735 Comments

You forgot the hallmark of true authoritarian conspiracy nuts: the fact that nothing happened on March 4 is proof that the "counter-measures" worked, and need to be maintained and (god willing!) enhanced.

Expand full comment
author

"You forgot the hallmark of true authoritarian conspiracy nuts: the fact that nothing happened on March 4 is proof that the "counter-measures" worked, and need to be maintained and (god willing!) enhanced."

Good point.

They win either way. If there's violence, it shows their warnings were prescient. If there's none, it shows their warnings were effective.

Expand full comment

Anyone else beginning to wonder if QAnon has been taken over by the CIA and is now a false flag operation?

Expand full comment

Robert Barnes and others had been warning for past 2 years that Qanon is run by the Intel agencies and telling people to stay the f away from it. There’s a reason why no one is yet questioning who’s running qanon.

Expand full comment

The last Q drop on the 6th was a link to Twisted Sister’s ‘We’re Not Gonna Take It.’ Hmmm. It was a very sophisticated psyop, with enough truth to sustain and grow. The overarching theme is total war on populism.

Expand full comment

A "sophisticated" war on "populism"? To whom does The "We" in "We're Not Gonna Take It" refer?

Don't get me wrong: You are right. Q is TOTALLY a Statist chimera, made possible by an in-the-tank-for-the-State media, and for one purpose only: dragnet for libertarians. See, Conservatives have shown they can easily be co-opted with croni-Capitalism, but the libertarians, they're a tougher nut to crack, with that "stupid" individual freedom running through their veins.

Expand full comment

It was a sophisticated psyop. Very few missteps or tells. The wacky stuff was never actually in the drops.

But the last drop - morning of - pulled the mask off, completely...as does the fact that we don’t (and won’t) know Q’s identity despite Q’s ‘culpability’ and total spectrum surveillance.

Long game trap, nurtured with patience and skill. Impressive, really. Shows some respect for Deplorables. Indicates the road back to legit self governance is 10,000 miles of broken glass

Expand full comment

The anti-populists have always been their elite urban progressive cousins, with also elite socialist academics feeding those "we are one" inclusiveness. Both are forcing cultural and societal self-destruction to collapse everything into total equality. Whatever level the society and its economy collapses into is acceptable to them so long as they, the elite, remain not too damaged.

Expand full comment

Taken over? No. Run, from the beginning?

Expand full comment

As I recall, Q’s first post was that Hillary’s arrest was imminent.

Obviously she was never arrested or charged or indicted or “locked up”.

This bogus prognostication should have been. Easy to understand since she is untouchable.

Expand full comment

Of course. Holy Mother Hillary is about to be beatified, isn't she?

Expand full comment

I've been telling people that if the MAGA fanatics on 1/6 had read more Sun Tzu and less of Trump's stupid tweets, they would've never accepted any invitation to walk into the Capitol building after there was already a melee outside. No security force does that unless getting people inside was part of some offensive plan. It's pretty obvious that the MAGA dupes waltzed right into a fairly well planned narrative/optics trap that never put anyone in Congress at risk but gave the FBI a long list of "terrorists" to destroy for years of political hysteria value.

Expand full comment

That sounds about right. In fact, it's one of the few observations on the actions of the Capitol Police that day that make any sense.

Then again, maybe I'm reading too much into these events. Or not. I'm beginning to adopt the general attitude that suspecting the very worst about any national political event is the safest and most realistic option.

Expand full comment

There's a shitload of footage of Capitol police pushing back hard on rioters, it just didn't go as viral in some circles because it doesn't feed their desired narrative that they were set-up. One of many, for example - https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/video-shows-capitol-police-cop-getting-crushed-by-protesters/

In fact someone posted footage early on, now lost in the flood of keywords, of the very first rush past the perimeter barricades on the outskirts of the grounds and even there the cops were pushing back and fighting them, they were just overrun.

I'm not sure the actions of the cops trying to beat back a crushing onslaught with batons and CS gas before being overpowered needs any explanation.

Expand full comment

Sounds like a slow day in Portland

Expand full comment

Yes, and there was also footage of the doors being opened and the protestors waved into the Capitol... AFTER there was already fighting outside. That makes absolute zero sense from a security point of view, none.

Expand full comment

Considering the hyperbolic, breathless coverage surrounding Qanon - and the fact that a VERY leaky Fed almost certainly knows who it is - the absence of follow-up stories concerning Q's "real" identity certainly suggests it was an Intelligence operation.

Expand full comment

Fed typically refers to the Federal Reserve. Assuming you mean it as the govt more generally, they likely don't know who Q is. It could be Russian or Chinese intelligence, or simply an American troll, but as long as they're using the right browser and basic security software like VPN there's no way to determine who they are. People have run entire darkweb marketplaces with billions of $ of illegal sales for years without being caught because it's so difficult to penetrate the tech, and to my knowledge, every single time a DW market was shut down it was a sloppy user mistake rather than overpowering the anonymizing technology.

Expand full comment

From one I saw storming the Capitol, I suspect is the "visitors" in Area 51.

Expand full comment

Quite honestly, I thought it was a massive internet troll from Day 1.

It could be a bored 58 year old nerd in his mom's basement.

It could be a group of Russians in St. Petersburg figuring out how best to mess with the US. It could be the same in China, or Iran. (Twitter has had to flag and remove hundreds of thousands of accounts from foreign actors who push tribalism; 180k in 2020 alone: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/information-operations-june-2020.html )

But, sure, it could be CIA, I suppose.

Whoever it was, they apparently use a pretty good VPN.

Expand full comment

Our intel agencies know who Qanon is, but haven't told us AND the media doesn't ask.

It's obviously them.

Expand full comment

If so, that's exactly what they would want you to wonder :)

Expand full comment

QAnon is chimera.

Expand full comment

Always has been.

Expand full comment

As I noted above, the ten million indoctrinated "we know better than you do" guardians of "correct" thinking will keep them from influencing us too much.

Expand full comment

I think they are real: all four members.

Expand full comment

QAnon is probably a product of the CIA, like the KGB used to create organisations, that pushed forward those who likely would resist or make trouble

Expand full comment

The Left knows at some point the 5% who truly embrace and practice freedom independence and autonomy will say “Done!!!”

Except when that happened in 1776, the real patriots and committed independents didn’t have to worry their neighbors and fellow citizens would stab them in the back fighting for freedom. But, we surely do today...

Expand full comment

Agreed, but I think it's a lot higher than 5%, and growing.

Expand full comment

It's like the campfire joke at Cub Scout camps: An older Scout or adult comes out on stage pretending to spray from a can. Then a younger Scout comes out and asks what they're doing. "I'm spraying giraffe repellant." "But there are no giraffes here!" "See - it works!"

It's called a "groaner" because of the predictable audience reaction. At least, though, the Cub Scouts are smart enough to see that it's a joke ...

Expand full comment

Same with Covid response.

Same with AGW.

Expand full comment

And I thought all this time that "win-win" had fairness as a necessary condition!

Turns, out Democrat "win-win" means "heads I win, tails you lose"!!!

Expand full comment

there were no counter measures - there was nothing to counter. that's the point of Glenn's article

Expand full comment

Isn't the Guard deployed in DC indefinitely a counter measure?

Expand full comment

Same with poverty programs.

Expand full comment

Actually, there was a commentator on MSNBC this week saying exactly that.

Expand full comment

In that kind of "damned if we do, damned if we don't" narrative atmosphere their actions produce, what the hell can be done to push back against it?

Expand full comment

Qanon is a sad joke. I think it helped recruiting for certain stupid groups of people inclined to wrong-headed magical thinking. Mostly kkk/white christian nationalist/stupid fucking redneck groups. That's why some of the same language like "the storm" is used interchangeably in these movements. MSM loves covering qanon because it checks several boxes for news entertainment. They are of no significance. I do look forward to seeing all the documentaries and the various Q tattoos the next few years.

The major players don't subscribe to qanon. They are lying low for a while. We're probably looking at an attempt of something on scale between OK city and 9/11. The heat is on and they may not be able to pull off anything big. Which could lead to many smaller scale attacks on soft targets. My guess would be mass shootings and pipe bombings. Once these turds realize things aren't going to end the way they want it, they'll probably engage in their own personal storms in a purge mentality of sorts. They work in small pods so this will tough to stop.

The overzealous security after 1/6 seems more like TSA still requiring us to take our shoes off going through airport security than some totalitarian counter measure. Both are done for show and serve no purpose. I hope there are smart people working on anti-terrorism that are good at their jobs. We do not have a rich history in our country of handling nuanced things like anti-terrorism (international or domestic) very well. I hope it's different this time.

Expand full comment

Same thing for the Covid lockdown. The death rate is low because of the lockdown, and if we end it lots of people will die. This issue is related to Bobby Soave's article "America's Lost Generation": https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/americas-lost-generation

Expand full comment

Yep. No wonder people are escaping to red states.

Expand full comment

This is happening and a perfect description of quite a few ilibs when I asked why nothing keeps happening with all these dire warnings.

Expand full comment

The fascination here is how the two conspiracy cults--Qanon and BlueAnon--are mutually reinforcing. And how members of each might be feeling the way Henry Emmons, a follower of William Miller, who predicted the second coming for October 22, 1844:

"I waited all Tuesday [October 22] and dear Jesus did not come;– I waited all the forenoon of Wednesday, and was well in body as I ever was, but after 12 o'clock I began to feel faint, and before dark I needed someone to help me up to my chamber, as my natural strength was leaving me very fast, and I lay prostrate for 2 days without any pain– sick with disappointment."--Wikipedia, "Great Disappointment"

Expand full comment

I recall reading a fairly modern example of belief perseverance detailed in a study on the subject.

A doomsday cult predicted the end of the world would come on X day. As believers, they would be spared. They all divested themselves of their worldly possessions and met in one place to pray.

When the end of the world didn't happen, the leader proclaimed that they had been witness to a miracle. The power of their prayers and their faith was so great, it had saved the entire world. "O Great Day!"

Not only did they come away from the event more certain than before that their beliefs were The Truth, they also became more enthusiastic in their proselytization efforts.

Perhaps Mr. Emmons would have not fallen into a two day funk had he been told his prayers had helped stave off the end of all things.

Expand full comment

Yeah, but they had to start from $0 again. Do you think they learned THAT lesson? (Probably did individually, and quietly.)

Expand full comment

Good god. Take a breath. Take another breath. Now walk a mile or two. The fear of conspiracy will abate and you’ll see more clearly.

Expand full comment

Er...the entire QAnon subject is to instill the fear of conspiracy to the point of turning DC into an armed camp ringed by the Pelosian Guard. I have worked inside the beltway for 25 years and the only mention I’ve ever heard of QAnon is from CNN, MSNBC, and the Washington Post. I do know however that when I changed my screen name to ‘CIA owns the WaPo’ I was immediately banned from the reader comments section. There’s a conspiracy theory for you.

Expand full comment

Hell, the battle is lost, the war is over. Q, Blue, or whatever, we are in a one party state, media on board, tech in full throated support. The revolution was actually not televised (thank you, Gill Scott Heron) it happened while the world watched something else.

Expand full comment

Hearted, except for "the war is over."

Expand full comment

TAS/pop122 - talk to me in a couple of years and see how you feel about the war.

Expand full comment

If you don’t have the brains to participate in the discussion, don’t.

Expand full comment

Lack of brains is a feature of that particular poster.

Expand full comment

Also, accuse your enemies of that for which you are guilty. The security state put DC under military occupation to prevent a military occupation of DC

Expand full comment

I first posted months ago about being afraid to live in my own adopted country for the first time in my life. I came here as a one year old child from the Philippines with my mother, the new foreign wife of a soldier returning from the Vietnam War in 1966. When we were stateside, we lived mostly here in the South and it wasn’t easy for my mother to be seen as “colored” or for me to be seen as a small step above being black in south GA. I entered my 1st grade year in 1971, the first year the school was integrated at that level. Before that, I was only allowed to attend a segregated kindergarten. I know more about racism than most of the know-NOTHINGS protesting in our city streets today. Now, my fear has only grown...& it’s NOT Trump supporters that I fear.

Thank you for remaining true to your core beliefs in free speech, Mr. Greenwald. I don’t think I’m overstating how valuable that is.

Expand full comment

"A small step?" Big enough not to end up in a chain gang I am sure. (See, e.g., Douglas Blackmon) https://books.google.com/books/about/Slavery_by_Another_Name.html?id=2v-BYWrjl9IC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1

Expand full comment

Are you Douglas Blackmon, trying to pitch your book?

Expand full comment

The next time a policeman stops you, come back and tell us how you felt.

Expand full comment

Is that a threat? Do you know something about M. michele morgan that we should know? Why should she/he/them worry about being stopped by a "policeman"? Who are you, Red? Come clean. That's my real name. What's yours?

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Conservative here. It’s not my side that is pursuing cancel culture, doxing, shaming, book banning and censoring. These are the authoritarian moves of the left.

I have been following the travails of Jodi Shaw, avowed liberal,formerly of Smith College, who resigned her position and refused to take a financial settlement that would have bought her silence. She is speaking out against the outright racism against white people like herself that has become a college norm everywhere now. Confess your white guilt? What?! She is planning to sue Smith. She set up gofundme and paypal, and is amazed at the support pouring in from “the right”. Of course the right supports someone who is brave enough to choose freedom over comfort.

How many on the left pay for subscriptions to conservative publications and want to know how others think?

Expand full comment

The left is worse, they've infected our nation's HR departments, but the right also bears watching sometimes. They're trying to censor books in Tennessee and in Kentucky they're trying to make it illegal to insult cops, for Pete's sake.

I do check in a lot with publications on the right and, at least for the moment, there's an unusually great diversity of thought. Here's hoping that the ones who genuinely want to help the working class (not just seem to, for political purposes) win out.

Expand full comment

How do we "help" the working class? Hinder those that would and could hire them to.....work?

Expand full comment

Everybody I know knows Trump voters, and knows why they voted as they did.

Expand full comment

How many people here are agreeing with you, Red? C'mon, you better up your posting. Maybe you can change someone's mind.

Expand full comment

Come on Timothy you should know your colors. It's not Red, it's Commie Pinko, isn't it?

Expand full comment

You got me there, M. russian bot, but I never liked those old monickers like "Commie" and "Pinko" (where DID pinko come from?). I did see a movie called Reds, I think, which (I could be mistaken) seems to perfectly fit the current discussion.

Look, M. Sonja is living her Marxist past. There, is that better?

Expand full comment

I prefer red diaper doper baby.

Expand full comment

I already cancelled my subscription here weeks ago. Runs out in a few days.

Say, I hope your sports betting is better.

Expand full comment

You sent a message to me asking about how I might feel the next time a policeman stops me? Bless your heart, you’re just so pitiable with your generalizations. You only demean yourself, my dear, when you allow your assumptions to be based upon nothing more than your own selectively limited perspective.

Expand full comment

Thanks! Got any tips?

Expand full comment

Who cares what white Americans think? Are you two percent of humanity, or three?

Expand full comment

And another shoe drops.

Expand full comment

Lol, the CCP isn't going to treat blacks any better than Uighurs.

Expand full comment

Why did ALL Trump voters vote as they did, Sonja?

Expand full comment

Yeah, and you and everybody YOU know sure could FIX everyone else's vote, since YOU know, not only why we voted for DJT, but how we SHOULD have voted.

Expand full comment

You think someone else is deluded? I have not voted in a presidential election in the 21st century except this year, for La Riva, to protest Leonard Peltier's continued incarceration, and did so in person on election day. I only voted for Obama and Sanders in the primaries. At no time did I vote for any ticket with a Biden on it. So much for your febrile perspicuity.

Expand full comment

Note I did NOT say you voted for Mr. Biden.

Expand full comment

What sort of a "move" is it when heavily armed civilians invade state capitol buildings in protest of COVID restrictions, or act as de facto law enforcement with the encouragement of local police on the scene?

I'm not minimizing what is happening at Smith. I had a taste of it where I taught as adjunct (not my main gig) and left, of course. When you realize someone can destroy you out of malice or on a whim, and that nothing you can say or do will matter, while they will be rewarded for it, or at least remain unscathed, the chill and foreboding you feel is unique. But these people don't have guns. There's at least that.

"Subscriptions?" Oh please. I see you're sheltered.

Expand full comment

"...heavily armed civilians..."

You are deluded. I rest my case.

Expand full comment

Michigan, Texas, North Carolina, that I can immediately recall, though the list is longer. Unless that was toy gun cosplay.

Expand full comment

If you think those were "heavily armed civilians," then you have another think coming.

Expand full comment

The FBI said in front of the Senate that not one protestor had a firearm... not one.

Expand full comment

I expressly said STATE capitols, in fact. What is wrong with you?

Expand full comment

M. Sonja, take your ridiculous ad hominem, and go to Hell.

Expand full comment

I was referring to the protests at state capitols, against COVID restrictions (which -- namely, the shutdowns -- I agree were ill conceived).

WOW if your memory, and your tropisms, are that bad, media has you where it wants you.

Expand full comment

That's because you're rational. Culture wars are ALWAYS a diversion, no matter who is playing. There is something quite different going on that they all have an interest in diverting you from seeing. Glenn has been great in shedding light on that.

Expand full comment

Yep.

Expand full comment

Are you two people, Red? Or maybe a committee? Or a.......commune? You sure talk in innuendo, as if you can't seem to come to a.....collective decision?

Expand full comment

You always go halfway there, and then end with ad hominem. Come on, state plainly your philosophy and politics. Are you an individual, or just an insult committee?

Expand full comment

It was plain to see on January 6th, to everyone with even a modicum of intelligence and a passing affinity for reality, that what took place was a riot carried out by a hodgepodge of Trump supporters and others with a variety of grievances. By every conceivable metric (duration, property damage, violent assaults), this riot was much less severe than the dozens of riots that occurred (to the cheers of the same media pundits of elected Democrats decrying the January 6th riot) throughout 2020. Indeed, most of the "casualties" from the riot occurred because the participants were so infirm and elderly they were dropping from heart attacks and strokes.

It was clear from the beginning that the powers-that-be, however, were going to milk this riot for everything they could. The subtle shift in lies surrounding the narrative woven by our Dear Leaders in the days following the riot were important. They very quickly shifted from blaming Trump himself to blaming, "right wing extremists" and "white supremacy". This was a very telling shift, as well as being critical to their strategy. If the source of the problem was Trump (or any specific, identifiable source), then the crisis could eventually be resolved. Trump could be jailed or otherwise eliminated from the scene, and the crisis would be resolved, with all "emergency" powers relinquished. But that isn't the goal. Like the "war on drugs" or the "war on terror", a war against a slogan or an idea has no achievable victory conditions. How can we know when the war against "white supremacy" has been won? How do we know what freedoms are necessary to sacrifice in order to win the war against "dangerous ring-wing extremists"? Who are these enemies? What does one have to do or say to be considered a domestic terrorist who is so dangerous that they cannot be afforded legal or Constitutional rights? What speech is so dangerous that it cannot be allowed?

These things are all undefined and unknowable by design. There are no powers that cannot be claimed, no person that cannot be silenced, no end to the "emergency" that requires this totalitarianism. Even raising questions about the reality "emergency" itself denotes one as someone who probably harbors sympathy for "the enemy" (as evidenced by the treatment received regularly by Greenwald).

Unfortunately, those feebleminded enough to believe that "our very democracy" is at stake and threatens to be toppled by an unhinged mob of racist Trump supporters that want to sow nationwide destruction, are all in. For them, this is an existential threat, where the ends justify the means. Even those with the capacity to perceive a sliver of objective reality and see through some of the lies, see those lies as inconsequential (or even justified and necessary!). After all, if a false narrative about an officer being beaten to death with a fire extinguisher can rally support in the war against evil, right-wing, white-supremacists whose divisions are laying in wait, ready to take over the country, is that really a bad thing?

Many have described the rise of Trump as the "post-truth era". Unfortunately they didn't know how accurate that was.

Expand full comment

You are so right, damn it all to hell. It's so infuriating. The machinations of Pelosi and Shumer are so utterly transparent in their invention and manipulation. It drives me crazy how many people fail or refuse to see through it and call it out.

Expand full comment

Creating fear is a power grab. At the same time, we are being told that the demons of racism are everywhere and people need to be fired for saying the wrong thing. We are a year into the lockdown, and we are still being told that if we reopen the economy a large number of people will die.

Expand full comment

Bang on!

You ask "After all, if a false narrative about an officer being beaten to death with a fire extinguisher can rally support in the war against evil, right-wing, white-supremacists whose divisions are laying in wait, ready to take over the country, is that really a bad thing?"

We have seen this before. It can result in horrible suffering and death. Witness Colin Powell standing before the UN waving photographs of a burned out panel van claiming it was a mobile chemical weapons laboratory.

Expand full comment

No, we haven't seen this before.

Yes, Powell et al (and boy that sure was a worldwide Statist clusterf...) did demagogue and dissemble, but his target wasn't Americans.

The Authoritarian Socialists (another term for Fascists, btw) ringing themselves with conscertina wire today have you, freedom-loving Americans, in the crosshairs.

We have NEVER seen this before, not to this level of blatant power-grab.

Expand full comment

Maybe not here but we definitely have seen it before. The Reichstag in 1933 comes to mind.

Expand full comment

Most of the feebleminded who believe the ends justify the means are supporting those for whom the means are the ends--incompetents who find material compensation in wielding power with psychopaths and sociopaths telling them how to wield it.

Expand full comment

Your comment is an excellent supplement to Glenn's excellent essay. Thank you.

Expand full comment

Fuck ‘em. They wanna use 1984 as a handbook? Fine.

The Principles of Newspeak was written in the past tense.

Expand full comment

Exactly. The State's "newspeak" is the timeless attempt to destroy individualism, which is the for-all-time enemy of the State.

Expand full comment

It’s just not gonna work.

Expand full comment

This is what happens when the demand for insurrection exceeds the supply.

Expand full comment

"This is what happens when the demand for insurrection exceeds the supply."

The beauty of the capitalist system is that supply can be adjusted upwards to meet the demand. The FBI have extensive experience in manufacturing 'terrorists' i.e. dupes to whom an FBI informant provides a home made bomb and then turns them in. This simple formula can be used to manufacture a virtually unlimited number of insurrectionists. So while there may be temporary insurrection inflation, the system is ultimately self-correcting.

Expand full comment

Once again, crony-Capitalism is not Capitalism. It is anti-Capitalism.

Expand full comment

"So while there may be temporary insurrection inflation, the system is ultimately self-correcting." I love to see an analogy pushed to its limits and continue to function.

Expand full comment

The dreaded insurrection arbitrage...

Expand full comment

Doesn’t have anything to do with economic systems but point taken.

Expand full comment

You supply siders think you are so clever, don't you? :)

Expand full comment

And you non-supply-siders are so happy with your "discovered" crony-Capitalism.

So clever of you to yell. "See? See? Down with Capitalism!"

Expand full comment

But maybe I misunderstand M. Scott, with that sneaky :)

Expand full comment

When the "demand" is State generated, that is the very definition of Crony-Capitalism, NOT Capitalism.

Expand full comment

Well said

Expand full comment

I am a socialist and recent events have had me puzzled. What I can say is that today's politicians can be described in the words of cowboy movies as "lily livered." Neither of our 2 Parties represent me. If it were me, I would have gone out to greet the "insurrectionists" and talked with them about their concerns. I am unafraid when it comes to reaching out to those who don't think like I do. what does this say about today's members of Congress that they scuttled Pence out the back door to "safety" when he could have spoken as Trump's VP to the "invaders." To make this short: Elected officials don't know who their constituencies are and fear them because only powerful and wealthy donors matter. Leave it to Glenn to explain a panoply of complicated stuff.

Expand full comment

Your mistake is in believing that their rationale is not cynical. With a couple of exceptions that fall into the category of "useful idiots," none of them truly believe an insurrection is occurring or in the process of doing so. This is a power play. I despise drawing comparisons of this nature because it always sounds hyperbolic and stupid, but this is a fake Reichstag Fire.

With each new accusation, the Democrats have upped the stakes. We've gone from Russian meddling to outright insurrection. The hyperbole is rising with each wave of spittle-flecked demagoguery. They know what they're saying is untrue, they just don't care. They have power, they intend to keep it no matter the cost.

Expand full comment

How do you know the Reichstag fire wasn't faked?

Expand full comment

The Reichstag actually burned, just the Nazis blamed the communists for what they did themselves. The Democrats are claiming an armed insurrection that didn't even happen.

Expand full comment

The story is more complicated than that. Nazis bad, duh, but they weren’t behind it either

Expand full comment

But regardless, the Nazis, like today's Democratic Party, sure knew how to "use" it. That should be crystal clear in both cases.

Expand full comment

I don't think M. Lee meant to imply that. Didn't M. Lee mean to say, "....but this is a fake, like the cause of the Reichstag Fire."

Expand full comment

I am a libertarian and fully agree. As a social liberal I recognize that government has legitimate functions, and one is helping to care for the vulnerable. The social safety nets of Scandinavia are often cited as examples of socialism that works, but the leaders of every Scandinavian country disagree vociferously. They say they are market-based economies, not socialist. I believe them.

As a fiscal conservative I recognize that being a social liberal is a luxury that can only be afforded if we are fiscal conservatives.

I, too, would have greeted the insurrectionists and asked them to speak. The escalating authoritarianism has only one destination: civil war. This is beyond sick.

Expand full comment

The reason Scandinavian countries disagree with being labelled socialists is because they practice the exact opposite of what Bernie sanders and his supporters want. Scandinavian Countries have the lowest corporate tax rate and the highest personal income tax rate. This is the exact opposite of what Bernie claims to want as he complains corporations aren’t paying enough taxes. So either Bernie can claim to want to be like Scandinavian countries or he can tell lie and he picked lying. He also used to be vehemently against illegal immigration and even called it “right wing” policy which lowers wages until trump came. Then he did a while 180 on it. I had known Bernie was a fraud since I saw this happen in 2016.

https://youtu.be/vf-k6qOfXz0

Expand full comment

Yes, Scandinavian countries are free market countries with a strong social safety net. I'm not sure why you are claiming that they practice the "exact opposite" of what Bernie Sanders wants. Bernie Sanders wanted to lower personal income taxes on the wealthy? News to me. While there may be differences in Sanders policies vs. Scandinavian policies (which differ between countries), "exact opposite" is not being truthful. He is for taxing the wealthy fairly and using this to fund a social safety net similar to Scandinavian countries. A social safety net that their citizens love for very good reason.

Expand full comment

No, you are confusing "wealthy" with someone who makes barely over the average income. Denmark's income tax is 60% on 1.3x the average income (source below). So if average income is $50k, then it means anyone making $65k and over pays 60% in income tax. Also 25% sales tax on everything you buy - from eggs to everything.

Do you think Bernie has told people that he would like to tax 60% any household making $65k? And would you be okay with an extra 25% sales tax on eggs, milk and everything?

Do you think $65k is considered "wealthy"?

Do you think it's wise to pay 60% of your income for the rest of your life in taxes just to get university and health care? Or would it be wise to decide by yourself which insurance you want to pick? Or get it from your employer?

Btw, I am NOT saying US's current health care or education system is any good. I am saying Bernie doesn't tell the truth.

Search through his twitter history. I can point to 8 tweets where he was bashing millionaires and billionaires. Then suddenly he changed his tune to only bashing billionaires and not millionaires because he himself became a millionaire. Can such a person be trusted?

And how does one claim to provide a social safety net while doing a full 180 on their position on illegal immigration? Do you think Scandinavian countries allow illegal immigration? They are the most low population homogenized countries.

Norway also charges 78 percent tax on oil extraction because they have massive reserves. This also doesn't fit the whole environment friendly narrative.

Scandinavian countries are low population homogenized Monarchy's that found wealth through rich oil deposits.

https://taxfoundation.org/bernie-sanders-scandinavian-countries-taxes/

> "Scandinavian countries tend to levy top personal income tax rates on (upper) middle-class earners, not just high-income taxpayers. For example, in Denmark the top statutory personal income tax rate of 55.9 percent applies to all income over 1.3 times the average income. From the American perspective, this means that all income over $65,000 (1.3 times the average U.S. income of about $50,000) would be taxed at 55.9 percent."

> "However, depending on the structure, a VAT can be a regressive tax because it falls more on those that consume a larger share of their income, which tend to be lower-income earners."

> "While Scandinavian countries raise a lot of revenue from individuals through the income tax, social security contributions, and the VAT, corporate income taxes—as in the United States—play a less significant role in terms of revenue. All Scandinavian countries’ corporate income tax rates are lower than the United States’ rate."

> " Norway is situated on large reserves of oil and charges companies a corporate income tax rate of 78 percent on extractive activities."

Expand full comment

So in your previous post you said that Bernie wants to do the opposite of Scandinavian countries, now you are worried that he will do exactly what they do. Which do you believe? His tax proposals were nowhere near the rates you quote from Denmark. Your sales tax numbers are correct from Denmark (and too high and regressive, yes), but the personal income tax numbers are not that high. Also, you are paying in part for a medical system. So in the US you have to add in insurance and co pay costs etc. since you are still paying for medical. And factor in all the other stuff you "get" in Denmark that you don't in the US. (yay! we pay lower taxes but our infrastructure and medical system are s**t! Freedom!)

Also, the corporate tax rate is similar between the US and Scandinavian countries.

Taxes go to far more than just university and health care. People in Scandinavian countries are happy with their systems and proof that the social contract works. Providing basic health care through your employer is a dramatic failure...a bizarre idea...immoral and not cost effective.

The Tax Foundation is a right wing think tank for the wealthy by the wealthy. They are advocating for lower taxes for the rich and misrepresenting Bernie Sanders tax plan? Shocker.

Expand full comment

The corporate tax rate became similar between the US and Scandinavian countries by Orange man. Before that, it was higher in US.

> Which do you believe?

You didn't answer my questions. Do you think $65k is considered "wealthy" and would you be okay with paying 60% tax on that plus 25% sales tax? Do you think Bernie's 180 flip on illegal immigration was honest? Do you think it's possible to have medicare for all with illegal immigration?

Bernie is a fraud because he says things which low info people want to hear (free stuff for lower income tax and high corporate tax) while the things he wants to achieve cannot be achieved using his ideas. That's why he's a fraud - he knows he can't achieve the things, so he gets people to vote for democrats and then bends over to the establishment - done it twice.

> "The Tax Foundation is a right wing think tank for the wealthy by the wealthy. They are advocating for lower taxes for the rich and misrepresenting Bernie Sanders tax plan? Shocker."

Okay now you are just doing the typical reddit convo instead of something I would expect on Greenwald's comment thread. I simply shared the first link which showed up on google. The article doesn't even mention anything about Bernie Sanders. It simply states what the tax rates are - these are numbers - not an opinion. You can find the same numbers anywhere you like. Nothing to do with right wing or left wing. Just because something doesn't agree with your view point doesn't mean it's some evil right wing site.

I don't have a horse in this game because I am from Canada (moving to US in future). Even the whole "Canadian health care is so much better" is a lie.

The main thing to remember is that any high tax ideas is stupid when everyone's already complaining about the massive bloated and corrupt government. Why would you want to give them even more power?

Expand full comment

Health care through employment was part of ww2 and the price controls. Companies couldn’t use wages to compete for workers so they used increasingly complex and extravagant benefit packages instead.

Pre-ww2 health insurance was basically non-profit and run by doctors and hospitals so more customers could afford the payments.

Another great example of the problems with war time freedom grabs that never get reversed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/upshot/the-real-reason-the-us-has-employer-sponsored-health-insurance.html

Expand full comment

Are you suggesting these are flat taxes, or marginal tax rates? The US had higher marginal income tax rates under Eisenhower. In return, people in Scandinavia can count on high quality medical care for life, education from preschool through doctoral degrees, including law and medicine for all who qualify, environmental protection, wholesome food, law enforcement they don't need to mistrust or fear, and a decent life for the disabled.

The vicious circle we've developed instead forces me to be skeptical that our government and political class could achieve anything comparable, though we know that four years of state school tuition was something a kid could earn by working for one year at minimum wage and saving his money. This was true in a lot of places as recently as the 1980s.

The only thing our government can reliably produce is poverty, resentment, and violence at home, and refugees abroad. Extravagant lying has been added to the list.

Expand full comment

It's flat tax. Everyone who makes 1.3x average income in Denmark gets taxed 60%.

"For example, in Denmark the top statutory personal income tax rate of 55.9 percent applies to all income over 1.3 times the average income. From the American perspective, this means that all income over $65,000 (1.3 times the average U.S. income of about $50,000) would be taxed at 55.9 percent. Norway and Sweden have similarly flat income tax systems. Norway’s top personal tax rate of 38.4 percent applies to all income over 1.6 times the average Norwegian income. Sweden’s top personal tax rate of 57.1 percent applies to all income over 1.5 times the average national income."

I just never understood why anyone who complains how the government is super corrupt, bloated and incompetent should have even more power to now run even more areas of ones life.

Expand full comment

Yes, and millions of Americans should have already emigrated to Scandinavia.

I thus refute your simpleton, black and white,Pollyanna-ish-ness.

Expand full comment

"They are the most low population homogenized countries." Sweden is a major exception to this. Several large city areas are dominated by recent immigrants who are not joining the Swedish people.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/muslim-refugees-and-the-cost-of-sweden-s-kindness-1.912737

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sweden-immigration-crackdown-idUSKBN19Y0G8 "Tough measures against immigrants go against the grain for many in Sweden, a country of 10 million which once called itself “a humanitarian superpower” that generously welcomed migrants fleeing conflict in the Middle East and Africa."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO9vBHZRBQ4

Expand full comment

Fair point however that's a very recent change. And to accommodate that change, their policies will change too. I would highly recommend watching the documentary Borderless regarding this.

If we want to be against racism and help minorities, we should be preventing our governments from going on regime change wars and bombing them to not create such crisis in the first place.

Expand full comment

Don't forget - as soon as a Swede makes it big, he moves to Monte Carlo. Ask Bjorn Borg or Stefan Edberg. So much for solidarity and the safety net.

Expand full comment

And the poor head to U.S.A., because they know 1) Bjorn Borg's and Stefan Edberg's (and ALL) wealth heads to our capital and labor markets, creating the omly thing that ACTUALLY helps the poor, a job and a chance to help themselves.

And 2) OUR safety net is the only true safety net: individual freedom.

Expand full comment

Being a social liberal is also much easier when 95% of society looks and sounds the same. We are a tribal species. No amount of CRT re-education will change the fact that humans are most comfortable around those who they know or perceive to know better than others of disparate backgrounds/beliefs/behaviors. It may not sound nice, or feel good, but it's honest. And not talking about it doesn't make it so.

The idea that different backgrounds caused disharmony was obvious to people many millenia ago. People forget that the Tower of Babel story had a purpose...

Expand full comment

CRT reeducation is to tribalism what manure is to poo.

Expand full comment

Not particularly honest, no. True, we are animals and have a tribal history, but your contention ignores the possibility of civilizing and bringing others into our "tribe". It also ignores the other causes of harmony/disharmony. People of different backgrounds work mostly peacefully throughout the world in socially liberal countries. Conversely, there are examples of culturally homogenous countries that are or have been violent clusterf**ks.

Tribalism still exists, but it is clearly on a downward slide. That is the reality today.

Expand full comment

Tribalism is best solved by assimilation - not by continued segregation and charges of cultural appropriation.

Expand full comment

Nitpicking here. You're correct that tribalism weakens with assimilation, and introduction of new genes to the pool keeps the species strong. I don't see tribalism as a problem, though, so long as the tribe members have similar interests and are willing to talk with other tribes about how to accomplish both tribes' goals. The GG subscriber tribe is the most immediately obvious kind of non-problem tribalism. We share an interest in protecting freedom of expression. Those who subscribed knowing that Glenn was a passionate liberal, and expecting to hear what other authoritarians calling themselves liberal to illiberally oppress their opposition soon learned that they were welcome to speak, just challenged respectfully to consider facts, motivations and legitimate differences of opinions. Few get much support.

Expand full comment

Yes. Freedom of association does NOT necessarily lead to tribalism. In fact, a SHARED recognition of freedom of association (which would NECESSARILY include a freedom of cross-cultural and cross-racial association) across "tribal" lines would PUBLICLY allow individuals the freedom they already have to judge who they wish to associate with.

The INDIVIDUAL, not society, and certainly not the State, should have free license to associate, even for (stupid) reasons of race, political party, etc.

Expand full comment

Blow the Tower of Babel out your ass. You’d be surprised how many people you can get along with if you’re not a moron.

Expand full comment

And if you don't mind salty language (wink, wink, and I'm guilty as sin).

Expand full comment

(Or rather guilty as shit.)

Expand full comment

CRT is an American invention. Not clear what you think Scandinavians or any other Europeans would need it for. Over two centuries of slavery on its soil, indigenous genocide, lynch mobs, apartheid, eugenics, and endless wars, hot, cold, and covert, against non-white and non-Western peoples . . . ? Who else does that describe? Not only do I not feel comfortable around people in America who "look like me," I know from over four decades of bitter experience I need to fear them.

Expand full comment

You must not have visited a major European city since, what? 1970?

Expand full comment

Scandinavian countries are homogeneous. This is not debatable.

Norway: 83% ethnic Norwegian https://www.indexmundi.com/norway/demographics_profile.html

Sweden: 81% ethnic Swedish

https://www.indexmundi.com/sweden/demographics_profile.html

Denmark: 86% ethnic Danish

https://www.indexmundi.com/denmark/demographics_profile.html

And the most successful European countries with safety nets have assimilated minority populations. Those without have problems. Google Cologne New Years Eve.

Expand full comment

They're (meaning the Scandinavians) the only ones with substantial social safety nets? Do tell.

Or are UK, France, Germany not so successful? In some ways, certainly moreso.

Expand full comment

Ask those in the banlieues outside Paris if the social safety net of France is as good as advertised. Ask the Brexiteers if the NHS was good enough to make them happy.

Oh, and Germany... 87% ethnic German

https://www.indexmundi.com/germany/demographics_profile.html

With an "official" state language to boot.

Expand full comment

I wish more libertarians understood this. What most libertarians miss is that the market isn’t free if you don’t have a choice to exit - and the poor don’t have a choice to exit unless you have a safety net. If you have no choice to exit, it’s called slavery - and we certainly don’t support that.

I personally want eventual abolition of the state and taxation, but that can’t happen unless and until we have mutual aid organizations acting as a non-governmental safety net. As long as the state exists, and it probably always will, I think libertarians should push for a means tested UBI as the sole social safety net. Even Friedman and Hayek were begrudgingly accepting of its validity as the most freedom inducing form of social safety net and least economically warping. As long as we actually fund it through taxation, not debt, I think libertarians should support and push for its implementation.

This is also a very real way to start bridging the gap to get some democrats to jump ship and join with the libertarians. So far we mostly have disgruntled republicans, but this would get a lot of Dems to be more friendly to our ideas as well.

Expand full comment

So long as Democrats remain an authoritarian party and use support of the news media and Big Tech to deny evidence of their racism, few will become libertarians.

Expand full comment

I think the democrats who supported Tulsi or Yang and the types who were appalled by the patriot act are not authoritarians and might join, but those are few and far between.

Expand full comment

Tulsi supporters yes. Yang supporters no imo.

Expand full comment

No, the "only one destination" is absolute totalitarian control, which is where the U.S. is headed, as well as the entire globe under one-world government and religion [a "New Age" mix of all religions, led out in by Catholicism, as predictably became clear in the end of the TV show, Lost (to my absolute disgust---we're being indoctrinated and conditioned to accept one-world religion and government)], which the PTB have been bringing about, slowly but surely, for over one hundred years, but particularly since W.W.2 and 9/11. We will truly, literally all be enslaved soon, very much like in Orwell's book, 1984, if we don't stop globalism. But can we really stop it? It looks like global government and religious (counterfeit "Christian") enslavement, which is truly "Fourth Reich" corporate-fascism (aka, national socialism; aka, Nazism) in disguise, is a foregone conclusion, and will soon be fully in place, at least nationally (until national sovereignty is done away with, then internationally).

I believe the Third Reich was a trial run for how they could achieve it, what they could get away with, and how they could get away with it---and that today's "Fourth Reich" is favored and being sought for by the neocons and neolibs, really all neolibs, but neocon neolibs are hiding behind so-called "conservatism" (that doesn't "conserve" anything except for preventing a true government of, by and for the people, especially seeking to prevent, and often successfully preventing, social programs), or they're neocons like the Clintons, hiding behind "liberalism". We're being propagandized and manipulated as never before, like Goebbels, the Third Reich's propaganda minister, could never have conceived the level of today, but he and the Third Reich Nazis would be proud, particularly by the end game that is so successfully being fulfilled today, complete corporate-fascist, "Fourth Reich" global domination (in other words, the Nazis are winning this time).

Expand full comment

My word. Doesn’t that all sound very scary!

Lol

Expand full comment

Who are “they”? An army of Hitler clones from Brazil?

Expand full comment

The astoundingly large number of otherwise freedom-loving Americans who have been fooled into filling their hearts full of Authoritarian Socialism as a vehicle of (false) freedom.

Expand full comment

Yep, exactly, except they've been enslaved in the guise of being "free" for so long that they don't know what real freedom is. Yes, Authoritarian National Socialism has given them a false sense of "freedom".

Expand full comment

I take it that's sarcasm? Don't you read very well? I already answered your question in the comment: The corporate-fascist globalists.

Expand full comment

I’m an anarchist and agree with both of you!

First thing you do is talk! How is any of this rocket science?

Expand full comment

Talking with is replaced by talking at until the authoritarians seize the narrative by demanding to define the other side's terms. No talk allowed until we are guaranteed to be able to shut down opposition.

Expand full comment

Then I look forward to sharpening my insults!

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

The Nazis have been winning all along. 17 Nazis hung after Nuremberg. 1000+ Nazis imported to the USA and across the globe via Paperclip

Expand full comment

I recall quite a few being killed in the war. Including the top one. But sure.

Expand full comment

And the ones that are left are older than the POTUS. Yikes!

Expand full comment

You may be correct, and I certainly can't disprove your thesis. I see the current era as being very similar to the actions of asset-stripping investors, who take over a company, load it up with debt to fund their acquisition, strip out everything that has value, then walk away. Except, this time, it's not a company, but the U.S. that is the target. That may be a way-station to your destination, but a reason to impose self-destruction on the only power on earth able to contend with globalism's greed will be a civil war. What happens after that I do not know.

Expand full comment

Catabolic capitalism is probably the next stage.

Expand full comment

Well, if that is anything like Laissez-faire free-market Capitalism, or at least a "pre-stage" of such, then count me in!

Talk about a silver lining!

Expand full comment

Divide and conquer has been used by the elites to rule and gain power over the poor plebs for centuries. The left and right have a ton in common but the uni party knows that they can keep them distracted by letting the left and right fight each other instead of focusing on the real common enemy- the uni party politicians.

Expand full comment

I CAN agree with this!

Expand full comment

I'm starting to feel like I have more in common with disenfranchised socialists than I do with the *moderate* political parties of our time. For context, I consider myself to be a civil libertarian AND a supply sider. But I get the feeling that if we sat down for a beer, we would share many common views as long as we steered clear of economics and federalism. Even if it did, we would still be able to have a productive conversation. That seems odd and it completely makes sense somehow.

Expand full comment

We've always had way more in common than differences. That's one of the reason they don't want us talking to one another, and want us yelling instead.

Expand full comment

This has been Matt Taibbi's thesis for a while - and it is proving more salient than ever, especially with Orange Man Out.

Expand full comment

The biggest mistake the left made in the last decade was pushing Trump out. They threw away their pinata and now we all can see the emperor has no clothes. Bonus question will Joe try to deliver an SOU this year or have Kamala do it?

Expand full comment

Yep. The Democrats own it all now. All that should be left is the hoisting on their own petards.

Expand full comment

I keep saying the same thing: I’m an old-school pro-labor anti-war pro-civil-liberties leftist. I don’t care if you call me a socialist, a democratic socialist, a social democrat or aunt Myrtle. I just want everyone to have healthcare as a right, like every other civilized country in the world, and for the US to stop bullying, coup-ing and bombing every country under the sun that refuses to submit to its (corporate & military) interests.

Expand full comment

I'm Canadian. Health care here may be a "right" but it often doesn't feel that way.

Summer 2012, me: "Honey, I think I figured out what might be wrong with you. I just followed links from urticaria pigmentosa to a page on mastocytosis, and they have 28 symptoms listed, 25 of which you have."

Him: "I'm going straight to the doctor. I'll leave the phone on so you can listen."

Dr: "I normally warn people away from google diagnoses, but after 8 years of this, I think you might have found it. I'll refer you to a dermatologist."

8 months later, a dermatologist: "Mastocytosis? Never heard of it. Have you tried putting some cream on it?"

6 months after that, an allergist: "Well, technically you're only allergic to pollen and dogs. I've never heard of this mastocytosis thing. Have you tried an antihistamine? A guy your size can take twice the adult dose on the label, you know. I'll write you a scrip for an epipen."

5 months after that, a hematologist: "Yes, that sounds like mastocytosis. I'm going to send you for some tests."

6 months, a serum tryptase test, an abdominal ultrasound, a bone scan, a barium swallow, and a bone marrow biopsy later, the hematologist: "Your tests were inconclusive. I'm going to send you to a dermatologist for a lesion biopsy. We'll book an appointment when the results come in. In the meantime, I'm going to put you on montelukast. It's a fairly benign drug that's shown promise off label for mastocytosis. If it works, it works."

(It worked. Not perfectly, but in combination with his already highly restricted diet, he went from 2-5 anaphylactic episodes a week to one every few weeks.)

4 months later: "The lesion biopsy was inconclusive. I could send you for a biopsy of your stomach lining. It's clear there are abnormal mast cells somewhere in your body. That would be the next logical place to look, since it appears that it's what you're eating that's causing the anaphylaxis and you don't have chronic breathing problems."

My husband and I: "No thanks. It's been 2 1/2 years already. The medicine's working. If there's nothing else you can prescribe for it, why bother hunting down a diagnosis?"

(Actually, there was another medicine she prescribed when she prescribed the montelukast. It's generally administered in eye drops, but that won't work for a systemic disorder. The pills? $675 per month. We didn't have extended health insurance at the time, so we opted not to even try.)

Anyone notice anything about the sequence of events here? One specialist referral at a time, and months of waiting between appointments. During that 2 1/2 years he ended up in emergency three times, blew through 5 epipens and spent countless nights alternating between double-strong black coffee and the treadmill as a home remedy for shock because epipens are fucking expensive.

Anyone who tells you Canada doesn't put limitations on health care is selling you something. In the US, it's money. In Canada, it's time.

I'm not saying the US system is better. But a "right" you have to wait for for months or years is hardly a right.

Expand full comment

In the US 90 million people are uninsured or underinsured and cannot afford healthcare either on a regular basis or AT ALL, resulting in 70,000 preventable deaths and 530,000 bankruptcies due to medical debt EVERY SINGLE YEAR. And healthcare cost her capita is multiples of what other advanced countries, including Canada, spend.

Expand full comment

No one EVER asks WHY healthcare is so expensive that you need health insurance. Why does an X-ray in Japan or Russia cost $25 but costs $650 in the USA...

(Hint: it’s not a free market)

Expand full comment

Yep. At the very least, we need to remove all Certificate of Need laws AND the artificial med student cap.

If we're going to do universal healthcare, we need to increase our supply PRONTO.

"Luckily" for us, that is also what would drive prices down (and why the laws and the cap exist in the first place.)

Expand full comment

Not even to mention the US’s actual DECREASE in life expectancy in recent years, something unheard of in a first-world country (except in extreme circumstances such as wartime).

Expand full comment

My point being: I very much doubt that Canadians can even begin to grasp the level barbarism of the US healthcare “system”.

Expand full comment

(Shhh.....the current and historic open-borders, not to mention the swansong of freedom, has led to a recent immigrant class that is not as long-lived as the current population, thus lowering the life-expectancy of, ahem, citizens.)

Expand full comment

Honey, you spend half of what we do per person. HALF. If you spent the same, you’d have your results before your diagnosis limousine pulled up to your treatment spa.

Expand full comment

I'm so sorry this happened to you, it is terrible. But people in the US with unusual disordered are misdiagnosed very often. The sequence you describe has left people bankrupt. Routinely so.

Expand full comment

You aren't a natural English speaker, are you. Not that there is anything wrong with being a non-native English speaker, but you try to deceive with it. You end up soundind NOTHING but condescending.

Expand full comment

Thank you, M. Karen Straughan.

If you try to force something that requires human effort, resources, and finances just to exist in ANY amount (like food, housing, and especially healthcare) into being a "right," you allow the powers that be (like, say, the Authoritarian Socialists now in charge) the right to FORCE their production.

That IS slavery of the individual to the State.

Expand full comment

And those two things are actually one and the same thing - that's why fighting for reasonable foreign policy is also a fight for better life at home. Cutting Pentagon budget in half would still keep it bigger than China and Russia together, but 500 billion every year reinvested elsewhere, and the freed up talent and industrial capacity could be used for domestic, high quality jobs. That way working class kids of all races would have another upward mobility opportunity except 10 years in military in some far flung base, or deployment that destroys their bodies and minds.

Expand full comment

Yep. And there is PERFECT historical precedence and evidence:

We defeated BOTH Fascism (WWII) and Communism (Cold War) by out-PRODUCING the enemy. It was inevitable, of course. Capitalism (even our mixed economy) ALWAYS produces much more wealth than any form of Socialism.

Expand full comment

You sound like someone who could make a good elected official!

Expand full comment

Comment I read on a right-wing site recently:

“We’d be far better off at this point if our officials were not elected but simply chosen by lottery from among the general population”.

Couldn’t agree more, and I don’t think the founding fathers would have a problem with it.

Expand full comment

"Crap, I'm a congressman!"

Expand full comment

"But I thought I bought a LOTTERY ticket!"

Expand full comment

Can we impeach someone for being a lucky bastard?

Or

Can we force someone to serve a full term? (make "pulling a Nixon" illegal?)

Expand full comment

The problem, regardless of who they were (the officials and/or leaders picked by lottery), they would still end up being controlled, as the entire system is now controlled the military-industrial(-corrupted)-congresspeople-industrial complex; or, more specifically, the "al CIAduh(!)"-NSA(-and-their-neocon-and-neolib-subcontractor)-corporate-fascist-globalist-"Fourth-Reich" complex [did I forget any of the nationalist, national socialist conspirator/real-traitor-terrorist threat(s) to U.S. freedom, liberty and rights, and to both national and global sovereignty?]. Otherwise, if they refused to be controlled, they would die (by assassination---perhaps made to look like something else), have to be otherwise removed from office (impeachment, etc.), and/or have to resign from office.

As far as your allusion the the founders of the U.S. goes, under normal circumstances I believe they would be against it; but, considering where we are at today with a huge, out-of-control, monstrous-monstrosity, mass-murderous, illegal-war(s)-of-aggression [under BOTH international AND U.S. law(s)---"the supreme international crime" according to the law of the Nuremberg Protocols, signed onto by the U.S. government, and joined to the U.S. Constitution through the Supremacy Clause of same, and therefore not simply U.S. law by way of same, but also part of constitutional law], increasingly-corporate-fascist-authoritarian-and-totalitarian U.S. federal government, I think you're right that they might very well be for it (picking government leaders and/or officials by lottery)...AS LONG AS THEY, AS THE MONETARY-OLIGARCHS OF THE TIME, COULD CONTROL THEM.

Expand full comment

Are you a proponent of Anarchy, that you trash the Constitution? Or just working to change the Constitution, as we have somewhat successfully over 245 (or 232 from 1789) years?

Expand full comment

What?! Where did you get THAT from my comment?? I am an independent constitutionalist. I am NOT against the Constitution, and I a NOT a proponent of anarchy, violent anarchy anyway. Did you know that the word, "anarchy", originally meant NON-violent dissent? I believe we should all non-violently rise up en masse against the authoritarian and totalitarian mass-insanity that is taking over the U.S. and the world.

To answer your question, I don't believe, with the government presently-constituted (constipated?) the way it is, that we would stand a snowball's chance in hell of successfully adding any amendment(s) to the Constitution that would truly benefit us, or overturn any that don't benefit us, but would benefit us if we overturned them (like the Federal Reserve and income tax amendments). If we stood a chance of it, it might have already happened.

I'm sorry, but the U.S. and the world are fracked (NOT that I'm giving up).

Expand full comment

Sorry, I must have misunderstood you, M. Steppen-Wolf.

I think from this post (one above) and a previous one above or below, I got the feeling you were for revolution leading to either anarchy or perhaps a new "constituting" document. I, too, consider myself an independent Constitutionist, and I believe in preserving the Declaration and its Constitution.

I think your last sentence here tells me what I think I thought was missing, that you are NOT giving up.

Anyway, I will reread your posts, which I have tended to enjoy, and sorry again for my misperception. I share your frustration at the current state of affairs.

Expand full comment

Very nice of you!

Expand full comment

He's right but if you don't pander to wealthy donors, you'll never get elected. It's kind-of hilarious when you think about it. Our system excludes people with principles from ever getting the chance to govern.

Expand full comment

My criterion for voting is the most principled decision-making process. It's what cost Obama my vote in 2008; he wanted public funding on principle until he discovered he could swamp his opponent with private donations and principle went out the window. In 2016 I didn't vote; in 2020 I voted for Kanye West, figuring the bipolar guy was the safest bet.

Expand full comment

"...the bipolar guy was the safest bet."

One for the ages. M. Bill Heath! But if in miracle one such were elected, would I be behind him on the up days, and against him on the down, or.....

The other way around!!!!

Expand full comment

I guess my joke works better with a schizophrenic than a bipolar guy.

Expand full comment

The forces that prevent good choices are the same ones urging you to pick the lesser of two evils.

Expand full comment

That line always reminds me of the joke in Master and Commander with, "...the lesser of two weavels." It is a dad joke so that makes it agreeable.

Expand full comment

"good" choices: i.e. those Mostly agreeable to you?

No one is "preventing" good choices. In the end, Bernie (only for example) just needed more support, even with Democrat Party chicanery. That he didn't get it isn't MY fault (I am a beleiver in the "lesser of two evils" voting: It's the ONLY thing keeping political parties in check).

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

I misread that as electards. Which is a useful new word.

Expand full comment

But we want to encourage poor spellers AND the spelling police. They have things to say, too.

NO edit button!

Expand full comment