Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Galactus-36215 writes:

Tell us what Trump has done for the “American working man” since he’s been in office? The only thing I can think of is withdrawing from TPP. But beyond that, what else?
He’s proposing kicking 23M working men/woman off of healthcare insurance. How does that ‘help’ them?

This -- your entire post -- is exactly the kind of Kool-Aid inspired ignorance I'm talking about.

First, the presidency is a four year job, and in Trump's case he's working against the comprehensive obstruction of practically everyone in the upper ten percent plus the noisy pc/snowflake zombies, plus the IC spook army of the one percent.   Which has been going on since July of 2016. They've been fighting him for ten months, while he's only been in the big chair, with the -- hobbled -- power of the executive, for four months. And you're giving him a hard time!? Already!?

This is going to be a long slog.  First, Trump has to get settled in, then he has to learn the way of things, and then he has to decide what he can accomplish with "carrots" and then who or what needs the stick, how to use the stick, and how much stick.  Personally, since I don't see the Neocons or the Oligarchy backing down,...ever, I foresee some serious political bloodshed, some real Game of Thrones drama.  That is, ***IF*** Trump is as committed to winning, as fearless, and as persistent -- is he the fighter that this Trump supporter hopes he is? (If not, he's toast, the swamp will absorb him).  We shall see.

Re the "millions will lose their healthcare" issue.  All who repeat this phrase are manifestly dishonest. First, the CBO report said "if implemented" and "over ten years".  It's not happened, has not been implemented and won't be implemented.  Because "repeal and replace" is a process.  A legislative process.  The healthcare issue is in the hands of the Paul Ryan/Mitch McConnell GOP incompetent old guard.  So it's not gonna happen.  They'll talk and fuss around -- first in the House, and then in the Senate, for a year and a half -- and nothing will get done.  Repeal won't happen, replace won't happen.  But it will be on the heads of Ryan & McConnell, not Trump.  All the way to 2018.  When the Ryan/McConnell old guard will be replaced by Trump supporters, who will then, with the help of the few remaining Dems -- the Dem party will be decimated in 2018 -- repeal & replace Obamacare with a private-insurance-banned, single-payer, universal healthcare system.

It's a process.  A long two, four, even eight year process.  During which Obamacare will become more and more oppressive, until finally the  legislature matches the electorate in their support for single-payer.  Every project has a schedule.  It's not magic, it's real world.  Trump is real world. Warts and all.

But you're so caught up in your hate-Trump petulance that you drag your feet and delay the process, instead of getting on board, and persuading Trump that he can become the hero president he wants to be if he bitch-slaps the Congress into passing single payer.

We're in the midst of a political revolution here in the US.  Bernie-the-revolutionary lost, but Trump-the-revolutionary won. If you want the Trump revolution to be a revolution that works for you, you have to get on board.  Trump's the only game in town.

It's going to be a long war, and dramatic.

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Treason at the Washington Post

The Washington Post is owned by Bezos, who has a 10 year $650 million contract with the CIA for internet services.  The Democratic party, the deep state, the media, and the intelligence community -- the CIA et al -- have all been working tirelessly from election-day-plus-one to bring down the Trump presidency.  They have placed their bets on the "treasonous cooperation with the Russian enemy" storyline as the centerpiece of the delegitimization/path-to-impeachment effort.  A media defamation storm -- "Russian interference!", "Russian hacking!", "Russian collusion!" -- has been pumped relentlessly across the airwaves and in print since the Obama Admin assigned Comey and the FBI in July 2016 to investigate putatively "suspicious" connections between Russia and the Trump campaign et al.

The campaign of delegitimization has continued, and even intensified, despite eight months of investigation without a shred of evidence emerging to support the allegations.  Now, on the occasion of the first official meeting of the President of the United States with Russia's top diplomatic officials, we have "reports" of presidential misconduct/negligence in national security matters off the highest order!  

Trump is a Russian spy!  Oh please!!

This is a domestic false flag against the duly elected President.  This is a soft coup by the intelligence community against American democracy.  Knowledge of "highly classified material"-- keep in mind that it's BS -- supposedly revealed -- again, more BS -- by the President could only have come from leaks from the CIA, passed deliberately to The Washington Post which has long served as the go to publisher for CIA domestic "perception management" efforts.

The default assumption in this matter can only be that this is an utterly transparent continuation of the ongoing effort by the IC/deep state to subdue/destroy an elected president.  This is blatant, full-on treason.

The Washington Post is up to its eyeballs in treason.

Friday, May 12, 2017

Something worth saving

Something worth saving
https://fee.org/articles/nurembergs-last-living-prosecutor-has-an-important-message/
Daganawida's poetic comments to the article:
                  **************************************************** 
what do you kill for?
Ahh you bomb
In the name of democracy
They kill in the name
Of islam
Who is the greater fool?
Tell the orphan
Now he’s free
Free to walk
without mother
Without his dad
Without a home
He must thank the usa
Or does he thank the taliban
Tell the homeless
You’ve wrecked the place
Slaughtered so many
And now you will leave
Go do the same
Down the road
Till you globally suppress
All those who say no
Leave them a bill
Like you just did cambodia
Turn your back
On the struggling refugees
You've created
Convince yourself
The darkness is light
Bad is good(for you of course)
overseas victims
Not even human enough
to be your poolboy
Scorn the dead you’ve killed
In the name of god
For your country
Other holy names
You perverse and defame
Its all about profit
A profit you pay the price for
But never share
As you pay to kill
Send your kids to destro
Its insanity to kill like this
You got the might
But never
Ever
Will have the right
Someday a price
A cost
Will backblow to your shores
When chickens come home to roost
Back home
Deep under the sand
Feed the bs machine
Salute the troopers
Praise be the killers
Bend a knee
Thank the troops
Perpetual war
For profit
For a buck
That cannon fodder
Never share
But the parades go on
Insanity
Insanity
You gotta wake up
Before its too late
Before we’re great
Again and again and again
It’s all a criminal sham…
And you're a part
Part of the scam
With innocent blood on your hands

              ************************************************************

Silent Slaughter
Bombs never here
sent over there
we are good
they are bad
go to sleep
my children
shh
nothing to hear
But a
silent slaughter
loud and clear
a crescendo of horror
a concerto of terror
playing jingo risk
for a higher profit margin
Fire all around
smoke black and thick
screaming victims
bleeding
torn from limb to limb
but you never hear
cause its silent slaughter
over there
never here
you're the good guy
and you dont have to
worry think or criticize
we have that too…
We murder god and country
I was just doing my duty
I get a medal
I am honored
Its insanity folks
Simply
Insanity

Thursday, May 4, 2017

Sunshine on the Suck-ups

In response to an article -- "a splendid little war could end Trump's presidency" -- by Jim Jatras

https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/a-splendid-little-war-could-end-trumps-presidency-/

Jatras is a perfect example of the comprehensive cluelessnesss of the political class. Here, on display is the reason US foreign policy has been a flat out disaster for the last thirty years. Generations in the echo chamber of foreign policy "expertise", where the rule is bobble-headed yes-man servility and craven obsequiousness to the interests of the 1%, has lead US foreign policy to a place where an enforced and self-reinforcing notion of "expertise" is in fact zombified incompetence.

Trump is in the big chair. That Jatras cannot see him except through the lens of "a shallow, superficial, unqualified Twitter-addicted unstable personality who never should have been allowed into the Oval Office..." clearly indicates that a war for the definition of "qualified", "expertise", and "reality-connected",... a war for the control of the cultural narrative, a war over who is ***QUALIFIED*** to lead American politics is engaged. If Trump proves to be a frikkin genius, a masterful political operator, and a pragmatic "peace-monger" who can rescue the US -- and the world -- from the death spiral of American Imperial militarism, then the Jatrases of the world -- overpaid, arrogant, self-important parasites -- will be discredited, and kicked to the curb, as they should be. At which point American can start on the long road to recovery. 

I know that many, like Jatras, hoping for his own rescue in Trump's demise, will point to Trump's recent apparent bellicosity, and say he's gone over to the "same old same old" war-mongery. But these are ninth or tenth generation political hacks, blinded from birth by Neocon Kool-Aid. They are thoroughly disconnected from reality and frankly ***INCAPABLE*** of competence. So their wishful and whimsical "visions of sugar plums" -- ie Trump's early departure -- will "poof!" be gone when Trumpian success at last shines a light on their catastrophically destructive "leadership" in the post ww2 period. 

Three years nine months to go. Check back in again when you actually have some evidence to support your crackpot hopefulness.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Let the punishment fit the crime

For five-thousand years the Jews have crapped on everyone they have encountered and been logically and predictably despised and chased off or killed. THAT is the cause of anti-Semitism. The cause for modern Islamophobia or Islam-hatred on the other hand is that the Muslims are fighting back against the Jewish criminal invasion of Palestine. The Zionist Jews have invaded, murdered, ethnically-cleansed the Palestinians from Palestinian lands and they have lied so successfully about these crimes that the citizens of the advanced West have come to believe that the Jews are all innocent and the Muslims are all evil. It's a total lie. A half century of propaganda notwithstanding, it's a lie. The Palestinians and their Muslim fellows object to Zionist crimes and seek rightly and justly to defend themselves. Anti-Nazism is just fine, right?, because the Nazis were criminals, right? Well, apply the same logic to Zionist criminals, and anti-Zionism, like anti-Nazism, becomes just as legitimate. (Oh horrors! Screams and shouts! Tearing of hair!) And if the world's Jewish population , the Jews of the diaspora, support the Zionists in their criminality, then anti-Semitism becomes legitimate for all the same reasons. (Oh horrors! Screams and shouts! More tearing of hair!) The Jews have controlled the narrative since the last Holocaust, hoodwinking the world and the Jewish diaspora into thinking that Zionist Israel is a just enterprise. It is not. It is the foundation for the next holocaust. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if they get it, understand it, or agree with it, reality will catch up with the Jews, just as it has for the last five-thousand years. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. The Palestinians are in the right, the Jews are in the wrong. Figure it out and do the right thing, or the pattern of five-thousand years of attempted suicide-by-Goy will inevitably repeat itself yet again. I'm an American and a Jew, but I will not allow that kinship to suck me into participation in Jewish/Zionist crimes. Quite the contrary, I am perfectly prepared to support holding to account any and every Jew complicit in Zionist crimes, and let the punishment fit the crime.

Saturday, February 18, 2017

Don't over-screw the little guy

http://acsh.org/news/2017/02/07/perfect-american-storm-incivility-anti-intellectualism-tribalism-10838"

Incivility. Honorable disagreement appears to be the exception rather than the rule. Depending on the day, I have been called a left-winger, a right-winger, a corporate shill, a "sniveling little demon," and (my personal favorite) "another Jew liar and deceiver [who] writes for Monsatan."

Not to be curt, but of those accusations, how many are inaccurate? It is possible that one person who has leveled an accusation at you is clueless, while another person has you pegged, despite neither displaying tact. Calls for civility and decorum are nice, but when the expectation of tact becomes so stifling that the truth can no longer be directly expressed, people will eventually toss good manners aside and engage directly. No, it doesn't make things cordial, but a level of congeniality and good manners can be expected only once a certain level of agreement and mutual respect already exists. If that breaks down and you no longer have a common culture, you can expect that civility to disappear along with it.

"Anti-Intellectualism.  "Alternative facts" may very well be the term-of-the-decade. Expert opinion has been thoroughly rejected as "elitist.""


I think you're mixing up "expert opinion" with "arrogant presumption". Many of the people who peddle the charge of anti-intellectualism can't distinguish between the two. For example, suppose a doctor offers a political opinion about abortion. There is a segment of society that thinks that their opinion should be given higher weight due to their background. However, that makes two separate mistakes.

The first is that it confuses the type of issue. A doctor may have superior knowledge of biological processes, but the objections to abortion are predicated on ethics rather than biology, meaning that while people may generally agree on the facts they will not agree on the proper course of action because they hold different ethical principles. The "Mad Scientist" archetype found in film and television is not without historical antecedents.

The second mistake is that it substitutes ethos (the Greek term for "authority" -- of which expertise can be regarded as a type) for logos (Greek for "logic"). Although a doctor may have intricate knowledge of the biology, that does not mean that their deductive reasoning is necessarily valid (where the conclusions follow from the premises), nor does it mean that it is sound (meaning that the argument is valid and the premises are sound).
In fact, the expectation that people defer to experts is a polite way to try to avoid examination and disputes over logic and whether or not arguments are actually true. By forbidding the translation of the Bible into the "vulgar languages" (those commonly spoken by the people) during the medieval era, the Catholic church was able to maintain a monopoly on Biblical interpretation. It didn't necessarily make them more right, but it did squelch dispute. Outsourcing one's thinking to expert opinion is a fool's errand.
"Tribalism is an "us vs. them" mentality, and it has two primary manifestations: (1) Ideological purity, so that any deviation from orthodoxy is considered heretical; and (2) Hypocrisy, because people will accept/condemn behavior that they otherwise would not if the behavior had been done by a person from the other team."
I don't think that point (1) is actually problematic, and I think point (2) ignores the issue of enthymemes.
For ideological purity, while each person has their own conception of ideological purity, ironically the more committed to that people are, the more they are being consistent, which contradicts the accusation of hypocrisy. Whether or not any of those particular ideologies are sensible is another question, and that's where I think the main problem lies and where there is very little consensus. As the film Office Space says, "Why should I change? He's the one who sucks."
On the charge of hypocrisy, I think this problem is grossly overstated. People tend to argue in enthymemes, i.e., arguments where premises are not explicitly stated. For example, if I were to tell you that it is wrong to break into and enter somebody's home, and then forcibly remove them from the home, you'd probably agree. Under normal circumstances that would consist of 2 crimes: breaking & entering, as well as abduction. But is this really a lock-tight argument? For fun, let's add some additional information to the scenario without changing anything established before.
Now suppose I told you that in addition to what I said above, the person whose home was broken into was on fire, and that the person who was forcibly removed from the home had gone into hysterics. Let us also assume that the person breaking in did not keep the person in their custody once removing them from the home.
Does it make people hypocrites to condemn the person who broke in given the information they originally had as a terrible kidnapper, but who then change their opinion once they have the additional information to being that the person who broke in is a hero? No. What it illustrates, however, is that political and ethical thought is often times highly contingent on sets of unstated assumptions for which there is a remarkable, but not complete degree of overlap.
If I say that it is okay for Congress to threaten default on the national debt unless CDC gets additional funding, but then decry threatening default on the national debt by people who insist that we appropriate more funds for infrastructure spending, does that make me a hypocrite? No. It reveals a certain set of priorities, and people organize themselves into political parties based on the combination of those priorities as well as their political principles as to what's right or wrong, wise or foolish, into relatively coherent platforms. Without that level of "tribalism" we'd be completely disorganized and we'd descend into chaos all the more quickly.
With a large slate of issues and a seemingly incalculable number of combinations in regards to priorities, it's actually impressive that we have 2 political parties that are as coherent as they are.
While I think the points I made above are fairly commonsense, it also took a hefty amount of exposition to express them. Much of American political opinion is expressed in a more concise manner as people weigh the trade-offs but don't have the time or aren't willing to expend the effort to fully explain them. At first blush, I think my comment may be longer than your article, and I don't get paid for this!
    My reply:
Tremendous job! I hope you're retired -- as am I -- because otherwise you've wasted much time and talent "schooling" someone who doesn't deserve it and won't benefit from it, time better spent serving self and family.
"Incivility": bluntness that challenges arrogant, undeserved self-regard, and sweeps away the shield of condescending "politeness".
Tribalism: Humans are social animals who gain emotional and material benefits from group membership. The embrace of an accepting and loving group is a good thing. But inter-group rivalry happens, which can lead to violence, which is a bad thing. It is this social disharmony and the accompanying threat of violence that the author is unhappy about, but he blames "tribalism" rather than the specific bad acts of a particular tribe. He won't point a finger at specific bad acts because that would require pointing at specific tribes, his among them, and particular culpable individuals in positions of tribal leadership. For the author, these are the hands that feed him, so mums the word, and "tribalism" gets the blame.
Anti-intellectualism: Being smart, and educated, is much desired and much admired and a path to prosperity. But when it is phony smart and phony educated and leads to incompetent and corrupt governance, the peasants may revolt. Be pompous and snobby and superior all you want, that's your business -- "There was a young man from Nantucket" -- enjoy, ... just be careful you don't over-screw the hard-working little guy.










    Tuesday, January 31, 2017

    revised version

    *****REVISED VERSION: SANITIZED FOR THE CENSORS*****

    So let me suggest that the one- and two-state solutions are inside the box thinking, and both are non-starters. Kabuki to cover the real goal, that has been the real goal from the start of the Zionist project: all of Eretz Israel for the Jews, and the Arabs, well,... "erased", "disappeared", "not in the picture".

    It reminds me of the Gordian knot. Big-äss impossibly tangled and knotted giant ball of rope-like material. Legend held that he who untangled the Gordian knot would conquer the world. From "inside the box" it looked like an impossibility, like the Isräel/Pälestine problem. But Alexander the Great would not be confined to "the box", and took out his sword and chopped up the Gordian knot, and then went on to conquer the world. Most of the known world of the time.  

    Avnery, with all his sincerity is just fooling himself. Making himself feel good and just, his ethical talk salving his troubled conscience. I believe in his "sincerity", but it's just nonsense. The liberal-Zionïsts are still Zionïsts, in league with the right-wing. They're playing the "good cop" to the right-wing's "bad cop". It's all just a stall. Nearly all the Jëws, left and right, liberal and fascistic, want all of Pälestine. And they have it now. They just have to figure out how to legitimize their conquest, how to get the rest of the world to agree. That's how they see the problem.
    Now if you are looking for a "workable" solution, one that prioritizes ***little to no bloodshed***, something other than the one- and two-state baloney, I have one for you. I hate it. You will hate it. But it has that one crucial element: it is achievable.
    Sykes-Picot is dead. The region is in turmoil. Nation states are collapsing. Borders are gone. For the first time in a hundred years a reconfiguration is possible. In particular, the Sunni tribal region from the Upper Euphrates valley in the north to the Iraqi/Saudi border of Anbar in the south, is "in play". The world agrees, ISIS must be exterminated, but who will take their place? The Sunnis won't be dominated -- not willingly anyway -- by either Assad or by the Shia govt of Iraq. So what happens with this region? How can it be stabilized?
    I see an opportunity here. Create Sunnistan. Build a shiny , modern, new country there. The Jëws, Saudis, Brits provide the funding, and relocate the Palestinians to this, their new home.
    Now, before you get all "it'll never work" on me, understand, this is a ***VOLUNTARY*** relocation. No Bayonets, no massacres, no repeat of the Näkba. Offer the Pälestinians a deal too sweet to turn down: new house, new car, new cities, new roads, new jobs, shiny new lives in a shiny new country (This is Trump-the-real-estate-wizard's specialty)...***with the Isräeli jackboot off their throats***. The key: the world Jëwish community will love it and will do everything in their power to make it happen. And Jëwish power, being what it is, the Jëws will make it happen.
    The Jëws have won. Time to get over it and move on.
    I told you you'd hate it.