How The U.S. Dictatorship Works

Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

A recent article in the Washington Post described how the current US tax-‘reform’ bill is being shaped; and it describes, basically (at least as far as tax-law changes are concerned), the operation of a US dictatorship by the super-rich.

First of all, however: there is no longer any realistic question as regards whether the US in recent decades has been a dictatorship, or instead a democracy. According to the only scientific analysis of the relevant data, that has been done in order to determine whether the US is a dictatorship or a democracy, the US is definitely a dictatorship that’s perpetrated by the extremely richest, against the public-at-large; in other words: the US Government functions as an aristocracy, otherwise referred-to as an oligarchy, or a plutocracy, or a kleptocracy; but, in any case, and by whatever name, it’s ruled by a tiny number of the extremely wealthiest and their agents, on behalf of those few super-rich, against the concerns and interests and needs of the public (everyone else). So: instead of being rule by the public (the “demos” is the Greek term for it), it’s rule on behalf of a tiny dictatorial class, of extreme wealth — by whatever name we might happen to label this ruling class.

That study, by professors Gilens and Page, explained that it examined “1,779 instances between 1981 and 2002 in which a national survey of the general public asked a favor/oppose question about a proposed policy change,” and it compared those public-policy preferences, by the public, versus the public-policy preferences regarding those same issues, by the super-wealthiest; and, it found that only the public-policy preferences by the super-wealthiest and their paid agents, made any discernible difference, at all, in the likelihood that a given public policy ultimately became enacted into law, in the United States. Whereas the public-policy preferences of the wealthiest do, at far higher than mere random chances, become enacted into laws, the public-policy preferences of the public are (except in political rhetoric and promises — frauds perpetrated to deceive the public) ignored, in the United States.

Here is an excellent six-minute video describing the methodology and findings in that landmark study...

And here is a commentary by former US President Jimmy Carter, in which he says that he knows it’s true.

He said this not on the basis of examining thousands of cases and doing the statistical analysis of the data, like Gilens and Page had done, but just on the basis of his observations of how the US federal government has been functioning in recent decades. And, of course, the scientific study is vastly more reliable than is any individual’s mere opinion about the matter.

Furthermore, there exists evidence that even in some local or state governments in the United States, considerable corruption exists, and therefore an extreme slant prevails in favor of the rich. During June 2016, I headlined about this, “Here Is How Corrupt America Is”, and opened:

The best reporting on the depth of America’s dictatorship is probably that being done by Atlanta Georgia’s NBC-affiliated, Gannett-owned, TV Channel “11 Alive,” WXIA television, its “The Investigators” series of local investigative news reports, which show, up close and at a cellularly detailed level, the way things actually work in today’s America. Although it’s only local, it displays what meets the legal standards of the US federal government in actually any state in the union; so, it exposes the character of the US government, such that what’s shown to be true here, meets America’s standard for ‘democracy’, or else the federal government isn’t enforcing federal laws against it (which is the same thing as its meeting the federal government’s standards).

What was exemplified in this reporting by that excellent investigative team could be called “corporate organized-gangsterism,” and this gangsterism was being led by an operation, “ALEC,” that was founded by politicians whose careers are funded by the Koch brothers and some other US billionaires.

Furthermore, as was mentioned briefly at the opening here, a recent issue of the Washington Post’s “PowerPost” section was titled "The Finance 202: Tax overhaul"s big test comes now”, and it described in detail what was shaping the Trump Administration’s tax-overhaul bill. This article reported that the lobbyists were shaping it 100%. It’s a superb nitty-gritty, down among the weeds, description, of the monetary deals, the horse-trading, that were being made, not only for corporations, but for the wealthiest non-business lobbies, including ‘nonprofit’ ones, but almost all of these lobbies, too, depend overwhelmingly upon billionaires for their funding. What’s being carved-up and served, is being carved-up from governments, and being served to the super-rich. (After all: conservatives say “Government bad, business good,” and Republicans are the conservative Party; so, it’s taking from government, and going to business.)

So: is it any wonder why Gilens and Page found what they did? They found that "economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.” (By “mass-based groups” was being referenced what the left often calls “movements” or “grass-roots” organizations. After all, what happened from “Occupy Wall Street”? Nothing. It was a big waste of time and effort. Authentic movements get marginalized, because the billionaires’ ‘news’media despise them. Fake ones, such as the Kochs’ “The Tea Party ‘movement’,” get weaponized, because the billionaires’ ‘news’media treat them extensively, and often grant them respect. Top-down’s the way, in any dictatorship. That includes in America.)

Here is another excellent video - this one 10 minutes long - summarizing the Gilens and Page study...

The only major difference between Republican politicians and Democratic ones, then, is that, whereas Republican ones don’t even need to pretend that they oppose limitless greed (since limitless greed that’s carried out by frauds instead of by outright physical violence — which latter type of coercion is the type that’s employed more by lower-class crooks, anyway, and those are the type of crooks who fill our prisons, not the type who fill our boardrooms — is, essentially, supported by Republicans’ ideology, as ‘being entrepreneurial’ and ‘competitive spirit’), Democratic politicians do need to make that pretense (since their voters are liberals, and liberals don’t share the conservatives’ “Greed is good” libertarian faith). But the outcomes, even when Democrats are in power, are vastly more helpful to the billionaires, than to the public. 

Does this mean that Democratic (or liberal) politicians are necessarily more hypocritical than Republican ones are? No. Whereas Democrats pretend to be opposed to the system’s favoring the super-rich, Republicans pretend to be opposed to “sins” and other religious-based shiboleths. Both Parties can win and retain power only by deceiving (defrauding) the public, and serving the billionaires, though in different ways — some conservative, and some liberal. Virtually everything else than that service to billionaires (and to centi-millionaires) is just frauds by politicians, because, at least after around 1970, only the richest 1% or (usually far) less are actually being served by the US federal Government. It’s not the billionaires that are defrauded by politicians; it is clearly the public that is being defrauded by them.

The public are served only to the extent that the public’s interests are the same as the billionaires’ interests. And the Gilens and Page study found that the public’s policy-preferences are simply ignored — not ignored in the political rhetoric, but ignored in the political outcomes.

The US Government, thus, is of a few people (the policymakers), by the billionaires, and for the billionaires. And that’s just an established fact.

Catalan Independence: Why The Collective Hates It When People Walk Away

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

I have written many times in the past about the singular conflict at the core of most human crises and disasters, a conflict that sabotages human endeavor and retards critical thought. This conflict not only stems from social interaction, it also exists within the psyche of the average individual. It is an inherent contradiction of the human experience that at times can fuel great accomplishment, but usually leads to great tragedy. I am of course talking about the conflict between our inborn need for self determination versus our inborn desire for community and group effort — sovereignty versus collectivism.

In my view, the source of the problem is that most people wrongly assume that "collectivism" is somehow the same as community. This is entirely false, and those who make this claim are poorly educated on what collectivism actually means. It is important to make a distinction here; the grouping of people is not necessarily or automatically collectivism unless that group seeks to subjugate the individuality of its participants. Collectivism cannot exist where individual freedom is valued. People can still group together voluntarily for mutual benefit and retain respect for the independence of members (i.e. community, rather than collectivism).

This distinction matters because there is a contingent of political and financial elites that would like us to believe that there is no middle ground between the pursuits of society and the liberties of individuals. That is to say, we are supposed to assume that all our productive energies and our safety and security belong to society. Either that, or we are extremely selfish and self serving "individualists" that are incapable of "seeing the bigger picture." The mainstream discussion almost always revolves around these two extremes. We never hear the concept that society exists to serve individual freedom and innovation and that a community of individuals is the strongest possible environment for the security and future of humanity as a whole.

Thus, the mainstream argument becomes a kabuki theater between the "ignorantly destructive" populists/nationalists/individualists versus the more "reasonable" and supposedly forward thinking socialists/globalists/multiculturalists. The truth is, sovereignty champions can be pro-individual liberty and also pro-community or pro-nation, as long as that community is voluntary.

Collectivists will have none of this, however, and despite their intellectual and "rational" facade, they will often turn to brutality in order to disrupt any movement to decentralize power.

The civil unrest in the Spanish region of Catalonia is an interesting example of the tyranny of the collectivist ideology. According to mainstream doctrine, Spain is supposed to be a "decentralized unitary state" made up of "autonomous communities," all with their own statutes and self governing bodies "loosely" regulated by the Spanish constitution of 1978. Catalonia, along with a couple other regions and cities in Spain, has long fought for true autonomy from the central government in Madrid. This separatist culture was crushed under the heel of Francisco Franco"s dictatorial regime after the Spanish Civil War which started in 1936.

After Franco"s death in 1975, Spain began its "transition to democracy" (democracy being the tyranny of the majority rather than tyranny by military regime). Once again, Catalonia"s push for independence returned.

The reasons for a Catalan secession are multitude and are of course noble or nefarious depending on which side you talk to. From my research, it would seem the primary drive for Catalonia is economic. Spain is one of the more indebted member states in the European Union with a national debt near 100% of GDP. The "great recession" starting in 2008 struck Spain particularly hard, with around 21% of the general population officially in poverty and over 40% of all children officially in poverty. Unemployment according to government statistics hovers near 18%.

Catalonia is the most prosperous region in Spain"s economy, accounting for nearly 20% of total GDP. Catalans also assert that taxation in their region is a primary pillar for the Spanish government, which has not returned the favor with sufficient investment in infrastructure in the region. In essence, there is a "taxation without representation" feel to the conflict, and Americans in particular know very well how that kind of situation can end.

On the other side of the debate, it is clear that if Catalonia leaves the Spanish system on negative terms, then Spain"s already crumbling economy will be destroyed. The motivation for Spain to keep control of Catalonia is high just on the grounds of economic disaster.

Beyond the economic issue, another interesting side note on Spain is its intense social justice (cultural Marxism) programs. While Europeans often suggest Spain as being a "conservative" government, in policy and action this is simply not true.  Spain is notorious for being one of the most militantly feminist governments in the EU aside from Sweden, and this is saying something given the socialist nature of the EU. Gender laws and divorce laws in the country offer some of the most draconian double standards against men I have ever witnessed. Perhaps this will give you a kind of litmus test for the sort of culture we are dealing with here, and maybe it accounts for some discontent in certain portions of the Spanish population.

Catalonia itself is often cited as being "more liberal" in its political orientation in comparison to the rest of Spain. Of course, the term "liberal" can mean many different things in Europe depending on the nation, and American definitions do not necessarily apply. Just as Europeans tend to have no understanding whatsoever of what "conservatism" means in the U.S., Americans have a hard time understanding all the intricacies of the various levels of "liberalism" in Europe.

That said, what side of the political spectrum Catalonia sits on is irrelevant to greater discussion.

What I actually enjoy pointing out here is the fact that whether you look at the Franco era of nationalist totalitarianism, or the "semi" socialist and hyper-cultural Marxist era of today, the Spanish government STILL acts the same in its despotism against Catalan separation or independence.  It is not as if the socialists set out to right the wrongs of the Franco regime once it fell. Not at all. Instead, they merely perpetuated the same attitude of centralization while wearing a smiling face. Once again, we see that there is very little difference between fascism and communism/socialism when we get down to core behaviors and policies.

Collectivists, regardless of what other labels they use to identify themselves, have certain rules that they consistently follow in order to maintain power. One of those rules is that the collective is indivisible. They might pontificate endlessly about their superior democratic ideals, but when some people vote to leave en masse, either in polling booths or with their feet, the mask of benevolence always comes off and the true monster behind collectivism is revealed.

As we have seen in Catalonia, this monstrous behavior is undeniable. The Spanish government has set out to prevent not just separation, it has sought to prevent the very act of voting on separation using police and military force. In essence, martial law was been declared in Catalonia in order to stop the people from enacting the very democratic ideals the Spanish government claims it enshrines.

Despite the vicious measures of interference, reports suggest that the vote was still successful, with 90% of the citizenry in support of independence. What happens now is unclear, but I can tell you two things are relatively certain.

First, a 90% vote in favor will result in a militarized response from the Spanish government. If the vote was less overwhelming, the government might attempt to pit one side of the population against the other, causing internal strife and disrupting secession. This strategy is unrealistic given the mass movement for independence. So, the only other option for the government is full blown martial law.

Second, such a crackdown will result in a violent counter-response. This happened in the 1970s in Catalonia and I see no reason why it would not happen again. When you have almost an entire population in agreement on separation and you use force to stop them from attaining it, they will become violent. Civil war is inevitable if martial law is declared.

It is vital that we examine the root ideological catalyst in this scenario.

The most rational solution would be for the Spanish government to accept the Catalan vote (if they believe in "democracy" as they claim, then they have to accept it, otherwise they appear extraordinarily hypocritical). This could result in a more harmonious economic relationship and less drastic damage to Spain"s fiscal structure. However, this is not going to happen. Instead, Spain is going to use the age old collectivist tactics of intimidation and carnage to oppress the Catalan"s and subsume their economic production (as socialist governments always do).  When civil war erupts, and it will, production in Catalonia will grind to a standstill and Spain STILL loses 20% of its GDP.

You see, this is a lose/lose scenario for Spain, all because the collectivist doctrine demands a jackbooted reaction to any movement for decentralization. Collectivist systems are parasitic in nature; they see the citizenry as food, as units of production for the state that cannot be allowed to leave, for the "greater good of the greater number." Collectivists rationalize their behavior as essential to the well being of the society at large, but this is dishonest, for their behavior more often harms society by crushing individual innovation and instigating wars that might not have ever happened in the first place.

There is at the same time the matter of sovereignty movements across Europe. The only people who benefit from stopping these movements are globalists/collectivists. They may also benefit by sabotaging these movements after the fact, making an example of them and holding them up to the rest of the world as symbols of the "failures of populism."

It is important to point out here that Catalonia is not necessarily seeking independence from the EU, only Spain.  Some might argue that this makes the Catalan vote irrelevant.  I disagree. 

Some people might also argue that if secession happened in the U.S., the response would be the same. I would argue that just because it might happen the same way, this does not mean it is right. If leftist Californians, for example, followed through with their latest threats to secede from the U.S. and a massive shift of leftists and cultural Marxists move to the state, frankly I would be ecstatic. Let these people separate and congregate. Let them fail or succeed on the merits of their own ideas and ethics. If they are allowed to organize without interference and they fail, then this is simply more proof that their ideology was unsound and impractical. California"s large percentage of U.S. GDP would simply transfer to other states if in fact the productive people there are not leftists and they migrate away, leaving the separatists to wallow in their naive ideology.

If Catalonia separates without interference and succeeds economically and socially, then perhaps it is not for Spain to try to subvert or destroy the region, but to emulate their model and learn from them. If people wish to walk away from a community, they should be allowed to do so. This is very simple. Self determination is not dependent on political expediency or mutual benefit. It is an inherent human right.  Communities and borders should be based on principles that the population stands by and every system should remain voluntary. If they do not stand by said principles and they work to thwart voluntarism, then those communities are worthless and should not exist at all.

When a collective acts to stop people from leaving, all they are doing is exposing the fact that their reasons for existing are inadequate and unconvincing. This goes for Spain, it goes for the EU and it goes for the rest of the world. Globalists and collectivists should take note  decentralization is the true model for the future.

In the long run, forcing people into participation in the system is a losing battle.

Mike Krieger Warns "Don't Become A Right-Wing Snowflake"

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg…Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose rein to them, they will support the true religion by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation.

– Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia

Here’s a prediction. Right-wing snowflake culture will expand exponentially in the coming years, and its rise will be cynically and intentionally fueled by Donald Trump himself.

Having proved himself a fake populist on most issues that actually matter, Trump has no choice but to move more enthusiastically into the culture war to deflect away from his obvious betrayal on economic populism and keep his diehard supporters in heat. In other words, he’ll do exactly what mainstream Democrats and Republicans have been doing for decades, which is distract the public and keep it fighting while oligarchs grab what little is left. This works out just fine for billionaire Trump and the Goldman Sachs guys running his administration.

If I’m correct, how should we respond? How do those of us who see a creeping right-wing snowflake culture emerging push back? Rule number one is don’t act like a snowflake in response. Exposing hypocrisy with incisive rational arguments and humor is the best way to push back against right-wing authoritarianism, just like it’s the best way to push back against left-wing authoritarianism. The authoritarian mindset is the enemy of freedom loving people everywhere irrespective of your specific views on health care, taxes, etc. There are far bigger things at risk to us as a people if we allow ourselves to be divided into two separate authoritarian gangs fighting for power.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what seems to be happening with far too many people, and I ask that you not play this dangerous game. People are vulnerable to autocratic cults when they lack real principles based on freedom; when they know what they’re against, but don’t really know what they’re for. Standing for something as empowering and ethical as liberty is what keeps you grounded and sane in the midst of a society-wide mental breakdown.

A perfect example of the emergent right-wing snowflake mindset comes courtesy of Donald Trump himself. In his commentary on NFL protests last Friday in Alabama, the president showed a degree of thin skinned outrage quite reminiscent of the hordes of college cry bullies I’ve criticized so harshly over the years. Let’s revisit that comment, which is what sparked everything that followed.

“Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, out, he’s fired!’ You know, some owner is going to do that. He’s gonna say, ‘That guy disrespects our flag, he’s fired.’ And that owner, they don’t know it. They don’t know it. They’re friends of mine, many of them. They don’t know it. They’ll be the most popular person, for a week. They’ll be the most popular person in the country.”

If you take a step back and honestly analyze the emotional sentiment at play in the above rant, you’ll see it’s quite similar to that of a 19 year old Berkley leftist dressed like a ninja hyperventilating about Milo Yiannopoulos giving a speech. For left-wing snowflakes, right-wing trolls is where they draw the line, while for right-wing snowflakes it’s the act of refusing to stand for a song or salute a flag. It’s one thing to have a strong opinion on your own personal behavior, but it’s quite another to demand your fellow citizens behave in the same way you see fit. The mindset of someone obsessed with telling you how to live or behave in your everyday life is the mindset of an authoritarian.

It doesn’t matter if that person is marching with antifa, wearing a MAGA hat or draped in the American flag. The true enemy of freedom is, and always has been, the authoritarian personality. A left-wing snowflake gets triggered by Milo or Ben Shapiro, while a right-wing snowflake gets triggered by a millionaire athlete kneeling during the national anthem. Each side will argue their position is more enlightened, patriotic or whatever, but at the end of the day, if you feel emotionally harmed by a fellow citizen exercising free speeches rights, you should probably start by examining your own demons.

When examining the authoritarian personality one thing becomes clear. Authoritarian types can typically be divided into two camps, leaders and followers. The leaders tend to be opportunistic, power hungry and manipulative. In many cases these people are highly intelligent when it comes to the ways of human nature, which is how they were able to propel themselves into a position of leadership in the first place. Such people typically aren’t even genuinely offended by the taboo act they demonize, but they are instinctive enough to know it can be used to corral and manipulate a certain segment of the population. They only care to express outrage over the action in question to bolster their own power. Donald Trump and his high profile cheerleaders tend to fall into this camp. Creating outrage boosts their careers.

Importantly, it’s the followers of authoritarian leaders who ultimately hold the real power. Without followers, leaders would fail to exist since the power and social capital of the leader depends on a willingness to follow that person. Most people who fall for authoritarian signaling do so out of deep insecurity, which the authoritarian leader instinctively grasps. It is the insecure and ungrounded person who most easily falls prey to the authoritarian leader.

Take the national anthem for example. Why does someone not standing for it bother you so much? If you feel standing is a patriotic gesture that’s your right, but why do you care so much if a fellow citizen fails to see it the exact same way you do? Moreover, what does a patriotic gesture mean if it isn’t voluntary? If Americans are cowered into standing for the anthem out of fear of being deemed unpatriotic, then the gesture itself no longer has any meaning. It merely becomes a ritual act of symbolic dogma, more appropriate for a society like Nazi Germany than the U.S. Republic. The fact so many Americans stand for the national anthem voluntarily is precisely what makes it a powerful gesture.

In this sense, right-wing snowflake culture employs the same tactics as left-wing snowflake culture. Left-wing snowflakes are quick to categorize anyone with a different political opinion as a Nazi in an attempt to shut down political debate via intimidation. Right-wing snowflakes do the same thing with superficial patriotic gestures, and then call those who won’t stand or salute “un-American.” Both tactics are destructive, wrong and the antithesis of a freedom loving person.

Our culture is one of extreme superficiality. This is exactly why so many people lose their minds over NFL players taking a knee, but could never be driven to such burning outrage over a war launched based on falsehoods that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Politicians and oligarchs encourage such superficiality, because if the public can be kept extremely ignorant and stupid then those who actually call the shots and craft the legislation can be left alone to steer society in the way they deem fit without the general public interfering. The end result is the rabble fights about the national anthem, flags and Milo, while the country continues to get looted.

Going forward, I expect Trump to pull many more stunts like the one he did this past Friday. He knows he’s a fraud on the populist issues so many of his voters cared about, so his only option is to rally the troops by further inflaming the culture war. A culture war between right-wing and left-wing snowflakes, each promoting their own brand of authoritarianism. This works just fine for a politician like Trump. His Goldman Sachs advisors can do as they please as a distracted public shrieks over the cultural supremacy of their particular brand of self-indulgent, self-rightous outrage.

So what’s my advice? First of all, don’t become a snowflake. As Martin Luther King, Jr. noted, hate doesn’t drive out hate. Similarly, snowflakes don’t drive out snowflakes. You don’t battle back against left-wing snowflake culture by becoming a right-wing snowflake, or vice versa. If you truly believe in freedom, don’t compromise that core principle just because you got triggered.

Are you a proponent of liberty, or do you want a society based upon whatever type of conformity makes you feel most comfortable? Don’t react based upon emotion, or simply because you want to give the other team a black eye. If you believe in liberty, act like it, and please do not become a snowflake.

*  *  *

If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.

People Ignore Facts That Contradict Their False Beliefs

Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The more people there are who ignore facts that contradict their beliefs, the likelier a dictatorship will emerge within a given country.

Here is how aristocracies, throughout the Ages, have controlled the masses, by taking advantage of this widespread tendency people have, to ignore contrary facts:

What social scientists call “confirmation bias” and have repeatedly found to be rampant, is causing the public to be easily manipulated, and has thus destroyed democracy by replacing news-reporting, by propaganda - ‘news" that’s false - in a culture where lies which pump the agendas of the powerful (including lies pumped by the billionaire owners of top ‘news’media and of the media they own) are almost never punished (and are often not even denied to be true). Thus, lies by those powerful liars almost always succeed at enslaving the minds of the millions, to believe what the top economic-and-power class want those millions of people to believe — no matter how false it might happen actually to be. 

Recently, a particularly stark example of this came to my attention. On 15 September 2017, an article that I wrote for the Strategic Culture Foundation, and which was titled by a true statement that I had only recently discovered to be true, was republished at a news-site that I consider one of the best around, “Signs of the Times” or “SOTT” for short, and a reader-comment there, simply rejected that title-statement and the entire article, because it contradicted what the person believes. This commenter entirely ignored the evidence that I had provided in the article, which proved the statement to be true. 

No matter how irrefutable the evidence is, most people reject anything which contradicts their deeply entrenched false beliefs, and this reader-comment crystallized for me, this phenomenon of “confirmation bias” — the phenomenon of ignoring evidence that contradicts what one believes.

The article was titled “Liberalism doesn’t respect a nation’s sovereignty.” I never knew that fact until I researched it, but I found, after looking through (and my article quoting key documents from) the history of the matter, that it’s actually the case: that liberalism (as it’s understood and defined by the scholars of the subject, and as it’s based upon the key formative documents of the historical tradition, “liberalism”) rejects a nation’s sovereignty. This fact shocked me to discover; so, I wrote an article documenting it, and SCF accepted it, and it then became republished at a few other sites, including SOTT.

The reader-comment at SOTT which for me personified confirmation-bias, was (in its entirety): “This is a rather new twist blaming liberals for invading countries. I"ve always associated liberalism with the left wing and democratic, progressive politics. I"ve always associated conservatism with the right wing, big business, militarism and invading other countries. Trying to move the goal posts, are we?”

That person never clicked onto my article’s links documenting the case, nor even read the quotations given in the article itself from John Locke and from Adam Smith, who were key founders of “liberalism” as that tradition has come down to us. He instead ignored all of that evidence, and stated — entirely without evidence of any sort — that I (and SOTT, and SCF, for publishing it) were “Trying to move the goal posts.”

I (a Bernie Sanders voter, and a lifelong progressive and opponent of conservatism) am “Trying to move the goal posts” — how? By pointing out the manufactured phoniness of ‘liberalism’? By pointing out a key way in which liberalism was designed by its aristocratic sponsors (in this case by the aristocrats who sponsored Locke and Smith), to be an ideology that would encourage conquest, empire, and discourage democracy (which is based upon the sanctity of national sovereignty — based upon the lack of imposition of government by or on behalf of anyone who isn’t a resident on the land). Liberalism, I show there, was designed for Empire, not for democracy. That reader simply refused to consider the evidence.

People who insist upon deceiving themselves disgust me. Anyone who blocks out the key relevant facts and persists in believing the lies they were raised with, or became fooled into believing, doesn’t harm only themselves by the lies they believe; they vote on the basis of the lies they believe, and thus these people who refuse to be open-minded destroy democracy, and invite control of the nation by the aristocracy (who sponsor the proponents of those lies). People who refuse to question their own beliefs, become increasingly putrid pools of their own false beliefs, which have been created and nurtured and sustained and become larger and larger pools of lies, by constant repetition from the media and lobbyists of the rich and powerful, so as to enable the exploiters to enslave the masses, via those constantly repeated and embellished lies. 

Such self-‘justifying’ fools, who refuse to clean-up their conceptual pool that’s been increasingly polluted by lies, are enemies of democracy, no matter how much they may consider themselves to be ‘liberals’. They don’t even know the reality of what liberalism is. One thing that it definitely is not (as my article documented) is progressivism (which is utterly opposed to foreign conquest and to the entire imperial project of imposed rule, regardless whether by outright invasions or else by coups).

Thus, we have two dominant ideologies against progressivism: One is conservatism, which everyone recognizes to be against progressivism and for Empire and constant conquest, profitable war for the arms-merchants and for the ‘news’media owners who also benefit from stirring up invasion-fever, not only like William Randolph Hearst did but today like they all do. The other is liberalism, which hides that it’s actually conservative — hides this, by being ever-so-sweet toward certain ethnicities or other groups that are being oppressed domestically, and by vociferously condemning conservatives for what is actually nothing more than the blatancy of conservatism’s favoritism toward the aristocracy.

An authentic democracy cannot be based upon a “demos” (a public) that is overwhelmingly composed of suckers - manipulated fools. Only by means of the tiny aristocracy plus the huge mass of their suckers, does a democracy degenerate into a fascism. (For example, something like this can be supported overwhelmingly by the political Party that dominates the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, state capitals, state legislatures, and runs the U.S. White House, in this ‘democratic’ nation — ‘democratic’ according to the propaganda; but if this were really a democracy, then none of those politicians would be able to win public office.)

*  *  *

A well-established central finding of psychological research, concerning “confirmation bias” or “motivated reasoning” (which are two phrases referring to people’s tendency to believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of any contrary facts), is that individuals evaluate whatever they read or hear according to their pre-existing ideas about the given subject. Specifically, psychologists have found that people tend to pay attention to whatever confirms their existing ideas, and tend to ignore whatever contradicts those pre-established beliefs.

For examples, the following studies are available online:

“Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs,” in the July 2006 American Journal of Political Science, reported: “We find a confirmation bias – the seeking out of confirmatory evidence – when [people] are free to self-select the source of arguments they read. Both the confirmation and disconfirmation biases lead to attitude polarization ... especially among those with the strongest priors [prior beliefs] and highest level of political sophistication [the highest degree of exposure to, and involvement in, the given subject-matter that the study was dealing with].” Prejudices were stronger among supposed experts than among non-“experts”: The more indoctrinated a person was, the more prejudiced. “People actively denigrate the information with which they disagree, while accepting compatible information almost at face value.” Moreover, “Those with weak and uninformed attitudes show less bias” (and this is actually one reason why the best jurors at trials are generally people who are not personally or professionally involved in any aspect of the given case – they are “non-experts”).

Sharon Begley’s article in the 25 August 2009 Newsweek titled “Lies of Mass Destruction: The same skewed thinking that supports a Saddam-9/11 link explains the power of health-care myths [such as that Obama’s health plan had ‘death panels’]” summarized the study in the May 2009 Sociological Inquiry, “‘There Must Be a Reason’: Osama, Saddam, and Inferred Justification,” which had surveyed, during October 2004, 49 conservative Republicans who admitted they believed that Saddam Hussein had caused the 9/11 attacks. This study found that 48 of these 49 extreme conservatives were utterly impervious to the overwhelming factual evidence which was provided to them by the presenters that contradicted this false belief they held.

A study concerning not political conservatism but merely resistance to new technologies is James N. Druckman’s “Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions about Emergent Technologies,” which was presented at a technological conference in 2009. He reported that, “factual information ... is perceived in biased ways ... (e.g., there is motivated reasoning).” “Facts have limited impact on initial opinions.” Moreover, “Individuals do not privilege the facts. ... Individuals process new factual information in a biased manner. ... Specifically, they view information consistent with their prior opinions as relatively stronger, and they view neutral facts as consistent with their existing” views.

“Motivated Reasoning With Stereotypes,” in the January 1999 Psychological Inquiry, found that, “When an applicable stereotype supports their desired impression of an individual, motivation can lead people to activate this stereotype, if they have not already activated it. ... People pick and choose among the many stereotypes applicable to an individual, activating those that support their desired impression of this individual and inhibiting those that interfere with it.” Similarly, another research report, “The Undeserving Rich: ‘Moral Values’ and the White Working Class,” in the June 2009 Sociological Forum, found that John Kerry had probably lost the 2004 U.S. Presidential election to George W. Bush at least partly because white working class voters overwhelmingly believed that Bush was like themselves because he behaved like themselves, and that Kerry was not like themselves because his manner seemed “snooty.”

"I Know What North Korea Wants" - President Carter Warns "US Oligarchy Refuses To Do It"

Former US President Jimmy Carter repeated his assertion that the US works more like an "oligarchy than a democracy," while also lambasting Trump"s "hopeless" approach to the increasing tensions with North Korea.

The former president was speaking at a ‘Conversation with the Carters’ event at his Carter Center in Atlanta on Tuesday. AP reports that he said money in politics is what makes the US more like an oligarchy – run by a small group of rich people – rather than a democracy, repeating an allegation he has vociferously uttered for a few years.

“[Money in politics] violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system.

Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for President or being elected President. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members.

So, now we’ve just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over."

Carter was referring to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling to allow corporations to give unlimited campaign donations to political candidates, which he has previously said was “the most stupid decision” the court had made.

But then the former President went to town on Trump and North Korea...

Carter said, 

“The first thing I would do is treat the North Koreans with respect.”

“I know what the North Koreans want,” he said.

 “What they want is a firm treaty guaranteeing North Korea that the US will not attack them or hurt them in any way, unless they attack one of their neighbors.” Carter said,

 “But the United States has refused to do that.”

Carter said he would send his top person to Pyongyang immediately, adding:

“If I didn’t go myself.” The former president visited North Korea three times between 1994 and 2011.

"Until we"re willing to talk to them and treat them with respect as human beings, which they are, then I don"t think we"ll make any progress," he said.

CNN Host Fareed Zakaria Destroys 'Tolerant' Liberals: "Freedom Of Speech Is Not Just For Your Warm Fuzzy Ideas"

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

The alternative media has, for good reason, slammed CNN time and again for fabricated news stories, untruths and left-leaning propaganda.

But the following opinion report from CNN’s Fareed Zakaria is a must-watch, as it touches on the very core of the purported tolerance among liberals.

As progressive Evergreen State College professor recently stated in an interview after demands by social justice warriors that he be fired for racism, “I am troubled by what this implies about the current state of the left.”

While America’s White Left believes their policies of socialism, cultural assimilation and outright disdain for anything other than their own righteous ideologies are the only way forward, Zakaria succinctly explains that it goes against the whole idea of what Liberalism is supposed to be.

American universities these days seem committed to every kind of diversity except for intellectual diversity… Conservative voices and views, already a besieged minority, are being silenced entirely… The campus thought police have gone after serious conservative thinkers like Heather McDonald and Charles Murray, as well as firebrands like Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter…

Some were dis-invited… others booed interrupted and intimidated…

It’s strange that this is happening on college campuses that promise to give their undergraduates a liberal education… the word ‘liberal’ in this context has nothing to do with today’s partisan language… but refers instead to the Latin root ‘pertaining to liberty’

And at the heart of the liberal tradition in the Western world has been freedom of speech… from the beginning people understood that this meant protecting and listening to speech with which you disagreed.

…

Freedom of speech and thought is not just for just warm fuzzy ideas that we find comfortable… it’s for ideas that we find offensive.

…

There is also an anti-intellectualism on the left… an attitude of self righteousness that says we are so pure, so morally superior, we cannot bear to hear an idea with which we disagree.

Liberals think they are tolerant, but often they aren’t.

"Liberals think they are tolerant, but often, they aren"t," argues @FareedZakaria https://t.co/0urfK127Z3

— CNN (@CNN) May 28, 2017

The left is so intolerant of other ideologies that it is only a matter of time before their refusal to accept differences among cultures, races and creeds fractures their entire chaotic movement.

We are literally at a point where wearing red, white and blue is considered blatant racism in some circles.

Soon, like rabid animals, their intolerance will be the very catalyst that drives them to turn on each other.

The Alternative Currency of a 19th Century Abolitionist

Via The Daily Bell

Have you ever had the dream of starting your own society? What about introducing a new currency? Turns out Bitcoin was far from the first private currency.

Josiah Warren didn’t like the political system, and he didn’t like the economic system, so he started his own little alternative community, with a unique medium of exchange. Warren actually started multiple “anarchist” micro-societies, with varying levels of success. Although he never called himself an anarchist, he believed in individual freedom to the point that he argued government was inherently a violation of rights.

Warren said that when laying out laws and constitutions, governments always present the problem of interpretation. The power of the interpreter of laws becomes unlimited power. Because of this, attempts to fit everyone under one unified umbrella of law and order will inevitably cause schism, disappointment, and resentment.

To be harmonious and successful we must begin anew; we must disconnect, disunite ourselves from all institutions or rise above them.

But how, you ask, can this be, where each is a member of the body politic–where obedience to some law or other is indispensable to the working of the political machine? If every one was the law unto himself, all would be perfect anarchy and confusion. No doubt of this. The error lies further back then you have contemplated. We should be no such thing as a body politic. Each man and woman must be an individual, no member of any body but that of the human family. Blackstone says, “It is the wants and the fears of the individuals which make them come together,” and form society.

In other words, it is for interchange of mutual assistance, and for security of person or property, that society is originally formed. Now if neither of these objects has ever been attained in society, we have no reason for keeping up a body politic…

With regard to security, we see that in the wide range of the world’s bloody history, there is not any one horrid feature so frightful, so appalling as the recklessness, the cold-blooded indifference with which laws and governments have sacrificed person or property in their wanton, their criminal, or ignorant pursuit of some blind passage or unsubstantial phantom of the imagination.

Governments have failed in their expressed purpose, so why bother preserving that failure? After all, people will voluntarily come together when they need mutual assistance, which is supposedly the entire point of government anyway.

Before the Civil War, many prominent abolitionists were basically total anarchists, because they saw the injustice perpetrated by the government on the black slaves.

Frederick Douglass spoke about slavery in a way that is impossible not to draw parallels between government citizens and slaves.

To make a contented slave, you must make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken his moral and mental vision, and, as far as possible, to annihilate his power of reason. He must be able to detect no inconsistencies in slavery. The man that takes his earnings, must be able to convince him that he has a perfect right to do so. It must not depend upon mere force; the slave must know no Higher Law than his master’s will.

And many people do repeat like sheep, “Because it’s the law!” without ever analyzing whether such laws are just and moral. Henry David Thoreau argued that the moral thing to do is break unjust laws and make an effort to pay as little taxes as possible, lest one be a party to injustice.

If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth,-certainly the machine will wear out… but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.

Lysander Spooner, another 19th-century anarchist, perfectly summed up the blaring inconsistency of government policy just after the Civil War:

There was no difference of principle—but only of degree—between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men’s natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree.

Lysander Spooner actually started a service to deliver mail to compete with the U.S. Postal Service.

Likewise, Josiah Warren was not simply satisfied with criticizing the government; he invented ways to compete with the government. One of his ideas was an attempt to wrest the control of money away from government power. His ideas for currency were aligned with the value of labor.

Time Stores

In 1827 Warren introduced his own currency called a labor note, linked to a “Time Store” he set up. The idea behind the time store was that one should charge an amount for goods based on their labor in bringing the goods to market, versus supply and demand.

Clearly, this only really works for goods in sufficient supply. He bought flour, for instance, and charged customers the price he paid, plus a fee for the amount of time it took him to purchase the flour, store it, and bag it to sell to the customer. In turn, the customer would agree to trade their labor for the same amount of hours or minutes. So if the total cost for Warren to supply them with a pound of flour was ten cents and an hour, then the customer owed Warren ten cents and an hour of, say, sewing or wood splitting.

It was a slightly more advanced form of barter. But in a sense, it was also too simplistic. Warren asks, why should someone get a large sum for digging up gold when the labor is the same to dig a ditch? He failed to take into account the scarcity of the resource. Prices rise as goods with a limited supply become in comparably higher demand.

At one point, Warren even refused to sell his entire supply of grain to a speculator, because he wanted to be able to sell smaller amounts of grain to whoever needed it. Even when the businessman offered him more than just the cost of Warren’s labor for the grain, he still refused.

The Time Store did seem to be successful, however. Warren was able to keep it running, and the customers loved it because they could get goods for a better price. Then the labor notes could be traded so that if Warren didn’t need an hour of sewing, but a lumberjack did, Warren could get the labor from the lumberjack in exchange for the sewing labor.

Of course, the internet makes Warren’s ideas about human capital more viable. A website called Simbi.com allows users to offer their services in exchange for others’ services. Like the Time Store, if you provide a service, but aren’t interested in the services of your customer, you can earn Simbi credits instead, and spend these elsewhere. Services offered range from marketing help, athletic coaching, recipes, training to create products out of shopping bags, logo creation, relationship advice, and so much more. There are reviews, stats, and badges to help you know who is best to work with.

But Simbi is far from the only bartering service on the web. This MoneyCrashers article highlights 34 different web platforms for trading vacation accommodations, rides, clothing, children’s toys, books, and more.

Utopian Societies

Josiah Warren wanted to create a Utopian society. While he never fully succeeded in creating the perfect society, let alone separating one from the United States, his writing, and experiments in governance has influenced the efforts to create a more fair and just society.

Warren’s Time Stores didn’t stand the test of time, nor did his mini-societies which fell victim to land speculation. But his ideas have stood the test of time, and likely influenced others who came after him, like Lysander Spooner and Henry David Thoreau.

His contributions are little known and oft overlooked by those who fight for freedom. But he offers a unique perspective that differs from the typical libertarian or anarchist thinking. I certainly don’t agree with all he wrote, but his perspective offers an interesting challenge to entrenched beliefs about the market and serves as a churn to test their validity.

Liberal Logic - We are the Frog

Phase 1: The Data doesn"t Fit a Central Banker, Liberal Diplomat, or IMF Official"s Theory

Old joke describing when a person is married to their ideas

Phase 2: Cure the Frog"s Deafness

Via Marketslant.com Our scientist immediately starts studying ways to help the frog hear better. Because clearly, if the frog was not deaf, it would jump. Otherwise the scientist has an outlier on his data. And his theory cant be wrong. It has been working for years.

Don"t dare broach things like dynamic equilibrium, or marginal utility, conditional probabilities, or that economic ideas are possibly cyclical to this genius. No way! We must power through. And if we fail, clearly the subject is in denial or ignorant. This is what we are up against in our leaders today.

Past Performance Guarantees Future Results in La La Land

Such is the logic of a certain type of Supranational most commonly found in the: IMF, Central Banking, Academia, and relativist thinking. They can afford to think this way. They have no skin in the game. They live in La La land.

But the funnest group to observe is 2nd generation liberals (Gen X age) who dogmatically believe. That"s not to say conservatives aren"t immune. People are the problem, not politics.

But the fun starts when one asks a 2nd generation liberal why they are a Democrat and watch them squirm. Especially in light of the boomer generation abandoning its progressive ideals for their 401ks and elitist rationalizations. The boomer children, especially the Clinton acolytes, are lost liberals. At least the Sanders people are consistent.

Orphaned Liberals

It is fascinating that when some 2nd generation liberals are asked why they are Democrats can"t talk about ideas, but rather cite the people whose ideas they adhere to. Once, when Obama was running in 2008 I volunteered to defend a liberal Dem friend in a debate he was losing. Before engaging his enemy in what could have been a Good-Will Hunting moment, I asked him why he was a Democrat. His answer was "Because my mother is." I surrendered to the enemy. P.S.- His mother was now a multi-millionaire and a long way from being progressive. My progressive liberal friend was a political orphan drinking mommy"s stale kool-aid. Meanwhile mother had long since swapped out for Caymus Cabernet.

On Dogmatic Ritual

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.

Tao Te Ching, 44

Hating Intolerant People

It is especially ironic that when one challenges a dogmatic (multicultural, globalist, self-proclaimed progressive, etc) liberal, they cling to their ideas like a redneck clings to his bible. They wear their ideas like armor. Nothing can penetrate that armor. Consequently nothing new can get in either. They are more interested in conserving their position than progressing in their thought process. Tolerance is the mantra screamed at the top of their lungs. However, tolerance of an intolerant person"s opinion is non-existent. Even if that person is doing no harm except voicing their (ignorant) opinion.

Liberalism is 100% Right in its Ideals- So What?

Let"s say for debate that the ideals of liberalism are 100% correct. Does that mean those ideals should be forced upon people not ready to understand them? Ever try to convert someone from their religion against their will? Ever give your car keys to a 5 year old and try to teach him to drive? Ever scream at a frog that just wouldn"t listen? So much of these peoples" identity is wrapped up in their ideas it would be unbearable to accept they might be wrong. This "We know what"s best" mentality pervades the Fed, IMF, US Foreign Policy, and entertainment industry. There is no room for other people"s opinions. Most are adept at redirecting or obfuscating truth in service to their own denial. Thankfully, Rosie O"Donnell exists to give us a peek at the intolerance of the left.

Caps Lock: Removing Doubt of Insanity Since 1993

@ElennaV @therealjcarroll ANYONE BUT HIM - LITERALLY - PUT A GOP SENATOR AS INTERIM PRESIDENT - DECLARE STATE OF EMERGENCY

— ROSIE (@Rosie) January 16, 2017

Zombie Rosie O"Donnell- Honest, But in Denial

Hers is not unlike the behavior of a cult member. The symptoms of people like Rosie O"Donnell are similar to victims of brainwashing. Worse in Rosie, because she has a stake as leader of the brainwashed. These types know better than you. And that may be true. But do not try to tell Rosie that a person is just not ready for the holy spirit of liberalism to descend upon them. If all else fails scream at them. Or if you are in a position to do so, bomb the crap out of them.

Carpetbagger Ken Rogoff - Academic Lackey

See my WSJ weekend section article on THE CURSE OF CASH https://t.co/3PXamcaUrz

— Kenneth S Rogoff (@krogoff) August 25, 2016

Such foresight on Ken"s part to publish his article 3 days before a major work was presented to the Fed. One that was an answer key for abolishing cash. Pic below from Jackson Hole Fed meeting on Aug 28th, By Marvin Goodfriend. 

H/t @RudyHavenstein

1. charge more for ATM use than if you use their app for electronic wiring.- Goodfriend


2. Actually let cash trade at a discount to e-cash (which is what ATM fees are doing anyway)- Goodfriend


3. Remove that pesky "This note legal tender"  from our currency


4. Discontinue the $100 bill- Rogoff


5. Try it in India- You don"t think the Fed is taking notes?

Rogoff is interviewing for a job in the new administration. He represents to me the worst kind of Supranational. The carpetbagger who gets behind an idea for his own gain, and after others have done the real academic work. The man actually wormed his way on the front of the WGC to sell books. Rogoff pro Gold? Sure as long as its been cusiped and converted into e-Gold we bet.

pic title edited by author

Final Note- Did Rachel Maddow Actually Cry?

One of the keystones of liberalism is relativism. A concept that implies we cannot know what is absolute good or evil. Admittedly important in learning  to suspend judgment of others and fixing our own faults. I subscribe to that. Only Jesus, Buddha, Moses, Vishnu, the Tao and the Force can know absolute truth.  What I don"t subscribe to is perverting that concept as a tool to muddy the waters of truth. We can"t know the definition of IS in absolute terms, therefore Bill Clinton was not guilty. 

No, absolute truth exists. And just because we cannot know it does not mean we stop trying to. The world isn"t black and white as some conservatives would have you believe. But using the gray for rationalizing unethical behavior is worse. And that is what a lot of Supranationals do. 

On the other end we have Rachel Maddow who was so enamored with her candidate that she cried. Nothing relativistic there. This is a person who believes in her heart she has a monopoly on what is right for you. She has absolute knowledge apparently.

Good Luck

VBL

Twitter: Vince Lanci

 Vince contributes on commodities, market manipulation, and global markets