Boycott Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Here’s Why


BE SURE TO PASS OUR ARTICLES ON TO KIN, FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES

Eric ZUESSE | 17.10.2018 | WORLD / Americas

NATO — the neoconservatives, the marketeers for firms such as Lockheed Martin and BAE — has taken over the social-media giants and much of online international ‘news’-reporting, including that of virtually all independent news-sites and blogs.

Facebook, Twitter, and Google, in recent days, delivered what might be the death-blows.

NATO’s main PR agency, think-tank, and lobbying organization, is ‘non-profit’ — a legal tax-dodge that’s financed by donations from those weapons-making firms and their supporting firms and their ‘non-profits’, so that the taxes that it doesn’t pay will need to be paid instead by the general public. Billionaires know how to avoid taxes, and they hire politicians who write the laws with all the ‘right’ loopholes for them — and only for the very richest — to use. This PR agency is called “The Atlantic Council,” and it was set up in 1961, the exact same year that U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower left office warning that “the military-industrial complex” might take control of the U.S. Well, it did so, with The Atlantic Council’s help; and, now, it is finally lowering the boom against democracy itself — at least among the U.S. and its allied nations (the governments whose weapons-manufacturing firms are in, and sell to, NATO governments). The aim is to drive up the percentage of government-expenditures there that go to pay those firms, and so to reduce the percentages that go to pay everything else. The aim, in short, is the permanent-warfare-economy. After all, firms such as Lockheed Martin and BAE sell only to allied governments. They have virtually no consumers except those governments. So: their (and their ‘charities’) basic message is ‘austerity’ — except on ‘defense’ or realistically called “aggression.” This is national ‘defense’ such as against Iraq in 2003, and against Libya in 2011 — it is instead sheer aggression. George Orwell predicted “Newspeak” — well, here it is. It’s today’s norm, so normal that the public think it’s just natural, and conservatives and even many liberals think it’s the way that ‘a free market’ ought to be.

Here was Facebook’s announcement, on October 11th:

newsroom.fb.com

11 October 2018

Removing Additional Inauthentic Activity from Facebook

Today, we’re removing 559 Pages and 251 accounts that have consistently broken our rules against spam and coordinated inauthentic behavior. Given the activity we’ve seen — and its timing ahead of the US midterm elections — we wanted to give some details about the types of behavior that led to this action. Many were using fake accounts or multiple accounts with the same names and posted massive amounts of content across a network of Groups and Pages to drive traffic to their websites. Many used the same techniques to make their content appear more popular on Facebook than it really was. Others were ad farms using Facebook to mislead people into thinking that they were forums for legitimate political debate.

——

Those 559 and 251 weren’t identified; none of them were. Facebook wants them to need to scream in order for them to be able to be noticed at all by the public. The announcement didn’t even say by what criteria they were measuring ‘Inauthentic Activity’ versus ‘legitimate political debate’. Their announcement did say “we look at these actors’ behavior – such as whether they’re using fake accounts or repeatedly posting spam – rather than their content when deciding which of these accounts, Pages or Groups to remove,” but unless they make public what the actual algorithms are by means of which they remove sites, no one should trust them, at all, because they can remove whatever NATO or The Atlantic Council (neither of which their announcement even mentioned) want them to remove.

The background for this act by the war-economy’s billionaires had already been reported at Mint Press on May 18th“Facebook Partners With Hawkish Atlantic Council, a NATO Lobby Group, to ‘Protect Democracy’”, where Elliott Gabriel opened:

Facebook is hoping that a new alliance with the Atlantic Council — a leading geopolitical strategy think-tank seen as a de facto PR agency for the U.S. government and NATO military alliance – will not only solve its “fake news” and “disinformation” controversy, but will also help the social media monolith play “a positive role” in ensuring democracy on a global level.

The new partnership will effectively ensure that Atlantic Council will serve as Facebook’s “eyes and ears,” according to a company press statement. With its leadership comprised of retired military officers, former policymakers, and top figures from the U.S. National Security State and Western business elites, the Atlantic Council’s role policing the social network should be viewed as a virtual takeover of Facebook by the imperialist state and the council’s extensive list of ultra-wealthy and corporate donors.

Then, on October 12th, Mint Press’s Whitney Webb bannered “Facebook Purges US-Based Independent Media For Political Disinformation”, and reported that,

Notably, Facebook’s statement on the mass purge of pages was co-authored by Facebook Head of Cybersecurity Nathaniel Gleicher, who is a former White House National Security Council director of cybersecurity policy.

Twitter also banned many of the pages targeted for deletion by Facebook on Thursday, suggesting a coordinated censorship effort between the two most popular social media platforms.

Many of the pages banned had millions of likes, such as the Free Thought Project (3.1 million likes), Antimedia (2.1 million), Cop Block (1.7 million), and Police the Police (1.9 million). Several of the pages that were deleted on Thursday had been targeted by Facebook in recent months, both through new censorship algorithms and Facebook’s controversial team of “fact checkers.”

For instance, the Free Thought Project had been flagged earlier this year as “fake news” by Facebook “fact checking” partner organizations, including  the Associated Press (AP) and Snopes. In one case, a story published by the Free Thought Project was flagged as “false” by the AP. That story, which detailed the documented case of Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) being forcibly removed from a DHS migrant detention center that had once been a Walmart, was marked false because the AP asserted that the article made the claim that Walmart was housing immigrants for DHS. However, the article does not make the claim, instead accurately noting that the facility used to be a Walmart.

Censorship algorithms had also greatly affected traffic to the recently deleted pages for much of the past year. In the case of Antimedia, its traffic dropped from around 150,000 page views per day in early June to around 12,000 by the end of that month. As a reference, in June of last year, Antimedia’s traffic stood at nearly 300,000 views per day.

Also on October 12th, heavy dot com bannered “‘Facebook Purge’: List of Some Deleted Accounts on Left & Right” and listed a few dozen sites that the article's writer had seen online screaming about having been removed.

Meanwhile, in UK’s very mainstream Daily Mail (the second-largest-circulation of all UK’s newspapers), columnist Michael Burleigh headlined on October 13th “Putin's taking over Libya by stealth in order to point a new weapon at the West — millions of desperate migrants” and he opened:

So bloody and extensive is President Putin’s record of aggression, not least in Syria and Ukraine, that an incursion into the empty deserts of North Africa might hardly seem worth noting.

Yet the discovery that Russia is moving troops and missiles into war-torn Libya has rightly caused alarms to sound throughout the capitals of Europe.

It is a step of huge significance, and one with potentially disastrous results for Western nations.

The discovery that Vladimir Putin, above, and his government is moving troops and missiles into war-torn Libya has rightly caused alarm. Russia – this time in the form of Rosneft, the huge oil company controlled by Putin’s sinister crony Igor Sechin – is interested in a slice of Libya’s vast oil reserves, the largest in Africa

Libya has both oil and Mediterranean ports, and Russia is hungry for both.

But was it Russia that in 2011 had invaded and destroyed Libya, or was it U.S., UK, and France, who invaded and destroyed Libya — a country that like Iraq, Syria, Yemen and others which The West has destroyed, had never threatened nor invaded any of them?

Burleigh continued:

– cause enough for concern, perhaps. Yet the real fear for European governments is this: Libya, with its porous southern borders, has become the main jumping-off point for the hundreds of thousands of African migrants now seeking to cross the Mediterranean to the shores of the EU and, in particular, Italy.

So, his own country, UK, had helped with the bombing of Libya that had caused all those ‘migrants’ (actually refugees) into Europe, but now he’s trying to blame Putin for it, as if Russia and not UK, U.S., and France were the cause of it. Doesn’t that “mislead people”?

But is the Daily Mail being strangled by Facebook, Twitter, and Google; or is it instead being done to the small-fry political sites, which aren’t owned and controlled by the aristocracies of the U.S., UK, France, and their allied aristocracies — all the aristocracies that are in NATO and promoted by The Atlantic Council?

Here is yet more from Elliott Gabriel’s excellent news-report at Mint Press on May 18th, providing background to the present purges and censorships:

The announcement, made last Thursday in a Facebook Newsroom post, explained that the social network’s security, policy and product teams will coordinate their work with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) to analyze “real-time insights and updates on emerging threats and disinformation campaigns from around the world.”

DFRLab employees include pro-war media activist Eliot Higgins (of Bellingcat fame) and Ben Nimmo — a senior fellow for information defense at the Atlantic Council, who earned infamy for his groundless accusations that actual Twitter users are Russian trolls.

Read more on Facebook


Continuing, Facebook global politics and government outreach director Katie Harbath explained:

“This will help increase the number of ‘eyes and ears’ we have working to spot potential abuse on our service — enabling us to more effectively identify gaps in our systems, preempt obstacles, and ensure that Facebook plays a positive role during elections all around the world.”

“We know that tackling these problems effectively also requires the right policies and regulatory structures, so that governments and companies can help prevent abuse while also ensuring that people have a voice during elections. The Atlantic Council’s network of leaders is uniquely situated to help all of us think through the challenges we will face in the near- and long-term.”

“The think-tank’s Digital Research Unit Monitoring Missions will also be tapped by the social network during elections and “other highly sensitive moments” to allow Facebook the ability to zero in on key locales and monitor alleged misinformation and foreign interference.”

 

Who is the Atlantic Council?

Hillary Clinton at the 2013 Atlantic Council Distinguished Leadership Awards (Photo: Atlantic Council)

The Atlantic Council was recently in the news for receiving a donation of $900,000 from the U.S. State Department for a “Peace Process Support Network” program to “promote non-violent conflict resolution” in support of Venezuela’s scattered opposition, with which the council enjoys very close ties. The council also advocates the arming of extremist militants in Syria (a “National Stabilization Force”) and a hard-line policy toward Russia.

Established in 1961 by former U.S. Secretaries of State Dean Acheson and Christian Herter, the Atlantic Council of the United States was originally conceived as a means to drum up support for the Cold War-era NATO alliance, which had formed in 1949 as the basis of the Euro-Atlantic security architecture during the post-WWII competition with the Soviet Union. Dozens of similar Atlantic Councils were eventually established throughout the NATO and Partnership for Peace states.

The council is a part of the Atlantic Treaty Association, a NATO offshoot that claims to unite “political leaders, academics, military officials, journalists and diplomats in an effort to further the values set forth in the North Atlantic Treaty, namely: democracy, freedom, liberty, peace, security, and the rule of law.”

In general, groups such as the Atlantic Council are meant to secure the legitimacy of U.S. policies and neoliberal economics in the eyes of world audiences and academia, whether they live in the “advanced democracies” (the imperialist center) or “developing democracies” (the post-colonial and economically exploited nations).

Mint Press — a real news-operation, instead of the fake-news operations that are being boosted by Facebook, Twitter, and Google — apparently hasn’t yet been removed by Facebook, but the permanent-war-economy is only just starting to lower the boom. And, who knows what’s next, in American ‘democracy’, now?

The way to boycott Facebook, Twitter, and Google, is to NOT respond to their ads, but instead to blacklist their advertisers and all media that rely upon those giant social-media sites. There are competitors, and those need to be aggressively favored by anyone who doesn’t want to be mentally strangulated by these three giant corporations.

These media-giants want to strangle the public; so, the public needs to strangle them first.


About the author

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity. Besides TGP, his reports and historical analyses are published on many leading current events and political sites, including The Saker, Huffpost, Oped News, and others.

 

horiz-long grey
What will it take to bring America to live according to its own self image?


[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]




OPINION: The most improbable hero, ever

OPINION •/  GODFREE ROBERTS

[dropcap]P[/dropcap]eople elected Trump President knowing he was a serial liar, defaulter and narcissist. But they hoped he might blurt out some long-suppressed truths about corruption in media and government, the waste of American treasure on war, and the steep decline in their quality of life.

At great personal risk, he is doing so.

Like Eisenhower–the last pre-assassination president–he told the military he would sign more checks if they would win more wars. He gave them two years. They failed.

He started smashing NATO by skipping its first meeting and bad-mouthing it. He has continued doing so.

When the media clamored for war he gave them fireworks–a glorious MOAB fireball over Afghanistan, and the Syrian missile attacks that killed practically no-one.

In Syria he coordinated with the Russian military, de-conflicted air space and ground operations.

He told the State Department and the Pentagon to seek direct peace talks with the Taliban.

He has done more than any president in history to establish personal relationships with America’s manufactured ‘enemies’. He’s the only non-family member to have spent two days alone with China’s President Xi (while their families hung out) protected by his own security. No Secret Service. When has that ever happened?

My guess is that he has the 100% support of Putin, Xi and Kim. After the EU-China talks yesterday a reporter asked China’s trade minister whether the two sides would unite to fight America’s trade moves and he

But the War Party is not taking this peace talk peacefully. Today’s New York Times said, ‘Among Mr. Trump’s critics, even the word “treason” is not too strong. As our chief White House correspondent put it: “Never in anyone’s lifetime has a president engendered such a wave of discussion about whether his real loyalty was to a foreign power over his own country.”’

The fight for peace is the biggest battle of our generation—OF ANY GENERATION— and the guy leading could be the most unlikely hero in world history.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Godfree Roberts is an anglo-American geopolitical analyst residing in Thailand. 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

black-horizontal

The Russian Peace Threat examines Russophobia, American Exceptionalism and other urgent topics




US Secretary of State Pompeo presents war ultimatum to Iran

BE SURE TO PASS THESE ARTICLES TO FRIENDS AND KIN. A LOT DEPENDS ON THIS. DO YOUR PART.

By Bill Van Auken, wsws.org



ABOVE: Pompeo, looking more and more like Mussolini, demonstrating there is no limit to the indecent cynicism and astonishing mendacity of the American ruling elites, whom he serves with alacrity. 

On Monday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo presented what was billed as Washington’s “Plan B” following the Trump administration’s scrapping of the nuclear agreement reached in 2015 between Iran and the so-called P5+1—the US, UK, France, Germany, China and Russia.

The thuggish and bellicose address, titled “After the Deal: A New Iran Strategy,” was delivered to the right-wing Heritage Foundation in Washington. It amounted to a war ultimatum to Tehran, demanding the complete capitulation of the Iranian government in the face of what Pompeo vowed would be “the strongest sanctions in history,” as well as military pressure on all fronts in the Middle East.

The speech was the first delivered by Pompeo since leaving his post as CIA director. That position was filled by Gina Haspel, the former director of a CIA torture site who was sworn in Monday by Trump after her nomination was ratified with key support from Democratic senators. Together with the elevation of John Bolton—a fanatical right-winger who has repeatedly called for the bombing of Iran—to the post of national security advisor, Trump has assembled what amounts to an anti-Iranian war cabinet.

The secretary of state’s address constituted a laundry list of lies and false accusations against Iran, beginning with praise for “Israel’s recent remarkable intelligence operation.” This referred to the absurd theatrical performance by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented on the eve of Trump’s May 8 decision to abrogate the nuclear agreement. Netanyahu failed to present any evidence that Iran had violated the terms of the nuclear accord.

Pompeo placed the entire blame for the crisis in the Middle East on Iran. In reality, the region has been ravaged by a succession of US wars for regime-change—from Iraq to Libya and Syria. He placed responsibility for the war that has brought Yemen to the brink of starvation on Tehran, even as the US supplies the bombs and military support that enables its key regional ally Saudi Arabia to decimate the country.

He added a list of charges that are grounded in fantasy and fabrication, claiming that Tehran is providing sanctuary for leaders of Al Qaeda—a movement based on fanatical anti-Shia elements—and attempted to pin the blame for the catastrophic situation in Afghanistan, where the US military has waged a 17-year war, on alleged Iranian support for the Taliban, something for which no evidence whatsoever has been presented.

Making a phony and cynical appeal to the Iranian people, he accused Iran’s government of “corruption” and diverting “hundreds of millions of dollars to military operations.” This is from a government in Washington that is beset by innumerable corruption scandals, and which diverts roughly a trillion dollars annually into military spending.

Pompeo then delivered a list of 12 demands on what Iran “must do.” These entail shutting down the country’s nuclear program and halting its development of missiles. They include the withdrawal of all military forces from Syria, the ending of support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and the ceding of any influence in Iraq. Vowing to “crush” Iran’s “operatives” all over the world, the US secretary of state declared, “Iran will never again have carte blanche to dominate the Middle East.”

The demands amount to an ultimatum requiring Iran to cease any role as a regional power and submit to Washington’s unfettered neocolonial domination.

The Iranian government issued an immediate rejection of Pompeo’s demands. “The world today does not accept that the United States decides for the world. Countries have their independence,” President Hassan RoUhani said in a statement broadcast by Iranian media. “Who are you to decide for Iran and the world?” he added.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qassemi told a press conference in Tehran, “No one can force Iran to do anything and Iran will remain in Syria as long as there are terrorist groups in there and as long as the Syrian government wants.” He added, “Those who have entered Syria without the Syrian government’s permission should leave the country,” referring to the more than 2,000 US troops that have been sent to occupy the country’s east and its oilfields.

Pompeo also left no doubt that Washington intends to pursue its policy of aggression against Iran at the expense of its nominal allies in Western Europe through the imposition of extra-territorial or “secondary” sanctions. These will penalize any company in Europe or anywhere else in the world that seeks to do business in Iran.

“We understand that our reimposition of sanctions and the coming pressure campaign on the Iranian regime will pose financial and economic difficulties for a number of our friends,” he said. “Indeed, it imposes economic challenges to America as well. These are markets our businesses would love to sell into as well.”

This is nonsense. US trade with Iran in 2017 amounted to just $170 million. Trade between the European Union and Iran, on the other hand, amounted to some $25 billion, with a host of major European corporations having struck trade and investment deals in the wake of the 2015 nuclear agreement.

While the UK, France and Germany all opposed Trump’s decision to abrogate the nuclear agreement and have vowed to support the accord without the US, Iran has demanded that the European Union take concrete steps to assure that the substance of the deal—freeing Iran’s economy from the effects of crippling sanctions in return for strict limits on the country’s nuclear program—is maintained.

“With the withdrawal of America ... the European political support for the accord is not sufficient,” Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told the EU’s energy commissioner Miguel Arias Canete on Sunday.

“The announcement of the possible withdrawal by major European companies from their cooperation with Iran is not consistent with the European Union’s commitment to implementing” the agreement, Zarif was quoted as saying.

The EU and the major European powers are anxious to prevent Washington’s policies from depriving them of the ability to exploit the potentially lucrative Iranian market. At the same time, European governments, while themselves deeply involved in imperialist operations in the Middle East and engaged in pressuring Iran, fear that the precipitous drive toward war with Iran would have devastating effects, including the driving up of energy costs, the destabilization of the entire region and the resurgence of the flow of refugees.

nauseating EUROPEAN COWARDICE AND VASSALAGE

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he French energy giant Total has already announced that it will withdraw from a $5 billion deal to develop the South Pars gas field in the Persian Gulf unless it is granted a sanctions waiver by US authorities. The Danish shipping giant Maersk Tankers said Thursday it would cease its activities in Iran, while German insurer Allianz and the Siemens corporation, which has sold gas turbines to Iran, have also announced that they are closing down their operations there. Airbus, which has already provided jets to Iran under a multibillion-dollar contract, has indicated it is considering compliance with US sanctions.

Meanwhile, China’s state-owned oil company CNPC announced that it is prepared to take over the contract for the Iranian gas field if Total withdraws. China is Iran’s top trade partner. The Russian government has signaled that it is prepared to incorporate Iran into a free trade zone.

While the unilateral US action has brought relations between Europe and America to their lowest point in the post-World War II era, with calls from European officials for an independent policy and a defense of “economic sovereignty,” the EU and its member states have yet to agree on any concrete policy for defying Washington.

Proposals coming out of Brussels reportedly include the continuation of Iranian oil imports by making direct euro-denominated payments to Iran’s central bank, bypassing the US financial system; paying damages to companies affected by US sanctions; and the retooling of a 1996 “blocking statute” drafted in response to US sanctions against Iran, Libya and Cuba, which makes it illegal for European firms to comply with extra-territorial sanctions. At the time, the Clinton administration provided relief for European corporations doing business in those countries, rendering the statute moot.

There is no indication that the Trump administration intends to provide any such exemptions. This means that, whatever the divisions among the European powers, trade war and political tensions will continue to intensify as the threat of a major new war in the Middle East looms.

[premium_newsticker id="211406"]

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
The author is a senior editorial member of wsws.org, a Marxian publication. 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

black-horizontal

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” — acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump — a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all. Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report




Britain Officially Prepares Now for War Against Russia


PM May talking to soldiers. She may not be as malignant as Thatcher, but her postures are just as bad overall, and her willingness to join Washington’s march to oblivion makes her even more damnable.

BE SURE TO PASS OUR ARTICLES ON TO KIN, FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES


Britain's "special relationship" with the US, established in the postwar to retain some claim to the spoils of the disintegrating empire, has now degenerated into the most shameful and abject vassalage, with her foreign policy a laughable copycat of Washington's own ridiculous and often outright criminal postures. The UK's ruling cliques demonstrate that the superrich for all their vaunted pride, have none.


[/su_dropcap]n Wednesday, February 21st, the UK’s Minister of Defence, Conservative Gavin Williamson, announced that the United Kingdom is changing its fundamental defence strategy from one that’s targeted against non-state terrorists (Al Qaeda, etc.), to one that’s targeted instead against three countries: Russia, China, and North Korea. He acknowledged that a massive increase in military spending will be needed for this, and that “savings” will have to be found in other areas of Government-spending, such as the health services, and in military spending against terrorism.The headline in the London Times on February 22nd was “Russia ‘is a bigger threat to our security than terrorists’”. Their Defence Editor, Deborah Haynes. reported:

UK's Williamson: amazing how consistently the empire chooses imbeciles and incompetents to run its most delicate affairs.

The threat to Britain from states such as Russia and North Korea is greater than that posed by terrorism, the defence secretary said yesterday, marking a significant shift in security policy.

Gavin Williamson suggested to MPs that more money and a change in the structure of the armed forces would be needed as part of a defence review to meet the challenge of a state-on-state conflict, something that Britain has not had to consider for a generation. …

It is a departure from the national security strategy published in 2015, which listed international terrorism first, and chimes with a decision by the United States last month to declare “strategic competition” from countries such as China and Russia as its top focus instead of counterterrorism. …

He described the Kremlin’s “increased assertiveness”, such as a ten-fold increase in submarine activity in the North Atlantic, a growing Russian presence in the Mediterranean region and their involvement in the war in Syria. “But then you are seeing new nations that are starting to play a greater role in the world, such as China. …

Asked whether Mr Williamson accepted that this would have a knock-on effect for how Britain’s military was structured and its readiness for war, “Yes it does,” Mr Williamson replied.

Just as happened when UK’s Prime Minister Tony Blair made his country the U.S. President George W. Bush’s lap-dog in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, UK’s Prime Minister Theresa May makes her country U.S. President Donald Trump’s lap-dog now in the invasions to come, of North Korea, Russia, and China.

The press in the U.S. and its allied countries (such as UK) might have a difficult time persuading their populations that expanding military expenditures in order to conquer Russia, China, North Korea, and — as U.S. President Trump wants also to include — Iran (but he’ll probably use America’s ally Israel for that part of the operation), could be difficult, because, for example, on the same day, February 22nd, Gallup reported that by a margin of 59% to 37%, Americans disapprove of Trump on the issue of “Relations with Russia,” and back on 23 March 2017, Public Integrity headlined "The public favors cutting defense spending, not adding billions more, new survey finds" and reported:

President Trump’s proposed budget for 2018 isn’t following public sentiment, a new survey finds.

The survey, by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation (PPC), found that while Trump has proposed a $54 billion boost to federal spending for the military, a majority of Americans prefer a cut of $41 billion. While Trump has proposed a $2.8 billion increase for homeland security, a majority of Americans favor a $2 billion cut. …

Trump’s proposals were at odds with the preferences of both Republicans and Democrats. …

A majority of GOP respondents said they wished to keep the so-called “base” or main defense budget at the current level, although they favored cutting $5 billion in spending from a budget for “overseas contingency operations,” specifically in Afghanistan and Iraq. …

Those results, in turn, were strikingly similar to the conclusions of a 2012 survey by the Center for Public Integrity, PPC, and the Stimson Center, a nonprofit policy study group in Washington, D.C. When respondents were asked in that survey what they would do with Obama’s base defense budget, the majority favored cutting it by at least $65 billion, from $562 billion down to $497 billion. …

The situation is likely to be even more difficult in UK, where according to Gallup’s polling in 2017, as reported in their “Rating World Leaders: 2018”, residents in UK who were asked “Do you approve or disapprove of the job performance of the leadership of the United States?” answered 63% “Disapprove,” and 33% “Approve,” and the net approval (-30%) had declined 26% from the prior President Obama’s rating (-4%), in 2016.

Consequently, in order for the leaders to do this, there will need to be a total divorce from even the claim of being ‘democracies’, because, on such a momentous decision as to whether or not there should be a Third World War (and if so, whether Iran should be a target in it), going against the overwhelming public opinion wouldn’t be possible except in what is effectively a dictatorship (such as the U.S. has been scientifically proven to be). So: actually achieving this will be a stretch, but at least in the United States — a proven dictatorship — it’s possible.

Whereas the press, both in the U.S. and UK, willingly pumped the lies of the Government, that according to the IAEA Saddam Hussein was only six months away from having nuclear weapons, they might not do it this time against actual nuclearly armed nations, because there probably aren’t yet, and won’t soon be, enough billionaires’ bunkers deep underground — such as here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here — to protect them from even the nuclear blasts, much less anything at all to protect anyone from the resulting nuclear winter and global famine. So, perhaps, greed will finally meet its limit: sheer self-preservation. It’s one thing when a foreign country, such as Iraq — or Libya, or Syria, or Yemen — is destroyed, but quite another matter when the world itself will be. The degree of insanity that the military-industrial complex is now assuming to exist amongst the general public, might simply not be there, at all. Finally, Western governments’ weapons-manufacturing firms might need to face the steep declines in their stock-values that all of them so richly deserve, and that’s been held off already for decades too long — since at least 1991, when the Soviet Union and its communism and its Warsaw Pact military alliance all ended, and all that’s left available as bogeymen who must be killed in order to ‘save the world’, is: Russia, China, North Korea — and maybe (if the Sauds and Israel are to have their way), Iran.

It’s not yet clear just when — if ever — the ‘democratic’ countries in The West (the U.S. and its allies, the billionaires there) will reach the limit of their imperial greed. But if the world is their limit, then there is no limit at all, because the world itself will end, before this limit is reached. And, now, it’s not only Donald Trump who is leading the way there, but Theresa May has joined his luxurious march, to global oblivion. 


About the author

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity. Besides TGP, his reports and historical analyses are published on many leading current events and political sites, including The Saker, Huffpost, Oped News, and others.

 

 

Appendix
Inspect one of these absurd billionaires’ survival bunkers. Britain’s Daily Mail ran a story about this. The most vital question was not asked. How will these idiots—assuming they do survive the nuclear blasts—protect themselves against their own fellow humans? Obviously they will bury themselves deep with some security force, but this very security force—tough, younger trained men with weapons—may turn on them and simply kill them or dispossess them, or, even—the ultimate indignity—kick them out of the bunkers, while keeping their possessions and women. Who will enforce the laws of property and privilege when the state itself will have collapsed?

Click on the orange button below.


[/bg_collapse]



horiz-long grey
What will it take to bring America to live according to its own self image?


[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]




Democrats and the End(s) of Politics

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.



Photo by Carlos Pacheco | CC BY 2.0

Capitalism Trumps Democracy

A paradox at the intersection of capitalism and representative democracy is that under capitalism every person represents their own interests. The King of Versailles (Donald Trump) illustrates this tendency most straightforwardly amongst modern political leadership. But the paradox is systemic, not personal. And the question that follows is: which is to be shedded, capitalism or democracy?

The bourgeois tendency of conflating technocracy with intelligence is itself profoundly anti-democratic. Technocracy is manufactured social complexity, capitalist bureaucracy as ethos. And bourgeois loathing is technocracy confronted by the logic that drives it. In this sense, Donald Trump is the veil ripped away, the existential predicament locked in a strip mall in suburbia with only the detritus of its own creation for companionship.


Graph: political rhetoric that poses Democrats and Republicans as ideological adversaries is challenged by shared policies to make the rich richer. Donald Trump’s regressive tax cuts serve the same constituency that benefited from Barack Obama’s bank bailouts. Source: Emmanuel Saez.

Against any preponderance of human history that might be proffered: war + fucking + art, etc., the notion of cosmic intelligence that has form as the business meeting, the spreadsheet and the PowerPoint presentation is amongst the least probable. What is so deeply frightening about Donald Trump, his predecessors and likely successors, is the form and logic of ‘how’ laboring under the illusion that it serves some higher logic.

Put differently, who precisely was ‘saved’ when the banks were bailed out in 2009? Donald Trump’s fortunes were most certainly revived. So were the Koch Brothers’. And who are these wise leaders that Barack Obama was modernizing the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal for? Speculate as you will, but Mr. Trump is the man who currently occupies this position. So which is the fool, Mr. Trump or the people who created the power he now holds?

Politicking

In late 2002 and early 2003 George W. Bush effectively sold a blunderous, murderous and ill-fated war against Iraq to the American people. He did so by presenting fake evidence using ‘useful idiots’ at the Washington Post and New York Times to give it ‘independent’ credence. Polls taken at the time reflected the effect this fake news had on garnering public enthusiasm for the War.

Contrast this with Bill Clinton’s poll-based ‘micro-democracy’ where Mr. Clinton took up Ronald Reagan’s major talking points as they were regurgitated to pollsters by the polity. In fact, the seeds of ‘Reaganism’ had been planted in the early 1970s in what has come to look like a neo-capitalist coup. If Mr. Reagan could sell Reaganism, why couldn’t Mr. Clinton sell its antidote?


Graph: in the late 1970s the manufactured crisis of ‘stagflation’ was used to discard the New Deal in favor of neoliberalism. Carter appointee Paul Volcker raised interest rates to nosebleed levels to end inflation that resulted from U.S. geopolitical maneuvers. The practical effect was to crush American labor, begin the process of moving U.S. manufacturing overseas and launch the ascendance of finance. The ‘Reagan Miracle’ began the minute Mr. Volcker lowered interest rates. Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve.

Later, when it came to Wall Street bailouts and Obamacare, Barack Obama favored closed door meetings with industry insiders where ‘deals’ that effectively guaranteed them profits were framed to convince the public that these were the best outcomes that could ‘pragmatically’ be expected. ‘Pragmatism’ here served as a rhetorical bridge between the public interest and the policies that were implemented. Technocratic competence found its true calling.

The ‘innovation’ added by Donald Trump is the explicitly anti-technocratic ‘it’s all bullshit anyway’ business-ism that once payment has been secured, it doesn’t matter if the product sold really ‘works.’ In like fashion, even after the social catastrophes of the Clinton’s programs became too evident to avoid, they were only reconsidered by candidate (Hillary) Clinton as a means of getting from here to there (elected).

A paradox of the Democrats’ ‘pragmatism’ is that there would be little by way of organized opposition to policies in the public interest if their effort to make the rich richer had not been so successful. The so-called economic debacle of ‘stagflation’ during Jimmy Carter’s presidency was a set-up. Carter appointee Paul Volcker intentionally caused the (then) worst recession since the Great Depression. The ‘Reagan miracle’ began when Mr. Volcker stopped causing recession.

In theory, any national Democrat could challenge the neoliberal orthodoxy ‘proven’ to work by Mr. Reagan and take bold political programs directly to the people. However, Democrats (Bill) Clinton and Obama both proceeded from defensive assertions that carefully selected ‘facts’ precluded them from accomplishing anything but Republican objectives. ‘Pragmatism’ linked technocracy to its embedded goals in the service capitalist (not capital) accumulation.

The canard of ‘the Federal budget deficit’ (the U.S. has a fiat money system) allowed Mr. Clinton to pass the unfinished programs of the ‘Reagan Revolution’— cutting welfare, deregulating the banks, militarizing the police, etc., while foregoing his promised increase in social spending. The economic debacle begun in 2007 allowed Barack Obama to richly reward his top campaign contributors while leaving those who lives were diminished by them to their own devices.

The current strategy of blaming Russia for Ms. Clinton’s 2016 loss has apparently been reduced to putting the ‘Steele’ dossier, commissioned and paid for by the Clinton campaign, forward as potential grounds for ‘compromising’ Donald Trump. What Democrats don’t yet appear to understand is that if there were a video of women urinating on Donald Trump in a Moscow hotel room he would be selling autographed copies of it on the internet and giving them out as holiday gifts.

More to the point, some fair number of Americans no doubt see Wall Street and the broad edifice of American capitalism as every bit the threat to democracy that bourgeois Democrats claim Russia is. How then is the Democrats’ choice to promote the neoliberal orthodoxy by working to further enrich its cloistered, kleptocratic proponents ‘pragmatic’ if winning elections is their goal? The question then is: is winning elections really their goal? And if so, why?

The Democrats’ failure of political understanding regarding Mr. Trump isn’t that voters are crass (deplorable?) but rather that conflating technocracy with intelligence and sophistication confuses style with substance. Donald Trump is the prototypical, iconic if you will, beneficiary of the national Democrats’ policies. As was said of George W. Bush, Mr. Trump was born on third base but believes he hit a home run. But if he is undeserving of the Democrats’ largesse, who precisely, are the deserving kleptocrats?

Despite the heated rhetoric, Donald Trump’s policies are nearly identical to those of the national Democrats. That Democratic Party loyalists claim great differences suggests first and foremost that they know next to nothing about the policies they claim to support. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama may not have been casual with racist blather the way that Mr. Trump is, but their policies were (so far) more effectively vicious than anything that Donald Trump has done as president.

It is in some fair measure the refusal by liberals and progressives to hold Democrats to account for their policies that renders current protestations against Mr. Trump ineffective. As one who regularly travels between classes, the poor and disenfranchised are every bit as intelligent as educated technocrats and they tend to be more resourceful because they have to be. So imagine for a moment that people with whom you may disagree politically are as smart as you are but find themselves living in radically different circumstances.

As the old and new Gilded Ages have demonstrated, the benefits of neo-capitalism accrue narrowly while the detriments are widely distributed. A few people benefit from bank bailouts, trade deals, climate crisis, the immiseration of labor and the use of public resources for private gain. But the overwhelming preponderance of humanity exists on the losing end. The ‘winners’ in this system are the donor class for both of the American capitalist Parties. The National Democrats need to answer: what sort of psycho / sociopath wants to be a ‘winner’ in such circumstances?


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
 Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is published by CounterPunch Books. 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” — acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump — a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all. Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report

window.newShareCountsAuto="smart";