The New Orthodoxy: Blasphemy, Heresy and the New Inquisition

When the ruling Elites sense their control of the populace is waning, they seek to regain full control via the imposition of a strict Orthodoxy, enforced by an Inquisition. We are living in just such an era. Everywhere we turn, a New Orthodoxy reigns. Dissent is blasphemy, and any narratives outside the approved Orthodoxy are heretical and subject to suppression and punishment.

New Orthodoxies abound, and woe to those who fail to signal their virtue publicly. One New Orthodoxy is that one’s sexual and ethnic characteristics are all-important signifiers of identity. This orthodoxy is critically important to the ruling Elites, as this fragments the populace into tribes warring over their relative degree of victimhood and indignation.

This orthodoxy insures the populace can never gain class consciousness, i.e. an awareness that the ruling Elites and their apparatchiks (the Federal Reserve, Big Tech, the security agencies, et al.) are their class enemies, as the Elites rule at the expense of everyone beneath them.

Questioning the ruling rentier “solution” to climate change–carbon credits that trade like CDOs, securities, etc.–marks one as a dangerous heretic. Anyone questioning the rentier skim of carbon credits is labeled a climate-change denier, and run through the media/social media Inquisition.

Questioning the corrupt clergy is also taboo. Just as the Catholic Church collected wealth via selling indulgences, a paid pass into Heaven that expiated one’s sins–the larger the sum paid, the greater the sins that could be atoned, modern-day sinners donate money to foundations, universities, NGOs, think-tanks and other philanthro-capitalist indulgences–and to virtue-signaling politicians, of course.

Today’s corrupt clergy can be found operating the modern-day equivalent of indulgences in government, higher education and other institutions. Corruption and incompetence are overlooked if one’s obedience to Orthodoxy is unquestioned.

Enormous donations to Orthodox politicians, foundations and think-tanks are accepted with blessings from wealthy parasites and predators, and the corrupt clergy conveniently overlook their crimes, for example, reaping billions of dollars in profits from selling addictive drugs that were marketed as non-addictive.

Thousands of corporate cases of fraud, embezzlement, misrepresentation of facts and insider trading are given wrist slaps, while whistleblowers are hounded to the ends of the Earth.

Anyone who questions the value of a college diploma or sickcare’s standards of care is on their own. Institutional punishment includes being sent to Siberia (a remote dead-end for one’s career), being shunned professionally and socially, de-monetized by Big Tech (Facebook, cough, Google/YouTube, cough), or if someone becomes a real pest, executed via suspicious death or faked suicide.

Questioning the Orthodoxies of endless growth, “democracy” (the best that money can buy), the Divine Rights of the financial-state oligarchies and the superiority of technocratic expertise is heresy, and mocking the New Orthodoxies is blasphemy: you will be silenced, one way or another.

The new wrinkle in the New Orthodoxy is that the corrupt clergy denies there is an Orthodoxy and an accompanying Inquisition to enforce silence, complicity and obedience, even as they silence heretics and demand public virtue-signaling approval of the New Orthodoxy.

One trademark of the New Orthodoxy is that those publicly signaling their virtue deny they are kow-towing to the New Orthodoxy. This is of course the full flowering of Huxley’s loving our servitude while denying our servitude to a corrupt, self-serving clergy.

This institutional suppression of free thought, inquiry and dissent has a systemic cost. A corrupt Orthodoxy devoid of new ideas, an Orthodoxy devoted to maintaining the wealth, status and power of insiders regardless of cost, is a brittle, fragile, unstable system, and all the efforts of the corrupt clergy to impose uniform acceptance of the goodness and rightness of a debauched, corrupt, self-serving status quo will only increase the scale of its eventual collapse.

Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($6.95 ebook, $12 print, $13.08 audiobook): Read the first section for free in PDF format.

My new mystery The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake is a ridiculously affordable $1.29 (Kindle) or $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF)

My book Money and Work Unchained is now $6.95 for the Kindle ebook and $15 for the print edition. Read the first section for free in PDF format.

If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com. New benefit for subscribers/patrons: a monthly Q&A where I respond to your questions/topics.

Posted in General | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

How the U.S. Institute of Peace Avoids Peace in Afghanistan

Four years ago, I wrote this after a meeting at the U.S. Institute of Peace:

“The president of USIP Nancy Lindborg had an odd response when I suggested that inviting Senator Tom Cotton to come speak at USIP on the need for a longer war on Afghanistan was a problem. She said USIP had to please Congress. OK, fine. Then she added that she believed there was room to disagree about exactly how we were going to make peace in Afghanistan, that there was more than one possible path to peace. Of course I didn’t think ‘we’ were going to make peace in Afghanistan, I wanted ‘us’ to get out of there and allow Afghans to start working on that problem. But I asked Lindborg if one of her possible paths to peace was through war. She asked me to define war. I said that war was the use of the U.S. military to kill people. She said that ‘non-combat troops’ could be the answer. (I note that for all their non-combatting, people still just burned to death in a hospital.)”

On Thursday, September 19, 2019, I received an email from Mick, Lauren E CIV SIGAR CCR (USA), who wrote:

“At 11:00AM EST, Special Inspector General John F. Sopko will unveil SIGAR’s latest lessons learned report – “Reintegration of Ex-Combatants: Lessons from the U.S. Experience in Afghanistan” – at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, DC. The event will feature remarks from Inspector General Sopko, followed by a panel discussion. This report is the first independent, public U.S. government report examining this topic. Watch a live webcast of the event here: https://www.usip.org/events/reintegrating-taliban-fighters-afghanistan

“Key Points
“– The reintegration of former fighters will be necessary for sustainable peace, and one of the most pressing challenges facing Afghan society, the government, and the economy.

“– If the Afghan government and Taliban reach a peace agreement, an estimated 60,000 full-time Taliban fighters and some 90,000 seasonal fighters may seek to return to civilian life.

“– The current environment of ongoing conflict in Afghanistan is not conducive to a successful reintegration program.

“– The absence of a comprehensive political settlement or peace agreement was a key factor in the failure of prior Afghan reintegration programs that targeted Taliban fighters.

“– The United States should not support a reintegration program unless the Afghan government and the Taliban agree to terms for the reintegration of former fighters.

“– Even today, the U.S. government has no lead agency or office for issues concerning the reintegration of ex-combatants. In Afghanistan, this has contributed to a lack of clarity about reintegration goals and their relation to reconciliation. . . .

“Inspector General Sopko’s remarks note

“– ‘As long as the Taliban insurgency continues, the U.S. should not support a comprehensive program to reintegrate former fighters, because of the difficulty in vetting, protecting, and tracking former fighters.’”

Notice anything funny?

The United States is supposed to have a “lead agency” and support or not support particular programs to reintegrate Afghans into Afghanistan after the coming of peace.

So peace is not supposed to involve the departure of the United States.

But, of course, that means there won’t actually be peace.

And, “The current environment of ongoing conflict in Afghanistan is not conducive to a successful reintegration program.” Really? The past 18 years of U.S. occupation has not been conducive to reestablishing a society free of U.S. occupation?

This is the sort of utter nonsense generated by having a bunch of people fully dedicated to U.S. wars tasked with doing stuff they call peace.

Oh, by the way, the United States just reintegrated a whole bunch of Afghans with a drone strike. How much more U.S.-led reintegration can one place be expected to withstand?

Here’s an idea promised by the last U.S. president, campaigned on by the current U.S. president, and advocated by several Democratic presidential candidates: Get the fuck out!

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Shannon Airport Sprays Carcinogenic Chemicals

A public statement with signers listed below. September 19, 2019

The #NoWar2019 conference and rally are planned for Limerick and Shannon on October 5 and 6.

On August 15, 2019, a U.S. military plane caught fire at Shannon Airport. The Shannon Airport Authority Fire Service put out the fire using a spray foam. The Fire Service uses foam containing carcinogenic chemicals.

Photo from The Irish Times.

On August 26, 2019, Pat O’Brien, the Chief Fire Officer at Shannon Airport, wrote to Senator Paul Gavan that the Fire Service uses two types of foam, one of them being Petroseal C6 6%, which he wrote did not contain PFOA or PFOS — chemicals forbidden by law.

While those particular carcinogenic chemicals have been banned by most of the world, fire-fighting foams have been reformulated with other carcinogenic varieties of PFAS. In his letter, Mr. O’Brien said that the airport’s foams come from Angus Fire UK. According to Angus, the C6 6% foam contains fluorinated (carcinogenic) PFAS. The Angus Fire website warns: “[T]hese firefighting foam products may leave a fluorosurfactant chain, including certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), in the environment which can persist and potentially reach groundwater, including drinking water.”

A report in The Intercept documents how the U.S. military has led efforts to obscure the fact that new foams with short-chain varieties of PFAS can be as deadly as the older foams that have been widely banned. A new study by scientists at Auburn University, published in the Chemical Engineering Journal, says short-chain PFAS compounds are “more widely detected, more persistent and mobile in aquatic systems, and thus may pose more risks on the human and ecosystem health” than their long-chain predecessors. They warn that existing drinking water treatment approaches for the removal of long-chain PFAS are less effective for short-chain PFAS chemicals.

Fluorine-free, non-carcinogenic, and equally effective fire-fighting foams are available and widely used. They are used at major airports, including Dubai, Dortmund, Stuttgart, London Heathrow, Manchester, Copenhagen, and Auckland. All of the 27 major airports in Australia have transitioned to such foams. Even European national defense forces have adopted fluorine-free foams.

Why can’t Shannon Airport make the switch? Why can’t the ground water around Shannon Airport and the River Shannon / Atlantic Ocean be kept safe?

PFAS poisoning of groundwater at hundreds of military bases across the United States and the world has caused numerous illnesses and deaths. See these photos.

1,500 people in New Hampshire living near Pease Air Force Base were found to have astonishingly high levels of the cancer-causing chemicals in their blood. Have people near Shannon Airport been tested? Have the wildlife and aquatic life near Shannon been tested?

The fluorine-free, non-carcinogenic foams meet all the standard firefighting performance certifications, except for those of the U.S. military, which demands the inclusion of the cancer-causing fluorochemicals. Has the U.S. military asked Shannon Airport to use those chemicals? U.S. military bases around the world use cancer-causing foams that have been banned in the countries where the bases are located. The U.S. government accepts no liability for the poisoning of plants, animals, and people. Is Shannon Airport effectively a U.S. base?

The U.S. military uses carcinogenic fire-fighting foam on military bases during routine training exercises.

Because of the U.S. military’s use of Shannon Airport to transport troops and their weapons to U.S. wars, there are more flights at Shannon, and some of those flights are likely to contain ammunition. Documents discovered in a 2003 High Court case brought by Edward Horgan revealed that the planes carrying U.S. troops through Shannon airport contained not only troops and their assault rifles, but also ammunition for those weapons. U.S. military veterans have said they’ve traveled through Shannon with ammunition. If a fire on the undercarriage, like the one on August 15th, caused ammunition to explode the only option for fire fighting crews would be to abandon fire fighting operations and retreat to a safe distance of a least a mile away.

The U.S. military should not be at Shannon at all. The nation of Moldova this week demanded that Russian troops stay out because of the nation’s neutrality. Ireland is also a neutral nation. At least it claims to be.

Even if U.S. military aircraft or civilian aircraft on contract to the U.S. military did not contain arms or ammunition, the presence of these aircraft being refueled at Shannon airport would still constitute a clear breach of international laws on neutrality.

SIGNED BY:

World BEYOND War

Veterans For Peace Ireland

Popular Resistance

World 5.0

Hunter Peace Group

Alliance for Global Justice

Environmentalists Against War

Veterans For Peace, Corvallis, Oregon

Backbone Campaign

Irthlingz Arts-Based Environmental Education

CNGNN Italy

WESPAC Foundation, Inc

Canada Branch: Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

Barthson Okoudo Special Care Foundation

On Earth Peace

Hilton Head for Peace

World Beyond War Aotearoa New Zealand

Veterans For Peace Chapter 14 Gainesville Fl

Our Developing World

Swedish Peace Council

US Peace Council

A Call To Actions

The Center of International Humanitarian Law & Human Rights

Smiles Africa International Youth Development Initiative

Blue Mountains Permaculture Institute

Touching Earth Sangha

Physicians for Social Responsibility – Kansas City

Caribbean Labour Solidarity

Gerrarik Ez Eibar

Kitchel Family Organics farm

Uniting for Peace

Unreal Fur

Canadian Voice of Women for Peace

Beyond War and Militarism

International Philosophers for Peace

Inter-Faith Council for Peace Initiatives South Sudan

Voices for Creative Nonviolence

Peace Coalition of Southern Illinois

Peace And Justice Alliance

Organization Against Weapons of Mass Destruction in Kurdistan

Code Pink

Hour For Peace NoCo

United For Peace and Justice

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Trump’s New National Security Advisor Is Dangerous, But He’s the Current Norm.

Here’s Why One Must Be Evil to Be a Leading Scholar of International Relations:

Eric Zuesse

Robert O’Brien is a respected authority on international relations and now replaces John Bolton as U.S. President Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor. He is a neoconservative who feels that Barack Obama wasn’t nearly enough of a neocon. However, the differences between the two are a matter of degee, and not of type. O’Brien is a Republican who served in the Obama Administration as well as in the G.W. Bush Administration, and in the Trump Administration, and he represents only mainstream U.S. scholarly views about international relations. Here are some of his views, as stated in his 2016 anti-Obama book While America Slept:

The overthrow of “Putin puppet Viktor Yanukovych” in 2014 Ukraine was a democratic revolution, not a bloody coup that removed the democratically elected President and which was entirely illegal. Communism was finally crushed in Ukraine, because of this “revolution,” he says. “Notwithstanding the war and punishing economic circumstances, Russia’s invasion and occupation have inflicted on them, Ukrainians are happy today. They showed the world that they remain unbowed in the face of aggression.” “Liberty and the Rule of Law are Universal Values” and the U.S. Government needs to impose them globally. Because of Obama, “China, Russia, and Iran engaged in significant arms buildups even as America drew down,” while “these nations grabbed territory in the South China sea, Eastern Europe, and across the Middle East.” Limits need to be removed from the defense budget he says, so that America can impose democracy and legality everywhere.

It’s all fantasy. For example: As a result of the February 2014 U.S. takeover of Ukraine: Ukrainians became amongst the unhappiest people on the planet, and the Government’s debt doubled, and Ukraine’s GDP plunged 50%, and the incomes of Ukrainians plunged 50%, and two regions which had been in Ukraine (Crimea and Donbass) broke away from the U.S.-imposed nazi Government that wanted the residents in those areas to be killed or else expelled into Russia.  Why were the residents impoverished while the Government’s debt doubled? Where did that money go? All of that debt-increase was borrowing in order to be able to afford the war against Donbass. O’Brien says “Ukrainians are happy today”, but, by all objective measures, they’ve not been less happy except during World War II — they disliked Hitler and Stalin even more than they disliked the 2014-installed U.S.-coup-regime.

Robert O’Brien is an even stronger believer in the statement that President Obama so often stated, that the United States is “the one indispensable nation”, which means that all others are “dispensable.” That’s the core belief of neoconservatism, and O’Brien is so extreme a believer in it as to attack Obama for having not been as extreme as he himself is.

The entire range of neoconservatism is, however, the norm in U.S.-and-allied international relations. Extreme as O’Brien is, he’s merely extremely normal for a top person in international relations, in any country that’s allied with the United States today.

To study international relations isn’t evil, but to rise to the international top in that field is evil, because the international top in this field can’t be reached unless the writer is propagandizing for the world’s leading power and is therefore an imperialist, and that’s a reliable definition of what it means to be evil in international relations.

Imperialism is ‘justifiable’ only on one basis, supremacism; and that’s the belief in might-makes-right, which is also the core belief in fascism — which is intrinsically evil. This is the reason why Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco, were commonly called “fascist,” even though only in Italy was the tyrant’s political party named that with a capital “F”. The ideology is lower-case, “fascism” — this is simply the might-makes-right belief, and this ideology has existed ever since the dawn of civilization itself. Mussolini didn’t invent it, but he updated it, so as to call  it “corporationism,” and, synonymously, “fascism.” He called it that in order to enable the prior aristocratic system, feudalism, which was based upon ownership and control of land, to become ‘updated’ to “fascism,” which is based instead upon ownership and control of corporations. Now in the industrial era, ownership of shares of stock replaces ownership of acres of land, the aristocratic system which had prevailed in the pre-1600 human era, the agrarian era. And this is the modern form of feudalism: fascism. They’re just different eras of supremacism.

Another good example of a leading scholar of international relations is Harvard’s Graham Allison, whom I have previously discussed in regards to his views regarding Russia. This time, however, I shall discuss his views regarding China, and I also shall discuss his views concerning existing U.S. foreign policies relating not only to China and Russia but to the entire non-U.S. world. As you will see: he agrees with Barack Obama that “The United States is and remains the one  indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come.” In other words: Allison believes that every other  nation is “dispensable.” That view is American supremacism — America’s form  of fascism. It’s also called “neoconservatism.” This is how one becomes appointed to — and he leads — Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

On 11 December 2018, the anonymous “Zero Hedge” headlined “This is What The ‘Trade’ War With China Is Really All About”, and provided there a brilliant description of what the conflict with China is actually about, and of why this conflict has now reached the stage where it inevitably will dominate geostrategy in the centuries going forward (if a resulting nuclear war won’t end everything, which would eliminate future centuries). Global warming could be permanently interrupted by nuclear winter from a major-powers nuclear war, but those are the only two reasonably credible doomsday scenarios, at present (other than an asteroid-hit against this planet, which would be far less likely): global burnout, or else WW III.

Perhaps these two possibilities are why the great poet Robert Frost wrote:

Fire and Ice

BY ROBERT FROST

Some say the world will end in fire,

Some say in ice.

From what I’ve tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire.

But if it had to perish twice,

I think I know enough of hate

To say that for destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice.

Both options — “fire” and “ice” — would be Man-made; and, in both options, the people who are leading us there are imperialists — fascists. Some of them push for global burnout; some push for WW III; some push for both.

When Frost said, “I hold with those who favor fire,” he was suggesting that he expected a World War III, which, as a nuclear mega-conflict, would actually end up freezing the planet to death, thus: “nuclear winter.” Consequently, his “fire” would produce the opposite of fire; and global burnout (which would take far longer to implement) isn’t  the “fire” that he was referring to. Global burnout would simply kill everything on the planet — there would be nothing left to burn.

Fascists aren’t concerned about either “fire” or “ice,” but only about supremacy: their conquest, and rule over the world. They are heedless of both global burnout and nuclear war — except insofar as they think that either outcome could end up placing “our side” on top — and would thus be ‘good’ in their view, because to them it would be “victory,” and “Might makes right.”

For example: Robert Scheer’s 1982 book, With Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush, and Nuclear War, was about the U.S. Republican Party mainstream, which is fascism, and specifically was about the Ronald Reagan and G.H.W. Bush (and very much also later described G.W. Bush’s) view, that America must build nuclear weapons in order to use them to conquer Russia — not really in order to prevent war between the U.S. and Russia. One of Scheer’s interviews in that book was with Charles Kupperman, who at that time was a national-security advisor to President Reagan, and became subsequently a vice president both at Lockheed Martin and at Boeing — the two largest sellers to the U.S. Government, meaning the top two U.S. Government contractors (basically, the two largest suppliers to the Pentagon). Here are excerpts from Scheer’s interview with Kupperman about this, when he asked (p. 131) Kupperman about whether victory in a nuclear war is possible:

Scheer: So you think it is possible to win? …

Kupperman: I think it is possible to win. [Scheer asked what that means.] It means that it is clear after the war that one side is stronger than the other side, the weaker side is going to accede to the demands of the stronger side.

No definition was supplied as to what measures should apply in order to determine “that one side is stronger than the other side.” But clearly, Kupperman meant that “the weaker side is going to accede to the demands of the stronger side.” He was thinking in terms of Russia’s surrendering. To a fascist, surrendering means that the surrenderer is inferior to the victor: after all, “Might makes right” is  their ‘ethic’. That’s what it means  to be  a supremacist.

Scheer asked what that victory would be like, and Kupperman said: “It would be a struggle to reconstitute the society that we have. It certainly wouldn’t be the same society [that had existed] prior to an exchange, there is no question about that. But in terms of having an organized nation, and having enough means left after the war to reconstitute itself, I think that is entirely possible.”

Nothing was asked about how that’s possible after the nuclear war, when there would be nuclear winter. Wikipedia has a good article about “Nuclear Winter”, and it not only describes that, but states:

A “nuclear summer” is a hypothesized scenario in which, after a nuclear winter caused by aerosols inserted into the atmosphere that would prevent sunlight from reaching lower levels or the surface,[58] has abated, a greenhouse effect then occurs due to carbon dioxide released by combustion and methane released from the decay of the organic matter and methane from dead organic matter and corpses that froze during the nuclear winter.[58][59]

Another more sequential hypothetical scenario, following the settling out of most of the aerosols in 1–3 years, the cooling effect would be overcome by a heating effect from greenhouse warming, which would raise surface temperatures rapidly by many degrees, enough to cause the death of much if not most of the life that had survived the cooling, much of which is more vulnerable to higher-than-normal temperatures than to lower-than-normal temperatures.

So: a reasonable assumption would be that people such as Kupperman understate, to the point of basically lying about, the consequences if they succeed. First, there would be the immediate deaths and then the deaths from injuries and diseases afterwards; then, there would be the starvations, the global famine; then, there would be the nuclear winter; and, then, there might be global warming “rapidly by many degrees, enough to cause the death of much if not most of the life that had survived the cooling.” And, of course, any surviving Republicans, and the many Democrats who likewise are neoconservatives-imperialists-fascists, would try to kill as many of their surviving opponents as possible, so that “the weaker side is going to accede to the demands of the stronger side,” which would be victory, for the ‘winners’, of that nuclear war.

Before Robert O’Brien got the nod on September 18th, Kupperman was the temporary National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, when Kupperman’s immediate superior, John Bolton, was fired by Donald Trump, for having failed to conquer either Venezuela or Iran or Syria or Russia or China or North Korea. Perhaps Bolton and Pompeo, and the other people whom Trump had surrounded himself with, expected that Trump would go to war against all or at least one  of them (perhaps Venezuela?), in order to reassert America’s supremacy over the entire globe, but Trump refused to do that so short a time before the next U.S. Presidential election, and so they all were disappointed in him, and he was disappointed in them. On 10 September 2019, the New York Times  reported that, “the president appreciated Mr. Kupperman’s just-the-facts style compared with Mr. Bolton’s often ideologically charged delivery: If Mr. Trump had to have a national security brief concerning long-term planning, he preferred it from Mr. Kupperman as opposed to Mr. Bolton, according to a person with knowledge of that process.” And now, Trump will get his neocon advice from O’Brien.

Graham Allison’s best-selling 2017 Destined for War says that China is destined for war with the United States because China will be stupid or recalcitrant enough to resist becoming part of the American empire. In the standard self-righteous way of aristocrats and their sycophants, he starts with the unquestionable assumption that “we” are right and “they” (whomever challenges “our” supremacy) will be so stupid or otherwise flawed as to force “us” to ‘defend ourselves’ by demonstrating ‘our’ ‘superiority’. This is similar to the barbaric views that are expressed by virtually all members of the U.S. Congress, and by all U.S. Presidents, since at least the time of Reagan — all of them similarly self-righteous and imperialistic. In fact, America’s leading national-security scientists have asserted that the U.S. Government is now so strongly neoconservative that America’s weaponry is now designed definitely with the purpose being to win a nuclear war  against Russia, instead of to prevent, or even to avoid, such a war. They have documented that, at the very top of the U.S. Government, there is more extreme supremacism than has ever existed anywhere. Never before in history has a regime — not even Hitler’s — implemented a plan to conquer the world even if its only realistic result, if the plan succeeds, would be to terminate all life on Earth. America’s supremacism — such as is advocated by Graham Allison and all U.S. Administrations since at least the time of G.W. Bush — is the one and only supreme supremacism.

Back in the 1930s and 40s, these were the views that were similarly expressed by the aristocracies and sycophants in places such as Germany, Italy, and Japan. I am not saying that those people, or ours, who hold to supremacist views, are “filth,” or “trash,” or other such supposed pejoratives. After all, there can be good filth or trash. However, there cannot be any good fascist (or “imperialist”). (Is there “good evil”? Does anyone actually think so?) I agree with FDR on that.

Succeeding in the field of foreign affairs, in Washington, DC, by repudiating American imperialism, or “neoconservatism,” is, and long has been, impossible. That town has emerged, since WW II, to become the fascist capital of the world. In this sense, the sides have become reversed, since FDR’s death.

So: the differences between Robert O’Brien, and Graham Allison, and Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, and G.W. Bush, are, actually small, when it comes to international relations. They’re all fascists. They’re all normal U.S. experts on topics of international relations.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Markets That Live by the Fed, Die by the Fed

All eyes are again on the Federal Reserve, as everyone understands that the Fed is the market— the stock market, the bond market, the art market, the housing market, etc. All markets have been driven higher by one force: central bank money creation and distribution to the financial sector of financiers and corporations, the richest of the rich.

What few seem to grasp (because they’re paid not to?) is the Fed is powerless over what actually matters in a healthy economy:

1. The Fed is powerless to create productive, profitable ventures for capital to invest in. Productivity has gone nowhere in the Fed’s reign while speculative profits leveraged by the Fed’s free money for financiers have soared.

2. The Fed is powerless to raise wages. Despite ginned-up claims that wages are finally rising 3% a year after a decade of stagnation, wages are still losing purchasing power once real-world inflation is factored in.

3. The Fed cannot force creditworthy households and enterprises to borrow more money, nor can they stop banks from lending to the only people who want to borrow more money, those who are credit risks, i.e. borrowers who will default at the first spot of bother.

4. The Fed is powerless to stop the New Gilded Age consequences of their policies via The Cantillon Effect: it’s not just how the money is created, but how it’s distributed. Those who get the Fed’s nearly free money can use it to buy productive assets and pursue speculations such as stock buy-backs, while everyone else who didn’t get a single dollar of the Fed’s trillions experiences a loss of purchasing power as the Fed’s new money expands the money supply without actually expanding the real economy.

The only power the Fed has is to incentivize profiteering via stock buy-backs and speculations of the super-wealthy–the power, in other words, to create a New Gilded Age of obscene wealth inequality.

The Fed’s New Gilded Age is generating political blowback, and eventually the masses will awaken to the fact that the Fed is the enemy of the people because it is the sole enabler of the unproductive, parasitic, predatory corporate/insider class that’s skimmed something like 87% of all the “wealth” “created” by the Fed’s policies.

The Fed has created an economy in which capital has been stripped of low-risk yield. All capital must become gambling chips in the casino to earn a return, but gambling is intrinsically risky, and the asymmetry between the risk–rising–and the return–increasingly paltry–is setting the markets up for a fall the Fed is powerless to stop, and a political blowback to the Fed’s New Gilded Age that is it equally powerless to stop.

Markets that live by the Fed also die by the Fed. The Fed’s abject, pathetic powerlessness over what actually matters will be revealed in the years ahead, and everyone will look back on the decades in which the Fed was viewed as god-like as a form of mass delusion.

The “everything bubble” is not permanent. Gambling is risky, and the Fed has rigged the world’s larget casino to benefit its banking / financier / corporate cronies. But bubbles burst for reasons outside the control of the Fed, a reality that’s about to become undeniable.

Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($6.95 ebook, $12 print, $13.08 audiobook): Read the first section for free in PDF format.

My new mystery The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake is a ridiculously affordable $1.29 (Kindle) or $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF)

My book Money and Work Unchained is now $6.95 for the Kindle ebook and $15 for the print edition. Read the first section for free in PDF format.

If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com. New benefit for subscribers/patrons: a monthly Q&A where I respond to your questions/topics.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment