lewrockwell--2020-02-06--The Height of Idiocy

The Height of Idiocy

“ The only element in the universe more common than hydrogen is stupidity.
” I ’ m not a fortune teller .
In fact , the only things anybody knows about predicting – even if you gussy the concept up by calling it “ forecasting ” – are 1 . )
Predict often and 2 . )
Never give both the time and the event .
The worst offenders are those who pretend they know where the economy ’ s headed .
Statistics – so often the basis of conjecture with regard to the economy – are so subject to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of context , that most of the time they ’ re best used as fodder for cocktail party conversations .
Still , as potentially wrong-headed and tendentious as the subject is , “ the economy ” is occasionally worth talking about simply to establish a clear point of view .
In fact , I place the phrase “ the economy ” in quotes because I don ’ t even accept the validity of the concept , nor that of “ the GDP ” ; they ’ re both chimeras .
Against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 The idea of GDP gives the impression that it is not individuals that produce goods and services , but rather a machine called “ the economy.
” This leaves the door open to all manner of nonsense , like the assertion that what may be good for individuals may not be good for the economy , and vice-versa .
For instance , an advance in the GDP doesn ’ t necessarily mean increased prosperity : What if the government embarked on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example of public works ?
GDP might rise , but it would add absolutely nothing to the well-being of individuals .
To the contrary , the building of the pyramid would only divert capital from wealth-generating activities .
On the other hand , if a scientific breakthrough was made which cut energy consumption by 80 % for the same net output , or magically eliminated all disease , the GDP would collapse because it would bankrupt the energy and health industries .
But people would be vastly better off .
Entirely apart from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gives the impression that there actually is such a thing as the national output .
In the real world , however , wealth is produced by someone and belongs to somebody .
We ’ re not ants or bees working for the hive .
The whole idea of a GDP just allows the “ authorities ” to bamboozle people into believing they can actually control “ the economy , ” as if it were some giant machine .
The officials pretend to be the Wizard of Oz , and Boobus americanus is trained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thus whenever the rate of growth slips “ too low , ” officials are expected to give “ the economy ” a suitable push .
Conversely , whenever “ the economy ” is growing too fast , the officials are supposed to step in to “ cool ” it .
It ’ s all an embarrassing and destructive charade .
I remain of the opinion that we ’ re headed into the biggest economic smashup in history .
That ’ s an outrageous statement , and it ’ s always dangerous to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the longest trend in motion is the Ascent of Man , and that trend is unlikely to change ; indeed , it ’ s likely to accelerate .
And it ’ s usually a mistake to bet against an established trend .
Furthermore , science and technology will continue advancing , people will continue working and saving , entrepreneurs will continue to create .
And downturns in the economy have always been brief .
There ’ s a good case for staying bullish .
Even most of those who talk of a recession @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a simple reversal of recent “ irrational exuberance , ” or a passing change in people ’ s psychology , or a temporary shock .
Unfortunately , it goes much deeper than that .
Those things have very little to do with what recessions are all about .
A recession , according to the conventional parlance , is a period when economic activity declines for two or more quarters .
That ’ s a description of what happens , but it ’ s really not very helpful , much like saying a fever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is above 98.6 F. A better definition of a fever might be a period when the body ’ s temperature is elevated as a consequence of fighting an infection , in that it gives you some insight into the cause as well as the effect .
That ’ s why I prefer to say a recession is “ a period of time when distortions and misallocations of capital caused by the business cycle are liquidated.
” What causes the business cycle ?
Excess creation of credit by a central bank ( e.g.
, @ @ @ @ @ @ @ artificially created money and credit into a country ’ s economy gives both producers and consumers false signals , causing them to do things which they otherwise would not do .
The longer the upswing of a business cycle continues , the longer and more severe the down cycle will be .
A depression is just a really bad recession .
One thing that – contrary to popular opinion – can help get an economy out of a recession is a large pool of savings ; savings give people the money to invest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the money to buy that production .
That ’ s why it ’ s the height of idiocy for pundits to talk about how patriotic it is to go out and shop .
It can only deplete the capital that will be needed in the future , and deepen the bottom with more bankruptcies , stealing consumption from the future .
That ’ s why the Fed ’ s artificially low interest rates is such a bad idea ; it encourages people to save less and borrow more .
This engineered decline may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , cause a cyclical upturn – but it will only aggravate the underlying problem , guaranteeing yet a bigger bust .
This isn ’ t just an American problem , because the U.S. is truly the engine of the world ’ s economy .
But a lot of the drive behind the engine is the gigantic trade deficit .
The hundreds of billions the U.S. sent abroad in the last year alone , after over a decade of increasing deficits , has caused a lot of capital investment that will become uneconomic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that will come to a screeching halt when that deficit inevitably reverses .
The whole world is levered on what happens in the U.S. Against the State : An ... Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. Best Price : $ 2.11 Buy New $ 8.56 The effect in economies around the world will be devastating .
The Smoot Hawley tariff of 1930 , which acted to collapse world trade , greatly exacerbated the last depression .
It could be that economic conditions in the U.S. alone could do it this time , without the overt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t believe we ’ re looking at just another cyclical downturn this time .
We could be – but I don ’ t think so .
Of course , since the dollar is by far the biggest market in the world , constituting the reserves of almost every government on the planet , the de facto currency of probably 50 countries , and the savings of hundreds of millions of people around the world , when it collapses , it will cause a financial earthquake , Magnitude 10 .
Use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your assets out of the U.S .
Build a good position in gold .
Buy gold stocks with speculative capital .
Get your debt , if any , down to comfortable levels .
The Best of Doug Casey

“The only element in the universe more common than hydrogen is stupidity.”
– Einstein
I’m not a fortune teller. In fact, the only things anybody knows about predicting – even if you gussy the concept up by calling it “forecasting” – are 1.) Predict often and 2.) Never give both the time and the event.
The worst offenders are those who pretend they know where the economy’s headed.
Statistics – so often the basis of conjecture with regard to the economy – are so subject to interpretation, and so easy to take out of context, that most of the time they’re best used as fodder for cocktail party conversations.
Still, as potentially wrong-headed and tendentious as the subject is, “the economy” is occasionally worth talking about simply to establish a clear point of view.
In fact, I place the phrase “the economy” in quotes because I don’t even accept the validity of the concept, nor that of “the GDP”; they’re both chimeras. Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
The idea of GDP gives the impression that it is not individuals that produce goods and services, but rather a machine called “the economy.” This leaves the door open to all manner of nonsense, like the assertion that what may be good for individuals may not be good for the economy, and vice-versa.
For instance, an advance in the GDP doesn’t necessarily mean increased prosperity: What if the government embarked on a massive pyramid building program, an archetypical example of public works? GDP might rise, but it would add absolutely nothing to the well-being of individuals. To the contrary, the building of the pyramid would only divert capital from wealth-generating activities.
On the other hand, if a scientific breakthrough was made which cut energy consumption by 80% for the same net output, or magically eliminated all disease, the GDP would collapse because it would bankrupt the energy and health industries.
But people would be vastly better off.
Entirely apart from that, the whole idea of GDP gives the impression that there actually is such a thing as the national output.
In the real world, however, wealth is produced by someone and belongs to somebody. We’re not ants or bees working for the hive. The whole idea of a GDP just allows the “authorities” to bamboozle people into believing they can actually control “the economy,” as if it were some giant machine.
The officials pretend to be the Wizard of Oz, and Boobus americanus is trained to think they’re omniscient. Thus whenever the rate of growth slips “too low,” officials are expected to give “the economy” a suitable push. Conversely, whenever “the economy” is growing too fast, the officials are supposed to step in to “cool” it.
It’s all an embarrassing and destructive charade.
Nonetheless…
I remain of the opinion that we’re headed into the biggest economic smashup in history.
That’s an outrageous statement, and it’s always dangerous to say something like that. After all, the longest trend in motion is the Ascent of Man, and that trend is unlikely to change; indeed, it’s likely to accelerate. And it’s usually a mistake to bet against an established trend.
Furthermore, science and technology will continue advancing, people will continue working and saving, entrepreneurs will continue to create. And downturns in the economy have always been brief. There’s a good case for staying bullish.
Even most of those who talk of a recession tend to write it off as either a simple reversal of recent “irrational exuberance,” or a passing change in people’s psychology, or a temporary shock. Unfortunately, it goes much deeper than that. Those things have very little to do with what recessions are all about.
A recession, according to the conventional parlance, is a period when economic activity declines for two or more quarters. That’s a description of what happens, but it’s really not very helpful, much like saying a fever is a period during which your temperature is above 98.6 F. A better definition of a fever might be a period when the body’s temperature is elevated as a consequence of fighting an infection, in that it gives you some insight into the cause as well as the effect.
That’s why I prefer to say a recession is “a period of time when distortions and misallocations of capital caused by the business cycle are liquidated.”
What causes the business cycle? Excess creation of credit by a central bank (e.g., the Fed). The injection of artificially created money and credit into a country’s economy gives both producers and consumers false signals, causing them to do things which they otherwise would not do. The longer the upswing of a business cycle continues, the longer and more severe the down cycle will be.
A depression is just a really bad recession.
One thing that – contrary to popular opinion – can help get an economy out of a recession is a large pool of savings; savings give people the money to invest in new production, as well as the money to buy that production.
That’s why it’s the height of idiocy for pundits to talk about how patriotic it is to go out and shop. It can only deplete the capital that will be needed in the future, and deepen the bottom with more bankruptcies, stealing consumption from the future.
That’s why the Fed’s artificially low interest rates is such a bad idea; it encourages people to save less and borrow more. This engineered decline may well, after a certain lag time, cause a cyclical upturn – but it will only aggravate the underlying problem, guaranteeing yet a bigger bust.
This isn’t just an American problem, because the U.S. is truly the engine of the world’s economy. But a lot of the drive behind the engine is the gigantic trade deficit. The hundreds of billions the U.S. sent abroad in the last year alone, after over a decade of increasing deficits, has caused a lot of capital investment that will become uneconomic, and created a lot of economic activity that will come to a screeching halt when that deficit inevitably reverses.
The whole world is levered on what happens in the U.S. Against the State: An ... Rockwell Jr., Llewelly... Best Price: $5.02 Buy New $5.52 (as of 11:35 UTC - Details)
The effect in economies around the world will be devastating. The Smoot Hawley tariff of 1930, which acted to collapse world trade, greatly exacerbated the last depression. It could be that economic conditions in the U.S. alone could do it this time, without the overt “assistance” of the government.
I don’t believe we’re looking at just another cyclical downturn this time. We could be – but I don’t think so.
Of course, since the dollar is by far the biggest market in the world, constituting the reserves of almost every government on the planet, the de facto currency of probably 50 countries, and the savings of hundreds of millions of people around the world, when it collapses, it will cause a financial earthquake, Magnitude 10.
Use any rallies as selling opportunities. Diversify your assets out of the U.S. Build a good position in gold. Buy gold stocks with speculative capital. Get your debt, if any, down to comfortable levels.
Reprinted with permission from International Man.
The Best of Doug Casey


lewrockwell--2020-02-06--Why the State Promotes Darwinian Evolution

For nearly 100 years the American State has been waging war on Creationism and promoting Evolutionism .
This war has primarily been waged in the arena of public education , but also in everyday life in which the State ’ s representatives consistently mock those who adhere to Creationism .
The State has declared that it is unconstitutional to teach Creationism in public school , which is quite curious considering the fact that the people who wrote the Constitution were creationists themselves .
Thus , the question presented to us is why does the State promote evolution ?
The answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Darwinian Evolution is incompatible with Christianity and thus the promotion of evolution is simply part of the State ’ s war on the Christian faith .
States have always hated anything that competes with them in regards to loyalty from the citizenry .
Christians have long held that they will “ obey God rather than men ” and this has always irritated the State .
Throughout much of history this has not been a problem for States since they were intermingled with religion and the leaders of the States were considered divine or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , once Church and State separated , the State realized they had competition from the Church and could not be all-powerful as long the Church was around .
Thus , the campaign to tear down religion , particularly Christianity , began .
After all , Karl Marx himself understood the significance of Darwin in his attempt to create an all-powerful State , saying “ Darwin ’ s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle.
” Engels , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it even clearer : “ There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished , and that has now been done.
” This meant that the idea of a divine purpose in nature , teleology , was destroyed by Darwin .
The reason the State has been effective in this arena is because it is true that if one accepts the theory of evolution , they must reject Christianity .
The two are incompatible and thus Christians ought to reject Darwinian Evolutionism .
In order to demonstrate why the State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I will make a brief argument as to why it is incompatible with Christianity .
Against the State : An ... Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. Best Price : $ 2.11 Buy New $ 8.56 One of the most basic and important principles of Biblical interpretation is the concept of understanding the genre of each book of the Bible .
In order to understand what the book is trying to convey , one must know the genre of the book .
The account of Creation takes place in the book of Genesis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ genre of the book of Genesis is before we try to understand its text .
The book of Genesis is a narrative , as it is telling a very specific story in chronological order , with names and specific locations .
Thus , the creation account should be taken as an historical account , as the rest of the book is .
There is simply no indication that the first part is symbolic and the rest all of a sudden becomes literal .
In fact , this is confirmed in 1 Chronicles 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how Abraham descended from Adam .
Adam is clearly shown to have been a real person .
Not only this , but in Luke 3 we are given another genealogy- this one showing how Jesus Himself descended from Adam .
If Adam was not a real man , these genealogies would make no sense .
However , there is an even greater problem with claiming there was no Adam and that mankind descended from apes .
If man was not created specifically by God , but evolved from an evolutionary process ( even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how and when did sin enter the world ?
In order for the evolutionary process to exist , there must be death , meaning there must have been death before mankind .
But if there was death before man , then sin and death did not enter the world because of the fall of man .
If this is the case , then the concept of original sin is false , and humans are not inherently sinful beings .
If this is the case , Jesus Christ did not need to save us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cross .
Thus , we see that belief in the evolutionary process would destroy the central claims of Scripture .
This is outlined perfectly in Romans 5:19 , which states “ just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners , so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
” In conclusion , the State knows that widespread adoption of evolution will lead to the widespread rejection of Christianity .
Thus , the theory is pushed on children in public schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Best of Derek Dobalian

For nearly 100 years the American State has been waging war on Creationism and promoting Evolutionism. This war has primarily been waged in the arena of public education, but also in everyday life in which the State’s representatives consistently mock those who adhere to Creationism. The State has declared that it is unconstitutional to teach Creationism in public school, which is quite curious considering the fact that the people who wrote the Constitution were creationists themselves. Thus, the question presented to us is why does the State promote evolution? The answer is quite simple: the theory of Darwinian Evolution is incompatible with Christianity and thus the promotion of evolution is simply part of the State’s war on the Christian faith. States have always hated anything that competes with them in regards to loyalty from the citizenry. Christians have long held that they will “obey God rather than men” and this has always irritated the State. Throughout much of history this has not been a problem for States since they were intermingled with religion and the leaders of the States were considered divine or at the very least divinely appointed. However, once Church and State separated, the State realized they had competition from the Church and could not be all-powerful as long the Church was around. Thus, the campaign to tear down religion, particularly Christianity, began. After all, Karl Marx himself understood the significance of Darwin in his attempt to create an all-powerful State, saying “Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle.” Engels, who co-wrote The Communist Manifesto, made it even clearer: “There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done.” This meant that the idea of a divine purpose in nature, teleology, was destroyed by Darwin.
The reason the State has been effective in this arena is because it is true that if one accepts the theory of evolution, they must reject Christianity. The two are incompatible and thus Christians ought to reject Darwinian Evolutionism. In order to demonstrate why the State has chose to promote evolution so vehemently, I will make a brief argument as to why it is incompatible with Christianity. Against the State: An ... Rockwell Jr., Llewelly... Best Price: $5.02 Buy New $5.52 (as of 11:35 UTC - Details)
One of the most basic and important principles of Biblical interpretation is the concept of understanding the genre of each book of the Bible. In order to understand what the book is trying to convey, one must know the genre of the book. The account of Creation takes place in the book of Genesis. Thus, we must know what the genre of the book of Genesis is before we try to understand its text. The book of Genesis is a narrative, as it is telling a very specific story in chronological order, with names and specific locations. Thus, the creation account should be taken as an historical account, as the rest of the book is. There is simply no indication that the first part is symbolic and the rest all of a sudden becomes literal. In fact, this is confirmed in 1 Chronicles 1, which gives an extensive genealogy detailing how Abraham descended from Adam. Adam is clearly shown to have been a real person. Not only this, but in Luke 3 we are given another genealogy- this one showing how Jesus Himself descended from Adam. If Adam was not a real man, these genealogies would make no sense. However, there is an even greater problem with claiming there was no Adam and that mankind descended from apes.
If man was not created specifically by God, but evolved from an evolutionary process (even if started by God), then how and when did sin enter the world? In order for the evolutionary process to exist, there must be death, meaning there must have been death before mankind. But if there was death before man, then sin and death did not enter the world because of the fall of man. If this is the case, then the concept of original sin is false, and humans are not inherently sinful beings. If this is the case, Jesus Christ did not need to save us from our sins by dying on the Cross. Thus, we see that belief in the evolutionary process would destroy the central claims of Scripture. This is outlined perfectly in Romans 5:19, which states “just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”
In conclusion, the State knows that widespread adoption of evolution will lead to the widespread rejection of Christianity. Thus, the theory is pushed on children in public schools and those that reject it are mocked.
The Best of Derek Dobalian


lewrockwell--2020-02-06--DNC Completely Loses Public Trust in Its Primary Process On the Very First Day

After a 2016 presidential primary race riddled with scandals , all of which worked against Bernie Sanders to the advantage of anointed establishment favorite Hillary Clinton , the 2020 Democratic presidential primary elections officially began with a massive scandal working against Bernie Sanders to the advantage of an establishment favorite .
The 2020 Iowa caucuses turned out to have been designed to depend on the use of a new , untested app with extensive ties to establishment insiders and to the Pete Buttigeig campaign , and because of problems using this app as of this writing we are still waiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Iowa Democratic Party has bizarrely released a partial result with 62 percent of 99 counties reporting , which just so happens to have favored the campaign of a Mr Peter Buttigeig , who in the sample came out on top in delegates despite coming in second in votes .
A popular “ gold standard ” poll by the Des Moines Register that is normally released shortly before the Iowa caucuses had Sanders comfortably in first place .
The results of the poll were instead left unpublished this time until after elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the campaign of , you guessed it , Pete Buttigeig .
This would be the same Pete Buttigeig who attended the infamous “ Stop Sanders ” meetings with Democratic Party insiders last year , by the way .
According to an Iowa precinct chair , the problems using the app ( developed by the aptly named Shadow , Inc ) included literally switching the numbers entered into it on the final step of reporting results .
“ A precinct chair in Iowa said the app got stuck on the last step when reporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was uploading a picture of the precinct ’ s results .
The chair said they were finally able to upload , so they took a screenshot .
The app then showed different numbers than what they had submitted as captured in their screenshot.
” Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 It doesn ’ t actually matter anymore who really won Iowa at this point ; the damage is already done .
Iowa is a sparsely populated state with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaigns there for the delegates , they campaign to make headlines and generate excitement and favorable press for themselves in the first electoral contest of the presidential primary race .
This has already happened , and with Buttigeig first declaring victory before any results were in , followed by his delegate count lead announced hours later , the favorable press has predominantly gone his way .
Even if Sanders turns out to have won the delegate count as well , this will already have happened .
He will have already lost the opportunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a win and a rousing victory speech .
In every way that matters , he has already been robbed , by extremely shady establishment dealings , in the very first electoral contest of the race .
The very first .
Berners are already as outraged as they were at the height of the 2016 DNC scandal , which was still months out from this point in the race .
They ’ re already getting screwed over , and it ’ s just getting started .
I see many people blaming this on incompetence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in good , but in either case there is no legitimate reason to do that anymore .
It has been my experience that if someone seems to be totally incompetent but every “ oopsie ” they make just happens to end up benefiting them , it ’ s manipulation you ’ re dealing with , not incompetence .
Some people are happy to look dumb if they can get what they want .
If you watch their actions and ignore their words , a very revealing pattern shows up immediately .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it brings up in people are completely legitimate .
Yet narrative managers like Neera Tanden and Shannon Watts are telling everyone they ’ re just like Trump if they suspect the Democratic establishment is again doing the thing it did just four years ago .
If such extremely shady shenanigans had occurred in Russia or Venezuela , within minutes Mike Pompeo would have been holding a press conference demanding a new election under UN supervision and an international coalition of sanctions .
It ’ s hilarious how America is constantly staging coups , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the basis that their government has an illegitimate democratic process , yet its own most important electoral proceedings would make any third world tin pot dictator blush .
And don ’ t give me that crap about how Democratic Party primaries are separate from the US electoral system and therefore don ’ t undermine American democracy ; of course they do .
If your country has a rigidly enforced two-party system and one of those parties has bogus internal elections , then you do not have any degree of democracy in your country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t like our rigged primary process you can vote for the other corrupt warmongering pro-establishment party ” is not democracy .
The difference between a true totalitarian dictatorship and America is that the totalitarian dictatorship enforces one political belief system which supports the status quo , whereas in America you get the freedom of choice between two political belief systems which support the status quo .
The entire system is stacked to ensure the continued rule of the oligarchs , spooks and warmongers who really run things behind the two-handed sock puppet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The US doesn ’ t attack and undermine nations when they lack “ freedom ” or “ democracy ” , they attack and undermine them when they refuse to bow to the demands of the power establishment which controls the US government and its allies .
The sooner people wake up to this , the better .
In Iowa , things couldn ’ t have gone worse for those responsible for keeping people asleep .
Thanks for reading !
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish .
My work is entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around , liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast on either Youtube , soundcloud , Apple podcasts or Spotify , following me on Steemit , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or my previous book Woke : A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
For more info on who I am , where I stand , and what I ’ m trying to do with this platform , click here .
Everyone , racist platforms excluded , has my permission to republish or use any part of this work ( or anything else I ’ ve written ) in any way they like free of charge .

After a 2016 presidential primary race riddled with scandals, all of which worked against Bernie Sanders to the advantage of anointed establishment favorite Hillary Clinton, the 2020 Democratic presidential primary elections officially began with a massive scandal working against Bernie Sanders to the advantage of an establishment favorite.
The 2020 Iowa caucuses turned out to have been designed to depend on the use of a new, untested app with extensive ties to establishment insiders and to the Pete Buttigeig campaign, and because of problems using this app as of this writing we are still waiting on the full results of the election. The Iowa Democratic Party has bizarrely released a partial result with 62 percent of 99 counties reporting, which just so happens to have favored the campaign of a Mr Peter Buttigeig, who in the sample came out on top in delegates despite coming in second in votes.
A popular “gold standard” poll by the Des Moines Register that is normally released shortly before the Iowa caucuses had Sanders comfortably in first place. The results of the poll were instead left unpublished this time until after elections were underway due to a complaint by the campaign of, you guessed it, Pete Buttigeig. This would be the same Pete Buttigeig who attended the infamous “Stop Sanders” meetings with Democratic Party insiders last year, by the way.
#IowaCaucusDisaster Update: @leefang reports Acronym—the main investor in #IowaCaucus app developer “Shadow”— had senior leadership that “regularly expressed hostility to @BernieSanders supporters.” CEO of Acronym also married @PeteButtigieg staffer https://t.co/HP6QVx61BX — Jordan (@JordanChariton) February 4, 2020
According to an Iowa precinct chair, the problems using the app (developed by the aptly named Shadow, Inc) included literally switching the numbers entered into it on the final step of reporting results.
“A precinct chair in Iowa said the app got stuck on the last step when reporting results,” CNN reports. “It was uploading a picture of the precinct’s results. The chair said they were finally able to upload, so they took a screenshot. The app then showed different numbers than what they had submitted as captured in their screenshot.” Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 03:52 UTC - Details)
It doesn’t actually matter anymore who really won Iowa at this point; the damage is already done. Iowa is a sparsely populated state with an insignificant number of delegates; nobody campaigns there for the delegates, they campaign to make headlines and generate excitement and favorable press for themselves in the first electoral contest of the presidential primary race. This has already happened, and with Buttigeig first declaring victory before any results were in, followed by his delegate count lead announced hours later, the favorable press has predominantly gone his way.
Even if Sanders turns out to have won the delegate count as well, this will already have happened. He will have already lost the opportunity to start off the primary contest with a win and a rousing victory speech. In every way that matters, he has already been robbed, by extremely shady establishment dealings, in the very first electoral contest of the race.
The very first. Berners are already as outraged as they were at the height of the 2016 DNC scandal, which was still months out from this point in the race. They’re already getting screwed over, and it’s just getting started.
I see many people blaming this on incompetence, some in bad faith and some in good, but in either case there is no legitimate reason to do that anymore. It has been my experience that if someone seems to be totally incompetent but every “oopsie” they make just happens to end up benefiting them, it’s manipulation you’re dealing with, not incompetence. Some people are happy to look dumb if they can get what they want. If you watch their actions and ignore their words, a very revealing pattern shows up immediately.
This is all extremely blatant, and the feelings it brings up in people are completely legitimate. Yet narrative managers like Neera Tanden and Shannon Watts are telling everyone they’re just like Trump if they suspect the Democratic establishment is again doing the thing it did just four years ago.
Folks who are claiming anything may be rigged sound like Trump. Exactly like him. It’s pathetic. — Neera Tanden (@neeratanden) February 4, 2020
If such extremely shady shenanigans had occurred in Russia or Venezuela, within minutes Mike Pompeo would have been holding a press conference demanding a new election under UN supervision and an international coalition of sanctions. It’s hilarious how America is constantly staging coups, implementing sanctions and arming violent militias on the basis that their government has an illegitimate democratic process, yet its own most important electoral proceedings would make any third world tin pot dictator blush.
And don’t give me that crap about how Democratic Party primaries are separate from the US electoral system and therefore don’t undermine American democracy; of course they do. If your country has a rigidly enforced two-party system and one of those parties has bogus internal elections, then you do not have any degree of democracy in your country. Saying “Well if you don’t like our rigged primary process you can vote for the other corrupt warmongering pro-establishment party” is not democracy.
The difference between a true totalitarian dictatorship and America is that the totalitarian dictatorship enforces one political belief system which supports the status quo, whereas in America you get the freedom of choice between two political belief systems which support the status quo. The entire system is stacked to ensure the continued rule of the oligarchs, spooks and warmongers who really run things behind the two-handed sock puppet show of the official elected government. The US doesn’t attack and undermine nations when they lack “freedom” or “democracy”, they attack and undermine them when they refuse to bow to the demands of the power establishment which controls the US government and its allies.
The sooner people wake up to this, the better. In Iowa, things couldn’t have gone worse for those responsible for keeping people asleep.
_______________________________
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.
Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2


lewrockwell--2020-02-06--The Silver-Gold Ratio Is Still Way Out of Whack

The silver-gold ratio has ticked back up to historically high levels of late .
As I write this article , the ratio stands at just over 88:1 .
That means it takes 88 ounces of silver to buy an ounce of gold .
To put that into perspective , the average in the modern era has been between 40:1 and 50:1 .
In simple terms , historically , silver is extremely underpriced compared to gold .
Last summer , the ratio climbed to nearly 93:1 as gold rallied .
Silver closed the gap in the fall and the ratio dropped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But in recent weeks , we ’ ve seen the gap widening once again .
In 2019 , the silver-gold ratio averaged 86:1 .
That ranks in the top 2 % all-time , dating back to 1687 .
Only two years in the era since the US government unpegged the dollar from gold have seen higher ratios – 1991 and 1992 .
The Real Crash : Americ ... Peter Schiff Buy New $ 23.95 Geologists estimate that there are approximately 19 ounces of silver for every ounce of gold in the earth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of approximately 11.2 ounces of silver to each ounce of gold that has ever been mined .
Interestingly , the silver-gold ratio in ancient Egypt was 1:1 .
In 1792 , the gold/silver price ratio was fixed by law in the United States at 15:1 .
France mandated a ratio of 15.5:1 in 1803 .
Faced with the challenges of a bi-metallic monetary system with fixed exchange rates and the aftermath of a worldwide financial crisis , the US Congress passed the Coinage Act of 1873 .
Following the lead of other Western @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canada , and Germany , this act formally demonetized silver and established a gold standard for the United States .
With silver playing a smaller role as a monetary metal , the silver-gold ratio gradually spread .
The modern average over the last century has been around 40:1 .
Since the world went to a total fiat money system , there seems to be some correlation between the silver-gold ratio and central bank money-creation .
During periods of central bank money-printing , the gap tends to shink .
In fact , it plummeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis as the Fed engaged in extreme monetary policy .
But as Peter Schiff has explained , the Federal Reserve fooled everybody into believing low interest rates and quantitative easing were temporary – that they were emergency fixes .
The mainstream expected the Fed would eventually raise interest rates and shrink the balance sheet .
But it ’ s become clear that wasn ’ t the case .
Extreme monetary policy is the new normal .
Peter has said that when the mainstream figures this out , gold will go through the roof @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , silver will almost certainly go up with it .
Silver is much more volatile than gold due to its industrial role , but at its core , it is still a monetary metal and it tends to track relatively consistently with gold over time .
When gold goes up , it almost always takes silver with it How an Economy Grows a ... Peter D. Schiff , Andre ... Best Price : $ 5.01 Buy New $ 7.53 Furthermore , it may well mean the silver-gold ratio will shrink again as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 08 crash .
Historically , during a bull market in gold , silver outperforms .
If this holds trues , that ratio will close .
As commodities analyst Jason Hamlin said in an article published by Seeking Alpha , “ The gold-silver ratio has been one of the most reliable technical ‘ buy ’ indicators for silver , whenever the ratio climbs above 80.
” The silver-gold ratio has been out of whack for quite a while now , but investors still aren ’ t buying .
Of course , the mainstream , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either .
They still seem convinced that the Fed can keep the air in the stock market bubble .
Silver has hit an all-time high of $ 49 per ounce twice – in January 1980 and then again in April 2011 .
If you adjust that $ 49 high for inflation , you ’ re looking at a price of around $ 150 per ounce .
In other words , silver has a long way to run up .
As one analyst put it , “ With the long-term downside potential of silver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the risk/reward is one of the best investments on the planet .
”

The silver-gold ratio has ticked back up to historically high levels of late.
As I write this article, the ratio stands at just over 88:1. That means it takes 88 ounces of silver to buy an ounce of gold. To put that into perspective, the average in the modern era has been between 40:1 and 50:1.
In simple terms, historically, silver is extremely underpriced compared to gold.
Last summer, the ratio climbed to nearly 93:1 as gold rallied. Silver closed the gap in the fall and the ratio dropped into the low 80s’ to one. But in recent weeks, we’ve seen the gap widening once again.
In 2019, the silver-gold ratio averaged 86:1. That ranks in the top 2% all-time, dating back to 1687. Only two years in the era since the US government unpegged the dollar from gold have seen higher ratios – 1991 and 1992.
Here’s some historical perspective.
The Real Crash: Americ... Peter Schiff Buy New $23.95 (as of 05:55 UTC - Details) Geologists estimate that there are approximately 19 ounces of silver for every ounce of gold in the earth’s crust, with a ratio of approximately 11.2 ounces of silver to each ounce of gold that has ever been mined. Interestingly, the silver-gold ratio in ancient Egypt was 1:1.
In 1792, the gold/silver price ratio was fixed by law in the United States at 15:1. France mandated a ratio of 15.5:1 in 1803. Faced with the challenges of a bi-metallic monetary system with fixed exchange rates and the aftermath of a worldwide financial crisis, the US Congress passed the Coinage Act of 1873. Following the lead of other Western nations, including England, Portugal, Canada, and Germany, this act formally demonetized silver and established a gold standard for the United States.
With silver playing a smaller role as a monetary metal, the silver-gold ratio gradually spread. The modern average over the last century has been around 40:1.
Since the world went to a total fiat money system, there seems to be some correlation between the silver-gold ratio and central bank money-creation. During periods of central bank money-printing, the gap tends to shink. In fact, it plummeted in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis as the Fed engaged in extreme monetary policy.
But as Peter Schiff has explained, the Federal Reserve fooled everybody into believing low interest rates and quantitative easing were temporary – that they were emergency fixes. The mainstream expected the Fed would eventually raise interest rates and shrink the balance sheet. But it’s become clear that wasn’t the case. Extreme monetary policy is the new normal.
Peter has said that when the mainstream figures this out, gold will go through the roof. If that’s the case, silver will almost certainly go up with it. Silver is much more volatile than gold due to its industrial role, but at its core, it is still a monetary metal and it tends to track relatively consistently with gold over time. When gold goes up, it almost always takes silver with it How an Economy Grows a... Schiff, Andrew J. Best Price: $1.99 Buy New $7.20 (as of 11:05 UTC - Details)
Furthermore, it may well mean the silver-gold ratio will shrink again as it did in the years after the ’08 crash. Historically, during a bull market in gold, silver outperforms. If this holds trues, that ratio will close.
As commodities analyst Jason Hamlin said in an article published by Seeking Alpha, “The gold-silver ratio has been one of the most reliable technical ‘buy’ indicators for silver, whenever the ratio climbs above 80.”
The silver-gold ratio has been out of whack for quite a while now, but investors still aren’t buying. Of course, the mainstream, by-and-large, isn’t buying gold either. They still seem convinced that the Fed can keep the air in the stock market bubble.
Silver has hit an all-time high of $49 per ounce twice – in January 1980 and then again in April 2011. If you adjust that $49 high for inflation, you’re looking at a price of around $150 per ounce. In other words, silver has a long way to run up. As one analyst put it, “With the long-term downside potential of silver very low versus its current valuation, the risk/reward is one of the best investments on the planet.”
Reprinted from SchiffGold.com.


Depressed Democrat Turnout

While the most entertaining story of the Iowa caucuses was either the utter chaos and incompetence that unfolded or the sinister machinations of the Democrat party , depending on your take on the events , the more important story is getting far less attention .
When given the first opportunity to turn out and vote for a candidate to oppose President Donald Trump , Democrats largely shrugged and said , “ Meh.
” Turnout was down almost 30 % from 2008 .
This is by far the most important story out of this primary , which is why it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While Barack Obama was not on the ballot , Democrats clearly expected a greater show of voter force when they were given the chance to do something other than howl their Trump derangement rage at the moon .
Smart Democrats understand this reality all too well .
Harry Enten is one of the smarter ones .
“ If you go back to four years ago , what the Iowa Democratic Party has said is this is about the same exact turnout , ” Enten observed .
“ That is not particularly good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supposed to be all this excitement around the Democratic Party wanting to beat Donald Trump .
And this isn ’ t the only data point that shows that.
” Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 “ Not particularly good ” in liberal speak translates to catastrophic .
The problem for Democrats is that only one of their candidates excites anything resembling passion , and he is the one candidate that the Democrat establishment power players are doing everything in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same time , they are desperately pushing the least inspiring candidate in the entire field , although that impossible dream might be over post-Iowa .
For Democrats , voting chicanery is practically a national spectator sport , but one would have thought they would have at least kept their fraud powder dry until they actually faced a Republican .
In one precinct , Bernie Sanders beat Pete Buttigieg 111 votes to 47 in the first round .
They both landed two delegates in that precinct in the Democrats ’ version of “ everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has to be concerned that a repeat of 2016 is underway , when they almost certainly won the state , perhaps decisively , and yet were declared the narrow losers .
The fix was in , and , while I am thankfully no expert on the psychology of anyone who would actually consider pulling the lever for the Marxist madman , I have to think most of his supporters know that the fix is in again .
It just so happens that the “ chaos ” benefited the candidate of the establishment while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The media have been assuring America that we are at a national boiling point of pent up anti-Trump rage against the worst person to ever walk the Earth and that voters are dying to get to the voting booth in a collective cathartic purge .
Iowa is the canary in the coal mine for the media and Democrats , showing that relying purely on opposition to Trump is about to blow up in their faces .
While the complete caucus disaster ( or Machiavellian machination ) is more fun to talk about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that matters .
Will the behavior of Iowans be the start of a trend ?
President Trump ’ s policies in combination with Democrat extremism has created a decisive political realignment that moved working-class voters out of the Democrat column and into his .
Expect Wisconsin , Pennsylvania , Ohio , and Michigan to follow a similar path , with Democrats left to scratch their heads about the turnout that didn ’ t happen .

While the most entertaining story of the Iowa caucuses was either the utter chaos and incompetence that unfolded or the sinister machinations of the Democrat party, depending on your take on the events, the more important story is getting far less attention.
When given the first opportunity to turn out and vote for a candidate to oppose President Donald Trump, Democrats largely shrugged and said, “Meh.” Turnout was down almost 30% from 2008.
This is by far the most important story out of this primary, which is why it will be largely blacked out by the media.
While Barack Obama was not on the ballot, Democrats clearly expected a greater show of voter force when they were given the chance to do something other than howl their Trump derangement rage at the moon.
Smart Democrats understand this reality all too well. Harry Enten is one of the smarter ones.
“If you go back to four years ago, what the Iowa Democratic Party has said is this is about the same exact turnout,” Enten observed. “That is not particularly good[.] … There’s supposed to be all this excitement around the Democratic Party wanting to beat Donald Trump. And this isn’t the only data point that shows that.” Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
“Not particularly good” in liberal speak translates to catastrophic.
The problem for Democrats is that only one of their candidates excites anything resembling passion, and he is the one candidate that the Democrat establishment power players are doing everything in their power to torpedo. At the same time, they are desperately pushing the least inspiring candidate in the entire field, although that impossible dream might be over post-Iowa. For Democrats, voting chicanery is practically a national spectator sport, but one would have thought they would have at least kept their fraud powder dry until they actually faced a Republican.
In one precinct, Bernie Sanders beat Pete Buttigieg 111 votes to 47 in the first round. They both landed two delegates in that precinct in the Democrats’ version of “everyone gets two trophies.” The Sanders camp has to be concerned that a repeat of 2016 is underway, when they almost certainly won the state, perhaps decisively, and yet were declared the narrow losers. The fix was in, and, while I am thankfully no expert on the psychology of anyone who would actually consider pulling the lever for the Marxist madman, I have to think most of his supporters know that the fix is in again. It just so happens that the “chaos” benefited the candidate of the establishment while hurting Sanders. Nothing to see here.
The media have been assuring America that we are at a national boiling point of pent up anti-Trump rage against the worst person to ever walk the Earth and that voters are dying to get to the voting booth in a collective cathartic purge. Iowa is the canary in the coal mine for the media and Democrats, showing that relying purely on opposition to Trump is about to blow up in their faces.
While the complete caucus disaster (or Machiavellian machination) is more fun to talk about, the poor turnout is the story that matters.
Will the behavior of Iowans be the start of a trend?
President Trump’s policies in combination with Democrat extremism has created a decisive political realignment that moved working-class voters out of the Democrat column and into his. Expect Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan to follow a similar path, with Democrats left to scratch their heads about the turnout that didn’t happen.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-02-06--Candidate Pete Buttigieg: Israel’s Security Policy Offers ‘Important Lessons’ for the US

WASHINGTON — Presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg , whose candidacy is currently being heavily promoted by corporate media , was one of the many 2020 contenders for the Democratic Party who declined to attend the recent annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ( AIPAC ) in apparent response to calls from prominent “ progressive ” organizations to boycott the event and a growing shift among Democratic voters in favor of Palestinian rights .
However , despite his absence from the AIPAC conference , Buttigieg ’ s past public statements on the Israel/Palestine conflict echo those of pro-Israel stalwarts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg , in a trip to Israel last year that was funded by the pro-Israel lobby , praised Israel ’ s security response to protests by Palestinians on the Gaza-Israel border just four days after the slaughter of Gazan protesters by Israeli military snipers — repeating many of the same one-sided talking points about the conflict that define centrists in both the Republican and Democratic parties .
Last May , Buttigieg traveled to Israel as part of a trip for U.S. mayors organized by Project Interchange , an affiliate of the American Jewish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the oldest and most influential Israel lobby organizations in the United States .
The AJC regularly conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and has even accused progressive American Jews of anti-Semitism for their critiques of Israeli government policy .
Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 Soon after the Israel lobby-sponsored trip , which the Times of Israel referred to as a “ learning experience trip , ” Buttigieg appeared on AJC ’ s Passport podcast , hosted by Seffi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussion , stated that Israel ’ s security policy is “ on the one hand very intentional , very serious and very effective when it comes to security and on the other hand not allowing concerns about security to dominate your consciousness.
” He then added that his trip to Israel showed him that Israel ’ s security policy offers “ a very important lesson that hopefully , Americans can look to [ when ] we think about how to navigate a world that unfortunately has become smaller and more dangerous for all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for several reasons .
First , it suggests that Israel ’ s security policy does not “ dominate ” Israeli political consciousness even though nearly every discriminatory policy targeting Palestinians — from the blockade of Gaza to the military occupation of the West Bank to the separation barrier — are all justified by the Israeli state ’ s claim that it is responding to “ existential threats ” relating to Israel ’ s security .
Second , Buttigieg calls Israel ’ s draconian security policies “ very effective , ” yet does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israel ’ s regular imprisonment of Palestinians without charge or its arrest of children for allegedly “ throwing stones.
” Third , his claim that Israel ’ s security policy offers a “ very important lesson ” to the United States suggests that Israel ’ s apartheid , police-state security policies are a model for homeland security policy in the U.S. , a suggestion that concerns the “ progressive ” voters to whom Buttigieg is currently attempting to appeal .
During the podcast , Buttigieg also claimed that support for Israel “ is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least it shouldn ’ t be ” and stated that “ the security and intelligence cooperation [ between the U.S. and Israel ] is obviously vital , certainly something that is as important for American interests as much as Israeli interests.
” This is a drastic over-simplification of the U.S.-Israel relationship and makes no mention of the fact that the U.S. now provides $ 3.8 billion to Israel annually as part of this “ security and intelligence cooperation ” and also ignores Israel ’ s documented espionage efforts targeting U.S. state secrets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this “ cooperation.
” Notably , former U.S. intelligence officials have claimed that the CIA considers Israel “ the Mideast ’ s biggest spy threat.
” Buttigieg also blamed Hamas , the Islamist group that won Gaza ’ s elections in 2007 and still governs the enclave , for the “ misery ” present in the strip .
At no point does he mention the air , land and sea blockade — imposed by Israel and Egypt — as having a role in creating “ misery ” for Gazan residents .
Particularly telling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the situation in the Strip during the Great Return March , when Israeli forces massacred scores of unarmed protestors .
Just days after Buttigieg ’ s visit to Israel and not long before his appearance on the AJC podcast , the IDF shot and killed 60 unarmed Gazans , among them seven minors and a paramedic .
During his 22-minute discussion with AJC , Buttigieg never spoke of the Gaza protests directly .
A separate point Buttigieg made in the podcast is related to the exchange of fire between Syrian/Iranian forces and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which Israel annexed in 1981 but is internationally considered ( aside from by the United States ) as Syrian territory .
In speaking of the attack by allegedly Iranian forces on the Golan Heights and the exchange of fire between Israel and Syria that followed , Buttigieg stated : It is notable that Buttigieg chose the word “ terrorist ” to describe the attack , given that it had been launched by a foreign government , not a terrorist group , and also given the fact that the area had long been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supported by the state of Israel .
While Buttigieg ’ s admiration for Israeli security policy and support for continued U.S.-Israel “ security and intelligence cooperation ” may simply be an indication of his support for Democratic centrist policies , there may be other reasons for Buttigieg ’ s apparent support of Israel ’ s apartheid-like policies .
For instance , Buttigieg ’ s past position as a consultant at McKinsey & Co. — recently called “ the world ’ s most prestigious consulting firm ” by the New York Times — may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked at McKinsey prior to enlisting in the military and jumpstarting his political career .
Buttigieg has called his time at the firm his most “ intellectually informing experience ” and described it neutrally as simply “ a place to learn.
” Other previous McKinsey consultants have come away with a very different view of the controversial company , with one recently writing : In addition to working with “ despotic governments ” like Saudi Arabia , McKinsey also regularly works for Israel ’ s government and military .
For instance , McKinsey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help “ streamline ” the Israeli military .
McKinsey claimed that it had offered its services to Israel at a steep 36 percent discount .
Then , a year later , McKinsey was tasked with reviewing Israel ’ s police force and determined that Israel did not have enough police patrolling its streets and “ lagged ” behind other countries in terms of police deployment .
Furthermore , the company itself has a large presence in Israel , where it “ works across all major sectors of Israel ’ s economy.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Melton Best Price : $ 6.29 Buy New $ 9.99 Buttigieg ’ s connection to McKinsey , and his decidedly neutral view of the firm , have been largely glossed over in the coverage of his candidacy , despite the controversial nature of the company , which was recently revealed to have advised a leading pharmaceutical company on how to “ turbocharge ” the sales of opioids to Americans , despite the country ’ s severe opioid addiction and overdose crisis .
Buttigieg , like several other 2020 contenders for the Democratic nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on platitudes and progressive “ values ” without providing policy plans that back them up .
Indeed , Buttigieg is routinely evasive when pressed on any specific policies he champions .
When recently asked to specify policies he supports by VICE , the former South Bend , Indiana mayor stated that “ Right now I think we need to articulate the values , lay out our philosophical commitments and then develop policies off of that .
And I ’ m working very hard not to put the cart before the horse.
” This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and platitudes and failing to run on any policy , has become common in the 2020 field as other candidates who have received fawning media coverage — like Kamala Harris and Beto O ’ Rourke — have also built their campaign on platitudes and varying degrees of identity politics .
It should come as no surprise , then , that Buttigieg has recently been compared to Barack Obama in several mainstream profiles .
After all , Obama built much of his campaign on platitudes ( i.e.
, “ hope ” and “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as opposed to specific , detailed policy proposals .
Buttigieg ’ s decision to not promote any specific policy has allowed him to become a policy chameleon , and his stance on foreign policy , including Israel and Palestine , is no exception .
As an example , Buttigieg has claimed that the Trump administration ’ s minimal efforts to reduce the number and intensity of “ forever wars ” has been “ largely good , ” even though he opposes Trump ’ s recent calls for a withdrawal of U.S. troops in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration ’ s efforts to reduce “ forever wars ” has been its calls for a U.S. troop withdrawal from Syria .
Buttigieg ’ s evasiveness and contradictory statements on foreign policy are all the more telling because such evasiveness is not due to a lack of knowledge on the subject .
Indeed , Buttigieg wrote his undergraduate thesis on U.S. foreign policy .
This suggests that his evasiveness on these issues since becoming a candidate for the presidency is instead based on political expediency .
Buttigieg ’ s past comments on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent statement he made via Twitter that reads : “ I did not carry an assault weapon around a foreign country so I could come home and see them used to massacre my countrymen.
” The tweet was heavily criticized by anti-war voices on social media for its implication that it is perfectly fine to carry assault weapons as part of an occupying force in a foreign country , but not OK to carry those assault weapons domestically .
This troubling double standard suggests that Buttigieg , despite being a veteran , supports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further supported by his past position at the Cohen Group , a consulting firm founded by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen , a “ moderate Republican ” who oversaw the U.S. ’ role in the NATO bombing of Kosovo .
In a crowded 2020 field and with mainstream media heavily promoting his candidacy , it is essential that all Americans take the time to research the past statements and positions of a candidate like Buttigieg , as opposed to merely relying on media-generated hype and statements made only after the establishment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a country undeniably at a crossroads , can not afford any candidate who cloaks his or her actual opinions and policies in platitudes and evasive or even contradictory language .
Thus , a candidate ’ s past and track record are increasingly important , yet overlooked , aspects in a 2020 race that will have important implications for the country moving forward .

WASHINGTON — Presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg, whose candidacy is currently being heavily promoted by corporate media, was one of the many 2020 contenders for the Democratic Party who declined to attend the recent annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in apparent response to calls from prominent “progressive” organizations to boycott the event and a growing shift among Democratic voters in favor of Palestinian rights.
However, despite his absence from the AIPAC conference, Buttigieg’s past public statements on the Israel/Palestine conflict echo those of pro-Israel stalwarts in the Democratic Party. Indeed, Buttigieg, in a trip to Israel last year that was funded by the pro-Israel lobby, praised Israel’s security response to protests by Palestinians on the Gaza-Israel border just four days after the slaughter of Gazan protesters by Israeli military snipers — repeating many of the same one-sided talking points about the conflict that define centrists in both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Impressed by Israeli security policy
Last May, Buttigieg traveled to Israel as part of a trip for U.S. mayors organized by Project Interchange, an affiliate of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), one of the oldest and most influential Israel lobby organizations in the United States. The AJC regularly conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and has even accused progressive American Jews of anti-Semitism for their critiques of Israeli government policy. Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
Soon after the Israel lobby-sponsored trip, which the Times of Israel referred to as a “learning experience trip,” Buttigieg appeared on AJC’s Passport podcast, hosted by Seffi Kogen. Buttigieg, during the 22-minute discussion, stated that Israel’s security policy is “on the one hand very intentional, very serious and very effective when it comes to security and on the other hand not allowing concerns about security to dominate your consciousness.” He then added that his trip to Israel showed him that Israel’s security policy offers “a very important lesson that hopefully, Americans can look to [when] we think about how to navigate a world that unfortunately has become smaller and more dangerous for all of us.”
This statement is troubling for several reasons. First, it suggests that Israel’s security policy does not “dominate” Israeli political consciousness even though nearly every discriminatory policy targeting Palestinians — from the blockade of Gaza to the military occupation of the West Bank to the separation barrier — are all justified by the Israeli state’s claim that it is responding to “existential threats” relating to Israel’s security. Second, Buttigieg calls Israel’s draconian security policies “very effective,” yet does not mention their human costs, such as Israel’s regular imprisonment of Palestinians without charge or its arrest of children for allegedly “throwing stones.” Third, his claim that Israel’s security policy offers a “very important lesson” to the United States suggests that Israel’s apartheid, police-state security policies are a model for homeland security policy in the U.S., a suggestion that concerns the “progressive” voters to whom Buttigieg is currently attempting to appeal.
During the podcast, Buttigieg also claimed that support for Israel “is not a left vs. right issue — at least it shouldn’t be” and stated that “the security and intelligence cooperation [between the U.S. and Israel] is obviously vital, certainly something that is as important for American interests as much as Israeli interests.” This is a drastic over-simplification of the U.S.-Israel relationship and makes no mention of the fact that the U.S. now provides $3.8 billion to Israel annually as part of this “security and intelligence cooperation” and also ignores Israel’s documented espionage efforts targeting U.S. state secrets that have occurred under the guise of this “cooperation.” Notably, former U.S. intelligence officials have claimed that the CIA considers Israel “the Mideast’s biggest spy threat.”
Buttigieg also blamed Hamas, the Islamist group that won Gaza’s elections in 2007 and still governs the enclave, for the “misery” present in the strip. At no point does he mention the air, land and sea blockade — imposed by Israel and Egypt — as having a role in creating “misery” for Gazan residents. Particularly telling is the fact that he blamed Hamas for the situation in the Strip during the Great Return March, when Israeli forces massacred scores of unarmed protestors. Just days after Buttigieg’s visit to Israel and not long before his appearance on the AJC podcast, the IDF shot and killed 60 unarmed Gazans, among them seven minors and a paramedic. During his 22-minute discussion with AJC, Buttigieg never spoke of the Gaza protests directly.
A separate point Buttigieg made in the podcast is related to the exchange of fire between Syrian/Iranian forces and Israeli forces in the contested Golan Heights, which Israel annexed in 1981 but is internationally considered (aside from by the United States) as Syrian territory. In speaking of the attack by allegedly Iranian forces on the Golan Heights and the exchange of fire between Israel and Syria that followed, Buttigieg stated:
It didn’t stop people from living their lives and I actually think there’s a lesson to be learned from that for America … to prevent terrorists from succeeding in their goal of becoming our top priority.”
It is notable that Buttigieg chose the word “terrorist” to describe the attack, given that it had been launched by a foreign government, not a terrorist group, and also given the fact that the area had long been overrun by actual terrorist groups that were supported by the state of Israel.
McKinsey and Israel
While Buttigieg’s admiration for Israeli security policy and support for continued U.S.-Israel “security and intelligence cooperation” may simply be an indication of his support for Democratic centrist policies, there may be other reasons for Buttigieg’s apparent support of Israel’s apartheid-like policies. For instance, Buttigieg’s past position as a consultant at McKinsey & Co. — recently called “the world’s most prestigious consulting firm” by the New York Times — may have also informed his views.
Buttigieg worked at McKinsey prior to enlisting in the military and jumpstarting his political career. Buttigieg has called his time at the firm his most “intellectually informing experience” and described it neutrally as simply “a place to learn.” Other previous McKinsey consultants have come away with a very different view of the controversial company, with one recently writing:
Working for all sides, McKinsey’s only allegiance is to capital. As capital’s most effective messenger, McKinsey has done direct harm to the world in ways that, thanks to its lack of final decision-making power, are hard to measure and, thanks to its intense secrecy, are hard to know. The firm’s willingness to work with despotic governments and corrupt business empires is the logical conclusion of seeking profit at all costs. Its advocacy of the primacy of the market has made governments more like businesses and businesses more like vampires. By claiming that they solve the world’s hardest problems, McKinsey shrinks the solution space to only those that preserve the status quo.”
In addition to working with “despotic governments” like Saudi Arabia, McKinsey also regularly works for Israel’s government and military. For instance, McKinsey was given $27 million in 2011 to help “streamline” the Israeli military. McKinsey claimed that it had offered its services to Israel at a steep 36 percent discount. Then, a year later, McKinsey was tasked with reviewing Israel’s police force and determined that Israel did not have enough police patrolling its streets and “lagged” behind other countries in terms of police deployment. Furthermore, the company itself has a large presence in Israel, where it “works across all major sectors of Israel’s economy.” The Official CIA Manua... Melton, H. Keith Best Price: $4.20 Buy New $9.99 (as of 12:00 UTC - Details)
Buttigieg’s connection to McKinsey, and his decidedly neutral view of the firm, have been largely glossed over in the coverage of his candidacy, despite the controversial nature of the company, which was recently revealed to have advised a leading pharmaceutical company on how to “turbocharge” the sales of opioids to Americans, despite the country’s severe opioid addiction and overdose crisis.
More “hope” and “change”
Buttigieg, like several other 2020 contenders for the Democratic nomination, has thus far built his campaign on platitudes and progressive “values” without providing policy plans that back them up. Indeed, Buttigieg is routinely evasive when pressed on any specific policies he champions. When recently asked to specify policies he supports by VICE, the former South Bend, Indiana mayor stated that “Right now I think we need to articulate the values, lay out our philosophical commitments and then develop policies off of that. And I’m working very hard not to put the cart before the horse.”
This same tactic, of promoting “values” and platitudes and failing to run on any policy, has become common in the 2020 field as other candidates who have received fawning media coverage — like Kamala Harris and Beto O’Rourke — have also built their campaign on platitudes and varying degrees of identity politics. It should come as no surprise, then, that Buttigieg has recently been compared to Barack Obama in several mainstream profiles. After all, Obama built much of his campaign on platitudes (i.e., “hope” and “change”) and vague policy positions as opposed to specific, detailed policy proposals.
Buttigieg’s decision to not promote any specific policy has allowed him to become a policy chameleon, and his stance on foreign policy, including Israel and Palestine, is no exception. As an example, Buttigieg has claimed that the Trump administration’s minimal efforts to reduce the number and intensity of “forever wars” has been “largely good,” even though he opposes Trump’s recent calls for a withdrawal of U.S. troops in Syria. Yet the epitome of the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce “forever wars” has been its calls for a U.S. troop withdrawal from Syria.
Buttigieg’s evasiveness and contradictory statements on foreign policy are all the more telling because such evasiveness is not due to a lack of knowledge on the subject. Indeed, Buttigieg wrote his undergraduate thesis on U.S. foreign policy. This suggests that his evasiveness on these issues since becoming a candidate for the presidency is instead based on political expediency.
Buttigieg’s past comments on Israel and Syria are compounded by a recent statement he made via Twitter that reads: “I did not carry an assault weapon around a foreign country so I could come home and see them used to massacre my countrymen.” The tweet was heavily criticized by anti-war voices on social media for its implication that it is perfectly fine to carry assault weapons as part of an occupying force in a foreign country, but not OK to carry those assault weapons domestically.
This troubling double standard suggests that Buttigieg, despite being a veteran, supports U.S. military adventurism abroad. This is further supported by his past position at the Cohen Group, a consulting firm founded by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, a “moderate Republican” who oversaw the U.S.’ role in the NATO bombing of Kosovo.
In a crowded 2020 field and with mainstream media heavily promoting his candidacy, it is essential that all Americans take the time to research the past statements and positions of a candidate like Buttigieg, as opposed to merely relying on media-generated hype and statements made only after the establishment of one’s candidacy. The U.S., a country undeniably at a crossroads, cannot afford any candidate who cloaks his or her actual opinions and policies in platitudes and evasive or even contradictory language. Thus, a candidate’s past and track record are increasingly important, yet overlooked, aspects in a 2020 race that will have important implications for the country moving forward.


lewrockwell--2020-02-06--Step to Nuclear Doomsday

Step to Nuclear Doomsday

The US has deployed “ low-yield ” nuclear missiles on submarines , saying it ’ s to discourage nuclear conflict with Russia .
The move is based on a “ Russian strategy ” made up in Washington and will only bring mass annihilation closer .
In a statement released earlier this week , US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy John Rood announced that “ the US Navy has fielded the W76-2 low-yield submarine launched ballistic missile ( SLBM ) warhead.
” This new operational capability , Rood declared , “ demonstrates to potential adversaries that there is no advantage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States can credibly and decisively respond to any threat scenario.
” The threat underpinning justification for this new US nuclear deterrent had its roots in testimony delivered to the House Armed Services Committee in June 2015 by US Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work , who declared that “ Russian military doctrine includes what some have called an ‘ escalate to deescalate strategy ’ – a strategy that purportedly seeks to deescalate a conventional conflict through coercive threats , including limited nuclear use.
” War with Russia ?
: From ... Stephen F. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New $ 8.50 However , any review of actual Russian nuclear doctrine would have shown this to be a false premise .
Provision 27 of the 2014 edition of ‘ Russian Military Doctrine ’ states that Russia “ shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies , as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear weapons shall be taken by the President of the Russian Federation.
” Despite this , the concept of ‘ escalate to deescalate ’ as official Russian military doctrine had become ingrained in official US nuclear doctrine by 2018 , with the publication of the US Defense Department ’ s Nuclear Posture Review ( NPR ) .
Moscow , the 2018 NPR claimed , “ threatens and exercises limited nuclear first use , suggesting a mistaken expectation that coercive nuclear threats or limited first use could paralyze the United States and NATO and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Russia .
Some in the United States refer to this as Russia ’ s ‘ escalate to deescalate ’ doctrine.
” In response to this “ made in America ” Russian threat , the 2018 NPR identified a requirement to modify a number of submarine-launched ballistic missiles ( SLBMs ) with low-yield nuclear warheads to strengthen US nuclear deterrence by providing US military commanders with a weapon that addresses “ the conclusion that potential adversaries , like Russia , believe that employment of low-yield nuclear weapons will give them an advantage over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partners.
” As was the case with Robert Work ’ s 2015 congressional testimony , the 2018 NPR did not provide the source for the existence of a Russian ‘ escalate to deescalate ’ doctrine , except to note that it originated in the US – not Russia .
Nonetheless , based upon the 2018 NPR , President Donald Trump requested that the Defense Department acquire a new low-yield nuclear warhead for the Trident SLBM , setting in motion a process which culminated in the recent announcement that this new warhead had reached @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s request , a letter , signed by a laundry list of notable American statesmen , politicians and military officers , including former Secretary of State George Schultz , former Secretary of Defense William Perry and the former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs , General James Cartwright , was sent to the Senate Majority Leader , Mitch McConnell , stating that there was no need for this new “ low yield ” warhead .
The letter furthermore noted that the premise of this warhead — the so called ‘ escalate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ derived from a “ false narrative ” combining non-existent Russian intent with an equally fictitious “ deterrence gap ” that could only be filled by the new nuclear weapon .
This letter fell on deaf ears .
At a meeting of the Valdai Club in October 2018 , Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed the issue of Russian nuclear doctrine , prompted by questions raised by the publication of the 2018 NPR .
“ There is no provision for a pre-emptive strike in our nuclear weapons doctrine , ” Putin declared .
“ Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strike .
There is no need to explain what this is to those who understand , as for those who do not , I would like to say it again : this means that we are prepared and will use nuclear weapons only when we know for certain that some potential aggressor is attacking Russia , our territory… [ o ] nly when we know for certain — and this takes a few seconds to understand — that Russia is being attacked we will deliver a counter strike .
This would be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say ‘ counter ’ ?
Because we will counter missiles flying towards us by sending a missile in the direction of an aggressor.
” There ’ s no such thing as ‘ limited ’ nuke use War Is A Racket : Origi ... Smedley D. Butler Best Price : $ 3.13 Buy New $ 3.75 In a 1982 article published in Foreign Affairs entitled ‘ Nuclear Weapons and the Atlantic Alliance ’ , four senior American statesmen ( McGeorge Bundy , George F. Kennan , Robert S. McNamara and Gerard C. Smith ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear policy declared that “ No one has ever succeeded in advancing any persuasive reason to believe that any use of nuclear weapons , even on the smallest scale , could reliably be expected to remain limited.
” This fact holds as true today as it did when the article was written .
Perhaps there is no better voice to emphasize this point than Russian President Vladimir Putin , again addressing the 2018 Valdai Conference .
“ Of course , [ the decision to launch nuclear weapons in defense of Russia ] amounts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would like to repeat that we can not be the initiators of such a catastrophe because we have no provision for a pre-emptive strike .
Yes , it looks like we are sitting on our hands and waiting until someone uses nuclear weapons against us .
Well , yes , this is what it is .
But then any aggressor should know that retaliation is inevitable , and they will be annihilated.
” The Trump administration would do well to ponder these words as they embrace the false deterrence of the new “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The fact of the matter is it deters nothing , and only invites global annihilation .
The statements , views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT .

The US has deployed “low-yield” nuclear missiles on submarines, saying it’s to discourage nuclear conflict with Russia. The move is based on a “Russian strategy” made up in Washington and will only bring mass annihilation closer.
In a statement released earlier this week, US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy John Rood announced that “the US Navy has fielded the W76-2 low-yield submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM) warhead.” This new operational capability, Rood declared, “demonstrates to potential adversaries that there is no advantage to limited nuclear employment because the United States can credibly and decisively respond to any threat scenario.”
The threat underpinning justification for this new US nuclear deterrent had its roots in testimony delivered to the House Armed Services Committee in June 2015 by US Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, who declared that “Russian military doctrine includes what some have called an ‘escalate to deescalate strategy’ – a strategy that purportedly seeks to deescalate a conventional conflict through coercive threats, including limited nuclear use.”
War with Russia?: From... Cohen, Stephen F. Best Price: $8.99 Buy New $8.50 (as of 02:15 UTC - Details) However, any review of actual Russian nuclear doctrine would have shown this to be a false premise. Provision 27 of the 2014 edition of ‘Russian Military Doctrine’ states that Russia “shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy. The decision to use nuclear weapons shall be taken by the President of the Russian Federation.”
Russian threat, made in America
Despite this, the concept of ‘escalate to deescalate’ as official Russian military doctrine had become ingrained in official US nuclear doctrine by 2018, with the publication of the US Defense Department’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). Moscow, the 2018 NPR claimed, “threatens and exercises limited nuclear first use, suggesting a mistaken expectation that coercive nuclear threats or limited first use could paralyze the United States and NATO and thereby end a conflict on terms favorable to Russia. Some in the United States refer to this as Russia’s ‘escalate to deescalate’ doctrine.”
In response to this “made in America” Russian threat, the 2018 NPR identified a requirement to modify a number of submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) with low-yield nuclear warheads to strengthen US nuclear deterrence by providing US military commanders with a weapon that addresses “the conclusion that potential adversaries, like Russia, believe that employment of low-yield nuclear weapons will give them an advantage over the United States and its allies and partners.”
As was the case with Robert Work’s 2015 congressional testimony, the 2018 NPR did not provide the source for the existence of a Russian ‘escalate to deescalate’ doctrine, except to note that it originated in the US – not Russia. Nonetheless, based upon the 2018 NPR, President Donald Trump requested that the Defense Department acquire a new low-yield nuclear warhead for the Trident SLBM, setting in motion a process which culminated in the recent announcement that this new warhead had reached operational capacity.
Voices of reason fall on deaf ears
In response to President Trump’s request, a letter, signed by a laundry list of notable American statesmen, politicians and military officers, including former Secretary of State George Schultz, former Secretary of Defense William Perry and the former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General James Cartwright, was sent to the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, stating that there was no need for this new “low yield” warhead. The letter furthermore noted that the premise of this warhead — the so called ‘escalate to deescalate’ Russian doctrine — was derived from a “false narrative” combining non-existent Russian intent with an equally fictitious “deterrence gap” that could only be filled by the new nuclear weapon. This letter fell on deaf ears.
At a meeting of the Valdai Club in October 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed the issue of Russian nuclear doctrine, prompted by questions raised by the publication of the 2018 NPR. “There is no provision for a pre-emptive strike in our nuclear weapons doctrine,” Putin declared. “Our concept is based on a reciprocal counter strike. There is no need to explain what this is to those who understand, as for those who do not, I would like to say it again: this means that we are prepared and will use nuclear weapons only when we know for certain that some potential aggressor is attacking Russia, our territory…[o]nly when we know for certain — and this takes a few seconds to understand — that Russia is being attacked we will deliver a counter strike. This would be a reciprocal counter strike. Why do I say ‘counter’? Because we will counter missiles flying towards us by sending a missile in the direction of an aggressor.”
There’s no such thing as ‘limited’ nuke use
War Is A Racket: Origi... Butler, Smedley D. Best Price: $4.72 Buy New $3.75 (as of 08:05 UTC - Details) In a 1982 article published in Foreign Affairs entitled ‘Nuclear Weapons and the Atlantic Alliance’, four senior American statesmen (McGeorge Bundy, George F. Kennan, Robert S. McNamara and Gerard C. Smith) who had a hand in crafting US nuclear policy declared that “No one has ever succeeded in advancing any persuasive reason to believe that any use of nuclear weapons, even on the smallest scale, could reliably be expected to remain limited.”
This fact holds as true today as it did when the article was written. Perhaps there is no better voice to emphasize this point than Russian President Vladimir Putin, again addressing the 2018 Valdai Conference.
“Of course, [the decision to launch nuclear weapons in defense of Russia] amounts to a global catastrophe, but I would like to repeat that we cannot be the initiators of such a catastrophe because we have no provision for a pre-emptive strike. Yes, it looks like we are sitting on our hands and waiting until someone uses nuclear weapons against us. Well, yes, this is what it is. But then any aggressor should know that retaliation is inevitable, and they will be annihilated.”
And we as the victims of an aggression, we as martyrs would go to paradise while they will simply perish because they won’t even have time to repent their sins.
The Trump administration would do well to ponder these words as they embrace the false deterrence of the new “low yield” nuclear-armed Trident SLBM. The fact of the matter is it deters nothing, and only invites global annihilation.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Reprinted from RT News.