Economics has no Morality.

Economics has no Morality.
War head Banned: "Play it again Uncle Sam".

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Hail Trump Triumphal.

                               
                         Among Oakland’s dozens of artist warehouses is one called Deathtrap.

The Ghost Ship of Fools gutted by fire and reported on ad nauseum.


Russian Hospital base destroyed by "Freedom Fighters". Not a word from the MSM; posted by "Faux News" sites.


 As the tempest about faux news sites goes postal, the NYT published an article excoriating a site that published material that supposedly caused an addled-brained psycho to attack a pizzeria. The journalism was yellow, the intention to inflame hysteria against faux news, which the MSM publishes on a regular basis under a different guise (although they do warn us that it is breaking, they never admit that it is, in reality, already broken), to a red hot inferno, hinting that we need a Ministry of Information. Yet some of these so-called faux news sites, working tirelessly without compensation, were the very sites that, pre-2008, were busy publishing articles and analyses detailing the real crisis threatening the economic system while the NYT, as well as, well, ALL the other news outlets in the country, had their collective noses so far up the Bush administration's ass they couldn't see beyond the foggy bottom of malodorous dung they were shoveling out for the American public to digest, purportedly for their edification, but in reality to keep them in line with the war-mongering reality of Full Rectum Domination promulgated and mercilessly enacted under that administration's tutelage, that is now so enmeshed in our foreign policy that even after eight years of Obamamama, the man who would be  President, but settled for Caretaker-in-Chief, still holds sway over our affairs of State.

Although more subtle than the lies published by some of the worst sites listed, Brietbart being among these latter, the misinformation and bias of what came to be termed the 'liberal  press' ( although it was only superficially liberal and unworthy of the name "Press") is the reason that the newspapers across the country were abandoned by their readership en masse, a phenomena still blamed on the internet, but which started long before there was any such entity.

You can find an example every day of their yahoo reportage, the latest evident today in the blurb announcing,

"Another defeat for the Islamic State as its ambitions for a militant empire buckle on multiple fronts." 

Now those ambitions are in direct conflict with the US policy of Full Spectrum Domination, which, if we had newspapers, you know, real newspapers with reporters, not just rats scurrying through the halls of power looking for breadcrumbs, would inform (oh, that's right, that's not their job, is it?, the job of newspapers in a system that has had any non-capitalist motives wrung out of it, is to sell their rag so that advertisers will pay their outlandish rates), would have objected to that term and at least explained to their readership that Full Rectum Domination is simply an overblown, propagandist invention to enable us all to feel comfortable with the fact that it is used to provide a cover for the ambitions of a militant empire. A thin veneer, to be sure, but that's all we need, because our own belief in our evangelical mission to go forth and subdue all opposition to our Superior Will is so entrenched that we don't bother to question such high-minded-sounding, but undemocratic to the bone, verbiage.

Yet, despite the fact that the very name "The United States of America" was decided upon because the founding fathers had every intention of stretching forth their power and adding to the territorial extant of the newly-won country, all to fulfill the Manifest Destiny of the fledgling nation to overcome all opposition and thereby bestride a continent, the United States has always been, and is now, an Empire. A militant Empire. One of unparalleled ambition, as evidenced by such soaring propaganda that is created to lull a populace too busy struggling to make a place for themselves in the world to bother about parsing what the actual ramifications of such a philosophy of Manifist Destiny, such as the utter annihilation of an entire way of life that had been extant on their land for thousands of years, might entail.

Yet, just as the US Constitution was crafted so as to deliberately legalize the subjugation of an entire race of men to the will of their racial superiors, building an empire on the backs of slaves while proclaiming themselves a Beacon of liberty and a fount of Freedom, so today the NYT can blithely declare that, "its ambitions for a militant empire buckle on multiple fronts", and not see the irony in those words, as the "End of History", USA!USA! Triumphalism of the 90's, following the demise of the USSR as a Ghost Ship of fools, did more to transform the militant empire of the USA than it did to change Russia. 

Because they needed communism more than Russia did, as a bugbear to scare the  populace into surrendering more and more of both their hard-earned dollars and much-touted freedom to a cadre of lobbyists in the swamps of Washington, the ability of the military to continue to siphon off more and more of the productive capacity of the country in unproductive arms manufacture, a dizzying array of alphabetic alpha-male-run intelligence agencies, and a proliferation of military bases around the globe to which the economic benefits of Army bases, long nurturing otherwise dead-in-the-water communities in the mainland,  were shut down and moved, along with that economic stimulus they once provided to US citizens, to the lands of those we would soon enough be bombing, so thus delivering economic growth to them, "the enemy", instead, as that's what filled the coffers of the heavily-invested-in-the-defense-industry American oligarchs; but all to the detriment of the American worker, and all done like a sly pickpocket, making sure your attention is elsewhere before pilfering your person, ever ready to jump back and claim himself innocent of any evil intent. It is, after all, a racket, and it ain't for tennis anyone.

But the authors of the PNAC had no intention of allowing the shrinking of the defense budget to happen. They had worked too hard during the Reagan/Bush years to:

  • End the draft, so that there would be no more Vietnam-like opposition to their Empiric schemes, as the sons of the elites no longer need worry about their own sorry asses being blown to bits in foreign lands,
  • Cemented in the ascendancy of the military via Military Keynesianism whereby not only did/does the government spending that goes to militaristic enterprises escalate decade after decade, but becomes so entwined in the real economy that any reduction in military spending creates a crash in demand, to avoid which they employed the Fed to stimulate demand by blowing a series of speculative bubbles and:
  • Use debt to finance a huge expansion in deficit spending, as then its burdens would be more diffuse. Federal spending began a debt-fueled escalation during the Reagan administration that was purposely obfuscated by issuing debt at high levels of interest that the 1% purchased with their tax-cut bonanzas, establishing a tax-free/risk-free money conveyor belt of government money, garnished from the paychecks of Americans labor, and deposited directly into their accounts, thus
  • reaping hoards of cash to, using "Free Enterprise" as a mantra, buy up and export America's industrial base to the largest Communist country in the world, China, while simultaneously claiming that all this 'defense'  spending, for which they had mortgaged the entire economy of the USA, was to "fight Communism".

So you can see how the fall of the USSR caught them with their rants down. You can search the pages of the NYT all you want, but neither Paul Krugman nor Ben Stein, David Brooks, or any other "reporter" will have pointed out this hypocrisy and scandalous legerdemain during all the decades it's been promulgated.

Thus are we now a populace so completely befuddled by how the fuck we got to this morass that we've voted to put into the  office of the Presidency of the United States a man who accused both the sitting President and his Presidential opponent of creating Isis, yet has no coherent plan, well, no coherence at all, really, to stop them, and hails from the very elite who most profited from Reagan's largess. And then the same rag that did nothing to publish the truth about how Washington was enabling the undermining of Democracy, turns on small, Onion-like internet sites and spuriously accuses them of inciting nutjobs to acts of violence, ignoring that they have been doing the same thing for years as they rail against Syria, get in bed on the attack on Libya, support dangerous saber-rattling at the sovereign Nation of Russia, and - their plum of violence-inciting mania -  provided rabid support for attacking the Iraqi people. And then, after these monstrous examples of inciting an entire population to use their overarching military superiority to launch attacks resulting in the obliteration of entire countries, they use their undeserved position of moral authority to chasten a site they claim is responsible for one single person's idiotic rampage? 

 This century has already handed so many military failures to US citizens who quail in such fear before their own military might they dare not speak a word against it, never question the lavish expenditures squandered on it, as it delivers them failure after failure, but drains US citizens of more and more of households' earning power until it will simply take everything. That's when the stage is set for what the MSM has been screaming about is another Mussolini, but it is this same MSM that has been ignoring the militarization that is so extreme it leaves everything else starved of investment, yet unstoppable because of the sacrosanct status so-called 'defense spending' has been granted by the very press we need to expose its fundamental takeover of the reins of power. The military in this country has become unassailable, and such invincibility invites corruption and the internal rot that comes with it ... it ain't called corruption for nothing. Yet we will never see the headline:

"Another defeat for the United States as its ambitions for a militant empire buckle on multiple fronts." 

Even though that is exactly what has happened over and over again in just the last ten years.

The world has surely gone mad, or at least blind, if this mindless crime (which, if there really is such a thing as the fourth estate, it most surely is a crime (a lie of omission is still a lie ... a deliberate lie)) goes uncensured, as it will. 

So there should be little wonder in the corridors of the NYT as to the outcome of the election, as it was they, using the logic they use to accuse faux news sites for the actions of a fruitcake, who were the most instrumental in enabling the very thing about which methinks the grey lady doth protest overmuch. And yes, I use that Shakespearean wording with the same tongue-in-cheek intention as its speaker does in Hamlet, because I don't believe their protestations of shock and aw-gee, for a minute. As Marco Rubio would say, "They knew exactly what they were doing".