bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘NAZI GERMANY’

FORGET ABOUT AFGHANISTAN—THE TALIBAN IS RIGHT HERE

In History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 13, 2019 at 12:05 am

On April 15, 2015, CBS News broke a truly sensational and disturbing story:

Agents from the FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) were investigating the online leak of home addresses of senior and former officials of the FBI, DHS and other Federal law enforcement agencies.

Even worse: Rather than Islamic terrorists being the culprits, the suspects were believed to be members of an American Right-wing extremist group.

The message was entitled: DHS-CIA-FBI TRAITORS HOME ADDRESSES.

It read: “LET THESE EVIL NWO SATANISTS KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY FOR THEIR 911 TREASON, AND THEIR FUTURE FEMA CAMP PLANNED PUBLIC CRACKDOWN TREASON ALSO

“JESUS IS LORD, AND THE PUBLIC IS IN CHARGE, NOT THESE SATANIC NWO STOOGES”

“NWO” could be an acronym for “New World Order,” a term used by conspiracy theorists to refer to a totalitarian world government.

In a statement, DHS said:

“The safety of our workforce is always a primary concern. DHS has notified employees who were identified in the posting and encouraged them to be vigilant. DHS will adjust security measures, as appropriate, to protect our employees.”

CBS did not say where the information was posted. 

Click here: Right-Wing Group Blamed In Leak Of U.S. Officials’ Home Addresses: Report

Four years later, a check of Google stories about this crime shows no updates released by the government. So presumably the investigation is continuing.

Americans shouldn’t be shocked to find that a Right-wing group betrayed the safety of its fellow Americans.

The goals of both the American Right and Islamic terrorist groups such as the Taliban actually share much in common:

  • Women should have fewer rights than men.
  • Abortion should be illegal.
  • There should be no separation between church and state.
  • Religion should be taught in school.
  • Religious doctrine trumps science.
  • Government should be based on religious doctrine.
  • Homosexuality should be outlawed.

A 2010 book, American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin, and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right, vividly documents the similarities between these two groups.

Its author is Markos Moulitsas, founder of Daily Kos, an American political blog that publishes news and opinions from a liberal viewpoint.

American Taliban opens with this provocative statement:

“Yes, the Republican party, and the entire modern conservative movement is, in fact, very much like the Taliban.

“In their tactics and on the issues, our homegrown American Taliban are almost indistinguishable from the Afghan Taliban.

“The American Taliban—whether in their militaristic zeal, their brute faith in masculinity, their disdain for women’s rights, their outright hatred of gays, their aversion to science and modernity or their staunch anti-intellectualism—share a litany of mores, values, and tactics with Islamic extremists….

“Let’s be honest, the freedoms that jihadists hate are the very same freedoms that our own homegrown repressive ideologues hate: freedom of thought, of inquiry, of lifestyle.”

Its subsequent chapters document the all-consuming rage of the American Right to brutally control the lives of their fellow citizens.

Ironically, Moulitsas’ thesis is—unintentionally—supported by no less an authority than Right-wing author Dinesh D’Souza.

Among the bestsellers D’Souza has written: Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader, and Obama’s America: Unmaking the American Dream.

The title of his 2008 bestseller sums up D’Souza’s take on liberalism: The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11.

From the book’s dust jacket:

“Muslims and other traditional people around the world allege that secular American values are being imposed on their societies and that these values undermine religious belief, weaken the traditional family, and corrupt the innocence of children.

“But it is not ‘America’ that is doing this to them, it is the American cultural left. What traditional societies consider repulsive and immoral, the cultural left considers progressive and liberating….

“D’Souza argues that the war on terror is really a war for the hearts and minds of traditional Muslims—and traditional peoples everywhere. The only way to win the struggle with radical Islam is to convince traditional Muslims that America is on their side.”  

In short: America needs to adopt the values of the Taliban.

* * * * *

On March 19, 1945, facing certain defeat, Adolf Hitler ordered a massive “scorched-earth” campaign throughout Germany.

All German agriculture, industry, ships, communications, roads, food stuffs, mines, bridges, stores and utility plants were to be destroyed.

If implemented, it would deprive the entire German population of even the barest necessities after the war.

Adolf Hitler addressing boy soldiers as the Third Reich crumbles

“If the war is lost,” Hitler told Albert Speer, his former architect and now Minister of Armaments, “the nation will also perish.

“This fate is inevitable. There is no necessity to take into consideration the basis which the people will need to continue even a most primitive existence.

“On the contrary, it will be better to destroy these things ourselves, because this nation will have proved to be the weaker one and the future will belong solely to the stronger eastern nation.

“Besides, those who will remain after the battle are only the inferior ones, for the good ones have all been killed.”

Hitler’s view was: “If I can’t rule Germany, there won’t be a Germany.”

Apparently, some members of the American Right have reached the same decision about the United States. 

GERMANY’S INFAMOUS PAST IS AMERICA’S FUTURE LEGACY

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on August 23, 2019 at 12:04 am

Those who have seen the classic 1960 movie, “Judgment at Nuremberg,” will remember its pivotal moment. 

That’s when Burt Lancaster, as Ernst Janning, the once distinguished German judge, confesses his guilt and that of Nazi Germany in a controlled, yet emotional, outburst. 

Addressing the court—presided over by Chief Judge Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy)—Janning explains the forces that led to the triumph of evil.

“My counsel would have you believe we were not aware of the concentration camps. Not aware? Where were we?

“Where were we when Hitler began shrieking his hate in the Reichstag? When our neighbors were dragged out in the middle of the night to Dachau?

“Where were we when every village in Germany has a railroad terminal where cattle cars were filled with children being carried off to their extermination? Where were we when they cried out in the night to us? Were we deaf? Dumb? Blind?

“My counsel says we were not aware of the extermination of the millions. He would give you the excuse we were only aware of the extermination of the hundreds. Does that make us any the less guilty?

“Maybe we didn’t know the details, but if we didn’t know, it was because we didn’t want to know.”170592-Judgment-at-Nuremberg-Posters.jpg

It’s not hard to imagine, in the future, an equally conscience-stricken member of the Donald Trump administration, standing before the bar of justice, making a similar statement: 

“My counsel would have you believe we were not aware of the ICE concentration camps. Not aware. Where were we?

“Where were we when Trump began shrieking his hate across the country? When Trump called our free press ‘the enemy of the people’?

“Where were we when Trump openly praised Vladimir Putin and attacked those in the FBI, CIA and other Intelligence agencies sworn to protect us?

“Where were we when the victims of Trump’s hatred cried out in the night to us? Were we deaf? Dumb? Blind?

“My counsel says we were not aware of Trump’s treasonous collusion with Vladimir Putin—and his intention to betray American freedoms in exchange for the Presidency. He would give you the excuse we were misled by the lying rhetoric coming out of the White House.

“Does that make us any the less guilty? Maybe we didn’t know the details, but if we didn’t know, it was because we didn’t want to know.”

Related image

Donald Trump

In his bestselling 1973 biography, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler, British historian Robert Payne harshly condemned the German people for the rise of the Nazi dictator:

“[They] allowed themselves to be seduced by him and came to enjoy the experience….[They] followed him with joy and enthusiasm because he gave them license to pillage and murder to their hearts’ content. They were his servile accomplices, his willing victims.”

On November 8, 2016, millions of ignorant, hate-filled, Right-wing Americans catapulted Donald Trump—a man, charged conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks, with an “odd psychology unleavened by kindness and charity”—into the Presidency. 

Whereas Barack Obama, in 2008, ran for President on the slogan, “Yes, We Can!” Trump ran on the themes of fear and vindictiveness. He threatened violence not only against Democrats but even his fellow Republicans.

Upon taking office in January, 2017, Trump began undermining one public or private institution after another.

  • He repeatedly and viciously attacked the nation’s free press for daring to report his growing list of crimes and disasters, calling it “the enemy of the American people.”
  • He brutally attacked American Intelligence agencies—such as the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency—which unanimously agreed that Russia had interfered with the 2016 Presidential election.
  • Trump repeatedly attacked Seattle US District Judge James Robart, who halted Trump’s first travel ban. 
  • When FBI Director James Comey refused to pledge his personal loyalty to Trump—and continued to investigate Russian subversion of the 2016 election—Trump fired him.
  • Trump intended to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller in 2017, but was talked out of it by aides fearful that it would result in his impeachment.
  • Trump has lied so often—10,796 times by June 7, 2019—he’s universally distrusted, at home and abroad.
  • On December 22, 2018, Trump shut down the Federal government—because Democrats refused to fund his “border wall” between the United States and Mexico. 
  • An estimated 380,000 government employees were furloughed and another 420,000 were ordered to work without pay. This lasted until January 25, 2019, when Trump caved to public pressure.

So why have Republicans almost unanimously stood by Trump despite the wreckage he has made of American foreign and domestic policy?  Fear that they will lose their privileged positions in Congress if they don’t.

This could happen by:

  • Their being voted out of Congress by Trump’s fanatical base; or
  • Their being voted out of Congress by anti-Trump voters sensing Republican weakness if he’s impeached.

Future historians—if there are any—will similarly and harshly condemn those Americans who, like “good Germans,” joyfully embraced a regime dedicated to:

  • Celebrating Trump’s egomania;
  • Using the White House to further enrich Trump;
  • Siding with Russia and North Korea against America’s oldest allies, such as NATO;
  • Depriving America’s poor of their only source of healthcare; and
  • Further enriching the ultra-wealthy.

REPUBLICANS: “BETTER RED THAN UN-ELECTED”: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on July 31, 2019 at 12:25 am

Upon taking office as President in 1981, Ronald Reagan decided to end the “stalemate” of “containing” Communism. He intended to “roll it back.”

American proxies fought Soviet proxies in Afghanistan and Central America, but the world escaped nuclear holocaust.

During the 1980s and 1990s, Republicans continued to accuse Democrats of being devious agents—or at least unwitting pawns—of “the Communist conspiracy.”

In 1992, President George H.W. Bush and the Republican establishment charged that Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton might be a KGB plant.

George H.W. Bush

Their “evidence”: During his tenure at Oxford University in 1969-70, Clinton had briefly visited Moscow. 

After the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, Republicans found that accusing Democrats of being “Commies” didn’t carry the same weight.

So they turned to “domestic enemies” to rail—and run—against: Liberals, blacks, Hispanics, “uppity” women, war protesters, lesbians, gays, and—after 9/11—Muslims.

From 1945 to 2015, it was unthinkable for a Republican Presidential candidate to pay tribute to a Soviet dictator.

But that utterly changed when Donald J. Trump, a “reality TV” host with longstanding financial ties to Russian oligarchs, ran for President of the United States.

Related image

Donald Trump

Trump lavishly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin—and even invited him to directly interfere in the 2016 Presidential race.

The reason for the Trump-Putin bromance: Each had something to offer the other.

Putin wanted the United States to ditch the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance, which had preserved Western Europe from Russian aggression since World War II. And Trump had often attacked America’s funding of NATO as a drain on the American economy.

And Trump wanted to be President. For this, Putin could supply Internet trolls to confuse voters with falsified news—and even the hacking of key voting centers.

And monies. These Russian monies were officially classified as “campaign contributions,” not bribes.

On July 22, 2016, Wikileaks released 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments hacked from computers of the highest-ranking officials of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Early reports traced the leak to Russian hackers.

On July 27, Trump said at a press conference in Doral, Florida: “Russia, if you are listening, I hope you are able to find the 33,000 emails that are missing [from Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s computer]. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Hours later, the Main Intelligence Directorate in Moscow targeted Clinton’s personal office and hit more than 70 other Clinton campaign accounts.

This is treason—calling upon a foreign power, hostile to the United States, to interfere in its Presidential election.

Nor is Trump the only Republican receiving “help” from Putin. A network of Russian oligarchs—all of them answerable to Putin—has been increasingly contributing to top Republicans. 

According to the Federal Election Commission:

One such major contributor is Len Blavatnik, who holds citizenship in both the United States and the United Kingdom. During the 2015-16 election cycle, he proved one of the largest donors to GOP Political Action Committees (PACs).  

Blavatnik’s net worth is estimated at $20 billion. Before 2016, he donated to both Democrats and Republicans in meager amounts. But in 2016, he gave $6.35 million to GOP PACs

Millions of dollars went to top Republican leaders—such as Senators Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), Marco Rubio (Florida) and Lindsey Graham (South Carolina).

Specifically, he contributed:

  • A total of $1.5 million to PACs associated with Rubio.  
  • $1 million to Trump’s Inaugural Committee
  • $41,000 to both Republicans and Democrats in 2017.
  • $1 million to McConnell’s Senate Leadership Fund.
  • $3.5 million to a PAC associated with McConnell
  • $1.1 million to Unintimidated PAC, associated with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. 
  • $200,000 to the Arizona Grassroots Action PAC, associated with the late Arizona Senator John McCain. 
  • $250,000 to New Day for America PAC, associated with Ohio Governor John Kasich
  • $800,000 to the Security is Strength PAC, associated with Senator Lindsey Graham

Related image

Another Russian oligarch, Alexander Shustorovich, contributed $1 million to Trump’s Inaugural Committee.

Altogether, four Russian oligarchs—Blavatnik, Shustorovich, Andrew Intrater and Simon Kukescontributed $10.4 million from the start of the 2015-16 election cycle through September 2017. Of this, 99% went to Republicans.

As Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell participated in high-level intelligence briefings in 2016. From agencies such as the FBI, CIA and the code-cracking National Security Agency, he learned that the Russians were trying to subvert the electoral process. 

Related image

In October, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) issued a joint statement: The Russian government had directed the effort to subvert the 2016 Presidential election.

Two weeks later, McConnell’s PAC accepted a $1 million donation from Blavatnik.

On March 30, 2017, McConnell’s PAC accepted another $1 million from Blavatnik.

This is just 10 days after former FBI Director James Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee about Russia’s efforts to subvert the 2016 election

So, what has changed in the Republican Party?  Essentially nothing.

Its enemies changed—from Russian Communists to American liberals—but its goal remains the same: The quest for absolute power.

When Americans feared Communism, Republicans depicted themselves as the only ones who could be trusted to protect the United States. Big contributions poured in from Right-wing billionaires like H.L. Hunt and Howard Hughes.

But when Republicans found they could enrich themselves and stay in power via Russian “campaign contributions,” they decided: Better Red than un-elected.

REPUBLICANS: “BETTER RED THAN UN-ELECTED”: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on July 30, 2019 at 12:17 am

On July 24, former Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III finally addressed Congress on Russia’s subversion of the 2016 Presidential election.

Mueller had spent almost two years uncovering links between Russian Intelligence agents and members of Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign.

“Over the course of my career, I’ve seen a number of challenges to our democracy,” Mueller declared to members of the House Judiciary Committee. “The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious. As I said on May 29, this deserves the attention of every American.

“Many more countries are developing the capability to replicate what the Russians have done.

“It wasn’t a single attempt. They’re doing it as we sit here. And they expect to do it during the next campaign.”

Director Robert S. Mueller- III.jpg

Robert Mueller

In his report, Mueller documented years of meddling in American politics by the Internet Research Agency, which runs the Kremlin’s online disinformation efforts from its headquarters in St. Petersburg. 

The Agency reached 126 million Americans through fake accounts on Facebook. Its messages communicated with unaware members of the Trump campaign, and even prompted real-life rallies that mobilized crowds of unwitting voters.

Hours later that same day, Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Mississippi) blocked the passage of three bills designed to tighten election security at the federal level. She claimed that Congress had already responded to election security needs for the 2020 Presidential election.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) came to the Senate floor the next day to personally object to House-passed legislation backed by Democrats.

There was a time when Republicans saw—and portrayed—themselves as America’s foremost defenders against Communism. 

This was particularly true during the early 1950s. Case in point: Wisconsin United States Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. 

Elected to the Senate in 1946, he rose to national prominence on February 9, 1950, after giving a fiery speech in Wheeling, West Virginia: 

“The State Department is infested with communists. I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.”

Joseph McCarthy

Americans were already growing increasingly fearful of Communism:

  • Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin had not withdrawn the Red Army from the countries it had occupied in Eastern Europe during World War II.
  • In 1948, the Soviet Union developed—and demonstrated—its own atomic bomb, an achievement U.S. scientists had claimed would not happen for at least a decade.
  • In 1949, China fell to the triumphant armies of Mao Tse Tung.  Generalissimo Chaing Kai Shek was driven from mainland China to the tiny island of Taiwan.

Anti-communism as a lever to political advancement sharply accelerated following McCarthy’s speech. 

No American—no matter how prominent—was safe from the accusation of being a Communist or a Communist sympathizer—”a Comsymp” or “fellow traveler” in the language of the era.

Among those accused:

  • Secretary of State George C. Marshall, who had overseen America’s strategy for defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
  • President Harry S. Truman.
  • Playwrights Lillian Hellman and Arthur Miller.
  • Actors Charlie Chaplin, Zero Mostel, Lloyd Bridges, Howard Da Silva, Edward G. Robinson and John Garfield.
  • Composers Arron Copland and Elmer Bernstein.
  • Physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, who presided over the creation of America’s atomic bomb.
  • Actresses Lee Grant, Delores del Rio, Ruth Gordon and Lucille Ball.
  • Journalists Edward R. Murrow and William L. Shirer, who had chronicled the rise of Nazi Germany.
  • Folksinger Pete Seeger.
  • Writers Irwin Shaw, Howard Fast, John Steinbeck and Dashiell Hammett

Related image

Even “untouchable” Republicans became targets for such slander.

The most prominent of these: President Dwight D. Eisenhower—labeled ”a conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist Conspiracy” by Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society in 1958.

In 1953, McCarthy attacked the leadership of the United States Army as “a hotbed of traitors” and convened an inquiry through the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

But the hearings backfired, exposing McCarthy as a bullying demagogue. A Senate committee condemned his behavior as acting “contrary to senatorial ethics and tended to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute.”

Yet even without McCarthy, Republicans rode the issue of anti-Communism to victory from 1948 to 1992. “Respectable” anti-Communists—like Richard M. Nixon—depicted themselves as the only ones who could be trusted to safeguard America.

Republicans held the White House for eight years under Dwight D. Eisenhower, then lost it in 1960 to John F. Kennedy and again in 1964 to Lyndon B. Johnson.

By 1968, with the nation mired in Vietnam and convulsed by antiwar demonstrations and race riots, Americans turned once more to those who preyed upon their fears and hates.

They elected Richard Nixon, who promised to end the Vietnam war and attack “uppity” blacks and antiwar demonstrators—and, above all, “the Communist menace.”

The same strategy re-elected him in 1972.

Jimmy Carter won the Presidency in 1976 and lost it in 1980 to Ronald Reagan. And Republicans held the White House until 1992.

WHY REPUBLICANS SUPPORT SEX PREDATORS

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on July 23, 2019 at 12:05 am

Why do Republican voters support sex predators? 

Roy Moore’s 2017 run for Republican United States Senator from Alabama offers several answers.

To attain his goal, he had to overcome a serious obstacle: The allegation that, during his 30s, he pursued relationships with teenage girls.

At least nine women accused him of making improper advances toward them—ranging from harassment to sexual assault. 

In years past, such allegations would have proven fatal for any political candidate—especially one who repeatedly cited the Bible as his source of inspiration. 

But in 2016, Presidential candidate Donald Trump proved that more than a dozen women can accuse you of sexual harassment—or even assault—and you can still win office.

Judge Roy Moore.jpg

Roy Moore 

So Moore hoped that what worked for Trump would work for him: Deny all the charges and accuse your accusers of lying in pursuit of a corrupt political agenda. 

And many Alabama voters said they would support him—even if the charges were true.

Among the reasons they offered:

“The Lord has forgiven him.”

According to voter Dottie Finch: “At first, I really wasn’t sure how I felt about the situation.  But then I look at it this way: I don’t have the best past, and to have it be brought up after years of speculation and never anything being said about it, I don’t know just because he’s trying to prove himself that now people want to come out of the closet and accuse him of things.

“And if it has happened, I believe the good Lord has forgiven him and he has the right to continue to prove himself.

“I would power forward and keep on supporting him, just like I have with Donald Trump as our president.”

“Yes, he acted improperly.  But so did other people in the Bible.” 

One such voter was Jim Ziegler, Alabama state auditor: “Take the Bible: Zechariah and Elizabeth, for instance. Zechariah was extremely old to marry Elizabeth and they became the parents of John the Baptist.

“Also take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus. There’s just nothing immoral or illegal here. Maybe just a little bit unusual.”

“If Democrats say it, it has to be untrue.” 

According to voter Tom Cammack: “I feel that the Democrat Party, like a lot of things it does, tries to manufacture things to make President Trump look bad. It’s all done for political reasons.”

“He didn’t do anything wrong.”

Said Alfonso Bradford: “I don’t think he’s done anything like that. Why didn’t it come up seven to eight months ago when he was running?  All of a sudden, when it’s two weeks from now, all of this stuff comes up. I believe it’s a lot of BS. I really do.”

“He may be a pedophile, but he’s a Republican pedophile.”

Even a pedophile Republican was better, in their eyes, than any Democrat. For them, it was strictly a matter of holding power over those they hate. And the best way to guarantee that was with a Congress stocked with only Republicans.

According to Alabama Governor Kay Ivey:

“I believe in the Republican party, what we stand for, and, most important, we need to have a Republican in the United States Senate to vote on things like the Supreme Court justices, other appointments the Senate has to confirm and make major decisions. So that’s what I plan to do, vote for Republican nominee Roy Moore.” 

Fortunately for Alabama, Moore lost. His Democratic opponent, former United States Attorney Doug Jones, received 49.9% of the vote; Moore got 48.4%.

* * * * *

Seventy-four years ago, another fanatical, Right-wing woman concluded: “If we can’t rule the world, there’s no point in living in it.”

She was Magda Goebbels, wife of Joseph Goebbels—Propaganda Minister for the rapidly-collapsing Third Reich.

On April 30, 1945, Russian troops lay only a few blocks from the underground bunker where Adolf Hitler—and the Goebbels family—-awaited the inevitable.

That afternoon, at about 3 P.M., Hitler shot himself in the right temple while biting on a cyanide capsule.

Magda and Joseph Goebbels, with their six children and a uniformed friend

On May 1, it was the turn of his propaganda minister—and his wife.

“I do not wish to live in a world without National Socialism,” Magda Goebbels said.

Nor did she want her six children to do so: “The children are much too good for anything that will come after us.”

To make certain they escaped living in a world not governed by Nazis, she gave each of them a powerful sleeping tablet. Then she crushed a cyanide capsule between their jaws.

Finally, it was time to for Joseph and  Magda Goebbels to exit the Third Reich: He shot her in the back of the head, and then he shot himself.

That, more than anything, was the mentality at work in the upcoming Alabama election.

Those supporting Moore care, foremost, about having power over those they hate. And they will give their allegiance to any candidate, no matter how despicable, who promises to give them that.

LOVE THE RICH, IGNORE THE REST: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on June 25, 2019 at 12:15 am

The gap between rich and poor in the United States has never been greater.

A May 1, 2018 article in Forbes—which bills itself as “The Capitalist Tool”—vividly documents this truth.

“In the 1950s, a typical CEO made 20 times the salary of his or her average worker. Last year, [2017] CEO pay at an S&P 500 Index firm soared to an average of 361 times more than the average rank-and-file worker, or pay of $13,940,000 a year, according to an AFL-CIO’s Executive Paywatch news release today.”

The average CEO pay climbed six percent in 2017—while the average production worker earned just $38,613, according to Executive Paywatch.

The average wage—adjusted for inflation—has stagnated for more than 50 years. Meanwhile, CEOs’ average pay since the 1950s has risen by 1000%.

This would not have been news to Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of modern political science. In his masterwork, The Discourses, he observed the human condition as that of constant struggle: 

Portrait of Niccolò Machiavelli by Santi di Tito.jpg

Niccolo Machiavelli

It was a saying of ancient writers, that men afflict themselves in evil, and become weary of the good, and that both these dispositions produce the same effects. 

For when men are no longer obliged to fight from necessity, they fight from ambition, which passion is so powerful in the hearts of men that it never leaves them, no matter to what height they may rise.    

The reason for this is that nature has created men so that they desire everything, but are unable to attain it. Desire being thus always greater than the faculty of acquiring, discontent with what they have and dissatisfaction with themselves result from it. 

This causes the changes in their fortunes—for as some men desire to have more, while others fear to lose what they have, enmities and war are the consequences. And this brings about the ruin of one province and the elevation of another.

Author Walter Scheidel, Dickason Professor in the Humanities, Professor of Classics and History at Stanford University, has also given this subject a great deal of thought. And, like Machiavelli, he has reached some highly disturbing conclusions.

Walter Scheidel - Annual Meeting of the New Champions 2012.jpg

Walter Scheidel

World Economic Forum [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)%5D

He gave voice to these in his 2017 book, The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century. His thesis: Only violence and catastrophes have consistently reduced inequality throughout history

According to the book’s jacket blurb: “Are mass violence and catastrophes the only forces that can seriously decrease economic inequality? To judge by thousands of years of history, the answer is yes.

“Tracing the global history of inequality from the Stone Age to today, Walter Scheidel shows that inequality never dies peacefully. Inequality declines when carnage and disaster strike and increases when peace and stability return.

Related image

 

“The Great Leveler is the first book to chart the crucial role of violent shocks in reducing inequality over the full sweep of human history around the world.

“Ever since humans began to farm, herd livestock, and pass on their assets to future generations, economic inequality has been a defining feature of civilization. Over thousands of years, only violent events have significantly lessened inequality.

“The ‘Four Horsemen’ of leveling–mass-mobilization warfare, transformative revolutions, state collapse, and catastrophic plagues—have repeatedly destroyed the fortunes of the rich.

“Scheidel identifies and examines these processes, from the crises of the earliest civilizations to the cataclysmic world wars and communist revolutions of the twentieth century.

“Today, the violence that reduced inequality in the past seems to have diminished, and that is a good thing. But it casts serious doubt on the prospects for a more equal future.”

Revolutionaries have known the truth of Scheidel’s findings from the gladiators’ revolt of Spartacus (73-71 B.C.) to the French Revolution (1789 – 1799) to the overthrow of the Czarist Romanov dynasty (1917).

But American politicians serenely ignore that truth. They depend on the mega-rich for millions of dollars in “campaign contributions”—which pay for self-glorifying ads on TV.

Thus, in 2016, American voters had a “choice” between two “love-the-rich” Presidential candidates: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The result was that millions stayed home or voted in protest for third-party candidates who had no chance of winning.

In his 1975 book, The Corrupt Society: From Ancient Greece to Modern-day America, British historian Robert Payne warned that the predatory rich would not change their behavior: “Nor is there any likelihood that the rich will plow back their money into services to ensure the general good.

“They have rarely demonstrated social responsibility, and they are much more likely to hold on to their wealth at all costs than to renounce any part of it.

“Like the tyrant who lives in a world wholly remote from the world of the people, shielded and protected from all possible influences, the rich are usually the last to observe the social pressures rising from below, and when these social pressures reach flashpoint, it is too late to call in the police or the army.

“The tyrant dies; the police and the army go over to the revolutionaries; and the new government dispossesses the rich by decree. A single authoritative sentence suffices to expunge all private wealth and restore it to the service of the nation.”

LOVE THE RICH, IGNORE THE REST: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on June 24, 2019 at 1:21 am

Americans are used to Presidential candidates telling lies (euphemistically known as “campaign promises”) to get elected.

But when a candidate actually (and usually accidentally) tells the truth, the results can be electrifying. A pointed example:

On June 18, Democratic Presidential candidate (and momentary front-runner) Joe Biden addressed a roomful of donors in New York. Money is, after all, the lifeblood of all political campaigns, and Biden wanted to guarantee he got more of it than any of his 23 Democratic rivals.

So the former vice president had a message he felt sure would appeal to his well-heeled audience of billionaires: Don’t worry, if I’m elected, your standard of living won’t change.

Addressing the 100 or so guests at a fundraiser at the Carlyle Hotel in New York City, Biden said that he had taken heat from “some of the people on my team, on the Democratic side” because he had said that rich people were “just as patriotic as poor people.

Biden 2013.jpg

Joe Biden

“The truth of the matter is, you all, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done. We can disagree in the margins but the truth of the matter is it’s all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished. No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change,” he said. 

And he added: “I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who has made money.

Related image

“When we have income inequality as large as we have in the United States today, it brews and ferments political discord and basic revolution. Not a joke. Not a joke … It allows demagogues to step in and say the reason where we are is because of the ‘other’….

“You’re not the other. I need you very badly. I hope if I win this nomination, I won’t let you down. I promise you. I have a bad reputation, I always say what I mean. The problem is I sometimes say all that I mean.”

Biden has talked about decreasing income inequality and promoting workers’ rights. But he’s taken a moderate stance when it comes to taxation.

Vermont United States Senator Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has attacked the ultra-rich as responsible for the ever-widening gap between themselves and the poor.

“I love Bernie, but I’m not Bernie Sanders. I don’t think 500 billionaires are the reason why we’re in trouble,” Biden said in March.

Instead, he proposes expanding tax credits for the poor and middle class, and making the tax code less friendly to rich investors. 

Robert Payne, the distinguished British historian, had a different—and darker—view of the rich.

Payne authored more than 110 books. Among his subjects were Adolf Hitler, Ivan the Terrible, Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, William Shakespeare and Leon Trotsky.

In 1975, he published The Corrupt Society: From Ancient Greece to Present-Day America. It proved a summary of many of his previous works.

Related image

Among the epochs it covered were the civilizations of ancient Greece, Rome and China; Nazi Germany; the Soviet Union; and Watergate-era America. And the massive corruption each of those epochs had spawned.

In his chapter, “A View of the Uncorrupted Society,” Payne warned: Power and wealth are the main sources of corruption.

“The rich, simply by being rich, are infected with corruption. Their overwhelming desire is to grow richer, but they can do this only at the expense of those who are poorer than themselves.

”Their interests conflict with those of the overall society. They live sheltered from the constant anxieties of the poor, and thus cannot understand them.  Nor do they try to.

They see the poor as alien from themselves, and thus come to fear and despise them. And their wealth and influence enables them to buy politicians—who, in turn, write legislation that protects the rich from the poor.

But Payne foresaw an even greater danger from the rich and powerful than their mere isolation from the rest of society: “The mere presence of the rich is corrupting. Their habits, their moral codes, their delight in conspicuous consumption are permanent affronts to the rest of humanity. Vast inequalities of wealth are intolerable in any decent society.”

Writing in 1975, Payne noted that a third of the private wealth was possessed by less than five percent of the population—while about a fifth of the populace lived at the poverty level. By 2000, he predicted, about five percent of the population would possess two-thirds of America’s wealth. And more than half the population would be near or below the starvation level. 

The result could only be catastrophe. The only way to halt this this increasing concentration of wealth by fewer people would be through law or violent revolution.

Payne has proven to be an uncanny prophet.

On December 8, 2017, the Seattle Times noted that the wealthiest one percent of Americans owned 40% of the country’s wealth.  They owned more wealth than the bottom 90% combined. 

From 2013, the share of wealth owned by the one percent increased by nearly three percentage points. Wealth owned by the bottom 90%, meanwhile, fell over the same period.

But this situation need not remain permanent.

“WINNING” UNDER TRUMP AND HITLER

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on June 21, 2019 at 12:02 am

“We will have so much winning if I get elected [President] that you may get bored with winning.”

So boasted Donald Trump at a September, 2015 Capitol Hill rally to protest President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.

But as the 2020 Presidential race nears, President Trump is looking ever more like a loser. 

Among the victims of Trump’s “winning” streak: Several pollsters whose internal polling numbers showed him lagging behind Democratic Presidential candidates in key states.

Related image

Donald Trump

When matched against Democratic contender and former Vice President Joe Biden, Trump’s numbers came to:

                                  Trump        Biden

VIRGINIA:                     38%           53%

MAINE                          38%           55%

MINNESOTA                 40%           54%

MICHIGAN                    40%           53%

In Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan, Trump trails Biden by double-digits. These were states Trump won against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Biden leads Trump by seven points in Iowa, by eight points in North Carolina, by 17 points in Virginia, by 14 points in Minnesota, and by 15 points in Maine.

Even worse for Trump, who cannot admit error or weakness: Some of his own pollsters dared to leak the bad news.

As a result, his Presidential campaign is cutting ties with several of his pollsters.

Predictably, Trump claimed he was doing just fine. He said his campaign had “great internal polling” and the numbers reported were from “fake polls.”

“We are winning in every single state that we’ve polled. We’re winning in Texas very big. We’re winning in Ohio very big. We’re winning in Florida very big,” he said.

Trump’s 2015 boast reflected he mindset, if not the words, of an earlier CEO whose ego carried him—and his country—to ruin: Adolf Hitler.

Among the fatal errors that led to the defeat of the Third Reich:

  • Wasting hundreds of  Luftwaffe [air force] pilots, fighters and bombers in a halfhearted attempt to conquer England.
  • Ignoring the pleas of generals like Erwin Rommel to conquer Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, which would have given Germany control of most of the world’s oil.
  • Attacking his ally, the Soviet Union, while still at war with Great Britain.
  • Turning millions of Russians into enemies rather than allies by his brutal and murderous policies.
  • Needlessly declaring war on the United States after the Japanese attacked Pearl harbor. (Had he not done so, Americans would have focused all their attention on defeating Japan.)
  • Refusing to negotiate a separate peace with Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin—thus granting Germany a large portion of captured Russian territory in exchange for letting Stalin remain in power.
  • Insisting on a “not-one-step-back” military “strategy” that led to the needless surrounding, capture and/or deaths of hundreds of thousands of German servicemen.

As the war turned increasingly against him, Hitler became ever more rigid in his thinking.

He demanded absolute control over the smallest details of his forces. This, in turn, led to astonishing and unnecessary losses among their ranks. 

On June 6, 1944, General Erwin Rommel ordered the Panzer tanks to drive the Allies from the Normandy beaches. But these could not be released except on direct orders of the Fuehrer.

Panzer tank

Hitler’s chief of staff, General Alfred Jodl, informed Rommel: The Fuhrer was asleep-–and was not to be awakened. By the time Hitler awoke and issued the order, it was too late.  

Nor could Hitler accept responsibility for the policies that were leading Germany to certain defeat. He blamed his generals, accused them of cowardice, and relieved many of the best ones from command.  

Among those sacked was Heinz Guderian, creator of the German Panzer corps—and responsible for the blitzkreig victory against France in 1940.

Heinz Guderian

Another was Erich von Manstein, designer of the strategy that defeated France in six weeks—which Germany had failed to do during four years of World War 1.

Erich von Manstein

Finally, on April 29, 1945—with the Russians only blocks from his underground Berlin bunker—Hitler dictated his “Last Political Testament.”  

Once again, he refused to accept responsibility for unleashing a war that would ultimately consume 50 million lives: 

“It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was desired and instigated exclusively by those international statesmen who either were of Jewish origin or worked for Jewish interests.” 

Hitler had launched the invasion of Poland–and World War II—with a lie: That Poland had attacked Germany.

Fittingly, he closed the war—and his life—with a final lie.   

Joachim C. Fest, author of Hitler (1973), writes of the surprise that awaited Allied soldiers occupying Nazi Germany in 1945:  “Almost without exception, virtually from one moment to the next, Nazism vanished after the death of Hitler and the surrender.

“It was as if National Socialism had been nothing but the motion, the state of intoxication and the catastrophe it had caused….

“Once again it became plain that National Socialism, like Fascism in general, was dependent to the core on superior force, arrogance, triumph, and by its nature had no resources in the moment of defeat.”

The ancient Greeks believed that “a man’s character is his destiny.” For Adolf Hitler—and the nations he ravaged—that proved fatally true.  

It remains to be seen whether the same will prove true for Donald Trump—and the United States.

D-DAY BECOMES T- (TRUMP) DAY: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on June 13, 2019 at 12:27 am

For most Americans, June 6th marked the 75th anniversary of D-Day. A time to remember and celebrate the more than 160,000 troops—73,000 of them Americans—who liberated France from Nazi slavery. 

But for President Donald Trump, D-Day was simply another opportunity to slander men and women he considered “enemies of the people.”

On that day, President Donald Trump was to join European leaders—such as England’s Queen Elizabeth II and France’s President Emmanuel Macron—in celebratory observance.

But for Trump, honoring the dead—and a handful of D-Day survivors present at the ceremony—was a distant priority. 

American military cemetery 2003.JPG

Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial

First must come a soft-ball “interview” with Right-wing Fox News Network—even if it meant postponing the opening of D-Day ceremonies until he deigned to show up.

And conducting that interview was Right-wing Fox News host Laura Ingraham—who gave a stiff-armed Nazi salute at the 2016 Republican National Convention that nominated Trump for President.

Laura Ingraham: What could you do to unite the country at a time of great polarization, what else could you do? 

Donald Trump:  So, I think success should unite the country but I will tell you the more successful we’ve come the more angry people like Nancy Pelosi, who don’t have what it takes, if they don’t know what’s going on they get angry. They should — an example is Mexico, I said we’re going to put tariffs on because we want you to help us because they won’t pass any legislation in Congress and I have Senators and others and Pelosi coming out saying how horrible. 

What they’re doing is they’re hurting a deal, they should be saying we’re with the President, we’ll do whatever he wants to do and Mexico would fold like an umbrella. Now, I have these people and I’m saying there’s some republicans too,

[NOTE: Since becoming President, Trump has repeatedly tried—and failed—to curb illegal immigration from Central and South America. In May, he threatened to slap tariffs on goods from Mexico unless its government imposed strict controls over would-be immigrants traveling through its borders.]

On June 7, 2019, syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist Peter Wehners appeared on the PBS Newshour to review the week’s major political events.

Shields—a liberal, and Wehner, a conservative—reached disturbingly similar conclusions about the behavior of President Donald Trump on the 75th anniversary celebration of the D-Day landings.

Image result for Images of Mark Shields and Peter Wehner

Peter Wehner and Mark Shields

Peter Wehner:  in terms of watching it, it reminded me of why it was the Greatest Generation. It’s been called the Greatest Generation.The more you find out about what happened 75 years ago on Normandy Beach, the more extraordinary is, the courage and the valor and selflessness…

But, for me, what was, well, frankly, sickening was this interview that Donald Trump did with Laura Ingraham on Fox News, not just what he said, but where he said it. He had thousands and thousands of gravestones behind him, these people who had been cut down in the prime of their life. And he was attacking Nancy Pelosi and Robert Mueller, who himself was a—was a war hero, in petty terms.

And to have done it then was, in my mind, a desecration at a sacred place. And it was another window into the bonfire of anger and resentments and grievances that is Donald Trump.

Mark Shields: I would just add this….that the 9,388 Americans, husbands, fathers, sons, brothers, sweethearts are buried there who either died at Normandy or in the liberation of France. And it was a time in this country, it was a we generation, not a me generation.

I mean, we had 20 million victory gardens that civilians built that provided 40 percent of the vegetables for the whole country. We rationed everything from gasoline, to liquor, to cigarettes, to butter, to meat….

And all Americans were part of the collective effort, the collective sacrifice, and it was led by those at the top….The president of the United States had four sons. Every one of them served in combat. Every one of them was awarded in combat. You take the…sickly son of a multimillionaire, who asked his father to use his contacts to get him into combat, John Kennedy, rather than stay out….

One out of four American males served in World War II. And now we have one-third—one-percent of Americans serving. And they are serving over and over and over again.

Judy Woodruff (moderator): It’s been 75 years, Peter Wehner. What remains in the American psyche from that?

Wehner:  Well, we’re an angry country, a more divided country, and a more tribalistic country than we were then. It’s important to say that, in many ways, we’re a better country too, if you’re a minority or a woman, all sorts of things where we have made progress….

The thing is that the American capacity for self-renewal can be great. And sometimes, when virtues are taken from the life of the nation and an individual, you remember why they matter to begin with. And, hopefully, commemorations like this can—can remind us that there are things that are worth fighting for and worth living for.

D-DAY BECOMES T- (TRUMP) DAY: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on June 12, 2019 at 12:07 am

June 6, 2019, marked the 75th anniversary of D-Day—the Allied invasion to liberate France from Nazi Germany, which proved one of the pivotal actions of World War II.

Shortly after midnight, on June 6, 1944, 24,000 American, British, Canadian and Free French troops launched an airborne assault on German positions. This was followed at 6:30 a.m. by an amphibious landing of Allied infantry and armored divisions on the French coast.

The operation was the largest amphibious invasion in history. More than 160,000 troops landed—73,000 Americans, 61,715 British and 21,400 Canadians.

Field Marshal Erwin Rommel—the legendary “Desert Fox”—commanded the German forces. For him—and the Germans—the first 24 hours of the battle would be decisive.

Initially, the Allied assault seemed likely to be stopped at the water’s edge—where Rommel had insisted it must be. 

German machine-gunners and mortarmen wreaked a fearful toll on Allied soldiers. But commanders like United States Army General Norman Cota led their men to victory through a storm of bullets and shells.

Into the Jaws of Death 23-0455M edit.jpg

Omaha Beach – June 6, 1944

The allied casualty figures for D-Day have been estimated at 10,000, including 4,414 dead. By nationality, the D-Day casualty figures were about

  • 2,700 British
  • 946 Canadians
  • and 6,603 Americans.

The total number of German casualties on D-Day isn’t known, but is estimated at 4,000 to 9,000.

One of those who traveled to Normandy, France, to commemorate that Allied sacrifice was President Donald J. Trump. Others included England’s Queen Elizabeth II and French President Emmanuel Macron. 

On June 6, 2019,  Trump granted an interview with Right-wing Fox News host Laura Ingraham.

With the crosses of fallen World War II heroes visible over his shoulder and aging veterans waiting for  the  D-Day commemoration ceremony to begin, Trump kept everyone waiting for him to show up.

Image result for Images of Trump / Laura Ingraham D-Day interview

Donald Trump’s D-Day love-fest

In fact, he bragged about it on camera:  “Listen to those incredible people back there,” Trump said, motioning towards the ceremony stage. “These people are so amazing, and what they don’t realize is that, I’m holding them up because of this interview. But that’s because it’s you.” 

Although Trump had admitted—on air—that he was holding up the D-Day ceremony for this interview, Ingraham later told Fox viewers: “By the way, some of you may have heard or read that President Trump supposedly held up the entire D-Day ceremony in order to do this interview with me. That is patently false. Fake news.”

Ingraham opened by asking about D-Day—whose honoring ceremonies her interview was preempting. Then she moved on to topics guaranteed to arouse Trump’s bile.

Laura Ingraham: We passed Nancy Pelosi as we were walking up to the stage earlier, she said some pretty harsh things over the last 24 hours, leaked out from her caucus, she said I don’t want to impeachment, I want him in prison, meaning you. How do you work with someone like that?

Donald Trump: I think she’s a disgrace. I actually don’t think she’s a talented person, I’ve tried to be nice to her because I would have liked to have gotten some deals done. She’s incapable of doing deals, she’s a nasty, vindictive, horrible person, the Mueller report came out, it was a disaster for them.

They thought their good friend Bobby Mueller was going to give them a great report and he came out with a report with 13 horrible, angry Democrats who are totally biased against me. A couple of them worked for Hillary Clinton, they then added five more, also Democrats, with all of that two and a half years think of it, from before I even got elected they’ve been going after me and they have nothing.

[NOTE: On a day for honoring the sacrifices of America’s soldiers. Trump savaged Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who had served as a Marine Corps infantry platoon commander during the Vietnam War.

Among the military awards he received were:

  • The Bronze Star Medal with Combat “V” for heroism (for saving a wounded Marine while under enemy fire).
  • The Purple Heart Medal (awarded for wounds in combat).
  • Two Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medals with Combat “V”.

Trump, on the other hand, is a five-time Vietnam war draft-dodger who falsely claimed he suffered from “bone spurs” in his heels.]

Director Robert S. Mueller- III.jpg

Robert Mueller

Ingraham: Do you mind if he testifies still, before you said you didn’t care if Mueller testified.

Trump: Let me tell you, he made such a fool out of himself the last time she—because what people don’t report is the letter he had to do to straighten out his testimony because his testimony was wrong but Nancy Pelosi, I call her nervous Nancy, Nancy Pelosi doesn’t talk about it. Nancy Pelosi’s a disaster, OK, she’s a disaster and let her do what she wants, you know what?

[NOTE: There is a longtime tradition in American politics that no criticism is aimed at a President when he’s traveling overseas.

Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House of Representatives, held to that tradition while she attended the D-Day ceremonies. Asked to respond to Trump’s attacks on her, she said: “I don’t talk about the president while I’m out of the country. That’s my principle.” 

Trump, however, did not adhere to the same principle.]

%d bloggers like this: