The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Benjamin Cole]

For comic relief:

On March 28th, Joe Biden released his fiscal year 2023 budget, which despite eyebrow-raising changes — in particular, a 10% increase in defense spending — generated few headlines. One of the few items the press did cover was this passage:

The Budget provides $7.5 billion, $1.1 billion above the 2021 enacted level, for Artemis lunar exploration. Artemis would return American astronauts to the Moon as early as 2025, land the first woman and person of color on the Moon…

That is a worthy goal to put a cisgendered binary female, who is not a white person, on the moon. But no transgenders? 

---30---

 

The above goal of the Biden Administration, to land a human on the moon but only a human selected on the basis of their race and gender (but who is not a transgender evidently), may bring a chuckle---but speaking of polarization, does an obsession, a prominent public fixation on ID politics increase division and polarization? 

 

Is polarization not coming "from below" so to speak, in social media, but rather being fanned and flamed "from above" by groups that wish to divide Americans---so that Americans do not recognize class politics, but rather devolve into petty-minded groups defined by sexuality, looks and gender?

[Guest]

I have mentioned “divide and rule” strategy here plenty of times. If that were to be used on the American public, how would you do it? What would it look like? 
 

Would you perhaps have the news networks sorted into two groups, representing two narratives? 
 

Would write down a list of topics that caused emotions and market them and represent them in two different ways? 
 

If that happened, would the agitated masses become neurotic, angry, frustrated and consumed by all of the propaganda? Would they be so distracted that their eyes would never be on institutional or private corruption? 
 

If they were so distracted, could they be made less free? Could they be made to accept ideas and processes that seemed less than democratic? Perhaps an afraid public would like to trade some freedoms for a little more safety and security under such circumstances? 
 

This is all hypothetical of course; what if you had a two party system that gave people reasonably narrow differences in policy which the bought media made out were as wide as the ocean? People will queue up to vote every 4 years and get more or less the same, disappointed. Miraculously the plutocrats aren’t disappointed every 4 years, they become wealthier and wealthier. 
 

Huxley said the above in 1958 but, he also predicted technocracy (as did others). He described it as a painless concentration camp, where we’d become less and less free and we’d believe it was good for us. We endlessly seek pleasure, as a distraction. He outlined that this would be possible with a mix of propaganda, entertainment and pharmacological means. As neuroscientist @W. Niederhut, how many dopamine releasing substances and activities do we partake in on a daily basis? Isn’t it 1 in 5 Americans taking some kind of mind altering pharmaceuticals? 
 

Is anyone wondering why we have an epidemic of mental health issues in the population? Tech has some responsibility here, as per the Atlantic article but, so does academia, MSM and what we are consuming. 

[Guest]

Well love a bit of “cui bono”, whoever benefitted likely did the crime.

What if we were being walked into a technocracy, that China is already in full flow with? 
 

For anyone that reads about it, it isn’t compatible with democracy at all, it is akin to a neo-fuedalism. The opportunity for upward mobility will disappear and the prospect of plutocrat slipping out of his/her class will also vanish. Essentially that rigs wealth in perpetuity for an elite, and condemns the proletariat to a life as a subject or a second class citizen. 
 

To usher the most dominant culture on the globe (USA) into such a system, you first need to collapse the old system. If you were going to do that, you’d start with academia and teach the children that their own culture is bad, toxic. You’d attack every aspect of it, take away any pride and sense of nationality. You’d fragment the country and have nobody feeling together. You’d give people nothing to believe in aside from the new system. This people desperately in need of spirituality would embrace the only option going, an option they were told was good for them, better than the old. First you might need to make people very desperate. Desperate people cry out for the next great leader offering a solution and they worship them for it. Even if the thing was planned all along. 
 

I would just ask “who benefits” at each juncture. IMHO and that of others, this isn’t a forgone conclusion, it can collapse, under the weight of its own lies. But, that certainly requires a lot of people to stop being spoon fed news that represents something other than reality and to recognise and reject anything that is bad for them. 
 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Well love a bit of “cui bono”, whoever benefitted likely did the crime.

What if we were being walked into a technocracy, that China is already in full flow with? 
 

For anyone that reads about it, it isn’t compatible with democracy at all, it is akin to a neo-fuedalism. The opportunity for upward mobility will disappear and the prospect of plutocrat slipping out of his/her class will also vanish. Essentially that rigs wealth in perpetuity for an elite, and condemns the proletariat to a life as a subject or a second class citizen. 
 

To usher the most dominant culture on the globe (USA) into such a system, you first need to collapse the old system. If you were going to do that, you’d start with academia and teach the children that their own culture is bad, toxic. You’d attack every aspect of it, take away any pride and sense of nationality. You’d fragment the country and have nobody feeling together. You’d give people nothing to believe in aside from the new system. This people desperately in need of spirituality would embrace the only option going, an option they were told was good for them, better than the old. First you might need to make people very desperate. Desperate people cry out for the next great leader offering a solution and they worship them for it. Even if the thing was planned all along. 
 

I would just ask “who benefits” at each juncture. IMHO and that of others, this isn’t a forgone conclusion, it can collapse, under the weight of its own lies. But, that certainly requires a lot of people to stop being spoon fed news that represents something other than reality and to recognise and reject anything that is bad for them. 
 

 

You are asking the right questions. 

[Douglas Caddy]

 

 

How popular is Putin, really? (msn.com)

[Douglas Caddy]

From today's Wall Street Journal, "Crypto Can't Evade Sanctions: Only small sums of money seem to have left Russia via digital currencies": 

"The hard truth is that the only feature of cryptocurrencies that can't be replicated by banks is the promise to sidestep government oversight. As far back as the 1905 writings of George Friedrich Knapp, economists have distinguished between the 'chartalist' theory by which money is granted value by the State and the 'metalist' view that money only has value if made up of a scarce commodity.

"Crypto investors need the latter to be true, but the situation in Russia is piling up every more evidence in favor of the former."

[Kirk Gallaway]

15 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I’d like to see a Democratic Party that did not use the Republican all or nothing playbook. Circling the wagons at election times, which nowadays is pretty much all the time, loses trust if not support from educated constituents because it’s dishonest, and from working class folks because it’s hypocritical. Maybe both adjectives are similar, but there’s a difference in my view. If we can read and think we see Democrats (or the NYT) lie about Biden’s son, or Hillary, or whoever the target is, understand why they are doing it, wish they had more courage to just do what’s right and oppose corruption in their own ranks as well as in the thoroughly corrupted elected segment of the Republican Party. Less educated folks might not think it through in the same way, but maybe they do. In any case the Democrats are corrupt too. The problem with Democrats engaging in media censorship, which Matt and maybe others don’t think worth mentioning, is that it reveals something deeper, which is that they are not the good guys and gals we imagine them to be, other than in comparison to the goons on the other side. Biden’s military budget is bigger than ever, he has been unable to change Trump’s border policies, and I’ve read that they are even in court arguing to keep some of them. There is no honest discussion of this issue, or really any other important issue, because alternative voices are shut out of the debate. This may not be true in the new progressives in the House, but what is true is that they no longer get on the front page or invited onto mainstream tv. So they are being silenced too. 
I have never been a fan of the two party system, and it’s more rigged than ever. We all know what the right does because we see them in action in the Senate for instance. But the ‘anyone but Trump’ mentality that rules Democrats at large these days is an overreaction. Just because he was such an awful human doesn’t make Nancy Pelosi the bees knees. Ordinary folks of all colors get the shaft in this country, and the more woke among them are rightfully upset. Democrats will get no where blaming Republican obstruction, because even if it’s true now, there have been many other times when Democrats had the power to change things for the working class and they have not done so. 
Now we are in an inflationary cycle. What exactly does that mean? The owners are raising prices on everything. If you’re wealthy it’s no big deal. But for the average American it will be a disaster. Think our social security payments will keep up? Fat chance. Buy a more efficient car - at what price? It’s just too easy to blame the Republican Party for everything. It can’t possibly be true. In my opinion we need to wake up to that fact and put the blame where it should be, on wealthy elites and their powerful lobbies and lawyers. Ask yourself this - if the 2016 election had been between Trump and Bernie Sanders who would have won? The underemployed and often wage slave masses are rightfully interested in change, and Hillary Clinton was not the candidate to inspire. That campaign was not honest. Bernie was robbed, and not by the Republicans but by elites who like things the way they are, like people divided amongst themselves, elites who could control the Democratic process.

Paul you've come up with a lot of stuff here. There's a lot to sort out.

Paul: Ask yourself this - if the 2016 election had been between Trump and Bernie Sanders who would have won?

That would have been a great race, with 2 anti establishment candidates, occupying ideas out of the conventional political spectrum. I honestly think Trump would have won. People loved Trump's strength although it was really just masking his insecurity and incompetence. In the primaries , Hilary handily had more total votes than Bernie. That whole pro Hilary - anti Bernie DNC thing by Debbie Wasserman Schultaz sucked but it didn't matter. Yes the Dem donor class won with Hilary. But it's really more because of the Dem minorities not warming up to Bernie, as illogical as that seems. It played out again in 2020. Black voters don't want anything new and flashy. They wanted 3 time loser Joe Biden who made the most savvy political decision of his career by putting himself below Barack Obama in 2008.

There's no question, we've all said many times Clinton sold out to The Republicans and Democrat globalists. He came into office with a typical liberal vision of being the next JFK. He appointed Robert Reich as Labor Secretary. That was a great appointment. ( Reich laments now that they had their chance and blew it.) He tried to pass an ambitious health care program and made Hilary his point woman. The Republicans stalled around and eventually ended up crucifying her. That same tactic was used 15 years later, the Republicans were going to fake like they were interested, Obama was sort of naive thinking they could all work together but Nancy Pelosi wasn't going to let that happen this time, but they got a lot less and got what? 12 million more people health care.

Then in 1994,  there was the "Republican revolution" and Gingrich's  "Contract with America" and Clinton lost his chance for any sort of Progressive Presidency and started cooperating with the Republicans on the corrosive crime bill and went completely with the Republicans on Nafta, never to return, until they started paying a political price with the Trump candidacy.

Nancy Pelosi is a Northern California guilty liberal, who would like to hold on to all of her appurtenances of power, like unregulated stock trading, not that she needs to, because she's come from a wealthy Mayland political family background. But ultimately she knows how well she's done and would pay more taxes if asked. She is aware of the inequalities of wealth and it could be in part out of a fear that things could get so out of control, that there could be a class revolution, that she wants to appear on the side of the lowly. I'm not in any way comparing her to FDR, as he was a President, from an aristocratic background during a very economically challenged era. But some have said of Roosevelt that his New Deal legislation and his attempt to a construct a social safety net  "saved Capitalism." These "self hating white liberal" Democrats have somewhat of a guilty conscience and are not prepared to put up a strong stand against the hippocracy of their position, should there be a unified, concerted effort by constituents who know the issues. Just as Pelosi herself backed off on her insistence on Congress free stock trading rights. She may not work for it, but she won't use her power against it.There's a lot going on right now, so maybe not this session but something is going to done about that because it's developed bipartisan support. But Pelosi is pretty typical of blue state city liberals.

You have a quarter to a third of the Democrats who are "the base". That is,they are politically active. They may knock on doors,circulate petitions, attend rallies. These are largely the Bernie, Elizabeth Warren people. They're mostly young, liberal, informed, intelligent,up on all the issues, civil rights, abortion rights, who goes to the Scotus. They're largely anti defense. They know what Citizen's United is.

Then you have some entrenched capitalist globalist from rich districts and  a few freaks who enjoy their privilege and somehow can swing in it in working class districts or states, like Joe Manchin. All this group is probably 10% of the total Democrat party, though they're generally well financed.

Each party is polarizing ideologically.

Whereas the Republicans may anticipate  class warfare, but their attitude is to hunker down, and question the legitimacy of a government safety net at all, and they'll tell you further the government isn't effective at all at addressing these problems anyway, so they're making it a self fulfilling prophecy by simply opposing everything the Democrats are trying to enact. At the most generous assessment, they are adopting a bargaining position that the government should be at the size it was in the 50's, or maybe 100 years ago. The only moderates left of the House Republicans, that is the minority,  come from wealthy districts. But the majority will tell you that  governments just tax your hard earned pay and are really  an evil, that just take away your rights. Many of the new or newly adapted Trump Republicans these days, push government conspiracies. Of course bringing up the Granddaddy of all conspiracies, the JFK assassination, is very profitable for them to allude to. Though, they have little detailed understanding.

 

 

[Steve Thomas]

US food supply is being disrupted by Greg Abbott’s delivery trucks battle at Texas border: White House

by Sarah K. Burris April 13, 2022

https://www.rawstory.com/greg-abbott-food-supply/

“A long trail of delivery trucks are backed up at the U.S.-Mexico border because the Texas governor is refusing to allow them to come into the United States without additional inspections by the Texas state troopers. Typically it's the federal government that inspects trucks. The decision is creating a massive backup at the border.”

“The Texas Tribune reported this week that the busiest trade crossing, the bridge connecting Pharr and Reynosa is the choke point. On the border Monday, the trucks were backed up for miles. It was the fifth day in a row they were dealing with the blockage. As a result, producer importers canceled orders. “

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade

“A blockade is the act of actively preventing a country or region from receiving or sending out food, supplies, weapons, or communications, and sometimes people, by military force. A blockade differs from an embargo or sanction, which are legal barriers to trade rather than physical barriers. It is also distinct from a siege in that a blockade is usually directed at an entire country or region, rather than a fortress or city and the objective may not always be to conquer the area.

A blockading power can seek to cut off all maritime transport from and to the blockaded country; although stopping all land transport to and from an area may also be considered a blockade. Blockades restrict the trading rights of neutrals, who must submit for inspection for contraband, which the blockading power may define narrowly or broadly, sometimes including food and medicine. In the 20th century, air power has also been used to enhance the effectiveness of the blockade by halting air traffic within the blockaded airspace.”

 

Should Texas be considered a hostile power?

Steve Thomas

[Douglas Caddy]

 

From the New York Times article today about the flight of tech "brain" from Russia that will have a lasting impact on the Russian economy and society:

 

By March 22, a Russian tech industry trade group estimated that between 50,000 and 70,000 tech workers had left the country and that an additional 70,000 to 100,000 would soon follow. They are part of a much larger exodus of workers from Russia, but their departure could have an even more lasting impact on the country’s economy.

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

US food supply is being disrupted by Greg Abbott’s delivery trucks battle at Texas border: White House

by Sarah K. Burris April 13, 2022

https://www.rawstory.com/greg-abbott-food-supply/

“A long trail of delivery trucks are backed up at the U.S.-Mexico border because the Texas governor is refusing to allow them to come into the United States without additional inspections by the Texas state troopers. Typically it's the federal government that inspects trucks. The decision is creating a massive backup at the border.”

“The Texas Tribune reported this week that the busiest trade crossing, the bridge connecting Pharr and Reynosa is the choke point. On the border Monday, the trucks were backed up for miles. It was the fifth day in a row they were dealing with the blockage. As a result, producer importers canceled orders. “

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade

“A blockade is the act of actively preventing a country or region from receiving or sending out food, supplies, weapons, or communications, and sometimes people, by military force. A blockade differs from an embargo or sanction, which are legal barriers to trade rather than physical barriers. It is also distinct from a siege in that a blockade is usually directed at an entire country or region, rather than a fortress or city and the objective may not always be to conquer the area.

A blockading power can seek to cut off all maritime transport from and to the blockaded country; although stopping all land transport to and from an area may also be considered a blockade. Blockades restrict the trading rights of neutrals, who must submit for inspection for contraband, which the blockading power may define narrowly or broadly, sometimes including food and medicine. In the 20th century, air power has also been used to enhance the effectiveness of the blockade by halting air traffic within the blockaded airspace.”

 

Should Texas be considered a hostile power?

Steve Thomas

Not all of us are happy with Abott.

Mexico truckers protest new Texas inspections, halt trade at border bridges | The Texas Tribune

Even my slimy neighbor from Erath County has turned on his buddy.

Sid Miller slams Gov. Greg Abbott’s new border inspections policy | The Texas Tribune

Maybe his supporters approve but I don't think this is the type of publicity the guv intended.

Biden, Mexican governors urge Abbott to end border inspections | The Texas Tribune

[Ron Bulman]

A rally in Selma NC last Saturday?  I'm one of those who didn't see anything about it.

Another Trump hate rally: The threats get worse, and polite America turns away (msn.com)

[Douglas Caddy]

Presidents of four countries visit Ukraine in show of support:

 

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-putin-kyiv-business-europe-afc276faff040e7bf0b87b7625adbba8?user_email=fbdd9bc7a601799485f96e2eebd1714b5dd292492390d89fdfb97eb7fdf74037&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medi

[Douglas Caddy]

He turned himself in. Is he seeking a way to make $$$ off his criminal act?

[Matt Allison]

3 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Not all of us are happy with Abott.

To me, Abbott has all the qualities of a sociopath. People outside of Texas are amazed at the dumb sh*t he pulls.

What possible advantage is there having him as your governor rather than Beto?

[Bob Ness]

Oh! Thank goodness he's weighed in!! This is who you're joining up with while siding with Putin!