Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Humanist Report"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
The official "report" has as attachment the "Golden Shower document", it does not make firm statements - no "it is alleged ...", they make a psychological profil of Putin and his supposed desire for revenge - and they obsess with Russia Today TV = RT. Can you imagine, RT tries to stir up dissatisfaction, they reported negatively on Wallstreet greed, fracking and hosted Third Party Candidate debates. (In Nazi Germany and under Stalin there was a crime called "subversion" - I wouldn't be surprised to hear that term soon.) Back to the official report of the agencies on fake news and the "hacking": Disclaimer of confidence. NSA (the experts on hacking on which the other agencies depend when it comes to surveillance and interception) has only MEDIUM confidence that "Russia did it" (whereas all other agencies claim hight confidence). Wikileak's Julian Assange said about the embarrassing EMAILS of Clinton and DNC (and it was never about anyhting else than these emails) : "It was a leak of a disgusted insider". Craig Murray former British Diplomat, now working with Wikileaks, also recently confirmed that he received the data in a park in Washington on a physical device - well then of course the NSA will not have any tracks - the data did not travel over the web. Trump might have peace talks with Russia (Ukraine, Syria) reduce or end sanctions, reducing nuclear weapons - Obama signed a new excessively expensive nuclear program not long ago), end the politics of regime change. To me it looks like a POWER STRUGGLE - would not be the first time the agencies undermine elected politicians, presidents, Congress (Carter, Iran/Contra) or LIE to the public (in hearings) or yield to political power to come up with desired "evidence" (WMD's in Iraq)
1
-
+Jkap - it may be an uphill battle - but I think the people of WV go along nicely with Sanders. And he (and all Progressives) might go the extra mile to make a point to the Democratic party establishment. And even IF the Republicans win - at least Manchin WILL HAVE LOST his position. Sometimes in war you will LOSE BATTLES - as long as you WIN THE WAR ! And you should not make the mistake to be so afraid of losing ANY battles, to choose the safest scenario in EVERY NARROW context, that you give up all leverage to win the war.
Of course Manchin can HOPE that the donors (he supposedly does not even know) will provide him with a cushy position if he loses (if he did them enough favors when being active .....). However, those golden parachutes may be limited AND the donors might be inclined to put their bets on the Republicans in the future. When the progressives help beating the corporate Dems (even if that results in a win of a Republican), those corporate Dems become USELESS for the donors.
The MOST IMPORTANT function of Democrats isto keep the progressives from winning.
That strategy might sound like self-harming, it sure sounds scary - but you have to see the bigger picture.
And anyway, the cautious route and going for the "lesser evil" has not worked at all. The Dems lost on every level of government during the Obama years.
As Jill Stein said: "Voting for the lesser of two evils every single time gave us everything we were afraid of."
It is a little bit like standing up to the bully on the school yard. Yes, you might get a bloody nose. But caving in is no solution anyway - and when the bully gets a bloody nose as well, he might be rethinking his position regarding you. Not only YOU lose - the bully loses as well. That might protect your interests in the long run (with some sacrifices).
If more and more Dems are losing their seats because of Progressives (even if the GOP wins THAT race, which means a loss in THAT narrow context) some Democratic ex-politicians will have to fend for themselves. And THAT prospect will make them nervous, very nervous.
It worked with the Labour Party of U.K. - the (mostly neoliberal) party establishment was so scared of losing in landslide - but on the contrary: all could keep their seats in Parliament and they won some extra seats.
So for once (and for the time being) they can be bothered to support their progressive (directly elected) party leader, and the mass movement that the party has become. At least the CONSTANT neoliberal backstabbers are silent for now. The progressive manifesto (the party platform) is the order of the day and I do not think they will dare to defect in the votes - the grassroots would be at their throats and they recentely have been threatened with "deselection" (being primaried). I had given up on the Labour Party - but if they are afraid enough, one can work with them for the time being. Either they change in a convincing manner (plus a lot of oversight and a$$kicking from the base) - or they will be replaced over time.
So FEAR OF HAVING NO POSITION AT ALL BRINGS THEM TO HEEL.
Manchin losing the primary in itself would be a very strong signal to all Dems.
It would be a reminder/request:
a) campaign with small donations
b) be very supportive of anything Sanders and the Progressives like - they are an unpaid army that is a real force to counteract big money - and if they like you, they will run for you
c) DO THE BIDDING OF YOUR DONORS - all those average 15 - 27 USD contributors
d) you have to be CONTENT with the salary and benefits of a politician, and you have to connect with the voters and acutally deliver FOR THEM. THEN THEY WILL GIVE YOU A JOB GUARANTEE (see Sanders in VT).
d) If you see a political career ONLY as a stepping stone * for a corporate / lobbying career switch to the GOP - you are in the wrong party.
* no kidding, some "representatives" secure corporate funding to get themselves elected into Congress. They do it for their C.V., they network, they connect with the Party leadership and the donors - the ulitimate goal is to get one of the lucrative lobbying positions, or to be offered a position on a board of a company, or to found their own lobbying or consulting firm (and to have the network that grants you clients), or at least have the SuperPacs buy truckloads of your books, ...
I guess such "well connected" suckers (former "interns" or even ex politicians) were running the Clinton campaign. And have you SEEN the sticker proposals the Dems sent out by email in the last days ? The citizens on the maillist which they ask for donations are "allowed" to VOTE on SOMETHING.
No person that is good in marketing, social media, or PR would EVER come up with such proposals. They are not only dishonest, they do not even lie well or with some wit, and they are utterly clueless about the mood in the country.
Those responsible for the proposals are not professionals, they must be darlings of the establishment with some college training and with good connections who are fed with orders.
It is a self sustaining, self-replicating system - one giant, lucrative, bubble. - Well, until now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Part 3 of 7 last but certainly not least: FIAT MONEY. if a bank gives out a loan they create approx. 90 % of it "out of thin air". If one person lends money to another they must "have" 100 % the money to begin with - but that does not apply to banks. A loan is an accounting exercise. Banks have a legal privilege:
if the borrower signs the contract with the promise to pay back (the contract specifies the conditions, like interest or fees, plus sometimes a collateral) - the banks are legally allowed to book that contract as "asset" on one side of the balance sheet (they enter the number of the loan amount - interest and fees come later and they are booked on OTHER accounts - revenue - as they come in).
Plus they open something that works like a savings account in reverse on the other side of the balance sheet (double accounting): the credit / loan account where they enter the numbers which represent the loan (and that is purchasing power for the borrower). They do not need to "have" money (or only a small part of it - in the range of 10 %).
if interested search with the term FIAT money. One of the best explanations I found is by Dr. Richard Werner (in a video the Finance Curse, the show was aired on Renegade Inc. which is a format of RT).
Loans given out by banks that use the legal provision FIAT MONEY allows to tap into the "dormant" resources of the economy. But it is only possible because a whole economy backs that concept up. With the law, with regulations. The loan gives purchasing power which would be meaningless if the borrower could not buy something of value with it - incl. things that help to start and grow a biz.
There is also the concept of fractional reserve: That introduces you to the idea that banks lend money which they do not "have", it is more of a theoretical concept, that is NOT how it works in practice now (it may never have been applied as it is lined out in the books - fractional reserve is a concept that shows up more often in academia especially in older literature). btw the central banks are supposed to have an eye on it that the banks do not abuse their legal privilege of "money creation" - well that used to work until the 1980s, then deregulation and mergers let the banks off the leash, there is little control how much money they create.
There are other ways of money creation by the governement (with help of a central bank) as well:
1) printing bank notes and coins (but they are a tiny part of the "money" we use - which is logical the big amounts are always transfered for safety and comfort)
2) direct money creation by the government (they did that with QE to the tune of trillions), and some experiments like the Brixton Pound in the U.K. in WW1. The banks do not want to masses to know how money creation works when for-profit banks do it (there are reasons to be made to let them have at least a part of that sector) - and they certainly do not want that the knowledge spread that the government could well work in that niche as well. For the benefit of the citizens.
In capitalism it is very important to have the "money" to pay upfront for the large investments necessary to have mass production of goods and services (there is a reason it is called "capitalism". The idea that not only rich people or banks can provide that money and that the government is not restricted to the budgets funded by tax revenue would upset the apple cart.
Banking, finance, interest rates, the stock exchange, speculation (now derivates), money (a virtual thing, a legal and societal agreement) has always been the playground and the tools of the rich and powerful to serve their interests.
FIAT money was used by banks in the 17th century, may not have been strictly legal then (today there are legal and accounting provisions) but they did it anyway, with impunity and only to the advantage of the few. Likewise there has been a lot of speculation going on on the stock exchange over the centuries. it is not necessary to have a stock exchange to finance an economy - but it has been the playground for the rich for centuries.
London Stock Exchange 1815, inconclusive reports coming in from the battle of Waterloo in Belgium. It took some time for the news to travel from the European continent to the island, and communication technology was not helpful. the reports came from people that were in the middle of it or watchd a part of the chaos from the sidelines. It was not clear initially that the troops of Napoleon were about to be defeated. Fortunes were made and lost that day in London, then the financial capital of the world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kofi Prempeh #ADOS 2020 One reason black people had to be villified was to justify chattle slavery (and later the fact that it had happened). It was an economic project. The rich landowners wanted cheap labor to put the land to use, growing indigo, tobacco and preparing the land was hard and unhealthy work.
If an European was willing to do that work, they would do so on their own land, not as farm worker for the rich (or only against better wages).
Servitude was fading out in Europe. the Catholic pope did not allow the believers to enslave each other (if they were white / European), the Protestants had qualms about that as well.
So killing each others in wars was fine but not slavery. Sure the ruling class deported poor people for minor offenses to the colonies to have cheap labor and to defend it against the natives, but that was just not enough.
So they started buying kidnapped people from Africa for the model of PLANTATION CASH CROPS.
The poor whites (not plantation owners these were often rich people from Europe that came over to use the business opportunities) would soon have found out that they had more in common with the black people than with the slave holders.
Socializing, eating, celebrating, worshipping with them and having babies together.
Now that had to be stopped. At all costs.
The rich were the minority they needed the poor whites to control the black slaves (or even free black people that were still discriminated against).
Which explains why it was O.K. for white men to have (forced) sex with black females, but all hell broke loose if a white woman would have been involved.
And they had to make it unthinkable that there could be honorable, recognized unions between white and black / brown people. Or close relationships ON EUQAL FOOTING.
Therefore segregation (officially in the South and informally in the North). Therefore inter marriages were forbidden.
1
-
1
-
Kofi Prempeh #ADOS 2020 One expression of discrimination / racism is economic disadvantages. Or the treatment by police and justice system. Less access to education, good jobs, easy voting, housing, loans.... Sanders policies would address those disadvantage, they would disproportionally help black people.
The people of Latin America have not been enslaved, they were often victim of U.S. imperialism which ALSO profitted the rich, not most Americans. Poor Latinos would also profit from the Sanders policies. People that fled their countries because of the U.S. meddling, propping up drug lords, local dictators - the consequences of that still affect the countries decades later.
The Sanders policies are not reparations but they would bring relief and FAST.
It would be hard to villify these policies using dogwhistles because low-income white, Asian, .... people would benefit as well.
Which is currently the ONLY way to get a politician elected that would do a lot of good also for the black community.
People are self-interested. Many of the the white people (or non-blacks) in West Virginia, Florida, the Rust Belt states have enough economic problems of their own:
Reparations will not be a winning electoral issue. It would be a lot of discussion for sure, a huge fight, Trump would have a hay day. Never mind it would be complicated to pull off - and then many poor black people might get some money but have still to deal with high rent and completely overpriced costs for health- and childcare, never mind student loans.
We might wish voters to be more selfless and vote based on moral principles - but WHEN have U.S. voters done that ? EVER ?
It was hard enough when they lost their sons in wars !
I think Dr. King recognized that in the late 1960s. The political advantage of pushing for UNIVERSAL programs for low income people - whatever the cause for their poverty may be (like being of the race that were abused as slaves).
Cory Booker does just fine, so does Kamala Harris (she has black heritage too). They can make do without reparations. They are of an income level where they help fund the programs for lower income people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U.S. did not REBUILD the European nations with the Marshall plan - and apart from Germany and Austria the countries were NOT destroyed by the Allied Forces. The U.S., UK, French army were enthusiastically greeted in Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, France, .... (The Soviet forces not so much...)
The Marshall Plan was a wise move, certainly beneficial: But Western Europe would have recovered even w/o the Marshall Plan (I admit that U.K was in a bad shape, maybe it was more consequential for them, they also had taken out huge loans during the war from the U.S. to buy military equipment. And they were dependent on the colonies - which they lost after WW2, so the colonies were more of a military cost factor after WW2 than that they helped in the recovery.
Germany for instance was not completely wrecked by bombing (many people seem to believe that). They lost large areas of land, had to deal with a lot of German refugees (from territory of Tschechia, Poland). Many, many men had fallen.
And they were not allowed to increase steel production, it was restricted to only 25 % of the war output. The plan was to keep down the former economic and industrial powerhouse and to reduce it to a poor agricultural nation (Germany is in the moderate climate zone, so that was not ideal ...). It was not meant to be good for Germany - on the contrary - this was the Morgenthau Plan.
After 2 years if became obvious that Europe would not recover w/o the economic recovery of Germany. And in elections all over Europe the Left parties and also Communists became stronger (and the Soviet Union of course tried to infiltrate them, even though the European Communists did have their own profile). Germany was occupied so they could be controlled - but France, Italy, UK, ....
This is when the U.S. became wise and came up with the Marshall Plan. And the provisory German adminstration lobbied the occupiers to also allow the increase of industrial and steel and coal production - it would not make much sense to give the Marshall Plan loans and to keep Germany down otherwise.
Europe was "needed" by the U.S. as ally in the Cold War and as potential site of first impact in case of a nuclear war between the S.U. - the U.S. has nuclear weapons stationed in Western Germany.
The U.S. absolutely wanted to avoid that the well developed European nations (technology !!, especially Germany) would become too friendly with the Soviet Union (resources, fossil fuel - and transport ways on land not on the U.S. dominated oceans).
Stalin died in 1953. In 1952 he had made the offer that the Soviet army would LEAVE the area of Eastern Germany and an unification would be possible (that was long before the wall of Berlin, etc.). But Germany should become a NEUTRAL state (then the NATO membership of Germany was discussed).That offer of Stalin was first kept secret in Germany and then dismissed as "insincere".
That would certainly have been a much better plan. At least after Stalin's death a thawing of relationships and a thawing within the Soviet Union would have been possible, the hostility of the U.S. always strengthened the position of the HARDLINERS in the Soviet Politbureau.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1