Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 30, 2019

The MoA Week In Review - OT 2019-36

Last week's posts at Moon of Alabama:

So far Trump had no luck with finding coalition partners. The attacks on tankers in the Gulf of Oman were understood as a warning. The United Arab Emirates appeared to drop out of the coalition when it did not blame Iran for the attack and reportedly also pulls out of the war on Yemen. (The UAE is busy fighting a proxy war against Turkey in Libya.) Left in the coalition are the Israelis, the Saudis and the neoconservatives in the U.S. who press for war. But the Israelis do not want to fight themselves against Iran and the Saudis are useless in a war. Russia meanwhile declared that Iran is "an ally and partner". It will make sure that Iran has the means to defend itself.

Trump preempted that majority for now with today's short meeting with Kim Jong Un. Official negotiations between the two countries will restart soon.
Trump Meets Kim, Averting Threat of Nuclear War—and US Pundits Are Furious - Tim Shorrock - The Nation
The media response, from both liberals and conservatives, betrays a cynical disregard for South Korea.

Slightly related:
Fact checking the meat consumption of Iranians - Djavad Salehi-Isfahani

See also:
New pitch trim issue forces further changes to 737 MAX software - Björn Fehr - Leeham News

This is not that cause of the MCAS failure but it shows what is wrong with Boeing:
Boeing's 737 Max Software Outsourced to $9-an-Hour Engineers - Bloomberg
The programmers in India are well capable of writing good software. The difficulty lies in communicating the design requirements for the software. If they do not know in detail how air planes are engineered, they will implement the design to the letter but not to its intent. Here is how that works:

Mom to nerdy kid: "Honey, please go to the market and buy one bottle of milk. If they have eggs, bring six."
Nerdy kid comes back with six bottles of milk.
Mom: "Why did you bring six bottles of milk?"
Nerdy kid: "Because they had eggs."

More bad news for Boeing:
Pilots Flagged Software Problems on Boeing Jets Besides the Max - Bloomberg
Those were problems with the Boeing 737 NG which has the same flight control computers as the 737 MAX. There is also the still unexplained 2016 accident of Flydubai Flight 981. The 737 NG plane nosedived (vid) into the ground with 62 people on board. It was an unexplained runaway stabilizer incident eventually blamed on the pilots.

Boeing falsified records for 787 jet sold to Air Canada. It developed a fuel leak - CNC
The records stated that manufacturing work had been completed when it had not.
Concerns raised over incorrect airspeed data readings on Boeing 787 Dreamliners -
DOJ probe expands beyond Boeing 737 MAX, includes 787 Dreamliner - Seattle Times

The Rothschild organ seems to agree with Putin.
Globalisation is dead and we need to invent a new world order - The Economist

Other issues:

Trump Consultant Is Trolling Democrats With Biden Site That Isn’t Biden’s - NYT

For much of the last three months, the most popular Joseph R. Biden Jr. website has been a slick little piece of disinformation that is designed to look like the former vice president’s official campaign page, yet is most definitely not pro-Biden.

The NYT piece uses the word "disinformation" eight times. But the site only has truthful information about Biden. Sure, the pictures of Biden touching little girls are without context. But everyone knows that Joe just loves them ...

Demasking the Torture of Julian Assange - Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture

In the end it finally dawned on me that I had been blinded by propaganda, and that Assange had been systematically slandered to divert attention from the crimes he exposed. Once he had been dehumanized through isolation, ridicule and shame, just like the witches we used to burn at the stake, it was easy to deprive him of his most fundamental rights without provoking public outrage worldwide. And thus, a legal precedent is being set, through the backdoor of our own complacency, which in the future can and will be applied just as well to disclosures by The Guardian, the New York Times and ABC News.

A Leader of America’s Fracking Boom Has Second Thoughts - WSJ

Over the past 10 years, 40 of the largest independent oil and gas producers collectively spent roughly $200 billion more than they took in from operations, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of data from financial-information firm FactSet. During that time, a broad index of U.S. oil-and-gas companies fell roughly 10%, while the S&P 500 index nearly tripled.


“Revealing Ukraine” by Igor Lopatonok continues investigations on of the ongoing Ukrainian crisis following preceding “Ukraine on Fire”. In addition, it analyzes the current political backstage and its dangerous potential for the world. In the movie the main speaker – heavyweight Ukrainian politician, opposition leader –Viktor Medvedchuk is being interviewed by the renowned filmmaker Oliver Stone. Oliver Stone also sat with Russian president Vladimir Putin to ask him a questions about Ukrainian crisis.

Use as open thread ...

Posted by b on June 30, 2019 at 15:15 UTC | Permalink

next page »

thanks b, for all your work here...

boeing must be having nightmares about all the flights that were blamed on pilot error now looking like faulty planes...

regarding the economist article... thanks for that.. it's interesting how the writer wants to put globalism and multi-polar in opposition to one another.. also, he has it in for russia and can't for the life of him, see how russia as a part of the european continent would be a perfect fit with europe to form an important economic block.. he is not willing to countenance that.. here is a quote from the article...

"It may well be better that those who have grown fond of globalization get over it, accept its passing, and begin to adjust to a new reality. Many will resist and, like the thirty-five foreign-policy experts who published an advertisement in the New York Times on July 26, 2018, under the banner “Why We Should Preserve International Institutions and Order,” will feel that the existing world order and its institutions should be maintained. I disagree. Globalization, at least in the form that people have come to enjoy it, is defunct."

why is it Nils Melzer's comments on julian assange get no traction?? it is almost like the msm is afraid to provide an alternative scenario, one where the gov't system of torture and exceptionalism is maintained, as opposed to being challenged..

Posted by: james | Jun 30 2019 15:46 utc | 1

James thanks for that quote from the Economist, it makes it easy to spot the false equivalency between globalism and international institutions.

It is not international institutions and cooperation that is hated as such but all the extremely poor and often hostile decisions from people convinced they're "good" and know exactly how everybody should live and think (a description that one could think fits nearly all of humanity if given power).

The false equivalence is a neat example of propaganda where they're framing the "discussion" repeatedly. They do that a lot.

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Jun 30 2019 16:15 utc | 2

This comment is mainly for Psychohistorian and his continual prescription of public vs private banking as the cure-all for what ails the Evil Empire, not to mention his idealisation of China as a "socialist" economy. I think this comment also applies to VK and a few others who persist in the China as mankind's socialist saviour meme.

And I fully anticipate the "Bloomberg is a CIA media front" response which is trotted out endlessly without regard to facts whenever facts are pointed out which run counter to the perception of reality of the prevailing blog zeitgeist (whatever that maybe at the moment).

Private banking in China will get a coattail effect from its explosion in personal wealth, which is likely to keep proliferating despite growing at a nearly 20% annual clip during 2006-17. China is home to 185 trillion yuan ($27 trillion) in personal fortunes, according to CMB and Bain Consulting. Cash and deposits, at roughly 85 trillion yuan, are sufficient liquidity to fuel private banking sales over the next five years. Recent changes to China’s wealth management regulations will standardize both market practices and product design, which should attract more high-net-worth investors to private banking.

Individuals in China owned roughly 80 trillion yuan in real estate, securities and wealth management products in 2017. Another 20 trillion yuan was invested in overseas assets, life insurance and other products.

ICBC is touted as a "state-owned" multinational bank which also trades on the Shanghai and Hong Kong stock markets, as well as stock markets worldwide.

ICBC is the largest "private bank" in the world. It's US branches are FDIC insured, which means of course they are TBTF.

What this indicates to me is "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is merely a fake news headline covering for the fact that China is a solid member of the globalist capitalist imperialist club along with all the usual crooked suspects.

The ephemeral "but China's economy is fastest growing and the middle class has expanded while the US/West economic growth has stagnated" meme merely reflects that China remains (barely) in the second stage of developing capitalist economies. If you understand Marxism you will know that once China extends to the highest stage of development (imperialism) then net capital investment inflows will begin to dry up and increasingly net investment capital outflows to newly developing capitalist economies will begin to put the squeeze on Chinese middle class wages and wealth creation.

This is the current state of the US/EU and both have moved more towards libertarian austerity as a result, thus the unease of the western white middle and working classes, who are currently trending fascist in response to these global-elitist bought and paid for political "movements" toward fake nationalist xenophobic populism. Same as it ever was.

Then and only then, when investment outflows start to surpass inflows will we be able to test the validity of China as a socialist (or at least a capitalist welfare) state meme. For now this remains "wishin and hopin" chatter.

In other fake news, as I have long since predicted, Trump is now in the process of sucking up to Xi, and will soon capitulate in his fake tariff war against China, proclaim "victory" while gaining nothing for Amerikkkan workers beyond some nonsensical talking points which his base will eat up (while the rest of us knowingly smirk...and do nothing about except misdirect our chatter towards the failure of leftism) running up to the 2020 election.

Posted by: donkeytale | Jun 30 2019 16:15 utc | 3

China’s ranks of high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs) will continue to surge after having grown at a 24% annualized clip since 2006. China’s personal wealth accumulation will keep adding to its base of onshore private banking clients. HNWIs could approach 2 million this year, vs. 1.87 million in 2017. This compares to about 500,000 individual clients at China’s 10 largest private banks. There were 16.1 million high net worth individuals in in 24 countries last year, according to Capgemini research.

Posted by: donkeytale | Jun 30 2019 16:21 utc | 4

@2 sunny rb - yes, i agree.. false equivalency doesn't work for me either..

how about this for another false equivalency.. there's a lot of it to see!

who do you vote for? mexico, or israel??

Posted by: james | Jun 30 2019 16:23 utc | 5

Glad to see Nils Menlzer's piece on Assange getting some circulation. Looks like release date for "Revealing Ukraine" is July 4. Anyone know if it will be freely available?

Posted by: the pessimist | Jun 30 2019 16:27 utc | 6

article from eric zuesse equating the refugees with usa's wars for regime change..
US Government Tops All for Creating Refugees

Posted by: james | Jun 30 2019 16:31 utc | 7

Boeing. Deregulation. Outsourcing. Capitalism run amock.

Posted by: paul | Jun 30 2019 16:34 utc | 8

Here is a little petition from Wikipedia Co-Founder Larry Sanger. I hope it fits here:

Decentralize and boycott social media on July 4-5: a Declaration of Digital Independence

Humanity has been contemptuously used by vast digital empires. Thus it is now necessary to replace these empires with decentralized networks of independent individuals, as in the first decades of the Internet. As our participation has been voluntary, no one doubts our right to take this step. But if we are to persuade as many people as possible to join together and make reformed networks possible, we should declare our reasons for wanting to replace the old.

We declare that we have unalienable digital rights, rights that define how information that we individually own may or may not be treated by others, and that among these rights are free speech, privacy, and security. Since the proprietary, centralized architecture of the Internet at present has induced most of us to abandon these rights, however reluctantly or cynically, we ought to demand a new system that respects them properly. The difficulty and divisiveness of wholesale reform means that this task is not to be undertaken lightly. For years we have approved of and even celebrated enterprise as it has profited from our communication and labor without compensation to us. But it has become abundantly clear more recently that a callous, secretive, controlling, and exploitative animus guides the centralized networks of the Internet and the corporations behind them.

The long train of abuses we have suffered makes it our right, even our duty, to replace the old networks. To show what train of abuses we have suffered at the hands of these giant corporations, let these facts be submitted to a candid world.

Principles of Decentralized Social Networks

1. We free individuals should be able to publish our data freely, without having to answer to any corporation.

2. We declare that we legally own our own data; we possess both legal and moral rights to control our own data.

3. Posts that appear on social networks should be able to be served, like email and blogs, from many independent services that we individually control, rather than from databases that corporations exclusively control or from any central repository.

4. Just as no one has the right to eavesdrop on private conversations in homes without extraordinarily good reasons, so also the privacy rights of users must be preserved against criminal, corporate, and governmental monitoring; therefore, for private content, the protocols must support strong, end-to-end encryption and other good privacy practices.

5. As is the case with the Internet domain name system, lists of available user feeds should be restricted by technical standards and protocols only, never according to user identity or content.

6. Social media applications should make available data input by the user, at the user’s sole discretion, to be distributed by all other publishers according to common, global standards and protocols, just as are email and blogs, with no publisher being privileged by the network above another. Applications with idiosyncratic standards violate their users’ digital rights.

7. Accordingly, social media applications should aggregate posts from multiple, independent data sources as determined by the user, and in an order determined by the user’s preferences.

8. No corporation, or small group of corporations, should control the standards and protocols of decentralized networks, nor should there be a single brand, owner, proprietary software, or Internet location associated with them, as that would constitute centralization.

9. Users should expect to be able to participate in the new networks, and to enjoy the rights above enumerated, without special technical skills. They should have very easy-to-use control over privacy, both fine- and coarse-grained, with the most private messages encrypted automatically, and using tools for controlling feeds and search results that are easy for non-technical people to use.

10. We hold that to embrace these principles is to return to the sounder and better practices of the earlier Internet and which were, after all, the foundation for the brilliant rise of the Internet. Anyone who opposes these principles opposes the Internet itself. Thus we pledge to code, design, and participate in newer and better networks that follow these principles, and to eschew the older, controlling, and soon to be outmoded networks.

We, therefore, the undersigned people of the Internet, do solemnly publish and declare that we will do all we can to create decentralized social networks; that as many of us as possible should distribute, discuss, and sign their names to this document; that we endorse the preceding statement of principles of decentralization; that we will judge social media companies by these principles; that we will demonstrate our solidarity to the cause by abandoning abusive networks if necessary; and that we, both users and developers, will advance the cause of a more decentralized Internet.

[Sign the petition:]

Posted by: blues | Jun 30 2019 16:40 utc | 9

"The Rothschild organ seems to agree with Putin."

..but relegate Russia to secondary status in the process. I don't think Putin would mind that even because he is interested in his own country before global position, I think he is quite secure in his stance. Funnily the perception of a multipolar world as not being globalist seems just a shift, as in moving from the idea of an obvious centralised globalisation with nations as opposite, towards accepting nations as absorbed in regional globalisations that then will be interacting more similarly to nations between each other, EU being an example of one of those. I suppose all roads lead to Rome as far as the banking fraternity are concerned though, and that global currency for example, will be easier to implement via multipolar agreement than via multinational agreement. Similarly we see the UN is quite dominated by permanent members of the security council.

On the social side I think the author at the Economist is out of his depth though, because diversity amongst peoples even within one country is vast, and will remain so. The idea that all will reduce to some nice understanding is "optimistic".

Interesting is what Netanyahu is projecting as having been agreed, especially the clear insinuation of influence on US policy

A lot of leverage implied by his words, which equally are manipulative in various ways.

Noticed US objectives and planning on Iran in case of war are being more widely circulated, I take this as an open warning that the strategy and ability is there, even while it openly acknowledges a form of chaos for the country rather than direct conquest.

Posted by: gzon | Jun 30 2019 16:55 utc | 10

James @7 Interesting that Zuesse fails to mention Libya. Zerohedge has reposted an article from TomDispatch titled "For Americans war has always been a spectator sport" that usea Tripoli as a setting. Worth the read.

Posted by: the pessimist | Jun 30 2019 16:57 utc | 11

Russia meanwhile declared that Iran is "an ally and partner". It will make sure that Iran has the means to defend itself.

And why is your last sentence in this excerpt not in quotations too? Could it be wishful thinking and projection?

Oh, so an organ of Rothschild agrees with Putin? Yet more validation for my justified skepticism of Putin.

Trump is using Kim as a political PROP. Meanwhile, North Korea is still under severe sanctions despite Trump's good cop photogenics. Trump did more for his already-inflated ego using Kim than he ever intends to do for Kim and North Korea.

Trump has no good faith intentions, and will not ease sanctions without full nuclear disarmament leaving Kim fully exposed and vulnerable to U.S. open season for mere crumbs off the table.

Trump thinks he's so brave crossing into the DMZ but when the first shot sounded in Vietnam, Trump ran in the other direction while others were forced into war. Trump is a reality show con using smoke and mirrors to fool everyone while delivering for the Zionist masters who financed him.

Posted by: Circe | Jun 30 2019 16:58 utc | 12

The programmers in India are well capable of writing good software. The difficulty lies in communicating the design requirements for the software. If they do not know in detail how air planes are engineered, they will implement the design to the letter but not to its intent.

I worked twenty years in commercial software development including in aviation for UA and while Indian software developers are capable, their corporate culture is completely different as is based on feudal workplace relations of subordinates and management that results with extreme cronyism, far exceeding that in the US as such relations are not only based on extreme exploitation (few jobs hundreds of qualified candidates) but on personal almost paternal like relations that preclude required independence of judgment and practically eliminates any major critical discussions about efficacy of technological solutions and their risks.

Being powerless within calcifies totalitarian corporate culture facing alternative of hurting family-like relations with bosses’ and their feelings, who emotionally and in financial terms committed themselves to certain often wrong solutions dictated more by margins than technological imperatives, ultimately promoted wide spread culture of obscurantism and opportunism what amounts to extreme office politics of covering their own butts often knowing that entire development strategy is flawed, as long as they are not personally blamed or if they in fact benefit by collapse of the project.

As I worked side by side and later as project manager with Indian developers I can attest to that culture which while widely spread also among American developers reaches extremes among Indian corporations which infect often are engaged in fraud to be blamed on developers.

In fact it is shocking contrast with German culture that practically prevents anyone engaging in any project as it is almost always, in its entirety, discussed, analyzed, understood and fully supported by every member of the team, otherwise they often simply refused to work on project citing professional ethics. High quality social welfare state and handsome unemployment benefits definitely supported such ethical stand back them

While what I describe happened over twenty years ago it is still applicable I believe.

Posted by: Kalen | Jun 30 2019 16:58 utc | 13

"..the western white middle and working classes, who are currently trending fascist.."
What evidence of this is there, donkeytale?
And how is it that a "marxist" confounds the middle and working classes?
It is true that there are signs that european right wing parties are gaining traction in several places. But this has a lot to do with the collapse of the old working class movement and its institutions in the face of neo-liberalism. Exhibit A- Tony Blair. Exhibit B- Gerhard Schroder. Exhibit C-Macron.
In the face of the politics of these sorts of specimens-and they have dominated the European left for thirty years and more- it is unsurprising that other parties are picking up votes and members. But it is not inevitable.
In the rise and demise of Syriza we had an example, as we did in the similar career of Podemos, of the electoral appeal of socialist programmes. The same might be said of the Labour Party which Corbyn helped out of the tomb into which the Blairites had consigned it. And similar movements in Ireland, Portugal and elsewhere have demonstrated that, presented to the public, socialist policies have mass appeal.
The truth is that politically the wheel is still in spin. And that, as was the case with the old People's Party (cf Ocala), by far the most attractive policies in times of crisis are those of the radical left-anti ruling class policies.
The problem is that throughout the western world, in Canada as much as in Austria or Poland, France or Italy the sheer weight of the corpses of both social democracy and pseudo communism/trotskyism (farewell ISO) threatens to overwhelm a left immediately discredited by its inability to renounce, entirely the past, the ID politics, the blind eye to authoritarian careerists in the Unions, the imperialism and zionism, the unprincipled compromises with finance and purveyors of cheap conventional wisdom. It was these things which curdled Die Linke, which once seemed so full of hope.
So far as fascism is concerned it is always worth remembering that it never did have mass appeal to the working class- those who claim otherwise are ignorant and merely spouting the anti-democratic propaganda of the ruling class. It never did and it never can because the essence of fascism is anti-working class.

Posted by: bevin | Jun 30 2019 17:30 utc | 14

Gzon @ 10 and james @ 1

Stating "globalism" is antithetical to "multipolarity" is a non-sequitor.

Globalism is the financial structure (or "system" if you will) through which capitalist enterprises function. This is complex of course and includes capital markets, corporations, multinational corporations, currency markets, commodities markets, trading agreements. Politicians intervene in the functioning of globalism so there is seldom if ever anything like a globalism free of political influence.

OTOH, "multipolarity" has no structure that I can see. It is an empty vessel, purely a political, statist-inspired idea (whereas globalism is a "thing" which contains political and economic ideas of course but those ideas may or may not be statist in concept depending on the context) which can mean anything to anyone at any point in time. I guess I would say the term is purely Orwellian. Thus, without reading anything other than James's comment I would guess the author's idea is either nonsensical or propagandistic in nature.

For me, the world became "multipolar" the minute the US invaded Iraq in 2003. The idea that the US wishes to maintain its "unipolar" leadership of the world may be true in the wishful sense of some neocons, however if the US ever held unipolar control in reality it was briefly during the period after the downfall of the USSR and up until the conquest of Iraq.

Today, I view the world as both multipolar and globalist. While many of the political and economic tensions we see result from the disconnects between national political and global economic conditions, I think we must admit if we are honest that many of the more recent tensions are simply the result of Trump's presidency, which has the intended affect of being "a bull in the china shop" of the globalist system.

This is not necessarily a bad thing in theory. Sadly, however, Trump is a geopolitical and foreign policy moron who doesn't know what he is doing beyond enriching himself and creating daily fake news headlines in hopes of being re-elected on behalf of the same global elites he playacts at combatting for his worshipful audience of true believers.

Posted by: donkeytale | Jun 30 2019 17:38 utc | 15

It will be interesting to see if Trump easing up on Huawei is a trade off for China agreeing to stop importing Iranian oil. Of course nothing so blatant will be mentioned publicly but we'll know if it happens.

Posted by: dh | Jun 30 2019 17:39 utc | 16

Trumps bromance with Kim Jong-Un is back on again after Pompeo spurned the relationship last time. Perhaps a diversion from focusing on why Huawei was a security threat a few weeks ago to now they are not and other issues. Pompeo was the one who stuck a pipe in the gears of the last meeting where he wanted North Korea to give up all nukes and thus open themselves up to be another Libya. North Korea is fortunate though that they do not have oil, else they would have been taken out long ago.

Trump still has harsh sanctions, an act of war, on North Korea, Iran and Venezuela. His good cop/bad cop musical is being choreographed by neocon dimwits with a history of failure. Trump also has a bromance with “bonesaw” bin Salmon , providing weapons and air support for the genocide in Yemen, so the idea he has a humanitarian heart is absurd.

Posted by: Stever | Jun 30 2019 17:53 utc | 17

Justin Raimando, the editor and cofounder of passed away - RIP

Posted by: aaaa | Jun 30 2019 17:57 utc | 18

Open Thread Science Lesson

In some Biology classes students learn of the relationship between critters like sharks and smaller ones called remoras. This is generally a case of the little sucker fish getting both a free ride and a degree of protection because of being so near the large shark. In this ”Commensalism” the shark isn’t harmed.

Matters get a little uglier when the parasite wants more than the free ride.

[anti-semitic bullshit deleted - see my comment below for the reason - b.]

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 30 2019 17:59 utc | 19

Godspeed Justin. Thank You.

Posted by: so | Jun 30 2019 17:59 utc | 20

@Zachary Smith - You did not link the piece that you try to abuse to make your argument. That is quite misleading as the money involved is:
a. Peanuts from a minor of many much larger funds that Department spends allover.
b. To secure facilities that have a higher chance of getting attacked.

Jewish Groups Get 94% of Homeland Security Grants

The Department of Homeland Security allocated to Jewish institutions $12 million, or 94 percent, of $13 million in funds for securing nonprofits.

You are doing exactly what many Zionists do. You conflate Jews and Jewish institutions with support for Israel. That is anti-semitic.

You compared Jews in general with parasites. That is also anti-semitic.

This spending of funds is IMHO not unreasonable. Why conflate it with the massive support the U.S. gives to Israel? Why not look into the reasons for that?

Posted by: b | Jun 30 2019 18:19 utc | 21

bevin, yes I should say trending fascist in many, though not all, parts of the white man's world. I don't believe we are in disagreement at all in anything you state in your comment.

You ticked off several "trending fascist" and gave accurate, qualifying reasons for this trend: the US, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Austria, Brazil, of course Russia come to mind. So thanks for completing my half-baked thought with evidence.

And true enough, I use "middle class" not in the sense of the marxist definition of the "bourgeoisie" but in the common modern useage, meaning "middle income." IE, white collar functionaries who inhabit the [mainly] caucasian job categories which replaced our blue collar forebears when the US "evolved" into a techno/healtchare/financialised service economy beginning roughly in the late 1970s - early 1980s.

The main challenge I believe in organising a credible working class opposition lies in convincing the middle income, increasingly female (and not necessarily caucasian) white collar worker who identifies culturally far more with her bosses then she does to blue collar workers who are more often than not (at least in the US) immigrant males from south of the border.

Politically, she is ripe for solidarity and change. This is reflected in the several impressive new female leaders exemplified by AOC, Omar and Tlaib.

Culturally, she may not yet be quite ready, as the boss exerts the most meaningful influence over her personal finances and the immediate boss is most always a reactionary conservative, at least in the US.

Posted by: donkeytale | Jun 30 2019 18:29 utc | 22

@11 the pessimist.. that is interesting how zuesse didn't mention libya.. perhaps because its not on the graph he shared?

For Americans, War Has Always Been a Spectator Sport that's the article you refer to... thanks..

@15 donkeytale.. i think the usa is still operating, thanks the institutions that favour it - specifically swift - bis, imf, world bank and etc - as a unipolar type of role.. now, it might be breaking apart, but globalism verses mulitpolar is how the author of the article framed it, as i read it.. don't ask me to explain his rationale, or the idea of why russia is always relegated as separate from europe, other then to justify the insane relationship the usa wants to have with europe, which includes nato, and etc. etc.. there is no other way to read the article, other then another propaganda hit piece of sorts..

@18 aaaa.. i am sorry to hear that.. i enjoyed reading him back around 10 years ago.. he was insightful and bang on most of the time..

Posted by: james | Jun 30 2019 18:47 utc | 23

RIP Bruce Dixon and Justin Raimondo.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Jun 30 2019 19:11 utc | 24

@ b | Jun 30, 2019 2:19:33 PM #21

A trivial part of my post was highlighted and accurately described as "peanuts" - the sums involved really are chump change compared with the the tens/hundreds of billions given to the apartheid Jewish state since its creation.

As for the rest, at post time I had predicted to myself the sort of language I'm seeing now would come from the Sunny Runny Burger hasbara operation. That has turned out not to be the case.

I've been reading a lot about how the government of Germany has been falling in line with Canada and Australia in protecting the apartheid state, so perhaps vanishing my "anti-semitic" scribbles was the prudent thing to do in terms of 'site protection'.

Best wishes to the majority of those here. For the most part I've enjoyed the interactions we've had.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 30 2019 19:14 utc | 25

I agree with many here, the Economist article struck me as the usual propaganda that is to be expected from that journal. Donkytale 15 laid it out very well, focusing on the distinction between globalism and a multi-polar world. If anything the comparison should have been to analyse the Neo-liberal Zionist unipolar world vs the multipolar world where the former can only exert marginal control and influence over global affairs.

Globalism itself hasn't been stopped at all, what is crumbling, however, is the believe in the unipolar role of the US over global affairs. To the extent that globalism is driven by technology I sadly have to say that we are being further pushed along into a technocratic future, where all major powers are pursuing digitalization at break-neck speed, where governments are openly disregarding the health and well-being of their citizens and their privacy.
The author also somehow pretends like the EU had some rosy future ahead as a stand-alone region in a multipolar world, when really the EU was never anything other than the political arm of NATO for greater control of the empire over the old continent.

All in all a very flawed article and likely flawed book.

Posted by: Alexander P | Jun 30 2019 19:23 utc | 26

@Zachary Smith

Who but a zionist of a nazi would call people of Jewish believe a race or nation? Who but a Zionist of a Nazi would call Israel a "Jewish state"?

Posted by: b | Jun 30 2019 19:26 utc | 27

Pentagon study: Russia outgunning U.S. in race for global influence

A divided America is failing to counter Moscow's efforts to undermine democracy and cast doubt on U.S. alliances, says the report, which warns of a surge in 'political warfare.'

Posted by: curious man | Jun 30 2019 19:32 utc | 28

donkeytale | Jun 30, 2019 1:38:21 PM | 15 says:

'Globalism is the financial structure (or "system" if you will) through which capitalist enterprises function.'

What B.S.!!

An economic system, of which the financial system is a part of, is one of the fundamental structures of any society. Societies in today's world are defined at the sovereign state level, and the economic systems are defined by the governments of these states, which are supposed to function on behalf of the population of each state, and in democratic states, are also supposed to be under the control of the overall population through their democratic institutions. International institutions are there to coordinate commerce between the different economic systems of sovereign states.

'Globalism' as discussed in these blogs, in opposition to 'multi-polarity' is not about global commerce, but rather about an effort by a certain group of wealthy elites, primarily centered in London and New York, and commonly referred to as 'Globalists' to transfer the authority for the definition and control of economic systems from sovereign states to a set of international institutions under their control.

In doing so they strip the sovereignty from sovereign states, as as already happened with the EU, and create a global dictatorship, under the control of the 'Globalists' and completely isolated from any democratic oversight. A fascist project in the purest sense of fascism.

The 'Multi-polar' group of nations are those nations who oppose this fascist project and who are working to maintain and restore the sovereignty of nations.

Posted by: dh-mtl | Jun 30 2019 19:51 utc | 29

b @ 27

“Embattled Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the country is “not a state of all its citizens” in yet another apparent attempt to win extremist anti-Arab support ahead of the upcoming general election.
The comments, made on Facebook, were a direct reference to the country’s 1.6 million Arabs, who make up almost a fifth of the population.”

“Israel is not a state of all its citizens,” he wrote in response to comments from the TV host Rotem Sela. “According to the basic nationality law we passed, Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people – and only it.”

Posted by: Stever | Jun 30 2019 19:55 utc | 30

James @ 23 - well the US may "think" we are operating in a unipolar role but there is at least 1/350MM of Amerikkkans who don't believe it for a second.

And that little boy is me.

Srsly, though the amount of conjecture wasted on SWIFT in particular is somewhat misunderstood by the conspiracy minded. The US controls the global financial transactional banking system? If so we pay a very high price for that control. Changing these systems which already exist and that all the banking participants trust will work cleanly (no small matter given the amount of banking transactions) comes with very high transitional/transactional costs so don't expect this change to happen until or unless there is also some major and horrific event to actually trigger the need to change. Or a cheaper alternative appears (see below).

China's ruling elites especially have no reason to wish for any type of change in the current monetary/financial system. They are doing quite well positioned exactly as they are...and surely rooing the day (if they are truly Marxists) when they replace the US/EU/Canada at the top of the imperialist heap. Because from the top history proves it will only run downhill from there for the average Chinese worker. The Yuan/renmimbi becomes the strongest world currency? Bring it on. A rather startling amount of the US trade deficit results from USD unfavourable exchange rate versus the Yuan. The Yuan at higher exchange rate than the dollar is the last result China wants for its export economy. The US and China are tied at the hip, Trump's trade war be damned.

And, what if a private multinational corporate monetary system directly owned and controlled by global gazillionaires replaces SWIFT and not some Chinese/Russian variation? What result will we, the average people of all countries, obtain from there? This could very well occur in the fascist globalist future, especially as blockchain is actually a much more efficient system than current. Paypal for instance which b utilizes clears international payment transfers more or less instantly (using credit cards) while the bank takes days or weeks with an old fashioned check and if we send him coin this forces b to trudge down to his bank....if he has one....and then must explain to the authorities exactly what he did to suddenly harvest all this cash....

Posted by: donkeytale | Jun 30 2019 20:02 utc | 31


Nice argument but aside from being hung up on precise word definitions I think you are arguing in circles...with yourself. I agree with much of what you state! Lol

What if I stated "global capitalism" instead of "globalism?" Would that change your pespective of my comment any? I did provide more than just the term, I described the working parts of the "global capitalist" system.

Also, while you are correctly critiquing globalism remember this fact:

Simply describing something doesn't mean I endorse what I described. This is one of the common internet traps into which master debaters such as ourselves frequently fall.

Posted by: donkeytale | Jun 30 2019 20:17 utc | 32

@ donkeytale 15

I think the world has always been multipolar, the differences that give the definition coming to (being presented to) the forefront, or being dissimilated, according to choice and circumstance. The globalist direction aims to interweave or merge these differences (cultural and historic, religion, philosophy and so on), or at least bring them under a common control. So the idea that multipolarity represents anything more than increased recognition of various regional power as opposed to recognition of one regional power (say western) as more visible, is not much more than an indication of how global policy will be conducted, i.e. with an emphasis on regional responsibility.

Recent US policy is not aimed at destroying the globalist order, it is a result of the failure of one format of the globalist order, where the global financial order no longer fitted into national or regional economic sense. This was the gfc, and there is simply no way to continue the flow of trade and finance as it existed for the previous decades. The easing of rates across the globe is paliative, it is no solution, you only have to look at national debt levels to understand this, or in Eurozone try target2 differences. The world is now partly funded by negative yielding debt. All of this works contrary to capitalist (in its basic honest philosophy) understanding. In short "something" is going to happen to readjust this circumstance, planned or otherwise. I have watched how in EU the single currency has been used to takeover the traditional national hierarchies (banking, political and to a degree social), but we don't have that sort of framework accepted at global level, only various currency pegs, bilateral arrangements and so on. The IMF and sdr is not much liked. What I have noted is virtual central bank currency is being promoted in several ways, be it the bis just announcing it may become a necessity face to cryptocurrency or similar (with a caveat of harmonising monetary policy) , EU organising a parallel payment system that avoids commercial banks, even Instex is along these lines. Where the US and some others truly stand with regard to this is a different question, as for now it (et al) still enjoy a financial hegemony that is both organised and profitable. Interesting times, I just hope that a major event is not the catalyst for reform, that the various parties can agree to withdraw to more localised structure and agreement if any grand plans meet the resistance or failure that is already partly visible. I doubt that will be allowed though, by the time people really want to take part, there won't be much option left and circumstance will already be already confused and conflictive.

Posted by: gzon | Jun 30 2019 20:25 utc | 33

@31 donkeytale.. well, if the usa didn't commit as much paper money as it does to the military complex it runs, i suppose the financial complex where the us$ can be printed ad nauseam might come into question.. the sooner oil isn't pegged to the us$ and etc. etc. happens, the better off the world will be... and, i don't blame the usa people for this.. they are just being used as i see it - much the same here in canada with our politicians thinking the prudent thing to do is to support the status quo.. the problem is the status quo can only go on for so long, before a change inevitably happens...

as for swift - they went along with usa sanctions back in 2011 on iran, but then it was brought to court in europe and overturned... but again - they are back in the same place bowing down to usa exceptionalism... call it what you want.. another system needs to get made if this one that exists is beholden to a special interest group - usa-uk-europe, where others are 2nd rate citizens of the world... same deal imf... these world financial institutions need to be changed to reflect the changes that are taking place... the voting rights of the developed countries are skewed to favour the ones who have been raping and pillaging africa, and etc. etc.. you may not think it matters, but i personally do.. and i don't blame the usa for it..but they are being used as a conduit to further an agenda which is very unbalanced and unfriendly to the world as i see it..

Posted by: james | Jun 30 2019 20:27 utc | 34

"Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me" :D

I wished Hamas would learn from Hezbollah instead of playing into Israeli traps. I wished Hamas and Israel could literally pound sand instead of hitting each other (or rather the people unfortunate enough to be under their rule). I suggested the world hold them to ransom over Jerusalem (although no deaths, the inhabitants get to move out) whom both sides claim to love, all in order to make them do that instead of hitting each other.

Those who protested couldn't understand any of that and ignored it. It could seem as if all they had in their mind was that someone had suggested that Jerusalem disappear from this world.

They acted precisely like the people they claimed to oppose…

Considering this one might conclude that the threat would work extremely well against at least Zionists, which is encouraging :D

On a related I note by chance I saw some article recently speculating about whether Hamas was created by Israel, I didn't read it and don't know what conclusions —if any— it made. Can't remember which site it was, I don't think it was South Front or Unz or Saker but some site like it.

Maybe it was Hasbara who wrote it according to Zachary?

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Jun 30 2019 20:28 utc | 35


Thus, without anticipating it, and certainly without wanting it, Israel’s continuing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and parts of Lebanon and Syria, contributed to the formation of nationalist groups willing to sacrifice themselves in the name of Islam. The enemies of old, motivated more by nationalism than religion, were now augmented by Islamic extremists bent on the defeat of Israel, and now the United States, in the name of religion.

google is yer friend, unless it isn't lol.. i am surprised someone has to ask, but hey - maybe i missed the sarcasm here... this article is from 2002!!

Posted by: james | Jun 30 2019 20:35 utc | 36

Posted on Zerohedge today:

libra wests response to China

Donkeytail have you read it?

Posted by: the pessimist | Jun 30 2019 20:36 utc | 37

Also this:

The 'Multi-polar' group of nations are those nations who oppose this fascist project and who are working to maintain and restore the sovereignty of nations.

Clearly demonstrates the accuracy of my statement (edited for clarity and man do I need an here:

OTOH, "multipolarity" an empty vessel, purely a political, statist-inspired idea...which can mean anything to anyone at any point in time. I guess I would say the term is purely Orwellian.

Posted by: donkeytale | Jun 30 2019 20:38 utc | 38

In case there are others aside from myself interested in the G-20 outcomes, here are a few links to what IMO's important. Go here to get the links to the three main documents G-20 produced: "G20 Osaka Leaders Declaration," "Osaka declaration on digital economy," and "G20 Osaka leaders’ statement on preventing exploitation of the internet for terrorism and violent extremism conductive to terrorism (VECT)." Pepe Escobar's recap. Transcript of Putin's post G20 news conference.

I hoped when I added the presser link to the Putin interview thread and hinted there were connections between them that another line of analysis would develop, but it seems participants were way to immersed/invested in the liberalism debate to bother.

From the press conference, I'd like to point-out one of the Q&As related to the illegal sanctions regime, economic development and how they interact with Trump's 2016 Campaign Pledges as we begin the 2020 election cycle:

"Question: Mr President, you have given an extensive overview of different topics. A short time after you last met with Donald Trump, the Americans introduced new sanctions against Russia. Could you tell if you received some reassurances from Donald Trump that no new sanctions will follow this time, or do you think sanctions may be imposed again? Or are you confident that there will no more sanctions?

"Vladimir Putin: I have no idea. This is not our business; it is up to the United States to think about how they should build relations with Russia. I think we have mutual understanding that we should somehow get out of the situation that has emerged so far. But this is the same as with our colleagues and partners from the UK. It is an abnormal situation, it must be simply rectified; we must somehow find the strength to turn the page, to move on and to look to the future. It is the same in relations with the United States.

"I told you that we reasserted our wish to support the business community’s proposal regarding tools for the support of business initiatives. But it shows that the incumbent Administration has intentions to somehow continue with this abnormal situation. I spoke about our trade with the United States and with some other partners. Obviously, $25 billion in trade does not meet our interests and does not reflect our potential.

"That is why I have no idea if they will do anything or not. At any rate, one thing is sure – we are not going to ask for anything. No means no. And if there is interest, we will respond in kind and will do everything we can to turn the situation around.

"Let me reiterate, I meet with US businesspeople, including at the St Petersburg Economic Forum. 550 people went there. They want to work. That means jobs, that means goals the President of the United State is trying to achieve. I actually said in that interview that after the globalisation processes led to such big growth of the world economy, even the middle class in the United States felt they were left behind. While large corporation made huge profits, their management got a lot of advantages as did their partners, the middle class did not, not very much. Wages remained the same, and the standard of living began to grow a little. Jobs are needed and conditions to raise real incomes of US citizens. To achieve that they need to expand cooperation and work with everyone, including Russia.

"They restricted the operation of their companies in the Russian market. We made calculations across some European countries, and it really amounts to lost profits. Cutting exports (our imports are their exports) amounts to tens of billions of euros. That means jobs, either job cuts or jobs that were not created. The same applies to the United States. I hope that sanity will prevail in the end."

It appears that Trump needs to end his Trade and Sanctions Wars (although all the illegal sanctions aren't his doing) in order to bolster his reelection chances. The questions are, Will the sanction hawks like Mnuchin try to impede such a policy change since it seems to be required for domestic politics and How will D-Party candidates treat the issue, particularly as several are hooked on Russiagate Koolaid?

And do please note the question about the interview at the end, Putin's answer and how he put in within the context of the G20!

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 30 2019 20:46 utc | 39

Trump Took Fox News Tucker Carlson, Not John Bolton, To North Korea

Trump, and Carlson to NK while Bolton is on assignment in the Gobi Desert:)

Posted by: Zack | Jun 30 2019 21:05 utc | 40

donkeytale | Jun 30, 2019 4:17:38 PM | 32

I am afraid that I cannot agree with much of what you said.

Dictatorship, as a governance system, has always failed, and will always fail. The 'Globalists' who grabbed power, and imposed an effective oligarchic dictatorship, in the U.S. in 1980 and the EU since 1990, have clearly demonstrated this fact through the destruction of the economies of the U.S. and much of Europe and the impoverishment of their populations. And since 2001, they have used the U.S. and British military and intelligence services and NATO as their personal bludgeon in order to force the submission of any state that did not voluntarily submit to their project of a 'Global' dictatorship.

Resistance to this 'Globalist' project is at the root of almost all conflicts in the world today. The 'Multi-Polar' nations resisting the 'Globalists', in Ukraine, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. is one front in this resistance. The other front is the resistance of 'Nationalists' (such as Trump, the Brexiteers, the Yellow Vests, and populists across Europe) to the 'Globalists.

The Trump Presidency is not the cause of tensions in the world today, as you suggest, but rather the symptom. Trump understands that without an industrial base, the U.S. is condemned to becoming the 'India' of the Americas'. The central theme of his actions is to restore the U.S. industrial base and U.S. sovereignty, which have largely been destroyed by the 'Globalists' and their 'Deep State' machine over the past 40 years. The 'Globalists' need only the U.S. military and intelligence services, and care nothing for its population and less for its sovereignty, and thus are fighting Trump every step of the way.

Trump may be coarse and a buffoon, and he may be completely wrong in carrying Israel's water with respect to Iran, but he is just about the only American politician that I see that is working on behalf of the U.S. population rather than on behalf of the 'Globalists'.

Reversing the 'Globalization' that has savaged the U.S. and Europe over the past several decades will not come easily, nor without pain and tensions, and winners and losers. However failure to do so guarantees the likely rapid and long term decline and impoverishment of all populations under 'Globalist' control.

Posted by: dh-mtl | Jun 30 2019 21:25 utc | 41

I’m glad to see someone else took notice of Flydubai 981. I came across the story of that flight recently and added a comment about it in your latest MAX article about how the official investigation outcome makes little sense. I wouldn’t be surprised if American and French investigators obfuscated the interpretation of recorder data to save their interests.
As I was reading more about this, also came across Tatarstan flight 363. It’s a Classic instead of NG but still highly suspicious. For the investigation report to make sense, you’d need to really accept that the pilot was an absolute moron. Ridiculous!

Lucky for us that these planes rarely ever crash... but makes me uneasy that in every 737 flight that I get on, I am always wondering what could happen when any particular sensor malfunctions. As a software test engineer, I must always be skeptical if claims that “all possible failure modes were identified and mitigated”. You just simply can’t say there is no issue because you did not detect the issue. If you hear someone saying something like that, be suspicious. Any experienced test engineer or product engineer should know that’s bs.

I don’t know how to do this but I want to check up on any 737 flight manual “enhancements” or changes after these reports, see if they had a major change marketed as simple “improved wording” or something along those lines. At this point in time, the most obvious and simple conclusion is “something stinks at Boeing”.

Posted by: Murad | Jun 30 2019 21:28 utc | 42

From Haertz. An encouraging trend (i broke the link)

“In last year’s survey, 70 percent of American Jews questioned said that caring about Israel was “a very important part of my being a Jew.” In this year's survey, their share had dropped to 62 percent. The percentage that “strongly disagreed” with this statement had risen from 9 to 15 percent.

Moreover, the share that considered a thriving Israel vital for the long-term future of the Jews dropped from 79 to 72 percent.

This trend of disengagement from Israel was most pronounced among younger and secular American Jews. Only 44 percent of people between the age of 18 and 29 and 42 percent of the secular respondents said that Israel played a significant role in their Jewish identity.”

Posted by: Pft | Jun 30 2019 21:28 utc | 43

Sunny @35
Israel didn't create Hamas. What it did was treat it with benign neglect while hammering the PLO. Hamas was allowed to publish newspapers, develop social aid programs and grow.
Because unlike the secular PLO it began as a religious network and the Israelis figured Palestinian young men on the knees praying five times a day was better then PLO fighters. Plus divide and rule of course.
By the way.. Jeruselam was once described as " A Golden Bowl, full of scorpions."
That was hundreds of years ago. Times don't change much, or enough.

Posted by: David Goodrich | Jun 30 2019 21:31 utc | 44

Great quote of Putin by karlof1 @39. That final sentence says much, though:

"I hope that sanity will prevail in the end"

That is a polite way of saying that sanity is not prevailing at the moment. Putin pointing out that there is nothing Russia can do about the current relationship between the US and Russia leaves no illusions as to who the insane party is. It is not within Russia's power to make America sane. There are no magic words they can utter to fix what ails the US.

Posted by: William Gruff | Jun 30 2019 21:32 utc | 45

My perception is that 'pilot error' or 'pilot suicide' as one of the first topics of media speculation whenever a plane crash occurs has greatly increased or only come into being in the last decade or so. Pilot error or more rarely pilot suicide can occur, but now it is the go to explanation. Is this a meme that was started or pushed by aircraft manufacturers, perhaps to accompany fly by wire aircraft.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 30 2019 21:41 utc | 46

james | Jun 30, 2019 4:35:48 PM | 36

Great find James, thank you!!

Donald Neff, the author of the piece you linked to, has authored, I believe, five books on Israel.

His book ‘Fallen Pillars – U.S. Policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945’ is a must read for understanding the ongoing situation in Palestine and how this was facilitated by the U.S.

Posted by: Desolation Row | Jun 30 2019 21:46 utc | 47

dh-mtl @29 explained it well, I thought, but some still don't seem to get it.
It is the difference between the UN, which has a law-based charter which upholds the national sovereignty of each nation and forbids aggression against any sovereign country, and
the WTO, which is a rules-based agreement which forbids any national government to pass laws which interfere in the profits of corporations.
Globalism is the project in which capital has complete freedom to do as it will, while humans and national governments are forbidden such freedom.
Putin and Lavrov frequently point to the difference between international law, which they support, and the "rules-based order" which the US and its partners-in-crime support, in which the rules are used to destroy sovereign countries and enrich the multi-national corporations which strip the planet at will, and go to the cheapest labor countries, with no environmental laws, for their global production lines.
A multi-polar world is one with many sovereign countries, ruled by international law, respected by all, with peaceful relations between all countries.
Globalism is when corporations rule the world, and we continue on the path of destruction of all the natural wealth of the world in the turning of nature into commodities and then trash.

Posted by: wagelaborer | Jun 30 2019 21:47 utc | 48

@ wagelaborer who wrote
Globalism is the project in which capital has complete freedom to do as it will, while humans and national governments are forbidden such freedom.
Perfectly stated!

I appreciate you, dh-mtl, bevin and others responding to donkeytale. I have not read the comment because donkeytale is on bypass for me but it is nice to read other commenters taking on donkeytale BS for others to see....thanks

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 30 2019 22:04 utc | 49

@41 dh-mtl

Sorry if I need to pick your resopnse to donkeytale apart but there are a lot of inconsistencies in your argument.

The 'Globalists' who grabbed power, and imposed an effective oligarchic dictatorship, in the U.S. in 1980 and the EU since 1990, have clearly demonstrated this fact through the destruction of the economies of the U.S. and much of Europe and the impoverishment of their populations.

You seem to imply that the 'globalists' (illuminati, Zionist bankers etc., etc.) did not exist or had power before the 1980s, which could not be further from the truth. There are several reasons why neo-liberalism took hold in the 1980s, creating the economic narrative and agenda of today, none of which, are related to some kind of power grab by people that did not hold any power beforehand. The threat of the cold war was waning in the 1980s and elites felt less pressured by local populations potentially becoming 'too' sympathetic to communism anymore. So they began rolling back social policies implemented in the post-war years to counter communism's appeal. Computer technology going mainstream, creating all sorts of economic spillovers to be harnessed by increased open and international trade was another reason, there were many more. But the people you call 'globalists' controlled matters much, much earlier than the 1980s.

The other front is the resistance of 'Nationalists' (such as Trump, the Brexiteers, the Yellow Vests, and populists across Europe) to the 'Globalists.

If there truly were such politicians as 'nationalists' who somehow only hold the best interest of their native people at heart, then why is that most European populists cosy up to Israel? None of them have tried to reclaim control over their Central Banks and in the case of i.e. Italy, do they try to break free from the Euro? Why are Polish nationalists rabidly supporting the build up of US arms on their territory? I think it is about time to see beyond this silly dichotomy of 'Globalist' vs 'Nationalist', at least while these Nationalists do nothing substantial to actually help their lot and further squeeze the lower classes of their countries in good neo-liberal fashion, same as their Globalist political 'opponents' they claim to oppose.

Trump may be coarse and a buffoon, and he may be completely wrong in carrying Israel's water with respect to Iran, but he is just about the only American politician that I see that is working on behalf of the U.S. population rather than on behalf of the 'Globalists'.

So you admit that Trump is essentially a controlled zionist buffoon but at the same time he is working towards restoring US sovereignty on behalf of the people? You mean he worked for the US people when he lowered taxes for the rich even further, creating an ever larger US public debt, and throwing Americans further into debt servitude of private finance? Or do you mean his still open promise to invest large sums in the US crumbling infrastructure? Oh right, he has instead opted to increase defence spending to combat the US many imaginary enemies around the globe.

Look, I agree with you that global neo-liberalism is bad for the vast majority of people on this planet but don't go looking for help from false prophets, such as Trump or other 'nationalists', you will only find yourself completely disappointed before long.

Posted by: Alexander P | Jun 30 2019 22:06 utc | 50

Kamala Harris's Hillaryesque tweet re Trump meeting Kim at DMZ:

"This President should take the North Korean nuclear threat and its crimes against humanity seriously. This is not a photo-op. Our security and our values are at stake."

Comments on the thread are telling, and she's not fooling anyone.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 30 2019 22:16 utc | 51

51 Cont'd--

In contrast, here's what Sanders said on national TV:

"Sen. Bernie Sanders says he has 'no problem' with Pres. Trump meeting with Kim Jong Un, adding: 'I don't want it simply to be a photo opportunity... we need to move forward diplomatically, not just do photo opportunities.'"

Sanders is getting far more media exposure at the election cycle's beginning, which I see as positive.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 30 2019 22:21 utc | 52

OT where will the 1 percent go when it gets too hot and the northern hemisphere is trashed?
Patagonia perhaps? apologies for the mindset behind this documentary by DW:

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Jun 30 2019 22:24 utc | 53

Interesting observation of NY Times attitude after first D-Party debate noted by Kevin Gosztola:

"'Moderates' seems to be the New York Times media company's euphemism for itself. Liberals at the Democratic presidential debate made the Times company 'anxious.'"

Somehow, I think Kevin's being too generous saying NY Times is moderate when it comes to political views. IMO, reactionary is more appropriate given its editorial stances and what it's championed over its history.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 30 2019 22:33 utc | 54

The news about Boeing's woes not only being reduced to the 737 model confirms my earlier comment about the issue that the company is suffereing from a chronic case of falling profitability -- which confirms (again) Marx's Law (of the "tendency of the profit rate to fall").

Specially fruitful here because Marx's Law precisely states the fall in profitability is more intense and devastating in the case where capital is bigger and more developed, not less -- a feature that is counterintuitive to the mere observer. Boeing is a very big corporation, and thus it was expected, per Marx, that it would suffer more from falling profitability; meanwhile, the few growth that is happening in the First World is comming from the services sector -- a sector which is less capital intensive and more capital extensive. Again confirming, empirically, Marx's Law.


This shale oil/gas is no less important news. Careful analysis already knew shale oil/gas was a farce: the problem with it is that it provides a boom of production followed quickly by a bust (like an ejaculation). It follows a free-fall graphic line. This is awful for investors, who expect a more rollercoaster-like productivity typical of the normal oil reserves (slowly crescent production, with an apex, followed by a slow decline in output).

The USA will never be self-sufficient in oil. The government's official projections are a farce and they know it.

See these reports for more information about shale extraction:

Posted by: vk | Jun 30 2019 22:34 utc | 55

A Zionist terrorist attack against civilians in Damascus occurred during the past hour. Fortunately, no deaths reported, but definitely civilian casualties.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 30 2019 22:41 utc | 56

uncle tungsten @53--

Putin's been criticized as a Climate Denier which has always been just another smear job. If you click the G20 press conference link, at the very beginning you'll read him talking about how the Climate Crisis is affecting Russia is rather serious ways.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 30 2019 22:47 utc | 57


Well, I get what you are stating however I'm convinced we are talking apples and oranges. Two different contexts with some overlap.

The more I read your comments I believe you mean "globalist" in the political context of those wanting to create a "one world government" or something to that effect. The conspiratorial context.

I define globalism or global capitalism as a financial system created by and for the wealthiest elites wherever they may call home. There are domestic political elements involved but the system is partaken of by wealthy people of most nations and many, often differing political perspectives. For instance, Obama and Assad are both globalists in my view as both profit from the global capitalist system.

I doubt continuing this discussion will prove fruitful for either of us or the blog at large.

Posted by: donkeytale | Jun 30 2019 22:48 utc | 58

@50 Alexander P

Response to a few of your criticisms.

1. You say 'You seem to imply that the 'globalists' (illuminati, Zionist bankers etc., etc.) did not exist or had power before the 1980s'.

Not at all. They lost power from the mid-1930s to 1980. They regained power with Reagan, followed by Clinton, W, and Obama. You only need to look at any graph that shows when income inequality in the U.S. began to ramp up. The date is clear - 1980.

2. You say. 'If there truly were such politicians as 'nationalists' who somehow only hold the best interest of their native people at heart'.

I didn't say that these 'Nationalists' or 'Populists' hold the best interests of their native peoples at heart. Usually they are only interested in what they see as best for themselves. But there is no doubt that they are resisting the 'Globalists' push to strip their countries of their sovereignty, to transfer their wealth to the 'Globalist' elites, to transfer their industries to wherever labor is the cheapest. I said that this was a 'second front' against the 'Globalists'. And there is no doubt, from the fight that the 'Globalists' are waging against Trump, 'Brexit' and populists and nationalists across Europe, that the 'Globalists' take this 'front' seriously.

3. You say. 'don't go looking for help from false prophets, such as Trump'.

You are right. It is unlikely that Trump will be able to 'Make America Great Again'. At best he may be able to break the 'Globalists' hold on power in the U.S. However, this is a necessary first step if the U.S. is ever to recover wealth and power that it had during the middle of the last century, but which today is rapidly evaporating.

Posted by: dh-mtl | Jun 30 2019 22:50 utc | 59

b, re comments 19 and 21.

I have attempted to post links to a Jewish site in Australia that clearly demonstrate Jewish pride in successful meddling in Australian political affairs with the intent of pursuing Israeli and Zionist objectives, like the moving of the Aust. embassy to Jerusalem. I am using the term "meddling" as meaning seeking to generate influence far beyond the democratic mandate of those seeking to influence. Those attempts have vanished into the digital dustbin without explanation, despite an explanation being requested.

It is my view that your readers would gain by having an insight into this mode of operation, as it explains the nexus between Jewish and Zionist entities, and the means by which the Jewish community gets used to persue Zionist objectives. The "anti semitism" thing is used to great effect to prevent that means from being closely examined.

Posted by: eagle eye | Jun 30 2019 23:04 utc | 60

I agree with Alexander P that nationalist and populist presentation is often either controlled opposition or a method of splintering and isolating influence. That is not to say there are a lot of public in many countries who are sincere in their sentiment.

Sorry no link, recent :

"As he arrived at the Kempinski hotel lobby last December, journalists scuffled with bodyguards as they tried to get their microphones and cameras close. Despite being jostled, Zanganeh remained calm and waited to deliver a simple message: Iran can’t participate in OPEC’s production cuts as long as it remains under U.S. sanctions and won’t allow other members to steal its rightful market share."

I.E. approval for continued reduced opec oil supply to support prices depends on Iran (?), lower prices otherwise affecting all other producers, and/or Iran is making the case that sanctions are a theft of market share by other producers. The latter has been a part of the cause of hostility in the gulf.

In Germany

"The 2018 report by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution of Germany (Bundesmat fur Verfassungsschutz, BfV), which was released on June 27, 2019 by the Federal Minister of the Interior, Horst Seehofer and Thomas Haldenwang, head of the organization, examines the activities of the intelligence services of the Iranian regime in Germany....

The BfV annual report states: "The central task of the Iranian intelligence services is to spy against opposition movements and confront these movements. In this regard, evidences of state-sponsored terrorism in Europe, which originates in Iran, have intensified during 2018." " etc

is being used by ncr (the article source) to the effect of calling for closure of the Iranian embassy. That aside, the report does show Germany is moving towards, or is willing to, apply pressure on Iran now. France has also given indication that it is not fully behind Iran (reprimand and warning on not respecting jcpoa etc.)

Posted by: gzon | Jun 30 2019 23:04 utc | 61

From the Economist article:

“Mid-sized countries like Russia, Britain, Australia and Japan will struggle to find their place in the world, while new coalitions will emerge, such as a “Hanseatic League 2.0” of small, advanced states like those of Scandinavia and the Baltics.”

And that is where I stopped reading. Another hack piece by a representative of bitter globalists, trying to downplay Russia and its role in the new global order. It is pathetic to see them admit to defeat but not to the countries who handed them this loss. Russia must suppressed at all cost. That is what the western block of G20 and their minions agreed upon.

Posted by: Uncle Jon | Jun 30 2019 23:05 utc | 62

Typo of mine 61 above, which I don't usually bother with but here

"That is not to say there are NOT a lot of public in many countries who.. "

makes a lot of difference.

Posted by: gzon | Jun 30 2019 23:08 utc | 63

It is unlikely that Trump will be able to 'Make America Great Again'. At best he may be able to break the 'Globalists' hold on power in the U.S. However, this is a necessary first step if the U.S. is ever to recover wealth and power that it had during the middle of the last century, but which today is rapidly evaporating.

More likely, Trump is the final step to ensuring "working and middle income Americans" will never recover the wealth and power that they had during the middle of the last century but which today is rapidly evaporating.

The globe is wealthier --by far---than it was during the middle of the last century.

It is that the wallets for this wealth have grown much fatter and more concentrated in fewer back pockets that is the real issue...

This is class war not a nationalist vs globalist battle. The nationalist upper class no more than the global upper class are ever going to provide us with a means to recover our lost wealth.

This is something the working class will have to fight for regardless of nation. Obviously, the battle begins at home...but must extend to include the poor and dispossesed solidarity with each other.

Any other "solution" is a lie.

Posted by: donkeytale | Jun 30 2019 23:09 utc | 64

dh-mtl @59--

You are correct to say inequality began rising again in 1980; however, the rise must be attributed to Carter and Volker--Reagan just continued the process. It seemed odd the GHW Bush initially opposed it as "Voodoo Economics" but readily championed it all as VEEP, making it just a political posture in the nomination race.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 30 2019 23:11 utc | 65

So just read The Putin Corporation by a couple of anti-Putin exiles. Take it with a grain of salt perhaps but I suspect there is some truth.

The gist of it is Russia is controlled by a FSB-oligarchal corporate government, much like the US is controlled by the Deep State-Corporate Elites

Putin was selected by the Federal Security Service of Russia. The FSB embraced neoliberal capitalism and functioned like a corporation, as did the oligarchs

In 1996 when President Yeltsins decree canceling the election and declaring a state of emergency in the country had already been signed, the corporation of the oligarchs—(backed by Clinton and US) offered Yeltsin money on the condition that he forgo the option of solving the problem by force, that he rescind the decree canceling the election and that he conduct a democratic election .

In July 1996, Yeltsin was re-elected president thanks to the oligarchs and US assistance. But this victory came at a price. The corporation of the oligarchs became a shareholder in the government. For the next four years, this corporation governed the country. The president of this corporation was Yeltsin.

By 1999–2000, every oligarch had his own high-ranking, tried-and-tested man in the security services. And every one of these state security men had his own tried-and-tested oligarch. Roman Abramovich, Boris Berezovsky, and Anatoly Chubais had Colonel Vladimir Putin, director of the FSB. Vladimir Gusinsky had Army General Filipp Bobkov, deputy director of the KGB of the USSR. Yuri Luzhkov had Yevgeny Primakov, deputy director of the KGB of the USSR, director of the Central Intelligence Service of the USSR, and director of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service. Mikhail Khodorkovsky had KGB General Alexei Kondaurov. And so on.

The oligarchs and the state security men who were close to Yeltsin explained to the president that only a former head of the FSB would be able to guarantee his and his family’s immunity after he left office.

Putin was the director of the FSB. Yeltsin liked Putin, and the oligarchs liked him. And on December 31, 1999, he was chosen to be Yeltsin’s successor as the next president of Russia. The oligarchs believed that their corporation was still in power. It was they, after all, who had jointly supported Putin; it was they who, during the election campaign , had assisted him using all of the same mechanisms and managers that had secured victory for Yeltsin in 1996. But the FSB corporation was supporting Putin and working to secure his victory using its own resources and its own methods and Putin was loyal to the FSB

The balance of power soon shifted in favor of the FSB. Putin began to appoint former/active KGB-FSB officers to all vacant positions, as well as to all government and political positions of any importance. Between 70 and 80 percent of all top positions in the government had been captured by the security services and the military. The country’s government had been taken over by the those who had worked in the KGB-FSB system

In the 90’s Putin spent several years as second in command in Russia’s crime capital working with oligarchs and western capitalists to loot the Russian people for personal benefit. A number of those crimes were under criminal investigation. One of his first acts as President gave him and other government officials amnesty. The oligarchs got no amnesty so could be selectively targeted.

Putin then began to take a much tougher stance toward the oligarchs. Addressing the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, he called on entrepreneurs who had taken their capital out of Russia to bring it back, promising that they would not be penalized: “The government must not pester people and ask where they got their funds if it itself was unable to ensure normal conditions for investment.” Putin threatened sanctions if the entrepreneurs refused to bring their money back. Those who played ball stayed and participated in the corporate government, those who opposed him were forced to flee or were imprisoned. The empires of Gusinsky and Berezovsky were destroyed, and both ended up in exile abroad. Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s empire was dismantled, while Khodorkovsky himself was arrested and convicted.

So today Russia has an FSB-Oligarch Corporate Government. Putin is CEO regardless of if he is President or not.

One thing he has in common with Trump is he was also involved in the Casino business. Also close to or related to one of Chabads biggest investors and both are big supporters of Israel. Small world

Posted by: Pft | Jun 30 2019 23:16 utc | 66

I remembered the title and have found the article named "Was Hamas really created by Israel?" (Robert Inlakesh 2019-02-11) and I saw it at AMN although it has been posted by other sites as well.

I still haven't read it but at least "which article and where" is cleared up now :)

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Jun 30 2019 23:23 utc | 67

donkeytale | Jun 30, 2019 6:48:21 PM | 58 says:

'I define globalism or global capitalism as a financial system created by and for the wealthiest elites wherever they may call home'

A financial system is by definition the product of a political system. What political system do you think 'creates a system by and for the wealthiest elites'.

No 'conspiratorial context'. Just observing the same thing as you.

Posted by: dh-mtl | Jun 30 2019 23:25 utc | 68

Ziogolem 65


to keep you from sleeping... and it only addresses the US and Russia hairtrigger, not the other nuclear powers and their state of preparation. It does have some positive suggestions though.

Posted by: gzon | Jun 30 2019 23:29 utc | 69

@47 desolation row.. i am glad you appreciate that!

@ donkeytale.. i don't know why you say the things you do, but i find myself disagreeing with statements you make often.. here is another one that i challenge.. "The globe is wealthier --by far---than it was during the middle of the last century." if you think converting the biosphere - trees in b.c. or the amazon, into money in the bank, or over fishing the oceans, not to mention polluting the oceans to the point the fish you get from them as not so healthy for you, or lets even take drinking water where one used to be able to drink from a stream and certainly can't do that with any confidence anymore - if you think that is making us richer, we have a very different concept of wealth my friend... and these are just a few examples.. maybe it is better not to make these kinds of crazy statements that can be taken apart very quickly..

Posted by: james | Jun 30 2019 23:40 utc | 70

@David Goodrich 44

“Because unlike the secular PLO it began as a religious network and the Israelis figured Palestinian young men on the knees praying five times a day was better then PLO fighters. Plus divide and rule of course.”

Question. Who do you think is more likely to wear a suicide vest? A secular PLO member or a young man praying 5v times on his knees?

I am afraid your reasoning falls short. And when was the last time Israel treated anything with respect to Palestinians with “Benign neglect”. The answer is never.

Hamas was created by Israel and like anything they do, i.e. Al-queda, ISIS, etc, it gets out of control and turns on them, at least on the surface. These states must always have a an active enemy that” threatens their existence”. PLO made peace and recognized Israel in Oslo. So Israel was left without an enemy. No enemy, no existential threats. No existential threat, no way to achieve hegemonic agenda.

And of course, the assassination of the “traitor”Rabin, thereafter and back to the good ole days of rape and pillage with impunity.

Posted by: Uncle Jon | Jun 30 2019 23:41 utc | 71

gzon @ 33

Thanks for the excellent response. One thing I failed to take into account is the difference between the EU and the US financial systems so thanks for that corrective explanation.

The Euro represents the biggest failure of the EU from where I sit. Centralised control of the currency and banking systems is a grave error in that construct and the "European Parliament" just seems too silly for me to even contemplate, although I'm sure there is some logical explanation for its existence that I'm missing.

And you bet, I'm also sure the day of reckoning for the global debt overload is fast approaching. What I don't understand is how one form of capitalism (neoliberal) versus another (state managed) makes any difference in how this debt overload developed. China, for instance, has used similar stimulus methods more frequently even than the US since 2008 to keep its economic growth chugging along and certainly way more than the EU, which under stimulated its own economy in response to the recession.

IMHO, Brexit is a forced over the top politicised reaction to this conservative German-led response in light of the fact the UK kept its own currency and banking systems separate and had the means to provide stimulus but didn't under the Tory buffoons in charge.

Grexit made much more sense to me than Brexit for many reasons. I was dismayed when the Greek people failed in their courage after voting in Syriza follow through and tell the Germans to take the Euro and their debt and put it where the sun don't shine.

What I believe people are tending to forget or overlook, such as wagelabourer @ 48 and dh-mtl elsewhere, that while these postwar international re-orderings such as NATO, the UN and the EU are nowhere near perfect, they are also not purely NWO conspiratorial constructs. Rather they were created for a very specific purpose stemming from a lesson of history which seems to have been rather easily tossed aside because of the relative success of these same institutions: that is, clashing nationalisms inevitably lead to major conflict and devastating wars, especially among the major imperialist states.

Posted by: donkeytale | Jun 30 2019 23:44 utc | 72

Doing Due Diligence on Tulsi Gabbard by watching the 1:20 long interview by Jimmy Dore of which the first 20 minutes are excellent. At the 21 minute mark, Dore asks how can we end these endless wars. Paraphrasing Gabbard: Failure is not an option: We must end these interventionist wars as they suck the life blood out of doing the positive things that must be done to benefit Americans.

Prior to the above, Dore as an aside mentions that Howard Dean, the Podestas, Clintons, and others are all about keeping the flow of Big Money into politics at the expense of everything else--that's their absolute #1 concern, to which you'll hear Gabbard agree!

So, the two biggest issues in US politics--Forever Wars and the utter strangulation of politics by Big Money are what she wants to take on. And on those two issues alone, I've decided to work for her campaign!

Posted by: karlof1 | Jul 1 2019 0:00 utc | 73

james I make these statements simply because I know you will diagree. :0)

Srsly, bro. The world is wealthier...and this wealth results mostly from expansion in Japan, China and the other BRICS countries et al ...but if you read me closely you will know that I deplore all that growth at the expense of the environment...I'm just not sure there is anything much we can do about it given our human nature and desire for the same comforts the Jones's next door enjoy.

Also, I will not condemn those developing nations destroying the environment because we got ours and have never effectively done anything to stop environmental destruction caused by our own "First World" development.

But that doesn't make my statement any less, I must conclude you are just pre-disposed to disagreeing with my statements.

Posted by: donkeytale | Jul 1 2019 0:01 utc | 74

Someone pinch me and tell me I'm not dreaming! If this is true (my knee-jerk reaction is to dismiss it), then it is HUGE! EARTH SHATTERING!

In one of the most remarkable partnerships in modern American political history, Soros and Charles Koch, the more active of the two brothers, are joining to finance a new foreign-policy think tank in Washington. It will promote an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats, sanctions, and bombing. (...) It will be called the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, an homage to John Quincy Adams, who in a seminal speech on Independence Day in 1821 declared that the United States “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. (...) Among (Trita) Parsi’s co-founders are several well-known critics of American foreign policy, including Suzanne DiMaggio, who has spent decades promoting negotiated alternatives to conflict with China, Iran, and North Korea; the historian and essayist Stephen Wertheim; and the anti-militarist author and retired Army colonel Andrew Bacevich. “The Quincy Institute will invite both progressives and anti-interventionist conservatives to consider a new, less militarized approach to policy,” Bacevich said, when asked why he signed up. “We oppose endless, counterproductive war. We want to restore the pursuit of peace to the nation’s foreign policy agenda.”

Posted by: Maracatu | Jul 1 2019 0:08 utc | 75

Thank goodness that there is one place where Globalism, Boeing, and Kamala Harris can be discussed. From the bottom, looking up, they are intertwined. Corporate media strictly ignores the restoration of the robber baron aristocracy, the supremacy of trade treaties, the endless wars for profit, the free flow of capital, and corrupted governments. The sole purpose is to make the rich richer at the expense of everyone else.

There are many tell-tale signs that this is an apt description of the world. With deregulation and outsourcing, there is no incentive to design and build safe airplanes. That costs money. Two 737 Max(s) crash killing 346. Workplaces are toxic. The life expectancy in the UK and USA is declining. The US dollar is used as a military weapon. Monopolies buy up innovation. Corporate law breaking is punished by fines which are added to the cost of doing business. There is no jail time for chief executives. The cost of storm damage is increasing. Families are migrating to survive. Nationalist and globalist oligarchs are fighting over the spoils. Last week the global economy was 10 minutes away from collapse by an American air attack on Iran.

Kamala Harris is multi-cultural, East Indian and Jamaican, globalist educated in the USA and Canada. To be elected and earn rewards she identifies herself as an African-American. Neo-Populism and France’s Yellow Vests are the direct response to global capitalism that is supported by Corporate Democrats, New Labour Party, and Emmanuel Macron. The rise of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson in response is no coincidence.

Posted by: VietnamVet | Jul 1 2019 0:11 utc | 76

Uncle Jon @ 72

Back when Hamas got going in the eighties it was an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. At that time the MB were a non violent religious organisation that developed and run social welfare programs for the poor. They won serious support amongst the Palestinians for that and because they weren't corrupt like the PLO.
My phrase "Benign Neglect" was a poor one... "Cynically turnimg a blind eye" would be a better one.
Israel thought if young Palestinian men were out delivering food to widows and children or praying in Mosques then they wouldn't be on roofs with sniper rifles.

Plus it would split the Palestinians, which it did.

A win-win for Israel.

For a while.

Posted by: David Goodrich | Jul 1 2019 0:14 utc | 77


A financial system is by definition the product of a political system.

Generally speaking in thee vague terms this is true but false with respect to specific national political systems and the current global economy. Adoption of and/or participation in a particular economic system stems from a national political consensus. I can agree with that statement. But to say any one nation "produced" the current global market economic system is a bit like saying Yahweh created all the heavens and the earth in 6 days.

Posted by: donkeytale | Jul 1 2019 0:14 utc | 78

Dear B,

That link to The Economist concerns a book review. The views of the author who wrote the book are not necessarily views the Board of Directors (of whom Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild is one member) might share.

Significantly in the excerpt The Economist quotes and in its interview with the author, there is no mention of China's Belt Road Initiative or of China and Russia's friendship (expressed in the friendship pact signed in 2001 and in other economic, trade, political and military exchanges, alliances and forums such as the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation) and the author seems to think that the US and the European Union will remain significant poles of political, cultural and other influences in the 21st century. Russia is brushed away as a potential focus of influence and attraction.

Not a good look in my view.

Posted by: Jen | Jul 1 2019 0:16 utc | 79

So Israel at it again in Syria. Just following the script I guess. I guess Russian s-300’s dont work against Israel

Posted by: Pft | Jul 1 2019 0:18 utc | 80

eagle eye 60

Just one headline amongst many to explain the difficulty of your approach

Evangelical Christians Celebrate Trump's Recognition of Jerusalem as Capital, US Embassy Move - Breaking Israel News

I.E when you try to categorise by association it can be misleading. For a deep look at this topic I suggest looking up "How to bring down the elephant in the room" at the saker. Obviously because that is not the common view or widely understood then the use of certain terms will have connotations that are not welcome to a lot of people, but I think the headline on Christians says all you need to know, you are going to get very confused trying to categorise by religious label I think. It doesn't stop anyone trying to use those labels to research a conclusion, but you aren't going to get far using those labels in public , to do that you would have to be discussing sincerely on a theological forum or something?

donkeytale @ 73

"What I don't understand is how one form of capitalism (neoliberal) versus another (state managed) makes any difference in how this debt overload developed."

It is an inbuilt feature of fractional lending and fiat money, that is to say supply via debt is in the hands of the central banks, via debt. How that money supply and debt is distributed, the policy choices used in parallel, give you your kind of financial/economic system. When one country devalues its currency (creates more), it gives a trade advantage, so they tend to walk in step down the same path, it puts money in the hands of government and elite in a way that few question. Would like to comment on EU and so on as well to reply, but it is late here and I have taken over enough of comments for now I think.

Posted by: gzon | Jul 1 2019 0:29 utc | 81

A minor correction to dh-mtl @59 where it was claimed "[The globalists] lost power from the mid-1930s to 1980."

The globalists were never actually out of power in the US. Instead they were confronted with a massive upsurge in radical organized labor that threatened to remove them from power. The globalists had to make very significant concessions to buy time for that labor uprising to subside. That happened to take almost half a century, but throughout that period the globalists retained power, though in a somewhat weakened form. They are back at full strength now

Other than that dh-mtl's analysis seems accurate.

Posted by: William Gruff | Jul 1 2019 0:47 utc | 82

Awhile ago we discussed the obfuscation of classical economics in order to elevate the Junk Economics of Randian Neoliberalism. And with Trump's Trade War and the 2020 election cycle's start, I think it wise to revisit what's proven to be a timeless Michael Hudson essay from 2010, "America's China Bashing: A Compendium of Junk Economics", which provided the ground work for the subsequent book he published on the topic. The following excerpt remains the underlying issue prompting Trump's Trade War with China:

"The cover story is that foreign exchange controls and purchases of U.S. securities keep the renminbi’s exchange rate low, artificially spurring its exports. The reality, of course, is that these controls protect China from U.S. banks creating free 'keyboard credit' to buy out Chinese companies to buy out Chinese companies or load down its economy with loans to be paid off in renminbi whose value will rise against the deficit-ridden dollar. It’s the Wall Street arbitrage opportunity of the century that banks are pressing for, not the welfare of American workers."

As the years between have shown, the Chinese aren't fools and probably know more about economics than their politicized US counterparts, Trump especially included.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jul 1 2019 0:50 utc | 83

pft @81--

The incoming Zionist missiles were all shot down using non-S-300 aid defenses. Casualties were caused by the crashing pieces.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jul 1 2019 0:52 utc | 84

@ William Gruff with the dh-mtl update about "control" during the early part of last century....I agree and thanks

@ karlof1 with the Michael Hudson link.....I put a comment up last night with a quote from Xinhuanet
BEIJING, June 30 (Xinhua) -- China on Sunday rolled out revised negative lists for foreign investment market access, introducing greater opening-up and allowing foreign investors to run majority-share-controlling or wholly-owned businesses in more sectors.
It makes me worry about how much of "China" will be allowed to be bought/controlled by the private finance folk. I have been wondering about this since 2008 when the US started running the "printing presses" bigly enough to double the deficit in less than 10 years.....I didn't get any of those trillions, did you? At some point I expect there to be a meeting of global "big wigs" who say they own this or that and wonder how that meeting will turn out relative to Bretton Woods.

I still see China throwing out a faux lifeline to the private finance folk that will be reeled in after the transition to a China led world.....want to make it look like the Koch brothers and Soros with their new peace tank are leading the parade.....

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jul 1 2019 1:12 utc | 85

donkeytale | Jun 30, 2019 8:14:48 PM | 79 says:

'But to say any one nation "produced" the current global market economic system is a bit like saying Yahweh created all the heavens and the earth in 6 days.'

I never suggested that 'one nation' produced this global system.

What I was suggesting is that perhaps the financial elites who benefit from, as you describe it, a 'financial system created by and for the wealthiest elites wherever they may call home', and who controlled Reagan and Clinton and W and Obama, Blair and Cameron and Macron and Merkel and Aznar in Spain, etc., etc., and hundreds of MEPs in the European parliament, and who created the U.S. Deep State, control virtually all of western main-stream media, and who place their people in control of institutions such as the World Bank, and IMF, and UN and WTO and BIS, and who decide the fate of the world every year at Davos and the Bilderberg conference, might have had something the do with creating the laws and treaties that created that system.

This sounds like a pretty effective political system to me, though definitely not democratic.

Posted by: dh-mtl | Jul 1 2019 1:13 utc | 86

Jesus, what a read, too many good comments, and I'm too damn tired today to respond, other than noticing some people's breathtaking naivete on one DJT.

I Guess donkey @ 15 said it best; "Trump is a geopolitical and foreign policy moron who doesn't know what he is doing beyond enriching himself and creating daily fake news headlines in hopes of being re-elected on behalf of the same global elites he playacts at combatting for his worshipful audience of true believers."

I guess every "carnival barker" has his true believers.

Still in all, a great thread to read.

Massive therapy b, thanks!!

Posted by: ben | Jul 1 2019 1:22 utc | 87

@ 55 vk
“The news about Boeing's woes not only being reduced to the 737 model confirms my earlier comment about the issue that the company is suffereing from a chronic case of falling profitability -- which confirms (again) Marx's Law (of the "tendency of the profit rate to fall").”

I don’t think Marx’s theory is relevant here and I have never really rated it. From the 1960s Boeing had almost a monopoly in an industry that was expanding year on year, and is still expanding. By the 1990s it was obvious that Airbus was going to make a serious challenge and that it would benefit from late entry. Boeing failed to introduce computerized design and production quickly enough and became a bit complacent. However, it still held huge advantages over Airbus in terms of employee skills, reputation (“if it ain’t Boeing I ain’t going”) and long-term relations with airlines.

The time to develop a completely new 737 was in the mid to late 1990s, which is precisely when it was captured by Wall Street. They stretched the 737 to produce the NEO, but it was never right and had to be dropped down on landings (see pilots’ forums like pprune for hard landings on 737NEO). So in 2003 Airbus outsold Boeing for the first time, because the A320 was simply a better plane and incorporated modern fly-by-wire systems. In a strange irony Boeing took over McDonnel Douglas in 1997, the firm that had produced the DC10, a plane that was rushed into service before being properly tested which resulted in the sort of senseless crashes that we have witnessed with the 737MAX.

Posted by: Lochearn | Jul 1 2019 1:33 utc | 88

dh-mtl @ 87

Well when you put it that way....I definitely agree with you there. The system is rigged towards the globalists who control the system for sure.

However, the Trump-nationalists and Brexiteers do not offer an effective solution to problem of wealth inequality which is your complaint...nor do either seek even to overturn the global system in fact. Post Brexit the Tories want to strike a trade deal with the US and a "better" trade deal with the EU which appears to be totally unrealistic, a fantasy offered voters based on lies. Trade deals are still globalism. There is no such thing as a " self sufficient national capitalist economy", especially in a country which can't even grow enough food to feed itself.

In fact it can be argued that the only countries who can successfully implement a true socialist economy are those that are entirely self-sufficient.

The only solution I see for the West is an organised working class political movement to change the income and wealth dynamic more in favour of workers. Tax increases, wealth redistribution from top to middle/bottom. Trump and Brexit don't effectively address these problems, in fact they only serve to obfuscate them.

Posted by: donkeytale | Jul 1 2019 1:51 utc | 89

Under B's always excellent offering of June 26 (Western News Agencies Mistranslates Iran's President Speech - It Is Not The First Time Such 'Error' Happens) a certain 'Capt. Abdul Hassan' @ 79 posted a very salient comment which generated almost no replies (only 2 - karlof1 @82 & Don @86 - if I am wrong please correct me).

Maybe not the most diplomatic opening, and maybe bordering on the hyperbolic, but none the less exactly correct in what he is saying.

Do any Americans here believe that there will not be any repercussions on the 'Homeland'?
There were endless comments on what would happen to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Israel, 'The Gulf', The Straits of Hormuz, rockets, pipelines blah blah blah etc, but not a word about the continental US.

Do you not realise how vulnerable you are?
Do you not think that the Iranians have worked this out?
Do you think that the Iranians are going to give you a free ride to destroy the Gulf region?

The horrors that you have inflicted on millions around the world are coming to your city, your town, your street, your house. Of course it won't be the Iranian military coming but your own 'people'.

An interesting point about all this is the karlof1 @82 response, a commentator who is normally very astute, rational, informed and constructive. I sense fear.

Interestingly, Americans who normally like to endlessly talk about themselves, are strangely quiet.

Maybe, to quote Capt. Abdul Hassan "You Americans are for the most part clueless."

Posted by: ted01 | Jul 1 2019 2:07 utc | 90

Lochearn - The Marxist maxim is indeed true, it is located in the nature of competition and commoditisation....this is why in mature capitalist industrial economies companies move plants to find cheaper labour sources.

Innovation is another way to retain high profit rates...the other method is monopolisation...but in Boeing's case it appears a forced, possibly dishonest and surely incompetent attempt at innovation has backfired...tragically.

While AirBus denies Boeing's ability to monopolise the market for large passenger jets. In a "national capitalist economy" the end result would tend to be monopoly, which would bring unsustainable inefficiency, high costs, no innovation, reduced sales...and falling rates of profit.

Posted by: donkeytale | Jul 1 2019 2:18 utc | 91

A short response to tedo1; And if anything negative should occur, it would be TOTALLY deserved.

"What goes around,comes around"

Posted by: ben | Jul 1 2019 2:23 utc | 92

@75 donkeytale.. lol.. that sounds about right!

speaking of the devil, i see israel has again been bombing syria tonight - the airport in damascus and etc... just gotta love those fanatics with nuclear weapons.. just wonder what they will do next, when they aren't given sworn fealty from usa-uk and poodles 24/7?

Posted by: james | Jul 1 2019 2:24 utc | 93

@74 karlof1 - " I've decided to work for [Tulsi Gabbard's] campaign"

This is excellent. As someone who has never had any national experience in politics, I would be interested to know how one offers this kind of support - if you ever have time to say, but don't break a leg over it.

One sees in politics how good moral character gets compromised by involvement in the system. But we also know that one's own contribution to universal sanity can never be known or measured - or discounted! Therefore, we do what we can. Who knows, perhaps your involvement is the final butterfly-wing stroke that keeps her honest and upright and making a difference.

Well done. And thank you.


ps..please don't worry that people are not taking up your links or comments, just because you don't see feedback here. Keep it all coming as well as you can, but please don't limit your contributions to feedback. Many of the pieces you post are so friggin' long that it takes the rest of the night to absorb them all ;)

I'm glad you donate the time of your retirement to offer all the things you do. I still work, and it's a struggle to keep up with things. Your reading list overlaps mine very nicely, and I ride on your coat-tails a lot - you along with many commenters here save me a lot of time in pinpointing articles of value.

In fact, beyond b's superlative work - which he keeps producing even though we all appreciate it so intently that we usually forget to praise him for it - I'd say the offering of links from the top analysts and journalists, combined with the gems from the left field, are a signature mark of this forum.

So please keep the summaries coming, and never lose heart or doubt that people are reading them and placing value on them.

Posted by: Grieved | Jul 1 2019 2:25 utc | 94

caitlin johnstones latest - New Soros/Koch-Funded Think Tank Claims To Oppose US Forever War

i thought it was april fools for a second, until i then thought it is probably a pile of steaming b.s. but hey - if it can be used as fertilizer to grow a few brains in an otherwise constant 24/7 war party mindset, i am up for it... call me when something actually happens as a result of any soros-koch stink tank agenda..

Posted by: james | Jul 1 2019 2:31 utc | 95

karlof1 - i 2nd grieved comments to you.. good for you.. that is the way to get something done - do something positive..

Posted by: james | Jul 1 2019 2:35 utc | 97

@ james with the Koch/Soros stinky peace tank link to Catlin Johnstone

I included that in my last comment that also wrote about more China "opening up' financially.

Something tells me that a Bretton Woods meeting has taken place and the transition game is being played pond scum are the last to know these geo-political machinations

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jul 1 2019 2:47 utc | 98

@66 don't agree about carter, volker yes. but reagan didn't merely continue the change pushed by the democratic party of the time, he amped it up on steroids. carter didn't run the democratic party the way lbj or clinton or obama did, he was kneecapped by the party who got a more congenial candidate later in mondale. the party didn't and doesn't like outsiders, it just upset the donor business.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Jul 1 2019 2:50 utc | 99

according to michael hudson, the u.s. set up the current financial system, starting right around the time of ww1, so one nation had a vastly disproportionate effect and influence on the economic system we have now. europe is bucking us now, as well as asia and eventually africa and south america, though they are more vulnerable.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Jul 1 2019 2:53 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.