theamericanconservative--2020-02-18--In New York City, Homeless is Where the Heart is

New York is America ’ s richest city and is Ground Zero in how economic inequality is reshaping every day of our lives .
NYC is home to 70 billionaires , more than any other American city .
Living among those billionaires ( NYC is also home to nearly one million millionaires , more than any other city in the world ) the city also has the highest homeless population of any American metropolis , close to 80,000 and growing .
The number of homeless single adults today is 142 percent higher than it was ten years ago , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Great Depression .
Some 3,000 human beings make their full-time home in the subway system .
Their belongings crowd out morning commuters .
In the winter many never emerge above ground .
A visitor from outer space would be forgiven for thinking they weren ’ t even human , recognizable as just a head emerging from a urine-soaked bundle of clothing , not living really , just waiting .
The ones who ride the trains hours a day are like one-celled amoebas that react to light by moving out of the way , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employee whose inquiry causes some physical shift but no sign of sentient action .
Don ’ t be shocked—we here aren ’ t anymore —what did you think runaway economic inequality was gon na end up doing to us ?
But for most New Yorkers the issue isn ’ t confronting the reality of inequality , it is navigating the society it has created .
Navigating income inequality is not a problem for the rich .
Public transportation , once the great melting pot , is less so as Uber plays a bigger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with their city-required handful of “ affordable ” units , have separate entrances based on wealth .
NYC ’ s newest mega-development , Hudson Yards , has been dubbed the Forbidden City , a snub as it is literally walled off from the garbage around it ( there are “ service ” entrances for workers , and the stores have their primary doors opening into the gated courtyard , not on to Tenth Avenue . )
Elsewhere private restaurants , private clubs , members only-everythings , and VIP sections with security at public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s reach .
For the rest , stuck between middle class and the abyss , navigating economic inequality is more of a contact sport .
Public libraries are one of the facilities shared with the over 64,000 homeless who sleep at night in the gulag archipelago of NYC ’ s vast shelter system .
Most of the shelters are only open after dark , leaving residents to find somewhere to physically occupy between 7am and 11pm .
Since there is no daytime plan , in bad weather they take over the libraries .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the staff don ’ t manage it well ; the signature main library has guards to send the homeless across the street to a branch , where the homeless are more or less curated like the oversize books on to one particular floor .
On 96th street the library serves no other purpose than homeless daycare , except for a brief period after school when bodies are shuffled around for an hour or two to accommodate story time .
People refer to Starbucks as a public toilet which also happens to sell coffee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chain now claims its facilities are open to all .
In some marginal parts of town those toilets are forever closed to all “ under repair , ” but in most places the homeless and customers navigate around one another .
Being seen as being nice is important to Starbucks ’ customers as they mentally navigate their own place being able to afford expensive coffee alongside those who have less .
As a woke company catering to customers who want nice things without guilt , Starbucks has a whole corporate page up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homeless .
Something similar at the new food court at Essex Market ( called the “ anti-Hudson Yards ” ) , which has full-time staff assigned to monitor the public toilets , nudging the homeless between the boundaries the Market deems acceptable .
Essex Market , like Starbucks , seems to see lite-humanitarian gestures as part of its marketing plan .
Economic inequality is also life for slightly better-off New Yorkers .
Not homeless but damn poor , 400,000 reside in taxpayer-paid permanent ( permanent as in multi-generational , grandmas passing squatter ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Conditions are literally toxic in these “ projects , ” as well as crime-ridden and just plain Third World crumbling .
There are probably fewer no-go zones in the city than in the dark times of the 1970s , but maybe more “ why would you want to go there anyway ” places .
And yes , New York ’ s public housing authority is the world ’ s largest .
Housing prices for those who do pay their own way drive 40 percent of adult renters to live with a roommate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help elderly renters share their homes and make a few bucks .
These urban stories are only about a part of the homeless population .
The others are bent beyond existing systems , so severely mentally ill they are driven out of the coffee shops and shelters .
They ’ re inevitable in a society without healthcare constantly adding to a homeless population smoothing over the bumps of the street with alcohol and opioids .
I was behind a wacked up homeless guy at the liquor store paying with sock full of coins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no-name gin .
Why do you think they stock that kind of booze ?
What ’ s the right thing to do ?
I probably drink as much as he does but it ’ s OK because I work for my money instead of begging ?
I was in a hurry and paid for him .
But in most cases navigating these people requires something more than a benign balancing of company profits and makeshift charity .
At the Fulton Center subway station , problems with the mentally ill homeless reached a point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ places to sit .
A team of rent-a-cops make the homeless stand , wandering through the space waking up those who tumble .
The sole working men ’ s room remains a kind of demilitarized zone , and it is not uncommon to see one man washing his clothes in the sink while another talks to himself as a third vocally struggles with his defecation .
Most of the city ’ s such privately owned public spaces employ guards not against crime per se , but to enforce rules such as how much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are more aggressive measures .
NYC stores invest in barbed grates the homeless can ’ t lay on comfortably ( the hostile architecture of protrusions and spikes that make it impossible to sleep on a park bench or wall are pretty much sculpted into the architecture of the city , markers of the struggle for public space .
The idea even has its own Instagram account . )
A security firm offers tips : restrict access to sidewalk overhangs protected from inclement weather , remove handles from water spigots , and keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too bad , the company , for a price , will deploy “ remote cameras with military-grade algorithms capable of detecting people in areas they shouldn ’ t be in.
” There are also other ways to make money off the homeless .
Many of the shelters in NYC are contracted through private companies ( fraud criss-crosses the system ) , which charge the city about $ 80 per adult per night for an SRO room without its own indoor plumbing .
Food stamps are distributed via Electronic Benefits Transfer ( EBT .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ contracts to administer that , worth more than $ 112 million in New York alone .
And Amazon now accepts EBT online in New York and you don ’ t even need Prime !
The whole story of economic inequality and this city is told in canning , the micro-economy of returning aluminum cans for the five cents deposit .
What was started in 1982 in hope the deposit would encourage consumer recycling alongside kids picking up cans to supplement their allowances has become a way to make a sort of living for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the value of a nickel to many faded over the years , the need for a few bucks among the homeless population grew .
They started picking up cans to recycle which wealthier people had left out as trash .
The recycling centers set up in most food stores did not want the homeless inside .
Most set $ 12 daily redemption limits , often broken up in per can lots that forced the homeless to return two or three times .
Street-side drop off points devolved into social centers for the homeless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 125th Street renown as a drug market until it was closed down .
Unable to redeem their cans , the homeless moved on , replaced by highly exploitative canning crews which buy cans in bulk from elderly pickers ( many are retired or on disability ) for about a $ 30 nightly haul per person , and who then deal directly with the bulk metal recyclers uptown .
A five cent can might be worth only three cents on the street to the picker .
Competition among the people living off garbage is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dog walk just before the bulk trucks arrive , can crews run by Chinese organized crime ( rumor is those who can ’ t work off human smuggling fees otherwise work the can routes ) tussle with individuals for turf .
The cops are uninterested and some local doormen try and intervene but often tire of the guff .
It ’ s not a proud thing to witness people living off my garbage .
Oh well .
We ’ re a society built around economic inequality .
We ’ ll all just have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Peter Van Buren , a 24-year State Department veteran , is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People , Hooper ’ s War : A Novel of WWII Japan , and Ghosts of Tom Joad : A Story of the # 99 Percent .

New York is America’s richest city and is Ground Zero in how economic inequality is reshaping every day of our lives.
NYC is home to 70 billionaires, more than any other American city. Living among those billionaires (NYC is also home to nearly one million millionaires, more than any other city in the world) the city also has the highest homeless population of any American metropolis, close to 80,000 and growing. The number of homeless single adults today is 142 percent higher than it was ten years ago, and currently at the highest level since the Great Depression.
Some 3,000 human beings make their full-time home in the subway system. Their belongings crowd out morning commuters. In the winter many never emerge above ground. A visitor from outer space would be forgiven for thinking they weren’t even human, recognizable as just a head emerging from a urine-soaked bundle of clothing, not living really, just waiting. The ones who ride the trains hours a day are like one-celled amoebas that react to light by moving out of the way, in the specific case of a transit employee whose inquiry causes some physical shift but no sign of sentient action.
Don’t be shocked—we here aren’t anymore —what did you think runaway economic inequality was gonna end up doing to us? But for most New Yorkers the issue isn’t confronting the reality of inequality, it is navigating the society it has created.
Navigating income inequality is not a problem for the rich. Public transportation, once the great melting pot, is less so as Uber plays a bigger role. The new super apartments, with their city-required handful of “affordable” units, have separate entrances based on wealth. NYC’s newest mega-development, Hudson Yards, has been dubbed the Forbidden City, a snub as it is literally walled off from the garbage around it (there are “service” entrances for workers, and the stores have their primary doors opening into the gated courtyard, not on to Tenth Avenue.) Elsewhere private restaurants, private clubs, members only-everythings, and VIP sections with security at public events keep the homeless beyond arm’s reach.
For the rest, stuck between middle class and the abyss, navigating economic inequality is more of a contact sport.
Public libraries are one of the facilities shared with the over 64,000 homeless who sleep at night in the gulag archipelago of NYC’s vast shelter system. Most of the shelters are only open after dark, leaving residents to find somewhere to physically occupy between 7am and 11pm. Since there is no daytime plan, in bad weather they take over the libraries. Regular patrons are on their own if the staff don’t manage it well; the signature main library has guards to send the homeless across the street to a branch, where the homeless are more or less curated like the oversize books on to one particular floor. On 96th street the library serves no other purpose than homeless daycare, except for a brief period after school when bodies are shuffled around for an hour or two to accommodate story time.
People refer to Starbucks as a public toilet which also happens to sell coffee because, following charges of discrimination, the chain now claims its facilities are open to all. In some marginal parts of town those toilets are forever closed to all “under repair,” but in most places the homeless and customers navigate around one another. Being seen as being nice is important to Starbucks’ customers as they mentally navigate their own place being able to afford expensive coffee alongside those who have less.
As a woke company catering to customers who want nice things without guilt, Starbucks has a whole corporate page up about how kind they are to the homeless. Something similar at the new food court at Essex Market (called the “anti-Hudson Yards”), which has full-time staff assigned to monitor the public toilets, nudging the homeless between the boundaries the Market deems acceptable. Essex Market, like Starbucks, seems to see lite-humanitarian gestures as part of its marketing plan.
Economic inequality is also life for slightly better-off New Yorkers. Not homeless but damn poor, 400,000 reside in taxpayer-paid permanent (permanent as in multi-generational, grandmas passing squatter’s rights to grandkids) public housing. Conditions are literally toxic in these “projects,” as well as crime-ridden and just plain Third World crumbling. There are probably fewer no-go zones in the city than in the dark times of the 1970s, but maybe more “why would you want to go there anyway” places. And yes, New York’s public housing authority is the world’s largest. Housing prices for those who do pay their own way drive 40 percent of adult renters to live with a roommate. The city has a program to help elderly renters share their homes and make a few bucks.
These urban stories are only about a part of the homeless population. The others are bent beyond existing systems, so severely mentally ill they are driven out of the coffee shops and shelters. They’re inevitable in a society without healthcare constantly adding to a homeless population smoothing over the bumps of the street with alcohol and opioids. I was behind a wacked up homeless guy at the liquor store paying with sock full of coins. He was 67 cents short for no-name gin. Why do you think they stock that kind of booze? What’s the right thing to do? I probably drink as much as he does but it’s OK because I work for my money instead of begging? I was in a hurry and paid for him.
But in most cases navigating these people requires something more than a benign balancing of company profits and makeshift charity. At the Fulton Center subway station, problems with the mentally ill homeless reached a point where wire rope was installed to eliminate places to sit. A team of rent-a-cops make the homeless stand, wandering through the space waking up those who tumble. The sole working men’s room remains a kind of demilitarized zone, and it is not uncommon to see one man washing his clothes in the sink while another talks to himself as a third vocally struggles with his defecation. Most of the city’s such privately owned public spaces employ guards not against crime per se, but to enforce rules such as how much baggage the homeless can bring in.
There are more aggressive measures. NYC stores invest in barbed grates the homeless can’t lay on comfortably (the hostile architecture of protrusions and spikes that make it impossible to sleep on a park bench or wall are pretty much sculpted into the architecture of the city, markers of the struggle for public space. The idea even has its own Instagram account.) A security firm offers tips: restrict access to sidewalk overhangs protected from inclement weather, remove handles from water spigots, and keep trash dumpsters locked. If things get too bad, the company, for a price, will deploy “remote cameras with military-grade algorithms capable of detecting people in areas they shouldn’t be in.”
There are also other ways to make money off the homeless. Many of the shelters in NYC are contracted through private companies (fraud criss-crosses the system), which charge the city about $80 per adult per night for an SRO room without its own indoor plumbing. Food stamps are distributed via Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT.) JPMorgan Chase holds most of the contracts to administer that, worth more than $112 million in New York alone. And Amazon now accepts EBT online in New York and you don’t even need Prime!
The whole story of economic inequality and this city is told in canning, the micro-economy of returning aluminum cans for the five cents deposit. What was started in 1982 in hope the deposit would encourage consumer recycling alongside kids picking up cans to supplement their allowances has become a way to make a sort of living for an estimated 8,000 human beings. As the value of a nickel to many faded over the years, the need for a few bucks among the homeless population grew. They started picking up cans to recycle which wealthier people had left out as trash. The recycling centers set up in most food stores did not want the homeless inside. Most set $12 daily redemption limits, often broken up in per can lots that forced the homeless to return two or three times. Street-side drop off points devolved into social centers for the homeless, including the infamous Pathway site at 125th Street renown as a drug market until it was closed down.
Unable to redeem their cans, the homeless moved on, replaced by highly exploitative canning crews which buy cans in bulk from elderly pickers (many are retired or on disability) for about a $30 nightly haul per person, and who then deal directly with the bulk metal recyclers uptown. A five cent can might be worth only three cents on the street to the picker. Competition among the people living off garbage is sharp, where on a late night dog walk just before the bulk trucks arrive, can crews run by Chinese organized crime (rumor is those who can’t work off human smuggling fees otherwise work the can routes) tussle with individuals for turf. The cops are uninterested and some local doormen try and intervene but often tire of the guff. It’s not a proud thing to witness people living off my garbage.
Oh well. We’re a society built around economic inequality. We’ll all just have to learn to navigate our way through.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, Hooper’s War: A Novel of WWII Japan, and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-18--How Political Parties Kill Our Commitment to the Good

The Bernie Sanders of 2017 once suggested that “ reproductive rights are negotiable ” ; in other words , they aren ’ t a make-or-break issue for Democratic membership .
But last weekend , Sanders argued the exact opposite : “ I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat.
” His reversal represents a sharpening divide in our parties , another symptom of the polarization that is prompting Americans everywhere to pick a side .
In response to this growing divisiveness , I wrote a piece for the New York Times last week considering the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us who hold to a consistent life ethic ( CLE ) , who believe that laws by themselves will not cultivate a fully “ pro-life ” culture .
Of course , the Trump administration ’ s decision to embrace the pro-life cause and its platform is exciting and hopeful .
As Trump noted in his speech at the 2020 March for Life , he has limited public funds accessible to abortion providers , nominated conservative-leaning Supreme Court judges , and defended the Little Sisters of the Poor , focal figures in our national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access and religious liberty .
For many pro-life voters , these actions will be more than enough to secure their support for Trump in 2020 .
They do not necessarily care that Trump hasn ’ t “ walked the walk ” —as he applauded mothers in his March for Life speech , it was easy to forget that he has exhibited the behavior of a serial philanderer and misogynist .
But as Matthew Walther noted in a column for The Week , Trump ’ s speech “ was not the cautious rhetoric of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meat that serious social conservatives , easily the GOP ’ s single most reliable constituency , have craved for a long time.
” Could Trump ’ s reelection be detrimental to the pro-life cause ?
Perhaps , perhaps not .
I have worried in the past that the hypocrisy of Republicans like Trump might prove damaging , and there ’ s some indication that this fear may not be entirely off-base .
According to a recent Gallup poll , there ’ s a mounting desire for less strict abortion laws—and a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ From 2001 through 2016…roughly equal proportions of Democrats favored stiffening versus loosening abortion laws .
However , since Donald Trump took office in 2017 , Democrats have been less satisfied with the nation ’ s abortion policies and significantly more likely to say the laws should be less strict.
” It could very well be that Democrats would have responded this way even if Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz had become president four years ago .
But it ’ s also possible that the dislike Democrats have for Trump himself has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause .
One of the key goals of this year ’ s March for Life was to argue that being “ pro-life ” also means being “ pro-woman.
” But Trump ’ s actions , both prior to his election and after , have fostered the opposite perception .
It ’ s possible that support for or opposition to abortion is doomed to become another political football for the parties , something that gets tossed about from administration to administration , a topic that loses consensus with time .
I increasingly worry that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have anything to do with conscience and faith , and everything to do with the posturing of our relative parties .
This is what Sanders and Buttigieg ( and others ) are demanding of Democrats , after all : if you are going to call yourself “ progressive , ” you must dispense with all pro-life thought .
You must join us in supporting abortion .
And abortion is just one of many topics that are falling prey to this pressure and posturing .
Consider health care , immigration policy , and foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : there are few subjects left to us that are not sharply divided by party allegiance .
In her work “ On the Abolition of All Political Parties , ” Simone Weil suggested that our political parties often weaken our commitment to the good—which ought to be our only end and goal—because their primary purpose is not to serve that good , but to stir our collective passions , exert collective pressure on our minds , and thereby grow “ without limit ” their ranks .
“ Political parties are organisations that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of killing in all souls the sense of truth and of justice , ” she wrote .
“ Collective pressure is exerted upon a wide public by the means of propaganda .
The avowed purpose of propaganda is not to impart light , but to persuade.
” But , she warns , “ One can not serve both God and Mammon .
If one ’ s criterion of goodness is not goodness itself , one loses the very notion of what is good.
” We can choose to step outside of the fray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our conscience , and remain united to the truth , to the good .
To choose otherwise will inevitably , as Weil suggests , involve lying to one of three entities—your party , the public , or yourself .
The first is “ by far the least evil , ” she notes .
“ Yet if belonging to a party compels one to lie all the time , in every instance , then the very existence of political parties is absolutely and unconditionally an evil.
” This is why , I think , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from their party .
To remain true to one ’ s conscience—and truthful to the world and the public—are far more important than party allegiance .
Weil ’ s warning should frighten all of us , on left and right , as we consider the many instances where parties are willing to adopt violence and injustice to serve their own profits and power : “ the partisan spirit makes people blind , makes them deaf to justice , pushes even decent men cruelly to persecute innocent targets.
” This could apply to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or to the victims of our proxy wars .
We ought to ask ourselves : where has the partisan spirit made us blind ?
And how can we seek the good in days to come ?
What will that good require of us ?
In a 2015 Q & A with Wendell Berry , I asked him if his protagonist Jayber Crow , who is a deeply committed member of his community , was a “ conservative.
” Berry added , “ I prefer to get along without political labels .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my version of thought .
Since I ’ m self-employed and not running for office , I ’ m free to notice that those political names don ’ t mean much of anything , and so am free to do without them .
I ’ m free , in short , to be an amateur.
” The word “ amateur ” comes from the Latin word for love .
It suggests action out of devotion , not out of profit—a determination to love and invest regardless of the personal gain one might or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is an attitude that goes against most party politics , and which can flourish despite our power or lack thereof in the Supreme Court , the White House , or the Capitol .
It ’ s a demeanor that suggests that the actions one takes as a neighbor and friend are just as important as the decisions made at the ballot box .
And it suggests that perhaps our membership ought to be less focused on parties and more on our towns , cities , and neighborhoods .
So long as we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican ” or “ as a Democrat , ” we are bound to a party line that demands something of us .
But if we set aside such labels , we can then embrace the calling of Jayber : to be a conserver , to be people of unsteady faith “ in love with…all that is redemptive and good—struggling to be worthy.
” This is not realistic , you may protest .
You want to know who to vote for in November .
In that case , I can only argue this : @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The Bernie Sanders of 2017 once suggested that “reproductive rights are negotiable”; in other words, they aren’t a make-or-break issue for Democratic membership. But last weekend, Sanders argued the exact opposite: “I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat.”
His reversal represents a sharpening divide in our parties, another symptom of the polarization that is prompting Americans everywhere to pick a side. In response to this growing divisiveness, I wrote a piece for the New York Times last week considering the dearth of options available to those of us who hold to a consistent life ethic (CLE), who believe that laws by themselves will not cultivate a fully “pro-life” culture.
Of course, the Trump administration’s decision to embrace the pro-life cause and its platform is exciting and hopeful. As Trump noted in his speech at the 2020 March for Life, he has limited public funds accessible to abortion providers, nominated conservative-leaning Supreme Court judges, and defended the Little Sisters of the Poor, focal figures in our national debate over the intersection between health care access and religious liberty.
For many pro-life voters, these actions will be more than enough to secure their support for Trump in 2020. They do not necessarily care that Trump hasn’t “walked the walk”—as he applauded mothers in his March for Life speech, it was easy to forget that he has exhibited the behavior of a serial philanderer and misogynist. But as Matthew Walther noted in a column for The Week, Trump’s speech “was not the cautious rhetoric of the Republican National Committee—it was the red meat that serious social conservatives, easily the GOP’s single most reliable constituency, have craved for a long time.”
Could Trump’s reelection be detrimental to the pro-life cause? Perhaps, perhaps not. I have worried in the past that the hypocrisy of Republicans like Trump might prove damaging, and there’s some indication that this fear may not be entirely off-base. According to a recent Gallup poll, there’s a mounting desire for less strict abortion laws—and a lot of this energy is coming from the left: “From 2001 through 2016…roughly equal proportions of Democrats favored stiffening versus loosening abortion laws. However, since Donald Trump took office in 2017, Democrats have been less satisfied with the nation’s abortion policies and significantly more likely to say the laws should be less strict.”
It could very well be that Democrats would have responded this way even if Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz had become president four years ago. But it’s also possible that the dislike Democrats have for Trump himself has tarred their perception of the entire anti-abortion cause. One of the key goals of this year’s March for Life was to argue that being “pro-life” also means being “pro-woman.” But Trump’s actions, both prior to his election and after, have fostered the opposite perception.
It’s possible that support for or opposition to abortion is doomed to become another political football for the parties, something that gets tossed about from administration to administration, a topic that loses consensus with time. I increasingly worry that our stances on abortion will no longer have anything to do with conscience and faith, and everything to do with the posturing of our relative parties. This is what Sanders and Buttigieg (and others) are demanding of Democrats, after all: if you are going to call yourself “progressive,” you must dispense with all pro-life thought. You must join us in supporting abortion.
And abortion is just one of many topics that are falling prey to this pressure and posturing. Consider health care, immigration policy, and foreign policy (to name a few): there are few subjects left to us that are not sharply divided by party allegiance.
In her work “On the Abolition of All Political Parties,” Simone Weil suggested that our political parties often weaken our commitment to the good—which ought to be our only end and goal—because their primary purpose is not to serve that good, but to stir our collective passions, exert collective pressure on our minds, and thereby grow “without limit” their ranks.
“Political parties are organisations that are publicly and officially designed for the purpose of killing in all souls the sense of truth and of justice,” she wrote. “Collective pressure is exerted upon a wide public by the means of propaganda. The avowed purpose of propaganda is not to impart light, but to persuade.”
But, she warns, “One cannot serve both God and Mammon. If one’s criterion of goodness is not goodness itself, one loses the very notion of what is good.”
We can choose to step outside of the fray in order to obey the dictates of our conscience, and remain united to the truth, to the good. To choose otherwise will inevitably, as Weil suggests, involve lying to one of three entities—your party, the public, or yourself. The first is “by far the least evil,” she notes. “Yet if belonging to a party compels one to lie all the time, in every instance, then the very existence of political parties is absolutely and unconditionally an evil.”
This is why, I think, pro-life Democrats are beginning to step away from their party. To remain true to one’s conscience—and truthful to the world and the public—are far more important than party allegiance. Weil’s warning should frighten all of us, on left and right, as we consider the many instances where parties are willing to adopt violence and injustice to serve their own profits and power: “the partisan spirit makes people blind, makes them deaf to justice, pushes even decent men cruelly to persecute innocent targets.” This could apply to the unborn, to refugees at the border, or to the victims of our proxy wars. We ought to ask ourselves: where has the partisan spirit made us blind? And how can we seek the good in days to come? What will that good require of us?
In a 2015 Q&A with Wendell Berry, I asked him if his protagonist Jayber Crow, who is a deeply committed member of his community, was a “conservative.”
Berry responded thus:
It never occurred to me to think of Jayber as a “conservative.” I don’t think that would have helped, though he is instinctively and in principle a conserver. His membership is not in a party or a public movement, but in Port William. He is a man of unsteady faith in love with a place, a perishing little town, a community, a woman—with all that is redemptive and good—struggling to be worthy. I didn’t (and don’t) think of him as a “liberal” either.
Berry added, “I prefer to get along without political labels. They don’t help thought, or my version of thought. Since I’m self-employed and not running for office, I’m free to notice that those political names don’t mean much of anything, and so am free to do without them. I’m free, in short, to be an amateur.”
The word “amateur” comes from the Latin word for love. It suggests action out of devotion, not out of profit—a determination to love and invest regardless of the personal gain one might or might not receive from the project. This is an attitude that goes against most party politics, and which can flourish despite our power or lack thereof in the Supreme Court, the White House, or the Capitol. It’s a demeanor that suggests that the actions one takes as a neighbor and friend are just as important as the decisions made at the ballot box. And it suggests that perhaps our membership ought to be less focused on parties and more on our towns, cities, and neighborhoods.
So long as we start our sentences with “as a Republican” or “as a Democrat,” we are bound to a party line that demands something of us. But if we set aside such labels, we can then embrace the calling of Jayber: to be a conserver, to be people of unsteady faith “in love with…all that is redemptive and good—struggling to be worthy.”
This is not realistic, you may protest. You want to know who to vote for in November. In that case, I can only argue this: vote your conscience and nothing else.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-19--Michael Bloomberg: Smirking Id of America’s Elites

Thank God for former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg .
Where would we be without him ?
Probably all smoking in bars , as opposed to the much healthier things we do there now , like stare at our smartphones and not talk to each other .
And of course , we all know someone who was subsisting solely on canned soup until Bloomberg blessed us with his public health campaign against salt .
Now Bloomberg is running for president , and his years of behaving like a crossing guard drunk on the power of his reversible stop sign have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stupid and demeaning remarks unearthed from the Bloomberg vault in recent days include attacks on African Americans , attacks on the elderly , attacks on gun owners , attacks on civil libertarians , attacks on women , more attacks on women , and attacks on farmers .
What these comments have in common is that they ’ re elitist .
And not just elitist , but purest-grade , paternalistically elitist , unchecked by the usual manners and political correctness that are supposed to govern Upper East Side prejudices .
Bloomberg just says this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through petty rules .
He ’ s the mirror image of Donald Trump , only whereas Trump is our most unfiltered voice of populism , Bloomberg is the smirking id of our imperious elites .
Bloomberg is best known for that aforementioned ban on smoking in bars , and since government can never just stop on square one , New York promptly followed it up with a raise in the smoking age , a ban on smoking in all parks and beaches , and a ban on flavored e-cigarettes .
This crusade , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be lightly felt , since 80 percent of New Yorkers didn ’ t smoke .
Still , that leaves the other 20 percent , and a stroll through Manhattan at dusk reveals their demographic : poor , largely immigrant , bartenders and servers and dishwashers , people who have tougher job descriptions than “ mumbling , lace curtain-born billionaire.
” Bloomberg ’ s paternalism holds that these people are too stupid to decide for themselves whether to light up .
He ’ s like Alderman Cute in Dickens ’ story The Chimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the empirical hazards of eating tripe .
Bloomberg holds many trademarks , but his most familiar one is his almost child-like regard for himself .
He ’ s impossible to picture without a Simpsons-style “ MAYOR ” sash slung across his chest .
An ego of that size was never going to be satisfied just dictating to smokers .
And so among the endless other things that Bloomberg banned as mayor , according to a list compiled by Gizmodo , were trans-fats , Big Gulps , Styrofoam food packaging , collecting grass clippings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black roofs , and non-energy-efficient taxis .
Naturally he lowered the speed limit in some parts of the city .
Naturally , too , his administration contemplated cracking down on bars and liquor stores ( having been robbed of smoke breaks , service workers must also be deprived of jobs ) , only to magnanimously back off that initiative .
All of this was done in the name of “ public health , ” that gelatinous euphemism under which can fall everything from bans on private rhinoceros ownership to forced labor camps .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
That depends , as always , on the caprices of the man in charge .
So while the respiratory health of bartenders was deemed a crisis , the mental health of those living near East 34th Street in Manhattan was less important .
That was where Bloomberg was caught violating noise regulations by landing his private helicopter in the middle of the day .
Repeatedly .
Eight times in one weekend .
After he ’ d already made a point of cracking down on noise pollution .
That ’ s all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reign was more about class snobbery than the rule of law .
The rules apply only to the little people , not the embryo-potentate sniggering while he eases off the throttle .
In order to ( inconsistently ) enforce this labyrinth of red tape , Bloomberg effectively turned the police into a task force on petty vice , sending them to write up people for harmless offenses ( a move their union loudly protested ) .
In a 2004 piece for Vanity Fair , Christopher Hitchens set out on a crime spree across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as many of these enforced regulations as possible .
This meant not just lighting up in a bar , but sitting on a milk crate ( $ 105 fine for a Bronx man ) , feeding pigeons ( summons for an 86-year-old ) , and riding a bike without both feet on the pedals .
Strangely , though considered crimes against humanity in Bloombergistan , these particular infractions had nothing to do with public health .
What they did have to do with was fines , which were then used to fill city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deficit cutting .
This enabled Bloomberg to boast about his fiscal responsibility even as he presided over a hefty expansion of the city ’ s budget .
And it ’ s here that we approach the heart of the Bloomberg ethos , as well as a crucial distinction in our politics .
Bloomberg is the opposite of a libertarian , yet he defines himself as a “ fiscal conservative and social liberal.
” Often confused , these two terms are fundamentally different .
Libertarianism is concerned with the liberty and dignity of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social liberal ” has less philosophical connective tissue .
Under its shotgun marriage of terms , “ social liberal ” can mean , as Bloomberg once told a pregnant subordinate , “ kill it , ” while “ fiscal conservative ” can mean reducing people to piggy banks in order to feed finances .
What links them is the flowchart .
Children are bad for efficiency ; so are smokers , drinkers , and fast food diners .
This is the ideology of the corporate boardroom .
It ’ s dehumanizing , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figures and values of life expectancy .
Bloomberg ’ s politics , then , aren ’ t concerned with tradition or liberty or autonomy or community .
What matters is that you sit up straight , put down the Big Mac , and get ready to maximize your contribution to the GDP , your own circumstances and desires be damned .
The fiscal becomes the moral .
Thus does Bloomberg defend Wall Street because it ’ s “ our tax base.
” Thus does he support new taxes on the poor precisely because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does he think we ought to deny urgent medical care to the elderly because it ’ s too expensive .
And we haven ’ t even gotten to his other infringements on those with less power than he , like the African Americans who were stopped and frisked over a hundred times under his mayorship ( worthy of a piece all its own ) or the protesters illegally rounded up at the 2004 Republican National Convention .
Now another target has fallen into Bloomberg ’ s sights : coal workers .
Here in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bloomberg is running commercials in which he boasts about his plan to shut down every coal plant in the country .
A brief snippet from the ad shows Trump at a rally wearing a miner ’ s helmet and making a goofy face while a crowd cheers him on .
The implication is clear : coal is backwards and those who embrace it are suckers and rubes .
Most progressives who rail against fossil fuels at least make some attempt to empathize with the laborers their schemes would displace ( think the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” for example ) .
Not Bloomberg .
It ’ s that callous indifference that makes him truly unique .
I ’ d sooner vote for a stalk of celery with googly-eyes attached ( not that one would be able to tell the difference ) .
Here ’ s a question : can those of us who think the national debt is a genuine problem find a way to curtail it without becoming similarly cold-blooded ?
And another one : are the Democrats really so desperate to beat Trump that they would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man ?

Thank God for former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg. Where would we be without him? Probably all smoking in bars, as opposed to the much healthier things we do there now, like stare at our smartphones and not talk to each other. And of course, we all know someone who was subsisting solely on canned soup until Bloomberg blessed us with his public health campaign against salt.
Now Bloomberg is running for president, and his years of behaving like a crossing guard drunk on the power of his reversible stop sign have come back to haunt him. The stupid and demeaning remarks unearthed from the Bloomberg vault in recent days include attacks on African Americans, attacks on the elderly, attacks on gun owners, attacks on civil libertarians, attacks on women, more attacks on women, and attacks on farmers. What these comments have in common is that they’re elitist. And not just elitist, but purest-grade, paternalistically elitist, unchecked by the usual manners and political correctness that are supposed to govern Upper East Side prejudices. Bloomberg just says this stuff, then sets about codifying it through petty rules. He’s the mirror image of Donald Trump, only whereas Trump is our most unfiltered voice of populism, Bloomberg is the smirking id of our imperious elites.
Bloomberg is best known for that aforementioned ban on smoking in bars, and since government can never just stop on square one, New York promptly followed it up with a raise in the smoking age, a ban on smoking in all parks and beaches, and a ban on flavored e-cigarettes. This crusade, Bloomberg assured us back in 2002, would be lightly felt, since 80 percent of New Yorkers didn’t smoke. Still, that leaves the other 20 percent, and a stroll through Manhattan at dusk reveals their demographic: poor, largely immigrant, bartenders and servers and dishwashers, people who have tougher job descriptions than “mumbling, lace curtain-born billionaire.” Bloomberg’s paternalism holds that these people are too stupid to decide for themselves whether to light up. He’s like Alderman Cute in Dickens’ story The Chimes, pompously lecturing the lower orders about the empirical hazards of eating tripe.
Bloomberg holds many trademarks, but his most familiar one is his almost child-like regard for himself. He’s impossible to picture without a Simpsons-style “MAYOR” sash slung across his chest. An ego of that size was never going to be satisfied just dictating to smokers. And so among the endless other things that Bloomberg banned as mayor, according to a list compiled by Gizmodo, were trans-fats, Big Gulps, Styrofoam food packaging, collecting grass clippings at certain times of the year, black roofs, and non-energy-efficient taxis. Naturally he lowered the speed limit in some parts of the city. Naturally, too, his administration contemplated cracking down on bars and liquor stores (having been robbed of smoke breaks, service workers must also be deprived of jobs), only to magnanimously back off that initiative.
All of this was done in the name of “public health,” that gelatinous euphemism under which can fall everything from bans on private rhinoceros ownership to forced labor camps. Yet whose health was being protected exactly? That depends, as always, on the caprices of the man in charge. So while the respiratory health of bartenders was deemed a crisis, the mental health of those living near East 34th Street in Manhattan was less important. That was where Bloomberg was caught violating noise regulations by landing his private helicopter in the middle of the day. Repeatedly. Eight times in one weekend. After he’d already made a point of cracking down on noise pollution. That’s all the proof you need that Bloomberg’s reign was more about class snobbery than the rule of law. The rules apply only to the little people, not the embryo-potentate sniggering while he eases off the throttle.
In order to (inconsistently) enforce this labyrinth of red tape, Bloomberg effectively turned the police into a task force on petty vice, sending them to write up people for harmless offenses (a move their union loudly protested). In a 2004 piece for Vanity Fair, Christopher Hitchens set out on a crime spree across New York where he tried to break as many of these enforced regulations as possible. This meant not just lighting up in a bar, but sitting on a milk crate ($105 fine for a Bronx man), feeding pigeons (summons for an 86-year-old), and riding a bike without both feet on the pedals. Strangely, though considered crimes against humanity in Bloombergistan, these particular infractions had nothing to do with public health. What they did have to do with was fines, which were then used to fill city coffers, authoritarianism in the service of deficit cutting. This enabled Bloomberg to boast about his fiscal responsibility even as he presided over a hefty expansion of the city’s budget.
And it’s here that we approach the heart of the Bloomberg ethos, as well as a crucial distinction in our politics. Bloomberg is the opposite of a libertarian, yet he defines himself as a “fiscal conservative and social liberal.” Often confused, these two terms are fundamentally different. Libertarianism is concerned with the liberty and dignity of the individual, whereas “fiscal conservative and social liberal” has less philosophical connective tissue. Under its shotgun marriage of terms, “social liberal” can mean, as Bloomberg once told a pregnant subordinate, “kill it,” while “fiscal conservative” can mean reducing people to piggy banks in order to feed finances. What links them is the flowchart. Children are bad for efficiency; so are smokers, drinkers, and fast food diners. This is the ideology of the corporate boardroom. It’s dehumanizing, in that it flattens people into mere budget figures and values of life expectancy.
Bloomberg’s politics, then, aren’t concerned with tradition or liberty or autonomy or community. What matters is that you sit up straight, put down the Big Mac, and get ready to maximize your contribution to the GDP, your own circumstances and desires be damned. The fiscal becomes the moral. Thus does Bloomberg defend Wall Street because it’s “our tax base.” Thus does he support new taxes on the poor precisely because it will change their behavior. Thus does he think we ought to deny urgent medical care to the elderly because it’s too expensive. And we haven’t even gotten to his other infringements on those with less power than he, like the African Americans who were stopped and frisked over a hundred times under his mayorship (worthy of a piece all its own) or the protesters illegally rounded up at the 2004 Republican National Convention.
Now another target has fallen into Bloomberg’s sights: coal workers. Here in my home market of Washington, D.C., Bloomberg is running commercials in which he boasts about his plan to shut down every coal plant in the country. A brief snippet from the ad shows Trump at a rally wearing a miner’s helmet and making a goofy face while a crowd cheers him on. The implication is clear: coal is backwards and those who embrace it are suckers and rubes.
Most progressives who rail against fossil fuels at least make some attempt to empathize with the laborers their schemes would displace (think the Obama-era attempt at a “blue-green alliance,” for example). Not Bloomberg. It’s that callous indifference that makes him truly unique. I’d sooner vote for a stalk of celery with googly-eyes attached (not that one would be able to tell the difference). Here’s a question: can those of us who think the national debt is a genuine problem find a way to curtail it without becoming similarly cold-blooded? And another one: are the Democrats really so desperate to beat Trump that they would nominate this little mechanical pencil of a man?


theamericanconservative--2020-02-20--With Michael Bloomberg, Capital Won’t Quit So Easily

The billionaires in the Democratic Party are n't going to just let Bernie walk away with the nomination .
EL PASO , TX - JANUARY 29 : Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg waits to speak at his campaign rally on January 29 , 2020 in El Paso , Texas .
( Photo by Cengiz Yar/Getty Images ) Capital , woke or not , has woken up .
Woken up , in fact , inside the Democratic Party , once the House of Labor .
And the lead Woke Capitalist , of course , is Michael Bloomberg .
So will this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a tragedy for labor , and the left ?
Or will it be a farce for Capital , and for Bloomberg ?
As we shall see , this sort of question has been asked before .
Bloomberg had a rocky time in the Las Vegas debate last night—some say he crapped out—and yet Bloomberg , and his money , won ’ t give up so easily .
After all , one doesn ’ t build a $ 62 billion fortune by being a quitter .
So if Bloomberg spends another $ 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and tomorrow , and tomorrow—and works a little harder at pretending to be a good Democrat—he still has a good chance ; the next debate , after all , is on February 25 , and many more debates after that .
So there ’ s plenty of chance for the Bloomberg Campaign , LLC , to stage a triumph for the Comeback Plutocrat .
Because , without a doubt , the surge of Bernie Sanders has provoked the plutocracy—mostly clustered these days in the Democratic Party—to take up arms against the democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Bloomberg , his money , his fans—and his hired guns—in league against the hard left .
Why , it ’ s a veritable counter-revolution from above , aimed at crushing revolution from below .
We might consider these recent headlines .
The New York Times : “ Bloomberg ’ s Billions : How the Candidate Built an Empire of Influence ” ; CNBC : “ Mike Bloomberg builds an ‘ army ’ of elite business leaders to act as surrogates for his campaign.
” The ultimate counter-revolutionary headline comes in the form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The Daily Mail banners , “ Mike Bloomberg ‘ is considering picking Hillary Clinton as his running mate….
’ ” We can recall , of course , that Clinton was Sanders ’ great antagonist in 2016 , and four years later , that antagonism still burns fiercely .
So whether or not she is under any sort of vice-presidential consideration , the reminder that Bloomberg and Clinton—two New Yorkers , representing two key groups in the Democratic Party , billionaires and millionaires—are so linked together is a further way of showing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , according to the betting site Predictit , Bloomberg is now in second place , behind Sanders but well ahead of Joe Biden , Pete Buttigieg , and all the rest .
Indeed , Bill Maher said on his HBO show on February 14 , “ We have a new front-runner , Michael Bloomberg.
” Meanwhile , the bigfoot media endorsements ( or close enough to endorsements ) are now pouring in .
Sam Donaldson , of course , finally dropped the pretense .
And The New York Times ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right stuff—a moderate progressive with a heart of gold but the toughness of a rattlesnake—for what is going to be an incredibly big , brutal task : making Donald Trump a one-term president.
” For her part , The Wall Street Journal ’ s Peggy Noonan was merely friendly and optimistic on behalf of her friend : “ Mike Bloomberg Could Pull It Off.
” So yes , maybe the ninth richest man in the world really could pull it off .
Bloomberg , who spent much of his career as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently , embraced distinctly Republican views on such issues as crime , education , regressive taxes , and wealth taxes , as well as profoundly neoconservative views on the Middle East—has a real shot at being the Democratic nominee .
And to think , it seems like only yesterday—February 11 , in fact—that Gallup found that 76 percent of Democrats would be willing to vote for a socialist .
Would they now be willing to vote for an…arch-capitalist ?
To be sure , Bloomberg , like many billionaires these days , is plenty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues such as guns and gays , yet in the view of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , his wokeness is “ just a billionaire trying to cover up authoritarian & racist policy.
” Yet that plutocratic cover-upping might be working .
That is , if the rise of Sanders and AOC shows that the old left still has punch , the Bloombergian neoliberals could yet be punching it out .
To put the matter mildly , this prospect is disturbing to many .
On February 14 , progressive journalist Michael Tracey tweeted : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obviously the type of thing that would be covered with condescending moralism if it occurred in another country .
‘ Top Bulgarian oligarch tries to buy nomination of political party !
Very disturbing development for Bulgarian democracy . '
” So one wonders : where in history has a left-wing insurgency been bested by a right-leaning counter-insurgency ?
If such a gear-stripping switch has happened elsewhere , could it happen here ?
All we know for sure is that it did happen in France , during the years 1848 to 1851 .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a king ended up with the rule of a center-right leader—who then crowned himself emperor .
That adroit—some would say treacherous—political figure , of course , was Louis Napoleon Bonaparte , remembered as Napoleon III .
The best-known account of this historical sequence comes from Karl Marx in his 1852 pamphlet , The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte .
“ Eighteenth Brumaire , ” we might note , is a sly reference to an earlier French coup d ’ état , led by Napoleon Bonaparte , uncle of Louis .
( In those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the national calendar : “ Eighteenth Brumaire ” was November 9 , 1799 . )
Fast-forwarding a half-century—through Napoleon ’ s Waterloo in 1815 , the unsteady restoration of the Bourbon monarchy ( 1814-30 ) , and the June Rebellion of 1832 that inspired Victor Hugo ’ s Les Misérables—we come to February 1848 , when the Paris proletariat finally swept away the remnants of the ancien régime , thereby establishing the Second Republic ( the First Republic having been established , of course , in 1789 , until it was snuffed out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months in power , the new regime launched some truly radical measures , such as the establishment of Ateliers Nationaux ( national workshops ) to put the unemployed to work—and imposed the taxes to pay for it .
In other words , the French nation got a taste of profound economic redistributionism—and the wealthy , of course , didn ’ t like it one bit .
As Marx wrote , “ The French bourgeoisie balked at the domination of the working proletariat.
” Thus horrified at what the left was doing with its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself even more powerful .
Interestingly , one of the political vehicles of reaction was candidly named Parti de l ’ Ordre ( Party of Order ) .
And in June 1848 , amid street-fighting violence , the right wing gained the upper hand .
Marx , displaying the tragic militance and mystical teleology that has characterized so much left-wing chronicling , added , “ The social republic appeared as a phrase , as a prophecy , on the threshold of the February Revolution .
In the June days of 1848 , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paris proletariat , but it haunts the subsequent acts of the drama like a ghost.
” Soon , the young Louis Napoleon stepped forward to be installed as a center-right president .
From that high post , in December 1851 , he staged a coup d ’ état—his own recapitulation of his uncle ’ s coup five decades earlier—crowning himself as Emperor Napoleon III .
Thus we might recall the most famous quote from Marx ’ s essay : “ Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to add : the first time as tragedy , the second time as farce.
” Napoleon ’ s actions might have been farcical , but to many they were also infuriating .
Victor Hugo , having fled to Belgium , penned an essay , “ Napoleon the Little , ” in which he jibed , “ Monsieur Louis Bonaparte has succeeded .
From this forth he has on his side money , the Bank , the Bourse , the stock-market , the counting-house….
” Hugo added bitingly that the supporters of Napoleon III @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easily from one shore to the other when they have only to stride over shame.
” For his part , Marx recalled that back in 1789 , the bourgeoisie had been at the vanguard of the revolution ; if the issue was getting rid of the aristocrats ’ stranglehold on the economy , the capitalists , nascent class that they were in the 18th century , were all for it .
Yet by the mid-19th century , the situation had changed .
The capitalists , now far more capitalized with the coming of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no longer fearful of the royals .
Instead , they were fearful of their own workers—and so a counter-proletarian autocrat such as Napoleon III was fine by them .
But now back to today : the class-conscious left-wing revival within the Democratic Party has stirred the fears of more than just the fat cats .
For instance , bespeaking the new mode of ideological production , Ocasio-Cortez recently tweeted : “ War is a class conflict , too.
” Such far-reaching formulations , of course , might be too blunt for the sensibilities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those suburbanites who have been happy to vote Democrat to advance the Planned Parenthood agenda but not the class warfare agenda .
Yet those same suburbanites and other Democratic moderates might not have fully comprehended what their party would be like were the billionaires to displace the Bidens and the Buttigiegs .
That is , if the gods of plutocracy climb down from Mount Olympus to wield worldly power directly , it ’ s likely their theophany here on earth will come in a form that mere mortals won ’ t appreciate : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and more of an emperor .
And somewhere , Marx is having a grim chuckle , as history repeats itself yet again .
But as tragedy ?
Or farce ?
That ’ s the question for the age .

Capital, woke or not, has woken up. Woken up, in fact, inside the Democratic Party, once the House of Labor. And the lead Woke Capitalist, of course, is Michael Bloomberg. So will this “awokening”—this capitalist counter-revolution—prove to be a tragedy for labor, and the left? Or will it be a farce for Capital, and for Bloomberg? As we shall see, this sort of question has been asked before.
Bloomberg had a rocky time in the Las Vegas debate last night—some say he crapped out—and yet Bloomberg, and his money, won’t give up so easily. After all, one doesn’t build a $62 billion fortune by being a quitter. So if Bloomberg spends another $10 million, or $100 million today, and tomorrow, and tomorrow—and works a little harder at pretending to be a good Democrat—he still has a good chance; the next debate, after all, is on February 25, and many more debates after that. So there’s plenty of chance for the Bloomberg Campaign, LLC, to stage a triumph for the Comeback Plutocrat.
Because, without a doubt, the surge of Bernie Sanders has provoked the plutocracy—mostly clustered these days in the Democratic Party—to take up arms against the democratic socialist. So now it’s Michael Bloomberg, his money, his fans—and his hired guns—in league against the hard left. Why, it’s a veritable counter-revolution from above, aimed at crushing revolution from below.
We might consider these recent headlines. The New York Times: “Bloomberg’s Billions: How the Candidate Built an Empire of Influence”; CNBC: “Mike Bloomberg builds an ‘army’ of elite business leaders to act as surrogates for his campaign.”
The ultimate counter-revolutionary headline comes in the form of a scoop from across the Atlantic: The Daily Mail banners, “Mike Bloomberg ‘is considering picking Hillary Clinton as his running mate….’”
We can recall, of course, that Clinton was Sanders’ great antagonist in 2016, and four years later, that antagonism still burns fiercely. So whether or not she is under any sort of vice-presidential consideration, the reminder that Bloomberg and Clinton—two New Yorkers, representing two key groups in the Democratic Party, billionaires and millionaires—are so linked together is a further way of showing that Bloomberg has sewn up the Democratic establishment.
In fact, according to the betting site Predictit, Bloomberg is now in second place, behind Sanders but well ahead of Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and all the rest. Indeed, Bill Maher said on his HBO show on February 14, “We have a new front-runner, Michael Bloomberg.”
Meanwhile, the bigfoot media endorsements (or close enough to endorsements) are now pouring in. Sam Donaldson, of course, finally dropped the pretense. And The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman cheered, “Bloomberg has the right stuff—a moderate progressive with a heart of gold but the toughness of a rattlesnake—for what is going to be an incredibly big, brutal task: making Donald Trump a one-term president.” For her part, The Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan was merely friendly and optimistic on behalf of her friend: “Mike Bloomberg Could Pull It Off.”
So yes, maybe the ninth richest man in the world really could pull it off. Bloomberg, who spent much of his career as a Republican—and who has, at least until recently, embraced distinctly Republican views on such issues as crime, education, regressive taxes, and wealth taxes, as well as profoundly neoconservative views on the Middle East—has a real shot at being the Democratic nominee.
And to think, it seems like only yesterday—February 11, in fact—that Gallup found that 76 percent of Democrats would be willing to vote for a socialist. Would they now be willing to vote for an…arch-capitalist? To be sure, Bloomberg, like many billionaires these days, is plenty “woke” on social and cultural issues such as guns and gays, yet in the view of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, his wokeness is “just a billionaire trying to cover up authoritarian & racist policy.”
Yet that plutocratic cover-upping might be working. That is, if the rise of Sanders and AOC shows that the old left still has punch, the Bloombergian neoliberals could yet be punching it out.
To put the matter mildly, this prospect is disturbing to many. On February 14, progressive journalist Michael Tracey tweeted: “Mike Bloomberg’s candidacy is so obviously the type of thing that would be covered with condescending moralism if it occurred in another country. ‘Top Bulgarian oligarch tries to buy nomination of political party! Very disturbing development for Bulgarian democracy.'”
So one wonders: where in history has a left-wing insurgency been bested by a right-leaning counter-insurgency? If such a gear-stripping switch has happened elsewhere, could it happen here?
All we know for sure is that it did happen in France, during the years 1848 to 1851. What started out as a left-wing revolution against a king ended up with the rule of a center-right leader—who then crowned himself emperor.
That adroit—some would say treacherous—political figure, of course, was Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, remembered as Napoleon III.
The best-known account of this historical sequence comes from Karl Marx in his 1852 pamphlet, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. “Eighteenth Brumaire,” we might note, is a sly reference to an earlier French coup d’état, led by Napoleon Bonaparte, uncle of Louis. (In those days, the French revolutionaries had changed the national calendar: “Eighteenth Brumaire” was November 9, 1799.)
Fast-forwarding a half-century—through Napoleon’s Waterloo in 1815, the unsteady restoration of the Bourbon monarchy (1814-30), and the June Rebellion of 1832 that inspired Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables—we come to February 1848, when the Paris proletariat finally swept away the remnants of the ancien régime, thereby establishing the Second Republic (the First Republic having been established, of course, in 1789, until it was snuffed out by Napoleon).
During its few months in power, the new regime launched some truly radical measures, such as the establishment of Ateliers Nationaux (national workshops) to put the unemployed to work—and imposed the taxes to pay for it.
In other words, the French nation got a taste of profound economic redistributionism—and the wealthy, of course, didn’t like it one bit. As Marx wrote, “The French bourgeoisie balked at the domination of the working proletariat.”
Thus horrified at what the left was doing with its power, the right sought to make itself even more powerful. Interestingly, one of the political vehicles of reaction was candidly named Parti de l’Ordre (Party of Order). And in June 1848, amid street-fighting violence, the right wing gained the upper hand.
Marx, displaying the tragic militance and mystical teleology that has characterized so much left-wing chronicling, added, “The social republic appeared as a phrase, as a prophecy, on the threshold of the February Revolution. In the June days of 1848, it was drowned in the blood of the Paris proletariat, but it haunts the subsequent acts of the drama like a ghost.”
Soon, the young Louis Napoleon stepped forward to be installed as a center-right president. From that high post, in December 1851, he staged a coup d’état—his own recapitulation of his uncle’s coup five decades earlier—crowning himself as Emperor Napoleon III. Thus we might recall the most famous quote from Marx’s essay: “Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”
Napoleon’s actions might have been farcical, but to many they were also infuriating. Victor Hugo, having fled to Belgium, penned an essay, “Napoleon the Little,” in which he jibed, “Monsieur Louis Bonaparte has succeeded. From this forth he has on his side money, the Bank, the Bourse, the stock-market, the counting-house….” Hugo added bitingly that the supporters of Napoleon III included “all those who pass so easily from one shore to the other when they have only to stride over shame.”
For his part, Marx recalled that back in 1789, the bourgeoisie had been at the vanguard of the revolution; if the issue was getting rid of the aristocrats’ stranglehold on the economy, the capitalists, nascent class that they were in the 18th century, were all for it. Yet by the mid-19th century, the situation had changed. The capitalists, now far more capitalized with the coming of the industrial revolution to France, were no longer fearful of the royals. Instead, they were fearful of their own workers—and so a counter-proletarian autocrat such as Napoleon III was fine by them.
But now back to today: the class-conscious left-wing revival within the Democratic Party has stirred the fears of more than just the fat cats. For instance, bespeaking the new mode of ideological production, Ocasio-Cortez recently tweeted: “War is a class conflict, too.” Such far-reaching formulations, of course, might be too blunt for the sensibilities of some—like, for instance, all those suburbanites who have been happy to vote Democrat to advance the Planned Parenthood agenda but not the class warfare agenda.
Yet those same suburbanites and other Democratic moderates might not have fully comprehended what their party would be like were the billionaires to displace the Bidens and the Buttigiegs. That is, if the gods of plutocracy climb down from Mount Olympus to wield worldly power directly, it’s likely their theophany here on earth will come in a form that mere mortals won’t appreciate: less of a president, perhaps, and more of an emperor.
And somewhere, Marx is having a grim chuckle, as history repeats itself yet again. But as tragedy? Or farce? That’s the question for the age.


theamericanconservative--2020-02-20--The Bogus Big Brother-Big Tech Brawl Over Backdoors

The law can already get into your phone anytime .
But Apple needs you to think it is n't helping them .
In the wake of this year ’ s Munich Security Conference , members of the European Union are pushing back against warnings by the United States about networking gear sold by Chinese telecom giant Huawei .
American officials have alleged that Huawei can covertly access its equipment through backdoors designed for law enforcement , and voiced concerns about the risk associated with installing hardware that could give the Chinese government the ability to remotely monitor or even disable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insistence of countries like Britain and Germany on integrating technology from a police state directly into their digital infrastructure is definitely curious .
But it ’ s not like supply chain subversion hasn ’ t already transpired on an industrial scale .
For example , we know now , thanks to a recent Washington Post report , that during the early days of the Cold War , the Central Intelligence Agency succeeded in secretly compromising encryption technology used by over 120 different countries .
For years , American spies were tapping lines and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Back to 2020 .
American officials are sounding alarms about Huawei having backdoors , though that hasn ’ t stopped them from supporting U.S. law enforcement getting their own access to everyone ’ s data whenever they want .
But theirs is a “ noble ” cause : high ranking members of the political establishment are warning that they won ’ t be able to protect us against terrorists , drug cartels , and child pornographers unless Silicon Valley allows in American security services .
The tech industry has responded by assuming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with user privacy .
Yet history informs us that this Manichean soap opera is not always what it appears to be .
Concealed behind the headlines is a choreographed routine in which executives and politicians confront each other across the table while secretly shaking hands underneath .
At the core of the matter is encryption technology .
This past summer , Attorney General William Barr complained that encryption “ allows criminals to operate with impunity , hiding their activities under an impenetrable cloak of secrecy.
” Such that the government ’ s ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going dark.
” The Five Eyes intelligence alliance ( consisting of the United States , the United Kingdom , Canada , Australia , and New Zealand ) publicly proposed weakening cryptographic protocols so they could engage in “ lawful interception ” of digital communications .
Upping the ante , in December , Senator Lindsey Graham issued an ultimatum to business leaders at a Judiciary Committee hearing .
He asserted that “ this time next year , if you haven ’ t found a way that you can live with it , we will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has begun drafting a bill to this end .
It goes without saying that the tech industry opposes this strategy of government-imposed backdoors .
That ’ s mainly because security boosts brand , and that in turn boosts sales .
Not to mention that standing up to the big bad government provides street cred and scads of free publicity .
When Barr presented his case for mandated backdoors , Facebook replied that his scheme “ would be a gift to criminals , hackers and repressive regimes.
” Apple likewise protested that “ Backdoors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threaten our national security and the data security of our customers…encryption is vital to protecting our country and our users ’ data.
” Of course , there ’ s something missing from this debate .
Something that merits careful attention .
It just so happens that strong encryption isn ’ t the cure-all that it ’ s cracked up to be .
This is an inconvenient truth that ’ s confirmed on a daily basis .
For example , in mid-October of 2019 , the Department of Justice announced the takedown of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The portal resided on the dark net , leveraging both the Tor anonymity suite as well as Bitcoin to conceal the identities of its user base .
Yet in spite of these countermeasures , federal agents unearthed terabytes of evidence .
The ensuing crackdown led to charges against more than 300 people .
And this isn ’ t the first time the feds succeeded in collectively unmasking large swathes of presumably nameless users .
In 2015 , the Federal Bureau of Investigation launched Operation Pacifier , which used a “ court-approved network investigative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to track down and arrest over 350 members of yet another website that was hosting child pornography .
Suddenly the dark net doesn ’ t seem so dark .
The public record indicates that there ’ s a whole industry devoted to sidestepping device encryption , catering primarily to the intelligence community .
Companies like Israel ’ s NSO Group have garnered substantial media attention .
The NSO Group has openly boasted that “ it developed a hacking tool that can break into just about any smartphone on Earth.
” Please rewind and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then perhaps reassess the risk associated with allegedly secure messaging software like WhatsApp or seemingly impregnable devices like the iPhone .
Glenn Greenwald himself may be having second thoughts after Brazilian security services intercepted messages he exchanged with hackers .
There are countless vendors in this space , companies like Hacking Team and Gamma International whose surveillance tools have garnered media attention .
Wade around in this shadowy milieu long enough and the underlying subtext becomes clear : encrypt confidential data all you want ; it doesn ’ t matter if someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the data inside .
These spyware companies thrive because the backdoors that everyone is arguing about are already out there , wide open in the field .
They exist in the form of plausibly deniable technical flaws , aka bugs .
These bugs are legion because market incentives favor low costs over security .
And also because industry titans like RSA have been known to secretly cooperate with spy chiefs while vocally rebuffing their agendas in the press .
During the crypto wars of the 1990s , the president of RSA proudly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I ’ ve been going toe to toe with these people at Fort Meade .
The success of this company is the worst thing that can happen to them .
To them , we ’ re the real enemy , we ’ re the real target.
” Pay no heed to the backdoor that they planted for the NSA .
Sound familiar ?
That ’ s the kayfabe in action .
Feud in public and fraternize in private .
Coquettishly wink at spies while making noise for rubes .
Apple has likewise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A couple of years ago , they decided against encrypted iCloud backups after the FBI balked .
And when the FBI initially requested help accessing the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters , Apple was perfectly happy to help them so long as the FBI quietly submitted the request under seal .
Only after the request went public did Tim Cook adopt a more antagonistic posture .
For users in Russia , Apple discreetly adjusted its maps and weather apps so that Crimea appears to be a part of Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With the abundant supply of commercial tools and the ongoing success against dark nets , why are officials so keen to paint their investigative programs as “ going dark ” ?
One answer pivots on the nature of bureaucracies , a world where budgets are fixed and overworked apparatchiks are under pressure from above to get results with limited resources .
In a nutshell , state-sanctioned backdoors are convenient .
They don ’ t require the resources necessary to launch and maintain an extended hacking campaign .
Clandestine cyber ops can involve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the clock in conjunction with field officers and support staff .
Faced with a towering case load and impatient bosses , the typical civil servant will understandably opt for whatever solution makes their job easier .
To use an analogy , why spend hours to break into a bank vault , lugging around heavy equipment and making a huge mess , when you can nonchalantly walk up and swing it open with the factory-enabled bypass combination ?
Legally mandated cryptographic backdoors are the path of least resistance , a surveillance geodesic compliments of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t necessarily fault government officials for wanting to take the easy route , it ’ s important to recognize when they ’ re wielding imperfect metaphors to justify their demands .
Thanks to clandestine arrangements , perpetually buggy code , and cheap gear , American security services aren ’ t going dark anytime soon .
Bill Blunden is an independent investigator focusing on information security , anti-forensics , and institutional analysis .
He is the author of several books , including The Rootkit Arsenal and Behold a Pale Farce : Cyberwar , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Bill is the lead investigator at Below Gotham Labs .

In the wake of this year’s Munich Security Conference, members of the European Union are pushing back against warnings by the United States about networking gear sold by Chinese telecom giant Huawei. American officials have alleged that Huawei can covertly access its equipment through backdoors designed for law enforcement, and voiced concerns about the risk associated with installing hardware that could give the Chinese government the ability to remotely monitor or even disable other nation’s networks.
The insistence of countries like Britain and Germany on integrating technology from a police state directly into their digital infrastructure is definitely curious. But it’s not like supply chain subversion hasn’t already transpired on an industrial scale. For example, we know now, thanks to a recent Washington Post report, that during the early days of the Cold War, the Central Intelligence Agency succeeded in secretly compromising encryption technology used by over 120 different countries. For years, American spies were tapping lines and pilfering secrets from all over the globe.
Back to 2020. American officials are sounding alarms about Huawei having backdoors, though that hasn’t stopped them from supporting U.S. law enforcement getting their own access to everyone’s data whenever they want. But theirs is a “noble” cause: high ranking members of the political establishment are warning that they won’t be able to protect us against terrorists, drug cartels, and child pornographers unless Silicon Valley allows in American security services.
The tech industry has responded by assuming a defiant stance that seems to side with user privacy. Yet history informs us that this Manichean soap opera is not always what it appears to be. Concealed behind the headlines is a choreographed routine in which executives and politicians confront each other across the table while secretly shaking hands underneath.
The “Going Dark” Narrative
At the core of the matter is encryption technology. This past summer, Attorney General William Barr complained that encryption “allows criminals to operate with impunity, hiding their activities under an impenetrable cloak of secrecy.” Such that the government’s ability to discern illegal conduct online is “going dark.” The Five Eyes intelligence alliance (consisting of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) publicly proposed weakening cryptographic protocols so they could engage in “lawful interception” of digital communications.
Upping the ante, in December, Senator Lindsey Graham issued an ultimatum to business leaders at a Judiciary Committee hearing. He asserted that “this time next year, if you haven’t found a way that you can live with it, we will impose our will on you.” Graham has begun drafting a bill to this end.
It goes without saying that the tech industry opposes this strategy of government-imposed backdoors. That’s mainly because security boosts brand, and that in turn boosts sales. Not to mention that standing up to the big bad government provides street cred and scads of free publicity. When Barr presented his case for mandated backdoors, Facebook replied that his scheme “would be a gift to criminals, hackers and repressive regimes.” Apple likewise protested that “Backdoors can also be exploited by those who threaten our national security and the data security of our customers…encryption is vital to protecting our country and our users’ data.”
Of course, there’s something missing from this debate. Something that merits careful attention.
Strong Crypto as a Speed Bump
It just so happens that strong encryption isn’t the cure-all that it’s cracked up to be. This is an inconvenient truth that’s confirmed on a daily basis. For example, in mid-October of 2019, the Department of Justice announced the takedown of a massive online repository of child pornography. The portal resided on the dark net, leveraging both the Tor anonymity suite as well as Bitcoin to conceal the identities of its user base. Yet in spite of these countermeasures, federal agents unearthed terabytes of evidence. The ensuing crackdown led to charges against more than 300 people.
And this isn’t the first time the feds succeeded in collectively unmasking large swathes of presumably nameless users. In 2015, the Federal Bureau of Investigation launched Operation Pacifier, which used a “court-approved network investigative technique” (e.g. hacking) to track down and arrest over 350 members of yet another website that was hosting child pornography.
Suddenly the dark net doesn’t seem so dark.
The public record indicates that there’s a whole industry devoted to sidestepping device encryption, catering primarily to the intelligence community. Companies like Israel’s NSO Group have garnered substantial media attention. The NSO Group has openly boasted that “it developed a hacking tool that can break into just about any smartphone on Earth.”
Please rewind and ponder the implications of that previous sentence. Then perhaps reassess the risk associated with allegedly secure messaging software like WhatsApp or seemingly impregnable devices like the iPhone. Glenn Greenwald himself may be having second thoughts after Brazilian security services intercepted messages he exchanged with hackers.
There are countless vendors in this space, companies like Hacking Team and Gamma International whose surveillance tools have garnered media attention. Wade around in this shadowy milieu long enough and the underlying subtext becomes clear: encrypt confidential data all you want; it doesn’t matter if someone can hack your computer and make off with the data inside.
Backdoors and Backroom Deals
These spyware companies thrive because the backdoors that everyone is arguing about are already out there, wide open in the field. They exist in the form of plausibly deniable technical flaws, aka bugs. These bugs are legion because market incentives favor low costs over security. And also because industry titans like RSA have been known to secretly cooperate with spy chiefs while vocally rebuffing their agendas in the press.
During the crypto wars of the 1990s, the president of RSA proudly announced that “for almost 10 years, I’ve been going toe to toe with these people at Fort Meade. The success of this company is the worst thing that can happen to them. To them, we’re the real enemy, we’re the real target.” Pay no heed to the backdoor that they planted for the NSA.
Sound familiar? That’s the kayfabe in action. Feud in public and fraternize in private. Coquettishly wink at spies while making noise for rubes.
Apple has likewise shown a propensity for quiet cooperation. A couple of years ago, they decided against encrypted iCloud backups after the FBI balked. And when the FBI initially requested help accessing the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters, Apple was perfectly happy to help them so long as the FBI quietly submitted the request under seal. Only after the request went public did Tim Cook adopt a more antagonistic posture. For users in Russia, Apple discreetly adjusted its maps and weather apps so that Crimea appears to be a part of Russian territory.
Pity the Overworked Bureaucrat
This obviously raises a question. With the abundant supply of commercial tools and the ongoing success against dark nets, why are officials so keen to paint their investigative programs as “going dark”?
One answer pivots on the nature of bureaucracies, a world where budgets are fixed and overworked apparatchiks are under pressure from above to get results with limited resources. In a nutshell, state-sanctioned backdoors are convenient. They don’t require the resources necessary to launch and maintain an extended hacking campaign. Clandestine cyber ops can involve multiple teams of technical specialists working around the clock in conjunction with field officers and support staff. Faced with a towering case load and impatient bosses, the typical civil servant will understandably opt for whatever solution makes their job easier.
To use an analogy, why spend hours to break into a bank vault, lugging around heavy equipment and making a huge mess, when you can nonchalantly walk up and swing it open with the factory-enabled bypass combination?
Legally mandated cryptographic backdoors are the path of least resistance, a surveillance geodesic compliments of the justice system. While you can’t necessarily fault government officials for wanting to take the easy route, it’s important to recognize when they’re wielding imperfect metaphors to justify their demands. Thanks to clandestine arrangements, perpetually buggy code, and cheap gear, American security services aren’t going dark anytime soon.
Bill Blunden is an independent investigator focusing on information security, anti-forensics, and institutional analysis. He is the author of several books, including The Rootkit Arsenal and Behold a Pale Farce: Cyberwar, Threat Inflation, and the Malware-Industrial Complex. Bill is the lead investigator at Below Gotham Labs.