Submitted by Eric Zuesse, author of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics,
U.S. President Barack Obama’s proposed ‘Trade’ deals are actually about whether the world is heading toward a dictatorial world government — a dictatorship by
the hundred or so global super-rich who hold the controlling blocks of stock in the world’s largest international corporations — or else toward a democratic world government, which will be a global federation of free and independent states, much like the United States was at its founding, but global in extent.
These are two opposite visions of world government; and Obama is clearly on the side of fascism, an international mega-corporate dictatorship, as will be documented here in the links, and explained in the discussion.
Also as a preliminary to the discussion here is the understanding that if Obama wins Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority, then all of his ‘trade’ deals will be approved by Congress and then be able to be considered seriously by other governments, and that if he fails to receive this Authority, then none of them will.
“Fast Track,” as will be explained in depth here, is, indeed, the “open Sesame” for Obama, on the entire matter. Without it, his deals don’t stand even a chance of passage.
I previously wrote about why it’s the case that
“‘Fast Track’ Violates the U.S. Constitution.” The details of the case are presented there; but, to summarize it here: “Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority," which was introduced by the imperial President Richard M. Nixon in the Trade Act of 1974, violates the U.S. Constitution’s Treaty Clause — the clause that says “The President … shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties,
provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” (In other words:
otherwise, the President
simply doesn’t have that power, the President cannot “make treaties.” Nixon wanted to make treaties without his needing to have two-thirds of the Senate vote “Yea” on them.) Fast Track abolishes that two-thirds requirement and replaces it by a requirement such as that for normal laws, of only a majority of the Senate approving, 50%(+1, which would be Vice President Joe Biden, so all that will actually be needed would be just that 50%). Obama’s ‘trade’ deals don’t stand a chance of receiving the approval of two-thirds of the U.S. Senate.
What follows here will continue from that case, by providing the history of the U.S. Constitution’s Treaty Clause, and of the successful modern movement, during the Twentieth Century, for its legislative overthrow, something (the legislated overthrow of a provision that’s in the Constitution) that in-itself is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution — an Amendment, or else a Constitutional convention, is instead required, in order to overthrow any provision of the U.S. Constitution) — but which the Trade Act of 1974 said can be done by means of a mere “Legislative-Executive Agreement,” to carve out an exception to the Constitution’s Treaty Clause (“The President … shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”), whenever the President and 50%+1 members of the Senate decide to do so.
Now, of course, each and every formalized international agreement, including agreements about “trade,” is a treaty and therefore it falls under this two-thirds rule. Furthermore, until 1974, every nation in the world, including the United States, accepted and did not challenge the view that every international agreement is a treaty, and that every treaty is an international agreement. In fact, even right up to the present day, every dictionary continues to define “treaty” as “an international agreement.” An international agreement is a treaty, and a treaty is an international agreement. Throughout the world, except in the United States starting long after the Constitution was written (i.e., starting in 1974), “treaty” = “international agreement.” It was always quite simple, until recently. However, after the Trade Act of 1974, starting in 1979, five such treaties have been set by the President and the Senate’s Majority Leader on “Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority” under the Trade Act of 1974, which provision of that law requires only 50%+1 Senators to vote “Yea” in order for the proposed treaty to be able to become U.S. law. The question is whether that’s Constitutional. (We’ll show: t’s not.)
AMERICA’S FOUNDERS
America's Founders instituted this Constitutional treaty-requirement, for any treaty to win two-thirds of the Senators instead of the mere majority (50%+1) that’s required for passing normal laws (such as the Trade Act of 1974 itself is), because the Founders recognized that an international agreement cannot be undone by simply passing a new law that reverses it. An international agreement — that is to say a treaty — cannot be undone unless all nations that are parties to it are willing to change it in a way which will allow one of the signatories to depart from that group. Each signatory had signed it partly because the others did. There are at least two sides to any “agreement,” including to any international agreement or “treaty.” The member-nations are thus an intrinsic part of the agreement (or "treaty”) itself (unlike the case with any normal, merely national, law), and so the agreement itself is changed whenever one of them departs from it. This fact distinguishes any treaty from any regular law — which can be cancelled at will by the single nation that passes it, because that nation is the only party to it.
America’s Founders were wise, and were extraordinarily learned about history; and the U.S. Constitution (the first-ever constitution for a democracy) embodies this wisdom and learning; the Treaty Clause’s two-thirds requirement exemplifies that. It is a crucial part of their determination to prevent any President from having too much power — from becoming a dictator (something that becomes even worse if the dictator has rammed through not only mere laws, but also treaties, since those are far harder to undo). For example: it was intended to block any President from making a treaty with a foreign nation if that treaty would be so bad that he couldn’t get two-thirds of the U.S. Senate to support it. (That’s tough, but a treaty is far more difficult than any other law is to cancel; so, passing it is passing a law that’s virtually permanent and virtually impossible to modify.) And their wisdom is why our constitution remains the world’s longest-lasting one.
As
Alexander Hamilton wrote on 9 January 1796, defending the new Constitution, and especially its Treaty Clause: “I aver, that it was understood by all to be the intent of the provision [the Treaty Clause] to give to that power the most ample latitude to render it competent to all the stipulations, which the exigencies of National Affairs might require—competent to the making of Treaties of Alliance, Treaties of Commerce, Treaties of Peace and every other species of Convention usual among nations and competent in the course of its exercise to controul & bind the legislative power of Congress. And it was emphatically for this reason that it was so carefully guarded; the cooperation of two thirds of the Senate with the President being required to make a Treaty. I appeal for this with confidence.”
He went further: “It will not be disputed that the words ‘Treaties and alliances’ are of equivalent import and of no greater force than the single word Treaties. An alliance is only a species of Treaty, a particular of a general. And the power of ‘entering into Treaties,’ which terms confer the authority under which the former Government acted, will not be pretended to be stronger than the power ‘to make Treaties,’ which are the terms constituting the authority under which the present Government acts.” So: there can be no doubt that the term “treaty” refers to any and all types of international agreements. This was the Founders’ clear and unequivocal intent. No court under this Constitution possesses any power to change that, because they can’t change history.
Furthermore, George Washington’s famous Farewell Address asserted that, ”It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world”; and the third President Thomas Jefferson said in his equally famous Inaugural Address, that there should be "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” Jefferson’s comment there was also a succinct tip-of-the-hat to yet another major concern that the Founders had regarding treaties — that by discriminating in favor of the treaty-partners, they also discriminate against non-partner nations, and so endanger “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations,” which was the Founders’ chief goal in their foreign policies. But, the Founders’ chief concern was the mere recognition that treaties tend to be far more “permanent” and “entangling” than any purely national laws. This was the main reason why treaties need to be made much more difficult to become laws. Though this thinking was pervasive amongst the creators of America’s democracy (or people’s republic), America’s aristocracy subsequently targeted this dilution of the President’s treaty-making power as being an impediment toward their re-establishing the aristocracy that the American Revolution itself had overthrown and replaced by this people’s republic. And, the big chance for the aristocracy to restore its position via an imperial President, and so to extend their empire beyond our shores, came almost two hundred years later.
AMERICA’S POST WW II COUNTER-REVOLUTION
In order to understand why President Richard Nixon was able in 1974 to obtain the support of both of the then-solidly Democratic two houses of Congress to pass into law the unConstitutional Fast-Track-initiating
“Trade Act of 1974”, notwithstanding the then-ongoing investigations by Democrats regarding Nixon’s Watergate scandal, one must go back actually to the
first meeting of the extremely secretive elite fascistic international
Bilderberg group, in
1954.
Here from wikileaks is a 1955 status report from Bilderbergs, on their early-stage results; and
the man who wrote that report and hypocritically praised in it “the quintessence of democratic life” was actually a ‘former’ Nazi, Prince Bernhard, who went all the way to his grave in 2004 as a champion of global rule by the American and European aristocracies. (The group was subsequently expanded by Bilderbergers David Rockefeller and the Polish nobleman
Zbigniew Brzezinski to include Japan in their Trilateral Commission.) Within just three years, the
1957 membership of the Bilderberg organization became far more American, far less European, but David Rockefeller and his Wall Street friend George W. Ball were two of the leading Bilderberg members from the very start.
The Bilderberg group turned away from the former Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s international goal for the post-WW II world (conceived in conjunction with
Rexford Guy Tugwell, FDR’s chief policy-advisor), which international goal, building upon
an already-existing grassroots movement, and entirely alien to the artificial concept of top-down aristocratic global control that the Bilderbergs promote, had been instead the gradual natural evolution, bottom-up, toward a democratic world government: a global confederation of free and independent states, not corporate at all but instead a United States of the World, in which the types of imperial international aggressions that the fascist powers had perpetrated and which had produced WW II would be outright banned, and this aggression-ban would be backed up by an international military force which would have the participation of each one of the world’s states. In other words: FDR’s co-conception, and his enduring goal, was of a
democratic federal world government, not of a fascist or any other dictatorial and non-federal world government. It envisioned an international democracy, consisting of the world’s nations as its federal units, even if some of those nations might still be dictatorships, in which case the democracy at the federal level (and the pressure from the democratic nations of the world) would then encourage any dictatorial nations to change or evolve in the direction of democracy. This was Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s hope. It was a reasonable one. And it was rooted not only in an existing grassroots American movement but in a conception of how future history could evolve toward peace as naturally as possible, and with a minimum of command-and-control from the top — no aristocracy in control. This was a vision that was fully in keeping with the goals of America’s Founders. But it sought to
extend that vision to the international sphere, in the modern age. The concept of a United States of the World was based on that. And the U.N. was to be the first step towards it.
Rex Tugwell was very active while teaching at the University of Chicago right after WW II, promoting democratic world government as being key to the establishment of peace on a more secure institutional basis. Thus, in 1946, Albert Einstein wrote an essay, “Toward a World Government,” which was published in his Out of My Later Years, (pp. 131-33), and it opened: “A conversation I had with three students of the University of Chicago has made a strong impression on me.” He then expressed his conviction that “A person or a nation can be considered peace loving only if it is ready to cede its military force to the international authorities and to renounce every attempt or even the means, of achieving its interests abroad by the use of force.” Einstein was specific: “This [world] government must be based on a clearcut constitution which is approved by the governments and the nations and which gives it the sole disposition of offensive weapons.” In other words: it must represent ultimately the people who elect the leaders of the various nations of the world, not international corporations, which answer instead to the families that hold the controlling blocks of stock in them. Einstein was anti-fascist, never pro-fascist. He was 100% in the FDR mold. He was 100% a democrat, small-“d”. That’s what this statement of his reflected; and as he understood, there must ultimately be both a global democracy, and also a global monopoly by that democracy on the control of all nuclear weapons. Otherwise, there will emerge a global dictatorship, and perhaps a nuclear war, which would destroy all civilization. He understood.
This immediate post-WW-II vision of an ultimate world government in the FDR democratic mold lasted unchallenged until Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower (who chose Nixon as Vice President) came into office in 1953, and (now that FDR and his power-heir Truman were gone) America’s large international corporations, and their tax-exempt foundations including think-tanks, started pressing for a world government in the Bilderberg mold, one that would be comprised instead mainly of international corporations which would help shape and would become subject to the same rules and laws and regulations in each and every ‘democratic’ country — that is, in each and every non-communist country. International corporations during the Cold War championed the goal of a bi-polar, capitalist-versus-communist, world, in which the international corporations would, themselves, ultimately become the world government on ‘our’ side (the ‘free world’s’ side), dictating not only international environmental rules, and international product-safety rules, and international labor-rules, and international rules on banking and finance, but also international rules on immigration and on the rights of refugees.
But, then, the Soviet Union and its communism ended, and yet the fascist Bilderberg group’s thrust for globalized international-corporate control continued on, even after the Cold War’s end, as also did what became their military extension, NATO — the international corporations' global enforcement-arm. NATO continued on, even after the Soviet Union’s Warsaw Pact disappeared in 1991. NATO became, then, instead of an
anti-communist alliance, an anti-Russian alliance, an alliance to conquer Russia. The imperial focus continued; but it had underlain the ideological gloss even during the early Cold War years. The 1955 summary by Prince Bernhard of the 1954 Bilderberg meeting mentioned that Article 2 of the 1949 founding document of NATO, the Atlantic Treaty, had been discussed there. That portion of NATO’s treaty said: “The Parties will … seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.” This was an early harbinger of the aristocracy’s thrust for what finally became U.S. policy, the Trade Act of 1974 and its results in such international treaties as NAFTA and, now, as Obama hopes, his TPP, TTIP, and TISA, treaties. Bernhard’s summary also devoted an entire section to “European Unity,” including passages such as:
A European speaker expressed concern about the need to achieve a common currency, and indicated that in his view this necessarily implied the creation of a central political authority. A participant, speaking as a German industrialist, said that, having fought for integration before, German industry was still determined to pursue the same purpose, but he expressed considerable doubt as to the functional approach to integration by moving from one economic sector to another. In his view, the common problems of differences in labour standards and currencies and the various elements entering into the common market must be brought nearer to parity as a condition of further progress.
A major thrust of the early Bilderberg meetings was to establish uniform economic, environmental, and labor, regulations, and a common currency, throughout Europe: this goal of transferring to an ultimate European Union a substantial portion of each Euronpean nation’s sovereignty, started being realized in the 1957 Treaty of Rome, but some features of the Bilderberg plan were enacted only much later, such as the common currency, the euro, which began in 1999.
Another section of the 1955 Bilderberg summary was titled “Economic Problems,” and it opened: “A United States rapporteur, defining convertibility as a state of affairs in which there is a minimum of restriction on international trade, believed that a good deal of progress had been made in that direction since the war. … The increase in trade and prosperity both in Europe and the United States, however, was due in no small part to the steps which had been taken to reduce restrictions on trade.” So: both the U.S. aristocracy, and the various European aristocracies, aimed to transfer at least some of their individual nations’ sovereignty to supra-national treaties; but there was no discussion of how this was to be achieved — whether via democratic processes, or by dictatorial ones, or some mixture of the two.
After the Kennedy round [international-trade talks] ended [in 1967], liberal internationalists, including people like Chase CEO David Rockefeller and former Undersecretary of State George Ball, began pressing for reductions in non-tariff barriers, which they perceived as the next set of trade impediments to pull down. Ball was an architect of 1960s U.S. trade policy — he helped write the Trade Act of 1962, which set the stage for what eventually became the World Trade Organization.
But Ball’s idea behind getting rid of these barriers wasn’t about free trade, it was about reorganizing the world so that corporations could manage resources for “the benefit of mankind”. It was a weird utopian vision that you can hear today in the current United States Trade Representative Michael Froman’s speeches. …
In the opening statement [by Ball to Congress in 1967], before a legion of impressive Senators and Congressmen, Ball attacks the very notion of sovereignty. He goes after the idea that “business decisions” could be “frustrated by a multiplicity of different restrictions by relatively small nation states that are based on parochial considerations,” and lauds the multinational corporation as the most perfect structure devised for the benefit of mankind.
As for David Rockefeller, he wrote in the 1 February 1999
Newsweek an essay “Looking for New Leadership,” in which he stated (p. 41) the
widely quoted (though the rest of the article is ignored): “In recent years, there's been a trend toward democracy and market economies. That has lessened the role of government, which is something business people tend to be in favor of. But the other side of the coin is that somebody has to take governments' place, and business seems to me to be a logical entity to do it.” (Of course, by “business” there, he’s referring only to international corporations, but he doesn’t say that; he’s tactful enough not to make it explicit.) This has been his clearest statement endorsing the emergence of a future world government by international corporations, which will possess a sovereignty higher than that of any national government, which he says that he endorses because a lessening of the role of democratic government “is something business people tend to be in favor of.” (Of course, those “business people” are only the hundred or so who actually control the major international corporations; they’re not mom-and-pop-type “business people”; but he’s tactful enough not to make that explicit, either. The whole endeavor is a con.)
This was the basis upon which Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority was actually accepted by congressional Democrats in 1974. George Ball was the key person, but he was chosen for this role because he could be paraded as being a ‘Democrat,’ so that support for the position would be ‘bi-partisan,’ not merely “Republican.” (Similarly, the Wall Street ‘Democrat’ Bill Clinton in 1999 derailed and subverted FDR’s Glass-Steagall and other financial regulations.)
After the end of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO became the military arm of a hoped-for future no-longer bipolar world — instead a monolithically uni-polar global empire, which set out to conquer the former communist nations (first by
corrupting their transitions into capitalism, but then increasingly by
military means including NATO itself.) The ideological gloss was now gone, but the purpose of global domination by the international aristocracy didn’t go away. NATO became, far more clearly, simply the military arm of the global aristocracy, whose brain is located in Washington as to politics, and in Wall Street as to finance. America’s aristocracy would thus rule Europe’s and Japan’s. The great investigative historian F. William Engdahl recently presented a
superb summary of how “In the early 1990s, Dick Cheney’s company, Halliburton, had surveyed the offshore oil potentials of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and the entire Caspian Sea Basin. They estimated the region to be ‘another Saudi Arabia’ worth several trillion dollars on today’s market. The US and UK were determined to keep that oil bonanza from Russian control by all means. The first target of Washington was to stage a coup in Azerbaijan against elected president Abulfaz Elchibey to install a President more friendly to a US-controlled Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline.” And that was all part of this operation: “Not long after the CIA and Saudi Intelligence-financed Mujahideen had devastated Afghanistan at the end of the 1980’s, forcing the exit of the Soviet Army in 1989, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself some months later, the CIA began to look at possible places in the collapsing Soviet Union where their trained ‘Afghan Arabs’ [headed by Osama bin Laden] could be redeployed to further destabilize Russian influence over the post-Soviet Eurasian space.” In other words: after the Cold War against ‘communism’ had already ended by the collapse of the communist economies, the Bilderbergers and their agents continued the war as being merely a war of conquest and exploitation of the formerly communist nations and especially of resource-rich Russia — an anti-Russia war that has recently been intensified by ‘Democratic’ President Barack Obama.
The U.S. aristocracy, and, to a lesser extent, the European and Japanese aristocracies, within the
Trilateral Commission which had been set up by the Bilderbergers (especially under Bilderberger David Rockefeller), all continue their international-corporate aim for unitary corporate global power, and for the crushing of democracy within all of the member-nations. President Obama’s proposed international treaties, the TPP, TTIP, and TISA, would replace national democratic laws and regulations regarding the environment, consumer protection, workers’ rights, and investor protection, by means of international-corporate control of those regulations, via panels of three ‘arbitrators,’ all of whom will be selected by or otherwise beholden to the international corporations that are being regulated; and, if any nation then tries to legislate stronger laws to protect the public than those panels approve under the given treaty, that nation will be fined by any corporation whose ‘rights,’ under these treaties (TPP, TTIP, and TISA), have been ruled by those panels to have been infringed by that violating nation. The basic idea is that the rights of the owners of the controlling blocks of stock in the international corporations take precedence over the rights of any mere nation, or of the public in any nation that participates in these vast American-dominated ‘trade’ deals. (The underlying ideology behind this is discussed in my 2015 book,
Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.)
This new system, called “Investor State Dispute Resolution,” or ISDS, is only just starting to be employed and applied, from NAFTA and the few other such international agreements that are already in force. The following is from
a Congressional Research Service report (which is generally heavily biased in favor of ISDS), in which is described one of the biggest cases yet that has been resolved by such panels:
A tribunal’s inability to change the laws or regulations of the United States directly does not mean that arbitration awards cannot be substantial. For example, in Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Ecuador, the tribunal ordered Ecuador to pay Occidental $1,769,625,000—over 1 billion dollars—in damages.63 The tribunal rendered that award, which is one of the largest awards in favor of a claimant under ISDS arbitration, after finding that Ecuador violated an investment agreement by expropriating Occidental’s property in response to Occidental transferring some of its economic interests under an oil production contract in contravention of Ecuador law.64 Therefore, although a tribunal lacks authority to alter a U.S. statute directly, some commentators believe that the possibility for such large monetary damages potentially could influence lawmakers and regulators when they consider proposed laws or regulations that may run afoul of IIA obligations.65
The arbitrators said that the Ecuadorean laws, and even the Ecuadorean Constitution, were irrelevant, because Ecuador’s signing on to ISDS was their signing away Ecuador’s sovereignty over these matters. Occidental sued and won against Ecuador’s enforcing Ecuador’s laws. Occidental’s stockholders won; Ecuador’s public lost. If this isn’t a warning to all subsequent signators to a treaty that has ISDS in it, nothing is.
Another case pits the tobacco company Philip Morris against Uruguay. “Philip Morris is saying that the percentage of warning labels that are required on cigarette packs in Uruguay goes beyond what is reasonable to protect people from the harmful effects of smoking.” Perhaps Uruguay won’t have the money to contest the allegation, and will thus be forced to eliminate the requirement — and Uruguayans won’t have the money to take care of the additional cancer and heart-attack cases.
This is what a fascist instead of a democratic world government is like. In the final years of Barack Obama’s U.S. Presidency, it’s what he turns out to be pushing with more intensity than he has pushed anything before, even his “Obamacare.”
Andrew Gavin Marshall posted
an article on 16 June 2011 which provided a remarkably well-documented history of the Bilderberg group and of their plan to supplant the rule by national democracies, and to replace it with an international government by the owners of the controlling blocks of stock in the world’s largest international corporations. He notes there that the large foundations and think tanks already represent the large international corporations, and that they operate as tax-exempt extensions of them. One person that he cites sums this up well:
“Foundations like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford have a corrosive influence on a democratic society; they represent relatively unregulated and unaccountable concentrations of power and wealth which buy talent, promote causes, and, in effect, establish an agenda of what merits society’s attention. They serve as “cooling-out” agencies, delaying and preventing more radical, structural change. They help maintain an economic and political order, international in scope, which benefits the ruling-class interests of philanthropists and philanthropoids – a system which… has worked against the interests of minorities, the working class, and Third World peoples.”
BARACK OBAMA’S ROLE IN THIS
As the great independent investigative journalist Wayne Madsen has reported, in depth, in his many articles, such as (and these are repostings of originals from Madsen’s subscription-only website)
“Obama’s CIA Pedigree” and
"Details revealed about Obama's former CIA employer” and
"The Story of Obama: All in The Company,” and in his 2012 book
The Manufacturing of a President: The CIA's Insertion of Barack H. Obama, Jr. into the White House, Obama’s parents and grandparents were in the pay alternately of the U.S.-aristocracy-controlled CIA and of the U.S.-aristocracy-controlled Ford Foundation; and the boss of Obama’s mother at the Ford Foundation was none other than Peter Geithner, who was the father of
Timothy Geithner, the Wall Street operative who ran the U.S. Treasury Department in Obama’s first term and who bailed out the investors in the megabanks while he refused to bail out the uneducated and poor mortgagees they had suckered with excessive loans, and the pension funds and other outside investors in the fraudulent resulting ‘AAA’-rated Mortgage Backed Securities (MBSs, which the Federal Reserve is still buying up and transferring onto the backs of future U.S. taxpayers).
So, Obama was deep into service to America’s aristocracy, ever since he was in college; and his parents even raised him with money from the CIA and the Ford Foundation. Furthermore, Obama’s first employment was with the CIA front firm, Business International Corporation, in 1983 and 1984, though he might have been recruited by the CIA even as early as around 1980. (Going back even farther than Madsen, some terrific independent investigators, such as
Joseph Cannon and the libertarian
Robert Wenzel, were already exploring Obama’s CIA connections within mere months of his having won the U.S. Presidency in 2008. And, then, after Madsen, Andrew Krieg, in his 2013 blockbuster
Presidential Puppetry, brought all of this together into a much broader, well documented, recent history of the U.S. as being an oligarchic instead of a democratic nation.)
So: Obama represents (not just in his policies, but even in his background) the U.S. aristocracy (or “oligarchs”), and he aspires to bring to ultimate fruition his predecessors’ dream, the dream of Bill Clinton, who did the largest previous Fast-Track-approved treaty, NAFTA, and, before him, of Richard Nixon, who created Fast Track (and before everything, there was the Bilderberg group): the goal of a fascist world government designed in Washington and signed by the aristocracies of the world’s countries that are subservient to the U.S. aristocracy — ’trade’ agreements that are actually a signing-away of democratic national sovereignties to this U.S.-aristocracy-dominated global international-corporate sovereign, which is both the treaty and its implementation — a world-government in the fascist style.
Other countries don’t have the U.S. Constitution’s two-thirds requirement to contend with; and, so, they don’t necessarily need to rape their constitutions in order to achieve this fascist conquest of their nation. Only the U.S. does; and this is the reason why, even the five international treaties that were passed via Fast Track are called, in every country that signed them, “treaty,” except in the United States, where they are instead called (in accord with “Fast Track”) merely an “international trade agreement.”
Infowars correctly predicted in 2007 that former Texas Gov. Rick Perry would run for president in 2012 after traveling to the Bilderberg conference in Istanbul, Turkey. Barack Obama also also reportedly visited the Bilderberg conference just prior to becoming the presidential frontrunner after he “infamously disappeared to a secret location with Hillary Clinton in June 2008 in Northern Virginia, at precisely the same time and location the Bilderberg Group were convening in Chantilly,” noted Infowars Paul Joseph Watson.
Basically, FDR’s post-WW-II agenda was highjacked by the fascists against whom FDR had led this country in order to defeat them; and, now, our Presidential candidates are needing to obtain the fascists’ approvals in order for them to be able to receive the campaign-funding that’s necessary in order to become ‘a serious candidate.’
Consequently, any Democrat who says, like the Democratic operative Michael Wessel did headlining in Politico on May 19th,
"I’ve Read Obama’s Secret Trade Deal. Elizabeth Warren Is Right to Be Concerned,” that, “secretary [and she’s not ‘secretary,’ any more than she is ‘First Lady’] Clinton … should be commended … for raising a note of caution” about Obama’s proposed trade-deals (Wessel is implicitly recognizing there that she is trying to avoid having to say publicly that she supports Obama’s ‘trade’ deals, just like she
long had avoided saying publicly that she had supported her husband’s), is merely sucking her up for a job in her campaign and/or in the White House (if she becomes President).
Clinton is 100% sold already, to the highest bidders, just like every overtly Republican Presidential candidate is. Trusting her word on what her policies would be if she were to win, would be
ridiculous, because she’s not nearly as skilled a liar as Obama and her husband were, and she has a much lengthier career in public life than either of them did, and that career amply displays both her incompetency and her cravenousness. As a ‘servant of the people,’ she’d be a bad joke, not even a skilled con-artist, such as her husband and Obama were and are.
And, the only people who support any one of the Republican candidates are the 0.01% of them who are aristocrats, and the 99.99% of them who are their aristocrats' suckers. And the only people who support the obviously fake ‘Democratic’ presidential candidates, the ones who haven’t already made clear to the public their intense opposition to the fake ‘Democrat’ Obama’s ‘trade’ deals (since they have no such intense opposition to them) — candidates such as Hillary Clinton are — are the Democratic Party’s mega-donor aristocrats, and their mass of suckers on the Democratic-Party side.
But that’s the way you get the money to be ‘a serious Presidential candidate’ in today’s America.
In other words: the origin of the unConstitutional “Fast Track” is the war against the public that the aristocracy (both the Republican and the Democratic wings of it) has been waging, and increasingly winning, since 1953.
THE MAIN U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE
In June 1954, Morris D. Forkosch headlined in
Chicago-Kent Law Review,
“Treaties and Executive Agreements,” and summarized the status of this issue up into the start of the Eisenhower Administration. It was a different nation then. He noted: "Suppose, however, that a treaty conflicts with a provision of the United States Constitution or contradicts the terms of a federal statute. Which, then, governs? In the first of these situations, the United States Supreme Court has indicated, albeit the language is obiter, that the treaty would be ineffective.29” (His footnote included: “DeGeofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 258 at 267, 10 S. Ct. 295, 33 L. Ed. 642 at 645 (1890), and Fort Leavenworth R. R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525 at 541, 5 S. Ct. 995, 29 L. Ed. 264 at 270 (1885).”) So: according to U.S. Supreme Court decisions up till at least 1954, any one of the five Fast-Tracked international trade agreements that has been passed since the Fast-Track law, the Trade Act of 1974, was passed, would have been blocked by the Supreme Court, were it not for the Trade Act of 1974 — a mere law that, supposedly, has changed the Constitution without amending it, but that did this simply by asserting that when the Founders said “treaty” they weren’t referring to any and all forms of international agreement — which they clearly were referring to, in their era. Obviously, the power to interpret the Constitution rests solely with the U.S. Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the words that are in the Constitution as closely as possible to the way the Founders who wrote it intended those terms to be understood to mean. That’s just basic, to any constitutional democracy.
In February 2001,
Michigan Law Review published John C. Yoo’s January 2000 article,
“Laws as Treaties: The Constitutionality of Congressional-Executive Agreements,” in which Yoo, the lawyer who subsequently provided to George W. Bush the rationalization for Bush’s authorization to use torture after 9/11, argued that the two-thirds Senate rule needs, for practical purposes, to be nullified for certain types of international agreements, including for the five that had already been Fast-Tracked. Rather than his dealing with the question of whether the Executive and the Legislative branches possess Constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution, he wrote there the argument that he would present to the Judicial branch, at the U.S. Supreme Court, if he were to be the attorney arguing there for the Constitutionality of Fast-Track. (Perhaps this paper was even one of the reasons why he was selected by Bush.) His entire argument was pragmatic as he saw it, such as, this: “Today, however, the Senate has about fifty percent more members than the first House of Representatives envisioned by the Constitution, suggesting that the Senate no longer has the small numbers that the Framers believed necessary for successful diplomacy.” This sort of thing constituted his argument for why treaties that don’t concern national security and so fall under the President’s Commander-in-Chief authority, shouldn’t be considered to be “treaties,” but only “Congressional-Executive Agreements.”
However, even Yoo noted, at the time, that the most-prominent scholarly argument in favor of the Constitutionality of Fast-Track,
“Is NAFTA Constitutional?” by Bruce Ackerman and David Golove, in the February 1995
Harvard Law Review, was a “provocative and idiosyncratic theory of unwritten constitutional amendments,” whereas Yoo didn’t have the nerve to demean, but only to note, the article in that same publication by Laurence Tribe, which demolished the Ackerman-Golove article. In December 1998, Golove came forth in
New York University Law Review, with a 152-page treatise,
“Against Free-Form Formalism,” trying to overcome Tribe’s case. But, more recently, Michael Ramsey posted online his 13 August 2012 review of all of that,
“Laurence Tribe on Textualism (and Congressional-Executive Agreements),” where he devotes most of his attention to the two original pro-and-con articles in the 1995
HLR, and says that Tribe’s case was far more persuasive than Ackerman-Golove’s; and, then, he notes parenthetically near the end: “(David Golove makes an attempt, in a reply article published at 73 N.Y.U. L.Rev. 1791 (1998), but I don’t think he makes much headway against them [Tribe’s ‘points’]).” Golove’s 152-page treatise failed to impress anyone. Among the legal scholars, it’s pretty much a settled matter.
Thus: the current academic status of the issue is: The Supreme Court would have little choice but to overturn the Fast-Track provision of the Trade Act of 1974, if the matter were to be accepted by the Court for adjudication, unless the high Court were willing to be despised not only by the public but especially by legal scholars. If the Court were to decline to consider the case, then it would be accepting the authority of the Executive branch in conjunction with some members of the Legislative branch, to interpret the meaning of “treaty” in the U.S. Constitution — and, in the entire history of the United States, the Supreme Court has never done that.
Well, in a sense, that’s not entirely correct: the 2001 appeals-court case,
Made in the USA Foundation v. U.S., was the only case to deal with this issue, and it concluded, citing as its chief authority a non-dispositive Supreme Court decision that was written by Justice William H. Rehnquist, in the 1979 case
Goldwater v. Carter, which said that a certain action that President Jimmy Carter had done under both his treaty authority and his Commander-in-Chief authority could not be Constitutionally challenged by Senator Barry Goldwater. But that Supreme Court decision, which was the supposed authority for this, concerned not international trade, but instead the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief, and so it wasn’t even a “trade” case at all; it wasn’t relevant, and thus really shouldn’t have been cited, because it dealt with different Constitutional provisions regarding what does and what does not reside within the President’s authority — namely, as Commander-in-Chief, and as the negotiator on mutual-
defense treaties. So, there wasn’t even a question in this matter as to whether it concerned a “treaty.” On that shoddy basis, the appeals court said: "We nonetheless decline to reach the merits of this particular case, finding that with respect to international commercial agreements such as NAFTA, the question of just what constitutes a 'treaty' requiring Senate ratification presents a nonjusticiable political question.” It said this even despite denying that the meaning of the Constitutional term “treaty” should be determined by the Executive and the Legislative branches, instead of by the Judicial branch:
It is true that the Supreme Court has rejected arguments of nonjusticiability with respect to other ambiguous constitutional provisions. In Munoz-Flores, the Court was confronted with the question of whether a criminal statute requiring courts to impose a monetary "special assessment" on persons convicted of federal misdemeanors was a "bill for raising revenue" according to the Origination Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, § 7, cl. 1, in spite of the lack of guidance on exactly what types of legislation amount to bills "for raising revenue." The Court, in electing to decide the issue on the merits, rejected the contention that in the absence of clear guidance in the text of the Constitution, such a determination should be considered a political question.
To be sure, the courts must develop standards for making [such] determinations, but the Government suggests no reason that developing such standards will be more difficult in this context than in any other. Surely a judicial system capable of determining when punishment is "cruel and unusual," when bail is "[e]xcessive," when searches are "unreasonable," and when congressional action is "necessary and proper" for executing an enumerated power, is capable of making the more prosaic judgments demanded by adjudication of Origination Clause challenges.
So: even that appeals court was not saying that the Legislative and Executive branches, working in concert, should determine what a “treaty” is and what it isn’t, but instead that court reaffirmed the exclusive authority of the Judicial branch to make such determinations. It simply refused to exercise the authority. Its argument on this was:
We note that none of these cases [the cited ones on the Supreme Court’s determinations regarding the meanings of specific terms and phrases in the Constitution], however, took place directly in the context of our nation's foreign policy, and in none of them was the constitutional authority of the President and Congress to manage our external political and economic relations implicated. In addition to the Constitution's textual commitment of such matters to the political branches, we believe, as discussed further below, that in the area of foreign relations, prudential considerations militate even more strongly in favor of judicial noninterference.
So, why didn’t those jurists even make note of the fact that their chief citation, Goldwater v. Carter, concerned military instead of economic matters, and not the meaning of “treaty,” at all? Stupidity, or else some ulterior motive — because no reason at all was cited by them.
Their decision closed by saying:
We note that no member of the Senate itself has asserted that body's sole prerogative to ratify NAFTA (or, for that matter, other international commercial agreements) by a two-thirds supermajority. In light of the Senate's apparent acquiescence in the procedures used to approve NAFTA, we believe this further counsels against judicial intervention in the present case.
This assertion totally ignored that “the Senate’s apparent acquiescence” had occurred, and been measured, only according to the 50%+1 Fast-Track standard, never according to the Constitution’s two-thirds standard. According to the Constitution’s standard, which was applied nowhere in the process along the road toward approval of any of the five Fast-Tracked treaty-bills into law, the Senate never actually ‘acquiesced in’ any of them. This court was simply accepting the Constitutional validity of that ‘acquiescence,’ so as to determine whether or not it was Constitutionally valid. Circular reasoning — prejudice.
However, in order to assist blockage of Fast Track for Obama’s proposed ‘trade’ treaties, it would greatly help if one or more of the very vocal opponents in the U.S. Senate, against Fast-Tracking these treaties — Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, and Harry Reid, for examples — would petition the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of the provision in the Trade Act of 1974 that introduced Fast Track, and thus on Fast Track’s abolition of the Constitution’s two-thirds rule. Perhaps the case might become titled something like, “Warren v. United States,” where “Warren” stands for America’s public, and “United States” stands for America’s aristocracy.
* * *
THE BOTTOM LINE
What’s at stake here is nothing less than whether the future of the United States, and perhaps even of the world, will be democracy, or else fascism. That’s a lot.
Obama, in his trade-deals, aims to culminate the American aristocracy’s victory. If he wins all his trade-deals, then the Obama Library and the other Obama-operations will become enormous with the billions pouring in, even as he’ll go down in history as perhaps the worst President, probably (due to those trade-agreements) worse even than George W. Bush, or Harding, or Buchanan, or Grant, and with a far lengthier catastrophic result trailing after his Presidency, because those trade-deals will be very long-term catastrophes, which might end up destroying the hopes for democracy, not just internationally, but also nationally here in the U.S. The approval and resulting largesse from America’s aristocracy doesn’t come cheap, these days.
The American aristocracy has spent billions for these deals since 1953, and now they demand their trillions on that investment. Obama aims to give them the orgasms of power and money that they’ve been investing in, during many decades. This has been a lengthy rape, and they’ll be very grateful to Obama if he delivers this climax of it, to them — handing to them the world, as it were, on a golden platter, reeking from corruption, which is the sweetest smell they know, and which is by far the most profitable of all fragrances, in their nostrils, as they inhale it deep, and receive from it, this jolt, of sheer joy.
Alfred de Zayas is the U.N.’s Special Rapporteur on Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable World Order, which is the U.N.’s official who speaks for the global institution regarding current issues that are of concern to the achievement of the U.N.’s founding objectives. A report in Britain’s
Guardian on 4 May 2015, titled
“UN Calls for Suspension of TTIP Talks,” quoted him as saying that the reason why the U.S.-EU negotiations must be suspended is that, “We don’t want a dystopian future in which corporations and not democratically elected governments call the shots.” But the international aristocrats do want that. De Zayas, the institutionalized spokesperson for the vision of FDR and of RGT, spoke for the great progressive leaders who were committed to the defeat of fascism. However, Obama, the Clintons, all Republicans, and most of the leadership around the world, are now again within the fascist camp.
In the long view of history, this matter is, on the global level, a continuation of WW II between democracy versus fascism; but, on the purely American national level, it is a continuation of the American Revolutionary War between democracy and aristocracy. Either way, what had been thought to have been a decisive victory for democracy has turned out to have been not so decisive after all; and the aristocratic, fascistic, forces have regrouped, and, at least
up till June 12th, appeared to be heading for victory. But, this time, if they win, it might be final, because it truly would be a global victory for the aristocracy, and a global defeat for the public everywhere. This is what de Zayas warned of as “a dystopian future in which corporations and not democratically elected governments call the shots.”
This is a global war, which has been waged since at least 1954, and Obama is aiming to negotiate the surrender of FDR and the Allies who had won WW II. But they’d be surrendering to him. One might call it “WW II, round 2.” But it’s also “The American Counter-Revolution.” By either name, it’s the same war, and the earlier victories for democracy are on the line, to be determined now, by our generation — or, perhaps, only by the aristocrats in our generation (if those few people will be its winners). If they win it, then what could a round 3, or an American counter-counter-revolution, conceivably be like — or would it be simply inconceivable? Or, perhaps, just inconceivably violent? “All the world’s a prison” might sound peaceful for the aristocracy, who would be luxuriously outside those prison-walls in their own gated compounds, and far from earshot of the explosions within; but, for the global public, what would there be left to lose in a global revolution?
The aristocracy already own almost everything. (And
here is another way of looking at this.) That’s not enough for them, but maybe it will finally become too much for everybody else. This type of “global warming” could thus become a global conflagration, even before the environmental one destroys everything.
This is not biblical-doomsday stuff, at all. In fact, any doomsday that could actually come, wouldn’t be at all mythological. Myths are designed to misinform people. Science is designed to inform them. One won’t find out what the real threats are, by reading myths. Myths are shaped by the aristocracy, to control the public. Myths helped cause today’s problems; they’re no solution to the problems. They’re part of the problems. Myths are propaganda. They do their jobs, for the deceivers, who generate them.
That was weird, it kept telling me I wasn't allowed access to this page?
Glitch mayhaps?
So yea sure I'd like a more democratic gov. But the Oligarchs want everything. The latest, a "cashless" society which they control. Everyone I know rolls over for this, so what can I do?
How about no fucking world government. That's the choice I want.
Agree entirely.
Off Topic Post
TSP has formed a second company, merging older communications with modern. For those who are interested in diversifying into one of the next boom technologies, here's a chance.
http://twoshortplanksunplugged.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/second-company-es...
tldr;
Is ZH going to have Cliff Notes for this post?
Too long.
America is already a proto-fascist state. That's the short of it...
The New World Order owes me a FEMA trailer. It would also be nice if they threw in cable. I could live on that type of planet.
Sovereign citizens unite. Es-chew the jew CON-fetti.
We must face the fact that We, the rabble are unmanageable.
What does the competent manager do in this case?
Manage what he can and let the rest fend for itself.
Very compartmentalized and chaotic.
Very good article, by the way, I scrolled to the top several times to get the author's name.
Eric Zuesse
this article made a few good points, but until this guy stops defending FDR as some champion of the little guy and realizes democrats are no less corporate fascist whores than republicans he will still be a fucking idiot in my book. FDR was one of the worst presidents in history, and this guy cant stop praising him. As someone who believed that he was far smarter than the average person, and should make choices for the masses and enforce them at gunpoint, the idea of a one world govt in the mold of FDR being a kind and gentle one is laughable. He was also a pioneer of lawless spying on americans who disagreed with him. We wouldn't have corporate conmen like obama and clinton without the pioneering efforts of FDR. Lets also not forget about him giving half of europe to stalin. Sorry, I realize I am letting this make me ignore and article that did make some good points, but FDR praise(like lincoln praise) is one of the things that always tells me I am reading a historically ignorant douche bag. Wake the fuck up. Just in case the author reads these comments, heres a good place to educate yourself:
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico-arch.html
I agree carl, he also talks about the Bilderbergers especially Rockefeller as bad guys and they are but he praises the UN and the Rockefellers were instrumental in establishing the UN. This writer is pushing his agenda through subterfuge and selective misleading history. Couldn't stand to read all of it I had a sick feeling half way through.
I couldn't agree more - this guy reeks of statist fanboy.
It always amazes me that some people can be so insightful about SOME things and completely drowning in their own cognitive dissonance on directly related subjects ... unfortunately you see it all the time.
"Intellectuals" are the easiest to fool as they're usually so convinced of their "superior intelligence" that they never bother to examine what they believe and why. Feed them some propaganda, stroke their egos, and you're set - they'll defend stupidity to the death.
Obama and Co are banking on your inability to process legal briefs.
I agree, overwhelm anybody with any sense, with difficult to challenge nonsense.
Too arrogant, set place holder.
taspl;
American democracy is the system by which I supposedly give up my right to self determination in order to have a 300 millionth say in what everybody will be forced to do.
A world democracy would give me only a one seven billionth say in what everybody is forced to do for the same involuntary investment of my individual freedom.
You clearly don't understand democracy....
Democracy is where you vote for wolf A, B, or unlikely, but possibly C, but you get to pay for what those people you vote for do, without your vote.
It's indicative to being the in a world where the poticians vote for pizza, you pay for it, but you don't get to eat a damn slice of it...
(Call it batshit crazy, but this is Democracy in a nutshell.)
It doesn't matter that the people vote, a senator owns the elctronic voting machine corporation, and yes it really is that damn corrupt...
If I don't understand democracy why is my description of it more succinct and informative than yours?
The flawed character of individual politicians or the implementation of proprietary black box voting is incidental as democracy fails at the conceptual level.
Your interpretation of democracy is the poison pill which deludes so many: if only the democratic system could somehow be run more honestly and fairly then good things would result from abandoning individual freedom in deference to the lowest common denominator. That may not be your intention but that is where your superficial and arbitrary critique leads.
string sAnswer = "";
string sResponse = GetLastResponse();
if(sResponse == "Superficial BS")
return sAnswer;
else
return "Uh huh...";
Democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. The majority is not white or western. It is asian and indian.
The problem is that most people believe that other people are their property.
They are still animals.
The violent rule by force & take too (what's not theirs)....
There is no democracy, only a pretending upper wealthy class that nobody is allowed to speak in or be a part of unless you are in the billionaire club or blue blood...
Don't want no steenkin dumb-ocracy.
to have a 300 millionth say
Don't be dumb. You wil remain at having no say.
You wouldn't recognize an elegant, persuasive argument if it beat you over your pointed little head, would you?
Its elegant, persuasive and articulate. Its what I used to believe. Now it seems like merely a dream. Best to all you young people. Make it happen.
Elegant and persuasive - yes. But the upshot is that you truly and sadly have NO say.
But that was my point. A one in 300 millionth say, let alone a one seven billionth say is NO say. Did you think that I was praising a system which strips me of my individual rights in exchange for nothing but the illusion of influence?
I've already decided that I'm on Skynet's side.
"will be a global federation of free and independent states, much like the United States was at its founding, but global in extent."
We all know how well that asinine idea turned out. It basically became a:
"mega-corporate dictatorship".
After six million years H. sapiens is less evolved than our human-chimp common ancestor.
"FDR was anti-fascist"
What a crock of shit, this author is a fucking idiot. FDR was the original american fascist. So much so, that both Hitler and mussolini were admirers of his, the way he 'managed' the aftermath of the great depression with massive govt interference in fucking everything. FDR was also an admirer of hitler and mussolini, and said so on several occasions(obviously well before war broke out). The idea that FDR was 'for the people' and not a statist authoritarian who believed in government micromanagement of everything has been disproven numerous times, only a dickhead with huge idialogical blinders on would make such an ignorant statement. I couldn't even finish this article. Hopefully ZH isn't going to keep posting this idiots drivel all the time.
Its a shame too, since they often start out as decent posts. If he could wrap his brain around the fact that FDR was a fascist and a criminal and there is no difference between the parties he might be worth reading.
These two competing visions of world government are both controlled by the globalists. The evil Western version is just a decoy; the "good" BRICS version is the one the globalists actually intend to implement: http://redefininggod.com/understanding-the-nwo-strategy/
Guess again.
The BRICS don't have a worldwide currency, a worldwide banking system, a worldwide language, a worldwide military, a worldwide spy network, a worldwide system of satraps, and worldwide media and entertainment.
Try wrapping your mind around the concept of ingroup-outgroup morality. If there isn't an outgroup that means everyone is in the ingroup.
Read your link and another post. One thing miss-placed in your line of reasoning is that the there will be a new world currency / SDR / thingy.
We all ready have a new world currency. It's called the Dollar. It makes up about 90% of all world trade. When Reagan was in office it was just 50%. The dollar is the best means to facilitate world trade or as I like to say, "The cleanest dirty shirt in the laundry." Like all currencies, it's isn't a good store of value. It will collapse when we run out of zeros. The boys at Dollar, Inc spent 100 years building their franchise and they are not going to throw it away on a whim. Would you? Ask yourself, where is the profit in that? China and it's need for gold, is just an admission to the club. They are all ready part of the FED banking system. Despite all the ugly actors, they are one big crime family (the banking cartel). The same people who control the Anglo-American world power, control China too.
The BRICS? Russia's banks are controlled by the West; Putin is not. I think Putin's days are numbered. Brazil is completely controlled by the FED as is India and South Africa. Amazing what those currency raiders will do to you if you don't do what you're told. The BRIC bank? Whooooo. $50 to $100 billion dollars. Isn't that what Zuckerberg is worth? The IMF alone musters $750 billion. The Asian bank thingy recently: it was formed to fund stuff the western banks have no interest in, like trans eurasian transportation etc. Yes, yes, the Chinese have doubled in 5 years the number of folks using their currency . . . . from 1.8% of world trade, to 3.6%. I think they still have a long way to go. Don't you?
Your NWO is all ready here, my friend.
In their quest for cash, look for them to plunder organized religion soon.
Sorry, the posh kids always win.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2008/March/20080303/ICP-2008108/ICP-...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/09/markets/china-banks-us-expansion/
hahahahah we have a big advantage they are going to let us fight ourselves and step in when the numbers are right. Other countries will be collectivised quickly. Think drones when you see them the end is near. Then look up...He cares about sparrows
Poet get a job.
hahahahah we have a big advantage they are going to let us fight ourselves and step in when the numbers are right. Other countries will be collectivised quickly. Think drones when you see them the end is near. Then look up...He cares about sparrows
Poet get a job.
hahahahah we have a big advantage they are going to let us fight ourselves and step in when the numbers are right. Other countries will be collectivised quickly. Think drones when you see them the end is near. Then look up...He cares about sparrows
Poet get a job.
Democracy is three white chicks who identify as black voting on who is the most crazy.
The twist?
They're all white hispanic.
Democracy will be 8 billion fucking idiots wanting to be slaves of government, and 25 million trying to leave the planet.
I'm with you, honestann.
Is one of them gay?
You ignorant, smart mouthed, uneducated idiots do not deserve a democracy “government of, for and by the People”. You deserve a totalitarian debt slave fascist government “government of, for and by the multinational monopoly corporations”. Maybe, after the fact, you will realize how stupid you are as a worthless American that watched your democracy disappear and mocked it.
The Founding Fathers knew that a democracy was the lowest, most malignant form of government, as it is nothing more than mob rule. Therefore, the US was established as a Constitutional Republic. "Democracy" was NEVER used to describe this country until the 1930s or so, when the communist scum took over like cancer. You are an ignorant, smart mouthed, uneducated idiot who deserves a boot up your ass and we are that boot.
I find that a rather meaningless semantic quibble. Giving only (white male) land owners suffrage was a much more major distinction in my opinion, although I'm not sure it's something to be terribly proud of ... hell the world is moving to implementing the same system.
Feudalism by any other name smells as shit to me though.
Marco, there is not a good ROI on slaves any more, and even this land holder position is getting tiresome.
I do consider the supra voting advantage occasionally, but continual bruising for having been successful, changes your perspective after a while.
You ignorant fool, “democracy is not mentioned in the constitution”. Of course it’s not mentioned in the constitution, “democracy” is an adjective that describes the “form” of government. Idiot!
You ignorant American bastards do not even know your own heritage and in your stupidity you think you are smarter than the educated American people. You low life Teabagger idiots are so stupid you deserve the death and degradation coming your way at the hands of the fascist. Your kind is the fascist fool tools. Suck on the end of my rifle barrel! Teabaggers!
Wow, you have issues.
John A. Stormer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Stormer
"None Dare Call it Treason"
everything old is new again... thanks for the link.
Download it here:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/52165577/None-Dare-Call-It-Treason-John-Storm...
A bit naive, to think the Lizard people are idealogical communists ... they want to own everything, not share everything.
The next Dark Age is going to be very Dark indeed.
A study of skeletal remains showed that those who lived immediately after the fall of Rome lived longer, healthier lives than those who immediately preceded the fall. Bring on the dark age.
"When you see those lights go out," said Galt, "then you will know that our job is done."
There's more to live than living a long time.
I still have a bunch of curly light bulbs if it helps.
Let me put this as plainly as possible. Life under dictatorship is bad. When people are free they live longer, healthier, happier lives with more wealth, more satisfying interpersonal relationships and fewer cavities. Four out of five dentists agree.
Now what was your point?
"When a world government is first formally proposed, the advocates of world government will make promises. They will talk about protections of rights. They will talk about check and balances. They will wax poetically on the amazing “system” they have designed to ensure that their creation will never go off the rails. They will be very confident that they are playing a central role in the salvation of mankind. We must see through their deceptions, deliberate or not, and challenge them. Rest assured, that once power is centralized into a singular body, all of humankind will be enslaved. There will be no Russia for American dissident Edward Snowden to run to. There will be no Equador for Julian Assange. There will be only one refuge for those willing to resist that monolithic state: death.
When our current unstable world order begins degrades, we should be prepared for the attempt to construct a world government. Every thinking person has an obligation to do what he or she can to prevent this from happening. It would be the end of humankind as we know it."
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/18852-world-anarch-or-a-world-stat...
The notion that there could be a "democratic" world government is laughable. It ignores the history of all large scale "democratic" governments, i.e. subversion of any constitution and misleading of the masses to increasingly strengthen the power of those in authority and their financial allies, exploiting the community to their benefit and suppressing freedom to protect their positions.
The fact that Einstein supported such a notion shows he was as naive about politics as the pope is about science.
That "Details revealed Obama's former CIA employer" linked to some completely different article about sodium.
a dictatorship by the hundred or so global super-rich who hold the controlling blocks of stock in the world’s largest international corporations
Most people would call bullshit on this prospect. If you had made these claims in the past, you have been called names and told to shut up. But, slowly, these elites are coming forward to claim their power, and Obamas/Clintons/Bushs trade deals have been all about creating a legal international frame work to enshrine just such power.
Snowden came along and proved a lot of us were right "The government tracks and stores every keystroke on every computer, every phone call, email etc. etc. Proof! When these trade deals are open to exposure, I suspect proof will be found that 100-200 elite rich are setting themselves up as world rulers via the back door of international trade deals.
Right now, some nations resist this. Russia is the prime example. And Russia is the world enemy number one of Washington, Brussels, Canberra and other western democracies. Why the fury? Obviously, you can't rule the world if one nation refuses to cooperate in handing all power to the elites, the bankers and Zionists.
Proof is the bottom line for everyone.
Jack read what they did to Charles Lindbergh, he was a HERO at the time and he was given the MEL GIBSON treatment, and just like THAT he became a pariah.
Preface to the First Paperback Edition
Good observation.
.
If you take the author's argument that we have a continuation of Democracy vs Fascism since WW2, then what we really have is a war of the Christian-Aryan Aristocracy of Nazi Germany having lost to the Neo feudal, non-Christian Globalists, who are controlled by Zionist and their global army of Sayanim.
As a consequence, every vestige of traditional Bonds of Common Culture, Faith and Worldview is being destroyed, corrupted by these Neo feudal forces. And the American-European aristocrats are deceived or deluded, if they think they will retain control when the dust settles.
The Founding Fathers were right, FDR was probably right but maybe not, JFK was part right but still a Useful Tool for a while, and it's been downhill ever since.
FDR? Really?
Agreed. FDR was no better than the rest, probably much, much worse in the end.
Kirk you are SO right! This review of a Professor's book will show you just how right you are...it changed my worldview let me tell you
Review of the Book that changed the Paradigm of Political understanding
Read 'The Controversy of Zion" by Douglas Reed for a lot more background...
https://archive.org/details/TheControversyOfZion
Many of the so-called founding fathers were bankster douchebags (Hamilton, esp) but with today's fog it is hard to know the battle we fight today is not new.
Early America was libertarian-conservative. By the late 1800s the socialists had displaced the libertarians.
The 20th century was an Ugliest Dog in Show contest between the left and the right with freedom being the loser.
So America is being destroyed by two perennial enemies: the hunter-gatherer socialists and the pharaonic fascists.
Those two groups each believe that their culture is the way to survive and prosper and both have been wrong for many thousands of years.
Years of death, destruction, and slavery.
If they pass the TPP bill, then it should be "open season" on the politicians, bankers, oligarchs, CEO's and the.01%ers.
Did I leave out anyone that needs to be done away with in the most ruthless and effective manner possible...?
Don't miss reading this link in the article. https://archive.org/stream/WayneMadsen-BarackObama-AllInTheCompany/WayneMadsen-BarackObama-AllInTheCompany_djvu.txt
"President Obama's own work in 1983 for Business International Corporation, a CIA front that conducted
seminars with the world's most powerful leaders and used journalists as agents abroad, dovetails with CIA
espionage activities conducted by his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham in 1960s post-coup Indonesia on behalf of a
number of CIA front operations, including the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii, the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID), and the Ford Foundation. Dunham met and married Lolo Soetoro,
Obama's stepfather, at the East- West Center in 1965. Soetoro was recalled to Indonesia in 1965 to serve as a
senior army officer and assist General Suharto and the CIA in the bloody overthrow of President Sukarno."
Both systems would result in eventual nuclear war. Only the abandonment of the state and the acceptance of the universal truth of spontaneous order can save humanity. As long as some claim the right to rule over others, the worst among us will fight to become the rulers, and as long as the worst are in charge, war is inevitable.
Unless you believe we're being manipulated by aliens how are states not spontaneous?
Build a moat around America to keep the foreign carpetbaggers out. The Atlantic and the Pacific aren't doing the job.
Investigate anyone who entered the country legally after the 1965 and kick out all illegals without exception.
Anyone one who entered illegally after 1765.
That'd be even better, round-eyes.
That would eliminate a good part of the southern rabble.
(snikker)
There are 2 distinct sides to fascism....there is fascism....and there is fascism.
So Obama....which side of fascism are you very clearly on??
Top secret:
Carving up the resources and cutting deals with the offworlders.
We're on a farm.
There's a lot of mythology about the Founding (Oligarch} Fathers of a, THEIR Republic.
It was never intended to be a demcocracy. Only other male land-owners had a vote and it was always intended to be an empire.
Whatever you think of Noam Chomsky generally - not a lot personally - here he relates interesting historical facts, with quotes from such as Washington and Franklin ... and it ain't much like the popular myth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kcPyqMWems
The first ten minutes might be enough to have you thinking that the US was bound to end up pretty much like it is, especially bearing mind that the longest period without war, since 1776, was five years during the Great epression.
I used to think highly of Reagan. I used to hate Chomsky. Now I know they were both tools to distract and they were always on the same side. Both were in the service of evil and injustice. Both worked to build the NWO, faking us out in their difference of expression of the future. End points were the same.
Start with a government, left or right, and you are destined to have tyranny.
the secret is to allow us enough time to entrench.
Big fan of some sort of term limits in governance.
Anyone who ever thought highly of Reagan has very poor judgement, so what you think of Chomsky is irrelevant.
I am no fan of Chomsky - not least because he believes in the official 911 Conspiracy Theory - but here he is just laying out verifiable history, so don't shoot the messenger.
It is going to be a major catastrophe in America as this TPP roles out - Obama was the biggest threat to the constitution not communism or Al Queda
There won't be much left
The Trade bill is very revealing it shows the GOP & The DNC are the 2 sides of the same SHEKEL:
EPI Identifies Poisonous Immigration Acceleration Ingredients In Trade Agreement
Andrew Puzder, Fast Food Cheap Labor Profiteer
Russia and China are, no doubt, the saviours here. Only they can lead us into a beautiful world full of non-dictatorships and non-corruption.
Why? Because this is ZH.
Well, if they do the opposite of what the US is doing it is likely it would become a beautiful new world.
Why? Because the US is the apex psychopath.
And if they do the same things? Trillions of debt? Bubbles? Government intereference in markets? Corruption? Vast inequality of wealth between common and elites?
The proof is already blatant. Why speak of their action as ifs?
What you say seems broadly true about China, but Russia?
Virtually no debt. No bubbles and both corruption and inequality are being worked on.
Maybe it wll all end up "same as", but as of now there is a difference.
The World is lost ... to the 'clever' schemes of men.
Show me me one man or woman who remains humble and upright ... and I will sing their praises.
Amish childrens' lives matter.
I would love to see Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” reenacted in the halls of the Washington Empire of Debt, Fraud, and Chaos today. That’s not going to happen.
Our corrupted, cowardly US Senators and Representatives will be terrorized and bribed into passing the SECRET, fascist Washington Empire trade mandates which nullifies American sovereignty, Congress and American law.
It is only a matter of time to force passage. This is pure totalitarian fascism.
Dear Mr. Putin
You will probably never read this, but I will write it anyway.
I do not know you. All I know is what I read about the events happening in the world today. I have to be careful as there is so much bias and lies out there it is difficult to discern what is accurate or not.
I want you to be aware, not everyone in the West thinks you are as evil as some governments would have us think.
From that insurgency in Kiev to the downing of a passenger plane, it was blamed on you. I am not suggesting you are an angel, no one is. However it came to light that you or Russia was not the guilty party, although many people here think you are.
I see news reports that quote you as referring to the West as 'my friends', even when they are trying their best to undermine you and Russia. You keep warning of the hurt people in the Ukraine are feeling or will feel if they do not stop this madness. Apparently you let the people of Crimea decide through a referendum whether they wish to join Russia or not and they decided. All these things I see as positive.
I think you really do not want war. I think you are all too aware of what evil war is.
There are people on both sides who want war and I see it building here in the west.
Mr. Putin, hang in there my friend. I know and realize when there is a crescendo clamoring for feigned justice it is difficult to ignore, but today the world and the human race needs a peace maker and I see you may be the person who can make it possible.
Otherwise humanity will end up on square one, if we survive.
Regards
Ichabod
I thoroughly endorse your letter.
I have paid very close attention to what Vladimir Putin has said and done for at least five years.
The man is unique in politics. He is open, honest, highly intelligent, exceptionally well informed and caring.
He is NOT a nationalist, but he is a great patriot who loves Russia and he and his team are doing all possible to make a peaceful and prosperous country in a World marked by cooperation, NOT competition and conflict.
I hve seen and heard too much of Putin and his closest advisors to think that I might be being fooled.
It is easy to do a search for Putins speeches and intervews, also the English sub-titled "Homecomig of Crimea", and I challenge anyone to refute my impressions and yoursIchabod.
I think history says it moves to fascism first, then the leaders all get their heads lopped off and then back to democracy. Pretty sure that is the process.
Would headless leadership act in a similar manner?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merry_Mavericks
Jewhad aka Greed
US president & US Mps are only puppets in the hands of CabalBanksters&Capitalists.
Remember the Beast that will come alive and the prostitute that will ride it - in chapter Revelation(Bible).
Beast == Israel & the CabalBanksters
Prostitute == America
-----
The end is also mentioned :
Fall of America (the beast will destroy the prostitute)
Nuclear war in Middle East
You've got it all wrong.
The Beast (out of the sea) has 7 heads/Kings- these represent the dominant World Powers throughout history. The 7 heads/Kings, throughout history are: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, UK/US. See https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+13; https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+7
The Prostitute, Babylon the Great, is the Global Financial System, including fiat currency, credit, derivatives, etc- all created out of thin air- the greatest magic trick ever invented: "By your magic spell all the nations were led astray." - Revelation 18:23
The Global Financial System rides the UK/US governments, and most of the other governments of the world.
Also, one of the heads/Kings that existed before Rome (Revelation 17:10,11) recieved a death stroke, that was healed (Revelation 13:3,4)- this one (Persia (Iran)) returns as the 8th head/King, along with 10 allies (horns), to destroy the Global Financial System:
"And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire." - Revelation 17:10-3, 16)
There will be no nuclear war:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2019:17-21
Babylon the Great can't be the banking / money system of the world. The book of Revelations comments that the "merchants" mourn and grieve over the loss of Babylon The Great as do the kings of the earth. The Greek word for merchants em?po·ros encompasses the meaning of traders, bankers, or commercial interests (Rev 18: 11 & 15). While these political and commercial representatives survive her desolation, notably no religious representatives are depicted as still on the scene to share in mourning Babylon the Greats downfall. Babylon the Great is organized religion that espouses man's governments over God's kingdom as the solution for mankind's problems.
IDENTIFYING BABYLON THE GREAT
How do we know that the symbolic woman named Babylon the Great, described in the Bible book of Revelation, pictures all false religion? Consider the evidence:
* She could not be a literal woman because the imagery in Revelation is in the form of “signs,” or symbols.—Revelation 1:1.
* Babylon the Great sits on waters, which represent “peoples and crowds and nations.” (Revelation 17:1, 5, 15) A literal woman cannot do that. False religion, however, gets its support from its huge membership.
* This symbolic woman is a “great city that has a kingdom over the kings of the earth.” In other words, she is organized and has international influence.—Revelation 17:18.
* A spiritual harlot, Babylon the Great forms alliances with “the kings of the earth.” Moreover, these mourn her destruction. (Revelation 17:1, 2; 18:9) So she cannot be a political entity.
* The commercial leaders also mourn her destruction. (Revelation 18:15) Hence, she cannot be a secular commercial power.
* The Bible describes the blending of the worship of God with a love for the world as spiritual adultery. (James 4:4) Babylon the Great fits that profile. Also, she promotes spiritism, a religious practice.—Revelation 18:23.
* The ancient city of Babylon, after which Babylon the Great is named, was a profoundly religious city.—Isaiah 47:1, 12, 13; Jeremiah 50:1, 2, 38.
Thus, we can say with confidence that Babylon the Great pictures the combined false religions of the world.
Just saying.
Still cutting and pasting your Jehovah's Witnesses interpretations I see.
You're not saying anything- you're just buying their flawed interpretation hook, line and sinker, admit it, you have no original thoughts- if you did, they would disfellowship you.
No- "Merchants" are not the same thing as "Financiers", "Bankers".
Merchants sell things- with FIAT MONEY AND CREDIT obtained through the FINANCIAL SYSTEM .
Put on your thinking cap:
If all the combined false religions of the world were terminated today,
Not one merchant would weep over it.
Not one transportation industry employee would weep over it.
I have clearly provided clues to interpreting the identity of Babylon the Great given in Revelation chapter 18- clues that don't line up with your flawed interpretation:
“The kings of the earth committed adultery with her”
What entity has committed adultery with the kings of the earth? Religion, or the Financial System?
“the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries.”
What entity has enabled the merchants of the earth to grow rich? Religion, or the Financial System?
“where all who had ships on the sea became rich through her wealth!”
What entity has enabled the transportation industry to grow rich? Religion, or the Financial System?
“your merchants were the world’s great men”
What entity has enabled the merchants to become “great men?” Religion, or the Financial System?
“By your magic spell all the nations were led astray”
What’s the greatest spell that has ever been used on mankind? Religion, or Fiat currency, fractional reserve banking, derivatives, stocks, bonds, etc?
“When the kings of the earth who committed adultery with her and shared her luxury”
What “luxury” does Religion have? Very little compared to the Financial System.
Now, ask yourself- What “luxury” does the global financial system have? More than anyone else!
The identity of Babylon the Great, the Great Whore who rides upon the backs of the Kings of the Earth is clearly not "False Religion"- it’s obviously the Global Financial System.
PS- Get out of that CULT you're in- it's blinding you to the truth.
I enjoy being quietly informed by Zero Hedge.
World government, in any form, is not the natural evolution of the human race, except in science fiction. You can not erase millennia of cultural development from the disparate peoples of the earth by the agreement of a relatively handful of people. Regardless if their intent is honorable or evil, they must know that the death of millions, if not billions would result. Therefore, any attempt at this is, by definition of all that is moral and civilized, is evil and must be stopped.
According to the International Monetary Fund:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf
Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base.” Andrew Jackson
Widening income inequality is the defining challenge of our time. In advanced economies, the gap between the rich and poor is at its highest level in decades. Inequality trends have been more mixed in emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCsf), with some countries experiencing declining inequality, but pervasive inequities in access to education, health care, and finance remain. Not surprisingly then, the extent of inequality, its drivers, and what to do about it have become some of the most hotly debated issues by policymakers and researchers alike. Against this background, the objective of this paper is two-fold.
First, we show why policymakers need to focus on the poor and the middle class. Earlier IMF work has shown that income inequality matters for growth and its sustainability. Our analysis suggests that the income distribution itself matters for growth as well. Specifically, if the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth. The poor and the middle class matter the most for growth via a number of interrelated economic, social, and political channels.
Second, we investigate what explains the divergent trends in inequality developments across advanced economies and EMDCs, with a particular focus on the poor and the middle class. While most existing studies have focused on advanced countries and looked at the drivers of the Gini coefficient and the income of the rich, this study explores a more diverse group of countries and pays particular attention to the income shares of the poor and the middle class—the main engines of growth. Our analysis suggests that
- Technological progress and the resulting rise in the skill premium (positives for growth and productivity) and the decline of some labor market institutions have contributed to inequality in both advanced economies and EMDCs. Globalization has played a smaller but reinforcing role. Interestingly, we find that rising skill premium is associated with widening income disparities in advanced countries, while financial deepening is associated with rising inequality in EMDCs, suggesting scope for policies that promote financial inclusion.
- Policies that focus on the poor and the middle class can mitigate inequality. Irrespective of the level of economic development, better access to education and health care and well-targeted social policies, while ensuring that labor market institutions do not excessively penalize the poor, can help raise the income share for the poor and the middle class.
- There is no one-size-fits-all approach to tackling inequality. The nature of appropriate policies depends on the underlying drivers and country-specific policy and institutional settings. In advanced economies, policies should focus on reforms to increase human capital and skills, coupled with making tax systems more progressive. In EMDCs, ensuring financial deepening is accompanied with greater financial inclusion and creating incentives for lowering informality would be important. More generally, complementarities between growth and income equality objectives suggest that policies aimed at raising average living standards can also influence the distribution of income and ensure a more inclusive prosperity.
World Federalist Movement. I've seen the dicotomy forming, now I know more about it. Thanks ZH.
The World Federalist Movement seems to be the fullfilment of the order for the new world I've been researching. (The New world order is actually the Order of the old world still trying to rule by force.)
Now that communications has reach the global inflection point, a global government is inevitable, (barring a war that knocks us all back to stone age...)
I doubt that I will make a difference, but these facist leaders really need to get their boots off my face. We deserve better.
There is almost a 0% chance that any world government will not be fascist.
It is not inevitable. It can not be inevitable.
Yes, the facist side have more organization and motivation to create a one world govt, but facism is another form of collectivism, and will always implode given time. The aftermath of such an implosion would be a bunch of nations, all comunicating in real time, broke and desparate to trade their way back to prosparity. After the collapse of the current facists, we may almost default into the World Fedralist Movement.
The brighter side of a global economic collapse ;)
TLDR
A substance with the capacity to neutalize and destroy toxic infectors, let us call it ZIclon-B, directed at the relentlessly vicious virus incarnate as a particular sub group of humans would be a wonderful development at this time. It appears that the immune system of the human race is in a weakened state and has allowed the infection to compromise the entire body.
Disclaimer: Zyclon-B was for use against lice and not used to exterminate humans. Plenty of evidence available to disprove Holocaustianity...
Have I gone too far here?
Both are horrible: democracy may be the new true god, it is based on violence. I tire mains gang rule. The majority forces the minority, dressed up with the fact that everything is written down in laws. Which is supposed to make the violence more digestible.
According to Natixis:
http://cib.natixis.com/flushdoc.aspx?id=85583
Public debt ratios must be reduced, but how?
The high level of public debt is a permanent threat to growth: if interest rates rise, rapid tax increases or government spending cuts would be needed, with the risk of creating tax distortions and reducing potential growth. This threat may also drive private economic agents to build up precautionary savings.
It would therefore be very positive to reduce public debt ratios, but how?
- By keeping long-term interest rates lower than nominal growth, although this reduces the public debt ratio extremely slowly. In addition, it is dangerous from a financial stability point of view and may generate negative incentive effects;
- By monetising the public debt, i.e. by transferring it to the central bank’s balance sheet, and by cancelling it (actually or de facto); but one must then accept the risks linked to chronic excess monetary creation;
- By considerably extending the maturity of the public debt, by replacing it with bonds with a very long maturity (50 years, 100 years, perpetuity), by taking advantage of the very low level of long-term interest rates. This would considerably reduce the interest rate risk weighing on the public debt. The criticism often levelled against this method is that it shifts the burden of repayment to future generations;
- A more original approach: by cancelling the part of the public debt held by residents; there is then de facto neutrality: on the one hand, the residents receive interest on the government bonds they hold and, on the other hand, they pay taxes that finance the interest on these bonds. The cancellation of the debt eliminates both the interest on the debt held domestically and the taxes that finance it, resulting in macroeconomic profitability. The redistributive effects of this debt cancellation will still have to be corrected, which is possible. We obviously know that this possibility will never be used.
Because those are the only two possible options .... democracy or fascism.
Bollocks.
amen, Beaglebog!
people have been conditioned to think of solutions in terms of thesis/antithesis. if 'this' is bad then 'that' (its 'opposite') is necessarily good. back & forth it goes, and where it stops no body knows. i say it isn't either/or anymore; it is instead neither/nor.
the efficacy of their guilt/shame complex is diminishing precipitously by the minute...the people no longer feel the sting of the incessant tsk-tsking from the moralizing demi-gods who bracket human potential with arbitrary 'moral' boundaries.
we've all grown up listening to a bunch of sniveling ninnies screeching like harpies that we haven't a clue what's best for us; hanging our heads in shame for daring to endorse common sense. i sense gen-X and below are snapping out of this miasmic nagging spell. and for my part, it's become more of an awakening...sorta like, "not only do you sniveling ninnes have no idea what's best for me, perhaps janus knows what's best for you...and i'll go further and say it's nigh time i prove it to ya."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG-e4rHjQbc
lady liberty is now a nagging ole hag...
let's toss that bitch off the liberty express and rewrite the script.
the future and the present tense belong to us; we are not beholden to a generation that's betrayed us...much less their objectives and core-beliefs.
yep, the more i think about it, the more certain i am...janus know what's best for the ninnies. i just hope they will allow me to go about it as a gentleman. so, ameriwhore, it looks like it's time for a re-run of father knows best, now listen to papa janus...it's either this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5bKLwSQIq4
or this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w94dZtKXaaE
whatever way you want it, ameriwhore...we can play it smooth or rough or mix it up with a little of both.
xoxo,
janus
A despicable , lying , treasonous whore is Barry Shoe-Shine O'Blarneyo. A proper tooL and servant of the Satanic Bilderberg Cult.
WTFUD,
i noticed your reply the other day over on GW's piece, and it's stuck with me heavy-like. i felt your soul...i can tell you've seen human misery and real despair. so have i. i hate evil and am attempting to do my bit against it. maybe our methods and even objectives aren't 'exactly' the same; but i suspect we're basically on the same page -- in the Book of Life.
janus extends the cyber-handshake of a friend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3yCcXgbKrE\
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=novXzNnVtdA
people say i'm crazy/
doin what i'm doin/
well they give me all kinds of warnings/
to save me from ruin/
when i say that i'm okay/
well, they look at me strange/
"surely you're not happy now/
you're no longer playin the game".../
i'm just sitting here watchin the wheels go round & round/
i really love to watch them roll/
no longer riding on the merry-go-round/
i just had to let it go...,
janus
History has had some worse Popes, but with this one - all in on the global climate alarmism scam - look for his demands for a MORE POWERFUL CENTRAL WORLD GOVERNMENT to be met so that saving the planet (as opposed to souls) will become the highest priority.
absolutely brilliant piece.
not that i agree with all the solutions implicit in this essay's logic and argument; even so, extraordinarily insightful and solid-state thinking.
bravo!
{TD, you're on a roll today!}
it is so goddam crazy...to say that a senator hasn't standing in a suit involving the senate's roll in executive oversight...how impossibly shameful! and then, to go past milquetoast cowardice to malignant mush they won't even give guidance as to specific Constitutional statutes! the 'supreme court' is, perhaps, the worst of all awhorican oxymorons...'supremely' supine if you ask janus.
{a very talented legal mind put this piece together...again, good show ZH}
here's a little dedication to awhorica:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TepvZCzakkg
btw, Elizabeth Warren is perhaps the manliest figure in modern awhorican politics (not that janus endorses her solutions...but Mrs. Warren and janus seem to agree on the substance of our most menacing problems). how does it feel repussicans? a bony lass from mass has bigger balls than y'all! ha!
awhorica, you're a lost cause/
i'm tired of fighting/
i'm tired of fighting/
fighting for a lost cause/
there's a place where you are going/
you ain't never been before/
there's no one left to get your back now/
no one standing at your door/
is that what you thought love was for?,
janus
I do think America is at the tipping point. If TPP fast track goes through the America we knew is dead. The only country not beholden to the corporate elite and financiers will be Russia.
Amazing. As a boy I was so proud of my father for being on the defense program the B-1 to save us from communism and now the US is hurtling towards going full Communist centrally planned econ at 19 miles a second.
Even stranger Russia with its 13 percent flat tax, clean food, love of Jesus Christ, beautiful culture and protection of marriage is looking more like America of the 1940s.
I will call my rep but I don't think it will help
You mean:
Russia, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Argentinia, and Venezuela.
Hey wait, those are all the evil countries.
North Korea is a fucked up place - because it is full on communism run by a cruel and selfish elite who treat the people like serfs and watch everything they do (sound familiar).
Iran - the only thing standing between ISIS taking over the rest of Syria and Iraq. Yet the Obama Administration wants to go into the record books as 'doing a deal' with them. But Iranian Ayatollahs are terrorist. I swear, Obama's Middle East Foreign Policy should be named after the multi-personality disorder patient Cybil.
Argentine - once one of the wealthiest countries in the world, now a shit hole thanks to crony capitalism and corrupt politicians.
Venezuala - another victim of socialism and a power elite who treat their people like cattle.
Russia - I'll take my chances. I just received my 1-year multi-entry business visa. I will being doing an agriculture business set up recce this summer. Visiting the country to look into setting up a pig farm "Obama Svine" will be the brand. I think it will be incredibly popular.
There the only countries left with independent central banks.
"After the end of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO became the military arm of a hoped-for future no-longer bipolar world — instead a monolithically uni-polar global empire, which set out to conquer the former communist nations (first by corrupting their transitions into capitalism, but then increasingly by military means including NATO itself...) "
Sounds plausible until you fill back in the rest of the sentence that the author omitted.
(...by reducing the number of tanks on the continent of Europe from over 3600 to 96, reducing the number of fighters from 248 to 48, reducing the number of combat units from 24 to 2.)"
But of course, he doesn't want to tell you these facts, which anyone who lived near the US bases in Germany, Italy, or Britain could have told you.
When you go see Star Wars VII and see the X-Wings on Yavin base, you should remember that 20 years ago that base was full of F15's rather than movie-set mockups. Where did they go???? Why don't the residents hear them flying about any longer? How did they coordinate with the movie set? Why did none of the thousands working on the set see them?
It is because they went back to the US 20 years ago, and the base was closed.
But sure, it is the Western press that is full of propaganda.
Unless you have eyes to see, ears to hear, and a mind to think with.
Then the propaganda looks pretty general.
But why say anything? The zombies have rather less brain than a parrot, repeating what they hear from their owner, as though it were true.
Oh...but I am supposed to fall in line with one Zombie Nation or the other?
No.
This year, or next, or at most 40 years from now, I will be gone anyway. And the prospect of leaving a little early because I tell you what you do not like to hear doesn't bother me.
Mate, you can't just look at the military equipment numbers. That is one dimension in a multi-dimension game.
You must look at the intent and track record of NATO and the US in Eastern Europe since the fall of the Cold War: Serbia, Georgia, the Stans, and now Ukraine. Once you look at the political, economic and subversive encroachment you will see that clearly the US, EU, and NATO have it in for Russia.
This encirclement of Russia is the result of Putin doublecrossing the Banking Elite who set up the Unity Party with Beresovsky to provide a puppet for the day after that Drunk Yeltsin resigned. The "nobody" Putin was supposed to be an empty suit for them to tell what to do. I don't know if he found Jesus, was touched by an Angel, or just realized the pupil was smarter than the teacher, but Putin double crossed the banking elite of the world and refused to let them steal the rest of Russia. And NOW that the banking elite do in fact control the White House and Dept of State, they are using the US Military and NATO to knock on Putin's door to remind him of his original agreement.
I love the US military industrial complex more than the next guy. My dad's work on the B-1 B program kept me in braces and Diamond Back bicycles my entire childhood. But those days are gone. This is the new political-banking driven military industrial complex and as we all know, the politician/bankers are fucking psychotic.
The world is getting more complicated, un-civilized, and ignorant of wealth/control
.
and Americans more isolated and "secure" in their way
.
war is a crime
Democracy has been dead a while, we will wind up with totalitarianism and a boot on our necks. Whether it is either communism, fascism or a socialistic partnership of the two is irrelevant.
In any scenario, the people who will run it are the same that have been printing the money.
"An international agreement — that is to say a treaty — cannot be undone unless all nations that are parties to it are willing to change it in a way which will allow one of the signatories to depart from that group"
How did that treaty of Versailles work out? Wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
Didn't one of the Rothchilds douches say on his deathbed flat out admitted he was trying to set up New World Order/One Government world? Forgot the name though. So many people on this earth youd think there would be enough people awake to the fact that theyre steering not only the US but the world straight to Fascism/comlete dictatorship for all the serfs out there. But everybody out there is only worried about Kim Kardishians ass and who won the game
Oh happy day when Obama is out of office! He has been consistently on the side of tyranny and against individual liberty. I can't believe he has a 45% approval saying (48% disapproval).
This country is sick. That story about the cops and CPS arresting the parents AND STRIP SEARCHING them (!!!) when their 11 year old son was playing basket ball alone in his own back yard! Anyone who says this is still a free country is misinformed or a ball faced liar.
this was one of the best articles on zh in quite a while.
kudos
"proposed ‘Trade’ deals are actually about whether the world is heading toward a [A] dictatorial world government — a dictatorship by the hundred or so global super-rich who hold the controlling blocks of stock in the world’s largest international corporations — or else toward a democratic world government, which will be a global federation of [B] free and independent states, much like the United States was at its founding, but global in extent"
Gawd! 8381 words worth of mental masturbation when the answer is obvious from current events and trends: quite a bit of 'A' with the illusion of 'B.' One way or another with only short-lived exceptions the oligarchy has always been in charge.
From a 2014 Princetopn University study:
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_an...
Excerpts:
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.
...the preferences of economic elites (as measured by our proxy, the preferences of “affluent” citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do. To be sure, this does not mean that ordinary citizens always lose out; they fairly often get the policies they favor, but only because those policies happen also to be preferred by the economically-elite citizens who wield the actual influence.
From "Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-America Century" by Dmitry Orlov, someone who experienced the collapse of the Soviet Union and the various effects of that collapse on life there:
People in the United States have a broadly similar attitude toward politics with people of the Soviet Union. In the U.S., this is often referred to as "voter apathy", but it might be more accurately described as non-voter indifference. The Soviet Union had a single, entrenched, systemically corrupt political party, which held a monopoly on power. The U.S. has two entrenched, systemically corrupt political parties, whose positions are often indistinguishable, and which together hold a monopoly on power. In either case, there is, or was, a single governing elite, but in the United States it organized itself into opposing teams to make its stranglehold on power seem more sportsmanlike.
Although people often bemoan political apathy as if it were a grave social ill, it seems to me that this is just as it should be. Why should essentially powerless people want to engage in a humiliating farce designed to demonstrate the legitimacy of those who wield the power? In Soviet-era Russia, intelligent people did their best to ignore the Communists: paying attention to them, whether through criticism or praise, would only serve to give them comfort and encouragement, making them feel as if they mattered. Why should Americans want to act any differently with regard to the Republicans and the Democrats? For love of donkeys and elephants?