood the term and the society you are living in.

Posted by: Zanon | Jun 26 2018 8:20 utc | 118

Nation states and city states have been around for most of recorded history.
This blog is globalization, which no one seems to complain about. With the ease of communications and freight across the world rather than just dealing with the immediate environs, that is inevitable.
The globalists (Iguess there should be another term for them) on the other hand, rather than just trade and communications between nations want total control, or empire. Seat of government in US, no nation can make a law that contradicts their law, US military with coalition of the killing setups to enforce their rule. Trade and communication used as a weapon. Willing to risk all, including the US to achieve this total dominance.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 26 2018 8:32 utc | 119

A few of the US elite seem to have got cold feet on the risking all bit and their front man is Trump.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 26 2018 8:35 utc | 120

Posted by: Zanon | Jun 26, 2018 4:20:48 AM | 117

I am saying that elites have always been global.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 26, 2018 4:32:08 AM | 118
Nation states and city states have been around for most of recorded history.

You mean Rome and Athens? They were inhabited by globalists, who "rather than just trade and communications between nations want total control, or empire"

The Roman empire has been the most effective in uniting Europe including North Africa along the lines today's European Union is planned. And they ended up giving everybody citizenship.

There is no longer any technological advantage in knowledge that would make an empire possible, people nowadays do have to restrict themselves to "just trade and communications".

The globalists (I guess there should be another term for them) on the other hand, rather than just trade and communications between nations want total control, or empire. Seat of government in US, no nation can make a law that contradicts their law, US military with coalition of the killing setups to enforce their rule. Trade and communication used as a weapon. Willing to risk all, including the US to achieve this total dominance.

My impression was that Obama tried to shrink the overstretched US empire without too much friction reverting to "smart power". Trump seems to have gone back to "stupid power".

Posted by: somebody | Jun 26 2018 9:25 utc | 121

The Zeitgeist Movement is the activist wing of something called The Venus Project, which approaches todays problems with rational, thought out, solutions. Although being a committed anarchist myself, I believe projects like this are the only hope for a brighter future.
Minor changes to a systemically flawed political system are not going to help. Attempting to fix an abhorrently unjust and lopsided economical system is an act of futility. No shit, weve been trying for literally millenia to cure greed and sociopathy by reshuffling the deck.
Doesn't work. You can change the voting system, the banking system, blah blah blah but while the entire organism is fundamentally carcinogenic, achieving any lasting change will remain elusive.
However, growing something completely new, something created by engineers and rational thinkers could eventually work as an alternative, resource based system where qualified scientists and engineers solve whatever problems they can in a way geared towards sustainability and efficiency.
Check it out.

Posted by: dan | Jun 26 2018 9:50 utc | 122

Excellent, clear explanation dh-mtl @109.

Posted by: fairleft | Jun 26 2018 10:01 utc | 123


Yes elites have always been global, regular people have not, and a growing number do not want to become "global". This is not "fascism".

Posted by: Zanon | Jun 26 2018 10:06 utc | 124

When I was young nieve and just taking notice of politics war famine ect. I came across a thing called the U.N. Brilliant idea I thought. It was, but like all good things it was open to curuption. But could it be saved ? It surly belongs to us rather than u.s. (Hey I like that) civilisation has moved on, more global, complex and heartless. A civil society needs rules an consequences. For the elites that is gone ! Right now they need to be stopped and punished. They are the true anchists we say we're anchists becouse we see the reality of the world we live in. Opposed to the rose tinted con that will totally waste a persons life.
So how about the U N with teeth, integrity, unbiased, uncuruptble and for the equal benefit of all human kind. Not as now for the dodgy benifit of a few greedy polatition's. Take it back and police the elite with it !

Posted by: Mark2 | Jun 26 2018 10:35 utc | 125

@ Karlofi 83

One last book endorsement for two of Bernard Bailyn's many works: The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution and The Ordeal of Thomas Hutchinson. If you have a good university library close by, it ought to have the entire work, Pamphlets of the American Revolution, from which Ideological Origins was just the introduction.

One of my research methods was to find an author whose authority I trust, like Bailyn, then read everything he wrote since I can't have him tutor me--and follow his footnotes to where he got his information.

The trouble is Bailyn, having done well diagnosing (some of) the ideological origins of the revolution, then falsely claims the 1788 coup was "fulfillment" of these goals rather than a reaction against the attempts of the people actually to realize them, along with the realization, openly admitted by Hamilton and Madison, that the Articles wouldn't enable the country to embark upon its god-given right to a continental empire.

So I'd advise people to read the "origins" chapters but skip the tacked-on, tendentious finale.

Posted by: Russ | Jun 26 2018 12:05 utc | 126

@ Piotr 98

Basically, without a supporting and lasting political movements solidifying their positions, politicians abandon those positions or are eliminated.

That's a big part of why, after decades of fairly widespread correct diagnosis of the situation and proclaimed will radically to change it, so little has been done by proclaimed dissidents against neoliberal corporate rule and imperialism: Everyone always wants to put the party cart before the movement horse.

But trying to cobble together an "alternative" party (let alone a one-off presidential campaign) on the fly without having first put in the long, hard work of building a coherent cultural and ideological movement, which then can serve as the solid foundation for a party, is doomed to failure, whether this be through lack of a coherent rationale or lack institutional fortitude or co-optation or, most commonly, all of these together.

I do not have enough empirical data either way, but upon reaching an elected office politicians are swamped with information and they must rely on "filters" in the form of staff etc., moreover they get media attention with concomitant media pressure.

If they start out assuming they need to engage with all that, then they do indeed swamp themselves that way. That comes from the lack of a coherent movement world-view of one's own.

Of course pretty much all the "alternatives" on offer today aren't offering much of an alternative at all. Here in the US the likes of the Green Party is little more than a proposed Democrat do-over, but honest and for true this time. If the likes of Jill Stein ever did attain high office they'd think only in terms of "getting things done" ("progressive" things, of course) according to the pre-existing rules of the system. And that's where they'd get swamped and redirected and forced to cave in from day one, like you were saying.

Meanwhile the classical path of building a real movement, then fielding a political party which seeks office in order to function as grid-locker and monkey-wrencher from within, in the service of the extra-legal action of the movement which is where the real action is, remains utterly unthinkable to today's "dissidents" (at least in the West), which proves that none of them are radicals or think radically at all.

Posted by: Russ | Jun 26 2018 12:09 utc | 127

Sunflower @116 says: 'This does not make sense'

It does not make sense because you misunderstand the argument. The argument is not about internationalism, or international trade or finance. The argument is about democracy or dictatorship, and the respect of national sovereignty.

No dictatorships have ever achieved the level of development or achievement for their citizens that 20th century democracies achieved. However, true democracies limit the role, and the wealth, of elites.

In the later half of the 20th century, a group of wealthy elites in the U.S. and Europe started to push back, to regain their traditional role and wealth. They established a group in the Chicago School of Economic under Milton Friedman, to legitimize their role with the mythical 'Free Market Economy', and 'Trickle Down Economics'. This is well described by Naomi Klein in her book 'The Shock Doctrine'.

This group achieved power in the U.S. in 1980, with Ronald Reagan as their front man. Since then they have stripped the U.S. of its democracy and turned it into an Oligarchic Dictatorship. Using the Euro as an artifice to strip the individual European countries of their sovereignty and placing their people in positions of power of the European Union, they have also turned Europe into an Oligarchic Dictatorship.

Unfortunately, as I said above that dictatorships have never been able to achieve the success of democracies. Under this Oligarchic Dictatorship both the U.S. and Europe are regressing, and will continue to regress until they reach a level of development that is compatible with dictatorship, something closer to the level of development achieved in the West in the 19th century. Thus the impoverishment of the masses, declining life expediencies, etc. etc. And finally some push-back from the masses, which is derogatorily called 'populism'.

The 'Globalists' are called globalists only because they are trying to extend their control globally.

Indeed the alternative, which is the 'Multi-polar World Order (MPWO) is no less international than the 'Globalists'. The main difference is that the MPWO respects national sovereignty and the 'Globalists' want to destroy it.

Posted by: dh-mtl | Jun 26 2018 13:00 utc | 128

Post 127 should have referred to 'Somebody @116'.

Posted by: dh-mtl | Jun 26 2018 13:02 utc | 129

Great thread, fellow Moonies.

I came across this relevant quote through, it appears to be a well-thought-out approach to creating small societies where each person knows the others personally — posited as 150 persons maximum.

150 Strong by Rob O'Grady reader view:

A basic effect of the profit motive on society is that it promotes a gross form of selfishness. The imperative of the marketplace to make a profit means that there is little room for sentiment, for the niceties of human dignity or compassion, because if you take your eye off the bottom line someone will take over your market share and muscle you out of business.

The profit motive also promotes greed in its most potent for by encouraging hoarding: the successful competitors strive to accumulate a larger surplus than their rivals, because the bigger their pile, the more secure their position. This creates a class of wealthy people who, with an overabundance of resources at their disposal, are able to enjoy material pleasures to an excess, while others are forced to live without even the basic necessities. That class of wealthy people is also able to indulge in the more subtle psychological pleasure of exhibiting their influence and importance, which accrues to them through their control of resources. In turn, this creates divisions in society and establishes hereditary privileged groups, which further amplify these patterns of greed over time.

O’Grady takes the above criticism of capitalism and society and evolves the idea of a practical solution based on compassion and other human values.

Posted by: jonku | Jun 26 2018 13:43 utc | 130

"the term 'Globalist' refers to a group of International Oligarchic Elites who use their personal wealth and power to usurp political power around the world, with the apparent agenda of transferring governance from the 'Nation-States' of the world to Global Institutions under their control."
Posted by: dh-mtl | Jun 26, 2018 1:11:49 AM | 109

Nailed it; in one (mercifully brief) sentence.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 26 2018 13:52 utc | 131

The main difference is that the MPWO respects national sovereignty and the 'Globalists' want to destroy it.

That stuff about the success of democracy versus oligarchy is fictional. US and European democracies - Britain, France were designed by capitalists versus the monarchy - "capitalists" as in "oligarchs". When French and British capitalists found out that equality and solidarity are universal they reverted to an accommodation with monarchy.

Indeed the alternative, which is the 'Multi-polar World Order (MPWO) is no less international than the 'Globalists'. The main difference is that the MPWO respects national sovereignty and the 'Globalists' want to destroy it.

This is fictional, too. I suspect, you assume Russia and China being the defendants of the 'Multi-Polar World Order (MPWO)'?

You did not seem to listen to Putin when he blamed Lenin for Russia's present problems.

I suppose you accept RT's account of the issue?

Putin said that he had been referring to an iconic debate between Lenin and Joseph Stalin, when the two revolutionary leaders were arguing about the best way to organize the new communist country. While Stalin suggested offering the Soviet Union’s member states, such as Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and the south of Russia, autonomy within a federation, Lenin disapproved and put forward a plan giving each republic the right to secede from the USSR.

“With that, the borders were being defined absolutely arbitrary and far from always based on reason. Donbass, for example, was transferred to Ukraine under the following pretext: to increase the percentage of proletariat in Ukraine in order to obtain stronger social support there. This is nonsense,” Putin elaborated.

As is, everybody supports everybody else's national independence/populist/democracy movement to weaken their opponents.

This Stanford paper is a good introduction to today's (and yesterday's) political warfare.

By contrast, I would argue that the Russians were angry with the U.S., because, particularly in postcommunist Europe and Eurasia over the past twenty-five years, the U.S. had aggressively pursued a foreign policy of challenging dictatorships and promoting democratic change. From the Russian perspective, U.S. democracy promotion carried a dual threat — to the security of the Russian state and to the survival of Putin’s regime. As a result, the Russian leadership felt that strong counter-measures were required. They reasoned, quite naturally, that if the United States , a democracy,pursued policies that weakened autocracies and pushed for democratic change in Russia’s neighborhood, then Russia, an authoritarian regime, should respond by doing the opposite; that is, weakening democracies and supporting authoritarian politics. To re-purpose a familiar phrase from the Cold War: insofar as American politics was concerned, the Russians were playing tit for tat. As Putin knows very well, in part from his time in the KGB, the United States has long been in the business of regime change.

Democracy? Gerrymandering to define who is in and who is out has got nothing to do with democracy.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 26 2018 13:54 utc | 132

@131 To be clear are you saying that a Multi-polar World order is an impossible fantasy? One group or school of thought must always seek to dominate?

Posted by: dh | Jun 26 2018 14:17 utc | 133

A bit OT, or not - oh wait, this is an open thread :)

What's the deal with Qanon? I've come across references to this, here & there, but so far, my gut tells me it's a psyop

Definitely interested to know if this a deep-state op given the supporter of it seem to have a dubious "religious" fervor about it

Thanks in advance

Posted by: xLemming | Jun 26 2018 14:29 utc | 134

It was asked what solutions were possible for globalist reform. Please allow me to pitch one for the group:

Here in Mendocino county we have maybe 100 000 people. Arguably we could all fit in one stadium. Granted, we don't have such a stadium, but it could be built and every resident would be able to hear the microphone. I see no reason to not be our own nation. We, as a nation, could create our own currency, we could have our own laws, and trade with other counties then allow residents to come and go based on their desire to live under our established laws.

We could have tariffs on items coming from larger nations (and consider subsidies for smaller nations.) For instance, if Bend Oregon (also about 100K) formed their nation, we could choose a zero tariff arrangement. Eureka is way bigger, they have a school and a port, if their county were 200K, on them we could impose a 20% tariff until they divided.

San Francisco is probably not going to care about us one bit. They can have all the government they like, they can pay for it however they want, but what they're not going to do is flood our county with cheap international goods acquired through currency destabilization because their tariffs would be near 1000%.

We can grow oranges, hops and obviously grapes, the pears have no market and the trees are getting cut down. We could absolutely be sustainable, we have hydro electric and sunshine all year. Until we stop funding the MIC, I can't see how we could ever run a surplus though. We need to break our perceived obligations to the federalists and that can't happen while the 49 other states can impose on us their collective will.

End the fed. And I don't mean the private bank. I mean the whole thing. I see no positive value in government that is more than 100 miles away.

Posted by: TSP | Jun 26 2018 14:41 utc | 135

132 Now you mention it ....

The Spin War - Pro Trump conspiracy monger qanon calls for regime change in Iran

Israeli and Saudi intervention in US politics is taboo. Presumably they did more for Trump than Russia.

The game now is to "separate Russia from Iran".

Posted by: somebody | Jun 26 2018 14:45 utc | 136

@133 Sounds idyllic. Who would harvest the oranges for minimum wage? Would you have border controls and restrictions on immigration?

Posted by: dh | Jun 26 2018 14:50 utc | 137

Posted by: TSP | Jun 26, 2018 10:41:01 AM | 133

:-)) Yes, that is what it comes down to.

Would be difficult to use the Mendocino currency for stuff like computers and petrol though.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 26 2018 14:52 utc | 138

@136 From what little I know of Mendocino they would probably use Cannabis Credits.

Posted by: dh | Jun 26 2018 15:10 utc | 139


@116: It is the very essence of capitalism to be global . . .

LOL. What sort of capitalism are you referring to? You are deliberately ignoring: merchantilism, corporate welfare, crony-capitalism, and neo-feudal tax policies.

It's always hilarious when a purported lefty deliberately ignores class.

@131 That stuff about the success of democracy versus oligarchy is fictional. US and European democracies - Britain, France were designed by capitalists versus the monarchy . . .

Oligarchs could wrest control from the monarchy because of fundamental social and technological change. Isn't it time for another transfer of power?

More hilarity as a supposed lefty supports oligarchy.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 26 2018 15:33 utc | 140

xLemming, somebody

I wrote about Qanon @10, which kicked off a long conversation.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 26 2018 15:34 utc | 141

Guerrero @ 66. source, imho: A terminally stupid economic model (free market liberalism, profits at all costs, see e.g. college education and student loans, prof. salaries..)

- coupled with weak / misguided / ignored / > corrupt governance aka political system, which cannot regulate everything (the nasty => totalitarianism / jack-boots dictatorship / strongly enforced ‘communism’, etc.) and so is parasitical, on the take ppl, and wasteful.

More of a description than a stab at root causes, I realise.

A part causal expl. is that the USA as a colony and then as ‘independent’ was mind-bogglingly potentially wealthy. Land, water, geo. pos., as well as the tools available for exploitation, care of the industrial revolution, plus soon fossil fuel slaves, oil only at first, as well as the human slave trade.. all gloriously implemented for decades (say 45-75/80.)

After WW2 the USA accounted for 50% of world GDP, today 25%. A richness never experienced before in the world, now forever unattainable. With such splash bounty to go round, ‘free market’ and ‘some caring cute solidarity’ (for neighbors, workers in a profession, kiddies who need education to become ‘creative’ entrepreneurs or efficient workers, pregnant women, sick ppl, etc.) was affordable.. Roosevelt saved ‘capitalism’ with the New Deal.

When the profit motive balloons out of control in sectarian niches while the counted-on abundance narrows (e.g. selling fake pills and corrupting the Gvmt. FDA to certify them as A-OK) it is game over. The resources no longer allow the hucksterism and the self-regulating adjusments that more or less worked without violent oppo (but see US civil war) in the past. The whole society eats itself up bit by bit, predators feeding on the poor until they die as well. Or emigrate…

dh-mtlh @ 79, thanks for those amplifications, about Trump, yes. Yueh for the mention of manufactured lanscapes, others, etc.

Posted by: Noirette | Jun 26 2018 15:49 utc | 142

Interesting thread. Do I parse it correctly that we are looking for new or improved models of social organization that don't steal from the poor to give to the rich?

Some countries are already underway with this project. It pays us to examine China with its revolutionary socialism, Cuba with its revolutionary socialism, and Iran with its revolutionary socialism. Easy to spot the two words these countries have in common. Words are tricky things of course, and get corrupted and co-opted, so if you don't like those words it's okay. But the systems of these countries, regardless of any labels, deserve examination.

Ramin Mazaheri - whom I have praised here before - has published the third article in his proposed 11-part series on Iran. Almost everything we think we know about Iran is wrong, I'm discovering. Here's the intro paragraph to the new piece:

Just as everyone falsely assumes that Iran’s economic history followed the standard colonial model (it didn’t), that their political cleavages are the same as the West’s (they aren’t) and that Iran trails the West in modern political thought & democratic structure (they don’t), it is little wonder that Westerners assume that “privatisation” simply must be the same as in the West (it isn’t).

The new article is called What privatisation in Iran? or Definitely not THAT privatisation.

By the way, Mazaheri has also written on China and Cuba, examining these socialist democracies and how they work - and how well they are working. In Mazaheri's hands, socialism is shown to be a very robust, economically sustainable and pluralistic form of society. All of these articles can be found under his name at the Saker.

Posted by: Grieved | Jun 26 2018 17:22 utc | 143

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 26, 2018 11:33:40 AM | 138

Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto? From 1848?

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere. The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature. The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

Looks like China has learnt a lot since 1848.

You really think you get this into a national bottle where it has never been before?

Going back to the very start - Augsburg's Fuggers?

Alongside the Welser family, the family controlled much of the European economy in the sixteenth century and accumulated enormous wealth. The Fuggers held a near monopoly on the European copper market.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 26 2018 17:39 utc | 144

@131 jonku.. thanks for the book recommendation.. it looks good..

Posted by: james | Jun 26 2018 17:58 utc | 145

The video presentation posted by the New York Times on the alleged Douma chemical attack is a fairly slick production which likely appears convincing to its target audience. It employs "geo-location" techniques developed by Bellingcat to assemble circumstantial evidence, consisting mostly of assumptions derived from videos said to have been filmed in the aftermath of the alleged attack. While denouncing Assad and his allies as proven liars and war criminals, the presentation relies almost entirely on accepting the veracity of the video clips which are sourced to the White Helmets (aka "media activists"), and accepting the authority of a few "experts" on the effects of chlorine gas. The controversy over the activity of White Helmets at the local clinic, and the related investigation by OPCW are not mentioned.

The purpose of the video is not to galvanize support for greater intervention in Syria, as was the line during Aleppo, but to reinforce an image of Assad as a lying murderer who gases children, and his Russian allies as duplicitous apologists for the same.

Posted by: jayc | Jun 26 2018 17:59 utc | 146

Mark2 @126:

The United Nation problem cannot be solved, or reformed, until the question of sovereignty is resolved. In order for the UN to be effective, every member needs to give up sovereignty, which means a One World Government. People who asks for a OWG don't truly know of the consequences.

The best option currently is for balance of power. The Multi-Polar World is an attempt of returning balance to the World.

Posted by: Ian | Jun 26 2018 18:13 utc | 147

Re Globalism, Imperialism and a 500-year survey of Earth's resources.

The following may be valuable context to understand the current scene.

In late 1500’s, the English Crown realized its very survival was to be as seafaring-traders/sea-controllers and began (1) building a global navy and (2)collecting data, in earnest, of all known, global resources, first compiled by England’s 2 Hakluyts, both uncle and nephew having the same name of Richard Hakluyt. [Note: The Hakluyt Society established in 1995 is not to be confused with the original Hakluyt team.

Columbus' 1492 voyage made clear there is only limited land and resources. England's Crown's took notice
The fact of finite land and resources decided England's future existence and meant that global collection of navigation data and resource deposits was to begin, Thus, an Earth survey, by any means necessary, was established and run by the Hakluyts about 1595. It has never stopped.
Spies, shipping agents, ships' captains and navigators, adventurers, scholars et al were enlisted globally to record and send the data to the Hakluyts for collection and [limited] publication to interested parties. The Hakluyts collected all raw data and printed the first volumes about 1599. [I have read several parts of the early volumes which is a bit of a struggle, because there was not yet any standard form of English spelling or grammar.]
An example of vital data : On long voyages across open ocean, lack of potable water caused entire crews to die and their ships become derelict. This was well known by occasional reports of these derelicts. Thus, sources of potable water for long voyages and the landing points for longboats to get safely ashore at “unknown” islands to collect the fresh water, became vital knowledge
This Earth Survey led to gold-buccaneering, fleet-building and Drake's wiping-out competition [Spanish Armada] on up to The East India Company and into more modern, more covert tactics, e.g. identifying control methods to ensure global control of trade routes, as choke-points, colonies, naval domination ,etc. That Earth survey and quest for control of resources has never ended.
Long-range planning was always evolving by trial and error and very covert. The small island-nation of England learned well its limitations as its Empire collapsed. Surely by the 20th Century, survival depended on correctly analyzing its failure to control that Empire. To wit: the lacking island-nation needed a giant proxy-nation to front for its Empire rebuild. Whoever might it be?

Posted by: chu teh | Jun 26 2018 18:13 utc | 148

somebody @145

It appears that you are suggesting that governments can't regulate trade, immigration, or tax policy. Which is patently untrue.

You're just throwing shit against the wall now.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 26 2018 18:37 utc | 149

On the “what is globalism” debate -

I cannot link to a source, but Bill Clinton himself is supposed to have said in public
“Globalization is about one thing: cheap labor”.

I hope that helps.

Posted by: NotBob | Jun 26 2018 18:46 utc | 150

@142 JR

Yes, you're right... and a good post too

Sadly I have a short attention span...

Look! There's goes a squirrel!

Posted by: xLemming | Jun 26 2018 18:50 utc | 151

Debsisdead @113ish

Thanks for the considered reply. OMG! My wife and I have been overwhelmed by phone spam over the past couple of months. We signed on for all the spam blockers available, so these calls were quite rare, but now…. and yes, those that go to voicemail often include rambling recordings in some Chinese dialect.

LOL. I just got another spam call as I was typing!

After Sanders broke his promise to contest the nomination at the Convention, he has gone totally overboard - IMO - promoting the RUSSIA!!! conspiracy theory and demonizing Assad and Madero. He’s continued to promote some great domestic policies, and has at times said or tried to do something positive on foreign policies, and he has endorsed some progressive candidates for the mid-term elections. But he’s also left others hanging, and promoted some of the worst of the “corporate Democrats.”

At this point, he is still the most highly regarded politician in the US, so I think he could be useful to build a strong 3rd party alternative. If he and the handful of other well-known politicians united with locals under a strongly progressive, anti-war/anti-imperialism platform, I think they’d come out of the gate with the largest voter base in the US.

Yeah, the “left” in the US has a long history of eating its own. One reason is the long-standing strategy of Power to infiltrate, disrupt and misdirect popular, progressive, lefty movements.

I suspect something along those lines is happening at CounterPunch (and many/most other “alternative” sites).

Posted by: Daniel | Jun 26 2018 18:56 utc | 152

Ian @ 149
Thanks for getting back to me on that one! Been holding my breath ! I see where your coming from with the logic but no I defiantly would not like a one world government. Imagine if that got in the wrong hands ! I It could be made up of strictly non political academics proven representatives ,legal , pillars of all walks of society. Not to goven country's but to purely Police governments . I'd take away the veto, as that has renderd it impotent. Hence my comment giving it teeth!
No doubt all the people it would be 'dealing' with would be squiling like stuck pigs' and that would prove it's effectiveness. Start at the top and work down. Freeze the bank accounts and it would be self financing. Meen while we could just get on and run our own country and culture. You could perhaps bolt on the simple Ten Commandments as the rule . I hasten to add no I'm not religious!
I like to think my 'feet are firmly on the ground on this one. It also passes lets called it 'the Karlofi test I.e. do our eyes glaze over after a few minutes. Thanks k.

This is urgent I beg people here not to indulge in eutopian fantasy conjecture. People are being murderd by the million right now. We need to kick um into prison as soon as possible and have a dam good plan to replace them or were to everyone on this site.

Posted by: Mark2 | Jun 26 2018 19:15 utc | 153

dan @123. The Venus Project has a beautiful vision of the sort of sustainable, egalitarian and largely automated means and methods of production to which I aimed. I highly recommend that everyone visit that site, and at least watch the main, introductory video.

I am concerned with their proposed method of governance. A computer-decided autocracy scares me. Garbage In - Garbage Out. From what I know of him, if the late founder, Jacque Fresco programmed those beautiful machines that make all the decisions, the world they’d control would be quite wonderful.

But, if those with evil intent get into those “black boxes,” it could get really ugly really quickly. The same concerns are true for the various Direct Democracy plans. I do not trust online voting. I do not trust that people are ready or able to make wise decisions on all the actions that governments must take. Here in CA, we have a mild form of DD in our Proposition system. And I have seen groups with ill intent manipulate voters, resulting in people “choosing” the exact opposite of what they really want.

That’s why I mentioned my preference for a democratic republic. It’s the worst form of governance… except for all the others.

Posted by: Daniel | Jun 26 2018 19:16 utc | 154

Mark @ 154
Just to clarify my rant is about taking back the UN to control the elite. Thanks

Posted by: Mark2 | Jun 26 2018 19:25 utc | 155

Russ @127--

There are a miserable few historians that recognize what occurred in Philadelphia in 1787 as a coup; I am one of them. Most of the rest are "Court Historians"--They must confirm the primacy, goodness and majesty of the Constitution while burying as deeply as possible the government it overthrew--The Continental Congress and its legal guide The Articles of Confederation. That's why the massive uproar surrounding Charles Beard's 1913 publication, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, for it questioned the fundamental legitimacy and the supposedly pure motives of The Framers for the first time.

Bailyn did some outstanding work to be sure. However, he was awarded two Pulitzers and a Bancroft Prize for his key works--awards that only go to Court Historians. Gordon Wood was one of Bailyn's students and has followed in his footsteps. His books are quite good but for their omissions. Howard Zinn's magnum opus A People's History of the United States more than deserved a Pulitzer and Bancroft, but it told the truth! And we can't have that.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 26 2018 19:37 utc | 156

xLemming. I’m quite certain that Q/QAnon is a psyop. I first became skeptical last December, when they posted that the Trump Administration signing an Executive Order granting the Feds the power to confiscate all of YOUR property that gave The President the power to confiscate any private property from any individual they accuse of being an enemy/terrorist/etc. was a great thing. They claimed this was how our hero, Trump was going to single-handedly bring down the “globalists.”

For the past week or two, they’ve been promoting Bolton’s “regime change” in Iran. Caitlin Johnstone and Suzie Dawson have done some great analyses of the Q.


I haven’t gone through all on this page, but it looks like it’s got some great info:

QAnon is a PsyOp designed to mislead Trump supporters and divide alternative news readers

Posted by: Daniel | Jun 26 2018 19:51 utc | 157

Grieved @144, I tried to get a response to this point before. Maybe you’d care to take a stab.

It's been a not well hidden secret that the Reagan team negotiated with Ayatollah Khomeini in 1980 to convince the students to hold onto the hostages at the US Embassy in order to prevent Carter's "October Surprise" of releasing them, and winning the election.

Bear in mind that the socialist revolution had already won almost a year before Carter invited the Shah to the US, which resulted in those students occupying the US Embassy in what began as a classic “sit in” protest, and evolved into "the hostage crisis" later.

Well, a few years ago, CIA declassified documents showing that the Carter team had already been negotiating with Khomeini since 1979.

Reagan’s team apparently offered the best terms, and so Carter was left out to dry, and the world got Iran/Contra, etc. and a nation whose official motto is “America is the Great Satan.”

So, given that CIA/Deep State/whatever deliberately helped install the Islamic Theocracy over the revolutionary socialist government, what does that mean in terms of the real RealPolitik of “the West” vs. Iran?

I cannot see how that is not an important subject, and yet almost no one ever even hints at it.

Posted by: Daniel | Jun 26 2018 20:08 utc | 158

Russ and karlof1. One thing that never ceases to amaze me is how fully internalized is the belief that that the purpose of the 1787 Constitution was to preserve Liberty.

Especially amongst "conservatives" of the "Originalist" Construction ideology, when I point out that the purpose of the Constitution was to create a much stronger Central Government, the best response I get is blank stares.

Posted by: Daniel | Jun 26 2018 20:21 utc | 159

Daniel @159--

Yeah. All too many US citizens don't know more than their grade school history that promotes worship of the Founding Fathers and the Framers, which is one of many reasons we're in our current mess. One of the more interesting books about the US Revolutionaries was published in 1962: Merrill D. Peterson's The Jefferson Image in the American Mind--"... NOT a book on the history Thomas Jefferson made but a book on what history made of Thomas Jefferson." [Emphasis original] The Prologue of which is titled "The Apotheosis." Peterson won the Bancroft Prize for his work, which is to say it certainly qualifies as Court History, but of a rather unusual sort--it undresses the subject instead of clothing it in regal garb. Yes, it's quite fascinating, and its impression's stuck hard in the 20 years since I first read it. Peterson might have written about other Framers and Fathers, but he focused on the biggest enigma amongst them--Jefferson. He--Jefferson--produced something usable for anybody anywhere on the political spectrum. It's not a rare book at all and can be found for $2 plus shipping from alibris, less expensive than my copy. Peterson's closing paragraph's somewhat cryptic, but it's the prior paragraph which relates well to the context of the time prior to its publication and the reason Jefferson remains relative all these years later. I'll leave it to the reader to discover what Peterson wrote; but I promise the reader will not be disappointed.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 26 2018 21:13 utc | 160

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 26, 2018 2:37:25 PM | 150

It appears that you are suggesting that governments can't regulate trade, immigration, or tax policy. Which is patently untrue.

They can. However, global capital always wins.

Think the US are profiting from Trump's tariffs on steel? Well foreign investors profit from low US corporate tax. Like the German guys quoted here.

Wilbur Ross, President Trump’s Trade Secretary, was last seen slapping tariffs on European steel and aluminum. But he said radical US tax cuts — Washington recently slashed the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent — are still attracting foreign businesses.

Trump won the election supported by global capital. You really think he intends to act against it?

Posted by: somebody | Jun 26 2018 21:31 utc | 161

Patrick Armstrong has an article up at his blog, along with a letter he received printed in full. Interesting reading in view of the current discussion. Concerns democracy in Russia.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 26 2018 21:53 utc | 162

somebody and jackrabbit.

And recall that Trump's Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross is a Rothschilds employee who bailed out Trump's real estate and gambling bankruptcies because he thought Trump would be useful down the road.

Meet Wilbur Ross, who once bailed out Trump in Atlantic City and is now his pick for Commerce secretary

Posted by: Daniel | Jun 26 2018 22:20 utc | 163

somebody @161

... global capital always wins.

Unpacking: Whenever capitalists/globalists rule then this is a truism.

A better way to say this: without strong controls, some asshats will find a way to exploit others.

You really think he intends to act against it?

This 'gotcha!' fails because your assumption that anyone that's critical of globalism is a Trump supporter is very mistaken. In fact, I've written (a number of times) that Trump is a faux populist - like Obama - who will betray his "base".

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 26 2018 22:41 utc | 164


Forgive me if I misinterpret this post, but I found it difficult to follow, particularly in the passage you quote from the Stanford paper. I extract the following:

"...From the Russian perspective, U.S. democracy promotion carried a dual threat — to the security of the Russian state and to the survival of Putin’s regime..."

In the earlier passage from RT, you quoted an account of Putin's assessment of a decision made by Lenin against what Stalin was proposing, in that the former counter-decided to proceed with a non-federal arrangement of nations under the Soviet model rather than a federal construct, which is the one Russia currently operates under.

I don't see that this passage agrees with the Stanford extract at all. In fact I don't agree with the Stanford assessment at all. I can see the point Putin is making about the better course in the earlier situation, but to blankly say that "US democracy promotion" was a threat to Putin is just plain balderdash - had what the US was about in "helping" Russia after the fall of Communism been democracy promotion that country would not have had the terrible Yeltsin years it is now attempting, with success, to recover from.

Posted by: juliania | Jun 26 2018 23:27 utc | 165

Nationalism, high corporate/individual taxes (to promote investment in productive economy and not not hoarding of fictitious capital by the few) , capital export controls, fixed exchange rates, limits on corporate political financing, respecting individuals rights, state limits on usury, state banks free of the Fed Reserve monopoly, Glass Steagal, eliminate/minimize offshore tax havens.

We had all of that in the 50's and well into the 60's which are considered the golden age. A neoliberal coup took place after the civil war between the nationalists and globalists in the 60's that resulted in assasinations and impeachments. It was finalized around 1975 or so in the US.

Similar coups took place in UK and elsewhere

Need to look more in the Le Cercle and the private intelligence group 6I (a redo of AIC and East Indian Company but shareholders on a multinational level), not that its really possible to do so given their secrecy, except to know that they and other more secret groups exist.

Posted by: Pft | Jun 26 2018 23:42 utc | 166

karlof1 @160. As my current reading queue is likely longer than my allotted days on the mortal coil, I doubt I'll get around to reading that book. So, can you paste or link to the Peterson quotes you think so valuable?

Posted by: Daniel | Jun 26 2018 23:52 utc | 167

The letter in the article I linked to at @162 covers Putin's views on US democracy. The letter is written by a person that with the backing of Putin set up and education program on democracy for Russia that apparently still runs to this day. A very interesting read.
Putin behind the scenes was responsible for for setting up a group in Saint Petersburg to look for somebody with thoughts on a system of democracy that would be acceptable to Russia and was capable of writing up an educational program. A number of people they thought of as possibles were invited to Russia and went through an extended period of evaluation. The person that wrote the letter to Armstrong is the person that was eventually chosen to draw up an educational program for Russia.
Link to the article

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 27 2018 0:05 utc | 168

Daniel @167--

A historians inbox in never empty and is often overflowing! I commiserate and understand completely. I shall do it soon!

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 27 2018 0:49 utc | 169

@68 peter... thanks for that article! good stuff!! i think the fact that putin can be interviewed by the public for 4 hours or more in 1 session and it is broadcast everywhere is part of the testimony to the fact russia does take democracy very seriously and works to attain it.. putin strikes me like a man on a mission that is far greater then his ego.. building community and having a vision for russia that excels and exceeds it's past in a productive and positive way seems to be a good part of his vision..

Posted by: james | Jun 27 2018 1:37 utc | 170

Even so, brother historians, The Politicos 1865-1898 by Matthew Josephson,
published in 1938 is special and highly to be recommended if only because of the
lucidity of the prose which i can not describe to you; it's practically Miltonian

On the period of the Founding of the U.S.A. I am least versed; no one needs to reverse
any strong view of mine because, at least on this subject, i am happy to read and learn.

I have read The Federalist Papers and have a paperback copy in my library here; Madison and Hamilton and to a less extent Jay published a socratic dialog of sorts, this was for the purpose of rousing and concentrating public interest in the struggle that was coming.

(Similar to Sentimientos de la Nación read aloud by Morelos in the Church of the Asumption in Chilpancingo, Guerrero. It's pronouncment was intended to provide the people some good reasons to support an extended insurrection against colonial Spain. That was it's political purpose as I understand it; just so The Federalist Papers were platonic action document in the sense that they reflected an actual creative process, not something already known and named.

Other than that, I had an idea that Hamilton was a cosmopolitan from the financial world
who as Secretary of the Treasury in the Washington Administration used government issued
credit to underwrite the construction of physical infrastructure and to retire war debt.

I thought what he did was take the war debt that was a big bone of contention between the states that owed a lot and those who owed a little. Supposedly, Hamilton took over
this debt solving an important obstacle to political union. Then he issued credit based
on that debt and employed this credit to build canals and other internal improvements.

Jefferson is supposed to be more of intellectual lightweight, he is the natural man
sipping mint julips under the moon making slave babies out at Mount Vernon plantation.

Now, I many well have this all wrong! out of all the books that have been recommended,
which would be the 1 best book i might procure to orient myself in USA founding history?

And once again someone get a copy of The Politicos 1865-1898 by Matthew
Josephson and read the first chapter and tell me this book is not a great treasure!

Posted by: Guerrero | Jun 27 2018 1:49 utc | 171

@158 Daniel

It's not something I'm familiar with. You could write to Ramin Mazaheri and ask him to explain. He could probably point to some of his articles already on Iran, but I'm not sure. Iran is all nuance, and nothing comprehensible in western terms. Everything expressed in western paradigms - as the Guardian and CIA data you present are - is wrong.

So that's one place to start. Then the next is to question who the Shah was in Iran. I gather there's a lot of nuance there too.

Then the next step might be to question how well the CIA understood the nation it was dealing with anyway, based on its record in the world and over its many decades of hubris and corrupt criminal view.

So I don't have any answers to your specific questions. But the larger questions, to my mind, and of vastly more importance than what you accord to your questions (no offense intended if that sounds brusque), are those that ask, "What is Iran?"

Ramin Mazaheri makes it quite clear that we in the west don't know this answer in any particular, while the Iranians do know quite clearly, and so the disconnect lies with us. He is trying to repair that disconnect. I champion his effort, his works, and his advice. I suspect a reading of his articles would draw you closer to your own answers.

Posted by: Grieved | Jun 27 2018 1:49 utc | 172

@171 Gerrero - which would be the 1 best book i might procure to orient myself in USA founding history?

How about the notes of the discussions of the delegates to the Federal Convention that summer in Philadelphia as they discussed, debated and negotiated among themselves to create the wording of the US Constitution?

Madison took the best notes, but for whatever reason some of the more cursory notes taken by other delegates were published first and it took some time for Madison to release his own. They were immediately recognized as the definitive record, and they showed the incompleteness of the others.

Madison to me was the strongest single force in the creation of the Constitution. Part of the Virginia state delegation, he took active part in the convention, but also slaved as a virtual secretary throughout it all. He said the effort almost killed him, and this was an age when health and death were closely connected, so this is not an exaggeration.

When I was younger, I came across an out-of-print, 3-volume collection of Madison's notes complied by Max Farrand, including various letters and commentaries that were illuminating. I spent the summer reading it, laboriously and enthralled. At the end, I think I understood what they were trying to achieve, and I could see how the nation had played out based on their decisions.

I copied every page of this borrowed first edition and have kept my copy ever since. I have long wanted to turn it all into a digital file to share - and now I find this has already been done. Welcome to the Internet, I say to myself.

Online you can find Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 3 vols. [1911]

[@karlof1 I mentioned this document once, and said I wanted to share it. But I never thought to look for it online. Of course, there it is, and I assume you are already well versed in it.]

Gerrero, it's worth your summer to read it all, and immerse in that world directly. When you come out, decide for yourself where it all fits with theories and the powers and principalities of the world. But this is how they were, and how they thought, and what they were trying to do. There was no air conditioning. It was hot. A horse ride to New York took 3 weeks and was a perilous journey. One sees a delegate leave for a time and never return. It was that world. Personally I found it useful to absorb the feeling of that world.

These were political delegates of the states. It was a meeting to form a Union of the States. Not a democracy. The democracies were themselves within each state. The people trusted their states - because they could connect with their legislatures. The Ten Amendments were added by the people through their states, and the Constitution would never - NEVER - have been ratified without these safeguards.

The Constitution was to create a federal nation with a larger power than the states. The Bill of Rights was to protect the people from the standard tyrannies of all nations. One should regard the two instances of political will as inseparable.

Posted by: Grieved | Jun 27 2018 2:25 utc | 173

"Jefferson is supposed to be more of intellectual lightweight, he is the natural man
sipping mint julips under the moon making slave babies out at Mount Vernon plantation.."
You got that wrong- Mount Vernon was Washington's place. Jefferson was hardly, in relative terms, an intellectual lightweight either. Though he did 'make babies' at Monticello
Woody Holton's 'Unruly Americans' might interest you. It is a good intro.

Posted by: bevin | Jun 27 2018 2:26 utc | 174

Grieved @172. Indeed. "What is Iran" or more specifically, what is the Islamic Republic of Iran is precisely what I'm asking. If it is the deliberate product of the CIA as I’ve been positing for some years now, the reality is is completely different by all sides.

And that would seem to be of prime importance.

So, here’s some new to me information. I’m ashamed to have not read this when it was written in 1995 - or at any time since - but doing some digging, I came across the research of one Fara Mansoor. He was an Iranian insider in the government of the Shah. Wow!

In a nutshell, he documents that the replacement of the dying Shah was a George Bush/CIA operation that started in 1977! That was the year he found out the Shah was dying, the year Carter fired 800 of Bush’s employees at CIA, and then fired Bush himself.

I’m not done reading/researching this, but certainly explains a plethora of dangling threads that have troubled me for some time. If it pans out, “This Changes Everything!”

Posted by: Daniel | Jun 27 2018 2:59 utc | 175

bevin @174 thanks for straightening out my kookie misconceptions about jefferson

Grieve, that is some recommendation! I have two books to finish then I'll read it
if i can get a readable copy here or print it out, whatever. Thanks a lot for the tip.

Posted by: Guerrero | Jun 27 2018 3:05 utc | 176

@175 Daniel

Let me suggest this. We could try to understand Iran by starting from the ground in Iranian terms and working our way up. And at some point we would intersect with the western rabbit hole of covert activity created from the stratosphere and aimed at drilling down to the supposed Iranian ground.

At this intersection we could see that all revolutions contain numerous plots and counter-plots, and some appear to be viable and some are even accorded the status of being the cause for an effect.

But the vital question remains: is this what really happened?

We can only know by going to the place and time, and to experience it in the terms of the protagonists. It would also not hurt to understand that Iran was the winner in all this, regardless of how the western spook narrative likes to creates segments and demographics that fit their presentations of the story, which are very often very wrong.

I don't know what happened. You don't know what happened. The CIA doesn't know what happened.

Iran knows what happened. Until we speak the language of the paradigms and realities of Iran, we cannot read accurately the tale of what happened.

Iran, by the way, is the winner of all this western interventionism. It is immune to the west. This line of immunity cuts in half all narratives that say the west holds a certain history or current position inside Iran. This is what revolutions are for, to make all previous plots invalid, regardless of how real they seemed at the time.

If one does not know that Iran is immune from the west, then nothing that one reads from western sources is of any use. One has to come back to the ground of Iran, and start up from there. The disconnect in our understanding of Iran is so real, and so large, that to argue in any way for a reality based on western data is simply to illustrate the disconnect, not to repair it.

Posted by: Grieved | Jun 27 2018 3:29 utc | 177

More on the CIA’s Islamic Republic of Iran.

For any who don’t recall, I have/had friends who were parts of the 1978-1979 Iranian Revolution. My perspective has grown out of their personal accounts, and a fair amount of study since.

So, to see what’s got Grieved so excited, and how it relates to my question, I just read what would seem to be the relevant article that Mazaheri wrote, “How Iran got economically socialist, and then Islamic socialist.”

Oddly, he does not really talk at all about how the Iranian Revolution became Islamic. In fact, he doesn’t have much to say about the Revolution at all, except to say it all happened in 1979 and the Army didn’t always back the Shah.

To be fair to him, his argument is that the IRR is unique, socialist enough and the Western “leftists” are being ninnies. I agree, and always have.

What I have known from my Iranian Revolutionary friends since the 1990s is that the Revolution lasted at least 2 years. It was spearheaded by a combination of students and faculty at the Universities (part of that Iranian state planning Mazaheri is so proud of), and industrial workers (again, a group that only existed because of that same Iranian government under the Shah).

The Revolution was very socialist in nature, although it’s true that most Iranians were religious to some degree (mostly so in the rural areas, but the “peasant class” was not prevalent, especially early on). It consisted of mass strikes, targeted boycotts and ever-growing street protests. Eventually, the police and army refused to stop enforcing the Shah’s demands to crush the revolution (there had been massacres earlier). Seeing he no longer had control, he and and many of the economic elite fled the country in December, 1978.

1978! So, I can’t imagine why Mazaheri completely bypasses the actual revolution, and claims it all happened during the year that the revolutionary government was being established (and hijacked). The revolutionary government they were establishing was a democratic republic of strongly socialist nature. They had even signed contracts with foreign oil and other corporations, and treaties with foreign countries.

All before the Ayatollah’s boys took over.

What my friends described - and which later research confirmed - is that this popular, socialist revolution was hijacked by the Islamists. My quest has been to figure out how that happened. I think we’re getting much closer to understanding.

Closing for now, I also wish to remind any following this that my dearest Iranian friend had been arrested and imprisoned by the Shah’s SAVAK as a teenager. She was held in prison for 3 years. Her crime? Being a socialist.

After her release, she continued her socialist growth at Tehran University, married and was amongst the instigators of the Revolution. After the Revolution, she and her husband were arrested by the Islamic Republic of Iran. She was held in prison for another 6 or 7 years. She was tortured and brutalized. Her husband murdered.

Their crimes? Being socialists.

I take this very personally as well as politically, and am not a newcomer to the issues.

Posted by: Daniel | Jun 27 2018 3:58 utc | 178

In case anyone is actually following this... I of course meant, "Eventually, the police and army refused to continue enforcing the Shah’s demands..."

Posted by: Daniel | Jun 27 2018 4:01 utc | 179


I found a long interview of Mansoor supposedly conducted in 1993 by a US radio station (I can't verify authenticity): Mansoor interview.

What Mansoor claims seems plausible. Shah's cancer + Cold War + Soviet invasion of Afghanistan + Carter's anti-CIA orientation are well known. Assuming Mansoor's story is true, I have to wonder why Mansoor felt the need to do the research and publicize it.

How likely is it that Mansoor's story is disinfo to burnish Bush credentials as patriot that helped to win the Cold War or to undermine the Iranian government? I don't have enough info at this point to make any determination.

In any case, the only relevance that Mansoor's story seems to have in today's world is historical. IMO, even if true, too much time has passed for Mansoor's story to have any impact on US-Iranian relations.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 27 2018 4:52 utc | 180

Thanks karlof1. Please be sure to rattle my chain when you post those Peterson quotes.

Posted by: Daniel | Jun 27 2018 5:21 utc | 181

And Grieved, if you're still following along, when I first posted about the CIA declassifying documents showing they'd negotiated with the Ayatollah during the Carter Administration in 1979, I pointed out that many IRR voices denounced those documents as "frauds."

The official IRI stance was that CIA released phony documents in order to discredit the Islamic Republic in they eyes of the Iranians. Which of course is exactly what we in the West are now told was the reason that Russia "meddled." (After all their other claims were soundly disproven or at least substantially discredited).

I see that Mazaheri is an employee of the IRI.

In today's world of scientifically-designed psychological propaganda, it's hard to make any claims of knowledge about geopolitics. Fara Mansoor, whom I cited above also had a dog in this fight.

But, if y'all read and follow up on the links I've provided, if anyone can demonstrate that any of it is false, please let me know.

Posted by: Daniel | Jun 27 2018 5:39 utc | 182

karlof1 157

"Court historians", often flat out hagiographers, is what they are all right. I agree that books like those can be useful in many limited ways as long as one's aware of the basic purpose and ideology of the book. For real comprehensive treatment, including the possible alternatives like a fair treatment of the Articles, discussion of the Pennsylvania state constitution etc. one needs a book like Zinn. (Or Beard - I'm aware of his book and its influence but never got around to reading it myself, back in the old days when I read a lot about the American Revolution.)

Posted by: Russ | Jun 27 2018 8:50 utc | 183

Daniel 159

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is how fully internalized is the belief that that the purpose of the 1787 Constitution was to preserve Liberty.

Yeah, of all the system's lies that must be one of those they have most fully come to believe in themselves.

Posted by: Russ | Jun 27 2018 8:51 utc | 184

Grieved 173

These were political delegates of the states. It was a meeting to form a Union of the States. Not a democracy.

It was sold to voters as just a meeting to tweak the Articles of Confederation. Only once they were convened did they proclaim they were going to dump the Articles completely and replace them with an aggressively centralizing constitution.

Posted by: Russ | Jun 27 2018 8:52 utc | 185

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 26, 2018 6:41:05 PM | 164

Ok, so we agree that people's tribal instincts get exploited in the interests of international capital and/or individual politicians? Pitting them against each other as tribes? A technique developed in the colonies a long time ago?

By definition, considering the options available, isn't anybody selling national/ethnic/religious solutions selling snake oil? And wouldn't be the only solution that people realize that they are all in the same boat getting rocked?

Posted by: somebody | Jun 27 2018 10:02 utc | 186

Posted by: Grieved | Jun 26, 2018 1:22:10 PM | 144
(Saker's Ramin Mazaheri series on Iran)

If you managed to struggle through to the end of that collection of flash-backs, previews and irritating asides, I'm nominating you for the Nobel Prize for Patience.

If it was introduced by Rob Brydon to viewers of Would I Lie To You he'd describe it as "Six paragraphs of information crammed into 10 pages of meandering self-obsession."

His prose doesn't even qualify as "style". It's tedious, long-winded and irritating.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 27 2018 14:25 utc | 187

somebody: so we agree ...

Now your resorting to silly debate tactics.

Your arguments suggest that you find oligarchical capitalism to be part of the 'natural order'. You deliberately overlook deleterious effects and pretend that economic class is meaningless. That oligarchical capitalism leads inexorably to 'banana republics' and failed states like Ukraine is something that doesn't bother you.

Such a standpoint is far from agreeable.

The middle class grew because after WWII there was a shortage of labor. The middle class has been a great check on elite malfeasance. Now, thanks to lies promoted as part of the 'globalisation' agenda, it is being systematically destroyed as craven politicians further oligarchic schemes and elite adventurism. In that context, immigration is just a way of blunting discontent via divide and rule.

Liberal hypocrisy
Without borders, there is nothing to defend. Why aren't you (and other illiberal liberals) arguing for drastic cuts in military spending as vehemently as you argue for open borders?

If you want to champion capitalism (as you have in this debate), then why don't you argue for ending competitive barriers to entry? Open up banking to anyone and everyone. Why do we erect "consumer safeguards" that prevent competition?

If a women has a right to choose if she will be pregnant or not (its HER body!), then why can't a nation/"body politic" decide to what extent it wants to take on the burden of immigrant/asylum seekers?

If the US and Europe are to have open borders, then shouldn't they force all important allies and trade partners to do the same? When will Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Australia open their borders?

In sum, if the principals of 'globalisation' are to be paramount then we return to the 1800's. Who benefits from such absurdity?

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 27 2018 16:43 utc | 188

@184 Russ

You should read the notes of the Convention yourself. 13 States formed delegations and sent them to negotiate together. If you believe that one overarching force was capable of orchestrating the intentions of this meeting and 'selling" its narrative in any way then you completely misunderstand how clued-in the people of that time were to the political process - and how segmented that process was into each state.

It was always going to be a massive overhaul of the Articles. The whole country knew that they were failing, and that they needed more teeth to hold the federation together. The Convention didn't present a fait accompli to the country, it brought back a proposed constitution that then had to be ratified by the individual states through their peoples. It was ratified, because it brought the necessary strength to the federal government to join the states into a perpetual Union. This was necessary for the revolutionary country to stay intact. The Bill of Rights, as I said, implicitly recognized that the new union had powers comparable with monarchies, and placed the additional checks against tyranny accordingly.

Posted by: Grieved | Jun 27 2018 18:06 utc | 189

Jackrabbit @ 187
I'd like to answer those questions if I may.
The USA and Europe should be forced to take in refugees and immigrants, becouse they created them ! Through warfare, hostile banking and explotation of cheap labour. They are the victim of USA , Europes acts. If there country has been distroyed phisycaly or financially, you are culpable. The perpetrating country's in this crime, should have to pay for there sick deeds and will have to pay for there sick deeds ! As compensation. Our actions have consequences! Natural justice ! Hope that explains it for you. Ps love ya comments gen.

Posted by: Mark2 | Jun 27 2018 18:10 utc | 190

@188 Hoarsewhisperer

I would encourage you to give Mazaheri another reading. Try his series on China.

I agree this series is tedious. Part of this is because he's also trying to settle this running argument with the World Socialist Web Site, so he's speaking to different groups at the same time. It's hard to follow, and has a fragmented feel, but I stay with it because the knowledge that he does impart is priceless.

His articles on Iran offer a very rare opportunity to understand this nation. Personally I find it worth the effort to chew through their tough hides to extract the pearls inside. I've almost left comments asking him to tighten up the writing on this most important set of articles, but I've refrained, because I've learned so much from him in the past, and because I assume as he gets up steam and leaves the WSWS behind, the articles will read more coherently.

He's actually a very good writer, an excellent journalist. It's a shame you're gaining your impression of him through these pieces.

Posted by: Grieved | Jun 27 2018 18:15 utc | 191

190 Grieved

It was always going to be a massive overhaul of the Articles. The whole country knew that they were failing, and that they needed more teeth to hold the federation together.

That's the standard falsehood they teach us in school in the US. In reality the Articles were sufficient for any modest, i.e. non-imperial purpose, and were only "failing" to enable the country to concentrate enough physical and finance power for effective police repression within, imperial conquest without, and government-protected centralizing capital investment in both.

The Convention didn't present a fait accompli to the country, it brought back a proposed constitution that then had to be ratified by the individual states through their peoples. It was ratified, because it brought the necessary strength to the federal government to join the states into a perpetual Union. This was necessary for the revolutionary country to stay intact. The Bill of Rights, as I said, implicitly recognized that the new union had powers comparable with monarchies, and placed the additional checks against tyranny accordingly.

It was ratified because enough people were allured by the predatory visions the imperialists dangled, and because the Bill of Rights (much scorned by Hamilton in the Federalist) appeased enough of the lukewarm anti-federalists.

Of course the very terminology is the first great Orwellian inversion in American history: By any substantive measure it was the constitution-mongers who were centralizing anti-federalists and those who wanted to stick with the Articles who were the real federalists. But Hamilton had the knack for usurping names for his side and branding his opponents with epithets of his choosing, and so it went.

Of course the result has been an unmitigated disaster for humanity.

Posted by: Russ | Jun 27 2018 18:37 utc | 192

Mark2 @191

I agree!

But ...

1) MSM will not connect the dots so ordinary people misdirect their anger.

2) Somebody doesn't care about what caused the immigration. His argument is based only on globalism as inherent to capitalism.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 27 2018 19:06 utc | 193

But who am I?...
In December 1974, I fairly knew the Shah would be gone.

I had met and listened intently to one of the brightest observers I've ever known. An American living and teaching in Iran [mostly Esphahan region, but widely travelled], she determined on her own that the Shah's regime was collapsing and the threat to her own life increasing the longer she stayed. Leaving was impossible without her passport, which was held by the gov to ensure performance, behavior and that any "leaving" would be at the permission of the gov.

She had to use deceit to get her passport returned from the gov and soon was on her devious way out to return to the US.

Her succinct analysis was that the Shah would not last more than 2 years and would be removed by popular uprisisg. Her on-site observations of popular detestation of him personally meant the overwhelming and growing antipathy could not reverse.[That detestation was majorly due to Dr.Mossadegh's earlier removal after his exposing the Anglo-Iranian [[later BP]] oil scandal, whence the Shah was forced to flee in 1954.]

Posted by: chu teh | Jun 27 2018 19:09 utc | 194

Jackrabbit @ 194
Thanks for that .
I get the feeling your a free independent thinker ! Not afraid to call it out if an opinion is wrong. Like me. We're not sheep.
Big respect to you.

Posted by: Mark2 | Jun 27 2018 19:19 utc | 195

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 27, 2018 3:06:05 PM | 194

2) Somebody doesn't care about what caused the immigration. His argument is based only on globalism as inherent to capitalism.

Jobs. Today, Ukrainians work in Poland and the Czech Republic, people from Ukraine or Belarus are doing construction work in Hungary, and Germany has drawn in lots of people from South-Eastern Europe. Skilled Indians look for work in the US, in the gulf countries or in Europe. There are lots of them in Germany.

Germany took in some 1 million Syrians since the beginning of the Syrian proxy war, which, I suspect, was mainly a political act in support of the "friends of Syria" but was also a calculation of gaining a young skilled workforce.

Should Trump get his infrastructure projects - like the wall to Mexico - going he will need a lot of immigration, Being the post-fascist he is he probably dreams of using forced labour.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 27 2018 20:28 utc | 196

Meanwhile, in Trumpistan, US Supreme Justice Kennedy is retiring. A liberal/Dem goes out, to make place for a GOP-approved and aligned new judge.
Understandably, liberals and progressives will flip out. Yet the real question is why did Keneddy remained at his office for so long, and didn't resign during Obama's 2nd term - did he assume Clinton would come next and there was no danger and no rush, and he preferred to wait to see if a more liberal Congress might be elected? A risky bet, and a losing one.

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Jun 27 2018 20:31 utc | 197

somebody: Jobs.


That Syrians, Ukrainians, South Americans and others are forced to leave their countries in large numbers only highlight FAILURE. Failure of capitalism, failure of global governance, failure of media.

Immigrants are easy to exploit and help to drive down local wages. This is true even for highly skilled work. Like computer programming, for example.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 27 2018 20:56 utc | 198

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 27, 2018 4:56:51 PM | 199

Immigrants are easy to exploit and help to drive down local wages. This is true even for highly skilled work. Like computer programming, for example.

You think trade unionists should fight for their companies to outsource jobs so there is no need for migration? I am asking for a friend.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 27 2018 21:05 utc | 199

somebody: I am asking for a friend.

Your friend Soros?

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 27 2018 23:10 utc | 200

« previous page | next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.