Like Talking to a Wall

One sided questions; unable or unwilling to see things from the other side; accepting government statements as fact; ignoring well-reasoned responses; inability to think logically or critically.  It isn’t just the American mainstream media….

Consider the words of Assad and consider the reaction of the interviewer; taken from an Interview of President al-Assad to Denmark’s TV 2:

President Assad: … actually, when you want to talk about the dire situation in eastern Aleppo, it’s not because of the government; it’s because of the terrorists. They’ve been in that area for years now, but we only heard about that “dire situation” in the media recently, in the Western media, because the situation of the terrorists is very bad.

The interviewer follows-up with a question that completely ignores this reality – the situation in eastern Aleppo has been hell for civilians for many years – it has become news only recently because the best publicity that the terrorists’ sponsors’ money can buy has been brought into play.

Question 5: So, if the Syrian Army didn’t attack hospitals, or maybe they did by mistake, you say, are you sure it’s not the Russian air force who are targeting hospitals?

President Assad: The question that you should ask when you have a crime: who is the beneficiary of that crime?

Does this response from Assad prompt any curiosity in the interviewer?  Does the interviewer pull on the string: who gains from such attacks?  No.  He continues to lay blame on Russia and the Syrian government.

President Assad: …the terrorists according to what you are saying, terrorists are not responsible, they are very peaceful people. The money of Qatar and Saudi Arabia and Turkey are something legal and natural, let’s say, and the agenda of the United States fulfilled the needs of the Syrian people, which is not realistic.

The response from the interviewer?  Crickets.

Forgive the lengthy cite, but this next portion is rather valuable:

Question 17: The United States, they stopped all bilateral talks with Russia about any kind of peace agreement, and the Russians they said that they actually regret this. Do you regret it as well?

President Assad: We regret it, but we knew in advance that it wouldn’t work…we had already known that the Americans didn’t have the will to reach any agreement, because the main part of that agreement is to attack al-Nusra which is, according to the American list and to the United Nations list, is a terrorist group, but in the Syrian conflict, it’s an American card.

Question 18: But isn’t it very difficult for the United States to separate the so-called “moderate rebels” and some of the more radical ones? This is very difficult, when you are attacking the moderate rebels all the time.

President Assad: You are right, do you know why you are right? Do you know the unicorn, the animal that’s like a horse, has a long horn? It’s a myth. And the moderate opposition is a myth. That’s why you cannot separate something that doesn’t exist from something that exists.

Does Assad fear further escalation between Russia and the United States as a result of these failed efforts?

President Assad: …actually that escalation has been happening for a while now. I mean, before that agreement, let’s say, failed, the Americans attacked our forces in Deir Ezzor…

… for the Americans, a hundred percent, they did it intentionally, because ISIS gathered their militants in the same place before the attack, and when the attack started, it took about one hour, and in the next hour ISIS attacked and took control of those hills. How could ISIS knew about this raid before it happened?

Keep in mind, this attack came shortly after the American military said they were not sure if they would support the deal reached between Kerry and Lavrov.

Regarding the puppet states of Europe:

President Assad: I’m sure not the Danish, not the British, decided which target they should attack. I’m sure the Americans said “this is our target, and this is where ISIS is.” …is it acceptable for the Danish people that your army is fulfilling military missions of other countries without verifying the target and knowing where is it heading? Do you take a bus without knowing where the bus is going to? You don’t.

…the Europeans implement and fulfill what the Americans want in every field without asking and without discussing…

…whole Europe now being absent from the political map at least since 2003 after the invasion of Iraq, just because they had to follow the Americans, and they don’t dare to take their independent, let’s say, path in politics.

Regarding the violation of international law:

President Assad: …the intervention in Syria, as part of the international coalition which is actually an American coalition, this is against the international law, this is against the sovereignty of Syria because this is not in coordination with the Syrian government, while the Russian came to Syria…after having an invitation from the Syrian government to support us in our fight against the terror.

An example of the futility of expecting someone from the western media or political establishment to consider how he might feel if the shoe was on the other foot:

Question 25: But what else should [the coalition] do? I mean, they are very much against what’s going on in Syria right now.

President Assad: The question is would you as a Danish citizen accept me as a foreigner to support opposition in your country with money and to tell them “go and kill, and that’s how you achieve your political goals?”

Nothing.

Regarding the diplomacy of the United States:

President Assad: [as opposed to the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis] …in the United States you don’t have superior statecraft. When you don’t have superior statecraft, you should expect anything, and you should always expect the worse.

This is the danger.  It is a danger either because someone in the US is in charge or because no one in the US is in charge.  Either way, the situation regarding two nuclear-armed powers is dangerous.

There is much more to the interview.  It is worth reading.

You Might be Right Wing if…

According to German magazine Baby & Family (and as reported by Breitbart), you might be right-wing if…

…your family is “inconspicuous, blond, cute and engaged”

…your family is “nice and dedicated”

…your family seems normal.

…you meet with other parents in the playground.

…you put their children in daycare

…you have children who are “very obedient” and might not talk much.

…you instill self-confidence in your progeny.

…you hope that your “offspring will later confidently carry their ideology into the world”.

…you teach your own values

…you teach values that are “strongly geared at Germanic customs and traditions”.

…if there are usually no American logos on the parents’ clothing.

…if your daughter has “accurate braids and long skirts”

Is right-wing bad, dangerous?

…such people are just as dangerous if not more so as gangs of Nazi skinheads.

Conclusion

In Germany you might be right-wing if you are…German.

If I Can’t Have You, No One Will

O envy, root of all countless evils, and cankerworm of the virtues! All the vices, Sancho, bring some kind of pleasure with them; but envy brings nothing but irritation, bitterness, and rage.

-        Don Quixote

I have been thinking more about my afterthought to my post on the continued importance of the US dollar to the global financial system.  I think the main story is to be found in the afterthought – and I am wondering how I missed this the first time.

In the end, it is a story of envy.  Unlike jealousy, envy does not merely covet what it does not have; it destroys what it cannot have so no one else can have it.

London 1, Brussels 0

To summarize from the previous post, citing Ambrose Evans-Pritchard:

The euro share [of foreign exchange reserves] has tumbled over the last eight years from 28pc to 20.4pc, and is barely above Deutsche Mark share in the early 1990s.

The eurozone is crippled by the lack of a unified EU treasury, joint bond issuance, and a genuine banking union to back up the currency. It would require a change in the German constitution to open the way for fiscal union, an unthinkable prospect in the current political climate.

Despite Brexit, the British Pound is under no similar pressure.  It is starting to dawn on some that Brexit will end up being good for the Pound and bad for the Euro – and not the other way around (as almost every talking head threatened before the vote):

The BIS data showed that London’s share of global foreign exchange turnover has held steady at 37.1pc, down slightly from the last survey but higher than it was a decade ago. The eurozone share has fallen to 8pc.

Whether this will survive Brexit is a hotly-disputed question. Mr Jen, a Chinese-speaker from Taiwan, said Britain would flourish once it has broken free of a region caught in a failed currency experiment.

“London’s position is very secure. The talent is here and so is the scale. There is a very clear and strict rule of law. In five or ten years I think the pound will become a super-charged Swiss franc,” he said.

The Europeans did not come together in the wake of financial crisis, contrary to what was likely expected by the elite.  They formed no “unified EU treasury, joint bond issuance, and a genuine banking union to back up the currency.”  While Britain’s economy performs reasonably well, Europe continues to struggle; from Jeremy Warner:

The British economy sails on as if nothing has happened, but the European one continues to stagnate. It is as if the Brexit shock has been more powerfully felt in Europe than in Britain. Both France and Italy showed no growth at all in the second quarter, and now even the data from Germany is starting to look poor.

That the Eurozone economy is still struggling after everything that has been thrown at it almost beggars belief. In terms of stimulus, it is hard to know how much more of a following wind the euro area could have had. It’s been positively gale force. Austerity has been effectively ended, interest rates have been cut below zero, the economy has been flooded with newly printed money, the euro was devalued and to cap it all, there has been the monumental boost to disposable incomes provided by the low oil price.

What’s clear is that we are fast approaching some kind of tipping point which Brexit is very much a part of; the legitimacy of the entire European project is being questioned as never before, with every possibility that the EU will have changed fundamentally by the time the Article 50 negotiations on Britain’s exit conclude.

It is the Destiny of Mint to be Crushed…

…so says Waverley Lewis Root

“Sir,” said the first lieutenant, bursting into the Captain’s cabin, “the ship is going down.”

“Very well, Mr. Spoker,” said the Captain; “but that is no reason for going about half-shaved. Exercise your mind a moment, Mr. Spoker, and you will see that to the philosophic eye there is nothing new in our position: the ship (if she is to go down at all) may be said to have been going down since she was launched.” 

-        The Sinking Ship, by Robert Louis Stevenson

One can say the same for the European project: it “may be said to have been going down since she was launched.”

A Lying Politician

I know, I know…

Britain’s new top diplomat Boris Johnson came under sharp fire from his European counterparts Thursday, with France’s foreign minister declaring that the British “leave” campaigner had “lied a lot” during the push to break with the European Union.

Can we all agree that liars are no longer allowed to hold any political office or bureaucratic appointment?  If so, this will be the single-greatest result from the Brexit vote.

Absent this, I prefer that more politicians are like Johnson (described as “cheerfully undiplomatic”).  A small sampling will suffice:

Johnson has a long history of colorfully insulting other nations and leaders….

German and French politicians may have little tolerance for a man who during the referendum campaign compared E.U. efforts to unify Europe with Napoleon and Hitler.

…such as Papua New Guinea – which Johnson once suggested boasted orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing…

Johnson has criticized President Obama as a “part-Kenyan” who harbored anti-British attitudes because his father’s nation was once part of the British Empire.

In May, he penned a naughty limerick suggesting that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had “sowed his wild oats with the help of a goat, but he didn’t even stop to thankera.”

Lord, if you are going to continue to curse us with politicians, please give us more like Johnson.

Leading Europe Into War*

Spiegel interviewed the presidents of the European Parliament and the European Commission, Martin Schulz and Jean-Claude Juncker in the wake of the Brexit vote.  In all cases, emphasis added is mine.

Regarding their phone call on the morning after the vote:

SPIEGEL: What did you say on the phone?

Schulz: I said: "Jean-Claude, I think this isn't going well." Then I advocated for a quick response from the EU. The last thing we need right now is uncertainty.

Juncker: I shared his opinion. It was important for the Brits to trigger Article 50 as quickly as possible in order to avoid any uncertainties.

They dictate to European countries when they are in the union, and they dictate to European countries when they say they want out of the union – despite, to my understanding, it being up to the British government to decide if and/or when to trigger Article 50.

SPIEGEL: Just like on that Friday, you often present yourselves as extremely tight political partners. Can you appreciate that some in Europe see your relationship as cronyism?

Juncker: Nonsense. Martin and I lead the two important community institutions, whose tasks include working together in confidence. After 30 years in Brussels, I can tell you: The relationship between the Commission and the Parliament has probably never been as good as it is now.

SPIEGEL: That's precisely what many people find problematic. Parliaments are ultimately responsible for keeping governments in check -- not acting as their reinforcements.

Schulz and Juncker went on to further deride this view of cronyism.  What else would they say?

Spiegel then asked about the plans announced immediately after the Brexit vote for an even tighter EU, with even more control from Brussels over the member states (talk about being oblivious to reality).

Juncker: The proposal in and of itself is convincing, but it doesn't suit the times. To implement it, the European treaties would have to be amended. Martin's plan is a long-term project that cannot currently be implemented due to the mood on the continent. But where the community can achieve more on the basis of existing treaties, we should do so.

They know they cannot get new treaties passed or current ones amended, but this does not concern them.  Politicians will always find loopholes in existing treaties and laws that they can use to expand power.  They have thousands of lawyers and judges working on this every single day.

Schulz: I completely agree with Jean-Claude. I'm fully aware that my vision of a European bicameral parliament can't be implemented tomorrow. I'm also not an integration fanatic. We agree: Brussels can't regulate everything. I'm driven by something else: There are forces in Europe that want to generally give national policy priority over a common European approach. We have to prevent this.

This last statement gives me the chills.

SPIEGEL: Nevertheless, many in Europe see you as being symbolic of the backroom technocratic politics that is associated with the European Union and the euro. Some have even accused you of being responsible for Brexit. Do you plead guilty?

Juncker: No, why should I? In the end, the British didn't vote to leave because of the euro. They're not even members of the currency union. Even the refugee crisis hardly affected the country. I have another explanation: In its 43 years of EU membership, Britain has never been able to decide whether it wants to fully or only partially belong to the EU.

Spiegel did not only mention the euro; the issue is the European Union itself.  And the question was about the backroom political dealings – which most certainly affected Britain.  In any case, Juncker sees the fault entirely with the British parliament and British people; nothing done by the EU was is the cause behind these very visible divisions.

Schulz: Primary responsibility for Brexit lies with British conservatives, who took an entire continent hostage. First, David Cameron initiated the referendum in order to secure his post. Now, fellow conservatives want to delay the start of exit negotiations until they've held a party conference. And regarding detractors: I'm proud of the fact that Ms. Le Pen in France insults me and Mr. Wilders in the Netherlands calls me his opponent. The way I see it is, if these people weren't attacking me, I would be doing something wrong.

The EU bears no responsibility in the troubles and divisions of Europe.  The trouble is in Britain, not the EU.  Schulz sees only Le Pen and Wilders, and not the millions of people behind these two; he does not see anything of the underlying anger and frustration throughout the continent.

Regulatory Democracy, Central Banking, and Brexit

In response to my post last week on Brexit, I was asked the following:

C. Stayton June 24, 2016 at 5:15 AM

BM, I'm curious - do you have a conspiracy theorist streak in you? You talk about One World Government, and in an article earlier this week you used the term "false flag." Do you think the EU is part of a greater plot by the globalists (or the cult elite, or the illuminati, or whatever you want to call them) to gain universal control? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

bionic mosquito June 24, 2016 at 9:43 PM

There is an "elite." They are not God, they are not gods. They don't always have the same objectives, but they take advantage of the same toolkit: central banking, regulatory democracy, etc.

Their plans work better the larger and fewer the political entities that must be controlled - hence the "success" of the EU is one pillar.

Yet, Britain's vote came out this way. Why? Interesting...

Eventually, central planning fails. The elite have convinced us that "we" are in charge. Their whole act falls apart if "we" see that we are not.

For this reason they will give up much in order to protect central banking and regulatory democracy. They also fear nuclear war (and the beast they created in the US may be getting a little out of control).

All of these factors help to shape my view on events, rightly or wrongly.

I feel it worthwhile to expand on these thoughts, especially as I put together the Brexit post rather quickly and almost immediately after the results were known; I have since had some time to further reflect on both the event of Brexit and the question. 

There is an "elite." They are not God, they are not gods.

Steve Rogers (aka Captain America) is getting ready to jump into a tangle with and between Thor, Loki and Iron Man, two of the three of whom (Thor and Loki) are other-worldly (and dressed like they are performing Shakespeare in the Park):

Natasha Romanoff: “I'd sit this one out, Cap.”

Steve Rogers: “I don't see how I can.”

Natasha Romanoff: “These guys come from legend. They're basically gods.”

Steve Rogers: “There's only one God, ma'am, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't dress like that.”

 

There is an elite; they are not gods. 

Paraphrased (and I wish I can remember where I first read it): Democracy is the system where you falsely believe that you and your wife have twice the political pull of someone named Rockefeller.

There are a relatively small handful of individuals with extraordinary pull in this world.  This is so obvious that it need not be elaborated.  This handful of people work covertly together on many manipulations; conspiracies, if you will.  I know it is shocking to some, but individuals who intend to leverage their pull in self-serving ways tend not to discuss their plans and objectives openly.

Specific objectives may differ by individual member in this class – such individuals are highly competitive, after all, and compete amongst each other.  They are also individuals – each with their own subjective value scale.  They are, after all, human – but if you believe they are gods, well the gods were a pretty competitive bunch, were they not?  They don’t always agree on everything.

They don't always have the same objectives, but they take advantage of the same toolkit: central banking, regulatory democracy, etc.

What they have in common is the desire to maintain and extend the system – what I once coined “the toolkit.”  A key element of this toolkit is central banking as this is where the theft comes into play; equally important is regulatory democracy, as this extends the possibility of theft with the consent of the victims.  (Public education is equally important, but not extremely relevant to this discussion of Brexit.)

I think I need not expand on the theft that is central banking.  We have witnessed it in its most overt and brazen form since 2008; if it ain’t obvious to you by now, more words from me won’t help.  As to regulatory democracy, I will take each word individually.

Regulatory: laws, rules, and regulations passed under the guise of benefitting the consumer, protecting the citizens, aiding small business, and improving society; the real purpose is to limit competition, gain political favor, and control the masses – enhancing the value of assets owned or otherwise controlled by the elite while keeping the rest of us in a passive state.

Democracy: fooling the people into thinking that they are in charge, that they are the government.  This way the people willingly and happily pay enormous sums for the privilege of whitewashing the fences of the elite and their tools (politicians and the like).

Central banking and regulatory democracy: this is how the elite get to steal from the masses without using overt force.  Much more effective (and lucrative) than the brute force of communism.

But there is one more thing, not included in my initial, brief comment: the politicians keeping their promises.  Your standard of living will increase; you will be taken care of in sickness and health; you will live comfortably in retirement; a good middle-class job awaits you upon completion of your education; we will keep you safe; you are the government; we are public servants.  The list is pretty long.

We have to admit that in the west we have had it pretty good.  Our standard of living is the envy of much of the world.  No major wars on western soil in over 70 years.  Not a bad run.  The politicians, on behalf of the elite, have – mostly – kept their promises (the ones that get them re-elected and keep the citizenry reasonably passive, anyway).

At least so far…but the lies came openly into view beginning in 2008…the promises overtly began to break.

"Après Nous le Déluge"

Brexit has won.  A joyous occasion for fans of decentralization.

Now what?  Markets are certainly in turmoil – the Pound is falling historically; gold is rising; equity markets everywhere are falling; volatility is all the rage.

But this will all pass…perhaps until the next vote.  The Dutch are already pushing; so are the French.  More will come. 

As an aside, take it further: not every county and city in Britain voted to leave.  Why not let each locality decide if it chooses to stay or go?  After this, why not each household?  Why not?

And why stop at the EU?  There are many in Europe concerned about supporting NATO’s antagonism toward Russia; equally as many who wish to see sanctions against Russia lifted.

Trump – win or lose – offers a statement.  So do those in so-called right-wing movements throughout Europe – better and more honestly described as national movements.

Sooner or later force fails; sooner or later, economic law takes hold and demands obedience; sooner or later, people say enough is enough; sooner or later people choose to serve no more.

Will it be peaceful?  Not likely.  Very powerful people have much invested in centralizing the world – one world government, a disaster for individual freedom.  Many in power will work to ensure the dire consequences predicted if Brexit were to pass bear some fruit.

After Us the Flood 

These words were (supposedly) spoken during the reign of Louis XV.  Fifteen years after his death…the guillotine claimed many bloody prizes.

There will be a flood: the movement toward decentralization will gain further traction, thanks to today’s historic event.  There will be a flood of a different sort: forces supportive of centralization will ensure that negative consequences of this citizen uprising are felt.

As the people are more and more seeing through the manipulation under which they have been held, it is likely that they will also see that these consequences are nothing but cynical moves by their would-be oppressors.

And hopefully things pass in relative peace – more Gorbachev, less Bastille Day.

The Politics of Disobedience

Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.

-        The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, Etienne de la Boétie

Guess who this is, regarding the upcoming Brexit vote:

In a passionate plea to Europe’s top conservatives, he accused the EU elites of living in a fool’s paradise and provoking the eurosceptic revolt now erupting in a string of countries.

“It is us who today are responsible,” he said, speaking at a conclave of Christian-Democrat and centre-right leaders in Luxembourg. “Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe, do not share our Euro-enthusiasm.”

No, this is not Nigel Farage; it is European Council president Donald Tusk (from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard).  It seems he and others of his ilk are finally catching on that there is a revolution – for now (fortunately for them) one only of the ballot box.  (They better hope the French don’t get inspired by their ancestors.)

For the first time in a poll, the Brexit camp is leading the stay camp.  Despite all of the fearmongering (or perhaps because of it), the Brexit camp has been gaining support as time passes – very Trumpian!

Mr Tusk, alert to the patriotic revival in his native Poland, lambasted the EU establishment for pushing “a utopia of Europe without nation states” that goes against the grain of European history and has produced a deep cultural backlash that cannot be dismissed as illegitimate far-right populism.

And they call libertarians “utopian.”  From Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty:

The true utopian is one who advocates a system that is contrary to the natural law of human beings and of the real world. A utopian system is one that could not work even if everyone were persuaded to try to put it into practice.  The utopian system could not work, i.e., could not sustain itself in operation.

I guess culture and tribe matters.  Who knew?  Obviously the elite who want to destroy culture and replace it with the state know this, but they are finding that destroying it is far more difficult than they expected.

To ignore culture and tribe is rather “contrary to the natural law of human beings and of the real world.”  In other words, to build any political system without respecting culture and tribe is rather “utopian.”  This is something that some libertarians would do well to keep in mind. 

Rothbard does not just apply this to communists and socialists of all stripes.  In contrast to (unfortunately not all) libertarians…