Democracy and Tyranny

During President Donald J. Trump ’ s impeachment trial , we ’ ll hear a lot of talk about our rules for governing .
One frequent claim is that our nation is a democracy .
If we ’ ve become a democracy , it would represent a deep betrayal of our founders , who saw democracy as another form of tyranny .
In fact , the word democracy appears nowhere in our nation ’ s two most fundamental documents , the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution .
The founders laid the ground rules for a republic as written @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Section 4 , which guarantees “ to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.
” John Adams captured the essence of the difference between a democracy and republic when he said , “ You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments ; rights that can not be repealed or restrained by human laws ; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.
” Contrast the framers ’ vision of a republic with that of a democracy .
In a democracy , the majority rules either directly or through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monarchy , the law is whatever the government determines it to be .
Laws do not represent reason .
They represent power .
The restraint is upon the individual instead of the government .
Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government , rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government .
Here are a few quotations that demonstrate the contempt that our founders held for a democracy .
James Madison , in Federalist Paper No .
10 , wrote that in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.
” American Contempt for ... Walter E. Williams Best Price : $ 5.90 Buy New $ 13.13 At the 1787 Constitutional Convention , Edmund Randolph said that “ in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.
” Alexander Hamilton agreed , saying : “ We are now forming a republican government .
( Liberty ) is found not in “ the extremes of democracy but in moderate governments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to democracy , we shall soon shoot into a monarchy.
” John Adams reminded us : “ Remember , democracy never lasts long .
It soon wastes , exhausts , and murders itself .
There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
” John Marshall , the highly respected fourth chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court observed , “ Between a balanced republic and a democracy , the difference is like that between order and chaos.
” Thomas Paine said , “ A Democracy is the vilest form of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us a Constitution replete with undemocratic mechanisms .
One constitutional provision that has come in for recent criticism is the Electoral College .
In their wisdom , the framers gave us the Electoral College as a means of deciding presidential elections .
That means heavily populated states can ’ t run roughshod over small , less-populated states .
Were we to choose the president and vice president under a popular vote , the outcome of presidential races would always be decided by a few highly populated states , namely California , Texas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pennsylvania , which contain 134.3 million people , or 41 % of our population .
Presidential candidates could safely ignore the interests of the citizens of Wyoming , Alaska , Vermont , North Dakota , South Dakota , Montana and Delaware .
Why ?
They have only 5.58 million Americans , or 1.7 % of the U.S. population .
We would no longer be a government “ of the people.
” Instead , our government would be put in power by and accountable to the leaders and citizens of a few highly populated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of tyranny the framers feared .
It ’ s Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties .
The framers ’ distrust is seen in the negative language of our Bill of Rights such as : Congress “ shall not abridge , infringe , deny , disparage , and shall not be violated , nor be denied.
” When we die and if at our next destination we see anything like a Bill of Rights , we know that we ’ re in hell because a Bill of Rights in heaven would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trusted .
The Best of Walter E. Williams

During President Donald J. Trump’s impeachment trial, we’ll hear a lot of talk about our rules for governing. One frequent claim is that our nation is a democracy. If we’ve become a democracy, it would represent a deep betrayal of our founders, who saw democracy as another form of tyranny. In fact, the word democracy appears nowhere in our nation’s two most fundamental documents, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The founders laid the ground rules for a republic as written in the Constitution’s Article IV, Section 4, which guarantees “to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”
John Adams captured the essence of the difference between a democracy and republic when he said, “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.” Contrast the framers’ vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of the government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.
Here are a few quotations that demonstrate the contempt that our founders held for a democracy. James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, wrote that in a pure democracy, “there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” American Contempt for ... Williams, Walter E. Best Price: $14.29 Buy New $11.75 (as of 02:30 UTC - Details)
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said that “in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.” Alexander Hamilton agreed, saying: “We are now forming a republican government. (Liberty) is found not in “the extremes of democracy but in moderate governments. … If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy.”
John Adams reminded us: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
John Marshall, the highly respected fourth chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court observed, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”
Thomas Paine said, “A Democracy is the vilest form of Government there is.”
The framers gave us a Constitution replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One constitutional provision that has come in for recent criticism is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College as a means of deciding presidential elections. That means heavily populated states can’t run roughshod over small, less-populated states.
Were we to choose the president and vice president under a popular vote, the outcome of presidential races would always be decided by a few highly populated states, namely California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania, which contain 134.3 million people, or 41% of our population. Presidential candidates could safely ignore the interests of the citizens of Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Delaware. Why? They have only 5.58 million Americans, or 1.7% of the U.S. population. We would no longer be a government “of the people.” Instead, our government would be put in power by and accountable to the leaders and citizens of a few highly populated states. It would be the kind of tyranny the framers feared.
It’s Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties. The framers’ distrust is seen in the negative language of our Bill of Rights such as: Congress “shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied.” When we die and if at our next destination we see anything like a Bill of Rights, we know that we’re in hell because a Bill of Rights in heaven would suggest that God couldn’t be trusted.
The Best of Walter E. Williams


lewrockwell--2020-01-29--Impeachment: The Left’s Ultimate Weapon

Impeachment: The Left’s Ultimate Weapon

In 1868 , President Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act that had been enacted by Congress over his veto in 1867 .
Defying the law , Johnson fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton , without getting Senate approval , as the act required him to do .
In his 1956 Pulitzer Prize-winning book , John F. Kennedy made Edmund Ross one of the Senate ’ s “ Profiles in Courage ” for his decisive and heroic vote not to convict and remove Johnson .
Repealed in 1887 , the Tenure of Office Act was later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But while the act was the lethal instrument to be used in the political assassination of a president whom the Radical Republicans meant to terminate , Stanton ’ s ouster was not the primary cause of their fury .
What truly enraged the Radical Republicans was Johnson ’ s resolve to be more magnanimous toward the defeated South than they meant to be .
Johnson had in mind an earlier end to the military occupation of the South and a more rapid return of the seceded states to the Union .
The Death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buchanan Check Amazon for Pricing .
The story is told in the 1942 Hollywood film “ Tennessee Johnson , ” starring Van Heflin , which has since gone down the memory hole along with Woodrow Wilson ’ s White House favorite , “ Birth of a Nation.
” As historians concede , the impeachment of Johnson was about Reconstruction and who would remake the South .
Would it be the Southern majority that fought and lost the war , or the victorious Yankees and the “ scalawags ” and “ carpetbaggers ” laboring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were not about conciliation .
So severe were aspects of the occupation that Gen. Robert E. Lee reportedly said if he had known what was coming , he might not have quit fighting .
So , too , the impeachment of Donald Trump is not really about his 10-week delay in shipping arms to Ukraine or his postponing of a visit by Ukraine ’ s president until he announced an investigation of Burisma Holdings and Joe and Hunter Biden .
Even before the 2016 election , Democrats , collaborating with a like-minded media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they possess , to first prevent and then to overturn the election results of 2016 .
Russiagate , the James Comey FBI investigation , the Mueller probe — aborting a Trump presidency has always been the goal .
Saturday , White House counsel Pat Cipollone succinctly described to the Senate the bottom line : “ They ’ re asking you to remove President Trump from the ballot in an election that ’ s occurring in approximately nine months .
… They ’ re asking you to tear up all of the ballots across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take that decision away from the American people.
” To save “ our democracy , ” to which they pay tireless tribute , the impeachers want to ensure that the people , in a supposedly free election in 2020 , are not allowed to make the same mistake they made in 2016 .
To save our democracy , the House and half the Senate want to deny the America electorate one of the most important roles the people play in this republic — the exercise of their right to choose the head of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States .
Disqualifying presidential candidates whom populists favor but elites abhor is a quite common practice — in Third World countries .
Churchill , Hitler , and ... Patrick J. Buchanan Best Price : $ 9.48 Buy New $ 14.00 Over the weekend , we learned that John Bolton , who has offered to testify in the Senate trial , claims in his coming book that Trump made a direct link between sending military aid to Ukraine and Ukraine ’ s opening an investigation of the Bidens .
This has caused some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly Bolton , in the impeachment trial .
If four Republicans vote for witnesses , they will be doing the work Adam Schiff , Jerry Nadler and Nancy Pelosi ’ s House failed to do in their haste to get Trump impeached by Christmas .
They will be prolonging a trial set up to burn and bury their president .
The Senate should let Trump ’ s defenders complete their case , as the House managers and impeachers have already done .
Then allow 16 hours of questioning .
Then call for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no bribery and no high crime in what the House managers allege .
There is nothing in the articles of impeachment voted that rises to a level to justify removing a president .
Harry Truman dropped atomic bombs on defenseless cities and sent 2 million POWs back to the tender mercies of Stalin in Operation Keelhaul after World War II .
JFK greenlighted the overthrow of an ally , President Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam , in a coup that ended in the murder of Diem .
LBJ ordered the wiretapping of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House shared the fruits of that FBI surveillance with a friendly press .
No one was impeached .
Why ?
Because Truman , JFK and LBJ were establishment favorites .
For Trump , a phone call with a Ukrainian president saying , “ Send us your Biden file and we will have a meeting , ” is a political capital crime justifying democracy ’ s version of a death penalty .
The Best of Patrick J. Buchanan

Shop all books by Pat Buchanan
In 1868, President Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act that had been enacted by Congress over his veto in 1867. Defying the law, Johnson fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, without getting Senate approval, as the act required him to do.
In his 1956 Pulitzer Prize-winning book, John F. Kennedy made Edmund Ross one of the Senate’s “Profiles in Courage” for his decisive and heroic vote not to convict and remove Johnson.
Repealed in 1887, the Tenure of Office Act was later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
But while the act was the lethal instrument to be used in the political assassination of a president whom the Radical Republicans meant to terminate, Stanton’s ouster was not the primary cause of their fury.
What truly enraged the Radical Republicans was Johnson’s resolve to be more magnanimous toward the defeated South than they meant to be. Johnson had in mind an earlier end to the military occupation of the South and a more rapid return of the seceded states to the Union.
The story is told in the 1942 Hollywood film “Tennessee Johnson,” starring Van Heflin, which has since gone down the memory hole along with Woodrow Wilson’s White House favorite, “Birth of a Nation.”
As historians concede, the impeachment of Johnson was about Reconstruction and who would remake the South. Would it be the Southern majority that fought and lost the war, or the victorious Yankees and the “scalawags” and “carpetbaggers” laboring alongside them?
The triumphant Radical Republicans were not about conciliation. So severe were aspects of the occupation that Gen. Robert E. Lee reportedly said if he had known what was coming, he might not have quit fighting.
So, too, the impeachment of Donald Trump is not really about his 10-week delay in shipping arms to Ukraine or his postponing of a visit by Ukraine’s president until he announced an investigation of Burisma Holdings and Joe and Hunter Biden.
Even before the 2016 election, Democrats, collaborating with a like-minded media, were using the instruments of power they possess, to first prevent and then to overturn the election results of 2016.
Russiagate, the James Comey FBI investigation, the Mueller probe — aborting a Trump presidency has always been the goal.
Saturday, White House counsel Pat Cipollone succinctly described to the Senate the bottom line:
“They’re asking you to remove President Trump from the ballot in an election that’s occurring in approximately nine months. … They’re asking you to tear up all of the ballots across this country on your own initiative, take that decision away from the American people.”
To save “our democracy,” to which they pay tireless tribute, the impeachers want to ensure that the people, in a supposedly free election in 2020, are not allowed to make the same mistake they made in 2016.
To save our democracy, the House and half the Senate want to deny the America electorate one of the most important roles the people play in this republic — the exercise of their right to choose the head of state and commander in chief of the United States.
Disqualifying presidential candidates whom populists favor but elites abhor is a quite common practice — in Third World countries.
Churchill, Hitler, and... Patrick J. Buchanan Best Price: $9.48 Buy New $14.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details) Over the weekend, we learned that John Bolton, who has offered to testify in the Senate trial, claims in his coming book that Trump made a direct link between sending military aid to Ukraine and Ukraine’s opening an investigation of the Bidens.
This has caused some Republican senators to reconsider calling witnesses, particularly Bolton, in the impeachment trial.
If four Republicans vote for witnesses, they will be doing the work Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and Nancy Pelosi’s House failed to do in their haste to get Trump impeached by Christmas. They will be prolonging a trial set up to burn and bury their president.
The Senate should let Trump’s defenders complete their case, as the House managers and impeachers have already done. Then allow 16 hours of questioning. Then call for the verdict.
There is no treason, no bribery and no high crime in what the House managers allege. There is nothing in the articles of impeachment voted that rises to a level to justify removing a president.
Harry Truman dropped atomic bombs on defenseless cities and sent 2 million POWs back to the tender mercies of Stalin in Operation Keelhaul after World War II.
JFK greenlighted the overthrow of an ally, President Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam, in a coup that ended in the murder of Diem.
LBJ ordered the wiretapping of Martin Luther King, and his White House shared the fruits of that FBI surveillance with a friendly press.
No one was impeached.
Why? Because Truman, JFK and LBJ were establishment favorites.
For Trump, a phone call with a Ukrainian president saying, “Send us your Biden file and we will have a meeting,” is a political capital crime justifying democracy’s version of a death penalty.
The Best of Patrick J. Buchanan


lewrockwell--2020-01-29--‘Nobody Ever Gets Points for Saying Anything Good About Russia’

US Congress heavyweights like Adam Schiff deeply misunderstand Russia but keep on bashing Moscow because it has become “ politically advantageous ” in Washington , Russia researcher Stephen Cohen said .
“ Being highly-critical of Russia is good politics in the United States , ” Cohen , professor emeritus of Russian studies at New York University and Princeton University , told the Grayzone ’ s Aaron Mate in an interview , uploaded online on Monday .
Cohen said that “ politically it ’ s advantageous to a lot of people to bash Russia , ” and even some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2020 presidential race employ rhetoric , which is hostile toward Moscow .
The US Democratic Party ’ s lead impeachment manager , Representative Adam Schiff , has invoked Russia a lot during the trial in the Senate .
Democrats want to oust President Donald Trump because they believe he briefly suspended military aid to Ukraine while trying to pressure Kiev into investigating the dealings of his chief 2020 rival , former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter .
Sending weapons to Ukraine serves America ’ s “ abiding interest in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 Cohen , however , said that shipping weapons to Kiev would effectively amount to the US turning its back on Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky ’ s efforts to resolve the conflict with Russia through peaceful means .
Instead , he thinks Washington should focus on encouraging the neighbors to negotiate .
“ If Zelensky had full American backing for his peace talks with Putin – that would help him a lot.
” Speaking on the Senate floor , Schiff accused Moscow of trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government institutions around the globe .
Cohen argued that the congressman misunderstands what Russian President Vladimir Putin actually “ sees as his own historical mission , ” and it is almost the opposite of what Schiff attributes to him .
According to the researcher , Putin ’ s chief ambition is “ to rebuild Russia from the disaster into which it fell in the 1990s ” after the collapse of the Soviet Union .
The Russia researcher said that Moscow is currently focused on ties with China , but Putin would like to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US as well .
“ The notion that he wants to foster discord in the very countries , with which he wants what he calls ‘ modernizing trade relations ’ is just ignorance on the part of Adam Schiff .
Because Schiff runs his mouth a lot about Russia , we get to hear the kind of ignorance… that dominates a large segment of policy-makers in Washington .
”

US Congress heavyweights like Adam Schiff deeply misunderstand Russia but keep on bashing Moscow because it has become “politically advantageous” in Washington, Russia researcher Stephen Cohen said.
“Being highly-critical of Russia is good politics in the United States,” Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at New York University and Princeton University, told the Grayzone’s Aaron Mate in an interview, uploaded online on Monday.
Nobody ever gets any points for saying anything good about Russia – and only rarely for advocating any kind of partnership with Russia.
Cohen said that “politically it’s advantageous to a lot of people to bash Russia,” and even some of the “progressive” Democratic Party candidates in the 2020 presidential race employ rhetoric, which is hostile toward Moscow.
It has become an American way of life to blame Russia when things go wrong. Of course, sometimes Russia is to blame, but not all the time. And yet that’s become part of our discourse.
The US Democratic Party’s lead impeachment manager, Representative Adam Schiff, has invoked Russia a lot during the trial in the Senate. Democrats want to oust President Donald Trump because they believe he briefly suspended military aid to Ukraine while trying to pressure Kiev into investigating the dealings of his chief 2020 rival, former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Sending weapons to Ukraine serves America’s “abiding interest in stemming Russian expansionism,” Schiff argued. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
Cohen, however, said that shipping weapons to Kiev would effectively amount to the US turning its back on Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky’s efforts to resolve the conflict with Russia through peaceful means. Instead, he thinks Washington should focus on encouraging the neighbors to negotiate.
“If Zelensky had full American backing for his peace talks with Putin – that would help him a lot.”
Speaking on the Senate floor, Schiff accused Moscow of trying to undermine the faith in democracy and government institutions around the globe.
Cohen argued that the congressman misunderstands what Russian President Vladimir Putin actually “sees as his own historical mission,” and it is almost the opposite of what Schiff attributes to him.
According to the researcher, Putin’s chief ambition is “to rebuild Russia from the disaster into which it fell in the 1990s” after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The last thing Putin wants is instability. He’s trying to build economy at home and economic relations with countries abroad because he sees that as a way to modernize Russia.
The Russia researcher said that Moscow is currently focused on ties with China, but Putin would like to have good trade relations with Europe and the US as well.
“The notion that he wants to foster discord in the very countries, with which he wants what he calls ‘modernizing trade relations’ is just ignorance on the part of Adam Schiff. Because Schiff runs his mouth a lot about Russia, we get to hear the kind of ignorance… that dominates a large segment of policy-makers in Washington.”
Reprinted from RT News.


lewrockwell--2020-01-29--The Unbearable Hypocrisy of US Sanctions on Iran

On November 22nd of last year , the US government announced it would impose sanctions on Iran ’ s information minister for his alleged role in limiting domestic Internet access while protests raged in that country over increases in gas prices .
At the time , US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin condemned the Iranian government for censuring information that Iranian citizens could view online , stating that , “ Iran ’ s leaders know that a free and open internet exposes their illegitimacy , so they seek to censor internet access to quell anti-regime protests.
” The Iranians were evil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge of economic sanctions , because it restricted what its citizens could read in the international press .
Our government would never do that…right ?
A Foreign Policy Of Fr ... Ron Paul Best Price : $ 27.95 Buy New $ 27.95 Wrong .
Yesterday , the US government knocked Iran ’ s state news agency , FARS , off of the Internet entirely , citing US sanctions against the country .
What that means is the Iranian news service is being censored by the United States government and that Americans will therefore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from this foreign media outlet .
Exactly what Mnuchin accused Iran of doing back in November .
The news agency said that it had received an email from the server company , which explicitly said that the blockage is due to an order by the Treasury ’ s Office of Foreign Assets Control ( OFAC ) and its inclusion in the list of Specially Designated Nationals ( SDN ) .
The agency attached to its post a screenshot of its website with the message “ www.farsnews.com ’ s server IP address could not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Iranian media is nothing new .
Iran ’ s PressTV has been removed from YouTube and other US social media with “ US sanctions on Iran ” being given as the reason .
Americans are not allowed to see the Iranian perspective on the Middle East because the Beltway bombardiers and their bosses in the military-industrial complex depend on successfully demonizing all Persians so that Americans will accept their annihilation in another neocon war .
If Americans are allowed to see the Iranian perspective they might not be so supportive of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The bottom line is this : the US Administration cites Iran ’ s restricting of outside media as evidence of the evil nature of the Iranian government , all the while scrambling to restrict American citizens ’ access to Iranian media outlets .
The Best of Daniel McAdams

On November 22nd of last year, the US government announced it would impose sanctions on Iran’s information minister for his alleged role in limiting domestic Internet access while protests raged in that country over increases in gas prices.
At the time, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin condemned the Iranian government for censuring information that Iranian citizens could view online, stating that, “Iran’s leaders know that a free and open internet exposes their illegitimacy, so they seek to censor internet access to quell anti-regime protests.”
The Iranians were evil, said the US government official in charge of economic sanctions, because it restricted what its citizens could read in the international press.
Our government would never do that…right?
A Foreign Policy Of Fr... Paul, Ron Best Price: $27.94 Buy New $42.70 (as of 04:30 UTC - Details) Wrong. Yesterday, the US government knocked Iran’s state news agency, FARS, off of the Internet entirely, citing US sanctions against the country.
What that means is the Iranian news service is being censored by the United States government and that Americans will therefore no longer be able to see anything from this foreign media outlet.
Exactly what Mnuchin accused Iran of doing back in November.
Zerohedge writes, “as Iran’s PressTV describes further“:
The news agency said that it had received an email from the server company, which explicitly said that the blockage is due to an order by the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and its inclusion in the list of Specially Designated Nationals (SDN). The agency attached to its post a screenshot of its website with the message “www.farsnews.com’s server IP address could not be found.”
This latest US censorship of Iranian media is nothing new. Iran’s PressTV has been removed from YouTube and other US social media with “US sanctions on Iran” being given as the reason.
Americans are not allowed to see the Iranian perspective on the Middle East because the Beltway bombardiers and their bosses in the military-industrial complex depend on successfully demonizing all Persians so that Americans will accept their annihilation in another neocon war. If Americans are allowed to see the Iranian perspective they might not be so supportive of the slaughter the neocons are cooking up.
The bottom line is this: the US Administration cites Iran’s restricting of outside media as evidence of the evil nature of the Iranian government, all the while scrambling to restrict American citizens’ access to Iranian media outlets.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Hypocrisy.
The Best of Daniel McAdams


lewrockwell--2020-01-29--The Corona Virus: What To Do

The Corona Virus: What To Do

I am sure you aware of the corona virus infection that is causing concern around the world .
A January 24 , 2020 study in The Lancet reported the latest statistics .
( 1 ) The fatality rate ( so far ) from the corona infection is approaching 15 % .
That is not good news .
There is a big HOWEVER here : This Lancet report is based on only 41 laboratory confirmed cases of the recent corona virus strain ( 2019-nCoV ) .
Keep in mind , the 15 % fatality rate is the percentage of hospitalized patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be many more people who became ill with this corona virus and recovered uneventfully and therefore , did not seek care .
The symptoms of corona virus initially mimic the flu—fever , headache , cough , fatigue and muscle aches .
The 41 patients admitted to the hospital all developed pneumonia .
Corona virus is nothing new .
It has been with us for a long time .
Corona virus can affect both animals and humans .
It is important to keep in mind that most corona viral infections are mild .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two serious corona virus infections–severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus ( SARS-CoV ) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus ( MERS-CoV ) which both had elevated death rates .
Iodine : Why You Need I ... M.D .
David Brownstein Best Price : $ 22.99 Buy New $ 25.00 So , what can you do ?
Wearing a mask will not help protect you from becoming ill with any viral infection—corona virus included .
I would check that off the list .
First , it is important to maintain optimal levels of nutrients , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have suboptimal vitamin A and C levels .
Both of these nutrients have antiviral abilities and are able to support the immune system when it is under viral attack .
If you are not ill , I suggest taking 3-5,000 mg/day of vitamin C. At the first sign of an illness , I would suggest taking 1,000 mg/day every hour until diarrhea develops , then back off for a time period .
For vitamin A , I suggest using 5,000 Units/day if you are not sick and 100,000 Units/day for four days at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pregnant women can not take these doses .
( Note : Take vitamin A , not beta carotene . )
Iodine is essential to not only fighting off an infection it is necessary for proper immune system functioning .
There is no bacteria , virus , parasite or fungus that is known to be resistant to iodine .
As I have written in my book , Iodine : Why You Need It , Why You Can ’ t Live Without It , most of the population is low in iodine .
If fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % over the last 40 years .
The RDA for iodine is inadequate to supply enough iodine for all the bodily tissues .
For the majority of my patients , I suggest taking 25 mg/day as a daily dose and more ( sometimes 50-100 mg/day ) at the first sign of an illness .
Iodine can cause adverse effects and it is best used under the guidance of an iodine-knowledgeable doctor .
The Best of Dr. David Brownstein

I am sure you aware of the corona virus infection that is causing concern around the world. A January 24, 2020 study in The Lancet reported the latest statistics. (1) The fatality rate (so far) from the corona infection is approaching 15%. That is not good news.
There is a big HOWEVER here: This Lancet report is based on only 41 laboratory confirmed cases of the recent corona virus strain (2019-nCoV). Keep in mind, the 15% fatality rate is the percentage of hospitalized patients suffering with corona virus. There must be many more people who became ill with this corona virus and recovered uneventfully and therefore, did not seek care.
The symptoms of corona virus initially mimic the flu—fever, headache, cough, fatigue and muscle aches. The 41 patients admitted to the hospital all developed pneumonia.
Corona virus is nothing new. It has been with us for a long time. Corona virus can affect both animals and humans. It is important to keep in mind that most corona viral infections are mild. In the last two decades, there were two serious corona virus infections–severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) which both had elevated death rates. Iodine: Why You Need I... David Brownstein, M.D. Best Price: $25.00 Buy New $25.00 (as of 05:15 UTC - Details)
So, what can you do? Wearing a mask will not help protect you from becoming ill with any viral infection—corona virus included. I would check that off the list.
First, it is important to maintain optimal levels of nutrients, particularly vitamins A and C. Most people have suboptimal vitamin A and C levels. Both of these nutrients have antiviral abilities and are able to support the immune system when it is under viral attack. If you are not ill, I suggest taking 3-5,000 mg/day of vitamin C. At the first sign of an illness, I would suggest taking 1,000 mg/day every hour until diarrhea develops, then back off for a time period. For vitamin A, I suggest using 5,000 Units/day if you are not sick and 100,000 Units/day for four days at the first sign of an illness. Pregnant women cannot take these doses. (Note: Take vitamin A, not beta carotene.)
Iodine is essential to not only fighting off an infection it is necessary for proper immune system functioning. There is no bacteria, virus, parasite or fungus that is known to be resistant to iodine. As I have written in my book, Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can’t Live Without It, most of the population is low in iodine. If fact, iodine levels have fallen nearly 60% over the last 40 years. The RDA for iodine is inadequate to supply enough iodine for all the bodily tissues. For the majority of my patients, I suggest taking 25 mg/day as a daily dose and more (sometimes 50-100 mg/day) at the first sign of an illness. Iodine can cause adverse effects and it is best used under the guidance of an iodine-knowledgeable doctor.
Read the Whole Article
The Best of Dr. David Brownstein


lewrockwell--2020-01-29--Populism in Italy Is Far From Defeated

Populism in Italy Is Far From Defeated

Italy ’ s national populists have suffered a major setback .
At the regional elections last weekend , Matteo Salvini and his Right-wing alliance failed in their quest to capture the Left-wing fiefdom of Emilia-Romagna .
When all votes had been counted , the Right-wing alliance , which had hoped to use a shock victory to force fresh national elections , finished more than seven points behind the Left .
It wasn ’ t even close .
For much of the past three years Salvini has seemed unstoppable .
While the 46-year-old has at times miscalculated , like last summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down Italy ’ s shaky government , he has developed a potent message .
Strident opposition to immigration , refugees , Brussels and Rome , combined with a near-constant presence on social media , has transformed Lega from a northern separatist fringe party into a serious force that has swept southwards and into first place in the national polls .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 But now Salvini has been stalled .
Cue much talk about the decline of populism .
“ Peak Populism ?
” asked The Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his defeat .
It is not the first time this question has been asked , of course .
In the aftermath of Marine Le Pen ’ s defeat to Emmanuel Macron in 2017 , many observers drew the same conclusion ; populism had finally been kicked into decline .
But then it continued to consolidate across much of Europe , not only at the national level but also winning a record number of seats in the European Parliament last spring .
As in 2017 , many see Salvini ’ s defeat in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line in the sand in the global debate about how to defeat populism .
Bruised by their defeat in the Brexit wars , and anxious about a looming rematch with Donald Trump in November , liberal campaigners are rushing to draw lessons from the regional battle , or what Italy ’ s La Repubblica has branded Salvini ’ s “ first defeat ” .
Some are already arguing that the main takeaway is the need for mass mobilisation .
Perhaps the most striking feature of the election is that , compared to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 30 points .
Then comes the more specific counter-mobilisation in the form of the ‘ Sardines ’ movement , which sprung up in November to oppose Salvini and the Right-wing turn in Italian politics .
The Sardines , named on account of the way in which they pack themselves into town squares , are already being hailed around the world as an antidote to populism .
“ An Italian flash mob just pushed back Europe ’ s populist tide “ , reads a headline in The Atlantic .
But is this really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubt that the vibrant , youth-led movement played a role but precisely how much of a role is up for debate .
Compared to the last election the Left ’ s share of the vote only increased by 2-points .
The Right ’ s jumped by nearly 14-points while Salvini and Lega walked away with a new record share of the vote , as did the ultra Right Brothers of Italy who saw their support jump more than four-fold .

Italy’s national populists have suffered a major setback. At the regional elections last weekend, Matteo Salvini and his Right-wing alliance failed in their quest to capture the Left-wing fiefdom of Emilia-Romagna.
When all votes had been counted, the Right-wing alliance, which had hoped to use a shock victory to force fresh national elections, finished more than seven points behind the Left. It wasn’t even close.
For much of the past three years Salvini has seemed unstoppable. While the 46-year-old has at times miscalculated, like last summer when he tried and failed to bring down Italy’s shaky government, he has developed a potent message.
Strident opposition to immigration, refugees, Brussels and Rome, combined with a near-constant presence on social media, has transformed Lega from a northern separatist fringe party into a serious force that has swept southwards and into first place in the national polls.
Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details) But now Salvini has been stalled. Cue much talk about the decline of populism. “Peak Populism?” asked The Times in its leader, in the shadow of his defeat. It is not the first time this question has been asked, of course. In the aftermath of Marine Le Pen’s defeat to Emmanuel Macron in 2017, many observers drew the same conclusion; populism had finally been kicked into decline. But then it continued to consolidate across much of Europe, not only at the national level but also winning a record number of seats in the European Parliament last spring.
As in 2017, many see Salvini’s defeat in Emilia-Romagna as a crucial watershed; a line in the sand in the global debate about how to defeat populism. Bruised by their defeat in the Brexit wars, and anxious about a looming rematch with Donald Trump in November, liberal campaigners are rushing to draw lessons from the regional battle, or what Italy’s La Repubblica has branded Salvini’s “first defeat”.
Some are already arguing that the main takeaway is the need for mass mobilisation. Perhaps the most striking feature of the election is that, compared to the previous contest in 2014, turnout surged by 30 points.
Then comes the more specific counter-mobilisation in the form of the ‘Sardines’ movement, which sprung up in November to oppose Salvini and the Right-wing turn in Italian politics. The Sardines, named on account of the way in which they pack themselves into town squares, are already being hailed around the world as an antidote to populism. “An Italian flash mob just pushed back Europe’s populist tide“, reads a headline in The Atlantic.
But is this really the case? There is certainly no doubt that the vibrant, youth-led movement played a role but precisely how much of a role is up for debate. Compared to the last election the Left’s share of the vote only increased by 2-points. The Right’s jumped by nearly 14-points while Salvini and Lega walked away with a new record share of the vote, as did the ultra Right Brothers of Italy who saw their support jump more than four-fold.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-01-29--Chaotic Libya Being Helped Towards Stability

The international conference about Libya in Berlin on January 19 was a success , in that the parties agreed to a meaningful set of conclusions and recommendations that appear to have a reasonable chance of at least limiting conflict and halting further expansion of Islamic State in the region .
One reason for tepid reaction and lack of enthusiasm about the outcome on the part of the Western mainstream media was that participants included Presidents Putin and Erdogan , both of whom were influential in pursuing compromise and moderation in the path to peace in the violence-stricken country whose Western-inspired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and four international organisations were represented in Berlin , and it is notable that the event was hosted by Angela Merkel who , as with Presidents Putin and Erdogan , had refused to join in the jolly U.S.-sponsored blitzkrieg that wrecked Libya , and even more notable that NATO ’ s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg wasn ’ t invited to attend .
It was no doubt borne in mind that nine NATO countries conducted a total of 5488 airstrikes on Libya between 19 March and 31 October 2011 , while cruise missiles were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the UK ( 18 ) .
Nothing was said in Berlin about the responsibility of the U.S.-NATO alliance ( and other culprits including , amazingly , Sweden ) for reducing Libya to the utter chaos in which it now exists .
As observed at the meeting , “ The conflict in Libya , the instability in the country , the external interferences , the institutional divisions , the proliferation of a vast amount of unchecked weapons and the economy of predation continue to be a threat to international peace and security ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interference in the armed conflict or in the internal affairs of Libya and urge all international actors to do the same.
” Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 It is regrettable , to put it mildly , that NATO ’ s U.S. , UK , France and Italy , all of which were represented in Berlin , had not in 2011 “ refrained from interference ” in Libya , and the western media refrained from making the slightest mention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Washington Post recording lamely that Libya ’ s President Muammar Gaddafi “ was toppled and killed by rebels during the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings and NATO intervention.
” Intervention ?
The word ‘ intervention ’ is defined in the Cambridge Dictionary as “ action taken to intentionally become involved in a difficult situation in order to improve it or prevent it from getting worse ” and this certainly is not what the U.S.-NATO military alliance accomplished in its seven months of bombing and rocketing all over the country .
There was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Libya , and the U.S.-NATO blitz led directly to its collapse in ruin and vicious civil war .
Although the heads of government of Germany , Russia , the UK , Turkey , Italy and France were at the Berlin Summit , Washington ’ s Trump was conspicuous by his absence which was probably just as well , because nobody knows where he stands as regards the Libya debacle .
Last April , as reported by the New York Times , he “ abruptly reversed American policy toward Libya , issuing a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battle to depose the United Nations-backed government.
” Trump ’ s ‘ strongman ’ is the self-styled “ Marshal ” Khalifa Haftar , a former CIA asset , who is still waging war to overthrow the admittedly incompetent government of Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj .
It was lunacy on the part of Trump to telephone the rebel leader and tell him , as stated by the White House , that he “ recognized Field Marshal Haftar ’ s significant role in fighting terrorism and securing Libya ’ s oil resources , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s transition to a stable , democratic political system ” .
This was directly contrary to the stance of Secretary of State Pompeo ( who was in Berlin and said nothing of note ) in that he had strongly criticised Haftar ’ s military actions .
It all comes down to oil and profits , of course , so far as western interest in Libya is concerned , and it should be borne in mind that in March 2004 , when UK Prime Minister Blair paid a visit to President Gaddafi , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marked its return to Libya after an absence of more than a decade by signing a $ 200 million gas exploration deal with the former pariah state.
” Libya has the world ’ s ninth largest oil reserves , and the U.S. companies ConocoPhillips , ExxonMobil , Marathon Oil Corporation and the Hess Company were already heavily involved in exploiting its deposits .
The country was thriving under the despot Gaddafi , who was certainly ruthless and persecuted his enemies most savagely — but life for most Libyans was comfortable and even the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s “ particular form of socialism does provide free education , healthcare and subsidized housing and transport , ” although “ wages are extremely low and the wealth of the state and profits from foreign investments have only benefited a narrow elite ” ( which doesn ’ t happen anywhere else , of course ) .
The CIA World Factbook noted that Gaddafi ’ s Libya had a literacy rate of 94.2 % , by far the best in Africa ( and better than Malaysia , Mexico and Saudi Arabia ) , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expectancy of 72.3 years , among the highest in the developing world .
But then Gaddafi made the mistake that cost him his country and his life .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 On January 21 , 2011 Reuters reported that “ Muammar Gaddafi said his country and other oil exporters were looking into nationalizing foreign firms due to low oil prices.
” He suggested that “ oil should be owned by the State at this time , so we could better control prices by the increase or decrease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his country was set on the road to chaos by a rebellion supported by NATO ’ s Operation Unified Protector , after which NATO proudly announced that “ After seven months of operations at sea and in the air NATO has ended its mission for Libya .
The Alliance ’ s job to protect civilians from the threat of attack is done .
On his historic first visit on 31 October to the Libyan capital of Tripoli , NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he was proud of the part the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country and the region.
” Rasmussen was joined in happy satisfaction by Ivo Daalder , U.S. Representative on the NATO Council from 2009 to 2013 , and Admiral James G ( ‘ Zorba ’ ) Stavridis , U.S. Supreme Allied Commander Europe ( the military commander of NATO ) in the same period .
After their war these two ninnies had a piece published in the New York Times in which they made the absurd claim that “ the alliance and its partners can look back at an extraordinary job , well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can see in the gratitude of the Libyan people that the use of limited force — precisely applied — can affect real , positive political change.
” Tell that to those who gathered at the Berlin conference to try to find a way forward from the tragic catastrophe created by these dimwits .
The way ahead is for the UN Security Council to endorse the Berlin ‘ Follow-Up ’ recommendations , especially noting that the conference was “ one important step in a broader Libyan-led and Libyan-owned process designed to bring a decisive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a comprehensive manner the underlying drivers of the conflict.
” The main thing is to keep NATO and Trump out of it and help Libya towards stability by pressuring Haftar and supporting moves to democratic government .
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation .

The international conference about Libya in Berlin on January 19 was a success, in that the parties agreed to a meaningful set of conclusions and recommendations that appear to have a reasonable chance of at least limiting conflict and halting further expansion of Islamic State in the region. One reason for tepid reaction and lack of enthusiasm about the outcome on the part of the Western mainstream media was that participants included Presidents Putin and Erdogan, both of whom were influential in pursuing compromise and moderation in the path to peace in the violence-stricken country whose Western-inspired destruction began in 2011.
Twelve countries and four international organisations were represented in Berlin, and it is notable that the event was hosted by Angela Merkel who, as with Presidents Putin and Erdogan, had refused to join in the jolly U.S.-sponsored blitzkrieg that wrecked Libya, and even more notable that NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg wasn’t invited to attend. It was no doubt borne in mind that nine NATO countries conducted a total of 5488 airstrikes on Libya between 19 March and 31 October 2011, while cruise missiles were fired by the U.S. (228) and the UK (18).
Nothing was said in Berlin about the responsibility of the U.S.-NATO alliance (and other culprits including, amazingly, Sweden) for reducing Libya to the utter chaos in which it now exists. As observed at the meeting, “The conflict in Libya, the instability in the country, the external interferences, the institutional divisions, the proliferation of a vast amount of unchecked weapons and the economy of predation continue to be a threat to international peace and security” and attendees committed “to refraining from interference in the armed conflict or in the internal affairs of Libya and urge all international actors to do the same.” Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
It is regrettable, to put it mildly, that NATO’s U.S., UK, France and Italy, all of which were represented in Berlin, had not in 2011 “refrained from interference” in Libya, and the western media refrained from making the slightest mention of their culpability with, for example, the Washington Post recording lamely that Libya’s President Muammar Gaddafi “was toppled and killed by rebels during the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings and NATO intervention.”
Intervention? The word ‘intervention’ is defined in the Cambridge Dictionary as “action taken to intentionally become involved in a difficult situation in order to improve it or prevent it from getting worse” and this certainly is not what the U.S.-NATO military alliance accomplished in its seven months of bombing and rocketing all over the country. There was no improvement whatever to the situation in Libya, and the U.S.-NATO blitz led directly to its collapse in ruin and vicious civil war.
Although the heads of government of Germany, Russia, the UK, Turkey, Italy and France were at the Berlin Summit, Washington’s Trump was conspicuous by his absence which was probably just as well, because nobody knows where he stands as regards the Libya debacle. Last April, as reported by the New York Times, he “abruptly reversed American policy toward Libya, issuing a statement publicly endorsing an aspiring strongman in his battle to depose the United Nations-backed government.” Trump’s ‘strongman’ is the self-styled “Marshal” Khalifa Haftar, a former CIA asset, who is still waging war to overthrow the admittedly incompetent government of Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj.
It was lunacy on the part of Trump to telephone the rebel leader and tell him, as stated by the White House, that he “recognized Field Marshal Haftar’s significant role in fighting terrorism and securing Libya’s oil resources, and the two discussed a shared vision for Libya’s transition to a stable, democratic political system”. This was directly contrary to the stance of Secretary of State Pompeo (who was in Berlin and said nothing of note) in that he had strongly criticised Haftar’s military actions.
It all comes down to oil and profits, of course, so far as western interest in Libya is concerned, and it should be borne in mind that in March 2004, when UK Prime Minister Blair paid a visit to President Gaddafi, it was reported that “Shell today marked its return to Libya after an absence of more than a decade by signing a $200 million gas exploration deal with the former pariah state.” Libya has the world’s ninth largest oil reserves, and the U.S. companies ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Marathon Oil Corporation and the Hess Company were already heavily involved in exploiting its deposits.
The country was thriving under the despot Gaddafi, who was certainly ruthless and persecuted his enemies most savagely — but life for most Libyans was comfortable and even the BBC had to admit that Gaddafi’s “particular form of socialism does provide free education, healthcare and subsidized housing and transport,” although “wages are extremely low and the wealth of the state and profits from foreign investments have only benefited a narrow elite” (which doesn’t happen anywhere else, of course). The CIA World Factbook noted that Gaddafi’s Libya had a literacy rate of 94.2%, by far the best in Africa (and better than Malaysia, Mexico and Saudi Arabia), and the World Health Organization recorded a life expectancy of 72.3 years, among the highest in the developing world.
But then Gaddafi made the mistake that cost him his country and his life.
Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details) On January 21, 2011 Reuters reported that “Muammar Gaddafi said his country and other oil exporters were looking into nationalizing foreign firms due to low oil prices.” He suggested that “oil should be owned by the State at this time, so we could better control prices by the increase or decrease in production.” His fate was sealed and his country was set on the road to chaos by a rebellion supported by NATO’s Operation Unified Protector, after which NATO proudly announced that “After seven months of operations at sea and in the air NATO has ended its mission for Libya. The Alliance’s job to protect civilians from the threat of attack is done. On his historic first visit on 31 October to the Libyan capital of Tripoli, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he was proud of the part the Organization and its partners played in helping the country and the region.”
Rasmussen was joined in happy satisfaction by Ivo Daalder, U.S. Representative on the NATO Council from 2009 to 2013, and Admiral James G (‘Zorba’) Stavridis, U.S. Supreme Allied Commander Europe (the military commander of NATO) in the same period. After their war these two ninnies had a piece published in the New York Times in which they made the absurd claim that “the alliance and its partners can look back at an extraordinary job, well done. Most of all, they can see in the gratitude of the Libyan people that the use of limited force — precisely applied — can affect real, positive political change.”
Tell that to those who gathered at the Berlin conference to try to find a way forward from the tragic catastrophe created by these dimwits.
The way ahead is for the UN Security Council to endorse the Berlin ‘Follow-Up’ recommendations, especially noting that the conference was “one important step in a broader Libyan-led and Libyan-owned process designed to bring a decisive end to the Libyan crisis by addressing in a comprehensive manner the underlying drivers of the conflict.” The main thing is to keep NATO and Trump out of it and help Libya towards stability by pressuring Haftar and supporting moves to democratic government.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.


lewrockwell--2020-01-29--Triangulation: Erdogan’s Secret Weapon

Triangulation: Erdogan’s Secret Weapon

A former colleague of mine from Turkey , Oya Dursun-Özkanca , has just published an informative monograph on “ Turkey-West Relations.
” The author examines Turkish foreign policy since the ascendancy of Recep Tayyip Erdogan as Turkish prime minister in 2003 and as Turkish president ( presumably for life ) since 2014 .
Clearly Erdogan has become an object of irritation for the American State Department and for Congress because of his fondness for “ boundary-breaking.
” The Turkish leader increasingly acts in a way to spite the U.S. and other members of NATO .
This may be partly related @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the EU , most recently in 2014 .
Turks were rebuffed for varied reasons , from charges of “ human rights violations ” to the fear of increasing Turkish immigration into Europe , to Turkey ’ s historic antagonism to Christian Europe .
In 2012 Erdogan pulled Turkey into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization , a group dominated by Russia and China , which shares intelligence information as well as economic markets .
The Turkish government gave assurances that nothing in this relation would interfere with Turkey ’ s continued membership in NATO , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the beginnings of the Cold War .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 Erdogan stirred the pot even more when in 2019 he purchased an S-500 missile defense system from Russia .
Presumably the necessary parts for its maintenance would come from the same country ; and although the system seems to be top-of-the-line , presumably more than military protection is at stake here .
Erdogan has been teasing the “ West ” by dealing with its designated adversary , even to the point of being willing to suffer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removed from an international program to build stealth missiles ( pending the cancellation of its arrangements to have the Russians install the ordered defense missile system , a process that ’ s already begun ) .
Dursun-Özkanca considers the “ rekindled relationship between Turkey and Russia , ” two countries that historically have been at loggerheads , as part of the “ costly signaling ” that the Turkish government has been sending to the “ West.
” In April 2019 Vice President Mike Pence reacted by stating emphatically that Turkey was risking its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alliance in history.
” The Best of Paul Gottfried

A former colleague of mine from Turkey, Oya Dursun-Özkanca, has just published an informative monograph on “Turkey-West Relations.” The author examines Turkish foreign policy since the ascendancy of Recep Tayyip Erdogan as Turkish prime minister in 2003 and as Turkish president (presumably for life) since 2014. Clearly Erdogan has become an object of irritation for the American State Department and for Congress because of his fondness for “boundary-breaking.” The Turkish leader increasingly acts in a way to spite the U.S. and other members of NATO. This may be partly related to Turkey’s failure to enter the EU, most recently in 2014. Turks were rebuffed for varied reasons, from charges of “human rights violations” to the fear of increasing Turkish immigration into Europe, to Turkey’s historic antagonism to Christian Europe. In 2012 Erdogan pulled Turkey into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a group dominated by Russia and China, which shares intelligence information as well as economic markets. The Turkish government gave assurances that nothing in this relation would interfere with Turkey’s continued membership in NATO, a connection that the country had had since the beginnings of the Cold War.
Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details) Erdogan stirred the pot even more when in 2019 he purchased an S-500 missile defense system from Russia. Presumably the necessary parts for its maintenance would come from the same country; and although the system seems to be top-of-the-line, presumably more than military protection is at stake here. Erdogan has been teasing the “West” by dealing with its designated adversary, even to the point of being willing to suffer the predictable consequences. Turkey has been removed from an international program to build stealth missiles (pending the cancellation of its arrangements to have the Russians install the ordered defense missile system, a process that’s already begun). Dursun-Özkanca considers the “rekindled relationship between Turkey and Russia,” two countries that historically have been at loggerheads, as part of the “costly signaling” that the Turkish government has been sending to the “West.” In April 2019 Vice President Mike Pence reacted by stating emphatically that Turkey was risking its membership in “the most successful military alliance in history.”
Read the Whole Article
The Best of Paul Gottfried


lewrockwell--2020-01-29--The Craggy Hill of Slavery

The Craggy Hill of Slavery

A review of It Wasn ’ t About Slavery : Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War ( Regnery History , 2020 ) by Samuel Mitcham On a huge hill , Cragged and steep , Truth stands , and he that will Reach her , about must and about must go , And what the hill ’ s suddenness resists , win so .
John Donne , Satire III As John Donne so correctly informs us , truth is not something easily discerned , recognized , nor often embraced .
Often when the truth is found and it does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaning , instead of graciously embracing the truth it is attacked and those seeking it are scorned .
In today ’ s post-modern , politically correct society anyone who expresses the truth about slavery and the War for Southern Independence must be willing to be subjected to the most horrendous attacks from leftists in the media , and academia , as well as being harangued by establishment politicians and many religious groups .
But this is precisely what Dr. Samuel Mitcham has willingly subjected himself to in his latest book , It Wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] In It Wasn ’ t About Slavery , Mitcham does not dance around the subject of why the War for Southern Independence was fought .
The good professor makes no attempt to flank the enemy ’ s stronghold or use “ intellectual ” drones to safely attack his opponent ’ s fortress of falsehoods .
At the front of his troops , the gallant “ General ” Mitcham makes an overwhelming and successful frontal attack upon p.c .
ignorance and arrogance .
The Northern victors of the War for Southern Independence use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their aggression , conquest , and occupation of the once free Confederate States of America .
They are : ( 1 ) Secession is equal to treason and ( 2 ) The South fought the “ Civil War ” ( not my term , theirs ’ ) to keep their slaves .
When it comes to truth-telling and the Yankee , Mitcham does not spare the rod of verbal chastisement : “ The victor , it is said , writes the history , but these people have abused the privilege ” [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mitcham makes an astute analysis of the true objective of “ those people ” as General Lee referred to Dixie ’ s invaders , as it relates to truth and history : “ Their objective is not to ‘ Seek the Truth ’ ( which should be the goal of every legitimate historian ) , but to serve an agenda.
” And what is the nature of the invader ’ s “ agenda ” ?
I will simply let another great Southern historian enlighten us : “ What passes as standard American history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Englanders or their puppets to glorify Yankee heroes and ideas.
” [ 3 ] Although the term “ fake news ” has become a commonly understood term today , Southerners must deal not only with “ fake news ” but most importantly to the survival of our culture , “ fake history.
” The keystone to modern-day fake history is the myth that slavery and therefore racism was a cornerstone of Southern society ; whereas , freedom , equality , and democracy were foundational to Northern society .
In essence this myth is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imposed upon the people of the South .
Punishing the South was necessary to make America a truly free country—so goes the myth .
As Mitcham demonstrates , white-supremacy and racism were more pronounced in the North than the South .
Many European visitors to these United States testified to this reality .
[ 4 ] As one historian noted even in the State of New Jersey it ’ s legislature “ had made ample provision by her own statue [ protecting ] the rights of the slaveholder.
” [ 5 ] In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Jersey Legislature declared , “ slavery existed at the time of the adoption of the constitution in all States of the confederacy ” [ 6 ] [ Federal Union ] .
Racism was also evident throughout the North .
For example , in 1864 , Republicans join Democrats in New Jersey and passed an anti-miscegenation law outlawing marriage between White and Black people .
[ 7 ] These examples could be repeated for virtually every Northern state ad infinitum .
Regardless of such examples of Northern slaveholding and Northern racism , teaches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must carry the burden of slavery and racism—Mitcham exposes this myth .

A review of It Wasn’t About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War (Regnery History, 2020) by Samuel Mitcham
On a huge hill, Cragged and steep, Truth stands, and he that will Reach her, about must and about must go, And what the hill’s suddenness resists, win so. John Donne, Satire III
As John Donne so correctly informs us, truth is not something easily discerned, recognized, nor often embraced. Often when the truth is found and it does not comport to man’s hoped-for meaning, instead of graciously embracing the truth it is attacked and those seeking it are scorned. In today’s post-modern, politically correct society anyone who expresses the truth about slavery and the War for Southern Independence must be willing to be subjected to the most horrendous attacks from leftists in the media, and academia, as well as being harangued by establishment politicians and many religious groups. But this is precisely what Dr. Samuel Mitcham has willingly subjected himself to in his latest book, It Wasn’t About Slavery.[1]
In It Wasn’t About Slavery, Mitcham does not dance around the subject of why the War for Southern Independence was fought. The good professor makes no attempt to flank the enemy’s stronghold or use “intellectual” drones to safely attack his opponent’s fortress of falsehoods. At the front of his troops, the gallant “General” Mitcham makes an overwhelming and successful frontal attack upon p.c. ignorance and arrogance. It Wasn’t About ... Mitcham Jr., Samuel W. Best Price: $21.39 Buy New $22.99 (as of 04:44 UTC - Details)
The Northern victors of the War for Southern Independence use two major myths to hide the nakedness of their aggression, conquest, and occupation of the once free Confederate States of America. They are: (1) Secession is equal to treason and (2) The South fought the “Civil War” (not my term, theirs’) to keep their slaves. When it comes to truth-telling and the Yankee, Mitcham does not spare the rod of verbal chastisement: “The victor, it is said, writes the history, but these people have abused the privilege”[2] [emphasis added]. Mitcham makes an astute analysis of the true objective of “those people” as General Lee referred to Dixie’s invaders, as it relates to truth and history: “Their objective is not to ‘Seek the Truth’ (which should be the goal of every legitimate historian), but to serve an agenda.” And what is the nature of the invader’s “agenda”? I will simply let another great Southern historian enlighten us: “What passes as standard American history is really Yankee history written by New Englanders or their puppets to glorify Yankee heroes and ideas.”[3] Although the term “fake news” has become a commonly understood term today, Southerners must deal not only with “fake news” but most importantly to the survival of our culture, “fake history.”
The keystone to modern-day fake history is the myth that slavery and therefore racism was a cornerstone of Southern society; whereas, freedom, equality, and democracy were foundational to Northern society. In essence this myth is used to explain away all the horrors imposed upon the people of the South. Punishing the South was necessary to make America a truly free country—so goes the myth. As Mitcham demonstrates, white-supremacy and racism were more pronounced in the North than the South. Many European visitors to these United States testified to this reality.[4] As one historian noted even in the State of New Jersey it’s legislature “had made ample provision by her own statue [protecting] the rights of the slaveholder.”[5] In 1858 New Jersey a committee of the New Jersey Legislature declared, “slavery existed at the time of the adoption of the constitution in all States of the confederacy”[6] [Federal Union]. Racism was also evident throughout the North. For example, in 1864, Republicans unanimously join Democrats in New Jersey and passed an anti-miscegenation law outlawing marriage between White and Black people.[7] These examples could be repeated for virtually every Northern state ad infinitum. Regardless of such examples of Northern slaveholding and Northern racism, fake history teaches Americans that it is the South that must carry the burden of slavery and racism—Mitcham exposes this myth.
Read the Whole Article


Tyrants With Pens

Did any of you know that most of the 20th-century monsters—Stalin , Mao , Hitler , Ceausescu , Duvalier , and even the Ethiopian mini-Napoleon Mengistu—were rather good writers who could form better-than-average sentences that said that power grew out of the barrel of a gun ?
I read this in a Big Bagel weekly that was once known for its wit but is now so blinded by hate against The Donald that it ’ s turned into a rag , surpassed in venom only by The New York Times and CNN .
I knew that Mussolini was a scribbler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his newspaper Il Popolo before he took power .
“ Inequality and discipline , these are the substitutes for the cries of Equality and Liberty , ” wrote Il Duce .
That ’ s telling them , Benito—them being all those American Times hacks like the lachrymose Roger Cohen and the lugubrious Paul Krugman , who as I write are undergoing nonstop colonoscopies in order to cleanse their brains of depression following the British election .
Professor Klinghoffer , who is administering the procedure in his Austrian clinic , told me that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter , the closer he ’ s getting to proving his theory that only people who have shit for brains can work for The New York Times .
Mind you , one never knows why some people write well and others bludgeon sentences like those men and women at The New York Times .
I suppose hate for the Orange Man clouds their noggins , but then how come a monster like Stalin could write like the proverbial dream ?
Hitler put down “ writer ” as his occupation while starving and unemployed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Franco and Salazar , kept their scribbling to a minimum , as good dictators should .
But I still find it amazing that Stalin loved books and plays and befriended playwrights and offered valid criticisms to prominent writers .
And , when not reading or offering advice and criticism , murdered anywhere from 30 to 100 million innocent human beings .
Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 I find it strange that today ’ s writers resemble dictators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accept opinions contrary to their own .
Especially in America , where different views from those of the academe or the media are strictly verboten , and we the people have to view the world through a similar lens as they do—or else .
It is probably the greatest irony ever : We fought a seventy-year battle against a totalitarian system that prohibited free speech , and having won it , we adopted the very system we defeated and imposed it on ourselves .
The easiest way of shutting down free speech is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a racist and all doors close , and needless to say no smug progressive , no arch feminist , no super-woke riffraff has failed to use it at the slightest disagreement .
It ’ s the easiest way to impose one ’ s opinion since the advent of the Colt 45 .
Actually we live in an age where people want to cancel other people out , to disappear them .
No one ever feared Torquemada or Savonarola as much as they fear the Twitter mob today .
The ultra-woke protect their sensibilities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and crying rooms .
Freedom-loving folk like yours truly are seen as freaks and fascists , long past our sell-by date .
Tarzan , too , is a goner .
He just got canceled back in Westchester County , N.Y. A school was planning to perform a Disney version of the jungle classic , but it was nixed after two parents blasted the play as imperialist .
A white man as the king of the jungle in Africa , that ’ s like singing “ Springtime for Hitler ” for real .
The @ @ @ @

Did any of you know that most of the 20th-century monsters—Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Ceausescu, Duvalier, and even the Ethiopian mini-Napoleon Mengistu—were rather good writers who could form better-than-average sentences that said that power grew out of the barrel of a gun? I read this in a Big Bagel weekly that was once known for its wit but is now so blinded by hate against The Donald that it’s turned into a rag, surpassed in venom only by The New York Times and CNN. I knew that Mussolini was a scribbler of notes because he wrote the editorials of his newspaper Il Popolo before he took power. “Inequality and discipline, these are the substitutes for the cries of Equality and Liberty,” wrote Il Duce. That’s telling them, Benito—them being all those American Times hacks like the lachrymose Roger Cohen and the lugubrious Paul Krugman, who as I write are undergoing nonstop colonoscopies in order to cleanse their brains of depression following the British election. Professor Klinghoffer, who is administering the procedure in his Austrian clinic, told me that the more he studies the Cohen-Krugman gray matter, the closer he’s getting to proving his theory that only people who have shit for brains can work for The New York Times.
Mind you, one never knows why some people write well and others bludgeon sentences like those men and women at The New York Times. I suppose hate for the Orange Man clouds their noggins, but then how come a monster like Stalin could write like the proverbial dream? Hitler put down “writer” as his occupation while starving and unemployed in Vienna. The two good dictators, Franco and Salazar, kept their scribbling to a minimum, as good dictators should. But I still find it amazing that Stalin loved books and plays and befriended playwrights and offered valid criticisms to prominent writers. And, when not reading or offering advice and criticism, murdered anywhere from 30 to 100 million innocent human beings. Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
I find it strange that today’s writers resemble dictators of the past in their unwillingness to accept opinions contrary to their own. Especially in America, where different views from those of the academe or the media are strictly verboten, and we the people have to view the world through a similar lens as they do—or else. It is probably the greatest irony ever: We fought a seventy-year battle against a totalitarian system that prohibited free speech, and having won it, we adopted the very system we defeated and imposed it on ourselves. The easiest way of shutting down free speech is by using the R-word. Call someone a racist and all doors close, and needless to say no smug progressive, no arch feminist, no super-woke riffraff has failed to use it at the slightest disagreement. It’s the easiest way to impose one’s opinion since the advent of the Colt 45.
Actually we live in an age where people want to cancel other people out, to disappear them. No one ever feared Torquemada or Savonarola as much as they fear the Twitter mob today. The ultra-woke protect their sensibilities with trigger warnings, safe spaces, and crying rooms. Freedom-loving folk like yours truly are seen as freaks and fascists, long past our sell-by date. Tarzan, too, is a goner. He just got canceled back in Westchester County, N.Y. A school was planning to perform a Disney version of the jungle classic, but it was nixed after two parents blasted the play as imperialist. A white man as the king of the jungle in Africa, that’s like singing “Springtime for Hitler” for real.
Read the Whole Article
The Best of Taki Theodoracopulos


lewrockwell--2020-01-29--The Establishment Doesn’t Fear Trump, And It Doesn’t Fear Bernie. It Fears You

During the George W Bush administration it was popular in conspiracy circles to speculate that events might be orchestrated which would allow the Bush family to complete a coup against the US Constitution and hold on to power indefinitely .
Such paranoia and suspicion of government power in the wake of the extraordinary post-9/11 advancements in Orwellian surveillance programs and unprecedented military expansionism were perfectly understandable , but predictions that the younger Bush would not cede power at the end of his second term proved incorrect .
In today ’ s hysterical Trump-centric political environment we now see mainstream voices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conspiratorial speculations about the current administration , and those will prove incorrect as well .
What these paranoid presidential prognostications get wrong is not their extreme suspicion of government , but their assumption that America ’ s real power structures require a certain president to be in place in order to advance depraved totalitarian agendas .
As anyone paying attention knows , intense suspicion of the US government is the only sane position that anyone can possibly have ; the error is in assuming that there is no mechanism in place to ensure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one presidential administration to the next .
In a sense , the conspiracy theories about a Bush coup were actually correct : the Bush administration didn ’ t truly end .
All of its imperialist , power-serving agendas remained in place and were expanded under the apparent oversight of the following administration .
The same thing happened after the Obama administration , and the same thing–whether in 2021 or 2025–will happen after the Trump administration .
The disturbing fact of the matter is that if you ignore election dates and just look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government behavior over the years , you can ’ t really tell who is president or which political party is in power at any given point in time .
Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 The mechanism which ensures the perpetuation of the same policies from administration to administration used to be referred to by analysts as the “ deep state ” , back before Trump and his supporters hijacked that term and began using it to essentially mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t like Trump ” .
Originally the term deep state referred not to one political party , nor to some shadowy cabal of Illuminati or Satanists or reptilians , but to the simple and undeniable fact that unelected power structures exist and tend to influence America ’ s official elected government .
It wasn ’ t a conspiracy theory , it was a concept used in political analysis to describe how US government agencies and plutocrats form loose alliances with each other and with official Washington to influence government policy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a permanent second government would exist in the current iteration of the United States , if you think about it .
It ’ s impossible to have a globe-spanning empire of the sort America now has without long-term plans spanning years or decades for securing control of world resources , undermining rivals , securing more compliant allies , and ensuring military and economic hegemony .
If the US were a normal nation which simply minded its own affairs , a permanent government wouldn ’ t be necessary .
But because it isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seldom use the term deep state anymore , because its meaning in mainstream discourse has been completely corrupted .
Now when I want to point to America ’ s permanent unelected power structures I usually use the word “ oligarchy ” or “ empire ” , or simply “ establishment ” .
This is why I haven ’ t been especially focused on the US presidential race , despite the Democratic primaries hitting fever pitch intensity .
While I believe the race can be a useful tool for forcing establishment propagandists to expose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neocon Bret Stephens just came out in support of Trump if the Democratic nominee is anyone to the left of Pete Buttigeig , for example ) , the result of the 2020 election isn ’ t going to change a whole hell of a lot .
This might be a bit offensive to both Trump supporters and Sanders supporters , but it ’ s true .
Whenever I point out that the current administration has been advancing many longstanding agendas of the CIA and neoconservative war pigs–agendas like military expansionism , imprisoning Assange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Venezuela , and reigniting the Cold War–his supporters always come in saying “ If he ’ s working for the establishment how come the establishment is working so hard to get rid of him , huh ?
” Well , for starters , they ’ re not .
Nobody who can count Senate seats believes Trump will be removed from office in the current impeachment sideshow , and everyone who understood Russiagate knew it was going to dead-end at nothing .
If they really wanted Trump gone they wouldn ’ t be pussyfooting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they know will never hurt him .
Obviously he wasn ’ t the preferred 2016 choice of certain factions within the establishment , but there are mechanisms in place to ensure that the empire can tick right along with a less-than-ideal president in the White House .
This will also hold true if Sanders miraculously makes his way through another rigged primary , and then through whatever sabotage gets thrown his way in the general election .
Sure he might be able to sign a few somewhat beneficial executive orders and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with an Iran war , but US imperialism will march on more or less unimpeded and his popular progressive domestic policies would require congress to successfully implement .
At best he ’ d be a mild reformer who uses the bully pulpit to help spread awareness while being narrative managed on all sides by the billionaire media , and any changes he manages to squeak through which inconvenience the establishment at all will be reversed by a subsequent administration .
Obviously the establishment would rather have someone in the White House who doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the empire by accidentally exposing its mechanics all the time as Trump does , and obviously it would rather have an incompetent oaf like Trump in office than someone who actively points out the evils of oligarchy and imperialism like Sanders .
But the establishment which runs the US-centralized empire is not afraid of Trump , and it is not afraid of Sanders .
It ’ s afraid of you .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 The unelected power establishment has ways of ensuring its dominance amid the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official elected government ; they are perfectly capable of dealing with one man being a less than ideal steward of the empire .
What they absolutely can not deal with , at all , is the prospect of ordinary people finally rising up and using the power of their numbers to force real change .
That is what they are really fighting against when they try to sabotage populist candidates : not the candidates themselves , but populism itself .
You wouldn ’ t know it from reading the billionaire media , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still going on and have remained widespread for more than a year now .
This lack of coverage is partially due to the fact that establishment narrative managers are responsible for conveying the idea that the only governments whose citizens dislike them are those which haven ’ t been absorbed into the imperial blob like China and Iran .
But it ’ s also because the propagandists don ’ t want us getting any ideas .
The reason the propagandists work so hard to manufacture the consent of the governed is because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough people decide that the status quo isn ’ t working for them and begin rising up to force it to change , there ’ s not really anything the establishment can do to stop them .
Right now the only thing keeping people from rising up in this way is the fact that they ’ ve been successfully propagandized not to , and the propagandists intend to keep it that way .
But eyes are beginning to open .
If real change is coming , it will come from there .
Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a large-scale awakening to the reality of our situation .
The only thing standing in the way is a thin layer of narrative fluff .
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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ republish or use any part of this work ( or anything else I ’ ve written ) in any way they like free of charge .

During the George W Bush administration it was popular in conspiracy circles to speculate that events might be orchestrated which would allow the Bush family to complete a coup against the US Constitution and hold on to power indefinitely.
Such paranoia and suspicion of government power in the wake of the extraordinary post-9/11 advancements in Orwellian surveillance programs and unprecedented military expansionism were perfectly understandable, but predictions that the younger Bush would not cede power at the end of his second term proved incorrect. In today’s hysterical Trump-centric political environment we now see mainstream voices in mainstream outlets openly advancing the same conspiratorial speculations about the current administration, and those will prove incorrect as well.
What these paranoid presidential prognostications get wrong is not their extreme suspicion of government, but their assumption that America’s real power structures require a certain president to be in place in order to advance depraved totalitarian agendas. As anyone paying attention knows, intense suspicion of the US government is the only sane position that anyone can possibly have; the error is in assuming that there is no mechanism in place to ensure that the same agendas carry forward from one presidential administration to the next.
Schiff dwelling on the fact that Trump departed from the talking points prepared for him by national security officials so he could act “contrary to official US policy,” which is to “deter Russian adventurism.” Glad to know even the president is not permitted to change US policy — Michael Tracey (@mtracey) January 23, 2020
In a sense, the conspiracy theories about a Bush coup were actually correct: the Bush administration didn’t truly end. All of its imperialist, power-serving agendas remained in place and were expanded under the apparent oversight of the following administration. The same thing happened after the Obama administration, and the same thing–whether in 2021 or 2025–will happen after the Trump administration. The disturbing fact of the matter is that if you ignore election dates and just look at the numbers and raw data of US government behavior over the years, you can’t really tell who is president or which political party is in power at any given point in time. Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
The mechanism which ensures the perpetuation of the same policies from administration to administration used to be referred to by analysts as the “deep state”, back before Trump and his supporters hijacked that term and began using it to essentially mean something like “Democrats and anyone who doesn’t like Trump”. Originally the term deep state referred not to one political party, nor to some shadowy cabal of Illuminati or Satanists or reptilians, but to the simple and undeniable fact that unelected power structures exist and tend to influence America’s official elected government. It wasn’t a conspiracy theory, it was a concept used in political analysis to describe how US government agencies and plutocrats form loose alliances with each other and with official Washington to influence government policy and behavior.
It is inevitable that such a permanent second government would exist in the current iteration of the United States, if you think about it. It’s impossible to have a globe-spanning empire of the sort America now has without long-term plans spanning years or decades for securing control of world resources, undermining rivals, securing more compliant allies, and ensuring military and economic hegemony. If the US were a normal nation which simply minded its own affairs, a permanent government wouldn’t be necessary. But because it isn’t, one is.
I very seldom use the term deep state anymore, because its meaning in mainstream discourse has been completely corrupted. Now when I want to point to America’s permanent unelected power structures I usually use the word “oligarchy” or “empire”, or simply “establishment”.

This is why I haven’t been especially focused on the US presidential race, despite the Democratic primaries hitting fever pitch intensity. While I believe the race can be a useful tool for forcing establishment propagandists to expose themselves (virulent “never Trump” neocon Bret Stephens just came out in support of Trump if the Democratic nominee is anyone to the left of Pete Buttigeig, for example), the result of the 2020 election isn’t going to change a whole hell of a lot.
This might be a bit offensive to both Trump supporters and Sanders supporters, but it’s true.
Whenever I point out that the current administration has been advancing many longstanding agendas of the CIA and neoconservative war pigs–agendas like military expansionism, imprisoning Assange, regime change interventionism in Iran and Venezuela, and reigniting the Cold War–his supporters always come in saying “If he’s working for the establishment how come the establishment is working so hard to get rid of him, huh?”
Well, for starters, they’re not. Nobody who can count Senate seats believes Trump will be removed from office in the current impeachment sideshow, and everyone who understood Russiagate knew it was going to dead-end at nothing. If they really wanted Trump gone they wouldn’t be pussyfooting around with a bunch of kayfabe combat that they know will never hurt him. Obviously he wasn’t the preferred 2016 choice of certain factions within the establishment, but there are mechanisms in place to ensure that the empire can tick right along with a less-than-ideal president in the White House.
This will also hold true if Sanders miraculously makes his way through another rigged primary, and then through whatever sabotage gets thrown his way in the general election. Sure he might be able to sign a few somewhat beneficial executive orders and we probably wouldn’t see him flirting with an Iran war, but US imperialism will march on more or less unimpeded and his popular progressive domestic policies would require congress to successfully implement. At best he’d be a mild reformer who uses the bully pulpit to help spread awareness while being narrative managed on all sides by the billionaire media, and any changes he manages to squeak through which inconvenience the establishment at all will be reversed by a subsequent administration.
Obviously the establishment would rather have someone in the White House who doesn’t constantly put an ugly face on the empire by accidentally exposing its mechanics all the time as Trump does, and obviously it would rather have an incompetent oaf like Trump in office than someone who actively points out the evils of oligarchy and imperialism like Sanders. But the establishment which runs the US-centralized empire is not afraid of Trump, and it is not afraid of Sanders. It’s afraid of you. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
The unelected power establishment has ways of ensuring its dominance amid the comings and goings of America’s official elected government; they are perfectly capable of dealing with one man being a less than ideal steward of the empire. What they absolutely cannot deal with, at all, is the prospect of ordinary people finally rising up and using the power of their numbers to force real change. That is what they are really fighting against when they try to sabotage populist candidates: not the candidates themselves, but populism itself.
You wouldn’t know it from reading the billionaire media, but the Yellow Vests protests in France are still going on and have remained widespread for more than a year now. This lack of coverage is partially due to the fact that establishment narrative managers are responsible for conveying the idea that the only governments whose citizens dislike them are those which haven’t been absorbed into the imperial blob like China and Iran. But it’s also because the propagandists don’t want us getting any ideas.
The reason the propagandists work so hard to manufacture the consent of the governed is because they absolutely do require that consent. If enough people decide that the status quo isn’t working for them and begin rising up to force it to change, there’s not really anything the establishment can do to stop them. Right now the only thing keeping people from rising up in this way is the fact that they’ve been successfully propagandized not to, and the propagandists intend to keep it that way.
But eyes are beginning to open. If real change is coming, it will come from there. Not from electing anyone president, but from a large-scale awakening to the reality of our situation. The only thing standing in the way is a thin layer of narrative fluff.
________________________________
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